8 New Messages
Digest #4440
Messages
Mon Jul 23, 2012 3:06 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://www.globalti
Global Times
July 23, 2012
West wrong on Chinese public's Syria view
====
With their massive soft power, Western organizations can easily besiege China and Russia through verbal assaults.
However, they don't really have the power to launch an actual retaliation against the two countries.
====
China and Russia are facing a new round of finger pointing since their double veto of a UN resolution threatening to impose new sanctions on Syria Thursday.
The US-led West loudly touts slogans of democracy and human rights during their grand strategic deployment in the Middle East. But the key target is still their geopolitical interests in this region.
In comparison, by sticking to its long-held stance on Syria, China is holding on not only to its own diplomatic principles, but also basic prerequisites for world peace and justice.
Western politicians are trying to isolate China and Russia by insisting that the two are making the wrong choice. However, the Chinese should stay cool-headed and see the essence of China's attitude.
The UN resolution, citing the seventh chapter of the UN Charter, laid a foundation for military intervention in Syria. This was what China vetoed.
China also opposes the UN Security Council openly picking sides in Syria's internal conflict. It insists that the Syrians should seek a political solution through their own negotiations.
This is a bottom line that must be upheld so as to prevent the West from overthrowing any regime at will.
With their massive soft power, Western organizations can easily besiege China and Russia through verbal assaults.
However, they don't really have the power to launch an actual retaliation against the two countries.
In the future, Western politics and public opinion may exert even more pressure on China.
We have no choice but to face up to all kinds of complexities in international politics.
But as long as our public unites and collectively supports our diplomatic policy, external forces will not dare to underestimate the policy's strength.
The West may think China's public opinion on issues including Syria, under the influence of universal values preached by the West, can sway China's diplomatic stance.
This is a misjudgment. The majority of Chinese oppose military intervention against a small country.
A few Western diplomats or correspondents are naïvely taking Weibo messages as a reflection of popular public opinion. But individual opinions, assisted by technology, can indeed wield a much bigger influence on a country's diplomacy.
Diplomacy involves a high degree of professionalism. It is difficult to make the foreign policies thoroughly understood by the public.
To win over trust from ordinary people, the media has to have a full understanding of the nation's interests. Of course, the credibility of the government is also crucial.
The West can always delude a few, but it cannot deceive the majority of the Chinese people. The insincerity of the West is exposed by the sheer pursuit of their own interests.
============
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@
============
Global Times
July 23, 2012
West wrong on Chinese public's Syria view
====
With their massive soft power, Western organizations can easily besiege China and Russia through verbal assaults.
However, they don't really have the power to launch an actual retaliation against the two countries.
====
China and Russia are facing a new round of finger pointing since their double veto of a UN resolution threatening to impose new sanctions on Syria Thursday.
The US-led West loudly touts slogans of democracy and human rights during their grand strategic deployment in the Middle East. But the key target is still their geopolitical interests in this region.
In comparison, by sticking to its long-held stance on Syria, China is holding on not only to its own diplomatic principles, but also basic prerequisites for world peace and justice.
Western politicians are trying to isolate China and Russia by insisting that the two are making the wrong choice. However, the Chinese should stay cool-headed and see the essence of China's attitude.
The UN resolution, citing the seventh chapter of the UN Charter, laid a foundation for military intervention in Syria. This was what China vetoed.
China also opposes the UN Security Council openly picking sides in Syria's internal conflict. It insists that the Syrians should seek a political solution through their own negotiations.
This is a bottom line that must be upheld so as to prevent the West from overthrowing any regime at will.
With their massive soft power, Western organizations can easily besiege China and Russia through verbal assaults.
However, they don't really have the power to launch an actual retaliation against the two countries.
In the future, Western politics and public opinion may exert even more pressure on China.
We have no choice but to face up to all kinds of complexities in international politics.
But as long as our public unites and collectively supports our diplomatic policy, external forces will not dare to underestimate the policy's strength.
The West may think China's public opinion on issues including Syria, under the influence of universal values preached by the West, can sway China's diplomatic stance.
This is a misjudgment. The majority of Chinese oppose military intervention against a small country.
A few Western diplomats or correspondents are naïvely taking Weibo messages as a reflection of popular public opinion. But individual opinions, assisted by technology, can indeed wield a much bigger influence on a country's diplomacy.
Diplomacy involves a high degree of professionalism. It is difficult to make the foreign policies thoroughly understood by the public.
To win over trust from ordinary people, the media has to have a full understanding of the nation's interests. Of course, the credibility of the government is also crucial.
The West can always delude a few, but it cannot deceive the majority of the Chinese people. The insincerity of the West is exposed by the sheer pursuit of their own interests.
============
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@
============
Mon Jul 23, 2012 3:06 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://www.africom.
U.S. Africa Command
July 23, 2012
Exercise Western Accord 2012 Comes to a Close
By Lance Corporal Jessica DeRose
U.S. Marine Forces Reserve
THIES, Senegal: A combined-forces closing ceremony officially marked the end of Exercise Western Accord 2012 on the airfield in Thies, Senegal, July 19, 2012.
...
Western Accord was sponsored by U.S. Africa Command and led by Marine Forces Africa. The multi-lateral training exercise included: live-fire and combat marksmanship training, peace keeping operations, disaster response, intelligence capacity building...
The exercise increased U.S. and African nation's interoperability and understanding of each other's capabilities and proficiency, enhancing the ability to operate together in limited crises response and overseas contingency operations.
...
Marines from the 3rd Battalion, 25th Marine Regiment made up the primary element of the task force along with reservists from all across the U.S. to include the 4th Medical Battalion, Vermont Army National Guard, and Marine Wing Support Squadron 473. Participating African nations included Senegal, Burkina Faso, Guinea, and The Gambia.
...
============
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@
============
U.S. Africa Command
July 23, 2012
Exercise Western Accord 2012 Comes to a Close
By Lance Corporal Jessica DeRose
U.S. Marine Forces Reserve
THIES, Senegal: A combined-forces closing ceremony officially marked the end of Exercise Western Accord 2012 on the airfield in Thies, Senegal, July 19, 2012.
...
Western Accord was sponsored by U.S. Africa Command and led by Marine Forces Africa. The multi-lateral training exercise included: live-fire and combat marksmanship training, peace keeping operations, disaster response, intelligence capacity building...
The exercise increased U.S. and African nation's interoperability and understanding of each other's capabilities and proficiency, enhancing the ability to operate together in limited crises response and overseas contingency operations.
...
Marines from the 3rd Battalion, 25th Marine Regiment made up the primary element of the task force along with reservists from all across the U.S. to include the 4th Medical Battalion, Vermont Army National Guard, and Marine Wing Support Squadron 473. Participating African nations included Senegal, Burkina Faso, Guinea, and The Gambia.
...
============
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@
============
Mon Jul 23, 2012 3:07 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"mart unknown"
Forward from mart
Please Distribute Widely
*Just the pointed tip of the Parazonium* - *U.S "supplying"' Raven
surveillance drones to Kenya*
* Note from mart - While these so-called "Raven" UAVs are small, nominally
unarmed drones, used for surveillance that will supposedly be operated by
the Kenyan military themselves, their deployment there is the just pointed
tip of the U.S. Parazonium imperial dagger, thrusting itself just a little
bit deeper and further into the heart of Africa. With the precedence being
set by the deployment of U.S "Raven" drones on Kenya, how much longer will
it be before missile-launching U.S. Predator killer drones, operated by the
U.S ground troops and CIA personal who are already on the ground in Kenya,
are being launched from and and permanently based on Kenyan soil? And when
this happens, as is already happening in Somalia and Yemen - it will
escape any real scrutiny or attention from the "*always fair and
balanced, while printing all the news that fits*", U.S. corporate"news"
media, on the grounds that "*it's not 'news' because the U.S has had drones
in Kenya for months already!*" - mart
------------
http://news.
