"Nuclear Energy For All, Nuclear Weapons For No One,"

Ahmadinejad: Israel Has Nukes While Iran Banned From Nuclear Energy

By DPA and Haaretz Service
Last update - 17:02 17/04/2010
Courtesy Of Haaretz NewsPaper

Israel's nuclear arsenal is safeguarded by the United States, while Iran is prevented from establishing its peaceful nuclear energy program, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said at the opening of the First International Conference on Disarmament and Non-Proliferation in Tehran, Iran's state news agency IRNA reported on Saturday.

The conference, meeting under the slogan "Nuclear Energy for All, Nuclear Weapons for No One," was kicked off early Saturday, and included 10 foreign ministers, 14 deputy foreign ministers as well as nuclear experts from 60 countries.

China is to be represented at the conference by a low-ranking Foreign Ministry official and Russia by a deputy minister.

The conference is focused on disarmament, but analysts said a main aim would be another effort by Iran to persuade the international community that its nuclear projects are solely for peaceful and civilian purposes.

Referring to Israel's alleged nuclear program, Ahmadinejad said that "the Zionist regime which has over 200 nuclear warheads and has waged several wars in the region is fully supported by Washington and its allies."

"This is while other states are prevented from making peaceful use of nuclear energy," the Iranian president added.

Addressing the conference's aims, Ahmadinejad said that "wars, aggressions, occupation, threats, nuclear weapons, weapons of mass destruction and expansionist policies of certain countries have made the prospect of regional and international security as unclear and ambiguous.

The Iranian president also criticized the performance of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), saying that the UN nuclear watchdog has been turned to a tool for exerting pressure on those countries which have no nuclear weapons.

"Expecting those countries which have the veto right and are big sellers of weapons in the world to establish security and to disarm other states is illogical," Ahmadinejad said according to IRNA, suggesting the formation of a new group that would supervise global nuclear disarmament.

"[That] group should suspend membership of those countries possessing, using and threatening use of nuclear weapons at the IAEA and its Board of Governors," the Iranian President said.

Also Saturday, Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said that Islam forbade the use of nuclear weapons, saying that while the United States urged the reduction of the worldwide nuclear arsenal, it had taken no real steps toward achieving that aim.

In a statement read by aides at the opening of the nuclear disarmament conference headed by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Khamenei said that United States was still the only nation to commit what he called "atomic crimes."

Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, Saeid Jalili, also criticized the United States for its double-standard approach to nuclear disarmament.

"The U.S. is itself guilty of having used atomic weapons in Japan and can, therefore, not be a supervisor of countries using peaceful nuclear technology," said Jalili, who is also secretary of Iran's National Security Council. "The world should not allow nuclear criminals to have a supervising role."

Jalili blamed the U.S. and its allies for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and insisted that all nuclear projects by Iran were in line with the treaty and IAEA regulations.

On Friday, Iranian IRNA news agency quoted Lebanon's Foreign Minister Ali Shami International sa sayig that the pressure exerted by the international community on Iran's "peaceful nuclear program" could have "drastic impacts on the Middle East peace."

According to the IRNA report, Shami added that "contrary to Israel which has many nuclear arsenals, Iran seeks a peaceful nuclear program."


Syria FM: Israel's Nukes Are Mideast's Gravest Threat

Israel's nuclear warheads are the Middle East's biggest threat, IRNA quoted Syria's Foreign Minister Walid Al-Muallem as saying at the onset the nuclear disarmament conference in Tehran on Saturday.

Speaking to reporters, Al-Muallem said that Israel was the biggest nuclear threat in the Middle East, alleging that the "Zionist regime" had "been stockpiling nuclear warheads."

The Syria FM called the Terhan conference a "very good opportunity for countries to try to bring to life the mottos on the disarmament issue," adding he hoped "the meeting will create a firm will in the world on nuclear disarmament."

Also commenting on the subject of Israel's supposed nuclear program Saturday, Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshiyar Zebari called for inspecting Israeli nuclear installations by international bodies.

"Iraq is the victim of the past policies and ignoring international commitments," Zebari told IRNA, adding that "Baghdad condemns making use of weapons of mass destruction and believes in combating nuclear weapons."

The Iraqi FM reiterated that the "Iraqi government is interested in a Mideast free from nuclear weapons and calls for annihilation of weapons of mass destruction."

On Friday, IRNA quoted Lebanon's Foreign Minister Ali Shami International as saying that the pressure exerted by the international community on Iran's "peaceful nuclear program" could have "drastic impacts on the Middle East peace."

According to the IRNA report, Shami added that "contrary to Israel which has many nuclear arsenals, Iran seeks a peaceful nuclear program."

The Lebanon FM urged the international community to force the United Nations Security Council to pressure Israel to sign the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, adding that Lebanon accepted "Tehran's invitation and will attend the highly important conference which will focus on nuclear disarmament worldwide."

Israel Lobby Leadership Losing It

April 15th, 2010
Courtesy Of Jim Lobe

On the day when Israel’s ambassador, Michael Oren, met formally with J Street executive director Jeremy Ben-Ami for the first time, the right-wing leadership of what has come to be known as the “Israel Lobby” expressed genuine alarm that the administration of President Barack Obama may be prepared to exert serious pressure on the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in order to revive and impart momentum to the long-moribund “peace process.”

That alarm appears based, at least most immediately, on last month’s contretemps over Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem and Netanyahu’s apparent failure so far to meet minimal U.S. demands for a number of commitments which the administration thinks would actually get its proposed “proximity talks” with the Palestinians underway. That was evident in the anguished full-page ad taken out by the World Jewish Congress (WJC) and its president, Netanyahu buddy Ron Lauder, in Thursday’s edition of the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal. The ad, which takes the form of an open letter to Obama, speaks of the “dramatic deterioration of diplomatic relations between the United States and Israel” and suggests that Washington’s current strategy — “Is it assumed worsening relations with Israel can improve relations with Muslims?” asks Lauder — amounts to “appeasement.” It was interesting to note that Lauder told the New York Times that he “discussed the letter with Mr. Netanyahu and received his support before taking out the ad.”

The Times article that cited Lauder’s words was the latest — and most definitive — in a recent series of stories published over the past ten days indicating that Obama himself is running out of patience with Netanyahu and may increasingly be inclined to put forward his own peace plan if Israel proves unwilling to make serious concessions on settlements in East Jerusalem and related issues in the coming months.

But, while settlements and related issues are obviously key catalysts for the ongoing crisis, the deeper issue — about which the Israel Lobby is most concerned — is the taboo but self-evident notion that U.S. and Israeli interests in the Greater Middle East may not be precisely the same and that, in reality, Israeli policies toward Palestinians and the wider Arab world may actually be undermining Washington’s strategic position in the region. That indeed was the notion elaborated by Mark Landler and Helene Cooper, who led Thursday’s article with the assertion that there has been a “far-reaching shift in how the United States views the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.” Noting Obama’s reference during his press conference concluding this week’s Nuclear Summit to resolving the conflict as a “vital national security interest of the United States,” the two reporters went on:

“Mr. Obama said conflicts like the one in the Middle East ended up ‘costing us significantly in terms of both blood and treasure’ — drawing an explicit link between the Israeli-Palestinian strife and the safety of American soldiers as they battle Islamic extremism and terrorism in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.

