India cannot call itself an authentic and practising Democracy unless it immediately implements a full fledged program of social welfare services on behalf of its diverse billion plus people -- food security, healthcare, shelter, jobs, income guarantees, unemployment protection. Social Justice is every Indian's right in our unprecedented democracy.
Lack of food security results in maternal and infant malnutrition. 'Slum clearance' is dispossession and internal displacement of the poorest and most vulnerable. A social services safety must mitigate these intolerable conditions for our people.
Enough has been written on the subject. A safety net is long overdue and we can certainly afford to. In fact, we can't afford not to. The India govt. is criminally negligent in failing to deliver on these urgent civil society priorities.
We are a democracy, but we can't eat our vote. We can't find shelter by cowering under the ballot box.
Shame on India's alleged leaders so long as they renege on a comprehensive social welfare safety net and turn their backs on providing basic needs.
Civil Society groups in India and hundreds of other countries should bring charges against their governments in the International Criminal Court for oppressing and exploiting their long suffering citizens.
The ILO states that India can spend about 4% of its GDP to cover ALL Indians with social services. From Kanyakumari to Kashmir We the People need that protection. It is a fundamental human right of our civil society.
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Gay Mullahs We Need YOU
Can a gay MULLAH please step forward? We all know you exist. But instead of burying your head in the sand or hiding in the closet We need you to speak out against Sec 377 of the Indian Penal Code, a law that dates back to 1860, during the British Colonial oppression of India.
Today, because India is a secular democracy all individuals and groups have a right to express a personal opinion. However, my personal opinion or anyone else's cannot have the status and authority of LAW.
The law stands above personal opinion. The law of the land has the solemn obligation to protect and preserve the rights of ALL individuals. The diverse LGBT constituency has long been denied equal civil rights in marriage and divorce under Indian Law. Their private sexual lives have long been criminalized under Sec 377 of the IPC. This is inhumane, uncivilized,unethical, unconstitutional and wrong. The Indian state has committed a CRIME against homosexuals by denying them their civil rights.
The Indian state or any secular democratic state IS NOT A PARTNER NOR CAN IT ADJUDICATE PRIVATE ACTIVITIES OF CONSENTING ADULTS, whether heterosexual, homosexual, transgender or any other sexual orientation.
Repeal 377. It's got to go.
Chithra KarunaKaran
Ethical Democracy As Lived Practice
http://EthicalDemocracy.blogspot.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/After-Deoband-other-Muslim-leaders-condemn-homosexuality/articleshow/4723843.cms
Times of India copyright
After Deoband, other Muslim leaders condemn homosexuality
1 Jul 2009, 1238 hrs IST, PTI
audio
Print Email Discuss Share Save Comment Text:
NEW DELHI: Amid government moves for a re-look at criminalising homosexuality, several Muslim leaders have said any attempt to legally permit
unnatural sex is an attack on religious and moral values.
"Legalisation of homosexuality is an attack on Indian religious and moral values," over a dozen prominent Muslim religious leaders said in a statement.
The statement has been endorsed by Maulana Jalaluddin Omari, President of the Jamaat-e Islami Hind, Maulana Muhammad Salim Qasimi, Rector of Darul Uloom Waqf, Deoband, Maulana Mufti Mukarram Ahmad, Shahi Imam of Jama Masjid Fatehpuri, among others.
"We are shocked to see reports in the media that the Union government is considering the repeal of Section 377 of the IPC, which means making homosexuality legal," the statement said on Tuesday.
It said that homosexuality is a sin and a social evil which will only lead to societal disintegration and break-up of the family.
Appealing to the government not to be influenced by the "decadent trends of the Western culture" and not to give in to the demands of a minuscule minority, the statement said the government should not test the patience of the silent vast majority of the country which abhors such behaviour.
A prominent body of Muslim community Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind had earlier hit out at the government's proposed move, saying the repeal of the section would create "sexual anarchy" in the society.
"The section should stay as its repealing would result in sexual anarchy in the society. Those opposing the section are influenced by Western culture. Those who argue for independence do not realise that independence should have its limits," Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind spokesperson Abdul Hameed Noamani said.
Leading Islamic seminary Darul Uloom Deoband had earlier also opposed the Centre's move to repeal a controversial section, saying unnatural sex is against the tenets of Islam.
"Homosexuality is offence under Shariat Law and haram (prohibited) in Islam," Deputy Vice Chancellor of the Darul Uloom Deoband Maulana Abdul Khalik Madrasi has said.
The reaction came after reports that Centre was likely to convene a meeting soon to evolve a consensus on repealing a controversial section of the Indian Penal Code which criminalises homosexuality.
-----
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Today-is-judgment-day-for-gays/articleshow/4726608.cms
Today is judgment day for gays
2 Jul 2009, 0730 hrs IST, Smriti Singh, TNN
Print Email Discuss Share Save Comment Text:
NEW DELHI: The Delhi high court is due to deliver on Thursday its much-awaited verdict on a petition seeking decriminalization of
homosexuality.
Seven months after concluding the hearings on the petition filed by Naz Foundation, a bench consisting of Chief Justice A P Shah and Justice S Muralidhar will announce whether section 377 IPC could be “read down” to decriminalize private consensual sex between adults of the same sex.
As an NGO working among AIDS/HIV-affected people, all that the petitioner sought was a reading down of the wide-ranging provision, which imposes life sentence on those found to have “carnal intercourse against the order of nature”. Much as the provision sounds archaic, there is little likelihood of it being repealed as the relief sought by the petitioner, by its own admission, has been framed “to ensure the continuance of applicability of section 377 to cases involving children or cases involving non-consensual sex.”
Thus, if the high court saves the provision by reading it down, section 377 will continue to be in the statute book to deal with paedophilia and non-consensual sex between members of the same sex. This is a likely scenario going by the observations made by judges during the hearings last year and the contradictions that remained unresolved in the government’s stand.
While the home ministry wanted the petition to be dismissed, the health ministry supported its contention that section 377 criminalized homosexuality per se, it was obstructing the AIDS/HIV prevention efforts among high-risk groups. Whatever the outcome, this is the second time the Delhi high court will be pronouncing on Naz Foundation’s petition against section 377. In 2004, it dismissed the petition at the preliminary stage stating that “an academic challenge to the constitutionality of a legislative provision could not be entertained.” It further said that when no personal injury was caused to the petitioner by this provision, the petition could not be examined.
The foundation then approached the Supreme Court, which disapproved the manner in which the high court had disposed of the matter. SC observed that when there was a debate on this issue the world over, “where is the question of the petition being academic? We are not able to accept the approach of the high court that it is an academic exercise and there is no personal injury.” Accordingly, in 2006, SC directed HC to reconsider the matter in detail. The judgment is coming close on the heels of statements from ministers on the possibility of a legislative intervention because of growing demands from the community of lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgenders (LGBT). If the judgment serves the purpose of decriminalizing homosexuality, the government will be spared the burden of amending a provision laden with religious and cultural sensitivities.
Interestingly, in the new team of law officers appointed by the government, at least two of them — attorney general Goolam Vahanvati and additional solicitor general Indira Jaising —- have publicly supported the demand for decriminalizing homosexuality.
---
wikipedia copyright
Chapter XVI, Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code a piece of legislation in India introduced during British rule of India used to criminalise homosexual activity.It is also commonly referred to as the ‘Anti-sodomy Law’. The Section 377 was drafted in 1860 by Lord Macaulay as a part of the colonial project of regulating and controlling the British- and Indian-origin subjects, which reads:
* Unnatural offenses: Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
* Explanation: Penetration is sufficient to constitute the carnal intercourse necessary to the offense described in this section[1].
The ambit of Section 377, which was devised to criminalize and prevent homosexual associations - sodomy in particular, extends to any sexual union involving penile insertion. Thus even consensual heterosexual acts - but coitus - such as fellatio and fingering may be declared a punishable offense under this law.
The Indian Penal Code was later reproduced in most other British colonies – and to date many of these laws are still in places as far apart as Singapore and Sri Lanka.
In 2006 it came under criticism from 100 Indian literary figures,[2] most prominently Vikram Seth. The movement to repeal Section 377 has been led by the Naz Foundation India Trust, an activist group. It is currently under a constitutional challenge at the Delhi High Court.
It must however be noted that convictions under this law are extremely rare, and in the last twenty years there have been no convictions for homosexual relations in India.
==================================================================================
Today, because India is a secular democracy all individuals and groups have a right to express a personal opinion. However, my personal opinion or anyone else's cannot have the status and authority of LAW.
The law stands above personal opinion. The law of the land has the solemn obligation to protect and preserve the rights of ALL individuals. The diverse LGBT constituency has long been denied equal civil rights in marriage and divorce under Indian Law. Their private sexual lives have long been criminalized under Sec 377 of the IPC. This is inhumane, uncivilized,unethical, unconstitutional and wrong. The Indian state has committed a CRIME against homosexuals by denying them their civil rights.
The Indian state or any secular democratic state IS NOT A PARTNER NOR CAN IT ADJUDICATE PRIVATE ACTIVITIES OF CONSENTING ADULTS, whether heterosexual, homosexual, transgender or any other sexual orientation.
Repeal 377. It's got to go.
Chithra KarunaKaran
Ethical Democracy As Lived Practice
http://EthicalDemocracy.blogspot.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/After-Deoband-other-Muslim-leaders-condemn-homosexuality/articleshow/4723843.cms
Times of India copyright
After Deoband, other Muslim leaders condemn homosexuality
1 Jul 2009, 1238 hrs IST, PTI
audio
Print Email Discuss Share Save Comment Text:
NEW DELHI: Amid government moves for a re-look at criminalising homosexuality, several Muslim leaders have said any attempt to legally permit
unnatural sex is an attack on religious and moral values.
"Legalisation of homosexuality is an attack on Indian religious and moral values," over a dozen prominent Muslim religious leaders said in a statement.
The statement has been endorsed by Maulana Jalaluddin Omari, President of the Jamaat-e Islami Hind, Maulana Muhammad Salim Qasimi, Rector of Darul Uloom Waqf, Deoband, Maulana Mufti Mukarram Ahmad, Shahi Imam of Jama Masjid Fatehpuri, among others.
"We are shocked to see reports in the media that the Union government is considering the repeal of Section 377 of the IPC, which means making homosexuality legal," the statement said on Tuesday.
It said that homosexuality is a sin and a social evil which will only lead to societal disintegration and break-up of the family.
Appealing to the government not to be influenced by the "decadent trends of the Western culture" and not to give in to the demands of a minuscule minority, the statement said the government should not test the patience of the silent vast majority of the country which abhors such behaviour.
A prominent body of Muslim community Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind had earlier hit out at the government's proposed move, saying the repeal of the section would create "sexual anarchy" in the society.
"The section should stay as its repealing would result in sexual anarchy in the society. Those opposing the section are influenced by Western culture. Those who argue for independence do not realise that independence should have its limits," Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind spokesperson Abdul Hameed Noamani said.
Leading Islamic seminary Darul Uloom Deoband had earlier also opposed the Centre's move to repeal a controversial section, saying unnatural sex is against the tenets of Islam.
"Homosexuality is offence under Shariat Law and haram (prohibited) in Islam," Deputy Vice Chancellor of the Darul Uloom Deoband Maulana Abdul Khalik Madrasi has said.
The reaction came after reports that Centre was likely to convene a meeting soon to evolve a consensus on repealing a controversial section of the Indian Penal Code which criminalises homosexuality.
-----
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Today-is-judgment-day-for-gays/articleshow/4726608.cms
Today is judgment day for gays
2 Jul 2009, 0730 hrs IST, Smriti Singh, TNN
Print Email Discuss Share Save Comment Text:
NEW DELHI: The Delhi high court is due to deliver on Thursday its much-awaited verdict on a petition seeking decriminalization of
homosexuality.
Seven months after concluding the hearings on the petition filed by Naz Foundation, a bench consisting of Chief Justice A P Shah and Justice S Muralidhar will announce whether section 377 IPC could be “read down” to decriminalize private consensual sex between adults of the same sex.
As an NGO working among AIDS/HIV-affected people, all that the petitioner sought was a reading down of the wide-ranging provision, which imposes life sentence on those found to have “carnal intercourse against the order of nature”. Much as the provision sounds archaic, there is little likelihood of it being repealed as the relief sought by the petitioner, by its own admission, has been framed “to ensure the continuance of applicability of section 377 to cases involving children or cases involving non-consensual sex.”
Thus, if the high court saves the provision by reading it down, section 377 will continue to be in the statute book to deal with paedophilia and non-consensual sex between members of the same sex. This is a likely scenario going by the observations made by judges during the hearings last year and the contradictions that remained unresolved in the government’s stand.
While the home ministry wanted the petition to be dismissed, the health ministry supported its contention that section 377 criminalized homosexuality per se, it was obstructing the AIDS/HIV prevention efforts among high-risk groups. Whatever the outcome, this is the second time the Delhi high court will be pronouncing on Naz Foundation’s petition against section 377. In 2004, it dismissed the petition at the preliminary stage stating that “an academic challenge to the constitutionality of a legislative provision could not be entertained.” It further said that when no personal injury was caused to the petitioner by this provision, the petition could not be examined.
The foundation then approached the Supreme Court, which disapproved the manner in which the high court had disposed of the matter. SC observed that when there was a debate on this issue the world over, “where is the question of the petition being academic? We are not able to accept the approach of the high court that it is an academic exercise and there is no personal injury.” Accordingly, in 2006, SC directed HC to reconsider the matter in detail. The judgment is coming close on the heels of statements from ministers on the possibility of a legislative intervention because of growing demands from the community of lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgenders (LGBT). If the judgment serves the purpose of decriminalizing homosexuality, the government will be spared the burden of amending a provision laden with religious and cultural sensitivities.
Interestingly, in the new team of law officers appointed by the government, at least two of them — attorney general Goolam Vahanvati and additional solicitor general Indira Jaising —- have publicly supported the demand for decriminalizing homosexuality.
---
wikipedia copyright
Chapter XVI, Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code a piece of legislation in India introduced during British rule of India used to criminalise homosexual activity.It is also commonly referred to as the ‘Anti-sodomy Law’. The Section 377 was drafted in 1860 by Lord Macaulay as a part of the colonial project of regulating and controlling the British- and Indian-origin subjects, which reads:
* Unnatural offenses: Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
* Explanation: Penetration is sufficient to constitute the carnal intercourse necessary to the offense described in this section[1].
The ambit of Section 377, which was devised to criminalize and prevent homosexual associations - sodomy in particular, extends to any sexual union involving penile insertion. Thus even consensual heterosexual acts - but coitus - such as fellatio and fingering may be declared a punishable offense under this law.
The Indian Penal Code was later reproduced in most other British colonies – and to date many of these laws are still in places as far apart as Singapore and Sri Lanka.
In 2006 it came under criticism from 100 Indian literary figures,[2] most prominently Vikram Seth. The movement to repeal Section 377 has been led by the Naz Foundation India Trust, an activist group. It is currently under a constitutional challenge at the Delhi High Court.
It must however be noted that convictions under this law are extremely rare, and in the last twenty years there have been no convictions for homosexual relations in India.
==================================================================================
Monday, June 29, 2009
India Govt. Too Chicken To Confront OZ Racism?
India Govt. Too Chicken To CONFRONT OZ Racism?
Why hasn't the India govt. sent a Special Representative, accompanied by affected family members, to OZ to meet with students to directly hear their trials and tribulations within racist OZ society?
