Just International

Cranks & propagandists: Meet the Economist editor who desperately wants to gag RT

By RT news

At a time when the Western media machine no longer enjoys singular purchase on the news, and a more balanced view on global events is instantly available, foreign news organizations like RT are being described as enemies.

Just one month after Andrew Lack – the newly appointed chief of the US Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) – mentioned RT in the very same breath as the Islamic State and Boko Haram, Edward Lucas, senior editor of British magazine The Economist, advised that RT be pushed “into the media fringes so they are no longer treated as real journalists and real programs but as cranks and propagandists.”

Clearly, the mud-slinging “information war” that Hillary Clinton spoke of back in March 2011 is in full swing. And it seems like Western “info troops” are dropping their “dirty bombs” into the info space.

Fear-mongering sells well

Meet one of the soldiers. On top of his journalism, Edward Lucas is also a prolific writer. His books on Russia – ominous titles like ‘Deception: Spies, Lies and How Russia Dupes the West’ and ‘The New Cold War: Putin’s Russia and the Threat to the West,’ mostly printed with Putin’s image looming on the cover – are to Russophobes what Stephen King novels are to horror fans. Unfortunately, however, Lucas is hawking a damaged product to an unsuspecting public. But he should know better, since he’s certainly neither a stranger to Russia, nor to the world of publishing.

Lucas, who served as The Economist’s Moscow bureau chief from 1998 to 2002, has become something of a self-appointed mouthpiece for the “real story” on Russia. This allows him to offer his fire-and-brimstone opinions at international security meetings (no irony there), where virulent, hysterical views on Russia sell better than lemonade in hell.

But he is, for sure, not even close to being a lone fighter on that battlefield. Meet Lucas’ wife, Christina Odone. She heads communications at the Legatum Institute, a think-tank which officially proclaimed “countering Russian propaganda” as its key initiative back in October. Dear Russia-basher Anne Applebaum, who is married to former Polish Foreign Minister Sikorsky, is also onboard the Legatum ship (of course she is). And who was at captain’s bridge there until 2014? Jeffrey Gedmin, who, before becoming Legatum’s CEO, headed Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty – one of the main assets of BBG. Yes, that same BBG whose current CEO puts RT on the same challenge list as ISIS terrorists. Connections are pretty tight, aren’t they?

War recipe premiere: How to invade using a TV channel
But back to Munich. In an effort to explain how Russia “won the war in Crimea without really having to fire a shot,” Lucas told attendees at the Munich Security Conference that it was accomplished due to “so-called Russian media organizations” that have “corroded and confused the decision-making capabilities of Ukraine that even though the Ukrainians had thousands of troops…Crimea fell almost without a shot.” (Lucas never bothers to explain this mysterious mind-altering technique supposedly employed by Russian media, but one might assume it involves amulets and incantations of some sort).

So was this some sort of a desperate cry for bloodshed on the part of Lucas, who, after cheerleading the Western invasions of Middle Eastern countries and planting the seeds of democracy in the burnt-out craters of drone strikes, can’t comprehend a peaceful resolution to an approaching tragedy? Does he really believe that the people of Crimea, who marched to the polling stations as opposed to the battlefields to vote (overwhelmingly) in favor of joining the Russian Federation, were deprived of their “decision-making capabilities” by the likes of RT? Calling it a stretch, anyone?

Secure & entice

This was certainly not the first time Lucas had spoken like some medieval warlord intoxicated by the fumes of war.

In September, Lucas fired off a lengthy and deluded letter to the UK House of Commons, where he offered some brilliant insight on how to engage Russia: “Many European countries have no appetite for confrontation with Russia. They take an essentially pacifist stance, that military solutions never solve problems, and that dialogue is under all circumstances better than confrontation. The United States is distracted by multiple urgent problems elsewhere and many Americans wonder why they should be borrowing money to pay for security in bigger, richer Europe.”

“That gives Russia, with its bold decision-making and high tolerance for risk and pain, free rein. Our feeble response has allowed Russia to wage war in Ukraine with disastrous effect.”

So, quick recap, here’s the world according to Mr. Lucas: European countries are much too pacifistic, the US is too busy heroically solving global problems, and Russia is waging war in Ukraine. Simple as that.

The Economist vs RT

Media wars are nothing new to the sphere, but it is one thing to criticize the approach and quite another to call for bans. Just two weeks ago, RT’s Anissa Naouai slammed The Economist, which Lucas edits, for its approach to Russian news. In particular, she pointed out that viewers simply cannot verify some facts the magazine cites, and are forced to believe them – even if they are not necessarily true.

Will Stevens, of the US embassy in Moscow, decided to come to the magazine’s rescue and asked his followers on Twitter: “whom do you trust? RT for @theEconomist, Fav for @RT_com.” RT has so far scooped over 1,500 votes, while The Economist stands with 81 support retweets.

“We have a regulated media space,” Edward Lucas might conclude. “In my own country, Ofcom is complaining to RT about its lack of balance. So, there are things we can do but I think those things are the last resort, not the first resort.”

Well, indeed RT has come under the British media regulator’s gaze after some viewers accused the channel of unbalanced reports on the MH17 tragedy. The public scrutiny even prompted a reaction from Russia’s Foreign Ministry. FM Sergey Lavrov warned at the time that taking the channel off air in the UK would be “an absolutely barefaced attempt at censorship.”

However (and this might be a big surprise for Mr. Lucas), in late January – after watching 30 hours of RT

9 February 2015

Hezbollah: The Global Footprint Of Terror or A Pretext For War Against Iran?

By Dr. Ludwig Watzal

In February 2008, a high-ranking Hezbollah leader, Imad Mughniyah, was assassinated in Damascus. Everybody assumed that it was done by the infamous Israeli Mossad. After seven years, it was reported that the CIA did the killing and Mossad delivered only the parameters. This spin doesn’t surprise anyone. Aren’t both organization involved in criminal acts all around the world? The question that immediately arises is; why now?

Israel’s Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is doing everything possible to bring the negotiations between the US and Iran to fail. After his amateurishly threaded speech before the US Congress on March 3, in cooperation with Obama’s intimate enemy John Boehner, the Speaker of the House, Netanyahu thought he scored a coup against President Obama but it turned out to be a flop. It has been the greatest affront to a US President in a series of countless humiliations of US top officials. It shows who really calls the shots on Capitol Hill what US Middle Eastern policy is concerned.
Some democrats have threatened to skip Netanyahu’s expected hate speech against major US national interests, namely the normalization of relations with Iran after 36 years of enmity and alienation. A sign of solidarity with President Obama would be if all democrats stayed away, including Vice President Joe Biden, who chairs these sessions along with Boehner. Apparently, Biden will be out of town! It would be a strong symbolic sign to the American people. In Israel, however, Netanyahu’s indignities against Obama have not caused much damage in the polls. How much political blood will be left on the carpet between the US and Israel remains to be seen.

The youngest propaganda spin about the murder of Hezbollah leader Mughniyah was broken by Newsweek magazine, the Washington Post and WINEP (The Washington Institute for Near East Policy), an outpost of Zionist propaganda in the US, and flanked by the right-wing “Jerusalem Post”. Before WINEP was outsourced, it belonged to AIPAC, the well-known Zionist lobby that supports almost all members of Congress financially to get their votes for Israel’s occupation policy and colonialism in Palestine.

The message of this “breaking news” to Obama was “you need us”. Of course, both intelligence agencies are partners in crime. But the real message is that Netanyahu wanted to limit the damage that his abysmal try to sidestep the Obama administration caused in order to address Congress. By exposing the CIA as a killer organization, the Zionist lobbyists signal what “secrets” the Mossad might still have in its repertory. This Zionist spin is just another try to sabotage the negotiations between Iran and the US. Netanyahu knows that Obama is politically a “lame duck”, that’s why, he can behave like a reckless cowboy.

The Zionist lobby uses Hezbollah as a scapegoat but it’s real target is Iran. At this point, Mathew Levitt, who works for WINEP, comes into play. He has not only cartooned Hamas in 2006 as a “Terrorist Organization” but also Hezbollah in his latest book. What he and his buddy Adam Goldman from the Washington Post had to say about Hezbollah was just beyond the pale. Levitt was quoted several times in the Post.

According to Levitt’s book, Hezbollah conquers the world, i. e. Hezbollah is behind almost every “terror attack”, but the real instigator behind the scene is Iran. The purpose of this piece of Zionist bogus is to spread fear and manipulate Americans into a war against Iran for the benefit of Israel.

The Table of Contents tells everyone what to expect from this book. “Hezbollah targets Westerners in Lebanon and beyond”, Bombings in Buenos Aires”, “A Near Miss in Bangkok”, “Hezbollah Comes to North America”, ” Bombing Khobar Towers”, “Hezbollah in Iraq”, “Party of Fraud—Hezbollah’s Criminal Enterprise in America” “Shadow War”. Almost half of the book is loaded with footnotes. To back trace them, the original source does hardly match Levitt’s commentary or interpretation.
For Levitt, Iran is the sinister power that pulls the stings in the back. It’s like George W. Bush’s rhetoric of the “Axis of Evil”. His ideological biased book is of the same ilk as the assertion that the CIA had murdered the Hezbollah leader. These allegations are backed up by anonymous sources, which can also be made up by any journalist.

The Zionist lobby puts much on the line to drag the United States into a war against Iran. It’s unlikely that under the Obama presidency there will be a war with Iran. Such a war might be waged under Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush who are more inclined to fulfill the Lobby’s dream. Obama, instead, should take revenge on Netanyahu for his indignities and recognize the State of Palestine. The Obama administration should throw Netanyahu under the bus in order to regain its self esteem.

Dr. Ludwig Watzal works as a journalist and editor in Bonn, Germany.

08 February, 2015
Countercurrents.org

Prince Charles: The Ceremonial Pimp Of British-Saudi Venality And Hypocrisy

 

By Nu’man Abd al-Wahid

Before recently flying out to pay his last respects to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, the last time Prince Charles jetted out to the Wahhabi Kingdom was on Tuesday 18th November 2014 to bring a ceremonial end to the long running business saga by literally customarily dancing to the tune of the Saudi-Wahhabi clan. The first in line to the British crown dressed to the nines in traditional military regalia of the Saudi nepotistic despots, as he helped to seal yet another military deal which will healthily burnish the order book of Europe’s largest arms manufacturer, BAE Systems. The price for 72 Eurofighter Typhoon jets was finally agreed to by the Saudi clan.

The deal, aptly and Orwellianly named “Salam” (i.e. Peace), is worth £4.5 billion (equivalent to roughly $7.1 billion) and according to a report in the Times of London, is part of the notorious and corrupt £40 billion “Yamamah” (i.e. Dove) deal. Furthermore, the hundreds of millions of pounds newly “wringed” from the Saudi clan will underpin thousands of jobs in the North West of England “and around the British defence supply chain” added the Times.

Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT,) an organisation which monitors the arms industry, claimed that the United Kingdom sells more weapons to the Saudis than any other country in the world. On the day of the Prince’s arrival to Saudi Arabia a CAAT spokesman urged him to “disassociate” himself from the “despotic regime” so as not to confer legitimacy on it. They also urged Charles to raise the issue of human rights abuses in the Kingdom.

The following day, CAAT was more forthright and condemned Prince Charles for securing the Typhoon deal with the ruling clan. The spokesman once again reiterated the organisation’s contention that the deal primarily lends “legitimacy” to the Saudi repressive regime. On the other hand, an analyst at the investment bank, RBC Capital claimed that with “Salam cash coming in, this should give BAE more flexibility for cash deployment moving forward.”

From Saudi Arabia, the Prince travelled to the only other Wahhabi kingdom in the region, its neighbor Qatar, where there are currently military bids on the table for (coincidentally!) 72 fighter jets. One of the bidders is surprise, surprise, BAE Systems but amazingly Prince Charles seems to only have had time for his favourite hobby horse, global environmental degradation. Naturally he commended the work done by Qataris in addressing the environmental challenges faced by the principality then merrily flew back to Blighty.

