12 September 2011 — Stop NATO
- United Nations Accomplice To NATO’s Aggression Against Libya
- Daalder: 9/11 ‘NATO’s Finest Hour,’ Genesis Of Global Expansion
- Afghan Official: U.S. Used 9/11 To Penetrate South And Central Asia
- Pakistan: 51 Drone Strikes Kill 455 People In 2011
- Pakistan: New Target Of U.S.-NATO South Asian War
- Report: U.S. To Provide Turkey Predators For Deadly Attacks Inside Iraq
- Gulf Cooperation Council: Arab World’s Eight Monarchies To Unite
- United Armed Forces Could Make EU Superpower: Polish Party Leader
United Nations Accomplice To NATO’s Aggression Against Libya
The Citizen (Tanzania)
September 10, 2011
THE UN WAS AN ACCOMPLICE TO NATO AGGRESSION ON LIBYA
By Evarist Kagaruki
-The cynical behaviour of the Security Council in the face of Nato’s mission of removing a legitimate government…by military force, leaves no one in doubt that the world organization no longer respects its own charter; that it has become the absolute instrument of the sole superpower and its allies; and that it has lost credibility, moral strength and validity as the conscience of the world.
Superficially, the establishment of the no-fly zone over Libyan territory in March by the UN Security Council Resolution 1973 looked well-intentioned: to ‘protect civilians against attacks’ by Colonel Muammar Gaddafi’s forces that had been unleashed to quell the uprising in Benghazi – the stronghold of the rebel National Transition Council (NTC) – against the Tripoli regime. But, in actual fact, the no-fly zone was meant to provide air cover for ground rebel troops which, on their own, could not dislodge Gaddafi’s forces.
The insurgents were assisted with arms, cash, and logistics by the Nato alliance to enable them to keep up the fight to the end, something which was totally against the spirit and letter of the said resolution. But the same weapons have killed and maimed hundreds of innocent civilians the resolution sought to ‘protect’ in the first place. The Western media propaganda, not surprisingly, deliberately skipped this grim fact of the conflict in Libya.
There is now no doubt that Gaddafi, who is hated by some and loved by others (for different reasons), has been ousted – not, of course, by the NTC but by the Western powers with the tacit approval of the UN. The world body had, to the consternation of many, allowed Nato to go beyond its mandate and take sides in a civil war! Libya is now firmly in the hands of Western imperialists whose main interest there is essentially the control of the country’s flow of oil to the industrial capitals. As the fighting ends, there are already signs of an emerging scramble among the allies and foreign firms for access to the oil wealth.
As we anxiously watch the unfolding scenario on the political horizon in Libya, there is a ten-million dollar question yet to ponder: Is the UN still an organization that serves the purpose for which it was established? Or, put another way: Is the world body still useful and relevant to the people of the Third World? My answer is a big No! The cynical behaviour of the Security Council in the face of Nato’s mission of removing a legitimate government (even if it was a dictatorship) by military force, leaves no one in doubt that the world organization no longer respects its own charter; that it has become the absolute instrument of the sole superpower and its allies; and that it has lost credibility, moral strength and validity as the conscience of the world.
The UN is obliged by its Charter to maintain peace and security and make the world a better place for the whole of mankind. It is has been entrusted with the responsibility of preventing and removing threats to peace and suppressing (not encouraging) acts of aggression or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace – a noble task shouldered by the Security Council.
But at the behest of the Western powers, led by America, the UN has jettisoned its own aims and principles as these powers sought to dominate the rest of the world in pursuit of their hegemonic and predatory ambitions. This had been clearly demonstrated in the case of the American/British unilateral decision to attack Iraq in order to remove Saddam Hussein and when Israel invaded Lebanon and Gaza and committed atrocities there as the world body stood idly by in total despair and embarrassed silence.
Now we have witnessed, yet again, the UN’s abdication of its responsibilities in Libya. It went against its own charter when it became part of the insurgency against Gaddafi’s regime. For the first time, we have seen the organistion embracing an invidious policy of regime change in a member state. To everybody’s surprise and indignation, the Security Council did not hide its passion for supporting a rebellion to remove a lawful government from power!
Frankly speaking, the ouster of the Gaddafi regime by the Western/UN-backed insurgents was clearly aggression against Libya’s sovereignty, which sets a dangerous precedent and calls into question the credibility of the UN as the guardian of the member countries’ sovereignty and territorial integrity.
