Watch the full episode. See more FRONTLINE.
Viser opslag med etiketten Obama-administrationens udenrigspolitik. Vis alle opslag
Viser opslag med etiketten Obama-administrationens udenrigspolitik. Vis alle opslag
fredag den 2. september 2011
torsdag den 31. marts 2011
onsdag den 2. marts 2011
USAs Dobbelte Standarder.
Den amerikanske administration var længe om at støtte op om oprøret i Egypten mod den amerikansk støttede diktator Hosni Mubarak. Hillary Clinton sagde så sent som den 25. januar, at hun anså regimet for stabilt og at hendes ministeriums vurdering af situationen var, at Mubarak-regimet ville efterkomme den egyptiske befolknings legitime krav. Det var først da begivenhederne havde udfoldet sig således at alt tydede på Mubaraks fald, at man begyndte at støtte op om folket, sandsynligvis i håb om fortsat indflydelse i et eventuelt fremtidigt demokratisk Egypten.
Når det kommer til Iran, et diktatur som ikke er på god fod med USA, har man imidlertid ikke de store problemer med at komme med hurtig og hård kritik af den gældende magtpraksis. I en udtalelse fra forleden lød der således kraftige fordømmelser fra Det Hvide Hus idet det hed sig at man “kraftigt [fordømte] den iranske regerings organiserede skræmmekampagne og arrestationerne af politiske skikkelser, menneskerettighedsforkæmpere, politiske aktivister, studerendes ledere, journalister og bloggere.”
I nabolandet Irak fængslede den amerikansk støttede Nouri al-Maliki-regering i sidste uge 300 journalister, advokater og intellektuelle for at stoppe igangværende protester imod regeringen, mens op mod tredive mennesker blev dræbt. Til trods for den bemærkelsesværdige lighed med det iranske regimes repressive magtudøvelse er dette imidlertid ikke blevet mødt af nogen kritik fra den amerikanske regerings side.
Heller ikke den fortsatte ekspansion af de jødiske bosættelser i de besatte områder, som er ulovlige i henhold til gældende international lov, møder nogen nævneværdig modstand fra den amerikanske regering. Tværtimod vetoede man fra amerikansk side for nylig en resolution i sikkerhedsrådet som fordømte den israelske bosættelsespolitik.
De dobbelte standarder er derfor ganske iøjnefaldende. Når usamarbejdsvillige regimer begår voldshandlinger mod egen befolkning bliver det mødt af hård kritik, mens samarbejdsvillige og formålstjenlige statlige aktørers voldshandlinger enten mødes med tavshed, udenomssnak eller decideret opbakning, som i det israelske tilfælde. Ikke at dette på nogen måde er nogen nyhed.
Når det kommer til Iran, et diktatur som ikke er på god fod med USA, har man imidlertid ikke de store problemer med at komme med hurtig og hård kritik af den gældende magtpraksis. I en udtalelse fra forleden lød der således kraftige fordømmelser fra Det Hvide Hus idet det hed sig at man “kraftigt [fordømte] den iranske regerings organiserede skræmmekampagne og arrestationerne af politiske skikkelser, menneskerettighedsforkæmpere, politiske aktivister, studerendes ledere, journalister og bloggere.”
I nabolandet Irak fængslede den amerikansk støttede Nouri al-Maliki-regering i sidste uge 300 journalister, advokater og intellektuelle for at stoppe igangværende protester imod regeringen, mens op mod tredive mennesker blev dræbt. Til trods for den bemærkelsesværdige lighed med det iranske regimes repressive magtudøvelse er dette imidlertid ikke blevet mødt af nogen kritik fra den amerikanske regerings side.
Heller ikke den fortsatte ekspansion af de jødiske bosættelser i de besatte områder, som er ulovlige i henhold til gældende international lov, møder nogen nævneværdig modstand fra den amerikanske regering. Tværtimod vetoede man fra amerikansk side for nylig en resolution i sikkerhedsrådet som fordømte den israelske bosættelsespolitik.
De dobbelte standarder er derfor ganske iøjnefaldende. Når usamarbejdsvillige regimer begår voldshandlinger mod egen befolkning bliver det mødt af hård kritik, mens samarbejdsvillige og formålstjenlige statlige aktørers voldshandlinger enten mødes med tavshed, udenomssnak eller decideret opbakning, som i det israelske tilfælde. Ikke at dette på nogen måde er nogen nyhed.
fredag den 11. februar 2011
En Amerikansk Allieret Står for Fald.
Da Barack Obama gav sit første interview som amerikansk præsident til BBC i juni 2009, beskrev han Hosni Mubarak som en "stålsat allieret" og "en stabiliserende kraft i regionen". Til spørgsmålet "anser du Mubarak for at være en autoritær leder?" svarede Obama "nej" og tilføjede "jeg undlader at sætte mærkater på folk".
Holdningsmæssigt må disse udtalelser betegnes som en kovending. Små syv år tidligere, da Barack Obama den 2. oktober 2002 talte ved en anti-krigsdemonstration i Chicago, inkluderede talen hård kritik af USA's allierede i Ægypten og Saudi-Arabien:
"Lad os kæmpe for at sikre os, at vores såkaldte allierede i Mellemøsten, saudierne og ægypterne, stopper med at undertrykke deres egne befolkninger, at undertrykke regeringskritik, og at tolere korruption og ulighed, samt at misligeholde deres økonomier, så deres unge vokser op uden uddannelse, udsigter og uden håb, beredvillige rekrutter for terrorceller.”
Noget havde altså ændret sig, men det var ikke Mubarak-regimets magtpraksis, idet man ufortrø-dent fortsatte styrets voldshandlinger mod Ægyptens befolkning. Kan det tænkes, at Barack Obama og hans administration simpelthen ikke var bevidste om dette? Svaret er nej. I det amerikanske udenrigsministeriums egen menneskerettighedsrapport fra 2009 gør man sig ingen illusioner mht. Ægypten. Om tilstanden i landet i 2008 hedder det:
“Regeringens respekt for menneskerettigheder forblev lav, og seriøse misbrug fortsatte på mange områder … Sikkerhedsstyrkerne brugte uberettiget dødbringende vold og torturerede og misbrugte fanger og tilbageholdne, i de fleste tilfælde straffrit. Vilkårene i fængsler og arrester var dårlige. Sikkerhedsstyrker anholdte og tilbageholdte individer vilkårligt, i nogle tilfælde af politiske grunde, og man holdt dem langvarigt varetægtsfængslede. Den udøvende magt udøvede kontrol over og pres på den dømmende magt. Regeringens respekt for foreningsfriheden og religionsfriheden vedblev med at være lav gennem året og regeringen fortsatte med at begrænse NGO'ers virke. Regeringen begrænsede delvis ytringsfriheden.”
Til trods for ovenstående rapport om menneskerettighedernes og frihedsrettighedernes svære vilkår i Ægypten, fortsatte den økonomiske og militære støtte til den ægyptiske diktaturstat imidlertid under Obama. I en officiel rapport til Kongressen dateret 16. september 2010 får vi at vide, at den årlige støtte på cirka 3 milliarder dollars, som man hvert år har ydet til Ægypten siden 1979, var blevet reduceret en smule i 2009, idet Ægypten i 2009 "kun" modtog $200 millioner i økonomisk støtte og $1.3 milliarder i militær støtte. Reduktionen i støtten skyldtes til dels, at man havde skåret den økonomiske støtte ned til det halve, og dermed fjernet den del af støtten, som skulle gå til demokratifremmende formål. Om den militære støtte hedder det endvidere at: “Selv om der ikke eksisterer nogle verificerbare tal vedrørende Ægyptens totale militære udgifter, estimeres det, at amerikansk militærbistand dækker op mod 80% af forsvarsministeriets udgifter til fremskaffelse af våben.” Disse våben købes for en stor dels vedkommende i USA. hvorfor der altså synes at være tale om delvis skjult subsidiering af det amerikanske militær-industrielle kompleks.
Cairo-talen.
I sin nu berømte Cairo-tale gjorde Barack Obama det klart, at han var en dedikeret tilhænger af demokrati og menneskerettigheder: “Jeg har en urokkelig tro på, at alle mennesker længes efter visse ting; muligheden for at sige hvad man mener og til at have noget at skulle have sagt, hvad angår måden man bliver styret på; tillid til retssikkerheden og den ensartede administration af retfærdigheden; en regering som er gennemsigtig og som ikke stjæler fra folket; friheden til at leve som man ønsker. Disse er ikke kun amerikanske idéer, de er menneskerettigheder, og det er derfor, vi støtter dem alle vegne.”
Mange steder i den muslimske verden havde man imidlertid nok vanskeligt ved at se sammenhængen mellem retorikken og realiteterne, måske først og fremmest fordi man havde valgt at holde talen i Cairo, hovedstaden i Hosni Mubaraks amerikansk-støttede politistat, hvor ytringsfriheden, retssikkerheden, gennemsigtigheden og menneskerettighederne mestendels glimrer ved deres fravær. Dernæst var inkonsistensen mellem Obama's prisværdige værditilkendegivelser og så det faktum, at USA støtter en anseelig andel af Mellemøstens øvrige diktaturer både militært og økonomisk, nok smerteligt iøjnefaldende for mange. Sidst men ikke mindst lod fraværet af en kritisk stillingtagen til Israels krig mod Gaza nok meget tilbage at ønske for den muslimske verdens indbyggere.
Mange tænkte imidlertid nok også, at de ville give Obama tid til at bevise, at han rent faktisk mente sine ord, for Cairo-talen løb trods alt af stabelen samme år, som han tiltrådte som præsident, hvorfor tiden til at implementere de lovede forandringer havde været ret begrænset. Desværre har de nok endnu engang måttet sande, at der eksisterer en uforenelig afstand mellem tale og handling hos det amerikanske lederskab.
Det er imidlertid ikke kun inden for rammerne af Mellemøsten, at kløften mellem de proklamerede værdier og virkeligheden synes ganske udtalt. Hvis gennemsigtighed er blandt Obama's kerneværdier, har den i hvert fald været gemt godt af vejen i hele forløbet omkring Wikileaks' lækage af de amerikanske telegrammer! Hvis tillid til retssikkerheden ligger præsidentens hjerte så nært, hvordan hænger dette så sammen med fortsættelsen af Guantamo-lejren og de stærkt kritisable renditionsprogrammer, samt med den manglende ophævelse af Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act og Obama-administrationens immunisering af de teleselskaber, som udførte omfattende illegale aflytninger af den amerikanske befolkning under Bush II?
Et mønster viser sig.
USA's udenrigsminister Hillary Clinton opfordrede d. 25. januar Mubarak til reformer og gentog Cairo-talens ordlyd, men desværre sagde hun også i samme åndedrag, at den amerikanske administration anså Mubaraks regime for at være “stabilt”, og at den amerikanske vurdering af hændelserne i Ægypten var, at Mubaraks regering “leder efter måder, hvorpå man kan besvare det ægyptiske folks legitime behov og interesser.” Hosni Mubarak var altså pludselig kommet på bedre tanker efter tre årtiers jernnæve og undtagelsestilstand, hvis vi skal tro Hillary Clinton.
Talsmand for Det Hvide Hus, Robert Gibbs, omtalte Mubarak som en “nær og vigtig allieret” den 26. januar, og selveste præsidenten understregede den 27. januar den for USA gavnlige alliance med Mubarak. I stedet for at insistere på demokratisk forandring håbede han blot på, at Mubarak gjorde fremskridt mht. at reformere landet. Som dagene er gået, er et mønster begyndt at vise sig. Man har kontinuerligt opfordret begge sider af konflikten til at handle tilbageholdent og opfordret til en “ordentlig overgang”, hvilket synes at involvere bred vestlig opbakning til vicepræsident Omar Suleiman som spydspids for en overgangsregering frem til Mubaraks proklamerede tilbagetræden i september. Suleiman er imidlertid ikke mindre forhadt blandt ægypterne end Mubarak og hans familie, hvorfor han for ægypterne blot signalerer mere af det samme. Opbakning af Suleiman er desuden ganske interessant, apropos de mange fine ord om retssikkerhed og demokrati, idet Sulei-man har været en stærk støtte i CIAs extraordinary renditions program i kraft af sin tidligere stilling som leder af den ægyptiske efterretningstjeneste.
Frygt for islamisering?
De amerikanske udmeldinger bør for nogle ses som udtryk for frygt for en islamisering af Ægypten i tilfælde af Mubaraks fald, men virker dette egentlig plausibelt? USA støtter trods alt fortsat aktivt Saudi-Arabiens kong Abdullah, selvom monarkens styre må betegnes som alt andet end moderat, og historisk har man da heller ikke været tilbageholden med støtte til fundamentalistiske regimer eller grupperinger i den muslimske verden. Dette var eksempelvis tilfældet under Reagan, hvor man ganske aktivt støttede op om den fundamentalistiske pakistanske diktator Muhammed Zia ul-Haq.
I det ægyptiske tilfælde har denne påståede frygt selvfølgelig at gøre med Det Muslimske Broderskabs mulige rolle i et post-revolutionært Ægypten, men kan broderskabets ageren i de senere år betegnes som egentlig islamistisk? Det er der ikke meget, der tyder på. Tværtimod tyder meget på, at der er sket en reformering af Det Muslimske Broderskab gennem det seneste tiår. Alene repræsentanterne for organisationens handlinger i det ægyptiske parlament peger tydeligt i retning af dette, idet man komparativt set har ageret forbilledligt demokratisk i den parlamentariske proces. Dermed ikke sagt, at Det Muslimske Broderskab er sprunget ud som liberale demokrater af vestligt tilsnit, men at betegne broderskabet af i dag som 'islamistisk' er at tegne en karikatur af de faktiske forhold.
Realisterne og legitimitetsproblematikken.
