Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Joe Lieberman (ID-CT) said today “that Yemen could be the ground of America’s next overseas war if Washington does not take preemptive action to root out al-Qaeda interests there,” The Hill reports.

Lieberman, who helms the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, said on "Fox News Sunday" that the U.S. will have to take an active approach in Yemen after multiple recent terrorist attacks on the U.S. were linked back to the Middle Eastern nation.

The Connecticut senator said that an administration official told him that "Iraq was yesterday’s war, Afghanistan is today’s war. If we don’t act preemptively, Yemen will be tomorrow’s war."

Lieberman, who is known to be hawkish on security issues, said that Yemen needs to be a focal point because two recent attacks were linked back to a growing al-Qaeda presence there.

American action in Yemen has already taken place this month.  Senator Arlen Specter (D-PA) agrees that some type of action is worth considering.

The U.S. earlier this month launched cruise missiles at two al-Qaeda targets in Yemen. The attacks represented a major escalation of U.S. efforts against al-Qaeda in Yemen.

Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.), also on Fox, agreed that preemptive strikes should be "one [option] we ought to be considering" but added that "it’s a big, complex subject."

(credit image – getty)

F for Failure: Economy, Bipartisanship, War on Terror, International Relations

Not to worry, for those of you that live in rooms covered in tin foil, wear tin foil hats and ear muffs, while sleeping under your beds, the next post written by people that just flew in on the noon balloon from the moon gives the king of corruption outstanding marks for ethics.  By Russian standards or even Chinese I can agree. Random thoughts while observing the passing parade, J.C.

By Daniel Greenfield

December 27, 2009

Canada Free Press

As Obama’s first year in office approaches, his long calendar of corruption and failure flutters its windblown leaves into the abyss of the past. Let us take a brief look back at the full unmitigated ugliness of the Sham in Chief’s first year in office… for a proper report card.

The Economy

Obama campaigned on promises to help create jobs and fix the economy. Instead he ballooned the deficit to record levels, failed to create jobs and then lied about it, implemented the same policies he had criticized under Bush, lied about them too, and by the end of the year not only is the economy worse off than it had been under Bush, but the national debt is far higher, the dollar is weaker and America’s economic prospects look bleak.

Obama promised to help working class families, instead he burdened them with generations of debt, forced them to make mandatory payments to insurance companies and kept down job growth by promoting “green” projects over shovel ready infrastructure projects. No wonder that Obama’s fall has been hardest among working class families and even black leaders are protesting against his abandonment of the black community.

While Obama has shoveled untold billions of dollars into Wall Street brokerages, green tech companies with no real business model and insurance companies—the same working class families he has promised to help have been left behind and lied to, and worse yet forced to bear the burden of his corporate welfare.

While Obama’s Democratic congress had 192 million to spend on rum factories in the Virgin Islands, 20 million for the Edward M. Kennedy Institute for the Senate, and almost half a billion for Tesla Motors, a company which has currently sold around only 700 cars… there was no money for school vouchers for Washington DC’s kids.

This is par for the course in a chain of spending bills that primarily benefited Obama’s corporate backers and ladled out congressional pork earmarks with all the self-restraint of a herd of pigs guzzling from a mud puddle.

While the dollar has fallen almost 20 percent over Obama’s term in office, and many American businesses are looking for a way out of a political system that has destroyed the economy with out of control tax and spend policies… the bailouts keep on coming. And so do the lies.

The same Democratic congress that has preserved and protected felons like Congressman Rangel and Senator Dodd, reached into the depths of hysteria to attack Senator Lieberman for having the gall to block their plan for a Public Option, a plan that even the Congressional Budget Office admitted we can’t pay for. The resulting battles turned political bribery into a new low with 100 million dollar earmarks being thrown around to win the favor of Senators like confetti.

And the final bill as always goes to the American worker.

D-

War on Terror

On the war, Obama promised to use multilateralism to create a new alliance using soft power. 12 months later, his multilateralism has failed, and his Afghanistan policy looks a lot like Bush’s Iraq policy, except it comes with a built in 18th month deadline that Barry Hussein helpfully announced to the Taliban ahead of time.

Despite a year of global criss-crossing, Obama has not achieved a single meaningful result for all that effort. Genocide continues in Sudan, China continues to repress its citizens, Iran and North Korea are continuing their nuclear programs, and none of America’s allies have offered front line troops for Afghanistan.

For all his rhetoric, Obama has demonstrated that he has nothing new to offer in the War on Terror that Bush was not already doing… except for his willingness to appease terrorists and the far left by treating the butchers of 9/11 like ordinary criminals, instead of as mass murderers.

When it comes to the War on Terror, just like the economy, it is clear that Obama has nothing new to offer except rebranding, snow jobs and cowardice.

C-

Bipartisanship

Obama promised a new era of bipartisanship and inclusiveness, but as it turns out he can hardly even tolerate conservative Democrats, let alone Republicans, aside from the easily bought off kind. Not only did his White House launch repeated smear campaigns against critics such as Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, but the attacks on Lieberman recently are outright reminiscent of 1984’s Two Minute Hate.
And each time Obama demonstrates his blatant intolerance for any dissent from the party line, the results help poison the national dialogue and increase opposition to his policies.

F-

International Diplomacy

Well over a year ago, Obama assured his gullible audience that they were witness to the moment when the oceans stopped rising. But all of Obama’s diplomatic clout couldn’t even get an actual binding agreement out of Copenhagen. If Obama couldn’t even sell global warming internationally, it’s quite clear that he can’t sell anything.

Diplomatically, Obama’s high profile trips around the world have resulted in a lot of publicity and a lot of humiliation as the man occupying what had once been the office of the leader of the free world, instead went around the world pleading for change, and getting laughed at instead. It’s not just the sight of Obama crawling to the Japanese Emperor and the Saudi King that’s contemptible, but the sight of him penned in on his visit to China, and being mocked in Turkey.

With his constant trips, Obama has managed to keep himself constantly in the news, while completely devaluing the mystique of the office. Unsurprisingly his visits have accomplished nothing except to create a long stream of photographs of Obama around the world.

Meanwhile traditional allies who tried to visit America had those same visits turn into diplomatic disasters as the White House did its best to show its contempt for them. As a result America is now more isolated than ever, and America’s enemies are openly taunting the White House at every occasion.

F
Instead of the B+ that Obama ever so generously gave himself, a real report card might read F+. And that is being very generous indeed. But really it might be better to settle for incomplete, just like Obama’s policies.

Sehubungan dengan adanya Jurusan Hubungan Internasional –selanjutnya disebut JHI- program ekstensi yang berlokasi di Dago Tea House, Bandung, JHI melakukan konversi mata kuliah bagi calon mahasiswanya. Calon mahasiswa tersebut adalah lulusan-lulusan program Diploma 3 yang berasal dari berbagai jurusan dan fakultas.

