9 New Messages
Digest #4502
Messages
Wed Sep 26, 2012 5:40 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://english.
Voice of Russia
September 26, 2012
Why does NATO need bases in Afghanistan?
Ilya Kharlamov
====
The absence of a productive dialogue between Moscow and the alliance on the issue of European missile defence obliges Moscow to insist on knowing the West’s plans with regard to Afghanistan.
“We are concerned about the character of international military presence in Afghanistan after 2014 and we are worried by the information that at present new bases are being built there that can deploy tens of thousands of servicemen..
In the case of Syria, Moscow and Beijing have already shown that they can block the West’s militarist plans in the Security Council.
====
Moscow intends to find out about the future of NATO military contingents in Afghanistan after 2014. NATO leadership has repeatedly announced that by that time its troops will be withdrawn from that country.
However, there is information that foreign bases will remain in Afghanistan. Russia proposes to clarify this issue at the UN General Assembly session, which began recently, and also at a meeting of Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov with NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen.
The absence of a productive dialogue between Moscow and the alliance on the issue of European missile defence obliges Moscow to insist on knowing the West’s plans with regard to Afghanistan. Russia’s security is at stake and also that of the region bordering on Russia, so Russian diplomats’ insistence is absolutely natural. Russian permanent representative at the UN Vitaly Churkin believes that leaving NATO bases in Afghanistan raises many questions. If the alliance announces an end to the anti-terrorist operation in 2014, the presence of foreign military forces will have different aims and nothing is known about such aims yet.
In essence, Russia intends to clearly formulate its position: if the fight against terrorism must be continued, the UN Security Council’s mandate should be prolonged. It is possible that this issue will be discussed on the 27th of September during consultations between members of the UN Security Council and UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko believes that Russia is prepared to pragmatically cooperate with the alliance to solve the Afghan problem on the basis of the UN Security Council resolution.
“We are concerned about the character of international military presence in Afghanistan after 2014 and we are worried by the information that at present new bases are being built there that can deploy tens of thousands of servicemen. All this is superfluous if we only mean stabilizing the situation in Afghanistan. We proceed from the assumption that no superfluous military presence in Afghanistan is required.”
Alexander Grushko added that Russia understands the need to leave foreign military instructors in Afghanistan to train personnel for the Afghan army and security service. If any other plans are implemented there, it will further complicate Moscow’s relations with NATO.
Russia is also planning to ask the US to provide a report on the Afghan campaign at the UN General Assembly session. This could give rise to a contradictory situation. It is common knowledge that no special progress has been achieved there. Neither terrorism nor huge economic and social problems have been solved in Afghanistan since NATO’s arrival. The admission of a failure is unlikely to impel the UN Security Council to prolong the mandate. Moreover, it will be a good reason not to provide similar mandates in Syria and Iran. On the other hand, if Americans prove their success, there should logically be no bases left in Afghanistan and all the troops have to be withdrawn.
Political scientist Pavel Zolotaryov has shared his opinion with The Voice of Russia.
“It is not clear at present whether Americans have completed their operation or if it should be continued. In any case, it should be decided by the UN. It would not be correct to continue any activities relying on the US administration’s decisions only. The same is true about NATO, which has assumed responsibility for security outside their traditional zone of influence, Europe. So Russia’s raising this issue is absolutely legitimate.”
It is clear that Washington has room to manoeuvre. For example, it can ignore Russia’s requests or act without the Security Council’s permission because more and more Americans are in favour of this idea. In the case of Syria, Moscow and Beijing have already shown that they can block the West’s militarist plans in the Security Council. In addition, Russia could revise its cooperation with the alliance in Afghanistan, starting with cargo transit and finishing with training Afghan personnel.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Voice of Russia
September 26, 2012
Why does NATO need bases in Afghanistan?
Ilya Kharlamov
====
The absence of a productive dialogue between Moscow and the alliance on the issue of European missile defence obliges Moscow to insist on knowing the West’s plans with regard to Afghanistan.
“We are concerned about the character of international military presence in Afghanistan after 2014 and we are worried by the information that at present new bases are being built there that can deploy tens of thousands of servicemen..
In the case of Syria, Moscow and Beijing have already shown that they can block the West’s militarist plans in the Security Council.
====
Moscow intends to find out about the future of NATO military contingents in Afghanistan after 2014. NATO leadership has repeatedly announced that by that time its troops will be withdrawn from that country.
However, there is information that foreign bases will remain in Afghanistan. Russia proposes to clarify this issue at the UN General Assembly session, which began recently, and also at a meeting of Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov with NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen.
The absence of a productive dialogue between Moscow and the alliance on the issue of European missile defence obliges Moscow to insist on knowing the West’s plans with regard to Afghanistan. Russia’s security is at stake and also that of the region bordering on Russia, so Russian diplomats’ insistence is absolutely natural. Russian permanent representative at the UN Vitaly Churkin believes that leaving NATO bases in Afghanistan raises many questions. If the alliance announces an end to the anti-terrorist operation in 2014, the presence of foreign military forces will have different aims and nothing is known about such aims yet.
In essence, Russia intends to clearly formulate its position: if the fight against terrorism must be continued, the UN Security Council’s mandate should be prolonged. It is possible that this issue will be discussed on the 27th of September during consultations between members of the UN Security Council and UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko believes that Russia is prepared to pragmatically cooperate with the alliance to solve the Afghan problem on the basis of the UN Security Council resolution.
“We are concerned about the character of international military presence in Afghanistan after 2014 and we are worried by the information that at present new bases are being built there that can deploy tens of thousands of servicemen. All this is superfluous if we only mean stabilizing the situation in Afghanistan. We proceed from the assumption that no superfluous military presence in Afghanistan is required.”
Alexander Grushko added that Russia understands the need to leave foreign military instructors in Afghanistan to train personnel for the Afghan army and security service. If any other plans are implemented there, it will further complicate Moscow’s relations with NATO.
