Sex sells, we are told. Sells what exactly? Well, sells more sex, mainly, which tends to result in babies.
In 1989 or thereabouts HRH the Duke of Edinburgh, member and leading spokesman for the Bilderberger Group, calculated that world population would reach seven point seven billion (seven point seven billion) by 2010, highlighting his own desire to be reincarnated as a deadly virus to reduce overpopulation.
In July 2008 the UN produced a report stating that world population had reached 6.7 billion (six point seven billion) and that the overburdened earth could not sustain a continually expanding population. It is easy to calculate that in the contest between the continually more automated slaughter machines (We now have drones that shoot hellfire missiles at a car speeding along the highway, saving our brave lads even the trouble of being in the plane) and the biological reproduction machines (aka humanity) the slaughter machines appear to be well on the Duke’s target, in fact considerably ahead of target.
On Dec. 10, 1974, the U.S. National Security Council under Henry Kissinger completed a classified 200-page study, "National Security Study Memorandum 200: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests." Dr. Henry Kissinger proposed in his memorandum to the NSC that ‘depopulation should be the highest priority of U.S. foreign policy towards the Third World.’ He quoted reasons of national security, and because `(t)he U.S. economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad, especially from less-developed countries ... Wherever a lessening of population can increase the prospects for such stability, population policy becomes relevant to resources, supplies and to the economic interests of U.S.'
The study claimed that population growth in the so-called Lesser Developed Countries (LDCs) was a grave threat to U.S. national security. Adopted as official policy in November 1975 by President Gerald Ford, NSSM 200 outlined a covert plan to reduce population growth in those countries through birth control, and also, implicitly, war and famine. Brent Scowcroft, who had by then replaced Kissinger as national security adviser (the same post Scowcroft was to hold in the Bush administration), was put in charge of implementing the plan. CIA Director George Bush was ordered to assist Scowcroft, as were the secretaries of state, treasury, defense, and agriculture.
Against whom are these efforts directed? Well, they are directed against all populations, including the American, but primarily against the Moslem population, comprising around twenty per cent of total world population, who happen to live where many of the most desirable resources are located.
Moslems are as often happy to take things easy as any one else, but one of their basic traditions, is Jahada, effort, more familiar in the form jihad, much traduced by the paid and unpaid hacks. Traditionally it exists in the form of the little jihad, when you grab a weapon and rush out in your night shirt to repel an attack on your community, since you have a duty to defend from obliteration the community that supports and shelters you, and the big jihad, which is making an effort to stay right with God. Jihad as I understand it means "effort" which can be spiritual or moral, and an oft-quoted phrase from the Qu'ran is jihad fi sabil Allah, effort for the sake of God. War can be one of the meanings, which is the little jihad. Scholars in the matter say the more accurate translation when jihad has the meaning of war is "just war," but jihad can be an effort to be kind to people or to give up drink, which would be the big jihad. Mujahid (one who is on jihad) is the present participle but the war idea has blocked out the other meanings. Mujtahid is from the same root and has the idea of intellectual cerebration on a religious matter. Ijtihad is the verbal noun.
The US already spends more on "Defense," i.e., the military, than all the rest of the world put together. By 1990, production for the Department of Defense amounted to 83% of the value of all manufacturing plants and equipment in the US. Only 17% of the US manufacturing base actually made products not meant to kill people and destroy property, the functions of any military, anywhere.
Senator Obama, Democratic presidential candidate, proposes greatly to increase spending on the military from present levels. He has also approved the invasion of Pakistan to winkle out Osama bin Laden, who was declared Saif’Ullah, the sword of God, by the Pakistani ‘Ulema or Council of Elders.
Change? What change?
Jul 23, 2008
Jul 17, 2008
The Merits of Justice
http://www.enoughproject.org/node/974 The Merits of Justice
Would more people, or less people, rob banks if there was no penalty for robbing banks?
By John Norris, David Sullivan, and John Prendergast ENOUGH Strategy Paper 35, July 2008 www.enoughproject.org
This week the International Criminal Court, or ICC, took important steps toward promoting peace and accountability in Sudan by urging an arrest warrant for crimes against humanity against the Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir. Sadly, but somewhat unsurprisingly, the step has set off a chorus of hand-wringing among certain diplomats, academics, and pundits, who are now arguing that holding perpetrators of crimes against humanity accountable for their actions is unhelpful. In the Financial Times a columnist positively quailed at the notion of bad people being held responsible for their actions, bemoaning that “the threat of international justice may in fact be working against peace.” A veteran academic expressed his worry that almost all African senior officials could be made vulnerable to similar charges by this precedent.
Let’s be clear: Holding people accountable for war crimes is not only the right thing to do from a moral perspective—it directly promotes peace and makes future such abuses less likely. Part of the reason Darfur has remained locked in crisis for years is that the international community has been slow to acknowledge what has always been painfully obvious: The janjaweed militias that have terrorized and decimated Darfur have been directed by the Sudanese government. The militias were financed by the government, and received direct battlefield support from the Sudanese military. The International Criminal Court is doing no more than acknowledging the plain, painful truth of Sudan’s tragedy. The prosecutor should be congratulated for recognizing that turning a blind eye to war crimes is not helpful.
Case One: Slobodan Milosevic
If the hand-wringing all feels a bit familiar, it is because we have been through this more than once before. In 1999, during the Kosovo conflict, Slobodan Milosevic was indicted in the middle of not only a NATO bombing campaign to reverse the ethnic cleaning in Kosovo, but of high-level peace talks between the United States, Russia, and Finland to end the war.
Very few commentators took exception with the notion that Milosevic had been intimately involved in directing ethnic cleansing, genocide, and sundry other war crimes in Bosnia and Kosovo. But Russian envoy Viktor Chernomyrdin said the indictment “pulled out the rug from under the negotiating process,” as both Russia and China decried what they called a “political” indictment that was designed to scuttle peace talks.1 Others suggested the indictment would push Milosevic to stay in power permanently or lead his forces to adopt an even more brutal approach on the ground in Kosovo.2
Some insisted that Milosevic would never face justice because the question of how he would be handed over to authorities was not immediately apparent. Instead of appreciating that Milosevic employed ethnic cleansing in Kosovo in large part because he had used such tactics with impunity in the earlier Bosnia conflict, commentators appeared deathly afraid that the international community might somehow offend Mr. Milosevic’s delicate sensibilities.
Yet, in retrospect, the work of the Yugoslav tribunal and the indictment of Milosevic led to none of the doomsday scenarios envisioned by the skeptics. Yes, the Russians postponed a single diplomatic trip to Belgrade for one week to express their dissatisfaction with the indictment, but the peace talks resumed quickly and Milosevic accepted the demands that were placed upon him: Kosovar refugees were allowed to return home; Serb forces withdrew from the province and a NATO-led force entered to provide security.
Milosevic’s hold on power did not last long after the 1999 war and his indictment. When he tried to steal a September 2000 presidential election, Milosevic was ousted by massive street protests, and turned over to the international tribunal a number of months later. He died of a heart attack during his war crimes trial proceedings.
So, what did we learn from the Milosevic example? Indictments don’t necessarily derail peace talks and, indeed, they seem to be most helpful in clarifying the minds of dictators that their very existence is at stake.
• Indictments send a powerful message to the cronies, business partners, and sycophants that orbit around such dictators that they may well be lashed to a sinking ship and should get out while they can. This allows more responsible political voices space to challenge the authority and destructive policies of the ruling government. The Kosovo conflict marked an important point when Milosevic’s corrupt business partners began to see him as much as a liability as an asset.
• War crimes indictments have a chilling effect on commanders on the ground. Few military commanders want to be vulnerable to such prosecutions, and they are more likely to alter their behavior if they know the international community is serious about justice.
• The fact that members of different ethnic communities were indicted for their particular crimes furthered the sense that the tribunal approached its work with an even hand.
• More broadly, the war crimes prosecutions in the Balkans have been a remarkable cornerstone in allowing remarkably rapid progress in reconstruction, stability, and democratization across the region because they removed the most noxious nationalists who had inflicted such terrible suffering on the civilian population.
