UN resolution will provoke war in Somalia

Islamic militia says UN resolution will provoke war in Somalia

Published: Friday, December 8, 2006 | 12:48 AM ET
Canadian Press: MOHAMED OLAD HASSAN

MOGADISHU, Somalia (AP) - Ethiopian troops have shelled a central Somalia town, two days after the UN passed a resolution to ease an arms embargo on Somalia, an official of the country's Islamic courts said Friday.

This is the second time in 10 days the Ethiopians are reported to have shelled Bandiradley, about 630 kilometres northeast of the capital, Mogadishu.

"Ethiopian soldiers have massed around Bandiradley soon after the arms embargo had been lifted and started firing missiles toward our positions," said Sheikh Abdullahi Ali Hashi, a spokesman for the Council of Islamic Courts told The Associated Press by telephone from central Somalia.

On Thursday, Islamic officials in control of most of southern Somalia warned that war will erupt over a UN Security Council decision authorizing an African force to protect the country's virtually powerless government.

The Security Council unanimously approved the resolution Wednesday, saying it hoped to restore peace in Somalia and avert a broader conflict in the region.

Prime Minister Ali Mohamed Gedis, formerly one of Somalia's prominent warlords, welcomed the decision and urged its immediate implementation.
Continue Article

The U.S. resolution, co-sponsored by the council's African members, urged the Islamic Courts union, which controls the capital of Mogadishu and most of the south, to stop any further military expansion and join the transitional government in peace talks.

However, peace talks slated for later this month appeared unlikely, with the Islamic group saying it will now have to reconsider joining any such dialogue with the UN-backed administration.

A spokesman for the Islamic movement said the resolution will introduce sophisticated weapons into Somalia and provoke a war between his group and the struggling government.

"We see the approval of the resolution as nothing but an evil intention," Abdirahin Ali Mudey, spokesman for the Islamic Courts, told The Associated Press.

Mudey accused the Security Council of giving the Somali government's main ally, Ethiopia, permission to occupy the country.

"The international community has proven to be biased and unjust," he said.

The resolution, however, bans Somalia's neighbours from sending soldiers, which would prohibit participation in the force by troops from Ethiopia, Djibouti and Kenya. Uganda is the only country that has so far volunteered troops.

But eyewitnesses in Dagaari village near Bandiradley said that they saw hundreds of Ethiopian troops and tanks take up new positions near the town in co-ordination with militiamen from the northeastern semi autonomous region of Puntland and Qeybdiid's militia.

They said that this new movement puts these forces and their rival Islamic courts' militias only 2 kilometres apart.

"Ethiopians and their ally regional militia have increased their military presence here. Now they are advancing towards Bandiradley," said a local resident on condition of anonymity because of fear of reprisals.

The arms embargo against Somalia was imposed in 1992, a year after warlords overthrew dictator Mohamed Siad Barre and then turned on one another. An interim government was formed two years ago with the help of the UN, but was ignored both by both the warlords and the Islamic militia, which eventually drove the warlords from Mogadishu and most of the south.

Critics of the resolution, including some non-governmental organizations, accuse the UN Security Council of taking sides in the dispute between the government and the Islamic movement.

But there are fears that, without international action, Somalia could become a proxy battleground for Ethiopia and Eritrea, which fought a border war in 1998-2000.

A confidential UN report obtained recently by The AP said 6,000-8,000 Ethiopian troops were in Somalia or along the border, supporting the transitional government. It also said 2,000 soldiers from Eritrea were inside Somalia, supporting the Islamic militia - which Eritrea denies.

Eritrean Information Minister Ali Abdu denounced the Security Council resolution as an "attack on the Somali people."

He also said it provided support for just one warlord, an indirect reference to Somali President Abdullahi Yusuf's past as one of the country's major warlords.

The authorized force "is not a peacekeeping force, it is an invasion-keeping force," Abdu told Al-Jazeera television.

The resolution authorizes a seven-country East African group known as the Intergovernmental Authority on Development, or IGAD, and the African Union to establish "a protection and training mission in Somalia" for an initial period of six months.

Council diplomats said IGAD envisions a force of eight battalions, each with 700 to 800 troops, but only two would be deployed in the first phase.

The UN last authorized peacekeepers to enter Somalia in December 1992, with the U.S. leading an international force to help feed famine victims in the midst of widespread violence between warlords.

By 1993, the mission evolved into disarming factions hindering relief efforts, including a search for Gen. Mohamed Farrah Aidid, a leading warlord. On Oct. 3, an urban battle with Aidid's forces killed 18 U.S. soldiers and wounded 84.

Public outrage over the troops' violent deaths - fed by televised pictures of the bodies of U.S. soldiers being dragged through the streets of Mogadishu - generated political pressure that forced then-president Bill Clinton to order all troops to withdraw by March 31, 1994.

Diplomat's suppressed document lays bare the lies behind Iraq war

Diplomat's suppressed document lays bare the lies behind Iraq war By Colin Brown and Andy McSmith 12/15/06 "The Independent" --- -- The Government's case for going to war in Iraq has been torn apart by the publication of previously suppressed evidence that Tony Blair lied over Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. A devastating attack on Mr Blair's justification for military action by Carne Ross, Britain's key negotiator at the UN, has been kept under wraps until now because he was threatened with being charged with breaching the Official Secrets Act. In the testimony revealed today Mr Ross, 40, who helped negotiate several UN security resolutions on Iraq, makes it clear that Mr Blair must have known Saddam Hussein possessed no weapons of mass destruction. He said that during his posting to the UN, "at no time did HMG [Her Majesty's Government] assess that Iraq's WMD (or any other capability) posed a threat to the UK or its interests." Mr Ross revealed it was a commonly held view among British officials dealing with Iraq that any threat by Saddam Hussein had been "effectively contained". He also reveals that British officials warned US diplomats that bringing down the Iraqi dictator would lead to the chaos the world has since witnessed. "I remember on several occasions the UK team stating this view in terms during our discussions with the US (who agreed)," he said. "At the same time, we would frequently argue when the US raised the subject, that 'regime change' was inadvisable, primarily on the grounds that Iraq would collapse into chaos." He claims "inertia" in the Foreign Office and the "inattention of key ministers" combined to stop the UK carrying out any co-ordinated and sustained attempt to address sanction-busting by Iraq, an approach which could have provided an alternative to war. Mr Ross delivered the evidence to the Butler inquiry which investigated intelligence blunders in the run-up to the conflict. The Foreign Office had attempted to prevent the evidence being made public, but it has now been published by the Commons Select Committee on Foreign Affairs after MPs sought assurances from the Foreign Office that it would not breach the Official Secrets Act. It shows Mr Ross told the inquiry, chaired by Lord Butler, "there was no intelligence evidence of significant holdings of CW [chemical warfare], BW [biological warfare] or nuclear material" held by the Iraqi dictator before the invasion. "There was, moreover, no intelligence or assessment during my time in the job that Iraq had any intention to launch an attack against its neighbours or the UK or the US," he added. Mr Ross's evidence directly challenges the assertions by the Prime Minster that the war was legally justified because Saddam possessed WMDs which could be "activated" within 45 minutes and posed a threat to British interests. These claims were also made in two dossiers, subsequently discredited, in spite of the advice by Mr Ross. His hitherto secret evidence threatens to reopen the row over the legality of the conflict, under which Mr Blair has sought to draw a line as the internecine bloodshed in Iraq has worsened. Mr Ross says he questioned colleagues at the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence working on Iraq and none said that any new evidence had emerged to change their assessment. "What had changed was the Government's determination to present available evidence in a different light," he added. Mr Ross said in late 2002 that he "discussed this at some length with David Kelly", the weapons expert who a year later committed suicide when he was named as the source of a BBC report saying Downing Street had "sexed up" the WMD claims in a dossier. The Butler inquiry cleared Mr Blair and Downing Street of "sexing up" the dossier, but the publication of the Carne Ross evidence will cast fresh doubts on its findings. Mr Ross, 40, was a highly rated diplomat but he resigned because of his misgivings about the legality of the war. He still fears the threat of action under the Official Secrets Act. "Mr Ross hasn't had any approach to tell him that he is still not liable to be prosecuted," said one ally. But he has told friends that he is "glad it is out in the open" and he told MPs it had been "on my conscience for years". One member of the Foreign Affairs committee said: "There was blood on the carpet over this. I think it's pretty clear the Foreign Office used the Official Secrets Act to suppress this evidence, by hanging it like a Sword of Damacles over Mr Ross, but we have called their bluff." Yesterday, Jack Straw, the Leader of the Commons who was Foreign Secretary during the war - Mr Ross's boss - announced the Commons will have a debate on the possible change of strategy heralded by the Iraqi Study Group report in the new year. © 2006 Independent News and Media Limited

