Warning: include_once(/var/www/html/shahidulnews/wp-content/plugins/wp-super-cache/wp-cache-phase1.php): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /home/sdn24news/public_html/wp-content/advanced-cache.php on line 22
Warning: include_once(): Failed opening '/var/www/html/shahidulnews/wp-content/plugins/wp-super-cache/wp-cache-phase1.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/opt/cpanel/ea-php70/root/usr/share/pear') in /home/sdn24news/public_html/wp-content/advanced-cache.php on line 22 Imperialism – Page 10 – Shahidul News
May 6, 2011 We might ask ourselves how we would be reacting if Iraqi commandos landed at George W. Bush?s compound, assassinated him, and dumped his body in the Atlantic.
By?Noam Chomsky It?s increasingly clear that the operation was a planned assassination, multiply violating elementary norms of international law. There appears to have been no attempt to apprehend the unarmed victim, as presumably could have been done by 80 commandos facing virtually no opposition?except, they claim, from his wife, who lunged towards them. In societies that profess some respect for law, suspects are apprehended and brought to fair trial. I stress ?suspects.? In April 2002, the head of the?FBI,?Robert Mueller, informed the press that after the most intensive investigation in history, the?FBI?could say no more than that it ?believed? that the plot was hatched in Afghanistan, though implemented in the?UAE?and Germany. What they only believed in April 2002, they obviously didn?t know 8 months earlier, when Washington dismissed tentative offers by the Taliban (how serious, we do not know, because they were instantly dismissed) to extradite bin Laden if they were presented with evidence?which, as we soon learned, Washington didn?t have. Thus Obama was simply lying when he said, in his White House statement, that ?we quickly learned that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by al Qaeda.?
Nothing serious has been provided since. There is much talk of bin Laden?s ?confession,? but that is rather like my confession that I won the Boston Marathon. He boasted of what he regarded as a great achievement.
There is also much media discussion of Washington?s anger that Pakistan didn?t turn over bin Laden, though surely elements of the military and security forces were aware of his presence in Abbottabad. Less is said about Pakistani anger that the?U.S.?invaded their territory to carry out a political assassination. Anti-American fervor is already very high in Pakistan, and these events are likely to exacerbate it. The decision to dump the body at sea is already, predictably, provoking both anger and skepticism in much of the Muslim world.
It?s like naming our murder weapons after victims of our crimes: Apache, Tomahawk? It?s as if the Luftwaffe were to call its fighter planes ?Jew? and ?Gypsy.?
We might ask ourselves how we would be reacting if Iraqi commandos landed at George W. Bush?s compound, assassinated him, and dumped his body in the Atlantic. Uncontroversially, his crimes vastly exceed bin Laden?s, and he is not a ?suspect? but uncontroversially the ?decider? who gave the orders to commit the ?supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole? (quoting the Nuremberg Tribunal) for which Nazi criminals were hanged: the hundreds of thousands of deaths, millions of refugees, destruction of much of the country, the bitter sectarian conflict that has now spread to the rest of the region.
There?s more to say about [Cuban airline bomber Orlando] Bosch, who just died peacefully in Florida, including reference to the ?Bush doctrine? that societies that harbor terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists themselves and should be treated accordingly. No one seemed to notice that Bush was calling for invasion and destruction of the?U.S.?and murder of its criminal president.
Same with the name, Operation Geronimo. The imperial mentality is so profound, throughout western society, that no one can perceive that they are glorifying bin Laden by identifying him with courageous resistance against genocidal invaders. It?s like naming our murder weapons after victims of our crimes: Apache, Tomahawk? It?s as if the Luftwaffe were to call its fighter planes ?Jew? and ?Gypsy.?
There is much more to say, but even the most obvious and elementary facts should provide us with a good deal to think about.
Copyright 2011 Noam Chomsky
________________________________________________________________________ Noam Chomsky is Institute Professor emeritus in the?MIT?Department of Linguistics and Philosophy. He is the author of numerous best-selling political works. His latest books are a new edition of?Power and Terror,?The Essential Chomsky (edited by Anthony Arnove), a collection of his writings on politics and on language from the 1950s to the present,?Gaza in Crisis, with Ilan Papp?, and?Hopes and Prospects, also available as an audiobook.
Apnader naamte hobe, had said my friend.
We were discussing the Women Development Policy and both he and Nurul Kabir were astonished. Women’s organisations had not taken to the streets. They had not protested against Islami Oikyo Jote leader Mufti Fazlul Huq Amini’s fabrication, nor against the Awami League-led government’s shocking betrayal of women’s rights.?
The Policy contains anti-Islamic provisions, said Amini. Equal shares to inheritance are against the Quran and Sunnah, these should be scrapped, its implementation would destroy “family values and social norms.” It would encourage the “breakup of families and [lead to] illegitimate births” (bdnewslive, April 21, 2011).?
The lie was used by the Islami Ain Bastobayon Committee (Committee for the Implementation of Islamic Law, or ILIC) to call a daylong countrywide hartal, which, in all likelihood, benefitted the government. It gave credence to Sheikh Hasina’s allegation that the previous BNP-Jamaat led government (2001-2006) in which the IOJ was an alliance partner, had “smeared” the name of Islam,had turned the country into “a haven for terrorists and militants.” (I myself think that the situation is more complex than it is made to appear, for reasons which I’d mentioned previously: the ties between some of the militant Islamically-oriented parties and state intelligence agencies are unclear, as are the reasons as to why Sheikh Hasina has agreed to setting up the regional Counter-Terrorism Centre (for South Asia) in Dhaka, for which the European Union is reportedly providing 1.5 million euros along with technological assistance. And while we are on the topic, I think it’s worth mentioning that American soldiers recently landed at Dhaka airport in a special aircraft with “arms and tools.” According to news reports, they were `disarmed’ by airport customs; apparently, Bangladesh army personnel receiving them had been unaware of customs laws; hurriedly-dispatched home-ministry-authorised documents ensured the release of the armaments which had been brought by visiting US soldiers “to train [the] Bangladesh army” (New Age, April 21, 2011).?
