Just International

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors

Archives: Articles

After Russia’s UN Veto, US Talks Of “Coalition Of The Willing” Against Syria

The veto by Russia and China of a United Nations Security Council resolution will not halt ongoing preparations for Western-backed intervention against Syria. The discussion on the resolution was a political manoeuvre from the outset, designed either to force Moscow and Beijing into agreeing to a UN cover for a Libya-style operation against the regime of President Bashar al-Assad, or justify a predetermined alternative route to regime-change.

This goal has nothing to do with the humanitarian posturing of the US, France, the UK and the various despots that make up the Arab League. The aim is to install a pro-Western government dominated by Sunni forces close to the Gulf States, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, thus further isolating Iran, the main ally of the current Syrian regime.

Iran is seen as the only regional obstacle to total US hegemony over the oil-rich Middle East and Caspian Basin. Eliminating the Assad regime and weakening Tehran would also serve to push Russia and China out of their remaining bases of influence.

The US, Britain and France sought to use a demand from the Arab League, supposedly based upon the report of its observer mission to Syria, to condemn the crackdown by the Assad regime and call for Assad to hand over power to his deputy in preparation for a new government that would include the opposition. According to the proposed resolution, this would be followed by new elections.

The invocation of the League’s mission was thoroughly dishonest. The observers had found that the violence was abating and that the Syrian government was complying with most of the Arab League’s requirements. They had called for an extension of their mission in Syria. The response of Saudi Arabia was to end its participation while the Emir of Qatar went on CNN to call for Arab military intervention.

Qatar assumed the role of Arab League chair by paying off the Palestinian Authority, whose turn it was to hold the post, with $400 million in aid. It used its position to suppress the observers’ report, demand that Assad quit, and call off the mission. It then forwarded the “recommendation” that Assad step aside to the UN.

While some aspects of the Arab League’s proposals were omitted from the final draft, the resolution, if passed, would have still provided the US with a cover for action against Syria. It welcomed the League’s demands, including for Assad to leave, while not detailing them as in earlier drafts of the resolution.

As Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov pointed out, the resolution’s call to “withdraw all Syrian military and armed forces from cities and towns and return them to their original home barracks” was an ultimatum the regime could not possibly accept, given that it faces an armed insurrection (backed by the West). That demand was inserted for the purpose of creating a casus belli for more direct military intervention.

Moscow also objected to the resolution’s placing the entire blame for the violence on the regime. It stated that “measures must be taken to influence not only the government…but also the armed groups, because unless you do it both ways, you are taking sides in a civil war.”

As the debate on the vote reached its belated deadline, the Syrian opposition was mobilised. The Syrian National Council (SNC) and the Free Syrian Army, which are backed by Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, as well as the London-based Syrian Observatory, went on a propaganda offensive.

Reports flooded the media that Syrian security forces had bombarded districts of the city of Homs. The figures on alleged casualties increased with each passing hour, first 200, then 260, then 300-plus, with reported injuries of more than 1,000. Seven Syrian embassies were attacked, including in the UK, France and Australia, in a coordinated campaign meant to highlight what was denounced as the worst massacre yet.

Homs became the pulpit from which the US, France and Britain posed as outraged defenders of human rights.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that Russia and China were complicit in atrocities perpetrated by the Assad regime. “To block this resolution is to bear the responsibility for the horrors that are occurring on the ground in Syria,” she declared.

President Barack Obama issued a statement condemning what he called “the Syrian government’s unspeakable assault against the people of Homs” and accusing Assad of having “murdered hundreds of Syrian citizens, including women and children.”

Washington’s UN envoy Susan Rice said that Russia and China aimed to “sell out the Syrian people and shield a craven tyrant.” She later wrote on Twitter, “Disgusted that Russia and China prevented the UN Security Council from fulfilling its sole purpose.”

 

None of the establishment media even hinted at the cynical and hypocritical character of these statements of supposed moral revulsion from officials who have praised the US intervention in Iraq, which involved atrocities such as the destruction of Fallujah that go far beyond anything committed by the Syrian regime, and who bear political responsibility for massacres, targeted assassinations and torture in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Libya.

French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe proclaimed, “Those who block the adoption of such a resolution will bear a heavy responsibility in history… the massacre in Homs is a crime against humanity and those responsible will have to answer for it.”

The highly belligerent tone of the US, French and British denunciations of Russia and China was a noteworthy and ominous indication of mounting intrigues directed against Moscow and Beijing. The latter undoubtedly have taken note.

It is impossible at this stage to know precisely what happened in Homs. The Assad regime has denied reports of shelling, stating that the only film of casualties made available, showing eight bodies in a room, revealed no signs of mortar fire. The government claims that the corpses were of “citizens who were kidnapped and killed by armed gunmen.”

The New York Times in an account published Sunday that echoes the line of the Obama administration and the Syrian opposition nevertheless acknowledged that the renewed fighting in Homs was provoked by the opposition. Citing oppositional “activists,” the newspaper reported that Syrian Army “defectors” attacked two military checkpoints Friday and abducted between 13 and 19 Syrian soldiers. This attack coincided with the negotiations in the UN Security Council on the Western-backed resolution.

But nothing could stop the media from reporting in chorus and uncritically the claims of the opposition. Only Reuters made the obvious point that “It was not immediately clear what had prompted Syrian forces to launch such an intense bombardment, just as diplomats at the Security Council were discussing the draft resolution supporting the Arab League demand for Dr. Assad to step aside.”

The BBC was alone in reporting that whereas “Early accounts of the casualties in Homs on Saturday talked of as many as 200 deaths… one of the main activist groups [the Local Coordinating Committees] later revised its confirmed toll down to 55.”

The US and France now appear set to proceed outside of the UN, forming a new version of the “coalition of the willing” that pursued the 2003 war against Iraq—with the Arab League and Turkey providing political cover.

“Faced with a neutered Security Council, we have to redouble our efforts outside of the UN with those allies and partners who support the Syrian people’s right to have a better future,” Clinton stated.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy said France would work with its European and Arab partners to create what he called a “group of friends of the Syrian people.”

With Arab League foreign ministers slated to meet in Cairo next Saturday, Egyptian Foreign Minister Mohamed Kamel Amr called for a solution in Syria “within an Arab context.”

By Jean Shaoul & Chris Marsden

6 February 2012

@ WSWS.org

 

Afghanistan: 450 Bases And It’s Not Over Yet

In late December, the lot was just a big blank: a few burgundy metal shipping containers sitting in an expanse of crushed eggshell-colored gravel inside a razor-wire-topped fence. The American military in Afghanistan doesn’t want to talk about it, but one day soon, it will be a new hub for the American drone war in the Greater Middle East.

Next year, that empty lot will be a two-story concrete intelligence facility for America’s drone war, brightly lit and filled with powerful computers kept in climate-controlled comfort in a country where most of the population has no access to electricity. It will boast almost 7,000 square feet of offices, briefing and conference rooms, and a large “processing, exploitation, and dissemination” operations center — and, of course, it will be built with American tax dollars.

Nor is it an anomaly. Despite all the talk of drawdowns and withdrawals, there has been a years-long building boom in Afghanistan that shows little sign of abating. In early 2010, the U.S.-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) had nearly 400 bases in Afghanistan. Today, Lieutenant Lauren Rago of ISAF public affairs tells TomDispatch, the number tops 450.