Gorilla Radio for Monday December 18, 2006

PEJ News - C. L. Cook - This week on GR: Environmental and social activist Mike Nickerson and 'Life, Money, & Illusion: Living on Earth as if We Want to Stay.' And; Janine Bandcroft brings us up to speed with holiday goings-on in and around Victoria in the coming week. Chris Cook hosts Gorilla Radio, airing live every Monday, 5-6pm Pacific Time. In Victoria at 101.9FM, 104.3 cable, and on the internet at: http://cfuv.uvic.ca He also serves as a contributing editor at the progressive web news site: http://www.pej.org. You can check out the GR blog at: http://GorillaRadioBlog.blogspot.com Gorilla Radio for Monday December 18, 2006 C. L. Cook PEJ News December 18, 2006 How did it happen; how did things get this far? In the dying days of 2006, it seems humanity has run out of luck: It seems we are nigh near that end that mystics and madmen throughout time have warned would come. Wars and rumours of war, pestilence, disease, and death are arrived now with apocalyptic urgency, bringing too in their cataclysmic train Mother Nature herself, angry and terrible. And this misery is of our own making. Every day, millions go about their business, toiling to provide the things they believe needed to sustain themselves, while all they do brings the planet nearer to unihabitable for we humans. But, is there a another way? Mike Nickerson is a long time environmental and societal change activist. He is the founder of Institute for the Study of Cultural Evolution, and is the author of Bakavi; Change the World I Want to Stay On and the recently released Life, Money & Illusion: Living on Earth as if We Want to Stay. Mike Nickerson in the first half. And; though the recent extreme snow, wind, and rain storms may give some a moment's pause, Christmas 2006 seems likely to happen, and in the second half the Gorilla Radio Christmas tribute. And; Janine Bandcroft will be here at the bottom of the hour to bring us up to speed with some of the seasonally good things you can get up to in the coming week. But first, Mike Nickerson and seeing through our societal illusions. G-Radio is dedicated to social justice, the environment, community, and providing a forum for people and issues not covered in the corporate media. Some past guests include: M. Junaid Alam, M. Shahid Alam, Joel Bakan, Maude Barlow, David Barsamian, Rhoda Berenson, William Blum, Luciana Bohne, William Bowles, Vincent Bugliosi, Helen Caldicott, Noam Chomsky, Michel Chossudovsky, Diane Christian, Juan Cole, David Cromwell, Murray Dobbin, Jon Elmer, Reese Erlich, Anthony Fenton, Jim Fetzer, Laura Flanders, Chris Floyd, Connie Fogal, Susan George, Stan Goff, Amy Goodman, Robert Greenwald, Denis Halliday, Chris Hedges, Sander Hicks, Julia Butterfly Hill, Robert Jensen, Dahr Jamail, Diana Johnstone, Kathy Kelly, Naomi Klein, Anthony Lappe, Frances Moore Lappe, Jason Leopold, Jeff Leys, Dave Lindorff, Jim Lobe, Jennifer Loewenstein, Wayne Madsen, Stephen Marshall, Linda McQuaig, George Monbiot, Loretta Napoleoni, John Nichols, Kurt Nimmo, David Orchard, Greg Palast, Mike Palecek, Michael Parenti, Robert Parry, Kevin Pina, William Rivers Pitt, Justin Podur, Jack Random, Sheldon Rampton, Paul Craig Roberts, Paul de Rooij, John Ross, Danny Schechter, Vandana Shiva, Norman Solomon, Starhawk, Grant Wakefield, Paul Watson, Bernard Weiner, Mickey Z., Dave Zirin, and many others. Stay informed. Subscribe and get the best of PEJ News by email. Free.

U.S. training Fatah in anti-terror tactics

Underlying motive is to counter strength of Hamas, analysts say
Matthew Kalman, Chronicle Foreign Service

Thursday, December 14, 2006

source:

www.sfgate.com

(12-14) 04:00 PST Jericho, West Bank -- U.S. officials training Palestinian security forces loyal to President Mahmoud Abbas are emphasizing urban anti-terrorist techniques as part of a systematic effort to bolster Abbas and his Fatah loyalists to counter the political success of Hamas, according to Palestinian analysts and officers receiving the training.

But one officer who has received the training says the purpose of the newly beefed-up force is to protect the Palestinian president from assassination.

The Presidential Guard, made up entirely of Fatah activists loyal to Abbas, has been increased to 1,000, up from about 90 officers under his predecessor, Yasser Arafat. A new black-uniformed rapid deployment force -- Al-Tadakhwal -- has recently been formed to respond to emergencies. The Presidential Guard is commanded by Gen. Munir Zobi in the West Bank and Gen. Haj Musbar in Gaza.

Officers have also received training from U.S. officials inside the Mukata, the presidential compound in Ramallah that contains Abbas' office and Arafat's grave.

The Chronicle has obtained a training manual distributed to officers of the Al-Haras Al-Rayassi, Abbas' Presidential Guard, during a two-week course held in Jericho earlier this year at which the chief instructor introduced himself as a U.S. Secret Service officer who served during the Reagan administration. The manual, titled "Advanced Protective Operations Seminar," is emblazoned with the logo of the Counterterrorism Training Group, which includes the U.S. government seal.

Lt. Gen. Keith Dayton, the U.S. security coordinator to Israel and the Palestinian Authority, told the Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth after news of the training sessions leaked out that since Iran is helping arm and fund Hamas political and military activities, the United States wants to prevent "moderate forces" in the Palestinian territories from being eliminated.

"We are involved in building up the Presidential Guard, instructing it, assisting it to build itself up and giving them ideas. We are not training the forces to confront Hamas," Dayton told Yedioth. "Hamas is receiving money and arms from Iran and possibly Syria, and we must make sure that the moderate forces will not be erased," Dayton said.

But one of the officers trained by Dayton's team said the American general is being naive and does not understand internal Palestinian politics.

"Ever since the Hamas election victory, security has been tightened around (Abbas)," said the officer, speaking on condition of anonymity. "The fear is that someone from Hamas will try to assassinate him, and we must be ready to deal with this threat. The main threat to the security of the president is from the militia of Hamas."

When the Palestinian Authority was established in 1994 with a mandate to handle its own policing, Arafat set up a string of 14 overlapping and often competing security forces -- each one controlled by a rival political or former guerrilla chieftain, but all of them ultimately loyal to him and his Fatah party. Arafat used these forces to control political opponents like Hamas and also maintain loyalty through patronage and the payment of salaries.

The United States had helped train the initial security forces, but ended its aid when the Palestinian uprising called the intifada began in September 2000. During the intifada, many trained security officers engaged in attacks on Israeli targets or joined the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, the Fatah militant wing.

Earlier this year, after it assumed control of the Palestinian government following its success in January's parliamentary elections, Hamas announced the formation of its own security service, the Executive Force, and placed Jamal abu Samhadana, a prominent militant, at its head. Samhadana was killed in an Israeli raid in June.

Abbas had denounced formation of the new police force as unconstitutional, saying that only the Palestinian president could command armed forces. On Dayton's advice, the U.S. training program began again over the summer, but so far it has been limited to the officers directly responsible for the personal security of Abbas and his VIP guests, including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice during her visit to Jericho last month.

Training seminars for the Presidential Guard are being held in various locations around the West Bank. A two-week course called the Advanced Protective Operations Seminar was recently held at the Intercontinental Hotel in Jericho, where participants were instructed in counterterrorism techniques. The manual from that course gave detailed advice on a range of security issues from airport and event security planning to securing motorcades, residences and offices. Suggested tactics included the use of "protective intelligence," "counter-snipers" and a "counter-assault team."

An official from the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv traveled to Ramallah earlier this year to instruct about 60 Presidential Guard officers in securing vehicles and sites against bomb threats and suspect devices. The session, according to one of the participants, lasted about two hours and took place in a large meeting room close to Abbas' office in the Mukata compound.

"We are helping the Palestinian Authority security services to enhance their abilities, concentrating on the Presidential Guard," said a U.S. diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity. "We are also helping the Presidential Guard take on expanded responsibilities, like security at the border crossings in Gaza."

The American effort is part of a broader international package of support to bolster Abbas loyalists as Hamas threatens to increase its parallel Executive Force to 6,000 men. Training for Fatah forces also is provided by Egypt, Jordan and Turkey. Britain, Spain and the European Union have provided communications equipment, vehicles and logistical support.

But there are fears the American assistance program could backfire.

"The U.S.' involvement in attempts to bring down the Hamas government has only made things worse for Abbas and Fatah," wrote Khaled Abu Toameh, Palestinian affairs correspondent for the Jerusalem Post, in a commentary titled "Guns and Poses."

"The U.S. believes that by giving Abbas more rifles and cash, it would be able to bring about regime change. But in the West Bank and Gaza, there is no shortage of weapons. Tons of explosives, rifles and missiles are smuggled across the Egyptian border nearly every day. What the Palestinians need is not more rifles -- which they never use to stop Hamas, Islamic Jihad or other militias anyway -- but good governance and credible leaders," he wrote.

"American meddling in Palestinian affairs is backfiring, because many Palestinians are beginning to look at Abbas and Fatah as pawns in the hands of the U.S. and Israel. This does not help Abbas and moderate secular Palestinians, who are facing the dangers of the growing power of Islamic fundamentalism."

Abbas' guard members wear distinctive green uniforms with a shoulder patch bearing the name of the force and the Palestinian flag. Each officer carries a semiautomatic Kalashnikov assault rifle and Motorola communications equipment. Plans to replace the outdated Kalashnikovs of the Presidential Guard with lightweight Heckler and Koch MP5 submachine guns were scrapped because of Israeli opposition.

"It's a great shame the Israelis wouldn't allow us to have the new equipment. In a hostage situation inside a building, the MP5 is much more effective than the Kalashnikov, which is too large to handle indoors and has a very strong recoil," said the Presidential Guard officer who had been through the training.

The Israelis, this officer said, have refused to permit the supply of new weapons, tear gas and flak jackets to the Presidential Guard, based on their experience in the past when the CIA trained dozens of Palestinian security officers only to watch in dismay as many of them joined the ranks of Fatah's Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades during the intifada.

"I'm not thrilled at the idea of the Americans training Fatah militias or the Palestinian police," said Yuval Steinitz, a former chairman of the Israeli parliament's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee. "Until now, both Fatah and the Palestinian police have been a great disappointment to those who believed they could overcome terror as they promised they would. The opposite has happened. In the best case, they were simply passive. In the worst cases, they actually encouraged terrorism."

Page A - 17

Homo Hunters: Portraits in Pathology

Mel Seesholtz, Ph.D.

