just commentary may 2014
DESCRIPTION
ÂTRANSCRIPT
Vol 14, No.05 May 2014
Turn to next page
ARTICLES
STATEMENTS
UNITED STATES : A PACIFIC POWER?By Nile Bowie
. ITS NOT RUSSIA THAT PUSHED UKRAINE TO THE
BRINK OF WAR
BY SEUMAS MILNE.............................................P 6
As Washington pursues its rebalancing
strategy, Obama’s historic four-nation tour
of the Asia-Pacific has subtly altered the
region’s security dynamics.
“The United States is a Pacific power, and
we are here to stay,” declared President
Obama during his speech to the Australian
parliament in 2011, following his
announcement to deploy 2,500 marines to
northern Australia to help protect American
interests across Asia.
As Washington remains embroiled in
domestic economic issues and conflicts
throughout the Middle East and elsewhere,
the Obama administration has come under
great scrutiny for not living up to the promise
of rebalancing to the Asia-Pacific, the
world’s most economically dynamic region.
The US president’s recent trip to the region
was the most significant and tangible
development to occur since the rebalancing
policy was unveiled.
Obama’s trip had two primary dimensions:
deepening the role of the US military
throughout the Asia-Pacific, and shoring up
support for the faltering Trans-Pacific
Partnership (TPP) agreement, an all-
encompassing trade deal led by
Washington that would embolden
transnational corporate power at great
public expense.
As the Obama administration moves
ahead on plans to relocate some 60
percent of its navy into the region,
Washington’s current Asia doctrine is
grounded in the notion that no other
power can be allowed to reach parity with
the United States. Washington’s strategy
to pivot toward the Asia-Pacific is
adorned with the language of pragmatism
and neutrality, and despite repeated
denials, the Obama administration’s
actions are quite transparently aimed at
capping the influence of a rapidly
developing China.
Washington has inserted itself into
complicated, long-standing historical and
territorial disputes under the guise of
neutrality, which risks potentially setting
the stage for an irreparable strategic
blunder: antagonizing two major world
powers simultaneously at a time when
relations between the US and Russia are
already deteriorating over the crisis in
Ukraine.
President Obama’s milestone four-nation
tour of the Asia-Pacific may have laid the
foundations for the region’s local territorial
disputes to grow into an increasing tense
superpower stand-off.
Japan refuses to yield on trade
The US president’s visit to Japan comes at
a time when the right-leaning administration
of Shinzo Abe has taken controversial
positions on historical and territorial issues
that have inflamed relations with China and
South Korea, which view the incumbent
Japanese government as being openly
unrepentant for past atrocities.
The White House previously expressed
reservations toward Abe’s calls to consider
revising official apologies over Japan’s
wartime conduct, and his controversial visit
to the Yasukuni shrine that honors Japan’s
.VIOLENCE AND THE STRUGGLE FOR POWER IN EGYPT BY CHANDRA MUZAFFAR......................P4
. THE RED LINE AND THE RAT LINE (PART 2)
BY SEYMOUR M. HERSH.......................................P 7
. ISRAEL’S DIRTY ROLE IN THE SYRIAN CRISIS
BY KOUROSH ZIABRI.........................................P 10
.OBAMA’S KILLING FIELDS IN YEMEN
BY NILE BOWIE....................................................P 11
.ATMOSPHERIC CARBON DIOXCIDE LEVELS ARE THE
HIGHEST IN 3 MILLION YEARS
BY COUNTERCURRENTS...........................................P 15
. CORRUPT TO THE CORE: THE FIRE POWER OF THE
FINANCIAL SECTOR
BY COLIN TODHUNTER.......................................P 14
I N T E R N A T I O N A L M O V E M E N T F O R A J U S T W O R L D
2
continued next page
S T A T E M E N T S
WWII war dead, including over a dozen
convicted Class-A war criminals. Abe made
a ritual offering to the Yasukuni Shrine shortly
before Obama’s arrival in Tokyo, followed
by 146 Japanese lawmakers who visited
the shrine en masse one day later, putting
the US president in an awkward situation.
These provocative gestures did little to derail
Obama’s support for Japan’s position in its
tense territorial dispute with China over a
chain of uninhabited islands in the East China
Sea. In an interview with Japan’s Yomiuri
Shimbun newspaper, Obama affirmed that
the disputed islands fell within the scope of
Article 5 of the US-Japan Treaty of Mutual
Cooperation and Security, meaning that
Washington would be obliged to back Japan
in the event of a military confrontation over
the islands with Beijing, which views the
islands as an integral part of its territory.
Obama also enthusiastically pledged support
for Abe’s moves to amend Japan’s post-
war pacifist constitution, which has
traditionally limited Japan’s armed forces
from going beyond a self-defense role.
In the interest of expanding the US-Japan
alliance to counter the growing clout of
China, the US president has given Japanese
rightists a green light to pursue militarization
policies that will undoubtedly fuel regional
antagonism. Rather than taking a neutral
position and steering Tokyo toward a de-
escalation with Beijing, Obama has
effectively sent Abe the message that he
can challenge China’s bottom line without
serious repercussions, encouraging Japan
to continue its inflexible position. Obama
may have hoped that in exchange for
backing Japan’s stance on territorial
disputes and constitutional reform, Abe
would have reciprocated by yielding on
thorny trade issues, but he was wrong.
Obama allegedly put his chopsticks down
halfway through his informal sushi dinner
with Abe and jumped straight into
discussions about trade. The White House
is anxious to seal the TPP trade deal, but is
unwilling to give significant concessions,
forcing all countries to meet rigid criteria.
Abe risks losing support from his
conservative voter base by reducing tariffs
on areas such as rice, sugar, beef, pork
and dairy that would adversely affect
Japanese farmers. Obama was expecting
to come to a final agreement with Abe, but
trade negotiators claim that there is still
“considerable distance” between the US and
Japan on key issues in the deal.
Trade talks are not expected to recommence
anytime soon, and Obama was forced to
reject suggestions that the deal is in danger
over his failure to persuade Abe into making
painful concessions.
Dialogue with Pyongyang ruled out?
Obama’s trip to South Korea came as the
country was still reeling from the tragic
sinking of the Sewol ferry, which killed
scores of youngsters. Security topped the
agenda as reports of increased activity at
North Korea’s Punggye-ri nuclear test site
wrought condemnation from Seoul.
President Park Geun-hye adopted a hardline
stance, calling for the rejection of dialogue
with Pyongyang over the nuclear issue if
the North conducts a fourth nuclear test as
expected.
Pyongyang proposed a framework for
better relations with the South at the start
of this year and urged its willingness to
meet for negotiations on the nuclear issue
without any preconditions. The attempted
thaw in relations culminated in reunions of
separated families in February, amid
Pyongyang’s calls for Seoul to cancel its
planned joint military drills with the US.
Given the circumstances, South Korean
authorities could have toned down this
year’s drills as a gesture of reciprocity
following Pyongyang’s moves to host
family reunions. Seoul’s response was to
hold the largest amphibian landing exercise
with the US in over two decades, followed
by large-scale war exercises. The lack of
sincere measures to cool ties with
Pyongyang is evident in the actions of Seoul
and Washington, who are quick to accuse
the North of provocations while flexing
military muscles on its doorstep, ratcheting
up anxiety and insecurity.
Park and the Obama administration refuse
to open dialogue with Pyongyang unless it
agrees to denuclearization as a precondition,
despite pressure from China that
preconditions be relaxed to allow the
recommencement of the Six-Party talks.
During a joint press conference, Park
announced that plans to transfer operational
command of South Korea’s military in time
of war, or OPCON, from the US to South
Korea would be further delayed, giving the
Pentagon de-facto control over South
Korea’s military forces beyond December
2015.
Washington has also encouraged Seoul to
strengthen missile defense cooperation –
which Park agreed to do – while deepening
trilateral cooperation between the US, Japan,
and South Korea. During his trip, Obama
called for more sanctions against North
Korea and spoke of America’s capacity for
military might, creating every indication that
Washington’s antagonistic ‘strategic
patience’ policy against Pyongyang will
remain unchanged.
