19 Iranian Channels taken Off Air By Intelsat on US order
22 October, 2012 – Jafria News

JNN 22 Oct 2012 Brussels : The International Telecommunications Satellite Organization (Intelsat) has taken a number of Iranian channels off the air in Europe based on an order by the United States.

The US Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) has ordered the international broadcast services provider to shut down the Iranian channels, including Sahar, Jam-e-Jam, Islamic Republic of Iran News Network and al-Kowsar.

Press TV was not included in the list of the channels that have been removed.

However, the EU later told Press TV that Eutelsat had taken the decision on its own. Press TV has learned that Israeli lobbies have stepped up their pressure on international satellite companies to ban Iranian channels.

One of Europe’s leading satellite providers on Monday said it would terminate its contract with Iran’s broadcast company, IRIB, immediately pulling 19 state-owned television and radio channels off the air. saying that the decision was made by the European Union.

Viewers in the Middle East, Iran’s main cornerstone of influence, and Europe as well as those inside Iran who accessed the channels through the popular Hotbird satellite no longer have access to the channels.

Eutelsat Communications SA ETL.FR +0.52% said it stopped broadcasting the Iranian channels in light of European sanctions approved in March and a French regulatory decision. The move comes a little over a week after Iran escalated the jamming of Eutelsat satellites to censor broadcasts during recent protests over a plunge in the local currency.

The announcement came as the European Union on Monday approved new sanctions on Iran targeting financial institutions, trade, energy and shipping to urge Tehran to comply with its international obligations on its nuclear program. That was the latest effort by the bloc to bring Iran back to negotiations after a half-year of deadlocked talks. It was not those Monday sanctions that led to Eutelsat’s decision.

It also emerged Monday that the U.S. and the EU are looking to close loopholes in sanctions designed to impede Iran’s oil exports after they discovered that Tehran is secretly using offshore tax havens to help ship its crude.

Though Eutelsat’s decision to remove Iran’s government-owned channels isn’t related to the nuclear standoff, the move serves to isolate the Islamist Republic further. …more

Persian Perspective: A Chat with Ali Akbar Salehi, Foreign Minister of Iran
22 October, 2012 – World Policy Blog

Two days ago, The New York Times reported that the United States and Iran had agreed in principle to hold bilateral talks after the American presidential election was decided. Although the agreement seemed to reflect the devastating effectiveness of economic sanctions on Iran and a recognition that the current path of escalation is untenable, it was soon denied by both sides, with the Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi telling Fars News Agency, “We do not have anything called negotiations with the U.S.” In light of the final home stretch of the U.S. presidential election and today’s foreign policy-focused debate in Florida, it is easy to speculate as to why news of an agreement was both leaked by unnamed Obama administration officials and subsequently denied by the White House. But as always, many in the United States question the motivations of the Iranian power elite. The desire to pull back the curtain on Iran’s intentions regarding Israel, Turkey, Syria, and its own nuclear program only grows. Earlier this month, World Policy Journal editor David Andelman and World Policy Journal managing editor Christopher Shay sat down with Ali Akbar Salehi in New York to discuss Iran’s relations with the outside world. In an excerpt here, Salehi discusses Iran’s civilian nuclear hopes, the patriotism of the Iranian Jewish community, and how he felt about Benjamin Netanyahu’s ticking time bomb cartoon at the UN General Assembly. The full interview can be seen in the Winter 2012 issue of World Policy Journal, which will be released in mid-December.

WORLD POLICY JOURNAL: Your government has suggested that you’re interested only in obtaining a domestic nuclear fuel cycle, a self-contained fuel source for civilian reactors. In Saudi Arabia, the concern is that you will break out of that at some point, that something will happen and that you will develop a nuclear weapon. At that point, then, Saudi Arabia, perhaps Egypt, or others will then feel, in turn, compelled to do the same, to develop a nuclear capability. Are you concerned that this would touch off a dangerous spiral of nuclear competition in the Middle East?

ALI AKBAR SALEHI: To be very honest and open with you, Iran has already acquired nuclear technology in all its domains, from mining, conversion, turning it into fuel rods, nowadays fuel plates, designing reactors, research reactors, building, manufacturing centrifuges, enriching uranium, producing heavy water, and constructing our own heavy water reactor indigenously. So there’s nothing in the nuclear field that we have not really achieved, and the technology is within our reach. Those who think that we may be using this technology for other purposes, this is their own, I would say, ill-thinking. What can we do? We have already stated over and over that we have not intended to do anything else. If we wanted to take that approach, we would have detached ourselves from the NPT [Non-Proliferation Treaty]. There is in the treaty an article which says whoever is in the NPT, if they wish, they can get out of it with three months notice, and then free of the NPT, we could do whatever we wanted to do. But on the contrary, we are stressing the preservation of the integrity of the NPT, because we believe that the NPT is in our interest. The stronger the NPT becomes, the more immune we become to possible proliferation of nuclear weapons in the region and in other places in the world. And here our Supreme Leader has issued a fatwa, which says the production, accumulation, and the use of weapons of mass destruction including nuclear weapons is forbidden and is against religion. But you see, we have the right to enrich to any percentage we want under the NPT.

WPJ: Right of course, as long as it’s not weaponized.

