__._,_.___
Last week the Guardian, Britain's main liberal newspaper, ran an exclusive report on the belated confessions of an Iraqi exile, Rafeed al-Janabi, codenamed "Curveball" by the CIA. Eight years ago, Janabi played a key behind-the-scenes role -- if an inadvertent one -- in making possible the US invasion of Iraq. His testimony bolstered claims by the Bush administration that Iraq's president, Saddam Hussein, had developed an advanced programme producing weapons of mass destruction. Curveball's account included the details of mobile biological weapons trucks presented by Colin Powell, the US Secretary of State, to the United Nations in early 2003. Powell's apparently compelling case on WMD was used to justify the US attack on Iraq a few weeks later. Eight years on, Curveball revealed to the Guardian that he had fabricated the story of Saddam's WMD back in 2000, shortly after his arrival in Germany seeking asylum. He told the paper he had lied to German intelligence in the hope his testimony might help topple Saddam, though it seems more likely he simply wanted to ensure his asylum case was taken more seriously. For the careful reader -- and I stress the word careful -- several disturbing facts emerged from the report. One was that the German authorities had quickly proven his account of Iraq's WMD to be false. Both German and British intelligence had travelled to Dubai to meet Bassil Latif, his former boss at Iraq's Military Industries Commission. Dr Latif had proven that Curveball's claims could not be true. The German authorities quickly lost interest in Janabi and he was not interviewed again until late 2002, when it became more pressing for the US to make a convincing case for an attack on Iraq. Another interesting disclosure was that, despite the vital need to get straight all the facts about Curveball's testimony -- given the stakes involved in launching a pre-emptive strike against another sovereign state -- the Americans never bothered to interview Curveball themselves. A third revelation was that the CIA's head of operations in Europe, Tyler Drumheller, passed on warnings from German intelligence that they considered Curveball's testimony to be highly dubious. The head of the CIA, George Tenet, simply ignored the advice. With Curveball's admission in mind, as well as these other facts from the story, we can draw some obvious conclusions -- conclusions confirmed by subsequent developments. Lacking both grounds in international law and the backing of major allies, the Bush administration desperately needed Janabi's story about WMD, however discredited it was, to justify its military plans for Iraq. The White House did not interview Curveball because they knew his account of Saddam's WMD programme was made up. His story would unravel under scrutiny; better to leave Washington with the option of "plausible deniability". Nonetheless, Janabi's falsified account was vitally useful: for much of the American public, it added a veneer of credibility to the implausible case that Saddam was a danger to the world; it helped fortify wavering allies facing their own doubting publics; and it brought on board Colin Powell, a former general seen as the main voice of reason in the administration. In other words, Bush's White House used Curveball to breathe life into its mythological story about Saddam's threat to world peace. So how did the Guardian, a bastion of liberal journalism, present its exclusive on the most controversial episode in recent American foreign policy? Here is its headline: "How US was duped by Iraqi fantasist looking to topple Saddam". Did the headline-writer misunderstand the story as written by the paper's reporters? No, the headline neatly encapsulated its message. In the text, we are told Powell's presentation to the UN "revealed that the Bush administration's hawkish decisionmakers had swallowed" Curveball's account. At another point, we are told Janabi "pulled off one of the greatest confidence tricks in the history of modern intelligence". And that: "His critics -- who are many and powerful -- say the cost of his deception is too difficult to estimate." In other words, the Guardian assumed, despite all the evidence uncovered in its own research, that Curveball misled the Bush administration into making a disastrous miscalculation. On this view, the White House was the real victim of Curveball's lies, not the Iraqi people -- more than a million of whom are dead as a result of the invasion, according to the best available figures, and four million of whom have been forced into exile. There is nothing exceptional about this example. I chose it because it relates to an event of continuing and momentous significance. Unfortunately, there is something depressingly familiar about this kind of reporting, even in the West's main liberal publications. Contrary to its avowed aim, mainstream journalism invariably diminishes the impact of new events when they threaten powerful elites. We will examine why in a minute. But first let us consider what, or who, constitutes "empire" today? Certainly, in its most symbolic form, it can be identified as the US government and its army, comprising the world's sole superpower. Traditionally, empires have been defined narrowly, in terms of a strong nation-state that