Rolled-up Trousers

Obama's drones kill 700 Pakistanis

On the anniversary of Barack Obama's inauguration, I thought I'd post up the fact that US drone attacks killed 700 Pakistani civilians during 2009.

Of the 44 attacks, only 5 hit their intended targets.

The total already surpasses George W Bush's kill count in Pakistan.

Hat tip Pulse Media. Good read on drone attacks here.

Pakistan: fixing leadership

A couple of years ago, Tony Blair was putting up a number of possible heirs as alternatives to Gordon Brown. This saw a procession which included Alan Milburn, John Reid, and Charles Clarke all being dispatched as fast as they arrived on the scene. What we know now is that Blair missed a trick - he should have anointed Cherie, with Euan the longterm successor. The Labour Party would have clapped it through.

Those eulogising about Benzair Bhutto's democratic credentials must have been severely embarrassed when the contents of her will were read out. I have to at this point share something - before the succession was announced, I was half thinking that Mohammad Sarwar might announce he was going for the Pakistan People's Party leadership. As the PPP's highest profile UK supporter, he's standing down as an MP here, he was over in Pakistan when the assassination happened, and he enjoys a lot of popularity in the country as the first Pakistani to make it in Westminster.

Bhutto's death

It is normal to speak well of the dead, particularly when they die in such an unacceptable fashion. No doubt the quiet season for the news media has also contributed to the wall-to-wall coverage of Benazir Bhutto's assassination. But the way that she is being portrayed as a fallen heroin is out of sync with her track record and what the prospects were for her relaunch.

She arrived back in Pakistan courtesy of a US brokered deal after around a decade out of the country dodging corruption trials. On the plane from Dubai she told the world's media that he had two priorities - to reform Islam and to help the poor.

This should have stuck in the throat. She was not some fresh faced political idealist. She had record - maybe not a criminal one, but as good as. She's twice been prime minister and had done nothing on either count, or much else of note. Had her family not already been substantially wealthy, she may have been able to argue that at least one poor person had been helped. It's estimated that she and her husband swindled tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions of dollars, in kickbacks from various state deals.

Bangladesh Cyclone Appeal

The DEC in Scotland yesterday launched their appeal for the victims of the Bangladesh cyclone.

Here's Habib Malik of Islamic Relief Scotland speaking from Bangladesh:

“The situation here, the extent of the devastation is horrific, I can only describe it as a complete nightmare.  Village after village has been completely destroyed, the extent of the damage is unimaginable.  It’s a race against time to get water and food and particularly medicine to people, many areas are still cut off.  Everywhere you look they are still bringing out the dead from paddy fields and other areas and desperately trying to find coverings to wrap the bodies in.

Questions over the Red Mosque carnage

David Miliband is in Pakistan today lending support to Musharraf's terrorism fight.

Pakistan couldn't be in a more difficult position. The Foreign Secretary distanced himself from the US threat to launch air strikes in the country in order to get to Bin Laden.

Miliband is obviously being very diplomatic with the Pakistani regime. In order to stay close, awkward questions will not be raised about the army's raid on the Lal Masjid (Red Mosque) in Islamabad just a few weeks ago.

It was claimed as a victory over terrorists, with the official government reports saying that 70 people lost their lives. However, this has not been open to verification by outsiders, with even funerals being carried out in secret. There are reports that the real death toll could be as much as 600.

That counts as a massacre. There needs to be a real and thorough investigation into what happened.

Comic Relief

Friday's Comic Relief festivities struck me as a bit anachronistic.

Just two years ago 250,000 marched in Edinburgh to Make Poverty History. Many thousands of others across the world made the sacrifice of attending concerts performed at by the globe's leading music acts. The rallying cry was:

1. Drop the Debt
2. Trade Justice
3. More and better aid

Gone was the "Give us you money" attitude. Not a penny was raised. It had taken two decades, but Sir Bob and Sir Bono had realised that political change was necessary to move people out of poverty in this world. The MPH campaign appeared to mark a shift in people's attitudes. It was no longer about charity. Political change was needed on crippling debts and ridiculous trade rules. Even on aid, governments had to start meeting the decades old UN target of 0.7% of GDP - it wasn't not up to ordinary people to do it through Live Aid events any more.

Is Blair pandering to Muslim sectarianism?

Tony Blair said in his Dubai speech, that in wanting to "pin back" Iran:

... we need the open and clear backing of the countries in this region who know better than we what is happening and why.

It's however an ambiguous statement and could mean any number of things, no matter how strange it seems on the face of it.

But on the back of the tour, Sky's Adam Boulton also said that the PM's people were forced to deny that the speech "amounts to calling for a Sunni Moslem alliance against Shia Iran".

