TEHRAN — Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi has proposed that observers from a contact group on Syria comprising Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey be dispatched to the crisis-hit country and announced that Tehran is ready to host a meeting of the group.
According to a statement issued by the Iranian Foreign Ministry on Monday, Salehi made the remarks during a foreign ministerial meeting of the group that was held in Cairo on the same day.
The meeting in Cairo was described as the quartet meeting of the foreign ministers of Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey, but neither Saudi Arabian Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal nor any other Saudi Arabian official attended the meeting.
Egyptian presidential spokesman Yasser Ali and an unidentified Arab League official said that Faisal did not attend the meeting for health reasons, but Egyptian Foreign Minister Mohamed Kamel Amr stated that Faisal’s absence was due to previously arranged engagements, Reuters reported on Monday.
After the meeting in Cairo, the Egyptian foreign minister announced that the contact group would meet again on the sidelines of the 67th regular session of the United Nations General Assembly, which opened at the UN Headquarters in New York on Tuesday and closes on September 30.
Following is the translation of the Iranian Foreign Ministry statement:
Foreign Minister Dr. Ali Akbar Salehi put forward the approach and the road map proposed by the Islamic Republic of Iran to find a way out of the Syrian crisis at the quartet meeting of the foreign ministers of Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey.
Within this framework, on Monday… our country’s foreign minister proposed (the following points) for discussion at the Cairo meeting:
1) Announcing a halt to the conflict and the violence by both sides simultaneously;
2) Emphasizing the peaceful settlement of the crisis without foreign intervention;
3) Ending any kind of financial, military, and training support to armed groups;
4) Launching talks between the Syrian government and the opposition;
5) Establishing a national reconciliation committee with the participation of all movements and groups;
6) Dispatching observers from the four countries to supervise the process of ending the violence and holding negotiations;
7) Emphasizing the necessity of maintaining Syria’s cohesion, national unity, and territorial integrity;
8) Contributing to the process of fundamental reforms;
9) Realizing a Syrian-Syrian democratic approach.
Dr. Salehi also pointed to the fact that the suffering of the Syrian people, (and) particularly the sanctions and economic punishments, necessitate that Muslim countries, including the four known regional powers (scheduled to be) present at the meeting, intensify and pool their efforts to ship economic and humanitarian aid and proposed that a committee be established to end the suffering of the Syrian people for the realization of this goal.
The foreign minister emphasized that the Syrian people should determine their (own) destiny themselves and within the framework of maintenance of territorial integrity, independence, sovereignty, and national unity, and said, “Regional countries should ensure the accomplishment of this process through utilization of all resources and the current potential and constant consultation.”
He emphasized, “While emphasizing the necessity of the implementation of fundamental reforms, the Islamic Republic of Iran, throughout the Syrian developments, has proposed feasible and practical solutions to help end the violence by both sides and initiate a dialogue between the Syrian government and the opposition… (at) the Tehran Consultative Meeting on Syria, which was held with the participation of 30 countries (on August 9), and also… (at) the Mecca summit (on August 14 and 15) and… the recent meeting of the Non-Aligned (Movement) countries in Tehran (from August 26 to 31).”
Salehi emphasized that most regional countries are concerned about the repercussions of the armed presence of extremist movements on regional security and stability, and said, “We believe that the complete failure of political solutions can pave the way for fitna (sedition) in various forms and its spread to neighboring countries and the entire region.”
He added, “Unfortunately, most Western countries, which are in a quandary (due to their failure to) perceive the realities and the mission of regional nations’ uprisings, have closed their eyes to the realities of the region by prioritizing the interests of the Zionist regime and are preventing the realization and the implementation of true reforms in Syria and the region through providing comprehensive financial and military support to unknown armed groups.”
In addition, our country’s foreign minister pointed to the good potential of the Non-Aligned Movement to play an effective role in regional and global developments after the holding of the summit of the heads of state (and government) of the Non-Aligned (Movement) in Tehran and described the participation of Iran and Egypt of the NAM troika in the Cairo meeting as beneficial and called for the inclusion of Venezuela, as a member of the troika of the Non-Aligned Movement, and Iraq, as the rotating president of the Arab League, to the present group so that the current constructive process will come to fruition.
Salehi pointed to the necessity of the continuation of consultation between the participants of the Cairo meeting and active movements and groups in Syria, and added, “Such consultations can offer new prospects, not only in regard to Syrian developments but also in regard to current and future crises, and, according to this perspective, the Islamic Republic of Iran is ready to host the next round of the meeting (of the contact group) in Tehran.”
At the beginning of his speech, the foreign minister of the Islamic Republic of Iran thanked the Egyptian government for hosting the quartet meeting and also the deputy (foreign ministers) meeting (on September 10) and said that this illustrates the prevalence of collective wisdom in the region.
September 18, 2012
Posted by aletho |
Solidarity and Activism | Ali Akbar Salehi, Iran, Syria |
Leave a comment
While the international media might trumpet “Somalia’s First Free and Fair Elections in 50 Years” reality on the ground in Mogadishu reveals a truly grand farce of an “election” process.
First of all, the so called “Members of Parliament”, most of whom flew in from their foreign homes for the “election” (the newly “elected” President is camped out in a hotel where he escaped assassination just days after his inauguration) were not elected by anyone, rather appointed by a panel chosen by the previously western installed puppet regime.
That’s right, no one in Somalia actually voted for anyone who chose the new President of Somalia, though the position is little more than Mayor of the foreign army occupied former capital of Somalia, Mogadishu.
Secondly, it was the African Union army occupying Mogadishu and its immediate surrounds that had to provide security for the “election” for even the most trusted of the so called Somali Army and Police are apparently incapable of protecting the fly by night “Members of Parliament” who participated in this dog and pony show.
Insecurity was so rife that all of the foreign big wigs present were wearing bullet proof vests even in the supposedly secure environs of the election hall.
The outgoing government, headed by one Sheik Sharif was too corrupt to be tolerated by the gathered assembly with the truth challenged UN Monitoring Group for Somalia leaking the “secret” portion of its report on how he and his cronies have stolen hundreds of million$ of aid supposedly meant to feed the millions of starving Somalis suffering from the worst drought in 60 years.
The defeated “President” Sharif began his rise to infamy as titular head of the Union of Islamic Courts, the nationalist, Islamic organization that brought peace to Mogadishu in 2006 and was driven from power by the USA instigated Ethiopian invasion that year.
After being forced from power by the Ethiopians Sheik Sharif was listed by the USA as an “Al Queda linked terrorist” and was on a most wanted list of international criminals. Then the world went to sleep one night with Sheik Sharif a terrorist and woke up the next morning to the announcement that he was now the “democratically elected President of Somalia”, elected in Djibouti that is by a hand picked mob of “Members of Parliament” under the watchful eye of the CIA and the US Army in Djibouti’s Camp Lemmoniere.
