Congratulations to us! Last week's Palestinian Land Day marked the largest global boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) Day of Action to date. According to the fantastic new global BDS movement web site, the United States hosted the most actions of any country in the world. Great job to all those who participated!
Want to be inspired? Here is a tiny taste of the more than 25 fantastic events across the U.S.:
In San Francisco, activists demonstrated and delivered a letter to the IRS to protest the tax-exempt status of the Jewish National Fund, which re-appropriated the land of Palestinian refugees whom Israel exiled in 1948 and which continues to restrict land use for Jewish Israelis only.
There were BDS flash mobs by member groups in Chicago and New York City! The latter was taken down in what appears to be a pattern of YouTube censorship.
The Minnesota Break the Bonds Campaign held an advocacy training at the state capitol. More than 110 activists from around the state gathered to urge their legislators to divest state funds from Israeli bonds.
Activists delivered a letter with over 2,500 signatures to the management at 15 Bed, Bath & Beyond stores along the West Coast, asking the retail chain to discontinue sales of Ahava cosmetics and SodaStream home carbonation systems, both manufactured in illegal Israeli settlements.
Students at the University of Arizona constructed a mock Apartheid wall to symbolize the walls in Palestine and on the U.S./Mexico border.
Wednesday, April 06, 2011
White House threats must be taken seriously
In yet another indication that America's democratic experiment is a thing of the past, this editor has received word from a source in a foreign intelligence agency allied with the United States that there has been talk by some within the Obama White House that this editor is under threat. What particular stories have inflamed the White House are not known but the warning conveyed by the source, who has connections within the White House, was stark in its directness: "They want to kill you."
It was perfectly clear that the phrase was not being used as a figure of speech.
That this development is being reported on April 4 is even more ironic. On April 4, 1968, Dr. Martin Luther King, Kr. was assassinated in Memphis during his mission to support striking sanitation workers in the city. Now, we have our first African-American president and a threat to kill a journalist who is most definitely not one of their favorites has been seriously discussed.
Of course, muckraking journalists have been under threat before in America. In 1972, columnist and investigative journalist Jack Anderson had ended up very high on President Richard Nixon's infamous "enemies list." Anderson had long been a burr under the political saddle of Nixon and the president blamed Anderson for exposing a number of Nixon's corrupt activities, including the exposure in 1956 by Anderson and his boss, Drew Pearson, of a loan from Howard Hughes to Nixon's brother Donald.
In the years before the Watergate scandal broke but at a time when other various scandals in the Nixon administration began to receive the bulldog-like attention of Anderson, who succeeded Pearson as editor of the "Washington Merry-Go-Round column in 1969, there were serious discussions among Nixon aides Charles Colson and G. Gordon Liddy, as well as the CIA's Dr. Edward Gunn, an expert on poisons, about assassinating the troublesome Anderson.
Scenarios included the use of LSD or poison but Anderson's Mormon religion and the fact that he did not drink ruled out the use of poisons or LSD in his drink. Staging an automobile accident in which Anderson would be incinerated was also an option. Another scenario considered was one which would have appeared to be a random Washington, DC street mugging in which Anderson would be stabbed or have his throat slit. The plot to assassinate Anderson came to an abrupt halt as Liddy, Colson, and E. Howard Hunt, who had also been involved in the action against Anderson, were exposed in the May 1972 break-in at the Watergate headquarters of the Democratic National Committee.
Although I have attempted to pattern WMR after Anderson's and Pearson's "Merry-Go-Round" column, I do not have the luxury of newspaper syndicators or a Pulitzer Prize, all of which Anderson could rely on as firewalls between him and those in the White House who wanted to kill him.
I ran the information about the warning from the foreign intelligence source by some African-Americans in Washington who have worked with Obama White House officials. Their response was less than encouraging. The bottom line is that the White House engages in the type of "gangster politics" for which their home base of Chicago has become infamous.
Although I have taken precautions in covering post-genocide Rwanda, child trafficking in Thailand and Cambodia, the "loss" of nuclear weapons at Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota, the gunning down by police of CIA asset Tony Carnaby in Houston, the story of "Washington Madam" Deborah Jeane Palfrey, and BP's activities on the Gulf Coast in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon disaster, and President Obama's and incoming Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel's past activities in Chicago, those measures were temporary and lasted for as long as I was in the field.
