Search blog.co.uk

Posts archive for: 16 November, 2007
  • Soomro sworn In, Benazir sought a "people's revolution"

    Soomro sworn In, Benazir sought a "people's revolution"
    Palash Biswas
    Contact: Palash C Biswas, C/O Mrs Arati Roy, Gosto Kanan, Sodepur, Kolkata- 700110, India. Phone: 91-033-25659551
    Email: alashbiswaskl@gmail.com">palashbiswaskl@gmail.com
    The United States had hoped army chief Musharraf and Bhutto would share power after the election but Bhutto, infuriated by the crackdown, has ruled that out.The United States has given Pakistan an estimated $10 billion of financial support since 2001, the bulk of it for the military.In declaring the emergency, Musharraf suspended the constitution, fired judges seen as hostile, rounded up thousands of opponents and rights activists and curbed the media.The United States is worried the turmoil will distract attention from the fight against militants supporting the Taliban in Afghanistan.The army has stepped up efforts to clear militants from one such area, the Swat Valley in North West Frontier Province, where it says it has killed dozens of rebels in recent days.
    "I can't see how I can team up with somebody who raises hopes and dashes them, who makes commitments and moves the goal posts. He talked to me about a roadmap to democracy and imposed martial law," she said.She said opposition parties would meet on November 21 to discuss whether to boycott the election.
    Asma Jahangir, head of Pakistan's independent human rights commission and a fierce critic of Musharraf's, was seen visiting Bhutto's Lahore residence on Friday, having been detained herself as soon as the emergency was imposed.In the capital, Musharraf swore in a caretaker prime minister who will be responsible for overseeing parliamentary elections due by January 9, after the National Assembly completed its five-year term on Thursday.The outgoing prime minister, Shaukat Aziz, was widely credited with transforming Pakistan from a country on the brink of bankruptcy to one of the fastest growing economies in the world over the past eight years. There are considerable doubts about his position in the next government.The uncertainties are weighing on financial markets. Stocks closed only marginally down on Friday, but the main index was near a two-month low, and has lost 5.5 percent since the emergency was imposed. It is still up 31 percent this year.

    Pakistan freed opposition leader Benazir Bhutto from house arrest shortly before a top U.S. diplomat began a visit on Friday aimed at persuading President Pervez Musharraf to end emergency rule.U.S. Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte was due to meet General Musharraf on Saturday, and was expected to push him to roll back the emergency invoked two weeks ago, release thousands of detainees and hold elections.Most opposition leaders were in custody, along with lawyers, opposition and rights activists.Bhutto, who had been under house arrest in Lahore since Tuesday to stop her leading a rally against Musharraf, went on the offensive as soon as she was released.
    Former Pakistan Premier Benazir Bhutto, released from house arrest, on Friday sought a "people's revolution" to overthrow President Pervez Musharraf's eight- year reign as she rejected the caretaker government sworn-in by him to steer the country towards the general election.
    "This caretaker government is an extension of the (ruling) PML-Q and is not acceptable," Bhutto, who was freed under apparent US pressure, told reporters here. Her comments came after Musharraf's handpicked leader Mohammedmian Soomro was sworn-in as the caretaker Prime Minister by the General in the run-up to the general election due in early January. Parliament was dissolved at midnight on Thursday night after completing its five-year term. Calling for a "people's revolution" to oust the Musharraf regime, Bhutto, the leader of opposition Pakistan People's Party (PPP), pledged to continue with her party's protest march against emergency. After Bhutto was served with a seven-day detention order on Tuesday - which was however cut short, her party launched a "long march" from Lahore to the capital Islamabad to protest against the emergency rule. The government said that the rally was being taken out in violation of the emergency regulations.
    Authorities prevented Bhutto, the two-time former Prime Minister who returned to Pakistan on October 18 after eight years in self-imposed exile, from leading anti-emergency protests by placing her under house arrest.
    opposition leaders, including exiled former Premier Nawaz Sharif, in a bid to form a national unity government.
    "I believe it is hard to build a coalition but I will take on the task.... I talked to Nawaz Sharif and told him that I am discussing with all leaders the formation of an interim government."
    About the general elections, Bhutto said her party was still inclined to boycott the vote, which the opposition believed would not be held in a free and fair manner.
    Bhutto also renewed her call for Musharraf to quit and said that the General's sidelining of moderate parties had led to the rise of extremism in the country.
    "Do we want to deny this nation its true legitimate leadership and make way ... for extremist forces?" she asked.
    "The West's interests lie in a democratic Pakistan," she said ahead of US Undersecretary of State John Negroponte's visit to Pakistan for talks with Musharraf.
    Bhutto had earlier said that she was not in favour of fresh talks with Musharraf and urged the Bush Administration to facilitate an "exit strategy" for the General, fearing that the country would be taken over by al-Qaeda and Taliban if the General remained in power. PTI KIM AKJ KIM 11161810 DEL
    Keyword BHUTTO-MUSHARRAF 2 LAST Reference Filename ptis4503 Source ID ptis Seq. No. 4503 Take No. Source PTIS Cat. Code PTIS-FGN Priority Words Time 18:06 Date 16 Nov '07w4ptis1
    Letter of 12 Human Rights Groups to U.S. Secretary of State
    Condoleezza Rice:

