Just Foreign Policy News
September 8, 2010
October 2: One Nation for Peace
On October 2, peace voices from across the country will be converging in Washington, as part of the One Nation Working Together mobilization, to call for the wars to end.
Here is a spreadsheet that lists local organizing groups:
http://bit.ly/bUlUbD
No group yet in your community? Help getting started can be found at the "Peace Table"
http://bit.ly/buThrE
Jewish Voice for Peace: Support Israeli Artists Who Say NO to Normalizing Settlements
Jewish Voice for Peace is organizing a campaign of support for Israeli actors who have refused to perform at Israeli settlements in the West Bank. The campaign has picked up support from many prominent US actors, writers, and directors, including Wallace Shawn, Cynthia Nixon, Theodore Bikel, Eve Ensler, and Ed Asner (see Ha’aretz article, #8 below.) A fuller list of signatories is here:
http://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/campaigns/making-history-support-israeli-artists-who-say-no-normalizing-settlements-4
Bacevich: Washington Rules
Andrew Bacevich’s book, "Washington Rules: America’s Path to Permanent War," is a call for Americans to reject the Washington consensus for permanent war.
NYT review:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/05/books/review/Bass-t.html
Get the book
https://www.justforeignpolicy.org/buywashingtonrules
September 24th: JFP "Virtual Brown Bag" with Andrew Bacevich
https://www.justforeignpolicy.org/bacevichtalk
Help Support Our Work
Your donation helps us educate Americans and create opportunities to advocate for a just foreign policy.
https://www.justforeignpolicy.org/donate
Summary:
U.S./Top News
1) A "Team B" report issued by the Afghanistan Study Group has the potential to move Washington debate on the war in Afghanistan, writes Katrina vanden Heuvel in the Washington Post. Matthew Hoh, a former U.S. Marine and Afghanistan-based State Department official who resigned his post in protest last year and now serves as director of the study group, notes that: "Since 2005 … the U.S. and NATO have been expanding their presence throughout Afghanistan and trying to expand the reach of the Afghan central government…But since then, all we have seen is more casualties, more combat, increased support for the Taliban and decreased support for the Karzai government." The study group encourages policymakers to acknowledge that the Afghanistan conflict is a civil war about power-sharing across ethnic, geographic and sectarian lines. The report recommends downsizing and eventually ending U.S. military operations while encouraging political power-sharing, economic development and diplomatic engagement by other countries in the region. Hoh said the goal of the report is to lay the groundwork for funding of a bipartisan congressional study group by March, ensuring that an alternative to the Pentagon’s strategy is available when the administration’s deadline to begin withdrawing troops arrives in July 2011. [The Progressive Caucus Afghanistan Taskforce has called for the creation of a bipartisan congressional Af-Pak Study Group: http://bit.ly/9Y7z5G].
2) Writing in the Politico, Steve Clemons says three key points emerged in the research and discussions of the Study Group: 1) the US has only two "vital interests" in the region, preventing Afghanistan from being a "safe haven" for Al Qaeda and ensuring Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal does not fall into hostile hands; 2) protecting U.S. interests does not require a U.S. military victory over the Taliban; 3) the risk of an Al Qaeda "safe haven" in Afghanistan under more "friendly" Taliban rule is overstated. [Matthew Hoh defines "vital interest" as "US soldiers are there, killing and being killed" – JFP.] Based on these points, the five key recommendations are: 1) Emphasize power sharing and political inclusion; 2) Downsize and eventually end military operations in southern Afghanistan; 3) Focus security efforts on Al Qaeda and domestic security; 4) Encourage economic development; 5) Engage regional and global stakeholders in a diplomatic effort to guarantee Afghan neutrality and foster regional stability.
3) Kabul Bank sits at the center of a financial crisis that has exposed the shadowy workings of the country’s business and political elite, the New York Times reports.
4) Two U.S. service members were killed and nine wounded when an Iraqi soldier sprayed them with gunfire at a base north of Baghdad Tuesday, the Washington Post reports. The two Americans were the first U.S. troops to be killed in Iraq since the Obama administration declared combat operations there officially over last week.
