Sunday, 26 December 2010

Eurasia Review

Eurasia Review

The Real Battle For The Idea Of India

By Aijaz Zaka Syed

What’s India’s ruling Congress party up to now?

Is it really undergoing a radical metamorphosis or is this yet another clever, little trick out of its ancient bag? When was the last time you had senior Congress leaders hold forth on Hindu extremism being a grave threat to India’s security and integrity? That too in the presence of the high and mighty of government and party, including Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Sonia Gandhi!

Digvijay Singh is one of those few Congress leaders who wear their liberal credentials on their sleeve. Yet watching him take on the saffron brotherhood at the party’s plenary was breathtaking, even if simplistic. “In the 1930s, Hitler’s Nazi party attacked the Jews. Similarly, the RSS ideology wants to capture power by targeting Muslims under the garb of nationalism,” thundered the former Madhya Pradesh chief minister. Accusing the RSS-VHP-BJP combine of sowing the seeds of terror in the country with the destruction of Babri Masjid, Singh warned the nation of the Hindutva forces infiltrating all organs of the state, including the bureaucracy, police, and the army.

What makes Digvijay Singh’s assertions interesting is the fact that they were not projected as his own views but as a clear ideological line of the party. Earlier, in her opening address, Sonia Gandhi, the party’s president, warned the country against both majoritarian and minority extremism. “They are all dangerous and must be defeated. We cannot ignore such elements who provoke people to violent means by using religion” said the Italian-born politician.

This theme of Hindutva specter was emphasized further in the final political resolutions, without the usual spin and hedging. Secularism, said the Congress’ resolution, the lifeline of Indian democracy “is threatened by the ideology of the BJP and its affiliate organizations like the RSS. The RSS and the VHP are insidious in their efforts to break India.”

Launching a full frontal attack on you know who, the resolution said: “The role of fundamentalist organizations in challenging the security of the nation can no longer be ignored. The Indian National Congress calls upon the government to tackle this menace in the strongest possible manner and investigate the links between terrorists and the RSS and its sister organizations that have been uncovered in some recent cases. Terrorism, wherever it comes from and whatever form it takes, must be dealt with firmly and effectively.”

Of course, nothing of this sanctimonious stuff comes as news to anyone familiar with the rough and tumble of Indian politics. Hindutva’s history and shenanigans are not exactly state secrets. Everyone knows how the BJP grew from a two-member party in Parliament to the “natural party of governance” that calls itself today in no time. From the hundreds of riots and pogroms targeting the Muslims to the Ayodhya outrage to the constant demonization and witch-hunt of the minority community, Muslims have got a great deal to thank the saffron friends for.

And as Congress so wisely warns us, these forces aren’t just a threat to religious minorities but a clear and present danger to India and everything it stands for — tolerance, pluralism and religious and cultural diversity.

The question is why the Congress has woken up to the dangerous designs of Hindutva forces now? And what’s with its sudden love for the Muslims? Is it a real concern for the well being of the nation or is this inspired by something more mundane like power? Is the party, with its back to the wall over all these corruption scams, resorting to what it does best, vote bank politics, using Muslims as the cannon fodder all over again?

The Muslims have enough reasons to be wary of Congress. While they have over the past couple of elections begun voting for the party once again, it’s not out of love for the Gandhis. It was not a mandate for the Congress but more of a protest against the RSS-BJP worldview. Even if the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) experiment with some secular, regional parties falling for the amiable mask of the BJP, Atal Behari Vajpayee, had persuaded some Muslims briefly to vote for the alliance, Gujarat served as a stark warning of the shape of things to come.

It was this fear that has made Muslims vote for the Congress, and other secular parties. However, their deep sense of distrust and betrayal of the grand old party remains.

While they have come to respect Sonia Gandhi, they cannot get over the Babri Masjid demolition and the carnage that followed on Narasimha Rao’s watch. It’s not just that particular phase under India’s answer to Nero though. Talk to any member of the community and there’s a long history of treachery, exploitation and repeated betrayals that is revisited.

And it’s not just the loss of lives, businesses and property that the Muslims suffered in hundreds of riots for decades after India won independence in 1947. If today they find themselves educationally and economically in conditions worse than the Dalits, lowest of the low in the social hierarchy, the party that has ruled India for nearly half a century must share the responsibility.

Despite their large numbers — at least 150 million, twice the population of Egypt — the community remains dangerously dispossessed and on the margins of the amazing economic revolution that India has lately witnessed. They have no voice in the decision making process either at the centre or in the states. Their representation in the government, bureaucracy, police and the army is next to nothing.

Little has been done even under the present dispensation, except form commissions and committees. Justice Sachar Committee’s recommendations are waiting for their implementation five years after their submission. Even government schemes and funds to help the minority community remain underutilized or not utilized at all.

Even when some governments did try to do their bit, their efforts have been defeated by a systemic indifference and, let’s say it, deep-seated prejudice at all levels. A disturbing state of affairs, indeed! And this won’t change overnight or in a year or decade. But someone has to start somewhere.

If the Congress is sincere and really means what it says about the need to fight the dark forces of fascism and communalism, the Muslims and other minorities must support its efforts. In fact, what’s urgently needed is a national movement against the scourge of communalism and extremism, a threat far bigger than corruption.

This is perhaps the first time since Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, the first prime minister, that the Congress has given the call to fight the ideology of hatred and fascism in such unequivocal terms. Rahul Gandhi may still be a babe in the woods but he got it right when he argued, according to WikiLeaks, that the threat to India from the Hindu extremists is greater than that posed by groups like Lashkar. A sentiment echoed long before him by his great-grandfather Nehru who had argued that majoritarian extremism was more dangerous than a minority’s militant mindset because it always dresses itself in nationalism. Just as it did in Germany. And Nehru hadn’t even seen the latter-day avatars of the RSS and company!

But fighting the scourge of communalism isn’t the responsibility of one party or community. It’s not just in the interest of the Muslims and other minorities that India’s secular and plural character is protected. India’s unique selling proposition (USP) is its breathtaking diversity and fabled tolerance. All of us — Hindus, Muslims, Christians and Sikhs — have a stake in a secular, progressive and pluralistic India. If India fails, none of us will survive.