Such a meeting should take place before the full glare of TV cameras. OZ has proved it is a racist society. The victims, our students, don't have to prove anything to the Ozzies, except to prove that their home government in India can and will act to protect them.
Manmohan and his crew need to step up and be counted on this issue. Please don't send mealy-mouthed bureaucrats, diplomats and some recently elected Congress wallahs in the Ministry of External Affairs (at least one name comes to mind), who are too afraid to speak out for fear of jeopardizing their new and unfolding careers in the Congress Party apparatus.
Instead, let the GOI send civil society / human rights activists who have proved their mettle. OZ needs to be told face to face by India that India will not tolerate racist brutal acts against our students. OZ takes our students' money which enriches OZ govt and OZ unis. and then OZ appears incapable to taking strong preemptive measures to protect our students against their homegrown racists?
29 Jun 2009, 1306 hrs IST
--------------------------------------------
Times of India copyright
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/4715044.cms
====================================================================================
Why hasn't the India govt. sent a Special Representative, accompanied by affected family members, to OZ to meet with students to directly hear their trials and tribulations within racist OZ society?
Such a meeting should take place before the full glare of TV cameras. OZ has proved it is a racist society. The victims, our students, don't have to prove anything to the Ozzies, except to prove that their home government in India can and will act to protect them.
Manmohan and his crew need to step up and be counted on this issue. Please don't send mealy-mouthed bureaucrats, diplomats and some recently elected Congress wallahs in the Ministry of External Affairs (at least one name comes to mind), who are too afraid to speak out for fear of jeopardizing their new and unfolding careers in the Congress Party apparatus.
Instead, let the GOI send civil society / human rights activists who have proved their mettle. OZ needs to be told face to face by India that India will not tolerate racist brutal acts against our students. OZ takes our students' money which enriches OZ govt and OZ unis. and then OZ appears incapable to taking strong preemptive measures to protect our students against their homegrown racists?
29 Jun 2009, 1306 hrs IST
--------------------------------------------
Times of India copyright
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/4715044.cms
====================================================================================
Climate Change Bill Passes the House
Comment 82. published on Nytimes.com
EthicalDemocracy
Chennai, Tamil Nadu India
June 29th, 2009
8:31 am
Despite the heavy NO votes by those elected leaders who can't seem to practice thoughtful action on the environment, based on factual evidence, it's hoped we will soon have a LAW after the Senate passes the same.
Let's then implement it for the Greater Collective Good (GCG, economists need to measure this as an outcome).
The Greater Collective Good appears to be an almost alien concept in the US when it comes to global environmental justice. But any step, however small, in this direction, is welcome.
Chithra KarunaKaran
Ethical Democracy As Lived Practice
http://EthicalDemocracy.blogspot.com
----------------------------------------------------------
New York Times copyright
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/opinion/29krugman.html
==================================================================================
EthicalDemocracy
Chennai, Tamil Nadu India
June 29th, 2009
8:31 am
Despite the heavy NO votes by those elected leaders who can't seem to practice thoughtful action on the environment, based on factual evidence, it's hoped we will soon have a LAW after the Senate passes the same.
Let's then implement it for the Greater Collective Good (GCG, economists need to measure this as an outcome).
The Greater Collective Good appears to be an almost alien concept in the US when it comes to global environmental justice. But any step, however small, in this direction, is welcome.
Chithra KarunaKaran
Ethical Democracy As Lived Practice
http://EthicalDemocracy.blogspot.com
----------------------------------------------------------
New York Times copyright
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/opinion/29krugman.html
==================================================================================
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Both India, Pakistan are US Stooges
Both India, Pakistan are US Stooges, trying to outmaneuver each other to gain favor with the US. This failing lose-lose strategy for The Peoples of India and Pakistan only increases the power of the US in our culture area and region.
Pakistan is even more servile than India, the Pakistan govt. is a paid political prostitute of the US since the John Foster Dulles era of the US State Department and the CIA of the '50's , however both India and Pakistan governments are stooges. Both serve US interests more than their respective peoples' interests, and the interdependent collective interests of ALL of the people in the South Asia culture area and region.
Why is India's Defence Minister A.K. Antony moaning and complaining to the US? Why give the US additional power as an intermediary in our region? Both India and Pakistan are ceding power in our region, to the US. Shame on our alleged leaders.
Yes, yes, Antony has a point. BUT it is also equally a fact that India has numerous domestic so-called "terror" groups. The terror label, orchestrated by the United States has now become a catch-all for ALL groups who oppose policies of the STATE, no matter which state it is.
Multiple varieties of the Taliban have proliferated, as a direct result of US activity in the region in the 80's, when the US invented a Cold War confrontation with the Soviets in Afghanistan. In this the US was joined by Pakistan and their old and dependable ally Saudi Arabia -- that beacon of democracy.
India should stop demonizing Pakistan and the Taliban. We need to clean up our own house and stop pointing fingers conveniently across the border. The inconvenient truth is India has plenty of groups attacking the Indian state from within.
Q. Are they ALL terror groups, or are many of them them desperate for economic justice? Do they feel neglected or exploited by the Indian state? The same is true in Pakistan where internal groups are chronically disaffected because they cannot achieve even the bare necessities of life.
It is absolutely true that the feudal and military elites of Pakistan have reaped the whirlwind by fomenting terror in Kashmir. Now terror is biting them in the butt.
However, India is better off concentrating on the grave social, economic and political injustices multiplying within our borders.
Let us remember that the US is not an ally but a highly self-serving dominant global entity that has destabilized the South Asia culture area and region. The US is continuing the damage that the Brits conducted during the colonial period. DIVIDE and RULE hurts Pakistanis and Indians, and increases the power of the US in our region. So let us persevere to work together, Indians and Pakistanis, despite the impediments of a superpower attempting to gain strategic depth in our region.
Chithra KarunaKaran
Ethical Democracy As Lived Practice
http://EthicalDemocracy.blogspot.com
---------------------------------------
My comment published on TOI online
Pakistani Taliban a threat to India: Antony
Chithra KarunaKaran Ethical Democracy,NYC,says:Why is India moaning and complaining to the US? Why give the US additional power as an intermediary in our region? Both India and Pakistan are ceding power in our region, to the US. Shame on us. Yes, yes, Antony has a point. BUT it is also equally a fact that India has numerous domestic so-called "terror" groups. The terror label, orchestrated by the United States has now become a catch-all for ALL groups who oppose policies of the STATE, no matter which state it is. Multiple varieties of the Taliban have proliferated, as a direct result of US activity in the region in the 80's, when the US invented a Cold War confrontation with the Soviets in Afghanistan. In this the US was joined by Pakistan and their old and dependable ally Saudi Arabia -- that beacon of democracy. India should stop demonizing Pakistan and the Taliban. We need to clean up our own house and stop pointing fingers conveniently across the border. It is absolutely true that the feudal and military elites of Pakistan have reaped the whirlwind by fomenting terror in Kashmir. Now terror is biting them in the butt. However, India is better off concentrating on the grave social, economic and political injustices multiplying within our borders. Let us remember that the US is not an ally but a highly selfserving dominant global entity that has destabilized the South Asia culture area and region. The US is continuing the damage that the Brits conducted during the colonial period. DIVIDE and RULE hurts Pakistanis and Indians, and increases the power of the US in our region.
So, let us persevere to work together, Indians and Pakistanis, despite the historical and contemporary geopolitical impediments.
25 Jun 2009, 1416 hrs IST
--------------
Times of India copyright
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Pakistani-Taliban-a-threat-to-India-A-K-Antony-/articleshow/4700759.cms#write
NEW DELHI: The Taliban operating in Pakistan pose a "real threat" to India, the region and the world, defence minister A K Antony said on
Thursday.
"The Taliban are a threat to world peace, our region and a real threat to India," he told reporters here on the sidelines of the two-day Unified Commanders Conference that he inaugurated here.
Antony also expressed concern over the situation in Pakistan.
"Pakistan is in turmoil. We are very concerned about it. We are trying to convince Pakistan that they have to take strict action against anti-India elements operating from there," he maintained.
Given this, the minister said India could not afford to lower its guard along its western border, especially in Jammu and Kashmir.
"Of late, there is a decline in infiltration along the border. But we cannot say it is an improvement, since terrorists are still operating from the other side. India can not lower its guard at the border, especially in Jammu and Kashmir. We have to be very vigilant and careful," Antony contended.
He said he would discuss the security scenario in the South Asian region with visiting US National Security Advisor James Jones Friday.
"He is visiting me tomorrow. We will discuss the security situation in the (South Asian) region. When we discuss this, we can not avoid (mention of) Afghanistan," Antony said.
Better coordination and strengthening the war fighting capabilities of the army, the navy and the air force are high on the agenda of the Unified Commanders Conference, being held on the theme "Victory through Jointness".
=====================================================================================
Pakistan is even more servile than India, the Pakistan govt. is a paid political prostitute of the US since the John Foster Dulles era of the US State Department and the CIA of the '50's , however both India and Pakistan governments are stooges. Both serve US interests more than their respective peoples' interests, and the interdependent collective interests of ALL of the people in the South Asia culture area and region.
Why is India's Defence Minister A.K. Antony moaning and complaining to the US? Why give the US additional power as an intermediary in our region? Both India and Pakistan are ceding power in our region, to the US. Shame on our alleged leaders.
Yes, yes, Antony has a point. BUT it is also equally a fact that India has numerous domestic so-called "terror" groups. The terror label, orchestrated by the United States has now become a catch-all for ALL groups who oppose policies of the STATE, no matter which state it is.
Multiple varieties of the Taliban have proliferated, as a direct result of US activity in the region in the 80's, when the US invented a Cold War confrontation with the Soviets in Afghanistan. In this the US was joined by Pakistan and their old and dependable ally Saudi Arabia -- that beacon of democracy.
India should stop demonizing Pakistan and the Taliban. We need to clean up our own house and stop pointing fingers conveniently across the border. The inconvenient truth is India has plenty of groups attacking the Indian state from within.
Q. Are they ALL terror groups, or are many of them them desperate for economic justice? Do they feel neglected or exploited by the Indian state? The same is true in Pakistan where internal groups are chronically disaffected because they cannot achieve even the bare necessities of life.
It is absolutely true that the feudal and military elites of Pakistan have reaped the whirlwind by fomenting terror in Kashmir. Now terror is biting them in the butt.
However, India is better off concentrating on the grave social, economic and political injustices multiplying within our borders.
Let us remember that the US is not an ally but a highly self-serving dominant global entity that has destabilized the South Asia culture area and region. The US is continuing the damage that the Brits conducted during the colonial period. DIVIDE and RULE hurts Pakistanis and Indians, and increases the power of the US in our region. So let us persevere to work together, Indians and Pakistanis, despite the impediments of a superpower attempting to gain strategic depth in our region.
Chithra KarunaKaran
Ethical Democracy As Lived Practice
http://EthicalDemocracy.blogspot.com
---------------------------------------
My comment published on TOI online
Pakistani Taliban a threat to India: Antony
Chithra KarunaKaran Ethical Democracy,NYC,says:Why is India moaning and complaining to the US? Why give the US additional power as an intermediary in our region? Both India and Pakistan are ceding power in our region, to the US. Shame on us. Yes, yes, Antony has a point. BUT it is also equally a fact that India has numerous domestic so-called "terror" groups. The terror label, orchestrated by the United States has now become a catch-all for ALL groups who oppose policies of the STATE, no matter which state it is. Multiple varieties of the Taliban have proliferated, as a direct result of US activity in the region in the 80's, when the US invented a Cold War confrontation with the Soviets in Afghanistan. In this the US was joined by Pakistan and their old and dependable ally Saudi Arabia -- that beacon of democracy. India should stop demonizing Pakistan and the Taliban. We need to clean up our own house and stop pointing fingers conveniently across the border. It is absolutely true that the feudal and military elites of Pakistan have reaped the whirlwind by fomenting terror in Kashmir. Now terror is biting them in the butt. However, India is better off concentrating on the grave social, economic and political injustices multiplying within our borders. Let us remember that the US is not an ally but a highly selfserving dominant global entity that has destabilized the South Asia culture area and region. The US is continuing the damage that the Brits conducted during the colonial period. DIVIDE and RULE hurts Pakistanis and Indians, and increases the power of the US in our region.
So, let us persevere to work together, Indians and Pakistanis, despite the historical and contemporary geopolitical impediments.
25 Jun 2009, 1416 hrs IST
--------------
Times of India copyright
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Pakistani-Taliban-a-threat-to-India-A-K-Antony-/articleshow/4700759.cms#write
NEW DELHI: The Taliban operating in Pakistan pose a "real threat" to India, the region and the world, defence minister A K Antony said on
Thursday.
"The Taliban are a threat to world peace, our region and a real threat to India," he told reporters here on the sidelines of the two-day Unified Commanders Conference that he inaugurated here.
Antony also expressed concern over the situation in Pakistan.
"Pakistan is in turmoil. We are very concerned about it. We are trying to convince Pakistan that they have to take strict action against anti-India elements operating from there," he maintained.
Given this, the minister said India could not afford to lower its guard along its western border, especially in Jammu and Kashmir.
"Of late, there is a decline in infiltration along the border. But we cannot say it is an improvement, since terrorists are still operating from the other side. India can not lower its guard at the border, especially in Jammu and Kashmir. We have to be very vigilant and careful," Antony contended.
He said he would discuss the security scenario in the South Asian region with visiting US National Security Advisor James Jones Friday.
"He is visiting me tomorrow. We will discuss the security situation in the (South Asian) region. When we discuss this, we can not avoid (mention of) Afghanistan," Antony said.
Better coordination and strengthening the war fighting capabilities of the army, the navy and the air force are high on the agenda of the Unified Commanders Conference, being held on the theme "Victory through Jointness".
=====================================================================================
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Can Neda in Death Rekindle Iran's Democracy?
The shot that killed 26 year-old Neda Salehi Agha Soltan on Saturday in Tehran was heard around the world. Our hearts hurt for her. According to several reports, not least the stunning I-minute video of her dying moment, Neda was an innocent bystander watching street protests against a flawed election result, when she was shot. Neda, you are an innocent and your immortality in the cause of freedom, justice and Iran's democracy has just begun.
Iran's SELF-STYLED, UNELECTED "supreme leader" which pretty much means 'look at me I'm TOP DOG MULLAH and I am embarrassingly selfpromoting' -- Khamenei-- bears responsibility for Neda's brutal killing.
Ahmadinejad's leadership is dependent of the support of the clerics, (all male no surprise), and NOT the electorate. Ahmadinajad cannot succeed because his victory is bloodstained by the dying gasp and the rolling eyes of an innocent. Ahmadinejad's victory was not accomplished by ethical means, necessary for the full expression of participatory democracy.
But wait -- both Khamenei and Ahmadinajad are effective in controlling US neo-imperial designs in the West Asia region. That's important.
Neda's death has lent a bloody clarity, as well rendered more complex the internal and external geopolitics of Iran:
People everywhere who support the ethical development of civil societies in all nation-states, regions, culture areas and spaces, had hoped that Iran's elections would be fair. We had hoped that Iran's ancient civilization and staggering contribution to world culture would be vindicated by a vibrant and authentic expression of the people's aspirations. Instead, Iran's election have proven to be highly irregular, if not outright fraudulent.
3 million more votes were "cast" than there were registered voters! Did dead people vote? Did non-existent people vote? Did certain people vote multiple times? What an unholy mess for this self-described Islamic Republic.
Could Iran learn a lesson in electoral politics and vote counting from secular democratic India which recently conducted a massive and fair election; has more followers of Islam than Iran; and has more followers of Islam than any country except Indonesia? Yes Iran can.