*Reuters, via Yahoo News
http://news.
July 21, 2012
Pentagon eyes drones for Kenya to fight militants nearby
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - *The Pentagon is seeking to send hand-launched
drones to Kenya as part of a $40 million-plus military aid package designed
to help four African countries fight al Qaeda and al Shabaab militants,
notably in Somalia, the Wall Street Journal reported.
Kenya would get eight "Raven" unmanned aerial systems - an unarmed drone
that can be used to identify targets for strikes by ground forces or other
aircraft.
"This assistance will improve the tactical effectiveness and operational
reach of the Kenyan National Defense Forces engaged in CT
(counter-terrorism) operations against al Shabaab in Somalia," the
newspaper quoted a Pentagon document as saying.
The Ravens for Kenya would be part of an initial $41.4 million package that
also would include trucks, communications gear and rifles for Burundi,
Djibouti and Uganda, the newspaper said.
The United States provided Ravens to Uganda last year, it added, citing
officials and documents.
The Defense Department and the State Department had no immediate comment.
U.S. government-to-
Department, subject to an often- lengthy congressional review process.
The newspaper cited officials as saying the military aid package would be
meant to help key African allies in the region go after al Sabaab and other
al Qaeda supporters.
The Raven is built by Monrovia, California-headquar
Weighing 4.2 pounds (1.9 kilograms) and with a wingspan of 4.5 feet (1.37
meters), it is described as capable of sending real-time color or infrared
imagery to ground controllers and to remote viewers day or night.
------------
http://somalilandpr
*Somaliland Press.
http://somalilandpr
July 21, 2012
US plans to give Kenya drones in Shabaab war
NAIROBI — The United States* plans to provide eight small drones to Kenya
as part of a new package to help combat Somalia militia Al-Shabaab.
According to a report in The Wall Street Journal, the “eight hand-launched
Raven drones” will form part of key military assistance from the Pentagon.
The WSJ said a review of Pentagon documents shows that Kenya will get the
Raven drones with sensors used to pinpoint targets.
Ravens are unarmed but can be used to identify targets for strikes using
ground forces, the WSJ says.
“This assistance will help build the capacity of Kenyan national military
forces to conduct CT (counterterrorism) operations by providing tactical
unmanned aircraft systems and training,” the WSJ reported quoting a
Pentagon document.
“This assistance will improve the tactical effectiveness and operational
reach of the Kenyan National Defence Forces engaged in CT operations
against Al-Shabaab in Somalia.”
The Ravens for Kenya are part of an initial $41.4 million package of
military aid that also includes trucks, communications gear and rifles for
Burundi, Djibouti and Uganda, WSJ said.
============
Please Distribute Widely
*Just the pointed tip of the Parazonium* - *U.S "supplying"' Raven
surveillance drones to Kenya*
* Note from mart - While these so-called "Raven" UAVs are small, nominally
unarmed drones, used for surveillance that will supposedly be operated by
the Kenyan military themselves, their deployment there is the just pointed
tip of the U.S. Parazonium imperial dagger, thrusting itself just a little
bit deeper and further into the heart of Africa. With the precedence being
set by the deployment of U.S "Raven" drones on Kenya, how much longer will
it be before missile-launching U.S. Predator killer drones, operated by the
U.S ground troops and CIA personal who are already on the ground in Kenya,
are being launched from and and permanently based on Kenyan soil? And when
this happens, as is already happening in Somalia and Yemen - it will
escape any real scrutiny or attention from the "*always fair and
balanced, while printing all the news that fits*", U.S. corporate"news"
media, on the grounds that "*it's not 'news' because the U.S has had drones
in Kenya for months already!*" - mart
------------
http://news.
*Reuters, via Yahoo News
http://news.
July 21, 2012
Pentagon eyes drones for Kenya to fight militants nearby
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - *The Pentagon is seeking to send hand-launched
drones to Kenya as part of a $40 million-plus military aid package designed
to help four African countries fight al Qaeda and al Shabaab militants,
notably in Somalia, the Wall Street Journal reported.
Kenya would get eight "Raven" unmanned aerial systems - an unarmed drone
that can be used to identify targets for strikes by ground forces or other
aircraft.
"This assistance will improve the tactical effectiveness and operational
reach of the Kenyan National Defense Forces engaged in CT
(counter-terrorism) operations against al Shabaab in Somalia," the
newspaper quoted a Pentagon document as saying.
The Ravens for Kenya would be part of an initial $41.4 million package that
also would include trucks, communications gear and rifles for Burundi,
Djibouti and Uganda, the newspaper said.
The United States provided Ravens to Uganda last year, it added, citing
officials and documents.
The Defense Department and the State Department had no immediate comment.
U.S. government-to-
Department, subject to an often- lengthy congressional review process.
The newspaper cited officials as saying the military aid package would be
meant to help key African allies in the region go after al Sabaab and other
al Qaeda supporters.
The Raven is built by Monrovia, California-headquar
Weighing 4.2 pounds (1.9 kilograms) and with a wingspan of 4.5 feet (1.37
meters), it is described as capable of sending real-time color or infrared
imagery to ground controllers and to remote viewers day or night.
------------
http://somalilandpr
*Somaliland Press.
http://somalilandpr
July 21, 2012
US plans to give Kenya drones in Shabaab war
NAIROBI — The United States* plans to provide eight small drones to Kenya
as part of a new package to help combat Somalia militia Al-Shabaab.
According to a report in The Wall Street Journal, the “eight hand-launched
Raven drones” will form part of key military assistance from the Pentagon.
The WSJ said a review of Pentagon documents shows that Kenya will get the
Raven drones with sensors used to pinpoint targets.
Ravens are unarmed but can be used to identify targets for strikes using
ground forces, the WSJ says.
“This assistance will help build the capacity of Kenyan national military
forces to conduct CT (counterterrorism) operations by providing tactical
unmanned aircraft systems and training,” the WSJ reported quoting a
Pentagon document.
“This assistance will improve the tactical effectiveness and operational
reach of the Kenyan National Defence Forces engaged in CT operations
against Al-Shabaab in Somalia.”
The Ravens for Kenya are part of an initial $41.4 million package of
military aid that also includes trucks, communications gear and rifles for
Burundi, Djibouti and Uganda, WSJ said.
============
Mon Jul 23, 2012 6:58 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://www.southern
Southern Times (Namibia)
July 12, 2012
A court for the savages
====
What we have then, in the ICC, is a minority court set up for the express purpose of not touching the leaders of the UK and the US, and imposing the will of these same untouchables on the rest of the world.
====
Does anyone recall this statement: “If I may say so, this is not a court set up to bring to book Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom or Presidents of the United States�
Those words are from none other than the late Former UK Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, Robin Cook, live on television.
He had been asked in an interview if the UK did not fear prosecution by the International Criminal Court (ICC) for its actions during and after the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.
How much more bluntly can it be put? With such a plain explanation from such a powerful man, no one should bother about why the US and its European buddies are not prosecuted for their massive crimes against humanity in the decade that the ICC has been in existence.
But let us side-track a little.
Do we ever pause to consider the fact that the total membership of the ICC consists of just one-third of the world’s population?
We are often told that two-thirds of the members of the United Nations have ratified the Rome Statute that set up the ICC.
But this two-thirds of the UN membership, if we look at the populations of their countries, constitutes just 33 percent of the world’s population.
In essence, the ICC is made up of a group of small countries.
One analysis – as reported elsewhere in this paper – represents a minority of the world’s population despite the claim to being an “international†institution.
Says one analyst, “When you start down the list of the world’s largest countries, the first four, and six of the top 10, are not members of the Court.
“In addition, very significant regions of the world — Asia, the Middle East and North Africa — are woefully underrepresented in the Court’s membership.
