Archives: Articles

By Countercurrents.org

26 October, 2012

@ Countercurrents.org

Anti-austerity demonstrators in Europe have suffered excessive police violence, Amnesty International said on October 25, 2012 in a report urging the EU governments to protect the right to peaceful protest [1].

The rights group said people rallying against government spending cuts, tax rises and job losses in countries hit by the eurozone crisis and elsewhere had sometimes been seriously injured by police or had had medical treatment withheld.

“People demonstrating peacefully in EU countries have been beaten, kicked, shot at and wounded with rubber bullets and sprayed with tear gas,” Amnesty said.

“Yet excessive use of force by police goes uninvestigated and unpunished.”

The Amnesty report, “Policing demonstrations in the European Union”, described several cases where police had severely beaten protesters in Greece, Spain and Romania.

Greek journalist Manolis Kypreos was left completely deaf in June 2011 after police threw a stun grenade at him, the report added.

Kypreos has since recovered some hearing but his disability has effectively ended his career, Amnesty said.

“Governments must spell out and reiterate that police officers may use force only when strictly necessary,” said Fotis Filippou, Amnesty’s campaign coordinator for Europe and Central Asia.

“They must introduce strict guidelines on the use of potentially lethal riot-control devices such as pepper spray and tear gas, water cannon and rubber bullets.”

The report warned that excessive force and arbitrary arrests of protesters could turn anger against governments into anger against the police, increasing the risk of violence at anti-austerity demonstrations.

Under international law, police can only use force when it is required for them to perform their duty and they must be restrained in its use, Amnesty said.

Police forces in several European countries have faced budget cuts themselves as governments seek to shrink their huge deficits, the report added.

On the other hand, the EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton expressed concern on October 25, 2012 after Russia’s lower house passed a law broadening the definition of treason [2].

“The new law would expand the scope for prosecution of and reduce the burden of proof for charges of treason and espionage,” her office said in a statement.

“The abstract definition of treason contained in the law will make it difficult to apply in a fair manner. It also potentially penalizes contacts with foreign nationals with up to 20 years in prison.”

Human rights activists have attacked the bill passed on October 23, 2012 as a further attempt to curb opposition to President Vladimir Putin. They say the measures could criminalize sharing information with organizations such as Amnesty International or even appealing to the European Court of Human Rights.

The statement said the new law follows a number of recent legislative and judicial developments in Russia that, taken together, “would limit the space for civil society development, and increase the scope for intimidation.”

“We will be monitoring the implementation of this law closely,” the statement added.

The bill is likely to be swiftly passed by the upper house of parliament and signed into law by Putin.

It follows legislation that brands advocacy groups with foreign funding as “foreign agents”, criminalizes slander and blacklists websites unfavorable to the government — all introduced within months of Putin’s return to the Kremlin in May for a third presidential term.

Source:

[1] EUbusiness, “Amnesty warns EU countries against beating protesters”, Oct. 25, 2012, http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/britain-rights-debt.k9d/

[2] EUbusiness, “EU concerned at new Russia treason law”, Oct. 25, 2012, http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/russia-politics-law.ka1

Dated: October 26, 2012

Joint Statement from Human Security Alliance, Asian Muslim Action Network and Odhikar

International support needed to protect Rohingyas from persecution

We, the undersigned organizations are deeply concerned at the recent reports in the international media that scores of Rohingyas were killed in the fresh outbreak of violence in the northern Arakan state. We are also alarmed by the reports that hundreds of Rohinyga homes were burnt by a vengeful Rakhine community, that in turn has led to the displacement of thousands of people. This is in addition to the 75,000 people who are still languishing in overcrowded camps set up by the Myanmar authorities with very little basic amenities. Observers have noted that the recent outbreak of violence against the Rohinygas is in line with the long-term plan of the Arakani Rakhine community to eliminate Rohingyas from all the townships where they are a minority. We, the undersigned, notes that the local Myanmar authorities in connivance with the central government is pursuing a policy of apartheid under which tens of thousands of Rohinygas are housed in camps beyond the city limits under barbed wire fencing with armed guards placed at the entrances.

The present violence is inextricably linked to the decade-long discriminatory and racist policies of the Myanmar government towards the Rohingya Muslims. The systematic persecution by the authorities includes denial of citizenship under Myanmars 1982 Citizenship Act, which renders Rohingya stateless and utterly without protection. In addition to public vilification by the state media and state officials, Rohingyas have been subjected to restrictions on marriage, domestic travel and observation of religious ceremonies. They are also not allowed to join the army or police. The Rohingyas have also been particularly vulnerable to other serious human rights violations faced by the general population in Myanmar.

We further note with deep concern the media reports that 3000 people of Rohingya origin are floating in 42 trawlers in the Bay of Bengal. They are fleeing the violence torn Arakan state and are trying to enter Bangladesh to seek asylum. We are deeply distressed that instead of providing shelter to the incoming Rohingyas, Bangladesh authorities have geared up its efforts to stop them in the high seas and placed high security in the land border to deny entry to the hapless Rohingyas.

Since the 1960s there have been multiple campaigns led by the Myanmar authorities to expel the Rohingya from Myanmar, resulting in a series of human rights violations leading to the persecution of Rohingyas. There are an estimated 800,000 Rohingya in Myanmar, and approximately 300,000 live in Bangladesh, of which 30,000 live in squalid refugee camps. Given the fact that Rohingyas were excluded from the last Myanmar government census in 1983; are widely discriminated as ˜Kalas” or blacks or as ˜Bengalis” (people from Bangladesh) and are subject to racial attacks, we are afraid that the present persecution is aimed to push them into Bangladesh. This will cause serious political instability in this region.

The ongoing violence in the Rakhine State shows that despite the democratic progress of recent months, there are still formidable challenges for human rights in Myanmar. Many areas populated by ethnic minorities have seen few benefits from the reform process. International journalists and aid workers still face restricted access to large parts of the country. Even at this crucial moment, the political leadership of the Myanmar democratic movement and the main stream leaders within the civil society could not come forward to defend the persecuted Rohingyas, due to long drawn practice of massive racism.

Under the circumstances, WE, the undersigned demand that the Myanmar authorities allow unhindered access to the Rohingya settlements to ensure that the physical safety and dignity of Rohginyas are ensured. We demand that free and unfettered access to international humanitarian agencies to provide relief and support to the members of both communities who are affected by violence. We further call on the Myanmar government to allow an independent international fact finding mission to probe into the causes of recent spate of violence and identify perpetrators of the heinous acts against the members of the Rohingya community.

We regret that UN and ASEAN have been unable to exert their influence on the Myanmar government to refrain from pursuing their long term agenda of ethnic cleansing of the Rohingya community. We call on both agencies to shore up their efforts so that Myanmar authorities are forced to abandon such a project.

We appeal to the Bangladesh Government as well as to the people of Bangladesh to immediately respond to the humanitarian need in such dark hours and allow the Rohingyas to enter into the country. We hope that the government will honour its commitment to uphold basic tenets of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and international treaties such as the Child Rights Convention and Convention against Torture that uphold the principle of non-refoulement of people to their places of origin if their life and liberty are at stake.

Signatories:

1) Altafur Rahman, Executive Director, Human Security Alliance

2) Abdus Sabur, Secretary General, Asian Muslim Action Network

3) Adilur Rahman Khan, Secretary, Odhikar

By Countercurrents.org

26 October, 2012

@ Countercurrents.org

Speculation with food is an area of huge profit by financial institutions. “More than 40 percent of grain futures can now be traced to financial institutions, which nearly doubled their commodity bets over the last five years — from $65 billion to $126 billion”, write Yaneer Bar-Yam, president of the New England Complex Systems Institute, an independent academic research institution in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and Greg Lindsay, an affiliate of NECSI and a visiting scholar at New York University [1]. A month ago, on September 26, 2012, the European Parliament agreed on plans to improve financial market transparency and end speculation, notably deal-making blamed for volatile food prices [2].

Howard Schultz, Chief Executive, Starbucks Coffee Company, said: “Without any real supply or demand issues we are witness to the fact that most agricultural food commodities are at record highs at once, and coffee is at a 34-year high. Through financial speculation …the commodities market is in a very unfortunate position.” Similar opinions were expressed by Nigel Miller, President, National Farmers Union, Scotland and Peter Orszag, Vice Chairman, Citigroup [3].

Yaneer and Greg write:

Spikes in grain prices are regularly blamed on oil shocks, droughts and emerging markets’ hunger for meat. The real culprit in the three bubbles-and-busts of the last five years, however, isn’t the weather. It’s financial speculation.

The Midwest drought this summer, the worst in a half-century, produced a bumper crop of profits for derivatives traders like Chris Mahoney, the director of agricultural products for Glencore, the world’s largest commodities trading firm. Mahoney noted during one August conference call that tight grain supplies and the resulting arbitrage opportunities “should be good for Glencore.”

They’ve been a disaster, however, for the world’s poor.

More than 40 percent of grain futures can now be traced to financial institutions, which nearly doubled their commodity bets over the last five years — from $65 billion to $126 billion.

During that time, food prices have bubbled and burst twice — leaving millions of people to go hungry and stoking global unrest — before climbing to new heights this summer. Corn prices soared 65 percent between June and July alone, the same month the World Bank’s food price index recorded its highest rise ever, breaking the previous record set in February 2011.

What’s fueling this stunning price fluctuation is financial speculation. Our research team at the New England Complex Systems Institute built mathematical models to test possible explanations for the price spikes of 2007-2008 and 2010-2011 — including all the above, in addition to the rise of ethanol production. We could replicate a rise in prices but couldn’t explain the bubbles and crashes. When we added speculation, the model fit precisely.

When it comes to food, our faith in markets is contingent on their ability to match supply and demand at prices that benefit farmers, while ensuring the greatest number of people can afford to eat. Speculation in grain futures knocks these prices out of equilibrium. During past bubbles, for example, bountiful harvests piled up in silos because grain was too expensive for consumers to buy. This grain accumulation eventually bursts the bubbles after a year or more – the time elapsed between harvests.

While Americans will likely only feel a pinch of drought-fueled speculation this year – the Department of Agriculture projects a 3 percent-4 percent rise in food prices next year – the situation is direr in the developing world. Those living on less than a dollar per day already spend most of their income on food.

The price bubble of 2007-2008 led to food riots in more than 30 countries, including Mexico’s “tortilla riots” and the overthrow of Haiti’s government, before prices peaked again in February 2011, during the Arab Spring.

The current bubble is behind the fresh protests in Haiti, where food prices have gone up 40 percent since the election of President Michel Martelly last year. In eastern India, mobs robbed government granaries.

Hunger and revolutions have always gone hand-in-hand, of course — the latter is what happens when you let them eat cake but the people have no bread. But at which point do prices pass the point of no return?

Our research has found that food riots are most likely to occur when the Food Price Index, compiled by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, rises above 210. It’s currently 216.

Recognizing the dangers of food speculation, six European banks – including Commerzbank, Germany’s second largest – this summer removed agricultural products from their commodity funds altogether. Wall Street, however, has not been so accommodating.

Last month a federal judge vacated tough new rules designed to rein in commodity speculation that would have taken effect Oct. 12. The rules would have closed loopholes and instituted new position limits that would cap the number of derivative contracts a commodities trader could hold, in the hopes this would dampen volatility and prices.

But Judge Robert L. Wilkins channeled Wall Street’s objections when he questioned whether these rules were appropriate or necessary. In his decision he quoted Michael V. Dunn, a former commissioner of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, who had doubted whether “excessive speculation is affecting the market.” Dunn once declared, “at best position limits are a cure for a disease that does not exist, or at worst it’s a placebo for one that does.”

