Showing posts with label US. Show all posts
Showing posts with label US. Show all posts

Friday, July 02, 2010

The US's (not UN's) Trafficking in Persons 'bad' Report that unnecessarily bothers Malaysia

The US State Department, not the United Nations, placed Malaysia at 'Tier 3' ...and then in 2010, elevated us to 'Tier 2' - and the Malaysian government was so happy.

Why do we even bother with the US's list? I wonder.... Anyway, a perusal of the US State Department's Trafficking in Persons Report 2010 on Malaysia would show that there are many errors and inaccuracies. For example, there is no such thing as a 'Guest Relation Officers' visa in Malaysia. [If you are a single women (or a group of single women) in a pub, bar..in Malaysia..you may likely be arrested, and the next day the media may,etc call you 'prostitutes' . The official reasons for arrest will be a violation of the conditions of the social visit pass(i.e. the tourist visa)... and by the time investigation is completed, the visa may have expired - and you get deported. For a nation, where there are about 60% Muslims, this really is wrong for such arrests, allegations, ... should never have been made without actual proof of soliciting...The victims are just glad to get back top their country...and so, the Malaysian authorities get away with it. Go see the papers, and you will come across such reports...do not just take it to be the truth just because it is reported in the press (or the police says so)]

There are also no indication of the sources of information, let alone any real data, upon which 'conclusions' have been made.

For example, let's consider the statement, "...The majority of trafficking victims are foreign workers who migrate willingly to Malaysia from Indonesia, Nepal, India, Thailand, China, the Philippines, Burma, Cambodia, Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Vietnam...". 

Now, the only data about trafficking victims was found later in this report that stated that "139 women and children were certified as victims". I wonder how many of these were foreign workers? How many migrated 'willingly"?

If the US is serious about labelling other countries, one would expect a more comprehensive and accurate report. I hope the UMNO-led BN Malaysian government has done the needful to demand a correction of all inaccuracies of this report.

Frankly, the US has been getting away being the 'Big Bully", and this has to stop. War on Terror....now, Trafficking in Human Persons...and sadly, Malaysia under Najib (and Abdullah Ahmad Badawi) has just become too weak to stand up against this bully.

In a knee-jerk response to US Pressure, we came up with an Anti-Trafficking Act - which is more likely to bring greater injustice to workers and other persons. See earlier posting: Malaysia's Anti-Trafficking Act will cause injustice to workers...especially migrant workers
 
The Malaysian government has allegedly made available pamphlets in 9 languages about trafficking that is being distributed by the Immigration Department - better if it was about worker rights and other rights in Malaysia, and information about what to do in the case of rights violations - i.e. procedure of lodging complaints at the Labour Departments, Industrial Relations Department, Police, Human Rights Commission, Public Complaints Bureau, etc.. Now, we have so many migrant workers from so many countries but there is no material in migrant languages in government departments, hospitals, etc..

The report do raise some interesting points ... but at the end of it, we ask again why are we so bothered about a US State Department Report - which is not a UN Report. Maybe, the US should also come up with a report on Worker Rights and Protection, and I wonder what 'tier' Malaysia would be placed on... and that will surely get Najib and gang to be more concerned about the rights and welfare of workers in  Malaysia...


MALAYSIA (Tier 2 Watch List)


Malaysia is a destination, and to a lesser extent, a source and transit country for women and children subjected to trafficking in persons, specifically conditions of forced prostitution and for men, women, and children who are in conditions of forced labor. The majority of trafficking victims are foreign workers who migrate willingly to Malaysia from Indonesia, Nepal, India, Thailand, China, the Philippines, Burma, Cambodia, Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Vietnam in search of greater economic opportunities, some of whom subsequently encounter forced labor or debt bondage at the hands of their employers, employment agents, or informal labor recruiters. While many of Malaysia’s trafficking offenders are individual business people, large organized crime syndicates are also behind some of the trafficking of foreigners in Malaysia. A significant number of young women are recruited for work in Malaysian restaurants and hotels, some of whom migrate through the use of “Guest Relations Officer” visas, but subsequently are coerced into Malaysia’s commercial sex trade. Many Malaysian labor outsourcing companies apparently recruited excess workers, who were then often subject to conditions of forced labor. Some Malaysian citizens are trafficked internally and abroad to Singapore, Hong Kong, France, and the United Kingdom for commercial sexual exploitation. There were approximately two million documented migrant workers in Malaysia in 2009, and an additional estimated 1.9 million who were undocumented. Many migrant workers in plantations, construction sites, textile factories, and employed as domestic workers throughout Malaysia experienced restrictions on movement, deceit and fraud in wages, passport confiscation, or debt bondage, which are practices indicative of trafficking. Some Malaysian employers reportedly did not pay their foreign domestic workers three to six months’ wages in order to recoup recruitment agency charges, making them vulnerable to trafficking. Refugees were particularly vulnerable to trafficking, and Malaysians from rural communities and indigenous groups were also vulnerable. The People’s Volunteer Corps (RELA) continued to conduct raids targeting illegal migrant communities and detained refugees, asylum seekers, and trafficking victims along with allegedly illegal migrants. Some trafficking victims were locked up in warehouses or brothels. The Indonesian and Malaysian governments have not amended or replaced a 2006 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) covering the employment of Indonesian domestic workers in Malaysia, which authorizes Malaysian employers to confiscate and hold the passports of domestic employees.

The Government of Malaysia does not fully comply with the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking; however, it is making significant efforts to do so. Because the assessment that the government had made significant efforts is based in part on its commitments to undertake actions over the coming year – notably greater implementation of Malaysia’s anti-trafficking law against labor trafficking – Malaysia is placed on Tier 2 Watch List. The Malaysian government has shown a greater commitment to address human trafficking that is expected to lead to: increased investigations and prosecutions of labor trafficking offenses and identification of labor trafficking victims; increasing efforts to prosecute trafficking-related corruption by government officials; and greater collaboration with NGOs and international organizations to improve victim services in government shelters. During the reporting period, senior government officials, including the Prime Minister, publicly acknowledged Malaysia’s human trafficking problem, the government increased its investigations of trafficking cases and filed an increased number of criminal charges against traffickers, significantly expanded training of officials on the 2007 anti-trafficking law, conducted a public awareness campaign on human trafficking, opened three more shelters for trafficking victims, and launched a five-year national action plan on trafficking. Nevertheless, these early efforts will require continued attention, as there are many serious concerns remaining regarding trafficking in Malaysia, including the detention of trafficking victims in government facilities.

Recommendations for Malaysia: Build on initial law enforcement actions under the Trafficking in Persons Act, particularly relating to cases of labor trafficking; apply stringent criminal penalties to those involved in fraudulent labor recruitment or exploitation of forced labor; increase efforts to prosecute and convict public officials who profit from or are involved in trafficking, or who exploit victims; develop and implement procedures to identify labor trafficking victims among vulnerable groups such as migrant workers and refer them to available protection services; ensure that victims of trafficking are not threatened or otherwise punished for crimes committed as a result of being trafficked; re-negotiate MOUs with source countries to incorporate victim protection and revoke passport or travel document confiscation; increase cooperation with NGOs to improve victim protection efforts, including in shelters for trafficking victims; continue to expand the training of officials on the effective handling of sex and labor trafficking cases, with a particular emphasis on victim protection; and continue and expand a comprehensive and visible anti-trafficking awareness campaign to encompass both labor and sex trafficking.

