People walk beside a mural in Havana, Cuba (Reuters)

“The Communist Party is the heir of the revolution”, said Raul Castro in his closing speech of the congress that took place in Havana this weekend.

The party is evaluating how to adapt to current times and its role in leading the country in times of economic reform. He said that these reforms are destined to strengthen the revolution and not to weaken it.

The Communist Party is the only legal political party in Cuba and the supreme guiding force of the society and the state, and that’s why this meeting was so important.

Castro defended the one-party system on Sunday, saying that is what keeps Cubans together.

To renounce the principle of a one-party system would be the equivalent of legalising a party, or parties, of imperialism on our soil,” he said.

In the last years, Cubans have seen how their communist style economy has started to open up. They can now buy and sell cars and houses, own a business and even hire employees. The economic reforms are evident on the streets of Havana. New restaurants and new shops – among other things – are everywhere. Land is being distributed among those who want to work it and make extra profit.

But people want more changes. Some are calling for the end of the double currency system: one for Cubans and one for tourists. They blame the last one for increasing the prices on the island. They would also like to see a reform of the migration law that requests Cuban to ask for an “exit permit” to leave the country and those living in the US to request a permit to visit the island.

On Friday night, the stairs of the University of Havana were filled with thousands of young people carrying torches. They wanted to remember the birth of Jose Marti, Cuba’s national hero. I spoke to dozens of those gathered, who assured me that their plan is to continue with the revolution and defend many of the good things that the revolution has achieved. Healthcare and education for all is what they speak the most. None of them questioned their belief that this period needs to be handled by the historical leaders of the revolution.

But even Raul Castro has acknowledged the need for a generational change and lamented that there are few young leaders ready to step up. Officials I have spoken to say that the reforms have to be balanced. If they happen too quickly they could destabilise the country and if the pace is too slow it could disenchant large sectors of the population.

Overall this country is slowly changing, but many here say that its socialist based ideas will remain.

Source

Timed to coincide with this, the U.S. military warlike forces made the story about “provocation and threat” from the DPRK an established fact, talking about “worst scenario” and “uncertainty”.

What does this mean?

The Asia-Pacific region is now becoming a center of world forces.

The U.S. is keen to make the 21st century a “U.S. Pacific century” in a bid to emerge an emperor of the world.

The “U.S. Pacific century” is, in essence, a new version of the U.S. foreign policy to monopolize the political and economic interests in Asia-Pacific region.

In a word, the U.S. announcement of its new defense strategy is aimed at formally spelling out a war strategy of putting importance to Asia-Pacific and directing its spearhead to the DPRK and China.

Its goal is to intensify the military infiltration and interference in the region by sparking a crisis and escalating the tension on the Korean Peninsula. Its ultimate purpose is to pressurize China, its biggest strategic rival, by force of arms and control Asia-Pacific and keep world supremacy.

It is part of the U.S. scenario that it is providing military support and encouragement to south Korea, Japan and other allies, while overstating “threat” from the DPRK.

The dangerous and reactionary nature of the U.S. new defense strategy lies in its moves to deter other powers from exercising their influence over the region and enlarging their beat by force and build an order of U.S.-led imperialist domination.

The U.S. unlimited imperialist greed and military adventures are posing a grave menace to peace and stability in the region and increasing the danger of a new Cold War there.

The U.S. is seriously mistaken if it thinks it can make the 21st century a U.S.-led ‘Pacific century” from an outdated hegemonic viewpoint.

The U.S. would be well advised not to forget the historical fact that it drank a bitter cup of defeat in Korea last century.

Source

It is possible that there will another round of nuclear discussions between the P5+1 and Iran in the near future.  Given the extent to which Israel, the United States, and America’s European partners are ratcheting up tensions over the nuclear issue, one hopes that additional talks would help the parties find a peaceful and productive way forward.  But that is unlikely unless the Western powers are prepared to accept the reality that Iran is enriching uranium, that it will continue enriching uranium, and that it has every right to do so under international law.  We want to highlight a few pieces that have come out recently and make this point.

One is from Peter Jenkins, Britain’s former representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).  Peter has published several pieces on Race for Iran, and we have always benefited from his analysis and insights.  Peter’s most recent article, “The Deal the West Could Strike With Iran”, was published in The Telegraph earlier this month, see here.  He rightly attributes what he sees as “a big rise in the twin risks of military action and grave damage to the world economy” to “a great diplomatic over bid:  the West’s demand that Iran surrender its capacity to enrich uranium.”

Peter charts his personal experience with the Iranian nuclear issue, noting how his own views on the matter have evolved.  He states forthrightly that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) “prohibits the manufacture or acquisition of nuclear weapons.  But it permits the uranium enrichment that has been at the heart of the West’s quarrel with Iran.”  He also notes that, today, “the West is all but isolated in insisting that Iran must not enrich.”  The way out, he writes, is

“a deal along the following lines:  Iran would accept top-notch IAEA safeguards in return for being allowed to continue enriching uranium.  In addition, Iran would volunteer some confidence-building measures to show that it has no intention of making nuclear weapons.

This, essentially, is the deal that Iran offered the UK, France and Germany in 2005.  With hindsight, that offer should have been snapped up.  It wasn’t because our objective was to put a stop to all enrichment in Iran.  That has remained the West’s aim ever since, despite countless Iranian reminders that they are unwilling to be treated as a second-class party to the NPT—with fewer rights than other signatories—and despite all the evidence that the Iranian character is more inclined to defiance than buckling under pressure.” 

