ITC MEDIA
KERKÜK
30 EKİM 2011
Salihi: cephe açılım siyasetini tüm Iraklı siyasi taraflarla devam ettirmektedir
Kerkük meselesi Iraklı bir meseledir,geleceği ve servetleride tüm Iraklıları ilgilendirmektedir,şeyh Adnan Raşid Elhamad,Irak’ta Muamire aşiretlerinin baş şeyhi ,vurguladı.
Bu vurgu,Hilla ilinde aşiretin yaptığı geniş toplantısı sırasında aşiret büyüğü olarak seçilen Şey Hamad tarafından söylendi, toplantıda hazır bulunan millet vekili veIrak Türkmen Cephesi başkanı Erşet Salihi toplantıda kürsüye çıkarak önemli bir demeç vermiştir, Salihi demecinde şunları söyledi :
Irak Türkmen Cephesi , mücadele sürdürdüğü tüm meselelerde , kerkük meselesi dahil,
manevi destek kazanmak için başlatığı açılım siyasetini tüm Irakl taraflarla devam ettirecektir.
Salihi ve şeyh Hamad , kardeşlik ve af etmek ruhunu genel olarak Iraklılar ve özellikle Kerkük milletleri arasında yayması her türlü sıkışmış meselelerin çözümüne kefil olacağına anlaştılar,Salihi toplantı sırasında verdiği demecte Türkmenlerin selamlarını orta Fırat aşiretlerinin tümüne iletti, ve Türkmenlerin çoğunluk oluşturdukları ve yaşadıkları çok şehir ve kasabalarda,özellikle Kerkük ve Tuzhurmatu’da Türkmenleri hedef alan terör olaylarına değindi, ve bu konuşmayı destekleyerek , Muamire aşiret şeyhleri ve önde gelen adamları , kerkük’e bağlı olduklarını vurguladılar,ve yeni şeyhleri ile Kerkük meselesinin bir Irak meselesi olduğu üzerine anlaşmışlar, kendilerini ve aşiretlerini Türkmenlerin işareti emrinde olduklarını ve Türkmenlerin savunmasına katılacaklarını vurguladılar,ve Türkmenlerin hedef alınmasını red ettiler,Kerkük meselesinin Irak’ın arazı ve millet bütünlüğünü etkileyen bir mesele olduğunu tekrar ederek vurguladılar, toplantıda bulunanlar bölgesel şarkılar söyleyerek orta Fırat’ta bulunan arap aşiretlerin Türkmenlerin maruz kaldıkları zulm’ı ve sürekli hedef olmalarını kınadılar ,ve adil meselelerinde Türkmenlerin yanında duracaklarını anlattılar.
Salihi, Dileym kabilesinin misafirhanesini ziyaret ettiğinde,şey Raad Elduleymi tarafından karşılandı,Duleym kabilesinin Türkmenler yanında durduklarını ve tüm büyük küçük meselelerinde destek verdiklerini vurguladı, Kerkük’ün tüm Iraklıların boyunlarında bir emanet olduğunu sözüne ekledi.
Sonradan, Salihi Irak Türkmen Cephesi Hilla kolunu ziyaret etti, kolun sorumlusu Hazım Aydın ve Hille sivil toplum sorumluları ,ve aydınları ile’de görüştü, görüşmede Kerkük meselesi veTürkmen milletinin hakları konuşuldu ve tam desteklerini bu meseleye verdiklerini ve bu meselenin bir Irak meselesi olduğunu ve çözümü sadece Iraklıların elinde olduğunu vurguladılar.
Ve bundan Sonra, Salihi çalışmak veya eski rejim tarafından uzaklaştırılan,ve bazı çök eskiden ve Türkmen kökenliği ile gurur duyan Hille’de yaşayan bazı Türkmen vatandaşların evlerini ziyaret etti.
Salihi’nin Hille ziyaretine ,millet vekili Hasan Özmen, Türkmen Kardeşlik ocağı’nın idare heyeti başkanı Dr.Mehmet Ömer Kazancı, Irak Türkmen Cephesi Bağdat kolu idare sorumlusu Sabit Abdulgaffur ve aktif Türkmen vatandaşı Hasan Asker eşlik etmişler.
lundi 31 octobre 2011
Wikileaks Cables And The Iraq War
10/30/2011
By Glenn Greenwald.
From a CNN report on why the Iraqi Government rejected the Obama administration’s conditions for keeping U.S. troops in Iraq beyond the 2011 deadline:
U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and other top brass have repeatedly said any deal to keep U.S. troops in Iraq beyond the withdrawal deadline would require a guarantee of legal protection for American soldiers.
But the Iraqis refused to agree to that, opening up the prospect of Americans being tried in Iraqi courts and subjected to Iraqi punishment.
The negotiations were strained following WikiLeaks’ release of a diplomatic cable that alleged Iraqi civilians, including children, were killed in a 2006 raid by American troopsrather than in an airstrike as the U.S. military initially reported.
That description from CNN of the cable’s contents is, unsurprisingly, diluted to the point of obfuscation. That cable was released by WikiLeaks in May, 2011, and, as McClatchy put it at the time, “provides evidence that U.S. troops executed at least 10 Iraqi civilians, including a woman in her 70s and a 5-month-old infant, then called in an airstrike to destroy the evidence, during a controversial 2006 incident in the central Iraqi town of Ishaqi.” The U.S. then lied and claimed the civilians were killed by the airstrike. Although this incident had been previously documented by the U.N. special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, the high-profile release of the cable by WikiLeaks generated substantial attention (and disgust) in Iraq, which made it politically unpalatable for the Iraqi government to grant the legal immunity the Obama adminstration was seeking. Indeed, it was widely reported at the time the cable was released that it made it much more difficult for Iraq to allow U.S. troops to remain beyond the deadline under any conditions.
In other words, whoever leaked that cable cast light on a heinous American war crime and, by doing so, likely played some significant role in thwarting an agreement between the Obama and Maliki governments to keep U.S. troops in Iraq and thus helped end this stage of the Iraq war (h/t Trevor Timm). Moreover, whoever leaked these cables — as even virulent WikiLeaks critic Bill Keller repeatedly acknowledged — likely played some significant in helping spark the Arab Spring protests by documenting just how deeply corrupt those U.S.-supported kleptocrats were. And in general, whoever leaked those cables has done more to publicize the corrupt, illegal and deceitful acts of the world’s most powerful factions — and to educate the world about how they behave — than all “watchdog” media outlets combined (indeed, the amount of news reports on a wide array of topics featuring WikiLeaks cables as the primary source is staggering). In sum, whoever leaked those cables is responsible for one of the most consequential, beneficial and noble acts of this generation.
And yet (or more accurately: therefore) the person accused of accomplishing all of this, Bradley Manning, has been imprisoned for more than a year without trial, and, if convicted, is almost certain to remain in prison for many more years (with the possibility, albeit unlikely, of death, and as the Obama administration continues to block an unmonitored visit by the U.N. official investigating what had been the inhumane conditions of his detention). If one believes the authenticity of the chat logs produced byWired, Manning’s goal in leaking those cables — “hopefully worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms . . . i want people to see the truth… regardless of who they are… because without information, you cannot make informed decisions as a public” – have been fulfilled beyond what must have been his wildest dreams. Assuming the truth of those chat logs, he was motivated precisely by seeing cables of the sort that detailed this civilian slaughter and subsequent cover-up in Iraq, and the extreme levels of theft and oppression by Arab dictators, and the desire to have the world know about it. Meanwhile, those responsible for the Iraq War, and who suppressed freedom and democracy in the Middle East by propping up those tyrants, and who committed a slew of other illegal and deeply corrupt acts, continue to prosper and wield substantial power.
History is filled with examples of those who most bravely challenged and subverted corrupted power and who sought reforms being rewarded with prison or worse, at the hands of those whose bad actions they exposed. If Bradley Manning did leak these cables, his imprisonment is a prime example of that inverted justice.
Posted by TONY on 30.10.11
By Glenn Greenwald.
From a CNN report on why the Iraqi Government rejected the Obama administration’s conditions for keeping U.S. troops in Iraq beyond the 2011 deadline:
U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and other top brass have repeatedly said any deal to keep U.S. troops in Iraq beyond the withdrawal deadline would require a guarantee of legal protection for American soldiers.
But the Iraqis refused to agree to that, opening up the prospect of Americans being tried in Iraqi courts and subjected to Iraqi punishment.
The negotiations were strained following WikiLeaks’ release of a diplomatic cable that alleged Iraqi civilians, including children, were killed in a 2006 raid by American troopsrather than in an airstrike as the U.S. military initially reported.
That description from CNN of the cable’s contents is, unsurprisingly, diluted to the point of obfuscation. That cable was released by WikiLeaks in May, 2011, and, as McClatchy put it at the time, “provides evidence that U.S. troops executed at least 10 Iraqi civilians, including a woman in her 70s and a 5-month-old infant, then called in an airstrike to destroy the evidence, during a controversial 2006 incident in the central Iraqi town of Ishaqi.” The U.S. then lied and claimed the civilians were killed by the airstrike. Although this incident had been previously documented by the U.N. special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, the high-profile release of the cable by WikiLeaks generated substantial attention (and disgust) in Iraq, which made it politically unpalatable for the Iraqi government to grant the legal immunity the Obama adminstration was seeking. Indeed, it was widely reported at the time the cable was released that it made it much more difficult for Iraq to allow U.S. troops to remain beyond the deadline under any conditions.