Konversi mata kuliah yang dilakukan adalah menyetarakan mata kuliah yang sudah diambil pada program Diploma 3 dengan mata kuliah yang ada di JHI. Menurut pengamatan penulis, poin-poin penentu mata kuliah yang dikonversi tidak jelas dan cenderung asal-asalan.

Ketidakjelasan ini menimbulkan perdebatan di level mahasiswa. Banyak di antara mahasiswa yang merasa mendapat perlakuan tidak adil. Kenapa? Seperti ini contohnya, mahasiswa A dan mahasiswa B sama-sama dari program Diploma 3 dengan jurusan yang sama. Otomastis mata kuliah yang mereka tempuh selama Diploma 3 pasti sama. Tapi ketika masuk ke JHI program ekstensi, hasil konversi mereka berbeda. Si A harus mengambil SKS lebih banyak dari pada si B selama di JHI. Tentunya hal ini tidak adil bagi si A.

Pengurus program ekstensi JHI UNPAD harus segera memperbaiki masalah ini. Jika tidak, mahasiswa lah yang dirugikan. Padahal mereka tidak tahu apa-apa. Banyak dosen yang menyesalkan masalah ini. Contohnya, pernah ada seorang dosen bertanya kepada mahasiswa “Kenapa kamu nggak ngambil mata kuliah saya?”. “Kan, sudah dikonversi, Pak” jawab mahasiswa. “Lho, mata kuliah saya itu mata kuliah wajib. Bisa-bisanya kamu nggak ngambil mata kuliah wajib di JHI” timbal dosen.

Sudah jelas, mahasiswa yang tidak tahu apa-apa merasa dipermainkan oleh kampus yang dibayarnya mahal-mahal ini.

Tulisan ini juga diterbitkan di Bandung School International Relations UNPAD

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=116780403437#/topic.php?uid=116780403437&topic=13224

Irrespective of what political settlement is ultimately embraced, Palestinians need a unified strategy for confronting and overcoming Israeli racism, apartheid and oppression.

Mustafa Barghouthi* outlines the basis of such a strategy

.

Mustafa Barghouti

.

Palestinians have only two choices before them, either to continue to evade the struggle, as some have been trying to do, or to summon the collective national resolve to engage in it. The latter option does not necessarily entail a call to arms. Clearly Israel has the overwhelming advantage in this respect in both conventional and unconventional (nuclear) weapons.. Just as obviously, neighbouring Arab countries have neither the will nor ability to go the military route. However, the inability to wage war does not automatically mean surrender and eschewing other means to wage struggle. As powerful as it is militarily, Israel has two major weak points. Firstly, it cannot impose political solutions by force of arms on a people determined to sustain a campaign of resistance.

This has been amply demonstrated in two full-scale wars against Lebanon and, most recently, in the assault against Gaza. Secondly, the longer the Palestinians have remained steadfast, and the greater the role the demographic factor has come to play in the conflict, the more clearly Israel has emerged as an apartheid system hostile to peace. If the ethnic cleansing of 1948 and the colonialist expansionism describe the circumstances surrounding the birth of the Israeli state, the recent bills regarding the declaration of allegiance to a Jewish state and prohibiting the Palestinian commemoration of the nakba more explicitly underscore its essential racist character. Ironically, just as Israel has attained the peak in its drive to fragment the Palestinian people, with geographical divides between those in Israel and those abroad, between Jerusalem and the West Bank and the West Bank and Gaza, and between one governorate and the next in the West Bank by means of ring-roads, walls and barriers, Palestinians have become reunified in their hardship and in the challenges that confront them.

Regardless of whether or not they bear Israeli citizenship, or whether they are residents of Jerusalem, the West Bank or Gaza, they all share the plight of being victims of Israel’s systematic discrimination and apartheid order. If the only alternative to evading the struggle is to engage in it in order to resolve it, we must affirm that our national liberation movement is still alive. We must affirm, secondly, that political and diplomatic action is a fundamental part of managing the conflict, as opposed to an alternative to it. In fact, we must elevate it to our primary means for exposing the true nature of Israel, isolating it politically and pressing for international sanctions against it.In this context, we must caution against the theory of building state institutions under the occupation. An administration whose security services would be consuming 35 per cent of the public budget, that would be acting as the occupation’s policeman while furthering Netanyahu’s scheme for economic normalisation as a substitute for a political solution, is clearly geared to promote the acclimatisation to the status quo, not change. Building Palestinian governing institutions and promoting genuine economic development must occur within the framework of a philosophy of “resistance development” .

Such a philosophy is founded on the dual principles of supporting the people’s power to withstand the hardships of the occupation and reducing dependency on foreign funding and foreign aid. The strategic aim of the Palestinian struggle, under this philosophy, must be to “make the costs of the Israeli occupation and its apartheid system so great as to be unsustainable” .If we agree on this course for conducting the struggle, then the next step is to adopt a unified national strategy founded upon four pillars:1. Resistance. In all its forms, resistance is an internationally sanctioned right of the Palestinian people. Under this strategy, however, it must resume a peaceful, mass grassroots character that will serve to revive the culture of collective activism among all sectors of the Palestinian people and, hence, to keep the struggle from becoming the preserve or monopoly of small cliques and to promote its growing impetus and momentum. Models for this type of resistance already exist.

Of particular note is the brave and persistent campaign against the Separation Wall, which has spread across several towns and villages, offered five lives to the cause, and become increasingly adamant. The resistance by the people of East Jerusalem and Silwan against Israeli home demolitions and the drive to Judaise the city presents another heroic model. Yet a third promising example is to be found it the movement to boycott Israeli goods and to encourage the consumption of locally produced products. In addition to preventing the occupation power from milking the profits from marketing locally produced products, this form of resistance can engage the broadest swath of the population, from old to young and men and women, and revive the culture and spirit of communal collaboration. The campaigns to break the blockade against Gaza, as exemplified by the protest ships, the supply caravans and the pressures on Israel to lift its economic stranglehold, are another major type of resistance.2. Supporting national steadfastness. The importance of this pillar is its focus on strengthening the demographic power of the Palestinian people so as to transform their millions into an effective grassroots force.

It entails meeting their essential needs to enable them to remain steadfast in their struggle, and developing Palestinian human resources as the foundation for a strong and independent Palestinian economy. However, in order to achieve these aims the Palestinian Authority (PA) economic plan and budget must be altered in a way that pits their weight behind development in education, health, agriculture and culture, as opposed to squandering a third of the budget on security.For example, the passage and immediate implementation of the bill for the national higher education fund would serve the educational needs of hundreds of thousands of young adults. In addition to elevating and developing the standards of university education, it would also work to sustain the impact of development aid and eventually reduce reliance on foreign support. The fund would also alleviate the school tuition burdens on more than 150,000 families, put an end to nepotism in the handling of student study grants and loans, and provide equal opportunity for academic advancement to all young men and women regardless of their financial circumstances.