Prosecution
The Government of Malaysia made some progress in law enforcement efforts against sex trafficking during the reporting period, and limited progress in prosecuting and convicting offenders of labor trafficking. Malaysian law prohibits all forms of human trafficking through its 2007 anti-trafficking law, which prescribes penalties that are commensurate with those of other serious offenses, such as rape. During the reporting period, the government convicted three sex trafficking offenders and reported initiating 180 trafficking-related investigations and filing 123 charges against 69 individuals, though it is unclear how many of these cases were for actual trafficking. In January 2010, authorities identified their first labor trafficking case in the fisheries industry when the Malaysian Maritime Enforcement Agency intercepted Thai fishing boats off the coast of Sarawak and arrested five Thai traffickers; the case remains pending. While NGOs reported several potential labor trafficking cases to the government, authorities did not report any related arrests or investigations. Authorities initiated a review of the licenses of the 277 companies that are authorized to act as labor recruiters in Malaysia. The government did not report any criminal prosecutions of employers who subjected workers to conditions of forced labor or labor recruiters who used deceptive practices and debt bondage to compel migrant workers into involuntary servitude. Despite a public statement by a senior official highlighting the right of workers to hold their own passports, the government continued to allow for the confiscation of passports by employers of migrant workers, and did not prosecute any employers who confiscated passports or travel documents of migrant workers or confined them to the workplace. In September 2009, the Home Minister announced that a new MOU being negotiated between Malaysia and Indonesia would not allow confiscation of passports of migrant workers, but the 2006 MOU authorizing such confiscation has not yet been amended or replaced. Authorities did not take criminal action against Peoples Volunteer Corps (RELA) volunteers who physically threatened and abused migrant workers and extorted money from them, despite continued reports of these abuses. In response to credible reports of government officials’ direct involvement in a human trafficking network along the Malaysia-Thailand border outlined in a Senate Foreign Relations Committee Report, five immigration officials were arrested for alleged involvement in a trafficking ring that took Burmese migrants to Thailand for sale to trafficking syndicates. However, officials have only lodged criminal charges under the Anti-Trafficking Act against one of the officers and the case against him is still pending. Some observers report that corruption plays a role in the trafficking of foreign migrant workers, particularly with regard to officials’ authorizing excess recruitment by Malaysian outsourcing companies, despite assurances from officials that practice had been reduced by regulations implemented in July 2009 that require outsourcing companies to demonstrate their need for each worker recruited. Reports also indicate that collusion between police and trafficking offenders sometimes leads to offenders escaping arrest and punishment. Nevertheless, there were no officials convicted of trafficking-related complicity during the reporting period.

Protection
The government made minimal progress in protecting victims of trafficking during the reporting period. Efforts to identify and protect both sex and labor trafficking victims remained inadequate overall. The government did not report the identification of any Malaysian victims of trafficking. In January, officials rescued and identified 16 male forced labor victims from four deep-sea trawlers off the coast of Sarawak – the first trafficking victims in the fisheries industry identified by the government. The Ministry for Women, Family, and Community Development continued to run two trafficking “shelters” for women and children and opened a third in July 2009, which detained suspected and confirmed foreign sex trafficking victims involuntarily for 90 days until they were deported to their home countries, per Malaysian law. During the reporting period, the government also opened its first two shelters designed to house male victims of trafficking, although these shelters also detained victims involuntarily until they were deported. The government’s policy of detaining trafficking victims against their will provided a disincentive for victims and their advocates from bringing cases to the government’s attention.

During the reporting period, 139 women and children were certified as victims and detained in the shelters. An additional 232 individuals were given initial protective orders, but were ultimately determined by the government to not be victims of trafficking and were deported, though officials acknowledge that some of these may have been trafficking victims who were reluctant to cooperate with law enforcement proceedings. During the year, the government reportedly made some improvements in its screening to identify individuals possessing UNHCR cards or possessing traits of trafficking victims in order to separate them from the illegal migrant populations. The government continued to use RELA volunteers in indiscriminate raids to identify illegal migrants, some of whom were reportedly trafficking victims. Several foreign embassies reported that they were sometimes not informed by Malaysian authorities of the presence of their nationals in trafficking shelters, and at times, authorities would deny these diplomatic missions access to their citizens once their presence was known. Government shelters resembled immigration detention centers, by denying victims basic freedoms, and these facilities did not employ medical officers, trained psychologists, or trained victim counselors. Some victims were locked in rooms within the shelters.

While NGO trafficking shelters provide resources that government shelters do not, the government does not provide any financial assistance to NGOs, and requires all identified victims to reside in its own shelters. The anti-trafficking law provides immunity to trafficking victims for immigration offenses such as illegal entry, unlawful presence, and possession of false travel documents, but victims continue to be detained and deported, as they would be if they were arrested for illegal immigration. Malaysian law does not provide immunity for criminal acts committed as a result of being trafficked. In January 2010, a 14-year-old Indonesian girl working as a domestic worker in Malaysia was identified by authorities as a trafficking victim. Authorities prosecuted the girl for theft from her employer, and did not prosecute the girl’s employer for violating child labor laws. The government issued guidelines and provided training on the identification and processing of suspected trafficking victims, but did not develop or implement formal procedures to proactively identify victims of labor trafficking. The government treated victims of trafficking as illegal aliens and turned them over to immigration authorities for deportation after they provided evidence to prosecutors. Victims are required by law to assist in the prosecution of trafficking offenders, but the lack of victim protection or any incentives for victim assistance in investigations and prosecutions remained a significant impediment to successful prosecutions. Aside from a standard 90-day stay in one of its shelters, the government did not provide other legal alternatives to the removal of victims to countries where they may face hardship or retribution. Although victims may file a civil suit against exploiters, their lack of any option to legally work during the consideration of their suit discouraged such attempts. Some foreign governments expressed concern about the lack of legal protections in place for foreign workers in Malaysia, particularly those subjected to involuntary servitude. Some unidentified victims, including children, were routinely processed as illegal migrants and held in prisons or immigration detention centers prior to deportation.

Prevention
Malaysia made some efforts to prevent trafficking in persons over the last year. The government conducted numerous anti-trafficking training events for Malaysian police, immigration, prosecutors, labor department officials, and Women’s ministry officials, and began to partner with NGOs, international organizations, and foreign governments on such trainings. In November 2009, the government launched an anti-trafficking public awareness campaign that included advertisements in print media, on the radio, and on television, including television appearances by senior government officials to discuss human trafficking. In March 2010, the government launched a five-year action plan to combat trafficking. The government began to use its “999” emergency number as a trafficking hotline where calls are routed to the Malaysian Police, though calls can only be taken in Malay and English. The Women’s Ministry produced pamphlets to potential trafficking victims in nine languages, which the Immigration Department began to distribute. The Indonesian and Malaysian governments have yet to amend or replace a 2006 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) covering the employment of Indonesian domestic workers in Malaysia, which authorizes Malaysian employers to confiscate and hold the passports of domestic employees, though negotiations to do so continued through the reporting period.

The government forged partnerships with airlines during the year, which began announcing a statement regarding the country’s trafficking laws and punishments on some arriving flights. The government did not take measures to reduce the demand for forced labor or commercial sex acts. The government provided anti-trafficking training to troops preparing to deploy to international peacekeeping missions. On February 26, 2009, Malaysia became a party to the 2000 UN TIP Protocol with reservations. - US  Department of State's  Trafficking In Persons Report 2010

Thursday, April 15, 2010

What is UMNO-led BN's position on Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Palestine, Israel..same as US's position...Israel's position ...APCO?

