Archives: Articles

Palestine as America’s next Vietnam? Like all historical analogies, it’s far from perfect. We aren’t about to send the U.S. Army to the West Bank or Gaza to kill and die in a war that can’t be won. Where else in the world, though, is American weaponry and political power so obviously used to suppress a Viet Cong-like movement of national liberation (a bill the Taliban hardly fit)?

And what other conflict is as politically divisive as the Israeli-Palestinian one? More than the Afghan War, the struggle at the heart of the Middle East evokes the kind of powerful passions here that once marked the debate over Vietnam, pitting hawks against doves. Not that the progressive media are yet portraying it that way. They’re more likely to give us an increasingly outdated picture of an all-powerful Jewish “Israel lobby,” which supposedly has a lock on U.S. policy and dominates the rest of us.

In fact, when it comes to Israel and the Palestinians, the political landscape is far more complex, fluid, and unpredictable. Yes, the election day just past saw a wave of hawkish Republicans with a penchant for loving Israel to death swept into Congress, but the hawks’ amplified voice is also likely to energize a growing alliance of doves.

Religious Hawks vs. Religious Doves

This election was not a Jewish triumph. Most of the GOP congressional hawks (if they aren’t from Florida) come from constituencies with only a sprinkling of Jews. They seem eager to make Israel a symbolic test case, as if supporting the hard-line Israeli government against Obama administration “betrayal” proves their strength in protecting America.

In the wake of November 2nd, a prominent Israeli columnist wrote that Republicans believe in “patriotism, Judeo-Christian Values, national security… and associating Arabs and Muslims with terrorism… a worldview that is usually consistent with pro-Israel sentiments.” Those are certainly “pro-Israel sentiments” as defined by the old Israel lobby that John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt analyzed so sharply. That lobby still wields plenty of power with its loud media megaphone, and it will welcome the recent success of its flag-waving, fear-mongering GOP allies.

Here’s a new reality, however: The hawkish Israel lobby is no longer the true face of the Jewish community. According to midterm exit polls, most American Jews stuck with their traditional loyalty to the Democratic Party and, far more important, they are visibly developing a new idea of what it means to be pro-Israel. Today, three-quarters of American Jews want the U.S. to lead Israelis and Palestinians toward a two-state solution; nearly two-thirds say they’d accept Obama administration pressure on Israel to reach that goal.

Republicans entering Congress will learn what I recently heard a Jewish congressman explain. Few non-Jewish legislators pay close attention to the Israeli-Palestinian issue. When it comes up, they usually turn to their Jewish colleagues for advice. Once, the Jews they consulted were likely to simply parrot the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) line. Now they’re likely to say, “Well, AIPAC says this, but J Street says that. You decide.”

J Street is the most prominent player in the dovish, newly developing coalition that already represents the views of most Jews. When Barack Obama invited top Jewish leaders to the White House in the summer of 2009, the heads of two smaller organizations, Americans for Peace Now and the Israel Policy Forum, were at the table too. These are the most visible voices for American Jews who don’t want to see their own government enabling Israeli governmental policies that they oppose.

The Christian community is split into competing lobbies as well, with hawks led by Christians United for Israel (CUFI) and doves by Churches for Middle East Peace (CMEP). CUFI makes more noise and gets more press attention. But CMEP is an impressive coalition of 22 national church groups, including some of the largest denominations and the nation’s largest umbrella organization of Protestants, the National Council of Churches.

Then there are doves, both Jewish and Christian, who promote direct action rather than political lobbying as the route to change. The movement to use boycotts, divestments, and sanctions to pressure Israel to change its policies on the Palestinians didn’t really take off until the Presbyterian Church endorsed the concept. More Christian groups have now joined this campaign, as has Jewish Voice for Peace, among other Jewish groups. Such direct protest also gets plenty of support from left-leaning doves not moved by any religious faith.

So far this alliance has not mounted the massive demonstrations that were a hallmark of Vietnam-era doves. The new strength of the hawks in Congress, however, might someday provoke the doves to take to the streets.

Elite Doves vs. Elite Hawks

As in the Vietnam era, today’s policy debate has not been restricted to groups of outsiders. It’s reaching deep into the foreign policy establishment. Top editors of the New York Times recently visited Israel, talked with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and came home to write an editorial putting most of the blame on the Israeli leader. They urged him to renew the moratorium on expanding settlements and immediately settle on the borders of a Palestinian state.

Just two days after election day, when everyone else was still talking domestic politics, the Times gave Bill Clinton op-ed space to say that “everyone knows what a final agreement would look like” — a coded message from the secretary of state’s husband to the Jewish state’s prime minister that it’s time to end the occupation, withdraw settlements, and share Jerusalem. Two former national security advisors, Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft, have publicly urged Barack Obama to “outline the basic parameters for a Palestinian state” — a coded message to the president that it’s time for a U.S.-imposed solution in the Middle East (assumedly based on Clinton’s parameters).

Of course, the elite hawks are fighting back. Neoconservatives (whose obituaries are always premature) have created an international alliance that calls itself “The Friends of Israel Initiative.” With friends like these, the doves claim, Israel doesn’t need enemies.

The elite debate extends into U.S. military and intelligence communities which have worked closely with Israel for decades. It’s a safe bet that there are powerful hawks in those circles who don’t want to put pressure on Israel because it might jeopardize those relationships. But top military leaders have been issuing warnings in private and in public about the dangerous consequences the Israeli-Palestinian conflict could have for U.S. interests in the region, and implying that the president should be pressuring Israel to bring the conflict to an end.

Both hawks and doves have found jobs in the Obama administration. “The question of how much the United States is offering [Israel], and what it is asking for in return, is being fiercely debated within the White House and the State Department,” the New York Times reported — which is undoubtedly one reason that the administration has been bobbing and weaving on Israel and Palestine with no clear policy direction in sight.

Another reason is the political risk involved. Though domestic issues dominated this year’s campaign season, the Republicans still stake their claim on being the party of tough guys, and they look for every opportunity to paint the Democrats as soft on national security. If Obama wavers on Israel, the GOP is ready to pounce and he knows it.

Republicans are always eager to run against “the ‘60s,” and efforts to move Israel to the peace table have become yet another symbol of “the ‘60s” in the GOP imagination. It’s no coincidence that, just after he won the Florida Senate race, the Tea Party’s rising star Marco Rubio announced that he was packing for a trip to Israel.

On the other hand, a president stymied in the domestic sphere is always tempted to make his historical mark with major foreign policy initiatives where he has more freedom. As Lara Friedman of Americans for Peace Now points out, this president will be criticized for abandoning his original demands on the Israelis just as much as for pursuing them, so he might as well “double down on his Middle East peace efforts.” If he does that, the doves will have Obama’s back. And a triumph at the peace table could shift attention away from the morass of Afghanistan in just the way Richard Nixon’s 1972 trip to China overshadowed the continuing slaughter in Vietnam.

