National ideals sacrificed for political expedience.....

President Barack Obama delivered his inaugural address immediately after his oath-taking which was heart-warming and which inspired hope for the passive voices. He repudiated the policies of his predecessors in so far as these relate to human rights abuses in the name of national security. To read his words literally, Mr. Obama blamed no one other than the country itself, critiquing “our collective failure to make hard choices” and a willingness to suspend national ideals “for expedience’s sake” — a clear reference to the cascade of decisions ranging from interrogation policies to wiretapping to the invasion of Iraq.
He has now spent a little more than half of his presidential term of office. Has anything changed since his inaugural speech?
The Guantánamo files and related reports published by Guardian make chilling revelations as to how the national ideals were willingly compromised for the sake of expedience. These files reveal the often fragile physical and mental condition of Guantánamo’s oldest and youngest residents, who have included an 89-year-old man and boys as young as 14. In 2002 Guantánamo prisoners were described as “the worst of a very bad lot” by Dick Cheney, US vice-president. “They are very dangerous. They are devoted to killing millions of Americans, innocent Americans, if they can, and they are perfectly prepared to die in the effort.”
According to the report, the internal files on some prisoners paint a very different picture. A 2002 assessment of Guantánamo’s oldest prisoner, Mohammed Sadiq, who was then 89, revealed dementia, depression and sickness. “His current medical issues include major depressive disorder, senile dementia and osteoarthritis, for which he receives prescribed treatment.” The Afghan national was also being assessed for prostate cancer.
Another elderly and unsuitable prisoner was found to have senile dementia on arrival at Guantánamo. Haji Faiz Mohammed, then 70, was flown to the base in 2002 after being swept up in a raid by US troops in Afghanistan. “There is no reason on the record for detainee being transferred to Guantánamo Bay detention facility,” his assessment says. The files shed light on the way mere children were shipped to the cages in Cuba. Naqib Ullah, who was about 14 when captured in 2003, spent a year interned at Guantánamo. Naqib’s file reveals he had been abducted by armed men as they passed through his village, mistreated and conscripted to fight for the Taliban. He told his captors that as US forces approached their camp most fighters fled the base, leaving a few behind to fight. Naqib was found holding a gun, the file states, but the weapon had not been fired.
Interrogation techniques taught to Guantánamo Bay staff made it extremely difficult for detainees to demonstrate their innocence. Camp staff were told any Muslim travelling to Afghanistan after 9/11 was likely to be there “to support Osama bin Laden through direct hostilities against the US forces” and that any other stated reasons were “total fabrications”. A highly classified briefing document suggested detainees who claimed to be in Afghanistan for charitable or educational reasons had been coached by terrorists to tell these stories. Answering questions slowly or confusingly, or challenging the interrogators, were further evidence of insurgent training.
The 778 detainees at Guantánamo Bay were regularly interrogated by US forces, often at weekly intervals for periods of months or years. The briefing is dated 4 August 2004 and entitled Assessment of Afghanistan Travels and Islamic Duties as they Pertain to Interrogation. It acknowledges that Muslims routinely travel the world to provide religious education and support charitable giving, but warns insurgents have been trained to use these traditions as cover.
“Travel to Afghanistan for charity reasons or to teach or study Islam,” the document warns, “is a known al-Qaida/extremist cover story without credence.  Many of the detainees have developed their cover stories around mainstream Islam and the charity and goodwill of those Muslims to lend a benign appearance to their travel to Afghanistan.”
For further details, visit: the Guantánamo files

Related link:

American ideals and politics of expedience...

US interest in Libya is all about oil and China's growing economy.....

The world is at it again. Libya seems to be Iraq of this decade and the “civilized” world is out to “protect” Libya’s civilians from the atrocities of Col Qaddafi. Iraq’s Saddam had huge possessions of weapons of mass destruction and therefore, was to be punished through a senseless massacre of millions of innocent Iraqi civilian. The same is going to repeat in Libya, this time under the umbrella of a UN resolution. There are atrocities in other parts of the world but those parts and the humans living there have not so far attracted the attention of the world for the simple reason that those countries either do not have oil reserves or if they do, those are practically West’s petrol stations. And the US will make every effort to squeeze the pipes providing oil to power China’s economy. Haven’t you heard some cynic saying that China is poised to be the Number One global economy in the near future?