CFTC Chairman Gary Gensler has vowed to push ahead with the rule – including the possibility of appealing. Commissioner Bart Chilton meanwhile has proposed drafting an “interim final rule” that would appease Wilkins’ objections and could be instituted quickly. “Position limits are simply too important,” Chilton said earlier this month in a speech at the UN Food and Agriculture Organization headquarters in Rome.

They are. But if the rule that’s eventually passed is to be more than the placebo Dunn fears, it will be necessary to close the loopholes added to the bill to appease derivatives traders – who instead sued to have it overturned.

The proof will be in seeing if speculation actually decreases. Current volumes are three to five times higher than what’s necessary for the smooth functioning of the markets, according to our research. At a time when the US corn harvest is expected to be less than annual consumption, we can’t afford to gamble with our food.

The European Parliament’s economic affairs committee unanimously agreed – 45 votes in favor – new rules based on a proposal last year by the European Commission to update EU regulation on markets in financial instruments, known as MIFID.

Under the agreement, market players and trading operators would be required to lay down clear rules and procedures for fair and orderly trading, objective criteria for executing orders efficiently, and transparent criteria for determining which financial instruments may be traded via their systems.

The rules notably would provide a structure for Organized Trading Facilities (OTF), which are currently not regulated.

To fight speculation of food products, the rules also limit the number of positions traders can take in a set time on commodities on the derivatives market.

The MEPs also tightened up a EC proposal on high-frequency algorithmic trading, in which computers trade millions of orders per second, with little or no human intervention.

This technology can be used to check what buyers would pay, with a view to exploiting tiny price differences.

The committee voted provisions to ensure all orders be valid for at least 500 milliseconds, meaning they cannot be cancelled or modified during that time.

All firms and trading venues would also have to ensure that trading systems are resilient and prepared to deal with sudden increases in order flows or market stresses. These could include “circuit breakers” to suspend trading.

The Socialists and Democrats group in parliament dubbed the agreement “a very important step forward to increase transparency and to ensure a smooth price formation process on European exchanges.”

NGOs, including Oxfam and Friends of the Earth, welcomed the plan but said it continued to fall short of what was needed to tackle food speculation.

The rules will need to be adopted by a parliament plenary, probably in November, before being submitted to EU finance ministers who will have the final say.

On the issue of speculation with food Nigel Miller said: “It is deeply alarming that the greatest proportion of activity in the futures markets no longer involves those in the supply chain but is, instead, taken up by speculators. Food commodities are too important to be played about with by day traders and speculators.” Peter Orszag said: ‘‘Financial flows (including index funds) can, over brief periods, exert a noticeable destabilizing effect […] Trying to use inventory levels to measure how far the market is out of whack may not work that well. As a result, “multiple equilibriums” of plausible market prices can persist over a surprisingly long period before supply-and-demand fundamentals finally exert themselves.”

Food speculation refers to bankers and other financial investors betting on food prices. Food speculation occurs if ’futures contracts’ are written for the sole purpose of money making. Originally, future contracts allow farmers to sell crops at a future date at a guaranteed price – helping them to overcome unforeseen variations in crop production. Over the last two decades, bankers have successfully lobbied for weaker regulations on food speculation. They are now able to buy and sell futures contracts to make money. Bankers have also created special products and funds to help other financial companies make money from betting on food [4].

Source:

[1] “The real reason for spikes in food prices”, Oct. 25, 2012, http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/10/25/the-real-reason-for-spikes-in-food-prices/

[2] EUbusiness, “European Parliament moves to fight market speculation”, Sept. 26, 2012, http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/markets-finance.ik6

[3] Make finance work for people and the planet, “Financial speculation on food drives up and distorts prices”, http://www.makefinancework.org/the-food-crises-the-us-drought/food-speculation/

[4] http://www.makefinancework.org/home-english/food-speculation/briefings-and-reports-70/

By Nick Turse

25 October, 2012

@ TomDispatch.com

How the Empire Changed Its Face, But Not Its Nature

They looked like a gang of geriatric giants. Clad in smart casual attire — dress shirts, sweaters, and jeans — and incongruous blue hospital booties, they strode around “the world,” stopping to stroke their chins and ponder this or that potential crisis. Among them was General Martin Dempsey, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in a button-down shirt and jeans, without a medal or a ribbon in sight, his arms crossed, his gaze fixed. He had one foot planted firmly in Russia, the other partly in Kazakhstan, and yet the general hadn’t left the friendly confines of Virginia.

Several times this year, Dempsey, the other joint chiefs, and regional war-fighting commanders have assembled at the Marine Corps Base in Quantico to conduct a futuristic war-game-meets-academic-seminar about the needs of the military in 2017. There, a giant map of the world, larger than a basketball court, was laid out so the Pentagon’s top brass could shuffle around the planet — provided they wore those scuff-preventing shoe covers — as they thought about “potential U.S. national military vulnerabilities in future conflicts” (so one participant told the New York Times). The sight of those generals with the world underfoot was a fitting image for Washington’s military ambitions, its penchant for foreign interventions, and its contempt for (non-U.S.) borders and national sovereignty.

A World So Much Larger Than a Basketball Court

In recent weeks, some of the possible fruits of Dempsey’s “strategic seminars,” military missions far from the confines of Quantico, have repeatedly popped up in the news. Sometimes buried in a story, sometimes as the headline, the reports attest to the Pentagon’s penchant for globetrotting.

In September, for example, Lieutenant General Robert L. Caslen, Jr., revealed that, just months after the U.S. military withdrew from Iraq, a unit of Special Operations Forces had already been redeployed there in an advisory role and that negotiations were underway to arrange for larger numbers of troops to train Iraqi forces in the future. That same month, the Obama administration won congressional approval to divert funds earmarked for counterterrorism aid for Pakistan to a new proxy project in Libya. According to the New York Times, U.S. Special Operations Forces will likely be deployed to create and train a 500-man Libyan commando unit to battle Islamic militant groups which have become increasingly powerful as a result of the 2011 U.S.-aided revolution there.

Earlier this month, the New York Times reported that the U.S. military had secretly sent a new task force to Jordan to assist local troops in responding to the civil war in neighboring Syria. Only days later, that paper revealed that recent U.S. efforts to train and assist surrogate forces for Honduras’s drug war were already crumbling amid a spiral of questions about the deaths of innocents, violations of international law, and suspected human rights abuses by Honduran allies.

Shortly after that, the Times reported the bleak, if hardly surprising, news that the proxy army the U.S. has spent more than a decade building in Afghanistan is, according to officials, “so plagued with desertions and low re-enlistment rates that it has to replace a third of its entire force every year.” Rumors now regularly bubble up about a possible U.S.-funded proxy war on the horizon in Northern Mali where al-Qaeda-linked Islamists have taken over vast stretches of territory — yet another direct result of last year’s intervention in Libya.

And these were just the offshore efforts that made it into the news. Many other U.S. military actions abroad remain largely below the radar. Several weeks ago, for instance, U.S. personnel were quietly deployed to Burundi to carry out training efforts in that small, landlocked, desperately poor East African nation. Another contingent of U.S. Army and Air Force trainers headed to the similarly landlocked and poor West African nation of Burkina Faso to instruct indigenous forces.

At Camp Arifjan, an American base in Kuwait, U.S. and local troops donned gas masks and protective suits to conduct joint chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear training. In Guatemala, 200 Marines from Detachment Martillo completed a months-long deployment to assist indigenous naval forces and law enforcement agencies in drug interdiction efforts.

Across the globe, in the forbidding tropical forests of the Philippines, Marines joined elite Filipino troops to train for combat operations in jungle environments and to help enhance their skills as snipers. Marines from both nations also leapt from airplanes, 10,000 feet above the island archipelago, in an effort to further the “interoperability” of their forces. Meanwhile, in the Southeast Asian nation of Timor-Leste, Marines trained embassy guards and military police in crippling “compliance techniques” like pain holds and pressure point manipulation, as well as soldiers in jungle warfare as part of Exercise Crocodilo 2012.

The idea behind Dempsey’s “strategic seminars” was to plan for the future, to figure out how to properly respond to developments in far-flung corners of the globe. And in the real world, U.S. forces are regularly putting preemptive pins in that giant map — from Africa to Asia, Latin America to the Middle East. On the surface, global engagement, training missions, and joint operations appear rational enough. And Dempsey’s big picture planning seems like a sensible way to think through solutions to future national security threats.

But when you consider how the Pentagon really operates, such war-gaming undoubtedly has an absurdist quality to it. After all, global threats turn out to come in every size imaginable, from fringe Islamic movements in Africa to Mexican drug gangs. How exactly they truly threaten U.S. “national security” is often unclear — beyond some White House adviser’s or general’s say-so. And whatever alternatives come up in such Quantico seminars, the “sensible” response invariably turns out to be sending in the Marines, or the SEALs, or the drones, or some local proxies. In truth, there is no need to spend a day shuffling around a giant map in blue booties to figure it all out.

In one way or another, the U.S. military is now involved with most of the nations on Earth. Its soldiers, commandos, trainers, base builders, drone jockeys, spies, and arms dealers, as well as associated hired guns and corporate contractors, can now be found just about everywhere on the planet. The sun never sets on American troops conducting operations, training allies, arming surrogates, schooling its own personnel, purchasing new weapons and equipment, developing fresh doctrine, implementing novel tactics, and refining their martial arts. The U.S. has submarines trolling the briny deep and aircraft carrier task forces traversing the oceans and seas, robotic drones flying constant missions and manned aircraft patrolling the skies, while above them, spy satellites circle, peering down on friend and foe alike.

Since 2001, the U.S. military has thrown everything in its arsenal, short of nuclear weapons, including untold billions of dollars in weaponry, technology, bribes, you name it, at a remarkably weak set of enemies — relatively small groups of poorly-armed fighters in impoverished nations like Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, and Yemen — while decisively defeating none of them. With its deep pockets and long reach, its technology and training acumen, as well as the devastatingly destructive power at its command, the U.S. military should have the planet on lockdown. It should, by all rights, dominate the world just as the neoconservative dreamers of the early Bush years assumed it would.

Yet after more than a decade of war, it has failed to eliminate a rag-tag Afghan insurgency with limited popular support. It trained an indigenous Afghan force that was long known for its poor performance — before it became better known for killing its American trainers. It has spent years and untold tens of millions of tax dollars chasing down assorted firebrand clerics, various terrorist “lieutenants,” and a host of no-name militants belonging to al-Qaeda, mostly in the backlands of the planet. Instead of wiping out that organization and its wannabes, however, it seems mainly to have facilitated its franchising around the world.

At the same time, it has managed to paint weak regional forces like Somalia’s al-Shabaab as transnational threats, then focus its resources on eradicating them, only to fail at the task. It has thrown millions of dollars in personnel, equipment, aid, and recently even troops into the task of eradicating low-level drug runners (as well as the major drug cartels), without putting a dent in the northward flow of narcotics to America’s cities and suburbs.

It spends billions on intelligence only to routinely find itself in the dark. It destroyed the regime of an Iraqi dictator and occupied his country, only to be fought to a standstill by ill-armed, ill-organized insurgencies there, then out-maneuvered by the allies it had helped put in power, and unceremoniously bounced from the country (even if it is now beginning to claw its way back in). It spends untold millions of dollars to train and equip elite Navy SEALs to take on poor, untrained, lightly-armed adversaries, like gun-toting Somali pirates.

How Not to Change in a Changing World

And that isn’t the half of it.