The hush-hush, high-tech, super-secure facility at the massive air base in Kandahar is just one of many building projects the U.S. military currently has planned or underway in Afghanistan. While some U.S. bases are indeed closing up shop or being transferred to the Afghan government, and there’s talk of combat operations slowing or ending next year, as well as a withdrawal of American combat forces from Afghanistan by 2014, the U.S. military is still preparing for a much longer haul at mega-bases like Kandahar and Bagram airfields. The same is true even of some smaller camps, forward operating bases (FOBs), and combat outposts (COPs) scattered through the country’s backlands. “Bagram is going through a significant transition during the next year to two years,” Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Daniel Gerdes of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Bagram Office recently told Freedom Builder, a Corps of Engineers publication. “We’re transitioning… into a long-term, five-year, 10-year vision for the base.”

Whether the U.S. military will still be in Afghanistan in five or 10 years remains to be seen, but steps are currently being taken to make that possible. U.S. military publications, plans and schematics, contracting documents, and other official data examined by TomDispatch catalog hundreds of construction projects worth billions of dollars slated to begin, continue, or conclude in 2012.

While many of these efforts are geared toward structures for Afghan forces or civilian institutions, a considerable number involve U.S. facilities, some of the most significant being dedicated to the ascendant forms of American warfare: drone operations and missions by elite special operations units. The available plans for most of these projects suggest durability. “The structures that are going in are concrete and mortar, rather than plywood and tent skins,” says Gerdes. As of last December, his office was involved in 30 Afghan construction projects for U.S. or international coalition partners worth almost $427 million.

The Big Base Build-Up

Recently, the New York Times reported that President Obama is likely to approve a plan to shift much of the U.S. effort in Afghanistan to special operations forces. These elite troops would then conduct kill/capture missions and train local troops well beyond 2014. Recent building efforts in the country bear this out.

A major project at Bagram Air Base, for instance, involves the construction of a special operations forces complex, a clandestine base within a base that will afford America’s black ops troops secrecy and near-absolute autonomy from other U.S. and coalition forces. Begun in 2010, the $29 million project is slated to be completed this May and join roughly 90 locations around the country where troops from Combined Joint Special Operations Task Force-Afghanistan have been stationed.

Elsewhere on Bagram, tens of millions of dollars are being spent on projects that are less sexy but no less integral to the war effort, like paving dirt roads and upgrading drainage systems on the mega-base. In January, the U.S. military awarded a $7 million contract to a Turkish construction company to build a 24,000-square-foot command-and-control facility. Plans are also in the works for a new operations center to support tactical fighter jet missions, a new flight-line fire station, as well as more lighting and other improvements to support the American air war.

Last month, Afghan President Hamid Karzai ordered that the U.S.-run prison at Bagram be transferred to Afghan control. By the end of January, the U.S. had issued a $36 million contract for the construction, within a year, of a new prison on the base. While details are sparse, plans for the detention center indicate a thoroughly modern, high-security facility complete with guard towers, advanced surveillance systems, administrative facilities, and the capacity to house about 2,000 prisoners.

At Kandahar Air Field, that new intelligence facility for the drone war will be joined by a similarly-sized structure devoted to administrative operations and maintenance tasks associated with robotic aerial missions. It will be able to accommodate as many as 180 personnel at a time. With an estimated combined price tag of up to $5 million, both buildings will be integral to Air Force and possibly CIA operations involving both the MQ-1 Predator drone and its more advanced and more heavily-armed progeny, the MQ-9 Reaper.

The military is keeping information about these drone facilities under extraordinarily tight wraps. They refused to answer questions about whether, for instance, the construction of these new centers for robotic warfare are in any way related to the loss of Shamsi Air Base in neighboring Pakistan as a drone operations center, or if they signal efforts to increase the tempo of drone missions in the years ahead. The International Joint Command’s chief of Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) operations, aware that such questions were to be posed, backed out of a planned interview with TomDispatch.

 

“Unfortunately our ISR chief here in the International Joint Command is going to be unable to address your questions,” Lieutenant Ryan Welsh of ISAF Joint Command Media Outreach explained by email just days before the scheduled interview. He also made it clear that any question involving drone operations in Pakistan was off limits. “The issues that you raise are outside the scope under which the IJC operates, therefore we are unable to facilitate this interview request.”

Whether the construction at Kandahar is designed to free up facilities elsewhere for CIA drone operations across the border in Pakistan or is related only to missions within Afghanistan, it strongly suggests a ramping up of unmanned operations. It is, however, just one facet of the ongoing construction at the air field. This month, a $26 million project to build 11 new structures devoted to tactical vehicle maintenance at Kandahar is scheduled for completion. With two large buildings for upkeep and repairs, one devoted strictly to fixing tires, another to painting vehicles, as well as an industrial-sized car wash, and administrative and storage facilities, the big base’s building boom shows no sign of flickering out.

Construction and Reconstruction

This year, at Herat Air Base in the province of the same name bordering Turkmenistan and Iran, the U.S. is slated to begin a multimillion-dollar project to enhance its special forces’ air operations. Plans are in the works to expand apron space — where aircraft can be parked, serviced, and loaded or unloaded — for helicopters and airplanes, as well as to build new taxiways and aircraft shelters.

That project is just one of nearly 130, cumulatively valued at about $1.5 billion, slated to be carried out in Herat, Helmand, and Kandahar provinces this year, according to Army Corps of Engineers documents examined by TomDispatch. These also include efforts at Camp Tombstone and Camp Dwyer, both in Helmand Province as well as Kandahar’s FOB Hadrian and FOB Wilson. The U.S. military also recently awarded a contract for more air field apron space at a base in Kunduz, a new secure entrance and new roads for FOB Delaram II, and new utilities and roads at FOB Shank, while the Marines recently built a new chapel at Camp Bastion.

Seven years ago, Forward Operating Base Sweeney, located a mile up in a mountain range in Zabul Province, was a well-outfitted, if remote, American base. After U.S. troops abandoned it, however, the base fell into disrepair. Last month, American troops returned in force and began rebuilding the outpost, constructing everything from new troop housing to a new storage facility. “We built a lot of buildings, we put up a lot of tents, we filled a lot of sandbags, and we increased our force protection significantly,” Captain Joe Mickley, commanding officer of the soldiers taking up residence at the base, told a military reporter.

Decommission and Deconstruction

Hesco barriers are, in essence, big bags of dirt. Up to seven feet tall, made of canvas and heavy gauge wire mesh, they form protective walls around U.S. outposts all over Afghanistan. They’ll take the worst of sniper rounds, rifle-propelled grenades, even mortar shells, but one thing can absolutely wreck them — the Marines’ 9th Engineer Support Battalion.

At the beginning of December, the 9th Engineers were building bases and filling up Hescos in Helmand Province. By the end of the month, they were tearing others down.

Wielding pickaxes, shovels, bolt-cutters, powerful rescue saws, and front-end loaders, they have begun “demilitarizing” bases, cutting countless Hescos — which cost $700 or more a pop — into heaps of jagged scrap metal and bulldozing berms in advance of the announced American withdrawal from Afghanistan. At Firebase Saenz, for example, Marines were bathed in a sea of crimson sparks as they sawed their way through the metal mesh and let the dirt spill out, leaving a country already haunted by the ghosts of British and Russian bases with yet another defunct foreign outpost. After Saenz, it was on to another patrol base slated for destruction.

