More
Matrix Masters
Blogs
World Events
US News
Science & Health
Earth News
Free Speech
News from Africa
News from Palestine
Bill of Rights Under Attack

Matrix Masters'
SUPPORTERS

Lorenzo's
Random Musings
. . . about Chaos,
Reason, and Hope

 

US Army's Desert Filling Stations Add Fuel to Fire: US Army Names Iraq Camps After US Oil Companies
commondreams.org - In a war where public perceptions are arguably as important as the military strategy, the US army appears to have handed a huge public relations victory to those who believe the conflict in Iraq is all about oil. The 101st Airborne Division has chosen to name two of its main outposts in the desert Forward Operating Base Exxon and Forward Operating Base Shell.

When US troops seizing the port city of Umm Qasr raised the stars and stripes there last week, they were swiftly ordered to remove it for fear of giving the impression of being conquerors, not liberators.

But Forward Operating Base Shell has caught on so comprehensively that the Washington Post is now carrying it as the dateline in its news reports from the base.

. . . Read more!


posted by West 8:15 AM

 

Five PoWs are mistreated in Iraq and the US cries foul. What about Guantanamo Bay?
(George Monbiot, The Guardian, March 25, 2003)
Suddenly, the government of the United States has discovered the virtues of international law. It may be waging an illegal war against a sovereign state; it may be seeking to destroy every treaty which impedes its attempts to run the world, but when five of its captured soldiers were paraded in front of the Iraqi television cameras on Sunday, Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, immediately complained that "it is against the Geneva convention to show photographs of prisoners of war in a manner that is humiliating for them". . . . He is, of course, quite right. Article 13 of the third convention, concerning the treatment of prisoners, insists that they "must at all times be protected... against insults and public curiosity". . . . Rumsfeld had better watch his back. For this enthusiastic convert to the cause of legal warfare is, as head of the defence department, responsible for a series of crimes sufficient, were he ever to be tried, to put him away for the rest of his natural life. . . . His prison camp in Guantanamo Bay, in Cuba, where 641 men (nine of whom are British citizens) are held, breaches no fewer than 15 articles of the third convention. The US government broke the first of these (article 13) as soon as the prisoners arrived, by displaying them, just as the Iraqis have done, on television. . . . The US government claims that these men are not subject to the Geneva conventions, as they are not "prisoners of war", but "unlawful combatants". The same claim could be made, with rather more justice, by the Iraqis holding the US soldiers who illegally invaded their country. But this redefinition is itself a breach of article 4 of the third convention, under which people detained as suspected members of a militia (the Taliban) or a volunteer corps (al-Qaida) must be regarded as prisoners of war. . . . Many of these prisoners appear to have been working in Afghanistan as teachers, engineers or aid workers. If the US government either tried or released them, its embarrassing lack of evidence would be brought to light. . . . On November 21 2001, around 8,000 Taliban soldiers and Pashtun civilians surrendered at Konduz to the Northern Alliance commander, General Abdul Rashid Dostum. Many of them have never been seen again. . . . The prisoners, many of whom were dying of thirst and asphyxiation, started banging on the sides of the trucks. Dostum's men stopped the convoy and machine-gunned the containers. When they arrived at Sheberghan, most of the captives were dead. . . . The US special forces running the prison watched the bodies being unloaded. They instructed Dostum's men to "get rid of them before satellite pictures can be taken". . . . Many of the survivors were loaded back in the containers with the corpses, then driven to a place in the desert called Dasht-i-Leili. In the presence of up to 40 US special forces, the living and the dead were dumped into ditches. Anyone who moved was shot. The German newspaper Die Zeit investigated the claims and concluded that: "No one doubted that the Americans had taken part. Even at higher levels there are no doubts on this issue." The US group Physicians for Human Rights visited the places identified by Doran's witnesses and found they "all... contained human remains consistent with their designation as possible grave sites". . . . It is not hard, therefore, to see why the US government fought first to prevent the establishment of the international criminal court, and then to ensure that its own citizens are not subject to its jurisdiction. The five soldiers dragged in front of the cameras yesterday should thank their lucky stars that they are prisoners not of the American forces fighting for civilisation, but of the "barbaric and inhuman" Iraqis.

. . . Read more!


posted by Lorenzo 2:09 PM

 

MID-EAST REALITIES - MER - www.MiddleEast.Org - Washington - 24 March 2003: The war for control and domination of the Middle East has actually been going on for nearly a hundred years now with occasional armed clashe, continual coups and plots, and increasingly CIA and Mossad manipulations. "The Peace To End All Peace" was largely originally a British/French conspiracy with American acquiescence at the end of World War I. Denied then the regional 'Arab State' as had been promised when the Arabs were being entised to rise up against the Ottomans, the region has never recovered from the then Western-imposed crazy-quilt boundaries and 'client regimes'; and then from the insertion of an increasingly powerful and imperial 'Jewish State' into the heart of Arabdom. Now historic Baghdad burns and in capitals throughout the tortured, humbled, and shamed Arab world passions seeth, hatreds grow, and forces are born to fight yet another day for true home-grown liberation and independence. Meanwhile, the resurgence Turks have allied with their former Western foes and Israel to continue keeping the Arabs divided and weak; the Israelis themselves prepare to play an ever-increasing role as regional strongman funded/armed by the Americans, and the little island-nation of Cyprus remains divided and now again betrayed. There will be pleas in the future to 'Forgive the Americans' for they did not know what they were doing. But the price for their ways, paid by so many others in blood and destruction, grows greater and greater; and eventually the price they themselves will likely have to pay may well be immense, possibly catastrophic.

