War crimes update(s)

The world's great genocide test

Nat Hentoff
Monday, March 16, 2009

In 2005, after I had long been covering the atrocities committed by Sudan's president, Gen. Omar Hassanal-Bashir, on black Christians and animists in the south - followed by his genocide against black Muslims in Darfur - I saw an urgent message in The Washington Post by two senators, Democrat Barack Obama of Illinois and Republican Sam Brownback of Kansas. With the United Nations characteristically useless, the senators gave me some hope this holocaust could be ended.

In "Policy adrift in Darfur," the senators (Mr. Brownback has actually gone to Darfur) wrote: "If the United States does not change its approach to Darfur, an already grim situation is likely to spiral out of control. ... When the history of this tragedy is written, nobody will remember how many times officials visited the region or how much humanitarian aid was delivered. They will only remember the death toll."

As the death toll continued to mount, there was hope again on March 4 when the International Criminal Court at last issued an arrest warrant for Africa's Hitler, Gen. al-Bashir. He is charged with five crimes against humanity: murder, extermination, forcible transfer (of civilian populations), torture and rape.

This personification of evil will also be tried, if he can be apprehended, for two war crimes: intentionally directing attacks against civilians and for pillaging, his forces stealing livestock and burning villages, with black infants sometimes tossed into the flames. Strangely, the charge of genocide is not included, although there is ample evidence that Gen. al-Bashir fully intended to destroy the black tribes of Darfur - as his ruthless Janjaweed killers kept gleefully assuring their victims.

Also on March 4, before an orchestrated, huge crowd in Khartoum, Gen. al-Bashir, as he was dancing and swaying, told the ICC to "eat" its arrest warrant while the cheering crowd burned in effigy the court's undeviating chief prosecutor, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, who clearly should have been Time magazine's "Man of the Year."

In further strutting his contempt of the ICC, Gen. al-Bashir commanded 13 foreign humanitarian organizations to get out of the country within 24 hours as his thugs ransacked their offices, taking computers and whatever cash they could find.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, at last summoning what appeared to be real clear anger at the bloodthirsty head of a sovereign state, emphasized that 4.7 million of Gen. al-Bashir's people are in need of aid. These are such basic needs as food, drinking water and medical care.

Amid clinics closing and deteriorating sanitation, such infectious diseases as cholera will spread. On March 6, The Washington Times and the Associated Press quoted World Health Organization spokeswoman Fadela Chaib on an outbreak of meningitis in Nyala, south of Darfur. Precisely in that area the Dutch branch of Doctors Without Borders was carrying out meningitis vaccinations. But this indispensable humanitarian organization was one of the 13 expelled by Gen. al-Bashir.

Said one of its ousted workers, who had been assigned to one of Darfur's largest refugee camps, "People have nothing there. The meningitis outbreak alone could lead to thousands of deaths." (The Washington Post, March 5.)

On Feb. 21, anticipating the ICC's issuance of this first arrest warrant for a sitting head of state, Gen. al-Bashir's rightly feared head of Sudan's National Security and Intelligence Service, Salah Gosh (a sometimes CIA Intelligence source about terrorists in Africa, but not in Khartoum) has warned anyone anywhere who intended to actually arrest his commander in chief:

"Anyone who attempts to put his hands to execute [International Criminal Court] plans, we will cut his hands, head and parts because it is a non-negotiable issue." And with unexpected frankness, he added (as reported by the invaluable sudantribune.com):

"We [the government] were Islamic extremists, then became moderate and civilized, believing in peace and life for everyone. However, we will revert back to how we were if necessary. There is nothing any easier than that." Mr. Gosh somehow omitted saying actually when the former National Islamic Front government had become civilized.

Presumably, Gen. al-Bashir is a wanted man anywhere he travels. The ICC's court registrar, Silvana Arbia, declares that the obligation to surrender Gen. al-Bashir falls on all 108 countries that are part of the ICC; members of the U.N. Security Council; "and any other state as may be necessary." And chief Prosecutor Moreno-Ocampo insists:

"The judges were clear. There is no immunity for heads of states before the ICC. As soon as al-Bashir travels through international air space, he can be arrested. It will be two months or two years, but he will face justice."

Will he really be in the dock at The Hague?

Next week: With Gen. al-Bashir still a free genocidaire, the only realistic way, so far, to ensure he and justice will finally meet begins with, as I shall explain, no-fly zones over Sudan. It will be up to NATO; the European Union, particularly France; and President Obama. George W. Bush was the first head of state to call this Sudan holocaust genocide. But it continued, and grew. Barack Obama's administration is "urgently" reviewing what should be done. We'll see.

Nat Hentoff is a nationally renowned authority on the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights. He is a member of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.

And this on Tony Blair:

Blair Assassination Threat Cited In Postponement Of Gaza Trip

From the Wire

Provided by HuffingtonPost.com

Blair Assassination Threat Cited In Postponement Of Gaza Trip
Posted on July 15, 2008 at 11:41 AM.

BEIT LAHIYA, Gaza Strip — Mideast envoy Tony Blair on Tuesday called off what would have been the first visit of a top Western diplomat to Hamas-ruled Gaza, after Israel's Shin Bet security service said he might come under attack there.

The Shin Bet security service said it had received "pinpoint information that Palestinians were planning to attack Blair in Gaza, so the relevant services alerted him to the fact."

Blair told The Associated Press that the threat was "specific" and "credible," forcing him to call off the trip but he said it was a postponement, not a cancellation.

"I intend to go to Gaza as soon as I can, and I will continue to press for help for the people there," he said.

Blair's visit Tuesday was to have included a tour of a Gaza waste water project and meetings with traders and U.N. officials, but not with leaders of Hamas, the Islamic militant group that seized Gaza by force more than a year ago.

Hamas made security arrangements for Blair, setting up checkpoints in areas he was expected to tour, banning cars from using roads and lining streets with black-clad policemen carrying AK-47s.

Since the Hamas takeover, Gaza has been virtually sealed off from the world by Israel and Egypt, a policy that has received tacit international backing.

Blair has said in recent weeks that a new policy toward Gaza needs to be developed, pointing to the growing suffering of Gaza's people, but has not offered a plan. The options are limited because much of the international community considers Hamas a terrorist group and has shunned its government.

Blair's spokesman, Matthew Doyle, said the envoy called off the visit "due to a specific security threat which would have made it irresponsible to proceed, not just for those visiting but also the local community."

Blair denied that the Israeli government pressed him to call off the trip. "It was a pity, because it would have been important to go and see for myself the situation in Gaza," he said.

Taher Nunu, a Hamas government spokesman denied there were any security threats against Blair. "Gaza is still open for all visitors, to break the siege and see the extent of suffering here," he said.

Although the once lawless Gaza has been mostly pacified under Hamas' stern rule, there are still shadowy extremist Muslim groups in the territory. On an Islamist forum popular with Gaza residents, some users slammed Blair's expected visit, but there were no direct threats of violence against him. Those comments were later removed from the Web site.

A key stop on Blair's trip would have been a northern Gaza waste water project being built with international funds. The Mideast envoy had not been expected to meet officials from Hamas, which is committed to Israel's destruction and is considered a terrorist group by the U.S., European Union and Israel.

"We are very disappointed," said John Ging, Gaza director of the U.N. agency in charge of aiding Palestinian refugees.

Blair, a former British prime minister, is trying to revive the struggling Palestinian economy to lay the groundwork for a future independent Palestinian state. He represents the Mideast Quartet _ the U.S., Russia, the EU and the United Nations _ which is trying to push the Palestinians and Israel toward a peace agreement.

Blair also canceled a visit to Sderot expected on Tuesday, a town in southern Israel which is the frequent target of rockets fired by Palestinian militants in Gaza.

I've put the best comments below.
V

It may seem ineffective, but we need G8 in order to face the daunting future

Common action against shared perils like poverty and climate change may not be forthcoming. Still, it is our best hope

All comments (19)

The G8 summit, which opens today on Hokkaido, in Japan, conjures images of a political A&E ward on a Saturday night. President Bush, leader of the greatest nation on earth, is discredited and almost time-expired. Gordon Brown leads a government most of whose own members want him to disappear into a hole.

Silvio Berlusconi presides over a gangster culture that renders it impossible for Italy to present a serious face to the world. Nicolas Sarkozy should enjoy the prestige of a French president secure in office until 2012, but he has grievously injured his own power base by his first-year antics. Russia's new president, Dmitry Medvedev, may well add up to nothing, in the absence of Vladimir Putin to tell him what to think.

