Banner Advertiser

Tuesday, December 7, 2010

Fwd: [ALOCHONA] Re: Fwd: Major Akhtar says





---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Zoglul Husain <zoglul@hotmail.co.uk>
Date: Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 11:21 PM
Subject: RE: [ALOCHONA] Re: Fwd: Major Akhtar says


Thank you for forwarding the views of Ezajur. With his ironic expressions and rather oblique style, he correctly interpreted that the word 'imposed' meant 'collusion between the West, the CTG and the Army'. He also correctly asserted:""Serving the Indians?" Well. Zoglul is not alone in thinking this and could probably provide the basis for his arguments if you bothered to engage him directly." Ezajur also quite pungently pointed to Farida, "Dishonesty in government should trouble you more". I think in many areas Ezajur has views similar to yours and mine.  
 
This is a good rebuttal to Farida for calling the Alochona group 'mela of blind and deaf people' and the posting of our views in the group as 'dishonest'. Her servitude to the Indian hegemonists is quite repugnant, degrading and pathetic.
 
You probably already have seen an email from Mohd. Haque, in reply to Ezajur, saying: 'Dishonesty in government should trouble you more than dishonesty by any nutcase in this forum.' You have said it Ezaz. Leave aside the honesty or dishonesty, you know where the pain lies.   
 
The expression, 'you know where the pain lies', I think, said it all!   
 

Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 12:26:04 +0600
Subject: Fwd: [ALOCHONA] Re: Fwd: Major Akhtar says
From: bdmailer@gmail.com
To: zoglul@hotmail.co.uk



---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: ezajur <Ezajur@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 5:08 PM
Subject: [ALOCHONA] Re: Fwd: Major Akhtar says
To: alochona@yahoogroups.com


Alochona, like most other forums and groupings of Bangladeshis, is a microcosm of our nation - complete with idiots, mischief makers, well meaning buffoons and bleeding hearts. I enjoy it and engaging numbskulls is half the battle.

You are dealing with Bangladesh. Some stupidity is inevitable - its a question of engaging it or fighting it. After all, stupidity by AL and BNP is running, and ruining, the country.

Lets look at what Zoglul actually has written: "the present government is an illegally imposed autocratic and fascist government serving Indian interest against the interests of Bangladesh".

"Illegal?". The government is legal since no BNP men ever thought they were going to win the election. Most I know actually realise they didn't deserve to win the election either.

"Imposed? Well that depends on the truth. Do you know what the truth is? If you do please enlighten us. The word imposed comes from suspicions of collusion between the West, the CTG and the Army.

"Autocratic?" YOU BET! Unless you've come across an AL/BNP man who has the guts, the brains or the kahunas to disagree with his Nethri. Applies to BNP too when it was in power.

"Fascist?" Well its an exaggeration of course but the description is not too far from the truth. It ties in with "autocractic" and it ties in with the way AL thugs and supporters operate - using political power as a weapon. Applies to BNP too when it was in power.

"Serving the Indians?" Well. Zoglul is not alone in thinking this and could probably provide the basis for his arguments if you bothered to engage him directly.

Dishonesty in government should trouble you more than dishonesty by any nutcase in this forum. But I do undertand why it is convenient to have things the other way round.

Ezajur Rahman
Kuwait

--- In alochona@yahoogroups.com, Farida Majid <farida_majid@...> wrote:
>
>
> This Alochona group has become a mela of deaf and blind people. bdmailer keeps posting mails from a Zaglaal from U.K. who pretends to be a bangladeshi, but missed the General Election of Dec. 2008 that took place in Bangladesh and which was acknowledged by the world as one of the largest in terms of the number of voter participation. Imported in this group by bdmailer on a regulae basis, this member of the hukkah-hua choir is claiming to own the TRUTH:
>
> "He [Akhtaruzzaman] said, there is a democratic government existing in Bangladesh now. But the truth is: the present government is an illegally imposed autocratic and fascist govt serving Indian interest against the interests of Bangladesh".
>
> There is no greater truth than this in current BD politics! This so called TRUTH is in the tin cup being rattled with a few chucked out coins. The tin cup is held in one hand of a person wearing dark glaesses. In his other hand is a long white stick. And he stands in a busy corner of a shopping mall heckling passers by.
>
> As an original member of Alochona I find this level of dishonesty in the group's postings exploitative and truly troubling.
>
> Farida Majid
>
>
> From: bdmailer@...
> Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 10:08:41 +0600
> Subject: [ALOCHONA] Fwd: Major Akhtar says
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Zoglul Husain <zoglul@...>
> Date: Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 6:38 AM
>
>
> The report of 'Protidin' probably intentionally did not include certain aspects of Maj (Rtd) Akhtaruzzaman's statement. They seem to have taken resort to manipulations of half-truths. The important part of the statement is: In the statement, Maj (Rtd) Akhtaruzzaman, who was expelled from BNP, opposed Khaleda and supported Hasina and Mujib. Please see the following report from the Amader Shomoy, 30 November 2010:
>
>
http://www.amadershomoy1.com/content/2010/11/30/news0471.htm
>
> He said, Hartal is not a democratic programme. But, the truth is: the right to strike is accepted internationally as one of the most important democratic rights. So, he is ignorant about it. Then he said, it is an uncivilised action against an uncivilised government. Again, this is an ignorant, arrogant and uncivil statement, he should go through the records of strikes in the countries, which are known to be democratic.
>
> He said, there is a democratic government existing in Bangladesh now. But the truth is: the present government is an illegally imposed autocratic and fascist govt serving Indian interest against the interests of Bangladesh. The previous Hasina govt (1996-2001) was an elected govt. However, Bangladesh did not really have a good democratic govt.
>
> He said, in the third world, the army is a very disciplined political party. But the truth is: it is not a political party. Does he understand what a political party is?
>
> He said Khaleda lost her residence, because she celebrated her birthday on 15 August and because Khaleda is against the army. Has he lost his screws?? Does he not know that it is RAW is the prime mover in this episode? He said, (Khaleda has been) 'living in Bangladesh and walking bravely after uttering words against Bangabondhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, - this cannot be allowed to happen, as times have changed'. Has he now been working for RAW ?
>
>
>
> Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 10:16:43 +0600
> Subject: Major Akhtar says
> From: bdmailer@...
>
Major Akhtar says
>
> http://www.bd-pratidin.com/?view=details&type=pratidin&pub_no=214&cat_id=1&menu_id=1&news_type_id=1&news_id=39286

_._,_.___
Recent Activity:
[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
.





__._,_.___


[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] Actual Wiki Cables Belie NYT's Version of Saudi / Gulf States' Stance on Iran



Actual Wiki Cables Belie NYT's Version of Saudi / Gulf States' Stance on Iran

The Times' Account Seriously Distorted the Content
 
By GARETH PORTER and JIM LOBE

The dominant theme that emerged in U.S. media coverage of the first round of Wikileaks diplomatic cables last week was that Arab regimes in the Gulf - led by Saudi Arabia - shared Israel's view that Iran's nuclear program had to be stopped by military force, if necessary.

The New York Times generated that version with a front- page story featuring an alleged quote by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia urging the United States to "cut off the head of the snake", as well as other statements by Gulf Arab leaders suggesting support for military action.

"The cables reveal how Iran's ascent has unified Israel and many longtime Arab adversaries -notably the Saudis - in a common cause," the Times claimed.

The notion that these leaders, like Israel, favor a military solution to Iran's nuclear program has become widely accepted by the news media in the past week. In a curtain-raiser to this week's talks in Geneva between Iran and the world's most powerful nations, for example, the Washington Post Monday asserted that the Wikileaks disclosure "show[ed] that Persian Gulf leaders have pressed for a military attack on Iran's nuclear facilities…"

But a careful reading of all the diplomatic cables reporting the views of Saudi and other Gulf Arab regimes on Iran shows that the Times' account seriously distorted the content - and in the case of the Saudis, ignored the context - of the cables released by Wikileaks.

The original Times story, headlined "From Arabs and Israelis, Sharp Distress Over a Nuclear Iran", referred to "a largely silent front of Arab states whose position on sanctions and force looked much like the Israelis".

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his U.S. neo- conservative backers immediately seized on the story as confirmation of what Israel has been saying all along.

In fact, the cables show that most Gulf Arab regimes - including Saudi Arabia itself - have been seriously concerned about the consequences of a strike against Iran for their own security, in sharp contrast to Israel's open advocacy of such a strike. They also show the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Kuwait expressing that concern with greater urgency in the past two years than previously.

Those facts were completely ignored, however, in the Times' account.

The Abdullah Quote

The most widely cited quote in support of the Times' thesis since the story's publication one week ago has been Abdullah's appeals to "cut off the head of the snake", referring to Iran. The story asserted that the Saudi ambassador in Washington, Adel al-Jubeir, had recalled the king's "frequent exhortations to the U.S. to attack Iran" during an April 2008 meeting with Gen. David Petraeus, the incoming chief of the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM).

The implication was that al-Jubeir had made that statement during the Petraeus-Abdullah meeting. But the reporting cable makes clear that the Saudi ambassador made the remark two days later, in a conversation with the U.S. Deputy Chief of Mission in Riyadh, Michael Gfoeller.

In his meeting with Petraeus, in fact, Abdullah had not spoken about Iran's nuclear program but focused instead on the importance of "resisting and rolling back Iranian influence and subversion in Iraq", according to the cable.

The cable actually draws a contrast between al-Jubeir's remarks and those made by Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal and director general of intelligence Prince Muqrin during Petraeus's visit. "On the other hand," it states after citing al-Jubeir's position, the foreign minister "called instead for much more severe U.S. and international sanctions on Iran, including a travel ban and further restrictions on bank lending." Prince Muqrin "echoed these views", according to the cable.

The foreign minister would only say that "the use of military pressure against Iran should not be ruled out," the cable said.

That statement mirrored precisely the official position of the George W. Bush administration at the time.

Even if Abdullah had in fact offered explicit support for a military attack against Iran in the meeting with Petraeus, however, that would not be a reliable indicator of Saudi policy toward the issue, according to Chas Freeman, a veteran diplomat who served as Washington's ambassador to Saudi Arabia from 1989 to 1992 and maintains contact with top Saudi officials.

Freeman told us that such a statement would "fit a pattern of communication with the United States of ingratiating themselves with their protector".

Significantly, in that respect, the Abdullah-Petraeus meeting came three months after President Bush had visited Riyadh seeking support for a more confrontational stance against Iran; five weeks after Petraeus's predecessor at CENTCOM, Adm. William Fallon, had been fired in part for public statements that there would be no war against Iran; and less than a month after Vice President Dick Cheney had reportedly sought support for military action during his own visit to the kingdom.

Thomas Lippman, former Washington Post Middle East bureau chief and an adjunct scholar at the Middle East Institute, who has written a book on Saudi-U.S. relations, also said that the Abdullah quote would have been in line with the usual Saudi pattern of "telling the Americans what they wanted to hear".

"They wanted to be assured that they would be under the protection of the U.S.," Lippman told us.

In fact, the cables covering the period since President Barack Obama took office suggest that Saudi views have given even greater emphasis to political and economic strategies in dealing with Iran than was the case in 2008.

A Feb. 10, 2010 cable from Riyadh, for example, reported that Abdullah, disillusioned with U.S. blunders in Iraq that have given Iran the upper hand there, "had concluded that he needs to proceed with his strategy to counter Iranian influence in the region".

The new Saudi strategy, according to the cable, features promoting reconciliation between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority combined with expanding relations with Russia, China and India to create "diplomatic and economic pressure[s] on Iran that do not directly depend on U.S. help".

