Posts from — September 2012

Zainab Al-Khawaja To Jail, Bahrain Forces Raid Houses, Attack Protests
Local Editor – 26 Septemebr, 2012 – Moqawama.org

A Bahraini court on Wednesday sent the activist Zainab al-Khawaja to two months in jail under the pretext of finding her guilty of destroying property belonging to the Interior Ministry, a judicial source said.

Zainab, daughter of prominent jailed opposition activist Abdulhadi al-Khawaja who is serving a life sentence after he was convicted, had been released in May after serving a one month jail term for allegedly attacking a policewoman at a demonstration.

She had also paid a 200 dinars ($530) fine for having insulted a police officer.

Zainab is also facing two other cases – obstructing traffic on a main road as well as taking part in a gathering and inciting hatred against the regime – for which she will be tried in November, the judicial source told AFP.

Al-Khawaja has been active in holding anti-government protests.

Meanwhile, the Bahraini regime series of attacking peaceful protests continue.

According to al-Wefaq opposition group, the security forces raided more than 8 houses, and vandalized private belongings.
“The number of vandalized cars by the forces totaled to 22,” the party said in its statement.

It further noted that “five citizens were arrested extra judicially amid the crackdown on peaceful pro-democracy protests that took place in several areas around the country.”

In parallel, the forces used birdshot (internationally prohibited shotgun) against protesters, alongside the heavy use of toxic tear.
Al-Wefaq has documented a large number of asphyxiation cases due to the repeated attacks in densely populated areas.
A number of injuries caused by the direct targeting with tear gas canisters have also been documented.

However, despite the ongoing suppression of freedoms, the demonstrations went on in many areas across the country.
People demonstrated in solidarity with the prisoners of conscience and their families, and demanded that they be released immediately. …source

Activist arrested in New York for defacing anti-Muslim poster
Guardian – Peter Beaumont – 26 September, 2012

Mona Eltahawy, the prominent Egyptian-American writer and activist, has been arrested in New York after spraying paint over a controversial poster on the subway that has been condemned for equating Muslims with “savages”.

The posters were put up in the city by the anti-Muslim American Freedom Defense Initiative, led by Pam Geller. They were approved by a US court, which ruled that they were “political” statements and protected by the first amendment, which guarantees free speech.

The poster states: “In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man.” Between two Stars of David, it adds: “Support Israel. Defeat Jihad.”

Eltahawy was arrested after a supporter of Geller’s initiative attempted to prevent her defacing the sign with a purple aerosol.

The posters are now displayed in 10 New York stations – including Grand Central and Times Square – after a court ruled that the local transport authority could not refuse the ads.

In a video posted online of the incident by the New York Post, Mona Eltahawy can be seen attempting to paint over the poster before she is tackled by a woman with a camera, who is identified as Pamela Hall.

“Mona, do you think you have the right to do this?” Eltahawy is asked. “I do actually,” Eltahawy replies, adding: “I think this is freedom of expression, just as [the ad] is freedom of expression.”

As the scuffle continues two police officers appear to then arrest Eltahawy, who says: “This is what happens in America when you non-violently protest.”

Eltahawy, who has written for this paper, was later charged with “criminal mischief” and “graffiti”.

During the Arab spring, Eltahawy was arrested in Cairo and suffered an assault by riot police which left her with two broken arms.

The Metropolitan Transport Authority (MTA) had originally ruled it would not permit the posters because they were demeaning, but was compelled to take the $6,000 (£3,700) ad after Geller’s group went to court.

Last month US district court judge Paul Engelmayer ruled that it is protected speech under the first amendment.

“Our hands are tied,” New York subway spokesman Aaron Donovan said. “Under our existing ad standards as modified by the injunction, the MTA is required to run the ad.”

The posters have attracted widespread condemnation including from Jewish figures. Among those who have spoken out against them is Rabbi Rachel Kahn-Troster, of Rabbis for Human Rights — North America, who wrote for CNN online: “As a rabbi, I find the ads deeply misguided and disturbing … The coded message makes clear who the savages are: those who support jihad, which in Geller’s mind includes all Muslims. She has called Islam ‘an extreme ideology, the most radical and extreme ideology on the face of the Earth’.

“As a Jew, I know the extreme to which baseless hatred can lead. And the Jewish community has been in the past a target of hatred in the United States. Geller’s message ignores the positive contributions that our Muslim friends, neighbours and colleagues make to our country every single day. …more

Freedom of Association in Bahrain
by Sayed Yousif – 26, September 2012 – Sayed Yousif Shehab

The organizations of labor in Bahrain fall into two categories; Trade Unions, which are subject to Trade Unions Law, and Societies, which form civil society organizations working under umbrella of Non-Governmental Organization Law, and overseen by Ministry of Social Development.

After the signing of the FTA with the US, Bahrain adopted some economic and political legislation to comply with the agreement conditions, though it is presented as reform project led by the ruler Hamad Bin Isa, who issued new laws on trade unions, telecommunication, intellectual property, environment, and governmental procurement.

As for trade union, the law which was issued in 2002 assured the right of labor to establish their own unions, nevertheless, it restricts their rights to strike, which shall be approved by three quarter of general assembly, and involve noticing the employer two weeks before commencement. Moreover, it is prohibited in all vital and important facilities, and shall avoid harming the property of the state, which are all unrealistic conditions.

When the law was issued at first, it was prohibiting setting up more than one union in each establishment. Nonetheless, governmental perception started to change after the general strike, which GFBTU called for in support for the majority of citizens who demonstrated at the Pearl Square, demanding political and socio-economic reform. Until that time, the labor movement was dominated by the opposition factions, mainly Shiite Islamists of Al-Wefaq Society and Leftists who support Wa’ad Society. Therefore, and as part of the comprehensive crackdown, the regime attempted to weaken GFBTU as sole representative and the only umbrella for all trade unions across the state by threatening its board of director members, dismissal, and last but not least, through funding competitive GONGO unions such as the Free Federation of Trade Unions, which was found in July, and comprise trade unions from various industries, which violates Article 8 in the amended law, that involve “similarities” between joined unions.
…more

The following article was written by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya before the non-aligned summit. It helps to understand the issues that were at stake and, in retrospect, to appraise Iran’s success. The Movement has been reactivated and a permanent secretariat established, to be chaired for the next three years by Iran, Egypt and Venezuela. Defying the U.S. verboten, the Egyptian President traveled to Tehran. While he vented his disagreement over Syria, in a significant move he also restored diplomatic relations with Iran. Ultimately, Tehran put Cairo in the limelight to nudge it toward an independent stance where it could act as a counterweight to Riyadh.

