16 June 2011 — Stop NATO
- War Powers Act Does Not Apply To Libya: Obama
- African Leaders Demand Halt To NATO Bombing Of Libya
- Libyan War Marks NATO’s Expansion Southward: Russian Envoy
- SCO Versus NATO: Neutral Afghanistan Serves Regional Stability
- China, SCO Back Russia Against U.S.-NATO Global Missile Shield
- NATO Conducts Counterintelligence Exercises In Poland
- U.S. Missile Strikes Kill At Least 15 In Pakistan
- Pakistan: More NATO Oil Tankers Set Ablaze
- U.S.’s New Drone War: Yemen
- Ollanta Humala Declared Winner Of Peruvian Presidential Election
War Powers Act Does Not Apply To Libya: Obama
New York Times
June 15, 2011
War Powers Act Does Not Apply to Libya, Obama Argues
By Charlie Savage and Mark Landler
-Jack L. Goldsmith, who led the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel during the Bush administration, said the Obama theory would set a precedent expanding future presidents’ unauthorized war-making powers, especially given the rise of remote-controlled combat technology.
“The administration’s theory implies that the president can wage war with drones and all manner of offshore missiles without having to bother with the War Powers Resolution’s time limits,” Mr. Goldsmith said.
-[P]revious cases involved peacekeeping missions in which the United States had been invited in, and there were only infrequent outbreaks of violence — as in Lebanon, Somalia and Bosnia. The Libyan operation, by contrast, is an offensive mission involving sustained bombardments of a government’s forces.
WASHINGTON: The White House, pushing hard against criticism in Congress over the deepening air war in Libya, asserted Wednesday that President Obama had the authority to continue the military campaign without Congressional approval because American involvement fell short of full-blown hostilities.
In a 38-page report sent to lawmakers describing and defending the NATO-led operation, the White House said the mission was prying loose Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s grip on power.
In contending that the limited American role did not oblige the administration to ask for authorization under the War Powers Resolution, the report asserted that “U.S. operations do not involve sustained fighting or active exchanges of fire with hostile forces, nor do they involve U.S. ground troops.” Still, the White House acknowledged, the operation has cost the Pentagon $716 million in its first two months and will have cost $1.1 billion by September at the current scale of operations.
The report came one day after the House Speaker, John A. Boehner, Republican of Ohio, had sent a letter to Mr. Obama warning him that he appeared to be out of time under the Vietnam-era law that says presidents must terminate a mission 60 or 90 days after notifying Congress that troops have been deployed into hostilities, unless lawmakers authorize the operation to continue.
Mr. Boehner had demanded that Mr. Obama explain his legal justification for passing the deadline. On Wednesday, Brendan Buck, a spokesman for Mr. Boehner, said he was still reviewing the documents, adding that “the creative arguments made by the White House raise a number of questions that must be further explored.”
The escalating confrontation with Congress reflects the radically altered political landscape in Washington: a Democratic president asserting sweeping executive powers to deploy American forces overseas, while Republicans call for stricter oversight and voice fears about executive-branch power getting the United States bogged down in a foreign war.
“We are acting lawfully,” said Harold H. Koh, the State Department legal adviser, who expanded on the administration’s reasoning in a joint interview with the White House counsel, Robert Bauer.
The two senior administration lawyers contended that American forces had not been in “hostilities” at least since early April, when NATO took over the responsibility for the no-fly zone and the United States shifted to primarily a supporting role — providing refueling and surveillance to allied warplanes, although remotely piloted drones operated by the United States periodically fire missiles, too.
…
“We are not saying the president can take the country into war on his own,” said Mr. Koh, a former Yale Law School dean and outspoken critic of the Bush administration’s expansive theories of executive power. “We are not saying the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional or should be scrapped or that we can refuse to consult Congress. We are saying the limited nature of this particular mission is not the kind of ‘hostilities’ envisioned by the War Powers Resolution.”
Jack L. Goldsmith, who led the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel during the Bush administration, said the Obama theory would set a precedent expanding future presidents’ unauthorized war-making powers, especially given the rise of remote-controlled combat technology.
“The administration’s theory implies that the president can wage war with drones and all manner of offshore missiles without having to bother with the War Powers Resolution’s time limits,” Mr. Goldsmith said.