UAE Worries About a "Preemptive Strike"

As for the UAE, the Times' account of the cables suggested an evolution in its thinking from earlier warnings that a U.S. or Israeli military strike would be "catastrophic" to a far more hawkish position. In February 2007, a cable quotes Mohammed bin Zayed Al-Nahyan, the Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi, as saying that the Iranian nuclear programme "must be stopped by all means available".

That exhortation, however, was put in a different context by the diplomat who reported on his conversation with bin Zayed, who also serves as deputy supreme commander of the UAE armed forces.

The diplomat noted that such "tough talk on Iran" should be "taken in the context of strong UAE interest in acquiring advanced military technology". Indeed, the UAE at the time was negotiating agreements to buy a record $17 billion in U.S. arms over the next several years.

Despite bin Zayed's bluster, the U.S. diplomat wrote in the Feb. 7, 2007 cable, the UAE "is clearly nervous about any U.S. actions that could upset their much larger and militarily superior neighbor".

Indeed, two years later, the crown prince told visiting U.S. special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke that a "military solution would only delay [Iran's nuclear] program, not derail it" and that "war with Iran would only harm the UAE". He also said he was "deeply concerned" over a possible Israeli military strike which, he added, "would have little impact on Iran's capabilities," according to an Apr. 5, 2009 cable.

He repeated his concerns about an Israeli attack to other high-ranking U.S. visitors three months later. After a Jul. 15 meeting between bin Zayed and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, the embassy reported, "Without timely and decisive action by the United States, MbZ believes Israel will strike Iran, causing Iran to launch missile attacks - including hits on the UAE - and to unleash terror attacks worldwide." He then suggested that "the key to containing Iran revolves around progress in the Israel/Palestine issue."

According to a Jul. 23, 2009 cable, the prince subsequently declared to visiting senior State Department officials that "[Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad is Hitler" – a remark highlighted in the Times' account that has also gained widespread media attention.

But the cable reported further expressions of alarm over the prospect and possible consequences of an Israeli pre-emptive strike. The prince called for Washington to immediately begin "joint planning" with the UAE to address such a "worst-case scenario".

Most recently, a Feb. 22, 2010 cable has the UAE's foreign minister, Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed Al Nayan, warning a visiting delegation headed by Rep. Nita Lowey, a strong supporter of Israel in Congress, that any "crisis or confrontation in the region [over Iran's nuclear program] would create oil supply problems world wide."

According to the cable, the minister ended the meeting with a "soliloquy on the importance of a successful peace process between Israel and its neighbors as perhaps the best way of reducing Iran's regional influence."

"Iran Has Not Bothered Us"

While confirming growing Arab fears about Iran's regional clout and nuclear ambitions, the cables suggest that other Gulf Arab leaders - with the possible exception of Bahrain's King Hamad, the only regional leader with a majority Shi'a population - have little or no appetite for military action against Iran.

"A year or two ago, many in Kuwait hoped a silent, targeted strike would take out the troublesome reactor and leave the region more relaxed," a cable quotes a senior foreign ministry official who also happens to be the son of Kuwait's prime minister as recalling to his U.S. interlocutor last February.

"Now, however, they feared that any effort to disrupt the nuclear program, either military or through tough sanctions 'would go badly for the West,'" according to the cable, which quotes another official as saying that, while the emirate was worried about Iran's nuclear program, it was "equally concerned about military preemption" and the retaliation that was likely to follow.

Qatar, meanwhile, is unwilling to "provoke a fight" with Iran, according to the emir of Qatar, as reported in a February 2010 cable on a meeting between the emir and Senator John Kerry. The emir explained that Doha would not "provoke a fight" with Iran, because its primary interest was a natural-gas field it shared with Tehran. He added that Iran "has not bothered us" during the history of relations between the two states.

A Feb. 2, 2010 cable makes it clear that the sultan of Oman, who has given the U.S. access to three military bases on its territory, is determined to maintain balance between Washington and Tehran. The cable reported that Muscat had twice rejected official U.S. offers to include it in a collective missile defense system aimed at Iran in 2009.

As for Bahrain, the Gulf's only Shi'a-majority sheikhdom and host of the U.S. 5th Fleet, the Times quoted a November 2009 cable in which King Hamad al-Khalifa declares that Iran's nuclear "program must be stopped" and warns that "[t]he danger of letting it go on is greater than the danger of stopping it."

No other cable from Manama elaborates, however, on what means the U.S. or other countries should use to halt the program.

Gareth Porter is an investigative historian and journalist specialising in U.S. national security policy. The paperback edition of his latest book, "Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam", was published in 2006.

Jim Lobe's blog on U.S. foreign policy can be read at http://www.lobelog.com.
 


__._,_.___


[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] Bangladesh’s sleeping Frankenstein



Bangladesh's sleeping Frankenstein

 

 
 
 
 
 
—Dr Ayesha Siddiqa 
 
Allowing the military to interfere in politics and play the role of a socio-political arbiter by bringing it in to control the streets is a risky approach

Recently, the Bangladeshi military was called out into the streets to control the pre-election political mayhem. The country's political elite see this as a benign use of the armed forces in support of civilian authorities, which might not necessarily whet the military's appetite for greater power and authority. The Bangladeshis proudly flaunt their national experience of pushing the 'men on horseback' back into the barracks. However, the recent deployment of the troops to control violence prior to the elections in January is part of a flawed strategy which will surely strengthen the armed forces versus the civilian players and the civil society at large.

The present-day Bangladeshi political analysts tend to take the military's formal withdrawal from politics as a fixed variable in the country's politics. The 'argumentative' Bengalis, it is believed, are far too strong to encourage the army to take over politics. A similar belief exists in relation to the influence of the religious right in the country. Bangladeshi society is far too liberal to allow the Jamaat-i-Islami and other religious parties to take over the society.

The military had originally taken over power in 1975 after the assassination of Sheikh Mujeeb-ur-Rehman. The army leadership, which was unhappy with Mujeeb's policies and fearful that he might actually be trying to replace the standing army with a people's army, was happy to get rid of him. The concept of a national army was discussed at the Formation Commander's Conference held at the Bangladesh Forces Headquarters on January 02, 1972, in which the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces discussed the Prime Minister's directions to the Army GHQ to form a national militia. The idea was to have a people's army as a 2nd line of defence to support a small standing military. The plans, however, were never implemented, mainly because, as claimed by Maj. General (retd) Shafeeullah, Mujeeb tended to leave defence issues to the military. Moreover, the founding father was too busy consolidating his power, which he took for granted, to take the military too seriously.

The military, which took over power in 1975, was ridden with internal divisions, mainly between the freedom fighters and the repatriated personnel. Out of the 55,000 personnel, 28,000 were repatriated from Pakistan (including 1100 officers). These personnel had not gone through the experience of the liberation war and had a different mindset from the freedom fighters who were part of the Mukti Bahni.

General Zia-ur-Rehman, who took over in 1975, had nothing in common with the leftist party Jatiya Samajtantrik Dal (JSD), which was more popular amongst the freedom fighters and one of the key players behind the political turbulence surrounding Mujeeb's violent death. However, JSD was not necessarily behind the founding father's assassination. Mujeeb's death allowed the officer cadre, most of which was trained in West Pakistan, to consolidate power. The prominent Bangladeshi political analyst Talukder Maniruzzaman was of the view that the repatriated officers in particular were looking for an officer such as Zia-ur-Rehman who could take over the army and the country and thwart the efforts of the JSD — a party which was unhappy with Sheikh Mujeeb's rule and his controversial policies such as using military force against the Naxilites.

The military takeover transformed the armed forces into a serious political player and further changed the course of the country's politics. Zia-ur-Rehman used fascist tactics such as flirting with the religious right to gain greater popularity. This was the period during which the Jamaat-i-Islami was brought back into Bangladeshi politics.

Zia-ur-Rehman was assassinated in 1981 and replaced by General Ershad, who ruled Bangladesh until 1990. Ershad is responsible for giving a corporate character to the military through encouraging its political and financial autonomy. Measures such as the building of the military's welfare foundation, the Sena Kalyan Sangstha, and encouraging its profit-making ventures were meant to bolster the armed forces financial autonomy. The foundation was a legacy of the Fauji Foundation from the days of united Pakistan.

The 'argumentative' Bengalis, however, pushed the military back in 1990. Ershad was forced to resign after a popular political uprising. Since then, the Bangladeshi military appears to be firmly under the control of the civilian governments. The three branches of the armed forces, army, navy and air force, and the intelligence agencies are controlled by the Prime Minister's Office (PMO), which is currently the central controlling nerve of the armed forces, and comprises of a Principal Staff Officer (of the rank of a Major General) and the Armed Forces Division (AFD) representing the three services of the military. Besides the PSO and the AFD, the PMO also controls the National Security Intelligence (NSI), which is the primary intelligence organisation of the state. The other intelligence establishment, the Directorate-General of Forces Intelligence (DGFI) is controlled by the Ministry of Defence (MoD). Since the prime minister is also the defence minister, the office-bearer by default comes under the PMO.

After 1996, successive prime ministers have also strengthened their control over the military through keeping the MoD weak and boosting the power of the PMO instead. The MoD is confined to mundane routine affairs such vas pay and pension, retirement, and other budgetary issues. Moreover, it is responsible for related departments such as the Survey of Bangladesh, Military Electricity Supply (MES) and the Meteorological Department.

This administrative arrangement gives Bangladeshi analysts their confidence regarding the military's impotence to take over the reigns of the government again. However, the fact is that the political class entered into an informal and unwritten arrangement with the armed forces whereby the military agreed to push back into the barracks in return for the protection of its fundamental corporate interests. Therefore, over the years, successive political governments have not reduced the defence budget, have upheld the primacy of the threat from India, periodically acquired major weapon systems to 'keep the boys happy', and allowed the armed forces to pursue their money-making and profit-making activities.

Although both the Awami League (AL) and Bangladesh Nationalist Party governments have kept the defence budget sustained at higher level, the main source of the Bangladeshi military's income is UN peace-keeping missions. According to one estimate, about 40,000 troops have served on the UN peace-keeping mission duties and there are about 11,000 troops serving on such missions at a given time. Furthermore, the armed forces' welfare foundation is now in the hotel business, with stakes in the Raddison Hotel in Dhaka. Besides, the Sena Kalyan Sangstha runs a flour mill, an ice cream factory, a hosiery mill, a fabric manufacturing factory, a textile factory, a CNG project, bread and confectionary factory, an electricity products manufacturing unit, a television manufacturing plant, and has stakes in real estate.

The military's presence in business is increasing gradually and seems to have undergone growth as a result of the flow of capital due to the UN peace-keeping missions. Part of the earnings from the UN peace-keeping missions are diverted towards the projects of the welfare foundation.

Some observers believe that as long as the military gets its extra funds from the UN peace-keeping missions, the institution will not be tempted to look inside the country for additional resources. No one in Bangladesh seems to consider the impact of allowing the military to penetrate the corporate sector. Not much thought is given to what will happen if the earnings from the UN dry up.

The financial autonomy goes hand in hand with the growing social significance of the armed forces. Even the seemingly ideologically more progressive parties such as the AL have allowed the military both direct and indirect penetration in politics and the economy. The direct infiltration pertains to giving the military control of certain institutions such as the Khulna Shipyard the Machine Tool Factory in the name of greater discipline and efficiency. The indirect penetration takes the form of greater number of retired military personnel joining political parties and running for parliamentary elections and being absorbed into the private sector. Such measures bolster the military's overall influence. According to a Bangladeshi security and political analyst, Abdul Rob Khan, both political parties try to placate the armed forces through giving it and its retired members a greater role institutionally.

