Archives: Articles

By Countercurrents.org

12 August, 2013

@ Countercurrents.org

Tunisia’s Tamarod (Rebel) movement has collected 1.6 million signatures demanding the dissolution of the country’s constituent assembly and resignation of the government. The Tamarod made this announcement on Sunday. The figure would amount to some 15 percent of the country’s population.

Media reports from Tunisia said:

Tamarod’s organizers said their aim was to gather two million signatures to press for the government’s resignation and to establish a new union government.

Meanwhile, Rached Ghannouchi, the head of Tunisia’s ruling Islamist party Ennahda, and Mustapha Ben Jaafar, speaker of the National Constituent Assembly, are to meet Houcine Abassi, the chief of the country’s most powerful trade union UGTT on the political crisis. The union made the announcement.

The union can paralyze the country with strike action.

The planned meeting comes after Ben Jaafar announced the suspension of the assembly’s work drawing up a new constitution while the Islamist-led government and the opposition hold talks on ending the political crisis. Ben Jaafar has proposed the UGTT as mediator for the talks. The union has called for the resignation of the Islamist-dominated cabinet and its replacement by a government of technocrats.

Ennahda has rejected the proposal so far.

Ghannouchi earlier had met the head of employers’ organization Utica, Wided Bouchamaoui. Utica too has called for the formation of a cabinet of technocrats.

At the same time, Tunisia’s Tamarod has informed five of its activists were on hunger strike in front of the constituent assembly to demand its dissolution and the resignation of the government.

Tunisia’s opposition coalition, made up of parties from across the political spectrum, has refused to meet Ennahda until a new government is formed.

Hundreds of opposition supporters have kept up protests every night in front of the assembly and on August 6, tens of thousands took part in demonstrations.

The opposition is hoping to raise the pressure on the government with a new demonstration on August 13 to mark the anniversary of the promulgation of the Personal Status Code in 1956 under Tunisia’s first president, Habib Bourguiba. The code gave Tunisians unequalled rights in the Arab world at the time, and the country’s ruling Islamists have regularly been accused of trying to roll them back.

Ennahda’s critics have blamed the Islamists for the rise of the ultra-conservative Salafist movement in the country since January 2011, whose violent actions are a threat to stability in the country.

By Anitha.S

12 August, 2013

@ Countercurrents.org

Darley sits alone in the small room of her Short Stay Home in Thiruvananthapuram, away from her own home by the side of the Neyyar river. Neyyar originating from the Agastyakoodam mountain in Southern Western Ghats has been desecrated by deforestation in the hills, dams and of late indiscriminate sand mining. Darley’s small home in Olathanni, 3 kms from the Neyyatinkara Municipality sits on a pinnacle as the river which changed course with sand mining has sunk 15- 20 feet below the land. Olathanni now has an added qualification as a village with the maximum number of points along the shore from which sand mining boats enter the dying river.

Darley grew up on the banks of the Neyyar when it had all the glory of a live flowing river.With bamboo and many native trees bordering its banks, the villagers depended on the pure water for irrigation, drinking and other needs. The wells were perennially full of water.Not so anymore. The wells in most areas have either dried up or water level has sunk along with capsizing of the well itself. The well with “purest and sweetest water” ( Darley’s own words) disappeared and she had to dig another one which is so deep that drawing water is a difficult task. Darley gives an account of the biodiversity in the sand bars that formed in the river- the trees and fresh water prawns and fish that she and her friends caught with their towels. The soft tapioca that grew in the low lying areas with rich alluvium brought down by the river waters as it flooded the banks every monsoon.

The sand mining started two decades back, initially as individual attempts for self use.Later on it became a concerted activity which soon became a law and order situation. There are now many laws and regulations as sand has become a main revenue for local bodies. According to Darley, new avenues for corruption and crime has sprung up with this. She narrates how sand mining, illicit brewing and abuse of women go hand in hand in the area with support from the Police and Revenue authorities.

Darley started noticing that the flow, depth and other characteristics of the river was changing rapidly. She started protesting slowly and then her voice gained momentum and volume. The authorities were amazed at the steadfastness and commitment with which Darley walked the offices with her innumerable complaints, submissions and reports. The sand mining mafia were irritated and intimidated by her presemce in their vicinity as a watch dog.They tried all the age old tricks to get her out of the way- stone pelting, verbal abuse, character assassinations, isolation and direct attack.Her house was looted, her dear pet dogs killed one by one, her cats kidnapped (!).But they did not dare touch her.When media with support of certain environmentalists and social workers in Neyyatinkara started coming in, there was momentary withdrawal but the mining did not stop.

An year back, Darley was incapacitated by an accident and was in the hospital for many months.She has been put under extreme pressure by her family, the sand miners and authorities to sell off the land and move away. Darley wants to live and die here as she is protected by the soul of her parents and the river. Her one woman fight to protect the land where she has her roots and the river has been in news for a long time. Though there are many cases for her and against her, there has been no concrete move to protect and regulate the sand mining.One wonders why when facts point out that mining cannot continue anymore. A scientific study done more than a decade ago recommended that the indiscriminate mining in Neyyar river for sand has to be legally controlled and banned. The combination of extractive activities going on here which include sand mining from the river bad along with rock, clay and red sand is spelling the death knell for the area. The sinking of the river bed along with erosion of the banks has taken away precious land all along the banks.