It remains to be seen whether majorities in Congress will acquiesce to the administration’s argument, defusing the confrontation, or will fuel greater criticism…
Also on Wednesday, 10 lawmakers — led by Representative Dennis J. Kucinich, Democrat of Ohio, and Representative Walter B. Jones, Republican of North Carolina — filed a lawsuit asking a judge to order Mr. Obama to pull out of the Libya operation because Congress did not authorize it. That lawsuit faces steep challenges, however, because courts in the past have dismissed similar cases on technical grounds.
The administration had earlier argued that Mr. Obama could initiate the intervention on his own authority as commander in chief because its anticipated nature, scope and duration fell short of a “war” in the constitutional sense. Since then, the conflict has dragged on for longer than expected, and the goal of the NATO allies has all but openly shifted from merely defending civilians to forcing the Libyan leader, Colonel Qaddafi, from power…
Mr. Koh noted that there had been previous disputes about whether the 60-day clock portion of the War Powers Resolution applied to deployments in which — unlike in Libya — there were troops on the ground and American forces suffered casualties.
Still, such previous cases involved peacekeeping missions in which the United States had been invited in, and there were only infrequent outbreaks of violence — as in Lebanon, Somalia and Bosnia. The Libyan operation, by contrast, is an offensive mission involving sustained bombardments of a government’s forces.
Jennifer Steinhauer contributed reporting.
====
African Leaders Demand Halt To NATO Bombing Of Libya
Bloomberg News
June 15, 2011
African Leaders Demand Halt to NATO Bombing Campaign in Libya
African leaders today demanded an immediate end to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s bombing campaign in Libya and called for the African Union and United Nations to take the lead in reaching a political solution.
“We have not voted for a substitute for bombing of one group by the other,” South Africa’s Foreign Minister Maite Nkoana-Mashabane told reporters in New York, referring to the UN resolution authorizing military action against Libya leader Muammar Qaddafi’s regime, which her government supported. “All forms of military intervention and bombing must stop now.”
Nkoana-Mashabane and ministers of Mali, Mauritania, Uganda and the Republic of Congo, which formed the AU’s Ad Hoc Committee on Libya, expressed their concern about the NATO bombing campaign to the UN Security Council. Adoption of a draft statement demanding a “complete end to violence and all attacks against and abuses of civilians” was blocked by the U.S. and other Western nations.
…
“This was a meeting for expressions of frustration,” said Ambassador Nestor Osorio of Colombia, a Security Council member. Ambassador Jose Moraes Cabral of Portugal, also a council member, said Uganda’s Foreign Minister Ruhakana Rugunda suggested the NATO intervention amounted to “going back to colonialism” in Africa.
Call from Russia, China
The meeting in New York followed a statement today by the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, a security alliance led by China and Russia and including the former Soviet states of Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan [and Kazakhstan], urging an end to the NATO campaign. “Domestic conflicts and crises have to be regulated exclusively by peaceful means, through political dialogue,” the group said in Astana, Kazakhstan, where it is holding a summit.
…
South Africa’s President Jacob Zuma was more direct yesterday in Cape Town, saying the UN resolution authorizing military action was “being abused for regime change, political assassinations and foreign military occupation.”
[Mauritania’s Foreign Minister Hamady Ould] Hamady called for an “immediate humanitarian pause” in the fighting and expressed the AU’s “surprise and disappointment at the attempts to marginalize the continent in the management of the Libyan conflict.”
Britain’s Ambassador Mark Lyall Grant said a precondition of a halt to the NATO bombing was a cessation of attacks on civilians by the Qaddafi regime.
“The ball is in Qaddafi’s court,” Lyall Grant said.
–Editors: Steven Komarow, Terry Atlas
====
Libyan War Marks NATO’s Expansion Southward: Russian Envoy
http://en.rian.ru/world/20110615/164636324.html
Russian Information Agency Novosti
June 15, 2011
NATO seeking ‘southern expansion’ – Russian envoy
London: The NATO operation in Libya marks the end of the alliance’s eastward expansion policy and the beginning of a shift southward, Russia’s envoy to the alliance Dmitry Rogozin said on Wednesday.
Rogozin met with NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen during a conference on missile defense in London on Wednesday.
“The war in Libya means the end of the process of the alliance’s expansion to the east and the beginning of its expansion south,” Rogozin said.
Rogozin said NATO “is being drawn into a ground operation” in Libya, and criticized the alliance for its free interpretation of a UN resolution allowing airstrikes in the war-torn country.
“My impression is that the UN Security Coouncil resolution is a slender, harmonious symphony, but NATO’s interpretation of it is more like jazz,” Rogozin said.