Fremtrædende repræsentanter for den realistiske skole har bifaldet den amerikanske diplomatiske intervention i den gryende ægyptiske revolution og betegnet den som vellykket under omstændig-hederne. Man har fremhævet, at selvom man ikke offentlig har fremsat noget ufravigeligt krav om demokratisering, kan det meget vel være, at noget sådant er blevet foreslået i magtens korridorer. Denne vurdering hviler imidlertid på forudantagelsen af interventionens legitimitet, men hvori består denne legitimitet egentlig, da de amerikanske handlinger vel bør vurderes i kontekst af, at man fra amerikansk side blander sig i interne ægyptiske forhold, hvor befolkningen ikke har haft nogen som helst mulighed for på demokratisk vis at påvirke det amerikanske lederskabs sammensætning? Den diplomatiske intervention forekommer, uanset dens karakter, at være svært forenelig med tilkendegivelserne af, at man anser demokratiske processer, hvor befolkningen giver udtryk for deres tilhørsforhold og interesser, som noget man både foretrækker og anbefaler, idet ingen i Ægypten har stemt på det amerikanske lederskab.
Strategiske krav.
Obama-administrationens nylige krav til Hosni Mubarak bør nok vurderes som værende af strategisk snarere end af principiel karakter. Havde kravene været af principiel karakter ville lignende krav følgelig skulle stilles til USA's øvrige diktatoriske samarbejdspartnere, hvilket ikke har været tilfældet. Bemærk at Obama-administrationen ikke i samme ombæring beder Islam Karimov om at reformere Uzbekistan, endsige træde tilbage. Man beder ikke, i overensstemmelse med den herskende internationale konsensus, Israel om at forlade de besatte områder og trække sig tilbage til 1967 grænserne. Man beder ikke Saudi-Arabiens lederskab om at ophøre med at krænke befolkningens menneskerettigheder og med at undertrykke landets indbyggere. Disse amerikansk støttede udøvere af statslig vold er fortsat stabile, hvorfor man tilsyneladende vægter deres fortsatte formålstjenstlighed højere end de påståede idealer.
Den kyniske realpolitik udstilles netop nu og graveres yderligere af kløften mellem tale og handling. Læren synes (fortsat) at være, at så længe et diktatur er formålstjenstligt og stabilt, mødes regimets ledelse højst af kritik, som ikke bakkes op af egentlige samarbejdsmæssige konsekvenser. Destabiliseres regimet imidlertid i en sådan grad, at alt peger på dets fald, ændrer man strategi i håb om fortsat at kunne udøve indflydelse i landet under den kommende orden. Den strategiske kritik kan imidlertid meget vel risikere at blive mødt med enten skuldertræk eller vrede blandt ægypterne, og man fristes da også til at spørge, hvorfor en eventuel demokratisk orienteret regering i et post-diktatorisk Ægypten skulle være interesseret i fortsat amerikansk støtte og regeringssamarbejde med supermagten?
En supermagt taber terræn.
Hvis rygterne om, at Mubarak-familien besidder en formue i størrelsesordenen flere hundrede milliarder dollars, er blot tilnærmelsesvis sande, synes den mest åbenlyse handlingsplan at være, at man først og fremmest forsøger at fravriste denne illegitimt rekvirerede formue fra Mubarak-familien. Skulle dette lykkes, vil man ikke have stor bevæggrund for et fortsat økonomisk motiveret samarbejde med USA, idet en formue i denne størrelsesorden er lig flere hundrede års amerikansk økonomisk støtte, målt i dens nuværende form.
Udviklingen i Ægypten kan i det hele taget meget vel gå hen og få meget alvorlige konsekvenser for hegemonens magtradius, såfremt oprøret i Ægypten ender i en egentlig revolution, idet en sådan kan komme til at sprede sig som ringe i vandet og på sigt betyde, at USA vil miste indflydelse i regionen i et ganske betydeligt omfang. Et sådant indflydelsestab er allerede evident andetsteds, nemlig i Latin-Amerika, hvor man i lighed med befolkningerne i Mellemøsten ikke har det store at takke USA's årtier lange interventioner og indblanding i regionale affærer for. Så mens man altså ikke har den store grund til at frygte, at der kommer til at foregå en omfattende islamisering i tilfælde af Mubaraks fald, har man til gengæld nok god grund til at frygte de muslimske og kristne ægypteres insisteren på demokratisering og uafhængighed.
Holdningsmæssigt må disse udtalelser betegnes som en kovending. Små syv år tidligere, da Barack Obama den 2. oktober 2002 talte ved en anti-krigsdemonstration i Chicago, inkluderede talen hård kritik af USA's allierede i Ægypten og Saudi-Arabien:
"Lad os kæmpe for at sikre os, at vores såkaldte allierede i Mellemøsten, saudierne og ægypterne, stopper med at undertrykke deres egne befolkninger, at undertrykke regeringskritik, og at tolere korruption og ulighed, samt at misligeholde deres økonomier, så deres unge vokser op uden uddannelse, udsigter og uden håb, beredvillige rekrutter for terrorceller.”
Noget havde altså ændret sig, men det var ikke Mubarak-regimets magtpraksis, idet man ufortrø-dent fortsatte styrets voldshandlinger mod Ægyptens befolkning. Kan det tænkes, at Barack Obama og hans administration simpelthen ikke var bevidste om dette? Svaret er nej. I det amerikanske udenrigsministeriums egen menneskerettighedsrapport fra 2009 gør man sig ingen illusioner mht. Ægypten. Om tilstanden i landet i 2008 hedder det:
“Regeringens respekt for menneskerettigheder forblev lav, og seriøse misbrug fortsatte på mange områder … Sikkerhedsstyrkerne brugte uberettiget dødbringende vold og torturerede og misbrugte fanger og tilbageholdne, i de fleste tilfælde straffrit. Vilkårene i fængsler og arrester var dårlige. Sikkerhedsstyrker anholdte og tilbageholdte individer vilkårligt, i nogle tilfælde af politiske grunde, og man holdt dem langvarigt varetægtsfængslede. Den udøvende magt udøvede kontrol over og pres på den dømmende magt. Regeringens respekt for foreningsfriheden og religionsfriheden vedblev med at være lav gennem året og regeringen fortsatte med at begrænse NGO'ers virke. Regeringen begrænsede delvis ytringsfriheden.”
Til trods for ovenstående rapport om menneskerettighedernes og frihedsrettighedernes svære vilkår i Ægypten, fortsatte den økonomiske og militære støtte til den ægyptiske diktaturstat imidlertid under Obama. I en officiel rapport til Kongressen dateret 16. september 2010 får vi at vide, at den årlige støtte på cirka 3 milliarder dollars, som man hvert år har ydet til Ægypten siden 1979, var blevet reduceret en smule i 2009, idet Ægypten i 2009 "kun" modtog $200 millioner i økonomisk støtte og $1.3 milliarder i militær støtte. Reduktionen i støtten skyldtes til dels, at man havde skåret den økonomiske støtte ned til det halve, og dermed fjernet den del af støtten, som skulle gå til demokratifremmende formål. Om den militære støtte hedder det endvidere at: “Selv om der ikke eksisterer nogle verificerbare tal vedrørende Ægyptens totale militære udgifter, estimeres det, at amerikansk militærbistand dækker op mod 80% af forsvarsministeriets udgifter til fremskaffelse af våben.” Disse våben købes for en stor dels vedkommende i USA. hvorfor der altså synes at være tale om delvis skjult subsidiering af det amerikanske militær-industrielle kompleks.
Cairo-talen.
I sin nu berømte Cairo-tale gjorde Barack Obama det klart, at han var en dedikeret tilhænger af demokrati og menneskerettigheder: “Jeg har en urokkelig tro på, at alle mennesker længes efter visse ting; muligheden for at sige hvad man mener og til at have noget at skulle have sagt, hvad angår måden man bliver styret på; tillid til retssikkerheden og den ensartede administration af retfærdigheden; en regering som er gennemsigtig og som ikke stjæler fra folket; friheden til at leve som man ønsker. Disse er ikke kun amerikanske idéer, de er menneskerettigheder, og det er derfor, vi støtter dem alle vegne.”
Mange steder i den muslimske verden havde man imidlertid nok vanskeligt ved at se sammenhængen mellem retorikken og realiteterne, måske først og fremmest fordi man havde valgt at holde talen i Cairo, hovedstaden i Hosni Mubaraks amerikansk-støttede politistat, hvor ytringsfriheden, retssikkerheden, gennemsigtigheden og menneskerettighederne mestendels glimrer ved deres fravær. Dernæst var inkonsistensen mellem Obama's prisværdige værditilkendegivelser og så det faktum, at USA støtter en anseelig andel af Mellemøstens øvrige diktaturer både militært og økonomisk, nok smerteligt iøjnefaldende for mange. Sidst men ikke mindst lod fraværet af en kritisk stillingtagen til Israels krig mod Gaza nok meget tilbage at ønske for den muslimske verdens indbyggere.
Mange tænkte imidlertid nok også, at de ville give Obama tid til at bevise, at han rent faktisk mente sine ord, for Cairo-talen løb trods alt af stabelen samme år, som han tiltrådte som præsident, hvorfor tiden til at implementere de lovede forandringer havde været ret begrænset. Desværre har de nok endnu engang måttet sande, at der eksisterer en uforenelig afstand mellem tale og handling hos det amerikanske lederskab.
Det er imidlertid ikke kun inden for rammerne af Mellemøsten, at kløften mellem de proklamerede værdier og virkeligheden synes ganske udtalt. Hvis gennemsigtighed er blandt Obama's kerneværdier, har den i hvert fald været gemt godt af vejen i hele forløbet omkring Wikileaks' lækage af de amerikanske telegrammer! Hvis tillid til retssikkerheden ligger præsidentens hjerte så nært, hvordan hænger dette så sammen med fortsættelsen af Guantamo-lejren og de stærkt kritisable renditionsprogrammer, samt med den manglende ophævelse af Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act og Obama-administrationens immunisering af de teleselskaber, som udførte omfattende illegale aflytninger af den amerikanske befolkning under Bush II?
Et mønster viser sig.
USA's udenrigsminister Hillary Clinton opfordrede d. 25. januar Mubarak til reformer og gentog Cairo-talens ordlyd, men desværre sagde hun også i samme åndedrag, at den amerikanske administration anså Mubaraks regime for at være “stabilt”, og at den amerikanske vurdering af hændelserne i Ægypten var, at Mubaraks regering “leder efter måder, hvorpå man kan besvare det ægyptiske folks legitime behov og interesser.” Hosni Mubarak var altså pludselig kommet på bedre tanker efter tre årtiers jernnæve og undtagelsestilstand, hvis vi skal tro Hillary Clinton.
Talsmand for Det Hvide Hus, Robert Gibbs, omtalte Mubarak som en “nær og vigtig allieret” den 26. januar, og selveste præsidenten understregede den 27. januar den for USA gavnlige alliance med Mubarak. I stedet for at insistere på demokratisk forandring håbede han blot på, at Mubarak gjorde fremskridt mht. at reformere landet. Som dagene er gået, er et mønster begyndt at vise sig. Man har kontinuerligt opfordret begge sider af konflikten til at handle tilbageholdent og opfordret til en “ordentlig overgang”, hvilket synes at involvere bred vestlig opbakning til vicepræsident Omar Suleiman som spydspids for en overgangsregering frem til Mubaraks proklamerede tilbagetræden i september. Suleiman er imidlertid ikke mindre forhadt blandt ægypterne end Mubarak og hans familie, hvorfor han for ægypterne blot signalerer mere af det samme. Opbakning af Suleiman er desuden ganske interessant, apropos de mange fine ord om retssikkerhed og demokrati, idet Sulei-man har været en stærk støtte i CIAs extraordinary renditions program i kraft af sin tidligere stilling som leder af den ægyptiske efterretningstjeneste.
Frygt for islamisering?
De amerikanske udmeldinger bør for nogle ses som udtryk for frygt for en islamisering af Ægypten i tilfælde af Mubaraks fald, men virker dette egentlig plausibelt? USA støtter trods alt fortsat aktivt Saudi-Arabiens kong Abdullah, selvom monarkens styre må betegnes som alt andet end moderat, og historisk har man da heller ikke været tilbageholden med støtte til fundamentalistiske regimer eller grupperinger i den muslimske verden. Dette var eksempelvis tilfældet under Reagan, hvor man ganske aktivt støttede op om den fundamentalistiske pakistanske diktator Muhammed Zia ul-Haq.
I det ægyptiske tilfælde har denne påståede frygt selvfølgelig at gøre med Det Muslimske Broderskabs mulige rolle i et post-revolutionært Ægypten, men kan broderskabets ageren i de senere år betegnes som egentlig islamistisk? Det er der ikke meget, der tyder på. Tværtimod tyder meget på, at der er sket en reformering af Det Muslimske Broderskab gennem det seneste tiår. Alene repræsentanterne for organisationens handlinger i det ægyptiske parlament peger tydeligt i retning af dette, idet man komparativt set har ageret forbilledligt demokratisk i den parlamentariske proces. Dermed ikke sagt, at Det Muslimske Broderskab er sprunget ud som liberale demokrater af vestligt tilsnit, men at betegne broderskabet af i dag som 'islamistisk' er at tegne en karikatur af de faktiske forhold.
Realisterne og legitimitetsproblematikken.
Fremtrædende repræsentanter for den realistiske skole har bifaldet den amerikanske diplomatiske intervention i den gryende ægyptiske revolution og betegnet den som vellykket under omstændig-hederne. Man har fremhævet, at selvom man ikke offentlig har fremsat noget ufravigeligt krav om demokratisering, kan det meget vel være, at noget sådant er blevet foreslået i magtens korridorer. Denne vurdering hviler imidlertid på forudantagelsen af interventionens legitimitet, men hvori består denne legitimitet egentlig, da de amerikanske handlinger vel bør vurderes i kontekst af, at man fra amerikansk side blander sig i interne ægyptiske forhold, hvor befolkningen ikke har haft nogen som helst mulighed for på demokratisk vis at påvirke det amerikanske lederskabs sammensætning? Den diplomatiske intervention forekommer, uanset dens karakter, at være svært forenelig med tilkendegivelserne af, at man anser demokratiske processer, hvor befolkningen giver udtryk for deres tilhørsforhold og interesser, som noget man både foretrækker og anbefaler, idet ingen i Ægypten har stemt på det amerikanske lederskab.
Strategiske krav.
