American Hegemony: India and Iran in the New World Order

Updated November 24 & 25 below.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lord Acton once implored us to remember a simple mantra:

Where you have a concentration of power in a few hands, all too frequently men with the mentality of gangsters get control. History has proven that. All power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Since its inception, American foreign policy has essentially been to expand the sphere of American dominance at whatever cost is necessary. It began with simple expansion out along the American continent, slaughtering the inhabitants along the way. In 1899 President McKinley issued the "Benevolent Assimilation Proclamation" announcing Americas intention to set up its own version of the British Empire. This policy continued through the years of "Wilsonian Idealism" and accelerated after World War II, reaching its climax under the guise of "Humanitarian Intervention" under Clinton. Each step along the way has seen an increase in the scope of Americas hegemonic ambitions, and each time the sphere of influence was expanded. First it was just the North American continent, then nearby islands, Central and South America, and finally expanding through the Middle and Far East.

Americas two most recent conquests, Afghanistan and Iraq, are becoming indicators that the time of American Empire may be coming to an end. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States remained as the sole world superpower, excersising its will with reckless abandon. However, the extension - and expansion upon - these policies by George Bush Junior has polarised the world in a very different way. The unipolar order of The United States and everybody else is giving way under the paralysing weight of American ambitions of dominance. What is emerging is a multipolar order, with the United States being put in a position of being unable to exert its influence at will, and instead having to increasingly accept foreign influence and input in world affairs.

The end of America's reign as the worlds sole superpower, and the absolute corruption that such power brings along, should be welcomed and encouraged by people the world over. As important policies in America are seldom even discussed (The Kyoto Protocols, Nuclear Disarmarment, Human Rights), and the US is using its global power to marginalise such important doctrines as those set forth by the Geneva Conventions, any move away from the absolutely corrupting Absolute Power given to American interests should be heralded as a positive move by anyone concerned about the safety and well being of our species as a whole.

Lynchpin: India

The United States Senate last week passed (by a vote of 85 to 12) a measure approving the transfer of Nuclear technology, equipment, and fuel to India. Doing so required that an exception be made to the Atomic Energy Act, which specifically forbids the sale of nuclear materials to countries that are non-signatories to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. The important reasoning behind this was spelled out in a recent article in The New York Times which stated that the vote was "expressing that a goal of nurturing India as an ally outweighed concerns over the risks of spreading nuclear skills and bomb-making materials." Such an agreement also brings to an end the 30 year old doctrine prohibiting the transfer by the United States of Nuclear reactor components and fuel to other countries.

Today, Chinese Premier Hu Jintao is in India on a visit meant to increase bilateral ties between the two countries. The China Daily reports that

As the first Chinese president to visit the country in a decade, Hu is expected to work with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, to "fill in the specifics" in the strategic partnership, according to Sun Yuxi, Chinese ambassador to India.

China and India announced the establishment of their strategic partnership for peace and prosperity last April in a joint statement signed by Premier Wen Jiabao and Singh.

Hu's talks with Singh today will iron out the details for enhancing this partnership in political, economic, military, cultural, scientific, technological and educational spheres, Sun revealed in a group interview last Friday with Chinese journalists at his residence.

Meanwhile, The Boston Globe reports that this meeting between Chinese and Indian premieres is likely to lead to a Nuclear arrangement being ironed out between those two countries as well, with China adding their bid for India to the one already on the table from the US.

If China and India enter into a nuclear cooperation agreement, it will mark a new stage in the increasing competition between China and the United States for India's friendship.

President Bush branded China a "strategic competitor" as soon as he came to office in 2001. Since India's burgeoning economy and muscular military can tip the balance of power in Asia, over the last year the United States and China have been trying to build closer ties with India, said Sun Shihai, deputy director of the Institute for Asia Pacific Studies at the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing.

"The US always said it wants to use India to balance China," Sun said. "China feels it needs to engage India more [and] develop some kind of Russia-China-India cooperation" that can balance US hegemony. "So there is some kind of competition happening."

The White House's July 2005 decision to enter into civilian nuclear cooperation was widely seen as a critical step in attracting India into the US orbit.

The worrysome emergence of spheres of influence outside of US control, specifically Russia and China (with partnerships growing to include Latin America, India, Iran and Pakistan), has US planners on their heels, of which the US offer of Nuclear technology to India is merely a byproduct.

The most specific worry for US planners is the duo of China and Russia extending their influence beyond the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and including countries in Latin America (Brazil, Venezuela) and such strategic heavyweights as India, Pakistan, and Iran. Since the demise of the Soviet Union, the US has aggressively been trying to expand NATO influence as far east as possible, encompassing many former Warsaw Pact nations. This is where the importance of India comes into play.

