WHO Report on the Global Tobacco Epidemic

This report came out in February 2008 and although I am an avid consumer of news I never saw anything in the mainstream press about it.

According to the WHO press release:

7 FEBRUARY 2008 NEW YORK -- WHO today released new data showing that while progress has been made, not a single country fully implements all key tobacco control measures, and outlined an approach that governments can adopt to prevent tens of millions of premature deaths by the middle of this century.

In a new report which presents the first comprehensive analysis of global tobacco use and control efforts, WHO finds that only 5% of the world’s population live in countries that fully protect their population with any one of the key measures that reduce smoking rates. The report also reveals that governments around the world collect 500 times more money in tobacco taxes each year than they spend on anti-tobacco efforts. It finds that tobacco taxes, the single most effective strategy, could be significantly increased in nearly all countries, providing a source of sustainable funding to implement and enforce the recommended approach, a package of six policies called MPOWER (see below).

“While efforts to combat tobacco are gaining momentum, virtually every country needs to do more. These six strategies are within the reach of every country, rich or poor and, when combined as a package, they offer us the best chance of reversing this growing epidemic,” said Dr Margaret Chan, Director-General of WHO. Dr Chan launched the WHO Report of the Global Tobacco Epidemic at a news conference with New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Bloomberg Philanthropies helped fund the report.

“The report released today is revolutionary,” Mayor Bloomberg said. “For the first time, we have both a rigorous approach to stop the tobacco epidemic and solid data to hold us all accountable. No country fully implements all of the MPOWER policies and 80% of countries don’t fully implement even one policy. While tobacco control measures are sometimes controversial, they save lives and governments need to step up and do the right thing.”

The six MPOWER strategies are:

Monitor tobacco use and prevention policies
Protect people from tobacco smoke
Offer help to quit tobacco use
Warn about the dangers of tobacco
Enforce bans on tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship
Raise taxes on tobacco

The report also documents the epidemic's shift to the developing world, where 80% of the more than eight million annual tobacco-related deaths projected by 2030 are expected to occur.

This shift, the report says, results from a global tobacco industry strategy to target young people and adults in the developing world, ensuring that millions of people become fatally addicted every year. The targeting of young women in particular is highlighted as one of the “most ominous potential developments of the epidemic’s growth".

The global analysis, compiled by WHO with information provided by 179 Member States, gives governments and other groups a baseline from which to monitor efforts to stop the epidemic in the years ahead. The MPOWER package provides countries with a roadmap to help them meet their commitments to the widely embraced global tobacco treaty known as the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which came into force in 2005.

WHO is also working with global partners to scale up the help that can be offered to countries to implement the strategies.

Dr Douglas Bettcher, Director of WHO’s Tobacco Free Initiative, said the six MPOWER strategies would create a powerful response to the tobacco epidemic. “This package will create an enabling environment to help current tobacco users quit, protect people from second-hand smoke and prevent young people from taking up the habit,” he said.

Other key findings in the report include:

Only 5% of the global population is protected by comprehensive national smoke-free legislation and 40% of countries still allow smoking in hospitals and schools;
Only 5% of the world’s population lives in countries with comprehensive national bans on tobacco advertising and promotion;
Just 15 countries, representing 6% of the global population, mandate pictorial warnings on tobacco packaging;
Services to treat tobacco dependence are fully available in only nine countries, covering 5% of the world’s people;
Tobacco tax revenues are more than 4000 times greater than spending on tobacco control in middle-income countries and more than 9000 times greater in lower-income countries. High- income countries collect about 340 times more money in tobacco taxes than they spend on tobacco control.

For more information, please contact:

Alison Clements-HuntCommunications Officer WHO, Geneva
Telephone: + 41 22 791 5539 Mobile: +41 79 516 5601
E-mail: clementshunta@who.int
Stéfanie LanielCommunications Officer WHO, Geneva
Telephone: +41 22 791 1018Mobile: +41 79 475 5524
E-mail: laniels@who.int

The report is available here.

Related links:: Tobacco: topical overview :: WHO Report of the Global Tobacco Epidemic and related documents

Letter to El Pais Ombudsman regarding false information on those Colombian laptops

The letter, as is usual with El Pais, never even received an acknowledgment from the Ombudsman. The letter was published though by Spanish blog alterzoom.org

Estimado Sr.

Sobre su artículo 'Noticia Bomba'. En primer lugar, escoge ud. sólo 2 cartas, ¿cuántas recibió? y en segundo lugar, no dice toda la verdad referente a los ordenadores 'de las FARC'.

¿Usted tiene pruebas definitivas que los ordenadores vistos por Intepol fueron los mismos recuperados del campamento de Reyes? Lo dudo, pero si tiene pruebas, publíquenlas. El anexo nº 6 del informe Interpol "Principios Generales" Seizure of e-Evidence (decomiso de pruebas electrónicas)" , en el apartado 2 Principios Generales, dice textualmente:"Al manejar pruebas, es de crucial importancia seguir los principios generales establecidos, a saber [1-3]: - presencia de testigos en el lugar de los hechos;" Además, el informe tampoco asegura que esos ordenadores pertenecían a Raúl Reyes, ni siquiera a las FARC; el informe no aporta ninguna prueba o estudio al respecto.

¿Por qué no ha hecho mención de lo que dijo Interpol textualmente?: "En el informe de INTERPOL también se resalta que el cometido de su peritaje técnico no es en absoluto evaluar la exactitud o las fuentes del contenido de las pruebas instrumentales."

Así que el informe de Interpol NO significa la validación de la interpretación colombiana de sus contenidos, al contrario de lo que dijo el titular de su artículo "Interpol confirma la relación de Chávez y Ecuador con las FARC"

El artículo de El País empieza así: "La Organización Internacional de Policía Criminal (Interpol) ha confirmado en una rueda de prensa ofrecida hoy en Bogotá que los datos encontrados en el ordenador de uno de los jefes militares del FARC, Raúl Reyes, confirman una relación directa entre el gobierno ecuatoriano y el venezolano, presidido por Hugo Chávez, con la guerrilla colombiana."

Eso es falso como muestra el propio comunicado de Interpol, ¿Cuándo una rectificación?

Tampoco hizo ud. mención en su artículo 'Noticia Bomba' de otra cosa que había dicho Interpol:

"Entre el 1 de marzo de 2008, fecha en que las autoridades colombianas incautaron a las FARC las ocho pruebas instrumentales de carácter informático, y el 3 de marzo de 2008 a las 11.45 horas, momento en que dichas pruebas fueron entregadas al Grupo Investigativo de Delitos Informáticos de la Dirección de Investigación Criminal (DIJIN) de Colombia, el acceso a los datos contenidos en las citadas pruebas no se ajustó a los principios reconocidos internacionalmente para el tratamiento de pruebas electrónicas por parte de los organismos encargados de la aplicación de la ley."

¿Qué quiere decir eso? Interpol explica: "El acceso directo puede complicar en gran medida el proceso de validación de las pruebas para presentarlas ante los tribunales, porque en este caso los funcionarios de las fuerzas del orden deben demostrar o probar que el acceso directo que efectuaron no afectó materialmente a la finalidad de las pruebas."

Además, suponiendo que los ordenadores pertenecieran a Reyes y que esos documentos que relacionan a los Gobiernos de Ecuador y Venezuela con las FARC existen, primero no son pruebas válidas como dice el eurodiputado español de Izquierda Unida Willy Meyer, por que "se consiguieron fruto de una agresión ilegal a Ecuador por parte del Ejército colombiano, al margen del derecho internacional", y segundo no es prueba de que son autoría de Reyes.

El informe de Interpol también dice textualmente que los "dos discos duros externos y las tres llaves USB habían sido conectados a un ordenador entre el 1 y el 3 de marzo de 2008, sin que se hubieran obtenido previamente copias imagen forenses de su contenido y sin emplearse dispositivos de bloqueo de escritura (write-blockers)", así que pudieron ser leídos en ese 'otro' ordenador y luego manipulados.

¿Tuvo Mate Rico acceso a los ordenadores del FARC? Si no vio los documentos en los mismos ordenadores, ¿como puede confirmar ella "la autenticidad de los documentos"?

Atentamente

David Sketchley
25 de mayo de 2008

Jerusalem camera catches brutal attack by Jewish teens on Arab youths

From Ha'aretz (curiously the video has disappeared from the page although one can see it on the website of the Spanish Televisión Española) and here:



"Dozens of Jewish teens were caught on camera outside a Jerusalem mall carrying out a brutal attack on two Arab youths on Holocaust Remembrance Day earlier this month.