Obama-administrationens nylige krav til Hosni Mubarak bør nok vurderes som værende af strategisk snarere end af principiel karakter. Havde kravene været af principiel karakter ville lignende krav følgelig skulle stilles til USA's øvrige diktatoriske samarbejdspartnere, hvilket ikke har været tilfældet. Bemærk at Obama-administrationen ikke i samme ombæring beder Islam Karimov om at reformere Uzbekistan, endsige træde tilbage. Man beder ikke, i overensstemmelse med den herskende internationale konsensus, Israel om at forlade de besatte områder og trække sig tilbage til 1967 grænserne. Man beder ikke Saudi-Arabiens lederskab om at ophøre med at krænke befolkningens menneskerettigheder og med at undertrykke landets indbyggere. Disse amerikansk støttede udøvere af statslig vold er fortsat stabile, hvorfor man tilsyneladende vægter deres fortsatte formålstjenstlighed højere end de påståede idealer.
Den kyniske realpolitik udstilles netop nu og graveres yderligere af kløften mellem tale og handling. Læren synes (fortsat) at være, at så længe et diktatur er formålstjenstligt og stabilt, mødes regimets ledelse højst af kritik, som ikke bakkes op af egentlige samarbejdsmæssige konsekvenser. Destabiliseres regimet imidlertid i en sådan grad, at alt peger på dets fald, ændrer man strategi i håb om fortsat at kunne udøve indflydelse i landet under den kommende orden. Den strategiske kritik kan imidlertid meget vel risikere at blive mødt med enten skuldertræk eller vrede blandt ægypterne, og man fristes da også til at spørge, hvorfor en eventuel demokratisk orienteret regering i et post-diktatorisk Ægypten skulle være interesseret i fortsat amerikansk støtte og regeringssamarbejde med supermagten?
En supermagt taber terræn.
Hvis rygterne om, at Mubarak-familien besidder en formue i størrelsesordenen flere hundrede milliarder dollars, er blot tilnærmelsesvis sande, synes den mest åbenlyse handlingsplan at være, at man først og fremmest forsøger at fravriste denne illegitimt rekvirerede formue fra Mubarak-familien. Skulle dette lykkes, vil man ikke have stor bevæggrund for et fortsat økonomisk motiveret samarbejde med USA, idet en formue i denne størrelsesorden er lig flere hundrede års amerikansk økonomisk støtte, målt i dens nuværende form.
Udviklingen i Ægypten kan i det hele taget meget vel gå hen og få meget alvorlige konsekvenser for hegemonens magtradius, såfremt oprøret i Ægypten ender i en egentlig revolution, idet en sådan kan komme til at sprede sig som ringe i vandet og på sigt betyde, at USA vil miste indflydelse i regionen i et ganske betydeligt omfang. Et sådant indflydelsestab er allerede evident andetsteds, nemlig i Latin-Amerika, hvor man i lighed med befolkningerne i Mellemøsten ikke har det store at takke USA's årtier lange interventioner og indblanding i regionale affærer for. Så mens man altså ikke har den store grund til at frygte, at der kommer til at foregå en omfattende islamisering i tilfælde af Mubaraks fald, har man til gengæld nok god grund til at frygte de muslimske og kristne ægypteres insisteren på demokratisering og uafhængighed.
søndag den 6. februar 2011
It Ain't Just Mubarak -- 7 of the Worst Dictators the U.S. Is Backing to the Hilt
Embattled Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak, whose regime has received billions in U.S. aid, has been in the global media spotlight of late. He's long been “our bastard,” but he's not alone.Alternet: It Ain't Just Mubarak - 7 of the Worst Dictators the U.S. Is Backing to the Hilt.
Egypt: Exchanging a Dictator for a Torturer.
As it now stands, the United States appears content to contemplate exchanging Hosni Mubarak for Egypt's new Vice President, Omar Suleiman, the Egyptian spy master--that is, one dictator for another-- to maintain the status quo. Of course, Israel must sign off on this deal, assuring the U.S. that Egypt can remain as its main base in the region, straddling as it does North Africa and the Middle East. Without it, the U.S. would most definitely have to rethink its entire neo-colonial policies in the region.Mother jones: Egypt: Exchanging a Dictator for a Torturer.
As for Suleiman, he looks to be a nasty piece of work....
fredag den 4. februar 2011
Robert Fisk live fra Ægypten på Democracy Now.
Den legendariske journalist Robert Fisk gav i går et interview til det progressive amerikanske nyhedsmedie Democracy Now.
"One of the blights of history will now involve a U.S. president who held out his hand to the Islamic world and then clenched his fist when it fought a dictatorship and demanded democracy"
Democracy Now.
"One of the blights of history will now involve a U.S. president who held out his hand to the Islamic world and then clenched his fist when it fought a dictatorship and demanded democracy"
Democracy Now.
onsdag den 2. februar 2011
Wikileaks: U.S. intelligence collaboration with Omar Suleiman “most successful”
New cables released by Wikileaks reveal that the U.S. government has been quietly anticipating as well as cultivating Omar Suleiman, the Egyptian spy chief, as the top candidate to take over the country should anything happen to President Hosni Mubarak. On Saturday, this expectation was proved correct when Mubarak named Suleiman to the post of vice-president making him the first in line to assume power.
An intelligence official who trained at the U.S. Special Warfare School at Fort Bragg, Suleiman became head of the spy agency in 1993 which brought him into close contact with the Central Intelligence Agency. Recently he took up a more public role as chief Egyptian interlocuter with Israel to discuss the peace process with Hamas and Fatah, the rival Palestinian factions.
Wikileaks: Egypt - U.S. intelligence collaboration with Omar Suleiman “most successful”
Pensioneret CIA-veteran om USAs udenrigspolitik i Mellemøsten.
Tidligere CIA-mand Robert Grenier kommenterer på oprøret i Ægypten og irrelevansen af den amerikanske administrations udmeldinger.
"...the US's entire frame of reference in the region is hopelessly outdated, and no longer has meaning: As if the street protesters in Tunis and Cairo could possibly care what the US thinks or says; as if the political and economic reform which president Obama stubbornly urges on Mubarak while Cairo burns could possibly satisfy those risking their lives to overcome nearly three decades of his repression; as if the two-state solution in Palestine for which the US has so thoroughly compromised itself, and for whose support the US administration still praises Mubarak, has even the slightest hope of realisation; as if the exercise in brutal and demeaning collective punishment inflicted upon Gaza, and for whose enforcement the US, again, still credits Mubarak could possibly produce a decent or just outcome; as if the US refusal to deal with Hezbollah as anything but a terrorist organisation bore any relation to current political realities in the Levant."Al-Jazeera: The Triviality of US Mideast Policy.
torsdag den 20. januar 2011
To år efter: Ingen fornyelse i udenrigspolitikken.
I anledning af, at det idag er to år siden Obama holdt sin tiltrædelsestale som USAs 44. præsident, har jeg skrevet en artikel til Modkraft.dks webmagasin Kontradoxa omhandlende hans administrations foreløbige udenrigspolitik, nærmere bestemt hans regerings fortsættelse af den amerikanske tradition for at støtte formålstjenstlige diktaturer og repressive regimer.
Læs den på Modkraft.dk.
Læs den på Modkraft.dk.
torsdag den 9. december 2010
Jeremy Scahills Vidnesbyrd foran Kongressen
Den undersøgende journalist Jeremy Schahill, bedst kendt for sin dækning af Blackwater/Xe, gav forleden sit vidnesbyrd for Kongressen og talte blandt andet ved denne lejlighed om USAs hemmelige krigsførelse i Pakistan, Yemen og Somalia. Dette er hele hans vidneudsagn.
"My name is Jeremy Scahill. I am the National Security correspondent for The Nation magazine. I recently returned from a two-week unembedded reporting trip to Afghanistan. I would like to thank the Chairman and the Committee for inviting me to participate in this important hearing. As we sit here today in Washington, across the globe the United States is engaged in multiple wars. Some, like those in Afghanistan and Iraq, are well known to the US public and to the Congress.
They are covered in the media and are subject to Congressional review. Despite the perception that we know what is happening in Afghanistan, what is rarely discussed in any depth in Congress or the media is the vast number of innocent Afghan civilians that are being killed on a regular basis in US night raids and the heavy bombing that has been reinstated by General David Petraeus. I saw the impact of these civilian deaths first-hand and I can say that in some cases our own actions are helping to increase the strength and expand the size of the Taliban and the broader insurgency in Afghanistan.
As the war rages on in Afghanistan and--despite spin to the contrary--in Iraq as well, US Special Operations Forces and the Central Intelligence Agency are engaged in parallel, covert, shadow wars that are waged in near total darkness and largely away from effective or meaningful Congressional oversight or journalistic scrutiny. The actions and consequences of these wars is seldom discussed in public or investigated by the Congress.
The current US strategy can be summed up as follows: We are trying to kill our way to peace. And the killing fields are growing in number.
Among the sober question that must be addressed by the Congress: What impact are these clandestine operations having on US national security? Are they making us more safe or less? When US forces kill innocent civilians in "counterterrorism" operations, are we inspiring a new generation of insurgents to rise against our country? And, what is the oversight role of the US Congress in the shadow wars that have spanned the Bush and Obama Administrations?
The most visible among these shadow wars is in Pakistan where the United States regularly bombs the country using weaponized drones. As we now know from diplomatic cables made public by Wikileaks, Pakistan's Prime Minister told a senior US official in Islamabad, "I don't care if [the US bombs Pakistan] as long as they get the right people. We'll protest in the National Assembly and then ignore it."
At the same time, US Special Operations Forces are engaged in covert, offensive actions in Pakistan, including hunting down so-called high value targets, doing reconnaissance for drone strikes and conducting raids with Pakistani forces in north and south Waziristan. These raids are carried out in secret and denied by Pentagon spokespeople in public. Leaked US diplomatic cables have now confirmed that the sustained denials by US officials for more than a year are false. According to an October 9, 2009 cable classified by Anne Patterson, then the US ambassador to Pakistan, offensive operations have been conducted by US Special Operations Forces and coordinated with the US Office of the Defense Representative in Pakistan. A US Special Operations source told me that the US forces described in the cable as "SOC(FWD)-PAK" were "forward operating troops" from the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), the most elite force within the US military made up of Navy SEALs, Delta Force and Army Rangers. This despite senior Pentagon and State Department officials, including by Ambassador Richard Holbrooke and Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell, publicly claiming there are no US troops in Pakistan or that the only role of US troops is to train the Pakistani military. Those statements are demonstrably false.
In the fall of 2008, the US Special Operations Command asked top US diplomats in Pakistan and Afghanistan for detailed information on refugee camps along the Afghanistan Pakistan border and a list of humanitarian aid organizations working in those camps. On October 6, Ambassador Patterson, sent a cable marked "Confidential" to senior US defense and intelligence officials saying that some of the requests, which came in the form of emails, "suggested that agencies intend to use the data for targeting purposes." Other requests, according to the cable, "indicate it would be used for "NO STRIKE" purposes." The cable, which was issued jointly by the US embassies in Kabul and Islamabad, declared: "We are concerned about providing information gained from humanitarian organizations to military personnel, especially for reasons that remain unclear. Particularly worrisome, this does not seem to us a very efficient way to gather accurate information." What this cable says in plain terms is that at least one person within the US Special Operations Command actually asked US diplomats in Kabul and/or Islamabad point-blank for information on refugee camps to be used in a targeted killing or capture operation.
What is clear is that US officials have consistently misled the American and Pakistani people on the extent of US military operations inside Pakistan. The reality is that US soldiers are fighting and dying in Pakistan despite the absence of a declaration of war. It is imperative that Congress investigates this shadow war to examine its legality, but also its impact on Pakistan's stability and US national security. If Congress is kept in the dark about these operations, how can it expect to effectively and honestly debate US policy in Pakistan?
One of the most off-the-radar wars the US is currently waging is in the areas around the Horn of Africa and the Gulf of Aden, where US forces are increasingly militarily engaging forces from Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). While the stated US position is that the US military role in this region is limited to training and weapons support, we now know that on multiple occasions the US has launched cruise missiles carrying cluster bombs at villages in Yemen, killing scores of people. According to the Yemeni parliament, women and children have been among those killed by American bombs. One of these strikes was reportedly aimed at killing a US citizen, Anwar al Awlaki, who has been placed on a targeted assassination list by the CIA and the Joint Special Operations Command. Special Operations sources have told me that elite forces from the US Joint Special Operations Command have also engaged in unilateral direct actions--lethal operations--inside Yemen. As in the case of US drone strikes in Pakistan, the Yemeni authorities are colluding with American officials to mask the level of US involvement.
We now know that on September 6, 2009, President Obama's Deputy National Security Advisor, John Brennan, met with Yemen's president, Ali Abdullah Saleh, to discuss the rising influence of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). According to one cable, "President Saleh pledged unfettered access to Yemen's national territory for U.S. counterterrorism operations... Saleh insisted that Yemen's national territory is available for unilateral [counterterrorism] operations by the U.S." As with the presence of US forces in Pakistan, publicly, the Obama administration insists that its role in Yemen is limited to training and equipping the country's military forces. In secret, however, US Special Operations Forces have been conducting offensive operations in Yemen, including airstrikes, and conspiring with Yemen's president and other leaders to cover-up the US role.
On December 17, 2009, an alleged al-Qaeda training camp in Abyan, Yemen was hit by a cruise missile killing 41 people. According to an investigation by the Yemeni parliament, 14 women and 21 children were among the dead, along with 14 alleged al-Qaeda fighters. A week later another airstrike hit a separate village in Yemen.
Amnesty International released photographs from one of the strikes revealing remnants of US cluster munitions and the Tomahawk cruise missiles used to deliver them. At the time, the Pentagon refused to comment, directing all inquiries to Yemen's government, which released a statement on December 24 taking credit for both airstrikes, saying in a press release, "Yemeni fighter jets launched an aerial assault" and "carried out simultaneous raids killing and detaining militants."
US diplomatic cables now reveal that both strikes were conducted by the US military. In a meeting with General Petraeus in early January 2010 President Saleh reportedly told Petraeus: "We'll continue saying the bombs are ours, not yours." Yemen's Deputy Prime Minister Alimi then boasted that he had just "lied" by telling the Yemeni Parliament "that the bombs... were American-made but deployed by" Yemen. In that meeting, Petraeus and Saleh also discussed the US using "aircraft-deployed precision-guided bombs" with Saleh saying his government would continue to publicly take responsibility for US military attacks. It is clear that we have only seen the beginning of the shadow US war in Yemen and Congress must demand accountability and examine the full extent of the lethal actions currently underway in Yemen.