“How do you create a significant international institution without the involvement of strategic powers such as China, India, Russia, Israel, Egypt, Pakistan, and the United States (a list that includes three of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council)?â€
What we have then, in the ICC, is a minority court set up for the express purpose of not touching the leaders of the UK and the US, and imposing the will of these same untouchables on the rest of the world.
And while Robin Cook’s – and by extension the UK governing establishment’s ‑ attitude to the ICC is frankly disconcerting, more alarming is that of the United States.
Throughout the 1990s, the US Congress passed several resolutions supporting the creation of an international criminal court but one which provides safeguards to protect Americans from prosecution.
In between Monica Lewinsky and other shenanigans, Bill Clinton was involved in the negotiations leading to 1998 Rome Statute, which in turn led to the ICC’s creation on July 1, 2002.
But Clinton’s participation ‑ true to form – was to try and ensure an outcome that would not result in Americans being tried in an international court.
Clinton said, “I will not and do not recommend that my successor submit the treaty to the Senate ... until our fundamental concerns are satisfied.â€
His successor was to be George W Bush. And Bush’s reaction to the ICC was typical of the gung-ho cowboy with a nuclear arsenal who invaded Iraq because of non-existent weapons of mass destruction.
He not only declined to put the Rome Statue before the US Senate, he went a step further and – together with that dyed-in-the-
This law is also referred to as the Hague Invasion Act, and with good cause.
The Hague Invasion Act is an amendment to the National Defence Authorisation Act and its stated purpose is “to protect United States military personnel and other elected and appointed officials of the United States government against criminal prosecution by an international criminal court to which the United States is not partyâ€.
The law gives the US President authority to use “all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any US or allied personnel being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Courtâ€.
This means the US can and will bomb The Hague in Holland – where the ICC is housed – if any American is brought before that court.
So there you have it: a minority court that survives at the mercy of the US and the UK is supposed to be responsible for maintaining global law and order.
Stephen Asiimwe, writing for the New Vision newspaper of Uganda ahead of the court’s 10th anniversary on July 1, 2012 said: “ICC will continue to pick the weak people, take them to The Hague and hang them.â€
And Africa, as divided and lily-livered as we are, will not do anything about it, In fact, a la Joyce Banda, we will tell fellow Africans that they are not welcome in our countries if they are indicted by this minority court.
Not surprising at all.
Geoffrey Robertson, a prominent UK lawyer and a Queen’s Counsel, said at the time of the ICC’s inception, [Cuts off in the original - RR]
============
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@
============
Southern Times (Namibia)
July 12, 2012
A court for the savages
====
What we have then, in the ICC, is a minority court set up for the express purpose of not touching the leaders of the UK and the US, and imposing the will of these same untouchables on the rest of the world.
====
Does anyone recall this statement: “If I may say so, this is not a court set up to bring to book Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom or Presidents of the United States�
Those words are from none other than the late Former UK Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, Robin Cook, live on television.
He had been asked in an interview if the UK did not fear prosecution by the International Criminal Court (ICC) for its actions during and after the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.
How much more bluntly can it be put? With such a plain explanation from such a powerful man, no one should bother about why the US and its European buddies are not prosecuted for their massive crimes against humanity in the decade that the ICC has been in existence.
But let us side-track a little.
Do we ever pause to consider the fact that the total membership of the ICC consists of just one-third of the world’s population?
We are often told that two-thirds of the members of the United Nations have ratified the Rome Statute that set up the ICC.
But this two-thirds of the UN membership, if we look at the populations of their countries, constitutes just 33 percent of the world’s population.
In essence, the ICC is made up of a group of small countries.
One analysis – as reported elsewhere in this paper – represents a minority of the world’s population despite the claim to being an “international†institution.
Says one analyst, “When you start down the list of the world’s largest countries, the first four, and six of the top 10, are not members of the Court.
“In addition, very significant regions of the world — Asia, the Middle East and North Africa — are woefully underrepresented in the Court’s membership.
“How do you create a significant international institution without the involvement of strategic powers such as China, India, Russia, Israel, Egypt, Pakistan, and the United States (a list that includes three of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council)?â€
What we have then, in the ICC, is a minority court set up for the express purpose of not touching the leaders of the UK and the US, and imposing the will of these same untouchables on the rest of the world.
And while Robin Cook’s – and by extension the UK governing establishment’s ‑ attitude to the ICC is frankly disconcerting, more alarming is that of the United States.
Throughout the 1990s, the US Congress passed several resolutions supporting the creation of an international criminal court but one which provides safeguards to protect Americans from prosecution.
In between Monica Lewinsky and other shenanigans, Bill Clinton was involved in the negotiations leading to 1998 Rome Statute, which in turn led to the ICC’s creation on July 1, 2002.
But Clinton’s participation ‑ true to form – was to try and ensure an outcome that would not result in Americans being tried in an international court.
Clinton said, “I will not and do not recommend that my successor submit the treaty to the Senate ... until our fundamental concerns are satisfied.â€
His successor was to be George W Bush. And Bush’s reaction to the ICC was typical of the gung-ho cowboy with a nuclear arsenal who invaded Iraq because of non-existent weapons of mass destruction.
He not only declined to put the Rome Statue before the US Senate, he went a step further and – together with that dyed-in-the-
This law is also referred to as the Hague Invasion Act, and with good cause.
The Hague Invasion Act is an amendment to the National Defence Authorisation Act and its stated purpose is “to protect United States military personnel and other elected and appointed officials of the United States government against criminal prosecution by an international criminal court to which the United States is not partyâ€.
The law gives the US President authority to use “all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any US or allied personnel being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Courtâ€.
This means the US can and will bomb The Hague in Holland – where the ICC is housed – if any American is brought before that court.
So there you have it: a minority court that survives at the mercy of the US and the UK is supposed to be responsible for maintaining global law and order.
Stephen Asiimwe, writing for the New Vision newspaper of Uganda ahead of the court’s 10th anniversary on July 1, 2012 said: “ICC will continue to pick the weak people, take them to The Hague and hang them.â€
And Africa, as divided and lily-livered as we are, will not do anything about it, In fact, a la Joyce Banda, we will tell fellow Africans that they are not welcome in our countries if they are indicted by this minority court.
Not surprising at all.
Geoffrey Robertson, a prominent UK lawyer and a Queen’s Counsel, said at the time of the ICC’s inception, [Cuts off in the original - RR]
============
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@
============
Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:14 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://www.thenews.
The News
July 23, 2012
Regional powers
Colonel (r) Nazir Ahmed
Islamabad
Imran Khan frequently asserts the need to get out of the US war on terror. Such a measure would need serious preparations which I am sure his associates would be working on. Trapped in a complex situation, Pakistan cannot get out of this fatal embrace without the support of regional powers, particularly its immediate neighbours. While India needs to be assured that the PTI, if voted to power, will work to strengthen trade relations with India and negotiate settlement of the outstanding disputes foreclosing chances of renewed armed conflict. There is a need to improve relations with Iran. Relations with Afghanistan need to be kept most formal to avoid giving any impression of being intrusive or patronising.
Amongst the regional powers, Russia is in a position to help us throw away the American blanket. As the interests of both countries coincide, we should join Russian efforts to promote regional peace conducive to promotion of trade and commerce between Russia, Central Asia and the Indian sub-continent.
The Chinese will support our efforts as US intervention in the region retarded their effort to get access to the Arabian Sea through Pakistan.
The conditions are most favourable to correct the course. The PTI must work to make good use of the opportunity which will not only save Pakistan from further damage but will be in the interest of the whole region.
============
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@
============
The News
July 23, 2012
Regional powers
Colonel (r) Nazir Ahmed
Islamabad
Imran Khan frequently asserts the need to get out of the US war on terror. Such a measure would need serious preparations which I am sure his associates would be working on. Trapped in a complex situation, Pakistan cannot get out of this fatal embrace without the support of regional powers, particularly its immediate neighbours. While India needs to be assured that the PTI, if voted to power, will work to strengthen trade relations with India and negotiate settlement of the outstanding disputes foreclosing chances of renewed armed conflict. There is a need to improve relations with Iran. Relations with Afghanistan need to be kept most formal to avoid giving any impression of being intrusive or patronising.
