British Government Scientists
Vouched For Validity Of Study
Estimating 655,000 War Deaths In Iraq

By Naomi Spencer
28 March 2007
[www.wsws.org]

British government scientists endorsed the validity of a study released last October that estimated 655,000 Iraqis have been killed as the result of the US-led invasion and occupation of Iraq, the BBC reported March 26.

Despite the advice of its own scientists, however, the government of British Prime Minister Tony Blair, along with US President Bush and Australian Prime Minister John Howard, brushed aside the study, conducted by Johns Hopkins University’s Bloomberg School of Public Health and published in the British medical journal the Lancet, calling its methodology “flawed” and its results “suspect.” The media in both the US and Britain buried the report.

According to documents obtained by the BBC World Service’s “Newshour” program under a freedom of information request, senior officials and scientists had advised the Blair government against publicly criticizing the findings, saying that the methodology was “a tried and tested way of measuring mortality in conflict zones.”

The BBC report confirms the validity of the Johns Hopkins study and underscores the monumental scale of US and British war crimes in Iraq. It also highlights the dishonesty and complicity of the media in these crimes.

The Johns Hopkins study, published October 11, 2006, compared mortality rates before and after the US-led invasion by conducting thousands of interviews in Iraq. The survey was an enormous undertaking, with a sample size of over 12,800 individuals in 1,849 households in 47 randomly chosen areas throughout the country. With 95 percent statistical certainty, researchers concluded that the number of war dead was between 392,979 and 942,636, with the highest statistical likelihood around 655,000.

In 92 percent of the interviews, respondents furnished death certificates for the researchers. They concluded that, in three years, 2.5 percent of the Iraqi population had been killed in the war - an average of more than 500 a day. Most of the deaths were from gunfire. If the rate of Iraqi deaths were extrapolated to the US population, the toll of American fatalities would be 7.5 million - nearly equal to the population of New York City.

President Bush

At a press conference the same day the study was published, President Bush told reporters, “I don’t consider it a credible report . . . Neither does General Casey, neither do Iraqi officials.” The Iraqi Health Ministry’s mortality estimate is one-tenth the Johns Hopkins estimate. Without providing an explanation, alternative estimate, or even demonstrating that he had read the study, Bush described the methodology as “pretty well discredited.”

Australian Prime Minister Howard declared, “I don’t believe that Johns Hopkins research. I don’t. It’s not plausible. It’s not based on anything other than a house-to-house survey.”

Likewise, a spokesman for Tony Blair told the press, “The problem is they’re using an extrapolation technique from a relatively small sample from an area of Iraq which isn’t representative of the country as a whole. We have questioned that technique right from the beginning and we continue to do so.”

The British government issued a statement following Monday’s BBC report in which it reiterated the same “uncertainty:” “The methodology has been used in other conflict situations, notably the Democratic Republic of Congo. However, the Lancet figures are much higher than statistics from other sources, which only goes to show how estimates can vary enormously according to the method of collection.”

Among the documents obtained by the BBC was a memo by the chief scientific adviser at the British Ministry of Defense, Roy Anderson, written just two days after the Johns Hopkins study was published. The memo said, “The study design is robust and employs methods that are regarded as close to ‘best practice’ in this area, given the difficulties of data collection and verification in the present circumstances in Iraq.”

Responding to Anderson’s memo, a British government official wrote, “Are we really sure the report is likely to be right? That is certainly what the brief implies.”

Another official responded to Anderson’s statement: “We do not accept the figures quoted in the Lancet survey as accurate.” Yet in the same email, the official stated, “However, the survey methodology used here cannot be rubbished, it is a tried and tested way of measuring mortality in conflict zones.”

Political

Clearly, the reason the Blair government did not accept the estimates had nothing to do with the science, and everything to do with the political and legal implications of a death toll on the scale of genocide for which the US-led coalition is responsible.

There has been virtually no US media coverage of the BBC’s damning report. A day after the story broke in Britain, the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, USA Today, CNN, MSNBC, the four major broadcast networks and other outlets failed to mention the report. Only the Washington Times online picked up the story, reposting a United Press International brief of less than two hundred words.

The mainstream press has played an integral role in suppressing politically damaging information from the build-up to the Iraq invasion up to the present. With its latest blackout, the US media yet again affirms its complicity in the mass killing and social devastation carried out by American imperialism in Iraq.

Last October, when the Johns Hopkins study was released, the New York Times and Washington Post buried the story in their back pages and made no editorial comment. When confronted by reporters for the World Socialist Web Site about his newspaper’s handling of the subject during a talk on security and press freedom at the University of Michigan in October, New York Times editor Bill Keller shrugged off the suppression of the story, saying, “We didn’t splash it on the front page.”

On October 18, 2006, the Wall Street Journal ran the despicably entitled opinion piece, “655,000 War Dead? A Bogus Study on Iraq Casualties.” It was written by Steven Moore, who had worked under Paul Bremer and the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq. Declaring that “the Johns Hopkins tally is wildly at odds with any numbers I have seen in that country,” Moore suggested that the study was ideologically biased.

As the blackout on Monday’s BBC report makes clear, the media continues to keep people in the dark about the scale of the carnage in Iraq and shield those who are responsible.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/mar2007/iraq-m28.shtml

The Bush Administration
Manoeuvres To Unseat
Iraqi Government

By Peter Symonds
16 March 2007
[www.wsws.org]

Despite denials from Washington, there are growing signs that the Bush administration has issued threats to its puppet government in Baghdad to meet US-dictated “benchmarks” or face the consequences. The White House aims not only to end the military disaster in Iraq and open up the country’s oil for exploitation, but to fashion an Iraqi regime more supportive of US preparations for aggression against Iran.

Associated Press reported on Wednesday that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki feared the Bush administration would “torpedo” his government if it failed to meet US demands. The article highlighted a US threat to withdraw support from the government if it failed to pass a draft hydrocarbons law by the end of June that would open up Iraqi oil and gas fields to American corporations.

In line with its efforts to forge an alliance of so-called Sunni states against Shiite Iran, Washington is also demanding a government in Baghdad by the end of the year “acceptable to the country’s Sunni Arab neighbours, particularly Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt”. These governments are concerned that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and the emergence of a Shiite-dominated government in Baghdad have bolstered Iran’s influence in Iraq and throughout the region.

The Arab League, which consists largely of states controlled by Sunni elites, issued a statement earlier this month demanding an end to anti-Sunni discrimination and measures to enhance the political role of the Sunni minority, which formed the social base of Hussein’s Baathist regime. The comments provoked an angry statement from the ruling Shiite United Iraqi Alliance (UIA), denouncing the Arab League for its “flagrant interference in Iraq’s internal affairs,” which would “incite discord and acts of violence inside Iraq”.

The US has reinforced “Sunni” demands by imposing “benchmarks” on the Maliki government, requiring a reversal of previous de-Baathification laws, fresh elections for regional councils and changes to the present Iraqi constitution. The measures would open the door for members of the Sunni elite to play a greater political role and resume their posts in the state bureaucracy and security forces.

Oil Law

The New York Times yesterday reported that the Maliki government had already failed to meet these objectives which were due to be completed this month. A Pentagon assessment submitted to the US Congress on Wednesday said Maliki had “promised to reform his government, beginning with his cabinet and ministries,” but there had been no changes as yet. It also pointed to “little progress on the reconciliation front [with Sunnis]” and modest steps toward finalising the oil legislation.

At the end of last month, the Maliki cabinet, under pressure from Washington, adopted an oil law aimed at ending the bitter differences over the internal sharing of revenues. But the legislation is yet to be passed by the national assembly, where it is opposed by two significant blocs—the Iraqi National List led by former Prime Minister Iyad Allawi and the Sunni-based Iraqi Accord Front. Both are demanding constitutional changes to enhance the position of Sunnis as the price for supporting the oil legislation.

As a result, Maliki is caught in a dilemma. Any concessions to the Sunni minority are bitterly opposed by the Shiite fundamentalist parties on which his ruling coalition rests. But if he fails to meet the Bush administration’s “benchmarks,” in particular the passage of the oil law by June, he risks the loss of American backing. “Al-Maliki is committed to meeting the deadline because he is convinced he would not survive in power without US support,” one of his close associates told Associated Press.