Russia is also planning to ask the US to provide a report on the Afghan campaign at the UN General Assembly session. This could give rise to a contradictory situation. It is common knowledge that no special progress has been achieved there. Neither terrorism nor huge economic and social problems have been solved in Afghanistan since NATO’s arrival. The admission of a failure is unlikely to impel the UN Security Council to prolong the mandate. Moreover, it will be a good reason not to provide similar mandates in Syria and Iran. On the other hand, if Americans prove their success, there should logically be no bases left in Afghanistan and all the troops have to be withdrawn.
Political scientist Pavel Zolotaryov has shared his opinion with The Voice of Russia.
“It is not clear at present whether Americans have completed their operation or if it should be continued. In any case, it should be decided by the UN. It would not be correct to continue any activities relying on the US administration’s decisions only. The same is true about NATO, which has assumed responsibility for security outside their traditional zone of influence, Europe. So Russia’s raising this issue is absolutely legitimate.”
It is clear that Washington has room to manoeuvre. For example, it can ignore Russia’s requests or act without the Security Council’s permission because more and more Americans are in favour of this idea. In the case of Syria, Moscow and Beijing have already shown that they can block the West’s militarist plans in the Security Council. In addition, Russia could revise its cooperation with the alliance in Afghanistan, starting with cargo transit and finishing with training Afghan personnel.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Wed Sep 26, 2012 5:50 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://spectator.
Slovak Spectator
September 26, 2012
Bratislava to host conference on the future of NATO
Slovakia’s capital will host a conference concerning issues related to the future of NATO, covering the extension of new partnerships, as well as providing effective defence of countries at a time of financial crisis. The first annual conference "NATO 2020 and Armed Forces: the Way Forward" will be held on October 2 and 3 in Bratislava.
In addition to issues of the future, the focus of NATO missions and the future direction of NATO as such, the conference will also address the topics of the concept of so-called Intelligent Defence, the nature and the future of NATO's partnerships and discussions on NATO missions in the post-Afghanistan era. Radka Vinceová of the Centre for European and North Atlantic Affairs (CENAA) informed the SITA newswire that the centre is organising the conference under the auspices of the Slovak Defence Ministry and NATO Public Diplomacy Division.
"Representatives of NATO member states are now facing a decision about the future form of strategic operations of the alliance and the nature of the armed forces; as in the post-Afghanistan era, NATO will need a new definition of its basic functions, which will be implemented through new kinds of operations," said Marián Majer of CENAA.
According to him, after the engagement of the military forces of NATO countries in conflicts in Afghanistan - but also in Iraq and in Libya - the likelihood of involvement in the Alliance in an equally extensive and costly conflict is low.
In the initial discussion, CENAA will welcome NATO Assistant Secretary General for Defence Policy and Planning, Ambassador Huseyin Dirioz, who together with the Director of the International Centre for Democratic Transition Ambassador Istvan Gyarmati, head of the Political and Strategic Section of the French Foreign Ministry Colonel Jean-Christophe Noel, State Secretary of the Slovak Defence Ministry of Miloš Koterec, and Director of the Centre for European and North Atlantic Affairs Robert Ondrejcsák, will discuss NATO missions in the post-Afghanistan era.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Slovak Spectator
September 26, 2012
Bratislava to host conference on the future of NATO
Slovakia’s capital will host a conference concerning issues related to the future of NATO, covering the extension of new partnerships, as well as providing effective defence of countries at a time of financial crisis. The first annual conference "NATO 2020 and Armed Forces: the Way Forward" will be held on October 2 and 3 in Bratislava.
In addition to issues of the future, the focus of NATO missions and the future direction of NATO as such, the conference will also address the topics of the concept of so-called Intelligent Defence, the nature and the future of NATO's partnerships and discussions on NATO missions in the post-Afghanistan era. Radka Vinceová of the Centre for European and North Atlantic Affairs (CENAA) informed the SITA newswire that the centre is organising the conference under the auspices of the Slovak Defence Ministry and NATO Public Diplomacy Division.
"Representatives of NATO member states are now facing a decision about the future form of strategic operations of the alliance and the nature of the armed forces; as in the post-Afghanistan era, NATO will need a new definition of its basic functions, which will be implemented through new kinds of operations," said Marián Majer of CENAA.
According to him, after the engagement of the military forces of NATO countries in conflicts in Afghanistan - but also in Iraq and in Libya - the likelihood of involvement in the Alliance in an equally extensive and costly conflict is low.
In the initial discussion, CENAA will welcome NATO Assistant Secretary General for Defence Policy and Planning, Ambassador Huseyin Dirioz, who together with the Director of the International Centre for Democratic Transition Ambassador Istvan Gyarmati, head of the Political and Strategic Section of the French Foreign Ministry Colonel Jean-Christophe Noel, State Secretary of the Slovak Defence Ministry of Miloš Koterec, and Director of the Centre for European and North Atlantic Affairs Robert Ondrejcsák, will discuss NATO missions in the post-Afghanistan era.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Wed Sep 26, 2012 5:50 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://news.
Xinhua News Agency
September 26, 2012
Militants' attack kills 2 NATO soldiers in Afghanistan
KABUL: Two soldiers with the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) lost their lives as they came under militants' attack in Afghanistan'
"Two International Security Assistance Force service members died following an insurgent attack in eastern Afghanistan today," the statement added.
However, it did not reveal the nationalities of the victims and the exact place of the incident, saying it is ISAF policy to defer casualty identification procedures to the relevant national authorities.
Troops mostly from U.S. have been stationed in the eastern region bordering Pakistan's tribal areas.
So far this year 341 NATO-led ISAF soldiers with 259 of them Americans have been killed in the militancy-plagued Afghanistan.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Xinhua News Agency
September 26, 2012
Militants' attack kills 2 NATO soldiers in Afghanistan
KABUL: Two soldiers with the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) lost their lives as they came under militants' attack in Afghanistan'
"Two International Security Assistance Force service members died following an insurgent attack in eastern Afghanistan today," the statement added.
However, it did not reveal the nationalities of the victims and the exact place of the incident, saying it is ISAF policy to defer casualty identification procedures to the relevant national authorities.
