mardi 18 décembre 2007

Comunicado de la Red Internacional Antiocupación sobre la retirada del Foro por una Paz Justa en Oriente Próximo

Con ocupación no existe la paz justa



La red internacional antiocupación (IAON, en sus siglas en inglés, junto con las delegaciones palestina, árabe y española, condena y rechaza la interferencia del Ministerio de Exteriores y del Foro Social de Madrid (FSM) y su cobardía frente a los intentos de Israel de imponer la participación de fuerzas sionistas en el Foro por una Paz Justa en Oriente Próximo. Esas fuerzas no pueden —y no lo han hecho— suscribir el documento de referencia del Foro que reafirma la inviolabilidad de la legalidad internacional.

La IAON, que coordinó una delegación iraquí para el Forum, acordó su participación en el Foro sobre la base de la legalidad internacional, que garantiza el derecho a resistir contra la ocupación extranjera por cualquier medio, así como el inalienable derecho de retorno de los refugiados. La defensa del derecho al retorno de los refugiados palestinos estaba claramente establecida en el documento de referencia del Foro. La adhesión a este documento era una condición previa para la participación de cualquier persona [u organización] en los talleres del Foro.

La IAON renunció a su participación en el Foro junto con otras organizaciones puesto que los iraquíes no sólo son solidarios con el pueblo palestino sino que son víctimas de los mismos planes de Estados Unidos e Israel para dividir la región en pequeñas entidades, que no puedan amenazar el papel de vanguardia de Israel —y de EEUU como su representante— en una ofensiva contra el mundo árabe, con la finalidad de controlar los recursos de la región e impedir la soberanía, la independencia, el desarrollo y la libertad de sus pueblos.

Iraq ha sido invadido, ocupado y destruido como Estado por EEUU con la participación de Israel. La misma ofensiva israelo–estadounidense ha intentado destruir la nación de Iraq. No habrá paz justa en el mundo árabe sin la retirada de todas las fuerzas de ocupación de suelo árabe, el retorno de todos los refugiados a sus hogares, la derogación de todas las leyes, acuerdos, tratados o contratos aprobados por la ocupación y sin el pago de las indemnizaciones por todas las pérdidas humanas y materiales causadas por esas ocupaciones criminales, sectarias y racistas.

El imperialismo estadounidense está siendo derrotado en Iraq. El resultado de esta derrota cambiará de manera indudable el statu quo de toda la región. Apoyar a la resistencia iraquí es apoyar la justicia en lugar de la fuerza, a la humanidad en lugar de los saqueos, y es apoyar a la restitución de los derechos de los pueblos en Palestina, Iraq y de todos aquellos que viven bajo la ocupación.

Reconocemos la unidad de la sociedad civil en este momento crítico y la solidaridad, expresada de manera inequívoca, con la justa causa de pueblo palestino, junto con su rechazo de la manipulación e interferencia estatal.

Fin inmediato de la ocupación de Palestina e Iraq
Reconocimiento del derecho a la resistencia del pueblo palestino e iraquí
Defensa del inalienable derecho de retorno de los refugiados y de disfrutar de sus derechos en sus naciones.
Libertad, independencia y soberanía para los pueblos iraquí y palestino

La justicia está de nuestra parte; nuestra resistencia continúa

Red Internacional antiocupación (IAON)

Esta declaración ha sido confeccionada por las siguientes personas en representación de sus organizaciones:

Dahlia Wasfi, miembro del comité asesor del Tribunal BRussells

Dirk Adriaensens, miembro del Comité ejecutivo del Tribunal BRussells


Hana Al Bayaty, miembro del comité asesor del Tribunal BRussells


Hana Ibrahim, Asociación Woman’s Will


Hassan T. Walli Aydinli, Comité por la defensa de los derechos de los turcomanos iraquíes


Ian Douglas, miembro del comité asesor del Tribunal BRussells


Paloma Valverde, CEOSI (Campaña Estatal contra la Ocupación y por la Soberanía de Iraq)


Sara Sánchez, CEOSI (Campaña Estatal contra la Ocupación y por la Soberanía de Iraq)
Sigyn Meder, Asociación Iraq Solidaridad, Estocolmo


Souad Al Azzawi, miembro del comité asesor del Tribunal BRussells

Madrid, 17 de diciembre de 2007
http://brusselstribunal.org/

John Pilger on 'British-American Project for the Successor Generation' (BAP)

December 16, 2007
http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2007-12/16pilger.cfm


How the Anglo-American elite shares its 'values'
By John Pilger

When Prime Minister Gordon Brown spoke recently about his government's devotion to the United States, "founded on the values we share", he was echoing his Foreign Office minister Kim Howells, who was preparing to welcome the Saudi dictator to Britain with effusions of "shared values". The meaning was the same in both cases. The values shared are those of rapacious power and wealth, with democracy and human rights irrelevant, as the bloodbath in Iraq and the suffering of the Palestinians attest, to name only two examples.