Tuesday, 12 December 2006


Ed Vitagliano is the “news” editor of the American Family Association Journal. He’s also the AFA “researcher” who started the gay SpongeBob fiasco, and he’s still hunting gays and suggesting new ways to demean them. His tactics focus on thwarting understanding and encouraging ignorance.

In a recent article Mr. Vitagliano took aim at public education:


The influence of homosexual activists within the nation’s educational system continues to grow, altering the attitudes of children and teens toward the acceptance of a destructive and depraved lifestyle.

Often without parental knowledge, local schools are instituting policy changes that not only promote respect for homosexuality, but often even celebrate it. … [italics added]


What could be more “destructive and depraved” than a man dedicated to demeaning young gay people and encouraging prejudice against them?

Examine his statements, beginning with “often without parental knowledge.” Clearly, Mr. Vitagliano wants parents notified so that those who share his parochial, prejudiced views can raise Cain with school officials and local school boards. He urged these like “minds” to participate in the Standard of Liberty Foundation’s “Risk Audit Project” (RAP):



In May and June 2005, over 50 state pro-family groups formed an alliance to encourage the Southern Baptist Convention to use its influence to protect children from school districts that are promoting acceptance of homosexual behavior. As a result, a resolution was passed that encouraged local SBC churches to investigate, among other things, whether their school district is betraying parents, children, and the community by collaborating with homosexual activists. In cases where the school district was found to be collaborating, the resolution also urged parents to hold the school districts accountable and demand discontinuation of such morally offensive programs and materials.


As a result, to assist this investigative effort, we are offering this survey instrument to implement what we call the “Risk Audit Project.” The objectives of the Project are to:



1. Gather information about school districts throughout the U.S. regarding whether and how the districts promote acceptance of homosexual behavior to students;


2. Summarize this information through use of a uniform research instrument;


3. Communicate the results to the public through various media;

4. Hold the identified schools accountable to make needed changes in curricula; school programs and policies; and teaching.


Sound like McCarthyism to you?

The Risk Audit Project claims that what it “offers local communities is knowledge.” Nothing could be further from the truth, beginning with their claim that homosexuality is one of several “mental health disorders.”

Aside from the fact that the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Counseling Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, and the National Association of Social Workers strongly disagree, the Risk Audit Project’s blatant lie – there is no more accurate word – is part of other misrepresentations and distortions:

The fact remains that teens engaging in homosexual behavior are participating in a lifestyle that:



• reduces life expectancy at age twenty by at least 8 to 20 years


• increases by at least 500% the risk of contracting AIDS


• increases the risk of contracting a sexually transmitted disease by nearly 900%


• increases by 4,000% the risk of developing anal cancer


• substantially increases the likelihood of smoking, having mental health disorders (other than same-sex attraction), being the victim of “domestic” violence, and being involved in alcohol and drug abuse


• substantially increases the likelihood of contracting hepatitis and other gastrointestinal infections


• substantially increases the risk of contracting bacterial vaginosis, breast cancer, and ovarian cancer


• has high levels of participation in sadomasochism, coprophilia, sadomasochism, fisting, and other dangerous, deviant sex practices


• involves extraordinarily high levels of promiscuity


“Contracting breast cancer”?

RAP lists two references in relation to these scare tactics. One of them is “The Health Risks of Gay Sex” by John R. Diggs, M.D. The author is well known for using misleading “statistics” and more often than not basing seemingly “professional opinions” on personal beliefs and biases. Dr. Diggs and this particular article were the subject of “Medical Advice with Mixed Messages,” Parts I, II and III.

The other “source” is an article by Timothy J. Dailey, Ph. D. that appeared on the website of Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council. FRC is the faith-based ultra-conservative group that sponsored the theocracy-on-parade Justice Sunday events (JS I, JS II, JS III). At least they had the authenticity to add the following notation to Dailey’s article: “Please note: this article is an archived item on Family Research Council’s website; the information contained therein may be outdated.” Outdated and misleading, to be sure. But they forgot “homophobic.” The Risk Audit Project cited the article as if it were current research.

Some of what the Risk Audit Project considers dangerous includes “An anti-harassment, anti-bullying or ‘safe schools’ policy that includes the category ‘sexual orientation,’” “Non-discrimination policy based on ‘sexual orientation’ (may also cover ‘gender identity’) for students and/or teachers, staff,” “Requirements for teacher/ staff training on ‘diversity,’ ‘tolerance,’ ‘sensitivity,’” “Programs on tolerance, diversity, ‘hate’ or ‘bias,’” “Lessons on different types of families,” “HIV/AIDS and ‘safe sex’ education programs,” “Political Science/ History/Civics classes on current issues.”

That’s right. These homophobic McCarthyites consider “Political Science/ History/Civics classes on current issues” dangerous. God forbid students should be informed about current events and issues. After all, they’ll be old enough to vote after graduation or even during their senior year. But perhaps that’s the point: keep them uninformed so they’re more likely to accept platitudes and propaganda. Discrimination’s worst enemy is knowledge; bigotry’s, critical thinking.

Note the nature of the other things RAP considers dangerous: a safe learning environment for all students, equality among public school personnel and, of course, real-world sex education. Their “reasoning” on the last one defies all knowledge and logic: “These lessons assume all students are at risk of AIDS; that all students need to be taught about use of condoms for ‘safe sex.’” All sexually active students are at risk not only for HIV infection but a host of other STDs. Not informing them about condom use is nothing short of criminal.

Much of the Risk Audit form is designed to gather specific information about schools, principals, school board members, curricula, and extra-curricular options. All this information is then to be “turned in” so appropriate “action” can be taken.

One of Vitagliano’s primary targets in his article was Gay-Straight Alliance (GSA) clubs. As before, the Homo Hunter began his assault on “the problem of GSAs” with parental notification:

These clubs are often formed without parental notification or input. Kids who consider themselves homosexual – or straight kids who are sympathetic to the homosexual movement – simply have to approach school administrators and obtain permission. Because most schools allow the formation of non-academic student groups, federal equal access laws often require schools to allow GSAs.

Once these groups get started, students are allowed to gather regularly at school and promote their meetings and their views using the school’s public address system, bulletin boards and copy machines.

Would Mr. Vitagliano have the same concern about schools allowing students to form Christian clubs? How about Islamic clubs? Ethnic clubs? Racial clubs? Would he support racist parents who object to African-America clubs? Would he support parents whose religious bigotry would prompt them to object to Islamic, Buddhist, or Jewish clubs?

Recall one of Vitagliano’s opening statements in his article: “local schools are instituting policy changes that not only promote respect for homosexuality, but often even celebrate it. …” [italics added]

GSA clubs are dedicated to promoting respect for all students: the very thing that Vitagliano abhors. He wishes to promote disrespect and contempt by thwarting understanding and encouraging ignorance. One can only assume he’s supportive of the violence to which disrespect and contempt inevitably lead.

“Celebrate”? That’s Vitagliano’s spin meant to divide and conquer using the ignorance born of fear and hate. What he can’t bear is acknowledging the legitimacy of respect for all people. A similarly depraved “human being” used a similar point of view in his allegedly Christian campaign to purify his nation and rid it of “undesirables.” Mr. Vitagliano might even tacitly approve of the faith-based ideology in the Taliban’s recently issued “code of conduct” that includes “when to kill teachers” who propagate respect for all people. After all, recognizing every person’s basic human dignity and fundamental civil rights is anathema in both a fascist and a theofascist state.

Supporting Vitagliano in his campaigns is the founder and chairman of the American Family Association, Don Wildmon, who’s in the Schadenfreude business of hurting gay and lesbian families. Wildmon and the AFA are notorious for launching campaigns against any organization or company that supports equality. Their latest target is Sears. The company’s crime against Wildmon World is that “Sears Supports Homosexual TV Network With Advertising.”

The AFA’s leader’s “call to action” ended with urging his sheeple to



1. Send an email to Sears asking them to cancel their advertising on LOGO.

2. Call your local Sears store and ask why Sears is supporting the homosexual network with its advertising.

3. Forward this email to your friends and family.

LOGO is not a broadcast channel. In most cases, someone would have to subscribe to cable (often digital cable) or satellite TV in order to get LOGO, and both cable and satellite systems have “parental controls” that would enable subscribers to block the channel if they wanted to. But that’s not the point. Wildmon doesn’t want LOGO to exist or gay people to be recognized in any way.

Sears is only one of eighty national advertisers on LOGO. Some others include American Express, Intel, Kodak, Lexus, and Pepsi. One has to wonder why Wildmon singled out Sears. Could it be part of his overall strategy against major retailers?

Before Thanksgiving Wildmon’s American Family Association had called on Christian consumers to spend their dollars elsewhere as a sign of their displeasure with Wal-Mart’s pro-homosexual leanings, says the nation’s largest retailer is not just working with the homosexual agenda of the NGLCC [National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce], it is promoting it. As proof, AFA offers up examples of books available for purchase through Wal-Mart’s online bookstore – books the pro-family group contends support or defend homosexuality. …

In an “Action Alert” to its supporters on Monday (October 23), AFA identifies several book titles available through Walmart.com that it says relate to the promotion of homosexual marriage – among them are: What God Has Joined Together: The Christian Case for Gay Marriage; Legalizing Gay Marriage; Gay Marriage and Democracy: Equality for All; Defending Same-Sex Marriage; and Gay Marriage, Real Life: Ten Stories of Love and Family.

In addition, AFA states it found (via a search function at Walmart.com) more than 1,100 items for sale when the term “gay” was entered, almost 500 in response to the term “lesbian” …

How very appropriate AFA offered up “examples of books.” The Nazis also found books threatening, so threatening that they had to burn them.