Then yesterday, in responding to the Archbishop of Canterbury's criticism of the Iraq war, this:

'It's not the policies of the UK which are causing suffering for Christians in Iraq or the Middle East,' said a Foreign Office spokesman. 'It's the fact that there are intolerant extremists inflicting pain and suffering on people. These extremists are indiscriminately killing Christians, moderate Muslims, Sunnis and peoples of all faiths.'

Why the special emphasis for sunnis? After all the fuss made about rescuing shias in Iraq, now that the boot is being aimed at Iran, are the sunnis now in favour? The words don't mean much to a British audience, but are statements being carefully crafted for the anti-shia elements in the Arabian peninsula?

Saudis get in bed with Israel

An Israeli newspaper has reported that secret talks have taken place between Ehud Olmert and high-ranking Saudi officials (hat tip JSF).

The agenda included the Iranian nuclear programme, and the obligatory topic of peace with the Palestinians whenever anyone does meet the Israelis. Olmert all but confirmed the existence of the meetings:

"I am very impressed with different processes and statements that are connected to Saudi Arabia, some that have been stated publicly and others as well. I am very impressed with King Abdullah's wisdom and sense of responsibility," Olmert said.

Asked if Israel was holding secret contacts with Saudi Arabia, Olmert replied: "I do not have to answer every question."

Reason for the talks? "The [Israeli] prime minister was impressed by the moderate, positive stands that the Saudis expressed during the summer when Israel was fighting Hezbollah," the Israeli official who leaked story told The AP.

Now, one can look at this charitably for the Saudis and say we can't trust Israeli reports. But the fact that they can be used in such a way says it all about their recent actions. The reason for their siding with the Israelis against Hizbullah, and now Iran, is simply due their concern at the rise of Shia influence.

The folly of their position is clear. Iraq aside, it is interesting to see that the Sunni-Shia divide is being put to one side in the fight against occupation in Palestine. The people of the Arab world see Hizbullah as heroes. If the Saudis want to be loved, being the subservient wife of Israel isn't going to do it. Iran has rose to prominence because of their willingness to stand up to US and Israeli hegemony.

The dividing lines in the Muslim world are not Sunni and Shia anymore. There are now the occupiers and their friends, and those that are resisting them.

We'll bomb you to Stone Age, US told Pakistan

Parvez Musharraf's claim that the US threatened to bomb Pakistan "into the stone age" if they didn't cooperate in the war on Afghanistan is a sign of how much pressure he has been under since that decision.

US diplomacy may well have sunk so low, but I doubt Musharraf would have needed that much convincing. There is no way the US would have attacked Pakistan like that. And if there was such a  threat, why didn't Musharraf use that as an explanation at the time?

If we think Tony Blair is a poodle here, the Pakistan leader is known as Busharraf. The calls in his country were for him to adopt the same position as the Iranians - no use of our airspace for an attack on our neighbours.

According to the Herald, pressure is being applied to NATO members to send more troops to Afghanistan:

It is believed that diplomatic pressure is being used on some, including Poland, which is contributing just 10 people, and Spain, which is contributing 650. Britain, with 5000 men and women, is contributing the most to the International Security Assistance Force followed by Germany with 2600, Canada with 2500, The Netherlands with 2300 and America with 2050.

I can't understand why other countries would want to put themselves on the front line like that. Especially when America, whose war it is, has only 2050 troops there.

Should they be listening to Blair - a man who is criticised by his own former Labour Friends of Israel Middle East Minister? Kim Howells has said the prime minister's position on Lebanon was "difficult to defend" and that a "dual approach" of calling for a ceasefire while looking for a longterm solution should have been possible.

This guy was an umpire?

The revelation that Darrell Hair offered to quit as an umpire in return for a pay-off of $500,000 raises some interesting questions, apart from exactly how much these umpires earn.

This man was paid to make judgements. Yet he could not fully think through his action of emailing this offer over to the ICC. Surely he must have considered that if the ICC wanted rid of him they'd take the infinitely cheaper option of leaking the email rather than paying him?

In any case, the Pakistanis are vindicated. See Mike Marqusee for some analysis of this affair before this latest twist.

What did Materazzi say to Zidane?

Rumours are swirling that Marco Materazzi called Zinedine Zidane a "terrorist" or called his mother one. Judging by this guilty-sounding statement from the Italian, there's more to come from this story:

"It is absolutely not true, I did not call him a terrorist. I'm ignorant. I don't even know what the word means," the Italian news agency Ansa quoted Materazzi as saying after the Italian team returned to Rome.

"The whole world saw what happened on live TV," he added.