    SUSPEND the U.S. MILITARY AID to the MUSHARRAF ARMY TYRANNY

    By SYED ADEEB

    (AdeebPress. com) - America's 12 human rights organizations have
    strongly urged U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in their
    recent joint letter to suspend all U.S. security assistance and
    military aid to Pakistan's repressive government of outlaws, because
    in November 2007, General Pervez Musharraf, a corrupt terrorist
    tyrant of the Pakistan Army, once again committed many barbarous
    crimes against millions of Pakistani citizens, including the capital
    crime of high treason which is punishable with death or imprisonment
    for life under Article 6 of the Constitution and the High Treason
    (Punishment) Act. Devil Musharraf illegally subverted and abrogated
    the Constitution, and unlawfully imposed illegal military Martial Law
    of rogue Army generals, unlawful Emergency Rule, anti-Constitution
    PCO, evil PCO judges/justices, barbaric state terrorism and
    unconstitutional 'laws' on over 165 million enslaved citizens of
    Pakistan. ...
    ________________________________________________________________________
    ________________________________________________________________________
    THE REAL MUSHARRAF by Asma Jahangir Washington Post, November 9, 2007; Page A21 LAHORE, Pakistan -- It was close to midnight last Saturday when Gen. Pervez Musharraf finally appeared on state-run television. That's when police vans surrounded my house. I was warned not to leave, and hours later I learned I would be detained for 90 days. At least I have the luxury of staying at home, though I cannot see anyone. But I can only watch, helpless, as this horror unfolds. Police watch as lawyers demonstrate against President Pervez Musharraf in Islamabad yesterday. (By Wally Santana -- Asssociated Press) The Musharraf government has declared martial law to settle scores with lawyers and judges. Hundreds of innocent Pakistanis have been rounded up. Human rights activists, including women and senior citizens, have been beaten by police. Judges have been arrested and lawyers battered in their offices and the streets. These citizens
    are our true assets: young, progressive and full of spirit. Many of them were trained to uphold the rule of law. They are being brutalized for seeking justice. Musharraf justified his draconian measures by saying he needed to be able to use all his might to fight the terrorists infecting our country. Yet the day after he declared an emergency, the Dawn newspaper reported that scores of terrorists were released by the government. While tyranny was being unleashed on peaceful citizens, the notorious militant Fazalullah (also known as Maulana Radio) had seized the beautiful town of Madyan, according to the Daily Times, and hoisted his "Islamic" flag over buildings while the security forces surrendered. Musharraf has implied that militancy increased in Pakistan because of judicial interference in governance. But until this past March, the judiciary had yielded to all executive demands. Five years ago, the general dismissed the
    then-chief justice and his colleagues, charging that they were obstructing his process of democratization. What is democratic about a judiciary that's not independent? In recent days police have raided the home of the president of the Supreme Court Bar Association -- his wife has gone into hiding -- and the law chambers of two former presidents of the bar. Their clerks have been harassed. Military intelligence officers are interrogating leading attorneys. Meanwhile, unknown lawyers are being elevated to the bench. Since Saturday, police officers have barged into my house twice after receiving (false) warnings that I had escaped. On seeing me, they sheepishly admitted they were misled. ad_icon I have tried to make them understand the difference between people such as myself and terrorists. "If I did run away, how far would I go?" I asked them. "In any event, I am not likely to blow myself up around the corner." One police
    officer said that he agreed but that his job was at greater risk if I got away than if a terrorist escaped the law. Terrorists, he pointed out, outnumber rights activists in our country. The officer argued that lawyers and judges hamper law enforcement. "How can we bring law and order if we cannot torture criminals? We must be given a free hand to deal with terrorists, and the chief justice has no business to ask us to produce them in courts. We are itching to lay our hands on all those judges who humiliated us for carrying out our duties," he told me. When I asked how he knew who the terrorists were, he insisted that the intelligence was infallible. Yet he didn't know I hadn't escaped from my house. The international community is alarmed at Musharraf's actions, but Pakistanis expected this. The Bush administration had built up the general as moderate and benign, but the true face of this regime has been exposed. A balanced
    picture of Pakistan had begun to emerge in recent weeks. Thousands turned out to greet Benazir Bhutto upon her return last month; Pakistanis were progressive-minded enough to elect a female political leader years ago. Hundreds of progressive-minded lawyers have rallied for democratic values. I welcome Bhutto's call for the Pakistan People's Party to join the demonstrations. But Pakistan is threatened by Islamist militants, and our civil society suffers the worst of this creeping Talibanization. Woefully, the Musharraf regime is neither inclined to reverse this trend nor capable of doing so. No one has exact solutions, but there is virtual unanimity that Pakistan's political leadership must take charge and that the military must cooperate with an elected civilian government. Musharraf's promises to hold elections by Feb. 15 or to resign from the army are a red herring. He has pledged before to give up his uniform and failed to
    follow through. Any election held under these circumstances will not be free and will only put the crisis on hold. Furthermore, militarization will kill the spirit of the progressive forces while boosting the terrorists' morale. A transition to democracy is crucial, but unless freedom of the press and the judiciary's independence are restored, any changes will remain toothless. It will be difficult to put Pakistan on the path to democracy, but we must begin now, before it is too late. Asma Jahangir, a Pakistani lawyer under house arrest in Lahore, chairs the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan. She is a member of the international board of the Open Society Institute. o o o (i) RULE OF FORCE VS. RULE OF LAW IN PAKISTAN by Zia Mian and A.H. Nayyar | November 8, 2007 Foreign Policy In Focus www.fpif.org In a desperate bid to stay in power, General Pervez Musharraf has staged a coup against the rule of law in Pakistan.
    His declaration of martial law, suspension of the constitution and basic rights was aimed at overthrowing Pakistan's Supreme Court, which was expected to rule next week that Musharraf could not continue as both president and chief of the army. Faced with choice of being president and being bound by the constitution or chief of the army and ruling by diktat, Musharraf chose khaki and force. His coup announcement is titled "Proclamation of Emergency declared by Chief of the Army Staff General Pervez Musharraf" and ends "I hereby order and proclaim that the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan shall remain in abeyance." Musharraf's proclamation is a litany of complaints about the courts. The Supreme Court was the only branch of government Musharraf and the army did not control. In the eight years since his October 1999 seizure of power, Musharraf has rigged parliamentary elections to give himself a majority, hand-picked
    his prime minister, and replaced many senior generals. His control, and through him that of the army leadership, over government and the state was nearly complete. But none of this was enough to give him either the unchecked power or the legitimacy that he wanted. Supreme Court Musharraf complained in particular that Pakistan's courts, and especially the Supreme Court, were subverting the administration. His proclamation claims that the Court's "constant interference in executive functions, including but not limited to the control of terrorist activity, economic policy, price controls, downsizing of corporations and urban planning, has weakened the writ of the government." It laments "the humiliating treatment meted to government officials by some members of the judiciary on a routine basis during court proceedings." A particular concern was the Supreme Court taking up the cases of the hundreds of people picked up in recent
    years by law enforcement agencies without warrants and held in custody, without charge or trial. The demands for due process and habeas corpus proved fruitless as officials simply lied to the courts about the people they were holding. The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan was finally able to convince the Supreme Court to act. The Court began to summon senior officials and demanded the government produce the detained people in court. It threatened senior law enforcement officials with contempt of court and jail if they did not comply and was considering calling the chiefs of the armed forces to answer to the court. The system cracked and the disappeared started appearing. Iftikhar Chaudhry, the chief justice of Pakistan's Supreme Court, emerged as a key figure in confronting the arbitrary exercise of power by the government. General Musharraf responded earlier this year by firing him, triggering a national movement led by
    lawyers for the justice's restoration. It attracted a lot of public support, reflecting the widespread disenchantment with the eight years of Musharraf's rule. Across the country, large crowds lined the roads and assembled to see and hear the chief justice. The other judges of the Supreme Court declared that the chief justice must be reinstated and Musharraf had to back down. The Court has returned to the cases of illegal detention. It also sentenced seven senior officials to suspended jail terms for manhandling the chief justice during the campaign for his reinstatement. Islamic Militancy General Musharraf has also claimed that the courts are hampering his efforts to stem the Islamic militancy in the tribal areas, the creeping talibanization of Pakistan's northwestern province, and the suicide bombing that have erupted across major cities over the past few years. But the Courts have only insisted on the rule of law. Musharraf's
    failure to effectively counter the militancy springs from more other causes. The most important problem has been the military regime itself and its policies towards the Islamic political parties and militants. In need of some kind of political cover after seizing power in 1999, Musharraf and his generals cobbled together an alliance of opportunistic politicians, defectors from other parties and the Islamist political parties. This included the most radical and violent militant groups, which the army, led by Musharraf, had organized and used in the war against India in the Kargil region of Kashmir in the spring of 1999. This military-mullah alliance in Pakistan stretches back over 30 years, and was central in the U.S.-backed jihad against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan of the 1980s and the Kashmir insurgency of the 1990s. When not offering direct support, the Musharraf regime has preferred neglect and appeasement of Islamist
    political parties and militants. Islamic laws are allowed to stay on the books. Militant groups are grudgingly banned in public and privately allowed to operate. Whether is in the tribal areas of Waziristan or the militant take-over of the Red Mosque in the heart of Islamabad, Musharraf and his generals preferred to ignore it, and then make concessions to the militants in the vain hope that the problem would go away. Second Coup The government has responded to the militancy only when domestic and international demands do something became overwhelming. But instead of a legal, politically measured, and thought-out response that is part of a long-term policy to counter the militancy, Musharraf and his generals have responded time and again with a spasm. They unleash a dramatic show of force including artillery, helicopter gun ships and air strikes, which inevitably result in large numbers of civilian deaths and injuries, inflame
    public opinion, and stoke the militancy. At the heart of Musharraf's second coup, and what has determined its timing and character, is not an activist court, illegal detentions or the militancy. The Court had begun to hear challenges to Musharraf's role as both chief of army Staff and president of the republic. Pakistan's constitution explicitly forbids holding both positions. A showdown was imminent. It has been claimed that a Supreme Court judge told the government that the court was set to rule against Musharraf. Musharraf ended this threat by removing the chief justice and most of the rest of the Supreme Court. Before they were bundled out of the Supreme Court building, seven of the justices, including the chief justice, issued an order declaring Musharraf's proclamation of emergency to be unconstitutional and called on government officials and the armed forces to refuse to obey it. In a message to the country's lawyers, the
