The Sino-Russian Alliance
By Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya - Oct 12, 2007
“But if the middle space [Russia and the former Soviet Union] rebuffs the West [the European Union and America], becomes an assertive single entity, and either gains control over the South [Middle East] or forms an alliance with the major Eastern actor [China], then America’s primacy in Eurasia shrinks dramatically. The same would be the case if the two major Eastern players were somehow to unite. Finally, any ejection of America by its Western partners [the Franco-German entente] from its perch on the western periphery [Europe] would automatically spell the end of America’s participation in the game on the Eurasian chessboard, even though that would probably also mean the eventual subordination of the western extremity to a revived player occupying the middle space [e.g. Russia].” - Zbigniew Brzezinski (The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives, 1997)
Sir Isaac Newton’s Third Law of Motion states that “for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.” These precepts of physics can also be used in the social sciences, specifically with reference to social relations and geo-politics.
America and Britain, the Anglo-American alliance, have engaged in an ambitious project to control global energy resources. Their actions have resulted in a series of complicated reactions, which have established a Eurasian-based coalition which is preparing to challenge the Anglo-American axis.
Encircling Russia and China: Anglo-American Global Ambitions Backfire
“Today we are witnessing an almost uncontained hyper use of force — military force — in international relations, force that is plunging the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts. As a result we do not have sufficient strength to find a comprehensive solution to any one of these conflicts. Finding a political settlement also becomes impossible. We are seeing a greater and greater disdain for the basic principles of international law. And independent legal norms are, as a matter of fact, coming increasingly closer to one state’s legal system. One state and, of course, first and foremost the United States, has overstepped its national borders in every way.” - Vladimir Putin at the Munich Conference on Security Policy in Germany (February 11, 2007)
What American leaders and officials called the “New World Order” is what the Chinese and Russians consider a “Unipolar World.” This is the vision or hallucination, depending on perspective, that has bridged the Sino-Russian divide between Beijing and Moscow.
China and Russia are well aware of the fact that they are targets of the Anglo-American alliance. Their mutual fears of encirclement have brought them together. It is no accident that in the same year that NATO bombarded Yugoslavia, President Jiang Zemin of China and President Boris Yeltsin of Russia made an anticipated joint declaration at a historic summit in December of 1999 that revealed that China and the Russian Federation would join hands to resist the “New World Order.” The seeds for this Sino-Russian declaration were in fact laid in 1996 when both sides declared that they opposed the global imposition of single-state hegemony.
Both Jiang Zemin and Boris Yeltsin stated that all nation-states should be treated equally, enjoy security, respect each other’s sovereignty, and most importantly not interfere in the internal affairs of other nation-states. These statements were directed at the U.S. government and its partners.
The Chinese and Russians also called for the establishment of a more equitable economic and political global order. Both nations also indicated that America was behind separatist movements in their respective countries. They also underscored American-led amibitions to balkanize and finlandize the nation-states of Eurasia. Influential Americans such as Zbigniew Brzezinski had already advocated for de-centralizing and eventually dividing up the Russian Federation.
Both the Chinese and Russians issued a statement warning that the creation of an international missile shield and the contravention of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM Treaty) would destabilize the international environment and polarize the globe. In 1999, the Chinese and Russians were aware of what was to come and the direction that America was headed towards. In June 2002, less than a year before the onslaught of the “Global War on Terror,” George W. Bush Jr. announced that the U.S. was withdrawing from the ABM Treaty.
On July 24, 2001, less than two months before September 11, 2001, China and Russia signed the Treaty of Good-Neighbourliness and Friendly Cooperation. The latter is a softly worded mutual defence pact against the U.S., NATO, and the U.S. sponsored Asian military network which was surrounding China. [1]
The military pact of the Shanghai Treaty Organization (SCO) also follows the same softly worded format. It is also worth noting that Article 12 of the 2001 Sino-Russian bilateral treaty stipulates that China and Russia will work together to maintain the global strategic balance, “observation of the basic agreements relevant to the safeguard and maintenance of strategic stability,” and “promote the process of nuclear disarmament.” [2] This seems to be an insinuation about a nuclear threat posed from the United States.
Standing in the Way of America and Britain: A “Chinese-Russian-Iranian Coalition”
As a result of the Anglo-American drive to encircle and ultimately dismantle China and Russia, Moscow and Beijing have joined ranks and the SCO has slowly evolved and emerged in the heart of Eurasia as a powerful international body.
The main objectives of the SCO are defensive in nature. The economic objectives of the SCO are to integrate and unite Eurasian economies against the economic and financial onslaught and manipulation from the “Trilateral” of North America, Western Europe, and Japan, which controls significant portions of the global economy.
The SCO charter was also created, using Western national security jargon, to combat “terrorism, separatism, and extremism.” Terrorist activities, separatist movements, and extremist movements in Russia, China, and Central Asia are all forces traditionally nurtured, funded, armed, and covertly supported by the British and the U.S. governments. Several separatist and extremist groups that have destabilized SCO members even have offices in London.
Iran, India, Pakistan, and Mongolia are all SCO observer members. The observer status of Iran in the SCO is misleading. Iran is a de facto member. The observer status is intended to hide the nature of trilateral cooperation between Iran, Russia, and China so that the SCO cannot be labeled and demonized as an anti-American or anti-Western military grouping.
The stated interests of China and Russia are to ensure the continuity of a “Multi-Polar World.” Zbigniew Brzezinski prefigured in his 1997 book The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and the Geostrategic Imperatives and warned against the creation or “emergence of a hostile [Eurasian-based] coalition that could eventually seek to challenge America’s primacy.” [3] He also called this potential Eurasian coalition an “‘antihegemonic’ alliance” that would be formed from a “Chinese-Russian-Iranian coalition” with China as its linchpin. [4] This is the SCO and several Eurasian groups that are connected to the SCO.
In 1993, Brzezinski wrote “In assessing China’s future options, one has to consider also the possibility that an economically successful and politically self-confident China — but one which feels excluded from the global system and which decides to become both the advocate and the leader of the deprived states of the world — may decide to pose not only an articulate doctrinal but also a powerful geopolitical challenge to the dominant trilateral world [a reference to the economic front formed by North America, Western Europe, and Japan].” [5]
Brzezinski warns that Beijing’s answer to challenging the global status quo would be the creation of a Chinese-Russian-Iranian coalition: “For Chinese strategists, confronting the trilateral coalition of America and Europe and Japan, the most effective geopolitical counter might well be to try and fashion a triple alliance of its own, linking China with Iran in the Persian Gulf/Middle East region and with Russia in the area of the former Soviet Union [and Eastern Europe].” [6] Brzezinski goes on to say that the Chinese-Russian-Iranian coalition, which he moreover calls an “antiestablishmentarian [anti-establishmentarian] coalition,” could be a potent magnet for other states [e.g., Venezuela] dissatisfied with the [global] status quo.” [7]
Furthermore, Brzezinski warned in 1997 that “The most immediate task [for the U.S.] is to make certain that no state or combination of states gains the capacity to expel the United States from Eurasia or even to diminish significantly its decisive arbitration role.” [8] It may be that his warnings were forgotten, because the U.S. has been repealed from Central Asia and U.S. forces have been evicted from Uzbekistan and Tajikistan.
“Velvet Revolutions” Backfire in Central Asia
Central Asia was the scene of several British-sponsored and American-sponsored attempts at regime change. The latter were characterised by velvet revolutions similar to the Orange Revolution in Ukraine and the Rose Revolution in Georgia.
These velvet revolutions financed by the U.S. failed in Central Asia, aside from Kyrgyzstan where there had been partial success with the so-called Tulip Revolution.
As a result the U.S. government has suffered major geo-strategic setbacks in Central Asia. All of Central Asia’s leaders have distanced themselves from America.
Russia and Iran have also secured energy deals in the region. America’s efforts, over several decades, to exert a hegemonic role in Central Asia seem to have been reversed overnight. The U.S. sponsored velvet revolutions have backfired. Relations between Uzbekistan and the U.S. were especially hard hit.
Uzbekistan is under the authoritarian rule of President Islam Karamov. Starting in the second half of the 1990s President Karamov was enticed into bringing Uzbekistan into the fold of the Anglo-American alliance and NATO. When there was an attempt on President Karamov’s life, he suspected the Kremlin because of his independent policy stance. This is what led Uzbekistan to leave CSTO. But Islam Karamov, years later, changed his mind as to who was attempting to get rid of him.
According to Zbigniew Brzezinski, Uzbekistan represented a major obstacle to any renewed Russian control of Central Asia and was virtually invulnerable to Russian pressure; this is why it was important to secure Uzbekistan as an American protectorate in Central Asia.
Uzbekistan also has the largest military force in Central Asia. In 1998, Uzbekistan held war games with NATO troops in Uzbekistan. Uzbekistan was becoming heavily militarized in the same manner as Georgia was in the Caucasus. The U.S. gave Uzbekistan huge amounts of financial aid to challenge the Kremlin in Central Asia and also provided training to Uzbek forces.
With the launching of the “Global War on Terror,” in 2001, Uzbekistan, an Anglo-American ally, immediately offered bases and military facilities to the U.S. in Karshi-Khanabad.
The leadership of Uzbekistan already knew the direction the “Global War on Terror” would take. To the irritation of the Bush Jr. Administration, the Uzbek President formulated a policy of self-reliance. The honeymoon between Uzbekistan and the Anglo-American alliance ended when Washington, D.C. and London contemplated removing Islam Karamov from power. He was a little too independent for their comfort and taste. Their attempts at removing the Uzbek President failed, leading eventually to a shift in geo-political alliances.
The tragic events of Andijan on May 13, 2005 were the breaking point between Uzbekistan and the Anglo-American alliance. The people of Andijan were incited into confronting the Uzbek authorities, which resulted in a heavy security clampdown on the protesters and a loss of lives.
Armed groups were reported to have been involved. In the U.S., Britain, and the E.U., the media reports focused narrowly on human rights violations without mentioning the covert role of the Anglo-American alliance. Uzbekistan held Britain and the U.S. responsible accusing them of inciting rebellion.
M. K. Bhadrakumar, the former Indian ambassador to Uzbekistan (1995-1998), revealed that the Hezbut Tahrir (HT) was one of the parties blamed for stirring the crowd in Andijan by the Uzbek government. [9] The group was already destabilizing Uzbekistan and using violent tactics. The headquarters of this group happens to be in London and they enjoy the support of the British government. London is a hub for many similar organizations that further Anglo-American interests in various countries, including Iran and Sudan, through destabilization campaigns. Uzbekistan even started clamping down on foreign non-governmental organizations (NGOs) because of the tragic events of Andijan.
The Anglo-American alliance had played its cards wrong in Central Asia. Uzbekistan officially left the GUUAM Group, a NATO-U.S. sponsored anti-Russian body. GUUAM once again became the GUAM (Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Moldava) Group on May 24, 2005.
On July 29, 2005 the U.S. military was ordered to leave Uzbekistan within a six-month period. [10] Literally, the Americans were told they were no longer welcome in Uzbekistan and Central Asia.
Russia, China, and the SCO added their voices to the demands. The U.S. cleared its airbase in Uzbekistan by November, 2005.
Uzbekistan rejoined the CSTO alliance on June 26, 2006 and realigned itself, once again, with Moscow. The Uzbek President also became a vocal advocate, along with Iran, for pushing the U.S. totally out of Central Asia. [11] Unlike Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan continued to allow the U.S. to use Manas Air Base, but with restrictions and in an uncertain atmosphere. The Kyrgyz government also would make it clear that no U.S. operations could target Iran from Kyrgyzstan.
Major Geo-Strategic Error
It appears that a strategic rapprochement between Iran and America was in the works from 2001 to 2002. At the outset of the global war on terrorism, Hezbollah and Hamas, two Arab organizations supported by Iran and Syria, were kept off the U.S. State Department’s list of terrorist organizations. Iran and Syria were also loosely portrayed as potential partners in the “Global War on Terror.”
Following the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Iran expressed its support for the post-Saddam Hussein Iraqi government. During the invasion of Iraq, the American military even attacked the Iraqi-based Iranian opposition militia, the Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK/MOK/MKO). Iranian jets also attacked the Iraqi bases of the MEK in approximately the same window of time.
Iran, Britain, and the U.S. also worked together against the Taliban in Afghanistan. It is worth mentioning that the Taliban were never allies of Iran. Up until 2000, the Taliban had been supported by the U.S. and Britain, working hand in glove with the Pakistani military and intelligence.
The Taliban were shocked and bewildered at what they saw as an American and British betrayal in 2001 — this is in light of the fact that in October, 2001 they had stated that they would hand over Osama bin Laden to the U.S. upon the presentation of evidence of his alleged involvement in the 9/11 attacks.
Zbigniew Brzezinski warned years before 2001 that “a coalition allying Russia with both China and Iran can develop only if the United States is shortsighted enough to antagonize China and Iran simultaneously.” [12] The arrogance of the Bush Jr. Administration has resulted in this shortsighted policy.