Were India to join a strategic alliance with China and Russia, they would throw their sizeable population (over 1 Billion people, the 2nd most populous nation on the planet behind China and much larger than the US with 300 Million) and strategic central-asia location (between China and another country the SCO has been courting, Pakistan) into the already economically- and militarily- hefty China/Russia partnership. Moves have already been made in increasing cooperation between China and India with trade set to exceed $20billion (US) this year, exceeding the target set by the two governments for 2008. There is also talk of a bilateral free trade agreement between the two countries, which could enable an increase in the already strong rate of general economic growth in the region.

There are, of course, a couple of sticking points in the China-India relationship, which the US is trying to take advantage of while it still has the opportunity. These include Chinese cooperation with India's foe Pakistan, the asylum of the Dali Lama from Tibet in India, and the China/India border. The border was in fact originally drawn by the British government near the end of their colonial reign, and has not been agreed upon by China or India. In the heat of the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, Nikita Kruschev is rumored to have encouraged Chairman Mao to go ahead and attack India over their disputed border, which India accepts but China views as claiming for India 90,000sq-km of Chinese territory. This act set in motion stronger ties between the US and India, which continue to this day; for instance, including a ten year mutual protection pact between the two countries currently in effect.

However, steps have also been taken in recent years to increase military cooperation between China and India, another factor worrying to US planners who hedge their bets on permanent US military dominance. This cooperation is being manifested in the areas of economics and defense, mainstays in the US's exertion of dominance in world affairs.

The value of courting India away from China/Russia is not lost on analysts, with such influential writers as Henry Kissinger and Noam Chomsky making their opinions heard on the subject. A regional economic and military alliance comprising Russia, China, and India, would have severe implications for continued American dominance.

Battleground: Iran

Successful defiance of American hegemonic interests is not undertaken lightly. However, the failed US invasion and occupation of Iraq has put the United States in its weakest position in decades, leaving open the opportunity for other power centres to assert their influence.

Previous attempts at defiance have led to serious consequences for countries such as Cuba, which suffered at the hands of an American economic strangulation since the overthrow of the US-backed Batista regime. Overt actions have been taken against others guilty of defiance in the past, such as many Latin American countries, North Korea, Vietnam, Sudan, and the recent US-sponsored coup attempt in Venezuela to oust the elected president Hugo Chavez.

Historically, Russia and/or China have consistantly fought the US on different battlegrounds, with Mao's troops fighting American troops in both North Korea and Vietnam (in the latter, the 100,000 strong Chinese forces even went so far as to don their Chinese military uniforms), the placement of Russian Nukes in Cuba, American Nukes in Turkey, and so on.

The re-emergence of Russia and China as global players is today being showcased in Iran. What was originally a confrontation strictly between France (proportedly representing the EU, although EU polls at the time indicated that the EU population was more worried about US militarism than Iran's nuclear program) and Iran has become a standoff between the East (Russia/China) and West (US/UK). Backed by these two UN Security Council Veto holders, Iran has refused to back down in front of US pressure regarding their nuclear program. Simultaneously, Iran is stepping to the forefront of one of the major issues of the day, the civil war raging in Iraq.

After two decades of diplomacy suspension, Iran's close ally Syria and American occupied Iraq are resuming diplomatic relations. Syria, branded by George Bush Jr. as a member of the "axis of evil" along with Iran and North Korea, broke ties with Iraq in 1982 in reaction to the US-backed war against their partner Iran; increasing ties between Syria and the US-installed regime of Malaki (and Talabani) could only be as surprising to their US masters as Malakis denunciation of Israel's US-backed murderous escapades in Lebanon and Palestine over the past few months.

Even more surprising for the US is the acceptance of the offer of a state visit to Iran by Talabani this weekend, where the major issue is likely to be the civil war raging in Iraq (it is often referred to in the western media as the "security situation" but to a rational observer 100 sectarian murders a day is beyond a simple "security situation"). This is on the heels of a call by Tehran for a summit with Iraqi and Syrian leaders to discuss Iraqs deep seeded problems.

The idea of such a summit occuring is so worrysome to the US that the US Embassy immediately issued a warning to the Iraqi government to stay away from Iran and Syria, and The US Propaganda machine immediately issued a report that such a summit would never happen.