Some two weeks ago, indictments were filed against 11 youths, eight of them minors, suspected of having perpetrated the attack in the Pisgat Ze'ev neighborhood. According to the indictment, the boys responded to a message on the ICQ instant messaging internet program calling for "Jewish blood" to "put an end to Arabs running around the Pisga." According to the indictment, the Jewish teens gathered outside the local shopping center armed with knives, sticks and bats and attacked two Arab teens, aged 16 and 18, from the nearby Shuafat refugee camp.

One of the Arab youths, Ahmed Abu Camal, was stabbed in the back, but managed to escape. His friend was described by one of the suspects during questioning as a "trampoline and a punching bag.

" The suspect recounted how "everyone jumped, kicked and stepped on him." In the video footage, a group of teens can be seen waiting outside the shopping mall. At around 11 P.M. the two victims can be seen walking past the group. After a short dialogue, the video shows one of the victims being hurled into the street, pushed toward the railing and then viciously attacked.

In his testimony, the victim told police officers that "a group of children, numbering more than 80, pounced on us and they had bats and knives in their hands and they attacked us. All I remember now is that I passed out and woke up in the hospital." The video shows Abu Camal fleeing the scene chased by a number of Jewish teens. In a recent conversation, he said "when I passed by the entrance there was a large crowd of young men who just stood there while I walked between them on the shoulder of the street. I heard them talking among themselves and they said something like 'are those them? Are they them?' and then someone stuck a knife in my back and knocked me down and continued to beat me. One guy bit my ear. I don't know how I managed to get up, but I got up and ran away."

The video footage shows the Jewish teens fleeing the area after a car passes by. The unconscious Arab teen can be seen left on the side of the road until he is taken away by what appears to be shopping mall security staff. On Sunday, the Supreme Court decided to release all the suspects that remained in custody to house arrest. Attorney Yehuda Shushan, who represented three of the suspects, said "there is no doubt that this incident must be dealt with from an educational point of view, but at the same time each suspect should be judged according to his individual level of involvement. It is doubtful that those who were present but did nothing should be charged, otherwise 200 indictments should be filed against each child that was at the scene."

Tune Your World

Do You Believe we can Change the World through Music?


Got $25 bucks? Microfinance a Working Musician and do a world of good.


THE IDEA:


Calabash is changing the way the world finances music by applying the principles of microcredit to the music industry. Already established as the leading international music download service and the world's first fair trade music company, we're using the power of online social networking to enable independent musicians from around the world to go straight to their fans for financing.
Our groundbreaking approach is the creation of an online marketplace for musicians and fans enabling peer-to-peer microfinancing of new music projects.


With your help we're providing opportunities to revitalize the music industry in places where the music industry has never really worked very well. You can participate in a new cottage industry of micro-financed recordings produced in music capitals across the globe.


We let you microfinance the world's working musicians


Calabash operates on a people-to-people model: Musicians obtain funding for their recordings without giving up ownership or control and Fan / Sponsors are able to feel a personal connection with a music project and can get progress updates from musicians. Instead of buying music via a distribution network that prevents most of your money from getting to the artist, peer-to-peer microfinancing lets you sponsor small amounts directly to a particular musician.



Learn more...


We partner with organizations all over the world


Calabash partners with international music producers and music journalists. In doing so we gain access to outstanding musicians from developing countries around the world. Calabash recently partnered with National Geographic and we provide the fair trade music service engine behind National Geographic's new music initiative.


2008 GOAL


100,000 fans extending $1.5 million to over 10,000 musicians from around the world.


Tune Your World


You can microfinance an Artist on our Tune Your World social network, download a copy of their latest recording and help the world's working musicians make great strides towards economic independence.1. Pick an artist and make a minimum $25 sponsorship via Paypal2. Calabash transfers funds to musician when artist's goal is reached3. Receive news and download advance copies of artist's recording


Learn more...http://www.tuneyourworld.com/

NYT Editorial: Mr. Chávez's Unsavory Friends

para: letters@nytimes.com,
public@nytimes.com

fecha; 25 de mayo de 2008 17:59
asunto: Editorial: Mr. Chávez’s Unsavory Friends


Sir,

In your haste to further demonise Hugo Chavez, you have altered the facts in this editorial. You state "Despite his protestations of innocence, Interpol has corroborated the authenticity of thousands of computer files captured during a Colombian Army raid on a FARC rebel camp in Venezuela."

Firstly, as you later say, "Interpol only certified that the Colombian government did not tamper with the files but said nothing about the veracity of their content". That necessarily means that Interpol did not confirm that what Colomba says were in those files is true, as they made clear in their press statement: "INTERPOL's report also emphasized that the remit of its technical examination was not to evaluate the accuracy or the source of the exhibits' content." (1)

Secondly, the Colombian Army raid, apart from being illegal, was actually conducted on a Farc rebel camp in Ecuador, not Venezuela.

You also state "Colombia can now take the issue to the Organization of American States, the United Nations Security Council or the International Court of Justice." Let me get this straight: Following an illegal attack on the territory of a neigbouring sovereign state, Colombia now has the right to take this issue to the UNSC?

Your editorial position, being clearly propagandistic and based on false facts, lacks any credibilty. What's new? Your April 13, 2002 editorial, the day after Chavez was overthrown by an anti-democratic coup backed by the US, referred to his 'resignation' when it was clear he had been deposed in a coup. (2)

Yours Sincerely


Links:

(1) INTERPOL media release 15 May 2008

(2) "Business leader Pedro Carmona has been sworn in as Venezuela's caretaker president at the request of the armed forces after Hugo Chavez was ousted from office."
BBC News Saturday, 13 April, 2002, 01:28 GMT 02:28 UK (That would still be 12 April in the US)
-------------------------------------------------------------

UPDATE: 28 MAY 2008 14.50

I have just seen that FAIR, the national media watch group Fairness & Accuacy in Reporting, have mentioned my e-mail sent to the NYT (above), which I copied to them:

Media Views

New York Times: Mr. Chávez’s Unsavory Friends (5/25/08) A FAIR reader's (unpublished) letter to the editor points out how, in its "haste to further demonise Hugo Chávez," this editorial "altered the facts" by stating, "Despite his protestations of innocence, Interpol has corroborated the authenticity of thousands of computer files captured during a Colombian Army raid on a FARC rebel camp in Venezuela."

Firstly, as you later say, "Interpol only certified that the Colombian government did not tamper with the files but said nothing about the veracity of their content". That necessarily means that Interpol did not confirm that what Colombia says were in those files is true, as they made clear in their press statement: "Interpol's report also emphasized that the remit of its technical examination was not to evaluate the accuracy or the source of the exhibits' content." Secondly, the Colombian army raid, apart from being illegal, was actually conducted on a FARC rebel camp in Ecuador, not Venezuela.

But, of the Times' "clearly propagandistic" editorializing, FAIR's friend asks, "What's new?": "Your April 13, 2002 editorial, the day after Chávez was overthrown by an anti-democratic coup backed by the U.S., referred to his 'resignation.'"

Colombia: What did Interpol find in the laptops?

After the Colombian military illegally attacked a FARC camp in Ecuador in March with US assistance, the Uribe government claimed to have found laptops belonging to the rebels that they say show clear ties between the FARC, Venezuela and Ecuador. The Colombian government handed these laptops to Interpol for verification, but what did Interpol really find? Pepe Escobar of Asia Times interviews Forrest Hylton on the Real News Network.

Bio
Forrest Hylton is the the author of Evil Hour in Colombia (Verso, 2006), and with Sinclair Thomson, co-author of Revolutionary Horizons: Past and Present in Bolivian Politics (Verso, 2007). He is a regular contributor to New Left Review and NACLA Report on the Americas.

Transcript

Balfour to Blair

Balfour to Blair is a special 30 minute film that investigates the role of British policy in the Middle East from the beginning of the 20th century to today.

Part One

Part Two

WaPo: "Interrogation Tactics Were Challenged at White House"

There are several problems with this WaPo report:

1. The title is increadibly misleading. "Interrogation Tactics Were Challenged at White House"

If someone were to browse the headlines (many people just do that you know), they would gain a completely false picture of what the article is about. The title suggests that the 'White House' - euphemism for the President and his advisors - challenged the interrogation tactics. This is of course false. We know that the President and his advisors were the ones behind the mistreatment. In fact the challenge came not from the President and his advisors but by a career lawyer at the Justice Department. The article even mentions "the cool reception the dissenters got among some officials at the White House".