According to The Washington Post, “Just after the lightning takeover of Baghdad by U.S. forces three years ago [in 2003], an unusual two-page document spewed out of a fax machine at the Near East bureau of the State Department. It was a proposal from Iran for a broad dialogue with the United States, and the fax suggested everything was on the table — including full cooperation on nuclear programs, acceptance of Israel and the termination of Iranian support for Palestinian militant groups.” [13]
The White House impressed by what they believe were “grand victories” in Iraq and Afghanistan merely ignored the letter sent through diplomatic channels by the Swiss government on behalf of Tehran.
However, it was not because of what was wrongly perceived as a quick victory in Iraq that the Bush Jr. Administration pushed Iran aside. On January 29, 2002, in a major address, President Bush Jr. confirmed that the U.S. would also target Iran, which had been added to the so-called “Axis of Evil” together with Iraq and North Korea. The U.S. and Britain intended to attack Iran, Syria, and Lebanon after the 2003 invasion of Iraq. In fact immediately following the invasion, in July 2003, the Pentagon formulated an initial war scenario entitled “Theater Iran Near Term (TIRANNT).”
Starting in 2002, the Bush Jr. Administration had deviated from their original geo-strategic script. France and Germany were also excluded from sharing the spoils of war in Iraq.
The intention was to act against Iran and Syria just as America and Britain had used and betrayed their Taliban allies in Afghanistan. The U.S. was also set on targeting Hezbollah and Hamas. In January of 2001, according to Daniel Sobelman, a correspondent for Haaretz, the U.S. government warned Lebanon that the U.S. would go after Hezbollah. These threats directed at Lebanon were made at the start of the presidential term of George W. Bush Jr., eight months before the events of September 11, 2001.
The conflict at the United Nations Security Council between the Anglo-American alliance and the Franco-German entente, supported by Russia and China, was a pictogram of this deviation.
American geo-strategists for years after the Cold War had scheduled the Franco-German entente to be partners in their plans for global primacy. In this regard, Zbigniew Brzezinski had acknowledged that the Franco-German entente would eventually have to be elevated in status and that the spoils of war would have to be divided with Washington’s European allies.
By the end of 2004, the Anglo-American alliance had started to correct its posture towards France and Germany. Washington had returned to its original geo-strategic script with NATO playing an expanded role in the Eastern Mediterranean. In turn, France was granted oil concessions in Iraq.
The 2006 war plans for Lebanon and the Eastern Mediterranean also point to a major shift in direction, a partnership role for the Franco-German entente, with France and Germany playing a major military role in the region.
It is worth noting that a major shift occurred in early 2007 with regard to Iran. Following U.S. setbacks in Iraq and Afghanistan (as well as in Lebanon, Palestine, Somalia, and former Soviet Central Asia), the White House entered into secret negotiatiations with Iran and Syria. However, the dye has been cast and it would appear that America will be unable to break an evolving military alliance which includes Russia, Iran, and China as its nucleus.
The Baker-Hamilton Commission: Covert Anglo-American Cooperation with Iran and Syria?
“America should also strongly support Turkish aspirations to have a pipeline from Baku in [the Republic of] Azerbaijan to Ceyhan on the Turkish Mediterranean cost serve as [a] major outlet for the Caspian Sea basin energy sources. In addition, it is not in America’s interest to perpetuate American-Iranian hostility. Any eventual reconciliation should be based on the recognition of a mutual strategic interest in stabilizing what currently is a very volatile regional environment for Iran [e.g., Iraq and Afghanistan]. Admittedly, any such reconciliation must be pursued by both sides and is not a favor granted by one to the other. A strong, even religiously motivated but not fanatically anti-Western Iran is in the U.S. interest, and ultimately even the Iranian political elite may recognize that reality. In the meantime, American long-range interests in Eurasia would be better served by abandoning existing U.S. objections to closer Turkish-Iranian economic cooperation, especially in the construction of new pipelines...” -Zbigniew Brzezinski (The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives, 1997)
The recommendations of the Baker-Hamilton Commission or the Iraq Study Group (ISG) are not a redirection in regards to engaging Iran, but a return to the track that the Bush Jr. Administration had deviated from as a result of the delusions of its hasty victories in Afghanistan and Iraq. In other words, the Baker-Hamilton Commission was about damage control and re-steering America to the geo-strategic path originally intended by military planners that the Bush Jr. Administration seems to have deviated from.
The ISG Report also subtly indicated that adoption of so-called “free market” economic reforms be pressed on Iran (and by extension Syria) instead of regime change. The ISG also favoured the accession of both Syria and Iran to the World Trade Organization (WTO). [14] It should also be noted, in this regard, that Iran has already started a mass privatization program that involves all sectors from banking to energy and agriculture.
The ISG Report also recommends an end to the Arab-Israeli Conflict and the establishment of peace between Israel and Syria. [15]
The joint interests of Iran and the U.S. were also analysed by the Baker-Hamilton Commission. The ISG recommended that the U.S. should not empower the Taliban again in Afghanistan (against Iran). [16] It should also be noted that Imad Moustapha, the Syrian ambassador to the U.S., the Syrian Foreign Minister, and Javad Zarif, the Iranian representative to the United Nations, were all consulted by the Baker-Hamilton Commission. [17] The Iranian Ambassodor to the U.N., Javad Zarif, has also been a middle man between the U.S. and Iranian governments for years.
It is worth mentioning that the Clinton Administration was involved in the track of rapprochement with Iran, while also attempting to keep Iran in check under the “dual-containment” policy directed against Iraq and Iran. This policy was also linked to the 1992 Draft Defence Guidance paper written by people within the Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. Administrations.
It is worth noting that Zbigniew Brzezinski had stated as far back as 1979 and again in 1997 that Iran under its post-revolutionary political system could be co-opted by America. [18] Britain also ensured Syria and Iran in 2002 and 2003 that they would not be targeted and encouraged their cooperation with the White House.
It should be noted that Turkey has recently signed a pipeline deal with Iran that will take gas to Western Europe. This project includes the participation of Turkmenistan. [19] It would appear that this cooperation agreement between Tehran and Ankara points to reconciliation rather than confrontation with Iran and Syria. This is in line with what Brzezinski in 1997 claimed was in America’s interest.
Also, the Anglo-American sponsored Iraqi government has recently signed pipeline deals with Iran.
Once again, America’s interests in this deal should be questioned, as should the high opinions being given about Iran by the puppet leaders of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Something’s Amiss...
The media attention given in North America and Britain to the positive comments made about Tehran by Anglo-American clients in Baghdad and Kabul is sinister.
Although these comments from Baghdad and Kabul about the positive role Iran plays in Iraq and Afghanistan are not new, the media attention is. President George W. Bush Jr. and the White House criticized the Iraqi Prime Minister for saying Iran plays a constructive role in Iraq in early-August of 2007. The White House and North American or British press would usually just ignore or refuse to acknowledge these comments. However, this was not the case in August, 2007.
The Afghani President, Hamid Karzai, during a joint press conference with George W. Bush Jr. stated that Iran was a positive force in his country. It is not odd to hear that Iran is a positive force inside Afghanistan because the stability of Afghanistan is in Iran’s best interests. What comes across as odd are “when” and “where” the comments were made. White House press conferences are choreographed and the place and time of the Afghani President’s comments should be questioned. It also so happens that shortly after the Afghani President’s comments, the Iranian President arrived in Kabul in an unprecedented visit that must have been approved by the White House.
Iran’s Political Leverage
In regards to Iran and the U.S., the picture is blurry and the lines between cooperation and rivalry are less clear. Reuters and the Iranian Student’s News Agency (ISNA) have both reported that the Iranian President may visit Baghdad after August 2007. These reports surfaced just before the U.S. government started threatening to label the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps as a special international terrorist organization. Without insinuating anything, it should also be noted that the Revolutionary Guard and the U.S. military have also had a low-key history of cooperation from Bosnia-Herzegovina to Taliban-controlled Afghanistan.
The Iranian President has also invited the presidents of the other four Caspian states for a Caspian Sea summit in Tehran. [20] He invited the Turkmen president while in Turkmenistan and later the Russian and Kazakh presidents at the August of 2007 SCO summit in Kyrgyzstan. President Aliyev, the leader of the Republic of Azerbaijan (Azarbaijan) was also personally invited during a trip by the Iranian President to Baku. The anticipated Caspian Sea summit may be similar to the one in Port Turkmenbashi, Turkmenistan between the Kazakh, Russian, and Turkmen presidents where it was announced that Russia would not be cut out of the pipeline deals in Central Asia.
Iranian leverage is clearly getting stronger. Officials in Baku also stated that they will expand energy cooperation with Iran and enter the gas pipeline deal between Iran, Turkey, and Turkmenistan that will supply European markets with gas. [21] This agreement to supply Europe is similar to a Russian energy transport deal signed between Greece, Bulgaria, and the Russian Federation. [22]
In the Levant, Syria is involved in energy-related negotiations with Ankara and Baku and important talks have started between American officials and both Tehran and Damascus. [23]
Iran has also been involved in diplomatic exchanges with Syria, Lebanon, Turkey, and the Republic of Azerbaijan. Additionally, starting in August 2007, Syria has agreed to reopen Iraqi oil pipelines to the Eastern Mediterranean, through Syrian territory. [24] The recent official visit of Iraqi Prime Minister Al-Maliki to Syria has also been described as historical by news sources like the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). Also, Syria and Iraq have agreed to build a gas pipeline from Iraq into Syria, where Iraqi gas will be treated in Syrian plants. [25] These agreements are being passed as the sources of tensions between Baghdad and the White House, but they are doubtful. [26]
Iran and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) are also planning on starting the process for creating an Iranian-GCC free trade zone in the Persian Gulf. In the bazaars of Tehran and amongst the political circle of Rafsanjani there are also discussions about the eventual creation of a single market between Iran, Tajikistan, Armenia, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria. The American role in these processes in regards to Afghanistan, Iraq, and the GCC should be explored.
Under President Nicholas Sarkozy, France has indicated that it is willing to engage the Syrians fully if they gave specific guarantees in regards to Lebanon. These guarantees are linked to French economic and geo-strategic interests.
In the same period of time as the French statements about Syria, Gordon Brown indicated that Britain was also willing to engage in diplomatic exchanges with both Syria and Iran. Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul, the German Minister of Economic Cooperation and Development, has also been involved in talks with Damascus on mutual projects, economic reform, and bringing Syria closer to the European Union. These talks, however tend to be camouflaged by the discussion between Syria and Germany in regards to the mass exodus of Iraqi refugees, resulting from the Anglo-American occupation of their country. The French Foreign Minister is also expected in Tehran to talk about Lebanon, Palestine, and Iraq. Despite the war-mongering by the U.S. and more recently by France, this has all led to speculation of a potential about-turn in regards to Iran and Syria. [27]
Then again, this is part of the two-pronged U.S. approach of preparing for the worst (war), while suing for the diplomatic capitulation of Syria and Iran as client states or partners. When large oil and weapons deals were signed between Libya and Britain, London said that Iran should follow the Libyan example, as has the Baker-Hamilton Commission.
Has the March to War been Interrupted?
Despite talks behind closed doors with Damascus and Tehran, Washington is nonetheless arming its clients in the Middle East. Israel is in an advanced state of military preparedness for a war on Syria.
Unlike France and Germany, Anglo-American ambitions pertaining to Iran and Syria are not one of cooperation. The ultimate objective is political and economic subordination.
Moreover, either as a friend or foe, America cannot tolerate Iran within its present borders. The balkanization of Iran, like that of Iraq and Russia, is a major long-term Anglo-American goal.
What lies ahead is never known. While there is smoke in the horizon, the U.S.-NATO-Israeli military agenda will not necessarily result in the implementation of war as planned.
A “Chinese-Russian-Iranian coalition” — which forms the basis of a global counter-alliance — is emerging. America and Britain rather than opting for outright war, may choose to reel in Iran and Syria through macro-economic manipulation and velvet revolutions.
War directed against Iran and Syria, however, cannot be ruled out. There are real war preparations on the ground in the Middle East and Central Asia. A war against Iran and Syria would have far-reaching worldwide implications.
Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is an independent writer based in Ottawa specialising on the Middle East and Central Asia. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).
NOTES
[1] Treaty of Good-Neighborliness and Friendly Cooperation Between the People’s Republic of China and the Russian Federation, signed and entered into force July 16, 2001, P.R. of China-Russian Federation, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China.
http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/wjdt/2649/t15771.htm
The following are treaty articles that are relevant to the mutual defence of China and Russia against American-led encirclement and efforts to dismantle both nations;
ARTICLE 4
The Chinese side supports the Russian side in its policies on the issue of defending the national unity and territorial integrity of the Russian Federation. The Russian side supports the Chinese side in its policies on the issue of defending the national unity and territorial integrity of the People’s Republic of China.
ARTICLE 5
The Russian side reaffirms that the principled stand on the Taiwan issue as expounded in the political documents signed and adopted by the heads of states of the two countries from 1992 to 2000 remain unchanged. The Russian side acknowledges that there is only one China in the world, that the People’s Republic of China is the sole legal government representing the whole of China and that Taiwan is an inalienable part of China. The Russian side opposes any form of Taiwan’s independence.