Apparently the irony that Sheik Sharif was once an “Al Queda linked terrorist” unfit to hold office in Somalia and then overnight transformed into the “democratically elected President of Somalia” was cause for the sort of selective amnesia the international media practices when it comes to the Horn of Africa and Somalia in particular.
Today its back to business as usual as the new Somali “MP’s” begin boarding planes to return to their homes abroad, the 20,000 strong African Union army occupying Mogadishu goes about its business of trying to defend itself from the guerilla attacks of the Al Shabab lead Somali resistance and the world will once again forget about the fact that millions of Somalis live in utter destitution, most of which has been directly caused by the very AU “peacekeepers” supposedly meant to protect them.
Thomas C. Mountain’s interviews on Somalia can be seen on RTTV and PressTV. He can be reached at thomascmountain at yahoo dot com.
September 18, 2012
Posted by aletho |
Corruption, Deception | Islamic Courts Union, Mogadishu, Somalia |
Leave a comment
Let the Wealthy Pay for Their Crisis
With the November elections right around the corner, the millions of unemployed and under-employed have little reason to care. Aside from some sparse rhetoric, neither Democrats nor Republicans have offered a solution to job creation. Most politicians seem purposefully myopic about the jobs crisis, as if a healthy dose of denial might get them through the electoral season unscathed.
In reality, the jobs crisis continues unaddressed, and threatens to get worse after the election. The post-election “fiscal cliff” of social cuts — “triggered” by Obama’s debt commission —will pull the economy below the current treading-water phase, drowning millions more workers in America in unemployment and hopelessness. In addition, two million more long-term unemployed — those lucky enough to still receive benefits — face the very likely possibility of having their benefits ended due to the trigger cuts.
But this is all part of the plan. The current jobs crisis is not accidental; there are public policies that could be implemented — such as a federal jobs program — that would stop unemployment in its tracks. Both parties agree that this cannot be done for the same reason: high unemployment is desirable since it acts as a sledgehammer against wages, lowering them with the intent of boosting profitability for corporations. Creating this nationwide “new normal” takes time.
Until corporations have an ideal environment to make super profits — aside from the short-term money printing of the Federal Reserve — unemployment will remain purposefully high. The Feds massive money-printing program — called Quantitative Easing (QE) — is a desperate move that risks super inflation, yet is deemed necessary until politicians implement the economic new normal for workers in America.
This policy is referred to as an “adjustment” period by some economists. Corporations and their puppet politicians have used the recession to start implementing the new normal of lower wages, reduced benefits, and fewer social programs on a city, state, and federal basis. In order to complete this national adjustment, expectations for working people must be drastically lowered, so that they’ll be less likely to be angry and fight against this onslaught.
This was Bill Clinton’s intention when he told the Democratic National Convention, “The old economy isn’t coming back.” Most people in America have yet to realize this, but the economic policies of the Democrats and Republicans reflect a conscious plan to push wages down and shred the safety net to fit the “new economy” standards sought by corporate America.
Because corporations only hire workers in order to make profit, businesses today are sitting on trillions of cash, waiting for a sunnier day to invest in labor. The lower the wages of workers in America, the brighter the skies for corporations’ bottom line. It is this basic economic interest driving the jobs crisis, as politicians only offer solutions that “encourage businesses to invest” rather than creating immediate solutions for working people.
But millions of people are waiting for sunnier days too. A large number are seeking to wait out the recession by returning to school and are now graduating; a record 30 percent have bachelor degrees, a number that is expected to rise. The increasing number of graduates will drive up unemployment, while those lucky enough to find jobs aren’t finding one capable of paying off their massive student loans. The trillion-dollar student loan business is yet another example of wealth transference from bottom to top: students borrow money from the wealthy, and pay them back with interest, sometimes exorbitant interest.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics indicates that there are 12.5 million people who are officially unemployed but an additional9.5 million who are “unofficially” unemployed — those who are not actively looking for work, “discouraged workers,” part-time workers who want full-time work, etc. The number is almost certainly higher. These workers are not counted in the “official” unemployment numbers, and this unofficial number is getting worse. In August 2012, 368,000 more workers joined this illustrious group by dropping out of the labor force, i.e., they gave up looking for a job and thus are no longer counted as unemployed, in this way giving Obama “positive news” since the unemployment numbers actually improved!
These workers are often referred to as “unemployable,” meaning that they are usually over fifty years of age or under 30 and are tarnished with a lack of job experience or an excess of it. Corporations can now have an abundance of workers to choose from, and are being extra picky on whom they hire, if anybody.
The new “private sector” jobs that Obama constantly brags about are much lower paying than the jobs they are replacing. According to a study performed by the National Employment Law Project, 58 percent of all new post-recession jobs come with wages below $14.00 an hour, i.e. a not a living wage.
For those millions unable to find jobs, their future lies in either dependence on family or the state, or a risky life in the informal economy, which implies the possibility of imprisonment.
The reason that many labor and community groups have not fully explained the above facts — nor protested against them — is because they are “embarrassing” to the Democrats. Labor unions have gone into pre-election hibernation, ignoring reality as they push their members to campaign for the president who is overseeing this economic “new normal.”
The still-sputtering economy is expected to grind to a halt post-election, with average working people again footing the bill. But millions of Americans are experiencing the politics of the 1%, and drawing conclusions; ever since the recession government policy has been aimed at benefiting the wealthy and corporations, while working people have only experienced layoffs, lower wages and benefits, and slashed public services. To stop this dynamic of austerity working people must unite and protest in massive numbers, like the working people of Europe.
In Portland, Oregon, such a demonstration is being planned, pre-election, by a coalition of community groups to “stop the cuts,” for debt relief, and against the above national policy of austerity for working people. By highlighting the bi-partisan nature of the attack against working people, the community organizers in Portland hope to educate the community to take action, so that working people are prioritized. Let the wealthy pay for their crisis.
Shamus Cooke is a social service worker, trade unionist, and writer for Workers Action (www.workerscompass.org). He can be reached at shamuscooke@gmail.com
- Wage Cuts hit Millions of US workers (alethonews.wordpress.com)
- Jobs Crisis Denial (alethonews.wordpress.com)
September 18, 2012
Posted by aletho |
Economics, Progressive Hypocrite | Democratic Party, Obama, United States |
Leave a comment
If a Million People March for Catalan Independence in Barcelona, Do They Make Noise?
Last Tuesday, over a million people took to the streets in a European city that has, in recent years, become one of the more popular tourist destinations in the world.
And as anyone who was there to witness the run-up to the event in recent weeks and months knows, this was no routine exercise in blowing off steam.
No, this was a march in which nearly one fifth of the population of the Catalonian Autonomous Region —led by a who’s who of its long-cautious and decidedly non-radical political class—took to the streets to show support for the idea of seceding from the rest of Spain.
Most well-informed Europeans and Americans are aware that a sizable part of the population of the Basque Country–which straddles the Spanish-French border on the Atlantic end of the Pyrenees—do not consider themselves Spanish or French and would thus be quite content to have a state of their own.