Amongst the regional powers, Russia is in a position to help us throw away the American blanket. As the interests of both countries coincide, we should join Russian efforts to promote regional peace conducive to promotion of trade and commerce between Russia, Central Asia and the Indian sub-continent.
The Chinese will support our efforts as US intervention in the region retarded their effort to get access to the Arabian Sea through Pakistan.
The conditions are most favourable to correct the course. The PTI must work to make good use of the opportunity which will not only save Pakistan from further damage but will be in the interest of the whole region.
============
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@
============
Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:25 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://www.opednews
OpEdNews
July 23, 2012
Imperialism and "dictators'
By Tim Anderson
The 'new dictatorships' targeted by the empire are the independent, or semi-independent, post-colonial states, which have simply managed to achieve and maintain some political will outside imperial grand strategy
====
The imperial powers have never tried to reshape the post-colonial peoples "in their own image'. That would be to create competitors. Great power prefers weak, divided, ethnically fractious groups with little independent will. In that way their resources, markets and populations are more easily dominated.
Without discounting the many problems of post-colonial states, we can safely assume that imperialism is far happier with a divided Balkans, a fractious Iraq, coup-ridden Latin American states, tribally-torn Libya and a fragmented Syria. If Washington could "balkanise' or at least isolate Russia and China it would be happier still.
The vilification of the Syrian government has cowardly packs, world-wide, baying for blood. These advocates of "humanitarian intervention' seemed only partly satisfied, last year, with the pitiful sight of the Libyan leader publicly tortured and murdered.
====
In its drive for a "New Middle East' the great power is moving against every single independent state in the oil-rich region. One by one they are being set up for destruction.
Strategic control is pursued through two linked Pentagon doctrines: "broad spectrum dominance', a military, economic and ideological subjugation; and the globalist "destroying disconnectedness'
In its ideological war imperialism tries to legitimise itself with human rights claims: the protection of civilian populations and women; its targets are "dictatorships'
But given that the imperial power is the grand dictator - unaccountable, brutal and overwhelming - who or what are these other "dictatorships'
Anyone with a little history would recall that the empire itself, not that long ago, actually set up or backed a large number of subordinate military dictatorships: for example in South Korea, pre-revolutionary Cuba, Iran, Indonesia, Chile, Argentina, Brazil, Haiti, Uruguay, El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua and Egypt. They can't be referring to these.
So who or what are these new "dictatorships'
They are the independent, or semi-independent, post-colonial states, almost always with civil and elected governments, which have simply managed to achieve and maintain some political will outside imperial grand strategy.
In the imperial cultures, even amongst critical thinkers, it is not well understood that post-colonial peoples need strong and independent states, along with widespread popular participation to defend them. These states are indispensable for building achievements in participation, education, health and social security, and in defending those achievements.
The imperial powers have never tried to reshape the post-colonial peoples "in their own image'. That would be to create competitors. Great power prefers weak, divided, ethnically fractious groups with little independent will. In that way their resources, markets and populations are more easily dominated.
Without discounting the many problems of post-colonial states, we can safely assume that imperialism is far happier with a divided Balkans, a fractious Iraq, coup-ridden Latin American states, tribally-torn Libya and a fragmented Syria. If Washington could "balkanise' or at least isolate Russia and China it would be happier still.
With divided countries the great power has its way; but the dreams of wider cooperation, pan-Arabism, pan-Africanism and a united Latin America are crushed. Further, nothing substantial in social capacity can be built in the absence of strong political will and in the presence of great power intervention.
In the imperial cultures, liberals, syndicalists and anarchists poorly recognise this need for strong post-colonial states. They tend to see all states through the lens of their own: tightly locked into the imperial network of corporate subsidy, privatisation and war; states "captured' by the ambitions of giant corporations.
However, post-colonial states can be rather different. It required significant independent political will, for example, back in the 1950s, for the Arbenz government of Guatemala to undertake agrarian reform and for the Mossadegh government of Iran to nationalise oil. Similarly, the Allende government in Chile (1970-73) required substantial independent strength and popular support to carry out its agrarian reform and nationalisations. Yet neither these governments nor their states were sufficiently strong to survive imperial reaction and intervention.
More recently, the governments of Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia have embarked on significant social democratic reforms which break with the imperial model. They have all been branded "dictatorships'
The reasons for the "dictatorship' tag have included confronting oil monopolies, rejecting US military bases, interfering with the prerogatives of media monopolies, rejecting IMF programs, rejecting "war on drugs' programs, and so on. In recent years Washington has (unsuccessfully) tried coups in each of Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia.
Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, despite winning election after election, is branded a "dictator' by most of the corporate media. Ecuador's Rafael Correa is branded a "dictator' for introducing some modest measures of democratic accountability on the very undemocratic corporate media.
Cuba, with the most far-reaching programs of social inclusion, has been branded a "dictatorship' for decades, because it has a socialist constitution and its representative democracy does not allow for capitalist restoration. The pejorative labels attached to Cuba have sought to legitimise an attempted invasion, terrorist bombings, attempted assassinations and half a century of economic blockade.
In Syria a secular government which has made substantial advances for its people and enjoys wide popular support is now targeted as a "dictatorship'
The vilification of the Syrian government has cowardly packs, world-wide, baying for blood. These advocates of "humanitarian intervention' seemed only partly satisfied, last year, with the pitiful sight of the Libyan leader publicly tortured and murdered.
Such is the vilification campaign against Syria's legitimate President, Bashar Al Assad, that the loudest accusations of "brutal dictator' seem to come from those with the least understanding of contemporary Syria. Bashar Al Assad is a very long way from the empire's favourites, like Suharto, Batista, Somoza, Duvalier, Pinochet and Mubarak.
In any case, and in this climate, many forget the founding principle of both human rights and international law: the right of a people to self-determination. It is not for outsiders to say who governs another people.
Not for nothing did Ernesto Che Guevara call imperialism an "insatiable beast', one that could not be trusted "one iota'. Not for nothing does the 118 member non-aligned movement continually stress sovereignty and non-intervention - the foundations of international law, but seen as obstacles to "human rights intervention' in the imperial cultures.
Yet the former colonies know the risks and costs of a return to colonialism.
Present day "dictators' and "dictatorships' have become the registered trademarks of a grand dictatorship which does not share power. When the word "dictator' is used, we should understand who is pointing the gun at whom.
Tim Anderson is an academic and social activist based in Sydney, Australia
============
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@
============
OpEdNews
July 23, 2012
Imperialism and "dictators'
By Tim Anderson
The 'new dictatorships' targeted by the empire are the independent, or semi-independent, post-colonial states, which have simply managed to achieve and maintain some political will outside imperial grand strategy
====
The imperial powers have never tried to reshape the post-colonial peoples "in their own image'. That would be to create competitors. Great power prefers weak, divided, ethnically fractious groups with little independent will. In that way their resources, markets and populations are more easily dominated.
Without discounting the many problems of post-colonial states, we can safely assume that imperialism is far happier with a divided Balkans, a fractious Iraq, coup-ridden Latin American states, tribally-torn Libya and a fragmented Syria. If Washington could "balkanise' or at least isolate Russia and China it would be happier still.
The vilification of the Syrian government has cowardly packs, world-wide, baying for blood. These advocates of "humanitarian intervention' seemed only partly satisfied, last year, with the pitiful sight of the Libyan leader publicly tortured and murdered.
====
In its drive for a "New Middle East' the great power is moving against every single independent state in the oil-rich region. One by one they are being set up for destruction.