Malaysia’s delicate balancing act
Western media have billed Obama’s trip to
Malaysia – the first visit by a US president
continued from page 1
I N T E R N A T I O N A L M O V E M E N T F O R A J U S T W O R L D
continued from page 2
S T A T E M E N T
continued next page
3
in nearly five decades – as being quite
successful. Malaysia was the only Muslim-
majority country on the president’s four-
nation tour, and the only country not to have
an existing security treaty with the United
States.
Washington and Kuala Lumpur have always
enjoyed strong trade relations, but political
relations were known to be tense during
the 22-year tenure of former PM Mahathir
Mohamad, who took strong positions
against US foreign policy. Prime Minister
Najib Razak, a British-educated economist
who assumed office in 2009 as a reformer,
has been much friendlier to the US.
The New York Times described Malaysian
leadership’s change of attitude as an
evolution from “deep suspicion, verging on
contempt, to a cautious desire for
cooperation.” Suspicious attitudes toward
the US are still commonplace among certain
factions within the ruling party and the
conservative religious establishment.
Several far-right Malay rights groups share
the same misgivings, lashing out at Obama
following statements he made on racial
equality in the country.
Trade and security topped the agenda during
Obama’s visit, and although progress was
made in both areas, it’s likely that the US
delegation was hoping for a firmer stance
on issues such as territorial disputes in the
South China Sea. Malaysia is China’s largest
trading partner within the ASEAN bloc, and
of all the countries in the region who have
territorial disputes with Beijing, the approach
taken by Kuala Lumpur has been the most
low-key and non-adversarial. Sino-
Malaysian ties were upgraded to a
‘comprehensive strategic partnership’ level
during Chinese President Xi Jinping’s visit
to Kuala Lumpur in October 2013, while
Najib and Obama agreed to upgrade ties to
a ‘comprehensive partnership’ at a joint
news conference following their talks on
27 April 2014.
In the joint statement prepared by the two
sides, Najib called for the full
implementation of the Declaration on the
Conduct of Parties regarding the South
China Sea disputes, which Chinese state-
media welcomed, saying that Malaysia
showed a balanced attitude to avoid
confrontation with China.
In an interview with Malaysian newspaper
The Star, Obama alluded to his
administration’s commitment to ensuring
the “freedom of navigation in critical
waterways,” which can be understood as
a euphemism for policing the Straits of
Malacca, one of China’s most critical supply
routes responsible for transporting much
of the oil and raw materials needed by Beijing
to maintain high economic growth.
Malaysia allows American warships to dock
at ports throughout the country, but does
not host any US military bases, and does
not seek a hostile relationship with Beijing.
It is unclear how deep Malaysia’s
commitment to security cooperation with
the US will go, although the Obama
administration has pledged to assist in the
development of Malaysia’s maritime
enforcement capacity, setting the stage for
deeper military-to-military cooperation. In
the economic sphere, there were no
breakthroughs on the TPP trade deal, with
both sides admitting that significant
differences still remain.
Najib, however, made clear that the overall
benefits of the TPP would far outweigh
the disadvantages of the pact; he mentioned
his commitment to getting acceptance from
Malaysian people, but offered no specifics
on how public acceptance of the trade deal
would be measured. Mahathir, who still
exerts a degree of influence on
traditionalists within the ruling party,
commented that Malaysia should not
be pressured to agree to the terms
stipulated by the TPP. The former PM
has routinely called for the trade deal to
be dropped, and a large segment of
Malaysian civil society and activists are
also opposed to the deal.
As a country that has put much
emphasis on a non-confrontational
foreign policy, Malaysia is well suited
to leverage its good ties with
Washington and Beijing to promote a
conciliatory solution to territorial issues.
Malaysia finds itself somewhere
between being a warm friend to the
Obama administration but not yet a
staunch US ally with deep security ties.
Philippines signs 10-year defense
agreement
To coincide with the last stop of his
four-nation tour, Washington and Manila
inked a controversial defense agreement
to allow greater numbers of US soldiers
to remain in the country on a rotational
basis.
The reopening of foreign bases is
prohibited by the 1987 Constitution, but
the latest defense pact – negotiated largely
in secret, and fast-tracked into law
under the auspices of an executive
agreement without ratification by the
Philippine Congress – gives the US
government de facto basing access in
the country.
The US maintained large military bases
in northern regions of the Philippines
until the Philippines congress voted to
close them down in 1991, but American
forces were allowed to return in 1999
under a temporary stay agreement that
saw US troops conduct joint training
with the Philippines military. The new
agreement is far broader, allowing the
I N T E R N A T I O N A L M O V E M E N T F O R A J U S T W O R L D
4 . “R
C
BS T A T E M E N T
VIOLENCE AND THE SRUGGLE FOR POWER IN EGYPT
US military to establish permanent
facilities within Philippine military
facilities, also paving the way for
American military technology to be sold
to the Philippines.
Philippines President Benigno Aquino’s
rationale for expanding the US presence
in his country is to provide the Philippines
with a powerful deterrent in the midst of
Manila’s bitter territorial row with Beijing,
as both countries lay claim to the
Scarborough Shoal and Second Thomas
Shoal in the potentially oil- and gas-rich
South China Sea. The Philippines and its
neighbors undoubtedly have firm and
legitimate grievances in the interest of
protecting their sovereignty and territorial
integrity.
It should be recognized that the disputed
features falls within the Philippine’s 200-
nautical mile exclusive economic zone as
recognized by the UN Convention on the
Law of the Sea; China has resisted applying
the procedures stipulated by the law to the
many reefs and islands that lie much closer
to the Philippines than to China. Manila has
argued that Beijing has an obligation to
respect the Philippines’ rights to exercise
control over areas that fall within its 200-
nautical mile exclusive economic zone.
China claims that its sovereignty over the
disputed areas can be supported by
abundant historical and legal evidence,
which also support Beijing’s maritime rights
over three-quarters of the South China Sea.
Beijing has consistently called for settling
territorial issues through direct bilateral
negotiations. Earlier this year, it offered the
Philippines mutual disengagement from the
contested area, trade and investment
benefits, and postponement of the plans to
declare an air defense identification zone
over the South China Sea. The Philippines
leadership rejected the proposal, and
unilaterally filed a case with the tribunal that
arbitrates maritime disputes under the UN
Convention on the Law of the Sea.
China has resolved territorial disputes with
12 of the 14 countries with which it shares
land borders, and the immense complexities
of these maritime territorial disputes require
levelheaded dialogue and a commitment to
negotiations by both sides.
The Philippines leadership may have
legitimate grievances, but is clearly not
committed to seeking a resolution through
dialogue, resorting to hyperbolic name-
calling. In an interview with the New York
Times, Aquino compared China to Nazi
Germany, causing immense harm to bilateral
relations with Beijing.
Much like the Obama administration’s
position on Japan’s territorial disputes, there
is now a concern that backing by the US
military can encourage Manila to take a
provocative and reckless stance.
Washington has entered the regional fold
claiming to be a neutral party and mediating
force, yet it supports the territorial claims
of its allies and uses them as a justification
to maximize its own interests, transforming
a regional dispute into a potential super-
power conflict, reducing the possibility for
any peaceful settlement.
The recent security developments will
deepen Manila’s historic dependency on the
United States, reinforcing its colonial
subordination to the strategic, military and
regional priorities of American hegemony.
29 April 2014
Nile Bowie is a political analyst and
photographer currently residing in Kuala
Lumpur, Malaysia. He is also a Research
Associate With JUST.
Source: RT.com
STATEMENT
There is no sign to show that politicalviolence in Egypt is abating.