5) A former CIA officer accused of revving an electric drill and cocking a handgun near the head of a hooded terror suspect has returned to U.S. intelligence as a contractor, training CIA operatives, AP reports. "The notion that an individual involved in one of the more notorious episodes of the CIA’s interrogation program is still employed directly or indirectly by the U.S. government is scandalous," said an attorney with the ACLU. "Terrorizing a hooded, shackled prisoner is torture," said Nancy Hollander, the terror suspect’s attorney. "I will do everything in my power to make sure the world knows that agents of the U.S. government tortured my client and have now held him in violation of U.S. and international law for over eight years."
6) Cable news outlets showed limited interest in a press conference where Christian, Jewish, and Muslim leaders called for a united religious front against "an atmosphere of fear and intolerance" toward Islam, the Christian Science Monitor reports. Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, former Archbishop of Washington, said the growth of anti-Islamic sentiment was a "powerful moment that calls for a powerful response." The Rev. Richard Cizik, representing the New Evangelical Partnership for the Common Good, said "shame on you" to those who would burn another religion’s sacred texts. Nearly 60 percent of Americans surveyed opposed building an Islamic center or mosque two blocks from the site of the Sept. 11 attacks, but 76 percent of those polled would support a mosque in their own community.
Iran/Iraq
7) Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has the backing of Washington and Iran to keep his job, AFP reports. A senior official of Maliki’s alliance said Maliki received assurances during Biden’s recent visit that US allies, except Saudi Arabia, had decided to stop backing Ayad Allawi’s premiership hopes. "Maliki was quoting Biden as saying, ‘I told Turkey, Jordan, Egypt, Qatar and United Arab Emirates to end their support for Allawi,’" the official said Biden told Maliki. "’They were all convinced except Saudi Arabia.’"
Israel/Palestine
8) More than 150 American actors, writers, directors and other artists have signed a letter of support for Israeli actors who declared they would not perform in the West Bank, Ha’aretz reports. The signatories include Cynthia Nixon, Mandy Patinkin, Wallace Shawn, Theodore Bikel, and Ed Asner.
9) During the wrongful death lawsuit brought by Rachel Corrie’s parents against the Israeli army, an Israeli military training unit leader testified that "During war there are no civilians," drawing an audible gasp from observers, Al Jazeera reports.
Pakistan
10) According to the UN High Commissioner on Refugees, floods in Pakistan wiped out more than 12,600 homes of Afghan refugees, leaving 85,800 refugees again homeless, Inter Press Service reports. The president of the Gynaecological and Obstetric Society of Pakistan told IPS that the Pakistanis affected by the floods had a lot of medical support, but the Afghan refugees seem to have been ignored by the government.
Bolivia
11) Bolivia has slashed its child mortality figures by almost 50% in the past 20 years, faster progress than some of its richer neighbors, the Guardian reports. But Bolivia still has one of the highest child mortality rates outside sub-Saharan Africa, and 27% of children under five suffer from chronic malnutrition.
Contents:
U.S./Top News
1) Finding a way out of Afghanistan
Katrina vanden Heuvel, Washington Post, Tuesday, September 7, 2010;
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/07/AR2010090702980.html
[vanden Heuvel is editor and publisher of The Nation. The report is here: http://afghanistanstudygroup.org/]
Team B efforts have long played an influential role in determining the outcome of intra-elite debates on critical national security issues. In the 1970s, the CIA’s Team B report on Soviet military capabilities, together with the work of the Committee on the Present Danger, encouraged the Carter administration away from détente and toward an arms race with Moscow. And the Project for the New American Century, led by William Kristol and a passel of neo-cons, was influential in swaying the Bush administration toward the invasion of Iraq.
A Team B report to be formally released tomorrow by the Afghanistan Study Group – an ad hoc group of former government officials, well-known academics and policy experts assembled by the New America Foundation – has the potential to be similarly influential. At a moment when the administration and too many members of Congress have failed to explore alternatives to Gen. David Petraeus’s counterinsurgency strategy, the importance of this clear and cogent report can’t be understated.
The report offers a thorough analysis of why and how we must dramatically reduce America’s footprint in our nation’s longest and most expensive war. Although the war is justified by its proponents as an effort to eradicate al-Qaeda, the report notes that "there are only some 400 hard-core al-Qaeda members remaining in the entire Af-Pak theater, most of them hiding in Pakistan’s northwest provinces."
