Interview with Wafi Kamel Al-Majed, husband of imprisoned human rights activist, Zainab al-Khawaja
by Witness Bahrain – 1 May, 2012

In the hall of Wafi’s father’s house, where Wafi is staying with his 2-year-old daughter Jude, there were two big photos decorating the wall, one of Zainab, and one of Wafi on their graduation day. They both wore huge smiles, looking like any other new, young graduates with bright and promising futures ahead of them…

I asked Wafi about his wife’s current condition and the visit he had to the prison where Zainab is being held. It was just the day before, on Sunday 29 April at 12:30, that he had been allowed his first visit since Zainab’s arrest a week before. He and little Jude, two of Zainab’s sisters, and Zainab’s mother, Khadija, had gone together. A prison guard brought Zainab into the little visiting room and stayed in the room for the duration of the half-hour visit. Zainab told her family how she had been beaten by the police during her arrest. Riot police surrounded her as she kneeled on the ground, and proceeded to kick her with their boots and jab her with their police batons. Although the police filmed her arrest, the camera focused on her face and upper body, while police aimed their attacks at her lower body. Other protesters had also told Wafi that the police filmed the arrest, but not from the ground when Zainab was being abused. Zainab shouted at them, “why are you treating us like dogs” to which a police woman responded by putting her baton to Zainab’s neck and choking her. …more

Lakota, Navajo and Supai deliver powerful testimony to the UN Rapporteur in Arizona and South Dakota

Lakota, Navajo and Supai to UN Rapporteur: Halt genocide and eco-cide
By Brenda Norrell – Censored News – 3 May, 2012

Native Americans in Arizona and South Dakota delivered powerful testimony on the destruction of their homelands by uranium mining, coal fired power plants and oil and gas drilling, during sessions with UN Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples James Anaya.
Debra White Plume, Lakota, delivering testimony at Sinte Gleska University, on Sicangu Lakota Nation, Rosebud, South Dakota, May 1 — 2, said it is time to halt the eco-cide of Mother Earth.

During testimony in Tucson last week, April 26 — 27, Navajos from Black Mesa described the corporate crimes of Peabody Coal, Arizona senators and non-Indian attorneys that have led to the relocation of Navajos, coal mining on Black Mesa, and the continuance of some of the dirtiest coal fired power plants in the US on Navajoland.

Havasupai demanded a halt to the uranium mining in the Grand Canyon that now threatens future generations in the Southwest with the poisoning of the water.

Damon Watahomigie, Supai, said, “As the first born warriors of the Grand Canyon we refuse to become the next millennium’s world terrorists by allowing mega nuclear industrial complex mining industries to mine in the Grand Canyon.”

In South Dakota, White Plume, Lakota, said, “Mr. Anaya, I ask you to keep this message clear, do not pretty up my testimony. I am saying that America is committing ethnocide against our way of life, eco-cide against our Mother Earth, and genocide in our Lakota Homelands. Our Human Rights are being violated and our Inherent Right to live as Lakota People and Nation is being violated as well. Without access to our lands and waters we cannot live our collective Inherent Rights to be who we are.

“There are uranium, oil, and gas corporations here now, and more want to come. We did not invite them.

“America welcomes Canadian-owned Cameco uranium corporation, TransCanada oil pipeline corporation, and PowerTech uranium corporation to come and obtain permits to mine uranium and slurry oil in our Territory against our wishes, this extraction and pipeline threatens our Oglalla Aquifer, which gives 2 million people drinking water and irrigates the world’s bread basket.
[Read more →]

The Obama Contradiction – Weakling at Home, Imperial President Abroad
By Tom Engelhardt – 29 April, 2012

He has few constraints (except those he’s internalized). No one can stop him or countermand his orders. He has a bevy of lawyers at his beck and call to explain the “legality” of his actions. And if he cares to, he can send a robot assassin to kill you, whoever you are, no matter where you may be on planet Earth.

He sounds like a typical villain from a James Bond novel. You know, the kind who captures Bond, tells him his fiendish plan for dominating the planet, ties him up for some no less fiendish torture, and then leaves him behind to gum up the works.

As it happens, though, he’s the president of the United State, a nice guy with a charismatic wife and two lovely kids.

How could this be?

Crash-and-Burn Dreams and One That Came to Be

Sometimes to understand where you are, you need to ransack the past. In this case, to grasp just how this country’s first African-American-constitutional-law-professor-liberal Oval Office holder became the most imperial of all recent imperial presidents, it’s necessary to look back to the early years of George W. Bush’s presidency. Who today even remembers that time, when it was common to speak of the U.S. as the globe’s “sole superpower” or even “hyperpower,” the only “sheriff” on planet Earth, and the neocons were boasting of an empire-to-come greater than the British and Roman ones rolled together?

