just commentary may 2014

Vol 14, No.05 May 2014

Turn to next page

ARTICLES

STATEMENTS

UNITED STATES : A PACIFIC POWER?By Nile Bowie

. ITS NOT RUSSIA THAT PUSHED UKRAINE TO THE

BRINK OF WAR

BY SEUMAS MILNE.............................................P 6

As Washington pursues its rebalancing

strategy, Obama’s historic four-nation tour

of the Asia-Pacific has subtly altered the

region’s security dynamics.

“The United States is a Pacific power, and

we are here to stay,” declared President

Obama during his speech to the Australian

parliament in 2011, following his

announcement to deploy 2,500 marines to

northern Australia to help protect American

interests across Asia.

As Washington remains embroiled in

domestic economic issues and conflicts

throughout the Middle East and elsewhere,

the Obama administration has come under

great scrutiny for not living up to the promise

of rebalancing to the Asia-Pacific, the

world’s most economically dynamic region.

The US president’s recent trip to the region

was the most significant and tangible

development to occur since the rebalancing

policy was unveiled.

Obama’s trip had two primary dimensions:

deepening the role of the US military

throughout the Asia-Pacific, and shoring up

support for the faltering Trans-Pacific

Partnership (TPP) agreement, an all-

encompassing trade deal led by

Washington that would embolden

transnational corporate power at great

public expense.

As the Obama administration moves

ahead on plans to relocate some 60

percent of its navy into the region,

Washington’s current Asia doctrine is

grounded in the notion that no other

power can be allowed to reach parity with

the United States. Washington’s strategy

to pivot toward the Asia-Pacific is

adorned with the language of pragmatism

and neutrality, and despite repeated

denials, the Obama administration’s

actions are quite transparently aimed at

capping the influence of a rapidly

developing China.

Washington has inserted itself into

complicated, long-standing historical and

territorial disputes under the guise of

neutrality, which risks potentially setting

the stage for an irreparable strategic

blunder: antagonizing two major world

powers simultaneously at a time when

relations between the US and Russia are

already deteriorating over the crisis in

Ukraine.

President Obama’s milestone four-nation

tour of the Asia-Pacific may have laid the

foundations for the region’s local territorial

disputes to grow into an increasing tense

superpower stand-off.

Japan refuses to yield on trade

The US president’s visit to Japan comes at

a time when the right-leaning administration

of Shinzo Abe has taken controversial

positions on historical and territorial issues

that have inflamed relations with China and

South Korea, which view the incumbent

Japanese government as being openly

unrepentant for past atrocities.

The White House previously expressed

reservations toward Abe’s calls to consider

revising official apologies over Japan’s

wartime conduct, and his controversial visit

to the Yasukuni shrine that honors Japan’s

.VIOLENCE AND THE STRUGGLE FOR POWER IN EGYPT BY CHANDRA MUZAFFAR......................P4

. THE RED LINE AND THE RAT LINE (PART 2)

BY SEYMOUR M. HERSH.......................................P 7

. ISRAEL’S DIRTY ROLE IN THE SYRIAN CRISIS

BY KOUROSH ZIABRI.........................................P 10

.OBAMA’S KILLING FIELDS IN YEMEN

BY NILE BOWIE....................................................P 11

.ATMOSPHERIC CARBON DIOXCIDE LEVELS ARE THE

HIGHEST IN 3 MILLION YEARS

BY COUNTERCURRENTS...........................................P 15

. CORRUPT TO THE CORE: THE FIRE POWER OF THE

FINANCIAL SECTOR

BY COLIN TODHUNTER.......................................P 14

I N T E R N A T I O N A L M O V E M E N T F O R A J U S T W O R L D

2

continued next page

S T A T E M E N T S

WWII war dead, including over a dozen

convicted Class-A war criminals. Abe made

a ritual offering to the Yasukuni Shrine shortly

before Obama’s arrival in Tokyo, followed

by 146 Japanese lawmakers who visited

the shrine en masse one day later, putting

the US president in an awkward situation.

These provocative gestures did little to derail

Obama’s support for Japan’s position in its

tense territorial dispute with China over a

chain of uninhabited islands in the East China

Sea. In an interview with Japan’s Yomiuri

Shimbun newspaper, Obama affirmed that

the disputed islands fell within the scope of

Article 5 of the US-Japan Treaty of Mutual

Cooperation and Security, meaning that

Washington would be obliged to back Japan

in the event of a military confrontation over

the islands with Beijing, which views the

islands as an integral part of its territory.

Obama also enthusiastically pledged support

for Abe’s moves to amend Japan’s post-

war pacifist constitution, which has

traditionally limited Japan’s armed forces

from going beyond a self-defense role.

In the interest of expanding the US-Japan

alliance to counter the growing clout of

China, the US president has given Japanese

rightists a green light to pursue militarization

policies that will undoubtedly fuel regional

antagonism. Rather than taking a neutral

position and steering Tokyo toward a de-

escalation with Beijing, Obama has

effectively sent Abe the message that he

can challenge China’s bottom line without

serious repercussions, encouraging Japan

to continue its inflexible position. Obama

may have hoped that in exchange for

backing Japan’s stance on territorial

disputes and constitutional reform, Abe

would have reciprocated by yielding on

thorny trade issues, but he was wrong.

Obama allegedly put his chopsticks down

halfway through his informal sushi dinner

with Abe and jumped straight into

discussions about trade. The White House

is anxious to seal the TPP trade deal, but is

unwilling to give significant concessions,

forcing all countries to meet rigid criteria.

Abe risks losing support from his

conservative voter base by reducing tariffs

on areas such as rice, sugar, beef, pork

and dairy that would adversely affect

Japanese farmers. Obama was expecting

to come to a final agreement with Abe, but

trade negotiators claim that there is still

“considerable distance” between the US and

Japan on key issues in the deal.

Trade talks are not expected to recommence

anytime soon, and Obama was forced to

reject suggestions that the deal is in danger

over his failure to persuade Abe into making

painful concessions.

Dialogue with Pyongyang ruled out?

Obama’s trip to South Korea came as the

country was still reeling from the tragic

sinking of the Sewol ferry, which killed

scores of youngsters. Security topped the

agenda as reports of increased activity at

North Korea’s Punggye-ri nuclear test site

wrought condemnation from Seoul.

President Park Geun-hye adopted a hardline

stance, calling for the rejection of dialogue

with Pyongyang over the nuclear issue if

the North conducts a fourth nuclear test as

expected.

Pyongyang proposed a framework for

better relations with the South at the start

of this year and urged its willingness to

meet for negotiations on the nuclear issue

without any preconditions. The attempted

thaw in relations culminated in reunions of

separated families in February, amid

Pyongyang’s calls for Seoul to cancel its

planned joint military drills with the US.

Given the circumstances, South Korean

authorities could have toned down this

year’s drills as a gesture of reciprocity

following Pyongyang’s moves to host

family reunions. Seoul’s response was to

hold the largest amphibian landing exercise

with the US in over two decades, followed

by large-scale war exercises. The lack of

sincere measures to cool ties with

Pyongyang is evident in the actions of Seoul

and Washington, who are quick to accuse

the North of provocations while flexing

military muscles on its doorstep, ratcheting

up anxiety and insecurity.

Park and the Obama administration refuse

to open dialogue with Pyongyang unless it

agrees to denuclearization as a precondition,

despite pressure from China that

preconditions be relaxed to allow the

recommencement of the Six-Party talks.

During a joint press conference, Park

announced that plans to transfer operational

command of South Korea’s military in time

of war, or OPCON, from the US to South

Korea would be further delayed, giving the

Pentagon de-facto control over South

Korea’s military forces beyond December

2015.