Political violence has become evenmore pronounced since the ouster ofthe democratically elected President,Dr Mohamed Morsi, on the 3rd ofJuly 2013. The ouster is in fact oneof the primary causes for theincreased violence. They are inter-linked for two reasons. Thesuppression of Morsi’s movement,
the Ikhwanul-Muslimin, by themilitary backed interim governmenthas been violent. Peaceful protestcamps were crushed in a deadlyoperation on 14 August 2013. Atleast a thousand people were killedin a week of violence. Thousands ofIkhwan members were arrested,including its spiritual leader,Mohamed Badie. The Ikhwan wasdeclared a “terrorist” group inDecember 2013. On 25 March
2014, 529 people, many of themconnected to the Ikhwan, weresentenced to death by a court forrioting and killing a policeman. It wasa decision whose brutal severityshocked the world.
The suppression has continued withthe enactment of a new law againstterrorism which provides for the deathpenalty for anyone committing“terrorist acts” or establishing or
I N T E R N A T I O N A L M O V E M E N T F O R A J U S T W O R L D
5
continued next page
A R T I C L E S
joining a “terrorist organisation.” Thelaw announced by the government onthe 3rd of April 2014 also increasesthe number of judicial districtsdedicated to handling terrorism-related trials, to ensure “speedytrials.” It was a response to bombexplosions that killed two persons,including a Police Brigadier-General,in the vicinity of Cairo University.
This brings us to the second reasonfor the escalation of violence in Egyptin recent months. As we have seen,Ikhwan members and supportershave been reacting to the suppressionof their movement through their ownacts of violence. Security personnelhave been their targets which explainsthe large number of policemen killedin the course of the last nine months.For the Ikhwan, violence is not justreactive or defensive. Since 1943, ithas engaged in paramilitary activities.In 1948, an Ikhwan memberallegedly murdered an AppellateJudge for passing a harsh sentenceagainst a colleague. In the same year,the then Prime Minister of Egypt waskilled by an Ikhwan member. On 26October 1954, Ikhwan attempted toassassinate the Egyptian leader,Gamal Abdel Nasser.
There are other groups whichperceive themselves as Islamic thathave also sought to pursue theirpolitical agenda through violence. InEgypt’s Senai Peninsula, the AnsarBait al-Maqdis is the source of someof the violent activities we havewitnessed there for a few years now.The Al-Furqan Brigades are activethroughout Egypt.
Violence on the part of both thegovernment and the Ikhwan and
other groups is related to a muchbigger battle which has marred andmired Egyptian politics for decades.It is the struggle for power betweenthe military, on the one hand, andIslamic forces, on the other,particularly the Ikhwan, which hasexpressed itself in one form oranother since the Free Officers revoltof 1952. Even before 1952, duringthe period of the monarchy, theIkhwan was already challenging statepower.
This tussle for power will go on andcontinue to impact negatively uponthe lives of ordinary people. Electionswill not resolve this conflict as provenby the post-Mubarak situation. Inspite of Presidential andParliamentary elections whichindicated the people’s preference forIslamic parties, the military and itsallies have sought to perpetuate theirpower through subterfuge andmanipulation. The unjust overthrowof Morsi was the culmination of thisprocess. After the overthrow and theconsolidation of its power, themilitary has, as we have noted, usedand abused its authority toemasculate and decimate theIkhwan. The new constitutionendorsed in a questionablereferendum on the 14th and 15th ofJanuary 2014 will further ensure thatthe power of the military isentrenched and extended beyond thepresent. The Presidential Electionscheduled for the 26th and 27th ofMay 2014 will, to all intents andpurposes, provide the imprimatur tothe right of the military to rule Egyptfor a long time to come.
If there is a remedy to this situation,it lies with the people. The people
have demonstrated that they have thewisdom and the maturity to send theright signal to their rulers. It was thepeople, millions of them, who throughsustained, peaceful mass action overa few weeks pushed out the dictator,Hosni Mubarak, on the 11th ofFebruary 2011. It was a bold andbrave rejection of authoritarianism,corruption and nepotism. At the sametime, the popular uprising whoseepicentre was Tahrir Square was aplea for justice, freedom, equality, andmost of all, for human dignity. This iswhy the Egyptian people should notacquiesce with the re-assertion ofauthoritarianism, the resurgence ofmilitary power, through theascendancy of General Abdel Fattahal-Sisi. It would be a betrayal of thehopes and aspirations of the millionswho yearn for a new Egypt guidedby the rule of law, rather than themight of men, a new Egypt whichhonours through deeds the poor andpowerless citizen seeking shelter inthe cemeteries of the rich in Cairorather than a state which continues toglorify the pompous and arrogant elitewho aggrandise power and wealth fortheir own ego.
But those who ride the wave of thepeople’s hopes and aspirations shouldalso ensure that they do not exercisepower and authority in a manner thatsubverts the trust of the masses. TheIkhwan was in a sense guilty of this.Granted that it faced formidableobstacles in the short time that it wasin power. Nonetheless, because of itsattachment to dogma — acommitment to projecting its ownversion of Islam — it was oftendiverted from focussing upon thefundamental challenges faced by the
I N T E R N A T I O N A L M O V E M E N T F O R A J U S T W O R L D
6
continued next page
continued from page 5
A R T I C L E S
people such as the lack of basicamenities, a poor delivery system,street-level corruption and a severepaucity of jobs especially for the young.Not only did this erode its popular base;it alienated the Ikhwan from a significant
segment of the middle-class. It also ledto the reinforcement of an approach toIslam that emphasised form at theexpense of substance.
Given the Ikhwan’s orientation andwhat the military represents, shouldn’t
the Egyptian people go beyond boththese forces to secure their future?
Chandra Muzaffar
14 April 2014
ARTICLES
IT’S NOT RUSSIA THAT PUSHED UKRAINE TO THE BRINK OF WAR
By Seumas Milne
The threat of war in Ukraine is growing.
As the unelected government in Kiev
declares itself unable to control the
rebellion in the country’s east, John
Kerry brands Russia a rogue state. The
US and the European Union step up
sanctions against the Kremlin, accusing
it of destabilising Ukraine. The White
House is reported to be set on a new
cold war policy with the aim of turning
Russia into a “pariah state”.
That might be more explicable if what is
going on in eastern Ukraine now were
not the mirror image of what took place
in Kiev a couple of months ago. Then, it
was armed protesters in Maidan Square
seizing government buildings and
demanding a change of government and
constitution. US and European leaders
championed the “masked militants” and
denounced the elected government for
its crackdown, just as they now back
the unelected government’s use of force
against rebels occupying police stations
and town halls in cities such as Slavyansk
and Donetsk.
“America is with you,” Senator John
McCain told demonstrators then,
standing shoulder to shoulder with the
leader of the far-right Svoboda party as
the US ambassador haggled with the state
department over who would make up
the new Ukrainian government.
When the Ukrainian president was
replaced by a US-selected administration,
in an entirely unconstitutional takeover,
politicians such as William Hague
brazenly misled parliament about the
legality of what had taken place: the
imposition of a pro-western government
on Russia’s most neuralgic and politically
divided neighbour.
Putin hit back, taking a leaf out of the
US street-protest playbook – even
though, as in Kiev, the protests that
spread from Crimea to eastern Ukraine
evidently have mass support. But what
had been a glorious cry for freedom in
Kiev became infiltration and insatiable
aggression in Sevastopol and Luhansk.
After Crimeans voted overwhelmingly to
join Russia, the bulk of the western media
abandoned any hint of even-handed
coverage. So Putin is now routinely
compared to Hitler, while the role of the
fascistic right on the streets and in the
new Ukrainian regime has been
airbrushed out of most reporting as
Putinist propaganda.
So you don’t hear much about the
Ukrainian government’s veneration of
wartime Nazi collaborators and
pogromists, or the arson attacks on the
homes and offices of elected communist
leaders, or the integration of the extreme
Right Sector into the national guard,
while the anti-semitism and white
supremacism of the government’s ultra-
nationalists is assiduously played down,
and false identifications of Russian special
forces are relayed as fact.