Daalder: 9/11 ‘NATO’s Finest Hour,’ Genesis Of Global Expansion
Wall Street Journal
September 12, 2011
NATO’s Finest Hour
The day the Alliance stood up for America
By Ivo Daalder
-NATO had to stop thinking regionally and begin thinking globally…Today, five of NATO’s six current operations are outside of the alliance’s territory…]NATO] made clear that real security in an era of global threats and challenges requires NATO to work in close cooperation with the widest possible range of partners — both near and far…Ten years after 9/11, NATO remains the most powerful and successful military alliance in history.
The shock and horror of 9/11 is burned into all our memories. I was on an aircraft over the Atlantic that day, flying back to Washington from Brussels, when the pilot gave us the awful news and turned the plane back. I well remember the terrible feeling I had, as many people around the world did at that moment — that I could have been on one of those planes, or that I could have been in one of those buildings. None of us was safe anymore.
Yesterday we all remembered that day 10 years ago…But we should also remember what happened the following day. Sept. 12, 2001, the North Atlantic Council, the NATO Alliance’s governing body, met in special session. For the first time since NATO’s founding in 1949, the council decided unanimously to invoke Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, saying that the attack on 9/11 was not just an attack on the United States, but an attack on all the members of NATO.
Within hours of this historic meeting, NATO’s Airborne Warning and Control System aircraft were alerted for deployment in the skies over America. They patrolled our vast airspace for the next five months.
The invocation of Article 5 was a defining moment for NATO. Until that moment, everyone had assumed that this commitment of the treaty was designed to involve the U.S. in the defense of Europe. No one imagined that it would first be used to bring Europe to the defense of the U.S. But with this one act, NATO signaled a fundamental change in its mission. All of us now recognized that security in Europe and in the U.S. was inextricably connected to events far beyond NATO’s traditional areas of operation. NATO had to stop thinking regionally and begin thinking globally.
Today, five of NATO’s six current operations are outside of the alliance’s territory. NATO’s soldiers are fighting in the very territories of Afghanistan…NATO ships are taking part in an anti-piracy mission in the Indian Ocean, and NATO forces are training Iraqi soldiers, stabilizing the situation in Kosovo, and still protecting Libyan civilians…
To respond to the evolving security environment following 9/11, the leaders of NATO countries agreed in Lisbon last year on a new Strategic Concept for the alliance. NATO reaffirmed the centrality of collective defense and made clear that today’s threats to alliance territory are more likely to come atop a long-range missile, over the internet or from suicide bombers than from armies marching across borders. It also made clear that real security in an era of global threats and challenges requires NATO to work in close cooperation with the widest possible range of partners — both near and far.
The new Strategic Concept laid the foundation for a series of decisions, from employing cyber defenses and deploying territorial missile defenses, to deepening NATO’s partnership with Russia and strengthening our relationships with countries such as Australia and Japan, which share our values.
Next May, the leaders of NATO will meet in Chicago to review and update our strategy, and to see how we can meet our security challenges in this time of economic austerity.
Ten years after 9/11, NATO remains the most powerful and successful military alliance in history…On Sept. 12, 2001, NATO made clear in words and deeds that an attack against one is an attack against all. That is why, today and for the past 62 years, NATO is, as President Obama said, an alliance that ‘remains the cornerstone of our engagement with the world, and a catalyst for global cooperation.’
Mr. Daalder is the U.S. ambassador to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
Afghan Official: U.S. Used 9/11 To Penetrate South And Central Asia
Pajhwok Afghan News
September 11, 2011
9/11 gave US a chance to achieve goals in region
by Mir Agha Samimi
-’The war is not a big issue for the US, which eyes future economic control over the entire region.’
-Muhammad Ameen Wakman, professor of political science at Kabul University, said the US had planned to come to the region before 9/11. It sought to monitor Central Asian states and contain Chinese and Iranian influence.
KABUL: Some political analysts say the 2001 US invasion of Afghanistan was aimed at protecting and promoting its interests in the region, not defeating Al Qaeda and Taliban.
Nearly 3,000 people were killed and many others wounded when four hijacked passenger planes were crashed into the World Trade Center and one into the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001.
Adviser to the Finance Ministry, Najeeb Manli, said the US had come to Afghanistan in its own interest. He said if the US was able to achieve its goals, it would abandon Afghanistan without caring for its people and international concerns.