However, it is all very well for CAAT to argue the UK and its wondrous Prince Charming is conferring and bestowing “legitimacy” on the Saudis, but if it wasn’t for the Saudis and the other Arabian despots of the Persian Gulf who else would be purchasing arms from BAE Systems or for that matter bankrolling other aspects of the British economy?

In the past decade, Saudi Arabia and the Arab statelets (i.e. Kuwait, UAE, Qatar) created by British Imperialism during the decline of the Ottoman Empire in the late nineteenth century have been pumping billions into the British economy keeping it afloat in these financially difficult times. Each of the states have highly dubious human rights records and none are democracies in any sense of the word.

Qatar, for example recently purchased Harrods, the world famous store and built the tallest building in western Europe, the Shard in London. The opulence and waste behind the Shard was partly justified as Qatari “confidence” in London’s economy. Sainsbury’s, a national UK supermarket chain has been kept afloat by the ruling Qatari al-Thani family as well. London’s Olympic Village is owned by Qatari ownership after a deal worth hundreds of millions of pounds. Recently, it was announced that £10billion is on the verge of being invested by Qatar in British infrastructure projects. Kuwait, on the other hand, has already invested half of that on these projects in the UK.

More so, ‘Little Chef’, a UK roadside diner was bailed out by a Kuwaiti company and the British national lingerie retailer ‘La Senza’ was saved from bankruptcy by another Kuwaiti company.

The nepotistic Gulf dynasties have also invested heavily in British sports events through sponsorship and even purchasing football clubs such as Manchester City or Nottingham Forrest. UAE helped to build Arsenal Football Club’s stadium. Cricket stadiums built by British companies, a sport which has little traction for Arabs, are multiplying in the Gulf. The UAE and Qatar ruling families also possess a soft spot for British race horses, spending millions on these animals while indigenous Arabs in the hinterland of the Arab World scrape a living and Palestinians continue to endure occupation, theft and ethnic cleansing.

Furthermore, Qatar and UAE have a combined 48% stake in the London Stock Exchange. When Barclays Bank was on the verge of collapse during the recent financial crises, its Chief Executive successfully travelled to Qatar for financial assistance.

Is it really a contradiction that the world’s main harbingers and supporters of jihadism, al-Qaeda and the theology that spawns these violent trends is also the main and largest customer of Great Britain’s ultimate merchant of death, BAE Systems? More so, when Prince Charles complains about the ‘tragic plight’ of Christians in the Middle East isn’t he but exposing his own and Her Majesty Government’s hypocrisy knowing full well that this plight is caused by the ‘sugar daddies’ of the British economy, i.e. the Gulf states, in their support for jihadis in Iraq and Syria?

It is all very well for CAAT to bemoan Prince Charles’s visit to the Kingdom and insist he secularly redeem himself by advocating human rights but the British have been dependent on the Gulf despots for a long time. In the late 1950’s Harold Macmillan, a former British Prime Minister, stated that without the oil of the Arabian peninsula the British nation would be “lost” and the whole structure of the British “economy would collapse”. Furthermore, “Without oil,” Macmillan noted, “and without the profits from oil” the UK will not be able to survive.[1]

The late Prime Minister’s opinion is probably more true today than it was back in the 1950’s when Great Britain was still renowned for its manufacturing industry which is now greatly diminished. Indeed, the very status of BAE Systems as a leading manufacturer would very much be in question without the “profits from oil.”

In conclusion, CAAT’s notion the Prince should be preaching human rights to the Saudi, Thani or any other Gulf Kingdom clan, British imperialism brought into existence misses the point. Venality and doing business with despots, is the latest economic strategy in a long line of total and inexcusable immoral policies rooted in British imperialist history.

Conducting business with the Saudis and the other Gulf nepotistic despots today is just as important to British prosperity as piracy, the slave trade, imperialist military conquest and colonialism was in the past.

[1] Alistair Horne, “Macmillan 1894-1956 Volume 1 of the Official Biography” (London: Macmillan, 1988) pg.411,422 and 429 respectively.

Nu’man Abd al-Wahid is a Yemeni-English independent researcher specialising in the political relationship between the British state and the Arab World.

08 February, 2015
Countercurrents.org

 

Genocide In Kashmir: India’s Shame

By Andre Vltchek

Welcome to Kashmir! It is deep winter. The mountains are covered with snow and the naked trees above the lakes at sunset, look melancholic and magnificent, precisely like a completed Chinese brush painting.

Welcome to a nation overrun by the 700,000-strong security forces of the occupying power – India. Welcome to the continuous presence of barbed wire, of military columns, and ‘security checks’. Welcome to a brutality unimaginable almost anywhere else on earth!

Welcome to a land of joint military exercises conducted by the United States, Israel and India.

Kashmir! Still beautiful but scarred. Still proud but bleeding and thoroughly exhausted… Still standing, still resisting, still free and independent, at least in its heart!

Four kids are standing near the Grand Mosque in Srinagar. They are edgy; they appear to be ready to jump, to run, and to fight, also ready to run and retreat if necessary. It all depends on the circumstances.

“They are raping our sisters and mothers!” screams one youth. I am shown teargas canisters, similar to those used in so many other parts of the world to disperse protesters. They are usually fired into the air. Here they are fired by the security forces directly at people’s heads – with the intention to kill.

In this Kashmiri Intifada, the police, army and paramilitary use slings, guns, teargas canisters, everything that is available, to suppress rebellion.

It also uses video cameras; it films stone-throwing protesters and then it detains them, “disappears” them, and sometimes uses savage torture methods in order to subdue them.

Young men in this neighborhood are routinely detained, and most of them have at least once, been brutalized.

I am photographing empty gas canisters in their hands, always pointing my lenses away from their faces. But kids actually want to pose: they are not afraid, anymore.

Ironically, it is 26th January, the Indian Republic Day.

“We are going later today! To fight them! Come with us!”

They use Arabic words. They point their fingers towards the sky. They are smiling, pretending that they are brave and ready to die, to martyr themselves. But I know that they are scared. I have been in this for many years… I can sense how frightened they are.

They are good kids. They are desperate, cornered, but good.

I promise. I say I will come. Later: as always, I keep my word.

***

A few days later, in New Delhi, in his comfortable, old-fashioned apartment, the great Indian Kashmiri independent documentary film director, Sanjay Kak, talks to me about the Indian colonialism, in both Kashmir and the Northeast.

We both agree that all over the world, there is very little knowledge about the horrors of the occupation of Kashmir, and almost no knowledge at all about the occupation of the Northeast. In unison, the mass media in India and in the West, censors the information about the true nature of oppression, killing, torture and rapes.

It is because India has betrayed BRICS and moved closer and closer to the Empire, towards the West, signing military pacts with it, while spreading market-oriented gospel. Now it can count on having ‘special status’, like Indonesia. No matter what it does, it will easily get away with it!

Mr. Kak also says that these days it is “difficult to compete in the market-place of global sorrow.”

When I mention the involvement of both the United States and Israel in joint exercises with India, in Kashmir, as well as in the training of Indian police and army officers deployed in Kashmir, Sanjay Kak replies:

“When it comes to brutality, Indian forces could actually teach both Israelis and the United States quite a few things.”

A friend of Sanjay Kak, an Indian writer and activist, Arundhati Roy, explained in March 2013, on “Democracy Now”:

“Today Kashmir is the most densely militarized zone in the world. India has something like 700,000 security forces there. And in the ’90s, early ’90s, the fight became—turned into an armed struggle, and since then, More than 70,000 people have died, maybe 100,000 tortured, more than 8000 disappeared. I mean, we all talk a lot about Chile, Pinochet, but these numbers are far greater.”

***

In Kashmir itself, I work closely with “Jammu & Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society” – with both its President, Parvez Imroz, and with Parvaiz Matta, a human rights researcher. Both men became my good friends.

JKCCS actually believes that since the 90’s, More than 70,000 people have lost their lives in Kashmir, mostly civilians. The organization is openly calling what occurs in Kashmir – genocide.

Mr. Parvez Imroz wrote for this essay:

“The army since 1989 has resorted to war crimes as they have been given the legal impunity and seldom have any armed personnel for crimes against humanity have been punished. The militarization in Jammu and Kashmir has affected all aspects of life and unfortunately the Indian media and civil society, with some exceptions, have been also extending the moral and political impunity to the army who they believe are fighting trans-border terrorism. The systematic disappearance, mass graves, torture has been completely ignored by the Indian and international media.”

“In order to suppress the freedom struggle in Jammu and Kashmir, the Indian government has resorted to systematic and institutional repression. More than 700,000 armed forces have been pressed into service to neutralize the armed struggle and to control the people of Jammu and Kashmir who are seeking the right of self-determination which government of India had promised before the United Nations in the 1948 and 1949 resolutions. The repression of the Indian state has been part of their policy. In this lie culpable even the judiciary who as a wing of the State has served the interests of the executive and not the people of Jammu and Kashmir.

“The international institutions and particularly the western civil society and governments after 9/11 and because of Islamophobia and other interests are completely ignoring the situation in Jammu and Kashmir.”

In Kashmir, no matter where I go, no matter where I drive, there are constant, powerful reminders of the occupation: from the almost grotesque presence of the military, police and paramilitary forces, to mass graves. Army barracks are lined up along all the major roads. Military and police trucks drive on them in all directions, on all the major and secondary roads. There are countless roadblocks and checkpoints.

But it is not just the direct and brutal force that is bleeding and destroying Kashmir. Parvaiz Matta explains that this enormous Indian security force has managed to infiltrate and divide local society. Spies and snitches have been inserted. Brave resistance fighters were discredited as informers. Resistance movements have been broken, divided, and so have entire communities, even families.

There is great sense of insecurity. Interrogators telephone formerly detained, alleged resistance figures, and tell them: “We will soon get your sister.”

The brutality of the torture here is unimaginable by any standards. I have investigated and reported on countless warzones, all over the world and countless times, I was entrusted with hair-raising stories of savagery. However, what I learned in Kashmir exceeds the most terrible practices.

In modern history, the cruelty of Indian forces in Kashmir can only be compared to the Indonesian atrocities of 1965 and to its genocide in East Timor, as well as in Papua, or to the brutality of the Rwandese and Ugandan forces in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Or to the Empire’s direct extermination campaign in Indochina.

Not surprisingly, both India and Indonesia are the West’s client states, promoted as examples of ‘democracy’ and ‘tolerance’.

***

“India is deprived, hegemonic and violent”, I am told at the house of Parvez Imroz, outside of Srinagar city.

In the highly traditional Kashmiri custom, several people sit on the floor, legs stretched, old-fashioned heaters placed under the blankets. We are drinking tea.

When it comes to this meeting, I can only identify two men in this essay from the JKCCS, by their real names. The rest are those who are working on behalf of their abused land, but their positions in the international organizations and press agencies would be compromised, were they to go publicly on the record.

They all helped me a lot, guiding me, explaining the situation, supplying me with contacts and information. They were willing to speak on condition of anonymity, and it is clear where their hearts and allegiances were:

“Indians are very moralistic, when it comes to Palestine… Although, even that is changing, after this administration of Prime Minister Modi is moving India closer and closer towards the West. US and Israel here are deeply involved in ‘anti-terrorist training’. Countless military and police officers are receiving their education in the US, European Union, and Israel. Police officers are being flown abroad. The army is performing regular exercises with the US and Israeli forces, mainly in the area of Ladakh, near Pakistan.”

“Ladakh is actually extremely popular among Israelis. 20,000 to 30,000 come here, every year, as tourists, or in some double capacity.”

“The ideas and methods of Israeli settlements are widely used in Kashmir. But they are ‘improved’ here. The Indian state is fine-tuning Israeli policies of apartheid.”