The reality is that, after two decades of
eastward Nato expansion, this crisis was
triggered by the west’s attempt to pull
Ukraine decisively into its orbit and
defence structure, via an explicitly anti-
Moscow EU association agreement. Its
rejection led to the Maidan protests and
the installation of an anti-Russian
administration – rejected by half the
country – that went on to sign the EU
and International Monetary Fund
agreements regardless.
No Russian government could have
acquiesced in such a threat from territory
that was at the heart of both Russia and
the Soviet Union. Putin’s absorption of
Crimea and support for the rebellion in
eastern Ukraine is clearly defensive, and
the red line now drawn: the east of
Ukraine, at least, is not going to be
swallowed up by Nato or the EU.
I N T E R N A T I O N A L M O V E M E N T F O R A J U S T W O R L D A R T I C L E S
7
continued from page 6
THE RED LINE AND THE RAT LINE (PART 2)By Seymour M. Hersh
The first part of this article appeared in last month’s (April)issueof the commentary. The third & final partwill be
published in the Juneissueof the commentary -editor
But the dangers are also multiplying.
Ukraine has shown itself to be barely a
functioning state: the former government
was unable to clear Maidan, and the
western-backed regime is “helpless”
against the protests in the Soviet-
nostalgic industrial east. For all the talk
about the paramilitary “green men” (who
turn out to be overwhelmingly Ukrainian),
the rebellion also has strong social and
democratic demands: who would argue
against a referendum on autonomy and
elected governors?
Meanwhile, the US and its European allies
impose sanctions and dictate terms to
Russia and its proteges in Kiev,
encouraging the military crackdown on
protesters after visits from Joe Biden and
the CIA director, John Brennan. But by
what right is the US involved at all,
incorporating under its strategic umbrella
a state that has never been a member of
Nato, and whose last elected government
came to power on a platform of explicit
neutrality? It has none, of course – which
is why the Ukraine crisis is seen in such a
different light across most of the world.
There may be few global takers for Putin’s
oligarchic conservatism and nationalism, but
Russia’s counterweight to US imperial
expansion is welcomed, from China to
Brazil.
In fact, one outcome of the crisis is likely
to be a closer alliance between China and
Russia, as the US continues its anti-Chinese
“pivot” to Asia. And despite growing
violence, the cost in lives of Russia’s arms-
length involvement in Ukraine has so far
been minimal compared with any significant
western intervention you care to think of
for decades.
The risk of civil war is nevertheless
growing, and with it the chances of outside
powers being drawn into the conflict.
Barack Obama has already sent token
forces to eastern Europe and is under
pressure, both from Republicans and Nato
hawks such as Poland, to send many more.
Both US and British troops are due to take
part in Nato military exercises in Ukraine
this summer.
The US and EU have already overplayed
their hand in Ukraine. Neither Russia nor
the western powers may want to intervene
directly, and the Ukrainian prime minister’s
conjuring up of a third world war
presumably isn’t authorised by his
Washington sponsors. But a century after
1914, the risk of unintended consequences
should be obvious enough – as the threat
of a return of big-power conflict grows.
Pressure for a negotiated end to the crisis is
essential.
Seumas Milne is a Guardian columnist
and associate editor. He was the Guardian’s
comment editor from 2001 to 2007 after
working for the paper as a general reporter
and labour editor.
30 April 2014
Source: http://www.theguardian.com/
The UK defence staff who relayed
the Porton Down findings to the joint
chiefs were sending the Americans a
message, the former intelligence
official said: ‘We’re being set up
here.’ (This account made sense of
a terse message a senior official in
the CIA sent in late August: ‘It was
not the result of the current regime.
UK & US know this.’) By then the
attack was a few days away and
American, British and French planes,
ships and submarines were at the
ready.
The officer ultimately responsible for
the planning and execution of the
attack was General Martin Dempsey,
chairman of the joint chiefs. From
the beginning of the crisis, the former
intelligence official said, the joint
chiefs had been sceptical of the
administration’s argument that it had
the facts to back up its belief in
Assad’s guilt. They pressed the DIA
and other agencies for more
substantial evidence. ‘There was no
way they thought Syria would use
nerve gas at that stage, because
Assad was winning the war,’ the
former intelligence official said.
Dempsey had irritated many in the
Obama administration by repeatedly
warning Congress over the summer
of the danger of American military
involvement in Syria. Last April, after
an optimistic assessment of rebel
progress by the secretary of state,
John Kerry, in front of the House
Foreign Affairs Committee, Dempsey
told the Senate Armed Services
Committee that ‘there’s a risk that
this conflict has become stalemated.’
Dempsey’s initial view after 21
August was that a US strike on Syria
– under the assumption that the
Assad government was responsible
for the sarin attack – would be a
military blunder, the former
intelligence official said. The Porton
Down report caused the joint chiefs
to go to the president with a more
serious worry: that the attack sought
by the White House would be an
A R T I C L E SI N T E R N A T I O N A L M O V E M E N T F O R A J U S T W O R L D
8
continued from page 7
unjustified act of aggression. It was
the joint chiefs who led Obama to
change course. The official White
House explanation for the turnabout
– the story the press corps told – was
that the president, during a walk in
the Rose Garden with Denis
McDonough, his chief of staff,
suddenly decided to seek approval for
the strike from a bitterly divided
Congress with which he’d been in
conflict for years. The former
Defense Department official told me
that the White House provided a
different explanation to members of
the civilian leadership of the Pentagon:
the bombing had been called off
because there was intelligence ‘that
the Middle East would go up in
smoke’ if it was carried out.
The president’s decision to go to
Congress was initially seen by senior
aides in the White House, the former
intelligence official said, as a replay
of George W. Bush’s gambit in the
autumn of 2002 before the invasion
of Iraq: ‘When it became clear that
there were no WMD in Iraq,
Congress, which had endorsed the
Iraqi war, and the White House both
shared the blame and repeatedly cited
faulty intelligence. If the current
Congress were to vote to endorse the
strike, the White House could again
have it both ways – wallop Syria
with a massive attack and validate the
president’s red line commitment,
while also being able to share the
blame with Congress if it came out
that the Syrian military wasn’t behind
the attack.’ The turnabout came as a
surprise even to the Democratic
leadership in Congress. In September
the Wall Street Journal reported that
three days before his Rose Garden
speech Obama had telephoned Nancy
Pelosi, leader of the House
Democrats, ‘to talk through the
options’. She later told colleagues,
according to the Journal, that she
hadn’t asked the president to put the
bombing to a congressional vote.
Obama’s move for congressional
approval quickly became a dead end.
‘Congress was not going to let this
go by,’ the former intelligence official
said. ‘Congress made it known that,
unlike the authorisation for the Iraq
war, there would be substantive
hearings.’ At this point, there was a
sense of desperation in the White
House, the former intelligence official
said. ‘And so out comes Plan B. Call
off the bombing strike and Assad
would agree to unilaterally sign the
chemical warfare treaty and agree to
the destruction of all of chemical
weapons under UN supervision.’ At a
press conference in London on 9
September, Kerry was still talking
about intervention: ‘The risk of not
acting is greater than the risk of
acting.’ But when a reporter asked if
there was anything Assad could do
to stop the bombing, Kerry said:
‘Sure. He could turn over every single
bit of his chemical weapons to the
international community in the next
week … But he isn’t about to do it,
and it can’t be done, obviously.’ As
the New York Times reported the next
day, the Russian-brokered deal that
emerged shortly afterwards had first
been discussed by Obama and Putin
in the summer of 2012. Although the
strike plans were shelved, the
administration didn’t change its public
assessment of the justification for
going to war. ‘There is zero tolerance
at that level for the existence of
error,’ the former intelligence
official said of the senior officials
in the White House. ‘They could
not afford to say: “We were
wrong.”’ (The DNI
spokesperson said: ‘The Assad
regime, and only the Assad
regime, could have been
responsible for the chemical
weapons attack that took place
on 21 August.’)