Mr. Obama’s words reverberated through diplomatic circles in large part because they echoed those of Gen. David H. Petraeus, the military commander overseeing America’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In recent Congressional testimony, the general said that the lack of progress in the Middle East created a hostile environment for the United States. He has denied reports that he was suggesting that soldiers were being put in harm’s way by American support for Israel.

But the impasse in negotiations ‘does create an environment,’ he said Tuesday in a speech in Washington. ‘It does contribute, if you will, to the overall environment within which we operate.’”

This article, in turn, appears to have put Abraham Foxman, the long-standing director of the Anti-Defamation League and pillar of the Lobby leadership, into something of a lather for the second time in less than a month. Thursday afternoon, he put out the following statement:

“The significant shift in U.S. policy toward Israel and the peace process, which has been evident in comments from various members of the Obama Administration and has now been confirmed by the president himself in his press conference at the Nuclear Security Summit, is deeply distressing. Saying that the absence of a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict undermines U.S. interests in the broader Middle East and the larger issue of resolving other conflicts is a faulty strategy. It is an incorrect approach on which to base America’s foreign policy in the Middle East and its relationship with its longtime friend and ally, Israel.

ADL has long expressed its concern from the very beginning of the Obama Administration about advisers to the president who see the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a major impediment to achieving the administration’s foreign policy and military goals in the wider region. The net effect of this dangerous thinking is to shift responsibility for success of American foreign policy away from Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt and directly onto Israel. It is particularly disturbing in light of the blatantly disproportionate number and the nature of statements issued by this administration criticizing Israel as compared to what has been said about the Palestinians.”

The best way to move the peace process between the Israelis and Palestinians forward is for all parties to demand that the Palestinians abandon their tactic of “just saying no” and insist that the rest of the Arab world move toward normalization [sic] relations with Israel.

So we now have Ronald Lauder, speaking on behalf the World Jewish Congress and presumably with Netanyahu’s clearance, hurling the poisonous word “appeasement” at Obama, and a “deeply distressed” Abe Foxman — intemperately, in my opinion — confirming the actual existence of a “significant shift in U.S. policy toward Israel and the peace process” and dismissing any notion that the persistence of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict may negatively affect U.S. security interests in the larger region as “Israeli and U.S. security interests are not identical as “faulty,” “incorrect,” and “dangerous.” This comes after similar letters and statements — although not quite so strong or confrontational as Lauder’s and Foxman’s — by the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee last month.

Yet, as M.J. Rosenberg pointed out on his excellent Media Matters blog today, “a clear majority of the American Jewish community supports the Obama approach to U.S.-Israel relations, with only 37% disapproving,” according to a recent poll (conducted during the contentious month of March) by the American Jewish Committee.

It’s pretty clear that the right-wing leadership of the organized Jewish community believes that a major crisis in U.S.-Israeli relations — perhaps the most important in 35 years, as Amb. Oren himself reportedly warned (and then unconvincingly denied) last month — is really upon us.

Perpetual Fraud

By Jim Miles
Online Journal Contributing Writer
Mar 8, 2010, 00:38
Courtesy Of The Online Journal

For historians who like dates and bookends for their events, the “global war on terror” started with the destruction of the Twin Towers and the attack on the Pentagon (9/11).

The idea of perpetual war provided large benefits to a few and pain and terror to much of the world, and to the rest of the world an increasing disbelief in the intents, means, and rationales for the war. Unfortunately, for the academic writers of history, history itself does not operate within the confines of given dates -- the flow of actions and counter actions never ceases. The 9/11 attacks were by any real accounting only another incident in the fraud that the imperial powers of the world have ‘perpetuated’ on the citizens of the world.

Rather than speak of war, which is an act of violence with many differing excuses and exercises, it is rather a perpetual fraud perpetrated by these self-acclaiming empires -- fraud that goes beyond acts of war into the daily lives of citizens around the world -- that is the basis for the crimes against humanity (and the environment as a whole). ‘Fraud’ is defined as “Criminal deception, use of false representations to gain unjust advantage; dishonest artifice or trick” with the addition of ‘pious fraud’ as a “deception intended to benefit those deceived, and especially to strengthen religious belief.”

Both of these definitions need to be applied to our current global situation. Criminal deception has been used by various governments, notably the U.S., Great Britain, and Israel, with the support of various sycophant allies, to try to gain advantage militarily and economically over much of the world. This is combined with pious deception as those deceived to a great part are the citizens of those countries, with the aspect of religion being used to reinforce and support the overall criminal fraud.

The Big Lie

The big lie is simple, that there really is a global war on terror. The truth is more realistically that there is a global war of terror. Those self-righteous countries that proclaim against terror are themselves the greatest sources of terror around the world.

The United States has an ongoing history of occupations, invasions, covert and subversive activities against any nation that dare raise a voice that contradicted U.S. wishes and desires, most of which reflected the corporate agenda to control the natural resources and economies of the world.

Great Britain’s empire (along with most of the other European empires of Spain, France, Germany, Russia, the Netherlands) produced terror and war wherever It was established. In spite of its many proclamations of civilizing the savages of the world, the real intentions were the same, military and economic control of global wealth. Its only ‘success,’ at least from the eyes of the invaders, were the colonies of Australia, New Zealand and North America (U.S. and Canada), successful in that they eliminated any opposition from the indigenous people through the violence and terror of war and genocide.

Israel’s empire is much more modest when considered in terms of occupying and settling territory for their own advantage. All they have endeavoured to gain has been the land between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan river, a desert land empty of people that they wished to make bloom with the fruits of their civilization and religion. That ‘empty land’ however contained a significant indigenous population that was already successfully cultivating the land and had for millennia a distinct cultural environment. The occupation of Palestinian territory fits both definitions of fraud, as a criminal activity against international law and most certainly as a pious deception based on an arguable fundamentalist belief that they and only they should occupy Palestine.

All three of these states, apart from the historical frauds of claiming lands and resources that were not their own, have extended this fraud into the much larger global war of terror.

Nuclear Terror

A recent comment by Obama highlighted this fraud: “Iran is not just a challenge for Israel. I believe it is a challenge for the whole world. I can hardly think of a stable world order with a nuclear Iran.” This fraudulent claim only extends the previous fraudulent claims that led to invasions of Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan (okay, only aerial invasions so far, plus a whole bunch of covert operatives) -- for the U.S., the list is almost endless, but I will stay with current events for now -- Lebanon, and Gaza.

“A stable world order” will never exist with countries carrying nuclear weapons. The U.S. and Soviet Union perpetrated their lies and counter-lies for decades while maintaining overwhelming arsenals of nuclear weapons. I for one did not feel any stability concerning international affairs during that period of my life -- at any given moment of carelessness or rhetorical stupidity one country could easily have triggered a civilization ending war. That situation still exists.

Nuclear weapons are a grand deception for a ‘stable world order.’ The U.S. is the main rogue state in this regard, maintaining its superiority in all areas of their nuclear arsenal. India developed nuclear weapons outside the Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the U.S. has recently worked with them in developing their nuclear industry and weapons even more. Pakistan similarly developed weapons outside the NPT, and with its mainly Muslim population, and a government in conflict with India on many issues and subordinate to -- yet resistant of -- U.S. influence, is hardly stable. Israel has an arsenal of an estimated 200 nuclear weapons (estimates can be made from the kind of reactors used and the availability of materials to fuel it) that have never been questioned by the U.S. or its allies, even though they are outside the NPT’s bounds. Somehow all this makes Iran the greatest threat to a ‘stable world order’?