Interestingly enough, Sheikh Hasina’s government seemed to assist the hartal. Summons’ and arrest warrants issued against Amini by a Dhaka court on March 31, 2011?sedition and defamation cases filed respectively by Sammilita Islami Jote, and Jananetri Parishad?were swiftly retracted by the magistrate on the advice of the chief metropolitan magistrate.?Being not under lock-and-key must have helped Amini organise the April 4 hartal. Continue reading “Reflections on Women Development Policy and IOJ's hartal PART III”
[Today’s special piece is dedicated to two professors of international relations, Dhaka university, whom I had the pleasure of watching on private TV channels, responding to news of Osama bin Laden’s death. One of them, while replying to its expected impact on Muslim extremists, spoke (only) of the latter’s `distorted mindset’ while the other, more forthcoming, spoke of how the world was still a better place because of US leadership. Political naivete, I guess, has a certain overarching appeal. I will write exclusively on this some other day]. CAPTION The fake Osama bin Laden photo, the result of photo-shop, where a much younger Laden's lower face has been `joined' to the upper face of an unknown corpse.?
Justice has been done, declared US president Barack Obama, in a televised address to the nation on May 1 night. Osama bin Laden, leader of al Qaeda, has been killed. Years of painstaking work by the US intelligence community had led to a possible lead last August, which indicated that the “mass murderer”?whose organisation had carried out the “9/11 attacks,” who had “openly declared war on the United States”?was hiding away in Abbottabad, deep inside Pakistan. A small team of Americans had conducted the targeted operation. Bin Laden had been killed in the ensuing firefight. No Americans were harmed. No civilian casualties either. Senior administration officials offered more details in a subsequent press briefing: 3 adult males (Laden’s adult son, 2 male couriers) were also killed. As was a woman, who was used as a human shield by a combatant. Continue reading “Resurrecting bin Laden, for the final kill”
It’s been more than a week since my friend had said, apnader naamte hobe, but there has not been much of a response from women’s organisations to the government’s back-pedalling on the Women Development Policy regarding equal inheritance shares for Muslim women.
Meanwhile, news has come to light of a group?variously described in media reports as religious extremists, villagers, local influentials, members of the ruling party?having assaulted 28 Bauls (mystics) who had met in a two-day programme, held annually in a Pangsha village (Faridpur) on April 6. Media reports vary regarding the reasons, according to one, their meet was termed anti-Islamic as Baul songs contain lyrics which go against the Quran and Sharia (Blitz, April 8, 2011); according to police sources, the house where the programme was held was near the mosque, local leaders requests to Lalon followers had been disregarded (New Age, April 9, 2011). Altercation started soon after the programme began, followed by Bauls being dragged off to the mosque. Their long locks of hair and beard were cut short, mustaches were shaved off, all under the instructions of the local mosque’s imam. They were forced to pray, to utter words of repentance (touba). The thana initially refused to file a case. Only one of the named aggressors, a madrasa principal, has been arrested thus far, all others have reportedly fled the village.
In the meanwhile, Mufti Fazlul Haque Amini, chief of the Islami Ain Bastobayon Committee (Committee for the Implementation of Islamic Law), and chairman of a faction of the Islamic Oikya Jote, has threatened to “paralyse” the country at an hour’s notice if the Women Development Policy is not annulled. Twenty thousand madrasas will “respond to our call immediately.” He also threatened to launch counter attacks if his son, Abul Hasnat, allegedly picked up by law enforcing personnel in plainclothes on April 11, who hasn’t been released yet, was harmed.
Amini claims his son was kidnapped, and that too, on the prime minister’s orders. The Bangladesh Nationalist Party says, the abduction was carried out at the instruction of the government, that Hasnat should be publicly handed over to his family.
We are not against the development of women, says Amini, but it must be in accordance with the holy Quran and Hadis. Members of the current cabinet do not understand the language of the Quran, they interpret it wrongly. We are not against the celebration of the Bangla New Year either. Only against those anti-Islamic activities which were committed on April 14.
Protests demanding exemplary punishment to the assaulters have been held, by left and cultural activists (outside Jatiya Jadughor), by university teachers and students (Rajshahi),by others too, including the Palli Baul Unnayan Sangstha, a recipient of financial support from US embassy (Dhaka) in recognition of helping “save the music of the wandering ministrels of Bangladesh” (ambassador Patricia Butenis, May 24, 2006).
Amini has demanded the resignation of the law minister, and the director general of the Islamic Foundation (April 11). Qawmi madrasas are breeding centres of militants, they should be brought under the education ministry, these comments, attributed to the minister, are denied, he claims he was misinterpreted. The government, adds Amini, blames subversive activities on Islamist groups without conducting proper investigation.
It is worth noting that Amini’s threat to paralyse the country by calling on madrasa students refers to Qawmi i.e., private madrasas which follow the Deobandi curriculum, their growth was patronised by military rulers, generals Ziaur Rahman and
H M Ershad, 1975-1990. That, according to WikiLeaks Dhaka revelations, the UK’s Department for International Development (DFID) has been working with USAid to develop and implement a standardised curriculum for unregulated madrassas as a “common counter-terrorism goal” (Guardian, December 21, 2010). Alia madrassas i.e., the government ones, include science, mathematics, English and vocational training in their curriculum in addition to religious teachings, whereas the Qawmi curriculum teaches only the Quran, hadis, sunnah, and orthodox interpretations of the sharia.
Apparently 300-400 crores taka flow into madrasas annually, spendings unsupervised by the government, a cause for concern which has recently led the DGFI (military intelligence agency) to recommend that a madrasa university be set up. It is a proposal which has the support of US embassy staff who are involved in the project ; according to Afsan Chowdhury, the underlying idea is that a university opened under DGFI scrutiny and control, complemented by US advice, will aid in containing the money and those who have militant interests, that it will assist in tracing the money to their funding sources (DGFI and US embassy push for a madrasa university : concern about incompetence, opinion.bdnews24.com, January 17, 2011).
I find it also worth noting that the regional Counter-Terrorism Centre (for South Asia) is being set up in Dhaka, that the European Union is providing 1.5 million euros alongwith technological assistance, that training will be provided by counter-terrorism experts from European countries, the US and Canada to investigators, police and intelligence agency personnel across South Asia, this includes India, Pakistan, Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, Myanmar, possiby some other countries as well. The proposed centre’s Southeast Asian counterpart, SEARCCT (The Southeast Asia Regional centre for Counter Terrorism), was launched in Malaysia in 2003, it offers courses on terrorism financing investigation/money laundering, enhancing port and aviation security, cyber terrorism, counter terrorist laws, chemical and biological terrorism, examining documents for fraudulence etc., etc.