Has Malaysia been compromised? Is it now a US crony state? It is amusing how today's RTM news spend so much time in trying to highlight the fact that Obama spend more than 30 minutes meeting with our Najib? Why is this even important? What is Najib trying to prove? That Obama by this meeting has given the 'green light' to Najib? Why does he even want Obama's 'endorsement'? Will Malaysians be impressed by this short meeting with the US President? I do not think so - the people that Najib needs to impress is the Malaysian people - not some foreign super power who does not have a good human rights track record.

What is Malaysia's position with regard to the US occupation of and increased military presence in Afghanistan?
A recent star report seem to say that Najib is not at all interested in this, and seem to be more concerned in 're-construction projects'. US 'invade' and there is destruction by reason of the clashes of its armies (and those of its cronies) with certain groups of people in Afghanistan - and then, there will be re-construction. Malaysia's interest in such re-construction projects is embarrassing, and seem to be an approval of the US's unilateral (non-UN approved) actions in Afghanistan. [See earlier post:-How Obama lied in his justification to increase troops in 'colonized' Afghanistan?]

On Afghanistan, Najib informed Obama that at the request of the Afghan government, Malaysia recently deployed a team to assess possible ways to contribute to the reconstruction of the country.- Star, 14/4/2010, Obama hails Malaysia’s move to curb WMDs
What is Malaysia's position with regard to Iran, and its right to  peacefully use nuclear technology? Surely, Iran like any other sovereign nation has every right to be involved in research and development of nuclear technology. But, since US sees Iran (an Islamic nation) as not being one of its 'friends' today, there has been excessive pressure on this current Iranian administration. If Iran was still under the Shah, and still a pro-US country, I do not believe that we will see such pressure on Iran. Will Malaysia be attending the Iran organized nuclear summit? I wonder whether Najib believed on that assertion of 'weapons of mass destruction' which was the justification for US-led invasion of Iraq - and, will also maybe now believe everything that US says about Iran...Palestine...
What is the UMNO-led BN government's position on the Palestine issue? I wonder...
 
What is Malaysia's position with regard the US-led invasion and continued 'occupation' of Iraq? Maybe, Najib is not interested - maybe only interested in how Malaysia can benefit  from them 're-construction' projects and a bigger share in Iraq's oil...
 
What is Malaysia's position on US's breaches of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty(NPT)? It's failure to still destroy nuclear weapons, its development of new nuclear weapons, it's supplying and placement of nuclear weapons in non-nuclear weapon countries, its apathy (and lack of action...) with regard to Israel's nuclear weapons... Did Najib even raise any of these matters? Or was he just too awed by the fact that he met with the US President and Vice President....and Obama spent so much more minutes with him than with the other world leaders...[See earlier post:-Has Najib made Malaysia a US crony? Have we abandoned our principles? Did he say anything about US's NPT breaches? Did he also hail Obama?]

Recently, Anwar raised the APCO issue - and, it looked very much a 'narrow race-religion based issue'. There is also a great dependence of persons who were formerly part of the evil Zionist regime - but, the important point was that were former this and that.... Following, the same line of arguement, we must also be concerned with the former UMNO-led BN personalities, especially them former Ministers and members of the Cabinet. The same argument applies...don't you think.

Today, I came across a more well researched article written by William Leong - which adds more credibility to the assertion that APCO is not just staffed/controlled by former Israeli Zionist government membres, but is in fact really still a pro-Zionist entity. I have copied the said article below for your reading pleasure, and possible comments...

I ask a further question as to why the UMNO-led BN government does not have the confidence to employ a Malaysian public relations company?  Does our own government have no confidence in Malaysian companies...and Malaysians? Why? I believe that our UMNO-led BN government must be criticized for this - and for the amounts of money that have literally been paid out to foreign entities...which could have been kept within the country if local companies are employed.

What’s The Fuss About APCO?

by William Leong Jee Keen
Member of Parliament
In collaboration with
KeADILan Parliamentary Research Unit (KPRU) 


1 Following the Opposition Leader, Anwar Ibrahim’s revelations about the UMNO/BN Government’s use of APCO Worldwide public relations/lobbyists’ firm and the concept of 1Malaysia and 1Israel, UMNO has reacted with harsh, ruthless and brutal responses even by UMNO’s standards. They are going to refer the Opposition Leader to the rights and privileges committee to suspend Anwar from Parliament on April 22, 2010. On April 7, 2010, the Kuala Krau Member of Parliament, Y.B. Dato’ Haji Ismail bin Haji Mohamed Said proposed a similar motion to suspend Y.B. Dato’ Haji Mahfuz bin Haji Omar, the Member of Parliament for Pokok Sena for saying “UMNO APCO”. The BN MPs use of their majority in numbers to approve the motion even though there is nothing misleading or unparliamentary in the 2 words, shows that even BN MPs acknowledge APCO has become a bad word.

2 Those who are familiar with the issues relating to Malaysia’s avowed opposition to the Zionists regime in Israel, understand the UMNO MPs desire to disassociate themselves with a public relations firm with Zionists links. However, there are many Malaysians who are not familiar with these issues or do not see what is the fuss about APCO or if 1Malaysia is linked to 1Israel or Washington lobbyists.

3 I write this article to assist Malaysians not familiar with these issues to enable them to make sense of the debate that is ongoing in the Parliament and to see the significance of the present visit by the Prime Minister, Y.A.B. Dato’ Seri Najib Tun Razak to the US and his meeting with the US President Barack Obama in the light of Washington lobbyists’ capabilities and objectives.

4 I shall try to explain: (1) why the appointment of APCO warrants genuine concern for national security; (2) the subtle relationship between Ketuanan Melayu, Neo-conservatism and Zionism; (3) how BN/UMNO is using 1Malaysia to package their autocracy and to cover up the reluctance to implement structural and institutional reforms; and (4) the role of Washington lobbyists to promote US backed dictators.

Undisputable Facts

5 APCO Worldwide is based in Washington DC and has 23 offices all over the world including Tel Aviv. It is common knowledge that many of its key personalities and advisers are associated with Zionist Israel, e.g. Shimon Shein (former Israeli Ambassador to Germany), Itamar Rabinovich (former Israeli Ambassador to the US), Doron Bergerbest-Eilon, former security chief for the Israeli Government and Elliot Abrams, the former Deputy National Security Advisor in the George W. Bush Administration.

6 An example of the Neo-Conservative Zionists’ policies is the opposition to the proposed land for peace deal for Israel to make territorial concessions to the Palestinians as part of the Oslo Accords. (September 1993). Itamar Rabinovich was a participant or observer in events such as the July 1993 Meeting of Right-Wing American-Israeli lobbying organization opposing the Oslo Accords.

7 During the first Knesset debate on the Oslo peace accords (see September 13, 1993), Likud party chairman Benjamin Netanyahu, a close ally of US neoconservatives and Christian fundamentalists, compares the accords to British attempts to appease Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler before World War II. Referring to British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, he shouts at Foreign Minister Shimon Peres, “You are worse than Chamberlain.” Netanyahu is so aggressive in part because he has the public and private support of influential US neoconservatives and Christian fundamentalists. “I was ambassador [to the US] for four years of the peace process, and the Christian fundamentalists were vehemently opposed to the peace process,” Israeli ambassador Itamar Rabinovich will recall (see July 1993). “They believed that the land belonged to Israel as a matter of divine right. So they immediately became part of a campaign by the Israeli right to undermine the peace process.” Netanyahu’s outburst on the floor of the Knesset was a deliberate part of that strategy.