Washington has also encouraged Seoul to

strengthen missile defense cooperation –

which Park agreed to do – while deepening

trilateral cooperation between the US, Japan,

and South Korea. During his trip, Obama

called for more sanctions against North

Korea and spoke of America’s capacity for

military might, creating every indication that

Washington’s antagonistic ‘strategic

patience’ policy against Pyongyang will

remain unchanged.

Malaysia’s delicate balancing act

Western media have billed Obama’s trip to

Malaysia – the first visit by a US president

continued from page 1



S T A T E M E N T

continued next page

3

in nearly five decades – as being quite

successful. Malaysia was the only Muslim-

majority country on the president’s four-

nation tour, and the only country not to have

an existing security treaty with the United

States.

Washington and Kuala Lumpur have always

enjoyed strong trade relations, but political

relations were known to be tense during

the 22-year tenure of former PM Mahathir

Mohamad, who took strong positions

against US foreign policy. Prime Minister

Najib Razak, a British-educated economist

who assumed office in 2009 as a reformer,

has been much friendlier to the US.

The New York Times described Malaysian

leadership’s change of attitude as an

evolution from “deep suspicion, verging on

contempt, to a cautious desire for

cooperation.” Suspicious attitudes toward

the US are still commonplace among certain

factions within the ruling party and the

conservative religious establishment.

Several far-right Malay rights groups share

the same misgivings, lashing out at Obama

following statements he made on racial

equality in the country.

Trade and security topped the agenda during

Obama’s visit, and although progress was

made in both areas, it’s likely that the US

delegation was hoping for a firmer stance

on issues such as territorial disputes in the

South China Sea. Malaysia is China’s largest

trading partner within the ASEAN bloc, and

of all the countries in the region who have

territorial disputes with Beijing, the approach

taken by Kuala Lumpur has been the most

low-key and non-adversarial. Sino-

Malaysian ties were upgraded to a

‘comprehensive strategic partnership’ level

during Chinese President Xi Jinping’s visit

to Kuala Lumpur in October 2013, while

Najib and Obama agreed to upgrade ties to

a ‘comprehensive partnership’ at a joint

news conference following their talks on

27 April 2014.

In the joint statement prepared by the two

sides, Najib called for the full

implementation of the Declaration on the

Conduct of Parties regarding the South

China Sea disputes, which Chinese state-

media welcomed, saying that Malaysia

showed a balanced attitude to avoid

confrontation with China.

In an interview with Malaysian newspaper

The Star, Obama alluded to his

administration’s commitment to ensuring

the “freedom of navigation in critical

waterways,” which can be understood as

a euphemism for policing the Straits of

Malacca, one of China’s most critical supply

routes responsible for transporting much

of the oil and raw materials needed by Beijing

to maintain high economic growth.

Malaysia allows American warships to dock

at ports throughout the country, but does

not host any US military bases, and does

not seek a hostile relationship with Beijing.

It is unclear how deep Malaysia’s

commitment to security cooperation with

the US will go, although the Obama

administration has pledged to assist in the

development of Malaysia’s maritime

enforcement capacity, setting the stage for

deeper military-to-military cooperation. In

the economic sphere, there were no

breakthroughs on the TPP trade deal, with

both sides admitting that significant

differences still remain.

Najib, however, made clear that the overall

benefits of the TPP would far outweigh

the disadvantages of the pact; he mentioned

his commitment to getting acceptance from

Malaysian people, but offered no specifics

on how public acceptance of the trade deal

would be measured. Mahathir, who still

exerts a degree of influence on

traditionalists within the ruling party,

commented that Malaysia should not

be pressured to agree to the terms

stipulated by the TPP. The former PM

has routinely called for the trade deal to

be dropped, and a large segment of

Malaysian civil society and activists are

also opposed to the deal.

As a country that has put much

emphasis on a non-confrontational

foreign policy, Malaysia is well suited

to leverage its good ties with

Washington and Beijing to promote a

conciliatory solution to territorial issues.

Malaysia finds itself somewhere

between being a warm friend to the

Obama administration but not yet a

staunch US ally with deep security ties.

Philippines signs 10-year defense

agreement

To coincide with the last stop of his

four-nation tour, Washington and Manila

inked a controversial defense agreement

to allow greater numbers of US soldiers

to remain in the country on a rotational

basis.

The reopening of foreign bases is

prohibited by the 1987 Constitution, but

the latest defense pact – negotiated largely

in secret, and fast-tracked into law

under the auspices of an executive

agreement without ratification by the

Philippine Congress – gives the US

government de facto basing access in

the country.

The US maintained large military bases

in northern regions of the Philippines

until the Philippines congress voted to

close them down in 1991, but American

forces were allowed to return in 1999

under a temporary stay agreement that

saw US troops conduct joint training

with the Philippines military. The new

agreement is far broader, allowing the


4 . “R

C

BS T A T E M E N T

VIOLENCE AND THE SRUGGLE FOR POWER IN EGYPT

US military to establish permanent

facilities within Philippine military

facilities, also paving the way for

American military technology to be sold

to the Philippines.

Philippines President Benigno Aquino’s

rationale for expanding the US presence

in his country is to provide the Philippines

with a powerful deterrent in the midst of

Manila’s bitter territorial row with Beijing,

as both countries lay claim to the

Scarborough Shoal and Second Thomas

Shoal in the potentially oil- and gas-rich

South China Sea. The Philippines and its

neighbors undoubtedly have firm and

legitimate grievances in the interest of

protecting their sovereignty and territorial

integrity.

It should be recognized that the disputed

features falls within the Philippine’s 200-

nautical mile exclusive economic zone as

recognized by the UN Convention on the

Law of the Sea; China has resisted applying

the procedures stipulated by the law to the

many reefs and islands that lie much closer

to the Philippines than to China. Manila has

argued that Beijing has an obligation to

respect the Philippines’ rights to exercise

control over areas that fall within its 200-

nautical mile exclusive economic zone.

China claims that its sovereignty over the

disputed areas can be supported by

abundant historical and legal evidence,

which also support Beijing’s maritime rights

over three-quarters of the South China Sea.

Beijing has consistently called for settling

territorial issues through direct bilateral

negotiations. Earlier this year, it offered the

Philippines mutual disengagement from the

contested area, trade and investment

benefits, and postponement of the plans to

declare an air defense identification zone

over the South China Sea. The Philippines

leadership rejected the proposal, and

unilaterally filed a case with the tribunal that

arbitrates maritime disputes under the UN

Convention on the Law of the Sea.

China has resolved territorial disputes with

12 of the 14 countries with which it shares

land borders, and the immense complexities

of these maritime territorial disputes require

levelheaded dialogue and a commitment to

negotiations by both sides.

The Philippines leadership may have

legitimate grievances, but is clearly not

committed to seeking a resolution through

dialogue, resorting to hyperbolic name-

calling. In an interview with the New York

Times, Aquino compared China to Nazi

Germany, causing immense harm to bilateral

relations with Beijing.

Much like the Obama administration’s

position on Japan’s territorial disputes, there

is now a concern that backing by the US

military can encourage Manila to take a

provocative and reckless stance.

Washington has entered the regional fold

claiming to be a neutral party and mediating

force, yet it supports the territorial claims

of its allies and uses them as a justification

to maximize its own interests, transforming

a regional dispute into a potential super-

power conflict, reducing the possibility for

any peaceful settlement.

The recent security developments will

deepen Manila’s historic dependency on the

United States, reinforcing its colonial

subordination to the strategic, military and

regional priorities of American hegemony.

29 April 2014

Nile Bowie is a political analyst and

photographer currently residing in Kuala

Lumpur, Malaysia. He is also a Research

Associate With JUST.

Source: RT.com

STATEMENT

There is no sign to show that politicalviolence in Egypt is abating.

