 |
| Verordnetes Hungern in Gaza, die Armee in Indonesien: Über Logik und Aktivismus |
Das Welternährungsprogramm der Vereinten Nationen schätzt, daß die im Zuge der israelischen Blockade stark reduzierten „Lebensmitteleinfuhren in den Gazastreifen nur ausreichen, um 41 Prozent des Bedarfs zu decken“. Mit diesen Worten gab die UN-Nachrichtenagentur IRIN diese Einschätzung wieder IRIN, Jerusalem, „Only 41 percent of Gaza’s food import needs being met“, 6. Dezember 2007. Den Bewohnern des Gazastreifens werden also ungeheuerliche 59 Prozent der von ihnen benötigten Lebensmittel vorenthalten.
Bei Hunger leidenden Menschen kann schon eine nur geringfügig verminderte Nahrungsaufnahme wachstumshemmende oder tödliche Wirkung haben, vor allem bei Kleinkindern, deren Gehirn sich noch in der Entwicklungsphase befindet.
Die UN-Nachrichtenagentur IRIN meldet: „Die von Israel verfügten Reise- und Handelsbeschränkungen haben in Gaza zu einem Nachlassen der Kaufkraft geführt. Wie eine unlängst vom Welternährungsprogramm durchgeführte Umfrage ergab, hatten von jenen 62 Prozent der Befragten, die ihre Ausgaben in den vergangenen Monaten reduzieren mußten, 97 Prozent bei der Kleidung und 93 Prozent bei Lebensmitteln gespart.“
IRIN verweist auf den Fall von Naheda Ghabaien, „einer Mutter von fünf Kindern im Flüchtlingslager Shati in Gaza-Stadt“. Ihr Mann „hatte früher an drei bis vier Tagen in der Woche Arbeit und brachte dafür rund 10 US-Dollar pro Tag nach Hause“. Jetzt aber, nach Verhängung der Sanktionen, „hat er nur an ein paar Tagen im Monat Arbeit“.
Im Gegensatz zu so vielen anderen Menschen auf der Welt, deren Kalorienzufuhr gefährdet ist, wird der Familie Ghabaien wenigstens ein bißchen geholfen. Alle zwölf Wochen erhält sie von UNRWA, dem UN-Hilfswerk für palästinensische Flüchtlinge, „Zuteilungen von Reis, Mehl, Öl und Zucker, mit denen sie vier bis sechs Wochen auskommen kann. Fleisch ißt die Familie kaum noch sie ernährt sich hauptsächlich von Gemüse.“
„Wenn uns die von UNRWA zugeteilten Lebensmittel ausgehen“, so Naheda Ghabaien nach dem IRIN-Bericht, „dann kaufen wir das Notwendige im Lebensmittelgeschäft ein und lassen anschreiben. Wenn mein Mann Arbeit hat, gehen seine Tageseinnahmen größtenteils für die Schuldentilgung drauf.“
Die Nachrichtenagentur berichtet außerdem: „Mitarbeiter von Hilfsorganisationen sagen, daß Behelfsmechanismen dieser Art an ihre Grenzen stoßen.“ Bald werde es den schon jetzt unter großen Entbehrungen leidenden Bewohnern Gazas nicht mehr möglich sein, auf diese Weise an Lebensmittel heranzukommen.
Die israelische Regierung sagt, die von ihr verhängten Sanktionen seien legal. Sie stellen also nach Israels Dafürhalten keine unverhältnismäßige Vergeltung und somit auch kein Kriegsverbrechen dar. Daraus folgt logischerweise, daß das Vorenthalten von Nahrung und anderen Dingen nach israelischem Verständnis nicht schlimmer ist als der vom Gazastreifen ausgehende Raketenbeschuß.
Nun, wenn das so ist, dürfte Israel gegen einen kleinen Rollentausch ja nichts einzuwenden haben: Sagen wir, Gaza erhält die Macht und das Recht, den Israelis praktisch 59 Prozent ihrer Nahrungsmittel vorzuenthalten und überdies nach Belieben ihre Strom- und Benzinversorgung zu unterbinden, ihr Kommunikationswesen lahmzulegen, ihren medizinischen Nachschub zu blockieren, ihr Recht auf Freizügigkeit außer Kraft zu setzen, ihren Luftraum zu sperren und so weiter die Israelis erhalten im Gegenzug das Recht, den Gazastreifen in dem Maß mit Raketen zu beschießen, wie Israel von dort beschossen wird, was bedeutet, daß im Durchschnitt alle vier Monate einmal der Tod eines Zivilisten zu beklagen sein wird.
Würde die israelische Regierung auf dieses Angebot eingehen, das ganz auf ihrer eigenen Rechtslogik basiert?
Natürlich nicht. Sie wäre auch schön blöd, wenn sie es täte. Israel nimmt für sich ohnehin das Recht in Anspruch, den Gazastreifen und andere Gegenden nach Belieben zu bombardieren und unter Granatenbeschuß zu nehmen. Für jeden getöteten israelischen Zivilisten tötet Israel ungefähr zehn palästinensische beziehungsweise arabische Zivilisten. Zu der Statistik für die besetzten palästinensischen Gebiete siehe die Internetseite der israelischen Menschenrechtsorganisation B’Tselem, www.btselem.org. Und außerdem: Ein Land, dem es einfiele, den Israelis mehr als die Hälfte ihrer Nahrungsmittel vorzuenthalten – mit Israel also umzugehen wie Israel derzeit mit dem Gazastreifen –, so ein Land würde von Israel undoder den USA sofort dem Erdboden gleichgemacht.
|
|
|
| Lama Vira Comida no Haiti. Força Esmagadora na Flórida. |
Por volta das 8:25 da manhã desta quarta-feira [30 de janeiro de 2008], pelo horário da Costa Leste dos Estados Unidos, a tela de boas-vindas do portal AOL na Internet justapôs duas matérias da Associated PressAP: Ele McCain Lidera a Corrida Republicana à Presidência: O que Rudy Giuliani Fará Agora? e Haitianos Desesperados Comem Lama: Um Dia Terei Comida Suficiente.