Fourteen of the 28 NATO countries are taking part in operation Unified Protector in Libya, which includes airstrikes, a no-fly zone and naval enforcement of an arms embargo…
Russia abstained from the Security Council vote authorizing the NATO-led military operation, and has strongly criticized the alliance’s handling of the operation.
Mikhail Margelov, who is leading Moscow’s mediation efforts in the Libyan conflict as President Dmitry Medvedev’s special envoy, said on Monday he would visit Tripoli next week for talks with top government officials.
====
SCO Versus NATO: Neutral Afghanistan Serves Regional Stability
http://www.hindu.com/2011/06/16/stories/2011061657901200.htm
The Hindu
June 16, 2011
Neutral Afghanistan serves regional stability
M.K. Bhadrakumar
The U.S. and NATO now acknowledge that a complete withdrawal from the South and Central Asian region by 2014 is not in the cards. Regional powers face a challenge
-It is a sad state of affairs that a once-proud nation is being traded in the bazaar. The core issue for the U.S. is that the Taliban should mellow on its uncompromising opposition to the long-term western troop presence as quid pro quo for what passes for “reconciliation.”
-Not much ingenuity is required to anticipate that India’s interests will be severely damaged if this region becomes the arena of a “new cold war” stemming out the long-term NATO military presence in South and Central Asia…The Indian move to seek membership of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) promises to provide a much-needed forum for New Delhi to partake in regional processes where India gets to work with Russia, China and Pakistan.
The Anglo-American project to craft an Afghan endgame that ensures long-term western military presence in the South and Central Asian region has entered a critical phase. The United States and North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) now acknowledge that a complete withdrawal from the region by 2014 is not in the cards. Several stages of diplomatic and political deception concealed this “hidden agenda.” Regional powers — Pakistan and India, in particular — are sadder and wiser today.
Looking back, the military stalemate in Afghanistan provided a persuasive argument for the West to justify the opening of a political track. The U.S. and Britain literally shoved down the throat of regional countries at the London conference in January last year their idea of reconciliation with the Taliban. India was assured that what was being contemplated was mere “reintegration” — and not “reconciliation” — and was given a bit of tutoring in the subtle uses of the English language. Pakistan was in a triumphalist mood, having been assured privately that it would be the kingmaker in any peace process. Equally, Russia was basking in the sunshine of the newly-invented process of “reset” in relations with the U.S. Iran, which was consistently wise to the western game plan, boycotted the London conference. China, of course, kept its head below the parapet.
Following the London conference, which must stand out as a first-rate drama of diplomatic deception, the U.S. and Britain rightly proceeded to claim an “international mandate” for talking to the Taliban. With the help of Saudi Arabia, a series of secret meetings with the representatives of various insurgent groups commenced.
NATO aircraft provided transportation for Taliban participants in these meetings and according to Der Spiegel, Berlin got U.S. intelligence operatives and Taliban representatives to meet face-to-face on German soil more than once. All the while, the Anglo-American deception continued and a thick layer of fog surrounded the entire process. Mark Sedwill, U.K.’s special representative on Af-Pak, during last week’s visit to New Delhi, said with a delightfully airy vagueness that will be the envy of any diplomat: “There are channels of communication being explored… This outreach to the senior leaders is still in the very early stages. And we don’t know how serious they are… It is Afghan-led but that doesn’t mean that others are not involved. Others are involved. All initiatives are with Afghan consent and on their behalf.”
Meanwhile, former Afghanistan President and head of the Afghan High Council for Peace, Burhanuddin Rabbani, revealed that his members have held preliminary talks with the main Taliban group led by Mullah Mohammad Omar and the so-called Quetta Shura and that the “multiple channels” are indeed “getting momentum.” According to the Guardian, representatives of the Haqqani network visited Kabul “very recently.” Simultaneously, the U.S. is spearheading a move in New York for the removal of the Taliban from the United Nations’ list of terrorists so that they can travel and openly take part in talks. The idea has been floated that the Taliban be permitted to open “representative office” in a third country.