Not all rural outposts are being torn down, however. Some are being handed over to the Afghan Army or police. And new facilities are now being built for the indigenous forces at an increasing rate. “If current projections remain accurate, we will award 18 contracts in February,” Bonnie Perry, the head of contracting for the Army Corps of Engineers’ Afghanistan Engineering District-South, told military reporter Karla Marshall. “Next quarter we expect that awards will remain high, with the largest number of contract awards occurring in May.” One of the projects underway is a large base near Herat, which will include barracks, dining facilities, office space, and other amenities for Afghan commandos.

Tell Me How This Ends

No one should be surprised that the U.S. military is building up and tearing down bases at the same time, nor that much of the new construction is going on at mega-bases, while small outposts in the countryside are being abandoned. This is exactly what you would expect of an occupation force looking to scale back its “footprint” and end major combat operations while maintaining an on-going presence in Afghanistan. Given the U.S. military’s projected retreat to its giant bases and an increased reliance on kill/capture black-ops as well as unmanned air missions, it’s also no surprise that its signature projects for 2012 include a new special operations forces compound, clandestine drone facilities, and a brand new military prison.

There’s little doubt Bagram Air Base will exist in five or 10 years. Just who will be occupying it is, however, less clear. After all, in Iraq, the Obama administration negotiated for some way to station a significant military force — 10,000 or more troops — there beyond a withdrawal date that had been set in stone for years. While a token number of U.S. troops and a highly militarized State Department contingent remain there, the Iraqi government largely thwarted the American efforts — and now, even the State Department presence is being halved.

It’s less likely this will be the case in Afghanistan, but it remains possible. Still, it’s clear that the military is building in that country as if an enduring American presence were a given. Whatever the outcome, vestiges of the current base-building boom will endure and become part of America’s Afghan legacy.

 

On Bagram’s grounds stands a distinctive structure called the “Crow’s Nest.” It’s an old control tower built by the Soviets to coordinate their military operations in Afghanistan. That foreign force left the country in 1989. The Soviet Union itself departed from the planet less than three years later. The tower remains.

America’s new prison in Bagram will undoubtedly remain, too. Just who the jailers will be and who will be locked inside five years or 10 years from now is, of course, unknown. But given the history — marked by torture and deaths — of the appalling treatment of inmates at Bagram and, more generally, of the brutality toward prisoners by all parties to the conflict over the years, in no scenario are the results likely to be pretty.

By Nick Turse

13 February, 2012

@ Tomdispatch.com

is the associate editor of TomDispatch.com. An award-winning journalist, his work has appeared in the Los Angeles Times, the Nation, and regularly at TomDispatch. This article is the sixth in his new series on the changing face of American empire, which is being underwritten by Lannan Foundation. You can follow him on Twitter @NickTurse, on Tumblr, and on Facebook.

Follow TomDispatch on Twitter @TomDispatch and join us on Facebook.

Copyright 2012 Nick Turse

 

‘Perpetual Growth Myth’ Leading World To Meltdown

UN-Sponsored Papers Predict Sustained Ecological and Social Meltdown

“The current system is broken,” says Bob Watson, the UK’s chief scientific advisor on environmental issues and a winner of the prestigious Blue Planet prize in 2010. “It is driving humanity to a future that is 3-5°C warmer than our species has ever known, and is eliminating the ecology that we depend on for our health, wealth and senses of self.”

“We cannot assume that technological fixes will come fast enough. Instead we need human solutions. The good news is that they exist but decision makers must be bold and forward thinking to seize them.”

Watson’s comments accompanied a new paper released today by 20 past winners of the Blue Planet Prize – often called the Nobel Prize for the environment, and comes ahead of the 20th anniversary of the Rio+20 conference – which takes place in June this year – where world leaders will (it is hoped) seize the opportunity to set human development on a new, more sustainable path.

Civilization Faces ‘Perfect Storm of Ecological and Social Problems’

The Guardian’s John Vidal reports:

In the face of an “absolutely unprecedented emergency”, say the […] past winners of the Blue Planet prize – the unofficial Nobel for the environment – society has “no choice but to take dramatic action to avert a collapse of civilization. Either we will change our ways and build an entirely new kind of global society, or they will be changed for us”.

The stark assessment of the current global outlook by the group, who include [Watson]… US climate scientist James Hansen, Prof José Goldemberg, Brazil’s secretary of environment during the Rio Earth summit in 1992, and Stanford University Prof Paul Ehrlich. […]

Apart from dire warnings about biodiversity loss and climate change, the group challenges governments to think differently about economic “progress”.

“The rapidly deteriorating biophysical situation is more than bad enough, but it is barely recognized by a global society infected by the irrational belief that physical economies can grow forever and disregarding the facts that the rich in developed and developing countries get richer and the poor are left behind.

“The perpetual growth myth … promotes the impossible idea that indiscriminate economic growth is the cure for all the world’s problems, while it is actually the disease that is at the root cause of our unsustainable global practices”, they say.

 

The group warns against over-reliance on markets but instead urges politicians to listen and learn from how poor communities all over the world see the problems of energy, water, food and livelihoods as interdependent and integrated as part of a living ecosystem.

The paper urges governments to:

>> Replace GDP as a measure of wealth with metrics for natural, built, human and social capital – and how they intersect.

>> Eliminate subsidies in sectors such as energy, transport and agriculture that create environmental and social costs, which currently go unpaid.

>> Tackle over-consumption, and address population pressure by empowering women, improving education and making contraception accessible to all.

>> Transform decision making processes to empower marginalized groups, and integrate economic, social and environmental policies instead of having them compete.

>> Conserve and value biodiversity and ecosystem services, and create markets for them that can form the basis of green economies.

>> Invest in knowledge – both in creating and in sharing it – through research and training that will enable governments, business, and society at large to understand and move towards a sustainable future.

“Sustainable development is not a pipe dream,” says Dr Camilla Toulmin, director of the International Institute for Environment and Development. “It is the destination the world’s accumulated knowledge points us towards, the fair future that will enable us to live with security, peace and opportunities for all. To get there we must transform the ways we manage, share and interact with the environment, and acknowledge that humanity is part of nature not apart from it.”

Achim Steiner, UN Under-Secretary General and UNEP Executive Director, said: “The paper by the Blue Planet laureates will challenge governments and society as a whole to act to limit human-induced climate change, the loss of biodiversity and the degradation of ecosystem services in order to ensure food, water energy and human security. I would like to thank Professor Watson and colleagues for eloquently articulating their vision on how key development challenges can be addressed, emphasizing solutions; the policies, technologies and behavior changes required to grow green economies, generate jobs and lift people out of poverty without pushing the world through planetary boundaries.”

***

A second UNEP report was also released today in Kenya. Though separate from the assessment of the Planet Blue laureates, it echoes many of their themes and concerns.

 

Capital FM News in Kenya reports:

A new report by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has warned of a continued deterioration in the state of the global environment due to failure by governments to implement internationally agreed goals.

The summary report released at the sidelines of a UNEP Governing Council meeting in Nairobi stated that out of the 90 internationally agreed goals, only 40 were in progress, 32 had insufficient progress while 13 were not in development at all.

“We have failed to meet agreed goals,” Peter Gilruth Director Division of Early Warning Assessment (DEWA) UNEP said.

“The internationally agreed goal of avoiding the adverse effects of climate change is presenting the global community with one of its most serious challenges that is threatening overall development goals,” he noted.