This year, the rains which lashed mercilessly eroded the narrow path leading to the Surrealist setting to Darley’s home. The walls of her home and the toilet was already on the verge of collapse. The slope of the land almost 20 feet higher than the river behind her home, which has been held by a bamboo clump and some trees gave way in the rains. This was the situation in which the Police has got Darley here to the city of Thiruvananthapuram to stay “ safe”. Away from the familiar home, the insecure state of which Darley has been seeking solution to all those in power for many years, Darley is lost. Years of verbal and physical abuse, days and months of isolation, negligence from relatives and friends, Darley has created a make- believe world of her own where negative forces and occult means is being used to annihilate her. But somewhere along the ramblings and hidden among the disconnected words and sentences, one could sense this bold lady’s ardent wish to see her Neyyar flow unfettered, liberated from the sand miners and greedy hands, spreading real prosperity and wealth to all. Darley says she will keep asking the questions about development and mining, about injustice and corruption till her last breath. That alone will take her close to the protection from her parents and the river.

Anitha.S in conversation with Darley in her Short Stay Home in Thiruvananthapuram along with Sonia George and Parvathy Binoy on 9.8.2013

(sarmaji1916@gmail.com)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ShareThisShareThis

 

 

 

Comments are moderated

 

8 August , 2013

@ http://on.rt.com/2kb37h

The Philippines is to enter talks with the US about a heightened military presence in its region and has informed congressional leaders that an increase in the troop numbers will be sought. The US has expressed interest in monitoring “intrusions” there.

Filipino secretaries of national defense and foreign affairs stated that allowing US troops to install an “increased rotational presence” would aid the country in developing a “minimum credible defense” to bolster the guarding of its own territory. The establishment of a full military base is ‘unconstitutional.

“The Philippines will shortly enter into consultations and negotiations with the United States on a possible framework agreement that would implement our agreed policy of increased rotational presence,” Defense Secretary Voltaire Gazmin and Foreign Secretary Albert del Rosario said in a letter.

Gazmin stated that US troops would only have access to existing military bases, with the two sides yet to agree the length for which further troops, planes and ships would be allowed in the country.

The Philippines is currently continuing in its attempt to modernize its own military, according to the letter, which was obtained by Associated Press, on Thursday, and seeks American aid while it takes the necessary steps.

On Tuesday, the Philippines took into its possession a former US Coast Guard ship which marked the biggest military upgrade the country has witnessed in decades. It is seeking to build up its forces as increased attention falls on the region from both China and the US.

The establishment of US military bases in the country is controversial, and both countries are steering clear of the issue. The Philippines was once a US colony and the constitution now bars foreign troops from being stationed on a permanent basis.

However, island disputes in the area involving China have heightened Filipino pressure on the US. The Philippines has been reaching out to Washington for help in arms upgrades and the US has been seeking to ensure its influence in the region is sustained, especially as China’s increases as it reiterates its own claims to territory in the area.

The US has previously sought to increase military presence in the country by its own impetus, negotiating an agreement with the Philippines in July to let it install military equipment and increased numbers of troops, still avoiding the issue of establishing military bases despite seeker longer terms for US presence.

The negotiations for increased military access come amid simmering tensions between the Philippines and China over areas in the South China Sea claimed by both countries and moves by the United States to ensure it retains influence in the region, even as China’s grows.

The US is a close ally of the Philippines despite the exodus from the last of its bases in 1992. The US has paid several short-term visits since to undertake joint training exercises, disaster response and humanitarian work.

Under a current Visiting Forces Agreement, enacted in 2002, hundreds of US counterterrorism troops have been permitted to remain in the Philippines’ southern Mindanao to train Filipino soldiers battling Al-Qaeda-linked militants and a small group of foreign terrorist suspects.

China aroused concern last year when it placed forcers in the Scarborough Shoal, a disputed territory just 124 nautical miles off the Philippine coast. China put up two concrete columns in order to erect a rope barrier to consolidate their control over entry into the lagoon. The move followed a confrontation with Philippine vessels.

Under Washington’s military financing program, the Philippines received a 46-year-old Hamilton-class cutter for free from Washington. However, it spent some $15 million on weapons and radar upgrades.

Before the increase in help from the US – which included a decision at the end of July to up annual military assistance to the Philippines from $30 million to about $50 million – Philippine Foreign Minister Albert Del Rosario told reporters that it would mark the highest level of aid provided by the US since troops returned to the Philippines 13 years ago.

The increased presence “is for the protection of our West Philippine Sea,” Defense Secretary Gazmin told the Associated Press at the time, referring to Manila’s adopted name for the South China Sea.

The US has repeatedly insisted that it would not get involved in the territorial disputes in the South China Sea, but has continually helped the Philippines upgrade its military defenses.

US forces have been nurturing alliances from the Middle East to Asia, with force realignment involving 2,5000 marines being deployed in northern Australia and installing combat vessels in Singapore.

    *The Philippines was established as a US colony in 1898 following the Philippine Revolution against Spain two years earlier. Partial autonomy was allotted in 1935.

    It fell under attack during WWII when Japanese troops occupied its constituent territories. The US suffered heavy losses.

    The US recognized its sovereignty in 1946. However, it retained a presence in the region. 

    Tens of thousands of troops were stationed at the country’s Clark Air Base and Subic Naval Base north of Manila until the early 1990s.

    The bases were abandoned amid anti-American sentiment and a clash over rent. The Philippines’ senate voted to shut down large US bases in Subic and Clark, near the capital in 1991.