successfully expands its sphere of influence and power to other territories. Empire's aim is to make those territories dependent, and then either exploit their resources in the case of poorly developed countries, or, with more developed countries, turn them into new markets for its surplus goods. It is in this latter sense that the American empire has often been able to claim that it is a force for global good, helping to spread freedom and the benefits of consumer culture. Empire achieves its aims in different ways: through force, such as conquest, when dealing with populations resistant to the theft of their resources; and more subtly through political and economic interference, persuasion and mind-control when it wants to create new markets. However it works, the aim is to create a sense in the dependent territories that their interests and fates are bound to those of empire. In our globalised world, the question of who is at the centre of empire is much less clear than it once was. The US government is today less the heart of empire than its enabler. What were until recently the arms of empire, especially the financial and military industries, have become a transnational imperial elite whose interests are not bound by borders and whose powers largely evade legislative and moral controls. Israel's leadership, we should note, as well its elite supporters around the world -- including the Zionist lobbies, the arms manufacturers and Western militaries, and to a degree even the crumbling Arab tyrannies of the Middle East -- are an integral element in that transnational elite. The imperial elites' success depends to a large extent on a shared belief among the western public both that "we" need them to secure our livelihoods and security and that at the same time we are really their masters. Some of the necessary illusions perpetuated by the transnational elites include: -- That we elect governments whose job is to restrain the corporations; -- That we, in particular, and the global workforce in general are the chief beneficiaries of the corporations' wealth creation; -- That the corporations and the ideology that underpins them, global capitalism, are the only hope for freedom; -- That consumption is not only an expression of our freedom but also a major source of our happiness; -- That economic growth can be maintained indefinitely and at no long-term cost to the health of the planet; -- And that there are groups, called terrorists, who want to destroy this benevolent system of wealth creation and personal improvement. These assumptions, however fanciful they may appear when subjected to scrutiny, are the ideological bedrock on which the narratives of our societies in the West are constructed and from which ultimately our sense of identity derives. This ideological system appears to us -- and I am using "we" and "us" to refer to western publics only -- to describe the natural order. The job of sanctifying these assumptions -- and ensuring they are not scrutinised -- falls to our mainstream media. Western corporations own the media, and their advertising makes the industry profitable. In this sense, the media cannot fulfil the function of watchdog of power, because in fact it is power. It is the power of the globalised elite to control and limit the ideological and imaginative horizons of the media's readers and viewers. It does so to ensure that imperial interests, which are synonymous with those of the corporations, are not threatened. The Curveball story neatly illustrates the media's role. His confession has come too late -- eight years too late, to be precise -- to have any impact on the events that matter. As happens so often with important stories that challenge elite interests, the facts vitally needed to allow western publics to reach informed conclusions were not available when they were needed. In this case, Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld are gone, as are their neoconservative advisers. Curveball's story is now chiefly of interest to historians. That last point is quite literally true. The Guardian's revelations were of almost no concern to the US media, the supposed watchdog at the heart of the US empire. A search of the Lexis Nexis media database shows that Curveball's admissions featured only in the New York Times, in a brief report on page 7, as well as in a news round-up in the Washington Times. The dozens of other major US newspapers, including the Washington Post, made no mention of it at all. Instead, the main audience for the story outside the UK was the readers of India's Hindu newspaper and the Khaleej Times. But even the Guardian, often regarded as fearless in taking on powerful interests, packaged its report in such a way as to deprive Curveball's confession of its true value. The facts were bled of their real significance. The presentation ensured that only the most aware readers would have understood that the US had not been duped by Curveball, but rather that the White House had exploited a "fantasist" -- or desperate exile from a brutal regime, depending on how one looks at it -- for its own illegal and immoral ends. Why did the Guardian miss the main point in its own exclusive? The reason is that all our mainstream media, however liberal, take as their starting point