Against this backdrop, allowing the military to interfere in politics and play the role of a socio-political arbiter by bringing it in to control the streets is a risky approach. While the military might not opt to take over power again, it would certainly gain greater strength in negotiating a better power arrangement vis-à-vis the civilian players. Giving a military the policing role, in any case, is always risky. A combination of increased policing and economic role becomes a lethal combination.

The author is an Islamabad-based independent defence analyst. She is also an author of a book on Pakistan's arms procurement decision-making, and on the military's economic interests
 


__._,_.___


[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] Commerce Minister and Soybean



Commerce Minister and Soybean
 
 
 


__._,_.___


[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] Islamic banking superior to Western kind: Mahathir



Islamic banking superior to Western kind: Mahathir
 
SINGAPORE, Dec 7, 2010 (AFP) - Malaysia's outspoken ex-prime minister Mahathir Mohamad on Tuesday blamed Western lending practices for the world's financial problems and hailed Islamic banking as a "superior" model.
 
Mahathir told a conference on Islamic finance in Singapore that the 2008 global financial crisis was sparked by excessive lending by Western banks.
 
Islamic banks, in contrast, are constrained because every deal needs to be backed by a real asset under the principles of Sharia law, he said."So if you make a comparison, the Islamic system is in many ways superior to the conventional banking system," Mahathir said.
 
"The conventional banking system is much more open to abuse than the Islamic banking system," added the former leader, who steered Malaysia through the 1997-98 Asian financial crisis and stepped down as prime minister in 2003.
"So far, the Islamic banks have not been involved in the present crisis except those perhaps who dabble in the money markets in the West," he said. "Islamic banking is almost immune to these kinds of crook deals."
 
Islamic banking fuses principles of Islamic law, known as Sharia, and modern banking methods. Islamic funds are banned from investing in companies associated with tobacco, alcohol or gambling.Sharia-based finance also bans interest, which is seen as usury, and risks are shared between the creditor and borrower.
 
"The conventional bank lends 30 times the amount of money that they have but the Islamic bank, because they have to participate in taking the risk, they will have to be much more careful," Mahathir said.
 


__._,_.___


[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] Rat in curry prompts cull at Bangladeshi university

Dear Alochoks

The BBC website's page on South Asia seldom ever has Bangladesh mentioned. Though a good cricket result gets mentioned. But today was one of those rare days when our nation got mentioned.

Regards

Ezajur


Rat in curry prompts cull at Bangladeshi university
By Ethirajan Anbarasan

BBC News, Dhaka, 7/12/10

University officials in Bangladesh have ordered a major rat extermination drive after rodent meat found its way into chicken curry served to students.

The incident happened at Rajshahi University in western Bangladesh.

"One student detected the head of the rat while eating his lunch. That student instantly suffered a stomach upset," a spokesman told the BBC.

Soon after the incident hundreds of angry students staged a demonstration demanding action against the chef.

The chef has now been suspended and handed over to police who have been called in to investigate the incident.

"I told the students to stop eating in the dining hall of the university for two days. A drive to kill the rats in the dining hall is going on," university proctor Chowdhury Mohammad Zakaria told the BBC.

"It is a very unfortunate event and some 300 angry students gathered and protested against the unhygienic condition of food served in the university's dining hall.

"I must say that if I found rat meat in my food, I also would not be able to control my temper."

It was not immediately clear whether the rat meat was mixed with chicken curry intentionally.

In September 2009, a farmer was crowned Bangladesh's champion rat catcher after leading a team which he said killed more than 80,000 rodents in a month.

Mokhairul Islam was awarded a colour television at a ceremony attended by 500 farmers and officials in Dhaka.

The University of Rajshahi is one of the largest universities in the country and the largest in the northern region of Bangladesh.


------------------------------------

[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.comYahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/alochona/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/alochona/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
alochona-digest@yahoogroups.com
alochona-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
alochona-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[ALOCHONA] The Yunus Saga



`The Yunus saga'

Courtesy New Age 8/12/10

I AGREE with everything Md Mujibul Alam Khan has to say on the `Yunus saga' published in New Age on Monday. However, the Norwegians made it clear that they were not alleging corruption against Yunus. Corruption is alleged against him only by Sheikh Hasina and the Awami League. As it seems, Sheikh Hasina and her leaders can barely contain their glee at this setback for Yunus.
   Both of Hasina's governments should be held accountable for the errors made by the Grameen Bank. Although the prime minister accuses the Grameen Bank and Yunus of being cruel and fraudulent moneylenders who are responsible for ruining many people's lives, she hasn't done anything about it all these years.
   Hasina's concern for the image of Bangladesh abroad is laughable, seeing she did as much to hurt it as anyone else over the years. She never initiated an investigation into the corruption and incompetence within her own party and her government.
   Yunus would bring more honour, good sense and vision to the office than either Sheikh Hasina or Khaleda Zia if he entered politics.
   Ezajur Rahman
   Kuwait



__._,_.___


[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 and the Worldwide Information War

Wikileaks and the Worldwide Information War

Power, Propaganda, and the Global Political Awakening

by Andrew Gavin Marshall

Introduction

The recent release of the 250,000 Wikileaks documents has provoked
unparalleled global interest, both positive, negative, and everywhere
in between. One thing that can be said with certainty: Wikileaks is
changing things.

There are those who accept what the Wikileaks releases say at face
value, largely due to the misrepresentation of the documents by the
corporate-controlled news.

There are those who see the documents as authentic and simply in need
of proper interpretation and analysis.

Then there are those, many of whom are in the alternative media, who
approach the leaks with caution and suspicion.

There are those who simply cast the leaks aside as a 'psy-op' designed
to target specific nations that fit into U.S. foreign policy
objectives. Finally, then, there are those who deplore the leaks as
'treason' or threatening 'security'. Of all the claims and notions,
the last is, without a doubt, the most ridiculous. This essay aims to
examine the nature of the Wikileaks releases and how they should be
approached and understood. If Wikileaks is changing things, let's hope
people will make sure that it changes things in the right direction.

Media Propaganda Against Iran: Taking the Cables at Face Value

This perspective is perhaps the most propagated one, as it is largely
influenced and undertaken by the mainstream corporate media, which
present the leaked diplomatic cables as 'proof' of the media's take on
major world issues; most notably among them, Iran's nuclear program.
As per usual, the New York Times steps center stage in its unbridled
contempt for truth and relentless use of propaganda to serve U.S.
imperial interests, headlining articles with titles like, "Around the
World, Distress Over Iran," which explained how Israel and the Arab
leaders agree on Iran as a nuclear threat to the world, with the
commentary in the article stating that, "running beneath the cables is
a belief among many leaders that unless the current government in
Tehran falls, Iran will have a bomb sooner or later."[1] Fox News ran
an article proclaiming that, "Leaked Documents Show Middle East
Consensus on Threat Posed by Iran," and commented that, "the seismic
document spill by WikiLeaks showed one area of profound agreement --
that Iran is viewed in the Middle East as the region's No. 1
troublemaker."[2]

This, it should be understood, is propaganda. Yet, we need to properly
refine our understanding of propaganda in order to assess what is
specifically propagandistic about these stories. While one should
remain skeptical of sources and disinformation campaigns (as those who
critically analyze the media have known take place time and time
again), one must also consider the personal perspective of the source
and decipher between authenticity and analysis. These documents, I
truly believe, are authentic. In this sense, I do not adhere to the
notion that these are a part of a psychological operation (psy-op) or
propaganda effort, in terms of the actual release of the documents. We
must keep in mind that the sources for these cables are U.S.
diplomatic channels, and thus the statements within them reflect the
perspectives and beliefs of U.S. diplomatic personnel. The documents
are an authentic representation of their statements and beliefs, but
that does not imply that they are an accurate representation of
reality.

This is where the media comes in to propagandize the information
within the leaks. The two above examples claim that the leaks show
that there is a "consensus" on Iran, and thus, that the U.S. and
indeed Israeli positions on Iran for the past several years have been
"vindicated," namely in that they fear Iran is making nuclear weapons.
This is nonsense. The media has essentially read and propagated the
documents at face value, meaning that because U.S. diplomats, Middle
Eastern and Arab leaders all agree that Iran is a "threat" and is
trying to make a "nuclear weapon," it therefore must be true. This is
a non sequitur. If a military general tells several soldiers to commit
a raid on a house because there are "suspected terrorists" inside, the
fact that the soldiers carry out the raid – and that they believe
there are terrorists inside – does not make it so. In contextualizing
this example with the current Wikileaks release, just because Middle
Eastern and Arab leaders see Iran as a threat, does not make it so.

Again, consider the sources. What makes the Arab leaders trustworthy
sources for 'unbiased' information? For example, one 'revelation' that
made its way around the world was the insistence of Saudi Arabia's
King Abdullah to America to "cut off the head of the snake" of Iran,
and urging America to launch military strikes against Iran.[3] This
has largely been interpreted in the media as "proof" that there is a
"consensus" on the "threat" posed by Iran to the Middle East and the
world. This has been the propaganda line towed by the New York Times,
Fox News and the Israeli government, among many others. Yet, we need
to properly contextualize this information, something which the New
York Times has a long record of failing to properly do (intentionally,
I might add). I do not doubt the authenticity of these statements or
the beliefs of the Arab leaders that Iran is a 'threat'. Iran, on the
other hand, has claimed that the leaks are "mischievous" and that they
serve US interests, and claimed that Iran is "friends" with its
neighbours.[4] This too, is propaganda. Again, we need to
contextualize.

Iran is a Shi'a nation, while the Arab nations, particularly Saudi
Arabia, are predominantly Sunni. This presents a means of division
among these nations in the region, at least on a superficial basis.
The reality, however, is that Saudi Arabia and Iran are far from
"friendly", and have not been on good terms since the Shah was deposed
in 1979. Iran is Saudi Arabia's primary contender and competition for
power and influence in the region, and thus Iran is, inherently, a
threat to Saudi Arabia, politically. Further, the Arab states, whose
claims against Iran have been widely publicized, such as those of
Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Oman, the UAE and Egypt, must be understood in
their relation to the United States. The Arab states are American
proxies in the region. Their armies are subsidized by the American
military industrial complex, their political regimes (all of which are
dictatorships and dynasties), are propped up and supported by America.
The same goes for Israel, although it has at least the public outward
appearance of a democracy, much like the United States, itself.

The Arab nations and leaders know that the only reason they have and
maintain their power is because the United States allows them and
helps them to do so. Thus, they are dependent upon America and its
political, financial and military support. Going against America's
ambitions in the region is a sure way to end up like Iraq and Saddam
Hussein. The history of the Middle East in the modern era is replete
with examples of how one-time puppets and personal favourites of the
American Empire can so easily turn into new enemies and "threats to
peace." American sponsored regime change takes place, and a new puppet
is installed. If Arab leaders said that Iran was not a threat to
peace, they would soon find themselves targets of Western imperialism.
Further, many, like King Abdullah in Saudi Arabia, are so virulent in
their hatred and distrust of Iran simply because they are regional
competitors for influence. One thing can be said of all states and
their leaders, they are inherently self-interested and obsessed with
self-preservation and personal power expansion.

