Archives: Articles

The United States and its European NATO allies along with Turkey and Saudi Arabia, and of course Israel, are now in a state of undeclared war against Syria, as part of their ultimate goal of containing Iran. That is, until they gather more coalition partners to take on Russia and China. The United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon has unsubtly weighed in on the side of the NATO aggressors following the failure of the Security Council resolution for sanctions against Damascus.

War, and the resultant anguish it brings on all sides, is therefore the tragic destiny of the Syrian people, just as it was of the Libyan people last year; of the Iraqi people for a decade, of the Afghan people… This seems almost certain to continue until the old colonial West succeeds in bringing the whole world into a new united slavery.

But the war has only just been joined, and as the Syrian regime gears up to fight back, it will try to extract a heavy price from the fragile western economies, which could yet fall prey to the classic phenomenon of imperial overreach. Iran, which needs Syria to check Israel in the Levant, and Lebanon’s Hezbollah which is heavily dependent upon Syria, have reiterated support for Assad. Moscow needs the access Syria provides to the Mediterranean Sea, and Beijing is reluctant to let Washington acquire unbridled dominance over every strategic territory and sea or ocean that it covets.

Meanwhile, it is undeniable that the NATO-Sunni Arab sponsored civil war has badly hurt the ruling dynasty. On July 18, Defense Minister Daoud Rajha (an Orthodox Christian), deputy defence minister Assef Shawkat (President’s brother-in-law), deputy vice president Hassan Turkomani (Assad’s chief of crisis management), were assassinated at a cabinet meeting at the National Security building in Damascus. The several injured included Hisham Ikhtiar, director of the National Security Bureau (who died Friday, 20 July), and interior minister Mohammad Ibrahim al-Shaar.

Preliminary reports suggest that a bodyguard of the President’s inner circle turned suicide bomber [some reports say an IED was planted in the room, and hint at a Mossad hand]. Whatever the truth, the attack, the boldest in the 16-month turmoil that has already taken 14,000 lives, indicates a high level security breach in the top echelons of the Assad regime. It so excited the regime’s enemies that both the rebel Free Syrian Army and an obscure Islamist group (Lord of the Martyrs Brigade) claimed credit.

Washington and its allies swiftly backed a British resolution at the UN Security Council for sanctions against Syria, which was repulsed by Russia and China. Russia’s envoy to the UN, Vitaly Churkin, accused the West of thinking only of “its own geopolitical interests, which have nothing in common with those of the Syrian people.”

The resolution mooted non-military sanctions against the Syrian regime if it fails to withdraw heavy weapons and troops from urban areas within 10 days, and is linked to Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, which provides for use of force to end the escalating conflict. Russian President Vladimir Putin earlier this year vowed not to allow a repeat of the “Libya scenario” which ended in the ouster and murder of Muammar Gaddafi after a NATO military campaign. Russia has emphasized that adoption of the West’s resolution would be tantamount to “direct support” for rebel forces who claim to have launched the final battle for control of the capital. But Russian analysts predicted that the West would now openly arm the rebels, along with its Arab allies, to topple Basher Assad by force.

In a repeat of the unfortunate trend of India ditching traditional allies under the auspices of the Sonia Gandhi-led UPA regime, New Delhi voted in favor of this scandalous resolution. Worse, though the resolution clearly invoked Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, New Delhi justified its vote on the specious plea that it was intended “to facilitate a united action by the Security Council in support of the efforts of the Joint Special Envoy [Kofi Annan].”

New Delhi has thus committed India to the NATO agenda of “regime change” in Syria, violating our principled stand against foreign intervention in sovereign nations. Pakistan, like South Africa, made a principled abstention. Diplomatic and strategic experts worry that with India making active enemies of traditional friends, what goodwill and support can it call upon the day Western redesigning of the world map demands an independent Kashmir as per the original British plan? This can happen sooner than expected, say, around the time the US decides to implement the plan for an independent Balochistan.

How long can the world go along with the subterfuge of nations advocating Democracy in one breath and then using acts of terrorism to force regime change on nations? Democracy is only one form of government, and by no means the best if we truthfully assess the state of democracies today. Ironically, the ‘dictatorships’ recently overthrown by Western military intervention – Iraq, Libya – were nations that provided the best social support to their people in terms of free education, medicare, civic amenities, etc, and now Syria which gives its people the same standard of life is on the hit list. Surely there is a message here that the world needs to read and understand.

Syria is the only remaining independent state in the Arab world. The ruling Baath party has popular support, is secular and anti-Imperialist, and integrates Muslims, Christians and Druze people. It supports the Palestinian cause and is thus at odds with Israel.

So how authentic is the opposition to this regime? Barely 16 months ago, the Syrian opposition was weak, fragmented, and poor; government forces successfully routed the rebels from strongholds in Homs and other northern towns. But from the time the Kofi Annan peace plan was announced in mid-April, the military capability of the rebels has vastly improved. At a meeting of the Friends of Syria in Istanbul on 1 April, $100 million was pledged to the armed opposition groups.

Washington planned its moves carefully, beginning with the appointment of Robert S. Ford as US envoy to Damascus in late January 2011. Ford was ‘Number Two’ at the US embassy in Baghdad (2004-2005) under Ambassador John D. Negroponte; he played a key role in the Pentagon’s ‘Iraq Salvador Option’ which supported Iraqi death squadrons and paramilitary forces modelled on the experience of Central America.

Michel Chossudovsky notes that currently America is involved in four distinct war theaters – Afghanistan-Pakistan, Iraq, Palestine and Libya. An attack on Syria would result in the integration of these theaters and eventually lead to a broader Middle East-Central Asian war.

Charlie Skelton of the UK Guardian has made a detailed and brilliant analysis of the persons claiming to represent the Syrian people, specifically representatives of the Syrian National Council (SNC) which is projected in the West as the ‘the main opposition coalition’. What is true is that the SNC is deeply embedded with the West and was among the first voices to call for foreign intervention in the country.

Skelton’s list is an eye opener, a strong warning about the use of Diaspora dissidents to destabilize regimes targeted by the West.

Take, for instance, the Syrian National Council’s most senior spokesperson, the Paris-based Syrian academic Bassma Kodmani, member of the council’s executive bureau and head of foreign affairs. Just days before the Security Council resolution, she demanded “a resolution under Chapter VII, which allows for the use of all legitimate means, coercive means, embargo on arms, as well as the use of force to oblige the regime to comply.” And she has been invited to the secretive Bilderberg conclave twice, once in 2008 and again in 2012. At the 2008 conference, she was listed as French, but in 2012, she became ‘international’ (whatever that means).

In 2005, Kodmani worked for the Ford Foundation in Cairo, as director of governance and international co-operation programme. This was the time US-Syrian ties collapsed and President Bush recalled his ambassador from Damascus. Many Syrian opposition projects began in this period, according to the Washington Post.

By September 2005, Kodmani was executive director of the Arab Reform Initiative (ARI), a research programme launched by the powerful US Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). It was mentored by an international board chaired by General (Ret.) Brent Scowcroft.

Brent Scowcroft is a former national security adviser to the US president; he succeeded Henry Kissinger. His colleagues on the Arab Reform Initiative board include geo-strategist Zbigniew Brzezinski (former national security adviser) and Peter Sutherland, chairman of Goldman Sachs International. And in 2005 itself, the Council on Foreign Relations gave ‘financial oversight’ of the project to the Centre for European Reform (CER). Enter the British.

The Centre for European Reform (CER) is overseen by Lord Kerr, deputy chairman of Royal Dutch Shell, former head of the diplomatic service and senior adviser at Chatham House, the most important UK think tank. Daily operations are run by Charles Grant, former defence editor of the Economist, and member of the European Council on Foreign Relations, a ‘pan-European think tank’ packed with diplomats, industrialists, professors and prime ministers. Members include Bassma Kodmani (France/Syria), Executive Director, Arab Reform Initiative.

The Centre for European Reform includes George Soros, one of the main financiers of the European Council on Foreign Relations. See how the worlds of banking, diplomacy, industry, intelligence and various policy institutes and foundations mesh together. Kodmani – in the midst of it all – is also research director, Académie Diplomatique Internationale, ‘an independent and neutral institution dedicated to promoting modern diplomacy’. The Académie is headed by Jean-Claude Cousseran, a former head of the DGSE or French foreign intelligence service.

Then there is Radwan Ziadeh, director of foreign relations, Syrian National Council. Ziadeh is a senior fellow at the federally-funded Washington think tank, the US Institute of Peace, where the Board of Directors is packed with alumni of the defence department and national security council. The president is Richard Solomon, former adviser to Kissinger at the NSC. Ziadeh has powerful connection in Washington and London. In 2009 he was Fellow at Chatham House.

SNC member Najib Ghadbian, a University of Arkansas political scientist, became a link between the US government and the Syrian opposition in exile way back in 2005. He is now on the advisory board of a Washington-based policy body called the Syrian Center for Political and Strategic Studies (SCPSS), which is co-founded by Ziadeh.

Ziadeh has spent years in such networking. In 2008, he participated in a meeting of opposition figures in a Washington government building called ‘Syria In-Transition’, which was co-sponsored by a US-based body called the Democracy Council and a UK-based body called the Movement for Justice and Development (MJD). The MJD website said: “The conference saw an exceptional turn out as the allocated hall was packed with guests from the House of Representatives and the Senate, representatives of studies centres, journalists and Syrian expatriats [sic] in the USA.”

MJD’s public relations director, Ausama Monajed, was present at this meeting. The Guardian report says that the SNC includes the Muslim Brotherhood. In 2008, Monajed was invited to lunch with George W Bush, along with a few of other favoured dissidents; the guests included Condoleezza Rice.

