12 Aug 2016

Catastrophe in Afghanistan: Where Next for NATO?

Brian Cloughley

The US-NATO  military alliance is a vastly expensive farce which has achieved nothing but calamity in every foray it has undertaken. Its aerial blitz on Libya reduced the country to chaos, and its operations in Afghanistan have proved no less disastrous.
Its mission during eleven years of fighting in Afghanistan, during which over 3,000 soldiers were killed, was to “enable the Afghan authorities to provide effective security across the country and ensure that it would never again be a safe haven for terrorists.”  It failed utterly, and we are now witnessing the catastrophic results of its floundering endeavors.
On July 23 several hundred Shia Muslims held a peaceful demonstration in Kabul.  They came from an ethno-religious group, the Hazaras, of about five million who live mainly in Bamiyan Province which last hit the headlines in 2001 when the Philistine savages of the Taliban destroyed its ancient statues. These were enormous sandstone carvings of the Buddha, lovingly sculpted 1400 years ago, and the barbarians blew them up in the name of their religion which, according to their warped interpretation of the Koran — based on opinions of so-called scholars — forbids portrayal and other reproduction of graceful or otherwise notable people and objects.
The Hazara Shias hadn’t travelled from their province to Kabul to protest against the murderous Taliban.  All they want is that a power line be rerouted in order to provide them with electricity.  It had been intended that the cables run through Shia Bamiyan, but the Kabul government, almost entirely Sunni, cancelled that decision.
The reason for abandoning the project was that it would be more “cost-effective” which, coming from the administration of one of the world’s most corrupt countries, would be amusing were it not contemptible. As the BBC records, “Afghanistan ranks a woeful 166th out of 168 countries in Transparency International’s latest assessment of graft and crooked dealing around the world.”  The decision had nothing to do with saving money, all of which comes from foreign donors, with most of it ending up in mansions in Dubai. It was because Shias are regarded as kafirs — non-believers.
The Bamiyan Shias were making a vain attempt to persuade the crooked and ineffectual government of President Ashraf Ghani (himself not corrupt) to let them have electricity, and eighty of them died and hundreds of others were injured when demented suicide bombers of Islamic State blew themselves to bits.
Such is the fate of kafirs, and such is the nature of the terror campaign waged by Islamic State in Afghanistan and throughout the world.  The maniacs seem to be winning, in pursuit of their demented mission of death and destruction.  With a government as shaky as that in Afghanistan, there is cause to be alarmed at what the future might hold.
One problem about investigating the situation is that very few official sources can be trusted to tell the truth about what is going on in that hapless country.  Since the US invaded at the end of 2001 there has been a ceaseless litany of lies about the war, and it wasn’t until 2012 that US Lieutenant Colonel Daniel Davis disclosed that  “senior ranking US military leaders have so distorted the truth when communicating with the US Congress and American people in regard to conditions on the ground in Afghanistan that the truth has become unrecognizable.”
There is transparency and honesty, however, in the reports of the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, SIGAR, Mr John Sopko, a man whose blend of efficiency, principle, morality and candor is rare in Washington.
His task is to “promote economy and efficiency of US-funded reconstruction programs in Afghanistan and to detect and deter fraud, waste, and abuse by conducting independent, objective, and strategic audits, inspections, and investigations,” and to that end Mr Sopko looks at the bigger picture.  His inquiries into financial shenanigans have been most important to the US taxpayer — but it is his findings about the overall shambles that are most illuminating.
Four days after the slaughter of Shias in Kabul he delivered a report noting that “the US-led intervention in Afghanistan led to large-scale internal displacement, which reached its peak in 2002 at 1.2 million people.”  The report continues that there remain “as of June 2015, at least 948,000 people displaced as a result of conflict and violence.”  Not only that, but according to Human Rights Watch, “Pakistan is host to 1.5 million [registered refugees], the world’s second-largest protracted refugee population in a single country . . .  In addition, according to Pakistani government estimates, one million undocumented Afghans are living in Pakistan.”
After 14 years of foreign military operations in Afghanistan and expenditure of vast sums of money, Reuters reports that “even the most cursory examination reveals phenomenal waste. According to calculations at the end of last year by the Financial Times and others, the war had already cost almost $1 trillion (less than the $1.7 trillion spent on Iraq, but still staggering).”  Yet over two million Afghans can’t return home because their country is too dangerous for them to live in.  As the SIGAR reports, the area under Afghan government “control or influence” decreased to 65.6 percent by the end of May from 70.5 percent last year — and in confirmation of this dire trend, on July 29 an official in Helmand said that yet another district had fallen to the Taliban who are now “in control of 60 per cent” of the Province.”
The day before the surge in Helmand fighting the commander of US forces in Afghanistan, General John Nicholson, played down the Islamic State threat and said that most of the areas it controlled are rural and that “they believed they were going to be able to seize and hold terrain, and they failed to do so.”
The man is a fool.  Certainly, most of the areas in which Islamic State and the Taliban and other fanatics are in control are rural — because 73 per cent of Afghans live in rural areas, and that is where, over the centuries, guerrillas, militants, insurgents, call them what we will, began their campaigns against regimes they wanted to overthrow.
Does the man not remember the humiliating US defeat in Vietnam?  That was the result of classic insurgent tactics:  First take the villages, then the towns . . .   this progression involved increasing terrorist atrocities, merciless eradication of vulnerable government forces and all the other well-tried precursors of insurgency warfare.
It’s exactly what’s happening in Afghanistan.
Yet Nicholson carried on with his upbeat babble and declared that although Islamic State “could conduct a high profile attack [it] should not be perceived as a sign of growing strength . . . this is not necessarily a sign of growing strength in Afghanistan; indeed, their area is shrinking.”
But the area of Afghanistan dominated by militants, be they Islamic State, Taliban or any of the other half-dozen or so loony-tunes savages, is actually increasing.
On July 28 Nicholson announced that “generally speaking, the Afghan Security Forces have accomplished their objectives in Helmand thus far, securing the major population centers. The enemy was active earlier in the year, attacking isolated check points.  But frankly, in the last two weeks, the enemy activity has dropped off to a much lower level.  Now, fighting season’s not over.  We anticipate we’ll see other enemy attempts to regain territory in Helmand. But thus far, things are on a real positive trajectory in the 215th Corps.”
Next day came news that the Taliban had again “regained territory” and “precise casualty figures can’t be confirmed as bodies litter the ground and fighting was still underway,”  which is hardly a “positive trajectory.”  On August 10 Radio Free Europe reported that “Afghan security forces [are] being deployed to the southern city of Lashkar Gah amid an intensified fight against the Taliban and fears that the capital of Helmand Province could fall under the control of militants within days.”
The US-NATO  military alliance has failed miserably in Afghanistan, but there is no magic wand that could create stability and good governance.  It is a corrupt, terrorist-infested, warlord-ridden, poverty-stricken, ethnically-fractured narco-state in which Western meddling has made a dire situation even worse.  All that US-NATO will do, now, is to continue muddling on in the quagmire they helped to create.  Afghanistan will collapse into fiefdoms run by Islamic extremists and barbaric local chieftains,  with the Kabul government, such as it is, floundering around in impotence.  US-NATO has created a catastrophe in yet another region of the world,  and no propaganda can disguise the fact that it failed.
So where next for US-NATO?   It desperately wants to justify its big-ticket existence because many European countries are expressing doubt about the need for the organization, and common sense says it’s an alliance without a cause.  So the Washington warmongers and their puppet-like supporters in the Pentagon’s branch office in Brussels consider it essential to conjure up a menace — and the Baltic beckons.
It doesn’t matter to the saber-rattlers that there is no threat whatever to the US or Europe from Russia, and that Moscow’s military actions are a result of US-NATO expansion right up to its borders and are patently defensive. The Pentagon-Brussels axis of spin considers it time to ramp up confrontation and that is exactly what is happening.  This time, however, they’re not facing a band of raggy-baggy barbarians with IEDs.  They’re deliberately taunting a highly disciplined nation that can stand only so much more provocation.  They’re leading us to war.

