GAYA: Striking an aggressive posture, BJP president Rajnath Singh today said if his party is voted to power then India would send troops to Pakistan to crush terrorism in the neighbouring country after taking international approval.”If voted to power, the BJP government will ask Pakistan if it needs support of the Indian army to crush terrorism. If Islamabad is agreeable, it is all right. If not, our government will approach the global community for its endorsement to send the Indian Army to Pakistan,” he told an election meeting at Airu village here.”However, we will like Pakistan to first use its might to stamp out terrorism and dismantle all terror networks operating from its territory,” Singh said.Accusing the Congress-led UPA government at the Centre of having failed to effectively check terrorism, the BJP president said terror strikes in Mumbai and elsewhere in the country bore a ‘testimony’ to it.The Manmohan Singh government has failed to instil a sense of confidence in the people about internal security of the nation, he charged.Reaffirming BJP’s ‘irrevocable commitment’ to protect its frontiers and providing security to the people, Singh said, “Pokhran- II and the victory in the Kargil war are two shining examples of our commitment to internal and external security.” “National security is under severest threat ever. In the 50 years of Congress rule, not only the security aspect has been compromised, but unemployment has increased manifold and prices of essential commodities have spiralled out of control,” he said.
Nebojsha VUKOVIC (Serbia)
April 13, 2009
On April, 4, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) marked its 60th jubilee. In Serbia, my home country, many people are doomed not to celebrate their 60th birthdays- they will die of cancer. In 1999 NATO bombed Serbia with depleted uranium bombs, which caused a cancer outbreak in the region. Serbia’s soil, water and air will remain polluted for a few more decades, taking lives of hundreds of Serbs.
There isn’t a single word about it in NATO’s official reports. One may read there about NATO’s contribution to peace in Kosovo. 1
While NATO exists, there will exist such parallel stories: the one about the alliance’s humanitarian mission, the other (which is less frequent) about death and destruction NATO is guilty of.
When NATO was established in 1949, its member countries said they were “determined to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilization of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law”.2 I wonder what did they think about Portugal in 1949 as the country was too far from democracy then due to its fascist like dictatorship. Three years later the alliance accepted Greece and Turkey-the states where situation with democracy was not much different from that in Portugal. In 1951 Francoist Spain joined NATO.
Aimed to fight against the Soviet Union, NATO agreed to rely even on communists. In 1954 Yugoslavia, then ruled by Tito, and Greece and Turkey signed the Balkan Pact. The treaty was to act as a dam against Soviet expansion in the Balkan area. It provided for the eventual creation of a joint military staff for the three countries.
Already then, in the 1950s, NATO was evidently ruled by the U.S. and some countries of the Western Europe. Why in 1974 NATO tolerated Turkish aggression against Cyprus, though it brought much harm to Greece, another member country of the alliance? This was because for the U.S. Turkey was more important as a geostratgic partner. Although Cyprus has the EU`s membership, it still remains a divided island.
In 1990s NATO accepted the post-Soviet Baltic states(Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania), in spite of the fact that these states had violated and continue to violate the rights of the Russian-speaking population (to say nothing about heroization of Nazi accomplices). Just a few days ago NATO welcomed Albania and Croatia into its family. In 1991-1995 Croatia committed the Europe’s most large-scale ethnic cleansing after the WW II (probably, NATO leaders decided this fact to be a good reason to accept Croatia).
The territories of Albania are being controlled by criminals, not the government. Albania also provides logistic support to separatists in Macedonia, Montenegro and Greece.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, there was no longer any need in NATO. However, the alliance did not dissolve itself but solemnly marched into the last decade of the 20th century. Marched through the war in Yugoslavia, otherwise there would be no sense in further existence of the alliance.
There is a tendency: drug business blossoms in the NATO-controlled territories. Since 1980s the Kosovo Albanians have been known as leaders of drug trafficking from the Middle East and Turkey to Western Europe. Now that Kosovo has been proclaimed a United Nations-governed entity with its sovereign territory, nothing can prevent NATO from developing drug business there.
Each henchman in the so-called “state of Kosovo” has his own gang, which among other things deals with drug trade. They receive enormous profit as 65% of all the drugs supplied to Europe go through Kosovo; they also provide 90% of heroine for drug addicts in Europe.3 Criminals are secured by NATO forces.