The "values we share" are celebrated by a shadowy organisation that has just held its annual conference. This is the British-American Project for the Successor Generation (BAP), set up in 1985 with money from a Philadelphia trust with a long history of supporting right-wing causes.

Although the BAP does not publicly acknowledge this origin, the source of its inspiration was a call by President Reagan in 1983 for "successor generations" on both sides of the Atlantic to "work together in the future on defence and security matters". He made numerous references to "shared values". Attending this ceremony in the White House Situation Room were the ideologues Rupert Murdoch and the late James Goldsmith.

As Reagan made clear, the need for the BAP arose from Washington's anxiety about the growing opposition in Britain to nuclear weapons, especially the stationing of cruise missiles in Europe. "A special concern," he said, "will be the successor generations, as these younger people are the ones who will have to work together in the future on defence and security issues." A new, preferably young elite - journalists, academics, economists, "civil society" and liberal community leaders of one sort or another - would offset the growing "anti-Americanism".

The aims of this latter-day network, according to David Willetts, the former director of studies at Britain's right-wing Centre for Policy Studies, now a member of the Tory shadow cabinet, are simply to "help reinforce Anglo-American links, especially if some members already do or will occupy positions of influence".

A former British ambassador to Washington, Sir John Kerr, was more direct. In a speech to BAP members, he said the organisation's "powerful combination of eminent Fellows and close Atlantic links threatened to put the embassy out of a job". An American BAP organiser describes the BAP network as committed to "grooming leaders" while promoting "the leading global role that [the US and Britain] continue to play".

The BAP's British "alumni" are drawn largely from new Labour and its court. No fewer than four BAP "fellows" and one advisory board member became ministers in the first Blair government. The new Labour names include Peter Mandelson, George Robertson, Baroness Symons, Jonathan Powell (Blair's chief of staff), Baroness Scotland, Douglas Alexander, Geoff Mulgan, Matthew Taylor and David Miliband.

Some are Fabian Society members and describe themselves as being "on the left". Trevor Phillips, chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, is another member. They object to whispers of "a conspiracy". The mutuality of class or aspiration is merely assured, unspoken, and the warm embrace of power flattering and often productive.

BAP conferences are held alternately in the US and Britain. This year's was in Newcastle, with the theme "Faith and Justice". On the US board is Diana Negroponte, the wife of John Negroponte, Bush's former national security chief notorious for his associations with death-squad politics in central America. He follows another leading neocon, Paul Wolfowitz, architect of the invasion of Iraq and discredited head of the World Bank.

Since 1985, BAP "alumni" and "fellows" have been brought together courtesy of Coca-Cola, Monsanto, Saatchi & Saatchi, Philip Morris and British Airways, among other multinationals. Nick Butler, formerly a top dog at BP, has been a leading light.

For many, the conferences have the revivalist pleasures honed by American PR techniques, with management games, personal presentations, and a closing jolly revue to lighten the serious business. The 2002 conference report noted: "Many BAP alumni are directly involved with US and UK military and defence establishments."

The BAP rarely gets publicity, which may have something to do with the high proportion of journalists who are alumni. Prominent BAP journalists are David Lipsey, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown and assorted Murdochites. The BBC is well represented. On the popular Today programme, James Naughtie, whose broadcasting has long reflected his own transatlantic interests, has been an alumnus since 1989.

Today's newest voice, Evan Davis, formerly the BBC's zealous economics editor, is a member. And at the top of the BAP website home page is a photograph of the famous BBC broadcaster Jeremy Paxman and his endorsement. "A marvellous way of meeting a varied cross-section of transatlantic friends," says he.

Link to BAP website homepage:
http://www.baponline.org/index.html

IRAK TÜRKMEN CEPHESI - COMMUNIQUE

To enlarge please click on text above

Madrid Forum for a Just Peace in the Middle East - Joint Statement of the Anti-Occupation Network



No just peace under occupation -
Con ocupación no existe la paz justa


Joint statement of The International Anti-Occupation Network, The BRussells Tribunal, The Spanish Campaign Against the Occupation and for the Sovereignty of Iraq and The Iraq Solidarity Association in Stockholm on withdrawing from the Madrid Forum for a Just Peace in the Middle East

* Palestinian Delegation Withdraws from Madrid Just Peace Forum Protesting Serious Violations

* Why I Will Not Participate in the Madrid Social Forum for a Just Peace in the Middle East

* OFFICIAL STATEMENT OF THE SOLIDARITY NETWORK AGAINST THE OCCUPATION OF PALESTINE

* Komite Internazionalistak declaration

* Press release from the assembly of arab, israeli, international organizations

* Comunicado de Opinión General (PNGO-NETWORK)

* Further relevant notes of Health Work Committees/ Palestine (English - Spanish)

The International Anti-Occupation Network (IAON), along with the Palestinian, Arab and Spanish delegations, condemns and rejects the interference of the Spanish Foreign Ministry and the Madrid Social Forum (FSM) and its cowardice in the face of attempts by Israel to impose Zionist forces on the civil society “Forum for a Just Peace in the Middle East”. These forces cannot and do not subscribe to the Forum’s Reference Document that affirms the inviolability of international law.