But nuclear weapons, as catastrophic as they may be, are really just another part of the overall deception. The deception is there to hide the reality of U.S. corporate-military intentions to contain and control the majority of resources and peoples of the world as they can, to accumulate as much of the wealth and power as they can for the benefit of their own elites (as part of the deception involves deceiving their own population.)

Beneficiaries

The current deceptions began before 9/11. The Project for a New American Century clamoured for full spectrum dominance and included the statement, “ . . . the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event -- like a new Pearl Harbor.” Arguments about 9/11 include ideas ranging from it being an inside piece of work, to being a truly successful terrorist attack that allowed the neocon PNAC writers their opportunity to strive for their objectives (remembering that Pearl Harbor was not as ‘surprising‘ as the historians of the day proclaimed). What rises is the question (apart from all the questions about 9/11 itself) of who benefits from it all?

The main beneficiaries are the members of the international corporate world, the military establishments (pretty much one and the same) especially of the U.S. and Israel, and the politicians who support it all (ditto). With the U.S. economy riding a series of speculative bubbles while the real growth and wealth creating activities are shipped overseas, in particular to the rising economy of China, there is little in the way of home grown wealth left to be harvested (other than the largesse of government bailouts to the banks and corporations and the largesse of government military contracts that support a wide array of industries related to military provisioning). The “global war on terror” deception provides the excuse, the rationale, the motive, and most importantly the means, to extend U.S. corporate/political/economic control over the Middle East (mostly, but because of its very broad definition, the war could go anywhere) for its natural resources (mainly oil and gas), at the same time attempting to contain and counteract the rising influence of China and the ongoing interests of Russia in the region.

Israel is quite happy to benefit along with all this. Riding on the U.S. stagecoach of spreading freedom and democracy at the end of a gun-barrel so that U.S. corporations can continue to rake in the wealth . . . but wait a minute . . . with corporate and political leaders in the U.S. bowing obsequiously to the Israelis, from Obama to Jimmy Carter (whose letter of apology to the Israelis came as his grandson was running for a Georgia senatorial seat), perhaps Israel is not riding on the stagecoach but is riding with reins in hand while the U.S. rides shotgun on their own coach. The U.S. has contributed enormously to Israel, both financially and militarily. The relationship is not all smiles and roses, but the strength of the Israeli lobby and the apparent U.S. desire to maintain Israel as its forward military garrison at the western end of the Middle East keeps the U.S. establishment under Israeli manipulation, if not outright control. The manner in which Netanyahu has bested Obama indicates that perhaps the latter word is the operative one.

Casualties

The casualties in this global war on terror can be classified in various ways: religion, environment, the economy, the citizens of most countries, the ideas of democracy and freedom, peace, and health. They can and usually are also classified as national peoples or states, with Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan being the current crop of nations struggling under the war of terror.

Arguably, the single biggest casualty is the Palestinian people. Israel, with the acceptance of the majority of the governments of the world, has occupied the West Bank for over 40 years, destroying farms, communities, families, lives, culture -- most anything it can about being Palestinian. Given an historical democratic election in 2006, accepted as such by the majority of the world, the U.S. and its allies quickly denounced the results and created a situation that destroyed the democratic outcomes. The occupation continues under Israel’s reign of terror, with the added impetus of the global war on terror as an excuse to continue with its methods -- most if not all considered illegal under international law. Similarly, the Gaza strip, more correctly the Gaza ghetto, contains about 1.5 million Palestinians living in conditions of severe deprivation, under the confinement of the Israeli military, again having the war on terror as an additional excuse to subjugate and terrorize the population, again against all the standards of international law.

The world remains complicit with this. All governments that support the U.S. in their actions, members of NATO or otherwise are part of the fraud controlled by U.S. interests and U.S. media conglomerates (the latter part and parcel of the military-corporate structures).

Canada has recently stopped supporting UNRWA, “but [the aid] is now being redirected in accordance with Canadian values.” Theoretically the funds are being specifically targeted for “training prosecutors, judges and police, and shoring up the Palestinian judicial sector by building courthouses,” in the West Bank. What this amounts to is Canada accepting Israel’s position vis a vis Gaza and Hamas and directing the aid money to the compliant Palestinian Authority of the West Bank, now in the process of eliminating their Hamas opposition -- no aid for refugees, only for sources supporting Israeli intentions. Canadian values, at least at the government level, have fallen in line with U.S. and Israeli values.

On the other hand, it could be argued that Iraq is the single biggest casualty, based on the number of exiles, the number of civilians killed, the degree of environmental damage from the oil sector, depleted uranium munitions, and the general chaos of warfare. Under the pretences of weapons of mass destruction (such as the U.S. has in abundance), alliances with al-Qaeda, and the nasty nature of Hussein, Iraq became the first victim of occupation in the war of terror. With no WMD and only a limited al-Qaeda presence after the invasion, Iraq’s situation remains one of an illegally occupied country destabilized by the many diverse political, religious, and natural resource riches of the region.

Afghanistan was supposedly the origin of the 9/11 attacks (what about Saudi Arabia?), and has suffered incredible hardships under the terror perpetrated by the U.S. Certainly the Taliban were not angels of mercy, but they did bring stability to a region that had been reduced to war-lordism. And in spite of U.S. arguments otherwise, there were several opportunities to kill or sequester bin Laden. Supposedly operating under a UN mandate for reconstruction and rehabilitation, the U.S./NATO forces are essentially there to create more space for U.S. control of oil and gas and the ongoing encirclement and containment of Russia and China. The use of torture, the lack of protection for civilians, and their purposeful murder within the context of the war create a situation -- the illegality of the occupation in the first place not withstanding -- that goes against international humanitarian law and war law.

As the U.S. dominos tumble, Pakistan became the next target on the list. Unstable from its inception, created with artificial boundaries that cut through tribal regions (all the Middle East boundaries are artificially created by the European empirical powers -- save Iran). Ostensibly an ally of the U.S. in the war of terror, Pakistan is becoming increasingly destabilized as U.S. covert operations and drone attacks extend U.S. power over the country. Fearful of its nuclear power, fearful of its Muslim population, fearful of its base for insurgents in Afghanistan, the U.S. is trying both military and political manoeuvring to control the country.

Iran is obviously being set up as the fourth country to be subjected to an illegal U.S. or Israeli attack. All the same precedents are there: the false accusations concerning nuclear weapons (with the obvious irony that the U.S. and Israel consistently act outside the intent of the NPT), the demonizing of the government, the tales of terror being flung far and wide from the country (certainly Iran is supporting its military interests in the region, but not with the degree of terror imposed by the U.S.), and the calls for democracy and freedom, ideas which more and more are inimical to both the U.S., its allies, and Israel.

Other Casualties

Other casualties are of the ideals of the world, of the freedom, democracy, of religious beliefs in all the main religions combined with the hard reality of environmental destruction, topped up with an economic recession based on global finances that vacuum up the wealth of the many rather than trickle down the wealth of the few.

All the major monotheistic religions have beliefs that call for caring for the environment, caring for the poor, the downtrodden, for aiding and helping humanity through love and compassionate caring. As a casualty of the war of terror, the fundamentalist beliefs of these religions have risen to the surface, advocating hatred, creating an evil other who is to be disposed of without concern or emotion, negating the compassionate side of the religions.