The U.S. military devours money and yet delivers little in the way of victories. Its personnel may be among the most talented and well-trained on the planet, its weapons and technology the most sophisticated and advanced around. And when it comes to defense budgets, it far outspends the next nine largest nations combined (most of which are allies in any case), let alone its enemies like the Taliban, al-Shabaab, or al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, but in the real world of warfare this turns out to add up to remarkably little.

In a government filled with agencies routinely derided for profligacy, inefficiency, and producing poor outcomes, its record may be unmatched in terms of waste and abject failure, though that seems to faze almost no one in Washington. For more than a decade, the U.S. military has bounced from one failed doctrine to the next. There was Donald Rumsfeld’s “military lite,” followed by what could have been called military heavy (though it never got a name), which was superseded by General David Petraeus’s “counterinsurgency operations” (also known by its acronym COIN). This, in turn, has been succeeded by the Obama administration’s bid for future military triumph: a “light footprint” combination of special ops, drones, spies, civilian soldiers, cyberwarfare, and proxy fighters. Yet whatever the method employed, one thing has been constant: successes have been fleeting, setbacks many, frustrations the name of the game, and victory MIA.

Convinced nonetheless that finding just the right formula for applying force globally is the key to success, the U.S. military is presently banking on that new six-point plan. Tomorrow, it may turn to a different war-lite mix. Somewhere down the road, it will undoubtedly again experiment with something heavier. And if history is any guide, counterinsurgency, a concept that failed the U.S. in Vietnam and was resuscitated only to fail again in Afghanistan, will one day be back in vogue.

In all of this, it should be obvious, a learning curve is lacking. Any solution to America’s war-fighting problems will undoubtedly require the sort of fundamental reevaluation of warfare and military might that no one in Washington is open to at the moment. It’s going to take more than a few days spent shuffling around a big map in plastic shoe covers.

American politicians never tire of extolling the virtues of the U.S. military, which is now commonly hailed as “the finest fighting force in the history of the world.” This claim appears grotesquely at odds with reality. Aside from triumphs over such non-powers as the tiny Caribbean island of Grenada and the small Central American nation of Panama, the U.S. military’s record since World War II has been a litany of disappointments: stalemate in Korea, outright defeat in Vietnam, failures in Laos and Cambodia, debacles in Lebanon and Somalia, two wars against Iraq (both ending without victory), more than a decade of wheel-spinning in Afghanistan, and so on.

Something akin to the law of diminishing returns may be at work. The more time, effort, and treasure the U.S. invests in its military and its military adventures, the weaker the payback. In this context, the impressive destructive power of that military may not matter a bit, if it is tasked with doing things that military might, as it has been traditionally conceived, can perhaps no longer do.

Success may not be possible, whatever the circumstances, in the twenty-first-century world, and victory not even an option. Instead of trying yet again to find exactly the right formula or even reinventing warfare, perhaps the U.S. military needs to reinvent itself and its raison d’être if it’s ever to break out of its long cycle of failure.

But don’t count on it.

Instead, expect the politicians to continue to heap on the praise, Congress to continue insuring funding at levels that stagger the imagination, presidents to continue applying blunt force to complex geopolitical problems (even if in slightly different ways), arms dealers to continue churning out wonder weapons that prove less than wondrous, and the Pentagon continuing to fail to win.

Coming off the latest series of failures, the U.S. military has leapt headlong into yet another transitional period — call it the changing face of empire — but don’t expect a change in weapons, tactics, strategy, or even doctrine to yield a change in results. As the adage goes: the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Nick Turse is the managing editor of TomDispatch.com and a fellow at the Nation Institute. An award-winning journalist, his work has appeared in the Los Angeles Times, the Nation, and regularly at TomDispatch. He is the author/editor of several books, including the just published The Changing Face of Empire: Special Ops, Drones, Spies, Proxy Fighters, Secret Bases, and Cyberwarfare (Haymarket Books). This piece is the final article in his series on the changing face of American empire, which is being underwritten by Lannan Foundation. You can follow him on Tumblr.

By Catherine Herridge, Pamela Browne

25 October, 2012

@ FoxNews.com

A mysterious Libyan ship — reportedly carrying weapons and bound for Syrian rebels — may have some link to the Sept. 11 terror attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Fox News has learned.

Through shipping records, Fox News has confirmed that the Libyan-flagged vessel Al Entisar, which means “The Victory,” was received in the Turkish port of Iskenderun — 35 miles from the Syrian border — on Sept. 6, just five days before Ambassador Chris Stevens, information management officer Sean Smith and former Navy Seals Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were killed during an extended assault by more than 100 Islamist militants.

On the night of Sept. 11, in what would become his last known public meeting, Stevens met with the Turkish Consul General Ali Sait Akin, and escorted him out of the consulate front gate one hour before the assault began at approximately 9:35 p.m. local time.

Although what was discussed at the meeting is not public, a source told Fox News that Stevens was in Benghazi to negotiate a weapons transfer, an effort to get SA-7 missiles out of the hands of Libya-based extremists. And although the negotiation said to have taken place may have had nothing to do with the attack on the consulate later that night or the Libyan mystery ship, it could explain why Stevens was travelling in such a volatile region on the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.

When asked to comment, a State Department spokeswoman dismissed the idea, saying Stevens was there for diplomatic meetings, and to attend the opening of a cultural center.

A congressional source also cautioned against drawing premature conclusions about the consulate attack and the movement of weapons from Libya to Syria via Turkey — noting they may in fact be two separate and distinct events. But the source acknowledged the timing and the meeting between the Turkish diplomat and Stevens was “unusual.”

According to an initial Sept. 14 report by the Times of London, Al Entisar was carrying 400 tons of cargo. Some of it was humanitarian, but also reportedly weapons, described by the report as the largest consignment of weapons headed for Syria’s rebels on the frontlines.

“This is the Libyan ship … which is basically carrying weapons that are found in Libya,” said Walid Phares, a Fox News Middle East and terrorism analyst. “So the ship came all the way up to Iskenderun in Turkey. Now from the information that is available, there was aid material, but there were also weapons, a lot of weapons.”

The cargo reportedly included surface-to-air anti-aircraft missiles, RPG’s and Russian-designed shoulder-launched missiles known as MANPADS.

The ship’s Libyan captain told the Times of London that “I can only talk about the medicine and humanitarian aid” for the Syrian rebels. It was reported there was a fight about the weapons and who got what “between the free Syrian Army and the Muslim Brotherhood.”

“The point is that both of these weapons systems are extremely accurate and very simple to use,” Fox News military analyst Col. David Hunt explained. He said the passage of weapons from Libya to Syria would escalate the conflict. “With a short amount of instruction, you’ve got somebody capable of taking down any, any aircraft. Anywhere in the world.”

The Foundation for Human Rights, and Freedoms and Humanitarian Relief (IHH) — the group accused of moving the weapons — disputed the claims and in published Turkish reports said it “will take legal action against this article which was written without concrete evidence. It is defamatory, includes false and unfair accusations and violates publishing ethics.”

Information uncovered in a Fox News investigation raises questions about whether weapons used to arm the Libyan rebels are now surfacing in Syria.

In March 2011, the Reuters news service first reported that President Obama had authorized a “secret order … (allowing) covert U.S. government support for rebel forces” to push the Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi from office.

At a hearing on March 31, before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, several lawmakers raised concerns about the finding reported by the Reuters news service and whether the Obama administration knew who constituted the rebel forces and whether Islamists were among their ranks.

“What assurances do we have that they will not pose a threat to the United States if they succeed in toppling Qaddafi?” Republican Chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., asked. “There are reports that some opposition figures have links to Al Qaeda and extremist groups that have fought against our forces in Iraq.”

While the source of the weapons used to attack the consulate is part of an ongoing investigation, former CIA Director Porter Goss told Fox News there was no question some of the weapons that flooded Libya during the uprising are making their way to Syria — adding that the U.S. intelligence community must be aware, given their presence in Benghazi.

“Absolutely.  I think there’s no question that there’s a lot of networking going on. And … of course we know it.”

A month after the October 2011 death of Qaddafi, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced in Tripoli that the U.S. was committing $40 million to help Libya “secure and recover its weapons stockpiles.” Earlier this year, Assistant Secretary of State for Political and Military Affairs Andrew Shapiro expressed concerns that the situation on the ground was far from under control.

Speaking to the Stimson Center in Washington D.C., on Feb. 2, Shapiro said: “This raises the question — how many are still missing? The frank answer is we don’t know and probably never will.”

Armed Forces Eliminate Scores of Terrorists in Several Provinces

Oct 24, 2012

PROVINCES, (SANA) – Units of the Armed Forces on Wednesday continued operations in the framework of cleaning the city and countryside of Aleppo from the armed terrorist groups that have been terrorizing citizens and attacking public and private properties.

A source in the province told SANA reporter that dens for terrorists near al-Kindi Hospital in the city were destroyed.

Armed Forces units eliminated terrorists near al-Gondol roundabout, Souq al-Asila, Souq al-Zahrawi, al-Fardous neighborhood, al-Marjeh area, al-Maadi area, the retirement hope and al-Isharat area in Bustan al-Basham, al-Nayrab, Dawwar al-Turkawi and Bani Zeid.

In Bustan al-Basha, security forces clashed with a terrorist group, killing or injuring its members. One of the dead terrorist is Mohammad Beidoun, the group’s leader who hails from Mare’a in Aleppo countryside.

A number of citizens were injured when terrorists fired projectiles at Mugambo area in Aleppo city.

In the same framework, clearing the area of Khan al-Assal in Aleppo countryside from terrorists continues.

A source in the province told SANA reporter that the Armed Forces killed several terrorists and injured others and destroyed their equipment and headquarters.

Other terrorists’ dens were destroyed at the entrance of Kafrnaha village in the countryside.

Also in Aleppo countryside, an Armed Forces unit destroyed a pickup truck and 3 motorbikes which terrorists had been using to move about in al-Khadseh area and al-Muhandsin area, while another unit destroyed gatherings of terrorists in Kafernaha village.

On the slaughterhouse road in al-Atareb, an Armed Forces unit eliminated a number of terrorists in operations targeting their hideouts. One of the terrorists killed in these operations is the sniper Ayed Mutlak al-Otaibi, a Saudi.

Armed Forces Unit Eliminates Terrorists in Harasta, Damascus Countryside

An Armed Forces unit eliminated an armed terrorist group that was terrorizing locals and vandalizing properties near Jaghmour Mosque in al-Sabil neighborhood in Harasta, Damascus Countryside.

An official source told SANA’s correspondent that assorted weapons including assault rifles and machineguns were confiscated from terrorists, adding that another unit eliminated a terrorist group near al-Bustan Park in Harasta.

Terrorists Killed, Cars Destroyed in Homs Province and its Countryside

Units of the Armed Forces eliminated large numbers of terrorists in Homs province and its countryside.

A source in the province told SANA reporter that several cars used by terrorists to transfer weapons and ammunition in the neighborhoods of Bab Hood, al-Khalidiyeh, al-Bueida, Tal Hanash in the city and al-Qseir in teh countryside were destroyed during the military operations.

In al-Rastan city in Homs, the Armed Forces clashed with an armed terrorist group, killing 15 terrorists and injuring another 15, among them were terrorists Shadi Mansour, the leader of the group, Khaled Shahhoud, Ibrahim al-Saleh, Mohammad Lattouf, Khaled Qattee’, Abdul-Qader Qattee’ and Mohammad Qatee’.

Another army unit clashed with and killed scores of terrorists in al-Hosn town in Talkalakh countryside, among them was terrorist Mohammad Issa, nicknamed ‘al-Houeer’.

In the town of Talkalakh in Homs countryside, an Armed Forces unit confronted a terrorist group that attempted to attack locals, killing and injuring the group’s members.

