9 October 2011 — Stop NATO
- Video And Text: Battle For Libya Far From Over
- Chicago: Thousands Protest Tenth Anniversary Of Afghan War
- ALBA Delegation In Syria To Oppose Invasion, Political Destabilization
- Iran Criticizes Turkey For Hosting NATO Missile Radar
- NATO Chief, Representatives, Global Partners In Romania
- NATO And An Emergent Multi-Polar World
- Barack Obama: Where’s the Peace?
Video And Text: Battle For Libya Far From Over
http://rt.com/news/libya-far-from-end-345/
RT
October 7, 2011
Battle for Libya ‘far from over’
Video
As the latest assault on Sirte, the hometown of Muammar Gaddafi, is underway and there are no signs that NATO is going to leave Libya anytime soon, the conflict in North Africa seems to be far from its end.
Reports say the interim government’s troops have now largely taken Sirte, but are still meeting pockets of heavy resistance.
Hundreds of vehicles are pouring into the outskirts as the city is pounded with heavy shelling.
Though thousands of civilians have left the city, many more are thought to have remained.
The assault comes after Colonel Gaddafi, in an audio message, urged Libyans to resist the interim leaders.
‘The battle is far from over,’ says activist and journalist Sukant Chandan.
It is now clear to the world that civilians are being targeted in Sirte, he says quoting the AFP reports on civilian casualties. ‘Nevertheless Sirte is still resisting.’
He points out that the media have stopped talking about another Gaddafi stronghold, Bani Walid. ‘Basically the pro-NATO rebels in Libya have given up taking Bani Walid,’ he believes.
There are no signs whatsoever that NATO is going to leave, Chandan says. ‘NATO just said that it will intervene even further if relationship among the rebels continues to worsen.’
By vetoing UN resolution on Syria, ‘China and Russia have admitted that they were fooled over Resolution 1973 on Libya and they are not going to be fooled again,’ the journalist states.
According to Chandan, Syrian President Bashar Assad is doing the right thing for any leader of the ‘Global South.’ He explains that if NATO attacks Syria, Assad will start bombing Israel, get Hezbollah bombing Israel, and Iran will target Western interest in the Gulf.
‘This is the only way to face the world bullies which is NATO,’ he claims.
====
Chicago: Thousands Protest Tenth Anniversary Of Afghan War
http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=8384449
WLS-TV ABC
October 8, 2011
This weekend marks the 10th anniversary of the start of the U.S. war in Afghanistan and peaceful protesters took to the streets in downtown Chicago Saturday
CHICAGO: This weekend marks the 10th anniversary of the start of the U.S. war in Afghanistan and peaceful protesters took to the streets in downtown Chicago Saturday.
Some 2,000 people, many associated with anti-war organizations, gathered at Michigan Avenue and Congress Parkway to begin their march.
They called for an end to the war in Afghanistan, now the longest military conflict in the nation’s history.
‘It’s time to end the war and bring the U.S. troops home,’ said Mary Dean of Voices for Creative Non-Violence. ‘I’m here today to support these people. The veterans, the people of the United States that know that these wars are unacceptable.’
The anti-war rally then joined forces with the ongoing ‘Occupy Wall Street’ picketers, who were demonstrating along Lasalle Street in the Financial District.
—————————————————————————-
http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/chicago-anti-war-protest-131393558.html
NBC Chicago
October 8, 2011
Protestors Mark 10th Year of Afghan War
A crowd of hundreds of people gathered downtown around midday Saturday to protest the war in Afghanistan, now in its 10th year.
With signs and banners emblazined with the words ‘troops home now’ and ‘bring out money home now,’ several groups gathered near Michigan Avenue & Congress Parkway before marching throughout the area and making a stop outside President Barack Obama’s 2012 campaign headquarters.
Many of the protesters merged with about 100 people affiliated with another group – Occupy Chicago – which has been rallying in the financial district against corporate influence in government for more than two weeks. That group is a spinoff of anti-wall Street protests in New York.
Chicago police reported no arrests.
A similar anti-war event was held at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
In Washington, protestors forced the closure of the National Air and Space Museum when they tried to protest a drone exhibit.
====
ALBA Delegation In Syria To Oppose Invasion, Political Destabilization
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2011-10/09/c_131180738.htm
Xinhua News Agency
October 9, 2011
ALBA delegation to meet Syrian president on solidarity mission
CARACAS: A visiting delegation from the eight-member Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas (ALBA) is expected to meet Syrian President Bashar al-Assad on Sunday in a show of solidarity with his country.
