Kurdish hegemony and expansionism in northern Iraq
The Turkmens continue to be victims of vicious attacks by Kurdish and Arab terrorist groups.
As the Iraqi local police and security forces have failed to stop these attacks, Turkmens have asked the Iraqi authorities in Baghdad to allow them to form their own local law enforcement units and to provide them with financial support and proper training.
The demands of the Turkmen political leaders are entirely legitimate and comprehensible as urgent measures need to be taken to stop the slaughtering of the peaceful Turkmen community.
http://merryabla64.wordpress.com/union-of-the-diaspora-turkmens/
Deux poids deux mesures
The Kurdish groups who invaded and occupied Turkmen cities and towns with their armed militias, the peshmerga (with the blessing of the US Occupier in 2003) are opposed to the Turkmens’ demands!!!
Do they fear that Turkmen law enforcement units could hamper their hegemonic ambitions in the north of Iraq by preventing the annexation of Turkmen cities and so-called ‘disputed territories’ to their autonomous region?
The Kurds’ arrogance, greed and hegemonic objectives have no limits:
Khalid Shwani, an Iraqi MP from the Kurdistan Alliance bloc has recently declared that
"the Turkmen demand to establish Special Forces in Kerkuk – that include only Turkmens – is useless, unpractical and unconstitutional" !!!!!!
http://pukmedia.com/english/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=13489&Itemid=52
While Sa’di Ahmad Bira, a member of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan’s (PUK) Political Bureau and its external relations officer has declared that “We have some outstanding issues with the Baghdad government that are not yet resolved. There are still negotiations around these issues. But it is wrong to think that we can protect our accomplishments only through the media, there should also be a military force such as the peshmerga able to protect the region’s borders and the achievements of the people of Kurdistan. We should be ready for all scenarios and even for any military solution”.
http://www.niqash.org/content.php?contentTypeID=75&id=2531&lang=0
Where is the fairness and where are the principles of 'democracy’ that the chauvinist Kurds boast so much about?
As Northern Iraq’s second main ethnic community Turkmens should have their own protection units as it is clear that they cannot rely on the Iraqi forces (who are composed of peshmerga and Arabs) to ensure their safety.
WHAT IS THE GOVERNMENT IN BAGHDAD DOING ABOUT IT?
vendredi 25 septembre 2009
Almanya’da Seçim Yarışı
.JPG)
Federal Almanya’da 27.Eylül 2009 Pazar günü yapılacak genel seçim öncesinde Partiler arasında kıyasıya bir yarış yaşanıyor, son kamuoyu yoklamasın göre şimdiki başbakan Merkel’in lider olduğu Hıristiyan demokratlar yüzde 36, merkez sağdaki Liberal Demokratlar ise yüzde 12 desteğe sahip.
Buna Karşılık seçmenlerin yüzde 26’si sosyal Demokratları yüzde 11’i Yeşilleri ,yüzde 10’uysa sol Partiyi destekliyor.
Sonuçlar, merkez sağdaki Hıristiyan Demokratlarla Liberal Demokratların , bu oy oranlarıyla az farkla da olsa mecliste .çoğunluğu sağlayabileceğini gösteriyor.
Ancak Alman seçmenlerin tercihindeki küçük değişiklerin tüm koalisyon hesapları altüst edebilir.
Liberal Demokratlarla yeterli çoğunluğu elde edememesi halinde Merkel’in yine Sosyal Demokratlarla büyük koalisyona gitmek zorunda kalacağı kaydediliyor.
Halen mevcut Alman Parlamentosunda ‘’ 611 Milletvekili’’ var ‘’5’’i Türk kökeni Milletvekilleri:
Bu Pazar yapılacak seçimlerde ‘’Türk adayı çok’’ yaklaşık ‘’30’a yakın
Seçim kampanyasında Alman liderler hep ‘’yabancılara kucak açmaktan’’ bahsediyorlar ama:
611 üyeli parlamentoda ‘’sadece 11 yabancı kökenli’’ olduğunu unutuyorlar.(5 milletvekili ile Türkler ilk sıradalar, Diğerleri 2 Hindistanlı, 2 İranlı, 1 Hırvat, 1 Polonyalı.
Bu seçime dünyanın her yerinde çok büyük ilgi var ,ve çok gözlemci ve Gazeteci Berlin akın ediyorlar,bunlardan birisi Türkiye’nin önde gelen Sabah gazetesinin meşhur köşe yazarı sayın Yavuz Donat Berlin’de Irak Türkmen Cephesi Almanya Temsilcisi Sayın Ganim Authman’la bir araya geldiler. Görüşmede Federal Almanya Seçimi dışında Irak Türkmenleri ve gelecekte yapılması ön görülen Irak seçimi hakinde bilgilendirme toplantısı düzenlenmiştir. Sayın Ganim Authman Sayın Yavuz Donata , Profesör Dr. Suphi Saatçinin Kerkük adlı eseri kendilerin armağan etmiştir.
INF.ITC Berlin
Buna Karşılık seçmenlerin yüzde 26’si sosyal Demokratları yüzde 11’i Yeşilleri ,yüzde 10’uysa sol Partiyi destekliyor.