Meanwhile, the war costs U.S. taxpayers approximately $100 billion a year – about seven times Afghanistan’s annual gross domestic product of $14 billion and more than the cost of the Obama administration’s health-care plan. Considering that price tag alongside the number of troops killed or seriously wounded, the report concludes that "the U.S. interests at stake in Afghanistan do not warrant this level of sacrifice."
Matthew Hoh, a former U.S. Marine and Afghanistan-based State Department official who resigned his post in protest last year and now serves as director of the study group, elaborated on the flawed strategy in a conversation with me. "Since 2005, as we put more troops and money into this effort, the U.S. and NATO have been expanding their presence throughout Afghanistan and trying to expand the reach of the Afghan central government," Hoh said. "But since then, all we have seen is more casualties, more combat, increased support for the Taliban and decreased support for the Karzai government."
The study group encourages policymakers to reconceptualize the conflict. Rather than a struggle between Hamid Karzai’s central government and a Taliban/terrorist insurgency, it is in fact a civil war about power-sharing across ethnic, geographic and sectarian lines. With that in mind, the report recommends a strategy that downsizes and eventually ends U.S. military operations and keeps the focus on al-Qaeda, while at the same time encouraging political power-sharing, economic development and diplomatic engagement by other countries in the region.
Rep. Michael Honda (D-Calif.), chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus’s Afghanistan Taskforce, told me this report is critical, "given Washington’s near-silence on alternatives to" the current strategy. Honda and his taskforce colleagues have called for the creation of a congressionally mandated Af-Pak Study Group.
Indeed, Hoh said the goal of the report is to lay the groundwork for funding of a bipartisan congressional study group by March, ensuring that an alternative to the Pentagon’s strategy is available when the administration’s flexible deadline to begin withdrawing troops arrives in July 2011. In these next critical months, the study group will focus on establishing itself as a counterpoint to the status quo approach to the war, reaching out to legislators across party lines in an effort to develop a bipartisan consensus. Members will also make themselves available to news media, which have in their coverage of the war too often failed to include the views of experts who oppose the White House/Petraeus strategy. I hope this report will also be used as an organizing vehicle by peace and justice groups who have been calling for a similar change in course.
It seems certain that Petraeus’s December report to Congress and the administration will argue that his counterinsurgency strategy is new and must be given time. The study group’s members challenge that notion.
"People have to understand this is not a new strategy from Gen. Petraeus," Hoh said. "We don’t ‘finally have it right.’ We’ve been saying that for years now. All we’re doing is adding more troops, which is just making the problem larger. Just because Gen. Petraeus got there a couple months ago doesn’t mean the clock should be reset."
The administration’s strategy is flawed and is costing too much in treasure and lives. This report offers a clear alternative that is in our national security interest.
2) Rethinking U.S. war in Afghanistan
Steve Clemons, Politico, September 8, 2010
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/41871.html
[…] Despite acceding to the Pentagon’s surge in troop levels, huge budget requests and civilian nation-builders, as well as the deployment of a superstar general, Obama’s current approach in Afghanistan is failing.
To this end, a bipartisan group of leading academics, business executives, former government officials, policy practitioners and journalists – the Afghanistan Study Group – has discussed and debated over the last year to develop an alternative set of policy options for the president and his advisers – timed for the coming "review" of Afghan policies.
The Afghanistan Study Group proposal reframes the connection between America’s core foreign policy and national security objectives with both resources and a desire to enhance U.S. options rather than watch them – and the perception of U.S. power – become increasingly eroded.
Far from admitting defeat, the report acknowledges the many limitations of a military solution in a region where U.S. interests lie in political stability. The group’s recommended policy seeks to shift resources to focus on U.S. foreign policy strengths in concert with the international community to promote reconciliation among the warring parties, advance economic development and encourage region-wide diplomatic engagement.
[…] We base these conclusions on the following key points raised in the study group’s research and discussions:
– The United States has only two vital interests in the Afghanistan/Pakistan region: preventing Afghanistan from being a "safe haven" from which Al Qaeda or other extremists can organize more effective attacks on the U.S. homeland and ensuring that Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal does not fall into hostile hands.
– Protecting American interests does not require a U.S. military victory over the Taliban. A Taliban takeover is unlikely, even if Washington reduces its military commitment. The Taliban is a rural insurgency rooted in Afghanistan’s Pashtu population, and it had succeeded due, in part, to the disenfranchisement of rural Pashtuns. The Taliban seized power in the 1990s under an unusual set of circumstances that no longer exist and are unlikely to be repeated.