The NAM Summit, Iran, and Syria: A Coup against the West?
by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya – Voltaire Network – 26 September 2012

The gathering of NAM leaders will doubtlessly be an important event for Iran’s international prestige and status. For almost a week Tehran will be a key center of the world alongside the offices of the UN in New York City and Geneva. Not only will Iran be the venue for one of the largest international get-togethers of world leaders, but it will also be handed over the organization’s chairmanship from Arab powerhouse Egypt. Iran will retain this position as the leader of the NAM for the next few years and will be able to speak on behalf of the international organization. Up to a certain degree this position will allow Tehran to have more influence in world affairs. At least this is the view in Tehran where none of the significance of the NAM summit has been lost on Iranian politicians and officials who one after another are pointing out the importance of the NAM summit for their country.

The NAM is the second largest international organization and body in the world after the United Nations. With 120 full members and 17 observer members it includes most the countries and governments of the world. About two-thirds of the UN’s member states are full NAM members. The African Union (AU), Afro-Asian People’s Solidarity Organization, Commonwealth of Nations, Hostosian National Independence Movement, Kanak Socialist National Liberation Front, Arab League, Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), South Center, United Nations, and World Peace Council are all observers too.

The US and NATO which very generously and misleadingly throw around the term “international community” when they are referring to themselves are really a global minority that pale in comparison to the international grouping formed by the NAM. Any agreements or consensuses drilled out by the NAM represent not only the bulk of the international community, but also the non-imperialist international majority or those countries that have traditionally been viewed as the “have-nots.” Unlike at the UN, the “silent majority” will have its voice heard with little adulteration and perversion from the confederates of NATOistan.

The NAM gathering in Tehran signifies an important event. It demonstrates that Iran is genuinely not internationally isolated like the images that the United States and major European Union powers, such as the UK and France, like to continuously project. Atlanticist media are scrambling to explain this situation and the Israelis are clearly upset.

Undoubtedly, Iran will use the international gathering to its advantage and make use of the NAM to garnish support for its international positions and to help try to end the crisis in Syria. The US-supported siege of Syria will be denounced at the NAM conference and diplomatic blows will be dealt against the US and its clients and satellites. Already the hurried ministerial conference about the fighting in Syria organized by the Iranian Foreign Ministry in Tehran before the emergency summit held by the OIC in Mecca was a prelude to the diplomatic support that Iran will give the Syrian Arab Republic at the 2012 NAM summit.

Despite Algerian and Iranian opposition, Syria was expelled from the OIC at the behest of Saudi Arabia and the petro-monarchies. While the OIC emergency summit in Mecca may have been a political and diplomatic blow to Damascus, the situation is expected to be much different at the NAM summit in Tehran. The Syrians will also be present in Tehran and able to face their Arab antagonists from the petro-monarchies of the Persian Gulf.

The Genesis of the Non-Aligned Movement and Third World

The Non-Aligned Movement and concept of a “Third World” have their roots in the period of de-colonization after the Second World War when the empires of Western Europe began to crumble and formally end. This superficially represented an end to the domination of the weak by the strong. In reality, colonialism was merely substituted with foreign aid and loans by the declining empires. In this context, the British would offer aid to their former colonies while the French and Dutch would do the same with their former colonies to maintain control over them. Thus, the exploitation never truly ended and the world was maintained in a state of disequilibrium. The United Nations was also hostage to the big powers and ignored many important issues concerning places like Africa and Latin America.

What brought the formation of the NAM about was firstly the rejection of domination and interference by the countries of the “Global North” – a term that will be defined shortly – and the concept of co-existence that India and China carved out in 1954 when New Delhi recognized Tibet as a part of China.

The NAM started as an Asian initiative, which sought to address the tense relations between China and the US on one hand and China’s relations with other Asian powers on the other hand. The newly independent Asian states wanted to avoid any ratcheting up of the Cold War in their continent, especially after the disastrous US-led military intervention in Korea, or the manipulation of India and Indonesia as buffer states against the People’s Republic of China. This Asian initiative quickly broadened and gained the support of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Egypt, and the various leaders of the nationalist independence movements in Africa that were fighting for their liberation against NATO countries like Britain, France, and Portugal.

Yugoslavian President Josip Broz Tito, Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, and Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser were the three main forces behind the organization’s creation. Kwame Nkrumah, the Marxist pan-African leader of Ghana, and Ahmed Sukarno, the leader of Indonesia, would also put their weight behind the NAM and join Tito, Nehru, and Nasser. These leaders and their countries did not view the Cold War as an ideological struggle. This was a smokescreen. The Cold War was a power struggle from their perspectives and ideology was merely used as a justification.

The Different Worlds of the Cold War

The word “non-alignment” was first used on the world stage by Vengalil Krishnan Krishna Menon, India’s ambassador to the United Nations, while the term “Third World” was first used by the French scholar Alfred Sauvy. Third World is a debated political term and some find it both deregulatory and ethnocentric. To the point of confusion the phrase Third World is inextricably intertwined with the concept of non-alignment and the NAM.

Both the NAM and, especially, Third World are wrongly and carelessly used as synonyms for the Developing and Under-developing Worlds or as economic indicators. Most Third World countries were underprivileged former colonies or less affluent states in places like Africa and Latin America that were the victims of imperialism and exploitation. This has led to the general identification or misidentification of the NAM countries and the Third World with concepts of poverty. This is wrong and not what either of the terms means.

Third World was a concept that developed during the Cold War period to distinguish those countries that were not formally a part of the First World that was formed by the Western Bloc and either the Eastern/Soviet Bloc and Communist World that formed the Second World. In theory most these Third Worlders were neutral and joining the NAM was a formal expression of this position of non-alignment.

Aside from being considered Second Worlders, communist states like the People’s Republic of China and Cuba have widely been classified as parts of the Third World and have considered themselves as parts of the third global force. Chairman Mao’s views defined through his concept of Three Worlds also supported the classification of communist states like Angola, China, Cuba, and Mozambique as Third Worlders, because they did not belong to the Soviet Bloc like Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and Poland.

In the most orthodox of interpretations of the political meaning of Third World, the communist state of Yugoslavia was a part of the Third World. In the same context, Iran due to its ties to NATO and its membership in the US-controlled Central Treaty Organization (CENTO) was politically a part of the First World until the Iranian Revolution in 1979. Thus, reference to Yugoslavia as a Second World country and Iran as a Third World country prior to 1979 are incorrect.

