Monthly Archives: September 2012

Murder in Banghazi

by Eric Margolis

The British used to call it the “cost of Empire:” occasional attacks on Her majesty’s troops and legations by enraged, sword and spear-wielding natives.

Imperial troops would be rushed in and quickly put down the uprisings. In the 1920’s, Winston Churchill authorized the use of poison gas against “unruly” tribesmen in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Fast forward to the British Raj’s heir. This week’s attacks on US embassies in the Arab world were a deeply disturbing sign of the violent, anti-American fury boiling across the Muslim world.

The latest spasm of violence resulted the tragic murder of Christopher Stevens, the new US ambassador to Libya, an Arabic-speaking career diplomat. He was just the kind of educated, experienced diplomat America so badly needs. Having myself almost joined the US Foreign Service many years ago, I feel particular sorrow.

We don’t know yet who killed Stevens but two suspects come at once to mind: anti-western jihadists of al-Qaida in the Maghreb, or Ghadaffi loyalists seeking revenge for the US-assisted killing of their late leader, whose convoy was blasted by a US Predator drone.

Whatever the answer, more violence seems likely. The vile anti-Muslim film from California that sparked protests in Egypt, Yemen, and North Africa is only now beginning to be seen in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

I watched 15 minutes of this crude piece of amateur propaganda. It slandered the Prophet of Islam and his faith in the most disgusting fashion. As of now, the real makers of this vile film are uncertain: a Coptic Egyptian convicted of bank fraud, a group of American pro-Israel businessmen, a fanatical Christian-fascist hate-monger and gun-lover.

Muslims everywhere blamed the US government for the film. In fact, Washington does not appear to have any link to the film; nor could it have prevented it under US laws.

But Republican candidate Mitt Romney lost not a moment to absurdly denounce President Barack Obama for “sympathizing” with the Benghazi attack. The stumbling Romney gave yet another example of why he may not be ready for the presidency.

The big question here is who set off this firestorm? If we were in the good old days of the Cold War, I’d say the film was made by KGB’s special disinformation department to enrage the Muslim world against the United States.

Today, the most likely culprit are far right Christian fundamentalists, who hate Islam with religious passion, and a group of neconservative businessmen trying to promote war between the US and Muslim world – and namely, Iran. A network of Evangelical broadcasters, publishers and schools churns out a steady stream of anti-Islamic fulminations.

The latest anti-US riots across the Mideast further convinced many Americans that all Muslims are violent extremists. The hate film reinforced the mistaken notion held by many Muslims that the United States is bent on eradicating their faith.

All this fits nicely with efforts by right wing ideologues to push the US into war against Iran. President Obama has so far stoutly refused to give in to war-mongering, no mean feat in an election year in which he is neck-a-neck with Romney.

This week, Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, demanded Obama openly define the conditions under which the US would attack Iran. Netanyahu’s American supporters accuse Obama of “throwing Israel under a bus.” At times, it appears there are three candidates for office in Washington: Obama, Romney and Netanyahu.

Netanyahu scolded and rebuked Obama for not sending American troops and spending American treasure to attack Iran because it is a potential rival or threat to Israel. Netanyahu is now openly backing Romney for president.

In Yiddish, such behavior is called “chutzpah,” a mixture of brazen nerve and outrageous presumption.

Add all this up and we have evil memories of the hysteria and military posturing of August, 1914, the lead-up to World War I, a totally unnecessary conflict that ran out of control and wrecked Europe.

Opinion in the Muslim world, America and Canada is being manipulated by those seeking war. A few more killings, a clash in the congested Gulf, a bombing in the west, and a wider Mideast war could erupt.

One in which PM Netanyahu thinks he will be the winner. Unfortunately, he may well be right.

Note:This is a cross post . 

NATO Expansion Onto Global Stage Dangerous Threat To World Peace

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is undertaking a dangerous and provocative global expansion that threatens the peace of the world, a distinguished geopolitical analyst Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya writes in a new book.

 

By the time NATO started its war on Libya in March, 2011, it was conducting operations in the Atlantic, Arctic and Indian oceans, the Mediterranean and Red seas, and the Gulf of Aden, as well as in countries on four continents that included Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan, and the former Yugoslavia, Nazemroaya says.

 

As part of these adventures, the U.S. and its NATO allies have lowered “a new iron curtain” from the Baltic to the Aegean “to castrate and contain the European core of Russia and its allies in Eastern Europe,” Nazemroaya writes. He points out that Sergey Markov, co-chair of the National Strategic Council of Russia, described the 2008 war between Georgia and South Ossetia as being, in effect, “a U.S. attack on Russia.”

