Crimea and Western ‘values’
By Pepe Escobar – The Roving Eye – 14 March, 2014

Every sane sentient being knows that Ukraine’s “unity” is not worth a new hot or warm war. Or even the current Western-peddled Cold War-style hysteria. Especially when Russia, once again, fights fascism – as embodied by some of the key players now in power in Kiev, and the US and EU’s response is to relentlessly demonize Russia.

Crimea – historically, culturally, sentimentally – is Russian, conquered by Catherine the Great from the Ottomans in 1783. Sevastopol was founded by Catherine. If a swing band would play a version of I Left My Heart in Sevastopol, all hearts involved would be Russian.

Yet those eminent Western practitioners of state idolatry have ruled that the population of Crimea has no right to conduct a referendum to decide its future – be it rejoining Russia or remaining in Ukraine with a huge degree of autonomy, according to the 1992 constitution. The eminences could not possibly admit that does not suit their geopolitical power play.

Thus the current Mass; a ritualistic, hysterical invoking in unison of “international law” (Obama), (distorted) history and even morality (in the US’s case, considering the historical record, a positively dreadful joke).

No question the original inhabitants of Crimea are the Tatars – whose rights will be fully protected in a new Crimea. They had not achieved their self-determination for the same reason Native Americans also did not.

Yet much more alarming in the whole case is how the West once again conveniently, selectively manipulates the arbitrary carving of colonized lands – the key reason of ongoing, intractable geopolitical disasters.

South Sudan’s independence was obsessively fought for by Washington – helped by Hollywood clones of the Clooney variety. The pretext was to correct an arbitrary colonial carving. So that applies to Sudan, but it does not apply to Crimea.

Thomas Jefferson’s “insurgents” had the right to rebel against the British, but Crimeans cannot rebel against what most view as an illegal, fascist-laden, putschist regime in Kiev.

And that is superimposed on an arbitrary colonial carving; Ukrainian-born former premier Nikita Khrushchev, then at the head of the USSR, gave Crimea away to Ukraine, in the name of Soviet solidarity, without a Crimean referendum.

Washington – via a NATO war – dismantled the former Yugoslavia in the name of the “right of nations”. While Crimea is not allowed a peaceful referendum, Kosovo – essentially a drug mafia scam – had the right to be “liberated”. It would be so complicated to explain to public opinion that was essential for the maintenance of Camp Bondsteel – the largest military base outside of the US. The Empire of Bases trumps any “right of nations”. …more

US imperialism, Ukraine and the danger of World War III
World Socialist Web Site – 5 March, 2014

Are we standing on the brink of a nuclear war? That is the question that everyone should be asking.

The US-backed coup in Ukraine has triggered the most dangerous international crisis since the Cuban missile crisis of October 1962. American and European officials are denouncing Russia for sending troops into Crimea in response to the installation of an anti-Russian regime in Ukraine that has seized power through a coup d’état staged by fascist militia.

The Obama administration appears determined to escalate the confrontation with Moscow. Demanding a withdrawal of all Russian forces from Crimea and the Kremlin’s total acceptance of the new US-NATO puppet regime in Kiev, the US is calling for sanctions aimed at the complete economic isolation of Russia.

On Tuesday, Secretary of State John Kerry threatened at a press conference in Kiev that the US is seeking to “isolate Russia politically, diplomatically and economically.” His statements were echoed by bellicose threats from leading American politicians.

Senator John McCain delivered an anti-Russian rant from the well of the Senate in which he again expressed regret that the United States had not intervened in the 2008 war between Russia and Georgia. He accused Putin of engaging in “the old Russian, Soviet doublespeak” and called for a “quick path for Moldova and Georgia to move into NATO.”

The Obama administration feigns shock and horror over the Russian response to the Ukrainian coup. This is nothing but deceitful and cynical posturing. It knew full well that the imposition of an anti-Russian puppet regime in Kiev, controlled by the US and NATO, would be viewed by Putin and the Russian military as a massive change in the geo-strategic environment in Eastern Europe and an existential threat to Russia.