Officially, the Bush administration has denied issuing any ultimatum to the Maliki government. “The notion that we have in any way, shape or form threatened to bring down his government over this law is simply untrue,” US State Department spokesman Tom Casey told the media. Behind the scenes, however, US officials are not only insisting that the “benchmarks” have to be met, but are actively conniving with Allawi to undermine the Maliki government and prepare an alternative regime.

Allawi is a former Baathist thug who broke with the Hussein regime. A longstanding CIA asset, he was installed as prime minister in May 2004 by the US proconsul in Baghdad, Paul Bremer III, but failed dismally in national ballots. In the December 2005 election, Iraqis overwhelmingly repudiated Allawi’s Iraqi National List (INL), which currently has only 25 seats in the National Assembly. After retiring to London, he then returned to Iraq and is attempting to make a comeback with obvious backing from Washington.

Anti-Sunni

Allawi is positioning himself as the mouthpiece for the Bush administration’s policies: opposing anti-Sunni discrimination, posturing as a “secular” alternative to Maliki’s Shiite coalition and seeking support from neighbouring Arab states. His INL, which currently has five ministers, is threatening to pull out of Maliki’s government if its demands are not met. In a statement issued on March 1, the bloc warned “it will soon no longer be able to accept the responsibility of being in this government, because of its sectarian domination and narrow-mindedness”.

In recent weeks, Allawi, with US support, has assembled an alliance of more than 80 seats in the 275-seat National Assembly, including the Sunni-based Tawafuq bloc, as well as independents and smaller parties. His prospects of challenging Maliki were boosted by the decision of the Shiite Fadhila party to walk out of the UIA coalition last week. Fadhila, which has 15 MPs, has criticised the UIA’s “sectarianism” and is being actively courted by Allawi, but has yet to join his grouping.

Allawi is also wooing the Kurdish nationalist parties, which have 55 seats. He travelled to the Kurdish north last week to meet with Massoud Barzani, who is head of the Kurdish regional government. As Barzani’s spokesman Abdul-Khaleq Zanganah told Associated Press, the two held talks on forming “a national front to take over from the political bloc now supporting al-Maliki”. The presence of the US ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, at the discussions was an obvious sign of US backing for the enterprise, as well as a warning to Maliki.

Just as significant is the fact that the two men flew to Riyadh this week for discussions with the Saudi monarchy, which, with Washington’s encouragement, has taken a more aggressive role in regional politics since the end of last year, with the aim of undermining Iranian influence. Sections of the Saudi elite are openly hostile to the Maliki government, regarding it as little more than a stooge for their regional rival Iran. Allawi needs no convincing to get rid of Maliki, but Kurdish leaders may well need inducements and guarantees.

The main objective of the two major Kurdish parties—Barzani’s Kurdish Democratic Party (KDP) and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK)—has been to secure an autonomous Kurdish regional government and to extend it to include the oil-rich northern area around Kirkuk. Allawi and his bloc, however, are calling for constitutional changes that would weaken or even abolish regional groupings of provinces. At the same time, Barzani may consider an alliance with Allawi as necessary to ensure continued US backing.

Withdrawal

Much of the commentary about Allawi’s obvious manoeuvring is preoccupied with speculation about possible political combinations that would give him a parliamentary majority. For instance, if Allawi fails to gain the support of the Kurdish parties, the UIA will continue to control the National Assembly, provided its 113-seat bloc remains intact. Such calculations ignore the fact that neither the Bush administration nor Allawi would have the slightest hesitation in ignoring the Iraqi constitution, dispensing with its extremely limited “democratic” norms and using other means to seize power.

The World Socialist Web Site reported a series of articles in the US press last year, beginning in August, openly hinting that the Bush administration was considering dispensing with the Maliki government and “democracy” in Iraq. It is significant that the reemergence of Allawi into the political limelight coincides with an article in the Los Angeles Times on March 12 revealing that the Pentagon has already begun planning for a fallback strategy if the current “surge” of US troops in Baghdad should fail to suppress the anti-US insurgency and expanding sectarian civil war.

According to the newspaper, the “El Salvador” option is currently under consideration, which includes a gradual withdrawal of US forces and a renewed emphasis on training Iraqi fighters. “El Salvador veterans and experts have been pushing for the model of a smaller, less visible US advisory presence,” the article reported. “Some academics,” it noted in passing, “have argued the US military turned a blind eye to government-backed death squads or even aided them.” In fact, the US-backed death squads and savage military repression were the strategy used to eliminate leftist opponents of the regime in El Salvador and terrorise the entire population. At the height of the bloodletting in the early 1980s, over 13,000 people were being slaughtered a year.

Stephen Biddle of the Council on Foreign Relations argued in the Los Angeles Times that the El Salvador option would not work in Iraq because of the country’s raging sectarian civil war. Any attempt to build a plan around training the Shiite-dominated government forces, he said, was bound to fail. The obvious solution is to get rid of the Maliki government and install a strongman who is prepared to do whatever it takes to stamp his authority on the security forces and unleash death squads to eliminate opposition to the US occupation.

Allawi certainly fits the bill. During his long exile from Iraq before 2003, he maintained close connections with dissident elements of the Baathist security and intelligence apparatus and has been accused of masterminding several terrorist acts against Hussein’s regime. After his installation as prime minister in 2004, he reappointed former Baathist officials to key posts to exploit their expertise in suppressing political opposition. During Allawi’s term of office, notorious death squads such as the Wolf Brigade were established with the assistance of US advisers such as James Steele, a veteran of the El Salvador campaign.

Allawi is not averse to getting his hands dirty. In July 2004, the Sydney Morning Herald reported that two Iraqi eyewitnesses saw Allawi shoot dead six handcuffed and blindfolded prisoners at the Al-Amariyah security centre in Baghdad the previous month. The cold-blooded executions, carried out in front of US special forces troops, were meant as a lesson to Iraqi police and troops that they could also kill with impunity. No adequate investigation has been carried out into this brutal incident.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/mar2007/iraq-m16.shtml

Sand Ban A Lost Opportunity
For Economic Cooperation
Says S'pore PM

By Jackson Sawatan
[bernama.com]


SINGAPORE, March 18 (Bernama) -- Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has described Indonesia's ban on sand export as a lost opportunity for economic cooperation which hurts both sides, a report here said.

Commenting for the first time on the issue, Lee said that Singapore had to accept the decision and look for ways to overcome the problem.

"The official explanation is that it's because of concerns over the environment and that it has nothing to do with other issues which we are negotiating like the extradition treaty and the defence cooperation agreement or the ongoing talks on boundary demarcation," he told a group of Japanese journalists ahead of his visit to Japan today, as reported by The Straits Times.

Last month, Indonesia imposed the ban on the export of sand of which Singapore is the biggest importer, citing environmental concerns.

Lee said: "So, we accept the explanation they've given us and we hope that over time, the matter will stabilise and we will be able to resume our cooperation."

The sand import ban took a new twist just days after it took effect on Feb 6 when several Indonesian legislators remarked that the ban was Indonesia's way of pressuring Singapore into signing an extradition treaty and to resolve border disputes between both countries.

Indonesia wants the extradition treaty to bring back Indonesian tycoons which Jakarta has alleged to have fled to Singapore, taking with them corrupt money.

Following the ban, Singapore released its sand stockpile to ease the shortage of the building material.

Lee said Singapore's sand stockpile would last for a considerable time and that the cost increase would be quite bearable.

He described as unfortunate that the problem has come up. "We don't fully understand why," he said.

Besides releasing its sand stockpile, Singapore is also importing sand from other sources to make up for the shortage and is exploring ways to reduce dependency on sand in construction.

"There is potential to go for more efficient processes, steel and drywalls. These are things which we are embarking on to reduce our construction costs," he said.

-- BERNAMA
http://www.bernama.com

Singapore And Neighbors
Just Can't Get Along

By Wayne Arnold and Thomas Fuller
[International Herald Tribune]

Some countries have strategic oil reserves; others stockpile rice or wheat. The island nation of Singapore has emergency reserves of imported sand.