Troops mostly from U.S. have been stationed in the eastern region bordering Pakistan's tribal areas.
So far this year 341 NATO-led ISAF soldiers with 259 of them Americans have been killed in the militancy-plagued Afghanistan.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Wed Sep 26, 2012 5:56 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://news.
Xinhua News Agency
September 26, 2012
Commentary: Be vigilant against resurgence of militarism in Japan
====
[I]n the name of becoming a "normal country," Japan has actively expanded its armed forces and increased its defense budget in recent years. Moreover, it has also been seeking to revise the pacifist postwar constitution and the three non-nuclear principles.
To some degree, Japan's islands-purchasing farce marks a giveaway to the sneaky resurgence of militarism. It is not only a serious infringement upon China's territorial sovereignty, but also a public defiance of the success of the world's anti-fascism war and the postwar international order.
====
BEIJING: Japan's main opposition party elected former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe as its new leader on Wednesday, offering him another chance at the premiership.
The victory of Abe, a traditional security hawk, might have far-reaching implications on the increasingly tense relations between his country and its neighbors.
Since the Japanese farce of "purchasing" China's Diaoyu Islands plunged the bilateral relationship to its lowest point in years, all contenders in the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) race have struck hawkish tones.
Abe is highly vocal in urging Tokyo to take a tougher line in its territorial disputes with China and South Korea. In a speech delivered Tuesday, he even spoke of the need to stand up to Beijing.
Days ago, another LDP candidate, former Defense Minister Shigeru Ishiba, said that Japan should turn Self-Defense Forces into "national defense forces" and exercise the right of collective self-defense.
It is no wonder that The Washington Post, a major U.S. newspaper, warned in a recent front-page story that Japan is in the midst of "a gradual but significant shift to the right" and acts more confrontationally in the region than at any time since World War II.
Japan's accelerated right-leaning tendency and toughened foreign polices are rooted in its right-wingers' resentment at the international order after World War II.
During World War II, it was Japanese militarists that launched aggression against other Asian countries and brought disasters to their peoples.
The Asian people, especially the Chinese, paid a heavy price in resisting Japan's aggression. At the same time, the Japanese also suffered greatly during the war.
As a consequence, one of the important principles for the postwar international order is to prevent the revival of militarism in Japan. For example, the Japanese constitution has a specific clause that says Japan forever renounces war as a sovereign right of the the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes.
However, in the name of becoming a "normal country," Japan has actively expanded its armed forces and increased its defense budget in recent years. Moreover, it has also been seeking to revise the pacifist postwar constitution and the three non-nuclear principles.
To some degree, Japan's islands-purchasing farce marks a giveaway to the sneaky resurgence of militarism. It is not only a serious infringement upon China's territorial sovereignty, but also a public defiance of the success of the world's anti-fascism war and the postwar international order.
The lessons of World War II must be kept firmly in mind. Japan must disabuse itself of illusions, and the world needs to make sure that Japanese militarism will not rise again from the ashes.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Xinhua News Agency
September 26, 2012
Commentary: Be vigilant against resurgence of militarism in Japan
====
[I]n the name of becoming a "normal country," Japan has actively expanded its armed forces and increased its defense budget in recent years. Moreover, it has also been seeking to revise the pacifist postwar constitution and the three non-nuclear principles.
To some degree, Japan's islands-purchasing farce marks a giveaway to the sneaky resurgence of militarism. It is not only a serious infringement upon China's territorial sovereignty, but also a public defiance of the success of the world's anti-fascism war and the postwar international order.
====
BEIJING: Japan's main opposition party elected former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe as its new leader on Wednesday, offering him another chance at the premiership.
The victory of Abe, a traditional security hawk, might have far-reaching implications on the increasingly tense relations between his country and its neighbors.
Since the Japanese farce of "purchasing" China's Diaoyu Islands plunged the bilateral relationship to its lowest point in years, all contenders in the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) race have struck hawkish tones.
Abe is highly vocal in urging Tokyo to take a tougher line in its territorial disputes with China and South Korea. In a speech delivered Tuesday, he even spoke of the need to stand up to Beijing.
Days ago, another LDP candidate, former Defense Minister Shigeru Ishiba, said that Japan should turn Self-Defense Forces into "national defense forces" and exercise the right of collective self-defense.
It is no wonder that The Washington Post, a major U.S. newspaper, warned in a recent front-page story that Japan is in the midst of "a gradual but significant shift to the right" and acts more confrontationally in the region than at any time since World War II.
Japan's accelerated right-leaning tendency and toughened foreign polices are rooted in its right-wingers' resentment at the international order after World War II.
During World War II, it was Japanese militarists that launched aggression against other Asian countries and brought disasters to their peoples.
The Asian people, especially the Chinese, paid a heavy price in resisting Japan's aggression. At the same time, the Japanese also suffered greatly during the war.
As a consequence, one of the important principles for the postwar international order is to prevent the revival of militarism in Japan. For example, the Japanese constitution has a specific clause that says Japan forever renounces war as a sovereign right of the the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes.
However, in the name of becoming a "normal country," Japan has actively expanded its armed forces and increased its defense budget in recent years. Moreover, it has also been seeking to revise the pacifist postwar constitution and the three non-nuclear principles.
To some degree, Japan's islands-purchasing farce marks a giveaway to the sneaky resurgence of militarism. It is not only a serious infringement upon China's territorial sovereignty, but also a public defiance of the success of the world's anti-fascism war and the postwar international order.
The lessons of World War II must be kept firmly in mind. Japan must disabuse itself of illusions, and the world needs to make sure that Japanese militarism will not rise again from the ashes.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Wed Sep 26, 2012 8:14 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://www.aco.
North Atlantic Treaty Organization
Allied Command Operations
September 26, 2012
EXERCISE NOBLE MARINER 2012 LAUNCHED IN TOULON, FRANCE
From 24 September to 7 October 2012, NATO will conduct a major naval exercise code-named Noble Mariner 12 (NOMR12) in the Mediterranean Sea.
NOMR12 plays an important part in the certification process of the NATO Response Force (NRF). This year, the objective is to certify the capacity of France to lead the maritime component of NRF.