It is inconceivable that the White House, the Pentagon and the CIA did not foresee that Putin would respond to the coup in Kiev. Can anyone seriously believe that Washington did not expect that Russia, at the very minimum, would deploy military forces to secure control of Crimea—a part of Russia until 1954, the home of Russia’s Black Sea fleet and its sole access point into the Mediterranean? Or that Washington knew Russia would not simply turn the other cheek as the installation of an extreme rightwing government in Ukraine, in which xenophobic nationalists exert immense influence, transformed the country into the new forward base for NATO forces, armed with missiles, on the very border of Russia? …more

The fascist danger in Ukraine
World Socialist Web Site – 6 March, 2014

A politically sinister propaganda offensive is underway in the media to either deny the involvement of fascists in the US-backed coup in Ukraine or present their role as a marginal and insignificant detail.

The New York Times, for example, asserted, “Putin’s claim of an immediate threat to Ukrainian Russians is empty,” while Britain’s Guardian dismissed as a “fancy” claims that events in Crimea were an attempt to “prevent attacks by bands of revolutionary fascists,” adding that “the world’s media has [not] yet seen or heard from” such forces.

This is an obscene cover-up.

The reality is that, for the first time since 1945, an avowedly anti-Semitic, pro-Nazi party controls key levers of state power in a European capital, courtesy of US and European imperialism. The unelected Ukrainian government, headed by US appointee Arseniy Yatsenyuk, includes no fewer than six ministers from the fascist Svoboda party.

Less than a year ago, the World Jewish Congress called for Svoboda to be banned. But the party’s founder and leader, Oleh Tyahnybok, who has spoken repeatedly of his determination to crush the “Russkie-Yid mafia that controls Ukraine,” was feted by US and European Union officials as they prepared last month’s coup.

Following the 2010 conviction of John Demjanjuk as an accomplice in the murder of nearly 30,000 people in the Nazi concentration camp at Sobibor, Tyahnybok called him a hero. Tyahnybok’s deputy, Yuriy Mykhalchyshyn, founded a think tank called the Joseph Goebbels Political Research Center.

Svoboda was the major political force in the Maidan protests that overthrew Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych. In return for providing the shock troops for the coup, it has been given control of vital ministries.

Svoboda co-founder Andriy Parubiy acted as “security commandant” in the protests, directing attacks by the Right Sector—an alliance of fascists and extreme right-wing nationalists, including the paramilitary Ukrainian National Assembly-Ukrainian National Self Defense (UNA-UNSO). Dressed in uniforms modelled on Hitler’s Waffen SS, its members boast of fighting Russia in Chechnya, Georgia and Afghanistan.

Parubiy is now secretary of the National Security and Defence Council, overseeing the Defence Ministry and the armed forces. Dmytro Yarosh, leader of the Right Sector, is his deputy.

Deputy Prime Minister Oleksandr Sych is another leading Svoboda figure, as is Oleh Makhnitsky (prosecutor-general), Serhiy Kvit (Education Minstry), Andriy Makhnyk (Ecology Ministry) and Ihor Shvaiko (Agriculture Ministry).

Others reportedly connected to UNA-UNSO are Dmytro Bulatov (youth and sports minister) and the “activist” journalist Tetyana Chernovol, who was named chair of the government’s anti-corruption committee. …more

What lies behind Britain’s ‘special relationship’ with Bahrain?
By Andrew Smith – New Internationalist – 14 March, 2014

On 14 March 2011 Saudi Arabia sent hundreds of troops into Bahrain to help crush a growing protest movement. More than 30 people died, hundreds were injured and thousands arrested.

The response of the British government was to support and condone the action. We know that Saudi forces used armoured vehicles supplied by Britain as they entered the country, and we know that the Foreign Secretary, William Hague, was told about the plan in advance.

Britain’s military support for the Saudis has continued apace, with arms sales reaching US$5.8 billion. Some may recall the humiliating sight of Prince Charles doing a sword dance for the Saudi royal family in order to lubricate a deal on behalf of BAE Systems.