Everybody here agrees that the brutality factor is much higher in Kashmir than in Palestine:

“The brutality of Israeli forces is not hidden: it is all in the open. Every action against the Palestinian people is well documented. Israeli actions are constantly criticized from abroad, even at home. Huge blocks of countries, even the EU, are demanding independence for Palestine. Kashmir is different: our Intifada is hidden from the rest of the world. At least 8,000 of our people have already died. Hundreds of thousands have been tortured. But there is almost total silence coming from abroad.”

The similarities between Palestinian and Kashmiri resistance and their aim for independence and statehood, are striking. One of the most famous films made by my friend Sanjay Kak from New Delhi, is called “Jashn-e-Azadi – How We Celebrate Freedom”, and it is exactly about the topic. Sanjay also edited a book: Until My Freedom Has Come – The New Intifada in Kashmir (2011).

***

Kupwara. Mass graves dot the hill.

When we arrive, the town itself is totally shut down. It is the 21st anniversary of the massacre of local people by Indian forces. Around 27 people were slaughtered here, more than two decades ago, as they demanded the end of the Indian occupation.

“Here, many people were ‘disappeared’; they were killed in so-called staged battles. It happened on several occasions”, explains Parvaiz Matta. “Countless bodies arrived mutilated at the local hospitals: some with no legs, a clear result of torture.”

There are rusting stretchers resting against a tree. I am told that they were used to shuttle bodies from the hospital to this mass grave. And the bodies kept arriving, being carried by security forces from the forest.

The mass graves are all over the hill, some right next to a public school, which sits at the summit.

“The security forces described the bodies as being those of ‘unidentified foreign terrorists’, I am told. But ‘foreign’ is already a form of identification, isn’t it?”

There are 7000 unmarked and mass graves in Kashmir, I am told…

***

The 700,000-strong security forces are fighting between 200 and 300 active Mujahedin, resistance fighters.

The ‘fighting’ mainly consists of murdering innocent bystanders and villagers in the remote areas. These corpses are then passed off as the corpses of the Mujahedeen, ‘killed in combat’. That consequently ‘justifies’ huge military operations and budgets.

The ‘fighting’ also includes torturing anyone who is suspected or ‘accused’ of belonging to, or supporting the Mujahedeen; therefore anyone whom the security forces decide to identify as such.

The ‘signature’ torture in Kupwara, consists of cutting off legs or fingers. Torture tools and methods here, in this area, which is very near the Pakistani border, are very elaborate.

The chests of victims are burned with red-hot coins, and electric current administered through the penis. The testicles of victims are burned. Bottles of alcohol are inserted into the rectum of men who are then hung upside down from the ceiling. Wooden rollers are used to destroy legs. Nails are hammered into the feet of prisoners. Those who have half-moon tattoos, have them removed by red-hot pliers.

When a woman gets arrested, it is almost certain that her torture will include gang rape.

Sodomizing male prisoners is also common, all over Kashmir.

All of this, of course, could not pass as anything ‘spontaneous’. There is clearly a pattern. The security forces are trained to do what they are doing. A new, extremely brutal group has been created by the state. It is called SOG, and it mainly consists of the children of police and military personnel killed in battles with the Mujahedeen. It is easy to imagine the type of methods it uses.

“Most cases of torture and rape are not documented”, explained Parvaiz. “But my organization alone has already managed to amass documentation on around 5,000 instances of torture. For instance, a father had his head chopped off in front of his horrified family…”

I make him stop, at least for a few minutes. I need to at least have a short time to digest what I see around me, as well as what I am told.
We drive further, towards the Pakistani border. It is all really lush here – lush and stunningly beautiful. Tall mountains covered by snowcaps, pristine lakes and meadows. I ask our driver to stop; I need some fresh air. I need to see this magnificence, in order to regain strength, before we proceed towards a place that I dread visiting, but which I have to visit nevertheless.

We are heading towards two villages: Kunan and Poshpora.

Here, on 23rd February 1991, the armed forces of India surrounded Kunan, and arrested all men older than the age of 13. They arrived with the tools of torture, in their vehicles, and the torture that they administered, was horrible.

We park the car and I am lead into one of the houses.

It is a traditional, neat and extremely clean house. We take off our shoes. Two men are already waiting in the main room, resting their backs against the wall and soft pillows. A third man arrives shortly after.

We are not here to discuss torture. It is mass rape I am supposed to hear about.

But first, the men recall their own suffering. One of them begins:

“It was February and it was late at night; cold outside, winter. It all began at 11 PM and did not stop until 4 AM, early in the morning. All the men were taken out, into the bitter cold. They stripped us naked, and forced us to stand in an ice-cold stream. There was snow, 3 feet tall all around. They tortured 100 of us; of the men… 40 to 50 were severely tortured. They used electric current, and also, they put red chilly into the water and forced our heads down into it.”

There are no women in the room; no women at all that could be spotted around the house.

Another old man began speaking, while I averted my eyes. It was all extremely uncomfortable, and I knew what a great effort and determination it took for these men to speak about that horrible night, almost a quarter of century ago.

“Women and girls were left in the houses. They were alone and defenseless. The soldiers, around 200 of them, entered the houses, mostly 5-10 per house. They were carrying bottles of alcohol with them – they were drunk. It was all planned like this!”

Now the men spoke over each other:

“Women were raped. All of them… And not only women, but also small girls, from 6 to 13 years of age… Their clothes were torn off, they were insulted, humiliated, then raped.”

Soldiers were screaming at women: ‘You are bloody helping the militants, aren’t you?’

And this was done by Indian troops, and in India, so often; even rape does not end with the act itself. The brutality of the act is regularly indescribable; it includes the insertion of sharp objects, of rusty bars, of anything.

“Many of our women bled profusely. Some were unconscious for 4 or 5 days,” these 3 husbands whose wives survived that terrible night told me.

“One of the women delivered a baby, just 4 days earlier. The baby was hugging her mom when the soldiers entered. They first killed the baby, then gang-raped the mother.”

“They tortured and raped a minor, a girl. They broke her leg. She died later…”

“Some women have undergone treatment for many years, as their rectums were severely damaged”.

5 women died as a result of what took place that night.

There were two cops, from the village, who tried to assist the injured women. Later, they were willing to come forward and to testify. One of them was shot dead – murdered.

I am told that 40 women came forward and gave testimonies. These were married women. Minor, unmarried girls, had kept their identity secret. But even so, almost no young woman from Kunan could get married, afterwards. The stigma was too great and no villager from the area wanted to marry a rape victim.

Parvaiz explained that the rapes are still taking place in the deep provinces, in the frontier areas, where the people are at the mercy of the military. “Still, rape is used as a weapon of war”, he said.

For the Kunan onslaught, not one soldier has been punished, so far.

Before we left, the husbands of the rape victims, explained:

“This happened at the beginning… Then many other, terrible events took place. We tried to play by the rules, using the Indian legal system. But after almost a quarter of a century, there has been no justice. Here, the law only protects those guilty ones. This militarization of Kashmir ruined our lives! Now, we just want to be freed by destiny! This was all a terrible trauma for us. Even children from other villages are mocking our women and girls: “Oh, you come from that village where all the women were raped!”

It was a humbling experience, facing those tough Kashmiri men, who decided to open themselves up to me.

After they spoke, we walked from Kunan to Poshpora Village. Metaphorically, the ice was broken. I was allowed to photograph villagers, both men and women. I was accepted.

As we began driving towards Srinagar, there was a long silence inside the car. Then I broke it:

“Parvaiz?”

“Hmmm?”

“The fact that they mock the girls and women…” I began…

I knew he was thinking the same.

“Would you marry a rape victim?” He asked.

“If I were to be in love with her, yes, of course I would.”

“Are you sure?”

“Yes,” I said.

“This is where our culture has failed”, he said. And this is when I knew, that he would do the same.

I told him about the mass rape in the city of Ermera, in East Timor. The Indonesian forces did it – exactly the same scenario as in the Kashmiri village of Kunan.

I was then working illegally in East Timor. I was detained and tortured. Nobody ever got punished for the rape or for the killings. Many people directly responsible for the genocide in East Timor are now governing Indonesia.

***

As we passed Kupwara, the mood in the car significantly improved.

“I did not want to tell you, but chances were that before reaching Kupwara, we could have been stopped, interrogated and then…”

I got the point.

But now ‘it was fine’.

The further we drove away from Kupwara, the safer it was getting; by now we would have many arguments for justifying our trip. I photographed a few military and paramilitary camps, through the windshield.

Then I asked our driver to stop. I needed to take a piss. He pushed the brakes right next to some beautiful Kashmiri apple orchard.

I stepped out from the car and walked towards the first tree; the fresh air and beautiful countryside, and stuff like that… Then I spotted him: a soldier, semi-camouflaged, holding his machinegun, ready. I pissed towards him, defiantly. Then I saluted him, mockingly. He did not even smile, just stood there, like an idiot, under the apple tree.

I was wondering whether there are more Indian security personnel in Kashmir, or apple trees?

I visited Mr. Hassan Bhat in Sopore City, known for its resistance fighters.

Mr. Bhat used to be one of them, but he was captured and tortured savagely, on several occasions, and he gave up on active duty.

The security forces killed both his sons. Just like that, both died by the time they reached the age of 15.

One son had gone to a local store, in 2006, to buy milk, and a security agent shot him through the chest, from his speeding police car. Another boy died in 2010, when some kids got engaged in stone-throwing, and he was caught in the middle of it, when he got scared, and jumped into the river. Police began shooting tear gas canisters at anyone who was in the water. They hit him with one of those, and he died.

“I know the perpetrators, I know the officer who was in charge”, said Mr. Bhat. He tried to file a complaint, but the police refused to register the case.

“The officer-in-charge was going to join the UN Peacekeepers”, said Parvaiz. “India often sends people who fought in Kashmir, to the UN. It is a huge money-making scheme for the country… But my organization identified him, and supplied the UN with detailed evidence on his crimes. After that, his application got rejected.”

I actually saw the Indian UN “Peacekeepers” in action, in Goma, in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where even the former UNHCR head, Ms. Masako Yonekawa, complained to me about the many illegal activities perpetrated by the Indian ‘peacekeeping contingent’.

Then, Mr. Bhat and I stood by the shore of the River Jhelum.

“It flows all the way to Pakistan,” he sighed.

Mr. Bhat, despite all those horrors that he has survived, is a kind, gentle man.

I asked him whether he thinks that Kashmir will be able to, at some point, gain its independence.

“80% of Kashmiri people want freedom”, he said. “80% is a lot of people, don’t you think?”

I am being shown where, in 1993, an entire area had been destroyed, by the BSF (Border Security Forces). Back then, 53 people died.

Later we go, in the middle of the night, to a house where a battle took place between the Indian forces and the Mujahedeen, just a few days earlier.

Sopore is still fighting.

But there is fear. It is cold; it is an omnipresent fear.

I am told by many, that now, people are afraid of even protesting against the scarcity of basic supplies. One could easily disappear.

I am told that here, the Indian forces are trying to hook young people on alcohol and drugs, in order to keep them away from the resistance.

But others say: in this city, in Sopore, people are determined. They resist. They are active here. This city produces big people! People that never surrender! Indian forces call it “Little Pakistan”.

Can the huge oppressive force really be defeated, and if yes, then how?

This is when, even in Sopore; even in the middle of the night, in front of a house that recently witnessed a real battle, everyone gets realistic:

“Only international pressure can help!”

At some point, one gets exhausted, almost numb, after listening to detailed and well-documented accounts of extra-judicial killings, disappearances, torture and rapes.

At one point I was presented with evidence about a man who was detained, questioned and when he appeared defiant, both of his feet were chopped off. He survived. When still in detention, sometime later, the security forces cut off substantial parts of his flesh, from different parts of his body; cooked it, and forced him to eat it, for several days. He survived… The case is documented and HR organizations are demanding justice. No one has been punished.

***

There is genocide: terrible, outrageous and unreported by the cowardly media and the intellectuals, in both India and the West.

People, who dare to speak and write about the plight of Kashmir, are intimidated, deported, and even physically attacked.

