Banner Advertiser

Monday, December 6, 2010

[ALOCHONA] Us and them



Us and them
 
Frank Domenico Cipriani
 
December 6, 2010
 
In diplomacy, in business, even in philanthropy, people will attempt to gain an advantage whenever they deal with "others". Therefore, in studying the motivations of individuals and institutions, the pivotal question is:
"When a person says us, to whom does s/he refer?"
 
We gather information on our friends, and we secretly share it with other friends. In my small town, we call that gossip. In world politics, we call it diplomacy. Among non-profit organisations, we call it measurable outcome. In all cases, we are reporting behind the back of a third party. Call it whatever you wish. Sooner or later, gossip always reaches the ears of its subject. This is what happened on a global scale this week, thanks to Wikileaks.
 
The entire world had the opportunity to slog through countless top-secret American documents. I could not resist. I poured over the diplomatic communiqués that were labelled "secret" and "classified" by the American government on wikileaks.ch. I searched for references to Bangladesh.
 
Having read dispatch after dispatch, I now understand how embarrassing many of these documents are to the United States. The bulk of these briefs could have been diary entries written by a teenage girl lying on her bed with a fluffy purple feather pen.
 
It just goes to show that the discourse among diplomats is no less gossipy and judgmental than the behaviour of a typical high school student. I begin to see that classification of a document is, most of the time, a matter of shielding material that criticises the personal habits of an individual leader, the "rubbery" quality of the food served at a meeting, what we know about certain prime minister's propensities to party, or how hurt we Americans should feel about the portrayal of the CIA on Canadian TV shows. Yep, all of these were the subjects of classified documents.
 
Even the trivial leaks illustrate that the United States has not retreated from the Cold War mentality of separating "us" from "them". The US has simply replaced the antagonists, while maintaining the paradigm. So little information was available concerning Bangladesh, I wondered if my government sees your part of the world only in terms of threat potential, just like we did during the Cold War. Do we overlook the importance of Bangladesh as a democratic friend, a progressive nation, rife with possibility of cultural and commercial cooperation? Are diplomats really so isolated that they ignore the consensus of the middle-of-the-road, everyday people in the country in which they serve, and only focus on the ruling elite and the potential terrorists? Ultimately, isn't Bangladesh way more us than them? So far, with only 950 of the total of 250,000 documents released thus far, Wikileaks has provided no insight into the American position on this question.
 
Whatever the answers may be, generally, I think the problem with US diplomacy is lack of empathy at the ground-level. It seems to me that a career diplomat is an individual born with a silver spoon, isolated from hardship, and therefore less likely to understand the struggle which defines most peoples' lives — most of us worry, on a daily basis, about how we are going to make ends meet. I imagine that our diplomats have very little opportunity to socialise with the people who could best offer a general consensus of life in the host country. Even if they did, how many diplomats could relate to a struggle from which wealth and privilege has shielded them?
 
Can any privileged person relate to poverty?
 
* * *
Which brings us to the other big piece of news this week: the rise and potential fall of Muhammad Yunus. I hate this story. Yunus seems to act like a hero, initially, then develops chinks in his armour, eventually leading to his downfall. The story would make an excellent opera. The cautionary tale here is that the institutionalisation of anything, no matter how well-intentioned the results, can lead to a corruption of the original ideal.
 
On the other hand, some would say, that this is not a question of corruption at all. The cautionary tale is that the larger an institution grows, no matter how noble its purpose, the more likely it is to be attacked by other institutions.
 
Whenever we try to help people in the third person plural, we are doomed to failure. We can only ever help people in the first person, singular and plural. In my small town in the United States, we have many tiny charitable organisations. Some I have donated my time and money to help, and some have helped me and my family through hard times. There is no hard distinction between contributors and recipients of benefits. We are all in the same boat, and we often have to take turns rowing. We know each others' names, our strengths and weaknesses. No charity grows so big that its administration is a full-time job.
 
It is very good to help the poor, especially when you're poor yourself. Only the poor themselves have real insight into the obstacles they face, and the strategies their peers have employed to overcome them. The purpose of education is to share these insights, and to promote these strategies. If the allegations are to be believed, perhaps in dealing with the upper echelon, the wealthy backers, the Nobel committee, Muhammad Yunus may have changed sides. His "us", formerly the poor, became the "them", and his new "us" was the international movers and shakers and his own financial institution. Perhaps he lost his ability to empathise.
 
On the other hand, Yunus may have had enough understanding of his "us people" to conclude that even the most enterprising microentrepreneur could not profit if he did not have his health, his eyesight, access to health care and education for his family. It is my fervent hope that the investigation into Yunus concludes that funds transferred to Grameen Kalyan, whether or not they were properly processed, were done so with the intention of improving the educational and medical situation of thousands of people. Procedural improprieties could be forgiven if the intentions were good.
 
* * *
Here I sit, a world away, passing judgments on subjects that have only recently come to my attention. I criticise privileged diplomats, yet I have been elevated to privilege myself by the efforts of my father, who was born in poverty. Who, then is my "us"? By what right do I write to you all?
 
Last week, at a local convenience store, I began to talk cricket with the local proprietor, who is rooting for India. I slipped up, and said of Bangladesh, "we beat Zimbabwe last game".
 
We?
 
The proprietor laughed. When I got home, I took an inventory. In front of me are 36 index cards, containing the entire breadth of my knowledge of Bengali. But at the beginning of the week, I could not read the sounds. I did not know a single word. Five weeks ago, I could not name your capital city, and could barely locate your nation on a map. For two weeks in a row, I have been presumptuous enough to weigh in with my naïve opinions on matters of local politics, and your responses have been kind and generous. I say "us" the way a sports fan says us about a beloved team. But it is more than that. Bangladesh has already taught me so much, your history has kept me awake at night, you have made me think deep thoughts, you have inspired conversations with my children about how much a nation can overcome. The more I learn about Bangladesh, the more I hope the term "us" applies.
 
And that's the importance of learning. The more a man knows, the more options he has to choose his "us". Universally, every individual that I've ever met that was lifted out of poverty, was lifted out by education. No one can know where they're going before they learn where they stand. I guess this is also true of organisations and nations. Mohammed Yunus has welcomed an investigation. Hopefully, soon, the world will know where he stands. Wikileaks has given the nations of the world a clearer idea of where they stand vis-à-vis the United States. Once we all know where we stand, let us hope we can move together there toward peace through truth and understanding.
 
Perhaps this American has no business venturing opinion after opinion on the internal affairs of your nation. Please understand that I welcome your honest opinion when it comes to the internal affairs of my country. I think that we Americans generally appreciate the unsolicited opinions of well-wishers, and that we thrive on the fresh perspectives that these opinions afford. Diplomacy may be a matter of concealing one's true opinions. If that is so, my dear readers, then let us never be diplomatic toward each other. I am way, way too leaky for that.
 
——————————————
 
Frank Domenico Cipriani writes a weekly column in the Riverside Signal called "You Think What You Think And I'll Think What I Know." He is also the founder and CEO of The Gatherer Institute — a not-for-profit public charity dedicated to promoting respect for the environment and empowering individuals to become self-taught and self-sufficient.
 


__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] WikiLeaks cables : Saudi Arabia as a cash machine for terrorists



WikiLeaks cables portray Saudi Arabia as a cash machine for terrorists
 
Saudi Arabia is the world's largest source of funds for Islamist militant groups such as the Afghan Taliban and Lashkar-e-Taiba – but the Saudi government is reluctant to stem the flow of money, according to Hillary Clinton.

"More needs to be done since Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qaida, the Taliban, LeT and other terrorist groups," says a secret December 2009 paper signed by the US secretary of state. Her memo urged US diplomats to redouble their efforts to stop Gulf money reaching extremists in Pakistan and Afghanistan."Donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide," she said.

Three other Arab countries are listed as sources of militant money: Qatar, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates.The cables highlight an often ignored factor in the Pakistani and Afghan conflicts: that the violence is partly bankrolled by rich, conservative donors across the Arabian Sea whose governments do little to stop them.

The problem is particularly acute in Saudi Arabia, where militants soliciting funds slip into the country disguised as holy pilgrims, set up front companies to launder funds and receive money from government-sanctioned charities.

One cable details how the Pakistani militant outfit Lashkar-e-Taiba, which carried out the 2008 Mumbai attacks, used a Saudi-based front company to fund its activities in 2005.

Meanwhile officials with the LeT's charity wing, Jamaat-ud-Dawa, travelled to Saudi Arabia seeking donations for new schools at vastly inflated costs – then siphoned off the excess money to fund militant operations.