Why not tell us what you did say Marco? Even the Sun and Daily Mail have alleged on their front pages today that this is what was said.

Both newspapers are talking about this in racist terms though. This is more specific - it's Islamophobia and it's better to acknowledge that, just as if he was Jewish and insulted because of that, it would be termed anti-Semitism.

Zidane has been a symbol of unity in France as a son of Algerian immigrants. This vitriol that Materazzi is said to have poured on him will be no less significant a symbol of the way Muslims are viewed in Europe at the moment.

US rejected Iran offer in 2003

In an important Guardian article, Noam Chomsky cites the claim of Flynt Leverett, then a senior official in Bush's National Security Council, that in 2003 the US knocked by an Iranian offer to discuss:

• weapons of mass destruction
• a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict i.e. recognising Israel
• the future of Hizbullah
• cooperation with the UN nuclear safeguards agency

A year later Iran offered to stop uranium enrichment if the EU could guarantee that the US or Israel would not attack them. Again, the US refused.

Well worth reading the article for a proposal on the way forward, and Henry Kissinger grossly contradicting himself.

Wiping good translation off the map

I wrote last week drawing your attention to Jonathan Steele's contention that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad did not in fact call for Israel to be "wiped off the map". His article has caused a bit of controversy and he's followed it up with more detail.

He uses a variety of sources including the New York Times and the BBC. But the most significant has to the the Mossad inspired MEMRI. This is an institution that was set up to publicise the oft-decontextualised quotes of prominent Arabs and Muslims. They use the worst possible translations to serve their pro-Israeli cause. This is what they made of the Iranian President's statement:

"This regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history."

As Steele points out, when he said this, he compared the "elimination" of Israel to the fall of the Shah in 1979. We're talking regime change, not ethnic cleansing. This view is shared by many anti-Zionists.

One obvious question emanating from this is who did spread the "wiped off the map" translation? Why did this story receive the prominence it did at this point in history/point of the map (depending on which translation you use)?

Iran and uranium enrichment

Alastair Crooke reminds us in Prospect that as signatories to the nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT), Iran has the right to develop the peaceful use of nuclear energy. It is the US that has ripped this up:

When the NPT came into force in 1970, the central bargain was between the five nuclear-weapon powers on one hand, and the non-nuclear states on the other. The have-nots agreed to renounce their right to weapons, but only in return for the right to develop the peaceful use of nuclear energy. At the core of the NPT is Article IV, which gives all signatories the “inalienable right… to develop, research, produce and use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes” and to acquire technology to this effect from fellow signatories. Equally important, in return for the have-nots’ renunciation of weapons, the “haves” agreed not to use their stocks of weapons to blackmail the have-nots, and ultimately to get rid of their weapons (Article VI). These are the two pillars of the non-proliferation system.

Nukes are haraam

Ayatollah Ali Khameini has declared the use of nuclear weapons as "against Islamic rules" As BSSC observes, "it's probably fair to say that the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran takes his religion really rather seriously".

However, this has not been reported anywhere, and what we've got instead is reports of him threatening to cut oil supplies if his country is attacked.

As Jonathan Steele points out in a must-read article in the Guardian, it is really Khameini who is top dog in Iran. It was not long ago, before Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected, that the West lamented the lack of power in the position of the elected President vis a vis the Supreme Leader. Now one "wiped off the map" remark later, and it's all forgotten - a comment though that Steele maintains has been misquoted.

Hirsi Ali, the BBC and lost Dutch liberalism

The BBC publish an article about lost liberalism in Holland. Ah, I think, something highlighting the treatment of immigrant communities in the country... no, just something lamenting the treatment of the liar Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

The author of the article, Lisa Jardine, just doesn't seem to have kept up with recent events:

Hirsi Ali arrived in Holland as an asylum-seeker in 1992, fleeing a forced marriage.

No she didn't.

In the face of a growing clamour from both the Muslim and the secular communities to silence her, she has decided to re-settle in Washington.

No she jumped ship because of the storm over her lies.

Jardine does however know about the web Hirsi Ali tied herself up in:

In spite of her imminent departure, she has now been told by the Immigration Minister, Rita Verdonk that she is to be stripped of her Dutch citizenship because - out of fear - she did not use her true name on her original application form.

And the rest of it please - there were a few more lies than that.

Jardine also repeats the tired fiction of Muslim involvement in the killing of Pim Fortuyn.

Absolutely bizarre from the BBC.

Brian Whitaker meanwhile stays calm long enough to write about Hirsi Ali and bedfellow Irshad Manji. He makes the point that the neocons and rightwingers love them because they tell them what they want to hear. Trouble with the bridge that needs to be made between Islam and the West is that as with any rapprochement, you need to hear things that may not all sit well with you. Whitaker links to this essay by Laila Lalami in the Nation.