– There is no significant Al Qaeda presence in Afghanistan today, and the risk of a new "safe haven" there under more "friendly" Taliban rule is overstated. Should an Al Qaeda cell regroup in Afghanistan, the United States would have residual military capability in the region sufficient to track and destroy it.
The group’s core recommendations do not include full, immediate troop withdrawal, but rather a decrease in the military footprint in Afghanistan.
The five key recommendations are:
1. Emphasize power sharing and political inclusion. Washington should fast-track a peace process designed to decentralize power within Afghanistan and encourage a power-sharing balance among the principal parties.
2. Downsize and eventually end military operations in Southern Afghanistan and reduce the U.S. military footprint. The United States should draw down its military presence – which radicalizes Pashtuns and aids Taliban recruitment.
3. Focus security efforts on Al Qaeda and domestic security. Special forces, intelligence assets and other U.S. capabilities should continue to seek out and target known Al Qaeda cells in the region. They can be ready to act should Al Qaeda attempt to relocate elsewhere or to build new training facilities. In addition, part of the savings from our drawdown should be reallocated to bolster U.S. domestic security efforts and to track nuclear weapons globally.
4. Encourage economic development. Because destitute states can become incubators for terrorism, drug and human trafficking and other illicit activities, efforts at reconciliation should be paired with an internationally led effort to develop Afghanistan’s economy.
5. Engage regional and global stakeholders in a diplomatic effort designed to guarantee Afghan neutrality and foster regional stability. Despite their considerable differences, neighboring states, such as India, Pakistan, China, Iran and Saudi Arabia, share a common interest in preventing Afghanistan from being dominated by any single power or from being a permanently failed state that exports instability.
One of the most disturbing quick zingers that illustrates this war’s massive management mess is that the price tag to U.S. taxpayers has soared to nearly $100 billion annually. Compare that to the astonishing fact that Afghanistan’s gross national product is only one-seventh of this – $14 billion.
Washington is now spending more on Afghanistan – and failing in its efforts – than the entire annual cost of the new U.S. health insurance program. This is money that could be used to better counter global terrorist threats far away from Afghanistan, reduce the $1.4 trillion annual deficit, repair and modernize a large portion of U.S. infrastructure, radically enhance U.S. educational investment, launch a massive new Manhattan Project-like effort for energy alternatives research – or put approximately 2 million Americans back to work.
Thousands of American and allied personnel have been killed or gravely wounded. Too many innocent Afghans and Pakistanis have become victims – assuring unpredictable blowback in the years ahead.
The U.S. interests at stake in Afghanistan do not warrant this level of sacrifice.
[…]
3) Political Ties Shielded Bank in Afghanistan
Adam B. Ellick and Dexter Filkins, New York Times, September 7, 2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/08/world/asia/08kabul.html
Kabul, Afghanistan – In early 2009, as President Hamid Karzai scanned the landscape for potential partners to run in his re-election bid, he was approached from an unusual corner: a bank. The president’s brother, Mahmoud, and another Afghan businessman, Haseen Fahim, were shareholders in Kabul Bank, one of the freewheeling financial institutions that had sprung up over the past decade since the Taliban’s fall.
According to Afghan officials and businessmen in Kabul, Mahmoud Karzai and Mr. Fahim recommended Mr. Fahim’s brother, Gen. Muhammad Qasim Fahim, to become the president’s running mate.
President Karzai agreed, and in a stroke co-opted his ethnic Tajik opposition and placated an old political foe with a checkered record on human rights and corruption. After the deal, Kabul Bank poured millions into Mr. Karzai’s re-election campaign, Afghan officials said. Mahmoud Karzai and Haseen Fahim, drawing on Kabul Bank’s resources, were able to enrich their families aided by tens of millions of dollars in loans.
Now, Kabul Bank sits at the center of a financial crisis that has exposed the shadowy workings of the country’s business and political elite, and how such connections shielded the bank from scrutiny. The panic surrounding Kabul Bank is threatening to pull down the Afghan banking system and has drawn in the United States. And it is driving a wedge between the Fahims and the Karzais, the two Afghan political families that benefited most. Now, the financial-familial arrangement is teetering on the edge of collapse.