In other words, whoever leaked that cable cast light on a heinous American war crime and, by doing so, likely played some significant role in thwarting an agreement between the Obama and Maliki governments to keep U.S. troops in Iraq and thus helped end this stage of the Iraq war (h/t Trevor Timm). Moreover, whoever leaked these cables — as even virulent WikiLeaks critic Bill Keller repeatedly acknowledged — likely played some significant in helping spark the Arab Spring protests by documenting just how deeply corrupt those U.S.-supported kleptocrats were. And in general, whoever leaked those cables has done more to publicize the corrupt, illegal and deceitful acts of the world’s most powerful factions — and to educate the world about how they behave — than all “watchdog” media outlets combined (indeed, the amount of news reports on a wide array of topics featuring WikiLeaks cables as the primary source is staggering). In sum, whoever leaked those cables is responsible for one of the most consequential, beneficial and noble acts of this generation.
And yet (or more accurately: therefore) the person accused of accomplishing all of this, Bradley Manning, has been imprisoned for more than a year without trial, and, if convicted, is almost certain to remain in prison for many more years (with the possibility, albeit unlikely, of death, and as the Obama administration continues to block an unmonitored visit by the U.N. official investigating what had been the inhumane conditions of his detention). If one believes the authenticity of the chat logs produced byWired, Manning’s goal in leaking those cables — “hopefully worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms . . . i want people to see the truth… regardless of who they are… because without information, you cannot make informed decisions as a public” – have been fulfilled beyond what must have been his wildest dreams. Assuming the truth of those chat logs, he was motivated precisely by seeing cables of the sort that detailed this civilian slaughter and subsequent cover-up in Iraq, and the extreme levels of theft and oppression by Arab dictators, and the desire to have the world know about it. Meanwhile, those responsible for the Iraq War, and who suppressed freedom and democracy in the Middle East by propping up those tyrants, and who committed a slew of other illegal and deeply corrupt acts, continue to prosper and wield substantial power.
History is filled with examples of those who most bravely challenged and subverted corrupted power and who sought reforms being rewarded with prison or worse, at the hands of those whose bad actions they exposed. If Bradley Manning did leak these cables, his imprisonment is a prime example of that inverted justice.
Posted by TONY on 30.10.11
Shiite Turkmen demonstrate to regain their lands
Tens of Shiite Turkmen demonstrated before Kirkuk province premises to demand regaining their original lands in their villages.
(Ahlul Bayt News Agency) - Tens of Shiite Turkmen demonstrated before Kirkuk province premises to demand regaining their original lands in their villages.
A demonstrator told that the Iraqi government approved the return of the lands from Arab beneficiaries during the ex-Saddam Hussein regime, "but there are officials at the central government hinder the implementation of these decisions, so we demand the President and Kirkuk governor to solve these problems".
Kirkuk, center of the province, lies 255 km north east the capital, Baghdad, which is one of the disputed areas between the federal and Kurdistan governments.
ABNA.ir
(Ahlul Bayt News Agency) - Tens of Shiite Turkmen demonstrated before Kirkuk province premises to demand regaining their original lands in their villages.
A demonstrator told that the Iraqi government approved the return of the lands from Arab beneficiaries during the ex-Saddam Hussein regime, "but there are officials at the central government hinder the implementation of these decisions, so we demand the President and Kirkuk governor to solve these problems".
Kirkuk, center of the province, lies 255 km north east the capital, Baghdad, which is one of the disputed areas between the federal and Kurdistan governments.
ABNA.ir
mercredi 26 octobre 2011
mardi 25 octobre 2011
'US seeks to keep presence in Iraq'
'US seeks to keep presence in Iraq'
Mon Oct 24, 2011
Moqtada Al Sadr has accused the Americans of a clumsy strategy for holding onto their military stanglehold in Iraq.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/206347.html
Influential Iraqi cleric Moqtada al-Sadr says the United States is seeking to maintain its occupation of Iraq through keeping trainers and private contractors in the Middle Eastern country.
Sadr said on Sunday that Washington will continue hatching plots against Iraq through its remaining forces in the US embassy and security firms in the country, Fars News Agency reported.
The Iraqi cleric went on to say that the US plan to keep some of its troops in Iraq is pointless, adding that Washington would not be able to deceive Iraqis under the guise of training soldiers.
The US State Department has been tasked with training Iraqi police since October 1, when it took over the responsibility from the US Defense Department.
Washington has been pressing Baghdad to agree to keep the remaining US troops in Iraq beyond December 31, a deadline which was set in a security agreement between Baghdad and Washington in 2008, known as the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA).
The Sadr movement is awaiting the full withdrawal of all US troops from Iraq, the influential cleric stated.
On Saturday, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said Iraqi forces are ready to take over security after the pullout of US troops from the country.
Maliki has also rejected the US proposal that 3,400 of the troops remain in the country, saying “we do not need such a large number.”
HSN/HJL
Mon Oct 24, 2011
Moqtada Al Sadr has accused the Americans of a clumsy strategy for holding onto their military stanglehold in Iraq.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/206347.html
Influential Iraqi cleric Moqtada al-Sadr
Influential Iraqi cleric Moqtada al-Sadr says the United States is seeking to maintain its occupation of Iraq through keeping trainers and private contractors in the Middle Eastern country.
Sadr said on Sunday that Washington will continue hatching plots against Iraq through its remaining forces in the US embassy and security firms in the country, Fars News Agency reported.
The Iraqi cleric went on to say that the US plan to keep some of its troops in Iraq is pointless, adding that Washington would not be able to deceive Iraqis under the guise of training soldiers.
The US State Department has been tasked with training Iraqi police since October 1, when it took over the responsibility from the US Defense Department.
Washington has been pressing Baghdad to agree to keep the remaining US troops in Iraq beyond December 31, a deadline which was set in a security agreement between Baghdad and Washington in 2008, known as the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA).
The Sadr movement is awaiting the full withdrawal of all US troops from Iraq, the influential cleric stated.
On Saturday, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said Iraqi forces are ready to take over security after the pullout of US troops from the country.
Maliki has also rejected the US proposal that 3,400 of the troops remain in the country, saying “we do not need such a large number.”
HSN/HJL
TURKMEN IN IRAQ AND THEIR FLIGHT A DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTION by Ibrahim SIRKECI
REPORT N° 21
JANUARY 2011
Please see:
http://regents.academia.edu/sirkeci/Books/383971/Turkmen_in_Iraq_and_Their_Flight_A_
Demographic_Question
JANUARY 2011
Please see:
http://regents.academia.edu/sirkeci/Books/383971/Turkmen_in_Iraq_and_Their_Flight_A_
Demographic_Question
Assyrian Appointed As UN Deputy Permanent Representative of Iraq
GMT 10-25-2011 2:24:38
Assyrian International News Agency
(AINA) -- The United Nations Embassy in New York has appointed Dr. William Ishaya Odisho to be the new Deputy Permanent Representative of Iraq. Dr. Odisho has been an Assyrian activist with Iraqi oppositions since 1991. In July of 2002, he was elected as one of the High Committee members of the Iraqi Military Council for Liberation.
Assyrian International News Agency
(AINA) -- The United Nations Embassy in New York has appointed Dr. William Ishaya Odisho to be the new Deputy Permanent Representative of Iraq. Dr. Odisho has been an Assyrian activist with Iraqi oppositions since 1991. In July of 2002, he was elected as one of the High Committee members of the Iraqi Military Council for Liberation.
dimanche 23 octobre 2011
The Iraq War Ain’t Over, No Matter What Obama Says
By Spencer Ackerman
October 21, 2011 |
President Obama announced on Friday that all 41,000 U.S. troops currently in Iraq will return home by December 31. “That is how America’s military efforts in Iraq will end,” he said. Don’t believe him.
Now: it’s a big deal that all U.S. troops are coming home. For much of the year, the military, fearful of Iranian influence, has sought a residual presence in Iraq of several thousand troops. But arduous negotiations with the Iraqi government about keeping a residual force stalled over the Iraqis’ reluctance to provide them with legal immunity.
But the fact is America’s military efforts in Iraq aren’t coming to an end. They are instead entering a new phase. On January 1, 2012, the State Department will command a hired army of about 5,500 security contractors, all to protect the largest U.S. diplomatic presence anywhere overseas.
The State Department’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security does not have a promising record when it comes to managing its mercenaries. The 2007 Nisour Square shootings by State’s security contractors, in which 17 Iraqi civilians were killed, marked one of the low points of the war. Now, State will be commanding a much larger security presence, the equivalent of a heavy combat brigade. In July, Danger Room exclusively reported that the Department blocked the Congressionally-appointed watchdog for Iraq from acquiring basic information about contractor security operations, such as the contractors’ rules of engagement.