What most of these same people don’t know, however, is that in Catalonia, which straddles the same Spanish-French mountain border on its Mediterranean extreme, the population’s sense of belonging to a society that is quite distinct from that of the rest of Spain–in language, in culture and, yes, basic modes of social comportment—is probably just as widely subscribed as it is in the Basque Country.
The big difference in this game of perception is the role that strident rhetoric, and with it, carefully planned acts of violence, have played within each nation’s drive for greater political power.
Since the late 1950s, a small but important faction of the Basque nationalist movement has spoken openly about independence and how one is justified in using violence to achieve that end. Though most of these same groups have now renounced the use of force, their half-century record of bombings and assassinations are hard to overlook, especially for a media establishment that craves blood-soaked story lines.
During the same period, neither the rhetoric of independence nor the mythology and practice of armed struggle were ever major parts of the of the Catalan nationalist movement.
True to their deeply ingrained tradition (forged during their thousand year experience as traders all across the Mediterranean basin) of resolving social conflicts through negotiation rather than violence, the Catalans have always sought to pursue their national interests through pacts with the national government in Madrid.
This, despite the fact that Madrid has never shown much reticence about using violence to quash Catalan national aspirations whenever it felt the need to do so, as was the case in 1714, 1923, and most recently, during the nearly four decades of the Franco dictatorship (1939-1975).
To put it simply, if the Basques are the wild children of the Iberian mix of nationalities, then the Catalans are the prudent uncles, always careful to choose their words and avoid the possibility of unnecessarily inflaming tensions with the rest of Spain.
In this sense, we can speak of Jordi Pujol, the man who led the Catalan Autonomous government from its inception in 1980 until 2003, as being an emblematic figure within the country. A doctor by training and a banker by vocation before entering politics, this Catholic father of seven is admired for building the region’s (but in his view, his nation’s) modern political and cultural infrastructure.
His long tenure in office was marked, to the frequent chagrin of his critics in both Catalonia and Madrid, by endless triangulations and obfuscations regarding the once and future role of Catalonia within the Spanish state.
Needless to say, he never came close to speaking about independence during those more than two decades in power.
Well, guess who proudly and prominently marched in last Tuesday’s million-person demonstration in Barcelona?
You guessed it, Jordi Pujol.
And almost all of the significant figures from across today’s Catalan political spectrum were right there with him.
After watching Walter Cronkite editorialize on the futility of the Vietnam War, Lyndon Johnson is said to have exclaimed to his assembled aides, “If I’ve lost Cronkite, I’ve lost Middle America”.
Well, Spain is now having its Cronkite moment with Catalonia.
During the last few months, I have talked with hundreds of Catalans (a number of whom are quite prominent members of the academic, journalistic and policy-making sectors of the society) about their relationship with Spain. In these conversations, I have heard people who as recently as two years ago would never have dreamed of supporting independence, now saying in clear and matter-of-fact-tones, that it is the only truly sensible destiny for Catalonia.
A big story right?
I can see the headlines now.
“Millions in Spain’s Richest Region March for Independence”
Or if you prefer the personal interest approach,
“Many in Mild-mannered Country Can No Longer Take It. Set to Ask for Divorce after Years of Neglect and Abuse”
Well, that’s not exactly how it played out.
The evening news on the Spain’s publicly-funded national network (widely seen as being a plaything of the deeply centralist, conservative ruling party) put the story at 22-minute mark of a thirty-minute broadcast!
And Madrid’s El País, which likes to think of itself as the Spanish-speaking world’s New York Times (and has the smugness and cozy relationships with officialdom prove it), gave the march and its many important related stories the minimalist treatment.
Seeing the way its journalistic cousins in Spain dealt with the event, the New York Times dutifully followed suit, publishing short reports that studiously avoided explaining any of the historical backdrop to the present Catalan dissatisfaction. Rather, they sought to frame—as did the ruling PP Party and the state TV it controls–as an annoying, but largely insignificant sideshow within Spain’s larger financial crisis.
And as we all know, if the New York Times decides that something overseas is really not news, seldom will anyone in the US journalistic establishment ever dare try and prove the contrary.
That would take actual work and, perhaps more significantly, it would expose those pursing this contrary path to the possibility of being seen as an outlier, the ultimate stigma for “journalists” on the make in today’s America.
The million or so Catalans marched through Barcelona the other day know what they did, and why they did it. It seems, however, that the rest of the world, taking its cue from big media, is bent on pretending it didn’t really happen, or that if it happened, it really wasn’t that significant.
It will be interesting to see who has the last word in this struggle to control the world’s perceptions of Catalonia’s shouts for freedom.
Thomas S. Harrington teaches in the Department of Hispanic Studies at Trinity College.
September 18, 2012
Posted by aletho |
Timeless or most popular | Catalonia, New York Times, Spain |
Leave a comment
The newly-elected separatist party in Canada’s French-speaking province of Quebec takes down the Canadian flag from parliament, vowing independence of the eastern province.
The flag which had been there for the past nine years was removed on Monday as 54 Party Quebecois (PQ) members took office in the ornate old upper chamber, known as the Red Room.
Meanwhile, the new parliament members could not escape the oath of allegiance to Queen Elizabeth the second, which is a prerequisite to take office under Canadian law.
Some PQ members expressed their discontent on Twitter, saying it was a shame to be forced to swear an oath to the Crown.
The separatist Parti Quebecois (PQ) leader, Pauline Marois who won provincial elections on September 5, also suggested that the election of a PQ government would pave the way for restoring Quebecers’ pride.
“When a people rediscovers its pride and its confidence nothing, absolutely nothing, becomes impossible for it,” said Marois on Monday.
The Party Quebecois (PQ) lawmakers officially take office on Wednesday, when separatist leader Pauline Marois will introduce her cabinet members.
September 18, 2012
Posted by aletho |
Aletho News | Canada, Crown, Marois, Parti Québécois, Quebec |
Leave a comment
Obama administration touts cybersecurity while conducting cyber warfare
While routinely touting the necessity for tighter controls over the Internet in the name of cybersecurity, the U.S. government has again been caught creating computer viruses to wage cyber warfare in the Middle East.
Researchers working for both Kaspersky and Symantec have separately discovered that the United States is almost certainly responsible for three new viruses that are being used in Lebanon and Iran to conduct espionage, having already been identified as the culprits behind the 2010 Stuxnet virus and this year’s closely related Flame virus.
Kaspersky and Symantec experts are still unsure as to what the newly discovered viruses are designed to do, but have confirmed that they are operating in the Middle East, including Iran and Lebanon, and that the, “approach to uploading packages and downloading data fits the profile of military and/or intelligence operations.”
The new viruses, programs code-named SP, SPE and IP, use malware packages that try to “communicate with command and control servers.” The new viruses could be offshoots of the Flame virus or completely different pieces of software.
“The findings are likely to bolster a growing view that the U.S. government is using cyber technology more widely than previously believed to further its interests in the Middle East,” reports Haaretz.
