Venezuela challenges the US
Analysis by Chris Kerr
Aug. 2— The Bolivarian revolution in Venezuela
is not just a national phenomenon; it is impacted upon greatly by international
developments, particularly the US-led campaign against it.
In 2002, the US government stepped up its intervention in Venezuelan
affairs, energetically assisting the failed Apr. 11 coup against President
Hugo Chavez. Washington provided finances and advice to the alliance
of business leaders, military generals and corrupt trade-union leaders
that attempted to depose Chavez.
The military coup, which dissolved the constitution, the parliament
and the courts and presided over more deaths from political violence
in one day than in Chavez’s entire presidency, was rejected by
almost every Latin American government. Washington was one of the very
few governments to endorse the coup — and was left isolated when
the coup was foiled within 48 hours by a popular uprising.
In December, Washington supported the shutdown of Venezuela’s oil
industry, in another attempt to topple Chavez. Although some military
and corporate figures called for a coup at the time, the crisis fizzled
after two months (although it left massive economic damage behind).
Although Washington didn’t openly support calls for another military
coup, it did openly support the unconstitutional demand for new presidential
elections. This turned into an embarrassing blunder, however, when the
proposal became the first major US initiative to be rejected by the
Organization of American States (OAS).
‘Friends’ of Venezuela
Another Washington attack on the Bolivarian revolution came through
the “Friends of Venezuela” group. Initially suggested by Chavez
as a way to strengthen international support for his government, the
idea was picked up by Brazilian president “Lula” da Silva,
who, in January, formed a group made up more of enemies than friends.
The US decided to support the new “friends,” which included
the powers which have historically exploited Latin America (and which
supported the Apr. 11 coup): Spain, Portugal and the US. Da Silva also
included some of the most unfriendly governments in the region, including
the Chilean government, a product of a bloody coup against a leftist
president.
Although Washington attempted to use this group to force a “negotiated
solution” on Chavez, the results reflected the balance of forces
in Venezuela more than the lopsided international pressure the “friends”
represented.
Thus, the original demands of the opposition, which included the resignation
of the president, the rehiring of the managers who were fired for sabotaging
the country’s oil industry, the disarming of the pro-Chavez population
and the disbanding of the Bolivarian Circles, were abandoned in favor
of two agreements: that the opposition and government not use provocative
language when referring to each other (which was violated by both sides
within 48 hours); and that the constitution be adhered to in referendums
for elected positions. The latter had been Chavez’s position since
his election.
Colombia
The Venezuelan government has also had to deal with confrontation with
Colombia’s ultra-right government, led by President Alvaro Uribe
Valez. Venezuela’s largest oil-producing province, Zulia, shares
its western border with Colombia. Landlord and business oligarchies
are powerful there, and peasant leaders are assassinated by their agents
with impunity. Just next door, the war on the Armed Revolutionary Forces
of Colombia-People’s Army (FARC) by Colombian military and right-wing
paramilitaries is escalating. The whole region is therefore becoming
increasingly militarized, adding to tensions between the governments.
On Mar. 31, Chavez ordered the air force to bomb Colombian government-backed
paramilitaries that had intruded into Venezuelan territory. In response,
the Colombian government accused the Venezuelan government of actively
supporting FARC military actions in Colombia, an accusation which the
Venezuelan Vice-President Jose Vicente Rangel described as a “grotesque
lie” designed to discredit Chavez.
The Colombian government had already accused Venezuela of protecting
FARC members, and supporting the organization.
While some analysts believe that the Colombian government is attempting
to deflect the blame for its inability to contain the FARC, others,
such as Hector Mondragon, fear it will lay the stage for the US to attack
Venezuela in the future. Mondragon argues that the US could justify
such an attack as necessary to “guarantee Colombia’s security”
and as part of the “war on drugs.”
Venezuela is also in conflict with the US over Chavez’s proposal
for an economic integration program for Latin America, an alternative
to the US-led Free Trade Area of the Americas. The FTAA is the latest
project seeking to force neoliberal economic policy down the throat
of Latin America. Washington’s adherence to such policies, and
Chavez’s opposition to them, has been a major source of conflict.
According to US sociologist James Petras, neoliberalism has already
allowed multinational corporations to remit US $1 trillion in profits,
interest repayments and debt repayments from Latin America between 1990-2002.