2. Chertoff raised 'concerns' about the 'effectiveness of the military's methods'.

But a few sentences later we read "One of Chertoff's concerns, according to the report, was that even if FBI agents interviewed detainees after they were harshly interrogated by the CIA, "he did not think this approach would successfully prevent the statement from being 'tainted' by any prior enhanced interview techniques."

This isn't a concern rather a minute concern and again is misleading.

According to Philippe Sands book Torture Team (pp.88-89) [and the NYT], Chertoff "advised the CIA on the legality of coercive interrogation techniques based on the Bybee/Yoo memo. Chertoff liked a tough approach and was a fan of Jack Bauer, the lead in 24, and his fictitious Counter-Terrorism Unit colleagues, praisingn them for showing the kind of character and tenacity that would help America defeat terrorism. For Chertoff, it seemed, there was no line dividing fiction from reality. 'That is what we do every day,' he said of 24, 'that is what we do in the government, that's what we do in private life when we evaluate risks.'"

Where did Sands get this from? From the Washington Post!

3. "then-Attorney General John D. Ashcroft, who sources say disliked some of Yoo's conclusions and resented his back-channel discussions with the White House".

More 'concerns'? But Yoo, according to Sands (pp. 226-227) and Yoo himself, "objected to the pretence that back in 2002 the Attorney-General was out of the loop. That was wrong. 'No opinion of that significance could ever issue from the Justice Department without the review of the Attorney Genral's staff, in particular that of his counsellor, or without the Attorney General's personal approval.'

The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder

As Chris Floyd explains today, American attorney and author Vincent Bugliosi 'calls for George W. Bush to be tried for murder – and, once convicted, to be shown the same kind of "mercy" he bestowed when signing 152 death warrants as governor of Texas.'

Some questions:
Is Bush a threat to U.S. citizens, interests, or national security?
Has Bush been guilty of aiding and abetting international criminal activities?
Is Bush guilty of murder, the murder of 1 million Iraqi civilians, as the author of the 'supreme crime'?
Is Bush a high-profile suspect whose capture is deemed impossible or too great a risk?
Will the US harbour Bush and refuse to extradite him if requested?

For me, the answer to the above questions is YES.

Now I'm with Chris in that "I don't believe in the barbarity of the death penalty either". But if we are to take the neo-con arguments look what we get:

Eben Kaplan, Associate Editor of of CFR.org states: "Targeted killings are used by governments to eliminate individuals they view as a threat. Generally speaking, a nation’s intelligence, security, or military forces identify the individual in question and carry out an operation intended to kill him or her. Though questionable, the practice has been used by defense and intelligence operations by governments around the world and has been viewed with increased legitimacy since the start of the so-called war on terror. Gary Solis, visiting professor of law at West Point, says “targeted killings are no longer novel.”
Typically, targeted killings focus on high-profile suspects whose capture is deemed impossible or too great a risk."

Olivia Albrecht of Fox News, while talking about the The Terrorist Elimination Act, states: "why must we wait until our citizens are attacked on our soil to dispose of imminently dangerous terrorists? ...The legislation would lift the ban on the assassination of terrorist leaders who pose a direct threat to national security, yet who have not committed a direct act of terrorism against the U.S...We must consider discriminating, preemptive, and covert intervention strategies. If we held a serious national debate on the question of assassinations instead of dismissing their use out of hand, many of the innocent lives lost in less discriminate military strikes might be saved.
We all might be a lot safer, too"

Alan Dershowitz Harvard law professor says: "targeted assassination should only be used as a last recourse, when there is no opportunity to arrest or apprehend a murderer, when a terrorist leader is involved in planning or approving on-going murderous activities, and when the assassination can be done without undue risk to innocent bystanders"

Prof. Daniel Statman, moral philosopher at the University of Haifa in Israel states "The moral legitimacy of targeted killing becomes even clearer when compared to the alternative means of fighting terror—that is, the massive invasion of the community that shelters and supports the terrorists in an attempt to catch or kill the terrorists and destroy their infrastructure….Hence, targeted killing is the preferable method not only because, on a utilitarian calculation, it saves lives but also because it is more commensurate with a fundamental condition of justified self defense, namely that those killed are responsible for the threat posed."
Quoted p.56


MAJ Matthew J. Machon, U.S. Army, of the School of Advanced Military Studies, United States Army Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas states: "The United States, throughout its history, has frequently resorted to the use of military force beyond the realm of international armed conflict whenever “another nation has failed to discharge its international responsibilities in protecting U.S. citizens from acts of violence originating in or launched from its sovereign territory, or has been culpable in aiding and abetting international criminal activities. Thus, historical precedent exists for the use of military force ... to kill or capture individuals whose actions constitute a direct, credible, and ongoing threat to U.S. citizens, interests, or national security."
p.55

According to Fawaz Gerges, a Mideast scholar at Sarah Lawrence College "Now the new thinking in Washington is that the United States under certain conditions and in certain situations should be able to empower the CIA to assassinate terrorists or certain people who represent a threat to the United States"

Robert Turner of the University of Virginia School of Law writes: “Intentionally killing a murderer ... when necessary to prevent the slaughter of additional innocents is not assassination.”

According to Louis Rene Beres, Professor of International Law, Department of Political Science, Purdue University, Indiana: "our world legal order lacks an international criminal court with jurisdiction over individuals. Only the courts of individual countries can provide the judicial context for trials of terrorists. It follows that where nations harbor such criminals and refuse to honor extradition requests, the only decent remedies for justice available to victim societies may lie in unilateral enforcement action. Here, extra-judicial execution may be essential to justice."

Iran, the wolves circle

The 'hungy wolves', as Castro recently referred to the US and Europe, are circling for the kill. The pack is being positioned for the attack.

As mentioned in my posting of 12 May, "According to Philip Giraldi writing on The American Conservative blog on Friday 09 May 2008:

"There is considerable speculation and buzz in Washington today suggesting that the National Security Council has agreed in principle to proceed with plans to attack an Iranian al-Qods-run camp that is believed to be training Iraqi militants."
...
"Momentum is being built up against Iran in a list of growing, and more frequent, accusations against Tehran. Iran is portrayed as the main threat against Israel. It is also accused of intervening in occupied Iraq and Afghanistan. In this sense, the Israeli-U.S. war plans in the Levant have been tied to Iran, as well as Syria. The investigative journalist Seymour M. Hersh, a Pulitzer Prize winner, reported in 2006 that the Israeli war against Lebanon was part of this Israeli-U.S. military roadmap to ultimately target Iran.The accusations against Tehran and Damascus are part of a calculated effort to justify attacks against Iran and Syria as the only means to achieve peace in the Levant between Israel and the Arabs. They are also upheld as justification to ensure the security and success of occupation forces, for Anglo-American and NATO forces respectively in Iraq and Afghanistan.In this regard, the Gaza Strip, alongside Lebanon, is now being described by Tel Aviv as an “Iranian base” against Israel. Israel is pointing the finger more and more towards Tehran as the source of its problems."

Bush's recent speech in Israel confirms all this, and the Democrats are also on board: Hilary Clinton threatened to obliterate the country, and Pelosi also recently did not rule out a military strike as a last resort, while threatening "the rest of the world that if they want to be friends with America, they need to do more to keep Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons". Obama, while refusing to rule out force altogether, says military force is "not the only option for dealing with Iran".

I mentioned several pointers:
the economic war declared on Iran;
the steady stream of accusations coming from the U.S. regarding Iranian influence in Iraq, Gaza and the Lebanon;
the nuclear charade;
the non-existent existentialist threat to Israel;
the fact that six weeks prior to May 2nd, president Bush signed a secret finding authorizing a covert offensive against the Iranian regime that, according to those familiar with its contents, would be unprecedented in its scope;
US carrier groups are on station, and according to the Navy Times, the San Diego-based Peleliu Expeditionary Strike Group and the 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit from Camp Pendleton "left San Diego Naval Base on Sunday (o4 May 2008) for a scheduled six-month deployment to the Western Pacific";
the fact that, for the first time ever, the entire class of the Navy's newest modern guided-missile submarine, the Ohio-class are at sea;
continued Israeli violations of Lebanese airspace;
the USS Cole has taken up station off the coast of Lebanon;
and now we hear that not only has the US Navy's most advanced command, control, and intelligence vessel been stationed off the Lebanese coast, but also that "the USS Harry Truman carrier strike group began cruising in the Mediterranean around Greece, whence the aircraft on its decks can reach Syrian and Lebanese skies."

