Tuesday, January 29, 2002
CNN, THE ISRAELI DEFENSE FORCES & THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE
Imagine if you are a Palestinian living under Israeli siege, seeing your people daily pulverized and humiliated by the armed forces of the last remaining belligerent foreign occupation army on the planet. As a Palestinian, you have watched Israeli troops murder and mutilate hundreds of your young. You have watched your people's land being stolen to build exclusive Jewish settlements. Like many of the native people of the Holy Land, for 34 years, you have endured the racist laws that allow for collective punishment, imprisonment without cause, torture, murder and the assassination of your political leaders. You watch the Israelis steal land and lie. Kill innocents and lie. Israel elects a serial war criminal to the highest office and the New York Times actively works to market him to the American people as a 'peacemaker without a partner'.
Imagine if you are a Palestinian living under Israeli siege, seeing your people daily pulverized and humiliated by the armed forces of the last remaining belligerent foreign occupation army on the planet. As a Palestinian, you have watched Israeli troops murder and mutilate hundreds of your young. You have watched your people's land being stolen to build exclusive Jewish settlements. Like many of the native people of the Holy Land, for 34 years, you have endured the racist laws that allow for collective punishment, imprisonment without cause, torture, murder and the assassination of your political leaders. You watch the Israelis steal land and lie. Kill innocents and lie. Israel elects a serial war criminal to the highest office and the New York Times actively works to market him to the American people as a 'peacemaker without a partner'.
themassesareasses© on blogger Tuesday, January 29, 2002
Friday, January 18, 2002
From the Ari Fleischer files,
'reminding all Americans that they need to watch what they say and watch what they do.'
White House Press Briefing - Jan 16, 2002
Question: I have a couple of Harvey Pitt questions. Harvey Pitt is here at the White House now with Richard Grasso, head of the New York Stock Exchange and leaders of the securities industry for a one o'clock meeting. What is that about?
Ari Fleischer: That's a bill signing that passed by unanimous consent in the Senate and I think 414 votes in the House dealing with fees that are collected.
Question: Two follow-ups. One, is the President concerned that his buddies at Enron are going to jail?
Ari Fleischer: The President thinks that he wants the Department of Justice to pursue this wherever it goes, wherever it goes, and to do whatever it takes to investigate any criminal wrongdoing. As a result of that, if anybody ends up with a prison sentence, that is the American system of justice and that is proper and that is the way it should work. And that is what the President wants to see pursued. That and the policy reviews is what this Administration is dedicated to...
'reminding all Americans that they need to watch what they say and watch what they do.'
White House Press Briefing - Jan 16, 2002
Question: I have a couple of Harvey Pitt questions. Harvey Pitt is here at the White House now with Richard Grasso, head of the New York Stock Exchange and leaders of the securities industry for a one o'clock meeting. What is that about?
Ari Fleischer: That's a bill signing that passed by unanimous consent in the Senate and I think 414 votes in the House dealing with fees that are collected.
Question: Two follow-ups. One, is the President concerned that his buddies at Enron are going to jail?
Ari Fleischer: The President thinks that he wants the Department of Justice to pursue this wherever it goes, wherever it goes, and to do whatever it takes to investigate any criminal wrongdoing. As a result of that, if anybody ends up with a prison sentence, that is the American system of justice and that is proper and that is the way it should work. And that is what the President wants to see pursued. That and the policy reviews is what this Administration is dedicated to...
themassesareasses© on blogger Friday, January 18, 2002
Tuesday, January 08, 2002
ARMS SEIZURE BACKFIRES, WOUNDS ISRAEL
In a daring nighttime raid on Jan. 4, Israeli commandos seized a vessel in international waters of the Red Sea that was carrying 50 tons of weapons, including Katyusha rockets, anti-aircraft and anti-tank missiles, sniper rifles and mortar launchers. Israeli government officials said the next morning that the Palestinian Authority had purchased the weapons from Iran and was intending to smuggle them into the territories.
The circumstances surrounding the shipment and details that emerged after its seizure have cast doubts on Israel's report of the incident, however. Both the Palestinian Authority and Tehran have denied any connection to the Karine A, and a report in a prestigious British shipping journal contradicts Israeli allegations regarding the vessel's ownership. Rather than validating Israel's claims of Palestinian duplicity, the incident has damaged Israel's credibility. Audiences in the West, especially in Europe and the United States, are now more likely to question other Israeli charges against the Palestinians...
[T]he seizure of the Karine A instead has mushroomed into a full-scale embarrassment for Israel. Several details undermine claims that the Palestinian Authority was directly involved in the purchase and smuggling of weapons. For example, the timing of the seizure provided a convenient means of thwarting progress toward peace talks during a four-day visit by U.S. envoy Anthony Zinni...
At the same time, logic argues against the idea that the Palestinian Authority was involved in the incident: The presence of Palestinian naval officers aboard the vessel, including one who later directly fingered two of Arafat's top lieutenants, limits plausible deniability. Though the Palestinian Authority does not govern a state, it nonetheless must behave as a government -- and governments engaged in covert or illegal operations usually act in a manner that allows plausible deniability. It would be either extremely stupid or sheerly lunatic for the Palestinians to think that a weapons-laden ship might transit the Red Sea and the Suez Canal undetected at a time when both are under heightened surveillance.
Furthermore, there are contradictory reports about the vessel's ownership. Israel claims Palestinians owned the ship, but Lloyd's List, a premier shipping publication owned by Lloyd's of London, reported Jan.7 that it was owned by an Iraqi national. According to Lloyd's, it was a Lebanese-flagged vessel operated by the Beirut-based Diana K. Shipping Co. and was sold in August 2001 to Ali Mohammed Abbas for $400,000. The ship was then re-registered in Tonga as the Karine A. Although a Lebanese Transport Ministry official has disputed the Lloyd's report, it lends credence to the Palestinian denials and countercharges that Israel manipulated the seizure to derail peace talks...
In a daring nighttime raid on Jan. 4, Israeli commandos seized a vessel in international waters of the Red Sea that was carrying 50 tons of weapons, including Katyusha rockets, anti-aircraft and anti-tank missiles, sniper rifles and mortar launchers. Israeli government officials said the next morning that the Palestinian Authority had purchased the weapons from Iran and was intending to smuggle them into the territories.
The circumstances surrounding the shipment and details that emerged after its seizure have cast doubts on Israel's report of the incident, however. Both the Palestinian Authority and Tehran have denied any connection to the Karine A, and a report in a prestigious British shipping journal contradicts Israeli allegations regarding the vessel's ownership. Rather than validating Israel's claims of Palestinian duplicity, the incident has damaged Israel's credibility. Audiences in the West, especially in Europe and the United States, are now more likely to question other Israeli charges against the Palestinians...
[T]he seizure of the Karine A instead has mushroomed into a full-scale embarrassment for Israel. Several details undermine claims that the Palestinian Authority was directly involved in the purchase and smuggling of weapons. For example, the timing of the seizure provided a convenient means of thwarting progress toward peace talks during a four-day visit by U.S. envoy Anthony Zinni...
At the same time, logic argues against the idea that the Palestinian Authority was involved in the incident: The presence of Palestinian naval officers aboard the vessel, including one who later directly fingered two of Arafat's top lieutenants, limits plausible deniability. Though the Palestinian Authority does not govern a state, it nonetheless must behave as a government -- and governments engaged in covert or illegal operations usually act in a manner that allows plausible deniability. It would be either extremely stupid or sheerly lunatic for the Palestinians to think that a weapons-laden ship might transit the Red Sea and the Suez Canal undetected at a time when both are under heightened surveillance.