All this matters, when the G8 is called upon to address the gravest issues of modern times. In some years, in advance of these gatherings, national sherpas are obliged to scrabble around exchanging emails, to identify a plausible agenda for their bosses. On Hokkaido, by contrast, they are debating shocking evidence on climate change, together with economic slowdown in the wake of soaring food and energy prices and world poverty.

These are daunting challenges, which most of the assembled leaders are ill-positioned to address. At G8s, unlike other international forums where big bureaucracies represent national interests, personalities matter. To get results the Japanese, as hosts, must exercise impressive powers of leadership. Instead, there are already signs that they will pursue their usual search for consensus, which means the triumph of a lowest common denominator.

G8 meetings can no longer carry conviction until China and India are granted full membership. There are also arguments for admitting representatives of other important global interests, for instance Brazil, South Africa, maybe an Islamic nation. The difficulty is that, if the group expands significantly, it will forfeit the intimacy which is hailed as its most important virtue. Chinese leaders are always uncomfortable in informal discussion, preferring to address carefully prepared scripts. Cynics observe that most of the communique for the Hokkaido meeting has already been drafted. The view of G8s as mere theatrical performances is liable to gain ground if the group expands.

Yet, whatever their limitations, it seems sorely mistaken to dismiss these summits as wastes of time and money. Globalisation both of problems and commerce is the dominant force of our times. It must therefore be useful, indeed indispensable, for national leaders to make human contact with each other. Bilateral conversations, even hampered by the necessity for interpreters, possess significant value.

The most notorious G8 of recent times was that held at Gleneagles in 2005. Not only was the occasion overshadowed for the hosts by the horror of the London bombings, but extravagant promises were made to attack world poverty. These won acclaim for Tony Blair, who was perceived as having responded to the appeals of Sir Bob Geldof with energy and success.

Unfortunately, of course, much of the pledged cash has never been delivered. It was the G8's Alberto Vilar moment. Vilar, you may remember, was a tycoon who promised huge sums to good causes, including the Royal Opera House, but who failed in the end to make good on those pledges.

Last weekend I put the Vilar point to a Gleneagles veteran, a diplomat. He responded that he thought cynicism misplaced, about both G8s in general and the Scottish one in particular. It was an important achievement to set targets, he said, even if they are still unmet. As a result of the 2005 agreement, more money for poor countries has been forthcoming. A fortnight ago, the Japanese significantly increased their international aid commitment. They were moved to act explicitly because, as Hokkaido hosts, they needed to be seen to display generosity.

Unfortunately for the developing world, and for Africa in particular, most G8 members this week will be more interested in the plight of their own societies than of anybody else's. Lip service will be paid to good causes. But the overwhelming preoccupation of leaders will be the impact of rising food and energy costs upon the world's biggest economies.

Tensions will soon become apparent, between the perils posed by climate change and the clamour for relief from threatened living standards. Democracies being what they are, the latter force is likely to gain priority. The power of green lobbies will diminish in the lean years ahead, just as in supermarkets cheap food is likely to gain ground against expensive organic products.

Some of the (better) commentary

Jul 07 08, 01:12pm (about 7 hours ago)

We need the G8 as we need a shot in the head. Their policies are directly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of millions. How do people in the so called 'developed countries' still manage to believe themselves to be nicey niceyl, I'll never know !

This meeting's only purpose is to lie and desinform the people of the world so that the usa and its partners can continue to explore, steal and opress for another year.

This is just a rough estimate but I think that for every citizen of the usa ( I call them users) that lives, 50 people in the developing countries will have to die, as a matter of economics and politics.

Any political party in the west that wants to get itself elected will have to offer an electorate prospects of secure energy sources and stable food prices, even if both carry additional environmental risks and costs. We are likely to hear much more about both nuclear power and GM crops. Most of the G8 leaders know this. The more extravagant the green rhetoric that emerges, the less likelihood there is that its authors will mean what they say. Idealism shrinks in times of economic stress.

No doubt the summit will spare some unkind private words for Robert Mugabe, especially as South Africa's president Thabo Mbeki is calling in on Hokkaido. But in the case of Zimbabwe, also, breadbasket issues at home make national leaders less interested in addressing moral ones abroad.

The American guru Richard Haass wrote recently in Foreign Affairs journal that rather than a multi-polar world, we are moving into a non-polar one. It is becoming progressively difficult to mobilise an international quorum in support of any objective, however worthy and important. This reflects not only the US's loss of moral authority, but also a dilution of power in consequence of globalism, which makes it ever harder for any nation to forge a consensus in support of decisive action.

This works to the advantage of tyrants and mischief-makers. The EU, for instance, should be presenting a united front to prevent the Russians from using their newfound energy clout to blackmail individual nations. Instead, much to the delight of the Kremlin, each EU member state is scrabbling to extract the best bilateral deal it can get from Moscow. The UN security council shows itself increasingly weak and more anachronistic. Nato is atrophying. The IMF and World Bank face growing sceptical scrutiny.

Capitalist societies found life much less complicated in the cold war era, when it was perceived as essential to follow strong US leadership amid the threat from the Soviet Union. Those days have gone. If the world's major powers are henceforward to get anything done, it must be through the concerted efforts of members of such bodies as the G8. Today, unfortunately, most still prefer to hang separately than together. Our global predicament may have to get a good deal worse before they acknowledge that common action against shared perils must transcend the familiar, disastrously outdated pursuit of national interests.

scotchling

Jul 07 08, 02:05pm (about 6 hours ago)

It is hard to see what good the G8, other than furthering the already entrenched and established privilege and power relationships adn imbalances, can really do. However, if they are going to meet then we need to engage with process and at least try and influence the agenda - it's part of having something to which to hold them to account should the day ever come that we are able to enforce anything. But like the UN and all these other insitutions there is no enforceability or accountability.

But the other point that is missing in the g8 is there is rarely, indeed one might say never, any gendered analysis of the differential impacts of policies and decisions on women (50% at least of the world's population adn differentially affected by all sorts of issues such as climate change, refugee flows, food, fuel, economics). We need to be ensuring that decision makers are making informed and relevant decisions fully seized of how it will affect different people differently - not necessarily more or worse or less but just differently and needing a different strategy.

bobbledunk

Jul 07 08, 04:43pm (about 3 hours ago)

The world needs for the G8 to be disbanded. The problems we face will never be solved at an international level where there are no checks and balances on corruption.

Our problems will not be solved by those whose only interest it is to extend their own power and benefit the corporations which bankroll them.

Our problems can only be solved at a local level. From the bottom up people can unite across the world for THEIR own interests.

The wealthy are opposed to us, the powerful are opposed to us, the special interests are opposed to us. As much damage as they inflict on us, they do more harm to those struggling in the developing and third world.

The people are the enemy of political and corporate elites and their propaganda mongerers.

We need local democracy, where nobody can inflict their minority ideology, political sellouts and corporate scams on us from thousands of miles away or indeed in our own town.

Only when communities have the power to forge their own destinies can we even begin to address the real issues.

Until then we are doomed to be sold out by our kleptomanic, corporatist, imperialist politicans through their media mouthpieces and spokesmodels advertising their latest humanatarian/security excuse for a land/resource grab, more funding for their billionaire friends latest 'business' scam or extra financial support for their dictator friends in third world countries who are stealing from, murdering and enslaving their people with my tax money.

'Internationalism' is a fashionable political ideal today (not amongst ordinary people anywhere), in reality it is a different word for imperialism. This global fight among the 'superpowers' and wannabe contenders are the greatest threat to the world today.

Nuclear war will vapourise us all before global warming does any harm. Everything the powers that be are doing are bringing us closer to that potential reality.

As Albert Einstein said, the fourth world war will be fought with sticks and stones and he was right. We are already in the foetal stages of a third world war which could likely explode at any moment. Yet nobody seems to notice or care.

What should disturb everybody, what should be reported on the front page of every newspaper are the warnings from certain American politicians.

I was listening to a radio interview with American congressman Ron Paul (a republican) the other day and he said two very important things:

1 That his collegues were discussing WHEN, not if, WHEN they were going to bomb Iran. They are wondering whether it would be better to do so before or after the American election!

2 Many of his collegues were saying "if only we could nuke Iran". (!!!)

Bush is looking for an excuse, an attack on Iran could push up oil prices to over 400 dollars a barrel, the ripples of such an act would be devastating. (Remember, he and most of his cabinet have interests in the oil industry)

US journalist, Seymour Hersh (google him) has recently revealed that the US is supporting covert terrorist activities in Iran in an attempt to incite them to do something that would give them a reason to bomb.