This last piece comes from a website associated with Israeli intelligence that I tend not to rely on too closely but which when taken together with all the other pointers, shows that either a very elaborate hoax or bluff - a very expensive form of gunboat diplomacy -is being perpetrated or indeed, we are in the final stages of the build-up to the Iran blitzkrieg, which will necessarily be a region-wide agression, with coordinated US/NATO/Israeli military attacks on Hizbollah and its allies in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, Sadr in Iraq, and Iran itself:

"The extraordinary buildup of European naval and military strength in and around Lebanon’s shores is way out of proportion for the task the European contingents of expanded UNIFIL have undertaken: to create a buffer between Israel and Hizballah.

Close investigation by DEBKAfile’s military and intelligence sources discloses that “Lebanese security” and peacemaking is not the object of the exercise. It is linked to the general anticipation of a military clash between the United States and Israel, on one side, and Iran and possibly Syria on the other, some time from now until November

This expectation has brought together the greatest sea and air armada Europe has ever assembled at any point on earth since World War II: two carriers with 75 fighter-bombers, spy planes and helicopters on their decks; 15 warships of various types – 7 French, 5 Italian, 2-3 Green, 3-5 German, and five American; thousands of Marines – French, Italian and German, as well as 1,800 US Marines.

It is improbably billed as support for a mere 7,000 European soldiers who are deployed in Lebanon to prevent the dwindling Israeli force of 4-5,000 soldiers and some 15-16,000 Hizballah militiamen from coming to blows as well as for humanitarian odd jobs.

A Western military expert remarked to DEBKAfile that the European naval forces cruising off Lebanese shores are roughly ten times as much as the UNIFIL contingents require as cover, especially when UNIFIL’s duties are strictly non-combat. After all, none of the UN contingents will be engaged in disarming Hizballah or blocking the flow of weapons incoming from Syria and Iran.

So, if not for Lebanon, what is this fine array of naval power really there for?

First, according to our military sources, the European participants feel the need of a strong naval presence in the eastern Mediterranean to prevent a possible Iranian-US-Israeli war igniting an Iranian long-range Shahab missile attack on Europe; second, as a deterrent to dissuade Syria and Hizballah from opening a second front against American and Israel from their eastern Mediterranean coasts.

Numbers alone do not do justice to the immense operational capabilities and firepower amassed opposite Lebanon. Take first the three fleet flagships.

From France’s nuclear-powered 38,000-ton Charles De Gaulle carrier (see insignia), 40 Rafale M fighter craft whose range is 3,340 km can take off at intervals of 30 seconds. The ship also carries three E-2C Hawkeye surveillance craft. The combat control center of the French carrier can handle 2,000 simultaneous targets. The carrier leads a task fore of 7 warships carrying 2,800 French Marines.

Charles De Gaulle s also a floating logistics center operating water desalination plants for 15,000 men and enough food to feed an army for 90 days.

The USS Mount Whitney has the most sophisticated command and control suite in the world. Like the French Charles De Gaulle , it exercises command over a task force of 1,800 sailors, Marines, Air force medical and other personnel serving aboard the USS Barry, the USS Trenton , HSV Swift and USNS Kanawha .

f#L!GaribaldiGiuseppeC 551.jpg" align="left" border="0" hspace="10" vspace="5">

The new European naval concentration tops up the forces which permanently crowd the eastern Mediterranean: the Italian-based American Sixth Fleet, some 15 small Israeli missile ships and half a dozen submarines and the NATO fleet of Canadian, British, Dutch, German, Spanish, Greek and Turkish warships. They are on patrol against al Qaeda (which is estimated to deploy 45 small freighters in the Mediterranean and Indian Ocean). The British have permanent air and sea bases in Cyprus.

This vast force’s main weakness, according to DEBKAfile’s military sources, is that it lacks a single unified command. A sudden flare-up in Lebanon, Syria or Iran could throw the entire force into confusion.

On paper, it has three commanders:

1. French General Alain Pellegrini is the commander of the expanded UNIFIL ground, naval and air force in Lebanon. In February 2007, he hands over to an Italian general who leads the largest of the European contingents of 3,000 men. It is hard to see France agreeing to place its prestigious Charles De Gaulle flagship under non-French command.

2. The American forces opposite Lebanese shores are under direct US command. Since the October 1993 debacle of an American peace force under the UN flag in Somalia, Washington has never again placed its military under UN command. (There is no American contingent in the UNIFIL ground force either.)

In other words, USS Mount Whitney , while serving the European fleets as their operational and intelligence nerve center will stay under the sole command of Vice Admiral Stufflebeem in all possible contingencies.

3. Similarly, the NATO fleet will remain under NATO command, and Israel’s air and naval units will take their orders from Israeli Navy Headquarters in Haifa and the General Staff in Tel Aviv.

The naval Babel piling up in the eastern Mediterranean may therefore find itself at cross purposes when action is needed in an armed conflict. Iran, Syria and Hizballah could be counting on this weakness as a tactical asset in their favor."

Christian Science Monitor claims extraditions help Uribe "send a message that he has no hidden agenda with the paramilitaries"!

Text of mail sent to CSM via their website in reply to "Colombia extradites paramilitary leaders to US: victims angry":

"Sir/Madam,

Perhaps Sibylla Brodzinsky could explain how she reaches her conclusion that the extradition of 14 paramilitary leaders to the US helps Uribe "send a message that he has no hidden agenda with the paramilitaries"?

In fact, the truth is quite the opposite.

By extraditing these men to the US, Uribe is in fact shutting them up, as several of their lawyers have gone on record to say (a fact completely ignored by Brodzinsky):

Santiago Rodríguez, the former lawyer of Colombian drug trafficker Hernando Gómez Bustamante: "I would not allow a client of mine to talk" about crimes committed in Colombia other than drug trafficking offences, for which the 14 were extradited, the Cuban-American lawyer said in a telephone interview from the United States with the Bogotá station W Radio"

According to the Colombian paper El Espectador, Diego Alvarez, lawyer of Diego Fernando Murillo, alias ‘Don Berna' (one of those extradited) thinks that the Colombian government is looking to avoid any more problems with the revelations about connections with politicians: "cortar de tajo a la Corte Suprema de Justicia, no sólo con las revelaciones de relaciones de los políticos con las autodefensas sino además con lo que se empezaba a vislumbrar en las versiones libres sobre la implicación de militares"

Further, El Espectador reports that several of the lawyers consulted agree that the extraditions are designed to obstruct the Peace & Justice process because precisely now, the paramilitary leaders were starting to reveal their collaboration with the Colombian military.

Brodzinsky even quotes José Miguel Vivanco, Americas director at Human Rights Watch, whose statement completely invalidates Brodzinsky's thesis: "The bad news is they may no longer have any reason to collaborate with Colombian prosecutors investigating their atrocities against civilians and their collaboration with high-ranking government officials," he says". I repeat: may no longer have any reason to collaborate with Colombian prosecutors regarding their collaboration with high ranking government officials, including (again Brodzinsky fails to inform) the Colombian President Alvaro Uribe himself, who is also under investigation.

Brodzinsky also ignores other NGO opinions:

"Iván Cepeda, spokesman for the Movement of Victims of Crimes of the State (MOVICE), complained to the press that the extraditions would "seriously affect" the rights of survivors, and said they were aimed at keeping the paramilitary leaders from continuing to provide the names of military, political and business accomplices and allies.

Eduardo Carreño, vice president of the José Alvear Restrepo Lawyers Collective, a human rights group, told IPS that "this move confirms what we have said from the start: that a Congress with a strong paramilitary presence legislated on its own behalf, and that the victims are the forgotten ones in this process." "

While Brodzinsky does mention Mario Uribe, she, in fact, hides the closeness of the relationship between Mario and Alvaro behind the expression 'close politicial ally'. In fact Uribe is one of his closest political collaborators, and in 2003 Uribe-Escobar participated in the foundation of the Democratic Colombia Party which was the base of the former Sector Democrático movement; President Alvaro Uribe is President of the party, Mario its 'director'.

According to Bill Van Auken and Ascher Brum, "The former senator (Mario Uribe Escobar) played a key role in getting Álvaro Uribe elected, and apparently mobilized the country’s death squads to help secure political victory." They also quote Senator Gustavo Petro, leader of the main opposition party "“What we’ve seen happen is a de facto alliance between powerful economic interests and narco-traffickers, and the motives were to co-opt institutions and convert Colombia itself into a criminal enterprise,” "

Along these same lines, according to the Polo Democrático Alternativo or PDA:

"The Arco Iris Foundation concluded, after an investigation funded by the Government of Sweden, that in 2002, in regions where paramilitary squads wielded great influence, 28 Senators were elected; that in local elections in 2003 in the same regions 285 mayors, 6 departmental governors and 3,500 municipal council members were chosen; and that in 2006, a total of 83 Senators and Representatives (of a possible total of 268) were elected from those areas. It is therefore not an exaggeration when Colombians speak of para-politics and para-politicos to describe relations between these illegal armed bands and many political leaders.