Saudi Arabia, in particular, is not a passive actor in the regional
battle of influence with Iran. In Yemen, Saudi Arabia is involved in
another American imperial war of conquest, in suppressing secessionist
and indigenous liberation movements in the North and South of Yemen.
Yemen, ruled by an American supported dictator, Saleh, who has been in
power since 1978, is also working with the Americans to suppress its
own population in order to maintain its hold on power. Much of the
presentation of the conflict, however, is in propagandizing the
conflict, portraying it as a regional battle for influence between
Saudi Arabia and Iran. While there is no doubt, and clear admissions,
of Saudi Arabia's involvement in the war, there has been no
information that Iran has had any involvement, yet it is constantly
accused by both Saudi Arabia and Yemen of being involved. This may be
an attempt to draw Iran into a regional proxy war, if not to simply
demonize the nation further. In the midst of this new Yemeni war,
America made an arms deal with Saudi Arabia which broke the record as
the largest U.S. arms deal in history, at $60 billion. The deal, of
which it is no secret, is aimed at building up Saudi Arabia's military
capabilities in order to both engage more effectively in the Yemen
war, but primarily to challenge and counter increased Iranian
influence in the region. In short, America is arming its proxy nations
for a war with Iran.

[For a detailed examination of the war in Yemen, see: "Yemen: The
Covert Apparatus of the American Empire."]

Israel did not denounce the arms deal as it was taking place, simply
because it ultimately served Israel's interest in the region as well,
of which its main target is Iran. Further, Israel is left subdued to
American interests, as an American proxy itself. If Israel's military
financing and hardware comes from America (which it does), thus making
it dependent upon America for its own military power, Israel is in no
position to tell America to not arm its other regional proxies. If
indeed there is a regional war against Iran in the making, which it
has appeared for some time that there is, it is certainly in Israel's
interest to have allies against Iran in the region.

Is Wikileaks a Propaganda Effort?

The leaders of Israel have been very adamant that the Wikileaks
documents do not embarrass Israel to any extent. Prior to the release,
the U.S. government briefed Israeli officials on the type of documents
that would be released by Wikileaks regarding Israel.[5] Israeli Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated, "there is no disparity between the
public discourse between us and Washington, and the mutual
understanding of each other's positions."[6] The Israeli Defense
Minister, Ehud Barak, claimed that the documents "show a more accurate
view of reality."[7] One top Turkish politician stated that looking at
which countries are pleased with the releases says a lot, and
speculated that Israel "engineered the release" of documents in an
attempt to advance its interests and to "pressure Turkey."[8]

Further, the Internet and various alternative news organizations are
abuzz with speculation that Wikileaks itself may be a propaganda
front, perhaps even a CIA front organization, a method of "controlling
the opposition" (which, historically we know, is no stranger to CIA
activities). Yet, this speculation is based upon the use of the
information that is released in the cables, and it strikes me as a
lack of contextualizing the documents.

So, how should one contextualize this? Let's begin with Israel.
Certainly, Israel is without a doubt a criminal state (as all states
essentially are), but its criminality is amplified more so than most
states on this planet, possibly outdone only by America, itself.
Israel's ethnic cleansing of Palestinians is one of the most horrific
and long-lasting crimes against humanity seen in the past 50 years,
and posterity will view Israel as the vicious, war-mongering,
dehumanizing and abhorrent state it is. Yet, for all that Israel is,
one thing Israel is not, is subtle. When the Israeli PM states that
the Wikileaks releases are not embarrassing to Israel, he is mostly
correct. This is not because Israel has nothing to hide (remember, the
Wikileaks documents are not 'top secret' documents, but merely
diplomatic cables), but because the diplomatic exchanges Israel makes
largely reflect the reality of the public statements Israel makes.
Israel and its political elite are no strangers to making absurd
public statements, to constantly threatening war with Iran and other
neighbours, or to propagandizing their beliefs that Iran is making
nuclear weapons (something which has never been proven). Thus, the
leaks do not 'hurt' Israel's image, because Israel's image,
internationally, is already so abysmal and despicable, and because
Israeli diplomats and politicians are generally as brazen in what they
say publicly as they say to each other, that Israel's image has
largely remained the same. Of course, Israeli leaders – political and
military – are using the leaks to suggest that it "vindicates" their
perspective on Iran as a threat, which of course is an absurd
propaganda ploy, the exact same technique taken on by the corporate
media, in taking the cables at face value.

While Iran has slammed the Wikileaks releases as Western propaganda
aimed at Iran, this statement itself should be taken as a form of
propaganda. After all, Iran claimed that it is "friends" with all its
neighbours, a claim which is an historical and present falsity. Iran,
like all states, uses propaganda to advance its own interests. Iran is
not by any means a wonderful nation. However, compared to the American
favourites in the region (such as Saudi Arabia), Iran is a bastion of
freedom and democracy, which isn't saying much. Those who attempt to
battle the spread of misinformation and propaganda, myself included,
must remain highly critical of media representations and campaigns
against Iran, of which there are many. Iran is firmly in the targets
of America's imperial ambitions, this is no secret. Yet, there is
nothing in the current batch of Wikileaks releases that strikes me as
inauthentic in relation to Iran, especially those documents pertaining
to the perspectives of Western diplomats and Arab leaders in relation
to Iran. No doubt, they have these perspectives simply because they
reflect the policy priorities of America and the West, itself, not
because they are factual in their substance. In this, we must decipher
between authenticity and accuracy.

Iran stating that the Wikileaks documents are propaganda is a misnomer
and is misleading. Analysts must not only critically assess the
authenticity of documents (and the sources from which they come), but
also, and perhaps even more importantly, they must critically analyze
the interpretation of those documents. So while I do not doubt the
authenticity of documents pertaining to Western and Middle Eastern
perceptions of Iran (as it fits in with the wider geopolitical
realities of the region), it is the interpretation of the documents
that I view as active propaganda efforts on the part of Western
governments and media. The methods of this propaganda effort, however,
are in depicting the documents as 'factual assessments' of the
on-the-ground reality, which they are not. The documents are factual
in how they represent the views of those who wrote them, which does
not mean that they are factual in their substance. There is a
difference, and acknowledging this difference is incredibly important
in both the exposure of propaganda and assessment of truth.

The Truth About Diplomacy

Craig Murray is one voice that should be heard on this issue. Craig
Murray was a former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan who made a name
for himself in exposing intelligence from Uzbekistan related to
al-Qaeda as entirely unreliable, due to the methods of torture used to
get the information (such as boiling people alive). This intelligence
was passed to the CIA and MI6, which Murray said was "factually
incorrect." When Murray expressed his concerns with the higher-ups in
the British diplomatic services, he was reprimanded for talking about
"human rights."[9] The British Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO)
told Murray that he had one week to resign, and was threatened with
possible prosecution or jail time for revealing "state secrets."[10]
He was subsequently removed from his ambassadorial position, and has
since become something of a political activist. In short, Murray is
exactly the type of diplomat a person should want: honest. But he was
also exactly the type of diplomat that Western imperial powers don't
want: honest.

In the midst of the latest Wikileaks releases of diplomatic documents,
Craig Murray was asked to write an article for the Guardian regarding
his interpretation of the issue. As Murray later noted, the paper
placed his article, largely reduced, hidden in the middle of a long
article which was a compendium of various commentaries on Wikileaks.
Murray, however, posted the full version on his website. In the
article, Murray begins by assessing the claims of government officials
around the world, particularly in the United States, that Wikileaks
exposes the United States to "harm," that it puts lives at risk, and
that they will "encourage Islamic extremism," and most especially, the
notion that "government secrecy is essential to keep us all safe."
Murray explains that having been a diplomat for over 20 years, he is
very familiar with these arguments, particularly that as a result of
Wikileaks, diplomats will no longer be candid in giving advice, "if
that advice might become public." Murray elaborates:

Put it another way. The best advice is advice you would not be
prepared to defend in public. Really? Why? In today's globalised
world, the Embassy is not a unique source of expertise. Often
expatriate, academic and commercial organisations are a lot better
informed. The best policy advice is not advice which is shielded from
peer review.

What of course the establishment mean is that Ambassadors should be
free to recommend things which the general public would view with deep
opprobrium, without any danger of being found out. But should they
really be allowed to do that, in a democracy?[11]

Murray pointedly asked why a type of behaviour that is considered
reprehensible for most people – such as lying – "should be considered
acceptable, or even praiseworthy, in diplomacy." Murray explained that
for British diplomats, "this belief that their profession exempts them
from the normal constraints of decent behaviour amounts to a cult of
Machiavellianism, a pride in their own amorality." He explained that
diplomats come from a very narrow upper social strata, and "view
themselves as ultra-intelligent Nietzschean supermen, above normal
morality" who are socially connected to the political elite. In
criticizing the claims made by many commentators that the release of
the leaks endanger lives, Murray pointedly wrote that this perspective
needs to be "set against any such risk the hundreds of thousands of
actual dead from the foreign policies of the US and its
co-conspirators in the past decade." Further, for those who posit that
Wikileaks is a psy-op or propaganda operation or that Wikileaks is a
"CIA front", Murray had this to say:

Of course the documents reflect the US view – they are official US
government communications. What they show is something I witnessed
personally, that diplomats as a class very seldom tell unpalatable
truths to politicians, but rather report and reinforce what their
masters want to hear, in the hope of receiving preferment.

There is therefore a huge amount about Iran's putative nuclear arsenal
and an exaggeration of Iran's warhead delivery capability. But there
is nothing about Israel's massive nuclear arsenal. That is not because
wikileaks have censored criticism of Israel. It is because any US
diplomat who made an honest and open assessment of Israeli crimes
would very quickly be an unemployed ex-diplomat.[12]

Murray concluded his article with the statement that all would do well
to keep in mind: "Truth helps the people against rapacious elites –
everywhere."[13]


World Order and Global Awakening

In attempting to understand Wikileaks and its potential effects (that
is, if the alternative media and citizens activists use this
opportunity), we must place Wikileaks within a wider geopolitical
context. Our human world exists as a complex system of social
interactions. As powerful and dominating as elites are and have always
been, we must understand that they are not omnipotent; they are human
and flawed, as are their methods and ideas. There are other forces at
work in the human social world, and these various interactions created
and changed the world into what it is, and will determine where it is
going. In effect, nothing is preordained; nothing is exact. Plans are
made, certainly, by elites, in designing ideas and reshaping and
controlling society. However, society – and in the globalized world, a
'global society' – react and interact with elite forces and ideas.
Just as the people must react to and experience repercussions from
changes in elite processes, so too must the elite react to and
experience repercussions from changes in social processes. Today, we
can conceptualize this dichotomy – the geopolitical reality of the
world – as 'The Global Political Awakening and the New World Order':

There is a new and unique development in human history that is taking
place around the world; it is unprecedented in reach and volume, and
it is also the greatest threat to all global power structures: the
'global political awakening.' The term was coined by Zbigniew
Brzezinski, and refers to the fact that, as Brzezinski wrote:

For the first time in history almost all of humanity is politically
activated, politically conscious and politically interactive. Global
activism is generating a surge in the quest for cultural respect and
economic opportunity in a world scarred by memories of colonial or
imperial domination.

It is, in essence, this massive 'global political awakening' which
presents the gravest and greatest challenge to the organized powers of
globalization and the global political economy: nation-states,
multinational corporations and banks, central banks, international
organizations, military, intelligence, media and academic
institutions. The Transnational Capitalist Class (TCC), or
'Superclass' as David Rothkopf refers to them, are globalized like
never before. For the first time in history, we have a truly global
and heavily integrated elite. As elites have globalized their power,
seeking to construct a 'new world order' of global governance and
ultimately global government (decades down the line), they have
simultaneously globalized populations.

The 'Technological Revolution' involves two major geopolitical
developments. The first is that as technology advances, systems of
mass communication rapidly accelerate, and the world's people are able
to engage in instant communication with one another and gain access to
information from around the world. In it, lies the potential – and
ultimately a central source – of a massive global political awakening.
Simultaneously, the Technological Revolution has allowed elites to
redirect and control society in ways never before imagined,
potentially culminating in a global scientific dictatorship, as many
have warned of since the early decades of the 20th century. The
potential for controlling the masses has never been so great, as
science unleashes the power of genetics, biometrics, surveillance, and
new forms of modern eugenics; implemented by a scientific elite
equipped with systems of psycho-social control.