Nos bairros pobres do Haiti, pessoas famintas conferem novo sentido à expressão na lama. Com o aumento dos preços dos alimentos, pessoas desesperadas estão comendo biscoitos feitos de lama para protelar suas dores estomacais provocadas pela fome...” Jonathan M. Katz, AP, 29 de Janeiro de 2008, citando a galeria de fotos de Ariana CubillosAP.
A primeira atitude de Rudy Giuliani após perder as primárias da Flórida foi fazer um discurso seguindo a linha o melhor caminho para alcançar a paz é através da força esmagadora.
Isso poderia ter sido dito pelos mandatários da França colonial, uma vez que tenham arrebatado o ouro das montanhas do Haiti, ou por Thomas Jefferson que, por sua vez, advertiu para que a revolta escrava no Haiti não fosse tolerada. Ou, ainda, pelos governantes dos Estados Unidos das décadas de 1950 a 1980, uma vez que tenham endossado a ditadura dos Duvaliers no Haiti, ou os dos anos 1990, que apoiaram o esquadrão da morte da FRAPH Frente para o Avanço e o Progresso do Haiti e impuseram ao País o plano do Banco Mundial e do FMI que – uma década antes da publicação desta quarta-feira, referente à adaptação do consumo da lama aos dias de hoje – passou então a tornar os Haitianos mais famintos.
Com referência à FRAPH e ao Banco MundialFMI, veja, respectivamente, meus artigos [em inglês]: Our Man in FRAPH: Behind Haitis Paramilitaries, October 24, 1994, Hes Our S.O.B., October 31, 1994, e Haiti Under the Gun, January 8 15, 1996, todos na Revista “The Nation” [US], e Aristide Banks on Austerity, Multinational Monitor, JulyAugust, 1994.
Teoricamente, pode até ser verdade que a força esmagadora consiga obter a paz, mas apenas se controlada por uma figura como, digamos assim, Deus, e se a Bíblia, o Torá e o Alcorão, todos eles aceitarem o fato de que até mesmo essa conjuntura possa provocar massacres.
É possível que os fundadores dos Estados Unidos não tenham seguido os seus próprios princípios fundamentais – poucos o fazem –, mas eles foram cinicamente criteriosos em relação ao povo em geral, de forma que os homens ricos, alguns deles proprietários de escravos como Jefferson, procuraram conter o populacho, restringindo também, estrutural e constitucionalmente, os futuros governantes a pessoas como eles.
Em seus princípios fundamentais, pelo menos, os fundadores dos Estados Unidos temeram a força esmagadora nas mãos de seres humanos.
Hoje, porém, esse princípio fundamental foi radicalmente modificado.
A afirmação de Giuliani não foi algo peculiar. McCain diz coisas assim o tempo todo e foi a gestão Clinton, na qual Hillary trabalhou, que produziu o plano do Pentágono de 20 anos de Dominação de Amplo Espectro, isto é, a capacidade para derrotar qualquer adversário e controlar qualquer situação, em qualquer lugar, a qualquer hora Jim Garamore, Assessoria de Imprensa das Forças Americanas [Departamento de Defesa dos Estados Unidos], Joint Vision 2020 Emphasizes Full-spectrum Dominance,2 de Junho de 2000.
Mas se você dominar o mundo totalmente, quem irá detê-lo se você cometer assassinatos, ou se levar a fome aos povos pelo modo como você desloca e concentra as riquezas escassas?
Esses são os problemas associados aos assassinatos e às mortes evitáveis que os americanos são livres para abordar na política – mas normalmente não o fazem. Existe, porém, ainda outro problema diretamente ligado ao poder que pode eventualmente precisar ser discutido.
O problema é que embora militarmente, em alguns sentidos, os EUA ainda representem uma força esmagadora, economicamente tornam-se cada vez mais apenas um centro de poder entre vários.
Em seu discurso ao Congresso O Estado da União, o Presidente Bush disse que “asseguraria que os Estados Unidos se mantivessem como a nação mais poderosa da Terra”.
Isso foi possível após a Segunda Guerra Mundial, com o restante do mundo rico devastado. Mas agora que os nós do capitalismo se dispersaram mundo afora, isso já não é mais possível.
O crescimento acelerado acontecerá inevitavelmente em outro lugar e, muito em breve, diversas outras potências econômicas deverão igualar-se aos EUA como centros de capital, comércio e até mesmo de inovação – e, neste último caso, talvez ainda mais cedo do que se possa imaginar se os Estados Unidos mantiverem sua histeria anti-imigração.
E agora? Os governantes eleitos dos Estados Unidos sempre utilizam termos nacionalistas e de supremacia – embora todos eles, pessoal e profissionalmente, invistam globalmente. Se eles realmente querem que os EUA obtenhammantenham uma dominação esmagadora, a sua vantagem comparativa precisará estar na pólvora.
Uma resposta equilibrada, por parte dos não-governantes seria: não me interessa a obtenção ou manutenção de qualquer dominação, uma vez que isso esteja desacreditado como meio para alcançar a paz. E também não funcionou como meio para acabar com a fome.