One of the main reasons this sort of deal was not “snapped up” by the Europeans in 2005 is that the United States, in the form of the George W. Bush Administration, was not on board.  Since the Obama Administration came to office in 2009, there have been periodic flurries of reports in the media and the work of some commentators on the Obama team’s purported willingness to accept safeguarded enrichment in Iran as a negotiated outcome.  The reports are false.  While there are some Obama Administration officials who would be prepared to accept safeguarded enrichment inside Iran as part of a solution to the nuclear issue, there has never been a consensus within the Administration or a presidential decision to this effect.  U.S. policy, unfortunately, is still “zero enrichment” where Iran is concerned.

But there is another reason the Europeans did not snap up the deal advanced by Iran in 2005.  One of the more striking dynamics inside the P5+1, since the United States finally joined in multilateral nuclear diplomacy with Tehran in 2006, is that Britain and France have both been very hardline on the enrichment issue, discouraging any flexibility by the United States on the matter.  It seems like London and Paris are both chronically concerned about what the development of potential “threshold” capabilities by important regional powers like Iran would mean for the strategic value of Britain and France’s small nuclear arsenals—and what Iran’s rise portends for the West’s ability to continue dominating the Middle East as it has in the past.

All of this makes us very skeptical that the United States and its European partners will be prepared to take a fundamentally different approach to nuclear talks with Tehran.  If they are, Peter’s piece shows what such an approach might look like.

An important element in the current tensions between Iran and the West over the nuclear issue is an extraordinary hyping of the Iranian nuclear “threat” by Western powers and Israel.  In this regard, the most recent IAEA report on Iran’s nuclear activities looms very large.  Peter offers cogent observations about the report in his article, noting that

“the IAEA has not reported evidence of attempts to produce nuclear weapons, or of a decision to do so.  This is hardly surprising, since the key bits of November’s IAEA report were based on material supplied by Western intelligence.  For years, the Western assessment has been that Iran seeks the capability to build nuclear weapons, but has not taken a decision to produce them.” 

Another richly insightful deconstruction of the IAEA’s recent engagement with Iran’s nuclear program was provided earlier this month by Robert Kelley, see here.  Kelley is an American nuclear engineer who worked for 30 years in the University of California’s nuclear weapons laboratories before serving for nine years at the IAEA.  In his article, “Nuclear Arms Charge Against Iran Is No Slam Dunk”, published by Bloomberg, he notes that the “evidence” of an Iranian nuclear weapons program

“is sketchy.  And the way the data have been presented produces a sickly sense of déjà vu.  I am speaking up about this now because, as a member of the IAEA’s Iraq Action Team in 2003, I learned firsthand how withholding the facts can lead to bloodshed.  Having known the details then, though I was not allowed to speak, I feel a certain shared responsibility for the war that killed more than 4,000 Americans and more than 100,000 Iraqis.  A private citizen today, I hope to help ensure the facts are clear before the U.S. takes further steps that could lead, intentionally or otherwise, to a new conflagration, this time in Iran.”

Turning a critical eye to the 24-page IAEA report, Kelly points out that “all but three of the items that were offered as proof of a possible nuclear-arms program are either undated or refer to events before 2004.  The agency spends about 96 percent of a 14-page annex reprising what was already known.”   Of the three relatively “new” indications of “possible military dimensions” to the Iranian program, Kelley points out that

“two of the three are attributed only to two member states, so the sourcing is impossible to evaluate.  In addition, their validity is called into question by the agency’s handling of the third piece of evidence.  That evidence, according to the IAEA, tells u Iran embarked on a four-year program, starting around 2006, to validate the design of a device to produce a burst of neutrons that could initiate a fission chain reaction.  Though I cannot say for sure what source the agency is relying on, I can say for certain that this project was earlier at the center of what appeared to be a misinformation campaign. 

In 2009, the IAEA received a two-page document, purporting to come from Iran, describing this same alleged work.  Mohamed ElBaradei, who was thenthe agency’s director general, rejected the information because there was no chain of custody for the paper, no clear source, document markings, date of issue or anything else that could establish its authenticity.  What’s more, the document contained style errors, suggesting the author was not a native Farsi speaker. It appeared to have been typed using an Arabic, rather than a Farsi, word-processing program.  When ElBaradei put the document in the trash heap, the U.K.’s Times newspaper published it.

This episode had suspicious similarities to a previous case that proved definitively to be a hoax.  In 1995, the IAEA received several documents from the Sunday Times, a sister paper to the Times, purporting to show that Iraq had resumed its nuclear-weapons program in spite of all evidence to the contrary.  The IAEA quickly determined that the documents were elaborate forgeries.  There were mistakes in formatting the documents’ markings, classification and dates, and many errors in language and style indicated the author’s first language was something other than Arabic or Farsi.  Inspections in Iraq later in 1995 confirmed incontrovertibly that there had been no reconstitution of the Iraqi nuclear program.

I regret now that ElBaradei did not speak out more vehemently, before the U.S. went to war, about the 1995 faked documents, additional forgeries provided to the agency in 2003 and other falsifications.  A good man, he had been an international lawyer with years of experience dealing with half-truths and prevarications.  But he was trapped between telling the whole story and overtly insulting the U.S., which supplied 25 percent of the IAEA’s funding.

For example, ElBaradei labeled documents provided to the IAEA about Iraq’s attempts to acquire uranium from Africa “not authentic.”  A better description would have been “blatant and amateurish forgeries.”  He provided evidence that aluminum tubes the U.S. said were for nuclear centrifuges were actually for rockets.  But he did not supply the supporting engineering details publicly.  The truth was lost in the U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell’s scandalous detailing of Iraq’s supposed weapons of mass destruction, which was wrong in almost every respect.