“The United States has already been linked to the Stuxnet Trojan that attacked Iran’s nuclear program in 2010 and the sophisticated Flame cyber surveillance tool that was uncovered in May.”
As the Washington Post reported earlier this year, the United States and Israel were also responsible for jointly developing the Flame virus, a huge malware assault that monitored Iran’s computer networks.
Despite months of inaccurate speculation blaming Russia or China for the outbreak of the 2010 Stuxnet virus, it was eventually admitted by the New York Times that, “US and Israeli intelligence services collaborated to develop a destructive computer worm to sabotage Iran’s efforts to make a nuclear bomb.”
The U.S. government’s continual efforts to develop computer viruses as a tool of cyber warfare might be more palatable were it not for the constant push by the executive and legislative branches to censor and regulate the Internet domestically in the name of cybersecurity.
Urging President Obama last month to pass an executive order that critics have denounced as another federal power grab over the Internet, Senator Jay Rockefeller justified the EO by claiming it was needed “to protect this country from the cyber threat,” even as the U.S. simultaneously launches aggressive cyber warfare campaigns against other countries.
Indeed, viruses created by the United States and Israel have even been cited as proof that restrictive cyber security legislation needs to be rubber stamped – by the very same government allied with the intelligence networks creating the viruses.
As we reported back in 2011, despite initial evidence clearly indicating the U.S. and Israel were behind the Stuxnet attack, a fact that was subsequently confirmed, major news websites still parroted the official narrative that Russia or China were to blame, even going to the lengths of ridiculing anyone who suggested otherwise as paranoid conspiracy theorists.
While claiming that it needs more power over the world wide web to prevent the spread of hostile computer viruses that could cripple U.S. infrastructure and sensitive networks, the U.S. government itself is creating those very same computer viruses to spy on and attack infrastructure and sensitive networks in other countries.
September 18, 2012
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Deception, False Flag Terrorism, Progressive Hypocrite, Timeless or most popular | Flame, Stuxnet, United States |
Leave a comment
An independent UN panel confirmed on Monday that an increasing number of foreign elements including what it calls “jihadists” are now operating in Syria.
In its first report to say that outside terrorists have joined the fight in Syria, the investigative panel appointed by the Human Rights Council says some of these forces are joining armed anti-government groups while others are operating on their own.
“Such elements tend to push anti-government fighters towards more radical positions.” the head of the panel, Brazilian diplomat and professor Paulo Sergio Pinheiro, told diplomats.
He referred to the foreigners as terrorists, though the word did not appear in the written report.
The panel accused government forces along with armed groups of war crimes including murder, extrajudicial execution and torture.
Pinheiro said that the human rights situation has “deteriorated to such a degree that it is difficult to describe justly in such a few words. Gross violations of human rights have grown in number, in pace and in scale.”
He said the frequency of these “egregious violations” were so enormous that his panel could no longer investigate them all.
“Civilians, many of them children, are bearing the brunt of the spiraling violence,” he said.
For his part, the Syrian U.N. Ambassador Faysal Khabbaz Hamoui contested the report’s overall accuracy and objectivity. But he appeared to agree with Pinheiro on the presence of outside elements, telling the council that “many international parties are working on increasing the crisis in Syria.”
September 18, 2012
Posted by aletho |
War Crimes | Al-Manar, Paulo Sérgio Pinheiro, Syria |
Leave a comment
TEHRAN – Iranian Majlis Speaker Ali Larijani has said that the most recent resolution issued against Iran by the International Atomic Energy Agency raises doubt about the benefit of being a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
Larijani made the remarks in a speech during an open session of the Majlis on Sunday in reference to the resolution that the 35-member IAEA Board of Governors adopted in Vienna on Thursday, which condemned Iran’s refusal to meet international demands to curb uranium enrichment and its alleged failure to allay international concerns about its nuclear program.
The Iranian parliament speaker said, “The recent resolution by the Board of Governors raises this question for the public: What is the benefit of the NPT and membership in the International Atomic Energy Agency for countries?
“If Iran had not been committed to the NPT, would Western countries have taken other measures?”
He stated that IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano has a responsibility to encourage the world’s countries to join the NPT, adding, “Will Mr. Amano be able to succeed in his job through such high-handed decision-making?”
“If the path taken by the West and the United States is the adoption of resolutions and sanctions against Iran, then why are they seeking negotiations between Iran and Western countries? However, these countries must be aware that the result of the negotiations is predetermined with the adoption of such an attitude,” Larijani noted.
He also said, “The main text of the resolution was definitely drafted by a few Western countries. It seems that certain tyrannical countries made their intention to make excessive demands at the 5+1 talks more public with (their) insistence on the adoption of the resolution.”
The latest round of high-level talks between Iran and the 5+1 group (the five permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany) over the country’s nuclear program was held in Moscow on June 18 and 19.
After the Moscow talks, both sides agreed to hold expert talks, the most recent round of which was held in Istanbul on July 24.
No decision has yet been made on the next round of negotiations.
September 17, 2012
Posted by aletho |
Aletho News | Ali Larijani, International Atomic Energy Agency, Iran, NPT, Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, United States, Yukiya Amano |
Leave a comment
UN Special Rapporteur – US Nuclear Testing Continues to Violate Human Rights in the Marshall Islands
September 13, 2012 was a historic day at the United Nations and in the Marshall Islands. On this date, in this seventh decade of the nuclear age, the UN Human Rights Council considered the environmental and human rights impacts resulting from the radioactive and toxic substances in nuclear fallout.
And, for the first time in the history of the United Nations, Marshallese citizens stood before a United Nations Council in defense of the human rights of their communities, with survivor testimony on United States nuclear weapons fallout, environment, health and human rights consequences, and the ramifications of continuing failure to achieve environmentally sound management and disposal of the hazardous substances and toxic wastes resulting from US military activities in the Pacific Proving Grounds.
This moment was generated as a result of the work of Mr. Calin Georgescu, Special Rapporteur on the implications for human rights of the environmentally sound management and disposal of hazardous substances and waste, who presented the report of his mission to the Marshall Islands and the United States and his findings and recommendations on the human rights consequences of nuclear contamination.
In his visit the Marshall Islands in March 2012, Mr. Georgescu reported that the communities affected by nuclear testing over sixty years ago in the Marshall Islands are still adversely affected by the radiation and near-irreversible environmental contamination from US weapons tests. In his report, the Special Rapporteur noted that these injuries had been most recently confirmed in the 2008-2009 President’s Cancer Panel which recommended that the US “honor and make payments according to the judgments of the Marshall Islands Tribunal”. Yet, for these and other reasons, the Marshallese have yet to find durable solutions to the dislocation to their indigenous ways of life.