 

However, “NATO expansion is not just limited to Europe, but is in pursuit of a worldwide capability to expand Washington’s empire under a global confederacy,” writes distinguished Canadian sociologist Nazemroaya in The Globalization of NATO(Clarity Press).

 

He warns the expansion will eventually lead “to East Asia and the borders of the Chinese where the U.S. has been waging a shadow war to box China in and checkmate it.”

 

“The U.S. and NATO have literally authorized themselves to go to war anywhere in the world,” Nazemroaya continues. The 2010 Strategic Concept of NATO, which was drafted by a committee chaired by Madeleine Albright and vice-chaired by former Royal Dutch Shell CEO Jeroen van der Veer, “also asserts the legitimacy of whatever actions NATO members take to secure energy sources as the U.S. and NATO look towards securing all the world’s energy hubs.”

 

Besides expanding its area of operations, since the end of the Cold War, NATO’s nuclear strike posture has become more aggressive. “Within NATO and among U.S. allies a consensus has long been established to legitimize and normalize the idea of using nuclear weapons in conventional wars,” Nazemroaya says. “This consensus also aims to pave the way for pre-emptive nuclear strikes against targets like Russia, China, and Iran.”

 

Most of the world’s countries, he points out, argue the U.S. and its NATO allies have violated Articles 1 and 2 of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), because the Pentagon has a NATO nuclear weapons sharing program. In addition, “Through its continued construction of nuclear weapons the United States is the chief violator of the NPT and the chief cause for the development of Russian and Chinese nuclear weapons,” Nazemroaya writes.

 

He observes that Russia, too, is re-arming itself with nuclear weapons and has the largest nuclear arsenal in the world because Moscow strongly believes its nukes “are what have stood in the way of U.S. attempts to pummel Russia.” What’s more, Russia has copied the adoption of the U.S./NATO pre-emptive nuclear attack doctrine.

 

He goes on to say, “Washington has made it categorically clear that it could attack Iran and North Korea with nukes.” Nazemroaya notes the Obama administration says it will not honor NPT’s provisions barring a nuclear attack on certain non-nuclear states, “meaning Iran and North Korea.” Obama says those two countries aren’t complying with the NPT.

 

“This was a fallacious claim,” Nazemroaya continues, as in the case of the Iranians, the IAEA “has repeatedly reported that it has not found any evidence that Tehran has a nuclear weapons program and is in breach of NPT.” And North Korea withdrew from the NPT in 2003.

 

In a Foreword to the book, NATO is described by former Assistant UN Secretary-General Denis Halliday as a “dangerous instrument” of U.S. aggression that is undermining the United Nations and “must be abolished.”

 

Authorities around the world have showered Nazemroaya with praise for his work in general and The Globalization of NATO in particular. “I hope this book will be read by very, very many who can turn this morbid fascination with violence into constructive conflict resolution,” writes Johan Galtung, Professor Emeritus of Peace Studies and Sociology at the University of Oslo, Norway, and recognized as the founder of peace and conflict studies.

 

“This book is a must read for those committed to reversing the tide of war and imperial conquest by the world’s foremost military machine,” adds Michel Chossudovsky, Professor Emeritus of Economics at the University of Ottawa, Canada.

 

Again, “Nazemroaya’s book, in addition to reminding us that the role of the United Nations has been confiscated by NATO, elaborates the danger that the North Atlantic Treaty represents to world peace,” writes Jose L. Gomez Del Prado, former Chairman of the United Nations Working Group on the Use of Mercenaries, of Ferney-Voltaire, France. And, in the words of Tiberio Graziani, President of the Institute of Advanced Studies in Geopolitics, of Rome, “This is a book really necessary to understanding the role of NATO within the frame of long-term U.S. strategy. It not only provides an articulate analysis on the Atlantic Alliance: it is the best modern text devoted to the hegemonic alliance. With this book Nazemroaya reconfirms his ability as a brilliant geopolitical analyst.”

 

Adds Admiral Vishnu Bhagwat, former Chief of the Naval Staff of India, “(Nazemroaya) is one of the prescient thinkers and writers of contemporary times who deserves to be read and acted upon by people with a conscience and concern for humanity’s future.” And Miguel D’Escoto Brockmann, former Foreign Minister of Nicaragua and President of the 63rd Session of the United Nations General Assembly, said: “The Globalization of NATO by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is simply magnificent, erudite and devoid of the ethnocentrism to which one has become so accustomed from Western authors…”

 

Clarity Press Contact: Diana G. Collier

Editorial Director

Clarity Press, Inc.

Ste. 469, 3277 Roswell Rd. NE, Atlanta, GA. 30305

For further information, including purchase price: http://www.claritypress.com
SHERWOOD ROSS ASSOCIATES, MIAMI, FLORIDA, USA sherwoodross10@gmail.com  (305) 205-8281