Furthermore, there are contradictory reports about the vessel's ownership. Israel claims Palestinians owned the ship, but Lloyd's List, a premier shipping publication owned by Lloyd's of London, reported Jan.7 that it was owned by an Iraqi national. According to Lloyd's, it was a Lebanese-flagged vessel operated by the Beirut-based Diana K. Shipping Co. and was sold in August 2001 to Ali Mohammed Abbas for $400,000. The ship was then re-registered in Tonga as the Karine A. Although a Lebanese Transport Ministry official has disputed the Lloyd's report, it lends credence to the Palestinian denials and countercharges that Israel manipulated the seizure to derail peace talks...
themassesareasses© on blogger Tuesday, January 08, 2002
AFTER AFGHANISTAN, US LIKELY TO FOCUS ON INDONESIA, PHILIPPINES: WOLFOWITZ
After Afghanistan, the United States will likely focus on denying terrorist groups sanctuary in places like Somalia, Yemen, Indonesia and the Philippines, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz told The New York Times.
In an interview, Wolfowitz said that Somalia, perhaps more than any other place, fitted the bill of a lawless state that draws terrorists.
"Obviously Somalia comes up as a possible candidate for al-Qaeda people to flee to precisely because the government is weak or nonexistent," Wolfowitz was quoted as saying.
Wolfowitz, however, acknowledged that American options were limited in Somalia, where, he said, "by definition you don't have a government you can work with."...
After Afghanistan, the United States will likely focus on denying terrorist groups sanctuary in places like Somalia, Yemen, Indonesia and the Philippines, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz told The New York Times.
In an interview, Wolfowitz said that Somalia, perhaps more than any other place, fitted the bill of a lawless state that draws terrorists.
"Obviously Somalia comes up as a possible candidate for al-Qaeda people to flee to precisely because the government is weak or nonexistent," Wolfowitz was quoted as saying.
Wolfowitz, however, acknowledged that American options were limited in Somalia, where, he said, "by definition you don't have a government you can work with."...
themassesareasses© on blogger Tuesday, January 08, 2002
ARGENTINE DEVALUATION: UNELECTED GOVERNMENT BEGINS ASSAULT ON LIVING STANDARDS
Assuming power after mass upheavals throughout Argentina forced the resignation of four presidents within the space of barely two weeks, an alliance of discredited Peronist politicians, backed by the Radicals, the country’s other bourgeois party, has spelled out a new economic program that will mean even sharper attacks on the living standards of millions of Argentine workers and middle class people.
The newly installed government of President Eduardo Duhalde announced the devaluation of the Argentine peso by nearly 30 percent January 7, just days after the country formally entered into default on its $141 billion foreign debt. “We are in collapse. Argentina is bankrupt,” the government’s economy minister Jorge Remes Lenicov declared...
The default and the devaluation represent a severe blow to the US proponents of the capitalist “free market” as the solution to the vast economic and social crisis gripping Latin America and the rest of the so-called developing world.
Argentina was the shining example of free market policies promoted by both Washington and the IMF for years. Under the Peronist government of Carlos Menem 11 years ago, Buenos Aires introduced one-to-one dollar-to-peso convertibility, declaring, in the words of one minister, that it had entered into “carnal relations” with the US. The economic move was accompanied by Menem’s slavish support of the US war against Iraq.
The country became the source of super profits for foreign transnationals, international banks and money market funds as it privatized state enterprises and offered double-digit profits on bonds used to finance the ballooning national debt.
Menem, who until recently was under house arrest for his part in illegal gun running to Ecuador and the former Yugoslavia—only one of many illegal schemes carried out under his gangster regime—was lionized by world bankers and US politicians as Latin America’s most forward-looking leader...
Assuming power after mass upheavals throughout Argentina forced the resignation of four presidents within the space of barely two weeks, an alliance of discredited Peronist politicians, backed by the Radicals, the country’s other bourgeois party, has spelled out a new economic program that will mean even sharper attacks on the living standards of millions of Argentine workers and middle class people.
The newly installed government of President Eduardo Duhalde announced the devaluation of the Argentine peso by nearly 30 percent January 7, just days after the country formally entered into default on its $141 billion foreign debt. “We are in collapse. Argentina is bankrupt,” the government’s economy minister Jorge Remes Lenicov declared...
The default and the devaluation represent a severe blow to the US proponents of the capitalist “free market” as the solution to the vast economic and social crisis gripping Latin America and the rest of the so-called developing world.
Argentina was the shining example of free market policies promoted by both Washington and the IMF for years. Under the Peronist government of Carlos Menem 11 years ago, Buenos Aires introduced one-to-one dollar-to-peso convertibility, declaring, in the words of one minister, that it had entered into “carnal relations” with the US. The economic move was accompanied by Menem’s slavish support of the US war against Iraq.
The country became the source of super profits for foreign transnationals, international banks and money market funds as it privatized state enterprises and offered double-digit profits on bonds used to finance the ballooning national debt.
Menem, who until recently was under house arrest for his part in illegal gun running to Ecuador and the former Yugoslavia—only one of many illegal schemes carried out under his gangster regime—was lionized by world bankers and US politicians as Latin America’s most forward-looking leader...
themassesareasses© on blogger Tuesday, January 08, 2002
THE US, IMF, WORLD BANK, etc.
These international financial institutions which were set up after the end of the second World War have changed their functions over the years, but in effect they are essentially the agency of the major transnationals and the great powers. So what's called the G7, the seven big states, and the big transnational corporations which are on the scale of states and the financial institutions and so on, they are trying to organize a certain kind of world. The agency for carrying out those plans to a significant extent, not totally, is the World Bank and the IMF.
Sure we should be worried of the kind of world that they are trying to create and hence about the institutions by which they are doing it. And also about something very crucial about the nature of all these institutions, they are basically unaccountable. In order to know about what the IMF is doing, even, you would have to dedicate an awful a lot of energy and effort to put into it. You have to be a specialist. For most people that's hopeless -- you can barely know about their existence, let alone what they are doing, even when it's public, which it often isn't. And they are making decisions which have an enormous impact on people. Well that itself is illegitimate. So any unaccountable exercise of power is in itself illegitimate. If you look further at what they are doing I think there is good reason to be concerned about it, but they are not acting on their own. They express what in fact is called in the literature the "Washington consensus", and it's the "Washington consensus" because it's forged in Washington, which is not only the home of the World Bank and the IMF for the most part, but also of the world's most powerful state and the representatives of the major sectors of corporate power which either congregate there or send their representatives there. It's not called the "Washington consensus" for no reason.
-- Noam Chomsky
These international financial institutions which were set up after the end of the second World War have changed their functions over the years, but in effect they are essentially the agency of the major transnationals and the great powers. So what's called the G7, the seven big states, and the big transnational corporations which are on the scale of states and the financial institutions and so on, they are trying to organize a certain kind of world. The agency for carrying out those plans to a significant extent, not totally, is the World Bank and the IMF.
Sure we should be worried of the kind of world that they are trying to create and hence about the institutions by which they are doing it. And also about something very crucial about the nature of all these institutions, they are basically unaccountable. In order to know about what the IMF is doing, even, you would have to dedicate an awful a lot of energy and effort to put into it. You have to be a specialist. For most people that's hopeless -- you can barely know about their existence, let alone what they are doing, even when it's public, which it often isn't. And they are making decisions which have an enormous impact on people. Well that itself is illegitimate. So any unaccountable exercise of power is in itself illegitimate. If you look further at what they are doing I think there is good reason to be concerned about it, but they are not acting on their own. They express what in fact is called in the literature the "Washington consensus", and it's the "Washington consensus" because it's forged in Washington, which is not only the home of the World Bank and the IMF for the most part, but also of the world's most powerful state and the representatives of the major sectors of corporate power which either congregate there or send their representatives there. It's not called the "Washington consensus" for no reason.