The bloc’s talks aim to ‘reject invasion and political destabilization attempts against the country by the United States and its allies,’ Venezuelan Foreign Minister Nicolas Maduro said in Geneva.
‘We reject all forms of interventionism that the empire is trying to apply as it did in Libya for a violent process of regime change,’ he added.
Representatives of Venezuela, Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Bolivia led by Maduro and Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez are traveling to Damascus to ‘support the Syrian people in their search for stability.’
Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines are also members of the regional organization for integrated cooperation.
Syria has been gripped by six months of unrest that has spread across the country. Syrian authorities recently put at 800 the number of army officers and law-enforcement troops killed since the eruption of protests in Syria in mid-March, while a recent UN tally estimated the number of civilians killed at 2,900.
====
Iran Criticizes Turkey For Hosting NATO Missile Radar
http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20111008/167496294.html
Russian Information Agency Novosti
October 8, 2011
Tehran slams Ankara for agreeing to host NATO missile shield
Demonstrators in Ankara protest against the deployment of NATO early warning radar system in Turkey
MOSCOW: Iran has criticized Turkey for its decision to host NATO missile defense elements on its soil, the Mehr News Agency reported on Saturday.
Maj. General Yahya Safavi, former commander of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps, said Turkey was on the wrong track.
Turkey’s decision is a ‘strategic mistake’ that would send a clear message both to Iran and Russia, ‘but more to Iran,’ he said.
He did not say what the message was.
In September, Turkey agreed to host an early warning radar in the southeast of the country as part of NATO’s missile defense system.
…
—————————————————————————-
Tehran Times
October 8, 2011
Turkey made strategic mistake by agreeing to host NATO missile shield: Safavi
TEHRAN: Major General Yahya Safavi says Ankara has made three strategic mistakes including a decision to host the NATO missile shield on the Turkish soil.
Safavi, the former commander of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps, says Turkey is moving on a wrong track perhaps laid out by the United States.
The deployment could have a clear message for both Iran and Russia but more for Iran, Safavi told the Mehr News Agency in an exclusive interview.
…
On the future relationship between Tehran and Ankara, he said if Turkish political leaders do not adopt a transparent foreign policy toward Iran, they will encounter problems in the future.
====
NATO Chief, Representatives, Global Partners In Romania
Romania Business Insider
October 7, 2011
Anders Fogh Rasmussen and NATO reps. come to Romania for official assembly
Irina Popescu
-The event gathers over 350 parliamentarians from the 28 NATO member states in North America and Europe as well as delegates from associated countries, regional partners, Mediterranean, associated and observer countries to discuss issues of interest on international security…
High-level members of the North Atlantic Organization (NATO) will be in Bucharest until October 10 for the 57th Annual Session of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. The event starts today, October 7, at the Parliament Palace in the Romanian capital city.
The NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the NATO Parliamentary Assembly President Karl A. Lamers and NATO Military Committee Chairman Admiral Giampaolo Di Paola, will be among the participants at this year’s NATO Parliamentary Assembly.
The event gathers over 350 parliamentarians from the 28 NATO member states in North America and Europe as well as delegates from associated countries, regional partners, Mediterranean, associated and observer countries to discuss issues of interest on international security, to adopt special committee reports, and to formulate recommendations.
…
The Chamber of Deputies Secretary General Gheorghe Barbu recently unveiled some details of the event and presented some investment figures. For this NATO event, the Romanian Government issued a decision this May, providing additional funds of about EUR 2.5 million (RON 11.037 million) for the Senate and additional funds of around EUR 2.8 million (RON 12.086 million) for the Chamber of Deputies.
====
NATO And An Emergent Multi-Polar World
http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2011/10/an-emergent-multi-polar-world/
Pakistan Today
October 8, 2011
An emergent multi-polar world
By Arif Ansar
The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) came into being in 1949 in the aftermath of World War II. The first NATO Secretary General, Lord Ismay, famously stated the organisation’s goal was ‘to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.’
With the end of the Cold War and the Warsaw Pact, one of the main premises upon which the NATO military alliance was formulated was gone. The alliance began to look for a new purpose and identity that would keep it united against emerging threats. The war against terror has proven to be one such unifying factor, as has dealing with [national leaders] that threaten western interests, such as Saddam Hussein and Muammar Qaddafi.
The emergent world, however, has become increasingly multi-polar in nature, represented in the form of BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa). Additionally the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) represents the interests of Central Asian states, and is thought of as the BRICS’ security arm. India, Pakistan and Iran maintain an observer status in the SCO. It is of special interest to study the connection between BRICS and the SCO, and their reaction to events in countries impacted by the Arab Spring and their position on the developments of the AfPak region.