Why should America be so worried about Iranian influence on Iraq? It is generally accepted by those who look beyond Fox News Headlines that the US's intention was to impose a client regime on Iraq, opening up for US businesses "economic opportunities," in other words unfettered access to Iraqs vast reserves of natural resources, and a permanent US presence in the center of the resource-blessed region. Iran, on the other hand, wholeheartedly rejects the idea of any American and British influence in the region. An op-ed in the Iran Daily reflects this:

Many Arabs and Muslims I talked to at the weekend about his new round of irresponsible statements about Iran were of the opinion that Blair could be suffering from a fresh bout of dementia.

In a television interview, the Labour boss known to many peace lovers in and outside Britain as “Tony Bliar“, “Phoney Tony“ and “King of Spin“, publicly admitted that the war he jointly engineered with George Bush was a “disaster.“
However, that admission of defeat did not stop him from blaming Tehran for all that has been going very wrong in occupied Iraq as a direct result of the Bush-Blair arrogance.
...
He said he had a message for Tehran and Damascus: “If you are prepared to be a part of the solution, there is a partnership available to you.“

We cannot speak for the leadership in Syria, nor do we know if or when Bashar Assad proposed any mechanism to help bring peace to the volatile Middle East. As far as Tehran is concerned, Blair, who will be remembered by posterity as a pro-war ruler obsessed with Israeli security and interests, had the wrong address once again. Those who decide foreign policy in our country do not recall ever wanting to be partners with killers of innocent Muslims like Blair or Bush.

Having said that, it deserves mention that the UK prime minister who dragged his country into the bottomless quagmire in Iraq and Afghanistan, is simply not in a position to make offers or speak on behalf of the people in our part of the world. One need not be a political scientist to understand that there is not one single country in the Muslim-Arab world that wants even impartial western rulers to speak on its behalf.

Now, how can Iran get away with such blatant disobedience of American power? The answer lies, once again, in the East. Iran's ties with Russia and China are consistantly played down in the western media in favor of a portrayal of Iran as a country on the verge of aquiring nuclear weapons and intent on using them to commit genocide against Israel. However, if we look back at the timeline of the most recent developments in the confrontation we see other important factors. Iran's military is being supplied by the Chinese (who in turn were supplied by Russia), and their military capabilities were most recently demonstrated in excersises they carried out in nearly half of their provinces and the Persian Gulf. This chinese-supplied military capability is widely seen as a deterrant to the American military option. Additionally, Iran has secured a trade partnership with Russia (and, in turn, the SCO) that comprises the worlds largest supply of Natural Gas and one of the top five supplies of crude oil, and it is Russia (not Iran) that is building in Iran a new state-of-the-art nuclear reactor.

Strategically, Iran is in an ideal position to all but cut off the supply of Middle East oil to the West, while allowing oil supply to continue through pipelines to their allies in the East. Iran's close ties with China and Russia are likely to prevent the US taking any more aggressive stance against the country than they already have, for economic reasons I have explained before:

Another dangerous economic trend is the steady decline in value of the US Dollar. Against the Euro it has dropped by more than a third of its value over the past five years. America's aggressive foreign policy isn't helping the situation much either, as the countries that were subsidising the US's enormous budget deficit by (as required by the IMF) purchasing US government bonds as collateral to insure their own currencies, such as many South American, Asian, and "Old Europe" countries, are looking to withdraw from their IMF obligations and take their money elsewhere in response to what they rightly perceive as American Imperialism.

Perhaps more worrysome for the American economy is the fact that major energy-commodity trading countries, which have been propping up the value of the dollar since the seventies as it is the major trading currency for oil, are also responding to american imperialism with a desire to switch to other currencies as their oil buying and selling currency. Most notable would be China, which holds the largest foreign reserve of US dollars on the planet, and which has begun serious discussions this year to switch to Euros as its oil buying currency. That would lead their main oil supplier Iran, which the US has been bullying recently, to switch to Euros as well (for oil), and could lead other OPEC countries to follow suit. This would lead to a rapid decline in the value of the already weak dollar, and skyrocketing inflation in America.

The end result is that the US, bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan and facing strong eastern opposition, is not currently in any position to enforce their hegemony.

Future Implications

Once an empire enters into decline, history tells us that the end result is consistantly terminal to their ambitions of dominance. Rome, Greece, Persia, the Ottomans, Britain; each have fallen by the wayside as their policies led to their downfall. What is emerging now is a multipolar order (rather than a unipolar order under US control) with the US sharing its global power with China and Russia, India (whom America is having to attempt to woo away from the other emerging powers), and a Latin America being led by Democratic Venezuela in partnership with defiant Cuba and economically strong Brazil, and with close ties to the strategic alliance of Russia and China in the East.