The term Third World has also given rise to the phrase “Global South.” This name is based on the geographically southward situation of the Third World on the map as opposed to the geographically northward situation of the First and Second Worlds, which both began to collectively be called the “Global North.” The names Global North and Global South came to slowly replace the terms First, Second, and Third World, especially since the Cold War ended and the Soviet Union collapsed.

Bandung, Belgrade, and Non-Aligned Institution Building

The NAM formed when the Third Worlders who were caught between the Atlanticists and the Soviets during the Cold War tried to formalize their third way or force. The NAM would be born after the Bandung Conference in 1955, which infuriated the US and Western Bloc who saw it as a sin against their global interests.

Contrarily to Western Bloc views, the Soviet Union was much more predisposed to accepting the NAM. Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev even proposed in 1960 that the UN be managed by a “troika” composed of the First, Second, and Third Worlds instead of its Western-influenced secretariat in New York City that was colluding with the US to remove Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba from power in the Democratic Republic of Congo, as well as other independent world leaders.

Fidel Castro and Cuba, which hosted the NAM’s summit in 1979 when Iran joined as its eighty-eighth member, would actually argue that the Second World and communist movements were the “natural allies” of the Third World and the NAM. The favorable attitudes of Nasser and Nehru towards the Soviet Union and the Soviet Bloc’s support for various national liberation movements also lends credence towards the Cuban argument about the Second and Third World alliance against the capitalist exploitation and imperialist policies of the First World.

The first NAM summit would be held in the Yugoslavian capital of Belgrade in 1961 under the chairmanship of Marshall Tito. The summit in Belgrade would call for an end to all empires and colonization. Tito, Nehru, Nasser, Nkrumah, Sukarno and other NAM leaders would demand that Western Europeans end their colonial roles in Africa and let African peoples decide their own fates.

A preparatory conference was also held a few months earlier in Cairo by Gamal Abdel Nasser. At the preparatory meetings non-alignment was defined by five points:

(1) Non-aligned countries must follow an independent policy of co-existence of nations with varied political and social systems;

(2) Non-aligned countries must be consistent in their support for national independence;

(3) Non-aligned countries must not belong to a multilateral alliance concluded in the context of superpower or big power politics;

(4) If non-aligned countries have bilateral agreements with big powers or belonged to a regional defense pact, these agreements should not have been concluded in context of the Cold War;

(5) If non-aligned states cede military bases to a big power, these bases should not be granted in the context of the Cold War.

All the NAM conferences to follow would cover vital issues in the years to come that ranged from the inclusion of the People’s Republic of China in the UN, the fighting in the Democratic Republic of Congo, African wars of independence against Western European countries, opposition to apartheid and racism, and nuclear disarmament. Furthermore, the NAM has traditionally been hostile to Zionism and condemned the occupation of Palestinian, Lebanese, Syrian, and Egyptian territories by Israel, which has earned it the seamlessly never-ending aversion of Tel Aviv.

…more

Two killed as Saudi security forces try to arrest Shiite man
27 September, 2012 – Reuters

RIYADH: Two men were shot dead on Wednesday when Saudi security forces stormed a house to arrest a wanted man in the Qatif region, the focal point of unrest by minority Shiite Muslims.

Shiites have demonstrated against what they perceive as systematic discrimination in the Sunni Muslim-dominated kingdom. But Saudi Arabia, the world’s top oil producer, has avoided the sort of broad uprising that has ousted Arab autocrats elsewhere.

Saudi authorities were trying to arrest one of 23 men who the government said were wanted for stirring unrest in Qatif, where 15 people have been killed since November in clashes and protests.

“He and his companions opened fire on the security forces and, in dealing with the situation as it required, it resulted in the death of the wanted man … and one of his companions, and the wounding of two others and the arrest of a third,” Saudi Press Agency reported, citing the government security spokesman.

The wanted man was identified as Khaled Abdulkarim Hassan al-Labad. Activists in the village of Awamiya in Qatif, the center of Saudi Shiite unrest, said a third man was killed in a car. They distributed photos showing wounds in his neck.

A Saudi Interior Ministry spokesman described that as an unrelated incident in which one man died and another was injured after their vehicle was fired at by unknown assailants.

“It was a separate incident and an investigation is ongoing,” the spokesman said. Preliminary information suggests a person wanted by the security forces for criminal activity in Qatif may have been involved in the attack, he added.
…more

A Typical Day in Bahrain
27 September, 2012 – By Mohamed Bardastani – The Minaret

A couple of years ago, poverty, corruption, dictatorship, inequality, discrimination, unemployment and economic hardship were the main headlines covering the Arab region. Today, many of these struggles still exist. However, now, with a single big change: hope. This hope stems from the aftermath of the Arab Spring, which is a series of revolutionary protests that took place in the Middle East and North Africa. Protests across the Arab world, generally speaking, shared very similar demands. The people protested primarily against the power balance in the Arab region where the few elites control the wealth and power of the country while the rest of the population is completely sidelined from any real involvement in the political decision-making mechanism. The people also demanded greater freedoms and an end to prolonged years of unelected autocrats and dictators.

Ever since the Arab Spring started, I was distanced from it geographically. However, I kept a close eye on the socio-political changes that swept the region. My participation was confined to observing, reading the news and tweeting about the events that took part in the Middle East and North Africa. Things changed as I headed back home to Bahrain for my break in August this year. I found myself this time at the height of the events, and I feel compelled to share my experience.

Just a week after landing in Bahrain, Hussam Al-Hadad, 16, was killed by Bahraini riot police as a result of excessive use of force; mainly bird’s shotgun, an internationally prohibited weapon. He was apparently taking part in clashes between riot police and protesters. First of all, let me explain that Bahrain, as a part of the Arab Spring has been rocked with pro-democracy protests since Feb. 14, 2011. The government dealt with the protests using sheer brutality, and since then clashes between police and protesters have been the norm of Bahrain for the past year and a half.