Political violence has become evenmore pronounced since the ouster ofthe democratically elected President,Dr Mohamed Morsi, on the 3rd ofJuly 2013. The ouster is in fact oneof the primary causes for theincreased violence. They are inter-linked for two reasons. Thesuppression of Morsi’s movement,

the Ikhwanul-Muslimin, by themilitary backed interim governmenthas been violent. Peaceful protestcamps were crushed in a deadlyoperation on 14 August 2013. Atleast a thousand people were killedin a week of violence. Thousands ofIkhwan members were arrested,including its spiritual leader,Mohamed Badie. The Ikhwan wasdeclared a “terrorist” group inDecember 2013. On 25 March

2014, 529 people, many of themconnected to the Ikhwan, weresentenced to death by a court forrioting and killing a policeman. It wasa decision whose brutal severityshocked the world.

The suppression has continued withthe enactment of a new law againstterrorism which provides for the deathpenalty for anyone committing“terrorist acts” or establishing or


5

continued next page

A R T I C L E S

joining a “terrorist organisation.” Thelaw announced by the government onthe 3rd of April 2014 also increasesthe number of judicial districtsdedicated to handling terrorism-related trials, to ensure “speedytrials.” It was a response to bombexplosions that killed two persons,including a Police Brigadier-General,in the vicinity of Cairo University.

This brings us to the second reasonfor the escalation of violence in Egyptin recent months. As we have seen,Ikhwan members and supportershave been reacting to the suppressionof their movement through their ownacts of violence. Security personnelhave been their targets which explainsthe large number of policemen killedin the course of the last nine months.For the Ikhwan, violence is not justreactive or defensive. Since 1943, ithas engaged in paramilitary activities.In 1948, an Ikhwan memberallegedly murdered an AppellateJudge for passing a harsh sentenceagainst a colleague. In the same year,the then Prime Minister of Egypt waskilled by an Ikhwan member. On 26October 1954, Ikhwan attempted toassassinate the Egyptian leader,Gamal Abdel Nasser.

There are other groups whichperceive themselves as Islamic thathave also sought to pursue theirpolitical agenda through violence. InEgypt’s Senai Peninsula, the AnsarBait al-Maqdis is the source of someof the violent activities we havewitnessed there for a few years now.The Al-Furqan Brigades are activethroughout Egypt.

Violence on the part of both thegovernment and the Ikhwan and

other groups is related to a muchbigger battle which has marred andmired Egyptian politics for decades.It is the struggle for power betweenthe military, on the one hand, andIslamic forces, on the other,particularly the Ikhwan, which hasexpressed itself in one form oranother since the Free Officers revoltof 1952. Even before 1952, duringthe period of the monarchy, theIkhwan was already challenging statepower.

This tussle for power will go on andcontinue to impact negatively uponthe lives of ordinary people. Electionswill not resolve this conflict as provenby the post-Mubarak situation. Inspite of Presidential andParliamentary elections whichindicated the people’s preference forIslamic parties, the military and itsallies have sought to perpetuate theirpower through subterfuge andmanipulation. The unjust overthrowof Morsi was the culmination of thisprocess. After the overthrow and theconsolidation of its power, themilitary has, as we have noted, usedand abused its authority toemasculate and decimate theIkhwan. The new constitutionendorsed in a questionablereferendum on the 14th and 15th ofJanuary 2014 will further ensure thatthe power of the military isentrenched and extended beyond thepresent. The Presidential Electionscheduled for the 26th and 27th ofMay 2014 will, to all intents andpurposes, provide the imprimatur tothe right of the military to rule Egyptfor a long time to come.

If there is a remedy to this situation,it lies with the people. The people

have demonstrated that they have thewisdom and the maturity to send theright signal to their rulers. It was thepeople, millions of them, who throughsustained, peaceful mass action overa few weeks pushed out the dictator,Hosni Mubarak, on the 11th ofFebruary 2011. It was a bold andbrave rejection of authoritarianism,corruption and nepotism. At the sametime, the popular uprising whoseepicentre was Tahrir Square was aplea for justice, freedom, equality, andmost of all, for human dignity. This iswhy the Egyptian people should notacquiesce with the re-assertion ofauthoritarianism, the resurgence ofmilitary power, through theascendancy of General Abdel Fattahal-Sisi. It would be a betrayal of thehopes and aspirations of the millionswho yearn for a new Egypt guidedby the rule of law, rather than themight of men, a new Egypt whichhonours through deeds the poor andpowerless citizen seeking shelter inthe cemeteries of the rich in Cairorather than a state which continues toglorify the pompous and arrogant elitewho aggrandise power and wealth fortheir own ego.

But those who ride the wave of thepeople’s hopes and aspirations shouldalso ensure that they do not exercisepower and authority in a manner thatsubverts the trust of the masses. TheIkhwan was in a sense guilty of this.Granted that it faced formidableobstacles in the short time that it wasin power. Nonetheless, because of itsattachment to dogma — acommitment to projecting its ownversion of Islam — it was oftendiverted from focussing upon thefundamental challenges faced by the


6

continued next page


A R T I C L E S

people such as the lack of basicamenities, a poor delivery system,street-level corruption and a severepaucity of jobs especially for the young.Not only did this erode its popular base;it alienated the Ikhwan from a significant

segment of the middle-class. It also ledto the reinforcement of an approach toIslam that emphasised form at theexpense of substance.

Given the Ikhwan’s orientation andwhat the military represents, shouldn’t

the Egyptian people go beyond boththese forces to secure their future?

Chandra Muzaffar

14 April 2014

ARTICLES

IT’S NOT RUSSIA THAT PUSHED UKRAINE TO THE BRINK OF WAR

By Seumas Milne

The threat of war in Ukraine is growing.

As the unelected government in Kiev

declares itself unable to control the

rebellion in the country’s east, John

Kerry brands Russia a rogue state. The

US and the European Union step up

sanctions against the Kremlin, accusing

it of destabilising Ukraine. The White

House is reported to be set on a new

cold war policy with the aim of turning

Russia into a “pariah state”.

That might be more explicable if what is

going on in eastern Ukraine now were

not the mirror image of what took place

in Kiev a couple of months ago. Then, it

was armed protesters in Maidan Square

seizing government buildings and

demanding a change of government and

constitution. US and European leaders

championed the “masked militants” and

denounced the elected government for

its crackdown, just as they now back

the unelected government’s use of force

against rebels occupying police stations

and town halls in cities such as Slavyansk

and Donetsk.

“America is with you,” Senator John

McCain told demonstrators then,

standing shoulder to shoulder with the

leader of the far-right Svoboda party as

the US ambassador haggled with the state

department over who would make up

the new Ukrainian government.

When the Ukrainian president was

replaced by a US-selected administration,

in an entirely unconstitutional takeover,

politicians such as William Hague

brazenly misled parliament about the

legality of what had taken place: the

imposition of a pro-western government

on Russia’s most neuralgic and politically

divided neighbour.

Putin hit back, taking a leaf out of the

US street-protest playbook – even

though, as in Kiev, the protests that

spread from Crimea to eastern Ukraine

evidently have mass support. But what

had been a glorious cry for freedom in

Kiev became infiltration and insatiable

aggression in Sevastopol and Luhansk.

After Crimeans voted overwhelmingly to

join Russia, the bulk of the western media

abandoned any hint of even-handed

coverage. So Putin is now routinely

compared to Hitler, while the role of the

fascistic right on the streets and in the

new Ukrainian regime has been

airbrushed out of most reporting as

Putinist propaganda.

So you don’t hear much about the

Ukrainian government’s veneration of

wartime Nazi collaborators and

pogromists, or the arson attacks on the

homes and offices of elected communist

leaders, or the integration of the extreme

Right Sector into the national guard,

while the anti-semitism and white

supremacism of the government’s ultra-

nationalists is assiduously played down,

and false identifications of Russian special

forces are relayed as fact.