Arundhati Roy is periodically threatened with sedition charges, lawsuits and life imprisonment.

Others, like the legendary radio host David Barsamian, got deported from India, no explanation given.

In October 2011, a senior Supreme Court advocate Mr. Prashant Bhushan (who drafted the Lokpal Bill), was brutally beaten in his chambers at the Supreme Court after he made comments on Kashmir. Mr. Bhushan’s spoke on human rights violations and militarization in Kashmir.

***

There are tourists in Kashmir, not only Indian, but foreigners as well. They go skiing and snowboarding in Gulmarg, or hiking to Ladakh. There are Europeans and Israelis, some North Americans.

Many locals call it “horror tourism in Rapistan”.

I encountered several couples, high in the mountains, in Gulmarg: red cheeks from too much fresh air at the high altitude. I talked to a British couple enjoying skiing, a German couple on vacation… They had no clue about what was happening in Kashmir. When I pressed them a bit: “But you must have noticed all those bunkers, military convoys and checkpoints”, their simple reply was: “Yes… Well, India has to do something about the terrorism problem, right?”

It is a well-documented fact that the Empire is counting on several countries, all over the world, for acting on its behalf, spreading terror in the ‘neighborhood’, often brutalizing even its own people. These countries are, for instance, Rwanda, Uganda and Kenya in Africa, Honduras and Columbia in Latin America, Israel, Saudi Arabia and Qatar in the Middle East, Indonesia, Thailand and now India in Southern Asia.

Most of the brutal lackey states are christened as ‘democracies’, as tolerant, as the examples worth following.

These countries are promoted as ‘Lands of Smiles’, or as ‘cultures of non-violence’. It is all farcical, but somehow, not many people seem to be laughing.

It is because they don’t know. It is because brutality and cynicism still pays.

And this approach should stop! Brutal crimes against humanity have to be exposed. Countries that are murdering thousands of innocent people have to be shamed publicly and dealt with, internationally. It goes without saying that a state that is serving the Empire, torturing and raping those who are longing for independence, while in the same time spitting on its own poor, should never have place in an organization like BRICS!

I went back to the area of the Grand Mosque in Srinagar, on 26th January, as I promised. I followed the kids. A few streets away, after 2 PM, fighting erupted.

It was all raw and tough, and it clearly resembled Palestine.

The only great difference was that other than me there were no witnesses, to describe the courage of local youth, as well as the oppression of the Kashmiri people by the Indian state.

Two days later I took the longest cable car in Asia, at Gulmarg. I wanted to see ‘what was up there’. There is, of course, a military base!

On the way down, the electricity collapsed and our gondola froze, suspended in midair. The door would not close, and there were holes, all over. It was India, after all. I could have frozen to death, if the stuff did not begin moving a few minutes later.

India is facing some of the most serious challenges on Earth: from illiteracy to deep poverty. 700,000 security forces cost billions of dollars, annually, pragmatically speaking. Even if the Indian elites, government and military do not care about the Kashmiri people and their plight, they should care at least about their own poor!

Holding Kashmir against its will brings no benefits to India and its people. It is definitely undemocratic and brutal… and absolutely unnecessary!

Welcome to Kashmir! Its beauty is fabled. Its lakes, mountain ranges, deep valleys and rivers are proud and striking. Its people warm, welcoming, but strong.

Kashmir is bleeding. Its valleys are divided by barbed wire. Its women are raped. Its men tortured and humiliated. The cries of Kashmiri people are muted. The world knows almost nothing about their plight, about their suffering.

700,000-man security force fighting around 300 men! And they cannot win. Why? The answer is simple: It is because no brutal force on earth could ever defeat those who are fighting for the survival of their land, for something so dear, so beloved!

Andre Vltchek is a novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist.

08 February, 2015
Counterpunch.org

The ‘Great War’ of Sinai: How To Lose A ‘War On Terror’

By Ramzy Baroud

The Sinai Peninsula has moved from the margins of Egyptian body politic to the uncontested center, as Egypt’s strong man – President Abdul Fatah al-Sisi – finds himself greatly undercut by the rise of an insurgency that seems to be growing stronger with time.

Another series of deadly and coordinated attacks, on January 29, shattered the Egyptian army’s confidence, pushing it further into a deadly course of a war that can only be won by political sagacity, not bigger guns.

The latest attack was a blow to a short-lived sense of gratification felt by the regime that militancy in Sinai had been waning, thanks to a decisive military response that lasted for months. When militants carried out a multistage attack on an Egyptian military checkpoint in Sinai, on October 24, killing 31 and wounding many, the Egyptian government and media lines were most predictable. They blamed ‘foreigners’ for what was essentially a homegrown security and political crisis.

Instead of reexamining Egypt’s entire approach to the poor region of North Sinai, the army moved to further isolate Gaza, which has been under a very strict Israeli-Egyptian siege since 2007.

What has taken place in Sinai since last October was predictably shattering. It was seen by some as ethnic cleansing in the name of fighting terror. Thousands of families were being forced to evacuate their homes to watch them being detonated in the middle of the night, and resentment grew as a consequence.

And with resentment comes defiance. A Sinai resident, Abu Musallam summed up his people’s attitude towards government violence: “They bomb the house; we build a hut. They burn the hut; we build another hut. They kill; we give birth.”

Yet, despite a media blackout in Sinai, the scene of devastation created by the military campaign was becoming palpable. “Using bulldozers and dynamite” the army has demolished as many as 800 houses and displaced up to 10,000, the New York Times reported. Sisi spokesman referred to the demolished neighborhoods as terrorist “hotbeds”. The long-discussed plan for a “buffer zone” between Egypt and Gaza was carried out, and to a more devastating degree than expected.

The Jerusalem Post quoted the Egyptian publication, Al-Yom a-Sab’a reporting that “the security forces will work to clear the area of underground tunnels leading to Gaza and it will also level any buildings and structures that could be used to conceal smuggling activity.”

But no Gaza connection was ever found. The logic of a Gaza connection was bewildering to begin with. Attacks of this nature are more likely to worsen Gaza’s plight and tighten the siege, since the tunnels serve as a major lifeline for the besieged Palestinians. If the attacks carry a political message, it would be one that serves the interest of Gaza’s enemies, Israel and rival Palestinian factions, for example, not Hamas.

But no matter, Sisi, who rarely paused to consider Sinai’s extreme poverty and near-total negligence by Cairo, was quick to point the finger. Then, he called on Egyptians to “be aware of what is being hatched against us. All that is happening to us is known to us and we expected it and talked about it before July 3,” he said, referring to the day the military overthrew Mohammed Morsi.

In a televised speech, he blamed “foreign hands” that are “trying to break Egypt’s back,” vowing to fight extremism in a long-term campaign. Considering the simmering anger and sorrow felt by Egyptians, the attacks were an opportunity to acquire a political mandate that would allow him to carry whatever military policy that suited his interests in Sinai, starting with a buffer zone with Gaza.

While awaiting the bodies of the dead soldiers in Almaza military airport in Cairo, Sisi spoke of a ‘great war’ that his army is fighting in the Sinai. “These violent incidents are a reaction to our efforts to combat terrorism. The toll during the last few months has been very high and every day there are scores of terrorists who are killed and hundreds of them have already been liquidated.”

Without much monitoring in Sinai, and with occasional horror stories leaking out of the hermetically sealed desert of 60,000 square kilometers, and the admission of ‘scores’ killed ‘everyday,’ Sinai is reeling in a vicious cycle.

Resentment of the government in Sinai goes back many years, but it has peaked since the ousting of President Morsi. True, his one year in power also witnessed much violence, but not at the same level as today’s.

Since the January 2011 revolution, Egypt was ruled by four different regimes: The supreme military council, the administration of Mohammed Morsi, a transitional government led by Adli Mansour, and finally the return of the military to civilian clothes under Abdul Fatah al-Sisi. None have managed to control the violence in Sinai.

Sisi, however, insists on using the violence, including the most recent attacks that struck three different cities at once – Arish, Sheikh Zuwaid and Rafah – for limited political gain. He blamed the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) once more without providing much evidence. The MB, in turn, released a short statement blaming government neglect and brutality in Sinai for the violence, which promises to increase.

Following the October killings, I wrote: “If the intentions are to truly curb attacks in Sinai, knee-jerk military solutions will backfire.” Others too sounded the alarm that the security solution will not work.

What should have been common sense – Sinai’s problems are, after all complex and protracted – was brushed aside in the rush for war. The folly of the military action in the last few months may be registering internationally, at last, but certainly not locally.

That denial is felt through much of the Egyptian media. A top military expert, Salamah Jawhari declared on television that the “Sinai terrorists are clinically dead” and the proof is the well-coordinated attacks of January 29. Per his logic, the attacks, which targeted three main cities all at once were ‘scattered’, thus the ‘clinical death’ of the militants. He blamed Qatar and Turkey for supporting the militants of Ansar Bait al-Maqdis, which, as of November vowed allegiance to the so-called ‘Islamic State’ (IS), announcing their new name: ‘The Sinai Province’.

The massive comeback of Sinai’s militants and the change of tactics indicate that the war in Sinai is heading to a stage unseen since the revolution, in fact since the rise of militancy in Sinai starting with the deadly bombings of October 2004, followed by the attack on tourists in April 2005, at the Sharm el-Sheikh resort in the same year, and on Dahab in 2006. The militants are much more emboldened, angry and organized.

The audacity of the militants seems consistent with the sense of despair felt by the tribes of Sinai, who are caught in a devastating politically-motivated ‘war on terror’.

The question remains: how long will it be before Cairo understands that violence cannot resolve what are fundamentality political and socio-economic problems? This is as true in Cairo, as it is in Arish.

Ramzy Baroud – www.ramzybaroud.net – is an internationally-syndicated columnist, a media consultant, an author of several books and the founder of PalestineChronicle.com.

06 January, 2015
Countercurrents.org

 

US, Ukraine And Russia: What Went Wrong?

By Kim Scipes
Two widely recognized authorities on big power politics and NATO recently gave a public talk on the current situation in the Ukraine at the Evanston (Illinois) Public Library. Organized by the Evanston Neighbors for Peace, John J. Mearsheimer, the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago, and Rick Rozoff, a long-time activist who maintains the “Stop NATO—Opposition to Global Militarism” web site , spent three hours recently trying to cut through the lies and obfuscation that the US public has been fed around the current developments in Ukraine.

Mearsheimer began the session, and was followed by Rozoff. Afterwards, they responded to each other’s presentation and then took questions and statements from the public, making this a very lively and informative session. This reporter was present throughout and took notes from the presentations; this reporter inserted sub-headings within to help readability.

Perspective of John Mearsheimer

Mearsheimer started off, noting the “significant deterioration in US-Russian foreign relations.” He argued this situation is “fundamentally wrong.”

He gave background to what’s going on. Basically, US-Russian relations were ok until February 22, 2014. Since then, things have gone “down the toilet bowl.” (On February 22, 2014, there was a coup in Kiev, Ukraine, where protestors—which the support of the US Government—overthrew the democratically elected government of Viktor Yanukovych.)

Before February 22, there was no evidence of American or European policy makers being concerned with Ukraine. US Ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul, stated there was “no reason to contain Russia,” and said that the US did not see [Russian President Vladimir] Putin as an “aggressor.” There was no evidence to suggest otherwise.

Since the coup, Russia has encouraged the citizens of Crimea—a Russian speaking area that had been given to Ukraine by Khrushchev in 1954—to reunite with Russia, which they did via a local referendum in March 2014. At the same time, there’s been a war “by virtually all accounts” in the Eastern Ukraine between the Ukrainian government on one side, and Russia-supporting rebels on the other.

The US blames Putin for all of the turmoil. According to Mearsheimer, the US is acting “like kids who never understand what they’ve done wrong.” Some commentators have called Putin “a new Hitler,” which Mearsheimer says such arguments are “ludicrous in the extreme”: nothing that Putin has done has ever put him in the category of Hitler.