Arms sales to Bahrain have also increased, with the most recently published figures showing that Britain has licensed almost US$66 million worth of military and dual-use exports to the regime since 2012. These have included assault rifles, explosives, pistols, naval guns and sniper rifles.

As important, has been the increase in political support. The House of Commons’ Foreign Affairs Committee recently concluded: ‘Both the government and the opposition in Bahrain view UK defence sales as a signal of British support for the government’.

Britain’s relationship with the regime was embodied in GREAT British Week celebrations put on in January by the British embassy in Bahrain to mark what organizers called 200 years of ‘friendship and strong bilateral relations’. The event saw a 250-strong delegation including such luminaries as Prince Andrew, Philip Hammond, the Secretary of State for Defence, a host of weapons companies, such as Rolls Royce and BAE Systems, and even a big red London bus.

The festivities were a far cry from the experience of Bahraini citizens on the receiving end of government-sanctioned abuse. King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifah of Bahrain has subsequently introduced a law that imposes jail sentences of up to seven years and a fine of up to 10,000 dinars (US $26,500) on any citizen who publicly insults him.

Unfortunately this was not an isolated event. GREAT British Week was only the latest in a long line of events promoted by the British government to strengthen its relationship with the dictatorship. Since then, Prince Charles has made a visit to the regime with Britain’s ambassador emphasizing that the UK-Bahrain relationship ‘is a warm, close and long-standing one’. Similarly, British Prime Minister David Cameron has met with the regime a number of times, last year receiving the King in Downing Street. After the meeting, Cameron used the opportunity to talk up a possible deal over Eurofighter jet sales, but said nothing of Bahrain’s human rights situation.

In its most recent ‘Human Rights and Democracy’ report, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) listed 27 countries of concern. Bahrain was not included. The report concluded that, despite all of the evidence on the contrary, human rights were improving in the Gulf country. The report concluded that: ‘The UK remains committed to providing the government of Bahrain with the support and assistance it requires’. The decision was widely criticized by human rights organizations, with Human Rights Watch saying ‘we believe that the FCO continues to overstate the extent of reform in Bahrain and downplay serious and continuing rights abuses there’.

Of course Britain is not alone in aligning itself with tyrants and ignoring human rights concerns. The most recent European arms exports report, which covers licences for 2012 shows that during the 2011 Saudi invasion into Bahrain EU member states licensed US $43.5 million worth of weapons to the regime. In 2012, despite the deteriorating human rights situation, this figure increased by over 150 per cent, resulting in almost US $111 million in licences. The profitable nature of these relationships has muted criticism, which has been instrumental in ensuring that pro-democracy activists in Bahrain are campaigning in an environment characterized by violence, intimidation and repression.

Earlier this year the Stop The Shipment campaign succeeded in halting a huge cargo of South Korean teargas canisters to Bahrain. Following international attention, South Korea’s arms export licensing agency Defense Acquisition Programme Administration (DAPA), announced that due to political instability and pressure from international rights groups it would cease all teargas exports to the regime.

This has set a precedent that needs to be built on with a European-wide embargo on all future arms sales to both Bahrain and Saudi Arabia. Only by putting a stop to the political and military support that is strengthening them can we ensure that when the next anniversary of the invasion comes the human rights situation and the prospects of their citizens will look stronger than today. …source

Bahrain: Victim Of Police Shooting Suffers Critical Brain Injury, Remains In Coma
13 March, 2014 – ABNA

The Bahrain Center for Human Rights expresses concern over the ongoing use of excessive force against peaceful protesters, which is resulting in serious and critical injuries such as the case of AbdulAziz AlAbbar, who has suffered a critical brain injury and has been in a coma for the past two weeks.

(Ahlul Bayt News Agency) – The Bahrain Center for Human Rights expresses concern over the ongoing use of excessive force against peaceful protesters, which is resulting in serious and critical injuries such as the case of AbdulAziz AlAbbar, who has suffered a critical brain injury and has been in a coma for the past two weeks.