Task Force (TF) 445 and all its units will deploy to the exercise zone and evolve in a crisis scenario involving a multi-threat environment. NOMR12 will allow to train the staff of participating units in all types of warfare, highlighting the expeditionary nature of NRF deployments.
Allied Maritime Command Northwood will oversee both the preparation and conduct of this exercise.
Rear Admiral Philippe Coindreau (French Navy), FRMARFOR Commander, will assume command of TF 445.
The successful completion of this exercise will allow FRMARFOR to assume command of the maritime component of the NRF for the whole of 2013.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
North Atlantic Treaty Organization
Allied Command Operations
September 26, 2012
EXERCISE NOBLE MARINER 2012 LAUNCHED IN TOULON, FRANCE
From 24 September to 7 October 2012, NATO will conduct a major naval exercise code-named Noble Mariner 12 (NOMR12) in the Mediterranean Sea.
NOMR12 plays an important part in the certification process of the NATO Response Force (NRF). This year, the objective is to certify the capacity of France to lead the maritime component of NRF.
Task Force (TF) 445 and all its units will deploy to the exercise zone and evolve in a crisis scenario involving a multi-threat environment. NOMR12 will allow to train the staff of participating units in all types of warfare, highlighting the expeditionary nature of NRF deployments.
Allied Maritime Command Northwood will oversee both the preparation and conduct of this exercise.
Rear Admiral Philippe Coindreau (French Navy), FRMARFOR Commander, will assume command of TF 445.
The successful completion of this exercise will allow FRMARFOR to assume command of the maritime component of the NRF for the whole of 2013.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Wed Sep 26, 2012 8:14 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://cominf.
Republic News Agency
September 26, 2012
Statement of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of South Ossetia
Edited by RR
Tskhinval: September 25, 2012, the president of Georgia, Mikhail Saakashvili, in his speech at the 67th session of the United Nations General Assembly accused Russia of "attempts to influence political processes in Georgia, in particular by conducting large-scale maneuvers and concentration of troops on the border" of the allegedly occupied regions of Georgia.
As always, the Georgian leadership is excessively dramatizing the situation. In addition to creating myths concerning the past and the present in Georgian-South Ossetian relations, Georgia regularly uses in its propaganda various conflict situations, interpreting them according to its own interests and goals. Tbilisi's points are often supported extensively in the West and then, unfortunately, are repeated in the statements of high-ranking officials in Europe, the U.S. and some international organizations.
The conclusions of the report of an independent European Union commission, led by Ms. Heidi Taljavini, clearly have proved to the world that Georgia was the aggressor in August 2008, but the following permanent military preparations and Georgian threats to "restore the territorial integrity", which has been repeatedly stressed by South Ossetia unfortunately are ignored by the world community.
Georgian authorities make statements about the South Ossetian "threat" to distract their own people from the complicated political situation in the country on the eve of parliamentary elections, which unveiled the sadistic regime of the Georgian leadership under the mask of a democratic facade.
For the favorable resolution of the situation, official Tbilisi needs to find an external enemy.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of South Ossetia has declared with all responsibility that mobilization or accumulation of military forces is not taking place in the Republic. Russian military units have been stationed in South Ossetia in accordance with bilateral Russian-South Ossetian agreements. They are the only military forces in the territory of South Ossetia.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of South Ossetia once again is calling on the international community and the participants of the 67th session of the UN General Assembly to draw attention to the build-up of Georgian military forces at the border of South Ossetia, which, as contemporary history shows, is really dangerous and expresses the revanchist sentiments of the Georgian authorities who prefer to see the problems of the region only in the light of their own interests, ignoring reality.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Republic News Agency
September 26, 2012
Statement of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of South Ossetia
Edited by RR
Tskhinval: September 25, 2012, the president of Georgia, Mikhail Saakashvili, in his speech at the 67th session of the United Nations General Assembly accused Russia of "attempts to influence political processes in Georgia, in particular by conducting large-scale maneuvers and concentration of troops on the border" of the allegedly occupied regions of Georgia.
As always, the Georgian leadership is excessively dramatizing the situation. In addition to creating myths concerning the past and the present in Georgian-South Ossetian relations, Georgia regularly uses in its propaganda various conflict situations, interpreting them according to its own interests and goals. Tbilisi's points are often supported extensively in the West and then, unfortunately, are repeated in the statements of high-ranking officials in Europe, the U.S. and some international organizations.
The conclusions of the report of an independent European Union commission, led by Ms. Heidi Taljavini, clearly have proved to the world that Georgia was the aggressor in August 2008, but the following permanent military preparations and Georgian threats to "restore the territorial integrity", which has been repeatedly stressed by South Ossetia unfortunately are ignored by the world community.
Georgian authorities make statements about the South Ossetian "threat" to distract their own people from the complicated political situation in the country on the eve of parliamentary elections, which unveiled the sadistic regime of the Georgian leadership under the mask of a democratic facade.
For the favorable resolution of the situation, official Tbilisi needs to find an external enemy.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of South Ossetia has declared with all responsibility that mobilization or accumulation of military forces is not taking place in the Republic. Russian military units have been stationed in South Ossetia in accordance with bilateral Russian-South Ossetian agreements. They are the only military forces in the territory of South Ossetia.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of South Ossetia once again is calling on the international community and the participants of the 67th session of the UN General Assembly to draw attention to the build-up of Georgian military forces at the border of South Ossetia, which, as contemporary history shows, is really dangerous and expresses the revanchist sentiments of the Georgian authorities who prefer to see the problems of the region only in the light of their own interests, ignoring reality.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Wed Sep 26, 2012 8:14 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://english.
Voice of Russia
September 26, 2012
Barack Obama: Let there be justice even if the world perishes
Boris Volkhonsky
====
For the US, the outbreak of violence is indeed a good excuse for further military buildup in the Middle East – in full accordance with the president’s logic, "if the strongest weapon against hateful speech is more speech, then the strongest weapon against violence is more violence."