SALEHI: But we had previously, voluntarily taken it upon ourselves to enrich up to five percent. But then when we demanded 20 percent enriched fuel because we were about to run out of fuel for the TRR [Tehran Research Reactor], we submitted our petition to the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] so that they would disseminate it to countries that have the capacity to produce these fuel plates. Then the whole thing started—the fuel swap, the conditions. And then eventually that made Iran take its own approach to producing the fuel enriched to 20 percent plus the fuel plates, which we already have produced and are now using in our TRR. In other words, our Tehran Research Reactor is now running with the fuel, which is supplied by Iran, which is manufactured indigenously. …more

National: Amnesty International presents report regarding use of torture in Mexico

On 11 October, Amnesty International (AI) presented its sixth report regarding the use of torture in Mexico, entitled “Known criminals, ignored victims: torture and abuse in Mexico.”

In a press-conference, Alberto Herrera, director of AI Mexico, affirmed that torture in Mexico is a “systematic and generalized” practice, that it has increased “scandalously” due to the so-called war on organized crime as launched by Felipe Calderón and the total impunity enjoyed by those who prosecute it.

Herrera indicated that “the majority of [cases] are not ever investigated in an exhaustive manner, and those responsible are almost never handed over to the courts; for this reason, the victims do not have the possibility of obtaining recognition or compensation.” He affirmed that “it is incredibly difficult to determine the true magnitude and extensiveness of torture and other abuses in Mexico. This difficulty has to do in part with the weak system of denunciation and investigation, which basically never takes account of those responsible, leaving victims and witnesses exposed to suffer reprisals. One consequence of this is that there are far fewer cases than there should be.”

He noted that the lack of precise registration of this phenomenon has resulted in the fact that between 2008 and 2011 the Federal Attorney General’s Office (PGR) said it had 58 preliminary investigations into torture and 4 cases with formal accusations, while the Council of the Federal Judiciary registered 12 processes and 5 condemnatory sentences. The National Institute for Statistics and Geography claimed it had no news of any sentence at all.

In its report, AI puts forth more than 40 recommendations to the Mexican State, among which it stresses the harmonization of internal legislation regarding torture with those of international accords, the establishment of a base of data on this phenomenon, the exhaustive investigation of public officials implicated in this crime, the rejection of evidence obtained through torture, and the restriction of military tribunals so that all abuses committed against civilians by soldiers be analyzed by civil courts.

For its part, the Federal Government said it would analyze the AI report. In a joint communique, the Ministries for Governance and External Affairs indicated that they maintain a policy of punctual observance of their international obligations in this matter. The communique announces that the departments will present a report regarding the observance of the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment (signed by Mexico in 1986) on 31 October and 1 November at the United Nations in Geneva, Switzerland, in which it will highlight progress in the struggle against torture and challenges in these terms. …more

PROTEST AT THE MEXICAN EMBASSY IN LONDON
October 2012

International Campaign: “Worldwide Echo in Support of the Zapatistas”
sanmarcosavilesen.wordpress.com

PROTEST AT THE MEXICAN EMBASSY IN LONDON: WORLDWIDE DECLARATION DELIVERED

Today, being the first day of the second phase, “From Truth to Action, Stopping the Repression”, of the “Worldwide Echo in Support of the Zapatistas” campaign, and also the Day of Indigenous Resistance, a protest was organised at the Mexican Embassy in London, England, by activists from Bristol and Dorset, against the attacks by the bad government of Mexico against the Zapatista communities. News had just broken of a new attack on the community of Guadalupe los Altos, and the imprisonment of 6 Zapatistas.

The following document was delivered to the Embassy:

THE WORLDWIDE DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF THE ZAPATISTAS

The UK Zapatista Solidarity Network, representing groups, individuals and collectives from throughout the United Kingdom, hereby send this message to accompany our presentation of the ‘Worldwide Declaration in support of the Zapatistas of Chiapas, Mexico’ to the Embassy of Mexico in London, England. We are delivering the Declaration today, Friday 12th October, 2012, because it is the Day of Indigenous Resistance, and marks the 520th anniversary of the arrival of Christopher Columbus in the Americas, and the start of the colonial endeavour to destroy the indigenous peoples of these lands. This date also marks the beginning of the second phase of the ‘Worldwide Echo in Support of the Zapatistas’ campaign.

The Declaration has been signed by 112 organisations and 162 individuals from 24 different countries, all of whom are shocked and appalled at the blatant acts of violence, abuse, intimidation, harassment and attrition currently being directed against the Zapatista support base communities in Chiapas, Mexico, in violation of their inalienable right to autonomy as indigenous peoples, as enshrined in the internationally recognized ILO Convention No. 169 and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, both of which the government of Mexico has signed.

Since this Declaration was issued in July 2012, there has been an alarming escalation in acts of aggression against Zapatista communities, and 83 members of two villages remain displaced more than five weeks after being attacked by paramilitary groups with firearms, openly supported by the local authorities and police force. We wish to reiterate our horror and dismay that a government which seeks to portray itself as a model of liberty and justice could openly support such hostilities against its own indigenous people.