    chief justice called for opposition. The target of the coup is also obvious from the list of those who have been the first to be detained in the police raids: leaders of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, prominent lawyers, and pro-democracy activists. The goal is clearly to prevent a movement for democracy and rule of law that could confront General Musharraf and the larger structure of army rule in Pakistan. Sharif and Bhutto Protests have started across the country, led by lawyers and civil society groups. They have been met with tear gas and brute force. Thousands are reported to have been arrested. It is likely to be a determined campaign, building on the experience of the mobilization earlier this year. But Pakistan's civil society, while heroic, is fragile. It is poorly equipped for a long and difficult struggle against a military regime. Central to any prospect of success will be Pakistan's major political parties,
    Benazir Bhutto's Pakistan Peoples Party and Nawaz Sharif's Pakistan Muslim League. But both the Peoples Party and the Muslim League are led from the top-down. They are populist vehicles for their leaders, both of whom are former prime ministers, rather than well-rooted democratic political parties with resilient local structures. Further, the leaders of both parties are deeply compromised. With U.S. and British support, Bhutto recently made a deal with General Musharraf to drop all corruption charges against her and enable her return from exile to join a Musharraf-led government. She has summoned her party activists to the barricades, but she may be willing to negotiate terms with the General on power sharing. Sharif was overthrown by Musharraf in his 1999 coup and agreed to go into exile in Saudi Arabia. His party will willingly join the fray but many in his party abandoned ship to join the rag-tag group of politicians assembled
    by General Musharraf as a fig leaf for his rule. Sharif also tried to return from exile but was bundled into a plane and sent back, despite a clear Supreme Court ruling that Sharif had the right to return to Pakistan. There were no major protests. With the government at odds with the people, the police being tasked to crush pro-democracy activists, and chaos in the streets, the Islamic militants may try and take advantage of the unrest. They have already spread their influence far beyond the tribal and border areas and now control three major towns in the Swat valley, a few hours drive from Islamabad. Government forces simply surrendered and handed over their weapons. Pakistani flags have been replaced by jihadi banners on public buildings. Across the country, there have been attacks on soldiers and police. The bombing that killed over 100 people in a Karachi rally welcoming Bhutto may be a sign of things to come. Where's
    Washington? Washington was alerted to the coup in advance. Admiral William Fallon, the head of U.S. forces in the Middle East met General Musharraf in Islamabad the day before the coup and is reported to have warned Musharraf about declaring an emergency. According to The New York Times, administration officials said "General Musharraf had been offering private assurances that any emergency declaration would be short-lived." The Bush administration's response has been predictable thus far. General Musharraf's aides told the Times that in the crucial first few days after the coup there had been no phone calls from President George W. Bush or other leading U.S. officials demanding an immediate end to the martial law. The newspaper quotes Pakistan's minister of state for information as saying the United States "would rather have a stable Pakistan - albeit with some restrictive norms - than have more democracy." In short, Islamabad
    expected, rightly it turns out, that Washington would wring its hands, offer platitudes about restoring democracy, perhaps a token slap on the wrist, and keep on supporting General Musharraf. When President Bush did call, he told General Musharraf that "you ought to have elections soon." Washington has invested heavily in General Musharraf and will not want to write this off. Since September 11, 2001, the United States has given enormous political and diplomatic support and over $10 billion to Pakistan to buy General Musharraf's support for its "war on terror." It is a doomed policy. The United States has supported all of Pakistan military dictators, politically and with guns and money, starting as long ago as 1958. In the 50 years since then, it has failed to learn that supporting Pakistan's generals and the army they command does little for Pakistan's people. Under American tutelage, the army has grown in size and developed a
    fierce appetite for high-tech expensive weapons, which now include nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles, and a habit of seizing power while people continue to struggle with grinding poverty and failing institutions. It is no wonder that the United States is deeply unpopular in Pakistan. A 2007 poll found that only 15% of Pakistanis had a favorable attitude towards the United States. This hostility toward the United States will only worsen as Pakistanis see the United States set aside democracy and the rule of law in favor of a general and his army. To get out of this crisis, the international community must demand that General Musharraf immediately end his emergency, restore the constitution and Supreme Court, and fulfill his commitment to step down as chief of army staff. Having lost what little trust was vested in him by the country, Musharraf should also stand down as president. An interim administration could hold elections
    and let Pakistanis choose lawful leaders. No one expects elections and a shift to civilian rule to be a panacea. And though Pakistanis have had bitter experiences with democracy, they still prefer it to the army. Elections can mark the start of the long and difficult task of building democratic institutions and creating a system of accountability and trust between government and people, state and society. This can bring Pakistanis some hope for the future, and foster confidence that democracy and the rule of law can deliver the justice that has so long been denied to them. Zia Mian, a Foreign Policy In Focus (www.fpif.org) columnist, directs the Project on Peace and Security in South Asia at Princeton University's Program on Science and Global Security. A.H. Nayyar is the Executive Director of Developments in Literacy, a non-profit group supporting education for the poor in Pakistan. o o o IPS, November 5, 2007 PAKISTAN:
    HARD ON CIVIL SOCIETY, SOFT ON EXTREMISTS by Beena Sarwar Marchers rally in front of the Pakistani High Commission in west London to protest the state of emergency. KARACHI, Nov 5 (IPS) - Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf appears to be following a strategy of being hard on lawyers and the judiciary, and soft on Islamist extremists -- the two groups he blamed for imposing emergency rule in the country on Saturday. On Monday, police beat up lawyers and arrested scores of them gathered outside the High Court of Karachi. Another 200 lawyers were arrested at the High Court in the eastern city of Lahore. In both cities, police entered the High Court buildings to arrest lawyers. The lawyers in Lahore were also at the receiving end of a heavy baton charge. In Islamabad, the chief justice of the Supreme Court, Iftikhar Chaudhry, as well as several senior judges who were detained on Saturday for refusing to sign the Provisional
    Constitution Order (PCO) a step normally taken prior to imposing martial law, were being held at their homes. Those arrested include the president of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) Aitzaz Ahsan. He and two former SCBA presidents, Munir A. Malik and Tariq Mahmood, have been ordered imprisoned for one month each under the preventive detention laws. The president of the Lahore High Court bar association, Ahsan Bhoon, and former bar leader Ali Ahmed Kurd are also under arrest. Other presidents of various bar associations and activists like the secretary-general of the Labour Party Pakistan, Farooq Tariq, are in hiding. Civil rights activists question Musharraf's claim that he imposed a state of emergency because of the crisis caused by militancy and a hostile judiciary. The text of the Provisional Constitution Order (PCO) declaring the emergency focuses more on "judicial activism" that Musharraf said had negatively
    impacted the "morale" of the administration and the law enforcement agencies. In a speech late Saturday night, Musharraf announced that the national and provincial assemblies would continue to function, and the provincial governors and chief ministers would continue to hold office. The only change appears to be with the judiciary. "If the Constitution is in abeyance, the parliament should also be suspended," former Supreme Court judge Wajihuddin Ahmad, the lawyers' candidate who stood against Musharraf in the recent presidential elections, told IPS. The government is swearing in new judges to fill the vacuum left by the dismissed judges. However, an unprecedented number of judges of the Supreme Court and four High Courts have not taken oath under the PCO. "There will be a crisis," said Ahmad, talking to IPS at his Karachi residence on Sunday. "Where will they get judges to fill all these positions?" The former judge, who was
    among the six judges to refuse to take oath under the PCO imposed by Musharraf, after he initially took over power in 1999, predicted that there will be "a lot of defiance particularly among the younger lawyers. They are unstoppable." The Musharraf government, however, is doing its best to stop them. About 200 lawyers are believed to have been arrested in Lahore on Monday, and another hundred or so in Karachi. Leading lawyer, U.N. special rapporteur, and chairperson of the independent Human Rights Commission of Pakistan Asma Jahangir, under house arrest at her Lahore residence since Saturday, termed it ironic that the president, who she said "has lost his marbles", had to clamp down on the press and the judiciary to curb terrorism. "Those he has arrested are progressive, secular-minded people while the terrorists are offered negotiations and ceasefires," she added. The government on Sunday freed 25 militants in exchange for the
    release of 213 army personnel held hostage by Taliban in South Waziristan on Pakistan's northwest border for more than two months. Some 70 activists, arrested in a police raid on HRCP's Lahore office on Sunday where a meeting was being held to discuss the emergency, were held in a police lockup as their families, who were not allowed to meet them, held vigil outside. The arrests were made under the MPO 1960 (maintenance of public order act) although the meeting was being held indoors at a private venue and posed no threat to public order. Police had no written orders and claimed the right to detain those arrested for 30 days without charge and without bail. At 3.30 am, they were sent to nearby houses that had been declared as sub-jails before being transported to the Kot Lakhpat jail on Monday morning. Prominent journalist and director of the HRCP, I.A. Rehman, and the body's secretary general, Iqbal Haider, were also
    transported to the prison. Later on Monday, some of those arrested were again transferred to the sub-jails. In a statement released from her residence on Sunday, Jahangir asked friends of Pakistan "to urge the U.S. administration to stop all support for the instable dictator, as his lust for power is bringing the country close to a worse form of civil strife. It is now time for the international community to insist on preventive measures, otherwise cleaning up the mess may take decades. There are already several hundred disappeared persons and the space for civil society has hopelessly shrunk." ''Musharraf,'' Jahangir said, "must be taken out of the equation and a government of national reconciliation put in place, backed by the military. Short of this there are no realistic solutions, although there are no guarantees that this may work." The international community, including the United States, has condemned the state of
    emergency. Washington has said it will review financial aid to Pakistan and asked Pakistan to release all those detained after the promulgation of emergency. The Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists on Monday issued a strongly worded statement against what it called the "worst kind of repression against media since 1978". According to the journalist union, some 16 journalists have been detained and police have also raided printing presses and bureau offices. In addition, police threatened scores of journalists and cameramen during coverage. The electronic media news blackout within the country has continued for the third day, although newspapers are publishing normally. Cable operators were allowed to broadcast only music, movies, sports, and cartoon programmes -- "Anything other than news," said PFUJ secretary general Mazhar Abbas. Messages of solidarity for the democratic struggle and against the emergency are pouring in to
    various rights organisations from around the world. Media organisations received calls from cities all around Pakistan, including Karachi, where the stock market has fallen 4.7 percent due to the prevailing political uncertainty. The uncertainty has been fuelled by strong rumours about a "counter-coup". President Musharraf termed the rumours "a joke