The MJD, according to a Washington Post story picked up from WikiLeaks, was amongst the recipients of huge money from the US state department. Monajed’s Barada TV, a London-based network of Syrian exiles, received as much as $6m since 2006 to operate the satellite channel and finance other activities inside Syria.

And there are so many others, all ready to sell their motherland for a fistful of silver. At this moment, the money is flowing faster than flood waters…

By Sandhya Jain

22 Jul 2012

@ www.vijayvaani.com

The author is Editor, www.vijayvaani.com

The newly elected President of the Republic of Egypt, Dr. Mohamed Morsi, has pledged to establish a democratic, constitutional state based upon the rule of law and the will of the people. The greatest challenge that he faces in realising this goal is the leadership of the nation’s Armed Forces.

Even before Morsi’s wafer-thin victory — 52 per cent of the vote as against 48 per cent for his opponent, Ahmed Shafiq— the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) had conducted what analysts have described as a “power grab.” On 14 June 2012, Egypt’s High Constitutional Court (HCC), which like the elite in the Armed Forces, comprises Mubarak loyalists, dissolved the democratically elected Parliament and curbed the powers of the President especially in relation to security, defence and foreign policy. 75 per cent of the parliamentary seats are in the hands of Islamic parties, led by the Ikhwanul Muslimin (the Muslim Brotherhood). The military elite also has the right to object to any article in the yet to be drafted national constitution and exercises authority over the national budget.

Why the military is keen to retain control over the nation’s finances, it is not difficult to fathom. The military “controls a multi-billion dollar business empire that trades in products not normally associated with men in uniform: olive oil, fertilizer, televisions, laptops, cigarettes, mineral water, poultry, bread and underwear… Estimates suggest that military-connected enterprises account for 10% to 40% of the Egyptian economy. It is an opaque realm of foreign investments, inside deals and privilege that has grown quietly for decades, employing thousands of workers and operating parallel to the army’s defence industries.”

To dismantle such a complex structure of economic power fused with political power and military might is not an easy task.  Morsi will do well to remember that there is hardly a single instance of a military deeply entrenched in power transferring its authority in a smooth and easy manner to civilian rulers. In Algeria in January 1992, we witnessed the ugly spectacle of a military junta usurping power after the Islamic Salvation Front (FIS) had won the first round of elections resulting in a long and bloody civil war which claimed tens of thousands of lives. The military in Myanmar continues to hold the trump card, elections notwithstanding.  Pakistan’s civilian rulers are very much aware of the powerful presence of the military partly because of the series of coups it had staged in the course of the last 50 years.  This is also true to a great extent of Thailand. In Indonesia and Turkey, the military appears to have withdrawn to the barracks but it remains a strong undercurrent in the politics of the two states.

For Morsi to establish a functioning democratic system, he must not only persevere and be principled but also possess superb negotiating skills and clever strategies.  His greatest ally in this tussle with military power will be the citizenry of Egypt. Since almost half of the voting population did not endorse his presidency, Morsi will have to redouble his efforts to reach out to all segments of society. Apart from women and Christians which the media has highlighted, he should also seek the support of other Islamic groups, secular and liberal Egyptians, and socialists. In a nutshell, his approach to politics and policies should be inclusive and all-embracing. By resigning from the Ikhwan, and projecting himself as the President of all Egyptians, Morsi has taken the first step in that direction.

A truly inclusive President will accord priority to the long neglected, huge underclass in Egyptian society. These are the millions —- 40% of the population live in poverty—- struggling to eke out a living.  25% of Egypt’s youth, according to some estimates, are unemployed. The paucity of decent housing is a chronic problem that has plagued Cairo for decades. It has forced some 1.5 million poor Egyptians to scour for shelter in the cemeteries of the rich outside the capital. The lack of clean water and frequent power outages are some of the other colossal burdens that this congested city of 19 million bears.

How will Morsi and his policy-makers and planners address these challenges?  If they are going to pursue more liberalisation, deregulation and privatisation — as the Ikhwan’s economic programme Al-Nahda seems to suggest — then they are adopting the wrong approach. Such an approach will not help to transform the lives of the disenfranchised and the downtrodden. Neither does the solution lie with the IMF— from whom the Ikhwan hopes to secure a loan soon— with its austerity programme and subsidy cutbacks.

A reformed, de-bureaucratised, corruption free public sector will have to take the lead. It will have to raise incomes of the lower echelons of society; emphasise public housing for the homeless; invest in small and medium sized enterprises; focus upon human resource development. People’s cooperatives will have to be established which will help to break existing monopolies in the production and distribution of goods and services. Public entities will have to be re-organised to manage water and energy supply and distribution. Infrastructure development which benefits the poor directly will be given priority. In this and other areas, a socially responsible private sector channelling domestic and foreign capital in accordance with the nation’s goals, will have a key role to play.

Analysts have asked if vested interests within and without Egypt will allow such an egalitarian, justice driven economic policy to take root.  It is revealing that both Morsi and Shafiq put forward economic ideas which in essence sought to assure the wealthy in Egypt and international capital that their interests would be safeguarded. It was only the candidate who emerged a close third in the first round of the Presidential Election, Hamdeen Sabahy, who offered a genuine alternative that privileged the economically marginalised. It was obvious why the mainstream Western media downplayed his economic agenda.

It is not just on the economy that Morsi appears to have adopted a certain stance. On an important foreign policy issue, namely, US military bases in the region and the upgrading of facilities for the US’ 5^th Fleet in Bahrain, Morsi and the Ikhwan have been rather quiet. And what is even more critical, the centres of power in the West will watch him closely on his position on Syria and on Egypt’s relations with Iran.

But more than anything else, it is on the question of Israel that Washington, its European allies, and Israel itself, will judge Morsi. Morsi has promised all of them that he will respect all international treaties that Egypt has entered into— which would of course include the 1979 Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty. However, they are not sure if Morsi will at some point in the future, succumb to pressure from the masses to review and rescind the Treaty, especially since Egyptian public opinion has never been in favour of the Treaty. Because Morsi presides over a democracy, he cannot — unlike Mubarak the dictator— afford to ignore popular sentiments. Besides, he himself had campaigned in the election as a staunch defender of the Palestinian cause.

How will Morsi’s commitment to Palestine manifest itself now that he is President? Will the new Egyptian President lead the campaign for a just peace for the Palestinians— a peace that will ensure the return of Palestinian refugees to their land, as provided for in international law, a peace that recognises East Jerusalem as the capital of a new, viable  Palestinian state with its own army, navy and air force?  Since a just peace of this sort is anathema to Israeli leaders and most Zionists and Christian Zionists in the US, what will Morsi do? Will he abandon these fundamental demands of the Palestinian struggle? What will be the consequences if he does? Or will he stand up to the Israeli elite and their patrons and protectors in the West? Again, what will be the ramifications?

It is because Israel and Western powers are worried about how a democratically elected President in the Arab world’s most important state may move the pieces on the Israel-Palestine/Arab chessboard that they would like the military, with its close ties to Israel and the West,  to maintain a grip upon Egyptian politics.  That is why these so-called champions of democracy have been somewhat reticent about the military’s undemocratic dissolution of Parliament and its shackling of the Presidency. This should not surprise us. After all, haven’t they always placed their own hegemonic interests above democratic principles?

Chandra Muzaffar

Dr. Chandra Muzaffar is President of the International Movement for a Just World (JUST).

Malaysia.

2 July 2012.

The newly elected President of the Republic of Egypt, Dr. Mohamed Morsi, has pledged to establish a democratic, constitutional state based upon the rule of law and the will of the people. The greatest challenge that he faces in realising this goal is the leadership of the nation’s Armed Forces.

Even before Morsi’s wafer-thin victory — 52 per cent of the vote as against 48 per cent for his opponent, Ahmed Shafiq— the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) had conducted what analysts have described as a “power grab.” On 14 June 2012, Egypt’s High Constitutional Court (HCC), which like the elite in the Armed Forces, comprises Mubarak loyalists, dissolved the democratically elected Parliament and curbed the powers of the President especially in relation to security, defence and foreign policy. 75 per cent of the parliamentary seats are in the hands of Islamic parties, led by the Ikhwanul Muslimin (the Muslim Brotherhood). The military elite also has the right to object to any article in the yet to be drafted national constitution and exercises authority over the national budget.

Why the military is keen to retain control over the nation’s finances, it is not difficult to fathom. The military “controls a multi-billion dollar business empire that trades in products not normally associated with men in uniform: olive oil, fertilizer, televisions, laptops, cigarettes, mineral water, poultry, bread and underwear… Estimates suggest that military-connected enterprises account for 10% to 40% of the Egyptian economy. It is an opaque realm of foreign investments, inside deals and privilege that has grown quietly for decades, employing thousands of workers and operating parallel to the army’s defence industries.”

To dismantle such a complex structure of economic power fused with political power and military might is not an easy task.  Morsi will do well to remember that there is hardly a single instance of a military deeply entrenched in power transferring its authority in a smooth and easy manner to civilian rulers. In Algeria in January 1992, we witnessed the ugly spectacle of a military junta usurping power after the Islamic Salvation Front (FIS) had won the first round of elections resulting in a long and bloody civil war which claimed tens of thousands of lives. The military in Myanmar continues to hold the trump card, elections notwithstanding.  Pakistan’s civilian rulers are very much aware of the powerful presence of the military partly because of the series of coups it had staged in the course of the last 50 years.  This is also true to a great extent of Thailand. In Indonesia and Turkey, the military appears to have withdrawn to the barracks but it remains a strong undercurrent in the politics of the two states.