Even a layman can understand that the civilized, democratic world has more than human values to evoke their interest in Libya. In an article titled, The US, Libya and Oil, Counterpunch has made an interesting analysis, saying that it is all about oil, or natural gas. The article has listed the following facts to support its analysis:

• In 2009, the U.S. Energy Information Administration predicted that world oil reserves had “peaked” and that over the next several decades, supplies would drop and prices would rise. There is some controversy over the study, but there is general agreement that easy-to-get petroleum sources are getting harder and harder to find.
• Approximately 65 percent of the world’s remaining oil reserves are in the Middle East, as well as considerable amounts of natural gas. Iran has the second greatest reserves of gas outside of Russia.
• The U.S.—with the largest economy in the world—uses around 21 million barrels of oil per day (bpd). Since it produces only 7.5 million bpd domestically, it imports two thirds of its oil. Its major sources are (in descending order) Canada, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Venezuela, and Iraq.
• China—the world’s number two economy—uses about 8 million bpd, a demand that is projected to rise to 11.3 million bpd by 2015. Since it only produces 3.7 million bpd domestically, it too relies on imported oil. It main suppliers are (in descending order) Saudi Arabia, Iran, Angola, Russia, Oman and Sudan.

It is estimated that, sometime between 2030 and 2050, China will surpass the U.S. and become the world’s number one economy—provided that it can secure enough energy for its growing industrial needs. Insuring access to oil and gas is a major focus of Chinese foreign policy, particularly because Beijing is nervous about how it currently obtains its supplies. Some 80 percent are transported by sea, and all of those routes involve choke points currently controlled by the U.S.

The U.S. Fifth Fleet based in Bahrain controls the Hormuz Straits, through which Saudi Arabian, Iranian, and Omani oil passes. The Fifth also dominates the straits of Bab el-Mandab that control access to the Red Sea and through which Sudan’s oil is shipped into the Indian Ocean. In addition the Malacca Straits between Sumatra and the Malay Peninsula is the major transit point for oil going to China. The U.S. Seventh Fleet controls that choke point.

The article asserts that China’s nervousness over its sea-based oil supplies is one of the major reasons behind Beijing’s crash naval program, its construction of ports in South and Southeast Asia, and its efforts to build land-based pipelines from Russia, Central Asia, and Pakistan. The Chinese are also trying to cope with the fact that Iran, its second largest supplier of oil and gas, is currently under international sanctions that have reduced production and cut into China’s supplies. Beijing has invested upwards of $120 billion to upgrade Iran’s energy industry, but recently has had to cutback investments because its banks could end up being sanctioned for helping out the Tehran regime.

The Chinese are not the slightest bit cynical about why the U.S. is bombing Libya and not challenging Bahrain and Yemen: Bahrain hosts the U.S. Fifth Fleet, and Yemen’s port of Aden dominates the Red Sea. China can play chess. The U.S. doesn’t get oil from Libya, but its allies in Europe do. And the current crisis is African Command’s (AFRICOM) coming out party. Up to now the record of the spanking new military formation has been less than impressive. First, no one would host it, because the U.S. military in Africa makes the locals nervous. So it is still based in Germany. Then it coordinated the absolutely disastrous Ethiopian invasion of Somalia that ended up turning most of the country over to the extremist Shabab.

But Libya is a fresh slate for AFRICOM, and that is making the Chinese even more nervous (and explains why they have been so cranky about civilian casualties in Libya). When AFRICOM was in its infancy it war-gamed a military intervention in the Gulf of Guinea in case “civil disturbances: caused any disruptions in oil supplies. Angola, China’s other major African supplier, is in the Gulf of Guinea. It hardly seems like a coincidence that, at the very moment that African oil supplies become important, the U.S. creates a new military formation for the continent. AFRICOM is currently advising and training the military forces of 53 countries in the region.
Okay, so here you are in Beijing. Your industries are clamoring for power. Media in the United States reflect a growing hostility toward you, with headlines in newspapers reading, “The Chinese Tiger Shows Its Claws,” and U.S. politicians routinely blame you for America’s economic problems. And the U.S. has basically puts its thumb on each one of your oil and gas sources. Nobody is cutting off any supplies at this point, but the implied threat is always there.
In end, it is not so much about oil and gas itself, as the control of energy. Any country that corners energy supplies in the coming decades will be in a powerful position to dictate a whole lot of things to the rest of the world. That’s not cynicism, its cold-blooded calculation. And right now a lot of people in the Middle East are paying the price of the ticket.

How three iron-ladies of Obama administration spearheaded Libya intervention?