A thorough understanding of the phenomenon requires knowledge of the political allegiance of those accused under the law of paramilitary connections. Data shows that thirteen of the fourteen members of Congress who have been detained or remain fugitive are uribistas, that is, supporters of President Uribe. The Chief of the President's secret police is obviously a President's man. The two jailed governors, the six imprisoned mayors, and almost all of fifteen leading politicians detained in jail are also uribistas. 87% of the 83 members of Congress identified by the Arco Iris Foundation as having links with paramilitary groups are militant uribistas. These statistics led to the coining of the term para-uribismo as the best description of a situation that has also been accurately referred to by U.S. news organizations as the para-gate scandal."

Why does your newspaper not give this kind of background so that your readers can truly understand what is going on in Colombia? As a publication that uses the word 'Christian' in its name, do you not think that printing lies, half-truthes and distortions goes against that Creed? "

-----------------------------------------------------------------

After all the negative news to come out of the region recently, finally some good news in Ha'artez - one presumes this news was meant for the Israeli youth...:

"For the cannabis-growing residents of eastern Lebanon, recent internecine fighting in the country has been a blessing, albeit one covered in hash resin and dollar signs.

To these villagers, gunshots and warfare are good for business, and the last three years have been far too quiet for their taste, leaving the authorities more than enough time and resources to come for their crops.

Peace and quiet frees the Lebanese Army to help local law enforcement combat the drug trade, especially in the summer, when soldiers and police are deployed to cannabis fields to rip and cut the flowering stalks of marijuana set for processing and export to Israel, Europe and beyond.

The army has signaled that it could step up its involvement to bring an end to fighting that broke out last week - the country's worst internal clashes since the end of the civil war in 1990, which has left at least 54 people dead and scores more wounded.

The last time the cannabis farmers of Lebanon had such a bumper crop was during the Second Lebanon War in 2006, when the security situation in the country brought anti-drug law enforcement to a halt. With fighting flaring up again in Lebanon, the farmers can expect another marijuana windfall, especially if the army is deployed in force throughout the country's cities to quell the recent bloodshed.

Newspaper reports have stated that even in peacetime security forces are often wary of entering the cannabis growing areas, as many of the farmers and their security guards are heavily armed.

An investigation by the London-based Arabic newspaper Al-Hayat has found that over 25,000 acres of cannabis were planted in Lebanon this year, an amount that should yield an impressive amount of hashish for the area's farmers.

A report compiled by the United States Government in 2003 praised Lebanon's efforts to combat cannabis cultivation, as well as the Syrian government's cooperation in fighting the drug trade.

Nonetheless, in spite of the profitability of the drug trade, little improvement has been seen recently in the quality of life of the estimated 180,000 residents of eastern Lebanon"

Colombian government silences paramilitary leaders

There was too much heat in the kitchen, someone had to cool things down. What better way than the chef cleaning out the stove?

Chef de cuisine [jefe de coc(a)ina] Alvaro Uribe has done just that, as the BBC informs us "Colombia has extradited 14 former paramilitary leaders to the US to face charges of drug trafficking."

'What's he talking about?' I hear you say. And no wonder if you get your news from the BBC: "Investigations have so far linked dozens of current and former politicians to the paramilitaries - 31 have been jailed." The BBC cleverly and purposefully only tells half the truth so that the ordinary citizen, who doesn't have the time to spend hundreds of hours a week researching the internet, is misinformed, they don't tell us that nearly all are supporters of Uribe.

Over at the Center for International Policy's website Plan Colombia and Beyond, they have what they call a "Current “para-politicians” list", actually prepared by the Colombian NGO Fundación INDEPAZ: "There are now fifty-five Colombian national political figures - nearly all of them supporters of the current government - under investigation, on trial, or already found guilty of collaborating with paramilitary groups."

According to WSWS:

"Altogether 32 members of Congress have been arrested and another 30 are under investigation. Out of these, 54 are drawn from Uribe’s ruling coalition. Eighteen of these renounced their parliamentary immunity in order to shift their investigations to the Colombian attorney general’s office, rather than the country’s high court. At this point, nearly one third of Colombia’s lawmakers are facing judicial charges or investigations over their connections with paramilitary death squads and drug traffickers.
There are parties, such as Colombia Viva, part of the ruling coalition, in which 100 percent of their elected lawmakers are either in jail or under investigation. In Mario Uribe’s Colombia Democrática party, five out of its six members in the senate are accused of collaborating with the paramilitaries, with one, Senator Álvaro Garcia, charged with helping to organize a massacre."

Things were already hot as we can see, but why the extraditions now?

Problems recently excalated to boiling point with Uribe under investigation himself and implicated in paramilitary death squad probe accused by a former member of the paramilitary of planning a 1997 massacre at Aro. The massacre resulted in 15 peasants’ deaths while Uribe was governor of that province, Antioquia. One of the extradited Colombians Salvatore Mancuso was sentenced to serve 40 years in prison for the massacre, and the Colombian government was found by the courts to be responsible for the massacre. Coincidence?

This also came just a few days after the arrest in Bogota of ex-Senator Mario Uribe Escobar, the cousin of Colombia’s president, on charges of involvement in the country’s paramilitary death squads.

The BBC do mention this however: "Some Colombians fear, however, that extraditing the militia leaders to the US means they will not face justice in Colombia or reveal their alleged links to many government figures." But who are 'some Colombians' the BBC refers to?

According to IPS they are human rights "experts":

"Iván Cepeda, spokesman for the Movement of Victims of Crimes of the State (MOVICE), complained to the press that the extraditions would "seriously affect" the rights of survivors, and said they were aimed at keeping the paramilitary leaders from continuing to provide the names of military, political and business accomplices and allies.

Eduardo Carreño, vice president of the José Alvear Restrepo Lawyers Collective, a human rights group, told IPS that "this move confirms what we have said from the start: that a Congress with a strong paramilitary presence legislated on its own behalf, and that the victims are the forgotten ones in this process." "

Really, this a scandal of the highest order:

The BBC states lamely, relying as usual on unnamed"US officials" who " have said they will co-operate with Colombian prosecutors in their investigations."

IPS again:

"The Uribe administration says it will send prosecutors and lawyers to the United States to collect the testimony of the former paramilitary chiefs, in order for the justice and peace law process to continue.

Santiago Rodríguez, the former lawyer of Colombian drug trafficker Hernando Gómez Bustamante, who was extradited to the United States in mid-2007 after being deported to Colombia from Cuba, pointed out that a person cannot be tried for the same crime in two different places.

Furthermore, said Rodríguez, everything that the extradited paramilitaries say from this moment on can be used against them. "I would not allow a client of mine to talk" about crimes committed in Colombia other than drug trafficking offences, for which the 14 were extradited, the Cuban-American lawyer said in a telephone interview from the United States with the Bogotá station W Radio.

He said he would only allow his client to talk if there were a written agreement approved by the U.S. Justice Department guaranteeing protection from prosecution for other crimes.

He pointed out that according to the U.S. Federal Rules of Evidence, testimony on other crimes provided by defendants during a trial -- like the kind of confessions required by the justice and peace law -- can be used against them.

According to Rodríguez, that means the former paramilitary chiefs extradited to the United States should not have to cooperate with the Colombian justice system, which could complicate their legal situation in the United States. "Protections would have to be put in writing," he reiterated.

Leftwing Senator Gustavo Petro said President Uribe "dealt several blows in one" with the extraditions. "The first blow," he told IPS, "is against truth." "If Uribe says there is a pact with the United States" for the prosecution of war crimes to continue in that country, which does not recognise the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, "it is a secret pact, because no one knows about it. The only thing the U.S. is interested in is curbing drug trafficking," he said. "The second blow is against the victims and the possibility of compensation, which becomes even more remote if the truth is not revealed," and "the third is against Colombian justice," because with this decision, the president is "disregarding the Colombian justice system and recognising the U.S. system," said the senator."