For Morsi to establish a functioning democratic system, he must not only persevere and be principled but also possess superb negotiating skills and clever strategies.  His greatest ally in this tussle with military power will be the citizenry of Egypt. Since almost half of the voting population did not endorse his presidency, Morsi will have to redouble his efforts to reach out to all segments of society. Apart from women and Christians which the media has highlighted, he should also seek the support of other Islamic groups, secular and liberal Egyptians, and socialists. In a nutshell, his approach to politics and policies should be inclusive and all-embracing. By resigning from the Ikhwan, and projecting himself as the President of all Egyptians, Morsi has taken the first step in that direction.

A truly inclusive President will accord priority to the long neglected, huge underclass in Egyptian society. These are the millions —- 40% of the population live in poverty—- struggling to eke out a living.  25% of Egypt’s youth, according to some estimates, are unemployed. The paucity of decent housing is a chronic problem that has plagued Cairo for decades. It has forced some 1.5 million poor Egyptians to scour for shelter in the cemeteries of the rich outside the capital. The lack of clean water and frequent power outages are some of the other colossal burdens that this congested city of 19 million bears.

How will Morsi and his policy-makers and planners address these challenges?  If they are going to pursue more liberalisation, deregulation and privatisation — as the Ikhwan’s economic programme Al-Nahda seems to suggest — then they are adopting the wrong approach. Such an approach will not help to transform the lives of the disenfranchised and the downtrodden. Neither does the solution lie with the IMF— from whom the Ikhwan hopes to secure a loan soon— with its austerity programme and subsidy cutbacks.

A reformed, de-bureaucratised, corruption free public sector will have to take the lead. It will have to raise incomes of the lower echelons of society; emphasise public housing for the homeless; invest in small and medium sized enterprises; focus upon human resource development. People’s cooperatives will have to be established which will help to break existing monopolies in the production and distribution of goods and services. Public entities will have to be re-organised to manage water and energy supply and distribution. Infrastructure development which benefits the poor directly will be given priority. In this and other areas, a socially responsible private sector channelling domestic and foreign capital in accordance with the nation’s goals, will have a key role to play.

Analysts have asked if vested interests within and without Egypt will allow such an egalitarian, justice driven economic policy to take root.  It is revealing that both Morsi and Shafiq put forward economic ideas which in essence sought to assure the wealthy in Egypt and international capital that their interests would be safeguarded. It was only the candidate who emerged a close third in the first round of the Presidential Election, Hamdeen Sabahy, who offered a genuine alternative that privileged the economically marginalised. It was obvious why the mainstream Western media downplayed his economic agenda.

It is not just on the economy that Morsi appears to have adopted a certain stance. On an important foreign policy issue, namely, US military bases in the region and the upgrading of facilities for the US’ 5^th Fleet in Bahrain, Morsi and the Ikhwan have been rather quiet. And what is even more critical, the centres of power in the West will watch him closely on his position on Syria and on Egypt’s relations with Iran.

But more than anything else, it is on the question of Israel that Washington, its European allies, and Israel itself, will judge Morsi. Morsi has promised all of them that he will respect all international treaties that Egypt has entered into— which would of course include the 1979 Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty. However, they are not sure if Morsi will at some point in the future, succumb to pressure from the masses to review and rescind the Treaty, especially since Egyptian public opinion has never been in favour of the Treaty. Because Morsi presides over a democracy, he cannot — unlike Mubarak the dictator— afford to ignore popular sentiments. Besides, he himself had campaigned in the election as a staunch defender of the Palestinian cause.

How will Morsi’s commitment to Palestine manifest itself now that he is President? Will the new Egyptian President lead the campaign for a just peace for the Palestinians— a peace that will ensure the return of Palestinian refugees to their land, as provided for in international law, a peace that recognises East Jerusalem as the capital of a new, viable  Palestinian state with its own army, navy and air force?  Since a just peace of this sort is anathema to Israeli leaders and most Zionists and Christian Zionists in the US, what will Morsi do? Will he abandon these fundamental demands of the Palestinian struggle? What will be the consequences if he does? Or will he stand up to the Israeli elite and their patrons and protectors in the West? Again, what will be the ramifications?

It is because Israel and Western powers are worried about how a democratically elected President in the Arab world’s most important state may move the pieces on the Israel-Palestine/Arab chessboard that they would like the military, with its close ties to Israel and the West,  to maintain a grip upon Egyptian politics.  That is why these so-called champions of democracy have been somewhat reticent about the military’s undemocratic dissolution of Parliament and its shackling of the Presidency. This should not surprise us. After all, haven’t they always placed their own hegemonic interests above democratic principles?

Chandra Muzaffar

Dr. Chandra Muzaffar is President of the International Movement for a Just World (JUST).

Malaysia.

2 July 2012.

 

Mali is engulfed in a tragic conflict that pits rural tribes and groups against each other. These is very little background information in the mainstream media on Mali and its history to enable readers to understand what is going on. This profile on Mali is a modest attempt to fill that gap – editor.

A chronology of key events:

11th century – Empire of Mali becomes dominant force in the upper Niger basin, its period of greatness beginning under King Sundiata in 1235 and peaking under Mansa Musa who ruled between 1312 and 1337 and extended empire to the Atlantic.

14th-15th centuries – Decline of the Empire of Mali, which loses dominance of the gold trade to the Songhai Empire, which makes its base in Timbuktu – historically important as a focal point of Islamic culture and a trading post on the trans-Saharan caravan route.

Late 16th century – Moroccans defeat the Songhai, make Timbuktu their capital and rule until their decline in the 18th century.

19th century – French colonial advance, and Islamic religious wars which lead to creation of theocratic states.

1898 – France completes conquest of Mali, then called French Sudan.

1959 – Mali and Senegal form the Mali Federation, which splits a year later.

Independence

1960 – Mali becomes independent with Modibo Keita as president. It becomes a one-party, socialist state and withdraws from the Franc zone.

1968 – Keita ousted in coup led by Lieutenant Moussa Traore.

1977 – Protests erupt following Keita’s death in prison.

1979 – New constitution provides for elections; Traore re-elected president.

1985 – Mali and Burkina Faso engage in border fighting.

1991 – Traore deposed in coup and replaced by transitional committee.

Democracy

1992 – Alpha Konare wins multiparty elections to become Mali’s first democratically-elected president.

1995 – Peace agreement with Tuareg tribes leads to return of thousands of refugees.

1999 – Former President Moussa Traore sentenced to death on corruption charges, but has his sentence commuted to life imprisonment by President Konare.

1999 October – Several people killed in fighting in the north between members of the Kunta tribe and an Arab community over local disputes.

2000 February – Konare appoints former International Monetary Fund official Mande Sidibe prime minister.

2001 December – Manantali dam in southwest produces its first megawatt of hydro-electricity, 13 years after it was completed.

Amadou Toure

2002 April – Amadou Toumani Toure elected president by landslide. Poll is marred by allegations of fraud.

2002 September – France says it will cancel 40% of debts owed to it by Mali, amounting to some 80m euros ($79m, £51m).

2002 October – Government resigns, without public explanation. New “government of national unity” is unveiled.

2003 August – Clashes between rival Muslim groups in west kill at least 10 people.

2004 April – Prime Minister Mohamed Ag Amani resigns and is replaced by Ousmane Issoufi Maiga.

2004 September – Agriculture minister says severe locust plague has cut cereal harvest by up to 45%.

2005 June – World Food Programme warns of severe food shortages, the result of drought and locust infestations in 2004.

2006 June – The government signs an Algerian-brokered peace deal with Tuareg rebels seeking greater autonomy for their northern desert region. The rebels looted weapons in the town of Kidal in May, raising fears of a new rebellion.

2007 April – President Toure wins a second five-year term in elections.

2007 July – The ruling coalition, Alliance for Democracy and Progress (ADP), strengthens its hold on parliament in elections.

Rebel activity

2007 August – Suspected Tuareg rebels abduct government soldiers in separate incidents near the Niger and Algerian borders.

2008 May – Tuareg rebels kill 17 soldiers in attack on an army post in the northeast, despite a ceasefire agreed a month earlier.

2008 December – At least 20 people are killed and several taken hostage in an attack by Tuareg rebels on a military base in northern Mali.

2009 February – Government says the army has taken control of all the bases of the most active Tuareg rebel group. A week later, 700 rebels surrender their weapons in ceremony marking their return to the peace process.

2009 May – Algeria begins sending military equipment to Mali in preparation for a joint operation against Islamic militants linked to al-Qaeda.

2009 August – New law boosts women’s rights, prompts some protests.

2010 January – Annual music event – Festival in the Desert – is moved from a desert oasis to Timbuktu because of security fears.

Terror challenge

2010 April – Mali, Algeria, Mauritania and Niger set up joint command to tackle threat of terrorism.

2012 January – Fears of new Tuareg rebellion following attacks on northern towns which prompt civilians to flee into Mauritania.

2012 March – Military officers depose President Toure ahead of the April presidential elections, accusing him of failing to deal effectively with the Tuareg rebellion. African Union suspends Mali.

2012 April – Tuareg rebels seize control of northern Mali, declare independence.

Military hands over to a civilian interim government, led by President Dioncounda Traore.

2012 May – Junta reasserts control after an alleged coup attempt by supporters of ousted President Toure in Bamako.

Pro-junta protesters storm presidential compound and beat Mr Traore unconscious.

The Tuareg MNLA and Islamist Ansar Dine rebel groups merge and declare northern Mali to be an Islamic state. Ansar Dine begins to impose Islamic law in Timbuktu. Al-Qaeda in North Africa endorses the deal.

2012 June-July – Ansar Dine and its Al-Qaeda ally turn on the MNLA and capture the main northern cities of Timbuktu, Kidal and Gao. They begin to destroy many Muslim shrines that offend their puritan views.