The indications of the demise of America as the worlds sole dominant superpower can only be welcomed by those who care about the future of our civilisation. The absolute power and absolute corruption that a system of American Hegemony has brought along is far from the best interests of the people, and it will be the people who benefit from moving away from the current Status Quo.


--------------------
cross posted at Daily Kos and European Tribune.
---------------------------------------
Update: November 24, 2006

The India Daily reports today that China will be soon announcing its full support for India to be granted a permanent UN Security Council seat. This is different from the recent Kofi Annan proposal of six semi-permanent non-veto holding seats.

China opposes Japan and favors India just to make sure Western dominance of in UN Security Council is challenged. Japan is seen as an American satellite. Brazil is a mixed bag. Though India is tending towards Japan’s posture, most likely Indian people will not accept American policies as their own.

We should also bear in mind that the US does not want to see a peaceful and prosperous relationship between India and Pakistan, as it might lead to a strengthening of the Asian bloc that is emerging as a counterbalance to American hegemony. China sees this, and on Hu Jintao's recent visit he was quoted as saying china "welcomes and supports" improved relations and would like to take a "constructive role" in advancing the interests of Asian peace. However, he stopped short of offering to directly mediate talks. I get the impression that India and Pakistan, although still succeptable to mutual pervading animosity, are aware of the positive ramifications of normalisation and strengthening of relations. This would be an important step in the emergence of a South Asian bloc to counterbalance current American hegemonic interests.
------------------------
Update November 25

As previously mentioned, China supplies much of Iran's defensive military capabilities. As Xinhua (China's State-Run news agency) is reporting today Russia is also supplying defensive military capabilities to Iran.

MOSCOW, Nov. 24 (Xinhua) -- Russia has begun delivering air defense systems Tor-M1 to Iran within the framework of an earlier signed agreement, Russian news agencies reported on Friday.

"The deliveries of Tor-M1 to Iran have begun. The first systems have been delivered to Iran," a source in Russia's military and intestinal complex was quoted by the Interfax news agency as saying, adding the Iranian soldiers who will operate the systems were trained in Russia.

"Earlier Russian officials stated that Iran is a sovereign state, a member of the UN and League of Arab States, and no international sanctions prohibiting it from receiving defensive arms have been imposed," the arms-exporting company Rosoboronexport said.

One lesson that States who find themselves on the US's hit list have learned from Iraq and Afghanistan is that the likelyhood of attack increases as military power decreases. Both Iraq and Afghanistan had little or no military capabilities, which made them easy targets for the militaristic Bush administration.

One byproduct of these invasions is that it has sparked a mini arms race, with countries that the US comes out against scrambling to build up a military deterrant, as evidenced by Iran's increasing purchase of weapons from the east and North Koreas test of a nuclear bomb some weeks back, seen as a "deterrant to US designs" in the words of N. Chomsky.

China and Russia are eager to provide such a deterrant to countries who are willing to offer to them their strategic value, such as Iran, while simultaneously condemning measures that are viewed as "provoking" the United States, such as N. Koreas missile and nuke tests.

It should also be noticed how Russia is working to build an energy consortium which "runs counter to and increasingly circumvents the established liberal US-backed global oil market denominated in US dollars," often (as seen by their recent stance with Georgia) in a very aggressive and (dare I say) Western Capitalist manner.

Also, it will be interesting to see how the how the cold-war-relic Robert Gates, anti-Chinese Nancy Pelosi, and anti-Russian Tom Lantos (incoming Chairman, House Committee on International Relations) affect the re-emerging competitive nature of the relationship between East and West. The Asia Times has a thoughtful analysis on the subject.

Life goes on...

"When I left home this morning, the streets were full of people who were going to work and schools with full determination as if there were no clashes and bombs an hour earlier"
-Baghdad Treasure post BOOOM Tuesday, May 23, 2006
------------------------------------
Some of today's news stories that I feel should be read...
(not necessarily by you of course, but...)

Iraq doctor brings evidence of US napalm at Fallujah
"EVIDENCE to support controversial claims that napalm has been used by US forces in Iraq has been brought to Australia by an Iraqi doctor."
So that's where the WMDs were! With the Americans!

Dozens Killed In Wave Of Bombings
The post-"victory" security situation in Iraq isn't getting any better.
So far the American Invasion of Iraq has lead to the deaths of
FOURTY THOUSAND PEOPLE ...

Why all is quiet on the American home front
...yet people don't seem like they really care.


The state of the world's human rights
Report by Amnesty International, regarding a topic important to those of us who believe that Torture is Wrong.