  • The Dismantling of Yugoslavia

    The Dismantling of Yugoslavia
    Palash Biswas
    Contact: Palash C Biswas, C/O Mrs Arati Roy, Gosto Kanan, Sodepur, Kolkata- 700110, India. Phone: 91-033-25659551
    Email: alashbiswaskl@gmail.com">palashbiswaskl@gmail.com
    The Dismantling of Yugoslavia: A Study in Inhumanitarian
    Intervention (and a Western Liberal-Left Intellectual and Moral
    Collapse)
    Edward S. Herman and David Peterson
    [From: Monthly Review, October 2007}
    http://monthlyrevie w.org/1007herman -peterson1. htm
    Edward S. Herman is professor emeritus of finance at the Wharton
    School, University of Pennsylvania, and has written extensively on
    economics, political economy, and the media. Among his books are
    Corporate Control, Corporate Power (Cambridge University Press,
    1981), The Real Terror Network (South End Press, 1982), and, with
    Noam Chomsky, The Political Economy of Human Rights (South End
    Press, 1979), and Manufacturing Consent (Pantheon, 2002).
    David Peterson is an independent journalist and researcher based in
    Chicago.
    Part I :
    The breakup of Yugoslavia provided the fodder for what may have been
    the most misrepresented series of major events over the past twenty
    years. The journalistic and historical narratives that were imposed
    upon these wars have systematically distorted their nature, and were
    deeply prejudicial, downplaying the external factors that drove
    Yugoslavia's breakup while selectively exaggerating and
    misrepresenting the internal factors. Perhaps no civil wars—and
    Yugoslavia suffered multiple civil wars across several theaters, at
    least two of which remain unresolved—have ever been harvested as
    cynically by foreign powers to establish legal precedents and new
    categories of international duties and norms. Nor have any other
    civil wars been turned into such a proving ground for the related
    notions of "humanitarian intervention" and the "right [or
    responsibility] to protect." Yugoslavia's conflicts were not so much
    mediated by foreign powers as they were inflamed and exploited by
    them to advance policy goals. The result was a tsunami of lies and
    misrepresentations in whose wake the world is still reeling.
    From 1991 on, Yugoslavia and its successor states were exploited for
    ends as crass and as classically realpolitik as: (1) preserving the
    NATO military alliance despite the disintegration of the Soviet bloc—
    NATO's putative reason for existence; (2) overthrowing the UN
    Charter's historic commitments to non-interference and respect for
    the sovereign equality, territorial integrity, and political
    independence of all states in favor of the right of those more
    enlightened to interfere in the affairs of "failing" states, and
    even to wage wars against "rogue" states; (3) humiliating the
    European Union (EU) (formerly the European Community [EC]) over its
    inability to act decisively as a threat-making and militarily
    punitive force in its own backyard; (4) and of course dismantling
    the last economic and social holdout on the European continent yet
    to be integrated into the "Washington consensus." The pursuit of
    these goals required that certain agents within Yugoslavia be cast
    in the role of the victims, and others as villains—the latter not
    just belligerents engaged in a civil war, but evil and murderous
    perpetrators of mass crimes which, in turn, would legitimate
    military intervention. At its extreme, in the work of the
    International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY),
    Yugoslavia has been cast as one gigantic crime scene, with the wars
    in their totality to be explained as a "Joint Criminal Enterprise,"
    the alleged purpose of which was the expulsion of non-Serbs from
    territories the Serbs wanted all to themselves—an utterly risible
    caricature, as we show below, but taken seriously in Western
    commentary, much as Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction" were to be
    taken early in the next decade.
    While the destruction of Yugoslavia had both internal and external
    causes, it is easy to overlook the external causes, despite their
    great importance, because Western political interests and ideology
    have masked them by focusing entirely on the alleged resurgence of
    Serb nationalism and drive for a "Greater Serbia" as the root of the
    collapse. In a widely read book that accompanied their BBC
    documentary, Laura Silber and Allan Little wrote that "under
    Milosevic's stewardship" the Serbs were "the key secessionists, " as
    Milosevic sought the "creation of a new enlarged Serbian state,
    encompassing as much territory of Yugoslavia as possible,"
    his "politics of ethnic intolerance provok[ing] the other nations of
    Yugoslavia, convincing them that it was impossible to stay in the
    Yugoslav federation and propelling them down the road to
    independence. " In another widely read book, Misha Glenny wrote
    that "without question, it was Milosevic who had willfully allowed
    the genie [of violent, intolerant nationalism] out of the bottle,
    knowing that the consequences might be dramatic and even bloody."
    Noel Malcolm found that by the late 1980s, "Two processes seemed
    fused into one: the gathering of power into Milosevic's hands, and
    the gathering of the Serbs into a single political unit which could
    either dominate Yugoslavia or break it apart." For Roy Gutman, the
    war in Bosnia-Herzegovina "was the third in a series of wars
    launched by Serbia....Serbia had harnessed the powerful military
    machine of the Yugoslav state to achieve the dream of its extreme
    nationalists: Greater Serbia." For David Rieff, "even if [Croatia's
    President Franjo] Tudjman had been an angel, Slobodan Milosevic
    would still have launched his war for Greater Serbia."1
    In a commentary in 2000, Tim Judah wrote that Milosevic was
    responsible for wars in "Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Kosovo: four
    wars since 1991 and [that] the result of these terrible conflicts,
    which began with the slogan `All Serbs in One State,' is the
    cruelest irony." Sometime journalist, sometime spokesperson for the
    ICTY at The Hague, Florence Hartmann, wrote that "Long before the
    war began, Slobodan Milosevic in Serbia and, following his example,
    Franjo Tudjman in Croatia, had turned their backs on the Yugoslav
    ideal of an ethnically mixed federal State and set about carving out
    their own ethnically homogeneous States. With Milosevic's failure,
    in 1991, to take control of all of Yugoslavia, the die was cast for
    war." After Milosevic's death in 2006, the New York Times's Marlise
    Simons wrote about the "incendiary nationalism" of the man who "rose
    and then clung to power by resurrecting old nationalist grudges and
    inciting dreams of a Greater Serbia...the prime engineer of wars
    that pitted his fellow Serbs against the Slovenes, the Croats, the
    Bosnians, the Albanians of Kosovo and ultimately the combined forces
    of the entire NATO alliance." And at the more frenzied end of the
    media spectrum, Mark Danner traced the Balkan war dynamic to the
    Serbs' "unquenchable blood lust," while Ed Vulliamy asserted
    that "Once Milosevic had back-stabbed his way to power and had
    switched from communism to fascism, he and Mirjana set out to
    establish their dream of an ethnically pure Greater Serbia cleansed
    of Croats and `mongrel races' such as Bosnia's Muslims and Kosovo's
    Albanians."2
    This version of history—or ideology under the guise of history—fails
    at multiple levels. For one, it ignores the economic and financial
    turbulence within which Yugoslavia's highly indebted, unevenly
    developed republics and autonomous regions found themselves in the
    years following Tito's death in 1980, the aptly named "great
    reversal" during which the "standard of living whose previous growth
    had muted most regional grievances and legitimized Communist rule
    declined by fully one-quarter. "3 It also ignores the geopolitical
    context marked by the decline and eventual dissolution of the Soviet
    bloc, just as it ignores the German, Austrian, Vatican, EU, and
    eventual U.S. interest in the dismantlement of the socialist as well
    as federal dimensions of a unitary Yugoslav state, and the actions
    that brought about that result. Furthermore, it underrates the
    importance of Albanian (Kosovo), Slovene, Croat, Macedonian, Bosnian
    Muslim, Montenegrin, and even Hungarian (Vojvodina) nationalisms,
    and the competing interests of each of these groups as they sought
    sovereignty within, and later independence from, Yugoslavia. Perhaps
    most critical of all, it overrates the Serbs' and Milosevic's
    nationalism, gives these an unwarranted causal force, and transforms
    their expressed interest in preserving the Socialist Federal
    Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY) and/or allowing Serbs to remain within
    a single unified successor state into wars of aggression whose goal
    was "Greater Serbia."
    The standard narrative also fails egregiously in claiming the
    Western interventions humanitarian in purpose and result. In that
    narrative those interventions came late but did their work well. We
    will show on the contrary that they came early, encouraged divisions
    and ethnic wars, and in the end had extremely damaging effects on
    the freedom, independence, and welfare of the inhabitants, although
    they served well the ends of Croatian, Bosnian Muslim, and Kosovo
    Albanian nationalists, as well as those of the United States and
    NATO. Furthermore, NATO's 1999 bombing war against Yugoslavia, in
    violation of the UN Charter, built upon precedents set by NATO's
    late summer 1995 bombing attacks on the Bosnian Serbs. More
    important, it provided additional precedents which advanced the same
    law-of-the-jungle lineage under the cover of "human rights." It thus
    served as a precursor and a model for the subsequent U.S. regime's
    attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq, and the lies that enabled them.
    Another notable feature of the dismantling of Yugoslavia was the
    very widespread support for the Western interventions expressed by
    liberals and leftists. These intellectuals and journalists swallowed
    and helped propagate the standard narrative with remarkable
    gullibility, and their work made a major contribution to engineering
    consent to the ethnic cleansing wars, the NATO bombing attacks, the
    neocolonial occupations of Bosnia and Kosovo, and the wars that
    followed against Afghanistan and Iraq.
    1. Geopolitics and Nationalism
    The Yugoslav (or "South Slav") solution to this region of
    Southeastern Europe's "national question" had always been
    tenuous. "Failure...to maintain the [united, federal] state
    throughout the...country' s existence [was] an ever present
    possibility, " Lenard Cohen and Paul Warwick write. Croatia, Bosnia-
    Herzegovina, and Kosovo—the three most bloodily contested areas in
    the 1990s—had all been "areas of high ethnic fragmentation"
    and "persistent hotbeds of political criminality. " Throughout
    Yugoslavia's brief history, ethnic unity "was more an artifact of
    party pronouncements, induced personnel rotation, and institutional
    reorganization, than an outcome of genuine political incorporation
    or enhanced cohesion among the different segments of the population"4
    This fragile state of affairs had been held together by the rule of
    Tito, along with Western support for the independent Yugoslavia in
    an otherwise Soviet-dominated area. Tito's death in 1980 loosened
    the authoritarian cement. The collapse of the Soviet bloc a decade
    later deprived Yugoslavia of Western support for the unified state.
    As the last U.S. ambassador to Yugoslavia purportedly instructed
    Belgrade upon his arrival in April 1989: "Yugoslavia no longer
    enjoyed the geopolitical importance that the United States had given
    it during the Cold War."5
    Yugoslavia's economy was deeply troubled by the 1980s. Unemployment
    was dangerously high and persistent. Regional inequalities remained
    the rule. On a per-capita basis, Slovenia's income by the late 1980s
    was at least twice the average for Yugoslavia as a whole, Croatia's
    more than one-fourth greater, and Serbia proper's roughly equal to
    the average. But Montenegro's was only 74 percent of Yugoslavia's
    average, Bosnia-Herzegovina' s 68 percent, Macedonia's 63 percent,
    and Kosovo's 27 percent.6 What is more, Yugoslavia borrowed abroad
    heavily in the 1970s, and it accumulated a large external debt that
    stood at $19.7 billion in 1989.7 With hyperinflation spiking upward
    to more than 1,000 percent this same year,8 Yugoslavia was pressured
    by the IMF to undertake a classic "shock therapy" program that
    threatened the solidarity of its population.
    Economic decline was accompanied by a diminished confidence in the
    federal system and the rise of republican challenges to it. But as
    Susan Woodward notes, taking the lead "were not the unemployed but
    the employed who feared unemployment" and property owners who
    feared "that they would lose value and status." It was in the two
    wealthiest republics of the northwest, Slovenia and Croatia, but
    Slovenia in particular, that the drive toward autonomy took the most
    pronounced anti-federal form.9 Although less than 30 percent of
    Yugoslavia's population lived in Slovenia and Croatia, they
    accounted for half of federal tax revenues—before they stopped
    paying it. They openly resented these obligations. Longing for
    closer ties with Western Europe, they revolted.10
    In what Robert Hayden calls the "new doctrine of republican
    supremacy," by midsummer 1989 Slovenia had rejected the federation.
    Amendments were proposed for Slovenia's constitution that clashed
    with its federal counterpart. Among these was a notorious amendment
    that defined "Slovenia" as the "state of the sovereign Slovenian
    nation"—a change that the Borba newspaper (Belgrade) editorialized
    would "divide Yugoslavia." In February 1990, the Constitutional
    Court (a federal body) ruled against Slovenia's assertion that its
    laws took precedence over federal ones. This included the "question
    of secession," which the court ruled "could only be decided jointly
    with the agreement of all the republics." The court also ruled "that
    the Presidency of Yugoslavia would have both the right and the
    obligation to declare a state of emergency in Slovenia if some
    general danger threatened the existence or constitutional order of
    that republic, on the grounds that such a condition would also
    threaten the whole of the country." Slovenia "rejected the court's
    jurisdiction, " Hayden adds.
    In April 1990, both Slovenia and Croatia held the first multiparty
    elections in Yugoslavia since the late 1930s. A coalition of six
    parties called DEMOS that campaigned on an independence platform
    received 55 percent of the Slovene vote. In Croatia, Franjo
    Tudjman's blatantly nationalistic and separatist Croatian Democratic
    Union received 70 percent. News accounts conveyed the resurgence of
    nationalist politics in Slovenia and Croatia, along with a distinct
    flavor of ethnic chauvinism pitting these Westernized republics
    against the other, less advanced counterparts. Hayden notes that on
    July 2, 1990, the Slovene parliament declared Slovenia's "complete
    sovereignty, " and that the "republic's laws superseded those of the
    federation." Then on July 25, Croatia's parliament did likewise,
    making Croatia "a politically and economically sovereign state"
    (Tudjman). Finally in September—still three months before its own
    republican elections, in which Milosevic's Socialist Party received
    65 percent on a platform of preserving Yugoslavia, in explicit
    opposition to the separatist parties that had come to power in
    Slovenia and Croatia, and were to be soundly defeated in Serbia—
    Serbia adopted a new constitution granting its laws the same
    supremacy over federal institutions. "If the Slovenes can do it, so
    can we," a member of the Serbian Presidency said. With these
    challenges to federal authority by each of the three most powerful
    republics, the "collapse of the Yugoslav state was inevitable,"
    Hayden concludes.11
    In contrast to the standard narrative, it is clear that nationalist
    forces at this time were stronger in Slovenia and Croatia than in
    Serbia. The decisive, history-making difference, however, was that
    in Slovenia and Croatia, the nationalist parties that won the April
    1990 elections also adopted separatist platforms. Not only did they
