New Iranian Blog, mywebloge–Here’s Wishing Them Luck

mywebloge

Hello, Mrs. Clinton

April 8, 2010 by mywebloge

I am a young twenty-two years old I am Iranian. Sorry to take time by.

Your country and our country are the enemy of each other. A not be denied. Of course it is not got every single country, our people are your enemy and vice versa. If you hate ask why certain issues such as embassy staff hostage in America and if you will refer this question Mabprsnd response issues, such as involvement in the coup against Mossadegh, the Iranian nation distraint in your country, interference Nojeh coup, helping the Iraqi war with Iran and … We’ll say.

But Mrs. Clinton; We are a nation that once had one of the few great civilizations were born. We are a nation that we were in the shadow of the teachings of Islam reached the peaks of knowledge, but we have neglected for some time and several hundred years that this neglect to pay compensation. From Masrman tell you: two centuries that the king is ruling Iran that property in our nation and they ruin their fun by giving different privileges to foreigners, including English on their own, adding convenience and people living in difficult said. Moreover, beliefs and convictions of people knew little value and it did not work. People of our country to revolution. Theoretical concepts were revolutionary for their faith to bring action scenes. Revolution to the king to Prince to stop them from their country.

But your country is not only the way we fight alone, but through various stopped in front of our nation.

By the way Mrs. Clinton! . Your events after the presidential elections in Iran are all well aware. So perhaps seem that you and the United States didnot play a role in these events, but your country’s annual budget row that the Senate passes it, the money Yklany for Iran’s ruling regime’s opponents can devote.

Anywhere in the world that is war and internal conflict is, when we see a good analysis of where you have interference; in Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Venezuela, and …

Mrs. Clinton, because not leave nations to determine their own destiny?

These are not new words, and I know that. But I dont  know why It is interesting that in countries where the benefits you provide in the context of democracy bitter events happening in your country, but two political groups (three groups that can not be!) Why are not plotting against each other, never against do they work? Please do not say that our country is deep-rooted democracy.

I hope someday to reach that peace everywhere and among all nations will attend. That day is not too late.

Hamed Khosrowshahi Iran.

India under the Carpet Hits Back

India under the Carpet Hits Back

By B. Raman

There are two Indians.

The dazzling India which we see every day on our TV channels, in the spins of our political leaders and in the writings of our so-called strategic analysts. This is the India which, according to them, is moving rapidly forward to take up its position as a world power, which is courted by the other nations of the world.

But there is another India which we rarely see or write about. This is the India of grinding poverty—- a victim of social exploitation of the worst kind, where the inhabitants—mainly tribals— are treated like chattels and domestic animals by the upper caste political leaders, landlords and forest contractors.

We rarely see India of negative images because it has been sought to be pushed under the carpet by the dazzling India, which feels embarrassed to admit to the world that such an India exists 63 years after independence.

It is this India kept pushed under the carpet, which has managed to struggle its way out from under the carpet and is hitting out with ferocity at all its perceived exploiters—- whether in the Government or in the society.

It is this India coming out from under the carpet, which is flocking to the banners of the Maoist ideologues and taking to arms against the Government and its social exploiters. For it, the Government is not of the people, by the people and for the people, but of the exploiters, by the exploiters and for the exploiters.

Unless we have the moral courage to admit this harsh reality we are going to see more and more incidents of utter savagery as we saw on April 6, 2010, in the Dantewada district of Chattisgarh where a group of Maoists —estimated at between 300 and 1000— ambushed and butchered about 75 members of the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), who had gone into the jungles for counter-insurgency operations.

This is not the first incident of butchery of the security forces in the history of our counter-insurgency operations. This will  not be the last unless and until we realize that counter-insurgency is not only about putting down violence against the State and Society, but also about making resort to violence unnecessary by addressing the problems and grievances of the tribals.

It would be very easy to dismiss the Maoist insurgency as the political manipulation of illiterate or semi-literate tribals by Maoist ideologues from cities to achieve political power through the barrel of the gun. Yes, there is an element of cynical political manipulation of the tribals by many city-bred Maoist ideologues.

But the claim of political manipulation alone cannot explain how hundreds and hundreds of tribals are flocking to the banners of the Maoists. Intense anger over the failures of successive Governments to recognize and address their problems are driving them to heed the calls of the ideologues to massacre their perceived class enemies.

Unless and until we have a two-pronged approach to the problem—better counter-insurgency to put down violence and better governance and administration to remove the exploitation of the tribals by the non-tribals and improve their quality of life, blood will continue to flow in the jungles and roads of the tribal homelands in Central India.

Tribal India had always posed law and order problems. The tribal homelands in the North-East did so when Jawaharlal Nehru and Indira Gandhi were Prime Ministers. They put down the Chinese and Pakistani supported tribal insurgency in the North-East with a firm hand. At the same time, they interacted vigorously with the tribal people and addressed their problems in an attempt to wean them away from violence. Nehru started a special service called the Indian Frontier Administration Service (IFAS) and inducted the best officers from other services into it to improve governance in the tribal areas not only in the North-East, but also in the Andaman & Nicobar Islands. They were always ready for a dialogue with the tribal leaders—even with those who had taken to arms against the State.

They addressed poverty and social injustice not only in the tribal areas, but also in  the rest of the country. Indira Gandhi used to start her day every day by mingling with poor and exploited people outside her residence and listening to their tales of woe. Her shoulders were always available to the poor and exploited to rest their head on and cry.

After Rajiv Gandhi, we have had a succession of Prime Ministers without a human touch in governance and administration in the tribal areas. They tend to look upon the tribal revolt in Central India as purely a problem of law and order, but not also as a problem with human dimensions.

The Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh is rarely seen or heard. He hardly ever mingles with the poor and downtrodden in the tribal belt of Central India. He deals with the tribal belt of Central India in the same way as the Pakistani leaders deal with the tribals of the Federally-Administered Tribal Areas (FATA)—- as mainly a problem to be tackled by the security forces as if the political class has no responsibility for leadership.

There is hardly a medium and long-term strategy — with a judicious mix of the law and order and hearts and minds dimensions. All new ideas on counter-insurgency coming up are about how to make the security forces more effective. It is important for them to be effective. But it is equally—if not more—important for the political leadership to be seen by the tribals as caring and sensitive to their anger and bitterness towards their exploiters.

The time has come for the Prime Minister to take up in his hands the responsibility for working out a comprehensive political, operational and human strategy for dealing with the problems of the tribal homelands in Central India

If we continue to dither as we are doing now, Mao Zedong may have his last laugh in India. 

(The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. He is also associated with the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com)

Blackwater Clone Embedded in FATA, Allegedly Fighting Opium Production

DynCorp to stay on for anti-narcotics Ops in Pakistan: US

* Assistant secretary David Johnson appreciates Pakistani authorities’ measures to combat drug trafficking

By Irfan Ghauri

ISLAMABAD: DynCorp International will continue to provide maintenance facilities at the Interior Ministry’s Air Wing in Balochistan and does not plan to terminate its contract with the organisation, said David T Johnson, assistant secretary of the US Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs.

Johnson told reporters on Wednesday that under an agreement, an anti-narcotics chopper surveillance squad was set up in Quetta in 2002 by the Interior Ministry with US assistance, which includes 14 Huey II helicopters and three Cessna Caravan aircraft. To a question, he disclosed that the Pakistan and US governments had agreed to carry out the maintenance of these helicopters for which Washington had engaged DynCorp.

Regarding Islamabad’s reservations over the presence of DynCorp officials, Johnson clarified that Washington was not considering changing them in the near future.

Drug trafficking: He appreciated the efforts of Pakistan’s law enforcement agencies for taking effective measures against drug-trafficking and poppy cultivation, saying poppy still continues to be cultivated at a small scale in FATA due to the poor law and order situation there.

“There are some very small areas in Pakistan where poppy is still being cultivated, but these are relatively very small,” he added.

Johnson said the US is working on a $150-million programme against drug trafficking with the cooperation of Pakistan’s anti-narcotics forces.

He said over 93 percent of the poppy used around the world was being supplied from Afghanistan, adding that Pakistan’s share in the drug’s supply was very low.

On achieving a “poppy-free” status for Pakistan, Johnson said it depended on how soon the law enforcement agencies could regain control of the areas where an anti-terror operation was going on.

The US assistant secretary said political will could play an important role in achieving a “poppy-free” status for Pakistan. He agreed that money earned through drug trafficking was being used to fund terrorist activities, adding that there was a need to keep a check on this type of income.

Acknowledging the processing of cases against drug traffickers, he said the rate of conviction in drug cases in Pakistan is very high. He, however, emphasised the need for scientific methods and explanations to examine evidence in drug cases to punish those responsible.

Highlighting other features of Pak-US cooperation against narcotics, Johnson said it had resulted in completion of 200 outposts in the NWFP and FATA, benefiting the Frontier Corps, Frontier Constabulary and Levies Force. He said the US had also been providing assistance and cooperation to Pakistan’s law enforcement agencies to cope with drug trafficking.

Indian Muslim scholars accuse LT of conspiring against Islam

A Pakistani police officer escorts Hafiz Mohammad Saeed outside his residence in Lahore late on Monday night.

Indian Muslim scholars accuse LT of conspiring against Islam

By Iftikhar Gilani

NEW DELHI: Indian Ahl-e-Hadees scholars accused their ideological peers in Pakistan on Wednesday – the banned Lashkar-e-Tayyaba (LT) group and its parent body, Markaz Dawa al-Irshad – of being part of a global conspiracy against Islam. “We believe Hafiz Muhammad Saeed, the LT chief, is a khawarij (rebel) and needs to be punished under the law,” declared Maulana Asghar Ali Imam Mehdi Salfi, secretary general of the Markazi Jamiat-e-Ahl-e-Hadees.

The Ahl-e-Hadees sect is often criticised for sharing its ideology with the LT or Dawa al Irshad, headed by Hafiz Saeed. Clarifying his stance, Maulana Salfi said both Hafiz Saeed and the Taliban were part of an international conspiracy. He called these groups marauders and said their struggle was nowhere near jihad. He questioned why these groups did not oppress America when they had aligned with it to fight against the Soviet Union?

Claiming that a majority of Ahl-e-Hadees followers in Pakistan were also “up in arms” against Hafiz Saeed for taking over their mosques and establishments, Maulana Salfi said Islam does not endorse extremism. Maintaining that bomb blasts and suicide attacks were forbidden in Islam, he said there was no justification whatsoever for such acts of terrorism and wanton killings.

Quoting a mutual edict of 36 Ahl-e-Hadees scholars, Maulana Salfi said such acts of violence were more critical than robbery. He, however, said a full and fair investigation was imperative under judicial supervision to ensure that innocent people were not punished in the name of terrorism.

Maulana Salfi said the khawarij, who first emerged in the late seventh century AD, also observed all Islamic tenants strictly, but actually created waywardness and rebellion. “Islam does not believe in extremes,” he added.

A Dangerous Reliance on Defense Contractors

A Dangerous Reliance on Defense Contractors

Has the Obama Administration Failed to Learn from Its Predecessor’s Mistakes?

Blackwater security contractors are seen inside a helicopter above central Baghdad, Iraq.

SOURCE: AP/Khalid Mohammed

By Sean Duggan

The Bush administration spent the better part of a decade refusing to face up to the manpower implications of its open-ended commitment of forces—particularly in Iraq. And because they didn’t have the courage of their convictions to reinstitute the draft, they were forced to take three disastrous steps: active duty forces have been deployed and redeployed to both Iraq and Afghanistan without sufficient dwell time; the National Guard and Reserve have been transformed from a strategic to an operational reserve, alternating deployments with active forces; and private contractors have been tasked with filling in the gaps, often taking on missions traditionally reserved for uniformed forces.

The disastrous consequences of this final step—the widespread use of contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan—are already widely known. Indeed, the incidents that were arguably the most detrimental to the U.S. mission in both countries involved contractors, from the torture at Abu Ghraib and Bagram Air Base to the indiscriminate shootings at Nisour Square in Baghdad in 2007.

Unfortunately, the Obama administration has not fully learned from its predecessor’s mistakes. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates announced late last month that the Pentagon will begin an internal investigation into the Defense Department’s broader efforts to fund information operations. The inquiry was prompted by a contract funded by the Defense Department that allegedly set up a network of private contractors in Afghanistan to help track and kill suspected militants.

Revelations of similar contracts under the Bush administration have not been uncommon, but these new allegations demonstrate the Obama administration’s disconcerting willingness (or acquiescence) to continue its predecessor’s reliance on private contractors to execute wartime operations traditionally carried out only by U.S. special forces, intelligence agencies, and the State Department. Equally troubling is the clear lack of oversight over the ballooning DOD-wide information operations budget despite numerous instances of flagrant contractor abuse in the recent past.

The scale of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan require the United States to employ contractors in logistical and on-base functions such as supply and equipment delivery or food preparation services. But the Obama administration must make a clean break from the Bush administration’s overreliance on private contractors to conduct security and intelligence missions in combat zones.

The New York Times broke the story in mid-March that a senior civilian Defense Department employee, Michael Furlong, had inappropriately used $25 million “from the Pentagon’s program against roadside bombs to hire private contractors to gather information on suspected insurgents in Afghanistan—activities that Furlong says were authorized by top U.S. military commanders.” Furlong allegedly hired former Special Forces and intelligence personnel to undertake surveillance on potential targets in both countries—an act that is generally considered illegal when carried out by civilian personnel.