Israel turns blind eye to attacks on Palestinians:
AFP story on the report from Amnesty International
(I think perhaps they should stress Israeli attacks on Palestinians, rather than attacks Israel "turns a blind eye" to, but who am I to say...)

Amnesty concerns over Shannon Airport use
RTE story (from Ireland) about the CIA using Shannon Airport to transport detainees to the "secret detention facilities" brought to light by the International Committee of the Red Cross. This story is also regarding today's Amnesty International report.

...also...

Haniya offers long-term truce in exchange for pullout
Hamas offers to recognize the State of Israel, and also offers a long term Truce. Sources include Israeli Ha'aretz daily news, and the story is brought to you by Monsters and Critics (a news aggregate favorite of mine)

"Review of the Arab press - May 22"
from Monsters and Critics News

(My personal favorite) A noise that should be dispelled
China's rebuttal to recent American Media reports about "China's technological threat"

Russia, China discuss bilateral cooperation and within SCO
from ITAR-TASS, Moscow--- Discusses the SCO, which I have previously mentioned in this blog, including the Conspicuously absent entry and other linked entries.
----------------------------------------------------

The propaganda Blitz is on against Iran now. I wonder how many months it will be before the War Drums are beating so loud that we can't hear ourselves think.

Just today, the AP ran a story that I came across in the Bucharest Daily News regarding the fact that some Israeli lawmakers are planning on filing a lawsuit against the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, which claims, and I am not making this up:

A group of Israeli lawmakers and former diplomats plan to sue Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, accusing him of conspiring to commit genocide, one of those involved said yesterday.
Ahmadinejad recently said Israel should be wiped off the map and dismissed the Nazi Holocaust as a "myth."
Dore Gold, a former Israeli ambassador to the United Nations, said Ahmadinejad's comments violate the 1948 U.N. Genocide Convention, to which Iran is a signatory.

Ok, perhaps there is no common sense in the world, but can I possibly be the only person who finds it ludicrous that the Iranian president's comments are a violation of the Geneva Conventions according to Israel, but their genocidal slaughter of tens of thousands of Palistinians are not?!?!

Today's report by Amnesty International about their data gathered for 2005 touches on this subject:

Killings and attacks by the [Israeli] army:
Some 190 Palestinians, including around 50 children, were killed by the Israeli army in the Occupied Territories. Many were killed unlawfully, in deliberate and reckless shootings, shelling and air strikes in densely populated residential areas, or as a result of excessive use of force. Some were extrajudicially executed and others died in armed clashes with Israeli soldiers. Hundreds of others were injured.
Seven children aged between 10 and 17 were killed and five others seriously wounded in an Israeli air strike as they were picking strawberries in the northern Gaza Strip town of Beit Lahiya on 4 January. Those killed included six members of the Ghaben family – Rajah, Jaber, Mahmoud, Bassam, Hani and Mohammed – and Jibril al-Kaseeh.
On 27 October, Karam Mohammed Abu Naji, 14, Salah Said Abu Naji, 15, and Rami Riyad Assaf, 17, were killed when the Israeli army launched an air strike on a car travelling near the Jabalya refugee camp in the Gaza Strip. As well as the three child bystanders, all four people in the car were killed. Nineteen other bystanders, including seven children, were injured. Two members of a Palestinian armed group were believed to be the intended target.
On 3 November, 12-year-old Ahmed al-Khatib was fatally wounded by Israeli soldiers during a raid in Jenin refugee camp and died three days later. The army stated that he had been playing with a toy gun and soldiers had mistaken him for a gunman.


This is from the Human Rights Watch report on
Human Rights Issues in Israel/Occupied Palestinian Territories
While the total number of Israeli and Palestinian casualties fell in 2005 following the February ceasefire, the overall human rights situation in Israel and the OPT remained grave. Since the beginning of the current intifada in September 2000, Israel has killed nearly three thousand Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, including more than six hundred children. During the same period, Palestinian fighters have killed more than nine hundred Israelis inside Israel and in the OPT. Most of those killed on both sides were civilians.

it continues...

In July 2005, the Israeli Knesset approved legislation that effectively bars Palestinians from the OPT from suing Israel for death, injury or damages caused by Israeli security agents. The amendment to the Civil Wrongs (Liability of State) Law, 5712-1952 further strips Palestinians of an effective remedy for serious human rights abuses, which is required under international human rights law. The Knesset passed the bill at a time when the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) had criminally investigated fewer than ten percent of the Palestinian civilian deaths since September 2000, and have convicted only a handful of IDF soldiers for causing death or injury. In August, an Israeli court handed down an eight year sentence, by far the longest of the past five years, to the soldier found responsible for lethally shooting Briton Tom Hurndall in Gaza in 2002. The IDF maintains the policy that killings of Palestinians will be investigated only under “exceptional circumstances,” which neither the IDF nor the government has ever defined. The Israeli authorities’ failure to bring perpetrators to justice fosters a culture of impunity.