In the same period, US and European banks bought over 4000 ex-public
banks, telecommunications, transportation, oil and mining, retail and
other companies throughout Latin America.
Mercosur
Venezuela has pursued an independent economic strategy. It, along with
Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia, is a member of the Community of
Andean Nations (CAN). It also gives the Caribbean nations cheaper access
to oil and gas, and has applied to become a full member of Mercosur,
an economic bloc that includes Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay.
Chavez believes Mercosur could further the economic integration of the
entire Latin American continent. “We need to create a large union
of Latin American republics to be able to negotiate in conditions of
equality… we propose the necessity for Mercosur to be expanded,
not only on the economic front, but also a political Mercosur,”
Chavez said at a news conference in Buenos Aires, after meeting with
Argentina’s President Nestor Kirchner.
Cuba
Venezuela is also in conflict with the US over its policy towards Cuba.
Since the Cuban revolution in 1959, Washington has successfully isolated
Cuba from the rest of the continent, including securing its expulsion
from the OAS. US agitation against left-wing governments in the region
during the last two decades has helped to undermine the allies Cuba
has had.
Since the presidency of Chavez, Venezuela has become Cuba’s largest
trading partner, and the island nation’s political isolation has
been reduced.
Cuban President Fidel Castro was invited to da Silva’s and Kirchner’s
inaugurations. This is particularly important given Washington’s
recently renewed drive to isolate Cuba from European nations. The US
government could not get the most recent OAS meeting, held in Chile,
to condemn Cuba’s jailing of paid agents of the US government.
Venezuelan and Brazilian delegates led the campaign to ensure the motion
would be blocked.
OPEC
It is likely that the Venezuelan government will also confront US imperialist
interests in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. Many
OPEC nations are uneasy about US President George Bush’s attacks
on the governments of Venezuela, Iraq and Iran, all important members
of OPEC. According to the June 17 Business Report, one delegate anonymously
told Reuters: “The US can’t continue to invent wars. We want
to deal with the world powers — we will supply oil and gas, but
you can’t invade my country. After Iraq, who is next?”
Venezuela raised the question of national sovereignty at the recently
revived, long-term strategy meeting. “We need to emphasise that
the world has left behind the colonial era, when one power could take
by force another country’s resources”, Venezuelan energy minister
Rafael Ramirez told reporters after the June 11 OPEC ministerial meeting
in Doha, Qatar.
Venezuela’s proposal, which may be tabled at the next OPEC heads
of state meeting in 2005, would link the security of oil supply to the
preservation of OPEC nations’ national sovereignty, and has been
welcomed by Iran and Libya but rejected by Saudi Arabia. It could complicate
plans to invade and overthrow more OPEC governments and gain control
over their oil resources.
A June 13 Reuters report commented: “The idea of tightening OPEC’s
grip over two-thirds of the world’s oil reserves, and seeking to
avoid military attack, has awakened interest from other [OPEC] members.
‘Of course it is a serious concern that OPEC members with big oil
reserves will become occupied by foreign powers,’ said a delegate
from another of the 11-member group … Some delegates believe that
unless OPEC rediscovers its ideological roots — asserting sovereignty
over its natural resources — the cartel could be destroyed by a
resurgent US foreign policy, combined with the financial power of four
“supermajor’ oil companies.” The Venezuelan governmnent
has led the way in OPEC, refusing to recognize any Iraqi delegation
to OPEC while it remains a US colony.
It is thus no surprise that the Venezuelan government is under pressure
from Washington. The June 12 Wall Street Journal reports that “Washington,
which initially dismissed Mr. Chavez as a harmless big talker, now fears
Venezuela’s increasingly radical stance could hurt regional stability
and hobble US initiatives ranging from free trade to the war on drugs.
Some US officials say Venezuela has become Washington’s biggest
Latin American headache after the old standby, Cuba.”
Source: ZNET
US offering arms aid to obtain
foreign soldiers for Iraq
By Thalif Deen
United Nations, July 30 (IPS/GIN)— Faced with
a rising death toll among its soldiers in Iraq, the United States is
trying to “buy” foreign troops for a proposed 30,000-strong
multinational force in Baghdad, some observers say.
“When they were seeking UN support for a war on Iraq, they were
twisting arms,” one Asian diplomat told IPS. “Now they are
offering carrots in exchange for our troops.”