In those first high-flying years after 9/11, President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, and their top officials held three dreams of power and dominance that they planned to make reality. The first was to loose the U.S. military — a force they fervently believed capable of bringing anybody or any state to heel — on the Greater Middle East. With it in the lead, they aimed to create a generations-long Pax Americana in the region.

The invasion of Iraq in 2003 was to be only the initial “cakewalk” in a series of a shock-and-awe operations in which Washington would unilaterally rearrange the oil heartlands of the planet, toppling or cowing hostile regimes like the Syrians and the Iranians. (A neocon quip caught the spirit of that moment: “Everyone wants to go to Baghdad. Real men want to go to Tehran.”) This, in turn, would position the U.S. to control the planet in a historically unique way, and so prevent the rise of any other great power or bloc of nations resistant to American desires.

Their second dream, linked at the hip to the first, was to create a generations-long Pax Republicana here at home. (“Everyone wants to go to Kansas, but real men want to go to New York and LA.”) In that dream, the Democratic Party, like the Iraqis or the Iranians, would be brought to heel, a new Republican majority funded by corporate America would rule the roost, and above it all would be perched a “unitary executive,” a president freed of domestic constraints and capable — by fiat, the signing statement, or simply expanded powers — of doing just about anything he wanted. …more

You are not forgotten and you will never be forsaken!

Chomsky: U.S. and Europe ‘committing suicide in different ways’
By David Ferguson – 2 May, 2012 – Raw Story

In an interview with GritTV’s Laura Flanders, author and MIT professor Noam Chomsky discussed the potentially bleak future facing both the United States and the European Union. Both, he said, are facing historic crises and are going about trying to resolve them in exactly the wrong ways.

According to Chomsky, we are currently living in a period of “pretty close to global stagnation” but that the world’s great powers are reacting to the lack of growth in exactly the wrong manner. “The United States and Europe are committing suicide in different ways, but both doing it.”

He called European austerity measures “a disaster” and indicated that he expects them to fail, the question being more about how long it will take. The spending cuts and slashing of benefits to workers are ultimately part of a plan designed to dismantle the social contract, he said, although some governmental leaders are more willing than others to call it that.

The U.S., Chomsky believes, has failed in that our electoral system has been “shredded” by the introduction of private money. Our nation has shipped production and manufacturing offshore and concentrated on the “financialization” of our economy. The social safety net has essentially been replaced by the prison system, he said, with the U.S. “getting rid of the superfluous population through incarceration.”

It’s also a mistake, he said, to treat the Republican Party as a genuine political party rather than the “lock-step” policy arm of the superrich. Of course, the wealthy can’t sell the idea of a plutocracy to the population outright, so they mobilize the socially conservative base by stoking the so-called “culture wars.”

Chomsky has a new book, Occupy, about the Occupy Wall Street movement, what it says about society and humanity’s way forward through this time of economic and social stagnation. He calls OWS “the first major public response to 30 years of class war” and believes that the movement’s greatest success has been the introduction of the inequalities of everyday life into the public dialogue. …more

Occupy’s Meme Warrior
Adbusters’ Kalle Lasn on Occupy and a resurgent Left
2 May, 2012 – BY Joel Bleifuss

A power struggle is going on in the movement, between the old vertical type of a Left and a new young Left that isn’t so enamored with the old wolf pack mentality.

Last July, Adbusters sent out this invitation addressed to those “ready for a Tahrir moment”: “On Sept. 17, flood into lower Manhattan, set up tents, kitchens, peaceful barricades and occupy Wall Street.” And thus, the Vancouver-based nonprofit magazine published by self-described “culture jammers and creatives working to change the way information flows, the way corporations wield power and the way meaning is produced in our society” sparked a movement.

Estonian-born documentary filmmaker Kalle Lasn co-founded Adbusters in 1989. Lasn, 70-years-young (“old,” as in “old Left,” is an adjective he eschews), draws his inspiration from the Situationists, avant-garde European revolutionaries who believed corporate capitalism perverted the human spirit. The Situationists reached their zenith in 1968 Paris and disbanded in 1972, but their efforts to affirm what it means to be free live on in Adbusters.

In These Times spoke with Lasn in March to see what “the man behind the curtain” had to say for himself and the movement he helped ignite.

What challenges does the Occupy movement face?