WORLDWIDE DECLARATION DEMANDING JUSTICE FOR THE ZAPATISTA COMMUNITIES AND FREEDOM FOR FRANCISCO SÁNTIZ LÓPEZ

We view with profound concern, and demand an immediate end to, the continued acts of intimidation and aggression and the human rights abuses being committed against members of the Zapatista support base community in San Marcos Avilés, official municipality of Chilón, Chiapas, Mexico. We also call for the immediate liberation of the Zapatista political prisoner Francisco Sántiz López, who has been jailed since December 2011 in a flagrant abuse of justice. Responding to the numerous denouncements and calls issued by the Zapatista Good Government Junta of Oventic and the community of San Marcos Avilés, we manifest in this declaration our solidarity with our brothers and sisters there, as well as with Francisco Sántiz López.

We are aware of the very serious new threats being made against the community of San Marcos Avilés by representatives of political parties in the area. Of particular concern are the open and blatant threats of displacement, physical violence, and the on-going climate of hostility promoted by these individuals. We consider such reprehensible aggression to be extremely serious in light of the events of September 2010, when vigilantes from the Green Ecological Party of Mexico (PVEM), the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) and Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD), led by Lorenzo Ruiz Gómez and Vicente Ruiz López, attacked Zapatista support bases, displacing 170 people and destroying their property and crops.

In relation to the case of Francisco Sántiz López, a Zapatista support base from the Banavil ejido of Tenejapa, who was originally detained in December 2011 under false charges of having orchestrated a conflict in Banavil, we affirm the evidence collected by the Fray Bartolomé de Las Casas Human Rights Centre and recounted by several witnesses, that he indeed was not present at the location where the events took place on 4th December 2011. His false imprisonment and the continued refusal of local authorities to examine this evidence are, in our view, further indication that the judicial system in Chiapas is wielded as tool of political repression against those who struggle for justice.

In respect to current events in San Marcos Avilés, we demand:

– An immediate end to all death threats, verbal and physical harassment, and threats against the property and well-being of the Zapatista Support Base members by elements of the political parties in the San Marcos Avilés ejido.

– Protection for the life and safety of the Zapatista support base members of San Marcos Avilés.

– Respect for the Zapatista Support Base community’s inalienable right to autonomy as indigenous peoples, as enshrined in the internationally recognized ILO Convention No. 169 and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, both of which the government of Mexico has signed.

In respect of the case of Zapatista support base Francisco Sántiz López, we demand his immediate and unconditional release, as well as a swift investigation and prosecution of the perpetrators of violence in Banavil, Tenejapa Municipality, Chiapas.

To our brothers and sisters suffering injustice and violence in Chiapas, we remind you that your struggle is not carried out in silence, nor is it invisible. Indeed, countless individuals, organizations, and communities from around the world remain vigilant regarding your situation and have joined an international campaign in solidarity with your struggle. For our part, from cities across the world we send you a warm embrace, to let you know that we know who you are and what you are fighting for, and to say that we will do whatever we can to support you. We will all continue to make an echo of your just demands, an echo that resonates with the collective heartbeat of the earth. …more

This Is Not A Revolution
Hussein Agha and Robert Malley – The New York Review of Books

All lies and jest
Still, a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest
—Paul Simon

Darkness descends upon the Arab world. Waste, death, and destruction attend a fight for a better life. Outsiders compete for influence and settle accounts. The peaceful demonstrations with which this began, the lofty values that inspired them, become distant memories. Elections are festive occasions where political visions are an afterthought. The only consistent program is religious and is stirred by the past. A scramble for power is unleashed, without clear rules, values, or endpoint. It will not stop with regime change or survival. History does not move forward. It slips sideways.

Games occur within games: battles against autocratic regimes, a Sunni–Shiite confessional clash, a regional power struggle, a newly minted cold war. Nations divide, minorities awaken, sensing a chance to step out of the state’s confining restrictions. The picture is blurred. These are but fleeting fragments of a landscape still coming into its own, with only scrappy hints of an ultimate destination. The changes that are now believed to be essential are liable to be disregarded as mere anecdotes on an extended journey.

New or newly invigorated actors rush to the fore: the ill-defined “street,” prompt to mobilize, just as quick to disband; young protesters, central activists during the uprising, roadkill in its wake. The Muslim Brothers yesterday dismissed by the West as dangerous extremists are now embraced and feted as sensible, businesslike pragmatists. The more traditionalist Salafis, once allergic to all forms of politics, are now eager to compete in elections. There are shadowy armed groups and militias of dubious allegiance and unknown benefactors as well as gangs, criminals, highwaymen, and kidnappers.

Alliances are topsy-turvy, defy logic, are unfamiliar and shifting. Theocratic regimes back secularists; tyrannies promote democracy; the US forms partnerships with Islamists; Islamists support Western military intervention. Arab nationalists side with regimes they have long combated; liberals side with Islamists with whom they then come to blows. Saudi Arabia backs secularists against the Muslim Brothers and Salafis against secularists. The US is allied with Iraq, which is allied with Iran, which supports the Syrian regime, which the US hopes to help topple. The US is also allied with Qatar, which subsidizes Hamas, and with Saudi Arabia, which funds the Salafis who inspire jihadists who kill Americans wherever they can. …more

Arms sales and human rights don’t mix, UK told
The Guardian – 23 October, 2012 – Richard Norton-Taylor

MPs have finally recognised what has been blatantly obvious for a long time: human rights and arms exports do not go well together.

