Archives: Articles

Thursday 7 April 2011

Truthout

 

The Blackstone Hotel, Chicago.  A federal development program intended to help poor communities, the New Market Tax Credit, instead funnels up to ten billion taxpayer dollars to big corporations like JPMorgan Chase & Co, Goldman Sachs and Prudential to build luxury hotels, office buildings and a car museum. (Photo: Herkie)

The rich have been getting richer and the poor and the middle class have been getting poorer in the US recently. Here are seven examples that show how the US is going through “Robin Hood in Reverse.”

Between 1948 and 1979, the richest 10 percent of families in the US claimed 33 percent of average income growth. Between 2000 and 2007, the richest 10 percent claimed a full 100 percent of average income growth in the US, according to the Economic Policy Institute.

Business taxes were cut from 46 to 34 percent 25 years ago, according to ProPublica. But today, 115 of the big 500 companies listed on Standard and Poor’s stock index paid federal and other taxes of less than 20 percent over the last five years, according to David Leonhardt of The New York Times.

Don’t let the forces of regression dominate the media – support brave, independent reporting today by making a contribution to Truthout.

General Electric’s tax rate for last year was seven percent, according to ProPublica.

The top five percent of US households claim 63 percent of the entire country’s wealth. The bottom 80 percent hold just 13 percent of the growth, according to the Economic Policy Institute.

Last year, John Paulson, a hedge fund manager “earned” $4.9 billion, according to The New York Times. Ten years ago, it took 25 such managers to collectively earn that much. Last year, the top 25 hedge fund managers pocketed (a much better word) a total of $22 billion. It would take over 440,000 people each earning $50,000 a year to match that amount.

A federal development program intended to help poor communities, the New Market Tax Credit, instead funnels up to ten billion taxpayer dollars to big corporations like JPMorgan Chase & Co, Goldman Sachs and Prudential to build luxury hotels, office buildings and a car museum. Bloomberg Markets Magazine pointed to the Blackstone Hotel in Chicago, which was renovated for $116 million. Prudential got $15.6 million in tax credit from the US Treasury for helping fund the project because the hotel was in a census zone that included two colleges that housed a lot of lower income students.

According to the Financial Times, there are now more people living in poverty in the US than at any time in the last 50 years. Foreclosure filings were nearly four million in 2010, up 23 percent since 2008, according to RealtyTrac.

This work by Truthout is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.

 

 

 

In the afternoon of April 8, 2011, the farce that had begun thirteen weeks ago in El Paso, Texas, came to an end when terrorist Luis Posada Carriles was acquitted of all the charges pressed against him during a migration trial.

 

To all those who have been following the sinister history behind this terrorist and his links with the successive US governments, the FBI and the CIA in his dirty war against Cuba, this is an additional proof of the support and protection that the US authorities have traditionally granted to him.

 

Since the moment of his landing in Florida after traveling from Isla Mujeres in Mexico on board of the “Santrina” boat, as was timely denounced by Commander in Chief Fidel Castro, Posada Carriles has been, as he always was, under the tutelage and protection of the US government.

 

He was tried for committing perjury during a migration process, not for being a terrorist, and this is an outrage against the people of Cuba and the families that were plunged into morning by the actions committed by Posada.

 

The shameless verdict at El Paso is in full contradiction with the anti-terrorist policy that the US government is said to profess, which has even led to military interventions against other nations, taking a toll of thousands of human lives.

 

The US government is absolutely aware of Posada Carriles’ involvement in the blowing-up in mid-air of a Cubana de Aviación airliner off Barbados in 1976, the bombing spree against Cuban tourist facilities in 1997 and his plans to attempt against the life of our Commander in Chief in Panama in 2000, for which he was even convicted in that country.

 

The US government has all the evidence of the crimes committed by Posada, many of which were presented in court at El Paso.

 

We are still to see if the US government is capable of either filing a new claim against Posada Carriles on a charge of terrorism or accepting his extradition to Venezuela, as was requested more than five years ago by that country, taking into account its legal obligation derived from the international covenants it is party to and the UN Security Council Resolution 1373 of 2001, which was promoted by the US government itself.

 

As paradoxical as it may seem, while Posada Carriles is being acquitted, five  Cuban anti-terrorists remain unjustly imprisoned in the United States for collecting information about the actions perpetrated by terrorist of Cuban origin who, like Posada Carriles, are walking free and with impunity down the streets of Miami.

 

Cuba reaffirms that the US government is the chief responsible for this outcome and challenges it to take on its obligations in the struggle against terrorism, without hypocrisy or double standards.

 

Havana, April 9, 2011.

 

 

The current turmoil in North Africa and the Arabian region of
Asia is something that might have momentous consequences for the world that
is dependent a great deal on Arab oil. There are all sorts of analyses and
predictions regarding the unrest in the Arab lands that have remained or
forced to remain politically dormant by the local
autocrats/monarchs/dictators and their western political masters. Two things
assign a very significant position to the Middle East, oil and Islam. The
first one is badly required by most of the countries in the world to keep
their industrialized economies moving and the second one is an extremely
feared faith especially in Western Europe and the USA which believe that it
represents an opposite value-system to that of theirs and for that reason
its adherents are potential terrorists who might destroy the Western world
by means of violence. These beliefs have always been the cardinal principles
of the foreign policies of most of the Western European nations and the USA.
However, they are cunning enough to camouflage these guiding principles of
their foreign policies by employing various euphemisms such as regional
security, geopolitical considerations, respecting local culture and faith,
extending technological expertise and so on depending upon the context.
Western world, in reality, has three major objectives in relation to their
Middle East foreign policy. The first one is obviously to exploit the oil
resources of the Arab world to their advantage, the second one is to keep
militarizing Israel so that it maintains its dominant position in the region
to function as an outpost of the Western world and third is to check the
activities of the radical Islamists who might be helping terrorist
organizations such as al-Qaeda.