Perhaps such instances of abuse were inevitable given the dramatic increase in funding for Department of Defense-wide information operations in the past several years, particularly within the Central Command area of operations. Funding for such operations in that theater (which includes Iraq and Afghanistan) increased from $40 million in 2008 to $110 million in 2009 to a requested $244 million in 2010. And overall information operations throughout DOD in fiscal year 2010 amounted to over $528 million. Funds under this broad category have been used to finance news articles, billboards, radio and television programs, and even public opinion polls in several countries.

The high-level priority that the Pentagon’s civilian and military leaders have placed on such operations has created an atmosphere of virtually unconstrained funding in which abuses were bound to occur. In fact, when Congress pressed the Pentagon to report the total amount budgeted for information operations—or strategic communications as they are frequently called—across all services and commands late last year, Secretary Gates “found that no one could say because there was no central coordination.” This realization prompted “multiple studies” in late 2009 that were aimed at getting a better understanding of individual services’ plans for strategic communications this year. It is unclear whether the Furlong program was discovered under one of these studies or through other avenues.

The current administration is wisely following Obama’s campaign commitment to redeploy out of Iraq, which will ease the enormous strain placed on the men and women of our armed forces over the last seven years. But this latest episode reveals that it has yet to fully reverse the dangerous U.S. dependence on private contractors.

Sean E. Duggan is a research associate at the Center for American Progress.

Legalizing and Taxing Opium Production the Answer In Afghanistan?

Obama adopts Bush’s losing strategy in Afghanistan
Raymond Richman, 4/7/2010

[co-authored with Howard Richman]

Do we want to win the war against Al Qaida, which is winnable, or fight a war on drugs that cannot be won? We won the war in a blitzkrieg in Afghanistan in 2002 with the help of a people that welcomed us as liberators. We drove the little that remained of the Taliban army out of Afghanistan. The Taliban had ceased to be an organized force.

Why were we welcomed in the Afghan countryside as liberators? The Taliban were hated in the countryside because their religious leaders banned the cultivation of the opium poppy in 2000, a disaster for the Afghan farmers whose chief crop was the poppy.

But after the victory, President Bush made a huge mistake. In order to keep our troops occupied, he began a moral crusade against opium, urging the farmers to grow other products. What nonsense as it turned out! We destroyed their crops of poppy where we could. The resurging Taliban offered them protection to continue growing poppies, the chief cash crop of Afghanistan, and, as a result, regained power over the Afghanistan countryside.

On October 26, 2009, while President Obama was determining his Afghanistan policy, we wrote a commentary, published by Enter Stage Right, which urged him not to repeat Bush’s mistakes. We wrote:

Have we lost the war? Probably. Can we win it? Perhaps. We would have to declare that we shall no longer interfere with the cultivation of poppy in Afghanistan. To show we are serious, we should encourage the Afghan government to legalize the cultivation of poppy. It should tax poppies and opium as the Taliban have been doing. And to do it right, we ought to legalize drugs in the U.S. as well.

Let us recognize the fact that prohibition did not work with alcohol and has not worked with cocaine, marijuana, or heroin. Instead of wasting money as we have been doing for decades, we shall gain revenues instead. We shall gain friends instead of making enemies abroad as we have been doing.

We believe the war against the Taliban and al-Qaida is unwinnable as long as the drug war continues in Afghanistan.

But President Obama decided to continue President Bush’s losing crusade against opium. He attacked Afghanistan’s President Hamid Karzai, with whom we were allied, for not joining the U.S. war against the Afghanistan farmer. Here’s a selection from an April 7 commentary by Tony Blankley detailing Obama’s attacks against Karzai:

(A)bout five months ago, the New York Times also reported that Mr. Obama “admonished President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan that he must take on what American officials have said he avoided during his first term: the rampant corruption and drug trade that have fueled the resurgence of the Taliban.”…

(B)y first hesitating to support Mr. Karzai, then saying we will support him — but only for 18 months, then publicly admonishing him to end the endemic corruption, then leaking the fact that his own brother is a major drug smuggler, we have undermined and infuriated him, without whom we cannot succeed in Afghanistan….

Blankley doesn’t agree with our conclusion that President Bush and President Obama’s crusades against opium in Afghanistan have been a mistake. Instead, he urges Obama to depose Karzai in order to secure a compliant puppet government in Kabul. In other words, he wants to repeat President Kennedy’s mistake when he deposed Ngo Dinh Diem, the President of South Vietnam, destroying the credibility of the South Vietnamese government with whom we were allied.

George Santayana once said, “Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” That pretty much sums up Obama’s Afghanistan policy.

Pakistan seen as a key to Afghan conundrum

Pakistan seen as a key to Afghan conundrum

ah.raja@yahoo.com


The main objective of USA to occupy Afghanistan in November 2001 was to break the myth that Afghanistan is unconquerable, tame the Afghans and convert it into a permanent military base for the realization of its regional and global ambitions. After eight years of fighting the sole aim of the US is how to pullout its forces from self created Afghan quagmire safely and honorably.

Till 9/11, India taking advantage of its relationship with USA, painted Pakistan as a failed state, abettor of cross border terrorism in occupied Kashmir and involved in manufacturing an Islamic bomb. The US obliged India partly by placing Pakistan in the watch list of countries suspected of indulging in terrorism and keeping it under harsh sanctions.

9/11 helped India achieve what it could never have in normal course. New rules on global terrorism framed by USA and doctrine of pre-emption and shock and awe conceived by George W. Bush Administration helped India to convert Kashmir freedom struggle into terrorism, brand Pakistan as an extremist state indulging in international terrorism and in nuclear proliferation. Pakistan’s nuclear capability was projected as a threat to world peace. The US helped India in regaining and expanding its influence in Afghanistan to be able to encircle Pakistan and to put into operation the devised game plan.

Themes of extremism, terrorism and nuclear proliferation appealed to the jittery senses of western audience fearful of Islamists and also fitted into the policy framework of new rules injected in New World Order in which Islam figured as the chief threat to US imperialism and capitalist oriented international order. There was clear cut mutuality of interests between the four strategic partners USA, UK, Israel and India. Pakistan did not fit into George Bush doctrine but was accepted as a tactical coalition partner on condition of taking upon itself the most hazardous task of frontline state. It was to be kept within the loop till the realization of US short term gains and then dropped like a hot potato at an opportune time.

Although the ground situation made it crystal clear that Pakistan had been turned from an ally into a target from 2005 onwards, our short-vision leaders infatuated with friendship of US and India ignored repeated warnings of saner elements and  kept pursuing US agenda under the false hope that such a recourse would be beneficial for Pakistan. They received the whips without a whimper and shut their eyes to Indian ingresses into Pakistan merely to remain in their good books. As a consequence, flames of terrorism engulfed each and every part of Pakistan and caused colossal human and material losses.

To the utter bad luck of people of Pakistan, even the new leaders whom they had elected with fond hopes brought no change in the highly damaging policies. They too took no notice of the deadly game of our adversaries’, hell bent to destabilize, denuclearize and balkanize Pakistan and continued to follow the dictates of US energetically. Already reeling under the impact of fruitless war on terror, Pakistan’s position became more fragile when its economy collapsed and the country fell into the clasp of IMF.

I have not an iota of doubt that the US gave all out support to India and would have continued to support its filibustering, blackmailing tactics and covert operations till the accomplishment of laid down sinister objectives against Pakistan had the security situation in Afghanistan not spun out of control and US economy nosedived radically making the stay of  coalition forces dangerous. Afghanistan became the proverbial Achilles heel of USA and military defeat at the hands of rag tag Taliban became a reality.

Decision to withdraw from Afghanistan starting mid July 2011 and to gradually hand over security responsibilities to Afghan security forces was a tough one. Extremely bitter pill was swallowed by Obama only when he found out that monster of terrorism had become so powerful that it could become a catalyst for downfall of US Empire. The US-NATO military commanders operating in Afghanistan had realized much earlier that they were fighting a losing battle and reliance on military force was no more a viable option. They were dissatisfied with the performance of Afghan National Army (ANA). Another factor that worried them was the glumness and disheartenment that set in among foreign troops deployed in Afghanistan and 80% increase in desertion rate since 2003.

Their desire for a political solution to Afghan imbroglio and early exit based on realistic appraisal compelled Obama to take the decision which brought some relief to the world in general but caused immense heart burns to India, Israel, Karzai regime and hawks within US corridors of power. Troop surge was meant to enable Gen McChrystal to win some tactical battles in southern and eastern Afghanistan and place USA in better bargaining position by mid 2011. It was also meant to put extra pressure on Pakistan to deal with Al-Qaeda, Quetta Shura and Haqqani network more effectively since in US view the tide in Afghanistan couldn’t be changed in its favor without dismantling Pakistan based bases.

In contrast to poor showing of ISAF, Pakistan military had performed exceptionally well against more well equipped and well entrenched militants in Malakand Division, Swat, South Waziristan and Bajaur duly supported by foreign agencies. Its outstanding achievements helped in raising its image in the eyes of US military and NATO very high.

It also enabled Gen Kayani to remind Washington that 148000 troops were deployed in the northwest as against nearly 100,000 coalition troops from 43 countries and that for the time being his troops could stretch no further. He refused to give in to US demand to further thin out troops from its eastern border and start another operation in North Waziristan on the silly plea that India posed no threat. The US was also told that Pakistan’s gains were much more and sacrifices much larger than anyone else and hence do more demand was no more applicable to Pakistan. The US was clearly informed that increased Indian military presence in Afghanistan was a cause of concern and unacceptable.

Once USA, India, Karzai regime, Saudi Arabia and the UN failed in breaking the alignment between al-Qaeda and Taliban and in dividing Taliban, a hard reality stared in the face of US military that given the resurging power of Taliban-Haqqani network-Gulbadin Hikmatyar-alQaeda nexus and lack of commitment among coalition soldiers and ANA; resistance forces would make the pullout of coalition troops very costly. Carrying out an in-house appraisal, US policy makers had to grudgingly admit that Pakistan was a key to Afghan conundrum and the only country that could help USA in its withdrawal, possibly on a triumphant note. Changed geo-strategic realities coupled with altered perceptions have transformed Pakistan from a pariah state into a most sought state.

There is now a marked change in the attitude of US officials compared with the hawkish and demeaning attitude of US officials against Pakistan which they had adopted for so many years. Transformation from haughtiness to affability led to holding of strategic dialogue in Washington in the last week of March. The hosts were extremely respectful, affectionate, responsive and accommodating; on no occasion any American official tried to be nasty. Laudatory phrases were on the lips of all and so were the promises for a mutually beneficial long lasting relationship. For the first time the hosts refrained from singing nauseating mantra of ‘do more’ since they knew that it was their time to payback. Even US media remained in check. The superstar on whom the spotlight remained focused was Gen Ashfaq Kayani. Pakistan’s pivotal position in Afghan affairs has been re-emphasized and ground is being paved to bridge trust deficit and remove some if not all grievances.

Threats of violence overblown, IRS says

Threats of violence overblown, IRS says

Chief assures agents’ safety despite rhetoric

By Joseph Weber

The country’s chief tax collector pushed back Monday against assertions that working for the Internal Revenue Service has become more dangerous as a result of growing anti-government sentiment and the recent passage of President Obama’s health care plan.

“No, the risk has not increased,” IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman said. “There has been a lot of stuff in the press about increased threats, which is actually inaccurate.”

Fears that IRS employees could be targets soared after a Feb. 18 incident in which a disgruntled Texas software engineer flew a small plane into the side of an IRS facility in Austin. One longtime agency employee was killed in the attack.

Some liberal groups and bloggers also have raised fears that anti-tax and anti-government rhetoric employed on talk radio and by protesters within the “tea party” movement could incite violence against IRS agents. Critics of Mr. Obama’s health care reform plan in the Republican Party and the tea party movement have warned that the government plans to hire thousands more IRS agents to enforce the plan’s mandate that all citizens purchase health care coverage.

But Mr. Shulman, in a luncheon address at the National Press Club, said that had not been the case.

“What there has been is increased chatter on the Internet that has an anti-government sentiment, and the issue of taxes has gotten swept into it,” he said. “And there’s a lot of difference between people not liking taxes, people not liking the tax system or having issues with the government, and it actually being a safety issue for my employees.”

Mr. Shulman, named to head the tax agency and its $11 billion budget in March 2008, offered no details on staff changes or other moves that the IRS plans for the implementation of the just-signed Patient Protection and Affordability Act.

“We’re looking at all of the implications for resources for this and many other bills,” he said. “It’s way too early to say what we’re going to need three or four years from now.”

However, Mr. Shulman dismissed reports that the agency will hire tens of thousands of additional agents to track down Americans who refuse to buy health insurance.

There will not be “agents going into the field,” said Mr. Shulman, who spoke 10 days before the April 15 tax-filing deadline. “There are no criminal sanctions, no levying of bank accounts.”

The Treasury Department inspector general for tax administration, J. Russell George, who oversees the IRS, has said the difficult economy and stepped-up enforcement could produce a “confluence of events” that increases the danger of attack for IRS employees.

The inspector general’s office has tracked an average of more than 900 threats annually against the tax service or its employees, resulting in 195 convictions between 2001 and 2008. Congress recently renewed provisions of a law that allows the IRS to provide armed escorts for agents in situations viewed as having the potential to become violent.

Mr. Shulman said he took every report of a threat against IRS personnel seriously, and the agency offered “awareness training” to employees on potential dangers.