8 APCO’s operators in Tel Aviv have close links to the Zionist regime. Its CEO in Israel, Gad Ben-Ari, was a personal adviser of the late PM Yishak Rabin. APCO in Israel undertakes various communications and strategic development works for both corporate and governmental organisations. One of the members of APCO’s International Advisory Council is Doron Bergerbest-Eilon, who was a former security chief for the Israeli government. The Israeli military and intelligence agencies have links to agencies that are not in line with Malaysia’s domestic and foreign policies. One of them is the position adopted by Singapore with regard to its defence.

9 Singapore considers itself to be in a similar situation as that faced by Taiwan and Israel. It considers itself as a small nation surrounded by larger neighbouring nations that could be potential enemies of the city state. It is an open secret that Israeli military advisers helped Singapore to set up its defense forces modeled after the Israeli Defense Forces. According to military and strategic analysts such as Tim Huxley in his book in “Defending the Lion City”, Singapore is known to be using a forward-defense military doctrine similar to that employed by Israel. The Singapore Armed Forces (“SAF”) declared mission statement is to “enhance Singapore’s peace and security through deterrence and diplomacy through a relatively quick and cost-effective fashion.” According to Tim Huxley in his book, Singapore’s strategy is that the SAF is to have a clear capability to inflict severe damage on Malaysia (by implication creating serious political and economic repercussion for Singapore) and is a deterrent not to be used. The capability is a deterrent sort of regional “doomsday machine” intended to manipulate Singapore’s regional threat environment by forcing neighboring states to treat the city state with a degree of respect and caution which might otherwise be absent.

10 The point to be noted is that the Israeli military intelligence has a close working relationship with Singapore and countries opposed to the Arab nations seeking a solution to the Palestinian question. Hence, any revelation or knowledge acquired by Israeli military intelligence officers whether retired or not, poses a danger to our nation’s security.

11 In short, the BN government is engaging a company that has a close tie with the Zionist regime in Israel. Its advisory panels consist of former security chief of the Israeli government, and many of their staff are formerly from the Israel Security Agency.

ZIONISM, NEOCON AND KETUANAN MELAYU

12 Before proceeding further, it is important to differentiate between being Jewish and being the adherents of ideological Zionism.

12.1 Zionism, or more specifically the recent neo-Zionism, is a right-wing, nationalistic and religious movement. They believe that it is impossible for Arabs and Jews to be living together in peace. The only solution to achieve peace is “deterrence and retaliation”.[1] In general, Zionism is no less than an exclusionary, nationalist, even racist, antidemocratic political-cultural trend, striving to heighten the fence encasing Israeli identity.

12.2 On the other hand, the Malay supremacy, or Ketuanan Melayu embraced by UMNO shares many similarities with the Zionism advocated by those in Israel. Ketuanan Melayu believes that the Malays (not including Orang Asli in the Peninsular, I suppose) are the masters of Malaysia. Other ethnic groups in Malaysia are expected to be eternally beholden to the Malays, in particular, UMNO for granting them citizenship in return for special privileges as set out in Article 153 of the Constitution of Malaysia.[2] This deep seated belief has been revealed in the recent statements by the Prime Minister’s aide, Datuk Nasir Safar in saying “Indians came to Malaysia as beggars and Chinese especially the women came to sell their bodies” at a 1Malaysia seminar in Malacca and Datuk Seri Noh Omar, the Agriculture and Agro-based Industries Minister quoting speeches of the 4th MCA President, Tan Siew Sin and 5th MIC President, V.T. Sambanthan from 1960s who praised UMNO and the Malays for granting citizenships to the non-Malays.

13 Ideologies, such as, Ketuanan Melayu and Zionism are not new in this world. The renewed right-wing movements in US also brought a new political philosophy called Neo-conservatism (neocons) which supports using American economic and military power to bring liberalism, democracy, and human rights to other countries. The neocons have substantially influenced George W. Bush to produce the Bush Doctrine of preventive war and eventually led to the invasion of Iraq.

14 Though having dissimilarities among them, all three ideologies are based on ethnocratic fundamentals, reject multi-culturalism, upholding their values as more privilege than others, and trying to implement their beliefs through forceful and assimilation means.

15 The distorted version of New Economic Policy (NEP), The National Culture Policy introduced in 1970 that emphasized an assimilation of the non-Malays into the Malay ethnic group, as well as the contents of the Biro Tatanegara, are all proof of an ethnocratic regime.

ROOT OF THE DEVIL – THE ETHNOCRATIC REGIME

16 Oren Yiftachel, a Jewish scholar at the Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, contends that “ethnicity is often constructed as a tool of oppression by ethno-national majorities”, which appropriate “the state apparatus to advance its control over a contested territory and power apparatus”. In the case of Israel, the successive ruling elites since 1948 have been at pains to create an ethnocratic regime at the expense of the Palestinians.[3]

17 An ethnocratic regime possesses the following characteristics:

a. Design for a concerted and collective project of exerting ethnonational control over a territory that is perceived to be the nation’s homeland;

b. Distribution of power and resources based on ethnic affiliation, rather than citizenship.

c. Privileges in the areas of the economy, education and culture are granted to the major ethnic group with a view to securing an absolute control of the state and territory.

18 It is not surprising that under UMNO-BN rule, Malaysia has passed all the tests above. Ironically, despite constant Israel-bashing exercises, Malaysia bears strong resemblance to it.

19 Various attempts made by UMNO to destroy the independence of the judiciary, expand executive powers, and suppress the legislature through gerrymandering and weakening the role of Parliament/state assemblies, are all for the purpose of ethnic dominance.

20 Worse, the social policy and ethnocratic agenda have been abused over the years, benefiting only the upper class, political elites and those who have close relationship to them. This has led to the vicious cycle of corruption, rent seeking and patronage activities.

21 You may argue, it is not UMNO that rules the country, but the BN coalition. Well, it is not a secret that the coalition partners are in government but not in power. UMNO is the dominant partner. The coalition is only used to justify the ethnonational agenda of the UMNO regime.

22 As a result, we see the lack of public debate in policymaking in the past many decades. The ethnocratic regime in Malaysia has seriously distorted our value system in that the public are unable to tell right from wrong. Anything that crosses the racial boundary will be termed as ‘sensitive’. Racial prejudice also precedes the pursuit of democracy, justice and truth.

1MALAYSIA AND MANY OTHER ONES

23 Many slogans or manifestos of an ethnocratic regime attempts to forge unity and reiterate the importance of building a one-nation state. As it might sound warm and nice, the slogan 1Malaysia is actually a familiar slogan to the various one-nation movements around the world.

24 1Malaysia is definitely not an original idea born in Malaysia. It is also not new to the rest of the world. ‘One Israel’ was the slogan of a failed attempt to forge unity in a fragmented political landscape. Then there was also ‘One Britain’, which had been the theme of notorious UK Conservative politicians and far-right, anti-immigration groups.[4]

25 In Australia, ex-Prime Minister John Howard formulated a ‘One Australia’ policy in 1988. Howard welcomed all those who share his vision and are ready to contribute to the unity of Australian, ironically, detailing a vision of “one nation and one future” which included the rejection of Aboriginal land rights. (KPRU, One Australia, 4 June 2009)

26 In essence, ‘One Australia’ was a reaction against multiculturalism and it insisted that Australia must retain the domination of the Anglo-Saxons.

27 Howards’ ‘One Australia’ theme was later picked up by racist politicians such as Paula Hanson who founded the One Nation Party. This party’s sole platform was based on fiery anti-migrant and anti-foreigner rhetoric and policies.

1MALAYSIA OR KETUANAN MELAYU?