the idea both that the West's political culture is inherently benevolent and that it is morally superior to all existing, or conceivable, alternative systems. In reporting and commentary, this is demonstrated most clearly in the idea that "our" leaders always act in good faith, whereas "their" leaders -- those opposed to empire or its interests -- are driven by base or evil motives. It is in this way that official enemies, such as Saddam Hussein or Slobodan Milosevic, can be singled out as personifying the crazed or evil dictator -- while other equally rogue regimes such as Saudi Arabia's are described as "moderate" -- opening the way for their countries to become targets of our own imperial strategies. States selected for the "embrace" of empire are left with a stark choice: accept our terms of surrender and become an ally; or defy empire and face our wrath. When the corporate elites trample on other peoples and states to advance their own selfish interests, such as in the invasion of Iraq to control its resources, our dominant media cannot allow its reporting to frame the events honestly. The continuing assumption in liberal commentary about the US attack on Iraq, for example, is that, once no WMD were found, the Bush administration remained to pursue a misguided effort to root out the terrorists, restore law and order, and spread democracy. For the western media, our leaders make mistakes, they are naïve or even stupid, but they are never bad or evil. Our media do not call for Bush or Blair to be tried at the Hague as war criminals. This, of course, does not mean that the western media is Pravda, the propaganda mouthpiece of the old Soviet empire. There are differences. Dissent is possible, though it must remain within the relatively narrow confines of "reasonable" debate, a spectrum of possible thought that accepts unreservedly the presumption that we are better, more moral, than them. Similarly, journalists are rarely told -- at least, not directly -- what to write. The media have developed careful selection processes and hierarchies among their editorial staff -- termed "filters" by media critics Ed Herman and Noam Chomsky -- to ensure that dissenting or truly independent journalists do not reach positions of real influence. There is, in other words, no simple party line. There are competing elites and corporations, and their voices are reflected in the narrow range of what we term commentary and opinion. Rather than being dictated to by party officials, as happened under the Soviet system, our journalists scramble for access, to be admitted into the ante-chambers of power. These privileges make careers but they come at a huge cost to the reporters' independence. Nonetheless, the range of what is permissible is slowly expanding -- over the opposition of the elites and our mainstream TV and press. The reason is to be found in the new media, which is gradually eroding the monopoly long enjoyed by the corporate media to control the spread of information and popular ideas. Wikileaks is so far the most obvious, and impressive, outcome of that trend. The consequences are already tangible across the Middle East, which has suffered disproportionately under the oppressive rule of empire. The upheavals as Arab publics struggle to shake off their tyrants are also stripping bare some of the illusions the western media have peddled to us. Empire, we have been told, wants democracy and freedom around the globe. And yet it is caught mute and impassive as the henchmen of empire unleash US-made weapons against their peoples who are demanding western-style freedoms. An important question is: how will our media respond to this exposure, not just of our politicians' hypocrisy but also of their own? They are already trying to co-opt the new media, including Wikileaks, but without real success. They are also starting to allow a wider range of debate, though still heavily constrained, than had been possible before. The West's version of glasnost is particularly obvious in the coverage of the problem closest to our hearts here in Palestine. What Israel terms a delegitimisation campaign is really the opening up -- slightly -- of the media landscape, to allow a little light where until recently darkness reigned. This is an opportunity and one that we must nurture. We must demand of the corporate media more honesty; we must shame them by being better-informed than the hacks who recycle official press releases and clamour for access; and we must desert them, as is already happening, for better sources of information. We have a window. And we must force it open before the elites of empire try to slam it shut. This is the text of a talk entitled "Media as a Tool of Empire" delivered to Sabeel, the Ecumenical Liberation Theology Centre, at its eighth international conference in Bethlehem on Friday February 25. Jonathan Cook is a writer and journalist based in Nazareth, Israel. His latest books are "Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East" (Pluto Press) and "Disappearing Palestine: Israel's Experiments in Human Despair" (Zed Books). His website is www.jkcook.net. | |
India, Pakistan And The Kashmiri Struggle
Mr Chairman Usman Kayani, Chief Guest Shaukat Kashmiri, KNP Chairman Abbas Butt, friends and colleagues aslamo alayakam.