Wildmon and the AFA were also angry with Wal-Mart for the company’s support for the Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce, for expanding its definition of “immediate family” to include an employee's same-sex partner, and for practicing workplace equality: all heinous crimes in Wildmon World.

Wildmon’s “Action Alert” about Sears ended with a one-sentence paragraph: “Sears is owned by Kmart Corporation.” His former Wal-Mart “Action Alert” prompted the more fanatical sheeple in the flock to launch a boycott of the retail chain. How long will it be until some “Christian leader,” prompted by Wildmon’s missive, calls for a boycott of Sears and Kmart Corporation?

Wildmon’s American Family Association thrives on such boycotts meant to hurt businesses – and the families they support – if the company treats all its employees equally and/or advocate civil equality for all Americans.

In a June 2, 2006 article carried by AFA’s propaganda organ Agape Press, supposedly “pro-family” Wildmon claimed that AFA’s boycott was hurting the Ford Motor Company. The “pro-family” designation is blatantly fraudulent, hypocritical and, in this case, nothing less than malevolent. How many families – including Christian and “traditional” ones – are adversely affecting by this “pro-family” boycott and the destructive social bigotry it inspires?

Does Wildmon and the AFA care?

Obviously they don’t give a damn.

That was made clear by Rev. Wildmon in his mid-June 2006 statement:



The American Family Association says that its boycott of Ford Motor Company over the automaker’s support for LGBT issues is having an impact.


“The boycott of Ford Motor Company is working! Sales of automobiles made by Ford dropped 2% in May,” AFA chair Donald E. Wildmon said in an email to supporters.


What kind of man, what kind of “Christian” would take pleasure – note Wildmon’s excited exclamation point – in hurting people and their families?

Mr. Vitagliano and Rev.Wildmon seem little more than pathetic caricatures of sick men who enjoy trying to hurt other people while hiding behind “religion.” As John Shelby Spong lamented, “Our society gives wide berth to obvious pathology when it is covered by religious language.”

The Right Reverend Spong is the retired bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Newark and author of fourteen books, including the bestsellers Rescuing the Bible From Fundamentalism and Why Christianity Must Change or Die. Both books – along with Rev. Spong’s essay “No Room for Compromise: Christianity’s integrity rides on how religious people deal with gay rights” – should be under Vitagliano’s and Wildmon’s “Christmas tree.”

source:
http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/content/view/429/81/

Gorilla Radio for Monday, December 11th, 2006

PEJ News - C. L. Cook - This Week on GR: Ottawa Citizen journalist and author, David Pugliese on Canada's changing military; author, Jill Franklin and surviving B.C.'s roads, and medical-legal-insurance systems; and, Janine Bandcroft brings us up to speed on some of the good things to get up to in and around Victoria in the coming week.

Chris Cook hosts Gorilla Radio, airing live every Monday, 5-6pm Pacific Time. In Victoria at 101.9FM, 104.3 cable, and on the internet at: http://cfuv.uvic.ca He also serves as a contributing editor at the progressive web news site: http://www.pej.org. You can check out the GR blog at: http://GorillaRadioBlog.blogspot.com

Gorilla Radio for Monday, December 11, 2006

C. L. Cook

PEJ News
December 10, 2006


The Canadian Forces assessment of this country's military "needs" over the next two decades is in, and though it took a Freedom of Access to Information demand to become public, Canadians now know what they and their children are in for: Wars and rumours of war, stretching into the foreseeable future.

David Pugliese is a reporter for the Canwest Global newspaper organ, the Ottawa Citizen, and author of the Canadian bestseller, Canada's Secret Commandos: The Unauthorized Story of Joint Task Force Two, and more recently, 'Shadow Forces: Special Forces in the New Battle Against Terrorism.'

David Pugliese and Canada's rapidly evolving military in the first half.

And; the coming carnage of Canada's military adventurism abroad holds barely a candle to the number of Canadians killed and maimed on this country's highways and byways every day; and the holiday season is especially deadly.

B. C., famous for its mountainous roads and oceanside vistas is particularly dangerous, with more than 60,000 British Columbians killed or injured in auto crashes every year.

Jill Franklin is a B.C.- based author whose titles include: 'The Promise of Paradise,' 'Death Comes Dancing,' Drunk on the Divine,' and 'The Ultimate Risk.' She's also the author of 'The Auto Accident Survivor's Guide for British Columbia,' written following her own near death experience.

Jill Franklin and surviving B.C.'s roads and insurance system in the second half.

And; Janine Bandcroft will be here at the bottom of the hour to bring us up to speed with all that's good to do in and around Victoria in the coming week.



But first, David Pugliese and the Canadian Forces' marching orders for a new century.

G-Radio is dedicated to social justice, the environment, community, and providing a forum for people and issues not covered in the corporate media.

Some past guests include: M. Junaid Alam, M. Shahid Alam, Joel Bakan, Maude Barlow, David Barsamian, Rhoda Berenson, William Blum, Luciana Bohne, William Bowles, Vincent Bugliosi, Helen Caldicott, Noam Chomsky, Michel Chossudovsky, Diane Christian, Juan Cole, David Cromwell, Murray Dobbin, Jon Elmer, Reese Erlich, Anthony Fenton, Jim Fetzer, Laura Flanders, Chris Floyd, Connie Fogal, Susan George, Stan Goff, Amy Goodman, Robert Greenwald, Denis Halliday, Chris Hedges, Sander Hicks, Julia Butterfly Hill, Robert Jensen, Dahr Jamail, Diana Johnstone, Kathy Kelly, Naomi Klein, Anthony Lappe, Frances Moore Lappe, Jason Leopold, Jeff Leys, Dave Lindorff, Jim Lobe, Jennifer Loewenstein, Wayne Madsen, Stephen Marshall, Linda McQuaig, George Monbiot, Loretta Napoleoni, John Nichols, Kurt Nimmo, David Orchard, Greg Palast, Mike Palecek, Michael Parenti, Robert Parry, Kevin Pina, William Rivers Pitt, Justin Podur, Jack Random, Sheldon Rampton, Paul Craig Roberts, Paul de Rooij, John Ross, Danny Schechter, Vandana Shiva, Norman Solomon, Starhawk, Grant Wakefield, Paul Watson, Bernard Weiner, Mickey Z., Dave Zirin, and many others.

Stay informed. Subscribe and get the best of PEJ News by email. Free.

Holocausts and Deniers: The MEMRI Nazi

Finkelstein (at 23 min 41sec of full interview video):



"I think it's important to separate the two issues. Number 1, there is the issue of the truth of the Nazi holocaust. In my opinion, rational people will not debate whether the Nazi holocaust happened. Of course the Nazi holocaust happened. It was a colossal crime that was committed against Jews, against Gypsies, against the handicapped, against many peoples. Among those people were the crimes committed, colossal crimes, against the Jews. Roughly speaking, you can say between 5 and 5 1/2 million Jews were exterminated during World War 2. That's the factual question and rational people, reasonable people, will not debate the factual question.

But then there is a second question, the political question, namely, the use to which the Nazi holocaust has been put. Is the Nazi holocaust being used as a way of enlightening people about human suffering and about crimes committed against innocent people? Or is the Nazi holocaust being used to confuse people and to deny crimes which are being committed now by Jews? That's a political question and we shouldn't confuse the two.

There are many people unfortunately who, because Israel has misused the Nazi holocaust, exploited the Nazi holocaust, they have decided to deny the Nazi holocaust ever happened. Now, to me, that's foolish. You can't deny facts. It happened. It was horrific. What you should do, in my opinion, is to expose the wrong purposes, the evil purposes to which these facts are being put. That's a separate question."




How MEMRI presents itself

[From the MEMRI website:]
The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) explores the Middle East through the region's media. MEMRI bridges the language gap which exists between the West and the Middle East, providing timely translations of Arabic, Persian, and Turkish media, as well as original analysis of political, ideological, intellectual, social, cultural, and religious trends in the Middle East. Founded in February 1998 to inform the debate over U.S. policy in the Middle East, MEMRI is an independent, nonpartisan, nonprofit, 501 (c)3 organization.

The truth about MEMRI

MEMRI is a main arm of Israeli propaganda. Although widely used in the mainstream media as a source of information on the Arab world, it is as trustworthy as Julius Streicher's Der Sturmer was on the Jewish world.

The evidence

MEMRI recently posted what it alleged was an interview I did with Lebanese television on the Nazi holocaust. The MEMRI posting was designed to prove that I was a Holocaust denier. Below I juxtapose the MEMRI version of my interview (both the actual broadcast version as well as the transcript it prepared) against what I actually said in the interview.

Footnotes

1. Streicher was sentenced to death at Nuremberg.

2. "When the true history of this era is written...the dispatches of MEMRI will be copiously represented in every true scholar's footnotes" - Martin Peretz, Editor and Publisher, The New Republic. (Another of Peretz's notable predictions back in 1984 was that Joan Peters's From Time Immemorial "will change the mind of our generation. If understood, it could affect the history of the future.")



MEMRI's press release

The press release text: Lebanon's New TV: 'Contradictions, Lies, and Exaggerations' in Number Killed in 'Jewish Holocaust'

MEMRI's version of the video:

MEMRI Clip # 1180


Transcript: Finkelstein's NEW TV Interview, 06.21.2006

NOTE: Highlighted text indicates parts edited out by MEMRI with ellipses.

RUSH transcript

Questioner: [Arabic, translation coming soon] [translation pause]

Finkelstein: Thank you for having me.