US forces have also struck multiple times in Somalia and have used the Ethiopian Army as a proxy force to cover the role of US Special Operations troops in a shadow war against al Shabaab and other militant groups. In the years leading up to the December 2006 Ethiopian invasion of Somalia, the Pentagon trained Ethiopian forces-including the notorious Agazi special forces unit. The US role continued well into the Ethiopian offensive. A series of at least six US Special Operation incursions into Somalia followed the invasion, beginning with two AC-130 attacks in southern Somalia in early 2007 and another attack from a US warship in mid-2007. In the spring of 2008, five Tomahawk cruise missiles were fired from an unidentified US naval vessel at a target in southern Somalia, followed by a second strike in central Somalia that killed alleged al Qaeda commander Aden Hashi Ayro. The most recent operation we know of occurred under President Obama's command in September 2009, when at least two US helicopters-reported to have been AH-6 Little Bird attack helicopters-tracked and killed an alleged senior al-Qaeda leader in the al Shabaab-controlled southern region. A diplomatic cable released by Wikileaks reveals that a foreign official praised the US for the Somalia operation, saying "The Somalia job was fantastic." But the reality is that the invasion of Somalia was a disaster and actually increased support for Islamic radical movements.
These ongoing shadow wars confirm an open secret that few in Congress are willing to discuss publicly--particularly Democrats: When it comes to US counterterrorism policy, there has been almost no substantive change from the Bush to the Obama administration. In fact, my sources within the CIA and the Special Operations community tell me that if there is any change it is that President Obama is hitting harder and in more countries that President Bush. The Obama administration is expanding covert actions of the military and the number of countries where US Special Forces are operating. The administration has taken the Bush era doctrine that the "world is a battlefield" and run with it and widened its scope. Under the Bush administration, US Special Forces were operating in 60 countries. Under President Obama, they are now in 75 nations.
The Obama administration's expansion of Special Forces activities globally stems from a classified order dating back to the Bush administration. Originally signed in early 2004 by then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, it is known as the "AQN ExOrd," or Al Qaeda Network Execute Order. The AQN ExOrd was intended to cut through bureaucratic and legal processes, allowing US Special Forces to move into "denied" areas or countries beyond the official battle zones of Iraq and Afghanistan.
As a Special Operations veteran told me, "The ExOrd spells out that we reserve the right to unilaterally act against al Qaeda and its affiliates anywhere in the world that they operate." The current mindset in the White House, he told me, is that "the Pentagon is already empowered to do these things, so let the Joint Special Operations Command off the leash. And that's what this White House has done." He added: "JSOC has been more empowered more under this administration than any other in recent history. No question." "The Obama administration took the [Bush-era] order and went above and beyond," he said. "The world is the battlefield, we've returned to that."
While some of the Special Forces missions are centered around training of militaries in allied nations, that line is often blurred. In some cases, "training" is used as a cover for unilateral, direct action. As a former special ops guy told me: "It's often done under the auspices of training so that they can go anywhere. It's brilliant. It is essentially what we did in the 60s. Remember the 'training mission' in Vietnam? That's how it morphs."
As I just returned from Afghanistan, I would like to share with this committee part of my investigation into deadly US night raids in Afghanistan where innocent civilians were killed. These operations, carried out by the same Special Ops teams that operate in Yemen, Pakistan and Somalia, are part of what is effectively a shadow war within the more publicly visible war in Afghanistan. In one incident in February of this year, US Special Operations Forces raided a civilian compound in the Gardez District of Paktia province. They killed two pregnant women, a teenage girl and two men. US forces tried to cover up their responsibility for the killings and blamed the Taliban and said the women were killed in an honor killing. That was a blatant lie and eventually the US was forced to take responsibility, admitting the raid was conducted by operators from the Joint Special Operations Command.
I went to visit with that family in their home. They were pro-American and anti-Taliban before this raid. In fact, the night US forces stormed their compound, they thought it was a Taliban attack. The two men who were killed were actively working with US forces. One of them was a top police commander trained by the US, the other was a local prosecutor in the Karzai government. One man, who saw his pregnant wife gunned down by US forces, was hooded and handcuffed and taken prisoner for days by American forces. When he was released, he told me, he wanted to become a suicide bomber and blow himself up among Americans. The same was true of a similar raid on the Kashkaki family in Nangarhar province in May 2010 where eight civilians were gunned down by US forces. Local police officials told me the family had no connection to the Taliban. That family is left asking why they should support the US presence in their country after watching their loved ones shot dead before their eyes by a military that claims to be there to liberate them and free their country. The perception I heard expressed widely in Afghanistan was that the US is killing with impunity and strengthening the Taliban in the process.
Former senior State Department official in Afghanistan, Matthew Hoh, recently told me that the night raids are "a really risky, really violent operation," saying that when Special Operations Forces conduct them, "We might get that one guy we're looking for or we might kill a bunch of innocent people and now make ten more Taliban out of them." I told both of the families targeted in the raids I described that I would bring their cases before the US Congress and ask that they be investigated and that those responsible be held accountable for these extrajudicial killings. On behalf of those families, I humbly ask this committee to consider this request.
In closing, the stated focus of this hearing is US national security policy and civil liberties. I believe strongly that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have a direct impact on what happens here in the United States. The same is true for the covert, shadow wars from Pakistan to Somalia to Yemen and beyond. These wars help to shape our domestic policies as well as world opinion about our nation. It is essential for journalists and this Congress to fulfill their oversight functions and to shed light on actions--as unsavory or as difficult as they might be at times--so that US policy moving forward can truly be based on what is best for the people of this nation as well as the populations of the nations where the US is waging wars, whether declared or undeclared. I thank this body for the opportunity to testify today. I ask that my full, prepared remarks be entered into the official record. I am prepared to answer any questions you may have."
© 2010 The Nation
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/12/09-7
"My name is Jeremy Scahill. I am the National Security correspondent for The Nation magazine. I recently returned from a two-week unembedded reporting trip to Afghanistan. I would like to thank the Chairman and the Committee for inviting me to participate in this important hearing. As we sit here today in Washington, across the globe the United States is engaged in multiple wars. Some, like those in Afghanistan and Iraq, are well known to the US public and to the Congress.
They are covered in the media and are subject to Congressional review. Despite the perception that we know what is happening in Afghanistan, what is rarely discussed in any depth in Congress or the media is the vast number of innocent Afghan civilians that are being killed on a regular basis in US night raids and the heavy bombing that has been reinstated by General David Petraeus. I saw the impact of these civilian deaths first-hand and I can say that in some cases our own actions are helping to increase the strength and expand the size of the Taliban and the broader insurgency in Afghanistan.
As the war rages on in Afghanistan and--despite spin to the contrary--in Iraq as well, US Special Operations Forces and the Central Intelligence Agency are engaged in parallel, covert, shadow wars that are waged in near total darkness and largely away from effective or meaningful Congressional oversight or journalistic scrutiny. The actions and consequences of these wars is seldom discussed in public or investigated by the Congress.
The current US strategy can be summed up as follows: We are trying to kill our way to peace. And the killing fields are growing in number.
Among the sober question that must be addressed by the Congress: What impact are these clandestine operations having on US national security? Are they making us more safe or less? When US forces kill innocent civilians in "counterterrorism" operations, are we inspiring a new generation of insurgents to rise against our country? And, what is the oversight role of the US Congress in the shadow wars that have spanned the Bush and Obama Administrations?
The most visible among these shadow wars is in Pakistan where the United States regularly bombs the country using weaponized drones. As we now know from diplomatic cables made public by Wikileaks, Pakistan's Prime Minister told a senior US official in Islamabad, "I don't care if [the US bombs Pakistan] as long as they get the right people. We'll protest in the National Assembly and then ignore it."
At the same time, US Special Operations Forces are engaged in covert, offensive actions in Pakistan, including hunting down so-called high value targets, doing reconnaissance for drone strikes and conducting raids with Pakistani forces in north and south Waziristan. These raids are carried out in secret and denied by Pentagon spokespeople in public. Leaked US diplomatic cables have now confirmed that the sustained denials by US officials for more than a year are false. According to an October 9, 2009 cable classified by Anne Patterson, then the US ambassador to Pakistan, offensive operations have been conducted by US Special Operations Forces and coordinated with the US Office of the Defense Representative in Pakistan. A US Special Operations source told me that the US forces described in the cable as "SOC(FWD)-PAK" were "forward operating troops" from the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), the most elite force within the US military made up of Navy SEALs, Delta Force and Army Rangers. This despite senior Pentagon and State Department officials, including by Ambassador Richard Holbrooke and Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell, publicly claiming there are no US troops in Pakistan or that the only role of US troops is to train the Pakistani military. Those statements are demonstrably false.
In the fall of 2008, the US Special Operations Command asked top US diplomats in Pakistan and Afghanistan for detailed information on refugee camps along the Afghanistan Pakistan border and a list of humanitarian aid organizations working in those camps. On October 6, Ambassador Patterson, sent a cable marked "Confidential" to senior US defense and intelligence officials saying that some of the requests, which came in the form of emails, "suggested that agencies intend to use the data for targeting purposes." Other requests, according to the cable, "indicate it would be used for "NO STRIKE" purposes." The cable, which was issued jointly by the US embassies in Kabul and Islamabad, declared: "We are concerned about providing information gained from humanitarian organizations to military personnel, especially for reasons that remain unclear. Particularly worrisome, this does not seem to us a very efficient way to gather accurate information." What this cable says in plain terms is that at least one person within the US Special Operations Command actually asked US diplomats in Kabul and/or Islamabad point-blank for information on refugee camps to be used in a targeted killing or capture operation.
What is clear is that US officials have consistently misled the American and Pakistani people on the extent of US military operations inside Pakistan. The reality is that US soldiers are fighting and dying in Pakistan despite the absence of a declaration of war. It is imperative that Congress investigates this shadow war to examine its legality, but also its impact on Pakistan's stability and US national security. If Congress is kept in the dark about these operations, how can it expect to effectively and honestly debate US policy in Pakistan?
One of the most off-the-radar wars the US is currently waging is in the areas around the Horn of Africa and the Gulf of Aden, where US forces are increasingly militarily engaging forces from Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). While the stated US position is that the US military role in this region is limited to training and weapons support, we now know that on multiple occasions the US has launched cruise missiles carrying cluster bombs at villages in Yemen, killing scores of people. According to the Yemeni parliament, women and children have been among those killed by American bombs. One of these strikes was reportedly aimed at killing a US citizen, Anwar al Awlaki, who has been placed on a targeted assassination list by the CIA and the Joint Special Operations Command. Special Operations sources have told me that elite forces from the US Joint Special Operations Command have also engaged in unilateral direct actions--lethal operations--inside Yemen. As in the case of US drone strikes in Pakistan, the Yemeni authorities are colluding with American officials to mask the level of US involvement.
We now know that on September 6, 2009, President Obama's Deputy National Security Advisor, John Brennan, met with Yemen's president, Ali Abdullah Saleh, to discuss the rising influence of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). According to one cable, "President Saleh pledged unfettered access to Yemen's national territory for U.S. counterterrorism operations... Saleh insisted that Yemen's national territory is available for unilateral [counterterrorism] operations by the U.S." As with the presence of US forces in Pakistan, publicly, the Obama administration insists that its role in Yemen is limited to training and equipping the country's military forces. In secret, however, US Special Operations Forces have been conducting offensive operations in Yemen, including airstrikes, and conspiring with Yemen's president and other leaders to cover-up the US role.
On December 17, 2009, an alleged al-Qaeda training camp in Abyan, Yemen was hit by a cruise missile killing 41 people. According to an investigation by the Yemeni parliament, 14 women and 21 children were among the dead, along with 14 alleged al-Qaeda fighters. A week later another airstrike hit a separate village in Yemen.
Amnesty International released photographs from one of the strikes revealing remnants of US cluster munitions and the Tomahawk cruise missiles used to deliver them. At the time, the Pentagon refused to comment, directing all inquiries to Yemen's government, which released a statement on December 24 taking credit for both airstrikes, saying in a press release, "Yemeni fighter jets launched an aerial assault" and "carried out simultaneous raids killing and detaining militants."
US diplomatic cables now reveal that both strikes were conducted by the US military. In a meeting with General Petraeus in early January 2010 President Saleh reportedly told Petraeus: "We'll continue saying the bombs are ours, not yours." Yemen's Deputy Prime Minister Alimi then boasted that he had just "lied" by telling the Yemeni Parliament "that the bombs... were American-made but deployed by" Yemen. In that meeting, Petraeus and Saleh also discussed the US using "aircraft-deployed precision-guided bombs" with Saleh saying his government would continue to publicly take responsibility for US military attacks. It is clear that we have only seen the beginning of the shadow US war in Yemen and Congress must demand accountability and examine the full extent of the lethal actions currently underway in Yemen.
US forces have also struck multiple times in Somalia and have used the Ethiopian Army as a proxy force to cover the role of US Special Operations troops in a shadow war against al Shabaab and other militant groups. In the years leading up to the December 2006 Ethiopian invasion of Somalia, the Pentagon trained Ethiopian forces-including the notorious Agazi special forces unit. The US role continued well into the Ethiopian offensive. A series of at least six US Special Operation incursions into Somalia followed the invasion, beginning with two AC-130 attacks in southern Somalia in early 2007 and another attack from a US warship in mid-2007. In the spring of 2008, five Tomahawk cruise missiles were fired from an unidentified US naval vessel at a target in southern Somalia, followed by a second strike in central Somalia that killed alleged al Qaeda commander Aden Hashi Ayro. The most recent operation we know of occurred under President Obama's command in September 2009, when at least two US helicopters-reported to have been AH-6 Little Bird attack helicopters-tracked and killed an alleged senior al-Qaeda leader in the al Shabaab-controlled southern region. A diplomatic cable released by Wikileaks reveals that a foreign official praised the US for the Somalia operation, saying "The Somalia job was fantastic." But the reality is that the invasion of Somalia was a disaster and actually increased support for Islamic radical movements.