Mearsheimer says, “The Russians have made clear that Ukraine is a core strategic area.” In other words, they will defend it at all costs: their response to crisis in Ukraine is similar to what the US would do if a nuclear-armed “opponent” were to try to take over Canada or Mexico.

Mearsheimer said there were three things going on in Ukraine: NATO was trying to expand, the EU (European Union) was trying to expand, and that the US was trying to “promote democracy” in Ukraine and Georgia: basically, the idea was to put the Western powers directly on the borders of Russia. And they were trying to do this by incorporating Ukraine (as well as Georgia) into NATO and the EU.

Some Relevant Historical Background

When the Soviet Union allowed its Empire in Eastern Europe to collapse in 1989 without sending in tanks, US President George Herbert Walker Bush (the old man) told Mikhail Gorbachev that the US would not take advantage of the situation and would not expand NATO eastward. [Apparently, Gorbachev accepted Bush at his word, and this was never written down—KS.] NATO did not expand eastward until 1999, when it expanded under Bill Clinton. In 2004, under George W. Bush, it expanded to include the Baltic States. In April 2008, at a NATO Summit in Bucharest, Romania, NATO offered membership to the former Soviet republics, Ukraine and Georgia. In August 2008, there was the war between Russia and Georgia, where the Russians said unequivocally, NO WAY.

At the same time, the EU was expanding eastward, trying to incorporate as many countries in Eastern Europe into its monetary and trading zone. They were steadily trying to incorporate Ukraine as well.

At the same time, the West was also trying to “promote democracy,” and getting pro-Western leaders into positions of political leadership in these countries, including Ukraine. The so-called “Orange Revolution” in 2004 was intended to do this. The Russians were spooked by these three strategies, especially when combined, like they were.

Where things hit the crisis level was the result of Ukraine’s president Viktor Yanukovych’s flirting with accepting a EU economic package for this country during the Fall of 2013. Ultimately, Yanukovych decided to “deep six” the deal, and decided to accept an economic package from Russia. This lead to massive protests inside Ukraine—particularly in the European-leaning western part of the country—and these protests led to the February 22 coup, which forced Yanukovych out of office and out of the country.

Russia’s Response to the Coup

Mearsheimer labeled Russia’s response “highly understandable.” Russia made clear this situation was “categorically unacceptable.” He said that if we wanted a good analogy, we should look at the US response to the Soviet Union’s placement of missiles in Cuba in 1962 or even the Monroe Doctrine itself, which he described as telling other world powers to stay out of “our neighborhood,” the entire Western Hemisphere.

As Mearsheimer summed it up, “Great Powers are very sensitive to disruptions on their borders and in their neighborhoods.”

He stressed it again: Russia’s response is “completely understandable.” Putin and the Russians are not going to allow Ukraine to join NATO: they see this as an “existential threat.”

Accordingly, they “took Crimea,” although they had 25,000 troops stationed there under a long-term lease that allowed the Russian Black Sea Fleet to harbor at Sevastopol; obviously, they didn’t want to risk that lease being terminated, causing them to loose that naval base.

The Russians have also helped facilitate troubles in eastern Ukraine. According to Mearsheimer, however, they will not invade. He notes that Russia is in both serious economic and political trouble—the West’s sanctions have hurt Russia, but probably the bigger, immediate problem is the collapse of global oil prices—but he argues that the conventional forces of Russian cannot swallow Ukraine; they have limited military capabilities. He says an invasion by Russia is “not in the cards: there’s no evidence that they want to do it and they aren’t capable,” either.

What the Russians can do, however, is wreck the country as a functioning society.

In response, the West keeps telling the government in Ukraine to keep playing hardball with the Russians. Mearsheimer thinks this is misleading Ukraine. He said it’s stupid to tell Ukrainians to keep screwing themselves by poking the Russians. “Putin is certain to make sure Ukraine will not be part of the West.”

From Here?

Mearsheimer thinks there is a simple solution to the crisis: take NATO and EU expansion off the table. His idea is to make Ukraine a neutral border state.

He argues that Putin hasn’t wanted to pick a fight, and the evidence shows that there really wasn’t a problem in Ukraine until the Fall of 2013, after Yanukovych decided to take a Russian deal instead of one with the EU. He states simply, “Putin did not create the crisis.”

Mearsheimer thinks that the US is being “foolish in the extreme” to keep supporting the Ukrainians’ conflict with Russia. He argues this makes the chance of a war more dangerous.

Perspective of Rick Rozoff

Rozoff started off by thanking Mearsheimer for speaking truth to power in a recent article in Foreign Affairs, “Why the Ukraine Crisis is the West’s Fault” (September-October 2014). He then pointed out this was Day 270 of the “anti-terrorist operation” by Ukraine, and the “Fifth Act” of NATO’s expansion.

Most Americans never even consider NATO, especially after the dissolution of the Soviet Empire in Eastern Europe, which was touted as “the end of the Cold War.” Rozoff pointed out that despite the supposed end, NATO has been very aggressively expanding eastward toward Russia, which was the heartland of the Soviet Union.

>> This began in 1990, when East Germany was absorbed into Germany. (GHW Bush Administration);

>> In 1999, at the 50th anniversary of the founding of NATO, in a NATO Summit in Washington, DC, NATO engaged in its first post-Cold War expansion, inviting Poland, Hungary and Poland to join it. (Clinton Administration).

>> In 2004, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania (the “Baltic States”) joined, along with Slovenia and Slovakia (parts of former Yugoslavia), Bulgaria and Romania (GWB Administration).

>> In 2009, Croatia (part of former Yugoslavia) and Albania joined, although they had been invited in 2008, under the GW Bush Administration. By 2009, NATO had increased its membership by 75%, now having 28 full members and 49 “partner” countries, for a total of 77 country members. Over 70% of the total world spending on military weaponry is done by these nations.

>> In 2008, both Georgia and Ukraine were told they could eventually become members.

Rozoff pointed out that not only had NATO been expanding aggressively, it has now fought in a number of wars, most far away from Europe. It forces fought in the 1994-95 war in Yugoslavia, and then again in 1999, when it carried out a 78 day bombing campaign in support of Kosovo’s succession. After that, it sent forces to Afghanistan beginning in 2001, forces “for training” in Iraq in 2004, ships for anti-piracy duty in the Gulf of Aden (off of Somalia), and then in 2011, it led the war on Libya.

But NATO engages in war-like activities (called “exercises”) designed to enhance its war-fighting capabilities. For example, Rozoff talked about a March 2014 NATO exercise above the Artic Circle. This “exercise” involved 16,000 troops from 16 nations and took place approximately 200 miles from Russia.

Rozoff pointed out that this aggressive behavior towards Russia, up to and including developments in Ukraine—and he said it could only be seen that way by the Russians, despite whatever rationales were mouthed by NATO—was very dangerous. He mentioned that Mikhail Gorbachev had even suggested recently that things in Ukraine could easily get out of hand, and that ultimately could lead to nuclear war.

Rozoff ended his talk with arguing the need to disband NATO, which he called “the biggest threat to world peace.”

Further Discussion

Mearsheimer states that the ruling elite of Ukraine wants to be part of the West, not Russia. However, he argues, “they do not have a right to do whatever they want.” He says their problem is what he called “bad geography.” The Russians consider Ukraine to be a core strategic region. He says that the West is leading Ukraine “down a primrose path” that can only end up hurting Ukraine.

An audience member asked about US activities in Ukraine being connected to economic interests?

Mearsheimer stated that the there’s no doubt that the US is economically interested in Ukraine, but he argues there is no need to try to pull Ukraine away from Russia. The sanctions that the Obama Administration and the EU have imposed on Russia have “severely damaged” Russia, but it’s leading to blowback (i.e., unintended consequences) on Western Europe. He believes that some of the current EU economic problems are being caused by the Ukraine crisis. He says German business elites clearly are opposed to economic sanctions against Russia.

Someone else asked if Russia could withstand economic sanctions along with the collapse of oil prices?

Mearsheimer says this is a great crisis for Russia, but he does not think Russia will collapse—and that they will not give up, as Ukraine is a core strategic area for them. He says that Russia has two things going for it: “they have arms, including nuclear weapons, and hydrocarbon.” He pointed out that the EU is the second largest consumer of hydrocarbon in the world.

Someone else asked what was the US role in the 2013 protests/2014 coup in Ukraine? Mearsheimer said he didn’t know. He said it was hard to get details.

This reporter—a scholar who has done research on the US “democracy promotion’ activities—then made a contribution to the discussion. He said that Americans were working closely with the protestors who came to power in the coup. He pointed out that Victoria Nuland, US Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, and US Senator John McCain—the Chairman of the International Republican Institute, which is a core institute of the US government’s so-called National Endowment for Democracy—participated in protests in Kiev. However, he said he doesn’t know if the US had facilitated the coup, but that there has been a lot of “democracy promotion” money sent to Ukraine to develop political parties, and this went to opposition politicians who opposed the democratically elected government.

Another audience member pointed out that he understood there had been considerable monies sent to the Ukraine opposition by the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung (a right-wing foundation) of Germany, as well as USAID (US Agency for International Development). He also stated he had been in Ukraine recently, and specifically noted that there were people from fascist organizations involved in the opposition, and they now held important positions in the post-coup government.

With that last interaction, the session was closed. Thus ended a very informative program that helped clear up a lot of misinformation about currents in eastern Europe and specifically Ukraine. It’s importance became even more clear as President Obama, in his January 20th State of the Union speech, claimed that it was Putin who was the aggressor in Ukraine—more disinformation by the Commander in Chief.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

Kim Scipes, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor of Sociology at Purdue University North Central in Westville

06 February, 2015
CommonDreams.org

 

Chomsky And Kissinger Agree: Avoid The Historic Tragedy Of Ukraine

By Kevin Zeese
The New York Times reported Tuesday that the Obama administration is considering sending more weapons to Ukraine — $3 billion worth. The Times reports: “Secretary of State John Kerry, who plans to visit Kiev on Thursday [Feb. 5], is open to new discussions about providing lethal assistance, as is Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, officials said.”

This follows Defense News reporting that this spring the United States will be sending troops to train the Ukrainian National Guard and commence the shipping of U.S.-funded armored vehicles. The funding for this is coming from the congressionally-authorized Global Security Contingency Fund, which was requested by the Obama administration in the fiscal year 2015 budget to help train and equip the armed forces of allies around the globe.

Meanwhile, January footage from Ukrainian television shows U.S. Gen. Ben Hodges, commander of the U.S. Army in Europe, handing out medals to wounded Ukrainian soldiers.

The slippery slope of U.S. involvement in what is developing into a civil war is based on a great deal of propagandistic statements and inaccurate corporate media coverage, and it calls to mind so many wars started for false reasons.

The views of Henry Kissinger and Noam Chomsky on this conflict are quite similar, though it’s difficult to find two more polar opposites regarding U.S. foreign policy. Indeed, Chomsky has been a long-time critic of Kissinger for the bombings in Southeast Asia and the various coups against democratic leaders that occurred during his tenure. Chomsky has said that in a just world, Kissinger certainly would have been prosecuted for these actions. (These were the war crimes that CODEPINK recently protested before the Senate Finance Committee.)

Yet when it comes to Ukraine, Chomsky and Kissinger essentially agree with each other. They disagree with the more hawkish Obama administration and the even more extreme Sen. John McCain — who are both escalating the conflict in their own ways.

“A threatening situation”

Chomsky has described Ukraine as a “crisis [that] is serious and threatening,” further noting that some people compare it to the Cuban missile crisis of 1962. In discussing Russia and Crimea he reminds readers that, “Crimea is historically Russian; it has Russia’s only warm-water port, the home of Russia’s fleet; and has enormous strategic significance.

Kissinger agrees. In an interview with Spiegel, published in November, Kissinger says, “Ukraine has always had a special significance for Russia. It was a mistake not to realize that.”