Equally innovative and dynamic ideas could be applied to other areas of education, or to stimulating the fields of public health, agriculture and culture with the overall aim of developing the educated, innovative and effective modern human resources needed to meet Palestinian needs as autonomously as possible and, hence, capable of weathering enormous pressures.3. National unity and a unified national leadership. This strategic aim entails restructuring the Palestine Liberation Organisation on a more demographically representative basis and putting into effect agreements that have been previously reached in the Palestinian national dialogues held in Cairo. Over the past few years, the thrust of Israel’s greatest advantage and the thrust of its assault centred around the Palestinian rift and the weakness of the disunited Palestinian leadership. In order to redress this flaw, the Palestinians must adopt a new mentality and approach.

Specifically, they must: relinquish the mentality and practice of vying for power over an illusory governing authority that is still under the thumb of the occupation, whether in the West Bank or in Gaza; give up the illusion that Palestinian military might, however great it might become, is capable of leading the Palestinian struggle alone; adopt democracy and pluralistic democratic activities and processes as a mode of life, self-government, peaceful decision-making, and the only acceptable means to resolve our differences and disputes; resist all outside pressures and attempts (particularly on the part of Israel) to intervene in our internal affairs and to tamper with the Palestinian popular will. There must be a firm and unshakeable conviction in Palestinians’ right to independent national self-determination. The most difficult task that we face today is creating a unified leadership and strategy binding on all, from which no political or military decisions will depart, and within which framework no single group or party has a monopoly on the decision-making processes. Only with a unified leadership and strategy will we be able to fight the blockade as one, instead of evading unity for fear of the blockade.

With a unified leadership and strategy we will able to seize the reins of initiative from others, as opposed to spinning from one reaction to the other, and we will be able to focus our energies on asserting our unified will instead of squandering them in internal power struggles in which the various parties seek outside assistance to strengthen their hand against their opponents on the inside. Only then will we be able to shift the equations that subordinated the national liberation movement to the narrow concerns of the PA (both in the West Bank and Gaza) and turn the PA into an instrument in the service of the national liberation movement.4. Building and enhancing an international pro-Palestinian solidarity movement combined with a drive to impose sanctions against Israel. That such a movement already exists and is steadily growing is heartening. However, it will take enormous efforts to organise it and coordinate its activities properly so as to ensure it has the greatest possible influence upon decision-makers, especially in Europe and the West. Palestinian, Arab and Muslim communities will need to be orchestrated towards the realisation of the same goals.

If the solidarity movement has scored significant successes with the organisation of a boycott of Israeli products, the decision by the Federation of British Universities to boycott Israeli academics, and the decision taken by Hampshire College and some US churches to refuse to invest in Israel, much work has yet to be done to expand the scope of such activities and build up the momentum of the solidarity movement.The Palestinian plight, which Nelson Mandela has described as the foremost challenge to the international humanitarian conscience, strongly resembles the state of South Africa at the outset to the 1980s. It took years of a concerted unified drive before the South African liberation movement finally succeeded in bringing around governments to their cause. The tipping point came when major companies realised that the economic costs of dealing with the apartheid regime in Pretoria were unsustainable. In the Palestinian case, the success of an international solidarity movement is contingent upon three major factors.

The first is careful organisation and detailed planning, a high degree of discipline and tight coordination. Second is a rational, civilised rhetoric that refuses to play into Israel’s tactics of provocation. The third is to address and recruit progressive movements and peoples in societies abroad, including anti-Zionist Jews and Jews opposed to Israeli policies.None of the foregoing is new, by any means. However, these ideas have yet to be put into practice. The logical springboard for this is to operate on the principle that while the Palestinian cause is a Palestinian, Arab and Muslim one, it is above all a humanitarian cause that cries out to all in the world who cherish humanitarian principles and values. The success of the freedom fighters of South Africa, the anti-Vietnam war movement, and the campaigners for the independence of India stemmed primarily from their ability to forge a universal appeal. And this is precisely what we must do. Our mottos for the solidarity movement with the Palestinian people must be “the fight against the new apartheid and systematic racism” and “the fight for justice and the right to freedom.”

The International Court of Justice’s ruling on the Separation Wall, the illegality of Jewish settlements and altering the face of Jerusalem is a valuable legal precedent that official Palestinian governing institutions have ignored for four years. This ruling should now become our platform for a drive to impose sanctions against Israel, just as the UN resolution against the occupation of Namibia proved a platform for mounting a campaign against the apartheid system in South Africa.The four-pronged strategy outlined above, which is espoused by the Palestinian National Initiative Movement, can succeed if it is guided by a clear vision, patience, and systematic persistence. I do not expect that it win the approval of all. The interests of some combined with their sense of frustration and despair have deadened their desire to engage in or to continue the confrontation with Israel. We also have to acknowledge that certain sectors of Palestinian society have become so dependent upon interim arrangements and projects and the attendant finances as to put paid to the possibility of their contributing to the fight for real change.

Yet, the proposed comprehensive strategy does respond to and represent the interests of the vast majority of the Palestinian people and holds the promise of a better future.The Palestinian national struggle has so far passed through two major phases: the first steered by Palestinians abroad while ignoring the role of Palestinians at home, and the second steered by Palestinians at home while ignoring the role of Palestinians abroad. Today we find ourselves at the threshold of a third phase, which should combine the struggle at home and the campaign of Palestinians and their sympathisers abroad.In closing I would like to address the subject of a one-state or a two-state solution. It is both theoretically and practically valid to raise this subject here for two reasons. First, Israel has consistently tried to undermine the prospect of Palestinian statehood by pressing for such formulas as home rule, or an interim state, or a state without real sovereignty.

Second, the changes produced on the ground by Israeli settlements and ring roads have come to render the realisation of a viable state unrealisable. To some, especially Palestinians in the Diaspora, replacing the call for a one-state solution with calling for a “two-state solution” seems to offer a remedy that gives relief. It is a better remedy, without a doubt, but it is a long way from offering relief. Slogans do not end liberation struggles. Slogans without strategies and efforts to back them up remain nothing but idle wishes or, to some, a noble way to avoid responsibility and the work that goes with it.Now, let us be clear here. Israel has been working around the clock to destroy the option of an independent Palestinian state on the ground and, hence, the two-state solution. But that does not leave the Palestinian people without an alternative, as some Zionist leaders undoubtedly hope. The single democratic state (not the single bi-national state) in which all citizens are equal in rights and duties regardless of their religious affiliations and their origins is an alternative to the attempt to force the Palestinians to accept slavery under occupation and an apartheid order in the form of a feeble autonomous government that is dubbed a state.