Yes, Iran take a page out of India's flawed but fair election Lesson Plan. Iran, Be open, transparent, take responsibility for discrepancies in the vote count. Show that you can be discursive, not prescriptive. Discussion that bends towards Justice and in fact leads to Justice is the cornerstone of Ethical Democracy.
Obviously, the first strategic step that both Ahmadinejad and MirHossein Moussavi should have jointly taken is to call, in a televised joint appearance, for a vote recount in disputed constituencies and a rejection of illegal ballots.
Instead, Ahmadinejad defended the result and proved himself by his actions to be ever more inclined to be a dictator rather than an elected leader. He was supported by Iran's self-proclaimed Supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, who predictably promised a bloody suppression of peaceful street protests against the flawed ballot result. It was precisely that bloody suppression that so heartbreakingly claimed the life of Neda Salehi Agha Soltan. She is a slain innocent in the perilous journey towards Iran's democracy.
Iran's needless, mindless self-sabotaging suppression of The People's ballot has given the US, (a state sponsor of terror in West Asia and South Asia), an opening to assert itself as a champion of freedom and liberty in West Asia. The US is not. All the evidence proves the US is not. Iran therefore played right into the hands of the US. Instead of conducting a fair election, Iran chose to be brutally repressive of its own people. In fact Iran caused an internal division of its own electorate by pitting Moussavi's supporters, generally more educated, more female and more affluent, against Ahmedinajad's more traditionalist, more religious and more male supporters. The stolen election has unnecessarily caused disharmony among the fascinatingly diverse and divergent elements of the Iranian public.
The theocratic government of Iran created this dangerous wedge between its own people and Iran gave the US an opportunity to assert itself as the champion of freedom and civil liberties in West Asia. The US plays the Democracy card while invading, occupying, droning, displacing civil societies across regions. The US has been the main culprit in destabilizing democratic processes in Iran over several decades, beginning with the overthrow of Mossadegh, the propping up of the Shah and the support of Iraq against Iran in a bloody decade long war. The US continues to be a major force for destabilization throughout West Asia, which the US from its neo-imperial vantage point of dominant power calls the Middle East.
It remains to be seen whether Neda's brutal death will ignite and rekindle Iran's dormant democracy. It remains to be seen whether Iran's civil society will resist equally the 1) forces of Iran's repressive state apparatus, and also 2)turn its back on US attempts to gain strategic depth in Iran, by pretending to be a voice for civil rights and democracy in West Asia.
Q. If Iran's govt cannot accurately count electoral ballots, can Iran be trusted to safeguard the nuclear weapons it is developing?
A point to ponder -- the answer appears to be a qualified NO.
Chithra KarunaKaran
Ethical Democracy As Lived Practice
http://EthicalDemocracy.blogspot.com
-------------
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/14/AR2009061401757.html
Washington Post copyright
The Iranian People Speak
By Ken Ballen and Patrick Doherty
Monday, June 15, 2009
The election results in Iran may reflect the will of the Iranian people. Many experts are claiming that the margin of victory of incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was the result of fraud or manipulation, but our nationwide public opinion survey of Iranians three weeks before the vote showed Ahmadinejad leading by a more than 2 to 1 margin -- greater than his actual apparent margin of victory in Friday's election.
This Story
While Western news reports from Tehran in the days leading up to the voting portrayed an Iranian public enthusiastic about Ahmadinejad's principal opponent, Mir Hossein Mousavi, our scientific sampling from across all 30 of Iran's provinces showed Ahmadinejad well ahead.
Independent and uncensored nationwide surveys of Iran are rare. Typically, preelection polls there are either conducted or monitored by the government and are notoriously untrustworthy. By contrast, the poll undertaken by our nonprofit organizations from May 11 to May 20 was the third in a series over the past two years. Conducted by telephone from a neighboring country, field work was carried out in Farsi by a polling company whose work in the region for ABC News and the BBC has received an Emmy award. Our polling was funded by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.
The breadth of Ahmadinejad's support was apparent in our preelection survey. During the campaign, for instance, Mousavi emphasized his identity as an Azeri, the second-largest ethnic group in Iran after Persians, to woo Azeri voters. Our survey indicated, though, that Azeris favored Ahmadinejad by 2 to 1 over Mousavi.
Much commentary has portrayed Iranian youth and the Internet as harbingers of change in this election. But our poll found that only a third of Iranians even have access to the Internet, while 18-to-24-year-olds comprised the strongest voting bloc for Ahmadinejad of all age groups.
The only demographic groups in which our survey found Mousavi leading or competitive with Ahmadinejad were university students and graduates, and the highest-income Iranians. When our poll was taken, almost a third of Iranians were also still undecided. Yet the baseline distributions we found then mirror the results reported by the Iranian authorities, indicating the possibility that the vote is not the product of widespread fraud.
Some might argue that the professed support for Ahmadinejad we found simply reflected fearful respondents' reluctance to provide honest answers to pollsters. Yet the integrity of our results is confirmed by the politically risky responses Iranians were willing to give to a host of questions. For instance, nearly four in five Iranians -- including most Ahmadinejad supporters -- said they wanted to change the political system to give them the right to elect Iran's supreme leader, who is not currently subject to popular vote. Similarly, Iranians chose free elections and a free press as their most important priorities for their government, virtually tied with improving the national economy. These were hardly "politically correct" responses to voice publicly in a largely authoritarian society.
Indeed, and consistently among all three of our surveys over the past two years, more than 70 percent of Iranians also expressed support for providing full access to weapons inspectors and a guarantee that Iran will not develop or possess nuclear weapons, in return for outside aid and investment. And 77 percent of Iranians favored normal relations and trade with the United States, another result consistent with our previous findings.
Iranians view their support for a more democratic system, with normal relations with the United States, as consonant with their support for Ahmadinejad. They do not want him to continue his hard-line policies. Rather, Iranians apparently see Ahmadinejad as their toughest negotiator, the person best positioned to bring home a favorable deal -- rather like a Persian Nixon going to China.
Allegations of fraud and electoral manipulation will serve to further isolate Iran and are likely to increase its belligerence and intransigence against the outside world. Before other countries, including the United States, jump to the conclusion that the Iranian presidential elections were fraudulent, with the grave consequences such charges could bring, they should consider all independent information. The fact may simply be that the reelection of President Ahmadinejad is what the Iranian people wanted.
Ken Ballen is president of Terror Free Tomorrow: The Center for Public Opinion, a nonprofit institute that researches attitudes toward extremism. Patrick Doherty is deputy director of the American Strategy Program at the New America Foundation. The groups' May 11-20 polling consisted of 1,001 interviews across Iran and had a 3.1 percentage point margin of error.
For more on polling in Iran, read Jon Cohen's Behind the Numbers.
=================================================================================
Iran's SELF-STYLED, UNELECTED "supreme leader" which pretty much means 'look at me I'm TOP DOG MULLAH and I am embarrassingly selfpromoting' -- Khamenei-- bears responsibility for Neda's brutal killing.
Ahmadinejad's leadership is dependent of the support of the clerics, (all male no surprise), and NOT the electorate. Ahmadinajad cannot succeed because his victory is bloodstained by the dying gasp and the rolling eyes of an innocent. Ahmadinejad's victory was not accomplished by ethical means, necessary for the full expression of participatory democracy.
But wait -- both Khamenei and Ahmadinajad are effective in controlling US neo-imperial designs in the West Asia region. That's important.
Neda's death has lent a bloody clarity, as well rendered more complex the internal and external geopolitics of Iran:
People everywhere who support the ethical development of civil societies in all nation-states, regions, culture areas and spaces, had hoped that Iran's elections would be fair. We had hoped that Iran's ancient civilization and staggering contribution to world culture would be vindicated by a vibrant and authentic expression of the people's aspirations. Instead, Iran's election have proven to be highly irregular, if not outright fraudulent.
3 million more votes were "cast" than there were registered voters! Did dead people vote? Did non-existent people vote? Did certain people vote multiple times? What an unholy mess for this self-described Islamic Republic.
Could Iran learn a lesson in electoral politics and vote counting from secular democratic India which recently conducted a massive and fair election; has more followers of Islam than Iran; and has more followers of Islam than any country except Indonesia? Yes Iran can.
Yes, Iran take a page out of India's flawed but fair election Lesson Plan. Iran, Be open, transparent, take responsibility for discrepancies in the vote count. Show that you can be discursive, not prescriptive. Discussion that bends towards Justice and in fact leads to Justice is the cornerstone of Ethical Democracy.
Obviously, the first strategic step that both Ahmadinejad and MirHossein Moussavi should have jointly taken is to call, in a televised joint appearance, for a vote recount in disputed constituencies and a rejection of illegal ballots.
Instead, Ahmadinejad defended the result and proved himself by his actions to be ever more inclined to be a dictator rather than an elected leader. He was supported by Iran's self-proclaimed Supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, who predictably promised a bloody suppression of peaceful street protests against the flawed ballot result. It was precisely that bloody suppression that so heartbreakingly claimed the life of Neda Salehi Agha Soltan. She is a slain innocent in the perilous journey towards Iran's democracy.
Iran's needless, mindless self-sabotaging suppression of The People's ballot has given the US, (a state sponsor of terror in West Asia and South Asia), an opening to assert itself as a champion of freedom and liberty in West Asia. The US is not. All the evidence proves the US is not. Iran therefore played right into the hands of the US. Instead of conducting a fair election, Iran chose to be brutally repressive of its own people. In fact Iran caused an internal division of its own electorate by pitting Moussavi's supporters, generally more educated, more female and more affluent, against Ahmedinajad's more traditionalist, more religious and more male supporters. The stolen election has unnecessarily caused disharmony among the fascinatingly diverse and divergent elements of the Iranian public.
The theocratic government of Iran created this dangerous wedge between its own people and Iran gave the US an opportunity to assert itself as the champion of freedom and civil liberties in West Asia. The US plays the Democracy card while invading, occupying, droning, displacing civil societies across regions. The US has been the main culprit in destabilizing democratic processes in Iran over several decades, beginning with the overthrow of Mossadegh, the propping up of the Shah and the support of Iraq against Iran in a bloody decade long war. The US continues to be a major force for destabilization throughout West Asia, which the US from its neo-imperial vantage point of dominant power calls the Middle East.
It remains to be seen whether Neda's brutal death will ignite and rekindle Iran's dormant democracy. It remains to be seen whether Iran's civil society will resist equally the 1) forces of Iran's repressive state apparatus, and also 2)turn its back on US attempts to gain strategic depth in Iran, by pretending to be a voice for civil rights and democracy in West Asia.
Q. If Iran's govt cannot accurately count electoral ballots, can Iran be trusted to safeguard the nuclear weapons it is developing?
A point to ponder -- the answer appears to be a qualified NO.
Chithra KarunaKaran
Ethical Democracy As Lived Practice
http://EthicalDemocracy.blogspot.com
-------------
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/14/AR2009061401757.html
Washington Post copyright
The Iranian People Speak
By Ken Ballen and Patrick Doherty
Monday, June 15, 2009
The election results in Iran may reflect the will of the Iranian people. Many experts are claiming that the margin of victory of incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was the result of fraud or manipulation, but our nationwide public opinion survey of Iranians three weeks before the vote showed Ahmadinejad leading by a more than 2 to 1 margin -- greater than his actual apparent margin of victory in Friday's election.
This Story
While Western news reports from Tehran in the days leading up to the voting portrayed an Iranian public enthusiastic about Ahmadinejad's principal opponent, Mir Hossein Mousavi, our scientific sampling from across all 30 of Iran's provinces showed Ahmadinejad well ahead.
Independent and uncensored nationwide surveys of Iran are rare. Typically, preelection polls there are either conducted or monitored by the government and are notoriously untrustworthy. By contrast, the poll undertaken by our nonprofit organizations from May 11 to May 20 was the third in a series over the past two years. Conducted by telephone from a neighboring country, field work was carried out in Farsi by a polling company whose work in the region for ABC News and the BBC has received an Emmy award. Our polling was funded by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.
The breadth of Ahmadinejad's support was apparent in our preelection survey. During the campaign, for instance, Mousavi emphasized his identity as an Azeri, the second-largest ethnic group in Iran after Persians, to woo Azeri voters. Our survey indicated, though, that Azeris favored Ahmadinejad by 2 to 1 over Mousavi.
Much commentary has portrayed Iranian youth and the Internet as harbingers of change in this election. But our poll found that only a third of Iranians even have access to the Internet, while 18-to-24-year-olds comprised the strongest voting bloc for Ahmadinejad of all age groups.
The only demographic groups in which our survey found Mousavi leading or competitive with Ahmadinejad were university students and graduates, and the highest-income Iranians. When our poll was taken, almost a third of Iranians were also still undecided. Yet the baseline distributions we found then mirror the results reported by the Iranian authorities, indicating the possibility that the vote is not the product of widespread fraud.
Some might argue that the professed support for Ahmadinejad we found simply reflected fearful respondents' reluctance to provide honest answers to pollsters. Yet the integrity of our results is confirmed by the politically risky responses Iranians were willing to give to a host of questions. For instance, nearly four in five Iranians -- including most Ahmadinejad supporters -- said they wanted to change the political system to give them the right to elect Iran's supreme leader, who is not currently subject to popular vote. Similarly, Iranians chose free elections and a free press as their most important priorities for their government, virtually tied with improving the national economy. These were hardly "politically correct" responses to voice publicly in a largely authoritarian society.
Indeed, and consistently among all three of our surveys over the past two years, more than 70 percent of Iranians also expressed support for providing full access to weapons inspectors and a guarantee that Iran will not develop or possess nuclear weapons, in return for outside aid and investment. And 77 percent of Iranians favored normal relations and trade with the United States, another result consistent with our previous findings.
Iranians view their support for a more democratic system, with normal relations with the United States, as consonant with their support for Ahmadinejad. They do not want him to continue his hard-line policies. Rather, Iranians apparently see Ahmadinejad as their toughest negotiator, the person best positioned to bring home a favorable deal -- rather like a Persian Nixon going to China.
Allegations of fraud and electoral manipulation will serve to further isolate Iran and are likely to increase its belligerence and intransigence against the outside world. Before other countries, including the United States, jump to the conclusion that the Iranian presidential elections were fraudulent, with the grave consequences such charges could bring, they should consider all independent information. The fact may simply be that the reelection of President Ahmadinejad is what the Iranian people wanted.
Ken Ballen is president of Terror Free Tomorrow: The Center for Public Opinion, a nonprofit institute that researches attitudes toward extremism. Patrick Doherty is deputy director of the American Strategy Program at the New America Foundation. The groups' May 11-20 polling consisted of 1,001 interviews across Iran and had a 3.1 percentage point margin of error.
For more on polling in Iran, read Jon Cohen's Behind the Numbers.
=================================================================================
Monday, June 22, 2009
Sri Lanka Crimininalizes and Punishes its Own internally displaced persons
The Sri Lanka Govt. has blocked entry of a ship carrying relief supplies for its own internally displaced persons. Shame on Rajapaksa and his crew for this inhumane act.
Sri Lanka is masquerading that it is a democracy. It is also making a mockery of Buddhist principles. Successive SL govts. have long treated Tamils as second class citizens denying them basic rights. Now it has decided that these hapless refugees who were caught in the crossfire of a govt vs. LTTE military showdown, should be punished by denying them essential relief supplies. Women, children and men are suffering daily in refugee camps, to which media organizations have been denied access.