The reality is that, after two decades of

eastward Nato expansion, this crisis was

triggered by the west’s attempt to pull

Ukraine decisively into its orbit and

defence structure, via an explicitly anti-

Moscow EU association agreement. Its

rejection led to the Maidan protests and

the installation of an anti-Russian

administration – rejected by half the

country – that went on to sign the EU

and International Monetary Fund

agreements regardless.

No Russian government could have

acquiesced in such a threat from territory

that was at the heart of both Russia and

the Soviet Union. Putin’s absorption of

Crimea and support for the rebellion in

eastern Ukraine is clearly defensive, and

the red line now drawn: the east of

Ukraine, at least, is not going to be

swallowed up by Nato or the EU.

I N T E R N A T I O N A L M O V E M E N T F O R A J U S T W O R L D A R T I C L E S

7


THE RED LINE AND THE RAT LINE (PART 2)By Seymour M. Hersh

The first part of this article appeared in last month’s (April)issueof the commentary. The third & final partwill be

published in the Juneissueof the commentary -editor

But the dangers are also multiplying.

Ukraine has shown itself to be barely a

functioning state: the former government

was unable to clear Maidan, and the

western-backed regime is “helpless”

against the protests in the Soviet-

nostalgic industrial east. For all the talk

about the paramilitary “green men” (who

turn out to be overwhelmingly Ukrainian),

the rebellion also has strong social and

democratic demands: who would argue

against a referendum on autonomy and

elected governors?

Meanwhile, the US and its European allies

impose sanctions and dictate terms to

Russia and its proteges in Kiev,

encouraging the military crackdown on

protesters after visits from Joe Biden and

the CIA director, John Brennan. But by

what right is the US involved at all,

incorporating under its strategic umbrella

a state that has never been a member of

Nato, and whose last elected government

came to power on a platform of explicit

neutrality? It has none, of course – which

is why the Ukraine crisis is seen in such a

different light across most of the world.

There may be few global takers for Putin’s

oligarchic conservatism and nationalism, but

Russia’s counterweight to US imperial

expansion is welcomed, from China to

Brazil.

In fact, one outcome of the crisis is likely

to be a closer alliance between China and

Russia, as the US continues its anti-Chinese

“pivot” to Asia. And despite growing

violence, the cost in lives of Russia’s arms-

length involvement in Ukraine has so far

been minimal compared with any significant

western intervention you care to think of

for decades.

The risk of civil war is nevertheless

growing, and with it the chances of outside

powers being drawn into the conflict.

Barack Obama has already sent token

forces to eastern Europe and is under

pressure, both from Republicans and Nato

hawks such as Poland, to send many more.

Both US and British troops are due to take

part in Nato military exercises in Ukraine

this summer.

The US and EU have already overplayed

their hand in Ukraine. Neither Russia nor

the western powers may want to intervene

directly, and the Ukrainian prime minister’s

conjuring up of a third world war

presumably isn’t authorised by his

Washington sponsors. But a century after

1914, the risk of unintended consequences

should be obvious enough – as the threat

of a return of big-power conflict grows.

Pressure for a negotiated end to the crisis is

essential.

Seumas Milne is a Guardian columnist

and associate editor. He was the Guardian’s

comment editor from 2001 to 2007 after

working for the paper as a general reporter

and labour editor.

30 April 2014

Source: http://www.theguardian.com/

The UK defence staff who relayed

the Porton Down findings to the joint

chiefs were sending the Americans a

message, the former intelligence

official said: ‘We’re being set up

here.’ (This account made sense of

a terse message a senior official in

the CIA sent in late August: ‘It was

not the result of the current regime.

UK & US know this.’) By then the

attack was a few days away and

American, British and French planes,

ships and submarines were at the

ready.

The officer ultimately responsible for

the planning and execution of the

attack was General Martin Dempsey,

chairman of the joint chiefs. From

the beginning of the crisis, the former

intelligence official said, the joint

chiefs had been sceptical of the

administration’s argument that it had

the facts to back up its belief in

Assad’s guilt. They pressed the DIA

and other agencies for more

substantial evidence. ‘There was no

way they thought Syria would use

nerve gas at that stage, because

Assad was winning the war,’ the

former intelligence official said.

Dempsey had irritated many in the

Obama administration by repeatedly

warning Congress over the summer

of the danger of American military

involvement in Syria. Last April, after

an optimistic assessment of rebel

progress by the secretary of state,

John Kerry, in front of the House

Foreign Affairs Committee, Dempsey

told the Senate Armed Services

Committee that ‘there’s a risk that

this conflict has become stalemated.’

Dempsey’s initial view after 21

August was that a US strike on Syria

– under the assumption that the

Assad government was responsible

for the sarin attack – would be a

military blunder, the former

intelligence official said. The Porton

Down report caused the joint chiefs

to go to the president with a more

serious worry: that the attack sought

by the White House would be an

A R T I C L E SI N T E R N A T I O N A L M O V E M E N T F O R A J U S T W O R L D

8


unjustified act of aggression. It was

the joint chiefs who led Obama to

change course. The official White

House explanation for the turnabout

– the story the press corps told – was

that the president, during a walk in

the Rose Garden with Denis

McDonough, his chief of staff,

suddenly decided to seek approval for

the strike from a bitterly divided

Congress with which he’d been in

conflict for years. The former

Defense Department official told me

that the White House provided a

different explanation to members of

the civilian leadership of the Pentagon:

the bombing had been called off

because there was intelligence ‘that

the Middle East would go up in

smoke’ if it was carried out.

The president’s decision to go to

Congress was initially seen by senior

aides in the White House, the former

intelligence official said, as a replay

of George W. Bush’s gambit in the

autumn of 2002 before the invasion

of Iraq: ‘When it became clear that

there were no WMD in Iraq,

Congress, which had endorsed the

Iraqi war, and the White House both

shared the blame and repeatedly cited

faulty intelligence. If the current

Congress were to vote to endorse the

strike, the White House could again

have it both ways – wallop Syria

with a massive attack and validate the

president’s red line commitment,

while also being able to share the

blame with Congress if it came out

that the Syrian military wasn’t behind

the attack.’ The turnabout came as a

surprise even to the Democratic

leadership in Congress. In September

the Wall Street Journal reported that

three days before his Rose Garden

speech Obama had telephoned Nancy

Pelosi, leader of the House

Democrats, ‘to talk through the

options’. She later told colleagues,

according to the Journal, that she

hadn’t asked the president to put the

bombing to a congressional vote.

Obama’s move for congressional

approval quickly became a dead end.

‘Congress was not going to let this

go by,’ the former intelligence official

said. ‘Congress made it known that,

unlike the authorisation for the Iraq

war, there would be substantive

hearings.’ At this point, there was a

sense of desperation in the White

House, the former intelligence official

said. ‘And so out comes Plan B. Call

off the bombing strike and Assad

would agree to unilaterally sign the

chemical warfare treaty and agree to

the destruction of all of chemical

weapons under UN supervision.’ At a

press conference in London on 9

September, Kerry was still talking

about intervention: ‘The risk of not

acting is greater than the risk of

acting.’ But when a reporter asked if

there was anything Assad could do

to stop the bombing, Kerry said:

‘Sure. He could turn over every single

bit of his chemical weapons to the

international community in the next

week … But he isn’t about to do it,

and it can’t be done, obviously.’ As

the New York Times reported the next

day, the Russian-brokered deal that

emerged shortly afterwards had first

been discussed by Obama and Putin

in the summer of 2012. Although the

strike plans were shelved, the

administration didn’t change its public

assessment of the justification for

going to war. ‘There is zero tolerance

at that level for the existence of

error,’ the former intelligence

official said of the senior officials

in the White House. ‘They could

not afford to say: “We were

wrong.”’ (The DNI

spokesperson said: ‘The Assad

regime, and only the Assad

regime, could have been

responsible for the chemical

weapons attack that took place

on 21 August.’)