As residents of a United Nations designated trust territory governed by the United States, the Marshallese people endured the loss of traditionally-held land and marine resources without negotiation or compensation; were exposed to fallout contamination compromising the environmental health of individuals, communities, and an entire nation; suffered through the documentation of health hazards through a decades-long medical research program that included human radiation experimentation; and, when negotiating the terms of independence in free association with the United States, were severely hampered by the US refusal to fully disclose the full extent of military activities, including the scientific documentation of the environmental and health impacts of serving as the Pacific Proving Ground for weapons of mass destruction
In his visit the Marshall Islands in March 2012, Mr. Georgescu reported that the communities affected by nuclear testing over sixty years ago in the Marshall Islands are still adversely affected by the radiation and near-irreversible environmental contamination from US weapons tests. The Marshallese have yet to find durable solutions to the dislocation to their indigenous ways of life.
Observing that prior efforts to provide redress had been limited in scope and scale, and recognizing that reparation should ideally be restoration of what has been lost, the Special Rapporteur noted that in this case what has been lost is a healthy environment that sustains a viable and culturally distinct way of life. Thus, the principle goal of reparation requires a comprehensive approach for securing the rehabilitation and long-term sustainable development of the Marshallese people. He recommended the immediate development of a national and regional plan for attending to the many ulcerating issues identified in his report, similar to the initiatives undertaken for the benefit of affected-populations by States that historically carried out and continue to carry-out nuclear testing programmes. And outlined an array of specific recommendations which collective represent a framework by which truth, justice, and reparation might achieved through actions involving the Government, the United States, the UN and its specialized agencies and institutions, and members of the international community.
Responding to the Special Rapporteur’s report, Marshall Islands Minister of Foreign Affairs Phillip H. Muller acknowledged that efforts been undertaken by the United States to address the impacts of its nuclear weapons testing program, though “much more remains to be done to address the past, present, and future such impacts on the basic human rights of our Marshallese communities… Adjudicated claims of property loss and personal injury remain unfulfilled… Two UN resolutions on nuclear testing in the Marshall Islands remain the only instances in which the UN ever explicitly authorized the testing of nuclear weapons. Adopted in 1954 and 1956 in rejection of our petitions to halt the testing, those resolutions made specific assurances of fairness, justice and respect for human rights, which have never been met. This continued denial of justice to our people is completely unacceptable.” “This report,” Minister Muller observed, “tells the world that the Marshall Islands is entitled to know the truth, to be treated with dignity, and to have all those human rights which should never have been lost.” The Marshall Islands welcomed the Rapporteur’s recommendations and urged the United States and the international community to do likewise.
The United States response, delivered by State Department Counselor Arselan Suleman, appreciated the opportunity for constructive and open dialogue on the issues and agreed to continued assistance, while reiterating their objection as to the validity of the Special Rapporteur’s major findings. “The United States feels strongly that nuclear testing is not, fundamentally, an issue of ‘management and disposal of hazardous substances and wastes.’ Particularly when described in terms of ‘improper’ or ‘environmentally sound’ management.” The US disagreed with a number of assertions of human rights law within this report, and disagreed that there is a continuing obligation by the international community to encourage a “final and just resolution” of the issue. The United States position is that it has “acknowledged and acted responsibly upon the negative effects of the nuclear testing” as evidenced by “the full and final settlement of all claims related to the testing contained in the 1986 Compact of Free Association.” Citing expenditures of $600 million to date for various technical problems, including $150 million to settle all nuclear claims, the United States assured the United Nations that “Experts and scientists from across the U.S. Government will continue their decades long engagement in the Marshall Islands to address the issues that arose from our nuclear testing.”
In the ensuing dialogue between nations, institutions, and non-governmental organizations, speakers recognized the continued presence of radioactive contaminants in the Marshall Islands and reaffirmed the existence of a special responsibility by the United States towards the people of the Marshall Islands, and the need for continuing and increased levels of bilateral cooperation. They also called for radioactive waste, environmental contamination, and related human rights issues of nuclear militarism to be adequately addressed bilaterally and through the United Nations system.
Algeria said this report confirms unequivocally the cause and effect relationship between nuclear testing and violation of the right to health, damage to the environment and the displacement of populations and confirms the right of affected populations to an effective remedy. While recognizing that each situation has its own peculiarities, my delegation would like to know if the lessons and recommendations presented in the report of the visit can be extended to other situations of nuclear tests in the world?
Australia said that it had joined with other Pacific Leaders at the Pacific Island Forum in Rarotonga, Cook Islands, in August 2012 in reaffirming recognition of the special circumstances pertaining to the continued presence of radioactive contaminants in the Marshall Islands. Australia welcomed the report of the Special Rapporteur as a contribution to stimulating dialogue between the parties in the spirit of understanding and reconciliation for the benefit of the Marshallese people.
Cuba said that the United States has a responsibility and a debt to the people of the Marshall Islands, which has suffered and continues to suffer the harmful consequences of U.S. nuclear testing program in the territory. They believe, like many other countries, the United States must provide adequate compensation to the victims of their actions to restore their dignity, contribute to the resettlement of displaced populations displaced by the product of radioactive contaminants and also to revive the economic productivity and human development in the affected areas. The negative implications for the enjoyment of fundamental human rights such as food and health should be reversed immediately.
New Zealand, speaking on behalf of the Cook Islands, Chair of the Pacific Islands Forum, said during the Forum’s meeting last month in the Cook Islands, leaders had recognized the special circumstances pertaining to the continued presence of radioactive contaminants in the Marshall Islands and reaffirmed the existence of a special responsibility by the United States towards the people of the Marshall Islands. They also called for the issues to be adequately addressed through the United Nations system.
Maldives took note of the first report submitted to the Council by the Special Rapporteur on hazardous substances and said that the effect of nuclear testing on the Marshall Islands must be examined from several aspects, such as its impact on the health of the population and the environment. The support of the international community in this regard was very much needed because many small island States were struggling with multifaceted challenges and did not have the capacity to deal with such adverse impacts on the environment.
Malaysia agreed with the recommendations of the Special Rapporteur for a just and lasting solution to the continuing plight and suffering of the Marshallese People due to the effects of nuclear testing. They asked the Special Rapporteur to clarify whether that obligation rests on the international community, which had placed the Marshall Islands under trusteeship, or the relevant State actor, in its capacity as trustee, which had conducted the nuclear tests.
Nuclear Age Peace Foundation said that the compensation and remediation provided by the United States for the nuclear weapons testing in the Marshall Islands had been insufficient to fully attend to the healthcare and socio-economic needs of the Marshallese people. The international community, the United States and the Government of the Marshall Islands must develop long-term strategic measures to address the effects of the nuclear testing programme and provide adequate redress to the citizens of the Marshall Islands.
Physicians for Social Responsibility provided an eyewitness account of the nuclear weapons testing in the Marshall Islands by the United States by Jeban Riklon, who had lived on Rongelap Atoll, where no one knew that the United States had planned to test the Bravo bomb on that day and did not know that precautionary measures should have been taken. The population had been evacuated by the United States only two days later and brought into a military encampment and enrolled in Project 4.1 to study the effects of radiation on human beings.