28 June, 2012

Source: BBC News Africa

 

Resorting to blackmail tactics in order to push through a UN resolution allowing the use of external force shows that the US is extremely frustrated that Assad has been able to hold on to power in Syria for so long, activist Brian Becker told RT.

­Moscow said on Monday that Western governments are trying to blackmail Russia into supporting their draft of the Syrian resolution, threatening to end the UN observer mission if a deal is not reached.

The director of the ANSWER anti-war coalition, Brian Becker, told RT that the US wants to intimidate Beijing and Moscow in the international arena so it can do what it wants in order to reach the ultimate goal of overthrowing the Assad government.

RT: Russia says it faced blackmail tactics at the UN Security Council. Is this common when it comes to big politics?

Brian Becker: Well, unfortunately all too common. And I think the Russian foreign minister is in fact being very diplomatic when he says there is “an element” of blackmail or arm-twisting.

The US government, the Clinton-Obama foreign policy, is kind of the way a mafioso works: “If you don’t go our way, if you don’t do what we do, we are going to break your leg, we’ll make it impossible, we’ll threaten you.” Blackmailing and hostage taking is sort of a soft way of putting it, in fact.

The United States hopes to be able to break Russia and China down, to have them intimidated in the international arena so it can do what it wants to do, which is to foment civil war using all available elements of violence, pushing aside the possibility of peace in order to accomplish its main objective – which is to overthrow the Assad government. Not because that government is undemocratic, not because it is anti-humanitarian but because it’s not a proxy for the West, and that’s the real objective of the US in the Middle East, in Syria and elsewhere.

RT: If Russia fails to pass a Western-drafted resolution, which is the most realistic outcome, what will be the next step for the US and its allies?

BB: The US is extremely frustrated right now that the Assad government has been able to hold on in spite of the sustained pressure from Western powers and from Turkey and Saudi Arabia and Qatar, who are arming the opposition. Very frustrated because they expect these smaller countries to fall when the US says “you must fall.” They are expected to be shattered quickly and the Assad government shows great tenacity, a great staying power because – as the Russian foreign minister said it correctly – because there is a big part of the Syrian population that still supports the government.

And so the United States will, if stopped in the diplomatic arena, find another outlet for its unbridled use of violence in this case to overthrow the government. This is not going to stop. This is going to be ended by one side or another having a military victory and the United States is determined to overthrow the regime.

RT: How would that work? Is it possible to launch outside military action bypassing the UN Security Council?

BB: Well, certainly, we’ve seen that in the past. Look what happened in the case of Yugoslavia. There, too, the United States and the Western powers, when they could not get the UN to go along with the break-up of Yugoslavia, they resorted to the use of NATO. The United States can use NATO. Turkey of course is the eastern flank of NATO. It too can invoke NATO treaty obligations to bring in other partners. And it has other regional allies, in this case Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states.

So, I think we are heading towards foreign military intervention if the Assad government is able to hold on in spite of the extreme pressure it is facing.

© Autonomous Nonprofit Organization “TV-Novosti”, 2005 – 2011. All rights reserved.

17 July, 2012

@ RT.com

“The victory march will continue until the Palestinian flag flies in Jerusalem and in all of Palestine”– Yasser Arafat.

30th March is a historic day in the Palestinian history because this day commemorates the Land Day: the first widespread struggle of Palestinians against the Israel. After the establishment of the state of Israel, it was the first common struggle by the Palestinians. Since1976 it is celebrated as the Land Day. On this day Palestinians had organized a general strike and march from Galilee, and the protest spread to the occupied west bank, Gaza and refugee camps in Lebanon to condemn the Israeli plan to confiscate the Palestinian land in order to create a Jewish National Home. In the confrontations with the Israeli army and police, six Palestinian were killed, about 100 wounded, and 100 arrested. Later confidential document called Koenig Memorandum written by Yisrael Koeing (then a member of the ruling party) was leaked in the media which recommended to “ensure the long-term Jewish national interests” it stressed the need to “examine the possibility of diluting existing Arab population concentration”.

This year the land day was marked by Global March to Jerusalem (GMJ). A distinguished group of 400 advisers, including Archbishop Desmond Tutu; Nobel Laureate Mairead Maguire and Swami Agnivesh, former member of Indian Parliament promoted the GMJ. The objective of GMJ was to call attention to continuing Judaisation of the Palestinian land, demanding freedom for Jerusalem, its people, and to put an end to the apartheid regime and ethnic cleansing. GMJ had been a courageous and marvelous endeavor to encourage the world’s conscience on Palestine. It was a first time in the World history, people from all over the world came together against such a powerful oppressor. It was a unique effort by the citizens of different nations for the people of Palestine. Individuals from different religions, regions, language, race even Jewish organizations (like Jews for Justice for Palestinians and Independent Jewish Voices) came out to support the campaign. GMJ was an initiative to unite the Arabs, Asians, Europeans, Christians, Muslims, Jews and all peace loving citizens of the world to put an end to the Killing Machine (Israel). Israel has proved that International Laws are not meant for them because of their close alliance with US as they can get away with any war crime. Israel is a living example monarchic system of UN. Keep aside other laws they are not even bound by International Humanitarian Laws. No need to investigate the history to prove Israeli atrocities as Gaza was recently under attack. On 3rd and 4th June 2012 night Israel carried out a series of air raids hitting several areas in the Gaza Strip. One house was struck by four missiles (1) . Governments and Institutions are bounded by their national or vested interests and they cannot afford Israeli rivalry. As ex-prime minister of Israel Ariel Sharon rightly said “We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it ”.(2) Since UN, US and other governments were tongue-tied subsequently ordinary citizens took charge to lend a hand to Jerusalem and to demonstrate to the Israel that peace loving people of the world are against it.

All over the world different initiatives have been taken by civil societies and public in general against the Israeli state. The GMJ marched as close to the Jerusalem as they could, at the border of Jordan, Syria and Lebanon, at the checkpoint of Gaza and in the west bank, also in 32 countries and 54 cities at the Israeli embassies around the world. It was the first time in history that so many people gathered around the Palestine. All the protests were peaceful, keeping in mind Israel’s atrocious reaction on Al Nakba day 2011, when 13 refugees were killed.

GMJ was initiated by Asian People’s Solidarity for Palestine (APSP); nearly 150 representatives from 14 Asian countries namely, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Azerbaijan, Tajikistan, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Palestine participated in the convoy. 37 Indian delegates represented the vast diversity of the country and participated in the caravan. The caravan left on 9th March 2012 after a send-off ceremony at Raj Ghat by Zuhair Hamadallah Zaid, Minister/Deputy Chief of Mission (Palestinian Embassy, Delhi) and Ram Vilas Paswan. Indian delegates joined the Pakistani, Indonesian, Filipinos and Malaysian delegation in Karachi.

Caravan faced several difficulties in terms of the Asian land route because of the increasing political intricacy in Syria. Therefore the Asian convoys detoured Syria which generated several problems in terms of the land route and the finance. Caravan covered nearly 15000 kms of distance by bus and ferry in 25 days and more than 30 programs took place in 20 cities of 3 countries in which 10,000 people participated.

No doubt this march was interesting with lot of learning experience but it was not that painless and entertaining as it seemed. Caravan dealt with several troubles ranging from visa problems to lack of sleep and harsh weather. The major problem which caravan confronted with was the detention of 37 Indian, 3 Filipinos and 1 Iraqi delegate for 36 hours in a 426-seater small ship on 28th March at the Beirut port after travelling for more than 10 hours from Tusucu, Turkey. Nobody was allowed to step out from the ship by immigration authorities. There was no supply of drinking water, food and proper sanitation. The food which delegates and ship’s kitchen was carrying got finished. After protesting, authorities provided some food and drinking water and the next day Indian Embassy delivered some fresh food. Lebanese immigration authorities collected all the passports and were not giving any information about the visa procedure. While the Caravan was leaving Turkey for Lebanon, GMJ media group got the information on 23rd March that “Israel issued a warning to the nearby Arab states (Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan , Hamas’ in the West Bank and to the Palestinian authority) if they allowed the global march to take place next Friday 30th March. Israel also stated that if anyone neared their borders, they would be accused of trespassing .(3)” But this news did not deter the morale of the delegates.

Indonesian delegates got their visas after their embassy’s intervention. Iranians, Malaysian and Turkish do not need visa to enter in Lebanon. It was assured that delegates would be issued visa on arrival as per norm. But Indians couldn’t get visas until the intervention of Indian Embassy.

Several political leaders intervened in the matter. N. Kiran K. Reddy, Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh asked the State Congress Members of Parliament to discuss the issue in Rajya Sabha. Afterwards, MPs of Telugu Desam Party demanded India’s intervention on the issue in Lok Sabha. Mani Shankar Aiyar, Congress MP called the Indian ambassador Ravi Thapar in Lebanon. Somehow Indian government and Ambassador were able to get the visa for Iraqi and Filipinos along with Indians at 12:30 am on 30th March. At last, the delegates from Europe and Asia gathered at the La Opera Suites in Beirut to give the loud and energetic welcome to the Indian, Iraqi and Filipino delegates. It was a happy reunion.

Eventually, on 30th March morning Caravan joined the hundred of Palestinian refugees and Lebanese gathered for demonstration at Al-Shqeif Castle in Southern Lebanon, overlooking the borders with Palestine. People were very enthusiastic and vigorous. Everybody was waving the Palestinian flag, showing photos of their martyrs and wearing Arafat’s Kufiyyah. Old women were crying and hugging us as if we were the warriors, young ladies wanted us to click photos with them and children were trying to touch us. The atmosphere was very moving and poignant. To avoid occurrence of violence, Lebanese and Israeli security were present on both sides of the border. Highlights of the demonstration were the children who sung Palestinian patriotic songs and four Rabbis from anti Zionist group called Neturei Karta like Yisroel David Weiss said “We want the world to know that the Jewish religion does not accept the occupation and the oppression of the Palestinian people. It is against the Torah, the Jewish teaching. It is against the views of Jews around the world who are true to the Torah.” Feroze Mithiborwala from India represented the Asian Caravan.