Normally people accuse me and my colleague Ababs Butt for being 'anti Pakistan'. Their main allegation is that we don't speak about human rights abuses on the Indian side of Jammu and Kashmir. That is not true. Time and again, we have spoken against human rights abuses on the Indian side of Jammu and Kashmir; but our contention was and still is that men in uniform are not the only source of human rights abuses on the Indian side of Jammu and Kashmir.
Apart from that, we think Indian policy on Kashmir is known to all concerned, what more can you say about that policy, they have put all their cards regarding Kashmir on table. However, Pakistani policy on Kashmir is not fully exposed. They have disguised their Kashmir policy and their real intentions in name of Islam. They have kept their cards related to Kashmir close to their chest; and have been advancing their Kashmir policy under the cover of religion and Muslim brotherhood.
Both countries want to get all of Jammu and Kashmir, or at least, retain what they have. One country is using name of religion to advance its imperialist policy and the other country is using name of democracy and secularism or relying on that provisional accession.
Question before us is to use our meagre resources to expose a policy of that country which is already exposed, and more than 95% of Kashmiri political activists, either on their own or under directions of Pakistani agencies are only focussing to expose that country; or we be loyal to our cause and our people and tell them what they don't know - tell them designs of the country which is using name of a religion to advance their agenda, rather than tell them what they already know.
Unpopular as it was, but we decided to expose the country which was perceived as a friend, yet its policies were no different to any other country with imperialist designs; a country which was fooling us and damaging our cause in name of religion and jihad. It was very easy for us to be a part of the crowd and go with the tide and be declared as loyal and patriots by those who control and direct the Kashmiri struggle.
However, to us, that was not in the interest of our struggle, it was not in the interest of united and independent Jammu and Kashmir. It was not in the interest of our norms and traditions of tolerance and coexistence. We thought policies that are designed and promoted by secret agencies of Pakistan could not be in the best interest of all people of Jammu and Kashmir and could lead to division of the State on religious lines.
We don't say India has not committed human rights abuses, but we should also expose those who commit human rights abuses and put that in the account of the Indian army. Our contention is that there are many accounts or many sources of killings, but because of convenience some people like to put everything in the account of the Indian army. We feel sorry for those who have died in name of Kashmiri struggle, and we also feel sorry for their families, but we also need to note the following sources of killings:
1. Indian army;
2. Militant groups fighting each other;
3. Militants killing their opponents and so called informers;
4. People killed in personal revenge or family and tribal disputes;
5. People killed in cross firing mainly because these mujahids engage Indian army and para - military forces in crowded place and cross firing results in killing of innocent people;
6. Cross border firing;
7. And targeted killings of Pakistani secret agencies and their proxies in Jammu and Kashmir.
So we can see there are many sources of killings but for convenience there is only one account – Indian army has killed innocent people. We say where army is responsible for killing of innocent people, do oppose it and condemn it, but when there are other culprits, don't shy away from exposing them. It is no good to tell people after two decades that Abdul Ghani Lone and Miwaiz were not killed by Indian army, but they were killed by 'our own people', just like Professor Abdul Ghani Bhat has done.
Apart from that we thought our struggle should be against the country which occupies us. It is illogical that people of Pakistani Administered Kashmir go to liberate people of the Valley, whereas they are also occupied; and one slave locked up in one room cannot help the other slave locked up in another room.
People sometime accuse me of criticising Amanullah Khan. I don't dislike Amanullah khan as a person; I dislike his wrong policies; just like I don't dislike India and Pakistan as countries, but I don't like their Kashmir policies.
It was Amanullah khan who made a secret pact with ISI a secret agency of Pakistan to launch militancy in the Valley of Kashmir which has proved to be disastrous for the people of Jammu and Kashmir and for struggle of an independent and secular Kashmir because militancy was transformed in to jihad. It was his idea (which was given to him by the ISI) that militancy should only be used against India, and once India is defeated Pakistan will also leave areas under their control. How India will be defeated by a gun borrowed from Pakistan; and how and why Pakistan will vacate areas their illegal control he never elaborated. He told us and others what he was told by middle ranking officers of the ISI.