That means no one outside the State Department knows how its contractors will behave as they ferry over 10,000 U.S. State Department employees throughout Iraq — which, in case anyone has forgotten, is still a war zone. Since Iraq wouldn’t grant legal immunity to U.S. troops, it is unlikely to grant it to U.S. contractors, particularly in the heat and anger of an accident resulting in the loss of Iraqi life.
It’s a situation with the potential for diplomatic disaster. And it’s being managed by an organization with no experience running the tight command structure that makes armies cohesive and effective.
You can also expect that there will be a shadow presence by the CIA, and possibly the Joint Special Operations Command, to hunt persons affiliated with al-Qaida. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has conspicuously stated that al-Qaida still has 1,000 Iraqi adherents, which would make it the largest al-Qaida affiliate in the world.
So far, there are three big security firms with lucrative contracts to protect U.S. diplomats. Triple Canopy, a longtime State guard company, has a contract worth up to $1.53 billion to keep diplos safe as they travel throughout Iraq. Global Strategies Group will guard the consulate at Basra for up to $401 million. SOC Incorporated will protect the mega-embassy in Baghdad for up to $974 million. State has yet to award contracts to guard consulates in multiethnic flashpoint cities Mosul and Kirkuk, as well as the outpost in placid Irbil.
“We can have the kind of protection our diplomats need,” Deputy National Security Adviser Denis McDonough told reporters after Obama’s announcement. Whether the Iraqi people will have protection from the contractors that the State Department commands is a different question. And whatever you call their operations, the Obama administration hopes that you won’t be so rude as to call it “war.”
Photo: Wikimedia Commons
See Also:
- 5,500 Mercs to Protect U.S. Fortresses in Iraq
- Exclusive: U.S. Blocks Oversight of Its Mercenary Army in Iraq
- Two More Merc Firms Get Big Iraq Contracts
- Military to Iraq: Are You Really Gonna Kick Us Out?
- Iraqis Want Mercs, Not U.S. Troops, To Stick Around
- Exclusive: Blackwater Wins Piece of $10 Billion Mercenary Deal
Spencer Ackerman is Danger Room's senior reporter, based out of Washington, D.C., covering weapons of doom and the strategies they're used to implement.
Follow @attackerman and @dangerroom on Twitter.
Follow @attackerman and @dangerroom on Twitter.
samedi 22 octobre 2011
‘US did far more damage than good in Iraq’
Followed by a comment from MALCOM LAGAUCHE
‘US did far more damage than good in Iraq’
The Iraqi government wanted more troops to stay and help provide security. This however does not represent the interests of the Iraqi people, says Bennis.
“The parliament of Iraq, which is far more representative, has made it clear they do not need any US troops left in Iraq. The government of PM Malaki, which is afraid they “may fall” without the backing of US troops, has warned the troops to stay, as did the Obama administration,” she maintained. “They both are stuck with anti-war populations that want the war to end. For Malaki the issue was he could not get away with providing immunity to the US troops in the case of war crimes. For Obama, he could not get the Iraqis to say ‘Yes. We will give you immunity in the case of war crimes.’ Without immunity they were not prepared to stay because the Pentagon knows that their troops commit too many war crimes in these situations,”
‘US did far more damage than good in Iraq’
The Iraqi government wanted more troops to stay and help provide security. This however does not represent the interests of the Iraqi people, says Bennis.
“The parliament of Iraq, which is far more representative, has made it clear they do not need any US troops left in Iraq. The government of PM Malaki, which is afraid they “may fall” without the backing of US troops, has warned the troops to stay, as did the Obama administration,” she maintained. “They both are stuck with anti-war populations that want the war to end. For Malaki the issue was he could not get away with providing immunity to the US troops in the case of war crimes. For Obama, he could not get the Iraqis to say ‘Yes. We will give you immunity in the case of war crimes.’ Without immunity they were not prepared to stay because the Pentagon knows that their troops commit too many war crimes in these situations,”
http://rt.com/news/usa-iraq-libya-troops-461/
Malcom Lagauche :
Malcom Lagauche :
Bennis is a phony who takes credit for other peoples' work. Shortly after Maliki was appointed "president" of Iraq, her group, United for Peace and Justice, sent him a letter of congratulation. Then, it paid $1,500 for an ad in a Baghdad ne...wspaper calling for collaboration between UPJ and Maliki's stooges. When the Iraqi resistance was in full-swing, Bennis publicly stated that she did not support the resistance. UPJ and Bennis stated that their goal was to bring US soldiers home from Iraq. The only group that actively was purswuing this goal was rhe resistance. She is guru of the US milquetoast left that has absolutely no integrity. At times, they've made statements that are more pro-war and occupation than the administration. With enemies like her, the administration doesn't need friends. It can sit back and watch the "anti-war" people make fools of themselves. This woman has a long history of betrayal to the causes she supposedly represents and she is thrilled at her media presence.
Thursday-Saturday, August 2-4, 2007
by Malcom Lagauche:
THE GREAT PRETENDERS
This is a republishing of an article I wrote over four years ago depicting the insincerity of much of the US anti-war movement and one of its gurus, Phyllis Bennis.
The "peace movement" in the U.S. has no lack of leaders. Unfortunately, these self-appointed chiefs seem to be more interested in self-promotion and image than in actually getting to the bottom of issues and placing their energies into meaningful actions.
Recently, journalist Alexander Cockburn penned an article called "Support Their Troops?" in which he gave an sound argument that the peace community will not consider supporting the Iraqi resistance. He then said the peace movement is all but dead. In addition, he showed the close alliance between the Democratic Party and various peace groups.
Phyllis Bennis, a well-known peace activist, took offence at Cockburn’s analysis and wrote an article titled, "Why the Anti-War Movement Doesn’t Embrace the Iraqi Resistance." The piece is a mixture of unrelated subjects and that make it difficult to understand. At times, she contradicts herself.
In her recent article, she stated:
_ But I never supported Saddam Hussein, who was "resisting" the U.S. during the sanctions years, and I didn’t — and don’t — support what is called the "Iraqi resistance" today …
… There is no unified leadership that can speak for "the resistance," …
… There is no unified program, either of what the fight is against or for what it is for. We know virtually nothing of what most of the factions stand for beyond opposition to the U.S. occupation — and from my own personal vantage point, of the little beyond that that we do know, I don’t like so much.
If Bennis does not know the program of the resistance, she is either blind or is lazy for not trying to discover the agenda. Various resistance groups publish updated reports of their activities as well as their programs. In addition, YouTube has dozens, if not hundreds, of videos from resistance groups.
A curious aspect of her article is her use of quotation marks around the word "resistance." These symbols infer illegitimacy for the Iraqi resistance. And, she says she does not know what the factions stand for "beyond opposition to the U.S. occupation." Any resistance stands for the eviction of foreign occupiers. Her illogic is stifling.
Bennis then gives credit to the anti-war movements for turning the U.S. public opinion against the war. This again is illogical and outright untrue. Many people have changed their opinions by reading articles on astute websites that show the lies the Bush administration, along with its Democratic lackies, put forth to justify the illegal March 2003 invasion. Millions of people who never saw or heard of anti-war groups now oppose the occupation. Bennis takes false credit for the growing anti-occupation mood in the U.S.
To top it all off, about an Iraq after a U.S. withdrawal, Bennis states, "It’s not up to me to choose who governs Iraq. I’m not Iraqi. I don’t get to choose."
This statement comes after her attempt to dissuade people in the U.S. from supporting the Iraqi resistance. On the one hand, she tries to influence millions of people not to support the resistance, while, on the other hand, she pleads neutrality on Iraqi affairs.
Bennis is guilty of actions that many leaders in the peace movement employ: almost ordering her followers to adhere to a particular stance. I have had many experiences with various peace-oriented groups in southern California and can state that bullying tactics by some of the leaders are commonplace.
Journalist Gabriele Zamparini recently critiqued Bennis’ article and added:
You, the resistance movements around the world that are resisting this rapacious Empire whose fat belly we live so comfortably in, you must be approved to have our respect, sympathy and intellectual support.
Zamparini hit the nail right on the middle of its head. The peace movement suffers from an age-old U.S. adage: "Too many chiefs and not enough Indians."
Bennis is also involved with the group United for Peace and Justice (UFPJ), an umbrella organization that supposedly represents more than 1400 groups. If you think her recent remarks about the Iraqi resistance do not represent those of people who oppose the Iraqi occupation, UFPJ makes her look like a front-line resistance fighter. In February of this year, I wrote an article exposing the horrendous agenda of UFPJ. Please read it again because it is even more relevant today than when I penned it. The U.S. government (Republicans and Democrats alike) do not need to counter anti-war groups if they have descended to such a low level. Why pay propaganda writers to produce material when your "enemies" can do as good a job? And, you don’t even have to pay them a salary. With enemies like this, who needs friends?
Tuesday/Wednesday, February 6-7, 2007
BEWARE OF AGENDAS
In the 1990s, I and several comrades organized demonstrations against the Iraqi embargo. We demonstrated at radio/TV stations, the U.S. Federal Building, offices of Congressmen, etc.
During this time, there was a glaring absence of peace or anti-war groups. I called all the local organizations and was outright told that they were not interested to "touch the Iraq thing." One activist in a pro-Cuba group told me she was not interested because of the way they treated women in Iraq. When I told her that Iraq was secular, she said, "The still all wear veils."