(By the way, these reports only cover published reports of civilian casualties [which can be limited in their scope]. They do not cover those dying from malnutrition or other aspects of this Humanitarian catastrophe.)

All of these reports are limited to the PAST YEAR.
This has been going on since 1967.
Yet somehow, the Iranian president saying Israel should be "wiped off the map" and asserting that the Holocost could be a "myth" somehow constitutes the War Crime. The Iranian President explained himself a small bit in his letter to the U.S. president:
"I am sure you know how – and at what cost – Israel was established:
-Many thousands were killed in the process.
-Millions of indigenous people were made refugees.
-Hundreds of thousands of hectares of farmland, olive plantations, townsand villages were destroyed.
This tragedy is not exclusive to the time of establishment; unfortunately it has been ongoing for sixty years now. A regime has been established which does not show mercy even to kids, destroys houses while the occupants are still in them, announces beforehand its list and plans to assassinate Palestinian figures, and keeps thousands of Palestinians in prison. Such a phenomenon is unique – or at the very least extremely rare – in recent memory.Another big question asked by the people is “why is this regime being supported?” "

He also notes:
Young people, university students, and ordinary people have many questions about the phenomenon of Israel. I am sure you are familiar with some of them. Throughout history many countries have been occupied, but I think the establishment of a new country with a new people, is a new phenomenon that is exclusive to our times. Students are saying that sixty years ago such a country did not exist. They show old documents and globes and say try as we have, we have not been able to find a country named Israel.

His rhetoric regarding Israel being "wiped off the map" is actually quite literal, not a genocidal threat, at least according to my (hopefully logical and not emotionally-based) interpretation of the situation: the state of Israel was an artificial creation that does not belong, and as such should be removed.

I am not saying that I agree with his views. I am only saying that presenting such a viewpoint is not Genocide (especially when compared with the last 50 years of systematic Palestinian slaughter at the hands of Israel).

But, such an accusation fits perfectly with the current war that's being waged. Yes folks, the west is at war (again!). It's not a terror war, it's not an imperialist war (although the latter exists and the former is the nom-de-guerre for a current policy of repression and oppression):
It's a Propaganda War.

And it's going on all around us.

--------------------------------
See also,
Wikipedia Entry regarding Israel and War Crimes
(not "verified as objective," but substantiated nonetheless)

Open Letter to Reuters

Reuters has long been a news favorite of mine based on objectivity and attention to detail, however I am very worried regarding your recent coverage of events unfolding in the Middle East and Asia. Most notably absent is an announcement by the Shanghai Cooperative Organization (SCO Background) that was run in a front page article in the Asia Times that Iran, India, and Pakistan would all be welcomed as full members. The fact that Pakistan and India would share membership in this energy cooperative notwithstanding, I think it's quite important to note that India and Iran will both be full members of this organization whose members also include China and Russia. I think it's irresponsible for Reuters to run comments about George Bush's reluctance to rule out Nuclear Strikes on Iran and NOT mention that Iran has joined in this organization (as both events happened on the same day). Here's why.

• Firstly, well known in the western media is the fact that America has been courting India for closer ties for some time, based primarily on a fear of India developing closer ties with China (an American rival these days apparently). If George Bush offering Nuclear technology to India (specifically to try to thwart the above-mentioned increase in diplomatic ties with China) is newsworthy, the fact that India has instead gone and joined the SCO is more than newsworthy.
• Secondly, with the other full members of the SCO (an interGOVERNMENTAL organization) including Russia and China, it should be MORE THAN newsworthy that Iran has been accepted as a full member. Much has been said recently about Russia's reluctance to agree to sanctions against Iran, so as such the announcement that Iran and Russia are now both in an energy consortium is an IMPORTANT DEVELOPMENT. Additionally, (and definitely not the least important issue at hand, not by a long shot) the fact that CHINA is now a close (very close if you do some reasearch into the SCO) partner to Iran economically would make it in China's best interest to defend (with military force if necessary) their economic interests in the country. The U.S. is threatening (implicitly) nuclear strikes on Iran, and somehow the fact that Iran and China are now close partners doesn't get mentioned?