Case Two: Charles Taylor and His Conditional Exile
In June 2003, Liberia was on the brink. Rebel forces had advanced within 10 miles of the capital in the first of a series of offensives that Liberians would dub “World Wars” for their ferocity. President Charles Taylor, who had directed a brutal proxy war in Sierra Leone using legions of child soldiers, was now facing a taste of his own medicine.
On June 4, Taylor was in Accra, Ghana for the opening of peace talks that aimed to negotiate an end to the Liberian conflict. Shortly after Taylor promised to step down by the end of the year, the special court for Sierra Leone unveiled an indictment against Taylor for war crimes and crimes against humanity perpetrated during that country’s brutal war. The court hoped that Ghanaian authorities would arrest Taylor, but instead he was allowed to return to Liberia, albeit as an international fugitive. Some diplomats engaged in the negotiations denounced the indictment as an impediment to peace, and the presidents of South Africa, Nigeria, and Ghana complained that they had been “sandbagged” by the timing of the indictments as they tried to persuade Taylor to resign. 3 Pessimists were quick to critique the court’s prosecutor for interjecting the concept of justice into the rarefied realpolitik of peace negotiations.
In fact, Taylor’s indictment, combined with unprecedented levels of international pressure (including a U.S. warship on the horizon) helped to build the leverage necessary to actually move him out of Monrovia into a negotiated exile in Nigeria. The terms of this deal were clear: As long as he stayed out of Liberian politics, Nigeria would keep him out of the hands of the court, despite an Interpol warrant for his arrest.4
Despite stern public warnings from his host, Taylor did not hold up his end of the bargain.5 From exile in Calabar, Nigeria, Taylor used his connections to international criminal networks to fund a range of presidential candidates in Liberia’s transitional presidential elections, delivered support to armed groups in the region, and even supported an assassination attempt against the President of Guinea.6
Taylor’s post-exile behavior violated the terms of his asylum, but it was also a significant change from the utterly brutal behavior exhibited during his career as a warlord. Despite his regional reach, Taylor never again attempted to reignite the regional contagion of violence against civilians that he had previously exported to Sierra Leone, Guinea, and Ivory Coast. International pressure in the form of his indictment dramatically changed the context of conflict in Liberia and helped to bring about genuine civilian protection on the ground.
Nigeria continued to host the intransigent Taylor through Liberia’s tense elections. Following the inauguration of President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, political pressure to deliver Taylor to justice mounted. A dramatic and nearly successful escape attempt was foiled at the last minute when Taylor tried to cross from Nigeria into Cameroon. Taylor was turned over to the special court and is currently facing trial on 11 counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Meanwhile, Liberia benefited from the deployment of a sizeable Chapter VII peacekeeping operation and substantial international support during its transition. Under President Johnson-Sirleaf, Liberia is on the long road to recovery.
Today, self-professed realists argue that Taylor’s handover to justice sent the wrong message to dictators like Bashir and Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe, maintaining that it undermines the credibility of amnesty offers to dictators who are all the more likely to hold on to power at any cost. This facile misreading of history misses the real lessons from Taylor:
Conditional asylum remains a viable option. Taylor opted for exile because the right combination of pressures was belatedly applied by regional and international actors. It is the responsibility of international mediators to make clear the terms of such a deal and for the countries involved to ensure its credibility. There was no one but Taylor to blame that he broke a deal to which he agreed.
• International justice shines harsh light on human rights violations in otherwise remote places, deterring would-be warlords from emulating thugs like Taylor. The special court for Sierra Leone has helped to end the cycle of impunity in the Mano River region.
Case Three: Holding a Criminal Regime to Acount in Sudan
Skeptics warn that the ICC’s action against Bashir may cause Sudan to implode.7 But hundreds of thousands in Darfur have been killed or displaced by violence and its fallout. The UN-led peacekeeping effort remains largely stillborn, with seven peacekeepers killed in an ambush on July 8. Peace talks have been a dead-end, and tensions between North-South in Sudan threaten to unravel an earlier peace deal and could hasten Sudan’s disintegration. This is not a status quo that we should worry about upsetting with an arrest warrant.
On the contrary, the only way by which the fundamental dynamics of conflict in Sudan will change is by introducing accountability. President Bashir’s behavior in Darfur was predictably consistent with the way he presided over a war strategy in southern Sudan that led to seven times as many deaths.
In waging its conflicts, the Sudanese government has repeatedly employed a strategy of divide and-destroy at multiple levels of society, arming neighboring militias against each other to create a flimsy sense of plausible deniability that they were not directing the violence. No one on the ground had any illusion about the Sudanese government’s criminal behavior, and neither should the international community. Human rights violations committed by rebels in Darfur and the South should not distract attention from the culpability of the Sudanese government in deliberately directing the great majority of these atrocities.
Like Milosevic and Taylor, impunity has emboldened Bashir over the years. It would be illogical for him to alter a brutal but successful formula for retaining power. Janjaweed militias backed by the Sudanese armed forces destroyed the homes and livelihoods of Darfur’s non-Arab peoples. Today in the camps this slow-moving genocide continues, by attrition, through disease and malnutrition.
Remember, genocide is not only gas chambers or militias with machetes. Genocide is the deliberate creation of conditions aimed at bringing about the destruction of specific groups of people on the basis of their identity, such as we have seen in Darfur. ICC Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo’s June 5 statement before the Security Council clearly articulates the organized use of organized insecurity, systematic rape, and deliberate destruction of communities in these camps.8
The case against Bashir introduces three new elements into the Darfur equation: leverage, deterrence, and protection. How they are utilized by the international community will help determine whether or not a solution for Darfur is at hand.
Until now, the UN Security Council and powerful states have done little in the way of building direct leverage that can be utilized in support of either peace talks or protecting civilians on the ground.
Although the ICC remains independent of the Security Council, there are means by which its investigations can be suspended or its targets given security assurances in exchange for a binding exile deal.9 Bashir now must understand that his fate is tied to a peaceful resolution of the Darfur crisis, a sensible peace deal, and deployment of the UN-led protection force. After Moreno-Ocampo presents his case, the ICC judges will most likely take several months to make a decision on issuing a warrant for arrest. During this time the Security Council should vigorously build leverage in support of a peace deal and deployment of peacekeepers. Equally, the Security Council needs to understand that any effort to derail justice or interfere with the chief Prosecutor’s work would be a disaster.
Deterrence is also a positive new potential factor. Proper follow up to Bashir’s warrant could deter future perpetrators of crimes against humanity in Sudan.
Least discussed but potentially most important are the implications the arrest warrant will have for protecting civilians. The record shows over the last two decades that General Bashir’s regime has backed off its most deadly war strategies when international pressure has been well coordinated and at its high points. When the spotlight was on the regime’s use of food as a weapon, it relented. When the pressure focused on ending bombing of civilians in the South, it stopped. When the temperature went up over the regime’s facilitation of a resumption of slavery, it abandoned its strategy and slave-raiding ended.
Putting the spotlight on Bashir provides a significant point of pressure that if backed by key governments and the UN Security Council could lead to real protection for the civilian population.
Darfurian Perspectives on Justice
Absent from all too many discussions about peace and justice in Darfur is the voice of the Darfurians themselves. In our visits to the region, from reports coming from inside Darfur as well as the Darfurian diaspora, the people of Darfur stand united behind the demand to end impunity. Despite the many divisions among Darfuri groups that have slowed progress toward a viable peace in Sudan, our research has found that Darfuris speak with one voice on several issues. The demand for justice is one which has galvanized Darfurians even amid dire circumstances.
The people of Darfur demand that the government of Sudan adheres to the rule of international law by arresting and surrendering suspects to the ICC. They are very clear on who they think was the perpetrator in this case. In numerous videos and documentaries filmed inside Darfur or in the refugee camps, displaced Darfuris squarely place the blame on the government of Sudan. Some people mention the name of President Bashir as the culprit, others mention Director of National Intelligence Salah Gosh and other state officials, but the message is clear: It is the regime that is responsible for the genocide.