This conflict always made a nonsense of the Labour government’s call for an “ethical dimension” in foreign policy though the late Robin Cook did his best to try and reconcile Britain’s role as one of the biggest sellers of weapons with its stated aim of protecting human rights around the world.

Now, the House of Commons foreign affairs committee has called on ministers to be “bolder in acknowledging contradictions between the UK’s interests overseas and its human rights values”.

The government should not be trying to assert that the two can co-exist freely, said the crossparty committee of MPs. It should instead explain publicly its judgments “on how to balance them in particular cases”.

The MPs pointed out that the Foreign Office human rights reports name Saudi Arabia a “country of concern” adding that there have been “incremental improvements” in the country’s human rights (albeit, as the MPs observe,”from a very low base”.)

Yet the FO does not include Bahrain as a “country of concern” despite the fact that significant number of people were killed there in 1911 in the violent repression of demonstrations which included widespread use of torture.

And despite being designated as a “country of concern”, Saudi Arabia is described by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS), as being a priority market for UK arms exports.

The value of arms-related goods for which licences for export to Saudi Arabia were granted in 2011 was £1.7bn, greater than the value of comparable licences for export to any other single country, according to the Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT).

BAE, Britain’s biggest manufacturing company in terms of number of employees reeling from the failed merger with EADS, Europe’s biggest arms company, is currently trying to negotiate a £7bm arms deal involving the sale and maintenance of 48 Eurofighter/Typhoon jets to Saudi Arabia, for long one of the most lucrative markets for British arms.

The latest official figures show that Whitehall approved a further £8m military exports to Saudi Arabia in the second quarter (April to June) this year. It sold nearly £3m to Bahrain over the period.

It included some assault rifles and pistols. A footnote on the list now on the BIS website, states: “HMG exceptionally agreed to a number of firearms and associated accessories to Bahrain for personal sporting use. They are not for use by the Bahraini security services, law enforcement agencies, or armed forces.”

The government at least seems to be sufficiently “concerned” to negotiate conditions on the sale of arms to Bahrain. Indeed, so sensitive is it that when it signed a defence cooperation agreement with Bahrain earlier this month it did so with the absolute minimum of publicity. What publicity there was came from the Bahraini side with the Crown Prince, Salman bin Hamad Al-Khalifa, hailing it as “mirroring deep-rooted historic relations bonding Bahrain and the UK”.

With friends like that… …source

Where’s the News Coverage of Bahrain?
22 October, 2012 – World Affairs, Millennial Letters – Kristin Deasy

Don’t hear much about Bahrain?

Thousands of opposition demonstrators hit the streets there little over a week ago, while security forces faced off with activists at a flashpoint village just yesterday as unrest continues to roil the Gulf kingdom, a nation so strategically located it plays host to the US Navy’s Fifth Fleet.

Wait a second. Geopolitically critical nation—check. Protests against the government—check. Sexy Twitter feed about demonstrations—check. Youth bulge—check. Key activists imprisoned—check. Demand for a more representative government—check.

Isn’t this where CNN starts panning massive crowds like those seen in Egpyt’s Tahrir Square last year? Isn’t this where the microphone is held up to the lips of a cute female twenty-something protester? Where’s the love?

There are a few reasons why Bahrain has emerged as the Arab Spring’s neglected child: for one, heavyweights like Sunni Saudi Arabia disapprove of the protest movement there. Riyadh’s ties to the Sunni royal family in the Bahraini capital of Manama go way back. And naturally, the Sunni nation is not enamored with the prospect of a new government sympathetic to the nation’s overwhelmingly Shiite population. No friend for the movement there—but they don’t have to look far for support. Nearby Iran, where a Shiite theocracy runs the show, has been vocal in its support and is rumored to be close with one of the main Bahraini opposition parties. The Islamic Republic’s politically radioactive profile has complicated public relations for the opposition despite its efforts to distance itself. Add rumors that protesters are getting weapons from the Iran-allied Lebanese militant group Hezbollah, and it’s a real tough sell.

Then there was the perceived “Arab Spring” fatigue on the part of the Western public. They saw governments toppled in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Yemen, and then, hardly stopping for breath, the crisis in Syria started to unfold into the catastrophe it is today. The media narrative moved on, leaving the interested parties—among them Iran’s state press—to monitor developments.

Bahrain is a sensitive issue in the region, and the West knows it. Why should the United States and Europe risk enraging oil-wealthy Saudi Arabia, which feels so strongly about Bahrain that it sent 1,000 troops there to aid the government’s suppression of dissent? Saudi Arabia lashed out on October 15th against a British parliamentary inquiry into UK relations with Saudi Arabia and Bahrain in light of the unrest, with “insulted” Saudi officials saying they were “re-evaluating” UK relations. Clearly the probe had touched a nerve. Meanwhile, support for the embattled opposition from, say, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, has hardly been robust—especially after the US resumed weapons sales to Bahrain’s rulers last May.

As for the more altruistic argument in favor of civilian-led governments, what if Saudi Arabia is right and the protests in Bahrain are really just a move for power by Shiite Iran, a longstanding rival for dominance in the region?