The military intervention of the United States and other allies in Libya to support the rebels was lacking in international ethics for many reasons; particularly when the West has dual standards of operation in the global arena. While the turmoil in Libya has raised concerns (read: interest) in the West, a similar turmoil in the pliant states of the Gulf has not raised even an eyebrow. This clearly endorses the apprehensions that it is more than democratic values and human rights at stake in Libya. The Unites States has no problems with the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia which are practically its petrol stations. It does have problems with Libya or North Africa. Therefore, it is not democracy or human rights; it is oil and particularly the oil powering the economy of China.

Leaving aside the ethical dimensions of the response of West, it has now been reported that in this war,  the intervention by the United States  was instigated by three women, starting with Samantha Power, who runs the Office of Multilateral Affairs and Human Rights in Obama’s National Security Council. She’s an Irish American, 41 years old, who made her name back in the Bush years with her book, A Problem from Hell, a study of the U.S. foreign-policy response to genocide, and the failure of the Clinton administration  to react forcefully to the Rwandan massacres. She had to resign from her advisory position on the Obama campaign in April of 2008, after calling Hillary Clinton a “monster” in an interview with the Scotsman, but was restored to good grace after Obama’s election, and the monster in her sights is now Qaddafi.

According to Miami Herald, this lady has Obama’s ears.

America’s UN ambassador is Susan Rice, the first African-American woman  to be named to that post. She’s long been an ardent interventionist. In 1996, as part of the Clinton administration, she supported the multinational force that invaded Zaire from Rwanda in 1996 and overthrew dictator Mobutu Sese Seko, saying privately that “Anything’s better than Mobutu.” But on February 23 she came under fierce attack in the Huffington Post at the hands of Richard Grenell, who’d served on the US delegation to the UN in the Bush years. Grenell dwelt harshly on instances where in his judgment Rice and her ultimate boss Obama were drooping the ball, and displaying lack of leadership amid the tumults engulfing the Middle East and specifically in failing to support the uprising against Qaddafi.

Both Rice and Clinton took Grenell’s salvo to heart. Prodded by the fiery Power they abruptly stiffened their postures and Clinton lobbed her furious salvos at Qaddafi, “the mad dog”.  For Clinton it was a precise re-run of her efforts to portray Obama as a peace wimp back in 2008, liable to snooze all too peacefully when the red phone rang at 3am.

For his part, Obama wasn’t keen on intervention, seeing it as a costly swamp, yet another war and one opposed by Defense Secretary Gates and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. But by now the liberal interventions and the neo-cons were in full cry and Obama, perennially fearful of being outflanked, succumbed, hastening to one of the least convincing statement of war aims in the nation’s history. He’s already earned a threat of impeachment from leftist congressman Dennis Kucinich for abrogating war-making powers constitutionally reserved for the US Congress, though it has to be said that protest from the left has been pretty feeble. As always, many on the left yearn for an intervention they can finally support and many of them have been murmuring ecstatically, “This is the one.” Of course the sensible position (mine) simply states that nothing good ever came out of a Western intervention by the major powers, whether humanitarian in proclaimed purpose or not.

Related story:
It is all about oil and the fast-growing economy of China
Libya, Oh What a Stupid War

South Asia also needs to overheat economically even if it brings inflation….

A leading British newspaper, in a recent analysis, has concluded that China is growing at a pace much faster than estimated. The paper screams that China is overheating. This will lead it to attain the status of number one economy of the world in the next ten to fifteen years, but this has some associated disadvantages like price hike and inflation. It is already a military power and has all those pre-requisites which make it a potential super power. China will alter the course of history and disturb the world order by becoming a potent challenge to the uni-polar order of the world. And China is treading the path to its destination very cautiously. It has border disputes with India, who has open support of the USA to contain expanding sphere of influence of China in the Indian ocean. Effectively, it is facing military threat from this neighbor. But China, in spite of its military superiority has put all its disputes on the back burner and is actively pursuing growth of its trade with India. This is key to China’s economic growth and very essential for it to reach its destination.

On the other hand, Pakistan despite its fragile economy has been forced by India to enter an arms race in order to further bleed economically. War on Terror is another front where Pakistan has to make economic sacrifices without any reward. In this situation, it is essential that Pakistan has peaceful borders both on its East and West and pursue the resolution of its disputes. India which was not ready to talk seems to have shifted its stance and has expressed its resolve to put some of its differences with Pakistan on the back burner for a while to focus on development challenges and change the adversarial mindset so that all issues pending between them could be discussed. According to media reports, India’s External affairs minister SM Krishna on Wednesday said terrorism of the 26/11-variety had inflicted substantial damage to India-Pakistan relations and set the clock back for the dialogue process initiated in 2004.