. . . Read more!


posted by Lorenzo 2:01 PM

 

"THE CAPITAL OF GLOBAL ARROGANCE" … AMERICA THE BRUTAL, AMERICA THE UGLY

MID-EAST REALITIES - MER – www.MiddleEast.Org - Washington - 27 November 1998 (Thanksgiving Day):

MER EDITORIAL:

AMERICA THE BRUTAL, AMERICA THE UGLY

Once again the American Empire prepares for "battle." It does so against a puny enemy; but one it vilifies and magnifies many times over endlessly "preparing" public opinion for the Empire's next round of "enforcement" in the name of "peace" and "order". It does so with technological super weaponry unmatchable by the poor, the weak, the oppressed... other than through what it terms "terrorism" that is.

This is the same country that slaughtered millions of Vietnamese (plus less directly millions of Cambodians and Laotians as well) after its President tricked its Congress into the Gulf of Tonkin resolution.

And then a generation later its top warrior of the former day "apologized" for having made a "terrible mistake" (noting primarily the 50,000 Americans killed).

This is the same country that used the first nuclear weapons of mass destruction not on military targets, but on civilian cities. And now today, along with ally Israel, this is the same country that threatens to use them again in the Middle East, thus fueling the very arms race it claims to be halting.

This is the same country that sells more arms internationally than all others, yet insists on sanctions against those who sell a few inferior weapons to "unapproved" locations.

This is the same country that single-handedly, against the opposition of all others, dismisses U.N. Secretary-Generals; issues its "orders" far and wide; and doesn't even pay its U.N. dues preferring threats and blackmail to gets its way. Amazing indeed that the rest of the world continues to allow this demeaning situation to continue; but bribery and threats always have gone a long way when Rome thunders.

And, finally for now, this is the same country that stands alone in the world championing Israeli militancy, camouflaging Israeli ethnic-cleansing policies, covering-up terrible Israeli attacks on U.N. safe-havens, constantly excusing Israeli gross violations of human rights against those who simply ask to be accorded the same rights that the Americans themselves constantly proclaim!

There are many menaces loose in today's world. Among them is the American military-industrial complex which dominates American society, manipulates its press, controls its political parties, frightens its intellectuals -- the very tyranny of power that none other than World War II hero turned President Dwight Eisenhower used his last breathes to warn so eloquently about.

Ah to be a Roman in the 21st Century! The Pro-consuls are now in the form of "client regimes" calling themselves Kings, Guardians, and even Presidents. Centurion legions are now in the form of giant aircraft carriers and stealth bombers roaming the planet at will, dropping their laser-guided smart-bombs on command. With the ever-present ears of the National Security Agency and eyes of the Central Intelligence Agency modern-day Rome tries to bug, manipulate, and control everything and everyone even while constantly proclaiming its own innocence, bravery and freedom.

Even the giant American press institutions fan the flames of warfare and deception in this brave new American order. Even its senior "journalists" - of late Sam Donaldson and George Stephanopoulos - openly join the generals in advocating the assassination of foreign leaders and destruction of resisting societies. It's President and Secretary of State seem completely oblivious to the genocidal misery they reap on millions who will not bend to their will. And even most of its intellectuals and academics are cowered into submission while government-supported institutes and think-tanks, along with minions of masked agents of the empire, spread deception and chicanery far and wide to justify what has already been, and what is now to come.

The American-hyped road signs all proclaim "Peace Process" and "Democracy", "Freedom" and "Progress". But this U.S./Israeli-created road actually leads to more terrorism, more warfare, more armaments; more repression, more duplicity, more hatred; more exploitation, more domination, and more control.

The level of hypocrisy and the self-enrichment motivations are so omni-present these days that few within the Empire seem able to see clearly through their own society's thick rhetorical and bureaucratic smoke screens.

Yet no wonder there are so many around the rest of the world who now think so much about payback time.

. . . Read more!


posted by Lorenzo 3:40 PM

 

A Worldwide Tide of Anti-Bush Feeling
(William Schneider, The Atlantic Online, March 18, 2003)
What's behind the strong public opposition in so many countries? Is it primarily anti-American, anti-war, or anti-Bush? James Harding, who has worked all over the world for the Financial Times and is currently its Washington bureau chief, answers this way: "Essentially, it's anti-Bush.... The same thing that has been paraded as one of Bush's great qualities—his moral clarity—is something that worries Europeans who think the world is a bit too complicated for black-and-white solutions." . . . What seems like moral clarity to Americans comes across as moral certainty to Europeans. And they think it's dangerous. "There is something alarming to many Europeans about the idea that [Bush and Blair] are preparing for war, and wrapping themselves in a mantle of religiosity and invoking God as they do," Harding said. . . . Blair is a churchgoer, something unusual for a British leader. And that makes Europeans twitchy. "About two and a half weeks ago, Blair was asked by an interviewer, 'So, do you and President Bush pray together?' " Harding recounted, adding, "It wasn't a question. It was an accusation." For the record, Blair answered with a nervous laugh, "No, we don't." . . . The Italian government supports the Bush administration, but the Italian people don't—85 percent oppose military action (SWG Organization). How about Japan? Nope. Eighty-four percent are opposed (Mainichi Shimbun). What about Israel? It's a good bet that Bush should find support in Israel. But the latest poll by the newspaper Ma'ariv shows Israelis wavering: 45 percent say they support an immediate U.S.-led attack on Iraq, down from 51 percent two weeks ago. And 49 percent of Israelis say the U.N. inspectors should be allowed to continue their work. . . . If Americans feel alone going into this war, there's a reason for it. They are.