Sonuçlar, merkez sağdaki Hıristiyan Demokratlarla Liberal Demokratların , bu oy oranlarıyla az farkla da olsa mecliste .çoğunluğu sağlayabileceğini gösteriyor.
Ancak Alman seçmenlerin tercihindeki küçük değişiklerin tüm koalisyon hesapları altüst edebilir.
Liberal Demokratlarla yeterli çoğunluğu elde edememesi halinde Merkel’in yine Sosyal Demokratlarla büyük koalisyona gitmek zorunda kalacağı kaydediliyor.
Halen mevcut Alman Parlamentosunda ‘’ 611 Milletvekili’’ var ‘’5’’i Türk kökeni Milletvekilleri:
Bu Pazar yapılacak seçimlerde ‘’Türk adayı çok’’ yaklaşık ‘’30’a yakın
Seçim kampanyasında Alman liderler hep ‘’yabancılara kucak açmaktan’’ bahsediyorlar ama:
611 üyeli parlamentoda ‘’sadece 11 yabancı kökenli’’ olduğunu unutuyorlar.(5 milletvekili ile Türkler ilk sıradalar, Diğerleri 2 Hindistanlı, 2 İranlı, 1 Hırvat, 1 Polonyalı.
Bu seçime dünyanın her yerinde çok büyük ilgi var ,ve çok gözlemci ve Gazeteci Berlin akın ediyorlar,bunlardan birisi Türkiye’nin önde gelen Sabah gazetesinin meşhur köşe yazarı sayın Yavuz Donat Berlin’de Irak Türkmen Cephesi Almanya Temsilcisi Sayın Ganim Authman’la bir araya geldiler. Görüşmede Federal Almanya Seçimi dışında Irak Türkmenleri ve gelecekte yapılması ön görülen Irak seçimi hakinde bilgilendirme toplantısı düzenlenmiştir. Sayın Ganim Authman Sayın Yavuz Donata , Profesör Dr. Suphi Saatçinin Kerkük adlı eseri kendilerin armağan etmiştir.
INF.ITC Berlin
mercredi 23 septembre 2009
Reception at the Turkish Ambassador’s residence in Brussels
His Excellency Fuat Tanlay, Ambassador of the Republic of Turkey and ITF Europe Representative, Dr. Hassan Aydinli
His Excellency Mr. Fuat Tanlay, Ambassador of the Turkish Republic in Brussels will shortly take up his new function as Advisor (for European Affairs) to the Turkish Prime Minister in Ankara, he will be leaving Belgium at the end of the month and will be replaced by Mr. Murat Ersavci.
His Excellency Fuat Tanlay gave a farewell reception at his residence in Brussels on 21st September 2009.
A delegation of the Human Rights Commission at the Turkish Parliament who were visiting Austria, Germany, France, the Netherlands and Belgium attended the reception:
Professor Dr. Zafer ÜSKÜL, President
Mr. Mustafa Ataş
Mr. Çetin Soysal
Iraqi Turkmen Front Representative, Dr. Hassan AYDINLI, had been invited at the reception.
For article in Turkish Please see:
Statement of Pax Christi delegation to Iraq
Posted: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 5:42 pm
An international Pax Christi delegation visited Iraq last week. They went to Kirkuk, Mosul, Erbil and Dohuk from 10 September to 17 September. The situation for the Iraqi people is very uncertain and more violence being expected in the period leading up to the elections in January 2010. The delegation encountered many good examples of work for peace.
A representative said Pax Christi International was enormously grateful to the Christian bishops and communities as well as the civil society of the region for their warm welcome and hospitality and remains committed to the original goals of this visit to Iraq: to express solidarity with all Iraqi people; to gain a better understanding of Iraq’s complex reality; and to propose concrete actions that support the ongoing efforts of Iraqi people for peace and reconciliation in their country based on what was seen and heard.
The official Pax Christi statement follows:
An international Pax Christi delegation visited Iraq with the generous welcome and
assistance of Patriarch Cardinal Emanuel Delly, Bishop Rabban Al-Kass, Chaldean Bishop of Amadya-Shamkan and Erbil, Bishop Louis Sako, Chaldean Bishop of Kirkuk, Bishop Georges Casmoussa, Syriac Bishop of Mosul and Qaraqosh, Father NageebMikhail, OP, the Chaldean Seminary in Erbil and many other religious leaders and representatives of civil society groups in the north of Iraq.
The delegation included International Co-president, Marie Dennis; Bishop Thomas Gumbleton, Pax Christi USA; Christine Hoffmann, General Secretary of Pax Christi Germany; Wiltrud Rösch-Metzler, speaker of the Middle East Commission of Pax Christi Germany; Don Renato Sacco, Pax Christi Italy; Bishop Marc Stenger, President of Pax Christi France; and Katrien Hertog, Pax Christi International staff in Brussels.
They went to the governorates of Kirkuk, Mosul, Erbil and Dohuk from 10 September
to17 September 2009. A planned visit to Bagdad could not be realized.