    The Philippines’ constitution prohibits permanent foreign bases, but the US conducts successive short-term visits.

 

By Richard Falk

02 August, 2013

@ Richard Falk Blog

Appointing Martin Indyk as Special Envoy to the upcoming peace talks was to be expected. It was signaled in advance. And yet it is revealing and distressing.

The only other candidates considered for the job were equally known as Israeli partisans: Daniel Kurtzer, former ambassador to Israel before becoming Commissioner of Israel’s Baseball League and Dennis Ross, co-founder in the 1980s (with Indyk) of the AIPAC backed Washington Institute for Near East Policy; handled the 2000 Camp David negotiations on behalf of Clinton.

The winner among these three was Martin Indyk, former ambassador to Israel (1995-97; 2000-01), onetime AIPAC employee, British born, Australian educated American diplomat, with a long list of pro-Israeli credentials.

Does it not seem strange for the United States, the convening party and the unconditional supporter of Israel, to rely exclusively for diplomatic guidance in this concerted effort to revive the peace talks on persons with such strong and unmistakable pro-Israeli credentials?

What is stranger, still, is that the media never bothers to observe this peculiarity of a negotiating framework in which the side with massive advantages in hard and soft power, as well as great diplomatic and media leverage, needs to be further strengthened by having the mediating third-party so clearly in its corner. Is this numbness or bias? Are we so accustomed to a biased framework that it is taken for granted, or is it overlooked because it might spoil the PR effect of reviving the moribund peace process?

John Kerry, the U.S. Secretary of State, whose show this is, dutifully indicated when announcing the Indyk appointment, that success in the negotiations will depend on the willingness of the two sides to make ‘reasonable compromises.’ But who will decide on what is reasonable? It would be criminally negligent for the Palestinians to risk their future by trusting Mr. Indyk’s understanding of what is reasonable for the parties. But the Palestinians are now potentially entrapped. If they are put in a position where Israel accepts, and the Palestinian Authority rejects, “(un)reasonable compromises,” the Israelis will insist they have no “partner” for peace, and once more hasbara will rule the air waves.

It is important to take note of the language of reasonable compromises, which as in earlier attempts at direct negotiations, excludes any reference to international law or the rights of the parties. Such an exclusion confirms that the essential feature of this diplomacy of negotiations is a bargaining process in which relative power and influence weighs heavily on what is proposed by and acceptable to the two sides. If I were advising the Palestinians, I would never recommend accepting a diplomatic framework that does not explicitly acknowledge the relevance of international law and the rights of the parties. In the relation of Israel and Palestine, international law could be the great equalizer, soft power neutralizing hard power. And this is precisely why Israel has worked so hard to keep international law out of the process, which is what I would certainly recommend if in Tel Aviv’s diplomatic corner.

Can one even begin to contemplate, except in despair, what Benjamin Netanyahu and his pro-settler cabinet consider reasonable compromises? On what issues can we expect Israel to give ground: borders, Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security?

It would have been easy for Kerry to create a more positive format if he had done either of two things: appointed a Palestinian or at least someone of Middle Eastern background as co-envoy to the talks. Rashid Khalidi, President Obama’s onetime Chicago friend and neighbor, would have been a reassuring choice for the Palestinian side. Admittedly, having published a book a few months ago with the title Brokers of Deceit: How the U.S. Undermined Peace in the Middle East, the appointment of Khalidi, despite his stellar credentials, would have produced a firestorm in Washington. Agreed, Khalidi is beyond serious contemplation, but what about John Esposito, Chas Freeman, Ray Close? None of these alternatives, even Khalidi, is as close to the Palestinians as Indyk is to the Israelis, and yet such a selection would have been seen as a step taken to close the huge credibility deficit. Yet such credibility remains outside the boundaries of the Beltway’s political imagination, and is thus inhabits the realm of the unthinkable.

It may be that Kerry is sincere in seeking to broker a solution to the conflict, yet this way of proceeding does not. Perhaps, there was no viable alternative. Israel would not come even to negotiate negotiations without being reassured in advance by an Indyk-like appointment. And if Israel had signaled its disapproval, Washington would be paralyzed.

The only remaining question is why the Palestinian Authority goes along so meekly. What is there to gain in such a setting? Having accepted the Washington auspices, why could they not have demanded, at least, a more neutral or balanced negotiating envoy? I fear the answer to such questions is ‘blowin’ in the wind.’

And so we can expect to witness yet another charade falsely advertized as ‘the peace process.’ Such a diversion is costly for the Palestinians, beneficial for the Israelis. Settlement expansion and associated projects will continue, the occupation with all its rigors and humiliations will continue, and the prospects for a unified Palestinian leadership will be put on indefinite hold. Not a pretty picture.

This picture is made more macabre when account is taken of the wider regional scene, especially the horrifying civil war in Syria and the bloody military coup in Egypt. Not to be forgotten, as well, are Israeli threats directed at Iran, backed to the hilt by the U.S. Congress, and the terrible legacy of violent sectarian struggle that is ripping Iraq apart. Naturally, there is speculation that some kind of faux solution to the Israel/Palestine conflict would release political energy in Washington that could be diverted to an anti-Assad intervention in Syria and even an attack on Iran. We cannot rule out such infatuations with morbid geopolitical projects, but neither should we assume that conspiratorial scenarios foretell the future.