However, whether the aim is a truly independent sovereign state or a single democratic state, both of which Israel dismisses with equal vehemence, neither of these aims can be achieved without exposing and destroying the apartheid system. This requires a strategy. Therefore, instead of allowing ourselves to become divided prematurely over whether to go for the one-state or two-state solution, let us unify behind the common aim required to achieve either: the formulation and implementation of a strategy to fight the occupation, apartheid and racial discrimination. This will lead us to something that is absolutely necessary at this stage, which is to move from the world of slogans to the world of practical activism in accordance with viable strategic plans that mobilise demonstrators against the wall, intellectuals and politicians and other sectors of society. It is high time we realise that diplomatic endeavours and negotiations do not free us from the nuts and bolts of actual struggle. We have one road that leads to a single goal: the freedom of the Palestinian people. There is nothing nobler than to follow this road to its end. This is not a project for some point in the future; it is one that cannot wait. Indeed, we should probably adopt the slogan of the freedom fighters of South Africa: “Freedom in our lifetime!”

* The writer is secretary-general of the Palestinian National Initiative

Secrecy and denial as Pakistan lets CIA use airbase to strike militants

Tom Coghlan in Kabul, Zahid Hussain in Islamabad and Jeremy Page in Delhi
http://www.timesonl ine.co.uk/ tol/news/ world/asia/ article5755490. ece
.

The CIA is secretly using an airbase in southern Pakistan to launch the Predator drones that observe and attack al-Qaeda and Taleban militants on the Pakistani side of the border with Afghanistan, a Times investigation has found. The Pakistani and US governments have repeatedly denied that Washington is running military operations, covert or otherwise, on Pakistani territory — a hugely sensitive issue in the predominantly Muslim country.  The Pakistani Government has also repeatedly demanded that the US halt drone attacks on northern tribal areas that it says have caused hundreds of civilian casualties and fuelled anti-American sentiment.

But The Times has discovered that the CIA has been using the Shamsi airfield — originally built by Arab sheikhs for falconry expeditions in the southwestern province of Baluchistan — for at least a year. The strip, which is about 30 miles from the Afghan border, allows US forces to launch a Drone within minutes of receiving actionable intelligence as well as allowing them to attack targets further afield.

Times Archive Soviet role in Kabul threat to peace, Mr Carter declares Afghanistan President executed after Soviet-backed coup  US warns Moscow it is ready to defend Pakistan Related Links.
ANALYSIS: a dangerous double game  British troops seize £50m of heroin from Taliban  Obama to send 17,000 troops to Afghanistan.  It was known that US special forces used Shamsi during the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, but the Pakistani Government declared publicly in 2006 that the Americans had left it and two other airbases.

Key to the Times investigation is the unexplained delivery of 730,000 gallons of F34 aviation fuel to Shamsi. Details were found on the website of the Pentagon’s fuel procurement agency. The Defence Energy Support Centre site shows that a civilian company, Nordic Camp Supply (NCS), was contracted to deliver the fuel, worth $3.2 million, from Pakistan Refineries near Karachi.  It also shows the fuel was delivered last year, when the United States escalated drone attacks on Pakistan’s lawless tribal areas, allegedly killing several top Taleban and al-Qaeda targets, but also many civilians.

A source at NCS, which is based in Denmark, confirmed that the company had been awarded the contract and had supplied the fuel to Shamsi, but declined to give further details.  A spokesman for the US embassy in Pakistan told The Times: “Shamsi is not the final destination. ” However, he declined to elaborate and denied that the US was using it as a base.  ”No. No. No. No. No. We unequivocally and emphatically can tell you that there is no basing of US troops in Pakistan,” he said. “There is no basing of US Air Force, Navy, Marines, Army, none, on the record and emphatically. I want that to be very clear. And that is the answer any way you want to put it. There is no base here, no troops billeted. We do not operate here.”

He said that he could not comment on CIA operations.  The CIA declined to comment, as did the Pentagon. But one senior Western source familiar with US operations in Pakistan and Afghanistan told The Times that the CIA “runs Predator flights routinely” from Shamsi.  ”We can see the planes flying from the base,” said Safar Khan, a local journalist. “The area around the base is a high-security zone and no one is allowed there..” He said that the outer perimeter of Shamsi was guarded by Pakistani military, but the airfield itself was under the control of American forces.

Shamsi lies in a sparsely populated area about 190 miles southwest of the city of Quetta, which US intelligence officials believe is used as a staging post by senior Taleban leaders, including Mullah Omar. It is also 100 miles south of the border with Afghanistan’ s southern province of Helmand and about 100 miles east of the border with Iran.

That would put the Predators, which have a range of more than 2,000 miles and can fly for 29 hours, within reach of militants in Baluchistan, southern Afghanistan and in Pakistan’s northern tribal areas. Paul Smyth, head of operational studies at the Royal United Services Institute, said that 730,000 gallons of F34, also known as JP8, was not enough to supply regular Hercules tanker flights but was sufficient to sustain drones or helicopters.  Other experts said that Shamsi’s airstrip was too short for most aircraft, but was big enough for Predators and ideally located as there were few civilians in the surrounding area to witness the drones coming and going.

Farhatullah Babar, a spokesman for the President of Pakistan, Asif Ali Zardari, said that he did not know anything about the airfield. However, Major General Athar Abbas, the chief military spokesman, confirmed that US forces were using Shamsi. “The airfield is being used only for logistics,” he said, without elaborating.  He added that the Americans were also using another airbase near Jacobabad, 300 miles northeast of Karachi, for logistics and military operations.

Pakistan gave America permission to use Shamsi, Jacobabad and two other bases — Pasni and Dalbadin — for the invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001. US Marine Special Forces were based at Shamsi and, in January 2002, a US Marine KC130 tanker aircraft crashed close to its runway, killing seven Marines on board.

Jacobabad became the main US airbase until Bagram, near Kabul, was repaired, while Pasni, on the coast, was used for helicopters and Dalbadin as a refueling post for special forces’ helicopters. However, in December 2001, Pakistan began sharing Jacobabad and Pasni with US forces as India and Pakistan began massing troops on their border. In July 2006 the Pakistani Government declared that America was no longer using Shamsi, Pasni and Jacobabad, although they were at its disposal in an emergency.

The subject has become particularly sensitive in the past few weeks as President Obama has made it clear that he will continue the strikes while reviewing overall US strategy in the region.  The latest strike on Monday — the fourth since Mr Obama took office — killed 31 people in the tribal agency of Kurram, and another on Saturday killed 25 people in South Waziristan, according to Pakistani officials.  Shah Mehmood Qureshi, the Pakistani Foreign Minister, responded on Sunday by categorically denying that Pakistani bases were used for US drone attacks.

Aerial assault
— Armed predator unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) have been in use since 1999
— The aircraft is controlled from the ground using satellite systems and onboard cameras
— The MQ9 craft, which is used in Afghanistan, is 11m long, has a 20m wing span and a cruise speed of up to 230mph. Each can carry four Hellfire missiles and two bombs
— Three systems were bought by the RAF last year for £500m

Sources: Jane’s Information, US Airforce, RAF, Times archives

The EU decides on regulation that affects all citizens and it also has the power to be a force on the world stage. The complete lack of attention paid to what goes on in Brussels is a result of convenience on the part of our national politicians, and timidity and a failure of communication on the part of our media and civil society.