The situation for the Iraqi people is very uncertain and more violence is expected in the period leading up to the elections in January 2010. On the one hand are forces that are aggravating divisions along ethnic and religious lines; on the other are those who promote dialogue, understanding, reconciliation and non-violence.
The delegation encountered many good examples of work for peace. The extraordinary
efforts among religious leaders in the oil city of Kirkuk made it possible for them to visit Sunni and Shiite mosques and to interact with Muslim leaders. In Dohuk they learned
about the program of Bishop Rabban's coeducational, interreligious International School which brings together Muslims, Christians, Yezidie and Turkman to provide a base of human values and an introduction to human rights.
They learned from the Dominican sisters of Mosul about their commitment to peace education at a primary level and met dedicated health care professionals in Kirkuk who serve Muslims and Christians alike. In Erbil the delegation met with Iraqi Non-Violence group LaOnf, an Iraqi nongovernmental organization building a network on nonviolence.
Pax Christi's organizational commitment to reconciliation and nonviolence made these
and other similar efforts particularly interesting to the delegation, which also experienced enormous tensions in the country. There were two major bombings while they were there and they encountered among people they visited a great fear of being kidnapped.
Of the areas the delegation was able to visit, the level of security in the Kurdish provinces in the north of the country was much better than in the so-called disputed provinces, Mosul and Kirkuk. But even in the Kurdish provinces, the sense of long-term physical and economic security was lacking and UN representatives described human rights violations, particularly against political prisoners and women. 100,000 refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs) remain in the same area.
Christians and other minority groups continue to feel threatened in Iraq and to leave the country. This fact is of deep concern to many people the delegation met, who believe that reconciliation is the way forward and that the loss to Iraq of the Christian community, which was established there in the second century, would be a grea ttragedy. At the same time, the delegation was told that the conflict in Iraq is political rather than religious, with violence erupting over the balance of power. Minority groups are faced with the choices to join the struggle for power, to remain neutral or to work for a society where everybody has a place.
Finally, they heard from many people about the destruction of Iraq's infrastructure during the first Gulf War that had still not been repaired and about the impact of the long-lasting harsh sanctions that punished ordinary people. They were told that the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 destroyed security and created many new problems for the Iraqi people. The delegation agrees with the Iraqi non-violence network that "refuses occupation and war as a way to build democracy and establish rule of law, even when it is presented as the only possible option."
Pax Christi International is enormously grateful to the Christian bishops and communities as well as the civil society of the region for their warm welcome and excellent hospitality and remains committed to theoriginal goals of this important Pax Christi delegation to Iraq: to express solidarity with all Iraqi people; to gain a better understanding of Iraq's complex reality; and to propose concrete actions that support the ongoing efforts of Iraqi people for peace andreconciliation in their country based on what was seen and heard.
Pax Christi International will:
* inform the international community about the situation in Iraq and its minorities,
as well as about the work for peace and reconciliation of the Iraqi Church, including the testimonies of the martyrs, Bishop Paulos Faraj Rahho, Father Rajeed, Paulos and others;
* build partnerships between Pax Christi member organizations and Iraqi groups;
* explore the possibility of sharing Pax Christi expertise and resources on active
non violence, conflict resolution, peace building and responses to violent radicalization to interested institutions and communities in Iraq;
* promote interreligious understanding in our own countries, if possible by inviting
Sunni, Shiite and Christian leaders from Iraq;
* advocate with our own governments to support reconstruction efforts in Iraq.
We urge our churches to:
* strengthen the church's role as a builder of bridges;
* send official delegations from Bishops conferences in other countries to Iraq to
understand the reality better;
* promote reconciliation between the different Iraqi Christian churches;
* support work for peace and reconciliation in Iraq;
* prevent and counter the growth of Christian extremism;
We urge the international community to:
* support the reconstruction of Iraq;
* investigate and prosecute past and present war crimes and severe human rights
violations on all sides;
* build trust again in the international community and re-establish international law;
* work cooperatively to develop a regional system of security and cooperation in the
Middle East.
Brussels, 17 September 2009
For more information see: www.paxchristi.org.uk
A representative said Pax Christi International was enormously grateful to the Christian bishops and communities as well as the civil society of the region for their warm welcome and hospitality and remains committed to the original goals of this visit to Iraq: to express solidarity with all Iraqi people; to gain a better understanding of Iraq’s complex reality; and to propose concrete actions that support the ongoing efforts of Iraqi people for peace and reconciliation in their country based on what was seen and heard.
The official Pax Christi statement follows:
An international Pax Christi delegation visited Iraq with the generous welcome and
assistance of Patriarch Cardinal Emanuel Delly, Bishop Rabban Al-Kass, Chaldean Bishop of Amadya-Shamkan and Erbil, Bishop Louis Sako, Chaldean Bishop of Kirkuk, Bishop Georges Casmoussa, Syriac Bishop of Mosul and Qaraqosh, Father NageebMikhail, OP, the Chaldean Seminary in Erbil and many other religious leaders and representatives of civil society groups in the north of Iraq.