“But there have not been, you know, any sort of scaled-up actual, specific threats against IRS employees,” he said Monday. “I think a lot of the reporting is just more general around some of the anti-government rhetoric that you hear out there.”

Still, Mr. Shulman acknowledged Americans’ long frustration with the IRS. He cited the 1990s as one of the worst periods because the tax system “kept changing and getting more complex.”

He said the federal government made an effort to improve the system with the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 and that his agency would try more simplification.

“We’re going to continue to improve,” Mr. Shulman said. “We’re open to new ideas and best practices, and we’ll throw out what doesn’t work.”

He also said the agency this year will collect roughly $2.4 trillion in taxes from Americans and pay out roughly $300 billion in refunds.

Kyrgyz President Refuses To Resign–Regroups In Southern Stronghold

By Ivan Sekretarev, AP
Kyrgyz protesters listen to opposition lawmaker Isa Omurkulov, not pictured, as they gather in front of Kyrgyz government headquarters on the central square in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan, on Thursday
BISHKEK, Kyrgyzstan (AP) — An opposition coalition proclaimed a new interim government Thursday after a violent uprising in Kyrgyzstan and said it would rule until elections are held in six months. But a respected private news agency said the president had proclaimed in an e-mail that he would not relinquish power.

Resistance from President Kurmanbek Bakiyev, who has fled the northern capital for the south, would raise the prospect of continued instability in the impoverished Central Asian nation, home to both a U.S. air base key to the Afghan war and a Russian military facility.

The opposition controls the capital and says it holds four of the country’s seven provinces. Its leader said there were no immediate plans to revisit the current one-year lease on the American base, which runs out in July.

U.S. military officials said Kyrgyzstan halted flights for 12 hours Wednesday at the Manas base during the uprising, and were evasive Thursday when asked if flights had resumed.

This mountainous former Soviet republic erupted Wednesday when protesters called onto the streets by opposition parties for a day of protest began storming government buildings in the capital, Bishkek, and clashed with police in street battles that left dozens dead.

“I have not relinquished and will not relinquish power,” Bakiyev wrote, according to the respected news agency 24.kg. “What’s more important now is to stop the violence and the crazy rage of the crowd that spilled over the streets and squares of Bishkek and other cities.”

Opposition leader Roza Otunbayeva, the former foreign minister, said the president was in the southern region of Jalal-Abad, the heart of his political stronghold, and seeking support. This raised some concerns that Bakiyev could try to secure his own survival by exploiting the country’s traditional split between more urban northern clans and more rural southern tribal groupings.

Eyewitnesses in the southern part told The Associated Press that the situation there was tense and unstable, and armed men who appeared to be still supporting Bakiyev were present in the region along with others who seemed to be supporting the opposition.

It was not clear if they answered directly to Bakiyev. The new interim defense minister said the armed forces have joined the opposition and will not be used against protesters.

“I am ready to take responsibility for my guilt in the tragic events if the guilt is proven by an objective and unbiased investigation,” Bakiyev wrote in his e-mail. “In case of further destabilization the opposition leaders will be hold responsible and punished according to the law.”

Otunbayeva said parliament was dissolved and she would head the interim government. She said the new government controlled four of the seven provinces and called on Bakiyev to resign.

“His business in Kyrgyzstan is finished,” she said.

Although the opposition has previously voiced objection to Manas, Otunbayeva said there were no plans yet to review the current agreement with the United States. She said her government would meet U.S. diplomats for talks in Bishkek.

“Give us time, it will take time for us to understand and fix the situation,” Otunbayeva said.

In Washington, State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said the U.S. deplored the violence and urged all to respect the rule of law.

“(We at) Manas have taken all appropriate measures to continue to support operations in Afghanistan,” U.S. Air Force Maj. Rickardo Bodden, a public affairs officer, said Thursday. He refused to elaborate for security reasons.

In 2009, Kyrgyzstan said U.S. forces would have to leave Manas, a decision made shortly after Russia granted Kyrgyzstan more than $2 billion in aid and loans. The government later reversed its stance and agreed to a one-year deal with the U.S. that raised the rent to about $63 million a year from $17 million.

The U.S. is also paying $37 million for airport improvements, another $30 million for new navigation systems, and giving the government $51.5 million to combat drug trafficking and terrorism and promote economic development.

Leonid Bondarets, who has been affiliated with the Sweden-based Central Asia and the Caucasus review and think tank, said that as long as Bakiyev has not formally resigned, there is room for trouble.

“It’s hard to predict what is going to happen because Bakiyev hasn’t stepped down,” Bondarets said in a telephone interview from Bishkek. “The situation is still tense.”

Kyrgyzstan, which shares a 533-mile (858-kilometer) border with China, is also a gateway to other energy-rich Central Asian countries where China, Russia and the U.S. are competing fiercely for dominance. It is a predominantly Muslim country, but it has remained secular.

The U.S. Embassy denied reports in the Kyrgyz media that U.S. citizens were being evacuated to the Manas air force base, where about 1,200 U.S. troops are stationed. Americans in civilian clothing were seen entering the base Thursday morning.

Russia sent in 150 paratroopers to its base to ensure the safety of the 400 military personnel and their families there, Russian state media reported.

Thousands of protesters have clashed with security forces throughout the country in the last two days, driving out local governments and seizing government headquarters in Bishkek. Elite riot police shot into crowds of protesters in Bishkek on Wednesday and hospitals were overwhelmed with the dead and wounded.

The country’s new defense chief, however, said Thursday that the nation’s 5 million people now have nothing to fear from the security forces.

“Special forces and the military were used against civilians in Bishkek, Talas and other places,” Ismail Isakov said. “This will not happen in the future.”

In Bishkek, residents nervously went about their business on a clear spring morning Thursday, the snowcapped mountains visible in the distance. There were no police on the streets.

Most of the government buildings in the capital, as well as Bakiyev’s houses, have been looted or set on fire and two major markets were burned down. A paper portrait of Bakiyev at government headquarters was smeared with red paint. Obscenities about him were spray-painted on buildings nearby.

Since coming to power in 2005 amid street protests known as the Tulip Revolution, Bakiyev had ensured a measure of stability, but the opposition said he did so at the expense of democratic standards while enriching himself and his family.

He gave his relatives, including his son, top government and economic posts and faced the same accusations of corruption and cronyism that led to the ouster of his predecessor, Askar Akayev.

Otunbayeva blamed Bakiyev for the week’s violent clashes.

“Yesterday’s events were a response to aggression, tyranny and a crackdown on dissenters,” she said. “All the people who were killed and wounded are victims of this regime.”

The Health Ministry said at least 74 people were killed and 400 people hospitalized in clashes nationwide Wednesday.

The interim government brings together a wide spectrum of opposition leaders whose differences have undermined them in the past.

One area of consensus was on the decision to repeal the recent sharp increases to utility taxes that provoked widespread anger. Beyond that, the new team of ministers — who range from the socialist Ata-Meken party leader Omurmbek Tekebayev, whose portfolio will include drawing up proposed constitution reforms, to the technocratic interim Finance Minister Temir Sariyev — may have trouble forging a united platform.

Copyright 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

UNTOP Subversion

image

http://www.tfd.org.tw/docs/dj0501/163-186-Anna%20Matveeva.pdf

FireShot Pro capture #034 - '163-186-Anna Matveeva_pdf (application_pdf Object)' - www_tfd_org_tw_docs_dj0501_163-186-Anna%20Matveeva_pdf

The Secretary-General says in the letter that his Representative, Ivo Petrov, and the Office, have played an important "catalytic role" in the promotion of national dialogue by organizing a series of Political Discussion Club meetings involving government officials and representatives from political parties, civil society and the media. The recommendations worked out within the framework of those meetings were brought to the attention of the Government and several of them were implemented, he notes.

Meanwhile, given the need for strict adherence to human rights standards, UNTOP, in coordination with local partners, has been implementing a human rights action programme aimed at improving public education and building a national capacity in human rights treaty reporting, the Secretary-General says. He adds that since the improvement of the human rights situation in the country requires strengthening of the rule of law, the Office is planning to implement several technical assistance projects to train the local police.

An Open Letter to Conservatives and “Liberals” Who Are Crypto-Conservatives

An open letter to conservatives

AmericanDaduser-pic

Dear Conservative Americans,

The years have not been kind to you. I grew up in a profoundly Republican home, so I can remember when you wore a very different face than the one we see now.  You’ve lost me and you’ve lost most of America.  Because I believe having responsible choices is important to democracy, I’d like to give you some advice and an invitation.

First, the invitation:  Come back to us.

Now the advice.  You’re going to have to come up with a platform that isn’t built on a foundation of cowardice: fear of people with colors, religions, cultures and sex lives that differ from your own; fear of reform in banking, health care, energy; fantasy fears of America being transformed into an Islamic nation, into social/commun/fasc-ism, into a disarmed populace put in internment camps; and more.  But you have work to do even before you take on that task.

Your party — the GOP — and the conservative end of the American political spectrum have become irresponsible and irrational.  Worse, it’s tolerating, promoting and celebrating prejudice and hatred.  Let me provide some examples — by no means an exhaustive list — of where the Right as gotten itself stuck in a swamp of hypocrisy, hyperbole, historical inaccuracy and hatred.

If you’re going to regain your stature as a party of rational, responsible people, you’ll have to start by draining this swamp:

Hypocrisy

You can’t flip out — and threaten impeachment - when Dems use a parliamentary procedure (deem and pass) that you used repeatedly (more than 35 times in just one session and more than 100 times in all!), that’s centuries old and which the courts have supported. Especially when your leaders admit it all.

You can’t vote and scream against the stimulus package and then take credit for the good it’s done in your own district (happily handing out enormous checks representing money that you voted against, is especially ugly) —  114 of you (at last count) did just that — and it’s even worse when you secretly beg for more.

You can’t fight against your own ideas just because the Dem president endorses your proposal.

You can’t call for a pay-as-you-go policy, and then vote against your own ideas.

Are they “unlawful enemy combatants” or are they “prisoners of war” at Gitmo? You can’t have it both ways.

You can’t carry on about the evils of government spending when your family has accepted more than a quarter-million dollars in government handouts.

You can’t refuse to go to a scheduled meeting, to which you were invited, and then blame the Dems because they didn’t meet with you.

You can’t rail against using teleprompters while using teleprompters. Repeatedly.

You can’t rail against the bank bailouts when you supported them as they were happening.

You can’t be for immigration reform, then against it .

You can’t enjoy socialized medicine while condemning it.

You can’t flip out when the black president puts his feet on the presidential desk when you were silent about white presidents doing the same.  Bush.  Ford.

You can’t complain that the president hasn’t closed Gitmo yet when you’ve campaigned to keep Gitmo open.

You can’t flip out when the black president bows to foreign dignitaries, as appropriate for their culture, when you were silent when the white presidents did the same. Bush.  Nixon. Ike. You didn’t even make a peep when Bush held hands and kissed leaders of countries that are not on “kissing terms” with the US.

You can’t complain that the undies bomber was read his Miranda rights under Obama when the shoe bomber was read his Miranda rights under Bush and you remained silent.  (And, no, Newt – the shoe bomber was not a US citizen either, so there is no difference.)

You can’t attack the Dem president for not personally* publicly condemning a terrorist event for 72 hours when you said nothing about the Rep president waiting 6 days in an eerily similar incident (and, even then, he didn’t issue any condemnation).  *Obama administration did the day of the event.

You can’t throw a hissy fitsound alarms and cry that Obama freed Gitmo prisoners who later helped plan the Christmas Day undie bombing, when — in fact — only one former Gitmo detainee, released by Dick Cheney and George W. Bush, helped to plan the failed attack.

You can’t condemn blaming the Republican president for an attempted terror attack on his watch, then blame the Dem president for an attempted terror attack on his.

You can’t mount a boycott against singers who say they’re ashamed of the president for starting a war, but remain silent when another singer says he’s ashamed of the president and falsely calls him a Maoist who makes him want to throw up and says he ought to be in jail.

You can’t cry that the health care bill is too long, then cry that it’s too short.

You can’t support the individual mandate for health insurance, then call it unconstitutional when Dems propose it and campaign against your own ideas.

You can’t demand television coverage, then whine about it when you get it.  Repeatedly.

You can’t praise criminal trials in US courts for terror suspects under a Rep president, then call it “treasonous” under a Dem president.

You can’t propose ideas to create jobs, and then work against them when the Dems put your ideas in a bill.

You can’t be both pro-choice and anti-choice.

You can’t damn someone for failing to pay $900 in taxes when you’ve paid nearly $20,000 in IRS fines.

You can’t condemn criticizing the president when US troops are in harms way, then attack the president when US troops are in harms way , the only difference being the president’s party affiliation (and, by the way, armed conflict does NOT remove our right and our duty as Americans to speak up).

You can’t be both for cap-and-trade policy and against it.

You can’t vote to block debate on a bill, then bemoan the lack of  ‘open debate’.

If you push anti-gay legislation and make anti-gay speeches, you should probably take a pass on having gay sex, regardless of whether it’s 2004 or 2010.  This is true, too, if you’re taking GOP money and giving anti-gay rants on CNN.  Taking right-wing money and GOP favors to write anti-gay stories for news sites while working as a gay prostitute, doubles down on both the hypocrisy and the prostitution.  This is especially true if you claim your anti-gay stand is God’s stand, too.

When you chair the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children, you can’t send sexy emails to 16-year-old boys (illegal anyway, but you made it hypocritical as well).