The inducements — including weapons and increased military aid
— have apparently been offered to at least three countries whose
troops Washington needs to bolster the fledgling multinational force
in Iraq and relieve the pressure on US forces in the war-ravaged country.
The administration of President George W. Bush has intensified efforts
to seek troops from India, Pakistan and Turkey in order to beef up a
force that now includes troops mostly from former Soviet allies and
Latin America.
The Indian government, which withdrew its offer of 17,000 troops under
heavy domestic political pressure, is being lobbied once again with
an offer of sophisticated military equipment.
The quid pro quo, according to diplomatic sources, is approval of the
proposed sale of the state-of-the-art Arrow 2 missile defense system
made by Israel. Since the $100 million system includes US components
and was produced with US funding, Israel needs Washington’s approval
to close the deal.
Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, is now
in New Delhi to try to persuade the government of Prime Minister Atal
Bihari Vajpayee to change its stance on troops for Iraq.
The London Financial Times said July 29 that the Bush administration
has also pledged to further relax the sale of dual-use technology to
India in return for that country’s troops.
France, Germany, India, Pakistan and several other nations have declined
to provide troops unless there is a new UN resolution authorizing a
peacekeeping force.
But India could change its position, according to Professor Stephen
Cohen, director of the South Asia program at the Brookings Institution.
“For all we know, they are still talking about terms under which
India might come,” he said in an interview. “That’s part
of the bargaining game that’s going on.”
Since the war on Iraq began Mar. 19, 244 US soldiers have died —
163 from hostile actions and 81 from accidents. Hundreds more have been
wounded or injured. The rising death toll looms as a political liability
for Bush who faces a re-election campaign next year.
The 150,000 US troops in Iraq are backed by 12,000 from Britain.
Among the countries that have pledged troops for the new multinational
force are Spain, Poland, Japan and Ukraine. Washington is also expecting
smaller units from Hungary, Romania, Latvia, Estonia, Slovakia, Honduras,
El Salvador, the Dominican Republic, Mongolia, the Philippines and Nicaragua.
It has logistical support from Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal
and South Korea.
The Washington Post reported on July 29 that some of the countries were
providing troops at US taxpayers’ expense.
The Bush administration has agreed to pay $240 million in support costs
for the Polish contingent of about 9,000 troops. The costs will cover
airlift transportation, meals, medical care and other expenses.
The proposed Indian contingent of 17,000 troops would have been the
largest single foreign force, exceeding the 12,000 troops from Britain,
Washington’s coalition partner in the war.
But the move to provide Indian troops generated strong opposition, threatening
a government that also faces elections next year.
India’s neighbor and adversary Pakistan has been offered $3 billion
in US aid over the next five years, of which $1.5 billion will be in
military aid.
And according to the Ankara-based Hurriyet newspaper, the United States
has been lobbying the Turkish government for about 10,000 troops.
Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz told the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee on July 29 the administration was discussing troop deployments
by both Pakistan and Turkey.
“The Bush administration is doing the right thing in looking for
additional help in Iraq, “ said Natalie J. Goldring, executive
director of the Program on Global Security and Disarmament at the University
of Maryland.
“But the US government should be seeking that help through the
United Nations. Instead, US political and military leaders are once
again trying to buy countries’ cooperation with weapons transfers
and military aid,” she said.
Goldring added that there is no evidence that providing India with a
missile defense system will decrease tensions in the unstable South
Asian region.
“Quite the contrary. Past attempts by India or Pakistan to gain
military advantage have inevitably been matched or countered by the
other country, continuing and often accelerating the already dangerous
arms race in that part of the world,” she added.
At a press conference on July 30, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan said
that he believes the international community is seeking to “internationalize”
the Iraqi operations under a UN umbrella.
“It is important for them — not just for Europe or India,
but also for the region.” The Arab states would feel “more
comfortable” providing troops under UN auspices, he added.
The United States has refused to seek approval for a UN peacekeeping
force because it fears it may have to concede some of its military authority
to the United Nations.
Wolfowitz told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that Washington
would agree to a UN resolution only if it did not curtail US military
authority.