Finally: the Eruption of the Clinton Foundation Scandal

Gary Leupp



“It’s getting really hard to know where any lines were drawn.”
-CNN
I confess I’d been looking forward to this. My son, following the Judicial Watch website, has been saying for months that the big email scandal will involve the State Department-Clinton Foundation ties and Hillary’s use of her office to acquire contributions from Saudi and other donors. As someone opposed to World War III (beginning in Syria and/or Ukraine), I was hoping that they (and he) were right.
It might not be all that immediately clear to many why this is another big deal. After all, it follows Hillary’s ongoing private server email scandal, involving not just issues of the Secretary’s “judgment” and so-called “national security” but also revealing details about Clinton’s key role in the bloody destruction of Libya and her hawkish views in all circumstances.
CNN commentators assure us that the FBI investigation “went nowhere” because the FBI decided she’d committed no crime. (Just move on, folks; this was political all along.)
These new revelations come just after the scandal of the DNC rigging the primaries for Hillary, revealed by email leaks (from an unknown source) provided through Wikileaks. The content of these has been avoided like the plague by mainstream media, which is in Hillary’s camp and is generally protecting her. The focus instead is on alleged Russian efforts to influence the U.S. election, and the imagined Putin-Trump “bromance.” Respectable news agencies have been announcing, as fact, the idea that Wikileaks got the emails from Russia; and that Moscow is trying to swing the election towards Trump (because he’ll accept an invasion of Estonia, wreck NATO etc.). It’s (or it should be) obvious bullshit, an effort to change the subject while exploiting the McCarthyite paranoid sentiments of the most backward.
The headlines are so far cautious. “Emails renew questions about Clinton Foundation and State Department Overlap.” “Newly released Clinton emails shed light on relationship between State Dept. and Clinton Foundation.” They are not (yet) shrieking, “Sheik bought State Dept. favors from Clinton Foundation donation” but we shall see.
What do the emails show so far? Two examples have been highlighted by the conservative Judicial Watch, which requested the email transcripts through the FOIA. In the first, in 2009, Gilbert Chagoury, a Lebanese-born billionaire who has given the foundation up to five million dollars and used its assistance to build a project in Nigeria, and is one of the foundation’s top donors, contacted Doug Band, head of the foundation’s Clinton Global Initiative, asking to be put in touch with a high ranking State Department official connected to Lebanon.
Band emailed Hillary’s top aide Huma Abedin and advisor Cheryl Mills, expressing a need. He writes: “We need Gilbert Chagoury to speak to the substance person re Lebanon. As you know, he’s a key guy there and to us and is loved in Lebanon. Very imp.”
A key guy to us. To the Clinton Foundation? The U.S.A.? Abedin did not ask that question before responding, “It’s jeff feltman. I’m sure he knows him. I’ll talk to jeff.” Feltman had been U.S. ambassador to Lebanon from July 2004 to January 2008 but was apparently still seen as the go-to guy. So Hillary’s chief aide took it upon herself to contact the former ambassador to tell him Chagoury (whom she might mention is a major contributor to the Clintons) needed to talk with him.
Nothing illegal there, they will say. Why shouldn’t the State Department arrange contact between a billionaire Lebanese Clinton donor, loved in Lebanon, and the ex-ambassador, if it contributes to regional stability or U.S. national security? And the hard-core Hillary supporters will nod their heads, and maybe point out that Feltman has denied any “meeting.” (Maybe Huma just passed on his address and they chatted online.)
(CNN I notice is showing a video of Bill Clinton with Chagoury in Nigeria, inaugurating a multi-billion dollar waterfront development on the coastline established “under the umbrella of the Clinton Global Initiative.”)
The other instance of “overlap” central to the discussion so far is a request of Band to Abedin and Mills for “a favor.” Someone who had recently been on a Clinton Foundation trip to Haiti wanted a State Department job. He indicated that it was “important to take care of” this person. Abedin, apparently without questioning Band about whythis person was important, got right back to him: “We all have him on our radar. Personnel has been sending him options.” So the head of the Clinton Foundation could snap his fingers, again stressing how “important” his demand was, and Hillary aides Huma and Cheryl paid by your tax dollars would snap into action.
A CNN report deplores “the intermingling of emails between State and Clinton Foundation and others, giving the overall effect that it’s getting really hard to know where any lines were drawn.”
Maybe nothing illegal here. But there is an ongoing FBI investigation, no longer about Hillary’s multiple phones and private server, nor about the content of the communications (revealing her hawkish savagery), but about the routine trade-off of foundation connections for political rewards.
Those transactions are mere corruption, not war crimes. But the U.S. mass media never targets politicians for their bloodiness, and they love the conventional corruption scandal. So let there be more leaks that will absorb the attention of the talking heads! Let’s see clearer pay-for-play evidence! And let’s see more details about how the DNC midwifed Hillary’s nomination, actively sabotaging a supposedly democratic process.