You can’t criticize Dems for not doing something you didn’t do while you held power over the past 16 years, especially when the Dems have done more in one year than you did in 16.

You can’t decry “name calling” when you’ve been the most consistent and outrageous at it. And the most vile.

You can’t spend more than 40 years hating, cutting and trying to kill Medicare, and then pretend to be the defenders of Medicare

You can’t praise the Congressional Budget Office when it’s analysis produces numbers that fit your political agenda, then claim it’s unreliable when it comes up with numbers that don’t.

You can’t vote for X under a Republican president, then vote against X under a Democratic president.  Either you support X or you don’t. And it makes it worse when you change your position merely for the sake obstructionism.

You can’t call a reconciliation out of bounds when you used it repeatedly.

You can’t spend taxpayer money on ads against spending taxpayer money.

You can’t condemn individual health insurance mandates in a Dem bill, when the mandates were your idea.

You can’t demand everyone listen to the generals when they say what fits your agenda, and then ignore them when they don’t.

You can’t whine that it’s unfair when people accuse you of exploiting racism for political gain, when your party’s former leader admits you’ve been doing it for decades.

You can’t portray yourself as fighting terrorists when you openly and passionately support terrorists.

You can’t complain about a lack of bipartisanship when you’ve routinely obstructed for the sake of political gain — threatening to filibuster at least 100 pieces of legislation in one session, far more than any other since the procedural tactic was invented — and admitted it.  Some admissions are unintentional, others are made proudly. This is especially true when the bill is the result of decades of compromise between the two parties and is filled with your own ideas.

You can’t question the loyalty of Department of Justice lawyers when you didn’t object when your own Republican president appointed them.

You can’t preach and try to legislate “Family Values” when you: take nude hot tub dips with teenagers (and pay them hush money); cheat on your wife with a secret lover and lie about it to the world; cheat with a staffer’s wife (and pay them off with a new job); pay hookers for sex while wearing a diaper and cheating on your wife; or just enjoying an old fashioned non-kinky cheating on your wife; try to have gay sex in a public toilet; authorize the rape of children in Iraqi prisons to coerce their parents into providing information; seek, look at or have sex with children; replace a guy who cheats on his wife with a guy who cheats on his pregnant wife with his wife’s mother;

Hyperbole

You really need to disassociate with those among you who:

History

If you’re going to use words like socialismcommunism and fascism, you must have at least a basic understanding of what those words mean (hint: they’re NOT synonymous!)

You can’t cut a leading Founding Father out the history books because you’ve decided you don’t like his ideas.

You cant repeatedly assert that the president refuses to say the word “terrorism” or say we’re at war with terror when we have an awful lot of videotape showing him repeatedly assailing terrorism and using those exact words.

If you’re going to invoke the names of historical figures, it does not serve you well to whitewash them. Especially this one.

You can’t just pretend historical events didn’t happen in an effort to make a political opponent look dishonest or to make your side look better. Especially these events. (And, no, repeating it doesn’t make it better.)

You can’t say things that are simply and demonstrably false: health care reform will not push people out of their private insurance and into a government-run program ; health care reform (which contains a good many of your ideas and very few from the Left) is a long way from “socialist utopia”; health care reform is not “reparations”; nor does health care reform create “death panels”.

Hatred

You have to condemn those among you who:

Oh, and I’m not alone:  One of your most respected and decorated leaders agrees with me.

So, dear conservatives, get to work.  Drain the swamp of the conspiracy nuts, the bald-faced liars undeterred by demonstrable facts, the overt hypocrisy and the hatred.  Then offer us a calm, responsible, grownup agenda based on your values and your vision for America.  We may or may not agree with your values and vision, but we’ll certainly welcome you back to the American mainstream with open arms.  We need you.

(Anticipating your initial response:  No there is nothing that even comes close to this level of wingnuttery on the American Left.)

Written by Russell King

Update: removed the mouth kissing reference and tried to clean up spelling

Another update:  It seems we’ve talked about this so much that we’ve clogged up the “Intertubes.”  I’ve created an open thread where the discussion can continue as you see fit.

A Skeptic’s View Of U.S–Pakistan ‘Strategic Dialog’

A Skeptic’s View Of U.S–Pakistan ‘Strategic Dialog’

Before we take another strategic U-turn on Afghanistan, Pakistan’s Policymakers must read this:

  • Pakistan is conceptualized as a theater of war in American operational plans as the term Af-Pak suggests so strategic dialog under the presence of such perception is nothing more than an illusion

  • One option for Pakistan is to work on isolating the extra-regional powers [countries not bordering Afghanistan] and then pitch the extra-regional powers against one another by manipulating the rifts between major EU countries (which are already wary of prolonged Afghan mission) and the U.S.

  • This strategic dialog is an important component of an overall military strategy led by Gen. Petraeus in which enhancing U.S image and closing the trust deficit both in COIN operations at tactical level in Afghanistan and at strategic level in Pakistan.

  • The idea of offering Pakistan the carrot of a prolonged negotiations for a civilian nuclear deal was floated as far back as April 2009 with the aim of aligning US and Pakistani interests

By MAJID MAHMOOD

Thursday, 8 April 2010.

Written for WWW.PAKNATIONALISTS.COM

An Assessment

Summary

Recent days have seen a deceptive shift in U.S policy towards Pakistan. In a stated aim to ‘redefine’ its relationship with Pakistan a process of strategic dialog has been orchestrated by the United States creating much buzz in Pakistan over the issue. This brief essay will examine the real purpose of this strategic dialog, American plans for the region, strategic implications for Pakistan’s continued alliance with the US, and the formulation of alternative policy options for Pakistan.

Main Arguments

  • Strategic dialog is a futile exercise because United States cannot be trusted as a reliable partner due to its track record and asymmetry in bilateral relationship.
  • Pakistan is conceptualized as a theatre of war in American operational plans as the term Af-Pak suggests so strategic dialog under the presence of such perception is nothing more than an illusion.
  • Pakistan will continue to receive ‘aid’ through Kerry-Lugar act which completely encapsulates U.S influence over all non military sectors of Pakistan.
  • The construction of so called Reconstruction Opportunity Zones [ROZs] in war torn regions in Pakistan will increase the influence of the U.S manifold in tribal areas and would be used as leverage against Pakistan any time in future.
  • Strategic dialog and specifically civil nuclear deal negotiations will meet the same fate as the ‘Friends of Democratic Pakistan’ summits, being merely nice photo opportunities.  And even if the US seriously considers negotiations over a civil nuclear agreement with Pakistan, the quid pro quo would be a nonstarter, which could include asking Pakistan to compromise its position over Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty [FMCT] negotiations, nuclear safety and security issues and possibly ratify Non Proliferation Treaty [NPT].  The orchestrated hints of a possible offer of a civil nuclear deal are meant to give credibility to the so called strategic dialog process.
  • The fundamental aim of this strategic dialog is to win the battle of perception in the Af-Pak Theater.
  • The discussion on Afghanistan will remain the centerpiece of this dialog process which means more cooperation (political and military) by Pakistan against what is by all counts a legitimate Afghan resistance.

Policy Options

  • Formulation of an independent strategic framework by Pakistan for the region after a thorough review of the regional environment rather than looking towards Washington to protect Pakistan’s interests in the region.
  • Pakistan needs to open new venues for cooperation as an alternative.  This could facilitate achieving peace and security for the entire region. One strategy to achieve this objective can be isolating the extra-regional powers [countries not bordering Afghanistan] and then pitch extra regional powers against one another by manipulating the rifts between major EU countries (which are already wary of prolonged Afghan mission) and the U.S.
  • The solution to the war in Afghanistan does not lie within the national boundaries of that country due to proxy wars on Afghan soil. So a transnational setup comprising of Afghanistan and its immediate neighbors [minus extra-regional powers that do no border Afghanistan] can bring a revolutionary change in economic development of the region
  • Strategic dialog with the U.S should be shunned.
  • Pakistan should explore and develop on war footing its immense natural resources to break the shackles of foreign demands and fulfill the energy requirement for short- and long-term industrialization.
  • No relaxation of any sort should be given by Pakistan on its stance regarding FMCT and NPT as a quid pro quo for a civil nuclear deal offer.

Strategic Dialog And The Battle Of Perceptions

United States President Barrack Obama in his speech at West Point Military Academy in December 2009 linked the success of coalition mission in Afghanistan with Pakistan’s cooperation which effectively meant that Pakistan has to rein in its principle allies the Afghan Taliban both politically and militarily. However there was a realization among policy makers in Washington that with the prevailing strong anti-Americanism both within the population and the wider ruling establishment it is near to impossible to move Pakistan against Afghan Taliban in the FATA region. So a cosmetic change on Washington’s behavior was necessary in order to win the battle of perception in the Af-Pak battle field. So this strategic dialog is an important component of an overall military strategy led by Gen. Petraeus in which enhancing U.S image and closing the trust deficit both in COIN operations at tactical level in Afghanistan and at strategic level in Pakistan.

C. Christine Fair, a senior political scientist with the RAND Corporation and an expert on security relations between India and Pakistan, U.S. strategic interests in South Asia and Pakistan’s internal security in her policy paper published in Washington Quarterly in April 2009 said in plain terms:

“Pakistan watchers generally agree that the United States will fail to secure greater alignment between Pakistani and U.S. interests unless and until it can mitigate the “trust deficit (…) For its part, Islamabad has numerous complaints against Washington which also span decades. Washington’s ‘original sins’ include providing arms to India during its war with China in 1962 and cutting off arms to India and Pakistan during their wars in 1965 and 1971. As Pakistan was reliant on U.S. weapons systems, arms cutoffs hurt Pakistan considerably more than it did India, which was more reliant on Soviet systems (…) Pakistan’s security elite and citizenry therefore consider the United States an unreliable partner and believe that the United States will abandon Pakistan again when Washington’s security interests change”

Ironically, Christine Fair was the one who floated the idea of offering Pakistan a civilian nuclear deal so as to build ‘credibility’ in the future of US–Pakistan partnership.

Daniel Markey a senior fellow for India, Pakistan and South Asia at the Council of Foreign Relations in his policy paper at NBR analysis center in November 2009 also focused on improving US image inside Pakistan to achieve American strategic objectives in the region. In his conclusion he writes:

“US can pursue a variety of alternative strategies to meets its counter terror and counter insurgency objectives in South Asia, ranging from unilateral US military and intelligence operations to coercive diplomacy to containment. All of these approaches have significant shortcomings and cultivating strong and effective allies within Pakistan’s political, military, and civic communities may be the best way to secure US strategic objectives over the short, medium and long term. Improving Pakistan’s image of United States is a long term and complex endeavor that would require high profile efforts, including humanitarian relief and non military assistance.”

So it is abundantly clear that U.S–Pakistan strategic dialog is overrated. It may not be more than a photo-op ending, a lot of listening and then a declaration of that contains no commitments whose only objective appears to be to mislead Pakistan’s policymakers, the strategic community and the masses at large in Pakistan and push the country in taking a yet another disastrous U-turn on Afghanistan.

Anatomy Of Civil Nuclear Deal

Much fuss has been created within Pakistani intelligentsia about the proposed civil nuclear deal by US to Pakistan on the pattern of the Indo-US nuclear deal. Before going into the question of relevance of civil nuclear deal and the seriousness of US intentions it must be understood that the notion of civil nuclear deal is added just to make the strategic dialog appear credible or in other words create a deliberate deception and illusion for ‘image building’ inside Pakistan and secondly to extract flexibility from Pakistan’s rightful stance on FMCT, possibly NPT and more intrusion into Pakistan’s nuclear program.

As far as American intentions are concerned US will not make a civil nuclear deal with Pakistan primarily because it does not want to damage its global image which is already tarnished due to unilateralism of Bush regime specifically related to civil nuclear deal with countries outside the nuclear non proliferation treaty (NPT). Quite the contrary officially United States considers Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal unsafe and different tactics are used to rein in Pakistan’s nuclear program and one such latest tactics was the Kerry–Lugar act. Secondly, materializing the civil nuclear deal would mean more indigenously produced fissile material available for Pakistan which would significantly turn the strategic balance in favor of Pakistan which would jeopardize U.S–India strategic relationship. It would be fair to say that such a result is the last thing U.S would want to happen. Thirdly, it would take the air out of Obama’s global image and U.S ‘moral standing’ in the upcoming NPT review conference next month.

In her latest article in the influential Foreign policy magazine, Christine Fair confirmed the above analysis when she wrote that;

“Any civilian nuclear deal for Pakistan would have to be conditions-based. It would not be equivalent to India’s deal, which recognizes India’s nonproliferation commitments and enables India to compete strategically with China globally. A civilian nuclear deal with Pakistan has a different logic: to reset bilateral relations that are bedeviled with layers of mistrust on both sides (…) This deal should therefore be conditioned upon access to nuclear scientist A.Q. Khan and direct information about his nuclear black markets, as well as verifiable evidence that Pakistan is reversing its support for militant groups and taking active steps to dismantle the architecture for terrorism.”

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in her TV interview with Pakistani English Channel Express news responded to a question posed by the anchor on a possible civil nuclear deal by saying the following:

“The civil nuclear deal with India was a result of years of negotiations which is symbolic of strategic partnership between two states but Pakistan would continue to receive aid through Kerry-Lugar act”.