The full extent of US co-operation
with Turkey, Saudi Arabia and
Qatar in assisting the rebel
opposition in Syria has yet to
come to light. The Obama
administration has never publicly
admitted to its role in creating
what the CIA calls a ‘rat line’, a
back channel highway into Syria.
The rat line, authorised in early
2012, was used to funnel
weapons and ammunition from
Libya via southern Turkey and
across the Syrian border to the
opposition. Many of those in
Syria who ultimately received the
weapons were jihadists, some of
them affiliated with al-Qaida.
(The DNI spokesperson said:
‘The idea that the United States
was providing weapons from
Libya to anyone is false.’)
In January, the Senate
Intelligence Committee released
a report on the assault by a local
militia in September 2012 on the
American consulate and a nearby
undercover CIA facili ty in
Benghazi, which resulted in the
death of the US ambassador,
Christopher Stevens, and three
others. The report’s criticism of
the State Department for not
providing adequate security at the
consulate, and of the intelligence
community for not alerting the
US military to the presence of a
A R T I C L E SI N T E R N A T I O N A L M O V E M E N T F O R A J U S T W O R L D
9
continued from page 8
CIA outpost in the area, received
front-page coverage and revived
animosities in Washington, with
Republicans accusing Obama and
Hillary Clinton of a cover-up. A highly
classified annex to the report, not made
public, described a secret agreement
reached in early 2012 between the Obama
and Erdoðan administrations. It pertained
to the rat line. By the terms of the
agreement, funding came from Turkey,
as well as Saudi Arabia and Qatar; the
CIA, with the support of MI6, was
responsible for getting arms from
Gaddafi’s arsenals into Syria. A number
of front companies were set up in Libya,
some under the cover of Australian
entities. Retired American soldiers, who
didn’t always know who was really
employing them, were hired to manage
procurement and shipping. The operation
was run by David Petraeus, the CIA
director who would soon resign when it
became known he was having an affair
with his biographer. (A spokesperson for
Petraeus denied the operation ever took
place.)
The operation had not been disclosed at
the time it was set up to the congressional
intelligence committees and the
congressional leadership, as required by
law since the 1970s. The involvement
of MI6 enabled the CIA to evade the law
by classifying the mission as a liaison
operation. The former intelligence official
explained that for years there has been a
recognised exception in the law that
permits the CIA not to report liaison
activity to Congress, which would
otherwise be owed a finding. (All
proposed CIA covert operations must be
described in a written document, known
as a ‘finding’, submitted to the senior
leadership of Congress for approval.)
Distribution of the annex was limited to
the staff aides who wrote the report and
to the eight ranking members of
Congress – the Democratic and
Republican leaders of the House and
Senate, and the Democratic and
Republicans leaders on the House and
Senate intelligence committees. This
hardly constituted a genuine attempt at
oversight: the eight leaders are not known
to gather together to raise questions or
discuss the secret information they
receive.
The annex didn’t tell the whole story of
what happened in Benghazi before the
attack, nor did it explain why the
American consulate was attacked. ‘The
consulate’s only mission was to provide
cover for the moving of arms,’ the former
intelligence official, who has read the
annex, said. ‘It had no real political role.’
Washington abruptly ended the CIA’s role
in the transfer of arms from Libya after
the attack on the consulate, but the rat
line kept going. ‘The United States was
no longer in control of what the Turks
were relaying to the jihadists,’ the former
intelligence official said. Within weeks,
as many as forty portable surface-to-air
missile launchers, commonly known as
manpads, were in the hands of Syrian
rebels. On 28 November 2012, Joby
Warrick of theWashington Post reported
that the previous day rebels near Aleppo
had used what was almost certainly a
manpad to shoot down a Syrian transport
helicopter. ‘The Obama administration,’
Warrick wrote, ‘has steadfastly opposed
arming Syrian opposition forces with
such missiles, warning that the weapons
could fall into the hands of terrorists and
be used to shoot down commercial
aircraft.’ Two Middle Eastern intelligence
officials fingered Qatar as the source, and
a former US intelligence analyst
speculated that the manpads could have
been obtained from Syrian military
outposts overrun by the rebels. There
was no indication that the rebels’
possession of manpads was likely the
unintended consequence of a covert US
programme that was no longer under US
control.
By the end of 2012, it was believed
throughout the American intelligence
community that the rebels were losing
the war. ‘Erdoðan was pissed,’ the
former intelligence official said, ‘and felt
he was left hanging on the vine. It was
his money and the cut-off was seen as a
betrayal.’ In spring 2013 US intelligence
learned that the Turkish government –
through elements of the MIT, its national
intelligence agency, and the Gendarmerie,
a militarised law-enforcement
organisation – was working directly with
al-Nusra and its allies to develop a
chemical warfare capability. ‘The MIT
was running the political liaison with the
rebels, and the Gendarmerie handled
military logistics, on-the-scene
advice and training – including
training in chemical warfare,’ the
former intelligence official said.
‘Stepping up Turkey’s role in spring
2013 was seen as the key to its
problems there. Erdoðan knew that
if he stopped his support of the
jihadists it would be all over. The
Saudis could not support the war
because of logistics – the distances
involved and the difficulty of moving
weapons and supplies. Erdoðan’s
hope was to instigate an event that
would force the US to cross the red
line. But Obama didn’t respond in
March and April.’
4 April 2014
End of Part 2
Seymour M. Hersh is an American
investigative journalist and author
based in Washington, D.C.
A R T I C L E SI N T E R N A T I O N A L M O V E M E N T F O R A J U S T W O R L D
10
ISRAEL’S DIRTY ROLE IN THE SYRIAN CRISIS
By Kourosh Ziabari
When the civil war broke out in Syria in
March 2011, there were some people who
tended to portray it as a continuation of the
wave of revolutionary protests in the Arab
world that started from Tunisia and swept
Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia,
but as time goes by, it becomes more and
more evident that what’s happening in Syria
is a foreign-plotted conspiracy aimed at
bringing down the government of President
Bashar al-Assad, not a popular movement
nor a part of the Arab Spring.
As testified by several Western journalists
who are currently reporting from Syria,
including the prominent French journalist
Thierry Meyssan to whom I was talking a
few weeks ago, there’s no trace of a popular
uprising against the national government in
the ongoing unrest in Syria. It’s simply one
of the covert regime change projects of the
United States, in which several countries
and role-players are taking part, including
the Israeli regime.
Aside from the Al-Nusra Front, Al-Qaeda
fighters, the Islamic State of Iraq and the
Levant warriors, Turkish, Qatari and Saudi
Arabian terrorists and extremists who are
pouring into Syria from the Arab and
European countries at the behest of the
United States and contributing to the
exacerbation of the crisis in Syria, Israel
alone is playing the most destructive role in
the Arab country and has virtually become
one of the main belligerents of the civil war
there.
It’s quite clear that unrest and violence in
Syria would be in the best interests of Israel.
Syria has long been a pivotal part of the
axis of resistance against Israel; therefore,
the destabilization of Syria means increased
security on the Israeli borders and a giant
step toward to a military confrontation with
Iran.
There is credible evidence showing that
Israel, throughout the past three years, has
been closely working with Al-Qaeda bases
in Syria, providing the terrorist cult with
money, training and arms to help them fight
the government of President Assad and the
Syrian Army forces.
According to German author and the
director of nsnbc.me news website Christof
Lehmann, Israel provides direct military aid
to Jabhat al-Nusrah, Liwa-al-Islam, and
other Al-Qaeda brigades currently stationed
in Syria. Lehmann cites the Zionist daily
Jerusalem Post as acknowledging that Israel
has established a field hospital in the
Occupied Golan Heights which provides
medical and remedial services to the
Jihadists and terrorists fighting in Syria. Bibi
Netanyahu has laughably described the
hospital as the “true face of Israel” and a
place where “the good in the world” are
separated from “the evil in the world.”
Perhaps he has made such a lunatic remark
because he wishfully believes every force
that resists Israeli oppression and
occupation is an incarnation of evil in the
world.