The U.S. is piloting a proposal to remove 20 Taliban figures from the U.N. list. Alongside, it is pushing for a range of changes to the U.N.’s so-called “1275 list,” which comprises around 450 terrorists belonging to al-Qaeda and the Taliban. The U.S. wants to “separate” the Taliban from al-Qaeda and the justification being given is that the al-Qaeda and the Taliban belong to two “different fields of action” as unlike the al-Qaeda which is a global organisation, the Taliban is “Afghanistan-centric.” The plain truth, however, is that the U.S. wants to hold out the tantalising prospect of lifting sanctions against select Taliban figures as a bargaining chip to get them to talk and cut deals directly with American negotiators. Unsurprisingly, having been caught unawares at the London conference, Russia, China and India are today on guard and view the U.S. moves at the U.N. Security Council with reserve.
The western propaganda has drummed up a grim scenario in Afghanistan, which provides the raison d’etre of long-term western military bases. The visiting French Foreign Minister, Alain Juppe, told journalists in Washington last week that the U.S. is engaged in tripartite talks with the Taliban and Pakistan, that it wants the Taliban to be part of the solution but has had difficulty so far finding credible interlocutors on the Taliban side who are willing to talk peace and that talks are under way “as we speak.” He said that despite the U.S.’ surge a year ago, and notwithstanding claims of progress by U.S. and NATO generals commanding the troops, actual progress against the Taliban is inadequate. “The strategy doesn’t succeed as well as we expected on the ground,” he said. He went on to doubt the feasibility of the “transition” through 2014 that is being planned in July, since the Afghan army and police are ill-prepared to assume responsibility for security.
Regional opposition
The sum and substance of what Mr. Juppe said is that despite the efforts to engage the Taliban and notwithstanding the “transition” that is being planned, the insurgency will not end in the near future. What he left unsaid was that continued western troop presence beyond 2014, therefore, is a must.
To be sure, Washington is secretly negotiating a ‘strategic partnership agreement’ with the Kabul government that provides for military bases on a long-term basis. Again, the U.S. is in denial but its doublespeak is increasingly getting exposed.
The regional powers oppose a long-term U.S.-NATO military presence but Washington counts on the Kabul government to deliver. The Kabul government is on the horns of a dilemma insofar as the American dollar holds its own attractions in the Hindu Kush but then, one has to be alive first to enjoy the good life and the bottom line is that Afghan people may not like the prospect of foreign military occupation and the regional powers are opposing it. In a fit of disgust, Pakistan reportedly advised the Kabul government to swap the American dollar for the Chinese yuan. The Afghan bazaar is agonising. Whereas the U.S. remains confident about the Afghan bazaari culture and estimates that the Afghan protagonists after some pretentious hard bargaining will ultimately settle for a deal that won’t burn a hole in America’s pocket.
Core issue
It is a sad state of affairs that a once-proud nation is being traded in the bazaar. The core issue for the U.S. is that the Taliban should mellow on its uncompromising opposition to the long-term western troop presence as quid pro quo for what passes for “reconciliation.”
To this end, Washington needs to deal with the Taliban directly, on a one-to-one basis without Pakistani or Afghani intermediaries — despite the U.S.’ proforma acknowledgement all through of Pakistan’s key role as ‘facilitator’ and despite paying lip-service that reconciliation with the Taliban ought to be “Afghan-led.”
This tussle lies at the core of the U.S.-Pakistan tensions, as Islamabad is credited with influence over the Quetta Shura. Pakistan’s military leadership resents that contrary to earlier pledges, when the crunch time approached, the U.S. bypassed the Inter-Services Intelligence and the Central Intelligence Agency operatives began networking directly with various militant organisations. Through two months of sustained grilling of the U.S.’s ace intelligence operative Raymond Davis in a Lahore jail by the ISI, Pakistani military leadership got to know a lot about the reach of the CIA’s penetration of Pakistan’s body polity.
A huge challenge faces Indian policymakers also. Quite obviously, New Delhi views these developments with concern. The good part is that it has measured the “big picture” while being what Washington fondly calls the U.S.’ “indispensable partner in the 21st century.” Thus, New Delhi persists with its far-sighted dialogue approach toward Pakistan although it is deeply disappointed by Pakistan’s lack or response on 26/11 investigations and on dismantling the terrorist infrastructure. New Delhi also takes care not to identify with the U.S.’s ‘containment’ strategy toward China.
Not much ingenuity is required to anticipate that India’s interests will be severely damaged if this region becomes the arena of a “new cold war” stemming out the long-term NATO military presence in South and Central Asia. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh took the initiative to strengthen New Delhi’s ties with Kabul while judiciously leaving it to the latter to set the parameters in deference to Pakistani sensitivities.