I decided to go to Hussam’s funeral to honor him. I purposely went very early to Muharraq, where the funeral took place in order to avoid the hassle of being questioned by the police about my destination. Nevertheless, as my friend and I approached Muharraq, there was a police checkpoint. A policeman asked us, “Where are you going?” We replied with our rehearsed, fully memorized answer: “We’re going to the mall.” As if the police didn’t already know from our faces and names (it is very easy in Bahrain to distinguish people based on their sectarian affiliation) that we intended on going to the funeral. He was very polite and said he’d prefer if we went back home. My friend and I insisted that we would get out of Muharraq quickly, so he let us in. As we continued driving around to pass time, the signs of a police state in Bahrain were too conspicuous. Police cars and checkpoints were everywhere, armed cars barricaded almost every corner and a helicopter hovered over the locked down area where riot police were in a state of alert preparing to face the angry mourners. We finally parked our car somewhere we thought to be smart, between the cemetery, where the martyr is buried, and the Ma’tam (a Shiite religious establishment) where the crowds typically initiate protests in the case of a martyr’s funeral.

The area surrounding the Ma’tam was in complete lock-down. Police were everywhere. We had to walk around carefully and maneuver through Zaraneeg—narrow streets—of Muharraq to get to the Ma’tam. We were completely lost. There were a couple people that seemed to be heading toward the same destination. Nevertheless, it was too risky to ask them for directions, as they might not be Rabu’ena (our allies). We tried to follow the voice of a Quran recitation until one man volunteered to take us to the Mat’am. At last, we were among the crowds of men and women waiting for the procession to begin. We waited for people to gather then headed to the cemetery to honor the martyr. The angry crowds of men and women started shouting the usual slogans, “down with the king; people want to overthrow the regime; we kneel only to God.” As I passed through the narrow streets of Muharraq, I noticed the very expressive graffiti; a culture in Bahrain, whether for pro or anti-government. Given the tight security and censorship of newspapers and opposition websites, many people resort to graffiti to express anger and frustration against the Bahraini government, especially in the more impoverished areas. Most anti-government graffiti read: ‘down with the king, step down Khalifa’ (the prime minister), pictures of martyrs and detainees, or Rumooz (the prominent political and human rights activists). On the other hand, pro-government graffiti read: ‘we are all Khalifa’, ‘Khalifa is the glory of the country’, etc. Graffiti serves as just another proxy of the political friction in Bahrain.

As we continued marching, it was not long before I heard the sound of shots and the crowd retracting. I felt something strange. My eyes, nose and mouth were burning. I was reacting to the infamous Bahraini tear gas. A man offered me a bottle of water and I grabbed it and washed my face thoroughly.

The police dispersed us very well. I, among others, headed back to the Mat’am while the majority of people headed to the cemetery. Though in small groups, defying the role of riot police. We were in a state of anticipation, waiting for imminent danger, because the police-rioters usually end up with a large number of causalities. There were too many events and emotions going on; I had a hard time processing them altogether in a short span of time. I saw one mother with her eyes telling what her tongue couldn’t, wondering whether her son was coming back home safely that night. Bahraini prisons are very notorious; the BICI report documented cases of electrocution, torture and sleep deprivation. I saw a father standing firmly for his beliefs and rights, “Why do they arrest us? We’re only mourning whom they killed! What’s wrong with that?” It was a long day. I spent most of my time back and forth in the Ma’tam and outside of it. I managed to leave with my friend unscathed, after making sure no riot police were close by. …more

Assange: Obama Exploiting Arab Spring in Campaign
By DAVID STRINGER – Associated Press – 27 September, 2012

(AP) WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange accused President Barack Obama on Thursday of seeking to exploit the Arab uprisings for personal political gain, as he addressed a sideline meeting of the U.N. General Assembly via videolink from his hideout at a London embassy.

The Australian activist has sheltered inside Ecuador’s embassy in London — beyond the reach of British police — since June 19, when he sought refuge after he exhausted all legal routes to avoid extradition to Sweden for questioning over sex crimes allegations.

Assange and his supporters claim that the Swedish sex case is part of a Washington-orchestrated plot to make him stand trial in the United States over his work with WikiLeaks, which has published thousands of secret U.S. diplomatic cables and other documents. Both Sweden and the U.S. reject that claim.

At a sideline meeting organized by Ecuador, the activist attempted to draw parallels between himself and the instigators of the Arab Spring — claiming that they had all been let down by Obama.

“It must come as a surprise to Tunisians for Barack Obama to say the U.S. supported the forces of change in Tunisia,” Assange said, speaking from Ecuador’s tiny apartment-sized London mission.
UN General Assembly Assange.JPEG
AP
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange addresses a… View Full Caption

He claimed that uprisings across the Arab world had been inspired, in part, by his organization’s disclosures about despotic rulers, including Tunisia’s deposed President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali.

Assange claimed that Obama — whose administration he accuses of building a criminal case against WikiLeaks and of harassing its staff — was seeking to exploit the reforms of the Arab Spring during his reelection campaign.

“Mohamed Bouazizi did not set himself on fire so that Barack Obama could get reelected,” Assange told the meeting, referring to the 2011 self-immolation by a Tunisian fruit vendor which sparked the uprising that toppled Ben Ali.

Assange, who made no reference to the Swedish sexual misconduct case as he addressed diplomats, also accused Britain and Sweden of failing to provide guarantees that he would not face extradition to the U.S. to help preserve close military and intelligence links with Washington.

Both European nations insist that Assange must be sent to Sweden under international and European law, and that they cannot legally offer any pledges to refuse a possible future U.S. extradition request.

Ecuador’s President Rafael Correa has granted Assange asylum, but if he steps outside the country’s London embassy he will be arrested by police who surround the building.

The case has left Britain, Ecuador and Sweden at a diplomatic impasse. Foreign ministers from Quito and London will meet Thursday in New York, as Assange marks 100 days holed up in the embassy.

Ecuador’s foreign minister Ricardo Patino told the meeting that he believed there were “many ways to achieve a solution,” without specifying potential routes. British Foreign Secretary William Hague said Tuesday that he saw “no sign of any break through” in the saga.

Britain’s foreign ministry said it was “committed to seeking a diplomatic solution” with Ecuador, but insisted that it was legally obliged to send Assange to Sweden. …more

NYPD beefs up presence near anti-Muslim posters
26 September, 2012 – Al Akhbar

A battle against anti-Islam ads in New York subway stations is heating up, as critics step up criticisms of the pro-Israel posters, prompting the New York Police Department to beef up its presence at the stations.

NYPD deployed additional troops to ten subway stations where the anti-Islam ads stand, according to a report by the New York Post Tuesday.

The newspaper also published a video to its website showing well-known Egyptian-American journalist, Mona Altahawy, apparently trying to cover one of the posters with pink spray paint. A woman named Pamela Hall mounted a camera and stood between the ad and Eltahawy. A screaming match between the two ensued, as a New York Post camera crew stood nearby filming the incident.

