Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Afghans don't wnat more US troops
According to interviews conducted by ABC, Afghans don't ant more US troops and they see them as foreign invaders.
The article says there is a large number of Afghans – the majority of those interviewed by ABC News – who see the American military as the latest in a long line of foreign invaders of Afghanistan.
One Afghan interviewed also said that "Afghans were fed up with both sides – the Taliban for causing violence and the foreign forces for failing to stop it," as groups like RAWA and Malalai Joya have been saying for a long time.
The article says there is a large number of Afghans – the majority of those interviewed by ABC News – who see the American military as the latest in a long line of foreign invaders of Afghanistan.
One Afghan interviewed also said that "Afghans were fed up with both sides – the Taliban for causing violence and the foreign forces for failing to stop it," as groups like RAWA and Malalai Joya have been saying for a long time.
Monday, September 28, 2009
Did Iran "cheat"?
There is some uncertainty as to whether Iran did or did not cheat by not revealing earlier the existence of its new uranium enrichment facility.
Scott Ritter says that Iran did not technically cheat.
But here James Acton says it did.
But Sahimi says Iran did not cheat.
See this document (para. 15) from IAEA giving some info.
I'd say Acton is technically right because Code 3.1 of the General Part of the Subsidiary Arrangements cannot be repealed unilaerally, unlike the Additional Protocol, which was implemented voluntarily.
Scott Ritter says that Iran did not technically cheat.
But here James Acton says it did.
But Sahimi says Iran did not cheat.
See this document (para. 15) from IAEA giving some info.
I'd say Acton is technically right because Code 3.1 of the General Part of the Subsidiary Arrangements cannot be repealed unilaerally, unlike the Additional Protocol, which was implemented voluntarily.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Roger Cohen on Iran
Roger Cohen is not as hysterical as others in the mainstream and says sanctions won't work.
Ahmed Rashid on Afghanistan
My comments in [ ].
[Why doesn't the US target Pakistan if it supports the Taliban?]:
In North Waziristan two key Afghan Taliban networks—one led by the Pash- tun warlord Jalaluddin Haqqani and his son Sirajuddin Haqqani, and the other by the Muslim extremist Gulbuddin Hekmatyar—have been on the payroll of Pakistan's ISI since the 1970s and the ISI still allows them to operate freely. Al-Qaeda militants also live in North Waziristan, as do militant groups of Pakistani Punjabis, who launch terrorist attacks in India and Afghanistan.
The key question is whether the Pakistani army and the ISI, which have intermittently supported the Afghan and Pakistani Taliban since 2001, can now make a strategic shift—turning decisively to eliminate not only the Pakistani Taliban but also the Afghan Taliban and al-Qaeda. Until now the Pakistani army has considered the Afghan Taliban a strategic asset in its battle against India and other regional rivals for influence in Afghanistan.
[Taliban strength]:
For much of this year the Taliban have been on the offensive in Afghanistan. Their control of just thirty out of 364 districts in 2003 expanded to 164 districts at the end of 2008, according to the military expert Anthony Cordesman, who is advising General McChrystal. Taliban attacks increased by 60 percent between October 2008 and April 2009. Forty-seven American soldiers died in August, making it the deadliest month in the war for the US Army. Forty-four were killed in July.
[Elections]:
The Taliban had threatened to derail the elections and, to a considerable degree, they did, because much of the terrified population did not vote. The turnout is expected to be between 30 to 40 percent, much less than the 70 percent who voted in 2004. There were four hundred Taliban attacks on election day and many polling stations never opened.
In fact, as I recently wrote elsewhere, the fraud was assured months ago when Karzai began to align himself with regional warlords, drug traffickers, and top officials in the provinces who were terrified of losing their lucrative sinecures.
[Costs]
Meanwhile the military operation in Afghanistan is now costing cash-strapped US taxpayers $4 billion a month.
Iran missiles
Iran has not yet deployed missiles that can reach Europe, but in the Pentagon's view, it is headed toward that capacity. Earlier this year, it did carry out a successful test of a two-stage missile using solid fuel called the Sejil-2. That has a range of about 1,200 miles, which could reach parts of Europe from Iran.
Iran does not currently have missiles capable of hitting Western Europe.
From BBC, which gives a map of missile reaches:
A recent study conducted by missile experts from the United States, Europe and Russia for the International Institute for Strategic Studies concluded that Iran does have the technical and industrial capacity to develop a new missile capable of reaching Western Europe.
Iran does not currently have missiles capable of hitting Western Europe.
From BBC, which gives a map of missile reaches:
A recent study conducted by missile experts from the United States, Europe and Russia for the International Institute for Strategic Studies concluded that Iran does have the technical and industrial capacity to develop a new missile capable of reaching Western Europe.