Chithra KarunaKaran
Ethical Democracy as Lived Practice
http://EthicalDemocracy.blogspot.com
-------------
Times of India copyright
MV Captain Ali — a ship on a mercy mission to Vanni in Sri Lanka has been anchored of the coast of Chennai. The ship carrying 884 ton of food,
medicine and other relief materials for internally displaced Sri Lankan Tamils was turned away by Lankan Navy.
Relief laden — MV Captain Ali was sent to Vanni by an NGO called 'ACT Now' a strong representative of the Tamil diaspora. However, the Lankan government has accused the NGO of aiding LTTE and hence has snubbed the relief ship.
The in charge of the ship, Kristjan Guomontsson spoke exclusively to TIMES NOW and said that he has no clue as to why the aid was turned down.
Guomontsson, an Iceland national, was a part of the Sri Lanka Monitoring Mission (SLMM) which includes Norway, Denmark, Iceland, Finland and Sweden. The SLMM was set up in 2002 under the terms of cease fore agreement. Guomantsson was one of the monitors- and the SLMM was slammed by the Lankan government to be sympathetic to LTTE.
According to the Lankan Navy, the ship was turned away on the ground that it violated internationally accepted formalities followed by merchant ships seeking to enter Lankan waters and that it did not conform to the International Ships Port Facility Security (ISPS) code.
Sri Lanka is masquerading that it is a democracy. It is also making a mockery of Buddhist principles. Successive SL govts. have long treated Tamils as second class citizens denying them basic rights. Now it has decided that these hapless refugees who were caught in the crossfire of a govt vs. LTTE military showdown, should be punished by denying them essential relief supplies. Women, children and men are suffering daily in refugee camps, to which media organizations have been denied access.
Chithra KarunaKaran
Ethical Democracy as Lived Practice
http://EthicalDemocracy.blogspot.com
-------------
Times of India copyright
MV Captain Ali — a ship on a mercy mission to Vanni in Sri Lanka has been anchored of the coast of Chennai. The ship carrying 884 ton of food,
medicine and other relief materials for internally displaced Sri Lankan Tamils was turned away by Lankan Navy.
Relief laden — MV Captain Ali was sent to Vanni by an NGO called 'ACT Now' a strong representative of the Tamil diaspora. However, the Lankan government has accused the NGO of aiding LTTE and hence has snubbed the relief ship.
The in charge of the ship, Kristjan Guomontsson spoke exclusively to TIMES NOW and said that he has no clue as to why the aid was turned down.
Guomontsson, an Iceland national, was a part of the Sri Lanka Monitoring Mission (SLMM) which includes Norway, Denmark, Iceland, Finland and Sweden. The SLMM was set up in 2002 under the terms of cease fore agreement. Guomantsson was one of the monitors- and the SLMM was slammed by the Lankan government to be sympathetic to LTTE.
According to the Lankan Navy, the ship was turned away on the ground that it violated internationally accepted formalities followed by merchant ships seeking to enter Lankan waters and that it did not conform to the International Ships Port Facility Security (ISPS) code.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
USCIRF has no authority in India or in any other sovereign state
USCIRF -- The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom has absolutely no authority in India or any other sovereign nation-state. Therefore, it is almost laughable that USCIRF was ready to arrive in India on June 12, but were stopped because The Indian Government did not issue visas in time for their planned visit.
Why was the Indian government cowardly and fumbling on this issue? Why did the GOI not issue a press statement that USCIRF's visit was not acceptable at this or any other time? This is not a visa issue, it is an issue of sovereign state rights. Is India a client state of the US? Does it take orders from Washington?
The Government of India should have been proactive and directly informed the US govt. that USCIRF (ostensibly authorized by the US Congress to MONITOR religious rights worldwide), cannot visit India to monitor our religious rights. No entity of the US govt. or ANY govt. of ANY nation-state has authority to monitor the religious rights or any other civil society rights /conditions/ situations prevailing in ANY other sovereign nation-state.
Second, it is up to US President Obama to ask Congress to disband the USCIRF. The USCIRF was established by Republicans who are no longer in power. It's over, you guys. Your opinion, especially when it interferes with the political and civil society conditions prevailing in sovereign nation-states, no longer counts and never did count. You have no authority over other states even though you may exercise such authority and power over occupied states (Iraq), weak client states (Pakistan) and satellite states (example Israel) the latter in the process of developing (illegal)sovereign authority over contested legally unsupportable settlements/ borders.
You in the US congress or the White House have no mandate outside of your own finite borders. Stop playing Global SuperCop and mind your own business, which as we all know is in total disarray and is continuing to cause economic upheavals in other sovereign nation-states. The US govt. has enough on its plate for the next eight years without blatantly and illegally interfering in the ongoing development of responsible nation-states. Has the USCIRF recently monitored religious rights in Saudi Arabia or is SA exempt because of its petrodollar connections? Will USCIRF reeceive visas from Iran? Did the US CAUSE religious and ethnic frictions in Iraq which they invaded and still occupy? WHO WILL MONITOR THE US? Certainly the UN has shown itself incapable of doing so, because it is a client of the US, where it is headquartered.
Last, the Indian government does not need to rely on the counsel of private religious leaders like Shankaracharya Jayendra Saraswati who has expressed opposition to the USCIRF visit. He is a private citizen and he has the right to express his views on USCIRF or anything else. But the Government of India has responsibility as elected leaders of a SECULAR democracy, to steer its own course as a SECULAR sovereign nation-state. Religious leaders do not dictate the policy, foreign or domestic, of sovereign nation-states, who are avowedly secular and democratic. As India is.
Why was the Indian government cowardly and fumbling on this issue? Why did the GOI not issue a press statement that USCIRF's visit was not acceptable at this or any other time? This is not a visa issue, it is an issue of sovereign state rights. Is India a client state of the US? Does it take orders from Washington?
The Government of India should have been proactive and directly informed the US govt. that USCIRF (ostensibly authorized by the US Congress to MONITOR religious rights worldwide), cannot visit India to monitor our religious rights. No entity of the US govt. or ANY govt. of ANY nation-state has authority to monitor the religious rights or any other civil society rights /conditions/ situations prevailing in ANY other sovereign nation-state.
Second, it is up to US President Obama to ask Congress to disband the USCIRF. The USCIRF was established by Republicans who are no longer in power. It's over, you guys. Your opinion, especially when it interferes with the political and civil society conditions prevailing in sovereign nation-states, no longer counts and never did count. You have no authority over other states even though you may exercise such authority and power over occupied states (Iraq), weak client states (Pakistan) and satellite states (example Israel) the latter in the process of developing (illegal)sovereign authority over contested legally unsupportable settlements/ borders.
You in the US congress or the White House have no mandate outside of your own finite borders. Stop playing Global SuperCop and mind your own business, which as we all know is in total disarray and is continuing to cause economic upheavals in other sovereign nation-states. The US govt. has enough on its plate for the next eight years without blatantly and illegally interfering in the ongoing development of responsible nation-states. Has the USCIRF recently monitored religious rights in Saudi Arabia or is SA exempt because of its petrodollar connections? Will USCIRF reeceive visas from Iran? Did the US CAUSE religious and ethnic frictions in Iraq which they invaded and still occupy? WHO WILL MONITOR THE US? Certainly the UN has shown itself incapable of doing so, because it is a client of the US, where it is headquartered.
Last, the Indian government does not need to rely on the counsel of private religious leaders like Shankaracharya Jayendra Saraswati who has expressed opposition to the USCIRF visit. He is a private citizen and he has the right to express his views on USCIRF or anything else. But the Government of India has responsibility as elected leaders of a SECULAR democracy, to steer its own course as a SECULAR sovereign nation-state. Religious leaders do not dictate the policy, foreign or domestic, of sovereign nation-states, who are avowedly secular and democratic. As India is.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
US Plays Divide & Rule in South Asia Culture Area
The current visit of US Undersecretary of State William Burns bearing a "private" (according to Holbroke) letter from President Obama to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh ,underscores what we already know:
For over FIVE Decades, the United States has practiced a neoimperial policy globally.
Our South Asia culture area is no exception to this US policy of global economic dominance and military adventurism.
The postcolonial dependency mindset of our feudal elites and our political classes, who were already weakened by the British divide and rule policy that resulted in Partition in 1947, has now fully succumbed to the US neoimperial strategy.
India and Pakistan consistently fail to work together because they have accepted US dominance of the South Asia culture area.
The US has succeeded, over a span of 50 years, in getting Pakistan's governments, whether military dictatorship or fragile democratic processes, to use arms against its own people. The vast internal displacement of Pakistanis is the most recent proof of the success of US neoimperial, anti-civil society policy in South Asia Pakistan as a nation--state is weak, as never before. But its feudal elites (which include the military classes at the higher echelons) are enriched daily by US infusions of money and weaponry.
The concept of region has supplanted the more basic and important concept of culture area.
The prevailing offensive of "strategic depth" has allowed the US to gain a ground advantage in South Asia, obviously in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
We the People of South Asia cannot rely on our political elites, military elites and our landed elites. They are complicit with this neoimperial policy and have much to gain from continued collusion with the US.
Only We the People, the civil societies of Afghanistan, Bangladesh,India, Pakistan, Maldives, Nepal, Sri Lanka, can work together to create solidarity and prosperity for ALL the people of the South Asia culture area.
Chithra KarunaKaran
Ethical Democracy As Lived Practice
For over FIVE Decades, the United States has practiced a neoimperial policy globally.
Our South Asia culture area is no exception to this US policy of global economic dominance and military adventurism.
The postcolonial dependency mindset of our feudal elites and our political classes, who were already weakened by the British divide and rule policy that resulted in Partition in 1947, has now fully succumbed to the US neoimperial strategy.
India and Pakistan consistently fail to work together because they have accepted US dominance of the South Asia culture area.
The US has succeeded, over a span of 50 years, in getting Pakistan's governments, whether military dictatorship or fragile democratic processes, to use arms against its own people. The vast internal displacement of Pakistanis is the most recent proof of the success of US neoimperial, anti-civil society policy in South Asia Pakistan as a nation--state is weak, as never before. But its feudal elites (which include the military classes at the higher echelons) are enriched daily by US infusions of money and weaponry.
The concept of region has supplanted the more basic and important concept of culture area.
The prevailing offensive of "strategic depth" has allowed the US to gain a ground advantage in South Asia, obviously in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
We the People of South Asia cannot rely on our political elites, military elites and our landed elites. They are complicit with this neoimperial policy and have much to gain from continued collusion with the US.
Only We the People, the civil societies of Afghanistan, Bangladesh,India, Pakistan, Maldives, Nepal, Sri Lanka, can work together to create solidarity and prosperity for ALL the people of the South Asia culture area.
Chithra KarunaKaran
Ethical Democracy As Lived Practice
Thursday, May 21, 2009
The Psychology, Sociology, Political Economy of Pandemic Rape
May 21st, 2009 8:49 am
The Psychology, Sociology, Political Economy of Pandemic Rape
What does it take to construct an Ethical Self?
We need more critical analyses (based on actual research) of the construction of Liberian masculinity during the war and postwar years.
I regret to note that in every nation-state including and perhaps especially the US, the psychology and sociology of of instances of inhumanity within our species, goes largely unresearched.
It is easy for our governments to toss around words like terror, horror,torture, atrocity, genocide, pandemic rape -- then continue to under-serve and even exploit victims and generally fail to examine the psychological, sociological, economic and political underpinnings of such deviant pathological behavior.
Thanks Mr. Kristof for narrating the story of Jackie, an innocent and an survivor.
Chithra Karunakaran
City University of New York (CUNY)
Ethical Democracy As Lived Practice
http://EthicalDemocracy.blogspot.com
---------------
NYTimes copyright
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/opinion/21kristof.html
Op-Ed Columnist: After Wars, Mass Rapes Persist
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: May 20, 2009
Jackie, a 7-year-old Liberian girl who is recovering from being raped, jumps rope at a shelter for girls in Monrovia.
============================================================================
The Psychology, Sociology, Political Economy of Pandemic Rape
What does it take to construct an Ethical Self?
We need more critical analyses (based on actual research) of the construction of Liberian masculinity during the war and postwar years.
I regret to note that in every nation-state including and perhaps especially the US, the psychology and sociology of of instances of inhumanity within our species, goes largely unresearched.
It is easy for our governments to toss around words like terror, horror,torture, atrocity, genocide, pandemic rape -- then continue to under-serve and even exploit victims and generally fail to examine the psychological, sociological, economic and political underpinnings of such deviant pathological behavior.
Thanks Mr. Kristof for narrating the story of Jackie, an innocent and an survivor.
Chithra Karunakaran
City University of New York (CUNY)
Ethical Democracy As Lived Practice
http://EthicalDemocracy.blogspot.com
---------------
NYTimes copyright
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/opinion/21kristof.html
Op-Ed Columnist: After Wars, Mass Rapes Persist
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: May 20, 2009
Jackie, a 7-year-old Liberian girl who is recovering from being raped, jumps rope at a shelter for girls in Monrovia.
============================================================================
Monday, May 18, 2009
US Policy Missteps Promote Pakistan's Nuclear Peril
My published NYT comment #111.
May 18, 2009 9:39 am
Link
May 18th, 2009 7:56 am
US Policy Missteps Promote Pakistan's Nuclear Peril
All the evidence of the past 60 years of US Cold War manipulation/exploitation of a Partition-weakened (in 1947) Pakistan, under the guise of a US-invented Cold War, points to the fact that the US has instigated and abetted Pakistan's nuclear peril.
The US is solely responsible for placing the world's largest democracy, Pakistan's neighbor, at grave risk. However, that democracy has just held an unprecedented election and will successfully continue to thwart US military adventurism in the South Asia region.
To Commenter #22 : Which madrassah were you miseducated in? You unfortunately are a example of a US pawn and the propaganda of your feudal elites combined with Saudi (US petrodollar ally) wahabbism are so successful you are not even aware of Pakistan's servile status vis a vis the US. Fortunately I have wonderful Pakistani friends who have a more thorough grasp of the facts.
Chithra Karunakaran
City University of New York (CUNY)
Ethical Democracy As Lived Practice
http://EthicalDemocracy.blogspot.com
— EthicalDemocracy, NewYork&Chennai
--------------
New York Times copyright
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/18/world/asia/18nuke.html?_r=1
Pakistan Is Rapidly Adding Nuclear Arms, U.S. Says
By THOM SHANKER and DAVID E. SANGER
There are new concerns on Capitol Hill about whether billions of dollars in proposed military aid might be diverted to Pakistan’s nuclear program.
====================================================================================
May 18, 2009 9:39 am
Link
May 18th, 2009 7:56 am
US Policy Missteps Promote Pakistan's Nuclear Peril
All the evidence of the past 60 years of US Cold War manipulation/exploitation of a Partition-weakened (in 1947) Pakistan, under the guise of a US-invented Cold War, points to the fact that the US has instigated and abetted Pakistan's nuclear peril.
The US is solely responsible for placing the world's largest democracy, Pakistan's neighbor, at grave risk. However, that democracy has just held an unprecedented election and will successfully continue to thwart US military adventurism in the South Asia region.
To Commenter #22 : Which madrassah were you miseducated in? You unfortunately are a example of a US pawn and the propaganda of your feudal elites combined with Saudi (US petrodollar ally) wahabbism are so successful you are not even aware of Pakistan's servile status vis a vis the US. Fortunately I have wonderful Pakistani friends who have a more thorough grasp of the facts.