Oil firm Unocal to stand trial
over Burma abuses
By Andrew Gumbel
Aug. 2— The US oil company Unocal has been
ordered to stand trial to determine its responsibility for a string
of human rights abuses, including rape, torture, forced labor and extrajudicial
killings, arising from a pipeline project it has co-sponsored in Burma.
The ruling by the Los Angeles Superior Court marks a potential turning
point in the policing of corporations overseas, since it suggests that
US courts can assert jurisdiction when the events took place on the
other side of the world.
The suit against Unocal is based on an ancient US tort law originally
used to combat piracy on the high seas, and could have profound implications
for dozens of corporations accused of tolerating human rights abuses
committed while work was carried out on their projects in remote areas
of the Third World.
Ordering Unocal to stand trial on Sept. 22, Judge Victoria Chaney rejected
the company’s argument that any human rights violations should
be subject to Burmese, not US law. She agreed with the plaintiffs that
there has been “no effective rule of law” in Burma since the
establishment of military rule in 1988, making any court proceedings
there “radically indeterminate”.
Judge Chaney also appeared to agree with the plaintiffs that Unocal
knew what it was getting into when it started the Yadana gas pipeline.
She said: “Prior to its involvement ... Unocal had specific knowledge
that the use of forced labor was likely, and nevertheless chose to proceed.”
Lawyers for Unocal said that they would appeal.
The suit has been brought by 14 villagers who allege that Unocal tolerated
systematic human rights abuses by the Burmese military as the pipeline
project progressed.
The pipeline, the largest single foreign investment in Burma intended
to carry natural gas across the border to Thailand, is a joint venture
by Unocal and Total, the French oil company, which is being sued separately
in Europe. The project is being managed by Burmese subsidiaries of the
parent companies.
The success of the legal channel being pursued by the Burmese plaintiffs
and human rights groups such as EarthRights International has spooked
the White House, which has a pursued a policy of active support of overseas
energy projects by US corporations, many of whom have been generous
donors to George Bush’s campaign.
The White House filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of Unocal,
arguing among other things that the suit was a threat to the war on
terrorism. In another case, it is advocating the release of institutional
funds so that two well-connected Texas energy giants, Halliburton and
Hunt Oil, can complete a gas pipeline project in Peru, despite widespread
concerns of environmental damage.
Source: Independent (UK)
N. Korea won’t recognize State Dept.
ideologue
By Jim Lobe
Washington, DC, Aug. 4 — To the North Koreans,
he is “human scum” and a “bloodthirsty vampire.”
To former ultra-right US Sen. Jesse Helms, he is “the kind of man
with whom I would want to stand at Armageddon, if it should be my lot
to be on hand for what is forecast to be the final battle between good
and evil in this world.”
His name is John Bolton; his title, Undersecretary of State for Arms
Control and International Security; and he is widely seen as the reliable
fifth columnist within the State Department for the right-wing and neo-conservative
hawks who led the drive to war in Iraq from their perches at the Pentagon
and Vice President Dick Cheney’s office.
North Korea, which last week agreed to engage in multilateral talks
with its Northeast Asian neighbors and the United States on its controversial
nuclear program, announced Sunday that it will have nothing to do with
Bolton and will not even recognize his status as a US diplomat.
The highly unusual statement was reportedly provoked by a speech given
by Bolton in Seoul last week -- excerpts of which were reprinted on
the highly sympathetic editorial pages of the Asian Wall Street Journal
Friday -- in which the undersecretary, who ranks fourth in the State
Department hierarchy, described life in North Korea as a “hellish
nightmare” and accused Pyongyang’s leader, Kim Jong Il, of
being a “dictator” or running a “dictatorship” or
“tyranny” no less than a dozen times.
Some US and Asian analysts indicated last week that Bolton, who has
made no secret of his belief that Washington should pursue “regime
change” in Pyongyang rather than a new agreement on its de-nuclearization,
may have intended to use the speech to provoke Kim into rejecting the
forthcoming meeting. Cheney and the Pentagon have long been skeptical
of any negotiation with North Korea.
Even if his words were not as strong as Pyongyang’s, it was a typical
performance by Bolton, whose red-meat anti-communism and ultra-unilateralist
politics have delighted his admirers among the hawks — even as
they have caused embarrassment and even some turmoil among his State
Department colleagues since he took office in the spring of 2001.