It is not clear how Hall, reportedly an Islamophobic blogger, along with the newspaper photographers, happened to be at the same time and place where the high-profile Eltahawy hoped to commit her protest act.

Eltahawy was arrested after police arrived at the scene of the altercation.

The posters which reads “In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel, defeat Jihad”, inspired a wave of criticisms from activists in the US. A Muslim lobby group, the Council of American Islamic Relations, has called on New Yorkers to repudiate hate speech.

The advertisement, funded by the pro-Israel American Freedom Defense Initiative, was initially rejected by the city’s transportation authority.

One of the posters was torn down by a passerby just hours after it was posted. …source

The move by Washington last week is, in effect, giving full approval to the MEK’s terror and assassination campaign in Iran. It is a stark reminder of Washington’s unwavering warpath towards Iran.

US Sponsored Covert War on Iran: Washington Gives Full Approval to Terrorist Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK)
By Finian Cunningham – Global Research – 26 September, 2012

Here’s a thought experiment: imagine that there is a terrorist network in the USA that has been responsible for hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths over several decades.

The group declares itself dedicated to destroying the US government and has been involved in car bombing urban centres, kidnapping and murdering members of the country’s security forces, and assassinating government scientists, as well as perpetrating countless random murders on businessmen and ordinary families.

Now imagine that the Iranian government announces a new policy in which it does not consider the above clandestine group a terrorist entity. That policy means that the network is free to raise money in Iran to fund its terror campaign against US citizens and to lobby for political support among Iranian lawmakers and ambassadors.

We can safely conclude that in such a far-fetched scenario, the US government would immediately declare war on Iran and proceed to carpet bomb that country mercilessly – with the Western corporate news media blasting righteous endorsements of vengeance.

Yet this scenario of aiding and abetting terrorism is far from far-fetched when it comes to actual US policy towards Iran. Just last week, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton officially de-listed the Iranian Mujahideen e-Khalq (MEK) from its official terror watch list.

That the MEK is a terror group is beyond dispute, despite the US government’s apparent change of opinion. The term “terror group” applies objectively and accurately. It is not just a pejorative propaganda label used by the Iranian government to blacken some dissident group. Since the 1980s, the MEK network itself claims that it has killed 40,000 Iranians whom it considers legitimate targets because they are “loyal” to, that is because they are citizens of, the Islamic Republic. Lower estimates of fatalities are put at around 17,000. Proportionate to its population that would give an upper equivalent of 150,000 dead Americans – a death toll suffered by Iran which is 50 times greater than that ascribed to 9/11.

The MEK, also known as MKO, has colluded with foreign powers for the stated goal of destroying the Islamic Republic of Iran. Most notably, between 1980 and 1988 when Iran was facing a US-backed war of aggression by Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, the MEK functioned as subversives and shock troops operating “behind enemy lines” to betray their own people.

For that reason, the group has negligible, if any, popular support within Iran. It cannot claim the slightest modicum of popular mandate that might otherwise serve to give its activities a veneer of legitimacy as an “insurgency” or “freedom struggle.” Indeed, it is more accurate to call the group a sort of terrorist cult rather than a political movement. Since 2003, the MEK has not even had a base within Iran, operating clandestinely out of Iraq.

Such is the organisation’s fringe status, that even Iranian political opponents of the government in Tehran deprecated the US government move to officially de-list it as a terror group. That indicates how extreme the network is viewed by the Iranian population.

The Western mainstream media claim that Washington’s clearance of the MEK was given because the group “has renounced violence.” That renunciation was officially made 10 years ago. That is also allegedly why the European Union and the British government removed the network from their terror lists in 2009 and 2008.

How these Western governments can maintain this charade with a straight face is rather astounding. The MEK and other Iranian terror gangs, such as the al-Qaeda-linked Jundallah, have been actively plying violence unabated against the citizenry over the past decade. Even Washington officials admit it. Following the murder of Iranian nuclear scientist Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan on 11 January earlier this year with a magnetic bomb attached to his car in northern Tehran, anonymous US officials disclosed to American mainstream media that the killing was the work of the MEK in collusion with Israel’s Mossad.

Since 2007, five Iranian nuclear scientists have been assassinated. The MEK and Mossad are strongly implicated in all these murders and much worse.

Why US officials should have authoritative knowledge of such MEK activities is quite simple. It is because the US government and its military intelligence support these very terrorist activities, along with Mossad and Britain’s MI6. During the George W Bush presidency, congressional leaders secretly approved a budget of $400 million to arm and fund the MEK and Jundallah. According to investigative American journalist Seymour Hersh, US Joint Special Operations Command trained members of the MEK at a secret site in Nevada between 2005 and 2009. Training included use of weapons and explosives in the black arts of sabotage, or, in short, terrorism. During the American illegal occupation of Iraq following 2003, the MEK was given protection and immunity at a dedicated facility, known as Camp Ashraf, in Iraq from where they would launch operations into Iran. The camp has since been closed down following the large-scale American troop withdrawal from the country. …more

Saudi frees Shiite cleric held in restive east
26 September, 2012 – Lebanon News

Saudi authorities released a Shiite cleric in Eastern Province, home to the kingdom’s minority Shiites and scene of sporadic anti-government protests, 24 hours after he was held, activists said Wednesday.

The cleric’s website alradhy.com also reported that “scholar Sheikh Hussein Radhy was released,” without giving further details.

Activists, who spoke to AFP on condition of anonymity, said that police had arrested Sheikh Radhy at his home in the eastern town of Amran on Monday night.

They said he was likely to have been detained for taking part in protests last week against the anti-Islam film “Innocence of Muslims” that sparked a wave of violent demonstrations throughout the Arab and Muslim world.

Interior Ministry spokesperson Mansur al-Turki had told AFP he was “not aware” of the arrest, but added the cleric may have been brought in “just for questioning.”

Sheikh Radhy is one of about 70 Saudi Shiite clerics who released a statement addressed to “decision-makers in the Muslim world” demanding they take a clear stance on the anti-Islam film.

Hundreds of Saudis took to the streets in the Shiite-populated east last week in protest over the film, despite a long-standing ban on demonstrations in the kingdom.

Since early 2011, several towns and cities in the east have seen sporadic protests and confrontations between police and Shiites, who allege they are marginalized and number about two million.

Unrest erupted after an outbreak of violence between Shiite pilgrims and religious police in the Muslim holy city of Medina in February 2011.