An Unpredictable Complex System

There’s one more interesting analogy between the present Middle Eastern conflict and Vietnam. Both have triggered the passions of hawks and doves who otherwise would not pay much attention to foreign affairs. Every day, a few more doves start asking why the U.S. suppresses the Palestinian urge for national liberation and self-determination.

From there, it’s just a short step to asking other questions: Why does the Obama administration echo Israel’s frightening but unproven claims about “the Iranian threat” and leave so much room for talk of war? Why does the U.S. continue to demonize Hamas, rebuffing its efforts to moderate its stand and resume a truce with Israel? Why do government and media figures so regularly reduce the endless complexities of the Middle East to a simple morality tale of good guys against bad guys? And how can that enhance the security of the American people?

Just as during the Vietnam War years, such questions about U.S. policy in one region lead to even larger questions about the American stance in the world — and sooner or later, some of those questioners will dare call it imperialism. Any victory for the doves on the question of policy toward Israel will also be a victory in the ongoing struggle between competing visions of foreign policy, and no one can say where the growing movement of doves might lead.

In fact, no one can say anything with any degree of certainty about the future of this issue. It is now what the Vietnam debate once was: a complex, perhaps even chaotic, system, where every action provokes reaction.

Will a more Republican-leaning Congress change policy? Perhaps. But who knows exactly how? The more the hawks push, the bigger and more appealing the target they offer to the doves. As the issue only polarizes, ever more American Jews may feel pushed out of their tactful silence.

We could end up with a new media picture entirely: gentile hawks urging Israel to maintain its hard-line stance versus a Jewish community leaning toward compromise and peace. Under those circumstances, the average citizen, who figures that Jews know best about Israel, might be unlikely to sympathize with the hawks.

That’s not a prediction, just one among many possibilities in a complex system that’s inherently unstable and so unpredictable. In other words, there’s no reason for doves to feel powerless. Election Day 2010 may look like a victory for the hawks, but it could turn out to be a step toward their long-term defeat.

By Ira Chernus

10 November, 2010

Tomdispatch.com

Ira Chernus is Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder. Read more of his writing on Israel, Palestine, and the U.S. on his blog. Catch him discussing the American Jewish community and the struggle for peace in the Middle East in a Timothy MacBain TomCast audio interview by clicking here or, to download it to your iPod, here.

Copyright 2010 Ira Chernus

 

 

 

“I keep reading between the lies”

Rupert Murdoch’s recent speech before the ADL gathering at their dinner gala opened with this flattering observation, “You have championed equal treatment for all races and creeds.” What he omitted from that statement is the ADL’s treatment of the Palestinian people under Abraham Foxman, its national director, who “…uses high-mindedness and unfounded anti-Semitism hysteria as cover for backing Jewish supremacy and the right of Israelis over Arabs, including by occupation and belligerently enforced apartheid” (Steven Lendman, Socio-Economic History Blog). Murdoch omits a needed clause at the end of that statement: “except for the Palestinian people and their beliefs and their rights under international law.” Indeed, Lendman’s article refutes virtually every one of Murdoch’s claims, laying bare the truth behind Murdoch’s talk: see nothing, hear nothing, speak nothing against Israel or suffer the condemnation that comes with the label “Anti-Semite.”

“We live in a world where there is an ongoing war against the Jews,” intones Murdoch as he castigates all peoples as inherently discriminating against Jews everywhere. “Ongoing war against Jews” not “a rising tide of valid criticism against the Zionist controlled state of Israel with its current government’s defiance of the United Nations’ reports on crimes against humanity as published by the Goldstone Report, Amnesty International, the International Red Cross, the HRC report on the attack on the Marmara in May, and most recently the UNHRC by Dr. Richard Falk, the UN Representative for the Palestinian people.” No, Murdoch euphemistically conjures up a “war” against Jews, a suffering, weak, victimized people at the mercy of the world’s hate.

But there is no war; there is criticism, valid, righteous criticism that decries the wanton havoc inflicted on the Lebanese with Israel’s invasion of that nation in the fall of 2006; valid, righteous criticism that watched in horror the devastation of the defenseless people of Gaza at Christmastime in 2008/9 as their homes, schools, mosques, food, water, and gas supplies lay devastated under the bombs and missiles dropped upon them from the skies; valid, righteous, humane criticism that lamented the deaths of children and mothers and the old and infirm who had no place to run or hide encircled as they were by the Israeli war machine; valid, righteous, and incredulous criticism of the brutal attack against the humanitarian aid workers on board the Marmara as it made its way to help these very people yet found themselves guilty of interfering somehow with Israeli security as they brought a modicum of relief to a blasted people. None of these people hated the Jews; indeed, Jews joined those criticizing the government’s overbearing slaughter of the innocent including those who joined with me in the aborted ‘Boat Brigade” that was to follow the Marmara to Gaza in June. How convenient to stamp “hate” on all, that by that condemnation they must be silenced.

Not content with such slander against innocent people indignant at the unconscionable brutality of the Israeli war machine, Murdoch chooses to slide silently by the horrific massacres inflicted on the people of Palestine during the Nakba, insisting that Israel suffered decades of “straightforward” military force by those attempting to “overrun Israel.” He should read the reality of those days as described by Dr. Ilan Pappe in his work, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine. This was the beginning of the genocide against the Palestinians as recorded in The Plight of the Palestinians recently published by Palgrave Macmillan that continues to this day.

“Then came phase two: terrorism. Terrorists targeted Israelis both home and abroad—from the massacre of Israeli athletes at Munich to the second intifada,” continues Murdoch, forgetting to mention Israel’s terrorism against its neighbor Jordan that elicited this response by the UN: “The United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 228 unanimously deploring “the loss of life and heavy damage to property resulting from the action of the Government of Israel on 13 November 1966”, censuring “Israel for this large-scale military action in violation of the United Nations Charter and of the General Armistice Agreement between Israel and Jordan” and emphasizing “to Israel that actions of military reprisal cannot be tolerated and that, if they are repeated, the Security Council will have to consider further and more effective steps as envisaged in the Charter to ensure against the repetition of such acts”(Six Day War, Wikipedia); nor did he mention the terrorism Israel perpetrated against the Palestinians in Beirut in 1982 where they watched the unfolding massacre of 3000 as their personally equipped allies, the Phalanges, mauled and raped and killed the abandoned Palestinians in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps, enjoying the slaughter so much they kept the skies alight throughout the night so their savage friends might not interrupt their savage servility. Instead of providing actions taken by Israel against its neighbors that gave rise to retaliatory actions, Murdoch decries how the world has risen to attack innocent Israel as though none suffer at the hands of Israel’s ruthless war machine.