[O]ne may ask the US president what exactly he meant by saying that "Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views." Did he mean scores of thousands of Iraqis and Afghans killed as a result of US military invasion, or thousands of Pakistani civilians killed in drone strikes?...And where else can we expect a new stage of the "fight to protect the right of all people to express their views"? Syria, Iran, China, or wherever?
====
US President Barack Obama's speech at the UN General Assembly on Tuesday quite naturally attracted global attention. The central part of it was dedicated to the infamous film "Innocence of Muslims" and the wave of outrage that was sparked by it.
The US President made a bow to Muslims' feelings by calling the video "crude and disgusting", but then pounced upon those who expressed their outrage all across the Muslim world.
He vehemently rejected all attempts aimed at forcing the US government to ban the blasphemous film, stating that "the strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression, it is more speech" and putting the freedom of expression guaranteed by the First Amendment as the highest principle of the US policy.
"Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views — even views that we disagree with," said the president and added that "efforts to restrict speech can become a tool to silence critics or oppress minorities."
Too much has been said that such rhetoric really puts the cart before the horse and that by doing so the proponents of "freedom of expression" really confuse the symptoms with the deeper reason. For the US, the outbreak of violence is indeed a good excuse for further military buildup in the Middle East – in full accordance with the president’s logic, "if the strongest weapon against hateful speech is more speech, then the strongest weapon against violence is more violence."
Also, one may ask the US president what exactly he meant by saying that "Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views." Did he mean scores of thousands of Iraqis and Afghans killed as a result of US military invasion, or thousands of Pakistani civilians killed in drone strikes? And what about the US enthusiastic inspiration of and participation in the "Arab spring" which eventually backfired against Americans themselves? And where else can we expect a new stage of the "fight to protect the right of all people to express their views"? Syria, Iran, China, or wherever?
"We will bring justice to those who harm our citizens and our friends," said Mr. Obama at the UN. But what about those who instigate the wave resulting in harm? On that, the US president seems to be unshakable – free speech will not be curbed.
Naturally, Barack Obama's voice was not the only one heard at the UN. As reported by Reuters, Pakistan's president Asif Ali Zardari said that "the international community must not become a silent observer and should criminalize such acts that destroy the peace of the world and endanger the world security by misusing freedom of expression." Egypt's new president, Mohamed Mursi, said freedom of expression carried with it responsibilities, and Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, president of the world's most-populous Muslim-majority nation, Indonesia, called for a binding international treaty to "prevent incitement to hostility or violence based on religions or beliefs."
Indeed, time has come to realize that words can at times be even more dangerous that weapons of mass destruction because they can set huge masses of people in motion, and some kind of a non-proliferation treaty is drastically needed.
Funnily enough, against this background of international disagreement, the US president recently received support from another ardent supporter of sacrilege in disguise of "freedom of expression", the notorious singer Louise Ciccone blasphemously calling herself "Madonna". Performing on Monday night in Washington she said that "we have a black Muslim in the White House" and called on the audience to vote for Obama.
Her ignorance and lechery are too well known and have been best characterized by Russia's vice premier Dmitri Rogozin on Twitter.
What is more important is the obstinacy with which the US president (definitely not being a Muslim) is defending the radical atheist liberal policy line. It has already led to tragedies for the Muslim world and the US itself, but it seems that in standing up for unlimited freedom of expression and promising to "bring justice" to all those who disagree, Barack Obama is of an opinion that "Fiat justitia, et pereat mundus" (Let there be justice, though the world perish).
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Voice of Russia
September 26, 2012
Barack Obama: Let there be justice even if the world perishes
Boris Volkhonsky
====
For the US, the outbreak of violence is indeed a good excuse for further military buildup in the Middle East – in full accordance with the president’s logic, "if the strongest weapon against hateful speech is more speech, then the strongest weapon against violence is more violence."
[O]ne may ask the US president what exactly he meant by saying that "Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views." Did he mean scores of thousands of Iraqis and Afghans killed as a result of US military invasion, or thousands of Pakistani civilians killed in drone strikes?...And where else can we expect a new stage of the "fight to protect the right of all people to express their views"? Syria, Iran, China, or wherever?
====
US President Barack Obama's speech at the UN General Assembly on Tuesday quite naturally attracted global attention. The central part of it was dedicated to the infamous film "Innocence of Muslims" and the wave of outrage that was sparked by it.
The US President made a bow to Muslims' feelings by calling the video "crude and disgusting", but then pounced upon those who expressed their outrage all across the Muslim world.
He vehemently rejected all attempts aimed at forcing the US government to ban the blasphemous film, stating that "the strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression, it is more speech" and putting the freedom of expression guaranteed by the First Amendment as the highest principle of the US policy.
"Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views — even views that we disagree with," said the president and added that "efforts to restrict speech can become a tool to silence critics or oppress minorities."
Too much has been said that such rhetoric really puts the cart before the horse and that by doing so the proponents of "freedom of expression" really confuse the symptoms with the deeper reason. For the US, the outbreak of violence is indeed a good excuse for further military buildup in the Middle East – in full accordance with the president’s logic, "if the strongest weapon against hateful speech is more speech, then the strongest weapon against violence is more violence."
Also, one may ask the US president what exactly he meant by saying that "Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views." Did he mean scores of thousands of Iraqis and Afghans killed as a result of US military invasion, or thousands of Pakistani civilians killed in drone strikes? And what about the US enthusiastic inspiration of and participation in the "Arab spring" which eventually backfired against Americans themselves? And where else can we expect a new stage of the "fight to protect the right of all people to express their views"? Syria, Iran, China, or wherever?
"We will bring justice to those who harm our citizens and our friends," said Mr. Obama at the UN. But what about those who instigate the wave resulting in harm? On that, the US president seems to be unshakable – free speech will not be curbed.
Naturally, Barack Obama's voice was not the only one heard at the UN. As reported by Reuters, Pakistan's president Asif Ali Zardari said that "the international community must not become a silent observer and should criminalize such acts that destroy the peace of the world and endanger the world security by misusing freedom of expression." Egypt's new president, Mohamed Mursi, said freedom of expression carried with it responsibilities, and Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, president of the world's most-populous Muslim-majority nation, Indonesia, called for a binding international treaty to "prevent incitement to hostility or violence based on religions or beliefs."