É mais razoável, portanto, buscar outros meios, meios que nos conduzam a objetivos de fato produtivos nesse sentido, como o fim do apoio a esquadrões da morte, e com o deslocamento de recursos suficientes de modo que as pessoas possam permanecer saudáveis comendo comida de verdade em vez de lama.
By Allan Nairn, News and Comment, http:www.newsc.blogspot.com
Tradução: Joice Elias Costa
|
|
|
| L’élection présidentielle aux États-Unis est déjà décidée. Le meurtre et les morts évitables ont vaincu. |
La presse des États-Unis annonce que jeudi, le système politique américain commencera le processus de choisir le Président suivant des États-Unis.
Mais ceci n’est pas vrai :
Le processus est déjà en grande partie achevé, car nous savons déjà que le président suivant sera, très probablement, un parmi ces onze personnes très riches, chacune ayant des positions politiques qui - si mis en œuvre - tueront peut-être onze millions de pauvres.
Les candidats probables - Bloomberg, Clinton, Edwards, Giuliani, Gore, Huckabee, McCain, Obama, le Riz, Romney et Thompson - diffèrent de beaucoup de façons, y compris une différence marginale concernant des nombres des morts probables, et ils diffèrent du grade de leur soutien des meurtres par moyens d’armes aux feux Bloomberg, Huckabee et Romney ,oins responsables de ceci, puisquils nont pas encore été responsables au niveau national.
Mais ils sopposent tous à une mise en oeuvre équitable des lois contre le meurtre et ils sopposent tous aux transferts dassez de richesses maintenant pour empêcher toutes les morts autrement évitables.
Le but de la mise en oeuvre des lois contre le meurtre ne devrait pas être controversés. La plupart des gens de conscience les soutiendraient. Et même les dirigeants des États-Unis eux-mêmes les soutiennent souvent - quoique seulement sur le papier ou en principe.
Quant au meurtre, le président Bush a déclaré aux Nations Unies le 10 novembre 2001 : nous devons nous unir dans lopposition à tous les terroristes, non seulement certains dentre eux... Aucune aspiration nationale, aucun tort dont on aurait souffert ne peut jamais justifier le meurtre d’innocents... Les alliés de la terreur sont également coupables de meurtre et également responsables devant la justice.
Mais tandis que Bush parlait ainsi, écoutait comme partie de sa délégation un certain Elliot Abrams qui est et était, l’un des conseillers supérieurs de Bush concernant Israël-Palestine, et qui a dirigé pendant les années 80 lappui américain soutenant les mises à mort terroristes de civils au Guatemala, le Salvador, le Honduras et le Nicaragua où, comme le Général américain John Galvin sest exprimé, on a chassé des cibles douces, comme des coopératives agricoles.
De plus, le Président nest pas allé au commissariat de police se dénoncer pour ce qui se passait exactement à ce moment-là, c’est-à-dire un attentat par bombardement de villages Afghans, ou pour armer, entraîner financer des régimes qui dans plusieurs douzaines de pays alliés aux Américains pratiquent dans le monde entier l’assassinat des innocents.
Et personne parmi les candidats à la présidence américaine ne laurait fait différemment.
Ils ont tous soutenu linvasion de l’Afghanistan quoi quils varient sur lIrak. Personne d’entre eux na rejeté la pratique américaine ordinaire dappui chaque année aux régimes terroristes le Congrès vient de voter deux projets de loi d’envergure concernant la défense, et de financements dopérations à l’étranger. Ceux-ci aideront de façon mortelle des pays comme la Colombie, lArabie Saoudite, l’Egypte, l’Israël, lIrak, le Congo, le Pakistan et lIndonésie. Également, personne na exigé que des fonctionnaires américains répondent à la justice.
Une situation semblable concerne les morts évitables. Les États-Unis se déclarent que, aussi eux, y sont contre ils ont un programme daide alimentaire et des programmes de santé mondiaux et Bill Clinton a un fond qui sert à épargner quelque peu de vies de certains individus aussi bien que la fourniture de fonds privés directement pour le couple Clinton.
Mais pas question de transfert d’assez de fonds pour arrêter la faim mondiale, ou pour prévenir la mort par diarrhée n’importe où. Personne parmi les présidentiables ne l’a jamais proposé.
Mais si les États-Unis le voulaient, ce serait fait. Des millions de morts seraient en vie. Mais rien n’a été fait, s’agit il de gouvernements républicains ou de la présidence ClintonGore.
En fait si par exemple Michael Bloomberg le maire milliardaire de New York voulait le faire – ou avait choisi de le faire – les 5 millions de gosses sous-alimentés et à cause de ça, morts, auraient pu être nourris et en vie, à cause de sa richesse personnelle, parce que, selon Forbes magazine, il vaut 11,5 milliards de dollars.
Voilà la position de la démocratie en Amérique.
On a le droit de voter, mais pas de choix réel, surtout si on veut voter contre le meurtre et pour sauver des gosses affamés et pour penser d’une façon indépendante.
Aucun choix, cest-à-dire à moins qu’on n’en oblige pas les autorités. Les Américains n’y sont pas arrivés encore.
by Allan Nairn, News and Comment, http:www.newsc.blogspot.com
|
|
|
| US Precision Bombing in Iraq and Afghanistan. Killing Civilians, Carefully. |
CNN’s korrespondent ved det Hvide Hus, Ed Henry, har for nyligt iagttaget USA’s præsident , som gik i Jesu fodspor ved Galilæas Sø CNN International, 17 januar, 2008 [WIB].
Washington Post rapporterer, at, mens præsidenten gik i Jesu fodspor, var amerikanske soldater under hans kontrol i gang med at smide bomber over Irak og Afghanistan med stigende intensitet Josh White, U.S. Boosts Its Use of Airstrikes In Iraq, Washington Post, torsdag d. 17Januar, 2008.