The IAON, who organized an Iraqi delegation to this Forum, had agreed to participate on the basis of international law, which guarantees the right to resist foreign occupation by any means, and the individual and unalienable right of refugees to return. The defence of the right of Palestinian refugees to return was clearly stated in the Reference Document of the Forum. Its endorsement was a precondition for the participation of any panelist or participant in the Forum’s workshops.

The IAON withdrew its participation from the Forum alongside all other organizations. Iraqis are not only in solidarity with the Palestinian people; Iraqis are victims of the same US-Israeli agenda to partition the region into smaller entities — that could not threaten Israel’s role as an offensive spearhead and US proxy in the Arab world — in order to control the region’s resources and prevent the sovereignty, independence, development and freedom of its people.

Iraq has been invaded, occupied and destroyed as a state by the United States with Israeli participation. The same US-Israeli offensive has attempted to destroy the nation of Iraq. There will be no just peace in the Arab world without the withdrawal of all occupation forces from Arab land, the return of all refugees to their homes, the cancellation of all laws, agreements, treaties or contracts passed under occupation, and the payment of reparations for all the human and material losses caused by these criminal, sectarian and racist occupations.

US imperialism is being defeated in Iraq. The result of this defeat will undoubtedly change the status quo in the entire region. To support the Iraqi Resistance is to support justice rather than force, humanity rather than plunder, and the restitution of the people’s rights in Palestine, Iraq and to all people living under occupation.

We salute the unity of civil society in this critical moment and the solidarity it unequivocally expressed with the just cause of the Palestinian people, along with its rejection of state manipulation and interference.

Immediate end to the occupation of Palestine and Iraq
Recognize the resistance of the Palestinian and Iraqi people
Defend the unalienable right of refugees to return and enjoy their rights in their homeland
Freedom, independence and sovereignty for the Iraqi and Palestinian people

Justice is on our side; our resistance is continuous.

The International Anti-Occupation Network

This statement has been redacted by the following persons, in representation of their organizations:

Dirk Adriaensens, BRussells Tribunal Executive Committee

Hana Al Bayaty, BRussells Tribunal Advisory Committee

Ian Douglas, BRussells Tribunal Advisory Committee

Paloma Valverde, CEOSI (the Spanish Campaign Against Occupation and for the Sovereignty of Iraq)

Sara Sanchez, CEOSI (the Spanish Campaign Against Occupation and for the Sovereignty of Iraq)

Sigyn Meder, Iraqi solidarity Association in Stockholm

Hassan T. Walli Aydinli, Committee for the defense of Iraqi Turkmen’s rights

Souad Al Azzawi, BRussells Tribunal Advisory Committee

Dahlia Wasfi, BRussells Tribunal Advisory Committee

Hana Ibrahim, Woman’s Will Association

Madrid, 17 December 2007

http://brusselstribunal.org/

lundi 17 décembre 2007

Iraq does exist, by Ghali Hassan

12/16/07 "ICH"

-- -- The history of trying to obfuscate the truth and distort the image of Iraq has always been the aim of the U.S. aggression against the people of Iraq. There is the added factor now of new breed of ‘journalists’ and ‘bloggers’ ever on the lookout for a story that will tell Westerners all they need to know about Iraq, its problems, dangers, and prospects. Despite all of this, Iraq remains a nation of proud people struggling to liberate themselves from a murderous colonial Occupation.

In a recent interview ("Iraq Doesn't Exist Anymore") with the self-described ‘leftists’ blogger Mick Whitney, Nir Rosen made untruthful and unsubstantiated statements regarding the situation on the ground in Iraq and the Occupation of that country by U.S. forces and their collaborators.

Let’s start with the fact. Nir Rosen is an Israeli-American (‘dual loyalty’) citizen of Iranian descent. Before he was recruited for the war on Iraq, Rosen once wrote; “I had dreamed of joining Israel's elite special forces” to murder defenceless Palestinians and Arabs. Like many of the new breed of journalists who have been drafted into service, Rosen was an embedded ‘reporter’ with U.S. Armoured Cavalry Regiment in western Iraq. Embedded journalism is the antithesis of independent journalism. In embedded journalism, journalists have to serve power and cover-up war crimes.