He added that the rate at which forest loss, particularly in the tropics was taking place remained alarmingly high.

“Today, 80 percent of the world’s population live in areas with high levels of threat to water security, affecting 3.4 billion people mostly in developing countries,” he stated.

The Fifth Global Environment Outlook (GEO 5) assessed progress and gaps in the implementation of internationally agreed goals on environment and the full report would be released in June ahead of the Rio+20 Summit on sustainable development.

The report recommended that policy makers focus on the underlying drivers of environmental change such as the negative aspects of population growth, consumption and production, urbanisation rather than just concentrating on reducing environmental pressures or symptoms.

“The solutions put on the table are not intended to be prescriptive in nature but rather a menu of options that you (governments) might want to look at for your own use. It is just a potential source of information to assist in decision making,” Gilruth said.

By Common Dreams Staff

21 February 2012

@ Commondreams.org

Koodankulam: Manmohan Singh’s Grand And Faulty Obsession

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has invited foreign money and entities, including the Koodankulam plant, into India like no other PM and most of it is hurting the interests of local communities, says Sandeep Pandey

India has done a commendable job by voting in favour of a United Nations Human Rights Council resolution censuring Sri Lanka [ Images ] for human rights violations of its Tamilian population. The Tamil Nadu government played an important role in convincing the reluctant Indian government to take a position on this issue. Although it opens the possibility of Sri Lanka raising the issue of human rights violations in Kashmir , etc, India should have and has taken an ethically correct position.

However, the state and the central governments do not seem to share the same concern for their own Tamil population protesting against a nuclear power plant being thrust upon them at Koodankulam, not far from Kanyakumari. People genuinely feel unsafe after the Fukushima accident about a year back and are concerned about their lives and livelihoods.

While the first phase of this plant with a capacity of 2000 MW, till date the largest nuclear power plant in India, was being set up locals were enthusiastic about it. They foresaw the possibility of employment generation and attendant benefits of industrial development. They never took Nagercoil based SP Udayakumar or any of the anti-nuclear activists coming from outside, who told them about the hazards of radioactivity, seriously.

In June 2011 the government decided to conduct a mock safety drill in the event of a possible accident. This drill rang the alarm bells. People saw the real possibility of an accident and overnight the public opinion turned against the nuclear power plant. Whereas in the earlier protests the activists could muster only hundreds of people, the first protest after the mock drill attracted close to 20,000 villagers. Udayakumar became a saviour for them.

Since then people have been waging a valiant battle against the State. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh seems to have put his prestige once again at stake like he did for the Indo-US nuclear deal. He has gone all out in indulging in character assassination of the activists. One would have hoped that the governments would have learnt lessons from Singur and Nandigram incidents. But clearly, Chief Minister Jayalalithaa and Manmohan Singh are getting desperate. One of them is accusing Udayakumar of working with American money and the other is accusing him of being a Naxal. These are now outdated tactics of suppressing the people’s voice.

A heavy contingent of police has been posted in the area to cordon off the protesting villagers from the outside world. The movement has so far remained totally peaceful even though a large numbers of people have been involved. In fact, the people deserve to be commended for this. Instead, the State is trying to provoke them. Once again this proves that people never indulge in violence. It is always the State which creates situation where violence erupts.

Manmohan Singh has invited foreign money and entities, including the Koodankulam plant, into this country like no other PM and most of it is hurting the interests of local communities. Hence, whether it is a question of inviting foreign money or using violence, it is quite clear that the government is the real culprit and it is also working against the interest of people of this country.

Thus, the government seems to be engaged in anti-national activities rather than the activists. The activists are protecting the people and empowering them to exercise their democratic rights. They are encouraging people to ask questions, a must for any functioning democracy. They should be credited for the deepening of democracy in this country.

In the West, people have often come out in large numbers on the streets to protest against nuclear activities. It is one of the important reasons why most developed countries are shedding their nuclear status. The disposal of radioactive waste is a serious problem to which the scientists haven’t found a safe solution. Japan and European Union are committed to developing a no nuclear and low carbon energy solution. The countries are evolving their positions from past learning.

However, the largest democracy in the world seems to have adopted high-handed ways of dealing with this question. The unelected PM of over 120 crore people takes a unilateral decision in this matter and uses subterfuge to thrust his decision upon the people. What he is doing is neither development nor a scientific-democratic way of doing things.

If fulfilling the energy needs is a priority then one doesn’t have to go anywhere else to look for alternative. The Koodankulam coastline is dotted with numerous windmills, including several of them inside the nuclear power plant. Incidentally, the new safety plans at Koodankulam intend to use backup power from wind energy in case of a Fukushima type accident. The electricity produced from wind energy in Tamil Nadu exceeds what the Koodankulam nuclear plant is likely to produce. Instead of pushing a controversial project, the decision-makers would do well to think of expanding the wind power base in this area.

However, if the Koodankulam nuclear power plant is part of the grand design of military-industrial complex, slated to enhance India’s status as a powerful nation, then we’re on a self-defeating path. No country which has focussed on enhancing its military power has remained peaceful and neither has it allowed others to live in peace. Manmohan Singh is seriously changing the role of the Indian nation from that of a harbinger of peace to that of an aggressive ally of the most notorious military power in the world.

India having become the largest importer of arms in the world and American and Israeli soldiers training Indian soldiers, doesn’t bode well for us.

By Sandeep Pandey

27 March 2012

@ Rediff.com

Magsaysay Award winner Sandeep Pandey is a social activist.

Giuliani openly promotes terrorism as a way to stop Iranian nuclear program

Rudolph “Rudy” Giuliani, the former mayor of New York City during the time surrounding the tragic events of September 11, 2001, is now coming out in support of terrorism.

As absurd as it sounds, it is unfortunately true. He has voiced support for the terrorist group known as Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), even going as far as to claim that supporting terrorism is the only thing that can stop the Iranian nuclear program.

Keep in mind; this is the same group which, according to anonymous U.S. officials, is working with the Israeli intelligence agency Mossad to carry out terrorist attacks and assassinations in Iran.

According to the International Business Times, Giuliani made these disturbing statements at a press conference earlier this week in Paris, France.

He spoke with former U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey, the former chief of Homeland Security Tom Ridge, the former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, and former Representative for Rhode Island Patrick Kennedy.

It is impossible to deny at this point that this terrorist group has some very powerful allies in Washington.

“I have a feeling that the only thing that will stop [Ayatollah Ali Khamenei] and the only thing that will stop [President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad is if they see strength, if they see power, if they see determination, if they see an America that is willing to support the people that want to overthrow the regime of Iran,” Giuliani said.

The MEK is still officially listed as a foreign terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department, which makes one wonder how anyone except these Washington players would be treated if they openly expressed support for an organization like al Qaeda, al Shabaab or the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC).

Something tells me that if you were not in such a position of power, you very well might be targeted as a supposed supporter of terrorism.

Seeing as providing “material support or resources” to any organization on the State Department’s list is actually a crime, one must wonder how these people supporting and promoting the MEK are not held accountable for their actions.

Indeed, three former senior U.S. officials are currently under investigation for accepting speaking fees from the MEK.

These individuals include Ed Rendell who is the former Governor of Pennsylvania, former mayor of Philadelphia, former Chairman of the Democratic National Committee and former Chairman of the National Governors Association; former Director of the FBI Louis Freeh and former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, retired General Hugh Shelton.