Richard Falk is Albert G. Milbank Professor Emeritus of International Law at Princeton University and Visiting Distinguished Professor in Global and International Studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara. He has authored and edited numerous publications spanning a period of five decades, most recently editing the volume International Law and the Third World: Reshaping Justice (Routledge, 2008). He is currently serving his third year of a six year term as a United Nations Special Rapporteur on Palestinian human rights. http://richardfalk.wordpress.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ShareThisShareThis

 

 

 

Comments are moderated

 

By Professor Francis A. Boyle

02 August, 2013

@ Countercurrents.org

I’m not going to go through the subsequent history of thedivestment disinvestment movement, except to say that in the late summer of 2002 the President of Harvard, Larry Summers accused those of us Harvard alumni involved in the Harvard divestment campaign of being anti-Semitic.

After he made these charges, WBUR Radio Station in Boston, which is a National Public Radio affiliate, called me up and said: “We would like you to debate Summers for one hour on these charges, live.” And I said, “I’d be happy to do so.” They then called up Summers and he refused to debate me.

Summers did not have the courage, the integrity, or the principles to back up his scurrilous charges. Eventually Harvard fired Summers because of his attempt to impose his Neo-Conservative agenda on Harvard, and in particular his other scurrilous charge that women are dumber then men when it comes to math and science. Well as a triple Harvard alumnus I say: Good riddance to Larry Summers! (laughter).

Debating Dershowitz

WBUR then called me back and said, “Well, since Summers won’t debate you, would you debate Alan Dershowitz?” And I said, “Sure.” So we had a debate for one hour, live on the radio. And there is a link that you can hear this debate if you want to. I still think it’s the best debate out there on this whole issue of Israeli apartheid. Again that would be WBUR Radio Station, Boston, 25 September 2002.

The problem with the debate, of course, is that Dershowitz knows nothing about international law and human rights. So he immediately started out by saying “well, there’s nothing similar to the apartheid regime in South Africa and what Israel is doing to the Palestinians.” Well the problem with that is that Dershowitz did not know anything at all about even the existence of the Apartheid Convention.

The definition of apartheid is set out in the Apartheid Convention of 1973.

And this is taken from my book Defending Civil Resistance Under International Law, Trial Materials on South Africa, published in 1987, that we used successfully to defend anti-apartheid resistors in the United States. If you take a look at the definition of apartheid here found in Article 2, you will see that Israel has inflicted each and every act of apartheid set out in Article 2 on the Palestinians, except an outright ban on marriages between Israelis and Palestinians. But even there they have barred Palestinians living in occupied Palestine who marry Israeli citizens from moving into Israel, and thus defeat the right of family reunification that of course the world supported when Jews were emigrating from the Soviet Union.

Israel: An Apartheid State

Again you don’t have to take my word for it. There’s an excellent essay today on Counterpunch.org by the leading Israeli human rights advocate Shulamit Aloni saying basically: “Yes we have an apartheid state in Israel.” Indeed, there are roads in the West Bank for Jews only.

Palestinians can’t ride there and now they’re introducing new legislation that Jews cannot even ride Palestinians in their cars.

This lead my colleague and friend Professor John Duguard who is the U.N. Special rapporteur for human rights in Palestine to write an essay earlier this fall that you can get on Google, saying that in fact Israeli apartheid against the Palestinians is worse than the apartheid that the Afrikaners inflicted on the Blacks in South Africa. Professor Duguard should know.

He was one of a handful of courageous, white, international lawyers living in South Africa at the time who publicly and internationally condemned apartheid against Blacks at risk to his own life. Indeed, when I was litigating anti-apartheid cases on South Africa, we used Professor Duguard’s book on Human Rights and the South African Legal Order as the definitive work explaining what apartheid is all about.

So Professor Duguard has recently made this statement. Of course President Carter has recently made this statement in his book that Israel is an apartheid state. And certainly if you look at that definition of the Apartheid Convention, right there in front of you, it’s clear – there are objective criteria. Indeed if you read my Palestinian book I have a Bibliography at the end with the facts right there based on reputable human rights reports, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, etc. Many of them were also compiled and discussed by my friend Professor Norman Finklestein in his book Beyond Chutzpah, which I’d encourage you to read.

Professor Francis A. Boyle is an international law expert and served as Legal Advisor to the Palestine Liberation Organization and Yasser Arafat on the 1988 Palestinian Declaration of Independence, as well as to the Palestinian Delegation to the Middle East Peace Negotiations from 1991 to 1993, where he drafted the Palestinian counter-offer to the now defunct Oslo Agreement. His books include “ Palestine, Palestinians and International Law” (2003), and “ The Palestinian Right of Return under International Law” (2010).

By Steve Weissman,

02 August 13

@ Reader Supported News

Without specifically naming the Egyptian military, the Obama White House has condemned the crackdown on Muslim Brotherhood protestors in Cairo and Alexandria and has halted shipment to Egypt of four F-16 fighter jets. That is the good news. The bad news is that, for all the wide-eyed celebration of a pro-democratic popular uprising in Egypt, the military has charged the ousted president with espionage and sidelined “the democrats” to little more than cheerleaders for Gen. Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, who has put himself at the center of an extravagant cult of personality.

“In dark sunglasses and a uniform studded with medals, Egypt’s top general is everywhere, looking down from posters and banners proclaiming him ‘lion of the nation,'” wrote the Associated Press. “Adoring songs vow ‘We are behind you.'”