Let the American people see how thoroughly rotten both candidates are, and how thoroughly rotten the system that barfed them up.
Bernie in a fair process would be the Democratic nominee now. Clinton didn’t so much steal the election as buy it in advance, arranging the details through lackey Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Trump would not be the Republican nominee but for the editorial decisions of cable news producers to—from the very inception of his campaign—announce BREAKING NEWS and cover his nearly identical rants every time he held a rally.
This gratuitous coverage obviated the need for any (other) Trump advertising. Even as the anchors, commentators and other talking heads ridiculed, denounced and appeared puzzled about the Trump phenomenon, the networks made the viewers imbibe his vapid rants. They hooked the most reactionary elements of the population on this blowhard billionaire nut case.
In the Democrats’ case, Wall Street and Wasserman Schultz controlled the primaries. In the Republican case, the corporate news media (for its immediate profit motives) advertised a total dick who happened to be a billionaire and represent the One Percent every bit as much as Hillary.
So they’re now in our faces, day after day. Hideous people with their news-anchor supporters, and cable commentators so ready to dismiss serious issues, put the very best face on their candidate, and change the subject to attack the other candidate. In the end it comes down to:We have a two-party system. The parties made their choices. So you HAVE to choose one.
Julian Assange described the U.S. presidential race as a choice between cholera and gonorrhea. Why should the people of this great country of 310,000,000 people—many with great creativity, integrity and intelligence—be assigned this sick choice of Clinton or Trump by the One Percent that controls everything?
Why should any Bernie supporter so debase himself or herself as to say, “Okay, I know the primaries were fixed and that Bernie could not win because the cards were stacked against him. And despite the fact that I put passion and effort into an anti-Wall Street campaign, now I’ll support the Wall Street candidate, who’s also a liar, who’s going to flip-flop again on TPP and bomb Syria to produce regime change, and provoke Russia in Syria and Ukraine—because well anyway she’s better than Trump, and we all have to vote, don’t we”?
But why should anybody have to hold their nose while they vote? The whole process has been exposed as never before as a farce. Why participate at all in something so corrupt? Do you want to vote just to vote, to publicly display the fact that you believe in the system itself, like the North Koreans who routinely go to the polls patriotically to vote for the options available? (As you may know, in some elections in the DPRK you can vote for a candidate of the Workers’ Party of Korea, Chondoist Chogu Party, Korean Social Democratic Party or independent. There is the manicured appearance of multiparty democracy—just like here. And no doubt some people feel good after the voting, knowing they’ve done their civic duty in a system they believe in. But what if you’ve woken up and don’t believe in the system anymore?)
Why not think bigger, and beyond? Either Clinton or Trump will likely take office in January, as the most unpopular newly elected president of all time. Either will have been brought to power by a manifestly anti-democratic, corrupt process that, more than in past years, is well exposed this time. Either will be vulnerable to mass upheaval, in the wake of Mexico wall construction or the announcement of a Syrian no-fly zone. Appalled by the election choices and result, the majority could maybe consider targeting the rigged system itself.
Just a suggestion. Massive demonstrations in Washington on Inaugural Day by people who have come to reject its legitimacy itself, knowing that it’s run by the One Percent to whom black lives don’t matter, drone warfare is cool and global warming is a hoax. Posters and banners with the curt, easy-to-understand and undeniably true popular slogan: THE WHOLE SYSTEM IS RIGGED!
Imagine a huge rally Jan. 20 demanding its overthrow, or at least the immediate resignation of the system’s illegitimate new executive, even if we don’t know what comes next.  Imagine the admiration that would invite throughout the world, the hope it would inspire should the people of this country rise up to challenge not just a war, policy or person but the corrupt (capitalist and imperialist) system under which we live.
***
Now I read that the FBI, directed by James Comey (who recommended no charges for Clinton for her private cell phone use but left open the prospect of recommending criminal charges against Clinton for abusing her office to profit the Clinton Foundation) in fact has recommended charges against Hillary.
But the Department of Justice headed by Clinton loyalist Loretta Lynch rejected the recommendation. Because—don’t you see?—Hillary has to be the next president. To stop Trump, at all costs! And to stop Putin, that aggressive Putin. And to keep together the “Clinton Coalition.”
Good job, Loretta! But regardless of your effort, Hillary’s Pinocchio nose grows longer by the day, while the whole system is exposed as a cancer requiring the most aggressive treatment.