The cooperation and competition between established and emerging powers is now playing out in key strategic regions of the world, most recently in Libya and Syria. In both cases, the positions of BRICS nations were in stark contrast to western powers. In the case of Libya, these nations – including Germany – abstained from voting on the Security Council resolution 1973.
In the recent vote on Syria, Russia and China both vetoed the resolution meant for punishing Syria. The resolution received 9 votes in favour, while India, Brazil, South Africa and Lebanon abstained. Germany this time opted to vote for imposing sanctions on Syria. The role of Turkey, a NATO member, has also been noteworthy. Although it has maintained an aggressive posture towards Israel recently, in the case of Libya and Syria its position has shifted more in line with NATO. This is in contrast to Turkey’s stance towards the Iraq war in 2003.
To explore the role of BRICS and the SCO towards the AfPak region further, we examined the views expressed at a conference held at the Woodrow Wilson Center in June, titled, BRICS: Shaping the New Global Architecture. We especially focused on the comments of Da Wei, who is the Director of the Presidents Office, China Institute of Contemporary International Relations (CICIR); Fyodor Lukyanov, Editor in Chief of Russia in Global Affairs; and Inderjit Singh, Professor of National Strategy at the National War College, US National Defense University.
In expressing his views, Da Wei distinguished the role of BRICS countries and the SCO, and avoided making any comparison of the SCO with NATO, or any comment on the role of the SCO in Afghanistan. He clarified that the BRICS are focused on global economic and political affairs while the SCO is more concerned with security issues. He added that BRICS membership is open to other countries and is a forum for emerging powers to dialogue amongst member countries and with other institutions like the SCO. He clarified further that both BRICS and the SCO are not very ‘strict-tight’ organisations.
On the other hand, Fyodor Lukyanov emphasised the role of the SCO in Afghanistan and stated that, ‘The SCO now is primarily about Afghanistan because this [is] a matter of huge concern for all countries of Central Eurasia [because of the question of] what will happen in Afghanistan after American and NATO exit, and nobody can answer it.’ He added that NATO should be very much interested and should encourage the SCO to take over the settlement of this issue and that it’s the only organisation that is very well-placed to take on this responsibility.
In contrast, while speaking to PoliTact, Dr Inderjist Singh stressed a regional solution to Afghanistan that includes the interests of India, Russia, China, and Iran. He noted that the invitation recently from Russian President Dmitry Medvedev to Afghan President Hamid Karzai to join the SCO does not carry much significance, as the country cannot yet ensure its own security – and that’s why the role of Pakistan is important. He commented that Pakistan should not attempt to marginalise the interests of the Northern Alliance and India through the Haqqani network because a stable solution for Afghanistan would have to involve regional powers and the route of negotiations would be better than the use of force.
The Chinese are clearly adopting a cautious posture as opposed to the more aggressive Russian stance. These differences in approach are obviously the result of their respective threat perceptions vis-à-vis the United States and Europe.
The future of the US presence in the region was also a central theme on the agenda of the SCO meeting held in mid-June in Kazakhstan. At the meeting, President Medvedev commented that the future of Afghanistan was directly relational to security and stability in all SCO countries and most observer countries, and that the SCO must endeavour to increase cooperation and involvement in Afghanistan to try and ensure stability in a post-US scenario.
In a UN Security Council meeting on September 29th, Russia insisted Afghanistan must stay neutral after troops withdraw from the region. Russian deputy ambassador to the UN, Alexander Pankin, said, ‘if Kabul sets a goal of restoring neutrality as early as now, this can ease the reconciliation dialogue with the opposition.’
The diplomat told UN members that military means were not enough to stabilise Afghanistan. Pankin criticised NATO’s ineffectiveness in controlling the situation and warned militant networks could spread to bordering countries. Russia and China both fear the situation in Afghanistan could destabilise the Central Asian states.
On the other hand, India warned on September 30th against hasty withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan. India’s Permanent Representative to the UN, Hardeep Singh Puri, stated the stability in the region can only be achieved once terrorist organisations such as Al Qaeda and Taliban are rooted out of Afghanistan. US and Indian interests are no doubt convergent when it comes to the AfPak region; however, India has consistently taken a position against foreign intervention in both Libya and Syria.
Understanding the positions of the emerging powers has become paramount, as they will play an increasingly important role in determining the fate of existing and future conflicts.
The writer is the chief analyst for PoliTact (www.PoliTact.com and http:twitter.com/politact) and can be reached at aansar@politact.com.