The delegation included International Co-president, Marie Dennis; Bishop Thomas Gumbleton, Pax Christi USA; Christine Hoffmann, General Secretary of Pax Christi Germany; Wiltrud Rösch-Metzler, speaker of the Middle East Commission of Pax Christi Germany; Don Renato Sacco, Pax Christi Italy; Bishop Marc Stenger, President of Pax Christi France; and Katrien Hertog, Pax Christi International staff in Brussels.
They went to the governorates of Kirkuk, Mosul, Erbil and Dohuk from 10 September
to17 September 2009. A planned visit to Bagdad could not be realized.
The situation for the Iraqi people is very uncertain and more violence is expected in the period leading up to the elections in January 2010. On the one hand are forces that are aggravating divisions along ethnic and religious lines; on the other are those who promote dialogue, understanding, reconciliation and non-violence.
The delegation encountered many good examples of work for peace. The extraordinary
efforts among religious leaders in the oil city of Kirkuk made it possible for them to visit Sunni and Shiite mosques and to interact with Muslim leaders. In Dohuk they learned
about the program of Bishop Rabban's coeducational, interreligious International School which brings together Muslims, Christians, Yezidie and Turkman to provide a base of human values and an introduction to human rights.
They learned from the Dominican sisters of Mosul about their commitment to peace education at a primary level and met dedicated health care professionals in Kirkuk who serve Muslims and Christians alike. In Erbil the delegation met with Iraqi Non-Violence group LaOnf, an Iraqi nongovernmental organization building a network on nonviolence.
Pax Christi's organizational commitment to reconciliation and nonviolence made these
and other similar efforts particularly interesting to the delegation, which also experienced enormous tensions in the country. There were two major bombings while they were there and they encountered among people they visited a great fear of being kidnapped.
Of the areas the delegation was able to visit, the level of security in the Kurdish provinces in the north of the country was much better than in the so-called disputed provinces, Mosul and Kirkuk. But even in the Kurdish provinces, the sense of long-term physical and economic security was lacking and UN representatives described human rights violations, particularly against political prisoners and women. 100,000 refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs) remain in the same area.
Christians and other minority groups continue to feel threatened in Iraq and to leave the country. This fact is of deep concern to many people the delegation met, who believe that reconciliation is the way forward and that the loss to Iraq of the Christian community, which was established there in the second century, would be a grea ttragedy. At the same time, the delegation was told that the conflict in Iraq is political rather than religious, with violence erupting over the balance of power. Minority groups are faced with the choices to join the struggle for power, to remain neutral or to work for a society where everybody has a place.
Finally, they heard from many people about the destruction of Iraq's infrastructure during the first Gulf War that had still not been repaired and about the impact of the long-lasting harsh sanctions that punished ordinary people. They were told that the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 destroyed security and created many new problems for the Iraqi people. The delegation agrees with the Iraqi non-violence network that "refuses occupation and war as a way to build democracy and establish rule of law, even when it is presented as the only possible option."
Pax Christi International is enormously grateful to the Christian bishops and communities as well as the civil society of the region for their warm welcome and excellent hospitality and remains committed to theoriginal goals of this important Pax Christi delegation to Iraq: to express solidarity with all Iraqi people; to gain a better understanding of Iraq's complex reality; and to propose concrete actions that support the ongoing efforts of Iraqi people for peace andreconciliation in their country based on what was seen and heard.
Pax Christi International will:
* inform the international community about the situation in Iraq and its minorities,
as well as about the work for peace and reconciliation of the Iraqi Church, including the testimonies of the martyrs, Bishop Paulos Faraj Rahho, Father Rajeed, Paulos and others;
* build partnerships between Pax Christi member organizations and Iraqi groups;
* explore the possibility of sharing Pax Christi expertise and resources on active
non violence, conflict resolution, peace building and responses to violent radicalization to interested institutions and communities in Iraq;
* promote interreligious understanding in our own countries, if possible by inviting
Sunni, Shiite and Christian leaders from Iraq;
* advocate with our own governments to support reconstruction efforts in Iraq.
We urge our churches to:
* strengthen the church's role as a builder of bridges;
* send official delegations from Bishops conferences in other countries to Iraq to
understand the reality better;
* promote reconciliation between the different Iraqi Christian churches;
* support work for peace and reconciliation in Iraq;
* prevent and counter the growth of Christian extremism;
We urge the international community to:
* support the reconstruction of Iraq;
* investigate and prosecute past and present war crimes and severe human rights
violations on all sides;
* build trust again in the international community and re-establish international law;
* work cooperatively to develop a regional system of security and cooperation in the
Middle East.
Brussels, 17 September 2009
For more information see: www.paxchristi.org.uk
mardi 22 septembre 2009
Iraq and Afghanistan will never accept colonialism
Monday, September 21, 2009
By: Brian Becker
Gen. McChrystal, Pentagon scramble to avoid appearance of defeat
The statement below was issued by Brian Becker, National Coordinator of the ANSWER Coalition.
The U.S. public largely opposed the invasion of Iraq while being generally supportive of the invasion of Afghanistan. That is now changing. Majority sentiment has moved, and will continue to move, in opposition to the plans for a protracted war and occupation in Afghanistan.