Strategic control is pursued through two linked Pentagon doctrines: "broad spectrum dominance', a military, economic and ideological subjugation; and the globalist "destroying disconnectedness'
In its ideological war imperialism tries to legitimise itself with human rights claims: the protection of civilian populations and women; its targets are "dictatorships'
But given that the imperial power is the grand dictator - unaccountable, brutal and overwhelming - who or what are these other "dictatorships'
Anyone with a little history would recall that the empire itself, not that long ago, actually set up or backed a large number of subordinate military dictatorships: for example in South Korea, pre-revolutionary Cuba, Iran, Indonesia, Chile, Argentina, Brazil, Haiti, Uruguay, El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua and Egypt. They can't be referring to these.
So who or what are these new "dictatorships'
They are the independent, or semi-independent, post-colonial states, almost always with civil and elected governments, which have simply managed to achieve and maintain some political will outside imperial grand strategy.
In the imperial cultures, even amongst critical thinkers, it is not well understood that post-colonial peoples need strong and independent states, along with widespread popular participation to defend them. These states are indispensable for building achievements in participation, education, health and social security, and in defending those achievements.
The imperial powers have never tried to reshape the post-colonial peoples "in their own image'. That would be to create competitors. Great power prefers weak, divided, ethnically fractious groups with little independent will. In that way their resources, markets and populations are more easily dominated.
Without discounting the many problems of post-colonial states, we can safely assume that imperialism is far happier with a divided Balkans, a fractious Iraq, coup-ridden Latin American states, tribally-torn Libya and a fragmented Syria. If Washington could "balkanise' or at least isolate Russia and China it would be happier still.
With divided countries the great power has its way; but the dreams of wider cooperation, pan-Arabism, pan-Africanism and a united Latin America are crushed. Further, nothing substantial in social capacity can be built in the absence of strong political will and in the presence of great power intervention.
In the imperial cultures, liberals, syndicalists and anarchists poorly recognise this need for strong post-colonial states. They tend to see all states through the lens of their own: tightly locked into the imperial network of corporate subsidy, privatisation and war; states "captured' by the ambitions of giant corporations.
However, post-colonial states can be rather different. It required significant independent political will, for example, back in the 1950s, for the Arbenz government of Guatemala to undertake agrarian reform and for the Mossadegh government of Iran to nationalise oil. Similarly, the Allende government in Chile (1970-73) required substantial independent strength and popular support to carry out its agrarian reform and nationalisations. Yet neither these governments nor their states were sufficiently strong to survive imperial reaction and intervention.
More recently, the governments of Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia have embarked on significant social democratic reforms which break with the imperial model. They have all been branded "dictatorships'
The reasons for the "dictatorship' tag have included confronting oil monopolies, rejecting US military bases, interfering with the prerogatives of media monopolies, rejecting IMF programs, rejecting "war on drugs' programs, and so on. In recent years Washington has (unsuccessfully) tried coups in each of Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia.
Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, despite winning election after election, is branded a "dictator' by most of the corporate media. Ecuador's Rafael Correa is branded a "dictator' for introducing some modest measures of democratic accountability on the very undemocratic corporate media.
Cuba, with the most far-reaching programs of social inclusion, has been branded a "dictatorship' for decades, because it has a socialist constitution and its representative democracy does not allow for capitalist restoration. The pejorative labels attached to Cuba have sought to legitimise an attempted invasion, terrorist bombings, attempted assassinations and half a century of economic blockade.
In Syria a secular government which has made substantial advances for its people and enjoys wide popular support is now targeted as a "dictatorship'
The vilification of the Syrian government has cowardly packs, world-wide, baying for blood. These advocates of "humanitarian intervention' seemed only partly satisfied, last year, with the pitiful sight of the Libyan leader publicly tortured and murdered.
Such is the vilification campaign against Syria's legitimate President, Bashar Al Assad, that the loudest accusations of "brutal dictator' seem to come from those with the least understanding of contemporary Syria. Bashar Al Assad is a very long way from the empire's favourites, like Suharto, Batista, Somoza, Duvalier, Pinochet and Mubarak.
In any case, and in this climate, many forget the founding principle of both human rights and international law: the right of a people to self-determination. It is not for outsiders to say who governs another people.
Not for nothing did Ernesto Che Guevara call imperialism an "insatiable beast', one that could not be trusted "one iota'. Not for nothing does the 118 member non-aligned movement continually stress sovereignty and non-intervention - the foundations of international law, but seen as obstacles to "human rights intervention' in the imperial cultures.
Yet the former colonies know the risks and costs of a return to colonialism.
Present day "dictators' and "dictatorships' have become the registered trademarks of a grand dictatorship which does not share power. When the word "dictator' is used, we should understand who is pointing the gun at whom.
Tim Anderson is an academic and social activist based in Sydney, Australia
============
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@
============
Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:37 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://dawn.
Dawn
July 13, 2012
Imperialism, old and new
Aasim Sajjad Akhtar
====
It is in the production of arms that the US still enjoys productive superiority over other countries, and the munitions and related industries exercise tremendous influence, in conjunction with the corporate media, over Washington’s political posture towards the rest of the world.
In the post-Cold War period, humanitarian interventions have become the imperialist wars of choice.
Beyond the relatively high-profile examples of Iraq and Afghanistan, the self-anointed liberal democratic beacons of hope for the world, with Washington in the lead, have bombed and/or intervened in the former Yugoslavia, Somalia, Venezuela, Chechnya, Georgia and East Timor, just to name a few.
More recently there is Libya and, less directly, Syria. There will surely be more in the future.
====
For the best part of the past decade an overly simplistic polemic has abounded with regard to Pakistan’s relationship with the US. Reactionaries depict themselves as the only committed patriots in the country and America as evil incarnate.
Liberals insist that it is the reactionaries that must be resisted at all costs and laud America’s commitment to doing so. The reopening of the Nato supply route has simply confirmed the hopelessly facile nature of this ‘debate’.
I take the subject of this column from a treatise written in 1965 by Hamza Alavi, one of the finest intellectuals that Pakistan has produced. Alavi was amongst the stand-out Marxist thinkers of the late 20th century who is unfortunately still not recognised as such in the country that he called home.
Like his contemporary Eqbal Ahmad, Alavi gained laurels for his intellectual and political pursuits the world over, and remained a committed anti-imperialist until his death in 2002.
The word ‘imperialism’ has, of course, gone somewhat out of fashion since the end of the Cold War, with the exception of those on the left of the political spectrum and certain right-wing academicians in the US that harbour no pretence about the role that Washington plays in global affairs.
In Pakistan the word has become almost exclusively associated with the religious right, especially since 9/11 and subsequent developments.
What is particularly unfortunate about this particular confluence of events (and interests) is the fact that progressives in this country have quite willingly ceded this ground to the right-wing, not only politically but also intellectually. There is now no consensus position of progressives vis-à-vis the US and its purported jihadi nemesis. We might not have reached this point if the cutting-edge ideas of thinkers like Alavi were not so alien to us.
Critically analysing what was more than half a century ago an already substantial body of Marxist literature on modern imperialism, Alavi confirmed the dialectical relationship between modern imperialism and the indefatigable, expansionary impulse of capitalism.
Yet he moved beyond the classic Marxist exposition of ‘imperialism as the highest stage of capitalism’ and emphasised the need to understand the linkages (and tensions) between economic and political domination (a theme that has been taken forward by subsequent radical thinkers into the realms of culture and ideology).
It is easy to forget in today’s Pakistan — especially for those who covet their liberal lifestyles and unbridled consumption of leisure goods — that the US and its allies have objectives beyond those that they otherwise claim. They say they are committed to the elimination of ‘terrorism’, promotion of democratic forms of government and infusion of liberal values into civil society.
But is that all there is to it?
Over the past four decades or so the US has, for all intents and purposes, ceded its global economic advantage to East Asia and China in particular. It has maintained its global power largely on account of its mighty military machine, and the fact that the US dollar is the default global currency.