It is a replay of what happened in 1968 when an insurrection in the Latin Quarter of Paris exploded onto campuses and cities around the world. For a few brief moments it looked like the first global revolution. Occupy is round two of 1968. Young people around the world have this sinking feeling that the next 30, 40 or 50 years of their lives will be one big black hole of ecological and political and financial and personal crisis. And if you are facing that sort of prospect you realize that unless you stand up and fight for a different kind of future, you don’t have a future. Unlike 1968, it is going to have legs.

We on the Left have become an ineffective, whiny, complaining, finger-pointing kind of movement that hasn’t had a new out-of-the-box idea for a couple of generations. Everything we’ve tried, including the Battle of Seattle and all sorts of anti-globalization movements, has fizzled out.

A power struggle is going on in the movement, between the old vertical type of a Left and a new young Left that has social media at its finger tips and isn’t so enamored with the old wolf pack mentality but is ready to do things in a much more horizontal way without leaders – sometimes even without demands. The question is: In this tussle between the old Left and the new Left, who will win? And if temporarily the old Left triumphs then we’re in for a hard year this year and possibly even next, but bit by bit this movement does herald a new Left. This movement has made the Left cool again. …more

BAE ‘proud’ to sell arms to Bahrain and Saudi Arabia
3 May, 2012 – Bahrain Freedom Movement

The chairman of arms giant BAE Systems has refused to rule out selling arms to the Saudi government even if the country uses them to put down peaceful protests. Dick Olver said he is “proud” to sell arms to the regimes of Saudi Arabia and Bahrain.

Olver struggled to keep control as he answered questions at BAE’s Annual General Meeting (AGM) in central London today (2 May). BAE is a multinational firm that presents itself in the UK as a “British” company. The Saudi government has long been one of its best customers.

BAE’s board were challenged by opponents of the arms trade who buy single shares to get into the AGM, by regular shareholders angry about executive pay and by workers at BAE’s Brough plant, who are facing redundancy.

Olver’s attempt to set the groups against each other failed when the Brough workers and anti-arms activists began to applaud each other’s questions.

Regular attenders at the AGM said they had never seen Olver so flustered or so little in control of the meeting. On several occasions he was accused of being rude to shareholders and patronising to the workers from Brough.

At one point, Olver shouted at South African former MP Andrew Feinstein, who urged him to give an assurance that he will co-operate fully with corruption investigations in South Africa. Olver shouted, “I’m not going to play words with you!” and refused to give the assurance.

There were jeers when Olver insisted that BAE had “a culture of responsible behaviour”. The same response greeted the company’s chief executive Ian King, who said, “The safety of our people and those using our products is critical”.

Olver was asked if there were any circumstances in which he BAE would not be prepared to sell arms to Saudi Arabia. He refused to state any other than to say he would comply with UK arms licences. The UK system for licensing arms sales has long been regarded as flimsy, due to the influence of arms companies within government.

Pat Gaffney of the Catholic peace group Pax Christi asked Olver if he could guarantee that the Saudi regime would not use BAE’s weapons against their own people. Olver replied simply, “No”.

Challenged by Sarah Waldron of the Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT), Olver admitted that BAE had joined trade minister Stephen Green on an arms sales trip to Libya within the last few days.

Olver was asked by Symon Hill, associate director of the Ekklesia thinktank, if he was planning to sell more arms to the Bahraini regime. He said he was “proud” to “support” Bahrain with Hawk jets and weapons parts, and refused to comment on the regime’s brutal repression of peaceful protest.

Several questioners suggested that BAE should diversify its work to include renewable energy, thus moving away from arms and keeping jobs in Brough. There was applause from both anti-arms activists and Brough workers. Olver ruled it out, saying he would not “flip-flop” between industries, while at the same time praising his company’s contribution to hybrid buses.

Veteran activist Albert Beale asked the board to state the ratio between the chief executive’s pay – about £2.5 million per year – and the pay of the lowest paid member of staff. Olver said the firm paid good wages but he had “no idea” about the ratio.

Beale pointed out he had asked the same question last year, meaning there had been a year in which the board could have worked it out.

Told that pay ratios were considered a serious issues in the public sector, Olver said, “We don’t live in that world. We live in a competitive world.”

One questioner pointed out that BAE board members are paid £4,000 each every time they attend an international board meeting, in addition to their salary. In response to criticism of the re-appointment of board member Peter Mason, Olver insisted “You are very lucky to have him on the board”.

As the AGM went on, hundreds of workers from Brough demonstrated outside the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre, where the meeting was taking place.

Brough shop steward Tim Smith said that BAE’s bosses had “shown us a lot of disrespect”. A worker from who had been employed by BAE for 26 years said his father and grandfather had also worked at the plant, where he now faces redundancy.