Just recently, an Austrian military officer
working with the United Nations
Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF)
in the Occupied Golan Heights who spoke
to the media on condition of anonymity
confirmed that Israel has provided large-
scale logistical and military support to the
terrorists and rebels in different parts of
Syria. The officer has confirmed that
there’s a joint operation room between
armed terrorist gangs and Israel which has
the function to coordinate the delivery of
assistance to the terrorists.
It’s even believed that the 21 August 2013
chemical attacks on the civilians of the
Ghouta district near Damascus in which
around 1,500 people were killed was an
Israeli scheme to deceive the public around
the world and make the Western powers
believe that President Assad had ordered
the use of chemical weapons against the
rebels and eventually lay the groundwork
for a UNSC-sanctioned military strike
against Syria with the final objective of
overthrowing the Syrian government.
It’s said that one day before the chemical
attacks, the rebels and Al-Qaeda combatants
had massacred Syrian citizens in the Ghouta
suburbs of the Markaz Rif Dimashq and
recorded videos of their killings and then
uploaded the videos on the internet,
pretending that the citizens were killed in
the chemical attacks perpetrated by the
government; however, their plan was
carried out so frantically that they gave
themselves up. It was then that the British
MP George Galloway suggested that the
Israelis provided the insurgents with
chemical weapons.
“If there’s been any use of nerve gas, it’s
the rebels that used it...If there has been
use of chemical weapons, it was Al-Qaeda
who used the chemical weapons”, said the
Respect Party MP George Galloway.
“Who gave Al-Qaeda the chemical
weapons? Here’s my theory. Israel gave
them the chemical weapons”, Galloway MP
added.
Obviously, Israel will be making a great
achievement if it succeeds in bringing the
government of President Assad to its knees.
Then it can realize its vicious plans for the
Middle East, including the plan of
permanently annexing the Golan Heights,
as the Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman
has openly talked about. According to
Liberman, the annexation of Golan Heights,
which were illegally occupied by Israel in
1967, is an issue which should be resolved
with the consent and agreement of Israel,
the United States and the international
community! The other plans which Israel
can take action to realize are the annexation
of the West Bank and parts of the Southern
Lebanon which currently cannot turn into
I N T E R N A T I O N A L M O V E M E N T F O R A J U S T W O R L D A R T I C L E S
11
continued from page 10
reality as a result of the presence of an
opposing force that is the disobedient
government of Syria.
For a long time, the German textbooks were
referring to what had come to be known
as the “Schiitischer Halbmond” (Shiite
Halfmoon) to describe the Shiite populations
that were experiencing a growth of
dominance in the Middle East since early
2000s. However, when in 2004, King
Abdullah II of Jordan used the term “Shiite
Crescent” to refer to the perceived threat
of Iran’s increasing influence in the Middle
East, the epithet became more popular and
widely used.
The Shiite Crescent notionally consists of
the Shiite populations in Bahrain, Iran,
Azerbaijan, Iraq, Lebanon and Syria.
Although Shiites comprise only 10-15% of
the Muslim population of the world, the
Shiite-dominant countries wield an influence
and power which is growing steadily, and
since the political Shiite mindset
fundamentally rejects Zionism and Israeli
expansionism, Israel finds it the best way
to ensure its security to fight against the
members of this hypothetical Shiite Crescent
or blackmail them the other way.
Although Iran has never been a threat to
Israel despite the claims of its leaders to the
contrary, Tel Aviv considers defeating or at
least damaging Iran one of its main foreign
policy missions, and conquering Syria that
is Iran’s main ally and defender in the region
would pave the way for Israel to think about
overpowering and overwhelming Iran.
Iranian military officials and statesmen have
always clearly indicated that the peaceful
nature of the country means that Iran will
never think of waging any wars or harming
its neighbors or other countries, but at the
same time they have strongly maintained
that any Israeli aggression against Iran will
be the final nail in Israel’s coffin and would
be equivalent to the rainfall of Iranian rockets
and missiles into the Israeli soil which will
close the chapter of this apartheid regime
forever.
Now Israel, whose leaders have explicitly
confessed to providing ammunitions,
missiles and other state-of-the-art weapons
to the Syrian rebels and Al-Qaeda
mercenaries, has found itself in an
inextricable battle over its shivering
security. It should continue providing the
insurgents and mercenaries with
dangerous weapons until President Assad
is ousted from power, or concede to
another big failure in the Middle East after
the 2006 Lebanon War (also known as
the 33-day War) and the Gaza War
(Operation Cast Lead) and experience a
serious security decline.
What is clear is that Israel is a big accomplice
in the atrocities that are taking place in Syria.
It’s playing a dirty role in the Arab country,
but it doesn’t seem that it would be held
accountable over its war crimes, like the
past 66 years that it has been immune to
accountability and responsibility before the
international community by virtue of its
“passionate attachment” to the United
States.
04 March, 2014
Kourosh Ziabari is an Iranian journalist,
writer and media correspondent
www.KouroshZiabari.com
Source: Countercurrents.org
OBAMA’S KILLING FIELDS IN YEMEN
By Nile Bowie
Washington’s drone program isn’t making
Yemen safer – it is traumatizing and
radicalizing communities, and swelling the
ranks of Al-Qaeda.
The Obama administration has recently
taken part in a joint operation with Yemeni
forces that has produced the highest death
toll of any confirmed drone strike in Yemen
so far this year, according to sources from
the Associated Press (AP).
Yemen’s state media claims that the victims
of the attack were among the most
dangerous elements of Al-Qaeda, and that
the strike was based on confirmed
intelligence that the targeted individuals
were planning to target Yemen’s civil and
military institutions. Yemeni officials claim
that the target site, located in remote
mountainous regions in the country’s
troubled south, was one of the few examples
of permanent infrastructure setup by Al-
Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) to
train fighters and store armaments.
The strike allegedly took place with regional
cooperation and assistance from Saudi
Arabia, and due to official secrecy
provisions, the United States does not have
a legal obligation to acknowledge or
comment on the strikes undertaken by the
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).
The exact death toll varies from source to
source, but more than a dozen people have
been killed at minimum, with at least three
civilian causalities. Witnesses say that a car
carrying the alleged militants was hit with a
missile as it drove by a vehicle carrying
civilians, who were also killed. A second
strike on the area was launched shortly after.
Yemen’s government officially claims that
55 alleged militants have been killed so far,
and the Supreme Security Committee -
which includes the country’s intelligence
chief, defense and interior ministers - and
President Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi
approved the strike.
Hadi, who came to power in February 2012
after he stood unopposed in elections, is a
continued next page
I N T E R N A T I O N A L M O V E M E N T F O R A J U S T W O R L D A R T I C L E S
12
continued from page 11
staunch supporter of the US drone
program, despite the high number of civilian
casualties incurred by the strikes. AQAP,
active in the south-central regions of the
country, is a small but pervasive organization
whose tactics include using sophisticated
car bombs and suicide attacks that have
been bold and deadly in their fight against
the government in Yemen’s capital, Sanaa.
Criminalizing drones
Yemen, the only state on the Arabian
Peninsula to have a purely republican form
of government, is in the midst of an ongoing
political and security crisis prompted by
divisions between various movements and
factions, who are themselves divided
between Sunni and Shiite sects of Islam.
The central government in Sanaa
commands little authority outside the capital,
and faces a widely popular secessionist
movement in the south, an entrenched Shiite
rebel movement in the north, and a scattered
AQAP insurgency campaign that has
succeeded in gathering adherents largely
due to their resentment of the Obama
administration’s drone warfare campaign
throughout the country.
Yemen has the youngest population in the
world, with an unemployment rate as high
as 40 percent, while half the population still
lives below the poverty line.
Longtime leader Ali Abdullah Saleh submitted
his resignation in 2011, following nationwide
protests calling for an end to corruption and
greater representation. The collective vision
for reform shared by nearly all sides of this
highly polarized country failed to progress
following Saleh’s removal, and like other
Arab nations who experienced a change in
power during the period known as the Arab
Spring, militias and extremist elements took
advantage of the precarious security
situation to embolden themselves.