With his "Middle Eastern appearance", Rosen is the perfect face of U.S. imperialism. Rosen publishes in many of the U.S. mainstream media outlets, such as the New York Times, Times Magazine and the Boston Review.

However, if Rosen articles about the Middle East, Iraq in particular, had any shred of truth in them, they wouldn’t appear in the New York times, Times Magazine or the Boston Review. Because if Rosen deviates from what Noam Chomsky calls the ‘doctrinal framework’ or the line of serving power, he wouldn’t get his rubbish published there.

In the interview Rosen told Whitney: “The main reason that things have gone so horribly wrong in Iraq is there was no plan for anything; good or bad. The looting was not ‘deliberate’ American policy. It was simply incompetence. The destruction of Iraq's cultural icons was incompetence, also - as well as stupidity, ignorance and criminal neglect. I don't believe that there was really any deliberate malice in the American policy; regardless of the malice with which it may have been implemented by the troops on the ground. The destruction of much of Iraq was the result of Islamic and sectarian militias-both Sunni and Shiite-seeking to wipe out hated symbols. The Americans didn't know enough about Iraq to intentionally execute such a plan even if it did exist. And, I don't think it did”.

So Rosen and Whitney want us to believe that, the illegal invasion of Iraq was not planned and the decision to disband the Iraqi Army and Police in order to create chaos and insecurity was not deliberate. The mass murder of innocent Iraqi civilians and the destruction of Iraq, including Iraq's cultural heritage was simply “incompetence”, according to Nir Rosen.

Anyone who has paid serious attention to the aggression against the Iraqi people knows that Rosen is patently dishonest and lack moral principles when he touts the situation there was the result of “incompetence” and the destruction of much of Iraq was the result of the militias. The aggression was not a deliberate “malice” according to Rosen; it just happened.

According to Robert H. Jackson, the Chief Prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trial in 1945 wrote: “Any resort to war — any kind of war — is a resort to means that are inherently criminal. War inevitably is a course of killings, assaults, deprivations of liberty, and destruction of property”. Imagine Rosen describing the aggression in Jackson’s term.

The interview was simply a rehashing of Rosen’s crude simplification that fills a need felt by many pro-Occupation fascists to have it confirmed for them that what happen in Iraq was “unintentional”. Our mission was to “spread democracy” and “freedom” because we jus have too much of them in the West. It is just something gone wrong in Iraq and we had no control over it.

Once again we are misled by a typical example of the Western man led by moral principles to promote ‘good’.

Repeating the same rubbish he has been perfecting, Rosen told Whitney: "The violence in Iraq was not senseless or crazy, it was logical and teleological. Shiite militias were trying to remove Sunnis from Baghdad and other parts of the country, while Sunni militias were trying to remove Shiites, Kurds and Christians from their areas. This has been a great success. So you have millions of refugees and millions more internally displaced, not to mention hundreds of thousands dead. There are just less people to kill".

Of course, Whitney did not challenge Rosen during the interview, and the interview is posted on all Zionist and pro-Occupation websites. Whitney and Rosen know very well that before the U.S. illegal aggression against Iraq, Iraqis were living in harmony regardless of religious or ethnic backgrounds. No racist journalist should deny the fact that before the aggression, Iraq was a safe country for every one, including Westerners like Whitney, Rosen and their ilk.

Baghdad is a city of one million Kurds. The “great success” of terrorising Iraqis is happening under the radar screen of the Occupation. Indeed, sectarianism is brought by the invasion and subsequent Occupation, like the Cholera epidemic. It is encouraged and nurtured because it is a vital instrument of the Occupation.

Different militia and extremist groups are working as paid death squads for the Occupation. Iraqis have publicly denounced the violence as without distinction (between ‘Sunnis’ and ‘Shiites’) carried out by criminal gang and death squads on the U.S. pay roll.

To increase the violence and justify the ongoing Occupation, the U.S. began inciting one faction against the other. Of course, every thing is ‘masterminded’ by the phantom of “al-Qaeda”.

[1] The current division and political violence is an imperialist-Zionist ploy designed to destroy Iraq as a nation. The destruction of Iraq (physically, culturally and militarily) has been the ideological dream of the Israeli leaders and their Zionist supporters in the U.S., the pro-Israel Jewish Lobby.

The recent U.S. Senate vote to partition Iraq along ethnic/religious lines is the beginning of an old scheme for the Middle East. This imperialist-Zionist scheme is rejected by the overwhelming majority of Iraqis who are loudly demanding the end to the murderous Occupation.