Similar demonstrations also took place in Syria, Jordon and Palestine on the same day. In Palestine, a 20 years old boy was killed in Beit Hanun by Israeli troops and more than 100 protesters were injured at Qalandiya checkpoint during the protest. The march successfully came to an end and was followed up by felicitation programmes in several participating countries including cities like Delhi, Mumbai, Lucknow and Jaipur in India.

No doubt that Indian Embassy and political leaders helped the delegation during its hard times. But from the beginning it was very evident that Indian delegation was not as supported by Indian government as it should have been because Indo-Israel ties are getting stronger. India has forgotten the Gandhi’s statement “Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French. It is wrong and inhuman to impose the Jews on the Arabs.”

Our Caravan was a small effort to show Gandhi’s stand on Palestine to the Israel. In the entire Caravan, Indian delegation was the only delegation representing vast diversities. All over the world Palestine issue is considered as a Muslim issue but people were impressed to see that Hindus, Atheists and Seculars are also pro-Palestine. Indian delegation presented a good image of Indian Unity in Diversity but only the wearer knows where the shoe pinches. Now I am revealing the hard realities, why India took a 180 degree turn on Palestine matter; how Israel is sowing seeds of hatred between Hindus and Muslims and how the celebrated slogan unity in diversity has been continuously bombarded with Hindutva’s one nation ideology.

Needless to say that since the year 1948, India is playing a game with Palestine, Indian Muslims and its national unity. In 1988 (and in Sept 2011 as well) India was the first non-Arab country to support Palestinian bid for statehood at the UN. Not only this, India also gifted a piece of land to establish the Palestinian Embassy in Delhi in 1980. At the same time it was also carrying out Pro-Israeli policies from 1950s.

In the beginning, India was keeping Israel at bay and relationship with Palestine was flourishing because of the following reasons: it wanted to secure an access to Arab oil; it relied on money being sent back by Indian migrants working in Arab during the economic crisis in 90s; it wanted to maintain a strong relation with Muslim world so that they would not side Pakistan on Kashmir matter; it had a good relation with the erstwhile American enemy i.e. USSR; and because Israel was a creation of Westerners especially Britain. Automatically it also helped Indian government to gain the trust of Muslim minority. These reasons clogged the open Indo-Israel relations from 1948 to 1992.

Another position from which India was backing Palestine was the fact that its greatest enemy also established its state on the basis of religion and Israel was following its footstep. But contrary to this, in 1971 war with Pakistan, India sought for Israel’s secret weaponry aid which was materialized by Mossad who was maintaining secret relation of exchanging military and intelligence without risking economics and political boycotts and protests by Arab world and Indian Muslims, respectively.

In 1992 India formally established the diplomatic relation with Israel by sacrificing the unity and harmony of the nation. Itzhak Gerberg argues (4) that “Both countries (India and Israel) have adopted similar positions on arms control issues and Islamic radicalism (5) . No doubt, particularly in dealing with minorities as they have adopted similar strategies. First and foremost similarity is calling them terrorists. One can easily state that India has provided a testing ground to Israel to experiment their bigger agendas like demolition of Masjid-e-Aqsa. By some scholars destruction of Babri Masjid in 1992 was viewed as the trial of demolition of Masjid-e-Aqsa, but no one paid any attention to it as this type of news were published in Urdu media. Israel is repeating its heinous crime of so called “state cleansing” in alliance with some Indian fanatical organization. The way Israel hauled Palestinians from their houses and set them on fire, killed women, children and elderly and same pogrom was repeated in Gujarat in 2002.

Their alliance is based on the ideology of ‘Hindutva Nation’ just like the Zionist concept of ‘Jewish Nation’. Bajrang Dal, Vishva Hindu Parishad and Bharatiya Janta Party (BJP) are close allies of Israel because they both see Islam as their mutual enemy (6) . 12 years ago, an article was published in Indian Express written by Sharad Gupta stating that “Desi Mossad is getting ready at Bajrang Dal’s Ayodhya camp. In that article, when an activist was asked what he did at the camp, he said “I am from the secret service of Bajrang Dal. Israel’s Mossad is my inspiration. I can’t tell you more ”(7) . Now, Bajrang Dal has opened a training camp at the Saraswati Bal Mandir School in West Delhi also. On 19th March 2012, The Hindu reported that Bajrang Dal activists allegedly bullying Christian Fraternity in South Delhi Slum.

Narasimha Rao’s led Congress party government with Man Mohan Singh, then the Finance Minister granted full diplomatic relation to Israel to commence the economic reforms and liberalization, which demanded the changes in foreign policy. Although it was during the BJP rule, Indo-Israel relations reached to its peak. There are people present in Congress and other parties who shares and supports the Hindutva ideology, but Congress always plays on a safe side. On the other, hand Right Wing is very open about it.

Another trick of Israel which is being played here is the negative portrayal of Muslims in media. Mossad has a full fledge department called ‘LAP (Lohamah Psichlogit) ’ (8) to carry out this task of psychological warfare. Under the banner of Exchange of Counter Terrorism Strategies, this is also one of the important skills India is learning. India’s strong anti Muslim attitude has failed to acknowledge the danger posed by Hindu fundamentalists. Media loudly screams on its first page that “Muslim terrorist arrested”. But not a single newspaper called Seemananada a ‘Hindu Terrorist’ or mentioned violence against Christians and Muslims as ‘Hindu Terrorism’. Media intentionally forgets that terrorist is a terrorist, neither a Muslim nor a Hindu.

Now the question arises, why Israel chooses India for all its dreadful activities, it could have chosen western countries which supported (and still supporting) them to establish and expand an illegitimate state. Answer is: apart from strategic and geo-political reasons, one of the vital factor is that no matter how much galaxy of western countries supports Israel in establishing the Jewish state, but Israel is very conscious that western countries has their own vested interests in creation of non-Muslim country at the centre of West Asia. Another factor is, they have not forgotten the hostility and discrimination they faced of being Semitic origin in the western land.

On the other hand, India is the only country where Jews not only enjoyed all equal rights but dominated the commercial life from the beginning and never known to anti-Semitism. This was the fabric of real India; tolerance, cooperation, co-existence and harmony which is now at stake. Jews and Muslim communities lived together peacefully in the same colonies for years. Let alone the present times, even they never confronted with any biasness at the time of Mughals. India is India because of its diversity, different religions, languages, customs, and traditions. As vegetables and fruits keep their identity distinctive, at the same time gets mixed into one bowl and makes a good salad. Just like that India cannot be India by following the ideology of Hindutva. On the Indian flag, if Green would be over-painted by Saffron then it would look like a stain.
It is ridiculous that at international platform lunatic organizations and individuals display themselves as the citizens of the most diverse and tolerant country but at the same time they are trying to paint all India in one color. Indian unity and harmony is on the edge of devastation because of the alliance of Israel and extremist organizations. To save India from Israel is as essential as to save India from neighboring terrorist organization’s infiltration.

1. http://warisacrime.org/content/israeli-attack-gaza-june-3-4-2012

2. Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, October 3, 2001, to Shimon Peres, as reported on Kol Yisrael radio.

3. http://www.aljazeerah.info/News/2012/March/24%20n/March%2030,%202012,%20The%
20Global%20March%20to%20Jerusalem%20for%20Freedom%20from%20Zionist%
20Israeli%20Occupation.htm

4. Itzhak Gerberg is a former Consul-General of the State of Israel in Bombay (Mumbai) and former Ambassador to Zimbabwe. He is presently the Ambassador of Israel to Georgia. He holds a PhD in International Politics from the University of South Africa, and his doctoral research focused on India-Israel relations. He was an instructor at the Israel National Defense College (INDC).

5. Gerberg, Itzhak, India-Israel Relations: Strategic Interests, Politics and Diplomatic Pragmatism, Israel National Defense College, IDF, University of Haifa, Israel, Pub. Feb 2010.pp. 54

6. As stated by Gerberg, Itzhak in India-Israel Relations: Strategic Interests, Politics and Diplomatic Pragmatism, Israel National Defense College, IDF, University of Haifa, Israel, Pub. Feb 2010

7. Accessed on 19th June 2012 http://www.expressindia.com/news/ie/daily/20000630/ifr30005.html

8. http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/mossad.html

By Iman Tyagi

22 June, 2012
Countercurrents.org

Iman Tyagi is Advocacy and Communication Officer of Social Watch India and was One of the participants of Global March to Jerusalem

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange spoke out today from the Ecuadorian embassy in London about the escalating assault on his democratic rights and why he had been compelled to seek political asylum in Ecuador.

Interviewed by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s Radio National “Breakfast” show, Assange refuted Australian and US government denials that there was a Grand Jury indictment against him on espionage or other trumped-up charges. He bluntly rejected Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s claims that her government was providing him with “ongoing consular support”.

The Obama administration, closely assisted by the Australian government, is seeking to railroad Assange to jail because of WikiLeaks’ publication of thousands of US and other government documents, exposing their war crimes and anti-democratic activities.

Last week the UK’s Supreme Court rejected Assange’s legal bid to reopen his final appeal against extradition to Sweden. His lawyers had argued that the arrest warrant was invalid, as it was issued by a Swedish prosecutor, who was not a “judicial authority” under UK extradition laws.

British police have declared that Assange will be arrested if leaves the Ecuadorian embassy. At the same time, the corporate media is stepping up its character assassination of the 40-year-old WikiLeaks editor. Media outlets have variously described Assange as “dishonest”, “a fabulist”, “amoral” and “cowardly”.