For their part, Muslims cannot fight their battles alone. If India is what it is, it’s because of its silent majority that is reasonable, peace-loving and believes in justice and fair play. We must enlist their support and involvement. Inclusion, not isolation, is the way forward.

— Aijaz Zaka Syed is a Dubai-based commentator. Reach him at aijaz.syed@hotmail.com

Wednesday, 1 December 2010

Imams Convention demands reservation for Indian Muslims

Imams Convention demands reservation for Indian Muslims

Why NGO Monitor is attacking The Electronic Intifada

http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article11651.shtml

Why NGO Monitor is attacking The Electronic Intifada
Report, The Electronic Intifada, 30 November 2010

NGO Monitor's campaign of public defamation against The Electronic Intifada focuses on support the publication receives from a Dutch foundation.

NGO Monitor has launched a campaign targeting a Dutch foundation's financial support to The Electronic Intifada, accusing the publication among other things of "anti-Semitism." NGO Monitor is an extreme right-wing group with close ties to the Israeli government, military, West Bank settlers, a man convicted of misleading the US Congress, and to notoriously Islamophobic individuals and organizations in the United States.

NGO Monitor's campaign of public defamation against The Electronic Intifada has focused on a grant the publication receives from the Dutch foundation ICCO. NGO Monitor has pressured the Dutch government, which subsidizes ICCO, to end its support for The Electronic Intifada. Dutch Foreign Minister Uri Rosenthal has apparently already lent public credence to NGO Monitor's campaign against The Electronic Intifada, an independent publication established in February 2001 and read by thousands daily.

NGO Monitor's attack on The Electronic Intifada is part of a well-financed, Israeli-government endorsed effort to silence reporting about and criticism of Israel by attacking so-called "delegitimizers" -- those who speak about well-documented human rights abuses, support boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS), or promote full equality for Palestinians. Last February, The Electronic Intifada reported that a leading Israeli think-tank had recommended a campaign of "sabotage" against Israel's critics as a matter of state policy ("Israel's new strategy: "sabotage" and "attack" the global justice movement," 16 February 2010).

NGO Monitor has already been at the forefront of a campaign to crush internal dissent by Jewish groups in Israel that want to see Israel's human rights record improved.

The Jerusalem-based organization poses as a project concerned with accountability for nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), but as Israeli human rights activist and journalist Didi Remez has stated, "NGO Monitor is not an objective watchdog: It is a partisan operation that suppresses its perceived ideological adversaries through the sophisticated use of McCarthyite techniques -- blacklisting, guilt by association and selective filtering of facts" ("Bring on the transparency," Haaretz, 26 November 2009).

In a 6 November article in The Jerusalem Post, NGO Monitor president Gerald Steinberg revealed that his group was part of a new "Israel Action Network" established by the Jewish Federations of North America (JFNA) and the Jewish Council of Public Affairs (JCPA) ("Turning the tables on BDS," The Jerusalem Post, 6 November 2010).

The JFNA is funding the Israel Action Network to the tune of $6 million over the next three years to target "delegitimization," which according to JFNA president Jerry Silverman, "Israeli leaders identify ... as the second most dangerous threat to Israel, after Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons ("Federations, JCPA teaming to fight delegitimization of Israel," JTA, 24 October 2010).

NGO Monitor's and the Israel Action Network's goals appear to be nothing less than to shut down independent media such as The Electronic Intifada, as well as human rights advocacy groups in Israel, the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip and around the world. In his 6 November article, Steinberg specifically named The Electronic Intifada and its co-founder and executive director Ali Abunimah, as well as Sabeel, the Palestinian Christian ecumenical justice and peace movement, and its founder Reverend Naim Ateek, as targets of the campaign.

Steinberg explained, "To emerge victorious in this political war, the [Israel Action] network must be armed with detailed information about the opposition, and implement an effective counterstrategy on this basis. This involves distributing information to college students and active community members, so they can name and shame the groups that lead and fund demonization."

Steinberg goes on to boast, "NGO Monitor has demonstrated that this approach can be very effective. Based on detailed research, the government of Canada cut funding ostensibly provided for human rights and development, but which was actually used for hatred and incitement. Similar discussions are under way in European governments regarding funding for some of the more poisonous NGOs involved in BDS."

In becoming the latest target of NGO Monitor's defamation and sabotage efforts, The Electronic Intifada joins previously targeted organizations including Amnesty International, Doctors Without Borders, Human Rights Watch, Adalah, Al-Haq, Mada al-Carmel as well as Israeli groups such as B'Tselem, Breaking the Silence, HaMoked and New Israel Fund, among dozens of others.

NGO Monitor -- as a glance at its publications reveals -- characterizes any documentation of, or call for an end to Israel's systematic human rights abuses, violent colonization of the occupied West Bank including Jerusalem, or its siege and amply documented war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza as "hate," "incitement" and/or "anti-Semitism."

Attacking funding to undermine free speech and thought

In 2007, NGO Monitor began targeting the Canadian international development and human rights organization Alternatives which did development work in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip. After a determined campaign by pro-Israel advocates, Canada's Conservative government cut funding to Alternatives and several other groups that worked on Palestinian rights ("Canada's neoconservative turn," The Electronic Intifada, 26 February 2010).

Earlier this year, Canada's government-supported International Development Research Centre canceled research grants to Mada al-Carmel -- an independent research center in Haifa, the only one of its kind in Israel, which focuses on the rights, needs and future of Palestinian citizens. According to the Israeli daily Haaretz, the grants which were for research on "Arab political participation in Israel and the future of Israeli democracy," and "Palestinian women in Israel and the political economy" may have been canceled under pressure applied by the Israeli foreign ministry on the Canadian government ("Did Foreign Ministry lobby to stop Canadian funding of Israeli Arab group?,"Haaretz, 19 August 2010).

Turning the fire on The Electronic Intifada

On 26 November, The Jerusalem Post published an article by Benjamin Weinthal headlined "Dutch will look into NGO funding of anti-Semitic website."

According to Weinthal, "The Dutch government has been funding the Interchurch Organization for Development Cooperation [ICCO], a Dutch aid organization that finances the Electronic Intifada website that, NGO Monitor told The Jerusalem Post on Thursday, is anti-Semitic and frequently compares Israeli policies with those of the Nazi regime."