The problem is that if you centralise power at such a high level, so far away from the people things like this are possible.

If you have no respect for your own borders, you will actively disrespect other peoples.

If you have all the power at the top, those funding the interests at the top will be writing the policies.

The G8 represents industries whose interests are in direct conflict with that of us and our fellow world citizens.

need4enlightenment

Jul 07 08, 00:28am (about 19 hours ago)

The G8 representatives have nothing to fear from war, hunger or pestilence.

So considering their other interests; such as starting wars, making medical treatment and food unattainable to the poor and thereby facilitating deaths cold hand...

Why do we consider them as part of the solution?

They are clearly a big part of the problem. They and their friends make a killing (in more ways than one) from all these problems and it also facilitates the passing of their draconian legislations to further entrench their hold on global power...

Somehow, with these people in charge, I see no end to any crisis.

Who win? Who loses?

Its the 21st century...

Forget the fear: choose love.

frog2

Jul 07 08, 01:09am (about 19 hours ago)

Gordon Brown whinges about the last , 2005, set of "promises" not being met , but he's broke too. He can't even afford decent patrol vehicles for british troops on operations, so they die .

Sorry Max, this was a lousy article . It covered a lot of ground, very sketchily, and in the end got nowhere.

Thelonious

Jul 07 08, 03:01am (about 17 hours ago)

It's a good thing the G8 really cares about solving these problems! Just like the Bilderberg Group, CFR, Federal Reserve, World Bank, WTO, etc. are all great humanitarians that through the miracle of free market economics are making the world a better place. I'm beginning to believe that the human race doesn't deserve to make it to the next century. We are a joke!

goldengate

Jul 07 08, 04:33am (about 15 hours ago)

G8 is nothing but a private club, where the head of state with their entourage meet every year, at the cost of over a billion, to hear each other and pat their own fat assed backs. The fat cats among them live high on the hog at the tax payers expense and generate more non binding hot air. No doubt it may help if these high and mighty were really concerned about the rest of the world.

Most of what that they need to discuss can be done without having to travel and meet each years in a different country. For example, George W, Bush's trip cost to the US taxpayers for that 747, all the escort aircraft, SUVs , the armored Limo the entourage etc is is close to $250,000 per hour.

socialistMike

Jul 07 08, 10:27am (about 10 hours ago)

The G8 is not interested in solving problems!

It is interested in allowing capital to profit from these huge problems regardless of any possible 'solution' that may involve.

Food crisis? Wheel on the GM producers. Oil crisis? Bring in the US nuclear industry. Inflation crisis? Hold back wages but let prices rip. These will provide some sort of 'solution' but that will be for the profits of capital, rather than the crisis of people.

Etc, etc ad infinitum. Until we have had enough of it, that is.

Eachran

Jul 07 08, 10:28am (about 9 hours ago)

Mr Hastings, this piece reminds me of the guy who used to walk along Oxford St in the 80s with his placards advising less meat and sex.

Is the end of the world nigh? Are the issues the gravest of modern times? (How modern would that be for example?) Are there more or less poor in the world compared with say 10 years ago?

G8 is a complete waste of time and, more to the point, money. It is a theatre for elected representatives to do what they do best : bullshit. And the electorate seems to let them get away with it.

Just a few points :

Yes bilateral meetings are useful even through interpretors, the problem is that you have to have the experience of international life to make sense of the meeting and you have to have a broad education, intelligence and independent judgment. Messrs Brown, Berlusconi, Bush and Sarkozy dont qualify : Angie almost certainly does and Mr Fukuda might ; as for Mr Harper and Mr Medvedev/Putin (I wouldnt be so dismissive of Mr Medvedev, Mr Hastings) I dont know but I suspect not.

Better to use video-conferencing and rely on the normal diplomatic channels. The money saved could be dividended back to the electorate who can decide for themselves whether to give to the starving poor. If some of you think that a hard thing to say then remember that all good causes have access to plenty of funds directly raised from the public : the Tsunami in the FE raised more funds than the agencies could manage, and what did the local and afflicted population do? They re-built their homes at sea-level again.

Grave issue, climate change? Yes. Action? None.

The oil price rise is very convenient for the politicians. Not our fault! Speculators! Without them the price would drop! OK you political smart arses, bet against the speculators – but you wont because the higher price, you can blame on someone else, and the carbon taxes which you should have introduced years ago have been effectively introduced by the market.

An oil price rise changes people's behaviour : people use less oil and business people look for substitutes. Thank goodness for humanity's sake, and it wont be long before the price of alternative energy is less than the market price of oil, but G8's role is about as significant (at the time of writing) as Mr Sarkozy's in rescuing Madame Betancourt.

Globalisation, daunting challenge? Yes for the developed countries because they will all suffer reductions in levels of consumption. But for developing countries? You must be joking, they see it as an opportunity.

As for the supposed trade-off between growth and green : this is a nonsensical point – if we become greener we consume in a different way, there doesnt necessarily have to be a reduction in our standard of living.

That's enough for the moment. I shant do aid for two reasons : it drives me nuts and I have already posted on this on other threads. Have a nice day all.

penileplethysmograph

Jul 07 08, 11:13am (about 9 hours ago)

G8 and similar organisations are needed to address a plethora of intensifying challenges (largely surrounding resource use and the distribution and consumption of large scale negative externalities).

However, as the article suggests these organisations (and one may easily generalise the argument) are themselves riven with sectional and sectarian interests. The failure of most actors (whether individual people or supra-individual entities such as firms, NGOs, governments, etc) to avoid the social dilemmatic and social trap (cf Platt) features of collective actions (eg. economic activity) may well doom all.

When the USSR 'collapsed' the US opportunity to show leadership by accepting that its own interest should not dominate its decisions / actions was squandered. The lack of a clear coherent voice at the international level impedes the coordination that is required for all to survive.

Fearing some fantasy of hegemonistic control by an alien other all carry on as per. Complex systems are strong but fragile, collapse may come catastrophically (cf Thom).

fluorospacedon

Jul 07 08, 01:12pm (about 7 hours ago)

We need the G8 as we need a shot in the head. Their policies are directly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of millions. How do people in the so called 'developed countries' still manage to believe themselves to be nicey niceyl, I'll never know !

This meeting's only purpose is to lie and desinform the people of the world so that the usa and its partners can continue to explore, steal and opress for another year.

This is just a rough estimate but I think that for every citizen of the usa ( I call them users) that lives, 50 people in the developing countries will have to die, as a matter of economics and politics.

scotchling

Jul 07 08, 02:05pm (about 6 hours ago)

It is hard to see what good the G8, other than furthering the already entrenched and established privilege and power relationships adn imbalances, can really do. However, if they are going to meet then we need to engage with process and at least try and influence the agenda - it's part of having something to which to hold them to account should the day ever come that we are able to enforce anything. But like the UN and all these other insitutions there is no enforceability or accountability.

But the other point that is missing in the g8 is there is rarely, indeed one might say never, any gendered analysis of the differential impacts of policies and decisions on women (50% at least of the world's population and differentially affected by all sorts of issues such as climate change, refugee flows, food, fuel, economics). We need to be ensuring that decision makers are making informed and relevant decisions fully seized of how it will affect different people differently - not necessarily more or worse or less but just differently and needing a different strategy.

bobbledunk

Jul 07 08, 04:43pm (about 3 hours ago)

The world needs for the G8 to be disbanded. The problems we face will never be solved at an international level where there are no checks and balances on corruption.

Our problems will not be solved by those whose only interest it is to extend their own power and benefit the corporations which bankroll them.

Our problems can only be solved at a local level. From the bottom up people can unite across the world for THEIR own interests.

The wealthy are opposed to us, the powerful are opposed to us, the special interests are opposed to us. As much damage as they inflict on us, they do more harm to those struggling in the developing and third world.

The people are the enemy of political and corporate elites and their propaganda mongerers.

We need local democracy, where nobody can inflict their minority ideology, political sellouts and corporate scams on us from thousands of miles away or indeed in our own town.

Only when communities have the power to forge their own destinies can we even begin to address the real issues.

Until then we are doomed to be sold out by our kleptomanic, corporatist, imperialist politicans through their media mouthpieces and spokesmodels advertising their latest humanatarian/security excuse for a land/resource grab, more funding for their billionaire friends latest 'business' scam or extra financial support for their dictator friends in third world countries who are stealing from, murdering and enslaving their people with my tax money.