Pakistan’s Leaders Need An Alternative Model, And Not America

The record of nuclear energy globally and its relevance for Pakistan is a matter worth observing. Globally the quest for nuclear energy shows a fluctuating graph and on the contrary fossil fuel has been the prime source of energy for developing countries. The US generates twenty percent of its electricity from nuclear energy and since 1996 no new commercial reactors have come online, in 2002 Germany enacted legislation to phase out nuclear power plants until 2020 citing the unacceptable risks posed by potential accidents and nuclear waste. In Europe alone collectively there has been no “nuclear renaissance” even after mounting tensions when, after Georgia conflict, Russia blocked gas supplies to Europe. However, examples of the other side of the story exist, e.g. ambitious plans in China and India to produce energy through nuclear power. The point is that the unreliable trend towards achieving power through nuclear energy exists globally. Secondly, Pakistan has immense natural resources to not only overcome the existing manufactured energy crisis and future massive industrialization but can export surplus energy to Afghanistan, India and Central Asia. The only thing needed is an alternative economic model to ensure optimum utilization of more than enough energy resources and its fair distribution. So civil nuclear deal offer by the U.S is a ‘strategic setup’ and Pakistan’s policymakers should not fall for it.

Implication For Nurturing Partnership With U.S

Despite much fuss Pakistan’s cooperation with the US against a legitimate popular resistance in Afghanistan is the real agenda in the US-Pakistan Strategic Dialog. U.S will be reassured by representatives of Pakistani government that they will mount a full scale offensive operation against all seasoned allies of Pakistan in North Waziristan so as to facilitate US to negotiate with Taliban from a position of strength. Aligning with US in these past nine years has devastated Pakistan economically, strategically and militarily. Recent economic reports indicate that Pakistan has incurred a loss of more than US$ 45 billion and this terror crunch has uniformly and severely affected all sectors of economy. Furthermore, as if this were not enough the ‘development budget’ of the country has also been consumed in Pakistan’s so-called war against terrorism which is actually an American war inside Pakistan.

A country that engages itself in a protracted conflict is doomed to collapse under its own weight and in Pakistan US drone strikes and punitive military operations have set the scene for Pakistan for at least another decade of conflict within its borders. India has emerged as a powerful entity in the region because of US presence in Afghanistan which has made Pakistan economically and strategically weak. Moreover Pakistan is a nuclear weapon state and presence of hostile western troops under American leadership on its western borders should ring alarm bells in Islamabad rather than taking measures to strengthen the foreign presence.  The arguments against Indian military and intelligence presence in Afghanistan and their destabilizing affect are also valid in the case if US military and intelligence operations in Afghanistan and their destabilizing effect on Pakistan and the region.

Conclusion

The strategic dialog aims to create an illusion amongst Pakistan’s policy makers in order to facilitate their U-turn on Afghanistan. The ‘change’ in US attitude in other words can be summarized as a strategic bribe for Pakistan to facilitate U.S interests in the region. Establishing two or three power plants inside Pakistan and donating substandard military hardware will not and should not be the price for compromising on the strategic interests of the Pakistani nation.

Mr. Mahmood is a security and defense analyst at one of the premier national security think tanks in Islamabad.

© 2007-2009. All rights reserved. AhmedQuraishi.comPakNationalists

We must reject violence

EDMONTON JOURNAL

Norm Harley writes, “If water boarding and sleep deprivation of 1,000 detainees at the hands of the Afghans saved the life of just one Canadian soldier, I would be in full support of doing the same to all detainees.” Torture does not change the minds of Afghan prisoners.

Recently, we learned ( “Freed Guantanamo prisoner new Taliban No. 2 leader,” The Journal, March 25) a Taliban commander released from Guantanamo Bay was promoted to No. 2 in the insurgency. The Pentagon revealed that as many as 60 former inmates returned to join the Taliban or al-Qaida after release.

Recent black widow bombings show violence creates violence.

I don’t want to convey that the main reason we should not use violence because of the futility of using violence. We are less human when we tolerate violence. Why should we tolerate violence against any person, any animal, any environment?

Are Afghans not human, not deserving of our respect? Canadians went into Afghanistan after the U.S. had bombed the daylights out of that country. We will never know how many people — men, women and children, mothers, fathers, daughters, sons — were killed and wounded. How many lost their home, their business, their job? How many had to flee? How many families were separated?

No one knows the number of “ordinary” Afghans killed by drone plane attacks.

How devastated we would be if all that happened to us. If you can’t bring yourself to feel Afghans are “real” people, pick up the memoirs of writers who penned what happened to them and their families.

Nine million Afghans, or 36 per cent, are living in absolute poverty while 37 per cent live barely above the poverty line. The country is locked in a vicious cycle as the poor are driven to take up arms to support themselves.

War does not solve problems; it creates them. The Canadian government must get out of the war and weapons business and must never tolerate torture. We would be much further ahead in creating a safer and fairer world if we invested in peace, rather than war.

Cecily Mills, Edmonton

© Copyright (c) The Edmonton Journal

Glen Beck/Fox News “Douche”-Baggers Want to Carry Guns at 2nd Amendment Rallies

[From the same fevered minds that brought America's "generational war" to the world in the name of promoting freedom.]

What is the Second Amendment March?

Second Amendment March is a grass-roots organization that is pulling together Second Amendment supporters across the United States for a peaceful march in Washington, D.C, our nation’s capital. We welcome ANYONE who supports the right to keep and bear arms, regardless of political leanings, gender, race, religion, etc. We also welcome both gun owners and non-gun owners alike! We have many supporters who have never owned — and may never own — a firearm, but they strongly believe in the Consitution and the importance of preserving the Second Amendment as our founding fathers intended.

Will people be carrying guns?

Because it is the right of all people to keep and bear arms, we fully support the peaceful carrying of firearms where allowed by law. However, because Washington DC’s overly oppressive laws prohibit carrying firearms in public, We cannot promote or condone carrying firearms at the march in Washington DC (DON’T DO IT!) However, if not prohibited by law at any of our satellite marches, we fully support the peaceful carrying of arms.

What good is an unarmed second amendment rally?

Simple.  It serves to encourage like-minded Americans to celebrate our American heritage of the right to keep and bear arms.  Sure, we could have held it anywhere (like a place that doesn’t restrict your right to carry), but celebrating that heritage with the backdrop of our nation’s seat of government illustrates the irony of legislation that restricts law-abiding Americans and empowers criminals, who have no regard for the law.  Our nation was won via the individual right to keep and bear arms, yet thousands of freedom-loving patriots will leave their arms behind to celebrate our heritage in D.C.

Ban Ki-moon, American Tool?

Ban Ki-moon in Central Asia: Unwitting Promoter of American Interests or Player in Referee’s Uniform?

nCa Commentary

Ashgabat, 8 April 2010 (nCa) — Taking an irregular line of argument, one can say that the first fruit of the laborious lecture tour of Central Asia by Ban Ki-moon is in the market already —–  Kyrgyzstan is painting itself red.

Showing an astounding ignorance of the dynamics of this region, Ban stressed just one point in country after country – human rights.

Even by the UN’s own accounts, it was merely a lecture tour and not a well rounded visit of a region that is vital to everything happening in the world today.

Admittedly, Ban did not supply all the ingredients for the anarchy in Kyrgyzstan but his statement in Bishkek definitely served as a catalyst.

If Ban Ki-moon really believes that his lopsided lectures had nothing to do with the carnage in Kyrgyzstan, he needs to either step down as someone whose judgment went horribly wrong or fire his advisors for preparing less-than-honest briefs for him.

No matter how Ban and his team try to explain their thick stance in Central Asia, the region finds it difficult today to trust the United Nations. A serious blow has been dealt to the already-tarnished credibility of the ailing world body.

It is an undeniable fact that any chaos in Central Asia at this stage would benefit no one else but the United States, a country that has bitten more than it can chew.

An unpleasant question arises here: In his Central Asia tour, was Ban Ki-moon an unwitting promoter of the American interests or was he a player in referee’s uniform?

There is no real hurry to answer this question because more pressing matters are in the forefront.

The world, i.e. the world outside White House, needs to make up its mind. Should we describe the armed bands in the streets of Bishkek, Naryn and Talas as democracy activists or terrorists?

If they are democracy activists, then we must allow armed groups to overthrow every other government in the world.

If they are terrorists, then they should be dealt with as the terrorists are being dealt with elsewhere in the world.

Whatever is happening in Kyrgyzstan will come to its logical conclusion within the next few days.

Now is the time for Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan to take emergency measures to prevent eruption of disorder in their own territories.

Here are some proposals for the regional governments in Central Asia:

  • Any interaction with the United States should be cut down to bare minimum. All the current processes involving the US should be frozen in place pending their scrutiny to make sure that national interests are not at stake.
  • Instead of blocking certain websites, the regional countries should make full use of the Internet to strengthen internal cohesion. It is the internal unity that is important now; Internet provides endless opportunities to achieve that.
  • Uzbekistan should make public a succession formula. The transfer of power, whenever it happens, must happen swiftly and peacefully. The current prime minister could be ideally placed to prevent any vacuum if President Karimov moves to prepare grounds right now.
  • Turkmenistan should watch carefully its borders with Afghanistan and Uzbekistan. While there are no grounds for mass movement, Turkmenistan should be vigilant against any disturbance that can be exported by the United States from across the borders.
  • It would be advisable for the top leadership in Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan to keep in touch with each other on daily basis, and maintain open channels for exchange of information. Forewarned is forearmed.
  • All the regional governments should take Russia and China into confidence.
  • The regional governments in Central Asia need to take a second look at the composition of the delegation accompanying Ban Ki-moon and draw their own conclusions. There is more to it than first meets the eye.

Barack Obama, former CIA agent

Barack Obama, former CIA agent

By Deanna Spingola

I recently had the pleasure of talking with Dr. James David Manning who has been ministering to the people of Harlem since 1981. He is now the Senior Pastor at ATLAH which stands for All the Land Anointed Holy, Manning’s inspired name for Harlem as of September 14, 1991.

Dr. Manning heads the Columbia Obama Treason Trial which is scheduled for May 14-19, 2010 at the ATLAH building at 38 West 123rd Street in ATLAH, New York, 10027. Unfortunately, the Department of Justice and the Supreme Court have failed in their duties to uphold the Constitution and address the legitimacy and other questionable issues surrounding the White House’s current resident. So, Dr. Manning, being a longtime resident of the Columbia University area, the school that Obama allegedly attended, began an intense investigation into Obama’s educational background and discovered some profound discrepancies.

According to Dr. Manning, Obama (born in 1961) enrolled at the very pricey Occidental College in Los Angeles, California in 1979 and was recruited there in 1980 by the CIA which has made it a practice since its inception to recruit college students. He was, by his own admission, a “C” student, a dope smoker and a member of the Marxist Club at Occidental, a co-educational liberal arts college. In 1981, Obama allegedly transferred from Occidental to Columbia University. It is atypical for a student to begin their education in one four-year school and then transfer to another school. Columbia University requires that incoming students pass certain academic requirements which Obama apparently lacked. However, Columbia had a foreign student program and the CIA has major connections and influence with Columbia and the nation’s other educational facilities.

The CIA needed Muslims or others who were fluent in Farsi and who could easily blend into the Muslim environment in the Middle East. The CIA persuaded Columbia University to extend their foreign student program to Obama, now a Columbia student, so that he might travel to Pakistan and enroll in the universities around Karachi in addition to the Patrice Lumumba School in Moscow. [1] The school, one of Russia’s most prestigious universities was founded on February 5, 1960 as The Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia (PFUR). It was renamed the Patrice Lumumba School on February 22, 1961. On February 5, 1992 the university re-adopted its former name. According to their web site, “The main aim was to give young people from Asia, Africa and Latin America, especially from poor families, an opportunity to get University education and to become highly qualified specialists. The students were admitted through non-governmental organizations, governmental establishments, and the USSR embassies and consulates.” [2]

Obama, as an undercover agent, was the lead agent in the arms and money supply for the CIA-trained Taliban Army against the Soviet Army war machine. His actions were integral to the Taliban’s success in their opposition to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Obama, it is publicly acknowledged, went to Pakistan in 1981. There is no way of knowing how often Obama traveled between Pakistan and Russia. According to Dr. Manning, Obama was an interpreter for the CIA during the war in Afghanistan. When Obama completed his CIA operations in the mid 1980s and returned to the U.S. he persuaded the State Department to maneuver his entrance into Harvard Law School; since the CIA, the U.S. president’s personal agency for black operations throughout the world, also has connections to federal and state politicians, they managed to arrange Obama’s entrance to yet another elite school in 1988.

Percy Ellis Sutton, a civil-rights activist and lawyer, was the Manhattan Borough President from 1966 to 1977. He was an intelligence officer with the Tuskegee Airmen, the name of a group of African American pilots who were part of the 332nd Fighter Group of the U.S. Army Air Forces during World War II. Sutton entered Harlem politics and became a leader of the Harlem Clubhouse, known as the “Gang of Four” which has controlled Democratic politics in Harlem for at least fifty years. His Clubhouse allies were New York City Mayor David Dinkins, U.S. Representative Charles Rangel, and New York Secretary of State Basil Paterson, father of the currently beleaguered David Paterson who replaced Spitzer as New York Governor in 2008. Percy Sutton wrote a letter to Harvard officials requesting that they admit Obama as a student after a hiatus of five years (from 1983 when he allegedly left Columbia to 1988).