Der er en tilbagvenden til de efter-Vietnam-taktikker, som fungerede så godt for Washington, hvor man erstattede USA’s soldaterdøde med USA’s bombedrab. Sådan kunne man mindske den politiske skade i USA’ved at øge de fysiske skader dér hvor man nedkaster bomber.
Washington Post citerer her professoren for sikkerhedsstudier ved Georgetown University, Colin Kahl, som har besøgt USA’s bombestyrker, for en bemærkning om at så snart USA’s militÊæstyrker begynder at trække sig, ser man ¯øgede angreb fra bombefly
Washington Post, som refererer den amerikanske luftvåbensgeneral Gary L. North, rapporterer, at USA’s militærstyrker er i gang med præcisionsbombardementer og dertil bruger 250-punds GBU-39 mindrediameter bomber for at gøre sprængninger mere sikre for civile.
Mht. præcisionsbomninger citerer man Marc Garlasco, en militæranalytiker ved Human Rights Watch: Det, som bekymrer mig mest ved hvad der sker i Irak er befolkningstætheden…der er stor mulighed for meget store civile ofre, så man behøver superpræcise efterretninger’ om hvad man skal ramme. Men jeg tror ikke, at de nødvendigvis er uagtsomme.
Hvis man går ind for den slags logik og for eksempel vil påstå, at irakiske oprørsstyrker ikke er uagtsomme, skulle det vÊre acceptabelt, efter menneskeretslige normer, at de bombarderede det Hvide Hus, for så vidt de var i besiddelse af de nødvendige superpræcie efterretninger om hvor Præsident Bush sad, og så brugte en 250-punds bombe, som gør spræningen mere sikker for civile.
Man kan så bare håbe på, at en tjener lige i dette øjeblik ikke var i gang med at servere Bush kaffe, eller at han ikke havde niecer på besøg, eller ulveunger, eller evt. en af disse menneskerettighedsfunktionærer som nu står til rådighed for general Petraeus, eller som retfÊædiggør princippet om at bombardere lande, som er ofre for ulovlige angreb ifølge f.eks. det britiske udenrigsministeriets tidligere juridiske rågiver, som trådte tilbage fordien ulovlig brug af tvang eti sådant omfang er lige med en forbryderisk aggression så længe en af bombernes sider har ordet præcision nalet på siden mere om den britiske jurist iThe legality of war, af Steven Marks, Letters, The Economist, den 5. januar, 2008.
Hele teorien om præcisionsbombardementer er at indsnævre drabsradiusen så at det stykke metal man lader falde fra himlen eller slynger ud fra et rør eller et skib på afstand skal opføre sig som en snigmorders kugle.
Teoretisk kunne det, i mikroforstand. nogle gange skåne nogle civile dvs. i forhold til at blive ramt af en større bombe, men ikke i forhold til ikke at blive bombarderet overhovedet. Men både teoretisk og praktisk er det i makroforstand sandsynligt, at de civile dødsofre tal forøges, for ved hjemme i USA at legitimere enhver nedkastning af bomber, øger man muligheden for, at der bliver endnu flere af disse ofre. Selv de mest ivrige præcisionsbombepiloter erkender, at deres 250-punds bomber undertiden rammer civile.
Faktisk citerer Washington Post FN’s bistandsmission for Irak for at skønne at der har været mere end 200 civile ofre efter USA’s luftangreb i Irak fra begyndelsen af april til årets udgnag, da amerikanske styrker begyndte betydeligt at øge angrebene for at koordinere dem med forøgelsen af tropper på landjorden. Og ang. Afghanistan: Menneskerettighedsorganisationer skønner, at afghanske civile ofre for luftangreb blev tredoblet til mere end 300 i 2007, hvad der nærer frygten, for at den slags aggressive bombardementer kan blive katastrofale for uskyldige civile.
Disse bange anelser voksede ikke mindst hos den af USA og FN indsatte afghanske præsident, Hamid Karzai, som har klaget flere gange over, dog – typisk for et sponsor-klientstats forhold – ikke så kraftigt, at hans amerikanske sponsorer kunne tager hans udtalelser alvorligt nok til at nedskære hans budget eller simpelthen erstatte ham.
Ang. Irak, skriver Washington Post, USA strategi kræver, at koalitionstropper rydder fjendtlige områder og så genopbygger dem – da de er umuligt selv for Bush af Galilæa at genoplive mere end 200 døde.
by Allan Nairn, News and Comment, http:www.newsc.blogspot.com |
|
|
| Breaking News: US Intelligence Personnel Tap Indonesian Phones. British Also Involved. Detachment 88, Kopassus Get Covert US Aid. |
By Allan Nairn
US intelligence officers in Jakarta are secretly tapping the cell phones and reading the SMS text messages of Indonesian civilians.
Some of the Americans work out of the Jakarta headquarters of Detachment 88, a US-trained and funded para-military unit whose mission is described as antiterrorism, but that was recently involved in the arrest of a West Papuan human rights lawyer.
The Papuan lawyer, Iwangin Sabar Olif, was seized by police and Detachment 88 on the street and later charged with incitement and insulting the head of state after he forwarded SMS text messages that criticized the Indonesian armed forces TNI, as well as the President of Indonesia, Gen. Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono. West Papua is a restricted-access region where Indonesian forces have been implicated in rapes, tortures, kidnappings, assassinations, mass surveillance and intimidation.
The information on the US surveillance program is provided by three sources, including an individual who has worked frequently with the Indonesian security forces and who says he has met and formally discussed their work with some of the American phone tappers, as well as by two Indonesian officials who work inside Detachment 88.