International community

Bush and Blair like to speak of how the "international community" is being challenged and how big their global coalition is. Haroon dissects the spin by examining the numbers:

If we take the European Union and the United States, we have a total population of about 750 million. If we add to that other countries concerned by Iran enough to want to censure, sanction or bomb it, well that's possibly Israel and Australia might come along for some good up and over fun, too, so let's add another 25 million, for a grand total of 775 million. Sounds like a lot. At first.

Outside of that, major countries of the world, such as China (1.3 billion), India (1.1 billion) and Russia (150 million) don't really feel Iran is a meaningful threat, and entire continents like Africa (795 million) just don't care enough to say anything. They have other, more pressing concerns, like Americans should have, if it wasn't for our rabble-rousing media. Of course, the typical neo-con will counter: "China and Russia aren't democracies." Well, India is a democracy, and the total number of Indians outnumbers all America and the EU. By a couple hundred million.

So what international consensus are we talking about? What about Latin America, whose democracies also really don't care about what Iran does or doesn't do? Keep in mind that the population of Latin America is some 790 million, again outnumbering the US, EU and Israel; moreover, many Latin American countries are democracies, such as Brazil (185 million) and Argentina (about 40 million) and Mexico (roundabout 100 million); right there, we've got more voters than the United States.

Bush Demands That Iran Halt Production of Long Letters

By Andy Borowitz

Days after receiving an 18-page letter from Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President George W. Bush called the lengthy missive “an act of war” and demanded that Iran halt its production of long letters at once.

At the White House, aides said that writing a letter of such length to President Bush, who is known for his extreme distaste for reading, was the most provocative act Mr. Ahmadinejad could have possibly committed.

Wiping Iran off the map

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has called for Israel to be wiped off the map, should bear in mind that his own country could also be destroyed, Israeli elder statesman Shimon Peres said on Monday.

Peres, vice prime minister in Ehud Olmert's new government, said Iran was mocking the international community's attempts to resolve the crisis over its nuclear ambitions and that the credibility of the U.N. Security Council was on the line. (...)

"They want to wipe out Israel ... Now when it comes to destruction, Iran too can be destroyed (but) I don't suggest to say an eye for an eye," Peres told Reuters in an interview.

OK so not an "eye for an eye" because Israel would strike first making it any eye for, well, nothing.

The height of the chutzpah must be the emphasis Israel is placing on Iran's nuclear intentions, with Peres saying a mockery is being made of the UN!

"If Iran becomes nuclear many other countries will follow suit ... and whoever will have a conflict will produce a bomb. and finally some bombs will reach the hands of terror," he said.

Letting a man rot while pretending you're too civilised to kill him

Te decision not to put to death Zacarias Moussaoui has been hailed as a victory for civilisation.

Indigo Jo points out the reality of the the situation from reports in the Times:

He can look forward to a lifetime of solitary confinement in a facility that houses 399 other high security prisoners including former al Qaeda operatives, drug barons, and ganglords. Set in the middle of the desert and equipped with sophisticated surveillance technology, the prison is considered almost impossible to escape from.

Most of the prisoners are held in solitary confinement for 23 hours every day. For one hour each day they are allowed to exercise in a concrete chamber, fettered by leg irons and handcuffs. Prisoners stay in sound-proofed cells measuring seven feet by twelve. Each cell is bolted shut with a steel door.

The psychological effect of long-term solitary confinement is profound, leading to prisoners suffering from hallucinations, anxiety, depression and self-harm. One former prisoner David Clark told The Guardian in 2002 of extreme restraint methods used by the prison, even during family visits.

"Your family has to look at you chained up like Hannibal Lecter or something. They have to look at you in pain, squirming," he said.

A taste of life ahead was offered by James Aiken, a former prison warden called as a defence witness during his trial. “We are not preparing him for a return to society. We are not even preparing him for a return to the general population. The mission here is incapacitation.

“Time takes a toll on all of us, something he doesn’t even know yet. I have seen them rot. They rot.”

Pointedly, how is this any better than killing him?

Solitary confinement for saying "walaikum as salaam"

The Telgraph gives an insight into the life of "American Taliban" John Walker Lindh, now known as Hamzah, in prison after he was captured in Afghanistan.

One of his fellow detainees recounts some of the terms of his imprisonment - he is not allowed to talk about Islam, lead prayers, or even speak Arabic - he was once put into solitary confinement for return the greeting of salaam to another inmate. The Telegraph of course noted nothing strange about these terms.