Archive
Missile Shield To Middle East Mayhem: U.S. Planning Broad Conflict?
RT
May 31, 2012
Is US preparing for broad Middle East conflict?
====
Today, it does not seem too far-fetched to suggest that Barack Obama was foisted upon the world stage to rebrand America’s foreign policy, which had lost most of its credibility and legitimacy under Bush. Ironically, however, with the benefit of hindsight, Obama has turned out to be far more dangerous than his reckless predecessor.
America’s hyperactive impetuousness when it comes to getting its military invested around the world, combined with its determination to build a European missile defense shield, lends itself to the theory that something sinister is afoot.
Reminiscent of the US attack on Iraq in 2003, America seems to be gearing up for a military move on Syria…
[W]hen the Middle East situation is viewed according to the sum of its parts, which include the US missile defense shield over the fence from Russia’s backyard, it looks as if the US, Israel and NATO may be pushing hard for a broad military offensive in the Middle East.
====
Does US intransigence on European missile defense, increasing chaos in Syria and a lack of progress in resolving the Iranian standoff point to the eventual outbreak of full-blown violence across the Middle East?
But first, before jumping headlong into the Middle East, a little background from Russia’s perspective is required.
With the arrival of Barack Obama to the White House four years ago, many in Moscow genuinely believed there would be a normalization of relations between the two former Cold War opponents. There is no crime in dreaming, right?
After all, George W. Bush’s almost-eight-year “War on Terror” kept Russia, as well as the entire world, in constant suspense as to what kind of stunt Washington would pull next. They were rarely disappointed. Not only did the Bush administration walk away from the 40-year-old ABM Treaty with Russia, it announced the creation of a missile defense shield in Eastern Europe.
Shortly after Obama was elected president, he announced that he had “shelved” the Bush plan for missile defense. Suddenly, the clouds in the Russian-US relationship were dispelled, but briefly. Then it was announced that the US would build a sea-based version instead; Moscow was duly informed that it need not apply to participate in the project. Now, Russian generals are sounding the alarm that the system – still in its earliest stages – may eventually compromise the nation’s nuclear deterrent.
Today, it does not seem too far-fetched to suggest that Barack Obama was foisted upon the world stage to rebrand America’s foreign policy, which had lost most of its credibility and legitimacy under Bush. Ironically, however, with the benefit of hindsight, Obama has turned out to be far more dangerous than his reckless predecessor.
Let’s face it, nobody had any false expectations about Bush; he was, as they say, the real deal. Obama, on the other hand, was marketed as the very embodiment of change. The marketing campaign was a huge success, and America’s first black president even went on to win the Nobel Peace Prize while US troops were hunkered down on two fronts.
Fast forward to 2012: Obama has failed to see through a single campaign promise in the realm of foreign affairs. The Guantanamo Bay detention facility remains open for business, drone missile attacks are killing at a deadlier rate than under Bush, while even the simple promise of “sitting down and talking with America’s enemies” has failed to materialize.
Although the Iraq War was declared finished last year, tensions remain high across the Middle East where US naval forces are on high alert.
Meanwhile, to all intents and purposes, the fabled reset with Russia appears to be on life support. US and Russian leaders still go through the diplomatic motions, but Washington is behaving as if it does not want a serious, fully-fledged relationship with Moscow. Little surprise, then, that so many observers in Moscow are speculating that the “reset” was nothing more than a stage-managed event designed to make Russia believe that Washington was serious about a partnership. As the missile defense system gets bolted down in former Warsaw Pact real estate, Washington refuses to provide any sort of legal guarantees.
The United States will never give legally binding guarantees that its missile defense system is not aimed against Russia, said Maj. Gen. Vladimir Dvorkin, former head of the Fourth Central Research Institute of the Russian Defense Ministry.
“The question of creating the European missile defense system at any stage, be it the first one or fourth, lies in the sphere of political differences,” the expert said. “The Americans and NATO will never provide legally-binding guarantees that the US missile defense system is not aimed against Russia, including the technical specifications of counter missiles, because that would slow down the development of their missile defense system.”
From missile defense to Middle East mayhem
America’s hyperactive impetuousness when it comes to getting its military invested around the world, combined with its determination to build a European missile defense shield, lends itself to the theory that something sinister is afoot.
Reminiscent of the US attack on Iraq in 2003, America seems to be gearing up for a military move on Syria, especially after reports of a massacre in Houla, where 108 civilians, many of them women and children, were murdered. Undeniably, the event was horrific in its sheer brutality, but the question has yet to be answered: who were the killers? The Syrian government blames “professional terrorists” for the massacre. But as was the case prior to the “preemptive strike” on Iraq, the US does not seem interested in hearing both sides of the story in Syria.
“Those who triggered this and ignited this massacre were seeking to ignite a confessional and sectarian confrontation between the populations in that area,” Bashar Jaafari, Syria’s ambassador to the United Nations, told reporters following a meeting of the Security Council. “So, those who did it are professional criminals, professional terrorists.”
According to Jaafari, these “terrorists” seek to “instigate a sectarian confrontation in the area,” which could lead to developments “more dangerous than what you have seen so far.” The goal of these individuals, he said, is to undermine a peace plan set forth by special envoy Kofi Annan.
Iran’s Press TV conducted an interview with Syed Ali Wasif, from the Society for International Reforms and Research. Wasif argued it was unlikely that Syrian forces would attack innocent civilians in a region that has shown strong support for the government.