Al-Sisi’s bloody attacks against ousted president Mohamed Morsi’s Muslim Brotherhood have greatly embarrassed civilian supporters of the coup, like Nobel prize-winner Mohamed ElBaradei. Though nominally the new government’s interim vice president for foreign affairs, he has condemned the “excessive use of force” and – without blaming the military – has called on all factions to denounce violence. Similar calls have come from leaders of Tamarod and the allied April 6th Youth Movement, the groups that led the protests against Morsi, the country’s first elected president. Tamarod has also called for branding the Muslim Brotherhood as “a terrorist organization.”

According to Human Rights Watch, the generally nonviolent pro-Morsi forces have taken huge casualties from the military and its supporters, who have been shooting their victims in the head and chest. But the Brotherhood and other Muslim allies remain in the streets demanding Morsi’s reinstatement. True to their principles, they refuse to give in to direct threats from the military or impassioned entreaties to accept the coup from the European Union’s Catherine Ashton.

“Regardless of what happens to the president, we will continue our protest. Our numbers are increasing every day. Citizens are recognizing the tyranny and the long-term danger of the military coup,” said Brotherhood spokesman Gehad el-Haddad. “It may take weeks, months, more than a year – we will still hold our ground.”

Even more embarrassing – for Obama as well as the Egyptian liberals – is a brief review of the historical evidence of how the coup came about. Please forgive the clutter of Internet links, but several readers have asked for more documentation.

Start with a prescient article in Foreign Policy magazine on April 6, 2012. It is called “Finish What You Start,” and was written by Srdja Popovic, one of the leaders of Otpor, the Serbian student movement that overthrew Slobodan Milosevic, and Robert Helvey, a former top official in the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency and later president of the nonviolent Albert Einstein Institution. In March 2000, Col. Helvey taught Popovic and some 20 other Otpor militants how to create a nonviolent revolution against the Serbian strongman, with ample funding, supplies, and backup from Uncle Sam. Popovic went on to co-found the Center for Applied NonViolent Action and Strategies, or CANVAS, which famously taught several young Egyptians how to bring down Hosni Mubarak.

“In Egypt, the success of 19 days of ‘nonviolent blitzkrieg’ that toppled Mubarak gave way to an interregnum dominated by the Supreme Council of Armed Forces (SCAF),” wrote Popovic and Helvey by way of follow-up. “The moving forces behind Mubarak’s downfall last winter – secular youth groups – have been relegated to the margins.”

Popovic and Helvey’s solution was to continue direct nonviolent action and keep the newly elected government “under public pressure and accountable from day one.”

One year later, in April 2013, a group of young Egyptians organized themselves as Tamarod and began a classic CANVAS-style campaign to “foment rebellion” against Morsi’s Muslim Brotherhood. As I documented in a previous column with WikiLeaked emails from the private intelligence group Stratfor, CANVAS is “still hooked into the U.S. funding and basically go around the world trying to topple dictators and autocratic governments (ones that U.S. does not like).”

The Stratfor emails also showed Washington’s ties to another famous group that trained Egyptians to overthrow Mubarak and then Morsi. This was Google and, in particular, the head of Google Ideas, Jared Cohen, who helped train digital activists of the April 6th Youth Movement.

The emails made two points about Egypt’s “facebook revolution” that Internet romanticists tend to overlook. The Egyptian military “got exactly what they wanted,” wrote Stratfor’s CEO, George Friedman. “They got rid of Mubarak and held on to power. The demonstrations were a tremendous help to them in achieving their goals.” Another Stratfor exec – former State Department security official Fred Burton – stressed the importance of the White House hand in training Egypt’s would-be revolutionaries. “Cohen’s rabbi” was Google’s billionaire boss and “Obama lackey” Eric Schmidt, wrote Burton, drawing on his Google sources. Google had “White House and State Department support and air cover. In reality, they are doing things the CIA cannot do.”

Thanks to WikiLeaks, the Stratfor emails add to the picture of Obama’s preference for covert action that David Sanger presents in “Confront and Conceal: Obama’s Secret Wars and Surprising Use of American Power.” As Sanger makes clear, neither Obama nor the CIA expected the training efforts to bring down Mubarak. But, with the movement against Morsi, Washington had a much clearer view. Accepting support from former Mubarak backers, the leaders of Tamarod openly called for the military to step in. Some, like ElBaradei, saw no alternative. Others, like Mahmoud Badr, one of the founders, went overboard in repeatedly praising the military and still does even after the violence. “We salute the Army! We salute them!” he proclaimed on TV right after Gen. al-Sisi gave Morsi 48 hours to calm the crisis that Tamarod had created. “They have shown that they are with the people.”

“The military helped Tamarod from early on, communicating with it through third parties,” reported the Associated Press. The Egyptian military also communicated regularly with Washington, expressing their unhappiness with Morsi in May and June of 2013. Obama made no public change in his policy of getting along with Morsi, but no later than Monday, July 1, he urged Morsi to give in to the demand from Tamarod and the military that he step down.

Between Washington’s support for the training of Tamarod and the April 6th Youth Movement and Obama’s direct participation in the final days, I think it fair to speak of Obama’s coup, just as Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger will forever own Gen. Pinochet’s coup against Salvador Allende in Chile. But whether or not others agree with my characterization, the question now is whether Obama can step out of the shadows long enough to work with his Republican adversaries, European allies, and sensible Egyptians to limit the human disaster that is already under way.