Authorities Kill Terrorists, Destroy Their Vehicles in Hama

Authorities clashed with an armed terrorist group that was terrorizing citizens in Jinan town in Hama countryside and inflicted heavy losses upon the terrorists.

SANA reporter quoted a source in the province as saying that the authorities eliminated scores of terrorists and destroyed 4 cars and a motorcycles used by the terrorists in their attacks.

Authorities Seize Large Amount of Weapons and Machineguns in Sanamin, Daraa Countryside

The authorities seized various types of weapons and machineguns and amounts of ammunition with an armed terrorist group driving a car in al-Sanamin area in the countryside of Daraa.

SANA reporter quoted a source in the province as saying that the seized weapons included 10 BKC machineguns, 23 automatic rifles, 23 ammunition boxes, 10 BKC machinegun boxes and 56 rifle magazines.

The source added that all members of the armed terrorist group were killed during clashes with the authorities.

Syria Demands That UNSC, UN General Secretariat and UNHRC Condemn Crimes of Terrorist Groups and Hold Them to Account

Oct 24, 2012

DAMASCUS, (SANA)- Syria on Wednesday demanded that the UN Security Council (UNSC), UN General Secretariat and UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) expose the crimes of the armed terrorist groups, condemn them and hold these groups to account.

Syria’s demand came in identical letters sent by the Foreign and Expatriates Ministry to the Head of UNSC, UNSG, UNHRC Chairperson and High Commissioner for Human Rights in which it said it wanted to share confirmed information on the violence Syria is being subjected to at the hands of the armed terrorist groups and the horrible violations by these groups of the international law and the international human rights law.

The Ministry stressed in its letters that the armed terrorist groups and their supporters are continuing the shedding of the Syrian blood in contradiction with all human values and at a by now known timing ahead of sessions held by the UNSC to discuss the situation in Syria.

Highlighting in this context the massacre committed earlier on the day in the city of Douma in Damascus Countryside, the Ministry clarified that an armed terrorist group known as ‘Liwa al-Islam’, which is led by a salafi leader called Zahran Alloush, committed “a horrible massacre” in which Syria lost 25 martyrs, including children, women and elderly people.

The letters mentioned the names of the families to which the massacre’s victims belonged, which are al-Qbeitri, al-Abed, al-Jindi, al-Ayyoubi, Diyab and al-Safadi.

It emphasized that the fact that the massacre took place in an area where there is no presence of the Syrian Arab Army or the law enforcement forces and where the armed terrorist groups are active, and considering its timing, proves once again the responsibility of the armed terrorist gangs and their supporters for this kind of massacres which are committed every time deliberately and with cold blood.

The letters cited al-Houleh and al-Treimseh among other such massacres perpetrated in several areas in Syria which used to enjoy safety and security before the flow of the terrorist groups and their weapons along with the foreign mercenaries.

The Foreign and Expatriates Ministry said these groups and mercenaries have been benefiting in committing their crimes from the political, media and financial coverage provided by countries which Syria has previously warned of their support to terrorism in a number of previous notes sent to the UNSC, UNSG and UNHRC.

It stressed that Douma massacre and other crimes of the terrorist groups demand that the UNSC and other UN bodies play their role in combating terrorism regardless of its perpetrators, funders, supporters and the place and time of its occurrence.

It also called for not repeating the disgraceful stances of some UNSC member states, including Germany, which prevented the issuance of a stance to condemn the perpetrators of the terrorist operation which took place few days ago in Bab Touma area in Damascus and claimed the innocent lives of 13 civilians including children and women.

UN Security Council Supports Brahimi’s Call for a Ceasefire in Syria during the Holiday of Eid al-Adha

Oct 24, 2012

NEW YORK, (SANA)- The UN Security council on Wednesday supported the UN Envoy to Syria Lakhdar Brahimi’s call for a cease-fire in Syria during the holiday of Eid al-Adha.

In a statement, the council called on all sides to work for reaching a permanent halt to all forms of violence in the country.

Churkin: Success of Initiative to Cease Violence During Eid al-Adha Lies in Commitment of Local and International Sides to Exercise Influence on Armed Groups to Accept It

Russia’s Permanent Envoy to the UN Vitaly Churkin affirmed that the success of the initiative proposed by UN Envoy to Syria Lakhdar Ibrahimi to cease violence during Eid al-Adha doesn’t lie in the approval of the Security Council members; rather it lies in the commitment of local and international sides to exercise influence on armed groups to accept the truce.

In a press statement at the UN headquarters in New York, Churkin said that it wasn’t surprising that some armed group announced their refusal to cease violence because many of them reject transitioning from armed violence to politics, therefore he called upon sides that influence these groups to refrain from providing them with weapons and missiles and force them to agree to what the Council called for as this is the right path for ending the crisis in Syria.

Churkin said that Russia hopes that the truce will be carried out on the ground by the opposition and the government to end violence and organize the political process to reach a political resolution to the crisis in Syria.

He pointed out that the statement issued by the Security Council relies on three elements; first , the Council members’ support for Ibrahimi’s initiative and calling on all regional and international sides to do likewise and exercise their influence on the ground to impose the truce.

Churkin said the second element is dealing with urgent humanitarian issues affected the Syrian people, and the third is opening political prospects for resolution and the need to use the truce to enter a broader field for political settlement.

He noted that Brahimi reiterated his desire for the Geneva statement to be the basis of future work since it was issued through the agreement among members of the international community and was adopted in the framework of Security Council resolutions no. 2042 and no. 2043.

Churkin also voiced his country’s concern over reports that missile systems have been sent to terrorist groups in Syria, adding that Russia contacted countries that can send such systems, but none confessed to doing so yet.

Four citizens Martyred, 11 others injured by terrorist Explosion in al-Tadamun, Damascus

Oct 24, 2012

DAMASCUS, (SANA)- Terrorists blew up a booby-trapped car in a crowded street in al-tadamun popular neighborhood in Damascus on Wednesday.

“Initial toll of the terrorist explosion refers to 4 martyrs while 11 others injured from the civilians,” A source at the Interior Ministry told SANA.

It added that the explosion caused grave material damages in the houses and shops of citizens.

Another source at the National Hospital of Damascus told SANA reporter that the hospital received the bodies of 4 martyrs in addition to 10 people injured, one of them in a critical condition.

Terrorists Commit Massacre against 25 People, including 3 Children and a Woman, in Douma

Oct 24, 2012

DAMASCUS COUNTRYSIDE, (SANA)- The number of victims of the massacre perpetrated on Wednesday by terrorist members of the so-called ‘Liwa al-Islam’ in the city of Douma in Damascus Countryside increased up to 25 martyrs, according to the city’s locals.

A source in the province said earlier that 9 men, 3 children and a woman were killed near Hawwa Mosque in Ali Ben Abi Talib Street in the city.

The source noted that members of the so-called ‘Liwa al-Islam’ terrorist group, headed by terrorist Zahran Alloush, spread in the area where the massacre was committed.

Premier al-Halqi Tours Homs Province and Meets Locals

Oct 24, 2012

HOMS, (SANA) – Prime Minister Dr. Wael al-Halqi toured the city of Homs accompanied by a number of ministers and officials, inspecting the state of services and citizens and verifying the reestablishment of security and availability of goods after the Armed Forces restored security to most neighborhoods.

Al-Halqi voiced confidence that the Armed Forces will restore security and stability to Syria and bolster it, calling upon the people of Homs to return to their city, reassuring them that all their needs and necessities are now available, from security to supplies and food.

The Prime Minister said that his tour aims to inspect the state of services and living conditions in Homs province as part of the government’s plan to communicate with citizens, urging officials in the province to overcome shortcomings in administration which seems lacking compared to services.

He also stressed the need to revitalize the health sector which suffers from obvious problems caused by the attacks of terrorists and their direct targeting of this sector.

In a statement to journalists, al-Halqi said that the state of services is good in some sectors such as water and electricity, as well as living conditions, adding that 27 out of 38 neighborhoods are fully stable and life is normal in them, and that shortcoming in services will be dealt with.

He said that the government is preparing a database of afflicted people in Homs and other provinces, adding that banks will open branches in all secure areas in addition to al-Baath University.

The Prime Minister’s tour covered Baba Amr neighborhood, temporary housing centers in al-Shammas and al-Hadara streets, al-Bassel Health Compound in Karm al-Louz, Homs Refinery and al-Baath University, among other areas in Homs and Homs Refinery, where he met locals and listened to their problems and demands.

The Prime Minister also honored families of civilian martyrs killed by terrorists.

In the same context, Deputy Prime Minister for Services Affairs and Minister of Local Administration Omar Ghalawanji, Minister of Electricity Imad Khamis, Minister of Education Hazwan al-Waz, Minister of Higher Education Mohammad Yehea Moalla, Minister of Health Saad al-Nayef, and Minister of Public Works Yasser al-Siba’I discussed reports from directors of services departments in the province.

Lavrov : Russia  committed to the international law regarding the situation in Syria

Oct 24, 2012

MOSCOW, (SANA)- Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov underlined that his country is committed to the international law regarding the situation in Syria, saying “our western partners don’t prefer to talk about Libya at the UN Security council, but they suggest to adopt a resolution on Syria.. but we believe that at first it is important to take the example of Libya and not to repeat this big mistake.”

“As for the war on Iraq, we have adhered to the international law and we didn’t accept war on Iraq at the UN Security Council.. the same we do regarding Syria, of course we remember Libya lesson when the international law was exposed to a difficult test and the Security council resolutions were diverted.. let them see what is happening now there,” Lavrov added In an interview with Russkaya Gazeta.

He affirmed that Russia still contacts with the main countries in an intensified way as before regarding Syria.. Russia also keeps contacts with the opposition parties, saying “any opposition group, even the most extremist, don’t talk about issues that we hear from the western partners or from a number of politicians in the region about Russia’s role on the situation in Syria.”

On the western statements regarding Russia’s stand in the wrong side of history and its lose of the Middle East, Lavrov said “those statements are but mere efforts by the western politicians to depict their hopes as an inevitable issue and attempts to instigate some powers against us.”

As for the Turkish stance, Lavrov demanded that Turkey acknowledge publicly that there wasn’t any kind of weapons on board the Syrian civilian plane coming from Moscow which the Turkish authorities forced to land in Ankara recently, referring to Turkey’s claims that it carried a shipment of weapons and military equipment which were later disproved.

He said that the Turkish authorities who claimed originally that the plane carried weapons and military later admitted that the plane was actually carrying electronic equipment, reiterating that the plane was carrying electronic equipment for radar station that have double uses and their transportation isn’t subject to international embargos according to international agreements or Security Council resolutions.

He affirmed that the cargo in question is regulation spare parts and that Russia has been providing spare parts for Syrians radar stations for decades, adding that this shipment was packed and sent to Syria upon the Syrian side’s request and that they constituted no threat to passengers and are non-volatile.

Lavrov noted that the Turkish authorities instructed the Syrian pilot to either land for inspecting the plane’s shipment or turn back, and he chose to land since he knows that the shipment is legal.

He affirmed that Russia will continue to demand that Turkey clarify its position of refusing to allow the Russian Consulate to meet the Russian passengers and uncover who was responsible for preventing its staff from boarding the plane.

Lavrov also refuted the Turkish authorities’  tales and their discrepancies from the Russian passengers’ testimonies about what actually happened during the eight hours when the plane was grounded, adding “it turns out that the situation was completely different from what the Turkish colleagues presented.”

He said that upon learning of the incident, Russian consular staff demanded to meet the Russian passengers after receiving a passengers manifest, yet the Turkish authorities refused to allow them to meet them during the eight hours when the plane was grounded, saying that the plane was about to take off but it wasn’t so.