Of course, the BBC would never dare tell its readers any of this information. Nor anything on President Uribe’s 'Hidden Past', which I detailed in an unanswered letter to the NYT's Simon Romero last October:

"1. His father, Alberto Uribe Vélez, was himself subject to an extradition warrant to face charges of drug trafficking in the US.
2. Uribe Jr grew up with the children of Fabio Ochoa, a key player at the time in the Medellín cocaine cartel.
3. After being elected Mayor of Medellín, the second city of Colombia, at the age of 26, he was removed from office after only three months by a central government embarrassed by his public ties to the drug Mafia.
4. He was made Director of Civil Aviation, where he issued pilots’ licences to Pablo Escobar’s fleet of light aircraft flying cocaine to Florida.
5. In April 2002, Noticias Uno, a current affairs programme on the TV station Canal Uno, examined alleged links between Uribe and the Medellín cocaine cartel. After the reports were aired, unidentified men threatened to kill the show’s producer, Ignacio Gómez.
6. Noticias Uno told the story of how in 1997 the US Drugs Enforcement Agency (DEA) seized 50,000 kilos of potassium permanganate from a ship docked in San Francisco. Permanganate is a chemical used in the production of cocaine. The cargo was bound for a company headed by Pedro Juan Moreno Villa, President Uribe’s campaign manager, and was sufficient to produce cocaine with a street value of $15 billion. Morena Villa’s company was Colombia’s biggest importer of potassium permanganate between 1994 and 1998. When Uribe was Governor of Antioquia, Moreno Villa was his chief of staff and Medellín was the world’s cocaine capital. (I presume you are also aware of the mysterious death since of Pedro Juan Moreno Villa, who was killed last year, Feb 2006)"

Links:
Tom Feiling of Justice for Colombia: Álvaro Uribe Vélez Links to cocaine cartels?
Al Giordano of Narco News: Uribe's Rise from Medellín: Precursor to a Narco-StateHis Campaign Manager, the DEA, and the Case of the 50,000 Kilos
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration: January 17, 1998 Shipment of 10,000 Kilograms of Potassium Permanganate, December 16, 1997 Shipment of 20,000 Kilograms of Potassium Permanganate and November 17, 1997 Shipment of 20,000 Kilograms of Potassium Permanganate; Suspension of Shipments
The New Colombia News Agency (ANNCOL) 11.04.2006 Que todo parezca un accidente

The End of the New Middle East

Excellent analysis by Nir Rosen on The Washington Note blog "The End of the New Middle East":

When Israel was bombing Lebanon in 2006, killing its civilians and destroying its infrastructure, Condoleeza Rice celebrated this as the "birth pangs of the new Middle East," a phrase that lives in infamy in Lebanon. The events of the last 24 hours in Lebanon were the death throes of the Bush plan for the new Middle East. In Iraq, instead of creating a democracy, the US introduced a civil war, sectarian militias, death squads and ethnic cleansing. It installed a series of ineffective dictators, Garner, Bremer, Allawi.

Then it surrendered to pressure from the sectarian Islamist Shiites it had empowered and agreed to elections, which of course ended in victory for sectarian Islamist Shiite militias who began slaughtering anybody they didn't like, especially Sunnis. Then the US decided it had had enough of its puppet prime minister Jaafari, who was not proving obedient enough, so they forced him out and replaced him with another sectarian Shiite Islamist, Maliki, who also proved a disappointment to them. But though they threatened to remove him, they have backed him as he loses popularity and even attacks more popular Shiite movements like the Sadrists. Meanwhile the US has introduced new Sunni militias composed of thugs and former murderers. Its icon was Abu Risha, the slain leader of the Awakening council in the Anbar.

In Palestine, furious that Hamas won democratic and fair elections, the US (along with the Saudis, Jordanians, Israelis, Egyptians and others), backed the unpopular Fatah and Mahmud Abbas, a traitor to his own people, collaborating with their occupiers. As Fatah tortured its opponents Gaza was suffocated and the Palestinian people punished for their decision to take part in elections. As Fatah thugs attempted a coup in Gaza, Hamas thwarted this threat with a counter coup and easily defeated the American backed Palestinian militias.

In Somalia, the Americans backed a coalition of hated warlords to go after the much more popular Islamic Courts Union, in the name of the war on terror. The Islamic Courts rise was the first reason for optimism in Somalia, the first time after 14 attempts to set up a government and 15 years of civil war.
The Islamic Courts introduced peace and stability to Mogadishu and its environs, got rid of warlords and their militias who terrorized Somalis. Women were able to walk on the streets unharassed and exiled businessmen returned to rebuild the broken country. But it was an Islamist movement, and in the era of Bush, that means al Qaeda, so the US backed the war lords and its local proxy, the Ethiopians, who invaded Somalia and occupied Mogadishu and are now raping and killing civilians, while the Islamists radicalized and the situation in Somalia is worse than ever.

Things aren't going very well in Afghanistan either, where Hamid Karzai, a weak puppet who controls nothing, relies on the Americans to back an every strengthening violent resistance.

In Lebanon, the Americans view Hizballah as a terrorist threat and have pressured their Sunni proxies not to compromise. Hizballah, the most popular movement by far among Lebanese Shiites, and very popular among other groups (not to mention throughout the region) was demanding a national unity government so that it could have a more equitable share of political power, but Hizballah, despite its military power, was not even asking for a a larger share for Shiites but instead it sought a larger share for its non Shiite allies in the opposition. This was in order to have a say in strategic issues and prevent the weapons of the resistance from being threatened, while also maintaining Lebanon outside the American and Israeli sphere of influence.

According to Amal Saad Ghorayeb, an expert on Shiite movements and on Lebanon, until recently attached to the Carnegie Center for International Peace Middle East Center: "US policy in Lebanon is underpinned by an overarching US Middle East strategy of reconfiguring the political map of the Middle East as we know it, aka, the "New Middle East" plan, formerly the "Greater Middle East Initiative" officially unveiled by Condi Rice at the start of the July War. The tactics change but the strategy remains the same: both in its earlier (promoting democracies) and most recent (supporting autocracies) incarnations. US strategy seeks political,military and economic domination of the region, while ensuring the security of Israel. Its chosen instrument for implementing this strategy is the "moderate"US-friendly client Arab regime.

Given its dissatisfaction with the results of democratic elections in the region, the Bush administration continues to support autocratic regimes in Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere, while de-democratizing existing democracies in Lebanon and Palestine. In the latter case, it is cultivating the latest breed of democracy, "the democratic regime,"a new form of government which is popularly challenged, constitutionally disputed and derives its legitimacy from outside powers. The formation and preservation of regimes such as Siniora's (the Lebanese Prime Minister) has necessitated a US policy of promoting instability and national disunity, in short, a policy of"constructive instability."

The Americans thought that they could pick a proxy and get him to rule Lebanon. But Lebanon is too complicated for them, and they didn't know that no single group can rule Lebanon. The Americans along with their Saudi allies backed the creation of sectarian Sunni militias in Lebanon, some of whom were even trained in Jordan. Their ideology consisted of anti Shiite sectarianism. But these Sunni militiamen proved a complete failure, and America's proxies in Lebanon barely put up a fight, despite their strident anti Shiite rhetoric. Now it is clear that Beirut is firmly in the hands of Hizballah and nothing the Americans can do will dislodge or weaken this popular movement, just as they cannot weaken the Sadrists in Iraq or Hamas in Gaza.

Jordanian training, which was provided to the Sunni militias in Lebanon, the Fatah militias in Palestine and even Iraqi security forces, has proven inadequate. Note that in Iraq, the Iraqi security forces are either sectarian death squads or are unable to fight, and rely on the Americans.

Say what you will about Hizballah and its allies, whether you sympathize with them or oppose them, it is clear that they cannot be dislodged, that they are an integral part of Lebanon and the Middle East. They proved this when they won the war of 2006 and proved this once again yesterday when they dispatched pro American and Saudi militias with ease and seized control of Beirut.

If one dreams of a Hizballah without weapons, or a Hamas that does not engage in violent resistance, or any sort of peaceful resolution in the Middle East, then one has to begin at the beginning, with the Israeli occupation of Palestine (as well as a little bit of Syrian territory).

---------------------------------------------

I also recommend the following article by Scott Ritter over at Truthdig.com: "Taking a Stand Against War"

Attack on Iran Imminent?

As Chris Floyd wrote last week: "Anyone who thinks the Bush Administration does not intend to attack Iran either has rocks in the head or their head in the sand". Indeed, according to Esquire "Two former high-ranking policy experts from the Bush administration say the U.S. has been gearing up for a war with Iran for years, despite claiming otherwise."