The ignorance of the "peace" community about the embargo and world politics was stifling.
In my writings, I have lambasted the peace movement in general for not opposing the Iraqi embargo and only coming out of their closets a few days before bombs were to drop.
This past weekend, we saw a massive anti-war demonstration in Washington D.C. that included hundreds of thousands of marchers. The group "United for Peace and Justice" was listed as the sponsor and it gained much publicity. The group claims to have more than 1,400 affiliated members.
What appears to be an umbrella group for the cause may not exactly have altruistic designs. After the march on Washington, various writers accounted how United for Peace and Justice really messed up. Chris Jenks of Traprock Peace Center said:
Unfortunately, United for Peace and Justice (UFPJ) - the primary sponsor - didn’t live up to the standards set by the marchers. Its continuing refusal to work with some other national coalitions, and its focus on celebrities and politicians, was reflected in its botching the start of the march and focusing of media coverage.
Other writers corroborated Jenks’ account. They maintain that United for Peace and Justice was more interested in camera position and the Hollywood celebrities than about the march itself. At one point, the marchers took matters into their own hands and began to act. If they had not, the entire day could have turned into a fiasco that would have embarrassed the participants in the event.
Normally, I don’t specify any single group in the peace movement. And, not all groups are as remiss in their commitment as those I have mentioned. But, United for Peace and Justice poses some quandaries.
If you go to their website, there is much talk about the devastating effect of the deaths of U.S. troops in Iraq. Slogans abound about bringing our troops home so more don’t get killed. However, there is little about the plight of the Iraqis. There was not one word about the illegal government put in power by the U.S. and the plight of the members of the pre-April 2003 government. United for Peace and Justice actually recognizes the Iraqi stooges meeting in the Green Zone as the legitimate government of Iraq.
In addition, there is a large portion devoted to "faith-based" groups and how they should join United for Peace and Justice, who has an entire section about "faith-based" activism. Many anti-war activists have no religious affiliation. In the U.S., atheists, by percentage, well outnumber the general public in their opposition to the war against Iraq. United for Peace and Justice appears to be tossing these people aside.
I am curious to know how many affiliate members of the organization have really looked into United for Peace and Justice actions and ideas. Many would be surprised.
To top everything off, in July 2006, the group wanted to meet Malaki to discuss peace in Iraq. They praised him and said what an honor it was for him to visit Washington D.C. And, they wanted to take out an ad in a Baghdad newspaper. Along with the announcement came the obligatory request for money.
To me, their actions are similar to those of the TV preachers who ask for money to promote their lamebrain ideas. The following is a plea from United for Peace and Justice to support the ridiculous idea of meeting with Malaki, the same Malaki who is responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqis because of his support for Shi’ite death squads. Following their plea is the letter I sent to them about this quandary. They never answered me when they had the chance to explain their actions, so I consider it fair game now to expose the group and its egotistical and outright stupid actions.
________________________________________________________
Dear Friends,
This week, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki will make his first visit to the United States, visiting Washington DC and New York City. He will be meeting with George Bush and members of Congress, but don't you think he should also meet with representatives of the peace movement? Don't you think he -- and the Iraqi people -- should know that there is a strong movement in the United States to end the occupation of their country?
We have delivered letters to the Iraqi Embassy in Washington DC and to the Iraqi Mission to the United Nations in New York requesting that Prime Minister Al-Maliki meet with representatives of the peace movement. Now we need you to play a critical role in making this historic opportunity a reality.
Help us place an advertisement based on the following Open Letter to Prime Minister Al-Maliki in one of the largest newspapers in Iraq, Assabah Al-Jadid. This is not only a great way to pressure the Prime Minister for a meeting, but it is also a way to reach out to the Iraqi people to let them know that we stand with them in their call to end the occupation of their country. A poll earlier this year showed that 87% of Iraqis support a timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops; another poll showed that only 1% of Iraqis trusted U.S. troops to protect their security.
For only $1,500, we can place a half-page ad that will reach tens of thousands of Iraqis. If, through your generosity, more than that comes in, we will use the money to continue spreading our call for immediate withdrawal from Iraq and to help with the ongoing antiwar work of UFPJ. Click here to make a donation toward this effort today.
LETTERS TO THE EDITORS
Prime Minister Al-Maliki's visit this week is also a great time to write letters to the editors of your local newspapers, mentioning the peace movement's request for a meeting with the prime minister and bringing attention to the growing calls for an end to the occupation and the reconciliation proposal put forth by numerous Iraqi leaders. You can use text from the open letter as talking points, but please use your own words to make your letter more effective and more likely to be printed. Click here to send a letter to your local media outlets.
Thank you for helping us to make this critical, direct link with the Iraqi people, and to make the call for peace heard loud and clear throughout the United States. Let's make sure that Prime Minister Al-Maliki, the people of Iraq, and people here in the U.S. don't just hear the voice of George Bush. Let's make sure they hear the voices of the majority in this country, who want to see an end to the bloodshed and the beginning of a true effort to rebuild Iraq and our neglected communities at home.
OPEN LETTER TO PRIME MINISTER AL-MALIKI
Dear Prime Minister Al-Maliki,
On behalf of United for Peace and Justice, the largest coalition of peace and justice organizations in the U.S., which includes more than 1,400 national and local groups united in opposition to the U.S. war in Iraq, it is our pleasure to welcome you in the United States.
We are writing to request a meeting with you during your visit in New York City on Thursday, July 27, 2006, in order to brief you about the U.S. peace movement's efforts to end the military occupation of Iraq and to discuss how to work together to bring about a troop withdrawal, promote reconciliation, and begin the process of reconstruction and development.
We have been heartened by the Iraqi reconciliation plan put forth by numerous Iraqi leaders to end both the occupation and sectarian tension within Iraq. We are dismayed, however, that due in part to U.S. pressure, the plan does not include a demand for a timetable for withdrawing the troops -- a point that is essential for any true reconciliation plan.
A poll earlier this year showed that 87% of Iraqis support a timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops. A solid majority of people in the United States agree: a June poll by CNN showed that 53% supported a timetable for withdrawal, and other major polls have found similar results.
We oppose the interference of the Bush administration in your country's domestic policies. We support your recent independent and courageous stand criticizing the aggressive Israeli attacks on Lebanon, and we hope you will continue to take independent stands that prioritize the desires of the Iraqi people over foreign interests.
There is a strong movement in the United States to end the continuing military occupation of your country, and we hope that you will have time to meet us during your visit to the United States. We would, of course, be prepared to meet at whatever time or location is best for you.
Sincerely,
Leslie Cagan
National Coordinator
United for Peace and Justice
____________________________________
Here was my response:
Dear People,
It is with great incredulity that I write to you. I thought my eyes were deceiving me when I saw your appeal for solicitations to place an ad in an Iraqi newspaper addressed to Al-Maliki.
And, your coddling up to him ("It is our pleasure to welcome you in the United States") is ludicrous and disgusting. Al-Maliki is not Iraq's prime minister. He is the appointed head of an illegal government in Iraq and currently the U.S.' "Stooge of the Month." To lend him any credibility is outrageous.
Al-Maliki and his cohorts spent decades in Iran and/or Syria, plotting for the overthrow of the legitimate Iraqi government. If the same situation occurred in the U.S., one would call the person the correct name: traitor.
I notice that you call yourself the "largest coalition of peace and justice organizations in the U.S." Do all your affiliated members know of this letter to Al-Maliki? I don't think so. His actions in the past decades show that he wanted Iraq to be invaded. In other words, he cheered on the illegal March 2003 invasion. You pretend to have opposed intervention in Iraq and now you invite one of the invasion's biggest supporters to meet you. I am at a loss for words.
I have sent your appeal to a few colleagues in the past hour. Their responses are identical to mine. Al-Maliki is visiting the U.S. to get his trip to the woodshed with Bush. When he comes out, he will say "Yasuh." In Iraq, his movements are limited to a few square miles. He is meeting with the architect of the invasion that ruined 5,000 years of proud history of Iraq as well as about 700,000 Iraqis, and you want to meet with him. The mind boggles.
I am a known anti-war writer and have many readers because more than 100 websites pick up my articles. I would like to interview someone on your staff and try to discover what kind of logic you are using. Maybe something is going over my head. Please let me know if you are interested in a dialogue. I will take a no-response to mean you are not. Either way, I will write about this quandary.
Sincerely,
Malcom Lagauche
(P.S. I never received a reply)
Thursday-Saturday, August 2-4, 2007
by Malcom Lagauche:
THE GREAT PRETENDERS
This is a republishing of an article I wrote over four years ago depicting the insincerity of much of the US anti-war movement and one of its gurus, Phyllis Bennis.
The "peace movement" in the U.S. has no lack of leaders. Unfortunately, these self-appointed chiefs seem to be more interested in self-promotion and image than in actually getting to the bottom of issues and placing their energies into meaningful actions.
Recently, journalist Alexander Cockburn penned an article called "Support Their Troops?" in which he gave an sound argument that the peace community will not consider supporting the Iraqi resistance. He then said the peace movement is all but dead. In addition, he showed the close alliance between the Democratic Party and various peace groups.
