The Mound of Sound

Canada has joined 45-other nations in approving a declaration calling for a treaty by 2008 to ban the use of cluster bombs. Our representative joined it, it seems, because the Oslo meeting held no formal vote and the declaration basically has no teeth.

Now we should watch and see what Harpo does to stop these horribly misused weapons. Will he speak openly against them? Will he castigate countries that use them – far off nations like the US and Britain? Will he demand that the US clean up the millions of unexploded cluster bomblets that still litter the Laotian countryside? Or will he, once again, stay true to form as our Furious Leader and “arse-licker of Satan” and stay conveniently mute?

Still just joining in was a good, first step – if we mean it.

There is great tension today over a looming, military showdown between America and Iran. The US is building up its naval forces in the Persian Gulf and prepping for a massive air war against Iran’s nuclear and military infrastructure. Despite how incompetently he’s managed both wars he’s launched so far, Bush seems to have nothing in his playbook except more war. However, Abbas Milani, director of Iranian studies at Stanford and a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, believes the conditions are right for a peaceful resolution – if – the American people and their Congress can hold the Frat Boy in check:

“…what the unilateral and increasingly quixotic American embargo could not do in more than a decade, a limited United Nations resolution has accomplished in less than a month. And the resolution succeeded because few things frighten the mullahs more than the prospect of confronting a united front made up of the European Union, Russia, China and the United States. The resolution was a manifestation of just such a united front.

“While the combination of credible force, reduced oil prices and a United Nations resolution has worked to create the most favorable conditions yet for a negotiated solution to the nuclear crisis, any unilateral American attack on Iran is sure to backfire. It will break the international coalition against the Islamic Republic’s nuclear adventurism; it will allow China, Russia and even some countries in Europe to legitimately side with the mullahs; it will lead to higher oil prices and an increase in Iranian government revenues; and finally, it will help revive the waning power of the warmongers in Tehran.

“Those convinced that only the combination of credible might and diplomatic pressure will work worry rightly that the Bush administration, frustrated by its failures in Iraq and goaded by hawks in Washington, will do to Iran what it did to Iraq. In confronting Saddam Hussein and the threat of his weapons of mass destruction, the Bush administration insisted that amassing an armada in the Persian Gulf was necessary to frighten Mr. Hussein into submission. But once the armada was in place, they used it to carry out a long-ago planned invasion of Iraq.

“Today, many worry that the plans for an invasion of Iran, too, were made long ago, and that the armada is there to make possible either another Gulf of Tonkin resolution or an Iranian act of provocation against American forces, which could then serve as an excuse for an attack on Iran.

“War and peace with Iran are both possible today. With prudence, backed by power but guided by the wisdom to recognize the new signals coming from Tehran, the United States can today achieve a principled solution to the nuclear crisis. Congress, vigilant American citizens and a resolute policy from America’s European allies can ensure that this principled peace is given a chance. “

All of us are known by the company we keep. Our mothers teach us that when we’re kids and then spend close to two decades trying to keep us out of the wrong company.

Nations, too, are known by the company they keep. Other nations in the world watch and form their own judgments of states based in part on their allegiences. That’s a troubling aspect of George W. Bush’s Global War Without End on Terrorism. We’ve signed on and, since then, we’ve remained utterly mute to our prime ally’s excesses, its outrages and its crimes. It’s no excuse that there are plenty of excesses, outrages and crimes on the other side. We hold ourselves to a higher standard but we’re quite willing to look the other way when our key ally sullies those standards.

A trial begins later this month in a Miami courtroom. On trial is Jose Padilla arrested at Chicago’s O’Hare airport in May, 2002, branded an “enemy combattant” and hauled off to endure four years of torture so vile that one of his guards now calls him “a piece of furniture.”

The US government has predicatably objected strenuously to any evidence being presented of Padilla’s torture but the judge has stood up to them and will allow it in. Naomi Klein writes about the upcoming trial in The Nation:

The “coalition of the willing” that has aided the US in its occupation of Iraq is shrinking – rapidly. Britain is beginning the draw down of its forces that could lead to a complete withdrawal next year. Denmark is leaving, along with a number of others.

Italy, Spain, Ukraine, Japan and New Zealand have already withdrawn their troops. Poland is planning to leave and the withdrawal option is under review in Romainia.

South Korea is pulling half of its forces out by April and may withdraw the remainder by year’s end.

Two other allies, Australia with 1,400 troops and Bulgaria with 155, intend to stay on for the time being at least.