ElBaradei’s successor also has fallen short by failing to note in his report the earlier doubts that Iran was continuing to develop a neutron-producing device.  If Amano has found new reasons to overlook the many questionable aspects of this story, he should present them.  Given past doubts about the episode, the agency’s reporting on it should be above reproach. When it comes to accurately accounting for potential diversions of nuclear materials, the IAEA’s main mission, the agency has gone about its work with precision.  It needs to be just as exacting when it delves into allegations about Iran’s weapons intentions.”

The third and fourth pieces we want to highlight here are by Iranians, and were written as critical responses to Matthew Kroenig’s recent Foreign Affairs article, “Time to Attack Iran:  Why a Strike is the Least Bad Option”, which we, see here, as well as Stephen Walt, see here, and Paul Pillar, see here, have also critiqued.  Kayhan Barzegar, who teaches at the Islamic Azad University in Tehran and whose work has been featured previously on Race For Iran, published “Military Option Is the Worst Possible Scenario” in Iran Review  earlier this month, see here, (it was originally published in Farsi in Tabnak; later Sanaz Tabeafshar, a Ph.D. candidate at the Islamic Azad University, published “Attacking Iran is the Least Good Option, Dr. Kroenig!” in Iran Review , see here.

Kayhan zeroes in on the same passage in Kroenig’s article that we did—his warning that “a nuclear-armed Iran would immediately limit U.S. freedom of action in the Middle East.”  Kayhan rightly links Kroenig’s “hyperbolic stance regarding the peril of Iran’s nuclear program and portrayal of it as an ‘urgent’ danger” to “neo-conservative ideas previously circulating in the U.S. political establishment as well as uncritical conformity with the Israeli perspective on the issue.”

–This perspective undergirds Kroenig’s unsubstantiated insistence that Iran’s nuclear activities are inevitably aimed at weaponization.

–Kayhan notes in response that

“Tehran’s recent measures to move its sophisticated centrifuges to the Fordo site in Qom, announced the opening of a new nuclear site, and recently making nuclear fuel rods and plates for the Tehran Research Reactor (TRR) and so on have been taken with the aim of creating ‘political equality’ in the nuclear negotiations with the West.”

Of course, that is precisely what London, Paris, and Washington do not want—for Iran to achieve something approaching “political equality” in its dealings with the West.  Kayhan points out that, if one were really serious about dealing with nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, one would embrace the idea of nuclear weapons free zone (NWFZ) in the region, noting that, according to a recent World Public Opinion poll, “64 percent of the Israeli public favors a NWFZ in the Middle East, mostly [as a way] of checking Iran’s nuclear program.”  But that idea is not going to get serious consideration by Western governments anytime soon.

As to a possible attack against Iran, by either the United States or Israel, Kayhan graciously recalls that,

“as the Leveretts precisely argue, the military attack is only justified on the basis of the peaceful enrichment activities of Iran, to which it is entitled according to the [NPT].  One should perceive that such a perspective aims mostly to preserve the nuclear monopoly of the Israeli regime in the Middle East.” 

More broadly, Kayhan underscores how Kroenig

“once again falls into the trap of traditional and simplistic self-contradiction typical of the neo-conservative way of thinking which holds that the United States enjoys indefinite military power and can advance its objectives by means or war, a conception which has helped to prolong the U.S.-led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan…the author conceives that Washington can launch a military offense against Iran successfully and pull out of the conflict easily without having to suffer any dire consequences.” 

Kayhan lays out multiple reasons why such a conception is highly fanciful.

Sanaz Tabeafshar, in her critique of Kroenig’s article, picks up on some of Kayhan’s broader strategic themes, noting that

“after the withdrawal of the American troops from Iraq, a strategic deal between the U.S. and Afghan government, the Arab spring and isolation of Turkey from the Middle East, the territorial swath controlled by Iran has extended from western Afghanistan up to the Mediterranean Sea…With or without any so-called nuclear bomb, Iran’s direct or indirect way of pursuing its foreign policy has, according to Greg Bruno of the Council on Foreign Relations, made ‘a veto holding power on Middle Eastern peace’.” 

We, of course, have argued for some time that Iran’s rising regional influence bolsters the imperatives for U.S. rapprochement with the Islamic Republic.  As Tabeafshar underscores, this also reinforces the sheer foolhardiness of a unilateral strike against Iranian nuclear targets.  She points out that, if Iran were attacked, beyond closing the Strait of Hormuz or launching missiles, Tehran could confront the United States and its partners with “the uprising of Shias through the religious decree of jihad which would be extended out of the region and will come off with proxy attacks against U.S. military installations.”  Moreover, “even in the best case scenario of a strike that, say, set back the Iranian peaceful nuclear program by 2 or 3 years, the Iranians would reseed it with much legitimacy and urgency that only come from having been attacked by an outside power.”

The case for serious U.S. diplomacy with Iran could not be clearer.  But seriousness, in this context, will require very significant changes in U.S. policy and Washington’s overarching attitude about the Islamic Republic.  We hope that we are wrong, but we do not think it likely that the Obama Administration will be up for this, especially not at the President continues his re-election bid.

–Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett

Source

Chart showing the generally four-court judicial court system in China.

The New York-based NGO Human Rights Watch issued its World Report 2012 on Jan 22, observing China’s human rights conditions from angles of defendant rights, judicial reform, freedom of speech and religious freedom. The report seriously lacks in objectivity and impartiality. Its conclusion intentionally distorts China’s human rights conditions. Its observation of China’s judicial reform is extremely inconsistent with facts and one-sided.