The environment obviously suffers from the direct impact of war, with the ongoing contamination from the many chemicals used in the fighting and the destruction of civilian infrastructure used to control the environment for human use. This applies not only to the occupied war torn territories, but also the territories where the resources are extracted from to continue the war, and the communities where the war provisioning industries are located.

Perhaps the biggest casualty in this grouping is that of democracy. The nominative democracies that perpetuate the war are increasingly subordinate to a wealthy elite who control the media, the message, and who have created the legislative support to spy on and detain their own citizens without the rights of a truly democratic society that citizens have fought for over the centuries. Canadian and U.S. troops are now importing ‘ democracy in a box’ into Marjah near Kandahar. If they can do it there, they should consider doing it in Ottawa and Washington.

Questions

Through all this, many questions circulate around the war of terror events. All of them are treated dismissively as conspiracy theories by the governing elites, with the intentions that the questions will be both ignored and be considered either unpatriotic or ignorant or both. So with hesitation, I have to reiterate what I see as the more valid questions, that if answered fully may or may not convince me to change my viewpoint.

First and foremost, where is bin Laden? For all the vaunted prowess and all-seeing eyes of the various U.S./Israeli/U.K. spy agencies, and the supposed skills of their special ops teams, why have they not found bin Laden? They had him in their sights for a decade or so before 9/11, they assisted him (and others) in Afghanistan to give a body blow to the Soviets, and then suddenly after 9/11 he disappears from view except for the occasional video tape? Surely for all their skills and prowess and the huge sums of money they are willing and capable of throwing around to enemies and allies alike, the U.S. must know his whereabouts if he is still alive.

Dead or alive, it really does not matter, as long as he is not proven to be one or the other. For an illegal war based on false pretences, it is good to have a bogeyman hidden in the mountains of some faraway place that is essentially inaccessible to most if not all prying eyes. The fear that can be promoted by having these occasional videos presented at propitious moments can only aid the ongoing promulgation of the war of terror.

Many questions have arisen around the events of 9/11 itself, and increasingly more and more mainstream scientists, architects, and pilots are questioning the official version of events. Is it a conspiracy theory? No, no theory is being applied; the questions are being applied to specific points. There are three questions that have been brought forward that I would like to have answered. First, why did Tower 7 collapse as if it had been ‘pulled’ by demolition? What forensic evidence is there to support the Pentagon airplane attack? And why did all the materials from what is purportedly an international crime site be removed and not held for future prosecution?

The Fraud Continues

What supposedly began with 9/11 may well be a never-ending story, at least for the foreseeable future. The U.S. is mired in an economic morass that has it tied to the rising power of China at the same time that its military empire is violently expanding and exercising its self-applied unilateral right to strike anywhere anytime in the name of terror. It is an empire on the wane economically, but as I feared earlier, it is going out with a bang rather than with any intent of reconciliation. Israel is increasingly hard-line in its pursuit of settlements and territorial advantage over the Palestinians. Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan are subjugated under the occupation of U.S. intentions for resource control and political containment. Iran is increasingly looking like the next excuse to extend this military dominance and control.

Unfortunately, so far all outcomes have generally been unexpected, and the war of terror has not done any good for any region of the world. Environmental concerns, economic concerns, human culture and societies have all suffered because of the artifices of creating an ephemeral enemy that can never be captured, therefore creating a war that will be a perpetual fraud.

Jim Miles is a Canadian educator and a regular contributor/columnist of opinion pieces and book reviews for The Palestine Chronicle. Miles’ work is also presented globally through other alternative websites and news publications.

Copyright © 1998-2007 Online Journal

A Coup d’Etat In America

The ‘Magic Bullet’ Theory

By Jerry Mazza
Online Journal Associate Editor
Mar 8, 2010, 00:44
Courtesy Of The Online Journal

Whether you know it or not, the “magic bullet” theory is the critical keystone of the US government’s claim that a “lone gunman,” Lee Harvey Oswald, assassinated President John F. Kennedy. This theory has been conclusively proven false as of November 2009, with the publication of Reasoning about Assassinations, by Dr. James Fetzer, based upon research by a team of experts.

After all, it was the acceptance of this unbelievable theory that literally paved the way for a coup d’etat in America. That is, if you can assassinate a president in broad daylight in a major American city by deploying an elaborate set of lies and get away with it, what and who is left that is not within the province of US government intelligence agencies and cohorts to destroy?

In its wake, JFK’s assassination was the beginning of a new era of pessimism about the US government, including its Vietnam War, ongoing at that time, a war that JFK wished to withdraw from. Shortly after JFK’s death, his timetable for a complete withdrawal was reversed by Lyndon Johnson and all the stops for additional mass murders were removed.

It was the “magic bullet” theory that gave the Warren Commission and subsequently much of America “permission to believe” that Oswald could amazingly aim and fire three shots from his bolt-action, Italian Army rifle, within a mere six seconds and hit JFK in the back and then in the head. One of the shots missed the target entirely, hitting a sidewalk and sending a piece of concrete into the face of a distant bystander, who received a small scar from it. This is a matter of record.

That left only two shots, as it turns out, that had to have hit JFK twice. Even though the FBI and the Secret Service had concluded there were three shots and three hits -- JFK in the back, Connally in the back, and JFK in the head -- the miss that hit bystander James Tague dictated that they had to account for all those wounds based upon the only shot they had available -- the one that hit JFK in the back. Where that shot actually hit is the lynchpin that refutes the “magic bullet” theory.

There are several side factors to consider as well. One is that the route of a presidential motorcade in any US city has to be completely scrutinized and made safe at some point before any visit. Open or blackened windows of buildings, open rooftops, any anomalies that provide opportunities for shooters need to be checked out and cleared for safety by local Army Intelligence working with local police departments well before the visit.

In Dallas, in relation to the motorcade on November 22, 1963, a presidential route that had been set in stone was changed three days in advance. The new route required the presidential motorcade to turn right off of Main Street onto Houston Street, travel north one block, then make a sharp left northwest onto Elm Street, which led downward into Dealey Plaza, the Plaza of the Condors.

Astonishingly enough, as events played out, some 60 eyewitnesses would report that the limousine either dramatically slowed or came to an actual halt after shots had been fired. It was only after the shooting that it sped away to Parkland Hospital.

The Magic Bullet

As Fetzer, in his explosive article, observes, “Everyone has heard of the ‘magic bullet,’ which is the lynchpin of the official account of the assassination of JFK presented by the Warren Commission. As Michael Baden, M.D., who chaired the medical panel for the House Select Committee on Assassinations when it reinvestigated the case in 1977-78, remarked on the 40th observance of his death, if the ‘magic bullet’ theory is false, then there had to have been at least six shots from at least three directions.”

This study, based on a presentation made at Cambridge and published by a peer-reviewed international journal, demonstrates that, not only is the “magic bullet” theory false, but, based upon research reported in his three books on the assassination, JFK had a wound to the throat and another to his back and two hits to his head” [which alone makes four shots, theoretically the end of the story].

In addition “Connally had an entry wound in his back, [a fifth shot?]. He had a broken rib, an exit wound in his chest [its result?], a wound to his right wrist [a sixth shot or still the same bullet changing trajectories?] and a bullet fragment embedded in his left thigh [from where? Another shot?]. This is essential to understanding the outlandishness of its creator’s claims.