Frederic Wehrey of the Carnegie Endowment for Peace visited Bahrain four months ago and says that’s not the case. “Bahrain is not a proxy battlefield” between Saudi Arabia and Iran, he said, adding that the main opposition accused of cooperating with the Islamic Republic has made a point of keeping “Iran at arm’s length.”

He says there is “very little evidence” of concrete Iranian assistance to Bahrain’s mostly Shiite opposition, whom he describes as “nationalists.” Yes, Saudi Arabia does not want the situation in Bahrain to “give Iran an opening,” Wehrey said, “but the Iran issue is mostly used as an excuse—the real issue is democratization.”

Not everyone shares Wehrey’s position. The Council of Foreign Relations’ Ed Husain raised eyebrows after he wrote a series of tweets seen as friendly to the royal family during a visit there several months ago. His neutrality on Bahrain has since been called into question, but he insists the situation there is not “just a straightforward demand for democracy,” asking the US: “Do we really want to hand over Bahrain to the Iranian sphere of influence?” That, he claims, “is the bottom line in Bahrain.”

Well, the bottom line is really that every “Arab Spring” protest movement has been fueled by a variety of actors, not all of whom would have passed muster under Western scrutiny. Plus, isn’t that what good reporting is all about? Who exactly is behind Bahrain’s protest movement? Fewer journalists seem interested in that part of the story.

Wehrey says there are basically two main groups: the February 14 Youth Movement and the pro-Shia establishment opposition party Al-Wefaq. The two are increasingly at odds, he says, with the youth-led February 14, a group active on the ground as well as on platforms like Twitter and Facebook, seeking bolder reforms than those called for by Al-Wefaq, a group that has been careful to keep its demands within the context of the ruling monarchical system.

Indeed, there is plenty going on in Bahrain these days, as evidenced by the alarming number of human rights reports protesting the Sunni monarchy’s brutal crackdown on the opposition. Despite the outcry and the bravery of young protest leaders like Zainab Al-Khawaja and Naji Fateel, who was reportedly arrested yesterday, the media—and thus, the rest of us—are left to buy the ruling monarchy’s line. …source

Bahraini Activist Mariam Al-Khawaja Withdrew UNESCO Ceremony Over Honor to Israel’s Peres
23 October, 2012 – ABNA

Bahrain human rights defender Maryam Al-Khawaja has pulled out of a UNESCO human rights conference that is honoring her father, political prisoner Abdulhadi Al-Khawaja, because the same event is honoring Israeli President Shimon Peres.

Amnesty International considers Abdulhadi Al-Khawaja and other Bahrain rights activists held in prison “to be prisoners of conscience, held solely for peacefully exercising their rights to freedom of expression and assembly” and has called for their immediate, unconditional release.

Maryam Al-Khawaja was scheduled to speak in her father’s place at the 13th Annual UNESCO Chair & Institute of Comparative Human Rights Conference at the University of Connecticut on 23 October, titled “Legacies Of Human Rights Leadership And Struggles.”

“Whilst I am honored that you chose my father, I am also utterly disappointed that you would honor him alongside a person who has been responsible for many human rights violations and should be put on trial, not honored,” Al-Khawaja wrote in an open letter to UNESCO, in her personal capacity, announcing her withdrawal.

Among the other handful of human rights “leaders” the conference will recognize is Shimon Peres whom the official program ridiculously claims “is widely regarded as a ‘dove,’ and a strong supporter of peace through economic cooperation.”

The stated purpose of the conference is “to educate ourselves about individuals who contributed to the expansion of the range of human rights we enjoy today by providing enlightened and ecumenical leadership.”

Maryam Al-Khawaja objected strongly to the inclusion of Peres in this category along with her father.

“My father always says that when it comes to human rights, there is no grey area, you both stand for human rights everywhere and against perpetrators of human rights violations or you do not,” Al-Khawaja wrote.

“Without any disrespect intended to your esteemed organization, and the important work you do around the world, as a human rights defender I must respectfully withdraw from this event as I cannot allow myself to take part in legitimizing a person who should be tried for human rights violations, not honored,” Al-Khawaja concluded. …more

Kuwait bans public gatherings following anti-government rallies
23 October, 2012 – Al Akhbar

Kuwait banned gatherings of more than 20 people and gave police more powers to disperse protests, local media reported on Tuesday, in an escalating standoff with the opposition ahead of the December 1 election.

Kuwait has been on edge since the emir ordered changes to the election law in a move condemned by the opposition as an attempt to undermine their chances in the vote. The opposition will boycott the poll and has called for protests.

On Sunday, security forces used tear gas, stun grenades and smoke bombs against thousands of demonstrators as they began marching in downtown Kuwait City to protest against the changes.

At least 29 people were hurt and more than 15, including a former member of parliament, were arrested.

“Citizens are not allowed to hold a gathering of more than 20 individuals on roads or at public locations without obtaining a permit from the concerned governor,” the cabinet said in a statement carried by local newspapers.

“Police are entitled to prevent or disperse any unlicensed grouping.” …source

Clashes continue in Tripoli
23 October, 2012 – Al Akhbar

Updated 2:47pm: The death toll in Lebanon has risen to at least 10 since Saturday as clashes continued overnight in Tripoli, sparked by Friday’s massive car bomb that killed the country’s top security chief.