The full extent of US co-operation

with Turkey, Saudi Arabia and

Qatar in assisting the rebel

opposition in Syria has yet to

come to light. The Obama

administration has never publicly

admitted to its role in creating

what the CIA calls a ‘rat line’, a

back channel highway into Syria.

The rat line, authorised in early

2012, was used to funnel

weapons and ammunition from

Libya via southern Turkey and

across the Syrian border to the

opposition. Many of those in

Syria who ultimately received the

weapons were jihadists, some of

them affiliated with al-Qaida.

(The DNI spokesperson said:

‘The idea that the United States

was providing weapons from

Libya to anyone is false.’)

In January, the Senate

Intelligence Committee released

a report on the assault by a local

militia in September 2012 on the

American consulate and a nearby

undercover CIA facili ty in

Benghazi, which resulted in the

death of the US ambassador,

Christopher Stevens, and three

others. The report’s criticism of

the State Department for not

providing adequate security at the

consulate, and of the intelligence

community for not alerting the

US military to the presence of a


9


CIA outpost in the area, received

front-page coverage and revived

animosities in Washington, with

Republicans accusing Obama and

Hillary Clinton of a cover-up. A highly

classified annex to the report, not made

public, described a secret agreement

reached in early 2012 between the Obama

and Erdoðan administrations. It pertained

to the rat line. By the terms of the

agreement, funding came from Turkey,

as well as Saudi Arabia and Qatar; the

CIA, with the support of MI6, was

responsible for getting arms from

Gaddafi’s arsenals into Syria. A number

of front companies were set up in Libya,

some under the cover of Australian

entities. Retired American soldiers, who

didn’t always know who was really

employing them, were hired to manage

procurement and shipping. The operation

was run by David Petraeus, the CIA

director who would soon resign when it

became known he was having an affair

with his biographer. (A spokesperson for

Petraeus denied the operation ever took

place.)

The operation had not been disclosed at

the time it was set up to the congressional

intelligence committees and the

congressional leadership, as required by

law since the 1970s. The involvement

of MI6 enabled the CIA to evade the law

by classifying the mission as a liaison

operation. The former intelligence official

explained that for years there has been a

recognised exception in the law that

permits the CIA not to report liaison

activity to Congress, which would

otherwise be owed a finding. (All

proposed CIA covert operations must be

described in a written document, known

as a ‘finding’, submitted to the senior

leadership of Congress for approval.)

Distribution of the annex was limited to

the staff aides who wrote the report and

to the eight ranking members of

Congress – the Democratic and

Republican leaders of the House and

Senate, and the Democratic and

Republicans leaders on the House and

Senate intelligence committees. This

hardly constituted a genuine attempt at

oversight: the eight leaders are not known

to gather together to raise questions or

discuss the secret information they

receive.

The annex didn’t tell the whole story of

what happened in Benghazi before the

attack, nor did it explain why the

American consulate was attacked. ‘The

consulate’s only mission was to provide

cover for the moving of arms,’ the former

intelligence official, who has read the

annex, said. ‘It had no real political role.’

Washington abruptly ended the CIA’s role

in the transfer of arms from Libya after

the attack on the consulate, but the rat

line kept going. ‘The United States was

no longer in control of what the Turks

were relaying to the jihadists,’ the former

intelligence official said. Within weeks,

as many as forty portable surface-to-air

missile launchers, commonly known as

manpads, were in the hands of Syrian

rebels. On 28 November 2012, Joby

Warrick of theWashington Post reported

that the previous day rebels near Aleppo

had used what was almost certainly a

manpad to shoot down a Syrian transport

helicopter. ‘The Obama administration,’

Warrick wrote, ‘has steadfastly opposed

arming Syrian opposition forces with

such missiles, warning that the weapons

could fall into the hands of terrorists and

be used to shoot down commercial

aircraft.’ Two Middle Eastern intelligence

officials fingered Qatar as the source, and

a former US intelligence analyst

speculated that the manpads could have

been obtained from Syrian military

outposts overrun by the rebels. There

was no indication that the rebels’

possession of manpads was likely the

unintended consequence of a covert US

programme that was no longer under US

control.

By the end of 2012, it was believed

throughout the American intelligence

community that the rebels were losing

the war. ‘Erdoðan was pissed,’ the

former intelligence official said, ‘and felt

he was left hanging on the vine. It was

his money and the cut-off was seen as a

betrayal.’ In spring 2013 US intelligence

learned that the Turkish government –

through elements of the MIT, its national

intelligence agency, and the Gendarmerie,

a militarised law-enforcement

organisation – was working directly with

al-Nusra and its allies to develop a

chemical warfare capability. ‘The MIT

was running the political liaison with the

rebels, and the Gendarmerie handled

military logistics, on-the-scene

advice and training – including

training in chemical warfare,’ the

former intelligence official said.

‘Stepping up Turkey’s role in spring

2013 was seen as the key to its

problems there. Erdoðan knew that

if he stopped his support of the

jihadists it would be all over. The

Saudis could not support the war

because of logistics – the distances

involved and the difficulty of moving

weapons and supplies. Erdoðan’s

hope was to instigate an event that

would force the US to cross the red

line. But Obama didn’t respond in

March and April.’

4 April 2014

End of Part 2

Seymour M. Hersh is an American

investigative journalist and author

based in Washington, D.C.


10

ISRAEL’S DIRTY ROLE IN THE SYRIAN CRISIS

By Kourosh Ziabari

When the civil war broke out in Syria in

March 2011, there were some people who

tended to portray it as a continuation of the

wave of revolutionary protests in the Arab

world that started from Tunisia and swept

Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia,

but as time goes by, it becomes more and

more evident that what’s happening in Syria

is a foreign-plotted conspiracy aimed at

bringing down the government of President

Bashar al-Assad, not a popular movement

nor a part of the Arab Spring.

As testified by several Western journalists

who are currently reporting from Syria,

including the prominent French journalist

Thierry Meyssan to whom I was talking a

few weeks ago, there’s no trace of a popular

uprising against the national government in

the ongoing unrest in Syria. It’s simply one

of the covert regime change projects of the

United States, in which several countries

and role-players are taking part, including

the Israeli regime.

Aside from the Al-Nusra Front, Al-Qaeda

fighters, the Islamic State of Iraq and the

Levant warriors, Turkish, Qatari and Saudi

Arabian terrorists and extremists who are

pouring into Syria from the Arab and

European countries at the behest of the

United States and contributing to the

exacerbation of the crisis in Syria, Israel

alone is playing the most destructive role in

the Arab country and has virtually become

one of the main belligerents of the civil war

there.

It’s quite clear that unrest and violence in

Syria would be in the best interests of Israel.

Syria has long been a pivotal part of the

axis of resistance against Israel; therefore,

the destabilization of Syria means increased

security on the Israeli borders and a giant

step toward to a military confrontation with

Iran.

There is credible evidence showing that

Israel, throughout the past three years, has

been closely working with Al-Qaeda bases

in Syria, providing the terrorist cult with

money, training and arms to help them fight

the government of President Assad and the

Syrian Army forces.

According to German author and the

director of nsnbc.me news website Christof

Lehmann, Israel provides direct military aid

to Jabhat al-Nusrah, Liwa-al-Islam, and

other Al-Qaeda brigades currently stationed

in Syria. Lehmann cites the Zionist daily

Jerusalem Post as acknowledging that Israel

has established a field hospital in the

Occupied Golan Heights which provides

medical and remedial services to the

Jihadists and terrorists fighting in Syria. Bibi

Netanyahu has laughably described the

hospital as the “true face of Israel” and a

place where “the good in the world” are

separated from “the evil in the world.”

Perhaps he has made such a lunatic remark

because he wishfully believes every force

that resists Israeli oppression and

occupation is an incarnation of evil in the

world.