Since JFK had wounds from shots fired from in front and from behind, while John Connally had at least one hit from the side, and while another shot missed and injured James Tague, then there were at least six shots from at least three directions.

Thus, the magic bullet” theory is the weakest link in the entire chain of events in the assassination. Break that link and you break the government’s elaborate chain of events into pure fraud. It’s worth a closer look.

The creator of the “magic bullet” theory, Arlen Specter, a Republican and an assistant counsel to the Warren Commission in 1963, is still around now as a senior Democratic senator, celebrating a long, hearty if nefarious career. His theory posed that the single “magic bullet” “entered the base of the back of the president’s neck, transited his neck without hitting any bony structures, exited his throat right at the knot of his tie, then [and hold your breath for this] entered John Connelly’s back, shattering a rib, exiting from his chest, damaging his right wrist and then entered his left thigh, where the bullet was alleged to have performed all these feats and nevertheless [was] found in virtually pristine condition. The purported third shot that found its mark was said to have hit JFK’s head and killed him. Yet, we still have the nagging reality of the bystander who received a facial scar from the chip of concrete the slug of the first shot kicked up.

Read that paragraph again and try to process these forensic gymnastics and believe that the journey of Specter’s “magic bullet” could possibly be real. I say this because, as Fetzer reports, “When the official account . . . The Warren Report (1964), appeared, many readers were fascinated to discover that, no matter how implausible it might appear, the ‘magic bullet’ hypothesis was the core of the government’s case.”

Again, the cartoon-like journey of this zig-zagging “magic bullet” remained the keystone of the government case through repeated reinvestigations of the assassination by the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) during 1976-77, and even in more recent books, most notably Gerald Posner’s Case Closed,a bit of government wishful thinking. Although with the government, wishing can make things so.

The Warren Report (1964) published diagrams that showed JFK had purportedly sustained “a hit to the base of the back of the neck and a hit to the back of the head,” which Fetzer observes, allegedly killed him. He added, “The ‘magic bullet’ theory would be false if the bullet had not entered the base of the back of the President’s neck, if it had not transited his neck without hitting any bony structures, or if it had not exited from his neck at the level of the knot of his tie,” as the official tale is told. So they’re stuck with proving their own lies.

What’s not usually known by lay people is that Navy physicians who conducted the autopsy at Bethesda did not dissect the victim’s neck to find out whether the trajectory this bullet purportedly took was actually true. They arrived at it by “inference.” Why would you “infer” the path of a bullet that could be asserted through dissection? You do the surgery and say yes or no. We are talking about the life and death of a United States president.

Because that work wasn’t done, we get this fuzzy language, that the “second wound presumably of entry[italics mine] is that described above in the upper posterior thorax. . . . The missile path through the fascia and musculature cannot be easily probed. [Why?] The wound presumably of exit was that described by Dr. Malcolm Perry in the low anterior cervical region. That sounds more like a lawyer’s language than a doctor’s.

So the entrance and exit locations are not facts but matters of “presumption.” Commander James Humes, US Navy Medical Corps, stood by and defended these presumptions on the basis of “inference.” And these inferences were drawn after JFK’s body “had been moved from the morgue for preparation for burial and the official state funeral.” Yet, based on conversations with doctors from Parkland Hospital (the original hospital Kennedy was taken to after being hit), Humes “belatedly realized that the wound to the back must have been the entry point for the wound to the throat as its point of exit!”

And notice too that the official description of ‘the upper right posterior thorax,’ which is the upper-right portion of the chest cavity, does not quite place the wound where it has to be if the ‘magic bullet’ hypothesis were true. Even Gerald Posner’s diagram from Case Closed --included in Fetzer’s article -- does not accord with the official account. Just look for yourself!

Contradicting Evidence

A different diagram of the Bethesda autopsy was made by FBI Agent James W. Silbert, who actually observed the autopsy. It is found in Noel Twyman’s Bloody Treason (1997), page 100, but Fetzer includes it, too. That clearly shows the difficulties that the “magic bullet” hypothesis presents, even in relation to its most basic assumptions, since the wound to the back is too low to be the entry point for a wound that exited the throat, if, as purported, the bullet was fired from above, that is from the sixth floor of the Texas Book Depository, as the official account asserts.

David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph. D., finally demonstrated that no bullet could have entered the president’s neck at the location alleged and exited at the location alleged without impacting cervical vertebrae. Astoundingly, “It doesn’t seem necessary to add that Malcolm Perry, M.D., who performed a tracheostomy in a vain attempt to save the president’s life, described the wound to the throat [and this is absolutely key] not as an exit wound, but as an entry wound, three times during a press conference at Parkland . . . a report widely broadcast over radio and television that day.”

Somehow, the Warren Commission never received a copy of that transcript, too difficult to locate, which in essence would clearly seal the fact that President Kennedy was hit from the front, the shot crashing through the center of the windshield into his throat. And this would by definition implicate other shooters facing the limousine from its front, positioned either in Dealey Plaza or around the Triple Underpass beyond.

Parenthetically, the Lincoln limousine with the windshield bullet hole and other evidence was quickly whisked away post assassination to Ford in Detroit where it was totally refurbished at taxpayer’s expense for $1,000,000, even though it was a “crime scene on wheels.” It is a striking image of the loss of openness in our society.

So then, where did that bullet that supposedly hit JFK in the back come from? If it wasn’t at the base of the back of the neck as the “magic bullet” stipulates, then The Warren Report (1993), The HSCA Report (1979), Case Closed (1993) and all other work that takes it for granted -- as a presupposition -- cannot possibly be true.

It was no less than Gerald Ford, gifted with the presidency years later when Nixon resigned, who, back in 1963 as a member of the Warren Commission, realized that the back wound would need to be “re-described” to make the “magic bullet” theory even remotely plausible. This fact was finally discovered by the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB).

Dr. Mantik found a patient with similar neck and chest dimensions to JFK and, using a CAT scan, determined that no bullet could have taken such a trajectory. So the core of official account is not only false and provably false but is not even anatomically possible! So the wounds to JFK’s throat wound and the wounds to John Connally were not inflicted by a lone assassin firing from above and behind but had to have been caused by separate shots and separate shooters.

The truth would have been glaring if not for those in power suppressing evidence by not sending JFK’s blood-stained, bullet-holed shirt and jacket to Bethesda for the physicians to study; also, by not providing transcripts of the Parkland Press Conference to the Warren Commission and using similar techniques of obfuscation.

The process of selection and elimination -- selecting evidence that supports a predetermined conclusion, eliminating the rest -- is well-known to used-car salesmen, editorial writers and politicians, but especially to those who practice propaganda designed to mislead the public.

Fetzer and his research group have not only proved the falsity of the “magic bullet” theory but have exposed the fraud at the foundation of the government’s official account. Among their discoveries are the complementary deceptions that the autopsy X-rays have been fabricated (a) to conceal the massive blow-out to the back of the head that more than 40 eyewitnesses reported and (b) to add a 6.5 mm metallic slice in an apparent effort to implicate an obscure World War II Italian Mannlicher-Carcano as the weapon used.