[…]
4) Two U.S. troops killed as Iraqi opens fire at base
Leila Fadel and Marwan Anie, Washington Post, Wednesday, September 8, 2010; A6
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/07/AR2010090706766.html
Baghdad – Two U.S. service members were killed and nine others were wounded when a Kurdish Iraqi soldier sprayed them with gunfire at an Iraqi army commando base north of Baghdad on Tuesday afternoon, Iraqi and U.S. military officials said.
The two Americans, whose names were being withheld until relatives are notified, were the first U.S. troops to be killed in Iraq since the Obama administration declared combat operations there officially over last week. The incident underscored the dangers facing the nearly 50,000 U.S. troops still in the country.
[…]
5) AP sources: Former FBI man implicated in CIA abuse
Adam Goldman, Associated Press, Tuesday, September 7, 2010; 4:34 PM http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/07/AR2010090703655.html
Washington – A former CIA officer accused of revving an electric drill near the head of an imprisoned terror suspect has returned to U.S. intelligence as a contractor, training CIA operatives after leaving the agency, The Associated Press has learned.
The CIA officer wielded the bitless drill and an unloaded handgun – unauthorized interrogation techniques – to menace suspected USS Cole bombing plotter Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri inside a secret CIA prison in Poland in late 2002 and early 2003, according to several former intelligence officials and a review by the CIA’s inspector general.
Adding details to the public portions of the review, the former officials identified the officer as Albert, 60, a former FBI agent of Egyptian descent who worked as a bureau translator in New York before joining the CIA. The former officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because many details of the incident remain classified.
Both Albert and his CIA supervisor at the time, a second official known as Mike, were reprimanded for their involvement in the incident, the former officials said. The AP is withholding the last names of the two men at the request of U.S. officials for safety reasons.
Human rights critics say the men’s actions were emblematic of harsh treatment and oversight problems in the CIA’s detention and interrogation program, amounting to torture that should have been prosecuted. They also say Albert’s return as a contractor raises questions about how the intelligence community deals with those who used unauthorized interrogation methods.
"The notion that an individual involved in one of the more notorious episodes of the CIA’s interrogation program is still employed directly or indirectly by the U.S. government is scandalous," said Ben Wizner, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union.
Federal prosecutor John Durham is looking at the case – the third time federal authorities have examined it for possible charges. Now held at Guantanamo Bay prison, al-Nashiri faces possible terror charges either in a U.S. military commission or in a civilian court, and the outcome of Durham’s investigation could influence his case, possibly determining whether the detainee was tortured.
Nancy Hollander, al-Nashiri’s lawyer, said torture would be a mitigating factor if al-Nashiri ever faced a possible death sentence.
After leaving the CIA, Albert returned at some point as a contractor, training CIA officers at a facility in northern Virginia to handle different scenarios they might face in the field, according to former officials. Albert hasn’t been involved in training CIA employees for at least two years, but a current U.S. official says he continues to work as an intelligence contractor.
[…] Charging Albert for the gun and drill incidents could prove difficult. CIA officers can be prosecuted in the U.S. for crimes committed overseas, but typically just for felonies. Simple assault would not qualify. And since the gun was unloaded and the drill contained no bit, it would be hard to convict him of more serious charges such as assault with intent to murder or assault with intent to do bodily harm.
Despite those hurdles, al-Nashiri’s lawyer insisted she would press for legal consideration of the detainee’s treatment. "Terrorizing a hooded, shackled prisoner is torture," Hollander said. "I will do everything in my power to make sure the world knows that agents of the U.S. government tortured my client and have now held him in violation of U.S. and international law for over eight years."
6) CNN covered interfaith call to oppose Koran burning. Who didn’t?
Cable news outlets showed limited interest Tuesday afternoon in a press conference where church leaders from a variety of faiths called for a united front against Koran burning and other aspects of Islamophobia.
Dave Cook, Christian Science Monitor, September 7, 2010 at 12:00 am EDT
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Election-2010/Vox-News/2010/0907/CNN-covered-interfaith-call-to-oppose-Koran-burning.-Who-didn-t
Washington – Despite the passions stirred by the Islamic center near ground zero and a plan to burn Korans on Sept. 11, cable news outlets showed limited interest Tuesday afternoon in a press conference where church [sic] leaders from a variety of faiths called for a united religious front against perceived examples of Islamophobia.