Phyllis Bennis, a well-known peace activist, took offence at Cockburn’s analysis and wrote an article titled, "Why the Anti-War Movement Doesn’t Embrace the Iraqi Resistance." The piece is a mixture of unrelated subjects and that make it difficult to understand. At times, she contradicts herself.
In her recent article, she stated:
_ But I never supported Saddam Hussein, who was "resisting" the U.S. during the sanctions years, and I didn’t — and don’t — support what is called the "Iraqi resistance" today …
… There is no unified leadership that can speak for "the resistance," …
… There is no unified program, either of what the fight is against or for what it is for. We know virtually nothing of what most of the factions stand for beyond opposition to the U.S. occupation — and from my own personal vantage point, of the little beyond that that we do know, I don’t like so much.
If Bennis does not know the program of the resistance, she is either blind or is lazy for not trying to discover the agenda. Various resistance groups publish updated reports of their activities as well as their programs. In addition, YouTube has dozens, if not hundreds, of videos from resistance groups.
A curious aspect of her article is her use of quotation marks around the word "resistance." These symbols infer illegitimacy for the Iraqi resistance. And, she says she does not know what the factions stand for "beyond opposition to the U.S. occupation." Any resistance stands for the eviction of foreign occupiers. Her illogic is stifling.
Bennis then gives credit to the anti-war movements for turning the U.S. public opinion against the war. This again is illogical and outright untrue. Many people have changed their opinions by reading articles on astute websites that show the lies the Bush administration, along with its Democratic lackies, put forth to justify the illegal March 2003 invasion. Millions of people who never saw or heard of anti-war groups now oppose the occupation. Bennis takes false credit for the growing anti-occupation mood in the U.S.
To top it all off, about an Iraq after a U.S. withdrawal, Bennis states, "It’s not up to me to choose who governs Iraq. I’m not Iraqi. I don’t get to choose."
This statement comes after her attempt to dissuade people in the U.S. from supporting the Iraqi resistance. On the one hand, she tries to influence millions of people not to support the resistance, while, on the other hand, she pleads neutrality on Iraqi affairs.
Bennis is guilty of actions that many leaders in the peace movement employ: almost ordering her followers to adhere to a particular stance. I have had many experiences with various peace-oriented groups in southern California and can state that bullying tactics by some of the leaders are commonplace.
Journalist Gabriele Zamparini recently critiqued Bennis’ article and added:
You, the resistance movements around the world that are resisting this rapacious Empire whose fat belly we live so comfortably in, you must be approved to have our respect, sympathy and intellectual support.
Zamparini hit the nail right on the middle of its head. The peace movement suffers from an age-old U.S. adage: "Too many chiefs and not enough Indians."
Bennis is also involved with the group United for Peace and Justice (UFPJ), an umbrella organization that supposedly represents more than 1400 groups. If you think her recent remarks about the Iraqi resistance do not represent those of people who oppose the Iraqi occupation, UFPJ makes her look like a front-line resistance fighter. In February of this year, I wrote an article exposing the horrendous agenda of UFPJ. Please read it again because it is even more relevant today than when I penned it. The U.S. government (Republicans and Democrats alike) do not need to counter anti-war groups if they have descended to such a low level. Why pay propaganda writers to produce material when your "enemies" can do as good a job? And, you don’t even have to pay them a salary. With enemies like this, who needs friends?
Tuesday/Wednesday, February 6-7, 2007
BEWARE OF AGENDAS
In the 1990s, I and several comrades organized demonstrations against the Iraqi embargo. We demonstrated at radio/TV stations, the U.S. Federal Building, offices of Congressmen, etc.
During this time, there was a glaring absence of peace or anti-war groups. I called all the local organizations and was outright told that they were not interested to "touch the Iraq thing." One activist in a pro-Cuba group told me she was not interested because of the way they treated women in Iraq. When I told her that Iraq was secular, she said, "The still all wear veils."
The ignorance of the "peace" community about the embargo and world politics was stifling.
In my writings, I have lambasted the peace movement in general for not opposing the Iraqi embargo and only coming out of their closets a few days before bombs were to drop.
This past weekend, we saw a massive anti-war demonstration in Washington D.C. that included hundreds of thousands of marchers. The group "United for Peace and Justice" was listed as the sponsor and it gained much publicity. The group claims to have more than 1,400 affiliated members.
What appears to be an umbrella group for the cause may not exactly have altruistic designs. After the march on Washington, various writers accounted how United for Peace and Justice really messed up. Chris Jenks of Traprock Peace Center said:
Unfortunately, United for Peace and Justice (UFPJ) - the primary sponsor - didn’t live up to the standards set by the marchers. Its continuing refusal to work with some other national coalitions, and its focus on celebrities and politicians, was reflected in its botching the start of the march and focusing of media coverage.
Other writers corroborated Jenks’ account. They maintain that United for Peace and Justice was more interested in camera position and the Hollywood celebrities than about the march itself. At one point, the marchers took matters into their own hands and began to act. If they had not, the entire day could have turned into a fiasco that would have embarrassed the participants in the event.
Normally, I don’t specify any single group in the peace movement. And, not all groups are as remiss in their commitment as those I have mentioned. But, United for Peace and Justice poses some quandaries.
If you go to their website, there is much talk about the devastating effect of the deaths of U.S. troops in Iraq. Slogans abound about bringing our troops home so more don’t get killed. However, there is little about the plight of the Iraqis. There was not one word about the illegal government put in power by the U.S. and the plight of the members of the pre-April 2003 government. United for Peace and Justice actually recognizes the Iraqi stooges meeting in the Green Zone as the legitimate government of Iraq.
In addition, there is a large portion devoted to "faith-based" groups and how they should join United for Peace and Justice, who has an entire section about "faith-based" activism. Many anti-war activists have no religious affiliation. In the U.S., atheists, by percentage, well outnumber the general public in their opposition to the war against Iraq. United for Peace and Justice appears to be tossing these people aside.
I am curious to know how many affiliate members of the organization have really looked into United for Peace and Justice actions and ideas. Many would be surprised.
To top everything off, in July 2006, the group wanted to meet Malaki to discuss peace in Iraq. They praised him and said what an honor it was for him to visit Washington D.C. And, they wanted to take out an ad in a Baghdad newspaper. Along with the announcement came the obligatory request for money.
To me, their actions are similar to those of the TV preachers who ask for money to promote their lamebrain ideas. The following is a plea from United for Peace and Justice to support the ridiculous idea of meeting with Malaki, the same Malaki who is responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqis because of his support for Shi’ite death squads. Following their plea is the letter I sent to them about this quandary. They never answered me when they had the chance to explain their actions, so I consider it fair game now to expose the group and its egotistical and outright stupid actions.
________________________________________________________
Help us place an open letter from the peace movement to Iraqi Prime Minister Al-Maliki as an ad in one of Iraq's largest newspapers.
For only $1,500, we can reach tens of thousands of Iraqis with our message. Click here to donate online toward this effort or call 212-868-5545 to make a contribution by phone.
You can also mail a check or money order to:
United for Peace and Justice
P.O. Box 607
Times Square Station
New York, NY 10108
For only $1,500, we can reach tens of thousands of Iraqis with our message. Click here to donate online toward this effort or call 212-868-5545 to make a contribution by phone.
You can also mail a check or money order to:
United for Peace and Justice
P.O. Box 607
Times Square Station
New York, NY 10108
Dear Friends,
This week, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki will make his first visit to the United States, visiting Washington DC and New York City. He will be meeting with George Bush and members of Congress, but don't you think he should also meet with representatives of the peace movement? Don't you think he -- and the Iraqi people -- should know that there is a strong movement in the United States to end the occupation of their country?
We have delivered letters to the Iraqi Embassy in Washington DC and to the Iraqi Mission to the United Nations in New York requesting that Prime Minister Al-Maliki meet with representatives of the peace movement. Now we need you to play a critical role in making this historic opportunity a reality.
Help us place an advertisement based on the following Open Letter to Prime Minister Al-Maliki in one of the largest newspapers in Iraq, Assabah Al-Jadid. This is not only a great way to pressure the Prime Minister for a meeting, but it is also a way to reach out to the Iraqi people to let them know that we stand with them in their call to end the occupation of their country. A poll earlier this year showed that 87% of Iraqis support a timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops; another poll showed that only 1% of Iraqis trusted U.S. troops to protect their security.
For only $1,500, we can place a half-page ad that will reach tens of thousands of Iraqis. If, through your generosity, more than that comes in, we will use the money to continue spreading our call for immediate withdrawal from Iraq and to help with the ongoing antiwar work of UFPJ. Click here to make a donation toward this effort today.
LETTERS TO THE EDITORS
Prime Minister Al-Maliki's visit this week is also a great time to write letters to the editors of your local newspapers, mentioning the peace movement's request for a meeting with the prime minister and bringing attention to the growing calls for an end to the occupation and the reconciliation proposal put forth by numerous Iraqi leaders. You can use text from the open letter as talking points, but please use your own words to make your letter more effective and more likely to be printed. Click here to send a letter to your local media outlets.