Despite a five-year absence from the rigors of college activity he was accepted at Harvard where he excelled and on February 5, 1990, was elected president of the venerable celebrated Harvard Law Review, the highest student position at Harvard Law School, a term that lasts for one year. [3] After graduation he could have worked in any leading law firm except that he lacked the proper citizenship qualifications which would have come to light during the interview and normal background checks pursued by major law firms. Moreover, his academic deficiencies at Occidental College would have disqualified him from the top law firms. Furthermore, he was a CIA operative in the Middle East during the time that he was supposed to be attending Columbia University. So despite his Harvard achievements, Obama became a Saul Alinsky-style community organizer in South Chicago which alleviated the necessity of providing a legitimate background check. [4]

In 1990, Obama accepted a job with Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland, a law firm which represented civil rights cases but also represented Rezmar Corp. owned by Chicago slumlord, Tony Rezko. The law firm helped Rezmar Corp. get more than $43 million in government funding. As early as 1995, Rezko started contributing to Obama for his political aspirations. In 2003, Rezko was a fundraiser for Obama’s Senatorial campaign as part of a group that raised over $14 million. In 2006, Rezko was found guilty of sixteen out of twenty-four charges filed against him.

Barack Obama had been employed for a short summer stint as an associate with Sidley Austin Brown & Wood LLP, the same law firm that Harvard graduate Michelle Robinson worked for from 1988 to 1991. She became his trainer and supervisor and, as such, may have handled any background information. Michelle Robinson, through the efforts of Valerie Jarrett, then-deputy chief of staff for Mayor Richard Daley, became an assistant to the mayor. Robinson later became an “economic development coordinator.” Obama married the politically connected Michelle Robinson in October 1992 in the Trinity United Church of Christ. This gave him citizenship and credibility.[5] In 1993, according to the Records at the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois, Michelle Obama, as an attorney, was “voluntarily inactive and not authorized to practice law” per her request. After she gave up her law license, Michelle Obama worked for the University of Chicago Medical Center where she received a very generous annual salary of $317,000. [6]

Dr. Manning, an African American, has called Obama a “good House Negro” and a “long-legged Mack daddy,” and an “emissary of the devil.” When Dr. Manning gave an interview on Fox News, he said, “We also have to talk about his character.” Dr. Manning has also questioned Obama’s eligibility to serve as U.S. President due to the fact that Obama has not complied with numerous requests by to reveal his birth records. In fact, Obama has spent thousands of dollars in an attempt to conceal those records. Dr. Manning, using information from hired investigators declares that Obama never attended Columbia University. He asserts the following:

1) “Columbia University will not divulge whether the “alleged” diploma issued was in the name of Barry Soetoro or Barack Hussein Obama. No public record exists regarding the diploma.”

2) “Obama alleges he attended Columbia in 1982, 1983. But, the investigators have been UNABLE to turn up a single shred of written documentation for the years 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984 that show where Obama appeared on a school roster, register, faculty memo, bulletin board, school awards, dean’s list; where Obama’s name appeared in a yearbook, club record, fraternity record, extra curricular activity member roster, student newspaper, student radio or TV activity; where Obama appeared in any records as a worker, employee, laborer in or about Columbia University; where Obama enrolled in any sports activity or program.”

3) “As a graduating senior in 1983 he does not appear in any Political Science (his major) or Graduating Class yearbook or invitation records.”

4) “There is absolutely no documentation of any kind to show Obama attended, lived, worked or played at Columbia University during the investigated 4 years.”

5) “Interviewed professors, college employees, students (who were at Columbia during the years in question) have failed to turn up a single person that can remember Obama. This is irrefutable evidence. Think about your own situation if Obama had attended your college? A “now-famous” person went to your school? Many would be able to say, “Of course I remember.” At Columbia, not a single person has been able to say he or she remembers Obama.” [7]

Obama’s background would have been relatively insignificant if he hadn’t been chosen as a presidential candidate by the bankers. But, with funding from George Soros and other international bankers who wish to establish global governance, he ran for office. Obviously there would be records that revealed some very personal details of his life. Passport records are particularly revealing. John O. Brennan, Obama’s top terrorism and intelligence adviser is the owner of The Analysis Corp., the firm that was cited in March 2008 for penetrating the files of presidential candidates Barack Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and John McCain in the State Department’s passport office. Investigators maintain that the target of this illegal activity was Obama’s passport file for the sole purpose of cleansing the records of information that would jeopardize Obama’s candidacy. The breach of the passport records of the other candidates was to create confusion. Brennan was, at the time, an unpaid advisor working with Obama’s campaign. Passport files include an applicant’s name, gender, social security number, date and place of birth, and passport number. Additional information may include birth certificates, naturalization certificates, or oaths of allegiance for U.S.-born persons who adopted the citizenship of a foreign country as minors. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee oversees the State Department. Joseph Biden, now Obama’s Vice President, was the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee at the time of the breach. [8]

The State Department passport records were scrubbed to erase any mention of Obama’s CIA activities and his personal information. The State Department employee, Lt. Quarle Harris, Jr. who had access and apparently scrubbed the records, was killed. [9] Harris decided to cooperate with the FBI who was investigating the break-in. His body was discovered in his parked car; he had been shot in the head, execution style. [10] The Indonesian passport, issued in the name of Barry Soetoro, was used to travel to Pakistan to assist the Afghan Mujahideen during the U.S. buildup. [11]

The CIA is not an intelligence-gathering agency. The Truman Administration authorized “psychological warfare” by the newly established National Security Council in NSC 4-A of December 1947 which allowed covert operations during peacetime. This document made the CIA Director responsible for psychological warfare and placed it under the exclusive direction of the Executive Branch. The CIA has unvouchered funds which allow the agency to operate without exposure or Congressional oversight. [12]

With pressure from the Departments of State and Defense, a new NSC directive, NSC 10/2 was issued on June 18, 1948. This new directive stipulated that the CIA could conduct “covert” and “psychological” operations both of which were sponsored by the U.S. Government against foreign states or groups. However, these activities should be “planned and executed in such a way as to provide plausible deniability if revealed. Approved CIA clandestine activities, according to the directive, include “propaganda; economic warfare; preventive direct action, including sabotage, demolition and evacuation measures; subversion against hostile states, including assistance to underground resistance movements, guerrillas and refugee liberation groups, and support of indigenous anti-Communist elements in threatened countries of the free world. Such operations should not include armed conflict byrecognized military forces, espionage, counter-espionage, and cover and deception for military operations.” [13]

During the 2008 presidential change-promising campaign Obama avoided detailed questions about his alleged years at Columbia by saying that he was very anti-social and totally uninvolved with the academic community. Further, he claimed that he lived off campus. For someone who loves the limelight and never misses an opportunity to engage in rhetoric, it is an enigma that he would isolate himself from typical college activities unless, of course, that is simply justification to account for his absence during the time that he was supposed to be attending Columbia. Okay, if Obama was a CIA operative who, with political connections, super funding and media puffing, made it to the White House — is he still a CIA operative bent on destroying what is left of the economy of the U.S.? The CIA was established by Harry Truman, a 33rd Degree Freemason, to implement global governance. Freemasonry is a front group for the satanical organization, the Illuminati whose objectives are world governance.

In mid February 2010, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs alerted the reporters who regularly cover the White House that certain questions were forbidden including Obama’s job with CIA front company, Business International Corporation (BIC), following his attendance at Columbia University; Obama’s school records while he attended Occidental College in Los Angeles from 1979 to 1981, and his records at Columbia. [14] Wayne Madsen states that his Kabul sources claim that President Obama has maintained a personal correspondence with a private military company (PMC) whose senior personnel includes numerous Afghan Mujahideen-Soviet war veterans who fought with the late Northern Alliance commander Ahmad Shah Massoud who became Afghanistan’s Defense Minister in 1992 and was assassinated on September 9, 2001, allegedly by al-Qaeda agents. The firm is also involved in counter-insurgency operations in Colombia, where Obama is building seven new military bases, and in Iraq.

Henry Kissinger said, “Conflicts across the globe and an international respect for Barack Obama have created the perfect setting for establishment of ‘a New World Order.” [15] Allegedly, the upper echelon of Freemasonry were infiltrated long ago the Satanic Illuminati whose objective is world dominance through one-world governance. There are claims that Barack Obama is a 32nd degree Prince Hall Freemason. Certainly, Prince Hall Freemasons, Jesse Jackson and Charles Rangel, supported his presidency. [16] Whether he is a Freemason or not, he might indeed be the chosen vessel of the New World Order proponents unless the citizens call a halt to the scheme. However, there is no doubt that he is a Zionist asset and, that despite his campaign promises, intends to pursue the same Neo-Con policies in the Middle East as the previous administration, as evidenced by his speechbefore the 2008 AIPAC Policy Conference where he was introduced by his friend, Lee Rosenberg, a fellow Chicago resident. [17]

Dr. Manning hopes that thousands of people will support this effort, one that will benefit every single American.

NOTES:

[1] CIA Columbia Obama Cover Up, a You Tube video that features the Honorable James David Manning who is leading the efforts in the Obama Columbia Treason Trial, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WedxY61d60
[2] Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia, PFUR History, http://www.pfu.edu.ru/en/?pagec=49
[3] First Black Elected to Head Harvard’s Law Review by Fox Butterfield, The New York Times, February 6, 1990
[4] CIA Columbia Obama Cover Up, a You Tube video that features the Honorable James David Manning who is leading the efforts in the Obama Columbia Treason Trial, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WedxY61d60
[5] CIA Columbia Obama Cover Up, a You Tube video that features the Honorable James David Manning who is leading the efforts in the Obama Columbia Treason Trial, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WedxY61d60
[6] What happened to Michelle Obama’s law license?, First lady’s legal career on ‘court ordered inactive status’ by Chelsea Schilling, World Net Daily, August 4, 2009, http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=105998
[7] Investigators declare, “Obama never attended Columbia University,” February 8, 2010, http://americangrandjury.org/category/columbia-trial
[8] Obama’s Intelligence Adviser Involved in Security Breach, Newsmax, January 12, 2009, http://newsmax.com/KenTimmerman/brennan-passport-breach/2009/01/12/id/337482
[9] CIA Columbia Obama Cover Up, a You Tube video that features the Honorable James David Manning who is leading the efforts in the Obama Columbia Treason Trial, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WedxY61d60
[10] Key Witness in Passport Fraud Case Fatally Shot, The Washington Times,
[11] WH Press Corps Forbidden to Ask Certain Questions by Wayne Madsen of the Wayne Madsen Report, The Rock Creek Press, February 17, 2010, http://rockcreekfreepress.tumblr.com/post/394159844/wh-press-corps-forbidden-to-ask-certain-questions
[12] Note on U.S. Covert Actions, U.S. State Department, http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/johnsonlb/xxxii/44504.htm
[13] Note on U.S. Covert Actions, U.S. State Department, http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/johnsonlb/xxxii/44504.htm
[14] WH Press Corps Forbidden to Ask Certain Questions by Wayne Madsen of the Wayne Madsen Report, The Rock Creek Press, February 17, 2010, http://rockcreekfreepress.tumblr.com/post/394159844/wh-press-corps-forbidden-to-ask-certain-questions
[15] Kissinger: Obama primed to create ‘New World Order,’ Policy Guru Says Global Upheaval Presents ‘Great Opportunity’ by Drew Zahn, World Net Daily, January 06, 2009
[16] Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Michigan, Prince Hall Affiliation, Notable Prince Hall Masons, http://miphgl.org/mi/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=23&Itemid=51

© Deanna Spingola

Lebanon army and Hezbollah will opose any Israeli “aggression”

Lebanon army and Hezbollah will opose any Israeli “aggression”

image

DOHA – Lebanese President Michel Suleiman said that the army and the Shiite Hezbollah movement will oppose any “Israeli aggression” in a statement to Al-Watan newspaper in Qatar to be published Thursday.

  • “Israel may at any time conduct an assault (against Lebanon), but it must realize that a new military adventure will not be a walk,” the president said on a visit to Qatar, in this interview of which AFP obtained a copy Wednesday.
  • “All the Lebanese are united behind the military and grow back with the resistance, aggression and defend their land and their honor,” said Suleiman.
  • Israel and Hezbollah in 2006 had delivered a devastating war in Lebanon, killing more than 1,200 dead on the Lebanese side, mostly civilians, and 160 Israelis.
  • About a draft security agreement with the United States criticized by Hezbollah, the Lebanese president said he “would not allow this agreement to harm” Hezbollah. “No one in Lebanon, especially officials and institutions, will permit or want to affect the resistance, “the name given to Hezbollah in Lebanon,” he added.
  • The Secretary General of Hezbollah Hassan Nasrallah last week criticized the draft agreement on the training and equipping of the ISF, saying it contains “dangerous terms”.
  • Mr. Sleiman also assured that his relationship with Syria was “a relationship of trust, friendship, cooperation, coordination and mutual respect” and said to be “in constant contact with President Bashar al-Assad.”
  • He said that the forthcoming visit of prime minister Hariri to Damascus would “lead to positive results.
  • The Lebanese president arrived Tuesday in Doha where he met the Emir of Qatar, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al-Thani.
  • In a speech to the Union of Chambers of Commerce of the Gulf countries, he decried “the continuing Israeli threats against Lebanon, which have intensified recently, which threatens security and stability of the entire region.”
  • Ennaharonline/ M. O.