A veteran of the Berkeley Free Speech Movement and the New Left monthly Ramparts, Steve Weissman lived for many years in London, working as a magazine writer and television producer. He now lives and works in France, where he is researching a new book, “Big Money: How Global Banks, Corporations, and Speculators Rule and How To Break Their Hold.”

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By Garikai Chengu

01 August, 2013

@ Countercurrents.org

A bloodless revolution is silently taking place in Zimbabwe. President Mugabe’s Indigenisation of the land and the economy will set a precedent for the creation of a forerunning, economic model for Africa. Consequently, a victory for Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe’s election is a resounding victory for the future of the African continent.

Only ninety years ago, the British South Africa Company owned every square inch of Zimbabwe. Zimbabwean land and natural resources were taken violently and divided amongst European settlers. All the while, indigenous Zimbabweans were considered subjects and assets, solely belonging to the British Crown.

After decades of liberation struggle, Africans finally placed the crown on their own heads. But, in 2013, where are the jewels of this crown?

The mining and extraction of precious resources, like oil, natural gas, gold, and platinum, enrich Western corporations. Here, we see the West’s current control over Africa’s “jewels”.

Western economic control of Africa casts a shadow of poverty throughout the continent. Whether in the Niger Delta or the Democratic Republic of Congo, the majority of people experience lives of misery and receive very little benefit from the richness of their land.

In fact, Africa’s natural resources, land, and forced labour have fueled the world’s economy for centuries. To this day, Africa is still the world’s engine-room for economic growth.

In short, Africa fuels the global economy, while reaping little profits at home; this is the “black man’s burden.” Indigenisation is designed to allow Zimbabweans to free themselves of this centuries’ old burden. Lifting this crushing millstone is our generation’s greatest struggle.

At President Mugabe’s last campaign rally, he proclaimed that, “we must re-write the economic books for our children. Those books were written to suite the West’s agenda of exploiting our resources. Our children must know that our resources are more significant, more precious than their capital.”

Years from now, economic books will use Zimbabwe’s Indigenisation Program as a model for African decolonisation. African politicians will look to Zimbabwe as a point of reference.

As with tobacco, diamonds, cocoa and oil, Africa exports its precious resources to the West, only to buy them back at a premium. This is Africa’s greatest problem and biggest opportunity. The solution to this problem is simple: Africa must not only control its raw materials but also build the capacity to make them into finished products.

Indigenisation is the much needed bridge between poverty and industrialization, and therefore, transforming Africa into a first world power.

No longer will Europeans take our natural resources; no longer will they control our industrial processes. We will not be burdened; we will not be stripped of our land, our pride, our Africa.

If Africans indigenise our economies and resolutely build the capacity to refine our crude oil, gold and platinum, as well as the capability to cut and polish our diamonds, we will certainly turn this into an African century.

Clearly, Africa is not under-developed; she is over-exploited. Western foreign investors are merely foreign exploiters.

According to a recent UN Africa Progress Report, Africa loses 63 billion dollars, each year, through foreign multinational corporations’ illegal tax evasion and exploitative practices. This figure surpasses all the money coming into the continent through Western aid and investment.

It is for this reason that Zimbabwe’s new Indigenisation model emphasizes local ownership and foreign partnership with emerging nations, such as Brazil, Russia, India and China.

Zimbabwe’s Indigenisation Program is as much about looking inward as it is about looking east.

Today, I say, with confidence, that Zimbabwe is the only economically liberated, black nation in Sub-Saharan Africa. Zimbabwe has proved to her African brothers and sisters that it is possible, and indeed desirable, to take back our land.

Let us now look to our recent past for guidance into our new economic future.

A few years ago, the international media houses and Western academics repeated the same, twisted narrative about the Indigenisation of Zimbabwe’s land, claiming it was an economic failure, which only benefited ‘Mugabe’s cronies.’

The West’s economic sanctions on Zimbabwe were designed to cripple our economy, in an attempt to dissuade other African nations from emulating our cause.

Western sanctions sent a clear message to Africa’s landless and economically disempowered masses: “You can have your democracy, but keep the economic power in the hands of the white minority; otherwise, you’ll end up like Zimbabwe.”

The World Bank still estimates that a staggering 65% of Sub-Saharan Africa’s best arable land is still controlled by white settlers or multinational corporations. The World Bank also estimates that as much as 70% of the net wealth in Sub-Saharan Africa is owned by non-indigenous Africans or foreigners.

Clearly, the West is fine with other African nations adopting democratic governments, but any attempt to democratize the economy and the land is dealt with by NATO, the CIA, or economically destabilizing sanctions.

Nowadays, those same Western media houses and academics are admitting that Zimbabwe’s land democratization program has not only benefited over a million people, but also pioneered a more economically productive way of farming.

President Mugabe’s Indigenisation of land has created employment and support for the livelihood of over 1.7 million Zimbabweans.

This year alone, Zimbabwe raked in over a half billion dollars from tobacco sales. Before land Indigenisation, a handful of rich, white farmers would have greedily divided these profits, moving the money away from African pockets and into Western bank accounts.

In fact, the World Bank estimated that, “nearly 40 percent of Africa’s aggregate wealth has fled to foreign bank accounts.”

Indigenisation will combat this outflow of wealth by creating more African corporate owners. These local shareholders are more likely to save their rent in local banks, spend their dividends on domestic goods, and invest their profits in local businesses.