Many Darfurians realize that it is impossible for the ICC to prosecute every alleged genocidaire in Darfur. They posit a solution whereby the ICC prosecutes the worst offenders, while serious reform to the Sudanese justice system enables it to handle the cases of the lower ranks of implicated persons.
ICC charges againssnt Bashir, or any high-level official from his government, will be welcomed by Darfurians of all walks of life, because to them it represents the first step in ending impunity, and a hope for closure to a life of misery that seemed endless. It would also be a recognition from the international community that justice for Darfur will be served, even if it was delayed for a while.
Conclusion
Several spurious arguments continually obstruct efforts to secure both peace and justice in wartorn corners of the globe. World weary “experts” are often far too quick to speak about Sudan the same way they used to speak about the Balkans and West Africa—as a hopeless wellspring of endless ethnic tensions doomed to perpetual violence.
It is baffling why anyone would think that acceding to the demands of war criminals is a sensible path to securing peace.
Conflict in Sudan may be complicated, but at its root is the criminal behavior of a regime that has continually used murderous and genocidal tactics to maintain power. Unless concerted international action is taken to impose a cost on the perpetrators of these crimes, they will not change their behavior. And although international politics may preclude punishment for every regime that may be guilty of atrocities, just because we cannot yet go after every war criminal does not mean we should go after none.
Two and a half million Sudanese lives have been extinguished as a result of the war tactics of President Bashir and his regime, and the chief Prosecutor simply and elegantly makes clear that such crimes can not be committed without cost. Yes, there will be many perilous days ahead in Sudan full of high-stakes diplomacy, confrontation, and difficult choices before Bashir and his accomplishes face justice. Yes, the voices of the naysayers at times will reach a crescendo. However, the International Criminal Court should be applauded for taking the first brave step down this important road. The world will ultimately be a better place for its action.
Refs:
1 “Crisis in the Balkans: The Indictment; Tribunal is Said to Cite Milosevic for War Crimes,” New York Times, May 27, 1999
2 Tom Gallagher, “Demonisation of the President is Unlikely to Lead to Peace,” The Herald (Glasgow), May 28, 1999.
3 Felicity Barringer with Somini Sengupta, “War Crimes Indictment of Liberian President is Disclosed,” New York Times, June 5, 2003
4 ICG, Liberia: Security Challenges, p. 20
5 Anna Borzello, “Nigeria Warns Exiled Taylor,” BBC News, September 17, 2003, available at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3115992.stm; and Open Society Justice Initiative, “Nigeria Says Taylor Cannot Stay If Asylum Terms Violated,” May 19, 2005, available at http://www.justiceinitiative.org/db/resource2?res_id=102721
6 Coalition for International Justice, “Following Taylor’s Money: A Path of War and Destruction.”
7 “Former US Special Envoy to Sudan Warns Against ICC Dafur Indictments,” Sudan Tribune, June 27, 2008, available at http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article27670
8 Statement by Mr. Luis Moreno-Ocampo, Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, June 5, 2008
9 ENOUGH has recommended similar measures to deal with Joseph Kony and the Lord’s Resistance Army in northern Uganda. See “What to do about Joseph Kony,” ENOUGH Strategy Paper #8, October
2007, available at http://www.enoughproject.org/node/51
ENOUGH is a project of the Center for American Progress to end genocide
and crimes against humanity. With an initial focus on the crises in Sudan, Chad, eastern Congo, Somalia and northern Uganda, ENOUGH’s strategy papers and briefings provide sharp field analysis and targeted policy recommendations based on a “3P” crisis response strategy: promoting durable peace, providing civilian protection, and punishing perpetrators of atrocities. ENOUGH works with concerned citizens, advocates, and policy makers to prevent, mitigate, and resolve these crises. To learn more about ENOUGH and what you can do to help, go to www.enoughproject.org.
1225 Eye Street, NW, Suite 307, Washington, DC 20005
Phone: 202-682-1611 Fax: 202-682-6140 www.enoughproject.org
Would more people, or less people, rob banks if there was no penalty for robbing banks?
By John Norris, David Sullivan, and John Prendergast ENOUGH Strategy Paper 35, July 2008 www.enoughproject.org
This week the International Criminal Court, or ICC, took important steps toward promoting peace and accountability in Sudan by urging an arrest warrant for crimes against humanity against the Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir. Sadly, but somewhat unsurprisingly, the step has set off a chorus of hand-wringing among certain diplomats, academics, and pundits, who are now arguing that holding perpetrators of crimes against humanity accountable for their actions is unhelpful. In the Financial Times a columnist positively quailed at the notion of bad people being held responsible for their actions, bemoaning that “the threat of international justice may in fact be working against peace.” A veteran academic expressed his worry that almost all African senior officials could be made vulnerable to similar charges by this precedent.
Let’s be clear: Holding people accountable for war crimes is not only the right thing to do from a moral perspective—it directly promotes peace and makes future such abuses less likely. Part of the reason Darfur has remained locked in crisis for years is that the international community has been slow to acknowledge what has always been painfully obvious: The janjaweed militias that have terrorized and decimated Darfur have been directed by the Sudanese government. The militias were financed by the government, and received direct battlefield support from the Sudanese military. The International Criminal Court is doing no more than acknowledging the plain, painful truth of Sudan’s tragedy. The prosecutor should be congratulated for recognizing that turning a blind eye to war crimes is not helpful.
Case One: Slobodan Milosevic
If the hand-wringing all feels a bit familiar, it is because we have been through this more than once before. In 1999, during the Kosovo conflict, Slobodan Milosevic was indicted in the middle of not only a NATO bombing campaign to reverse the ethnic cleaning in Kosovo, but of high-level peace talks between the United States, Russia, and Finland to end the war.
Very few commentators took exception with the notion that Milosevic had been intimately involved in directing ethnic cleansing, genocide, and sundry other war crimes in Bosnia and Kosovo. But Russian envoy Viktor Chernomyrdin said the indictment “pulled out the rug from under the negotiating process,” as both Russia and China decried what they called a “political” indictment that was designed to scuttle peace talks.1 Others suggested the indictment would push Milosevic to stay in power permanently or lead his forces to adopt an even more brutal approach on the ground in Kosovo.2
Some insisted that Milosevic would never face justice because the question of how he would be handed over to authorities was not immediately apparent. Instead of appreciating that Milosevic employed ethnic cleansing in Kosovo in large part because he had used such tactics with impunity in the earlier Bosnia conflict, commentators appeared deathly afraid that the international community might somehow offend Mr. Milosevic’s delicate sensibilities.
Yet, in retrospect, the work of the Yugoslav tribunal and the indictment of Milosevic led to none of the doomsday scenarios envisioned by the skeptics. Yes, the Russians postponed a single diplomatic trip to Belgrade for one week to express their dissatisfaction with the indictment, but the peace talks resumed quickly and Milosevic accepted the demands that were placed upon him: Kosovar refugees were allowed to return home; Serb forces withdrew from the province and a NATO-led force entered to provide security.
Milosevic’s hold on power did not last long after the 1999 war and his indictment. When he tried to steal a September 2000 presidential election, Milosevic was ousted by massive street protests, and turned over to the international tribunal a number of months later. He died of a heart attack during his war crimes trial proceedings.
So, what did we learn from the Milosevic example? Indictments don’t necessarily derail peace talks and, indeed, they seem to be most helpful in clarifying the minds of dictators that their very existence is at stake.
• Indictments send a powerful message to the cronies, business partners, and sycophants that orbit around such dictators that they may well be lashed to a sinking ship and should get out while they can. This allows more responsible political voices space to challenge the authority and destructive policies of the ruling government. The Kosovo conflict marked an important point when Milosevic’s corrupt business partners began to see him as much as a liability as an asset.
• War crimes indictments have a chilling effect on commanders on the ground. Few military commanders want to be vulnerable to such prosecutions, and they are more likely to alter their behavior if they know the international community is serious about justice.