Lavrov pointed out that the passengers were detained for two hours inside the plane which wasn’t running, meaning that the air conditioning wasn’t working and this had adverse effects on one passenger’s health, then the Turkish authorities opened the plane’s door and said that they were going to transport the passengers to the airport terminal but no-one came to take them anywhere, forcing the passengers to share what little food they had.

He concluded by noting that Russian authorities didn’t become aware of any of this until after the plane landed in Damascus.

Information Ministry: Countries’ Support to Terrorism in Syria Will Put Them on Terrorists’ Side in Face of International Resolutions

Oct 24, 2012

DAMASCUS, (SANA)- Ministry of Information on Wednesday highlighted the coincidence of the terrorists’ perpetration of Douma massacre with the upcoming Security Council session on Syria, being a repeated manner by the terrorists before the convening of any international meeting on Syria in implementation of a political agenda.

“The silence of certain countries on such crimes on one hand, and their continued supply of weapons, money and shelter to the terrorist groups on the other hand is considered a full participation in the crimes and evidence on the scale of foreign involvement in supporting terrorism,” the Ministry said in a statement.

The Ministry emphasized that the continuation of support for terrorism in Syria by those countries will put them on the terrorists’ side in the face of the international resolutions on combating and uprooting terrorism and pursuing its members.

Earlier on the day, terrorist members of the so-called ‘Liwa al-Islam’ in the city of Douma in Damascus Countryside committed a massacre slaughtering 25 people including 3 children and a woman.

122 Persons Released in Damascus Countryside and Daraa after Turning Themselves in

Oct 24, 2012

DAMASCUS COUNTRYSIDE, DARAA(SANA)- Authorities on Wednesday released 122 persons in Damascus countryside and Daraa who were misled into getting involved in the latest events in the country but did not commit crimes.

In Damascus countryside 70 persons were released after they gave themselves up to the authorities who settled their cases.

At al-Sheikh Misken in Daraa, the authorities settled the cases of 52 persons who were involved in the events without committing crimes.

The released persons in Damascus countryside and Daraa pledged not to bear any weapon or participate in any acts of chaos to return to their normal life.

SANA Reporter Dismisses as Untrue News on Explosion in  Jisr al-Rayes Area

Oct 24, 2012

DAMASCUS, (SANA)- SANA reporter on Wednesday dismissed that an explosion took place in Jisr al-Raes area in Damascus.

The reporter stressed that the news broadcast by some channels claiming the occurenec of an explosion in the aforementioned area are completely baseless.

Russian Chief of Staff: Armed Groups in Syria Have US-made Missiles

Oct 24, 2012

MOSCOW, (SANA) – Russian Chief of the General Staff, Nikolai Makarov, stressed on Wednesday that there are information confirming that the armed groups in Syria have Man-Portable Air-Defense Systems (MANPADS) from various origins including the US-made Stinger missiles.

“The armed groups in Syria have Man-Portable Air-Defense Systems of various foreign origins including those of US manufacturing,” Makarov told the journalists.

He clarified that these weapons and equipment are being transferred to the armed groups in various ways including through civil air means.

Commenting on US President Barack Obama’s instructions to provide the armed groups in Syria with a batch of portable anti-air missiles, Makarov said “The Americans have abandoned these instructions and said that they haven’t provided the Syrian opposition with any weapons.”

“However, we’ve got confirmed information that the armed groups have foreign-made portable missiles, including US-made missiles,” Russian Chief of the General Staff stressed.

Syrians in Belarus and Poland Denounce EU Sanctions and Support to Terrorism in Syria 

Oct 24, 2012

MINSK/ WARSAW, (SANA)- Syrian students and expatriates in Belarus expressed their rejection of the unfair sanctions imposed by the EU on their homeland.

In a stand of solidarity with Syria organized outside the Syrian Embassy in Minsk, the participants voiced their strong support to President Bashar al-Assad and his reform approach, stressing standing by him until foiling the conspiracy against their homeland.

They denounced the EU sanctions on Syria, emphasizing that these sanctions have affected the Syrian citizens directly.

Syrians and Polish Supporters Denounce Countries’ Support to Terrorism in Syria

In the same context, members of the Syrian community in Poland reiterated their support to Syria and its people, army and leadership against the conspiracy targeting its national unity and the future of its sons.  Gathered in front of the Syrian Embassy in Warsaw, the Syrians, along with representatives from expatriate bodies in Poland and Polish supporters, denounced the stances of the Arab, regional and international parties that are leading the conspiracy against Syria.

They strongly condemned the support provided by those parties to the gangs of killing whose criminality reached national skilled and qualified cadres in addition to the army members and the public and private properties.

The gathered people also expressed their denunciation of Erdogan government over its hostile stances towards the Syrian people, hailing on the other hand attitude of the friendly Turkish people I rejection of their government’s policy.

In this framework, the participants headed to Turkey’s Embassy in Warsaw to stage a sit-in to voice their denunciation of Erdogan government’s support to the terrorism gangs in Syria, handing in a statement of their denunciation to a representative of the Embassy.

By Rajesh Makwana

25 October, 2012

@ Stwr.org

The following article is based on a presentation by Share The World’s Resources for the World Public Forum ‘Dialogue of Civilisations’ 10th Anniversary Conference, Rhodes, October 2012

The earth’s ecological problems stem largely from our collective failure to share. That might seem like an overly simplistic statement, but it is now increasingly evident that only by sharing the world’s resources more equitably and sustainably will we be able to address both the ecological and social crisis we face as a global community.

The principle of sharing has always formed the basis of social relationships in societies across the world. We all know from personal experience that sharing is central to family and community life, and the importance of sharing is also a key component of many of the world’s religions.

Moreover, it is becoming apparent through a growing body of anthropological and biological evidence that human beings are naturally predisposed to cooperate and share in order to improve our collective wellbeing and maximise our chances of survival.

In fact, sharing is far more prevalent in society than people often realise. In a recent report, we identified the many emerging and existing forms of what is being popularly termed the ‘sharing economy’. This includes collaborative consumption, knowledge sharing websites like Wikipedia, and many other forms of cooperative and peer2peer enterprises. Although not commonly recognised as such, systems of social welfare can also be considered one of the most advanced forms of economic sharing ever established in the modern world.

Given the importance of the principle of sharing in human life, it is logical to assume that it should play an important role in the way we organise economies and manage the world’s resources. But this is not the case. Instead, we have created an economic system based on ideologies that are entirely opposed to the principle of sharing.

For decades, mainstream economists and policymakers have based their decision-making on a distorted understanding of what it means to be human: that people are selfish, acquisitive, individualistic and competitive by nature – the concept of homo economicus. These notions are still used to justify the exaggerated role that market forces play in organising societies.

As we know, neoliberal ideology continues to dominate policymaking across the world – characterised by the privatisation of public assets and the shared ‘commons’, the deregulation and liberalisation of markets, the endless pursuit of economic growth and the overconsumption of natural resources.

The consequences of our failure to share

As a result of failing to put the principle of sharing at the centre of policymaking, we now face a multitude of environmental crises, from climate change and pollution to deforestation and peak energy – the list is long.

Underpinning these multiple ecological crises is the failure of governments to achieve a balance between consumption levels and the Earth’s life-supporting capacity. As the WWF have painstakingly demonstrated, humanity currently consumes 50 percent more natural resources than the earth can sustainably produce, which means we already require the equivalent of one and a half planets to support our consumption levels.

This calculation doesn’t even take into account the massive growth in consumption that is widely predicted to take place over coming decades, in which the global ‘middle class’ is expected to grow from under 2 billion consumers today to nearly 5 billion by 2030. Clearly, the ecological consequences of increased consumption across the world will be severe. According to research by the Stockholm Resilience Centre, humanity has already transgressed three out of nine key planetary boundaries – climate change, biological diversity as well as nitrogen and phosphorous cycles.

But our failure to share resources has also resulted in severe social consequences which cannot be divorced from any discussion about the environment. Ecological chaos, poverty and inequality are related outcomes of an ill-managed world system, and they require simultaneous attention – a fact embodied in the contemporary dialogue on sustainable development.

There are massive differences in the consumption patterns and carbon emissions of people living in rich and poor countries. A small proportion of the world’s population – around 20 percent – consumes the vast majority of the world’s resources. According to Oxfam, excessive consumption by the wealthiest 10 percent of the world’s population poses the biggest threat to the environment today.

At the same time, the poorest 20 percent of the world’s population do not have access to the basic resources they need to survive. Around a billion people are officially classified as hungry, and almost half of the developing world population is trying to survive on less than $2 a day. Statistics from the World Health Organisation reveal that over 40,000 people die every single day from a lack of access to those resources that many of us take for granted. This is perhaps the starkest illustration of the human impact of our failure to share.

Overcoming the barriers to progress

Given the urgency of the ecological and social situation, why are we still failing to manage the world’s resources in a more equitable and sustainable way?

Every year, numerous international conferences and negotiations take place, but the international community has not managed to implement binding limits on CO2 emissions. We have failed to curb unsustainable patterns of resource consumption. And we have by no means succeeded in ending poverty or paving the way for more sustainable development.

In the meanwhile, endless reports are published that recommend a sensible path for reforming the global economy, but are not taken seriously by policymakers. Nothing seems to change. Humanity is at an impasse; we seem unable to overcome the vested interests and structural barriers to progress that we face.

For too long, governments have put profit and growth before the welfare of all people and the sustainability of the biosphere. Public policy under the influence of neoliberalism has created a world economy that is structurally dependent upon unsustainable levels of production and consumption for its continued success. Overcoming the vested interests that continue to block progress on restructuring the world economy has long been regarded by campaigners as the most significant challenge of the 21st century.

Given the scale of the task ahead and the extensive international negotiations these reforms would involve, it is impossible at this stage to put forward a blueprint of the specific policies and actions governments need to take.

But in order to inspire public support for transformative change, it is imperative that we outline a bold vision of how and why these reforms should be based firmly on the principle of sharing. Sharing the world’s resources equitably and sustainably is arguably the most pragmatic way of simultaneously addressing both the ecological and social crises we face.

Envisioning a global sharing economy

Two basic elements remain fundamental to the proper functioning of a ‘global sharing economy’. The first element is for the international community to recognise that natural resources form part of our shared commons, and should therefore be held in trust for the benefit of all. This important reconceptualization would enable humanity to move away from today’s private and state ownership models, and towards a new form of resource management based on non-ownership and trusteeship.

A precedent for sharing natural resources is already well established. An existing principle in international law known as the ‘common heritage of humankind’ enables certain cultural and natural resources to be protected from exploitation – from both the state and private sector – by holding them in trust for future generations. This principle is an important feature in a number of international treaties that have taken shape under the auspices of the United Nations.

There are of course many options available for how such a trust could be organised on a global level to incorporate the full range of renewable and non-renewable resources, including fossil fuels. For example, a number of proposals already exist such as those outlined by James Quilligan, Peter Barnes, or Peter Brown and Geoffrey Garver in their book ‘Right Relationship’, among others.

Essentially, a Global Commons Trust would embody the principle of sharing on a global scale, and it would enable the international community to take collective responsibility for managing the world’s resources.

With resources held in trust for all, it would be much easier to implement the second element required to establish a global sharing economy, which is to equalise global consumption levels so that all human beings can flourish within ecological limits. To achieve this, over-consuming countries need to significantly reduce their resource use, while developing countries must be able to increase theirs until a convergence in global per capita consumption levels is eventually reached.