In order to protect their interests the Western world, in particular, the
USA have been successfully implementing a strategy for decades i.e. to keep
the Arab masses politically ignorant so that they remain the loyal subjects
of their autocratic and corrupt rulers. It is in this background we may have
to gauge the significance of Saudi Arabia, a country ruled by the most
ruthless and corrupt monarchy which is totally supported by the USA. In
reality the house of Saud and its dominance over the region considered to be
the holiest land for the Muslims, itself is the creation of the Western
world. Until the end of the World War I, almost the entire Middle East was
part of the Turkish Ottoman Empire. When the Western world, Britain to be
precise, got to know about the oil deposits in the Arab land in the
beginning of the twentieth century, they adopted a strategy comprising
deceit, conspiracy, immorality and aggression to destabilize the Ottoman
Empire with an aim to grab the oil-rich deserts of the Middle East. The
clandestine activities of the British spy T E Lawrence (made popular by the
movie, Lawrence of Arabia) in the region that is roughly the area of
present-day Saudi Arabia, were part of the British conspiracy against the
Ottoman Empire.

The turn of events prior and after the First World War helped the British to
achieve their objective. Turkey joined the war on the side of Germany and
with the defeat of the Axis Powers it provided Britain and France to break
up the Ottoman Empire and divide its colonies among themselves. During the
course of war, thanks to the machinations of Lawrence, the Arabs revolted
against their Turkish masters and helped the British destroy the Turkish
fighting forces from inside. The territory of present Saudi Arabia was
consisted of three main provinces of Hejaz, Najd and Asir. The region of
Hejaz, wherein are located the two holy cities of Islam, Mecca and Medina,
was locally under the control of Sharif of Mecca who traced his lineage from
the Prophet Muhammad. The present rulers of the country were in fact outlaws
and bandits who would always be at war with the Sharif to grab control of
the province of Hejaz. The Turkish imperialists, however, had always
supported the Sharif. Consequently, the members of the house of Al Saud had
to seek shelter in the desert. When the British launched their clandestine
campaign to instigate the Arabs against their Turkish masters they made a
pact with the outlaw Saudis that on gaining victory the Saudis would be made
the rulers of the region. With the defeat of Turkey in World War I the
Armistice of Mudros was signed on October 30, 1918 according to which most
of the Arab lands were handed over to the British. The Saudis who had helped
the British during the course of the war demanded their pound of flesh and
the British rewarded them. Thus, the present country of Saudi Arabia came
into existence in 1932 with the amalgamation of the three provinces with the
house of Saud as the absolute monarchs. The first thing the usurpers of
political power did was to name the country after their family name and thus
the historical provinces of Hejaz, Najd and Asir came to be known as the
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. There is no parallel in the history of the world
when a megalomaniac ruler named the entire country after his family name!

The Saudi monarchy came handy for the Western Powers to retain its control
over the oil resources of the country. In the post World War II scenario,
the USA took Saudi Arabia in its firm grip to oversee the outflow of oil. In
return the unscrupulous and terribly corrupt monarchs have always been given
a free hand to treat their people like chattels. Saudi Arabian government is
the worst violator of human rights, gender justice, freedom of speech and
expression, minority rights, civil liberties and right to freedom of
religion. The Muslims in the USA demand to construct a mosque a few blocks
away from the site where the Twin Towers stood before 9/11. However, nobody
can think of constructing a ten by ten feet church in any part of Saudi
Arabia. The Saudi rulers get away with all excesses and barbarism because
the USA extends the unconditional support to the most ruthless monarchy in
the world.

The winds of revolt that are blowing in the Middle East are no doubt long
over due and a healthy sign of people’s aspirations to participate in the
affairs of their nations. However, it is difficult to say that these revolts
will necessarily lead to the establishment of democracy in the region. The
two major stumbling blocks are the USA and Saudi Arabia. While the former
enjoys the military and diplomatic supremacy in world politics the latter
exploits the religious sentiments of the Muslim world. The USA could not
directly intervene in the uprisings of Tunisia and Egypt because the
autocrats of the two countries had outlived as the protectors of American
interests in the region. In Libya the USA and its NATO allies are directly
taking military action because they want to get rid of Gaddafi who is
putting up a stiff resistance against the revolutionaries. In Bahrain, a
tiny country comprising 70 % Shia population the USA and the Saudi Arabia
support a brutal Sunni monarch because it serves their purpose to contain
Iran’s political ambitions. For public consumption the Obama administration
did express its displeasure over Saudi move to send its troops to Bahrain to
kill and torture the protestors. Nevertheless, the Saudi action had the
clandestine approval of Washington.

The turmoil in the Middle East is certainly the expression of democratic
aspirations of the people of the region who have been suffering under
barbaric monarchies and autocracies for long. These rebellions can reach to
their logical conclusion only if the USA refrains from interfering directly
or indirectly in the affairs of the region and most importantly the people
of Saudi Arabia who are politically leading a life of slavery rise against
the tyrannical rule of the House of Saud..Unless the Saudi monarchy is
overthrown the region would never become truly democratic.

___________________________________________________________________________­___
The writer is a political commentator and heads the Centre for Promotion of
Democracy and Secularism.

—
Hatred does not cease by hatred, but only by love; this is the eternal rule.

–The Buddha

Independent.co.uk

Opposition leaders hope that time is on their side. Possibly they are right. But Iraqi opponents of Saddam Hussein thought much the same 20 years ago

Wednesday, 13 April 2011

The conflict between pro and anti-Gaddafi forces in Libya could, according to Moussa Koussa, the former Libyan foreign minister, who has fled to Britain, turn the country into another Somalia. The ingredients are certainly there for a prolonged conflict. Claims that Muammar Gaddafi is about to fall sound unnervingly similar to predictions in 1991 that Saddam Hussein was going to lose power in Iraq after his calamitous defeat in Kuwait and uprisings by Shia and Kurds that he brutally crushed.

In fact, Saddam survived for another 12 years and was finally only overthrown by an American and British invasion that plunged the country deeper than ever into violence from which it has still not recovered. Could the same thing happen with Gaddafi? It no longer seems likely, as it did during the first few weeks of the Libyan uprising, that he will soon be fleeing for his life from Tripoli or will be the victim of a coup by his own lieutenants.

Instead Gaddafi appears to be stabilising his authority and may be there for months or even years. On the ground there is a military stalemate. Small forces from both sides have captured and recaptured the town of Ajdabiya over several weeks, but neither has been able to land a knock-out blow. At times there are more journalists than fighters on the frontline: forays to-and-fro by a few pick-ups with machine guns in the back are reported as if they were German and British divisions fighting in the same area 70 years ago.