28 Here in Malaysia, 1-year after its launching, the concept of ‘1Malaysia’ is still too ambiguous. It is merely a slogan without substance. Many would wonder why the opposition is spending time to scrutinize it as it is just a slogan. There are 2 reasons for this: (1) the 1Malaysia campaign has expended a lot of public money, and (2) the 1Malaysia theme can be misleading or misguiding, especially if ultimately UMNO proceeds to continue its Ketuanan Melayu agenda.

29 How much the 1Malaysia campaign costs? According to a ministerial reply, the government paid RM23 million to APCO. If other 1Malaysia initiative such as 1Malaysia F1, 1Malaysia surveys, 1Malaysia website and others are included, the figure will balloon to several hundreds of million Ringgit.

30 It must be pointed that there is a fundamental obstacle that prevent UMNO’s concept of an inclusive 1Malaysia to be the same as that of Pakatan Rakyat’s Ketuanan Rakyat. Those that harbors the belief that 1Malaysia means equality for all will be disappointed to know that this policy cannot be successfully implemented by UMNO for so long as it remains an ethocentric political party that survives on championing the rights of only one race. UMNO has on numerous occasions threatened other minority ethnic groups not to challenge or question those privileges. It is impossible for UMNO to implement an inclusive 1Malaysia for so long as it remains a racial party championing exclusively one race.

31 Recent incidents remind us of the true face of UMNO:

a. Feb 2010 – ‘Indians came to Malaysia as beggars and Chinese especially the women came to sell their bodies” “Indians in Malaysia have crossed the line. They force the government for 12 subjects in SPM. Don’t force the government. We can anytime revoke the citizenship of the Indians in Malaysia.” The above statements were allegedly said by Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s aide Datuk Nasir Safar at a 1Malaysia seminar titled ‘Rapat 1Malaysia’ in Malacca International Trade Centre.[5]

b. 27 March 2010 – Ibrahim Ali, Chairman of PERKASA and also independent MP, waved the infamous keris again during the PERKASA assembly attended by the former Prime Minister, Tun Mahathir and his son, International Trade and Industry Deputy Minister Datuk Mukhriz Mahathir.[6] The avowed mission of PERKASA is to ensure 1Malaysia and the New Economic Model preserves the special privileges and positions of the Malays.

c. 7 April 2010 – Agriculture and Agro-based Industries Minister Datuk Seri Noh Omar made a remark that Chinese and Indians should be “grateful” for being made Malaysian citizens.[7]
32 The issue relating to APCO is not the price of RM23 million being paid to APCO for the 1Malaysia campaign or whether it originated from 1Israel. The issue is that it is hypocritical of the Najib led UMNO to champion the cause of the Palestinian Arabs while working with a Zionists inclined organisation. The issue is whether 1Malaysia is a public relation exercise to use it as an instrument to perpetuate Ketuanan Melayu. The costs of Ketuanan Melayu to Malaysians are astronomical and incalculable. The policy has bred cronyism, nepotism, corruption, rent-seeking behavior and abuse of power. Barry Wain has estimated that it has costs Malaysians RM100 billion under Mahathir’s regime while Morgan Stanley calculated that it may be more than RM380 billion. Other than certain die-hard UMNO/BN supporters and those who are fed on a diet of BN controlled media, investors both local and foreign are not putting any money into Malaysia unless critical structural reforms are undertaken. Mere reform rhetoric will not be sufficient. There must be reform in substance before we see the economy being revived. Ketuanan Melayu is one of those pillars on which the present economic and political structure is built on and this must be substituted by a paradigm shift for “inclusiveness” in order for the nation to regain its competitiveness. A nationalist inclined organization carrying out public relations exercise will not lead to substantive structural reform.

What US Lobbyists Do for Dictators

33 The other danger to Malaysians in using lobbyists is the US policy of supporting authoritarian regimes. One of APCO’s International Advisory Council Members is Elliott Abrams. He served as Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Global Democracy (2005–2009) in the administration of President George W. Bush where he supervised US Policy in the Middle East for the White House. For the 8 years of the Bush II administration, Elliot Abrams was one of the key behind the scenes architect of US strategy in the Middle East. He has been described as a neo-conservative whose devotion to Israel is hard to overstate and who is now engaged in what looks like a public relations campaign to bend Barack Obama’s Middle East Policy in the direction favoured by Israel’s hard line Likud Government. However, unlike many neo-cons, Abrams has been surprisingly frank about his devotion to Israel as a Jewish state. He has even expressed resentment towards Christians who hold nuanced views about Israel or who show sympathy for the Palestinians uprooted from their ancestral homes. In 1997, Abrams published a book entitled, Fear or Faith: How Jews Can Survive in a Christian America, which explained his strong commitment to Zionism; chastised Jews who marry Christians; and lashed out at American Christians for what he regards as their insufficient support for Israel.

34 In 1991, Abrams pleaded guilty to misleading Congress in the Iran-Contra scandal. Many democrats have reviled him as the lead apologist for brutal Central American dictatorships in El Salvador and Guatemalan during the 1980s. He’s “the guy who aided and protected human rights abusers” according to David Corn in an article published by the media Nations in 2001. He was later given a pardon by Bush’s father, George H.W. Bush. This gives us an idea as to the ideology and beliefs of APCO’s advisors.

35 Ken Silverstein of Harper’s magazine in an expose revealed that US lobbyists would be prepared to bolster the image of authoritarian regimes for a fee.

36 The lobbyists are aware of US foreign policies and the thinking of the policymakers and are able to exploit these for the benefit of their clients. It is a central dilemma of contemporary American foreign policy that the world’s leading capitalist democracy must confront an environment in which the majority of nations are neither capitalist nor democratic. US leaders have rarely exhibited ingenuity or grace in handling this delicate and often frustrating situation. Following the end of the Second World War, the break-up of European colonial empires throughout Asia and Africa was generally viewed as an opportunity by the Americans to show that democracy will triumph as a universal system. The actual results were acutely disappointing to the US. No wave of new democracies occurred in the “Third Word”. Instead, the decolonization produced a plethora of dictatorships. Some of which appeared distressingly friendly to Moscow. Washington’s response to this adversity has been particularly, simplistic and unfortunate. American leaders increasingly regarded any anti-communist regime, however, repressive and undemocratic it might be at home, as an “ally” “a force for stability” and even “a friend”. At the same time, they viewed leftist governments, even those elected under democratic procedures as little more than Soviet surrogates. Many will still remember George W. Bush’s speech on the War on Terror. “If you are not with us, you are against us.”

37 As a result of this simplistic and morally inconsistent strategy, America has found itself supporting a host of right wing authoritarian governments:

a. The United States have supported the authoritarian regime of the Shah of Iran by providing lavish military hardware as well as “security and counter insurgency training” to Savak, the Shah’s infamous secret police;

b. The United States have supported the Philippine dictator Ferdinand Marcos who suspended the national constitution, declared martial law, governed by decree and imprisoned political opponents to perpetuate his own power;

c. Washington gave similar assistance to a succession of Brazilian military governments, a parade of Guatemalan dictatorships, the junta that ruled Greece from 1967 to 1974 and several other repressive governments;

d. Most notably, the United States helped to overthrow the Government of Patrice Lumumba in the Congo and in 1965 came to support the establishment of the dictatorship of Joseph Mobutu;

e. The United States played a role in General Augusto Pinochet 1973 Coup in Chile;

f. In 2007, there was a world outcry over US support for Kazakhstan dictator, President for life Nursultan Nazabayev, who is a client of APCO. Nazabayez’s Kazakhstan has been rewarded by the United States and the West for his dictatorial moves. The US State Department acknowledges that “Between 1992 and 2005, the United States provided roughly $1.205 billion in technical assistance and investment support in Kazakhstan.” Amnesty International found in September 2008 that “beatings by law enforcement officers, especially in temporary pre-charge detention centres, in the street or during transfer to detention centres, are still routine.” Amnesty International also found “judges rarely exclude evidence elicited as a result of torture or other ill-treatment and often base their verdict on the confession of the accused.” President Nursultan Nazabayev will be getting some much-coveted face time with President Obama in the upcoming April 12-13 summit. Whether as activists hope that Obama would discuss Kazaksthan’s human rights records with Nursultan, it is certain that he would discuss Kazath expansion of a web of road, rail and air links that ferries military supplies to US and NATO troops in Afghanistan. Insiders say that it is not the discussion on human rights reform but the Afghanistan transit roads that got Nazabayev the meeting.