The Indian move to seek membership of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) promises to provide a much-needed forum for New Delhi to partake in regional processes where India gets to work with Russia, China and Pakistan. India’s policymakers are doing extraordinarily well in navigating the country’s passage through a rather dangerous situation.
The Anglo-American enterprise capitalised on the absence of a regional initiative. The U.S.’ diplomacy brilliantly succeeded in creating disruptions in Russia’s and India’s traditional ties with Iran to isolate Tehran, which is an influential player in Afghanistan, apart from tapping into the contradictions in India’s relations with China and Pakistan. The U.S. selectively engaged Russia under the rubric of “reset.” On the whole, however, the regional powers are today a wiser lot about the criticality of a neutral Afghanistan.
(The writer is a former diplomat.)
====
China, SCO Back Russia Against U.S.-NATO Global Missile Shield
Reuters
June 15, 2011
China and allies back Russia against U.S. missile shield
By Alexei Anishchuk
-Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said SCO members had been unanimous in their criticism of the missile shield and that the declaration referred not only to the European system.
“It is part of a global shield, and the global missile defense system being set up by the United States, which also covers East and South Asia,” he said.
ASTANA: Russia won the backing of China and other members of a regional security body in criticizing U.S. plans for a missile shield, saying on Wednesday it could undermine global security.
The Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), a security bloc grouping Russia, China and four ex-Soviet Central Asian states, signed a declaration condemning any unilateral build-up of missile defenses after their leaders met in the Kazakh capital.
“The unilateral and unlimited build-up of missile defense by a single state or by a narrow group of states could damage strategic stability and international security,” the six members of the SCO said in the declaration.
Apart from regional heavyweights China and Russia, the SCO also includes the mostly Muslim ex-Soviet Central Asian states of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan. Iran, Pakistan, India and Mongolia have observer status in the body, set up 10 years ago to promote regional cooperation.
Moscow has recently stepped up criticism of U.S. plans to deploy missile defenses in Europe and has pressed for binding guarantees that the system would not weaken Russia’s nuclear arsenal.
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has threatened a new Cold War-style arms race if Moscow and Washington fail to resolve the missile defense spat.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said SCO members had been unanimous in their criticism of the missile shield and that the declaration referred not only to the European system.
“It is part of a global shield, and the global missile defense system being set up by the United States, which also covers East and South Asia,” he said.
The United States says its planned shield is meant to reduce the threat of a missile attack by Iran. Moscow says it fears the true aim is to neutralize Russia’s own nuclear arsenal.
“The Russian bear sits in its lair, and the NATO huntsman comes over to his house and asks him to come hunt the rabbit….Why do your rifles have the caliber to hunt the bear, not the rabbit?” Russia’s NATO envoy Dmitry Rogozin said at a panel talk at London’s Royal United Services Institute think-tank.
…
ANTI-WESTERN STAND
Russia and China have often voiced unity in opposition to perceived U.S. global dominance. As permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, they have expressed opposition to Western-led resolutions, including an effort to condemn Syria’s…crackdown on anti-government protests.
“The task of preserving global peace and promoting common development is getting more arduous and more onerous,” Chinese President Hu Jintao said.
…
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has upstaged previous SCO meetings, delivered a fiery 10-minute speech calling on members of the bloc to unite against Western powers.
“I believe that, through concerted actions, it is possible to change the general course of the world order in favor of peace, justice and peoples’ prosperity,” Ahmadinejad said at the end of a tirade against Western countries.
Russian news agency Interfax quoted Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari as reiterating his country’s wish to become a fully fledged SCO member. A source in the Russian delegation, who asked not to be identified, said neither India nor Pakistan could join until they resolve their own territorial row.
(Additional reporting by Dmitry Solovyov, Ben Blanchard and Chris Buckley in Astana and Mohammed Abbas in London; Writing by Robin Paxton and Steve Gutterman; Editing by Alistair Lyon)
====
NATO Conducts Counterintelligence Exercises In Poland
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2011-06/16/c_13932041.htm
Xinhua News Agency
June 16, 2011
NATO counterintelligence services in exercises in Poland
WARSAW: Almost 200 persons from 25 NATO member states and eight world’s most important international counterintelligence organisations took part in exercises which ended in Krakow of southern Poland on Wednesday.
“The exercises lasted about two weeks and several dozen top officials representing all participating institutions held a meeting Wednesday,” Polish Minister of Defense Bogdan Klich said, quoted by the PAP news agency.