Militants seeking donations often come during the hajj pilgrimage – "a major security loophole since pilgrims often travel with large amounts of cash and the Saudis cannot refuse them entry into Saudi Arabia". Even a small donation can go far: LeT operates on a budget of just $5.25m (£3.25m) a year, according to American estimates.

Saudi officials are often painted as reluctant partners. Clinton complained of the "ongoing challenge to persuade Saudi officials to treat terrorist funds emanating from Saudi Arabia as a strategic priority".Washington is critical of the Saudi refusal to ban three charities classified as terrorist entities in the US. "Intelligence suggests that these groups continue to send money overseas and, at times, fund extremism overseas," she said.

There has been some progress. This year US officials reported that al-Qaida's fundraising ability had "deteriorated substantially" since a government crackdown. As a result Bin Laden's group was "in its weakest state since 9/11" in Saudi Arabia.

Any criticisms are generally offered in private. The cables show that when it comes to powerful oil-rich allies US diplomats save their concerns for closed-door talks, in stark contrast to the often pointed criticism meted out to allies in Pakistan and Afghanistan.Instead, officials at the Riyadh embassy worry about protecting Saudi oilfields from al-Qaida attacks.

The other major headache for the US in the Gulf region is the United Arab Emirates. The Afghan Taliban and their militant partners the Haqqani network earn "significant funds" through UAE-based businesses, according to one report. The Taliban extort money from the large Pashtun community in the UAE, which is home to 1 million Pakistanis and 150,000 Afghans. They also fundraise by kidnapping Pashtun businessmen based in Dubai or their relatives.

"Some Afghan businessmen in the UAE have resorted to purchasing tickets on the day of travel to limit the chance of being kidnapped themselves upon arrival in either Afghanistan or Pakistan," the report says.

Last January US intelligence sources said two senior Taliban fundraisers had regularly travelled to the UAE, where the Taliban and Haqqani networks laundered money through local front companies.

One report singled out a Kabul-based "Haqqani facilitator", Haji Khalil Zadran, as a key figure. But, Clinton complained, it was hard to be sure: the UAE's weak financial regulation and porous borders left US investigators with "limited information" on the identity of Taliban and LeT facilitators.

The lack of border controls was "exploited by Taliban couriers and Afghan drug lords camouflaged among traders, businessmen and migrant workers", she said.

In an effort to stem the flow of funds American and UAE officials are increasingly co-operating to catch the "cash couriers" – smugglers who fly giant sums of money into Pakistan and Afghanistan.

In common with its neighbours Kuwait is described as a "source of funds and a key transit point" for al-Qaida and other militant groups. While the government has acted against attacks on its own soil, it is "less inclined to take action against Kuwait-based financiers and facilitators plotting attacks outside of Kuwait".

Kuwait has refused to ban the Revival of Islamic Heritage Society, a charity the US designated a terrorist entity in June 2008 for providing aid to al-Qaida and affiliated groups, including LeT.

There is little information about militant fundraising in the fourth Gulf country singled out, Qatar, other than to say its "overall level of CT co-operation with the US is considered the worst in the region".The funding quagmire extends to Pakistan itself, where the US cables detail sharp criticism of the government's ambivalence towards funding of militant groups that enjoy covert military support.

The cables show how before the Mumbai attacks in 2008, Pakistani and Chinese diplomats manoeuvred hard to block UN sanctions against Jamaat-ud-Dawa.

But in August 2009, nine months after sanctions were finally imposed, US diplomats wrote: "We continue to see reporting indicating that JUD is still operating in multiple locations in Pakistan and that the group continues to openly raise funds". JUD denies it is the charity wing of LeT.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/05/wikileaks-cables-saudi-terrorist-funding



__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] Is there more to WikiLeaks than meets the eye?



Rehnuma is setting a trend and surpassing our local standard. Hope she continues to write on critical domestic and international issues.

 

Is there more to WikiLeaks
than meets the eye?