• The fact that members of different ethnic communities were indicted for their particular crimes furthered the sense that the tribunal approached its work with an even hand.
• More broadly, the war crimes prosecutions in the Balkans have been a remarkable cornerstone in allowing remarkably rapid progress in reconstruction, stability, and democratization across the region because they removed the most noxious nationalists who had inflicted such terrible suffering on the civilian population.
Case Two: Charles Taylor and His Conditional Exile
In June 2003, Liberia was on the brink. Rebel forces had advanced within 10 miles of the capital in the first of a series of offensives that Liberians would dub “World Wars” for their ferocity. President Charles Taylor, who had directed a brutal proxy war in Sierra Leone using legions of child soldiers, was now facing a taste of his own medicine.
On June 4, Taylor was in Accra, Ghana for the opening of peace talks that aimed to negotiate an end to the Liberian conflict. Shortly after Taylor promised to step down by the end of the year, the special court for Sierra Leone unveiled an indictment against Taylor for war crimes and crimes against humanity perpetrated during that country’s brutal war. The court hoped that Ghanaian authorities would arrest Taylor, but instead he was allowed to return to Liberia, albeit as an international fugitive. Some diplomats engaged in the negotiations denounced the indictment as an impediment to peace, and the presidents of South Africa, Nigeria, and Ghana complained that they had been “sandbagged” by the timing of the indictments as they tried to persuade Taylor to resign. 3 Pessimists were quick to critique the court’s prosecutor for interjecting the concept of justice into the rarefied realpolitik of peace negotiations.
In fact, Taylor’s indictment, combined with unprecedented levels of international pressure (including a U.S. warship on the horizon) helped to build the leverage necessary to actually move him out of Monrovia into a negotiated exile in Nigeria. The terms of this deal were clear: As long as he stayed out of Liberian politics, Nigeria would keep him out of the hands of the court, despite an Interpol warrant for his arrest.4
Despite stern public warnings from his host, Taylor did not hold up his end of the bargain.5 From exile in Calabar, Nigeria, Taylor used his connections to international criminal networks to fund a range of presidential candidates in Liberia’s transitional presidential elections, delivered support to armed groups in the region, and even supported an assassination attempt against the President of Guinea.6
Taylor’s post-exile behavior violated the terms of his asylum, but it was also a significant change from the utterly brutal behavior exhibited during his career as a warlord. Despite his regional reach, Taylor never again attempted to reignite the regional contagion of violence against civilians that he had previously exported to Sierra Leone, Guinea, and Ivory Coast. International pressure in the form of his indictment dramatically changed the context of conflict in Liberia and helped to bring about genuine civilian protection on the ground.
Nigeria continued to host the intransigent Taylor through Liberia’s tense elections. Following the inauguration of President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, political pressure to deliver Taylor to justice mounted. A dramatic and nearly successful escape attempt was foiled at the last minute when Taylor tried to cross from Nigeria into Cameroon. Taylor was turned over to the special court and is currently facing trial on 11 counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Meanwhile, Liberia benefited from the deployment of a sizeable Chapter VII peacekeeping operation and substantial international support during its transition. Under President Johnson-Sirleaf, Liberia is on the long road to recovery.
Today, self-professed realists argue that Taylor’s handover to justice sent the wrong message to dictators like Bashir and Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe, maintaining that it undermines the credibility of amnesty offers to dictators who are all the more likely to hold on to power at any cost. This facile misreading of history misses the real lessons from Taylor:
Conditional asylum remains a viable option. Taylor opted for exile because the right combination of pressures was belatedly applied by regional and international actors. It is the responsibility of international mediators to make clear the terms of such a deal and for the countries involved to ensure its credibility. There was no one but Taylor to blame that he broke a deal to which he agreed.
• International justice shines harsh light on human rights violations in otherwise remote places, deterring would-be warlords from emulating thugs like Taylor. The special court for Sierra Leone has helped to end the cycle of impunity in the Mano River region.
Case Three: Holding a Criminal Regime to Acount in Sudan
Skeptics warn that the ICC’s action against Bashir may cause Sudan to implode.7 But hundreds of thousands in Darfur have been killed or displaced by violence and its fallout. The UN-led peacekeeping effort remains largely stillborn, with seven peacekeepers killed in an ambush on July 8. Peace talks have been a dead-end, and tensions between North-South in Sudan threaten to unravel an earlier peace deal and could hasten Sudan’s disintegration. This is not a status quo that we should worry about upsetting with an arrest warrant.
On the contrary, the only way by which the fundamental dynamics of conflict in Sudan will change is by introducing accountability. President Bashir’s behavior in Darfur was predictably consistent with the way he presided over a war strategy in southern Sudan that led to seven times as many deaths.
In waging its conflicts, the Sudanese government has repeatedly employed a strategy of divide and-destroy at multiple levels of society, arming neighboring militias against each other to create a flimsy sense of plausible deniability that they were not directing the violence. No one on the ground had any illusion about the Sudanese government’s criminal behavior, and neither should the international community. Human rights violations committed by rebels in Darfur and the South should not distract attention from the culpability of the Sudanese government in deliberately directing the great majority of these atrocities.
Like Milosevic and Taylor, impunity has emboldened Bashir over the years. It would be illogical for him to alter a brutal but successful formula for retaining power. Janjaweed militias backed by the Sudanese armed forces destroyed the homes and livelihoods of Darfur’s non-Arab peoples. Today in the camps this slow-moving genocide continues, by attrition, through disease and malnutrition.
Remember, genocide is not only gas chambers or militias with machetes. Genocide is the deliberate creation of conditions aimed at bringing about the destruction of specific groups of people on the basis of their identity, such as we have seen in Darfur. ICC Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo’s June 5 statement before the Security Council clearly articulates the organized use of organized insecurity, systematic rape, and deliberate destruction of communities in these camps.8
The case against Bashir introduces three new elements into the Darfur equation: leverage, deterrence, and protection. How they are utilized by the international community will help determine whether or not a solution for Darfur is at hand.
Until now, the UN Security Council and powerful states have done little in the way of building direct leverage that can be utilized in support of either peace talks or protecting civilians on the ground.
Although the ICC remains independent of the Security Council, there are means by which its investigations can be suspended or its targets given security assurances in exchange for a binding exile deal.9 Bashir now must understand that his fate is tied to a peaceful resolution of the Darfur crisis, a sensible peace deal, and deployment of the UN-led protection force. After Moreno-Ocampo presents his case, the ICC judges will most likely take several months to make a decision on issuing a warrant for arrest. During this time the Security Council should vigorously build leverage in support of a peace deal and deployment of peacekeepers. Equally, the Security Council needs to understand that any effort to derail justice or interfere with the chief Prosecutor’s work would be a disaster.
Deterrence is also a positive new potential factor. Proper follow up to Bashir’s warrant could deter future perpetrators of crimes against humanity in Sudan.
Least discussed but potentially most important are the implications the arrest warrant will have for protecting civilians. The record shows over the last two decades that General Bashir’s regime has backed off its most deadly war strategies when international pressure has been well coordinated and at its high points. When the spotlight was on the regime’s use of food as a weapon, it relented. When the pressure focused on ending bombing of civilians in the South, it stopped. When the temperature went up over the regime’s facilitation of a resumption of slavery, it abandoned its strategy and slave-raiding ended.
Putting the spotlight on Bashir provides a significant point of pressure that if backed by key governments and the UN Security Council could lead to real protection for the civilian population.
Darfurian Perspectives on Justice
Absent from all too many discussions about peace and justice in Darfur is the voice of the Darfurians themselves. In our visits to the region, from reports coming from inside Darfur as well as the Darfurian diaspora, the people of Darfur stand united behind the demand to end impunity. Despite the many divisions among Darfuri groups that have slowed progress toward a viable peace in Sudan, our research has found that Darfuris speak with one voice on several issues. The demand for justice is one which has galvanized Darfurians even amid dire circumstances.