The prime minister’s strong commitment to eliminate all sorts of terrorism and Dhaka’s support for EU causes in international forums and the UN, has been cited as being the reasons for selecting Dhaka. It is a move that has been welcomed by opinion-makers in the country, as the editorial of the leading English daily worded it, the news is a “welcome development” because although Bangladesh is not a “focal point of terrorism,” its “vulnerability to this global menace cannot be overemphasized.” Therefore, we need to “make the most of it” (The Daily Star, October 21, 2010).
What I find mind-boggling is the blind refusal of the majority among those who identify themselves as the thinking sections of society, whether writers or journalists, poets, politicians, women’s movement activists, academics, teachers, researchers, developmentalists, NGOs, business people, entrepreneurs, lawyers, doctors, engineers, other professionals and so on, to intellectually and politically confront the ten-year long war on terror for what it is. A hoax. A fraudulent war, actually being conducted to occupy lands and resources, one that has led to the killing and maiming of millions, to untold sufferings, to irreversible uprooting, dislocation and destruction.
Okay, I grant that for many of them to think (alone, silently, hand-wringingly), let alone lend support to the idea that 9/11 was in all likelihood a false flag operation is irreverent of America Almighty, a sin they would not dream of committing. But at least the WMD lie, the irrefutable evidence that the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were planned prior to 9/11 (Libya too, at least, according to US ret. General Wesley Clark),the living proof that suicide hijackers of 9/11 have-risen-from-the-dead, the US’ open acceptance that Osama bin Laden has long been dead (since December 13, 2001, see Years of Deceit, Veterans Today, December 5, 2009), one would have thought that that would encourage people to think independently. Critically. What prevents people? Fear? Of what? Being irreverent? Possibly. Now that America, as George Monbiot points out, has become a religion, where US leaders see themselves as priests of a divine mission to rid the world of its demons (Guardian, July 29, 2003).
There is a possibility, one that cannot be ruled out, that we are loath to let go of a deeply-nurtured belief that violence is exclusively religious, one that is deeply-rooted in ekattur when we struggled to liberate ourselves from our Pakistani rulers and their local collaborators, in whose eyes we were deemed to be not pukka Muslims, to be filthy Hindus. That we cling to the idea that the violence unleashed by secular forces, despite all the coups, counter-coups, the institutionalised violence committed by civilian governments, repeatedly so, continually so, is accidental. Stray. Aberrations. Time magazine cover (August 9, 2010), exploiting Afghan women's suffering to justify and perpetuate the occupation of Afghanistan. ??Jodie Bieber for Time Magazine
And, that it is religious violence, particularly of the Islamically-oriented variety, which targets women. It is a story that was craftily manipulated to invade Afghanistan (Laura Bush,Cherie Blair), that is being regurgitated endlessly by mainstream western media to justify its continued occupation, as does the Time magazine cover of August 9, 2010, the photo of an 18 year old Afghan whose nose was severed as punishment for disgracing her family, underlined by the question, What Happens if We Leave Afghanistan? One that coincided with the release of 76,900 classified Afghan war documents which tell the story of the horrors of war. Afghan women, says a leaked CIA document, “could serve as ideal messengers in humanizing the ISAF [International Security Assistance Force] role in combating the Taliban…” (Anne Holmes, The Face that Launched a Thousand Drones?) US Army Cpl. Jeremy Morlock grins and gives a thumbs-up sign as he poses with Gul Mudin?s body, who was unarmed and executed by U.S. soldiers. Note that the boy?s right pinky finger appears to have been severed. Staff Sgt. Calvin Gibbs reportedly used a pair of razor-sharp medic?s shears to cut off the finger, which he presented to Holmes as a trophy for killing his first Afghan (Rolling Stone, March 27, 2011.
But what about the other photo? In early 2010, a platoon of US soldiers in Afghanistan went on a shooting spree, killing at least 4 unarmed civilians and mutilating several corpses. Members of the “kill team” took scores of photos chronicling their kills. Before these became public, the Pentagon went to extraordinary lengths to suppress them (Rolling Stone, March 27, 2011).?Just in case you are thinking, but these are men killing each other, let me remind you that acts of rape in Abu Ghuraib, of imprisoned Iraqi women were photographed, but totally suppressed. And, just in case you are thinking, that it is all the act of a few bad apples, know that more than 1/3rd of American women soldiers are raped, that 41% of female veterans allege to have been sexually harassed. That more are likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than killed by enemy fire in Iraq. That the US defense department did not cooperate with a House panel investigating sexual assaults of female soldiers by ordering its top official on sexual abuse not to show up despite a subpoena.
We cannot counter terror, by being, by insisting on being, half-blind. To fail to do so, makes one culpable.
Soldiers rest just after the My Lai massacre, 1968.
My Lai 4, Vietnam, 1968.
It?s the smile. In photographs?released by the German weekly?Der Spiegel, an American soldier is looking directly at the camera with a wide grin. His hand is on the body of an Afghan whom he and his fellow soldiers appear to have just killed, allegedly for sport. In a sense, we?ve seen that smile before: on the faces of the American men and women who piled naked Iraqi prisoners on top of each other, eight years ago, and posed for photographs and videos?at the Abu Ghraib prison outside of Baghdad.
It?s also the cameras.?Der Spiegel reported this week that it had obtained four thousand photographs and videos taken by American soldiers who referred to themselves as a ?kill team.? (Der Spiegel chose to publish only three of the photographs.) The images are in the hands of military prosecutors. Five soldiers, including Jeremy Morlock, the smiling man in the picture, who is twenty-two years old, are awaiting courts-martial for the murder of three Afghan civilians; seven other soldiers had lesser, related charges filed against them, including drug use. On Tuesday, Morlock?s lawyer said that he would plead guilty.