The Safir has limited military utility and could not be converted into a viable military, ballistic missile. The Sajjil modestly increases Iran's strategic reach, from about 1,500km for the Shahab-3 to about 2,000km for a one-ton payload.
But the Sajjil is several years from reaching operational status. Additional flight testing will be needed to validate the missile's performance parameters and reliability.
There are no indications to date that Tehran intends to develop intermediate-range missiles, those capable of hitting targets in Western Europe.
Nor is there any evidence that Iranian missile engineers are developing a larger diameter solid propellant motor capable of lifting larger payloads to distances beyond 3,000km.
The absence of such activities does not mean that Iran will not pursue longer range missiles in the future, but it indicates that Iran is many years away from establishing an ability to threaten Germany, France or the United Kingdom.
Taliban finances
The U.S. military has estimated that the Taliban collects $70 million annually from poppy farmers and narcotics traffickers. The U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime, which monitors opium production, earlier projected that the Taliban and its affiliates earned as much as $400 million a year from the drug trade. The agency later revised the figure sharply downward, to about $100 million a year.
Also it is widely believed that Pakistan's ISI supports greatly the Taliban.
But the US won't attack Pakistan of course...
Also it is widely believed that Pakistan's ISI supports greatly the Taliban.
But the US won't attack Pakistan of course...
Saturday, September 26, 2009
India's defense and nuclear markets
India is planning to spend $100 bn over the next 10 years to modernize its military, so US and other countries' companies are all looking forward to that.
Also, Canada is about to conclude a nuclear deal with India.
Canada is close to signing a deal with India to sell nuclear technology and materials. Canada said it did not foresee any threat of Canadian materials being diverted to military uses elsewhere in the region because of India's commitment to allow inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency as well as tough transparency and reporting requirements.
The deal is made possible by the US-Indo nuclear deal last year that was signed by Bush to allow nuclear trade with India even if it has not signed the NPT. This Bush deal assists India's production of nuclear weapons.
Also, Canada is about to conclude a nuclear deal with India.
Canada is close to signing a deal with India to sell nuclear technology and materials. Canada said it did not foresee any threat of Canadian materials being diverted to military uses elsewhere in the region because of India's commitment to allow inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency as well as tough transparency and reporting requirements.
That's crap: Canada halted nuclear co-operation with India after the country diverted material from Canadian-designed reactors to make a nuclear bomb in 1974.
The deal is made possible by the US-Indo nuclear deal last year that was signed by Bush to allow nuclear trade with India even if it has not signed the NPT. This Bush deal assists India's production of nuclear weapons.
Riachard Falk on Goldstone report
Richard Falk has a long summary of the Goldstone report here. Excerpt:
Given this background of a prior international consensus on the unlawfulness of Operation Cast Lead, we must first wonder why this massive report of 575 pages has been greeted with such alarm by Israel and given so much attention in the world media. It added little to what was previously known. Arguably, it was more sensitive to Israel's contentions that Hamas was guilty of war crimes by firing rockets into its territory than earlier reports had been. And in many ways the Goldstone report endorses the misleading main line of the Israeli narrative by assuming that Israel was acting in self-defense against a terrorist adversary. The report does describe the success of the ceasefire with Hamas that had cut violence in southern Israel to very low levels, and attributes its disruption to Israel's attack on 4 November 2008, but nowhere does it make the inference that would seem to follow, that the Israeli attacks were an instance of the international crime of aggression. Instead, the report focuses its criticism on Israel's excessive and indiscriminate uses of force. It does this mainly by examining the evidence surrounding a series of incidents involving attacks on civilians and non-military targets. The report also draws attention to the unlawful blockade that has restricted the flow of food, fuel and medical supplies to subsistence levels in Gaza before, during and since Operation Cast Lead. Such a blockade is a flagrant instance of collective punishment, explicitly prohibited by Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention setting forth the legal duties of an occupying power.
AND importantly:
The report also ignores Hamas' repeated efforts to extend the ceasefire indefinitely provided Israel lifted its unlawful blockade of Gaza. Israel disregarded this seemingly available diplomatic alternative to war to achieve security on its borders. Recourse to war, even if the facts were to justify self-defense, is according to international law, a last resort. By ignoring Israel's initiation of a one-sided war the Goldstone report implicitly accepts the dubious central premise of Operation Cast Lead, and avoids making a finding of aggression.