    challenge the federal institutions as a whole, they also sought to
    sever ties with them—the last real bonds left from the Tito era.
    Had Western powers supported the federal state, Yugoslavia might
    have held together—but they did not. Instead they not only
    encouraged Slovenia, Croatia, and later Bosnia-Herzegovina to
    secede, they also insisted that the federal state not use force to
    prevent it. Diana Johnstone recounts a January 1991 meeting in
    Belgrade between the U.S. ambassador and Borisav Jovic, a Serb then
    serving on Yugoslavia's collective State Presidency. "[T]he United
    States would not accept any use of force to disarm the
    paramilitaries, " Jovic was told. "Only `peaceful' means were
    acceptable to Washington. The Yugoslav army was prohibited by the
    United States from using force to preserve the Federation, which
    meant that it could not prevent the Federation from being
    dismembered by force"12—a remarkable injunction against a sovereign
    state. Similar warnings were communicated by the EC as well. We
    might try to imagine what the United States would look like today,
    were the questions it faced in 1860 about its federal structure and
    the rights of states handled in as prejudicial a manner by much
    stronger foreign powers.
    At the heart of the multiple civil wars had always been a simple
    question: In which state do the people of Yugoslavia want to live—
    the SFRY or a successor state?13 But for a great many Yugoslavs, an
    answer contrary to their desires and contrary to the Yugoslav
    constitution was imposed from the outside. One way this was
    accomplished was by the EC's September 1991 appointment of an
    Arbitration Commission—the Badinter Commission—to assess legal
    aspects of the contests over Yugoslavia. This body's work provided
    a "pseudo-legal gloss to the [EC's] opportunistic consent to the
    destruction of Yugoslavia demanded by Germany," Diana Johnstone
    writes.14 On each of the major issues contested by the Serbian
    republic, the commission ruled against Serbia. Yugoslavia was "in
    the process of dissolution, " the commission's notorious Opinion No.
    1 stated when published on December 7, 1991. Similarly, Opinion No.
    2 held that "the Serbian population in Croatia and Bosnia-
    Herzegovina. ..[does not] have the right to self-determination, "
    though it "is entitled to all the rights concerned to minorities and
    ethnic groups under international law...." And Opinion No. 3
    declared that "the [former] internal boundaries between Croatia and
    Serbia and between Bosnia-Herzegovina and Serbia...[have] become
    frontiers protected by international law."15 Remarkably, the
    commission recognized the right of republics to secede from the
    former Yugoslavia, and thus affixed the right of self-determination
    to Yugoslavia's former administrative units; but the commission
    detached the right of self-determination from Yugoslavia's peoples,
    and thus denied comparable rights to the new minorities now stranded
    within the breakaway republics. The breakaway republics themselves
    might be blessed with foreign recognition; or, like Serbia and
    Montenegro for the remainder of the decade, recognition would be
    withheld, and its peoples rendered effectively stateless.
    From the standpoint of conflict resolution, this was a disastrous
    set of rulings, as the republics had been administrative units
    within Yugoslavia, and three of them (Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina,
    and Serbia) included large ethnic minorities who strongly opposed
    the terms of Yugoslavia's breakup, and who had been able to live
    with each other in relative peace on condition that their rights
    were safeguarded by a powerful federal state. Once the guarantees of
    the federal state were removed, it was inflammatory to deny peoples
    the right to choose the successor state in which they wanted to
    live; and the more ethnically mixed a republic or even commune, the
    more provocative the foreign demand that the old internal republican
    boundaries were sacrosanct.16 But the Badinter Commission's rulings
    made perfect sense from a much different standpoint: That of
    prescribing an outline for Yugoslavia's dismantlement that was in
    accord with the demands of the secessionist forces in Slovenia,
    Croatia, and Bosnia-Herzegovina and their Western supporters, while
    ignoring the rights (and wishes) of the constituent "nations" as
    specified in the Yugoslav constitution, and justifying foreign
    interference in the civil wars as a defense of the newly independent
    states.
    Germany in particular encouraged Slovenia and Croatia to secede,
    which they did on June 25, 1991; formal recognition was granted on
    December 23, one year to the day after 94.5 percent of Slovenes had
    voted in a referendum in favor of independence. EC recognition
    followed on January 15, 1992, as did U.S. recognition in early
    April, when Washington recognized Slovenia, Croatia, and Bosnia-
    Herzegovina all at once. More provocative yet, whereas the UN
    admitted all three breakaway republics as member states on May 22,
    it withheld the admission of a successor state to the dismantled
    Yugoslavia for another eight-and-a- half years; the Federal Republic
    of Yugoslavia, composed of Serbia and Montenegro, often denigrated
    as the "rump" Yugoslavia, was not admitted until November 1, 2000,
    almost four weeks after Milosevic's ouster. In other words, the two
    republics within the SFRY—itself a founding member of the UN—that
    rejected the dismantling of the federal state had been denied the
    right to succeed the SFRY as well as membership within the UN for
    close to a decade. At this highest level of the "international
    community," it would be difficult to find a more extreme case of
    realpolitik at work, but it was a realpolitik that assured a violent
    outcome—and to the victor, the spoils.
    A far more aggressive U.S. policy toward Yugoslavia began in 1993,
    with Washington anxious to redefine NATO's mission and to expand
    NATO eastward; and searching for a client among the contestants,
    Washington settled on the Bosnian Muslims and Alija Izetbegovic. To
    serve these ends the Clinton administration sabotaged a series of
    peace efforts between 1993 and the Dayton accords of 1995;17
    encouraged the Bosnian Muslims to reject any settlement until their
    military position had improved; helped arm and train the Muslims and
    Croats to shift the balance of forces on the ground;18 and finally
    settled at Dayton with an agreement that imposed upon the warring
    factions terms that could have been had as early as 1992, but for
    one missing link: In 1992, a Western-managed neocolonial regime,
    complete with NATO serving as its military enforcer, still was not
    achievable.19 Now into the twelfth year after Dayton, Bosnia remains
    a foreign occupied, severely divided, undemocratic, and in every
    sense of the term—failed state.20
    A similar process took place in Kosovo, where an indigenous, ethnic
    Albanian independence movement was captured by an ultra-nationalist
    faction, the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), whose leaders soon
    recognized that, like the Bosnian Muslims, they could enlist U.S.
    and NATO sponsorship and military intervention by provoking Yugoslav
    authorities to violence and getting the incidents reported the right
    way. Thus in the year before NATO's seventy-eight- day bombing war in
    the spring of 1999, the "KLA were responsible for more deaths in
    Kosovo than the Yugoslav authorities had been," British Defense
    Secretary George Robertson told his Parliament.21 As was true of the
    Bosnian Muslim and Croat forces before their major spring and summer
    offensives in 1995, the KLA received covert training and supplies
    from the Clinton administration, 22 a well-guarded secret to the
    Western publics then being fed lines about "Milosevic's willing
    executioners" marching off to perpetrate genocide in Kosovo.
    On matters of principle, neither the EU nor the United States have
    been consistent on secession rights. In 1991–92, they encouraged the
    republics of Slovenia, Croatia, and Bosnia-Herzegovina to break away
    from Yugoslavia; the federal state was denied any right to use force
    to prevent them from doing so; and no one living within these
    republics was permitted to break away from them. And yet as recently
    as June 2006, the EU, United States, and UN accepted Montenegro's
    right to break away from its Serbian partner; and more recently, the
    UN's special envoy for Kosovo Martti Ahtisaari has supported the
    right of the Serbian province of Kosovo to break away from Serbia
    once and for all—"to be supervised for an initial period by the
    international community." Calling NATO-occupied Kosovo "a unique
    case that demands a unique solution," Ahtisaari reassured that
    Kosovo would not "create a precedent for other unresolved
    conflicts." With resolution 1244, Ahtisaari reports, the "Security
    Council responded to Milosevic's actions in Kosovo by denying Serbia
    a role in its governance, placing Kosovo under temporary UN
    administration and envisaging a political process designed to
    determine Kosovo's future. The combination of these factors makes
    Kosovo's circumstances extraordinary. "23
    The UN special envoy is badly deluded. Kosovo is a NATO-occupied
    province in southern Serbia, following NATO's illegal war in the
    spring of 1999. Kosovo's status ought to be no different than was
    Kuwait's on August 3, 1990: It is a territory taken by military
    force in contravention of the UN Charter, and its independence
    should mean above all the restoration of its sovereignty to Serbia.
    But as with the subsequent U.S. wars and occupations of Afghanistan
    and Iraq, the Security Council neither condemned NATO's 1999
    aggression nor demanded that measures be taken to remedy it, for the
    simple reason that three of the Council's Permanent Five members had
    launched it. And in 2007, the UN's special envoy shows not the
    slightest interest that Serbia entered into its war-ending treaties
    under the duress of a conquered state. Instead of demanding that
    NATO return the province to the country from which it was seized,
    the UN not only accepts the aggression as a fait accompli, but also
    affirms its legitimacy on "humanitarian" grounds. The Ahtisaari
    solution is a case of "commissioned power politics."24 The
    only "extraordinary" circumstance is to be found in which group of
    states launched the war. (On the fraudulence of the "humanitarian"
    rationale for NATO's war, and the inhumanitarian effects of both the
    war and occupation, see sections 9 and 10.)
    In sum, the United States and NATO entered the Yugoslav struggles
    quite early and were key external factors in the initiation of
    ethnic cleansing, in keeping it going, and in working toward a
    violent resolution of the conflicts that would keep the United
    States and NATO relevant in Europe, and secure NATO's dominant
    position in the Balkans.
    2. The Role of the Serbs, Milosevic, and `Greater Serbia'
    A key element in the myth structure holds that Milosevic incited the
    Serbs to violence, setting loose the genie of Serb nationalism from
    the bottle that had contained it under Tito. During the
    prosecution' s opening statement at his trial, a videotape was played
    of Milosevic uttering the words "No one should dare beat you" at the
    Hall of Culture in Pristina in April 1987. "It was that phrase...and
    the response of others to it that gave this accused the taste or a
    better taste of power, maybe the first realisation of a dream,"
    prosecutor Geoffrey Nice told the court. With these words
    Milosevic "had broken the taboo of [Tito] against invoking
    nationalism, " Dusko Doder and Louise Branson write, "a taboo
    credited with submerging ethnic hatreds and holding Yugoslavia
    together for more than forty years....The initial impact was
    catastrophic: rabid ethnic nationalism swept all regions of
    Yugoslavia like a disease."25
    But neither these remarks by Milosevic nor his June 28, 1989, speech
    on the six-hundreth anniversary of the Battle of Kosovo had anything
    like the characteristics imputed to them. Instead Milosevic used
    both speeches to appeal to multi-ethnic tolerance, accompanied by a
    warning against the threat posed to Yugoslavia by nationalism—
    "hanging like a sword over their heads all the time" (1989).26
    In his 1987 speech—the words "no one should dare beat you" having
    been uttered in response to the news that the police had roughed up
    some local Serbs—Milosevic said "we do not want to divide people
    into Serbs and Albanians, but we must draw the line that divides the
    honest and progressive who are struggling for brotherhood and unity
    and national equality from the counterrevolution and nationalists on
    the other side." Similarly in his 1989 speech, he said
    that "Yugoslavia is a multinational community and it can survive
    only under the conditions of full equality for all nations that live
    in it," and nothing in either of these speeches conflicted with this
    sentiment—nor can quotes like these be found in the speeches and
    writings of Tudjman or Izetbegovic. But the standard narrative
    steers clear of Milosevic's actual words, understandably, as the
    misrepresentation that surrounds the simple phrase "no one should
    dare beat you" is deeply ingrained, and repeated by the ICTY's
    prosecutor, Silber and Little, Glenny, Malcolm, Judah, Doder and
    Branson, and a cast of thousands; also by The Guardian and the New
    York Times, to name but two, all of whom allude to these speeches in
    the inciting-Serb- nationalism mode, but almost surely never bothered
    to read and report their actual content.
    The massive trial of Milosevic, with 295 prosecution witnesses and
    49,191 pages of courtroom transcripts, failed to produce a single
    credible piece of evidence that Milosevic had spoken disparagingly
    of non-Serb "nations" or ordered any killings that might fall under
    the category of war crimes. But the so-called Brioni Transcript of
    talks that Croatian President Franjo Tudjman held with his military
    and political leadership on July 31, 1995, reveal Tudjman
    instructing his generals to "inflict such a blow on the Serbs that
    they should virtually disappear."27 What followed within days was
    Operation Storm, a massive, well-planned military blow that made the
    Krajina Serbs literally disappear. Imagine the windfall that a
    statement such as Tudjman's would have provided Carla Del Ponte,
    Geoffrey Nice, Marlise Simons, and Ed Vulliamy, had it been
    Milosevic who uttered a statement directly linking him to criminal
    activity of this magnitude. But by the summer of 1995 Tudjman was a
    U.S. ally, and Operation Storm was approved and aided by the United
    States and some of its corporate mercenaries. 28
    Similarly, in Alija Izetbegovic' s Islamic Declaration, first
    circulated in 1970 but republished in 1990 for his presidential
    campaign, his major theme is what he called the "incompatibility of
    Islam with non-Islamic systems." "There is neither peace nor
    coexistence between the `Islamic religion' and non-Islamic social
    and political institutions, " Izetbegovic argued. "Having the right
    to govern its own world, Islam clearly excludes the right and
    possibility of putting a foreign ideology into practice on its
    territory. There is thus no principle of secular government and the
    State must express and support the moral principles of religion."29
    Again, nothing ever uttered by Milosevic matches this for a program
    of ethno-religious intolerance. But as it was the prescription of a
    man who became a key U.S. client, Izetbegovic' s beliefs were ignored
    by the same journalists and historians for whom "no one should dare
    beat you" was alleged to herald the breakup of an entire country.
    Instead, David Rieff adopted the Bosnian Muslims as his "just cause"
    because, in his account, theirs was "a society committed to
    multiculturalism. ..and tolerance, and of an understanding of
    national identity as deriving from shared citizenship rather than
    ethnic identity"—and this witness-bearer claims to be referring to
    the "values" and "ideals" that Izetbegovic' s Bosnia would uphold!30
    In the series of ICTY indictments of Milosevic et al., the charge
    that he was striving to produce a "Greater Serbia" ranks high among
    the causes of the wars. This is also the standard formula that
    entered into the intellectual and media narrative of cause, as
    expressed by Judah's stateme