Post-Soviet Tragedy

Post-Soviet Tragedy

Violence in Kyrgyzstan follows a pattern of misrule and repression in Central Asia

The riots and clashes that have left scores dead in Kyrgyzstan have followed a pattern all too familiar in Central Asia. For months protests have been growing against the authoritarian rule of Kurmanbek Bakiyev, who swept to power in the so-called Tulip Revolution of 2005, but has proved as inept, venal and corrupt as his predecessor. Despite the arrest of three leading opposition figures and the declaration of a state of emergency, the authorities have failed to halt the mounting protests that resulted in the storming of parliament, the burning of government offices and the capture of the television centre. President Bakiyev has, so far, refused to resign.

In the past decade there have been similar [American-engineered] clashes, crackdowns and arrests across most of Central Asia. The five countries that once formed the prosperous and relatively stable Muslim underbelly of the Soviet Union have, since independence, shown an abysmal record of authoritarian rule, economic stagnation, rights abuses and instability. In Uzbekistan, hundreds of people were killed in 2005 when troops fired on those demonstrating against the autocratic rule of President Karimov. Subsequent repression has led to the jailing of dozens of human rights activists, despite sanctions imposed by the European Union.

In Turkmenistan the bizarre and dictatorial rule of the megalomaniac first post-Soviet leader, Saparmurat Niyazov, led to widespread abuses, a sinister cult of personality and a catastrophic fall in educational standards. The small former Soviet republic of Tajikistan suffered prolonged civil war soon after independence. Only Kazakhstan, the largest and richest state, has prospered — but at the expense of democracy and human rights as President Nazarbayev has repressed, exiled or imprisoned almost all his political opponents.

In almost all countries, misrule has fuelled the growth of Islamist extremism and the withering of early hopes for democracy. The fertile Fergana Valley, where a jigsaw of borders drawn up by Stalin criss-crosses the historic Silk Road, has become a breeding ground for Islamist militancy, challenging established governments and threatening to spread the instability of Afghanistan right across the vast Central Asian region.

It is not only Russia that is concerned by the turmoil in its former Asian possessions. America has tried to set up forward bases in the region to supply its operations in Afghanistan. But the US was expelled from Uzbekistan after criticising President Karimov’s record, and the current turmoil in Kyrgyzstan threatens vital Nato supply lines that depend, more and more, on the northern routes into Afghanistan. Ban Ki Moon, the United Nations Secretary-General, has been touring the area and has spoken out, with unusual and commendable candour, criticising the violation of human rights in Turkmenistan and Kyrgyzstan, [Moon added fuel to the fire, by encouraging the public in its demands for immediate improvement in human rights.  If he wanted to help the people here he would lead a UN effort to create an international pipeline consortium that no single nation or group of nations could control.  This would bring the money for development and improvements in the local human condition.] once seen as an island of democracy. On Sunday he visits Uzbekistan, where he will be under pressure to follow up on the sharp criticism of the UN Human Rights Committee two weeks ago.

Central Asia is vast, strategic and potentially very wealthy. The five nations are rich in resources much in demand by China, their neighbour to the East, and by the sub-continent.  [The American great game is to create for itself the power to disrupt fuel supplies to competitors in Asia.] None, however, has understood that to attract outside investment, a minimum of good government, social cohesion and political tolerance is needed. Kyrgyzstan is just the latest example of this post-Soviet tragedy.

Kyrgyzstan at the hub of superpowers’ plans

Manas transit centre

The Manas base in Kyrgyzstan is vital for US troops in Afghanistan
By Nick Childs
BBC World Affairs Correspondent

Reports of violence in the capital of Kyrgyzstan have prompted the US embassy there to express deep concern, and the Russian government to call for restraint.

These reactions help underline the strategic significance of Kyrgyzstan and the region it occupies.

Kyrgyzstan has found itself in the cockpit of what has been dubbed the new “great game” in the region – so-called because the modern big powers jostling for influence there appear reminiscent of the 19th Century contest between the British and Russian empires over access to India.

It has been a scramble for access to energy and other natural resources, trade routes, and more recently Western supply routes for operations in Afghanistan.

Armed men in the capital Bishkek

Gunfire has broken out in the Kyrgyzstan capital Bishkek

For Kyrgyzstan – one of the poorest of the neighbours in this region – the chief international focus has been access for military bases.

The Manas air base has become a key strategic staging post for the US military in Afghanistan – especially after the closure of the so-called K2 base in Uzbekistan .

That itself followed the souring of relations between the US and Uzbek governments in 2005, after the Uzbek authorities cracked down violently on an internal threat posed by Islamic militants.

But the sensitivities have been growing – not least from Moscow, as the US-led operations in Afghanistan, and therefore also Washington’s military interest in the region, have become ever more prolonged.

The Kyrgyz authorities have played Washington off against Moscow.

President Kurmanbek Bakiyev had already been pressing Washington for significant increases in the rental payments for Manas.

But in early 2009, on the back of a Russian promise of a huge aid package, he announced that the base would close.

President Kurmanbek Bakiyev

President Bakiyev asked for rent increases for the Manas base

It took a personal intervention by President Barack Obama to keep the Manas base open to the Americans. Even then it was on a compromise basis, under which Manas was to be described as a “transit centre”.

But the bumpy nature of relationships in the region has helped fuel a debate over how much commitment the West – and especially the US – should have in the region in the long term, particularly if operations in Afghanistan eventually tail off.

There are broader Western concerns about stability, governance, access to energy, and worries about the spread of Islamic militancy there.

But how these should be translated into long-term policy, against the background of Russian, Chinese and other local sensitivities, is very much open to question.

National Endowment for Democracy–Overt Arm of the CIA

[The following, by a former RAW chieftain, is a daring assessment of America's foreign policy of fomenting democratic-revolution, or outright terrorism by the NED, Reagan's privatized CIA.  It is brutally honest about the repercussions for India for supporting such a policy in Asia, without condemning the criminal American policies that are discussed.  This position of the author is predicated on the prevailing wisdom in India that the American side will be victorious in its grand game.  My own assessment is in RED, embedded within Mr. Raman's work.--Peter C.]

National Endowment for Democracy of US

March 2006

By B.Raman
The post-Watergate enquiries into the activities of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) of the US exposed details of its covert political activities in other countries in order to promote US foreign policy objectives. Amongst such activities were the secret funding of individuals, political parties and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) favourable to US interests and funneling of money to counter the activities of those considered anti-US.After taking over as the President in January, 1977, Mr.Jimmy Carter banned such activities and imposed strict limits on the CIA’s covert operations in foreign countries. During the election campaign of 1980, Mr.Ronald Reagan used effectively against Mr.Carter the argument that the post-Vietnam and post-Watergate decline of the US under Mr.Carter was due to the emasculation of its military and intelligence apparatus.  [The real reason for the American decline was the period of national shame we had entered into, for what we had sent our sons to Vietnam to do, and what we, as a people, had become in the process.  The falsehoods at the base of every Reagan Doctrine, both economic and military, created the national delusion that we had not become monsters in our lust to kill and dominate the world.  The national Republican delusion must be brought to an end, by clarifying the moral focus of what monsters we have become, by highlighting our monstrous crimes against humanity that take place everyday, all over the world.]

After his election in November, 1980, and before his taking-over as the President in January, 1981, Mr.Reagan appointed a transition group headed by the late William Casey, an attorney and one of his campaign managers, who was to later take over as the CIA Director, to recommend measures for strengthening the USA’s intelligence capability abroad.  [Mr. Raman tends to hide the worst truths about the lone superpower, in this case, covering-up Casey's purloining of Jimmie Carter's debate preparation book, as well as his helping George Bush pull-off the October Surprise and the deal to hold the Iranian hostages until after Carter left office.  Wm. Casey was an amoral monster who created the menace of international "Islamic" terrorism and set it loose upon the world, in a concerted plan to gain total American world dominion.  That plan (later dubbed by others, the New American Century) included future false flag "Pearl Harbor type attacks to shock the American people into accepting the final steps into a militarized  garrison state as the ultimate price tag for totally dominating the world by seizing control over limited energy reserves.  The United States has been on the course to total world war set by Mr. Casey and all his collaborators in the greatest crime wave that the world has ever seen.]

One of its recommendations was to revive covert political activities. Since there might have been opposition from the Congress and public opinion to this task being re-entrusted to the CIA, it suggested that this be given to an NGO with no ostensible links with the CIA.  [Right here is the point in the narrative of an insane Republican foreign policy, where the Constitution was subverted, international law was thrown out the window, and the American anti-Communist right wing created a private CIA, beyond the control and oversight of the American people.  With the help of America's foreign partners in previous CIA crimes (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, France, Israel and others), an international organization was begun, that worked through the subversive NED, dedicated to helping Reagan's CIA bypass the American Congress and Constitution.  The new multinational entity, called the "Safari Club" was a secret funding and recruitment effort for illegal foreign wars.  The international "Islamic" army organized by it, was known as bin Laden's "International Islamic Front,"  Arabic elements of this group later became known as "al Qaida."]

The matter was further examined in 1981-82 by the American Political Foundation’s Democracy Programme Study and Research Group and, finally, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) was born under a Congressional enactment of 1983 as a “non-profit, non-governmental, bipartisan, grant-making organisation to help strengthen democratic institutions around the world.”

Though it is projected as an NGO, it is actually a quasi-governmental organisation because till 1994 it was run exclusively from funds voted by the Congress (average of about US $ 16 million per annum in the 1980s and now about US $ 30 million) as part of the budget of the US Information Agency (USIA). Since 1994, it has been accepting contributions from the private sector too to supplement the congressional appropriations.

Thirty per cent of the budgetary allocations constitute the discretionary fund of the NED to be distributed directly by it to overseas organisations and the balance is distributed through what are called four “core organisations”—the International Republican Institute (IRI), the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI), the Centre for International Private Enterprise (CIPE) and the Free Trade Union Institute (FTUI).

In 1994, the NED set up two other organisations called the International Forum for Democratic Studies (IFDS) and the Democracy Resource Centre (DRC), both largely funded by the private sector.

Since its inception, the NED and its affiliates have been mired in controversy in the US itself as well as abroad. Amongst its strongest supporters in the US is the Heritage Foundation of Washington DC, a conservative think tank, which played an active role in influencing the policies of the Reagan and Bush Administrations.  [The Heritage Foundation is at the center of the American brainwashing campaign/arms venture described in the Iran/Contra reports' "Lost Chapter," entitled Launching the Private Network.”]

It brought out two papers on the justification for the NED, when questions were raised in the US on the continued need for it after the collapse of the communist regimes of East Europe. In the first paper of July 8,1993, (Executive Memorandum No. 360) it described the NED as “an important weapon in the war of ideas” and said:” The NED has played a vital role in providing aid to democratic movements in the former Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, China, Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Nicaragua, Vietnam and elsewhere….. Communist dictatorships still control China, Cuba, North Korea and Vietnam. Moreover, ex-communists masquerading as nationalists continue to dominate several of the Soviet successor states. The NED can play an important role in assisting those countries in making the turbulent transition to democracy….. Local political activists often prefer receiving assistance from a non-governmental source, as aid from a US government agency may undermine their credibility in the eyes of their countrymen.”

In the second paper of September 13, 1996, (Executive Memorandum No.461), it said:”The NED advances American national interests by promoting the development of stable democracies friendly to the US in strategically important parts of the world. The US cannot afford to discard such an effective instrument of foreign policy at a time when American interests and values are under sustained ideological attack from a wide variety of anti-democratic forces around the world…The NED has aided Lech Walesa’s Solidarity movement in Poland, Harry Wu’s human rights efforts in China and independent media outlets in former Yugoslavia. Russian political activists affiliated with the NED also played a major role in President Boris Yeltsin’s re-election campaign against the reinvigorated Communist Party earlier this year…. The NED is a cost-effective way to encourage captive nations to liberate themselves without committing the US to a prohibitively risky and costly military crusade to free them from communism.”

Testifying before the Sub-committee on International Operations and Human Rights of the Committee on International Relations of the House of Representatives on March 13,1997, Mr.Carl Gershman, President of the NED, said: ” I just want to say that the Endowment’s work is based upon a very, very simple proposition. And that is, where there are people who share our values, where there are people who might be called the natural friends of America, then it is our obligation to help those people in some way.”

Amongst the critics of the NED are Ms. Barbara Conry, a foreign policy analyst at the Cato Institute of Washington D.C. and Mr. Ralph McGehee, stated to be a former CIA official.

In a paper of November 8,1993(Foreign Policy Briefing No.27), Ms.Conry said: “NED is resented (abroad) as American interference; it is often further resented because it attempts to deceive foreigners into viewing its programmes as private assistance…. On a number of occasions, NED has taken advantage of its alleged private status to influence foreign elections, an activity that is beyond the scope of AID (Agency For International Development) or USIA and would otherwise be possible only through a CIA covert operation….. What finally drew public attention to NED’s meddling in foreign elections was an aborted attempt to provide opposition candidate Violeta Chamorro with $ 3 million in funding for her 1989 election campaign against Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega. The plan was abandoned after it was determined that NED’s charter, which expressly forbids campaign contributions, would be violated. In the end, the money was channeled to programmes that aided Chamorro indirectly rather than through direct campaign contributions.”