Questioner: [Arabic, translation coming soon] [translation pause]

Finkelstein: The main reason I wrote the book is because I thought that the Nazi holocaust was being exploited by Israel and its supporters in the United States against the Palestinians and against basic principles of justice. That is, the Nazi holocaust is being used as a political weapon in order to silence criticism of Israeli policies in the Occupied Territories. There were also other reasons for writing the book. Obviously, there was a personal reason, namely my parents passed through the Nazi holocaust. Every member of their families was exterminated during the war and I felt it was important to accurately represent what happened to them during the Nazi holocaust. As for my credibility, I think that one should apply to everybody a single standard, namely evaluate the evidence, evaluate the argument. If the evidence is valid, if the argument seems reasonable, then your credibility is good. If the evidence seems weak, if the argument seems unreasonable, then your credibility is bad. I don't think it has much to do with whether or not you're a Jew.

Questioner: [Arabic, translation coming soon] [translation pause]

Finkelstein: My book is not really about the Nazi holocaust. There are very excellent historians who have done very excellent research on the subject. My book is mostly about the misuse or exploitation of the Nazi holocaust for political purposes. The main claims I make in the book are, first of all, that the notion of Holocaust uniqueness - that is, no group of people in the history of humankind has suffered the way Jews have suffered - has no basis in historical fact and is an immoral doctrine because it ranks human suffering, saying some suffering is better and some suffering is worse. The main purpose of this claim of Holocaust uniqueness is to immunize, to protect, Israel from criticism. The doctrine says: Because Jews have suffered uniquely, Israel should not be held to the same moral and legal standards as other peoples. The other point I examine in the book is the claim that "the whole world wanted to kill the Jews" and that's why the Nazi holocaust happened. The main argument I make in the book is that there's no evidence that the whole world wanted to kill the Jews. A very excellent formulation statement was that by the British historian Ian Kershaw. Kershaw wrote in one of his books, "the road to Auschwitz" - the Nazi concentration and death camp - "was built on hate but paved with indifference." I think that's the important lesson. There were a handful of fanatics who were driven by hate but it was the indifference of most of the world that enabled the fanatics to get their way.

00:06:00

Questioner: [Arabic, translation coming soon] [translation pause]

Finkelstein: Yes, that's the quote I began my book with. [translation pause]

Questioner: [Arabic, translation coming soon] [translation pause]

Finkelstein: Well, one of the points I make in the book is that there has been a gross inflation of the number of survivors. In fact, as all serious historians have shown, Hitler's extermination of the Jews was very efficient, it was like a factory, an assembly line: Jews were processed to be murdered. When you have such an efficient system there can't be very many survivors. In fact, the best estimates show that by May, 1945, that is, at the end of World War II, about 100,000 Jews had survived the concentration camps, the ghettos and the labor camps. If 100,000 Jews survived the camps and ghettos in 1945, then 60 years later, roughly around now, there can't be more than a few thousand survivors still alive. But the Holocaust industry wanted to blackmail Europe in order to get compensation monies. And in order to blackmail Europe, they said there were hundreds of thousands, even over a million, needy Holocaust victims who were still alive. They inflated the number of survivors in order to blackmail Europe. But by inflating the number of survivors, they ended up diminishing the number of victims. They are the real Holocaust deniers.

Questioner: [Arabic, translation coming soon] [translation pause]

Finkelstein: I think there is a lot of misunderstanding on that topic. From the founding of Israel after World War II until June 1967 American Jews had very little interest in Israel. This was because American Jews wanted to succeed in American life. They were afraid that they would be charged with being loyal to another State, that is, the Jewish state of Israel. And so, they kept their distance from Israel because their interest was to succeed in America. After June 1967, when Israel became America's strategic outpost in the Middle East, it was only then, when it was safe and even beneficial to be pro-Israel, that American Jews became pro-Israel. It is incorrect to believe that American Jews were pro-Israel before they were pro-American. The first loyalty of American Jews has been to the state where they enjoy their power and their privilege, that is, the United States. Israel only came later when it was safe and profitable to be pro-Israel.

Questioner: [Arabic, translation coming soon] [translation pause]

Finkelstein: You must remember that the United States' main ally after World War II, its main ally in Europe was, Germany, West Germany, the Federal Republic of Germany. And many leaders of the Federal Republic of Germany and many members of the German elite had been members of the Nazi elites. And so you were not allowed to mention the Nazi holocaust because that was seen as undermining, as jeopardizing, the US-German relationship because it was reminding people of what these very same Germans had done just a few years earlier. So all talk of the Nazi holocaust was a taboo in American life. You weren't allowed to talk about it. For example, when I was growing up in the 1950s and the 1960s I used to hang out with a very smart crowd of people. I wasn't as smart as them, but I liked to be around smart people. People who are prominent professors, prominent in the professions, in medicine and law. Now, my friends and I, we talked politics, we talked history but I can tell you for certain that none of them ever asked me any questions about my parents. Even though both of them were survivors of the Nazi holocaust. No one back then was interested in the topic.

00:14:40

Questioner: [Arabic, translation coming soon] [translation pause]

Finkelstein: No I do not. I do not believe that the Nazi holocaust is unique and I do not believe that the suffering of Jews is unique. I think there's no basis in the historical argument for the uniqueness of the Nazi holocaust. There are aspects, features of the Nazi holocaust, that are unique, just as there are aspects and features of other genocides that are unique but that does not mean the Nazi holocaust belongs in a separate category, apart from all the other sufferings in the history of human kind. I do not agree with that. On a moral level it's simply an abomination to rank suffering and say "one people has suffered more than another." How can you say it's more painful to die in a gas chamber than it is to die when your flesh is incinerated by napalm? Who is to decide which is a more painful suffering? That I think is absurd. The claim of unique suffering was used by Jews...

00:17:20

Questioner: [Arabic, translation coming soon] [translation pause]

Finkelstein: Yes, I think there is something wrong when the United States has a museum devoted to what Germany did to the Jews but it does not have any museum devoted to what America did to its native population, the expulsion and extermination of the Native Americans. It does not have a museum devoted to what was done to Africans brought over here as slaves, yet it has a museum about what happened in Europe. What would Americans think if Germany, in its capital, were to create a museum commemorating slavery in the United States, commemorating the extermination of Native Americans but had no museum devoted to the Nazi holocaust. Of course, Americans would say "that's pure hypocrisy." Well, we are now guilty of the same hypocrisy. 00:19:00

Questioner: [Arabic, translation coming soon] [translation pause]

Finkelstein: What I said was, quoting from an Israeli newspaper, that whenever Israel commits atrocities it is able to mobilize all of its supporters in the United States, including the Holocaust Museum and including all of the organizations which are devoted to the Holocaust, it is able to mobilize all of these organizations in order to silence criticism of Israeli atrocities, and that's what happened after the Qana massacre [in 1996 – ed.], and that's what always happens. I can give you an example from this past week. There is a very big church called the Presbyterians and two years ago the Presbyterians passed a resolution which said it would not invest in companies that profit from Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. The Jewish organizations got very angry. They started to say -- this Presbyterian resolution is just like the Holocaust, the Nazis boycotted Jewish businesses and now the Presbyterian Church is boycotting Israel economically. And this past week the Presbyterians were meeting again in Burmingham, Alabama to discuss whether to take back the resolution. I attended the convention to urge the Presbyterians to stay with the resolution. Do not take it back. But then all of these Rabbis and Jewish organizations, they came to the convention, and they talked on and on, that this resolution is the Holocaust all over again, it's another attack on the Jews, just like Hitler, and that's how they use the Nazi holocaust as a weapon. Just like they did after the Qana massacre. That's how they use it as a weapon to silence criticism of Israel's immoral and illegal policies against the Palestinians and the Lebanese people.

00:23:00

Questioner: [Arabic, translation coming soon] [translation pause]

Finkelstein: I think it's important to separate the two issues. Number 1, there is the issue of the truth of the Nazi holocaust. In my opinion, rational people will not debate whether the Nazi holocaust happened. Of course the Nazi holocaust happened. It was a colossal crime that was committed against Jews, against Gypsies, against the handicapped, against many peoples. Among those people were the crimes committed, colossal crimes, against the Jews. Roughly speaking, you can say between 5 and 5 1/2 million Jews were exterminated during World War 2. That's the factual question and rational people, reasonable people, will not debate the factual question. But then there is a second question, the political question, namely, the use to which the Nazi holocaust has been put. Is the Nazi holocaust being used as a way of enlightening people about human suffering and about crimes committed against innocent people? Or is the Nazi holocaust being used to confuse people and to deny crimes which are being committed now by Jews? That's a political question and we shouldn't confuse the two. There are many people unfortunately who, because Israel has misused the Nazi holocaust, exploited the Nazi holocaust, they have decided to deny the Nazi holocaust ever happened. Now, to me, that's foolish. You can't deny facts. It happened. It was horrific. What you should do, in my opinion, is to expose the wrong purposes, the evil purposes to which these facts are being put. That's a separate question.

00:27:40

Questioner: [Arabic, translation coming soon] [translation pause]

Finkelstein: There is no evidence at all that Swiss banks ever kept billions of dollars that belonged to Jews during World War II or before World War II. The basic facts are these. Number 1, most Jews before World War II were very, very poor. They lived in little villages in Eastern Europe. The villages were called shtetls. Most Jews were poor. Number 2, beginning in the early 1930s there was a worldwide depression, which means, even if you had money, you lost it during the depression. Number 3, if you had the money and you kept it, then you managed to escape during the Nazi holocaust. That's one of the advantages to being rich. You have enough money to buy your way out. So those Jews who had money and kept it after the Depression, they used the money to get out and then they withdrew their money from the banks after the war. When you add those 3 facts up: #1, most Jews were poor, #2, there is a depression, and #3, the rich Jews escaped, which means logically there could not have been very much Jewish money in the Swiss banks. This was all made up by the Holocaust blackmailers.