. . . Read more!


posted by Lorenzo 4:54 PM

 

Waging War: Bush's impossible dream
(William S. Lind, United Press International, March 18, 2003)
President George W. Bush is dreaming the impossible dream. In his effort to ensure lasting American global leadership in the 21st century, he has so far only succeeded in isolating his own country from its traditional allies and supporters around the world. . . . the administration in Washington has isolated itself from several of its oldest allies, provoked a serious split in NATO, and left itself very much on the defensive in the face of an inspections process that continues to find no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq -- and thus no causus belli, or justification for war for the United States. . . . Is this simply ineptitude, or is something larger going on here? I suggest the latter. For some time, elements in the administration have been looking far beyond Iraq. They have spoken with increasing openness about re-making the entire Middle East, installing "democratic" governments that would be friendly not only to the United States but to Israel. . . . America is to become not just "the only superpower" but a "hyperpower" which no one can hope to resist. China is to be cowed by an arms race she cannot afford; non-state elements will fall to American Special Forces; the U.N. will be a tool of American world dominance. . . . America will be the New Britain, perhaps the New Rome. Or, more likely, the New Spain. The Spanish analogy is not one most Americans will know, nor one the new Wilsonians will much care for. But it may prove apt. . . . What finally stopped Hapsburg Spain and, later, France under King Louis XIV and Napoleon and Germany under Hitler from establishing the universal monarchy was a fundamental characteristic of the international state system: whenever one nation attempts to attain world dominance, it pushes everyone else into a coalition against it. . . . That dynamic, not any love for Saddam, is what is behind German and French opposition to the Bush administration's plan for war with Iraq. That is what is drawing others, including Russia, into supporting the French and the Germans. . . . The real question is not whether the American drive for world hegemony will succeed; it will not. The question is why we are attempting it in the first place.

. . . Read more!


posted by Lorenzo 4:41 PM

 

Noam Chomsky: The case against US adventurism in Iraq
(Noam Chomsky, Daily Times, March 19, 2003)
The most powerful state in history has proclaimed that it intends to control the world by force, the dimension in which it reigns supreme. . . . President Bush and his cohorts evidently believe that the means of violence in their hands are so extraordinary that they can dismiss anyone who stands in their way. . . . The consequences could be catastrophic in Iraq and around the world. The United States may reap a whirlwind of terrorist retaliation and step up the possibility of nuclear Armageddon. . . . Even before the administration began beating the war drums against Iraq, there were plenty of warnings that US adventurism would lead to proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, as well as terror, for deterrence or revenge. . . . There is good reason to believe that the war with Iraq is intended, in part, to demonstrate what lies ahead when the empire decides to strike a blow though “war” is hardly the proper term, given the gross mismatch of forces. . . . Saddam remains a terrible threat to those within his reach. Today, his reach does not extend beyond his own domains, though it is likely that US aggression could inspire a new generation of terrorists bent on revenge, and might induce Iraq to carry out terrorist actions suspected to be already in place. . . . Studies by respected medical organizations estimate that the death toll could rise to the hundreds of thousands. Confidential UN documents warn that a war could trigger a “humanitarian emergency of exceptional scale” including the possibility that 30 percent of Iraqi children could die from malnutrition. . . . The potential disasters are among the many reasons why decent human beings do not contemplate the threat or use of violence, whether in personal life or international affairs; unless reasons have been offered that have overwhelming force. And surely nothing remotely like that justification has come forward.

. . . Read more!


posted by Lorenzo 4:21 PM

 

Armitage following Cheney Strategy for Central Asia
Richard Armitage, the current Deputy Defense Secretary, was another Iran-Contra player in Unocal's employ. A former Navy SEAL, covert operative in Laos, director with the Carlyle Group, Armitage is allegedly deeply linked to terrorist and criminal networks in the Middle East, and the new independent states of the former Soviet Union (Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and Kyrghistan). Armitage was no stranger to pipelines. As a member of the Burma/Myanmar Forum, a group that received major funding from Unocal, Armitage was implicated in a lawsuit filed by Burmese villagers who suffered human rights abuses during the construction of a Unocal pipeline. (Halliburton, under Dick Cheney, performed contract work on the same Burmese project.) . . . When Cheney quit his job at the Pentagon, he landed the job as chief executive of Halliburton, bringing with him, his trusted deputy David Gribbin. The two substantially increased Halliburton's government business until they quit in 2000 when Cheney was elected vice-president, taking multi-million dollar golden parachutes with them. Since then, another former military office and Cheney confidante, Admiral Joe Lopez, former commander in chief for U.S. forces in southern Europe, took over Gribbin's former job of go-between the government and the company, according to Brown & Root's own press releases. Other close friends include Richard Armitage, the assistant secretary of state, who worked as a consultant to Halliburton before taking up his present job. . . . The long-term Bush/Cheney plan is to establish a Pax Americana in Central Asia and secure the vast oil resources of the Caspian Basin.