Prevention Of Electronic Crime Bill (PEC) Continues Draconian Laws In Pakistan

Javeria Younes

The state of Pakistan is all set to unleash its iron fist by promulgating laws that curb free speech. This is a proactive step taken by the State to muzzle criticism and silence dissent. Freedom of speech and expression form the bedrock upon which the pillars of democracy stand; this freedom allows the public to air grievances and to voice dissent that can be made to reverberate in the corridors of power. A new freedom of expression unleashed by the Internet goes far beyond politics. People relate to each other in new ways, and can exchange their views through a medium that permits anonymity.
Now the paradigm of freedom is about to change in Pakistan thanks to the proposed Prevention of Electronic Crime Act, 2015. Rights groups have declaimed that the Prevention of Electronic Crime (PEC) Bill has provisions that will blatantly infringe fundamental rights. The Pakistani State, notorious for arbitrary laws, such as the Hudood (Sharia law), Blasphemy laws, and the Protection of Pakistan Act, has added another Orwellian law to the list of unjust legislations. PEC will be used to actively muzzle freedom of expression in the only medium where this freedom is available to the public at large. Political satire, intellectual discourse, and criticism of state actions are all at risk of being criminalized. Such a move may seriously jeopardize the right of freedom of speech as enshrined in Article 19 of the Constitution of Pakistan
Provisions of the proposed law are arbitrary and unjust. They “shall apply to all citizens wherever they may be.” So, every citizen of Pakistan, even if residing or working abroad, will be covered under the ambit of the law. Tentacles have extended to Pakistanis residing in a foreign country, who may write or share remarks that the government may feel are against the “glory of Islam or the integrity, security or defense of Pakistan or any part thereof, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, commission of or incitement to an offence.” Such provisions reduce the freedom of expression to a misnomer, a façade.
Provisions of the Council of Europe’s Budapest Convention on Cybercrime have not been followed. They had set up a detailed plan for legislation against cybercrime and guidelines so that the privacy of individuals is not jeopardized while apprehending criminals. In Pakistan, law enforcement agents have been given impunity to invade a person’s online privacy and the right to remain anonymous.
Political analysts deemed the draft law a tool to silence dissent and a public mocking of political figures. Section 16 of the draft bill has broadened the scope of offences against the dignity of a person; distorting a person’s face is deemed an offence which will curtail freedom of expression. This may outlaw leaking a video showing corrupt acts of politicians and law enforcement officials, defining such acts as being injurious to the reputation of these public officials. The Chairman of the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) has admitted during the hearing of the case involving the blocking of YouTube that PTA does not have the technology to block access to one particular derogatory video. Therefore, the only way to block access was to block YouTube altogether. Crowd-sourced websites such as Wikipedia, Facebook, Dailymotion, and other social networking sites are thus increasingly at risk of being blocked completely in Pakistan for a single transmission, like a picture, a video, or a caricature shared by a single user.
Section 31 is the most controversial part of the bill states:
31. Power to issue directions for removal or blocking of access of any intelligence through any information system: (1) The Authority or any officer authorized by it in this behalf may direct any service provider, to remove any intelligence or block access to such intelligence, if it considers it necessary in the interest of the glory of Islam or the integrity, security or defence of Pakistan et al.
(2) The Federal Government may prescribe rules for adoption of standards and procedures by the Authority to monitor and block access and entertain complaints under this section. Until such procedures and standards are prescribed, the Authority shall monitor and block intelligence in accordance with the directions issued by the Federal Government.
By inserting the above Section, the intent of the government was to legalize blocking powers, to exert control over the Internet and to curtail freedom of expression. Rights groups and legal experts are terming this section a tool of oppression. The state is now extending its tentacles to the Internet- the only medium available to the urban populace to openly share their views and access credible information not available via the mainstream media. By using ambiguous terms such as “in the interest of the glory of Islam or the integrity, security or defense of Pakistan or any part thereof, et al,” the State is providing a legal cover for institutional terror.
Strangling free speech on the Internet may backfire in a nation already sick of being muzzled and oppressed. As is evident from a perusal of the Act and other draconian laws, Pakistan is fast becoming a totalitarian state. No state that denies its citizens the right to freedom of expression can last long. Such states are doomed to disintegrate and collapse under the weight of their own contradictory strangleholds. Thus, the government must ensure that its citizens are allowed freedom to air their thoughts without fear of repercussion.
Implicating persons or citizens whom the State or law enforcement officers want to keep quiet in frivolous cases is the sole purpose of this ambiguous law. Like any other criminal law enacted in Pakistan, the draft bill has drawn a distinction in the procedure of cognizable and non-cognizable offences. However, this is probably the first time that without defining what constitutes the offence, it has been made a cognizable and non-bail able offence. Given the ambiguity of the situation, arrest and investigation without warrant should not be permitted.
As an ambiguous law it has many loopholes, rendering it toothless against the culprit while implicating the innocent and unsuspecting. Given the inefficiency of the prosecution, it is unlikely that the case against a malicious user can ever be proved beyond the shadow of a doubt. Here we have a law that has provided a mechanism for a law enforcement officer to arrest a person and seize the data on the pretext of national interest or the glory of Islam.
This draft bill is a continuation of severe laws used to oppress the masses into submission. A façade of a dummy democracy is being maintained by the State to hide its tyranny. Since the Nawaz Sharif government has come into power, the State appears to be turning against its own people. Law enforcement and intelligence agencies are being given complete impunity to maintain law and order in the country. However, the irony of the situation is that it is worsening. It is time that the State rethinks and updates its public policies by proposing people-friendly laws that do not alienate and divide the Pakistani nation as a who