The sand is there to secure Singapore's insatiable demand for concrete, a reminder of Singapore's vulnerability as a nation without a hinterland to supply it with vital resources.

Singapore's government is now being forced to tap its sand horde after its usual supplier, Indonesia, abruptly banned exports in February, citing the impact of a recent Singapore construction boom on its beaches and island environments.

The ban touched off the latest in a string of disputes between Singapore and its neighbors over water, land reclamation, satellite concessions, corporate takeovers and the flight patterns of the Singaporean Air Force — just to name a few.

A Malaysian politician has blamed Singapore for worsening floods in his constituency. A top Indonesian politician has appealed for the recall of Singapore's ambassador. The general in Thailand who led the coup there last September has accused Singapore of tapping his phones.

Tiffs between Singapore and its neighbors are nothing new, and analysts say the latest dust-ups are unlikely to seriously harm relations.

But the analysts say that the recent quarrels highlight the fissures that continue to thwart the region's ability to compete collectively against the economies of India and China.

If Singapore and its neighbors cannot agree to share such basic resources as sand and water, they say, the dream of a single market by 2015 - the stated goal of the 10-member countries of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations - may be illusory.

"They're more competitive with each other than natural allies," said Robert Broadfoot, managing director of the Political & Economic Risk Consultancy in Hong Kong.

The disputes also raise questions about Singapore's drive to expand its investments in the region. Singapore's advances appear to be aggravating what might be described as a personality conflict between what is one of the world's richest countries and its much larger, but much poorer, neighbors.

"We see Singapore in two ways," said Drajad Wibowo, a legislator from Indonesia's National Mandate Party. "On one hand as a role model for development; on the other hand, many see Singapore as an arrogant economic giant, which is prepared to use its financial muscle to 'undermine' neighboring countries."

Singapore's problems with its neighbors are as old as the country itself. Independence in 1965 came about after it was ejected by Malaysia.

Singapore's leaders took advantage of their city's historic role as a trading post to lure investment and manufacturing, vaulting Singapore within 20 years to the ranks of the world's most affluent nations - and breezing past Malaysia, Indonesia and Thailand along the way.

While its shrewdness has prompted frequent comparisons to Switzerland, some say its assertiveness places it closer to Israel. In his memoirs, Singapore's founding prime minister, Lee Kuan Yew, said his goal "was to leapfrog the region, as the Israelis had done."

Like Israel, Singapore is an ethnic anomaly, a predominantly Chinese population in a predominantly Malay region. Indeed, Singapore even sought advice from Israel on how to build its defenses after independence. As such, Singapore has become a magnet for ethnic Chinese talent and wealth from around Southeast Asia.

But while Singapore is part of the region, it often seems to be apart from it. In a region where politics are ruled by nuance and consensus, they say, Singapore can be self-servingly rational, legalistic and seemingly tone-deaf to local sensitivities.

"Singapore doesn't really care about the opinion of its neighbors," the former Malaysian prime minister Mahathir bin Mohamad complained to a Thai television station in January. "Singapore believes the most important thing is what profits Singapore."

"Their values and their efficiency don't export well," said Broadfoot.

Singapore's officials, for the most part, are not apologetic.

"For Singapore, the rule of law and the protection of property are absolutely important from the days we were established as a trading post for the British East India Company," said Foreign Minister George Yeo in a written response to questions. "Why else would this piece of rock, amidst thousands scattered in the archipelago, flourish?"

In Singapore's Parliament, legislators recently complained that Singapore was being picked on unfairly. One member of Parliament blasted efforts by neighbors to make Singapore a "scapegoat for their own domestic troubles."

But as the disputes accumulate there are also voices in Singapore calling for a change of approach.

A March 12 editorial in Business Times, which like all Singapore newspapers is state controlled, proposed that the government's investment arm, Temasek, create a charitable foundation.

While that might not eliminate "nationalistic responses" to Temasek's activities in the region, the editorial read, "giving back rather than merely extracting profits (legitimate though that may be), yields a huge payoff for companies in terms of building good will, respect, networks, and in the end, profitability."

The rising animosity in Thailand toward Singapore is especially troubling for the city-state because the two countries were Cold War allies with little history of rancor. The mood began to change when Singaporean banks took over Thai banks after the 1997 financial crisis, adding to a general resentment among the Thai elite about selling off distressed assets.

In 2004, when Singapore struck a 15- year deal with the Thai military for use of one of its military bases, activist groups in Thailand said the deal violated the country's sovereignty.

More recently, Singapore became a national punching bag in Thailand after Temasek led a group of investors in buying the telecommunications empire of Thaksin Shinawatra, the prime minister ousted in the coup last September.

The Thai government says the transaction was illegal, an accusation Singapore denies.

As for Indonesia, it remains unclear what sparked the new ban on sand exports. Indonesia's official explanation is damage to its environment. In 2002, Indonesia begin restricting exports of sand after reports emerged of entire islands disappearing as Singapore expanded.

However, Indonesia's maritime affairs minister, Freddy Numberi, later said the ban was also aimed at pressuring Singapore into signing a long- stalled extradition treaty.

Wealthy Indonesians, particularly ethnic Chinese, have long used Singapore as a haven from Indonesia's periodic strife. Indonesians are the leading foreign property owners in Singapore, and wealthy Indonesians keep as much as $87 billion stashed in Singapore banks, according to estimates.

Many Indonesians suspect that Singapore is harboring white-collar criminals, though there have been no publicized cases of fugitives living here.

Indonesia's foreign minister denied Freddy's claim, but Singapore bristled, calling Indonesia's mixed signals "puzzling and disappointing."

Singapore says the two countries had already agreed that the extradition treaty would be negotiated, together with a defense cooperation pact. Foreign Minister Yeo told Singapore's Parliament last week that an agreement was near.

The confusion over Indonesia's policy is only growing, though. In late February, the Indonesian Navy detained 13 tugs pulling barges full of granite, another widely used construction material, saying they were searching for smuggled sand.

It was into this fracas that the speaker of Indonesia's Parliament, Agung Laksono, waded when he called for the recall of Singapore's ambassador.

"I think the government must immediately send the Singaporean ambassador home in protest against that country's unfriendly attitude," he was quoted as saying by Indonesia's state news agency, Antara.

Now, with the price of sand nearly triple what it was before the ban, Singapore is drawing down its sand stockpiles while looking for new suppliers. How long the reserves will last and where sand will be bought, authorities won't say.

In the meantime, Singapore is standing firm.

"From time to time, we must expect other countries will pressure Singapore in the hope that we will then give way to their demands," Yeo told Parliament. "Singaporeans know that, if we give in to such pressures, we would only invite more such pressures."

http://malaysia-today.net/blog2006/newsncom.php?itemid=3163

Final Part:
Australian PM Outlines
Indefinite Military Agenda
In South Pacific
[www.wsws.org]

The Howard government’s vision of neo-colonial military-led interventions in the Pacific lasting 10 to 20 years presents enormous dangers to working people and youth in the Pacific Islands and in Australia.

It will inevitably produce a catastrophe. The population of the Pacific Islands have suffered a long history of British, French, German, and Australian colonial domination. It is impossible that such forms of rule can be peacefully imposed in the twenty-first century. Pacific Islanders have every right to resist Canberra’s machinations and it is only a matter of time before Australian soldiers and police are targeted. The initial stages of such a struggle are already evident in East Timor and the Solomon Islands. Canberra will respond by escalating its violence and repression, unleashing military force on a scale not seen in the Pacific since World War II.

The domestic repercussions will be no less calamitous. Democratic rights are already under sustained attack, and this will intensify as opposition to Howard’s agenda mounts. Bourgeois democratic norms and basic legal and constitutional rights are fundamentally incompatible with a state of permanent military mobilisation. In its efforts to forge a constituency for war and divert mounting social tensions, the political and media establishment is pumping out the poison of national chauvinism—involving the incitement of anti-Muslim racism and promotion of “Australian values”—and glorifying militarism.