by Rahnuma Ahmed

THE release of US diplomatic cables by WikiLeaks on November 29—dubbed the '9/11 of world diplomacy'—was immediately criticised by America's political and military leadership. WikiLeaks will cost (American) lives, said Bill Clinton. Sarah Palin blasted Obama for WikiLeaks.
   Similar denunciations had occurred earlier. When WikiLeaks released the Afghan War Diary in July this year, a cache of 91,000 documents, covering the war from 2004 to 2010. When WikiLeaks released another cache in October, nearly 400,000 secret US files on the Iraq war, the largest classified military leak in history. When it posted a video on its website in April, showing a US Apache helicopter killing at least 12 innocent people, including two Reuters journalists, in an attack in Baghdad in July 2007.
   Robert Gates, the US defence secretary, said he was 'appalled' while the Joint Chiefs Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen said WikiLeaks 'might already have on their hands the blood of some young soldier or that of an Afghan family.' The Afghan War Diary was denounced by human rights organisations too, including Amnesty International. The international press freedom organisation Reporters Without Borders said it was 'irresponsible', it sets a 'bad precedent for the Internet's future.' The names of Afghan informants had not been redacted, leaving them vulnerable to Taliban retaliation.
   Initial denunciations have now been replaced by harsher calls centring around the whistle-blowing website's founder, Julian Assange, a 39 year-old Australian journalist, publisher and activist. Variously described as 'charismatic', possessing 'an exceptional ability to crack computer codes' and 'mercurial in interviews', demands to hunt him down just like al-Qaeda (Sarah Palin), to declare WikiLeaks a terrorist group and prosecute Assange (Representative Peter King)—are being replaced by murderous ones. He should be tried for treason and executed if found guilty (Republican presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee). He should be hit by a drone (political commentator Bill O'Reilly). He should be assassinated (Professor Tom Flanagan, adviser to the Canadian prime minister).
   On December 1, Interpol issued a Red Notice for Assange. He was wanted for questioning in Sweden over alleged sex offences. Assange had visited Stockholm in August to defend WikiLeaks' decision to publish the Afghan War Diary; while there, an arrest warrant had been issued by Swedish authorities against allegations of rape and sexual molestation. The charge of rape was later dropped; the warrant, too, was hastily withdrawn. The accusations had separately been brought by two women, sex had been 'consensual' but Assange seems to have violated a Swedish law against having sex without a condom; he had used a condom on one occasion but it had split, on another, he had not. One of the women, afraid of catching STD wanted him to take a medical test, which he reportedly refused. He was finally charged with something called 'sex by surprise', this carries a fine of $715. Assange admitted having sex but the charges are 'without basis'. The timing was 'deeply disturbing'. It was aimed at smearing him. It was possibly initiated by the CIA or Pentagon.
   Interestingly, the recent WikiLeaks release mentions Sweden's close ties to the US military which, as the American ambassador to Sweden notes, 'give the lie to the official policy' of non-participation in military alliances. This should remain a secret, he wrote, or else it would open the way for 'domestic criticism'.
   The rising hysteria over Assange/WikiLeaks has led many among the western public, including well-respected figures known for their opposition to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, to extend their support. Pentagon Papers whistle-blower Daniel Ellsberg, himself the target of a White House hit squad in 1972, has said Assange is serving American democracy and the American rule of law precisely by challenging secrecy regulations. He called for a boycott of Amazon after it terminated hosting the WikiLeaks website. WikiLeaks must be protected, writes John Pilger; the Afghanistan war logs and the hounding of Assange prove that there's never been a greater need to speak truth to power than today. Anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan, whose son was killed in service during the Iraq war, and Medea Benjamin of Code Pink: Women for Peace, urge US cities to offer Assange sanctuary. The government should desist in prosecuting Assange, or pressure Sweden in doing so, or sabotage WikiLeaks servers. Republican senator Ron Paul, often in opposition to fellow members for his libertarian beliefs, argues that the WikiLeaks founder should get the same protection as the media. Scoffing at the idea of an Australian being tried for treason in America, Paul asks, 'why don't we prosecute The New York Times or anybody else that releases this?'
   But there are others, equally courageous and just as passionately opposed to the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq (and Palestine), who view WikiLeaks and Assange, differently. Who argue that what has been presented has been cherry-picked, that the data presented is selective. That the consistent absence of particular actors is more telling than those who have been presented on the world stage through the leaks.
   In other words, do the releases benefit anyone, if so, who? Cui bono?
   Alan Hart, author, a former ITN and BBC Panorama foreign correspondent specialising in the Middle East, writes, if a visitor from outer space studied the WikiLeaks revelations of the first two days, she or he would come to the conclusion that,
   'The main message is clear. Iran is the biggest single threat to the peace of the region and the world and not only because the Israelis say so. Arab leaders agree with them. The secondary message is that apart from the Arab leaders who say they share Israel's assessment, other Muslim leaders, those in Turkey and Pakistan especially, are not to be trusted.'
   Cui bono? Hart says, the Zionist state of Israel. It is possible that Assange has been 'compromised' in some manner, that he is open to 'manipulation'. Assange's denial of 9/11 truth is surprising—'I'm constantly annoyed that people are distracted by false conspiracies such as 9/11, when all around we provide evidence of real conspiracies, for war or mass financial fraud'—given the 'irrefutable evidence' that the Twin Towers were not brought down by the planes and their burning fuel.
   Hart, and also others, point toward similar suspicions raised by Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter's National Security Advisor. In a recent interview to PBS, Brzezinski said, 'The real issue is, who is feeding Wikileaks? They're getting a lot of information which seems trivial, inconsequential, but some of it seems surprisingly pointed… It's a question of whether Wikileaks are being manipulated by interested parties that want to either complicate our relationship with other governments or want to undermine some governments… I have no doubt that Wikileaks is getting a lot of the stuff from sort of relatively unimportant sources, like the one that perhaps is identified on the air. But it may be getting stuff at the same time from interested intelligence parties who want to manipulate the process and achieve certain very specific objectives.'
   Perceptive bloggers have pointed out how Israel is unharmed by the leaks, how Mossad and RAW are noticeably absent despite being very active in occupied war-torn Afghanistan and Iraq. Others have wondered why both the Guardian and The New York Times chose to leak the portion about Iran first, out of the 200,000 documents. Interestingly enough, the NYT article was co-authored by David Sanger, a 'major conveyor' of American administration propaganda before Gulf War II.
   The leaks seem to be a result of systematic work, purposively intentioned, says the Turkish president, while the deputy prime minister asks, 'Documents were released and they immediately said, "Israel will not suffer from this." How did they know that?' A columnist for a pro-government Turkish newspaper writes, some people want to 'drive the Obama administration in a different direction,' they want to 'adjust the relations of many governments with the US.' They want to corner Turkey both in domestic and international politics, to show that Turkey is 'alone' in defending Iran in the region. The cables, writes another columnist, seem to be part of a psychological campaign. In China, the English-language tabloid Global Times which belongs to the ruling communist party's newspaper, the People's Daily, asks in its lead editorial, 'Is there some tacit understanding between the Web site and the US government?' implying actual government complicity in the leaks.
   Gordon Duff, senior editor of Veterans Today, wonders why no one has found the magic Wikileaks 'treehouse' with dozens of elves sifting through documents, when the NSA and a dozen other agencies can pick the stroke on his computer the second they hit, can tap 200 million telephones, kidnap a woman off the streets of Karachi with a two-minute phone request. Is it plausible?
   It is widely believed that Wikileaks got the classified video of US troops killing Iraqi civilians in Baghdad and 260,000 pages of confidential diplomatic cables and intelligence assessments from Bradley Manning, a 22 year-old American soldier stationed in Baghdad who, as an intelligence specialist in the US army, had access to these, read them, became disillusioned about his country's foreign policy and 'used blank CDs to download classified information while pretending to be listening to Lady Gaga.' Manning was caught because he boasted of the leaks to a former hacker, who turned him over to the US authorities. He has been in custody since May, has been charged with transferring classified data; if convicted, he could face a prison sentence of between 50 to 70 years.
   The PBS interviewer had tried to sell the Bradley Manning 'myth' to Brzezinski, 'But a lot of these documents have been in the hands—haven't they been in the hands of WikiLeaks for some time?' His reply was, 'We don't know that for a fact.' When she said, '… because of— because of this private who is in jail and accused, Army private?' the other interviewee on the programme, Stephen Hadley (National Security Advisor to George W Bush), responded, 'We don't know it!'
   The more important question is, is there any evidence that anyone else—besides Wikileaks—has accessed US government's classified files? Former AIPAC foreign policy chief Steven Rosen, in a civil lawsuit filed in March 2009, reportedly fired for being caught spying against the US, says his actions were common practice at AIPAC. That masses of classified information come to AIPAC and Israel continually, that Washington's major pro-Israeli lobbying group receives it approvingly, that it praises and financially rewards those who handle and channel it. Another former AIPAC employee, Douglas Broomfield, who was chief lobbyist says, AIPAC is not a classified information bazaar, rather, a covert foreign agent for governments bent on thwarting US brokered peace deals. This makes them, Duff writes, 'suspect #1 for being the source of Wikileaks.' Wikileaks are nothing but 'the scraps, the chickenfeed, left over from a major spy organization that accessed real secrets, nuclear weapons, war plans.' He adds, Wikileaks will never release any of the highest number of classified White Papers to have been written in the Pentagon, 'How Israel is Endangering the United States.'
   Assange's role model for world leader is... Benjamin Netanyahu, Israeli prime minister. Speaking of him approvingly, Assange said, 'leaders should speak in public like they do in private whenever they can.' Netanyahu returned the compliment, 'Israel has not been damaged at all by the WikiLeaks publication.'
   Not only is consent manufactured, in the present world, dissent, too, is manufactured. There have been colour 'revolutions', courtesy of billionaire George Soros, and now, we have the lone ranger resurrected, suitable to fit the needs of a technocratic age: a whistle-blowing, crusading truth-seeker, hacking computers to 'out' deceptions in the high echelons of world power. Welcome to the dis-information highway.

http://www.newagebd.com/2010/dec/06/edit.html#2




__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] The Curious Case of the 195 War Criminals



The Curious Case of the 195 War Criminals

Syeed Ahamed looks back at how justice eluded our grasp


MUNIR UZ ZAMAN/DRIKNEWS

As soon as the trial of war criminals began, questions were raised from different quarters as to how and why the 195 Pakistani soldiers were released in 1974 without any trial. It has also been argued that those 195 Pakistanis were the main war criminals and their release questions the merit of the current trial process.1

This article investigates the news reports that were published in international media from December 16, 1971 to April 15, 1974 to understand how and why those 195 Pakistanis were accused and released. It also explores the avenues the post-1971 Bangladesh government pursued to put Pakistani and local war criminals on trial.

To remain true to the fact, the article mostly cites news reports and avoids opinion pieces. Also, to remain consistent, the article mainly cites the New York Times, though similar news was published in other newspapers.

Relocation of POWs to India
Saving the Pakistani soldiers from the resentment of the Bangladeshis, who endured the most horrific genocide of that time,2 became a major challenge once Pakistan's defeat was imminent. Though it was argued that "given a few more months the Bangladesh guerrillas might well have won on their own,"3 India's direct involvement not only reduced Bangladesh's sufferings, but also came as a saviour for the failing Pakistanis. India being a signatory of the Geneva Convention had an obligation to treat the Pakistani POWs lawfully.

Hence, in the second week of December, Lt. Gen. A.A.K. Niazi sent a request to the Indian high command for ceasefire. On December 15, 1971 Gen. Sam Manekshaw, Indian chief of staff, rejected Niazi's call and asked him to surrender by the next day. He however assured that safety of Pakistan's military and para-military forces would be guaranteed.4

When the Pakistani force made the rare public surrender to the Joint Command of India and Bangladesh on December 16, 1971, the "Instrument of Surrender" particularly highlighted this issue:

Lieutenant-General Jagjit Singh Aurora gives a solemn assurance that personnel who surrender will be treated with dignity and respect that soldiers are entitled to in accordance with the provisions of the Geneva Convention and guarantees the safety and well-being of all Pakistan military and para-military forces who surrender.5

Hence, when sporadic post-war clashes erupted in different parts of Bangladesh, India became concerned about the safety of the 90,000 POWs. Indian Maj. Gen. Dalbir Singh, who accepted the surrender of some 8,000 Pakistanis in Khulna, mentioned that their main concern at that time was to move the POWs to Indian camps and withdrawal of Indian troops. He also added that, since the collaborators were not covered by the Geneva Convention on POWs, "they will be the responsibility of the Bangladesh government."6

Trial of War Criminals
On December 24, 1971, Bangladesh's Home Minister A.H.M. Kamaruzzaman announced that Bengali authorities had already arrested 30 top Pakistani civilian officials and would soon put them on trial for genocide.