“This was a premeditated, pre-orchestrated component of NATO foreign policy…with regard to this premeditated action and this murder, killing a hundred people there,” Wasif argued. “How could the Syrian government kill its own people when [those killed in the massacre] represent the Alawites…and all other pro-Syrian people?”
Meanwhile, Susan Rice, US Ambassador to the United Nations, spoke of “consequences” for Syria for failing to live up to its commitments, even before the identity of the killers could be established.
“The Syrian government has made commitments. It’s blatantly violated those commitments, and, I think it’s quite clear, as we have said for many weeks if they continue to do so there should be consequences,” Rice said, without offering any advice on how Syria should move forward while terrorists are sabotaging the process. Rice’s comments suggest that the United States is selectively viewing the turmoil in Syria from the perspective of the opposition forces, which amounts to taking sides with their objectives.
America’s behavior seems inconsistent with that of an impartial, objective observer; it is behaving like a third party to the turmoil with a lot to gain should the Syrian government fall. Instead of waiting for an official investigation to determine the identity of the culprits in the Houla massacre, the US is instigating the situation by tossing rhetorical grenades, needlessly provoking the situation. After all, there are many actors in the region who stand to gain in the event that Syrian President Bashar Hafez al-Assad is removed from power. Israel, a strong ally of the United States, would certainly benefit from such a scenario. Presently, the Israeli government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu looks to be on a collision course with Iran over the latter’s nuclear program. Tehran says it is developing a nuclear energy program for its civilian sector, but Israel and the United States suspect the Islamic Republic of attempting to build a nuclear weapon.
In the event that Israel decides to go to war with Iran, there is the strong possibility that Syria will come to the aid of the Iranians one way or another. A war with Syria now, with the assistance of the United States, would dramatically reduce such a possibility and protect Israel’s flank in the event of war.
Ehud Barak, the Israeli Defense Minister, expressed his opinion on military involvement in Syria just this week.
“The events in Syria mean the world must take action, not only by talking, but by acting,” Barak, said on Thursday. “These are crimes against humanity, and it is impossible that the international community stand aloof.”
Ali Laridjani, speaker of the Iranian parliament, warned that an attack on Syria would have dire consequences that would most likely extend to the “Zionist regime.”
“US military officials probably have a poor understanding of themselves and regional issues because Syria is in no way similar to Libya, and [the effects of] creating another Benghazi in Syria would spread to Palestine, and ash rising from the flames would definitely envelop the Zionist regime,” Laridjani stated.
“It seems that the United States and the West are seeking to pave the way for a new crisis,” the Iranian official added.
In conclusion, when the Middle East situation is viewed according to the sum of its parts, which include the US missile defense shield over the fence from Russia’s backyard, it looks as if the US, Israel and NATO may be pushing hard for a broad military offensive in the Middle East. After all, in the event of a war in Iran, for example, there is no telling what the results will be.
There is a high possibility of not only Syria, but also Hezbollah in Lebanon getting involved, not to mention the Palestinians. Although it would be impossible to predict the domino effect that would follow in the event of such an altercation in the already troubled Middle East, it may go far at explaining Uncle Sam’s tremendous obsession with installing a missile defense system in Europe.
Why the United States, in direct opposition to the spirit of the much-trumpeted “reset”, does not want to enlist Russia’s valuable assistance in such an ambitious project, however, is an altogether different question that Russia is certainly pondering. Meanwhile, the Russia-US reset wobbles on.
U.S. Ready To Attack Syria Outside UN?
RT
May 31, 2012
US ready to act on Syria outside UN?
The US has hinted at taking actions against the Syrian regime bypassing the authority of the UN Security Council. This comes as pressure is piling up on Damascus following massacre in Houla that claimed over 100 lives.
US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice has said that if the council does not take swift action to pressure Syrian authorities to end 14-month crackdown on the anti-government uprising, the Security Council members may have no choice but to consider acting outside the UN.
“Members of the international community are left with the option only of having to consider whether they are prepared to take actions outside of the Annan plan and the authority of this council,” Rice said on Wednesday after the 15-member council met in a closed door session to discuss last week’s massacre.
The United Nations is conducting its own investigation of who exactly is responsible for the bloodshed in the town of Houla. However the US and its allies seem to have come to their own conclusion, saying that the Assad government is solely responsible for the violence.
Rice did not specify what “actions” she meant. However the US and European countries had earlier imposed their own sanction on Syria outside the UN. So there are fears that her words could mean the threat of military action.
The US envoy said the worst but most probable scenario in Syria is a failure of Annan’s peace plan and a spreading conflict that could create a major crisis not only in Syria but also in the entire region.
“The Syrian government has made commitments. It has blatantly violated those commitments, and, I think it’s quite clear, as we have said for many weeks if they continue to do so there should be consequences,” Rice said.
Meanwhile, Syria’s Ambassador to the UN Bashar Jaafari has stated Wednesday that the massacre in the town of Houla was carried out by “professional terrorists” who were seeking to ignite a sectarian conflict in the country.
“Many Syrian innocents got killed because of this misbehavior of these outsiders. The Syrian people need one clear-cut message that the international community, if there is an international community, is there to help settling the conflict in Syria,” he said referring to last Friday’s violence.
Russia’s envoy tot the UN Vitaly Churkin stated that both the authorities and opposition leaders should understand that the current situation in Syria is unacceptable.
Kosovo pattern in Syria?
Susan Rice’s comment became a disturbing reminder of what happened in 1999 when the US and NATO intervened in the former Yugoslavia without a UN Security Council mandate.