ARTICLE 8
The contracting parties shall not enter into any alliance or be a party to any bloc nor shall they embark on any such action, including the conclusion of such treaty with a third country which compromises the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of the other contracting party. Neither side of the contracting parties shall allow its territory to be used by a third country to jeopardize the national sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of the other contracting party. Neither side of the contracting parties shall allow the setting up of organizations or gangs on its own soil which shall impair the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of the other contrasting party and their activities should be prohibited.
ARTICLE 9
When a situation arises in which one of the contracting parties deems that peace is being threatened and undermined or its security interests are involved or when it is confronted with the threat of aggression, the contracting parties shall immediately hold contacts and consultations in order to eliminate such threats.
ARTILCE 12
The contracting parties shall work together for the maintenance of global strategic balance and stability and make great efforts in promoting the observation of the basic agreements relevant to the safeguard and maintenance of strategic stability. The contracting parties shall actively promote the process of nuclear disarmament and the reduction of chemical weapons, promote and strengthen the regimes on the prohibition of biological weapons and take measures to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, their means of delivery and their related technology.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives (NYC, New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1997), p.198.
[4] Ibid., pp. 115-116, 170, 205-206.
Note: Brzezinski also refers to a Chinese-Russian-Iranian coalition as a “counteralliance” (p.116).
[5] Zbigniew Brzezinski, Out of Control: Global Turmoil on the Eve of the 21st Century (NYC, New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons Macmillan Publishing Company, 1993), p.198.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard, Op. cit., p.198.
[9] M. K. Bhadrakumar, The lessons from Ferghana, Asia Times, May 18, 2005.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/GE18Ag01.html
[10] Nick Paton Walsh, Uzbekistan kicks US out of military base, The Guardian (U.K.), August 1, 2005. http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1540185,00.html
[11] Vladimir Radyuhin, Uzbekistan rejoins defence pact, The Hindu, June 26, 2006.
http://www.thehindu.com/2006/06/26/stories/2006062604491400.htm
[12] Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard, Op. cit., p.116.
[13] Glenn Kessler, In 2003, U.S. Spurned Iran’s Offer of Dialogue, The Washington Post, June 18, 2006, p.A16. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/17/AR2006061700727.html
[14] James A. Baker III et al., The Iraq Study Group Report: The Way Forward — A New Approach Authroized ed. (NYC, New York: Random House Inc., 2006), p.51.
[15] Ibid., pp.51, 54-57.
[16] Ibid., pp.50-53, 58.
[17] Ibid., p.114.
[18] Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard, Op. cit., p.204.
[19] Iran, Turkey sign energy cooperation deal, agree to develop Iran’s gas fields, Associated Press, July 14, 2007. http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/07/14/business/ME-FIN-Iran-Turkey-Energy-deal.php
[20] Tehran to host summit of Caspian nations Oct.18, Russian News and Information Agency (RIA Novosti), August 22, 2007. http://en.rian.ru/world/20070822/73387774.html
[21] Azerbaijan, Iran reinforce energy deals, United Press International (UPI), August 22, 2007.
[22] Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, The March to War: Détente in the Middle East or “Calm before the Storm?,” Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), July 10, 2007. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6281
[23] Ibid.It is worth noting that Iran has been involved in pipeline deals with Turkey and in negotiation between Syria, Lebanon, Turkey, and the Republic of Azerbaijan in the possible creation of an energy corridor in the Eastern Mediterranean. These deals occurred in the same time frame that both Syria and Iran started talks with the U.S. after the Baker-Hamilton Commission’s report.
[24] Syria and Iraq to reopen oil pipeline link, Agence France-Presse (AFP), August 22, 2007.
[25] Ibid.
[26] Roger Hardy, Why the US is unhappy with Maliki, British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), August 22, 2007.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6958440.stm
[27] Hassan Nafaa, About-face on Iran coming?, Al-Ahram (Egypt), no. 859, August 23-29, 2007. http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2007/859/op22.htm
Saturday, October 13, 2007
UAE says Israel must submit to nuclear checks
WAM - Oct 13, 2007
New York: The UAE has called upon the international community to adopt a comprehensive and balanced policy with regard to the issue of non -proliferation.
Ambassador Ahmad A. Al Jarman, the UAE's permanent representative to the United Nations, delivered a speech before the general debate of the first committee on disarmament and international security expressing the policy of the UAE on this issue.
In the speech, the UAE called for adherence to the principle of multilateralism in order to achieve the objectives of non-proliferation and disarmament of all kinds of weapons including nuclear weapons.
The UAE hailed the positive manner in which the North Korea file was handled and urged a peaceful and permanent settlement of Iran's nuclear programme which will prevent further tensions and confrontations in the Gulf region.
The UAE also pushed for international efforts aimed at compelling Israel to dismantle and open its nuclear facilities to the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
The UAE called upon all concerned parties to stop providing technical and scientific aid for the development of Israeli nuclear armaments including the decision issued by the sixth reviewing conference of the parties to the Non-Proliferation Treaty of nuclear weapons held in 2000, which called for the establishment of a nuclear-weapons-free zone in the Middle East.
New York: The UAE has called upon the international community to adopt a comprehensive and balanced policy with regard to the issue of non -proliferation.
Ambassador Ahmad A. Al Jarman, the UAE's permanent representative to the United Nations, delivered a speech before the general debate of the first committee on disarmament and international security expressing the policy of the UAE on this issue.
In the speech, the UAE called for adherence to the principle of multilateralism in order to achieve the objectives of non-proliferation and disarmament of all kinds of weapons including nuclear weapons.
The UAE hailed the positive manner in which the North Korea file was handled and urged a peaceful and permanent settlement of Iran's nuclear programme which will prevent further tensions and confrontations in the Gulf region.
The UAE also pushed for international efforts aimed at compelling Israel to dismantle and open its nuclear facilities to the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
The UAE called upon all concerned parties to stop providing technical and scientific aid for the development of Israeli nuclear armaments including the decision issued by the sixth reviewing conference of the parties to the Non-Proliferation Treaty of nuclear weapons held in 2000, which called for the establishment of a nuclear-weapons-free zone in the Middle East.
Electronic warfare may have blitzed Israeli TV signals
It is unlikely that America and Israel will admit it, but the Syrians did say they were well capable and had every intention of retaliating for Israel's intrusion. One has to wonder what else besides Israeli TVs are being jammed.
by Arie Egozi - Oct 13, 2007
Millions of Israeli television viewers have endured a frustrating month of "frozen" satellite-feed pictures with no end in sight despite frantic efforts by the Yes satellite broadcast company to resolve the problem.
Yes uses the Amos 1 and Amos 2 communications satellites owned by SpaceCom, which has declared both to be functioning normally. Many Yes subscribers, mainly in northern Israel, are threatening to terminate their subscriptions.
The interference began shortly after the 6 September Israeli air raid on Syria, which, according to US and UK press reports, was made possible by Israeli use of an electronic warfare system that "blinded" Syria's state-of-the-art Russian-supplied air defence radar.
Some reports linked the satellite TV interference to the Israeli military activity, but this theory was discounted because the interference has continued. The Israeli Government seems as clueless as Yes as to the cause of the problem.
A second theory linked the interference to intelligence ships of different nations sailing in the Mediterranean, but governments quizzed by Israel deny that their intelligence-gathering could be causing the interference.
Finally, Israeli experts said on 9 October that the interference is caused by "a very strong source" the Israeli minister of communications says ministry experts hope to know the source of the interference in "a few days".
by Arie Egozi - Oct 13, 2007
Millions of Israeli television viewers have endured a frustrating month of "frozen" satellite-feed pictures with no end in sight despite frantic efforts by the Yes satellite broadcast company to resolve the problem.
Yes uses the Amos 1 and Amos 2 communications satellites owned by SpaceCom, which has declared both to be functioning normally. Many Yes subscribers, mainly in northern Israel, are threatening to terminate their subscriptions.
The interference began shortly after the 6 September Israeli air raid on Syria, which, according to US and UK press reports, was made possible by Israeli use of an electronic warfare system that "blinded" Syria's state-of-the-art Russian-supplied air defence radar.
Some reports linked the satellite TV interference to the Israeli military activity, but this theory was discounted because the interference has continued. The Israeli Government seems as clueless as Yes as to the cause of the problem.
A second theory linked the interference to intelligence ships of different nations sailing in the Mediterranean, but governments quizzed by Israel deny that their intelligence-gathering could be causing the interference.
Finally, Israeli experts said on 9 October that the interference is caused by "a very strong source" the Israeli minister of communications says ministry experts hope to know the source of the interference in "a few days".
Blair admits he is shocked by discrimination on the West Bank
Blair is shocked! SHOCKED! that Israel is discriminating against the Palestinians - what a joke.
by Donald Macintyre, Hebron - Oct 13, 2007
While his aides munched tuna bagels thoughtfully provided by the Israeli military, a shirt-sleeved Tony Blair peered intently at a map showing the two main cargo crossing-points that will function between the West Bank and Israel once the 450-mile separation barrier between them is complete.
Why, Mr Blair wanted to know from his host, an Israeli general in civvies, couldn't goods also be moved directly across the border from the nearby Palestinian industrial park that he is pressing Israel to approve?
"Why can't they go straight through?" Ah, that would be difficult, the general explained, requiring a whole new expensive security apparatus to check goods going into the park.
We are a long from way from No 10. At Tarqumia to be precise, just inside the West Bank and one of those crossing points – a forbidding grey antenna and camera-studded complex of checkpoints still under construction. Mr Blair is on the road, grappling with the mind-numbing complexities of how the physical security infrastructure of the occupation has squeezed the Palestinian economy.
It is a theme reinforced for him in Hebron, the Palestinian city whose core was once the thriving commercial hub of the southern West Bank. Its mayor, Khaled Osaily, briefs him extensively about how much of its old city is boarded up, stripped of Palestinian life because of the presence of some 800 Jewish settlers, and their military protectors.
As Mr Blair's convoy threads out of the city through the afternoon Ramadan traffic afterwards, Mr Osaily compliments Mr Blair on his thirst for facts. No, they had not talked much about the prospects for the forthcoming US-convened Annapolis conference on which hopes of any revival of a peace process have no been vested by the international community and in the preparations for which Mr Blair is intimately involved. "He is a practical man," said Mr Osaily. "He asked many questions about daily life here. We talked about the economy, about movement, about security. He wanted to know details."
Mr Blair gave the Israeli daily Yedhiot Ahronot his stock answer yesterday to questions about what he has learnt since taking the job. "I have learnt the depth of Israel's concern for security, and I have learnt the depth of the Palestinians' distress caused by the occupation."
Certainly he accepts Israel's view that Palestinians should not have a state until it can reasonably guarantee its neighbour's security. Hence the importance he attaches to the efforts that US General Keith Dayton is making to beef up Palestinian security forces. Indeed he has been telling diplomats and others that the emergency Palestinian Prime Minister, Salam Fayad, does not enter Nablus because he will not make the deal with the militias needed to guarantee his security.
He was shocked by what he was told about conditions in Hebron and diplomats say he was genuinely taken aback by his trip to the West Bank sector of the Jordan Valley – where Palestinians are allowed to dig wells only a third as deep as Israelis – at the exploitation of resources by the rich Jewish agricultural settlements at the expense of closed in Palestinian farmers. And he has been privately dismissive – rather more so perhaps than he was as Prime Minister – of the argument by some Israelis that security comes first, with economics and a political deal well behind it. "All three have to happen together" he has told diplomats – which is what he sees Annapolis as being about. This week he has been concentrating on the economics and is pressing Israel to permit job growth in the West Bank's Area C, where it has direct as well as total control – including a Japanese government plan for an "agro-industrial" park in the Jordan Valley.
A key purpose of all this, of course, is to try to give the Palestinian President, Mahmoud Abbas, something tangible to show for the outline political accord that he and the Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, are under pressure to reach before Annapolis and which Mr Blair sees as a " stepping stone" to full negotiations for a final resolution.
Some of the possible contours are beginning to clarify: a land swap to preserve the big West Bank Jewish settlements and, possibly, Israeli agreement in principle to East Jerusalem as a future Palestinian capital.
But the obstacles could hardly be more potentially terminal. Mr Abbas, at least as much as Mr Olmert, will have to make concessions without yet having a final deal in return. And this at a time when a totally excluded Hamas will have every opportunity to sabotage any process.
Yet none of this seems to dent Mr Blair's almost heroic optimism that it is " do-able." He accepts in private that settlement expansion will soon make a Palestinian state unrealisable, increasing the urgency of a solution. But he is said to believe that Mr Olmert sees a two-state solution as necessary in Israel's interests and accepts time is short.
He thinks the similarities with Northern Ireland are as great as the differences but since it irritates Israelis for him to say so, he doesn't. But that doesn't stop him recalling how Ian Paisley told him early in his premiership there would never be an agreement in Northern Ireland.
by Donald Macintyre, Hebron - Oct 13, 2007
While his aides munched tuna bagels thoughtfully provided by the Israeli military, a shirt-sleeved Tony Blair peered intently at a map showing the two main cargo crossing-points that will function between the West Bank and Israel once the 450-mile separation barrier between them is complete.