Coordination of actions and ability to cooperate were crucial for effective operations and the Krakow exercises focused on exactly those matters: cooperation between various national services and reaching the set objectives, Klich went on.
The secretary of the Government Team for Special Services Jacek Cichocki explained further that the Krakow exercises were devoted to scenarios of permanent threats to NATO, such as espionage activity, organised crime and terrorist threats to NATO forces in foreign military missions.
====
U.S. Missile Strikes Kill At Least 15 In Pakistan
Deutsche Presse-Agentur
June 15, 2011
US missile strikes kill 15 in Pakistan
Islamabad: At least 15 people were killed in three US missile strikes in northwestern Pakistan, along the border with Afghanistan, security officials said Wednesday.
In the first attack, an unmanned drone aircraft fired two missiles on a car near Wana, the main town in South Waziristan district. Minutes later two more missiles were fired on a compound in the same area.
‘Four people died in the vehicle while six bodies have so far been pulled from the rubble of the compound,’ said an intelligence official who spoke on condition of anonymity.
The identity of those killed was not known.
Three drones hovered over the site of the attack for some time, the official said.
…
Also on Wednesday, a drone attack targeted a vehicle in the outskirts of Miranshah, the main town in the neighboring troubled district of North Waziristan.
‘All five people in the car have been killed. The locals have pulled out their charred bodies,’ said a second intelligence official. The identity of those killed were not determined yet.
…
The New York Times said in a report on Wednesday that Pakistan’s military has been distancing itself from US intelligence and counterinsurgency operations in over the past several weeks.
The article also called into question the future of US drone attacks, whose strikes on suspected militant hideouts on the Pakistani side of the Afghan border have also met with popular opposition.
====
Pakistan: More NATO Oil Tankers Set Ablaze
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2011%5C06%5C16%5Cstory_16-6-2011_pg7_7
Daily Times
June 16, 2011
Two NATO oil tankers set on fire in Bolan
QUETTA: Two NATO oil tankers were set on fire by unidentified militants near the Qambari bridge area of Dhadar in the Bolan district on Wednesday, some 130 away from the provincial capital.
According to sources in levies, two oil tankers carrying fuel for the NATO forces stationed in Afghanistan were on their way from Karachi to Kandahar when unidentified armed men riding motorcycles opened indiscriminate fire at the tankers near Qambari bridge area of Dhadar.
Resultantly, a driver was injured while fire engulfed the oil tankers culminating in the complete destruction of tankers. Assailants managed to escape on motorbikes after the incident. Levies personnel rushed to the spot soon after the incident and cordoned off the area to launch manhunt for the culprits.
====
U.S.’s New Drone War: Yemen
http://english.ruvr.ru/2011/06/15/51801142.html
Voice of Russia
June 16, 2011
The US in Yemen: drone war
Vladimir Fedoruk
The US plans to set up a new air base in the Gulf targeting Yemen, while American servicemen are already engaged in a secret anti-Al-Qaeda operation in the south of the country.
The location is kept secret but some say this might be Bahrain as it already has a US base and provides the safest route to Yemen for US drones through American ally-Saudi Arabia.
Recently, drones have been actively involved in regional conflicts, drone expert Denis Fedutinov told the VoR:
“The US used drones already in the Balkans campaign, then in Iraq and Afghanistan and now in Libya. The US and Israel are the world drone leaders. Now America has several thousand drones of different classes.”
…
US servicemen in Yemen are using drones for intelligence and aiding jet fighters. Recently, drones destroyed several insurgent camps in southern Yemen…The country’s President Abdullah Saleh has given the US carte blanche for using any means to combat insurgents.
However, US drones have a bad reputation in the Arab world as they often strike civilians in Pakistan and Afghanistan and are considered sovereignty-breakers. Pakistan’s parliament even demanded that the US stopped using drones in the country. In Yemen, which is griped by civil war, any mistake can strengthen tension. Moreover, mistaken air strikes can be exploited by Al Qaeda.
====
Ollanta Humala Declared Winner Of Peruvian Presidential Election
http://english.ruvr.ru/2011/06/16/51823410.html
Voice of Russia
June 16, 2011
Left-winger Ollanta Humala wins Peru election
Left-wing former army commander Ollanta Humala has been declared the winner of Peru’s presidential election.
Humala garnered 51.4 percent of all votes cast in the June 5 poll, with rightwing politician Keiko Fujimori, the daughter of jailed former President Alberto Fujimori, trailing behind with 48.5 percent.
The New Dark Age 