Pakistan’s Dirty War In Balochistan

Abdus Sattar Ghazali 

Quetta hospital bomb blast, killing more than 90 people, is the latest grim reminder to the ceaseless violence in Pakistan’s strife-torn volatile province of Balochistan.
The deafening blast that ripped through scores of mourners in a Quetta hospital on Monday (August 8) has killed at least 93 people, mainly lawyers, in this year’s bloodiest terror attack in Pakistan.
The massive explosion occurred when nearly 100 lawyers and some journalists reached the Civil Hospital with the body of Bilal Anwar Kasi, president of the Balochistan Bar Association who was killed earlier.
Lawyers have been targeted several times in recent months in Balochistan. One lawyer, Jahanzeb Alvi, was shot dead on August 3. Bilal Kasi, who himself was shot dead on August 8, had condemned Alvi’s murder and announced a two-day boycott of courts. The principal of University of Balochistan’s law college, Barrister Amanullah Achakzai, was also shot dead by unknown assailants in June.
Balochistan has experienced targeted killings and disappearance of Balochis by security forces for more than a decade. Pakistan’s largest province by area, Balochistan is home to a low-level insurgency by Baloch separatists. Further complicating this chaotic scenario is a horrific campaign of murders against minority Shiite Muslims by Islamic fundamentalist Sunnis, particularly in and around the provincial capital city of Quetta, as well as a flurry of attacks on ethnic Hazaras.
Ironically, a Pakistani Taliban faction and the so-called Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) have both claimed responsibility for the deadly suicide attack.  .
“The Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan Jamaat-ur-Ahrar takes responsibility for this attack, and pledges to continue carrying out such attacks. We will release a video report on this soon,” the group’s spokesman Ehsanullah Ehsan said in an email, according to Al Jazeera which also quoted ISIL’s Amaq website as saying: “A martyr from the Islamic State [of Iraq and the Levant] detonated his explosive belt at a gathering of justice ministry employees and Pakistani policemen in the city of Quetta.”
However, Balochistan Chief Minister Sanaullah Zehri blamed the Indian intelligence agency RAW, saying it was responsible for incidents of terror in Quetta.
The Hong Kong-based Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has called for a United Nations (UN) probe into the planned killings of lawyers, through suicide attacks and targeted killings, in Balochistan, “where the state has been conducting operations for the past 14 years and where there are thousands of cases of arbitrary arrests, disappearances and extra judicial killings.”
In a statement, the AHRC said it is not possible that the Government of Pakistan can have an impartial and transparent inquiry into the incidents as it is itself a party in the violations of human rights. “There have been more than two inquiry commissions that were formed in order to probe the enforced disappearances. The commissions completed their work in 2014 but the reports have still not been made public and it appears that the government does not have any intention to release them.”
Tellingly, in January 2016, the Voice for Baloch Missing Persons (VBMP) said that approximately 463 people were forcefully disappeared while 157 mutilated bodies were found from Balochistan in 2015. Nasrullah Baloch, Chairman of VBMP, told a Press Conference at Quetta Press Club, “The VBMPS report is comprised on documents received from Missing persons’ families, Human Rights Organization and political parties.”  Voice for Baloch Missing Persons is a human rights organization representing the families of abducted Baloch persons all over Balochistan.
21,000 people have gone missing in Balochistan
According to Baloch activist Mama Qadeer, around 21,000 people have gone missing in Balochistan, adding that they had received 6,000 mutilated bodies to date. Qadeer was  speaking at a press conference at Karachi Press Club on April 17, 2016. In January 2014, Mama Qadeer led a long march from Quetta to Islamabad to highlight the issue of missing persons and other atrocities by the army-led security forces against the Baloch people.
On  July 26, 2016, a human right activist and the editor of a newspaper Abdul Wahid Baloch was taken away allegedly by the Pakistan security forces and his whereabouts are still unknown. The Baloch National Movement (BNM) organized a protest in Toronto, Canada on July 31, 2016.
Baloch activists accuse the military of bombing entire villages in its attempt to hunt down alleged Baloch militant leaders. Accoring to a BBC report of October 2015, one such military operation was conducted in Awaran district on 18 July 2015, when much of Pakistan was on Eid holiday at the end of Ramadan. The target for the aerial bombardment was Dr Allah Nazar, the chief of the Balochistan Liberation Front  group. The military believes he was killed in the attack. “The operation was unannounced and indiscriminate,” points out Bibi Gul, a Baloch human rights activist. “Women and children were killed and thousands left the area. The army cordoned off the entire area. “For nearly a month, people weren’t allowed to go there to pick up the dead bodies.”
On Sept 12, 213, the Dawn, a leading English newspaper, reported that over the past three years almost 600 mutilated bodies — more victims of the war between the state of Pakistan and the separatists — have been found in Balochistan, citing documents from the home and tribal affairs department of the province.
Balochistan, the largest province of Pakistan which borders Iran and Afghanistan, has oil and gas resources and is afflicted by fighting, violence between Sunni and Shia Muslims, and a separatist rebellion. The insurgents demand at least autonomy from Islamabad and a larger share of the oil-and-gas revenue generated locally.
For the Balochis, a turning point in their war against the state occurred in 2006, when a prominent Baloch tribal leader Nawab Akbar Khan Bugti was killed by the Pakistani army. Bugti, 79 years old at the time of his death, had just submitted a list of demands to Islamabad, which, among other things, called for greater local control of natural resources, more autonomy from Islamabad and a moratorium on construction of military bases in the area.
Bugti’s death was followed a few years later by the killings of Baloch National Movement President Ghulam Mohammed Baloch and two other nationalist leaders — allegedly by the Pakistani military. Their deaths sparked strikes, protests and civil disturbances that periodically continue to the present day.
The Pakistani government has branded Baloch separatist organizations as “terrorists.”
The Balochs suffer from high rates of poverty, low literacy and other woes — all of which serve to fuel an insurgency. According to the World Bank, eight of Pakistan’s 10 most deprived districts are located in Balochistan. Just 22 percent of Balochs are literate, versus 47 percent for Pakistan as a whole, and only 20 percent of Balochs have access to drinking water, versus 86 percent for the country.
‘Govt may soon lose all control over Balochistan’
Many observers compare the current turmoil in Balochistan to the 1970s situation in the East Pakistan which seceded from the Western wing of Pakistan in December 1971 to become Bangladesh after the Pakistan Army launched a brutal operation to suppress the rebellion. The Pakistan Army, with the help of supporting militias, massacred Bengali students, intellectuals, politicians, civil servants and military defectors during the 1971 Bangladesh genocide. Several million refugees fled to neighboring India which supported the Bengalis in their struggle for independence. In December 1971, the Indian army joined the Bengali rebels to support the Calcutta-based provisional government of Bangladesh. Around 300,000 people were reportedly killed throughout the war for Bangladesh.
The prince of the defunct Kalat state and chief of the Baloch Rabita Ittefaq Tehreek, Prince Mohyuddin Baloch, warned last year that if the government fails to settle the Balochistan issue according to the aspirations of people, it will soon lose all control over the situation.
“We have so far managed to restrain [disgruntled] Baloch people but after Dec 31, 2015 the situation will get out of our control and our rulers will no more be in a position to do anything to reverse it. After the end of this year, we will be forced to allow Baloch people to take any path they like,” said the prince at a press conference held at a local hotel in Karachi in February 2015.
The prince who was federal minister in military ruler Gen Ziaul Haq’s regime said: “So far, our 5,000 children have been killed and some 10,000 people have been kidnapped, but no one should think that the resistance has been crushed. It is correct that Baloch are by nature slow, stubborn and quarrelsome, but when it comes to war no one can defeat them.”
Army controls the narrative on Balochistan
According to BBC, Pakistan has a vibrant and thriving news media. But there’s been a virtual blackout of alleged abuses on privately-owned national news channels.
“Journalists say they are under intense pressure to promote a positive image of the army and its chief, General Raheel Sharif – they believe it’s part of a public relations offensive to present the army as a saviour of the nation, while discrediting the political class. Foreign reporters are not allowed to travel to Balochistan without the army’s approval. Over the years, scores of local reporters have been shot dead. Those who survive live under constant fear of upsetting one side or the other.”
Earlier this month, a journalist colleague reporting on Balochistan was taken to a safe house in Quetta’s military garrison where he was lectured on the virtues of being a patriotic citizen, the BBC said adding: Army officers questioned him extensively about his sources and his political views. The officials told him they knew about his family, where his kids went to school and how much money he had in his bank.And then he was informed: “Yes, we are killing the anti-state elements. And we will continue to go after them. At the end of the day, we decide who’s a patriot and who’s not.”