“The precedent is already there – we’ve mentioned Kosovo. It’s exactly what happened – you had an allegation of a massacre, which was the village of Racak; you had a UN decree that was severely bullied by the US ambassador who was leading the observation mission on the ground; you had claims that it was brutal unprovoked massacre of innocent civilians by government troops. Serbia was blamed, presented with the ultimatum and then bombed,” historian and author Nebojsa Malic told RT.
“We have the same pattern repeating itself in Syria.”
Blogger Rick Rozoff believes that the US has warned Russia and China that it will push forward military action no matter what.
“Ambassador Rice is basically telling Russia and China and other members of the Security Council that if they do not go along with Western plans for more stringent sanctions and other actions against Syria, the US and its NATO allies reserve the right to act outside the Security Council as they did with Yugoslavia 13 years ago and launch military actions against Syria,” Rozoff told RT.
Europe Replaces U.S. As Cheerleader For Military Expansion
Voice of Russia
May 30, 2012
Mars beats Venus: Europe replaces the U.S. as the cheerleader for military expansion
Dmitry Babich
====
[B]esides the Russian nuclear potential (still a problem in the eyes of the U.S., since it is the only deterrent to their global ambitions), Americans and Europeans also plan to render defenseless those countries in the Middle East which dare disagree with the Western policies.
“What is interesting is the fact that the perspective of a new missile shield did not move West European nations even an inch closer to abandoning their nuclear deterrents.”
====
Europeans seem to have placed themselves at the steering wheel of the international campaign against Syria, showing more and more signs of a belligerent attitude and penchant for military solutions. This new behavior pattern, previously associated with Americans (presumably born under the sign of Mars) took hold of the French and British leaders in the last few days. A rather unexpected turn for the previously peaceful nations, fostering the myth of their being born under the sign of Venus.
Examples? First, Western European leaders unanimously agreed to the deployment of the American-made “missile shield” in Central and Eastern Europe. (In the 1980s, France strongly objected to the “star wars” program of president Ronald Reagan, and its neighbors had at least some reservations about it.) Second, Paris and London became the most vocal supporters of “punishing” Syrian president Bashar Assad for the slaughter of civilians in the Syrian town of Houla, for which they put the blame squarely on the Syrian government.
Numerous newspaper reports make the previously missing connection between the anti-missile shield and the newly pro-active stand of Western European nations in the Middle East. French scholar Bruno Tertrais, senior research fellow at the Foundation for Strategic Research, explains that Europe will need its portion of the anti-missile shield in order to be able to intervene militarily in the Middle East – with total impunity.
“There is no more talk about diverting a massive Soviet nuclear attack,” Mr. Tertrais writes in Le Figaro. “Our objective is to prevent the countries of the Middle East from being in a position to make a strike against the territory of NATO alliance. If Middle Eastern nations had such a capability, it could make Western leaders hesitate if faced with a need to defend our interests in the region or to intervene there in the framework of an international mandate.”
No other attitude could be more clear – and more dangerous. So, besides the Russian nuclear potential (still a problem in the eyes of the U.S., since it is the only deterrent to their global ambitions), Americans and Europeans also plan to render defenseless those countries in the Middle East which dare disagree with the Western policies.
“What is interesting is the fact that the perspective of a new missile shield did not move West European nations even an inch closer to abandoning their nuclear deterrents,” Vladimir Baranovsky, a professor of international studies at Moscow-based MGIMO University, said while speaking to a conference on European security at the Institute of World Economy and International Relations (IMEMO). “Yes, these countries’ combined nuclear potential amounts to just 2.5 percent of the combined nuclear capability of the world’s nuclear powers. But the submarine-based nuclear missiles of, say, Great Britain are highly mobile and capable of a strike against an enemy in any part of the globe. And the West European governments stick to the policy of “deliberate ambiguity” on nuclear issues, not bothering to explain which actions of a potential aggressor could prompt their nuclear response.”
The recent events in Syria, as well as the military campaign against Libya a year ago, have demonstrated how easy it is for a not very big nation to fall out of favor with the EU’s “grand” members. The massacre in Houla was immediately squarely blamed on the Syrian government. Anyone having a hint of doubt in the “pan-European” version of events is immediately ostracized. It became a rule despite obvious discrepancies in Western press reports from Houla, which first blamed the massacre on the government’s heavy arms, such as tanks and artillery, and later switched to “knives and bullets” purportedly used against children by a pro-government militia Shabiha. According to the New York Times, the killers were nonchalant enough to yell “Shabiha with you, Assad” during the murders. A rather strange conduct, to say the least, but enthusiastically accepted by the European public opinion.
“I can’t see the reason for such a lack of desire to check facts,” reflects Nadya Arbatova, the head of the policy research center at Moscow-based IMEMO. “I would remind you, that many European leaders, including former French president Nicolas Sarkozy, received Assad in their capitals – as well as the now dead and silent Ghaddafi. One can’t escape having a feeling that someone is covering up something using indignation over uninvestigated killings as an excuse.”
In his article, Bruno Tertrais notes that “common engagement” of European powers in the missile defense shield, for which they are supposed to make a contribution of 200 million dollars, does not render Europe’s own nuclear deterrence obsolete or unneeded. In Vladimir Baranovsky’s view, the desire to maintain a nuclear “stick” while also getting an impeccable anti-missile “shield” sets a very bad example for potential proliferators of nuclear arms – including Middle Eastern countries. Strong nuclear capability plus total impunity indeed makes up a rather dangerous combination – for any country.