'Internationalism' is a fashionable political ideal today (not amongst ordinary people anywhere), in reality it is a different word for imperialism. This global fight among the 'superpowers' and wannabe contenders are the greatest threat to the world today.

Nuclear war will vapourise us all before global warming does any harm. Everything the powers that be are doing are bringing us closer to that potential reality.

As Albert Einstein said, the fourth world war will be fought with sticks and stones and he was right. We are already in the foetal stages of a third world war which could likely explode at any moment. Yet nobody seems to notice or care.

What should disturb everybody, what should be reported on the front page of every newspaper are the warnings from certain American politicians.

I was listening to a radio interview with American congressman Ron Paul (a republican) the other day and he said two very important things:

1 That his collegues were discussing WHEN, not if, WHEN they were going to bomb Iran. They are wondering whether it would be better to do so before or after the American election!

2 Many of his collegues were saying "if only we could nuke Iran". (!!!)

Bush is looking for an excuse, an attack on Iran could push up oil prices to over 400 dollars a barrel, the ripples of such an act would be devastating. (Remember, he and most of his cabinet have interests in the oil industry)

US journalist, Seymour Hersh (google him) has recently revealed that the US is supporting covert terrorist activities in Iran in an attempt to incite them to do something that would give them a reason to bomb.

The problem is that if you centralise power at such a high level, so far away from the people things like this are possible.

If you have no respect for your own borders, you will actively disrespect other peoples.

If you have all the power at the top, those funding the interests at the top will be writing the policies.

The G8 represents industries whose interests are in direct conflict with that of us and our fellow world citizens.

WAR CRIMES DOSSIER: Diane Abbott's 42-day speech

Diane Abbott's 42-days speech

The Hackney North and Stoke Newington MP's speech last night was hailed by the Tory who followed her, David Davies, as 'one of the finest speeches I have heard since being elected to the House of Commons'. Here is what she said.

Diane Abbott 
guardian.co.uk, Thursday June 12 2008 
 
 
Diane Abbott protesting against the increase in the length of time terrorism suspects can be detained without charge on June 10. Photograph: Nils Jorgensen/Rex Features

As has been said throughout this debate, the first duty of parliament is the safety of the realm. It is because I believe that the proposals on 42-day detention will make us less safe, not more safe, that I oppose them. I do not take terrorism lightly. 

I am a Londoner and I heard the last major IRA bomb, at Canary Wharf, from my kitchen in east London. Like thousands of Londoners, I waited for the early-morning call that assured me that friends and family on their way to work and school had not been caught up in those bombings. I will not take lectures from ministers about not taking terrorism seriously.

I do not believe, as ministers continue to insist, that there is some trade-off between our liberties and the safety of the realm. What makes us free is what makes us safe, and what makes us safe is what will make us free. 

I ask the house to reflect on how we got here. Two years ago, this house emphatically rejected the proposal for 90-day detention. I do not talk very much about custom and practice in parliament, but it is custom and practice that when the government lose a vote on a proposal, they do not bring back a similar proposal in the same parliament.

 

My hon friends in the whips office now know why that is so: it is because losing the vote is a clue that the government do not have the votes. The government machinery has devoted 10 days to bone-crunching pressure on potential rebels, again because they do not have the votes. Ministers have appeared in the media saying that they have won the argument. They may win the vote, but they have emphatically not won the argument.

Two years ago, the house rejected the 90-day proposal. The issue should never have come back, and all this high drama has been caused by bringing back something that the house has already rejected. I voted for 28 days, but I remind the house that I and others did so only under duress. 

We believed that by voting for 28 days the debate would be finished for this parliament and an upper limit would be established. Some of us were unwilling to go as far as 28 days. That is why we are so upset that the government have come back with this proposal, reneging—as far as we are concerned—on a tacit understanding that voting for 28 days would finish the debate on this issue for this parliament.

Why have the government come back with this proposal? Speculation has raged on the Labour benches as to what has moved the prime minister to take this dangerous course. Some people say that he wants to try to do something that Tony Blair could not do. Some people say that he is driven by the polls. Some people say that last year he saw an article in the Sun that said that he was soft on terrorism and he has been heading down this path ever since.

In reality and despite everything that ministers say, nothing has changed since two years ago. The arguments that they used then about computers and complications are the arguments that they are using now. I ask ministers to spare the house those arguments about decrypting computers. The law exists to deal with people who wilfully refuse to decrypt computer evidence.

The government came back with a proposal that the house rejected two years ago. Interestingly, when they did so it then took them several months to come up with a time limit. Was it to be 29 days, or 30, or 40? At one point, some of us offered to put our hands in a hat and to draw out a number for the home secretary. 

They did not have a number of days because this is not an objective, evidence-driven bill. It is the purest politics. It is about the polls and about positioning. It is about putting the Conservative party in the wrong place on terrorism. 

I put it to colleagues that we should not play ducks and drakes with our civil liberties in order to get a few months' advantage in the opinion polls. We have got here through a process that involved the wrong practical politics and was wrongly motivated.

Let me remind the house of what is problematic about the proposal. The security services have unusually gone public and said that they are not calling for the change. The director of public prosecutions, unusually, has gone public and said that he is not calling for it. I remind the House that he is the prosecuting authority. 

"We will hear from ministers about the police, but the police are split on the subject. We have heard about Sir Ian Blair—whose days might be numbered under the former Member for Henley; hey, that's life—but the most senior Muslim policeman in the Metropolitan police force, Tarique Ghaffur, has said privately and emphatically that he believes that the risk to community cohesion of the proposal is not worth any operational advantage. 

It is alleged—I use that word because I do not want to abuse parliamentary privilege—that he was called in by Sir Ian Blair and asked to consider his position. The police are split on this subject. Let us hear no more about the police as a whole being behind the proposal.

More on the parliamentary debate to be found here.

WAR CRIMES DOSSIER: Police arrest demonstrators in London

Protesters clash with police in attempt to storm Whitehall

By Cahal Milmo, Chief Reporter
Monday, 16 June 2008 
 

EPA

Police arrest an anti-Bush protester yesterday 




Police wielding batons clashed with protesters last night when a demonstration against George Bush's farewell visit to Britain turned violent a few hundred metres from where the US President was dining with Gordon Brown. 

Within the shadow of the Houses of Parliament, officers dressed in riot gear skirmished with several hundred demonstrators who had been attending a rally organised by the Stop the War Coalition. 

The Metropolitan Police said 25 protesters were arrested. In some cases, squads of police in riot gear had swooped upon individual demonstrators , picking out their target then barging through the crowd to detain them. 

Police drew batons and truncheons in an attempt to push back a crowd which at 6.20pm moved from the rally on Parliament Square to try to gain entry to Whitehall. A squad of riot officers and horses were later sent to reinforce the barricade as protesters chanting "George Bush, terrorist" and "Bush go home" repeatedly tried to break through the reinforced crowd barriers and concrete blocks. 

The decision to close Whitehall while Mr Bush and his wife, Laura, dined with Mr Brown and his wife, Sarah, was condemned by campaigners and the Liberal Democrats as an example of civil liberties being curtailed at the request of a foreign government. 

The clashes were in stark contrast to Mr Bush's arrival in London at the end of a week-long tour expected to be his last in Europe before he leaves office. 

A grand total of 28 protesters from the Stop the War Coalition gathered at Windsor, where Mr Bush had tea with the Queen. 

Iqbal Siddiq, 26, a student at the Windsor protest, said: "The message is good riddance. He's still the mass murderer-in-chief. But ... he's yesterday's man. Everything he did to engineer the war in Iraq still makes me angry but it is fast becoming history. We've got to concentrate on the next guy and the mess Bush has left behind." 

Mr Bush became the first US president to be hosted at Windsor since Ronald Reagan in 1982. Buckingham Palace confirmed the couple had shown particular interest in a suit of armour worn by Henry VIII. 

Whether this aside sparked a conversation about the perils of foreign invasions or armed combat will go unrecorded by history but more serious matters awaited Mr Bush as some of the 1,000 police deployed at a cost of £1m to ensure his security took up positions among the trees and on turrets with rifles and sub-machine guns. 

But it was the closure of Whitehall by Scotland Yard and its implications for civil liberties that provoked the strongest feelings. A Stop the War spokesman, Andrew Burgin, said: "What would the Americans think if Gordon Brown turned up with a 700-strong entourage who told them to close down central Washington? It is the sort of high-handed attitude that has been shown by Bush all along."