In Afghanistan we see an absolutely unbelievable (at first sight) situation. The local drug traders also receive strong support from the alliance. According to the UN reports, Afghanistan produces 93% of the world’s opium poppy.4 And what is most important is that since the U.S. and NATO invasion in Afghanistan the drug output has increased by 44 times! 5
According to the head of Russia’s anti-narcotics service, Victor Ivanov, 2,5 million of Russian drug addicts depend on the Afghan heroine. This is really horrifying statistics for a country with population of 142 million. Serbia’s population is 7,5 million (without Kosovo and Metohija). The Serbian Institute for Public Health says currently there are 70-100 thousand drug addicts in Serbia. 7 The local market of drugs develops thanks to the Afghan support. Thus, millions of Russians, dozens of thousands of Serbs and Europeans are on the needle.
It is remarkable that Afghanistan was the first country to recognize the independence of Kosovo. This is how one NATO protectorate recognized the other. A producer welcomed a consumer. Undoubtedly, these two ‘states’ have already established close and friendly relations.
During the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina (1992-1995) the Bosnian Serbs established a self-proclaimed state of Republika Srpska. When it became clear that Serbs in Bosnia were not as easily defeated as their countrymen in Croatia, NATO took action. During two weeks (from August, 30- till September, 13, 1995) NATO threw more than 10,000 tons of deadly bombs onto the population of the Republic, which then amounted up to 1 million people plus 70,000-80,000 of the army. Four hundred NATO planes made 3200 flights to attack Republika Srpska.
Then in 1999 NATO bombed Yugoslavia. More than 1,000 NATO planes took part in the attacks. Some 1,000 missiles (in all- 415,000 projectiles, including 30-50,000 with depleted uranium) targeted Yugoslavia.
After they failed to destroy the whole army of Yugoslavia from the air, NATO forces targeted civil objects. They knocked down absolutely everything- houses, schools, hospitals, bridges, oil refiners…
What will happen to Afghanistan? After the 2001 bombings the Taliban government was toppled but peace has not come to the country even eight years later.
The International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) says ”NATO is losing the war in Afghanistan because of the differences between the members of the alliance” 7 Other experts say “the Taliban control 72% of the Afghan territories”8
One way or another, NATO lacks control over Afghanistan’s major part, and there is no sign of peace coming to the region. Numerous Taliban groups tied dozens of thousands of NATO soldiers to Afghan cities and major communication routes. Maybe it will be Afghanistan, the country which for ages has been ‘graveyard of empires’, where all illusions about invincible military alliance will be broken. During the jubilee celebrations NATO officials were all smiles and preferred to ‘forget’ about NATO crimes.
But we should always remember and never forget.
1 NATO Handbook, NATO Office of Information and Press, Brussels, 2001, p. 48.
2 Ibidem, p. 527.
3 Ibidem, стр. 234
By Eileen Fleming
On April 10, 2009, Billy Briggs reported from occupied east Jerusalem that Mordechai Vanunu informed him, “I was walking here this morning and a car drew slowly up alongside me. There were four men in the car wearing sunglasses. One of them shouted at me…the car followed me…the man call out again in Hebrew. ‘You are garbage,’ he said. But I kept on walking and ignoring him.” 
When Vanunu entered the foyer of his rundown backpacker’s hotel the men “leapt from the vehicle, flashed ID cards and ushered him into the back seat. Residents and traders, many of whom know the famous Israeli, stood and watched his public humiliation.
“They took me to the local station and warned me not to go to Bethlehem this year to celebrate Christmas. They said they’d be watching me and that I should also not speak to journalists or foreigners.” [Ibid]
The Shin Bet has developed a ritual of publicly harassing Vanunu at Christmas and Easter time because he is a Christian convert; an unpardonable sin for particular people.
When the whistle blower of Israel’s WMD Program emerged into the light of day after 18 years in a windowless tomb sized cell on April 21, 2004 he announced:
“I am not harming Israel. I am not interested in Israel. I want to tell you something very important. I suffered here 18 years because I am a Christian, because I was baptized into Christianity. If I was a Jew I wouldn’t have all this suffering here in isolation for 18 years. Only because I was a Christian man.”
On December 19, 2004 over 40 journalists, seven T.V. cameras and a SRO crowd gathered for a press conference in East Jerusalem to listen to Mordechai Vanunu, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Mairead Maguire and Issam Makhoul, a Member of the Knesset, who said:
“Only those who struggle for total disarmament of the Middle East, including Israel, of all weapons of mass destruction – nuclear, biological and chemical – has the moral right to condemn Iran for its nuclear project. The countries that equip Israel with the means to launch nuclear warheads, that supply it with submarines and enable it to develop its missiles, do not have the moral right to condemn the Iranian nuclear project. Anyone who opposes the Iranian project must also oppose the Israeli nuclear arsenal.