There is both uncertainty and debate within the Obama administration and among the Pentagon brass about what to do in Afghanistan: continue to send ever more troops; seek a truce with the Taliban and create a government of "national unity" that includes the Taliban and either Hamid Karzai or another U.S. political puppet; or both.
Because of the division within the ruling class on its Afghanistan policy, it is possible that the intervention of a mass grassroots movement opposing the war can become a factor in domestic political calculations. This is precisely what happened during the Vietnam War.
Reality requires change of Pentagon’s military goals
The primary strategic objectives and goals that originally motivated the U.S. invasion have been significantly modified as a consequence of the unanticipated armed resistance, also known as the insurgency, in both Afghanistan and Iraq.
The political alignments in Iraq bear little or no resemblance to the constellation of political forces in Afghanistan and yet there is an overarching similarity, at least in terms of the evolved objectives of the U.S. invasion and occupation.
Both in Iraq and in Afghanistan, a principal goal of the Pentagon morphed into a much lower baseline objective: to avoid defeat or the appearance of defeat at the hands of an armed insurgency.
Avoiding defeat was the goal Nixon and Kissinger set for themselves when they took office in 1969. They, however, quickly modified the objective: They quickly discovered that defeat was inevitable, so they settled on an even lesser objective: to avoid the appearance of being defeated. Thus was born the fraudulent slogan "Peace with Honor." For this noble cause, another 30,000 young GIs perished before the inevitable troop pullout from Vietnam in 1973. The number of Vietnamese killed between 1969 and 1973 was greater by many hundreds of thousands.
The initial goal of both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars was far greater. "Avoiding defeat" did not enter into the calculations of Bush, Cheney or Rumsfeld. No, they were sure that they could create in both countries a colonial-type state.
A colonial-type state is distinguished from a classic colonial entity.
Classic colonialism features the acquisition by the colonial entity of the formal state power and with it the formal and legal administrative and military obligations that belong to government. The indigenous population provides personnel, administrators, bureaucrats and soldiers under the command of the hierarchal authority of the colonizers.
Classic colonialism also featured the complete control and direction of the indigenous economy by the colonizing entity for the purpose of acquiring natural resources, cheap labor and access to markets for the industrial and commercial capitalist interests of the colonizer. This characteristic is equally present in both classic colonialism and in the modern colonial-type arrangement sought by the United States. In the case of Iraq, its vast nationalized oil fields were to be privatized and controlled by U.S. and British oil interests. Its nationalized banking sector was to be gobbled up by Wall Street.
Kwame Nkrumah, the former president of Ghana and a leader of the Pan-African movement, described the features of what he called neo-colonialism: "The essence of neo-colonialism is that the State which is subject to it is, in theory, independent and has all the outward trappings of international sovereignty. In reality its economic system and thus its political policy is directed from outside."
Nkrumah prophetically described the many variants of the new colonialism, but placed the primacy of economic penetration as the "normal" and central method whereby the old colonial powers retain control over the former colonies.
"The methods and form of this direction can take various shapes. For example, in an extreme case the troops of the imperial power may garrison the territory of the neo-colonial State and control the government of it. More often, however, neo-colonialist control is exercised through economic or monetary means." (emphasis added)
In the case of Iraq and Afghanistan, the creation of a colonial-type or neo-colonial state requires the garrisoning of large numbers of U.S. troops on U.S. military bases to dominate the political landscape and protect large numbers of U.S. administrators. Nkrumah called this "an extreme case," but it is indispensable in both Iraq and Afghanistan, although for widely different reasons. Without vast numbers of foreign forces on its soil, neither Iraq nor Afghanistan can function as colonial-type states.
Iraq for instance—with its oil, significant water resources, large and educated population, potential military capability, and political legacy since the triumph of the 1958 anti-colonial revolution—would resume its place as a regional power in the Arab world.
Hopes of new strategic axis shattered
The destruction of the Baathist state by foreign military invasion was supposed to blast open the possibility of large, multiple U.S. military bases that would remain forever in Iraq. U.S. rulers understood that, without foreign troops and permanent military bases on its soil providing protection for legions of U.S. administrators and technocrats, Iraq would resume its position of independence, notwithstanding its economic decline from years of war and sanctions.
The Bush administration and the Pentagon initially envisioned laying the foundation for a new strategic axis for the Middle East. It would be the Washington-Baghdad-Tel Aviv partnership that would police the oil-rich Middle East on behalf of U.S. interests. That would require turning Iraq into a colonial-type state.
It was a policy that had some historical resonance. It was a throwback to the golden days of a Washington-Tel Aviv-Tehran axis policing the oil-rich Gulf. The Shah of Iran was a loyal puppet, and the Israelis functioned as a dependent garrison state striking out at any expression of Arab nationalism that threatened U.S. domination strategies.
But the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld strategy was a fantasy that has been shattered by subsequent events.
Starting in 2007, the Pentagon adjusted its approach. The 2007 so-called surge of troops in Iraq was basically propaganda masking the actual new strategy, which was to pay the insurgents to stop shooting at U.S. troops and blowing them up with IEDs. This would allow the eventual withdrawal of U.S. forces in an orderly way thus avoiding the appearance that the empire had been defeated or had been unable to succeed in Iraq.