However, The Post does not cite any specific examples from almost 12,000 articles published by The Electronic Intifada since 2001 to substantiate these lurid accusations.

With its reporting and independent commentary, The Electronic Intifada has built a global reputation since its founding, and states on its website that "our views on the conflict are based firmly on universal principles of international law and human rights conventions, and our reporting is built on a solid foundation of documented evidence and careful fact-checking."

The Post quotes Dutch Foreign Minister Uri Rosenthal stating, "I will look into the matter personally. If it appears that the government-subsidized NGO ICCO does fund Electronic Intifada, it will have a serious problem with me."

If the quotation from Foreign Minister Rosenthal is accurate (which cannot be taken for granted given the errors and false statements throughout Weinthal's article), it should be noted that The Electronic Intifada was never contacted by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands before the minister apparently went on the record lending support to the allegations made by NGO Monitor.

The Jerusalem Post also charges that "EI executive director Ali Abunimah is a leader in delegitimization and demonization campaigns against Israel. In his travels and speaking engagements, facilitated by Electronic Intifada's budget, he calls for a one-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and routinely uses false apartheid rhetoric."

The Jerusalem Post never attempted to contact The Electronic Intifada or Abunimah to verify any of these claims. Had it done so, it would have been informed that none of Abunimah's speaking engagements or travel has ever been funded by The Electronic Intifada's budget, but all such engagements are paid for by the groups hosting the events which are organized and handled entirely separately from the publication.

Since 2006, about one-third of The Electronic Intifada's funding has come from ICCO. The majority of the publication's funding has come from direct donations from readers, and another small part from other private foundations. The Electronic Intifada has never received funds from any government. The Electronic Intifada's total expenses amounted to $149,208 in 2008 and $183,760 in 2009, as reported on the publicly available Form 990 filed annually with the US Internal Revenue Service by the Middle East Cultural and Charitable Society, Inc., the nonprofit organization of which The Electronic Intifada is a program service.

NGO Monitor, Israel's government, military and the far-right

NGO Monitor is closely tied to Israel's far-right, its government and military as well as leading anti-Palestinian and anti-Muslim activists in the United States.

NGO Monitor states on its website that it is "a joint venture of the Institute for Contemporary Affairs, founded jointly with the Wechsler Family Foundation, and B'nai B'rith International."

As The Electronic Intifada reported in 2005, the Institute of Contemporary Affairs at the Jerusalem Center on Public Affairs is a think-tank providing a home for Israel's military and political elite. Among the panoply of Israeli officers who speak and write for the Institute is Doron Almog, who notoriously chose to remain on board an El Al aircraft at London's Heathrow airport and flee back to Israel rather than face a pending arrest warrant for alleged war crimes while he was a division commander in the occupied Gaza Strip ("NGO Monitor should not be taken seriously," 18 October 2005).

Among NGO Monitor's International Advisory Board are some unusual choices for an organization focused on accountability. In addition to Alan Dershowitz and Elie Wiesel (who has gone on record saying he can never criticize Israel), there is former CIA chief and pro-Iraq-war activist James Woolsey, and Elliott Abrams. Abrams was convicted in 1991 of withholding information from the United States Congress in the Iran-Contra affair in which he was deeply involved as an official in the Reagan administration. As deputy national security advisor during the administration of George W. Bush, Abrams was the architect of covert US policies intended to overturn the January 2006 Palestinian legislative elections by arming Palestinian militias opposed to Hamas, which had won the vote. Abrams' policies led to a Palestinian civil war that cost hundreds of lives (David Rose, "The Gaza Bombshell," Vanity Fair, April 2008).

NGO Monitor's "Legal Advisory Board" includes former Israeli ambassador Alan Baker, who as an Israeli government official spent years publicly defending Israel's violations of international law, including its settlements in occupied territory, which are nominally opposed by all EU governments, including the Netherlands.

Cementing the link even more closely, NGO Monitor recently published a joint report with its partner the Institute for Zionist Strategies entitled "
Trojan Horse: The Impact of European Government Funding for Israeli NGOs." The Institute for Zionist Strategies, as Didi Remez has pointed out, is led by Israel Harel, a founder of the fanatical Gush Emunim settler movement.

Calling for "accountability" but only for others

While NGO Monitor is increasingly frank that its goal is to shut down open discussion of Israel's human rights abuses, it claims that it exists to promote "accountability" and transparency. But this transparency does not extend to itself or its political allies.

Some information is available about NGO Monitor's funding, but the organization does not release the names of all its donors nor the amounts they gave -- even as it insists that others should do so. In addition to the Wechsler Foundation, NGO Monitor lists among its "major donors," Daniel Pipes' Middle East Forum Education Project. Pipes has been widely criticized for purveying anti-Muslim and anti-Arab propaganda, including by United States Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) who opposed Pipes' 2003 appointment by President George W. Bush to the board of the United States Institute for Peace ("Daniel Pipes nomination stalled in committee," The Baltimore Chronicle, 23 July 2003).

NGO Monitor also lists a US tax-exempt organization called American Friends of NGO Monitor (AFNGOM) among its "major donors." While AFNGOM received its recognition as a tax-exempt non-profit in early 2009, there was -- as of late 2010 -- still no legally-required, public Form 990 for 2009 available for the group on the Guidestar.org website, the information clearinghouse for US non-profits (According to Guidestar, a 990 should appear on its website approximately two months after being filed).

Among AFNGOM's board members is Rita Emerson. Emerson and her husband Steven Emerson are prominent in the US pro-Israel, anti-Muslim community and often make donations to pro-Israel causes. They jointly fund the "Emerson Fellowships" for the anti-Palestinian advocacy group Stand With Us (which works closely with the Israeli military to organize speaking tours for Israeli soldiers on North American college campuses) and are both substantial donors to the Technion Israel Institute of Technology. "Their most passionate concerns include cancer research, the defense of Israel on campus and in the media, and the struggle against the global Jihad," is how the couple was described in the program of a 2007 dinner for the American Freedom Alliance.