He continues:

“Crimea is a special case. Ukraine was part of Russia for a long time. You can’t accept the principle that any country can just change the borders and take a province of another country. But if the West is honest with itself, it has to admit that there were mistakes on its side. The annexation of Crimea was not a move toward global conquest. It was not Hitler moving into Czechoslovakia.”

When Kissinger says that Crimea is not akin to Hitler and a desire for global conquest by Russia, he is going to the heart of the arguments made by those seeking escalation. Asked whether he believes the West has “at least a kind of responsibility for” the escalation in Ukraine, Kissinger says:

“Europe and America did not understand the impact of these events, starting with the negotiations about Ukraine’s economic relations with the European Union and culminating in the demonstrations in Kiev. All these, and their impact, should have been the subject of a dialogue with Russia.”

In other words, Kissinger blames the U.S. and Europe for the current catastrophe in Ukraine. Kissinger does not begin at the point where there is military conflict. He recognizes that the problems in Ukraine began with Europe and the U.S. seeking to lure Ukraine into an alliance with Western powers with promises of economic aid. This led to the demonstrations in Kiev. And, as we learned from Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, the U.S. spent $5 billion in building opposition to the government in Ukraine.

In an October interview on U.S. foreign policy with the Plymouth Institute for Peace Research, when asked about Ukraine, Chomsky says:

“It is an extremely dangerous development, which has been brewing ever since Washington violated its verbal promises to Gorbachev and began expanding NATO to the East, right to Russia’s borders, and threatening to incorporate Ukraine, which is of great strategic significance to Russia and of course has close historical and cultural links. There is a sensible analysis of the situation in the leading establishment journal, Foreign Affairs, by international relations specialist John Mearsheimer, entitled “Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West’s Fault.” The Russian autocracy is far from blameless, but we are now back to earlier comments: we have come perilously close to disaster before, and are toying with catastrophe again. It is not that possible peaceful solutions are lacking.

Kissinger, too, warns of Ukraine as a dangerous situation, describing the potential of a new Cold War and urging the countries involved to do all they can to avoid “a historic tragedy.” He tells Spiegel:

“There clearly is this danger, and we must not ignore it. I think a resumption of the Cold War would be a historic tragedy. If a conflict is avoidable, on a basis reflecting morality and security, one should try to avoid it.”

Chomsky agrees that the Ukraine conflict is high risk but goes further. Speaking to Russia Today (RT), he mentions a risk of World War III and nuclear war, saying the world has “come ominously close several times in the past, dramatically close.” He then describes the current situation in Ukraine: “And now, especially in the crisis over Ukraine, and so-called missile-defense systems near the borders of Russia, it’s a threatening situation.”

Kissinger is also critical of the economic sanctions against Russia. He takes issue with targeting individuals because he does not see how that ends. Indeed, the criticism of the sanctions also applies to U.S. military involvement in Ukraine. Kissinger tells Spiegel: “I think one should always, when one starts something, think what one wants to achieve and how it should end. How does it end?”

The virtual takeover of Ukrainian government

The U.S. has loaded the Ukraine government and key businesses with Americans or U.S. allies. Nuland was caught on a telephone conversation with Geoffrey Pyatt, the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, picking the next leader of Ukraine. The call is more famous for her closing line — “Fuck the EU” — but in the call she also says that the next leader of Ukraine should be the former banker Arseniy Yatseniuk, who she calls by a nickname “Yats.” Indeed, he has since become the prime minister of the post-coup Ukrainian government.

Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko is identified in State Department documents as an informant for the U.S. since 2006. The documents describe him as “[o]ur Ukraine (OU) insider Petro Poroshenko.” The State Department documents also report that Poroshenko is “tainted by credible corruption allegations.”

The most recent top official to join the Ukrainian government is Natalia A. Jaresko, a long-time State Department official, who went to Ukraine after the U.S.-sponsored Orange Revolution. Jaresko was made a Ukrainian citizen by the president on the same day he appointed her finance minister. William Boardman reports further on Jaresko:

“Natalie Jaresko, is an American citizen who managed a Ukrainian-based, U.S.-created hedge fund that was charged with illegal insider trading. She also managed a CIA fund that supported ‘pro-democracy’ movements and laundered much of the $5 billion the U.S. spent supporting the Maidan protests that led to the Kiev coup in February 2014. Jaresko is a big fan of austerity for people in troubled economies.”

Then, there is also one of the most important business sectors in Ukraine: the energy industry. After the U.S.-supported coup, Vice President Joe Biden‘s son, Hunter Biden, and a close friend of Secretary of State John Kerry, Devon Archer, the college roommate of the secretary of state’s stepson, have joined the board of Ukrainian gas producer Burisma Holdings, Ukraine’s largest independent gas producer by volume. Archer also served as an adviser to Kerry’s 2004 presidential campaign and co-chaired his National Finance Committee. He also serves as a trustee of the Heinz Family Office, which manages the family business.

This virtual takeover of the Ukrainian government is the opposite of what Kissinger would have liked to have seen. He wrote last March, “If Ukraine is to survive and thrive, it must not be either side’s outpost against the other — it should function as a bridge between them.” Unfortunately, it looks like it has been taken over by the U.S., creating conflict rather than a bridge between Russia and the U.S.

The man who was involved in multiple coups of democratically-elected governments now says the U.S. cannot impose its views on other nations:

“SPIEGEL: In your book, you write that international order “must be cultivated, not imposed.” What do you mean by that?

“Kissinger: What it means is we that we Americans will be a major factor by virtue of our strengths and values. You become a superpower by being strong but also by being wise and by being farsighted. But no state is strong or wise enough to create a world order alone.”

Chomsky has often described how superpowers seek to organize the world according to their interests through military and economic power. Throughout his career he has been an advocate for national self-determination, not domination by super-powers.

Though Kissinger and Chomsky might be offended at being associated with the political views of the other, as the U.S. rushes headlong into a military conflict between the coup government in Kiev and the Eastern Ukrainian governments seeking their own self-determination, it is notable that both agree this rush to war is a mistake — and one of potentially historic proportions.

Kevin Zeese is co-director of Popular Resistance and active with the antiwar group, Come Home America.

This article was originally published in MintPress News.

06 February, 2015
Countercurrents.org

 

A GLOBAL STATE OF NATURE? PLEADING FOR A RENEWED COVENANT

By Fred Dallmayr

Our time illustrates a state of increasing brutalization.

Tzvetan Todorov

These days, whenever one reads a paper or watches the news on television, one is faced with an avalanche of atrocities and mayhems. For example, on January 27, 2015, these were the main news items: U.S. drone kills 12 years-old Yemeni boy; Shiite militias accused of executing 70 unarmed civilians; eight die in attack on Libyan hotel; nine Ukrainian soldiers die; thousands protest in Mexico over disappearance of students. These are just the headlines on one day. Other, equally grim stories were reported on the previous days. And we know: the flow of horror stories will not stop during the following days. So, what is happening in our world? Is world history really the relentless slaughter bench—as Hegel once surmised?

This verdict does not concur with mere hopeful scenarios depicted by some students of international politics. According to the latter, the world today is at the cusp of a momentous “paradigm shift”: from inter-state relations to a genuine “global politics.” Whereas traditional inter-state politics—inaugurated by the Peace of Westphalia—was marked by the constant rivalries among sovereign states, the new paradigm of global politics would usher in a more peaceful era released from the war-mongering ambitions of the past. While Hegel’s verdict may have applied to the state-centered Westphalian system, it would no longer hold true for the emerging global scenario. But how plausible is this assumption? The expectation clearly is predicated on two factors: first, the retreat of powerful state actors; and secondly, the upsurge of a viable global civil society. As it happens, neither of these factors is presently in place.

Regarding the role of state, it is true that many of the older nation-states have been reduced to the role of satellites or (quasi-colonial) client states. Their military capabilities are restricted to performance in so-called “proxy wars.” However, the shrinking of older states to subsidiary status does not eliminate the role of state sovereignty. On the contrary, what has happened is the rise of super-states, of hegemonic super-Leviathans endowed with sheer limitless war-making capacities. To this extent, Westphalia has given rise to a new super-Westphalian order. The so-called “clash of civilizations” is to a large extent a clash of super-Leviathans clustering around themselves an aura or penumbra of client civilizations.

What is still more disturbing is the fact that the practically unlimited war-powers of super-Leviathans is accompanied by the absence or decay of civil society, especially of what is sometimes called “global civil society.” This decay is due to the erosion of ethical civic bonds and the growing “atomization” of society—an atomization which has been spearheaded by Western countries but is now being globalized around the world. What is happening as a result is not the upsurge of a robust global civil society—functioning as a possible antidote to super-Leviathans—but the decay of social life into a Hobbesian “state of nature”—now a globalized state of nature. According to Thomas Hobbes, the state of nature was (and is) characterized by the lack of binding ethical rules and the claim by every member to an unlimited right to do as he/she pleases for the sake of security. Hobbes called this right or freedom the “right to everything” (ius ad omnia), the right to do anything perceived as required for security, including the unlimited right to kill opponents. The exercise of this absolute right by everybody inevitably leads to an absolute condition of terror or fear of death, a condition which renders life “nasty, brutish, and short.” It is this condition of universal terror which increasingly is gripping both domestic and global civil society.

On the global level, this condition of terror is illustrated by the pretense of a global right to kill anybody anywhere—and this quite outside the bounds of traditional warfare. This pretended right to kill is evident in the use of drones anywhere in the world, resulting often in mayhem among civilians. It is also evident in the use of para-military mercenary forces in many parts of the world, forces which—though wielding lethal power—are not accountable to any legal authority. The most obvious example, however, of a universal killing license—in a global state of nature—is the American employment of “Special Operations” forces (SOF) on a global scale. According to a report by Nick Turse, writing for Information Clearing House, such special forces operate now in 105 countries. As he points out, since September 2001, these forces have grown “in every conceivable way,” including numbers, budget, and clout in Washington; their personnel has more than doubled from about 33,000 in 2001 to nearly 70,000 today. During the fiscal year ending in September 2014, SOF deployed to 133 countries—roughly 70% of the nations of the world. This capped a three-year span in which “the country’s most elite forces” were active in more than 150 different countries around the world, “ranging from kill/capture night raids to training exercises.” And in just the first weeks of 2015, the troops had already set foot in 105 nations. Nick Turse speaks of a “secret global war across much of the planet.” This war obviously has its heroes; in a new Hollywood movie, the new super-hero of Western civilization is called “American Sniper.”

The prevalence of a global state of nature is demonstrated not only by military or para-military operations, but also by violent or harmful conduct stopping just short of physical killing. The demeaning and slandering of opponents in the global arena testifies to a total lack of global civility and elementary standards of conduct. Too often, “freedom of expression” is used not to criticize the powers that be but to abuse the powerless and the stranger. Basically, anybody who claims an “absolute” right or freedom outside any social bonds thereby commits an act of violence (what Gandhi called himsa). Any assertion of a Hobbesian “ius ad omnia” inevitably constitutes the mainspring and basic source of terror and fear. But for Hobbes there was also a possible exit from terror—namely, through a social covenant where people relinquish absolute freedom in favor of relational civility. As Henry Giroux rightly observes: “As the bonds of sociality and social obligations dissolve,” the state of nature lurks. “Older discourses that provided a vision” have been cast aside; and “as Hannah Arendt once argued, the very nature of the political in the modern period has been dethroned” (or else been replaced by a brutal friend-enemy formula).

What has to happen in the global arena, to prevent the worst from happening, is the globalization of the Hobbesian exit route: that is, the replacement of the prevailing global state of nature by a global social covenant serving as the gateway to a vibrant global civil society. This transit is difficult and arduous. It requires not only the adoption of new procedures and mechanisms (although some of this may be helpful). Most of all, it requires a human transformation, a willingness to abandon the “ius ad omnia,” and to embark on the task of dialogue and mutual learning. In pursuing this path, it is crucial that learning is mutual and not unilaterally imposed. To give some examples: Many Muslim women modestly cover their heads; instead of being irritated, at least some of us might take this as an inducement to behave more modestly ourselves. Muslims pray (or are expected to pray) five times each day; again, rather than taking offense, at least some of us might rein in our conceit and pray more in turn. Of course, Muslims also can learn much from the West: about democracy, individual agency and other matters. Again, Gandhi can serve as a guide. Although himself a practicing Hindu, he aimed at (what he called) a “heart-unity” with Muslims—far removed from insults, slander or intimidation.