We saw photographs, too,?at My Lai 4, where a few dozen American soldiers slaughtered at least five hundred South Vietnamese mothers, children, and old men and women in a long morning of unforgettable carnage more than four decades ago. Ronald Haeberle, an Army photographer, was there that day with two cameras. He directed the lens of his official one, with black-and-white film in it, away from the worst sights; there is a shot of soldiers with faint smiles on their faces, leaning back in relaxed poses, and no sign of the massacre that has taken place. But the color photos that Haeberle took on his personal camera, for his own use, were far more explicit?they show the shot-up bodies of toddlers, and became some of the most unforgettable images of that wasteful war. In most of these cases, when we later meet these soldiers, in interviews or during court proceedings, they come across as American kids?articulate, personable, and likable.
Why photograph atrocities? And why pass them around to buddies back home or fellow soldiers in other units? How could the soldiers? sense of what is unacceptable be so lost? No outsider can have a complete answer to such a question. As someone who has been writing about war crimes since My Lai, though, I have come to have a personal belief: these soldiers had come to accept the killing of civilians?recklessly, as payback, or just at random?as a facet of modern unconventional warfare. In other words, killing itself, whether in a firefight with the Taliban or in sport with innocent bystanders in a strange land with a strange language and strange customs, has become ordinary. In long, unsuccessful wars, in which the enemy?the people trying to kill you?do not wear uniforms and are seldom seen, soldiers can lose their bearings, moral and otherwise. The consequences of that lost bearing can be hideous. This is part of the toll wars take on the young people we send to fight them for us. The G.I.s in Afghanistan were responsible for their actions, of course. But it must be said that, in some cases, surely, as in Vietnam, the soldiers can also be victims.
The?Der Spiegel photographs also help to explain why the American war in Afghanistan can probably never be ?won,? in my view, just as we did not win in Vietnam. Terrible things happen in war, and terrible things are happening every day in Afghanistan, as Americans continue to conduct nightly assassination raids and have escalated the number of bombing sorties. There are also reports of suspected Taliban sympathizers we turn over to Afghan police and soldiers being tortured or worse. This will be a long haul; revenge in Afghan society does not have to come immediately. We could end up not knowing who hit us, or why, a decade or two from now.
[Today’s column is dedicated to those who believe US presidents don’t lie, that only politicians of Bangladesh, Pakistan, Ghana, Nigeria, Iran etc., etc., those who belong to the uncivilised south, or to fundamentalist Muslim countries, do].
“We’ve got a very simple principle here that every country in the world that is party to the Vienna convention on diplomatic relations has upheld in the past and should uphold in the future,” said Obama at a press conference (February 15, 2011) where he declared that by not releasing Raymond Davis, accused of killing two Pakistanis point-blank in Lahore (January 27, 2011), Pakistan was violating the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.
“If our diplomats are in another country, then they are not subject to that country’s local prosecution.” “We expect Pakistan, that’s a signatory and recognises Davis as a diplomat, to abide by the same convention.”
It was rich coming from the president of a country which has violated international law in its treatment of foreign nationals. Which captured and abducted scores of men in Afghanistan, sent them off to Guantanamo hooded, shackled, bound and drugged, locked them up in small cages and tortured them. International conventions do not apply, said Donald Rumsfeld, when defense secretary, for they are “unlawful combatants.” No insignia, no chain of command, carrying arms openly. True of the Taliban, but true as well of American special forces who eased in the Northern Alliance’s victory. They wore civilian clothes, and kept their weapons out of sight (Patrick Martin, “Afghan POWs at Guantanamo base: bound and gagged, drugged, caged like animals,” WSWS, 14 January 2002).
It was rich coming from the president of a country which has failed to observe the Vienna Convention on Consular Access to which the US is a signatory, which obliges countries to notify foreign govenments when their citizens have been detained. US states regularly flout Vienna conventions, to the extent of executing foreign nationals without allowing them to contact their embassy officials, a practice upheld by the US Supreme Court. More bizarre was the reason advanced by the state of Texas when George Bush was governor. The international treaty applied only to the federal government, not to Texas. The latter was not a signatory.
Full diplomatic immunity is enjoyed only by diplomatic agents, by those who are head of the mission or a member of the mission’s diplomatic staff i.e., those having diplomatic rank (ambassador to third secretary), explains Craig Murray, former British ambassador to Uzbekistan 2002-2004 who was removed from his ambassadorial position for criticising Western support for the dictatorial Karimov regime. A second category exists, writes Murray, the mission’s “administrative and technical staff” enjoy limited diplomatic immunity but it specifically excludes “acts performed outside the course of their duties” (“This CIA agent is no diplomat,” Guardian, 28 February 2011.
Raymond Davis was not one of Obama’s “our diplomat.” There was no reason for the president not to know that, if he didn’t, he seems too ill-informed to be the president of the United States.
According to news reports, sources in the Pakistan Foreign Office said, the US had pressurised them to forge backdated documents to allow the US to claim that Davis worked for the US Embassy. But Davis himself had told arresting police officers that he was “just a contractor” working out of the Lahore Consulate (Dave Lindorff, The Case Mounts Against The CIA?s Raymond Davis, Eurasia Review, 25 Feb 2011).?Further, a week before the shooting, the US Embassy had submitted a list of its Embassy workers to the Foreign Office. Forty-eight names, no Davis. A day after the shooting, a “revised” list was submitted by the Embassy. Sorry. The earlier list had “overlooked” Davis.?To make matters (lies) worse, Davis was carrying a regular passport when arrested. A day after the shooting, however, Lahore Consulate officials rushed over with a shiny new diplomatic passport; it was not accepted. To complicate matters even further, Davis was carrying a Department of defense contractor ID when arrested.
But it wasn’t only Obama. Other top-ranking US officials too, lied. Hillary Clinton, in a message to Pakistan’s president Asif Zardari insisted that Raymond Davis should be released immediately. Senator John F. Kerry, chair, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, went to Pakistan to advise the government to respect the international law which grants diplomatic immunity to consulate officials.
These lies were backed up by threats. All bilateral contracts with Pakistan were put on hold until Davis’s release. The dispute, said diplomatic sources, could affect three major events: president Asif Zardari’s planned visit to Washington this year; the next round of US-Pakistan strategic dialogue, and the trilateral talks between Pakistan, Afghanistan and the US (Dawn, February 8, 2011).?Foreign minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi was told that secretary Clinton would probably not meet him in the Munich international security conference. Qureshi postponed his visit (only to be fired later for not agreeing to change Davis’ record; he’d rather resign, he said, than become “an accessory to multiple murder”). http://indiatoday.intoday.in/site/Story/129647/world/qureshi-lost-foreign-ministry-portfolio-for-opposing-immun The row could also affect $1.5 billion annual assistance to Pakistan. It could affect a $7.5 billion, 5-year civilian aid package. Official visits. Official meetings. In short, it could cast a shadow on everything. Until and unless Raymond Davis was released.