Why, Mr Blair wanted to know from his host, an Israeli general in civvies, couldn't goods also be moved directly across the border from the nearby Palestinian industrial park that he is pressing Israel to approve?
"Why can't they go straight through?" Ah, that would be difficult, the general explained, requiring a whole new expensive security apparatus to check goods going into the park.
We are a long from way from No 10. At Tarqumia to be precise, just inside the West Bank and one of those crossing points – a forbidding grey antenna and camera-studded complex of checkpoints still under construction. Mr Blair is on the road, grappling with the mind-numbing complexities of how the physical security infrastructure of the occupation has squeezed the Palestinian economy.
It is a theme reinforced for him in Hebron, the Palestinian city whose core was once the thriving commercial hub of the southern West Bank. Its mayor, Khaled Osaily, briefs him extensively about how much of its old city is boarded up, stripped of Palestinian life because of the presence of some 800 Jewish settlers, and their military protectors.
As Mr Blair's convoy threads out of the city through the afternoon Ramadan traffic afterwards, Mr Osaily compliments Mr Blair on his thirst for facts. No, they had not talked much about the prospects for the forthcoming US-convened Annapolis conference on which hopes of any revival of a peace process have no been vested by the international community and in the preparations for which Mr Blair is intimately involved. "He is a practical man," said Mr Osaily. "He asked many questions about daily life here. We talked about the economy, about movement, about security. He wanted to know details."
Mr Blair gave the Israeli daily Yedhiot Ahronot his stock answer yesterday to questions about what he has learnt since taking the job. "I have learnt the depth of Israel's concern for security, and I have learnt the depth of the Palestinians' distress caused by the occupation."
Certainly he accepts Israel's view that Palestinians should not have a state until it can reasonably guarantee its neighbour's security. Hence the importance he attaches to the efforts that US General Keith Dayton is making to beef up Palestinian security forces. Indeed he has been telling diplomats and others that the emergency Palestinian Prime Minister, Salam Fayad, does not enter Nablus because he will not make the deal with the militias needed to guarantee his security.
He was shocked by what he was told about conditions in Hebron and diplomats say he was genuinely taken aback by his trip to the West Bank sector of the Jordan Valley – where Palestinians are allowed to dig wells only a third as deep as Israelis – at the exploitation of resources by the rich Jewish agricultural settlements at the expense of closed in Palestinian farmers. And he has been privately dismissive – rather more so perhaps than he was as Prime Minister – of the argument by some Israelis that security comes first, with economics and a political deal well behind it. "All three have to happen together" he has told diplomats – which is what he sees Annapolis as being about. This week he has been concentrating on the economics and is pressing Israel to permit job growth in the West Bank's Area C, where it has direct as well as total control – including a Japanese government plan for an "agro-industrial" park in the Jordan Valley.
A key purpose of all this, of course, is to try to give the Palestinian President, Mahmoud Abbas, something tangible to show for the outline political accord that he and the Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, are under pressure to reach before Annapolis and which Mr Blair sees as a " stepping stone" to full negotiations for a final resolution.
Some of the possible contours are beginning to clarify: a land swap to preserve the big West Bank Jewish settlements and, possibly, Israeli agreement in principle to East Jerusalem as a future Palestinian capital.
But the obstacles could hardly be more potentially terminal. Mr Abbas, at least as much as Mr Olmert, will have to make concessions without yet having a final deal in return. And this at a time when a totally excluded Hamas will have every opportunity to sabotage any process.
Yet none of this seems to dent Mr Blair's almost heroic optimism that it is " do-able." He accepts in private that settlement expansion will soon make a Palestinian state unrealisable, increasing the urgency of a solution. But he is said to believe that Mr Olmert sees a two-state solution as necessary in Israel's interests and accepts time is short.
He thinks the similarities with Northern Ireland are as great as the differences but since it irritates Israelis for him to say so, he doesn't. But that doesn't stop him recalling how Ian Paisley told him early in his premiership there would never be an agreement in Northern Ireland.
General Sanchez calls Iraq a 'nightmare'
Al Jazeera - Oct 13, 2007Security remains a big concern four years after the US-led invasion [EPA]
A former top US military commander in Baghdad has described the war in Iraq as "a nightmare with no end in sight".
In the bluntest assessment of Iraq by a former senior Pentagon official yet, retired Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez also lambasted US political leaders as "incompetent, inept, and derelict in the performance of their duty".
Addressing a meeting of military correspondents and editors in Arlington, a Virginia suburb of Washington, Sanchez said: "There is no question that America is living a nightmare with no end in sight."
He said the current White House strategy will not achieve victory in Iraq.
Bush assailed
Sanchez blasted the "surge" strategy of George Bush, the US president, that calls for maintaining more than 160,000 US troops in Iraq until the end of the year in the hope of reducing sectarian violence.
"Continued manipulations and adjustments to our military strategy will not achieve victory," he said. "The best we can do with this flawed approach is stave off defeat."
Sanchez retired from the military in November 2006, part of the fallout from a scandal over abuse of detainees by US military personnel at the Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad.
Reacting to Sanchez's comments, the White House evoked a September report to congress by General David Petraeus, the current US military commander in Iraq, and Ryan Crocker, the US ambassador .
"We appreciate his service to the country," Trey Bohn, White House spokesman, said.
"As General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker have said, there is more work to be done, but progress is being made in Iraq. And that's what we are focused on now."
'No hope'
Sanchez, however, had a starkly different view. "There is nothing going on today in Washington that would give us hope," he insisted.
According to Sanchez, US politicians in both the administration and congress have too often chosen loyalty to their political party above loyalty to the constitution because of what he called "their lust for power".
"There has been a glaring, unfortunate display of incompetent strategic leadership within our national leaders," the retired general complained.
"In my profession, these type of leaders would immediately be relieved or court-martialled."
Friday, October 12, 2007
The International Murdoch Media Smearing Of Ron Paul Begins
by Darryl Mason - Oct 12, 2007
The Rupert Murdoch media in the United States mostly pretends Ron Paul doesn't exist, or simply doesn't matter. As hard a myth that is to maintain, Murdoch is clearly backing Giuliani and Billary and no-one else for the White House in 2008. Like most American elites, Murdoch doesn't care if it's Billary or Giuliani, just as long as it isn't Ron Paul in the White House come 2008.
In Australia, now that Ron Paul's infamy is spreading fast, and his reputation as one of the more credible and interesting Republican candidates is taking root, the Murdoch media has decided to kill off the story of a real presidential underdog before it excites too many journalists down under.
The first shot from Murdoch's Australian media claims that Ron Paul's impressive dominance of internet campaigning is merely the result of a "fake online campaign."
Wait. Here's the full headlines from news.com.au :
Republican Ron Paul In Possible 'Fake Online Campaign'
In the story, journalist Mark Schliebs makes a fistful of accusations of online fraud, based on little more than his own opinion and the strategic use of words like 'possible' and 'may'. If the headline wasn't bad enough, check out the opening paragraph :
A candidate for the US presidency is being buoyed by a massive online campaign that may be a fake grassroots movement organised by party staff.
It gets worse, and far more dubious :
YouTube footage of Texan Republican Congressman Ron Paul, whose candidacy has been overshadowed in the media by competitors Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson and John McCain, has been viewed by tens of thousands of people in the last week.
As of 11am (AEST) today, a compilation of different clips of Dr Paul was the “Top Rated” video of the past 24 hours.
The clip had been viewed nearly 60,000 times since it was uploaded yesterday.
But it was not the only clip of the Congressman receiving kudos from Youtube users, with another 10 videos appearing in today’s list of the site’s 100 "Top Rated" recordings.
Of the 11 featured clips of Dr Paul, only one user uploaded more than one of them in the last 24 hours.
Just one of the 11 clips in the list was actually featured in today's top 100 "Most Viewed" videos.
Head of Flinders University’s Department of American Studies Don De Bats told NEWS.com.au that it “sounded like” an astroturfing campaign.
Astroturfing is the term used to describe a fake grassroots campaign, where members of an organisation create the illusion that “ordinary people” are behind the movement.
Professor De Bats said that for a relatively unknown candidate like Dr Paul to have so much prominence online was suspicious.
“I would not put any credibility on those results,” Prof De Bats said.
“I find it terrifically surprising and unlikely (that Dr Paul would attract that level of response).”
Earlier this week, the Republican's campaign team issued a press release that said: “Dr Paul's video channel has been viewed 4.5 million times by supporters who embrace his message of freedom and limited government, making him one of the most-watched presidential candidates in internet history.”
Those figures were only based on clips uploaded by one user, RonPaul2008dotcom, who didn’t have any clips in today’s 100 Top Rated list.
What the hell is this guy talking about? Can anyone make sense of this nonsense? The Ron Paul 2008 channel is an election channel, which every presidential wannabe who is seriously pursuing an online audience also has, including Billary, Giuliani and Barack Obama.
It's an online campaign, so of course Ron Paul supporters or Ron Paul's own office is going to post clips, just as the teams behind Giuliani, Billary and Obama are now also doing.
Similar claims of 'astroturfing' have been made about Ron Paul's extraordinary showing in online polls after Republican debates, where he often heartily trounces higher profile candidates like Rudolph Giuliani. Despite the fact that most major media organisations only allow one vote from each IP address for such polls, the smear campaign continues to claim that Ron Paul staffers, and a small pool of supporters, are stacking the polls.
So when there is clear evidence that Ron Paul is making a deep impression with hundreds of thousands of Americans online, via impressive viewing numbers for videos on YouTube, a Murdoch journo tries to claim that this is merely yet another example of astroturfing?
There's many reasons why it is in the interest of the 'establishment' media to try and discredit Ron Paul every chance they get. Here's one reason why - Ron Paul talks like this about the international Murdoch media campaign to ramp up support for a War On Iran:
"Why don't we just open up the Constitution and read it? You're not allowed to go to war without a declaration of war. Now, as far as fleeting enemies goes, yes-- if there's an imminent attack on us. We've never had that happen to us in 220 years. The idea that Iran could pose an imminent attack on the United States is preposterous. There's no way."
"This is just war propaganda preparing this nation to go to war and spread this war not only into Iraq but into Iran unconstitutionally. It is a road to disaster for us as a nation. It is the road to our financial disaster if we don't read the Constitution once in a while."
No wonder they want to shut him up, and shut him down.
What the Murdoch media journo also failed to point out is how miserable the YouTube viewing numbers, and online poll results, are for presidential wannabes like Giuliani, who is supposed to be the chief Republican contender for the White House, and is "electrifying" the Republican heartland, if you believe what you hear on Fox News.
Tens of millions of Americans spend more than three or four hours online every day, but how many of them are drawn to check out Giuliani videos on YouTube? Not many. This Giuliani YouTube video, where he espouses on one of his key platforms, attracted a measly 370 viewings after a week. The clips where Giuliani scores tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands of viewings, are the ones where he and Ron Paul are going at each other during Republican debates.
Here's Giuliani on free trade (94 viewings), on combating internet predators (113 viewings), and on energy independence for the US (120 viewings) - at the time of this blog posting.
But when an anti-war Republican, who personifies the core values of real American conservatism, and who 'courageously speaks the truth', finds a massive online audience who flock to each new video in their hundreds of thousands, it's all supposed to be fake?
If Ron Paul supporters are so easily stacking YouTube viewing numbers, and online polls, then why aren't Giuliani supporters doing the same?
The Australian Murdoch media story on Ron Paul is a beat-up, hack work, nasty and vindictive and a standard example of the kind of insidious propaganda that gets flung at anyone who hits the American heartland talking of changing the status quo of an American in deep, deep trouble.
The Murdoch journalist also failed to mention the biggest Ron Paul story of the last few weeks - the fact that he has managed to raise $5 million in only a few months, with the vast majority of donations coming in small amounts from tens of thousands of supporters, as opposed to Giuliani who gets a handful of checks worth hundreds of thousands of dollars each instead.
The 'Fake Online Campaign' story has gone up on News Limited's central media website for Australia, and it is likely to filter out into city newspapers across the country tomorrow, and also become fodder for talk back radio. Remember that Rupert Murdoch controls 70% of all Australian newspapers. That's some distribution system for propaganda like the Schliebs story.
The lies propagated by Mark Schliebs will stick, and the rest of the Australian media will follow the Murdoch media line: that Ron Paul's remarkable grassroots support base is nothing more than a fake campaign, organised by his staffers, instead of a revolutionary change to the way Americans elect their presidents, or at least hear what they have to say and what they stand for.Another voice of rational American politics, which could help change the blood-stained international reputation of the United States, has been maligned, and discredited in Australia today.
If more Australians, Europeans, Asians and Russians heard what Ron Paul had to say, the horrific international poll results showing anti-American dissent is soaring across the world might level off a bit.