These ongoing shadow wars confirm an open secret that few in Congress are willing to discuss publicly--particularly Democrats: When it comes to US counterterrorism policy, there has been almost no substantive change from the Bush to the Obama administration. In fact, my sources within the CIA and the Special Operations community tell me that if there is any change it is that President Obama is hitting harder and in more countries that President Bush. The Obama administration is expanding covert actions of the military and the number of countries where US Special Forces are operating. The administration has taken the Bush era doctrine that the "world is a battlefield" and run with it and widened its scope. Under the Bush administration, US Special Forces were operating in 60 countries. Under President Obama, they are now in 75 nations.
The Obama administration's expansion of Special Forces activities globally stems from a classified order dating back to the Bush administration. Originally signed in early 2004 by then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, it is known as the "AQN ExOrd," or Al Qaeda Network Execute Order. The AQN ExOrd was intended to cut through bureaucratic and legal processes, allowing US Special Forces to move into "denied" areas or countries beyond the official battle zones of Iraq and Afghanistan.
As a Special Operations veteran told me, "The ExOrd spells out that we reserve the right to unilaterally act against al Qaeda and its affiliates anywhere in the world that they operate." The current mindset in the White House, he told me, is that "the Pentagon is already empowered to do these things, so let the Joint Special Operations Command off the leash. And that's what this White House has done." He added: "JSOC has been more empowered more under this administration than any other in recent history. No question." "The Obama administration took the [Bush-era] order and went above and beyond," he said. "The world is the battlefield, we've returned to that."
While some of the Special Forces missions are centered around training of militaries in allied nations, that line is often blurred. In some cases, "training" is used as a cover for unilateral, direct action. As a former special ops guy told me: "It's often done under the auspices of training so that they can go anywhere. It's brilliant. It is essentially what we did in the 60s. Remember the 'training mission' in Vietnam? That's how it morphs."
As I just returned from Afghanistan, I would like to share with this committee part of my investigation into deadly US night raids in Afghanistan where innocent civilians were killed. These operations, carried out by the same Special Ops teams that operate in Yemen, Pakistan and Somalia, are part of what is effectively a shadow war within the more publicly visible war in Afghanistan. In one incident in February of this year, US Special Operations Forces raided a civilian compound in the Gardez District of Paktia province. They killed two pregnant women, a teenage girl and two men. US forces tried to cover up their responsibility for the killings and blamed the Taliban and said the women were killed in an honor killing. That was a blatant lie and eventually the US was forced to take responsibility, admitting the raid was conducted by operators from the Joint Special Operations Command.
I went to visit with that family in their home. They were pro-American and anti-Taliban before this raid. In fact, the night US forces stormed their compound, they thought it was a Taliban attack. The two men who were killed were actively working with US forces. One of them was a top police commander trained by the US, the other was a local prosecutor in the Karzai government. One man, who saw his pregnant wife gunned down by US forces, was hooded and handcuffed and taken prisoner for days by American forces. When he was released, he told me, he wanted to become a suicide bomber and blow himself up among Americans. The same was true of a similar raid on the Kashkaki family in Nangarhar province in May 2010 where eight civilians were gunned down by US forces. Local police officials told me the family had no connection to the Taliban. That family is left asking why they should support the US presence in their country after watching their loved ones shot dead before their eyes by a military that claims to be there to liberate them and free their country. The perception I heard expressed widely in Afghanistan was that the US is killing with impunity and strengthening the Taliban in the process.
Former senior State Department official in Afghanistan, Matthew Hoh, recently told me that the night raids are "a really risky, really violent operation," saying that when Special Operations Forces conduct them, "We might get that one guy we're looking for or we might kill a bunch of innocent people and now make ten more Taliban out of them." I told both of the families targeted in the raids I described that I would bring their cases before the US Congress and ask that they be investigated and that those responsible be held accountable for these extrajudicial killings. On behalf of those families, I humbly ask this committee to consider this request.
In closing, the stated focus of this hearing is US national security policy and civil liberties. I believe strongly that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have a direct impact on what happens here in the United States. The same is true for the covert, shadow wars from Pakistan to Somalia to Yemen and beyond. These wars help to shape our domestic policies as well as world opinion about our nation. It is essential for journalists and this Congress to fulfill their oversight functions and to shed light on actions--as unsavory or as difficult as they might be at times--so that US policy moving forward can truly be based on what is best for the people of this nation as well as the populations of the nations where the US is waging wars, whether declared or undeclared. I thank this body for the opportunity to testify today. I ask that my full, prepared remarks be entered into the official record. I am prepared to answer any questions you may have."
© 2010 The Nation
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/12/09-7
tirsdag den 30. november 2010
USAs bevæbning af Saudi-Arabien.
Samarbejdet mellem USA og Saudi-Arabien går tilbage til 1930erne og er fortsat idag en væsentlig komponent i den amerikanske sikkerhedspolitik, hvilket primært skyldes at Saudi-Arabien råder over verdens største oliereserver. Obama-administrationens samarbejde med Saudi-Arabien er således ikke noget nyt men blot en forlængelse af tidligere administrationers.
Det er almindeligt kendt, at Saudi-Arabien ikke just er en mønsterstat hvad styrets magtpraksis overfor civilbefolkningen angår, men det er ikke desto mindre værd at dvæle kortvarigt ved monarkiets jernnæve og menneskefjendske handlinger. Den korte version er iflg. Amnesty Internationals årsrapport fra 2009:
“Thousands of people continued to be detained without trial as terrorism suspects and hundreds more were arrested. In October, the government announced that more than 900 would be brought to trial. Human rights activists and peaceful critics of the government were detained or remained in prison, including prisoners of conscience. Freedom of expression, religion, association and assembly remained tightly restricted. Women continued to face severe discrimination in law and practice. Migrant workers suffered exploitation and abuse with little possibility of redress. Refugees and asylum-seekers were not adequately protected. The administration of justice remained shrouded in secrecy and was summary in nature. Torture and other ill-treatment of detainees were widespread and systematic, and carried out with impunity. Flogging was used widely as a main and additional punishment. The death penalty continued to be used extensively and in a discriminatory manner against migrant workers from developing countries, women and poor people. At least 102 people were executed.”
Selvom dette måske burde vække bekymringer hos Obama-administrationen, hvor man som bekendt taler meget om menneskerettigheder og demokrati, synes det ikke at være tilfældet, da man for blot få dage siden gennemførte en rekordstor våbenhandel med Saudi-Arabien til en værdi af 60 milliarder dollars. Ifølge en bekendtgørelse fra det amerikanske udenrigsministerium består denne gigantiske våbenhandel af 84 F-15 kampfly og 70 opgraderinger af eksisterende F-15'ere til en mere advanceret konfiguration, 70 Apache helikoptere, 72 Blackhawk helikoptere, 36 lette angrebshelikoptere og 12 lette træningshellikoptere. I følge Defense Security Cooperation Agency inkluderer våbenhandelen endvidere hundredevis af missiler, tusindevis af bomber og meget andet.
Men hvad skyldes denne omfattende militarisering af et af verdens mest berygtede diktaturer? Viceudenrigsminister Andrew Shapiro's officielle begrundelse er, at handelen “vil sende en kraftig besked til lande i regionen om, at vi er forpligtet til at støtte sikkerheden hos vores afgørende partnere og allierede i den Arabiske Gulf og det bredere Mellemøsten. Og det vil styrke Saudi-Arabiens evne til at afskrække og forsvare sig imod trusler ved dets grænser og mod dets olie-infrastruktur, hvilket er kritisk for vores økonomiske interesser.”
Disse officielle rationaler bag våbenhandelen problematiseres imidlertid af våben- og sikkerhedsanalytikeren William Hartung fra tænketanken New America Foundation:
“As to the idea of sending a signal to potential adversaries (by which the administration can only mean Iran), the "signal" in question is unlikely to have the intended result. If anything, the Iranian regime is likely to use the Saudi deal as yet another excuse to pursue or accelerate its nuclear ambitions. After all, what could 72 F-15 combat aircraft possibly be used for? Iran has no air force worth the name, so the planes for the Saudis aren't likely to be used to defend against Iran. They could be used as part of a U.S.-led attack on Iran, assuming they were integrated into a well functioning air force with well-trained pilots; but that is also an unlikely outcome. So, the F-15s are either useless (and therefore a waste of money) or unnecessarily provocative (and therefore contrary to genuine U.S. and Saudi security interests).
Will planes, bombs, and attack helicopters be of use in protecting Saudi oil installations? Probably not. The most likely route of attack would be surreptitiously planting a bomb or bombs, not attacking in recognizable groups that could be deterred or counter-attacked by aerial bombing or firing guns or missiles from helicopters. In theory the armed helcopters that are part of the deal could be used to hover near key installations and keep an eye out for potential saboteurs, but that is likely to be futile effort (not to mention being hugely expensive and logistically challenging).
One place that the new weaponry might be used is on Saudi Arabia's border with Yemen, where Houthi rebels and Al Qaeda operatives are present. But bombing alleged Al Qaeda sanctuaries or Houthi forces in northern Yemen are more likely to inflame the local population against Saudi Arabia and its arms supplier -- the United States -- than they are to weaken Al Qaeda.
That leaves one major rationale for the sale: money. In exchange for giving a huge boost to Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and other U.S. weapons contractors at a time when Pentagon spending is levelling off (although not being reduced in real terms), the Saudi government probably feels that sending boatloads of money to U.S. defense contractors will further cement its relationship with Washington so that the U.S. will come to their aid in a jam. But are large weapons deals the only way to forge strong relations?”
I USA hilser man da heller ikke overraskende våbenhandlen velkommen fra våbenindustriel side. Fred Downey, vicepræsident for interesseorganisationen Aerospace Industries Association udtaler at “The deal, which is expected to pay out over the next 15 to 20 years, will not single handedly save the military aircraft industrial base, but it may well help keep some aerospace companies alive” samt at “the Saudi sales will help keep workers with critical skills - from design engineers to production line workers - remain employed in the aerospace industry”.
.
Det er almindeligt kendt, at Saudi-Arabien ikke just er en mønsterstat hvad styrets magtpraksis overfor civilbefolkningen angår, men det er ikke desto mindre værd at dvæle kortvarigt ved monarkiets jernnæve og menneskefjendske handlinger. Den korte version er iflg. Amnesty Internationals årsrapport fra 2009:
“Thousands of people continued to be detained without trial as terrorism suspects and hundreds more were arrested. In October, the government announced that more than 900 would be brought to trial. Human rights activists and peaceful critics of the government were detained or remained in prison, including prisoners of conscience. Freedom of expression, religion, association and assembly remained tightly restricted. Women continued to face severe discrimination in law and practice. Migrant workers suffered exploitation and abuse with little possibility of redress. Refugees and asylum-seekers were not adequately protected. The administration of justice remained shrouded in secrecy and was summary in nature. Torture and other ill-treatment of detainees were widespread and systematic, and carried out with impunity. Flogging was used widely as a main and additional punishment. The death penalty continued to be used extensively and in a discriminatory manner against migrant workers from developing countries, women and poor people. At least 102 people were executed.”
Selvom dette måske burde vække bekymringer hos Obama-administrationen, hvor man som bekendt taler meget om menneskerettigheder og demokrati, synes det ikke at være tilfældet, da man for blot få dage siden gennemførte en rekordstor våbenhandel med Saudi-Arabien til en værdi af 60 milliarder dollars. Ifølge en bekendtgørelse fra det amerikanske udenrigsministerium består denne gigantiske våbenhandel af 84 F-15 kampfly og 70 opgraderinger af eksisterende F-15'ere til en mere advanceret konfiguration, 70 Apache helikoptere, 72 Blackhawk helikoptere, 36 lette angrebshelikoptere og 12 lette træningshellikoptere. I følge Defense Security Cooperation Agency inkluderer våbenhandelen endvidere hundredevis af missiler, tusindevis af bomber og meget andet.
Men hvad skyldes denne omfattende militarisering af et af verdens mest berygtede diktaturer? Viceudenrigsminister Andrew Shapiro's officielle begrundelse er, at handelen “vil sende en kraftig besked til lande i regionen om, at vi er forpligtet til at støtte sikkerheden hos vores afgørende partnere og allierede i den Arabiske Gulf og det bredere Mellemøsten. Og det vil styrke Saudi-Arabiens evne til at afskrække og forsvare sig imod trusler ved dets grænser og mod dets olie-infrastruktur, hvilket er kritisk for vores økonomiske interesser.”
Disse officielle rationaler bag våbenhandelen problematiseres imidlertid af våben- og sikkerhedsanalytikeren William Hartung fra tænketanken New America Foundation:
“As to the idea of sending a signal to potential adversaries (by which the administration can only mean Iran), the "signal" in question is unlikely to have the intended result. If anything, the Iranian regime is likely to use the Saudi deal as yet another excuse to pursue or accelerate its nuclear ambitions. After all, what could 72 F-15 combat aircraft possibly be used for? Iran has no air force worth the name, so the planes for the Saudis aren't likely to be used to defend against Iran. They could be used as part of a U.S.-led attack on Iran, assuming they were integrated into a well functioning air force with well-trained pilots; but that is also an unlikely outcome. So, the F-15s are either useless (and therefore a waste of money) or unnecessarily provocative (and therefore contrary to genuine U.S. and Saudi security interests).
Will planes, bombs, and attack helicopters be of use in protecting Saudi oil installations? Probably not. The most likely route of attack would be surreptitiously planting a bomb or bombs, not attacking in recognizable groups that could be deterred or counter-attacked by aerial bombing or firing guns or missiles from helicopters. In theory the armed helcopters that are part of the deal could be used to hover near key installations and keep an eye out for potential saboteurs, but that is likely to be futile effort (not to mention being hugely expensive and logistically challenging).
One place that the new weaponry might be used is on Saudi Arabia's border with Yemen, where Houthi rebels and Al Qaeda operatives are present. But bombing alleged Al Qaeda sanctuaries or Houthi forces in northern Yemen are more likely to inflame the local population against Saudi Arabia and its arms supplier -- the United States -- than they are to weaken Al Qaeda.
That leaves one major rationale for the sale: money. In exchange for giving a huge boost to Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and other U.S. weapons contractors at a time when Pentagon spending is levelling off (although not being reduced in real terms), the Saudi government probably feels that sending boatloads of money to U.S. defense contractors will further cement its relationship with Washington so that the U.S. will come to their aid in a jam. But are large weapons deals the only way to forge strong relations?”