The army moved in to create a buffer zone between the rival neighborhoods of Bab al-Tabbaneh and Jabal Mohsen last night after a day of fierce fighting, but sporadic clashes continued overnight raising the death toll in the city to nine. One man was killed yesterday in Beirut during clashes with the army.

Some fighting continued Tuesday afternoon in Tripoli, but the situation has calmed since yesterday, an Al-Akhbar correspondent said. One man from Jabal Mohsen was killed in today’s fighting after being sent to Zgharta Hospital.

Violence in Tripoli has been ongoing for months between the two neighborhoods divided over the Syrian conflict. Tens of people have been killed during confrontations between the neighbors over the past year, usually as a result of gun battles and sniper fire.

Beirut remained calm Tuesday as a series of diplomatic meetings took place to ease tensions after Friday’s explosion that killed brigadier general Wissam Al-Hassan, the head of the Internal Security Forces information branch and an influential March 14 opposition figure.

The European Union’s top representative for foreign affairs Catherine Ashton held talks with Prime Minister Najib Mikati over the country’s security situation and conflict in Syria.

She reportedly offered her support to Mikati, who is facing opposition calls to resign, during a one-hour meeting at the Grand Serail.

“We appreciate the positions of Mr. Mikati to maintain the cohesion and integrity of Lebanon under these difficult circumstances,” Ashton said.

The EU has said it supports the Lebanese government in spite of mounting pressure from the opposition to relinquish power. The opposition, which blames Syria for the killing, says the Lebanese government also also bears responsibility.

Ashton afterwards met with President Michel Sleiman in the Baabdat Palace.

Former Prime Minister Fouad Siniora also met with Sleiman Tuesday.

Mikati on Tuesday referred the assassination to Lebanon’s highest judicial authority while foreign branches of the Future Movement, country’s main opposition group, called for an international investigation into the killing.

Meanwhile, preliminary investigations into the attack found that the car used in the bombing has been stolen over a year ago, police chief Ashraf Rifi revealed Tuesday. …more

Syrian conflict part of Mideast ’geopolitical game’ – Lavrov
Voltaire Network – 22 October, 2012

Some countries are apparently interested in fueling violence in Syria as part of a “geopolitical remapping” of the Middle East, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said.

“It appears that every time the hope for progress in the Syrian situation arises, somebody attempts to prevent it from calming down and deliberately fuels the continuation of the bloodshed and civil war in Syria,” Lavrov said in an interview with Rossiiskaya Gazeta on Monday.

Lavrov cited some unspecified opposition groups as telling Russia that Western countries urge them to continue the resistance, “to fight for their rights with arms until [President Bashar al-Assad’s] regime falls.”

The minister was especially critical of the terrorist tactics used by the opposition as a wave of attacks targeting senior government officials and pro-Assad forces had recently swept through the country.

The Syrian conflict has claimed up to 30,000 lives since March 2011, according to latest US estimates.

The West and some Arab countries are pushing for Assad’s ouster while Russia and China are trying to prevent outside interference in Syria, saying that the Assad regime and the opposition are both to blame for the bloodshed.

According to Lavrov, the Syrian conflict is “part of geopolitical remapping of the Middle East, where various players attempt to safeguard their interests.”

Assad, who is widely viewed as a close ally of Iran, has been unfairly made “a scapegoat” in this “big geopolitical game,” Lavrov said.

He defended Assad by calling him “a guarantor of the security of national minorities, among them Christians, who have been living in Syria for centuries.”

“By the most conservative estimates our Western partners quote in confidential contacts, he still enjoys support of at least a third of citizens as a man who vowed to prevent Syria’s transformation into a state where minorities will be simply unable to live and exist,” the Russian minister said.

Lavrov reiterated that foreign “recipes” would never provide a long-lasting and reliable solution to the Syrian conflict, and expressed hope that the visit of UN peace envoy Lakhdar Brahimi to Russia next week would help outline steps toward dialogue between warring parties in Syria.

Brahimi, who held talks with Assad in Damascus on Sunday, has urged the Syrian government and the opposition to cease fire for the duration of the Eid al-Adha holiday, which starts on Friday. …more

Over the last 30 years, no U.S. presidential election has signaled a change in Washington’s foreign policy of Washington. Important decisions have been made outside this time frame. It is quite obvious that the president is the superintendent of a policy of which he is not the architect. Will Yankee imperialism perform better under Obama’s or Romney’s smile?

Currently showing : The U.S. Election Spectacle
by Thierry Meyssan – Voltaire Network – Damascus (Syria) – 22 October, 2012

President Barack Obama and Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney sharing a hearty laugh at charity gala held at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel on October 18, 2012 in New York City.

Every four years the U.S. presidential election becomes a planetary spectacle. The dominant press attempts to convince international public opinion that the American people are democratically designating the leader who will direct the affairs of the world.

In certain countries, notably in Europe, the media coverage is at least as saturated as the election of their own leader. Implicitly, the press is indicating that while these states may also be called democracies, their citizens have no real voice in determining their own future, a future subject to the good graces of the occupant of the White House. So how can it be said that these states are really democracies?