In his conduct, Gandhi exemplified what it means to cultivate a social covenant through non-harming (ahimsa) and justice-seeking (satyagraha). Inspired by his example, the World Public Forum-“Dialogue of Civilizations” is committed to the cultivation and steady renewal of the global social covenant. In the face of the ongoing global mayhem, this commitment is an urgent and categorical demand.

 

Notes

1. See Medea Benjamin, Drone Warfare: Killing by Remote Control (New York: Verso Books, 2012); John Kaag and Sara Kreps, Drone Warfare: War and Conflict in the Modern World (Malden, MA: Polity Press, 2014); Jeremy Scahill, Blackwater: The Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army (New York: Nation Books, 2013), and Dirty Wars: The World is a Battlefield (New York: Perseus Books, 2013).

2. Nick Turse, “The Golden Age of Black Ops: US Special Ops Missions Already in 105 Countries in 2015,” Information Clearing House, January 23, 2015. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article40759.htm

3. Henry A. Giroux, “Death-Dealing Politics in the Age of Extreme Violence,” Truthout/News Analysis, January 26, 2015. http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/28721-death-dealing-politics Giroux also traces the state of nature in the form of “death-dealing politics” in the American domestic scene, stating: “The war on terror has been morphed into a form of domestic terrorism aimed not only at whistleblowers, but all of those populations, from poor people of color to immigrants, who are now considered disposable.”

4. See Fred Dallmayr, “Gandhi and Islam: A Heart-and-Mind Unity?” in Peace Talk-Who Will Listen? (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2004), pp. 132-151.

Key Remarks by Army General Raul Castro Ruz, President of the Councils of State and Ministers of the Republic of Cuba at the 3rd CELAC Summit, Belen Costa Rica, January 28, 2015.

By celac.cubaminrex

Esteemed President Luis Guillermo Solís;

Esteemed Heads of State or Government of Latin America and the Caribbean;

Esteemed Heads of delegations and guests;

Ever since the inception of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States, Our America has entered a new stage and advanced toward independence; sovereignty over our natural resources; integration and construction of a new world order; and, social justice and democracy of the people, by the people and for the people. There is a stronger commitment to justice and the rights of the peoples today than in any other historical period.

Together, we make up the third world economy, the area with the second largest oil reserve, and the region with greater biodiversity on the planet with a remarkable concentration of the global mineral resources.

The development of unity in diversity, and of concerted action and respect for our differences shall be our primary purpose and inescapable necessity because the world problems tend to aggravate, and great dangers and robust challenges persist that transcend the national and even the sub-regional potential.

In the past decade, economic and social policies and sustained growth have enabled our countries to face the economic global crisis and facilitated a reduction of poverty, unemployment and unequal income distribution.

The deep political and social transformations carried out in various countries of the region have brought dignity to millions of families, which have left poverty behind.

But the Latin American and Caribbean region is still the one showing the greatest disparities. As an average, 20 percent of the lowest income households receive only 5 percent of the total revenues; 167 million people still endure poverty; one in five children under 15 lives in abject poverty; and, the number of illiterates exceeds 35 million.

Half of the youths in our countries fail to complete secondary education or finish their ninth grade, but in the lowest income segment that figure exceeds 78 percent. Actually, two thirds of the new generation do not make it to the university.

Meanwhile the increasing number of victims of organized crime and violence endanger the stability and progress of our nations.

What do the tens of millions of marginalized people think about democracy and human rights? How do they feel about political models? What do they think of election laws? Is this the civil society that international governments and organizations take into account? What would they say if asked about the economic and monetary policies?

There is little that many industrial nations can show our region in such areas since half their youths are unemployed, and the weight of the crisis falls on the workers and students they suppress. On the other hand, they protect bankers, prevent the organization of trade unions, pay women lower salaries for equal work and apply inhumane policies against immigrants. Meanwhile, racism, xenophobia, violent extremism and neofascist tendencies gain ground, and the people do not vote because they see no alternative to corruption in politics or because they know that election-time promises are soon forgotten.

In order to achieve social inclusion and environmental sustainability, we must come up with our own vision of the economic systems, production and consumption patterns, the relation between economic growth and development, and the efficacy of political models.

We should go beyond structural gaps, ensure a free and high-quality education, provide free and universal healthcare coverage, social security and similar opportunities to all, and the full exercise of all human rights by every person.

In the framework of such endeavors it shall be our primary duty to embrace solidarity with and advocate the interests of the Caribbean, particularly, of Haiti.

A new economic, financial and monetary international order is required where the interests and necessities of the South nations are not only included and given a priority, but also where those imposing neoliberalism and the concentration of capital cannot prevail.

The post-2015 Development Agenda should offer solutions to the structural problems of the regional economies and produce the changes conducive to a sustainable development.

Likewise, it is indispensable to build a world of peace, without which development is not possible, a world guided by the principles enshrined in the United Nations Charter and International Law.

The signing by the heads of State or Government of the Proclamation of Latin America and the Caribbean as a Peace Zone marked a historic step, and now provides a point of reference for our States’ relations with the rest of the world.

Solidarity will be of paramount importance in Our America to advance our common interests.

We want to express our strong condemnation of the unjustified and unacceptable unilateral sanctions imposed on the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, and of the continuous foreign interference intended to create a climate of instability in that sister nation. Cuba, who profoundly knows all these stories because it has endured them during more than 50 years, reaffirms its strongest support to the Bolivarian Revolution and the legitimate government headed by President Nicolás Maduro Moros.

We join the Republic of Argentina in its demand over the Malvinas [Falkland], the South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands, and the surrounding maritime space. We support the South American nation and its President Cristina Fernandez who is facing the attacks of speculative funds and the rulings of venal courts that impinge on the sovereignty of that country.

We reiterate our solidarity with the people and government of Ecuador,and the demands of President Rafael Correa for reparations on account of the environmental damages caused by the transnational company Chevron in the Ecuadorian Amazonia.

As we have previously said, the Community will be incomplete while Puerto Rico is not a member. The colonial situation of that country is inadmissible, and its Latin American and Caribbean nature are beyond dispute.

Concerning the peace process in Colombia, significant agreements have been reached by the Government and the Revolutionary Armed Forces-Peoples’ Army of that nation at the negotiating table in Havana. Never before so much progress had been made toward peace. Cuba, as one of the guarantors and the venue of such negotiations, shall continue offering the necessary facilities and contributing as much as possible to end the conflict and build a just and lasting peace in that fraternal nation.

We will provide our resolute support, as we have until now, to the fair claim of the Caribbean nations to receive reparations for the damages caused by slavery and colonialism. And, we shall definitely oppose the decision to deprive these countries of indispensable financial resources under the technocratic pretext of considering them middle-income economies.

We welcome the excellent progress made at the CELAC-China Forum and the region’s relations with the BRICS group.

We reaffirm our concern for the huge and growing military expenses imposed on the world by the United States and NATO, as well as for the intent to expand the latter’s aggressive presence up to the borders of Russia, a country we are bound to by historical, fraternal and mutually advantageous relations. We state our vigorous opposition to the unilateral and unjust sanctions imposed on that nation.

The increasing aggressiveness of NATO’s military doctrine and the development of unconventional wars, with their devastating effects and grave consequences, constitutes a threat to international peace and security.

As to Cuba, the principles of sovereign equality among States and self-determination of the peoples cannot be waived.

The United Nations General Assembly should exercise its power to preserve international peace and security in the face of the Security Council double-standards, excesses and omissions. It should wait no more to secure the full membership of Palestine, whose people count with the solidarity of the Cuban people and government. The Security Council veto providing impunity to Israel’s crimes must cease.

Africa, where our peoples have their roots, needs no advice or interference but the transference of financial resources, technology and a fair deal. We shall always defend the legitimate rights of those nations alongside which we fought colonialism and apartheid, and with which we have today fraternal relations and cooperation. We shall never forget their unshakeable solidarity and support.

Cuba will restlessly advocate the just causes and the interests of the South countries, and will be loyal to their common objectives and positions knowing that Humanity is Homeland. The foreign policy of the Revolution will always be faithful to its principles.

Dear friends and colleagues;

Last December 17th, we welcomed to our homeland the Cuban counterterrorist fighters Gerardo Hernández, Ramón Labañino and Antonio Guerrero, who alongside Fernando González and René González are to us a source of pride and an example of determination.

The President of the United States admitted the failure of the policy implemented against Cuba for more than fifty years, and the complete isolation it brought to his country as well as the impact of the blockade on our people. Additionally, he ordered the review of the obviously unjustifiable designation of the Island in the List of States Sponsors of International Terrorism.

That same day, he announced the decision to re-establish U.S. diplomatic relations with our government.

These changes are the result of nearly a century-and-a-half of heroic struggle and fidelity to its principles by the Cuban people. It has also been possible thanks to the new era we are living in our region, and the sound and brave demand of the governments and peoples of CELAC.

This has come as a vindication to Our America, which has together defended this objective at the United Nations Organization and in every other forum.

The debates that took place in the Summit of the Americas held in Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, in 2009, against the background of the ALBA Summit held in Cumaná, Venezuela, led recently elected President Barack Obama to speak of a new beginning with Cuba.

In 2012 Cartagena, Colombia, provided context to a strong discussion and a unanimous and resounding stance against the blockade, occasion that compelled an important United States official to call it as the great failure of Cartagena or disaster –this is the exact term-, and against Cuba’s exclusion from such events.In protest, Ecuador had decided not to attend while Venezuela, Nicaragua and Bolivia, with the support of Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay, stated that they would not attend another summit in the absence of Cuba. The Caribbean Community adopted a similar position, and so did Mexico and the other nations present at the meeting. Likewise, before his inauguration, Panamanian President Juan Carlos Varela announced his decision to invite Cuba, on equal footing and with full rights, to the 7th Summit of the Americas, and he has acted on that statement. Cuba immediately responded that it would be there.

Martí’s assertion that “a just principle from the depth of a cave is more powerful than an army” has been proven right.

To everyone here I conveyCuba’s deepest appreciation.

To the 188 States that vote against the blockade at the United Nations, to those that raise a similar demand in the General Assembly and International summits and conferences, and to all the popular movements, political forces, parliaments and personalities who labored restlessly to that end I express the sincere gratitude of our nation.

To the American people that recently manifested its growing opposition to the policy of blockade and hostility lasting more than five decades, I also reiterate our appreciation and friendly feelings.

These results prove that governments with profound differences can find solutions to problems, through a respectful dialogue and exchanges based on sovereign equality and reciprocity to the benefit of their respective nations.

As I have repeatedly affirmed, both Cuba and the United Statesshould learn the art of civilized coexistence based on respect for differences between our governments, and on cooperation in areas of common interest that may contribute to tackling the challenges facing the hemisphere and the world.

However, no one should expect that to achieve that Cuba would renounce its ideals of independence and social justice or abandon any of our principles, or give in an inch in the defense of our national sovereignty.

We shall not yield to provocations but neither shall we accept any indication of advices or pressures in matters concerning our internal affairs.We have made great sacrifices and taken major risks to earn that sovereign right.

Can diplomatic relations be re-established before financial services cut off as a result of the financial blockade are restored to the Cuban Interests Section and its Consular Offices in Washington? How can the re-establishment of diplomatic relations be explained without rescinding Cuba from the List of States Sponsors of International Terrorism? What will the behavior of the U.S. diplomats in Havana be from now onconcerning the observance of the standards set by the International Conventions for Diplomatic and Consular Relations? This is what our delegation said to the State Department during last week discussions, and more meetings will be necessary to deal with these issues.