He added, “You’re not performing but you’re giving yourself pay rises. We are performing and you’re sacking us.” There was loud applause.

Another Brough worker, about to become redundant after 21 years, struggled to hold back his tears as he stood to ask his question. He said, “I notice you give thanks to the people who are standing down from the board. Will you be giving thanks to me?”

Olver triggered open laughter when he insisted that BAE is “one of the leading companies in the anti-bribery area”. The firm has long been accused of corruption, and was recently fined for “accounting irregularities” after making a plea bargain to avoid bribery charges in relation to Tanzania.

Arms trade researcher Barnaby Pace repeatedly tried to get an answer about a specific aspect of corruption allegations in the US. Olver refused to answer several time. As Pace continued to press the point, Olver told him, “If you want to stay in the room, you’ll have to sit down”.

Ann Feltham of CAAT asked if the chairman would apologise to the people of Tanzania. Olver said, “I don’t think I need to do that”. …source

Gulf disunion
2 May, 2012 – Foreign Policy

The leaders of the six Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, and Kuwait) will meet in May to discuss creating a closer federal unit among the states. The idea of closer integration was first put forward in December 2011 by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and recently fleshed out in a speech in the name of Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal. The potential benefits of creating a $1.4 trillion economic area of 42 million people were championed, as were the potential benefits of close cooperation and coordination in defense and security policy. While all this makes sense superficially, it is all but impossible to see how a meaningful GCC Union could take place.

In light of the Arab Spring and its ramifications in the Gulf region, it is possible to understand the desire in Saudi Arabia to engage in such a union. Specifically, Bahrain has been wracked with protest since February 2011. Today, demonstrations are sporadic but ongoing while protesters continue to be killed and injured, police are increasingly being targeted in retaliation, and Bahrain’s Formula One jamboree in mid-April was severely tarnished. The underlying concerns in Bahrain for both the al Khalifa elite and their fraternal al Saud allies are that the protests are somehow being stoked and supported by Iran, using Bahrain’s majority Shiite population to “export the Revolution.” While little if any evidence can be found backing up such a claim (see Bassiouni’s report) this is nevertheless the prevalent fear in Riyadh and Manama. Hence Saudi Arabia taking the startling step of sending in several thousand Saudi troops and a variety of armaments into Bahrain as a show of defiant support in March 2011. This action to which the UAE also contributed troops, while Kuwait, Qatar, and Oman mostly obfuscated, was taken under the fig-leaf of a “GCC Peninsula Shield” force action; a moribund pan-GCC force originating from 1984 that has never possessed an ounce of efficacy.

Some kind of Saudi-Bahraini Union is being discussed as a precursor to a wider GCC Union. Such a bilateral union would normalize the Saudi-led military action in Bahrain to potentially pave the way for the permanent stationing of “GCC” troops in Bahrain, while signaling the death knell for any political resolution with Riyadh having a de jure say over such outcomes as opposed to its already potent de facto sway.

Some in the al Khalifa elite appear to be willing to be subsumed into such a union and this is a startling reflection of their heightened concerns. Given the lack of oil and gas resources in Bahrain, the exodus of European banks seriously damaging confidence in this key industry, the profound socio-economic problems that lie mostly unacknowledged at the root of Bahrain’s political troubles, and the hardening political crisis, there are concerns as to Bahrain’s longer term viability as an independent economic entity. Saudi Arabia already gives Bahrain’s elite huge subsidies and support and there is no sign that this could be reversed soon. From the al Khalifa perspective, therefore, if those in Riyadh are not willing to simply continue the economic support without deeper political concessions, with no end in sight to the political and economic crisis, securing guaranteed long-term backing from Riyadh to maintain the status quo may seem sensible.

Overall, while Saudi Arabia taking on Bahrain as a loss-making, politically unstable appendage with a majority Shiite population may seem to be unattractive, it is preferable to the alternative. They could conversely see the slow implosion of a fellow Sunni monarchy and the potential ascendance to power of the Shiites next door to Saudi’s Eastern province, which contains not only a majority-Shiite Saudi population but also most of the kingdom’s oil fields and facilities.

As for a wider GCC Union, Saudi Arabia has been trying and mostly failing to engender a united GCC line toward Iran. Oman, Dubai, and particularly Qatar have frequently broken rank and pursued more conciliatory policies to Riyadh’s dismay. Such a union, which may include some provision for a joint foreign policy along the European Union model, may be seen in Riyadh as a way to further the central Saudi goal of uniting against Iran. …more