Bungling The Australian Census

Binoy Kampmark

Each country needs its exceptionalist message, its sui generis theme. We do something here no one else does, and such like. In Australia, there are many things deemed exceptional.  Compulsory voting, on pain of a fine, is one such case.  Compulsory voting in a census is another extension of that same philosophy. To not submit, and be damned by the extortionist drive of the State.
This is the somewhat authoritarian background colouring the recent bureaucratic disaster of the 2016 Australian census. It was prized by policy and number wonks as a vast improvement on previous forms, gathering the data about Australian citizens and residents in an unprecedented manner.  The sugary advertisements urging people to vote on “census night” on Tuesday gave the impression we were dealing with a very minor inconvenience.
Across the country, families would gather around their computers, “log on” with their designated unique number, and fill in the forms with a minimum of fuss. Not only was the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) keen to get the numbers; it was keen to ensure that those figures were obtained in a manner green and tender.  Good for the trees, friendly to the environment.
With all that buzz, not all was good in census land.  There were suspicions about the very way, and scope of detail being sought.  “Linkage keys”, to take one example, would be created, connecting census material to other data bases (medical, criminal, road traffic, educational).
The tone struck by the ABS did not inspire confidence.  Undue hoarding, and preservation of private data, came to mind.  Material gathered from every participating subject would be stored for four years, rather than the usual eighteen months. (Did this provide a foretaste of incompetence?  A four year window, rather than a smaller one to work with?)
Another troubling feature for pundits and potential participants was what would happen with those linkage keys.  Unsurprisingly, these would be a permanent fixture of the statistician’s dream, a record of reference long after the actual collected data of the subject had been destroyed.
Members of Parliament had also made very public statements that they disapproved of the way the census was being conducted and would withhold their names and addresses on the day of submission.  Senator Nick Xenophon, for one, was happy to risk the $180 a day fine and the prospect of a jails sentence.
The Census minister Michael McCormack kept any blinkers he had close at hand.  The census was “no worse than Facebook”; those with “a supermarket loyalty card” or “tap-and-go” system were supplying “more information indeed probably to what is available to ABS staff.”
Such comparisons were interesting yet terribly flawed, given that Facebook, for all its defects on what it does with data after gathering it from a user, still maintains an element of voluntariness to those using it. The Australian government was effectively forcing census participants to disclose details of considerable intimacy. Those remaining reticent would, at worse, be jailed.
McCormack also radiated a feeling of smug, grating confidence.  No one does it better than the ABS; no one does censuses better than Australia.  Until, of course, the crashing of the census site, the debacle, a technological calamity, the total balls up.
In the characteristic words of the leader of the opposition, Bill Shorten, “This is an incompetent exercise. If they were handing out gold medals at Rio for incompetence, this Government would be on the winner’s podium absolutely.”
What exactly happened? For one, the “stresses” of the system from having millions log on simultaneously on Tuesday evening was always going to challenge it, despite the ABS’s prior testing on whether its servers could handle 1 million forms per hour.  A problematic calculation to begin with, given that online submissions may well have peaked around dinner time, and certainly more than a million an hour.
Two stories have subsequently emerged, both running in awkward parallels to each other.  The government line, one trumpeted by an increasingly crest fallen census minister, is that no hack had taken place.  The world’s most secure census system still lay unbreached, the untouched gold standard.
Few believed this vacuous assumption, given that the ABS was insisting that any existing material that had been submitted online would be stored safely and had not been compromised.  The ABS had, in fact, surreptitiously removed any statements from its site about data security as the crisis began unfolding.  Kernels of truth could be found in the undergrowth of disinformation.
The ABS subsequently threw cold water on the government’s claim that no hack had taken place, with David Kalisch from the bureau suggesting that four hacking attacks had been initiated “from overseas”.  These had been initiated to burst the bubble of confidence or, in Kalisch’s words, inflicted as “a deliberate attempt to sabotage the census.”
That response showed how much of a muddle the ABS, and the Turnbull government, found themselves in.  Neither could quite agree on what happened.  The entire system seemingly suffered a meltdown, a collapse precipitated by four denial of service (DOS) attacks that had overwhelmed the system with simulated users.
But such events are not hacking ones, even if they may well enable the compromise of data to take place with greater ease.  Continuing with a Rio reference, it is surprising that the Russians were not blamed for that one.  Give it time.
Then came the issue of technological hubris.  No minister or statistician should ever be permitted to say that any computerised storage system is ever totally secure. As Richard Buckland, board director of the Australian Computer Society, observed in prosaic fashion, “There’s no way that the ABS could rule out a hack”.  Generating a “pool of sensitive data” posed the most attractive of targets.
With some carefree disposition, integrity has become the word of the moment.  The Australian treasurer, ever the bully from the pulpit of governance, suggested that Australians ignore the current crisis and do their duty.
Fill in the census, stated Scott Morrison, and forget any of this ever happened.  The “integrity of this Census itself has not been compromised by the events of the last 24 hours, just as the integrity of the data itself has not been compromised in the last 24 hours.”  Except that it has been – terribly.

Media Silence And The Agrochemicals Industry: The Slow Poisoning Of Health And The Environment