The report says the public security departments dominate the criminal justice system and rely excessively on the defendant’s confession. The weak courts and seriously limited rights of defense mean forced confession is still universal and judicial partiality is common. This is serious distortion.

It is known that China’s criminal justice system is not controlled by public security departments, but consists of investigation and procuratorial organs as well as people’s courts. China’s Criminal Procedural Law clearly stipulates the labor distribution among the three parties. They work with and check against one another.

The proposal for prosecution by public security departments must be examined by procuratorial organs before it is recommended to the court to initiate a public prosecution. The public prosecution of the investigating organs must go through the court’s open and fair trial, during which the defendant’s opinions and all kinds of testimony must be verified, before becoming part of the court’s decision.

In this process, it is common for the procuratorial organs to require public security departments to file a case (or not), the procuratorial organs decide to prosecute (or not), and the people’s courts declare the accused guilty (or not). These possibilities all restrict the power of public security departments.

In judicial practices, public security departments must follow or respond to the procuratorial organs’ procuratorial proposals and supervision of filing a criminal case. According to the Supreme People’s Procuratorate’s work report to the National People’s Congress in 2011, all procuratorial organs proposed 33,863 times and cases to correct the public security departments’ illegal practices of investigation.

The number of cases in which the procuratorial organs do not ratify an arrest, do not prosecute, withdraw a lawsuit, and the people’s courts decide the accused innocent, is increasing proportionally year by year. All of these actions are restricting the public security departments’ power effectively.

Besides, according to the seventh article of the Regulation on Exclusion of Illegal Evidence issued in June 2011, if the courts are doubtful of the legitimacy of the defendants’ confessions obtained before trial, the courts can insist that the questioners take the stand in courts. All these examples prove that China’s criminal justice system is not controlled by the public security departments. It is an integral system made up of the three parties, each with clear duties, with the people’s courts’ rights of sentencing and measurement of penalty as the core.

Excessive dependence on defendants’ confessions is decreasing remarkably. The role and rights of defense counsels are increasing steadily. Forced confession is strictly forbidden. The regulations on the exclusion of illegal evidence and on evidence in death penalty cases issued in June 2010, as well as the draft amendment to the Criminal Procedural Law released in Aug 2011, all reflect important progress in the protection of human rights. But the Human Rights Watch report fabricates and speculates on “an article of secret detention” of the draft amendment, which no longer exists.

In fact the draft amendment issued in August 2011 includes an article about notice of detention. That is big progress compared with related articles of the law in 1996. According to the 84th article of the draft amendment, the public security departments must present detention warrants when detaining anyone, who should be sent to the detention center within 24 hours after being detained. The detained person’s family should be notified about the detention reason and the detention center location within 24 hours after detention, except for serious crimes such as those endangering national security, terrorist crimes. There are exceptions, if it is impossible to notify, or if the notice may obstruct investigation.

The 64th article of the Criminal Procedural Law of 1996 only stipulated that the public security departments must present detention warrants while detaining anyone. The detained person’s family or work units should be noticed about the detention reason and detention center within 24 hours after detention, except if it is impossible to notify, or the notice may obstruct investigation. This amendment of the 84th article is just to strengthen the public security departments’ obligation to notify and protect the suspects’ families’ rights to know.

The report of Human Rights Watch does not mention progress in the draft amendment at all and only fabricates non-existent misleading articles.

In the draft amendment, forced confession is prevented; exclusion of illegal evidence and its procedure are added, standard of proof of criminal procedure is clarified; the definition of “social danger” is clarified; the obligation of persons obtaining guarantor pending trial is regulated to lower detention rate; designated monitored residence can be converted to prison term; technical investigation is authorized and regulated; the recording system in inquest is strengthened, investigation defense system is formed and clarified, the number of remand for retrial is limited, the criminal reconciliation procedure is clarified; the system of sealing up criminal record of juvenile crimes and deferred prosecution is regulated; mental illness treatment procedure is regulated, and inspection and supervision of implementation are strengthened.

These active changes reflect the main progress in China’s judicial reform in 2011. Compared with the former one in 1996, more than 60 articles are added and more than 90 articles are amended in the draft amendment.

Remarkable breakthroughs in judicial reform have been made in 2011 in measurement of penalty, State compensation, mediation, trial management and implementation procedure. It is a pity the report of Human Rights Watch turned a blind eye to all these positive steps and Chinese authorities’ effort to promote judicial reforms, and only focuses on some non-existent articles.

The author is with the Law School of Nankai University.

Source

Members of the All Workers' Militant Front (PAME) protesting outside the Athens hotel where the delegation of troika is located.

On 25/1 at the crack of the dawn the All Workers’ Militant Front (PAME) carried out a dynamic protest in Athens outside the hotel where the delegation of the troika is staying and called on the working people to rise up against the government, the plutocracy and their allies. The protesters of PAME blocked the central entrance of the hotel and shouted slogans from the loudspeakers expressing the opposition of the workers and the people to the policy that leads them to bankruptcy and impoverishment.

This symbolic protest took place in parallel with the fraudulent “social dialogue” between the unions of the employers and the compromised leaderships of the trade unions which takes place in line with the demands of the troika and the coalition government (social democrats, right-wingers, nationalists). As the class oriented trade union movement has denounced, the dialogue aims at the further deterioration of the labour relations, by means of abolishing sectoral collective bargaining agreements and the reduction of the worker’s income in the name of the “competitiveness” of the economy.

The protesters carried out a symbolic action as they removed and burned the flag of the EU which was outside the hotel. The mobilization was warmly received by the people who were passing by hotel. Police forces arrived upon the request of troika that demanded the intervention of the public prosecutor so that they could leave the hotel. Nevertheless, the intimidation efforts failed.