This Ron Paul video (and remember this is a video clip about politics, not Paris Hilton nude or skateboarding dogs) has been viewed an extraordinary 472,000 times.
Astroturfing? They wish.
The Rupert Murdoch media in the United States mostly pretends Ron Paul doesn't exist, or simply doesn't matter. As hard a myth that is to maintain, Murdoch is clearly backing Giuliani and Billary and no-one else for the White House in 2008. Like most American elites, Murdoch doesn't care if it's Billary or Giuliani, just as long as it isn't Ron Paul in the White House come 2008.
In Australia, now that Ron Paul's infamy is spreading fast, and his reputation as one of the more credible and interesting Republican candidates is taking root, the Murdoch media has decided to kill off the story of a real presidential underdog before it excites too many journalists down under.
The first shot from Murdoch's Australian media claims that Ron Paul's impressive dominance of internet campaigning is merely the result of a "fake online campaign."
Wait. Here's the full headlines from news.com.au :
Republican Ron Paul In Possible 'Fake Online Campaign'
In the story, journalist Mark Schliebs makes a fistful of accusations of online fraud, based on little more than his own opinion and the strategic use of words like 'possible' and 'may'. If the headline wasn't bad enough, check out the opening paragraph :
A candidate for the US presidency is being buoyed by a massive online campaign that may be a fake grassroots movement organised by party staff.
It gets worse, and far more dubious :
YouTube footage of Texan Republican Congressman Ron Paul, whose candidacy has been overshadowed in the media by competitors Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson and John McCain, has been viewed by tens of thousands of people in the last week.
As of 11am (AEST) today, a compilation of different clips of Dr Paul was the “Top Rated” video of the past 24 hours.
The clip had been viewed nearly 60,000 times since it was uploaded yesterday.
But it was not the only clip of the Congressman receiving kudos from Youtube users, with another 10 videos appearing in today’s list of the site’s 100 "Top Rated" recordings.
Of the 11 featured clips of Dr Paul, only one user uploaded more than one of them in the last 24 hours.
Just one of the 11 clips in the list was actually featured in today's top 100 "Most Viewed" videos.
Head of Flinders University’s Department of American Studies Don De Bats told NEWS.com.au that it “sounded like” an astroturfing campaign.
Astroturfing is the term used to describe a fake grassroots campaign, where members of an organisation create the illusion that “ordinary people” are behind the movement.
Professor De Bats said that for a relatively unknown candidate like Dr Paul to have so much prominence online was suspicious.
“I would not put any credibility on those results,” Prof De Bats said.
“I find it terrifically surprising and unlikely (that Dr Paul would attract that level of response).”
Earlier this week, the Republican's campaign team issued a press release that said: “Dr Paul's video channel has been viewed 4.5 million times by supporters who embrace his message of freedom and limited government, making him one of the most-watched presidential candidates in internet history.”
Those figures were only based on clips uploaded by one user, RonPaul2008dotcom, who didn’t have any clips in today’s 100 Top Rated list.
What the hell is this guy talking about? Can anyone make sense of this nonsense? The Ron Paul 2008 channel is an election channel, which every presidential wannabe who is seriously pursuing an online audience also has, including Billary, Giuliani and Barack Obama.
It's an online campaign, so of course Ron Paul supporters or Ron Paul's own office is going to post clips, just as the teams behind Giuliani, Billary and Obama are now also doing.
Similar claims of 'astroturfing' have been made about Ron Paul's extraordinary showing in online polls after Republican debates, where he often heartily trounces higher profile candidates like Rudolph Giuliani. Despite the fact that most major media organisations only allow one vote from each IP address for such polls, the smear campaign continues to claim that Ron Paul staffers, and a small pool of supporters, are stacking the polls.
So when there is clear evidence that Ron Paul is making a deep impression with hundreds of thousands of Americans online, via impressive viewing numbers for videos on YouTube, a Murdoch journo tries to claim that this is merely yet another example of astroturfing?
There's many reasons why it is in the interest of the 'establishment' media to try and discredit Ron Paul every chance they get. Here's one reason why - Ron Paul talks like this about the international Murdoch media campaign to ramp up support for a War On Iran:
"Why don't we just open up the Constitution and read it? You're not allowed to go to war without a declaration of war. Now, as far as fleeting enemies goes, yes-- if there's an imminent attack on us. We've never had that happen to us in 220 years. The idea that Iran could pose an imminent attack on the United States is preposterous. There's no way."
"This is just war propaganda preparing this nation to go to war and spread this war not only into Iraq but into Iran unconstitutionally. It is a road to disaster for us as a nation. It is the road to our financial disaster if we don't read the Constitution once in a while."
No wonder they want to shut him up, and shut him down.
What the Murdoch media journo also failed to point out is how miserable the YouTube viewing numbers, and online poll results, are for presidential wannabes like Giuliani, who is supposed to be the chief Republican contender for the White House, and is "electrifying" the Republican heartland, if you believe what you hear on Fox News.
Tens of millions of Americans spend more than three or four hours online every day, but how many of them are drawn to check out Giuliani videos on YouTube? Not many. This Giuliani YouTube video, where he espouses on one of his key platforms, attracted a measly 370 viewings after a week. The clips where Giuliani scores tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands of viewings, are the ones where he and Ron Paul are going at each other during Republican debates.
Here's Giuliani on free trade (94 viewings), on combating internet predators (113 viewings), and on energy independence for the US (120 viewings) - at the time of this blog posting.
But when an anti-war Republican, who personifies the core values of real American conservatism, and who 'courageously speaks the truth', finds a massive online audience who flock to each new video in their hundreds of thousands, it's all supposed to be fake?
If Ron Paul supporters are so easily stacking YouTube viewing numbers, and online polls, then why aren't Giuliani supporters doing the same?
The Australian Murdoch media story on Ron Paul is a beat-up, hack work, nasty and vindictive and a standard example of the kind of insidious propaganda that gets flung at anyone who hits the American heartland talking of changing the status quo of an American in deep, deep trouble.
The Murdoch journalist also failed to mention the biggest Ron Paul story of the last few weeks - the fact that he has managed to raise $5 million in only a few months, with the vast majority of donations coming in small amounts from tens of thousands of supporters, as opposed to Giuliani who gets a handful of checks worth hundreds of thousands of dollars each instead.
The 'Fake Online Campaign' story has gone up on News Limited's central media website for Australia, and it is likely to filter out into city newspapers across the country tomorrow, and also become fodder for talk back radio. Remember that Rupert Murdoch controls 70% of all Australian newspapers. That's some distribution system for propaganda like the Schliebs story.
The lies propagated by Mark Schliebs will stick, and the rest of the Australian media will follow the Murdoch media line: that Ron Paul's remarkable grassroots support base is nothing more than a fake campaign, organised by his staffers, instead of a revolutionary change to the way Americans elect their presidents, or at least hear what they have to say and what they stand for.Another voice of rational American politics, which could help change the blood-stained international reputation of the United States, has been maligned, and discredited in Australia today.
If more Australians, Europeans, Asians and Russians heard what Ron Paul had to say, the horrific international poll results showing anti-American dissent is soaring across the world might level off a bit.
This Ron Paul video (and remember this is a video clip about politics, not Paris Hilton nude or skateboarding dogs) has been viewed an extraordinary 472,000 times.
Astroturfing? They wish.
Turkish ire may affect Iraq war
This is what happens when the agenda of the Israel Firsters and Christian and Jewish Zionists in Congress - to create tension and separation between America and her traditional Muslim allies - is allowed to play out. In the end, there will be only America and Israel standing against the big bad Muslim world - just the way Israel wants it.
by Scott Peterson - Oct 12, 2007
Two obsessions in Turkey may appear unrelated – a recent surge in Kurdish militant attacks and the mass killing of Armenians nearly a century ago – but they are swiftly combining as a strategic tipping point in US-Turkey relations that could affect American forces in Iraq.
Amid widespread calls for revenge after the killing of some 30 Turkish soldiers and civilians in two weeks by the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) – and the failure of US and Iraqi forces to curb the attacks from bases in Iraq – the Turkish parliament is expected next week to authorize cross-border operations into northern Iraq.
Turkish warplanes and artillery are reportedly already targeting PKK camps, but an incursion could destabilize the one area of Iraq that has been relatively peaceful since the US invasion in 2003.
And complicating the situation is a US congressional committee's approval Wednesday of a resolution calling the 1915 massacres by Ottoman Turks a "genocide." Turkey called the decision "unacceptable," after warning that the vote could jeopardize US access to a military airbase crucial to resupplying US troops in Iraq.
President Bush said the non-binding resolution "would do great harm to our relations with a key ally in NATO and in the global war on terror," echoing a letter from all eight living former secretaries of state opposing the resolution.
Turkey accuses the US and Iraqi Kurdish forces in northern Iraq of providing safe haven and military support for an estimated 3,000 PKK rebels, and not doing enough to stop cross-border attacks. US commanders and Iraqi Kurdish officials say they are doing all they can to stamp out PKK activity, but their reach is limited in the remote mountains along the border.
The US has "been caught between their tactical alliance with the Kurds in Iraq, and their strategic alliance – at least what it used to be – with Turkey," says Bulent Aliriza, a Turkey analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.
"The reality is that the US relies to an incredible extent on the Iraqi Kurds … and any meaningful action by the Turks would annoy the Iraqi Kurds and change the balance in Iraq against the US in this war," says Mr. Aliriza. "The worst thing that could happen, from the point of view of the [White House] is for the Turks to intervene, creating an even bigger mess in Iraq."
Analysts say a large incursion is not likely, though domestic pressure is growing on Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan to act against the PKK. A spike in attacks this spring prompted the top brass of Turkey's military – the second largest ground forces of the NATO alliance, after the US – to call for government approval to cross into Iraq.
Turkish troops into Iraq? This week Turkish units have begun deploying along the border, as the Turkish media speaks of a possible incursion of 15,000 soldiers and even creation of a buffer zone 10 to 20 miles deep inside Iraq.
But Turkey has been here before, during an estimated 24 previous cross-border operations against the PKK in the 1980s and 1990s. The two largest took place in 1995 and 1997, the latter with 50,000 troops, but the PKK remained.
The Turkish military is "very well aware of the pros and cons of a cross-border operation into northern Iraq, and everybody knows it wouldn't be an easy task to step there because you could have some losses, you could have some terrible results – you never know," says Metehan Demir, a military specialist in Ankara with the Sabah newspaper.
"When you go there, you will not only be facing the PKK. You don't know what the peshmerga [Iraqi Kurdish militias] will do; you don't know how the Americans will contribute to the peshmerga or PKK behind the scenes," says Mr. Demir. "These are real concerns in the Turkish capital."
A mechanism created in August 2006 to defuse a crisis and prevent a Turkish incursion has brought few results.
President Bush appointed retired Gen. Joseph Ralston, a former NATO supreme allied commander, to be his envoy to counter the PKK. But his mission has been fraught with frustration and his resignation was confirmed this week.
General Ralston's Turkish counterpart was fired several months ago after making comments critical of the US, and in tough words published this week, he said anyone who did not help Turkey fight terror was also guilty.
Effects of US 'genocide' bill"Some people claim the PKK is doing these attacks to pull Turkey into the northern Iraq swamp, in order to harm Turkey's relationship with the US and to isolate Turkey," adds Demir. "If you add an Armenian genocide bill onto this ongoing turmoil over the PKK attacks, it will be terrible for Turkish-American relations."
Already much of that damage is being done, though the vote by the House Foreign Affairs Committee yesterday – taken in the presence of four Armenian survivors of the World War I-era events – mirrors one passed by a wider margin in 2005 and another in 2000 that were withdrawn. This time, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said she will bring the nonbinding resolution to a vote of the full House, perhaps in mid-November.
Turkish newspapers on Thursday were scathing. The mass-circulation Hurriyet called it "bill of hatred." The daily Vatan gave this front-page headline, about those who voted for it: "27 foolish Americans."
American businessmen in Turkey have also lobbied against the measure, noting how French market share has tumbled by double digits as high as 70 percent in the year since France passed a bill criminalizing Armenian genocide denial.
French exports to Turkey have also fallen by $1 to $2 billion in the past 12 months, by one count, while the value of most other trading partners expanded. Turkey denies that a systematic genocide of up to 1.5 million Armenians ever took place – a description and figure accepted by many historians – saying that mass killing was carried out by both sides.
Weighing the pros and consSpeaking about "this enormous blot on human history," congressional committee chairman Tom Lantos (D) of California opened the session this way: "We have to weigh the desire to express our solidarity with the Armenian people and to condemn the historic nightmare through the use of the word 'genocide,' against the risk that it could cause young men and women in the uniform of the United States armed services to pay an even heavier price [in Iraq and Afghanistan] than they are currently paying."
Some congressmen said the Turkish warnings of retaliation were a bluff, with one saying he felt as through a "Turkish sword" was over his head. "We can't provide genocide denial as one of the perks of friendship with the United States," added Rep. Brad Sherman (D) of California.