Thank you for helping us to make this critical, direct link with the Iraqi people, and to make the call for peace heard loud and clear throughout the United States. Let's make sure that Prime Minister Al-Maliki, the people of Iraq, and people here in the U.S. don't just hear the voice of George Bush. Let's make sure they hear the voices of the majority in this country, who want to see an end to the bloodshed and the beginning of a true effort to rebuild Iraq and our neglected communities at home.
OPEN LETTER TO PRIME MINISTER AL-MALIKI
Dear Prime Minister Al-Maliki,
On behalf of United for Peace and Justice, the largest coalition of peace and justice organizations in the U.S., which includes more than 1,400 national and local groups united in opposition to the U.S. war in Iraq, it is our pleasure to welcome you in the United States.
We are writing to request a meeting with you during your visit in New York City on Thursday, July 27, 2006, in order to brief you about the U.S. peace movement's efforts to end the military occupation of Iraq and to discuss how to work together to bring about a troop withdrawal, promote reconciliation, and begin the process of reconstruction and development.
We have been heartened by the Iraqi reconciliation plan put forth by numerous Iraqi leaders to end both the occupation and sectarian tension within Iraq. We are dismayed, however, that due in part to U.S. pressure, the plan does not include a demand for a timetable for withdrawing the troops -- a point that is essential for any true reconciliation plan.
A poll earlier this year showed that 87% of Iraqis support a timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops. A solid majority of people in the United States agree: a June poll by CNN showed that 53% supported a timetable for withdrawal, and other major polls have found similar results.
We oppose the interference of the Bush administration in your country's domestic policies. We support your recent independent and courageous stand criticizing the aggressive Israeli attacks on Lebanon, and we hope you will continue to take independent stands that prioritize the desires of the Iraqi people over foreign interests.
There is a strong movement in the United States to end the continuing military occupation of your country, and we hope that you will have time to meet us during your visit to the United States. We would, of course, be prepared to meet at whatever time or location is best for you.
Sincerely,
Leslie Cagan
National Coordinator
United for Peace and Justice
Help us continue to do this critical work: Make a donation to UFPJ today.
ACTION ALERT * UNITED FOR PEACE AND JUSTICE
http://www.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?key=157880636&url_num=9&url=http://www.unitedforpeace.org/www.unitedforpeace.org | 212-868-5545
ACTION ALERT * UNITED FOR PEACE AND JUSTICE
http://www.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?key=157880636&url_num=9&url=http://www.unitedforpeace.org/www.unitedforpeace.org | 212-868-5545
____________________________________
Here was my response:
Dear People,
It is with great incredulity that I write to you. I thought my eyes were deceiving me when I saw your appeal for solicitations to place an ad in an Iraqi newspaper addressed to Al-Maliki.
And, your coddling up to him ("It is our pleasure to welcome you in the United States") is ludicrous and disgusting. Al-Maliki is not Iraq's prime minister. He is the appointed head of an illegal government in Iraq and currently the U.S.' "Stooge of the Month." To lend him any credibility is outrageous.
Al-Maliki and his cohorts spent decades in Iran and/or Syria, plotting for the overthrow of the legitimate Iraqi government. If the same situation occurred in the U.S., one would call the person the correct name: traitor.
I notice that you call yourself the "largest coalition of peace and justice organizations in the U.S." Do all your affiliated members know of this letter to Al-Maliki? I don't think so. His actions in the past decades show that he wanted Iraq to be invaded. In other words, he cheered on the illegal March 2003 invasion. You pretend to have opposed intervention in Iraq and now you invite one of the invasion's biggest supporters to meet you. I am at a loss for words.
I have sent your appeal to a few colleagues in the past hour. Their responses are identical to mine. Al-Maliki is visiting the U.S. to get his trip to the woodshed with Bush. When he comes out, he will say "Yasuh." In Iraq, his movements are limited to a few square miles. He is meeting with the architect of the invasion that ruined 5,000 years of proud history of Iraq as well as about 700,000 Iraqis, and you want to meet with him. The mind boggles.
I am a known anti-war writer and have many readers because more than 100 websites pick up my articles. I would like to interview someone on your staff and try to discover what kind of logic you are using. Maybe something is going over my head. Please let me know if you are interested in a dialogue. I will take a no-response to mean you are not. Either way, I will write about this quandary.
Sincerely,
Malcom Lagauche
(P.S. I never received a reply)
mardi 18 octobre 2011
Tensions Rise In Iraq’s Kirkuk Between Arabs, Kurds, And Turkmen
12/10/2011
by Joel Wing*
In the last two months, tensions within Kirkuk city and the province of Tamim have steadily increased. All three major groups, the Kurds, Arabs, and Turkmen have been complaining about the governorate’s security forces and representation on the provincial council. The Turkmen Front want their own security forces, which led to the Arabs calling for theirs, and then boycotting the council, while the Kurds have complained about the Arab presence in Tamim. All of the recent rhetoric shows that the governorate is as divided as ever.
The latest spat started in mid-August 2011 with the Turkmen. On August 16, it was reported that the Turkmen Front wanted its own security force in the province. They said it was to counter the Kurdish presence already in Kirkuk, as well as to stop attacks upon their community. The Front claimed that the governor and U.S. forces had agreed to a 100-150 man force that would not be armed. At the end of the month, a Front politician expanded upon the idea, saying that two police regiments should be formed in the province made up of Turkmen. Alternatively, he said that two Federal Police regiments could be deployed to the governorate. He claimed this was necessary because the existing security forces were either infiltrated by insurgents or run by political parties, plus the Kurds had their own forces already in Tamim. It appeared that the Turkmen were divided however, when in early October, the head of the Democratic Party of Turkmen said that a Turkmen security forces would only create more divisions, and that security should be the responsibility of the Iraqi army. When speaking of Kirkuk and Tamim, the conversation usually focuses upon the Kurds and Arabs. This ignores the sizeable Turkmen presence in the governorate who consider themselves the equal of those other two. The Turkmen were victims of Saddam’s Arabization program, and felt victimized by the Kurds after the 2003 invasion when peshmerga forces swept into the province. They have laid claim to Tamim just as the other groups have, and their demand for their own security forces is just the latest manifestation of this.
The Turkmen’s call for their own militia inspired the Arabs to ask for one as well. In mid-September, the Arab Group on the Tamim provincial council said that they wanted their own security force if the Turkmen got one. This was one reason why the group announced a boycott of the council. The other cause was their demand for more political representation in the governorate. At the end of August for example, the Arab Council threatened demonstrations if they weren’t given more spots on the council and in the security forces. They have been calling for the implementation of a power sharing deal agreed upon back at the end of 2007 that would divide all of the positions within the province equally between the Arabs, Kurds, and Turkmen, each receiving 32%, and the Christians 4%. The Arabs currently hold 15% of the council seats and the deputy governorship, because they largely boycotted the 2005 elections. The Kurds on the other hand, have 64% of the seats. By September, they were claiming that Iyad Allawi and the Iraqi National Movement, which they had supported in the March 2010 national elections, had sold them out to the Kurds in return for their support in Allawi’s dispute with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. They also accused the Turkmen and Kurds within the governorate of working out a political deal that excluded them when a Turkmen was named the new head of the provincial council back in March. The Arab Council seems to be especially threatened right now. They claim the Turkmen and Kurds are going to shut them out politically. Not only that, but every time one major group in the province demands something, they feel as if they have to do the same to maintain the ethnosectarian balance within Tamim. That is the reason for their recent comments about the security forces, and the provincial council.
The Kurds are playing right along with the other two groups. In mid-August, the Kurdish parties demanded that they get the same amount of members in the provincial security forces as the Arabs. A parliamentarian from the Kurdish Coalition claimed that the 12th Iraqi Army Division, which was stationed in Tamim, was upsetting the ethnosectarian balance because it was mostly made up of Arab soldiers. In October, the provincial police chief, General Jamal Tahir Bakr, who happens to be a Kurd, took it to another level when he claimed that 15,000 Arabs had moved into the governorate since 2003, and that they should all leave. He went on to say that they were “illegal settlers,” and a security threat because they collaborate with insurgents. He went as far as to threaten to arrest all of these “illegal” settlers. The Kurds have made similar claims in the past. They consider any Arab that moved to the province in the last several decades part of the Baath Party’s Arabization policy. They believe that this policy has been implicitly continued after the overthrow of Saddam. The Kurds ultimately want to annex Kirkuk and other regions of the province, and the Arabs are one of their main opponents. The Kurdish parties therefore, have been trying to change the demographics of the province since 2003, by moving Kurds back in, and trying to encourage the Arabs to leave. The demand for a larger share of the security forces, and threatening to arrest Arab settlers is all part of their plan to create facts on the ground that will ultimately strengthen their case to transfer Kirkuk to Kurdistan.
This recent set of demands and accusations are nothing new for Tamim. Every couple months, one major group complains that their opponents are snatching up power, and that they are losing out as a result. This latest rhetoric by the Turkmen, Arabs, and Kurds therefore is nothing new. It all shows that the new Iraq is still dealing with the old one. Saddam Hussein attempted to Arabize Kirkuk to strengthen the central government’s hold over the oil rich area. Since 2003, the Kurds have been trying to reverse this process, and annex it. This has severely threatened the Arabs and Turkmen who want to either make the governorate an autonomous area or keep it under central government control. All of this is the reason why the major groups in the province continue to verbally attack and accuse each other. None of this is likely to end any time soon as Baghdad is incapable of solving the major problems in the country right now, because the parties are more interested in maintaining their positions, and outmaneuvering their rivals. As a consequence, the status quo in Tamim will remain, and this back and forth will continue.