-- Noam Chomsky
themassesareasses© on blogger Tuesday, January 08, 2002
SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN DISCUSSES LETTER TO PRESIDENT BUSH REQUESTING AID TO SADDAM HUSSEIN OPPOSITION FORCES IN IRAQ
We're back to one of my favorite questions, what do we make of this push by some, a lot of columnists and reporters for a war against Iraq. Prominent members of Congress have written a letter to President Bush urging him to aid Iraqi opposition groups that might overthrow Saddam Hussein. They write, quote, "As we work to clean up Afghanistan and destroy al-Qaeda, it is imperative that we plan to eliminate the threat from Iraq...We believe we must directly confront Saddam, sooner rather than later." Senator John McCain signed that letter, he joins us now...
Chris Matthews: ...If we have to go into Iraq, it's worth it to put as many men as it takes to take over that country and get rid of its entire leadership totally, the president, Saddam Hussein, his entire Baathist party crowd--and what do we do with him once we get in there? Kill them all?
Senator John McCain: No, I think that--that--that the people that they've oppressed and repressed are the ones that would probably want to do that. I think he could be deposed in a broad variety of ways, but I think that the point is that the people of his country would be overjoyed. I mean, he gassed 5,000...
Chris Matthews: The Kurds...
Senator John McCain: ...My nightmare--I have several nightmares about Saddam Hussein, but one of them is the SCUD missile which he has, a weapon of mass destruction which he probably has.
Chris Matthews: Right.
Senator John McCain: That's--in the view of most--aimed at Israel. Aimed at Israel.
Chris Matthews: Why doesn't Israel take them out? I'm using the popular parlance. Why doesn't Israel do the work that they have to do? Isn't that their job if it's a strategic threat to them? They're the most powerful nation in the Mideast.
Senator John McCain: I don't think that Israel fee--one. They've got their hands full just as you said right now. But second, I don't think we would ever countenance. We criticized them when they took out his nuclear facility back--back--back many years ago.
Chris Matthews: Well, why don't we give them the go-ahead? Get rid of Saddam. You know, if you hate him, do it.
Senator John McCain: Because I'm not sure we should ask the Israelis to do--to take care of a threat to the United States of America.
Chris Matthews: But you said it was a threat to Israel.
Senator John McCain: Well, to world peace, I think.
Chris Matthews: No, you said it was a threat to Israel. Why should the United States deal with a threat to Israel? Why don't we let Israel--we've been giving them $3 billion a year to defend themselves. Why don't we say, 'Defend yourselves. You've got a clear fight. Go take Saddam out'?
Senator John McCain: Because, I think it's our job. I think we're the world's leader and I...
Chris Matthews: Our job is to defend Israel?
Senator John McCain: No, it's our job to remove threats to the security of the United States of America. I think it's...
Chris Matthews: They didn't say it was a threat. Are they going to shoot this guy over here?
Senator John McCain: I think I said five times--I believe Saddam Hussein poses a clear and present danger to the security of the United States of America. I think he also poses a threat to Israel as well. Israel's got their hands full right now.
Chris Matthews: Well, that may be the case, but you're right, Senator, the biggest threat is that Israel would suffer the--suffer a tremendous loss by this guided missile.
Senator John McCain: That's one of my nightmares.
Chris Matthews: ...but I've got to tell you, if that's the case, Israel ought to be advised to take care of Saddam Hussein and not us. Anyway, thank you very much Senator John McCain.
Senator John McCain: Thank you for having me on.
We're back to one of my favorite questions, what do we make of this push by some, a lot of columnists and reporters for a war against Iraq. Prominent members of Congress have written a letter to President Bush urging him to aid Iraqi opposition groups that might overthrow Saddam Hussein. They write, quote, "As we work to clean up Afghanistan and destroy al-Qaeda, it is imperative that we plan to eliminate the threat from Iraq...We believe we must directly confront Saddam, sooner rather than later." Senator John McCain signed that letter, he joins us now...
Chris Matthews: ...If we have to go into Iraq, it's worth it to put as many men as it takes to take over that country and get rid of its entire leadership totally, the president, Saddam Hussein, his entire Baathist party crowd--and what do we do with him once we get in there? Kill them all?
Senator John McCain: No, I think that--that--that the people that they've oppressed and repressed are the ones that would probably want to do that. I think he could be deposed in a broad variety of ways, but I think that the point is that the people of his country would be overjoyed. I mean, he gassed 5,000...
Chris Matthews: The Kurds...
Senator John McCain: ...My nightmare--I have several nightmares about Saddam Hussein, but one of them is the SCUD missile which he has, a weapon of mass destruction which he probably has.
Chris Matthews: Right.
Senator John McCain: That's--in the view of most--aimed at Israel. Aimed at Israel.
Chris Matthews: Why doesn't Israel take them out? I'm using the popular parlance. Why doesn't Israel do the work that they have to do? Isn't that their job if it's a strategic threat to them? They're the most powerful nation in the Mideast.
Senator John McCain: I don't think that Israel fee--one. They've got their hands full just as you said right now. But second, I don't think we would ever countenance. We criticized them when they took out his nuclear facility back--back--back many years ago.
Chris Matthews: Well, why don't we give them the go-ahead? Get rid of Saddam. You know, if you hate him, do it.
Senator John McCain: Because I'm not sure we should ask the Israelis to do--to take care of a threat to the United States of America.
Chris Matthews: But you said it was a threat to Israel.
Senator John McCain: Well, to world peace, I think.
Chris Matthews: No, you said it was a threat to Israel. Why should the United States deal with a threat to Israel? Why don't we let Israel--we've been giving them $3 billion a year to defend themselves. Why don't we say, 'Defend yourselves. You've got a clear fight. Go take Saddam out'?
Senator John McCain: Because, I think it's our job. I think we're the world's leader and I...
Chris Matthews: Our job is to defend Israel?
Senator John McCain: No, it's our job to remove threats to the security of the United States of America. I think it's...
Chris Matthews: They didn't say it was a threat. Are they going to shoot this guy over here?
Senator John McCain: I think I said five times--I believe Saddam Hussein poses a clear and present danger to the security of the United States of America. I think he also poses a threat to Israel as well. Israel's got their hands full right now.
Chris Matthews: Well, that may be the case, but you're right, Senator, the biggest threat is that Israel would suffer the--suffer a tremendous loss by this guided missile.
Senator John McCain: That's one of my nightmares.
Chris Matthews: ...but I've got to tell you, if that's the case, Israel ought to be advised to take care of Saddam Hussein and not us. Anyway, thank you very much Senator John McCain.
Senator John McCain: Thank you for having me on.
themassesareasses© on blogger Tuesday, January 08, 2002
ISRAELI HYPOCRISY AND ITS 'WAR ON TERRORISM'
"The Sharon government seems determined to destroy any chance of ending Israel's half century oppression of Palestinians, and has declared the Palestinian Authority under Yasser Arafat to be the enemy in a hypocritically declared 'war on terrorism' against an already subjugated people. Both Israeli and Palestinian civilians will continue to suffer - especially Palestinians, who have already suffered loss of their human rights, homes, livelihoods, and the lives of children."
Bulent Ecevit, the Prime Minister of Turkey, Israel's closest ally in the Middle East, recently revealed that Sharon has told him Israel wants to "be rid of" Arafat. Israel and the U.S. both boycotted the Fourth Geneva Convention in Switzerland on December 4 and 5, at which Israel was reprimanded by 114 states, including Britain and other European Union nations, for indiscriminate and disproportionate violence against Palestinian civilians and breaches of the Geneva Conventions.