The British media has also attempted to stir up resentment against Assange from the individuals who provided his £240,000 bail in December 2010. These efforts have failed. Author Phillip Knightley, for example, declared that he fully backed Assange and would provide any future bail money because the WikiLeaks editor was a “victim of flawed British and Swedish justice systems”.

Assange told ABC radio that he rejected claims that he opposed extradition to Sweden because he was trying to “avoid questioning”. He was not opposed to being questioned but was concerned over the Swedish extradition terms and the US moves to incarcerate him in an American prison.

If extradited to Sweden, he would be detained and held for as long as the investigation into the so-called sexual assault allegations took, he said. Assange also pointed out that Swedish authorities were demanding that he be given no time to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights. The refusal of the Swedish prosecutor to question him in Britain, or by phone, had kept him “trapped” in Britain.

Responding to US and Australian government claims that Washington was not interested in extraditing him to America, Assange said US legal action against him was already underway and on the “public record”.

The US Department of Justice, he said, was “playing a little game, and that little game is they refuse to confirm or deny the existence of a grand jury. And as a result, the press goes, ‘Oh well, they don’t confirm it, and therefore we can’t really write about it.’

“But that’s not true,” Assange said. “There’s public record everywhere, there’s multiple witnesses everywhere, there’s testimony in military courts about the existence of what is happening in these 48,000 pages, and that the founders and managers of WikiLeaks are amongst the subjects.”

Assange said two individuals with whom he previously worked—Jérémie Zimmermann and Smári McCarthy—had recently been detained at American airports and interrogated by FBI officials about WikiLeaks activities.

Assange added that the US was spending “vast resources” on its operations against him. He revealed that WikiLeaks had just discovered that the Department of Justice had awarded a $2 million contract to MANTEC, an IT systems company, to maintain the government’s computer system operations against WikiLeaks.

Claims by Australian Attorney-General Nicola Roxon and Foreign Minister Bob Carr that Canberra was providing extensive consular assistance, were bogus, Assange said. “What are they talking about?” he asked. No one from the Australian High Commission had met with him since December 2010. “They send SMS messages saying ‘Does Mr Assange have any concerns?’ But this is so they can tick off a box.”

The WikiLeaks editor told ABC radio that when his concerns were sent to Canberra in writing, its response was “dismissal in every area”.

Assange said it was necessary to focus on “the essential issues” in the attack on his basic rights.

“In a case where the truth is on your side, what is most against you is lack of scrutiny, so I welcome the scrutiny.” This was the only way, he added, to expose “the slimy rhetoric coming out of the US ambassador to Australia, by Gillard, and by the foreign minister. And that really needs to stop.”

WikiLeaks spokesman Kristinn Hrafnsson said yesterday that contrary to previous media reports, Assange had “no idea” when a decision would be made on his asylum bid.

The Ecuadorian government, he said, was still awaiting information from the UK, the US and the Swedish authorities. He would remain in the embassy until the matter was settled.

By Richard Phillips

22 June, 2012
WSWS.org

The author also recommends:

The Australian Labor government—a key accomplice in the vendetta against Julian Assange
[21 June 2012]

The Israeli government has seized on a bus bombing in Bulgaria to issue a menacing warning of retaliation against Iran, amid the escalating confrontation initiated by the US and its allies over Tehran’s nuclear programs.

Five Israeli tourists were killed, together with a Bulgarian bus driver and an alleged suicide bomber, on Wednesday when explosives were detonated at Burgas airport. At least 30 people were injured in the blast. Details of the bombing are still unclear. In particular, the identity of the suspected bomber has not been established.

Bulgarian authorities released CCTV footage on Thursday showing a man dressed as a tourist with long blonde hair and a large backpack, who they claimed was the bomber. On Friday, Bulgarian prosecutors said the man had short hair, leading to speculation that he had been wearing a wig.

Bulgarian Interior Minister Tsvetan Tsvetanov told reporters that the bomb, reportedly made of 3 kilograms of TNT powder, was in the backpack, which had been placed in the luggage compartment of the bus carrying Israeli tourists. He said the investigation had determined that the bomber was not a Bulgarian citizen. He dismissed speculation that the bomber was former Guantánamo Bay detainee Mehdi Ghezali, a suspected Al Qaeda member.

Yet within hours of the bomb blast, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had accused the Lebanese Shiite organisation, Hezbollah, and Iran of carrying out the attack. Ominously, he warned that Israel would “respond forcefully to Iranian terror.”

Netanyahu kept up the steady drumbeat, declaring on Thursday: “The time has come for all countries that know the truth to speak it. Iran is the one behind the wave of terror. Iran is the No. 1 exporter of terror in the world.” He added: “A terrorist state must not have a nuclear weapon.”

These denunciations of “Iranian terrorism” are utterly hypocritical. Israeli authorities have tacitly acknowledged that their intelligence agencies have been waging a covert war of assassination and sabotage that has resulted in the killing of four Iranian nuclear scientists in the past three years and a number of unexplained explosions at Iranian military installations.

Netanyahu’s last remark points to the real purpose behind Israel’s unsubstantiated denunciations of Tehran: to create the pretext for Israeli military strikes on Iran. Both Israel and the US have repeatedly threatened to attack Iran over claims that it is constructing a nuclear weapon.

The Bulgarian bombing is the latest in a series of unexplained “terrorist” plots in recent months in Georgia, Azerbaijan, India, Cyprus, Kenya and Thailand. All have been poorly planned and amateurish. Most have been foiled before any attack took place. In each case, Israeli authorities have immediately blamed Iran.

Earlier this month, Kenyan authorities arrested two Iranian nationals for allegedly preparing to carry out terrorist attacks on Western targets. They were accused of importing 100 kilograms of explosives. Netanyahu seized on the arrests to accuse Iran of plotting terror attacks on Israeli interests in Kenya.

In May, the Washington Post published an account of “Iran-linked assassination plots” that were allegedly aimed at US, Israeli and other Western officials. The murky story, which relied heavily on unnamed intelligence sources, involved criminal outfits in “a jumble of overlapping plans.” None of the plots came to fruition after Azerbaijani authorities arrested some two dozen people in January and March. (See: “Washington Post airs another unlikely Iranian assassination plot”)

In February, the international media highlighted an “Iranian” explosion in Bangkok. Several Iranian citizens were supposedly involved in a plan to attack Israeli diplomats that never eventuated. Thai police captured the suspects after one of their bombs apparently detonated accidentally. (See: “A strange ‘Iranian’ explosion in Bangkok”)

Last October, US officials claimed to have unearthed a plot involving a failed Iranian-American used car dealer from Texas, who allegedly hired a Mexican drug cartel to blow up the Saudi ambassador to the US.

The level of amateurishness involved in all these “terrorist plots” by itself makes it highly unlikely that the Iranian regime or security apparatus was involved. What cannot be ruled out is that some or all of these failed plans were deliberately concocted by Israel to create the excuse for launching military strikes against Iran.

The whipping up of an Iranian terrorist scare campaign is all the more necessary for the Netanyahu government because the latest opinion polls show popular opposition in Israel to military strikes on Iran. A survey commissioned by the Maariv newspaper this week found that only 19 percent of respondents supported an Israeli attack on Iran, and just 26 percent backed military action in league with the US.

While supporting Israel, the Obama administration is yet to unequivocally accuse Hezbollah and Iran of carrying out the Bulgarian bombing. Yesterday, White House spokesman Jay Carney declared: “It is certainly the case that Hezbollah and Iran have been bad actors, as a general matter. But we’re not, at this point, in a position to make a statement about responsibility.”

At the same time, however, the Obama administration is pressing ahead with its military build-up in the Persian Gulf in preparation for a war on Iran. In recent months, the Pentagon has doubled the number of aircraft carriers and mine sweepers and stationed a squadron of advanced F-22 fighters in the region. It has also boosted missile defence systems and armaments on its warships.

With international talks over Iran’s nuclear programs at a standstill, the US and the European Union have imposed crippling sanctions on Iran’s oil exports—itself an act of economic warfare that has greatly heightened tensions in the Gulf.

An article in the Wall Street Journal on Thursday demonstrates that the Obama administration is concocting its own pretexts for war against Iran. Entitled, “US says Iran plans to disrupt oil trade,” the report was long on accusations by unnamed American officials, and lacking in facts. It claimed that “Iran could take action both inside and outside the Persian Gulf” to interfere with oil exports from the Middle East.

Quite apart from the cynical character of the accusation, given that the US has unilaterally blocked Iranian exports, the article was based on pure speculation. “Defence officials cautioned there is no evidence that Tehran has moved [military] assets in position to disrupt tankers or attack other sites, but stressed that Iran’s intent appears clear,” it stated. However, the article offered no proof of “Iran intent” either.

The purpose of such reports is to demonise the Iranian regime as the US readies for war. The focus on the Gulf points to the preparation of an American pretext for an unprovoked attack on Iran. The US naval build-up has already greatly raised tensions, creating the conditions for an incident, real or manufactured, to become the casus belli for a potentially catastrophic conflict.

By Peter Symonds

21 July, 2012

@ WSWS.org

The question of Syria’s problems resulting in a nuclear holocaust is real, not imagined. According to the NATO treaty the treaty states that an attack on a NATO member is regarded as an attack on all NATO members.

“By joining NATO you receive the protection of The Alliance in exchange for your willing defense in times of need. An attack against one NATO member is an attack against all of NATO”. (http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/North_Atlantic_Treaty_Organization)

This situation is what the Brits would say “A bit of a sticky wicket”. Indeed it is. The scenario of Turkey being attacked by Syria is a real possibility. Even if Syria doesn’t attack Turkey, and Turkey attacks Syria, do nations ever advertise the fact that they fired the first shot? This would be ridiculous when you consider that they would lose the protection that being a member State of NATO provides.