‘The US has no plan to eliminate Al Qaeda and Taliban, liberate Afghanistan or establish a democracy here,’ he said. Afghanistan’s crucial geographical location makes it strategically important to the US. Manli said it was the time for Afghans to take advantage of the situation.
The ongoing conflict was a legacy of mismanagement and a non-serious approach on the part of the US, he added. In order to reduce casualties among US troops, the country in initials days of the war hired warlords, causing the situation to slip out of control.
Another political analyst, Ahmad Saeedi, described Sept. 11 a terrible incident that jolted the US out of its slumber and conveyed the message that terrorism knew no borders.
Saeedi said the US plan was not only to crush its opponents and bring peace to Afghanistan, but to use Afghan soil for achieving its goals in the region. The attacks provided a chance to the US to give practical shape to its strategic designs.
Though peace in Afghanistan is in the interest of the US, yet the war is necessary to continue, he said. ‘The war is not a big issue for the US, which eyes future economic control over the entire region.’
The US objectives in the region include ‘access to untapped natural resources in Afghanistan and Central Asian countries and control over other regional countries. He saw the US as an occupying force attacking any country it considers a threat to peace.
Human rights activist Kabir Ranjbar said the US invaded Afghanistan to seek revenge on Al Qaeda. ‘There is no visible shift in the US aims, but it has been unable to achieve anything worthwhile, except killing Osama bin Laden. In my view, Al Qaeda is still functional and even more strengthened.’
Muhammad Ameen Wakman, professor of political science at Kabul University, said the US had planned to come to the region before 9/11. It sought to monitor Central Asian states and contain Chinese and Iranian influence.
He opined the US would not leave Afghanistan even after 2014, when the security transition process from foreign troops to local forces is scheduled to be complete.
Pakistan: 51 Drone Strikes Kill 455 People In 2011
Xinhua News Agency
September 11, 2011
4 killed in U.S. drone strike in NW Pakistan
ISLAMABAD: At least four suspected militants were killed in a U.S. drone strike launched on Sunday night in Pakistan’s northwest tribal area of North Waziristan, reported the local Urdu TV channel Geo.
According to the report, the U.S. drones fired two missiles at a house and a vehicle in the Mir Ali area of North Waziristan, a place bordering Afghanistan and believed to be a stronghold of militants from different groups along Pakistan-Afghanistan border.
The identities of the killed are not immediately available.
Sunday’s U.S. drone strike is the 51st of its kind in Pakistan in 2011. To date, a total of 455 people, most of whom believed to be militants, have reportedly been killed in such strikes since this year.
Pakistan: New Target Of U.S.-NATO South Asian War
The Nation (Pakistan)
September 10, 2011
PPP gamble fails to stop drones rain
By Maqbool Malik
ISLAMABAD: The US-led war against terror continues unabated even after ten years in Afghanistan, the main theatre of this war. However, the objectives of this war remain illusive despite relentless use of bombing, including sophisticated bombs and drones.
Pakistan, which played the role of a frontline ally of the US and NATO forces, has suffered the most. Breach of Pakistan’s sovereignty by the US/NATO forces remained the most depressing aspect. There have been major violations of Pakistan’s territorial sovereignty in the course of the war against terrorism and extremism. The violation of Pakistan’s airspace by the US/Nato’s aircraft and helicopters and incessant drone attacks on one hand and the operation of CIA contractor Raymond Davis and the US unilateral raid on the OBL [Osama bin Laden] compound in Abbottabad on the other have compounded the situation that left the relations between the so-called strategic allies in tatters.
A cursory analysis of the developments suggests that PPP[Pakistan Peoples Party]-led ruling coalition continued with the same policies followed by former military ruler President Pervez Musharraf. This was largely because of the PPP’s selfish policy to formally own the US-led war against terror largely for economic benefits.
What the PPP leadership had done was to secure civil economic assistance in the garb of the Kerry-Lugar Act to the tune of $1.5 billion a year, and left part of the country to the mercy of CIA-operated drone attacks. Instead of pulling out of the war, the PPP leadership preferred the KLB lollypop, which resulted in major ramifications.
The CIA’s drone war on Pakistan that started in 2004 and should have been stopped by the civilian democratic dispensation continues unabated to humiliate Pakistan.
This mockery of Pakistan’s sovereignty has been going on since the PPP-led government came into power, and the drone war against so called Al-Qaeda and Taliban targets in Pakistan has been going on despite the intervention of the sovereign parliament of the country.