The problem is that voting has been conflated with democracy. This remark also applies to the United States. The electoral spectacle is supposed to be the proof that they are living under a vibrant democracy, but this is all smoke and mirrors. Despite the widespread conviction that the president of the United States is elected directly by the people, he is not, not even secondarily. In the United States the people are not sovereign and the citizens are not electors. The choice of President and Vice-President is determined in a winner-take-all process by an electoral college of 538 people where electors are designated by voters’ and party choices at the state level. To win, the candidate must have at least 270 electoral votes, a number based on the population of each state. States are the true locus for presidential selection because they are subject to the politics of choosing electors. The national popular vote does not count; if no candidate reaches 270, the choice is made in Congress. The Gore vs. Bush election of 2000 and the Kerry vs. Bush election of 2004 were potent reminders that the voice of the people can be out-manoeuvred. In 2000, the Supreme Court decided that it was not going to wait for a recount of votes in Florida before proclaiming the winner. All that mattered was the Court’s decision that in turn confirmed the Electoral College numbers despite anything the voters had said.

The illusion doesn’t stop there. When George W. Bush resided in the White House, no one seriously imagined that so uneducated and incompetent a man was actually exercising power. It was thought that a team of advisors discretely exercised it for him. When Barack Obama succeeded him, and since he was thought to be more intelligent it was believed that he was truly in charge. But how can it be assumed that the team that exercised power under Bush would spontaneously renounce it under Obama?

The daily agenda of a U.S. president consists of ceaseless audience appearances, speeches and ceremonies. How can this individual find the time to really familiarize himself with the topics of his speeches? He is no more president than the newscasters on TV are journalists. They share in fact the same profession: teleprompter reading.

We may sense that, as in previous contests, there is more to the Obama-Romney Show than meets the eye, that something really is being decided. And it is. In the constitutional system of the U.S., the primary function of the president, in addition to his role as putative Commander in Chief, is to name over 6000 appointees to public office. This political rotation effectively entails a vast migration of elites. In the current context, thousands of high-level functionaries and tens of thousands of assistants and advisors could possibly be discharged and largely replaced by appointees from the Bush era. The presidential election determines the personal careers of all these people and brings with it the corrupt bidding process that favors this or that multinational. Indeed, there are real reasons for investing money, a whole lot of money, in this contest.

Where is international politics in all this? Over the last two decades, major campaign promises made during electoral campaigns became something fundamentally different during the president’s term in office. Bill Clinton (1993-2008) pledged to reduce military budgets following the disappearance of the USSR and bring about economic prosperity. Instead, in 1995 he commenced an expanded program of military rearmament. George W. Bush (2001-2008) was going to rationalize the Pentagon and wage “war without end” but by the end of 2006 he had stopped the privatization of the military and begun the pull-out from Afghanistan and Iraq. Barack Obama (2009-2012) was going to continue the retreat and “reset” relations with Russia and the Muslim world. What occurred instead was the continued construction of the missile shield around Russia, U.S. support for the color revolution in Egypt and wars on Libya and Syria. Each time that these teleprompter readers did such an about-face, they betrayed their constituents and did so without qualm or hesitation. …more

All is not what it seems: Bahrain and U.S. strategic interests
23 October, 2012 – by Anders Strindberg – Informed Comment

On the last Friday night of September, Bahraini police shot seventeen-year old Ali Ne’amah in the back with bird shot, in the village of Sadad. He died on site. Ali’s family insists that he was engaged in peaceful pro-democracy protest – the now almost daily demonstrations in the Shi’a villages surrounding the capital Manama. The Ministry of Interior, meanwhile, claimed that he had been part of a “domestic terror attack” and that the “policemen defended themselves according to legal procedure.” During the massive protests that followed, crowds blamed Ali’s death on King Hamad bin ‘Issa Al Khalifah personally, and on the political system over which he presides. The slogan “may God burn your heart, oh Hamad, as you have burned the heart of a martyr’s family” gave a sense of the frustration and desperation.

Indeed, Ali Ne’amah was only one of over eighty individuals who have been killed as a result of the ongoing repression of Bahrain’s pro-democracy movement, which began with the assault on peaceful demonstrators at Pearl Roundabout in mid-February 2011. The government’s abuses of human rights and civil liberties in the course of these nineteen months have been carefully documented by foreign governments, journalists, and human rights watchdogs. Arbitrary arrests, false charges, torture, forced confessions, draconian jail sentences, denial of medical care to prisoners, intimidation, use of live ammunition against unarmed demonstrators, tear gas “flooding” of entire villages, collective punishment and individual harassment – the use of these practices is beyond empirical dispute. “The problem is not that no one knows about this,” I was told by one grassroots activist during a visit to Bahrain in July, “the problem is that Al Khalifah excel at stalling and making excuses.”

Indeed, the Al Khalifah government has been masterful in its implementation of a reformist “bait-and-switch” aimed at maintaining the status quo at any cost. Holding out the prospect of reform while repressing critics and tarnishing them as malcontents, foreign agents, or even terrorists, the Bahraini government has shown no signs of serious intent to implement reform. The purpose is to buy time in the international arena while systematically and decisively breaking the back of the pro-democracy movement on the ground.