However, these are not the only political figures who have been paid to speak by the MEK. Indeed, others include former Vermont Governor and Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean, retired General Wesley Clark, Chief of Staff for the Bush White House Andy Card, former Governor of New Mexico Bill Richardson and former Representative Lee Hamilton, who incidentally was the co-chairman of the 9/11 Commission.

How these individuals who claim to be opposed to terrorism and so often point to the tragic events of September 11, 2001 as justification for the erosion of our freedoms can turn around and openly support a designated terrorist organization is beyond comprehension.

Giuliani was invited to the conference in Paris by the French Committee for a Democratic Iran. It is unclear if he was paid and if so, how much he actually received, but Giuliani charges up to $100,000 for every speaking engagement so one must assume it didn’t come cheap.

The United States Treasury Department alleges that groups like the French Committee for a Democratic Iran actually act as a front, allowing for funds to be funneled to speakers by the MEK without having any direct ties.

“This is an utter lie and there is not even a scintilla of truth to it,” MEK spokesman Hossein Abedini said in a statement which was prepared to respond to the allegations.

“The MEK, as the legitimate opposition to the clerical regime, enjoys international recognition in Europe and the U.S. The objective of this failed propaganda is to weaken the widespread public support of the members of Congress, officials and scores of U.S. generals for … revoking of the illegitimate and unjust terror listing of the MEK,” he added.

The MEK has a long and ugly history of terrorist activities, although they claim to have stopped such actions.

However, the MEK is widely regarded as having assisted Saddam Hussein in crushing the uprisings in southern Iraq in 1991 and even participated in or helped with the massacre of Iraqi Kurds.

Suffice it to say, it is nothing short of disturbing to see anyone, especially these high-powered former officials, openly supporting terrorism and the murder of innocent people.

The fact that every single person involved with the MEK is not being investigated and arrested shows just how little our government actually cares about fighting terrorism. In reality, the “War on Terror” is just a flimsy pretext to engage in neo-colonialist adventurism abroad while robbing us blind and stripping us of our rights here at home.

 

I’d love to hear your opinion, take a look at your story tips, and even your original writing if you would like to get it published. Please email me at Admin@EndtheLie.com

Please support our work and help us start to pay contributors by doing your shopping through our Amazon link or check out some must-have products at our store.

This article first appeared at End the Lie.


By Madison Ruppert

30 March 2012

@ Activist Post

Madison Ruppert is the Editor and Owner-Operator of the alternative news and analysis database End The Lie and has no affiliation with any NGO, political party, economic school, or other organization/cause. He is available for podcast and radio interviews. Madison also now has his own radio show on Orion Talk Radio from 8 pm — 10 pm Pacific, which you can find HERE.  If you have questions, comments, or corrections feel free to contact him at admin@EndtheLie.com

China’s Stability Gambit

BEIJING – The first principle that I learned when I started focusing on China in the late 1990’s is that nothing is more important to the Chinese than stability – whether economic, social, or political.

Given centuries of turmoil in China, today’s leaders will do everything in their power to preserve stability. Whenever I have doubts about a potential Chinese policy shift, I examine the options through the stability lens. It has worked like a charm.

Stability was on everyone’s mind at the annual China Development Forum (CDF) held March 17-20 in Beijing. Hosted by Premier Wen Jiabao, with many ministers of the State Council in attendance, the CDF is China’s most important international conference. Yet, literally two days before this year’s CDF began, the controversial Bo Xilai was removed as Party Secretary of Chongqing. As a strong candidate to join the Standing Committee of the Politburo, China’s inner circle of leadership, Bo’s sudden demise was stunning. There was a palpable buzz in the air as we convened in the Diaoyutai State Guesthouse.

The formal sessions played out predictably, placing great emphasis on the coming structural transformation of China’s growth model – a colossal shift from the all-powerful export- and investment-led growth of the past 32 years to a more consumer-led dynamic. There is now broad consensus among China’s senior leadership in favor of such a rebalancing. As one participant put it, “The debate has shifted from what to do to how and when to do it.”

Many of the other themes flowed from this general conclusion. A shift to services-led growth and an innovations-based development strategy were highlighted. At the same time, there was considerable concern about the recent resurgence of state-owned enterprises, which has tilted the distribution of national income from labor to capital – a major impediment to China’s pro-consumption rebalancing. The World Bank and the China Development Research Center (the CDF’s host) had just released a comprehensive report that addressed many aspects of this critical issue.

But the CDF’s formal proceedings never even hinted at the elephant in the chambers of Diaoyutai. There was no mention of Bo Xilai and what his dismissal meant for China’s domestic politics in this critical year of leadership transition. While it is easy to get caught up in the swirling tales of palace intrigue that have followed, I suspect that Bo’s removal holds a far deeper meaning.

Chinese officials faced the risk of a dangerous interplay of political and economic instability. Hit by a second external demand shock in three years – first, America’s subprime crisis, and now Europe’s sovereign-debt crisis – any outbreak of internal political instability would pose a far greater threat than might otherwise be the case.

Bo personified that risk. He embodied the so-called “Chongqing model” of state capitalism that has been ascendant in China in recent years – government-directed urbanization and economic development that concentrates power in the hands of regional leaders and state-owned enterprises.

I spent some time in Chongqing – a vast metropolitan area of more than 34 million people – last summer. I left astonished at the scope of the city’s plans. Orchestrated by Chongqing Mayor Huang Qifan, the principal architect of the spectacular Pudong development project in Shanghai, the goal is to transform the Liangjiang area of Chongqing into China’s first inland urban development zone. That would put Liangjiang on a par with coastal China’s two earlier showcase projects – Pudong and the Binhai area of Tianjin.

Yet this is the same state-dominated development model that came under heavy criticism at this year’s CDF – and that stands in sharp contrast to the more market-driven alternative that has gained broad consensus among senior Chinese leaders. In other words, Bo was perceived not only as a threat to political stability, but also as the leading representative of a model of economic instability. By dismissing Bo so abruptly, the central government has, in effect, underscored its unwavering commitment to stability.

This fits with yet another curious piece of the Chinese puzzle. Five years ago, Wen famously warned of a Chinese economy that was in danger of becoming “unstable, unbalanced, uncoordinated, and unsustainable.” I have repeatedly stressed the critical role that Wen’s “Four Uns” have played in shaping the pro-consumption strategy of the “Next China.” Wen’s critique paved the way for China to face its rebalancing imperatives head on.

But, in their formal remarks to the CDF this year, China’s senior leadership – including Premier-designate Li Keqiang – dropped all explicit references to the risks of an “unstable” Chinese economy. In short, the Four Uns have now become three.

In China, such changes in language are no accident. The most likely interpretation is that those at the top no longer want to concede anything when it comes to stability. By addressing economic instability through pro-consumption rebalancing, and political instability by removing Bo, stability has gone from a risk factor to an ironclad commitment.

There can be no mistaking the Chinese leadership’s core message nowadays. They are the first to concede that their growth and development strategy is at a critical juncture. They worry that the “reforms and opening up” of Deng Xiaoping are in danger of losing momentum. By addressing the interplay between economic and political risks to stability, the government is clearing the way for the next phase of China’s extraordinary development. I would not advise betting against their commitment to achieving that goal.

By Stephen Roach

26 March 2012

@ Project Syndicate

How do honour killings differ from crimes of passion?