Indeed, time has come to realize that words can at times be even more dangerous that weapons of mass destruction because they can set huge masses of people in motion, and some kind of a non-proliferation treaty is drastically needed.
Funnily enough, against this background of international disagreement, the US president recently received support from another ardent supporter of sacrilege in disguise of "freedom of expression", the notorious singer Louise Ciccone blasphemously calling herself "Madonna". Performing on Monday night in Washington she said that "we have a black Muslim in the White House" and called on the audience to vote for Obama.
Her ignorance and lechery are too well known and have been best characterized by Russia's vice premier Dmitri Rogozin on Twitter.
What is more important is the obstinacy with which the US president (definitely not being a Muslim) is defending the radical atheist liberal policy line. It has already led to tragedies for the Muslim world and the US itself, but it seems that in standing up for unlimited freedom of expression and promising to "bring justice" to all those who disagree, Barack Obama is of an opinion that "Fiat justitia, et pereat mundus" (Let there be justice, though the world perish).
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Wed Sep 26, 2012 8:14 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://rickrozoff.
Stop NATO
September 26, 2012
Russia, Pakistan and Opportunities for Regional Cooperation
Farooq Yousaf
Pakistan-Russia ties are witnessing a fresh start with Russian President Vladimir Putin's expected visit, as quoted by Pakistan media in early October, the first visit by a Russian president to Pakistan. Something considered improbable in the past may soon become a reality as both sides are striving for a new start in bilateral ties.
Although Russian state media has cast doubts on Putin's visit, yet it is obvious that even if the visit is cancelled another high level official, such as the foreign minister, will visit Pakistan.
The visit, primarily intended for a quadrilateral Afghan conference in Islamabad, would also include a one-on-one meeting with the president of Pakistan.
It is reported by Russian Foreign Ministry officials that both states would also sign multiple MOU's (Memorandums of Understanding) on development and investment in the steel and energy sectors of Pakistan. President Asif Ali Zardari, while meeting with a high-level Russian delegation to Pakistan in early September headed by the Russian sports minister, expressed his desire for cooperation with Moscow in the aforementioned sectors.[i]
Historically, Russia and Pakistan have never enjoyed prolonged periods of fruitful ties. Even after Pakistan's inception, Liaqat Ali Khan, Pakistan's first prime minister, preferred to visit the USA, even though invited first by the then Soviet government. Relations saw their only major high during Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto's government, when on his visit, in 1974[ii], the Soviet government agreed to establish the Pakistan Steel Mill at its own expense, coupled with helping in the nuclear energy sector.
It was during the Zia-ul-Haq regime when the Carter administration of the USA, Saudi Arabia and General Zia teamed up with the help of right-wing parties to train the Mujahideen against the Soviets in Afghanistan[
Keeping in context Pakistan's current political situation, the latest developments hold the utmost importance for the country. Currently, the United States and its allies have increased pressure on Pakistan to force support for Washington's policy of strengthening its influence in the region, despite the apparent contradiction with the national interests of Pakistan. Along with that, the USA is also losing its influence in the region because of growing anti-US sentiment. That is why increased cooperation on a bilateral basis and within the framework of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) will help address political and economic issues in Pakistan. This in turn will provide additional opportunities to Islamabad for a more independent foreign policy and lesser economic dependence on the United States and international financial institutions, apparently controlled by the US[iv].
Washington's current policy and politics in the Afghan war seem to be aimed at dininishing the impact of Islamabad in the country and the peace process, and increasing the role of India in resolving the crisis[v]. Unsurprisingly, officials in Kabul also show an unfriendly attitude towards Pakistan, which is reflected in regular accusations against the Pakistani leadership regarding support of the Haqqani Network and other extremist organizations operating within Pakistan[vi] [vii] [viii].
With the current financial and strategic dependencies, Pakistan can only act as a mere spectator against US policies and demands. Only by increasing cooperation with China and Russia will a regional approach in addressing the Afghan issue and ensuring stability in the country help Pakistan protect its national interests.
It is obvious that positive ties with Russia would not only give strategic strength to Pakistan but would also provide a good opportunity for overcoming the country's energy woes coupled with enhancing regional trade and cooperation.
In the context of military cooperation, Air Chief Marshall, Tahir Rafiq Butt, visited Moscow in August, and termed his visit a significant development towards greater cooperation with Russia in the field of defence, particularly in air defence. It was also reported in the beginning of September that the Pakistan Army chief, General Ashfaq Pervez Kiyani, was also scheduled to visit Moscow for a high-level meeting with his Russian counterpart. This visit could be of huge significance as it points towards a major policy shift. A foreign office spokesman in Islamabad, on condition of anonymity, said:
"We have turned a new page in our relationship with Russia. It is a major shift"[ix]
Pakistan is an active member of the world community in combating terrorism and cross-border crime. Taking into account this special significance and the negative publicity it gathers from the world media even after making all its efforts and sacrifices, it would be useful to expand cooperation with the SCO states, especially Russia and China. This cooperation can also be in areas such as prevention and mitigation of natural and technological disasters, emergency management, training and development of local experts - in which Russia has rich experience - in regrad to scientific and technical resources coupled with human and financial resources.
The current upturn in ties can be used to develop long-term economic cooperation with Russia. Moscow has expressed interest in participating in the construction of the TAPI (the Turkmenistan-
Pakistan enjoys a great strategic edge, serving as a bridge and corridor to different regions. This also gives Russia an attractive spot to materialize its strategic depth. Therefore, ongoing developments between Moscow and Islamabad, high-level visits, and Pakistan's possible role in the SCO, signs for a greater South and East Asian alliance in the form of the SCO, and an axis of a China-Russia-
[i] http://tribune.
[ii] http://orientalrevi
[iii] http://www.pakistan
[iv] http://usa.chinadai
[v] http://www.isn.
[vi] http://www.telegrap
[vii] http://tribune.