So it was his secret agreement with Pakistani secret agency which proved to be disastrous, for this crime and other blunders should I blame him or a villager called Nathoo Khan? As a person Amanullah Khan is a decent man, but he is not judged in his personal capacity as a man. He and his followers claim he is leading an independence movement, so he should be judged as a leader and a tactician; and in that capacity he proved to be a disaster for his party and the Kashmiri struggle.
We can criticise both India and Pakistan for their Kashmir policies, but in my opinion, the Kashmiri leaders deserve more criticism for advancing anti Kashmir and anti people policies. It is unfortunate that some leaders of Jammu and Kashmir have been more loyal to India or Pakistan than to their motherland – Jammu and Kashmir. They have deliberately chosen this policy, not because it was in the best interest of Kashmir and people of Jammu and Kashmir, but they chose that policy for the sake of rewards from these countries. They have promoted such policies which caused confusion among people and actively promoted extremism, communalism and hatred.
Chairman, I thank you for your patience.
Writer is Head Diplomatic Committee of Kashmir National Party, political analyst and author of many books and booklets. Also he is Director Institute of Kashmir Affairs.Email:drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com
View my blog and web: www.drshabirchoudhry.blogspot.com
Only people's graft to be under watchChanges to anti-corruption law kept under wraps; from president to UP members to be beyond ACC's jurisdictionMaintaining utmost secrecy the government is set to amend the Anti-Corruption Commission laws clipping the anti-graft watchdog's authority to file cases against any public servant beginning from the head of state to the members of union parishads.
Besides, the cabinet chaired by Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina recently finalised nine more amendments keeping the ACC completely ignorant about it. Since then repeated attempts by the commission to get a written copy of the finalised amendments turned futile.
According to information gleaned by The Daily Star, the most damaging amendment would be the provision to require prior permission before filing cases against officers and employees of the republic.
Earlier in the draft proposal sent to the ACC, it was mentioned that permission would be required for filing cases against "government officials and employees". Based on that confusing wording, different sections of the media reported that lawmakers would remain out of cover.
Asked for a written copy of the finalised amendments to see what the proposal actually means, Cabinet Secretary Abdul Aziz refused to give it.
"It might confuse people if we make it public now, as the parliament might bring more changes to the proposed amendments," Abdul Aziz said.
"People will know it after it is passed in the parliament by their representatives," the cabinet secretary added.
However, section 7 of the Right to Information Act, 2009 allows keeping any cabinet decision secret only when prior permission is taken from the Information Commission.
Information Commissioner Prof Sadeka Halim confirmed that the cabinet did not take any such permission from them.
Former caretaker government adviser, Dr Akbar Ali Khan, assumed that keeping the decision secret, implies there might be two reasons behind it. Either the government is still examining whether they should bring the amendments, or the government would make the amendments hastily before anybody knows about it.
"But there is no scope for the government to keep the amendments secret, as ultimately it will be placed before the parliament. I cannot say for sure why the government is behaving this way, I can only assume," Akbar Ali Khan added.
Abdul Aziz, however, confirmed that as per the proposed amendments, prior permission would be required before filing a case against public servants defined by section 21 of the Penal Code.
"The section of the Penal Code refers to public servant meaning persons employed in service of the people and paid by the government," said ACC's counsel Anisul Huq. "The head of state, prime minister, ministers and advisers will be on the list of public servants," he added.
This amendment would make the ACC vulnerable to misuse on political purposes, for harassing people, like the time of now-defunct Bureau of Anti-Corruption, Anisul Huq observed.
The main objective of transforming the Bureau of Anti-Corruption into an independent commission in 2004 was to equip it with power of prosecuting corrupt public servants, who, according to Transparency International Bangladesh (TIB) surveys, are largely involved in corruption.
Barrister Rokanuddin Mahmud mentioned that public servants include lawmakers, people working in statutory bodies, and also local government representatives of all tiers.