Gordon Brown gets up in the morning and puts socks on like the rest of us

New Problems and Old Friction Put British Premier in Political Jeopardy

Lewis Whyld/Pool, via Reuters

Britain's prime minister, Gordon Brown, is facing mounting pressure within his Labour Party after the party took a drubbing in recent polls.

By JOHN F. BURNS

Published: May 14, 2008

LONDON — Gordon Brown is still six weeks away from his first anniversary as Britain’s prime minister, a job he hankered after so keenly during much of his 10 years as Tony Blair’s No. 2 that the two men ended up barely able to speak to each other or agree on major policy issues.

Skip to next paragraph

Related

Times Topics: Gordon Brown

Now, embattled at 10 Downing Street by the most dismal poll ratings for any prime minister in recent memory and sniping from Blair loyalists in the governing Labor Party, Mr. Brown is fighting for his political life.

Two weeks ago, in an election widely seen as a referendum on Mr. Brown’s national leadership, a joke-cracking Conservative with a flop-top haircut, Boris Johnson, romped to victory in London’s mayoral race over the hitherto popular two-term Labor incumbent, Ken Livingstone.

Mr. Brown faces another test in a May 22 parliamentary by-election, in a formerly safe Labor seat in the Midlands. The contest, centering on the industrial town of Crewe, appears to give the Conservatives a strong chance of their first by-election gain from Labor in 30 years. Political pundits predict that if the seat is lost, Mr. Brown could face a challenge for the Labor leadership.

A general election is due by the spring of 2010, and a flurry of recent opinion polls have shown a Conservative lead of 20 percentage points, spurring nervousness among Labor members of Parliament who fear losing their seats.

Analysts have compared Mr. Brown to the hapless John Major, the last Conservative prime minister, who was ousted in the Labor landslide of 1997.

Many of Mr. Brown’s political woes can be traced to economic problems associated with the credit crunch on both sides of the Atlantic. Britain has faced accelerating inflation, a weakening pound, upheaval in the banking sector and falling home prices. And he has not escaped a personal accounting for much of what has gone wrong, in part because he was chancellor of the Exchequer during the years of fast-rising public and personal debt that preceded the current economic turbulence.

After a hopeful beginning last summer, when Mr. Brown was widely praised for his handling of Britain’s worst floods in a generation, failed terrorist attacks in London and Glasgow, an outbreak of potentially disastrous foot-and-mouth disease among cattle and an accelerated drawdown of British forces in Iraq, his fortunes have plunged amid a welter of policy miscues and economic setbacks.

The most damaging of these has been Mr. Brown’s decision as chancellor, in his final budget last year, to abolish a 10 percent income tax rate for certain workers — a change that critics, many of them within the Labor Party itself, say will hurt more than five million of Britain’s poorest people. On Tuesday, public anger over the tax issue led the Brown government to announce what amounted to a $5.3 billion tax cut for anyone earning less than $80,000 a year.

The latest salvos began exploding around Mr. Brown last weekend with the newspaper serialization of the memoirs of Cherie Blair, the wife of the former prime minister. In her book, “Speaking for Myself,” due for publication in the fall, she wrote that Mr. Brown had been “rattling the keys” to Downing Street over Mr. Blair’s head in the period before his third election victory, in 2005.

Mrs. Blair’s accounts of the feuding by the two were compounded when memoir excerpts from another veteran of the Blair years, John Prescott, were also published over the weekend. Mr. Prescott, who was deputy prime minister, said he had sought unsuccessfully for years to broker peace between the men, participating in “what must have been hundreds of phone calls, meetings, pre-summits, summits and dinners” with them.

In an excerpt from her book published on Monday, Mrs. Blair hinted that Mr. Brown might have leaked word to newspapers when she was pregnant with her fourth child, Leo, in 1998, suggesting that perhaps Mr. Brown, then still a bachelor in his mid-40s, wanted to spread the impression that Mr. Blair was too distracted by family matters to be effective as prime minister. A spokesman said Mr. Brown, now married with two small children, was “totally baffled” by the suggestion.

Perhaps more damaging was Mr. Prescott’s assertion that Mr. Brown was subject to repeated fits of anger, something Downing Street insiders have also suggested since he became prime minister. Mr. Prescott described Mr. Brown as “frustrating, annoying, bewildering and prickly,” and said that at times he could “go off like a bloody volcano.”

Together, the memoirs offered an unflattering portrait that seemed likely to reinforce the widespread sense that Mr. Brown was no match for the easygoing charisma of Mr. Blair — and perhaps for the 41-year-old Conservative leader, David Cameron. Many who have met Mr. Brown, including senior American officials, say he is more charming in person than the dour, somewhat grumpy figure he often seems on television.

For the Labor Party, the spectacle of some of the party’s most prominent figures feuding bitterly in public has been almost as damaging as the grim characterizations of Mr. Brown, drawing more comparisons to the last years of Mr. Major, when he presided over a government whose public support evaporated amid Conservative infighting, scandals and economic blunders.

Publishing industry insiders have said Mrs. Blair sped up the serialization of her memoir to take advantage of the turmoil embroiling Mr. Brown. British newspapers have said Mrs. Blair received an advance of $3 million for the book, plus hundreds of thousands of dollars for the serialization rights.

The dissension has exposed continuing fissures between the reformist “New Labor” wing associated with Mr. Blair, and a left-wing contingent that accepted Mr. Blair because of his ability to win elections but saw Mr. Brown, a Scot with strong leftist links, as a reluctant New Laborite who would return the party to a more socialist stance. Some of the harshest criticism of Mr. Brown has come from former Blair loyalists still bristling over the way Mr. Brown pushed their man to resign halfway through the term he won in 2005. They have pointed to one recent poll suggesting that 55 percent of people who voted Labor in 2005 favor Mr. Brown’s quitting the Labor leadership now.

Mr. Brown, stoic in the face of the attacks, has drawn some analogies of his own from the Conservative years in power, noting that Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and Mr. Major overcame poor opinion poll showings between elections to win new mandates in general elections. In the House of Commons, Mr. Brown has dismissed Mr. Cameron and the Conservatives as substituting political showmanship for substance, and predicted that British voters will turn back to Labor as his government introduces new social and economic policies.

He has also vowed not to quit.

No, we are going to have to PUSH him out and put him in a docket for war crimes.

Pressure mounts on the Serious Fraud Office to re-open Saudi bribes case

By JAMES CHAPMAN - More by this author »
Last updated at 10:56am on 11th April 2008

Comments

The Serious Fraud Office was under growing pressure to reopen the Saudi bribes probe today.

Gordon Brown's office said a decision would be left to the SFO - in contrast with the alleged interference by Tony Blair in the original investigation.

Lawyers and senior officials at the SFO were meeting to consider what to do in the wake of a searing High Court judgment that they acted unlawfully when their inquiry was halted in 2006 after "blatant threats" from the Saudi royal family.

In a hard-hitting ruling, the High Court said the decision amounted to a "successful attempt by a foreign government to pervert the course of justice in the United Kingdom".

Scroll down for more ...

A Eurofighter jet: Will £10billion order now be withdrawn?

It criticised how ministers caved in to the Saudis' threat to hold back security information unless the probe was dropped, making it easier for terrorists to attack London.

Investigators were told there could be "another 7/7" with the loss of "British lives on British streets".

Lord Justice Moses said the dropping of the probe in the face of such threats should invite "dismay, if not outrage".

The ruling followed a legal challenge to the dropping of the inquiry by the anti-bribery group Corner House and the Campaign Against Arms Trade.

As well as being a serious headache for Gordon Brown, it is likely to infuriate the notoriously publicity-shy Saudis.

Scroll down for more ...

Accused: Prince Bandar is said to have been paid £1billion by BAe as part of the arms deal. Tony Blair claimed the probe threatened Britain's national security

They could pull out of multi-billion pound arms deals or abandon counter-terror co-operation with Britain if the inquiry now has to be reopened.

The row centres on allegations of corruption at the heart of Britain's contract to supply Tornado and other military jets and equipment to Saudi Arabia.

The SFO inquiry focused on allegations of a "slush fund" used by BAE to pay Saudi dignitaries to win contracts.

The defence giant is alleged to have paid £1billion in bribes to Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia.

BAE has repeatedly denied doing anything wrong and Prince Bandar has denied receiving any bribes.

Tony Blair, who was prime minister when the investigation was scrapped in 2006, said the Saudis had privately threatened to cut intelligence co-operation with Britain unless the inquiry was stopped.

In December 2006, the then attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, announced the investigation into the arms company was to be discontinued but it was SFO Director Robert Wardle who took the decision.