The Islamic Society of North America organized a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington where leaders from the Christian, Jewish, and Muslim faiths argued against what organizers called "an atmosphere of fear and intolerance" toward Islam.
C-SPAN and CNN carried the interfaith press conference live. Fox News Channel had no live coverage, but instead had commentator Lou Dobbs holding forth on President Obama and the "sad isolated state this president has put himself in." Meanwhile, rather than live coverage, MSNBC offered talking heads discussing Mr. Obama’s latest plans to spur the economy.
At the interfaith press conference, Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, the former Archbishop of Washington, said the growth of anti-Islamic sentiment was a "powerful moment that calls for a powerful response." Cardinal McCarrick added, "our message is a message of working together."
The Rev. Richard Cizik, representing the New Evangelical Partnership for the Common Good, said "shame on you" to those who would burn another religion’s sacred texts. He was referencing plans by the Christian minister of a church in Gainesville, Fla., to burn copies of the Koran. He added, "you bring dishonor to the name of Jesus Christ."
Opposition to the New York Islamic center is widespread in the US, even among those who would support a mosque in their own neighborhood, according to a poll released Aug. 26 by the Public Religion Research Institute and Religion News Service. Nearly 60 percent of Americans surveyed opposed building an Islamic center or mosque two blocks from the site of the Sept. 11 attacks, but 76 percent of those polled would support a mosque in their own community.
The strongest opposition to the New York project came from Republicans (85 percent opposed) and white evangelicals (75 percent opposed).
[…]
Iran/Iraq
7) US and Iran favour Maliki as Iraq PM six months after polls
Assad Abboud, AFP, September 7, 2010
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gJeg99XqjhrF-YvVu5xyGWU85_Yw
Baghdad – Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has the backing of Washington and US arch-foe Iran to keep his job, six months after he narrowly lost an election to ex-premier Iyad Allawi, politicians said Tuesday.
The United States has consistently denied having any favoured candidate for the premiership but amid growing impatience for a new government in Baghdad it now sees Maliki as the conflict-wracked country’s only viable leader.
A grave fear that Allawi will "re-Baathify" Iraq, bringing former allies of Saddam Hussein back to power, has also led its Shiite parties, with close ties to Iran, to accept Maliki, despite scepticism about his character and ability.
[…] The impasse has led US officials, anxious to avoid further delays that could potentially cause Iraq’s fledgling democracy to unravel, to seek a Maliki-led government that gives a prominent role to Allawi.
A senior State of Law official said Maliki received assurances during US Vice President Joe Biden’s recent visit that major neighbouring Arab countries, except Saudi Arabia, had decided to stop backing Allawi’s premiership hopes.
"Maliki was quoting Biden as saying, ‘Iraqiya has many problems and complexities… I told Turkey, Jordan, Egypt, Qatar and United Arab Emirates to end their support for Allawi,’" the official said Biden told Maliki.
"’They were all convinced except Saudi Arabia,’" he quoted the vice president as saying.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Monday ended a visit to Qatar, after which its emir, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani, travelled to Saudi Arabia, reputedly carrying a message to ask the kingdom to end its support for Allawi.
The complex arithmetic of securing 163 seats for a parliamentary majority, and the cabinet posts that will follow as a result, has also left Iraq’s Kurds and the ultra-Shiite Sadrist bloc willing to accept Maliki.
Kurdish regional president Massud Barzani "informed Allawi of his support for Maliki," the State of Law official said, in a move that would deprive Allawi of the Kurdish bloc’s 57 seats, making it impossible for him to secure a majority.
The Sadrists, who have previously voiced stern objections to Maliki serving a second term, also appear to have been appeased. "We will deal with Nuri al-Maliki as prime minister if he wins the position in the government for the second time," prominent Sadrist MP Bahaa al-Aaraji told AFP.
[…]
Israel/Palestine
8) U.S. actors back Israeli boycott of West Bank theater
More than 150 American actors, writers, directors and other artists sign letter of support for the Israeli actors who said they would not perform in Ariel.
Chaim Levinson, Ha’aretz, 06.09.10
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/u-s-actors-back-israeli-boycott-of-west-bank-theater-1.312393
More than 150 American actors, writers, directors and other artists signed a letter of support for the Israeli actors who declared they would not perform in the West Bank.