According to the Penal Code, the long list of public servants also includes commissioned officers in the armed forces, judges, officers of a court of justice, jurymen, assessors, or members of a panchayat assisting a court of justice, income tax officers, Election Commission officers, municipal commissioners and government officials entrusted with the duty to prevent offence in the society.
Article 152 of the constitution defines public officers as persons holding or acting in any office of emolument in the service of the republic.
"Experience shows the government rarely permits filing of cases against its officers. Whenever the permission comes, it is never against any high-profile officer," said Rokanuddin.
In case an ACC official eventually gets the permission, the problem does not end there as an anti-graft official would be jailed for between two and five years if he or she failed to prove the case before a court.
PROPOSED AMENDMENT
The amendment proposes jail term for two to five years with fine if any individual including ACC officials filed a false allegation or influenced the court by giving false information.
Regarding the ACC officials, the provision also proposes taking departmental action in addition to the jail term.
The provision would largely discourage ACC officials and individuals from filing cases or allegations as those can be proved false at any stage of legal proceedings.
"The provision is unnecessary as the anti-graft body does not take any allegation into cognisance without enquiry. Rather the government should protect those who will act as whistle blowers in combating corruption," said TIB Trustee Prof Muzaffer Ahmad.
About 80 to 90 percent of corruption enquiries and investigations currently underway in the ACC are results of individuals' complaints. The commission has a committee to scrutinise the complaints before initiating an enquiry.
If an enquiry finds merit, commission examines it, and gives permission to file a case. Another investigation is conducted following that step.
"Punishment for filing a false case means punishment of the commission as it approves the case. A case may be proved false during a trial for a lot of reasons," said TIB Chairman M Hafizuddin Khan.
The third amendment adds a further twist proposing cancellation of the ACC's authority to summon witnesses for their statements during investigations. Instead, the amendment proposes issuance of notices to witnesses.
If ACC investigators cannot summon witnesses, they might not appear before the commission, hampering investigations greatly.
"It will undermine the credibility of the investigation, besides creating procedural flaws and affecting its effectiveness," said TIB Executive Director Iftekharuzzaman.
The cabinet also finalised appointment of the ACC secretary by the government, prompting experts to comment that the amendment goes directly against the spirit of the ACC's independence.
"This is a direct government intervention in ACC's independence. The secretary might not follow all decisions of the commission, and nurture bureaucracy," said Advocate Khurshid Alam Khan.
There is also the most diplomatic amendment proposing to make ACC cases non-bailable, non-compoundable, and cognisable.
Though people welcomed the provision thinking it is positive, legal experts term it an eyewash through a game of words, as "non-bailable" does not necessarily mean graft suspects would never obtain bail.
"It is nothing new as it already exists regarding different offences like murder and rape. Non-bailable offenes are usually non-compoundable. And people can get bail in those cases through the court," explained Rokanuddin Mahmud.
Allowed time for an investigation is also proposed to be increased to 180 days from the existing 60 days. Experts say this change is insignificant, and in some cases it might even make an investigation unnecessarily lengthy.
The only amendment that is welcomed by all is that no ACC official would be able to be the investigator of corruption allegation against their colleagues. Instead, another government official would do the job.
Another amendment proposed to cancel the ACC's authority to take witnesses' statement under oath. It caused mixed reaction giving rise to a debate over the intention behind this proposal, which indicates creation of impediments to ACC's effectiveness.
Keeping secret the identities of people revealing corruption information is proposed in another amendment.
None of the ACC's own amendment proposals including for increase of its human resources, making its laws supreme over other laws, and making the commission able to seek expertise from other government agencies was accepted by the cabinet.
"The power of the commission would be greatly curtailed and its independence would be greatly compromised. I would request the government to consult various sections of the population before coming to a conclusion," said Anisul Huq.
ACC Chairman Ghulam Rahman only expressed the hope that there would be refinement of the proposals in the parliament. He said he expects opinions of people would be considered in the parliament and international anti-corruption laws would be discussed there.
http://www.thedailystar.net/story.php?nid=175686