The judges said Mr Wardle had failed to satisfy the court that all that could reasonably be done had been to resist the threats.

Government lawyers had contended that the SFO Director "was entitled to surrender to the threat" to prevent the possibility of the loss of "British lives on British streets".

The judges said threat had been made "by an official of a foreign state allegedly complicit in the criminal conduct under investigation" who had interests of his own in seeing the investigation stopped.

Scroll down for more ...

Judgment: Mr Justice Sullivan and Lord Justice Moses ruled the SFO acted illegally

Lord Justice Moses reacted with astonishment to the suggestion that Britain was powerless to resist threats from Saudi Arabia.

A possible view, the judge said, was that it was "just as if a gun had been held to the head".

He added: "The law is powerless to resist the specific and, as it turns out, successful attempt by a foreign government to pervert the course of justice in the United Kingdom, by causing the investigation to be halted.

"The court must, so it is argued, accept that whilst the threats and their consequences are 'a matter of regret', they are a 'part of life'.

"So bleak a picture of the impotence of the law invites at least dismay, if not outrage."

The court is expected to order the SFO to reconsider its decision to drop the probe. A refusal to do so looks certain to result in fresh legal action.

Symon Hill, of the Campaign Against Arms Trade, said: "The Government tells poor countries that they can't get UK aid loans for hospitals, schools and other essentials unless they root out corruption.

"But in Britain, prosecutors are quietly taken to one side and pressured into abandoning a corruption investigation that might upset powerful interests at home and abroad."

Downing Street refused to comment on the court's ruling, referring questions to the SFO, which said in a statement: "The SFO are carefully considering the implications of the judgment and the way forward.

"No further comment at this stage."

Tony Blair's office did not respond to requests for a comment.

LibDem leader Nick Clegg called for a full inquiry into the dropping of the SFO inquiry.

He said: "The Government's actions over this probe have done untold damage to Britain's standing in the international community."

Q&A

What is the row about?

Britain's arms deals with Saudi Arabia. The UK has sold fighter jets to Saudi since the 1960s, but struck its biggest-ever deal with the country in 1985 - the so-called Al-Yamamah contract.

What is Al-Yamamah?

Al-Yamamah, which means "the Dove" in Arabic, involved supplying Tornado and other aircraft, missiles, mine-hunters and base facilities to the desert kingdom.

It is estimated to have been worth £40billion to BAE Systems, Britain's biggest arms contractor.

Why is Al-Yamamah controversial?

The Serious Fraud Office started an inquiry into allegations about a multi-million pound slush fund in November

The allegations are that Saudi defence officials were systematically bribed to ensure that they continued to buy from Britain.

What was the result of the probe?

It was never completed. In December 2006, the then Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, abruptly announced that the SFO was suspending its inquiry.

The inquiry was said to have been risking "serious damage" to UK-Saudi relations and, in turn, threatened national security.

Was there political interference in the decision?

Yes, by the Government's own admission.

The then Prime Minister Tony Blair sent a personal minute warning of a "real and immediate risk of a collapse in UK/Saudi security, intelligence and diplomatic co-operation".

Previously, Lord Goldsmith is said not to have believed that the case withdraw should be dropped in response coto Saudi threats to intelligence and security operation.

Are hush-hush payments necessary to win arms deals with Middle Eastern countries?

There is a common perception that bribery is accepted practice in negotiating such arms deals.

But, crucially, Labour made any bribery in relation to an arms deal illegal under UK law in 2001.

What are the implications of yesterday's High Court ruling?

A judgment in such damning terms is unprecedented from the High Court. But it does not necessarily mean the SFO probe will be reopened.

The SFO could now reject a fresh investigation - but looks certain to be challenged once more in court if it does so.

And is it a headache for Gordon Brown?

Yes. The ruling will focus attention on Government plans to strengthen the role of the Attorney General to halt investigations said to threaten national security.

Widespread disquiet over the BAE affair could result in a Parliamentary rebellion.

There is also mounting pressure in Westminster for an independent inquiry into the process that led to the SFO inquiry being dropped.

What else is at stake?

The publicity-shy Saudis are likely to be furious at the High Court ruling.

They could yet withdraw from a £10billion order for 72 new Eurofighters. This latest deal, dubbed Al-Yamamah 3, took years to agree and secured thousands of British jobs.

Betcha this has Dick Cheney SQUIRMING.

ACTIVISM: London on Iraq War Anniversary

JUDGES LEAD HANDCUFFED TONY BLAIR THROUGH CENTRAL LONDON ON IRAQ WAR ANNIVERSARY War Crimes Prosecutions Demanded for Blair and Brown

A repentent Blair? Press Release Tuesday 18 March 2008 Judges for Justice 10.30am, 20 March 2008, Royal Courts of Justice, The Strand: To mark the 5th anniversary of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, ten 'Judges for Justice' will frog-march a handcuffed Tony Blair through central London this Thursday, demanding war crimes prosecutions for the former PM and his successor. The procession – which will start at 10.30am outside the High Court – will pass through some of the busiest areas of central London before terminating at Tony Blair's office in Grosvenor Square [1]. The judges – dressed in their wigs and robes – will also be displaying a 'Justice for Iraq' banner, picturing Blair and Brown behind bars, clutching blood-spattered bank-notes. Justice Gabriel Carlyle said, "Five years ago today, the US and Britain invaded Iraq, in an illegal [2] war of aggression, based on lies [3]. Since then over a million Iraqis have been killed, and a further 3 million forced to flee their homes [4]. "In 1946 the Nuremberg Tribunal set up to try Nazi war criminals, concluded that '[T]o initiate a war of aggression . . . is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole' [5]. "Yet today, the Iraq war's primary British architects – Tony Blair and Gordon Brown – remain at large. Indeed, Brown – who financed the war – has become Prime Minister, and Blair 'is well on course to becoming the richest former prime minister in [British] history' [6]. "Today, as we mark the 5th anniversary of the Iraq invasion, justice demands accountability – and prosecutions - for the 'supreme crime'." NOTES [1] 'Blair to move to Grosvenor Sq as peace envoy', The Telegraph, 24/10/07, http://tinyurl.com/3bz96x [2] 'Iraq War Was Illegal, Says Annan', BBC, 24/09/04, http://tinyurl.com/4ndcw [2] In July 2002 in a secret memo subsequently leaked to the press, the head of MI6 noted that, 'Military action was now seen as inevitable' and that in Washington 'the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy' ('Blair planned war from the start', Times, 01/05/07, http://tinyurl.com/2klag5). [3] 'New analysis 'confirms' 1 million+ Iraq casualties', ORB Survey, 28/01/08, http://tinyurl.com/yozd8j. 'Statistics on displaced Iraqis around the world', UNHCR, 09/07, http://tinyurl.com/24g3ny. [4] 'The Trial of German Major War Criminals Sitting at Nuremberg, Germany', The Judgement, p.13, HMSO 1946, http://tinyurl.com/2b65ov [5] 'Tony Blair to earn £2mn as J.P Morgan adviser', Telegraph, 11/01/08, http://tinyurl.com/3742gf. However, according to a 'source close to the couple', Cherie Blair – a QC with the human rights lawyers Matrix Churchill – 'has private fears that her husband could face a war crimes trial over the invasion of Iraq.' "[S]he still thinks it is a real possibility," a friend explained ('Blairs at a loss as sun sets on their decade', Sunday Telegraph, 10/07/07, http://tinyurl.com/36op9c). Blair is held at the High Court Blair tries to use some of his ill-gotten gains to get out of the situation The Judges pronounce Blair guilty of war crimes outside his old Downing Street office where his corruption took hold The Judges knock for the real Tony Blair to come out and stand trial at 9 Grosvenor Square - where Blair has rented offices.

voices uk - working in solidarity with ordinary families in iraq 5 Caledonian Road, King's Cross, London N1 9DX telephone: 0845 458 2564 or 020 7837 0561 email : voices@viwuk.freeserve.co.uk

SIBELGATE: Kosovo: The US and the EU support a Political Process linked to Organized Crime

Canada! Wake UP!!