. . . Read more!


posted by Lorenzo 2:55 PM

 

Arab opinion of US hits all-time low
(James J. Zogby, The Jordan Times, March 18, 2003)
ARAB PUBLIC opinion towards the United States has dropped to dangerously low levels, even before an anticipated US-led attack on Iraq. . . . The most significant drops in US ratings occurred in Morocco and Jordan. In 2002, for example, 34 per cent of Jordanians had a positive view of the United States, as compared to 61 per cent who had a negative view. In 2003, only 10 per cent of Jordanians hold a positive view of the United States, while 81 per cent see the country in a negative light. Similarly, in Morocco, the favourable/unfavourable rating towards the United States in 2002 were 38 per cent to 61 per cent. Today they are 9 per cent favourable and 88 per cent unfavourable. . . . The US' favourable/unfavourable ratings were already quite low in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the UAE. They have remained low. In 2002, the ratings in Egypt were 15 per cent favourable to 76 per cent unfavourable. In 2003, Egyptians' ratings of the United States are 13 per cent favourable and 80 per cent unfavourable. In Saudi Arabia, 12 per cent viewed the United States favourably and 87 per cent unfavourably in 2002. Today, 3 per cent see it favourably and 97 per cent unfavourably. In the UAE, the ratio showed almost no change from an 11 per cent favourable/87 per cent unfavourable in 2002 to 11 per cent favourable/85 per cent unfavourable in 2003. . . . In all five countries, US policy towards Iraq received only single digit favourable ratings, while nine respondents out of ten opposed current US policy towards that country. . . . What is important to note is that Arabs in all these countries do not support the United States' acting unilaterally to disarm Iraq. . . . . . . What should be most disturbing to US policy makers is the lack of confidence in and goodwill towards US policy that this poll establishes. . . . Arab public opinion may simply no longer believe that the US will act in an even-handed manner to end the Arab-Israeli conflict. After failing to act to end the crisis of last March and April, siding with Israel's Ariel Sharon, and then failing to issue the Quartet's “roadmap” in a timely manner, Arab opinion may have concluded that the United States simply will not act to bring Palestinians justice. It may be that the conflict has gone on so long without any positive US action, that even if there were to be a change in policy, it may be too little too late to win Arab support. Finally, it may also be due to the fact that the US' unilateralist approach towards Iraq has done such damage to American standing in the region that even a hypothetical change in policy is not enough to replenish the reservoir of goodwill towards the United States that once existed. . . . the United States is treading on dangerous ground in the Arab world today. It is a fact that has been the subject of much discussion. But now we have hard numbers to support what is a widely held view.

. . . Read more!


posted by Lorenzo 2:25 PM

 

Russia Says U.S. Anti-Terror Coalition Could End
(Andrei Shukshin, Reuters, March 18, 2003)
Russia on Tuesday fought to stop its new-found partnership with the United States going off the rails over Iraq but admitted their deep differences could destroy the anti-terror coalition binding them together. . . . there were sharp words from Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov and parliament put off a vote to ratify a key bilateral nuclear arms treaty, further signaling Russian anger at Washington's rush toward military action. . . . "Unfortunately today, in connection with the looming threat of war against Iraq, the unity of the international anti-terrorist coalition is under threat," Ivanov told a Moscow conference. . . . "Naturally, having made this choice the United States also assumes responsibility for the consequences of their actions," he said, echoing Russia's anti-war ally French President Jacques Chirac. . . . It was Putin's swift backing for the U.S.-led international coalition against terror immediately following the September 11, 2001 airliner attacks on U.S. landmarks that led to the new strategic partnership between the former superpower rivals. . . . The Russian parliament, angry at what it regards as a humiliation of Russia by the United States over Iraq, put off a vote to ratify a landmark nuclear arms treaty that would slash U.S.-Russian nuclear arsenals. . . . Accusing Washington of ignoring Russia's views on Iraq, Duma official Sergei Shishkaryov said: "We are standing on the verge of the Third World War and the consequences of the beginning of military action in Iraq are to a large extent unpredictable.

. . . Read more!


posted by Lorenzo 1:54 PM

 