The first source says that the he was told that the Americans are employees of the US CIA Central Intelligence Agency, but it could not be confirmed whether they work for the CIA or other US agencies. He says that through his work he has observed that these US intelligence specialists help run a sophisticated wiretapping network that uses much new US equipment.
He says the US operation includes the real-time monitoring of text messages, as well as mapping contact networks, ie. tracing who is calling or texting whom.
This individual deals frequently with Detachment 88, but says that he has not inquired about the seizure of the Papuan human rights lawyer, Iwangin .
He said that Detachment 88 units are also present in other outlying zones including Solo, Ambon, and Poso, the later two of which have been the scene of TNI - POLRI the Indonesian National Police, who formally oversee Detachment 88 provokasi operations that have helped to spur deadly fighting between poor Muslim and Christian villagers.
This source also says that US intelligence is providing covert intelligence aid to Kopassus, the Indonesian armys red beret special forces famed for abduction, torture, and assassination.
Classified Kopassus manuals discuss the tactic and technique of terror and kidnapping see Buku Petunjuk tentang Sandi Yudha TNI AD, Nomor: 43-B-01.
Kopassus has, in the past, been heavily trained by US Green Berets and other forces, in topics that included Demolitions, Air Assault, Close Quarters Combat, Special Reconnaissance, PSYOPs and Advanced Sniper Techniques all of these during the Clinton administration, under a program called JCET Joint Combined Exchange Training.
But after this training was exposed and after the TNI - POLRI Timor massacres of 1999 which followed a UN - supervised independence vote, and in which Kopassus was implicated, many in Congress were under the impression that they had succeeded in stopping US aid to Kopassus.
Congress is due to decide within days on a new lethal aid bill for Indonesia.
The American presence inside Detachment 88 was confirmed by an Indonesian Detachment 88 official who said that a team of Americans did telecommunications work in the Intel Section, along with an individual whom they believed to be a British national.
A second Detachment 88 official also confirmed the US presence, but said he did not know the name of the American team leader. Like the first Detachment 88 official, he gave the name of the operative whom he said was British, but that named individual could not be reached for comment.
Asked for comment on December 12, during the late afternoon, local time, Stafford A. Ward, a spokesman for the US Embassy in Jakarta at first said he was not familiar with such a US program and did not know what Kopassus was.
An hour later Ward read out a statement that said that there are no Americans in either Detachment 88 or Kopassus. When asked if there was any kind of US assistance to those units he said: The US is not involved with either of those organizations. I can confirm to you that the US has no involvement with either Detachment 88 or Kopassus.
In fact, though, that US Embassy statement appeared to contradict the public record. US officials have frequently spoken on the record about their involvement with Detachment 88, including to the press and in meetings with and testimony to the US Congress.
Twenty minutes after issuing that denial, Embassy spokesman Ward sent the following email: I misspoke earlier when you called me a second time today. The U.S. government works with Indonesia to bolster its counterterrorism capabilities. For example, the Department of State Bureau of Diplomatic Security’s Office of Antiterrorism Assistance has trained Indonesian Antiterrorist Units.
This revised Embassy statement did not repeat the denials of the earlier statement, nor did it deny the presence of US personnel inside Detachment 88, nor did it deny the existence of covert US intelligence aid to Kopassus.
US officials have never acknowledged on the record the presence of US intelligence wiretappers inside Jakartas security forces, nor have they acknowledged on the record the provision of intelligence assistance to Kopassus.
The initial Embassy denial, phrased in the present tense, came less than 24 hours after the US Congress, in Washington, made private inquiries to the US Executive Branch about whether the US was aiding or planning to aid Kopassus.
These Congressional inquiries came after this blog reported on December 7 that the State Department this week was putting out urgent queries around Washington that make it sound as if they are planning to openly aid Kopassus, and after people in a position to know privately declined to deny that report.
It is not known whether the Congressional inquiries included the question of Detachment 88.
But in a call to the Detachment 88 office hours before todays initial carefully-phrased Embassy denial, the Indonesian officer who answered the phone said that the Americans had not come in to work today and that, as far as he knew, the British staffer there was on vacation.
Detachment 88 has been mentored by veteran CIA and State Department official Cofer Black, who was one of the architects of the US invasion of Afghanistan.
Detachment 88 is publicized as being aimed at violent jihadists, like the groups implicated in the bombings in Bali and Jakarta that killed more than 200 civilians.
But the US wiretapping program provides a capacity to target any kind of phone user in Indonesia, an issue of concern in a country where the security forces often US-assisted have killed many hundreds of thousands of civilian dissidents.
@2007 by Allan Nairn, News and Comment, http:www.newsc.blogspot.com
|
|
|
| Shoot them on the spot. The Traditional Dance of Rewarding War Crimes. |
Last June, when PresidentGeneral Susilo of Indonesia visited one of his provinces, in the Moluccas, he was greeted by local residents performing a traditional dance for him, a ritual often repeated around the world when powerful rulers travel, the implicit message being: this is us, but to you, we bow.
This time, however, something went wrong, and to the evident astonishment of the visiting democrat Gen. Susilo was just awarded a democracy medal by the International Association of Political Consultants. See posting of November 13, 2007, Vomiting to Death on a Plane. Arsenic Democracy., the dancers unfurled a freedom flag with an entirely different implicit message: it was the banned four-color banner that symbolizes Moluccan independence from Indonesia.