The Emersons have done very well financially from incitement against Muslims. A recent investigative report by The Tennessean newspaper found that in 2008 Steven Emerson paid his own for-profit company $3.4 million in fees from a non-profit charity he founded, which, according to the newspaper "solicits money by telling donors they're in imminent danger from Muslims." According to The Tennessean, Emerson's non-profit effectively acts as a front for a lucrative for-profit venture ("Anti-Muslim crusaders make millions spreading fear," The Tennessean, 24 October 2010). Unusually, the non-profit's 990 forms do not list any staff, board members or salaries except for Steven Emerson who is the organization's sole officer.

Yet a search of NGO Monitor's website found no page dedicated to exposing the lack of transparency of the Emersons' multimillion dollar "non-profit" business.

NGO Monitor evinces a similar lack of concern for transparency when it comes to extremist Israeli groups. As Didi Remez points out, "Hundreds of millions of dollars in Israeli taxpayer money and US tax exemptions, mostly hidden from public view, are the driving force of the settlement enterprise," including organizations such as Elad which are behind the current efforts of Israeli settlers to expel Palestinians from certain neighborhoods in occupied East Jerusalem ("Bring on the transparency").

Remez notes that while most of the Israeli dissenting and human rights groups NGO Monitor targets already meet high standards of fiscal transparency, the settler groups do not. Settler groups, Remez observes, "depend on financial opacity for continued operations." NGO Monitor has never said a word about it.

With international movements in solidarity with Palestine -- including BDS -- gaining steam, Israel's leaders and apologists are becoming more desperate and unscrupulous than ever. Nothing illustrates this better than NGO Monitor attacking funding sources for media and human rights organizations like The Electronic Intifada and so many other groups doing urgently needed work.

Hugo Chavez' Address

http://www.countercurrents.org/castro301110.htm

Hugo Chavez' Address

By Fidel Castro

30 November, 2010
Cuba.cu

An unusual meeting took place at the United States Capital Building between a group of US legislators from the fascist right and Latin American leaders from the rightwing oligarchy and coup promoters to discus the overthrow of the governments of Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador and Nicaragua.

The meeting took place a few days before the gathering of Defense ministers from the western hemisphere in Santa Cruz, Bolivia, where, on November 22, President Evo Morales delivered an energetic denunciation.

The meeting was not to discuss a slanderous media campaign, a common strategy seen in the imperialist policy, but rather to discuss a conspiracy that, without doubt, would lead to inevitable bloodshed in Venezuela. The experience I have gathered over many years leaves me with no doubts over what would happen in Venezuela if Chavez were assassinated. There would be no need to devise a plan against the president; a mentally disturbed individual, a drug addict, or the violence associated with drug trafficking would be enough to generate an extremely serious situation in Venezuela. Analyzing the situation from a political perspective, the activities and practices of the reactionary oligarchy that owns the powerful media outlets and are encouraged and financed by the United States would inevitably lead to bloody confrontations in the streets of Venezuela. These are the obvious intentions of the Venezuelan opposition, which openly sows hate and violence.

Guillermo Zuloaga —the owner of one of the television channels that is in opposition to the Bolivarian Revolution and a fugitive of Venezuelan law— is one of the conspirators who participated in the meeting of US congresspersons called by Connie Mack and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen. Ros-Lehtinen is of Cuban origin and is known for her affiliation with the Batista dictatorship. She is called the “ferocious wolf” by our people because of her repulsive conduct during the kidnapping of Elián Gonzalez and her refusal to hand over the boy to his father. The republican congresswoman is a symbol of hate and resentment towards Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia and the rest of the ALBA countries; in addition, she recently defended the coup d’état government in Honduras that was condemned by the majority of countries in the Americas. She will almost certainly by elected as the president of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

The Bolivarian Government of Venezuela faced a serious and provocative challenge. It was a very delicate issue. I wondered what Chavez’ reaction would be. The first energetic response was from Evo Morales in his brilliant and heartfelt address that was broadcast in Cuba. Two days ago, on November 23, it was announced that Chavez would address the issue in the National Assembly.

The act was convened for 5 p.m. and began precisely at the scheduled time. The addresses that were delivered were energetic. The activities concluded barely two hours after they began. Venezuelans had taken the issue very seriously.

Chavez began by mentioning the names of numerous people present and after joking with the new world champion in Katá and about the game between two professional teams, Chavez went to the matter at hand:

“…I am, really, really, truly, going to be brief. It has been said, well, the document that has just been read by representative Roy, thank you Roy, Roy Daza, for reading the document, not only in defense of Venezuela, as has been said here, as Eva said. No, we are going out to defend the human patrimony; one can even say to defend the future of humanity.

“I have brought some books […] This was the same copy, it’s a bit worn, that I held up in the United Nations: Chomsky, Hegemony or Survival: —I continue to recommend this book— The American Empire Project, Noam Chomsky. Eva mentioned it and we are reminded of this great of critical thinking, of creative thinking, of philosophy, of the struggle for humanity.

“I have the continuation of this book, Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy. In this book, Chomsky sets out the thesis that the first failed state in the world is the United States, a failed state, a real threat against the entire planet, the whole world, and the human species.

“Here is a part of the interview, of the conversations, where Chomsky reflects on Latin America and Venezuela, in a very brave, objective and generous way, defending our revolutionary process, defending our people, defending the right we have and that we are exercising to follow our own path, as all the peoples of the world have; a right that the Yankee empire has ignored and will try to continue to ignore.

“Right in the federal Capitol (I think it is called), right in Washington, they held a terrorist summit: a summit, a mob (as Argentines and Venezuelans would say), a genuine gang of criminals, cons, terrorists, thieves, delinquents, who met and, backed by ‘prestigious’ figures from the establishment, not only from the ultra republican right, but also from the Democrat Party, openly launched —as has been commented on here, Eva said it, Roy expressed it in the brilliant document he read, a State document, a national document— a threat against Venezuela, against the countries and peoples of the Bolivarian Alliance.

“From here we send greetings to Evo Morales, a brave colleague and comrade, and to the people of Bolivia.

““From here we send greetings to Rafael Correa, a brave colleague and comrade, and to the people of Ecuador.

“From here we send greetings to Daniel Ortega, the comandante president, a brave colleague and comrade, and to the people of Nicaragua.