The protests escalated when the kingdom led a force of Gulf troops into neighboring Bahrain the following month to help crush a Shiite-led uprising against the Sunni monarchy there.

…more

Freedom on the Net 2012 – Bahrain
by Freedom House – 25 September, 2012

Introduction

Bahrain has been connected to the internet since 1995 and currently has one of the highest internet penetration rates in the Middle East. However, as more people have gained access to new technologies, the government has increasingly attempted to curtail their use for obtaining and disseminating politically sensitive information. In 1997, an internet user was arrested for the first time for sending information to an opposition group outside the country,[1] and over the last three years, more internet users have been arrested for online activity.[2]

On February 14, 2011, Bahrainis joined the wave of revolutions sweeping across the Middle East and North Africa, taking to the streets in Manama to call for greater political freedom and protest against the monarchy of King Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa. Similar to the other Arab Spring countries, online activism played a vital role in Bahrain’s demonstrations. In response, the National Safety Status (emergency law) was initiated in March 2011 for two and a half months, leading to an intensive punitive campaign against bloggers and internet users (among others) that was characterized by mass arrests, incommunicado detention, torture, military trials, harsh imprisonment sentences, and dismissal from work and study based on online posts or mobile content. An online activist died in custody under torture in April 2011.[3]

Censorship of online media is implemented under the 2002 Press Law and was extended to mobile telephones in 2010.[4] The use of BlackBerry services to disseminate news is banned. In 2002, the Ministry of Information made its first official attempt to block websites containing content critical of the government, and today over 1,000 websites are blocked, including individual pages on certain social-networking sites.[5] Surveillance of online activity and phone calls is widely practiced, and officers at road security checkpoints actively search mobile content.[6]

Obstacles to Access

According to the United Nations’ e-Government Readiness report of 2010, Bahrain ranks first on the telecommunications infrastructure index in the Middle East,[7] and the number of internet users has risen rapidly, from a penetration rate of 28 percent in 2006 to 77 percent in 2011.[8] In 2011, there were approximately 290,000 internet subscriptions, of which 19 percent were ADSL, 37 percent were wireless, and 44 percent were mobile broadband.[9] Dial-up connections are almost non-existent, and ADSL use has declined with the increased use of wireless internet. Broadband prices have fallen by nearly 40 percent between 2010 and 2011, but it remains significantly more expensive than the average among countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD),[10] and restrictions on speeds and download limits still exist. Nevertheless, internet access is widely available at schools, universities, shopping malls and coffee shops, where Bahrainis often gather for work and study.

Bahrain has one of the highest mobile phone penetration rates in the region, with nearly 1.7 million mobile subscribers and a mobile penetration rate of 128 percent in 2011.[11] The latest generation of mobile phones such as Apple’s iPhone is widely available in the country, but they are still very expensive. Although BlackBerry phones are popular among young people and the business community, in April 2010 the authorities banned BlackBerry users from sending news bulletins through text messages, threatening those who violated the ban with legal action.[12] …more

Bahrain activist Zainab al-Khawaja given jail sentence
26 September, 2012 – BBC

Zainab al-Khawaja is still facing eight other charges related to participating in protests.

A court in Bahrain has sentenced the prominent pro-democracy activist, Zainab al-Khawaja, to two months in prison.

A judicial source said she had been found guilty of destroying government property, which her lawyer said related to her ripping up a picture of the king.

The court also reportedly adjourned until October two cases – taking part in an illegal demonstration and entering a prohibited area.

Ms Khawaja has been detained several times in the past nine months.

She has been on trial several times for taking part in illegal gatherings and insulting officials, and was sentenced to a month in prison in May.

Her father, Abdulhadi, is among eight activists and opposition figures sentenced to life for allegedly plotting to overthrow the state. Earlier this month, they lost an appeal against their convictions by a military tribunal.

‘Harsh sentence’

Following Wednesday’s court ruling in Manama, Ms Khawaja’s lawyer, Mohammed al-Jishi, said he hoped she might be released soon because she had been remanded in custody since 2 August while awaiting trial. There was no immediate word from officials.

Mr Jishi also said the custodial sentence was harsh because the punishment for tearing up a picture of the king was typically a fine.

Ms Khawaja was still facing eight more charges related to participating in protests, he added. Three separate trials are currently under way.

The first trial is an appeal hearing relating to a charge of insulting an officer at a military hospital. She was acquitted in May, but prosecutors appealed against the verdict.

The second is examining charges of attending an illegal gathering and “inciting hatred against the regime”, and the third, obstructing traffic.

Bahrain has been wracked by unrest since demonstrations in February 2011, demanding more democracy and an end to discrimination against the majority Shia Muslim community by the Sunni royal family.

At least 60 people, including several police officers, have been killed, hundreds have been injured and thousands jailed. …more

A remarkable, moving story. Anyone following Bahrain should read this story, it will move your heart. Phlipn.

Everything is white: My heart, my clothes, and my hair
(1 of 6 parts) – Bahrain Mirror

Bahrain Mirror (Exclusive): The night before 14th February I browsed the Internet searching Facebook pages covering the hyped 14th February revolution, named “Day of Rage.” Back then Twitter was not widely popular as it is now. I was wondering: Is it going to be like the Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions? I was worried, my intuition told me something big and painful was coming to Bahrain, no doubt about that. And my intuition is usually right. I had a premonition: People would gather and a brutal security crackdown would come down on them without expecting it. How would it play out though, I did not know.

The Roundabout was Bahrain’s pulse

On the 15th of February, the first rally at the roundabout took place. I got there at three in the afternoon, and the protesters were still small in number. I parked my car close to the sidewalk of the roundabout. Moments later I started seeing hordes of people as the masses started coming from every angle. I was amazed and scared from a security assault. I moved my car close to Dana Mall. People of all ages, children, women, young men, the elderly, pregnant women, disabled, and others on wheelchairs. It was a magical ceremony that turned into reality. I could not take it all in, specially that it was happening in Bahrain. The Lulu roundabout monument turned into a magnet that pulled people to it; like the holy Kaaba in Mecca and the people were like the pilgrims that were visiting from all the towns and villages .

The large area around the flyover was filled with people, singing national songs, clapping, holdings hands that were moving like waves, and chanting slogans they had borrowed from countries that went through revolutions “The People want the downfall of the regime.” They hung banners bearing the same slogan. I was still overwhelmed by this dream, I didn’t expect the people of Bahrain to be in unity to this extent. This is a population that is brought together not by happiness by as much pain and misery, that made it go out and protest, especially after the fall of the first martyr. I decided not to go back home for lunch, but rather to work – to inspect the Resuscitation Room.