However, I have absolutely no desire to constantly be in fear of the type of a White House-directed or -tolerated hit like that discussed by Nixon aides on Anderson who had the benefit of a degree of support from his syndicate and the newspapers who carried his column, which included The Washington Post.
Preliminary plans are being made to continue the investigative journalism of this website from a safer vantage point abroad and in an environment that provides basic protection for press freedom.
Unfortunately, the United States is no longer a safe place for independent journalists. Today, President Obama kicked off his 2012 presidential campaign in a web video message. Without a Democratic primary challenger, it can be safely assumed that the White House will pull out every arrow in its quiver to suppress negative information about Obama. The mere fact that the announcement of Obama's re-election came on the anniversary of the assassination of Dr. King shows that Obama will shamelessly attach himself to the legacy of the much-revered African-American leader with whom he shares no cultural legacy of historical African-Americans with their family histories of slavery in the South and sharecropping. Nor would King, if alive today, approve of any of Obama's pro-war and pro-corporate policies.
With a second Obama term a likelihood, iIt only makes sense, therefore, that the reporting on the "new America" be conducted from a more secure location.
There is an interesting postscript to this story. Not once, during the eight years of the Bush administration, did I ever receive such a credible and direct threat. In fact, after WMR's stories about marital friction between Bush and First Lady Laura Bush received national media attention, there was a communication from a close friend of Mrs. Bush that if I laid off her marital situation, I would be given a major scoop. Knowing that no one should ever cut a deal with the Bush family or their friends, I kindly declined the offer. But whereas the Bush White House was prepared to offer a carrot, the Obama administration appears to favor the stick or another lethal weapon of choice.
It was perfectly clear that the phrase was not being used as a figure of speech.
That this development is being reported on April 4 is even more ironic. On April 4, 1968, Dr. Martin Luther King, Kr. was assassinated in Memphis during his mission to support striking sanitation workers in the city. Now, we have our first African-American president and a threat to kill a journalist who is most definitely not one of their favorites has been seriously discussed.
Of course, muckraking journalists have been under threat before in America. In 1972, columnist and investigative journalist Jack Anderson had ended up very high on President Richard Nixon's infamous "enemies list." Anderson had long been a burr under the political saddle of Nixon and the president blamed Anderson for exposing a number of Nixon's corrupt activities, including the exposure in 1956 by Anderson and his boss, Drew Pearson, of a loan from Howard Hughes to Nixon's brother Donald.
In the years before the Watergate scandal broke but at a time when other various scandals in the Nixon administration began to receive the bulldog-like attention of Anderson, who succeeded Pearson as editor of the "Washington Merry-Go-Round column in 1969, there were serious discussions among Nixon aides Charles Colson and G. Gordon Liddy, as well as the CIA's Dr. Edward Gunn, an expert on poisons, about assassinating the troublesome Anderson.
Scenarios included the use of LSD or poison but Anderson's Mormon religion and the fact that he did not drink ruled out the use of poisons or LSD in his drink. Staging an automobile accident in which Anderson would be incinerated was also an option. Another scenario considered was one which would have appeared to be a random Washington, DC street mugging in which Anderson would be stabbed or have his throat slit. The plot to assassinate Anderson came to an abrupt halt as Liddy, Colson, and E. Howard Hunt, who had also been involved in the action against Anderson, were exposed in the May 1972 break-in at the Watergate headquarters of the Democratic National Committee.
Although I have attempted to pattern WMR after Anderson's and Pearson's "Merry-Go-Round" column, I do not have the luxury of newspaper syndicators or a Pulitzer Prize, all of which Anderson could rely on as firewalls between him and those in the White House who wanted to kill him.
I ran the information about the warning from the foreign intelligence source by some African-Americans in Washington who have worked with Obama White House officials. Their response was less than encouraging. The bottom line is that the White House engages in the type of "gangster politics" for which their home base of Chicago has become infamous.
Although I have taken precautions in covering post-genocide Rwanda, child trafficking in Thailand and Cambodia, the "loss" of nuclear weapons at Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota, the gunning down by police of CIA asset Tony Carnaby in Houston, the story of "Washington Madam" Deborah Jeane Palfrey, and BP's activities on the Gulf Coast in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon disaster, and President Obama's and incoming Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel's past activities in Chicago, those measures were temporary and lasted for as long as I was in the field.