Escalation of the struggle with the general strike

In its statement on the meeting of the so called “social partners” the Executive Secretariat of PAME stresses: “the majority in GSEE has criminal responsibilities. Once again it participates in the dialogue with its partners, SEV (Hellenic Federation of Enterprises), GSEBEE and ESEE (unions of large-scale retailers). The working people must say no the dialogue-fraud. They should not trust the leadership of GSEE which is about to agree with SEV in the name of competitiveness (…)The statements concerning “red lines” are a big deception. They were saying the same thing in previous dialogues while at the same time they were digging the grave of the workers (…).Workers, everyone with PAME for a general strike at the beginning of February, for the escalation of the struggle against the plundering of our income”.

Labour Centers and Federations are already taking decisions for a strike at the beginning of February.

The International Relations Section of KKE

Source

President Obama during State of the Union address, Jan. 24

“If we have to use force, it is because we are America. We are the indispensable nation. We stand tall. We see further into the future.” Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, 1998

“America remains the one indispensable nation in world affairs—and as long as I’m President, I intend to keep it that way.” President Barack Obama, State of the Union message, 2012

President Barack Obama’s 2012 State of the Union message is an object lesson in contemporary U.S. class politics. Obama came into office three years ago on a wave of progressive hopes and even euphoria, very understandable given the bitter history of racism in this country and the fact that he was taking the place of his widely despised predecessor, George W. Bush.

What the last three years as well as this speech have reaffirmed is that, regardless of the particular personality or characteristics of the person assuming the U.S. presidency, it is a job that comes with a specific job description: CEO of the imperialist ruling class.

For militarism and chauvinism, combined with empty liberal rhetoric, President Barack Obama’s 2012 State of the Union message would be hard to beat. That it was lavished with uncritical praise by liberal Democratic Party units like MoveOn.org—an allegedly “anti-war” group—was just another reminder that 2012 is an election year.

The president began by hailing the U.S. war on Iraq, a war he supposedly opposed when he was candidate Obama in 2008. Back then he was perceived by millions as the “peace candidate,” a critical element in his election victory.

“Last month, I went to Andrews Air Force Base and welcomed home some of our last troops to serve in Iraq,” said Obama. “Together, we offered a final, proud salute to the colors under which more than a million of our fellow citizens fought—and several thousand gave their lives. We gather tonight knowing that this generation of heroes has made the United States safer and more respected around the world.”

Really?

In fact, the war in Iraq largely destroyed a country that posed no threat whatsoever to the U.S. Millions of Iraqis were killed, wounded or forced into exile and its society torn to shreds. Not only did thousands of U.S. soldiers die in a war fought on entirely false pretenses, hundreds of thousands more suffered severe physical and psychological wounds. The total cost of the war will exceed $3 trillion—$3,000,000,000,000.

Obama portrayed the Afghanistan war as another impending success: “The Taliban’s momentum has been broken. …” Even his top advisers, however, view the war as a stalemate, one where the U.S.—despite more than three decades of inflicting devastation on Afghanistan—cannot achieve a military victory.

He lauded the NATO overthrow of the government in Libya and predicted a similar outcome in Syria. But, of course, not a hint of criticism of the absolute monarchies that rule Saudi Arabia and other oil-rich countries in the Gulf.

Continuing his triumphalist world tour: “Ending the Iraq war has allowed us to strike decisive blows against our enemies. From Pakistan to Yemen, the al-Qaeda operatives who remain are scrambling, knowing they can’t escape the reach of the United States of America.”

US targets China

“We’ve made it clear that America [sic] is a Pacific power.” The primary target of the U.S. military buildup in Asia is China. The anti-China campaign is economic as well: “We’ve brought trade cases against China at nearly twice the rate as the last administration. Tonight I’m announcing the creation of a Trade Enforcement Unit that will be charged with investigating unfair trade practices in countries like China.”

Near the end of his remarks, Obama celebrated the damage that “crippling sanctions” are having on the Iranian people, and once again threatened Iran with military attack, including the use of nuclear weapons: “America [sic] is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal.”

Regarding the only country in the Middle East that actually possesses nuclear weapons, the president declared: “Our iron-clad commitment to Israel’s security has meant the closest military cooperation between our two countries in history.” Not even the usual ritual mention of the Palestinians this time around.

In between his imperialistic international pronouncements, the president lamented about the difficulties of life for workers without jobs and students burdened by high-interest debt, and called on employers, universities and Congress to do better. He spent a good deal of time advocating a “fairer” tax system. But he projected no actual new programs.

When it came to helping Big Oil, it was a very different story: “Tonight I’m directing my administration to open up more than 75 percent of our potential offshore oil and gas resources.” In addition he expressed unambiguous support for “fracking,” the extremely hazardous extraction of gas from underground shale rock by blasting it apart using massive amounts of water and chemicals. Fracking has polluted water supplies, has sickened many people and recently has caused earthquakes in non-quake-prone areas.

While on the one hand calling for “comprehensive immigration reform” and something like the Dream Act, he boasted of stepping up the militarization of the border with Mexico: “That’s why my administration has put more boots on the border than ever before.”

Financial crimes go unpunished

Following more lamenting about bad things done by Wall Street and the big banks that led to the financial/economic crisis, what seemed to excite loyal Democrats more than anything else was this announcement by Obama: “We will also establish a Financial Crimes Unit of highly trained investigators to crack down on large-scale fraud and protect people’s investments. Some financial firms violate major anti-fraud laws because there’s no real penalty for being a repeat offender.”