Brzezinski has written extensively on the issue of the 'Global
Political Awakening,' and has been giving speeches at various elite
think tanks around the world, 'informing' the elites of this changing
global dynamic. Brzezinski is one of the principle representatives of
the global elite and one of the most influential elite intellectuals
in the world. His analysis of the `global politicl awakening`is useful
because of his repesentation of it as the primary global threat to
elite interests everywhere. Thus, people should view the concept of
the `global political awakening`as the greatest potential hope for
humanity and that it should be advanced and aided, as opposed to
Brzezinski`s perspective that it should be controlled and suppressed.
However, it would be best for Brzezinski to explain the concept in his
own words to allow people to understand how it constitutes a
`threat`to elite interests :

For the first time in human history almost all of humanity is
politically activated, politically conscious and politically
interactive. There are only a few pockets of humanity left in the
remotest corners of the world that are not politically alert and
engaged with the political turmoil and stirrings that are so
widespread today around the world. The resulting global political
activism is generating a surge in the quest for personal dignity,
cultural respect and economic opportunity in a world painfully scarred
by memories of centuries-long alien colonial or imperial domination...
The worldwide yearning for human dignity is the central challenge
inherent in the phenomenon of global political awakening.

...America needs to face squarely a centrally important new global
reality: that the world's population is experiencing a political
awakening unprecedented in scope and intensity, with the result that
the politics of populism are transforming the politics of power. The
need to respond to that massive phenomenon poses to the uniquely
sovereign America an historic dilemma: What should be the central
definition of America's global role? ... The central challenge of our
time is posed not by global terrorism, but rather by the intensifying
turbulence caused by the phenomenon of global political awakening.
That awakening is socially massive and politically radicalizing.

... It is no overstatement to assert that now in the 21st century the
population of much of the developing world is politically stirring and
in many places seething with unrest. It is a population acutely
conscious of social injustice to an unprecedented degree, and often
resentful of its perceived lack of political dignity. The nearly
universal access to radio, television and increasingly the Internet is
creating a community of shared perceptions and envy that can be
galvanized and channeled by demagogic political or religious passions.
These energies transcend sovereign borders and pose a challenge both
to existing states as well as to the existing global hierarchy, on top
of which America still perches.

... The youth of the Third World are particularly restless and
resentful. The demographic revolution they embody is thus a political
time-bomb, as well. With the exception of Europe, Japan and America,
the rapidly expanding demographic bulge in the 25-year-old-and-under
age bracket is creating a huge mass of impatient young people. Their
minds have been stirred by sounds and images that emanate from afar
and which intensify their disaffection with what is at hand. Their
potential revolutionary spearhead is likely to emerge from among the
scores of millions of students concentrated in the often
intellectually dubious "tertiary level" educational institutions of
developing countries. Depending on the definition of the tertiary
educational level, there are currently worldwide between 80 and 130
million "college" students. Typically originating from the socially
insecure lower middle class and inflamed by a sense of social outrage,
these millions of students are revolutionaries-in-waiting, already
semi-mobilized in large congregations, connected by the Internet and
pre-positioned for a replay on a larger scale of what transpired years
earlier in Mexico City or in Tiananmen Square. Their physical energy
and emotional frustration is just waiting to be triggered by a cause,
or a faith, or a hatred.

Brzezinski thus posits that to address this new global "challenge" to
entrenched powers, particularly nation-states that cannot sufficiently
address the increasingly non-pliant populations and populist demands,
what is required, is "increasingly supranational cooperation, actively
promoted by the United States." In other words, Brzezinski favours an
increased and expanded 'internationalization', not surprising
considering he laid the intellectual foundations of the Trilateral
Commission. He explains that "Democracy per se is not an enduring
solution," as it could be overtaken by "radically resentful populism."
This is truly a new global reality:

Politically awakened mankind craves political dignity, which democracy
can enhance, but political dignity also encompasses ethnic or national
self-determination, religious self-definition, and human and social
rights, all in a world now acutely aware of economic, racial and
ethnic inequities. The quest for political dignity, especially through
national self-determination and social transformation, is part of the
pulse of self-assertion by the world's underprivileged.

Thus, writes Brzezinski, "an effective response can only come from a
self-confident America genuinely committed to a new vision of global
solidarity." The idea is that to address the grievances caused by
globalization and global power structures, the world and America must
expand and institutionalize the process of globalization, not simply
in the economic sphere, but in the social and political as well. It is
a flawed logic, to say the least, that the answer to these systemic
problems is to enhance and strengthen the systemic flaws that created
them. One cannot put out a fire by adding fuel.

Brzezinski even wrote that, "let it be said right away that
supranationality should not be confused with world government. Even if
it were desirable, mankind is not remotely ready for world government,
and the American people certainly do not want it." Instead, Brzezinski
argues, America must be central in constructing a system of global
governance, "in shaping a world that is defined less by the fiction of
state sovereignty and more by the reality of expanding and politically
regulated interdependence." In other words, not 'global government'
but 'global governance', which is simply a rhetorical ploy, as 'global
governance' – no matter how overlapping, sporadic and desultory it
presents itself – is in fact a key step and necessary transition in
the moves toward an actual global government structure.

[See: Andrew Gavin Marshall, The Global Political Awakening and the
New World Order, Global Research, 24 June 2010]

Conceptualizing Wikileaks

I feel that Wikileaks must be conceptualized within our understanding
of this geopolitical reality we find ourselves in today. While indeed
it is necessary to be skeptical of such monumental events, we must
allow ourselves to remember that there are always surprises – for
everyone – and that the future is nothing if not unknown. Anything,
truly, can happen. There is of course logic behind the automatic
skepticism and suspicion about Wikileaks from the alternative media;
however, they also risk losing an incredible opportunity presented by
Wikileaks, to not only reach more people with important information,
but to better inform that information itself.

For those who view Wikileaks as a conspiracy or plot, as a psy-op of
some kind, while indeed these things have taken place in the past,
there is simply no evidence for it thus far. Every examination of this
concept is based upon speculation. Many nations around the world,
particularly in the Middle East and South Asia, are pointing to the
Western nations as engaging in a covert propaganda campaign aimed at
creating disunity between states and allies. Iran, Turkey, Pakistan
and Afghanistan have made such claims. It is no surprise that most of
these are nations, particularly Iran, are targets of U.S. imperial
policy. Since, however, the Wikileaks releases speak heavily and
negatively about Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Russia, China,
Venezuela, etc., one must remember that these are 'diplomatic cables',
and represent the 'opinions and beliefs' of the diplomatic
establishment, a social group which is historically and presently
deeply enmeshed and submissive to elite ideology and methodology. In
short, these are the foreign imperial envoys, and as such, they are
ideological imperialists and represent imperial interests.

As has been the case both historically and presently, imperial
objectives are hidden with political rhetoric. Since, politically,
these are target nations of the American imperial elite, America's
diplomatic representatives will focus on these nations, and adopt the
same ideas and beliefs. How many people have ever been given a raise
by questioning and then disregarding their superior's management
technique? Thus, in their respective nations and operations, the
diplomats will seek information that targets these nations or serve
specific American imperial objectives. If all the information they
come up with are rumours and conjectures and repeated talking points,
that is what will be seen in the diplomatic cables. Indeed, that was
exactly the case. The cables are full of rumours and unsupported
allegations. So naturally, they would target these specific nations –
deemed geopolitically significant by American imperial interests – and
why there would be far less information on Israel and other allied
nations. This is why it seems to me that these cables are authentic.
They seem to represent the reality of the 'diplomatic social group',
and thus they are a vivid exploration in the study of imperialism. We
have been given the opportunity to see the 'communications' of
imperial diplomacy. It is in this, that we are presented with an
incredible opportunity.

Further, in regards to many Middle Eastern and Asian nations framing
Wikileaks as a "Western plot," as critical thinkers we must take note
of the geopolitical reality of the 'global political awakenng.' All
states are self-interested, that is the nature of a state. Elites all
over the world are aware of the reality and potential political power
of the 'global political awakening' and thus, seek to suppress or
co-opt its potential. States which are often viewed by the critical
press as 'targets' by Western imperial powers (such as Iran), may seek
to use this power to its own advantage. They may attempt to steer the
'global awakening' and the 'alternative media' to their favour, which
gives them political power. But the alternative media must not 'pick
sides' in terms of global elites and power structures, we must remain
critical of all sides and all actors.

Wikileaks is receiving an incredible readership and is reaching out to
new audiences, globally, in the American homeland itself, and to the
youth of the world. People's perceptions are beginning to change on a
variety of issues. The question is: will the alternative media ignore
Wikileaks and isolate itself, or will they engage with Wikileaks, and
prevent the mainstream corporate media from having a 'monopoly of
interpretation', which becomes inherently propagandistic. Wikileaks is
having global repercussions, and has been very good for the newspaper
and mainstream news industries, which have been on a steady decline.
This too, can be an issue to reach out to this new and growing
audience, and to bring them to a new perspective. If we do not reach
out, we are left talking to each other, further isolating ourselves,
and ultimately becoming subverted and ineffective for change. We need
to reach out to new audiences, and this is an incredible opportunity
to do so. People are interested, people are curious, people are hungry
for more.

Wikileaks and the Media

Instead of deriding Wikileaks as "not telling us anything we didn't
know" before, perhaps the alternative media should use the popularity
and momentum of Wikileaks to take from it the documentation and
analysis that further strengthens our arguments and beliefs. This will
allow for others, especially new audiences of interested people
worldwide, to place the Wikileaks releases within a wider context and
understanding. The reports from Wikileaks are 'revelations' only to
those who largely adhere to the 'illusions' of the world: that we live
in 'democracies' promoting 'freedom' around the world and at home,
etc. The 'revelations' however, are not simply challenging American
perceptions of America, but of all nations and their populations. The
fact that these people are reading and discovering new things for
which they are developing an interest is an incredible change. This is
likely why the corporate media is so heavily involved in the
dissemination of this information (which itself is a major source of
suspicion for the alternative media): to control the interpretation of
the message. It is the job of the alternative media and intellectuals
and other thinking individuals to challenge that interpretation with
factual analysis. The Wikileaks releases, in fact, give us more facts
to place within and support our interpretations than they do for the
corporate media.

We must ask why the Wikileaks releases were 'revelations' for most
people? Well, it was surprising simply for the fact that the media
itself has such a strong hold on the access, dissemination and
interpretation of information. They are 'revelations' because people
are indoctrinated with myths. They are not 'revelations' to the
alternative media because we have been talking about these things for
years. However, while they may not necessarily be 'revelations', they
are in fact, 'confirmations' and 'vindications' and bring more
information to the analysis. It is in this, that a great opportunity
lies. For since the leaks support and better inform our perspectives,
we can build on this concept and examine how Wikileaks adds to and
supports critical analysis. For those who are newly interested and
looking for information, or for those who are having their previous
perceptions challenged, it is the alternative media and critical
voices alone who can place that information in a wider context for
everyone else. In this, more people will see how it is the alternative
media and critical perspectives which were more reflective of reality
than say, the mainstream media (for which Wikileaks is a
'revelation'). Thus, more people may soon start turning to alternative
media and ideas; after all, our perspectives were vindicated, not
those of the mainstream media (though they attempt to spin it as
such).