After the performers were hauled off to jail by Indonesias POLRI national police I want the performers of the dance [to] be investigated, Susilo ordered,If the dancers have certain purposes, there should be a resolute action against them. President Yudhoyono orders investigation into unscheduled dance, Antara [official Indonesian government news agency], June 29, 2007, the area police and army commanders were both sacked for inexcusable laxness.
They had apparently let arise an atmosphere so loose that prohibited thought could not only be thought, but could be so bold as to find expression before the very eyes of the visiting sovereign.
Fortunately for national stability, as it is called in Jakarta, Washington, and elsewhere, that problem has now been cured with the appointment of regional army commander Gen. Rasyid Qurnuen Aquary who has informed his TNI Indonesian national armed forces troops to act firmly against anyone engaging in separatist actions, and if need be, shoot them on the spot. The Generals spokesman, Maj. Sukriyanto, quoted in AFP, Jakarta, Indonesia General Says Separatists Could Be Shot, Dec. 12, 2007, via Joyo Indonesia News Service.
Fortunately for those dissident dancers and perhaps also for the President, whose shirt might have gotten spattered red that day the order comes too late to have gotten them shot-on-spot they merely sit, untried, in prison, but not too late for a bold 19 year old Moluccan man just shot by TNI troops on Saturday hes apparently still alive for the offense of hanging a similar flag on a tree near which they were working.
In a time and in a place where some authority was bothering to enforce the murder laws, such a public shoot them on the spot order against dissidents might be seen to constitute a war crime, or since the Moluccas are arguably not in a state of war an equally prosecutable, under international law, crime against humanity.
But thats not the case in todays Indonesia, or in most of the worlds geography, where official murder and even public orders to commit it goes unpunished, and is, instead, rewarded. The US Congress is looking to do that this week as they process a Foreign Operations bill that would ship further US taxpayers millions in lethal assistance to TNI 202-224-3121 is the Congressional switchboard number.
|
|
|
| L’élection présidentielle aux États-Unis est déjà décidée. Le meurtre et les morts évitables ont vaincu. |
La presse des États-Unis annonce que jeudi, le système politique américain commencera le processus de choisir le Président suivant des États-Unis.
Mais ceci n’est pas vrai :
Le processus est déjà en grande partie achevé, car nous savons déjà que le président suivant sera, très probablement, un parmi ces onze personnes très riches, chacune ayant des positions politiques qui - si mis en œuvre - tueront peut-être onze millions de pauvres.
Les candidats probables - Bloomberg, Clinton, Edwards, Giuliani, Gore, Huckabee, McCain, Obama, le Riz, Romney et Thompson - diffèrent de beaucoup de façons, y compris une différence marginale concernant des nombres des morts probables, et ils diffèrent du grade de leur soutien des meurtres par moyens d’armes aux feux Bloomberg, Huckabee et Romney ,oins responsables de ceci, puisquils nont pas encore été responsables au niveau national.
Mais ils sopposent tous à une mise en oeuvre équitable des lois contre le meurtre et ils sopposent tous aux transferts dassez de richesses maintenant pour empêcher toutes les morts autrement évitables.
Le but de la mise en oeuvre des lois contre le meurtre ne devrait pas être controversés. La plupart des gens de conscience les soutiendraient. Et même les dirigeants des États-Unis eux-mêmes les soutiennent souvent - quoique seulement sur le papier ou en principe.
Quant au meurtre, le président Bush a déclaré aux Nations Unies le 10 novembre 2001 : nous devons nous unir dans lopposition à tous les terroristes, non seulement certains dentre eux... Aucune aspiration nationale, aucun tort dont on aurait souffert ne peut jamais justifier le meurtre d’innocents... Les alliés de la terreur sont également coupables de meurtre et également responsables devant la justice.
Mais tandis que Bush parlait ainsi, écoutait comme partie de sa délégation un certain Elliot Abrams qui est et était, l’un des conseillers supérieurs de Bush concernant Israël-Palestine, et qui a dirigé pendant les années 80 lappui américain soutenant les mises à mort terroristes de civils au Guatemala, le Salvador, le Honduras et le Nicaragua où, comme le Général américain John Galvin sest exprimé, on a chassé des cibles douces, comme des coopératives agricoles.
De plus, le Président nest pas allé au commissariat de police se dénoncer pour ce qui se passait exactement à ce moment-là, c’est-à-dire un attentat par bombardement de villages Afghans, ou pour armer, entraîner financer des régimes qui dans plusieurs douzaines de pays alliés aux Américains pratiquent dans le monde entier l’assassinat des innocents.
Et personne parmi les candidats à la présidence américaine ne laurait fait différemment.
Ils ont tous soutenu linvasion de l’Afghanistan quoi quils varient sur lIrak. Personne d’entre eux na rejeté la pratique américaine ordinaire dappui chaque année aux régimes terroristes le Congrès vient de voter deux projets de loi d’envergure concernant la défense, et de financements dopérations à l’étranger. Ceux-ci aideront de façon mortelle des pays comme la Colombie, lArabie Saoudite, l’Egypte, l’Israël, lIrak, le Congo, le Pakistan et lIndonésie. Également, personne na exigé que des fonctionnaires américains répondent à la justice.
Une situation semblable concerne les morts évitables. Les États-Unis se déclarent que, aussi eux, y sont contre ils ont un programme daide alimentaire et des programmes de santé mondiaux et Bill Clinton a un fond qui sert à épargner quelque peu de vies de certains individus aussi bien que la fourniture de fonds privés directement pour le couple Clinton.
Mais pas question de transfert d’assez de fonds pour arrêter la faim mondiale, ou pour prévenir la mort par diarrhée n’importe où. Personne parmi les présidentiables ne l’a jamais proposé.