In an effort to reconstruct Yemeni society
and assuage various movements and
communities who feel unrepresented
throughout the country, Hadi has channeled
his administration’s efforts into UN-backed
reconciliation talks known as the National
Dialogue Conference (NDC), which
impressively brought together over 500
activists and representatives from a diverse
array of backgrounds to reform the security
apparatus and administrative structure of
the country, and draft a new constitution
that would be the basis for both presidential
and parliamentary elections in 2014.
In a rare show of consensus, participants
at the conference voted to criminalize the
use of drones for extrajudicial killing, which
have enraged average Yemenis from all
walks of life. Drone strikes were made
technically illegal since 2013, but their
continued prevalence in partnership with
Yemeni security forces dangerously
delegitimizes the government in Sanaa and
puts Hadi in an exceedingly awkward
position at a time when the government is
distrusted for colluding with foreign
powers.
The message sent by the delegates of the
NDC, which is the most democratic and
representative reflection of Yemeni society
that currently exists, is that the use of drones
are an affront to the sovereignty and dignity
of the state, opening the possibility that
President Hadi may be criminally persecuted
if the current policy continues.
Killing with impunity
President Obama’s speech on his
administration’s drone warfare program in
2013 was widely perceived as a convincing
and compelling defense of an otherwise
controversial policy.
In describing the elaborate precautions and
high standards taken prior to launching a
strike, Obama claimed, “there must be near-
certainty that no civilians will be killed or
injured.” The president acknowledged how
any US military activity risks creating
animosity and enemies in the target country,
and spoke of the high threshold set for taking
lethal action, in respect for the dignity of
every human life.
According to the rules in place under the
Obama administration, targeted strikes can
only take place when capturing a suspect
would not be feasible, when the authorities
of the country in question could not or
would not address the threat, and when no
other reasonable alternatives were available.
In the six months since Obama delivered
his speech on the rules for using armed
drones, reports indicate that covert strikes
in Yemen and Pakistan incurred more
casualties when compared to the six months
before the speech was given.
Behind the US president’s carefully-selected
language and various moral assurances, is
a covert assassination program that has
operated under an accountability and
transparency vacuum, where basic
statistical data is withheld under the
blanketing justification of protecting national
security, and hundreds of innocent civilians
have been targeted and killed with near-total
impunity.
The facts that have been established about
the Obama administration’s program are
profoundly disturbing. The United States is
bound to abide by international human rights
law outside of a defined conflict zone, which
would apply for its operations in Yemen and
Pakistan, where war has not been declared.
In such a legal environment, targeted killings
can only take place when strictly unavoidable
and necessary to protect life, and due to
the official secrecy policies surrounding the
Obama administration’s drone program, US
officials are not legally obliged to
acknowledge strikes or provide evidence
needed to substantiate alleged threats to the
degree that would satisfy the law
enforcement standards that govern the
intentional use of lethal force outside armed
conflict.
The legal criterion to justify a strike iscontinued next page
I N T E R N A T I O N A L M O V E M E N T F O R A J U S T W O R L D A R T I C L E Sdetermined in secret by the White House
with advice from the Justice Department,
but with no oversight or accountability.
Obama’s so-called ‘near-certainty’ standard
and his administration’s definition of an
‘imminent threat’ are not open to
independent review, and are taken unilaterally
by the executive branch. As noted by UN
Special Rapporteur Ben Emmerson, the
United States violates international law by
targeting of persons directly participating
in hostilities who are located in non-
belligerent states.
The known criteria for justifying lethal force
have proven to be shockingly indiscriminate,
to the point where the president’s ‘near-
certainty’ standards can never logically be
met. The Obama administration, according
to investigations, targets individuals based
on their exhibiting of ‘behavioral
characteristics’ that are deemed typical of
militants, rather than making strikes based
on the confirmed identity of a target.
Such use of ‘signature strikes’ has resulted
in the arbitrary targeting of any military-age
male in a given strike vicinity on the
presumption that he is a combatant, and
directly targetable. The ‘double tap’
technique involves launching an initial drone
strike, which is followed by a second strike
that targets rescuers and first responders,
a tactic that Al-Qaeda and other terrorist
outfits have made use of in the past.
The double tap relies on the assumption that
the initial target is a militant, and all those
who converge on the scene of the initial
strike must be militants themselves. Such a
strategy cannot possibly meet the stringent
requirements needed to avoid the killing of
civilians, and can only result in actions that
can be described as war crimes or
extrajudicial killings.
An undeclared war
Obama’s speech marked the first formal
public acknowledgement of a US citizen’s
death in a drone strike. Anwar al-Awlaki,
an American-born cleric of Yemeni
descent and a US citizen, was killed
by a drone strike in Yemen in May
2011. In describing his criteria for an
extrajudicial targeted strike, Obama
claims there is no difference between
a foreign terrorist and a terrorist with
US citizenship.
Al-Awlaki’s assassination and the
subsequent killing of his 16-year-old
son, also an American national, sets an
alarming precedent. At one time, Anwar
al-Awlaki was known to be a moderate
cleric who denounced terrorism and
violence. At some stage between the
events of 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq
in 2003, Anwar al-Awlaki underwent a
profound change in his political
orientation and began to preach jihad,
in response to what he viewed as the
United States engaging in a war against
Islam and Muslim civilians.
Just as Anwar al-Awlaki’s views
morphed toward the violent fringe as
a reaction to US policy, the
radicalization of communities and
traumatized survivors of drone strikes
throughout Yemen provides AQAP with
a steady flow of militants seeking to
avenge their families’ deaths by
harming the United States. The Obama
administration and the Yemeni political
elite may view drone strikes as a short-
term fix, but the radicalization of
growing swathes of society will prove
to be a major liability for any future
government in power.
Washington has assured the public that
the American role in Yemen is highly
constrained, and held in accordance
with a mandate to target members of
Al-Qaeda approved by Congress after
9/11. The scope and breadth of covert
operations undertaken by the CIA and
secretive paramilitary unit Joint Special
Operations Command (JSOC) are
impossible to ascertain, but Washington’s
role in Yemen’s civil wars are much
deeper than what the public imagines.
The inhumanity of this war comes to
the fore in incidents such as the US
bombing of a wedding convoy in
December 2013, killing 12 civilians.
Consider the vile injustice meted out in
2009 to the people of al-Majalah, a
Bedouin village that became the target
of US cluster-bombing, killing 41
civilians, including nine women and 21
children. Abdulelah Haider Shaye, a
Yemeni journalist who exposed the
American slaughter at al-Majala, was
jailed by authorities and framed as an
Al-Qaeda collaborator. His original
release from prison was blocked by the
personal intervention of President
Obama, who phoned former Yemeni
President Saleh and lobbied for Shaye
to remain in custody.
Contrary to claims that drones only target
those high-level figures who pose an
imminent threat to the US homeland,
reports indicate that low-level fighters,
local commanders, and even figures in
Yemen’s own military have been targeted
by US drones – not because they present
any risk to US national security, but
because they are political opponents of
the current US-backed regime in Sanaa.
The Obama administration’s dirty wars
and covert operations in Yemen represent
a glaring evasion of justice and
accountability that will continue to sow
wanton killing and perpetual conflict if
left unchecked.
24 April, 2014
Source: rt.com
13
I N T E R N A T I O N A L M O V E M E N T F O R A J U S T W O R L D A R T I C L E S
CORRUPT TO THE CORE: THE FIRE POWER OF THE FINANCIAL SECTOR
By Colin Todhunter
The enormous power and
destructive influence of financial
markets became apparent after the
global economic collapse of 2008.
This event revealed a need for
br ing ing the sec tor under
democra t ic publ ic ownersh ip ;
failing that, stronger regulations for
financial markets at the very least.
But political will has been lacking
on both counts. The sector enjoys
massive financial resources and
successfully translates them into
political influence.