  • 1947 may not be the last partition of India!

    1947 may not be the last partition of India!
    Palash Biswas
    Contact: Palash C Biswas, C/O Mrs Arati Roy, Gosto Kanan, Sodepur, Kolkata- 700110, India. Phone: 91-033-25659551
    Email: alashbiswaskl@gmail.com">palashbiswaskl@gmail.com
    Eleven killed in clashes near Kashmir border
    SRINAGAR, India (Reuters) - Two soldiers and nine separatist militants were killed on Friday in two separate gun battles near the Pakistan border in Indian Kashmir, an army spokesman said.
    It was the highest number of people killed in firefights in a single day in the Himalayan region in recent months.
    "The contacts between soldiers and militants have increased in recent days resulting in fierce encounters," Army spokesman Lieutenant-Colonel A.K. Mathur said.
    The latest gun battles took place in Kupwara district bordering Pakistan, nearly 90 km northwest of Srinagar, Kashmir's summer capital.
    The clashes between Indian troops and Muslim militants have intensified in recent days in the mountainous region as militants come down to the plains due to the onset of bitter cold weather, officials say.
    At least 15 militants and four soldiers were killed in separate gun battles last week.
    Overall militant violence has declined in Kashmir after India and Pakistan, which claim the region in full but rule it in parts, launched a peace process in 2004.
    Officials say more than 42,000 people have been killed in Kashmir since a revolt against Indian rule erupted in 1989. But human rights groups put the toll at about 60,000.
    'Vande Mataram' ends on bad note for J&K CM
    By IBNlive.com
    Friday November 16, 12:41 PM
    Srinagar: Children singing Vande Mataram is a humdrum event all over India but in Kashmir it has created trouble and controversy for Chief Minister Ghulam Nabi Azad.
    Muslim clerics and scholars allege Azad

  • Iraq war funding bill blocked in Senate

    Iraq war funding bill blocked in Senate
    Bush, Japan's Fukuda to discuss NKorea, 'war on terror'
    Palash Biswas
    Contact: Palash C Biswas, C/O Mrs Arati Roy, Gosto Kanan, Sodepur, Kolkata- 700110, India. Phone: 91-033-25659551
    Email: alashbiswaskl@gmail.com">palashbiswaskl@gmail.com
    Russia readies nuclear fuel bound for Iran
    http://about.reuters.com/media/
    Iraq war funding bill blocked in Senate
    Senate Republicans Friday blocked a $50 million Iraq war spending bill because Democrats attached a timetable for US troop withdrawals. The 53-45 vote in favour of the bill fell seven vote short of the 60 needed to move forward based on Senate rules. The House of Representatives, which requires only a simple majority, approved the measure Wednesday.
    Senate Democrats, who narrowly hold a majority in the upper chamber, voted 53-45 Friday to defeat a $70-million Republican spending bill to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan without troop withdrawal deadlines.

    President George W. Bush strongly opposes congressional deadlines for removing US troops from Iraq and has previously vetoed legislation containing pullout timeframes.
    The Democrats want to set time limits for bringing the US role in Iraq to an end.
    The Senate action stopped a Democratic proposal that had passed the House of Representatives on a largely partisan vote on Wednesday. The measure needed 60 votes to pass under Senate rules; it only got 53 votes, with 45 senators voting against.
    The measure would have given President George W. Bush about one-fourth of the $196 billion he wants for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in fiscal 2008, while setting a goal that all U.S. combat soldiers withdraw from Iraq by Dec. 15, 2008.
    Earlier, Democrats blocked a Republican proposal to give Bush $70 billion of the war funds he seeks, but without the withdrawal timetable attached.
    The Bush administration wants the U.S. Congress to approve the additional war money as soon as possible, but without conditions such as troop withdrawals attached, and the White House had warned Bush would veto the Democrats' plan.
    Pentagon chief Robert Gates warned on Thursday that without the money, he would shortly order plans to lay off civilian employees, terminate contracts and cut base operations.
    But Democrats say there will be no more "blank checks" for the war in Iraq. They have also said that if funding for the war did not pass Congress now, it would not be brought up again until next year.
    However, despite slim majorities in both houses, Democrats have failed repeatedly this year to garner the votes to change Bush's open-ended military commitment to the war.
    Republicans vowed to keep blocking such attempts. "It's telling our soldiers, you're losers, when they're winners. So we're going to defeat it, now and forever," Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, said.
    Bush vows U.S. 'will not forget' Japan's abductees
    President George W. Bush vowed on Friday that the United States would not forget Japanese citizens abducted by North Korea decades ago as Washington moves to resolve the North's nuclear arms issue.
    "I understand, Mr. Prime Minister, how important the issue is to the Japanese people, and we will not forget the Japanese abductees, nor their families," Bush said at a news conference with visiting Japanese Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda.
    The fate of at least 12 abductees is a highly emotive issue in Japan and has been at the center of a long feud between Tokyo and Pyongyang that has kept them from normalizing ties.
    Families of the abductees and Japanese lawmakers visited Washington this week ahead of Bush's meeting with Fukuda to underscore Tokyo's fears the abductees may be sacrificed as Washington improves its ties with North Korea in talks aimed at ending Pyongyang's nuclear programs.
    Particularly worrying for Japan is the prospect that the United States will remove North Korea from its list of nations sponsoring terrorism -- a move Pyongyang demands but that Tokyo wants delayed until Pyongyang comes clean about the abductees.
    "The American willingness to promote dialogue and consultation with North Korea is a good thing itself, but the possibility of removing North Korea from the list of state sponsors of terrorism is a source of concern for the Japanese government," a senior Japanese official said on Friday.
    "As long as no progress is made in the abduction issue, we think it is premature for the U.S. to remove North Korea from the list," he told Reuters.
    Pyongyang admitted in 2002 that its agents had kidnapped 13 Japanese in the 1970s and 1980s, five of whom have since been repatriated to Japan.
    North Korea says the other eight are dead, but Tokyo wants more information about their fate as well as information on another four people it says were kidnapped.
    Bush, Japan's Fukuda to discuss NKorea, 'war on terror'
    US President George W. Bush and Japanese Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda prepare to meet Friday to try to bridge differences over North Korea and Japan's contribution to military
    Relations between the world's two richest nations have been tested over disagreements on both issues.
    Washington felt slighted when Japan's opposition forced a suspension on November 1 of a mission supplying fuel to US-led coalition forces in the Indian Ocean as part of "war on terror" operations in Afghanistan.
    The United States has supported Japan, officially pacifist since the end of World War II, taking on a greater security role in Asia.
    Japan, on the other hand, is pressing the United States not to remove its designation of North Korea as a state sponsor of terrorism.
    The United States appears willing to remove North Korea from the list in exchange for Pyongyang fulfilling a pledge to dismantle its nuclear programs under a six-nation deal reached in February.
    Japan, although a member of the six-nation roundtable, has vowed not to help North Korea with energy aid under the February deal until progress is made on North Korea's abductions of Japanese citizens in the 1970s and 1980s.
    Fukuda will tell Bush "that he visited here on his first foreign trip as prime minister to reassure that the Japan-US alliance remains the linchpin of the region and the country," said a Japanese foreign ministry official late Thursday.
    Fukuda "will also say Japan wants to closely cooperate with the United States over North Korea, including the kidnappings and possible removal of Pyongyang from the terrorist-sponsors list," said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity.
    Other items expected to be on the agenda include the military crackdown in Myanmar, political turmoil in Pakistan, a new framework to fight global warming, and a US request to lift restrictions on US beef imports to Japan, the official said.
    Mitsuo Sakaba, a Japanese foreign ministry spokesman traveling with Fukuda, separately said that removing North Korea from the terrorist blacklist, as Washington is pushing for, "may send the wrong message."
    The removal "may be a symbolic action by the United States to achieve normalization of ties with North Korea, but from the Japanese viewpoint is not helpful," he said.
    North Korean leader Kim Jong-Il admitted in 2002 to abducting Japanese citizens, and has since returned five kidnap victims and their spouses and children.
    Pyongyang however says others who were abducted are dead and the issue is closed. Tokyo believes there are other kidnapped Japanese that North Korea is hiding, possibly because they know state secrets.
    Fukuda, a 71-year-old political veteran who took over in September amid turmoil in his Liberal Democratic Party, will spend only 26 hours in Washington.
    Fukuda will then return to Tokyo instead of flying directly to next week's Asia-Pacific summit in Singapore.
    The premier believes that his presence in Tokyo is important to help shepherd a bill to resume the naval refueling mission through parliament.
    Fukuda's ruling coalition pushed the bill through the lower house of parliament only two days before flying to Washington. He expects tough negotiations in the opposition-ruled upper house.