Questioner: [Arabic, translation coming soon] [translation pause]

Finkelstein: The Swiss acknowledged 30 million dollars, and in fact, according to my own estimates based on the evidence, it couldn't have been more than 60 million dollars. But the Holocaust industry was able to get 1 1/2billion dollars from the Swiss banks. It was pure robbery. Let me make one other point. The Holocaust industry claimed it was demanding the money for what it called needy Holocaust victims but the victims never saw the money. Once these organizations got the 1.5 billion dollars, the organizations kept the money for themselves. It was not for the victims. These organizations don't care about the victims of the Nazi holocaust just as they never cared about the Nazi holocaust itself. It's a useful weapon. It was a good political weapon and then they discovered in the 1990s it was a wonderful economic weapon to blackmail Europe. They went after Switzerland because Switzerland was politically very weak. It had Swiss banks but it had no political power.

00:33:00

Questioner: [Arabic, translation coming soon] [translation pause]

Finkelstein: Switzerland had economic relations with Germany during the war, it was involved in transactions with Germany during the war. Some were legal, some were not legal, they behaved like every other power would. Remember that the United States did not enter WW2 until 1941, after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Up until 1941 the United States banks also had relations with the Germans. That's the way big powers operate. The Swiss were no different. The record of the Swiss is no better and no worse than any other country. There were Jews who sent money to American banks. Those Jews died. The American banks never returned the money. There were many Jews who sent money to Jewish banks, Zionist banks in Palestine. Till this day, as we speak right now, the Israeli banks refuse to return the money to the relatives of those Jews who deposited money and died. The Swiss paid up in 1998. It's nearly 10 years later, the Israeli banks, Bank Leumi, will not pay back anything.

00:36:00

Questioner: [Arabic, translation coming soon] [translation pause]

Finkelstein: There is no evidence, as I said before, that much money was deposited in Swiss banks and there is no evidence that the Swiss bankers behaved any differently than the American bankers or the Israeli bankers. What happened in the 1990s was that among the main backers of former President Clinton, among the main backers of the Democratic Party, were powerful Jews like Edgar Bronfman, the president of the World Jewish Congress. Basically, a deal was made between people like Bronfman and President Clinton -- we will support you for president if in return you will support some of our activities.


UNPUBLISHED OP-ED ON GAZA WITHDRAWAL

Editor's note: Finkelstein's comment & readers' letters to the Tribune below the op-ed.



Judge Deeds, Not Words

By Norman G. Finkelstein

On the night of August 24, 2005, Israeli troops shot dead three teenage boys and two adults in a West Bank Palestinian refugee camp. An army communiqué claimed the five were terrorists, killed after opening fire on the soldiers. An investigation by Israel's leading human rights organization, B'Tselem, and its leading newspaper, Haaretz, found, however, that the teenagers were unarmed and had no connection with any terrorist organizations, while neither of the two adults was armed or wanted by the Israelis.[1]

In Israel, as elsewhere, it's prudent to treat official pronouncements with skepticism.

This is especially so when it comes to the "peace process."

Israel's announcement that it would withdraw from the Gaza Strip won high praise in the American media as a major step toward ending the occupation of Palestinian land. Human rights organizations and academic specialists were less sanguine, however.

In a recent study entitled One Big Prison, B'Tselem observes that the crippling economic arrangements Israel has imposed on Gaza will remain in effect. In addition, Israel will continue to maintain absolute control over Gaza's land borders, coastline and airspace, and the Israeli army will continue to operate in Gaza. "So long as these methods of control remain in Israeli hands," it concludes, "Israel's claim of an 'end of the occupation' is questionable."[2]

The respected organization Human Rights Watch (HRW) is yet more emphatic that evacuating troops and Jewish settlements from inside Gaza will not end the occupation: "Whether the Israeli army is inside Gaza or redeployed around its periphery, and restricting entrance and exit, it remains in control."[3]

The world's leading authority on the Gaza Strip, Sara Roy of Harvard University, predicts that Gaza will remain "an imprisoned enclave," while its economy, still totally dependent on Israel after disengagement and in shambles after decades of deliberately ruinous policies by Israel, will actually deteriorate.[4] This conclusion is echoed by the World Bank, which forecasts that, if Israel seals Gaza's borders or curtails its utilities, the disengagement plan will "create worse hardship than is seen today."[5]

Matters are scarcely better in the West Bank. Although Israel has announced its intention to dismantle four of the 120 settlements there, this decision pales beside its relentless annexation of wide swaths of the West Bank.

A recent UN report finds that the wall Israel is constructing encroaches deeply into Palestinian territory, resulting in the isolation of tens of thousands of Palestinians and the confiscation of fully ten percent of West Bank land, "including the most fertile areas in the West Bank."[6]

According to Roy, Palestinians will have access to only half the West Bank once the wall is complete, "deepening the dispossession and isolation of Palestinian communities."[7]

Israel proclaims that it is building the wall for "security" reasons, but human rights organizations disagree. Its real purpose, they suggest, is "to make contiguous with Israel illegal civilian settlements" (HRW) and "to facilitate their future annexation into Israel" (B'Tselem).[8]

In a landmark July 2004 decision on the wall, the International Court of Justice unanimously agreed that establishment of these Jewish settlements "violates" (U.S. Judge Buergenthal) the Geneva Convention, and overwhelmingly ruled that construction of the wall was "contrary to international law."[9]

Yet, nowhere have official Israeli words about peace been more dramatically belied by bitter deeds than in Jerusalem.

In a recent report entitled The Jerusalem Powder Keg, the authoritative International Crisis Group finds that Prime Minister Sharon "risks choking off Arab East Jerusalem by further fragmenting it and surrounding it with Jewish neighborhoods/settlements." Hundreds of thousands of Arab Jerusalemites will be isolated from the West Bank and placed under stricter Israeli control inside the city's new borders, while tens of thousands of Arab Jerusalemites will be stranded on the outside and cut off from their city.

In the meantime Israeli plans, well underway, to incorporate far-flung illegal Jewish settlements into Jerusalem "would go close to cutting the West Bank into two."

Israeli annexationist policies in and around Jerusalem, according to Crisis Group, will have "arguably devastating consequences," not least because "it remains virtually impossible to conceive of a Palestinian state without its capital in Jerusalem."

Although Prime Minister Sharon gives lip-service to a two-state settlement, the actions of the Israeli government, Crisis Group concludes, "are at war with any viable two-state solution and will not bolster Israel's security; in fact, they will undermine it, weakening Palestinian pragmatists,… and sowing the seeds of growing radicalization."[10]

Those committed to a just and lasting peace in the Israel-Palestine conflict would do well to pay closer attention to Israeli deeds than to the official words accompanying them.


17 September 2005


Norman G. Finkelstein teaches at DePaul University in Chicago. His latest book is Beyond Chutzpah: On the misuse of anti-Semitism and the abuse of history.

________________________________

These references are for fact-checking only.

1. Arnon Regular, "IDF chief to probe Tul Karm raid that killed five Palestinians," Haaretz (7 September 2005).
2. B'Tselem (Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories), One Big Prison: Freedom of movement to and from the Gaza Strip on the eve of the Disengagement Plan (March 2005).
3. Human Rights Watch, "'Disengagement' Will Not End Gaza Occupation" (19 August 2005).
4. Sara Roy, "Praying with Their Eyes Closed: Reflections on the Disengagement from Gaza," Journal of Palestine Studies (Summer 2005).
5. World Bank, Disengagement, the Palestinian Economy and the Settlements (23 June 2004).
6. Report on UNCTAD's Assistance to the Palestinian People, prepared by the UNCTAD secretariat (21 July 2005).
7. Op. cit.
8. Human Rights Watch, Israel's "Separation Barrier" in the Occupied Territories: Human rights and international humanitarian law consequences (February 2004); B'Tselem, Behind the Barrier: Human rights violations as a result of Israel's separation barrier (2003).
9. Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (July 2004).
10. International Crisis Group, The Jerusalem Powder Keg (2 August 2005).



Finkelstein comments:

It is a convention that the author of a newly-published book on a topical issue receives special consideration from the op-ed page editor. I submitted this op-ed to the New York Times, Washington Post, Boston Globe, Christian Science Monitor, Los Angeles Times and Chicago Tribune. They all rejected it. I then followed up on the rejection from the Chicago Tribune, since Chicago is where I teach and the Tribune had earlier published an op-ed by Alan Dershowitz on this topic. The op-ed page editor, Marcia Lythcott (mlythcott@tribune.com) just kept repeating, "I will not publish that op-ed." Readers might want to ask her and her editor, R. Bruce Dold (bdold@tribune.com), why the Tribune is so vehement about not publishing an alternative viewpoint based on mainstream human rights sources.

Baker's Call

POLITICS-US:
Baker Group Urges Major Policy Overhaul
Jim Lobe

WASHINGTON, Dec 6 (IPS) - Calling the situation in Iraq "grave and deteriorating," the bipartisan Iraq Study Group (ISG) Wednesday urged a major overhaul of U.S. policies both in Iraq and the larger Middle East.

As anticipated, the 10-member group, which was co-chaired by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Rep. Lee Hamilton, called for a phase-out of the U.S. combat role in Iraq between now and the first quarter of 2008 and an intensification of efforts to train and deploy Iraqi forces.

Among 79 recommendations included in its report, the ISG also called for urgently convening all of Iraq's neighbours, including Syria and Iran, as part of a comprehensive "New Diplomatic Offensive" designed to both stabilise Iraq and to address "key regional issues", including the Arab-Israeli conflict.