Just recently, an Austrian military officer

working with the United Nations

Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF)

in the Occupied Golan Heights who spoke

to the media on condition of anonymity

confirmed that Israel has provided large-

scale logistical and military support to the

terrorists and rebels in different parts of

Syria. The officer has confirmed that

there’s a joint operation room between

armed terrorist gangs and Israel which has

the function to coordinate the delivery of

assistance to the terrorists.

It’s even believed that the 21 August 2013

chemical attacks on the civilians of the

Ghouta district near Damascus in which

around 1,500 people were killed was an

Israeli scheme to deceive the public around

the world and make the Western powers

believe that President Assad had ordered

the use of chemical weapons against the

rebels and eventually lay the groundwork

for a UNSC-sanctioned military strike

against Syria with the final objective of

overthrowing the Syrian government.

It’s said that one day before the chemical

attacks, the rebels and Al-Qaeda combatants

had massacred Syrian citizens in the Ghouta

suburbs of the Markaz Rif Dimashq and

recorded videos of their killings and then

uploaded the videos on the internet,

pretending that the citizens were killed in

the chemical attacks perpetrated by the

government; however, their plan was

carried out so frantically that they gave

themselves up. It was then that the British

MP George Galloway suggested that the

Israelis provided the insurgents with

chemical weapons.

“If there’s been any use of nerve gas, it’s

the rebels that used it...If there has been

use of chemical weapons, it was Al-Qaeda

who used the chemical weapons”, said the

Respect Party MP George Galloway.

“Who gave Al-Qaeda the chemical

weapons? Here’s my theory. Israel gave

them the chemical weapons”, Galloway MP

added.

Obviously, Israel will be making a great

achievement if it succeeds in bringing the

government of President Assad to its knees.

Then it can realize its vicious plans for the

Middle East, including the plan of

permanently annexing the Golan Heights,

as the Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman

has openly talked about. According to

Liberman, the annexation of Golan Heights,

which were illegally occupied by Israel in

1967, is an issue which should be resolved

with the consent and agreement of Israel,

the United States and the international

community! The other plans which Israel

can take action to realize are the annexation

of the West Bank and parts of the Southern

Lebanon which currently cannot turn into


11


reality as a result of the presence of an

opposing force that is the disobedient

government of Syria.

For a long time, the German textbooks were

referring to what had come to be known

as the “Schiitischer Halbmond” (Shiite

Halfmoon) to describe the Shiite populations

that were experiencing a growth of

dominance in the Middle East since early

2000s. However, when in 2004, King

Abdullah II of Jordan used the term “Shiite

Crescent” to refer to the perceived threat

of Iran’s increasing influence in the Middle

East, the epithet became more popular and

widely used.

The Shiite Crescent notionally consists of

the Shiite populations in Bahrain, Iran,

Azerbaijan, Iraq, Lebanon and Syria.

Although Shiites comprise only 10-15% of

the Muslim population of the world, the

Shiite-dominant countries wield an influence

and power which is growing steadily, and

since the political Shiite mindset

fundamentally rejects Zionism and Israeli

expansionism, Israel finds it the best way

to ensure its security to fight against the

members of this hypothetical Shiite Crescent

or blackmail them the other way.

Although Iran has never been a threat to

Israel despite the claims of its leaders to the

contrary, Tel Aviv considers defeating or at

least damaging Iran one of its main foreign

policy missions, and conquering Syria that

is Iran’s main ally and defender in the region

would pave the way for Israel to think about

overpowering and overwhelming Iran.

Iranian military officials and statesmen have

always clearly indicated that the peaceful

nature of the country means that Iran will

never think of waging any wars or harming

its neighbors or other countries, but at the

same time they have strongly maintained

that any Israeli aggression against Iran will

be the final nail in Israel’s coffin and would

be equivalent to the rainfall of Iranian rockets

and missiles into the Israeli soil which will

close the chapter of this apartheid regime

forever.

Now Israel, whose leaders have explicitly

confessed to providing ammunitions,

missiles and other state-of-the-art weapons

to the Syrian rebels and Al-Qaeda

mercenaries, has found itself in an

inextricable battle over its shivering

security. It should continue providing the

insurgents and mercenaries with

dangerous weapons until President Assad

is ousted from power, or concede to

another big failure in the Middle East after

the 2006 Lebanon War (also known as

the 33-day War) and the Gaza War

(Operation Cast Lead) and experience a

serious security decline.

What is clear is that Israel is a big accomplice

in the atrocities that are taking place in Syria.

It’s playing a dirty role in the Arab country,

but it doesn’t seem that it would be held

accountable over its war crimes, like the

past 66 years that it has been immune to

accountability and responsibility before the

international community by virtue of its

“passionate attachment” to the United

States.

04 March, 2014

Kourosh Ziabari is an Iranian journalist,

writer and media correspondent

www.KouroshZiabari.com

Source: Countercurrents.org

OBAMA’S KILLING FIELDS IN YEMEN

By Nile Bowie

Washington’s drone program isn’t making

Yemen safer – it is traumatizing and

radicalizing communities, and swelling the

ranks of Al-Qaeda.

The Obama administration has recently

taken part in a joint operation with Yemeni

forces that has produced the highest death

toll of any confirmed drone strike in Yemen

so far this year, according to sources from

the Associated Press (AP).

Yemen’s state media claims that the victims

of the attack were among the most

dangerous elements of Al-Qaeda, and that

the strike was based on confirmed

intelligence that the targeted individuals

were planning to target Yemen’s civil and

military institutions. Yemeni officials claim

that the target site, located in remote

mountainous regions in the country’s

troubled south, was one of the few examples

of permanent infrastructure setup by Al-

Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) to

train fighters and store armaments.

The strike allegedly took place with regional

cooperation and assistance from Saudi

Arabia, and due to official secrecy

provisions, the United States does not have

a legal obligation to acknowledge or

comment on the strikes undertaken by the

Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

The exact death toll varies from source to

source, but more than a dozen people have

been killed at minimum, with at least three

civilian causalities. Witnesses say that a car

carrying the alleged militants was hit with a

missile as it drove by a vehicle carrying

civilians, who were also killed. A second

strike on the area was launched shortly after.

Yemen’s government officially claims that

55 alleged militants have been killed so far,

and the Supreme Security Committee -

which includes the country’s intelligence

chief, defense and interior ministers - and

President Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi

approved the strike.

Hadi, who came to power in February 2012

after he stood unopposed in elections, is a

continued next page


12


staunch supporter of the US drone

program, despite the high number of civilian

casualties incurred by the strikes. AQAP,

active in the south-central regions of the

country, is a small but pervasive organization

whose tactics include using sophisticated

car bombs and suicide attacks that have

been bold and deadly in their fight against

the government in Yemen’s capital, Sanaa.

Criminalizing drones

Yemen, the only state on the Arabian

Peninsula to have a purely republican form

of government, is in the midst of an ongoing

political and security crisis prompted by

divisions between various movements and

factions, who are themselves divided

between Sunni and Shiite sects of Islam.

The central government in Sanaa

commands little authority outside the capital,

and faces a widely popular secessionist

movement in the south, an entrenched Shiite

rebel movement in the north, and a scattered

AQAP insurgency campaign that has

succeeded in gathering adherents largely

due to their resentment of the Obama

administration’s drone warfare campaign

throughout the country.

Yemen has the youngest population in the

world, with an unemployment rate as high

as 40 percent, while half the population still

lives below the poverty line.

Longtime leader Ali Abdullah Saleh submitted

his resignation in 2011, following nationwide

protests calling for an end to corruption and

greater representation. The collective vision

for reform shared by nearly all sides of this

highly polarized country failed to progress

following Saleh’s removal, and like other

Arab nations who experienced a change in

power during the period known as the Arab

Spring, militias and extremist elements took

advantage of the precarious security

situation to embolden themselves.