U.S. PLANS FOR WAR AND OCCUPATION IN IRAQ ARE A HISTORICAL MISTAKE
(Robert Ricketts, IndyMedia, 12 March 2003)
As students of the Japanese occupation, we protest this reckless and self-serving misreading of history and strongly urge the U.S. government to reconsider its ill-conceived project of war and occupation. . . . A careful look at the Japanese example suggests many reasons why that experience is inapplicable to U.S. plans for a post-invasion Iraq. . . . If U.S. plans for Iraq bear no resemblance to the Japanese example, why, then, does the Bush administration persist in such a spurious comparison? The Allied occupation of Japan not only reformed the nation's political institutions, insuring the rapid transition from militarism to democracy, but revitalized the economy, laying the foundation for Japan's emergence as an industrial superpower. At the same time, however, it subordinated the new political system and Japan's foreign policy to U.S. strategic interests in Asia, producing, after the return of sovereignty, a long-term "subordinate independence." This appears to be the real significance of the Bush administration's disingenuous effort to resurrect the "Japanese model." The current U.S. occupation project, as conveyed by the media, appears to be a cynical attempt to justify Washington's bellicose Iraq policy and promote its post-invasion plans for the region. . . . U.S. plans to kill or overthrow Saddam Hussein and place top Iraqi leaders on trial could lead to protracted fighting and internal disorder. Even Iraqis who hate Hussein may not welcome the destruction of their political and social institutions. In a worst-case scenario, the American attack is expected to kill or maim hundreds of thousands of civilians, ruin the economy, and disrupt food delivery, health services, and sanitation. Far from "democratizing" Iraq, U.S. military rule most likely will intensify tribal, ethnic, and religious conflicts. . . . Moreover, the Pentagon has recommended the use of nuclear arms against Iraq in a battlefield emergency. Contingency plans for the use of weapons of mass destruction mock any suggestion of legitimacy for a "pre-emptive" war and occupation and further erode America's claims to moral authority. . . . If history is not to repeat itself, we who have lived through the horrors of this "century of war" have a moral duty to transmit its painful lessons to those who inherit the new century. . . . As students of the Japanese occupation, we believe that the Bush administration's plans for war and occupation in Iraq are a historical mistake and strongly urge the United States to seek a peaceful solution to the present crisis.
[Signed by dozens of scholars]

. . . Read more!


posted by Lorenzo 12:37 PM

 

Bush Sr Warns Little Bush Against Unilateral Action
(Roland Watson, TimesOnline, March 10, 2003)
Drawing on his own experiences before and after the 1991 Gulf War, Mr Bush Sr said that the brief flowering of hope for Arab-Israeli relations a decade ago would never have happened if America had ignored the will of the United Nations. . . . He also urged the President to resist his tendency to bear grudges, advising his son to bridge the rift between the United States, France and Germany. . . . The former President’s comments reflect unease among the Bush family and its entourage at the way that George W. Bush is ignoring international opinion and overriding the institutions that his father sought to uphold. Mr Bush Sr is a former US Ambassador to the UN and comes from a family steeped in multi-lateralist traditions. . . . Mr Bush Sr even came close to conceding that opponents of his son’s case against President Saddam Hussein, who he himself is on record as loathing, have legitimate cause for concern. . . . He said that the key question of how many weapons of mass destruction Iraq held “could be debated”. The case against Saddam was “less clear” than in 1991, when Mr Bush Sr led an international coalition to expel invading Iraqi troops from Kuwait. Objectives were “a little fuzzier today”, he added. . . . In an ominous warning for his son, Mr Bush Sr said that he would have been able to achieve nothing if he had jeopardised future relations by ignoring the UN. “The Madrid conference would never have happened if the international coalition that fought together in Desert Storm had exceeded the UN mandate and gone on its own into Baghdad after Saddam and his forces.” . . . Mr Bush Jr, who is said never to forget even relatively minor slights, has alarmed analysts with the way in which he has allowed senior Administration figures such as Donald Rumsfeld, the Defence Secretary, aggressively to criticise France and Germany.

. . . Read more!


posted by Lorenzo 1:13 PM

 

U.S. Plans to Dominate the World
(Jonathan Freedland, The Guardian, February 26, 2003)
With barely a peep of congressional opposition to a military attack against Saddam, and most Democrats reduced to silent compliance, the Washington village has taken it as read, both that war will happen, and that it is justified. Their debate is focusing instead on a different question: what next? . . . If, however, the American victors insist on a much more robust level of US control - restructuring Iraq entirely, studding it with countless military bases - then we could start drawing rather different conclusions as to the true motive of this campaign. We might agree with those who detect in the Iraq adventure the opening move of a much grander American design: the establishing of US hegemony for the next 100 years. . . . This is not just twitchy, anti-war conspiracy talk. An outfit exists on 17th Street in Washington, DC, called the Project for the New American Century, explicitly committed to US mastery of the globe for the coming age. Its acolytes speak of "full spectrum dominance", meaning American invincibility in every field of warfare - land, sea, air and space - and a world in which no two nations' relationship with each other will be more important than their relationship with the US. There will be no place on earth, or the heavens for that matter, where Washington's writ does not run supreme. To that end, a ring of US military bases should surround China, with liberation of the People's Republic considered the ultimate prize. As one enthusiast puts it concisely: "After Baghdad, Beijing." . . . If this sounds like the harmless delusions of an eccentric fringe, think again. The founder members of the project form a rollcall of today's Bush inner circle. Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush, Richard Perle - they're all there. So too is Zalmay Khalilzad, now the White House's "special envoy and ambassador-at-large for free Iraqis". . . . In other words, this is one debate we cannot afford to sit out. As US commentator Sandra Mackay wrote this month: "Washington's hawks understand that the real risks ... are not in war, but in the peace that follows." . . . Victory may be rapid and easy - but that's when the real trouble could start.