“From here we send greetings to Fidel Castro and Raul Castro, and to the courageous Cuban people

“From here we send greetings to the Caribbean people, to Roosevelt Skerrit and the people of Dominica, brave leaders; Saint Vincent and the Grenadines; Ralph Gonsalves, Spencer, to the ALBA peoples, to the peoples of the Bolivarian Alliance, to their governments, to our governments, and, of course, from here, greetings to the fierce people of Venezuela, our commitment and our call to unity to continue fighting for the future of our homeland, for our independence, whose original constitution —our president, Cilia, already mentioned this— dates back 200 years.

“We are entering into 2011 and we will prepare from all perspectives —spiritual, political, moral— to commemorate 200 years from that first Congress, from that first Constitution, the first in Latin America, the birth of the First Republic, the birth of the Venezuelan homeland, much more than just July 5, it is all of 2011, and the beginning of the revolutionary war of independence led first by Miranda, then Bolivar and the great men and women who gave us our homeland.

“The document read by Roy Daza begins with a quote from Bolivar from a letter to Irving, a US agent that came here to demand the return of those ships that Bolivar and his troops had seized in the Orinoco because the United States were sending him arms and supplies.

“That is nothing new, Eva, all that you have denounced about sending millions of dollars, logistical support, none of it is new. No. From way back then, the United States government was already sending arms and military supplies to the Spanish imperialist troops. It is well known. Part of this history is retold by that good Cuban writer, Francisco Pividal, in another book I never stop recommending, Bolívar, pensamiento precursor del antimperialismo. The book can be read in one sitting. And it contains an extraordinary set of quotes. You already mentioned one of them.

“But in one of those letters that Bolivar sent to Irving, I think it was the last one he sent him, when Irving had begun to threaten him with the use of force, Bolivar writes: I will not be provoked, not even by the use of that language. I only wish to express to you, Mr. Irving, —It is written there, I am paraphrasing, because it is the idea, the dignity of our father Bolivar that permeates, that is important in this hall full of magic, symbols, homeland, dreams, hope and dignity. Bolivar tells him: You should know, Mr. Irving, that more than half or half —this was in 1819, after almost a decade of war to the death— or almost half of Venezuelans have died in the fight against the Spanish empire, us, the other half that is still here, we are eager to follow this same path even if Venezuela has to take on the whole world to gain its independence, its dignity.

“That was, that is, Bolivar, and here we are, his sons and daughters, Maria, prepared to do exactly the same. The whole world should know that we are ready to do exactly the same. If the Yankee empire, with all its might, which is no laughing matter, no, it is very serious —as Eva rightly advises—, if they decide to attack, continue to attack and openly attack Venezuela in an attempt to stop this revolution, we are here waiting ready, you should be aware Mr. Empire and your numerous embodiments that we are prepared to do exactly the same: to die, all of us, for our homeland and dignity!

“It would be interesting to ask, in that terrorist summit that was held in Washington, with the participation of a few Venezuelans, Bolivians and people who have practiced genocide —as a good journalist did ask yesterday during an interview—, it would be good to know what passport these delinquents are using, where did they enter, if any of them are part of Interpol’s code red. They arrived without any problems; they arrived and travelled through the streets of Washington, where their presence was celebrated. This is why Noam Chomsky is right. I repeat with Noam Chomsky: the United States is a failed state that acts outside of international laws, that respects absolutely nothing and that, furthermore, feels it has a right to do so, it doesn’t answer to anyone. It represents a threat not only to Venezuela and the peoples of the world, but to their own people, a people that is permanently attacked by this anti-democratic state.

“For example, and this is barely a summary. You've heard of Wikileaks, right?

“What will that woman representative, that fascist who calls us, Evo, Correa and me, outlaws? She is the outlaw, a fugitive that the Venezuelan courts could easily file for extradition for committing crimes and conspiring, and many other things, against our nation’s sovereignty. She is an outlaw. It is time to expose her to the world along with the other outlaws.

“What will these outlaws say about this, for example?

“I read:

“’What will the United States Parliament say about these reports, about those secret documents that have now been published on WikiLeaks? What impact will WikiLeaks have? The same as Chavez Candanga.

“’On March 15, 2010, Wiki Candanga published a United States Defense Department report on several leaks broken by this Webpage that had to do with US interest and the report proposed several ways to marginalize it: a video of journalists being assassinated.’ I have here some of the documents, they are public. We will have to see if some authority in the United States takes some sort of initiative to address these crimes, or these alleged crimes, correct? I am not a judge to rule on it, on these alleged serious crimes committed by citizens, civilians, soldiers, and the government of this country.

“I read: ‘On April 5, 2010, WikiLeaks published a video showing US troops killing a Reuters’ reporter, Namir Noor-Eldeen, his assistant and nine others. It is clear that none of these made threats to attack the Apache helicopter from which they were shot. Although the Reuters news agency requested the video on numerous occasions, it was denied until WikiLeaks got this unpublished video, and put the US military machine in check.”

“Well, put in check so to speak, at least morally.”

“Once again, what will the United Nations say? What if that had happened in an ALBA country? What would happen? What would the OAS, the UN Security Council, or the Human Rights Council say? What would the infamous International Human Rights Court say? We can see the double standard that is measured here for human rights, respect for life, terrorism and all these phenomena.

“War diaries from Afghanistan, July 25, 2010, were also published. Records of the Iraq war. Look at this sentence from a few days ago: ‘October 22, 2010’—a few days ago— ‘WikiLeaks made public on its website a summary called Document of the war in Iraq, containing 391,831 leaked documents from the Pentagon, on the Iraq war and its occupation, between January 1, 2004 and December 31, 2009, in which they reveal, among other things, the systematic use of torture, the figure of 109,032 dead in Iraq, of whom 61,081 were civilians, 63%, 23,984 'enemies labeled as insurgents ', 15,196 said to be from the host country.' What a way to visit a country! 'And 3,771 dead coalition force 'friends'. The documents reveal that on average 31 civilians died each day over a period of six years. "

"Who investigates this? Who is responsible for this? No, it’s the Empire, the US failed state. I’ll read this sentence: ‘These documents are arranged chronologically and by categories describing lethal military actions that affect the US Army, including the number of people killed, injured or detained as a result of these actions, as well as the precise geographic location of each event, it also details the military units involved and the weapons used.’ Sufficient details for an investigation.

"What will the United States Congress say about this? Our ambassador is in Washington. Are you still working there as an ambassador? Yes, you are the ambassador. To our knowledge nothing has been said, right?