Obama: Judge, Jury And Executioner
Voice of Russia
May 30, 2012
Obama – judge, jury, and executioner
Boris Volkhonsky
On Tuesday, The New York Times published a lengthy article that really hit the front pages of most international media. As has been revealed to the newspaper by a number of U.S. counter-terrorism officials (three dozen of Barack Obama’s current and former advisers), the U.S. president personally oversees a top secret process drawing up a “kill list” of terrorists and al Qaeda suspects who should be hunted down and executed by drone missile strikes.
Barack Obama’s meetings with his counter-terrorism advisers take place every Tuesday in the White House. The president requests “baseball cards” of presumptive terrorists or their associates to be presented to him – with pictures and biographies. Then, after some contemplation, he personally decides who should live and who should be the new target of a drone strike. As the newspaper puts it, “Mr. Obama has placed himself at the helm of a top secret ‘nominations’ process to designate terrorists for kill or capture, of which the capture part has become largely theoretical.”
The strikes take place over a vast territory from Somalia and Yemen to Afghanistan and Pakistan. And the number of strikes has intensified in the last year. Only since April of this year, there have been 14 such strikes in Yemen and 6 in Pakistan.
Most of the people targeted for such strikes are foreign nationals, but occasionally there are American citizens among them, who are “brought to justice” in this extrajudicial procedure. And commentators say that Barack Obama is the first U.S. president who has acquired the right to single-handedly decide to be “judge, jury, and executioner”.
As many observers point out, President Obama realizes that some of the judgments may be based on human intelligence, and as Obama’s chief of staff in 2011 William Daley has put it, “The president accepts as a fact that a certain amount of screw-ups are going to happen.”
Other observers point to the fact that the collateral damage is too high, with innocent civilians becoming victims of the alleged “precision strikes”.
But some counterterrorism officials insist on simple logic: people in an area of known terrorist activity, or found with a top Qaeda operative, are probably up to no good. “Innocent neighbors don’t hitchhike rides in the back of trucks headed for the border with guns and bombs,” said one of the officials. Therefore they reject all talk about collateral deaths as the militants’ propaganda.
Well, following such logic, all the Pashto population in the area on both sides of the Afghan–Pakistani border may be eliminated. They travel to and from the border quite frequently, and bearing guns is their usual habit (guaranteed, by the way, by the Second Amendment for every American citizen as well).
But what is probably even more important is the evolution of Barack Obama during the three years of his tenure.
It should be noted that before coming into politics Obama had been a liberal law professor. His campaign in 2008 was based on anti-war slogans and promises, like closing the Guantanamo Bay prison, and putting an end to torture. In December 2009, less than a year in his presidential capacity, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize – regarded by most observers as a prize for just being “anti-Bush”, rather than accomplishing anything significant on the global arena.
But even by that time he had authorized more drone strikes than George W. Bush had approved during his entire presidency.
One can also wonder whether the policy of drone warcraft is bearing any significant fruit. Yes, a number of militants may be exterminated. But the anti-American sentiment is disseminated all over the Muslim world, enlisting new al Qaeda supporters in the affected countries. It also influences interstate relations, like in the case of Pakistan – the old-time U.S. ally that turned into one of the main obstacles for the U.S. policy in Afghanistan and adjacent regions.
But when you come to think of it, you really find nothing strikingly new in the whole story. The usual habit of double standards, a total neglect for the notorious “human rights” and basic principles of a law-based state, like presumption of innocence and the need for proper treatment of suspects (remember, the eliminated people are not convicts, they are just suspects included in the “kill list” by a mere assumption they might be associated with al Qaeda) – all this is so becoming of a liberal law professor-turned-president.
Boris Volkhonsky, senior research fellow, Russian Institute for Strategic Studies
China, Russia Offset West’s Actions In Syria
Global Times
May 30, 2012
China, Russia offset West’s actions in Syria
====
If a country is allowed to intervene in another country’s domestic affairs at will, our world will be plagued by a long series of wars driven by subversions of regimes. No matter how history judges them, it will be a nightmare for people of this age.
The West has not really tasted any victory in the post-Cold War era. Although it managed to overthrow a few powerless regimes, the gains were only short-lived, as resentment against the West still exists in these countries. Afghanistan and Iraq are left with no solutions, while Egypt and Libya’s futures hang in the air.
====
The Houla massacre may drive the situation in Syria to a new phase. “Only Russia, China can stop carnage in Syria”, an opinion piece published by CNN on Monday, claimed that China and Russia’s support for Bashar al-Assad is the reason for the Syrians’ suffering. This kind of rhetoric is not new. Western media has been taking this tone ever since China and Russia double-vetoed the Syrian resolution in the UN Security Council.
But the reality is quite the opposite. If someone has to take responsibility for Syria’s problems, that can only be the West. It has been adding fuel to the flames since the beginning of the Syrian crisis, driving the situation out of control. Tragedies like the one that recently occurred in Houla are predictable in this messy situation. The US and European powers should primarily be held morally accountable for this.
China and Russia have called for the crisis to be solved by peaceful means, as this is obviously the least painful path toward a transition. Western powers, however, insist that there can be no solution until Assad leaves. This is actually calling for bloodshed, rather than peace. It will force parties in Syria to decide their fate through war.
The West has been dominant in the development of the Syrian situation, while China and Russia act as the balancing power. If the latter are gone, Syria will no doubt slip into a full-scale war. China and Russia care most about peace in Syria. But the West only wants to achieve its political end for Syria and the Middle East, so that it prioritizes the ouster of Assad, while leaving a peaceful outcome behind.