According to Philip Giraldi writing on The American Conservative blog on Friday 09 May 2008:

"There is considerable speculation and buzz in Washington today suggesting that the National Security Council has agreed in principle to proceed with plans to attack an Iranian al-Qods-run camp that is believed to be training Iraqi militants. The camp that will be targeted is one of several located near Tehran. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was the only senior official urging delay in taking any offensive action. The decision to go ahead with plans to attack Iran is the direct result of concerns being expressed over the deteriorating situation in Lebanon, where Iranian ally Hezbollah appears to have gained the upper hand against government forces and might be able to dominate the fractious political situation. "

Justin Raimondo over at antiwar.com interprets it this way:

"Translation: The Israelis are demanding war with Iran, and the national security bureaucracy – thoroughly riddled with and corrupted by the neocons – has capitulated. The Israeli failure to dislodge Hezbollah from its Lebanese fortress and subvert their growing political dominance – a direct result of the 2006 war – has Tel Aviv in a tizzy. The whole point of their "Clean Break" strategy, the linchpin of the American neocons' decade-long drive to embroil us in Iraq, has been compromised and even reversed by Hezbollah's continuing defiance. Tel Aviv wants them taken out – by the U.S., which alone has the firepower to do it.
This has been the real purpose of the "surge" all along – to prepare the ground for the final assault on Israel's deadliest enemy in the region, which is Iran. This is why Israel's lobby in the U.S. has made ratcheting-up tensions with Tehran their number-one priority, and clearly their relentless campaign is succeeding.
Once again, the prime directive of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East stands revealed for all with eyes to see: it's all about Israel. "

He's not the only one:

"Momentum is being built up against Iran in a list of growing, and more frequent, accusations against Tehran. Iran is portrayed as the main threat against Israel. It is also accused of intervening in occupied Iraq and Afghanistan. In this sense, the Israeli-U.S. war plans in the Levant have been tied to Iran, as well as Syria. The investigative journalist Seymour M. Hersh, a Pulitzer Prize winner, reported in 2006 that the Israeli war against Lebanon was part of this Israeli-U.S. military roadmap to ultimately target Iran.The accusations against Tehran and Damascus are part of a calculated effort to justify attacks against Iran and Syria as the only means to achieve peace in the Levant between Israel and the Arabs. They are also upheld as justification to ensure the security and success of occupation forces, for Anglo-American and NATO forces respectively in Iraq and Afghanistan.In this regard, the Gaza Strip, alongside Lebanon, is now being described by Tel Aviv as an “Iranian base” against Israel. Israel is pointing the finger more and more towards Tehran as the source of its problems. "

At the same time the Israeli press inform us that "US warship heads back to Mediterranean amid Lebanon crisis":

"US warship, which was deployed off Lebanon in February amid concern over Beirut's political crisis, crossed Egypt's Suez Canal on Sunday on its way to the Mediterranean, an official with the canal authority told AFP. "The USS Cole has crossed the Suez Canal and is headed to the Mediterranean," the official said, adding he did not know its exact destination. "

Other signs are that both Shell and Repsol have just announced they are pulling out of Phase 13/14 of the giant South Pars gas field project, according to western news agencies "but may yet join later stages of the field's development". This has lead the Iranian agency Press TV to comment that the 2 oil companies "intend not to capitulate to US pressure by backing away from an energy project in Iran."

The pressure is really being increased on Iran to try and make it submit to the will of the US. Firstly, economic war was declared on Iran recently:

"A unit within the US Treasury Department, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), which issued a March 20 advisory to the world's financial institutions under the title: “Guidance to Financial Institutions on the Continuing Money Laundering Threat Involving Illicit Iranian Activity.”...By managing to get inserted the names of two state-owned banks in the most recent UN Security Council resolution on Iran, the US can now portray the cream of Iran's financial establishment (Bank Melli and Bank Saderat are Iran’s two largest banks) as directly integrated into alleged regime involvement in a secret nuclear weaponization program and acts of terrorism...In a 1996 publication written for the National Defense University, Harlan Ullman and James Wade introduced a military doctrine for “affecting the adversary’s will to resist through imposing a regime of Shock and Awe to achieve strategic aims and military objectives.”...
Shock and Awe’s authors (apparently with something like Vietnam or the 1993-1994 Somalia fiasco in mind) also envisioned that “[i]n certain circumstances, the costs of having to resort to lethal force may be too politically expensive in terms of local support as well as support in the U.S. and internationally." Consequently, they wrote:
"Economic sanctions are likely to continue to be a preferable political alternative or a necessary political prelude to an offensive military step . . .In a world in which nonlethal sanctions are a political imperative, we will continue to need the ability to shut down all commerce into and out of any country from shipping, air, rail, and roads. We ought to be able to do this in a much more thorough, decisive, and shocking way than we have in the past . . . Weapons that shock and awe, stun and paralyze, but do not kill in significant numbers may be the only ones that are politically acceptable in the future."

The two main stumbling blocks to a military strike on Iran, Russia and China, have already signalled their surrender to US designs. Russia has joined the UN sanctions, and China is slowing its co-operation with Iran.

As Raimondo opined at the end of April 2008: "The indications of an imminent attack – the latest incident, the steady stream of accusations coming from the U.S. regarding Iranian influence in Iraq, the nuclear charade, etc. – have suddenly taken a more ominous turn with the recent statement of America's top military officer that the U.S. is weighing military action against Iran."

Of course, Giraldi and Raimondo aren't the only ones: former Democratic US congressperson Dan Hamburg also recently weighed in on the same subject in the Santa Monica Mirror.

Andrew Cockburn from counterpunch.org reported on 02 May 2008, that six weeks prior to May 2nd, president Bush signed a secret finding authorizing a covert offensive against the Iranian regime that, according to those familiar with its contents, unprecedented in its scope:

"Bush’s secret directive covers actions across a huge geographic area – from Lebanon to Afghanistan – but is also far more sweeping in the type of actions permitted under its guidelines – up to and including the assassination of targeted officials. This widened scope clears the way, for example, for full support for the military arm of Mujahedin-e Khalq, the cultish Iranian opposition group, despite its enduring position on the State Department's list of terrorist groups.
Similarly, covert funds can now flow without restriction to Jundullah, or "army of god," the militant Sunni group in Iranian Baluchistan – just across the Afghan border -- whose leader was featured not long ago on Dan Rather Reports cutting his brother in law's throat. Other elements that will benefit from U.S. largesse and advice include Iranian Kurdish nationalists, as well the Ahwazi arabs of south west Iran. Further afield, operations against Iran's Hezbollah allies in Lebanon will be stepped up, along with efforts to destabilize the Syrian regime."

We saw this a few days ago when Hizbullah foiled a US-planned coup, almost a repeat performance of Gaza, when Hamas foiled an Al-Fatah coup organised and financed by the US' very own Palestinian, Dahlan and his side-kick Abu Samhadana. The US is receiving bloody nose after bloody nose in the Middle East.

Meanwhile, US carrier groups are on station, and according to the Navy Times, the San Diego-based Peleliu Expeditionary Strike Group and the 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit from Camp Pendleton "left San Diego Naval Base on Sunday (o4 May 2008) for a scheduled six-month deployment to the Western Pacific." The 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit took part in the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan, the 2003 invasion of Iraq, 2004 tsunami relief efforts in Indonesia and additional tours in Iraq. The Peleliu Expeditionary Strike Group comprises "the dock landing ship Pearl Harbor, amphibious transport dock Dubuque, cruiser Cape St. George and destroyers Halsey and Benfold. Deploying as part of the strike group are detachments with Assault Craft Unit 1 and 5, Beam Master Unit 1, Fleet Surgical Team 1, Tactical Air Control Squadron 11, Helicopter Sea Combat Squadron 21 and Helicopter Anti-Submarine Squadron Light 45."

But not only that, for the first time ever, the entire class of the Navy's newest modern guided-missile submarine, the Ohio-class are at sea: "Along with the capability to carry and support up to 66 Special Operations Forces personnel and deploy with up to 154 Tomahawk cruise missiles, the SSGNs also bring to bear a host of advanced sensors and weapons systems that make it a truly unique platform."

Also entering the equation is the Israeli agression on Syria and its continued violations of Lebanese airspace.

Also worth bearing in mind are these news items:

Haartez: "Israel's largest-ever emergency drill...to test the authorities' preparedness for threats such as a missile attack on central Israel."

A few days after Cheney's Middle East tour, it was revealed that the Saudi Shura Council -- the elite group that implements the decisions of the autocratic inner circle -- is preparing "national plans to deal with any sudden nuclear and radioactive hazards that may affect the kingdom following experts' warnings of possible attacks on Iran's Bushehr nuclear reactors".