It is in the production of arms that the US still enjoys productive superiority over other countries, and the munitions and related industries exercise tremendous influence, in conjunction with the corporate media, over Washington’s political posture towards the rest of the world.
In the post-Cold War period, humanitarian interventions have become the imperialist wars of choice.
Beyond the relatively high-profile examples of Iraq and Afghanistan, the self-anointed liberal democratic beacons of hope for the world, with Washington in the lead, have bombed and/or intervened in the former Yugoslavia, Somalia, Venezuela, Chechnya, Georgia and East Timor, just to name a few.
More recently there is Libya and, less directly, Syria. There will surely be more in the future.
It could be that erstwhile anti-imperialists really do believe that illiberal regimes and non-state actors must be dealt with through such interventions. But what of the economic and military logics that sustain such interventions? Are progressives now willing to support the capitalist ‘part’ of the modern imperialist project that in a bygone era was considered indefensible?
If so, they are effectively saying that anti-imperialism — like other planks of a leftist political programme — is now nothing less than an anachronism (or the preserve of the religious right).
In fact, it is intellectually dishonest to deny that imperial projects continue to shape our world in multi-dimensional ways. Notwithstanding what we would like to believe, these projects, as has been the case throughout history, will never benefit humanity at large because imperialisms, old and new, at best seek a kind of progress which inevitably leaves the mass of humanity to pick up the pieces (along with the ecosystem that sustains us).
Even if we can agree on nothing else we have to recognise that imperialism in the 21st century is another name for the power to declare exceptions.
Prominent thinkers in the western academy as diverse as Giorgio Agamben and Partha Chatterjee have made this point of view quite popular in recent times. Their basic contention is that imperial forces arrogate to themselves at one and the same time the right to declare what is the norm and also to engage in exceptional acts with impunity.
In our specific context, the US, China and Saudi Arabia (others could also be listed) pursue various imperialist objectives with relative freedom. The sad truth is that very few amongst the progressive intelligentsia concern themselves with the nature and consequences of these imperial projects (and their consequences)
Indeed, I want to reiterate that the absence of a coherent and principled political position amongst those who consider themselves as progressives in today’s Pakistan is explained in large part by a superficial understanding of imperialism and the imperatives motivating the various imperialist forces that have set out their stall in the present conjuncture.
And where straightforward analyses would suffice, we are not willing to undertake them because they do not correspond to our biases. Take, for example, the cosy relationship between American and Saudi imperialisms. We take refuge in Washington’s grandiose proclamations of the cause of freedom and progress, while insisting that Riyadh is the bane of our existence. And never the twain shall meet?
The writer teaches at Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad.
============
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@
============
Dawn
July 13, 2012
Imperialism, old and new
Aasim Sajjad Akhtar
====
It is in the production of arms that the US still enjoys productive superiority over other countries, and the munitions and related industries exercise tremendous influence, in conjunction with the corporate media, over Washington’s political posture towards the rest of the world.
In the post-Cold War period, humanitarian interventions have become the imperialist wars of choice.
Beyond the relatively high-profile examples of Iraq and Afghanistan, the self-anointed liberal democratic beacons of hope for the world, with Washington in the lead, have bombed and/or intervened in the former Yugoslavia, Somalia, Venezuela, Chechnya, Georgia and East Timor, just to name a few.
More recently there is Libya and, less directly, Syria. There will surely be more in the future.
====
For the best part of the past decade an overly simplistic polemic has abounded with regard to Pakistan’s relationship with the US. Reactionaries depict themselves as the only committed patriots in the country and America as evil incarnate.
Liberals insist that it is the reactionaries that must be resisted at all costs and laud America’s commitment to doing so. The reopening of the Nato supply route has simply confirmed the hopelessly facile nature of this ‘debate’.
I take the subject of this column from a treatise written in 1965 by Hamza Alavi, one of the finest intellectuals that Pakistan has produced. Alavi was amongst the stand-out Marxist thinkers of the late 20th century who is unfortunately still not recognised as such in the country that he called home.
Like his contemporary Eqbal Ahmad, Alavi gained laurels for his intellectual and political pursuits the world over, and remained a committed anti-imperialist until his death in 2002.
The word ‘imperialism’ has, of course, gone somewhat out of fashion since the end of the Cold War, with the exception of those on the left of the political spectrum and certain right-wing academicians in the US that harbour no pretence about the role that Washington plays in global affairs.
In Pakistan the word has become almost exclusively associated with the religious right, especially since 9/11 and subsequent developments.
What is particularly unfortunate about this particular confluence of events (and interests) is the fact that progressives in this country have quite willingly ceded this ground to the right-wing, not only politically but also intellectually. There is now no consensus position of progressives vis-à-vis the US and its purported jihadi nemesis. We might not have reached this point if the cutting-edge ideas of thinkers like Alavi were not so alien to us.
Critically analysing what was more than half a century ago an already substantial body of Marxist literature on modern imperialism, Alavi confirmed the dialectical relationship between modern imperialism and the indefatigable, expansionary impulse of capitalism.
Yet he moved beyond the classic Marxist exposition of ‘imperialism as the highest stage of capitalism’ and emphasised the need to understand the linkages (and tensions) between economic and political domination (a theme that has been taken forward by subsequent radical thinkers into the realms of culture and ideology).
It is easy to forget in today’s Pakistan — especially for those who covet their liberal lifestyles and unbridled consumption of leisure goods — that the US and its allies have objectives beyond those that they otherwise claim. They say they are committed to the elimination of ‘terrorism’, promotion of democratic forms of government and infusion of liberal values into civil society.
But is that all there is to it?
Over the past four decades or so the US has, for all intents and purposes, ceded its global economic advantage to East Asia and China in particular. It has maintained its global power largely on account of its mighty military machine, and the fact that the US dollar is the default global currency.
It is in the production of arms that the US still enjoys productive superiority over other countries, and the munitions and related industries exercise tremendous influence, in conjunction with the corporate media, over Washington’s political posture towards the rest of the world.
In the post-Cold War period, humanitarian interventions have become the imperialist wars of choice.
Beyond the relatively high-profile examples of Iraq and Afghanistan, the self-anointed liberal democratic beacons of hope for the world, with Washington in the lead, have bombed and/or intervened in the former Yugoslavia, Somalia, Venezuela, Chechnya, Georgia and East Timor, just to name a few.
More recently there is Libya and, less directly, Syria. There will surely be more in the future.
It could be that erstwhile anti-imperialists really do believe that illiberal regimes and non-state actors must be dealt with through such interventions. But what of the economic and military logics that sustain such interventions? Are progressives now willing to support the capitalist ‘part’ of the modern imperialist project that in a bygone era was considered indefensible?
If so, they are effectively saying that anti-imperialism — like other planks of a leftist political programme — is now nothing less than an anachronism (or the preserve of the religious right).
In fact, it is intellectually dishonest to deny that imperial projects continue to shape our world in multi-dimensional ways. Notwithstanding what we would like to believe, these projects, as has been the case throughout history, will never benefit humanity at large because imperialisms, old and new, at best seek a kind of progress which inevitably leaves the mass of humanity to pick up the pieces (along with the ecosystem that sustains us).
Even if we can agree on nothing else we have to recognise that imperialism in the 21st century is another name for the power to declare exceptions.
Prominent thinkers in the western academy as diverse as Giorgio Agamben and Partha Chatterjee have made this point of view quite popular in recent times. Their basic contention is that imperial forces arrogate to themselves at one and the same time the right to declare what is the norm and also to engage in exceptional acts with impunity.
In our specific context, the US, China and Saudi Arabia (others could also be listed) pursue various imperialist objectives with relative freedom. The sad truth is that very few amongst the progressive intelligentsia concern themselves with the nature and consequences of these imperial projects (and their consequences)
Indeed, I want to reiterate that the absence of a coherent and principled political position amongst those who consider themselves as progressives in today’s Pakistan is explained in large part by a superficial understanding of imperialism and the imperatives motivating the various imperialist forces that have set out their stall in the present conjuncture.