A Baltimore native who veered sharply right even as many of his fellow
students at Yale Law School in the early 1970s were moving in the opposite
direction, Bolton held mid- to senior-level positions in the US Agency
for International Development (USAID) and the Justice Department during
the Reagan administration.
A staunch backer of the Nicaraguan contras, Bolton played a key role
in trying to undermine efforts by Sen. John Kerry to investigate drug
smuggling and gunrunning by the contras, according to Nation columnist
David Corn, and was later put in charge of stonewalling Congressional
efforts to obtain Justice Department documents and interview Edwin Meese’s
deputies about their role in the Iran-Contra scandal.
His effectiveness in this area gained him a promotion under President
George H.W. Bush to the position of Assistant Secretary of State for
International Organizations, a post he held until 1993 when he joined
the right-wing Manhattan Institute, and then the neo-conservative-dominated
American Enterprise Institute (AEI) — home to such prominent hawks
as former UN Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick, former Defense Policy Board
Chairman Richard Perle, and Cheney’s spouse, Lynne.
By the time former Secretary of State James Baker tapped him to serve
as a senior member of the G.W. Bush legal team in Florida after the
2000 election, he had become senior vice president at AEI, a position
he used during the latter half of the 1990s to speak out strongly in
favor of normalizing ties with Taiwan (from which he was receiving money
at the time, according to the Washington Post), regardless of the impact
on US relations with China. He also advocated for US withdrawal from
the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, while railing about the threats
posed to US sovereignty by the United Nations and Secretary-General
Kofi Annan, “nation-building,” and international arms agreements,
including the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
So strongly was he opposed to the United Nations that, at one point,
he suggested simply halting US payments to the world body. “[M]any
Republicans in Congress — and perhaps a majority,” he once
said “not only do not care about losing the General Assembly vote
but actually see it as a ‘make-my-day’ outcome. Indeed once
the vote is lost... this will simply provide further evidence to many
why nothing more should be paid to the UN system.”
Given his history of far-right positions, Secretary of State Colin Powell
was reported to have been deeply skeptical of Bolton for such a sensitive
position. But a combination of Cheney’s insistence that he get
the undersecretary job and an assurance by Baker — who hired Bolton
to help fight the legal battle over the Florida election results on
behalf of the Bush campaign after the 2000 elections — that he
was a loyal soldier, Powell acceded to the appointment.
Within just a few months, however, it became clear that Bolton was far
more sympathetic to hawks elsewhere in the administration than to Powell’s
relatively moderate positions and demeanor. In the summer of 2001, he
shocked foreign delegations and non-governmental organizations at the
UN Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons when
he announced that Washington would oppose any attempt to regulate the
trade in firearms or non-military rifles or any other effort that would
“abrogat[e] the constitutional right to bear arms.”
“It is precisely those weapons that Bolton would exclude from the
purview of this conference that are actually killing people and endangering
communities around the world,” exclaimed Tamar Gabelnick, Director
of the Arms Sales Monitoring Project at the Federation of American Scientists
(FAS), who charged that the US position single-handedly destroyed any
possibility of consensus.
Several months later, following the Sept. 11 attacks and the anthrax
scare, Bolton led the US delegation to a major UN bio-weapons conference
in Geneva, which he first inflamed by naming in his first speech six
nations that he alleged were building bio-weapons illegally, and then
sabotaged by trying to terminate an effort to forge a verification protocol.
The latter move provoked expressions of shock and outrage from US allies
in Europe.
Within the State Department, Bolton led the drive for US refusal to
sign the Rome Statute that created the new International Criminal Court
(ICC), the first permanent tribunal with jurisdiction over war crimes,
crimes against humanity, and genocide. To recognize his commitment to
opposing the Statute, Powell permitted Bolton to sign the letter to
Annan formally announcing Washington’s withdrawal, an act he later
described to the Wall Street Journal as “the happiest moment of
my government service.”
At the same time, Bolton was also engaged in a lengthy row with US intelligence
agencies over his unprecedented public charge that Cuba had an offensive
biological warfare program that US military and intelligence officials
had previously “underplayed.” His statement became an embarrassment
after anonymous intelligence officials and retired senior military officers,
including the former head of the US Southern Command, told the media
that no such evidence existed and charged that Bolton was politicizing
intelligence.
