By Kenneth J. Theisen
Diplomacy as a Weapon: Hillary Clinton at the Hague
On Tuesday, March 31st, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made a speech at an international conference on Afghanistan at The Hague in the Netherlands. Representatives of more than 70 countries are attending the conference which is underway as of the writing of this article. Already the U.S. is actively putting forth its agenda for “victory” in that war-torn country.
The U.S., under the new commander-in-chief Obama, will significantly escalate the war and killing by deploying at least 30,000 additional U.S. troops to the war zone there in 2009. The Obama administration is also actively stepping up diplomacy to encourage its allies and others to contribute to the U.S. war effort, with additional troops and economic aid. Clinton’s attendance at the conference is part of this diplomatic offensive. Obama will also attend a NATO conference this week to further pressure NATO allies into supporting the U.S. war as well.
At The Hague, Clinton also signaled the willingness of the U.S. to work with the Taliban, or at least elements of the Taliban. Clinton stated that Taliban members should be offered a role in Afghanistan. In her speech she said, “We must also support efforts by the Government of Afghanistan to separate the extremists of al-Qaida and the Taliban from those who joined their ranks not out of conviction, but out of desperation. This is, in fact, the case for a majority of those fighting with the Taliban. They should be offered an honorable form of reconciliation and reintegration into a peaceful society if they are willing to abandon violence, break with al-Qaida, and support the constitution.”
The fact that the Taliban are a reactionary organization that oppresses women and large sections of the Afghan people apparently no longer bothers the U.S. government. Of course, that was always the case – although the Bush regime used the reactionary, woman hating nature of the Taliban as a key part of its justification for invading Afghanistan in 2001. The present Karzai puppet government was installed by the Bush regime and is now supported by the Obama administration. This government does not include the Taliban, but is composed of other reactionary members of the Afghan ruling class, including feudal and tribal leaders, drug lords, war lords, and others who have long oppressed the majority of the Afghan people.
In her speech, Clinton reiterated the Obama administration’s dedication to increasing U.S. troop strength in the country, but she also talked of increasing the Afghan government’s puppet forces. She stated, “Our collective goal should be standing up an army of at least 134,000 soldiers and a police force of at least 82,000 officers by 2011.” This is part of the ongoing strategy to use local forces to do the will of U.S. imperialism. The U.S. follows a similar strategy in Iraq. Last week Obama said he would send 4000 more troops to Afghanistan to “train” Afghan forces.
Clinton also emphasized the importance of Pakistan in how the Obama administration intends to achieve “victory” in Afghanistan. She emphasized, “…our partnership with Pakistan is critical. Together, we all must give Pakistan the tools it needs to fight extremists within its borders. The Obama Administration has made a strong commitment through our support for legislation called the Kerry-Lugar assistance program. [This legislation will increase U.S. aid to Pakistan in exchange for Pakistan stepping up it military efforts along the Afghan border against Islamic extremists targeted by the U.S.] This effort has already required great sacrifice and it will require more.” I doubt if the sacrifice Clinton is referring to is the regular sacrifice of Pakistani lives taken as a result of the U.S. extending the war across the borders of Pakistan with regular missile strikes launched by the U.S.
One of the nations in attendance at this conference is Iran. The U.S. has been putting out diplomatic “feelers” to Iran stating that Iran could play a positive role in regard to Afghanistan. Just as it is willing to deal with the Taliban, the Obama administration is also willing to deal with Iran, at least on the issue of Afghanistan.
Last week Obama made a video which also indicated that the U.S. may deal with Iran. Clinton is not scheduled to meet with Iranian representatives at the Hague conference, but she did make a point of saying she would not go out of her way “to avoid” them either. Before the conference began Clinton said about Iran, “The fact that they accepted the invitation to come suggests that they believe there is a role for them to play, and we’re looking forward to hearing more about that."
Richard Holbrooke, the US special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan was also at the Hague conference. He told reporters, “How can you talk about Afghanistan and exclude one of the countries that’s a bordering, neighboring state? The presence of Iran here is obvious."
Also at the conference was one of Iran’s deputy foreign ministers, Mohammad Mehdi Akhundzadeh. In an apparent overture to the Obama administration he stated, “Welcoming the proposals for joint cooperation offered by the countries contributing to Afghanistan, the Islamic Republic of Iran is fully prepared to participate in the projects aimed at combating drug trafficking and plans in line with developing and reconstructing Afghanistan.” He was critical of the recent Obama troop increase announcement when he said, “The presence of foreign forces has not improved things in the country and it seems that an increase in the number of foreign forces will prove ineffective, too." But then he went on to say, “The military expenses need to be redirected to the training of the Afghan police and army, and Afghanisation should lead the government-building process.”
Training the Afghan puppet forces was Obama’s excuse for the latest troop increase announcement.
It is within the realm of possibilities that the U.S. and Iranian governments may meet either directly or indirectly to discuss their mutual interests in regard to Afghanistan. It is even possible that backchannel meetings are already underway. But such meetings, if they occur, will not be intended to benefit the people of Afghanistan, but rather to advance the reactionary agendas of both the U.S. and Iranian governments.
With both Clinton and Obama attending major conferences in Europe this week we can expect that Afghanistan will be near the top of both of their agendas. The diplomatic weapon of the U.S., wielded together and as a supplement to its military weapons, will be on full view. World Can’t Wait will continue to report on its use.