The humongous U.S. Embassy in Baghdad was conceived as the directing body of the new colonial-type state in Iraq. It is the largest in the world. Conceived for more than 1,000 U.S. personnel to function as behind-the-scenes administrators, the embassy would serve as the management arm of the new colonial-type state.
This, too, will turn out to be unviable. Iraq has been economically devastated, but the aspirations for a colonial-type state administered by the U.S. Embassy in downtown Baghdad are incompatible with the reality of Iraq. The Iraqi people are imbued with anti-colonial consciousness directly resulting from 90 years of struggle—dating back to at least the 1920 national rebellion that defeated British colonial forces.
Iraqi reporter Muntadhar al-Zaidi became a national hero when he risked death and endured terrible torture for hurling his shoes at Bush. His words on Sept. 15 upon his release and the depth of the support he continues to receive from throughout Iraq speak volumes about the political intensity of Iraqi anti-colonial sentiment:
"They [U.S. officials] will boast about the deceit and the means they used in order to gain their objective. It is not strange, not much different from what happened to the Native Americans at the hands of colonialists. Here I say to them (the occupiers) and to all who follow their steps, and all those who support them and spoke up for their cause: Never. Because we are a people who would rather die than face humiliation."
Afghanistan: perception and reality
In the United States, a large sector of the population recognized that the Iraq invasion was a war of aggression, pure and simple.
It was different with Afghanistan. Public opinion was largely supportive of the invasion, because the Bush administration and all Democratic Party leaders promoted the idea that Afghanistan was the source of the Sept. 11 attacks. After all, Osama Bin Laden was a "guest" of the Taliban government in Kabul at the time of the attack.
The cold fact is that there were no Iraqis or Afghans on the planes that were hijacked on Sept. 11, yet hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Afghans are dead because of the U.S. invasion. Millions more live as refugees.
Afghanistan, according to the Bush administration and the Pentagon, was to serve as the military pivot for policing U.S. interests. Huge forward bases for the Pentagon throughout the country would change the relationship of forces in Central Asia.
Afghanistan shares extensive borders with Iran to the west and a long border with Pakistan to the south and east. It borders China to the northeast and the former Soviet republics of Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan to the north.
As with Iraq, the Bush and Pentagon military strategy in Afghanistan—now officially the policy of the Obama administration—has morphed, as the goals of the occupation have had to be scaled back. When asked to explain what a victory in Afghanistan would mean, U.S. government and Pentagon officials can only dish out vagaries. They cannot actually tell the truth because then more soldiers and marines and their families would hesitate to continue to act as bait and cannon fodder.
Stirring up the anti-war movement
The real and rarely mentioned goal is now to avoid defeat. Or, and this is important, to avoid the perception of defeat. Thus, tens of thousands more troops are being rushed into the country because the Pentagon cannot figure out what else to do.
General David Petraeus became a hero in the imperialist establishment because he was the architect of the so-called surge followed by the announced intention to withdraw from Iraq. In short, glory and reverential honor befalls the great general, not because he put U.S. forces on track to victory but because his policy may permit the withdrawal of military forces on conditions far less humiliating than the Pentagon’s rushed exit from Vietnam in the 1970s.
The people of the United States need to rise up and go into the streets demanding the immediate and full withdrawal from Afghanistan. The vast majority of the people of Afghanistan, including large numbers of those who despise the odious policies of the Taliban, revile the colonial character of the occupation.
As the bodies of civilians pile up in an escalating conflict, the hatred for the U.S./NATO occupiers will only grow. The mission is doomed.
http://answer.pephost.org/site/News2/1985974510?abbr=ANS_&page=NewsArticle&id=9211&news_iv_ctrl=1621
By: Brian Becker
Gen. McChrystal, Pentagon scramble to avoid appearance of defeat
The statement below was issued by Brian Becker, National Coordinator of the ANSWER Coalition.
The U.S. public largely opposed the invasion of Iraq while being generally supportive of the invasion of Afghanistan. That is now changing. Majority sentiment has moved, and will continue to move, in opposition to the plans for a protracted war and occupation in Afghanistan.
There is both uncertainty and debate within the Obama administration and among the Pentagon brass about what to do in Afghanistan: continue to send ever more troops; seek a truce with the Taliban and create a government of "national unity" that includes the Taliban and either Hamid Karzai or another U.S. political puppet; or both.
Because of the division within the ruling class on its Afghanistan policy, it is possible that the intervention of a mass grassroots movement opposing the war can become a factor in domestic political calculations. This is precisely what happened during the Vietnam War.
Reality requires change of Pentagon’s military goals
The primary strategic objectives and goals that originally motivated the U.S. invasion have been significantly modified as a consequence of the unanticipated armed resistance, also known as the insurgency, in both Afghanistan and Iraq.
The political alignments in Iraq bear little or no resemblance to the constellation of political forces in Afghanistan and yet there is an overarching similarity, at least in terms of the evolved objectives of the U.S. invasion and occupation.