The next day my life took a different path. I was teaching in the Health Sciences Faculty, and finished around 7 or 8 in the evening. After that I would change into my jeans trousers and T – shirt and sports shoes, carry my white lab coat along with my dreams and concerns, and go straight to the roundabout. My life at home stopped, just as my social life did. The roundabout became the centre of my life. Where my heart, and hopes, were. There I would smell sweet freedom. The idea came up to set up a medical tent there. Our first concern was people’s health and safety. It was the first tent that was erected in the area. It was fitted with equipment under the supervision of medical volunteers. Dr Mariam Al Jalahma allowed the disbursement of medicine (I have a written document of that). We worked on educating people about health, blood sugar and high pressure symptoms, and car accidents. I was walking on air – excited and ecstatic that I would not feel tired. I found myself in my real profession, volunteer work that I am passionate about. I would even call my friends at the hospital, asking them if they needed my assistance I would be available here and there, one foot was here, and the other was there .

Thursday’s Wound

Medical staff demonstration to Lulu roundabout

On the 17th of February at 6:30 am I arrived at the Faculty of Health Sciences where I taught. I didn’t hear about the bloody crackdown yet. On my way to Salmaniya hospital the roads were empty and quiet. I got to the college, and went directly to my office and prepared coffee. Then I went to inspect – the students had not arrived and the classes were empty. I received a call from the Emergency medical team saying “Leave the college and come here, the roundabout has been attacked.” I went back to my office, changed into my roundabout gear, and my white coat over it. I got to the emergency unit and saw that the number of staff is enough, so I went to help the paramedics. I called the medical tent “how is the situation?” They replied “Come here and get first aid.” I got into the ambulance with the things they asked for. I went there to see a sight that put me in shock; a hurricane of chaos, clouds of tear gas, the sounds of stun grenades, and yelling. I got out of the ambulance to face that flurry, and out of haste I fell on my knees with the equipment. Someone helped me and quickly took me to his car to protect me. He got me in the car but I yelled “let me out! let me go! I want to help the people .” …more

The Right thinks it has a winning issue in mocking President Obama for “leading from behind” on international crises like last year’s uprising in Libya. But a new study finds Americans leery of more war, supportive of diplomacy and eager for less military spending, says Lawrence S. Wittner.


Americans Sour on Endless War
25 September, 2012 – By Lawrence S. Wittner – Consortinumnews.com

In the midst of a nationwide election campaign in which many politicians trumpet their support for the buildup and deployment of U.S. military power around the world, the American public’s disagreement with such measures is quite remarkable. Indeed, many signs point to the fact that most Americans want to avoid new wars, reduce military spending, and support international cooperation.

The latest evidence along these lines is a nationwide opinion survey just released as a report (“Foreign Policy in the New Millennium”) by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. Conducted in late May and early June 2012, the survey resulted in some striking findings.

A U.S. soldier in Afghanistan fires an MA-2, .50-caliber machine gun, in a training exercise at the U.S. base in Afghanistan’s Farah province on Sept. 22, 2012. (Photo credit: U.S. Defense Department photo by Staff Sgt. Jonathan Lovelady)

One is that most Americans are quite disillusioned with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan during the past decade. Asked about these conflicts, 67 percent of respondents said they had not been worth fighting. Indeed, 69 percent said that, despite the war in Afghanistan, the United States was no safer from terrorism.

Naturally, these attitudes about military intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan fed into opinions about future military involvement. Eighty-two percent of those surveyed favored bringing U.S. troops home from Afghanistan by 2014 or by an earlier date. Majorities also opposed maintaining long-term military bases in either country. And 71 percent agreed that “the experience of the Iraq war should make nations more cautious about using military force to deal with rogue states.”

Certainly Americans seem to believe that their own military footprint in the world should be reduced. In the Chicago Council survey, 78 percent of respondents said that the United States was playing the role of a world policeman more than it should. Presented with a variety of situations, respondents usually stated that they opposed the use of U.S. military force.

For example, a majority opposed a U.S. military response to a North Korean invasion of South Korea. Or, to take an issue that is frequently discussed today – Iran’s possible development of nuclear weapons – 70 percent of respondents opposed a U.S. military strike against that nation with the objective of destroying its nuclear facilities.

Yes, admittedly, a small majority (53 percent) thought that maintaining superior military power was a “very important goal.” But this response was down by 14 points from 2002. Furthermore, to accomplish deficit reduction, 68 percent of respondents favored cutting U.S. spending on the military – up 10 points from 2010.

Nor are these opinions contradictory. After all, U.S. military spending is so vast – more than five times that of the number-two military spender, China – that substantial cuts in the U.S. military budget can be made without challenging U.S. military superiority.

It should be noted that American preferences are anti-military rather than “isolationist.” The report by the Chicago Council observes: “As they increasingly seek to cut back on foreign expenditures and avoid military entanglement whenever possible, Americans are broadly supportive of nonmilitary forms of international engagement and problem solving.” These range from “diplomacy, alliances, and international treaties to economic aid and decision making through the UN.”

For example, the survey found that 84 percent of respondents favored the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty (still un-ratified by the U.S. Senate), 70 percent favored the International Criminal Court treaty (from which the United States was withdrawn by President George W. Bush), and 67 percent favored a treaty to cope with climate change by limiting greenhouse gas emissions.

When asked about China, a nation frequently criticized by U.S. pundits and politicians alike, 69 percent of respondents believed that the United States should engage in friendly cooperation with that country.

The “isolationist” claim falls particularly flat when one examines American attitudes toward the United Nations. The Chicago Council survey found that 56 percent of respondents agreed that, when dealing with international problems, the United States should be “more willing to make decisions within the United Nations,” even if that meant that the United States would not always get its way.

Overall, then, Americans favor a less militarized U.S. government approach to world affairs than currently exists. Perhaps the time has come for politicians to catch up with them! …source

Bahrain: Human Rights and Political Wrongs
25 September, 2012 – Toby Jones – sada

In response to pointed criticism from the United Nations Human Rights Council, representatives of the Bahraini government claimed they would accept and implement over 150 of the council’s recommendations for the improvement of human rights and the treatment of prisoners. Foreign Minister Khalid bin Ahmed Al Khalifa remarked that “Our actions, more than our words, should dispel any doubts regarding [Bahrain’s] commitment to upholding human rights through the rule of law.” Despite this, there are real reasons to be skeptical that Manama is ready to turn the page. The government is certainly interested in pushing a more progressive image abroad, but the truth at home is that authorities remain committed to pursuing a hardline political agenda that invariably involves sustained suppression of activists.