Militarism

Young people face a future of being dragooned into the armed forces as cannon fodder for military interventions. School children are already being encouraged to enlist in the cadets and then the army. The Howard government has introduced a military “gap year” for those who have finished school but do not wish to immediately begin their tertiary education. Last year Howard announced that an additional $10 billion will be spent to recruit another 2,600 troops, on top of a 1,500 increase announced in December 2005, bringing the total increase to 20 percent. Half a billion dollars has also been committed for the near doubling of the Australian Federal Police’s “international deployment group”—an outfit focussed on operations in the South Pacific. Inevitably, these initiatives will soon be accompanied by moves to introduce conscription.

The billions of dollars in public funds being poured into the military represent a massive social misappropriation. While funding for public health and education, social infrastructure, and welfare and social services have all been gutted by successive state and federal governments, “defence” spending has skyrocketed. Australia is now the eleventh largest military spender in the world and ranks ahead of countries such as Israel, Turkey, Brazil, and Iran.

The political starting point for a struggle against the turn to militarism and war is the recognition that not a single element within the Australian political and media establishment opposes any aspect of the Howard government’s neo-colonial operations in the South Pacific. To the extent that the opposition Labor Party and its new leader Kevin Rudd have any criticisms of the government, they are all from the right. Rudd accuses Howard of incompetence for allowing an “arc of instability” to develop, and advocates greater tact in diplomatic efforts aimed at browbeating Australia’s neighbours. Like the Greens, Labor calls for the redeployment of Australian troops from Iraq to the South Pacific in order to bolster operations in East Timor, the Solomons, and elsewhere.

Interventions

The unanimous defence by Labor and the minor parties of Australia’s Pacific interventions ultimately derives from their support for the profit system and the nation-state system upon which it rests. Opposition to war, militarism, and neo-colonialism can only be advanced on an independent socialist and internationalist basis.

The Socialist Equality Party (SEP) will be standing candidates in the New South Wales state election scheduled for March 24 and the federal election due later this year. Our campaign will be focussed on building a mass movement of the working class against militarism and war—in Iraq, the Middle East and in the South Pacific. We demand the immediate withdrawal of all US, Australian and other troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, and all Australian soldiers, police, and bureaucratic personnel from the Pacific. We demand an end to all those regional “aid” programs that function as nothing more than international slush funds for Australian corporations.

Instead, billions of dollars in genuine aid must be spent to lift the Pacific Islands out of poverty and undo the terrible legacy of colonialism and the damage still being inflicted by International Monetary Fund and World Bank programs.

At the same time, the SEP defends the right of every worker in the region to freely travel and work in Australia with full democratic and legal rights. We urge every socially conscious worker and young person in Australia and throughout the Pacific to take up the fight for this perspective by contacting the World Socialist Web Site and the International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI) and building it as the new international party of the working class.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/jan2007/sep-j18.shtml

Singapore-Malaysia Ties
'Good And Getting Better'
[wongkanseng.blogspot.com]

THE Prime Ministers of Singapore and Malaysia will hold their first retreat in May in one of the clearest signs yet that bilateral ties are 'good and getting better'.

That was the phrase Minister for Foreign Affairs George Yeo used yesterday to describe warming relations.

He told Parliament that Mr Lee Hsien Loong would lead a delegation of ministers up north for a retreat with Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi and his colleagues.

Singapore had also proposed setting up a consulate in Johor Baru, a move welcomed by Malaysian Foreign Minister Syed Hamid Albar, said Mr Yeo as he gave an overview of the Republic's foreign relations.

Quoting his Malaysian counterpart, Mr Yeo said he agreed with him that bilateral ties 'have never been better'.

Datuk Seri Syed Hamid had also said that while it did not mean all bilateral issues had been resolved, the two sides were now moving to a more mature track and could separate those areas where there was potential for progress and move ahead on them.

'I welcome this new phase in our relationship,' said Mr Yeo.

'Close cooperation between our two countries will benefit our peoples,' he added.

He expressed his own delight at Genting's successful bid for the Sentosa integrated resort project. Singapore also looked forward to working with Malaysia on the Iskandar Development Region in south Johor 'on the basis of mutual respect and mutual benefit'.

Mr Yeo told the House too that the National University of Singapore would be conferring on the Sultan of Johor an honorary doctorate when he visits the Republic next month.

Turning to the overall regional and international outlook for Singapore, Mr Yeo said it was favourable.

Ties between the big powers, namely, the United States, China and Japan, which affected Singapore, had improved.

On the regional front, Singapore was doing all it could to move Asean forward as it believed that a strong and peaceful regional grouping could play a major role in maintaining the larger peace in Asia.

On current tensions with some fellow Asean members, Mr Yeo said it was understandable that Singaporeans would be concerned, but they should take the ups and downs in their stride.

'From time to time, we must expect countries to pressure us in the hope that we will then give in to their demands,' he said.

Singapore would not give in to such pressures but was always prepared to build good relations with its neighbours on the basis of mutual respect and benefit, he said.

He was responding to nine Members of Parliament, who asked about Indonesia's recent ban on sand exports to the Republic.

Mr Yeo replied that it was 'not clear' what caused the recent events that threatened bilateral relations.

'We know, for a fact, that President Yudhoyono values good bilateral relations, as we do,' he added, referring to Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono.

On ongoing talks for an extradition treaty and a defence cooperation agreement, Mr Yeo said the two countries were not far from a solution.

Both have agreed to elevate the negotiations to the ministerial level so that 'they can be jointly concluded on an overall balance of benefits', he added.

On Thailand, he was confident that ties would weather the uproar over former premier Thaksin Shinawatra's visit to Singapore in January.

MPs welcomed the news of improving ties with Malaysia.

On the proposed consulate in Johor, Mr Michael Palmer, deputy chairman of the Government Parliamentary Committee for Defence and Foreign Affairs, said: 'If our interests in Johor increase, we should have diplomatic representation. It would help our businesses there if and when they run into any problems.'

shpeh@sph.com.sg

http://wongkanseng.blogspot.com/2007/03/singapore-malaysia-ties-good-and.html

Part Two:

Australian PM Outlines
Indefinite Military Agenda
In South Pacific
[www.wsws.org]

The region’s natural resources now help fuel China’s ongoing industrial expansion. Papua New Guinea, for example, was China’s second largest source of logs in 2005, behind Russia, and 80 percent of PNG’s log exports go to China. One of China’s largest overseas investment projects, the Ramu nickel mine, is located in PNG. Opened late last year, the mine was developed by China’s Metallurgical Construction Corp after Beijing reached a $US915 million financing agreement with the PNG government. The investment was directly driven by a shortage of raw materials for China’s stainless steel industry.

The Beijing bureaucracy is investing considerable resources in its diplomatic relations with the South Pacific countries. China now has more diplomats in the region than any other country, and Pacific leaders visiting Beijing are granted lavish receptions. While there are no official figures available, Chinese aid to the South Pacific is estimated at more than $A300 million annually—a sum nearly twice the total gross domestic product of the three poorest nations in the region (Kiribati, Nauru, and Tuvalu). Much of Beijing’s aid is devoted to prominent “prestige projects”—sports stadiums in Fiji and Samoa, a parliamentary complex in Vanuatu, and new foreign ministry headquarters in PNG—and unlike Australian aid money, Chinese funding does not require Pacific governments to fulfil “good governance” and other obligations.

Several American and Australian foreign policy analysts have warned of the long-term strategic implications of China’s growing influence. In World War II, the US was forced to wage a series of bloody battles against the Japanese to secure control of the Pacific Islands. After the war, US authorities considered the entire Pacific Ocean to be an “American lake”. In partnership with allies such as Australia, Washington’s intent was to maintain exclusive control and prevent any potential adversaries from gaining a foothold in the strategically significant region.

Dominance

Stratfor, an American security and intelligence think tank, has warned that, “China’s need to counter American power - combined with Beijing’s limited naval capability - makes a Pacific Island strategy as natural to them as it was to the Japanese decades ago.” Stratfor raised the prospect of Beijing attempting to counter US naval dominance by stationing missiles in South Pacific countries. “While Beijing is unlikely to deploy forces to the South Pacific soon, its relationships with the island nations offer it a strategic tool to counter US naval power in Asia. The Chinese military has paid great attention to the development of shore-based anti-ship missile systems it eventually could deploy throughout the South Pacific and Southeast Asia.”