Outside the US, commentators began wondering very early on what on earth Davis (“our diplomat,” our “administrative and technical staff”) was doing with the items found in his car: a 9mm Glock pistol, GPS tracker, satellite phone, telescope, five magazines, 75 bullets of prohibited bore, two cutters, two cell phones, ATM cards, first aid kit, PIA tickets, maps, a digital camera which included photographs of sensitive military installations, bridges and Ack Ack gun positions near bridges and bunkers facing the Indian border, masks, make-up kit.?A police investigation of calls later showed calls to 33 Pakistanis, including 27 militants from the banned Pakistani Taliban, and Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, a group identified as a “terrorist” organisation by both Pakistan and US governments, one that is blamed for prime minister Benazir Bhutto’s assassination and Wall Street journalist Daniel Pearl’s slaying.
But it wasn’t only top-ranking US officials, the US press too, lied. After the Guardian and the Associated Press reported that Raymond Davis is “beyond a shadow of doubt” employed by the CIA (Guardian, February 20, 2011),?that the arrested US official is “actually a CIA contractor” (AP, February 21, 201),?the New York Times ‘fessed up. Alongwith major US news organisations, wrote its editor, the NYT too had agreed to the “request of the Obama administration” to withold Davis’ CIA connections from the American public. Despite knowing fully well, the American press had regurgitated endlessly that Davis was one of “our diplomats,” that he enjoyed “diplomatic immunity.” NYT’s editor agreed that their stance which had led to misleading the public was “unpalatable,” but he didn’t “regret” the judgment.
Muhammad Faheem and Faizan Haider, had been on a motorbike which swerved in front of Davis’s Honda Civic when he stopped at a red light. A former special forces soldier, Davis, whipped out his semi-automatic Glock pistol and opened fire from behind the wheel of his car. Five shots sliced through the windscreen and killed Faheem. Faizan began running, Davis got out of his car and fired another five shots. According to the post-mortem report, Faizan’s body had three bullets in the front, two in the back. Davis walked back to the car, called for help on a military-style radio, took out his camera and started photographing the dead men. All in broad daylight. A rescue squad soon appeared driving at high speed down the opposite end of the road, it killed motorcyclist Ibadur Rahman. Not finding Davis who had by then fled, the rescue car sped off in the direction of the Lahore Consulate jettisoning items which included 100 bullets, knives, gloves, a blindfold, a piece of cloth with the American flag. While fleeing, one of its doors swung open and, according to witnesses, an American brandished a rifle and threatened to fire anyone who got in the way (Declan Walsh, A CIA spy, a hail of bullets, three killed and a US-Pakistan diplomatic row, Guardian, February 20, 2011).?The rescue car men were spirited out of the country, Davis was caught.
There was a fourth death. On February 6, Shumaila Kanwal, 26 year old widow of Faheem, committed suicide by taking insecticide. The killer should be shot like my husband was shot. I want blood for blood. He is being treated favorably instead. He will soon be set free. “I do not expect any justice from this government” (Dawn, February 7, 2011).
On March 16 Raymond Davis was released. According to official reports, $2.34 million in Diyat (blood money) had been paid to the legal heirs of those killed. When asked, Hillary Clinton denied that the US had paid “any compensation.” ?Did someone else, to your knowledge?? ?You will have to ask whoever you are interested in asking about that,? was her reply. According to the NYT, the money had been paid by members of the Pakistan government, to be reimbursed later by the US government, while others think, it was arranged by the Saudi government, anxious, because the Americans were “getting impatient.” Both Faheem and Faizan’s family went missing several days before the court hearing where diyat was agreed upon, some had been taken away by unidentified men. They were delivered to the court on the day of the hearing, also by unidentified men. When the judge asked them whether they had pardoned Davis, they replied in the affirmative but 19 family members have subsequently vanished. Were they forced to accept the deal? Were they afraid of retaliation because they had? Many in Pakistan think so. The lawyer representing Faizan has said, “I and my associate were kept in forced detention for hours” before the trial. Lawyers for both families have claimed that the family members were “forcibly taken to Kot Lahkpat Jail by unidentified men and made to sign papers pardoning Davis” (Dave Lindorff, Raymond Davis Walks, CounterPunch, March 17, 2011).l The issue of compensation was first raised when senator Kerry visited Islamabad to press for Davis’ release (Dawn, March 18, 2011).
Davis, writes Dawn’s former editor Abbas Nasir, was but a “pawn on a chessboard.” His near-two months long captivity and the gravity of charges were being used as “bargaining chips” in a larger game. Being played on a much wider stage, across a much broader canvas. Others think, the now-resolved dispute will lead to closer collaboration between Pakistan’s ISI and the CIA.
Lies. Threats. Intimidation. Many accessories to multiple murders.
CIA ?killer Raymond Davis being escorted to court by Pakistan police. Shumaila Kanwal, Faheem's widow, who committed suicide. Published in New Age Monday March 21, 2011
I’d thought of writing about the Nobel Laureate’s ouster from Grameen Bank last week, but fever intervened. Nobel Peace Prize laureates, Muhammad Yunus, right and Grameen Bank represented by Mosammat Taslima Begum hold the Nobel medal and diploma during the award ceremony at Oslo Town Hall Sunday, Dec. 10, 2006. (AP)
Mine has receded, the government’s however, has not. Their’s is prolonged, one that continues. High state and party functionaries have repeatedly spoken of “irregularities” with a feverish zeal as the Bangladesh Bank relieved Dr Muhammad Yunus of his duties as managing director of Grameen Bank.
He had violated the country’s retirement law, they said. Sixty years is the age limit but Yunus was 70. This made him “too old” to be Grameen Bank’s chief, said the finance minister. He should have left ten years ago, said the Bangladesh Bank, instead of staying on “illegally”for an extra ten years.