Listen to Murdoch’s rant against the world: “the war has entered a new phase…a soft war to delegitimize Israel…the battleground is everywhere…to make Israel a pariah.” All media, all multinational organizations, all NGOs have joined forces as armies of terrorists to inflict WW III on Israel that stands alone against the forces of evil. Why? To rid the middle east of Israel. How? By spreading anti-Semitism throughout the world. Who? Polite society in the form of “progressive intellectual communities.” Indeed, Murdoch bemoans “…anti-Semitism today enjoys support at both the highest and lowest reaches of European society—from its most elite politicians to its largely Muslim ghettoes.” Where is this obvious? In Norway where the government forbids a German shipbuilder from using its waters to test a submarine being built for Israel; In Britain and Spain who boycott an OECD tourism meeting in Jerusalem; In the Netherlands where there is a reported increase in anti-Semitic incidents; and in the European poll that listed Israel ahead of Iran and North Korea as the greatest threats to world peace.

Given the veto power of the United States in the UN, a veto that has prevented any action on any resolution that has condemned Israel’s illegal and/or inhumane policies and military actions against Palestinians and its neighbors over a period of 63 years, the actions listed by Murdoch by European nations are but modest reflections of the frustration that exists throughout the world about the impunity this rogue state enjoys precisely because America “stands united in full support of Israel” regardless of its merciless behavior toward its neighbors in the mid-east. Yet Murdoch is afraid that the United States might be weakening in that support, one of the prime reasons for giving this talk before the ADL. “Some believe that if America wants to gain credibility in the Muslim world and advance the cause of peace, Washington needs to put some distance between itself and Israel. My view is the opposite.” For some totally unexplainable reason, Murdoch seems to think that a continuation of 63 years of force—of land confiscation, of theft of Palestinian aquifers, of home demolitions, of imprisonment of thousands without due rights, of abolition of civil rights, of humiliation and disrespect that comes with hundreds of checkpoints, soldiers who mock and deride civilians, who are indifferent to the suffering of a mother about to give birth as she is prevented from getting to a hospital, of the psychological pain a child endures, a pain that lasts a lifetime, when the soldiers break down the door and force the father to the wall incapable of protecting his family from such ruthlessness, of life lived behind a wall, a wall that testifies to the fear that Murdoch expresses in his talk to the ADL, a pathological fear imbedded in his very soul, and a wall that imprisons the youth of Palestine who grow to manhood locked behind concrete and steel and watch towers and guns—such is the view that Murdoch brings to Americans if peace is to be achieved in Israel.

One cannot but think that something is amiss here. Murdoch sees only through his own eyes, and he sees fear, a fear that has infected his entire being, a toxic residue of hate against the world brought on by ingesting every day another dose of Abraham Foxman’s diatribes against the world. Perhaps it would be worthwhile to look through the eyes of the world that Murdoch condemns. Norman Finklestein makes the point in his book, This Time We’ve Gone too Far: he cites the yearly resolutions of the UNGA that have condemned Israel for not returning to a legal position regarding its neighbor, Palestine.

Yearly, the US and Israel stand alone against the world as the people of the world view the catastrophe that is the occupied territories; recently, the world condemned Israel for its wanton destruction of Lebanon, and again only the US and Israel saw this action as justified yet Israel suffered no consequences for this illegal invasion of its neighbor; following the Christmas invasion of Gaza, the world rose against Israel’s inhumane behavior and only Israel and the US stood in support of that merciless destruction condemning the Goldstone Report and preventing justice form being exercised; then came the flotilla of mercy to Gaza and Israel and the United States alone in all the world refused to comply with the UNHRC recommendations or permit international investigations from determining truth. And so it goes.

There must not and will not be criticism of Israel because that is by virtue of the name of the state, a Jewish state, damnation of the Jews. How convenient. Thus does Murdoch erect his own wall of fear around the people of the world should they dare to find fault with the government of Israel. He hides truth thereby behind slanders and lies, seeing all behavior through his own eyes instead of viewing truth as it is seen by his neighbors who suffer the wrath of Israel. Should he take that black veil off his eyes might he not see neighbors capable of love and joy, desiring to live in peace in a homeland large enough to accommodate them, and willing to share the resources of Palestine equitably that all might live a fruitful life.

 By William A. Cook

29 October, 2010

 

 

 

 

Appeal to the UN made on 3-11-2010 (full text below), by Father Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann, former president of the UN General Assembly to free Mr. Tariq Aziz, Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq before 2003 invasion. The appeal was shown at the end of a joint NGO side-event which took place during the Universal Periodic Review of the United States at the United Nations in Geneva.

FULL TEXT:

I am, to put it merely, extremely sad and angry to see yet another great injustice perpetrated by the United States, who, in my country alone Nicaragua, recently promoted, directed, armed and financed an undeclared war of aggression that resulted in the death of 50000 people.

This time, the action that I am referring too was taken against a very dear friend of mine, a fellow Christian, with whom I often went to church, Tareq Aziz, former prime minister of Iraq.

By willfully insuring an unfair trial the US is responsible for the now planned summary and extrajudicial execution of Tareq Aziz. In so doing, the USA has committed a great breach of the 3rd and 4th Geneva Convention which cynically enough the United States claims to be committed to searching for, persecuting and punishing individuals who commit those serious international crimes.

In compliance with what the United Nations Working Group on arbitrary detention has noted concerning the illegal nature, lack of due process and fairness in the trial of Tareq Aziz, the US has the moral and legal obligation to see that Tareq Aziz is immediately set free.

We are sick and tired of cases where the butchers persecute and accuse their victims.

 

 

Despite all the hype and rhetoric, only one impact of the midterm elections is assured. Notwithstanding power shifts from Democrats to Republicans in Congress there will not be any deep, sorely needed true reforms of our corrupt, dysfunctional and inefficient government. The culture of corruption in Washington, DC will remain. Hundreds of millions of dollars from corporate and other special interests will assure that.

Voters who think otherwise are either delusional or stupid. It will not matter whether you voted for Republicans because you wanted to defeat Democrats (or vice-versa), or whether you voted for Tea Party candidates, or whether you voted against incumbents, or whether you voted for what you believe are lesser-evil candidates. Americans lost however they voted, but it may take time for most to comprehend that. That is a terribly painful reality, which is why many who chose to vote will resist facing the ugly truth

When it comes to politics in America, delusion and stupidity are rampant, like a terrible epidemic that has killed brain cells. Several billion dollars were spent selling candidates this year. Who profited? The many media outlets that received the advertising bonanza and companies that supplied mailings, posters and automatic phone calls. At least all that spending was kept domestic.