====
Barack Obama: Where’s the Peace?
http://rt.com/politics/columns/bridge-too/obama-us-nobel-war/
RT
October 7, 2011
Barack Obama: Where’s the Peace?
Dear President Barack Obama,
Sometime in late 2007, a nine-year-old girl in Moscow hung a poster on the wall of her bedroom that featured an artistic rendering of your image, accompanied by a single word: ‘Change.’
Given that children are not generally attracted to the drab, adult world of politics, that poster rammed home the power of your message and the hope it inspired. After all, even children can sense when things are out of whack in the world and change is needed.
It was not just children, however, who were inspired by your smoothly articulated message.
Indeed, two years ago this week, the Norwegian Nobel Committee awarded you the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. This event took much of the world by surprise since the nominations were made just 12 days after you had entered the White House! Even you seemed surprised by the award, saying the tribute was not for your accomplishments but more of a ‘call to action.’ Indeed, your only presidential accomplishment to date, with all due respect, was getting elected.
Nevertheless, the Norway-based organization said they were honoring you for your ‘extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples.’ In other words, it was almost as if the Nobel Committee had made a hefty down payment – the prize in 2009 was worth $1.4 million dollars – on something it had expected to receive in the future. Namely, an honest effort at creating and sustaining global peace. Whether or not the Nobel committee has been satisfied in its expectations, I am not in a position to say. But we can venture a wild guess.
Since the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were not launched on your watch, Mr. President, it may be considered unfair to mention them in this letter. However, since you are the commander-in-chief, all decisions regarding war – regardless of who started them – are ultimately yours, of course.
Thus, it is necessary to consider the Afghanistan War, which has just entered its 10th year, making it the longest military operation in US history, even longer than the eight-year slog in Vietnam.
Although you should be credited with announcing that 10,000 US troops would be called home from Afghanistan by the end of 2011, with an additional 23,000 troops expected to leave by mid-2012, this means that over 50,000 US soldiers will be left behind to fight an increasingly futile war.
As you certainly know, 4,500 US troops have already paid the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq, with another 1,700 in Afghanistan. At the same time, fighting two wars has cost the US taxpayer $1 trillion since the terrorist attacks of 9/11. It would be very difficult to say what the American people got for all that heavy expenditure besides mountains of death, destruction and debt.
Meanwhile, the 50,000 US troops stationed in Iraq look as if they will remain there ‘indefinitely,’ which is just another way of saying ‘forever.’ Yet just last year you promised to ‘turn the page’ on this ugly chapter in American history.
In a typically eloquent speech, this one delivered on August 31, 2010, you told the American people: ‘The United States has paid a huge price to put the future of Iraq in the hands of its people. We have sent our young men and women to make enormous sacrifices in Iraq, and spent vast resources abroad at a time of tight budgets at home…Through this remarkable chapter in the history of the United States and Iraq, we have met our responsibility. Now, it is time to turn the page.’
Many people are still waiting for this one page to turn, but it seems the story is just beginning.
Although you may have had little hope of bringing home the troops, you did have the opportunity to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. After all, you pledged on the campaign trail to shutter this concrete corner of Cuba, which has been dubbed the ‘Gulag of our times’ by Amnesty International. Yet once again, with all due respect, you crumbled under the unbearable weight of the Republicans, despite the fact that they were the Congressional minority during your first two years in office. So ex-Vice President Dick Cheney got what he wanted, and the ‘terrorists,’ many of whom are known to be innocent of the charges against them, remain stuck in a lawless purgatory.
As a result, the fate of these individuals will not be decided by a civilian court (i.e. open and transparent), but behind the locked doors of military tribunals, where guilty verdicts are all but guaranteed. Are the American people not entitled to hear what these individuals have to say to the charges brought against them, especially when the US taxpayer is paying the $1 trillion dollar bill for the ‘War on Terror’? It stands to reason that we should be witness to the court proceedings against the people we are sacrificing so much to fight. After all, even the loathsome Nazis were given a public trial in Nuremburg following World War II, which gave the public an opportunity to confront their enemy in the flesh. There is a good reason for this, and it has nothing to do with morbid curiosity or good TV ratings. Public war trials are not for the benefit of the condemned, but rather for the benefit of the public as a means of acquiring closure on deeply traumatizing events. Sadly, the American people were denied this concluding act of war, and the reasons given (too expensive, too risky, too bad) continue to defy logic. Now the ghosts of terrorist acts past will haunt us forever.