In fact, a world authority on the human brain, Robert B. Livingston, M.D., also concluded that the brain shown in diagrams and photographs held in the National Archives cannot possibly be the brain of JFK. These discoveries had already been made by 1993 (Fetzer 1998).

In spite of Fetzer’s repeated efforts to bring these findings to the attention of the American people (through “ABC Nightly News” and “Nightline”) and the Department of Justice, he had little success, which is perhaps the most important reason I’ve worked with Dr. Fetzer to retell this incredible story.

Where We Stand Today

On the basis of the Fetzer group’s extended research, they have established that JFK was hit at least four times: once in the throat from in front; once in the back from behind; and twice in the head. Connally was hit from one to three times, where at least three shots seem to have missed. A total of eight, nine, or ten shots thus appear to have been fired from six different locations (Fetzer 2000, 2003. For more, see his chapter, “Dealey Plaza Revisited,” which can be downloadedhere.)

As a striking example of how official inquiries by the government have suppressed, even overlooked important evidence, Thomas Evan Robinson, the mortician who prepared the body for burial after the Bethesda autopsy, told Joe West, a private investigator, that JFK had a large gaping hole in the back of his head, a smaller wound in the right temple (which was the entry wound for the blow-out to the back of the head), and a wound to the back about five to six inches below the shoulder and to the right of the back bone.

That is the location supported by the shirt and the jacket, the autopsy diagram and the FBI sketch, and even the death certification by the president’s personal physicians. He provided this information to West on 26 May 1992, but it obviously could have been available to the Warren Commission anytime it had wanted it. Clearly, that was not something they wanted to hear.

In collaboration with other experts, including John P. Costella, Ph.D., Fetze et alia have also discovered that the home movie of the assassination, known as “the Zapruder film,” has been recreated using sophisticated techniques of optical printing and special effects. The most important reason for doing this was to remove the limo stop from the film, since it was such an obvious indication of Secret Service complicity. Because of “ghost images” that link successive frames, it was necessary to reshoot the film in order that the deception not be readily exposed (Fetzer 2003).

Fetzer and others have also discovered more than 15 indications of Secret Service complicity in setting JFK up for the hit, including failing to weld manhole covers, failure to cover open windows, allowing the crowd to spill over into the street, adopting an improper motorcade route, ordering the vehicles in the wrong sequence, keeping motorcycle patrolmen to the rear of the limousine, bringing the limousine to a halt after bullets began to be fired, washing blood and brains from the limousine at Parkland, taking the autopsy photographs down. The probability that these things could have happened by chance is, unsurprisingly, very small (Fetzer 2000, 2002a).

Does that remind you at all of sweeping the evidence away from Ground Zero 38 years later? Giuliani knew he had 30 months (two and a half years) to get the job done, yet he pushed the workers at the expense of their health, and even their lives, to accomplish the feat in eight months. Almost like sending the limo, three days after the assassination, to be rebuilt. The flavor of corruption is the same in each case.

The conclusions that can be drawn from the authentic JFK evidence are rather profound. The Mafia, which may have put up some of the shooters, could not have extended its reach into Bethesda Naval Hospital to alter X-rays under the control of U.S. Navy medical officers, agents of the Secret Service, or the President’s personal physician. Neither pro- nor anti-Castro Cubans could have substituted the brain of someone else for that of JFK during a supplemental autopsy.

Indeed, even if the KGB, like the CIA, had the ability to recreate a film, it could not have obtained a copy of the Zapruder film to alter it. None of these things have been done by Lee Harvey Oswald, who was in jail or already dead. Based upon the scientific principle known as “inference to the best explanation,” it leaves no reasonable doubt that setting up JFK for the hit and altering the evidence to conceal the true causes of his death must have involved elements at the highest levels of the U.S. government.

Jerry Mazza is a freelance writer and life-long resident of New York City. Reach him at gvmaz@verizon.net. His new book, “State Of Shock: Poems from 9/11 on” is available at www.jerrymazza.com, Amazon orBarnesandnoble.com.

Copyright © 1998-2007 Online Journal

American Policy To Shoot Wounded & Commit War Crimes?

WRITTEN BY THOMAS R. EDDLEM
THURSDAY, 15 APRIL 2010 12:20
Courtesy Of The New American

Defense Secretary Robert Gates defended the actions of U.S. soldiers who are shown in a video shooting civilians — a video released by Internet whistleblower website Wikileaks.org April 13.

Gates criticized the video as “looking at the war through a soda straw.” The video,Collateral Murder, contains the video and the flight chatter from a U.S. Apache helicopter gunship in Iraq when it mistook Reuters Wire Service reporters and their cameras for terrorists brandishing AK-47s back in 2007. The two helicopter gunships shot down the reporters, and then shot down good Samaritans who stopped to pick up the wounded after the initial engagement. According to Wikileaks, “U.S. military authorities concluded that the actions of soldiers and pilots were in accordance with the law of armed conflict and their Rules of Engagement.”

On ABC's This Week, Gates criticized Wikileaks for releasing the video, saying it was “unfortunate” and “clearly not helpful.” And in an April 13 press conference he claimed that “these people can put anything out they want and are never held accountable for it.” Gates added:

Well, first of all, in the civilian casualty incidents, I have not — I don't recall a single — in Afghanistan, I don't recall a single one where anybody has alleged the United States went in and did this on purpose. These are — where there have been civilian casualties, they have been tragic incidents or places where they have been placed in harm's way by the Taliban or where there was some kind of a misunderstanding. So I think it's a completely different situation.

Gates' statement was clearly and patently untrue, however, in this instance. Wikileaks explains: “The video, shot from an Apache helicopter gunsight, clearly shows the unprovoked slaying of a wounded Reuters employee and his rescuers. Two young children involved in the rescue were also seriously wounded.” While it is possible the trigger-happy U.S. helicopter crews mistook the reporters' cameras for AK-47s and RPGs (though they'd have to have the eyesight of Mr. Magoo to do so), the gunship crews without question deliberately shot down the wounded and the men who had come to care for them.

Shooting the wounded is a clear violation of the Geneva Conventions, and one of the more vicious of war crimes (and violations of the natural law).

Chatter among the flight crews in the video makes it clear that the crews knew with certainty that they were shooting unarmed wounded men. After the initial attack on the reporters, one gunner can be seen circling around the smoking courtyard with the wounded Reuters reporter Saaed Chmagh — crawling on the sidewalk — in his gun sights. “All you gotta do is pick up a weapon,” he says under his breath, apparently eager to shoot Saaed again and finish the job. He then tells the other helicopter. “We're also looking for weapons. If we see a weapon, we're going to engage.” The gunner is apparently aware of the fact that wounded soldiers are not to be killed, and it's especially unnecessary because U.S. ground troops are already on their way to the scene.

As soon as a black van that is driving by stops in the courtyard and two men get out and pick up Saaed, the gunners eagerly pursue permission to shoot down the wounded man along with the good Samaritans who are — apparently — about to take the reporter to a hospital. Although they first suspect the men in the van are going to pick up “weapons,” they later realize the men are just picking up the wounded. One gunner asks, “Picking up the wounded?” and the other replies: “Yeah, we're trying to get permission to engage.” In that instant, concern for the rules of war was abandoned entirely.