In a writ filed at the High Court, Yunus’ defence lawyers argued that the Bangladesh Bank’s directive was illegal. No show cause notice had been served, this made his removal “illegal, malafide and arbitrary.” A week later, on 8th March, Dr Yunus lost his High Court appeal when the judge ruled, ?Professor Yunus has been continuing in his job with no legal basis, therefore his petition has been rejected.? ?Neither Yunus nor any of his senior lawyers were present at the court. ?In recent months, the independence of the judiciary has been a matter of grave concern.
Yunus and 9 members of the board of directors have filed an appeal with the Supreme Court challenging the High Court’s order. A full bench hearing is scheduled for March 15. The HC’s decision was “entirely perverse” said Dr Yunus and the members of his board, it was passed without issuing any ruling.
The alignment of local, national and global influentials against, and in support of, Yunus is telling. The prime minister’s son Sajeeb Wajed, in an e-mail sent to international agencies, human rights organisations, US state department officials and prominent persons, wrote: Yunus’ only stature in Bangladesh is that of a “Nobel prize winner,” politically-speaking, he’s a “non-entity.” Accusing the Grameen Bank of “massive financial improprieties,” “tax evasion” and “embezzlement,” Sajeeb reminded us that despite being “criminal” offences, the government has not taken any “punitive” action against Yunus. It’s only concern is to “prevent further abuse of microcredit borrowers.” (dated March 5, 2011).
As I read the e-mail, I mulled, is this not the same prime ministerial offspring against whom allegations of taking a $2 million bribe from Chevron surfaced recently? A deal reportedly brokered by Dr. Tawfiq-e-Elahi Chowdhury, the prime minister’s energy advisor, a la, also, of WikiLeaks fame? (`People’s resistance to global capital and government collaboration is vindicated,’ WikiLeaks Bangladesh I, New Age, December 27, 2010). ?Did not the news item (December 17, 2010) later land the editor of Amar Desh in jail? At least, that’s the connection made by some. Bangladesh Chhatra League activists manhandle Grameen Bank staff and stakeholders who were holding a human chain in front of BM College in Barisal, March 11, 2011. Photo: Daily Star
by rahnuma ahmed Gaddafi vowing to crush protestors on February 22, 2011, from Bab al-Azizia, the very spot where US president Ronald Reagan sent fighter jets to kill him on April 15,1986, preserved as it was for 25 years
Colonel Muammar Gaddafi’s forty one-year reign has witnessed phenomenal shifts, after coming to power through a military coup in 1969, his anti-imperialist position?expressed through lending political and material support to various national liberation movements around the world (the Palestinian cause, alleged connection to the killing of Israeli athletes in 1972 Munich Olympics)?gradually gave way to embracing neo-liberalism toward the end of the last century.
In other words, from being a “terrorist rogue state” Gaddafi’s Libya became a “neoliberal client.” (Peter Boyle, Libya: How Gaddafi became a Western-backed dictator, Mathaba, 26.2.2011). ?The first had led to economic sanctions, to bombing raids ordered by US president Ronald Reagan aimed at assassinating Gaddafi. He survived. Those who didn’t are: his 15-month old adopted daughter, 45 Libyan soldiers and government officials, 15 civilians.
The second led to the development of close and personal friendship with many western leaders. Tony Blair’s relationship with Gaddafi was described by the latter’s son Saif, as being “excellent.” He has come to Libya many, many times. He stays with my father (Daily Mail, June 2010). ?While Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi’s relationship was described by some as a “slavish courtship” (Flavia Krause-Jackson, Berlusconi’s `Slavish’ Courtship of Qaddafi Haunts Italy, Bloomberg, February 23, 2011). ?In June 2009, Berloscuni shut down Rome’s biggest park to allow Gaddafi and his entourage of all-female bodyguards to set up camp. Beside Libya’s investment in Italian companies (Fiat SpA, UniCredit SpA, Juventus soccer team), beside Italy’s reliance on Libya for a quarter of its crude oil, Italy, according to the European Union’s latest annual report on arms export (2009), tops the list in Libya’s military suppliers in Europe, worth 112 million euros. Britain ranks fifth with 25.5 million euros (Report exposes Italy and Malta as top EU arms exporters to Libya, Deutsche Presse-Agentur, February 23, 2011).
Was it this, Italy’s business ties with Libya, which led Berloscuni to not call Gaddafi after 4 days of protests? To say that he did not want to “disturb” Gaddafi?
David Cameron, British prime minister, however, was critical of his predecessor’s relationship with Gaddafi. It had been “too close.” It did not have “clear parameters.” These “should have been in place” when the relationship began (James Kirkup, Libya: Tony Blair ‘too close’ to Gaddafi regime, David Cameron claims, The Telegraph, 23 Feb 2011). Continue reading “`The Opportunity of a Century.' Western Military Intervention in Libya?”
A vicious cyclone had struck the night before. Dawn, stillness. A calm and eerie light. I tagged behind my older brothers as they ventured out, gazing in awe at a neighbouring house, its roof had flown off, while scenes of devastation lay around us with trees uprooted, branches severed from trunks, debris lying in the middle of the road. Fragments of a childhood memory.
As news of death and destruction poured into our home, so did groups of radio artists?singers, musicians?and many others, all working for the Chittagong radio station, like my father, a journalist, who worked in its news section.
By midday we were out in the streets, singers and musicians at the front, the rest behind, two rows of men, women and children, holding on to the corners and edges of a white billowing bedsheet. As the long procession wound down major roads, pedestrians turned around at the sound of singing, reaching for their pockets as we drew nearer. Women and girls peered at us, while boys were sent out, clutching notes, or a handful of coins (in those days, coins mattered). As the hours passed, the chador no longer remained taut; heavy with cash offerings, it sagged in the middle.
We trooped home. Instructed to separate coins from banknotes, we kids worked feverishly as my mother busied herself in rustling up some food for the sudden influx of guests. Neatly laid out piles of banknotes, tottering columns of coins. My father and his colleagues counted, double-checked. The money was sent off to aid cyclone victims. It was 1965. It was Chittagong. We belonged to Pakistan.
The central seat of power, Islamabad, was far away. It was (still) possible for state functionaries and artists to come together. To take to the streeets spontaneously, aroused by community feelings of helping people in distress. An event that was not orchestrated. No heads had rolled. Had cameras clicked? No, not that I remember.