Rosen failed to admit that Iraqis fought an eight-year war against Iran defended their country with pride regardless of religious affiliation. Iraqis do not see themselves in terms of ‘Shiites’ or ‘Sunnis’. Iraqis identify themselves as Muslim-Arab and see themselves as Iraqis first. They showed this loyalty during the Iran-Iraq war.

According to U.S. military findings, when the Iraqi government “initiated a total call-up of available manpower in 1986, the response was good. No draft riots occurred; young men-even college students—reported without incident. The fact that the public answered the call tells us that Iraqis support their government ... Eighty-five percent of the army belongs to the sect of Shiism”.

[2]The needless killing of more than 1.3 million innocent Iraqis, mostly women and children, appeared to have escaped Rosen’s reporting. In fact since 1990, the U.S. and Britain declared outright intent to use disproportionate force, mortally targeting Iraqis as a national group. Some 1.5 million Iraqis died, including 500,000 infants, as a result of the 13-years U.S.-UK enforced UN sanctions.

Countless U.S. soldiers are publicly condemning their criminal actions in Iraq. Writing in the Vermont’s Rutland Herald, Matt Howard, a U.S. Marine, reflects on his participation in the deliberate and unprovoked war of aggression against the Iraqi people: “We did not go to war with the country of Iraq; we went to war with the people of Iraq. During the initial invasion we killed women. We killed children. We senselessly killed farm animals. We were the United States Marine Corps, not the Peace Corps, and we left a swath of death and destruction in our wake all the way to Baghdad.”

In Rosen’s view, the total destruction of urban centres such as Fallujah, Tel Afar, Samarra, Al-Qaim, Haditha, Tikrit, and Ramadi, among other cities and towns by indiscriminate bombing is not considered war crimes perpetuated with intent to terrorise and pacify the entire Iraqi population.

It is important to remember that from the outset of the Occupation, the U.S. Administration embarked on dividing Iraqis into religious and ethnic groups and hence planted the first seed for disunity and violence. The U.S.-imposed “Iraqi Governing Council” was the best example of a colonial-imposed puppet government formed along ethnic and sectarian lines. The puppet government is simply an extension of the Occupation. It is voids of anything resembling a democracy. It has no political control whatsoever beyond the ‘Green Zone’ where it is protected by the Occupation. Its main function is to provide a façade and legitimise the Occupation.

The recent “agreement” to extend the Occupation in flagrant violation of Iraqi sovereignty is a case in point.

Back in August 2007, Nir Rosen told Amy Goodman of DemocracyNow news: “It’s too late for anything good to happen in Iraq, unfortunately. If the Americans stay, we’ll see a continuation of this civil war, of ethnic cleansing, until all of Iraq is sort of ethnically—or sectarian, homogenous zones, which is basically what’s already happened. If the Americans leave, then you’ll see greater intervention of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, supporting their own militias in Iraq and being drawn into battle. But no matter what, Iraq doesn’t exist anymore”.

Not as simple as that, Mr. Rosen. And what proof is offered for this Zionist propaganda? None. In fact all the evidence pointed to a premeditated and deliberate U.S.-Zionist plan to destroy Iraq as a nation and replace it with a collection of dependent fiefdoms. It is true, if the Americans stay, we’ll see a continuation of a U.S.-perpetuated violence and ethnic cleansing. But this is not what Rosen meant. Rosen failed to acknowledge that the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq is supported by the overwhelming majority of Iraqis and will remove the primary cause of the violence.

Where all these militias and criminals came from? Who trained them, armed them and finance them? Whitney didn’t ask. Nowhere in the interviews and scattered articles does Rosen tell us that the militias were the creation of the Occupation and that the violence is the only pretext left to justify the ongoing Occupation. Why Iraqis didn’t “hate each other” before the illegal invasion of their country is totally ignored by Western media and remains a mystery to most Westerners.

Furthermore, Whitney did not challenge Rosen how the Americans managed to protect the Iraqi Oil Ministry while at the same time turn blind eye to the looting and burning of Iraq’s most important buildings and Iraq’s cultural heritage. If the looting was not "deliberate" American policy, there must be a selective “incompetence”. Reports after reports showed clearly that the looting was pre-organised policy to strip Iraq of its Muslim-Arab identity and history.

It is important to remember that at the time of looting and destruction, the British journalist Robert Fisk was in Baghdad and witnessed a systematic and deliberate attempt to destroy Iraq as a nation.

Again, Whitney failed to ask Rosen how the Americans were able to build the largest C.I.A. station (“U.S. Embassy”) in the world, “the size of Vatican City, with the population of a small town, its own defence force, self-contained power and water, and a precarious perch at the heart of Iraq's turbulent future”, while most Iraqis left without food, drinking water and electricity. Why Iraq’s healthcare services, including major hospitals and medical centres, and Iraq’s education system including, schools and university remained destroyed and dysfunctional, while Americans are busy building military bases, described by many as “bustling American towns, replete with Burger King, Pizza Hut, shops, traffic regulations and young bikers clogging the roads”?