"We are ashamed of the silence of the U.S. about Sharon's responsibility, as the leader of a wealthy and heavily armed state, for lighting the fuse that set off the recent attacks," said Annie Goeke, a Pennsylvania Green activist and chair of the party's International Committee. "Palestinian civilians are being murdered with American weapons and with the Bush Administration's approval."
"The Sharon government seems determined to destroy any chance of ending Israel's half century oppression of Palestinians, and has declared the Palestinian Authority under Yasser Arafat to be the enemy in a hypocritically declared 'war on terrorism' against an already subjugated people. Both Israeli and Palestinian civilians will continue to suffer - especially Palestinians, who have already suffered loss of their human rights, homes, livelihoods, and the lives of children."
Bulent Ecevit, the Prime Minister of Turkey, Israel's closest ally in the Middle East, recently revealed that Sharon has told him Israel wants to "be rid of" Arafat. Israel and the U.S. both boycotted the Fourth Geneva Convention in Switzerland on December 4 and 5, at which Israel was reprimanded by 114 states, including Britain and other European Union nations, for indiscriminate and disproportionate violence against Palestinian civilians and breaches of the Geneva Conventions.
"We are ashamed of the silence of the U.S. about Sharon's responsibility, as the leader of a wealthy and heavily armed state, for lighting the fuse that set off the recent attacks," said Annie Goeke, a Pennsylvania Green activist and chair of the party's International Committee. "Palestinian civilians are being murdered with American weapons and with the Bush Administration's approval."
themassesareasses© on blogger Tuesday, January 08, 2002
ISRAEL REJECTS GENEVA CONVENTIONS CRITICISM; PALESTINE WELCOMES IT
GENEVA (AP) - Dec 6 - Israel denied Wednesday it was breaching Geneva Conventions on warfare in occupied Palestinian territories and said an international conference had no right to even raise the issue.
The declaration by 114 countries deplored the killing of civilians, particularly children, in the ongoing violence between Israel and Palestinian militants.
The countries represented were signatories to the 1949 Geneva Conventions on the conduct of war.
Yaakov Levy, Israel's ambassador to the international organizations in Geneva, said the conference declaration was "clearly one-sided" and contained "unsubstantiated allegations."
The declaration did not contain specific allegations, but demanded Israel "immediately refrain from committing grave breaches" of the conventions, such as the intentional killings of Palestinians.
It also said Israel and Palestinian militants should "abstain from exposing the civilian population to military operations."
The declaration deplored "the great number of civilian victims, in particular children and other vulnerable groups, due to indiscriminate or disproportionate use of force and due to lack of respect for international humanitarian law."...
The conference, boycotted by Israel and the United States which called it "counterproductive," declared that the conventions apply to "the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem."...
Israel claims the territory it seized in the 1967 Middle East war is disputed, not occupied. Since then, Israel has built more than 100 Jewish settlements home to about 200,000 Israelis.
The conference said it was illegal to colonize occupied land.
Israel should refrain from such acts as "willful killing, torture, unlawful deportation, willful depriving of the rights of fair and regular trial, extensive destruction and appropriation of property not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly," the declaration said.
Peter Maurer, the Swiss Foreign Ministry official who chaired the conference, said the declaration was balanced.
"It clearly condemns the use of indiscriminate force against civilians whether by an Israeli helicopter gunship or someone who plants a bomb in a Jerusalem pizzeria," Maurer said.
In 14 months of fighting since the outbreak of the Palestinian Intefadeh, or uprising, over 790 people have been killed on the Palestinian side and at least 230 on the Israeli side.
GENEVA (AP) - Dec 6 - Israel denied Wednesday it was breaching Geneva Conventions on warfare in occupied Palestinian territories and said an international conference had no right to even raise the issue.
The declaration by 114 countries deplored the killing of civilians, particularly children, in the ongoing violence between Israel and Palestinian militants.
The countries represented were signatories to the 1949 Geneva Conventions on the conduct of war.
Yaakov Levy, Israel's ambassador to the international organizations in Geneva, said the conference declaration was "clearly one-sided" and contained "unsubstantiated allegations."
The declaration did not contain specific allegations, but demanded Israel "immediately refrain from committing grave breaches" of the conventions, such as the intentional killings of Palestinians.
It also said Israel and Palestinian militants should "abstain from exposing the civilian population to military operations."
The declaration deplored "the great number of civilian victims, in particular children and other vulnerable groups, due to indiscriminate or disproportionate use of force and due to lack of respect for international humanitarian law."...
The conference, boycotted by Israel and the United States which called it "counterproductive," declared that the conventions apply to "the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem."...
Israel claims the territory it seized in the 1967 Middle East war is disputed, not occupied. Since then, Israel has built more than 100 Jewish settlements home to about 200,000 Israelis.
The conference said it was illegal to colonize occupied land.
Israel should refrain from such acts as "willful killing, torture, unlawful deportation, willful depriving of the rights of fair and regular trial, extensive destruction and appropriation of property not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly," the declaration said.
Peter Maurer, the Swiss Foreign Ministry official who chaired the conference, said the declaration was balanced.
"It clearly condemns the use of indiscriminate force against civilians whether by an Israeli helicopter gunship or someone who plants a bomb in a Jerusalem pizzeria," Maurer said.
In 14 months of fighting since the outbreak of the Palestinian Intefadeh, or uprising, over 790 people have been killed on the Palestinian side and at least 230 on the Israeli side.
themassesareasses© on blogger Tuesday, January 08, 2002
CALLS FOR HALT TO VIOLENCE, ‘MITCHELL REPORT’ IMPLEMENTATION
(Also Reiterates Applicability of 1949 Geneva Convention to Territories)
The resumed tenth emergency special session of the General Assembly this afternoon, meeting to consider illegal Israeli actions in occupied East Jerusalem and the rest of the occupied Palestinian territory, demanded the immediate cessation of all acts of violence, provocation and destruction, as well as the return to the positions and arrangements that existed prior to September 2000.
Through adoption of a resolution by a recorded vote of 124 in favor to 6 against (Israel, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Nauru, Tuvalu, United States), with 25 abstentions, the Assembly also condemned all acts of terror, in particular those targeting civilians, as well as all acts of extrajudiciary executions, excessive use of force and wide destruction of properties. (For details of the vote see Annex I.)
The Assembly, adopting a text essentially the same as the draft resolution rejected by the Security Council last Friday because of the negative vote of the United States, also called on the two sides to start the comprehensive and immediate implementation of the recommendations made in the report of the Sharm El-Sheikh Fact-Finding Committee (Mitchell report) in a speedy manner, and encouraged all concerned to establish a monitoring mechanism to help the parties implement those recommendations.
Adopting a second resolution by a recorded vote of 133 in favor to 4 against (Israel, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, United States), with 16 abstentions, the Assembly, reiterating the applicability of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War to the occupied Palestinian territory, expressed full support for the declaration adopted by the Conference of High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention, convened on 5 December in Geneva, Switzerland (Annex II).
During the debate prior to action on the texts, the Permanent Observer for Palestine told the Assembly that the current Israeli Government had adopted policies undermining peace efforts in the Middle East from the first day it came to power. Once Israel's Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, had succeeded in burying the recommendations of the Mitchell report, he came up with a new declaration about the need for the Palestinian Authority to first combat and end terrorism. Meanwhile, Israel continued to assault the Authority and its institutions, keeping them from functioning.