Jihadists using civilian women and children as human shields against US firepower:

” …A woman and three small children emerge uncertainly from behind a building, little more than a shack. They stare at the approaching armour. After a few seconds they retreat from view; then the process is repeated. The third time they emerge, a fighter is crouching behind them with a rocket-propelled grenade aimed at Jankow’s Bradley. The group disappears.

“There is a long pause, a moment of excruciating moral conflict for the soldiers and for the gunner in particular.

“Not to shoot would be to imperil their own lives or those of their colleagues, both American and Iraqi. To shoot would be to risk killing civilians who have been shoved in front of their guns to shield insurgent fighters.

“Suddenly, the decision is made, announced by the Bradley opening fire with four rounds from its 25mm gun, blasting a large hole in the corner of the building. Three bodies fall into view.
For a sickening few seconds it seems inconceivable that the woman and her children are not among the dead. A silence descends on the vehicle. But the bodies are those of men.”

Read the entire Guardian story here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2018528,00.html

It sounds like the same scam the US ran on the UN weapons inspectors in Iraq only this time the bogus intelligence is being fed to the IAEA inspectors in Iran.

The latest IAEA report on Iran reveals that the intelligence on Iran’s nuclear facilities provided to UN inspectors by US spy agencies has turned out to be largely unfounded. Like their UNSCOM predecessors, the IAEA inspectors dutifully followed these leads to find out they led to nothing.

This is not to excuse Iran. The report clearly found Iran defiant of a UN Security Council ultimatum that it freeze its nuclear programme. However, Washington’s marching orders are no longer being accepted unless it first passes a “credibility test.”

The UN inspectors, however, have found plenty to report. From The Guardian:

“One of the “outstanding issues” listed in yesterday’s report involves a 15-page document that appears to have been handed to IAEA inspectors by mistake with a batch of unrelated paperwork in October 2005.

“That document roughly describes how to make hemispheres of enriched uranium, for which the only known use is in nuclear warheads. Iran has yet to present a satisfactory explanation of how and why it has the document.”

In today’s Christian Science Monitor, Brahma Chellenay, professor of strategic studies at the privately funded Center for Policy Research in New Delhi, argues that the fight against Islamic terrorism can’t be won without first restoring democracy to Pakistan.

“The fight against international terrorism cannot be won without demilitarizing and deradicalizing Pakistan. That’s what makes Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf’s latest move so worrisome.

“Now, without drawing international attention, Musharraf has unveiled a plan that will make Pakistan’s greatly awaited elections a farce. Under this plan, the outgoing parliament and four provincial legislatures would “elect” him to a new five-year term as president in the fall, before he oversees national polls a few months later. Five years ago, Musharraf orchestrated another charade – a referendum – to extend his self-declared presidency.

“Musharraf’s maneuver is the latest in a long series of broken promises to return his country to democracy. And it does not bode well for Pakistan’s central challenge: moving away from militarism, extremism, and fundamentalism, and toward a stable, moderate state.

“Musharraf’s sinking popularity has spurred speculation that he might declare a state of emergency to smother vocal opposition. But the more power he usurps, the more dependent he becomes on his military and intelligence. That limits his ability to sever their cozy ties with extremist and terrorist elements.

“A dictatorship that is part of the problem has ingeniously presented itself to the outside world as part of the solution. The scourge of Pakistani terrorism ema- nates not so much from the Islamist mullahs as from generals who reared the forces of jihad and fathered the Taliban and Al Qaeda-linked groups such as the Lashkar-i-Tayyaba. Yet by passing the blame for their disastrous jihad policy to their mullah puppets, Musharraf and his fellow generals have made many outsiders believe that the key is to contain the religious fringe, not the puppeteers.

“Musharraf perpetuates the self-serving myth that his rule helps prevent an Islamist takeover. But military rule would persist in the event of his sudden death.

“Until the military’s viselike grip on power is broken and the rogue Inter-Services Intelligence agency is cut to size, Pakistan is likely to remain a common thread in the investigations of most acts of international terrorism.

“In the absence of open elections, military rule has created a pressure-cooker society. What Pakistan needs is a safety valve – true democratic participation that would empower the masses and decide issues at the ballot box.

“Jihad culture is now deeply woven into Pakistan’s national fabric. Unraveling it won’t be easy. But it is essential. Heavy-handed rule from Musharraf – or any other general – won’t eliminate Pakistan’s extremist elements. The development of a robust civil society – though painful in the short term – will aid democracy, marginalize radicals, and bring Pakistan back from the brink.

“Some may think that Musharraf’s scheme to stay enthroned is a necessary evil in the service of a greater good. That’s half right: It is evil, but it’s not necessary. The West needs to exert pressure on him to show real courage – and to bring real reform – by holding himself accountable to voters and making coming elections an honest affair.”