Last month, Bolton was accused of the same charge when he was due to
testify before Congress on Syria’s alleged development of weapons
of mass destruction which, according to his prepared remarks, had come
to pose a threat to regional stability. His testimony was abruptly canceled
and rescheduled for September after the Central Intelligence Agency
and the State Department’s own intelligence bureau objected to
his characterization.
Source: OneWorld.net
New marriage law bars Palestinians
who marry Israelis from citizenship
By Justin Huggler
Aug. 2— Israel’s Parliament has passed
a law preventing Palestinians who marry Israelis from living in Israel.
The move was denounced by human rights organizations as racist, undemocratic
and discriminatory.
Under the new law, rushed through on Aug. 1, Palestinians alone will
be excluded from obtaining citizenship or residency. Anyone else who
marries an Israeli will be entitled to Israeli citizenship. Now Israeli
Arabs who marry Palestinians from the West Bank or Gaza Strip will either
have to move to the occupied territories, or live apart from their husband
or wife. Their children will be affected too: from the age of 12 they
will be denied citizenship or residency and forced to move out of Israel.
Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch sent a joint letter to
the Knesset, Israel’s parliament, urging members to reject the
bill.
“The draft law barring family reunification for Palestinian spouses
of Israeli citizens is profoundly discriminatory,” Amnesty said
in a statement. “A law permitting such blatant racial discrimination,
on grounds of ethnicity or nationality, would clearly violate international
human rights law and treaties which Israel has ratified and pledged
to uphold.”
B’Tselem, an Israeli human rights organization, joined in the criticism
of the law. Yael Stein, a spokesman, said: “This is a racist law
that decides who can live here according to racist criteria.”
Some Israelis believe they are sitting on a demographic time bomb, with
an Israeli Arab community, already 20 percent of the population, growing
faster than the Jewish population. The discrimination is not only against
Palestinians, according to human rights groups, but against Israel’s
own 1.2 million citizens of Palestinian origin as well. The overwhelming
majority of Israelis who marry Palestinians are the so-called Israeli
Arabs — Palestinians who live in Israel and have Israeli citizenship.
“This bill blatantly discriminates against Israelis of Palestinian
origin and their Palestinian spouses,” said Hanny Megally of Human
Rights Watch. “It’s scandalous that the government has presented
this bill, and it’s shocking that the Knesset is rushing it through.”
The government pushed the vote through at speed, even agreeing to consider
it a vote of confidence to get it through. It was passed by 53 votes
to 25, with one abstention. Gideon Ezra, a cabinet minister, said: “This
law comes to address a security issue. Since September 2000 we have
seen a significant connection, in terror attacks, between Arabs from
the West Bank and Gaza and Israeli Arabs.” Since 1993, more than
100,000 Palestinians have become Israeli citizens through marriage,
Ezra said. But B’Tselem pointed out that only 20 of those 100,000
have been involved in suicide bombings or other militant attacks.
Human rights groups said security concerns could not justify the new
law, which amounts to collective punishment. Noam Hoffstater, another
spokesman for B’Tselem, said: “Those who voted for the bill
and those who support it are making a very cynical use of security arguments
to justify it, even though they used no data. This in fact was a cover
for the real reason, which is the racist reason, the demographic reason.”
Many on Israel’s right fear that it will be impossible to maintain
Israel’s identity as an officially Jewish state if the Arab sector
becomes too large. “Today I lost hope,” Sa’id abu Muammar,
an Israeli Arab, told Reuters news agency. He has been hiding his Palestinian
wife from the police since their marriage a year ago. “This is
what we’ve been doing and this is probably what we will have to
continue to do.”
Source: Independent (UK)
Iraqis, US soldiers agree: ‘Bring
the troops home now’
By Mike Burke
July 31— As the Bush administration comes
under increasing criticism for repeatedly misleading the American public
on the threat Iraq posed before the invasion, another key intelligence
question must be asked: how did the US calculate so poorly what would
happen in Iraq after Saddam Hussein fell?
Since the invasion started, 238 American troops have been killed, 117
during the invasion, 121 after Baghdad fell. The estimated cost of war
has doubled to nearly $4 billion per month. Thousands of Iraqis protest
regularly calling on the United States to leave. Allies including India
refuse to contribute troops. And US troop morale has plummeted.