Mais si les États-Unis le voulaient, ce serait fait. Des millions de morts seraient en vie. Mais rien n’a été fait, s’agit il de gouvernements républicains ou de la présidence ClintonGore.
En fait si par exemple Michael Bloomberg le maire milliardaire de New York voulait le faire – ou avait choisi de le faire – les 5 millions de gosses sous-alimentés et à cause de ça, morts, auraient pu être nourris et en vie, à cause de sa richesse personnelle, parce que, selon Forbes magazine, il vaut 11,5 milliards de dollars.
Voilà la position de la démocratie en Amérique.
On a le droit de voter, mais pas de choix réel, surtout si on veut voter contre le meurtre et pour sauver des gosses affamés et pour penser d’une façon indépendante.
Aucun choix, cest-à-dire à moins qu’on n’en oblige pas les autorités. Les Américains n’y sont pas arrivés encore.
|
|
|
| Getting Shot in the Stomach: Hunger and Dissent in Burma, and Other Countries... |
Talking with some Burmese activists the other day, one young leader made a crucial point.
The discussion included familiar topics like sanctions and military practices at the Mingalardon base, for example, the Myanmar army supposedly likes to recruit from orphanages, and, according to a fellow who once lived on base, recruits seeking permission to go to the toilet are required to first take off all their clothes to ensure that they wont try to run away.
But that young leader kept coming back to a theme that applies to very poor people everywhere: Burmese people are in a very dramatic situation, he said. If they want to participate in demonstrations they have to look at their own stomachs. They wish to participate in demonstrations, but they have to think about their food. If they wish to oppose, they have to think about their own self. If they spend just a few hours in opposition they pay a very difficult price.
The price he was referring to was not the danger of being caught, shot or beaten by soldiers, but rather to the price of having to forgo a couple of hours of work, and, thereby, some crucial number of grams of food for ones self or family.
The point is that if youre close to the hunger line, time and energy for politics is very costly.
Some societies, like the US, like to say that time is money. But if you really dont have much money, its different. Then, time is food or it can be, if youre lucky enough to have a job or location that can enable you to make it food.
The Burma people want to spread their feeling, he continued, but they are scared by the regime. Not only because of the killing and imprisonment, but because daily life is also very difficult in this day.
The Burmese person wants to gain democracy, but what does he do for the family? If he opposes the military regime, the next day his family maybe faces starvation.
If you dont, say, pick and sell your fruit for half a day, or get the bosss pocket change you all count on, you may come home charged-up by politics but to a very disappointed family.
Under normal circumstances for poor people in todays Burma, he contended, You may have enough for lunch for a big family, but going home to the house all the family is waiting for the dinner!
The activists claimed that hunger is now bad, for example, in places west of Rangoon like Shwe pyi thar township, Hlain thar yar, and Ayar thar gyi.
They were referring to a threshold of hunger that is present not future oriented. It is one thing to worry about a few consecutive days of hunger endangering you babies brains see posting of November 8, 2007, Duduk - Duduk, Ngobrol - Ngobrol. Sitting Around Talking, in Indonesia., but it is another to worry about a lack of food tonight maybe causing you to keel over.
When you reach such a point, you reach for anything almost. In East Nusa Tenggara Indonesia it is not-normally-consumable roots or leaves. In Burma now the meal of non-choice is rice-water porridge, served with nothing.
It is reminiscent, in a way, of Honduras in the 1980s, a far looser, semi-feudal regime. At that time, much of popular Central America was rising up, but in Honduras, largely not. When you asked people why, the answer was usually the same: the Hondurans are too hungry and tired. It was true that they had a big US base and a US-trained military death squad Battalion 316, backed by the US Army Rangers, the CIA, and then proconsul John Negroponte, but it was emblematic of the situation that 316 murdered civilians by the dozens, while its US-backed counterparts in neighboring countries found it necessary to do it by the tens of thousands.
Though the Burmese regime did one of the big all-at-once massacres of recent decades 3,000 in 1988 the regime has since maintained its power with much less actual gun murder than, say, Indonesia.
It is interesting that the recent Burmese protests were apparently dispersed with fewer killings than in 88. Back then, all the activists agreed, people were eating better.
Hunger other peoples can be the rulers friend, so long as it doesnt undermine the regimes style of economy and in todays Burma, it apparently doesnt, since its based not on broad production but on a well-fed martial elite selling minerals, gems, and narcotics to foreigners.
Thats not to say that those rulers are not vulnerable. They may be. It in some part depends on their foreign customersbackers.
But for a poor Burmese, you have to think before you spread your feeling. You might get shot in the stomach, even if your adversary doesnt fire his gun.
|
|
|
| State of the Union. Entitlement, Justice, and the War of All Against All |
President Bush just said We will deliver justice to our enemies US State of the Union Address, January 28, 2008.
So does that mean that its dependent on our enemies to deliver justice to us?
Thats the way people like Bin Laden think, and Bush apparently shares his mindset.
A leader chooses his definition of justice and goes out and kills or does whatever to the culprit.
Thats the way things theoretically work by default in the absence of a strong society, in the condition of something like what Thomas Hobbes called the war of all against all.
But if we didnt have a strong society, Bush wouldnt have a 2.8 trillion budget FY 2007. He wouldnt have Secret Service bodyguards, so hed have to wear a holster to the podium, as Arafat who had a smaller budget once did.
Without a strong society there wouldnt be any effective inheritance laws, so Bush would be out there scrambling for work and food like everybody else.
In other words, you cant have it both ways.
You cant luxuriate in huge social entitlements while ignoring societys most basic laws and taboos: the ones regarding killing other people, the ones that say that society defines justice on these matters not individual leaders, or even establishments and it defines it by consensus and law i.e. murder laws, made laboriously over time.