38 Washington lobbyists are able to assist such dictators because they are aware of the power structure and the complex channels of how the US Government works. Ken Silverstein in his expose gave examples of lobbyists assisting dictators such as Obiang of Equatorial Guinea, who had been in power since 1978 after he executed his uncle, and has held several sham elections ever since, to be removed from the lists of the 10 worst dictators in the world. He also gave an example as to how the lobbyists were able to get a team of allegedly independent observers consisting of former members of Congress to issue uplifting statements to sell the sham elections in Cameroon as legitimate.

39 The lobbyists will be able to arrange events highlighting the advantages of the authoritarian government with leading US think tanks, setting out meetings with US government officials, get high level meetings for the regime’s official in Washington, organized editorials and hold events on Capitol Hill or in Washington to promote the regime.

40 It is clear from the above that the lobbyists’ concern is to promote the dictator and his regime and does nothing for the people or to improve their economic or democratic welfare. The APCO contract must therefore be viewed on the basis as to whether it is intended to assist Najib and his government or the Malaysian people. Just as Najib will be getting much-coveted face time with Obama (like the other APCO client, Nursultan Nazarbayev), it is doubtful whether Obama will be discussing with Najib Malaysia’s ISA, human rights’ records and structural reforms. It is certain just as in Nursultan Nazarbayev’s case, Najib and Obama is more likely to discuss how US strategic interests can be furthered by cooperation with Najib’s regime.

Conclusion

41 If Najib is serious in reforming the country, it is important to restore the value systems. The public must be rewarded for integrity, honesty and hard work not for know-who and know-how in lubricating the decision makers. The rule of law, the rewarding of those who are right and punishing those who are wrong irrespective of their positions, their designations or their political interests must be inculcated. The message that right values, that there is the commitment, courage and credibility for the government to act according to what is right and against what is wrong must be made. The government and its agencies must be colour blind and affirmative action has to be provided according to needs and not according to race. This means that an ethnocratic regime has to be replaced by multi-culturalism and Malaysians must learn to embrace and defend justice, democracy and universal values.

42 This includes:

a. Undertaking bold reforms to restore the independence of the police, the anti-corruption commission and the judiciary. Confidence in the rule of law is a basic condition for economic growth;

b. Reform the civil service;

c. Wage all out war on corruption;

d. Institutionalize a two-party system and give proportionate resources to the opposition;

e. Thoroughly revamp our education system;

f. Repeal the Printing Presses Act, the Universities and Colleges Act, the ISA and the OSA, and other repressive laws;

g. Enact a Freedom of Information law.

43 From the report card in the past one year, it seems that Najib is not ready to be the defender of democracy and justice, but more as a defender of the ethnocratic regime. Najib has not shown the commitment and courage to carry out the structural and political reform needed nor has he shown that he is prepared to take on those who are more interested to continue the legacy of an ethnocratic regime.

44 It is clear that no substantial economic and structural reforms have been made since Najib has taken over more than 1 year ago. All we have seen or heard is rhetoric. However, the dangers to Malaysians aspiring for democracy and liberty posed by a public relations firm and Washington lobbyist with neo-conservatives and Zionists links are real and not rhetoric.

45 The UMNO/BN majority in Parliament will suspend Anwar Ibrahim for revealing the APCO links on April 22, 2010. The Opposition Leader’s suspension must not be the end of the matter. Malaysians must answer the clarion call to prevent our march for multi-culturalisms from being derailed by neo-conservatives propaganda. This is what the fuss on APCO is all about.

Thursday, March 04, 2010

How Obama lied in his justification to increase troops in 'colonized' Afghanistan?

How Obama lied to the world ....an interesting read from Third World Network's Resurgence. It is important for concerned persons to support these NGOs and their publications. It is only about RM65 for a 2 year subscription for Malaysians (I believe). Another good publication to support is the ALIRAN Monthly, which is RM60 for a 2 year subscription. They really need your support.

The truth is so easily distorted when you are so powerful, and control the media.

Afghanistan: Obama's decision to escalate the war

In his West Point address, President Obama sought to justify his decision to send an additional 30,000 US troops to Afghanistan. Paul Street exposes the lies and half-truths that pepper this war speech.

Paul Street
Issue No. 231/232 (Nov/Dec 2009)

Like a Judas of old
You lie and deceive...
You hide in your mansions
While young people's blood
Flows out of their bodies
And gets buried in the mud 
- Bob Dylan, 'Masters of War', 1962 

War President Barack Obama's Afghan 'surge' address from the US Military Academy at West Point [1] on 1 December was unsurprising, given the fact that, as Alexander Cockburn has noted, 'Obama has...surrounded himself with the same breed of intellectuals who persuaded Lyndon Johnson to escalate the [Vietnam] war.'[2] As Tom 'civilian advisers' on Afghanistan include a large number of military men, all predisposed by career background and philosophy to advocate increased force levels. Did it really make sense to be surprised, Engelhardt wondered more than two months ago, that Obama would opt for more troops, money, and war when the president had 'turn[ed] crucial war decisions over to the military...functionally turn[ing] our foreign policy over to them as well?'[3] 

The decision to escalate was never much in doubt.  

Lies and deception 

Security Council trickery

If there was anything surprising about Obama's 1 December address, it was the extent to which he was willing to distort history on behalf of his militaristic policy.  'Just days after 9/11,' Obama proclaimed, 'Congress authorised the use of force against al Qaeda and those who harboured them - an authorisation that continues to this day...For the first time in its history, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation invoked Article 5 - the commitment that says an attack on one member nation is an attack on all. And the United Nations Security Council endorsed the use of all necessary steps to respond to the 9/11 attacks. America, our allies and the world were acting as one to destroy al Qaeda's terrorist network and to protect our common security.'[4]

Obama clearly meant here to create the false impression that the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) authorised the Bush administration's attack on Afghanistan in October 2001.  But the UNSC did no such thing since the attack met none of the UN's criteria for legitimate self-defence.  The United States' attack on Afghanistan met none of the standard international moral and legal criteria for justifiable self-defence and occurred without reasonable consultation with the United Nations Security Council.

As the prominent US legal scholar Marjorie Cohn noted in July of 2008, 'The invasion of Afghanistan was as illegal as the invasion of Iraq.'  The UN Charter requires member states to settle international disputes by peaceful means.  Nations are permitted to use military force only in self-defence or when authorised by the Security Council. After 9/11, the Council passed two resolutions, neither of which authorised the use of military force in Afghanistan.