Gaddafi has proved that he is the most powerful player in Libya. Air strikes by the US, France and Britain aimed at stopping Gaddafi’s tanks and troops taking Benghazi have had success. The burnt-out carcasses of armoured vehicles litter the sides of the road between Benghazi and Ajdabiya. But the situation has not changed since this early success. It is still only the threat of Nato air strikes that is preventing Gaddafi’s men capturing Benghazi today just as they almost did a few weeks ago.

The opposition leaders comfort themselves with the belief that Tripoli and the east of this vast country is bubbling with unrest that will ultimately boil over and force out Gaddafi and his family. It might happen that way, but there is little sign of it. The regime in Tripoli appears to have recovered its nerve and has the forces to crush any fresh local uprising. For the moment Libya is effectively partitioned with the dividing line running along the old frontier between the historic provinces of Cyrenaica and Tripolitania. Gaddafi’s troops may not be able to advance in the face of air strikes, but they also have not retreated pell-mell after heavy losses. They have adapted to the air threat by driving around in dirt-covered pick-ups which look exactly the same as those driven by rebels and civilians.

Libyans are new to war; casualties have as yet not been heavy compared to the numbers killed and wounded in Lebanon, Iraq and Afghanistan. In Benghazi, petrol is still cheap and the electricity supply almost constant, aside from a three-hour-a-day black-out. But there is also a deep fear that if Gaddafi did take the city his troops, denounced as being largely mercenaries by the rebel leadership, would, as one Benghazi resident put it, “kill all the men and rape all the women”.

The strength of the Transitional National Council is its international political and military support. It is less good at organising a functioning government. As with other Arab uprisings, the opposition is particularly effective at mobilising demonstrations and winning the sympathy of the international media. Benghazi’s old town hall, from the balcony of which Mussolini, Rommel and King Idris addressed crowds in the square below at different times, is now, very appropriately, occupied by the immensely influential satellite television channel al-Jazeera.

When an African Union delegation visited here this week to propose ceasefire terms, which did not include the departure of Gaddafi, the crowd of hostile demonstrators outside the hotel where the meeting was taking place, seemed better organised than the rebel leaders inside. Banners in Arabic, English and French demanded that the dictator should go and asserted that Libya would not be partitioned. Protesters denied there would be any civil war in Libya because the struggle was between the Libyan people on one side and a hated dictator on the other.

Unfortunately, the situation is not so clear cut. Against the odds, Gaddafi and his family are still in business and are unlikely to go away. Libya is effectively divided into two halves. Gaddafi has a core of supporters fighting for him and they cannot all be dismissed as foreign mercenaries. The longer the conflict goes on, and Libyans are forced to take sides, the more it becomes a civil war. The outcome of this conflict, moreover, will be decided by foreign powers, potentially enabling Gaddafi to present himself as a Libyan nationalist defending his country against imperial control.

It would take a long time to reduce Libya to the level of Somalia, but civil conflicts and the hatreds they induce build up their own momentum once the shooting has begun. The headlong flights of rebel militiamen at Ajdabiya after a few shells have landed are much derided by the foreign media. But one of the good things about Libya is that so many young men – unlike Afghans and Iraqis of a similar age – do not know how to use a gun. This will not last.

The opposition leaders in Benghazi hope that time is on their side and that the increasingly isolated regime will crumble from within as it faces irresistible pressure from abroad. Possibly they are right. But Iraqi opponents of Saddam Hussein thought much the same 20 years ago. And conflicts before and after his fall inspired hatreds that wrecked their country beyond repair.

When this Libyan war started I was struck by the parallels with foreign intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now, at close range, I find the similarities even more ominous. We have joined somebody else’s civil war, and it is a war in which Britain, France and the US must inevitably play a leading role. Without our support, the local partner would be defeated within 24 hours.

 

 

The US government has blocked the United Nations’ special rapporteur on torture from visiting Army Private Bradley Manning, who has been held in solitary confinement at Quantico Marine base since July.

Manning has yet to appear in court. The 23-year-old faces 34 charges of leaking classified material to the whistleblower organization WikiLeaks, including evidence of numerous US war crimes committed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Among the charges is that of “aiding the enemy,” which carries a sentence of life in prison or execution.

In addition to living in solitary confinement 23 hours a day in a small, empty cell, Manning has been subjected to forced nudity, deprived of personal possessions including his glasses, denied the ability to exercise or sleep during the day in his cell, and is continually harassed and intimidated by military guards. The soldier issued a letter through his lawyer last month detailing his abuse.

The severity of his charges and the hellish conditions to which he is being subjected make clear that Manning is being held as a political prisoner by the Obama administration.

The UN envoy, Juan Mendez, said Monday, “I am deeply disappointed and frustrated by the prevarication of the US government with regard to my attempts to visit Mr. Manning.” The US “has not been receptive to a confidential meeting with Mr. Manning,” Mendez said in a statement. Military officials stated that the meeting could proceed only with a guard present, meaning that its content could be used against Manning in his court-martial trial.

Mendez issued a reprimand against the US—a measure only rarely undertaken by the UN, and usually in response to the conduct of small, dictatorial regimes—after being repeatedly stonewalled and denied entrance to the Virginia military base by the Obama administration since December.

Commenting to news agency Reuters, Pentagon spokesman Colonel Dave Lapan insisted that only lawyers were allowed unmonitored meetings with Quantico prisoners. Lapan added that there was “considerable misinformation” about Manning’s treatment, dismissing charges of cruelty and abuse. “There is no such thing at Quantico. … These facts are simply not true.”

Manning’s treatment has drawn condemnations from human rights groups and legal experts around the world. The British government, facing a mounting outcry over the mistreatment of the soldier, whose mother is Welsh, last week announced it would press US officials to moderate Manning’s conditions. (See, “British government presses US over treatment of Bradley Manning”)

On Sunday, the New York Review of Books published an open letter from prominent legal scholars to President Barack Obama describing the young soldier’s confinement as “degrading and inhumane conditions that are illegal and immoral.”

The open letter, written by law professors Bruce Ackerman of Yale and Yochai Benkler of Harvard and published under the headline “Private Manning’s Humiliation,” states that the conditions in which Manning is being held are a violation of both the Eighth Amendment of the US Constitution prohibiting cruel and unusual treatment and the Fifth Amendment protection against punishment without trial.