Fast forward to now. Natural disasters. Large cheques are donated to the prime minister’s relief fund. Banks. Multinational mobile phone companies. Business associations. Civil society. NGOs. Smaller cheques too, a day’s salary of government employees, of private firms. An extended hand offers a cheque, as the other accepts, both faces turn toward the TV cameras, toward the photojournalists. The state-capital-media nexus, although riven by internal disagreements and rivalries, work collectively to manufacture national interests. A far cry from earlier times when broadcasting and telecasting space was controlled by state-owned Radio Bangladesh and Bangladesh Television, when 5-10 regular privately owned dailies, and a film industry, not known for signs of originality, was all that there was. Before things began changing in the 1990s.
Market reforms however, began earlier, Ziaur Rahman (1975-1981) and Hussain Mohammad Ershad (1981-1990) used them as instruments to build and maintain political coalitions, particularly with traders and industrialists. Economic liberalisation programmes, traded off for garnering the political support of business elites, did not, as Fahimul Quadir points out, contribute to the micromanagement of the economy, nor to the advancement of human development goals.?Instead, they allowed big business to emerge as a major player in national decision-making. Not unsurprisingly, contradictions emerged?it adversely affected the state’s ability to enforce contracts, to develop a mechanism for redistributing assets?but these were ignored by the military rulers as the issue of gaining legitimacy among civilian sectors was far more pressing.
Despite General Ershad being ousted from power in 1990, subsequent regimes, led by Khaleda Zia and Sheikh Hasina, treaded earlier paths, smoothed by undisclosed contributions to party coffers, far more important than improving the living standards of the majority. These patterns are similar to those in Philippines, president Marcos, US ally and long-time friend, was deposed in 1986 through a popular uprising, but despite his ouster, many, if not most, of the “fundamental relations of exploitation,” remained intact. Democracy was “nominally restored” while the masses continued to suffer, writes Jonathan Beller; prostituted Filipinas became overseas Filipino workers (OFWs), radicals continued to be murdered, giving lie to a particular fantasy about the importance of individuals (autocrats are deposed, but the system does not get dismantled).
Ceaseless political party bickering which has characterised politics in Bangladesh for the last two decades, has benefited media corporatisation’s ideology, “impartial” and “neutral” news journalism has been redefined as that which is independent of political party allegiances, distracting attention from the fact that corporate media works to further corporate interests, to create a consumer culture, to advance the interests of market forces (Fahmidul Huq). Not surprisingly, there have been other contradictions as well. As Zeenat Huda Wahid notes, Khaleda Zia’s new media policy in 1992 initiated satellite television, leading to scores of Indian channels being available to Bangladeshi viewers. Despite, Huda argues, the BNP government’s crafting of a religio-territorial identity, one that was portrayed as resistant to Indian domination. ?Or, as Meghna Guhathakurta writes (1997), Sonar Bangla, the rallying cry of the liberation struggle?evoking images of classlessness, prosperity, peaceful agrarian relations?was not only abandoned by the Awami League post-1971, it has become “fossilised.” Sheikh Hasina’s government (1996-2001; 2008 onwards) has not veered from liberalisation policies initiated by previous governments, including those which are her sworn enemies, the BNP-Jamaat alliance that ruled the nation (2001-2007); the present government’s proclamation of Muktijuddher pokkher shokti is shorn of Shonar Bangla ideals, as fundamental relations of exploitation remain. Intact.
The culture industry’s victory lies in two things, “what it destroys as truth outside its sphere can be reproduced indefinitely within it as lies.” We can no longer simply talk of control, writes Sefik Seki Tatlic, we must talk of the nature of the interaction between one who is being controlled and the one who controls.?Of how the one that is “controlled” is asking for more control over him/herself while expecting to be compensated by a surplus of freedom to satisfy trivial needs and wishes. Of how the fulfillment of trivial needs is declared as freedom. Readers, remember, RC Cola, freedom of choice? Or, remember Grameen Phone’s current slogan, Stay Close, invoking family ideology (security, warmth, intimacy, support, romance) to further corporate profits (Stay Close so that we can fleece you?). Consumer freedom, Tatlic reminds us, implies as well the freedom to choose not to be engaged in any kind of socially sensible or politically articulated struggle. Very true in the case of Bangladesh, for one does not see media celebrities, singers, actors and actresses, writers, playwrights, intellectuals, advertising industry’s geniuses etc etc, those who froth at the mouth at the slightest mention of 1971, lend support to any of the pro-people struggles and movements current in Bangladesh, two of the foremost being the garments workers struggles for living wages and safe and secure workplaces, ?and, the Phulbari peoples struggle to not be uprooted from their land and livelihood, to resist the impoverishment which multinationals, and the government (both present and past) have destined for them.?Life is so much more comfortable for the ruling class and its functionaries when Muktijuddho gets divested of Shonar Bangla ideals, when fundamental relations of exploitation can, and do, remain intact. Telenor and Grameen Telecom have shown how a for-profit company can work with a non-profit one for the greater social good. Outlook India, Dec 26, 2009.
The category of the “spectacle” is the medialogical paradigm, says Beller, as the accumulation of capital becomes an image (think of all the commodities advertised), and again, as “the diplomatic presentation of hierarchical society to itself.” The spectacle is not merely a relation, but a relation of production for it produces consciousness. We must put language on images, he writes. Excited by Beller’s theory, I return to YouTube to watch Shahrukh Khan’s performance in Dhaka (I missed when it was shown live on TV), where Dhaka crowds, who had paid exorbitant amounts to purchase tickets, were said to have been bowled-over by the mega-star’s performance.?A few voices have expressed their disgust at the “vulgarism,” ?at the “obscenity,” at his cultural arrogance, his condescending attitude toward the Bangladeshi audience, at his oft-repeated use of a “slang” word (not written by those who felt offended, I had to go to great trouble to discover it). Shala! Now, shala is a kinship term, used by the husband to indicate his wife’s brother. Gentrification has led to `shaylok‘ being preferred over shala, and I have yet to find a Bengali able to explain why it offends. The answer lies in its underlying message, embedded in patriarchal power relations, deeply sexualised, “I f..k your sister.” Bollywood superstar Shahrukh Khan at the Dhaka army stadium, dancing with Russian models, at the all sold King Khan Live in Dhaka show, December 12, 2010.