The people of Darfur demand that the government of Sudan adheres to the rule of international law by arresting and surrendering suspects to the ICC. They are very clear on who they think was the perpetrator in this case. In numerous videos and documentaries filmed inside Darfur or in the refugee camps, displaced Darfuris squarely place the blame on the government of Sudan. Some people mention the name of President Bashir as the culprit, others mention Director of National Intelligence Salah Gosh and other state officials, but the message is clear: It is the regime that is responsible for the genocide.
Many Darfurians realize that it is impossible for the ICC to prosecute every alleged genocidaire in Darfur. They posit a solution whereby the ICC prosecutes the worst offenders, while serious reform to the Sudanese justice system enables it to handle the cases of the lower ranks of implicated persons.
ICC charges againssnt Bashir, or any high-level official from his government, will be welcomed by Darfurians of all walks of life, because to them it represents the first step in ending impunity, and a hope for closure to a life of misery that seemed endless. It would also be a recognition from the international community that justice for Darfur will be served, even if it was delayed for a while.
Conclusion
Several spurious arguments continually obstruct efforts to secure both peace and justice in wartorn corners of the globe. World weary “experts” are often far too quick to speak about Sudan the same way they used to speak about the Balkans and West Africa—as a hopeless wellspring of endless ethnic tensions doomed to perpetual violence.
It is baffling why anyone would think that acceding to the demands of war criminals is a sensible path to securing peace.
Conflict in Sudan may be complicated, but at its root is the criminal behavior of a regime that has continually used murderous and genocidal tactics to maintain power. Unless concerted international action is taken to impose a cost on the perpetrators of these crimes, they will not change their behavior. And although international politics may preclude punishment for every regime that may be guilty of atrocities, just because we cannot yet go after every war criminal does not mean we should go after none.
Two and a half million Sudanese lives have been extinguished as a result of the war tactics of President Bashir and his regime, and the chief Prosecutor simply and elegantly makes clear that such crimes can not be committed without cost. Yes, there will be many perilous days ahead in Sudan full of high-stakes diplomacy, confrontation, and difficult choices before Bashir and his accomplishes face justice. Yes, the voices of the naysayers at times will reach a crescendo. However, the International Criminal Court should be applauded for taking the first brave step down this important road. The world will ultimately be a better place for its action.
Refs:
1 “Crisis in the Balkans: The Indictment; Tribunal is Said to Cite Milosevic for War Crimes,” New York Times, May 27, 1999
2 Tom Gallagher, “Demonisation of the President is Unlikely to Lead to Peace,” The Herald (Glasgow), May 28, 1999.
3 Felicity Barringer with Somini Sengupta, “War Crimes Indictment of Liberian President is Disclosed,” New York Times, June 5, 2003
4 ICG, Liberia: Security Challenges, p. 20
5 Anna Borzello, “Nigeria Warns Exiled Taylor,” BBC News, September 17, 2003, available at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3115992.stm; and Open Society Justice Initiative, “Nigeria Says Taylor Cannot Stay If Asylum Terms Violated,” May 19, 2005, available at http://www.justiceinitiative.org/db/resource2?res_id=102721
6 Coalition for International Justice, “Following Taylor’s Money: A Path of War and Destruction.”
7 “Former US Special Envoy to Sudan Warns Against ICC Dafur Indictments,” Sudan Tribune, June 27, 2008, available at http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article27670
8 Statement by Mr. Luis Moreno-Ocampo, Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, June 5, 2008
9 ENOUGH has recommended similar measures to deal with Joseph Kony and the Lord’s Resistance Army in northern Uganda. See “What to do about Joseph Kony,” ENOUGH Strategy Paper #8, October
2007, available at http://www.enoughproject.org/node/51
ENOUGH is a project of the Center for American Progress to end genocide
and crimes against humanity. With an initial focus on the crises in Sudan, Chad, eastern Congo, Somalia and northern Uganda, ENOUGH’s strategy papers and briefings provide sharp field analysis and targeted policy recommendations based on a “3P” crisis response strategy: promoting durable peace, providing civilian protection, and punishing perpetrators of atrocities. ENOUGH works with concerned citizens, advocates, and policy makers to prevent, mitigate, and resolve these crises. To learn more about ENOUGH and what you can do to help, go to www.enoughproject.org.
1225 Eye Street, NW, Suite 307, Washington, DC 20005
Phone: 202-682-1611 Fax: 202-682-6140 www.enoughproject.org
Jul 15, 2008
Omar Al Bashir
http://www.enoughproject.org/node/975
http://thinkprogress.org/wonkroom/2008/07/11/sudanese-president-omar-al-bashirs-record-speaks-for-itself/
Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir: The Record Speaks for Itself - ENOUGH project Activist
Brief Date: 07/14/2008 by David Sullivan
"I gave the army a free hand to move out in all directions, to use all of its weapons, with no restraints, no restrictions, whatsoever" Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, in Agence France-Presse, September 3, 2002
With indications that the International Criminal Court will move against Sudanese President Bashir for crimes against humanity, we here at the ENOUGH Project thought you might like to be reminded of some of his past comments and behavior:
On June 30, 1989, led fellow officers in a mutiny against the democratically elected Prime Minister Sadiq al-Mahdi. General Bashir announced "Your armed forces have come to carry out a tremendous revolution for the sake of change after suffering" and said in a televised communiqué that the coup was "to save the country from rotten political parties."
From 1991 through 1996, hosted Osama bin Laden and turned Sudan into the world headquarters for international terrorism. Bashir later said of bin Laden, "He is a very normal person and he is very religious."
In 1992, declared jihad against the people of the Nuba Mountains, launching a massive offensive targeting civilian populations. During this genocidal campaign, the government forced conversions to Islam, displaced populations into government controlled 'peace villages,' and denied access to humanitarian aid.
Beginning in 1994, became the only government sponsor of the Lord's Resistance Army, as it abducted thousands of children in its campaign of terror in northern Uganda. According to a 13-year old child who spent two years in LRA captivity in Sudanese government-controlled territory: "I saw Sudanese Arab soldiers deliver weapons to the commanders of the LRA. The guns were brought to the LRA camp by airplane, and the soldiers unloading the guns were Arabs. They were big guns, machine guns."
Continually used arbitrary detention, disappearances, and torture to stifle political opposition. In 1995, a notorious "ghost house" located near a Citibank branch in Khartoum was used to torture dissidents. On civil liberties, Bashir has said: "When we talk of handing power to the people, we mean the people will be within certain limits but no one will cross the red lines which are aimed at the interest of the nation."
In the 1990s, revived the practice of slave raids against the people of southern Sudan. NGOs have suggested that as many as 200,000 southern Sudanese have been enslaved, and a UN report stated slavery there was "deeply rooted in Arab and Muslim supremacism. "
In 1998, engineered a famine in the Bahr el-Ghazal region of southern Sudan that killed hundreds of thousands of people. The lethal combination of militia attacks on civilians and systematic denial of humanitarian aid transformed a drought into a crime against humanity.
From 2000-01, systematically depopulated the oil fields of western Upper Nile. According to the United Nations: "government bombers, helicopter gunships, tanks and artillery were used against unarmed civilians to clear a 100-kilometer area around the oils fields. Witnesses reported that over 1,000 government soldiers swept through Ruweng county, wreaking human and material destruction, including destroying 17 churches."
Continually used aerial bombing of women and children, aid workers, and hospitals. Among the hundreds of air strikes from 2000-01 were a World Food Program airlift, a church school, a hospital, and the International Committee of the Red Cross.
In 2003, organized the creation of the Janjaweed militias to commit genocide in Darfur. On the Today Show, Bashir claimed: "I would confirm that we have never targeted civilian citizens and we can never target citizens." Of Musa Hilal, the notorious Janjaweed commander, Bashir said: "He has contributed to peace and stability." Also: "The so-called Darfur conflict is an invention by foreign interests."