“If continued,” the letter states, Manning’s treatment “may well amount to a violation of the criminal statute against torture, defined as, among other things, ‘the administration or application … of … procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality.’…

“The administration has provided no evidence that Manning’s treatment reflects a concern for his own safety or that of other inmates,” the letter states. “Unless and until it does so, there is only one reasonable inference: this pattern of degrading treatment aims either to deter future whistleblowers, or to force Manning to implicate WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange in a conspiracy, or both.”

Nearly 300 lawyers, professors, and authors have signed the letter, including Harvard professor Laurence Tribe, who taught constitutional law to Obama and served as an advisor on legal access issues at the Justice Department until three months ago.

Tribe told the British Guardian that Manning’s detention was “not only shameful but unconstitutional … in the way it violates his person and his liberty without due process of law and in the way it administers cruel and unusual punishment of a sort that cannot be constitutionally inflicted even upon someone convicted of terrible offenses, not to mention someone merely accused of such offenses.”

When asked during a press conference last month about Manning’s abuse, Obama asserted that he knew nothing directly about the case but that the soldier was being treated well. “With respect to Private Manning, I have actually asked the Pentagon whether or not the procedures that have been taken in terms of his confinement are appropriate and are meeting our basic standards. They assure me that they are.”

Obama also absurdly presented Manning’s strip-downs and other indignities as matters of personal protection. “I can’t go into details about some of their concerns,” he stated, “but some of this has to do with Private Manning’s safety as well.”

After coming to power in part on the basis of pledges to reverse some of the worst abuses of democratic rights by the Bush administration, the Obama administration has overseen an expansion of these illegal policies, including the recent resumption of military tribunals for Guantánamo detainees. The White House has been particularly cut-throat in its pursuit of whistleblowers inside the government and military.

13 April 2011

WSWS.org

14 April, 2011

Countercurrents.org

Americans have been exposed to so much propaganda about free-market capitalism that few ever think there is any other way of running an economy. However, if they were to examine this system, they would see that its focus is on economic growth and the maximization of profit. In theory, this system would create enough wealth so that everyone would benefit. However, during the last 30 years or so, we have seen changes in the rules that guarantee most of the increases in wealth go to those at the top. During this time, there has been little-to-no concern about the resulting harmful effects of this system on society.

Free-market devotees often quote Adam Smith on the seemingly all-knowing ‘invisible hand’ as justification for their free-market theology. Somehow these advocates ignore Smith’s warning about the invisible hand. For example, in an 1993 article Noam Chomsky wrote: “The invisible hand, he [Smith] wrote, will destroy the possibility of a decent human existence “unless government takes pains to prevent” this outcome, as must be assured in “every improved and civilized society.” It will destroy community, the environment and human values generally — and even the masters themselves, which is why the business classes have regularly called for state intervention to protect them from market forces.” Unfortunately, as the 2008 crisis and the recent attacks on collective bargaining have confirmed, Smith’s concern was well placed.

Results of the Poorly Regulated U.S. Approach to Capitalism

The economy has yet to recover from the 2008 disaster although Wall Street and the too-big-to-fail banks are continuing to make out like bandits (apologies to bandits). As a result of our political/economic system, the U.S. now is faced with:

* almost 44 million (one in seven) people living in poverty;

* over 25 million (one in six) workers unemployed or underemployed;

* almost 51 million (one in six) people without health insurance;

* about 2.9 million homes that were foreclosed on in 2010, a slight increase over the 2.8 million in 2009;

* 1% of people receiving about 21% of the total U.S. income in 2008; and
* inequality between the rich and the rest of the U.S. population being among the greatest among Western industrialized nations.

 

Shouldn’t our economic approach deliver better results in this, the richest country in the world?

Strong Regulatory Approach, Strong Unions and Sense of Community

Western European nations have different economic approaches than the U.S. although Britain began the process of moving towards the U.S. model in 1980 under Margaret Thatcher. Western European nations differ slightly in their specific economic approaches, but they have a common theme of creating a humane economy that meets the needs of the people. Western European nations pursue the goal of providing socioeconomic security for their populations while, simultaneously, making economic progress.

Specifically, Western European nations have tighter regulations on corporations. In addition to having strong regulations, many of these nations use a mixture of socialism and capitalism. These nations also have strong labor unions. The combination of these factors has enabled the provision of social benefits to the public, although these benefits are under attack by free marketers today.

In the U.S., the experience with regulation has not worked nearly as well. Despite some impressive early successes, the long-term trend has been toward the corporate takeover of the regulatory agencies. Unless we are able to remove the power of big money from our political system, our regulatory system will become even more impotent.

Cooperatives — Voluntary, Jointly Owned and Democratically Controlled

According to the International Alliance of Cooperatives, a co-op is an autonomous, voluntary association meeting common economic, social and cultural needs through a jointly owned and democratically controlled enterprise. Many people may be familiar with local ventures such as housing co-ops, credit unions, or co-op groceries, but there are much larger co-ops including Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, REI outdoor stores and Land O’Lakes dairy products. There are over 30,000 co-ops operating in over 73,000 locations in this country and many, many more operating around the world.

One famous example of what is possible through the use of co-ops is the Mondragon Corporation in Spain. It started in 1956 and was founded on a form of humanism based on solidarity and participation in harmony with Catholic social teaching. Today Mondragon has over 85,000 workers and works worldwide.

The wonderful 1973 book, “Small Is Beautiful: Economics As If People Mattered” by E.F. Schumacher, provides other ideas about alternatives to the free-market approach. If we believe that people matter, we will open our mind to other approaches. Otherwise we will continue the race to the bottom.

 

 

 

Last summer sporadic protests began. By mid-February, major ones erupted. Demonstrators held firm against King Sheikh Hamad bin Isa Al-Khalifa’s regime. Repression and several deaths were reported from live fire.

Anti-government protesters occupied Manama’s Pearl Roundabout, Bahrain’s equivalent of Cairo’s Tahrir Square. They demanded democratic elections, ending sectarian discrimination favoring Sunnis over Shias, equitable distribution of the country’s oil wealth, and resignation of the king’s uncle, Sheikh Khalifa bin Salman al-Khalifa, prime minister since 1971. They also want political prisoners released and state terror ended.

For weeks, many thousands defied government demands, braving police attacks with tear gas, beatings, rubber bullets, live fire, arrests, torture, and disappearances.