Colin Todhunter

It’s an all too common tale of dirty deeds, shady deals and propaganda. Rosemary Mason’s recent open letter to journalists at The Guardian outlines how the media is failing the public by not properly reporting on the regulatory delinquency relating to GM food and the harmful chemicals being applied to crops. Much of the media is even (unwittingly) acting as a propaganda arm for big agritech companies.
An open ‘Letter from America’ was penned in November 2014 warning countries in Europe and EU regulators not to authorise (chemical-dependent) GM crops because of the devastating effects on human health and the environment. Mason notes that David Cameron ignored that advice. The European Commission and the European Food Safety Authority also ignored it and have continued to allow GM into food and feed in the EU and sanction the ongoing use of dangerous pesticides.
While there is undoubtedly good work being carried out by individual journalists in this area, Mason feels the media should be doing more to hold officials to account and should report more accurately on the consequences of the genetic modification of food as well as the effects of agrochemicals.
Instead, there seems to be an agenda to confuse the public or to push these issues to one side. From BBC Panorama’s pro-GM programme last year, which was full of falsehoods and misrepresentations, to messages about ‘lifestyle choices’ being the main determinant of poor health, Mason implies that too many journalists are reinforcing the pesticides industry’s assertion that cancers are caused by alcohol use and that the catalogue of diseases now affecting modern society comes down to individual choice.
Mason stresses that the media constantly link alcohol consumption with seven forms of cancer and this ‘fact’ is endlessly reinforced until people are brainwashed and believe it to be true. This, she argues, neatly diverts attention from the strong links between the increasing amounts of chemicals used in food and agriculture and serious diseases, including cancers.
She goes on to document how international and national health and food agencies have dismissed key studies and findings in their assessments of the herbicide glyphosate, and she provides much evidence that the chemical industry (not just the agritech sector) has created a toxic environment from which no one can escape. These agencies are guilty of regulatory delinquency due to (among other things, scientific fraud) conflicts of interest, which has enabled transnational agritech companies to dodge effective regulation by public institutions that, despite claims to the contrary, are anything but independent.
A combination of propaganda disseminated by industry front groups and conflicts of interest effectively allow dangerous chemicals and GMOs into the food chain and serve to keep the public in the dark about what is taking place and the impacts on their health.
Mason outlines how the industry set out to discredit the ‘Seralini study’ (highlighting adverse health impacts of glyphosate – the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup – and GMOs) and describes how the Science Media Centre (SMC) in the UK did its utmost to prevent the British public from hearing about negative reports and studies concerning Monsanto and GMO technology. The UK SMC was fulfilling its remit to prevent a repeat of incidents such as the uncritical reporting in 1998 of the claim made by Árpád Pusztai that rats fed on GM potatoes had stunted growth and a repressed immune system.
In France, Seralini’s study was front page news but, according to Mason, journalists in the UK were manipulated and given little time to develop a potentially negative commentary. After the research was published, Professor Séralini was attacked by a vehement campaign orchestrated from within the industry as well as the industry-financed SMC.
Mason also documents how scientific fraud and corruption have also helped to fuel pro-GMO propaganda and get big agitech companies off the hook for their dangerous products. These companies have effectively coopted key academics and officials to do their bidding.
To reinforce her point, Mason cites William Engdahl to highlight the levels of collusion between the EU and the agritech sector over the reassessment of glyphosate. This exposed to the general public, for the first time in such a clear manner, the degree of corruption in not only Brussels but also in the so-called scientific bodies that advise it on what is safe and what not.
As with many of her previous open letters to officials and agencies, Mason cites an impressive array of evidence and studies to support her arguments. Readers are urged to read her letter in full: Open Letter to The Guardian. The letter was originally addressed to the editor-in-chief but has since been sent to other journalists at The Guardian.
Mason has been a tireless campaigner against harmful pesticides and GMOs for many years and has placed all of her correspondence with governments and regulators on the Academia.edu site – a platform for academics to share research papers and preview papers. She has done this to provide open access to information that will help the public to hold agencies and individuals to account over their willingness to sacrifice human health by using flawed science and corrupt practices in order to boost corporate profits.
In a little over five years, Mason has written and sent 36 documents to various agencies urging them to act. She has however received few replies. She did get a reply from the President of the National Farmers Union who wrote to defend the right of farmers to use chemicals to protect their crops, even though she had informed him (citing relevant evidence) that they were damaging the brains of children in Britain.
She has occasionally received brief responses from other officials who have effectively implied ‘move on, nothing to discuss’, despite the strong (peer-reviewed) studies and evidence used to support her case.
What Mason describes in her open letter is not unique to the UK or Europe. The model of chemical-intensive industrialised food and agriculture she alludes to is being rolled out across the globe thanks to the capture and cooptation of various international agencies and decision-making bodies at the national level.
Whether through strings-attached loans, rigged trade rules or corrupt trade agreements and intellectual property rights regimes co-written by powerful corporations, the result is a model of corporate-controlled, chemically drenched agriculture that leads to degraded soils, unsustainable pressure on (increasingly polluted) water resources, increased vulnerability to drought, less diverse diets, nutrient-deficient crops, the destruction of livelihoods, the undermining of local food security and the displacement of indigenous farming as well as the globalisation of bad food and poor health.
Although it may appear to be a case of ‘business as usual’ for industry and its well-funded lobbyists (whose ubiquitous presence in Brussels effectively puts paid to any credible  notion of ‘democracy’) and scientists, the pressure from various groups and tireless individuals like Rosemary Mason to hold the agritech cartel to account is incessant.
Aside from accessing Mason’s reports and open letters on the Academia.edu site, readers can consult the stream of reports listed on the Corporate Europe Observatory website that document how industry is contaminating our food, destroying our health and adversely impacting the environment, while certain officials facilitate the process.

Obama And Clinton Co-Founders Of ISIS?