But these two sentences raise more than a few questions, starting with, “What took so long?” followed by, “What—there is no real penalty for financial firms that repeatedly violate major anti-fraud laws?”

President Obama took office as the biggest financial/economic crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s was breaking. Countless articles and whole books dissecting widespread fraud, particularly in the multi-trillion-dollar mortgage banking business, have been written. Virtually none of those who reaped immense profits from these fraudulent operations have gone to jail or even lost their fortunes. The famous exception is Bernie Madoff, who made the mistake of stealing mainly from the rich.

There is no particular reason to believe that three years later, the“Financial Crimes Unit” is anything but another election ploy. Under capitalism, all are not equal before the law. The “justice system” is administered by the rich against the rest.

Echoing the words of Madeleine Albright, President Clinton’s war-mongering secretary of state from 1997 to 2001, Obama thundered: “America remains the one indispensable nation in world affairs—and as long as I’m President, I intend to keep it that way.” The implication, of course, is that all other countries and nations in the world are … dispensable.

Source

There is growing apprehension that through miscalculation, deliberate provocation or a staged false flag operation, a U.S. war with Iran is imminent.

The dangerous combination of top U.S. officials’ public threats, the Pentagon’s massive military deployment, continued drone flights and industrial sabotage against Iran provides an ominous warning. The corporate media have been more than willing to cheer industrial sabotage, computer viruses and targeted assassinations. War maneuvers with Israel scheduled for mid-January were suddenly postponed Jan. 15 until May or later.

The U.S. Congress overwhelmingly voted to include binding provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act, and President Obama signed the legislation Dec. 31 ordering Iran’s economic strangulation. These NDAA provisions demand that every other country in the world joins this economic blockade of Iran or face U.S. sanctions themselves. This itself is an act of war.

Iran has directly charged the CIA for the Jan. 11 assassination of physicist Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan, which has outraged Iranians. Roshan is the fourth scientist killed in five targeted assassinations in two years.

Whether or not a war will actually erupt, it is essential to look at the powerful forces that lay the groundwork for such a conflagration.

A U.S. war would kill hundreds of thousands of Iranians and create region-wide destabilization. It would cause a wild, speculative hike in oil and gas prices, devastating fragile economies of the poorest countries and unhinging the increasingly shaky Eurozone.

Revolutionary Marxists like Fidel Castro, political leaders in China and Russia, and even a hardened Israeli general have joined many political commentators to warn that a U.S. or U.S.-supported Israeli attack on Iran could quickly become a far wider war. While defending its sovereign right to develop energy self-sufficiency, Tehran has made every effort to deflect U.S. threats and charges. Iran has submitted to years of intrusive inspections of its research and industrial facilities to confirm its compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

But Washington insists on stopping Iran’s development — and not only its nuclear energy development to assure its future as oil production declines. For decades Iran was forced to import refined oil. Washington has tried to stop Iran from importing parts to build oil refineries, as it has tried to stop all Iran’s development since the 1979 revolution.

The myth of stimulus from war

David Broder, Washington Post political correspondent for 40 years and news show pundit, described in an Oct. 31, 2010, article how Obama could deal with his weakened situation when the Republicans swept Congress. He argued that to fix the economy and regain popularity, the solution is obvious and unavoidable: “War with Iran.”

Broder had more than 400 appearances on “Meet the Press.” He even won a Pulitzer Prize. Broder could be counted on to reflect political thinking and planning in Washington. Only the war machine can pull the U.S. out of economic stagnation, Broder argued.

“Look back at FDR and the Great Depression,” wrote Broder. “What finally resolved that economic crisis? World War II. [A showdown with the mullahs] will help [Obama] politically because the opposition party will be urging him on. And as tensions rise and we accelerate preparations for war, the economy will improve.”

Upon Broder’s death in March, Obama called him “the most respected and incisive political commentator of his generation.” (New York Times, March 9)

Broder’s statement shows an absolutely criminal mindset. It also shows a dangerous illusion. Broder calmly proposed the murder of tens of thousands of people, the devastation of entire cities, the destruction of a whole culture as a temporary economic fix to win a U.S. election.

Others commentators just as coldly argued with Broder that war with Iran would not be large enough, because all the weapons needed already exist and are in place. So no surge of military orders would follow. A larger war would be needed to give a big enough push!

In 1939 reviving shuttered U.S. steel, rubber and textile clothing plants with government orders for tanks, ships, jeeps, helmets, uniforms and life vests for sale to Europe was a big stimulus. The entry of the U.S. into World War II in 1941 provided an enormous surge of productive capacity that pulled the U.S. economy out of a 10-year economic depression. What worked as an economic stimulus 70 years ago, before the existence of the gargantuan, bloated, high-tech
military-industrial complex, is long past.

Today the U.S. has a military machine and a military budget larger than that of the rest of the world combined, exceeding $1 trillion a year in stated and hidden costs, even without another war. It is guaranteed to grow at a rate of 5 percent to 10 percent a year. This is built into the Pentagon’s budget projections even without cost overruns.

World won’t bow to U.S. dictates

Washington’s plans to easily conquer Afghanistan and Iraq and set up stable puppet regimes were frustrated. The U.S. plan for economic war on Iran has also exposed U.S. weaknesses.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner launched a tour of East Asian nations in early January to convince south Korea, China, India and Japan to cut their massive Iranian oil imports and abide by the sanctions.

China and India — both major economies — refused directly. China buys a third of Iran’s oil exports.