Yes, you are thinking that this is the most cynical view possible. Cynicism beats delusion. I recommend it.

This is what American history tells us. Americans have been brainwashed and tricked into thinking that elections are crucial for maintaining American democracy. That is exactly what the two-party plutocracy needs to maintain their self-serving political system and that is also what the rich and powerful Upper Class wants to preserve their status. But voting in a corrupt political system no longer sustains democracy. It only sustains the corrupt political system that makes a mockery of American democracy. Think about it.

In the months following this election, when unemployment and economic pain for all but the rich remain awful, anyone who pays attention and is able to face the truth will see that there is little chance of genuine government reforms. Nor will any of the nation’s severe fiscal and spending problems be smartly attacked. The Republicans will blame the Democrats, the Democrats will blame the Republicans, the Tea Party winners will blame the system, the radio and cable pundits will blabber endlessly, and Jon Stewart and other comics will have an abundance of material to take jabs at. The two-party plutocracy will triumph.

Every member of Congress will, as before, spend most of their time and energy doing what is necessary to win the next election. The army of lobbyists will be busier than ever legally bribing politicians to sustain the successful political strategy of the rich and business sector to make the rich and superrich still richer at the expense of the middle class. Anyone who thinks that winner Republicans will work to overturn economic inequality is stupid or delusional. A disproportionate and ludicrous fraction of the nation’s income and wealth will go to a tiny fraction of rich and superrich Americans. Nothing that President Obama or the Democrats have done or championed was aimed squarely at reversing economic inequality and the death of the middle class, which by itself justified defeating them.

President Obama, of course, will continue his self-serving rhetoric with the sole goal of winning reelection in 2012. The presidency just made him destructively delusional. Of course he will speak about working with Republicans. Wait and see.

Here is what non-delusional Americans can hope for: Maybe a decent third party presidential candidate will emerge. Maybe the Tea Party movement will wake up to the reality that electing Republicans is a terrible strategy for reforming the government and restoring the health of the nation and shift their interest to forming a third party. I doubt very much whether any of the Tea Party winners in Congress will stand up and aggressively work for and demand true reforms. The new Republican Speaker of the House is a classic establishment Republican. Maybe the greatly expanded calls for an Article V convention (mostly by Republicans and conservatives) as the constitutional path to reforms through constitutional amendments will gather more energy (especially from Tea Party people) and finally succeed.

Welcome to the good old USA where citizens, unlike those in Europe, do not riot in the streets demanding justice but keep believing in the nonsense that voting for either Republicans or Democrats will work for them and the nation.

Despair follows delusion. Despite the endless media hype, the political revolution of 2010 is like a badly made firecracker – a dud. President Obama, Republicans and Democrats will have learned nothing profound, not enough to dedicate themselves to real reforms. Along with economic pain, widespread anger will persist as nothing tangible results to make the lives of ordinary Americans a lot better. Will Americans demand smarter strategies than voting in regular elections with choices between Democrats and Republicans? What do you think?

By Joel S. Hirschhorn

03 November, 2010

Countercurrents.org

[Contact Joel S. Hirschhorn through delusionaldemocracy.com.]

Since June this year, Kashmir on political front witnessed curfews, protests, and civilian killings while on economical side there was a decrease in imports, migratory labor outflows and livelihood of daily wagers got hit. Despite several odds banks—financial intermediary that accepts deposits and channels those deposits into lending activities— in Kashmir could manage some profits.

The banks here are making profits during unrest but at what cost? I believe social, which is not fine. By taxing denizens of the valley, who are already financially strained, due to continued market closures barring few days is an act of profiteering.

Besides, focusing profit banks in Kashmir both public and private sector have social obligation to meet, as they are bestowed with several privileges, especially of seeking public deposits. The banks operational in the valley are well aware of the fact that the small business, daily wagers are the worst sufferers in the recent unrest. This segment of the society should be given interest relief, if not full debt waiver.

However, instead banks have started calling businessmen and traders here asking for Equated Monthly Installments (EMI): fixed payment amount made by a borrower to a lender at a specified date each calendar month, it is used to pay off both interest and principal each month. While, traders here maintain that due to the prevailing unrest their cash flow has got hit and demand interest waiver.

The Jammu and Kashmir Bank, the premier financial institution of the state, is seeking business chambers, traders and industrialists view on the same. While, public banks here have already started process for interest waivers. Senior Official, in State Bank of India, Kashmir recently told me that the bank is considering advance cases for interest waiver. “We are in progress of considering the waivers depend up on case to case,” he said, “Branch managers have been given power of deciding about the case and sending same to the controlling authorities for necessary actions.”

Other small private players in the state like HDFC Bank, YES Bank, Axis Bank, ICICI Bank and many more too should take a cue and look for possibilities of interest waivers.

The decision on the waiver is not something, which the banking regulator, Reserve Bank of India, would allow, in fact there are well laid down guidelines for it. The Reserve Bank of India has clearly laid down guidelines for the banks on loan waiver during civil unrest. The RBI master circular on Prudential Norms on Income Recognition, Asset Classification and Provisioning pertaining to Advances the principle for utilisation of floating provisions by banks are well laid down.

According to the RBI master circular, “The floating provisions should not be used for making specific provisions as per the extant prudential guidelines in respect of non performing assets or for making regulatory provisions for standard assets. The floating provisions can be used only for contingencies under extraordinary circumstances for making specific provisions in impaired accounts after obtaining board’s approval and with prior permission of RBI. The boards of the banks should lay down an approved policy as to what circumstances would be considered extraordinary.”

To facilitate banks’ boards to evolve suitable policies in this regard, it is clarified that the extra-ordinary circumstances refer to losses which do not arise in the normal course of business and are exceptional and non-recurring in nature. These extra-ordinary circumstances could broadly fall under three categories viz. General, Market and Credit. Under general category, there can be situations where bank is put unexpectedly to loss due to events such as civil unrest or collapse of currency in a country. Natural calamities and pandemics may also be included in the general category. Market category would include events such as a general melt down in the markets, which affects the entire financial system. Among the credit category, only exceptional credit losses would be considered as an extra-ordinary circumstance, circular mentions.

To mention, the Valley has been witnessing protests since June, which left 112 people dead in the police and para military firings.