. . . Read more!


posted by Lorenzo 11:47 AM

 

America's power will bring its own counter-revolution
(Adrian Hamilton, The Independent, 7 March 2003)
However the frantic last rounds of diplomacy work out – a second resolution or an American invasion of Iraq without it – there are going to be a terrible lot of pieces of international relations to pick up. . . . In so far as that majority is expressing a resistance to the unilateral exercise of American power, this must have its effect on the way that multilateral organisations, especially the regional associations such as the Arab League and the European Union, develop over the coming years. . . . The Bush administration has said – and it means it – that failure to support America will result in the marginalisation of the United Nations in US eyes. But then it has to be asked whether the Security Council structure, with its inner council of nuclear-power permanent members and rotating countries without the power of veto, makes much sense in the post-Cold War world. If it doesn't support America, it is castigated as irrelevant. If it does, then it is treated by Washington as little more than a rubber stamp for its policies. . . . The UN will survive because there is no global alternative for a mass of specific problems from refugees to policies on water sharing, and because it is useful as a means of legitimising actions and picking up the pieces after the event. . . . America is the only hyperpower, but it is not a power, still less under President Bush, that wishes to run the world so much as to bestride it. . . . The Iraqi crisis has posed, with a terrible clarity, the problem of power in the world. But in putting the United States so obviously at odds with most of the rest of the globe, it may yet bring its own counter-revolution.

. . . Read more!


posted by Lorenzo 11:40 AM

 

Why France is America's true friend
(Eric Margolis, Toronto Sun, March 9, 2003)
France, many Americans claim, should do whatever Washington orders out of gratitude for the U.S. "saving" it in two world wars. U.S. television features angry veterans standing in American military cemeteries in Normandy, denouncing France for "stabbing America in the back" - as if invading Iraq to grab its oil and crushing Israel's enemies had anything to do with World War II. . . . Few flag-waving pundits mention America sat out almost 40% of WWII until attacked by Japan. In 1940, the German armed forces were the equivalent of the U.S. armed forces today - a full military generation ahead of other nations. France's entire army was destroyed in battle by the invincible Germans; had the U.S. fought Germany in 1940, it too would have been routed. The Soviet Union, not the U.S., defeated Germany, destroying over 100 Nazi divisions. . . . So enough with all the bombast about Word War II. . . . George Bush's administration looks dangerously aggressive, dominated as it is by petrohawks and neo-conservative ideologues linked to Israel's far right. These little Mussolinis have no time for diplomacy or multi-nationalism. . . . Far from being an enemy, France has been doing what a true good friend should do: telling Washington its policy is wrong and dangerous, unlike the handkissing leaders of Britain, Spain and Italy, who crave Bush's political support, or the East European coalition of the shilling, ex-communist politicians pandering to Washington for cash. Seventy percent of British, and 90% of Italians and Spaniards oppose Bush's crusade. . . . The contrast between France's reasoned diplomatic response and Bush's belligerent behaviour could not be more stark. As is the dignified, logical tone set by President Chirac and Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin compared to the bullying, low-brow, locker-room talk issuing from the White House that has seriously damaged America's reputation and image around the globe. . . . The war will be akin to throwing a grenade into a huge hornet's nest. . . . America's friends and neighbours, led by France, the mother of diplomacy, rightly warn the steroidal Bush administration to halt its rush to war. President Chirac and Foreign Minister de Villepin deserve the Nobel Peace Prize. Americans owe France an apology, and a hearty "merci mon ami."

. . . Read more!


posted by Lorenzo 10:21 AM

 

UN launches inquiry into American spying
(Martin Bright, Ed Vulliamy, and Peter Beaumont, The Observer, March 9, 2003)
Sources in the office of UN Secretary General Kofi Annan confirmed last night that the spying operation had already been discussed at the UN's counter-terrorism committee and will be further investigated. . . . Last week The Observer published details of a memo sent by Frank Koza, Defence Chief of Staff (Regional Targets) at the US National Security Agency, which monitors international communications. The memo ordered an intelligence 'surge' directed against Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Bulgaria and Guinea with 'extra focus on Pakistan UN matters'. The 'dirty tricks' operation was designed to win votes in favour of intervention in Iraq. . . . The leak was described as 'more timely and potentially more important than the Pentagon Papers' by Daniel Ellsberg, the most celebrated whistleblower in recent American history. . . . The revelations of the spying operation have caused deep embarrassment to the Bush administration at a key point in the sensitive diplomatic negotiations to gain support for a second UN resolution authorising intervention in Iraq. . . . The operation is thought to have been authorised by US National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, but American intelligence experts told The Observer that a decision of this kind would also have involved Donald Rumsfeld, CIA director George Tenet and NSA chief General Michael Hayden. . . . President Bush himself would have been informed at one of the daily intelligence briefings held every morning at the White House. . . . Wayne Madsen, of the Electronic Privacy Information Centre and himself a former NSA intelligence officer, said the leak demonstrated that there was deep unhappiness in the intelligence world over attempts to link Iraq to the terrorist network al-Qaeda. . . . The Observer story caused a political furore in Chile, where President Ricardo Lagos demanded an immediate explanation of the spying operation. The Chilean public is extremely sensitive to reports of US 'dirty tricks' after decades of American secret service involvement in the country's internal affairs. In 1973 the CIA supported a coup that toppled the democratically-elected socialist government of Salvador Allende and installed the dictator General Augusto Pinochet. . . . Chile's ambassador to Britain Mariano Fernández told The Observer: 'We cannot understand why the United States was spying on Chile. We were very surprised. . . . While the bugging of foreign diplomats at the UN is permissible under the US Foreign Intelligence Services Act, it is a breach of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations

. . . Read more!


posted by Lorenzo 1:43 PM

 

Khalid Shaikh Mohammed - Dead or Alive?
Terror boss gets moved up the ladder as the US sees fit
There has been a bit of controversy surrounding the capture of latest evil-genious terrorist mastermind/boogeyman, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. Many news outlets such as the Toronto Star and the Memory Hole are questioning the capture by quoting reports of his death from Asia Times. However, this analysis may be incorrect. According to TIME Magazine (October 12, 2002): "But a fingerprint check later revealed that the dead man on the floor of the Karachi apartment wasn't Mohammed."