Cultural Survival also provided an eyewitness account of the nuclear weapons testing in the Marshall Islands by the United States by Lemeyo Abon, President of the ERUB (damaged, broken) association of Marshallese nuclear survivors. Ms. Abon described the explosion of the bomb Bravo on Bikini Atoll, just 180 km upwind from Rongelap Atoll where she had lived. The immensely painful consequences were felt even today, with birth of babies with missing limbs and other congenital defects.
In the General Debate, an additional statement was made by Cultural Survival/ Iju in Ean club by Abacca Anjain-Maddison, to reiterate the Marshallese civil society delegation’s endorsement and appreciation of the recommendations of the Special Rapporteur and they look to the General Assembly, the Security Council and the Human Rights Council to work collaboratively with all parties to move the recommendations into action. Concern was also expressed that “the ultimatum of the United States to force the Rongelap community to return to a contaminated environment will represent a new level in human rights abuses perpetuated by the US against the Marshallese.”
In his response to comments, Special Rapporteur Calin Georgescu addressed the US position that consideration his of contamination from nuclear weapons testing was not included in his mandate, stating that “the long history of nuclear weapons testing on the Marshall Islands has produced a significant amount of nuclear radioactive waste which is indubitably toxic in nature and less health and continue to have several impacts to the ability of the Marshallese people to enjoy the full scope of their human rights.” With regards to the question of liability, the Rapportuer stated “I completely support that the international community has to be involved in this process; it is not only bilateral aspects.”
The UN report concludes with significant, wide-ranging recommendations to address the ulcerating legacy of nuclear militarism in the Marshall Islands.
The Marshall Islands should request the assistance of relevant UN agencies and bilateral partners to;
- Improve water, sanitation and waste management, health and education infrastructure, and to carry out independent, comprehensive radiological surveys of the entire nation similar to those conducted by the IAEA on testing sites in other countries.
- Strengthen health infrastructure to address concerns of the whole population.
- Turn Marshall Islands biodegenerative environment and health history into asset by taking the lead in hosting and fostering collaborative partnerships to develop and implement innovative approaches to monitoring, assessing, and caring for a contaminated environment, human health and well-being.
The United States should;
- Continue to support the Marshall Islands in efforts to protect the environment and safeguard the health of its people.
- Support Marshall Islands efforts to conduct a comprehensive survey and mapping of the radiogenic and other toxic substances remaining in the terrestrial and marine environment from US military activity in that nation.
- Continue to provide assistance and the means to secure, contain and remediate hazardous sites.
- Provide full funding for the Nuclear Claims Tribunal to award adequate compensation for past and future claims, and exploring other forms of reparation.
- Adopt a presumptive approach to groups currently excluded from the special healthcare programmes created by the US to assist survivors of nuclear testing.
And, given the role of the United Nations in establishing the strategic trusteeship of the United States, the international community should;
- Recognize and act upon its ongoing obligation to encourage a final and just resolution for the Marshallese people.
- Support bilateral and multilateral action to assist the Marshall Islands in its efforts to regain use of traditional lands, including the knowledge and means to identify, assess, remediate and restore a sustainable way of life.
- Invest and participate in collaborative partnerships to develop and deploy technologies and methods to monitor and remediate environmental hazards and reduce health.
- Support nationally-owned and nationally-led development plans and strategies.
- Mitigate the effects of climate change.
- Monitor, secure and remove nuclear wastes on a scale and standard comparable to the clean-up of domestic testing sites in the United States, as part of an international response to nuclear legacy issues.
In his informal remarks during the informal panel Human Rights Impact of Nuclear Testing (organized by Reaching Critical Will and the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom), Mr. Georgescu acknowledged that his recommendations are ambitious and in a world where so many other issues compete for attention a full measure of reparation may be difficult to secure. Yet, he pointed out, it is these other competing issues that make attention to the Marshallese situation so urgent. The failure to fully protect the health and well-being of the Marshallese nation, and the failure to fully and adequately respond to the environmental health disaster resulting from nuclear testing and fallout, has generated an ever-expanding array of rights-abusive conditions that are persistent, pervasive, and alter the very fabric of life.
The urgent need to act is echoed in Lemeyo Abon’s testimony:
“We have a saying jej bok non won ke jemake which means ‘if not us, who?’ We have to act now, we have to let peace prevail, this is our time for the future of our children and grandchildren. I urge this council and the members of the United Nations to take action to not only help us help ourselves, but to make sure that such miseries do not occur ever again.”
As Jeban Riklon noted in his statement to the Human Rights Council, “I am especially happy to be here because it is my right, as a human, to voice and make a plea before this Council for what we have been going through for many years.” After so many decades of silent anguish where Marshallese complaints have been too often been ignored or dismissed, this report, the testimony of Marshallese elders, and the response by assembled nations represents an essential element of reparation. A small measure of dignity has been restored.
For further information:
The report of the Special Rapporteur on the human rights obligations related to environmentally sound management and disposal of hazardous substances and waste Addendum 1 – Mission to the Marshall Islands and the United States of America (AHRC/21/48/Add.1)
Addendum 2 – Mission to the Marshall Islands: comments by the State on the report of the Special Rapporteur (A/HRC/21/48/Add.2)
Full video of the Special Rapporteur report on his Mission to the Marshall Islands and the United States begins at 03:36. Webcast of individual comments is also available.
Three parallel events were sponsored by civil society to inform the Human Rights Council on the human rights implications of nuclear militarism in the Marshall Islands, and the consequential damages of a flawed radiation health science; human environmental rights conditions resulting from the military use of deleted uranium in Iraq; and a comparative consideration of experience and response to human rights impact of nuclear testing in the Marshall Islands, Kazakhstan, and Australia. Organizers and cosponsors for NGO panels and speakers included Center for Political Ecology, Reaching Critical Will/Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, Center for Political Ecology, International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, Union of Arab Jurists/European Radiation Risk Committee, Physicians for Social Responsibility, and Cultural Survival. For additional information on presentations and the underlying issues, contact:
Barbara Rose Johnston, Center for Political Ecology, bjohnston@igc.org
Beatrice Will, Reaching Critical Will/WILPF, beatrice@reachingcriticalwill.org
Chris Busby, European Radiation Rsik Committee, christo@greenaudit.org
Naji Haraj, Union of Arab Jurists harajnaji@yahoo.com
Rick Wayman, Nucelar Age Peace Foundation rwayman@napf.org
BARBARA ROSE JOHNSTON is an anthropologist and senior research fellow at the Center for Political Ecology. She is the co-author of The Consequential Dangers of Nuclear War: the Rongelap Report. Her most recent book, Water, Cultural Diversity and Global Environmental Change: Emerging Trends, Sustainable Futures? was copublished by UNESCO/Springer in 2012. She is currently assisting the Special Rapporteur’s efforts to document the human rights consequences of nuclear militarism in the Marshall Islands, and supporting advocacy efforts to bring Marshallese citizens to Geneva so their own voices can be heard. Contact her at: bjohnston@igc.org.