“Along with Mordechai Vanunu, I and other Israeli activists refuse to be silenced. We continue to demand, that our government reveal the truth about its WMDs, enable a full international inspection of all WMD sites and dismantle its arsenal. To this end, we are currently involved in organizing an international conference on a nuclear-free Mediterranean area, to be held in April 2005. This date marks the first anniversary of Vanunu’s release from prison. This date will hopefully mark the beginning of an anti-nuclear movement in Israel.
“Mordechai Vanunu is not a traitor, he is an Israeli hero. The nuclear bomb does not protect Israel, it endangers Israel.”
Mairead Corrigan Maguire urged the Israeli government to free Vanunu from the restrictions that have held him hostage in Israel and to “let Mordechai come home for Christmas.”
When the press asked Vanunu why he refuses to speak to the Israeli media in Hebrew, Vanunu answered in Hebrew: “The government of Israel refuses to recognize my human rights. I am prohibited from speaking to foreigners. I say to the Israeli public: I am not your enemy. All I want is for Israel to abolish its nuclear weapons, to respect the rights of the Palestinian people and to let me go free.”
Continuing in English, Vanunu stated, that he has no further secrets to reveal about Israel’s nuclear reactor and that he demands the right to express his anti-nuclear views, to speak freely to the media and to write his prison memoirs. All he wants for Christmas, Vanunu said, was to be free to leave Israel and celebrate with his adoptive family in the USA. 
Vanunu still hasn’t made it home for Christmas, and in fact was arrested on two Christmas Eve’s:
In 2004, Vanunu attempted to celebrate his first Christmas Eve Mass as a Christian in the Little Town of Bethlehem’s Church of the Nativity, which is in Occupied Territory. Instead of mass, Israel arrested him and Vanunu spent Christmas Eve behind bars and was charged with “attempting to leave the county.” [The distance is less than five miles.]
On Dec. 25, 2007, Vanunu wrote:
Bad news, the police come to the American Colony to arrest me. I was meeting a young German girl who wanted to know more about my story. They took us to the police questioning me [and held] me until midnight 24:00. Not so impressive all this again arrest. I think the police was waiting for my arrest in Bethlehem…Any way life will continue as I am doing all the Time.
On Dec. 27, 2007 Vanunu wrote:
They were very harsh to the young German girl, they were questioning here like by the KGB, or Stasi, she was in a separate room. She was still there after I left at 24:00. I did not go to Bethlehem, because I knew they were waiting for me. So do what ever you can, you are in a free country.
I did not meet Vanunu until June 2005, but I read about his Christmas Eve arrest [in an internet email from Jerry Levin on Christmas Eve] and I could not comprehend how a democracy could deny anyone from worshiping any where they desired. However, I had not yet taken my first trip to the Holy Land, so I did not know how much I did not know about Israel and occupied Palestine.
The injustice of any one who has served their time for what ever crime and is still being persecuted got my Irish up, and as it was a Christian in the Holy Land, I was flaming mad! So, on Christmas Eve 2004, I spent hours at my computer emailing Mr. Bill O’Reilly-the champion of the “war on Christmas” and my local paper; the Orlando Sentinel, and dozens of top USA media outlets, in the naive belief that the Fourth Estate would report on a case of religious persecution against a Christian by the Jewish state.
How little I knew then how deluded I was -but ignorance can be a bit of bliss and the rejection by lack of interest, only fueled my desire to persist to plead Vanunu’s cause because freedom of speech and the press are my most precious liberties, and also how I define democracy.
In 2004, I naively believed Vanunu’s ordeal was unusual and that the USA Fourth Estate cared about the best interests of Americans and would seek the truth and report the truth-no matter how ugly or brutal. After my first of six trips to Israel Palestine in 2005, I grew up very quickly.
In 2007, Israel “blocked clergy from reaching their churches and Christmas celebrations in Bethlehem and elsewhere in the Holy Land…The Israeli authorities are arbitrarily denying entry to clergy and volunteers belonging to or working for Christian institutions and service providers. The clergy being harassed and denied entry to Israel and the occupied Palestinian territory (oPt) join tens of thousands of ordinary foreign passport holders of Palestinian and non-Palestinian origin who wish to be with their families, work or study, as well as tourists and pilgrims…In addition, there appears to be a new policy by Israel to refuse entry or visa extension for foreign, primarily Western, Christian volunteers working with various Christian organizations here. This is affecting the viability of these organizations and the normal connection with their supporters and fellow Christians in the countries that contribute to the presence of these Christian workers. They represent mainstream Christian and faith-based groups, such as the World Council of Churches and the American Friend’s Service Committee that advocate non- violence and brotherhood and are in no way a threat to the security of Israel…Israel has continued to pursue both policies and practices that fail to comply with International Humanitarian Law.”
Although Vanunu was released after 18 years in prison on April 21, 2004, he has been held captive in East Jerusalem under the draconian restrictions of the British Mandate.