Even by the very poor standards of the ‘representative’ model currently operating at the EU – just 34% of the British public voted in 2009 – British people don’t have much of a say on the laws that the EU makes. No British MEP is a member of the most powerful legislative force in the EU – namely, the European People’s Party (because the Conservatives pulled out of this). I have no clue if anyone is fighting for what I believe in at the European Commission – I don’t even know how I’d begin to find out?

But why should anyone be bothered about this? After all, we pay an amount equal to only 1% of our GDP to the EU, which reaches only the farmers who benefit from the Common Agricultural Policy subsidies and the beneficiaries from the odd bit of infrastructure paid for by the Structural and Cohesion funds. When compared to the amount equal to 35% of GDP that we give to our national government, you could ask ‘why should we be interested?’

These crude budgetary numbers miss the point; EU’s main impact is regulatory. Most Britons pay the carbon tax via Europe’s carbon trading scheme, feel the impact of free labour movement of labour as people from new member states come and work for higher wages than they would receive elsewhere, or have to comply by European regulations on the activity of the business and third sectors.

In Britain’s case, public and media deliberation about these issues is absent not only because of the disconnect with the European politicians passing these laws but also because of other difficulties. Some subject are genuinely very complex and therefore don’t lend themselves to sound-bites in the news, discussion at Question Time or headlines in the papers – business regulation is a case in point. Some are both genuinely complex and politically sensitive due to both the ruling party’s poor record in the area history and due to the existence of extremist competition – the impact upon communities of free movement of labour. In the case of the Conservative Party they completely ignore the issue of Europe for fear of another civil war.

As well as a regulatory role, the EU also has a major role to play in helping our respective nations solve global problems; the work that European states do to combat complex problems like terrorism, extreme poverty and climate change could be done far more effectively together as the EU. That may be true, but an institution that lives in a vacuum, free of any significant degree of representation and accountability, should not be doing that work. Which Europeans could name the EU’s High Representative in Foreign Policy Catherine Ashton, never mind her top three foreign policy priorities? Yet she is the woman who will pick up the phone when Hilary Clinton phones Europe. The chains of accountability and clarity over who was negotiating on behalf of the EU position at the recent Copenhagen summit were murky at best.

Instead of real debate we have politicians deflect public criticism of the EU and its legislation with the old arguments for a single market and regional peace; ‘The EU has brought us many benefits and is vital for what economic prosperity we have’. Civil society and the media should look to fill this gap in the dialogue and do their best to make these issues a priority for discussion given the shocking lack of engagement by our politicians. Without this or any other scrutiny, EU policies will reflect only the interests of those lobby groups who can afford to wine and dine MEPs and European civil servants in Brussels.

The one spanner in the works to a sea of disengagement from European politics is the article in the Lisbon constitution that says that a petition of 1 million European citizens forces the Commission to write a proposal on the subject. Could this signal a great experiment of the EU as an institution that uses its unique position to experiment with innovative means of representation, or does it signal a half-hearted measure to appease the calls for more representation?

I'll leave the assigning of the players to you

I want to avoid getting too political in this space, simply because as Simmons says, politics is a great way to alienate readers. But I’d also like to point out something. If you do not know who Gilad Shalit is, or do not follow Mid East politics I’d give this one a skip right now.

So if you’re still reading, I’m going to assume you are aware that Israel presented an offer to the German mediator that was 7 names off the list Hamas presented to the same mediator. Hamas is now looking at the offer to decide if one Israeli soldier (Shalit) is worth 450, or 458 Palestinians. However, Hamas is split. Hamas’ foreign bosses in Syria and Iran want Hamas to hold out. To not give up their best political card in the chess match with Israel. However Hamas leaders in Gaza are weary of fighting with Israel (mostly due to a lack of success. Which would be considered startling had there been previous success), they are starting to actually take into account the governing of the territory (which is a huge huge step in the right direction for the entire Middle East) and want to do what’s right for their people while getting the best deal possible. Since this offer has been presented an Israeli was shot dead while driving down the road (allegedly by members of a well known terrorist group affiliated with Fatah), 150 Hamas strongmen in the West Bank were arrested by Fatah. Israel found out the location of the alleged perpetrators of the murder and went to arrest them. They refused to surrender, chaos ensued, all 3 terrorists were killed. Now today a car bomb in Syria took out a senior Hamas leader. Syria where Hamas is discussing Israels most recent offer.

Now, it doesn’t take 2 hands a map and an industrial strength spotlight to see that someone is trying to destabilize Hamas’s position. But who? And why?

First possibility; well there’s Israel. The most unlikely party to be trying to undermine Hamas, since after 3 years of rockets, a brief war, tense negotiations and a blockade, it seems that the end goal of freeing Shalit is within site. Still, it is possible so let’s take a quick look. Israel wants to put pressure on Hamas to accept the deal, while also impressing upon Israel’s settlers the dangers they face, and how much they do need the IDF to be on their side. They ask Fatah to help set something up, which Fatah does (with the murder, then the arrests). Israel takes the opportunity to remove 2 or 3 senior lieutenants in Hamas (1 in the West Bank, 1 in Syria). Hamas is weakened and a bit scared, since it’s caught in the middle of something. Israel would be hoping that this fear would push them towards accepting the Shalit deal. Why I don’t think that’s too likely is there’s too many leaps in logic. Why would Israel deal with Fatah? Why would Fatah help Israel? How does this put any more pressure on Hamas than a 3 year blockade? It’s a bit of a stretch.

Next on the list would be Fatah. Let’s just say, they like the weakened position that Hamas has in Gaza. How they’re isolated and how they can’t REALLY influence Fatah’s control on the West Bank. Then let’s say Fatah started to see a world where Hamas could openly challenge it. Possibly causing civil war, or at least making life politically difficult for Fatah. So what do they do? Try and scare Hamas into hardening their stance. Again, not too likely. Fatah works too closely with Israel and the U.S. to be able to pull something like that off. No. There’s only 1 logical answer here.

Hamas did it to Hamas. Kind of. Hamas isn’t one solid entity. As I mentioned above there is the Gaza/West Bank Hamas, and there is the Syrian/Iranian providers to Hamas. Normally, Gaza/West Bank Hamas is subservient to the foreign leadership, however in recent years that relationship has strained somewhat. Especially after the brief Gaza War, when regular citizens and foot soldiers of Hamas saw their leadership sitting in Damascus making claims about how they welcome this fight and how well it’s going, when they themselves are the ones doing the dirty work (and losing). What we may well be seeing is infighting in Hamas ranks. The factions have long since been known (a quick google search can uncover those stories), and in all likelihood, as a deal becomes closer to a reality, the more hardline members of the party would be unhappy with what they see as Hamas capitulating to Israel. However the fact to take note of here, is that thus far at least, Palestinian Hamas hasn’t backed down. All indications still seem to be that they are leaning towards accepting the Shalit offer, and while there were the normal calls for revenge at the funeral of the 3 Palestinians in the West Bank, all has been quiet on the Western front for Israel.