In fact, like most people, many Americans now openly admit that there is a plan to occupy Iraq permanently and loot Iraq of its natural resources. Finally, Like in Vietnam, the Americans offer the Iraqi people a choice: either you submit to a murderous colonial Occupation or we break you. The Iraqi people refused to submit and the Americans failed to break them.

U.S. policy in Iraq is not simply “incompetence”; it is “an essential component of U.S. policy [since 1990], constituting premeditated genocide against the people of Iraq”, writes Ian Douglas, a professor of Political Sciences and a member of the organising committee of the Brussels Tribunal.

Furthermore, the U.S. failed in its imperialist strategy in Iraq not because of “incompetence”, but because “the Iraqi Resistance prevents Iraqi oil from reinforcing the occupation or paying for America’s global war of aggression”, added Douglas.

[3]. One question that Mike Whitney didn't ask Rosen which may clarify Rosen's perspective is, why thousands of Iraqi scientists, professors, intellectuals and other professionals have been murdered in cold blood? Why at least 40 per cent of the educated and experienced Iraqi professionals have been threatened and forced to leave the country? The aim is to destroy Iraq’s independence by liquidating Iraq’s human resources.

There is no doubt that the premeditated aggression and murderous Occupation of Iraq by U.S. forces and their collaborators have succeeded in destroying the physical state of Iraq and terrorising the Iraqi population.

“But, of course, the spirit of the Iraqi people is indestructible. They cannot be broken. They will resist, drive out all intruders, and they will recover. The people of Iraq will overcome the catastrophes of recent years”, writes Denis Halliday, former UN assistant secretary-general and one of the very few honourable voices in the West to publicly condemn the deliberate genocide in Iraq.

Iraq does exist. We should never forget the fact that there is an Iraqi nation and nationalism represented by legitimate National Iraqi Resistance. The U.S. government and its collaborators may have succeeded in killing many innocent Iraqis and removed a sovereign government but the U.S. failed and will not success in its attempt to destroy the Iraqi nation and the Iraq people’s will to resist the Occupation.

Today more than ever there is a need for honest and independent journalists who can stand up and against the active complicity of the mainstream media and in support of the people of Iraq struggle for freedom and independence.

Nir Rosen is just another propaganda agent who has shown to be part of a murderous colonial Occupation.

Ghali Hassan is an independent writer living in Australia.
Endnotes:
[1] Hassan, Ghali, Iraq: Occupation and Sectarianism; Varea, Carlos, Iraq: Sectarian Violence in Iraq and the New War in the Middle East; Wolf, Max, For Iraq, the ‘Salvador Option’ becomes Reality.
[2] Marine Corps Historical Publication - FMFRP 3-203, Lessons Learned: Iran-Iraq War, December 10, 1990 Chemical Weapons.
[3] Douglas, Ian, Notes on genocide in Iraq. [PDF]. This document should be read by any concerned citizen.
Click on "comments" below to read comments


Comments (3) Comment (0)

Entretien avec le secrétaire général des Amitiés Franco-Irakiennes, Partie II

16.12.2007

Interview avec Gilles Munier, Partie 2


http://shyankar.blogs.courrierinternational.com/archive/2007/12/15/entretien-avec-le-secretaire-general-des-amities-franco-irak.html

Introduction à la suite de l'entretien : Voici donc la seconde et dernière partie de l'entretien avec Gilles Munier, secrétaire général des Amitiés Franco Irakiennes.

Shyankar : En partant du principe qu'il n'y a ni ADM ni liens directs entre l'ancien dictateur et le terroriste islamiste, c'est donc qu'il y a d'autres enjeux dans cette guerre que la paix dans la région et dans le monde comme le déclarait Bush. Est-il aujourd'hui possible, au vu de tous les documents existants, d'affirmer que l'intervention fut mise en place pour accroître les bases US dans la régions et ainsi «gérer» la route du pétrole et la production de l'Irak ?