Orchestrated insecurity, rape, and malnutrition against displaced Darfuris. In August 2006, more than 200 women were sexually assaulted in five weeks in Kalma camp, South Darfur. But according to Bashir: "It is not in the Sudanese culture or people of Darfur to rape. It doesn't exist. We don't have it." On the humanitarian conditions: "The food and health situation in Darfur is acceptable for me, because it is comparable to situation in the rest of the country" and "any talk of a humanitarian crisis is not true."
[video - Watch Bashir assert "all figures about the deaths in Darfur are fabricated" on Al Jazeera on YouTube ]
http://thinkprogress.org/wonkroom/2008/07/11/sudanese-president-omar-al-bashirs-record-speaks-for-itself/
Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir: The Record Speaks for Itself - ENOUGH project Activist
Brief Date: 07/14/2008 by David Sullivan
"I gave the army a free hand to move out in all directions, to use all of its weapons, with no restraints, no restrictions, whatsoever" Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, in Agence France-Presse, September 3, 2002
With indications that the International Criminal Court will move against Sudanese President Bashir for crimes against humanity, we here at the ENOUGH Project thought you might like to be reminded of some of his past comments and behavior:
On June 30, 1989, led fellow officers in a mutiny against the democratically elected Prime Minister Sadiq al-Mahdi. General Bashir announced "Your armed forces have come to carry out a tremendous revolution for the sake of change after suffering" and said in a televised communiqué that the coup was "to save the country from rotten political parties."
From 1991 through 1996, hosted Osama bin Laden and turned Sudan into the world headquarters for international terrorism. Bashir later said of bin Laden, "He is a very normal person and he is very religious."
In 1992, declared jihad against the people of the Nuba Mountains, launching a massive offensive targeting civilian populations. During this genocidal campaign, the government forced conversions to Islam, displaced populations into government controlled 'peace villages,' and denied access to humanitarian aid.
Beginning in 1994, became the only government sponsor of the Lord's Resistance Army, as it abducted thousands of children in its campaign of terror in northern Uganda. According to a 13-year old child who spent two years in LRA captivity in Sudanese government-controlled territory: "I saw Sudanese Arab soldiers deliver weapons to the commanders of the LRA. The guns were brought to the LRA camp by airplane, and the soldiers unloading the guns were Arabs. They were big guns, machine guns."
Continually used arbitrary detention, disappearances, and torture to stifle political opposition. In 1995, a notorious "ghost house" located near a Citibank branch in Khartoum was used to torture dissidents. On civil liberties, Bashir has said: "When we talk of handing power to the people, we mean the people will be within certain limits but no one will cross the red lines which are aimed at the interest of the nation."
In the 1990s, revived the practice of slave raids against the people of southern Sudan. NGOs have suggested that as many as 200,000 southern Sudanese have been enslaved, and a UN report stated slavery there was "deeply rooted in Arab and Muslim supremacism. "
In 1998, engineered a famine in the Bahr el-Ghazal region of southern Sudan that killed hundreds of thousands of people. The lethal combination of militia attacks on civilians and systematic denial of humanitarian aid transformed a drought into a crime against humanity.
From 2000-01, systematically depopulated the oil fields of western Upper Nile. According to the United Nations: "government bombers, helicopter gunships, tanks and artillery were used against unarmed civilians to clear a 100-kilometer area around the oils fields. Witnesses reported that over 1,000 government soldiers swept through Ruweng county, wreaking human and material destruction, including destroying 17 churches."
Continually used aerial bombing of women and children, aid workers, and hospitals. Among the hundreds of air strikes from 2000-01 were a World Food Program airlift, a church school, a hospital, and the International Committee of the Red Cross.
In 2003, organized the creation of the Janjaweed militias to commit genocide in Darfur. On the Today Show, Bashir claimed: "I would confirm that we have never targeted civilian citizens and we can never target citizens." Of Musa Hilal, the notorious Janjaweed commander, Bashir said: "He has contributed to peace and stability." Also: "The so-called Darfur conflict is an invention by foreign interests."
Orchestrated insecurity, rape, and malnutrition against displaced Darfuris. In August 2006, more than 200 women were sexually assaulted in five weeks in Kalma camp, South Darfur. But according to Bashir: "It is not in the Sudanese culture or people of Darfur to rape. It doesn't exist. We don't have it." On the humanitarian conditions: "The food and health situation in Darfur is acceptable for me, because it is comparable to situation in the rest of the country" and "any talk of a humanitarian crisis is not true."
[video - Watch Bashir assert "all figures about the deaths in Darfur are fabricated" on Al Jazeera on YouTube ]
Jul 10, 2008
The Hokkaido conference
One change has certainly been made by the Hokkaido G8 conference of July 2008. The baseline for calculating global emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases was previously 1990, i.e., when a ten per cent reduction was proposed by a certain date that always meant ten per cent of 1990 emissions. The conference decided to agree to talk about a fifty per cent reduction by 2050, but when asked if that was still from the 1990 baseline, the chairman replied “No, from today.” Contrary to all promises to reduce them, emissions have increased by twenty five per cent since 1990, and are still increasing. Do your own math.
The only really fair way to calculate how much carbon dioxide and other pollutant emissions everybody should be allowed to produce is to start by assuming that everybody has exactly equal rights, i.e., every German can emit as much pollution as every Frenchman, every Swede has the same rights as every American, and every Brazilian has the right to as clean an atmosphere, and is allowed to pollute the air we all breathe by exactly as much as every Chinaman. Any other system is clearly going to land us in arguments without end about how special each country is and why it needs to be an exception.
To adopt that system of measurement, the USA, which currently uses up about twenty five per cent of the world’s resources, and produces about thirty per cent of its polluting gases, would have to, like other wealthy countries, reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by around eighty or ninety per cent, not by fifty per cent in forty two years time.
Any wonder that the exact plans have been left pretty vague?
The only really fair way to calculate how much carbon dioxide and other pollutant emissions everybody should be allowed to produce is to start by assuming that everybody has exactly equal rights, i.e., every German can emit as much pollution as every Frenchman, every Swede has the same rights as every American, and every Brazilian has the right to as clean an atmosphere, and is allowed to pollute the air we all breathe by exactly as much as every Chinaman. Any other system is clearly going to land us in arguments without end about how special each country is and why it needs to be an exception.
To adopt that system of measurement, the USA, which currently uses up about twenty five per cent of the world’s resources, and produces about thirty per cent of its polluting gases, would have to, like other wealthy countries, reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by around eighty or ninety per cent, not by fifty per cent in forty two years time.
Any wonder that the exact plans have been left pretty vague?
Jul 3, 2008
Shutting down Iran
http://www.antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=13087
Synopsis: where do we have the authority to close down Iran? Source: Antiwar
Published: June 28, 2008 Author: Ron Paul
Statement on House Congressional Resolution 362 before the US House of Representatives, June 28, 2008
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=hc110-362
Today the Dow Jones Average was down 350-some points, gold was up $32, and oil was up another $5. There is a lot of chaos out there and everyone is worried about $4 gasoline. But I don't think there is a clear understanding [of] exactly why that has occurred.
We do know that there is a supply and demand issue, but there are other reasons for the high cost of energy. One is inflation. In order to pay for the war that has been going on, and the domestic spending, we've been spending a lot more money than we have. So what do we do? We send the bills over to the Federal Reserve and they create new money, and in the last three years, our government, through the Federal Reserve and the banking system, has created $4 trillion of new money. That is one of the main reasons why we have this high cost of energy and $4 per gallon gasoline.
But there is another factor that I want to talk about tonight, and that is not only the fear of inflation and future inflation, but the fear factor dealing with our foreign policy. In the last several weeks, if not for months, we have heard a lot of talk about the potential of Israel and/or the United States bombing Iran. And it is in the marketplace. Energy prices are being bid up because of this fear. It has been predicted that if bombs start dropping, that we will see energy prices double or triple. It is just the thought of it right now that is helping to push these energy prices up. And that is a very real thing going on right now.