We are under a heavy propaganda offensive on the part of the global
corporate and mainstream media to spin and manipulate these leaks to
their own interests. We, as alternative media and voices, must use
Wikileaks to our advantage. Ignoring it will only damage our cause and
undermine our strength. The mainstream media understood that; so too,
must we. Wikileaks presents in itself a further opportunity for the
larger exposure of mainstream media as organized propaganda. By
'surprising' so many people with the 'revelations', the media has in
effect exposed itself as deeply inadequate in their analysis of the
world and the major issues within it. While currently it is giving the
mainstream media a great boost, we are still immersed in the era of
the 'Technological Revolution' and there is still (for now, anyway)
Internet freedom, and thus, the tide can quickly turn.

Like the saying goes, 'the rich man will sell you the rope to hang him
with if he thinks he can make a buck on it.' Perhaps the mainstream
media has done the same. No other organized apparatus was as capable
of disseminating as much material as quickly and with such global
reach as the mainstream media. If the leaks initially only made it
into alternative media, then the information would only reach those
whom are already reading the alternative press. In that, they would
not be such grand 'revelations' and would have had a muted effect. In
the mainstream media's global exposure of Wikileaks material (never
mind their slanted and propagandistic interpretations), they have
changed the dynamic and significance of the information. By reaching
wider and new audiences, the alternative and critical voices can
co-opt these new audiences; lead them away from the realm of
information 'control' into the realm of information 'access'. This is
potentially one of the greatest opportunities presented for the
alternative and critical voices of the world.

Wikileaks is a globally transformative event. Not simply in terms of
awakening new people to 'new' information, but also in terms of the
effect it is having upon global power structures, itself. With
ambassadors resigning, diplomats being exposed as liars and tools,
political rifts developing between Western imperial allies, and many
careers and reputations of elites around the world at great risk,
Wikileaks is creating the potential for an enormous deterioration in
the effectiveness of imperialism and domination. That, in itself, is
an admirable and worthy goal. That this is already a reality is
representative of how truly transformative Wikileaks is and could be.
People, globally, are starting to see their leaders through a lens not
filtered by 'public relations.' Through mainstream media, it gets
filtered through propaganda, which is why it is an essential duty of
the alternative media and critical thinkers to place this information
in a wider, comprehensive context. This would further erode the
effectiveness of empire.

With the reaction of several states and policing organizations to
issue arrest warrants for Julian Assange, or in calling for his
assassination (as one Canadian adviser to the Prime Minister suggested
on television), these organizations and individuals are exposing their
own hatred of democracy, transparency and freedom of information.
Their reactions can be used to discredit their legitimacy to 'rule'.
If policing agencies are supposed to "protect and serve," why are they
seeking instead to "punish and subvert" those who expose the truth?
Again, this comes as no surprise to those who closely study the nature
of the state, and especially the modern phenomenon of the
militarization of domestic society and the dismantling of rights and
freedoms. However, it is happening before the eyes of the whole world,
and people are paying attention. This is new.

This is an incredible opportunity to criticize foreign policy (read:
'imperial strategy'), and to disembowel many global power structures.
More people, now, than ever before, will be willing to listen, learn
and investigate for themselves. Wikileaks should be regarded as a
'gift', not a 'distraction.' Instead of focusing on the parts of the
Wikileaks cables which do not reflect the perspectives of the
alternative media (such as on Iran), we must use Wikileaks to better
inform our own understanding not simply of the 'policy' itself, but of
the complex social interactions and ideas that create the basis for
the 'policy' to be carried out. In regards to the diplomatic cables
themselves, we are better able to understand the nature of diplomats
as 'agents of empire,' and so instead of discounting the cables as
'propaganda' we must use them against the apparatus of empire itself:
to expose the empire for what it is. Wikileaks helps to unsheathe and
strip away the rhetoric behind imperial policy, and expose diplomats
not as 'informed observers', but as 'agents of power.' The reaction by
nations, organizations and institutions around the world adds further
fuel to this approach, as we are seeing the utter distaste political
leaders have for 'democracy' and 'freedom of information', despite
their rhetoric. Several institutions of power can be more widely
exposed in this manner.

A recent addition to this analysis can be in the role played by
universities not in 'education' but in 'indoctrination' and the
production of new 'agents of power.' For example, Columbia University
is one of the most "respected" and "revered" universities in the
world, which has produced several individuals and significant sectors
of the political elite (including diplomats). In reaction to the
Wikileaks releases, Columbia University has warned "students they risk
future job prospects if they download any of the material," which
followed "a government ban on employees, estimated at more than
two-and-a-half million people, using work computers and other
communication devices to look at diplomatic cables released by
WikiLeaks." The University "emailed students at the university's
school of international and public affairs, a recruiting ground for
the state department."[14] Good for Columbia! What do they think
university is for, 'education' or something? How dare students take
education into their own hands, especially students who will likely be
future diplomats. This university reaction to Wikileaks helps call
into attention the role of universities in our society, and
specifically the role of universities in shaping the future 'managers'
of the imperial apparatus.

Wikileaks as an Opportunity

If Wikileaks is a psy-op, it is either the stupidest or most
intelligent psychological operation ever undertaken. But one thing is
for sure: systems and structures of power are in the process of being
exposed to a much wider audience than ever before. The question for
the alternative media and critical researchers, alike, is what will
they do with this information and this opportunity?

Julian Assange was recently interviewed by Time Magazine about
Wikileaks, in which he explained to the inadequately informed editor
of Time Magazine that organizations which are secretive need to be
exposed:

If their behavior is revealed to the public, they have one of two
choices: one is to reform in such a way that they can be proud of
their endeavors, and proud to display them to the public. Or the other
is to lock down internally and to balkanize, and as a result, of
course, cease to be as efficient as they were. To me, that is a very
good outcome, because organizations can either be efficient, open and
honest, or they can be closed, conspiratorial and inefficient.[15]

Assange further explained some of his perspectives regarding the
influence of and reactions to Wikileaks, stating that the Chinese:

appear to be terrified of free speech, and while one might say that
means something awful is happening in the country, I actually think
that is a very optimistic sign, because it means that speech can still
cause reform and that the power structure is still inherently
political, as opposed to fiscal. So journalism and writing are capable
of achieving change, and that is why Chinese authorities are so scared
of it. Whereas in the United States to a large degree, and in other
Western countries, the basic elements of society have been so heavily
fiscalized through contractual obligations that political change
doesn't seem to result in economic change, which in other words means
that political change doesn't result in change.[16]

In the interview, Assange turned to the issue of the Internet and
community media:

For the rise of social media, it's quite interesting. When we first
started [in 2006], we thought we would have the analytical work done
by bloggers and people who wrote Wikipedia articles and so on. And we
thought that was a natural, given that we had lots of quality,
important content... The bulk of the heavy lifting - heavy analytical
lifting - that is done with our materials is done by us, and is done
by professional journalists we work with and by professional
human-rights activists. It is not done by the broader community.
However, once the initial lifting is done, once a story becomes a
story, becomes a news article, then we start to see community
involvement, which digs deeper and provides more perspective. So the
social networks tend to be, for us, an amplifier of what we are doing.
And also a supply of sources for us.[17]

As researchers, media, and critics, we must realize that our
perspectives and beliefs must be open to change and evolution. Simply
because something like this has never happened before does not mean
that it isn't happening now. We live in the era of the 'Technological
Revolution,' and the Internet has changed economics, politics and
society itself, on a global scale. This is where the true hope in
furthering and better informing the 'global political awakening' will
need to take speed and establish itself. True change in our world is
not going to come from already-established or newly-created
institutions of power, which is where all issues are currently being
addressed, especially those of global significance. True change,
instead, can only come not from global power structures, but from the
global 'community' of people, interacting with one another via the
power unleashed by the 'Technological Revolution.' Change must be
globally understood and community organized.

We are on the verge of a period of global social transformation, the
question is: will we do anything about it? Will we seek to inform and
partake in this transition, or will we sit and watch it be misled,
criticizing it as it falters and falls? Just as Martin Luther King
commented in his 1967 speech, Beyond Vietnam, that it seemed as if
America was "on the wrong side of a world revolution," now there is an
opportunity to remedy that sad reality, and not simply on a national
scale, but global.

Despite all the means and methods of power and domination in this
world, for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. As
things progressively get worse and worse, as any independent observer
of the world has noticed, life has a way of creating means and methods
to counter these regressions. As 'globalization' has facilitated the
emergence of a global elite, and several global institutions and
ideologies of global power, so too has this process facilitated the
'globalization of opposition.' So while elites, globally, actively
work to integrate and expand global power structures, they are
inadvertently integrating and expanding global opposition to those
very same power structures. This is the great paradox of our time, and
one which we must recognize, for it is not simply a factual
observation, but it is a hopeful situation.

Hope should not be underestimated, and it is something that I have
personally struggled with in my views of the world. It is hard to see
'hope' when you study so much 'horror' in the world, and see how
little is being done about it. But activism and change need hope. This
is very evident from the Obama campaign, which was splashed with
rhetoric of 'hope' and 'change', something that all people rightfully
want and need. However, Obama's 'hope' and 'change' were Wall Street
brands and patents, it was a glorious practice in the art of
propaganda, and a horrific blow to true notions of 'hope' and
'change'. There is a reason why the Obama campaign took the top prizes
in public relations industry awards.[18]

Hope is needed, but it cannot be misplaced hope, as it was with Obama.
It must be a hope grounded not in 'blind faith' but in 'honest
analysis.' While indeed on most fronts in the world, things are
getting progressively worse, the alternative media has focused almost
exclusively on these issues that they have blinded themselves to the
positive geopolitical developments in the world, namely the 'global
political awakening' and the role of the Internet in reshaping global
society. While these issues are acknowledged, they are not fully
understood or explained within the wider context: that these are in
fact, hopeful developments; that there is hope. Wikileaks strengthens
this notion, if it is to be taken as an opportunity. A critique
without hope falls on deaf ears. No one wants to hear that things are
'hopeless', so while an examination of what is wrong in the world is
integral to moving forward, so too is an examination of what is
hopeful and positive. This spreads the message and builds its
supporters. The Internet as a medium facilitates the spread of this
message, and after all, as one of the foremost media theorists,
Marshall McLuhan, noted, "The medium is the message."

Appendix of 'Revelations' and 'Vindications': A Call to Action for
Alternative Media

So what are some of the supposed 'revelations' which can be used as
'vindications' by the alternative media? Well, for one, the role of
royalty as a relevant and powerful economic and political actor in the
world today. And by this I do not simply refer to states where
monarchs remain as official rulers, such as in Saudi Arabia, but more
specifically to West European and notably the British monarchs. For
those who have studied institutions like the Bilderberg Group and the
Trilateral Commission, the relevance of European royalty in
international affairs is not a new concept. For the majority of people
(who haven't even heard of the Bilderberg Group or Trilateral
Commission), these monarchs are largely viewed as symbolic figures as
opposed to political actors. This is, of course, naïve, as all
monarchs have always been political actors, however, it is a naivety
that has now been challenged on a much wider scale and to a much wider
audience. There was a time when I would discuss the relevance of
monarchs in the modern world, and it would be a subject that would be
treated by many others as an absurd notion: "but the Queen has no real
power, she's a figurehead," etc. Wikileaks has exposed that notion as
a falsity, and it should be an issue that is expanded upon.