*With an MA in International Relations, Joel Wing has been researching and writing about Iraq since 2002. His acclaimed blog, Musings on Iraq, is currently listed by the New York Times and the World Politics Review. In addition, Mr. Wing’s work has been cited by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the Guardian and the Washington Independent.
by Joel Wing*
In the last two months, tensions within Kirkuk city and the province of Tamim have steadily increased. All three major groups, the Kurds, Arabs, and Turkmen have been complaining about the governorate’s security forces and representation on the provincial council. The Turkmen Front want their own security forces, which led to the Arabs calling for theirs, and then boycotting the council, while the Kurds have complained about the Arab presence in Tamim. All of the recent rhetoric shows that the governorate is as divided as ever.
The latest spat started in mid-August 2011 with the Turkmen. On August 16, it was reported that the Turkmen Front wanted its own security force in the province. They said it was to counter the Kurdish presence already in Kirkuk, as well as to stop attacks upon their community. The Front claimed that the governor and U.S. forces had agreed to a 100-150 man force that would not be armed. At the end of the month, a Front politician expanded upon the idea, saying that two police regiments should be formed in the province made up of Turkmen. Alternatively, he said that two Federal Police regiments could be deployed to the governorate. He claimed this was necessary because the existing security forces were either infiltrated by insurgents or run by political parties, plus the Kurds had their own forces already in Tamim. It appeared that the Turkmen were divided however, when in early October, the head of the Democratic Party of Turkmen said that a Turkmen security forces would only create more divisions, and that security should be the responsibility of the Iraqi army. When speaking of Kirkuk and Tamim, the conversation usually focuses upon the Kurds and Arabs. This ignores the sizeable Turkmen presence in the governorate who consider themselves the equal of those other two. The Turkmen were victims of Saddam’s Arabization program, and felt victimized by the Kurds after the 2003 invasion when peshmerga forces swept into the province. They have laid claim to Tamim just as the other groups have, and their demand for their own security forces is just the latest manifestation of this.
The Turkmen’s call for their own militia inspired the Arabs to ask for one as well. In mid-September, the Arab Group on the Tamim provincial council said that they wanted their own security force if the Turkmen got one. This was one reason why the group announced a boycott of the council. The other cause was their demand for more political representation in the governorate. At the end of August for example, the Arab Council threatened demonstrations if they weren’t given more spots on the council and in the security forces. They have been calling for the implementation of a power sharing deal agreed upon back at the end of 2007 that would divide all of the positions within the province equally between the Arabs, Kurds, and Turkmen, each receiving 32%, and the Christians 4%. The Arabs currently hold 15% of the council seats and the deputy governorship, because they largely boycotted the 2005 elections. The Kurds on the other hand, have 64% of the seats. By September, they were claiming that Iyad Allawi and the Iraqi National Movement, which they had supported in the March 2010 national elections, had sold them out to the Kurds in return for their support in Allawi’s dispute with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. They also accused the Turkmen and Kurds within the governorate of working out a political deal that excluded them when a Turkmen was named the new head of the provincial council back in March. The Arab Council seems to be especially threatened right now. They claim the Turkmen and Kurds are going to shut them out politically. Not only that, but every time one major group in the province demands something, they feel as if they have to do the same to maintain the ethnosectarian balance within Tamim. That is the reason for their recent comments about the security forces, and the provincial council.
The Kurds are playing right along with the other two groups. In mid-August, the Kurdish parties demanded that they get the same amount of members in the provincial security forces as the Arabs. A parliamentarian from the Kurdish Coalition claimed that the 12th Iraqi Army Division, which was stationed in Tamim, was upsetting the ethnosectarian balance because it was mostly made up of Arab soldiers. In October, the provincial police chief, General Jamal Tahir Bakr, who happens to be a Kurd, took it to another level when he claimed that 15,000 Arabs had moved into the governorate since 2003, and that they should all leave. He went on to say that they were “illegal settlers,” and a security threat because they collaborate with insurgents. He went as far as to threaten to arrest all of these “illegal” settlers. The Kurds have made similar claims in the past. They consider any Arab that moved to the province in the last several decades part of the Baath Party’s Arabization policy. They believe that this policy has been implicitly continued after the overthrow of Saddam. The Kurds ultimately want to annex Kirkuk and other regions of the province, and the Arabs are one of their main opponents. The Kurdish parties therefore, have been trying to change the demographics of the province since 2003, by moving Kurds back in, and trying to encourage the Arabs to leave. The demand for a larger share of the security forces, and threatening to arrest Arab settlers is all part of their plan to create facts on the ground that will ultimately strengthen their case to transfer Kirkuk to Kurdistan.
This recent set of demands and accusations are nothing new for Tamim. Every couple months, one major group complains that their opponents are snatching up power, and that they are losing out as a result. This latest rhetoric by the Turkmen, Arabs, and Kurds therefore is nothing new. It all shows that the new Iraq is still dealing with the old one. Saddam Hussein attempted to Arabize Kirkuk to strengthen the central government’s hold over the oil rich area. Since 2003, the Kurds have been trying to reverse this process, and annex it. This has severely threatened the Arabs and Turkmen who want to either make the governorate an autonomous area or keep it under central government control. All of this is the reason why the major groups in the province continue to verbally attack and accuse each other. None of this is likely to end any time soon as Baghdad is incapable of solving the major problems in the country right now, because the parties are more interested in maintaining their positions, and outmaneuvering their rivals. As a consequence, the status quo in Tamim will remain, and this back and forth will continue.
*With an MA in International Relations, Joel Wing has been researching and writing about Iraq since 2002. His acclaimed blog, Musings on Iraq, is currently listed by the New York Times and the World Politics Review. In addition, Mr. Wing’s work has been cited by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the Guardian and the Washington Independent.
ITC BAŞKANI PATLAMA YERİNDE İNCELEME YAPTI
Irak Türkmen Cephesinden üst düzey bir heyet bu sabah patlamanın meydana geldiği Korya bölgesindeki Çiniçiler yardımlaşma bürosunu ziyaret etti.
Irak Türkmen Cepehsi Başkanı ve Kerkük Milletvekili Erşet Salihi başkanlığındaki heyet bombalı saldırı sonucu yerle bir edilen büroda incelemelerde bulundu.
Irak Türkmen Cephesinden üst düzey bir heyet bu sabah patlamanın meydana geldiği Korya bölgesindeki Çiniçiler yardımlaşma bürosunu ziyaret etti.
Irak Türkmen Cepehsi Başkanı ve Kerkük Milletvekili Erşet Salihi başkanlığındaki heyet bombalı saldırı sonucu yerle bir edilen büroda incelemelerde bulundu.
Heyette Türkmen Milletvekili Milletvekili Hasan Özmen, Irak Türkmen Cephesi Genel başkan yardımcısı Ali Haşim Muhtaroğlu ile Irak Türkmen Cephesi Yürütme Kurulu üyeleri Hasan Turan ile Ali Mehdi ve Irak Türkmen Cephesi Kerkük il başkanı Kasım Kazancı da yer aldı.
Irak Türkmen Cephesi Genel Başkanı ve Kerkük Milletvekili Erşet Salihi beraberindeki heyetle birlikte büroya yakın evlerde meydana gelen hasarı yerinde inceledi.
Türkmenlere yönelik saldırıların planlı bir şekilde yapıldığını bildiren Irak Türkmen Cephesi yetkilileri, hükümetin bu saldırıların durdurulması ve Türkmenlerin korunması konusunda gerekli çalışmalarda bulunmadığını belirttiler.
Irak Türkmen Cephesi Genel başkanı Erşet Salihi olay yerinde Türkmeneli Televizyonuna açıklamalarda bulundu.
Irak Türkmen Cephesi Yürütme kurulu üyesi ve Kerkük il meclisi başkanı Hasan Turan yaptığı konuşmada Türkmenlerin açık bir şekilde hedef allındıklarına işaret ederek bunu gözardı edenlerin artık gerçekleri görmeleri gerektiğini açıkladı.
Irak Türkmen Cephesi Kerkük il başkanı Kasım Kazancı da bugün olay yerini iki kez ziyaret etti.
Sabah erken saatlerde patlamadan kısa bir süre sonra oley yerine giden Irak Türkmen Cephesi Kerkük il başkanı Kasım Kazancı durum değerlendirmesinde bulundu
kerkuk.net
samedi 15 octobre 2011
The correct address for the Kurds: Ankara
Photo: Dr. Hicran Kazanci
Nasuhi GÜNGÖR
The correct address for the Kurds: Ankara
Star Newspaper 14.10.2011
Probably one of the most important problems in combatting terror is being able to portray the relationship between combatting and results correctly to the public. If the public is not told that it will take time until results are achieved then expectations will rise. Naturally this will be followed by disappointment.
Yet if we are to look at the messages given to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoşyer Zebari who has been making contacts in Ankara for the past two days it can even be considered that combatting terror has reached a phase which is extremely positive.