    Breaking News and Commentary from Citizens For Legitimate Government
    16 Nov 2007
    http://www.legitgov .org/
    All items are here:
    http://www.legitgov .org/#breaking_ news
    US power company linked to Bush is named in database as a top polluter 16 Nov 2007 An American power company with close financial links to President [sic] George Bush has been named as one of the world's top producers of global warming pollution. It is the enormous carbon footprint of Southern Company - among the largest financiers of Republican Party politicians - which has raised eyebrows. Southern's employees handed George Bush $217,047 to help him get [s]elected, and they and the company have contributed an extraordinary $6.2m to Republican campaigns since 1990.
    Senator: U.S. has become haven for war criminals 14 Nov 2007 More than 1,000 people from 85 countries who are accused of such crimes as rape, killings, torture and genocide are living in the United States [and serving in the Bush administration], according to Department of Homeland Security figures. America has become a haven for the world's war criminals because it lacks the laws needed to prosecute them, Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., said Wednesday.
    Allegations of prisoner torture in Afghanistan 16 Nov 2007 Afghanistan said Wednesday it will investigate allegations that prisoners transferred by NATO forces to Afghan custody are tortured. The pledge by President Hamid Karzai came as NATO once again stated it had no evidence of systematic torture once the prisoners have been handed over.
    Leaked GITMO memo forbade ICRC visits 15 Nov 2007 A military manual on the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, outlines official policy to censor letters, deny Korans and prohibit Red Cross visits. The 238-page "Camp Delta Standard Operating Procedures Manual" appears on various Web sites and describes policies regarding the use of pepper spray, cavity searches and several scenarios involving visitation rights, the Miami Herald reported Thursday.
    Manual sheds light on Gitmo detainee treatment --A vintage 2003 Guantánamo manual hit the Web, providing new insight into old detention practices at the U.S. prison camps in southeast Cuba. 15 Nov 2007 Guantánamo detainees were denied Red Cross visits and mail, had criticism of the U.S. government or leaders censored from their letters and were isolated without Korans, according to a once-secret prison camps manual that has surfaced on the Internet.
    L.A. police drop controversial Muslim mapping plan 15 Nov 2007 Police have abandoned a controversial plan to "map" Los Angeles' Muslim community as part of their efforts to 'counter' terrorism, the Los Angeles Police Department chief William Bratton said on Thursday. Bratton said the plan was scrapped after outrage from Muslims and civil rights organizations who had described it as "just as unlawful, ill-advised and deeply offensive as racial profiling."
    Panel Drops Immunity From Eavesdropping Bill 16 Nov 2007 Reflecting the deep divisions within Congress over granting legal immunity to telephone companies for cooperating with the Bush regime’s program of wiretapping without warrants, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved a new domestic surveillance law on Thursday that sidestepped the issue. By a 10 to 9 vote, the committee approved an overhaul of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that dropped a key provision for immunity for telecommunications companies that another committee had already approved.
    House OKs Surveillance Oversight Bill 16 Nov 2007 The House voted Thursday night to strengthen court oversight of the government's surveillance of terrorist suspects, but stopped short of providing legal immunity to telecommunication companies that helped [illegally] eavesdrop on Americans.
    Fortress Britain: Brown unveils tough new laws 16 Nov 2007 Commuters in Britain face routine airline-style bag checks and bodysearches at railway stations as part of a counter-terrorism crackdown announced by the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown. Mr Brown conjured up visions of "Fortress Britain" as he unveiled measures covering the transport network, sports venues and other public places in a speech to the House of Commons on Wednesday.
    Tighter security measures target railway stations 15 Nov 2007 Security is being stepped up at hundreds of railway stations, airports, ports and power stations amid fears that suicide bombers could strike at "soft targets".
    Rail passengers face anti-terror searches --Security at shopping malls to guard against car bombs --Guidance for cinemas, theatres and restaurants 15 Nov 2007 The Rail passengers at Britain's largest stations face being searched and having their bags screened as part of a package of national security measures unveiled by Gordon Brown yesterday. The PM said he hoped inconvenience could be minimised but the checks were needed alongside new concrete anti-car bomb barriers and vehicle exclusion zones outside airport terminals, shopping centres and the 250 busiest rail stations.
    Terror crackdown as passengers forced to answer 53 questions in airport inquisition 15 Nov 2007 Travellers face price hikes and confusion after the Government unveiled plans to take up to 53 pieces of information from anyone entering or leaving Britain. For every journey, security officials will want credit card details, holiday contact numbers, travel plans, email addresses, car numbers and even any previous missed flights. The Home Office, which yesterday signed a contract with U.S. company Raytheon Systems to run the computer system, said e-borders would help to keep terrorists and illegal immigrants out of the country.
    Defence complaints knocked back in 'terrorism' case 16 Nov 2007 The New South Wales Supreme Court says it will not set a new date for the trial of nine men accused of terrorism-related offences. The men are due to stand trial in February next year, accused of conspiring to plan and commit a terrorist act.
    Medical Tyranny in Maryland: Parents Threatened With Jail Time for Not Vaccinating Children By Mike Adams 14 Nov 2007 State and County officials in Maryland have announced they will send parents to jail if they don't submit their children to forced vaccinations. State Attorney General Glenn F. Ivey has announced he is willing to criminalize parents if they don't bring them to the courthouse to have them injected, on the spot, with vaccines that contain methyl mercury -- a highly toxic nerve chemical that causes brain damage and is linked to autism.
    ID Cards for Residents Pass a Vote in California 15 Nov 2007 The San Francisco Board of Supervisors has given preliminary approval to an ordinance allowing municipal identification cards to be issued to anyone living in the city, regardless of their legal status. The proposal passed the first of two required votes on Tuesday night.
    US to Seek New Sanctions Against Iran 16 Nov 2007 The Bush regime plans to push for new sanctions against Iran after the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency reported yesterday that Tehran is providing "diminishing" information about its controversial nuclear program, U.S. officials said.
    Chávez sees oil at $200 if Iran invaded 13 Nov 2007 Hugo Chávez, Venezuela’s president, has warned that oil prices could reach $200 a barrel if the US invaded Iran. [And, that's why Bush bin Laden is going to invade: ExxonMobil.]
    Democrats vow not to be bullied by Bush on Iraq 15 Nov 2007 Democrats who lead Congress likened President [sic] George W. Bush on Thursday to a bully on Iraq war policy and vowed to spend no more on combat without a deadline for bringing U.S. troops home. "He damn sure is not entitled to having this money given to him just with a blank check," Sen. Harry Reid, the Democrats' Senate leader, told reporters. [Yeah, right! The DemocRATs will roll right over, as they have since Al Gore 'offered his concession' in December 2000!]
    U.S. forces accused of shooting Sunni allies 14 Nov 2007 Members of a Sunni Muslim group that was formed with American backing to fight Sunni militants charged Wednesday that a lengthy U.S. air and ground attack killed at least seven of its fighters. Mansour abd Salem, one of the leaders of the Sunni Awakening council in Taji, north of Baghdad, charged in a television interview that U.S. forces had "deliberately" killed members of the group in a "hideous" assault.
    Who Will Probe 'Noncombat' Deaths in Iraq? About 20% of the U.S. deaths in Iraq are officially labeled "noncombat," and that number has been surging. This includes accidents, friendly fire and well over 120 suicides. But the government, and the media, seem reluctant to expose the tragedy, argues vets leader Paul Rieckhoff. By Greg Mitchell 09 Nov 2007 Pretty much alone in the media, E&P for weeks had been charting a troubling increase in non-combat deaths among U.S. troops in Iraq. So it came as no surprise recently when the Pentagon announced that it would probe the perplexing trend.
    120 US war veteran suicides a week 15 Nov 2007 The US military is experiencing a "suicide epidemic" with veterans killing themselves at the rate of 120 a week, according to an investigation by US television network CBS. At least 6256 US veterans committed suicide in 2005 - an average of 17 a day - the network reported, with veterans overall more than twice as likely to take their own lives as the rest of the general population.
    Canada court: AWOL U.S. soldiers not refugees --Rejection of appeal by Supreme Court clears way for deserters' deportation 15 Nov 2007 The Supreme Court of Canada on Thursday refused to hear an appeal by two U.S. military deserters [Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey] who sought refuge in the country to avoid deployment to Iraq, a conflict they argued is "immoral and illegal."
    State Dept. Won't Order Diplomats to Iraq --Volunteers Fill Positions in Baghdad Embassy, but Personnel Concerns Remain 16 Nov 2007 The State Department expects to announce, perhaps as early as today, that volunteers have filled all 48 open jobs at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad for next year and that it will not order any foreign service officers to work there against their will, officials said yesterday.
    Bush's 'Divine Comedy': Part I By Eric Walberg 15 Nov 2007 New enemies in United States President [sic] George W Bush’s wars are popping up in unexpected places. The latest one is peaceful Europe, where determined demonstrators and human rights lawyers recently ambushed former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld at a breakfast meeting in Paris organised by Foreign Policy magazine. He fled, fearing arrest over charges of ordering and authorising torture of detainees at both Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba... He was whisked off to Germany, where a similar writ against him was quashed recently, but under the Schengen agreement that ended border checkpoints across a large part of the European Union, French law enforcement agents are allowed to cross the border into Germany in pursuit of a fleeing fugitive. "Rumsfeld must be feeling how Saddam Hussein felt when US forces were hunting him down," activist Tanguy Richard said. “He may never end up being hanged [We can dream, can't we?] like his old friend, but he must learn that in the civilised world, war crime doesn’t pay."
    Bush: Confirmation process needs reform 15 Nov 2007 Reformation of the judicial confirmation process was one topic U.S. President [sic] George Bush touched on during a speech to the Federalist Society in Washington. U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey underwent blistering questioning by Senate Judiciary Committee members regarding the jurist's views on harsh interrogation techniques, including waterboarding, which simulates drowning. Because of the confirmation process, Bush said, "Lawyers approached about being nominated will politely decline because of the ugliness, uncertainty, and delay that now characterize the confirmation process." [Right, Bush wants to skip the confirmation process altogether and install his own Nazis, just like the GOP/Faux did with him, twice.]
    FEMA Accused of Wasting More Katrina Funding $30 Million Misspent Last Year On Trailers in Miss., GAO Says 16 Nov 2007 The Federal Emergency Management Agency wasted about $30 million last year in maintaining trailers for Hurricane Katrina survivors in Mississippi, according to a new government report. In one case cited, FEMA awarded contracts that could have cost as much as $229,000 to support one family in a single trailer -- roughly the price of a five-bedroom home in Jackson, Miss.
    Oil CEO Gets Death Threat for High Gas Prices [What a shame!] 15 Nov 2007 According to CNN’s November 15 "American Morning," Shell president John Hofmeister has gotten hate mail and even a death threat because of the price of gasoline. "American Morning" didn’t make a big deal out of the threat, choosing to focus multiple times on customer grief and Shell’s profits: "Here’s what gets people fired up though, we hear these profit reports. You had worldwide profits rise 16 percent last quarter, net profits at nearly $7 billion, yet people are paying 90 cents more per gallon for gas than they were last year," said co-host Kiran Chetry.
    Comcast Sued Over Web Interference 14 Nov 2007 A San Francisco Bay area subscriber to Comcast Corp.'s high-speed Internet service has sued the company, alleging it engages in unfair business practices by interfering with subscribers' file sharing.
    Chemtrails: Is U.S. Gov't. Secretly Testing Americans 'Again'? 09 Nov 2007 Could a strange substance found by an Ark-La-Tex man be part of secret government testing program? That's the question at the heart of a phenomenon called "Chemtrails. " In a KSLA News 12 investigation, Reporter Jeff Ferrell shows us the results of testing we had done about what's in our skies.
    Tiny sun bear listed as 'vulnerable' 13 Nov 2007 The world's smallest bear, the sun bear, is now "vulnerable" on the World Conservation Union's Red List of Threatened Species, the Swiss-based group says.