The US has already made clear its unwillingness to allow any erosion of its military position in the Pacific. Washington paid considerable attention to a satellite tracking station constructed by the Chinese government in Kiribati in 1997. While Beijing insisted the station was only used for scientific and commercial purposes, the Bush administration alleged that it was being used to develop a Chinese space warfare program and also spy on the US military’s missile testing facility in the neighbouring Marshall Islands. This facility is vital for the development of the Bush administration’s Strategic Defence Initiative (“Son of Star Wars”) missile defence system. The Chinese tracking station was shut down in 2004 after Kiribati’s government recognised Taipei. Although never proven, Washington was widely believed to have been involved in behind-the-scenes manoeuvres encouraging the diplomatic switch.

Canberra fears Beijing’s growing influence in the South Pacific for a number of reasons. China’s increasing commercial ties—particularly its aggressive pursuit of oil, gas, minerals, timber, and fishing investments—threatens corporate Australia’s dominant position in the exploitation of the region’s natural resources. Canberra’s foreign policy establishment is also hostile to Beijing and Taipei’s aid and trade rivalry, which it considers a threat to its efforts to cultivate compliant pro-Australian regimes in the Pacific states.

Beijing

Canberra’s alliance with Washington is a critical factor shaping the Howard government’s response to Beijing’s entry into the South Pacific. Bush has previously designated China as a “strategic competitor” and looks to Canberra to defend US interests in the region.

In the Sunday Telegraph interview, Howard explained, “That’s why we’ve been increasing the size of our army. It’s all designed to give us the capacity to deal with things in the region. And this is our responsibility. The rest of the world looks to us to do it, and the more we are able to play our part effectively here, the less is legitimately expected of us in other parts of the world. That’s not to say we won’t do other things, but if we can have an effective stabilising role in the whole Pacific region, I can assure you that is mightily important to the Americans and to our allies in Europe.”

The Howard government has unconditionally backed the Bush administration’s criminal interventions in the Middle East, dispatching troops to both Afghanistan and Iraq. In return, Washington has provided critical backing for Canberra’s operations in the Pacific. Underlying this quid pro quo is a convergence of interests, with the Howard government advancing its agenda in the region under the aegis of US imperialism’s claim to global hegemony. This is the essence of Howard’s self-proclaimed role of “deputy sheriff”.

Terror

The Bush administration’s so-called war on terror and its doctrine of “regime change” and pre-emptive war were the basis for the Howard government’s takeover of the Solomon Islands in 2003, when it dispatched hundreds of soldiers, police, and bureaucratic personnel to the tiny country. The Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands (RAMSI) was subsequently hailed as a model military-led intervention into a “failing state” that could be applied throughout the region. When announcing the expansion of the Australian military last year, Howard named Papua New Guinea, Fiji, and Vanuatu as further potential targets.

The Bush administration has repeatedly expressed its appreciation of Canberra’s role. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was asked last month whether she was disappointed that Australian troops were not playing a more front-line role in Iraq. “I would never use the word disappointment in the same line with Australia,” she replied. “This is a country that, not only in Iraq, not only in Afghanistan, not only in tsunami relief, not only in support for all that we’re doing in the Asia Pacific, but also in taking really primary responsibility in places like the Solomon Islands, Fiji, East Timor, has put its resources and its assets at the disposal of peace and security in the region, and in the spread of freedom. And I just can’t think of a better friend and a better ally.”

Nevertheless, Canberra and Washington do not share identical positions in relation to Beijing. The Howard government has generally adopted a less belligerent stance than the Bush administration. This is due to the Australian ruling elite’s interest in maintaining its lucrative exports of natural resources such as gas, gold, iron ore, coal, and aluminium to China. These exports have been crucial for Australia’s economic growth - and Howard’s electoral successes -over the past decade. Canberra is currently seeking to negotiate a free trade deal with Beijing.

Despite these differences, the Howard government and the Bush administration agree that no potentially hostile power can be permitted to advance its strategic and economic interests in the South Pacific at their expense. That Howard abandoned his usual caution in the Telegraph interview and identified China as a rival indicates just how much is at stake.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/jan2007/sep-j18.shtml

Malaysia Wants
Stereotyping Of Terrorism With Islam
To Stop

By Mohd Nasir Yusoff
[bernama.com]

JAKARTA, March 5 (Bernama) -- Malaysia wants the inclination of the West and their media to stereotype terrorism with Islam to stop and be eliminated immediately to prevent a jaundiced perception by the world of the majority of Muslims who have never supported terrorism.

Foreign Minister Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar said the use of terms by Western leaders and media such as "Islamic terrorists", "Islamic extremists" and "establishing an Islamic caliphate" hurt the feelings of peace-loving Muslims.

"Similarly `Islamic jihadists', which in Islam gives a very good and positive connotation of a struggle for good or positive purpose, has been misused and misinterpreted," he told a press conference at the end of the first day of the Sub-Regional Ministerial Conference on Efforts Against Terrorism here today.

In explaining Malaysia's views on anti-terrorism efforts at the conference, attended by ministers from six countries in the region, he said Malaysia wanted the negative terms and perception not to be linked to all Muslims.

"Stereoptyping makes Muslims, particularly in the Middle East, to feel that they are being collectively penalised when in fact they practise the true Islamic teaching that never encourages terrorism," he said.

Syed Hamid said Malaysia's views were welcomed by foreign ministers who were there, including Alexander Downer of Australia, which jointly hosted the two-day conference with Indonesia. The conference was a follow-up to a similar conference in Bali in February 2004.

On the level of cooperation between the six participating countries, namely Malaysia, Indonesia, Australia, Thailand, the Philippines and Singapore, in dealing with terrorism so far, Syed Hamid said the ties were very good especially in terms of the exchange of intelligence information which enabled the preliminary steps to be taken.

"The cooperation between the police and security forces of the countries and also other Asean countries was generally very good," he said and added that the conference also discussed ways to deal with the new mass media that used Internet to spread terrorism ideology.

On the bilateral meeting with Downer, Syed Hamid said they also discussed peaceful resolution of issues in the Middle East, the United States' stance in efforts against terrorism besides agreeing that the Malaysia-Australia cooperation in various fields had been getting better.

Syed Hamid also held a bilateral meeting with Singapore's Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Dr Balaji Sadasivan.

- BERNAMA March 05, 2007

Part One:
Australian PM Outlines
Indefinite Military Agenda
In South Pacific
[www.wsws.org]

Australian Prime Minister John Howard has revealed the real motivations behind his government’s interventions in the South Pacific and foreshadowed permanent military operations there. Speaking to the Sunday Telegraph on December 31, Howard acknowledged his concern that hostile rival powers, such as China and Taiwan, could “take over” the region. The prime minister also pointed to Washington’s expectation that Australia would take responsibility for maintaining “stability” in an area US imperialism regards as its own sphere of influence.

Howard’s comments are intended to signal that his government will not back down in the face of mounting hostility to its activities in the region, and will be prepared to utilise military force to suppress opposition. The Telegraph interview confirms that Australia’s recent interventions in East Timor, the Solomon Islands, Papua New Guinea (PNG), Tonga, and Fiji are only the beginning of its long-term plans.

Howard’s Pacific agenda is marked by recklessness, arrogance and complete disregard for international law. The government - and behind it the entire Australian political establishment - aims to politically and economically restructure the South Pacific in line with the strategic and economic interests of Australian imperialism. National sovereignty and the basic right of ordinary Pacific Islanders to determine their own future are regarded by Howard and his accomplices as totally irrelevant.

Neo-Colonialism

The emergence of Australian neo-colonialism in the Pacific occurs amid the eruption of US militarism and the re-surfacing of bitter inter-imperialist antagonisms, comparable to those that dominated world politics in the 1930s. Under the banner of the “global war on terror”, the Bush administration has torn up international law and conventions, embarking on pre-emptive wars of aggression in an attempt to overcome America’s declining economic status relative to its European and Asian rivals. Bush’s recently announced escalation of the Iraq war, and its likely extension to Iran and Syria, underscores the speed with which the American ruling elite is resorting to outright criminality and truly barbaric methods of rule.