A month after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush released a list of the world's most-wanted terrorists. There were 22 names on it. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed wasn't No. 2 or No. 3. He wasn't even in the top 10. He was No. 22. . . . . The house where the terrorist Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was arrested is in one of the least likely places to find one of the world's most wanted terrorists. Westridge, a well-to-do suburb of Rawalpindi, is a five-minute drive from the headquarters of the Pakistani army and hundreds of senior officers, including serving and retired generals, live in the area.

. . . Read more!


posted by Hal 8:08 PM

 

Noam Chomsky: Confronting the Empire
(Noam Chomsky, February 1, 2003)
The most powerful state in history has proclaimed, loud and clear, that it intends to rule the world by force, the dimension in which it reigns supreme. . . . its leaders are committed to pursuit of their “imperial ambition,” as it is frankly described in the leading journal of the foreign policy establishment – critically, an important matter. They have also declared that they will tolerate no competitors, now or in the future. They evidently believe that the means of violence in their hands are so extraordinary that they can dismiss with contempt anyone who stands in their way. . . . The way to “confront the empire” is to create a different world, one that is not based on violence and subjugation, hate and fear. . . . A few days ago a poll in Canada found that over 1/3 of the population regard the US as the greatest threat to world peace. The US ranks more than twice as high as Iraq or North Korea, and far higher than al-Qaeda as well. A poll without careful controls, by Time magazine, found that over 80% of respondents in Europe regarded the US as the greatest threat to world peace, compared with less than 10% for Iraq or North Korea. Even if these numbers are wrong by some substantial factor, they are dramatic. . . . Opposition to the war is completely without historical precedent. In Europe it is so high that Secretary of “Defense” Donald Rumsfeld dismissed Germany and France as just the “old Europe,” plainly of no concern because of their disobedience. . . . In brief, the exciting “new Europe” consists of some leaders who are willing to defy their populations. . . . When I was just about to leave for the airport I received another of the many inquiries from the press about why there is so little anti-war protest in the US. The impressions are instructive. In fact, protest in the US, as elsewhere, is also at levels that have no historical precedent. Not just demonstrations, teach-ins, and other public events. To take an example of a different kind, last week the Chicago City Council passed an anti-war resolution, 46-1, joining 50 other cities and towns. . . . the biggest university in the country passed a strong antiwar resolution – the University of Texas, right next door to George W’s ranch. . . . So why the widespread judgment among elites that the tradition of dissent and protest has died? . . . Today, in dramatic contrast to the 1960s, there is large-scale, committed, and principled popular protest all over the US before the war has been officially launched. That reflects a steady increase over these years in unwillingness to tolerate aggression and atrocities, one of many such changes, worldwide in fact. . . . It’s not like the 1960s, when the population would tolerate a murderous and destructive war for years without visible protest. That’s no longer true. The activist movements of the past 40 years have had a significant civilizing effect. By now, the only way to attack a much weaker enemy is to construct a huge propaganda offensive depicting it as about to commit genocide, maybe even a threat to our very survival, then to celebrate a miraculous victory over the awesome foe, while chanting praises to the courageous leaders who came to the rescue just in time. That is the current scenario in Iraq. . . . Polls reveal more support for the planned war in the US than elsewhere, but the numbers are misleading. . . . It is also rather striking that strong opposition to the coming war extends right through the establishment. The current issues of the two major foreign policy journals feature articles opposing the war by leading figures of foreign policy elites. The very respectable American Academy of Arts and Sciences released a long monograph on the war, trying to give the most sympathetic possible account of the Bush administration position, then dismantling it point by point. One respected analyst they quote is a Senior Associate of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, who warns that the US is becoming “a menace to itself and to mankind” under its current leadership. There are no precedents for anything like this. . . . Nevertheless, the threats that do concern establishment critics are very real. They were surely not surprised when the CIA informed Congress last October that they know of no link between Iraq and al Qaeda-style terrorism, but that an attack on Iraq would probably increase the terrorist threat to the West, in many ways. It is likely to inspire a new generation of terrorists bent on revenge, and it might induce Iraq to carry out terrorist actions that are already in place, a possibility taken very seriously by US analysts. A high-level task force of the Council on Foreign Relations just released a report warning of likely terrorist attacks that could be far worse than 9-11, including possible use of WMD right within the US, dangers that become “more urgent by the prospect of the US going to war with Iraq.” They provide many illustrations, virtually a cook-book for terrorists. It is not the first; similar ones were published by prominent strategic analysts long before 9-11. . . . As history shows, it is all too easy for unscrupulous leaders to terrify the public, with consequences that have not been attractive. That is the natural method to divert attention from the fact that tax cuts for the rich and other devices are undermining prospects for a decent life for large majority of the population, and for future generations. When the presidential campaign begins, Republican strategists surely do not want people to be asking questions about their pensions, jobs, health care, and other such matters. Rather, they should be praising their heroic leader for rescuing them from imminent destruction by a foe of colossal power, and marching on to confront the next powerful force bent on our destruction. It could be Iran, or conflicts in the Andean countries: there are lots of good choices, as long as the targets are defenseless. . . . The September 11 terrorist atrocities provided an opportunity and pretext to implement long-standing plans to take control of Iraq's immense oil wealth, a central component of the Persian Gulf resources that the State Department, in 1945, described as "a stupendous source of strategic power, and one of the greatest material prizes in world history." US intelligence predicts that these will be of even greater significance in the years ahead. The issue has never been access. The same intelligence analyses anticipate that the US will rely on more secure supplies in the Western hemisphere and West Africa. The same was true after World War II. What matters is control over the "material prize," which funnels enormous wealth to the US in many ways, Britain as well, and the "stupendous source of strategic power," which translates into a lever of “unilateral world domination” -- the goal that is now openly proclaimed, and is frightening much of the world, including “old Europe” and the conservative establishment in the US.