This separation is one of the key sticking points to a future Palestinian state. As someone who lived in Israel for a few years, I can tell you that the vast majority of Israeli’s have no problem with a Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank, so long as it’s interested in peace not just in the short term but long term. Israelis fear that Iran and Syria would just use a piece of territory that’s right in the heart of Israel as a launching platform for attacks and rockets. A justifiable fear considering the fact that if you heard on the news that a rocket hit Israel from Gaza you would be more surprised that it was newsworthy then that it happened. If Hamas can show it has the balls to stand up for its own citizens best interests, and actually take the business of governing a region seriously, the biggest roadblock on the roadmap to peace could be gone. We could be looking at a seminal moment in Mid East history, and we find out the answer this coming week.

But I can’t just run off without explaining why Iran and Syria wouldn’t want Hamas to accept the deal. Think of the entire Mid East as the highest stakes poker game imaginable. Everyone is constantly bluffing, everyone likes to be pot active, everyone is trying to think 2 or 3 moves ahead. Well, Hamas is sitting on a pair of aces. It HAS something over Israel right now. And that something could come in very handy in the event that retribution against Israel would ever be needed. Like, say, if Israel were to try and take out Iran’s nuclear programme. Having Shalit as insurance somewhere in Gaza is like Iran having a bullet proof vest. They know they can always threaten, or kill Shalit, which would probably collapse whatever government was running Israel at the time (bringing Shalit back is a bigger deal in Israel then you can imagine. I can’t properly explain it. Part of the social fabric of Israel is the deal between the Army and the mothers of the country that no matter what, all Sons or Daughters are to be brought home. And as safely as possible. There is no such thing as an accepted casualty or POW. Should something happen to Shalit after all these years, it would be seen as a violation of that social contract). If Hamas gives away that extra defence Iran has, suddenly Iran is a bit naked. They wouldn’t wield the same power or influence over Gaza, they wouldn’t have any insurance to prevent an Israeli attack, and Israel would also lose its fear of antagonizing Hamas TOO much to the point that they harm Shalit or at least harm negotiations. That means, Israel wouldn’t hesitate to put down any type of response from Gaza to an attack on Iran.

The fact that this is happening at the same time as there is wide spread civil disobedience going on in Iran, and at a time when it appears serious sanctions are about to economically cripple the country, and the current regime in Iran has to be feeling the heat. The walls are starting to close in so they have to act. Thus, attempting to destabilize Gaza AND the West Bank, as well as the negotiations going on in Syria.  The other bonus to Iran in that scenario is that international eyes move to the western part of the Middle East, instead of glaring media and international attention on the coming deadline for Iranian nuclear co-operation (5 days from now).

Now I’m not saying that this scenario IS what’s happening, but I can follow logic. In a chain of events that doesn’t seem to make sense the first step is to figure out who has the most to gain, the most to lose and there you have your prime suspect (or suspects). And this week, and probably for the next 5-6 months, Iran has EVERYTHING to lose, and its own existence to gain. Yep, it could be close to All-In time in the Persian Gulf.

December 24, 2009

Myanmar is buying twenty MiG-29s from Russia. Myanmar bought its first twelve MiG-29s in 2001. This new sale will earn Russia some criticism, because Myanmar (formerly Burma) is a military dictatorship with a very bad international reputation. But Russia is desperate to keep the MiG-29 from fading away. To that end, Russia also ordered 24 MiG-29Ks for its sole aircraft carrier, to replace the Su-33s that currently serve on the ship. However, most of the current news about the Mig-29 has been bad.

Malaysia, for example, admitted that it is getting rid of its MiG-29 fighters because the aircraft are too expensive to maintain. It costs about $5 million a year, per aircraft, to keep them in flying condition. Three years ago, Malaysia bought two more MiG-29s, in addition to the 18 it got in the 1990s. Two of those were lost due to accidents. Malaysia has since ordered 18 Su-30 fighters, and will apparently order more to replace the MiG-29s. Malaysia also bought eight F-18Ds in the 1990s, and is getting rid of those as well. Russia has offered better prices on maintenance contracts for new Su-30s, in addition to bargain (compared to U.S. planes) prices.

Most of the MiG-29s provided satisfactory service. Malaysia was long a users of U.S. aircraft, so they have been able to compare Russian and American warplanes. The Russian aircraft cost less than half as much as their American counterparts. The Malaysians find that an acceptable situation, even though they face better trained pilots flying F-16s in neighboring Singapore.

The MiG-29 entered Russian service in 1983. Some 1,600 MiG-29s have been produced so far, with about 900 of them exported. The 22 ton aircraft is roughly comparable to the F-16, but it depends a lot on which version of either aircraft you are talking about. Russia is making a lot of money upgrading MiG-29s. Not just adding new electronics, but also making the airframe more robust. The MiG-29 was originally rated at 2,500 total flight hours. At that time (early 80s), Russia expected MiG-29s to fly about a hundred or so hours a year. India, for example, flew them at nearly twice that rate, as did Malaysia. So now Russia is offering to spiff up the airframe so that the aircraft can fly up to 4,000 hours, with more life extension upgrades promised. This won’t be easy, as the MiG-29 has a history of unreliability and premature breakdowns (both mechanical and electronic).

In the last year, Russia grounded has grounded its MiG-29s several times, in order to check for structural flaws. Compared to Western aircraft, like the F-16, the MiG-29 is available for action about two thirds as much. While extending the life of the MiG-29 into the 2030s is theoretically possible, actually doing so will be real breakthrough in Russian aircraft capabilities.

The Indians are going to take up the Russians on their upgrade offer. But the Malaysians are going to go with the more highly regarded Su-30. Malaysia expects to have all its MiG-29s out of service in about a year. If they can’t be sold, they will simply be scrapped. Algeria, and several other nations, have turned down the MiG-29, which has acquired the reputation of being second rate and a loser. Russia, however, wants to preserve MiG as a brand, so it is not solely dependent on Sukhoi for its jet fighters. At this point, it looks like an uphill fight. MiG and Sukhoi are now both divisions of a state owned military aircraft company (United Aircraft). Technically, the MiG division is bankrupt. Sukhoi is profitable. Stratfor.

PressTv

Former ISI chief Asad Durrani says private US contractors such as Xe (formerly known as Blackwater) and other intelligence agents may be behind the assassination of civilians across Pakistan.

Former ISI chief Asad Durrani

In an exclusive interview with Press TV, Durrani said on Friday that the local militants led by Hakimullah Mehsud primarily target the government and military instillations.

Arguing against the local militants involvements in civilian assassinations, Durrani added that the militants consider Islamabad as a close ally of the US in the so-called ‘war on terror’ and that they have been launching retaliatory attacks against the government targets, particularly since the Pakistani army launched a major offensive against their stronghold in South Waziristan.