He said the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land had remained the main predicament and origin of all disasters. The only solution was ending that occupation and realizing the rights of the Palestinian people, including the establishment of an independent Palestinian State with Al-Quds Al-Sharif as its capital.
themassesareasses© on blogger Tuesday, January 08, 2002
MORE ARGENTINA
Argentina's meltdown is unfortunately the latest example in a pattern of strategic errors made, funded, and in some cases enforced by the International Monetary Fund. As in Russia and Brazil in 1998, the IMF has supported an overvalued currency, saddling the country with enormous -- in Argentina's case absolutely unpayable -- debt. The biggest problem in these situations is that once investors believe that the fixed exchange rate will not hold, interest rates go through the roof. The IMF has poured even more fuel on the fire by insisting on a 'zero-deficit' budget, which does not make economic sense during a prolonged recession.
-- Mark Weisbrot
Argentina's meltdown is unfortunately the latest example in a pattern of strategic errors made, funded, and in some cases enforced by the International Monetary Fund. As in Russia and Brazil in 1998, the IMF has supported an overvalued currency, saddling the country with enormous -- in Argentina's case absolutely unpayable -- debt. The biggest problem in these situations is that once investors believe that the fixed exchange rate will not hold, interest rates go through the roof. The IMF has poured even more fuel on the fire by insisting on a 'zero-deficit' budget, which does not make economic sense during a prolonged recession.
-- Mark Weisbrot
themassesareasses© on blogger Tuesday, January 08, 2002
Monday, January 07, 2002
A BIG LIE
Consider just one of the many lies at the heart of this war: “The terrorists are evil because they intentionally target civilians. We only kill civilians as ‘collateral damage.’” Oh, yeah? Then why did we destroy entire cities in World War II? Why did we bomb dikes in North Vietnam that held back the flood waters? Why did we train and equip terrorist armies to attack civilians in Vietnam, Laos, Nicaragua, El Salvador, and a host of other countries?
The answer comes from the most famous of all military theorists, Clausewitz. He said that the purpose of modern warfare is to break the enemy’s will to fight. If attacking their soldiers won’t do it, attack their civilians -- by any means necessary.
-- Ira Chernus
Consider just one of the many lies at the heart of this war: “The terrorists are evil because they intentionally target civilians. We only kill civilians as ‘collateral damage.’” Oh, yeah? Then why did we destroy entire cities in World War II? Why did we bomb dikes in North Vietnam that held back the flood waters? Why did we train and equip terrorist armies to attack civilians in Vietnam, Laos, Nicaragua, El Salvador, and a host of other countries?
The answer comes from the most famous of all military theorists, Clausewitz. He said that the purpose of modern warfare is to break the enemy’s will to fight. If attacking their soldiers won’t do it, attack their civilians -- by any means necessary.
-- Ira Chernus
themassesareasses© on blogger Monday, January 07, 2002
CORPORATE WAR PROFITEERING: STIMULUS OR WELFARE?
It's obscene that some of corporate America thinks this is the moment to cash in on all their access and influence in Congress with unwarranted tax rebates and unnecessary bailouts. By a margin of 56 to 32 percent, the public chooses increased government spending over new tax cuts, according to a Gallup Poll. But Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill says not to worry. The $100 billion House bill will provide 300,000 new jobs, he told the Sunday TV talk shows. That works out to $333,333 in corporate welfare for every new job. Rather than using the word 'stimulus,' the bill should be called the Campaign Contributors War Profiteering Act of 2001."
-- Micah Sifry
U.S. military spending will increase by more than $50 billion over last year's total, creating a windfall for U.S. weapons manufacturers. Despite the evidence of Sept. 11 that the U.S. is more vulnerable to low-tech terrorist attacks than to ballistic missiles, President Bush's Star Wars scheme was authorized for more than $8 billion, an increase of nearly 57 percent. The vast majority of the funds authorized have little or nothing to do with protecting the country from future terrorist attacks. The money the Democrats tried to add is a real mixed bag. There is a danger that homeland security could become another pork barrel project -- or worse, an excuse to cut back on civil liberties and the right of dissent.... I don't think you can organize a country simply under the rhetoric of war on terrorism. There are other priorities that need to be respected.
-- William Hartung
While virtually everyone in the country saw Sept. 11 as an immense tragedy, many special interests saw it as a rich opportunity. They promptly sent hoards of lobbyists to swarm Capitol Hill to line up for all kinds of goodies. The airline industry was the first in line and got a $15 billion bailout package with no strings attached. It didn't even have to share the money with its workers. Other industries have followed suit. The insurance industry is pressing for the government to bail it out in future attacks..."
-- Joan Claybrook
It's obscene that some of corporate America thinks this is the moment to cash in on all their access and influence in Congress with unwarranted tax rebates and unnecessary bailouts. By a margin of 56 to 32 percent, the public chooses increased government spending over new tax cuts, according to a Gallup Poll. But Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill says not to worry. The $100 billion House bill will provide 300,000 new jobs, he told the Sunday TV talk shows. That works out to $333,333 in corporate welfare for every new job. Rather than using the word 'stimulus,' the bill should be called the Campaign Contributors War Profiteering Act of 2001."
-- Micah Sifry
U.S. military spending will increase by more than $50 billion over last year's total, creating a windfall for U.S. weapons manufacturers. Despite the evidence of Sept. 11 that the U.S. is more vulnerable to low-tech terrorist attacks than to ballistic missiles, President Bush's Star Wars scheme was authorized for more than $8 billion, an increase of nearly 57 percent. The vast majority of the funds authorized have little or nothing to do with protecting the country from future terrorist attacks. The money the Democrats tried to add is a real mixed bag. There is a danger that homeland security could become another pork barrel project -- or worse, an excuse to cut back on civil liberties and the right of dissent.... I don't think you can organize a country simply under the rhetoric of war on terrorism. There are other priorities that need to be respected.
-- William Hartung
While virtually everyone in the country saw Sept. 11 as an immense tragedy, many special interests saw it as a rich opportunity. They promptly sent hoards of lobbyists to swarm Capitol Hill to line up for all kinds of goodies. The airline industry was the first in line and got a $15 billion bailout package with no strings attached. It didn't even have to share the money with its workers. Other industries have followed suit. The insurance industry is pressing for the government to bail it out in future attacks..."
-- Joan Claybrook
themassesareasses© on blogger Monday, January 07, 2002
10 WORST CORPORATIONS OF 2001 NAMED BY MULTINATIONAL MONITOR MAGAZINE
WASHINGTON - December 31 - Abbott Laboratories, Argenbright, Bayer, Coke, Enron, Exxon Mobil, Philip Morris, Sara lee, Southern Co. and Wal-Mart have been named the 10 worst corporations of 2001, in Multinational Monitor magazine's annual listing.
"These behemoths have ripped off the public, polluted the environment, abused their workers and debased our culture," said Robert Weissman, editor of Multinational Monitor. "They appear in our lives everyday, disguised as 'respectable members of the community.' They deserve public opprobrium, and, in many cases, government sanction."
Multinational Monitor is a Washington, D.C.-based monthly magazine that tracks the activities of multinational corporations. It was founded by Ralph Nader.
Abbott Laboratories made the 10 worst list for its TAP Pharmaceuticals, a joint venture with Japanese Takeda Pharmaceuticals. TAP was forced to pay $875 million to resolve criminal charges and civil liability in connection with allegations of major Medicare reimbursement fraud.
Argenbright, the security company, was named to the list for repeat violations of regulations for airport security. Argenbright's appalling record helped convince Congress to federalize U.S. airport security operations.
Bayer appears on the list for its overcharge of the government and public for the anti-anthrax drug Cipro, as well as dangerous peddling of antibiotics for poultry (contributing to antibiotic resistance among humans) and its harassment of a corporate accountability group.