One GI told ABC News, “I’ve got my own ‘Most Wanted’
list. The aces in my deck are Paul Bremer, Donald Rumsfeld, George Bush
and Paul Wolfowitz.” Another added, “I used to want to help
these people, but now, I don’t really care about them anymore.”
The troops were both in the Second Brigade of the Third Infantry Division.
The Pentagon first told them they would be headed home in May. Then
June. Then July. Then August. And now the Pentagon says they will be
in Iraq indefinitely.
The Bush administration reacted to the comments not by trying to alleviate
the problems but by lashing out at the soldiers and the journalist who
broadcast the report. The soldiers face possible court martial and the
journalist was the target of a bizarre attack by the White House press
office. The Washington Post reports the White House tipped the online
Drudge Report to the facts that the ABC reporter was (gasp!) gay and
Canadian. Obviously not one to be trusted.
But then again should we have trusted predictions that the Iraq would
be a “cakewalk” (neo-
conservative hawk Ken Adelman) or that US soldiers would “be greeted
with sweets and flowers,” as Kanan Makiya of the Iraqi National
Congress said?
The wives of the Third Infantry know this is no cakewalk. Some have
become widows, others have waited months for their loved ones to come
home.
In Fort Stewart, Georgia, a colonel had to be escorted out by security
from a recent meeting with 800 spouses, most of them wives. One official
told the New York Times, “They were crying, cussing, yelling and
screaming for their men to come back.”
The reaction of Iraqis to the American presence appears to be quite
similar.
On July 19, over 10,000 Shiite Iraqis protested in Baghdad and Najaf
after rumors that the US would arrest cleric Moqtada al Sadr. The Najaf-based
cleric has protested the US-formed Iraqi governing council and has said
he will form an independent Islamic army. “We are neither for Saddam
nor for the Americans,” Sadr said.
The Bush administration has been making attempts to put a less American
face on the occupation. First they tried to get India to contribute
17,000. India said no. Then there were reports the US corporation Kroll
would train a private Iraqi army. And now there is talk that occupation
forces will try to train a 7,000-strong Iraqi militia to help police
the area.
Security has been a major problem. Human Rights Watch reports women
are often afraid to leave their homes as rapes and abductions are on
the rise. Workers for aid organizations are also being targeted and
killed, hampering humanitarian efforts. The World Food Program (WFP)
— which says that nearly Iraq’s entire population of 27 million
now needs food aid — has had difficulty transporting food because
supply trucks and storage sites are being attacked and looted. The Christian
Science Monitor reported on July 6 that grenades struck the WFP office
in Mosul while in Kirkuk a warehouse was attacked.
Throughout, basic necessities such as electricity and water have become
luxuries. London’s Daily Mirror describes the scene in Baghdad:
“Filth and sewage swamp footpaths, and many streets are still covered
in debris from ‘shock and awe’ bombing raids.
“Scores of homeless children lie by the roadside killing time and
themselves by sniffing glue. It is hard to find affordable food and
water. Electricity is available for just a few hours a day.”
As for the homeless children, The New York Times reported recently how
the US military accidentally mistook an orphanage for a jail and “freed”
dozens of children with no families. Many of the children have yet to
be located.
As for the US soldiers, many of them sound just as lost as they long
for their homes.
Just listen to 28-year-old Eric Holt, a Reserve Infantryman from New
York state. Stationed in Baghdad, he told the London Independent: “We
didn’t win this war, not at all. I don’t know what I’m
doing here.”
Source: The Indypendent, the
newspaper of the New York City Independent Media Center
US seeks war crimes exemption for Liberia
peacekeepers
By Thalif Deen
United Nations, July 31 (IPS/GIN)— A US proposal
before the UN Security Council to immediately deploy multinational troops
to Liberia includes a controversial provision exempting peacekeepers
from prosecution for war crimes in the International Criminal Court
(ICC).
The clause, included in a draft US resolution proposed in the United
Nations Security Council on July 2,was condemned by the Coalition for
the ICC, an umbrella group that worked to establish the court earlier
this year.
“Insisting that peacekeeping forces should have immunity from international
law and crimes as a condition to enforce international law is grotesque
and irresponsible,” said William R. Pace, convenor of the Coalition,
on July 31.
“What is essential is to authorize international forces to enforce
the ceasefire and to begin to save the lives of civilians and allow
life to be breathed into a dying nation,” he told reporters.