And where straightforward analyses would suffice, we are not willing to undertake them because they do not correspond to our biases. Take, for example, the cosy relationship between American and Saudi imperialisms. We take refuge in Washington’s grandiose proclamations of the cause of freedom and progress, while insisting that Riyadh is the bane of our existence. And never the twain shall meet?
The writer teaches at Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad.
============
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@
============
Mon Jul 23, 2012 8:13 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://www.strategi
Strategic Culture Foundation
July 24, 2012
Syria Fighting Off Terrorism
Boris Dolgov
====
The position adopted by Moscow – rejection of intervention, calls for dialog between the administration and the reasonable part of the opposition – is completely adequate. It takes into account the interests of the Syrian nation and also those of Russia. An alternative scenario on the horizon is the partition of Syria along ethnic and religious lines, the seizure of power in the resulting national fragments by radical Muslim groups, with Syrian arsenals likely turned against Russia, a broader regional destabilization prompting an ever more inclusive international military campaign, and, potentially, a major war fought by Iran, Israel, and Turkey.
Russia's protecting its legitimate national interests does not at all promise a replay of the Cold War. The West's aggressions – against Yugoslavia, Iraq, the Ivory Coast, Libya – follow with increasing frequency, and Moscow needs to build up its military muscles and to safeguard its geopolitical status in order to stay secure and to remain immune to any kind of “Russian Springâ€.
====
The July 18 terrorist attack on the headquarters of the security ministry in Damascus took the lives of several high-ranking Syrian government officials and military commanders, including the defense minister, his deputy, the minister of the interior, and the head of the army intelligence department (Bashar Assad's son-in-law). Syrian foreign minister Walid al Muallem and the director of the counter-espionage agency were hospitalized and reported to be in critical condition.
A kamikaze, who evidently served in the defense ministry, delivered a bomb to the building which is sited across the street from the US embassy, and detonated it in the office where the Syrian administration was holding a meeting with the security chiefs. Two groups of insurgents - the Free Syrian Army and Allah's Brigades – claimed responsibility for the terrorist act which prompted an outpouring of positive emotions from the Itanbul-based Syrian National Council.
It must be noted in the context that, pressing for regime change in Syria at any cost, the Syrian opposition leaders who visited Moscow on July 10-11, among them the Council's president Abdulbaset Sieda and Michael Kilo, the leader of the Free Tribune established in Cairo last year, did subscribe to the Geneva connections.
It was fairly clear during the rounds of negotiations in Russia, in one of which I took part, that the only real objective behind the guests' agenda was to talk Moscow into supporting the course aimed at the ouster of the current administration in Syria. In fact, the envoys of the Syrian National Council admitted coordinating activities with the Free Syrian Army, which, in the light of the recent developments automatically means complicity in terrorism.
The assassination of key security and government officials came as a heavy blow to Syria, but, contrary to the expectations of those who had planned the attack, did not destabilize the regime in the country. In the wake of the drama, various global media, with Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya leading as usual, spilled the news that Bashar Assad was en route to the airport in an attempt to flee and that Syrian army servicemen were en masse switching to the side of the opposition.
In reality, Gen. Fahd Jassem al-Freij, whom Assad appointed as the new defense minister, pledged that the forces under his command would decisively clean the country from the bandit formations, and, indeed, over the past week or so the Syrian army managed to squeeze the insurgents out of the suburbs of Damascus, plus launch several successful raids in the city of Hama and in the regions adjacent to the borders with Iraq, Lebanon, and Turkey, killing hundreds of guerrillas.
The West's reaction to the terrorist act was consonant with its wider policy vis-a-vis Syria. Having cursorily condemned terrorism, the diplomatic chiefs of Great Britain, France, and Italy went on to blame the escalation on the Syrian administration and to assert that nothing short of removing President Assad from his post would help defuse the crisis.
US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said he hoped the international community would grow more “aggressive†in its attempts to end the crisis in Syria. In contrast, head of the UN mission Maj. General Robert Mood must be credited with sticking to a balanced position as, voicing his disapproval of the recent terrorist act, he urged both parties to the conflict to abandon violence and to open talks.
Russia' foreign ministry envoy released a strongly worded statement in connection with the terrorist attack, delivered condolences to the families of the victims, and stressed that the perpetrators should be duly punished.
The Russian and the US leaders discussed the situation over the phone, the shared view being that the Geneva Conventions must be fully observed. A few days ago, respect for the Geneva Conventions was similarly expressed by Russian president Vladimir Putin and Turkish premier Recep Erdogan when they met in Moscow. Some time earlier, Ankara indicated that, from its perspective, an intervention in Syria would be an acceptable option.
Russia confirmed its opposition to any intervention in Syria when the UN Security Council cast ballots over the resolution which was floated by Great Britain. The document, vetoed in concert by Russia and China, suggested sanctions against the Syrian administration and, with a reference to Article 7 of the UN Charter, stated that an intervention in Syria was a possibility.
An alternative resolution was eventually passed which reflected a compromise between the Western approach and that taken by Russia and China. It addressed both sides in the Syrian conflict with a call to end violence and extended by a month the mandate of the current UN mission.
A segment of the Russian media makes serious efforts to offer objective and unbiased coverage of what is happening in Syria. Vesti TV channel correspondent A. Popov, for example, presented eyewitness accounts from Syrian citizens that insurgents from the Free Syrian Army took relatives of the residents of a village near Hama hostage and killed some of them to coerce the villagers into firing on a checkpoint of government forces under the threat that the rest of the hostages would be shot. Russia' foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, later cited the report in a media briefing.
The July 18 terrorist attack in Damascus marked the opening of a new phase in the spiraling Syrian crisis. The opposition groups which claimed responsibility for the blast – the Free Syrian Army and the Syrian National Council which chose to fully back it in the case – showed their a priori aversion to all forms of dialog with the administration and, as a part of the package, demonstrated that they brush off any pertinent international agreements, be it the Geneva Conventions or the Kofi Annan plan.
The recent terrorist act, along with multiple previous ones, made it clear that the opposition's goal is to eliminate, politically and physically, the current Syrian leadership, and it is dubious that a wider political agenda can be found behind the insurgency in Syria. Under the circumstances, dialog or more far-reaching moves like the formation of a transitional authority with representatives of the opposition involved are definitely off the table.
The only reasonable approach to groups practicing terrorism is that they must either quit terrorist activities and put down arms or be destroyed. Various countries had to clamp down on terrorist groups in the past, as Italy on the Red Brigades in the 1960s-1970s, Spain on the ETA in the 1980-1990s, France on the Armed Islamic Group (GIA) in the 1990s, Algeria on the Islamic Salvation Front and the Armed Islamic Group in the 1990s-2000s and on Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb in a still rolling campaign.
The position adopted by Moscow – rejection of intervention, calls for dialog between the administration and the reasonable part of the opposition – is completely adequate. It takes into account the interests of the Syrian nation and also those of Russia. An alternative scenario on the horizon is the partition of Syria along ethnic and religious lines, the seizure of power in the resulting national fragments by radical Muslim groups, with Syrian arsenals likely turned against Russia, a broader regional destabilization prompting an ever more inclusive international military campaign, and, potentially, a major war fought by Iran, Israel, and Turkey.
The strengthening of the Russian military presence in the region is of key importance at the moment. It would be a timely move to reinforce the military facilities Russia maintains in Syria's Tartus, perhaps to the point of converting them into a full-scale military base to be used to ensure permanent Russian military presence in Syria and the wider Mediterranean region.
The outcry from the West that will likely follow does not have to be taken close to heart – the US network of military bases spans much of the world, and Washington sells the arrangement as conductive to global democracy.