The West’s approach on Syria is forceful. It began with political and economic sanctions aimed at isolating the Assad regime. And at the same time, it gave support to the opposition to create a power shift within the country.
But the regime is not rootless. Half of the Syrian population remains loyal to Assad, and eradicating this support will cost the Syrians dearly. The West’s strategy is built upon Syrians’ flesh and blood. It is a political kidnapping of the destinies of over 20 million people.
If a country is allowed to intervene in another country’s domestic affairs at will, our world will be plagued by a long series of wars driven by subversions of regimes. No matter how history judges them, it will be a nightmare for people of this age.
The West should not expect China and Russia’s cooperation if it insists on dictating its own values and mindsets to the world by any means it can. It will instead find China and Russia standing in its way.
The West has not really tasted any victory in the post-Cold War era. Although it managed to overthrow a few powerless regimes, the gains were only short-lived, as resentment against the West still exists in these countries. Afghanistan and Iraq are left with no solutions, while Egypt and Libya’s futures hang in the air. In these already escalated circumstances, China and Russia should both persuade Assad to refrain from using heavy weapons and prevent or delay the West’s militarization of the opposition. China and Russia never expect any compliment from the West. But both China and Russia know from their heart that their efforts will benefit the Syrian people and the international community’s pursuit of peace.
Pentagon Consolidates Control Over Balkans
Stop NATO
May 30, 2012
Pentagon Consolidates Control Over Balkans
Rick Rozoff
Ahead of, during and after the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s 25th summit in Chicago on May 20-21, the Pentagon has continued expanding its permanent military presence in the former Yugoslavia and the rest of the Balkan region.
The military bloc’s two-day conclave in Chicago formalized, among several other initiatives including the initial activation of its U.S.-dominated interceptor missile system and Global Hawk-equipped Alliance Ground Surveillance operations, a new category of what NATO calls aspirant countries next in line for full Alliance membership. Three of them are former Yugoslav federal republics – Bosnia, Macedonia and Montenegro – and the fourth is Georgia, conflicts involving which could be the most immediate cause of a confrontation between the world’s two major nuclear powers.
This year new NATO partnership formats have sprung up like poisonous toadstools after a summer rain: Aspirants countries, the Partnership Cooperation Menu, the Individual Partnership and Cooperation Programme, the Connected Forces Initiative and partners across the globe among them.
The military bloc’s inauguration as an active, aggressive military force in Bosnia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in the 1990s laid the groundwork for the U.S.’s already unmatched military to move troops, hardware and bases into Southeast Europe for actions there and to points east and south: The Middle East, the Caucasus, North Africa and Central and South Asia.
Since 2004 several nations in the east and west Balkans – Bulgaria, Romania, Slovenia, Croatia and Albania – have been incorporated into the alliance as full members and the remainder – Bosnia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and the generally unrecognized Republic of Kosovo – have in the first four instances joined NATO’s Partnership for Peace program and in the last had its nascent armed forces, the Kosovo Security Force, built from scratch by the leading alliance powers.
Macedonia, which would have become a full member in 2009 except for the lingering name dispute with Greece, and Montenegro have been granted the Membership Action Plan, the final stage before full accession, and Bosnia will be accorded the same once the quasi-autonomous Republika Srpska is deemed properly stripped of the last vestige of self-governance.
NATO and the wars waged under its command, not only in the Balkans but in Afghanistan and all but officially in Iraq, have provided the Pentagon the mammoth Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo and three major air bases in Bulgaria and Romania as well as headquarters for new military task forces and jumping-off points for “downrange” operations outside Europe. The U.S. Department of Defense has also acquired subservient legionaries for wars in Asia and Africa and training grounds for American and multinational expeditionary units employed in 21st century neo-colonial wars far beyond the Euro-Atlantic area. Romania will host 24 U.S. Standard Missile-3 interceptors starting in three years.
NATO’s Cooperative Longbow and Cooperative Lancer 2012 command and field exercises started in Macedonia on the second day of the Chicago NATO summit, May 21, and ended on May 29. The largest of four such exercises held within the framework of the Partnership for Peace program – “to train, exercise, and promote the interoperability of Partnership for Peace forces using NATO standards” – to date, this year’s Longbow/Lancer drills included 2,200 troops from several NATO and a dozen Partnership for Peace nations, a total of 25 countries including the U.S.
On May 26 U.S. Army Europe and U.S. Air Forces in Europe launched the Immediate Response 2012 exercise in Croatia with military personnel from the host country, Albania, Bosnia, Montenegro and Slovenia. Macedonia and Serbia sent observers.
A report on the opening of the exercise posted on the website of U.S. European Command appended this paragraph:
“U.S. Army Europe is uniquely positioned to advance American strategic interests across Eurasia, building teams, assuring allies and deterring enemies. The relationships we build during more than 1,000 theater security cooperation events in more than 40 countries each year lead directly to support for U.S. actions such as in Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya.”
Balkan states Albania, Bosnia, Bulgaria, Croatia, Macedonia, Romania and Slovenia deployed troops to Iraq after 2003 and all those nations as well as Montenegro (which became independent in 2006) have troops under NATO command in Afghanistan currently.
NATO’s Allied Joint Force Command Naples has military missions in Bosnia, Macedonia and Serbia.
On May 28 the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff began a two-week disaster management and crisis response exercise, Shared Resilience 2012, in Bosnia. In addition to the U.S. and Bosnia, participating nations include Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Montenegro, Norway, Serbia and Slovenia.