September 17, 2012
Posted by aletho |
Environmentalism, Militarism, Timeless or most popular | Calin Georgescu, Marshall Islands, Nuclear weapons testing, Pacific Proving Ground, Phillip H. Muller, United Nations, United States |
Leave a comment
The White House has asked the US Second Circuit Court of Appeals to place an emergency stay on a ruling made last week by a federal judge so that the president’s power to indefinitely detain Americans without charge is reaffirmed immediately.
On Wednesday, September 12, US District Court Judge Katherine Forrest made permanent a temporary injunction she issued in May that bars the federal government from abiding by the indefinite detention provision in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, or NDAA. Judge Forrest ruled that a clause that gives the government the power to arrest US citizens suspected of maintaining alliances with terrorists and hold them without due process violated the Constitution and that the White House would be stripped of that ability immediately.
Only hours after Judge Forrest issued last week’s ruling, the Obama administration threatened to appeal the decision, and on Monday morning they followed through.
At around 9 a.m. Monday, September 17, the White House filed an emergency stay in federal appeals court in an effort to have the Second Circuit strip away Judge Forrest’s ruling from the week earlier.
“Almost immediately after Judge Forrest ruled, the Obama administration challenged the decision,” writes Chris Hedges, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist that is listed as the lead plaintiff in the case. According to Hedges, the government called Judge Forrest’s most recent ruling an “extraordinary injunction of worldwide scope,” and Executive Branch attorneys worked into the weekend to find a way to file their stay.
“The Justice Department sent a letter to Forrest and the Second Circuit late Friday night informing them that at 9 a.m. Monday the Obama administration would ask the Second Circuit for an emergency stay that would lift Forrest’s injunction,” Hedges writes. “This would allow Obama to continue to operate with indefinite detention authority until a formal appeal was heard. The government’s decision has triggered a constitutional showdown between the president and the judiciary.”
Attorney Carl Mayer, a counsel for Hedges and his co-plaintiffs, confirmed to RT early Monday that the stay was in fact filed with the Second Circuit.
“This may be the most significant constitutional standoff since the Pentagon Papers case,” Carl Mayer says in a separate statement posted on Mr. Hedge’s blog.
Bruce Afran, who serves as co-lead counsel along with Mayer, tells Hedges that the White House could be waging a war against the injunction to ensure that the Obama administration has ample time to turn the NDAA against any protesters participating in domestic demonstrations.
“A Department of Homeland Security bulletin was issued Friday claiming that the riots [in the Middle East] are likely to come to the US and saying that DHS is looking for the Islamic leaders of these likely riots,” Afran tells Hedges. “It is my view that this is why the government wants to reopen the NDAA — so it has a tool to round up would-be Islamic protesters before they can launch any protest, violent or otherwise. Right now there are no legal tools to arrest would-be protesters. The NDAA would give the government such power. Since the request to vacate the injunction only comes about on the day of the riots, and following the DHS bulletin, it seems to me that the two are connected. The government wants to reopen the NDAA injunction so that they can use it to block protests.”
Hedges, who has previously reported for papers including the New York Times and the Christian Science Monitor, argued that his job as a journalist requires him to routinely interact and converse with persons that may be considered terrorists in the eyes of the US government.
Under the NDAA, Americans “who was part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners” can be held in prison cells “until the end of hostilities,” vague verbiage that essentially allows for those suspect of such associations to be decided under the discretion of US President Barack Obama or any federal agent underneath him.
“Because the language is so vague in this law,” Mr. Mayer explains to RT, “if any journalist or activist is seen as reporting or offering opinions about groups that could somehow be linked not just to al-Qaeda but to any opponent of the United States or even opponents of our allies”
“I spent many years in countries where the military had the power to arrest and detain citizens without charge,” Hedges wrote when he first filed his suit in January. “I have been in some of these jails. I have friends and colleagues who have ‘disappeared’ into military gulags. I know the consequences of granting sweeping and unrestricted policing power to the armed forces of any nation. And while my battle may be quixotic, it is one that has to be fought if we are to have any hope of pulling this country back from corporate fascism.”
Monday morning, Hedges once more responded to the White House’s relentless attempts to reauthorize powers granted under the NDAA, asking, “If the administration is this anxious to restore this section of the NDAA, is it because the Obama government has already used it? Or does it have plans to use the section in the immediate future?”
“The decision to vigorously fight Forrest’s ruling is a further example of the Obama White House’s steady and relentless assault against civil liberties, an assault that is more severe than that carried out by George W. Bush,” writes Hedges. “Obama has refused to restore habeas corpus. He supports the FISA Amendment Act, which retroactively makes legal what under our Constitution has traditionally been illegal — warrantless wire tapping, eavesdropping and monitoring directed against US citizens. He has used the Espionage Act six times against whistle-blowers who have exposed government crimes, including war crimes, to the public. He interprets the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force Act as giving him the authority to assassinate US citizens, as he did the cleric Anwar al-Awlaki. And now he wants the right to use the armed forces to throw U.S. citizens into military prisons, where they will have no right to a trial and no defined length of detention.”
In his latest blog post, Hedges acknowledges, “The government has now lost four times in a litigation that has gone on almost nine months.”
September 17, 2012
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Progressive Hypocrite | National Defense Authorization Act, NDAA, Obama, Obama administration, United States |
Leave a comment
The protests and violence in Egypt, Libya and Yemen have caused a notable uptick in media discussions about, as Newsweek’s cover puts it, “Muslim Rage.”
Part of the corporate media’s job is to make sure real political grievances are mostly kept out of the discussion. It’s a lot easier to talk about angry mobs and their peculiar religion than it is to acknowledge that maybe some of the anger has little to do with religion at all.
Take the news out of Afghanistan yesterday: A NATO airstrike killed eight women in the eastern province of Laghman who were out collecting firewood. This has happened before. And attacks that kill a lot of Afghans–whether accidental or not–tend to be covered the same way–quietly, and with a focus not on the killing but on the ramifications.
So yesterday if you logged into CommonDreams, you may have seen this headline:
NATO Airstrike in Afghanistan Kills 8 Women
Now look for the same news in the New York Times today (9/17/12). It’s there–but the headline is this:
Karzai Denounces Coalition Over Airstrikes
The Times gave a clear sense of what was important: “Mr. Karzai’s condemnation was likely to rankle some Western officials…” the paper’s Matthew Rosenberg explained, who went on to explain that
the confrontational tone of the statement was a sharp reminder of the acrimony that has often characterized relations between Mr. Karzai and his American benefactors.
In the Washington Post, the NATO airstrikes made the front page–sort of. Readers saw this headline at the website:
4 troops killed in southern Afghanistan insider attack
As you might have already guessed, the killings of Afghan women are a secondary news event:
Four U.S. troops were killed Sunday at a remote checkpoint in southern Afghanistan when a member of the Afghan security forces opened fire on them, military officials said. The attack brought to 51 the number of international troops shot dead by their Afghan partners this year. The insider attack came on the same day that NATO warplanes killed nine women gathering firewood in the mountains outside their village in an eastern province, according to local officials.