Russia's protecting its legitimate national interests does not at all promise a replay of the Cold War. The West's aggressions – against Yugoslavia, Iraq, the Ivory Coast, Libya – follow with increasing frequency, and Moscow needs to build up its military muscles and to safeguard its geopolitical status in order to stay secure and to remain immune to any kind of “Russian Springâ€.
Strategic Culture Foundation
July 24, 2012
Syria Fighting Off Terrorism
Boris Dolgov
====
The position adopted by Moscow – rejection of intervention, calls for dialog between the administration and the reasonable part of the opposition – is completely adequate. It takes into account the interests of the Syrian nation and also those of Russia. An alternative scenario on the horizon is the partition of Syria along ethnic and religious lines, the seizure of power in the resulting national fragments by radical Muslim groups, with Syrian arsenals likely turned against Russia, a broader regional destabilization prompting an ever more inclusive international military campaign, and, potentially, a major war fought by Iran, Israel, and Turkey.
Russia's protecting its legitimate national interests does not at all promise a replay of the Cold War. The West's aggressions – against Yugoslavia, Iraq, the Ivory Coast, Libya – follow with increasing frequency, and Moscow needs to build up its military muscles and to safeguard its geopolitical status in order to stay secure and to remain immune to any kind of “Russian Springâ€.
====
The July 18 terrorist attack on the headquarters of the security ministry in Damascus took the lives of several high-ranking Syrian government officials and military commanders, including the defense minister, his deputy, the minister of the interior, and the head of the army intelligence department (Bashar Assad's son-in-law). Syrian foreign minister Walid al Muallem and the director of the counter-espionage agency were hospitalized and reported to be in critical condition.
A kamikaze, who evidently served in the defense ministry, delivered a bomb to the building which is sited across the street from the US embassy, and detonated it in the office where the Syrian administration was holding a meeting with the security chiefs. Two groups of insurgents - the Free Syrian Army and Allah's Brigades – claimed responsibility for the terrorist act which prompted an outpouring of positive emotions from the Itanbul-based Syrian National Council.
It must be noted in the context that, pressing for regime change in Syria at any cost, the Syrian opposition leaders who visited Moscow on July 10-11, among them the Council's president Abdulbaset Sieda and Michael Kilo, the leader of the Free Tribune established in Cairo last year, did subscribe to the Geneva connections.
It was fairly clear during the rounds of negotiations in Russia, in one of which I took part, that the only real objective behind the guests' agenda was to talk Moscow into supporting the course aimed at the ouster of the current administration in Syria. In fact, the envoys of the Syrian National Council admitted coordinating activities with the Free Syrian Army, which, in the light of the recent developments automatically means complicity in terrorism.
The assassination of key security and government officials came as a heavy blow to Syria, but, contrary to the expectations of those who had planned the attack, did not destabilize the regime in the country. In the wake of the drama, various global media, with Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya leading as usual, spilled the news that Bashar Assad was en route to the airport in an attempt to flee and that Syrian army servicemen were en masse switching to the side of the opposition.
In reality, Gen. Fahd Jassem al-Freij, whom Assad appointed as the new defense minister, pledged that the forces under his command would decisively clean the country from the bandit formations, and, indeed, over the past week or so the Syrian army managed to squeeze the insurgents out of the suburbs of Damascus, plus launch several successful raids in the city of Hama and in the regions adjacent to the borders with Iraq, Lebanon, and Turkey, killing hundreds of guerrillas.
The West's reaction to the terrorist act was consonant with its wider policy vis-a-vis Syria. Having cursorily condemned terrorism, the diplomatic chiefs of Great Britain, France, and Italy went on to blame the escalation on the Syrian administration and to assert that nothing short of removing President Assad from his post would help defuse the crisis.
US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said he hoped the international community would grow more “aggressive†in its attempts to end the crisis in Syria. In contrast, head of the UN mission Maj. General Robert Mood must be credited with sticking to a balanced position as, voicing his disapproval of the recent terrorist act, he urged both parties to the conflict to abandon violence and to open talks.
Russia' foreign ministry envoy released a strongly worded statement in connection with the terrorist attack, delivered condolences to the families of the victims, and stressed that the perpetrators should be duly punished.
The Russian and the US leaders discussed the situation over the phone, the shared view being that the Geneva Conventions must be fully observed. A few days ago, respect for the Geneva Conventions was similarly expressed by Russian president Vladimir Putin and Turkish premier Recep Erdogan when they met in Moscow. Some time earlier, Ankara indicated that, from its perspective, an intervention in Syria would be an acceptable option.
Russia confirmed its opposition to any intervention in Syria when the UN Security Council cast ballots over the resolution which was floated by Great Britain. The document, vetoed in concert by Russia and China, suggested sanctions against the Syrian administration and, with a reference to Article 7 of the UN Charter, stated that an intervention in Syria was a possibility.
An alternative resolution was eventually passed which reflected a compromise between the Western approach and that taken by Russia and China. It addressed both sides in the Syrian conflict with a call to end violence and extended by a month the mandate of the current UN mission.
A segment of the Russian media makes serious efforts to offer objective and unbiased coverage of what is happening in Syria. Vesti TV channel correspondent A. Popov, for example, presented eyewitness accounts from Syrian citizens that insurgents from the Free Syrian Army took relatives of the residents of a village near Hama hostage and killed some of them to coerce the villagers into firing on a checkpoint of government forces under the threat that the rest of the hostages would be shot. Russia' foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, later cited the report in a media briefing.
The July 18 terrorist attack in Damascus marked the opening of a new phase in the spiraling Syrian crisis. The opposition groups which claimed responsibility for the blast – the Free Syrian Army and the Syrian National Council which chose to fully back it in the case – showed their a priori aversion to all forms of dialog with the administration and, as a part of the package, demonstrated that they brush off any pertinent international agreements, be it the Geneva Conventions or the Kofi Annan plan.
The recent terrorist act, along with multiple previous ones, made it clear that the opposition's goal is to eliminate, politically and physically, the current Syrian leadership, and it is dubious that a wider political agenda can be found behind the insurgency in Syria. Under the circumstances, dialog or more far-reaching moves like the formation of a transitional authority with representatives of the opposition involved are definitely off the table.
The only reasonable approach to groups practicing terrorism is that they must either quit terrorist activities and put down arms or be destroyed. Various countries had to clamp down on terrorist groups in the past, as Italy on the Red Brigades in the 1960s-1970s, Spain on the ETA in the 1980-1990s, France on the Armed Islamic Group (GIA) in the 1990s, Algeria on the Islamic Salvation Front and the Armed Islamic Group in the 1990s-2000s and on Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb in a still rolling campaign.
The position adopted by Moscow – rejection of intervention, calls for dialog between the administration and the reasonable part of the opposition – is completely adequate. It takes into account the interests of the Syrian nation and also those of Russia. An alternative scenario on the horizon is the partition of Syria along ethnic and religious lines, the seizure of power in the resulting national fragments by radical Muslim groups, with Syrian arsenals likely turned against Russia, a broader regional destabilization prompting an ever more inclusive international military campaign, and, potentially, a major war fought by Iran, Israel, and Turkey.
The strengthening of the Russian military presence in the region is of key importance at the moment. It would be a timely move to reinforce the military facilities Russia maintains in Syria's Tartus, perhaps to the point of converting them into a full-scale military base to be used to ensure permanent Russian military presence in Syria and the wider Mediterranean region.
The outcry from the West that will likely follow does not have to be taken close to heart – the US network of military bases spans much of the world, and Washington sells the arrangement as conductive to global democracy.
Russia's protecting its legitimate national interests does not at all promise a replay of the Cold War. The West's aggressions – against Yugoslavia, Iraq, the Ivory Coast, Libya – follow with increasing frequency, and Moscow needs to build up its military muscles and to safeguard its geopolitical status in order to stay secure and to remain immune to any kind of “Russian Springâ€.