For one, the crackdowns have only increased. In April 2011, police arrested, tortured, and subsequently sentenced Abd al-Hadi al-Khawaja, a dual citizen of Bahrain and Denmark, to life imprisonment. Though Khawaja had garnered considerable popularity for his criticism of the royal family (and of the prime minister, Khalifa bin Salman Al Khalifa, especially), his primary commitment had long been to the protection and advocacy of human rights—working to draw international attention to various abuses inside Bahrain. In July, Khawaja’s longtime friend and collaborator, Nabeel Rajab, was arrested and detained for criticizing the country’s leadership on Twitter—eventually being charged with organizing illegal protests and sentenced to three years’ imprisonment. Rajab’s appeal is scheduled to be heard in late September. Abd al-Hadi’s daughter, Zaynab al-Khawaja, was also detained in early August for participating in protests, and has taken considerable public risks in an effort to draw attention to regime brutality; as a result, she has faced periodic arrests over the last eighteen months and multiple charges that could keep her in prison for years.

As a consequence, Nabeel Rajab, the Khawajas, and other key human rights defenders have increasingly come to enjoy widespread popularity and significant political capital. This development of these new players deeply discomfits the government. The government has already deeply politicized the issue of human rights over the last year and a half; since early 2011 the regime has sought to use the uprising as a pretext for punishing its long-time political adversaries. Authorities moved early last year to round up what it considered its most contentious opponents—including Ebrahim Sharif, Abd al-Jalil Singace, Hassan Mushaima, Abd al-Wahab Hussein and others—and almost all outspoken opposition leaders. They justified their detentions as the result of the activists’ “radicalism”—a fictitious claim which served to undermine organizations that could rally a popular movement and constitute the most immediate threat to the regime’s survival.

What is remarkable, however, is that these new activities are not affiliated with the country’s mainstream political opposition societies—such as Al Wefaq or Haq. Whereas Al Wefaq and others have admirably sought (but nevertheless failed) to negotiate an end the crackdowns, Rajab and the Khawajas have remained committed to holding officials accountable and seeking justice for those traumatized and victimized since the uprising began, proving considerably more adept than the formal opposition at drawing international attention. In the absence of more credible leaders, Rajab and the Khawajas have become de facto symbols of popular opposition and for a platform that blends political opportunity with social justice. Along with well-known collaborators Said Yusuf al-Muhafda and Alaa Shehabi, both of whom have also faced periodic arrest, they have helped bring attention to both the government’s abuses and the ongoing resilience of opposition forces. Because they too have been subjected to abuse, their continued commitment to reporting events and supporting calls for accountability have also had the effect of inspiring protesters to carry on. While none of them have sought the kind of authority that comes with office, they have nevertheless become key political icons for much of the country’s restive community. Considering this high visibility and international rapport, perhaps it was just a matter of time before they landed in Bahrain’s dungeons. …more

Obama calls for Syria sanctions and end to Assad rule
25 September, 2012 – Agence France Presse – The Daily Star

UNITED NATIONS, Sept 25, 2012 (AFP) – US President Barack Obama on Tuesday demanded “sanctions and consequences” for atrocities in Syria and said President Bashar al-Assad’s rule must come to an end.

“The future must not belong to a dictator who massacres his people,” Obama told the UN General Assembly in a keynote address.

“If there is a cause that cries out for protest in the world today, it is a regime that tortures children and shoots rockets at apartment buildings.”

He told leaders at the UN headquarters: “As we meet here, we again declare that the regime of Bashar al-Assad must come to an end so that the suffering of the Syrian people can stop, and a new dawn can begin.”

Obama also warned that the international community must act to prevent the 18 month old uprising against Assad turning into “a cycle of sectarian violence.”

He said the United States wants a Syria “that is united and inclusive; where children don’t need to fear their own government, and all Syrians have a say in how they are governed — Sunnis and Alawites; Kurds and Christians.”

“That is the outcome that we will work for — with sanctions and consequences for those who persecute; and assistance and support for those who work for this common good,” Obama said.

“We believe that the Syrians who embrace this vision will have the strength and legitimacy to lead.”

Syria is one of the key topics at the UN assembly with growing western calls for action against Assad. Russia and China have vetoed three UN Security Council resolutions which could have led to sanctions.

…more

US drones “terrorize” communities: Report
25 September, 2012 – Al Akhbar

The US government’s drone program in Pakistan “terrorizes” local communities, kills large numbers of civilians and drives anti-American fervor in the country, a new study by the law schools of Stanford and New York University finds.

The study, titled “Living Under Drones,” finds that Pakistanis living in affected areas are afraid to attend public gatherings such as weddings and funerals as ground operators that guide the unmanned aircraft frequently mistake them as groups of al-Qaeda-linked fighters.

“Their presence terrorizes men, women, and children, giving rise to anxiety and psychological trauma among civilian communities,” the study reads. “Those living under drones have to face the constant worry that a deadly strike may be fired at any moment, and the knowledge that they are powerless to protect themselves.”

It adds: “These fears have affected behavior. The US practice of striking one area multiple times, and evidence that it has killed rescuers, makes both community members and humanitarian workers afraid or unwilling to assist injured victims.”

The study is based on interviews with victims, witnesses, humanitarian workers and medical professionals compiled over a nine-month period.

Drone attacks began being carried out in Pakistan under former US President George W. Bush, but the policy has been popularized under Barack Obama despite previous reports that they lead to a high number of civilian casualties.

There has been a dramatic increase in US drone strikes in Pakistan since May, when a NATO summit in Chicago failed to strike a deal to end a six-month blockade on convoys transporting supplies to coalition forces in Afghanistan.

This most recent study cites figures compiled by the Bureau for Investigative Journalism that finds between 2,562 and 3,325 people were killed in Pakistan between June 2004 and mid-September this year. Among them, between 474 and 881 were civilians, including 176 children.

In addition to the deaths, the bureau estimates that 1,300 people were injured in drone attacks in the same period.

It also refutes US claims that the drone program has made Americans safer through the targeted assassinations of dangerous militants.

“The dominant narrative about the use of drones in Pakistan is of a surgically precise and effective tool that makes the US safer by enabling ‘targeted killings’ of terrorists, with minimal downsides or collateral impacts. This narrative is false,” the report states. …more