In a statement of January 19,1996, Mr.McGehee described the post-1991 activities of the NED as “political action operations targeting China and Cuba.” Another NGO of the US has said: ” NED engages in much of the same kinds of interference in the internal affairs of foreign countries, which were the hallmark of the CIA. The NED has financed, advised and supported in many ways selected political parties, election campaigns, unions, student groups, book publishers, newspapers, other media, even guerillas in Afghanistan and, in general, organisations and individuals which mesh well with the gears of the globalised-economy machine…. Allen Weinstein, who helped draft the legislation establishing NED, and also founded the Centre for Democracy, one of NED’s funding middlemen, was quite candid when he said in 1991: “A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA.” The NED, like the CIA before it, calls what it does supporting democracy. The governments and movements whom the NED targets call it destabilisation.”

Initially, the NED’s activities were directed mainly against the communist regimes of East Europe, but, subsequently, it started combating the communist parties in multi-party democracies of West Europe too. In the 1980s, when the late Francois Mitterrand was the French President, an NED report showed an expenditure of US $ 1.5 million “to promote democracy in France.”

There was an uproar in France when the French press discovered that part of this amount had been given by the NED, through the FTUI, to the National Inter-University Union of France, allegedly a right-extremist and xenophobic organisation, in an attempt to use it to defeat communist candidates in the elections to the National Assembly. Embarrassed by the controversy, the Reagan Administration dissociated itself from the NED activities in France.

After the collapse of the communist regimes of East Europe, the NED has been focussing its activities against the communist regimes of Cuba, Vietnam, China and North Korea and the Myanmarese military regime and against the resurgence of the communist parties in East Europe due to the economic difficulties there.

Its activities relating to China are of two kinds: Those, which are legitimate in the Chinese perception such as training of local village officials in the holding of elections, training of local business executives in better management practices, advice on the drafting of economic reform legislation etc and those, which are legitimate in the US perception, but interference in internal affairs in the Chinese view, such as support to political dissidents, human rights activists and Tibetan exiles and projection of Taiwan as a democratic model worthy of emulation.

The first type of activities is carried out by workers of organisations affiliated to the NED, either based in China or visiting the country and the second by off-shore offices of the NED, which were located in Hong Kong before its reversion to China in June, 1997, and which were thereafter reportedly shifted to Australia since the ASEAN countries would not host them. Finding Australia not a convenient place, the NED has reportedly been eyeing India as a possible base for its activities directed against China.

Beijing has reasons to be concerned over what it considers as the illegitimate activities of the NED. Of the 28 NGOs of Asia funded by the NED, 14 focus on China, four of them of Tibetan exiles, five on Myanmar, two on Cambodia, and one each on Vietnam and North Korea and the remaining five on the Asia-Pacific region as a whole.

In his testimony of March 13,1997, before the House Sub-committee on International Operations and Human Rights, Mr.Gershman said:” There has been a doubling of resources spent in Asia (primarily China, Burma and Cambodia) and a tripling of resources for the Middle East. There were also dramatic increases in Central Asia and the former Yugoslavia…While the discretionary programmes and those of our affiliated labour institute support the activities of various pro-democracy networks, among them Human Rights in China, the China Strategic Institute, the Laogai Research Foundation, and the Hong Kong based activities of labour activist Han Dongfang, IRI and CIPE have targeted opportunities created by the official reform policy in the areas of local elections and economic modernisation.Additional grants support the democracy movements in Hong Kong and Tibet and,through the International Forum, we have highlighted the role of Taiwan as an Asian model of successful democratisation.”

The trans-border activities of the NED against the Myanmarese military regime seem to be directed mainly from Thailand and India. This is evident from a testimony given by Ms.Louisa Coan, NED’s Programme Officer for Asia, before the House Sub-committee on Asia and the Pacific on September 17,1997.

She said: “NED has been able through its direct grants programme to support the dissidents, to support the democracy movement of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, particularly through assistance to the groups along the borders in Thailand and in India, including twice daily radio programming through the Democratic Voice of Burma (author’s comment: based in Scandinavia), newsletters, underground newspaper, underground labour organising, particular programmes to foster inter-ethnic co-operation and unity among the opposition forces in support of Aung San Suu Kyi’s call for tripartite dialogue and national reconciliation.”

It is not known whether New Delhi was aware of the India-based activities of the NED against the Yangon regime.

Before the recent visit of the US President, Mr.Bill Clinton, to India, the NED headquarters in Washington issued the following press release: “Secretary of State Madeleine Albright announced on Tuesday March 14 that the US and India will launch a joint non-governmental initiative called the Asian Centre for Democratic Governance during President Clinton’s upcoming trip to South Asia.

“Jointly organised by the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) and the NED, the Centre will be based at CII’s offices in New Delhi, The Bureau of Parliamentary Studies and Training, an affiliate of the Indian Parliament, will partner with the CII in implementing the activities of the Centre.”

The press release said the expenditure on the initiative would be shared by the CII and the NED.

It is an interesting case of an important member of the Clinton Cabinet, announcing on behalf of a self-proclaimed NGO of the US funded by the Congress, a non-governmental initiative in collaboration with a non-governmental Indian business organisation with which an office of the Indian Parliament would also be associated.

This launching was duly done at New Delhi.

There are three likely implications of this unusual venture:

  • Possibility of misunderstanding with China which might interpret it as directed against it and its presence in Tibet.
  • Impropriety in co-operating with an American organisation working against the present Government at Yangon, which has normal diplomatic relations with New Delhi and has been co-operating in counter-insurgency measures in the North-East.
  • The presence in Indian territory, with official blessing, of an organisation, which aims to wipe out communism as a political and ideological movement all over the world and which might utilise its presence to undermine the Indian communist movement. NED has never criticised the Indian Communist parties, but a reading of the past statements of those in the US supporting the NED would indicate that they hold communism and democracy as incompatible.  [Mr. Raman's honesty in appraising the dangers to India from cooperating with the American destabilization program, without describing it as criminal actions in the extreme, is an act of well-intentioned cowardice.  Terrorism and overthrowing foreign governments who have no disagreements with the United States other than resistance to domination are war crimes, considering that the intended purpose of all these intrigues is world war III, the military's "generational war," which we engineered.]

The US has also announced the association of India as co-sponsor with a forthcoming conference of “communities of democracies ” in Poland being funded by the Stefan Batory Foundation of Poland, set up by George Soros in 1998, to counter the resurgence of communism in East Europe, and the Freedom House of the US.

The Freedom House was founded in the 1940s “to strengthen free institutions at home and abroad”. It played an active role in carrying on a psychological warfare (psywar) against the troops of the USSR and the late President Najibullah in Afghanistan during the 1980s through the Afghanistan Information Centre set up by it, allegedly with CIA funds. The offices of this centre at Peshawar in Pakistan trained the Afghan Mujahideen groups and Pakistani organisations such as the Harkat-ul-Mujahideen (formerly known as the Harkat-ul-Ansar) and the Lashkar-e-Taiba, presently active in Kashmir, in techniques of media management and psywar.  [Freedom House is the instrument for all the colored revolutions in Central Asia.  The MAK office in Peshawar was bin Laden's supply and recruitment headquarters.  The following was the address for bin Laden's MAK office:   MAKHTAB AL-KHIDAMAT/AL KIFAH, House no. 125, Street 54, Phase II, Hayatabad, Peshawar, Pakistan]

Since 1983, part of the funds voted by the Congress to the NED are funneled to the Freedom House, which also gets contributions from the private sector. The Freedom House focuses its activities on media and communications and, according to a 1990 study by the Interhemispherique Resource Centre of the US, more than 400 journalists in 55 countries were collaborating with the Freedom House in its activities against communist parties and regimes.

Before going ahead with these projects, there is an urgent need for an examination of the implications of our collaboration with such organisations from the point of view of our national security and political stability.

Kyrgyz opposition says it has taken power–Over 100 Dead

[We will know whether the leaders of the second Tulip revolution are more Western puppets, or real social democrats, if we see this turn into a new opportunity for American military moves into Kyrgyzstan.  If they are of the people and not of the evil empire then the new anti-terrorism Scorpion Battalion training agreement recently signed with the US will be cancelled.  It won't take long to find out, the United States is on life-support now.  Obama must find a new home in Central Asia for those troops allegedly leaving Afghanistan.   SEE: Obama’s Tulip Revolution Replay]

Kyrgyz opposition says it has taken power

Olga Dzyubenko and Maria Golovnina
BISHKEK

Main Image
Main Image
Main Image
Main Image
Main Image
Main Image
Main Image
Main Image
Main Image
Main Image
Main Image
Main Image
Main Image
Main Image
Main Image
Main Image
Main Image
Main Image
Main Image
Main Image
Main Image
Main Image
Main Image
Main Image
Main Image

Kyrgyz Prime Minister Daniyar Usenov talks to the media in the capital Bishkek, April 6, 2010. REUTERS\/Vladimir Pirogov”}

BISHKEK (Reuters) – The Kyrgyz opposition said on Wednesday it had forced the Central Asian country’s government to resign after troops shot at protesters besieging government buildings, killing dozens.

“We have reached an agreement that the government will resign. That has not been signed on paper yet,” Galina Skripkina, a senior official in the opposition Social-Democratic Party and member of parliament, told Reuters.

President Kurmanbek Bakiyev had flown to the southern city of Osh. “Bakiyev has taken a plane from Bishkek to Osh and he has already landed there,” she said.

“The opposition is in full control of power,” an opposition leader, Roza Otunbayeva, said, Russian news agency RIA reported earlier.

The announcement followed a day of violent clashes in Bishkek and other towns. Spokesmen for the government and the president were not available for comment.

Another opposition leader, Temir Sariyev, said the opposition had entered the government building in central Bishkek and Kyrgyz Prime Minister Daniyar Usenov had written a resignation statement, RIA reported.

“Bakiyev has left the White House … He is no longer in Bishkek,” said Sariyev, who was arrested on his arrival on a flight from Moscow on Wednesday, but later freed by the protest.

Bakiyev himself came to power after 2005 protests which ousted Kyrgyzstan’s first post-Soviet President Askar Akayev. Both men were accused by their opponents of concentrating power in the hands of their associates.

Political unrest over poverty, rising prices and corruption has gripped Kyrgyzstan since early March. About a third of the population live below the poverty line and remittances from workers in Russia have fallen during the global economic crisis.

The opposition said at least 100 people had been killed on Wednesday in clashes that have spread since last month across the ex-Soviet Central Asian country that hosts a U.S. military air base supporting troops in Afghanistan, and a Russian base.

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin earlier denied Russia — a major donor to Kyrgyzstan along with Washington and neighboring China — had played a hand in the clashes.

“Neither Russia, nor your humble servant, nor Russian officials have any links whatsoever to these events,” Putin was quoted as saying by RIA news agency.

SHOOTING

Kyrgyz troops earlier shot at thousands of anti-government protesters who tried to smash two trucks through the perimeter fence of government buildings, a Reuters reporter said.

Around 1,000 people stormed the prosecutor-general’s office before setting fire to the building. Opposition activists also took control of state television channel KTR.

“There are dozens of dead bodies, all with gunshot wounds,” Akylbek Yeukebayev, a doctor at a Bishkek hospital told Reuters.

Many of the injured had gunshot wounds to their heads. “They are killing us,” said one wounded man on the emergency ward.

“About 100 people were killed today, possibly more. What kind of negotiations with the government can we talk about when they are killing our people?,” prominent opposition and human rights campaigner Toktoaim Umetaliyeza told Reuters.

The Kyrgyz Health Ministry said the official death toll in Bishkek was 40, with around 400 injured across the country.

Protesters seized government buildings in three other towns. In Talas, Kyrgyz First Deputy Prime Minister Aklybek Japarov and Interior Minister Moldomusa Kongantiyev were beaten. Kongantiyev was forced to shout: “Down with Bakiyev!,” two witnesses said.

Kyrgyz Prime Minister Daniyar Usenov earlier told Reuters by phone that he and the president were working in their offices.

“We daren’t even look out of the window,” Kamil Sydykov, the prime minister’s spokesman, said by telephone from inside the presidential building.

European security watchdog, the Organization for Security Cooperation in Europe, chaired by neighboring Kazakhstan, called for calm and offered to broker any negotiations.

“The OSCE recognizes that there are political, economic and social issues underlying the unrest, which need to be addressed through broad political dialogue. The Organization stands ready to facilitate such a dialogue,” Kazakh Foreign Minister Kanat Saudabayev told Kyrgyz counterpart Kadyrbek Sarbayev by telephone.

Analysts said the violence was likely to continue.

“Given (Bakiyev’s) resolve in recent years to concentrate power in his hands only, it is difficult to see how a political compromise may be found,” Lilit Gevorgyan, political analyst at IHS Global Insight.

Smoke from burning buildings and makeshift bonfires billowed around the capital of the ex-Soviet state of 5.3 million people.

Around 5,000 people were in the center of Bishkek, some carrying rifles and holding red-and-yellow Kyrgyz flags, beyond a curfew which came into effect at 8 p.m. (1400 GMT). Some shops and restaurants in the main square were looted.

The protests spread to the capital after riots which began in Talas and Naryn the day before and continued into Wednesday.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon visited Bishkek last week and called on the government to do more to protect human rights.

“The secretary-general is shocked by the reported deaths and injuries that have occurred today in Kyrgyzstan. He urgently appeals for dialogue and calm to avoid further bloodshed,” Ban’s spokesman, Martin Nesirky, said on Wednesday.

(Additional reporting by Alexander Reshetnikov in Bishkek; Guy Faulconbridge; Amie Ferris-Rotman and Conor Sweeney in Moscow; Sylvia Westall in Vienna; Writing by Robin Paxton and Alison Williams; Editing by Philippa Fletcher)