. . . Read more!


posted by Lorenzo 1:15 PM

 

American Media Dodging U.N. Surveillance Story
(Norman Solomon, AlterNet, March 6, 2003)
Three days after a British newspaper revealed a memo about U.S. spying on U.N. Security Council delegations, I asked Daniel Ellsberg to assess the importance of the story. "This leak," he replied, "is more timely and potentially more important than the Pentagon Papers." . . . the leak about spying at the United Nations could erode the Bush administration's already slim chances of getting a war resolution through the Security Council. . . . the U.S. government developed an "aggressive surveillance operation, which involves interception of the home and office telephones and the e-mails of U.N. delegates." . . . The Observer added: "The leaked memorandum makes clear that the target of the heightened surveillance efforts are the delegations from Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Mexico, Guinea and Pakistan at the U.N. headquarters in New York – the so-called 'Middle Six' delegations whose votes are being fought over by the pro-war party, led by the U.S. and Britain . . . "a memorandum by the U.S. National Security Agency, leaked to the Observer, revealed that American spies were ordered to eavesdrop on the conversations of the six undecided countries on the United Nations Security Council." . . . The London Times article called it an "embarrassing disclosure." And the embarrassment was nearly worldwide. From Russia to France to Chile to Japan to Australia, the story was big mainstream news. But not in the United States. . . . Several days after the "embarrassing disclosure," not a word about it had appeared in America's supposed paper of record. The New York Times . . . readers should be suspicious of the failure of the New York Times to cover this story during the crucial first days after it broke. At some moments in history, when war and peace hang in the balance, journalism delayed is journalism denied. . . . To Daniel Ellsberg, the leaking of the NSA memo was a hopeful sign. "Truth-telling like this can stop a war," he said. Time is short for insiders at intelligence agencies "to tell the truth and save many many lives." But major news outlets must stop dodging the information that emerges.

. . . Read more!


posted by Lorenzo 3:06 PM

 

Transatlantic Battle Over the New World Order
(Peter Howard, Foreign Policy In Focus, March 5, 2003)
The dispute in NATO and the UN was never really about Iraq. It's about the United States. More specifically, it's about the Bush administration's post-September 11 doctrine to use U.S. military power to achieve national security objectives. . . . The United States is now committed to use its superior military force to shape the world in America's interests. What scares France and Germany is that Bush means it. Iraq is merely a symptom of this new disposition, a war the U.S. chooses to wage on its own terms. . . . The degree of U.S. preeminence in 1945 remains unmatched. Today, the U.S. is still the world's largest economy. It has the only military with global reach and an unprecedented lead in military technology, from smart bombs to stealth fighters. But the European Union forms a nearly equal counterweight in economic affairs, and many nations have a nuclear deterrent sufficient to protect against a U.S. invasion. . . . Today, the Bush administration has shown its contempt for these elements of international order. It has rejected treaties and international law that it views as constraining U.S. freedom of action, abandoning the Kyoto protocol on greenhouse gasses and the International Criminal Court. It has withdrawn from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and shown a disdain for arms control in general. Most significantly, though, Bush advocates the use American power to capitalize on American military preeminence outside any international body. . . . [The French and Germans] fear that the Bush administration is emaciating the international order that has ensured global peace for 58 years. . . . The U.S. allies most opposed to the war in Iraq are opposed to the unilateral and unconstrained application of U.S. power. They fear that the U.S. will go into Iraq without them. . . . They see the Bush administration straying from the values that allowed the Western alliance to survive the cold war and the Kosovo war. Multilateralism on Iraq is dead. Unilateralism and bandwagoning rule the day. . . . The alternative is the worst case scenario – a unilateral invasion of Iraq by the U.S. and its coalition of the willing. This would cut out many U.S. allies from the decision making process, and at the same time overburden the U.S. with the cost of post-war occupation and reconstruction. It would delegitimize the U.S. use of force in the eyes of much of the world, and in the long run make it very difficult for the U.S. to engage in any international endeavor that requires substantial multilateral cooperation. Such an action would probably signal the beginning of the end for both the UN and NATO, long the keepers of international peace and security. . . . the Bush administration must beware of the growing international apprehension at the vast power of the United States. It is this type of resentment that could produce a significant international trend toward anti-U.S. balancing, through alliances and nuclear weapons proliferation. Iraq remains a red herring. The real drama is the shape of Bush's new world order – one with the U.S. squarely on top.

. . . Read more!


posted by Lorenzo 1:48 PM