However, I have absolutely no desire to constantly be in fear of the type of a White House-directed or -tolerated hit like that discussed by Nixon aides on Anderson who had the benefit of a degree of support from his syndicate and the newspapers who carried his column, which included The Washington Post.
Preliminary plans are being made to continue the investigative journalism of this website from a safer vantage point abroad and in an environment that provides basic protection for press freedom.
Unfortunately, the United States is no longer a safe place for independent journalists. Today, President Obama kicked off his 2012 presidential campaign in a web video message. Without a Democratic primary challenger, it can be safely assumed that the White House will pull out every arrow in its quiver to suppress negative information about Obama. The mere fact that the announcement of Obama's re-election came on the anniversary of the assassination of Dr. King shows that Obama will shamelessly attach himself to the legacy of the much-revered African-American leader with whom he shares no cultural legacy of historical African-Americans with their family histories of slavery in the South and sharecropping. Nor would King, if alive today, approve of any of Obama's pro-war and pro-corporate policies.
With a second Obama term a likelihood, iIt only makes sense, therefore, that the reporting on the "new America" be conducted from a more secure location.
There is an interesting postscript to this story. Not once, during the eight years of the Bush administration, did I ever receive such a credible and direct threat. In fact, after WMR's stories about marital friction between Bush and First Lady Laura Bush received national media attention, there was a communication from a close friend of Mrs. Bush that if I laid off her marital situation, I would be given a major scoop. Knowing that no one should ever cut a deal with the Bush family or their friends, I kindly declined the offer. But whereas the Bush White House was prepared to offer a carrot, the Obama administration appears to favor the stick or another lethal weapon of choice.
Friday, April 01, 2011
Exposed: The US-Saudi Libya deal
THE ROVING EYE
Exposed: The US-Saudi Libya deal
By Pepe Escobar
Exposed: The US-Saudi Libya deal
By Pepe Escobar
To follow Pepe's articles on the Great Arab Revolt, please click here.
You invade Bahrain. We take out Muammar Gaddafi in Libya. This, in short, is the essence of a deal struck between the Barack Obama administration and the House of Saud. Two diplomatic sources at the United Nations independently confirmed that Washington, via Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, gave the go-ahead for Saudi Arabia to invade Bahrain and crush the pro-democracy movement in their neighbor in exchange for a "yes" vote by the Arab League for a no-fly zone over Libya - the main rationale that led to United Nations Security Council resolution 1973.
The revelation came from two different diplomats, a European and a member of the BRIC group, and was made separately to a US scholar and Asia Times Online. According to diplomatic protocol, their names cannot be disclosed. One of the diplomats said, "This is the reason why we could not support resolution 1973. We were arguing that Libya, Bahrain and Yemen were similar cases, and calling for a fact-finding mission. We maintain our official position that the resolution is not clear, and may be interpreted in a belligerent manner."
As Asia Times Online has reported, a full Arab League endorsement of a no-fly zone is a myth. Of the 22 full members, only 11 were present at the voting. Six of them were Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) members, the US-supported club of Gulf kingdoms/sheikhdoms, of which Saudi Arabia is the top dog. Syria and Algeria were against it. Saudi Arabia only had to "seduce" three other members to get the vote.
Translation: only nine out of 22 members of the Arab League voted for the no-fly zone. The vote was essentially a House of Saud-led operation, with Arab League secretary general Amr Moussa keen to polish his CV with Washington with an eye to become the next Egyptian President.
Thus, in the beginning, there was the great 2011 Arab revolt. Then, inexorably, came the US-Saudi counter-revolution.
Profiteers rejoice
Humanitarian imperialists will spin en masse this is a "conspiracy", as they have been spinning the bombing of Libya prevented a hypothetical massacre in Benghazi. They will be defending the House of Saud - saying it acted to squash Iranian subversion in the Gulf; obviously R2P - "responsibility to protect" does not apply to people in Bahrain. They will be heavily promoting post-Gaddafi Libya as a new - oily - human rights Mecca, complete with US intelligence assets, black ops, special forces and dodgy contractors.
Whatever they say won't alter the facts on the ground - the graphic results of the US-Saudi dirty dancing. Asia Times Online has already reported on who profits from the foreign intervention in Libya (see There's no business like war business, March 30). Players include the Pentagon (via Africom), the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), Saudi Arabia, the Arab League's Moussa, and Qatar. Add to the list the al-Khalifa dynasty in Bahrain, assorted weapons contractors, and the usual neo-liberal suspects eager to privatize everything in sight in the new Libya - even the water. And we're not even talking about the Western vultures hovering over the Libyan oil and gas industry.