But others expressed shock. "This is crazy," said Rep. Dan Burton (R) of Indiana. "We're in the middle of two wars and we've got troops over there that are at risk, and we're talking about kicking the one ally that's helping us over there in the face."
Administration officials – and Turkish politicians – pointed out that 70 percent of the US military's air cargo destined for Iraq transits through the US air base at Incirlik in eastern Turkey, and 30 percent of the fuel used by US forces.
"Our most reliable resource of unfettered intelligence that is helping us in the Middle East comes through Turkey," Rep. David Scott (D) of Georgia told the committee.
"The Armenian question is plain as day: What was done to them is wrong. The issue is: What is in the best interest of the national security of the United States?"
by Scott Peterson - Oct 12, 2007
Two obsessions in Turkey may appear unrelated – a recent surge in Kurdish militant attacks and the mass killing of Armenians nearly a century ago – but they are swiftly combining as a strategic tipping point in US-Turkey relations that could affect American forces in Iraq.
Amid widespread calls for revenge after the killing of some 30 Turkish soldiers and civilians in two weeks by the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) – and the failure of US and Iraqi forces to curb the attacks from bases in Iraq – the Turkish parliament is expected next week to authorize cross-border operations into northern Iraq.
Turkish warplanes and artillery are reportedly already targeting PKK camps, but an incursion could destabilize the one area of Iraq that has been relatively peaceful since the US invasion in 2003.
And complicating the situation is a US congressional committee's approval Wednesday of a resolution calling the 1915 massacres by Ottoman Turks a "genocide." Turkey called the decision "unacceptable," after warning that the vote could jeopardize US access to a military airbase crucial to resupplying US troops in Iraq.
President Bush said the non-binding resolution "would do great harm to our relations with a key ally in NATO and in the global war on terror," echoing a letter from all eight living former secretaries of state opposing the resolution.
Turkey accuses the US and Iraqi Kurdish forces in northern Iraq of providing safe haven and military support for an estimated 3,000 PKK rebels, and not doing enough to stop cross-border attacks. US commanders and Iraqi Kurdish officials say they are doing all they can to stamp out PKK activity, but their reach is limited in the remote mountains along the border.
The US has "been caught between their tactical alliance with the Kurds in Iraq, and their strategic alliance – at least what it used to be – with Turkey," says Bulent Aliriza, a Turkey analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.
"The reality is that the US relies to an incredible extent on the Iraqi Kurds … and any meaningful action by the Turks would annoy the Iraqi Kurds and change the balance in Iraq against the US in this war," says Mr. Aliriza. "The worst thing that could happen, from the point of view of the [White House] is for the Turks to intervene, creating an even bigger mess in Iraq."
Analysts say a large incursion is not likely, though domestic pressure is growing on Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan to act against the PKK. A spike in attacks this spring prompted the top brass of Turkey's military – the second largest ground forces of the NATO alliance, after the US – to call for government approval to cross into Iraq.
Turkish troops into Iraq? This week Turkish units have begun deploying along the border, as the Turkish media speaks of a possible incursion of 15,000 soldiers and even creation of a buffer zone 10 to 20 miles deep inside Iraq.
But Turkey has been here before, during an estimated 24 previous cross-border operations against the PKK in the 1980s and 1990s. The two largest took place in 1995 and 1997, the latter with 50,000 troops, but the PKK remained.
The Turkish military is "very well aware of the pros and cons of a cross-border operation into northern Iraq, and everybody knows it wouldn't be an easy task to step there because you could have some losses, you could have some terrible results – you never know," says Metehan Demir, a military specialist in Ankara with the Sabah newspaper.
"When you go there, you will not only be facing the PKK. You don't know what the peshmerga [Iraqi Kurdish militias] will do; you don't know how the Americans will contribute to the peshmerga or PKK behind the scenes," says Mr. Demir. "These are real concerns in the Turkish capital."
A mechanism created in August 2006 to defuse a crisis and prevent a Turkish incursion has brought few results.
President Bush appointed retired Gen. Joseph Ralston, a former NATO supreme allied commander, to be his envoy to counter the PKK. But his mission has been fraught with frustration and his resignation was confirmed this week.
General Ralston's Turkish counterpart was fired several months ago after making comments critical of the US, and in tough words published this week, he said anyone who did not help Turkey fight terror was also guilty.
Effects of US 'genocide' bill"Some people claim the PKK is doing these attacks to pull Turkey into the northern Iraq swamp, in order to harm Turkey's relationship with the US and to isolate Turkey," adds Demir. "If you add an Armenian genocide bill onto this ongoing turmoil over the PKK attacks, it will be terrible for Turkish-American relations."
Already much of that damage is being done, though the vote by the House Foreign Affairs Committee yesterday – taken in the presence of four Armenian survivors of the World War I-era events – mirrors one passed by a wider margin in 2005 and another in 2000 that were withdrawn. This time, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said she will bring the nonbinding resolution to a vote of the full House, perhaps in mid-November.
Turkish newspapers on Thursday were scathing. The mass-circulation Hurriyet called it "bill of hatred." The daily Vatan gave this front-page headline, about those who voted for it: "27 foolish Americans."
American businessmen in Turkey have also lobbied against the measure, noting how French market share has tumbled by double digits as high as 70 percent in the year since France passed a bill criminalizing Armenian genocide denial.
French exports to Turkey have also fallen by $1 to $2 billion in the past 12 months, by one count, while the value of most other trading partners expanded. Turkey denies that a systematic genocide of up to 1.5 million Armenians ever took place – a description and figure accepted by many historians – saying that mass killing was carried out by both sides.
Weighing the pros and consSpeaking about "this enormous blot on human history," congressional committee chairman Tom Lantos (D) of California opened the session this way: "We have to weigh the desire to express our solidarity with the Armenian people and to condemn the historic nightmare through the use of the word 'genocide,' against the risk that it could cause young men and women in the uniform of the United States armed services to pay an even heavier price [in Iraq and Afghanistan] than they are currently paying."
Some congressmen said the Turkish warnings of retaliation were a bluff, with one saying he felt as through a "Turkish sword" was over his head. "We can't provide genocide denial as one of the perks of friendship with the United States," added Rep. Brad Sherman (D) of California.
But others expressed shock. "This is crazy," said Rep. Dan Burton (R) of Indiana. "We're in the middle of two wars and we've got troops over there that are at risk, and we're talking about kicking the one ally that's helping us over there in the face."
Administration officials – and Turkish politicians – pointed out that 70 percent of the US military's air cargo destined for Iraq transits through the US air base at Incirlik in eastern Turkey, and 30 percent of the fuel used by US forces.
"Our most reliable resource of unfettered intelligence that is helping us in the Middle East comes through Turkey," Rep. David Scott (D) of Georgia told the committee.
"The Armenian question is plain as day: What was done to them is wrong. The issue is: What is in the best interest of the national security of the United States?"
Obama, Edwards hit Clinton on Iran
Hillary is a female version of Rudy. She will say and do whatever she thinks will score political points at the time. And, unfortunately, Obama and Edwards are about the same. The only Candidate with integrity in the race is RON PAUL. VOTE RON PAUL AND VOTE AMERICA!
by PATRICK CONDON, Associated Press - Oct 12, 2007
Democrats Barack Obama and John Edwards are criticizing presidential rival Hillary Rodham Clinton for her latest comments on meeting with leaders of Iran and other countries that are on poor terms with the U.S.
Obama noted on Friday that when he said in July he would meet with such leaders without setting any conditions, Clinton called his stance "irresponsible and frankly naive."
Questioned Thursday by a voter in New Hampshire, Clinton said twice that she, too, would negotiate with Iran "with no conditions."
"I would engage in negotiations with Iran, with no conditions, because we don't really understand how Iran works. We think we do, from the outside, but I think that is misleading," she said.
Obama said Friday, "So I'm not sure if any of us knows exactly where she is standing on this issue. But I can tell you this — when I am president of the United States, the American people and the world will always know where I stand."
Edwards' campaign chimed in from North Carolina, also noting the earlier Clinton comment and her new statement.
"You can't have it both ways — on this or any other issue," said a statement released by Edwards communications director Chris Kofinis. "Senator Clinton needs to be honest with the American people about her plans."
The Clinton campaign said she had not changed her position.
While she believes in diplomatic engagement with Iran, "she does not agree with Senator Obama ... that the United States president should precommit to meeting directly with Mr. Ahmadinejad," said spokesman Howard Wolfson. That was a reference to Iran's president.
Obama, speaking Friday at Drake University in Des Moines, gave a harsh assessment of Clinton's foreign policy views.
He criticized the New York senator for her recent vote designating Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization, saying she was repeating a mistake she made in voting to authorize the Iraq war.
"Senator Clinton is the only Democratic candidate for president who supports this amendment," Obama said, calling it a "blank check" for President Bush to attack Iran.
"I don't want to give this president any excuse, any opening for war," said Obama who missed that vote because he was campaigning in New Hampshire.
The Clinton campaign responded with a statement distributed by spokesman Mark Daley: "Once again Senator Obama has abandoned the politics of hope to engage in the same old attack politics. If Senator Obama really believed that this measure gave the president a blank check for war he should have been there, speaking out and fighting against it."
"Senator Clinton opposes both President Bush's saber rattling and Senator Obama's inaction on Iran," her campaign said.
Obama, noting that the vote to authorize the Iraq war came five years ago this week, said Democrats in Congress — including Clinton and Edwards, who was then a North Carolina senator — bear some responsibility for what's happened since.
"Senator Edwards voted for the war in 2002," Obama said. "He has renounced that vote instead of pretending that it was a vote for anything but war."
He said Clinton's arguments that she was voting for more inspections or diplomacy are misleading. "All of us know what was being debated in the Congress in the fall of 2002," he said, again stressing his early opposition to the war while he was a state senator in Illinois.
Obama said Democrats must stop believing they "can't win elections unless they talk, act and vote like Republicans when it comes to foreign policy and national security."
by PATRICK CONDON, Associated Press - Oct 12, 2007
Democrats Barack Obama and John Edwards are criticizing presidential rival Hillary Rodham Clinton for her latest comments on meeting with leaders of Iran and other countries that are on poor terms with the U.S.
Obama noted on Friday that when he said in July he would meet with such leaders without setting any conditions, Clinton called his stance "irresponsible and frankly naive."
Questioned Thursday by a voter in New Hampshire, Clinton said twice that she, too, would negotiate with Iran "with no conditions."
"I would engage in negotiations with Iran, with no conditions, because we don't really understand how Iran works. We think we do, from the outside, but I think that is misleading," she said.
Obama said Friday, "So I'm not sure if any of us knows exactly where she is standing on this issue. But I can tell you this — when I am president of the United States, the American people and the world will always know where I stand."
Edwards' campaign chimed in from North Carolina, also noting the earlier Clinton comment and her new statement.
"You can't have it both ways — on this or any other issue," said a statement released by Edwards communications director Chris Kofinis. "Senator Clinton needs to be honest with the American people about her plans."
The Clinton campaign said she had not changed her position.
While she believes in diplomatic engagement with Iran, "she does not agree with Senator Obama ... that the United States president should precommit to meeting directly with Mr. Ahmadinejad," said spokesman Howard Wolfson. That was a reference to Iran's president.
Obama, speaking Friday at Drake University in Des Moines, gave a harsh assessment of Clinton's foreign policy views.
He criticized the New York senator for her recent vote designating Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization, saying she was repeating a mistake she made in voting to authorize the Iraq war.
"Senator Clinton is the only Democratic candidate for president who supports this amendment," Obama said, calling it a "blank check" for President Bush to attack Iran.
"I don't want to give this president any excuse, any opening for war," said Obama who missed that vote because he was campaigning in New Hampshire.
The Clinton campaign responded with a statement distributed by spokesman Mark Daley: "Once again Senator Obama has abandoned the politics of hope to engage in the same old attack politics. If Senator Obama really believed that this measure gave the president a blank check for war he should have been there, speaking out and fighting against it."
"Senator Clinton opposes both President Bush's saber rattling and Senator Obama's inaction on Iran," her campaign said.
Obama, noting that the vote to authorize the Iraq war came five years ago this week, said Democrats in Congress — including Clinton and Edwards, who was then a North Carolina senator — bear some responsibility for what's happened since.
"Senator Edwards voted for the war in 2002," Obama said. "He has renounced that vote instead of pretending that it was a vote for anything but war."
He said Clinton's arguments that she was voting for more inspections or diplomacy are misleading. "All of us know what was being debated in the Congress in the fall of 2002," he said, again stressing his early opposition to the war while he was a state senator in Illinois.
Obama said Democrats must stop believing they "can't win elections unless they talk, act and vote like Republicans when it comes to foreign policy and national security."
Democracy is not always the answer
There are other forms of government that work
by TOM PLATE - Oct 12, 2007
With barely more than 4 million citizens, the tiny state of Singapore in Southeast Asia would hardly qualify as a template or role model for anything or anybody. Even clockwork-like Switzerland seems a relative superpower at 7.5 million in populace. Why would anyone care one way or the other what Singapore's first prime minister thinks or says or criticizes?