On February 14, Canada’s National Post writer Peter Goodspeed headlined, “Trouble in tiny Bahrain (population 1.2 million) carries big implications,” saying:

If Bahrain becomes democratic, people throughout the region will be inspired to demand it. As a result, “the ramifications for US foreign policy could be severe. Bahrain is home to the US Navy’s Fifth Fleet,” the Pentagon “station(ing) 15 warships, including an aircraft battle group, in the very heart of the Persian Gulf.”

“The island state off the coast of Saudi Arabia provides Washington with a perfect base from which it can protect the (region’s) flow of oil, keep an eye on Iran and support pro-Western monarchies against potential threats.”

On March 14, fearing uprisings against their own regimes, over 1,500 Saudi Arabia-led Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) military and police security forces invaded Bahrain guns blazing. They attacked peaceful protesters, arrested opposition leaders and activists, occupied the country, denied wounded men and women medical treatment, and imposed police state control in support of the hated monarchy.

The Obama administration was very instrumental in their coming, to prevent the possibility of emerging democracy in Bahrain or elsewhere in the region.

News of the intervention, however, brought larger crowds to the streets. They occupied the Pearl Roundabout, set up barricades against vicious attacks, and persisted against fierce repression.

On April 1, Bahrain’s al-Wefaq party, its largest anti-government opposition, claimed security forces arrested over 300 protesters since mid-March, dozens still missing. Prominent blogger, Mahmoud al-Youssef, was among the disappeared, taken into custody on March 30.

Tanks were positioned at prominent sites. Police checkpoints were set up throughout the country. Unidentified gangs, believed to be plainclothes security forces, conducted nighttime raids on homes in poor Shiite neighborhoods. Residents reported assaults and confiscations of their property.

In short order, Pearl Roundabout protesters were violently routed. Since mid-February, perhaps dozens were killed, hundreds injured, and many more arrested, tortured, and disappeared.

Bahrain Human Rights Center (BHRC) head Nabeel Rajab said several dozen masked men raided his home in mid-March, “threaten(ing) to rape me and one man was touching my body. They hit me with shoes and punched me with fists. They were insulting me, saying things like, ‘You’re Shiite so go back to Iran.’ “

Blindfolded and arrested, he was beaten for two hours, then released. Another gang returned a few days later, threatening him and journalists present at the time. Extreme repression quelled protests and strikes, but anti-regime opposition persists. One man fired from his teaching job said:

“We cannot stop. We might go quiet for a bit to mourn the dead and treat the injured and see those in jail, but then we will rise up again.”

Journalists were also threatened, including the country’s only opposition newspaper, Al-Wasat, shut down in late March to silence it. The Bahrain News Agency called its coverage “unethical” for reporting accurately on government repression. Its editor and co-owner, Mansoor al-Jamri, said it was an attempt to suppress independent news, explaining:

“There is now no other voice but that of the state. The news blackout is so intense.” Its print and online editions are now closed to prevent vital information from being published.

Bahraini state terror got so extreme even The New York Times took note in its “Bahrain News – The Protests (2011)” section. On April 7, it said:

“Bahrain has taken on the likeness of a police state. There have been mass arrests, mass firings of government workers, reports of torture and the forced resignation of the top editor of the nation’s one independent newspaper.”

Moreover, emergency law provisions let security forces search buildings and homes with no warrant, as well as “dissolve any organization, including legal political parties, deemed a danger to the state.”

On April 6, writer Clifford Krauss headlined, “Bahrain’s Rulers Tighten Their Grip on Battered Opposition,” saying:

“The intensity of the repression is pushing some toward militancy, while others are holding back, at least for now.” Earlier mass demonstrations dwindled to smaller ones and marches, many outside Manama in villages like Saar and Shahrakkan.

Two released political prisoners said detainees are being tortured with electric shocks, beatings, sexual abuse, and other indignities. According to Human Rights Watch (HRW) researcher Dan Williams:

“They are leaving no oppressive stone unturned. They enter homes of people already detained and ransack (them). They are keeping people in detention with limited (or no) access to their lawyers and families.”

On April 12, Krauss headlined, “Hospital Is Drawn Into Bahrain Strife,” saying:

Masked soldiers “guard the front gate of Salmaniya Medical Complex. Inside clinics are virtually empty of patients, many of whom, doctors say, have been hauled away for detention after participating in protests.”

Doctors, nurses, and other medical staff have also been arrested, officials calling Salmaniya (Bahrain’s largest public hospital) and local clinics hotbeds of “radical Shiite conspirators trying to destabilize the country.”

Doctors, however, say Salmaniya and other medical facilities have been targeted by state terror. As a result, sick and injured Bahrainis have nowhere to go for treatment.

The Obama administration steadfastly supports the Al-Khalifa regime and other regional despots, saying practically nothing about their abuses, no matter how extreme, while pretending to support democratic change in Libya.

On April 11, a Washington Post editorial expressed concern headlining, “The US silence on Bahrain’s crackdown,” saying:

While condemning human rights abuses in Libya and bloody crackdowns in Syria, “the president and his administration remain mostly silent about another ugly campaign of repression underway in the Arab world, in the Persian Gulf emirate of Bahrain.”

However, instead of denouncing it, WP called it “counterproductive (and) likely to foment the very problem that its advocates seek to prevent: a sectarian uprising in the region that could be exploited by Iran.”

“Worse, Defense Secretary (Gates) appeared to bolster the (Saudi intervention) during a visit last week to Riyadh, saying that ‘we already have evidence that the Iranians are trying to exploit the situation in Bahrain.’ “

At the same time, the Bahrain News Agency (BNA) said US CENTCOM head General James Mattis and US deputy chief of mission Stephanie Williams met with Prince Salman bin Hamad Al-Khalifa, Bahrain’s crown prince and deputy supreme commander.

According to BNA, Al-Khalifa “hailed (Washington’s) support for Bahrain’s security and stability which epitomizes strong ties bonding the two friendly countries. He also stressed the kingdom’s keenness to further promote bilateral relations and cooperation mainly in the military and defense field….Both sides also reviewed regional developments and the need to safeguard regional security and stability.”

On April 11, the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders, a joint program of the International Federation for Human Rights and World Organization Against Torture, expressed grave concern for Bahraini human rights defenders following stepped up crackdowns.