On December 26, widows of seven Bangladeshi officers killed by the Pakistanis asked India to help Bangladesh try the Pakistani soldiers for their crimes. In response, Indian envoy Durga Prasad Dhar, with an apparent reluctance, said: "India is examining its responsibilities [towards the POWs] under international law."7

The leader of the liberation movement Sheikh Mujibur Rahman -- soon after his return from captivity -- initiated a formal process of war crimes trial.

On March 29, 1972, Bangladesh government announced a formal plan to try some 1,100 Pakistani military prisoners -- including A.A.K. Niazi and Rao Forman Ali Khan -- for war crimes.8

The government offered a two-tier trial process -- national and international jurists for some major war criminals (probably for the high command of Pakistan army); and all-Bangladeshi court for the rest of the war criminals.9

Initially, India agreed to hand over all military prisoners against whom Bangladesh presented "prima facie cases" (essentially, presenting evidence) of atrocities.10

On June 14, 1972, India agreed to initially deliver 150 POWs, including Niazi against whom Bangladesh gathered evidence of atrocities, to Bangladesh for the trial.11

On June 19, 1972 -- ten days before the meeting between Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and Indira Gandhi -- Sheikh Mujibur Rahman reaffirmed his commitment to try the Pakistanis.

It is important to note here that, contrary to popular belief, the India-Pakistan Simla Agreement signed on July 2, 1972 had nothing to do with the Pakistani POWs that Bangladesh wanted to prosecute.12

Pakistan Takes Bangladeshis Hostage
Many of the 400,000 Bangladeshis who lived in West Pakistan essentially became hostages at the hands of Pakistan government, who wanted to use them as bargaining chips to free the accused Pakistani war criminals. 16,000 Bangladeshi civil servants were discharged from Pakistan and were barred from leaving the country. Bangladesh alleged that many of its army officers were put in "concentration camps."13

The International Rescue Committee (IRC) also reported that many Bangladeshis were arrested in Pakistan just for their "alleged intent to leave Pakistan," and thousands were jailed without any charge. It also reported that the civilian Bangladeshis in Pakistan were facing serious discrimination and harassment and were being treated as "niggers."14

Facing widespread torture, hundreds of Bangladeshis began to escape Pakistan through the inaccessible "lawless tribal territory of Afghanistan."15 However, Pakistan government even placed a bounty of 1,000 rupees on each Bangladeshi seized while trying to leave Pakistan.16

The China Card
In a press conference on August 10, 1972, Bhutto said that Bangladesh believed "it had a kind of veto over the release of our prisoners," but "there is a veto in our hands also."17 Later on he confirmed that Pakistan had formally requested China to use its veto power to bar Bangladesh from becoming a member of the United Nations.18

Bhutto knew how critical it was for the war-torn Bangladesh to get the membership of United Nations and he used his friendship with China over this. When Bangladesh applied to the United Nations, China cast its veto on August 25, 1972 for the first time in the Security Council to bar Bangladesh's membership.19 Bangladesh was refused United Nations membership for wanting to try the war criminals.

The Trial-Repatriation Deadlock
Bhutto kept on insisting that Pakistan would only recognise Bangladesh after its prisoners were released. In November 1972, Bangladesh and India decided to repatriate some 6,000 family members of Pakistani POWs and, in response, Pakistan agreed to release some 10,000 Bangladeshi women and children held in Pakistan.20 However, the fate of most Bangladeshis trapped in Pakistan remained uncertain.

On April 17, 1973, after four days of bilateral talks Bangladesh and India announced a "simultaneous repatriation" initiative to end the prisoner-deadlock. Under this proposal, India would repatriate most of the 90,000 Pakistani POWs. In return, Pakistan would release the 175,000-200,000 stranded Bangladeshis and take back 260,000 non-Bangalis (Biharis) from Bangladesh.21

Bangladesh, however, made it clear that India would not release 195 of the initially accused Pakistani POWs and Bangladesh would try them, along with its local collaborators, for war crimes.

Pakistan accepted the proposal in principle, but agreed to take back only 50,000 Biharis. Bhutto however furiously refused Bangladesh's position to try the accused Pakistanis in Bangladesh. He threatened that if Bangladesh carried out the trial of the 195 Pakistanis, Pakistan would also hold similar tribunals against the Bangladeshis trapped in Pakistan. In an interview on May 27, 1973, Bhutto said:

"Public opinion will demand trials [of Bangladeshis] here … We know that Bangalis passed on information during the war. There will be specific charges. How many will be tried, I cannot say."22

To prove that it was not just an empty threat, Pakistan government quickly seized 203 Bengalis as "virtual hostages" for the 195 soldiers.23 Bhutto also argued that, if Bangladesh tried its POWs, Pakistanis who were already "terribly upset" would topple Pakistan's political leadership, and he claimed that his government had already arrested some top-ranking military officials for such conspiracy.24

Meanwhile, on August 28, 1973, India and Pakistan signed the Delhi Accord, which followed the Bangladesh-India "simultaneous repatriation" proposal. This allowed the release of most of the stranded Bangalis and Pakistanis held in Pakistan and India respectively for almost two years.

The tripartite repatriation began on September 18, 1973 and some 1,468 Bangalis and 1,308 Pakistanis were repatriated within the first week.26 Pakistan and India agreed that the issue of 195 accused Pakistanis would be settled between Bangladesh and Pakistan.27 Pakistan kept the 203 Bangladeshis out of this repatriation process.

Legal Preparations
Though a tripartite diplomatic impasse clouded the trial of the Pakistani POWs, the Bangladesh Collaborators (Special Tribunals) Order 1972 was announced to try the local war criminals. Bangladesh also continued to amend its legal system in preparation for the trials of both Pakistanis and local collaborators.

On July 15, 1973 Bangladesh amended its constitution for the first time to ease the process of the war crimes trials. Article 47 (3) of our national constitution, added under the first amendment, states that:

47 (3) [N]o law nor any provision thereof providing for detention, prosecution or punishment of any person, who is a member of any armed or defence or auxiliary forces or who is a prisoner of war, for genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes and other crimes under international law shall be deemed void or unlawful."28

On July 20, 1973, the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act, 1973 was announced "to provide for the detention, prosecution and punishment of persons for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and other crimes under international law."29

Interestingly, though the trials of the collaborators were abandoned, Article 47(3) and the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act, 1973 -- which offers the trial of war criminals including the "auxiliary" forces for their crimes against humanity -- were not cancelled by any government and are still applicable.

Simultaneous trial and Pakistan's apology
In response to Bangladesh's desire to keep the 195 Pakistanis out of the simultaneous repartition process, Pakistan government in the last week of April 1973 issued a statement saying:

Pakistani government rejects the right of the authorities in Dacca to try any among the prisoners of war on criminal charges, because the alleged criminal acts were committed in a part of Pakistan by citizens of Pakistan. But Pakistan expresses its readiness to constitute a judicial tribunal of such character and composition as will inspire international confidence to try the persons charged with offenses.30

After about one year, Bangladesh finally accepted Pakistan's proposal, fearing for the fate of 400,000 Bangalis trapped in Pakistan and to gain the much-needed access to the United Nations. With faith that Pakistan would hold the trial of the 195 Pakistanis involved in the wartime atrocities, Bangladesh withdrew its demand for trying the Pakistanis in Dhaka. Upon the formal understanding, the last group of 206 detained Bangladeshis was allowed to return home on March 24, 1974.31 It is clear that the 195 Pakistanis were not freed without charges, rather they were handed over to Pakistan so they could be prosecuted by the Pakistani authorities.

Bangladesh's position was then formalised on April 10, 1974 through a tripartite agreement among Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan. It was reported internationally that Pakistan government offered apology to Bangladesh on the same day.32

Article 14 of the tripartite agreement noted that the prime minister of Pakistan would visit Bangladesh in response to the invitation of the prime minister of Bangladesh and "appealed to the people of Bangladesh to forgive and forget the mistakes of the past in order to promote reconciliation."

At that time, Bangladesh continued the trial of local collaborators and hoped that Pakistan would keep its promise and try those soldiers for the horrific crimes they committed against humanity.