Both in Iraq and in Afghanistan, a principal goal of the Pentagon morphed into a much lower baseline objective: to avoid defeat or the appearance of defeat at the hands of an armed insurgency.
Avoiding defeat was the goal Nixon and Kissinger set for themselves when they took office in 1969. They, however, quickly modified the objective: They quickly discovered that defeat was inevitable, so they settled on an even lesser objective: to avoid the appearance of being defeated. Thus was born the fraudulent slogan "Peace with Honor." For this noble cause, another 30,000 young GIs perished before the inevitable troop pullout from Vietnam in 1973. The number of Vietnamese killed between 1969 and 1973 was greater by many hundreds of thousands.
The initial goal of both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars was far greater. "Avoiding defeat" did not enter into the calculations of Bush, Cheney or Rumsfeld. No, they were sure that they could create in both countries a colonial-type state.
A colonial-type state is distinguished from a classic colonial entity.
Classic colonialism features the acquisition by the colonial entity of the formal state power and with it the formal and legal administrative and military obligations that belong to government. The indigenous population provides personnel, administrators, bureaucrats and soldiers under the command of the hierarchal authority of the colonizers.
Classic colonialism also featured the complete control and direction of the indigenous economy by the colonizing entity for the purpose of acquiring natural resources, cheap labor and access to markets for the industrial and commercial capitalist interests of the colonizer. This characteristic is equally present in both classic colonialism and in the modern colonial-type arrangement sought by the United States. In the case of Iraq, its vast nationalized oil fields were to be privatized and controlled by U.S. and British oil interests. Its nationalized banking sector was to be gobbled up by Wall Street.
Kwame Nkrumah, the former president of Ghana and a leader of the Pan-African movement, described the features of what he called neo-colonialism: "The essence of neo-colonialism is that the State which is subject to it is, in theory, independent and has all the outward trappings of international sovereignty. In reality its economic system and thus its political policy is directed from outside."
Nkrumah prophetically described the many variants of the new colonialism, but placed the primacy of economic penetration as the "normal" and central method whereby the old colonial powers retain control over the former colonies.
"The methods and form of this direction can take various shapes. For example, in an extreme case the troops of the imperial power may garrison the territory of the neo-colonial State and control the government of it. More often, however, neo-colonialist control is exercised through economic or monetary means." (emphasis added)
In the case of Iraq and Afghanistan, the creation of a colonial-type or neo-colonial state requires the garrisoning of large numbers of U.S. troops on U.S. military bases to dominate the political landscape and protect large numbers of U.S. administrators. Nkrumah called this "an extreme case," but it is indispensable in both Iraq and Afghanistan, although for widely different reasons. Without vast numbers of foreign forces on its soil, neither Iraq nor Afghanistan can function as colonial-type states.
Iraq for instance—with its oil, significant water resources, large and educated population, potential military capability, and political legacy since the triumph of the 1958 anti-colonial revolution—would resume its place as a regional power in the Arab world.
Hopes of new strategic axis shattered
The destruction of the Baathist state by foreign military invasion was supposed to blast open the possibility of large, multiple U.S. military bases that would remain forever in Iraq. U.S. rulers understood that, without foreign troops and permanent military bases on its soil providing protection for legions of U.S. administrators and technocrats, Iraq would resume its position of independence, notwithstanding its economic decline from years of war and sanctions.
The Bush administration and the Pentagon initially envisioned laying the foundation for a new strategic axis for the Middle East. It would be the Washington-Baghdad-Tel Aviv partnership that would police the oil-rich Middle East on behalf of U.S. interests. That would require turning Iraq into a colonial-type state.
It was a policy that had some historical resonance. It was a throwback to the golden days of a Washington-Tel Aviv-Tehran axis policing the oil-rich Gulf. The Shah of Iran was a loyal puppet, and the Israelis functioned as a dependent garrison state striking out at any expression of Arab nationalism that threatened U.S. domination strategies.
But the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld strategy was a fantasy that has been shattered by subsequent events.
Starting in 2007, the Pentagon adjusted its approach. The 2007 so-called surge of troops in Iraq was basically propaganda masking the actual new strategy, which was to pay the insurgents to stop shooting at U.S. troops and blowing them up with IEDs. This would allow the eventual withdrawal of U.S. forces in an orderly way thus avoiding the appearance that the empire had been defeated or had been unable to succeed in Iraq.
The humongous U.S. Embassy in Baghdad was conceived as the directing body of the new colonial-type state in Iraq. It is the largest in the world. Conceived for more than 1,000 U.S. personnel to function as behind-the-scenes administrators, the embassy would serve as the management arm of the new colonial-type state.
This, too, will turn out to be unviable. Iraq has been economically devastated, but the aspirations for a colonial-type state administered by the U.S. Embassy in downtown Baghdad are incompatible with the reality of Iraq. The Iraqi people are imbued with anti-colonial consciousness directly resulting from 90 years of struggle—dating back to at least the 1920 national rebellion that defeated British colonial forces.