Exposed, above all, is the astonishing hypocrisy of the Obama administration, selling a crass geopolitical coup involving northern Africa and the Persian Gulf as a humanitarian operation. As for the fact of another US war on a Muslim nation, that's just a "kinetic military action".
There's been wide speculation in both the US and across the Middle East that considering the military stalemate - and short of the "coalition of the willing" bombing the Gaddafi family to oblivion - Washington, London and Paris might settle for the control of eastern Libya; a northern African version of an oil-rich Gulf Emirate. Gaddafi would be left with a starving North Korea-style Tripolitania.
But considering the latest high-value defections from the regime, plus the desired endgame ("Gaddafi must go", in President Obama's own words), Washington, London, Paris and Riyadh won't settle for nothing but the whole kebab. Including a strategic base for both Africom and NATO.
Round up the unusual suspects
One of the side effects of the dirty US-Saudi deal is that the White House is doing all it can to make sure the Bahrain drama is buried by US media. BBC America news anchor Katty Kay at least had the decency to stress, "they would like that one [Bahrain] to go away because there's no real upside for them in supporting the rebellion by the Shi'ites."
For his part the emir of Qatar, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al Thani, showed up on al-Jazeera and said that action was needed because the Libyan people were attacked by Gaddafi. The otherwise excellent al-Jazeera journalists could have politely asked the emir whether he would send his Mirages to protect the people of Palestine from Israel, or his neighbors in Bahrain from Saudi Arabia.
The al-Khalifa dynasty in Bahrain is essentially a bunch of Sunni settlers who took over 230 years ago. For a great deal of the 20th century they were obliging slaves of the British empire. Modern Bahrain does not live under the specter of a push from Iran; that's an al-Khalifa (and House of Saud) myth.
Bahrainis, historically, have always rejected being part of a sort of Shi'ite nation led by Iran. The protests come a long way, and are part of a true national movement - way beyond sectarianism. No wonder the slogan in the iconic Pearl roundabout - smashed by the fearful al-Khalifa police state - was "neither Sunni nor Shi'ite; Bahraini".
What the protesters wanted was essentially a constitutional monarchy; a legitimate parliament; free and fair elections; and no more corruption. What they got instead was "bullet-friendly Bahrain" replacing "business-friendly Bahrain", and an invasion sponsored by the House of Saud.
And the repression goes on - invisible to US corporate media. Tweeters scream that everybody and his neighbor are being arrested. According to Nabeel Rajab, president of the Bahrain Center for Human Rights, over 400 people are either missing or in custody, some of them "arrested at checkpoints controlled by thugs brought in from other Arab and Asian countries - they wear black masks in the streets." Even blogger Mahmood Al Yousif was arrested at 3 am, leading to fears that the same will happen to any Bahraini who has blogged, tweeted, or posted Facebook messages in favor of reform.
Globocop is on a roll
Odyssey Dawn is now over. Enter Unified Protector - led by Canadian Charles Bouchard. Translation: the Pentagon (as in Africom) transfers the "kinetic military action " to itself (as in NATO, which is nothing but the Pentagon ruling over Europe). Africom and NATO are now one.
The NATO show will include air and cruise missile strikes; a naval blockade of Libyia; and shady, unspecified ground operations to help the "rebels". Hardcore helicopter gunship raids a la AfPak - with attached "collateral damage" - should be expected.
A curious development is already visible. NATO is deliberately allowing Gaddafi forces to advance along the Mediterranean coast and repel the "rebels". There have been no surgical air strikes for quite a while.
The objective is possibly to extract political and economic concessions from the defector and Libyan exile-infested Interim National Council (INC) - a dodgy cast of characters including former Justice minister Mustafa Abdel Jalil, US-educated former secretary of planning Mahmoud Jibril, and former Virginia resident, new "military commander" and CIA asset Khalifa Hifter. The laudable, indigenous February 17 Youth movement - which was in the forefront of the Benghazi uprising - has been completely sidelined.
This is NATO's first African war, as Afghanistan is NATO's first Central/South Asian war. Now firmly configured as the UN's weaponized arm, Globocop NATO is on a roll implementing its "strategic concept" approved at the Lisbon summit last November (see Welcome to NATOstan, Asia Times Online, November 20, 2010).