Chithra Karunakaran
City University of New York (CUNY)
Ethical Democracy As Lived Practice
http://EthicalDemocracy.blogspot.com
— EthicalDemocracy, NewYork&Chennai
--------------
New York Times copyright
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/18/world/asia/18nuke.html?_r=1
Pakistan Is Rapidly Adding Nuclear Arms, U.S. Says
By THOM SHANKER and DAVID E. SANGER
There are new concerns on Capitol Hill about whether billions of dollars in proposed military aid might be diverted to Pakistan’s nuclear program.
====================================================================================
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Obama's Whiteness: Protecting Bush-Cheney War Crimes
My published NYT comment #37.
May 16, 2009 10:14 am
Link
May 16th, 2009 6:21 am
In David Sanger's piece I take issue with his statement:
"the president has begun to come down on the side of taking fewer risks with security,..." This is a neoliberal argument.
Is this what Obama is doing? Is he really taking fewer risks or is he taking more risks?
1. By refusing to release detainee abuse photos, Obama is refusing to inform the American public what they have a right to know. How can Democracy work if We the People are kept in the dark about the specific policies and practices of the government (Bush-Cheney) the majority elected to office? What else is Obama conspiring to hide from us? Will we find out only after he leaves office, as in the case of Bush?
2. Just who are these "enemy combatants" that the military tribunals are allegedly continuing to prosecute? The public has a right to see their faces on CNN and NYT and know something about them.
The US electorate (including me)voted for Obama because we were desperate for Change that would make us more safe. But we cannot be made more safe through military adventurism, troop surges, shock and awe, drone raids and failure to protect market activity against corporate greed. That's the dualcore problem of the US Whiteness System on which the nation was founded.
Obama's decision to emulate his predecessor shows his inability and unwillingness to step out of the US Whiteness System that is built on an earlier history of slavery and genocide, and for the last 50 years an endless war driven by market fundamentalism (resource grabbing) in West Asia, South East Asia and South Asia for profit. I could go on, name other theaters of US adventurism/exploitation in Africa and South America.
Obama is an expert exponent of the US Whiteness System.
Chithra KarunaKaran
Ethical Democracy As Lived Practice
http://EthicalDemocracy.blogspot.com
------------------------------------------
NYT copyright
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/16/us/politics/16obama.html
News Analysis: Obama After Bush: Leading by Second Thought
By DAVID E. SANGER
The president’s recent decisions on detainee abuse photos and tribunals have put him more in line with his predecessor, despite pledges of a new direction.
----
NYTimes copyright
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/d/detainees/military_commissions/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier
Pool photo by Brennan Linsle
Updated: May 15, 2009
Military commissions, used to prosecute captured enemies for war crimes, have a long history in the United States. They rose to new prominence after the September 11th attacks due to President George W. Bush's decision that terrorism suspects would be considered enemy combatants who would be tried by military tribunals rather than in civilian courts. In May 2009, President Obama said they would be used to prosecute some terrorism suspects, although with added protections for defendants' rights.
In a series of orders in 2001 and 2002, the Bush administration created a system of tribunals that specifically did not adhere to the standards set out in the Geneva Convention, arguing that as "non-state actors'' the suspects were not entitled to that kind of protection; the system was also declared to be beyond review by federal courts. The government established a prison camp at Guantánamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba to hold these prisoners away from federal court jurisdiction, arguing that the right of habeas corpus — the fundamental right, centuries old, to ask a judge for release from unjust imprisonment — did not apply to foreigners being held outside the United States as enemy combatants.
In 2004, the Supreme Court disagreed, in a case named Rasul v. Bush. A Supreme Court decision in June 2006, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, struck down military tribunals that the Bush administration had established shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks. The court ruled that the tribunals violated the Constitution and the Geneva Conventions.
In response, the Bush Administration and Congress effectively rewrote the law, by passing the Military Commissions Act of 2006. The measure broadened the definition of enemy combatants beyond the traditional definition used in wartime, to include noncitizens living legally in the United States as well as those in foreign countries and anyone determined to be an enemy combatant under criteria defined by the president or secretary of defense. In place of habeas proceedings, it said detainees could challenge their imprisonment only through hearings known as combatant status review trials. It allowed evidence seized in the U.S. or abroad without a search warrant to be admitted in trials. And while the bill barred the admission of evidence obtained by cruel and inhuman treatment, it made an exception for any obtained before Dec. 30, 2005, when Congress enacted the Detainee Treatment Act banning torture.
In a June 2008 decision in the case of Boumediene v. Bush, the Supreme Court overturned those portions of the law, finding that foreign terrorism suspects held at Guantánamo Bay have constitutional rights to challenge their detention in United States courts. In a harsh rebuke of the Bush administration, the Court rejected the administration’s argument that the individual protections provided by the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 and the Military Commissions Act of 2006 were more than adequate.
Among the first acts carried out by the administration of President Barack Obama in January 2009 was an executive order closing Guantánamo. It also issued an immediate halt to the military commission proceedings for prosecuting detainees and filed a request in Federal District Court in Washington to stay habeas corpus proceedings there.
Mr. Obama suggested during his 2008 presidential campaign that, in place of military commissions for the detainees, he would prefer prosecutions in federal courts or, perhaps, in the existing military justice system, which provides legal guarantees similar to those of American civilian courts. However, he never explicity ruled out the use of military commissions, though possibly with different procedures than those used by the Bush administration.
On May 15, 2009, Mr. Obama said the commissions would be used as one avenue for prosecution along with existing American courts. "This is the best way to protect our country, while upholding our deeply held values," he said in a statement.The new system would limit the use of hearsay evidence against detainees, ban evidence gained from cruel treatment, and give defendants more latitude to pick their own lawyers.
But the new rights still fall far short of the protections provided in federal court, lawyers said, predicting that the administration would encounter energetic new legal challenges that could take years to resolve.Officials said the decision to proceed with military commissions came partly as a result of concerns that some detainees might not be successfully prosecuted in federal courts. They said lawyers reviewing the cases worried that, among a host of issues, federal courts procedures might be too cumbersome to protect classified evidence that is likely to be central to many cases.
They also said questions surrounding the brutal treatment of some detainees had become an obstacle. Though some detainees did give so-called "clean" confessions to participating in terrorist activities in 2007, they were not given the warnings against self-incrimination that are standard law enforcement practice because of constitutional protections.
In some cases, lawyers said, convictions may be nearly impossible without the detainees' confessions. The most prominent of the military commissions cases seeks the death penalty for five detainees, including the self-described terrorism mastermind, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, for their alleged roles as the coordinators of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.
Administration officials said that some detainees would be prosecuted in federal courts.
The decision benefits the administration politically because it burnishes Mr. Obama's credentials for taking a hard line toward terrorism suspects. Some administration insiders say top officials have appeared surprised by the ferocity of the largely Republican opposition to Mr. Obama's effort to close the Guantánamo Bay prison, where 241 detainees remain.
But some liberals and human rights groups said they were stunned by what some of them called a betrayal. They said the prospect of the new administration presiding over military trials at Guantánamo would hurt Mr. Obama's efforts to improve relationships around the world and would embroil the administration in years of legal battles.
The executive director of Human Rights First, Elisa Massimino, called the commission system of trying war crimes cases irredeemable. "Tinkering with the machinery of military commissions will not remove the taint of Guantánamo from future prosecutions," Ms. Massimino said.
=======================================================================
May 16, 2009 10:14 am
Link
May 16th, 2009 6:21 am
In David Sanger's piece I take issue with his statement:
"the president has begun to come down on the side of taking fewer risks with security,..." This is a neoliberal argument.
Is this what Obama is doing? Is he really taking fewer risks or is he taking more risks?
1. By refusing to release detainee abuse photos, Obama is refusing to inform the American public what they have a right to know. How can Democracy work if We the People are kept in the dark about the specific policies and practices of the government (Bush-Cheney) the majority elected to office? What else is Obama conspiring to hide from us? Will we find out only after he leaves office, as in the case of Bush?
2. Just who are these "enemy combatants" that the military tribunals are allegedly continuing to prosecute? The public has a right to see their faces on CNN and NYT and know something about them.
The US electorate (including me)voted for Obama because we were desperate for Change that would make us more safe. But we cannot be made more safe through military adventurism, troop surges, shock and awe, drone raids and failure to protect market activity against corporate greed. That's the dualcore problem of the US Whiteness System on which the nation was founded.
Obama's decision to emulate his predecessor shows his inability and unwillingness to step out of the US Whiteness System that is built on an earlier history of slavery and genocide, and for the last 50 years an endless war driven by market fundamentalism (resource grabbing) in West Asia, South East Asia and South Asia for profit. I could go on, name other theaters of US adventurism/exploitation in Africa and South America.
Obama is an expert exponent of the US Whiteness System.
Chithra KarunaKaran
Ethical Democracy As Lived Practice
http://EthicalDemocracy.blogspot.com
------------------------------------------
NYT copyright
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/16/us/politics/16obama.html
News Analysis: Obama After Bush: Leading by Second Thought
By DAVID E. SANGER
The president’s recent decisions on detainee abuse photos and tribunals have put him more in line with his predecessor, despite pledges of a new direction.
----
NYTimes copyright
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/d/detainees/military_commissions/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier
Pool photo by Brennan Linsle
Updated: May 15, 2009
Military commissions, used to prosecute captured enemies for war crimes, have a long history in the United States. They rose to new prominence after the September 11th attacks due to President George W. Bush's decision that terrorism suspects would be considered enemy combatants who would be tried by military tribunals rather than in civilian courts. In May 2009, President Obama said they would be used to prosecute some terrorism suspects, although with added protections for defendants' rights.
In a series of orders in 2001 and 2002, the Bush administration created a system of tribunals that specifically did not adhere to the standards set out in the Geneva Convention, arguing that as "non-state actors'' the suspects were not entitled to that kind of protection; the system was also declared to be beyond review by federal courts. The government established a prison camp at Guantánamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba to hold these prisoners away from federal court jurisdiction, arguing that the right of habeas corpus — the fundamental right, centuries old, to ask a judge for release from unjust imprisonment — did not apply to foreigners being held outside the United States as enemy combatants.
In 2004, the Supreme Court disagreed, in a case named Rasul v. Bush. A Supreme Court decision in June 2006, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, struck down military tribunals that the Bush administration had established shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks. The court ruled that the tribunals violated the Constitution and the Geneva Conventions.
In response, the Bush Administration and Congress effectively rewrote the law, by passing the Military Commissions Act of 2006. The measure broadened the definition of enemy combatants beyond the traditional definition used in wartime, to include noncitizens living legally in the United States as well as those in foreign countries and anyone determined to be an enemy combatant under criteria defined by the president or secretary of defense. In place of habeas proceedings, it said detainees could challenge their imprisonment only through hearings known as combatant status review trials. It allowed evidence seized in the U.S. or abroad without a search warrant to be admitted in trials. And while the bill barred the admission of evidence obtained by cruel and inhuman treatment, it made an exception for any obtained before Dec. 30, 2005, when Congress enacted the Detainee Treatment Act banning torture.
In a June 2008 decision in the case of Boumediene v. Bush, the Supreme Court overturned those portions of the law, finding that foreign terrorism suspects held at Guantánamo Bay have constitutional rights to challenge their detention in United States courts. In a harsh rebuke of the Bush administration, the Court rejected the administration’s argument that the individual protections provided by the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 and the Military Commissions Act of 2006 were more than adequate.
Among the first acts carried out by the administration of President Barack Obama in January 2009 was an executive order closing Guantánamo. It also issued an immediate halt to the military commission proceedings for prosecuting detainees and filed a request in Federal District Court in Washington to stay habeas corpus proceedings there.
Mr. Obama suggested during his 2008 presidential campaign that, in place of military commissions for the detainees, he would prefer prosecutions in federal courts or, perhaps, in the existing military justice system, which provides legal guarantees similar to those of American civilian courts. However, he never explicity ruled out the use of military commissions, though possibly with different procedures than those used by the Bush administration.
On May 15, 2009, Mr. Obama said the commissions would be used as one avenue for prosecution along with existing American courts. "This is the best way to protect our country, while upholding our deeply held values," he said in a statement.The new system would limit the use of hearsay evidence against detainees, ban evidence gained from cruel treatment, and give defendants more latitude to pick their own lawyers.
But the new rights still fall far short of the protections provided in federal court, lawyers said, predicting that the administration would encounter energetic new legal challenges that could take years to resolve.Officials said the decision to proceed with military commissions came partly as a result of concerns that some detainees might not be successfully prosecuted in federal courts. They said lawyers reviewing the cases worried that, among a host of issues, federal courts procedures might be too cumbersome to protect classified evidence that is likely to be central to many cases.
They also said questions surrounding the brutal treatment of some detainees had become an obstacle. Though some detainees did give so-called "clean" confessions to participating in terrorist activities in 2007, they were not given the warnings against self-incrimination that are standard law enforcement practice because of constitutional protections.
In some cases, lawyers said, convictions may be nearly impossible without the detainees' confessions. The most prominent of the military commissions cases seeks the death penalty for five detainees, including the self-described terrorism mastermind, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, for their alleged roles as the coordinators of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.
Administration officials said that some detainees would be prosecuted in federal courts.
The decision benefits the administration politically because it burnishes Mr. Obama's credentials for taking a hard line toward terrorism suspects. Some administration insiders say top officials have appeared surprised by the ferocity of the largely Republican opposition to Mr. Obama's effort to close the Guantánamo Bay prison, where 241 detainees remain.
But some liberals and human rights groups said they were stunned by what some of them called a betrayal. They said the prospect of the new administration presiding over military trials at Guantánamo would hurt Mr. Obama's efforts to improve relationships around the world and would embroil the administration in years of legal battles.
The executive director of Human Rights First, Elisa Massimino, called the commission system of trying war crimes cases irredeemable. "Tinkering with the machinery of military commissions will not remove the taint of Guantánamo from future prosecutions," Ms. Massimino said.
=======================================================================
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Norway and Ethical Democracy
My published NYT comment #119.
May 14, 2009 10:08 am
May 14th, 2009 10:00 am
Norway and Ethical Democracy
The rest of the world has much to learn from ALL the Scandinavian countries, not only Norway.
Norway's example shows WE, the People, with our elected government, can construct democracies where inequality is lessened through social policy. Norway's example demonstrates We can construct democracies where the Greater Collective Good (GCG, my coinage) is seen as an achievable goal.
The US model of militaristic capitalism in which individualism is the foremost priority, but Democracy is an addendum, accompanied by boom and bust cycles, lack of oversight and regulation, is not a desirable model for the rest of the world, especially not the Global South, in recovery from colonialism, underdevelopment and now neo-imperialism coupled with market fundamentalism.
Chithra KarunaKaran
City University of New York
Ethical Democracy As Lived Practice
http://EthicalDemocracy.blogspot.com
----------------------
NYT copyright
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/business/global/14frugal.html
Thriving Norway Provides an Economics Lesson
By LANDON THOMAS Jr.
Instead of spending its oil riches, Norway saved, and it is now growing in the midst of the global recession.
==================================================================================
May 14, 2009 10:08 am
May 14th, 2009 10:00 am
Norway and Ethical Democracy
The rest of the world has much to learn from ALL the Scandinavian countries, not only Norway.
Norway's example shows WE, the People, with our elected government, can construct democracies where inequality is lessened through social policy. Norway's example demonstrates We can construct democracies where the Greater Collective Good (GCG, my coinage) is seen as an achievable goal.
The US model of militaristic capitalism in which individualism is the foremost priority, but Democracy is an addendum, accompanied by boom and bust cycles, lack of oversight and regulation, is not a desirable model for the rest of the world, especially not the Global South, in recovery from colonialism, underdevelopment and now neo-imperialism coupled with market fundamentalism.