On April 9, masked police arrested and severely beat Abdulhadi Al-Khawaja, former Bahrain Center for Human Rights (BCHR) president, and two of his sons-in-law, Wafi Almajid and Hussein Ahmed, at his daughter’s home.

Mohammad Al-Maskati, another son-in-law, as well as president of the Bahrain Society for Human Rights, was present, severely beaten, but not arrested.

On April 10, BCHR reported over 600 arrests and disappearances, including 30 women and children, one aged 12. No information is available on their whereabouts, status or condition. Those detained include dissidents, activists, journalists, bloggers, students, teachers, doctors, lawyers, poets, artists, sculptors, photographers, political society members, and anyone for democratic change.

On April 12, BCHR and Reporters Without Borders (RSF) condemned Zakariya Rashid Hassan’s death in detention, six days after he was charged with inciting hatred, disseminating false news, promoting sectarian violence, and calling for regime change. His family rejected the interior ministry’s claim that he died from sickle cell anemia complications. His body showed clear signs of abuse.

BCHR and RSF also expressed concern for Nabeel Rajab, BCHR head, accused of fabricating photo evidence of injuries to Ali Isa Saqer, another detainee who died in custody, clearly from abuse.

On March 28, general decree Decision No. 5 of 2011 prohibited publication of any information relating to ongoing state investigations on national security grounds. The measure reinforces others used to silence dissent and truth, especially about human rights violations.

As a result, on April 3, charges were filed against three Al-Wasat journalists for allegedly “fabricating” news detrimental to Bahrain’s international image and reputation. Those affected include editor Mansour Al-Jamari, managing editor Walid Nouihid, and local news editor Aqil Mirza. On the same day, two Al-Wasat Iraqi journalists since 2005 were summarily deported.

Earlier, BCHR reported children being abducted, detained, and abused, saying security crackdowns arrested 76, about one-fifth of the 355 known total at the time. It noted that “special forces attack people randomly, especially children who are at risk of excessive use of force, rubber bullets and tear gas.”

As a result, many sustained serious injuries. Moreover, BCHR received many complaints from families of victims. One case, typical of others, involved Ali Abbas Radhi, aged 14. Running an errand for his father, he returned bloodstained, his clothes dusty, his head wounded, his body showing clear signs of abuse, including a fractured leg.

He told BCHR that:

“Riot police asked me to stop so I obeyed their orders, but a group of them pointed their weapons toward me which made me panic and try to flee in fear of getting killed. The riot police chased me until they caught me, and they assaulted me by beating me and kicking me with their boots or with the butts of their guns to my head and all over my body as well as cursing and insulting members of my family with dirty words.”

Numerous other random attacks against men, women and children were and continue to be similar, many resulting in arrests, detention, torture, disappearances, and an unknown number of deaths, believed to be dozens.

Since state crackdowns began last summer, many children as well as adults have been arrested and abused. Lucky ones were released far from home in their underwear, or in some cases naked.

More recently, under a state of emergency, severe crackdowns continue to terrorize government opponents, subjecting anyone to arbitrary arrest, detention, torture, and disappearance any time for any reason, or none based on bogus suspicions.

A Final Comment

On April 12, 19 human rights organizations condemned Bahraini state terror, their joint press release saying:

The undersigned “severely condemn the authorities’ crackdown on prominent human rights defenders….We are gravely concerned for (their) safety and well-being….”

“Human rights organizations estimate that over 600 individuals (including human rights activists and political opponents) remain in Bahraini prisons at high risk of torture and ill-treatment. It is a particularly alarming situation given that torture is a virtually systematic practice that has been used against activists increasingly since last year.”

In this context, we firmly believe that Bahrain’s membership in the UN Human Rights Council (should) be suspended….Furthermore, the undersigned organizations (condemn the) complicity and lack of political will from international actors, particularly the US and EU (for) turn(ing) a blind eye (to) massive and systematic human rights violations in this region of the world.”

Signed:

Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies

Arab Organization for Human Rights, Syria

Arabic Network for Human Rights Information, Egypt

Bahrain Center for Human Rights

Bahrain Youth Society for Human Rights

Center for Trade Unions and Workers’ Services, Egypt

Committees for the Defense of Democracy, Freedom and Human Rights, Syria

Damascus Center for Human Rights Studies

Egyptian Association for Community Participation Enhancement

Hisham Mubarak Law Center, Egypt

Human Rights First Society, Saudi Arabia

Human Rights Organization in Syria, MAF

Iraqi Human Rights Association in Denmark

Kurdish Committee for Human Rights in Syria al-Rased

Kurdish Organization for the Defense of Human Rights and Public Freedoms in Syria, DAD

National Organization for Human Rights in Syria

New Woman Research Center, Egypt

The Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights

Yemeni Organization for Defending Rights and Democratic Freedoms

 

Other human rights groups, around 1,500 NGOs, and the International Trade Union Confederation (and its 301 affiliated members in 151 countries) also denounced Bahraini state terror.

Appealing to the international community, they called for those responsible to be held accountable. So far, daily crackdowns continue, Bahrainis still terrorized by US-backed militarized repression.

14 April, 2011

Countercurrents.org

lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

 http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.

 

 

 

A previous article addressed chairman Richard Goldstone’s fall from grace, accessed through the following link:

http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/2011/04/richard-goldstones-fall-from-grace.html

It discussed his shameless retraction of irrefutable evidence he and other commission members found – namely, that Israel willfully committed crimes of war and against humanity by attacking Gazan civilians and non-military targets in clear violation of international law. Moreover, it was done disproportionately to cause mass deaths, injuries and destruction.

Shockingly, however, Goldstone accepted Israel’s internal investigation findings, knowing facts were suppressed and distorted to justify policies. For whatever reasons, he capitulated, selling his soul at the expense of his honor, character, dignity, and high-mindedness, erased in his April 1 Washington Post op-ed too late to retract.

Responding on April 14 in the London Guardian, Commission members Hina Jilani, Christine Chinkin and Desmond Travers headlined, “Goldstone report: Statement issued by members of UN mission on Gaza war,” saying without mentioning Goldstone by name:

Recent articles and comments on the Commission’s work “have misrepresented facts in an attempt to delegitimize the findings of (its) report and to cast doubts on its credibility.”