By Bilal Hussain

23 November, 2010

Countercurrents.org

[Bilal Hussain is a journalist, and writer. In 2009 he attended the McGraw-Hill Personal Finance Reporting Program Courses, supported by The International Center for Journalists. He is associated with the premier English Daily, Kashmir Times. His principal interests are capital markets, developmental sector and ecological economics. He can be reached at ibilalhussain@gmail.com]

 

 

Statement of Arundhati Roy (Nov 2010), that Kashmir is not a part of India, did raise more than storm in a tea cup. The BJP demanded that court case should be initiated against her, BJP affiliate Mahila Morcha vandalized her house in Delhi and BJP’s storm troopers, Bajarang Dal, threatened her in various ways. This statement came as a shock to many and talk of arresting her under the charge of sedition was in the air for some time. One knows that Kashmir has become a raw nerve in the emotional make up of the large section of people for various reasons. There may be lot of differences with Roy on the solution of Kashmir problem, but two points need to be noted and conceded. Number one, Kashmir never merged with India as it only ‘acceded’ with the proviso of total autonomy except in the matters of defense, communication, currency and external affairs. And two that the statement of Roy and her other writings and speeches on the issue of Kashmir show the pain and anguish of Kashmiri people as a whole.

The attacks and criticism of Roy are based on the ignorance about the history of accession of Kashmir to India. The ultra nationalists groups, especially the one’s who are followers of the ideology of Religion based nationalism,  and a thinking of a section of people is guided by a sort of patriotism, blinded by emotion. This patriotism wants to put the problems of people under the carpet. How did Kashmir Accede to India? One does remember that there were many princely states at the time of Independence. Most of these states were merged into India barring the ones of Junagadh, Hyderabad and Kashmir. The mandate to princes was that they are free to merge with either India or Pakistan but while taking such a decision they should keep the feelings of there subjects and consider their geographical location. The princes of these three states had their own calculations in not merging in to India.

Junagadh Nawab wanted to merge with Pakistan. Nizam Hyderabad wanted to remain independent or at worse merge with Pakistan. Pakistan offered more powers to the princes. Geographically also merger of Junagadh and Hyderabad was a bit out of the place their borders were not contiguous with border of Pakistan, and the composition of population of the percentage of Hindu population in these states was overwhelming. India closed the chapter in these states by military means.

Kashmir was uniquely located in an area which had proximity to Pakistan and India both, it had large communication with Pakistan and 80% of its population was Muslim, fitting well into the scheme of ‘Two nation theory’ of communalists.

Maharaja Harisingh refused to merge with either country. Pakistani army disguised as tribal invaded Kashmir. The difference in Kashmir was the presence of movement of National Conference which was very secular and its leader Sheikh Abdullah recognized the comparatively stronger presence of feudal sections in Pakistan ruling classes. Maharaja Harisingh when faced with the aggression left for Jammu for his safety and sent his emissary to Delhi to request India to send army to dispel the aggression from Pakistan soil.  Indian Government wanted to have an agreement before sending the army. It’s here that treaty of accession (not merger) was devised giving full autonomy to Kashmir except in the matters of defense, communication, currency and external affairs. By the time Indian army began its work, 1/3 Kashmir was already occupied by the Pakistan army. Ceasefire followed and later Indian part of Kashmir went on to have elections, Sheikh Abdullah becoming its first Prime Minister (not Chief Minister).

To understand the plight of Kashmiris, Pundits included, the issues one needs to focus are, as to how the US had designs to dominate this area through the proxy of Pakistan, were operating all through. This was the major determining factor for things which happened in this region. Kashmir was Central to US anti Communist strategies- Russia on one side China on the other. US kept supporting Pakistan through and through to keep its presence in the area and to keep the issue on the boil. On this side of the border the communal elements were assertive and demanded for full merger of Kashmir into India. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, the founder of Bhartiya Jansangh, the previous avatar of BJP was very vociferous in demanding this total merger.

Shiekh Abdullah’s trust in Indian republic’s secular values was shaken with the murder of Mahatma Gandhi. Sheikh had great faith in the secularism of India, in Gandhi and Nehru. After Gandhi murder and the pressure built by communalists to forcibly merge Kashmir into India further disturbed Sheikh Abdullah. He started introspecting whether it was a mistake to accede to India. Nehru at this point of time was saying that what is important is to win over the hearts of Kashmiris, while ultra nationalists, pseudo nationalists, wanted to forcible merge Kashmir into India. Sheikh Abdullah started talking to US ambassador and also with China on the other. Under pressure of Nehru got Sheikh Abdullah arrested and put him behind bars, starting the process of alienation of Kashmiri people at large.

Later Pakistan backed by US played its own role in encouraging the dissident sections and by helping them in all the ways. The problem really got worse due to the entry of Al Qaeda in the decades of 1980s. With their warped training of distorted version of Jihad and Kafir, in the Madrassas set up by US, to train Al Qaeda, the situation got communalized. It worsened the situation by communalizing the issue and by playing politics in the name of Islam.

Indian army did the rest. Starting from trying to curb militancy, it entrenched itself in to the civilian life of Kashmir. So many incidents of killings of innocents at the hands of army have taken place. Brutality of army is disguised as defense of Nation. Army lives with the dictum that power flows through the barrel of the gun. This dictum is glaringly obvious when army stays there for long enough time in a civilian area. This army occupation acts as a trigger to further alienate the people of the region. Victims of army’s highhandedness are the innocents of the region, women and children suffering the worst ignominies. The process of violation of civic norms and disruption of civic life has led to a situation where the average helpless person vents his anger by throwing the stones.

Kashmir is a vexed issue defying easy solution due multiple interested parties. US backed Pakistan army, the intense pain and suffering of people of Kashmir at the hands of militants and army, both. There is a need to respect the expression of pain and anguish of Kashmiri people. Dialogue within and outside, reduction of army’s presence, deepening democracy and understanding the complex logic of the area is what could sooth the wounded psyche of Kashmir. The aggressive reaction of the type manifested by politics wearing the clothes of religion will add salt to the wounds and worsen the problem rather than contributing anything to its resolution. Layers of democracy, within the state need to be strived for and people’s voices of dissent need to be listened carefully rather than insulted and blindly opposed without understanding the logic of their statements and suffering of the people of Kashmir.

by Ram Puniyani

Issues in Secular Politics

11 November 2010

www.pluralindia.com

 

“Today we mourn the passing of a beloved old friend, Common Sense, who has been with us for many years. No one knows for sure how old he was, since his birth records were long lost in bureaucratic red tape.

He will be remembered as having cultivated such valuable lessons as:

– Knowing when to come in out of the rain

– Why the early bird gets the worm

– Life isn’t always fair

– and maybe it was my fault

Common Sense lived by simple, sound financial policies (don’t spend more than you can earn) and reliable strategies (adults, not children, are in charge).

His health began to deteriorate rapidly when well-intentioned but overbearing regulations were set in place. Reports of a 6-year-old boy charged with sexual harassment for kissing a classmate, teens suspended from school for using mouthwash after lunch, and a teacher  fired for reprimanding an unruly student, only worsened his condition.

Common Sense lost ground when parents attacked teachers for doing the  job that they themselves had failed to do in disciplining their unruly children.