Pace said that many members of the group believe that the reign of violence
and the criminal victimization of civilian populations in Liberia deserved
international community protection thousands of lives ago.
Coalition members believe that government and rebel military forces
have committed war crimes and crimes against humanity in Liberia in
contravention of the Geneva Conventions, the Rome Statute of the ICC
and other international law, he added.
“It is therefore particularly disturbing that the proposed Security
Council resolution from the United States government authorizing a multi-national
force... includes a provision that would also violate these treaties
and international laws,” Pace said.
The proposed UN force, which is expected to be approved by the 15-member
Security Council next week, is not likely to move into Liberia until
the end of August or early September, primarily due to logistical reasons.
Since the deployment will be delayed, the Security Council is expected
to simultaneously approve the creation of a regional peacekeeping force
made up of troops from the Economic Community of West African States
(ECOWAS).
UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan told reporters on July 31 that the proposed
US clause on war crimes by peacekeepers has never been included in UN
peacekeeping resolutions.
“Besides, my own view is that the kind of crimes that we are talking
about have never occurred with UN peacekeepers -- they have never been
anywhere near there,” said Annan.
While Washington has been roundly condemned for not moving troops into
the West African nation sooner, non-government organizations (NGOs)
have criticized its draft resolution for various reasons.
Nicola Reindorp, Oxfam’s UN representative, said July 31 that the
current draft risks being “fatally flawed.”
“If Liberia’s civilians are to be effectively protected, the
draft resolution must be immediately amended.”
Reindorp said that simply providing peacekeepers with a mandate to use
force — while critically important — would mean little without
clear and specific parameters on how that force should be applied.
“Peacekeeping missions risk failure when commanders do not have
explicit Security Council directions about the steps they must take
to adequately protect civilians,” she said. “The people of
Liberia can’t afford a vague mandate that lacks any guideposts
for measuring success.”
Despite a public plea by Annan that the peacekeeping force in Liberia
be led by the United States, US President George W. Bush has indicated
he will provide only logistical and financial support for such a UN
mission.
“Any commitments we make would be limited in size and limited in
tenure,” Bush told reporters in mid-July.
The Washington-based Heritage Foundation, which has close political
and ideological ties to the White House, warned the Bush administration
last week to keep away from Liberia.
“US troops, who are trained and equipped to fight and win wars,
don’t make good peacekeepers,” wrote Heritage analyst Jack
Spencer.
He said that a Liberian mission “could drain hundreds of millions
of dollars from the defense budget, and jeopardize other important national
security requirements.”
Spencer described peacekeeping operations as “quagmires that cost
more than expected, especially when measured in American blood, and
usually achieve very little in the long run.”
The 1,500-strong ECOWAS contingent, led by Nigeria, is hampered by financial
and logistical problems even before it can get off the ground.
Washington, which is spending about $3.9 billion every month in its
military occupation of Iraq, has offered only $10 million to the force,
which will also include troops from Senegal, Mali and Ghana.
At a UN press conference on July 30, Annan told reporters that West
African leaders had made it clear that they would be prepared to send
in troops only if they received financial and logistical support.
The nations have two battalions ready to go probably by early next week.
“From what I gather,” said Annan, “discussions are going
on for them to get some assistance.”
Annan said the Nigerians have complained that the $10 million offered
by Washington is “not enough.”
In anticipation of the problem, he told the Security Council last week
that he should be authorized to advance money from UN peacekeeping funds
to support the ECOWAS force. But the Council has not responded.
Annan is also planning to move at least one battalion from the UN mission
in neighboring Sierra Leone, which has troop strength of over 13,000,
to Liberia.
The United States has also warned that its support will be conditioned
on the departure of Liberian leader Charles Taylor before peacekeeping
troops arrive in Monrovia.
Washington has two warships off the coast of Monrovia with a contingent
of marines ready to evacuate Americans and foreigners.
In a report released July 31, the UN Office for the Coordination of
Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) said stocks of food and fuel appear to be
diminishing, making the situation critical in the Liberian capital.
OCHA said there were also reports of looting of commercial food stocks.
“The whereabouts of 9,000 tons of food in a UN World Food Program
warehouse remained unknown, and fuel shortages severely hampered the
ability of humanitarian agencies to truck water supplies to those in
need.”