    Lamb born as Mother Nature confuses autumn for spring 15 Nov 2007 Ewe wouldn't believe a lamb could be born so close to Christmas. But little Breeze came into the world a good six months after the traditional Spring lambing season - much to the surprise of farmer Will Weightman. ...He was stunned when after just a week, he found a tiny lamb cuddling up to its mum in the pen. Mr Weightman, who opened the Down At The Farm petting farm near Sunderland with wife Catherine about four months ago, said: "I couldn't believe it... The most likely scenario is that it's because of the weather."
    Officials Allege Violations at Hunting Ranges 16 Nov 2007 Virginia wildlife officials have joined a multistate investigation into the illegal buying, selling and possession of foxes and coyotes for use on private training preserves where hunters pay to run their foxhounds.
    Baseball player Barry Bonds indicted on perjury, obstruction charges 16 Nov 2007 Barry Bonds has been indicted for perjury and obstruction of justice, charged with lying when he told a federal grand jury that he did not knowingly use performance- enhancing drugs.
    CLG needs your support.
    http://www.legitgov .org/#contribute
    Or, please mail a check or money order to the CLG:
    Citizens for Legitimate Government (CLG)
    P.O. Box 1142
    Bristol, CT 06011-1142
    Contributions to CLG are not tax deductible.
    [Previous lead stories:] General fired from Walter Reed to head Fort Detrick 13 Nov 2007 The two-star general [Maj. Gen. George W. Weightman] who was fired as the head of Walter Reed Army Medical Center amid reports of shoddy treatment of wounded soldiers has regained favor [!] and will oversee U.S. biological weapons defense research [not to mention, continue the coverup for the 2001 anthrax killings] as commander of Fort Detrick in Frederick, the Army said today.
    Experts fault U.S. preparation for anthrax attack 14 Nov 2007 The United States has done too little to prepare for another potential domestic anthrax attack six years after [Cheney's] spore-laden mail killed five people, a former CIA director and other experts said on Wednesday.
    House Passes $50B Bill Funding Iraq War 14 Nov 2007 The House has passed a $50 billion bill to pay for the Iraq war while setting a goal of bringing most troops home by December 2008. The vote, announced by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, was 218-203. The legislation was largely a symbolic jab at President [sic] George W. Bush, who already has said he would veto a measure containing a troop withdrawal timetable.
    Please forward this newsletter to anyone you think might be interested. Those who'd like to be added to the list can go here: http://www.legitgov .org/#subscribe_ clg and add your name. Those who would like to be removed from the list can access the same link and remove your name.
    Please write to: signup@legitgov. org for inquiries/issues/ concerns with your subscription.

  • Lengthening Shadow of Gujarat On Brahminical Marxist Bengal

    Lengthening Shadow of Gujarat On Brahminical Marxist Bengal
    Palash Biswas
    Contact: Palash C Biswas, C/O Mrs Arati Roy, Gosto Kanan, Sodepur, Kolkata- 700110, India. Phone: 91-033-25659551
    Email: alashbiswaskl@gmail.com">palashbiswaskl@gmail.com
    From a friend:
    I just spoke with Mahashweta Devi who's asked for food, clothes and cash donations for the people of Nandigram. She says, as of now, what's urgently needed is blankets and wollen clothes, especially for children since many homes are now burnt rubble and winter has already set in. These can be delivered at her Golf Green home (W2C 12/3 Phase 2, Golf Green).
    Cash donations are to be made by cheque to:
    Jana Swasthya, Swadhikar Mancha
    45 Beniatola Lane, Kolkata, 700 009
    Canara Bank, Sealdah branch, account number: 24941
    Sukla
    http://www.vinnomot .com/test/ nandigram/ home.htm

    Issue contains lot of valuable interview and documentary- -it is a open issue--we will keep on adding your feedback.

    We have provided both side of the story---

    Biplab
    Nandigram: Lengthening Shadow of Gujarat
    Stout Intervention of Civil Society: Need of the Hour
    The chilling similarity with Gujarat is too striking to miss.
    The civil society has got to intervene.
    Now that a deal between the CPIM and the UPA has, by all appearance, been already struck - connivance of the UPA as the quid pro quo for CPIM's graduated support for the 'deal', there is no escape from the brutal tyranny that Nandigram is other than the most vigorous intervention by the civil society. Just not national, even international; teams must visit despite the very predictable slanderous screams crying "Imperialist Conspiracy!"
    In Gujarat, at least a judicial commission had been instituted by the state government. The President did make a trip to relief camps.
    Given the fact that the ruling party here is even more brazen and brutal - and they wear this brutality as a badge of honour, as an insignia of some sort of "revolutionary" greatness - never mind even if it is shamelessly at the service of national and global corporate interests, none of this is going to happen, unless we can make it happen.
    So national and international interventions become all the more crucial.
    Let

  • The New Ruling Aristocracy of the World

    The New Ruling Aristocracy of the World
    Palash Biswas
    Contact: Palash C Biswas, C/O Mrs Arati Roy, Gosto Kanan, Sodepur, Kolkata- 700110, India. Phone: 91-033-25659551
    Email: alashbiswaskl@gmail.com">palashbiswaskl@gmail.com
    Orissa tribals warn of 'bloodbath' against Vedanta project
    New Delhi: In what could spell more trouble for British mining giant Vedanta's projects in Orissa, tribals and activists from the state Friday said they were ready for a long battle against the company and would not hesitate to sacrifice their lives to protect their homes and land. Vedanta has signed an agreement with the Orissa government to set up a bauxite refinery and to mine bauxite from the Niyamgiri hills of Rayagada district of western Orissa.

    'We need the Niyamgiri mountain and Niyamgiri needs us. We are ready for an independent struggle and bloodbath if Vedanta displaces us for its mining activities,' said Jitu, a tribal from Rayagada.

    For the last four years, Dongaria Kondh tribes, a tribal group of Kalahandi, Gajapati and Rayagada districts, have been fighting against the industrialisation attempt in their region by the Orissa government and Vedanta.

    'It seems the Supreme Court will award mining rights to Vedanta and if that happens, we tribals will be on the streets. This time the fight will be more fierce than our Independence movement,' Jitu said.

    Nearly a dozen tribals and their leaders are in Delhi to talk to parliamentarians from Orissa and meet President Pratibha Patil on the issue. However, they have not yet got an appointment with the president.

    Mali Puseka, another tribal, said: 'Neither the government nor the Supreme Court is listening to us and we are going to have to fight with those who are coming from foreign countries to exploit us.'

    'They will pollute our rivers, destroy our jungles and displace us from our land and culture. It's our forefathers' land and no one should play with our way of living,' Puseka said.

    Tribal activist Parful Samantra said: 'The clearance for mining, if granted, will amount to a complete destruction of the rich biodiversity of the area and of an entire culture and a way of life.'

    'It will also violate Schedule V of the Indian constitution, which disallows tribal lands to be taken over by non-tribal individuals or corporates,' Samantara said.

    D. Manjit, professor at Delhi University and tribal rights activist, said the Vedanta project would displace at least 300 villages in Niyamgiri and Lanjigarha region of Orissa. 'It may lead to civil disobedience and violence on the streets as well.'
    The G20: The New Ruling Aristocracy of the World?
    by Shawn Hattingh
    http://mrzine. monthlyreview. org/hattingh1511 07.html
    Introduction
    On the 17th and 18th of November 2007, the finance ministers and
    reserve bank governors of the G20 countries, along with leading
    International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank officials, will be
    gathering in the seaside village of Kleinmond, South Africa.1
    During this meeting -- which will be hosted by the current Chair of
    the G20, our own Trevor Manual -- the most powerful economic
    ministers and politicians will be surrounded by symbols of opulence -
    - a golf course, five star accommodation, a beautiful conference
    centre, body guards, limousines, cavalcades, and sea views. They
    will swop smiles and handshakes for the press -- who like the court
    jest