1 Pro-BNP, Jamaat lawyers threaten to resist trial of war criminals, The Daily Star, April 17, 2010

2 For details on genocide and atrocities committed by the anti-liberation forces, see www.genocidebangladesh.org

3 Yohn, T. (2001) Letters to the Editor: Who Cares About the Bengali People? The New York Times, Dec 31, 1971; pg. 18

4 Text of Indian Message, The New York Times, Dec 16, 1971; pg. 16

5 Reuters, (1971), "The Surrender Document" published in the New York Times, Dec 17, 1971, pg. 1
6 Rangan, K. (1971). "Bengalis Hunt Down Biharis, Who Aided Foe", The New York Times, Dec 22, 1971, pg. 14
7 India Weighs Bengali Plea To Try Pakistani Officials, The New York Times; Dec 27, 1971; pg. 1
8 Bangladesh Will Try 1,100 Pakistanis, The New York Times, Mar 30, 1972; pg. 3
9 ibid
10 India opens way for Dacca trials. The New York Times; Mar 18, 1972; pg. 1
11 India to Deliver 150 P.O.W.'s To Bangladesh to Face Trial, The New York Times, Jun 15, 1972, pg. 11
12 For Text of the Agreement, see http://mea.gov.in/jk/sim-ag.htm
13 Pakistan Denies Charge, The New York Times, Apr 17, 1972; pg. 6
14 Official Reports 2,000 Bengalis Held in Pakistani Jails, The New York Times, Dec 13, 1972, pg. 3
15 Wave of Bengalis fleeing Pakistan, The New York Times, Nov 12, 1972, pg. 10
16 Official Reports 2,000 Bengalis Held in Pakistani Jails, The New York Times, Dec 13, 1972, pg. 3
17 Transcript of President Bhutto's Press Conference on Aug 10, 1972. cited in Burke, S.M. (1971). "The Postwar Diplomacy of the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971". Asian Survey, Vol. 13, No. 11 (Nov., 1973), pp. 1039
18 Weekly Commentary and Pakistan News Digest, Nov. 24, 1972. cited in Burke (1971). ibid
19 A Veto By Peking, The New York Times, Aug 27, 1972; pg. E3
20 Pakistan to Allow 10,000 to Return to Bangladesh, The New York Times, Nov 23, 1972; pg. 15
21 India and Bangladesh Offer Plan For End of Deadlock on Prisoners, The New York Times, Apr 18, 1973, pg. 97
22 Bhutto Threatens to Try Bengalis Held in Pakistan, The New York Times, May 29, 1973; pg. 3
23 India-Pakistan Talks Reach Impasse, The New York Times, Aug 26, 1973; pg. 3
24 Bhutto Threatens to Try Bengalis Held in Pakistan, ibid
25 Bengalis and Pakistanis Begin Exchange Today, The New York Times, Sep 19, 1973; pg. 6
26 600 Bengalis, Pakistanis Freed and Flown Home; The New York Times, Sep 24, 1973; pg. 9
27 India to release 90,000 Pakistanis in peace accord. The New York Times, Aug 29, 1973; pg. 1
28 The Constitution of the People's Republic Of Bangladesh. See www.pmo.gov.bd/constitution
29 The International Crimes (Tribunals) Act, 1973 (ACT NO. XIX OF 1973). 20th July , 1973. Government of Bangladesh.
30 Pakistan Affairs, May 1, 1973. cited in Burke (1971) ibid pp. 1040
31 Repatriation Is Completed For Bangladesh Nationals. The New York Times, Mar 25, 1974; pg. 8
32 Pakistan Offers Apology to Bangladesh, The New York Times, Apr 11, 1974; pg 3.

Sayeed Ahamed is an Australia-based public policy analyst and is a member of Drishtipat Writers Collective
 
v


__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] Assange in the Entrails of Empire



Assange in the Entrails of Empire

By ISRAEL SHAMIR

Our real-life Neo did it again! In this new installment of Wiki-Matrix, the intrepid Julian Assange assaults the Empire while being pursued by ravenous Pentagon generals, shadowy CIA agents and overheated Swedish feminists.

Excuse me if I'm sounding like a teenager's comic book, but this story has so many twists and plots it makes my head swim. I haven't been this dizzy since my first days as an anti-Zionist writer, hounded and alone. One day I was approached by a venerable Hassidic man; I instinctively cringed, expecting an ugly scene. Instead of condemnation I was deluged with goodwill, and at that same moment an orchestra next door suddenly struck up an old Jewish wedding tune. This ancient blessing seemed to rocket me up, up and away from the modern nationalist cult of brutal force, up to a place where old traditions still had value and relevance. Or was that just Clark Kent doing his thing again?

The digital generation prefers the Matrix's Neo to Superman, but the dynamics remain the same. As Neo wanders Moebius' spaceship, he stumbles upon a group of down-to-earth, eager, sweet kids dedicated to the destruction of the Matrix. Hard as steel yet perfectly humane, these young men and women enjoy the camaraderie of an elite troop awaiting the signal to attack. They follow their leader simply because he is the best and the brightest. I felt this same esprit de corps on a recent visit to one of Wikileaks' safe-houses somewhere in Europe. This confluence of hackers and journalists was assembled in preparation to launch what will be known to history as Cablegate, or perhaps Megaleaks.

Here were Malena from Brazil, Joseph from Sweden, Sara from New Zealand, James from England, and numerous others no less important and valuable, all lounging on mats and sofas, laptops on laps and eyes peering into the heart of the Matrix. One quarter of a million secret and confidential US Embassy cables sit like so many digital wasps waiting to be released into cyberspace. They will strike at the tender underbelly of the empire, the flattering self-delusions that maintain the imperial armies. It just might be enough to turn the tide in the battle to recover our evaporating freedoms.

These dirty little cables throw a bright light upon the murky policies of the American Imperium, on their methods of collecting information, of delivering orders, of subverting politicians and robbing nations. Yet before we lapse into a comfortable and reflexive anti-Americanism, let us never forget that this, arguably the greatest revelation of criminal wrongdoing in history, was only made possible because brave and honest Americans were willing to risk life and limb to leak the truth.

Tensions run high when you dare oppose the awesome power of the Matrix. These bright, young cyber-warriors are willing to put their lives on the line for us. Will they survive the launch, or will some evil clones round them up and break them down? In any case, spirits are high and the weather is fit for such a daring enterprise: glorious high skies, a brilliant sun, and bright stars to guide us through the restless nights. Whatever happens I shall be forever grateful for these days, for the company of these charming young men and women, and for the inspiration of their charismatic leader. It is impossible not to admire Julian Assange. He is forever kind, quiet, gentle, and even meek; like the Tao, he leads without leading, directs without commanding. He never raises his voice; he hardly needs to speak and the way becomes clear. Our Neo is guided by the ideal of social transparency. Bright light is the best weapon against conspiracies.

On board the good ship Megaleaks, I leaf through the latest reports from the front line. There seem to be three main themes, all of which are centered on our plucky hero, Julian Assange. There is the  "traitor" theme (which shrouds a globalist empire in patriotic colors), the "rapist" theme (in which a spurned lover is revenged upon our hero because he failed to produce a contraceptive device at the critical moment), and finally there is the "Zionist plot" theme (which is oddly tied up with the rape theme since one of his accusers has absconded to Israel). As in all well-designed disinformation campaigns, there is something for everyone: conservatives can jump on board with the traitor theme, liberals are fans of the rape theme, and the lunatic fringe can get excited about another Zionist plot. Let's do our best to liberate the enslaved name of "Zion" from the apartheid state and restore it to where it belongs: the good ship Megaleaks and the spotlight of truth. It is simply too good a name to leave to Zionists.

The contents of Megaleaks

The full set consists of 251,288 documents dating from the 28th of December 1966 to the 28th of February 2010, originating from 274 embassies. Each one of these documents is either a secret diplomatic cable that was sent to the USA, or a communiqué from the Secretary of State to US bases. They show the orders given around the world, the intelligence the US government wants gathered and the information to be fed back; what diplomats discover about the places they are working, detailed notes of meetings with members of other governments and the opinions of the sender regarding those with whom they meet. The 261,276,536 words that constitute these cables would, if printed, fill over 3,000 books. These cables clearly depict the tentacles of US worldwide command and control.

The preliminary analysis reveals bad news as well as good news. Bad news: they are insidious. The files show US political infiltration of nearly every country, even supposedly neutral states such as Sweden and Switzerland. US embassies keep a close watch on their hosts. They have penetrated the media, the arms business, oil, intelligence, and they lobby to put US companies at the head of the line. The cables show that the United States is already maintaining a global empire.

And now the good news: they are not omnipotent. The cables prove that they encounter resistance on every level. They always push, but they don't always get their way. Russia is relatively free, so are Iran and Turkey; even the tamest European state does not always placidly submit. The cables add to our own intimate knowledge of the grassroots opposition in the UK and the US; online magazines like CounterPunch are beacons in a sea of fog.