I USA hilser man da heller ikke overraskende våbenhandlen velkommen fra våbenindustriel side. Fred Downey, vicepræsident for interesseorganisationen Aerospace Industries Association udtaler at “The deal, which is expected to pay out over the next 15 to 20 years, will not single handedly save the military aircraft industrial base, but it may well help keep some aerospace companies alive” samt at “the Saudi sales will help keep workers with critical skills - from design engineers to production line workers - remain employed in the aerospace industry”.
.
mandag den 29. november 2010
Om USAs støtte til Mubaraks diktatur.
Da Barack Obama den 2. Oktober 2002 talte til en anti-krigsdemonstration i Chicago inkluderede talen hård kritik af USA's allierede i Ægypten og Saudi-Arabien. Han sagde:
"Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells."
Da Obama gav sit første interview til BBC i Juni 2009 havde piben imidlertid fået en anden lyd. Mubarak, som han altså tidligere havde omtalt som en ”såkaldt allieret”, blev nu karakteriseret som en ”stålsat allieret” og ”en stabiliserende kraft i regionen”. Til spørgsmålet ”anser du Mubarak for at være en autoritær leder?” svarede Obama ”nej” og tilføjede ”Jeg undlader at påklistre mærkater på folk”. Præsidentens udtalelser i interviewet stod således i skarp kontrast til hans udtalelser blot syv år tidligere, hvor han som bekendt beskrev Mubaraks regime som repressivt. Hvad var der sket? Var Mubarak kommet på bedre tanker i mellemtiden og havde derfor ændret sin magtpraksis på så fundamental vis, at der ikke længere var grund til kritik? Desværre ikke.
I Human Right Watch årsberetning fra 2010 kan man læse at Ægypten ”continued to suppress political dissent in 2009” og uddybende, at landets autoriteter ”harassed rights activists, and detained journalists, bloggers, and members of the Muslim Brotherhood (the banned organization that is the country's largest opposition group). Authorities used lethal force against migrants and refugees attempting to cross into Israel, and forcibly returned asylum seekers and refugees to countries where they could face torture.” Desuden kunne man i årsrapporten læse, at der foregår omfattende tortur i Ægypten: ”Police and security forces regularly engage in torture and brutality in police stations and detention centers, and at points of arrest.” Heller ikke religionsfriheden har gode vilkår i landet: ”Although Egypt's constitution provides for equal rights without regard to religion, discrimination against Egyptian Christians, and official intolerance of Baha'is, some Muslim sects, and Muslims who convert to Christianity continue.”
I det amerikanske udenrigsministeriums egen officielle ”Human Rights Report” fra 2009 gør man sig heller ikke nogle illusioner mht. Ægypten. Om tilstanden i landet i 2008 hedder det:
”The government's respect for human rights remained poor, and serious abuses continued in many areas ... Security forces used unwarranted lethal force and tortured and abused prisoners and detainees, in most cases with impunity. Prison and detention center conditions were poor. Security forces arbitrarily arrested and detained individuals, in some cases for political purposes, and kept them in prolonged pretrial detention. The executive branch exercised control over and pressured the judiciary. The government's respect for freedoms of association and religion remained poor during the year, and the government continued to restrict nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). The government partially restricted freedom of expression.”
Til trods for ovenstående rapporter om menneskerettighedernes og frihedsrettighedernes svære vilkår i Ægypten er der imidlertid ikke noget der tyder på, at man fra amerikansk side har tænkt sig at begrænse eller eliminere den økonomiske og militære støtte til den ægyptiske diktaturstat. I en officiel rapport til Kongressen dateret 16. september 2010, får vi at vide, at den årlige støtte på cirka 3 milliarder dollars, som man hvert år har ydet til Ægypten siden 1979, var reduceret en smule i 2009, idet Ægypten i 2009 “kun” modtog $200 millioner i økonomisk støtte og $1.3 milliarder i militær støtte. Reduktionen i støtten skyldtes til dels, at man havde skåret den økonomiske støtte ned til det halve, og dermed fjernet den del af støtten som skulle gå til demokratifremmende formål. Om den militære støtte hedder det endvidere at: “..Although there are no verifiable figures on total Egyptian military spending, it is estimated that U.S. military aid covers as much as 80 % of the Defense Ministry’s weapons procurement costs.”
Om støtten til Ægypten skriver professor i international politik Stephen Zunes: ”... As long as the Mubarak regime knows that the U.S. aid will keep flowing regardless of its violations of internationally recognized human rights, there is little incentive for political liberalization. The growing anti-American sentiment in Egypt stems not as much from U.S. support for Israel as it does from U.S. support for Mubarak's dictatorial rule.” Den amerikanske militarisering af Ægypten og andre lande i Mellemøsten øger endvidere truslen mod USA iflg. Zunes: "..the more the United States has militarized the region, the less secure the American people have become. All the sophisticated weaponry, brave fighting men and women, and brilliant military leadership the United States may possess will do little good if there are hundreds of millions of people in the Middle East and beyond who hate us."
"Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells."
Da Obama gav sit første interview til BBC i Juni 2009 havde piben imidlertid fået en anden lyd. Mubarak, som han altså tidligere havde omtalt som en ”såkaldt allieret”, blev nu karakteriseret som en ”stålsat allieret” og ”en stabiliserende kraft i regionen”. Til spørgsmålet ”anser du Mubarak for at være en autoritær leder?” svarede Obama ”nej” og tilføjede ”Jeg undlader at påklistre mærkater på folk”. Præsidentens udtalelser i interviewet stod således i skarp kontrast til hans udtalelser blot syv år tidligere, hvor han som bekendt beskrev Mubaraks regime som repressivt. Hvad var der sket? Var Mubarak kommet på bedre tanker i mellemtiden og havde derfor ændret sin magtpraksis på så fundamental vis, at der ikke længere var grund til kritik? Desværre ikke.
I Human Right Watch årsberetning fra 2010 kan man læse at Ægypten ”continued to suppress political dissent in 2009” og uddybende, at landets autoriteter ”harassed rights activists, and detained journalists, bloggers, and members of the Muslim Brotherhood (the banned organization that is the country's largest opposition group). Authorities used lethal force against migrants and refugees attempting to cross into Israel, and forcibly returned asylum seekers and refugees to countries where they could face torture.” Desuden kunne man i årsrapporten læse, at der foregår omfattende tortur i Ægypten: ”Police and security forces regularly engage in torture and brutality in police stations and detention centers, and at points of arrest.” Heller ikke religionsfriheden har gode vilkår i landet: ”Although Egypt's constitution provides for equal rights without regard to religion, discrimination against Egyptian Christians, and official intolerance of Baha'is, some Muslim sects, and Muslims who convert to Christianity continue.”
I det amerikanske udenrigsministeriums egen officielle ”Human Rights Report” fra 2009 gør man sig heller ikke nogle illusioner mht. Ægypten. Om tilstanden i landet i 2008 hedder det:
”The government's respect for human rights remained poor, and serious abuses continued in many areas ... Security forces used unwarranted lethal force and tortured and abused prisoners and detainees, in most cases with impunity. Prison and detention center conditions were poor. Security forces arbitrarily arrested and detained individuals, in some cases for political purposes, and kept them in prolonged pretrial detention. The executive branch exercised control over and pressured the judiciary. The government's respect for freedoms of association and religion remained poor during the year, and the government continued to restrict nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). The government partially restricted freedom of expression.”
Til trods for ovenstående rapporter om menneskerettighedernes og frihedsrettighedernes svære vilkår i Ægypten er der imidlertid ikke noget der tyder på, at man fra amerikansk side har tænkt sig at begrænse eller eliminere den økonomiske og militære støtte til den ægyptiske diktaturstat. I en officiel rapport til Kongressen dateret 16. september 2010, får vi at vide, at den årlige støtte på cirka 3 milliarder dollars, som man hvert år har ydet til Ægypten siden 1979, var reduceret en smule i 2009, idet Ægypten i 2009 “kun” modtog $200 millioner i økonomisk støtte og $1.3 milliarder i militær støtte. Reduktionen i støtten skyldtes til dels, at man havde skåret den økonomiske støtte ned til det halve, og dermed fjernet den del af støtten som skulle gå til demokratifremmende formål. Om den militære støtte hedder det endvidere at: “..Although there are no verifiable figures on total Egyptian military spending, it is estimated that U.S. military aid covers as much as 80 % of the Defense Ministry’s weapons procurement costs.”
Om støtten til Ægypten skriver professor i international politik Stephen Zunes: ”... As long as the Mubarak regime knows that the U.S. aid will keep flowing regardless of its violations of internationally recognized human rights, there is little incentive for political liberalization. The growing anti-American sentiment in Egypt stems not as much from U.S. support for Israel as it does from U.S. support for Mubarak's dictatorial rule.” Den amerikanske militarisering af Ægypten og andre lande i Mellemøsten øger endvidere truslen mod USA iflg. Zunes: "..the more the United States has militarized the region, the less secure the American people have become. All the sophisticated weaponry, brave fighting men and women, and brilliant military leadership the United States may possess will do little good if there are hundreds of millions of people in the Middle East and beyond who hate us."
tirsdag den 23. november 2010
Om Barack Obama's statsbesøg i Indonesien.
I November måned i år var Barack Obama, som led i en længere rundrejse i Asien, på statsbesøg i Indonesien. Under sit besøg holdt han en længere tale til det indonesiske folk i hvilken han blandt andet roste Indonesiens styreform: "Jeres demokrati er symboliseret ved jeres folkevalgte præsident og lovgivere. Jeres demokrati er vedholdende og sikret af dets checks and balances [og] et dynamisk civilsamfund; politiske partier og fagforeninger; spillevende medier og engagerede borgere som har sikret at – i Indonesien – vil man ikke vende tilbage [til tidligere tiders diktatur]." Han bekendtgjorde, at han mente en "tolerancens ånd" herskede i Indonesien hvilket udgjorde "fundamentet for Indonesiens eksempel for verden". Præsidenten fortalte endvidere indoneserne, at der "særligt i tider med forandring og økonomisk usikkerhed er nogle som vil sige at det er lettere at tage smutvejen til udvikling ved at bytte menneskers rettigheder ud med statslig magt … dette er ikke hvad jeg ser i Indonesien."[1]
Unægteligt fine ord men desværre også et skønmaleri af en indonesisk orden som ikke formår at leve op til præsidentens højstemte retorik. I menneskerettighedsorganisationen Human Rights Watch's årsrapport fra 2010, som dækker begivenheder der fandt sted i 2009, omtales en række indonesiske menneskerettighedsproblematikker herunder straffrihed for militærpersonnel der udfører menneskerettighedskrænkende handlinger mod civilbefolkningen. Specielt omtales situationen i provinserne Papua og West Papua:
"Indonesian authorities have responded to a longstanding, low-level armed separatist insurgency in the provinces of Papua and West Papua with a strong troop presence and often harsh and disproportionate responses to non-violent dissent or criticism. Human Rights Watch has long expressed concerns over anti-separatist sweeps by the police, which often result in individuals who peacefully express support for independence being arrested and detained on charges of treason or rebellion (makar).
The government continues to restrict access by foreign human rights monitors and journalists to Papua, exacerbating the existing climate of impunity and making investigations extremely difficult. Prior to being ordered to close its Jayapura office, the ICRC had been visiting detainees in Papua's Abepura prison, where prison guards continued to torture inmates, including political prisoners Buchtar Tabuni and Yusak Pakage."[2]
Den 11. marts i år sender Human Rights Watch et brev til USA's forsvars- og udenrigsministre Robert Gates og Hillary Clinton, i hvilket man ytrer bekymring omkring amerikanske planer om at genoptage støtten til den indonesiske hærs specialstyrke Kopassus. I brevet står der:
"In recent weeks, US officials have suggested that the Department of Defense may be seeking to resume US military training for members of Kopassus, and particularly in the area of counter-terrorism. This raises a number of serious questions about the US's commitment to withholding military assistance to foreign military forces that have committed serious violations of human rights. These questions stem from unique aspects of the Kopassus counter-terrorism component known as Unit 81, the entity whose members the Department of Defense presumably seeks to train."
The operational component of Unit 81 appears to have existed since 1982, when Kopassus established an elite counter-terrorism force known as "Detachment 81." That force has been reorganized once in 1995, when it was enlarged and renamed "Group 5," and again in 2001, when it was reduced in size and renamed "Unit 81."
Since its creation, Unit 81's activities have been largely shrouded in secrecy. Members of Unit 81 reportedly rotate through other Kopassus components and units, including Group 3 (which contains Kopassus' notorious "covert war" unit). In addition, members of what is now known as Unit 81 have accompanied Kopassus combat units or other military personnel in field operations, including in Aceh and East Timor, although they remained under the command of their superiors headquartered in Jakarta.
In several instances, members of what is now called Unit 81 have been credibly accused of serious human rights abuses or other improper conduct, for instance, in controlling abusive pro-Indonesia militias in East Timor between 1986 and 1999 and committing the enforced disappearance of student activists in 1997-1998 in Jakarta." [min fremhævning].[3]
Dette lod imidlertid ikke til at bekymre den amerikanske regering idet man i Juli måned indvilligede i at påbegynde et "gradvist og begrænset" engagement med Kopassus og dermed afslutte et ti år langt moratorium som forhindrede USA i at støtte specialstyrken. Dette udløste stor protest fra menneskerettighedsgruppen The West Papua Advocacy Team som erklærede:
"The U.S. Administration’s decision to resume cooperation with the most criminal and unreformed element of the Indonesian military removes critical international pressure for reform and professionalization of the broader Indonesian military … It signals to Indonesian human rights advocates who have born the brunt of security force intimidation that they stand alone in their fight for respect for human rights and genuine reform in Indonesia."[4]
Umiddelbart sammenfaldende med Obama's besøg kom en række interne dokumenter fra Kopassus frem i dagens lys. Ifølge rettighedsaktivisten Allan Niarn, som bragte dokumenterne på sin blog, inkluderer disse en liste over fjender ledet af den papuanske baptistpræst Socrates Sofyan Yoman og man kan i dokumenterne læse at specialstyrken gør sig i "mord og kidnapninger". Dokumenterne "beskriver et hemmeligt netværk som overvåger, infiltrerer og splitter papuanske institutioner." I Allan Nairns omtale af dokumenterne kan man læse at:
"The leaked cache of secret Kopassus documents includes operational, intelligence and field reports as well as personnel records which list the names and details of Kopassus "agents."