 

Today, 75,000 indigenous Zimbabweans benefit from the tobacco sales’ profits of a half billion dollars. Land reform is now possible in all African countries after Zimbabwe’s successful example.

With a rapidly growing and indigenously owned economy, many African nations will increasingly seek to emulate Zimbabwe. Years from now, African states will strive to achieve Zimbabwe’s economic success.

Say what you want to say about Mr. Mugabe, but today, Zimbabweans own Zimbabwe.

By re-electing President Mugabe, the people of Zimbabwe are making history. ZANU-PF will now have five more years to finish implementing a revolutionary economic model that will inevitably spread across the continent.

Garikai Chengu is Fellow of the Du Bois Institute for African Research Harvard University. Garikai Chengu can be contacted at chengu@fas.harvard.edu

By Mary Shaw

01 August, 2013

@ Countercurrents.org

On July 30, in a military trial at Fort Mead, Maryland, war crimes whistleblower Bradley Manning was acquitted of aiding the enemy (the most serious charge against him) but was found guilty of 19 other charges. While serving as a Private First Class in the U.S. Army, Manning had released hundreds of thousands of classified documents to Wikileaks which exposed U.S. war crimes and other government misconduct. Doing so led to his court-martial.

In response to the verdict, Amnesty International suggested that the U.S. government needs to reassess its priorities: “The government’s priorities are upside down. The U.S. government has refused to investigate credible allegations of torture and other crimes under international law despite overwhelming evidence,” said Widney Brown, Amnesty’s senior director of international law and policy. “Yet they decided to prosecute Manning who it seems was trying to do the right thing – reveal credible evidence of unlawful behavior by the government. You investigate and prosecute those who destroy the credibility of the government by engaging in acts such as torture which are prohibited under the U.S. Constitution and in international law… It’s hard not to draw the conclusion that Manning’s trial was about sending a message: the U.S. government will come after you, no holds barred, if you’re thinking of revealing evidence of its unlawful behavior.”

In other words, U.S. policy is to shoot the proverbial messenger.

The lawyers at the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) agree. The CCR had filed a case challenging the lack of transparency around the Manning trial. Now, in the wake of the verdict, the CCR has released a statement condemning the charges against Manning related to the Espionage Act: “[T]he Espionage Act itself is a discredited relic of the WWI era, created as a tool to suppress political dissent and antiwar activism, and it is outrageous that the government chose to invoke it in the first place against Manning. Government employees who blow the whistle on war crimes, other abuses and government incompetence should be protected under the First Amendment.”

The CCR statement goes on to question the future of journalism and the First Amendment itself: “We now live in a country where someone who exposes war crimes can be sentenced to life even if not found guilty of aiding the enemy, while those responsible for the war crimes remain free. If the government equates being a whistleblower with espionage or aiding the enemy, what is the future of journalism in this country? What is the future of the First Amendment?”

Indeed. And it’s not just journalists and whistleblowers who should be worried.

Mary Shaw is a Philadelphia-based writer and activist, with a focus on politics, human rights, and social justice. She is a former Philadelphia Area Coordinator for the Nobel-Prize-winning human rights group Amnesty International, and her views appear regularly in a variety of newspapers, magazines, and websites. Note that the ideas expressed here are the author’s own, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Amnesty International or any other organization with which she may be associated. E-mail: mary@maryshawonline.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ShareThisShareThis

 

 

 

Comments are moderated

 

By Countercurrents.org

01 August, 2013

@ Countercurrents.org

Diplomacy moving around Mohammad Morsi, the Egyptian president overthrown by the country’s army, shows the US-UK-EU have not abandoned Muslim Brotherhood and the army is not the sole ally of the axis. Germany , Washington and the European Union have earlier urged an end to the secrecy imposed on Morsi’s whereabouts, heaping pressure on the interim government to free the toppled president. The US State Department condemned the detentions of Morsi and members of the Muslim Brotherhood as “politically motivated” and urged the military to free them.

Media reports from Egypt said:

The UK has called on the Egyptian authorities to release Morsi. It also held the Egyptian security forces responsible for killing of the civilian protesters.

In a phone talks with Mohamed El Baradei, Egyptian vice president for foreign affairs, the UK foreign secretary William Hague called for “the release of all political detainees, including president Morsi, unless there are criminal charges to be made against them.”

This is the first time since his removal by the army, the UK called Morsi a president.

Hague’s remarks came hours after the Egyptian cabinet extended mandate to interior ministry to confront what it called ‘acts of terrorism and road-blocking.’

In a statement after his talks with El Baradei, Hague said he also emphasized that it is vital that any charges against detainees are not politically motivated.

A UK foreign Office spokesman refused to say whether his government is convinced that the charges Morsi is facing are criminal not politically motivated.

Alistair Burt, the UK Middle East minister, visited Egypt last week and met the interim government official and Muslim Brotherhood.

At the end of the visit he said Egypt needs a political process that includes all groups on an equal footing leading to early and fair elections which all parties are able to contest, and a swift return to civilian-led government.

US

Two leading US senators have been asked by US president Barack Obama to travel to Egypt to urge the country’s military to hold new elections.

Republican senators Lindsey Graham and John McCain, seen as leading legislative voices on US foreign policy and security matters, told reporters that they plan to travel next week to Cairo.

“The president asked Senator McCain and me to go to Egypt next week, so we’re trying to find a way to get there,” said Graham.