"India and Pakistan have to put some of their differences on the back burner and concentrate on addressing the development challenges facing the two nations. For that, trust is needed and we have to put in place mechanisms to build trust," he said in his hour-long meeting with a group of 13 visiting senior Pakistani journalists from newspapers, news channels and magazines.

"Let me make it abundantly clear...India desires peaceful and friendly relations with Pakistan. This will enable both the countries to effectively address development challenges we face. For that, the basic need is that our mindset, which is often adversarial, has to be changed," he said.

"We need to look at things in a positive manner. Our relationship has so many potentials, only if we come out of that mindset. Let me assure you, India has come out of it," he added.

Krishna, however, noted that India was not shying away from discussing any issues between the neighbors and that can happen only if the trust deficit, which was the biggest impediment, was reduced.

On the other hand, Pakistan and Afghanistan are likely to propose to the US to halt combat operations in the war-torn country and allow the reconciliation process to take the lead in the latest push for peace with the Taliban.

But the idea is likely to pitch the two countries against Washington, which seeks to go hard against the insurgents before the coalition forces begin pulling out from Afghanistan. As Afghan Foreign Minister Zalmay Rassoul arrives in Islamabad today (Thursday), the two countries have decided to put up a joint front at next month’s trilateral meeting with the US. If the three countries of South Asia have decided to positively address their issues and create an atmosphere of trust, all of them will be direct beneficiaries of this move. Like China, South Asia also has to overheat but this time in economic sense, and overheat it must come what may even if it is inflation. Ultimately, this will bring good news for the people of the region.

Why all dictators think and act alike in the twilight days of their power?

Series of events unfolding in the twilight days of all the dictators, both civilian and military, are intriguingly identical. They all handle the uprisings in strikingly similar fashion. Pakistanis, who can clearly recall the protests against massive rigging of 1977 elections, will testify to the fact that dictators do not realize the gravity of situation and intensity of public sentiments till they are booted out. It was unfortunate for Pakistanis that their very genuine protest demonstrations were hijacked by the clergy because the protest leaders were behind the bars. The rest is history, the dark ages which still continue. The handling of uprising against the shah of Iran was no different. The dictator of Tunis handled the uprising in the similar fashion though he met his fate much quicker that his other cousins. Foreign Policy Magazine, in its latest edition has made an interesting comparison of the shah and President Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali. According to a latest article, Ben Ali seemed intent on compressing the shah's yearlong series vacillations into a tidy one-week time frame.

The pattern was familiar. First, a show of denial: The shah started 1978 by denouncing street protests as conspiracies directed from abroad, while Ben Ali started this week by declaring mass demonstrations to be "terrorist acts." Next a halfhearted show of force to restore law and order: In the autumn of 1978, the shah declared martial law and organized a military government; Ben Ali, for his part, imposed a nationwide curfew this week and presumably instructed security forces to use deadly force against continued protests. Then a hasty series of concessions that are inevitably interpreted as too little, too late: Late in the game, each leader tried to shuffle his cabinet into a more liberal arrangement. That's followed by a transparently cynical, and frankly depressing, declaration of sympathy for the protests: The shah went on television in November to announce, "I have heard the voice of your revolution"; Ben Ali went on television on Thursday to tell his restive populace, "I have understood you." Finally, there's the retreat into exile -- the shah fled to Egypt in January 1979, while Ben Ali is now reported to be in Malta, France, or Saudi Arabia.

But does this carry any lesson for dictators in Middle East, “where presidents and kings have rusted on their thrones?” According to the New York Times, that seemed premature, particularly because the contours of the government emerging in Tunisia were still unclear — and because Tunisia is on the periphery of the Arab world, with a relatively affluent and educated population. Yet the street protests erupted when Arabs seemed more frustrated than ever, whether over rising prices and joblessness or resentment of their leaders’ support for American policies or ambivalence about Israeli campaigns in Lebanon in 2006 and Gaza in 2009. Tunisia’s protests were portrayed as a popular uprising, crossing lines of religion and ideology, offering a new model of dissent in a region where Islamic activists have long been seen as monopolizing opposition. Even if they serve only as inspiration, the protests offer a rare example of success to activists stymied at almost every turn in bringing about change in their own countries.