The documents are classified "SECRET" ("RAHASIA") and include extensive background reports on Kopassus civilian targets - reports that are apparently of uneven accuracy.
The authenticity of the documents has been verified by Kopassus personnel who have seen them and by external evidence regarding the authors and the internal characteristics of the documents.
A detailed 25-page secret report by a Kopassus task force in Kotaraja, Papua defines Kopassus' number-one "enemy" as unarmed civilians. It calls them the "separatist political movement" "GSP/P," lists what they say are the top 15 leaders and discusses the "enemy order of battle."
All of those listed are civilians, starting with the head of the Baptist Synod of Papua. The others include evangelical ministers, activists, traditional leaders, legislators, students and intellectuals as well as local establishment figures and the head of the Papua Muslim Youth organization. [min fremhævning]
The secret Kopassus study says that in their 400,000 - person area of operations the civilians they target as being political are "much more dangerous than" any armed opposition since the armed groups "hardly do anything" but the civilians -- with popular support -- have "reached the outside world" with their "obsession" with "merdeka" (independence/ freedom) and persist in "propagating the issue of severe human rights violations in Papua," ie. "murders and abductions that are done by the security forces."[5]
Efter disse afsløringer var kommet frem i lyset behandles de i en artikel i Jakarta Globe hvor chefen for det indonesiske militær kommer med en længere udtalelse, i hvilken han forsvarer uhyrlighederne ved, at beskrive specialstyrkens operationer i West Papua som blotte indsamlinger af efterretninger:
"The Indonesian military chief has confirmed claims by a rights activist [Allan Nairn] that the armed forces are actively carrying out intelligence gathering in Papua, and defended the move as crucial for national security... On Thursday, Adm. Agus Suhartono, the recently appointed chief of the Indonesian Military, admitted that they were involved in intelligence gathering operations, but only to guard against threats to the nation’s sovereignty and to back up police operations there. He rejected the idea that gathering intelligence among civilians was wrong, saying all intelligence operations in Papua served to detect and prevent separatist threats. 'What we’re doing is maximizing the use of our intelligence unit for the sake of the military and the country,' Agus said." ( jvf. Markus Junianto Sialoho, "Indonesian Military Chief Defends Spying Operation in Papua," The Jakarta Globe, November 12, 2010).
Obama-administrationens påskud for at påbegynde støtten til Kopassus igen var, at der var tale om støtte til terrorbekæmpelse, men som de lækkede dokumenter tydeligt illustrerer er der tale om støtte til omfattende menneskerettighedskrænkelser mod civilbefolkningen på West Papua. Dette kan næppe undskyldes med, at man ikke var klar over at den slags fandt sted i Indonesien, da Human Rights Watch allerede i Marts måned havde gjort både forsvarsministeren og udenrigsministeren opmærksomme på det stærkt bekymrende ved Kopassus virksomhed og derfor ved USAs planer om at støtte specialstyrken. Obama talte altså derfor efter alt at dømme mod bedre vidende da han i sin tale sagde at der "særligt i tider med forandring og økonomisk usikkerhed er nogle som vil sige at det er lettere at tage smutvejen til udvikling ved at bytte menneskers rettigheder ud med statslig magt … dette er ikke hvad jeg ser i Indonesien." Desværre var der ingen blandt de danske trykte medier der valgte at bringe en kritisk dækning af Obamas statsbesøg. For en kritisk kommentar til dette tavshedens tyranni anbefales Uffe Kaels Aurings indlæg på medieoplysning.dk.
Unægteligt fine ord men desværre også et skønmaleri af en indonesisk orden som ikke formår at leve op til præsidentens højstemte retorik. I menneskerettighedsorganisationen Human Rights Watch's årsrapport fra 2010, som dækker begivenheder der fandt sted i 2009, omtales en række indonesiske menneskerettighedsproblematikker herunder straffrihed for militærpersonnel der udfører menneskerettighedskrænkende handlinger mod civilbefolkningen. Specielt omtales situationen i provinserne Papua og West Papua:
"Indonesian authorities have responded to a longstanding, low-level armed separatist insurgency in the provinces of Papua and West Papua with a strong troop presence and often harsh and disproportionate responses to non-violent dissent or criticism. Human Rights Watch has long expressed concerns over anti-separatist sweeps by the police, which often result in individuals who peacefully express support for independence being arrested and detained on charges of treason or rebellion (makar).
The government continues to restrict access by foreign human rights monitors and journalists to Papua, exacerbating the existing climate of impunity and making investigations extremely difficult. Prior to being ordered to close its Jayapura office, the ICRC had been visiting detainees in Papua's Abepura prison, where prison guards continued to torture inmates, including political prisoners Buchtar Tabuni and Yusak Pakage."[2]
Den 11. marts i år sender Human Rights Watch et brev til USA's forsvars- og udenrigsministre Robert Gates og Hillary Clinton, i hvilket man ytrer bekymring omkring amerikanske planer om at genoptage støtten til den indonesiske hærs specialstyrke Kopassus. I brevet står der:
"In recent weeks, US officials have suggested that the Department of Defense may be seeking to resume US military training for members of Kopassus, and particularly in the area of counter-terrorism. This raises a number of serious questions about the US's commitment to withholding military assistance to foreign military forces that have committed serious violations of human rights. These questions stem from unique aspects of the Kopassus counter-terrorism component known as Unit 81, the entity whose members the Department of Defense presumably seeks to train."
The operational component of Unit 81 appears to have existed since 1982, when Kopassus established an elite counter-terrorism force known as "Detachment 81." That force has been reorganized once in 1995, when it was enlarged and renamed "Group 5," and again in 2001, when it was reduced in size and renamed "Unit 81."
Since its creation, Unit 81's activities have been largely shrouded in secrecy. Members of Unit 81 reportedly rotate through other Kopassus components and units, including Group 3 (which contains Kopassus' notorious "covert war" unit). In addition, members of what is now known as Unit 81 have accompanied Kopassus combat units or other military personnel in field operations, including in Aceh and East Timor, although they remained under the command of their superiors headquartered in Jakarta.
In several instances, members of what is now called Unit 81 have been credibly accused of serious human rights abuses or other improper conduct, for instance, in controlling abusive pro-Indonesia militias in East Timor between 1986 and 1999 and committing the enforced disappearance of student activists in 1997-1998 in Jakarta." [min fremhævning].[3]
Dette lod imidlertid ikke til at bekymre den amerikanske regering idet man i Juli måned indvilligede i at påbegynde et "gradvist og begrænset" engagement med Kopassus og dermed afslutte et ti år langt moratorium som forhindrede USA i at støtte specialstyrken. Dette udløste stor protest fra menneskerettighedsgruppen The West Papua Advocacy Team som erklærede:
"The U.S. Administration’s decision to resume cooperation with the most criminal and unreformed element of the Indonesian military removes critical international pressure for reform and professionalization of the broader Indonesian military … It signals to Indonesian human rights advocates who have born the brunt of security force intimidation that they stand alone in their fight for respect for human rights and genuine reform in Indonesia."[4]
Umiddelbart sammenfaldende med Obama's besøg kom en række interne dokumenter fra Kopassus frem i dagens lys. Ifølge rettighedsaktivisten Allan Niarn, som bragte dokumenterne på sin blog, inkluderer disse en liste over fjender ledet af den papuanske baptistpræst Socrates Sofyan Yoman og man kan i dokumenterne læse at specialstyrken gør sig i "mord og kidnapninger". Dokumenterne "beskriver et hemmeligt netværk som overvåger, infiltrerer og splitter papuanske institutioner." I Allan Nairns omtale af dokumenterne kan man læse at:
"The leaked cache of secret Kopassus documents includes operational, intelligence and field reports as well as personnel records which list the names and details of Kopassus "agents."
The documents are classified "SECRET" ("RAHASIA") and include extensive background reports on Kopassus civilian targets - reports that are apparently of uneven accuracy.
The authenticity of the documents has been verified by Kopassus personnel who have seen them and by external evidence regarding the authors and the internal characteristics of the documents.
A detailed 25-page secret report by a Kopassus task force in Kotaraja, Papua defines Kopassus' number-one "enemy" as unarmed civilians. It calls them the "separatist political movement" "GSP/P," lists what they say are the top 15 leaders and discusses the "enemy order of battle."
All of those listed are civilians, starting with the head of the Baptist Synod of Papua. The others include evangelical ministers, activists, traditional leaders, legislators, students and intellectuals as well as local establishment figures and the head of the Papua Muslim Youth organization. [min fremhævning]
The secret Kopassus study says that in their 400,000 - person area of operations the civilians they target as being political are "much more dangerous than" any armed opposition since the armed groups "hardly do anything" but the civilians -- with popular support -- have "reached the outside world" with their "obsession" with "merdeka" (independence/ freedom) and persist in "propagating the issue of severe human rights violations in Papua," ie. "murders and abductions that are done by the security forces."[5]
Efter disse afsløringer var kommet frem i lyset behandles de i en artikel i Jakarta Globe hvor chefen for det indonesiske militær kommer med en længere udtalelse, i hvilken han forsvarer uhyrlighederne ved, at beskrive specialstyrkens operationer i West Papua som blotte indsamlinger af efterretninger:
"The Indonesian military chief has confirmed claims by a rights activist [Allan Nairn] that the armed forces are actively carrying out intelligence gathering in Papua, and defended the move as crucial for national security... On Thursday, Adm. Agus Suhartono, the recently appointed chief of the Indonesian Military, admitted that they were involved in intelligence gathering operations, but only to guard against threats to the nation’s sovereignty and to back up police operations there. He rejected the idea that gathering intelligence among civilians was wrong, saying all intelligence operations in Papua served to detect and prevent separatist threats. 'What we’re doing is maximizing the use of our intelligence unit for the sake of the military and the country,' Agus said." ( jvf. Markus Junianto Sialoho, "Indonesian Military Chief Defends Spying Operation in Papua," The Jakarta Globe, November 12, 2010).
Obama-administrationens påskud for at påbegynde støtten til Kopassus igen var, at der var tale om støtte til terrorbekæmpelse, men som de lækkede dokumenter tydeligt illustrerer er der tale om støtte til omfattende menneskerettighedskrænkelser mod civilbefolkningen på West Papua. Dette kan næppe undskyldes med, at man ikke var klar over at den slags fandt sted i Indonesien, da Human Rights Watch allerede i Marts måned havde gjort både forsvarsministeren og udenrigsministeren opmærksomme på det stærkt bekymrende ved Kopassus virksomhed og derfor ved USAs planer om at støtte specialstyrken. Obama talte altså derfor efter alt at dømme mod bedre vidende da han i sin tale sagde at der "særligt i tider med forandring og økonomisk usikkerhed er nogle som vil sige at det er lettere at tage smutvejen til udvikling ved at bytte menneskers rettigheder ud med statslig magt … dette er ikke hvad jeg ser i Indonesien." Desværre var der ingen blandt de danske trykte medier der valgte at bringe en kritisk dækning af Obamas statsbesøg. For en kritisk kommentar til dette tavshedens tyranni anbefales Uffe Kaels Aurings indlæg på medieoplysning.dk.
lørdag den 20. november 2010
Professor Stephen Zunes om Obama-administrationens støtte til repressive regimer.
Ekspert i amerikansk udenrigspolitik i Mellemøsten, Professor i international relations Stephen Zunes, har skrevet en række læseværdige kritiske artikler omhandlende Obama-administrationens udenrigspolitik i Nord-Afrika og Mellemøsten, samt om ledende Demokraters holdninger til samme.
[Foreign Policy in Focus] Zunes: "How Not to Support Democracy in the Middle East."
[stephenzunes.org] Zunes: "U.S. Lawmakers Support Illegal Annexation."
[The Huffington Post] Zunes: "Arming the Saudis."
[Foreign Policy in Focus] Zunes: "U.S. Support for Israel Mirrors 80s Support for El Salvador Junta."
[Foreign Policy in Focus] Zunes: "Democratic Party Defends Israeli Attack."
[Truthout] Zunes: "Iraq: The Democrats' War."
[Foreign Policy in Focus] Zunes: "How Not to Support Democracy in the Middle East."
[stephenzunes.org] Zunes: "U.S. Lawmakers Support Illegal Annexation."
[The Huffington Post] Zunes: "Arming the Saudis."
[Foreign Policy in Focus] Zunes: "U.S. Support for Israel Mirrors 80s Support for El Salvador Junta."
[Foreign Policy in Focus] Zunes: "Democratic Party Defends Israeli Attack."
[Truthout] Zunes: "Iraq: The Democrats' War."
mandag den 15. november 2010
Obama og Indonesiens specialstyrker.
Tidligere i år valgte man fra Obama-administrationens side at genoptage støtten til Kopassus, Indonesiens specialstyrker, som ellers var faldet i unåde grundet specialstyrkens centrale rolle i folkemordet i Øst-Timor, der estimeres at have kostet op mod en sjettedel af Øst-Timors befolkning livet.
Umiddelbart samtidig med Obamas besøg i Indonesien kom det imidlertid frem, grundet et lækket internt dokument fra Kopassus, at specialstyrken fortsat idag gør sig i uhyrligheder, idet dokumentet omtaler, at specialstyrken begår mord og foretager bortførelser samt generelt betragter civile kritikere i den besatte West Papua region som fjenden. Obama nævnte imidlertid ikke dette med et eneste ord under sit besøg.
OMTALE:
The Guardian: West Papua deserves Barack Obama's attention.
AllainNairn.com: Secret Files Show Kopassus, Indonesia's Special Forces, Targets Papuan Churches, Civilians. Documents Leak from Notorious US-Backed Unit as Obama Lands in Indonesia.
The Guardian: Obama's missed opportunity in Jakarta.
Umiddelbart samtidig med Obamas besøg i Indonesien kom det imidlertid frem, grundet et lækket internt dokument fra Kopassus, at specialstyrken fortsat idag gør sig i uhyrligheder, idet dokumentet omtaler, at specialstyrken begår mord og foretager bortførelser samt generelt betragter civile kritikere i den besatte West Papua region som fjenden. Obama nævnte imidlertid ikke dette med et eneste ord under sit besøg.