Durrani said that he doubted the notorious militants groups were behind a recent surge in attacks on civilian targets across the country.

The former head of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) claimed that certain theories were circulating among Pakistani intellectuals suggesting that the foreign agents or private US contractors could have been orchestrating assassinations on the civilian targets in the nuclear-armed country.

According to Durrani, these attacks were being carried out to encourage Islamabad to be more involved in war against the militants.

Pakistan has experienced a wave of violence over the past two years. Nearly 3,000 people have been killed in bomb attacks and other terrorist operations across the country.

Criminal charges are possible for five young American citizens arrested in Pakistan for alleged terrorist links to the Taliban, Pakistani media have reported.

Pakistani police investigators have reportedly concluded that the American terror suspects sought training for terrorist acts and intended to join extremist groups.

Pakistan’s courts will ultimately decide whether to prosecute the suspects.

The US citizens were arrested two weeks ago in Sargodha, a city in northeast Pakistan, known for citrus production.

The young men disappeared in late November from their northern Virginia suburbs.

“They had left their video cassettes back there for the parents that they have left for jihad, wouldn’t be back, so we suppose they were here for some very bad activities,” said Pakistan’s Sargodha police commander Usman Anwar.

Upon reaching Karachi, the men tried to join an extremist group. They attempted to join another group in Lahore, but both groups apparently rejected the Americans, in part because they were foreigners and had no local references.

Pakistan has to admit at least now that it is the breeding ground for terrorism and US citizens are also lured into it.Or could be they are framing these people to put US on the defensive.
Story:
ISLAMABAD — Pakistani police are pursuing terrorism charges against five detained American men, police said Friday, a move that could complicate efforts to bring the men back to the United States where they could also land in the courts.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,581138,00.html

Finally the 9 years-old boy Sean Goldman is back with his father on this Christmas eve.

The long dispute started when the boy’s mom went to Brazil in 2004 filled for divorce, and to complicate the matter, she died. Bitter accusations exchanged, private shame exposed, and a lenghty legal battle ending up to the Brazilian Supreme court marked that painful process.

One remark, I strongly disagree with the American media treatment of Sean Godman case as kidnapping. It was an international parental dispute instead.

Hopefully David will show concern for his son ties with his mother side of family, and allow the grandparents to see the boy.

I am Brazilian (although with a family foot in the US)  and I believe a child has to stay with his biological father (unless extreme circumstances) and I congratulate David Goldman and wish a happy Channukah-Christmas and new life together with his son.

IRAQ – I was driving down one of the war trodden main supply routes the other week. Concentrating on the road, looking for anything suspicious, I could not help but acknowledge to my gunner what destruction does to a society. It seems that every time we “roll out” our discussion includes this topic in some form. The trash piling in the dirt, the once emblazoned buildings, and the people, wrinkled, somewhat sad, and hardened by war and the stress it brings, paints a very plain picture of true struggle and broken will. With the exception of an occasional flash of traditional red, or the dusty green leaves of the palms, the image is bland and dry, leaving one in a pre-conditioned saddened state of mind even before realizing the true meaning of our presence here. Of note, up ahead, was an animal on the side of the road, lifeless, and still.

Even the grayness of this donkey seemed to fade.  In part, abandoned, no master in sight, his eyes closed, as if he had chosen this very spot along the road to lie down and die, there stood above him the most saddening scenes of the day.  Another donkey, obviously in mourning for his lost companion, he stood above his friend, loyal even in death, as traffic nonchalantly passed by.  The passers by failing to acknowledge the fact that donkey or not, something or perhaps someone lost a companion and friend, continued on with their day failing to witness what was, perhaps, a most tormenting experience.  The tears in the eyes of this innocent being, was too much for me to manage.  I got back to my forward operating base, found a private spot, and wept. 

Such is life…we come, we go, but what have we done to provide ourselves with the loyalty and commitment to each other that, even as human beings, we would stand with those lost.  Regardless of background, race, religion, or sex, we as the residents of this world have responsibilities as caretakers, charged by God to manage and take care of the world he provided.  Whether by natural causes or in war, who will come to the comfort of those who have experienced loss?  The donkey, though his existence may be menial on a day to day basis, epitomizes what it is to serve and what it means to be loyal.  They live in peace and experience only that which their master charges.  We continue to forego peace and destroy that which our God has designated our responsibility.

So here we are, another holiday season comes and goes and another year approaches with promises of strained interpersonal, intranational, and international relationships.  The will of the people moves with the ebb and tide of unpredictable governments and the struggle between what is right and not right ensues.   We, as the responsible inhabitants of this planet must begin to realize that the happenings and events, not only within our designated borders and territories, but throughout, are directly the end result of individual decision-making and consequential actions.  Recognizing that human beings, alone, possess the ability to influence the physics of nature (as it relates to climate and global conditions), of economy (as it relates to recession and the plethora of issues surrounding economy), and relationships along the full spectrum of their ability to exist (individual through international), is where we must begin before the seeds of peace can be planted.

Consider this….  Individuals make decisions; Decisions produce outcomes; Outcomes, both negative and positive, produce leaders; Leaders influence individuals and individuals decide whom to follow.   Coagulated groups then form as leaders gain followers.  Still with me?  This is probably better depicted graphically, and I will provide one at a later time.  This sequence then recycles itself and at times gains enough momentum to provide those identified as leaders with power.  The power to influence people is only as strong as the collective group allows it to be.  That said, should not the equation for peace be legitimately easy?  Trust me, it is.  The difficulty lies within the spirits of our global leaders.  All may say they want peace, but few have decided collectively what exactly this means. 

When considering the road to a peaceful world, the burden of leadership rests with those appointed and/or supported by the people.  I would argue that the burden and responsibility is misplaced.  Each of us, individually, remains wholly responsible for the status of our world.  Whether it is peace or war, we the people of all states, make the decisions that influence outcomes.  Whether it is who we vote for during an election or to pull a trigger on a roadside bomb, whether we throw our trash outside of a car window or start a recycling program in our own homes, the decision rests with each of us.  We must honestly look inward and ask, “What have I done this year to bring peace to the part of the world that I remain responsible for?”  We must examine the inner being, the self, and decide what we are capable of accomplishing toward making our world just a little cleaner, a little better, a little brighter.  When we all, as a world, accomplish this and work together to achieve, then and only then may peace be possible.  Leaders are no different than followers.  They bleed the same blood; they breathe the same air and receive an education at the same schools.  Leaders are people; the difference is that you and I, people, have chosen to support their dreams and desires.  Consequently, we all remain wholly responsible.

I traveled the same route the very next day.  The donkey, whose companion had died, was now lying next to his loss.  Still along the side of the road, his head had come to rest on the stomach of his loss.  I observed closely, and then, found myself sobbing.  I could no longer hold back the tears that welled from within.  I looked up at my gunner who was sobbing too; my driver was in the same state.  The donkey, whose companion had died, had finally found peace.  He too had passed…surely from a broken heart.  The cars nonchalantly drove by, no one stopping, no one caring for anyone or anything but themselves.  In a world that is torn by war, a world that faces climate crisis, a world that faces threats from our fellow mankind, can any of us afford to think of just ourselves?  Where does this leave tomorrow’s children?  Perhaps they won’t care either.  After all, we’ve taught them to care only for the single most important person…themselves. 