On 23 February 2014, riot police attacked the peaceful funeral procession of Ali AlMosawi with tear gas and pellets. AbdulAziz Mosa AlAbbar (27 years-old) was hit in the head with a tear gas canister and shotgun pellets during the attack, which occurred in the village of Saar. After his injury, AlAbbar was first taken to receive medical care in a house for fear of arrest if moved to a hospital. However, due to the extremely serious nature of his injury, he was moved immediately to a hospital. AlAbbar arrived at the hospital unconscious and vomiting. He was admitted to the ICU where he has remained in a coma since.

According to available information, AlAbbar was seriously injured with two pellets in the head, one that penetrated his eye, and another that penetrated his skull and entered his brain, which caused serious damage as it damaged the blood vessels and caused internal bleeding in the brain.

Initial reports indicate that the shooting of AlAbbar was by police officers standing at close range, using both tear gas canisters, and shotgun pellets. A large amount of video evidence has shown police officers firing teargas directly at protesters heads and upper body, in direct violation of international guidelines for the use of crowd control weapons.

The authorities are restricting access to information regarding AlAbbar’s medical condition, including his family, although they have been allowed to visit him with prior permission from the police station, and while under heavy security presence. It is not clear if AlAbbar is under arrest, or if he is facing any charges. The following images were obtained by the BCHR, although the authorities continue to withhold the complete medical records. …more

US Black Ops Torture and Rendition Center Around the World

U.S., Rebuffing U.N., Maintains Stance That Rights Treaty Does Not Apply Abroad
By CHARLIE SAVAGE – 13 MARCH, 2014 – NYT

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration declared Thursday that a global Bill of Rights-style treaty imposes no human rights obligations on American military and intelligence forces when they operate abroad, rejecting an interpretation by the United Nations and the top State Department lawyer during President Obama’s first term.

The administration affirmed that stance in a meeting in Geneva of the United Nations Human Rights Committee on Thursday. The United States first expressed the stance in 1995 after the Clinton administration was criticized for its policy of intercepting Haitian refugees at sea, and the Bush administration later amplified it to defend its treatment of terrorism suspects in overseas prisons.

Human rights advocates had urged the Obama administration to acknowledge that the country has obligations under the treaty, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, when it imprisons people overseas. But the administration decided not to change the position.

“The United States continues to believe that its interpretation — that the covenant applies only to individuals both within its territory and within its jurisdiction — is the most consistent with the covenant’s language and negotiating history,” said Mary McLeod, the State Department’s acting legal adviser.

The American presentation before the United Nations panel, which monitors compliance with the treaty, was streamed online.

The treaty, which the Senate ratified in 1992, bans arbitrary killings, torture, unfair trials and imprisonments without judicial review. It is a subject of debate over whether it imposes legal obligations only in connection with people inside a country’s territory, or also people elsewhere who are subject to its control.

The United Nations panel says the treaty applies abroad, and there was a push inside the Obama administration to abandon the Clinton-Bush position. In 2011, the administration signaled that the question was under review, saying in a report that it was mindful that many disagreed with the position the United States had taken in the past.

That ambiguous comment grew out of a push during Mr. Obama’s first term by Harold H. Koh, the State Department legal adviser last confirmed by the Senate, and Michael H. Posner, the top State Department human rights official. Mr. Koh wrote a 56-page memo in 2010 concluding that the American interpretation was not legally tenable; The New York Times published the memo last week.

But military and intelligence agencies have resisted changing the treaty’s interpretation out of fear that it could complicate their operations abroad, although some also argue that the law of armed conflict trumps the accord in wartime situations.

Mr. Koh and Mr. Posner stepped down last year and have not been succeeded by Senate-confirmed political appointees, creating a bureaucratic vacuum, and there had been indications that the administration was not planning to embrace the view that the United States had human rights treaty obligations abroad.