It declined even further when schools were required to get parental consent to administer sun lotion or an aspirin to a student, but could not inform parents when a student became pregnant and wanted to have an abortion.

Common Sense lost the will to live as the churches became businesses  and criminals received better treatment than their victims.

Common Sense took a beating when you couldn’t defend yourself from a burglar in your own home and the burglar could sue you for assault.

Common Sense finally gave up the will to live, after a woman failed to realize that a steaming cup of coffee was hot. She spilled a little in her lap and was promptly awarded a huge settlement.

Common Sense was preceded in death by his parents, Truth and Trust, by his wife, Discretion, by his daughter, Responsibility, and by his son, Reason.

He is survived by his 4 stepbrothers:

I Know My Rights, I Want It Now, Someone Else Is To Blame,  I’m A Victim

Not many attended his funeral because so few realized he was gone. If  you still remember him, pass this on. If not, join the majority and do nothing.

 

 

 

 

 

Scott Peterson’s fine piece at CSM on Iranian reactions to the Wikileaks cables is given further credence by yet another document that surfaced Tuesday. Peterson says that the Iranians took the documents to suggest that President Obama was all along plotting against them even while pursuing a diplomatic track in public, and that a breakthrough through negotiations is now very unlikely.

It is an account of conversations between the US undersecretary for arms control and British officials in early September, 2009. It shows that the then British Labor Government supported President Obama’s diplomatic outreach to Iran but was very much prepared for it to fail, and fail quickly, and so was already focused on ratcheting up further economic sanctions on Tehran. Simon McDonald said that the prime minister did not think Obama’s diplomatic efforts should be “open-ended,” and seemed to have a 30-day deadline in mind for Iran to respond. That sort of impatience does not comport with genuine diplomacy, and it seems clear that the British were eager to impose further sanctions as soon as possible.

Another passage suggests strong British and American pressure on Yukiya Amano, the then incoming head of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Under his predecessor, Mohammad Elbaradei, the IAEA had steadfastly refused to rubber stamp US and Western European charges that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon. The inspectors could find no evidence of it, and were able to certify that no nuclear material had been diverted from the civilian program. They were extremely frustrated by Iran’s lack of complete cooperation, and some entertained dark suspicions, but Elbaradei’s reports only included what could be proven from the inspections. Foreign Minister David Miliband spoke of putting some “steel” in Amano’s spine. Ellen Tauscher, the US undersecretary for arms control and international security affairs, said that the US and the UK must work to make Amano a “success.”

Reading between the lines, it seems clear that London and Washington intended to get hold of Amano as soon as Elbaradei had departed, and twist his arm to be more alarmist in his reports on Iran. Surely from Washington’s hawkish point of view, any “success” of the IAEA would be in demonstrating an Iranian weapons program and giving evidence that could be used to ratchet up sanctions at the UN Security Council. Ironically, the 2007 US National Intelligence Estimate on Iran had supported Elbaradei’s careful approach. Amano may have been predisposed to be suspicious of Iran because of his own country’s experience of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and his consequent personal commitment to non-proliferation.

It was improper for Miliband to have spoken of putting steel in Amano’s spine, with the obvious meaning that the UK wanted the IAEA to put out reports on Iran’s nuclear activities that mirrored Whitehall’s suspicions– suspicions for which there is no known proof. (Iran has a civilian nuclear enrichment program; no one has found any dispositive evidence that it has a nuclear weapons program, and there is much evidence to the contrary).

There is also a passage about tying Iran’s nuclear program to that of North Korea, said to be urged by then National Security Adviser Gen. Jim Jones. That strategy is shot through with propaganda, since North Korea went for broke to get a nuclear warhead and has a handful of them now. North Korea conducted underground nuclear detonations in 2006 and 2009, as confirmed by seismic activity. In contrast, Iran has no bomb. All Iran can be shown to have done is to whirl radioactive material around to produce about two tons of uranium enriched to 3.5% and a very small amount enriched to 19.75%, intended for use in Iran’s small medical reactor, given it by the US in 1969. Both these levels of enrichment are considered Low-Enriched Uranium (LEU) and are irrelevant to bomb-making unless they are further processed to 95%– something there is no evidence of the Iranians trying to do or even being able to do. Remember, their facility at Natanz is being inspected. So, Iran is just not like North Korea. The latter is a known violator (like Israel, Pakistan and India) of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Nothing Iran has done since 2003 violates the NPT, which it signed– unlike Israel.

The USG Open Source center today translated an Iranian Fars News Agency, Wednesday, December 1, 2010, report of a television discussion in which an Iranian security expert complained about this very strategy:

‘ Fars News Agency: An expert on Iran and the region emphasized with the new atmosphere of controversy the Zionists are creating they are trying to show that Iran’s peaceful nuclear program is connected to North Korea’s nuclear program. Fars reports Amir Musavi in an interview with this week’s program The Israeli Eye on the Al-Alam News Network mentioned the creation of controversy by the Zionists against Iran’s nuclear program and said the Zionists are trying to divert world public opinion away from their own nuclear armory towards other directions, and to portray Iran’s peaceful nuclear program as a threat they are connecting North Korea’s nuclear program to Iran’s peaceful nuclear program. This expert on Iran and regional affairs added: However unlike North Korea the Islamic Republic of Iran consistently cooperates with the IAEA.’ Musavi added: If the Islamic Republic of Iran were seeking to conceal its peaceful nuclear program it could have done this but Iran has always sought mutual cooperation with the IAEA.

Iran-related passages of the wikileaks cable:

Background: Ellen Tauscher, the US under secretary for arms control and international security affairs held meetings in London on September 2-4 on the margins of the P5 Conference on Confidence Building Measures Towards Nuclear Disarmament with Foreign Secretary David Miliband, Simon McDonald, Head of the Foreign and Defence Policy Secretariat at the Cabinet Office … [and others]

“Tuesday, 22 September 2009, 14:13

S E C R E T SECTION 01 OF 05 LONDON 002198

NOFORN… 09/21/2019

SUBJECT: U/S TAUSCHER’S MEETINGS WITH FS MILIBAND AND OTHER

HMG OFFICIALS

¶11. (S/NF) Tauscher made clear that Iran needed to respond to the P5 1 offer prior to the UNGA, at which point there would be a stock-taking; absent progress, attention would turn to substantially stronger sanctions. FS Milband opined that U.S. Administration is “rightly trying to overcome a deficit of prejudice and mistrust in a relatively short time” by diplomatic outreach to Iran. He continued that the Iranian elections were a “bad outcome” — an outcome that had given extremists the upper hand and resulted in a “culling of reformists.” Miliband said that, in his opinion, Iran’s extremist government would not make concessions in a short time. Nonetheless, the U.S. “Administration’s support for a diplomatic solution is very wise.” He praised the impact of financial sanctions spearheaded by Treasury U/S Levey. Leslie asserted that the Iranian administration is “in a state of flux” and “not focused,” so probably unable to respond to overtures.