For example, within the Wikileaks cables, take the British Prince
Andrew, Queen Elizabeth's second son, who has been subject to many
cable 'revelations.' The U.S. Ambassador to Kyrgyzstan wrote a cable
regarding a meeting she attended with several British and Canadian
businessmen and Prince Andrew, who is a special U.K. trade
representative to the Middle East and Central Asia. At the meeting,
Prince Andrew ranted against "those [expletive] journalists ... who
poke their noses everywhere," and he "railed at British anticorruption
investigators, who had had the 'idiocy' of almost scuttling the
al-Yamama deal with Saudi Arabia," particularly "referencing an
investigation, subsequently closed, into alleged kickbacks a senior
Saudi royal had received in exchange for the multi-year, lucrative BAE
Systems contract to provide equipment and training to Saudi security
forces." When he ranted against the media – specifically the Guardian
paper – for making it harder to do business abroad, the U.S.
Ambassador noted that the businessmen in attendance "roared their
approval" and "practically clapped."[19] Again, evidence for how
elites despise true representations of democracy and freedom.

At that same meeting, Prince Andrew made another startling claim, and
one which had not been as widely publicized in the media to date. He
stated that to the U.S. Ambassador that: "the United Kingdom, Western
Europe (and by extension you Americans too) were now back in the thick
of playing the Great Game," and, "this time we aim to win!" Further,
Prince Andrew – the 'Duke of York' – "then stated that he was very
worried about Russia's resurgence in the region," and referred to
Chinese economic and political expansion in the region as "probably
inevitable, but a menace." On the way out of the meeting, one British
businessman said to the U.S. Ambassador, "What a wonderful
representative for the British people! We could not be prouder of our
royal family!"[20] Well, there you have it, a rich prince running
around the world with rich businessmen promoting their economic
interests in foreign countries and referring to it as the age-old
imperial competition between Britain and Russia in the "Great Game"
for dominance over Central Asia. And we call our countries
'democracies' and exporters of 'freedom'?

This is quite typical behaviour of the royal family, however, as a
former South African MP and anti-corruption campaigner, Andrew
Feinstein, explained, "the royal family has actively supported
Britain's arms sales, even when corruption and malfeasance has been
suspected," and that, "the royal family was involved in trying to
persuade South Africa to buy BAE's Hawk jets, despite the air force
not wanting the planes that cost two and a half times the price of
their preferred aircraft. As an ANC MP at the time, I was told that
£116m in bribes had been paid to key decision-makers and the ANC
itself. The royal family's attitude is part of the reason that BAE
will never face justice in the UK for its corrupt practices."[21]

The British royals are also very close with Arab monarchs, which makes
sense, considering it was the British Empire (and the 'Crown' behind
it) that created the Arab monarchs and gave them power in the first
place. Prince Andrew went on hunting trips with the King of Jordan and
the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the UAE.[22] Further, Prince
Charles is considered a strategic diplomatic figure in regards to
Saudi Arabia, as the cables reveal. The British media headlined with
the 'revelation' that Prince Charles is not as "respected" as Queen
Elizabeth, but the real story was buried in the same article beneath
the royal gossip, as cables revealed that Prince Charles and his wife
"have helped to overcome 'severe strains' following Saudi Arabia's
imprisonment and torture of five Britons from December 2001 to August
2003 and the UK's official fraud investigations of British Aerospace
operations in Saudi Arabia in 2004." As one U.S. diplomatic cable
explained, the British royals "helped re-build UK-Saudi ties" as "the
House of Saud and the House of Windsor build upon their royal
commonality." In other words, they both represent unelected and
unaccountable elite dynastic power, and so they should naturally work
together in 'their' own interests. How 'democratic' of them. Further,
a Saudi royal threw a lavish party for Prince Charles in Saudi Arabia
with the help of an unnamed British businessman.[23]

It looks, however, like the British royals will have to again move in
to "smooth out" ties with Saudi Arabia, as 'revelations' about the
country and its monarch paint a picture of a not-so-helpful Western
ally. In short, Saudi Arabia and its monarch have received one of the
largest public relations disasters in recent history. The British
monarch may be too busy cleaning up their own mess, or have too much
light on them at the moment, to be able to 'gracefully' maneuver
through yet another 'imperious' royal visit. What am I referring to
here in terms of bad PR for the Saudis? It's quite simple, the Saudi
royals, good friends of the British monarch, are incidentally the
principle financiers of Sunni terrorists (which includes what we
commonly refer to as 'al-Qaeda') worldwide.

While this comes as no surprise to those who have critically analyzed
al-Qaeda or the "war on terror," it is indeed a 'revelation' to the
majority of people. While Western governments and media propaganda
machines have for years blamed terrorist financing and support on
'target' nations like Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and more recently,
Pakistan and Yemen, the Wikileaks cables 'vindicated' the historical
and present reality that it is in fact the main Western allies in the
region, especially Saudi Arabia, but also the other major Gulf Arab
states (and their monarchs), who are the main financiers and
supporters of terrorism, and most notably, al-Qaeda. A memo signed by
Hillary Clinton confirmed that Saudi Arabia is understood to be "the
world's largest source of funds for Islamist militant groups such as
the Afghan Taliban and Lashkar-e-Taiba," as well as al-Qaeda itself.
Further, three other Arab states, Qatar, Kuwait, and the United Arab
Emirates are listed as other chief terrorist financiers. As the
Guardian put it, "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." While Pakistan
is largely blamed for aiding the Taliban in Afghanistan, it is in fact
Saudi Arabia as well as UAE-based businesses which are its chief
financiers. Kuwait, another staunch U.S. ally, is a "source of funds
and a key transit point" for al-Qaeda.[24]

While the New York Times was busy declaring Wikileaks as providing a
"new consensus" on Iran, with the Saudi King urging America to attack
and "cut the head off the snake," they mentioned only in passing, how
"Saudi donors remain the chief financiers of Sunni militant groups
like Al Qaeda."[25] Now, while these are indeed 'revelations' to many,
we must place these facts in their proper context. This is not simply
to be taken as Saudi Arabia and Arab states being responsible, alone,
for support of terrorism and al-Qaeda, but that they are simply
playing the role they have always played, and that diplomacy is
sidelined and kept in the dark on this issue as it always has been.

What I mean by this is that the contextualization of these facts must
be placed in a comprehensive historical analysis. Looking at the
history of al-Qaeda, arising out of the Soviet-Afghan War, with major
covert support from America and other Western allies, the center of
this operation was in the 'Safari Club,' which constituted a secret
network of Western intelligence agencies (such as those of France,
Britain and America) and regional intelligence agencies (such as those
of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan), in carrying out the financing,
training, arming and operational support of the Mujahideen, and
subsequently the Taliban and al-Qaeda. The 'Safari Club' was
established in 1976 (with the help of CIA director at the time, George
H.W. Bush, another close friend of the Saudi royals), and was designed
to respond to increasing political oversight of intelligence
operations in America (as a result of the Church Committee
investigations on CIA operations), and so the Safari Club was created
to allow for a more covert and discreet network of intelligence
operations, with no oversight. Diplomats were kept in the dark about
its operations and indeed its existence, while the quiet covert
relationships continued behind the scenes. This network, in some form
or another, exists up to the present day, as I recently documented in
my three-part series on "The Imperial Anatomy of al-Qaeda."

[See: The Imperial Anatomy of Al-Qaeda. The CIA's Drug-Running
Terrorists and the "Arc of Crisis"; Empire, Energy and Al-Qaeda: The
Anglo-American Terror Network; 9/11 and America's Secret Terror
Campaign]

In short, there is a reason that while diplomats complain quietly
about Saudi and Arab financing and support for al-Qaeda, nothing is
actually done: because through other avenues, the American imperial
structure and apparatus supports and facilitates this process.
Diplomacy is more overt in its imperial ambitions, thus the reality of
the cables reflecting a focus on Iran and Pakistan, yet intelligence
operations are a much more covert means of establishing and
maintaining particular imperial relationships. This information again
should not be taken "at face value," but rather placed within its
broader geopolitical context. In this sense, the information is not
'disinformation' or 'propaganda', but rather additional factual
'vindication' and information.

While Western governments and media publicly scorn Iran and accuse it
of "meddling" in the affairs of Iraq, and of supporting terrorism and
destabilization of the country, the reality is that while Iran
certainly exerts influence in Iraq, (after all, they are neighbours),
Saudi Arabia is a far greater source of destabilization than Iran is
accused of being, and this is from the mouths of Iraqi leaders
themselves. Iraqi government officials, reported the Guardian, "see
Saudi Arabia, not Iran, as the biggest threat to the integrity and
cohesion of their fledgling democratic state." In a cable written by
the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, it was explained that, "Iraq views
relations with Saudi Arabia as among its most challenging given
Riyadh's money, deeply ingrained anti-Shia attitudes and [Saudi]
suspicions that a Shia-led Iraq will inevitably further Iranian
regional influence." Further, "Iraqi contacts assess that the Saudi
goal (and that of most other Sunni Arab states, to varying degrees) is
to enhance Sunni influence, dilute Shia dominance and promote the
formation of a weak and fractured Iraqi government." In short, that
would mean that Saudi Arabia is actually doing what the West accuses
Iran of doing in Iraq. So while Iran certainly has been promoting its
own interests in Iraq, it is more interested in a stable Shi'a
government, while Saudi Arabia is more interested in a weak and
fractured government, and thus promotes sectarian conflict. One
interesting fact to note that came out of the cables, is the
increasing perspective among Iraqi youth rejecting foreign
interference from any government, with diplomatic cables articulating
that, "a 'mental revolution' was under way among Iraqi youth against
foreign agendas seeking to undermine the country's stability."[26]

It should come as no surprise, then, that one top Saudi royal (in fact
the former head of Saudi Arabia's intelligence agency and thus the man
responsible for handling Saudi Arabia's relationship with terrorists),
Prince Turki al-Faisal, said that the source of the diplomatic leaks
should be "vigorously punished." Turki, who has also been the Saudi
Ambassador to the U.K. and America, said, "the WikiLeaks furor
underscored that cyber security was an increasing international
concern."[27]

What other areas can Wikileaks be used to further inform and
'vindicate' the critical media? Well, start with Saudi Arabia's
neighbour to the south, Yemen. Whether or not most Americans (or for
that matter, most people in general) are aware that America is waging
a war in Yemen, just across the water from where America is waging
another war against Somalia (since 2006/07). This past October, I
wrote an article about the imperial war in Yemen as a war being fought
under the auspices of the "War on Terror" and fighting al-Qaeda
(financed by the Saudi elite); but which in reality is about America
and other Western imperial powers (such as the U.K.) propping up a
despotic leaders who has been in power since 1978, by supporting him
in his campaign to eliminate a rebel movement in the North and a
massive secessionist movement in the South. Saudi Arabia entered the
conflict in August of 2009 by bombing rebel holdouts in the North
along the Saudi border, as the Saudi elite are afraid of the movement
spreading to disaffected groups within Saudi Arabia itself.

America inserted itself into the war by increasing the amount of money
and military aid given to Yemen (in effect, subsidizing their
military, as they do heavily with Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Israel,
all the Arab states, and dozens of other states around the world), as
well as providing direct special forces training and assistance, not
to mention carrying out missile strikes within Yemen against "al-Qaeda
training camps" which American intelligence officials claimed killed
60 'militants'. In reality, 52 innocent people died, with over half of
them being women and children. At the time, both Yemen and America
claimed it was an al-Qaeda training camp and that the cruise missile
was fired by the Yemeni government, despite the fact that it had no
such weapons in its arsenal, unlike the U.S. Navy patrolling the
coastline. The missile strike was carried out by America "on direct
presidential orders."

Several days later, there was the bizarre "attempted terrorist attack"
in which a young Nigerian man was arrested attempting to blow up his
underwear (who was helped onto the plane by a mysterious Indian man in
a suit who claimed he was a diplomat, according to witnesses), and who
was subsequently linked to "al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula" (an
organization which started up not much earlier when a Guantanamo
inmate returned to Saudi Arabia only to 'escape' Saudi custody, and
flee to Yemen to start a new al-Qaeda branch). This provided the
justification for America to dramatically increase its military aid to
Yemen, which more than doubled from $67 million to $150 million, and
came with increased special forces training and assistance, as well as
increased CIA activity, discussing using drone attacks to kill
innocent people (as they do in Pakistan), and more missile strikes.