[viii] http://tribune.
[ix] http://tribune.
[x] http://www.lisauk.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Stop NATO
September 26, 2012
Russia, Pakistan and Opportunities for Regional Cooperation
Farooq Yousaf
Pakistan-Russia ties are witnessing a fresh start with Russian President Vladimir Putin's expected visit, as quoted by Pakistan media in early October, the first visit by a Russian president to Pakistan. Something considered improbable in the past may soon become a reality as both sides are striving for a new start in bilateral ties.
Although Russian state media has cast doubts on Putin's visit, yet it is obvious that even if the visit is cancelled another high level official, such as the foreign minister, will visit Pakistan.
The visit, primarily intended for a quadrilateral Afghan conference in Islamabad, would also include a one-on-one meeting with the president of Pakistan.
It is reported by Russian Foreign Ministry officials that both states would also sign multiple MOU's (Memorandums of Understanding) on development and investment in the steel and energy sectors of Pakistan. President Asif Ali Zardari, while meeting with a high-level Russian delegation to Pakistan in early September headed by the Russian sports minister, expressed his desire for cooperation with Moscow in the aforementioned sectors.[i]
Historically, Russia and Pakistan have never enjoyed prolonged periods of fruitful ties. Even after Pakistan's inception, Liaqat Ali Khan, Pakistan's first prime minister, preferred to visit the USA, even though invited first by the then Soviet government. Relations saw their only major high during Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto's government, when on his visit, in 1974[ii], the Soviet government agreed to establish the Pakistan Steel Mill at its own expense, coupled with helping in the nuclear energy sector.
It was during the Zia-ul-Haq regime when the Carter administration of the USA, Saudi Arabia and General Zia teamed up with the help of right-wing parties to train the Mujahideen against the Soviets in Afghanistan[
Keeping in context Pakistan's current political situation, the latest developments hold the utmost importance for the country. Currently, the United States and its allies have increased pressure on Pakistan to force support for Washington's policy of strengthening its influence in the region, despite the apparent contradiction with the national interests of Pakistan. Along with that, the USA is also losing its influence in the region because of growing anti-US sentiment. That is why increased cooperation on a bilateral basis and within the framework of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) will help address political and economic issues in Pakistan. This in turn will provide additional opportunities to Islamabad for a more independent foreign policy and lesser economic dependence on the United States and international financial institutions, apparently controlled by the US[iv].
Washington's current policy and politics in the Afghan war seem to be aimed at dininishing the impact of Islamabad in the country and the peace process, and increasing the role of India in resolving the crisis[v]. Unsurprisingly, officials in Kabul also show an unfriendly attitude towards Pakistan, which is reflected in regular accusations against the Pakistani leadership regarding support of the Haqqani Network and other extremist organizations operating within Pakistan[vi] [vii] [viii].
With the current financial and strategic dependencies, Pakistan can only act as a mere spectator against US policies and demands. Only by increasing cooperation with China and Russia will a regional approach in addressing the Afghan issue and ensuring stability in the country help Pakistan protect its national interests.
It is obvious that positive ties with Russia would not only give strategic strength to Pakistan but would also provide a good opportunity for overcoming the country's energy woes coupled with enhancing regional trade and cooperation.
In the context of military cooperation, Air Chief Marshall, Tahir Rafiq Butt, visited Moscow in August, and termed his visit a significant development towards greater cooperation with Russia in the field of defence, particularly in air defence. It was also reported in the beginning of September that the Pakistan Army chief, General Ashfaq Pervez Kiyani, was also scheduled to visit Moscow for a high-level meeting with his Russian counterpart. This visit could be of huge significance as it points towards a major policy shift. A foreign office spokesman in Islamabad, on condition of anonymity, said:
"We have turned a new page in our relationship with Russia. It is a major shift"[ix]
Pakistan is an active member of the world community in combating terrorism and cross-border crime. Taking into account this special significance and the negative publicity it gathers from the world media even after making all its efforts and sacrifices, it would be useful to expand cooperation with the SCO states, especially Russia and China. This cooperation can also be in areas such as prevention and mitigation of natural and technological disasters, emergency management, training and development of local experts - in which Russia has rich experience - in regrad to scientific and technical resources coupled with human and financial resources.
The current upturn in ties can be used to develop long-term economic cooperation with Russia. Moscow has expressed interest in participating in the construction of the TAPI (the Turkmenistan-
Pakistan enjoys a great strategic edge, serving as a bridge and corridor to different regions. This also gives Russia an attractive spot to materialize its strategic depth. Therefore, ongoing developments between Moscow and Islamabad, high-level visits, and Pakistan's possible role in the SCO, signs for a greater South and East Asian alliance in the form of the SCO, and an axis of a China-Russia-
[i] http://tribune.
[ii] http://orientalrevi
[iii] http://www.pakistan
[iv] http://usa.chinadai
[v] http://www.isn.
[vi] http://www.telegrap
[vii] http://tribune.
[viii] http://tribune.
[ix] http://tribune.
[x] http://www.lisauk.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Wed Sep 26, 2012 8:38 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://www.thefront
Frontier Post
September 27, 2012
A moral question
====
Indeed, with what peace of mind can President Obama sleep when even children get slaughtered in the drone assaults that he now personally approves? Appallingly enough, as part of his drone adventurism he has decreed that everyone within the vicinity of the targeted object be deemed a combatant, even if civilian, and liable to be decimated.
Doesn’t Obama’s conscience gets pricked when the Hellfire missile takes in its killer sweep a child playing with toys in his home or a mother feeding her baby in her compound?
====
It doubtlessly is a damning report that the researchers of an American universities have delivered on America’s drone adventurism. It succinctly brings out what a horrendous toll it has been exacting on innocent civilian lives and keeping the whole lot of the populace in the targeted areas in constant dread of drones and their fatal assaults.
The psychological impact on people is just terrible, it underlines. But will this report have any impact on the American strategists at all? Not even an outside chance.