Graham said the goal of the trip is to “reinforce in a bipartisan fashion the message that we have to move to civilian control — that the military is going to have to allow the country to have new elections and move toward an inclusive, democratic approach.”

He and McCain, who was the Republican Party’s presidential nominee in 2008, intend to “talk to the military and the political leaders — hopefully including the Muslim Brotherhood — to have a unified message that we want Egypt to be successful,” said Graham.

The South Carolina lawmaker continued: “You cannot stop the progress and the march for democracy that the military has to turn over as fast as possible control to a civilian government.”

Graham added: “The days of supporting friendly dictators or military regimes are behind us, the Arab Spring is real.

US defense secretary Chuck Hagel called once again on Egypt ‘s military to show restraint in the wake of deadly protests.

Hagel spoke to General Abdel Fattah El-Sisi by telephone after EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton paid a first-of-a-kind visit to ousted president Mohamed Morsi.

Hagel spoke to El-Sisi “to discuss the security situation in Egypt and urge restraint by Egyptian security forces in dealing with ongoing protests,” Pentagon spokesman George Little said.

The two spoke about Ashton’s visit and “the need for an inclusive reconciliation process,” Little said.

Germany

The Egyptian presidency said it had received a request from German foreign minister Guido Westerwelle to meet detained former president Morsi, but hinted it might not have the authority to allow such visit.

In a statement on July 31, 2013 , the presidency said it had informed the German foreign minister that “the former president is under investigation and is facing numerous charges,” suggesting it may not have the authority to accept Westerwelle’s meeting request.

The German foreign minister is expected to visit Cairo to discuss the political situation in Egypt with interim government officials and a number of Muslim Brotherhood members.

Earlier, in mid-July, the German chancellor Angela Merkel renewed calls for the release of Morsi.

Merkel called for “an inclusive political process involving all groups of the Egyptian population.” She gave her remarks in a press conference in Berlin .

In mid-July, Germany called for the release of Morsi.

“We call for an end to the restrictions on Mr Morsi’s whereabouts,” a foreign ministry spokesman told reporters.

The German ministry spokesman said a “trusted institution” such as the International Committee of the Red Cross should be granted access to Morsi.

EU

EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton met Morsi for two hours on July 29, 2013 at an undisclosed location.

Morsi was “well,” Ashton said at a press conference in Cairo the day after the meeting.

“Mohamed Morsi is fine, I met him and we had a friendly discussion for two hours,” said Ashton.

“I do not know where he is, it is an undisclosed location,” she said. “He is in good health and he sends good wishes to the outside world.”

Morsi has access to TV and newspapers, she confirmed.

Ashton was not blindfolded

Catherine Ashton was not blindfolded while traveling to meet Morsi, said European officials.

EU aides told the New York Times that Ashton was transported to the meeting at night via helicopter so as to maintain secrecy around the former president’s location.

A delegation of human rights activists who visited Morsi before Ashton’s trip were similarly misled as to Morsi’s location, circling in a helicopter for 15 minutes before landing at the undisclosed site.

According to the Egyptian military, the intense security shrouding Morsi’s detention is intended for the ousted president’s own safety.  There are also speculations that his location remains undisclosed in order to discourage supporters from camping-out in protest, as which occurred outside the Republican Guard headquarters in early July.

African Union

Morsi was also visited on July 30, 2013 by a delegation from the African Union Wise Men Committee delegation, led by former Malian president Alpha Omar Konare.

The AU had suspended Egypt ‘s membership in the group shortly after Morsi’s deposition.

Both Ashton and the AU meetings aimed at reaching a resolution to the current impasse in Egypt .

Mohamed Morsi told the African Union Wise Men Committee that he was the victim of an injustice and had been wrongly ousted from power.

The AU delegation discussed the outcome of the meeting during a press conference in Cairo .

According to former president of Botswana Festus Gontebanye Mogae, the delegation told Morsi that as a leader, he must contribute to achieving peace and ending violence.

Mogae added that the delegation pressed on Morsi to encourage his supporters to achieve peace.

The AU Wise Men Committee also met representatives from the April 6 Youth Movement and the Tamarod. “We did not come here to make judgment on matters, but to hear from all parties” said Mogae, adding that a summary of the visit will be presented to the African Union secretariat.

Alpha Oumar Konar, the former president of Mali who heads the ‘Wise Men’ delegation, stated that if inclusive reconciliation is not reached, Egypt may be on the path to a civil war.

Tamarod

Leaders of the anti-Morsi ‘Rebel’ (Tamarod) campaign met Catherine Ashton in Cairo and stressed they reject “deals” and a safe exit for Morsi and other leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood.

“Everyone involved in bloodshed must be subject to a fair trial,” Mahmoud Badr, one of the leaders of Rebel said, according to a statement on the group’s official website.

“We asked her if she would personally accept an armed sit-in to be set up under her house, one that would force her to go to her home before being searched thoroughly and would turn the gardens surrounding her house to places for people to sleep, and would construct toilets in them,” read the statement.

Badr said the delegation told the EU’s top diplomat that the Egyptian people respect those who respect their will and “all countries must respect our will.”

He also posed her a question about whether European nations would allow sit-ins by Al Qaeda in their cities, pointing out that “black flags of Al Qaeda are present at all of the pro-Morsi rallies.”

The archaic black flag carrying “there is no God but Allah” in white is used by Al-Qaeda. It has appeared in numerous Islamist and Brotherhood rallies in Egypt over the past two years.