The files reveal some brazen cases of interference. Many of the most recent are connected to Iran, which has become an obsession within the US leadership. For instance, just before the speech of President Ahmadinejad at the UN General Assembly, the State Department ordered the Europeans to leave the room at a certain cue. In fact, the European powers did jump to the US whistle that day, just as the obedient soviet satellites once leapt to Stalin's tune. There was only one country that violated the order: Sweden. The terrified representative had accidentally missed the cue and frantically sent distressed signals to the Americans for further instruction.

Consider the small and poor state of Tajikistan, who merely changed masters. It supposedly became "independent" in 1991, but what really happened? Nowadays, they jump to US orders just as they once did Soviet orders. An ambassador's cable says tersely: "the US called upon president Rahmonov to dismiss [the Drug Authority chief] Mirzoev and he fulfilled this request". Who shall save our poor little Tajikistan from the clutches of the Matrix? The ambassador gives us a clue: "We believe Russia is exerting consistent and strong pressure on Tajikistan to reduce the U.S. and Western role and presence. Moscow's pressure is beginning to take a toll."

Or consider Azerbaijan, where American influence has waned and the power of Israel has waxed to such an extent that a cable from the Baku embassy compares Israeli-Azeri relations to an iceberg with nine-tenths unseen.

It appears that American power peaked in 1990s, and now it has begun to slowly decay. Megaleaks is not so much a cause as a symptom of decline. With any luck, people of good will around the world can work together to gracefully degrade the machinery of foreign domination. Americans have benefited least of all from the violent and intrusive politics of globalism. Heroic figures like Julian Assange lead us toward genuine local control and away from a Matrix-like network of conspiracies.

Israel Shamir can be reached at adam@israelshamir.net



__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] I DON'T NEED ANY POLITICS EXCEPT MY OWN LIBERTY




 

I DON'T NEED ANY POLITICS EXCEPT MY OWN LIBERTY

Friday, 2. April, 23:06

I achieved the philosophy of anarchism through my long struggle. I understand that, the so called state is the organization of oppressors. State ensure or make to safe the power into the hand of a few. It is protective power to generation by generation which is called the power of hierarchy. Anarchism is very deep and wise thought of political philosophy, anarchists demand to abolish corrupted state and Governments.

Anarchism is a movement of human freedom. Anarchism is not for Govt. nor a state. It is struggle for every days life to break up the chain of slavery and fight for dishonesty and all type of coercions, domination and difference kind of exploitation within a society.

Working class and other oppressed people must be build their own conscious as they are the separate social class at first; without their class awareness and direct involvement in politics there will be no social change, society cannot be revolutionized with reactionary class power. We rejected Marxist- Stalinist authoritarian state socialism which is Hasina's govt. trying to dreaming and planing now in Bangladesh. So-called workers power or workers state without present of workers practical involvement, in cabinet? Those Stalinists want to reestablish state machinery for their own purpose and that is their rotten Marxism. Late Sk Mojib had tried his best, he had made one million RAKHEE BAHINEE
(his own protectors so-called Gestapos'), where those people are gone ? They were socialy banished by the revolution of 15th August 1975. 15th August, 1975 is a day of freedom from Bangladeshi Awami-fascist dictatorial regime; It is historical truth for BD new generation and they sholud be aware that from out of GOVERMENTAL CENSOR.I am personally pleased for my safety and human existance, without 15th August, 1975 even I could not alive today. Thanks those heros who were executed by fascist ALGovt.for save of our million-millons lives.

Anarchists we believe, human needs can be satisfied through the justice of impartial natural law, surrounding natural resources, cooperative aids,self-development and solidarity are the best way to living within the free nature.

Suppressive people must organize themselves for their own freedom and liberty. They must understood whether they need to change contemporary social structure and related law and orders to build their better life and that is the key point of all political History.

Build your local federation, active yourself, contact, ensure own liberty--fight for solidarity & freedom for natural society. Say, no Govt.no authority, no exploitation and no capitalism; only prepare for finalization your society without ruler. Anarchism is individual liberty and want to create a social life without political, economical hierarchies.

Anarchist natural socity vs. so-called state and government

Sunday, 21. March, 01:03

Natural law is the law of univers. Which always teach us and let us to know our ability and some disabilities.
Nature let us to know what means of govt.and the state over us?

We taught through our sense and intelligentsia,so-called states means, men and women's varieties kind of governing function and their reactionary programs, war, crime,destruction, exploitation ect.; state is bourgeois monopoly so-called legitimate force; the sole enemy of the freedom and liberty.

The anarchists, we wish to collapse state for our liberty. We understood that, state and government is not the solution of our social problems. All governing elites must be stop to govern against state of nature. No human rule can be role over nature and human dignities. Contemporary all man made artificial law and rules were made for interest on certain class status of people; those class of people are known statist elites.

We demand, right of choice, free education and all other equal social benefit for every citizen in whole society. We believe only truth lead the justice: Human beings developing their own positive moral powers; specially those are economical and political self-determination. We stand against privilege elites and their form of statism.

Government is unnecessary, no excessive cost and burden to pay those unproductive state apparatus. We don't need any guardianship or govt.authotity; we hate authorities.State is reactionary force and it causing sometimes militarism, totalitarianism, tyranny, dictatorship, fascism and enslaving us.

The society can exist without institution of a state and its all form of authorities; we know society exist with individual. The revolutionary proletariat must smash people eternal prison so-called bourgeois capitalist state.

Our voice, "do good and avoid evil". We believe Bangladeshi anarchists must be active against fascist AL-BAKSAL Govt. which is in reality a method of NAZISM. It remainds us socalled "one country, one leader, Bangobandu BANGLADESH, what does that meant "?

No government over any individual. We demand, free natural society, peace and prosperity with everybody's interst. Freedom is real value of our human life. We must think to develop
our conscious what is go in on in our country through the foreign agents by our ruling govt. we must break down the false ideological domination of capitalist ideas to building or establishing fuadal method of bourgeis state and government.

We are revolutionary people, revolution is not compromised with reactionary class enemies and that is always a big guestion for any political and ideological class chracter..Those Marxist-Stalinists political strategy recognized for the power of the state and goverment as samilar to NAZIISM or combaindly known state socialism.Through the analyses of class status, Bangladesh Awami League is reactionary political class and they are fundamentaly against the progressive revolution of human "Liberty"and therefore, logicaly they are the enemy of the people. Our natural right to fight and exist.



STRUGGLE AGAINST REACTIONARY GOVERNING ELITES AND THEIR PROPAGANDA

Wednesday, 10. March, 22:27

Most of former East Pakistani state criminals are now motivated in Bangaladeshi present government. Those gangs are Bangladeshi National socialists or NAZI'S.

Locally they are known BAKSALI-GANGS.Manon. Motia, Sahara Khatun,Innu,Hasina and Earshad's name at the top. Those fack people must be thrown from BD society. Their false strategy only bluffing,confusing and bothering general people's freedom destiny.Through the observation it seems that, those people got no positive political philosophy within fixed ideological concept in their own brains except, exploiting citizens and making big money. those are living in bourgeois (Capitalists) status but, they are saying and lying they're socialists; which school of socialism they studied we would like to know? It is sure that, without acceptable clear political realities soon or later all of those corrupted strange politicians will be punished and there will be no pardon or excused. Those reactionary class enemies are willingly digging their own graves.

Those NAZI'S politics are not the truthful constructive path; people don't need to follow those wrong doers wrong politics; those people are demons. Their soul is dirty, those criminal will get punish by people's Liberation struggle. Those authoritarians corrupted fascists, Stalinists misguiding our people and misleading the democracy.

Through the knowledge and political study we understood that, as long as states and govt. exists,there will be no natural freedom, Denying governmental so-called authority and opposing corrupted state is the final destiny of freedom and liberation.State & govt.means the central power of tyranny and exploitation. All most every national bourgeois governments are collaborating with world exploiting systems which is,hatful "imperialism". Denying national bourgeoisie means,Denying imperialism.

We reject all coercive authoritative elements, eco-monopoly exploiting, fascism and totalitarian state policy, all kind of hierarchy and political dictatorship,we opposing Marxian-Stalinists view of state communism (which is actually Platonic ideas). Bangladesh people are not interested to practicing Adolf Hitler's NATIONAL SOCIALISM.

We believe, human right is some advanced clear footprint of our expression,"the thought of natural freedom"and politely I suggest, every single individual should get awareness for her/his universal rights, protection and defence.