No part of the globe - including the South Pacific - is immune from the consequences of the breakdown of the international order established after World War II. Howard pointedly warned the Australian people to get used to permanent military deployment throughout the region. “This is a long, hard road, and it will need great patience and understanding by the Australian public to live with, probably for a period of 10 to 20 years, with a two-steps-forward, one-step-backward situation,” he told the Telegraph.

“I can understand Australians saying, ‘Well, look, let’s forget about it. Leave them to their own devices; don’t waste any money’, but that’s the wrong approach to take, because they will fall into the hands of the evil from other countries and we have to work very hard,” he continued. “Certainly there’s a bit of a battle between China and Taiwan... If we just throw up our arms and go away, you’ll end up with these places being taken over by interests that are very hostile to Australia.”

China’s Influence

Notably, the prime minister made little effort to repeat his government’s usual justifications for Australia’s neo-colonial interventions: rescuing “failed states”, preventing terrorism, providing humanitarian aid, combating corruption, promoting democracy and the rule of law, etc. That he set these aside, pointing instead to the “evil” from Australia’s rivals, indicates his alarm at the growing opposition to Canberra’s manoeuvres among ordinary Pacific Islanders and the move by sections of the political elites in East Timor, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands and Fiji towards other powers, especially China, as a counterbalance to Australian demands and dominance.

The South Pacific has long been an arena for great power rivalries between the old colonial powers, France, Britain, and Australia, as well as Asian countries including Japan, Malaysia, and Indonesia. The rising economic and diplomatic influence of China, however, is a new and profoundly destabilising factor that is challenging long-established relations. While Howard describes the South Pacific as Australia’s “special patch”, Beijing now has substantial economic interests in the region, and is seeking to develop its geo-strategic position.

The Chinese and Taiwanese governments are competing to secure diplomatic recognition from the various Pacific states. Of the 24 countries in the world that recognise Taipei over Beijing, six are in the Pacific (Palau, the Marshall Islands, Tuvalu, Nauru, Solomon Islands, and Kiribati). Governments in the region have played off the two powers against each other, granting diplomatic recognition and support in the UN General Assembly to the highest bidder in terms of aid and trade agreements. Both China and Taiwan have been accused of bribing favoured politicians and factions to ensure the installation of friendly governments.

China’s interest in the South Pacific, however, goes far beyond the question of Taiwan and the “one China” policy. An estimated 3,000 state-owned and private Chinese companies operate in the region, including in mining, logging, fishing, and tourism. Economic ties are rapidly developing. Bilateral trade between China and Papua New Guinea, the South Pacific’s largest economy (and until 1975 Australia’s colony), has increased from $A5 million in 1991, to $A233 million in 2000, to $A540 million in 2005.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/jan2007/sep-j18.shtml

Bush Right Candidate
For KL War Crimes Tribunal

Final Part:
War Crime Commission

By Datuk Rejal Arbee
www.beritakmu.net

With all those developments being deliberated in Part One and Part Two of this article, the decision by the "Expose War Crimes, Criminalise War" conference organised by the Perdana Global Peace Organisation in Kuala Lumpur early last month to set up a War Crimes Commission (KLWCC) to check on allegations of war crimes and atrocities pepetrated by Bush and company is most appropriate.

The Commission presents and avenue to war victims and survivors of war crimes from countries such as Iraq and Palestine to file their claims. If the KLWCC can establish a prime facie case against a war monger leader then it would be heard before the KL War Crimes Tribunal (KLWCT) that is to be set up and those found guilty would be branded as war criminals and be recorded for posterity.

Despite the fact that the KLWCC is manned by prominent lawyers and law academics and the pro-tem committee established for the setting up of the KLWCT are also composed of other prominent legal figures, a former Federal Court Judge and a prominent law academic, a couple of detractors who have an axe to grind against the fourth Prime Minister, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, have questioned the veracity of the KLWCT.

One such person who is belittling the efforts, Datuk Param Cumaraswamy, a lawyer and former UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, has described the KLWCC and the KLWCT as a circus since there was no legal basis for its formation.

He further contended that it could deter 'respectable and credible foreign investors' to this country. He probably outdid even the Bush apologists and the neocons when he described the Tribunal's formation as a farce and would make Malaysia the laughing stock of the world.

Alternative

But there are enough concerned people and peace activists around the world who see this as a most welcomed initiative to get the war mongers and criminals to be so branded. They also realised that the KLWCT was needed as an alternative to the International Criminal Court in The Hague, Holland, which Mahathir had accused of being biased in selecting cases it would hear.

I am posting here excerpts from a letter by Prof Dr Shad Saleem Faruqi, as a most compeling rejoinder to Cumaraswamy’s contentions. Prof Faruqi argued that both the KLWCC and the KLWCT have jurisdiction to investigate and adjudicate war crimes in Iraq and elsewhere since the concept of law is not confined to enacted, formal law. He also submitted that:

"Even if the KL proceedings have no legality, no one can deny that they have legitimacy. Their legitimacy is derived from the nobleness of the cause of peace and justice, the reverence for life and the abhorrence of war as a means of solving disputes.

“The KL proceedings are inspired by the principle that wherever there is a right there must be a remedy. Ubi jus ibi remedium. The families of the 650,000 innocents slaughtered in Iraq in the last three years, the thousands more who have been tortured and the millions more who have been displaced, have no remedy in national or international courts. Their country is under a brutal occupation and it is inconceivable that any Iraqi court will prosecute members of the occupation force for war crimes.

American courts have no jurisdiction in Iraq and have even feigned helplessness in relation to torture and unlawful detentions in American controlled concentration camps in Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere.

The ICC has been approached by 240 complainants from Iraq. Its Chief Prosecutor has most amazingly ruled that the complaints do not have “sufficient gravity” to merit the initiation of a prosecution!

Racist

By far and large international law on genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and wars of aggression is applied selectively and in a racist and colonial fashion. Except for the mass murders in Nazi Germany and former Yugoslavia, no other crime perpetrated by Europeans and Americans has ever been prosecuted in international courts. European, American and Australian colonisers have committed genocide on four continents. The United States has bombed 28 countries since World War II. Europe and America are complicit in the genocide that is raging unhindered in Palestine, Gaza and Lebanon. No bells toll for the victims of mass murders in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Vietnam, Kampuchea, Laos, Afghanistan, Palestine, Lebanon, Chechnya, Chile, Argentina and Nicaragua. No one has been prosecuted.

The KL War Crimes Commission and Tribunal will, on the other hand, provide a forum to all, irrespective of race, religion or nationality, who are victims of mass crimes to make their case before the Commission and the Tribunal.

The Rome Statute has a number of flaws that prevent horrendous war crimes, genocide, crimes against humanity and the crime of aggression from being prosecuted.

First, the US under George Bush de-recognised the Rome Statute. As such, Washington is not obliged to surrender any US politicians and Army Generals for trial before the International Criminal Court. Criminals in the UK and Australia belong to a ratifying state and as such are subject to the ICC’s jurisdiction. Unfortunately they are being shielded by the ICC prosecutor because in his opinion their crimes of complicity lack sufficient gravity!

Second, for a crime to be prosecuted before the ICC, it must be committed on the territories of a member state of the ICC. Iraq and Afghanistan are not parties to the ICC Statute and the bestialities committed there are, therefore, exempt from the ICC’s jurisdiction. Only if these countries were to sign the Statute (which is unlikely), the possibility of prosecution will open up.

Immune

Third, Article 98 of the Rome Statute provides that a country need not hand over a foreign national to the ICC if it is prohibited from doing so by an agreement with the national’s country. The American government has forced nearly 100 countries to sign such “Article 98 agreements” thereby making its war criminals immune from international prosecution.

Fourth, the UN Security Council has the power to refer crimes committed by a non-signatory to the ICC (as it did for Darfur). But due to its geo-politic, racial and religious bias, the UNSC will not refer wrong-doers in the US, UK, Poland, Italy or Australia to the ICC.

Fifth, the ICC can investigate a case only if national courts fail or are unable to investigate a case. The major offending states, the US and UK are putting up the charade of prosecuting low ranking soldiers but are ignoring compelling evidence that the massacre of civilians, tortures and other crimes against humanitarian law were authorized by top politicians.