The four-member Commission’s report “is now an official UN document and all actions taken pursuant to its findings and recommendations fall solely within the purview of the United Nations general assembly which, along with the human rights council, reviewed and endorsed it at the end of 2009.”

“Aspersions cast on the findings (however) cannot be left unchallenged.” Jilani, Chinkin and Travers dispute efforts to claim “any part of the mission’s report unsubstantiated, erroneous or inaccurate.”

As a result, no reevaluation will be reconsidered, nor is there any UN procedure or precedent to do so. The Commission’s conclusions were “made after diligent, independent and objective consideration of the information,” carefully obtained. The Commission endorses “its reliability and credibility. We firmly stand by these conclusions.”

Further, over 18 months after publication, no contrary facts have been determined. We “have yet to establish a convincing basis for any claims that contradict the findings of the mission’s report.”

In addition, the UN Human Rights Council “appointed a committee of independent experts to monitor the independence, effectiveness and genuineness of any domestic proceedings carried out to investigate crimes and violations of international law” discovered.

Observers claiming that follow-up committee members Judge Mary McGowan Davis and Judge Lennart Aspergren contradicted the Commission’s conclusions “are completely misplaced, and a clear distortion of their findings.”

Moreover, the committee said there was “no indication that Israel has opened (legitimate, independent) investigations into the actions of those who designed, planned, ordered and oversaw Operation Cast Lead.”

In other words, “one of the most serious allegations about the conduct of Israel’s military operations remains completely unaddressed.”

The Commission dismisses “calls to reconsider or even retract the report, as well as attempts (to misrepresent) its nature and purpose, (saying they) disregard the right of victims….to truth and justice. They also ignore the responsibility of the relevant parties under international law to conduct prompt, thorough, effective and independent investigations.”

Commission members resent pressure exerted to undermine their credibility and integrity. To give in “would be doing a serious injustice to the hundreds of innocent civilians killed during the Gaza conflict, the thousands injured, and the hundreds of thousands whose lives continue to be deeply affected by the conflict and the blockade.”

The process the report initiated will continue “until justice is done and respect for international human rights and humanitarian law by everyone is ensured.”

Hila Jilani is a Pakistani human rights lawyer. Christine Chinkin is London School of Economics Professor of International Law, and Desmond Travers is a former Irish peacekeeper, knowledgeable about international law.

lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.

14 April, 2011

Countercurrents.org

 

 

 

14 April, 2011

WSWS.org

The Assad regime has stepped up its clampdown on demonstrators calling for democracy and an end to corruption. It is seeking to prevent the protests, as yet relatively small, from becoming a mass movement for the removal of the ruling clique, as happened in Tunisia and Egypt.

President Bashar al Assad has served notice that further rallies will not be tolerated and deployed the army with tanks to block the roads, carry out killings, including sniper shootings, and conduct mass arrests. It has shut down telecommunications, expelled foreign reporters and imposed restrictions on the movement of journalists.

According to activists, nearly 200 protesters have been killed and about 800 have been arrested since the demonstrations began in March in Dera’a protesting against the detention of school children for anti-government graffiti, and the regime’s brutal response.

On Sunday, the army and pro-government gunmen killed at least five protesters and injured dozens of people in the port and oil refinery city of Banias, 25 miles south of Latakia. Nine security officers, including soldiers, were also killed. On Monday, after more than 2,000 people broke through a security cordon to attend the funeral of four people killed the previous day, clashes broke out and government forces opened fire. The security forces also beat up men in the central square and barred the injured from getting to hospitals.

The picture is, however, confused. According to some reports, security forces shot soldiers refusing to fire on protesters after the army moved into Banias following protests on Friday. Wassim Tarif, a local human rights monitor, said that Mourad Hejjo, a conscript from Madaya village, was one of those shot by security snipers. “His family and town are saying he refused to shoot at his people,” Tarif said.

Witnesses have posted video clips showing an injured soldier who says he was shot in the back by security forces, while another shows the funeral of Muhammad Awad Qunbar, reportedly killed for refusing to fire on protesters.

The state media contradicted this, claiming that an armed group had ambushed and killed nine soldiers. It criticised “those sowing trouble, disorder and discord when Syria has already begun to address the problems and pave the road for change and reform”.

Oppositionists have since conceded that not all soldiers reported dead or injured were shot after refusing to fire. Tarif said, “We are investigating reports that some people have personal weapons and used them in self-defence”.

Workers in Banias were reported to be holding a three-day strike. The army has surrounded Banias, cutting off transport and telecommunications. Residents say that bread is running out and electricity and telecommunications were intermittent.

Troops also sealed off and attacked two villages close to Banias, 25 miles south of Latakia, in Bayda and Beit Jnad. In Bayda, Haitham al-Maleh, a veteran lawyer and human rights activist in Damascus said the troops went house to house rounding up people and marched them out to the central square and beat them up as a deterrent to others. When other villagers went out onto the street to protest, military and security forces opened fire on them, said al-Maleh. Hundreds were arrested.

On Wednesday, hundreds of women and children carrying white cloths and olive branches rallied along the main road between Tartous and Banias in protest at the arrest of dozens of people from the villages, and demanded their release.

On Monday, 200 students—largely from Dera’a, which has been the flashpoint for the unrest—rallied in support of the protesters outside the science faculty at the University of Damascus, chanting “God, Freedom, and Syria only”. Security forces moved in fast and beat up and arrested students to disperse the demonstration. Initially, there were conflicting and unconfirmed reports that one student had been beaten to death or killed by gunfire.

Fayez Sara, a well known Syrian writer and journalist, was detained at his home on Monday, while several other activists had been picked up in the past few days.

There are reports from the port cities of Banias and Latakia that pro-government thugs, mafia type gangs involved in drug trafficking and other criminal businesses linked to different members of the extended Assad family, and private militias are operating. One witness said that these “shabiha” gangs had attacked from cars plastered with photos of the president, Bashar al-Assad, on Sunday.

The Assad regime has denied this, blaming the violence instead on armed gangs, and has vowed to crush unrest. Assad issued a statement saying, “The Syrian authorities, in order to preserve the security of the country, citizens and the governmental and services establishments, will confront these people and those behind them according to the law”.

“The Ministry of Interior affirms that there is no more room for leniency or tolerance in enforcing law, preserving security of country and citizens and protecting general order,” the statement continued.