Assaulting that country was not legitimate self-defence under Article 51 of the Charter since the jetliner assaults were criminal attacks, not 'armed attacks' by another country. Afghanistan did not attack the US and 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia. Furthermore, there was no 'imminent threat of an armed attack on the United States after 11 September or Bush would not have waited three weeks before initiating his October 2001 bombing campaign'. As Cohn added, international law requires that 'The necessity for self-defence must be "instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation". This classic principle of self-defence in international law has been affirmed by the Nuremberg Tribunal and the UN General Assembly.'[5]

'The world according to Washington'

The suggestion that human civilisation ('the world') was united in support for Washington's attack on Afghanistan is completely incorrect.  An international Gallup poll released after the US bombing began showed that global opposition was overwhelming. In 34 of the 37 countries Gallup surveyed, majorities opposed a military attack on Afghanistan, preferring that 9/11 be treated as a criminal matter rather than as a pretext for war. Even in the US, just 54% supported war.[6] 'In Latin America, which has some experience with US behaviour,' Noam Chomsky noted (in a 2008 column titled 'The World According to Washington'), 'support [for the US assault] ranged from 2% in Mexico, to 18% in Panama, and that support was conditional on the culprits being identified (they still weren't eight months later, the Federal Bureau of Investigation reported) and civilian targets being spared (they were attacked at once). There was an overwhelming preference in the world for diplomatic/judicial measures, rejected out of hand by [Washington, claiming to represent] "the world."'[7]

'Only after the Taliban refused to turn over bin Laden'
'Under the banner of this domestic unity and international legitimacy - and only after the Taliban refused to turn over Osama bin Laden - we sent our troops into Afghanistan,' Obama said.[8] This was completely false. In the actual history that occurred, the US refused to respond to the Taliban government's offer to turn bin Laden over to a foreign government for a trial once elementary evidence pointing to his guilt was presented.  The US deliberately made sure that bin Laden would not be turned over through legal and diplomatic channels because (quite frankly) the Bush administration wanted war and did not wish to follow the UN Charter's requirement that nations pursue 'all means short of force before taking military action' (Rahul Mahajan).[9]

'Safe haven' mythology
Six times in his war speech Obama used the phrase 'safe haven'. Afghanistan, Obama wants the American people to think, is a 'safe haven' for past and potential future terror attacks on the 'homeland'. This, too, is deceptive. As Harvard Kennedy School of Government professor Stephen Walt noted in an August 2009 Foreign Policy essay, Obama's 'safe haven myth' rests on the fundamentally flawed premise that al Qaeda or its many and various imitators couldn't just as effectively plot and conduct future terror attacks from any of a large number of other locations, including Western Europe and the US itself. At the same time, Walt observed, Obama's expanded engagement in the 'ambitious social and political reconstruction and re-engineering of Afghanistan and perhaps even Pakistan, trying, with slight chances of success,' to create a centralised democratic state in the former country, was reinforcing al Qaeda's core claim that the West's and above all the United States' presence in South Asia was about imperial control.  The more the US is seen as 'trying to restructure their societies along lines that we think are appropriate,' Walt notes, 'the more we play into the narrative that they use to try and attract support and recruit people in Afghanistan itself.' [10]

Empire and inequality

'The United States is broken... yet we're nation-building in Afghanistan'

The president said nothing in his address about the tens of thousands of private military contractors deployed by the Pentagon in Afghanistan (57% of the US force presence there at the end of last June!) [11] or about the deadly, largely secret Predator drone war he has dramatically escalated against Afghan and Pakistani 'terrorists' and civilians [12]. 

He also failed to mention the absurdity of his decision to spend untold billions more dollars on a futile, massively expensive colonial operation abroad as misery and destitution expanded at home.  The domestic social uplift and opportunity cost of his imperial policy - the twisted misplacement of resources that Martin Luther King, Jr. described in the late 1960s as symptomatic of America's 'spiritual death' [13] - is certainly enormous.  By the White House's own calculations, the Afghan escalation is going to cost $1 million a year per every single new soldier deployed [14] - a giant investment that could be diverted to meet growing unmet social needs across the US

Echoing Dr King's late-1960s sermons and speeches against the US military state's 'perverted priorities', New York Times columnist Bob Herbert marked the day of Obama's West Point address with an eloquent lament: 

'The president has arrived at a decision that never was much in doubt, and that will prove to be a tragic mistake. It was also, for the president, the easier option.

'It would have been much more difficult for Mr Obama to look this troubled nation in the eye and explain why it is in our best interest to begin winding down the permanent state of warfare left to us by the Bush and Cheney regime. It would have taken real courage for the commander in chief to stop feeding our young troops into the relentless meat grinder of Afghanistan, to face up to the terrible toll the war is taking - on the troops themselves and in very insidious ways on the nation as a whole.

'More soldiers committed suicide this year than in any year for which we have complete records. But the military is now able to meet its recruitment goals because the young men and women who are signing up can't find jobs in civilian life. The United States is broken - school systems are deteriorating, the economy is in shambles, homelessness and poverty rates are expanding - yet we're nation-building in Afghanistan, sending economically distressed young people over there by the tens of thousands at an annual cost of a million dollars each.'[15]

'A chance to shape their future'

Of course, 'nation-building' is a euphemism for imperial assault and occupation.  Look at the unimaginable devastation - more than 1 million plus killed before their time, millions more injured and displaced, and massive social and technical infrastructure destroyed - 'we' (our unelected agents of Empire) have inflicted on crippled Iraq, about which Obama had the noxious imperial chutzpah to say the following: 'Thanks to [US troops'] courage, grit and perseverance, we have given Iraqis a chance to shape their future.'[16]

Yes, you read that correctly: 'we have given Iraqis a chance to shape their future.'

Call it Empire and Inequality [17] Re-Branded. Combined and interrelated, mutually reinforcing, and caught up in a dark, dialectically inseparable duet of destruction...the forces of domestic disparity and imperial  violence  continue  their  dangerous,  viciously  circular  dalliance of death. 'Like Bush's America,' John Pilger notes, 'Obama's America is run by  some  very  dangerous  people.'[18] 

Paul Street is a writer, author, activist and speaker based in Iowa City, USA.  He is the author of many books and articles, including Empire and Inequality: America and the World Since 9/11 (Boulder, CO: Paradigm, 2004) and Racial Oppression in the Global Metropolis (New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 2007). His next book, Empire's New Clothes: Barack Obama in the Real World of Power, will be released next year. This article is reproduced from the ZNet website .     


Endnotes         

1.         George W Bush also liked to make militaristic pronouncements from military settings like West Point, Annapolis, the Carlisle War College, and the USS Abraham Lincoln. 

2.         Alexander Cockburn, 'War and Peace,' CounterPunch (9 October 2009), read at http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn10092009.html

3.         Tom Engelhardt, 'A Military That Wants its Way,' TomDispatch (24 September 2009), read at http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175118 

4. 'Text of Obama's Speech on Afghanistan' (1 December 2009), read at http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/12/01/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5855894.shtml

5.         Marjorie Cohn, 'End the Occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan,' ZNet (30 July 2008), read at http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/18303.  
'Resolutions 1368 and 1373 condemned the 11 September attacks, and ordered the freezing of assets; the criminalising of terrorist activity; the prevention of the commission of and support for terrorist attacks; the taking of necessary steps to prevent the commission of terrorist activity, including the sharing of information; and urged ratification and enforcement of the international conventions against terrorism.'

6.         Abid Aslam, 'Polls Question Support for Military Campaign,' Inter Press Service, 8 October  2001; Gallup International, 'Gallup International Poll on Terrorism' (September 2001); Edward S. Herman and David Peterson, "Obama's Foreign Policy Report Card": Juan Cole Grades His President - and Very Positively,'MR Zine (9 November 2009), read at mrzine.monthlyreview.org/ hp091109.html

7. Noam Chomsky, 'The world according to Washington,' Asia Times (28 February 2008).

8. 'Text of Obama's Speech on Afghanistan.'