The Obama administration said that the U.S. would offer countries that applied for a temporary waiver to continue oil purchases from Iran while they made other arrangements. An Indian cabinet minister said India will continue to do business with Iran. South Korea said it would apply for a U.S. waiver because it planned to increase oil purchases from Iran.

Japanese officials, when meeting with Geithner, seemed to agree. But after his departure Foreign Minister Koichiro Gemba backtracked, saying, “The United States would like to impose sanctions. We believe it is necessary to be extremely circumspect about this matter.” (AFP, Jan.13)

Russia announced its refusal to comply with sanctions. So did NATO member Turkey. The European Union insisted on a six-month delay, due to fears of the economic consequences to debt-ridden Italy, Spain and Greece. The Greek government said it needs at least a year.

Saudi Arabia’s crude oil contains more sulfur than lighter Iranian oil and requires substantially higher refining costs. In a time of global capitalist recession, this added cost is no easy sell.

Even outright U.S. collaborators are refusing Washington’s demands. Pakistan, for example, refused to abandon a pipeline to transport Iranian natural gas into Pakistan and in the future even into India.

All of this would be good news. But the danger is that U.S. corporate power, seeing on every side its declining ability to ram through its dictates, is increasingly driven to military solutions.

This is exacerbated by U.S. setbacks in Iraq and Afghanistan that have weakened the U.S. superpower’s dominance of Southwest Asia relative to Iran. The more the U.S. loses its grip on the region, the more desperate imperialism may become to risk all in a mad adventure to recoup its past position.

Every voice must be raised at this urgent hour against sanctions and war.

Sara Flounders is the Co-Director International Action Center, www.IACenter.org

Source

Over the last few days, the media and representatives of certain governments traditionally committed to anti-Cuba subversion have unleashed a new campaign of accusations, unscrupulously taking advantage of a lamentable event: the death of an ordinary prisoner, which possibly only in the case of Cuba, is converted into news of international repercussion.

The method utilized is the same one as always: fruitlessly attempting, through repetition, to demonize Cuba, in this case through the deliberate manipulation of an incident which is absolutely exceptional in this country.

This so-called political prisoner was serving a four-year sentence after a fair legal process during which he was at liberty and a trial in accordance with the law, for a brutal physical attack on his wife in public and violent resistance to arrest by police agents.

This man died from multi-organ failure due to an acute respiratory infection, despite having received appropriate medical attention, including specialized medication and treatment in the intensive care room of Santiago de Cuba’s principal hospital.

Why did Spanish authorities and certain members of the European Union hasten to condemn Cuba without any investigation into the incident? Why do they always utilize pre-fabricated lies in the context of Cuba? Why, in addition to lying, do they censor the truth? Why is the voice and truth about Cuba openly denied the smallest space in the international media?

They are acting both cynically and hypocritically. How would they describe the recent manifestations of police brutality in Spain and a large part of “educated and civilized” Europe against the indignados movement?

Why is there no concern over the dramatic situation of overcrowding in Spanish jails with a high immigrant population – in excess of 35% of total prisoners in the country – according to the most recent report by the ACAIP prison union, dated April 3, 2010?

Who has made any effort to investigate the death in July of 2011 in the Spanish penitentiary of Teruel, of Tohuami Hamdaoui, an ordinary prisoner of Moroccan origin after a hunger strike of several months? Who has reflected the fact that he has insisted he is innocent?

Has the Chilean spokesperson slandering us by asserting that the dead man was a political dissident on his 50th day of hunger strike lost his memory and sense of reality? He must remember his days as a student leader linked to Pinochet’s troops, who massacred Chileans and instituted disappearances and torture throughout the Southern Cone via Plan Condor, while there have been no statements about the harsh repression of students peacefully demonstrating in defense of the human right to universal and free education. Is he one of those who supported re-labeling the Pinochet dictatorship a military regime in school textbooks? Has he made any statement about the repressive and arbitrary Anti-Terrorist Law implemented against Mapuche prisoners on hunger strike?

The United States government, the principal instigator of any effort to discredit Cuba in order to justify its policy of hostility, subversion and the economic, political and media blockade of Cuba, could not be missing from this campaign.

The hypocrisy of spokespersons for the United States, a country with a poor human rights record at home and abroad, is staggering. The UN Human Rights Council has acknowledged frequent serious violations in this country of women’s rights, in the treatment of persons, racial and ethnic discrimination, inhuman conditions in prisons, neglect of inmates, a differentiated racial standard and frequent judicial errors in imposing capital punishment, and the execution of minors and the mentally ill. This is compounded by abuses of the migratory detention system, deaths along the militarized southern border, atrocious acts against human dignity and the killing of innocent civilians by U.S. army troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and other countries, not to mention arbitrary detentions and acts of torture perpetrated in the illegally occupied Guantánamo Naval Base.

It is barely known that three people died in the United States last November 2011 during a mass hunger strike of prisoners in California. According to testimonies from prisoners in adjoining cells, prison guards offered no assistance whatsoever and ignored their cries for help, as opposed to the abusive practice of force feeding hunger strikers.

A few weeks previously, African American Troy Davis was executed despite a large body of evidence demonstrating legal errors in his case. The White House and the Department of State did nothing about this case.

A total of 90 prisoners have been executed since January 2010 to date in the United States, while a further 3,220 remain on death row. The government frequently brutally represses those who dare to expose injustices within the system.

This new attack on Cuba is clearly politically motivated and has nothing to do with legitimate concerns for the lives of Cuban men and women. It is fuelled by the complicity of the financial-media corporations such as the Prisa Group and the corporation running CNN en Espanol, in the finest style of the Miami Mafia. It is irrationally accusing the Cuban government without having made any investigation into the facts. Condemnation and judgment are made a priori.