The real challenge is reducing consumption levels in industrialised nations, and many proposals already exist for how to achieve this. For example, it is clear that resource management would need to be at the forefront of policymaking, and consumption-led economic growth can no longer be the goal of government policy. Much would also need to be done to dismantle the culture of consumerism; and investment must shift to building and sustaining a low-carbon infrastructure.

With both of these key elements in place (trusteeship of shared resources and reduced global consumption), natural resources would be accessible to people in all countries, consumed within planetary limits and preserved for future generations.

The key to change is the rise of the people

But how will these changes happen? Regardless of the specific policies employed, the world still lacks a broad-based acceptance of the need for planetary reconstruction. Without a global movement of ordinary people that share a collective vision of change, it will remain impossible to overcome the influence of neoliberal ideology and the vested interests mentioned above.

However, the historic events of 2011 provided concrete evidence of the potential power of a united ‘people’s voice’. The world witnessed millions of people in diverse countries declaring their needs and highlighting issues of social and economic inequality, greed, financial corruption and the undue influence of corporations on government.

The Arab Spring demonstrated the awesome power of a focussed and directed public opinion. And in city squares across the developed world, Occupy, the Indignados and a host of other people’s movements focussed the world’s media on the plight of the ‘99%’ and gained widespread public support in the process.

The rapid spread of these mass demonstrations reflects a growing recognition of humanity’s innate unity and propensity to share, and they pay testimony to the combined power of engaged citizens. But if public opinion is to make transformative change a reality, a crucial next step is to adopt a common and inclusive platform for change on a global scale. In other words, we need a planetary Tahrir Square.

Social injustice and ecological crises must be recognised as inextricable parts of the same problem: our failure to share the world’s resources in a way that benefits all people and preserves the biosphere. A universal call for sharing has the potential to unite both environmentalists and those campaigning for global justice, paving the way to a more just, sustainable and peaceful world.

Rajesh Makwana is the director of Share The World’s Resources and can be contacted at rajesh(at)stwr.org.

This work is published under a Creative Commons License. When reproducing this item, please attribute Share The World’s Resources as the source and include a link to its unique URL. For more information, please see our Copyright Policy.

By Tom Whipple

25 October, 2012

@ Falls Church News-Press

It is becoming clearer all the time that mankind is approaching a major turning point in its tenure on this planet. Recent reports on the speed with which our climate is deteriorating suggest that much of our earth will become uninhabitable sometime within the next 100 to 200 years. Small pockets of humanoid DNA may make it through the climatic catastrophe ahead to establish new civilizations in coming millennia; however, very few of the some 7 billion of us running around on earth today are going to have living descendants a few hundred years from now.

Without going into the myriad of details, the new reports forecast that the temperatures will get very high; the oceans will flood the coasts and no longer contain much fish; pandemics will be prevalent; and the storms will be so fierce that there simply will not be enough food or habitable areas to keep us all going.

As recently as five years ago we badly underestimated just how quickly climate change would seriously affect civilization as we know it. The reason the climate problem has become more serious in recent years is that nobody has done anything of real significance to control carbon emissions since the problem was recognized 20 some years ago. Moreover, there is no indication that any of the earth’s major carbon emitters are planning to do anything but keep emitting the same or still more carbon in the foreseeable future

We, our children or grandchildren are likely to be living on a world where atmospheric carbon hits 800 to 1000 parts per million and higher – far worse than had been forecast as likely in previous studies. New analyses, while varying in numbers, put global temperatures by the end of the century some 9o to 11o F higher in the mid-latitudes and 20o higher in the arctic leading to sea levels that would flood most of the world’s coastal cities. Some studies even have temperatures 13-19o F higher over much of the US and 27o higher over the arctic. Sea levels could be as much as six feet higher by the end of the century and then rise as much as a foot each decade thereafter to 20 or 30 feet.

As these misfortunes will build up gradually over the rest of the century, somewhere along the line, be it 5, 10 or 50 years from now, climate change will become so harmful to everyday life that a critical mass of people will coalesce around the idea that anything, even giving up “economic growth”, would be better than letting life on earth dry up around us. Whether the day of taking carbon emissions seriously comes before the fabled “tipping point” where the forces of nature take over and drive temperatures ever higher, remains to be seen. Some serious observers believe that day has already past. If so, there is not really much left to do except carve our history in granite in case some successor or extraterrestrial life form comes along before our tectonic plates sub duct below the planet’s surface.

Assuming however that we still have some choice regarding atmospheric carbon left, and that mankind decides to become serious, what can be done? It should be noted that sometime during the rest of the century emissions of fossil fuels will slow of their own accord simply because that which is left cannot be extracted economically or the global economy has fallen into such a state that the demand will not be there.

Except for those with vested interest in the immediate future of the fossil fuel industry and those politicians who see an advantage in denying that global warming is caused by carbon emissions, the rest of us should hold that carbon emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels need to be halted worldwide, as soon as possible.

Now deliberately halting the combustion of fossil fuels is a rather tall order, since some 80 percent of the world’s energy comes from oil, coal, and natural gas, with the rest from nuclear, biofuels and renewables. While some reduction in fossil fuel consumption, let’s say a third or maybe a half, might be accomplished in the short term by draconian efforts and regulation, if we can agree that it is necessary, the costs in terms of social and economic disruptions would be considerable.

Moving beyond say a 50 percent reduction in carbon emissions would involve giving up much in terms of energy-provided luxuries, and massive investment in renewable energy projects required to hold together the complex urban societies that have grown up in the last 200 years.

There is, however, one other way out of this mess and that is new and exotic forms of energy. The most promising of these at the moment is Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR). Validations that this phenomenon is real are coming in each month so that a clean and inexpensive replacement for fossil fuels looks possible. The problem, of course, is that it is a long and time-consuming trip from the lab bench to replacing a sufficient share of fossil fuel burning devices to stopping the buildup of atmospheric carbon. Interestingly, there seem to be a number of even more exotic sources of energy under development which their inventors say will be a source of cheap renewable non-polluting energy. For now however, LENR devices, which have been under development for over 20 years, seem to be the most promising candidates to replace carbon emitting devices – if there is still time.

Somewhere along the line this discussion of just where the carbon emissions problem is taking us becomes a theological one — with the question being “Is it time for our tiny corner of the universe to shut down – either temporarily or permanently?”

Tom Whipple is a retired government analyst and has been following the peak oil issue for several years.

By Countercurrents.org

24 October, 2012

@ Countercurrents.org

With tax payers money the UK is going to expand its drone operations in Afghanistan while its citizens’ wellbeing is below financial crisis level. A “strange” state!

Nick Hopkins’ report [1] said:

The UK is to double the number of armed RAF [Royal Air Force] “drones” flying combat and surveillance operations in Afghanistan and, for the first time, the aircraft will be controlled from terminals and screens in Britain.

In the new squadron of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), five Reaper drones will be sent to Afghanistan. It is expected they will begin operations within six weeks.

Pilots based at RAF Waddington in Lincolnshire will fly the recently bought American-made UAVs at a hi-tech hub built on the site in the past 18 months.

The UK’s existing five Reaper drones have been operated from Creech air force base in Nevada because Britain has not had the capability to fly them from UK.

After “standing up” the new squadron on October 19, 2012, the UK will soon have 10 Reapers in Afghanistan. The government has yet to decide whether the aircraft will remain there after 2014, when all NATO combat operations are due to end.

“The new squadron will have three control terminals at RAF Waddington, and the five aircraft will be based in Afghanistan,” a spokesman confirmed. “We will continue to operate the other Reapers from Creech though, in time, we will wind down operations there and bring people back to the UK.”

The use of drones has become one of the most controversial features of military strategy in Afghanistan. The UK has been flying them almost non-stop since 2008.

The CIA’s program of “targeted” drone killings in Pakistan’s tribal area was last month condemned in a report by US academics.

The most recent figures from the Ministry of Defense show that, by the end of September, the UK’s five Reapers in Afghanistan had flown 39,628 hours and fired 334 laser-guided Hellfire missiles and bombs at suspected insurgents.

While British troops on the ground have started to take a more back-seat role, the use of UAVs has increased over the past two years despite fears from human rights campaigners that civilians might have been killed or injured in some attacks.

The RAF bought the drones as an urgent operational requirement (UOR) specifically for Afghanistan, and the MoD confirmed that their purpose after 2014 was unclear. Under rules imposed by the EU and the Civil Aviation Authority, UAVs can be flown only in certain places in the UK, including around the Aberporth airfield in mid-Wales.

If the air-exclusion zone restrictions are not lifted by the end of 2014, the UK may have to relocate the drones to the US, or perhaps even to Kenya, sources said.

In the first three-and-a-half years of using the Reapers in Afghanistan, the aircraft flew 23,400 hours and fired 176 missiles. But those figures have almost doubled in the past 15 months as NATO seeks to weaken the Taliban ahead of withdrawal.

The MoD insists only four Afghan civilians have been killed in its strikes since 2008 and says it does everything it can to minimize civilian casualties, including aborting missions at the last moment.

However, it also says it has no idea how many insurgents have died because of the “immense difficulty and risks” of verifying who has been hit.

The MoD says it relies on Afghans making official complaints at military bases if their friends or relatives have been wrongly killed – a system campaigners say is flawed and unreliable.

Heather Barr, a lawyer for Human Rights Watch, has said: “There are many disincentives for people to make reports.

“Some of these areas are incredibly isolated, and people may have to walk for days to find someone to report a complaint. For some, there will be a certain sense of futility in doing so anyway. There is no uniform system for making a complaint and no uniform system for giving compensation. This may not encourage them to walk several days to speak to someone who may not do anything about it.”

In December 2010, David Cameron claimed that 124 insurgents had been killed in UK drone strikes. But defense officials said they had no idea where the prime minister got the figure and denied it was from the MoD.

A high court hearing on October 23, 2012 may shed light on any support the UK is giving to the CIA’s campaign of drone strikes in Pakistan. The case has been brought by Noor Khan, whose father was killed in an attack on a local council meeting in 2011. He is asking the foreign secretary, William Hague, to clarify the government’s position on sharing intelligence for use in CIA strikes, and is challenging the lawfulness of such activities.

His lawyer, Rosa Curling, said: “This case is about the legality of the UK government providing ‘locational intelligence’ to the US for use in drone strikes in Pakistan.

An off-the-record GCHQ source stated that GCHQ assistance was being provided to the US for use in drone attacks and this assistance was ‘in accordance with the law.’

“We have advised our client that this is incorrect. The secretary of state has misunderstood the law on this extremely important issue and a declaration from the court confirming the correct legal position is required as a matter of priority.”

On the high court hearing Ian Cobain reported [2]:

The British government’s support for US drone operations over Pakistan may involve acts of assisting murder or even war crimes, the high court heard on October 23, 2012.

This is the first serious legal challenge in the English courts to the drones campaign.

Noor Khan, 27, is said to live in constant fear of a repeat of the attack in North Waziristan in March last year that killed more than 40 other people, who are said to have gathered to discuss a local mining dispute.

The British government has declined to state whether or not its signals intelligence agency GCHQ passes information in support of the CIA drone operations over Pakistan, although the court heard that media reports suggest that it does.

Martin Chamberlain, counsel for Khan, said that a newspaper article in 2010 had reported that GCHQ was using telephone intercepts to provide the US authorities with locational intelligence on leading militants in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The report suggested that the Cheltenham-based agency was proud of this work, which was said to be “in strict accordance with the law”.

On the contrary, Chamberlain said, any GCHQ official who passed locational intelligence to the CIA knowing or believing that it could be used to facilitate a drone strike would be committing a serious criminal offence.

“The participation of a UK intelligence official in US drone strikes, by passing intelligence, may amount to the offence of encouraging or assisting murder,” he said. Alternatively, it could amount to a war crime or a crime against humanity, he added.