After WW II, Attorney Yaccov Shapiro, who later became Israel’s Minister Of Justice, described the Emergency Defense Regulations as “unparalleled in any civilized country: there were no such laws in Nazi Germany.”
On November 24th, 2006 Vanunu wrote: My lawyer succeeded to reveal a few very important facts:
1. This General of the Army also was not allowed to see all the secrets that he is required to protect by these restrictions that they claim I know them. So, he gave orders of restrictions without knowing what he is protecting or that he is also following orders blindly, and Mossad Sheen Bet using its authority for just punishing me.
When I saw Vanunu in July 2007, we crossed paths directly in front of Saint Stephen’s Church. Vanunu had learned a few weeks prior that he was sentenced to six months in jail for speaking to media in 2004. Vanunu smiled when he told me that the site was “the very spot where they stoned to death the first Christian martyr for freedom of speech.”
Vanunu’s Supreme Court appeal is imminent and the 5th year of restrictions that deny Vanunu the right to leave the state and the right to speak to non-Israeli’s expire April 21, 2009.
Israel’s statehood was contingent upon upholding the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.-Article 19
Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.-Article 13:2
Political stability in the Middle East begins when states that claim to be democracies-are indeed one.
3. Press Release Dec. 24, 2007, from www.RightToEnter
Eileen Fleming, is the Founder of WAWA: http://www.wearewideawake.org/
Prepared by the Extremism and Radicalization Branch, Homeland Environment Threat Analysis
Division. Coordinated with the FBI.
This product is one of a series of intelligence assessments published by the
Extremism and Radicalization Branch to facilitate a greater understanding of the
phenomenon of violent radicalization in the United States. The information is
provided to federal, state, local, and tribal counterterrorism and law enforcement
officials so they may effectively deter, prevent, preempt, or respond to terrorist attacks
against the United States. Federal efforts to influence domestic public opinion must be
conducted in an overt and transparent manner, clearly identifying United States
Journal of Turkish Weekly (JTW)
Somali pirates have renewed their hijacking spree, seizing four ships within the past 24 hours.
NATO officials aboard a Portuguese warship say pirates hijacked a Togo-flagged ship, the MV Sea Horse, on Tuesday.
Wives of Filipino sailors show pictures of their husbands Carlo, left, and Rodell, who are in Somali pirates’ hands, in Manila, Philippines, 13 Apr 2009 Earlier Tuesday, pirates took over a Greek freighter, the MV Irene E.M. as it traveled through the Gulf of Aden. That ship has 22 crew members, all of them Filipino.
Egypt’s Foreign Ministry says pirates also seized two Egyptian fishing boats on Monday. The ministry says there are 18 to 24 people on board.
The hijackings come just two days after the U.S. Navy killed three pirates in the dramatic rescue of an American cargo ship captain.
The U.S. and other countries have tried to stop Somali pirates with naval patrols, but the hijackings have increased in recent weeks after a lull earlier this year.
Various pirate groups are now holding at least 16 ships with more than 250 crew members.
In a speech Monday, U.S. President Barack Obama said the United States will do all it can to halt piracy off the coast of Somalia.
Some information for this report was provided by AFP, AP and Reuters.
Journal of Turkish Weekly (JTW)
The New York Times reports the Obama administration is considering tolerating Iran’s nuclear activities at the same time it would hold talks with Tehran.
The New York Times said Tuesday Washington and its European allies are working on proposals that would mark a major shift in strategy from that of former President George W. Bush. The previous administration had demanded Tehran end all of its enrichment activities before entering into formal talks.
The newspaper says the U.S. and Europe would press Iran to gradually open its nuclear program to wider inspections, but would allow Tehran to continue enriching uranium for some period during the talks.
Six major world powers, including the U.S., said last week they would invite Iran to join in discussions on its nuclear program. Iranian media quoted the nation’s top nuclear negotiator Monday as saying Tehran is open to the talks.
Iran and the West are at odds over Tehran’s nuclear program, which some countries believe may have a military component. Iran says all its atomic activities are for peaceful, civilian use.
A review of U.S. policy towards Iran ordered by President Barack Obama is still under way, and the president’s aides say it is not clear how long he will tolerate Iran’s uranium enrichment program. But the Times reports that European officials say there is general agreement Iran will not accept the kind of demands made by the Bush administration.
The newspaper reported the proposals, if adopted, will likely attract fierce criticism from the U.S. president’s conservative critics and new Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. A senior Israeli official says anonymously that Israel may revive its efforts to take out Iran’s underground nuclear plant at Natanz if Mr. Obama does not “completely end” Iran’s uranium production efforts.