Also disappointing was the failure of the report to comment upon the Israeli denial of a refugee option to the civilian population trapped in the tiny, crowded combat zone that constitutes the Gaza Strip. Israel closed all crossings during the period of the Gaza war, allowing only Gaza residents with foreign passports to leave. It is rare in modern warfare that civilians are not given the option to become refugees. Although there is no specific provision of the laws of war requiring a state at war to allow civilians to leave the combat zone, it seems like an elementary humanitarian requirement, and should at least have been mentioned either as part of customary international law or as a gap in the law that should be filled. The importance of this issue is reinforced by many accounts of the widespread post-traumatic stress experienced by the civilians in Gaza, especially children, who comprise 53 percent of the population. One might also notice that the report accords considerable attention to the one Israeli soldier held prisoner by Hamas in Gaza, recommending his release on humanitarian grounds, while making only a very general recommendation that Israel release some of the thousands of Palestinians being held under conditions of harsh detention, suggesting that children especially should be released.
AND:
Despite these limitations, the report is an historic contribution to the Palestinian struggle for justice, an impeccable documentation of a crucial chapter in their victimization under occupation. Its impact will be felt most impressively on the growing civil society movement throughout the world to impose cultural, sporting and academic boycotts, as well as to discourage investment, trade and tourism with Israel. It may yet be the case that as in the anti-apartheid struggle the shift in the relation of forces in the Palestinian favor will occur not through diplomacy or as a result of armed resistance, but on the symbolic battlefield of legitimacy that has become global in scope, what might be described as the new political relevance of moral and legal globalization.
Given this background of a prior international consensus on the unlawfulness of Operation Cast Lead, we must first wonder why this massive report of 575 pages has been greeted with such alarm by Israel and given so much attention in the world media. It added little to what was previously known. Arguably, it was more sensitive to Israel's contentions that Hamas was guilty of war crimes by firing rockets into its territory than earlier reports had been. And in many ways the Goldstone report endorses the misleading main line of the Israeli narrative by assuming that Israel was acting in self-defense against a terrorist adversary. The report does describe the success of the ceasefire with Hamas that had cut violence in southern Israel to very low levels, and attributes its disruption to Israel's attack on 4 November 2008, but nowhere does it make the inference that would seem to follow, that the Israeli attacks were an instance of the international crime of aggression. Instead, the report focuses its criticism on Israel's excessive and indiscriminate uses of force. It does this mainly by examining the evidence surrounding a series of incidents involving attacks on civilians and non-military targets. The report also draws attention to the unlawful blockade that has restricted the flow of food, fuel and medical supplies to subsistence levels in Gaza before, during and since Operation Cast Lead. Such a blockade is a flagrant instance of collective punishment, explicitly prohibited by Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention setting forth the legal duties of an occupying power.
AND importantly:
The report also ignores Hamas' repeated efforts to extend the ceasefire indefinitely provided Israel lifted its unlawful blockade of Gaza. Israel disregarded this seemingly available diplomatic alternative to war to achieve security on its borders. Recourse to war, even if the facts were to justify self-defense, is according to international law, a last resort. By ignoring Israel's initiation of a one-sided war the Goldstone report implicitly accepts the dubious central premise of Operation Cast Lead, and avoids making a finding of aggression.
Also disappointing was the failure of the report to comment upon the Israeli denial of a refugee option to the civilian population trapped in the tiny, crowded combat zone that constitutes the Gaza Strip. Israel closed all crossings during the period of the Gaza war, allowing only Gaza residents with foreign passports to leave. It is rare in modern warfare that civilians are not given the option to become refugees. Although there is no specific provision of the laws of war requiring a state at war to allow civilians to leave the combat zone, it seems like an elementary humanitarian requirement, and should at least have been mentioned either as part of customary international law or as a gap in the law that should be filled. The importance of this issue is reinforced by many accounts of the widespread post-traumatic stress experienced by the civilians in Gaza, especially children, who comprise 53 percent of the population. One might also notice that the report accords considerable attention to the one Israeli soldier held prisoner by Hamas in Gaza, recommending his release on humanitarian grounds, while making only a very general recommendation that Israel release some of the thousands of Palestinians being held under conditions of harsh detention, suggesting that children especially should be released.
AND:
Despite these limitations, the report is an historic contribution to the Palestinian struggle for justice, an impeccable documentation of a crucial chapter in their victimization under occupation. Its impact will be felt most impressively on the growing civil society movement throughout the world to impose cultural, sporting and academic boycotts, as well as to discourage investment, trade and tourism with Israel. It may yet be the case that as in the anti-apartheid struggle the shift in the relation of forces in the Palestinian favor will occur not through diplomacy or as a result of armed resistance, but on the symbolic battlefield of legitimacy that has become global in scope, what might be described as the new political relevance of moral and legal globalization.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)