This previous September, the Yemen government "laid siege" to a town
in the South while the Obama administrations top counter-terrorism
official, John Brennan, was in Yemen for 'talks' with President Saleh.
The town was claimed to be a "sanctuary for al-Qaeda," but it has key
strategic significance as well. It is just south of a major new liquid
natural gas pipeline, and the town happened to be home to many people
involved in the Southern secessionist movement. The Yemeni government
"barred" any outside or independent observers from witnessing the
siege, which lasted days. However, for the many who fled the conflict
and "siege," they were claiming that the Islamic militants were
working with the government against the rebel movement in the North
and secessionist movement in the South, and according to one NPR
reporter, "this is more about fighting or subduing the secessionist
movement than it is about al-Qaida."

[See: Andrew Gavin Marshall, "Yemen: The Covert Apparatus of the
American Empire," Global Research, 5 October 2010]

The Wikileaks 'revelations' further inform and confirm much of this
analysis. In regards to the missile strike that killed innocent women
and children on Obama's orders, Wikileaks cables revealed that Yemeni
President Saleh "secretly offered US forces unrestricted access to his
territory to conduct unilateral strikes against al-Qaida terrorist
targets." As Saleh told John Breannan in September of 2009, "I have
given you an open door on terrorism. So I am not responsible."
Regarding the December 21 strike that killed the innocent civilians, a
cable explained, "Yemen insisted it must 'maintain the status quo'
regarding the official denial of US involvement. Saleh wanted
operations to continue 'non-stop until we eradicate this disease," and
days later in a meeting with U.S. Central Command head, General David
Patraeus, "Saleh admitted lying to his population about the strikes."
He told the General, "We'll continue saying the bombs are ours, not
yours."[28]

In regards to Pakistan, while it is important to be highly critical of
the validity of the 'perspectives' within the cables in regards to
Pakistan and the Taliban, since Pakistan is a current and escalating
target in the "War [OF] Terror," there are things to keep in mind:
historically, the Pakistani ISI has funded, armed and trained the
Taliban, but always with U.S. assistance and support. Thus, we must
examine the situation presently and so historically. Wikileaks
revealed (as I mentioned previously), that Arab Gulf states help fund
the Taliban in Afghanistan, so the common claim that it is Pakistan
'alone' is immediately made to be erroneous. Is it possible that
Pakistan is still working with the Taliban? Of course. They have
historically through their intelligence services, the ISI, and while
they have never done it without U.S. support (mostly through the CIA),
the ISI still receives most of its outside funding from the CIA.[29]
The CIA funding of the ISI, a reality since the late 70s, picked up
dramatically following 9/11, the operations of which the ISI has been
itself complicit in financing.[30] Thus, the CIA rewarded the
financiers of 9/11 by increasing their funds.

The trouble with discounting information that does not fit in with
your previously conceived ideas is that it does not allow for
evolution or progress in thinking. This should never be done in
regards to any subject, yet it is commonly done for all subjects, by
official and critical voices alike. With Pakistan, we must understand
that while historically it has been a staunch U.S. ally in the region,
propping up every government, supporting every coup, American
geopolitical ambitions have changed as a result of the changing
geopolitical reality of the world. Pakistan has drawn increasingly
close to China, which built a major seaport on Pakistan's coast,
giving China access to the Indian Ocean. This is a strategic threat to
India and the United States more broadly, which seeks to subdue and
control China's growing influence (while simultaneously attempting to
engage in efforts of international integration with China,
specifically economically). India and Pakistan are historical enemies,
and wars have been fought between them before. India and America are
in a strategic alliance, and America helped India with its nuclear
program, much to the distaste of the Pakistanis, who drew closer to
China. Pakistan occupies an area of the utmost strategic importance:
with its neighbours being Afghanistan, China, India and Iran.

American policy has changed to support a civilian government, kept
weak and subservient to U.S. interests, while America covertly expands
its wars inside Pakistan. This is creating an incredible potential for
absolute destabilization and fragmentation, potentially resulting in
total civil war. America appears to be undertaking a similar policy in
Pakistan that it undertook in fracturing Yugoslavia throughout the
1990s. Only that Pakistan has a population of 170 million people and
nuclear weapons. As America expands its destabilization of Pakistan,
the risk of a nuclear war between Pakistan and India dramatically
increases, as does the risk of destabilization spreading regionally to
its neighbours of India, China, Afghanistan and Iran. The
American-urged separation of the Pakistani military from official
power in Pakistan (as in, it's not a military dictatorships), was
designed to impose a completely U.S. dependent civilian government and
isolate an increasingly frustrated and antagonized Pakistani military.

As the Wikileaks cables revealed, General Kayani, head of the
Pakistani military, threatened to depose the Pakistani government in a
coup in March of 2009, and he discussed this in meetings with the U.S.
Ambassador to Pakistan, Anne Patterson. The cables revealed that the
Pakistani Army Chief disliked the civilian government, but that they
disliked the opposition even more, which was rallying people in the
streets.[31] This reveals the intimate nature the U.S. has with the
Pakistani military, as it always has. The U.S. did not support this
proposal, as it currently favours a weak civilian government, and
therefore a strong military dictatorship is not in America's (or
India's) interest. Thus, there was no coup. Hence, Wikileaks can be
used to further inform and vindicate analysis of Pakistan. For those
who have been speaking about the destabilization of Pakistan for
years, and there have been many, Wikileaks provides more resources to
a critical analysis, and suddenly more people around the world might
be interested in new ideas and perspectives, as Wikileaks has
challenged so many of their previously held beliefs.

The list of examples surfacing from the Wikileaks cables is endless in
the amount of additional information it can add in the alternative
media's dissemination of information and analysis. These were but a
few examples among many. Make no mistake, this is an opportunity for
the spread of truth, not a distraction from it. Treat it accordingly.

Andrew Gavin Marshall is a Research Associate with the Centre for
Research on Globalization (CRG). He is co-editor, with Michel
Chossudovsky, of the recent book, "The Global Economic Crisis: The
Great Depression of the XXI Century," available to order at
Globalresearch.ca. He is currently writing a book on 'Global
Government' due to be released in 2011 by Global Research Publishers.


Notes

[1] David E. Sanger, James Glanz and Jo Becker, Around the
World, Distress Over Iran, The New York Times, 28 November 2010:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/world/middleeast/29iran.htmlin

[2] Fox, Leaked Documents Show Middle East Consensus on Threat
Posed by Iran, Fox News, 29 November 2010:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/11/29/leaked-documents-middle-east-consensus-threat-posed-iran/

[3] Ross Colvin, "Cut off head of snake" Saudis told U.S. on
Iran, Reuters, 29 November 2010:
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6AS02B20101129

[4] FT reporters, Iran accuses US over WikiLeaks, The Financial
Times, 29 November 2010:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/940105fc-fbd1-11df-b79a-00144feab49a.html?ftcamp=rss#axzz16zUOP500

[5] Barak Ravid, Netanyahu: Israel will not stand at center of
new WikiLeaks report, Ha'aretz, 28 November 2010:
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/netanyahu-israel-will-not-stand-at-center-of-new-wikileaks-report-1.327416?localLinksEnabled=false

[6] Jerrold Kessel and Pierre Klochendler, Unexpectedly, Israel
Welcomes WikiLeaks Revelations, IPS News, 1 December 2010:
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=53731

[7] JPOST.COM STAFF, Barak: 'Wikileaks incident has not damaged
Israel', Jerusalem Post, 30 November 2010:
http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=197357

[8] Haaretz Service, Senior Turkey official says Israel behind
WikiLeaks release, Ha'aretz, 2 December 2010:
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/senior-turkey-official-says-israel-behind-wikileaks-release-1.328373

[9] Craig Murray, Extraordinary Rendition, CraigMurray.org, 11
July 2005: http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2005/07/extraordinary_r_1.html

[10] Nick Paton Walsh, The envoy who said too much, The Guardian,
15 July 2004: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2004/jul/15/foreignpolicy.uk

[11] Craig Murray, Raise A Glass to Wikileaks, CraigMurray.org,
29 November 2010:
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/11/raise_a_glass_t.html

[12] Ibid.

[13] Ibid.

[14] Ewen MacAskill, Columbia students told job prospects harmed
if they access WikiLeaks cables, The Guardian, 5 December 2010:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/05/columbia-students-wikileaks-cables

[15] RICHARD STENGEL, Transcript: TIME Interview with WikiLeaks'
Julian Assange, Time Magazine, 30 November 2010:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20101201/wl_time/08599203404000

[16] Ibid.

[17] Ibid.

[18] Matthew Creamer, Obama Wins! ... Ad Age's Marketer of the
Year, AdAge, 17 October 2008:
http://adage.com/moy2008/article?article_id=131810; Mark Sweney,
Barack Obama campaign claims two top prizes at Cannes Lion ad awards,
The Guardian, 29 June 2009:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/jun/29/barack-obama-cannes-lions

[19] David Leigh, Heather Brooke and Rob Evans, WikiLeaks
cables: 'Rude' Prince Andrew shocks US ambassador, The Guardian, 29
November 2010: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/nov/29/wikileaks-cables-rude-prince-andrew

[20] US embassy cables: Prince Andrew rails against France, the
SFO and the Guardian, The Guardian, 29 November 2010:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/175722

[21] Rob Evans and David Leigh, WikiLeaks cables: Prince Andrew
demanded special BAE briefing, The Guardian, 30 November 2010:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/nov/30/prince-andrew-wikileaks-cables

[22] US embassy cables: Prince Andrew hunts with Arab leaders,
The Guardian, 29 November 2010:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/8446

[23] Robert Booth, Wikileaks cable: Prince Charles 'not respected
like Queen', The Guardian, 29 November 2010:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/nov/29/wikileaks-cable-prince-charles-queen

[24] Declan Walsh, WikiLeaks cables portray Saudi Arabia as a
cash machine for terrorists, The Guardian, 5 December 2010:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/05/wikileaks-cables-saudi-terrorist-funding

[25] SCOTT SHANE and ANDREW W. LEHREN, Leaked Cables Offer Raw
Look at U.S. Diplomacy, The New York Times, 28 November 2010:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/world/29cables.html

[26] Simon Tisdall, WikiLeaks cables: Saudi Arabia rated a bigger
threat to Iraqi stability than Iran, The Guardian, 5 December 2010:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/05/wikileaks-cables-saudi-meddling-iraq

[27] William Maclean, Saudi royal: Punish WikiLeaks source
"vigorously", Reuters, 5 December 2010:
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6B41VA20101205

[28] Robert Booth and Ian Black, WikiLeaks cables: Yemen offered
US 'open door' to attack al-Qaida on its soil, The Guardian, 3
December 2010: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/03/wikileaks-yemen-us-attack-al-qaida

[29] Greg Miller, CIA pays for support in Pakistan, Los Angeles
Times, 15 November 2009:
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/nov/15/world/fg-cia-pakistan15

[30] Andrew Gavin Marshall, 9/11 and America's Secret Terror
Campaign, Global Research, 10 September 2010:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=20975

[31] David Batty and Declan Walsh, Pakistan army reacts to
WikiLeaks cables with democracy pledge, The Guardian, 4 December 2010:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/04/pakistan-army-supports-government-wikileaks

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=22278


------------------------------------

[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.comYahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/alochona/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/alochona/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
alochona-digest@yahoogroups.com
alochona-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
alochona-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/