Her name was Melissa. She was 22. Her murderer’s name was Torbjörn, a Stockholmer with a criminal record and contacts in Hells Angels circles. He was 37, had been her “boyfriend” for two years and was sentenced to life. His friend, who may have participated in planning the murder, was sentenced to two years for desecrating a grave.

Two months later, Fadime was shot by her father, who was visiting her in Uppsala. The murder of Fadime, like that of Melissa became a long-running saga in the mass media; but the focus of articles and agitated emotions was dramatically different.

In the case of Melissa, the murder is treated as a piece of classical criminal journalism. Looking back, several of the articles read like titillating entertainment. Melissa’s beauty is stressed by illustrating the articles with photographs taken from her modelling portfolio. Several of the articles maintain that she used to wear black leather trousers and flirted with death-metal music and Satanism. The description of her stresses her sexuality, while her murderer is portrayed, of course, as an object of hatred – he weighs 140 kilos and has tattoos all over his body.

By contrast, the description of Fadime is severe, almost chaste. The murder is presented as an ideological or religious act, and does not follow the traditional pattern of crime journalism.

Nevertheless, there are obvious parallels. In both cases, a beautiful, outgoing young woman with a zest for life is dependent on an older man – Fadime on her father and Melissa on her boyfriend. Both cases involved older men with a need to control younger women who were in the process of breaking free. In both cases, the women had been subjected to increasing unease linked with death threats. In both cases, their rebellion was punished by death.

There are also differences between the cases. According to the mass media and concurring with the court judgment, the murder of Melissa was a cruel and premeditated killing linked with torture, but also an obviously “insane act” based on jealousy. The boyfriend simply could not tolerate Melissa going her own way and planning her own future outside his influence. But the murder of Fadime was a “culturally determined honour killing.” Her father simply could not tolerate Fadime going her own way.

“Melissa murders” are not unusual in Sweden. There are 15 to 20 every year in which the main circumstances are similar: threats, dependence, ill treatment and violence. Every year, Swedish women flee for their lives and seek protection wherever they can find it – in remote villages, with friends or in one of the refuges for women, of which there are more than 200.

Every year, Swedish society produces a new generation of threatened women who can testify to the lack of legal rights and the lukewarm interest shown by the police and other authorities.

Evidence of this lack of legal rights is interesting. In the debate about honour killings, it is claimed specifically that legislation in Muslim countries (as distinct from culturally advanced Sweden) favours and legitimizes violence on the part of men.

This systematic violence directed at women – for systematic violence is exactly what it is, and what it would be called if it affected to a similar extent trade unionists, or Jews, or the disabled – is never regarded as a “cultural problem” in Sweden. Indeed, one could ask if it is regarded as a problem at all, apart from in a strictly legal context.

But there is practically nothing available written by a Swedish social polemicist in which the writer tries to explain the murder of Melissa from a Swedish cultural-anthropological or broader cultural perspective. Such argumentation is reserved exclusively for “immigrants,” “Kurds” or “Muslims,” who can be studied in relation to Swedish culture.

It is, of course, impossible to compare the violent treatment of women and suggest that one murder is more cruel than another. In that respect, Fadime and Melissa were sisters.

An objection frequently made by supporters of a “cultural-anthropological” approach – and the argument is legitimate, to a certain extent – is that a fundamental difference between the murders of Melissa and Fadime is that few Swedish murders are encouraged by relations, close family and close friends. But this thesis is not completely true, either. Surprisingly often – as was the case with Melissa – violence is encouraged by individuals in the killer’s close circle of friends. It is difficult to find any other explanation for the willingness of friends of Swedish women-murderers to assist in tidying up the scene of the crime.

There are plenty of examples. A case that attracted a lot of attention a few years ago was the woman who committed suicide at the home of a notorious middle-aged swindler, known as the Count. When the girlfriend died on his sofa after repeated quarrels, the Count did not telephone the police, but contacted three male friends, who quickly appeared with hacksaws. Then, in accordance with good old Swedish traditions, the men drove around, dumping her remains bit by bit. This case has not been subjected to cultural-anthropological scrutiny, either.

By Stieg Larsson

30 March 2012

@ Globe and Mail

From The Expo Files: Articles By Crusading Journalist Stieg Larsson.© Reprinted with permission of Penguin Group (Canada).

The Original Sin

The Original Sin
By Uri Avnery

 

A friend of mine in Warsaw told me about a Polish journalist who visited Israel for the first time. On his return he reported with great excitement: “You know what I’ve discovered? In Israel, too, there are Jews!”

For this Pole, Jews are people who wear a long black kaftan and a big black hat. In almost every souvenir shop in Poland, little figures like this are exhibited along with other classics like the nobleman, the artisan and the peasant.

This distinction between Israelis and Jews would not have surprised any of us 50 years ago. Before the foundation of the State of Israel, none of us spoke about a “Jewish state”. In our demonstrations we chanted: “Free Immigration! Hebrew State!” In almost all media quotations from those days, there appear the two words “Hebrew state”, almost never “Jewish state”.

IN SCHOOL we acquired an ardent love for the country, the language and the Bible (which we considered the classic book of Hebrew literature.) We learned to regard with disdain – if not worse – Jewish life in the Diaspora. (All this, of course, before the Holocaust.) In 1933 I lived for half a year in Nahalal, the legendary communal village. Seeing it for the first time, I marveled at the communal hall building, the milk processing plant and the large agricultural school for girls (in which Moshe Dayan was the only male pupil). Out of curiosity I asked about the synagogue and was shown a ramshackle wooden hut. “That’s for the old ones,” one of the local boys told me pityingly. One cannot understand what happened since then without knowing that in those days almost everyone believed that the Jewish religion was about to disappear, together with the Yiddish-speaking old people who still stuck to it. Poor geezers. If somebody had predicted that the Jewish religion would dominate the future state, people would have laughed.

ZIONISM WAS, among other things, a rebellion against the Jewish religion. It was born in sin – the sin of secular nationalism, which had swept through Europe after the French revolution.

Zionism rebelled against the Halakha (religious law) which forbade Jews to “ascend” to the holy country en masse. According to the religious myth, God exiled the Jews from the country in retribution for their sins, and only God had the right to bring them back. Because of this, practically all the important rabbis – both the Hassidim and their opponents – cursed the founders of Zionism. (Needless to say, these curses – some of them very juicy ones – do not appear in Israeli schoolbooks.)

Before all the international inquiries preceding the establishment of the state, delegations of Orthodox Jews appeared in order to oppose the Zionist delegations.

 

But David Ben-Gurion, who refused to wear a kippah even at funerals (where most atheists do wear kippahs as a gesture towards the beliefs of others) thought that it was worthwhile to get the Orthodox to join his government coalition. Therefore he promised them to free a few hundred Yeshiva (religious seminary) students from military duty and to pay for their studies and upkeep, so that they would not be obliged to work for a living.

The consequences were unexpected. That little gesture has grown to monstrous proportions. Today one could man several army divisions with those shirkers from army duty. They now constitute 13% of the entire yearly crop of those liable to the draft. Moreover, 65% of all Orthodox male citizens do not work at all and live on the public purse.

The situation is absurd: the state is paying for the upkeep of a large and growing population of Torah-shielded parasites, who undermine the state. The state pays hundreds of thousands of young religious people in order to keep them from – God forbid – working. It pays them generous subsidies so they can produce more and more children (from 5 to 15 per family) most of whom will also neither work nor serve in the army. One can calculate exactly when the economy will collapse, together with the welfare-state and the “citizens’ army” based on conscription.