So if Bush wants to go out and kill somebody with a sword, as he might in a Hobbesian world, thats up to him.
But he shouldnt be surprised or complain when hes arrested by societys law-enforcers.
|
|
|
| Obama: The new guy in town |
Short of a surprise, Barack Obama will be the next president of the United States. It will be a truly historic period for American politics as well as world affairs. Given that the basic premises of Obamas election strategy are hope and change, one should ask in what direction change in American policies will be evolving and to whom it brings hope.
There is no doubt that not only his domestic politics but his foreign policy preferences will be shaped by his overall message that a positive change can create hope for Americans. His basic premise would tell us in what direction American foreign policy preferences will evolve in our region. It seems that the world is supporting Obamas idea of change however, the change that Obama talks about and the change people around the world expect might not be compatible.
Obamas change policies will be predominantly oriented toward American domestic policy. For instance, by ending the unpopular war in Iraq, he expects to generate momentum among American people to support his foreign policy preferences. But his preference to change the status quo in Iraq may not make Kurds in Iraq happy and hopeful. Would it make Turkey happy? We do not know yet. His policy to change American aggressions around the world could make Russia more aggressive. Would that make Georgia, Ukraine or Turkey happy? No.
When establishing his foreign policies, what Obama will predominantly take into account is what Americans think about developments around the world. Thus, media coverage about the crises around the world would be one of the factors that would pressure the Obama administration to take action. For instance, an Obama administration would likely get directly involved with a crisis similar to Darfur. Unless these problems thaw on their own, Obama isnt likely to get involved in frozen conflicts such as Cyprus or the Armenian genocide claims. Based on this expectation, we can assume that an Obama administration would be one that seeks to work with the actors to maintain the status quo.
Turkey is one of the actors with which the Obama administration would want to establish better relations from Day 1. In fact, the Obama campaign announced the restoration of a strategic partnership with Turkey. In their foreign policy outline, A Stronger Partnership with Europe for a Safer America, Obama and Biden devoted a whole paragraph to Turkey. They said that they believe that a close relationship with a stable, democratic, Western-oriented Republic of Turkey is an important U.S. national interest. That relationship has been deeply strained in recent years, most importantly by the Bush administrations misguided and mismanaged intervention in Iraq, which has helped revive the terrorist threat posed to Turkey by the separatist Kurdish Workers Party [PKK].
It signals that an Obama administration, unlike the Bush administration, will be actively involved in solving the PKK problem in Turkey. They outline a plan to bring together Turkish and Iraqi Kurdish leaders and negotiate a comprehensive agreement that deals with the PKK threat, guarantees Turkeys territorial integrity, and facilitates badly needed Turkish investment in and trade with the Kurds of northern Iraq.
Unlike the advocates of the genocide industry in Turkey and Washington who claim that Obama and Biden will put Turkey in a difficult position, it would certainly be a good sign for Turkey to see an Obama administration. He and Biden are two pragmatic American politicians, and most importantly, they understand Turkeys critical position.
In fact, the word genocide in their outline is spelled out only once to mention the Bosnian genocide. There is no mention of Armenia, and they devoted another paragraph to the Cyprus problem. On that, they believe strongly that Cyprus should remain a single country in which each of the two communities on the island is able to exercise substantial political authority in its own geographical zone with a just and mutually agreed settlement of difficult issues like property, refugees, land, and security. Is there a major difference between what Turkey wants and what Obama and Biden want? No.
Most importantly, Obama and Biden, unlike the Bush administration, understand the volatility of Turkish democracy and put emphasis on Turkish democracy without any adjective before it. In their statement, they clearly outline that they will support the promotion of democracy, human rights, and freedom of expression in Turkey and support its efforts to join the European Union.
After all that, what can a Turk say? Welcome, Obama and Biden!
Todays Zaman |
|
|
| Palin takes prank call from fake French president |
In an over-the-top French accent, a member of the Quebec comedy duo “The Masked Avengers,” famous for tricking celebrities and politicians including Sarkozy himself, asked if Palin would take him on a hunting trip by helicopter, and then in French said they could also go kill baby seals.
An apparently oblivious Palin said she thought that would be fun. “We could have a lot of fun together as we’re getting work done. We could kill two birds with one stone that way.”
The prankster also got Palin, Republican John McCain’s running mate in Tuesday’s US presidential election, to reveal a potential ambition for the top job in Washington.
Asked if she would like to eventually become president, the Alaska governor responded, “Well, maybe in eight years.”
Palin’s office quickly admitted they were hoodwinked. “Governor Palin was mildly amused to learn that she had joined the ranks of heads of state, including President Sarkozy, and other celebrities in being targeted by these pranksters. C’est la vie,” Palin spokeswoman Tracy Schmitt said in an e-mail.
Robert Gibbs, a senior advisor to Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama, told reporters in Springfield, Missouri: “I’m glad we check out our calls before we hand the phone to Barack Obama.”
During the phone call, which was played for a Montreal radio program, Palin complimented the fake Sarkozy on his beautiful wife, Carla Bruni, and asked him to give her a “big hug” for her.
“You added a lot of energy to your country with that beautiful family of yours,” Palin said.
The prankster responded by complimenting Palin on a notorious Hustler porn film “Nailin’ Paylin,” which he said was a documentary of her life. “Oh good, thank you,” Palin said.
Sarah Palin also reassured the fake Sarkozy when he said he would not want to bring Vice President Dick Cheney on a hunting trip. Cheney once accidentally shot a hunting partner.
03 November 2008, Monday
REUTERS TORONTO
|
|