Chithra KarunaKaran
City University of New York
Ethical Democracy As Lived Practice
http://EthicalDemocracy.blogspot.com
----------------------
NYT copyright
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/business/global/14frugal.html
Thriving Norway Provides an Economics Lesson
By LANDON THOMAS Jr.
Instead of spending its oil riches, Norway saved, and it is now growing in the midst of the global recession.
==================================================================================
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Circumventing Democracy To Commit Torture
May 13th, 2009 7:56 am
Circumventing Democracy
How easily the democratic process can be circumvented!
And no Deep Throat to leak "enhanced interrogation techniques" to the Washington Post of the NYT?
Time to cultivate those inside sources.
In fact our custodians of democracy in the three branches of government, are least likely to uphold it.
It takes All the People All the Time to safeguard Democracy.
May I also add that the US is least qualified to lecture any other sovereign nation-state on Democracy, or engage in any activity outside of its borders, to promote it.
Chithra KarunaKaran
Ethical Democracy As Lived Practice
http://EthicalDemocracy.blogspot.com
---------------------
NYT copyright
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/13/opinion/13divoll.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1242216084-xXd8VKeMdCHKxpf43eO95w
Op-Ed Contributor
Congress’s Torture Bubble
By VICKI DIVOLL
Published: May 12, 2009
=================================================================================
Circumventing Democracy
How easily the democratic process can be circumvented!
And no Deep Throat to leak "enhanced interrogation techniques" to the Washington Post of the NYT?
Time to cultivate those inside sources.
In fact our custodians of democracy in the three branches of government, are least likely to uphold it.
It takes All the People All the Time to safeguard Democracy.
May I also add that the US is least qualified to lecture any other sovereign nation-state on Democracy, or engage in any activity outside of its borders, to promote it.
Chithra KarunaKaran
Ethical Democracy As Lived Practice
http://EthicalDemocracy.blogspot.com
---------------------
NYT copyright
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/13/opinion/13divoll.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1242216084-xXd8VKeMdCHKxpf43eO95w
Op-Ed Contributor
Congress’s Torture Bubble
By VICKI DIVOLL
Published: May 12, 2009
=================================================================================
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Both Cheney & Obama Deploy the US Master Narrative
May 13th, 2009 2:43 am
Cheney & Obama Deploy the US Master Narrative
The rest of the world is weary,damaged, sickened and made less safe, by the US geopolitical master narrative of the last 50 years, whether orchestrated by Cheney or Obama, or their predecessors.
This is not to imply Barack and The Dick are similar. But is Cheney the only exponent of the US master narrative?
The US master narrative is bigger and more troublesome than either individual. The more things 'change' the more they remain the same.
If Cheney is 'yelping' now, he's already been neutered so can mainstream media stop focusing on his amusing attempts to bolster his criminal legacy?
Now we have to worry about what damage Obama will do with his AfPak strategy and other implementations of the US master narrative.
President Karzai was right when he warned last week that the US had not met its own "moral standard" in its disastrous use of drones against women, children and men. It's a moral and ethical issue. Importantly, it's a matter of idealistic pragmatism. Karzai's assertion challenges the US master narrative.
But Dowd would rather focus on what a defanged, out-of-office pol has to say.
Chithra Karunakaran
Ethical Democracy As Lived Practice
http://EthicalDemocracy.blogspot.com
--------------------------------
New York Times copyright
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/13/opinion/13dowd.html
Op-Ed Columnist
Rogue Diva of Doom
By MAUREEN DOWD
Published: May 12, 2009
================================================================================
Cheney & Obama Deploy the US Master Narrative
The rest of the world is weary,damaged, sickened and made less safe, by the US geopolitical master narrative of the last 50 years, whether orchestrated by Cheney or Obama, or their predecessors.
This is not to imply Barack and The Dick are similar. But is Cheney the only exponent of the US master narrative?
The US master narrative is bigger and more troublesome than either individual. The more things 'change' the more they remain the same.
If Cheney is 'yelping' now, he's already been neutered so can mainstream media stop focusing on his amusing attempts to bolster his criminal legacy?
Now we have to worry about what damage Obama will do with his AfPak strategy and other implementations of the US master narrative.
President Karzai was right when he warned last week that the US had not met its own "moral standard" in its disastrous use of drones against women, children and men. It's a moral and ethical issue. Importantly, it's a matter of idealistic pragmatism. Karzai's assertion challenges the US master narrative.
But Dowd would rather focus on what a defanged, out-of-office pol has to say.
Chithra Karunakaran
Ethical Democracy As Lived Practice
http://EthicalDemocracy.blogspot.com
--------------------------------
New York Times copyright
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/13/opinion/13dowd.html
Op-Ed Columnist
Rogue Diva of Doom
By MAUREEN DOWD
Published: May 12, 2009
================================================================================
Karzai: US has not met its "moral standard" in Afghanistan
US has not met its "moral standards" in Afghanistan: Karzai
11 May 2009, 1856 hrs IST, PTI
Print Email Discuss Share Save Comment Text:
WASHINGTON: Smarting from frequent US air attacks and resultant "massive" civilian toll in his country, President Hamid Karzai has said America
has not met its "moral standard" in Afghanistan and warned that any society will be "fed up" with such "continued casualties".
"The US has not met that standard in Afghanistan. The United States must stand on a much higher moral platform in order for us together to win this war," Karzai said in an interview to NBC News.
Pressed whether the US has not met their own moral standards and was Washington waging an "immoral war" in Afghanistan, Karzai said: "No. No. It's not immoral war, it's the standard of morality that we are seeking which is also one that is being desired and spoken about in America.
"In other words, are we the same as the terrorists, are we the same as the bad guys, or are we standing on a much higher moral, moral platform? Are we better human beings or not?," Karzai said.
He insisted that "extreme care" should be taken to protect civilians "and their children and their homes" for the civilians "to see us (as) completely distinct and separate from the terrorists."
Referring to the recent US bombing in Farah district where some 100 Afghan civilians died, he noted that the incident resulted in "massive" civilian casualties.
11 May 2009, 1856 hrs IST, PTI
Print Email Discuss Share Save Comment Text:
WASHINGTON: Smarting from frequent US air attacks and resultant "massive" civilian toll in his country, President Hamid Karzai has said America
has not met its "moral standard" in Afghanistan and warned that any society will be "fed up" with such "continued casualties".
"The US has not met that standard in Afghanistan. The United States must stand on a much higher moral platform in order for us together to win this war," Karzai said in an interview to NBC News.
Pressed whether the US has not met their own moral standards and was Washington waging an "immoral war" in Afghanistan, Karzai said: "No. No. It's not immoral war, it's the standard of morality that we are seeking which is also one that is being desired and spoken about in America.
"In other words, are we the same as the terrorists, are we the same as the bad guys, or are we standing on a much higher moral, moral platform? Are we better human beings or not?," Karzai said.
He insisted that "extreme care" should be taken to protect civilians "and their children and their homes" for the civilians "to see us (as) completely distinct and separate from the terrorists."
Referring to the recent US bombing in Farah district where some 100 Afghan civilians died, he noted that the incident resulted in "massive" civilian casualties.
Monday, May 11, 2009
Zardari says India "not a threat to Pakistan"
Zardari says India not a threat to Pakistan
Zardari's statement that India is not a threat to Pakistan, provides India with a credible opportunity to praise Pakistan's leadership for this long overdue,publicly stated position. India can go further and show initiative in advancing people-to-people exchanges, which suffered a serious setback on 26/11.
Now is absolutely NOT the moment to be adversarial, petty minded and cynical about Pakistan's leaders and the India Pakistan relationship. It is diplomatically in India's interest but, more important, in the interest of BOTH of our civil societies, to take Zardari at his word, and hold Zardari to his word, especially when Pakistan is being pressured by the heavy-handed military and anti-civilian tactics of the US.
Nothing will change the fact that the US is the state sponsor of terror in the South Asian region and that since the early 50's, the US has manipulated and exploited Pakistan, weakened by Brit-driven Partition in 1947. Divide and Rule is an especially effective weapon of both colonial and neo-imperial strategy. Indians & Pakistanis (together w/Afghans) have to find every possible way to defeat US designs in the region.
----------------
Times of India copyright
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/World/Pakistan/India-not-a-threat-Zardari/articleshow/4504948.cms
===============================================================================
Zardari's statement that India is not a threat to Pakistan, provides India with a credible opportunity to praise Pakistan's leadership for this long overdue,publicly stated position. India can go further and show initiative in advancing people-to-people exchanges, which suffered a serious setback on 26/11.
Now is absolutely NOT the moment to be adversarial, petty minded and cynical about Pakistan's leaders and the India Pakistan relationship. It is diplomatically in India's interest but, more important, in the interest of BOTH of our civil societies, to take Zardari at his word, and hold Zardari to his word, especially when Pakistan is being pressured by the heavy-handed military and anti-civilian tactics of the US.
Nothing will change the fact that the US is the state sponsor of terror in the South Asian region and that since the early 50's, the US has manipulated and exploited Pakistan, weakened by Brit-driven Partition in 1947. Divide and Rule is an especially effective weapon of both colonial and neo-imperial strategy. Indians & Pakistanis (together w/Afghans) have to find every possible way to defeat US designs in the region.
----------------
Times of India copyright
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/World/Pakistan/India-not-a-threat-Zardari/articleshow/4504948.cms
===============================================================================
Saturday, May 9, 2009
The US Hand in Pakistan & Afghanistan
#49. May 9, 2009 10:45 am Link
The US Hand in Pakistan & Afghanistan
It is disturbing but predictable that Mackey, Filkins and Cowell would file articles and blog posts that hide the US hand in the vast internal displacement of Pakistanis within their own homeland. Despite their claims of objectivity, their job is in accordance with the diktat of the Obama administration and Congress. The Pakistani Government, a hapless stooge of the US since the days of John Foster Dulles, is cynically sacrificing its own people, in order to stay in power and make a quick profit with a US handout.
The Pakistani people will not see a dime of that money.
Mackey is engaging in a clever theoretical exercise by comparing two ‘counterinsurgencies’ one in Sri Lanka one in Pakistan. But this is not Political Theory 101 for some Ivy League course. There is Af-Pak blood on US hands.
The flight from Swat and Buner is a TRAGEDY for the Pakistani people and Pashtun refugees created by earlier US action.
The insurgents against US invasion,occupation and militarization can all be conveniently lumped together by US-based media as THE TALIBAN or AL QUEDA. But it is clear that the local inhabitants of both Afghanistan and Pakistan are resisters against US and US-led NATO who are physically on the ground and in the air of their homeland, killing civilians.
This resistance can only grow stronger till the US and US led NATO vacate the region. That resistance will be a good thing for nation-building for both Afghanistan and Pakistan. Their peoples are to be commended, not labeled and theorized as insurgents/terrorists.
That said, I continue to read and pay attention to the points raised by Mackey, Filkins et al. We have a profound disagreement.
Chithra KarunaKaran
City University of New York
-----
LEDE BLOGGER RESPONSE: You won’t be surprised that I disagree strongly with your reading that anything written by myself or my colleagues is done “in accordance with the diktat” of the U.S. government, but we will have a blog post about Pakistani views of American media coverage later today which will deal with this sort of reading of our coverage in detail.
-----------------------------------
New York Times copyright
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/08/a-tale-of-two-counterinsurgencies-in-pakistan-and-sri-lanka/?apage
May 8, 2009, 12:08 pm
Pakistan and Sri Lanka, a Tale of Two Counterinsurgencies
By Robert Mackey
-------------
Associated Press copyright
Desperation in Pakistani hospitals, refugee camps
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090509/ap_on_re_as/as_pakistan
==========================================================================
The US Hand in Pakistan & Afghanistan
It is disturbing but predictable that Mackey, Filkins and Cowell would file articles and blog posts that hide the US hand in the vast internal displacement of Pakistanis within their own homeland. Despite their claims of objectivity, their job is in accordance with the diktat of the Obama administration and Congress. The Pakistani Government, a hapless stooge of the US since the days of John Foster Dulles, is cynically sacrificing its own people, in order to stay in power and make a quick profit with a US handout.
The Pakistani people will not see a dime of that money.
Mackey is engaging in a clever theoretical exercise by comparing two ‘counterinsurgencies’ one in Sri Lanka one in Pakistan. But this is not Political Theory 101 for some Ivy League course. There is Af-Pak blood on US hands.
The flight from Swat and Buner is a TRAGEDY for the Pakistani people and Pashtun refugees created by earlier US action.
The insurgents against US invasion,occupation and militarization can all be conveniently lumped together by US-based media as THE TALIBAN or AL QUEDA. But it is clear that the local inhabitants of both Afghanistan and Pakistan are resisters against US and US-led NATO who are physically on the ground and in the air of their homeland, killing civilians.
This resistance can only grow stronger till the US and US led NATO vacate the region. That resistance will be a good thing for nation-building for both Afghanistan and Pakistan. Their peoples are to be commended, not labeled and theorized as insurgents/terrorists.
That said, I continue to read and pay attention to the points raised by Mackey, Filkins et al. We have a profound disagreement.
Chithra KarunaKaran
City University of New York
-----
LEDE BLOGGER RESPONSE: You won’t be surprised that I disagree strongly with your reading that anything written by myself or my colleagues is done “in accordance with the diktat” of the U.S. government, but we will have a blog post about Pakistani views of American media coverage later today which will deal with this sort of reading of our coverage in detail.
-----------------------------------
New York Times copyright
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/08/a-tale-of-two-counterinsurgencies-in-pakistan-and-sri-lanka/?apage
May 8, 2009, 12:08 pm
Pakistan and Sri Lanka, a Tale of Two Counterinsurgencies
By Robert Mackey
-------------
Associated Press copyright
Desperation in Pakistani hospitals, refugee camps
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090509/ap_on_re_as/as_pakistan
==========================================================================
Friday, May 8, 2009
Pak Feudal Billionaires and US Militarism
Comment #333. May 9, 2009 12:52 am Link
Pak Feudal Billionaires and US Militarism
Zardari, feudal landowner and billionaire is in Washington with a begging bowl in his hand. He is being turned into a total US stooge.
The money that he gets as a bribe from the US will never reach the suffering people of Pakistan, now desperate refugees in their own country. Pakistan is attacking its own people. The Pakistani people will never forgive their current leaders for this assault, and they will be forced to turn more and more to the multiple factions of the Taliban and the tribal chieftains.
This attack on the Pakistani people, at the relentless prodding of the US, is predictably the beginning of a new phase in Pakistan’s violent and troubled history.
Pakistan, weakened by Partition in 1947, and fed a steady diet of hate by their corrupt leaders, against India (which has more Muslims than Pakistan) has been manipulated and exploited by the US since the early 50’s.
This is a tragic state of affairs for the Pakistani people whom I regard as my sisters and brothers.
Chithra Karunakaran
Ethical Democracy As Lived Practice
http://EthicalDemocracy.blogspot.com
------------------
NYTimes copyright
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/09/world/asia/09pstan.html?ref=global-home
Pakistan Pounds Taliban, Swelling the Tide of Refugees
Pakistanis arriving Friday at a refugee camp in Mardan, in the North-West Frontier Province, after fleeing the Buner district.
By DEXTER FILKINS
====================================================================================
Published: May 8, 2009
Pak Feudal Billionaires and US Militarism
Zardari, feudal landowner and billionaire is in Washington with a begging bowl in his hand. He is being turned into a total US stooge.