One has to wonder whether, absent the deaths of U.S. troops, the airstrike would have made the news at all.
September 17, 2012
Posted by aletho |
Deception, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, War Crimes | Afghanistan, NATO, New York Times, Newsweek, Peter Hart, Washington Post |
Leave a comment
A few weeks ago, Washington Post ombudsman Patrick B. Pexton published a revealing column in which he delved into the nettlesome question of why the Post rarely writes about Israel’s actual nuclear arsenal, even as it devotes intensive coverage to Iran’s nuclear program, which remains far short of producing a single bomb.
Pexton deemed concerns about this imbalance “a fair question” and dug back through a decade of Post articles without finding “any in-depth reporting on Israeli nuclear capabilities.” He then explored some reasons for this failure, including sympathy felt toward Israel because of the Holocaust and the difficulties that journalists confront in addressing the topic.
“But that doesn’t mean the media shouldn’t write about how Israel’s doomsday weapons affect the Middle East equation,” Pexton wrote. “Just because a story is hard to do doesn’t mean The Post, and the U.S. press more generally, shouldn’t do it.”
Yet, there are few signs, if any, that the Post and other mainstream U.S. news outlets are heeding Pexton’s criticism. Obviously, one way to alleviate the imbalance would be to mention that Israel has an undeclared nuclear arsenal in every story that discusses Iran’s nuclear program, which Iranian leaders insist is for peaceful purposes only.
The fact that Israel has a large and sophisticated roster of nuclear weapons is surely relevant in evaluating why Iran might want a nuclear weapon of its own and why Iran would not want to provoke a war with Israel even if Iran did manufacture one or two bombs. Yet this context is almost never included in U.S. news stories.
U.S. journalists and their editors also might stop including hyperbolic statements that exaggerate the potential Iranian threat to Israel, such as the discredited claim that Iran has threatened to “wipe Israel off the map,” an oft-repeated refrain that resulted from a mistranslation of a comment by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
However, that seems to be too much to expect from major U.S. newspapers. For instance, on Friday, the New York Times in an article by Mark Landler and Helene Cooper not only fails to mention Israel’s nuclear arsenal but inserts the provocative claim that “Iranian leaders have repeatedly threatened [Israel] with annihilation.”
The article offers no quote to back up this assertion. It simply stands as a form of boilerplate, as if everyone knows it to be true. But the reality is that Iranian leaders may wish that the Zionist government of Israel ultimately disappears to be replaced by a non-religious state, but that is a far cry from threatening to annihilate Israel militarily, which is the clear implication from Landler and Cooper.
Repeat Offender
Landler, the Times’ White House correspondent, also has been a repeat offender in this journalistic malpractice. For instance, on March 5, he appeared on MSNBC and offered this account of the Israeli-Iranian tensions:
“The Israelis feel the window for that [denying Iran the capability to build nuclear weapons] is closing and it’s closing really fast, and if they allow it to close without taking military action, they would find themselves in a position where the Iranians suddenly are in possession of nuclear weapons, which they’ve threatened already to use against Israel.
“As the Israelis always say, that’s an existential threat to Israel, which is something we don’t necessarily feel here in the United States.”
Landler’s account was hair-raising, claiming that Iranians have “threatened already to use [nuclear weapons] against Israel” which the Israelis understandably perceive as an “existential threat.” But Landler’s statement simply isn’t true.
Iranian leaders continue to deny that they even want nuclear weapons, so it makes no sense that they would threaten to use them against Israel.
In February, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who controls the armed forces, called “the possession of nuclear weapons a grave sin” and said “the proliferation of such weapons is senseless, destructive and dangerous.” He insisted that “the Iranian nation has never pursued and will never pursue nuclear weapons.”
Further, the U.S. intelligence community reported in 2007 that Iran stopped research work on a nuclear weapon in 2003 and has not resumed that effort. That assessment has been reaffirmed periodically and remains the position of the CIA and other intelligence agencies.
Beyond that, for Iran to threaten to “annihilate” Israel would represent one of the strangest threats in world history. Here is a nation without nuclear weapons – and whose top leader disavows any intent to get nuclear weapons – supposedly threatening to use those non-existent weapons against a nation which has a large stockpile of nuclear weapons.
You would think, at minimum, that Landler would be expected to cite an actual Iranian official making a specific threat. But he doesn’t and apparently no one in power [at the NYT] demands that he do so. His claim that Iran has threatened to attack Israel with a nuclear bomb is simply accepted as what everybody knows to be true.
Explaining the Failure
That is the sort of ludicrous propaganda that has become commonplace in the U.S. news media, a topic that the Post’s ombudsman addressed gingerly on Aug. 31. Pexton offered mostly innocent explanations for this journalistic misfeasance.
“First, Israel refuses to acknowledge publicly that it has nuclear weapons,” Pexton wrote. “The U.S. government also officially does not acknowledge the existence of such a program. … Because Israel has not signed the [nuclear non-proliferation] treaty, it is under no legal obligation to submit its major nuclear facility at Dimona to International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspections.
“Iran, in contrast, did sign the treaty and thus agrees to periodic inspections. IAEA inspectors are regularly in Iran, but the core of the current dispute is that Tehran is not letting them have unfettered access to all of the country’s nuclear installations.
“Furthermore, although Israel has an aggressive media, it still has military censors that can and do prevent publication of material on Israel’s nuclear forces. Censorship applies to foreign correspondents working there, too.”
Plus, Israel has demonstrated that it will deliver harsh punishment on any Israeli who does divulge secrets about the nuclear program, as nuclear technician Mordechai Vununu learned in 1986 when he became a whistleblower about the secret Israeli arsenal. He was then kidnapped, taken to Israel against his will, and imprisoned for 18 years, much of it in solitary confinement.
Pexton added that “perhaps most important, Americans don’t leak about the Israeli nuclear program either.” He cited the inclination to protect a friend and ally, as well as the reality that deviating from this silence “can hurt your career.”
Pexton quoted George Perkovich of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace as saying: “It’s like all things having to do with Israel and the United States. If you want to get ahead, you don’t talk about it; you don’t criticize Israel, you protect Israel. You don’t talk about illegal settlements on the West Bank even though everyone knows they are there.”
However, the job of journalism should be to present all the relevant facts in context, especially on life-or-death issues like war and peace.
When the New York Times and the Washington Post institute systemic bias in their coverage of such an issue – as the two newspapers also did in the run-up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq – they not only fail to uphold the principles of journalism, they risk becoming complicit in the slaughter of innocent people.
~
Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush, was written with two of his sons, Sam and Nat, and can be ordered at neckdeepbook.com.
September 17, 2012
Posted by aletho |
Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Timeless or most popular, Wars for Israel | Israel, Mark Landler, Middle East, New York Times, United States |
Leave a comment
Aletho News
Aletho News 