“Here it says: ‘Most journal entries were written by soldiers and members of the Intelligence, who listened to the reports transmitted by radio from the front line.

“‘Civilian casualties caused by coalition forces. At the same time’, it says here, ‘it has come to light that a large number of attacks and deaths were a result of the troops shooting unarmed motorists, fearing that these were suicide bombers.’

“‘A report details how a child was killed and another injured when the car they were traveling in was shot at by troops. In compensation for this attack their families were paid 100,000 Afghanis for the dead child, 1,600 euros.’ Capitalism paid 20,000 Afghanis, 335 euros for the injury and 10,000 Afghanis, 167 euros for the vehicle. And all this is in the reports, which calls them, ‘little tragedies’, ‘little tragedies’. This is the great threat, the greatest threat in the world.

“The Yankee empire has clearly entered a phase of political, economic and, above all, ethical decline; but who can deny its great military power, which, combining these factors, make it, the most powerful empire in the history of the world, a much greater threat to our peoples. What can we do? It has already been said: unity, unity and more unity.

"Will the US Congress be, starting on January 1, an ultra-rightwing Congress? Well, the Venezuelan Parliament from January 5 must then be ultra-leftwing.

“And I am calling on the deputies elected by the people, by popular movements, social movements, and parties of the revolution, to have a strong commitment from January 5.

“Indeed it is unprecedented, and Eva reminds us. How is it that here, it is still allowed that we, having this Constitution —which cost us so much, so many years of battle, so much sweat, so much blood, so much effort; here it is very clearly stated, it is also there in the first Constitution, the first act of independence and our first Constitution, we are a sovereign country—, at the risk of being called 'the silly homeland or stupid revolution' again, or if you want to be more vulgar the 'dumbass revolution,' how is that we are going to allow political parties, NGOs, important members of the counter revolution to continue to be financed with millions and millions of dollars from the US Empire and to continue to go around making use of the full freedom to abuse and violate our Constitution and to attempt to destabilize the country? I implore you to introduce a very severe law to prevent this. This should be how we respond to imperial aggression, the imperial threat, by radicalizing our positions, not loosening anything, adjusting positions, picking up the pace, consolidating the revolutionary unity. Not just a parliament that leans much more to the Left, much more radically to the Left, we need a government much more radically to the Left, an armed forces, General Rangel —General in Chief, who will take over Saturday, November 27, Air Forces Day—, that is much more radically revolutionary, together with the people.

“There should be no place in our civilians or military ranks for half-measures. Not a single column: radicalize the revolution! And that disgusting stateless bourgeoisie should really feel this. The Venezuelan bourgeoisie, without shame and without a country, should feel this, should know it's unwarranted for one of its most distinguished representatives go to the Congress of the empire itself, to lash out against Venezuela and to continue having a television channel here. And so on, and so forth! The Venezuelan bourgeoisie should know that their aggression against the people is going to cost them dearly, and that they should not be hanging about over there.

"I remember —there’s José Vicente Rangel, Maduro and a colleague, thank you for joining us— during Betancourt's government, deputies from the leftist parties were detained without trial or previous notice, without any evidence they were led off to prison, stripped of their parliamentary immunity.

"In a few weeks, a group of deputies from the extreme Right will enter this room. Well, you just have to remind them that here there is a constitution. Just as, at one time, the Communist Party of Venezuela, and many other parties, was outlawed here, and the parliamentary immunity of many colleagues was lifted, without proof, some went to the mountains like the great Fabricio Ojeda, who resigned his seat and went to the mountains to give his blood for the revolution and the people. I imagine that this worthy Parliament, having a majority representation from the popular forces, will not accept the rightwing forces coming here trying to subvert the constitutional order.

I suppose that the state… I am sure the State will activate all the mechanisms to defend the Constitution and the law against the attacks, giving them no hope.

"In short, the threat ... What did they call the terrorist event? 'The threat in the Andes', no?, Nicolás: Danger in the Andes; It’s like the title of a movie, Danger in the Andes; danger in the world, we must raise the alert or rather warn, the danger is global.

"At the moment there is a situation, right now, in the Korean peninsula. When I was on my way here the news was still confusing, as confusing as was the sinking of that vessel from South Korea, the Cheonan, but later evidence emerged that the ship was sunk by the US. Now on a small island in that invaded peninsula, ravaged for years and divided by the Yankee Empire, there is a tense situation, some bombs, some dead and some wounded.

"A few months ago, Fidel Castro warned about the serious risks of nuclear war. I was there recently, once again, and he explained to me, he put his thoughts together —we know plenty already, of course, but there is nothing better than talking— and he said to me, 'Chavez, the slightest little gunshot in that area, full of weapons of mass destruction, nuclear weapons, could escalate into a war that could be, at first, conventional ... ', but he is convinced that it will go directly into a nuclear war that could mark the end of the human species. So the danger is not in the Andes, you dirty scoundrels in Washington, the danger is global.

“Here in Venezuela, as Eva said, a light has been turned on, and another in Latin America, and another, and they’re turning on others. Today we can say —not that Venezuela alone, no— that Latin America is a continent of hope and the Yankee Empire can not close the doors of hope.

“We, Venezuelans, we've always been, for some reason or another, at the forefront of these struggles, for centuries.

"I see over the portraits of Miranda, Bolivar, over there Martín Tovar y Tovar, Carabobo, and all the stuff that Roy read and said with such passion: It is right her, in our genes, in our blood. He paraphrased Mao, the Great Helmsman.

"That empire, that failed state that is the United States, despite its immense power and its threats, will end up being a gigantic paper tiger and we are forced to become true tigers of steel, small steel tigers, invincible, indomitable.

“Madam President, I promised to be brief, and as I said at the beginning, and I repeat: I believe that all that had to be said has been said by that brave woman Eva Golinger and by that brave deputy Roy Daza, which is contained in this document, which I now understand will circulate to the four corners of Venezuela, and beyond, throughout Latin America.

"I appreciate the invitation to this event, I appreciate the gesture, and as just one more person, I join this huge battalion, so to speak, in defense of Venezuela, in defense of the Venezuelan homeland.