Gaddafi's Libya must be taken out so the Mediterranean - the mare nostrum of ancient Rome - becomes a NATO lake. Libya is the only nation in northern Africa not subordinated to Africom or Centcom or any one of the myriad NATO "partnerships". The other non-NATO-related African nations are Eritrea, Sawahiri Arab Democratic Republic, Sudan and Zimbabwe.
Moreover, two members of NATO's "Istanbul Cooperation Initiative" - Qatar and the United Arab Emirates - are now fighting alongside Africom/NATO for the fist time. Translation: NATO and Persian Gulf partners are fighting a war in Africa. Europe? That's too provincial. Globocop is the way to go.
According to the Obama administration's own official doublespeak, dictators who are eligible for "US outreach" - such as in Bahrain and Yemen - may relax, and get away with virtually anything. As for those eligible for "regime alteration", from Africa to the Middle East and Asia, watch out. Globocop NATO is coming to get you. With or without dirty deals.
Pepe Escobar is the author of Globalistan: How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War (Nimble Books, 2007) and Red Zone Blues: a snapshot of Baghdad during the surge. His new book, just out, is Obama does Globalistan (Nimble Books, 2009).
He may be reached at pepeasia@yahoo.com.
Obama condemned by African-American and progressive coalition
Speaker after speaker, representing a broad section of African-American and progressive organizations, came together this morning at a press conference at the Newseum in Washington, DC and condemned President Obama's military attack on Libya. The press conference announced the creation of the Coalition Against The Bombing of Africa (Libya).
A spokesman for the Universal African People's Organization, which is based in St. Louis, cited Obama's military campaign against an African nation as America prepares to remember the April 4 anniversary of the 1968 assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in Memphis. Just a year before King's assassination, King spoke at Riverside Church in New York and said the "greatest purveyor of violence in the world today is the United States government." Obama stands accused by a number of African-American and progressive leaders of continuing the policy cited by King and continuing America's policy of genocide and invasions.
A spokesperson for the December 12 Movement said Obama's war against Libya represents an attempt to re-colonize Africa and that in order to accomplish the operation, Libya's Qaddafi, a champion of African independence, has to be removed.
Bob Brown, a leader of the All-Africa People's Revolutionary Party -- Guinea-Conakry (AAPRP-GC) accused the National Democratic Institute, International Republican Institute, National Endowment for Democracy, and the US Agency for International Development (USAID) are interfering in Africa and that Obama is advancing the agenda of the "Euro-American" banks to grab Libya's oil, Cote d'Ivoire's cocoa, and central Africa's col-tan.
Brown claimed that Obama is either a "conscious agent of the enemy of our people or is a fool. The speaker added, "my father did not arrive here like Obama's, on one of Tom Mboya's CIA airlift planes."
A Muslim-American spokesman recalled when he met Obama in Chicago, while the then-presidential candidate was seeking his group's endorsement, Obama could recite Koranic phrases in Arabic better than the foreign-born Muslim-American spokesman. The speaker stated that the majority of the Arab League does not support the U.S. and NATO military action against Libya.
The final speaker, 2008 Green Party presidential candidate and former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney slammed Obama's CIA support for the Libyan opposition, including one of its leader, Khalifa Hifter, who has spent the last 20 years living in Langley, Virginia, the headquarters of the CIA. McKinney also cited this editor's previous reports on Obama's own CIA background and the links to the "company" of his family.
McKinney also decried the silence from the Congressional Black Caucus on Obama's military attack on Libya. One panelist pointed out that some members of the Black Caucus have been in power longer than Qaddafi.
Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan addressed the Washington press conference via telecast from Chicago's Mosque Maryam, built with a $3 million loan from Qaddafi. WMR has previously reported that Obama was infiltrated into south Chicago in 1985 from his CIA front job in New York to spy on Qaddafi-supported groups such as the Nation of Islam, Black Panthers, and El Rukn gang. As president and commander-in-chief, Obama is now seen by some black Muslims of taking his revenge on Qaddafi in a more international version of Obama's street warfare with black activists during Obama's days as a shill for the CIA and FBI infiltration operations in Chicago. One African-American classmate of Obama in Harvard in 1988 told WMR that Obama regularly complained on campus about black activism.
Farrakhan said Obama asked for and received the Nation of Islam's support in his U.S. Senate campaign. Later, Obama renounced Farrakhan and his organization during a debate with Hillary Clinton.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)