Since the beginning of September, Bahraini courts have upheld lengthy prison sentences against nine medics whose crime had been to treat wounded protestors, and against thirteen leading opposition activists, who had simply called for democratic reform; seventeen-year old Ali Ne’amah was killed, Muhammad Mushaima (age 23) died due to denial of appropriate care in prison, and Hassan Abdul Ali (age 59), Haj Mahdi Ali Marhoun (age 65 plus) and baby Huda Sayyed Nima Sayyed Hassan (age 11 months) died from inhaling tear gas; Sadiq Rabe’a, a member of the Central Municipal Council, was one of at least a dozen individuals injured by police firing birdshot at unarmed demonstrators, and human rights activist Zeinab al-Khawaja was sentenced to two months in prison – for tearing up a picture of the king. This in addition to the several dozen peaceful demonstrators, including children, who have been attacked or detained by security forces for merely chanting slogans in the street. All within the past month and a half.

On October 14, at an open meeting in Ma’ameer, Shaykh Ali Salman, Secretary General of Bahrain’s largest legally chartered opposition party, the National Islamic Society (al-Wefaq), stated plainly what has been obvious for quite some time: “The national struggle in Bahrain has gone beyond the phase where it is possible to stop or retreat. The situation in Bahrain will not be restored to the pre-revolution situation. The choice to subjugate the people is no longer available.” In this he is absolutely right, and there is an urgent need for Washington to understand the relationship between the abuses of the Al Khalifah government, on the one hand, and the strategic value of Bahrain to the United States, on the other. If the abrupt end to U.S. relationships with Ben Ali in Tunisia, Mubarak in Egypt and Saleh in Yemen taught us anything, it was that reliance on repressive regimes for political tranquility is not only morally deficient, but strategically unwise. By opting for sustained repression rather than reform and dialogue, the Al Khalifah government is actively and systematically undermining the country’s stability, which constitutes a direct threat to U.S. strategic interests. This state of affairs has reached a point where Washington needs to put its foot down, informing Al Khalifah that Bahrain may no longer meet the standards for a safe port for the U.S. navy.

Bahrain has hosted an ever-expanding U.S. naval presence for over six decades, and is currently the site of Naval Support Activity Bahrain (NSA Bahrain), a naval base in Juffair, Manama, that is home to the U.S. Naval Forces Central Command (NAVCENT) as well as the U.S. Navy’s Fifth fleet. The strategic importance of the naval facilities hosted by Bahrain cannot be exaggerated. For Bahrain’s rulers, the U.S. naval presence brings investments, status and, above all, political protection. However, it cannot be enough to simply lease out fortified realty: there have to be guarantees that the neighborhood is sustainably safe – which Bahrain no longer is.

Speaking at a recent meeting of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, Michael Posner, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, noted that “Bahrain is at a crossroads” and that “a stable, democratic healthy Bahrain, one where human rights issues are dealt with appropriately, is a country that’s going to be a strong ally and we need that.” Indeed. It is the historic stability and tranquility of Bahrain, not the bloodline of its rulers, that has been the island’s primary selling point as the host of the U.S. Navy. “The Bahrainis give us anything we want” is a phrase that has been heard on more than one occasion off the record, from U.S. diplomats and military personnel. True enough, but they are not giving the United States what is actually needed, and repeatedly (if all too gingerly) requested: sustainable domestic stability through robust political reform.

Conversely, there is nothing threatening to the United States, either in terms of geopolitics or domestic stability, about the clearly stated demands of Bahrain’s legally chartered opposition parties. Their demands center on a representative elected parliament under an Al Khalifah constitutional monarchy. In fact, in a show of extraordinary steadfastness and patience, this has been the opposition demand ever since the current ruler’s father, Amir ‘Issa, abolished the country’s fledgling, yet functioning and democratic National Assembly in 1975. Moreover, Bahrain’s legal opposition parties, including the Islamists, are known democratic entities. Their leaders (some of whom are currently in prison) are known to be among the most long-standing and consistent pro-democracy activists in the region – including the Islamists. …more

23 October 2012 – By Anonymous

The government of Bahrain is laying siege upon the small village of Al-Eker, preventing food, water and medical supplies from entering it. This unprecedented attempt to choke a whole village from basic life nececssities comes as a reaction to an alleged killing of a policeman in an explosion in the village – a charge the people of the village have reportedly denied. The Bahrain Center for Human Rights reports that the police has raided the village a number of times, leaving a Shi’a mosque vandalized and seven citizens arrested. Three human rights activists who have attempted to break the siege have also been arrested. Ten Bahraini civil society groups, including secular and Islamist political organizations, have urgently appealed to Ban-Ki Moon at the United Nations.

The government of Bahrain has attempted to ridicule the village’s claims of besiegement by running a video footage in its media outlets showing a Kentucky Fried Chicken delivery motorbike driving through the security checkpoint. The state-controlled media has also reported a statement by Prime Minister Shaikh Khalifa bin Salman Al Khalifa, the world’s longest serving Prime Minister with a reputation for corruption and ruthlessness, condemning the alleged killing of the policeman and warning Bahraini citizens who carry out the political agenda of a foreign country – a reference to Iran.

Western media outlets have so far not reported this developing story. Bahrain hosts the US Fifth Fleet, has signed a Free Trade Agreement with the United States and is considered a strategic ally by the Obama administration. The United Kingdom, which had once controlled Bahrain as a protectorate, has recently signed a “Defense Cooperation Agreement”whereby the two states “promote cooperation in all fields, including exchanging intelligence and visits, training, education, scientific and technical cooperation and joint training.”