The money that he gets as a bribe from the US will never reach the suffering people of Pakistan, now desperate refugees in their own country. Pakistan is attacking its own people. The Pakistani people will never forgive their current leaders for this assault, and they will be forced to turn more and more to the multiple factions of the Taliban and the tribal chieftains.
This attack on the Pakistani people, at the relentless prodding of the US, is predictably the beginning of a new phase in Pakistan’s violent and troubled history.
Pakistan, weakened by Partition in 1947, and fed a steady diet of hate by their corrupt leaders, against India (which has more Muslims than Pakistan) has been manipulated and exploited by the US since the early 50’s.
This is a tragic state of affairs for the Pakistani people whom I regard as my sisters and brothers.
Chithra Karunakaran
Ethical Democracy As Lived Practice
http://EthicalDemocracy.blogspot.com
------------------
NYTimes copyright
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/09/world/asia/09pstan.html?ref=global-home
Pakistan Pounds Taliban, Swelling the Tide of Refugees
Pakistanis arriving Friday at a refugee camp in Mardan, in the North-West Frontier Province, after fleeing the Buner district.
By DEXTER FILKINS
====================================================================================
Published: May 8, 2009
Thursday, May 7, 2009
NUCLEAR, not Diplomatic, 'Disconnect' between US and Pak
My published NYT comment #83.
May 07, 2009 5:13 pm
Link
May 07, 2009 3:53 pm
US-Pak NUCLEAR not Diplomatic 'Disconnect'
What we have is not merely a diplomatic disconnect. That's small potatoes, talk is cheap.
What the entire world is faced with is a NUCLEAR 'disconnect' in which the US and NATO have not so far reassured and convinced the world that Pak's warheads are 100% secure. Nothing less that a 100% guarantee will do. This is extremely serious. Everything else pales into insignificance.
Why is the IAEA silent? Why is el-Baradei dumbstruck on this issue? Why does the world not have a guarantee from the IAEA that Pakistan's warheads are fully secured and under continuous IAEA surveillance?
The US will never act in the best interests of the Pakistani people. The US will never act in the best interests of the Afghan people. Afghans and Pakistanis, Indians and Sri Lankans, Bangladeshis and Nepalis and Maldivians know this in their hearts.
Pakistanis especially are being humiliated (even as they are bribed) by the US in this 50 year master-stooge relationship. Pakistan has not thrived under a half-century of US domination and manipulation.
The diverse peoples of South Asia are related by blood and history. It is up to us South Asians, despite centuries of Brit divide and rule colonial strategy, to work together in fellowship and cooperation. Pakistanis have to vomit the hate propaganda they have been fed by their feudal elites to keep them servile, hungry, poor and with no prospects for employment except as suicide bombers and terrorists. And India must help and respect Pakistan in the spirit of sisterhood for the sake of every woman, child and man in our South Asia region.
Pakistanis, Indians and Afghans are closer to each other than they can ever be to Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia, China or the US. That's a fact.
Chithra Karunakaran
Ethical Democracy As Lived Practice
http://EthicalDemocracy.blogspot.com
-------------
NYTimes copyright
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/08/us/politics/08cooper.html
On the White House: In Diplomacy, a Pakistan Disconnect
By HELENE COOPER
As American and Pakistani diplomats met, there was a gap between the sentiments expressed in public and those voiced in private.
May 07, 2009 5:13 pm
Link
May 07, 2009 3:53 pm
US-Pak NUCLEAR not Diplomatic 'Disconnect'
What we have is not merely a diplomatic disconnect. That's small potatoes, talk is cheap.
What the entire world is faced with is a NUCLEAR 'disconnect' in which the US and NATO have not so far reassured and convinced the world that Pak's warheads are 100% secure. Nothing less that a 100% guarantee will do. This is extremely serious. Everything else pales into insignificance.
Why is the IAEA silent? Why is el-Baradei dumbstruck on this issue? Why does the world not have a guarantee from the IAEA that Pakistan's warheads are fully secured and under continuous IAEA surveillance?
The US will never act in the best interests of the Pakistani people. The US will never act in the best interests of the Afghan people. Afghans and Pakistanis, Indians and Sri Lankans, Bangladeshis and Nepalis and Maldivians know this in their hearts.
Pakistanis especially are being humiliated (even as they are bribed) by the US in this 50 year master-stooge relationship. Pakistan has not thrived under a half-century of US domination and manipulation.
The diverse peoples of South Asia are related by blood and history. It is up to us South Asians, despite centuries of Brit divide and rule colonial strategy, to work together in fellowship and cooperation. Pakistanis have to vomit the hate propaganda they have been fed by their feudal elites to keep them servile, hungry, poor and with no prospects for employment except as suicide bombers and terrorists. And India must help and respect Pakistan in the spirit of sisterhood for the sake of every woman, child and man in our South Asia region.
Pakistanis, Indians and Afghans are closer to each other than they can ever be to Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia, China or the US. That's a fact.
Chithra Karunakaran
Ethical Democracy As Lived Practice
http://EthicalDemocracy.blogspot.com
-------------
NYTimes copyright
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/08/us/politics/08cooper.html
On the White House: In Diplomacy, a Pakistan Disconnect
By HELENE COOPER
As American and Pakistani diplomats met, there was a gap between the sentiments expressed in public and those voiced in private.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
How John Yoo Became White & Learned to Perform Whiteness
How did John Yoo become white? How did John Yoo learn to perform Whiteness?
John Yoo, the law professor at Berkeley, a US-born citizen played a key role, along with Judge Jay Bybee of the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in crafting the legal argument underlying the 'torture memos' of the Bush administration.
The US system of Whiteness is the core ideology of the state - a set of beliefs which makes possible the exercise of racialized, supremacist, dominant POWER at home and around the globe. Because this set of beliefs originating with white male supremacists, including the so-called Founding Fathers, is so entrenched it shapes the thoughts and actions of everyone, no matter what their racial membership, their ethnicity, social class,religion, gender, age, sexual orientation.
see my Theory of Systemic Whiteness on this Blog. Itmay help to clarify how a Chinese American, a person of color, became a recruit into the US Whiteness System.
If we want to remain progressive and ethical, we have to exercise vigilance accompanied by critical thinking in order to prevent ourselves from being unwittingly recruited into Whiteness.
---------------------
Associated Press copyrightes article
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090507/ap_on_re_us/ca_interrogation_memos
Bush attorneys who wrote terror memo face backlash
AP
File - In this June 26, 2008 file photo John Yoo, a law professor at the AP – File - In this June 26, 2008 file photo John Yoo, a law professor at the University of California at …
* No charges seen over interrogation memos Play Video Video:No charges seen over interrogation memos AP
* Bush era memos on waterboarding released Play Video Video:Bush era memos on waterboarding released AP
* Interrogation Memos Play Video Video:Interrogation Memos FOX News
By TERENCE CHEA, Associated Press Writer Terence Chea, Associated Press Writer – Wed May 6, 9:21 pm ET
SAN FRANCISCO – Pressure is mounting against two former Bush administration attorneys who wrote the legal memos used to support harsh interrogation techniques that critics say constituted torture. John Yoo, a constitutional law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, is fighting calls for disbarment and dismissal, while Judge Jay Bybee of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals faces calls for impeachment.
Justice Department investigators have stopped short of recommending criminal charges, but suggest in a draft report that the two men should face professional sanctions. A number of groups across the country agree, and some want even stronger action.
"We believe there is a lot of evidence to suggest that war crimes were committed," said Laura Bonham, deputy director of the Progressive Democrats of America, a group dedicated to rebuilding the Democratic Party. "We believe the memos provided the Central Intelligence Agency with the cover they needed to begin torturing detainees for information."
Bybee and Yoo worked in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel following the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks and played key roles in crafting the legal justification for the interrogation techniques.
The draft report from an internal Justice Department inquiry sharply criticizes Yoo and Bybee and recommends referring their cases to state bar associations for possible disciplinary actions, a person familiar with the inquiry said. The person spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the inquiry.
Action was not recommended against a third lawyer, Steven Bradbury, who was head of the office at the time the memos were created, a person familiar with the inquiry said. The person, who also was not authorized to publicly discuss the investigation, said investigators found that Bradbury played a lesser role in the creation of the memos. Bradbury is now in private practice.
The recommendations come after an Obama administration decision last month not to prosecute CIA interrogators who followed advice outlined in the memos.
The long-awaited report is still in draft form and subject to revisions. Attorney General Eric Holder also may make his own determination about what steps to take once the report has been finalized.
Yoo's attorney, Miguel Estrada, would not comment, citing an agreement with the Justice Department not to discuss the case. Bybee's attorney, Maureen Mahoney, did not return a message seeking comment Wednesday.
But at a forum last month on the campus of Chapman University School of Law where Yoo is visiting professor, he defended his role in establishing the legal rationale for using waterboarding and other severe interrogation techniques.
"Three thousand of our fellow citizens had been killed in a deliberate attack by a foreign enemy," Yoo told a packed audience on the Southern California campus, according to the Los Angeles Times. "That forced us in the government to have to consider measures to gain information using presidential constitutional provisions to protect the country from further attack."
"Was it worth it?" he asked, brushing off hecklers. "We haven't had an attack in more than seven years."
John Eastman, dean of the Chapman law school, defended the memos.
"He wrote a comprehensive legal analysis of a gray area of the law," Eastman said. "I think John's legal analysis taps into the founders' understanding of the executive."
Yoo, 41, who worked for the Justice Department from 2001 to 2003, has drawn intense criticism and protests since his role in the interrogation memos became public in 2004.
In December, the Berkeley City Council, known for wading into politically charged national and international issues, passed a measure urging the federal government to prosecute Yoo for war crimes.
Human rights and anti-war activists are planning a demonstration at the Berkeley School of Law's May 16 commencement ceremony to press for Yoo to be fired.
"It's unconscionable that the legal architect of the torture apparatus is teaching the future generation of lawyers and judges at UC Berkeley," said Stephanie Tang, an organizer with the group World Can't Wait.
Robert Cole, a professor emeritus at Berkeley's law school, said he believes the university should conduct its own investigation to determine if Yoo's work for the Bush administration violated the campus' faculty code of conduct.
"The university has got to protect its integrity," Cole said. "Every professor we put in the classroom has to have professional competence and ethical integrity."
California Attorney General Jerry Brown, a likely Democratic candidate for governor, said the memos raised questions about whether Yoo should be allowed to teach law at UC Berkeley and called for a full accounting.
"This is not something that should be swept under the rug," he said.
Christopher Edley Jr., Berkeley's law school dean, has rejected calls to dismiss Yoo and says the university doesn't have the expertise or resources to conduct an investigation involving classified intelligence. A tenured professor would have to be convicted of a crime that demonstrates unfitness to be a faculty member to be dismissed by the university.
"Assuming one believes as I do that Professor Yoo offered bad ideas and even worse advice during his government service, that judgment alone would not warrant dismissal or even a potentially chilling inquiry," Edley said in a statement. He added that Yoo "remains a very successful teacher and prolific (but often controversial) scholar."
In Nevada, debate over Bybee's role has been more muted, largely playing out on the opinion pages and among his colleagues at the William S. Boyd School of Law at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Bybee taught constitutional and administrative law and civil procedure from 1999 until 2001 and remains on the faculty.
Legal colleagues, while praising Bybee as a scholar and caring colleague, have criticized the memos, particularly for what some of them say was legal sloppiness and faulty constitutional logic not indicative of his other work.
John Podesta, president of the liberal Center for American Progress and the leader of President Barack Obama's transition team, said, "If he would do the right thing, he should just simply resign."
If he doesn't quit, Podesta said, he should be removed from office.
Nevada Republican Sen. John Ensign, who with Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., sponsored Bybee for the federal judgeship, has defended him and said calls for his impeachment were "outrageous."
"To call for him to be impeached when he was trying to give the proper legal advice is just ridiculous," Ensign told the Las Vegas Review-Journal.
Reid, who has said he was disturbed by the memos, has taken a wait and see attitude.
Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., a member of the House Judiciary Committee, said impeachment was a "possibility a little down the road," but said he first wanted to see the pending Justice Department report.
He said if the report indicates "Bybee violated professional ethics, we'll have to see whether a special counsel is appointed and the impeachment issue will come after that."
____
Associated Press Writers Paul Elias in San Francisco, Tom Tait in Las Vegas, and Devlin Barrett and Larry Margasak in Washington contributed to this report.
John Yoo, the law professor at Berkeley, a US-born citizen played a key role, along with Judge Jay Bybee of the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in crafting the legal argument underlying the 'torture memos' of the Bush administration.
The US system of Whiteness is the core ideology of the state - a set of beliefs which makes possible the exercise of racialized, supremacist, dominant POWER at home and around the globe. Because this set of beliefs originating with white male supremacists, including the so-called Founding Fathers, is so entrenched it shapes the thoughts and actions of everyone, no matter what their racial membership, their ethnicity, social class,religion, gender, age, sexual orientation.
see my Theory of Systemic Whiteness on this Blog. Itmay help to clarify how a Chinese American, a person of color, became a recruit into the US Whiteness System.
If we want to remain progressive and ethical, we have to exercise vigilance accompanied by critical thinking in order to prevent ourselves from being unwittingly recruited into Whiteness.
---------------------
Associated Press copyrightes article
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090507/ap_on_re_us/ca_interrogation_memos
Bush attorneys who wrote terror memo face backlash
AP
File - In this June 26, 2008 file photo John Yoo, a law professor at the AP – File - In this June 26, 2008 file photo John Yoo, a law professor at the University of California at …
* No charges seen over interrogation memos Play Video Video:No charges seen over interrogation memos AP
* Bush era memos on waterboarding released Play Video Video:Bush era memos on waterboarding released AP
* Interrogation Memos Play Video Video:Interrogation Memos FOX News
By TERENCE CHEA, Associated Press Writer Terence Chea, Associated Press Writer – Wed May 6, 9:21 pm ET
SAN FRANCISCO – Pressure is mounting against two former Bush administration attorneys who wrote the legal memos used to support harsh interrogation techniques that critics say constituted torture. John Yoo, a constitutional law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, is fighting calls for disbarment and dismissal, while Judge Jay Bybee of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals faces calls for impeachment.
Justice Department investigators have stopped short of recommending criminal charges, but suggest in a draft report that the two men should face professional sanctions. A number of groups across the country agree, and some want even stronger action.
"We believe there is a lot of evidence to suggest that war crimes were committed," said Laura Bonham, deputy director of the Progressive Democrats of America, a group dedicated to rebuilding the Democratic Party. "We believe the memos provided the Central Intelligence Agency with the cover they needed to begin torturing detainees for information."
Bybee and Yoo worked in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel following the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks and played key roles in crafting the legal justification for the interrogation techniques.
The draft report from an internal Justice Department inquiry sharply criticizes Yoo and Bybee and recommends referring their cases to state bar associations for possible disciplinary actions, a person familiar with the inquiry said. The person spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the inquiry.
Action was not recommended against a third lawyer, Steven Bradbury, who was head of the office at the time the memos were created, a person familiar with the inquiry said. The person, who also was not authorized to publicly discuss the investigation, said investigators found that Bradbury played a lesser role in the creation of the memos. Bradbury is now in private practice.
The recommendations come after an Obama administration decision last month not to prosecute CIA interrogators who followed advice outlined in the memos.
The long-awaited report is still in draft form and subject to revisions. Attorney General Eric Holder also may make his own determination about what steps to take once the report has been finalized.