Sixth, the US and its allies committed the undoubted crime of an illegal war of aggression in Iraq. But this crime, though mentioned in the Treaty, is not yet allowed to be prosecuted because no definition of a “crime of aggression” has been agreed upon.
Powerless

Seventh, before mounting the Iraq invasion the US President had threatened use of nuclear weapons. During the war the US and the UK used many weapons of mass destruction that are banned in international law. But use of these WMDs is not a crime under the ICC Statute. India had asked for inclusion of nuclear weapons and WMDs as a crime against humanity. But the US disagreed and the matter was not pursued.

* The KL proceedings are inspired by previous precedents of People’s Tribunals e.g. the Sir Bertrand Russell Tribunal in relation to America’s war crimes in Vietnam; the recent Tokyo Tribunal on Afghanistan; and the Turkish Tribunal in relation to Iraq.

* Such people’s initiatives have basis in democratic theory, in human rights jurisprudence and in the Charter of the United Nations.

Democracy permits the powerless to organise against the powerful. Democracy permits NGOs to raise their voice of concern on issues of national and international concern. Only those without democratic impulses and with authoritarian and fascist tendencies will argue that citizens’ initiatives must proceed only with official and legal backing.

Our fidelity to human rights demands that we do not remain silent in the face of mass murders, the brutalization of a whole nation and the de-humanisation of a whole people. We cannot remain apathetic if atrocities continue to be committed and international institutions are comatose and content to be so.

United Nations

The Charter of the United Nations permits NGO involvement in world affairs. The Charter begins with the words “We the peoples”. It provides for some UN agencies to consult with people’s organizations. In fact approximately 1,000 NGOs have official consultative status with UN agencies.

* The fact that the KL War Crimes Tribunal cannot impose its judgment on the aggressors is not the heart of the matter. The point is to expose wrong-doing and to shame the criminals in the eyes of the world.

* The fact that the KLWCC and the KLWCT may have to proceed without the presence of the accused is indeed troublesome. All accused will be notified and invited to be represented. But if the accused refuse to respond, then the trial will proceed in abstentia. This is not without precedent. After World War II many Nazi criminals were prosecuted in their absence.

* Admittedly, the KLWCT suffers from many limitations. But many distinguished jurists from around the world believe that it can make a significant impact.

It can mobilise the conscience of the world community. It can report its findings to the General Assembly of the United Nations with a view to a “Uniting for Peace Resolution”. It can submit its findings to the ICC to enable the ICC to wake up from its stupor.

Rome Statute

It can transmit the report of its deliberations to the 104 countries that have ratified the Rome statute. Some of these states like Germany and Belgium have laws that permit prosecutions for genocide and for crimes against humanity no matter where the offence was alleged to have been committed.

Finally, the KL War Crimes Tribunal can refer its findings to many peace loving groups in the USA and elsewhere and request them to exert democratic pressures on their leaders to end this senseless slaughter of the innocents.”

So much for the detractors of the KLWCC and the KLWCT.

http://www.beritakmu.net/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=5763

Bush Right Candidate
For KL War Crimes Tribunal

Part Two:
Bush To Attack Iran?

By Datuk Rejal Arbee
www.beritakmu.net


Despite all the setbacks being elaborated in Part One, Bush is seriously contemplating the invasion of yet another Muslim country, this time Iran, while before that making unprovoked threats against Syria. The scenario being played against Iran is the same as what the White House propaganda machines had trumped up just prior to the attack on Iraq.

And the neoconservatives in the Bush administration who have been spoiling for an attack on Iran’s nuclear sites have been seeking to convince the public that the United States must strike before an Iranian nuclear weapons capability becomes inevitable.

According to Alternet, they have even been discrediting the US intelligence community's conclusions in May or June 2005 that Iran is still as many as 10 years away from being able to build a nuclear weapon and that such a weapon is not an inevitable consequence of its present uranium enrichment programme something which the Iranians have been trying to convince the US without success.

It has also now transpired that Bush's chief advisor Karl Rove personally received a copy of a secret offer from the Iranian government to hold negotiations four years ago. Democracy Now said the Bush administration decided to ignore the grand bargain offer. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice recently claimed she had never even seen the document. At the time Iran said it would consider far-reaching compromises on its nuclear programme, relations with Hezbollah and Hamas and support for a Palestinian peace agreement with Israel.

Rove's involvement was revealed by an aide to former Republican congressman Bob Ney. The aide, Trita Parsi, an Iranian and President of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), the largest Iranian-American organisation in the US, said Ney was chosen by the Swiss Ambassador in Tehran to carry the Iranian proposal to the White House because he knew the Ohio Congressman to be the only Farsi-speaking member of Congress and particularly interested in Iran. The Swiss Embassy in Tehran was then looking after the US interests in Tehran

Pentagon

With that possibility for improved relations with Iran thrown down the drain, Washington is now abuzz with rumors that Bush is preparing to attack nuclear and other sites in Iran this spring.

Democracy Now said that while the Bush administration continues to insist it has no plans to go to war with Iran, investigative reporter, Seymour Hersh reported in the latest issue of the New Yorker magazine that Pentagon has created a special panel to plan a bombing attack on Iran that could be implemented within 24 hours of getting the go-ahead from President Bush. Hersh said the planning group was established within the office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in recent months.

The Pentagon has, however, denied the US was planning to go to war with Iran and said "to suggest anything to the contrary is simply wrong, misleading and mischievous." Pentagon insisted that the White House is continuing to address concerns in the region through diplomatic efforts.

Nonetheless the following preparations are already in place:

*The deployment of two aircraft carrier groups with a flotilla of minesweepers to the Persian Gulf;

*The supply of Patriot anti-missile batteries to Washington's allies in the region;

*The unprecedented appointment of a navy admiral and former combat pilot as the head of Central Command;

*The "surge" of as many as 40,000 troops into Iraq; and

*Persistent reports of U.S. covert operations inside Iran.

Confrontation

For example, former CIA officer Philip Giraldi in the latest edition of American Conservative, mentioned that Bush has been accusing Iran of supplying bombs to Shi'a militias to kill US soldiers in Iraq. Just as his claims that Iraq was in possession of ‘weapons of mass destruction’ now proven to be a pack of lies; Bush and his officials are claiming that they have evidence to show Iran was supplying weapons to Iraqi Shites.

Then, there was the seizure of Iranian diplomatic and intelligence officials in Iraq by US forces suggesting that Washington is preparing for a military confrontation. At the time, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, said the accusations were "excuses to prolong the stay" of US forces in Iraq.

No one doubts that the Bush administration has developed detailed plans for attacking Iran and is certainly putting in place a formidable armada that, if so ordered, has the means to carry out those plans without delay.

Long range B2 stealth bombers would drop so-called "bunker-busting" bombs in an effort to penetrate the Natanz nuclear site, which is buried some 25m (27 yards) underground.

Novinite, the Bulgarian news agency, said American forces could be using their two USAF bases in Bulgaria and one at Romania's Black Sea coast to launch an attack on Iran in April. The American build-up along the Black Sea, coupled with the recent positioning of two US aircraft carrier battle groups off the Straits of Hormuz, appears to indicate President Bush resoluteness to go ahead with the attack. In conjunction with the beefing up of America's Italian bases and the acquisition of anti-missile defence bases in the Czech Republic and Poland, the Balkan developments seem to indicate a new phase in Bush's global war on terror.

Black Sea

News of the advanced war preparations along the Black Sea is backed up by some chilling details. One is the setting up of new refuelling places for US Stealth bombers, which would spearhead an attack on Iran. "The USAF's positioning of vital refuelling facilities for its B-2 bombers in unusual places, including Bulgaria, falls within the perspective of such an attack." Novinite named Colonel Sam Gardiner, "a US secret service officer stationed in Bulgaria", as the source of this revelation.

There were reports that Israel was seeking rights to fly over Iraqi air space to enable it to bomb certain targets in Iran.

Middle East analysts have recently voiced their fears of catastrophic consequences for any such attack on Iran. Britain's previous ambassador to Tehran, Sir Richard Dalton, told the BBC it would backfire badly by probably encouraging the Iranian government to develop a nuclear weapon in the long term.