But people, curiously, do. Perhaps this is because, in a world of conflicting values, global warming, failing states and thoughtless leaders, a clear-headed and usable sense of certainty is in frighteningly short supply. And so when someone can provide it with reason and assurance, people's ears perk up, minds open up and a star can be born.
By many estimates, Lee Kuan Yew -- the founder of modern Singapore, but now a backstage eminence in the government -- is a giant of our time, despite achieving nothing more than masterful management of a country a fourth the size of Shanghai, which is but one city in China.
In 1965, the historical port of Singapore was not much to brag about. Five decades later, it's a glittering gem of a modern state, with a high-end economy, low levels of crime and a state ideology of show-me pragmatism and kindergarten-to-grave personal discipline that sets it wildly apart from its neighbors in the region. But Lee is controversial precisely because he has been so overtly strong-willed, seemingly self-assured and -- worst of all to critics -- so annoyingly successful.
His legacy to future generations of Singaporeans seems fairly clear. What's less clear is whether this 84-year-old man has left anything of an intellectual estate to the world outside of his beloved little country. If he has, it's a profoundly provocative legacy. It suggests that the results of government are far more important than the style or form of government.
It enshrines pragmatism over ideology, results over intentions, and priorities over process.
The implications for fundamentalist evangelists of democracy are gravely unsettling. For what does it gain the citizen to have a vote if she or he cannot feed, clothe and house the family -- and if it's a system wherein vested lobbying interests subvert the people's votes for private gain? What is the value of democracy if its result is poverty and hopelessness? Do citizens feel better about their future if they can honor the sainted memory of Thomas Jefferson but cannot climb out of abysmal debt and despair?
For extremely critical Westerners, imbued with individualistic ideology, Singapore is a state of "patrol, control and condemn." People who chew gum (the law was recently amended) faced the horrific punishment of bodily caning (a punishment inherited from the colonial British). Such simplistic snapshots have been, perhaps until recently, the country's entire image in the United States.
But as societies flounder and flail, people wonder if there is a better way to cope in this roiling age of globalization. Sure, no one wants to endorse materialistic Mussolini authoritarianism, for obvious reasons; but a glance at so-called Asian democracies such as the Philippines triggers doubts as to whether American-style democracy is the best medicine for seriously ailing states.
But are authoritarian figures like Lee really an answer? Certainly the great Thomas Hobbes, 17th-century philosopher, was in no doubt: Many societies without someone like a wise Lee hovering over things would never rise above unmitigated disaster and at their worst, would remain or degenerate into something like this: "No arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death: and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short." Plato himself greatly preferred to be ruled by educated and wise philosopher-kings rather than demagogic, craven and pretentious proconsuls of the people.
The hitch, though, is in the details: Is the philosopher-king under discussion a dummy, a demagogue or a truly wise man?
Those who argue that Lee Kuan Yew is a special historic figure say he is the latter. That his decades of stewardship of Singapore have been justified by the amazing results achieved for the people that he has served and ruled.
Again, Singapore templates for no other place on earth, perhaps. But as the world wonders whether good governance is truly possible in societies that ignore the general interest because they are hostage to the special interests, the Singapore way stands out as another way at looking at political life through a clear lens.
Tom Plate is a professor of communications and public policy at the University of California at Los Angeles. He recently interviewed Lee Kuan Yew.
by TOM PLATE - Oct 12, 2007
With barely more than 4 million citizens, the tiny state of Singapore in Southeast Asia would hardly qualify as a template or role model for anything or anybody. Even clockwork-like Switzerland seems a relative superpower at 7.5 million in populace. Why would anyone care one way or the other what Singapore's first prime minister thinks or says or criticizes?
But people, curiously, do. Perhaps this is because, in a world of conflicting values, global warming, failing states and thoughtless leaders, a clear-headed and usable sense of certainty is in frighteningly short supply. And so when someone can provide it with reason and assurance, people's ears perk up, minds open up and a star can be born.
By many estimates, Lee Kuan Yew -- the founder of modern Singapore, but now a backstage eminence in the government -- is a giant of our time, despite achieving nothing more than masterful management of a country a fourth the size of Shanghai, which is but one city in China.
In 1965, the historical port of Singapore was not much to brag about. Five decades later, it's a glittering gem of a modern state, with a high-end economy, low levels of crime and a state ideology of show-me pragmatism and kindergarten-to-grave personal discipline that sets it wildly apart from its neighbors in the region. But Lee is controversial precisely because he has been so overtly strong-willed, seemingly self-assured and -- worst of all to critics -- so annoyingly successful.
His legacy to future generations of Singaporeans seems fairly clear. What's less clear is whether this 84-year-old man has left anything of an intellectual estate to the world outside of his beloved little country. If he has, it's a profoundly provocative legacy. It suggests that the results of government are far more important than the style or form of government.
It enshrines pragmatism over ideology, results over intentions, and priorities over process.
The implications for fundamentalist evangelists of democracy are gravely unsettling. For what does it gain the citizen to have a vote if she or he cannot feed, clothe and house the family -- and if it's a system wherein vested lobbying interests subvert the people's votes for private gain? What is the value of democracy if its result is poverty and hopelessness? Do citizens feel better about their future if they can honor the sainted memory of Thomas Jefferson but cannot climb out of abysmal debt and despair?
For extremely critical Westerners, imbued with individualistic ideology, Singapore is a state of "patrol, control and condemn." People who chew gum (the law was recently amended) faced the horrific punishment of bodily caning (a punishment inherited from the colonial British). Such simplistic snapshots have been, perhaps until recently, the country's entire image in the United States.
But as societies flounder and flail, people wonder if there is a better way to cope in this roiling age of globalization. Sure, no one wants to endorse materialistic Mussolini authoritarianism, for obvious reasons; but a glance at so-called Asian democracies such as the Philippines triggers doubts as to whether American-style democracy is the best medicine for seriously ailing states.
But are authoritarian figures like Lee really an answer? Certainly the great Thomas Hobbes, 17th-century philosopher, was in no doubt: Many societies without someone like a wise Lee hovering over things would never rise above unmitigated disaster and at their worst, would remain or degenerate into something like this: "No arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death: and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short." Plato himself greatly preferred to be ruled by educated and wise philosopher-kings rather than demagogic, craven and pretentious proconsuls of the people.
The hitch, though, is in the details: Is the philosopher-king under discussion a dummy, a demagogue or a truly wise man?
Those who argue that Lee Kuan Yew is a special historic figure say he is the latter. That his decades of stewardship of Singapore have been justified by the amazing results achieved for the people that he has served and ruled.
Again, Singapore templates for no other place on earth, perhaps. But as the world wonders whether good governance is truly possible in societies that ignore the general interest because they are hostage to the special interests, the Singapore way stands out as another way at looking at political life through a clear lens.
Tom Plate is a professor of communications and public policy at the University of California at Los Angeles. He recently interviewed Lee Kuan Yew.
Getting arrested can be deadly
by Agence France Presse - Oct 12, 2007More than 2,000 died in police custody in just two years
More than 2,000 people died in the United States during arrests between 2003 and 2005, according to data published by the Department of Justice for the first time Thursday.
As many as 54 percent were killed by police, 12 percent died because of a drug or alcohol overdose, 11 percent committed suicide, seven percent succumbed to accidents and five percent died due to illnesses or natural causes, according to statistics from 47 US states, and the US federal capital city, released in accordance with a 2000 law.
By comparison, over the same period of time, security agencies carried out more than 41 million arrests, a number that does not include detentions as a result of traffic violations.
At the same time, more than 174,000 police officers were assaulted, 380 were killed, 41 percent of them in the course of a crime, the statistics released by the Federal Bureau of Investigation showed.
Among the 1,095 suspects killed by police and other security forces, 80 percent were armed, 62 percent threatened police officers, 36 percent made an attempt to escape, and 18 percent were under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
About 45 percent of those killed were white, 30 percent were black and 20 percent were Hispanics.
According to the statistics, almost all succumbed to gunfire, while 17 were killed by "Taser" stunguns.
Among the 234 suspects who committed suicide, more than half were detained for violent crimes. Two-thirds killed themselves with a firearm in the course of their arrest. Meanwhile, others hanged themselves in detention cells.
Russia: Stop threatening Iran
Boy, if looks could kill, Sergey Lavrov would be a dead man. Have a look at Condoleezza's face, cheeezzz...The Russian Foreign Minister urges the West to encourage Iran to cooperate with the IAEA, instead of constantly threatening Tehran.
In a joint press conference with US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Sergey Lavrov slammed the West for threatening to take military action against Iran.
"We believe collective work will be more effective if there are no parallel steps for imposing sanctions on Iran, let alone periodical calls to use force against the country," the Russian minister said Friday.
He emphasized such threats only impede the efforts to seek a negotiated solution, urging the international community to make concerted efforts to resolve Iran's nuclear standoff.
WW II vets slam Bush over torture
by Press TV News - Oct 12, 2007US veterans who interrogated Nazi prisoners during World War II have sharply criticized the Bush administration for torturing suspects.
The men who interrogated nearly 4,000 German war prisoners at a military base in Fairfax County, Virginia had spoken little about their own methods until a ceremony for veterans near Alexandria on Friday, where many drew sharp contrasts between the World War II interrogation techniques and the ones that have been authorized by the US administration during President Bush's tenure.
"We got more information out of a German general with a game of chess or Ping-Pong than they do today, with their torture," said Henry Kolm, 90, an MIT physicist who had been assigned to play chess in Germany with Hitler's deputy, Rudolf Hess.
"We did it with a certain amount of respect and justice," said John Gunther Dean, 81, who became a career Foreign Service officer and ambassador to Denmark.
"During the many interrogations, I never laid hands on anyone," said George Frenkel, 87, of Kensington.
"We extracted information in a battle of the wits. I'm proud to say I never compromised my humanity."
President George W Bush on Friday defended the use of harsh interrogation measures by US intelligence officials and insisted that the United States does not torture detainees. His comments came after a New York Times report that a secret US administration memo in 2005 explicitly authorized tactics including head-slapping, simulated drowning and exposure to extreme cold.
Unguarded Moment: Another Brake on Tyranny Stripped Away
by Chris Floyd - Oct 12, 2007
Who will guard the guardians? Why, the guardians, of course.
CIA Director Michael Hayden has launched an investigation of the agency's Inspector General -- who, in our brave new authoritarian state, where Congress has long abandoned its oversight of a regime which brazenly disregards all legal restrictions on its arbitrary power, is one of the few remaining checks on the torture squads, rendition ops and assassination teams of the security apparat. Yes, we have sunk so low; like the subjects of the old Soviet Union, we can only cringe before the Chekists and hope wanly that some slightly more enlightened KGB officer will restrain the goons. But as we know – for we have seen it demonstrated daily for almost seven years now – the goons of the Bush Regime will not be restrained, not even by one of their own.
And the sins of the inspector, John Helgerson, are indeed heavy. He apparently has had the temerity to question the Leader's personally approved torture program, carrying out what the Times calls "aggressive investigations of the C.I.A.’s detention and interrogation programs and other matters." (Those "other matters" are most intriguing. Perhaps they have something to do with this?) It seems that Helgerson's has "created resentment among agency operatives" doing the Leader's bidding by subjecting his captives to beatings, psychological torments, waterboarding and strappado. And so CIA chief Hayden – the usual "straight shooter," "moderate," "safe pair of hands" whose appointment was hailed by most of the Democratic "opposition" – has ordered an unprecedented probe of the probers. The intent is clear: to chill any effort to dilute the cruelty and lawlessness so beloved by the Leader.
And so we ask again: why do the Democrats in Congress – or indeed, any figure in the Establishment, Democrat or Republican – continue to treat this criminal gang as the legitimate government of a constitutional republic? How can any Senator or Representative go about their daily business while these brutal apes in tailored suits degrade the nation with their torture, their tyranny, their war crimes? Why are they not moving heaven and earth, using all the powers and legal procedures at their command, to oust Bush and Cheney and the whole sick crew from office?
The answer, of course, is that they do not really object to torture, tyranny or military aggression. Oh, they may have a few quibbles about how such things are carried out; after all, the great theme of mainstream Democratic "opposition" to the Iraq War is that Bush has "botched" the conquest with his "incompetence," not that it was a monstrous crime against humanity from the beginning, on precisely the same moral level as Hitler's invasion of Poland.
They may object to a few varieties of the tortures being used against the captives being held indefinitely without charge in concentration camps like Gitmo and secret CIA prisons; but they have never registered a single formal protests against these procedures, not even a toothless censure of the president, much less moving articles of impeachment against Bush not only for the flagrantly illegal tortures themselves, but also for brazenly disregarding the few strictures on torture that they did manage to pass.
As for opposition to the authoritarian tyranny that the Bush Regime has imposed (or rather perfected) -- there is none. Quite the contrary; the Democrats have rushed headlong to countenance practically every power-grab the Bush Regime has made. Even as we speak, the Democratic "leadership" is working feverishly to immunize their corporate paymasters in the telecommunications industry (which was deregulated so very profitably – for a gilded few – with the help of Bill Clinton and John Kerry in the 1990s) from the consequences of their criminal collusion with the Regime in conducting illegal surveillance of American citizens for years. And naturally, there is no move whatsoever toward prosecuting the Regime itself for these openly admitted crimes.