To all who are still reading, I wish you a sincerely beautiful Christmas and many returns for the New Year.  The tone of this blog may seem dark, but the idea is bright!  We have a world that needs some work.  We must, united, stand together, roll up our sleeves, and do what we were originally charged with by God.  That is to take care of that which he bestowed upon all of us…this earth…and each other.  We must continue to pray but we must also continue to stand only for peace, differences exist, but let us hope that people, on the whole, are smart enough to see through these and find resolution.  Our world calls to us.  We must listen!

Turkey is proudly taking its place as one of the key markets in the world we are all rebuilding after the catastrophic crash of the last 18 months.

Today it officially launched its bid to host Euro 2016, where it will compete with the likes of France and Italy to host one of Europe’s biggest sporting events. This comes just days after the process of Turkey’s accession into the EU regained some momentum; with EU officials agreeing that it was time to open a new chapter in the negotiations.

Analysts are pointing out that this progress is hardly coincidental given the ties that Turkey is forming with Middle East players including Syria.

The EU wants to play a role in world affairs including Middle Eastern peace and as Turkey continues to grow in influence it becomes more and more clear that it could play a far bigger role with Turkey in the fold.

Current Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his government will surely go down in history as one of the best examples ever of a country playing to its diversity and strengths, to gain international prowess and to get what it wants and needs to drive Turkey forward.

Turkey is a Muslim country with as chequered a past as any of its Middle Eastern neighbours, it has displayed a sufficiently firm grasp of western values to be embraced by the west, whilst retaining enough of its Muslim standing to be embraced by the Middle East as well.

The fact that Turkey is growing into one of the World’s fastest growing economies, with among the largest tourism, means that Middle East states like Syria want to befriend, benefit and learn from it. This in turn makes Turkey an even more vital partner for those in the west, thus Turkey gets the best from both worlds.

Islamabad has said it will neither accept US-led operations on its soil nor extended CIA-operated drone attacks inside its territories.

Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mahmoud Qureshi made the remarks during a briefing with lawmakers in Islamabad on Tuesday, a Press TV correspondent reported.

“We strongly believe that drone attacks were counterproductive and unhelpful in our joint efforts towards winning hearts and minds, which is essential to succeed against violent extremism”, Qureshi said.

The use of CIA-operated drones has increased since Barack Obama became US president. The Nobel Peace Laureate has repeatedly vowed to expand the controversial strikes that have raised anti-US sentiments across Pakistan.

Pakistani officials have opposed the expansion of drone attacks in the country’s tribal areas, as well as strikes on Balochistan, where the US claims Taliban leaders are hiding.

The developments come after US Special Envoy to Pakistan and Afghanistan Richard Holbrooke said on Tuesday that the United States has members of its intelligence services in Pakistan, but it has no troops.

A former NATO officer earlier told the Guardian that American Special Forces conducted multiple illegal raids into Pakistan’s tribal areas, which were never declared to the Pakistani government.

On Sunday, thousands of demonstrators in Rawalpindi demanded that the Pakistani government keep a strict eye on Blackwater/Xe and other US security entities operating in the country.

As things stand China’s financial control over US govt.is high.When they enter private sector, the results will be not good for US.Look at the African countries where china has invested, leading to local unrest, following Chinese policy of hiring only Chinese.Also China shall use this as a lever in diplomacy.
Story:

Chinese manufacturers are looking overseas to acquire the means to move into broader markets.

It is easiest for any developing country’s firms to grow and internationalize in areas that lack head-to-head competition from U.S. and European firms. China’s carmakers are in the vanguard of those Chinese companies now showing a readiness to acquire the wherewithal to move out of the niches and into broader markets.

To attend the funeral in December, 2009 of Hossein Ali Montazeri, who was the 87 year-old spiritual leader of the Iranian reformist movement, mourners poured out in thousands into the streets leading to the mosque. However, anti-riot police and plainclothes pro-government Basij militiamen had blocked the area.  Parlemannews reported that Basij beat people, including women, and used tear gas and pepper spray to disperse the crowds. One witness told a reporter,  ”Tens of thousands gathered outside for the memorial but were savagely attacked by security forces and the Basijis.” He said baton-wielding riot police clubbed people on the head and shoulders, and kicked men and women alike, injuring dozens.  “I saw at least two people with blood pouring down their face after being beaten by the Basijis,” he said. 

To savagely beat a person reflects on the beater rather than the beatee, especially of the latter was not being violent.   While a government could be justified in responding to violence with violence, to use violence where there is none in opposition points to violence being a tool in a government’s toolkit for changing behavior or political positions.   It is, in other words, for some persons to approach others as being less than human–as a kin to dogs.  Kant wrote about the rational nature being of such value that anyone (or anything) having it should not be treated as merely a means, but also as an end in itself.  To reduce a rational nature to an object to be pummelled is to make a rather basic category mistake.  It is perhaps only natural that the beaters and their “superiors” are then presumed to be objects, for one rational nature naturally views others of its class in like terms.  So the beaters, it turns out, jeopardize their own status as human beings by savagely beating non-violent people.   However, if those being beaten are rational beings, they will naturally recognize that the beaters too, being human beings, are rational beings, and therefore not mere objects (to be dealt with as means only). 

Besides this Kantian ethical analysis, it strikes me that to classify “savage beating” along with fiscal policy, treaties, and monetary policy represents a category mistake concerning just what it is to be a government tool.   If anything, a tool is oriented to a purpose, and in the case of beating non-violent people the government’s purpose (support rather than criticism) is not likely to be reached.  In fact, being subject to a government tool that is not really such a tool is apt to firm up one’s resistance.   What sticks in my mind is the dubiousness of the assumed linkage between “government” and “savage beating.”  That these two are linked, even in practice, can be approached as odd or bizzare, not to mention as unacceptable.  

Even with regard to a pet, were I to tell you that I savagely beat my dog last night because he refused to eat the dogfood in his dish, you would stare at me in utter shock and disbelief…as though I were nuts…that such a link would be acted upon, let alone made.    We ought to have the same reaction in reading the article I have cited below from the NYT.  …but we don’t.  It is “normal.”  We are “accustomed” to it.  Somehow or other, we have come to accept the existence of something that would strike someone not of  human “society” as odd.  “I’m sorry, what did you say?  The government savagely beat?…I’m sorry, I just don’t get it. I don’t understand what you mean. What you are saying doesn’t make any sense to me.”   That it does make sense to us…and then we condemn it…is itself a problem.   What I am essentially describing is a slippery slope wherein the once unfathomable comes to be presumed as natural (even if undesirable).

Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34570961/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/