Immediately before the NATO summit, the U.S. Marines Corps’ Black Sea Rotational Force 2012 held multinational exercises near Constanta, Romania from May 7-18. The Black Sea Rotational Force was established in 2010 and last year doubled the duration of its training exercises in the Balkans, the Black Sea region and the South Caucasus from three to six months annually.
Now spending half the year in the geopolitically vital area, the Black Sea Rotational Force recently announced its mission of building “enduring partnerships with 19 nations throughout Eastern Europe.” The U.S. Marines are being hosted by Romania from April 2 to September 1. Prior to that Black Sea Rotational Force 2012 participated in the Agile Spirit 2012 exercise in Georgia in March.
U.S. Army Europe’s Task Force East, employing Stryker combat vehicles, also operates out of Romania as well as Bulgaria: The Mihal Kogălniceanu Airfield and the Babadag Training Area in the first country and the Novo Selo Training Area in the second. In 2009 Task Force East spent three months training in Romania and Bulgaria, primarily preparing troops from the U.S. and the two host nations for operations in Afghanistan.
This year NATO officially identified Afghanistan and Iraq as military partners, in the category of partners across the globe. Since the end of NATO operations against Libya last October, the bloc’s secretary general and its American ambassador, Anders Fogh Rasmussen and Ivo Daalder, have mentioned Libya joining NATO’s Mediterranean Dialogue military partnership with the other nations of North Africa.
Each NATO military operation over the past 17 years, in Bosnia, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Libya, has provided the alliance with bases, centers, troops and logistics for later and for future wars. Air bases in Bulgaria and Romania were employed for the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya and, as noted above, every Balkan nation but Serbia has supplied troops for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Pentagon and NATO military personnel, aircraft, ships and radar in Southeast Europe can be used in attacks on Syria and Iran and in any new armed conflict in the South Caucasus, such as the five-day war between Georgia and Russia four years ago.
The U.S. and its NATO allies are expanding their military presence and infrastructure ever closer to new theaters of war.
Chicago: NATO Protests Bring Back Memories Of 1968
The DePaulia
May 29, 2012
NATO protests bring back memories of Chicago ’68
By Matt Harder
====
Many protesters were there to actually oppose the so-called global military arm, NATO, whom my dad says, “just spreads the U.S. agenda by giving us an excuse to ship out troops for the implementation of Western influence.”
“All I know is that it doesn’t stop…[it] didn’t stop in the ’60s, got lost in the ’70s with consumerism and technology, but now it’s back: ‘Why are you sending people to kill other people?’”
====
At Sunday’s NO NATO rally many different perspectives were represented.
It’s come up in many recent discussions that there are stark similarities and differences between the 1968 Democratic convention and the NATO Summit of 2012. The most glaring likenesses are the location and mass numbers of protesters and police. The differences, in short, are the political agendas of the protesters, the police, and the reasons for their presence in the downtown streets of Chicago – the government.
My soon to be 66 year old father, Kent Harder, was 22 when he took a train from Michigan State University to Chicago, where he and his left-wing friend planned to protest the war in Vietnam. The protesters, he says, did not start the violence at the ‘68 Convention.
Last weekend, he watched the major networks’ coverage of NATO endlessly, hoping I was not getting beat up or arrested (I covered both the conference and the protests first-hand). His reaction to the protesters purpose in ’68 goes the same way for NATO. The difference is, at NATO, “there was a diversity of concerns.”
In 1968, not just the youth stood by a unified call for ‘NO WAR,’ but rather, all Americans. The whole world was watching…watching the U.S. send people all over the world for wars, protecting and fighting for its own self-interest. Many others like my dad decided they wanted that unified call to be on the Democrats’ political agenda, immediately. What they didn’t expect was the violence that ensued the rallying speeches in Grant Park.
Although the NO NATO protesters were extremely diverse in their reasons for marching last weekend, the ‘no war’ voices were heard loud and clear. Many protesters were there to actually oppose the so-called global military arm, NATO, whom my dad says, “just spreads the U.S. agenda by giving us an excuse to ship out troops for the implementation of Western influence.”
“They came from the south and started beating people for no reason…I just wanted to get out of there.”
My dad tells the stories of being beaten 3 separate times, and eventually being carried off the streets by mercenary-style triage. They brought wounded protesters to the backs of Marshall Field’s trucks in the Loop alleyways and tended to their wounds.
Despite a few instances of gashes resulting from billy-clubbing, the NATO summit brought significantly less violence on the police’s part. The protesters last weekend, diverse as they were, have been reported to have started the violence, or provoked it in some way. That is still largely in debate. The people, however, unanimously held the police in ‘68, accountable.
The media had no choice on how to cover the events of the Chicago Democratic Convention of ’68 – relay the chaos, raw. Today, the mass media has a choice on how to cover such events because of the fragmentation of the NO NATO Protest, the Occupy Movement, and the Anarchist group/tactic, The Black Bloc. A choice, opposed to the ’68 version of coverage: relay the chaos, raw. For the ones old enough for ’68, the reasons for protest are the same nowadays, but were just more focused then.
Advances in technology have added an interesting dynamic to the coverage of such events, and that is the citizen journalist. Now, with smart phones live-streaming video and taking professional quality photos (amongst those with actual professional grade film equipment), anyone can document true and raw occurrences and hold anybody accountable.
“In ’68, cops attacked protesters, not the other way around. And from what I’ve seen, it was the same [at NATO].