The Parliament of Pakistan had adopted two resolutions against the drone attacks put into cold storage by the ruling party. According to some estimates, hundreds of innocent people in the FATA region have been killed while thousands have been injured and displaced as result of drone hits, which the US claims as its ‘weapon of choice’. This is in contrast to the US claims that the CIA has killed nearly 600 high-valued Qaeda and Taliban targets. Publicly, Prime Minister Gilani and his cabinet colleagues have so far failed to convince the people of Pakistan on the issue of US drone attacks.
Except condemning every new attack, the government has failed to implement the resolutions adopted by the parliament. Many believe that the government has a tacit understanding with the US has allowed this unholy drone war.
Report: U.S. To Provide Turkey Predators For Deadly Attacks Inside Iraq
Report: US considers basing Predators in Turkey
By Robert Burns
WASHINGTON: The U.S. and Turkey are discussing how to continue cooperation against…targets in northern Iraq after U.S. forces leave Iraq in December, including the possibility of basing Predator drones in Turkey, a U.S. official said Sunday.
The U.S. currently is sharing Predator surveillance data with Turkey as part of a joint effort to combat the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, or PKK, which the U.S. considers a terrorist group…The Predators, capable of transmitting full-motion video, are flow from bases in Iraq.
The Washington Post was first to report Sunday that the Obama administration is considering a request from Turkey to base Predators on its territory.
Gulf Cooperation Council: Arab World’s Eight Monarchies To Unite
Trend News Agency/Deutsche Presse-Agentur
September 12, 2011
Jordan, Morocco open admission talks with Gulf Cooperation states
Jordan, Morocco and the six member states of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) on Sunday decided to set up two working groups and specialized panels to discuss the admission roadmap of the two pro-West monarchies to the oil-rich Arab political bloc, according to Jordan’s official Petra news agency.
The decision came during the first round of admission talks in Jeddah that involved the foreign ministers of Jordan and Morocco and their counterparts in the GCC countries – Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain and Oman, dpa reported.
The meeting also recommended to the GCC leaders in their next meeting later this year a five-year development plan for Jordan and Morocco, according to a joint communique.
During their last summit in Riyadh in May, the GCC leaders offered Jordan and Morocco an opportunity to join the gathering which was established in 1981.
The offer to Amman and Rabat to join the bloc came in the wake of the uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt that ignited demonstrations in several Arab countries including Bahrain, a GCC member state, and Jordan.
Addressing Sunday’s meeting, Jordanian Foreign Minister Nasser Judeh cited ‘challenges, common values and geography’ as the main factors that prompted the GCC to offer his country the chance to join the gathering.
He said that he looked forward to working with his GCC counterparts to come up with ‘a joint plan that enables us to harmonize administrative and legal systems’ between Jordan and the GCC states in the run-up to complete admission.
United Armed Forces Could Make EU Superpower: Polish Party Leader
September 9, 2011
Military unity could make EU a superpower: Kaczynski
KRYNICAL: The creation of a united armed forces for the European Union could give Brussels superpower status to match that of Washington, Poland’s opposition leader Jaroslaw Kaczynski told AFP Friday.
‘I want Europe to be a superpower,’ Kaczynski said in an interview at the Krynica Economic Forum in southern Poland, while on the campaign trail ahead of a general election on October 9.
‘I’m a eurorealist and I support a stronger Europe, especially in the political-military aspect,’ Kaczynski added, in an apparent pre-election drive to ditch his eurosceptic image.
The 62-year-old identical twin of late Polish president Lech Kaczynski, who died in an April 2010 air crash in Russia, governed in tandem with him as prime minister in 2006-2007.
He gained a reputation as a strident eurosceptic after a string of rows with Brussels.
‘A political centre which has at its disposal certain means vis-a-vis external forces would make Europe a real superpower and I would really want this,’ Kaczynski said.
‘Europe should have a political centre, but equipped with armed forces this political centre could be an equal partner for the United States and we must not forget China or India.’
Asked whether he supported military integration among EU states, Kaczynski replied: ‘Yes, but under the condition that it will be on the level of a very powerful army and not that we create some kind of corps or brigades or other such laughable initiatives.’
‘No European state alone is capable of being a superpower – and so it’s clear – I mean Russia too. Nor are France and Germany together because they are just too small,’ said the conservative opposition leader, known for his combative and mistrustful stance towards Moscow.
‘Just look at the difference in how Russia views those who don’t have this kind of strength – here I mean the EU – and those who do have it, for example the US,’ Kaczynski observed.