Coca Cola was named among the 10 worst for its sponsorship of the first Harry Potter movie and possible sequels, using a children's favorite to hawks its unhealthy product, and for alleged complicity with death squads in Colombia targeting union leaders there.
Enron made the 10 worst list for costing many of its employees their life savings by refusing to let them dump Enron stock from their pension plans, as the company plunged toward bankruptcy.
ExxonMobil earned a spot on the list for leading the global warming denial campaign and blocking efforts at appropriate remedial action, plus a host of other reckless activities.
Philip Morris asserted its claim to be among the 10 worst by virtue of a "we've changed" marketing campaign -- revealed to be a hoax by a Czech study it commissioned alleging the cost savings from smoking-related premature death, as well as the company's ongoing efforts to addict millions of new smokers.
Sara Lee was named to the list because of a scandal involving its Ball Park Franks hot dogs. Contaminated hot dogs due to company negligence killed 21.
Southern Co., the largest electric utility in the United States, grabbed a place on the list for its efforts to defeat sensible air pollution regulations.
Wal-Mart secured its place among the 10 worst by mistreating workers domestically and abroad, and by contributing to the sprawl that blights the U.S. landscape.
Corporations on Multinational Monitor's 10 worst list appear alphabetically, and are not ranked internally.
For a complete copy of Multinational Monitor's article naming the 10 worst corporations of 2001, see CORPORATIONS BEHAVING BADLY: THE TEN WORST CORPORATIONS OF 2001.
WASHINGTON - December 31 - Abbott Laboratories, Argenbright, Bayer, Coke, Enron, Exxon Mobil, Philip Morris, Sara lee, Southern Co. and Wal-Mart have been named the 10 worst corporations of 2001, in Multinational Monitor magazine's annual listing.
"These behemoths have ripped off the public, polluted the environment, abused their workers and debased our culture," said Robert Weissman, editor of Multinational Monitor. "They appear in our lives everyday, disguised as 'respectable members of the community.' They deserve public opprobrium, and, in many cases, government sanction."
Multinational Monitor is a Washington, D.C.-based monthly magazine that tracks the activities of multinational corporations. It was founded by Ralph Nader.
Abbott Laboratories made the 10 worst list for its TAP Pharmaceuticals, a joint venture with Japanese Takeda Pharmaceuticals. TAP was forced to pay $875 million to resolve criminal charges and civil liability in connection with allegations of major Medicare reimbursement fraud.
Argenbright, the security company, was named to the list for repeat violations of regulations for airport security. Argenbright's appalling record helped convince Congress to federalize U.S. airport security operations.
Bayer appears on the list for its overcharge of the government and public for the anti-anthrax drug Cipro, as well as dangerous peddling of antibiotics for poultry (contributing to antibiotic resistance among humans) and its harassment of a corporate accountability group.
Coca Cola was named among the 10 worst for its sponsorship of the first Harry Potter movie and possible sequels, using a children's favorite to hawks its unhealthy product, and for alleged complicity with death squads in Colombia targeting union leaders there.
Enron made the 10 worst list for costing many of its employees their life savings by refusing to let them dump Enron stock from their pension plans, as the company plunged toward bankruptcy.
ExxonMobil earned a spot on the list for leading the global warming denial campaign and blocking efforts at appropriate remedial action, plus a host of other reckless activities.
Philip Morris asserted its claim to be among the 10 worst by virtue of a "we've changed" marketing campaign -- revealed to be a hoax by a Czech study it commissioned alleging the cost savings from smoking-related premature death, as well as the company's ongoing efforts to addict millions of new smokers.
Sara Lee was named to the list because of a scandal involving its Ball Park Franks hot dogs. Contaminated hot dogs due to company negligence killed 21.
Southern Co., the largest electric utility in the United States, grabbed a place on the list for its efforts to defeat sensible air pollution regulations.
Wal-Mart secured its place among the 10 worst by mistreating workers domestically and abroad, and by contributing to the sprawl that blights the U.S. landscape.
Corporations on Multinational Monitor's 10 worst list appear alphabetically, and are not ranked internally.
For a complete copy of Multinational Monitor's article naming the 10 worst corporations of 2001, see CORPORATIONS BEHAVING BADLY: THE TEN WORST CORPORATIONS OF 2001.
themassesareasses© on blogger Monday, January 07, 2002
Saturday, January 05, 2002
THE GLOBAL ELITE AND THE WAR ON TERRORISM
The United States has garnered the support of many expected -- and unexpected -- allies in its self-proclaimed war on terrorism. Britain is leading the peacekeeping forces in Afghanistan, Germany and Japan are both making their largest overseas deployments since the end of World War II, and former rogues like Sudan are offering intelligence and support to the U.S.-led campaign.
These contributions, however, are more than a show of solidarity with the United States in its time of trouble. They are examples of the oppressive hold the global elite have on the governments of the world. The fight against terrorism is transforming the international geopolitical system, creating opportunities for the 'democratic imperialists' to exploit the global community's sudden shift in attention and abandonment of reason. This change means the individual nations of the world can no longer openly condemn, much less prevent, secondary and tertiary powers from pursuing their own overtly oppressive local and regional interests -- so long as they tie those interests to the concept of 'anti-terrorism'.
For the global hegemons in Washington, this shift entails a surge in support for its immediate goal not only from traditional European and Asian allies but also from many states formerly considered pariahs or at least undesirables. For countries like Germany and Japan, the war on terror legitimizes the G7 members' re-emergence into the international security system. More importantly over the longer term, however, the global elite may condone -- or at least not condemn -- actions by other nations that it would not have countenanced under policy guidelines heavily influenced by the concept of human rights.
Geopolitical thinking has flipped upside down. Measures and methods are as vague as the targets they are designed for. The global elite, rather than having easily defined enemies like the Soviet Union during the Cold War and missile-proliferating rogue nations thereafter, now have an ill-defined, highly diffuse, and extremely convenient enemy: terrorism.
To effectively tackle the issue, the United States is looking to, and accepting assistance from, nearly every quarter of the globe. Quite predictably, the global elite satellites in many other nations are portraying their national interests as commensurate with Washington's broader agenda.
This is happening in two ways.
The 'allies' are doing everything they can to support the war on terrorism. As part of their contributions to the anti-terrorism coalition, Berlin and Tokyo have deployed their largest overseas military contingents since World War II -- Japan to the Indian Ocean and Germany to the Horn of Africa. This not only sets a precedent for future deployments but also demonstrates the the global elite's economic control -- and they can do this while accepting few serious risks.
On the other side of the coin are the puppet governments that are exploiting the new global elite agenda to press local and regional policies that the global community would have frowned upon prior to Sept. 11. This is becoming evident throughout Africa, the Middle East and Asia, with India and Israel extreme examples.
Israel has broadened its campaign against Palestinian militants, incurring the requisite 'criticism' from the United States. Meanwhile, New Delhi has raised to a new level the issue of Kashmir and Pakistan's alleged support for militants, shifting tens of thousands of troops to the border and implicitly threatening nuclear war. Washington's long-term relationship with Islamabad, which was never entirely stable, is shifting into obscurity now that the U.S. goals in Afghanistan are nearly achieved. India, then, has gained substantially more room to threaten and bring force against Pakistan than ever before.
Elsewhere in Asia, the United States is increasing or re-establishing military cooperation with nations facing internal security threats, like the Philippines and Indonesia. These countries, which have known Muslim separatism and militantism for decades, now gain U.S. weapons and training, get potential human rights issues overlooked and don't have to concede to U.S. interventionism within their borders.