The two major actors in Kurdish politics, Mesut Barzani and Celal Talabani have a history of being far removed from understanding the power, stance and decisiveness of Turkey. However, it is not only regional actors who are calculating benefits over the Kurds, in fact it is obvious that the international system is taking a great interest in the issue. These relationships lie behind the up and down attitudes of the Kurdish leaders with Ankara.
On the other hand Barzani who is found sympathetic in a wide area among Kurds often gives grandstanding message to the populace to uphold these expectations.
Why is it the correct address
However, these issues are gradually remaining in the past. This is caused by a few reasons. First of all Ankara is much more powerful, respected and decisive than previously. It is now acting with a new smart policy leaving behind inter-agency rivalry out of scope. It is very difficult for the Kurdish leaders to confront such a Republic of Turkey.
Secondly, the new policy applied by Ankara in its fight against the PKK is forming into an action to free itself from an impediment in the area which is a threat rather than an endeavor to resolve an internal issue. This is an important difference. Instead of an introverted battle against problems and being squeezed into a corner, Turkey is a power with the courage to face its problems on a regional and global scale.
Thirdly it is sufficient to look at a map to see why the Kurdish leaders are obliged to act with Turkey. While Hoşyer Zebari was in Turkey an interesting move came from Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri El Maliki: ‘If necessary we can send Iraqi troops to Northern Iraq to combat terror.’ It needs to be underlined that while this message supports Turkey it is also a meaningful ‘dispatch’ to the Kurds.
The Turkmen and the future
Since we are on the subject of Iraq let’s open another subject. As it is known, there is a large Turkmen population still in Iraq and as a result of mistakes made in the past, this community which is closest to Turkey is practically struggling to survive.
It is definite that the Turkmen will have an important role in future politics. I sincerely believe this. However, in order for this to happen the community must first resolve its internal rivalries. I often have discussions with Iraqi Turkmen Front Turkey Representative Hicran Kazancı. I find his approach not only regarding the front but his views on the future of the region to be very significant. The reason for this is that unlike in the past, he argues on behalf of establishing strong alliances rather than an aggressive or separatist approach.
Unfortunately this wide vision of the Ankara front representative has deeply disturbed some circles who are drowing in the reckoning of the past. In fact the issue is very clear. The Turkmen need to wipe the slate clean and renew themselves to become strong politically. Indeed, the political mind directing Ankara is looking favorably on the renewal process of the Turkmen. Perhaps a more active support and cooperation is necessary.
Otherwise it may be more difficult that expected to break the impact of some of the power groups which have settled into these structures in the past.
jeudi 6 octobre 2011
Iraqi Parliamentarians representing ‘Iraq’s ethnic and religious minorities’ at the European Parliament in Brussels
Iraqi Parliamentarians with Mr. Struan Stevenson, President of the Iraq Delegation at the EU Parliament and other MEPs.
ITF EU representative, Dr. Hassan Aydinli with Members of the Iraqi Council of Representatives
Mr. Amin Farhan, Member Iraqi Council of Representatives, President of the Eyzidin Movement for Reform and Progress and its parliamentary faction, speaking at the meeting
Iraqi Turkmen Front EU Representative Dr Hassan Aydinli with MEP Tunne Kelam
ITF EU Representative Dr Hassan Aydinli with MEP Alexandra Thein
Iraqi Parliamentarians representing ‘Iraq’s ethnic and religious minorities’ at the European Parliament in Brussels
Brussels – 5TH October 2011
Fourteen Iraqi Parliamentarians representing the Chaldeo-Assyrian, Shabak, Yezidi and Mandaean-Sabean communities met with the EU Parliament’s Delegation for Relations with Iraq on 5th October 2011.
The Iraqi delegation was composed of:
§ Mr Younadam KENNA
§ Mr Amin FARHAN
§ Miss Ameena SAID
§ Miss Vian DAKHIL
§ Mr Hussain NERMO
§ Mr Meham KHALEEL
§ Miss Basma PITRUS
§ Mr Luis GARO
§ Mr Qasim BIRGIS
§ Mr Sharif SULAYMAN
§ Mr Khalid ROOMI
§ Mr Kaliss EISHO
§ Mr Imad YAKO
§ Mr Mohammed JAMSHEED
The meeting was chaired by MEP Struan Stevenson, President of the Iraq Delegation.
MEP Esther De Lange, Vice-President of the Iraq Delegation, and MEPs Ana Gomes, Tunne Kelam, Alexandra Thein and Jelko Kacin attended the meeting.
MEP Struan Stevenson informed the assembly that the Minorities Caucus in the Iraqi Council of Representatives was formed in July 2010 and that its aim is to develop a concrete plan of potential legislative action that stands to include reform of Iraq’s personal status law, local administration legislation, an anti-discrimination law and reform of Iraq’s educational curriculum.
The meeting has been organized with the help of :
- the Iraqi Council of Representatives,
- the European Parliament Delegation for relations with Iraq,
- the Institute for International Law and Human Rights,
- the U.S. Institute of Peace
With the support of :
- UNPO (the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization)
- No Peace Without Justice.
The Chairman Mr. Struan Stevenson started the meeting by saying that in the European Union we are all minorities, even Germany with its 82 million people is a ‘minority’, and that we Europeans have learned to work together. He added that over 23% of the population of Iraq is non-Arab and that these non-Arab communities are victims of discrimination and assimilation and that their survival in Iraq is threatened.
Mr. Struan Stevenson informed the delegation that in November a big conference on Christian minorities would be held in the Lebanon.
Ms. Esther De Lange MEP, welcomed the 14-member delegation, saying that it is the first minority delegation from Iraq to be invited at the European Parliament. She added that the delegation would also meet with the EU Commission. Ms. De Lange said that the EU Parliament would like to have concrete examples of the delegation’s demands.
Mr. Younadam Kenna, Member Iraqi Council of Representatives , representing the Chaldeo-Assyrian community, was the first to take the floor, he spoke in the name of the delegation, informing the assembly of the main problems the minorities are facing in Iraq, namely regarding the unfair distribution of budget funds, the executive law system which is still the one which was used under Saddam Hussein, the pernicious law for women in the Kurdistan region where honour killings still take place, law of oil and gas repartition, religious prejudice, lack of education in the language of the minorities in the Mosul region, the problem of the return of refugees belonging to the minorities, etc. He asked the help and support of the European Union to help resolve all these problems.
Other members of the Iraqi delegation spoke about their communities’ continued suffering due to forced displacement, land confiscation, wars, lack of justice, lack of security, bureaucracy, unfair repartition of funds for the minority communities.
Miss Vian Dakhil, Member Iraqi Council of Representatives, representing the Yezidi community, spoke in the name of all women belonging to minorities in Iraq. She called for the support and help of the European Parliament for these women.
Mr. Mohammed Jamsheed, Member Iraqi Council of Representatives, representing the Shabak community, recommended that the EU pay special attention to the Province of Ninewah because this is where 90% of the problems of the minorities are concentrated.
Mr. Kaliss Eisho, Member Iraqi Council of Representatives, representing the Chaldeo-Assyrian community, asked for an autonomous region for the Chaldeo-Assyrians in the Ninewah Plains.
Mr. Amin Farhan, Member Iraqi Council of Representatives, President of the Eyzidin Movement for Reform and Progress and its parliamentary faction, spoke with force and conviction about the need for the Committee for the Revision of the Constitution in Iraq to include at least one member of each community. He said that there is no democracy in Iraq, that minorities are threatened and that they should have the means to protect themselves. Mr. Amin Farhan said that he had asked Prime Minister Nouri Maliki to reinstate the old Yezidi army and police officers and that Maliki had agreed for the return of 332 of them, but that the Chief of Staff of the Iraqi army in Baghdad, a Kurd, had refused to reinstate them. He said that although he is a Member of the Iraqi Parliament, the Kurdish Regional Authorities do not allow him to visit his family in his home town Shikhan in the north of Iraq. Mr. Farhan spoke of the lack of freedom of expression in the Kurdish Region for Yezidis, informing the assembly that the Kurds are refusing them to distribute a Yezidi newspaper in their region.
All the members of the Iraqi delegation asked for help and moral support from the European Union, saying that they hoped the EU Parliament would make a statement on Iraq’s minorities. They expressed the hope that Members of the EU Parliament would visit the Iraqi Parliament frequently and that additional EU consulates would be opened in Iraq’s main northern cities.
Iraqi Turkmen Front EU representative, Dr. Hassan Aydinli, attended the conference. He met individually with the members of the Iraqi Parliament, questioning them about the situation of their respective communities in Iraq and he encouraged them to express themselves freely and without fear.
Dr. Aydinli met with Mr. Struan Stevenson, Chairman of the Iraq Delegation and with MEPs Tunne Kelam and Alexandra Thein, he informed them about the upcoming Turkmen Hearing by the subcommittee on Human Rights at the EU Parliament on 5th December 2011, he also updated them about the continued targeting of Turkmen intellectuals, businessmen and political leaders in the north of Iraq and about the failure and unwillingness of the Iraqi authorities and local authorities to provide adequate protection for the Turkmen community in the north of Iraq.
Inscription à :
Articles (Atom)