By Michel Chossudovsky

URL of this article: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8055

Global Research, February 12, 2008

Our orientations are clear. The building of the state of Kosova, economic development, economic and social well-being and rigorous measures against corruption, organized crime and negative behavior, so we can have improved security and integrate Kosova into European Union structures. (Hashim Thaci, chairman of the Democratic Party of Kosovo (PDK), Prime Minister of the Kosovo provisional government, former KLA leader and known criminal) The PDK, led by Hashim Thaci, former Kosovan Liberation Army commander, took control of many municipalities after the war. The party has close links with organized crime in the province. (The Observer, 29 October 2000) Mr. Thaci, nicknamed "the Snake" during his KLA days, is a sharp-suited 32-year-old former rebel commander with poor oratory skills, links to organized crime and a determination to preserve relations between his party and the United States (The Scotsman, 20 October 2000) I know a terrorist when I see one and these men are terrorists," US Special Envoy and Ambassador Robert Gelbard Hashim Thaci founded the "Drenica-Group" an underground organization that is estimated to have controlled between 10% and 15% of all criminal activities in Kosovo (smuggling arms, stolen cars, oil, cigarettes and prostitution). Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia The US, the EU and the UN are supporting a Kosovo government headed by a known criminal, Prime Minister Hashim Thaci. The position of Prime Minister was created by so-called Provisional Institutions of Self-Government (PISG) established by the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) Under UN mandate, the purpose of the provisional government is to provide 'provisional, democratic self-government' in advance of a decision on the political status of Kosovo. What this signifies is that the United Nations has not only set the stage for an "Independent" Kosovo government in violation of international law, it has installed a Kosovo government integrated by the members of a criminal syndicate. All three Kosovo Prime Ministers, Ramush Haradinaj, Agim Ceku and Hashim Thaci are war criminals. Hashim Thaci and EU Secretary-General Javier Solana The Kosovo Democratic Party headed by former KLA Commander Hashim Thaci is essentially an outgrowth of the former Kosovo Liberation Army. US-NATO covert support the KLA, goes back to the mid-1990s. Iin the year preceding the 1999 bombing of Yugoslavia, the KLA was quite openly supported by the Clinton administration. KLA leader Hashim Thaci was a protégé of Madeleine Albright. He was chosen by Albright to play a key role on Washington's behalf at the 1998 Rambouillet negotiations. . Madeleine and Hashim The links of the KLA to organized crime have been documented by Interpol and the US Congress. The Washington Times in an article published in May 1999 describes the KLA and its links to the Clinton administration as follows: Some members of the Kosovo Liberation Army [headed by the current Kosovo Prime minister Hashim Thaci] , which has financed its war effort through the sale of heroin, were trained in terrorist camps run by international fugitive Osama bin Laden -- who is wanted in the 1998 bombing of two U.S. embassies in Africa that killed 224 persons, including 12 Americans. The KLA members, embraced by the Clinton administration in NATO's 41-day bombing campaign to bring Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic to the bargaining table, were trained in secret camps in Afghanistan, Bosnia-Herzegovina and elsewhere, according to newly obtained intelligence reports. The reports also show that the KLA has enlisted Islamic terrorists -- members of the Mujahideen --as soldiers in its ongoing conflict against Serbia, and that many already have been smuggled into Kosovo to join the fight. .... The intelligence reports document what is described as a "link" between bin Laden, the fugitive Saudi millionaire, and the KLA --including a common staging area in Tropoje, Albania, a center for Islamic terrorists. The reports said bin Laden's organization, known as al-Qaeda, has both trained and financially supported the KLA. (Washington Times, May 4, 1999, see complete article below) The Christian Science Monitor in an August 14, 2000 report describes the criminal network controlled by Thaci: UN police suspect that much of the violence and intimidation has come from former KLA members, especially those allied with Hashim Thaci, the former KLA leader and head of the Democratic Party of Kosovo, one of the KLA's political offshoots. In one recent incident, the shop of an LDK activist in Mr. Thaci's home village was sprayed with automatic gunfire - the second such attack since November. Thaci's party potentially has much to lose in the elections, which are for municipal offices only. After Serb forces withdrew last year, the KLA occupied town halls and public institutions across Kosovo and set up its own provincial government. Although the UN has gradually asserted its own authority and placed representatives of other political groups in local governments, in places like Srbica ex-KLA members affiliated with Thaci's party still exercise virtual complete control. "These guys are not going to give up power that easily," says Dardan Gashi, a political analyst with the International Crisis Group, a US-based research organization with an office in Pristina. UN police also suspect organized crime is involved in some of the violence. They say that criminal groups engaged in racketeering, smuggling, and prostitution rely on close links to some people in power. The prospect of losing these connections - and the income they generate - may make them ill-disposed toward the LDK. Officials say the problem is the worst in the Drenica region of Kosovo, the KLA's heartland and a stronghold of Thaci's party. Srbica, where Koci is the local LDK president, is one of the main towns in Drenica. (emphasis added) The Heritage Foundation: Support the KLA-KDP, despite its Criminal Connections The Heritage Foundation in a May 1999 report acknowledges that the KLA is a criminal organization. It nonetheless called for the support of the KLA should by the Clinton administration: Should the U.S. harness the KLA's military potential against Milosevic's brutal regime, despite the KLA's unusual ideological roots and apparent ties to organized crime? ... The KLA does not represent every group seeking an end to Milosevic's brutal campaign and is known to have committed some atrocities of its own, it is the most significant force resisting Yugoslav aggression within Kosovo. Moreover, the scale and scope of its crimes have been dwarfed by the systematic campaign of terror unleashed by Yugoslav military, paramilitary, and police forces inside Kosovo. which Washington has done consistently since the 1999 war. (Heritage Foundation Report, 13 May 1999) Shunning the KLA now will deprive the United States of the benefits of cooperating with a resistance force that is capable of ratcheting up the pressure on Milosevic to negotiate a settlement (Ibid) The Heritage Foundation supports the Kosovo Democratic Party (KDP) which is integrated by former members of the KLA. The KDP has retained its links to organised crime. This position broadly summarizes the attitude of the "international community" in relation to Kosovo. More recently, the Heritage Foundation, which plays a behind the scenes role in the formulation of US foreign policy, has been pushing for Kosovo "Independence" Hashim Thaci Hashim Thaci with another war criminal: Tony Blair The evidence amply confirms that the prime minister of Kosovo never severed his links to organized crime. A known criminal is being protected by the United Nations: He was arrested in Budapest in July 2003 on an Interpol warrant and was immediately released, following a request from the UN Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK). This is not an isolated event. There is evidence that the UN Mission and its international police force have protected the former KLA, which in the wake of the 1999 NATO bombing was relabeled the Kosovo Protection Corps (KPC) under a formal UN mandate. According to Serbian Justice Minister Vladan Batic, "the prosecution at the Hague war crimes tribunal has over 40,000 pages of evidence against former Kosovo Liberation Army leader Hashim Thaci, (quoted by Radio B92, Belgrade, 3 July 2003). In April 2000, US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright "ordered The Hague chief prosecutor Carla del Ponte to omit from the list of war crime suspects Hashim Thaci" (Tanjug, 6 May 2000). Carla del Ponte subsequently claimed that there was not enough evidence to indict Thaci on war crimes. . More generally, the UN Mission has acted as an accessory in protecting a criminal syndicate. In November 2003, criminal proceedings against several former KLA commanders were initiated in Belgrade. These included Hashim Thaci, Agim Ceku and Ramush Haradinaj. .Both Haradinaj and Ceku's names are on Interpol lists. Agim Ceku Agim Ceku is known for having committed extensive war crimes in the Krajina region of Croatia in the mid-1990s involving the massacre and ethnic cleansing of the Serb population. He was a former brigadier general in the Croatian Army and a key planner of Operation Storm, which led to the expulsion of several hundred thousand Serbs from Krajina region of Croatia. In 1999, he was appointed Commander of the KLA, with the approval of the US and NATO. He was subsequently appointed Commander of the UN sponsored Kosovo Protection Corps (KPC) (on a UN payroll) and became Prime Minister of Kosovo in 2006, succeeded by Hashim Thaci, the current Prime Minister In Kosovo, he has continues to have links to organized crime syndicates. According to a London Observer, the KPC which was headed by Ceku, was involved in acts of torture as well protecting prostitution in Kosovo. (March 14, 2000 , Atlanta Journal-Constitution) From Left to right: Hashim Thaci, Bernard Jouchner, General Michael Jackson, Agim Ceku, General Wesley Clarke Condoleeza Rice meets Kosovo President Fatmir Sejdiu and Prime Minister Agim Ceku (left) The Western Media: Disinformation concerning the Nature of the Kosovo government The Kosovo government is tied into organized criminal syndicates involved in narcotics and human trafficking. The fact that all three Kosovo Prime Ministers, Ramush Haradinaj, Agim Ceku and Hashim Thaci are war criminals has not been acknowledged in