Chamberlain said that no GCHQ official would be able to mount a defense of combat immunity, but added that there was no wish in this case to convict any individual of a criminal offence. Rather, Khan was seeking a declaration by the civil courts that such intelligence-sharing is unlawful.

With the number of drone strikes increasing sharply under the Obama administration, the London case is one of several being brought by legal activists around the world in an attempt to challenge their legality of the program.

In Pakistan, lawyers and human rights activists are mounting two separate court claims: one is intended to trigger a criminal investigation into the actions of two former CIA officials, while the second is seeking a declaration that the strikes amount to acts of war, in order to pressurise the Pakistani air force into shooting down drones operating in the country’s airspace.

During the two-day hearing in London, lawyers for Khan are seeking permission for a full judicial review of the lawfulness of any British assistance for the US drone program.

Lawyers for William Hague, the foreign secretary, say not only that they will neither confirm nor deny any intelligence-sharing activities in support of drone operations, but that it would be “prejudicial to the national interest” for them even to explain their understanding of the legal basis for any such activities.

For Khan and his lawyers to succeed, they say, the court would need to be satisfied that there is no international armed conflict in Pakistan, with the result that anyone involved in drone strikes was not immune from the criminal law, and that there had been no tacit approval for the strikes from the Pakistan government – another matter that the British government will neither confirm nor deny.

The court would also need to consider, and reject, the US government’s own legal position: that drone strikes are acts of self-defense. It would also need to be satisfied that the handing over of intelligence amounted to participation in hostilities.

The government also says that Khan’s claim would have a “significant impact” on the conduct of the UK’s relations with both the US and Pakistan in an “acutely controversial, sensitive and important” area, and also impact on relations between the US and Pakistan.

The case continues.

Citing a report by US academics, about a month ago, a press report said drone attacks in Pakistan are counterproductive [3]:

The CIA’s program of “targeted” drone killings in Pakistan is politically counterproductive, kills large numbers of civilians and undermines respect for international law.

The study by Stanford and New York universities’ law schools blames the US president, Barack Obama, for the escalation of “signature strikes” in which groups are selected merely through remote “pattern of life” analysis.

Families are afraid to attend weddings or funerals, it says, in case US ground operators guiding drones misinterpret them as gatherings of Taliban or al-Qaida militants.

“The dominant narrative about the use of drones in Pakistan is of a surgically precise and effective tool that makes the US safer by enabling ‘targeted killings’ of terrorists, with minimal downsides or collateral impacts. This narrative is false,” the report Living Under Drones states.

The authors admit it is difficult to obtain accurate data on casualties “because of US efforts to shield the drone program from democratic accountability, compounded by obstacles to independent investigation of strikes in North Waziristan”.

The “best available information”, they say, is that between 2,562 and 3,325 people have been killed in Pakistan between June 2004 and mid-September this year – of whom between 474 and 881 were civilians, including 176 children. The figures have been assembled by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, which estimated that a further 1,300 individuals were injured in drone strikes over that period.

The study said: “Publicly available evidence that the strikes have made the US safer overall is ambiguous at best … The number of ‘high-level’ militants killed as a percentage of total casualties is extremely low – estimated at just 2% [of deaths]. Evidence suggests that US strikes have facilitated recruitment to violent non-state armed groups, and motivated further violent attacks … One major study shows that 74% of Pakistanis now consider the US an enemy.”

Coming from American lawyers rather than overseas human rights groups, the criticisms are likely to be more influential in US domestic debates over the legality of drone warfare.

“US targeted killings and drone strike practices undermine respect for the rule of law and international legal protections and may set dangerous precedents,” the report says, questioning whether Pakistan has given consent for the attacks.

“The US government’s failure to ensure basic transparency and accountability in its targeted killings policies, to provide details about its targeted killing program, or adequately to set out the legal factors involved in decisions to strike hinders necessary democratic debate about a key aspect of US foreign and national security policy.

“US practices may also facilitate recourse to lethal force around the globe by establishing dangerous precedents for other governments. As drone manufacturers and officials successfully reduce export control barriers, and as more countries develop lethal drone technologies, these risks increase.”

The report supports the call by Ben Emmerson QC, the UN’s special rapporteur on countering terrorism, for independent investigations into deaths from drone strikes and demands the release of the US department of justice memorandums outlining the legal basis for US targeted killings in Pakistan.

The report highlights the switch from the former president George W Bush’s practice of targeting high-profile al-Qaida personalities to the reliance, under Obama’s administration, of analyzing patterns of life on the ground to select targets.

“According to US authorities, these strikes target ‘groups of men who bear certain signatures, or defining characteristics associated with terrorist activity, but whose identities aren’t known’,” the report says. “Just what those ‘defining characteristics’ are has never been made public.” People in North Waziristan are now afraid to attend funerals or other gatherings, it suggests.

Fears that US agents pay informers to attach electronic tags to the homes of suspected militants in Pakistan haunt the tribal districts, according to the study. “[In] Waziristan … residents are gripped by rumors that paid CIA informants have been planting tiny silicon-chip homing devices that draw the drones.

“Many of the Waziris interviewed spoke of a constant fear of being tagged with a chip by a neighbor or someone else who works for either Pakistan or the US, and of the fear of being falsely accused of spying by local Taliban.”

Reprieve’s director, Clive Stafford Smith, said: “An entire region is being terrorized by the constant threat of death from the skies. Their way of life is collapsing: kids are too terrified to go to school, adults are afraid to attend weddings, funerals, business meetings, or anything that involves gathering in groups.

“George Bush wanted to create a global ‘war on terror’ without borders, but it has taken Obama’s drone war to achieve his dream.”

On the issues Clive Stafford Smith wrote [4]:

Nick Hopkins’ Guardian article [mentioned above] gives further proof of our leap into an opaque drone age.

Consider David Cameron’s claim that British drones have killed 124 insurgents in Afghanistan; Hopkins reports that “defence officials said they had no idea where the prime minister got the figure and denied it was from the MoD”. Does this mean that our kill-numbers are being conjured up by politicians?

There are many more questions that beg for an answer. One is the degree to which drones are to be used simply as a weapon of terror. In British Air and Space Power Doctrine, the MoD informs us that “air power is not employed solely for kinetic purposes. The psychological impact of air power from the presence of a UAV … has often proved to be extremely effective in exerting influence, especially when linked to information operations.” In plain English, the circling drones are used to terrify the citizens below into providing intelligence. Did not the Geneva conventions forbid such a war against civilians? Did we forget so soon how the material frightened out of people in the “war on terror” proved so suspect?

The most harrowing histories I heard in my recent trip to the Pakistan border regions involved the fear factor – 800,000 concededly innocent men, women and children in the region terrified by the sounds of drones overhead, 24 hours a day. To what extent is this to be an intentional policy? Is it regulated? Or even debated?

The British people need to be told the true reasons for this shift. One, no doubt, is the US predilection for what is called “chopping”, a 21st-century euphemism that means a “change in operational control”. A NATO or British drone might be on the Pakistan border when the US decides to kill someone in Waziristan – just another international war crime to the CIA, but an act that the UK would rather was committed with no British fingerprints. So the machine metamorphoses into an American drone and the US “pilot” slips into the comfy chair to let loose the Hellfire missile. Moving the controls to RAF Waddington may make this kind of blurred line easier to define, but it does not erase the moral and legal issues.

The blurring of lines is a drone speciality. The US could not fly F16s to bomb an unwilling ally but – for a number of reasons – the CIA feels no compunction about sending drones over Pakistan. A recent MoD paper called Future Air and Space Operational Concept speaks of a world that is “free of the constraints of physical barriers and national boundaries”. In other words, might give us the right in our robot world. Perhaps the UK does not yet run its Reaper drones across the Durand Line, the indistinct border between Pakistan and Afghanistan concocted by the British in 1893.

On Tuesday, we have a case in the high court about British fingerprints at the crime scene. The judges will decide whether the government may blithely refuse to reveal its “policy” when it comes to sharing intelligence with those who commit international war crimes – for that is surely what the US is doing in Pakistan. The government is paying three QCs to assert its right to silence – every time they share a cup of coffee it costs the taxpayer hundreds of pounds.

Why, you may well ask, should politicians, military men and corporations make these decisions in such secrecy when we will all live with them in the decades to come?

While this war-reality dominates scene, on the opposite, in the UK, the citizens’ wellbeing is below financial crisis level. Citing government data Larry Elliott, economics editor, and Randeep Ramesh reported [5]:

A mix of deep recession and high inflation has left national wellbeing in Britain more than 13% down on its level before the global financial crisis.

The Office for National Statistics said the hit to real living standards caused by the worst downturn of the postwar era had been almost double the fall in national output as measured by GDP.

Data released in the report on wellbeing showed that net national income per head (NNI) – considered the best guide to real living standards – held up in the early stages of the recession but has continued to drop as a result of the squeeze on family budgets from rising prices.

The ONS said that NNI per head fell by 13.2% between the first three months of 2008 – when the economy peaked – and the second quarter of 2012. Over the same period, GDP per head fell by 7%.

According to the study, the decline in living standards has been more pronounced and longer lasting than in the UK’s two previous recessions in the early 1980s and early 1990s.

NNI dropped by around 6% in the slump of the early 1980s but was back to its pre-recession peak within three years. In the early 1990s, the decline was a more modest 4% fall, and the lost ground had been recouped in two-and-a-half years.

Even if the data is adjusted to include the welfare state – especially important in Britain with the NHS – it still reveals a bleak picture. This figure, known as real household actual income per head, dropped in the second quarter of 2012 by 2.9% below its peak in the third quarter of 2009.

The data release marks a significant shift in the way Britain sees how economic changes affect people’s wellbeing.

Since 2008, when a report for the French government by three eminent economists – Joseph Stiglitz, Amartya Sen and Jean-Paul Fitoussi – argued that when evaluating people’s “wellbeing”, governments should look at people’s income and consumption rather than at production to assess progress, countries have begun to use such measures to size up a nation’s happiness.

Source:

[1] The Guardian, “UK to double number of drones in Afghanistan”, Oct. 22, 2012, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/22/uk-double-drones-afghanistan

[2] guardian.co.uk, “UK support for US drones in Pakistan may be war crime, court is told”, Oct. 23, 2012, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/23/uk-support-us-drones-pakistan-war-crime

[3] The Guardian, Owen Bowcott, September 25, 2012, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/25/drone-attacks-pakistan-counterproductive-report

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/23/truth-uk-drones-policy?intcmp=239

[4] guardian.co.uk, “We need to know the truth about UK drones policy”, Oct. 23, 2012,

[5] guardian.co.uk, “UK wellbeing still below financial crisis levels”, Oct. 23, 2012, http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/oct/23/uk-wellbeing-fails-to-recover-financial-crisis

By Dirk Adriaensens

24 October, 2012

@ Countercurrents.org

Biggest Iraqi mass-kidnapping mystery solved. Disappeared Ministry of Higher Education officials, arrested by the Iraqi National Police in November 2006, end up in mass grave.

* US Occupation authorities: guilty . They created, trained and armed the National Police and controlled the Ministry of Interior, responsible for death squad policies.

* Maliki government: guilty . They acted as local US stooges. They carried out the US counterinsurgency strategy, protected the kidnappers and prevented an investigation.

* UN Human Rights Bodies: guilty by negligence . They refused to nominate a special Human Rights rapporteur for Iraq . They refused to investigate this crime against humanity.

On 22 October 2012 , Shafaq, an Iraqi News Agency, reports: “An official security source revealed on Monday that a mass grave was found in Sada area on the outskirts of Sadr City , belonging to the staff of the Department of missions of the Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research who disappeared in 2006.”