We have shared with the President of the United States our disposition to move forward to the normalization of bilateral relations, once the diplomatic relations have been re-established. This involves the mutual adoption of measures to improve the climate between the two countries, the resolution of other pending issues, and advances in cooperation.

The current situation opens up a modest opportunity for the hemisphere to find new and better forms of cooperation that can benefit the two Americas. This would help in the solution of pressing problems and the opening of new avenues.

The text of the Proclamation of Latin America and the Caribbean as a Peace Zone becomes an indispensable platform to that end, including the recognition that every State has the inalienable right to choose its political, economic, social and cultural system without interference from any other State, an unwavering principle of International Law.

The main issue still stands unresolved. The economic, commercial and financial blockade causing enormous human and economic damages to our country constitutes a violation of International Law, and must cease.

I remember a memorandum of April 1960 from Assistant Secretary Mallory where he said that in the absence of an effective political opposition in Cuba, a situation of hunger, suffering and despair should be created to bring about the ousting of the revolutionary government. Now, the objective seems to be fostering an artificial political opposition by economic, political and communication means.

The re-establishment of diplomatic relations is the beginning of a process toward the normalization of bilateral relations, but this will not be possible while the blockade remains in effect; the territory illegally occupied by the Guantánamo Naval Base is not returned; the radio and television broadcasts breaching international rules and regulations do not cease; and,adequate compensation is not paid to our people for the human and economic damages sustained.

It would not be ethical, fair or acceptable to ask Cuba anything in exchange. If these issues are not resolved, a diplomatic rapprochement between Cuba and the United States would not make sense.

It can neither be expected of Cuba to negotiate the abovementioned absolutely sovereign issues related to its internal affairs.

It was possible to advance in the recent negotiations because we treated each other with respect, and as equals. Future progress demands that this remains so.

We have followed with interest the announcement made by the President of the United States of some executive decisions aimed at modifying certain aspects concerning the implementation of the blockade.

The measures made public so far are very limited. The prohibition stands with regards to credits and the use of the dollar in our international financial transactions; the individual travels of Americans with license for so-called people-to-peopleexchanges are prevented and conditioned to subversive purposes; and maritime travels are also forbidden. Another standing prohibition, among many others, restricts the acquisition in third markets of equipment or technology with more than 10 percent of American input as well as the U.S. importation of goods containing Cuban raw materials.

President Barack Obama could use with determination his extensive executive powers to substantially modify the implementation of the blockade. This is something he can do even without Congressional approval.

He could allow other sectors of the economy to do what he has authorized in the field of telecommunications with the clear objective of exercising political influence in Cuba.

His decision to promote a debate with Congress towards the removal of the blockade is significant.

On the other hand, the spokespersons of the U.S. government have clearly stated that the methods are changing but not the objectives of their policy, and insisted in actions that interfere with our internal affairs, something we will not accept. The American counterparts should not pretend to relate with the Cuban society as if a sovereign government did not exist in the Island.

No one would even dream that the new policy announced accepts the existence of a Socialist Revolution 90 miles away from Florida.

There is the wish that the so-called civil society is present at the Summit of the Americas in Panama; that is a wish that Cuba has always shared. We protest what happened at the World Trade Organization Conference in Seattle, at the Summits of the Americas in Miami and Quebec, at the Climate Change Summit in Copenhagen or at the G-7 and IMF meetings, where the civil society wasconfined tens of miles away from the venues,and kept behind steel fences and under brutal police repression.

Of course, the Cuban civil society will attend, and I hope there will be no restrictions against our country’s non-governmental organizations, which are not interested in any status at the OAS but are definitely recognized by the United Nations.

I hope to see in Panama the popular movements and NGOs that advocate nuclear disarmament and environmental protection; those that oppose neoliberalism; the Occupy Wall Street movement and the Indignant of this region; the university and secondary school students; the peasants, trade unions, original peoples, and organizations that oppose the schist contamination; the advocates of immigrants’ rights; those who denounce torture and extrajudicial executions, police brutality and racist practices; that demand equal pay for women for equal work; and those advocating reparation for damages from transnational companies.

The announcements of last December 17th have elicited world recognition and extensive support for President Obama in his own country, however, certain forces in the United States will try to derail this process that is just beginning. They are also the enemies of a U.S. fair relationship with Latin America and the Caribbean, the same that jeopardize the bilateral relations of many countries from our region with that nation. They are always blackmailing and exercising pressure.

We are aware that the path to the removal of the blockade will be long and difficult and will require the support, mobilization and resolute action of every person of goodwill in the United States and the world; the approval by the UN General Assembly in its next session of the resolution demanding the end of the blockade; and, especially, the concerted action of Our America.

Esteemed Heads of State or Government;

Dear friends;

We congratulate Costa Rica and President Solís and his government for the leadership of CELAC. We welcome the presidency of Ecuador and will fully support President Correa as the leader of the Community through 2015.

Thank you, very much.

 

7 shocking facts about Saudi Arabia under ‘modernizing’ reign of King Abdullah

By RT news

Taken aback by the fulsome praise the recently deceased King Abdullah has garnered from world leaders, RT has decided to assess whether his record stands up to scrutiny.

The majority of eulogies went beyond the requirements of diplomatic etiquette, while some epithets used by Western politicians made people believe they had stepped through the looking glass. UK Prime Minister David Cameron said the monarch, who died at 90, “strengthened understanding between faiths,” while IMF chief Christine Lagarde called him “a strong advocate of women,” albeit a “discreet” one. And almost all political grandees seemed to agree that the scion of the House of Saud, was – in the words of Tony Blair – “a skillful modernizer,” who “led his country into the future.”

One is invited to do a reality check and examine how far the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques really brought his country into the 21st century.

1. No elections, no parties, no parliament, no dissent

Continuing its consistent decades-long record, Saudi Arabia received the lowest possible marks for civil and political freedoms in the annual Freedom House rankings in 2014. The countries placed alongside it were North Korea, Turkmenistan, and smattering of the most brutal African dictatorships.

The regime’s disregard for any accountability to its people is brazen. There are no national elections, no parties, and no parliament – only a symbolic advisory chamber, known as Majlis al-Shura. Criticism is strictly forbidden: only last year, prominent opposition activist Abd al-Kareem al-Khoder joined hundreds of the country’s political prisoners, when he was sentenced to eight years for demanding the changeover to a constitutional monarchy. Just days before King Abdullah’s death, blogger Raif Badawi was given the first 50 of his 1,000 lashes – for calling for free speech on his blog.

King Abdullah introduced municipal elections upon his official ascension to the throne – as a largely symbolic valve mechanism. At the same time, high-profile petitions demanding greater reform a decade ago landed their authors in prison.

The country’s sizable and restive Shia minority in the east – which led a series of public protests from 2011 onwards – is also systematically starved of political representation, somewhat inevitably, in a country led by a single Sunni family.

2. Equality: Jobs for the Saud boys – all 7,000 of them

The grip of the House of Saud on the country’s levers of power and purse strings would be the envy of any medieval court. More than 7,000 princes bearing that family name are alive – with some experts speculating that the real number of titled family members approaches 30,000. Every single one has to be allocated a job commensurate with his lineage – creating hundreds of sinecures – while conversely, all talented candidates are shut out from key jobs if they do not bear the correct surname.

3. Power transfer: Half Brezhnev-era USSR, half Game of Thrones

Ironically, with such a large pool of descendants to choose from, the House of Saud is crippled by particularly outdated succession laws. Instead of primogeniture – where the title is inherited by the first-born son of the ruler – Saudi Arabia uses agnatic seniority, or the passing of power across to one’s brothers. This means that the 90-year-old Abdullah has been succeeded by 79-year-old half-brother Salman, while Crown Prince Muqrin turns 70 this year.

Underneath the geriatric cadre of leaders, there exists a viper’s nest of intrigue, as the exponentially bigger younger generation plans to stake its claim on the throne, with factions aplenty split among the different branches of the sprawling family. It is not obvious how such a system guarantees the increasing prosperity and stability of a 21st-century state, and King Abdullah did little to reform its basic tenets.

4. Law: Scimitars and whips

It may have become almost an online cliché to compare the legal systems of Saudi Arabia and the Islamic State, but the links between the two are fundamental. Both use the same ultra-conservative Hanbali school of jurisprudence, and many of the IS “judges” are Saudis, due to their familiarity with this concept of justice.

Among the punishments distributed is anything from hands and feet being chopped off for theft, lashes for adultery and other “social” misdemeanors, to beheading, which can be handed down for crimes as varied as sedition, carjacking, sorcery and drug smuggling.

Eighty-seven people are thought to have been beheaded in 2014, which is in line with the national average over the past five years, despite ever-growing external pressure on Saudi Arabia. Only this month, a video emerged online, showing an executioner repeatedly hacking away at the neck of a screaming condemned woman, as people looked on open-mouthed. Unlike solving some of Saudi Arabia’s deep-seated problems, the curtailing of such “justice” would have just required one firm intervention from King Abdullah. It is clear, this was not a priority for him.

5. Human rights: Torture and gavel

There is no legal code in Saudi Arabia, leaving it to individual judges to set the punishment for a crime in accordance with their interpretation of Islamic scriptures. This gives them unlimited power, creating arguably one of the most inconsistent justice systems in the world, in which crimes and punishments are simply made up, leaving the convicts no obvious way to appeal.

In addition, much of the legal process hinges on a “confession” from the defendant, which in turn encourages torture. In practice, the information obtained this way is even less reliable than that received from inmates at Guantanamo, as instead of trying to extract provable data, the torturers are merely demanding admissions of guilt – by all means available.

King Abdullah attempted to rationalize the system, by creating more appeal courts, and introducing a stricter selection of judges. However, he did not question the value of the legal system as a whole, and all judges that have been appointed in the past two decades have been personally approved by him.

6. Women’s rights: Female (non-)drivers

Over the past decade, the battle lines have been drawn on the symbolic issue of women drivers in Saudi Arabia. The Gulf monarchy is the last country in the world, where women are still not allowed to drive.

The issue is not near resolution, and women caught behind the wheel – whether during a symbolic protest, or an ordinary drive – can still end up sentenced to lashings. In fairness, King Abdullah did intervene in at least one case in 2011, to commute a punishment.

But of course, for the majority of Saudi women, driving is the least of their problems.

Many would prefer to be able to leave the house, make a purchase, sign any legal document – in fact perform almost any official action, from agreeing to surgery, to signing up to a class – without the consent of a guardian, either the husband or the father. Yet, even these suffocating measures give only scant impression of the status of Saudi women in a society where even their court testimony is worth half of that of a man.

King Abdullah encouraged more women to go into education, and allocated them a fifth of the seats in his advisory chamber, also allowing them to vote and run in the 2015 municipal elections. As with other reform areas, these are top-down symbolic gestures that have done little to affect most Saudi women, who – outside of warzones – remain some of the most disadvantaged anywhere in the world. Still, Abdullah’s admirers can hope that his first steps will lay the foundation to profound change, not patronizing concessions.

7. Terrorism fight: Friend or foe?

A voluntary $100 million donation to the UN’s counter-terrorism center last year was a show of generosity from Riyadh, but what the Saudis give with one hand, they seem to take away with the other.

According to the diplomatic cables published by Wikileaks in 2010, the US regards Saudi Arabia as the biggest source of Sunni terrorism funding in the world, and a “crucial” piggy-bank for Al-Qaeda and other radical groups. While much of its funding comes from private individuals, their identity is unlikely to have been a secret to King Abdullah, who did nothing to rein in his family members.

In fact, one could be tempted to feel that the House of Saud is only against the “wrong” kind of terrorist – mostly Shia, but also splinter Sunni groups that threaten its hegemony over the region. When the “right” kinds of terrorist – Russia’s Chechen militants, or anti-Assad rebels – appear, then those in Riyadh palaces not only support them with funds, but see them as a legitimate tool for spreading influence and the favored Wahhabi ideology.

27 January 2015