Human beings needs free society without government and state. Bourgeois absolutism and state dominating power of supremacy is against human liberty and therefore, the school of Anarchism is fighting against all reactionary terrors within verities mask.



REMOVED ALL TOTALITARIAN-FASCIST RULING CLASS FROM NATURAL SOCIETY

Tuesday, 2. March, 12:47

Awami ruling class is living almost an aristocracy in our modern time.AL government is nothing more than a group of gangs, they trying to maintain and controlling our civil society into their own way. Awami-Baksali's are organizing totalitarian Stalinists gangs. Their founding father was a separatist, racist-nationalist dictator Late SK MUJIB.

Bangladeshi bourgeoisie's organization is AWAMI LEAGUE also called them BAKSAL,the totalitarian regime.Their political works is to killing, arresting or send to jail without trial any of opposition political party members. AL is a anti-democratic, totalitarian-fascist government. Power, control and exploiting- business is their political introduction.

Bangladeshi people are not depends on AL bourgeois cabinet and their parliament.Hence,people believe the liberation is the matter of full concern of masses themselves, not the bourgeoisie, parliament or their party.

To build a new state and a government is not a freedom it is a new slavery under the tyranny.The government is not a natural, it's a force and violation. Natural law drives from the nature, that means human beings and all other universal physical matters and their natural existence depends on their own principle.

NATURAL LIFE AND CREATION OR EVOLUTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ARTIFICIALITY AND THEREFORE OUR SCIENCE OF PHILOSOPHY DOES NOT ACCEPT ANY AUTHORITY. AUTHORITARIAN FORCE AND THEIR POLITICAL INJUSTICE SHOULD BE REMOVED.


A part of natural law is a human right nowadays(natural law that is not inverted, not created and not full discovered). Natural law was discovered by the Stoic philosophers; even before them that was seemed in Taoism.

Philosophy of anarchism is a moral force against all immoral-illegal and unnatural states. Anarchist subject is to liberate mankind from economic exploitation and oppression. It's real human social culture. Our thought and believe, the emancipation of the working people can only be gained by the working people themselves.

The famous bourgeois slogan,"equality before the law" is a great lie. Laws are made for a group of minority of rubbers (owners). And therefore we demand to abolish all so-called govt.

THE GOVERNING CLASS IS THE EXPLOITING CLASS NO.ONE. THEREFORE OUR PEOPLE ARE FIGHTING AGAINST DOMINATED POWER. WE SHOULD NOT LET THEM THEIR MIGHT IS ALWAYS RIGHT.

Unity against ruling reactionary bourgeisie

Monday, 1. March, 13:05

Anarchism means not a political power like so called reactionary state organs. Anarchy persuaded people for liberty and freedom. Anarchy means self conscious, equality, solidarity, and balance for justice, fight for all injustice reactionary state organs in our daily live. Anarchy means a news social and natural law against man made all ultra reactionary laws and orders. Anarchy means no individual is superior to other human beings.

Every state is tyranny through a single person or a group of so called governing body.Every government is its nature, counter revolutionary.

Anarchy does not mean the abstract reflections of an intellectual and philosophical media; hence, it is the class struggle.

Anarchy demanded that, the real social quality, freedom and justice should be achieved through the abolition of reactionary bourgeois state.

What is a state? State means to us authoritarian rulers and wage slaves. But only liberation concept is self management and granted our will the absolute freedom through the nature.

Stop imprisonment, torture, shot-killing and execution, coercion, oppression. The name of secularism is an Stalinist propaganda,contemporary Baksali-Stalinist brutality must be end from Bangladesh.

People you have to depend on your own strength and unity against AL reactionay froces and their goons;
the enemy the terror govt.they will be bound to surrender!

Sam.Kohl

Sunday February 28 2010 13:03:42 PM BDT

Stop Baksali State Terrorism & Smash Their Illegal Supremacy

Tuesday, 23. February, 11:08

Not only political debating, our people need their practical action against AL govt. reactionary and brutality. Bangladesh people need their freedom and liberty. People’s lives & goods are not the personal property of ruling bourgeoisie and their govt. AL.

All governments are temporary servants of the people.

Awami-Baksali govt. is not our gods; their politics is wrong and they should leave the power. They must respect people's will. If not then that will be their ignorance and big mistake and they should carry all responsibility for revolutionary people's existential hostile reactions.

The AL must know violence is a force and crime against the natural balanced of laws. Any law and Rule be excepted if those are directly recommended by the people and equally good for all citizens. If, any system does not work properly for the public interest then that is not a good systems any more and it is very easy to understand. We beloved universality of HUMAN RIGHTS: no killing, no injured, no hard-punishment, no rape, no rubbed and no illegal compensation of bribery. Philosophy of anarchism brought up and explained the characters of the State, Govt. & God or gods are not existential but even though we’re not against any believers. Many contemporary anarchists are also religious and we meant that is individual matters and we have the respect.

Our main protest against illegal forces and reactionary governmental all institutions. We do not except coercive government. Illegal legislation bodies are the founders of all governments for their own class interest to protect themselves; those few who never got any permission to legalized so called law & orders over the citizens. Statist bourgeoisie formed their terror state. No privileged elites have any right to terrorized over the citizens natural rights. We're completely disappointed with Awami-Baksali behaviors.

Bangladeshi common people’s combined action must success against Awami league fascist & Nazi (ultra nationalist) Hasina govt.

We anarchists always against various forms of oppression. We support and demands at least or minimum universalisation as follows:

freedom of speech; freedom for meetings, protest March and demonstration; Life safety and security for all human lives ect.around the world must be the same.

S.kohl

Revenge means blindness, ignorant and hunger for unlimited power

Tuesday, 23. February, 11:03

Anarchists fundamental philosophy is human liberty against all man made laws. Our philosophy demand, man and woman have to have political conscious themselves to break their own chain.

The thought of anarchism is not to form government. The view of anarchism wants, state's belonging rest of all social violence must be abolished. Anarchism means, the abolition of exploitation and oppression of man by man.

Anarchy is a liberty; liberty is the highest natural endowments, liberty is the highest good for mankind. Anarchists don't obey any injustice command of any evil rulers on earth. Anarchy is natural freedom which is guaranteed for equal value and dignity of human lives.

The philosophy of anarchism is not a artificial formulae to build state and governmental institution; rather, it is the philosophy of anti statism. Anarchism means to abolish the process of govt. Govt. means force and coercion against the right of natural liberty.

What we meant freedom? Without liberty freedom is impossible. Liberty and equality are the natural law of justice for all human being. The literal meaning of anarchy means without ruler. Anarchy realized value of the human freedom, liberty and social equalities will secured peace and maintain our healthy live.

Human life should not follow the orthodox view on the low morality of killing; and public administration should not be the killer machine. The historicaly truth is that, AL is doing today in Bangladesh like, Nazi-national socialist regime and Musolini's fascist regime had done previously. The suppressive people's bitter experience must bring upto them the lesson to organized to develope their freedom. Late dictator Sk Mojibor Rahaman's daughter Hasian and her party Awami league can never ever stop revolutionary class conscious from any freedom movement with their tyrant regime. AWAMI LEAGUE GOVT. MUST CHANGE POLICY TO KILL OUR HUMAN SOULS, DOES NOT MATTER WHO SHE OR HE IS. HEREBY AGAIN, AL MUST BE INFORMED THAT, IN BANGLADESH BLOODY NAZI ISM & FASCISM HAS NO CHANCE. BANGLADESH HAS ITS OWN ROUTES, AL MUST STOP ALL KIND OF REVENGE.

BD is not private property for family PM Hasina or her AL party, it is the land for its whole nation without any discrimination. Those men or women who order to kill or hanged or shoot the human being they are not justice; those are killers and murderer, they got no right to deal to BD jurisdiction. Human life must be safe by the law and order that is the fundamental zeal of foundation of the court of justice. Our first and last appeal, the court of justice must not work blindly with Hasina's revange. If you don't have civilised and humanized ideas then how did you be come justice for the country and your nation?

State terrorism must be end and political killing or murderer must be stop. Hanged 5 human lives and pray to Allah for satisfaction and that is the clear fundamentalism by Hasina's ruling AL govt. which were brought to signed like a saxual sadism.