LONDON 00002198 003 OF 005

¶12. (S/NF) McDonald stressed that the PM supports the President’s outreach efforts to Iran, but this outreach should not be “open ended.” The UK view is that “if Iran is not responsive, we have to get serious.” UK experts have concluded that stronger sanctions should be in place by the end of the year if Iran is not significantly responsive by the end of September. McDonald observed that it would take some time to negotiate a UNSCR [United Nations Security Council Resolution]; in the meantime, the UK is considering national steps it could take as well as possible steps the EU could take. HMG shares NSA Jones’ view that proliferation problems posed by Iran and North Korea should be addressed together, not as separate, unrelated issues, McDonald said…

¶14. (S/NF) “We need to put some steel in Director General-elect Amano,” [of the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency] Miliband opined. Amano has a key role and he “must be a leader and a consensus-builder who reports faithfully what experts tell him.” McDonald observed that the IAEA seems more prepared than it has in the past to address Iranian conduct. Tauscher agreed we need to make Amano a success.”

By Juan Cole

December 03, 2010 “Information Clearing House” —

www.juancole.com

It’s odd that what has almost never been overlooked by a single Marxist commentator in human history, seems to be “outside of the box” for many progressive “pundits” and many in the progressive sphere. Of course, after Bush pushed — the MSM willing — for his debacle/bloodbath in Mesopotamia, there seemed to be a great deal of thought put into, apparently, what many had interpreted as a purported failure of the “mainstream” press. Commentators who took this line of approach, one would almost have to wonder, if they had ever read any of the MSM’s scrawlings? And if such persons making such an argument have read the mainstream “news” media; on U.S. foreign policy and a panoply of other things, and believed what it is that they are reading, then such commentators are surely living in a surreality of their own.

The mainstream media’s primary vocation, when it comes to the U.S. reach throughout the planet, is to slander, ridicule and report all sorts of dubious information on, those who are resisting the global neoliberal imperial economic order. Anyone who understands the facts of U.S. efforts to topple the democratically elected socialist government of Venezuela understands this as an elementary and incontrovertible precept. But a segment — if not the majority of the “progressive commentariat” — were left scratching their heads, after the goals of a particular imperial campaign were met and served by the mainstream media “bastions of journalism”? The obtuseness here, borders on the absurd, but these sorts of views that the mainstream should have deviated from a standard, long-standing and virtually uninterrupted practice; on Iraq, were not rare.

All of this has come to my attention, probably because I am not one, who has joined in the upswell for the “crusading” of Julian Assange and the support of his Wikileaks operation. Insofar as what he has released has been very much in line with the blueprint of ensconcing a wholly neoliberal planetary order. And so long as Assange’s revelations, push nothing other than a proliferation of the U.S. neoliberal imperial project; it will be unclear as to what masters it is that Wikileaks ultimately serves. Assange, despite purported education in a multiplicity of areas, would seem to be a neophyte in matters of intelligence and geopolitic schemes. The Western media and intelligence services, love nothing more than to engage in the manipulation of an unwilling person — as a kind of “propagandistic fodder” — that they can use, and can shape and can mold. I’m not saying that is what Assange/Wikileaks is; however, but I do look forward to forthcoming reports that will be damaging to U.S. imperial power, and client states such as Israel, Colombia, Saudi Arabia, Georgia, Egypt, etc.

As Noam Chomsky adeptly pointed out — after the release of recent cables — the United States and Israel are viewed by a plurality of average, everyday Arabs as far greater threats to them than the Islamic Republic of Iran. Yet, the cables that have come out have shown Arab leaders; far out of step with their own citizenry, calling for the US to stop Iran’s alleged nuclear proliferation program. In which, claims of a program for weapons of mass destruction are dubious, and should remind any rational observer of the “cherry picking” and “sexing up” that went on before Bush’s “blunder” in Iraq. Not to mention, of course, that India and Pakistan developed nuclear weapons and neither state was subject to monitoring by the International Atomic Energy Agency, because neither of these countries had even ratified the NPT (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty). Israel, is a whole different story altogether, but unequivocally it has continued to operate as a rogue government, and not even make any official acknowledgment of any of its nuclear bombs.

The games that can be played to serve imperial power are certainly varied and duplicitous, indeed. Hollywood scenarios of Manchurian candidates and Mk-ultra zombies, performing psychological, and other intelligence operations, can be titillating and serve as great fantasy — and even a bit of fun. Just as likely; however, is that Assange/Wikileaks have moved out of the shallow end, and into the deeper end of the water. Knowing what we know about the Western media consistently and reliably servicing war, neoliberalism, and imperialism, we should be certain that Wikileaks is not involved in supporting them too. We don’t want to hop on the Wikileaks bandwagon of cheering for a man who is “surely” a force for peace, justice, transparency, and good.

By Sean Fenley

15 September, 2010

Countercurrents.org

Sean Fenley is an independent progressive, who would like to see some sanity brought to the creation and implementation, of current and future, U.S. military, economic, foreign and domestic policies. He has been published by a number of websites, and publications throughout the alternative media.

seanm_f@fastmail.net

In the face of an unprecedented campaign of US harassment and intimidation, the Internet-based WikiLeaks group is continuing its efforts to expose the predatory role of American foreign policy around the world, releasing secret diplomatic documents every day.

WikiLeaks has acquired over 250,000 leaked US diplomatic cables, most of them generated over the past five years, and it has posted about 700 of them so far on its web site, as well as turning over the entire cache to four news organizations in Europe. One of the four, the British daily Guardian, in turn gave access to the New York Times.

Material made public Sunday sheds light on the increasingly incendiary state of world relations, under conditions of deepening world economic crisis. In particular, the declining world power, the United States, is seeking to maintain its domination against the rise of rivals like China. This conflict is the focus of a State Department cable on March 24, 2009, describing a meeting between Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, then visiting Washington, and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

According to the summary, Clinton complained during a luncheon discussion about the difficulty of the US taking action to curb China’s growing overseas influence, given the huge US balance of trade deficit with China and China’s massive stockpile of nearly $2 trillion in dollar-denominated assets, including Treasury bills. “How do you deal toughly with your banker?” she asked.

Rudd’s reply was eye opening. Describing himself as “a brutal realist on China,” he said that Australian intelligence agencies were paying close attention to China’s growing military strength, and that Australia was building up its naval forces as “a response to China’s growing ability to project force” in the south Pacific. He said the US and its allies should make efforts to integrate China into the US-dominated structure of state relations in the Asia-Pacific region, “while also preparing to deploy force if everything goes wrong.”