"There must be a renewed and sustained commitment by the United States to a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace on all fronts: Lebanon, Syria, and President George W. Bush's June 2002 commitment to a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine," the 142-page asserted in an implicit rebuke to Bush's neglect of these conflicts.

Calling on Washington to "act boldly", the report, which was adopted unanimously by the group's members, declared that "The United States does its ally Israel no favours in avoiding direct involvement to solve the Arab-Israeli conflict."

"You cannot look at this area of the world and pick and choose among the countries that you're going to deal with," Hamilton, the director of the Woodrow Wilson International Centre here, told a press briefing where the report was officially released. "Everything in the Middle East is connected to everything else, and this diplomatic initiative that we have put forward recognises that."

The report, which also called for increased U.S. military and other assistance for Afghanistan's government, was delivered to the White House at a breakfast meeting between the ISG and Bush early Wednesday. Bush thanked its members for their work and pledged to take its ideas "very seriously".

How seriously he will take them, however, is the subject of much speculation here. Just last week, for example, Bush appeared to rule out direct talks with either Damascus or Tehran, although the White House Wednesday stressed that it was prepared to engage the two countries as part of the "Iraq Compact Group" which last met, however, in 2004.

Most political analysts here insist that Bush's response could well depend on the degree to which Democrats rally behind the report and the reaction of key Republican lawmakers, who, shaken by their loss of Congress in last month's elections, have become increasingly impatient with the White House's insistence that its current strategy in Iraq and the region is working or needs only a few tactical adjustments.

The Congressionally-mandated ISG began work last March and included former Defence Secretary William Perry; former Attorney-General Edward Meese, and President Bill Clinton's chief of staff, Leon Panetta, and former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, among others.

In addition to offering policy recommendations, its main purpose was to de-politicise the increasingly rancorous debate over Iraq by forming a consensus designed to appeal to centrists in both parties. "This country cannot be at war and be as divided as we are today," Panetta said.

The report thus explicitly ruled out policy options supported by the two parties' core constituencies. It warned, for example, that a "precipitate withdrawal of troops" from Iraq, as favoured by some Democrats, would result in "a significant power vacuum, greater human suffering, regional destabilization, and a threat to the global economy."

It also predicted that dividing Iraq into three autonomous regions, as proposed by the incoming Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman, Joseph Biden, would "likely result in a humanitarian disaster or a broad-based civil war."

Conversely, it ruled out a "stay-the-course" solution as "no longer viable". "The United States must not make an open-ended commitment to keep large numbers of American troops deployed in America," Hamilton said.

Indeed, the tone of both the report and Wednesday's briefing was both urgent and grim, as both co-chairs stressed repeatedly that the time for reversing the situation in Iraq was fast running out and may in fact already have done so.

"We believe that the situation in Iraq is very, very serious," noted Hamilton. "We do not know if it can be turned around, but we think we have an obligation to try, and if the recommendations that we have made are effectively implemented, there is at least a chance that you can see established a stable government in Iraq and stability in the region."

On Iraq itself, the report stressed that the U.S. should draw down virtually all of its combat troops over the next 15 months at the same time that it increases the number of U.S. trainers and troops "embedded" with Iraqi army units from the current 4,000 to as many as 20,000.

It did not rule out a substantial increase in the 140,000 troops currently deployed to Iraq, as a number of Republican hawks – and some retired generals -- have recently urged to curb violence in Baghdad, but warned that any major increase will not be sustainable in the medium or long term.

Stressing that no military solution in Iraq was possible, the report called for the U.S. to "engage all parties in Iraq, with the exception of al Qaeda" and for Bush to state that Washington does not seek either permanent military bases there or control of its oil.

It also urged Washington to set a series of specific objectives -- or "milestones" -- for furthering national reconciliation, security, and governance. If, however, the Iraqi government fails to make "substantial progress" toward their achievement, "the United States should reduce its political, military, or economic support," the report said.

As for the New Diplomatic Offensive, which is likely to prove the most controversial part of the report, the ISG stressed that it should go "beyond the primarily economic Compact for Iraq" by addressing political, diplomatic, and security issues throughout the region.

It called for the U.S. to "immediately seek the creation of the Iraq International Support Group" to include all of the country's neighbours, as well as key countries in the region and the world. All of Iraq's neighbours, including Syria and Iran, according to the ISG, "favor a unified Iraq that is strong enough to maintain its territorial integrity, but not so powerful as to threaten its neighbours."

"Under the aegis of the New Diplomatic Offensive and the Support Group, the United States should engage directly with Iran and Syria in order to try to obtain their commitment to constructive policies toward Iraq and other regional issues," the report stated, noting that Washington should "consider incentives to engage them constructively, much as it did successfully with Libya."

According to Baker, who met earlier in the fall with senior representatives from both countries, "we didn't get the feeling that Iran is chomping at the bit to come to the table with us to talk about Iraq, and, in fact, we say (in the report) we think they very well might not." On the other hand, he said, "there's some strong indications that (Syria) would be in a position to help us and might want to help us."

As to the wider regional context, including the Arab-Israelis conflict, the ISG called for "the unconditional calling and holding of meetings, under the auspices of the United States or the Quartet between Israel and Lebanon and Syria on the one hand, and Israel and Palestinians (who acknowledge Israel's right to exist) on the other... as soon as possible."

The aim would be "to negotiate peace as was done at the Madrid conference in 1991, and on two separate tracks -- one Syrian/Lebanese, and the other Palestinian." (END/2006)

Canada's Defence Capability Plan

Defence plan outlines military strategy

David Pugliese
CanWest News Service; Ottawa Citizen


Monday, December 04, 2006


Canada won't face a large-scale conventional military threat over the next 20 years but its troops will continue to operate overseas in failed states, having to deal with global terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, according to the military's long-range defence plan to be presented to government.

The Defence Capability Plan, or DCP, outlines the Canadian military's course for the next two decades as well as equipment to be purchased and gear to be sold off or mothballed.

The plan is ''based on an assessment that no large-scale conventional military threat to Canada currently exits; that the United States will remain our principal defence and security partner; and that the Canadian Forces will continue to deploy overseas in an environment marked by failed states, global terrorism and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction,'' according to DCP planning records produced earlier this year for Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor and obtained by the Citizen through the Access to Information law.

Defence sources also confirmed those key assumptions are at the heart of the plan.

Military officers and defence bureaucrats say they view the DCP as different from similar previous plans put forward under the Liberal government since they have received assurances from the Harper government this scheme will be fully funded with billions of dollars of new money.

That, they say, is different from past practices. For instance, the Liberals announced in 2004 that they were fast-tracking a scheme to purchase new fixed-wing search and rescue planes to replace the aging Buffalo aircraft which do the job now. But that plan went nowhere.

Military officers expect the Harper government's adoption of the DCP will mean quick action on the search-and-rescue aircraft since much of the ground work needed to acquire the planes has already been done.

The strategy outlined in the DCP is divided into several phases, each five years long. The first phase, actually already underway, focuses on new structures and equipment purchases announced this summer. The second phase calls for further integration of the Canadian Forces, a third phase introduces major new capabilities in the future such as laying the groundwork for the purchase of high-tech warships to replace the navy's frigates. The fourth and final phase is the end-state of a ''more effective Canadian Forces,'' according to the planning documents.

Much of the plan is based on initiatives already put into motion by Chief of the Defence Staff Gen. Rick Hillier such as the creation of new formations like Canada Command and a special forces command.

But the DCP also incorporates the Conservative's ''Canada First'' strategy, the term the Tories use for its overall approach to defence. Included in that is an increased military presence in the Arctic, as outlined by the Conservatives during the election campaign, as well as increases in the size of the Canadian Forces.

According to sources the plan sets out an ambitious and realistic capability investment and transformation strategy.

The plan was ready in draft form in the spring and military planners have spent months adapting it to include the Conservative's defence proposals.

The DCP was originally supposed to be ready by the end of the summer for government approval. Military officials now say they expect Cabinet to approve the plan by the end of the year or early next year.

Etienne Allard, spokesman for Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor, declined to discuss when the capability plan might be made public. The Conservative government ''is in the process of reviewing the future needs and priorities of the Canadian Forces,'' he stated in an email.

The DCP proposes moving ahead with the purchase of a utility aircraft for operations in the Arctic. Work was already underway in the military on such an acquisition when the Conservatives took power earlier this year. As well, the plan is proposing a new fleet of patrol vessels for the north. The establishment of an arctic warfare school is also seen as key.

At a defence conference in September, Vice Admiral Drew Robertson, the head of the navy, outlined the idea of the arctic ships but said work on those vessels is still in its infancy. ''What we have to do is figure out precisely what problems we're trying to solve because that will dictate the range of ships that might be of greatest use,'' he said in an interview with the Citizen.

Also included in the DCP is the relocation of the Joint Task Force 2 special operations base. The unit has outgrown its Ottawa base in Dwyer Hill, according to officers.

Doug Bland, director of the defence management studies program at Queens University, said it is not expected the DCP will contain any surprises but instead build on the transformation plan Gen. Hillier has already put into motion as well as incorporate the Conservatives defence election promises.

Bland said a key aspect of the DCP should be the increase in the size of the Canadian Forces.

Ottawa Citizen

© CanWest News Service 2006


Continental Integration of Military Command Structures: A Threat to Canada's Sovereignty


by Michel Chossudovsky

Global Research, May 12, 2006



Email this article to a friend
Print this article


The issue of continental integration of military command structures has been on the US-Canada agenda since April 2002. Until recently, it has barely been mentioned by the Canadian media.

Territorial control over Canada is part of Washington's geopolitical and military agenda as formulated in April 2002 by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. "Binational integration" of military command structures is also contemplated alongside a major revamping in the areas of immigration, law enforcement and intelligence.