S. Kohl


Uninterrupted struggle against those who seek for absolute power

Tuesday, 23. February, 10:55

The Bangladeshi revolutionary working people and Bangladeshi bourgeoisie are two antagonistic classes. AL are not friends for class conscious people in BD; those are reactionary class enemies, they sucking workers blood and exploiting them continous. The15th August 1975 was very important for revived spirit for the people of BD. They fought against BAKSAL-FASCISM to saved democratic resistance at home. But it is tragedy that some of those heroes gave their lives for our historical freedom, Jan.28th 2010, through the reactionary AL authoritarian party decision which were not independent court of justice. Those decision makers were hired and promoted by Hasina's Awami league.

We urging that no individual party politics, just united opposition for the victim people's resistance against Awami-Baksal government; this is the only politics we need to save Bangladeshi people and their territorial, religious and cultural rights to protect from all internal and external enemies.

Democracy is the foundation of universal civil rights for any society, and those basic rights are: people's assembly, possession, strike and freedom of speech and writings guaranties act.;.

World wide so called patriotic ordinance're violating humanity and citizens intimate-affairs; and at the same time, dictator late shek Mujib's daughter PM HASINA'S tyrannies violating international humanitarian laws & justice(in BAngaladesh). Hasina's power not depend on Bangladeshi people, she is fully dependent on forigen powers which are in politically and economically remained, the world "imperialism "and clearly it seemed that, by the birth Awami leage is an imperialist agent. AL patriotism is not true just fake-artificial. People of Bangladesh, do't wait to long, build your own front and build the large unity for united opposition against AL govt. barbarism.

The situation emergeing to protesting and smashing tyrant regime.



S. Kohl

Unity for mass action against socalled cultural reform-ist & land sellers

Tuesday, 23. February, 10:44

No doubt, the Awami league is an authoritarian political state regime. We hate namely the authoritarian retired US president George Bush, British ret. Prime Minister Tony Blair, rest of the imperialist- monopolist s and their NATO forces even Taliban and Nazi and fascist gangs all over the world. All so called authority and their domination never be welcome to independence writers and political thinkers. BD suppressive people you must fight for your own liberation within own courage and independent political conscious and our solidarity with you. Do not attained in any possession within any circumastances under the banner of any reactionary bourgeois class.

Bangladesh Awami league and family Hasina is the new monarch of BD. No democrats like monarchism; democracy and monarchy are contra productive. Bangladesh people's right is to fight for democracy. AL policy is not in favour to Bangladesh people, they are the modern slaves for international monopolist states association.The ruling class is a particular sector (in any society) of the upper class, the wealthiest people who are controlling markets, economy, production, law, religions and state policy act.;. The democratic revolution is necessary in Bangladesh society and it is the basic civil rights to form civil societiy.

Bangladesh AL party is a fascist party. Suppressive people must fight for your liberation against ruling reactionary forces. AL fascist state regime is an authoritarian political reactionary fascist party programm.The Italian state man Mussolini was the symbolic figure of fascism included German Nazi (national socialist party) leader Adolf Hitler. There are many ideologies and many isms' and those are different and contradictated.

National liberation is nothing than the bourgeois liberation and that brought to national bourgeoisie's absolute power and profits.Once our great India was divided and later Pakistan's East wing's was destroyed for the interest of(local)bourgeoisie.

Now our time is to fight against those bourgeois states for the suppressive people's freedom and liberty. We're against world imperialism and their agents BANGLADESH AWAMI-Goons.

Bangladesh working people must take mass action against Awami league and over through those land seller HASINA'S AWAMI –FASCIST REGIME.

S.Kohl

Freedom means not obeying any authority and their irrational bastiality

Tuesday, 23. February, 06:22

Without Liberty, we can't fulfill our own liberation and freedom for equal prosperity. Philosophical anarchism's main thought is, no individual has the right to issue order or dominate another fellowmen that means no master or mistress, no monarchy and monarchs, no elitism, no hiearchy, no authority in our living community.

Our political & philosophical thoughts, "society must be reorganized;" we need, a small local based of governing communities whose driving power by the hand of people by themselves because, human are naturally social. The State whole machineries are itself the enemy of people's liberty;it is the force and violence against human civilization and it's the modern chain of slavery. States means to us the hands of a few wealthy men and women and their directive criminal cabinet of ministry, courts, armies, polices.

Authority means immense violence and destruction that must be end of our society until that, we shall be not considered civil citizen; if so called establishing state can't bring any guarantee for the citizen's life security why then those government established body rubbing public's funds purpose of their monthly high salaries to maintain their high lives! Destruction, murder, violence, rape, every day as usual routines in Bangladesh, who're responsible for that, it is not the bloody Awami league government, are not they?

The ruling party Awami league (AL) is not the ordinary general people's party; it is the party of dishonest narrow bourgeois party. AL is not able to maintain peace through their reactionary class characters. THE PARTY OF AWAMI LEAGUE LIKES RIOTS AND ALL TYPE OF VIOLENCE.OUR HISTORY HAS GIVEN EVIDENCE THAT, AL PARTY HAS GROWN WITH THE VIOLENCE. WE'RE NOT FORGOTEN THE PERIODS OF DICTATOR SK MUJIB & AT THIS TIME HIS DAUGHTER HASINA'S REGIME'S BRUTALITY.

The truth is that, we're living in a class society. Authoritarian govt.is representing wealthy people's interest and those financial and cultural interests are connected within world imperialism.

Many people shouted and hate,imperialism and Globalism but, why they do not attack their own govt. to stop those crimes and criminals. The real connecting body of the representing agency for monopoly market politics is our own govt. in 3rd world. Profit is the driving force of capitalism.
If poor men fight against each other and that would be worst and worthless. In BD social class are divided. In modern term we call workers and the bosses. If individual's politics derived for particular class interest than we don't need to be a party members. We're the members of our own genie.
The real path of freedom and solidarities with common people around the world we're unique.Long live anarchism!

1 2 Next »

I speak here to defense my understanding of liberty

Sunday, 10. February 2008, 17:49

I´m glad that I have a blog here, where I can put my opinions, comments & criticism on social observation. I do not have a higher education. From my youth time I grew-up without proper guide & care. I was a victim of the controlling power of the society or ruling elite's who used children for their dirty politics. But after, I have gained experiences like other human beings do.

Based on my views, higher education is nothing if that can not help or resolve our environmental and economical crisis. Today's world is dying because of so-called educated morally ignored people, they continue exploiting us from behind their masks and their hidden ugly characters. Who are they? They are every where! They are in politics, in Governments, in all type of higher administrations and in various civil sectors.

So, people of the world, we have to be very careful. We should Keep a distance from those fake and fraud people, we must oppose their wrong activities. Around the world, wake up people! Think properly to save own life and lives of your neighbors, and nature, these are your owns.

Do not make compromise with wicked people, don´t listen to them. Oppose their big profitable nuc-weapons industries, explosive gases, and different kinds of anti-environmental businesses and productions. Such are big threat of the nature & of our existence.We must select who are our actual friends or enemies; whom we can trust or reject from our lives.

People, we are the decision taking and approving power, not the cabinet, parliament or Congress! We have to gain back our Self-conscious and it will be our main human power, our intellectual tools and we must apply that to survive.

The wicked ruling class thinks that we, the people are only their order followers some idiot servants. But fact is, we are not immaterial things, we have senses and we just we can´t accept and follow them blindly & let them make more and more profit in destroying our living world in the name of democracy. Today's governments in everywhere, they are agents of other profit makers, they don´t assure jobs for regular public, they failed to build social peace & harmony, good environments, safety for living beings. So, the question why should we need those governments and why should we let them live wealthy in the cost of our blood & energy?

We need to develop our own conscious from our own social position, our own collective free social intersts but not the interest of any national authoritarian upper classes. Those upper classes Godly bosses are the main caused of our miserable lives here on our beautiful planet.We don´t need their war,their profits to defense their interests; we need peace and coexistence with difference cultures & coustoms within human nations.Our motto is humanitarian & it must be approve here on this EARTH in our daily lives.

A matured intelligent being do not need any guardianship; so, why someone will be there to interfere & judging on our lives. We know only children needs parents to support their daily lives. We also know that, human societies obligatory duty to take care old,disable and ill or sick persons.

Of coursed it is also clear to us that,religions are older forms of politics with mythological fantasies. We're living on earth not in unknown darkness; so, our lives and prosperity depends on our own hands,as well as in our knowledge & brains, not on any supernatural prayers.

Modern time ideologically people are very developed; societies are also comparely quiet improved. So, we must free ourselve from all kind of reactionary world oppressors. Don´t request, just collectivly pushed out those power misused wicked criminals,just unmask them,suppressive people of the world, we must make our way to get free,-go forwards! we must be liberated


__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___