"Looking at this painting, more than a painting, the monumental work of Tovar y Tovar, one sees the infantry there, and the cavalry over there. We will draw our inspiration from there: Infantry draw bayonets, quick march! Cavalry, at gallop, in defense of the Bolivarian homeland, of the Bolivarian Alliance of our People!

“Down with the Yankee empire!” he exclaimed at the end, “Long live ALBA, the Homeland and the Revolution!”

There is absolutely no doubt that Chavez, a career military man, but much more committed to dialogue and persuasion rather than force, will not hesitate to prevent the pro-imperialist and anti-patriotic rightwing from trying to deceive Venezuelans into turning against the public police force to spill blood in the streets of Venezuela.

In Bolivia and Venezuela, the imperialist mafia has received a response more clear and forceful than they could have ever imagined.

Fidel Castro Ruz

November 25, 2010

6.34 p.m.

Wikileaks And The New Global Order

Wikileaks And The New Global Order

By Jonathan Cook

30 November, 2010
Countercurrents.org

The Wikileaks disclosure this week of confidential cables from United States embassies has been debated chiefly in terms either of the damage to Washington’s reputation or of the questions it raises about national security and freedom of the press.

The headlines aside, most of the information so far revealed from the 250,000 documents is hardly earth-shattering, even if it often runs starkly counter to the official narrative of the US as the benevolent global policeman, trying to maintain order amid an often unruly rabble of underlings.

Is it really surprising that US officials appear to have been trying to spy on senior United Nations staff, and just about everyone else for that matter? Or that Israel has been lobbying strenuously for military action to be taken against Iran? Or even that Saudi Arabia feels threatened by an Iranian nuclear bomb? All of this was already largely understood; the leaks have simply provided official confirmation.

The new disclosures, however, do provide a useful insight, captured in the very ordinariness of the diplomatic correspondence, into Washington’s own sense of the limits on its global role -- an insight that was far less apparent in the previous Wikileaks revelations on the US army’s wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Underlying the gossip and analysis sent back to Washington is an awareness from many US officials stationed abroad of quite how ineffective -- and often counter-productive -- much US foreign policy is.

While the most powerful nation on earth is again shown to be more than capable of throwing its weight around in bullying fashion, a cynical resignation nonetheless shines through many of the cables, an implicit recognition that even the top dog has to recognise its limits.

That is most starkly evident in the messages sent by the embassy in Pakistan, revealing the perception among local US officials that the country is largely impervious to US machinations and is in danger of falling entirely out the ambit of Washington’s influence.

In the cables sent from Tel Aviv, a similar fatalism reigns. The possibility that Israel might go it alone and attack Iran is contemplated as though it were an event Washington has no hope of preventing. US largesse of billions of dollars in annual aid and military assistance to Israel appears to confer zero leverage on its ally’s policies.

The same sense of US ineffectiveness is highlighted by the Wikileaks episode in another way. Once, in the pre-digital era, the most a whistleblower could hope to achieve was the disclosure of secret documents limited to his or her area of privileged access. Even then the affair could often be hushed up and make no lasting impact.

Now, however, it seems the contents of almost the entire system of US official communications is vulnerable to exposure. And anyone with a computer has a permanent and easily disseminated record of the evidence.

The impression of a world running out of American control has become a theme touching all our lives over the past decade.

The US invented and exported financial deregulation, promising it to be the epitome of the new capitalism that was going to offer the world economic salvation. The result is a banking crisis that now threatens to topple the very governments in Europe who are Washington’s closest allies.

As the contagion of bad debt spreads through the system, we are likely to see a growing destabilisation of the Washington order across the globe.

At the same time, the US army’s invasions in the Middle East are stretching its financial and military muscle to tearing point, defining for a modern audience the problem of imperial over-reach. Here too the upheaval is offering potent possibilities to those who wish to challenge the current order.

And then there is the biggest crisis facing Washington: of a gradually unfolding environmental catastrophe that has been caused chiefly by the same rush for world economic dominance that spawned the banking disaster.

The scale of this problem is overawing most scientists, and starting to register with the public, even if it is still barely acknowledged beyond platitudes by US officials.

The repercussions of ecological meltdown will be felt not just by polar bears and tribes living on islands. It will change the way we live -- and whether we live -- in ways that we cannot hope to foresee.

At work here is a set of global forces that the US, in its hubris, believed it could tame and dominate in its own cynical interests. By the early 1990s that arrogance manifested itself in the claim of the “end of history”: the world’s problems were about to be solved by US-sponsored corporate capitalism.

The new Wikileaks disclosures will help to dent those assumptions. If a small group of activists can embarrass the most powerful nation on earth, the world’s finite resources and its laws of nature promise a much harsher lesson.

Jonathan Cook is a writer and journalist based in Nazareth, Israel. His latest books are “Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East” (Pluto Press) and “Disappearing Palestine: Israel's Experiments in Human Despair” (Zed Books). His website is www.jkcook.net.

Sunday, 14 November 2010

New planning rules 'target muslims'

New planning rules 'target muslims'



Read more: http://www.news.com.auhttp://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/sunday-telegraph/new-monsque-rules-to-spark-holy-row/story-e6frewt0-1225953127805#ixzz15GICORCq

Ahmad Kamaledine


MUSLIMS claim they are the targets of new planning laws preventing religious groups from taking over empty churches abandoned by other faiths in south-western Sydney.

The controversial regulations have been proposed by Canterbury Council - which includes the Islamic community strongholds of Belmore, Campsie, Canterbury and Lakemba.

The move is being backed by the Labor mayor Robert Furolo, who is also the state MP for the seat of Lakemba, and residents opposed to a mosque on the site of an ex-Roselands church.

The new planning controls would require all religious bodies to adhere to strict planning guidelines in residential areas.

Planning laws in most NSW local government areas do not require religious organisations to make a new application to council if they buy a site zoned as a place of worship for use by another faith.

But Canterbury's planning order would require a new approval for each purchase and restrict service times. Muslims pray five times a day.

The regulations follow a long-running controversy over the redevelopment of a former Chinese church as a mosque in Ludgate St, Roselands.

Many in the Muslim community believe the council is playing the race card in the lead-up to the state election.

"Robert Furolo wants to stir up the anti-Muslim thing," Ahmad Kamaledine, who is a director of the Lebanese Muslim Association, said. "He wants people outside screaming and shouting and getting emotional about this."