At this time these times, civil society worldwide is up in protest against this American adventurism. It wants it to be stopped as this leads inevitably to the killing of civilians indefensibly. For this brutal collateral damage, even the UN human rights community is raising its voice increasingly loudly against the use of drone attacks by the American warlords to take out targets they deem a threat to American lives and assets.
The main plea of the dissenting voices is that the drones may be killing the terrorists, but no less are they mowing down innocent civilians who have nothing to do with terrorism. There indeed are very many voices that do not condone even the killing of terrorists in drone attacks, equating it with extrajudicial murder. They argue that no law, national or international, provides for the killing of a criminal or a suspect. Instead, every effort must be made to arrest them and bring them to justice in a court of law.
Nonetheless, all these pleas have fallen on deaf ears in Washington, so far. The decision makers over there remain unimpressed by the factual reality that these drone assaults are in fact proving counterproductive and creating more recruits for terrorism and extremism. Even as this drone adventurism is palpably giving a tremendous fillip to anti-Americanism worldwide, the American warlords yet stay unswayed. They are keeping up with it. Indeed, since the advent of Barack Obama’s presidency, they have further intensified it, raising a moral question that they must answer.
On what ground can they justify the killing of an innocent civilian even as collateral damage? The 9/11 holocaust was horrible, precisely because those slaughtered were no combatants but innocent civilians. And so has to be the killing of civilians in the drone strikes. Indeed, with what peace of mind can President Obama sleep when even children get slaughtered in the drone assaults that he now personally approves? Appallingly enough, as part of his drone adventurism he has decreed that everyone within the vicinity of the targeted object be deemed a combatant, even if civilian, and liable to be decimated.
The extent of his adventurism’s viciousness can easily be visualised from the destructive range of the Hellfire missile fired by drones. It not only destroys the struck target. It annihilates the compounds and assets in close vicinity and kills the human beings in and around them. Doesn't Obama’s conscience gets pricked when the Hellfire missile takes in its killer sweep a child playing with toys in his home or a mother feeding her baby in her compound? What sin have they committed to meet such a tragic demise? Or do he and his war commanders think that the child, the mother and the baby should perish as they are not Americans and their lives are not even worth a dime?
Here there is certainly a moral question that is becoming increasingly compelling with each passing day and the American warlords can no longer evade answering it. So prompt they have always been in raising the issue of extrajudicial killings elsewhere in the world. And that promptness they have now to show in their own case. Of course, one could have no sympathy or compassion for those who kill and maim the fellow human beings in suicide bombings and terrorist blasts. But the murder of those having nothing to do with terrorism in the US drone attacks cannot be acceptable either and on no pretext could it be condoned or justified.
Frontier Post
September 27, 2012
A moral question
====
Indeed, with what peace of mind can President Obama sleep when even children get slaughtered in the drone assaults that he now personally approves? Appallingly enough, as part of his drone adventurism he has decreed that everyone within the vicinity of the targeted object be deemed a combatant, even if civilian, and liable to be decimated.
Doesn’t Obama’s conscience gets pricked when the Hellfire missile takes in its killer sweep a child playing with toys in his home or a mother feeding her baby in her compound?
====
It doubtlessly is a damning report that the researchers of an American universities have delivered on America’s drone adventurism. It succinctly brings out what a horrendous toll it has been exacting on innocent civilian lives and keeping the whole lot of the populace in the targeted areas in constant dread of drones and their fatal assaults.
The psychological impact on people is just terrible, it underlines. But will this report have any impact on the American strategists at all? Not even an outside chance.
At this time these times, civil society worldwide is up in protest against this American adventurism. It wants it to be stopped as this leads inevitably to the killing of civilians indefensibly. For this brutal collateral damage, even the UN human rights community is raising its voice increasingly loudly against the use of drone attacks by the American warlords to take out targets they deem a threat to American lives and assets.
The main plea of the dissenting voices is that the drones may be killing the terrorists, but no less are they mowing down innocent civilians who have nothing to do with terrorism. There indeed are very many voices that do not condone even the killing of terrorists in drone attacks, equating it with extrajudicial murder. They argue that no law, national or international, provides for the killing of a criminal or a suspect. Instead, every effort must be made to arrest them and bring them to justice in a court of law.
Nonetheless, all these pleas have fallen on deaf ears in Washington, so far. The decision makers over there remain unimpressed by the factual reality that these drone assaults are in fact proving counterproductive and creating more recruits for terrorism and extremism. Even as this drone adventurism is palpably giving a tremendous fillip to anti-Americanism worldwide, the American warlords yet stay unswayed. They are keeping up with it. Indeed, since the advent of Barack Obama’s presidency, they have further intensified it, raising a moral question that they must answer.
On what ground can they justify the killing of an innocent civilian even as collateral damage? The 9/11 holocaust was horrible, precisely because those slaughtered were no combatants but innocent civilians. And so has to be the killing of civilians in the drone strikes. Indeed, with what peace of mind can President Obama sleep when even children get slaughtered in the drone assaults that he now personally approves? Appallingly enough, as part of his drone adventurism he has decreed that everyone within the vicinity of the targeted object be deemed a combatant, even if civilian, and liable to be decimated.
The extent of his adventurism’s viciousness can easily be visualised from the destructive range of the Hellfire missile fired by drones. It not only destroys the struck target. It annihilates the compounds and assets in close vicinity and kills the human beings in and around them. Doesn't Obama’s conscience gets pricked when the Hellfire missile takes in its killer sweep a child playing with toys in his home or a mother feeding her baby in her compound? What sin have they committed to meet such a tragic demise? Or do he and his war commanders think that the child, the mother and the baby should perish as they are not Americans and their lives are not even worth a dime?
Here there is certainly a moral question that is becoming increasingly compelling with each passing day and the American warlords can no longer evade answering it. So prompt they have always been in raising the issue of extrajudicial killings elsewhere in the world. And that promptness they have now to show in their own case. Of course, one could have no sympathy or compassion for those who kill and maim the fellow human beings in suicide bombings and terrorist blasts. But the murder of those having nothing to do with terrorism in the US drone attacks cannot be acceptable either and on no pretext could it be condoned or justified.