The Russians have a naval base in Tartus:

The site, at the port of Tartus, is little more than a pier, fuel tanks and some barracks. But it is the last Russian military base outside the former Soviet Union, and its only Mediterranean fueling spot, sparing Russia’s warships the trip back to their Black Sea bases through straits in Turkey, a NATO member. (NY Times by ANDREW E. KRAME June 18, 2012)

This small naval base could be a real problem for NATO. A stray shot into the base, or over-zealous Syrian nationalists attacking the base could be the pre-cursor to World War III.

The question that most American citizens are asking is this, is Syria so much of a national security matter that we would commit to a nuclear holocaust? Is the civil strife in Syria so important that we would commit to destroying the world?

Let’s get serious. Maybe some conspiracy scenarios are really playing out here. Alex Jones and others have warned us over and over that the “New World Order” is hell-bent on reducing the World’s population. That is a scary scenario indeed. Still, when you see the behavior of Hillary Clinton and her war of words on Russia and China, it makes people like me wonder if Alex Jones and former Governor of Minnesota Jesse Ventura could be on to something. Maybe they are right.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/j64Xh_PHW-A

Maybe this is all ridiculousness. Maybe all of this is the result of an overactive imagination. Still, I don’t think so. I’m building a bomb shelter. My wife doesn’t think this is ridiculous. I’m trying to tell everyone that reads my articles, and maybe some that don’t as a result of passing this around, something is going on here.

The threats made by Clinton against Russia and China don’t bode well for peace on this planet. Strutting around the Middle-East pointing fingers at representatives of other nations is not diplomacy. In fact, nothing Clinton does smacks of diplomacy.

Speaking only for myself, Clinton needs to go. Syria is not an American problem, it’s a Syrian problem and most Americans, in my opinion, don’t give a sh*t about Syria. Let that nation work out its own problems without interference by other nations. This country needs to mind its own business. Syria is none of our business.

Wee turn a blind eye as Bahrain suffers under a monarchy that arrests and tortures people. This is a fact, not speculation. I have a contact that lived in Bahrain and saw the suffering with his own eyes. When I invited Finian Cunningham to come on my radio program, he talked about the atrocities he saw in Bahrain. The next day he was ordered out of the country. This is our so-called ally. This is a nation that arrests doctors and medics for treating demonstrators that have been injured by Saudi Arabian soldiers on the soil of Bahrain to quell the democracy movement and to prop up the monarchy.

This is utter nonsense. We accept Bahrain’s ruthless crackdown on the democracy movement, but scream bloody murder when Syria’s government tries to restore law and order. The west is supplying weapons and material to the “rebel’s” in Syria, some of them members of Al Qaeda. Most of what we see on the corporate media is pure propaganda. Every time someone dies in Syria, the corporate media screams that is was the government that did it. Most of the time, when the smoke clears, and the fog of war lifts, we find out that it was the rebels that did the killing.

With all of the confusion that surrounds the events in Syria, the corporate media pretends that it knows the score there, but they don’t. This is why China and Russia don’t want NATO to invade a country that they trade with. They have friendly relations with Syria. If its proved that Al-Assad is killing his own people, I’m sure that Russia and China will not block a vote to intercede. There is no reason that the US should run willy-nilly and invade another country.

Right now, Iraq has an ally in the middle-East, Iran. It seems like the invasion that killed or injured over a million Iraqi’s led to a state allied with Iran. That’s the success story of the American diplomats. It’s time someone said something. I’m saying something and I believe that all Americans should say something. We don’t want another war. That’s all there is to it.

By Timothy V. Gatto

15 July, 2012
Countercurrents.org

Tim Gatto is former Chairman of the Liberal Party of America, Tim is a retired Army Sergeant. He currently lives in South Carolina. He is the author of “Complicity to Contempt” and “Kimchee Days” available at Oliver Arts and Open Press.

 

Four Ways the President Is Pursuing Cheney’s Geopolitics of Global Energy

As details of his administration’s global war against terrorists, insurgents, and hostile warlords have become more widely known — a war that involves a mélange of drone attacks, covert operations, and presidentially selected assassinations — President Obama has been compared to President George W. Bush in his appetite for military action. “As shown through his stepped-up drone campaign,” Aaron David Miller, an advisor to six secretaries of state, wrote at Foreign Policy, “Barack Obama has become George W. Bush on steroids.”

When it comes to international energy politics, however, it is not Bush but his vice president, Dick Cheney, who has been providing the role model for the president. As recent events have demonstrated, Obama’s energy policies globally bear an eerie likeness to Cheney’s, especially in the way he has engaged in the geopolitics of oil as part of an American global struggle for future dominance among the major powers.

More than any of the other top officials of the Bush administration — many with oil-company backgrounds — Cheney focused on the role of energy in global power politics. From 1995 to 2000, he served as chairman of the board and chief executive officer of Halliburton, a major supplier of services to the oil industry. Soon after taking office as vice president he was asked by Bush to devise a new national energy strategy that has largely governed U.S. policy ever since.

Early on, Cheney concluded that the global supply of energy was not growing fast enough to satisfy rising world demand, and that securing control over the world’s remaining oil and natural gas supplies would therefore be an essential task for any state seeking to acquire or retain a paramount position globally. He similarly grasped that a nation’s rise to prominence could be thwarted by being denied access to essential energy supplies. As coal was to the architects of the British empire, oil was for Cheney — a critical resource over which it would sometimes be necessary to go to war.

More than any of his peers, Cheney articulated such views on the importance of energy to national wealth and power. “Oil is unique in that it is so strategic in nature,” he told an audience at an industry conference in London in 1999. “We are not talking about soapflakes or leisurewear here. Energy is truly fundamental to the world’s economy. The Gulf War was a reflection of that reality.”

Cheney’s reference to the 1990-1991 Gulf War is particularly revealing. During that conflict, he was the secretary of defense and so supervised the American war effort. But while his boss, President George H.W. Bush, played down the role of oil in the fight against Iraq, Cheney made no secret of his belief that energy geopolitics lay at the heart of the matter. “Once [Iraqi autocrat Saddam Hussein] acquired Kuwait and deployed an army as large as the one he possesses,” Cheney told the Senate Armed Services Committee when asked to justify the administration’s decision to intervene, “he was clearly in a position to be able to dictate the future of worldwide energy policy, and that gave him a stranglehold on our economy.”

This would be exactly the message he delivered in 2002, as the second President Bush girded himself for the invasion of Iraq. Were Saddam Hussein successful in acquiring weapons of mass destruction, Cheney told a group of veterans that August 25th, “[he] could then be expected to seek domination of the entire Middle East [and] take control of a great portion of the world’s energy supplies.”

For Cheney, the geopolitics of oil lay at the core of international relations, largely determining the rise and fall of nations. From this, it followed that any steps, including war and environmental devastation, were justified so long as they enhanced America’s power at the expense of its rivals.

Cheney’s World

Through his speeches, Congressional testimony, and actions in office, it is possible to reconstruct the geopolitical blueprint that Cheney followed in his career as a top White House strategist — a blueprint that President Obama, eerily enough, now appears to be implementing, despite the many risks involved.

That blueprint consists of four key features:

1. Promote domestic oil and gas production at any cost to reduce America’s dependence on unfriendly foreign suppliers, thereby increasing Washington’s freedom of action.

2. Keep control over the oil flow from the Persian Gulf (even if the U.S. gets an ever-diminishing share of its own oil supplies from the region) in order to retain an “economic stranglehold” over other major oil importers.

3. Dominate the sea lanes of Asia, so as to control the flow of oil and other raw materials to America’s potential economic rivals, China and Japan.

4. Promote energy “diversification” in Europe, especially through increased reliance on oil and natural gas supplies from the former Soviet republics of the Caspian Sea basin, in order to reduce Europe’s heavy dependence on Russian oil and gas, along with the political influence this brings Moscow.

The first objective, increased reliance on domestic oil and gas, was highlighted in National Energy Policy, the energy strategy Cheney devised for the president in May 2001 in close consultation with representatives of the oil giants. Although mostly known for its advocacy of increased drilling on federal lands, including the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the Cheney Report (as it came to be known) largely focused on the threat of growing U.S. dependence on foreign oil suppliers and the need to achieve greater “energy security” through a damn-the-torpedoes-full-speed-ahead program of accelerated exploitation of domestic energy supplies.

“A primary goal of the National Energy Policy is to add supply from diverse sources,” the report declared. “This means domestic oil, gas, and coal. It also means hydropower and nuclear power.” The plan also called for a concerted drive to increase U.S. reliance on friendly sources of energy in the Western hemisphere, especially Brazil, Canada, and Mexico.

The second objective, control over the flow of oil through the Persian Gulf, was, for Cheney, the principal reason for both the First Gulf War and the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Although before that invasion, the president and other top officials focused on Saddam Hussein’s supposed weapons of mass destruction, his human rights record, and the need to bring democracy to Iraq, Cheney never wavered in his belief that the basic goal was to ensure that Washington would control the Middle Eastern oil jugular.

After Saddam’s ouster and the occupation of Iraq began, Cheney was especially outspoken in his insistence that neighboring Iran be prevented, by force of arms if need be, from challenging American preeminence in the Gulf. “We’ll keep the sea lanes open,” he declared from the deck of an aircraft carrier during maneuvers off the coast of Iran in May 2007. “We’ll stand with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating the region.”