But Mr Furolo said the planning control would streamline processes. "The most controversial planning decisions are those surrounding places of worship. They create more controversy than brothels." He said he was not anti-Muslim.

Ludgate St resident Ron Howe said he knew the official reason residents opposed the mosque was because it would bring too much traffic to the quiet residential area. But there was another reason.

"Of course it's got to do with the fact they are Muslim," the resident of 42 years said. "There's a real feeling they [Muslims] are taking over around here.

"They already have at least three mosques in the area; why do they need another one?"

Frank Waring, 72, feels the same way.

"They will take over the whole neighbourhood if they open the mosque," he said.

The mosque, which initially involved former Bulldogs star Hazem El Masri and boxer Anthony Mundine, has been approved for three days a week but wants to operate from 4.30am-11pm daily.



Read more: http://www.news.com.auhttp://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/sunday-telegraph/new-monsque-rules-to-spark-holy-row/story-e6frewt0-1225953127805#ixzz15GIohDHo

Saturday, 6 November 2010

Torturing the Whistle Blowers: The Case of Vance and Ertel in Iraq, Substantiated by Wikileaks’ Iraq War Logs

Torturing the Whistle Blowers: The Case of Vance and Ertel in Iraq, Substantiated by Wikileaks’ Iraq War Logs

5 NOVEMBER 2010

Full credit for this story goes to Ishtar Enana, an Iraqi citizen journalist and blogger who has undertaken the monumental task of translating the Wikileaks Iraq War Logs into Arabic. Through her in depth digging through the logs, Ishtar reported (here, here, and here) that she foundevidence in the war logs to substantiate the case brought forth in 2007 against Donald Rumsefeld by two American “security contractors” employed in Iraq. The two, Donald Vance and Nathan Ertel, were abducted and imprisoned by U.S. forces, where they experienced a range of American torture and abuse along with Iraqi inmates. The suspicion was that they were whistle blowers concealing a greater amount of information than they had revealed, and all rights were denied to them. Very little about this case has been previously publicized, this one being one of the leading accounts.

As Vance and Ertel make clear in their lawsuit, in 2006 they were “indefinitely detained without due process of law in a United States military compound located on foreign soil. They were not charged with any crime, nor had they committed any crime” (p. 1). They were denied access to an attorney and were subjected to abuse. They specifically point to Donald Rumsfeld for instituting a series of unconstitutional policies that would deprive anyone deemed to be an “enemy combatant,” even if American, any of the rights inherent to due process.

So what started the ball rolling against Vance and Ertel and why were they targeted? They were whistle blowers, the details of which are produced from pages 11 through 24 of their lawsuit, and on page 27. Their revelations implicate independent American military contractors who set up a corrupt weapons trade in Iraq, and even a State Department employee who simultaneously had business dealings with one such private entity, the Shield Security Group. Vance and Ertel also uncovered the “beer for bullets” program (p. 20), organized by American contractor Josef Trimpert, where Trimpert would use SGS money to buy imported liquor, which was then given to U.S. troops in exchange for weapons and ammunition, which were then sold locally.

As Vance and Ertel stated, “while working as civilians with privately-owned companies operating in Baghdad,” they “came into contact with political, financial, and operational information,” that they “considered to be suspicious and potentially indicative of corruption. Fulfilling what they “believed to be their patriotic duties as American citizens,” Vance and Ertel ”reported these irregularities to employees of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (‘FBI’), the State Department, and other federal government officials. Both Mr. Vance and Mr. Ertel undertook this reporting for their country, even though they knew full well that the disclosures could result in serious, if not deadly, retaliation by those on whom they were informing” (p. 5). However, it seems that the information they uncovered could have implicated U.S. personnel in corruption. As Vance and Ertel found, falling under suspicion by “certain low-level bureaucrats in the federal government” who “apparently came to believe, quite incorrectly, that Mr. Vance and Mr. Ertel might have even more information,” those employees “set out to extract it from them.” Because those low-level bureaucrats “hoped to discover information useful to their personal and professional agendas, and because Defendant Rumsfeld imbued them with unchecked authority to detain and interrogate even American citizens as they please,” those officials decided to arrest Vance and Ertel. They held Vance “incommunicado for three months,” and Ertel “incommunicado for over one month,” in order to engage in “torturous interrogations, which revealed only that Plaintiffs were innocent civilians who had already volunteered everything they knew to the federal government” (pps. 5-6).

The case seemed so preposterous that even some of the American soldiers who were their captors were surprised to learn that these two detainees, Vance and Ertel, imprisoned with Iraqis labeled as “security internee” and “enemy combatant,” were actually Americans. This puts an end to simplistic assertions that this treatment could never be meted out to American citizens–it can and it has.

One of the striking things brought forth in the lawsuit by Vance and Ertel is that once they had severed ties with SGS, they were effectively stranded outside the “Green Zone,” and kept within this SGS compound–and when they called the U.S. Embassy for help, and troops were sent to “rescue” them, that is when they were taken into custody by their “rescuers” and then brought first to Camp Prosperity and then Camp Cropper. Eventually they were submitted to the same kind of abuse that some might have thought had been reserved for Iraqi “terrorists” only. The further irony is that they were being accused of the very activities about which they leaked information, that corrupt American contractors at SGS were involved in an illegal weapons trade that likely benefited insurgents.

Had this all been just the word of Vance and Ertel, some might have sought to dismiss their claims. However, the Wikileaks Iraq War Logs contain a document that lends weight to their claims. That document states that two American civilians were being held captive in a compound and were rescued by coalition forces, and that a large weapons cache had also been found. These two Americans are identified as employees of the Shield Security Group, held by SGS against their will. The document also states that the weapons cache belonged to SGS, and does not in any way suggest that it somehow belonged to Vance and Ertel; when Vance’s and Ertel’s American rescuers/captors later accused them of stockpiling arms for insurgents, it was clearly an accusation made knowing it was false. Indeed, SGS is classed in the document by the U.S. Embassy as a “bad employer.”

Perhaps even more shocking and unbelievable is that anyone would dare to argue that the Wikileaks disclosures were a “bad” thing, when such critical information about various crimes–as must be disclosed, and prosecuted–is now receiving attention. Arguing against the leaks is arguing to cover up crimes.