OMTALE:
The Guardian: West Papua deserves Barack Obama's attention.
AllainNairn.com: Secret Files Show Kopassus, Indonesia's Special Forces, Targets Papuan Churches, Civilians. Documents Leak from Notorious US-Backed Unit as Obama Lands in Indonesia.
The Guardian: Obama's missed opportunity in Jakarta.
lørdag den 11. april 2009
Interview med Noam Chomsky om NATOs eksistensberettigelse.
Well, I think the first question to ask about NATO is why it exists. We’re now approaching the twentieth anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, unification of Germany, first steps in the collapse of the Soviet Union. Now, the alleged reason for NATO’s existence was to protect the West against a Russian assault. You can believe what you like about the reason, but that was the reason. By 1989, that reason was gone. So, why is there NATO?
Well, that question did arise. Mikhail Gorbachev offered at that time to the United States, which runs NATO, that he would permit a unified Germany to join NATO, a hostile military alliance aimed at the Soviet Union. Now, that’s a remarkable concession. If you look back at the history of the twentieth century, Germany alone had practically destroyed Russia several times. And now he was offering to let a reunited militarized Germany join a hostile military alliance, backed by the most awesome military power in history.
Well, there was a quid pro quo. George Bush, the first, was then president; James Baker, Secretary of State. And they agreed, in their words, that NATO would not expand one inch to the east, which would at least give Russia some breathing room. Now, Gorbachev also proposed a nuclear weapons-free zone from the Arctic to the Mediterranean, which would have again given some protection and, in fact, security for peace. Well, that was just rejected. I don’t even think it was answered. Well, that’s where things stood in 1989, ’90.
Then Bill Clinton was elected. One of his first acts was to break the promise and expand NATO to the east, which, of course, is a threat to Russian security. Now, the pretext given, for example, by his—Strobe Talbott, who was the Under Secretary of State for Eastern Europe, is that that was necessary to bring the former satellites into the European Union. But that can’t be. There are states inside the European Union that are not part of NATO: Austria, you know, Finland, Sweden. So that’s irrelevant. But it was a threat, and Russia, of course, reacted to the hostile threat. It increased tension.
Well, going up to the present, President Obama’s national security adviser, James Jones, has been a strong advocate of the view that NATO should expand further to the east and to the south and that, in fact, it should—to the east and to the south means to control the energy-producing regions. The head of NATO, Dutch, the Secretary General de Hoop Scheffer, has proposed, advocates that NATO should take the responsibility for protecting energy supplies to the West—pipelines, sea lanes, and so on.
Well, now we’re getting to Afghanistan, which is right in the—has always been of great geostrategic importance because of its location, now more than ever because of its location relative to the energy-producing regions in the Gulf region and in Central Asia. So, yes, that’s what we’re seeing.
Actually, there’s more to say about NATO, about why it exists. So we might look back, say, ten years to the fiftieth anniversary.
Well, the fiftieth anniversary of NATO was a gloomy affair that was—right at that time, NATO was bombing Serbia—illegally, as everyone admitted—claiming it was necessary for humanitarian reasons. At the NATO summit, there was much agonizing about how we cannot tolerate atrocities so near Europe.
Well, that was an interesting comment, since at that time NATO was supporting atrocities right inside NATO. Turkey, for example, was carrying out, with massive US aid, huge atrocities against its Kurdish population, far worse than anything reported in Kosovo. Right at that time, in East Timor—you’re not going to praise yourself, so if you don’t mind, I will—at the time of the Dili massacre, which you and Allan [Nairn] heroically exposed, atrocities continued. And in fact, in early 1999, they were picking up again, with strong US support—again, far beyond anything reported in Kosovo. That’s the US and Britain, you know, the core of NATO.
Right at the same time, in fact, Dennis Blair, President Obama—inside President Obama’s national security circle, he was sent to Indonesia, theoretically to try to get the Indonesian army to stop carrying out the mounting atrocities. But he supported them. He met with the top Indonesian General, General Wiranto, and essentially said, you know, “Go ahead.” And they did.
And in fact, those atrocities could have been stopped at any moment. That was demonstrated in September 1999, when Bill Clinton, under very extensive domestic and international pressure, finally decided to call it off. He didn’t have to bomb Jakarta. He didn’t have to impose an embargo. He just told the Indonesian generals the game’s over, and they immediately withdrew. That goes down in history as a great humanitarian intervention. It’s not exactly the right story. Right up until then, the United States was continuing to support the atrocities. Britain, under its new ethical foreign policy, didn’t quite get in on time, and they kept supporting them even after the Australian-led UN peacekeeping force entered. Well, that’s NATO ten years ago.
That’s even putting aside the claims about Serbia, which maybe a word about those are worthwhile. We know what happened in Serbia. There’s a massive—in Kosovo. There’s massive documentation from the State Department from NATO, European Union observers on the ground. There was a level of atrocity sort of distributed between the guerrillas and the Serbs. But it was expected that the NATO bombing would radically increase the atrocities, which it did, if you look back at the Milosevic indictment in the middle of the bombing, almost entirely, that atrocity—except for one exception, about atrocities, after the NATO bombing. That’s what they anticipated. General Clark, commanding general, had informed Washington weeks early, yes, that would be the consequence. He informed the press of that as the bombing started. That was the humanitarian intervention, while NATO was supporting even worse atrocities right within NATO, in East Timor, and go on in other cases. Well, that’s NATO ten years ago.
And it begins to tell us what NATO is for. Is it for defending Europe from attack? In fact, there is such a pretense now. So when President Bush put—started installing missile defense systems in Eastern Europe, the claim was, well, this is to defend Europe from attack against Iranian nuclear-tipped missiles. The fact that it doesn’t have any doesn’t matter. And the fact that if it had any, it would be total insanity for them to even arm one, because the country would be vaporized in thirty seconds. So, it’s a threat to Russia again, just like Clinton’s expansion of NATO to the east.
søndag den 15. marts 2009
Obamas Foreløbige Udenrigspolitik.
Det oprindelige indlæg er blevet slettet, men jeg refererer i stedet til min artikel fra i år omhandlende Obamas udenrigspolitik efter nu to år ved magten. Den omhandler selvfølgelig på ingen måde alle aspekter ved denne, men giver blot et overblik over USAs fortsatte alliancer med stærkt kritisable regimer. Det kan læses på Kontradoxa.
Samtidig med dette kan man orientere sig nærmere om Obama's udenrigspolitik ved at trykke på tagsne nedenunder dette blogindlæg som linker til andre relevante artikler som har været bragt på bloggen.
Samtidig med dette kan man orientere sig nærmere om Obama's udenrigspolitik ved at trykke på tagsne nedenunder dette blogindlæg som linker til andre relevante artikler som har været bragt på bloggen.
onsdag den 11. februar 2009
Juraprofessor Majorie Cohn om extraordinary renditions
Juraprofessor Majorie Cohn, har skrevet en veloplagt kommentar til den tilsyneladende fortsættelse af CIAs extraordinary renditions program under den nuværende Obama-administration.
A Call to End All Renditions
by Marjorie Cohn
Binyam Mohamed, an Ethiopian residing in Britain, said he was tortured after being sent to Morocco and Afghanistan in 2002 by the U.S. government. Mohamed was transferred to Guantánamo in 2004 and all terrorism charges against him were dismissed last year. Mohamed was a victim of extraordinary rendition, in which a person is abducted without any legal proceedings and transferred to a foreign country for detention and interrogation, often tortured.
Mohamed and four other plaintiffs are accusing Boeing subsidiary Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc. of flying them to other countries and secret CIA camps where they were tortured. In Mohamed’s case, two British justices accused the Bush administration of pressuring the British government to block the release of evidence that was “relevant to allegations of torture” of Mohamed.
Twenty-five lines edited out of the court documents included details about how Mohamed’s genitals were sliced with a scalpel as well as other torture methods so extreme that waterboarding “is very far down the list of things they did,” according to a British official quoted by the Telegraph (UK).
The plaintiffs’ complaint quotes a former Jeppesen employee as saying, “We do all of the extraordinary rendition flights – you know, the torture flights.” A senior company official also apparently admitted the company transported people to countries where they would be tortured.
Obama’s Justice Department appeared before a three-judge panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Monday in the Jeppesen lawsuit. But instead of making a clean break with the dark policies of the Bush years, the Obama administration claimed the same “state secrets” privilege that Bush used to block inquiry into his policies of torture and illegal surveillance. Claiming that the extraordinary rendition program is a state secret is disingenuous since it is has been extensively documented in the media.
“This was an opportunity for the new administration to act on its condemnation of torture and rendition, but instead it has chosen to stay the course,” said the ACLU’s Ben Wizner, counsel for the five men.
If the judges accept Obama's state secrets claim, these men will be denied their day in court and precluded from any recovery for the damages they suffered as a result of extraordinary rendition.
Two and a half weeks before Obama’s representative appeared in the Jeppesen case, the new President had signed Executive Order 13491. It established a special task force “to study and evaluate the practices of transferring individuals to other nations in order to ensure that such practices comply with the domestic laws, international obligations, and policies of the United States and do not result in the transfer of individuals to other nations to face torture or otherwise for the purpose, or with the effect, of undermining or circumventing the commitments or obligations of the United States to ensure the humane treatment of individuals in its custody or control.”
This order prohibits extraordinary rendition. It also ensures humane treatment of persons in U.S. custody or control. But it doesn’t specifically guarantee that prisoners the United States renders to other countries will be free from cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment that doesn’t amount to torture. It does, however, aim to ensure that our government’s practices of transferring people to other countries complies with U.S. laws and policies, including our obligations under international law.
One of those laws is the International Covenant on Civil Political Rights (ICCPR), a treaty the United States ratified in 1992. Article 7 of the ICCPR prohibits the States Parties from subjecting persons “to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.” The UN Human Rights Committee, which is the body that monitors the ICCPR, has interpreted that prohibition to forbid States Parties from exposing “individuals to the danger of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment upon return to another country by way of their extradition, expulsion or refoulement.”
Order 13491 also mandates, “The CIA shall close as expeditiously as possible any detention facilities that it currently operates and shall not operate any such detention facility in the future.” The order does not define “expeditiously” and the definitional section of the order says that the terms ‘detention facilities’ and ‘detention facility’ “do not refer to facilities used only to hold people on a short-term, transitory basis.” Once again, “short term” and “transitory” are not defined.
In his confirmation hearing, Attorney General Eric Holder categorically stated that the United States should not turn over an individual to a country where we have reason to believe he will be tortured. Leon Panetta, nominee for CIA director, went further last week and interpreted Order 13491 as forbidding “that kind of extraordinary rendition, where we send someone for the purposes of torture or for actions by another country that violate our human values.”
But alarmingly, Panetta appeared to champion the same standard used by the Bush administration, which reportedly engaged in extraordinary rendition 100 to 150 times as of March 2005. After September 11, 2001, President Bush issued a classified directive that expanded the CIA’s authority to render terrorist suspects to other States. Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said the CIA and the State Department received assurances that prisoners will be treated humanely. “I will seek the same kinds of assurances that they will not be treated inhumanely,” Panetta told the senators.
Gonzales had admitted, however, “We can’t fully control what that country might do. We obviously expect a country to whom we have rendered a detainee to comply with their representations to us . . . If you’re asking me, ‘Does a country always comply?’ I don’t have an answer to that.”
The answer is no. Binyam Mohamed’s case is apparently the tip of the iceberg. Maher Arar, a Canadian born in Syria, was apprehended by U.S. authorities in New York on September 26, 2002, and transported to Syria, where he was brutally tortured for months. Arar used an Arabic expression to describe the pain he experienced: “you forget the milk that you have been fed from the breast of your mother.” The Canadian government later exonerated Arar of any terrorist ties. In another instance, thirteen CIA operatives were arrested in Italy for kidnapping an Egyptian, Abu Omar, in Milan and transporting him to Cairo where he was tortured.
Panetta made clear that the CIA will continue to engage in rendition to detain and interrogate terrorism suspects and transfer them to other countries. “If we capture a high-value prisoner,” he said, “I believe we have the right to hold that individual temporarily to be able to debrief that individual and make sure that individual is properly incarcerated.” No clarification of how long is “temporarily” or what “debrief” would mean.
When Sen. Christopher Bond (R-Mo.) asked about the Clinton administration’s use of the CIA to transfer prisoners to countries where they were later executed, Panetta replied, “I think that is an appropriate use of rendition.” Jane Mayer, columnist for the New Yorker, has documented numerous instances of extraordinary rendition during the Clinton administration, including cases in which suspects were executed in the country to which the United States had rendered them. Once when Richard Clarke, President Clinton’s chief counter-terrorism adviser on the National Security Council, “proposed a snatch,” Vice-President Al Gore said, “That’s a no-brainer. Of course it’s a violation of international law, that’s why it’s a covert action. The guy is a terrorist. Go grab his ass.”
There is a slippery slope between ordinary rendition and extraordinary rendition. “Rendition has to end,” Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, recently told Amy Goodman on Democracy Now!: “Rendition is a violation of sovereignty. It’s a kidnapping. It’s force and violence.” Ratner queried whether Cuba could enter the United States and take Luis Posada, the man responsible for blowing up a commercial Cuban airline in 1976 and killing 73 people. Or whether the United States could go down to Cuba and kidnap Assata Shakur, who escaped a murder charge in New Jersey.
Moreover, “renditions for the most part weren’t very productive,” a former CIA official told the Los Angeles Times. After a prisoner was turned over to authorities in Egypt, Jordan or another country, the CIA had very little influence over how prisoners were treated and whether they were ultimately released.
The U.S. government should disclose the identities, fate, and current whereabouts of all persons detained by the CIA or rendered to foreign custody by the CIA since 2001. Those who ordered renditions should be prosecuted. And the special task force should recommend, and Obama should agree to, an end to all renditions.
© JURIST Legal News and Research Services, Inc., 2009
Marjorie Cohn is a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law and president of the National Lawyers Guild. She is the author of Cowboy Republic: Six Ways the Bush Gang Has Defied the Law. Her new book, Rules of Disengagement: The Politics and Honor of Military Dissent (with Kathleen Gilberd), will be published in April 2009. Her articles are archived at www.marjoriecohn.com.
Abonner på:
Opslag (Atom)