Within a few seconds, one gunner complains, “Come on, let us shoot!” and “They're taking him.” Another pilot requests formal permission to shoot the wounded reporter and the clearly unarmed civilians picking him up and placing him in their van: “We have a black S-U – uh – Bongo truck trying to pick up the bodies. Request permission to engage.” The base commander immediately gives permission to shoot the wounded, and as a result the reporter is killed with the two good Samaritans, and two girls in the truck are wounded. “Well, it's their fault for bringing their kids into a battle,” one of the helicopter gunners callously quips after hearing about the two little girls, and the gunner in the other ship quickly agrees: “That's right.”

Gates excused the helicopter gunners on ABC's This Week by saying:

They're — they're in a combat situation. The video doesn't show the broader picture of the — of the firing that was going on at American troops. It's obviously a hard thing to see. It's painful to see, especially when you learn after the fact what was going on. But you — you talked about the fog of war. These people were operating in split-second situations. And, you know, we — we've investigated it very thoroughly. And it's — it's unfortunate. It's clearly not helpful. But by the same token, I think —- think it should not have any lasting consequences.

Chatter among Americans over the Internet has varied from justifiable outrage at the war crimes that are being excused in their name to yahoos who show the same callousness as the helicopter gunners to helpless wounded persons.

Wikileaks is apparently working on another blockbuster Internet video release, according to the Timesof London, on “the so-called 'Granai massacre,' when American aircraft dropped 500lb and 1,000lb bombs on a suspected militant compound in Farah province on May 4 last year. Several children were among those killed.” More videos exposing the horrors of war can be expected, but the real question is: Will U.S. authorities continue to excuse these attacks against basic human rights? And, will the American public continue to allow it?

All About Who Controls The Persian Gulf

By Linda S. Heard
Online Journal Contributing Writer
Mar 10, 2010, 00:18
Courtesy Of The Online Journal

Believe it or not, the US-Iran face-off has nothing to do with Iran’s nuclear programme. That’s just a red herring. Former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger revealed in a 2007Washington Post op-ed that it’s all about who controls the Persian Gulf.

While “Iran has legitimate aspirations that need to be respected, those legitimate ambitions do not include control over the oil that the United States and other countries need . . . ,” he wrote. “Industrial nations cannot accept radical forces dominating a region on which their economies depend . . .”

US President Barack Obama has obviously been schooled in that reality during the past year. Initially, he promised to reach out to Iran, but instead he has been goading it in the way children taunt a caged bear by deploying an interceptor missile system in the Gulf and threatening that America’s patience is limited.

Likewise, Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has abandoned any pretence at diplomatic nicety, preferring to shoot as many barbs as he can in Washington’s direction.

As the US and its Western allies draft a fourth round of anti-Iranian sanctions in the United Nations, Iran’s leader calls the September 11, 2001, attacks “a complicated intelligence scenario and act” that was used “as a pretext for the war on terror and a prelude to invading Afghanistan.”

In December, Ahmadinejad characterised the US presence in Afghanistan as being “caught like an animal in a quagmire.” Add that to his controversial views on the Holocaust and, together, they pretty much stymie any chance of the two leaders enjoying a cozy tete-a-tete any time soon, if ever.

Earlier, both sides made a half-hearted attempt at rapprochement. The Iranian leader sent a letter to Obama in November 2008, congratulating him on winning the election. Then in March 2009, Obama released a special Iranian New Year video message committing his administration to respectful and honest diplomacy. From then on, relations between the two countries went south.

With hopes for a diplomatic solution receding, the question is: What happens next? There are basically three scenarios on the table from the US perspective, but all have severe downsides.

Missing The Point

The first consists of punishing Iran with sanctions. However, as long as countries such as Russia, China, Brazil and Venezuela are opposed, they won’t work. In any event, stringent sanctions end up hurting ordinary people more than they do governments.

While it’s true that Russia may be prevaricating somewhat, China will never agree to UN Security Council (UNSC) sanctions as long as it relies heavily on Iran for its oil and is invested to the tune of billions of dollars in the Iranian oil industry. This is the reason behind US attempts to persuade Saudi Arabia to offer China increased oil supplies.

China is in no mood to throw its current supplier over for one of America’s closest allies. In any case, no amount of sanctions or isolation will bring Iran to its knees.

The second option is a military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities. Again, this is one with little to no chance of success. Like the 2003 invasion of Iraq, any attack on Iran would not pass muster in the UNSC unless there is proof that Iran is physically aggressing another country.

The US could circumvent this obstacle by giving Israel the green light to initiate hostilities when in the event of Tehran’s retaliation, America could -- nay, would be obliged -- to militarily intervene. The military route is fraught with unknowns and no one can predict what repercussions would ensue.

Numerous negative consequences have been mooted. These include the inability of the US/Israel to destroy all of Iran’s nuclear plants, the disruption of oil supplies and the effects of conflict on fragile world economies and the destabilisation of the Middle East region. Moreover, Iran has warned that in case of attack, it would bomb US interests in the area, close the Straits of Hormuz to shipping, torch Gulf oilfields and incinerate Tel Aviv.

The third option is for the US and its Western allies to accept that Iran has the right to enrich uranium under the terms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to which it is a signatory. Washington considers this an anathema because it suspects Tehran of harbouring ambitions to build a bomb.

In reality, there is no evidence that Iran seeks nuclear weapons. But even if it possessed that capability, it would be used as a deterrent in the same way that the Soviet Union’s nuclear arsenal was used during the Cold War. Nothing points to the Iranian leadership as being suicidal. Any nuclear attack on the West or Israel would be met with instant devastation.

And that, my friends, is the bottom line. Iran and the US are engaging in a hegemonic power struggle. America wants to control the oil and Iran wants to rid the region of foreign influence so that it can exert its own. Caught in the middle are Gulf states which can only watch and wait to see what their future holds.

Linda S. Heard is a British specialist writer on Middle East affairs. She welcomes feedback and can be contacted by email atheardonthegrapevines@yahoo.co.uk.

Copyright © 1998-2007 Online Journal

All Roads Lead To The Caucasus

Russia, Azerbaijan, Armenia

By Eric Walberg
Online Journal Contributing Writer
Mar 10, 2010, 00:22
Courtesy Of The Online Journal

The Russian Federation republics of Chechnya, Dagestan, North Ossetia and Ingushetia have experienced a sharp increase in assassinations and terrorist bombings in the past few years which have reached into the heart of Russia itself, most spectacularly with the bombing of the Moscow-Leningrad express train in January that killed 26.

Last week police killed at least six suspected militants in Ingushetia. Dagestan has especially suffered in the past two years, notably with the assassination of its interior minister last June and the police chief last month. The number of armed attacks more than doubled last year. In February, Russian President Dmitri Medvedev replaced Dagestan president Mukhu Aliyev with Magomedsalam Magomedov, whose father Magomedali led Dagestan from 1987-2006. Aliyev was genuinely popular, praised for his honesty and fight against corruption, but was seen as too soft on terror.

President Magomedov has vowed to put the violence-ridden region in order and pardon rebels who turn in weapons.”I have no illusion that it will be easy. Escalating terrorist activity in the North Caucasus, including in Dagestan, urges us to revise all our methods of fighting terror and extremism.” He vowed to attack unemployment, organised crime, clan rivalry and corruption.