Jon Kofas

On 10 August 2016, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump accused president Barak Hussein Obama and Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton of co-founding the jihadist rebel organization ISIS (Islamic State) operating mainly in Syria and Iraq but with operative in many Middle Eastern countries and around the world. Trump used Obama’s full name to provoke a racist-xenophobic response from the public about the Arabic-sounding name rooted in East Africa. Immediately, critics insisted that Trump made outrageous and ignorant comments about complex foreign affairs matters he does not fully comprehend.
The following day Trump clarified that he meant exactly what he said and not that Obama’s foreign policy inadvertently led to the creation of ISIS. Did Obama and Clinton create ISIS, or is this more of Trump right-wing populist hyperbole intended to rise in polls where is far behind Clinton? Considering that Trump has neo-isolationist tendencies, do such comments about Obama and Clinton creating ISIS make sense, or is he indeed an ignorant wealthy right wing populist appealing to the fears and prejudice of many citizens bombarded by media foreign policy distortions on a daily basis?
On the day that Trump accused Obama and Clinton of creating ISIS, Turkish President Erdogan accused the US of protecting Turkish billionaire Fethullah Gulen who lives in Pennsylvania. Erdogan considers Gullen and his ‘movement’ a terrorist organization that was behind the attempted military coup in July 2016. Moreover, the Turkish president considers the US a protector and promoter of terrorism, unless it hands Gulen over to Turkish authorities. Turkey is a NATO member, committed to the same goal as the US of regime change in Syria, and a frontline state to combat ISIS and terrorism; but what is terrorism and who is a terrorist? If Turkey and the US agree on publicly stated policy goals, despite the reality that Turkey itself has had a long-standing backdoor collaborator with ISIS and considers terrorist the Kurdish political organization PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party) which the US does not.
Beyond the obvious reality that terrorism is a very subjective political reality that means something very different to each country, there remains the massive confusion within the US political arena because Trump’s accusation is one usually uttered by critics of US foreign policy around the world. Only critics of US foreign policy have been advancing the thesis that ISIS and other jihadist groups would not exist if it were not for the financing, diplomatic, military and logistical support by the US and its European and Middle East allies like Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States and Turkey. I know of no serious critic rooted in scholarly arguments that would argue what Trump did. In a number of articles, I have pointed out that the US goal of regime change in Syria led the US and its allies to back various rebel groups from which ISIS emerged in the last five years.
The US plan was to gain greater leverage in the Middle East and deny Russia the geopolitical leverage it has historically enjoyed in Syria. This became important especially amid negotiations for a nuclear deal with Iran and the reality that Iran emerged as the dominant player in the Middle East largely because of US military intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan where the results have been an unmitigated disaster measured by the criteria and goals that the US set out to accomplish.
Why then did the US pursue policies that in fact create terrorism through destabilization policies of anti-jihadist regimes, a policy replete with contradictions and one ultimately backfiring? Why support jihadist groups in a number of countries from Libya to Yemen, from Syria to Iraq when the result is greater jihadist activity throughout the Middle East and random hits against innocent targets in the West?  Post-Cold War US has a need to keep feeding the military industrial complex whose presence in Washington is strong given their lobbying efforts among elected officials. However, that does not explain fully the war on terror on the one hand, and policies that promote terrorism on the other.
Besides the pressure from the defense industries for more government contracts to meet the dangers of our times, which includes ‘Islamic terrorism’, and besides the regional balance of power argument that diplomats advance, there is the question of using the war on terror to maintain the status quo at home in the face of external threats. Conformity to the status quo, especially amid a declining middle class and massive gap between the very rich and the rest of the citizens becomes paramount for the two political parties. This may actually be the biggest argument for creating terrorism than feeding more contracts to the defense industry and various parasitic consulting firms repeating what the hawkish elements in both political parties want to hear about a strong defense as a panacea to all of society’s problems.
The lesson here is not that the term terrorism is generic and meaningless. Now that the Republican presidential candidate has given legitimacy to the theme that the US creates terrorism, a theme that is hardly new among serious analysts of the war on terror, the argument takes center stage no matter how much both Republicans and Democrats try to dismiss it. Trump’s comments reflect a populist frustration with a wayward government pursuing destabilization policies filled with contradictions and lack of clarity both in terms of procedure and outcomes. The lesson here is not just the lengths to which a presidential candidate would go to secure more popular support using rhetoric one would associate with politicians in less developed countries where political opponents have no qualms suggesting it may not be a bad idea to eliminate the other. The lesson is that no matter the propaganda by the media, pundits, politicians, academics, and all who pretend that terrorism came like the blob from another planet are now unable to hide behind this enemy.

Hillary Clinton Invoked Possible Assassination Of Obama As Reason To Stay In Race in ’08

Robert J. Barsocchini 


After Donald Trump’s comment this week that could possibly have been interpreted to be leaning towards brushing with suggesting the assassination or imprisonment of Hillary Clinton, or, more likely, as Robert Parry pointed out, some kind of violent revolution, Clinton Tweeted:
“A person seeking to be the President of the United States should not suggest violence in any way.”
Putting aside that all Clinton is doing with this tweet is preening in an echo chamber in which her oligarch and corporate propaganda-influenced supporters agree that advocating for or participating in illegal acts of mass-violence against Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Palestine, Yugoslavia (“I urged him [Bill] to bomb.” – Hillary Clinton), Nicaragua, and others, or threatening the use of nuclear weapons against Iran (“all options on the table”), all of which Clinton has done, are not “in any way” suggestions for the use of violence, Wikileaks points out:
“Clinton in 2008 sa[id] she won’t drop out of the primaries because if someone assassinates Obama she can still win”:
Indeed, Keith Olberman here chastises Clinton for almost 11 minutes about her inappropriate comments, in which, unlike Trump, she actually used the word “assassination” in reference to the reason why she should stay in the presidential primary against Obama. Olberman also points out that Clinton had made similar comments at least two other times, one of which also used the term “assassination” directly.
He repeatedly and angrily says Clinton’s comments are “unforgivable”.
True, Olberman eventually careens off the rails when he says “this nation’s … most terrifying legacy is political assassination” (referring only to the assassination of US politicians). But then, genocide denial (Native Americans, Africans, Koreans, Vietnamese, Iraqis? Never heard of ’em.) is an integral part of the mission of US corporate media, and to be expected. He lists a dozen or so US politicians who have been or almost been assassinated, of course never mentioning the many dozens of non-US politicians assassinated or almost assassinated by US terrorist forces.  These now include African leader Muammar Qaddafi, whose assassination Clinton helped carry out, then laughed giddily and clapped over in 2011.  At that time, Clinton had recently helped secure the biggest lethal weapons sale in history to terrorist state Saudi Arabia.
Directly under Clinton’s propaganda statement on Twitter about how a “person seeking to be the President of the United States should not suggest violence in any way” is an image touting one of Clinton’s latest campaign slogans: “America is great because America is good.”
The exceptional inanity of the statement, which one must assume is directed toward the minority of people in the country still willing to support Clinton, calls to mind FBI Director James Comey’s official claim in session that Clinton may lack the ‘sophistication’ to know that the letter C means ‘Classified’.  Which is worse: he was serious and his statement might be true, or the FBI director was covering for Hillary Clinton?
In his segment ‘Reality Check’, Ben Swann asks: since Clinton and Trump are the most despised candidates in modern history, wouldn’t now be a good time to stop voting for an evil person you hate, and instead vote for a good person you like?
He points out that Jill Stein and Gary Johnson together, without the nepotism or corrupt corporate cash of a Clinton or a Trump, are polling extraordinarily well.  Stein pledges to use executive order to cancel student debt like Obama used it to cancel debt for the criminal banks, and to make college free, and points out that if just people with student debt voted for her, she would win the election.