In an effort to reconstruct Yemeni society

and assuage various movements and

communities who feel unrepresented

throughout the country, Hadi has channeled

his administration’s efforts into UN-backed

reconciliation talks known as the National

Dialogue Conference (NDC), which

impressively brought together over 500

activists and representatives from a diverse

array of backgrounds to reform the security

apparatus and administrative structure of

the country, and draft a new constitution

that would be the basis for both presidential

and parliamentary elections in 2014.

In a rare show of consensus, participants

at the conference voted to criminalize the

use of drones for extrajudicial killing, which

have enraged average Yemenis from all

walks of life. Drone strikes were made

technically illegal since 2013, but their

continued prevalence in partnership with

Yemeni security forces dangerously

delegitimizes the government in Sanaa and

puts Hadi in an exceedingly awkward

position at a time when the government is

distrusted for colluding with foreign

powers.

The message sent by the delegates of the

NDC, which is the most democratic and

representative reflection of Yemeni society

that currently exists, is that the use of drones

are an affront to the sovereignty and dignity

of the state, opening the possibility that

President Hadi may be criminally persecuted

if the current policy continues.

Killing with impunity

President Obama’s speech on his

administration’s drone warfare program in

2013 was widely perceived as a convincing

and compelling defense of an otherwise

controversial policy.

In describing the elaborate precautions and

high standards taken prior to launching a

strike, Obama claimed, “there must be near-

certainty that no civilians will be killed or

injured.” The president acknowledged how

any US military activity risks creating

animosity and enemies in the target country,

and spoke of the high threshold set for taking

lethal action, in respect for the dignity of

every human life.

According to the rules in place under the

Obama administration, targeted strikes can

only take place when capturing a suspect

would not be feasible, when the authorities

of the country in question could not or

would not address the threat, and when no

other reasonable alternatives were available.

In the six months since Obama delivered

his speech on the rules for using armed

drones, reports indicate that covert strikes

in Yemen and Pakistan incurred more

casualties when compared to the six months

before the speech was given.

Behind the US president’s carefully-selected

language and various moral assurances, is

a covert assassination program that has

operated under an accountability and

transparency vacuum, where basic

statistical data is withheld under the

blanketing justification of protecting national

security, and hundreds of innocent civilians

have been targeted and killed with near-total

impunity.

The facts that have been established about

the Obama administration’s program are

profoundly disturbing. The United States is

bound to abide by international human rights

law outside of a defined conflict zone, which

would apply for its operations in Yemen and

Pakistan, where war has not been declared.

In such a legal environment, targeted killings

can only take place when strictly unavoidable

and necessary to protect life, and due to

the official secrecy policies surrounding the

Obama administration’s drone program, US

officials are not legally obliged to

acknowledge strikes or provide evidence

needed to substantiate alleged threats to the

degree that would satisfy the law

enforcement standards that govern the

intentional use of lethal force outside armed

conflict.

The legal criterion to justify a strike iscontinued next page

I N T E R N A T I O N A L M O V E M E N T F O R A J U S T W O R L D A R T I C L E Sdetermined in secret by the White House

with advice from the Justice Department,

but with no oversight or accountability.

Obama’s so-called ‘near-certainty’ standard

and his administration’s definition of an

‘imminent threat’ are not open to

independent review, and are taken unilaterally

by the executive branch. As noted by UN

Special Rapporteur Ben Emmerson, the

United States violates international law by

targeting of persons directly participating

in hostilities who are located in non-

belligerent states.

The known criteria for justifying lethal force

have proven to be shockingly indiscriminate,

to the point where the president’s ‘near-

certainty’ standards can never logically be

met. The Obama administration, according

to investigations, targets individuals based

on their exhibiting of ‘behavioral

characteristics’ that are deemed typical of

militants, rather than making strikes based

on the confirmed identity of a target.

Such use of ‘signature strikes’ has resulted

in the arbitrary targeting of any military-age

male in a given strike vicinity on the

presumption that he is a combatant, and

directly targetable. The ‘double tap’

technique involves launching an initial drone

strike, which is followed by a second strike

that targets rescuers and first responders,

a tactic that Al-Qaeda and other terrorist

outfits have made use of in the past.

The double tap relies on the assumption that

the initial target is a militant, and all those

who converge on the scene of the initial

strike must be militants themselves. Such a

strategy cannot possibly meet the stringent

requirements needed to avoid the killing of

civilians, and can only result in actions that

can be described as war crimes or

extrajudicial killings.

An undeclared war

Obama’s speech marked the first formal

public acknowledgement of a US citizen’s

death in a drone strike. Anwar al-Awlaki,

an American-born cleric of Yemeni

descent and a US citizen, was killed

by a drone strike in Yemen in May

2011. In describing his criteria for an

extrajudicial targeted strike, Obama

claims there is no difference between

a foreign terrorist and a terrorist with

US citizenship.

Al-Awlaki’s assassination and the

subsequent killing of his 16-year-old

son, also an American national, sets an

alarming precedent. At one time, Anwar

al-Awlaki was known to be a moderate

cleric who denounced terrorism and

violence. At some stage between the

events of 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq

in 2003, Anwar al-Awlaki underwent a

profound change in his political

orientation and began to preach jihad,

in response to what he viewed as the

United States engaging in a war against

Islam and Muslim civilians.

Just as Anwar al-Awlaki’s views

morphed toward the violent fringe as

a reaction to US policy, the

radicalization of communities and

traumatized survivors of drone strikes

throughout Yemen provides AQAP with

a steady flow of militants seeking to

avenge their families’ deaths by

harming the United States. The Obama

administration and the Yemeni political

elite may view drone strikes as a short-

term fix, but the radicalization of

growing swathes of society will prove

to be a major liability for any future

government in power.

Washington has assured the public that

the American role in Yemen is highly

constrained, and held in accordance

with a mandate to target members of

Al-Qaeda approved by Congress after

9/11. The scope and breadth of covert

operations undertaken by the CIA and

secretive paramilitary unit Joint Special

Operations Command (JSOC) are

impossible to ascertain, but Washington’s

role in Yemen’s civil wars are much

deeper than what the public imagines.

The inhumanity of this war comes to

the fore in incidents such as the US

bombing of a wedding convoy in

December 2013, killing 12 civilians.

Consider the vile injustice meted out in

2009 to the people of al-Majalah, a

Bedouin village that became the target

of US cluster-bombing, killing 41

civilians, including nine women and 21

children. Abdulelah Haider Shaye, a

Yemeni journalist who exposed the

American slaughter at al-Majala, was

jailed by authorities and framed as an

Al-Qaeda collaborator. His original

release from prison was blocked by the

personal intervention of President

Obama, who phoned former Yemeni

President Saleh and lobbied for Shaye

to remain in custody.

Contrary to claims that drones only target

those high-level figures who pose an

imminent threat to the US homeland,

reports indicate that low-level fighters,

local commanders, and even figures in

Yemen’s own military have been targeted

by US drones – not because they present

any risk to US national security, but

because they are political opponents of

the current US-backed regime in Sanaa.

The Obama administration’s dirty wars

and covert operations in Yemen represent

a glaring evasion of justice and

accountability that will continue to sow

wanton killing and perpetual conflict if

left unchecked.

24 April, 2014

Source: rt.com

13


CORRUPT TO THE CORE: THE FIRE POWER OF THE FINANCIAL SECTOR

By Colin Todhunter

The enormous power and

destructive influence of financial

markets became apparent after the

global economic collapse of 2008.

This event revealed a need for

br ing ing the sec tor under

democra t ic publ ic ownersh ip ;

failing that, stronger regulations for

financial markets at the very least.

But political will has been lacking

on both counts. The sector enjoys

massive financial resources and

successfully translates them into

political influence.

Many ordinary people might be

wondering why governments have

not curtailed the criminality of the

financial sector on the back of the

economic crisis which it created.