G.M : Pour l’establishment américain, les véritables enjeux sont la « sécurité » d’Israël et le pétrole, ou l’inverse. L’un ne va pas sans l’autre. Les Etats-Unis pensent aujourd’hui que leur suprématie au Proche-Orient passe par l’implantation de nouvelles bases. Quatre ou cinq sont prévues en Irak, une dans le nord du Liban. Mais comme la majorité des Arabes n’en veut pas - y compris les pro-iraniens - leur « gestion » des richesses pétrolières ne sera pas totalement assurée.
Quant à Israël, il joue bien son rôle : Theodor Herzl, un des pères fondateurs du sionisme, l’avait conçu comme un « rempart contre l’Asie », « la sentinelle avancée de la civilisation moderne contre la barbarie »…
La guerre d’Irak est la énième guerre pour le pétrole. Aujourd’hui, il ne s’agit plus de contrôler physiquement le pétrole, mais sa commercialisation. Il y a 6 ans, alors que le pétrole était à 24 $ le baril, Abderrazak Al-Hachemi – ancien ambassadeur d’Irak en France – me disait : « Vous verrez, si les Américains occupent l’Irak, le prix du baril dépassera les 100 $. Les Etats-Unis tiendront l’Europe au collet ». Je croyais qu’il exagérait. Nous y sommes. Que se passera-t-il si le baril atteint les 150$ ? Au-delà de l’Europe, la Chine et l’Inde sont visées.

Shyankar : La guerre fait encore aujourd'hui beaucoup parler d'elle, surtout à l'approche des primaires US, mais aussi avec le durcissement du conflit avec l'Iran. On a vu dernièrement Mohamed El Baradei, « patron » de l'Agence Internationale de l'Energie Atomique déclarer que « Je ne peux pas juger des intentions, mais à supposer quel'Iran ait l'intention de se doter de la bombe nucléaire, il lui faudra encore entre trois et huit années pour yarriver. Tous les services de renseignement s'accordent là-dessus. ». Il déclara aussi que : « L'Irak est un exemple criant du fait que, dans de nombreux cas, l'usage de la force exacerbe le problème au lieu de le résoudre. ». Le parallèle est donc assez frappant avec Hans Blix, chef de l'inspection de l'ONU, qui déclara lui aussi le 31 janvier 2003 que le régime irakien n'est pas lié au réseau terroriste d'Al-Qaïda et qui plus est, que le bilan qu'il a dressé devant le Conseil de sécurité « ne justifie pas le déclenchement d'une guerre ». On peut donc se demander si ces guerres ne sont pas « montées » de toutes pièces, malgré les preuves et l'opinion publique. Quel est votre point de vue sur la question ?

G. M : Oui, ces guerres sont montées de toutes pièces, rien ne les justifie moralement. Comme l’a fort bien dit Ken Livingston - maire travailliste de Londres - c’est l’interventionnisme occidental au Proche-Orient depuis la Première guerre mondiale qui est à l’origine du terrorisme, pas l’inverse. Quand le terrorisme s’essouffle, la CIA, le Mossad - ou d’autres - savent comment le relancer.

Shyankar : Dans les histoires qui font beaucoup de bruit il y a aussi Blackwater. Ces «mercenaires» sont évalués à 160 000 aujourd'hui. Pensez-vous que c'est une dérive et que ce n'est pas plutôt le rôle de l'armée? De même pensez-vous que l'impunité totale dont bénéficient ces privés n'est elle pas abusive ?

G.M : Le retour en force du mercenariat est pire qu’une dérive. Ceux qui les ont recrutés – Bush, Blair et Rumsfeld notamment - devraient être jugés pour cela par un tribunal international. Que font les Nations unies et les professionnels des droits de l’homme face à ce scandale international ? Pas grand-chose. Imaginez l’émotion et la colère qu’auraient suscité le recrutement de dizaines de milliers de mercenaires par la France pour faire la guerre en Algérie ou l’Urss en Afghanistan…

Shyankar : On voit bien aujourd'hui que de nombreux problèmes viennent d'un manque de compréhension du monde arabo-musulman, de sa culture, son histoire. Pensez vous que les Britanniques s'en sortent ou s'en sont mieux sortis que les Américains car leur connaissance de la culture est un peu plus grande et qu'un plus grand travail est fait pour mieux comprendre ce peuple ?

G.M : Les Britanniques ne s’en sont pas mieux sortis en Irak que les Américains. Ils vont quitter Bassora sur une défaite, la seconde en un siècle. Leur expérience du pays aurait dû leur dicter de ne pas participer à la guerre du Golfe. Il y a en Grande-Bretagne, comme aux Etats-Unis, de véritables spécialistes du monde arabe et de l’islam qui auraient pu les conseiller, mais ils ne sont pas écoutés. Quand on veut la guerre à tout prix, on s’adresse à des charlatans !

Shyankar : Enfin, pour terminer, comment voyez-vous aujourd'hui l'issue de cette occupation ? Malgré la « victoire » militaire annoncée par Bush pensez-vous qu'un retrait, ou au contraire un durcissement de la politique sera mis en oeuvre ?