I honestly believe that your lack of due diligence in investigating such matters is an irresponsible blunder. I genuinely hope it is nothing more than a blunder, but what (for me) was once an impressive reputation of Reuters for providing all the things one needs to know is quickly washing down the drain.If there is some specific reason that the country America is threatening nuclear strikes against entering into an exclusive organization with Russia and China (not to mention Pakistan and India) is not newsworthy, then please, let me know what it might be.

misneach: Conspicuously Absent from Western Media

misneach: Conspicuously Absent from Western Media: The Beijing announcement that India, Pakistan, and IRAN were all now to be accepted in the SCO (Shanghai Cooperative, members including china and Russia) which basically means that China and Russia have thrown their weight into the Iranian debate, and they've gone in behind Iran, not with the U.S., STILL hasn't been mentioned ANYWHERE in the western media. Can you find it? Anywhere?

"It's frightening to Washington, and likely to be marginalized (or unknown) in the US media" -Noam Chomsky

Conspicuously Absent from Western Media

There was a HUGE STORY that broke from Beijing early this morning that's been conspicuously absent from the western media, I can't find even a reference to it on yahoo or google news but it is (I think) going to have a HUGE impact on the current international relations dynamic.

Background wise America has been trying to court India into it's corner with offers of important Nuclear technology, and of course everyone is aware of the war of words between the U.S. and Iran recently, but China has trumped the U.S. diplomats by announcing (on the eve of a state visit to Washington) that Mongolia, PAKISTAN, INDIA, AND IRAN will all be joining an energy cooperative with China and Russia.
Yes folks you heard right and you heard it here first, China + Russia + Iran (not to mention India AND Pakistan, surprising as they've been fighting with each other over Kashmir for ages)(and that will really throw a wrench into the U.S.'s plans as they've been trying so hard to court India that they went so far as to have Henry Kissinger write propaganda op-ed's in the Khaleej Times) = DANGEROUS TIMES (see, for reference, my listings on Nuclear Chess, and see also Noam Chomsky (chomsky.info) articles relating to "new world order" and Dangerous Times.). I was wondering why all of a sudden Iran was basically saying to the U.S. "bring it on" but now I'm gettin the impression that this deal has been in the works for some time.

All this on the eve of what the Chinese government is calling a "State Visit" to Washington but that Bush is dismissively describing as just a visit.

Sadly the bush administration is trying it's best to push the world into Nuclear War, what with his statements (TODAY) when asked if preventive (not pre-emptive, preventive is the jargon used today; preemptive strikes fall within the boundries of international law, PREVENTIVE strikes do not) Nuclear Strikes were in the works against Iran, he responded by saying "all options are on the table."

Just to re-cap, the U.S. is threatening NUCLEAR STRIKES against a country that is ENTERING a cooperation package with RUSSIA and CHINA and INDIA and PAKISTAN (all nuclear armed countries), but this somehow DOESN'T WARRANT WESTERN PRESS COVERAGE?!?!?!?!?!?!?! They seem to be too busy doing their part in the anti-Iran-Nuclear Propaganda Campaign, instead running a story about the Chernobyl Death Toll in the Associated Press.

The looming war that could escalate into a full fledged Nuclear showdown doesn't warrant news coverage. Does this not worry anyone else?

Knight Takes Bishop, Check;

The asia times just broke a story wherein the Shanghai Cooperation Association has admitted 4 new members: Mongolia, Pakistan, India, and Iran.

Background: "The SCO, an Intergovernmental organization whose working languages are Chinese and Russian, was founded in Shanghai on June 15, 2001 by China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgystan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. The SCO's change of heart appears set to involve the organization in Iran's nuclear battle and other ongoing regional issues with the United States. "

Cigarette, anyone?