The American signatories include Cynthia Nixon, who plays Miranda on "Sex and the City"; Mandy Patinkin, who played Inigo Montoya in "The Princess Bride"; and character actor and writer Wallace Shawn, who played the principal in "Clueless."
Ten days ago, the Israeli actors caused a storm when they released a petition stating they would not perform in the West Bank. Their move was prompted by reports that the theater companies were planning performances at the new cultural center in Ariel.
The American letter calls the Israelis’ refusal brave, notes that Ariel is one of the largest settlements in the West Bank and calls it illegal by any standard.
[…] Wallace Shawn told Haaretz on Sunday that the Israeli artists’ refusal had touched him. They did something that could get them fired, and he found that inspiring, he said. Theater is the art of truth, and the Israeli artists are following their own truth, he said.
If they were to appear in Ariel they would be legitimizing something they do not agree with, said Shawn. If they do lose their jobs as a result of their stand, the world is watching and people will support them, he said.
[Theodore Bikel, arguably the most prominent Jewish actor in the United States, in the sense of performing specifically Jewish-themed work – he appeared as Tevye in Fiddler on the Roof more than 2000 times – also signed the JVP-initiated support letter. Bikel’s Ha’aretz op-ed in support of the Israeli actors, "Legitimizing an obstacle to peace," can be found here:
http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/legitimizing-an-obstacle-to-peace-1.312897 – JFP.]
9) During war there are no civilians
Sitting in on the Rachel Corrie trial alarmingly reveals an open Israeli policy of indiscrimination towards civilians.
Nora Barrows-Friedman, Al Jazeera, 08 Sep 2010 15:28 GMT
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2010/09/201098123618465366.html
"During war there are no civilians," that’s what "Yossi," an Israeli military (IDF) training unit leader simply stated during a round of questioning on day two of the Rachel Corrie trials, held in Haifa’s District Court earlier this week. "When you write a [protocol] manual, that manual is for war," he added.
For the human rights activists and friends and family of Rachel Corrie sitting in the courtroom, this open admission of an Israeli policy of indiscrimination towards civilians – Palestinian or foreign – created an audible gasp.
Yet, put into context, this policy comes as no surprise. The Israeli military’s track record of insouciance towards the killings of Palestinians, from the 1948 massacre of Deir Yassin in Jerusalem to the 2008-2009 attacks on Gaza that killed upwards of 1400 men, women and children, has illustrated that not only is this an entrenched operational framework but rarely has it been challenged until recently.
Rachel Corrie, the young American peace activist from Olympia, Washington, was crushed to death by a Caterpillar D9-R bulldozer, as she and other members of the nonviolent International Solidarity Movement attempted to protect a Palestinian home from imminent demolition on March 16, 2003 in Rafah, Gaza Strip. Corrie has since become a symbol of Palestinian solidarity as her family continues to fight for justice in her name.
Her parents, Cindy and Craig Corrie, filed a civil lawsuit against the State of Israel for Rachel’s unlawful killing – what they allege was an intentional act – and this round of testimonies called by the State’s defense team follows the Corries’ witness testimonies last March. The Corries’ lawsuit charges the State with recklessness and a failure to take appropriate measures to protect human life, actions that violate both Israeli and international laws.
Witnesses insisted that the bulldozer driver couldn’t see Rachel Corrie from his perch. The State attorneys called three witnesses to the stand on Sunday and Monday to prove that the killing was unintentional and took place in an area designated as a "closed military zone." Falling under the definition of an Act of War, their argument sought to absolve the soldiers of liability under Israeli law.
[…]
Pakistan
10) Floods Leave Afghan Refugees Down and Out
Ashfaq Yusufzai, Inter Press Service, Sep 7
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=52741
Peshawar, Pakistan – When they are not looking forlornly over what used to be their homes or trying to find help for relatives who have fallen ill, many Afghan refugees chase after vehicles that pass through the Great Trunk Road connecting Peshawar to Islamabad, the Pakistani capital.
Their desperation has been so great that at least five women so far have been killed in road mishaps as they ran after trucks they believed to be bringing in relief goods. Floods inundated north-west Pakistan more than a month ago, leaving devastation in their wake. The government has since said that some 20 million people have been affected by the disaster, or more than one-tenth of the country’s population.