Iraqi reporter Muntadhar al-Zaidi became a national hero when he risked death and endured terrible torture for hurling his shoes at Bush. His words on Sept. 15 upon his release and the depth of the support he continues to receive from throughout Iraq speak volumes about the political intensity of Iraqi anti-colonial sentiment:
"They [U.S. officials] will boast about the deceit and the means they used in order to gain their objective. It is not strange, not much different from what happened to the Native Americans at the hands of colonialists. Here I say to them (the occupiers) and to all who follow their steps, and all those who support them and spoke up for their cause: Never. Because we are a people who would rather die than face humiliation."
Afghanistan: perception and reality
In the United States, a large sector of the population recognized that the Iraq invasion was a war of aggression, pure and simple.
It was different with Afghanistan. Public opinion was largely supportive of the invasion, because the Bush administration and all Democratic Party leaders promoted the idea that Afghanistan was the source of the Sept. 11 attacks. After all, Osama Bin Laden was a "guest" of the Taliban government in Kabul at the time of the attack.
The cold fact is that there were no Iraqis or Afghans on the planes that were hijacked on Sept. 11, yet hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Afghans are dead because of the U.S. invasion. Millions more live as refugees.
Afghanistan, according to the Bush administration and the Pentagon, was to serve as the military pivot for policing U.S. interests. Huge forward bases for the Pentagon throughout the country would change the relationship of forces in Central Asia.
Afghanistan shares extensive borders with Iran to the west and a long border with Pakistan to the south and east. It borders China to the northeast and the former Soviet republics of Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan to the north.
As with Iraq, the Bush and Pentagon military strategy in Afghanistan—now officially the policy of the Obama administration—has morphed, as the goals of the occupation have had to be scaled back. When asked to explain what a victory in Afghanistan would mean, U.S. government and Pentagon officials can only dish out vagaries. They cannot actually tell the truth because then more soldiers and marines and their families would hesitate to continue to act as bait and cannon fodder.
Stirring up the anti-war movement
The real and rarely mentioned goal is now to avoid defeat. Or, and this is important, to avoid the perception of defeat. Thus, tens of thousands more troops are being rushed into the country because the Pentagon cannot figure out what else to do.
General David Petraeus became a hero in the imperialist establishment because he was the architect of the so-called surge followed by the announced intention to withdraw from Iraq. In short, glory and reverential honor befalls the great general, not because he put U.S. forces on track to victory but because his policy may permit the withdrawal of military forces on conditions far less humiliating than the Pentagon’s rushed exit from Vietnam in the 1970s.
The people of the United States need to rise up and go into the streets demanding the immediate and full withdrawal from Afghanistan. The vast majority of the people of Afghanistan, including large numbers of those who despise the odious policies of the Taliban, revile the colonial character of the occupation.
As the bodies of civilians pile up in an escalating conflict, the hatred for the U.S./NATO occupiers will only grow. The mission is doomed.
http://answer.pephost.org/site/News2/1985974510?abbr=ANS_&page=NewsArticle&id=9211&news_iv_ctrl=1621
samedi 19 septembre 2009
WE SHARE THE GRIEF OF UIGHUR AND IRAQI TURKS
WE SHARE THE GRIEF OF UIGHUR AND IRAQI TURKS
The Rector of Giresun University has made the statement (announcement) below regarding the latest events in China and Iraq.
Respectfully submitted to the public opinion.
“Since the last week, Giresun University has been following the human rights violations that the Uighur Turks, living in Uigur autonomous region of the People’s Republic of China, the land of historical Eastern Turkistan, are being exposed and, since the last month, the inhuman and extra-legal attacks aimed at Iraqi Turks in Iraq (especially in northern Iraq), at the settlements of Iraqi Turks (The Turkmen) or where they are densely populated (Baghdad, Mosul, Kirkuk, Telafer, Tazehurmatu.) with deep concern and regret.
It is thought provoking that the basic human rights regulated with United Nations Treaty and other international documents are violated and ignored by the People’s Republic of China, the permanent member of United Nations Security Council. At the first quarter of the 21st century on which the titles of democracy, human rights and freedom left their marks, this action that the Uighur Turks are being exposed and in which 156 Uighur Turks died, according to the official statements, could not be accepted, tolerated and ignored. It should be remembered that today, the level of civilization’s legacy that the nations own is determined (measured) by the nations’ attitudes towards social peace, tolerance, justice and their respect to human rights.
Similarly, it is also thought provoking that, over the last month, the events in Iraq in which approximately 480 people, mostly Iraqi Turks, lost their lives and about 1200 people were injured, are not brought into the agenda of the countries which are the defenders of the such universal values as democracy, human rights and the superiority of law, and civil society organizations which know no limits.
As Giresun University, we believe that Turkey should embrace the foreign Turks and the people who have turned their faces to Turkey and we also believe that Turkey will benefit a lot out of this issue and it should be seen as a necessity of Turkey’s foreign policy.
Giresun University condemns the human tragedy in Eastern Turkistan and Iraq and condoles with Uighur Turks, Iraqi Turks and the whole Turkic World.”
Prof. Dr. Osman Metin ÖZTÜRK
Rector of Giresun University
vendredi 18 septembre 2009
Inscription à :
Articles (Atom)