Lies, Nuclear Chess, and George Orwell

Every day it is painfully obvious that the American leaders are so out of touch with reality that their words and actions could be based on an inept bad-guy from a third rate fictional crime thriller. It's even more obvious that human lives have no meaning to an administration that is more concerned with what their stock options will be worth when they leave office. The sad part is that, not only are they putting their own people in danger by drastically increasing the threat of terrorist attacks on their soil, but they are putting innocent people ALL OVER THE WORLD in danger; and lying CONSTANTLY to EVERYONE. I cannot express in words (well, maybe I can) the sorrow that good hearted well informed people throughout the world feel for the unnecessary slaughter of countless thousands of civilians, and I must confess also how much I genuinely pity the american people who are assaulted constantly by the administration's propaganda and who honestly don't know what's going on in the world. Really, they just don't know any better, like small children who haven't been told that their parents are getting a divorce, they just don't know and they've never been encouraged to ask questions.
Q: "How can 59,054,087 people be so DUMB?"
A: They honestly don't know any better and are too proud to change.
Let's take what Disney's ABC News would call "a closer look." First, the dangerous game of Nuclear Chess that's being played between The U.S., Iran, India, Russia, and China, while the lives of the worlds population hang in the balance. In recent weeks bush made his way to India to work out a deal wherein the U.S. will supply parts for nuclear reactors and refinement technology to india in return for closer ties, as america is quite afraid of how close India and China are becoming these days. Ok, first of all, India DOES have nuclear weapons and are VERY MUCH AT ODDS with one of america's "close allies in the war on terror" (george bush's words) Pakistan (a military dictatorship with a human rights record that's not exactly the best in the world). So america is basically assisting a country they should logically (the enemy of my friend is my enemy) be working against, but yet somehow don't see this as a double standard as far as Iran announcing that they had successfully enriched a MINISCULE AMOUNT of uranium for the purpose of using in a nuclear power plant (they know where the money is: selling oil; they don't want to waste a product they can make alot of money selling on providing electricity to their people when they could produce more electricity in a nuclear power plant) and america wanting to use that as an excuse to attack them.
Enter (China and) Russia:
China supplies arms and technology to Iran in return for crude oil. We'll get back to them in a second. Russia has built (/is building) a nuclear reactor in Iran for the purpose of producing electricity. This reactor is russian owned and russian operated; the disturbing thing is that it would be one of the first targets of american bombing in the event of an attack on Iran, which brings us to the bit that's awfully worrysome, and that is one of the factors (and just ONE OF) making this game of nuclear chess so dangerous-- Vladimir Putin has welcomed america's overt aggression as far as "ensuring uninhibited access to key markets" and announced on a number of different occasions that Russia (now a close american ally on the "war on terror," which is a concept straight out of George Orwells 1984 but we'll get to that later) would pursue the same policies. If Russia has publicly stated that they will not hesitate to use military force to protect their interests, and they will be making alot of money from an iranian nuclear reactor, does it not make logic sense that they will use military force to defend the Russian/Iranian plant? Putin came out last week saying that Iran's grand announcements that they had successfully enriched uranium were irresponsible and dangerous; but for whom? He has to understand that an American attack on Russian interests in Iran would inevitably lead to Russian deployment to protect those assets, and nuclear armed russia DOES NOT WANT a confrontation with trigger-happy nuclear armed america, and I honestly don't think that the average World Citizen (we are all citizens of the world) wants a repeat of the cuban missle crisis that BROUGHT THE WORLD TO THE BRINK OF DESTRUCTION. This is not liberal (being a European Moderate makes me an ultra left wing liberal by american standards) hype, this is fact; large scale nuclear war would bring about an end to our species.
Enter China.
To step back for a moment, lets bear in mind that The American People (YOU HAVE POWER IF YOU CHOOSE TO FUCKING USE IT!!!!) do not like long protracted costly wars, they want quick decisive victories. Although Iraq's military was quite weak (which The Insurgents, whom by U.S.A. ca. 1776 standards would have been called Freedom Fighters, have proved NOT to be), Iran's military IS NOT. Back to China.
China has been providing weapons to Iran in return for oil for quite a while. Described below in the Khaleej Times by Noam Chomsky, citing The Wall Street Journal:
" In January, the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz of Saudi Arabia visited Beijing, which is expected to lead to a Sino-Saudi memorandum of understanding calling for "increased cooperation and investment between the two countries in oil, natural gas and investment," The Wall Street Journal reports. Already, much of Iran's oil goes to China, and China is providing Iran with weapons that both states presumably regard as deterrent to US designs. India also has options. India may choose to be a US client, or it may prefer to join the more independent Asian bloc that is taking shape, with ever more ties to Middle East oil producers. Siddarth Varadarajan, deputy editor of The Hindu, observes that "if the 21st century is to be an 'Asian century,' Asia's passivity in the energy sector has to end." "
Back to elementary logic (American's don't begin to learn this until Secondary school, but we'll still call it elementary): If chinas economic interests are directly threatened by american aggression, would they not use whatever force is necessary to protect those interests, as China has repeatedly shown that they will not be bullied by america the way that many countries (including in europe, where the VAST majority of the people are wholeheartedly AGAINST america's colonialist aggression) constantly are? And does this bode well for the personal safety of every single individual on this planet to have the worlds superpowers playing a very dangerous game of Nuclear Chess where all of us are the pawns and the Kings are the very survival of our species?