Then, there wasn’t as much preemptive scrutiny from the people, the press, or the government…it became an earmark for the CPD though. NATO had much more supervision, and control. Not to mention the presence of multiple law enforcement agencies. The lack of organization and commitment to a wholly peaceful protest on the ‘NO NATO’ protesters’ part doesn’t help their image in the presence of an outburst in the controlled, military-like atmosphere we saw last weekend.
“All I know is that it doesn’t stop…[it] didn’t stop in the ’60s, got lost in the ’70s with consumerism and technology, but now it’s back: ‘Why are you sending people to kill other people?’”
Video: Occupy Wall Street on NATO summit and protests
Madeleine Albright And The Iraqi Genocide
Al Ahram
May 24-30
Madeleine Albright and the Iraqi genocide
The first Iraq Genocide Memorial Day was held earlier this month in memory of those who died as a result of sanctions and the US-led invasion, writes Felicity Arbuthnot
“Get some new lawyers”, then US secretary of state Madeleine Albright told UK foreign secretary Robin Cook after he had said that the bombing of the Balkan states was illegal under international law.
On the 16th anniversary of Albright stating her endorsement of half a million dead Iraqi children as being “worth it” to continue the UN sanctions against Iraq, the silent holocaust of Iraq’s children is now to be annually commemorated.
In New Haven in the US on 12 May, the day Albright’s infamous comments were made 16 years ago, a banner was unfurled and a minute’s silence held as the Middle East Crisis Committee, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Tree of Life Education Fund and We Refuse to be Enemies inaugurated the first Iraq Genocide Memorial Day.
Stanley Heller, chair of the Middle East Crisis Committee commented that “this horrific loss of life was ignored for six years until the US ambassador to the UN appeared on [the TV show] ’60 Minutes’ and admitted the deaths of half a million children. We in the Middle East Crisis Committee call for 12 May to be marked as Iraq Genocide Memorial Day.”
Iraq’s children continued to die at an average of 6,000 a month until the illegal US-led invasion of the country in 2003 wrought further disaster. Many hospitals in the country are even today assessed as being even more woeful than they were under the UN embargo, and thus Iraq’s children continue to die in a near-forgotten tragedy of UN-US-UK making.
Soaring rates of cancer among children in Iraq and deformities at birth linked to the weapons used in the 1991 US bombing of the country, and then in 12 years of further bombing and the 2003 war, have exacerbated and compounded an enormous tragedy. Others accused of crimes against humanity end up at the International Criminal Court in the Hague, though only, it seems, if eastern European or African. Meanwhile, Albright has been gathering a bizarre collection of “humanitarian” awards.
One of the strangest is surely the Freedom Award from the International Rescue Committee (IRC) initiated by Albert Einstein, which “responds to the world’s worst humanitarian crises and helps people survive and rebuild their lives, [offering] life-saving care and life-changing assistance.” Endorsing infanticide hardly falls within the IRC’s loftily stated aspirations.
Two years after her statement on the disposable Iraqi children, Albright, now having abandoned her tarnishing of the United Nations’ founding aspirations by becoming US secretary of state, declared (in February 1998) that “Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”
A year later, the 1999 razing of much of the Balkans became known as “Madeleine’s war”. The largely unrecognised state of Kosova, carved out of that decimation, is now rated as one of the most corrupt and lawless countries in the region and high in the world ranking, according to December 2011 findings by the NGO Transparency International.
Talking after the virtual destruction of Iraq as a state, its archives and government institutions bombed, looted, or stolen, she told US journalist Jim Lehrer in September 2003 that “I think we actually kept him [former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein] in a strategic box. We bombed very much, if you remember all the maps, always in terms of north and south, covering a great portion of Iraq. I think we had him in the box.”
No mention here that both the bombing and the boxing in were illegal.
As ever, the majority of the bombing victims consisted of Iraq’s children, for whom Albright’s contempt was seemingly boundless: shepherds and goat herders tending the family flocks with no place to hide.
However, one politician with whom she sparred did take a stand against what was happening. Former UK foreign secretary Robin Cook resigned in protest two days before the US-led invasion, his resignation speech in the UK parliament on 18 March 2003 being a searing indictment of double standards in the West’s dealings with Iraq.
There had been a policy of deliberately selective perception, he said, something which could now equally apply to the threats against Iran. “I have heard it said that Iraq has had not months, but twelve years, in which to complete disarmament and that our patience is exhausted,” Cook said. “Yet, it is more than thirty years since [UN] Resolution 242 called on Israel to withdraw from the Occupied Territories. We do not express the same impatience with the persistent refusal of Israel to comply.”
Cook talked of “the strong sense of injustice throughout the Muslim world at what it sees as one rule for the allies of the US and another rule for the rest.” Britain’s credibility was not “helped by the appearance that our partners in Washington are less interested in disarmament than they are in regime change in Iraq,” he said.
“That explains why any evidence that inspections may be showing progress is greeted in Washington not with satisfaction but with consternation: it reduces the case for war.” As some are doing now regarding the situation with Iran, he pleaded that “inspections be given a chance,” saying that the UK was “being pushed too quickly into conflict by a US Administration with an agenda of its own.”
He asked for the halting of the “commitment of troops in a war that has neither international agreement nor domestic support,” ending “I intend to join those tomorrow night who will vote against military action. It is for that reason alone, and with a heavy heart, that I resign from the government.”
On the first anniversary of the 2003 invasion, Cook stated that “it seems only too likely that the judgment of history may be that the invasion of Iraq has been the biggest blunder in British foreign and security policy in the half century since Suez. In truth, we would have made more progress in rolling back support for terrorism if we had brought peace to Palestine rather than war to Iraq.”