Now one of the last relatively independent watchdogs in the bowels of the security organs is being put down. As we have seen, external restraints on the apparat's sinister practices have long been abandoned; soon there will be no inner restraints either. And hasn't history taught us what happens when ruthless extremists in control of the state are freed from all restraints?
Who will guard the guardians? Why, the guardians, of course.
CIA Director Michael Hayden has launched an investigation of the agency's Inspector General -- who, in our brave new authoritarian state, where Congress has long abandoned its oversight of a regime which brazenly disregards all legal restrictions on its arbitrary power, is one of the few remaining checks on the torture squads, rendition ops and assassination teams of the security apparat. Yes, we have sunk so low; like the subjects of the old Soviet Union, we can only cringe before the Chekists and hope wanly that some slightly more enlightened KGB officer will restrain the goons. But as we know – for we have seen it demonstrated daily for almost seven years now – the goons of the Bush Regime will not be restrained, not even by one of their own.
And the sins of the inspector, John Helgerson, are indeed heavy. He apparently has had the temerity to question the Leader's personally approved torture program, carrying out what the Times calls "aggressive investigations of the C.I.A.’s detention and interrogation programs and other matters." (Those "other matters" are most intriguing. Perhaps they have something to do with this?) It seems that Helgerson's has "created resentment among agency operatives" doing the Leader's bidding by subjecting his captives to beatings, psychological torments, waterboarding and strappado. And so CIA chief Hayden – the usual "straight shooter," "moderate," "safe pair of hands" whose appointment was hailed by most of the Democratic "opposition" – has ordered an unprecedented probe of the probers. The intent is clear: to chill any effort to dilute the cruelty and lawlessness so beloved by the Leader.
And so we ask again: why do the Democrats in Congress – or indeed, any figure in the Establishment, Democrat or Republican – continue to treat this criminal gang as the legitimate government of a constitutional republic? How can any Senator or Representative go about their daily business while these brutal apes in tailored suits degrade the nation with their torture, their tyranny, their war crimes? Why are they not moving heaven and earth, using all the powers and legal procedures at their command, to oust Bush and Cheney and the whole sick crew from office?
The answer, of course, is that they do not really object to torture, tyranny or military aggression. Oh, they may have a few quibbles about how such things are carried out; after all, the great theme of mainstream Democratic "opposition" to the Iraq War is that Bush has "botched" the conquest with his "incompetence," not that it was a monstrous crime against humanity from the beginning, on precisely the same moral level as Hitler's invasion of Poland.
They may object to a few varieties of the tortures being used against the captives being held indefinitely without charge in concentration camps like Gitmo and secret CIA prisons; but they have never registered a single formal protests against these procedures, not even a toothless censure of the president, much less moving articles of impeachment against Bush not only for the flagrantly illegal tortures themselves, but also for brazenly disregarding the few strictures on torture that they did manage to pass.
As for opposition to the authoritarian tyranny that the Bush Regime has imposed (or rather perfected) -- there is none. Quite the contrary; the Democrats have rushed headlong to countenance practically every power-grab the Bush Regime has made. Even as we speak, the Democratic "leadership" is working feverishly to immunize their corporate paymasters in the telecommunications industry (which was deregulated so very profitably – for a gilded few – with the help of Bill Clinton and John Kerry in the 1990s) from the consequences of their criminal collusion with the Regime in conducting illegal surveillance of American citizens for years. And naturally, there is no move whatsoever toward prosecuting the Regime itself for these openly admitted crimes.
Now one of the last relatively independent watchdogs in the bowels of the security organs is being put down. As we have seen, external restraints on the apparat's sinister practices have long been abandoned; soon there will be no inner restraints either. And hasn't history taught us what happens when ruthless extremists in control of the state are freed from all restraints?
Nonviolent resistance a means, not the end
Palestinian Muslim worshippers pass through a narrow corridor of soldiers to cross an Israeli army checkpoint in the West Bank city of Bethlehem on the way to Jerusalem to pray at the al-Aqsa Mosque, Islam's third most holy site, on the fourth Friday of the holy Muslim month of Ramadan, 5 October 2007. (Luay Sababa/MaanImages)by Ben White - Oct 12, 2007
In a recent article on the openDemocracy website, the rewritten Palestinian Authority policy document that replaced "muqawama" (resistance) with "popular struggle" was hailed as having "the potential to dramatically transform a conflict whose just resolution has continually eluded diplomats and militants." [1] The writer Maria Stephan may be admired for her optimism about the possibility of large-scale mobilization in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT) for a program of nonviolent resistance, but there is a twofold failure of contextualization that compromises her analysis.
The first problem is that the article does not do justice to the rich tradition and contemporary practice of nonviolent resistance, or popular struggle, in Palestine. The first intifada and the protests in Bil'in are cited, but the Palestinians draw on a far deeper reservoir of experience, dating at least as far back as the 1936 Revolt against British occupation and creeping Zionist colonization. As writer Mazin Qumsiyeh has noted, part of the Revolt included "a conference of 150 delegates representing all sectors of the population calls for a general strike and refusal to pay taxes to the British occupation authorities." [2]
Whether under the British, Jordanians or Israelis, Palestinians have always frustrated their would-be overlords with non-cooperation and resistance. The first intifada is rightly seen as a watershed moment, when, as one nonviolence expert has estimated, around 85 percent of resistance was of the nonviolent form, including "commercial boycotts, labour strikes, demonstrative funerals, the hoisting of Palestinian flags, the resignation of tax collectors, and many types of political noncooperation." [3]
The second intifada has been noticeably more militarized, but also not without widespread examples of popular struggle, from physically preventing settlers vandalizing Palestinian farmland to marching en masse to "closed military zones" or land marked for confiscation. If Abbas and Fayyad are sincere in calling for "popular struggle" therefore, we would expect them to have a track record in supporting nonviolent resistance to date.
In fact, the opposite is true, and so the second error in Stephan's assessment is to misread Abbas' intentions, naively believing that the Fatah leadership is interested in pioneering such a strategy. The Electronic Intifada published an interview earlier this year with Abd al-Nasser Marrar, a coordinator of the popular resistance committee formed to confront the wall in Budrus, who complained that "the PA didn't help at all," not even with "the simplest thing." [4] Moreover, the PA had "lapsed in its responsibilities toward all the villages west of Ramallah generally and in fact, in the entire West Bank," a failure he described as "abnormal and unnatural." "The PA just doesn't have the interest," Abd al-Nasser concluded.
Stephan shows that she is indeed aware of how, post-Oslo, the newly formed PA channeled resistance into cooperation, and dynamic struggle into corruption and personal advancement. It is not quite correct, however, to describe this as a result of the PLO's inability to achieve gains at "the negotiating table." The agreements on paper and the PA's subsequent disinterest in "mobilizing people to challenge the economic, political, and military pillars underlying the occupation" were intrinsically related, representing capitulation first in word then in deed.
The PA's lack of support for popular struggle at the official level is reflected in a general apathy amongst a middle-upper class, who are financially prospering and do not wish to rock the boat. This is to be sharply distinguished from the multitude of jobless, hungry, and exhausted Palestinians, whose "apathy" towards popular struggle is the outcome sought by the cumulative effect of the Israeli occupation's siege, humiliations and life-draining injustices.
It is not just contentment (for the few) or sheer fatigue (for the many) that makes mass mobilization a challenge. Palestinians also fear that two critical elements for the success of nonviolent popular struggle are missing in their case: international coverage and limited repression on the part of the oppressor. As previously mentioned, "popular struggle" has always been a part of Palestinian resistance to occupation and colonization -- but receives only a fraction of the press coverage afforded to violent resistance.
Not only do nonviolent actions get no or minimal coverage, but when Israeli occupation forces retaliate with violence, and even deadly force, the international outcry barely rises above a whimpered plea for "restraint." In the first month of the second intifada, 141 Palestinians were killed even before Palestinian resistance groups had begun serious militarized self-defense. [5] Or recall the massacre in Rafah in May 2004, when Israeli helicopters fired on a peaceful march. [6] Despite the chaotic, bloody aftermath being captured on film, the most the "deeply troubled" US State Department could muster was an expression of "concern." [7]
Mark LeVine provides further examples in an article on CommonDreams.org, citing the famous forcible deportation of Mubarak Awad, founder of the Palestinian Centre for the Study of Nonviolence in 1988, as well as the more recent jailing without charge of Ahmed Awad, a leader of the "nonviolent Committee for the Popular Struggle against the Separation Fence." [8] In a detailed piece in Middle East Report in 2002, Lori Allen quoted Elias Rishmawi, "a leader of the tax resistance movement during the first intifada," explaining the difference between then and now:
Palestinians were able to present the Palestinian nation to the world as being a civilized nation applying the human values determined by the international community, including the American community. As a result, there was clear international sympathy with the Palestinians on both the official and popular levels ... [Now] the circumstances are driving every Palestinian into a corner. To be realistic, how can you think rationally in an irrational situation? How do you expect someone being treated worse than a dog to behave? Is he expected to send you a kiss? [9]
"Popular struggle" in its broadest possible context, has as many meanings as the rich, resolute Arabic word sumud (steadfastness) suggests. It is the Palestinian farmer who returns day after day to his confiscation-threatened land, works the soil in the blazing heat, and lives out his stewardship to the moment when his body lies outstretched before the bulldozer. It is also the mother who makes it through the checkpoint, over the dirt mound, and sells enough fruit at the market to feed and clothe her children for another week. In effect, Palestinian popular struggle is a refusal to give up hope, and a determination to live life on the land coveted by the colonizers.
More specifically, as Stephan noted, "popular struggle" in Palestine is "a method of prosecuting conflict by mobilizing civic pressure where the 'foot soldiers' are ordinary civilians and the 'weapons systems' include boycotts, strikes, demonstrations, sit-ins, and other forms of non-cooperation and organized defiance." She is right to stress that "such methods ... do not compromise a meek submission to oppression" but rather a way of struggle that "actively challenges oppressive practices using widespread civic disruption."
But seen in this light, the essence of Palestinian popular struggle is directly contrary to the methods of Abbas and Fayyad -- the way of diplomatic privileges, backroom compromises and appeasement of Washington and Tel Aviv. Their track record has been to muzzle the collectively expressed desires of their people, from Oslo to the boycott of the elected Hamas government. Additionally, just as popular struggle has nothing in common with the Abbas-Fayyad regime, so too the November "peace conference" has little to do with securing Palestinian self-determination.
Stephan views US policy towards Palestine/Israel as having shifted (temporarily) during the first intifada, inferring that this was a result of the Palestinians' embrace of popular struggle. Thus, "a similar shift could occur if Palestinians can show that being 'pro-Israel' and 'pro-Palestine' are mutually reinforcing goals." This smacks of Road Map logic; if the Palestinians only "do" enough, or jump through the right hoops, then maybe, just maybe, their right to freedom and protection under international law might be acknowledged and acted upon.
The problem has never been a Palestinian failure to meet the demands set by the US or international community, a display of colonial arrogance that repeats itself in every successive "negotiation." Popular struggle, like violent resistance, is not an end in and of itself; it is a method, a strategy. It is the end goal, decolonization and liberation from occupation and Zionist apartheid, that is ferociously opposed by the self-declared international guardians of the "peace process" and their friends in the Palestinian elite. The rest is just smoke and mirrors.
Endnotes
[1] Stepha, Maria, "Dropping 'muqawama,'" openDemocracy, 27 September 2007. (http://www.opendemocracy.net/terrorism/article/palestine_muqawama)
[2] http://qumsiyeh.org/palestiniannonviolentresistance/, accessed 10 October 2007
[3] Gene Sharp cited by Maxine Kaufman-Lacusta, "Some Thoughts on Nonviolence and on the 'Imperative of Joint Struggle' Against the Israeli Occupation of Palestine," Tikkun, 13 February 2007. (http://files.tikkun.org/current/article.php?story=2007021321115376)
[4] Audeh, Ida, "A Village Mobilized: Lessons from Budrus," The Electronic Intifada, 13 June 2007. (http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article7005.shtml)
[5] Middle East Policy Council, http://www.mepc.org/resources_counts/00_10_2.asp, accessed 10 October 2007.
[6] BBC News, "Gaza town in shock at bloodshed," 19 May 2004 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3730197.stm) and Al Jazeera English, "Israeli forces massacre protesters in Rafah," 20 May 2004(http://english.aljazeera.net/English/archive/archive?ArchiveId=3867)
[7] US Department of State Daily Press Briefing for 19 May 2004. (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2004/32624.htm)
[8] LeVine, Mark, "The Death of Arafat and the Myth of the New Beginnings," 13 November 2004. (http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1113-24.htm)
[9] Allen, Lori A., "Palestinians Debate 'Polite' Resistance to Occupation," Middle East Report Online, Winter 2005. (http://www.merip.org/mer/mer225/225_allen.html)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