While the enemy combatants in the war on terror were deemed unworthy recipients of the humanitarian guidelines set forth in the Geneva Convention, the American people, ironically, did not fare much better. Following the devastating attacks of 9/11, when a code-red atmosphere of Fear and Panic ruled the road and bumper-sticker patriotism was rampant, the Bush administration rammed through a shell-shocked Congress its so-called Patriot Act, which essentially turned every American into a potential terrorist.
Here is how the Los Angeles Times put the plight: ‘Many were questioning the extreme measures taken by the Bush administration, especially after the disclosure of abuses and illegalities. Candidate Obama capitalized on this swing and portrayed himself as the champion of civil liberties.’
So, Mr. President, how did you fare in the face of this daunting challenge? If I may be so candid, it seems that ‘poorly’ would be an understatement.
‘President Obama not only retained the controversial Bush policies, he expanded on them,’ the Times summarized. ‘He continued warrantless surveillance and military tribunals that denied defendants basic rights. He asserted the right to kill US citizens he views as terrorists. His administration has fought to block dozens of public-interest lawsuits challenging privacy violations and presidential abuses.’
The article went on to lament the damage you personally did to the civil liberties movement, which ‘has quieted to a whisper, muted by the power of Obama’s personality and his symbolic importance as the first black president as well as the liberal who replaced Bush.’
At the same time, as the situation in Libya proved, over-simplistic military solutions to complex foreign problems continue to be a hallmark of American foreign policy. Meanwhile, in nuclear-armed Pakistan, which has been declared a hunting ground in the open season on bogeymen, the use of unmanned drone attacks have actually increased on your watch as compared to the Neocon nightmare of the Bush administration.
Started under the Bush administration, drone attacks in Pakistan have increased fivefold on your watch, Mr. President. Last year, 118 such missions were reported, which have resulted in the death of some genuine bad guys, as well as up to 300 innocent civilians. Is this the sort of peace the Nobel Committee had in mind when it honored you the top prize? Certainly not, but yet the sanitized strikes continue.
According to a report by National Public Radio (NPR): ‘For now, the US government has no plans to ease up on the drone strikes, talk about them, or give Pakistan more say in how they’re done. Far from it: A couple of months ago, a top security adviser to President Obama, Doug Lute, was asked about the drone strikes at a security conference.’
Lute said Osama Bin Laden’s death makes the drone strikes even more important.
‘So this is a period of turbulence in an organization which is our archenemy. This is a period, therefore, that all military doctrine suggests you need to go for the knockout punch,’ Lute told NPR.
Does anybody in Washington even consider the fact that Pakistan has nuclear weapons?
Finally, in one last ‘peaceful’ gesture, it was recently reported that you secretly sent 55 so-called bunker-buster bombs to Israel, thus adding fuel to the verbal fire now raging between Israel and Iran. Needless to say, a war between these two states may well be the war to end all wars, not to mention life on Earth as we know it. That appears to be a risk that some people, especially those with a more apocalyptic frame of mind, are willing to take. But I digress.
In a special report by Newsweek, US and Israeli officials ‘revealed that the GBU-28 Hard Target Penetrators — potentially useful in any future military strike against Iranian nuclear sites — were delivered to Israel in 2009, just several months after Obama took office.’
If these revelations are really true, it flies in the face of your other forgotten campaign pledge to ‘sit down and talk’ with America’s enemies. Plus, it could send mixed signals to Israel concerning Washington’s intentions.
The Daily Beast asked if the transfer of the powerful bombs ‘would be seen as a green light for Israel to attack Iran’s secret nuclear sites one day.’ In any case, in the event of such a hypothetical scenario, there are better-than-average chances that the already overstretched US military will be called up once again for Middle East duty.
In closing, you commented this week that the American people are not better off economically than they were four years ago. While this is true, you failed to mention anything about the state of peace in the world compared to four years ago. This was a glaring oversight since you received the Nobel Peace Prize, not the Economic Performance Prize, and the former is certainly more critical. If we fail to restore peace, then any conversation on the health of the economy is senseless.
It must be said that the American people, as well as much of the inhabitants of the planet, are not safer than they were four years ago. At least part of the reason is your failure to live up to the heavy expectations of the Nobel Committee when they awarded you their ultimate honor. But it is still not too late to change that.
Mr. President, I have nothing more to say except that your poster that was hanging in a child’s room in the center of Moscow has been taken down, rolled up, and carefully stored away. Maybe she is waiting for better days to return the poster to its place. I really don’t know.
Meanwhile, I can only imagine what the people at the Nobel Committee are thinking. But there is still time to try to correct things.
Respectfully yours,
Robert Bridge
The New Dark Age 
Leave a comment