But to me it is almost like deja vu all over again. We listened to the rhetoric for years and years before we went into Iraq. We did not go in the correct manner, we did not declare war, we are there and it is an endless struggle. And I cannot believe it, that we may well be on the verge of initiating the bombing of Iran!
Leaders on both sides of the aisle, and in the administration, have all said so often, "No options should be taken off the table – including a nuclear first strike on Iran." The fear is, they say, maybe someday [Iran is] going to get a nuclear weapon, even though our own CIA's National Intelligence Estimate has said that the Iranians have not been working on a nuclear weapon since 2003. They say they're enriching uranium, but they have no evidence whatsoever that they're enriching uranium for weapons purposes. They may well be enriching uranium for peaceful purposes, and that is perfectly legal. They have been a member of the non-proliferation treaties, and they are under the investigation of the IAEA, and El Baradei has verified that in the last year there have been nine unannounced investigations and examinations of the Iranian nuclear structure and they have never been found to be in violation. And yet, this country and Israel are talking about a preventive war – starting bombing for this reason, without negotiations, without talks.
Now the one issue that I do want to mention tonight is a resolution that is about to come to this floor if our suspicions are correct, after the July 4th holiday. And this bill will probably be brought up under suspension. It will be expected to be passed easily. It probably will be. And it is just more war propaganda, just more preparation to go to war against Iran.
This resolution, H.J. Res 362 [listed as H. Con. Res 362 online] is a virtual war resolution. It is the declaration of tremendous sanctions, and boycotts and embargoes on the Iranians. It is very, very severe. Let me just read what is involved if this bill passes and what we're telling the President what he must do:
"This demands that the President impose stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains and cargo entering or departing Iran, and prohibiting the international movement of all Iranian officials."
This is unbelievable! This is closing down Iran. Where do we have this authority? Where do we get the moral authority? Where do we get the international legality for this? Where do we get the Constitutional authority for this? This is what we did for ten years before we went into Iraq. We starved children – 50,000 individuals it was admitted probably died because of the sanctions on the Iraqis. They were incapable at the time of attacking us. And all the propaganda that was given for our need to go into Iraq was not true.
And it is not true today about the severity [of the need to attack Iran]. But they say, "Yeah, but Ahmadinejad – he's a bad guy. He's threatened violence." But you know what? Us threatening violence is very, very similar. We must look at this carefully. We just can't go to war again under these careless, frivolous conditions.
Synopsis: where do we have the authority to close down Iran? Source: Antiwar
Published: June 28, 2008 Author: Ron Paul
Statement on House Congressional Resolution 362 before the US House of Representatives, June 28, 2008
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=hc110-362
Today the Dow Jones Average was down 350-some points, gold was up $32, and oil was up another $5. There is a lot of chaos out there and everyone is worried about $4 gasoline. But I don't think there is a clear understanding [of] exactly why that has occurred.
We do know that there is a supply and demand issue, but there are other reasons for the high cost of energy. One is inflation. In order to pay for the war that has been going on, and the domestic spending, we've been spending a lot more money than we have. So what do we do? We send the bills over to the Federal Reserve and they create new money, and in the last three years, our government, through the Federal Reserve and the banking system, has created $4 trillion of new money. That is one of the main reasons why we have this high cost of energy and $4 per gallon gasoline.
But there is another factor that I want to talk about tonight, and that is not only the fear of inflation and future inflation, but the fear factor dealing with our foreign policy. In the last several weeks, if not for months, we have heard a lot of talk about the potential of Israel and/or the United States bombing Iran. And it is in the marketplace. Energy prices are being bid up because of this fear. It has been predicted that if bombs start dropping, that we will see energy prices double or triple. It is just the thought of it right now that is helping to push these energy prices up. And that is a very real thing going on right now.
But to me it is almost like deja vu all over again. We listened to the rhetoric for years and years before we went into Iraq. We did not go in the correct manner, we did not declare war, we are there and it is an endless struggle. And I cannot believe it, that we may well be on the verge of initiating the bombing of Iran!
Leaders on both sides of the aisle, and in the administration, have all said so often, "No options should be taken off the table – including a nuclear first strike on Iran." The fear is, they say, maybe someday [Iran is] going to get a nuclear weapon, even though our own CIA's National Intelligence Estimate has said that the Iranians have not been working on a nuclear weapon since 2003. They say they're enriching uranium, but they have no evidence whatsoever that they're enriching uranium for weapons purposes. They may well be enriching uranium for peaceful purposes, and that is perfectly legal. They have been a member of the non-proliferation treaties, and they are under the investigation of the IAEA, and El Baradei has verified that in the last year there have been nine unannounced investigations and examinations of the Iranian nuclear structure and they have never been found to be in violation. And yet, this country and Israel are talking about a preventive war – starting bombing for this reason, without negotiations, without talks.
Now the one issue that I do want to mention tonight is a resolution that is about to come to this floor if our suspicions are correct, after the July 4th holiday. And this bill will probably be brought up under suspension. It will be expected to be passed easily. It probably will be. And it is just more war propaganda, just more preparation to go to war against Iran.
This resolution, H.J. Res 362 [listed as H. Con. Res 362 online] is a virtual war resolution. It is the declaration of tremendous sanctions, and boycotts and embargoes on the Iranians. It is very, very severe. Let me just read what is involved if this bill passes and what we're telling the President what he must do:
"This demands that the President impose stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains and cargo entering or departing Iran, and prohibiting the international movement of all Iranian officials."
This is unbelievable! This is closing down Iran. Where do we have this authority? Where do we get the moral authority? Where do we get the international legality for this? Where do we get the Constitutional authority for this? This is what we did for ten years before we went into Iraq. We starved children – 50,000 individuals it was admitted probably died because of the sanctions on the Iraqis. They were incapable at the time of attacking us. And all the propaganda that was given for our need to go into Iraq was not true.
And it is not true today about the severity [of the need to attack Iran]. But they say, "Yeah, but Ahmadinejad – he's a bad guy. He's threatened violence." But you know what? Us threatening violence is very, very similar. We must look at this carefully. We just can't go to war again under these careless, frivolous conditions.
Jul 1, 2008
Not just Iraq
Synopsis: BERLIN IS WASHINGTON'S VASSAL UNTIL 2099?
Source: http://www.rpmonitor.ru/en/en/detail.php?ID=8857
Published: June 26, 2008 Author: Anna Voronova, March 29, 2008 (the date of publication in Russian)
BERLIN IS WASHINGTON'S VASSAL UNTIL 2099?
Ex-head of MAD reveals shocking details of the 1949 US-German secret treaty
Top intelligence officers rarely reveal secret strings, pulling the nation's political mechanism. Publication of a book like The German card. The obscure game of secret services, authored by Gerd-Helmut Komossa (Gerd-Helmut Komossa. DIE DEUTSCHE KARTE. Das verdeckte Spiel der geheimen Dienste. Ares-Verlag, Graz 2007. – 230 S.), is an exceptional occurrence. Raising very sensitive issues, the author appeals to the core of German identity that had been deliberately suppressed for decades by the United States and its allies.
The book is focused on contradictions between the United States and Germany, sometimes very strong but not supposed to be discussed in public. It was published in Austria, and its distribution in Germany may encounter certain difficulties today. Still, the very fact of its appearance indicates that the German intelligence community is increasingly dissatisfied with the role of a vassal of the United States (the definition applied to Europe by Zbigniew Brzezinski), imposed on Western Germany after World War II.
Gerd-Helmut Komossa reveals the uncomfortable truth about the post-war conditions, dictated by the US and its allies. The state treaty, dated May 21, 1949 and classified by BND as top secret, suggests restrictions of state sovereignty of the Federal Republic of Germany, introduced for a period until 2099. These restrictions include the provision that the winning coalition exercise complete control over Germany's mass media and communications; that every Federal Chancellor is to sign the so-called Chancellor Act; that the gold reserve of Germany is kept under arrest.
In fact, all the German Chancellors, including the incumbent Chancellor Angela Merkel, pay their first foreign visit necessarily to the United States. The whole spectrum of German political parties is supervised by a special Washington-based controlling body, while local US-licensed media serve as a more sophisticated means of brainwashing than the Nazi propagandist machine. Meanwhile, Germany's territory is still occupied by US troops.