9.         See Rahul Mahajan, The New Crusade: America's War on Terrorism (New York: Monthly Review, 2002), 28-31; Noam Chomsky, Hegemony Over Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance (New York: Metropolitan, 2003), 198-202. 

10.        Stephen Walt, 'The Safe Haven Myth,' Foreign Policy (18 August 2009), read at http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/08/18/the_safe_haven_myth; Stephen Walt, interview by Amy Goodman, Democracy Now, 25 August 2009, read at http://www.democracynow.org/2009/8/25/the_safe_haven_myth_harvard_prof.  See also Paul R. Pillar, 'Who's Afraid of a Terrorist Haven?,' Washington Post, 16 September 2009, read at www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/15/AR2009091502977_pf.html.  'By utilising networks such as the Internet,' Pillar noted, 'terrorists' organisations have become more network-like, not beholden to any one headquarters.' A significant jihadist terrorist threat to the United States is alive, Pillar argues, but 'that does not mean it will consist of attacks instigated and commanded from a South Asian haven, or that it will require a haven at all. Al-Qaeda's role in that threat is now less one of commander than of ideological lodestar, and for that role a haven is almost meaningless.' Pillar was deputy chief of the counterterrorist centre at the CIA from 1997 to 1999. He is director of graduate studies at Georgetown University's Security Studies Programme.

1l.         Congressional Research Service, 'Department of Defense Contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan: Background and Analysis,' CRS Report number R40764, 21 September 2009, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R40764.pdf

12. For a chilling account, see Jane Mayer, 'The Predator War,' The New Yorker (26 October 2009).

13.        'A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.'  Martin Luther King, Jr., 'A Time to Break the Silence,' Riverside Church, New York City, 4 April 1967.

14.        Christi Parsons and Julian E. Barnes, 'Pricing an Afghanistan Troop Build Up is No Simple Calculation,' Los Angeles Times, 23 November 2009.

15.        Bob Herbert, 'A Tragic Mistake,' New York Times, 1 December 2009.

16. 'Text of Obama's Speech on Afghanistan.'

17.        Please see Paul Street, Empire and Inequality: America and the World Since 9/11 (Boulder, CO: Paradigm, 2004) - written at the height of self-described 'war president' George W Bush's reign, but equally applicable to the first year of the 'progressive' presidency of Barack Obama, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize.

18.        John Pilger, 'Media Lies and the War Drive Against Iran,' Pakistan Daily, 15 October 2009, read at http://www.daily.pk/media-lies-and-the-war-drive-against-iran-12189/

Friday, July 10, 2009

Will Najib, Anwar, Lim Kit Siang, Hadi, Syed Husin Ali...protest this killing of (about 440) innocents by the US in Pakistan using un-manned drones?

Why are we not seeing reports of the US-unmanned drones killing people in Pakistan? It is also not reported in the Malaysian main-stream papers...

The 'shoot to kill' by Malaysian police personnel was bad - but many were allegedly situations where the people shot (or some of them) had allegedly started firing at the police....but in this cases, US drones are un-manned. There are no 'firing at' happening. Innocents are being killed....and the whole world choses to ignore this - not demanding even an answer from the US under Obama.

Rule of Law - right to defend oneself ...right to a fair trial??

Amnesty International is also silent....why? Are Pakistanis lesser humans - and so we are not at all concerned.

At least six missile attacks from suspected US drones have killed eight people and wounded five others in the Pakistani province of South Waziristan near the Afghan border. - Al-jazeera, 8/7/2009, Deadly missiles strike Pakistan
Reuters...have a report on this, and we note that there only 7 (and that too 'suspected' ) al-Qaeda/Taliban persons have been killed so far, from almost 430 persons killed by reason of these un-manned US drones. How many men? How many women? How many children? What were their names? Is this not murder? But, why is the UN....the EU...the World...the OIC...Malaysia not protesting this ongoing killing of innocents? Pakistan's protest have also been wanting...

Suspected U.S. drones fired six missiles into a Pakistani Taliban training camp near the Afghan border on Wednesday, killing six militants, government and intelligence agency officials said.

The pre-dawn attack was in the South Waziristan region, in a stronghold of Pakistani Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud, they said.

Here are some facts about the U.S. missile attacks, the controversy they have caused, and a list of some of the more prominent militants killed, according to Pakistani officials.

WHY DOES THE UNITED STATES ATTACK?

Many al Qaeda members and Taliban fled to northwestern Pakistan's ungoverned ethnic Pashtun belt after U.S.-led soldiers ousted Afghanistan's Taliban government in 2001. From their sanctuaries there the militants have orchestrated insurgencies in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The United States and Afghanistan have pressed Pakistan to eliminate the sanctuaries. Apparently frustrated by Pakistan's inability to do so, the United States is hitting the militants itself.

HOW MANY ATTACKS?

The United States has carried out about 46 drone air strikes since the beginning of last year, most since September, killing about 430 people, including many foreign militants, according to a tally of reports from Pakistani intelligence agents, district government officials and residents.

SOME OF THE PEOPLE REPORTED KILLED

January 28, 2008 - A senior al Qaeda member, Abu Laith al-Libi, was killed in a strike in North Waziristan.

July 28 - An al Qaeda chemical and biological weapons expert, Abu Khabab al-Masri, was killed in South Waziristan.

November 22 - Rashid Rauf, a Briton with al Qaeda links and the suspected ringleader of a 2006 plot to blow up airliners over the Atlantic, was killed in an attack in North Waziristan. An Egyptian named as Abu Zubair al-Masri was said to be among the dead in the same attack.

January 1, 2009 - A U.S. drone killed three foreign fighters in South Waziristan, Pakistani agents said. A week later, a U.S. counter-terrorism official said al Qaeda's operational chief Usama al-Kini and an aide had been killed in South Waziristan. The U.S. official declined to say how or when they died.

WHERE ARE THE DRONES LAUNCHED FROM?

A senior U.S. lawmaker, Senator Dianne Feinstein, told a U.S. Senate hearing in February that drones were being operated and flown from an air base inside Pakistan. Pakistan denied that, saying there was no permission for the strikes, nor had there ever been.

U.S. POSITION

The United States has shrugged off Pakistani protests. It says the missile strikes are carried out under an agreement with Islamabad which allows Pakistani leaders to decry the attacks in public.

U.S. officials said last month the United States had given Pakistan data on militants in the Afghan border area gathered by surveillance drones in Pakistani airspace under an agreement with Pakistan.

PAKISTAN'S POSITION

Pakistan says the drone strikes violate its sovereignty and undermine efforts to deal with militancy because they inflame public anger and bolster support for the militants. Pakistan has pressed the United States to provide it with drones to allow it to conduct its own anti-militant operations.

(Compiled by Islamabad Newsroom; Editing by Robert Birsel and Jerry Norton) - Reuters, 8/7/2009, FACTBOX: U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan

Will Najib, Anwar, Lim Kit Siang, Hadi, Syed Husin Ali...protest this killing of innocents by the US in Pakistan? Or will they too turn a blind eye when it comes to US's violations of human rights?

Remember also that all is presumed innocent until proven guilty...

See also earlier posts:-

We must protest US indiscriminate extra-judicial kiiling of at least 440 persons since August 2008..

Obama's un-manned drones kills at least 45 people attending a funeral service in Pakistan...- some reports say 80 were killed during this funeral service bombing

Obama 'murders' another 22 in Pakistan