Assad has made a number of concessions aimed at dividing and appeasing different social groups, including promising an end to emergency rule and some limited reforms, sacking some officials and granting Syrian nationality to hundreds of thousands of Kurds. But the gestures are cosmetic and have failed to satisfy protesters.

By Jean Shaoul

14 April, 2011

WSWS.org

For more than a week, Israel mounted frequent aerial attacks on Gaza’s defenceless population, killing at least 25 and wounding dozens more.

Most of the casualties were civilians, and many of those injured were children. The dead included senior leaders from Hamas’s military wing and four militants from the Islamic Jihad group, killed in targeted assassinations.

The incessant aerial strikes through last weekend, which Israel said were aimed at militants, Hamas training camps, smuggling tunnels and weapons workshops, caused widespread destruction. They were the worst since Israel’s assault on Gaza in 2008-2009. Since January 2009, there has been an informal ceasefire, and rocket attacks from Gazan militants had all but stopped.

Tensions started to escalate in March, however, due to Israel’s repudiation of peace negotiations and resumption of settlement construction in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Violent settler attacks on Palestinians sparked the revenge killing of an Israeli settler family, with Israel launching retaliatory air strikes that killed two Hamas members. Hamas admitted responsibility for 15 minutes of rocket fire from Gaza, its first break of its informal two-year ceasefire. A bus bomb in Jerusalem that killed one was met with numerous air strikes that month.

The Qassem rockets and mortars fired into Israel have had little impact, landing for the most part in empty fields. Last week, a number of rockets were intercepted and blown to pieces mid-air by Israel’s Iron Dome rocket interceptors, the first time they have been brought into use. Since mid-March, Israel has launched a number of deadly attacks and fought gun battles on the border, killing at least 10 people.

Israel’s provocations prompted further rockets from Gaza, one of which hit an Israeli school bus that wounded the driver and a 16-year-old boy. This was a reprisal for Israel’s attacks that killed three Hamas military leaders on April 1, which Hamas said violated an earlier ceasefire. Sami Abu Zuhri, a Hamas spokesman, said that the people who fired the missile were unaware that the target was a school bus.

Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu said the bus attack had “crossed the line…. Whoever tries to hurt and murder children, his blood will be on his own head.”

He authorised a wide air, artillery and tank assault on targets in Gaza.

The resulting carnage was so great that on Saturday, Hamas, which rules Gaza, declared a state of emergency. On Sunday, Hamas took the unprecedented step of broadcasting in Hebrew to the Israeli public to call for an end to the violence. Ghazi Hamad, the deputy foreign minister, said in an interview on Israel Radio, “We are interested in calm but want the Israeli military to stop its operations”.

Ismail Haniyeh, Gaza’s prime minister, also contacted Robert Serry, the United Nation’s special envoy for the Middle East, Egyptian intelligence officials, and two European countries in an effort to pressure Israel to stop attacking Gaza.

On Sunday, the Arab League condemned the attacks and called for a UN Security Council meeting to discuss the crisis and impose a no-fly zone over Gaza. The UN and European Union have made a pro-forma call on both sides to cease the attacks.

Israel initially dismissed these appeals. Speaking at the start of a weekly cabinet meeting, Netanyahu said that Israel would respond even more ferociously if cross-border attacks continued. “Our policy is clear, if the attacks continue on Israel’s citizens and soldiers, the response will be much harsher.”

A ministerial committee authorised the army “to continue to act against those responsible for terrorism.” Ehud Barak, the defence minister, cancelled a planned visit to Washington.

While Israel continued its attacks, by Monday it appeared to have pulled back from a major escalation, after Serry arranged a ceasefire. Netanyahu said, “We intend to restore the quiet,” but threatened, “If Hamas intensifies its attacks…our response will be much more severe.”

Israel’s cabinet is bitterly divided even in the face of such a temporary cessation of hostilities. Avigdor Lieberman, the foreign minister and leader of the far-right party Israel Beiteinu, on which Netanyahu’s shaky coalition depends, opposed a ceasefire. He called instead for Israel to topple the Hamas government. Lieberman told Israel Radio that a ceasefire would contradict Israel’s national interests since Hamas would use it to smuggle more weapons into Gaza. Vice Prime Minister Silvan Shalom of Likud likewise said in an Army Radio interview that he wanted to expand the military operation in Gaza.

These elements believe that Israel has carte blanche to do whatever it likes against Gaza thanks to US backing, particularly after Judge Richard Goldstone, who chaired a UN Human Rights Council inquiry into Operation Cast Lead, repudiated the findings of his own report. Goldstone wrote an op-ed piece in the Washington Post, absolving Israel of criminal intent and instead castigated Hamas for intentionally targeting a civilian population with its rockets on Israel.

Israel’s provocations against Gaza follow bellicose warnings against Iran, which it accuses of arming Israel’s enemies, Hamas and Hezbollah in Lebanon, after Tehran sent two frigates through the Suez Canal to the Syrian port of Latakia last month.

Later, Israel seized a German-owned ship in international waters bound for Alexandria from Turkey and the Syrian port of Latakia, where the two Iranian frigates had recently docked. Israel claimed The Victoria was carrying weapons to Gaza from Iran.

On April 5, a missile attack on a car by an Apache helicopter near Port Sudan’s airport in Sudan killed two people. Initial reports suggested that the two men were arms dealers. It was similar to another attack on a convoy of suspected arms smuggled through Sudan in 2009 that killed scores of people and which was widely believed to have been carried out by Israel.

The Sudanese authorities have now identified the remnants of the rockets as having come from Israel. Sudan said that the helicopter had come in from the Red Sea, scrambled Sudan’s radar systems and followed Port Sudan airport flight paths. Sudan says that one of the two killed was a Sudanese citizen who had no links to Islamists or the government, and it was not clear why his car was targeted.

An Israeli military official told Time magazine that Israel was behind the attack, commenting, “It’s not our first time there”, implying that it had carried out the 2009 attack. Israel has long held that Sudan is an important route for smuggling arms from Iran into Egypt and ultimately Gaza, via tunnels under the border. Khartoum for its part has accused Tel Aviv of trying to scupper Sudan’s bid to get the US to remove it from its list of terrorist sponsors and normalise its relations with Washington.

13 April 2011