During the last two decades, Washington has been trying to force Germany into military partnership in globalistic control. However, the massive effort to get Germany involved in US operations in Somali and Bosnia, as well as in campaigns in Serbia, Iraq and Afghanistan, has brought about a reverse result, sparking a shift in approach in German strategic circles. The implicit discontent with American policy and essential difference in views on the role of the German people in current history eventually reached a critical dimension.
Since mid-1990s, the attitude of many German military to the United States, and significantly also towards NATO, has essentially changed. Though most of the German officers were not originally inclined against America, a lot of them being educated in the United States, they are now experiencing disappointment and even disgust with Washington's policies. These officers realize that the hegemonistic policy is destined for destruction of socioeconomic systems of particular nations and whole regions, while the so-called order Washington is trying to impose is just a synonym for chaos.
Gerd-Helmut Komossa, in his former capacity of MAD (Military Counterintelligence) Director, was frequently called "a soldier with political thinking". Today, he openly denounces the Bundeswehr's involvement in foreign interventions, referring to the army's constitutional duties.
Meanwhile, Washington urges Germans to go fighting. Conceding to the pressure, Berlin deployed a contingent of troops to Afghanistan. But even this was not sufficient for NATO bosses. Recently, NATO General Secretary Jaap de Hoop Scheffer accused the Bundeswehr of idleness in military operations in the region, and insisted that Germany "increase flexibility" and expand its military mission to the southern regions of Afghanistan.
In his book, Komossa inquires whether the state of affairs when young Germans are recruited in the national army for fulfilling overseas goals for other nations, could be acceptable. The map of operations, supposed to involve German troops, far exceeds the European continent, and has nothing to do with German national interests. "Do Germans expect this from the Bundeswehr? Would they like their soldiers to be called assassins again?" he asks.
However, the United States and its allies don't care much for moral problems. As the secret treaty is valid until 2099, Germans are supposed to go and fight where they are told to.
The German audience will require certain time to digest the shocking information disclosed by General Komossa. But eventually, the nation with a great cultural and historical tradition will hardly agree to continue tolerating the American loop on its throat for decades more.
The publication of Komossa's "German Card" is one more proof of the world's transformation into a multipolar system. It indicates that Germany is likely to achieve complete sovereignty without waiting for eighty years.
Source: http://www.rpmonitor.ru/en/en/detail.php?ID=8857
Published: June 26, 2008 Author: Anna Voronova, March 29, 2008 (the date of publication in Russian)
BERLIN IS WASHINGTON'S VASSAL UNTIL 2099?
Ex-head of MAD reveals shocking details of the 1949 US-German secret treaty
Top intelligence officers rarely reveal secret strings, pulling the nation's political mechanism. Publication of a book like The German card. The obscure game of secret services, authored by Gerd-Helmut Komossa (Gerd-Helmut Komossa. DIE DEUTSCHE KARTE. Das verdeckte Spiel der geheimen Dienste. Ares-Verlag, Graz 2007. – 230 S.), is an exceptional occurrence. Raising very sensitive issues, the author appeals to the core of German identity that had been deliberately suppressed for decades by the United States and its allies.
The book is focused on contradictions between the United States and Germany, sometimes very strong but not supposed to be discussed in public. It was published in Austria, and its distribution in Germany may encounter certain difficulties today. Still, the very fact of its appearance indicates that the German intelligence community is increasingly dissatisfied with the role of a vassal of the United States (the definition applied to Europe by Zbigniew Brzezinski), imposed on Western Germany after World War II.
Gerd-Helmut Komossa reveals the uncomfortable truth about the post-war conditions, dictated by the US and its allies. The state treaty, dated May 21, 1949 and classified by BND as top secret, suggests restrictions of state sovereignty of the Federal Republic of Germany, introduced for a period until 2099. These restrictions include the provision that the winning coalition exercise complete control over Germany's mass media and communications; that every Federal Chancellor is to sign the so-called Chancellor Act; that the gold reserve of Germany is kept under arrest.
In fact, all the German Chancellors, including the incumbent Chancellor Angela Merkel, pay their first foreign visit necessarily to the United States. The whole spectrum of German political parties is supervised by a special Washington-based controlling body, while local US-licensed media serve as a more sophisticated means of brainwashing than the Nazi propagandist machine. Meanwhile, Germany's territory is still occupied by US troops.
This astonishing picture is not a fancy concoction of a political leftist. It is drawn by a military man whose mind has accumulated the experience of several crucial stages of development of the European civilization and Germany in particular. Gen. (Ret.) Gerd-Helmut Komossa took part in World War II and later in the Cold War. Possessing huge amounts of information, he analyzes the existing mechanisms of global policy with strong criticism.
Joining the Wehrmacht in 1943 as a volunteer, Komossa served at the Eastern front. Between May 1945 and April 1949, he was a prisoner of war. In the USSR, he got acquainted with many Russians who appeared to be quite different from the image imposed by the official Nazi propaganda.
Since 1956, he served in the German Bundeswehr, re-established under certain conditions. The abovementioned secret treaty admitted that the German sovereignty is sufficient for the right to build up military forces. According to the Constitution, the troops of the Federal Republic of Germany are carrying put exceptionally defensive functions. However, the Western coalition was pursuing different goals. It needed an army in new uniforms but with the same skills as the Nazi soldiers, perfectly fighting on land, on sea and in the air, and irrecusably abiding orders. Such a type of soldier was essential not only for the occasion of possible military collision with the Soviet bloc but also for fulfilling global missions. The coalition required at least 500,000 German soldiers. In addition, the newly-built army was supposed to purchase weapons and materiel solely from the United States.
During the last two decades, Washington has been trying to force Germany into military partnership in globalistic control. However, the massive effort to get Germany involved in US operations in Somali and Bosnia, as well as in campaigns in Serbia, Iraq and Afghanistan, has brought about a reverse result, sparking a shift in approach in German strategic circles. The implicit discontent with American policy and essential difference in views on the role of the German people in current history eventually reached a critical dimension.
Since mid-1990s, the attitude of many German military to the United States, and significantly also towards NATO, has essentially changed. Though most of the German officers were not originally inclined against America, a lot of them being educated in the United States, they are now experiencing disappointment and even disgust with Washington's policies. These officers realize that the hegemonistic policy is destined for destruction of socioeconomic systems of particular nations and whole regions, while the so-called order Washington is trying to impose is just a synonym for chaos.
Gerd-Helmut Komossa, in his former capacity of MAD (Military Counterintelligence) Director, was frequently called "a soldier with political thinking". Today, he openly denounces the Bundeswehr's involvement in foreign interventions, referring to the army's constitutional duties.
Meanwhile, Washington urges Germans to go fighting. Conceding to the pressure, Berlin deployed a contingent of troops to Afghanistan. But even this was not sufficient for NATO bosses. Recently, NATO General Secretary Jaap de Hoop Scheffer accused the Bundeswehr of idleness in military operations in the region, and insisted that Germany "increase flexibility" and expand its military mission to the southern regions of Afghanistan.
In his book, Komossa inquires whether the state of affairs when young Germans are recruited in the national army for fulfilling overseas goals for other nations, could be acceptable. The map of operations, supposed to involve German troops, far exceeds the European continent, and has nothing to do with German national interests. "Do Germans expect this from the Bundeswehr? Would they like their soldiers to be called assassins again?" he asks.
However, the United States and its allies don't care much for moral problems. As the secret treaty is valid until 2099, Germans are supposed to go and fight where they are told to.
The German audience will require certain time to digest the shocking information disclosed by General Komossa. But eventually, the nation with a great cultural and historical tradition will hardly agree to continue tolerating the American loop on its throat for decades more.
The publication of Komossa's "German Card" is one more proof of the world's transformation into a multipolar system. It indicates that Germany is likely to achieve complete sovereignty without waiting for eighty years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)