The diplomatic presentation of hierarchical relations between India and Bangladesh as the BSF, the Indian border forces, kill Bangladeshis randomly, systematically? The King Khan tamasha made us forget the truth that lies outside the sphere crafted by the culture industries. Shala is a patriarchal lie, it must be dismantled. Published in New Age, Monday February 21, 2011
Mubarak’s Ignominious Departure and the Fear Factor
by rahnuma ahmed
Mubarak is gone! Egypt is free!
Equally true is the fact that power has been assumed by the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces. That the 30 year-old state of emergency has not yet been lifted, neither has any time frame been set, nothing beyond the invocation, “as soon as the current circumstances are over.” ?Equally true is the fact that Egypt’s new, transitional (military) rulers have been quick to affirm Egypt’s commitment to all regional and international obligations and treaties, an implicit signal that the treaty of all treaties, Egypt’s peace treaty with Israel?propagated as a bulwark for peace and stability in the region, but in reality, one which helps sustain Israel’s military occupation of the West Bank and the seige of Gaza?is not under threat. An affirmation swiftly welcomed by the Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who described the treaty as “having greatly contributed to both countries,” as “the cornerstone for peace and stability in the entire Middle East”; close at his heels was US president Barack Obama who welcomed the Egyptian pledge to “stand by” its international obligations.
But, it is also true that while Egyptian demonstrators, both young and old, rallied to scrub off slogans and graffiti from walls, to clean up the streets of Cairo of rocks, debris of violence, charred remains of Mubarak’s effigy (“Clearing the streets is just a start. It is our country now”), protestors still camped out in Tahrir square, refusing to leave until the military issued official statements on their next steps. It is also true that pro-democracy activists insist that their revolt was not against one man but against the whole regime, which Mubarak and his predecessors, had instituted. It is also true that their invincible strength prevented Omar Suleiman?the CIA’s man in Cairo who devised and implemented the programme for renditioning and torturing terrorist suspects,?in whom Mubarak transferred authorities while still clinging to power?from taking charge. Pro-democracy activists insist that the revolution will not be over until all responsible for the hundreds of deaths will be investigated, tried and punished. It will not be over until Egypt’s stolen funds are restored. Swiss banks have frozen assets of the ousted president, who is currently hunkered down in his residence at the Red Sea tourist resort, Sharm al-Sheikh. Former interior minister Habib El Adly, former prime minister Ahmed Nazif have been banned from travelling, their assets have been frozen. Former information minister Anna El Feqy has been placed under house arrest while rumors fly of business tycoons fleeing. But it is also true that while figures are totted up of how much the former president, his Welsh wife and their son fleeced Egypt, that while the huge personal wealth amassed by other members of the corrupt coterie are calculated, one does not hear of corruption within the army. That these stories are silenced.
But it is undeniable that the mass uprising was organic. One that persisted after Mubarak’s ouster, attested to by scenes of youths in Alexandria, the mainstay of the uprising, stopping cars and telling their occupants, abide by traffic rules. Of telling pedestrians, do not give bribes, read up the constitution.
It is also true that the mass uprising did not occur overnight but was, as Marwan Bishara reminds us, “the culmination of countless sit-ins, strikes, pickets, and demonstrations.”
That behind the 18 day popular revolt lies long years of grassroots mobilisation, the tireless efforts of scores of coalition builders who worked with labour unions and opposition parties, both old and new, including the Muslim Brotherhood. That we must not forget people such as, says Bishara, the late Mohammad El-Sayed Said who helped to found the Cairo Institute of Human Rights Studies and, the Egyptian Organisation for Human Rights. Who underwent arrest and torture for writing the “much-acclaimed report about the punishment of dissidents by torture” (Al-Ahram). Who died last year after a long period of ill-treatment at the hands of the Mubarak regime, and a 2-year struggle with cancer. Who was “much missed in Tahrir Square.” There were many others. CAIRO, EGYPT - FEBRUARY 01: Anti-government protestors wave their shoes, in a gesture of anger, after President Hosni Mubarak announces that he will not seek re-election on February 1, 2011 in Cairo, Egypt. Protests in Egypt continued with the largest gathering yet, with many tens of thousands assembling in central Cairo, demanding the ouster of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarek. The Egyptian army has said it will not fire on protestors as they gather in large numbers in central Cairo. (Photo by Peter Macdiarmid/Getty Images)
It is also true that Mubarak was suffering from severe delusions when he confided in a 20 minute telephone conversation to former Israeli defense minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer, a close friend and ally, that he was looking for “an honorable way out” (Press TV, February 12, 2011). ?This was on Thursday, February 10, the day he refused to step down as anticipated, offering his “children” constitutional changes instead, and transfer of authorities to Suleiman. It was the speech greeted with raised shoes, the ultimate sign of dishonor for leaders and politicians in our parts of the world. One that was globally iconised by Muntazer al-Zaidi, the Iraqi journalist who threw his shoe at George Bush in 2008. A farewell parting. Continue reading “THE END OF AUTHORITARIANISM IN THE ARAB WORLD?”
It?s increasingly clear that the operation was a planned assassination, multiply violating elementary norms of international law. There appears to have been no attempt to apprehend the unarmed victim, as presumably could have been done by 80 commandos facing virtually no opposition?except, they claim, from his wife, who lunged towards them. In societies that profess some respect for law, suspects are apprehended and brought to fair trial. I stress ?suspects.? In April 2002, the head of the?FBI,?Robert Mueller, informed the press that after the most intensive investigation in history, the?FBI?could say no more than that it ?believed? that the plot was hatched in Afghanistan, though implemented in the?UAE?and Germany. What they only believed in April 2002, they obviously didn?t know 8 months earlier, when Washington dismissed tentative offers by the Taliban (how serious, we do not know, because they were instantly dismissed) to extradite bin Laden if they were presented with evidence?which, as we soon learned, Washington didn?t have. Thus Obama was simply lying when he said, in his White House statement, that ?we quickly learned that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by al Qaeda.?
La Mohammed Kalay, Afghanistan, 2010.
Abu Ghraib, Iraq, 2003.
Soldiers rest just after the My Lai massacre, 1968.
My Lai 4, Vietnam, 1968.