There is no record of Clinton’s response to this suggestion that a military conflict between the two strongest world powers, both armed with nuclear weapons, was to be considered as a policy option. Nor was her reaction reported to another declaration by Rudd, that he had invited another nuclear-armed power, Russia, to join his proposed Asia-Pacific Community, in order to forestall any thoughts of a “Chinese Monroe Doctrine.” Rudd used that term as shorthand for an effort by China to exclude outside powers—like the United States—from the Asia-Pacific region.

The exchange is reminiscent of the secret discussions held among the Great Powers in the decades leading up to World War I and World War II, as they jockeyed for power and influence while building up their military forces for the ultimate test of force. In both periods, localized and regional tensions—in the Balkans, the Far East, and North Africa—became the spark of a global conflict.

The Middle East is one of the regions most likely to play the role of detonator today, with US forces already deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan and the US and Israel openly threatening military action against Iran if economic sanctions fail to bring the regime in Tehran to heel.

Secret documents made public in summary form Sunday by the New York Times and the Guardian underscore the rising tensions in that region. A classified memo from Secretary of State Clinton in December 2009 complains that Saudi Arabia and the Arab sheikdoms of the Persian Gulf were the principal financiers of anti-American terrorist activity. “Donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide,” the memo declares.

This assessment is in sharp contrast to the public US focus on Afghanistan and the tribal territories of Pakistan as the base of Al Qaeda terrorism. The real purpose of the war in Afghanistan is to establish a dominant US role in Central Asia, the second largest source of world oil and gas exports.

As the Guardian notes in its coverage (but not the Times), the US complaints about the Saudi role in financing terrorism play second fiddle to US oil interests. The Guardian observed: “The cables show that when it comes to powerful oil-rich allies, US diplomats save their concerns for closed-door talks, in stark contrast to the often pointed criticism meted out to allies in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Instead, officials at the Riyadh embassy worry about protecting Saudi oilfields from al-Qaida attacks.”

A second set of cables from the Mideast, summarized in the Guardian, cite the view of Iraqi government officials that Saudi Arabia, not Iran, posed the biggest threat of destabilization. A cable from the US ambassador in Baghdad, sent in September 2009, explains that Iraqi leaders viewed the Saudi objective as “to enhance Sunni influence, dilute Shia dominance and promote the formation of a weak and fractured Iraqi government.” The newspaper concluded that this dispatch, “feeds claims, prevalent after the 9/11 attacks, that religiously conservative, politically repressive Saudi Arabia, where most of the 9/11 terrorists came from, is the true enemy of the west.”

The accounts published by the “authorized” newspapers have undoubtedly been cleared in advance with the US State Department and the British Foreign Office to minimize the damage done to ongoing imperialist activities. These reports therefore fail to provide an adequate picture of the sheer skullduggery of American imperialism all over the world.

A few examples—all from a single weekend’s posting on the WikiLeaks site—give a glimpse of the systematic double-dealing that are the essence of the predatory foreign policy of Washington. In each instance, the cable tells the truth, in direct contradiction to the public position of the US government, which is a lie.

September 9, 2009—A cable from the US embassy in Baku, Azerbaijan, reports on a visit by two unnamed leaders of the Kashgai tribe in the adjacent region just across the Iranian border. Three months after the disputed Iranian presidential election, the two men note that while members of their tribe regarded opposition candidate Mehdi Karroubi favorably, as a member of another minority ethnic group, the Lurs, “most Kashgai probably voted for Ahmadinejad, as a result of gratitude for improved health, education, and infrastructure services and/or monetary inducements.

This cable undermines the official US lie that Ahmadinejad “stole” the presidential election, one of the principal components of the ongoing propaganda campaign against Iran. The failure of opposition candidates Karroubi and Mirhossein Mousavi to win the vote in non-Persian northwest Iran was invariably cited as “proof” of official ballot rigging. But the embassy cable demonstrates that the US government knew that their support in that region was weak.

December 26, 2009—A cable from the US embassy in Sana, Yemen relayed the Yemeni foreign minister’s request that the Obama administration should deny responsibility for US air strikes against alleged Al Qaeda targets in that country, which left dozens of civilians dead. Instead, the official urged the US to “highlight … indigenous counterterrorism capabilities.”

In other words, the Yemeni government asked the US government to help it lie to its own people, as well as the world, and Washington obliged.

January 15, 2010—A cable from the embassy in Morocco reported a successful US operation against Dadis Camara, leader of a military coup in the West African country of Guinea, who was receiving medical treatment at a Moroccan hospital. The State Department regarded Camara as less reliable than the officer who replaced him during his illness.

Moroccan officials put Camara on board a small plane, telling him he was going back to Guinea, but he was instead flown to Burkina Faso, a neighboring country, and placed under house arrest. In effect, Camara was kidnapped at the behest of the US government, which publicly denied any role in the affair.

Another series of cables from the US embassy in Paris in March 2010, track the visit of French President Sarkozy to former French colonies in Africa, noting shifts in French military and economic policy in that area. The cable noted that while in Niger, Sarkozy acted as a shill for the giant uranium monopoly AREVA.

This dispatch underscores one of the driving forces of foreign policy for all the imperialist powers: the financial interests of the giant corporations. The United States is no exception, as demonstrated by two more excerpts from the weekend postings on WikiLeaks:

The US embassy in Madrid noted the intercession of the American ambassador in January 2009 on behalf of General Electric, which had complained that the Spanish government “was not welcoming US bidders on procurement contracts.” When the Spanish Ministry of Defense awarded a contract to provide helicopter motors to the British-based Rolls Royce, Prime Minister Zapatero “overturned the decision and it was announced that GE had won the bid. The Ambassador is convinced that Zapatero personally intervened in the case in favor of GE.”

Another cable, sent in August 2007 by the US embassy in Bolivia, details attacks on the property of American corporations by the nationalist government of President Evo Morales: “A number of Evo’s recent actions and statements have been seen as anti-investment by the industries affected: to give only a few examples, the forced renegotiation of petroleum contracts, the nationalization of Glencore’s Vinto smelter, Evo’s stated intention to create a state energy and electricity company.”

The embassy adds, “One U.S. investment which is vulnerable is San Cristobal mine, which is 65 percent owned by Apex Silver. San Cristobal would be particularly hard-hit by a bill currently in Congress, which would increase mining taxes.”

Imperialism is the global policy of finance capital, rapacious and predatory. This remains as true today as it was when Lenin wrote his classic work Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism in 1915. It is to the great credit of WikiLeaks that the organization has provided irrefutable documentation of this historical reality.

By Patrick Martin

06 December, 2010

WSWS.org