“A security force found 16 bodies buried in a mass grave in Sadr City in Baghdad belonging according to the confessions of one of the detainees of the staff members of the Department of Missions of the Ministry of Higher Education. The available intelligence reports that the bodies belong to employees of the Department of Missions who were abducted in 2006 and buried in a mass grave. The competent authorities are conducting DNA tests on the bodies to make sure of their identities and inform their families”.

Summary of Events 

On Tuesday 14 November 2006 paramilitary gunmen in the uniforms of Iraqi National Police commandos raided a building belonging to the Ministry of Education in Baghdad ‘s Karrada district and arrested around 100 members of staff from two departments and around 50 visitors, according to lists compiled by the Minister of Education.

The raid took place in broad daylight, 1km from the Green Zone, in an area that contained several high-security compounds, including the department where passports are issued. According to a BBC correspondent the Karrada area, occupying an isthmus in the River Tigris, is ‘well protected with a heavy presence of Iraqi troops and several checkpoints’. The paramilitary force estimated at between at least 50 and 100 arrived in a fleet of some 20-30 camouflage pickup trucks of the kind employed by the Interior Ministry and rapidly established a cordon of the area. They stated that they were from an anti-corruption unit and were carrying out arrests ahead of a visit by the US ambassador. The paramilitaries made their arrests according to lists, confirming the identities of those present by their ID cards, then handcuffed and blindfolded the detainees and put them into the backs of pickups and into two larger vehicles.

The paramilitaries then made their exit through heavy traffic without opposition, despite the reported presence of a regular police vehicle. According to some witnesses, the paramilitaries made off in the direction of Sadr City .

The Iraqi government quickly declared that the number of detainees was far lower (18 guards, 16 members of staff and five visitors) and by Wednesday claimed that all of the detainees had been released after a series of dramatic police raids. A number of senior policemen, including the district police chief and the commander of a National Police paramilitary commando brigade and three other officers were reportedly detained for questioning over possible complicity. According to one report, an Interior Ministry spokesman claimed the senior police commanders ‘should be held responsible’.

Prime Minister Maliki declared that this was not a case of terrorism, but a dispute between ‘militias’.

The Education Ministry insisted that both Sunnis and Shiites were among those illegally detained.

US commanders stated that they would support all efforts to free the detainees.

By Thursday the Education Minister stated that around 70 of 150 detainees had been released and reported that some of those released had been tortured (some legs and hands had been broken) and that there were allegations that others had been killed.

On Friday 17 November Mowaffak Rubiae, the National Security Advisor, stated that all of the detainees had been released, although an Interior Ministry spokesmen claimed that all of the Education Ministry personnel had been released but some of the visitors detained were still missing.

One of the detainees, who refused to reveal his actual name, said that his arm had been broken while in detention. He also described seeing three security guards suffocated to death and hearing a number of senior academics who had been put in a separate screaming in agony; according to the witness their cries were cut off abruptly.

The witness also said that he had not been released as the result of a dramatic police raid. His captors had simply dragged him and others from the building where they were held, put them back into trucks and dumped them at various locations around Baghdad . His account is confirmed by earlier reports, which stated that those released had been blindfolded and deposited in various parts of Baghdad .

Five more detainees were reportedly released on Friday. They had been tortured.

On Saturday 18 November the Education Ministry continued to insist that 66 people were still missing.

The Interior Ministry spokesman said that all of the detainees had been released and the matter was now closed.

Joint US and Iraqi forces conducted a raid on a mosque in Sadr City on Saturday. None of the detainees were found.

On Sunday 19 November a further four detainees were released, who reported seeing one Ministry official, Hamid al-Jouani, killed.

On Monday 20 November joint US and Iraqi forces conducted another raid in Sadr City . None of the detainees were found.

The B Russell s Tribunal issued a statement on 22 November 2006 : “ Action Needed Over Detention of Iraqi Education Ministry Officials. Unknown numbers murdered, dozen still illegally held ” http://www.brussellstribunal.org/PressRelease221106.htm

The B Russell s Tribunal requested clear answers from the occupation forces and Iraqi authorities and formulated relevant questions:

Unanswered Questions 

From the above description of events drawn from mainstream media sources (please see references at end) making use of government statements and eyewitness testimony it is clear that the raid on the Interior Ministry was carried out as a complex military operation requiring detailed intelligence, careful preparation and extensive training. In fact, everything about this raid conforms with what we should expect of an operation conducted by Iraq’s new US-trained, armed and supported specialist counterinsurgency paramilitary National Police commandos, who are specifically trained to conduct cordon and search operations of this kind.

It is impossible to believe that any forces but officially sanctioned ones could have made such a daring daylight assault in one of the most secure areas of Baghdad . It is equally impossible to believe that any forces but Interior Ministry ones could have assembled a fleet of Interior Ministry camouflage pickup trucks. The designation of the paramilitaries responsible for this outrage as Interior Ministry commandos is fully confirmed by eyewitness testimony, which specifies that at least some of the raiders were wearing blue camouflage uniforms of a type very recently introduced to National Police commandos, specifically intended to prevent any other parties from masquerading as National Police commandos. The digitally designed uniforms are supplied by the US . A US Army spokesman was so convinced that the uniforms would have been impossible to replicate that he stated that the raiders could not have been wearing such uniforms. Of course, he was not at the scene. Eyewitnesses contradict him.

The fact that the raid was conducted by Interior Ministry forces was in fact confirmed by Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh, who claimed the mass detention was the work of militiamen who had infiltrated the Interior Ministry.

Since it is almost certain that the raid was carried out by National Police commandos, it is imperative that the following questions are answered immediately and publicly.

·           Which National Police or other Interior Ministry force carried out the raid?

·           Under whose authority was the raid authorised?

·           From whom did the Interior Ministry force obtain the lists of names that were used to select individuals for arrest?

·           Where were the international advisers (Special Police Transition Teams) that are embedded with each battalion of National Police Commandos and work with them on a daily basis?

·           Where did the police commandos take the detainees?

·           Why were aerial surveillance assets not immediately deployed to follow a fleet of pickup trucks through heavy traffic in Baghdad ? How many such aerial assets were operating over the Green Zone and other parts of Baghdad at that time?

·           Who operates the facility where the detainees were held?

·           If detainees were freed as a result of police raids, why have no large scale arrests been made and why has the only detainee to speak on record stated that no such police raid occurred?

·           What are the names of the individual police officers who have been held for questioning?

·           Have they been charged and if so what have they been charged with?

·           Why is the Interior Ministry insisting that the case in now closed, when the Education Minister has provided a list of the name of further detainees and the subsequent release of additional detainees demonstrates that he is wrong.

·           Why is the Interior Ministry insisting that none of the detainees were killed when eyewitnesses reported seeing people brutally murdered in front of them?

·           How is it that paramilitary/militia death squads can operate from the Interior Ministry, making full use of US-supplied government equipment, without the knowledge of embedded international training teams and advisors within the Interior Ministry?

It is absolutely clear that neither in this case nor in any of the multitude of other equally harrowing cases that show Interior Ministry involvement with extrajudicial killing can the Iraqi government be trusted with carrying any sort of investigation. In the case of the Jadiriyah torture facility discovered in November 2005, the government has still to make public findings that were promised within weeks. It should also be noted that at that time, US officials promised to increase their efforts to oversee Iraqi detention facilities and police commando units, stating that they would double the number of embedded trainers. Since that promise, extrajudicial killings at the hands of Interior Ministry forces, mostly inside detention facilities, appears to have grown exponentially.

It is equally clear that US authorities in Iraq have no interest in carrying out an investigation or restraining the killers.

It is therefore imperative for teams of international investigators to take on the task with the full cooperation of British and American forces. Manfred Novak, the UN rapporteur for torture has indicated his willingness to undertake such a mission. Such a mission must be immediately supported by all those who honestly claim to seek to halt the genocidal violence in Iraq ; those who will not support such a mission must be considered accomplices to crimes against humanity.

Nothing happened. Now they’re dead.

As usual nothing has been done, nor by the occupation authorities, nor by the UN official Human Rights Bodies. And certainly not by the Iraqi authorities.

On 27 April 2011 the Iraqi government has set up a committee to trace thousands of Iraqis missing since the 2003 US-led invasion, said an official. The government committee includes representatives from the ministries of defence (Islamic Dawa Party), interior (Islamic Dawa Party), national security (Islamic Dawa Party), health (Al Sadr bloc), justice (Islamic Virtue Party) and human rights (Islamic Dawa Party), in addition to intelligence services and anti-terrorism forces.

Many of those Ministries were involved or are leading the very militias that have been suspected of carrying out most of the ferocious crimes of extrajudicial assassination, inciting sectarian violence, torture and enforced disappearance, in conjunction with the occupying forces. So how can one expect this committee to investigate the very crimes that their militias are responsible for?

Human Rights Council: it’s time to ACT

So now we finally know part of the terrible truth. Will the Human Right Council finally wake up and start to investigate the thousands upon thousands of war crimes, committed by the Anglo-American occupation forces and their local Iraqi stooges? Will the ICC finally do what it is created for: persecute war criminals? Investigate the US genocide in Iraq ? Please? After more than one million deaths, and millions of refugees?

2013: the commemoration of 10 years of US occupation. It would be only fair if this and other clear cases of crimes against humanity would be put on the agenda of International Human Rights bodies. It would be only fair if the full truth of this dirty counterinsurgency war is finally revealed.

2013: the year of “Accountability and Restoring Justice For Iraq”. DO something !

Dirk Adriaensens is coordinator of SOS Iraq and member of the executive committee of the B Russell s Tribunal. Between 1992 and 2003 he led several delegations to Iraq to observe the devastating effects of UN imposed sanctions. He was a member of the International Organizing Committee of the World Tribunal on Iraq (2003-2005). He is also co-coordinator of the Global Campaign Against the Assassination of Iraqi Academics. He is co-author of Rendez-Vous in Baghdad , EPO (1994), Cultural Cleansing in Iraq , Pluto Press, London (2010), Beyond Educide, Academia Press, Ghent (2012), and is a frequent contributor to GlobalResearch, Truthout, The International Journal of Contemporary Iraqi Studies and other media.

References 

Five police chiefs arrested after mass kidnapping

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20761611-401,00.html

Fate of Iraq Education Ministry abductees remains unclear

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1115/dailyUpdate.html

Desperate search after mass-kidnapping of Sunnis ends with hostages found alive

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article1984455.ece

Iraq hostages ‘freed by police’

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6149110.stm

Iraq : Kidnapped People Have Been Freed

http://www.abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=2655349

Iraq minister says some hostages tortured, killed

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2006-11-16T123016Z_01_IBO132069_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAQ.xml&src=rss

Iraq ministry hostages ‘tortured

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6153316.stm

Arrest of Sunni Leader Sought in Iraq

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6219741,00.html

US warns Iraq against sectarianism

http://timesofmalta.com/core/article.php?id=243588

Coalition Forces Conduct Raid in Iraq

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6227509,00.html

Bloodshed piles pressure on Iraq govt

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3867624a12aT,00.html

Iraq police rebrand to foil fakes

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6034975.stm

New uniforms to tackle Iraq killings

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/archive/archive?ArchiveId=36667

Iraq : Fresh effort to trace missing persons

http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,IRIN,,IRQ,,4dbe609c1e,0.html

Iraq : UN calls for immediate action to free kidnapped education ministry workers

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=20593

Mass Grave found in Sadr city

http://www.shafaaq.com/en/news/3871-mass-grave-found-in-sadr-city-.html