Other examples abound in Africa, which is taking on greater significance to the United States in its continued pursuit of al Qaeda. Ethiopia has allegedly deployed troops into southern Somalia, likely with the underlying goal of supporting a semi-autonomous local government that would provide port access to the landlocked nation. Although this may undermine the United Nations-backed interim government in Somalia, Ethiopia's actions could help block the return of al Qaeda members fleeing Afghanistan.
Algeria is also offering assistance. It was the first Arab country to publicly provide Washington with a list of suspected terrorists. Algeria is using alleged links between al Qaeda and domestic groups -- including the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat (GSPC), an offshoot of the Armed Islamic Group (GIA) -- to gain Washington's support and perhaps assistance in ending a 10-year civil war.
Even Sudan, a country attacked by the United States following the 1998 African embassy bombings, is offering assistance. But in exchange, Khartoum wants Washington to reduce its support for the Southern People's Liberation Movement/Army (SPLM/A). The United States is one of the largest funding sources for Operation Lifeline Sudan, a U.N.-led initiative providing relief and supplies to southern rebels.
With the 'hunt' for al Qaeda and affiliated groups a continuing priority, Washington is opening the door to a massive shift in the global geopolitical situation. Around the world, new opportunities have been presented to nations long held in check by the UN and the global community. Secondary and tertiary powers are now at greater liberty to pursue their own interests without fear of repercussions from the global community -- so long as they lay them out as part of the war on terrorism.
The chaos of democratic imperialism makes the world a more profitable place. The only question is whether it's really chaos...or just business as usual?
The United States has garnered the support of many expected -- and unexpected -- allies in its self-proclaimed war on terrorism. Britain is leading the peacekeeping forces in Afghanistan, Germany and Japan are both making their largest overseas deployments since the end of World War II, and former rogues like Sudan are offering intelligence and support to the U.S.-led campaign.
These contributions, however, are more than a show of solidarity with the United States in its time of trouble. They are examples of the oppressive hold the global elite have on the governments of the world. The fight against terrorism is transforming the international geopolitical system, creating opportunities for the 'democratic imperialists' to exploit the global community's sudden shift in attention and abandonment of reason. This change means the individual nations of the world can no longer openly condemn, much less prevent, secondary and tertiary powers from pursuing their own overtly oppressive local and regional interests -- so long as they tie those interests to the concept of 'anti-terrorism'.
For the global hegemons in Washington, this shift entails a surge in support for its immediate goal not only from traditional European and Asian allies but also from many states formerly considered pariahs or at least undesirables. For countries like Germany and Japan, the war on terror legitimizes the G7 members' re-emergence into the international security system. More importantly over the longer term, however, the global elite may condone -- or at least not condemn -- actions by other nations that it would not have countenanced under policy guidelines heavily influenced by the concept of human rights.
Geopolitical thinking has flipped upside down. Measures and methods are as vague as the targets they are designed for. The global elite, rather than having easily defined enemies like the Soviet Union during the Cold War and missile-proliferating rogue nations thereafter, now have an ill-defined, highly diffuse, and extremely convenient enemy: terrorism.
To effectively tackle the issue, the United States is looking to, and accepting assistance from, nearly every quarter of the globe. Quite predictably, the global elite satellites in many other nations are portraying their national interests as commensurate with Washington's broader agenda.
This is happening in two ways.
The 'allies' are doing everything they can to support the war on terrorism. As part of their contributions to the anti-terrorism coalition, Berlin and Tokyo have deployed their largest overseas military contingents since World War II -- Japan to the Indian Ocean and Germany to the Horn of Africa. This not only sets a precedent for future deployments but also demonstrates the the global elite's economic control -- and they can do this while accepting few serious risks.
On the other side of the coin are the puppet governments that are exploiting the new global elite agenda to press local and regional policies that the global community would have frowned upon prior to Sept. 11. This is becoming evident throughout Africa, the Middle East and Asia, with India and Israel extreme examples.
Israel has broadened its campaign against Palestinian militants, incurring the requisite 'criticism' from the United States. Meanwhile, New Delhi has raised to a new level the issue of Kashmir and Pakistan's alleged support for militants, shifting tens of thousands of troops to the border and implicitly threatening nuclear war. Washington's long-term relationship with Islamabad, which was never entirely stable, is shifting into obscurity now that the U.S. goals in Afghanistan are nearly achieved. India, then, has gained substantially more room to threaten and bring force against Pakistan than ever before.
Elsewhere in Asia, the United States is increasing or re-establishing military cooperation with nations facing internal security threats, like the Philippines and Indonesia. These countries, which have known Muslim separatism and militantism for decades, now gain U.S. weapons and training, get potential human rights issues overlooked and don't have to concede to U.S. interventionism within their borders.
Other examples abound in Africa, which is taking on greater significance to the United States in its continued pursuit of al Qaeda. Ethiopia has allegedly deployed troops into southern Somalia, likely with the underlying goal of supporting a semi-autonomous local government that would provide port access to the landlocked nation. Although this may undermine the United Nations-backed interim government in Somalia, Ethiopia's actions could help block the return of al Qaeda members fleeing Afghanistan.
Algeria is also offering assistance. It was the first Arab country to publicly provide Washington with a list of suspected terrorists. Algeria is using alleged links between al Qaeda and domestic groups -- including the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat (GSPC), an offshoot of the Armed Islamic Group (GIA) -- to gain Washington's support and perhaps assistance in ending a 10-year civil war.
Even Sudan, a country attacked by the United States following the 1998 African embassy bombings, is offering assistance. But in exchange, Khartoum wants Washington to reduce its support for the Southern People's Liberation Movement/Army (SPLM/A). The United States is one of the largest funding sources for Operation Lifeline Sudan, a U.N.-led initiative providing relief and supplies to southern rebels.
With the 'hunt' for al Qaeda and affiliated groups a continuing priority, Washington is opening the door to a massive shift in the global geopolitical situation. Around the world, new opportunities have been presented to nations long held in check by the UN and the global community. Secondary and tertiary powers are now at greater liberty to pursue their own interests without fear of repercussions from the global community -- so long as they lay them out as part of the war on terrorism.
The chaos of democratic imperialism makes the world a more profitable place. The only question is whether it's really chaos...or just business as usual?
themassesareasses© on blogger Saturday, January 05, 2002
Wednesday, January 02, 2002
OY McVEY
Mainstream Jewish groups were quick to condemn the JDL (plot) as well: Characterizing the activities of the organization—founded in 1968 by Brooklyn's own, now deceased Rabbi Meir Kahane—as "contemptible," the Anti-Defamation League's regional director issued a statement "abhor[ing] and condemn[ing] the potential terrorist plot." The American Jewish Committee said it "categorically condemns in the strongest possible terms the alleged JDL plot," and went so far as to follow up with a personal letter to Republican representative Issa, decrying "such wanton lawlessness," which is "so clearly contrary to the fundamental tenets of our faith, and to the basic principles of justice and liberty that brought our parents and grandparents to America's shores and that form the bedrock of our national values."
Yet some observers of the current Middle East crisis see more than a bit of disingenuousness and historical irony here. While both the ADL and the AJC have condemned the JDL, they've unequivocally backed Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon's indiscriminate use of force against the Palestinians and the cutting of ties with Palestinian Authority president Yasir Arafat—neither of which is universally seen as a particularly constructive way to slow the cycles of violence across Israel and the Occupied Territories.
But what's even more vexing to others is the apparent inability or unwillingness to discern similarities between the current Palestinian milieu and Israeli operations of 50-plus years ago, which secured statehood from colonialist occupiers—as well as similarities between violent, internecine struggles among disparate underground groups. "It's peculiar, it's paradoxical, that Sharon and Likud should be the ones who are trying to equate any authentic resistance in Palestine with some of the terrorist activities, as terrorism in Israel really started with Begin and Shamir and later Sharon," says Clovis Maksoud, the former Arab League ambassador to the United Nations. "It's a very valid question as to why they see no similarities between themselves under the British and the Palestinians under their occupation."