It is unclear if that estimate included the country’s Afghan refugees, who are believed to number as much as 1.7 million, with most of them found here in north-west Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province.
The Afghan refugees, though, say that it is clear to them that with millions of locals affected by the floods, their concerns are not the priorities of their hosts.
According to the United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees (UNHCR), the Afghan refugee camps in 17 districts in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa alone had been overwhelmed by the floods, erasing more than 12,600 homes and leaving 85,800 refugees homeless.
Hundreds of thousands have also been left with little food and water, leading many to fall ill. Yet even medical help has been hard to come by.
"I have been running from pillar to post to find money and have my three children hospitalised," says refugee Rasool Shah, 31. "I had a small shop at the camp that was washed away and now I don’t have a single penny."
"Local doctors in the relief medical camp have advised me to admit all the three children into a hospital for chronic acute watery diarrhoea," he says, "but there is no free treatment for us at the local hospitals."
Lubna Hassan, president of the Gynaecological and Obstetric Society of Pakistan, told IPS that the Pakistanis affected by the floods had a lot of medical support, but the Afghan refugees seem to have been ignored by the government.
Doctors at a medical station established by the local charity Falah Insaniat near Azakhel – one of the biggest refugee camps – meanwhile say that the situation is extremely bad and could turn worse in the coming days.
"Most of the camp’s population suffers from diarrhoea, dysentery, typhoid, scabies, and malaria due to the fact that they don’t have clean drinking water," says medical doctor Riaz Alam. "Every day, we receive 300 patients, mostly women and children, who suffer from different health conditions triggered by the flooding."
Hassan also reports, "About 700 pregnant women uprooted from Azakhel camp are facing acute shortage of medicines and antenatal care. They don’t have balanced food and are likely to deliver sick babies."
"These women require regular medical checkups along with medicines and food to enable them to have healthy babies," she adds. "Most of pregnant women are anaemic and need balanced food."
Pakistan Pediatrics Association Vice President Sabir Ali says that 75 percent of the Afghan children have diarrhoea and dysentery while 35 percent have skin infections. Eighty- five percent of the children are malnourished as well, he says.
[…]
Bolivia
11) Child mortality in Bolivia: a partial success.
Twice as many newborn babies survive as did 20 years ago, but more still die here than in almost any country outside sub-Saharan Africa
Andres Schipani, The Guardian, Monday 6 September 2010
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/06/bolivia-child-mortality-sumi-health
La Paz – At the entrance of La Paz’s maternity hospital, a banner reads: "A hospital that is a friend of the child and the mother." Inside the maternity ward, Jimena Chambi has just given birth to a healthy baby, who is breastfeeding. "I am so happy he is healthy. I was so worried," she says.
Jimena’s case seems to be an increasing reality in one of South America’s poorest countries, where recent policies have shown that it is possible to make the health of poorest and marginalised children a priority.
Since the mid-1990s the government has been moving towards a policy of universal healthcare provision for mothers and children, prioritising maternal health and child survival. The original, more basic, system was upgraded eight years ago to the Universal Mother and Child Insurance scheme (SUMI), which is a comprehensive health package that covers about 500 health problems in children from birth to five years of age.
"The system was created to fight child mortality, to fight that economic barrier that prevented the mother from having proper attention from the start. It is an icon for Bolivia and I might even say for Latin America," explains Dr Dante Ergueta, an official working on the SUMI programme at Bolivia’s health ministry.
Services were extended four years ago to incorporate additional sexual and reproductive health service packages, including family planning.
More recently, President Evo Morales’ leftwing government launched a cash transfer scheme for pregnant women, the Juana Azurduy Bonus, named after a 19th-century icon of female independence.
Bolivia has slashed its child mortality figures by almost 50% in the past 20 years (under-fives from 142 to 63; under-ones from 96 to 50), faster progress even than some of its richer neighbours, such as booming Brazil.
[…] The picture is not perfect: the Andean country still has one of the highest child mortality rates outside sub-Saharan Africa, especially in newborns, and 27% of children under five suffer from chronic malnutrition.
[…]
–
Robert Naiman
Just Foreign Policy
www.justforeignpolicy.org
Just Foreign Policy is a membership organization devoted to reforming US foreign policy so it reflects the values and interests of the majority of Americans.