Yoo's attorney, Miguel Estrada, would not comment, citing an agreement with the Justice Department not to discuss the case. Bybee's attorney, Maureen Mahoney, did not return a message seeking comment Wednesday.
But at a forum last month on the campus of Chapman University School of Law where Yoo is visiting professor, he defended his role in establishing the legal rationale for using waterboarding and other severe interrogation techniques.
"Three thousand of our fellow citizens had been killed in a deliberate attack by a foreign enemy," Yoo told a packed audience on the Southern California campus, according to the Los Angeles Times. "That forced us in the government to have to consider measures to gain information using presidential constitutional provisions to protect the country from further attack."
"Was it worth it?" he asked, brushing off hecklers. "We haven't had an attack in more than seven years."
John Eastman, dean of the Chapman law school, defended the memos.
"He wrote a comprehensive legal analysis of a gray area of the law," Eastman said. "I think John's legal analysis taps into the founders' understanding of the executive."
Yoo, 41, who worked for the Justice Department from 2001 to 2003, has drawn intense criticism and protests since his role in the interrogation memos became public in 2004.
In December, the Berkeley City Council, known for wading into politically charged national and international issues, passed a measure urging the federal government to prosecute Yoo for war crimes.
Human rights and anti-war activists are planning a demonstration at the Berkeley School of Law's May 16 commencement ceremony to press for Yoo to be fired.
"It's unconscionable that the legal architect of the torture apparatus is teaching the future generation of lawyers and judges at UC Berkeley," said Stephanie Tang, an organizer with the group World Can't Wait.
Robert Cole, a professor emeritus at Berkeley's law school, said he believes the university should conduct its own investigation to determine if Yoo's work for the Bush administration violated the campus' faculty code of conduct.
"The university has got to protect its integrity," Cole said. "Every professor we put in the classroom has to have professional competence and ethical integrity."
California Attorney General Jerry Brown, a likely Democratic candidate for governor, said the memos raised questions about whether Yoo should be allowed to teach law at UC Berkeley and called for a full accounting.
"This is not something that should be swept under the rug," he said.
Christopher Edley Jr., Berkeley's law school dean, has rejected calls to dismiss Yoo and says the university doesn't have the expertise or resources to conduct an investigation involving classified intelligence. A tenured professor would have to be convicted of a crime that demonstrates unfitness to be a faculty member to be dismissed by the university.
"Assuming one believes as I do that Professor Yoo offered bad ideas and even worse advice during his government service, that judgment alone would not warrant dismissal or even a potentially chilling inquiry," Edley said in a statement. He added that Yoo "remains a very successful teacher and prolific (but often controversial) scholar."
In Nevada, debate over Bybee's role has been more muted, largely playing out on the opinion pages and among his colleagues at the William S. Boyd School of Law at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Bybee taught constitutional and administrative law and civil procedure from 1999 until 2001 and remains on the faculty.
Legal colleagues, while praising Bybee as a scholar and caring colleague, have criticized the memos, particularly for what some of them say was legal sloppiness and faulty constitutional logic not indicative of his other work.
John Podesta, president of the liberal Center for American Progress and the leader of President Barack Obama's transition team, said, "If he would do the right thing, he should just simply resign."
If he doesn't quit, Podesta said, he should be removed from office.
Nevada Republican Sen. John Ensign, who with Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., sponsored Bybee for the federal judgeship, has defended him and said calls for his impeachment were "outrageous."
"To call for him to be impeached when he was trying to give the proper legal advice is just ridiculous," Ensign told the Las Vegas Review-Journal.
Reid, who has said he was disturbed by the memos, has taken a wait and see attitude.
Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., a member of the House Judiciary Committee, said impeachment was a "possibility a little down the road," but said he first wanted to see the pending Justice Department report.
He said if the report indicates "Bybee violated professional ethics, we'll have to see whether a special counsel is appointed and the impeachment issue will come after that."
____
Associated Press Writers Paul Elias in San Francisco, Tom Tait in Las Vegas, and Devlin Barrett and Larry Margasak in Washington contributed to this report.
US State-sponsored Terror -- with Apologies
My published NYT COMMENT #98.
May 06, 2009 2:12 pm
Link
May 6th, 2009 1:41 pm
US State-Sponsored Terror -- with Apologies
Talk is cheap -- your apology means nothing, Secretary Clinton, you too President Obama and the rest of the White House/State Dept. crew.
Pashtun civilians are dying and we know who is causing the deaths. Wake up and smell the acrid odor of burning flesh in a drone airstrike, America.
The US is engaged in state-sponsored terror in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border area of the South Asia region
Remember the US trained, armed and paid the Mujahideen to fight the Cold War(invented by the US), with the Soviets in the 80's.
Now those same Mujahideen have become the Taliban. Historically, Pashtuns (now Mujahideen and Taliban) have never tolerated invaders and occupiers on their soil. They taught the Brits a bitter lesson during the colonial period. Then the Soviets got a 9-year taste of Pashtun medicine. Now it's the turn of the Americans to learn the same bitter bloody lesson.
But who's paying the price? Innocent women, children and men who live in the westernmost part of my South Asia region.
And who's footing the bill? The US taxpayer, me.
Chithra KarunaKaran
Ethical Democracy as Lived Practice
http://EthicalDemocracy.blogspot.com
-------------------------------------------------------
NYT copyright
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/07/world/asia/07afghan.html?_r=1
High Civilian Toll Seen in U.S. Raid in Afghanistan
By CARLOTTA GALL and TAIMOOR SHAH
The Red Cross said dozens died, but Afghan officials put the toll at more than 100, offering a grim backdrop to a U.S. visit by the Afghan and Pakistani leaders on Wednesday
May 06, 2009 2:12 pm
Link
May 6th, 2009 1:41 pm
US State-Sponsored Terror -- with Apologies
Talk is cheap -- your apology means nothing, Secretary Clinton, you too President Obama and the rest of the White House/State Dept. crew.
Pashtun civilians are dying and we know who is causing the deaths. Wake up and smell the acrid odor of burning flesh in a drone airstrike, America.
The US is engaged in state-sponsored terror in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border area of the South Asia region
Remember the US trained, armed and paid the Mujahideen to fight the Cold War(invented by the US), with the Soviets in the 80's.
Now those same Mujahideen have become the Taliban. Historically, Pashtuns (now Mujahideen and Taliban) have never tolerated invaders and occupiers on their soil. They taught the Brits a bitter lesson during the colonial period. Then the Soviets got a 9-year taste of Pashtun medicine. Now it's the turn of the Americans to learn the same bitter bloody lesson.
But who's paying the price? Innocent women, children and men who live in the westernmost part of my South Asia region.
And who's footing the bill? The US taxpayer, me.
Chithra KarunaKaran
Ethical Democracy as Lived Practice
http://EthicalDemocracy.blogspot.com
-------------------------------------------------------
NYT copyright
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/07/world/asia/07afghan.html?_r=1
High Civilian Toll Seen in U.S. Raid in Afghanistan
By CARLOTTA GALL and TAIMOOR SHAH
The Red Cross said dozens died, but Afghan officials put the toll at more than 100, offering a grim backdrop to a U.S. visit by the Afghan and Pakistani leaders on Wednesday
Russia's Role in the New Global Order of Competing Fundamentalisms
The US Whiteness system which has its origins in slavery and genocide for profit, is strongly ideological while posturing as progressive, pragmatic and ethical. This is the core ideological system in which Obama performs Whiteness. I voted for Obama because I clearly understood he is the lesser of two evils within the US Whiteenss System of racialized dominant power based on extreme exloitative profit.
Who armed, trained and paid the Mujahideen who morphed into the Taliban? The US has been a state sponsor of terror throughout the world for over 50 years. Its latest military adventurism, along with US led-NATO, is in my region of South Asia. The US is seeking strategic depth" in South Asia in order to counter Russia and Iran while continuing satellization of Israel. All three adjoin the South Asia region, which the US is cultivating as the main theater of US geopolitical operations.
But fingerpointing at the US does not absolve each nation-state. We each have to do whatever we can to promote social and economic justice in the world for the billions of our fellow citizens of earth. This requires ethical thinking and practice over strategic thinking thinking and practice.
We need idealistic pragmatism that demonstrably promotes prosperity under conditions of peace for the billions of hungry, diseased and homless in our world today.
Russia has to do considerably more by developing a visibly open society (look at India) that takes a more responsive and responsible place in the world.
Chithra KarunaKaran
Ethical Democracy As Lived Practice
http://EthicalDemocracy.blogspot.com
-------------
Russia today copyright
http://russiatoday.com/Politics/2009-05-06/Taliban_Rising__Pakistan_swaps_mountain_skiing_for_strict_Sharia_law.html
Who armed, trained and paid the Mujahideen who morphed into the Taliban? The US has been a state sponsor of terror throughout the world for over 50 years. Its latest military adventurism, along with US led-NATO, is in my region of South Asia. The US is seeking strategic depth" in South Asia in order to counter Russia and Iran while continuing satellization of Israel. All three adjoin the South Asia region, which the US is cultivating as the main theater of US geopolitical operations.
But fingerpointing at the US does not absolve each nation-state. We each have to do whatever we can to promote social and economic justice in the world for the billions of our fellow citizens of earth. This requires ethical thinking and practice over strategic thinking thinking and practice.
We need idealistic pragmatism that demonstrably promotes prosperity under conditions of peace for the billions of hungry, diseased and homless in our world today.
Russia has to do considerably more by developing a visibly open society (look at India) that takes a more responsive and responsible place in the world.
Chithra KarunaKaran
Ethical Democracy As Lived Practice
http://EthicalDemocracy.blogspot.com
-------------
Russia today copyright
http://russiatoday.com/Politics/2009-05-06/Taliban_Rising__Pakistan_swaps_mountain_skiing_for_strict_Sharia_law.html
US: State Sponsor of Terror In South Asia Region
Comment #84. May 6, 2009 4:46 am Link
US: State Sponsor of Terror In South Asia Region
What's new? The US is the chief irritant and instigator of instability in my South Asia region.
The US is a state-sponsor of terror in the South Asia region.
So:
Get out.
Stop droning and killing civilians. That's terror.
How dare the US 'invite' Saudi Arabia, that pillar of democracy and proponent of wahabbism, into the region.
Pakistan's weakly resurgent democracy has not been given a chance to work, by the US and US-led NATO.
Do not give Pakistan military aid, but do give Pakistan civil society assistance, though international and local NGOs.
The sovereign nation-states of the South Asia region will have to work this out among themselves. They have the capability to do so.
Both the IAEA and the UN's several agencies can and must take a more comprehensive role. They are impeded by the US seat in the UN Security Council.
Chithra KarunaKaran
Ethical Democracy As Lived Practice
http://EthicalDemocracy.blogspot.com
p.s Among your panel of so-called experts, why don't you have one each from Pakistan and Afghanistan?
Chithra KarunaKaran
Ethical Democracy As Lived Practice
http://EthicalDemocracy.blogspot.com
------------------------------------------
NYTimes copyright
http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/05/pakistan-scenarios-us-solutions/
Room For Debate
May 5, 2009, 5:39 pm
Pakistan’s Nuclear Scenarios, U.S. Solutions
By The Editors
-------------
US: State Sponsor of Terror In South Asia Region
What's new? The US is the chief irritant and instigator of instability in my South Asia region.
The US is a state-sponsor of terror in the South Asia region.
So:
Get out.
Stop droning and killing civilians. That's terror.
How dare the US 'invite' Saudi Arabia, that pillar of democracy and proponent of wahabbism, into the region.
Pakistan's weakly resurgent democracy has not been given a chance to work, by the US and US-led NATO.
Do not give Pakistan military aid, but do give Pakistan civil society assistance, though international and local NGOs.
The sovereign nation-states of the South Asia region will have to work this out among themselves. They have the capability to do so.
Both the IAEA and the UN's several agencies can and must take a more comprehensive role. They are impeded by the US seat in the UN Security Council.
Chithra KarunaKaran
Ethical Democracy As Lived Practice
http://EthicalDemocracy.blogspot.com
p.s Among your panel of so-called experts, why don't you have one each from Pakistan and Afghanistan?
Chithra KarunaKaran
Ethical Democracy As Lived Practice
http://EthicalDemocracy.blogspot.com
------------------------------------------
NYTimes copyright
http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/05/pakistan-scenarios-us-solutions/
Room For Debate
May 5, 2009, 5:39 pm
Pakistan’s Nuclear Scenarios, U.S. Solutions
By The Editors
-------------
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Loose Cannon Diplomacy: US Style
My published NYT comment #30.
May 05, 2009 3:03 pm
Link
May 5th, 2009 2:39 pm
Loose Cannon Diplomacy: US style
The US is a loose cannon in the South Asia region. It has been that way for over 50 years, particularly in regard to Pakistan, which became a victim of US Cold War geopolitical machinations, beginning with the Dulles-era of the State Department. We are seeing a continuation of that same loose cannon diplomacy from the Obama White House.
It would be a total mistake to conclude that the US has any interest in the South Asia region other than a narrowly defined, ad hoc, frequently shifting strategic interest. Therefore no real attempt to invest in the civil societies of Afghanistan and Pakistan.
The latest twist in this story, that David Sanger does not mention in his article, is that Robert Gates is now calling upon Saudi Arabia, that pillar of Democracy, to assist US policy with Pakistan. Isn't Saudi money financing wahabbism in the madrassh and providing weaponry to the factions on the border? Great move, Gates and crew.
Will Pakistan become Obama's Vietnam? Sure looks like it. My sympathy goes out to the civil societies of both Afghanistan and Pakistan. They are paying the price for egregious missteps in US policy in South Asia. They and the US taxpayer.
Chithra Karunakaran
Ethical Democracy As Lived Practice
http://EthicalDemocracy.blogspot.com
--------------------
New York Times copyright
On Washington: Pakistan Overshadows Afghanistan on U.S. Agenda
By DAVID E. SANGER
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/06/us/politics/05web-sanger.html
Important as Afghanistan is to the U.S., the events of the past few weeks have focused American minds on the risks to Pakistan’s stability.
=====================================================================================
May 05, 2009 3:03 pm
Link
May 5th, 2009 2:39 pm
Loose Cannon Diplomacy: US style
The US is a loose cannon in the South Asia region. It has been that way for over 50 years, particularly in regard to Pakistan, which became a victim of US Cold War geopolitical machinations, beginning with the Dulles-era of the State Department. We are seeing a continuation of that same loose cannon diplomacy from the Obama White House.
It would be a total mistake to conclude that the US has any interest in the South Asia region other than a narrowly defined, ad hoc, frequently shifting strategic interest. Therefore no real attempt to invest in the civil societies of Afghanistan and Pakistan.
The latest twist in this story, that David Sanger does not mention in his article, is that Robert Gates is now calling upon Saudi Arabia, that pillar of Democracy, to assist US policy with Pakistan. Isn't Saudi money financing wahabbism in the madrassh and providing weaponry to the factions on the border? Great move, Gates and crew.
Will Pakistan become Obama's Vietnam? Sure looks like it. My sympathy goes out to the civil societies of both Afghanistan and Pakistan. They are paying the price for egregious missteps in US policy in South Asia. They and the US taxpayer.
Chithra Karunakaran
Ethical Democracy As Lived Practice
http://EthicalDemocracy.blogspot.com
--------------------
New York Times copyright
On Washington: Pakistan Overshadows Afghanistan on U.S. Agenda
By DAVID E. SANGER
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/06/us/politics/05web-sanger.html
Important as Afghanistan is to the U.S., the events of the past few weeks have focused American minds on the risks to Pakistan’s stability.
=====================================================================================
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)