Instead, billions of dollars, pounds

and euros have been handed over

to the sector, and governments

continue to grant banks free rein

and thus dictate national economic

and social policies.

If bankers and financiers are to be

able to stuff their bulging suitcases

with taxpayer handouts and to

fur ther loo t economies , i t i s

essen t ia l fo r them to have

politicians in their pockets. One

way by which this is achieved is

shown in a new repor t , which

indicates that the financial industry

spends more than 120 million euros

a year on lobbying in Brussels and

employs more than 1,700 lobbyists

to influence EU policy-making.

The report, ‘The fire power of the

financial lobby’ has been released

by Corporate Europe Observatory,

ÖGB Europabüro (Brussels office

of the Aus t r ian Trade Union

Federat ion) , and AK EUROPA

(Brussels office of the Austrian

Chamber of Labour) .

Kenne th Haar f rom Corpora te

Europe Observatory says:

“Reform has proved difficult, and

these numbers are an important part

of the explanation. The financial

lobby’s fire power to resist reform

has been evident in all significant

battles over financial regulation

s ince the co l lapse of Lehman

Brothers.”

The report shows the f inancial

industry commands tremendous

lobbying resources and enjoys

pr iv i leged access to dec i s ion

makers . The f inanc ia l sec tor

lobbies EU decision-makers by

means of over 700 organisations,

inc lud ing companies ’ publ ic

re la t ions of f ices , bus iness

associations, and consultancies.

This f igure ou tnumbers c iv i l -

society organisations and trade

unions working on financial issues

by a factor of more than five. And

the imbalance is even greater when

numbers of s taf f and lobbying

expenses are compared. The report

shows that the f inancia l lobby

massively outspends other actors

by a factor of more than 30. In

order to arrive at a safe estimate,

the survey used the mos t

conservative figures. The actual

numbers – and the imbalance

between different interests – are

thus likely to be far higher. This

underestimate is mainly due to the

lack of a mandatory register of

lobbyists at the EU level that would

provide reliable information for

proper monitoring.

The repor t a l so shows the

presence of the financial industry

in the EU’s off ic ia l adv isory

groups that play a key role in

helping to shape policy. And, here

too , the f inanc ia l lobby i s

massively over-represented: 15 of

the 17 expert groups covered by

the study were heavily dominated

by the financial industry.

Ol iver Röpke , f rom ÖGB

Europabüro said:

“This situation represents a severe

democratic problem that politicians

must act on swiftly. A first step is

to adopt e f fec t ive ru les on

lobbying transparency and strong

e th ics ru les aga ins t undue

influence.”

Amir Ghoreishi from AK EUROPA

said:

“The fact that the financial lobby

is so dominant in advisory groups

revea ls tha t the European

Commiss ion fee ls tha t people

representing the financial industry

should be a l lowed to se t the

agenda. An arms-length principle

should be applied immediately.”

The report is a damning indictment

of the sector’s political influence.

14

I N T E R N A T I O N A L M O V E M E N T F O R A J U S T W O R L DA R T I C L E S

ATMOSPHERIC CARBON DIOXIDE LEVELS ARE THE HIGHEST IN 3 MILLION

YEARS

By Countercurrents

Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels

are the highest in 3 million years.

The amount of carbon dioxide in

the atmosphere averaged more than

400 parts per million throughout

April, the first time the planet’s

monthly average has surpassed that

threshold.

The da ta f rom the Scr ipps

Institution of Oceanography at the

University of California , San Diego

, shows how world leaders are

failing to rein in greenhouse gases

that c l imate sc ient is ts say are

warming the planet.

“We’re running out of time, but not

solutions,” Ed Chen, a spokesman

for the Natural Resources Defense

Council, said in an e-mail. “The

next big step is to limit, for the first

t ime , ca rbon po l lu t ion be ing

spewed by our power plants.”

The average value for April was

measured at 401.33 ppm at the

Mauna Loa monitoring station in

Hawai i , accord ing to an

announcement on Twi t te r

d i sc los ing the f ind ing by the

ins t i tu t ion’s Kee l ing Curve

program. It was named for the

sc ien t i s t who began the

measurements in 1958 and shows

that temperatures are rising more

quickly.

The finding adds to concerns that

a buildup of carbon dioxide is

damaging the atmosphere, making

s torms more in tense , mel t ing

glaciers and putting at risk the

future of seaside cities such as

Miami .

The level of CO2 broke 400, as a

daily average, for the first time last

May. Less than a year later, the

average for a month has exceeded a

threshold not seen in the measured

record dating back 3 million years.

The sector continues to rake in

unimaginable prof i t s , whi le

sucking the life out of economies.

Ordinary people continue to pay the

price via the privatization of public

assets and ‘austerity’.

“The stench emanating from the

financial system is a product of the

decay of the entire profit system.

That system must be replaced by a

higher socio-economic order in

which the vast wealth created by

the collective labour of the world

working class is deployed to meet

human need. The expropriation of

the banks and f inance houses ,

p lac ing them under publ ic

ownership and democratic control,

is the first step in implementing

such a program.” Nick Beams (1)

Read the full report here: http://

corporateeurope.org/sites/default/

f i l e s / a t t a c h m e n t s /

financial_lobby_report.pdf

Note:

1) h t tps : / /www.wsws .org /en /

articles/2013/02/08/pers-f08.html

09 April, 2014

Colin Todhunter : Originally from

the northwest of England, Colin

Todhunter has spent many years in

India.


Concentrations of CO2 are rising at

about 2 to 3 ppm a year. The United

Nations has said that in order to

maximize our chances of limiting the

global temperature rise since 1750 to

the internationally agreed-upon target

of 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees

Fahrenheit), the concentration of all

greenhouse gases should peak at no

higher than 450 ppm this century.

That includes methane and nitrous

oxide, gases not included in the

Scripps measurement.

The atmospheric concentration of all

greenhouse gases, including methane

and nitrous oxide, was equivalent to

a CO2 level of 430 ppm in 2011,

according to the UN

intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change. The annual average

concentration of CO2 that year was

about 391 ppm, according to the

UN’s World Meteorological

Association.

03 May, 2014


15

INTERNATIONAL MOVEMENTFOR A JUST WORLD (JUST)P.O BOX 288Jalan Sultan46730 Petaling JayaSelangor Darul EhsanMALAYSIAwww.just-international.org

Bayaran Pos JelasPostage Paid

Pejabat Pos BesarKuala Lumpur

MalaysiaNo. WP 1385

Please donate to JUST by Postal Order or Cheque

addressed to:

International Movement for a Just World

P.O. Box 288, Jalan Sultan, 46730, Petaling Jaya,

Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia

or direct to our bank account:Malayan Banking Berhad, Petaling Jaya Main

Branch, 50 Jalan Sultan, 46200, Petaling Jaya,

Selangor Darul Ehsan,MALAYSIA

Account No. 5141 6917 0716

Donations from outside Malaysia should be made

by Telegraphic Transfer or Bank Draft in USD$

The International Movement for a Just World isa nonprofit international citizens’ organisationwhich seeks to create public awareness aboutinjustices within the existing global system.It a lso attempts to develop a deeperunderstanding of the struggle for social justiceand human dignity at the global level, guided byuniversal spiritual and moral values.

In furtherance of these objectives, JUST hasundertaken a number of activities includingconducting research, publishing books andmonographs, organising conferences andseminars, networking with groups and individuals and participating in public campaigns.

JUST has friends and supporters in more than130 countries and cooperates actively withother organisations which are committed to

similar objectives in different parts of the world.

About the International Movement for aJust World (JUST)

It would be much appreciated if you

could share this copy of the JUST Com-

mentary with a friend or relative. Bet-

ter still invite him/her to write to JUST

so that we can put his/her name on our

Commentary mailing list.

TERBITAN BERKALA

just commentary may 2014

Documents