G.M : L’issue de l’occupation d’un pays, c’est sa libération… Pour que le Parti Républicain puisse crier victoire en Irak, Bush parle de retrait et trafique les statistiques des victimes civiles. Il ne faut pas se faire d’illusion : à moins d’un séisme politique aux Etats-Unis, la guerre d’Irak n’est pas terminée. Le démocrate Bill Clinton a poursuivi sans état d’âme la politique de Bush père et ne reproche finalement à Bush fils que d’avoir attaqué l’Irak trop tôt. Il ne faut pas oublier que, sous sa présidence, l’embargo a tué plus d’un million d’enfants. Madeleine Albright, sa secrétaire d’Etat, a dit que c’était le « prix à payer » pour renverser Saddam Hussein. N’importe quel dirigeant politique d’un pays en mal avec les Etats-Unis faisant ce genre de déclaration serait aussitôt considéré comme « génocidaire ».

Pour la première partie de l'interview de Gilles Munier voir : http://gmunier.blogspot.com/2007/11/entretien-1re-partie.html

IRAQ: Women MPs, activists call for more support for widows, divorced women

BAGHDAD, 17 December 2007
(IRIN) - Iraqi women parliamentarians and activists are pressing for a new law to help the increasing number of widows and divorced women in their war-torn country. "We are in the process of presenting a new draft law which portrays the tragedy of the women who have no one to support them, like widows and the divorced," said member of parliament (MP) Nadira Habib, deputy head of Iraq's parliamentary committee for women's and children's affairs.

Nadira explained that there were no fewer than one million Iraqi widows who had lost their husbands in wars or as a result of internal violence over the past three decades. She said only 800 billion Iraqi dinars (about US$664 million) is allocated in the 2008 budget to the country's social protection programme.

Created to cope with increasing social problems after the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, the social protection programme provides widows, divorced women, orphans, the handicapped and the unemployed with a monthly allowance of 50,000 Iraqi dinars each (about US$50). "This is not enough.

With the government's food rations, these allowances only take such families up [to] near the poverty line," Nadira said. If the draft legislation is successful the Ministry of Women's Affairs would run the new programme in coordination with other government departments and non-governmental women's groups.

Salama Simaisim, an independent women's activist believed that helping such women find jobs would also be a boon for the economy as many of them depended solely on either the government or relatives for financial support.

Training
"We have to teach them how to fish, not give them fish to eat," said Simaisim. "The government's support should not be just financial but should include training programmes to help women find jobs in the public and private sectors," she added. "There should be centres to rehabilitate them, to get those who abandoned their jobs back into work, and find jobs for the newly graduated - which is far better than handing them money," Simaisim explained.

Another female lawmaker and activist warned that if these families were not supported the whole society could fall apart. "The number of widows is increasing and if these families break up then the whole of society will be in danger," said Maissoon al-Damalogi. "These women need to be rehabilitated and trained to work in many fields; to be useful and productive in society," al-Damalogi added.

sm/hk/cb

http://www.irinnews.org/report.aspx?ReportID=75899

dimanche 16 décembre 2007

Iraqi journalist Ali Shafeya Al-Moussawi killed in raid in Sadr city

Ali Shafeya, AIB Special Correspondent Killed at Home - 12.15.2007
Ali Shafeya Al-Moussawi was born in 1984 on December 16th, he was killed on December 14th, 2007.

We are collecting donations for the funeral and his family. You can make a donation via Paypal to smallworldnews (at) gmail.com . If you would like to make a donation by mail or via a different payment service please email us directly at the previous address. We have raised nearly $600 until now, but more will help. His mother and sister are displaced Iraqis leaving in Syria without employment.

Ali lived in Habibya, it’s considered as a part of the Sadr city. On Friday the 14th at 11:30pm Baghdad time, Iraqi National Guard forces raided the street where Ali’s house is, one of the neighbors heard a gun firing after 15 minutes from the arrival of the Iraqi National Guard convoy to the street, the force left at 3:00am. His neighbors kept calling Ali’s phone and it was switched off all the time, so they called his cousin Amar because he lives one block away from where Ali lives.

Amar arrived in Ali’s house and found Ali shoot dead in the living room, Amar called the Iraqi Police and told them the story as he heard it from Ali’s neighbors. At 8:30 am Baghdad time the Iraqi Police took Ali’s body to the morgue, his two uncles received the body at 10:00am and they headed to Najaf to bury him.

Amar said the neighbor who lives in the front of his house was shot dead too during that raid, the guy’s name is Hussein and he is 26 years old. He was in his place along with his brother and nephew. The brother and the nephew disappeared after the convoy left.

The morgue report says that Ali took 31 bullets between the chest and the head and died immediately. He will be missed and remembered. His two brothers were killed in the Firdos Square bombing in 2005. He is survived by his mother and sister.

As written above, we are collecting donations for his family via Paypal and mail at smallworldnews (at) gmail.com No amount is too small, and anything will be appreciated.
http://aliveinbaghdad.org/2007/12/15/ali-shafeya-aib-special-correspondent-killed-at-home/