Many ordinary people might be
wondering why governments have
not curtailed the criminality of the
financial sector on the back of the
economic crisis which it created.
Instead, billions of dollars, pounds
and euros have been handed over
to the sector, and governments
continue to grant banks free rein
and thus dictate national economic
and social policies.
If bankers and financiers are to be
able to stuff their bulging suitcases
with taxpayer handouts and to
fur ther loo t economies , i t i s
essen t ia l fo r them to have
politicians in their pockets. One
way by which this is achieved is
shown in a new repor t , which
indicates that the financial industry
spends more than 120 million euros
a year on lobbying in Brussels and
employs more than 1,700 lobbyists
to influence EU policy-making.
The report, ‘The fire power of the
financial lobby’ has been released
by Corporate Europe Observatory,
ÖGB Europabüro (Brussels office
of the Aus t r ian Trade Union
Federat ion) , and AK EUROPA
(Brussels office of the Austrian
Chamber of Labour) .
Kenne th Haar f rom Corpora te
Europe Observatory says:
“Reform has proved difficult, and
these numbers are an important part
of the explanation. The financial
lobby’s fire power to resist reform
has been evident in all significant
battles over financial regulation
s ince the co l lapse of Lehman
Brothers.”
The report shows the f inancial
industry commands tremendous
lobbying resources and enjoys
pr iv i leged access to dec i s ion
makers . The f inanc ia l sec tor
lobbies EU decision-makers by
means of over 700 organisations,
inc lud ing companies ’ publ ic
re la t ions of f ices , bus iness
associations, and consultancies.
This f igure ou tnumbers c iv i l -
society organisations and trade
unions working on financial issues
by a factor of more than five. And
the imbalance is even greater when
numbers of s taf f and lobbying
expenses are compared. The report
shows that the f inancia l lobby
massively outspends other actors
by a factor of more than 30. In
order to arrive at a safe estimate,
the survey used the mos t
conservative figures. The actual
numbers – and the imbalance
between different interests – are
thus likely to be far higher. This
underestimate is mainly due to the
lack of a mandatory register of
lobbyists at the EU level that would
provide reliable information for
proper monitoring.
The repor t a l so shows the
presence of the financial industry
in the EU’s off ic ia l adv isory
groups that play a key role in
helping to shape policy. And, here
too , the f inanc ia l lobby i s
massively over-represented: 15 of
the 17 expert groups covered by
the study were heavily dominated
by the financial industry.
Ol iver Röpke , f rom ÖGB
Europabüro said:
“This situation represents a severe
democratic problem that politicians
must act on swiftly. A first step is
to adopt e f fec t ive ru les on
lobbying transparency and strong
e th ics ru les aga ins t undue
influence.”
Amir Ghoreishi from AK EUROPA
said:
“The fact that the financial lobby
is so dominant in advisory groups
revea ls tha t the European
Commiss ion fee ls tha t people
representing the financial industry
should be a l lowed to se t the
agenda. An arms-length principle
should be applied immediately.”
The report is a damning indictment
of the sector’s political influence.
14
I N T E R N A T I O N A L M O V E M E N T F O R A J U S T W O R L DA R T I C L E S
ATMOSPHERIC CARBON DIOXIDE LEVELS ARE THE HIGHEST IN 3 MILLION
YEARS
By Countercurrents
Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels
are the highest in 3 million years.
The amount of carbon dioxide in
the atmosphere averaged more than
400 parts per million throughout
April, the first time the planet’s
monthly average has surpassed that
threshold.
The da ta f rom the Scr ipps
Institution of Oceanography at the
University of California , San Diego
, shows how world leaders are
failing to rein in greenhouse gases
that c l imate sc ient is ts say are
warming the planet.
“We’re running out of time, but not
solutions,” Ed Chen, a spokesman
for the Natural Resources Defense
Council, said in an e-mail. “The
next big step is to limit, for the first
t ime , ca rbon po l lu t ion be ing
spewed by our power plants.”
The average value for April was
measured at 401.33 ppm at the
Mauna Loa monitoring station in
Hawai i , accord ing to an
announcement on Twi t te r
d i sc los ing the f ind ing by the
ins t i tu t ion’s Kee l ing Curve
program. It was named for the
sc ien t i s t who began the
measurements in 1958 and shows
that temperatures are rising more
quickly.
The finding adds to concerns that
a buildup of carbon dioxide is
damaging the atmosphere, making
s torms more in tense , mel t ing
glaciers and putting at risk the
future of seaside cities such as
Miami .
The level of CO2 broke 400, as a
daily average, for the first time last
May. Less than a year later, the
average for a month has exceeded a
threshold not seen in the measured
record dating back 3 million years.
The sector continues to rake in
unimaginable prof i t s , whi le
sucking the life out of economies.
Ordinary people continue to pay the
price via the privatization of public
assets and ‘austerity’.
“The stench emanating from the
financial system is a product of the
decay of the entire profit system.
That system must be replaced by a
higher socio-economic order in
which the vast wealth created by
the collective labour of the world
working class is deployed to meet
human need. The expropriation of
the banks and f inance houses ,
p lac ing them under publ ic
ownership and democratic control,
is the first step in implementing
such a program.” Nick Beams (1)
Read the full report here: http://
corporateeurope.org/sites/default/
f i l e s / a t t a c h m e n t s /
financial_lobby_report.pdf
Note:
1) h t tps : / /www.wsws .org /en /
articles/2013/02/08/pers-f08.html
09 April, 2014
Colin Todhunter : Originally from
the northwest of England, Colin
Todhunter has spent many years in
India.
Source: Countercurrents.org
Concentrations of CO2 are rising at
about 2 to 3 ppm a year. The United
Nations has said that in order to
maximize our chances of limiting the
global temperature rise since 1750 to
the internationally agreed-upon target
of 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees
Fahrenheit), the concentration of all
greenhouse gases should peak at no
higher than 450 ppm this century.
That includes methane and nitrous
oxide, gases not included in the
Scripps measurement.
The atmospheric concentration of all
greenhouse gases, including methane
and nitrous oxide, was equivalent to
a CO2 level of 430 ppm in 2011,
according to the UN
intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change. The annual average
concentration of CO2 that year was
about 391 ppm, according to the
UN’s World Meteorological
Association.
03 May, 2014
Source: Countercurrents.org
15
INTERNATIONAL MOVEMENTFOR A JUST WORLD (JUST)P.O BOX 288Jalan Sultan46730 Petaling JayaSelangor Darul EhsanMALAYSIAwww.just-international.org
Bayaran Pos JelasPostage Paid
Pejabat Pos BesarKuala Lumpur
MalaysiaNo. WP 1385
Please donate to JUST by Postal Order or Cheque
addressed to:
International Movement for a Just World
P.O. Box 288, Jalan Sultan, 46730, Petaling Jaya,
Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia
or direct to our bank account:Malayan Banking Berhad, Petaling Jaya Main
Branch, 50 Jalan Sultan, 46200, Petaling Jaya,
Selangor Darul Ehsan,MALAYSIA
Account No. 5141 6917 0716
Donations from outside Malaysia should be made
by Telegraphic Transfer or Bank Draft in USD$
The International Movement for a Just World isa nonprofit international citizens’ organisationwhich seeks to create public awareness aboutinjustices within the existing global system.It a lso attempts to develop a deeperunderstanding of the struggle for social justiceand human dignity at the global level, guided byuniversal spiritual and moral values.
In furtherance of these objectives, JUST hasundertaken a number of activities includingconducting research, publishing books andmonographs, organising conferences andseminars, networking with groups and individuals and participating in public campaigns.
JUST has friends and supporters in more than130 countries and cooperates actively withother organisations which are committed to
similar objectives in different parts of the world.
About the International Movement for aJust World (JUST)
It would be much appreciated if you
could share this copy of the JUST Com-
mentary with a friend or relative. Bet-
ter still invite him/her to write to JUST
so that we can put his/her name on our
Commentary mailing list.
TERBITAN BERKALA