Still, it was not clear whether the administration would fully return to the Clinton-Bush position, or instead leave the matter ambiguous by saying it had nothing to add to the 2011 report. On Thursday, it wholeheartedly embraced the Clinton-Bush view.

The reiteration of that claim provoked sharp questions from Walter Kälin, a representative of the United Nations committee from Switzerland. Citing Mr. Koh’s memo, among other things, he pressed Ms. McLeod to say whether the text and its drafting history were inconclusive, and whether there were reasonable arguments on both sides. He also suggested that the American position, if adopted universally, would foster “impunity and lack of accountability” for human rights violators. …more

As the United Nation’s Human Rights Council discusses state practiced torture and impunity in its 25th session, Mr. Kevin Laue, the Legal Advisor of the Redress Trust has called on the participants to read the report released by his organisation about torture in Bahrain.

Torture expert criticises ongoing use of torture in Bahrain
13 March, 2014 – ABNA

(Ahlul Bayt News Agency) – As the United Nation’s Human Rights Council discusses state practiced torture and impunity in its 25th session, Mr. Kevin Laue, the Legal Advisor of the Redress Trust has called on the participants to read the report released by his organisation about torture in Bahrain.

Bahrain has been criticized by a number of European States in the Human Rights Council for having refused twice the visit of the Special Rapporteur on Torture, who has reiterated his request for the third time.

A number of Bahraini activists and opposition members are attending the Human Rights Council’s 25th session.

Mr. Kevin Laue said in a side event at the HRC 25th session that Bahrain uses torture to extract false confessions and show protesters as terrorists, as well as to repress the people from speaking out.
He added that torture is not restricted to the past 3 years but has always been used by rulers to stop calls for reform.

The Redress report was issued in April 2013 under the title “Bahrain: Fundamental reform or torture without end?” It overviews torture and political life in Bahrain, before and after the 2011 prodemocracy uprising. It made a number of recommendations to the Government of Bahrain to address torture and impunity as well as recommendations to international actors to reach effective implementation of the prohibition of torture and ill-treatment according to international law. …more

Urgent Appeal: 17 year old shot by Bahrain Police detained without Charges, denied Access to Medical Care
9 March, 2014 – BCHR

The Bahrain Center for Human Rights is seriously concerned about the health and well being of Sadeq Jaffar AlAsfoor, 17 year-old, who has been in detention since the 8th of January 2014. AlAsfoor, who was shot at time of arrest, reported that he is experiencing pain in his stomach to the extent that he is unable to eat, but his condition is being ignored by the authorities.

On Wednesday, 08 January 2014, AlAsfoor was visiting a released prisoner in the village of Markh, Bahrain with three others. Witnesses reported that they heard the authorities open fire with live ammunition on the four young men as they left. All four of them were subjected to enforced disappearance, with one of the victims, Fadhel Abbas, reported dead 18 days after the incident (read BCHR report on http://bahrainrights.org/en/node/6727).

Following this incident, AlAsfoor was subjected to enforced disappearance for over 15 days, and his family were not certain if their son was alive, despite making inquiries at the public prosecution and the police station. His father was told that there are no criminal cases lodged against Sadiq in the police electronic system. …more

Terrorists’ identities and source of funding exposed
13 March 13, 2014 – Gulf Daily

MANAMA: The identities of terrorists in Bahrain and their sources of funding have been exposed, said Minister of State for Information Affairs and the government’s official spokesperson Sameera Rajab.

The terror blast that took place in East Eker was similar to previous attacks, she said in a statement to London-based Asharq Al Awsat newspaper.

On the timing of the East Eker explosion and its similarity to the Daih blast, the minister stressed that the time of terrorist incidents carried out by outlaws cannot be selected.

“Terrorism has no time, religion, sect or land,” she said.

Terrorism is alien to the region, she said, adding that it is “imported” from outside and noted that it is not normal that many acts of violence and terrorism occur in a short period of time.

Terrorism in the region is caused by three factors – projects targeting the region, the international system which hasn’t taken its final shape yet and attempts by some regional sides to expand and gain influence using terrorism. …more