recent press reports regarding the Independence of Kosovo. The EU and the US are supporting the criminalization of Kosovo politics. We bring to our readers attention two articles published in the Washington Times. The first article was published in May 1999 describes the KLA as a criminal organization. The second article published in February 2008 highlights the role of Prime Minister Hashim Thaci, a "former criminal" in the process of Kosovo independence. KLA rebels train in terrorist camps By Jerry Seper THE WASHINGTON TIMES May 4, 1999 Some members of the Kosovo Liberation Army [headed by the current Kosovo Prime minister Hashim Thaci] , which has financed its war effort through the sale of heroin, were trained in terrorist camps run by international fugitive Osama bin Laden -- who is wanted in the 1998 bombing of two U.S. embassies in Africa that killed 224 persons, including 12 Americans. The KLA members, embraced by the Clinton administration in NATO's 41-day bombing campaign to bring Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic to the bargaining table, were trained in secret camps in Afghanistan, Bosnia-Herzegovina and elsewhere, according to newly obtained intelligence reports. The reports also show that the KLA has enlisted Islamic terrorists -- members of the Mujahideen --as soldiers in its ongoing conflict against Serbia, and that many already have been smuggled into Kosovo to join the fight. Known to its countrymen as the Ushtria Clirimatare e Kosoves, the KLA has as many as 30,000 members, a number reportedly on the rise as a result of NATO's continuing bombing campaign. The group's leadership, including Agim Ceku, a former Croatian army brigadier general, has rapidly become a political and military force in the Balkans. The intelligence reports document what is described as a "link" between bin Laden, the fugitive Saudi millionaire, and the KLA --including a common staging area in Tropoje, Albania, a center for Islamic terrorists. The reports said bin Laden's organization, known as al-Qaeda, has both trained and financially supported the KLA. Many border crossings into Kosovo by "foreign fighters" also have been documented and include veterans of the militant group Islamic Jihad from Bosnia, Chechnya and Afghanistan. Many of the crossings originated in neighboring Albania and, according to the reports, included parties of up to 50 men. Jane's International Defense Review, a highly respected British Journal, reported in February that documents found last year on the body of a KLA member showed that he had escorted several volunteers into Kosovo, including more than a dozen Saudi Arabians. Each volunteer carried a passport identifying him as a Macedonian Albanian. Bin Laden and his military commander, Mohammed Atef, were named in a federal indictment handed up in November in New York for the simultaneous explosions Aug. 7 at the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. The indictment accused the two men of directing the attacks, which injured more than 5,000 people. The indictment said bin Laden, working through al-Qaeda, forged alliances with government officials in Iran, the National Islamic Front in the Sudan and an Iranian terrorist organization known as Hezbollah. He was indicted earlier this year by a federal grand jury in New York for his suspected terrorist activities. The al-Qaeda is believed to have targeted U.S. embassies and American soldiers stationed in Saudi Arabia and Somalia. The organization also is accused of housing and training terrorists, and of raising money to support their causes. The State Department, along with other federal agencies, offered a $5 million reward last year for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the two men. Mr. Clinton ordered a retaliatory attack on training bases controlled by bin Laden in Afghanistan and a chemical factory near Khartoum, Sudan, after the bombings. Last year, while State Department officials labeled the KLA a terrorist organization, saying it bankrolled its operations with proceeds from the heroin trade and from loans from known terrorists like bin Laden, the department listed the group as an "insurgency" organization in its official reports. The officials charged that the KLA used terrorist tactics to assault Serbian and ethnic Albanian civilians in a campaign to achieve independence. The KLA's involvement in drug smuggling as a means of raising funds for weapons is long-standing. Intelligence documents show it has aligned itself with an extensive organized crime network in Albania that smuggles heroin to buyers throughout Western Europe and the United States. Drug agents in five countries believe the cartel is one of the most powerful heroin smuggling organizations in the world. The documents show heroin and some cocaine is moved over land and sea from Turkey through Bulgaria, Greece and Yugoslavia to Western Europe and elsewhere. The circuit has become known as the "Balkan Route." The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration said in a recent report that drug smuggling organizations composed of Kosovo's ethnic Albanians were considered "second only to Turkish gangs as the predominant heroin smugglers along the Balkan Route." Greek Interpol representatives have called Kosovo's ethnic Albanians "the primary sources of supply for cocaine and heroin in that country." France's Geopolitical Observatory of Drugs said the KLA was a key player in the rapidly expanding drugs-for-arms business and helped transport $2 billion in drugs a year into Western Europe. German drug agents said $1.5 billion in drug profits is laundered annually by Kosovo smugglers, through as many as 200 private banks or currency-exchange offices. Jane's Intelligence Review estimated in March that drug sales could have netted the KLA profits in the "high tens of millions of dollars." It said the KLA had rearmed itself for a spring offensive with the aid of drug money, along with donations from Albanians in Western Europe and the United States. The KLA were identified as a terrorist organization by US special envoy Robert Gelbard. Published in Washington, D.C. 5am -- May 4, 1999 www.washtimes.com Kosovo independence seen likely for Feb. 17 By Dusan Stojanovic February 9, 2008 THE WASHINGTON TIMES Slobodan Samardzic, Serbia's minister for Kosovo, said yesterday that his government has received information indicating the Kosovo province's Albanian leadership will "illegally" declare independence soon. BELGRADE, Serbia (AP) — The Serbian minister for Kosovo said yesterday that his government has learned the province's ethnic Albanian leadership will declare independence on Feb. 17. Western diplomats said they expected the move a day later. Slobodan Samardzic said Serbia's government has received "relevant information" that Kosovo's government will "illegally declare unilateral independence of Kosovo on Sunday, Feb. 17." He did not specify the source of information and Belgrade remains fiercely opposed to the loss of the province. Kosovo's ethnic Albanian leaders have said they will declare independence from Serbia "in a matter of days," but never specified the exact date. Serbia regards the province as the cradle of its statehood, and expressions of nationalist anger have increased as the independence declaration approached. Kosovo's Prime Minister Hashim Thaci [former leader of the KLA] would not comment on the Feb. 17 date, but insisted Kosovo's split from Serbia was "a done deal." "I can only confirm today that we have the confirmation from some 100 states which say they are ready to recognize Kosovo's independence," Mr. Thaci said in Kosovo's capital, Pristina. In Munich, Serbian President Boris Tadic, considered a relatively pro-Western moderate, told a major security conference there would be no winners if Kosovo's leaders pressed ahead without a negotiated deal. "If such negotiations don't occur, I fear all three parties will end up paying an extremely high price," Mr. Tadic said, referring to Kosovo's Albanians, Serbia and the international community. "That is something none of us can afford." Bishop Artemije, spiritual leader of Kosovo's Serbian Orthodox minority, said his community would not recognize any independence declaration from Pristina and would remain loyal to Belgrade. "Independence is not the only option," he said in an interview with The Washington Times on a U.S. visit this week. "The West tells us to compromise, but the only choice we are given is capitulation." State Department spokesman Tom Casey said yesterday the Bush administration wants to see the final status of Kosovo "resolved and resolved in the not-too-distant future." But he said he could not discuss the "intentions of the leadership either in Serbia or in Kosovo." Serbia's main ally, Russia, opposes Kosovo's independence, asserting it would set a precedent worldwide. Other EU states, including Romania and Cyprus, also have deep reservations, fearing it would spark new ethnic violence in the Balkans and encourage other separatist movements. But the U.S. and a clear majority of EU nations are expected to back Kosovo's statehood, saying the U.N.-run southern province, where 2 million Albanians represent an overwhelming majority, is a special case that deserves to be independent from Belgrade. As nationalist tensions rose sharply, an explosion shook a shopping mall yesterday in Serbia. No one was injured and the explosion caused only minor damage. Mr. Samardzic's statement was issued after a meeting with a senior European Union official, Stefan Lehne, who was in Belgrade to clarify the bloc's plans to send an EU policing and administrative mission to Kosovo. Serbia has rejected the mission, saying it would be a prelude to the province's independence. • Staff writer David R. Sands contributed to this story from Washington.

Please support Global Research Global Research relies on the financial support of its readers. Your endorsement is greatly appreciated

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization. To become a Member of Global Research The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The source and the author's copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: crgeditor@yahoo.com www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner. For media inquiries: crgeditor@yahoo.com © Copyright Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, 2008 The url address of this article is: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8055

© Copyright 2005-2007 GlobalResearch.ca Web site engine by Polygraphx Multimedia © Copyright 2005-2007