The whole phenomenon is an authentic Israeli invention. All over the world, Orthodox Jews do work like everyone else. During one of our visits to New York, we wanted to buy a camera. Rachel – who is a professional photographer – was told about the biggest photo shop in town. When we went there, we couldn’t believe our eyes: all the staff of the huge place were Orthodox Jews – all male, of course – clad in their traditional garb. That was the first time we had ever seen Orthodox men working.

This experience had an amusing side. We were both wearing an emblem with the flags of Israel and Palestine. When Rachel went to the cashier to pay, he looked sideways at Rachel’s pin, and without looking at her face asked: “What flag is that?”

“The flag of Israel,” Rachel responded.

“No, the other one!” the man insisted.

“The flag of Palestine’” she answered.

The man turned and spat on the floor, exclaiming loudly “Tfoo, tfoo! Tfoo!”

THE ORTHODOX camp in Israel is a hole which swallows anything that comes too near. For example: the Oriental Jews who came from Islamic countries. (They are frequently called “Sephardi” – “Spaniards” – though only a fraction of them are actually descended from the Jews who were expelled from Spain in 1492.)

The Sephardi religious tradition has always been far more tolerant that the Ashkenazi one. It includes the teachings of geniuses like Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon (Maimonides), the personal physician of the great Saladin. Maimonides forbade religious students to make a living from their studies and ordered them to go out and work. The Sephardis have their own traditions, garments and symbols.

 

But lo and behold, upon coming to Israel, they subordinated themselves to the Ashkenazis and adopted their blind fanaticism, together with the kaftan and the hats that originated in cold Eastern Europe, where they were worn by the non-Jewish upper classes in bygone centuries. Their Sephardi party, Shas, is slavishly subservient to the Ashkenazi Orthodox. Their ”spiritual” leader, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, grovels before the East European anti-Hassidic Rabbis (called “Lithuanians”).

Last week, a miracle occurred. A Sephardic Rabbi, Haim Amsalem, rebelled against Rabbi Ovadia and his party, demanding a return to the Sephardic traditions of tolerance. He was promptly excommunicated.

IN THE early days of the state, the Orthodox Ashkenazis, though extreme in their religious beliefs, were moderate in national affairs. Not only did they not celebrate the Independence Day of the Zionist state or salute the flag of the Zionist heretics, but they also obstructed the nationalist adventures of David Ben-Gurion, Moshe Dayan and Shimon Peres. Later they opposed the annexation of the occupied territories – not because of any excessive love for peace or the Palestinians, but because of the Halakhic ruling that forbids the provocation of the Goyim, because it could cause harm to the Jews.

When the Orthodox set up settlements, they did not do so with any ideological fervor, but solely because of the need to find housing for their ever-growing numbers of offspring. The government gave them cheap land only beyond the Green Line. Nowadays, the largest settlements are Orthodox – Beitar Illit, Immanuel and Modi’in Illit – the last of which is located on land stolen from the Arab village of Bil’in.

WHEREAS THE large religious camp opposed the new Zionist movement, a religious splinter group supported it. In the religious camp they were a small minority. Between the two sides, ardent hatred was the rule.

Thanks to the massive support of the Zionist leadership, the “national-religious” camp grew in Israel at a dizzying pace. Ben Gurion set up a special branch of the educational system for them, which grew more extremist by the year, as did the national-religious youth movement, Bnei Akiva. Members of one generation of the national-religious community became the teachers of the next, which guaranteed an inbuilt process of radicalization. With the beginning of the occupation, they created Gush Emunim (“the Bloc of the Faithful’), the ideological core of the settlement movement. Nowadays this camp is directed by Rabbis whose teachings emit a strong odor of Fascism.

This would not be so terrible if the two opposing religious factions neutralized each other, as was indeed the case 50 years ago. But since then, the opposite has happened. The national-religious have become more and more extreme on the religious level, and the Orthodox more and more extreme on the nationalist level. The two factions are very close to each other today and together constitute an Orthodox-national-religious bloc.

 

The youngsters of the national-religious faction despise the lukewarm religiosity of their fathers and admire the robust religiosity of the Orthodox. The youngsters of the Orthodox faction are seduced by the nationalist melody, unlike their fathers, for whom Israel was just like any goyim-state to be milked.

The union of the two factions is based on the essence of the Jewish religion, as fostered in Israel. It does not resemble the Judaism which existed in the Diaspora – neither the Orthodox nor the Reform model. It must be said: the Jewish religion in Israel is a mutation of Judaism, a tribal, racist, extreme nationalist and anti-democratic creed.

There are now three religious educational systems – the national-religious, the “independent” one of the Orthodox, and “el-Hama’ayan (“to the source”) of Shas. All three are financed by the state at least 100%, if not much more. The differences between them are small, compared to their similarities. All teach their pupils the history of the Jewish people only (based, of course, on the religious myths), nothing about the history of the world, of other peoples, not to mention other religions. The Koran and the New Testament are the kernel of evil and not to be touched.

The typical alumni of these systems know that the Jews are the chosen (and vastly superior) people, that all Goyim are vicious anti-Semites, that God promised us this country and that no one else has a right to one square inch of its land. The natural conclusion is that the “foreigners” (meaning the Arabs, who have been living here for 13 centuries at least) must be expelled – unless this would endanger the Jews.

From this point of view, there is no longer any difference between the Orthodox and the national-religious, between Ashkenazim and Sephardim. Seeing the “youth of the hills”, who terrorize Arabs in the occupied territories, on screen, one cannot distinguish among them anymore – not by their dress, not by their body language, not by their slogans.

The source of all this evil is, of course, the original sin of the State of Israel: the non-separation between state and religion, based on the non-separation between nation and religion. Nothing but a complete separation between the two will save Israel from total domination by the religious mutation.

29 November, 2010
Gush Shalom

 

One Sided Deal

One Sided Deal

By Neve Gordon

 

Imagine a sheriff offering the head of a criminal gang the following deal: ‘If you agree to stop stealing from your neighbours for three months, I’ll give you cutting edge weaponry and block any efforts by other law enforcement authorities to restrain your criminal activities.’

 

Sounds absurd? Then how about this: in return for a three-month freeze of illegal construction in the occupied West Bank (but not in occupied East Jerusalem, where it may continue), Barack Obama has promised to deliver 20 F-35 fighter jets to Israel, a deal worth $3 billion. Moreover, his administration has vowed to curb action by the United Nations on the Goldstone Report, block anti-Israel UN resolutions concerning the Gaza flotilla raid, and defeat resolutions aimed at exposing Israel’s nuclear programme at the International Atomic Energy Agency.

 

In such situations it’s important to keep in mind that the sheriff (Obama) and not the gang leader (Netanyahu) is the major culprit.