-- Jason Vest, The Village Voice
Mainstream Jewish groups were quick to condemn the JDL (plot) as well: Characterizing the activities of the organization—founded in 1968 by Brooklyn's own, now deceased Rabbi Meir Kahane—as "contemptible," the Anti-Defamation League's regional director issued a statement "abhor[ing] and condemn[ing] the potential terrorist plot." The American Jewish Committee said it "categorically condemns in the strongest possible terms the alleged JDL plot," and went so far as to follow up with a personal letter to Republican representative Issa, decrying "such wanton lawlessness," which is "so clearly contrary to the fundamental tenets of our faith, and to the basic principles of justice and liberty that brought our parents and grandparents to America's shores and that form the bedrock of our national values."
Yet some observers of the current Middle East crisis see more than a bit of disingenuousness and historical irony here. While both the ADL and the AJC have condemned the JDL, they've unequivocally backed Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon's indiscriminate use of force against the Palestinians and the cutting of ties with Palestinian Authority president Yasir Arafat—neither of which is universally seen as a particularly constructive way to slow the cycles of violence across Israel and the Occupied Territories.
But what's even more vexing to others is the apparent inability or unwillingness to discern similarities between the current Palestinian milieu and Israeli operations of 50-plus years ago, which secured statehood from colonialist occupiers—as well as similarities between violent, internecine struggles among disparate underground groups. "It's peculiar, it's paradoxical, that Sharon and Likud should be the ones who are trying to equate any authentic resistance in Palestine with some of the terrorist activities, as terrorism in Israel really started with Begin and Shamir and later Sharon," says Clovis Maksoud, the former Arab League ambassador to the United Nations. "It's a very valid question as to why they see no similarities between themselves under the British and the Palestinians under their occupation."
-- Jason Vest, The Village Voice
themassesareasses© on blogger Wednesday, January 02, 2002
THE WAR IN AFGHANISTAN
Another elementary point might also be mentioned. The success of violence evidently has no bearing on moral judgment with regard to its goals. In the present case, it seemed clear from the outset that the reigning superpower could easily demolish any Afghan resistance...
U.S. campaigns should not be too casually compared to the failed Russian invasion of the 1980s. The Russians were facing a major army of perhaps 100,000 men or more, organized, trained, and heavily armed by the CIA and its associates. The U.S. is facing a ragtag force in a country that has already been virtually destroyed by 20 years of horror, for which we bear no slight share of responsibility. The Taliban forces, such as they are, might quickly collapse except for a small hardened core.
To my surprise, the dominant judgment -- even after weeks of carpet bombing and resort to virtually every available device short of nuclear weapons ("daisy cutters," cluster bombs, etc.) -- was confidence that the lessons of the Russian failure should be heeded, that airstrikes would be ineffective, and that a ground invasion would be necessary to achieve the U.S. war aims of eliminating bin Laden and al-Qaeda. Removing the Taliban regime was an afterthought. There had been no interest in this before Sept. 11, or even in the month that followed. A week after the bombing began, the President reiterated that U.S. forces "would attack Afghanistan `for as long as it takes' to destroy the Qaeda terrorist network of Osama bin Laden, but he offered to reconsider the military assault on Afghanistan if the country's ruling Taliban would surrender Mr. bin Laden"; "If you cough him up and his people today, then we'll reconsider what we are doing to your country," the President declared: "You still have a second chance."
When Taliban forces did finally succumb, after astonishing endurance, opinions shifted to triumphalist proclamations and exultation over the justice of our cause, now demonstrated by the success of overwhelming force against defenseless opponents. Without researching the topic, I suppose that Japanese and German commentary was similar after early victories during World War II, and despite obvious dis-analogies, one crucial conclusion carries over to the present case: the victory of arms leaves the issues where they were, though the triumphalist cries of vindication should serve as a warning for those who care about the future.
-- Noam Chomsky
Another elementary point might also be mentioned. The success of violence evidently has no bearing on moral judgment with regard to its goals. In the present case, it seemed clear from the outset that the reigning superpower could easily demolish any Afghan resistance...
U.S. campaigns should not be too casually compared to the failed Russian invasion of the 1980s. The Russians were facing a major army of perhaps 100,000 men or more, organized, trained, and heavily armed by the CIA and its associates. The U.S. is facing a ragtag force in a country that has already been virtually destroyed by 20 years of horror, for which we bear no slight share of responsibility. The Taliban forces, such as they are, might quickly collapse except for a small hardened core.
To my surprise, the dominant judgment -- even after weeks of carpet bombing and resort to virtually every available device short of nuclear weapons ("daisy cutters," cluster bombs, etc.) -- was confidence that the lessons of the Russian failure should be heeded, that airstrikes would be ineffective, and that a ground invasion would be necessary to achieve the U.S. war aims of eliminating bin Laden and al-Qaeda. Removing the Taliban regime was an afterthought. There had been no interest in this before Sept. 11, or even in the month that followed. A week after the bombing began, the President reiterated that U.S. forces "would attack Afghanistan `for as long as it takes' to destroy the Qaeda terrorist network of Osama bin Laden, but he offered to reconsider the military assault on Afghanistan if the country's ruling Taliban would surrender Mr. bin Laden"; "If you cough him up and his people today, then we'll reconsider what we are doing to your country," the President declared: "You still have a second chance."
When Taliban forces did finally succumb, after astonishing endurance, opinions shifted to triumphalist proclamations and exultation over the justice of our cause, now demonstrated by the success of overwhelming force against defenseless opponents. Without researching the topic, I suppose that Japanese and German commentary was similar after early victories during World War II, and despite obvious dis-analogies, one crucial conclusion carries over to the present case: the victory of arms leaves the issues where they were, though the triumphalist cries of vindication should serve as a warning for those who care about the future.
-- Noam Chomsky
themassesareasses© on blogger Wednesday, January 02, 2002
THE COST OF ISRAEL TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
[T]he financial cost of Israel to U.S. taxpayers:
If you add its foreign aid grants and loans, plus the approximate totals of grants to Israel from other parts of the U.S. federal budget, Israel has received since 1949 a grand total of $84.8 billion, excluding the $10 billion in U.S. government loan guarantees it has drawn to date.
And if you calculate what the U.S. has had to pay in interest to borrow this money to give to Israel, the cost of Israel to U.S. taxpayers rises to $134.8 billion, not adjusted for inflation.
Between 1949 and 1998, the U.S. gave to Israel, with a self-declared population of 5.8 million people, more foreign aid than it gave to all of the countries of sub-Saharan Africa, all of the countries of Latin America, and all of the countries of the Caribbean combined – with a total population of 1,054,000,000 people.
[T]he financial cost of Israel to U.S. taxpayers:
If you add its foreign aid grants and loans, plus the approximate totals of grants to Israel from other parts of the U.S. federal budget, Israel has received since 1949 a grand total of $84.8 billion, excluding the $10 billion in U.S. government loan guarantees it has drawn to date.
And if you calculate what the U.S. has had to pay in interest to borrow this money to give to Israel, the cost of Israel to U.S. taxpayers rises to $134.8 billion, not adjusted for inflation.
Between 1949 and 1998, the U.S. gave to Israel, with a self-declared population of 5.8 million people, more foreign aid than it gave to all of the countries of sub-Saharan Africa, all of the countries of Latin America, and all of the countries of the Caribbean combined – with a total population of 1,054,000,000 people.
themassesareasses© on blogger Wednesday, January 02, 2002