Cheney also focused in a major way on ensuring control over the sea lanes from the Strait of Hormuz, at the mouth of the Persian Gulf (out of which 35% of the world’s tradable oil flows each day) across the Indian Ocean, through the Straits of Malacca, and into the South and East China Seas. To this day, these maritime corridors remain essential for the economic survival of China, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan, bringing oil and other raw materials to their industries and carrying manufactured goods to their markets abroad. By maintaining U.S. control over these vital conduits, Cheney sought to guarantee the loyalty of America’s key Asian allies and constrain the rise of China. In pursuit of these classic geopolitical objectives, he pushed for an enhanced U.S. naval presence in the Asia-Pacific region and the establishment of a network of military alliances linking Japan, Australia, and India, all aimed at containing China.

Finally, Cheney sought to rein in America’s other major great-power rival, Russia. While his boss, George W. Bush, spoke of the potential for cooperation with Moscow, Cheney, still an energy cold warrior, viewed Russia as a geopolitical competitor and sought every opportunity to diminish its power and influence. He particularly feared that Europe’s growing dependence on Russian natural gas could undermine its resolve to resist aggressive Russian moves in Eastern Europe and the Caucasus.

To counter this trend, Cheney tried to persuade the Europeans to get more of their energy from the Caspian Sea basin by building new pipelines to that region via Georgia and Turkey. The idea was to bypass Russia by persuading Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan to export their gas through these conduits, not those owned by Gazprom, the Russian state-controlled monopoly. When Georgia came under attack from Russian forces in August 2008, after Georgian troops shelled the pro-Moscow enclave of South Ossetia, Cheney was the first senior U.S. official to visit Tbilisi, bringing a promise of $1 billion in reconstruction assistance, as well as an offer of fast-track entry into NATO. France and Germany blocked the move, fearing Moscow might respond with actions that could destabilize Europe.

Obama as Cheney

This four-part geopolitical blueprint, relentlessly pursued by Cheney while vice president, is now being implemented in every respect by President Obama.

When it comes to the pursuit of enhanced energy independence, Obama has embraced the ultra-nationalistic orientation of the 2001 Cheney report, with its call for increased reliance on domestic and Western Hemisphere oil and natural gas — no matter the dangers of drilling in environmentally fragile offshore areas or the use of hazardous techniques like hydro-fracking. In recent speeches, he has boasted of his administration’s efforts to facilitate increased oil and gas drilling at home and promised to speed drilling in new locations, including offshore Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico.

“Over the last three years,” he boasted in his January State of the Union address, “we’ve opened millions of new acres for oil and gas exploration, and tonight, I’m directing my administration to open more than 75% of our potential offshore oil and gas resources. Right now — right now — American oil production is the highest that it’s been in eight years… Not only that — last year, we relied less on foreign oil than in any of the past 16 years.” He spoke with particular enthusiasm about the extraction of natural gas via fracking from shale deposits: “We have a supply of natural gas that can last America nearly 100 years. And my administration will take every possible action to safely develop this energy.”

Obama has also voiced his desire to increase U.S. reliance on Western Hemisphere energy, thereby diminishing its dependence on unreliable and unfriendly suppliers in the Middle East and Africa. In March 2011, with the Arab Spring gaining momentum, he traveled to Brazil for five days of trade talks, a geopolitical energy pivot noted at the time. In the eyes of many observers, Obama’s focus on Brazil was inextricably linked to that country’s emergence as a major oil producer, thanks to new discoveries in the “pre-salt” fields off its coast in the depths of the Atlantic Ocean, discoveries that could help the U.S. wean itself off Middle Eastern oil but could also turn out to be pollution nightmares. Although environmentalists have warned of the risks of drilling in the pre-salt fields, where a Deepwater Horizon-like blowout is an ever-present danger, Obama has made no secret of his geopolitical priorities. “By some estimates, the oil you recently discovered off the shores of Brazil could amount to twice the reserves we have in the United States,” he told Brazilian business leaders in that country’s capital. “When you’re ready to start selling, we want to be one of your best customers. At a time when we’ve been reminded how easily instability in other parts of the world can affect the price of oil, the United States could not be happier with the potential for a new, stable source of energy.”

At the same time, Obama has made it clear that the U.S. will retain its role as the ultimate guardian of the Persian Gulf sea lanes. Even while trumpeting the withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from Iraq, he has insisted that the United States will bolster its air, naval, and special operations forces in the Gulf region, so as to remain the preeminent military power there. “Back to the future,” is how Major General Karl R. Horst, chief of staff of the U.S. Central Command, described the new posture, referring to a time before the Iraq War when the U.S. exercised dominance in the region mainly through its air and naval superiority.

While less conspicuous than “boots on the ground,” the expanded air and naval presence will be kept strong enough to overpower any conceivable adversary. “We will have a robust continuing presence throughout the region,” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared last October. Such a build-up has in fact been accentuated, in preparation either for a strike on Iranian nuclear facilities, should Obama conclude that negotiations to curb Iranian enrichment activities have reached a dead end, or to clear the Strait of Hormuz, if the Iranians carry out threats to block oil shipping there in retaliation for the even harsher economic sanctions due to be imposed after July 1st.

Like Cheney, Obama also seeks to ensure U.S. control over the vital sea lanes extending from the Strait of Hormuz to the South China Sea. This is, in fact, the heart of Obama’s much publicized policy “pivot” to Asia and his new military doctrine, first revealed in a speech to the Australian Parliament on November 17th. “As we plan and budget for the future,” he declared, “we will allocate the resources necessary to maintain our strong military presence in this region.” A major priority of this effort, he indicated, would be enhanced “maritime security,” especially in the South China Sea.

Central to the Obama plan — like that advanced by Dick Cheney in 2007 — is the construction of a network of bases and alliances encircling China, the globe’s rising power, in an arc stretching from Japan and South Korea in the north to Australia, Vietnam, and the Philippines in the southeast and thence to India in the southwest. When describing this effort in Canberra, Obama revealed that he had just concluded an agreement with the Australian government to establish a new U.S. military basing facility at Darwin on the country’s northern coast, near the South China Sea. He also spoke of the ultimate goal of U.S. geopolitics: a region-embracing coalition of anti-Chinese states that would include India. “We see America’s enhanced presence across Southeast Asia,” both in growing ties with local powers like Australia and “in our welcome of India as it ‘looks east’ and plays a larger role as an Asian power.”

As anyone who follows Asian affairs is aware, a strategy aimed at encircling China — especially one intended to incorporate India into America’s existing Asian alliance system — is certain to produce alarm and pushback from Beijing. “I don’t think they’re going to be very happy,” said Mark Valencia, a senior researcher at the National Bureau of Asian Research, speaking of China’s reaction. “I’m not optimistic in the long run as to how this is going to wind up.”

Finally, Obama has followed in Cheney’s footsteps in his efforts to reduce Russia’s influence in Europe and Central Asia by promoting the construction of new oil and gas pipelines from the Caspian via Georgia and Turkey to Europe. On June 5th, at the Caspian Oil and Gas Conference in Baku, President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan read a message from Obama promising Washington’s support for a proposed Trans-Anatolia gas pipeline, a conduit designed to carry natural gas from Azerbaijan across Georgia and Turkey to Europe — bypassing Russia, naturally. At the same time, Secretary of State Clinton traveled to Georgia, just as Cheney had, to reaffirm U.S. support and offer increased U.S. military aid. As during the Bush-Cheney era, these moves are bound to be seen in Moscow as part of a calculated drive to lessen Russia’s influence in the region — and so are certain to elicit a hostile response.

In virtually every respect, then, when it comes to energy geopolitics the Obama administration continues to carry out the strategic blueprint pioneered by Dick Cheney during the two Bush administrations. What explains this surprising behavior? Assuming that it doesn’t represent a literal effort to replicate Cheney’s thinking — and there’s no evidence of that — it clearly represents the triumph of imperial geopolitics (and hidebound thinking) over ideology, principle, or even simple openness to new ideas.

When you get two figures as different as Obama and Cheney pursuing the same pathways in the world — and the first time around was anything but a success — it’s a sign of just how closed and airless the world of Washington really has become. At a time when most Americans are weary of grand ideological crusades, the pursuit of what looks like simple national self-interest — in the form of assured energy supplies — may appear far more attractive as a rationale for military and political involvement abroad.

In addition, Obama and his advisers are no doubt influenced by talk of a new “golden age” of North American oil and gas, made possible by the exploitation of shale deposits and other unconventional — and often dirty — energy resources. According to projections given by the Department of Energy, U.S. reliance on imported energy is likely to decline in the years ahead (though there is a domestic price to be paid for such “independence”), while China’s will only rise — a seeming geopolitical advantage for the United States that Obama appears to relish.

It is easy enough to grasp the appeal of such energy geopolitics for White House strategists, especially given the woeful state of the U.S. economy and the declining utility of other instruments of state power. And if you are prepared to overlook the growing environmental risks of reliance on offshore oil, shale gas, and other unconventional forms of energy, rising U.S. energy output conveys certain geopolitical advantages. But as history suggests, engaging in aggressive global geopolitical confrontations with other determined, well-armed players usually leads to friction, crisis, war, and disaster.

In this regard, Cheney’s geopolitical maneuvering led us into two costly Middle Eastern wars while heightening tensions with both China and Russia. President Obama claims he seeks to build a more peaceful world, but copying the Cheney energy blueprint is bound to produce the exact opposite.

By Michael T. Klare

21 June, 2012
TomDispatch.com

Michael T. Klare is a professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College, a TomDispatch regular, and the author most recently of The Race for What’s Left: The Global Scramble for the World’s Last Resources (Metropolitan Books). To listen to Timothy MacBain’s latest Tomcast audio interview in which Klare discusses imperial geopolitics as the default mode for Washington since 1945, clickhere or download it to your iPod here.