U.S. accuses Iran, Syria of giving green light to Hezbollah

------------------------------------------------------------

UPDATE 13 MAY 2008:

Interestingly, the report linked above that "Hezbollah Foiled US Coup Bid In Lebanon" has been reported by Nasdaq of all places...

However, not all commentarists are in agreement. Joshua Landis' blog has this to say:

"Rex Brynen of McGill University makes a powerful argument that Hizbullah has blundered (Copied below). He is correct that the Shiite move on Sunni West Beirut has exacerbated sectarian anxieties and fears - not only Sunni fears, but Christian fears as well. Lebanon's other sects now realize how little stands between them and Hizbullah's militia.
Second, Sunnis such as Salim al-Hoss and Najib Mikati who would be expected to lead Lebanon in a compromise and who have showed themselves in the past to be willing to work with Syria even at the most trying of times, have taken an anti-Hizbullah line. This demonstrates how difficult it is for Sunnis to reach out to Hizbullah and Syria at this moment. This is not a good sign for a future compromise.
The rhetoric on all sides as grown worse than I have seen it since the civil war. Siniora has said that Hizbullah has done things that the Israelis never did when they occupied Beirut. The PPS or SSNP issued a statement that they would hold Hariri personally responsible for the killing of their people in Tripoli. Nasrallah called the Lebanese government illegal, and on it goes.
Most distressing is Rex's conclusion about the March 14 Movement's determination to ignore the implications of Hizbullah's occupation of West Beirut. In this he may well be correct. It is, after all, how March 14 responded to the Hizbullah's tent city. In essence, Siniora's government will dare Hizbullah to carry out the coup the Shiite party clearly does not want to carry out. The game of chicken will continue. Hizbullah's use of force will neither lance the boil of paralysis that has overtaken Lebanon's government, nor will it serve as a wake up call to Lebanon's bickering factions that they must compromise. That is what Rex is predicting. Here is his analysis: "

Check it out...

Return to US gunboat diplomacy in Latin America

Check out this article at the WSWS:

US Navy resurrects Fourth Fleet to police Latin America

Washington announced at the end of last month that it is resurrecting the long-ago moth-balled Fourth Fleet to reassert US power in the Caribbean and Latin America. Created at the time of World War II to combat German submarines attacking merchant shipping convoys in the South Atlantic, the Fourth Fleet was seen as no longer necessary after the Second World War and was disbanded in 1950.

The Pentagon’s a statement on the revival of the fleet gave a far vaguer indication of its new duties, saying it would “conduct varying missions including a range of contingency operations, counter narco-terrorism, and theater security cooperation activities.”

“Rear Admiral James Stevenson, commander of U.S. Naval Forces Southern Command, said the re-establishment of the Fourth Fleet will send a message to the entire region, not just Venezuela,” AHN news reported.

The “message” began to be transmitted just weeks after Venezuela, Ecuador and Colombia came into sharp conflict over a border provocation caused by the Colombian military’s bombardment of an encampment of the FARC (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia) guerrillas inside Ecuadorian territory.

The Fourth Fleet will begin operations on the first day of July out of the Mayport US Naval Station, a nuclear facility in the state of Florida. The fleet, which will operate as part of the Pentagon’s Southern Command, will be comprised of various ships, including aircraft carriers and submarines, and will operate from the Caribbean to the southern tip of South America.

While the new naval unit does not yet possess large numbers of arms and personnel, it will be equipped and granted similar importance as the Fifth Fleet, now deployed in the Persian Gulf, and the Sixth, operating in the Mediterranean.

The thrust of this decision is to give the US Navy a far broader role than it currently plays in Latin America. While Washington can point to no imminent military threat in the region, the reactivation of the Fourth Fleet has a powerful symbolic significance, indicating a return to gunboat diplomacy.

It is a demonstration of US intentions to maintain absolute military dominance over the region, and in particular over those countries with large reserves of petroleum and natural gas, including those that are governed by supposed enemies of Washington, like the governments of Hugo Chávez in Venezuela and Evo Morales in Bolivia.

The central objective of the Fourth Fleet will be to further the military and political “security and stability” of the region, according to the commander of naval forces for US Southern Command, Vice Admiral James Stevenson.

The fleet will “certainly bring a lot more stature to the area and increase our ability to get things done,” Stevenson told reporters. “This change increases our emphasis in the region on employing naval forces to build confidence and trust among nations through collective maritime security efforts that focus on common threats and mutual interests,” said Admiral Gary Roughead, chief of naval operations.

According to the official statement issued by the Pentagon, the reactivation of the Fourth Fleet “demonstrates US commitment to regional partners,” among which Colombia stands out, given the billions of dollars of US aid granted its right-wing government to conduct the so-called “war on drugs” as well as its counterinsurgency campaign against the FARC, an organization that the US classifies as “terrorist,” on the same level as Al-Qaeda.

Significantly, the officer tapped to head the new fleet is Rear Admiral Joseph Kernan, the current commander of the Naval Special Warfare Command, which includes counterinsurgency units like the Navy SEALS, which are utilized in the so-called war on terror.

The Navy distributed a press release in which it enumerated more specific and immediate objectives for the resurrected fleet, including “acting together with the navies of allied nations on bilateral and multilateral training operations and operations against narco-trafficking originating in the region.”

According to the Pentagon, in recent years the Colombian drug cartels have gone so far as to utilize secretly built submarines to get their product to foreign markets. But it is not merely the drug cartels that are in the Pentagon’s sights.

The Venezuelan navy is also a potential target. In June of last year, President Chavez signed an agreement with Moscow to acquire nine Russian submarines at a price which is estimated at between one and two billion dollars.

According to the Pentagon, the reactivation of the Fourth Fleet is also justified by this change in the correlation of forces in the region. To lend this expansion of military power in the region a veneer of legitimacy in international circles, the Pentagon needs to promote the pretext that the Colombian FARC or the crisis-ridden government of Hugo Chavez represent a similar danger to the world and “democracy” as that which Washington has attributed to Al Qaeda and other Islamist groups in the Middle East.

As far as democracy goes, a far greater danger is posed by Washington’s closest ally, the government of Colombian President Álvaro Uribe, who is personally implicated in the operations of drug traffickers and right-wing paramilitary death squads which, with CIA and US military training, have specialized in the killing of trade unionists, peasants and university students.

The drive by the Pentagon to expand its military control over Latin America is not new. For a number of years, it has sought to establish new military bases in the region. The presence of drug trafficking - which has continued unabated despite the decades-old “war on drugs” - and Hugo Chávez and his “arms race” represent only most convenient pretexts for promoting this expansion.

The US appears likely to lose its only permanent military base in South America - located in Ecuador’s port city of Manta - when the Pentagon’s lease on the air force facility expires in November of next year.

Ecuador’s President Rafael Correa has vowed not to renew it, while the country’s constituent assembly is drafting a new constitution that is to include a prohibition against any foreign bases on Ecuadorian soil. In the meantime, the American military is searching for other possible bases, including in Paraguay.

“We’re always looking for opportunities for what I call lily pads — places we can go in for a week or two and then get out,” Lt. Gen. Norman Seip, commander of US Air Forces Southern Command told the US military newspaper Stars and Stripe. “It increases our presence, and makes us more unpredictable in operations.”

Reestablishing the Fourth Fleet, with its aircraft carriers as well as US Marine and Navy Seal contingents, provides a floating base for US interventions throughout the continent. Behind the resurrection of the Fourth Fleet lie the same fundamental tendencies underlying the explosion of American militarism on a world scale.

It is the attempt by US imperialism to offset its relative decline as an economic power by reliance on its continuing military supremacy. Europe and increasingly China are playing a growing role in Latin American trade and investment at the expense of US interests. Trade between Latin America and China topped $100 billion last year, a 46 percent increase over 2006.

Meanwhile, the European Union, which is second only to the US in terms of Latin American trade and foreign investment, is increasingly outstripping Washington in the negotiation of free trade agreements on the continent. Today, the US accounts for less than 20 percent of the exports from Brazil, Argentina, Chile and Peru.

The one area where US imperialism can still demonstrate unquestioned superiority against its economic rivals is in the deployment of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers and submarines, which is just what it is now preparing to do off the coasts of Latin America.



Reflections of Fidel Castro:
Yankee response in the hemisphere: the Fourth Fleet of intervention

SEAL to head reestablished U.S. Navy Fourth Fleet

US Navy Deploys Around Latin America
By Lamia Oualalou, Le Figaro, Monday 28 April 2008

Fourth Fleet to sail again in Latin America

Navy Re-establishes 4th Fleet to Promote Future Interoperability