It is apparent from the immediate and crude response of authorities and the apparatus in the service of media aggression against Cuba that they did not even take the trouble to confirm the information. The truth is unimportant if the intention is to fabricate and sell a false image of alleged flagrant and systematic violations of civil liberties in Cuba which could one day justify an intervention in order to “protect defenseless Cuban civilians.”

The attempt to impose a distorted image of Cuba meant to indicate a notable deterioration in human rights, to construct an allegedly victimized opposition dying in prison, where health services are denied, is evident.

The humanist vocation of Cuban doctors and health personnel, who spare no effort or the country’s scant resources – to a large extent the result of the criminal 50-year blockade imposed on the Cuban people – to save lives and improve the health standards of their own people and in many other nations is well known.

Cuba is respected and admired by many peoples and governments who recognize its social undertakings at home and abroad.

Deeds speak louder than words. Anti-Cuban campaigns will not inflict any damage on the Cuban Revolution or the people, who will continue improving their socialism.

The truth of Cuba is that of a country in which human beings are most valued: a life expectancy rate at birth of 77.9 years; free health coverage for the entire population; an infant mortality rate of 4.9 per 1,000 live births, a figure exceeding that of the United States and the lowest on the continent along with Canada; a literate population with full and free access to all levels of education; 96% participation in the 2008 general elections; and a democratic process of discussion of the new economic and social guidelines prior to the 6th Congress of the Communist Party.

The truth of Cuba is that of a country which has taken its universities and schools to penitentiaries holding inmates who had fair and impartial trials, who receive the same wages for work undertaken, and enjoy high levels of medical attention without any distinction in terms of ethnicity, gender, creed or social origin.

It will be demonstrated yet again that lies, however much they are repeated, do not necessarily become truths, because, as José Martí stated, “A just principle, from the depths of a cave, can do more than an army.”

Translated by Granma International

Source

Photo taken in Bani Walid of the green flag waving, signifying supporters of now-deceased Col. Gaddafi re-capturing the Libyan city.

Fighters loyal to Muammar Gaddafi have seized back the town of Bani Walid and raised the late dictator’s green flag, in a blow to Libya’s struggling provisional government.

Reports said at least four people were killed during clashes between besieged forces loyal to the ruling National Transitional Council (NTC) and armed and well-organised supporters of Gaddafi. “They control the town now. They are roaming the town,” one militia member was quoted as saying of the pro-Gaddafi fighters, according to Reuters.

Bani Walid, a former regime stronghold 110 miles south-east of Tripoli, was one of the last to succumb to pro-government forces after the capital fell in August. The latest clashes mark the most significant loyalist attack since Libya was officially “liberated” on 23 October. It appears further evidence of the NTC’s weakness, incapacity and internal divisions ahead of supposed national elections later this year.

About 30 pro-government were reported to have been injured in exchanges of fire. Mahmud Warfelli, spokesman of Bani Walid local council, said 100-150 men armed with heavy weapons launched a carefully planned attack, swiftly overwhelming the town. Soldiers from the May 28 Brigade were pinned down in a compound and the attackers took up sniper positions in a mosque and a school, preventing the pro-government fighters from helping their wounded to safety.

Warfelli said the defenders’ ammunition supplies had almost run out and he had had appealed to Tripoli and the defence ministry to send reinforcements. No help had come, he said. “We’re out of the frying pan into the fire. We’ve been warning about this for the past two months,” he said, according to AFP.

Units from the coastal city of Misrata, home to the most powerful of the government militias, scrambled armoured units towards Bani Walid with orders to block routes out of the town. Libya’s defence minister, Osama Jweli, said he would not order army units to enter until he had established whether the fighting was indeed a pro-Gaddafi uprising or a battle between rival clans. “There is conflict at Bani Walid,” Jweli told the Guardian. “For the moment we are waiting to assess the situation.”

Bani Walid was the scene of prolonged fighting last November when pro-government forces entered the town searching for war crimes suspects and battled with local militias, leaving twelve fighters dead. Skirmishes between competing militias have been common in western Libya since the Gaddafi regime was toppled last October. But the recapture of Bani Walid is something new – not least because with Gaddafi dead and his son Saif al-Islam in custody, anti-government forces have no leadership figure around whom they can unite.

The green flag of Libya’s ousted regime was reportedly flying again over many parts of the city. There were reports that the attackers were shouting the old regime slogan: “Allah, Muammar, Libya, that’s it!” They were also carrying green flags.

The NTC is supposed to be paving the way for a new constitution and democratic elections, but it has been struggling to assert its political authority. On Sunday it was due to announce a new electoral law and the composition of an election commission. The announcement was delayed after protesters ransacked the NTC’s offices in the eastern city of Benghazi, where Libya’s revolution began almost year ago.

The protesters, made up of former rebels, had been demonstrating outside the building for weeks, unhappy at the lack of transparency within the NTC and the apparent appointment of ex-Gaddafi loyalists to the ruling body. They believe that opportunists have been allowed to join the government, with some saying the NTC represents western rather than Libyan interests.

Interim officials counter that it is impossible to sack all of the officials who worked for the Gaddafi regime, and say those involved in human rights abuses and other crimes will be prosecuted.

On Sunday the NTC’s deputy leader, Abdul Hafez Ghoga, resigned after being manhandled at the protest.

Meanwhile, the international criminal court denied a claim by the Libyan justice minister, Ali Humaida Ashour, that it had agreed that the war crimes trial of Saif Al Islam would take place in Libya. The court said no decision had yet been taken.

Source