Asian People’s Solidarity For Palestine Announces

Asian People’s Solidarity For Palestine Announces 
The Asia To Gaza Solidarity Caravan

05 October, 2010

 

500 civil resisters from 17 Asian countries will join the caravan from India and march through 18 Asian cities of Pakistan, Iran, and Turkey to break the siege of Gaza through the sea route in December 2010

The  Asia to Gaza Solidarity Caravan  is being organised by the  Asian People’s Solidarity for Palestine , an alliance of peoples’ organisations, social movements, trade unions, and civil society institutions of Asia. This struggle is broad-based, varied and multi-dimensional. It is humanitarian and for peace, freedom and  human dignity . It is against occupation, imperialism, apartheid, Zionism  and all forms of discrimination including religious discrimination .  Simultaneous press conferences are being held in 5 countries today – India, Turkey, Iran, Indonesia and Lebanon – to announce the launch of the Asia to Gaza Caravan.  Similar press conferences will be held next week in Syria, Palestine, Malysia, Nepal and Bangladesh.

 

The Asian People’s Solidarity for Palestine extends solidarity to the courageous people of Palestine in their struggle, resistance, and intifada against the Zionist Israeli occupation and affirms its commitment to Palestinian Self-Determination; Ending the Occupation; Equal Rights for All within historic Palestine; the Right of Return for Palestinian refugees; and the Establishment of a Sovereign, Independent and Democratic state of Palestine with Jerusalem as the capital.

 

The Asian People’s Solidarity for Palestine commits to build the solidarity of Asian people for the freedom of Palestine, provide materials, resources, and volunteers to support the struggle of the people of Palestine and oppose our own governments’ decisions and actions that give economic, financial, military and diplomatic support to Israel and allow it to behave with impunity.

 

India Lifeline to Gaza , which is a constituent of the Asian People’s Solidarity for Palestine will have a conference and a large flag off programme in New Delhi on 2nd December 2010. The Caravan will carry relief material for the people of Gaza. The Asia to Gaza Caravan will cross into Pakistan via the Wagah border where members of the Pakistan Solidarity for Gaza will join the Caravan onwards to Iran. In every country and city that the caravan travels through, public meetings will be organised as more activists and participants join the caravan.  We also support  the United Palestinian call of July 2005 for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) to compel Israel to comply with international law; the Palestinian Campaign for Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI); and all other initiatives to end the occupation of Palestine.

 

TENTATIVE CARAVAN SCHEDULE

01 Dec

Participants from East and South East Asia reach New Delhi, India

15-17 Dec

Tabriz , Iran to Eskandarun, Turkey

2-3 Dec

Flag off from New Delhi  
and travel to Wagah border, India-Pakistan Border

18-19 Dec

Eskandarun , Turkey to Damascus, Syria

04 Dec

Reach Lahore, Pakistan

20-21 Dec

Damascus , Syria to Amman Jordan

5-7 Dec

Lahore  to Karachi/Quetta, Pakistan

22-23 Dec

Amman , Jordan to Beirut Lebanon

08 Dec

Karachi/Quetta, Pakistan to Zahedan, Iran

24-26 Dec

Beirut  back to Turkey

9-14 Dec

Zahedan, Iran to Tabriz, Iran

26 Dec

We Sail for Gaza (Palestine)

 

Peaceful Resistance

The civil resisters have resolved to resist the Israeli sea siege in a peaceful manner and following the example of civil resisters such as Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., and Nelson Mandela as well as the long tradition of peaceful resistance from all ethical and religious traditions. The civil resisters are willing to be convicted for their peaceful resistance.

 

India  Lifeline to Gaza

This process has been initiated by Indian people’s movements, social movements, trade unions, civil society organisations and multi-faith and ecumenical organisations. In the two months prior to departure of the Asia to Gaza caravan there will be multi-city programmes in solidarity of the people of Gaza and Palestine. Film festivals of Palestinian films and films of resistance, music concerts, photo exhibits, and theatre productions are being organised by the supporters of the people of Gaza and Palestine.

Palestinian Film Festival: Celebrating Cultures of Resistance

A week-long film festival screening Palestinian films and documentaries is being planned across several cities of India in the last week of October (tentatively 23-30 October). Several other initiatives such as solidarity concerts, theatrical performances, photo exhibits, panel discussions and seminars will also be planned in the days leading up to the flag-off of the Caravan.

 

End the Siege of Gaza • Freedom to Palestine • Boycott Israel

 

Endorsed by:

 

 

Organisations

All India Students Association

Aman Bharat

Asha Parivar

Awami Bharat

Ayodhya Ki Awaaz

Bahujan Sewak Sangh

Banglar Manabadhikar Suraksha Mancha

Bharat Bachao Andolan

Bharat Jan Vigyan Jatha

Campaign for Peace & Democracy (Manipur)

Chhattisgarh Mukti Morcha (Mazdoor Karyakarta Committee)

CPI(ML)

CPI-ML (New Democracy)

Forum against Oppression of Women

Free Gaza – India

Global Gandhi Forum

Hard News

Indian Isladhi Movement

India Palestine People’s Solidarity Forum

Indian Fed of Trade Unions

Insaaniyat

Intercultural Resources

Jamiat-i-Ulema-i-Hind

Jamat-e-Islami-Hind

Le Monde Diplomatique

Loknaad

Mahatma Phule-Dr Ambedkar Vichar Manch

Mazdoor Ekta Manch

Muslim Intellectual Forum

Muslim Political Council of India

National Association of Peoples Movements

National Forum of Forest People and Forest Workers

New Socialist Initiative

New Trade Union Initiative

Palestine  Solidarity Movement

People’s Union for Civil Liberties

Phule-Ambedkar Vichar Manch

Programme against Custodial Torture and Impunity

Progressive Students Union

Republican Panther

Saheli Women’s Resource Centre

Sarva Seva Sangh

Solidarity Youth Movement

South Asia Peace Alliance

South Asian Network of Gender Activists and Trainers

Students Islamic Organisation of India

Trade Union Centre of India

Teesra Swadheenta Andolan

Vidyarthi Bharti

Yuva Koshish

All India Majlis-i-Mushawarrat

Individuals:

Achin Vanaik

Agdish Nagarkar

Ambarish Rai

Amol Madame

Amit Sengupta

Anand Grover

Anand Patwardhan

Anand Swaroop Verma

Anil Chaudhary

Arif Kapadia

Ashish Kothari

Asif Khan

Aslam Ghazi

Bajrang Sonawane

Brig. Sudhir Sawant

Chetna Birje

Dr Sunilam

Ghazala Azad

Gopal Rai

Ihtishaam Ansari

Jai Sen

Javed Naqvi

Kabir Arora

Kalyani Menon-Sen, New Delhi

Khalid Riaz

Medha Patkar

Mehmood Madni

Mukta Srivastava

Mukul Sinha

Mulniwasi Mala

Munawwar Azad

Munawwar Khan

Pandit Jugal Kishore Shastri

Qurratulain Sundus

Reshma  Jagtap

Ritu Menon

Rohini Hensman

Salman Usmani

Sandeep Pandey

Sanjay ShindeSavyasaachi

Sayeed Khan

Sayeeda Hameed

Shabnam Hashmi

Shahid Siddiqui

Sheikh Muhammad Hussain

Shyam Sonar

Sudhir Dhawale

Sumi Saikia

Syed Iftikhar Ahed

Thomas Matthew

Tusha Mittal

Varsha V V

Vasanthi Raman

Vilas Gaikwad

Winnie Thomas

Yawar Ali Qazi

—  
India Lifeline to Gaza c/o ICR 33-D, 3rd Floor Vijay Mandal Enclave 
DDA SFS FLATS 
New Delhi, 110016 Email:  asiatogaza.india@gmail.com We b site: http://www.asiatogaza.net/ Phone: 09711178868; 09911599955; 09820897517