Robin Cook died of a heart condition whilst hill walking in Scotland, coincidentally on a swathe of land owned by the duke of Westminster, a UK general and assistant chief of the defence staff, who visited British-held Basra in Iraq a number of times after the invasion.
Today, it is to be hoped that observance of Iraq Genocide Memorial Day will spread worldwide, both in memory of those who were abandoned by the inspiring words of the UN Charter, the numerous hidden casualties, both dead and alive, and as a reminder that for a great swathe of the world, it is the West, and not the rest, that appears to be becoming increasingly despotic.
The writer is a journalist specialising in Iraq and was senior researcher on two award-winning documentaries on the country, John Pilger’s Paying the Price: Killing the Children of Iraq and Denis Halliday’s Returns.
Afghanistan: Civilian Deaths Continue Unchecked
Voice of Russia
May 29, 2012
Civilian deaths in Afghanistan continue unchecked
John Robles
In Eastern Afghanistan on Saturday night NATO was involved in another “incident”, as NATO calls them, involving the deaths of large numbers of civilians. This time NATO forces killed a family of eight people, including six children, in the Paktia province.
Many experts say the “incident” threatens to further strain the already tense relationship between President Hamid Karzai and his Western backers. Some analysts claimed Karzai’s recent trip to the NATO Summit in Washington served to slightly smooth the already tense relationship but this latest incident may cause another wave of violence in the country and force Karzai to have to take stronger steps against the “occupiers”.
According to a local government spokesperson in an interview with the AFP the eight people were killed in a NATO air strike and included a husband and wife and their six children.
The official, one Rohulla Samouni, stated that none of the members of the family had ties with the Taliban or other terrorist group. He said NATO aircraft bombed a house. A man named Mohammad Sahfi his wife and their six innocent children were brutally murdered.
— There have been many similar such cases in 2012 in Afghanistan. For example on February 17, 2012, six civilians, including a woman and a child were killed in a NATO night raid in Dewa Gul Valley, in the Chawki district of Kunar province.
—Then on February 8, seven children and a young adult were killed in a NATO airstrike in the village of Geyaba in the eastern Afghan province of Kapisa.
—March 11, 2012 saw at least 16 civilians, including women and children killed after a ‘rogue’ US serviceman entered their homes murdered them.
The war in Afghanistan has already lasted for more than 10 years (2001–present) and killed tens of thousands of Afghan civilians directly as well as the deaths of tens of thousands more indirectly as a consequence of displacement, starvation, disease, exposure, lack of medical treatment, crime and lawlessness resulting from the war.
President Hamid Karzai has summoned foreign military commanders and made public statements to warn of the consequences of further Afghan civilian deaths many times.
—”We are not happy. We don’t want any more Afghan civilian casualties.” “This must not occur again.” President Hamid Karzai, July 2002
—”I don’t think there is a big need for military activity in Afghanistan anymore.” “Similarly, going into the Afghan homes – searching Afghan homes without the authorization of the Afghan government – is something that should stop now.” President Hamid Karzai, September 2005
—In May 2006, Afghan President Hamid Karzai summoned the commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, Lt. Gen. Karl Eikenberry, to demand an explanation for the deaths of at least 16 Afghan civilians during air strikes.
—In December 2006, a tearful President Hamid Karzai gave a heartfelt speech that brought audience members to tears, Karzai said the cruelty imposed on his people “is too much” and that Afghanistan cannot stop “the coalition from killing our children.”
—”Five years on, it is very difficult for us to continue accepting civilian casualties. It is becoming heavy for us; it is not understandable anymore.” “We are very sorry when the international coalition force and NATO soldiers lose their lives or are injured. It pains us. But Afghans are human beings, too.” President Hamid Karzai, May 2, 2007
—In June 2007, after the deaths of more than 90 civilians in 10 days, President Hamid Karzai accused ISAF and the US-led military coalition in his country of “extreme” and “disproportionate” use of force.
—”Afghan life is not cheap and it should not be treated as such.” “Several times in the last year, the Afghan government tried to prevent civilian casualties, but our innocent people are becoming victims of careless operations of NATO and international forces.” President Hamid Karzai, June 23, 2007
—On October 28, 2007, in an interview on 60 Minutes, Hamid Karzai stated that he had explicitly asked U.S. President George W. Bush to roll back the use of air strikes, which had killed more than 270 civilians in 17 air strikes to date in 2007 alone.
— In August 2008, President Hamid Karzai ordered a review of foreign troops in Afghanistan after 96 civilians were killed in an air strike in Herat.
—”The continuation of civilian casualties can seriously undermine the legitimacy of fighting terrorism and the credibility of the Afghan people’s partnership with the international community.” President Hamid Karzai, September 24, 2008
— On November 5, 2008, Afghan President Hamid Karzai asked U.S. President-elect Barack Obama to put an end to civilian casualties in Afghanistan after an air strike on a wedding party, killing 37 people, including 23 children and 10 women.
— In April 2009, American-led military forces killed 5 civilians, including two children and a nine-month-old baby, in a U.S. night raid in Khost province
—In March 2011, Karzai rejected American President Obama’s and Gen. David Petraeus’ apologies for the killing of 9 Afghan boys ages 7–13 who were collecting firewood. “The apology is not enough,” Karzai said
— In May 2011, Karzai issued a “final warning” as more civilians were killed in NATO airstrikes. He said the Afghan people can no longer tolerate the attacks, and that the U.S.-led coalition risks being seen as an “occupying force”.
The killings go on.