Since 2002, Ottawa has been quietly negotiating a far-reaching military cooperation agreement. In November 2004, Global Research published a detailed article on the subject, an abridged version of which was accepted for publication as an Op Ed piece in the Toronto Star. That article never appeared in print. More generally, the Canadian media has failed to provide coverage of an issue which strikes at the heart of Canada's territorial sovereignty.

What the current news coverage fails to acknowledge is that the US Military can cross the border and deploy troops anywhere in Canada, in our provinces, as well station American warships in Canadian territorial waters. This redesign of Canada's defense system has for the last four years been discussed behind closed doors, not in Canada, but at the Peterson Air Force base in Colorado, at the headquarters of US Northern Command (NORTHCOM).



The creation of NORTHCOM announced in April 2002, constitutes a blatant violation of both Canadian and Mexican territorial sovereignty. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld announced unilaterally that US Northern Command would have jurisdiction over the entire North American region. Canada and Mexico were presented with a fait accompli. US Northern Command's jurisdiction as outlined by the US DoD includes, in addition to the continental US, all of Canada, Mexico, as well as portions of the Caribbean, contiguous waters in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans up to 500 miles off the Mexican, US and Canadian coastlines as well as the Canadian Arctic.



NorthCom's stated mandate is to "provide a necessary focus for [continental] aerospace, land and sea defenses, and critical support for [the] nation’s civil authorities in times of national need."



(Canada-US Relations - Defense Partnership – July 2003, Canadian American Strategic Review (CASR), http://www.sfu.ca/casr/ft-lagasse1.htm


Rumsfeld is said to have boasted that "the NORTHCOM – with all of North America as its geographic command – 'is part of the greatest transformation of the Unified Command Plan [UCP] since its inception in 1947.'" (Ibid)



In my "censored" Toronto Star article, I had warned that the process of Bi-National Integration implying the integration of military command structures was slated to be completed in May 2006:


"What we are dealing with is a "military marriage' characterized by the integration of the two countries' command structures.

Missile Defense is part of "the vows" of this "military marriage", something which nobody in Canada wants to talk about.

This military marriage has certain underlying obligations and commitments.

If Canada accepts to join NORTHCOM and integrate US command structures, it not only "promises to cherish" Star Wars, it also becomes an official member of the Anglo-American military axis, integrated by Israel (unofficially) and Australia.

Canada thereby becomes a pro-active partner in America's ongoing military adventure, including Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, Iran, North Korea and beyond, not to mention the preemptive use of nuclear weapons in conventional war theaters directed "against rogue enemies and terrorists".

Shortly prior to the Bush-Martin meetings in Ottawa in November 2004, it was decided to extend the Binational Planning Group arrangement until May 2006. In other words, what is really at stake is the process leading up to a formal announcement of Canada's accession to NORTHCOM, prior to the May 2006 cut-off date." (emphasis added, For the comnplete article click here)


While Canada's accession to NORTHCOM has not yet been formally implemented, it is on the agenda of the new conservative government, coinciding with the completion of the BPG's mandate.


Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, 12 May 2006





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Below are the links to the original articles published by Global Research:


Is the Annexation of Canada part of Bush's Military Agenda? - by Michel Chossudovsky - 2004-11-24 (detailed analysis of the Bi-National Planning Group and the process of integration of military command structures).

Canada and America: Missile Defense and the Vows of Military Integration - by Michel Chossudovsky - 2005-02-23, article accepted on three occasions by the Toronto Star, never published. Recipient of Project Censored Award, University of California at Sonoma.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

See Prof. Michael Byers incisive Op Ed in the Toronto Star


Continental integration by stealth

As Ottawa prepares to renew NORAD agreement, a bi-national panel suggests nothing less than the complete integration of Canada's military, security and foreign policy into the decision-making and operating systems of the U.S., writes Michael Byers
Apr. 28, 2006. 01:00 AM


They seem harmless enough at first: two mid-level Canadian Forces officers and a mild-mannered bespectacled American consultant explaining the work of their 48-member Bi-National Planning Group to audiences across Canada. Their professed goal is to improve co-operation between the Canadian and U.S. militaries, the better to defend both countries.


Yet a close reading of their final report released last month, reveals that their actual intent — or at least the intent of the politicians who set their mandate — is far from benign. They seek nothing less than the complete integration of Canada's military, security and foreign policy into the decision-making and operating systems of the U.S.


In 2002, it was revealed that Ottawa and Washington were contemplating a "combined defence plan" that would have placed our forces under the umbrella of the U.S.'s new Northern Command (NORTHCOM).


Opposition to the plan quickly led to its being shunted out of view and into the newly created Bi-National Planning Group (BPG). Based at the headquarters of NORTHCOM and the North American Aerospace Defence Command (NORAD) in Colorado Springs, the planning group was intended to devise counterpoints to critics' concerns, while postponing formal decision-making until a more politically opportune moment.


Today, two Canadian elections later, the authors of the BPG report can hardly believe their luck. Prime Minister Stephen Harper may have only a minority government, but there is little doubt he desires closer ties with Washington.


The BPG recommendations are far-reaching. They aim at "enhanced co-ordination and co-operation among our foreign policy, defence and security organizations" at "the level (although not necessarily the form) of co-operation that now exists in NORAD."


In NORAD, the defence of Canadian and U.S. airspace is assigned to a single command which, while supposedly based on the equality of the two countries, is always headed by a senior U.S. officer.


The BPG is, in actuality, advocating co-operation at the level of a single, U.S.-dominated command for all of Canada's territory and our surrounding seas. Under this plan, the entire Canadian Forces, unless deployed overseas in operations not led by the U.S., could find themselves under American "operational control" with Americans making all key day-to-day decisions.


Not to worry, the BPG assures us calmly: "Command" will remain in Canadian hands. And that's true, insofar as Canadians would retain responsibility for administrative tasks such as hiring, promotion and pensions.


The BPG also recommends closer co-operation in security and foreign policy: "Canada and the U.S. must continue to act as partners; indeed ... the partnership must be expanded, to shape the future of North American defence and security, using all of the instruments of diplomatic, economic, informational and military power."


It is in the context of information-sharing that the BPG recommends the immediate extension of NORAD into the maritime domain as part of next month's renewal of the NORAD agreement.


Ottawa intends to follow this recommendation when it brings the new NORAD agreement, complete with a provision on maritime surveillance sharing, before Parliament in one or two weeks.


In normal circumstances, the instantaneous sharing of information on ships approaching North America might make sense.


In an age of sea-launched cruise missiles, approaching vessels could pose security threats on timelines that are too short for conventional communication protocols.


But the BPG changes the circumstances by indicating that maritime surveillance sharing is intended as a forerunner for much closer co-operation:


It calls the upcoming NORAD agreement renewal "an important step toward enhancing the defence and security of our continent. To continue this momentum a `Comprehensive Defence and Security Agreement' is the logical next step ... "


The BPG presents four alternatives for the new agreement. The first is an expanded NORAD responsible for "all-domain warning" — in the air, at sea, on land and in cyberspace — but with its response capability limited to the air. This new, surveillance-focused NORAD would exist in parallel with Northern Command and the recently established Canadian-run Canada Command.


The second alternative involves a NORAD command that would provide both "all-domain warning and response to asymmetric threats and attacks." Under this approach, NORTHCOM and Canada Command would continue to exist separately with "the capability to respond unilaterally to threats against their respective countries."


However, in reality, the single command would prevail in most defence matters on the North American continent, including armed responses at sea and on land. It would also, inevitably, be dominated by the U.S., a fact which the BPG admits would generate "concerns over sovereignty."


The third alternative gives primacy to NORTHCOM and Canada Command and demotes NORAD to a "Standing Combined Task Force" responsible for providing "bi-national, all-domain awareness and warning" to each national command and, "where appropriate, a combined and co-ordinated response to threats and attacks against Canada and the United States."


As the BPG explains, this alternative "relies upon the ... commitment of those commands toward a continental approach to defence and security." But don't be misled: It still envisages a comprehensive system for surveillance sharing as well as "combined" responses.


The fourth, most ambitious alternative involves "a truly integrated approach to continental defence and security through a deliberate melding of defence and security functions." This would be achieved by "establishing a single organization responsible for all-domain, bi-national warning and execution in the realms of defence and security."


This fourth alternative — full integration — is presented as the ultimate goal of improved co-operation."


The BPG report thus reveals that expanding NORAD to include maritime surveillance sharing is intended to create momentum toward complete military, security and foreign policy integration.


It is part of a deliberately fostered trend that includes Canada's involvement in the U.S.-led counterinsurgency in southern Afghanistan, the instantaneous sharing of NORAD aerospace surveillance for U.S. missile defence, and the Harper government's support for Bush administration foreign policies on climate change, nuclear proliferation, and the Middle East.


We are being subjected to continental integration by stealth. Indeed, the BPG report warns of a "small but vocal minority" concerned about Canadian sovereignty and recommends the use of an "incremental" approach.


Beware the gentle proponents of closer military co-operation. Canada, once proudly independent, is in danger of allowing itself to be suffocated in America's embrace.





Michael Byers holds the Canada Research Chair in Global Politics and International Law at the University of British Columbia.

| Global Research RSS Feed

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

To become a Member of Global Research

The Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) at www.globalresearch.ca grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles in their entirety, or any portions thereof, on community internet sites, as long as the text & title are not modified. The source must be acknowledged and an active URL hyperlink address to the original CRG article must be indicated. The author's copyright note must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: crgeditor@yahoo.com

www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.

For media inquiries: crgeditor@yahoo.com

© Copyright Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, 2006

The url address of this article is: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20060512&articleId=2428




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Privacy Policy

© Copyright 2005 GlobalResearch.ca