Last year, Iran resumed uranium enrichment - a process that can make fuel for power stations or, if greatly enriched, material for a nuclear bomb. Tehran insists its programme is for civil use only, though Western countries amenable to the US suspect, Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons. Just as the events prior to the invasion of Iraq, the US is again using the UN Security Council to impose further economic sanctions against Iran for refusing the suspend its uranium enrichment programme.

Before the end of March 2007, 3,000 US military personnel are scheduled to arrive "on a rotating basis" at America's Bulgarian bases. Under the US-Bulgarian military co-operation accord, signed in April 2006, an airbase at Bezmer, a second airfield at Graf Ignitievo and a shooting range at Novo Selo were leased to America. Significantly, last year's bases negotiations had at one point run into difficulties due to Sofia's demand "for advance warning if Washington intends to use Bulgarian soil for attacks against other nations, particularly Iran".

Romania

Romania, the other Black Sea host to the US military, is enjoying a dollar bonanza as its Mihail Kogalniceanu base at Constanta is being transformed into an American "place d'arme". It is also vital to the Iran scenario according to Novinite.

The Bucharest daily, Evenimentual Zilei, revealed that the USAF is to site several flights of F-l5, F-l6 and Al0 aircraft at the Kogalniceanu base. Admiral Gheorghe Marin, Romania's chief of staff, confirmed "up to 2,000 American military personnel will be temporarily stationed in Romania".

In Central Europe, the Czech Republic and Poland have also found themselves in the Pentagon's strategic focus. Last week, Mirek Topolanek, the Czech Prime Minister, and the country's national security council agreed to the siting of a US anti-missile radar defence system at Nepolisy. Poland has also agreed to having a US anti-missile missile base and interceptor aircraft stationed in the country.

Russia, however, does not see the chain of new US bases on its doorstep as a "defensive ring". Sergey Ivanov, Russia's Defence Minister, has branded the planned US anti-missile missile sites on Czech and Polish soil as "an open threat to Russia".

Since Tehran do not possess intercontinental missiles capable of threatening the USA, from whom is this new missile shield supposed to protect the West? All it actually amounts to is that Prague and Warsaw want to demonstrate their loyalty to Washington." Bush's Iran attack plan has brought into sharp focus the possible costs to Central and Eastern Europe of being "pillars of Pax Americana".

http://www.beritakmu.net/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=5763

Bush Right Candidate
For KL War Crimes Tribunal

Part One:
Bush’s WMD Destroying Iraq

By Datuk Rejal Arbee
www.beritakmu.net

Though the United States invasion and occupation of Iraq has brought untold misery to its population, with more than 650,00 deaths including women, children and the aged, with hundreds of thousands others maimed and injured, and millions others displaced, the perpetrator of the atrocities, President George W Bush, isn’t at all bothered.

He is battling the US Congress to get approval to send another 21,500 combat troops to strengthen his occupation there and to continue with the increasingly unpopular war. To top it off, he is raring to go on yet another adventure, this time to attack Iran, again on a concocted justification.

Without so much of care on the consequences of the destruction of an ancient civilisation that introduced the Hamurabi’s code, mankind’s first commitment to protection of the weak from being brutalised by the strong (500 years before the 10 Commandments) and the Hanging Gardens of Babylon, one the seven wonders of the ancient world, Bush is unrepentant.

With characteristic arrogance he is oblivious to what he has unleashed in Iraq saying that history will be his judge. And indeed it will. And he is about to repeat the destruction of another Muslim country, though this time he will face a more determined opposition where ignominy awaits him.

So unrepentant is he that the The New York Times reported that he drew an analogy between his war on ‘terror’ to the US Revolution as having a common aim at defending the US liberty and way of life.

Opposition

The paper said Bush even alluded to the first George W’s – George Washington - resoluteness and determination to continue the fight against the British colonialists even when on the brink of disaster to what he is currently facing with the ever widening opposition to his very unpopular adventure in Iraq. He made the comparison when laying a wreath at Washington’s grave in Mount Vernon last week to commemorate the 275th anniversary of Washington’s birthday.

Various reports have said that four years into the war, Iraq to all intent and purposes has been destroyed, its middle class has either fled the country or decimated, communal tensions bared. Mass terror perpetuated by armed gangs of extremists now occupies center stage. The broken Iraqi state has ceased to exist outside the Green Zone, the economy is devastated, and unemployment has shot up to 50 percent.

The tragedy of it all is that Bush is oblivious to the widespread opposition to his adventures just as his seemingly ignorance of how unpopular the US occupation forces are to the Iraqis.

The story of what is happening in Iraq as told by one Iraqi blogger Salam Adil is most telling. He began his blog with a clear cut condemnation of the US invasion:

“Let me clear it up for any moron with lingering doubts. It’s worse. It’s over. You lost. You lost the day your tanks rolled into Baghdad to the cheers of your imported, American-trained monkeys. You lost every single family whose home your soldiers violated. You lost every sane, red-blooded Iraqi when the Abu Ghraib pictures came out and verified your atrocities behind prison walls as well as the ones we see in our streets.

Execution

“You lost when you brought murderers, looters, gangsters and militia heads to power and hailed them as Iraq’s first democratic government. You lost when a gruesome execution was dubbed your biggest accomplishment. You lost the respect and reputation you once had. You lost more than 3,000 troops. That is what you lost America. I hope the oil, at least, made it worthwhile.”

Another blogger Riverbend famous for her ‘Baghdad is Burning’ blog at the height of the American invasion has this to say about the security situation with a new security plan under way and a major oil law being pushed through the Iraqi parliament.

"I can't understand this American mentality which obliged all world people to love what they love and hate what they hate as if they are the only perfect model on this earth and all the other people come after them.

“For four years now, I have not heard the US administration declaring any strategy to deal with its internal affairs, on the contrary, it has devoted all its time for Iraq, as if Iraq is one of the US states... but why all of a sudden when the US administration began its cowboy campaign to revenge from those who blew up the towers, the first people to begin its revenge with was the Iraqis.

“I have asked this question to a US General in Iraq, he could not give me an answer because he himself did not know why when the US wanted to fight the terror the choice was the Iraqi people and the battlefield was Iraq...

Damage

“If the matter stopped to this level, we would accept, but if any wise man takes a look about the bunch of men US picked up from the exile and brought down to rule Iraq, could feel the scale of the damage this administration caused to the Iraqis, they have chosen the worse people in the world and the best example to that was Saddam's execution... A set of sectarian politicians who could not set up such a big event in a proper way and were dancing on Saddam’s body like monkeys and moreover when they wanted to justify that, they said it was a habit by the Iraqis which was to dance on the body of their enemies, they wanted to amend their ugly picture by putting this on the shoulder of the Iraqi tradition which was nothing like that”.

Al-Ghad, a periodical first published in the United Kingdom in the 80s to expose atrocities of Saddam’s regime and republished in Iraq since 2003 shortly after the US occupation only to cease publication and again resurrected in February exposed a piece of legislation governing the production of oil and gas as part of US plans to ‘privatise’ Iraq’s oil industry.

Various other publications, including Mojo, alluded to the haste Bush wants the puppet government in Baghdad to push through the legislation providing for a lopsided production sharing agreement “giving foreign companies crazy rates of profit that may reach to more than three fourth of the general revenue."

In a detailed critique, Al-Gard said, though the US succeeded in destroying Iraq and driving a wedge between the population, its power was not strong enough to consummate its imperialistic schemes. Now the US found itself forced to find an “honourable” exit strategy from Iraq that could “save its face”.

Bush wants to achieve a strategic victory through passing a law that could lead to the end that brought him to Iraq regardless of the reasons he declared. Despite his military and political defeats, he will get his oil. Enacting the oil law and translating it into signed contracts must be a fact before the termination of his term in office.

What most Iraqis do seem to want, according to numerous polls, is for American forces to leave. Even within the current, skewed Iraqi political system, a majority of Iraq's parliament supports a US withdrawal. If we add to the mix the powerful Sunni-led resistance, including former Baathists, Sunni nationalists, and tribes, an overwhelming majority wants to end the occupation.

http://www.beritakmu.net/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=5763