Violence continues to plague Chechnya as well. Russian forces have fought two wars against separatists in Chechnya since 1994, leaving more than 100,000 dead and the region in ruins, inspiring terrorist attacks throughout the region. Five Russian soliders and as many rebels were killed there at the beginning of February. According to theLong War Journal, in February, Russia’s Federal Security Bureau (FSB) killed a key Al-Qaeda fighter based in Chechnya, Mokhmad Shabban, an Egyptian known as Saif Islam (Sword of Islam), the mastermind behind the 6 January suicide bombing that killed seven Russian policemen in Dagestan’s capital, Makhachkala. He was wanted for attacks against infrastructure and Russian soldiers throughout Chechnya and neighbouring republics.

Since the early 1990s, militants such as Shabban have operated from camps in Georgia’s Pansiki Gorge, and used the region as a safe haven to launch attacks inside Chechnya and the greater Caucasus. The FSB said Shabban “masterminded acts of sabotage to blast railway tracks, transmission lines, and gas and oil pipelines at instructions by Georgian secret services.”

This is impossible to prove, but Georgia was the only state to recognise the Republic of Ichkeria when Chechens unilaterally declared independence in 1991 and Shabban’s widow, Alla, has a talk show on First Caucasus TV, a station located in Georgia and beamed into Chechnya. Interestingly, from 2002-2007, more than 200 US Special Forces troops were training Georgian troops in Pansiki, though neither the Americans nor the Georigans were able to end the attacks on Russia.

Medvedev said last month that violence in the North Caucasus remains Russia’s biggest domestic problem, arguing that it will only end once the acute poverty in the region and the corruption and lawlessness within the security organs themselves are addressed. He has undertaken an ambitious reform of security organisations and the police throughout Russia with this in mind.

Sceptics may point to the parallel between the US-NATO occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq and Russian policy in the north Caucasus. Yes, there is a Russian geopolitical context, but the comparison is specious. These regions have been closely tied both economically and politically to Russia for two centuries, which Abkhazian President Sergei Bagpash shrewdly decided to celebrate last month in order to ensure Moscow’s support.

The patchwork quilt of nationalities of the Caucasus has survived under Russian sponsorship and now has the prospect of prospering if left in peace. Politicians like Bagpash make the best of the situation, as do sensible politicians throughout Russia’s “near abroad.” To alienate or try to subvert a powerful neighbour and potential friend, as does Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili, is plain bad politics.

The other Caucasian conflict is the long running tragedy of Nagorno Karabakh, which unlike the other conflicts pits two supposed NATO hopefuls against each other. The war occurred from 1988-94, dating from the dying days of the Soviet Union, when Armenia invaded Azerbaijan, carving out a corridor through the country to seize the mountain region populated for over a millennium largely by ethnic Armenians. A ceasefire was finally achieved leaving Armenia in possession of the enclave and a corridor, together consisting of almost 20 per cent of Azerbaijani territory. As many as 40,000 died, and 230,000 Armenians and a million Azeris were displaced.

A Russian-brokered ceasefire has been followed by intermittent peace talks mediated by the OSCE Minsk Group, co-chaired by the United States, France and Russia. But it is clear that Azerbaijan will not rest until its territory is returned. “If the Armenian occupier does not liberate our lands, the start of a great war in the south Caucasus is inevitable,” warned Azerbaijan Defence Minister Safar Abiyev in February. “Armenians must unconditionally withdraw from our lands. And only after that should cooperation and peace be established,” said Azerbaijan President Ilham Aliyev last week. Armenian and Azerbaijani forces are spread across a ceasefire line in and around Nagorno-Karabakh, often facing each other at close range, with shootings reported as common. Last week an Armenian soldier was killed.

Russia, culturally closer to Armenia, is resented by Azerbaijan as biased, and indeed there has been no commitment by any of the peacemakers or Armenia to return the territory. But the playing field changed dramatically after Georgia’s defeat in its war against Russia in 2008, setting in motion unforeseen regional realignments throughout the region.

First was rapprochement between Turkey and Armenia, which at first set off alarm bells in Baku, relying as it does internationally on the support of Turkey, which closed its borders with Armenia in 1993 in response to the Armenian occupation. Turkey established diplomatic relations with Armenia last year in keeping with the Justice and Development Party’s “zero problems with neighbours,” but says ratification by parliament and a full border opening will not happen until Armenia makes some concessions to Azerbaijan.

Moscow has also been pursuing a charm offensive with neighbours in recent years, and was successful in getting both Azerbaijani and Armenian presidents to sign the Moscow Declaration in November 2008, though the warring sides subsequently have managed only to agree on procedural matters.

Key to all further developments throughout the region is the role of the US and NATO. Until recently, it looked like NATO would succeed in expanding into Ukraine and Georgia. It is also eager to have Azerbaijan and Armenia join. Not surprisingly, these moves are seen as hostile by Russia. If the unlikely happens, this would mean the US has important influence in all the conflicts in the Caucasus. But would pushing Armenia and Azerbaijan, two warring nations, into the fold help resolve their intractable differences?

Though both have sent a few troops to Afghanistan, the very idea of warring nations joining the military bloc is nonsense, and noises about it can only be interpreted as attempts to curry favour with the world’s superpower. Azerbaijan has much-coveted Caspian Sea oil and gas, but Armenia is Christian and Azerbaijan Muslim, and Armenia has a strong US domestic lobby which will not go quietly into the night. Any move by Washington to meddle in the dispute without close coordination with Moscow is fraught with danger for all concerned -- except, of course, the US.

As an ally to both countries, and with important historical and cultural traditions, Russia remains the main actor in the search for a solution. Including Turkey in negotiations can only improve the chances of finding a regional solution which is acceptable to both sides. Such a solution requires demilitarising the conflict, hardly something NATO is expert at. As both countries improve their economies, and as long as ongoing tensions do not erupt into military conflict, they can -- must -- move towards a realistic resolution that takes the concerns of both sides into consideration.

Since 1991 a new Silk Road has been opened to the West, stretching as it did a millennium ago from Italy to China and taking in at least 17 new political entities. All roads, in this case, lead to the Caucasus, and US-NATO interest in this vital crossroads should surprise no one. US control there -- and in the Central Asian “stans” -- would mean containing Russia and Iran, the dream for American strategists since WWII.

The three major wars of the past decade -- Yugoslavia (1999), Afghanistan (2001) and Iraq (2003) -- all lie on this Silk Road. The US and the North Atlantic Treaty Alliance had no business invading any of these countries and have no business in the region today. Rather it is Russia, Iran, Afghanistan, China, India, Turkey et alia that must come together to promote their regional economic well being and security.

War breaking out in any one of the Caucasus disputes would be a tragedy for all concerned, for the West (at least in the long run) as much as for Russia or any of the participants. But the forces abetting war are not rational in any meaningful sense of the word. After all, it was perfectly “rational” in Robert Gates’s mind to help finance and arm Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan in 1979. The planners in the Pentagon or NATO HQ argue “rationally” today that their current surge in Afghanistan will bring peace to the region.

And if it fails, at least the chaos is far away. Such thinking could lead them to try to unleash chaos in any of the smoldering and intractable disputes in the Caucasus out of spite or a la General Jack Ripper in Stanley Kubrick’s 1964 “Doctor Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb,” a film which. Unfortunately, has lost none of its bite in the past four decades.

Eric Walberg writes for Al-Ahram Weekly. You can reach him at ericwalberg.com.

Copyright © 1998-2007 Online Journal