Small Fry Convicted of Iraqi murders: Big Fish Still Free
Joseph P. Mayo, a U.S. army sergeant, was sentenced on March 30th to life imprisonment for the killing of four Iraqi detainees. He entered a guilty plea to murder and conspiracy to murder. He admitted that he and two other sergeants shot bound and blindfolded prisoners in the back of the head and then dumped the detainees’ bodies into a Baghdad canal.
He told the court-martial board, “I take full responsibility for my actions. Now I have to pay for my mistake.” Captain John Riesenberg, the army prosecutor stated the sergeant had "demonstrated a total lack of moral courage," as he asked the judge to deliver a sentence that would "send a message to the army and to the world."
Mayo should go to prison for the rest of his life, but what of the people who sent him to Iraq in the first place? They are guilty of war crimes on a vast scale. What kind of message is sent to the world when the occasional small fry is sent to prison, while the large sharks are allowed to leave office and remain free? When will Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and other top criminals of the Bush regime be tried for their role in the crimes against the people of Iraq? When that happens a valuable message will have really been sent to the world.
Surprise: Israeli Army Exonerates Itself of War Crimes in Gaza
On Monday, March 30th Israeli military investigators stated that Israeli soldiers were merely passing on "hearsay" when they made claims that other Israeli troops shot unarmed Palestinian women and children during the war against Gaza.
An Israeli military prosecutor, Brigadier General Avichai Mendelblit, stated that the allegations “were not supported by specific personal knowledge". He went on to say, "It will be difficult to evaluate the damage done to the image and morals of the Israel Defence Forces and its soldiers … in Israel and the world." He further stated he would not be pressing charges against any Israeli personnel.
The original accusations of these war crimes were made by Israeli military personnel and caused great concern among Israeli officials. They were not concerned that Israeli forces committed atrocities, but rather that they were revealed by other Israelis. The Israeli military then set into motion the current whitewash investigation and to no one’s surprise it found itself innocent. Israeli War minister, Ehud Barak, ironically claimed the investigation showed that Israel possesses “the most moral army in the world.”
Unfortunately for Israeli leaders, the war crimes and other human rights’ violations committed by Israel in its war against Gaza will not be forgotten by the rest of the world. Groups such as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Physicians for Human Rights, the U.N., and others have also made accusations against the Israeli military.
The Palestinian Center for Human Rights’ latest estimate for the total Palestinian death toll is 1,417. This includes at least 926 civilians killed by Israel in the war. Israeli and U.S. government leaders who supported the Israeli attack on Gaza must be held accountable for their crimes.
Bush Regime Officials to be Held Accountable in a Spanish Court?
Will top criminals in the Bush regime be held accountable in a court of law for their crimes? Some of them may, but in a Spanish court. They are: Alberto Gonzales, former Bush counsel and Attorney General; David Addington, former vice-president Dick Cheney’s chief of staff; Douglas Feith, former under-secretary of defense; William Haynes, formerly the Pentagon’s general counsel; and John Yoo and Jay Bybee, who both were top lawyers in the Department of Justice.
In Spain proceedings have begun against these Bush regime officials because of their role in the use of torture against detainees in the U.S.-run prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. The case has been brought under the Geneva Conventions and the 1984 Convention against Torture. Signers of the Conventions have the authority to investigate torture cases anywhere in the world. Both Spain and the U.S. have signed the Conventions.
Spanish judge, Baltasar Garzón, has referred the case to the chief prosecutor for further investigation before he decides whether to proceed with the case. [Garzón is best known for ordering the arrest of dictator, Augusto Pinochet of Chile, for his crimes.]
Gonzalo Boyé is one of the attorneys who originally brought the lawsuit before the court. He says the judge must let the case proceed under Spanish law. He stated, “The only route of escape the prosecutor might have is to ask whether there is ongoing process in the US against these people. This case will go ahead. It will be against the law not to go ahead." Although there should be, there is no active prosecution currently underway in the U.S. The Obama administration has refused to order criminal investigations into the actions of top Bush regime criminals.
According to the Spanish court documents, the legal advice provided by the accused made it possible ”to structure a legal framework that supported what happened [in Guantánamo]". Specifically, several Spaniards were held at Guantánamo and suffered torture as a direct result of the Bush regime’s violation of international law.
The documents assert that the six former officials "participated actively and decisively in the creation, approval and execution of a judicial framework that allowed for the deprivation of fundamental rights of a large number of prisoners, the implementation of new interrogation techniques including torture, the legal cover for the treatment of those prisoners, the protection of the people who participated in illegal tortures and, above all, the establishment of impunity for all the government workers, military personnel, doctors and others who participated in the detention centre at Guantánamo."
The lawsuit also claims that, "All the accused are members of what they themselves called the ‘war council’…This group met almost weekly either in Gonzales’s or Haynes’s offices." (The Dark Side by Jane Mayer details the meetings, actions, and discussions of this group. I would recommend this 2008 book to our readers.)
As regular readers of this site know, Yoo and Bybee wrote the infamous “torture memo” in August 2002. In the legal memo they defined torture as only occurring when pain was of the "equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death". The memo provided the legal framework for circumventing the Geneva Conventions and gave Bush regime officials the legal green light to utilize torture.
The Spanish case also refers to a November 2002 "action memo" written by Haynes. In that memo he recommended to Secretary of War Donald Rumsfeld that he give "blanket approval" to fifteen forms of enhanced interrogation, including stress positions, isolation, hooding, 20-hour interrogations and nudity. Rumsfeld then approved the memo which led directly to the use of torture at Gitmo and other hellholes run by the Pentagon.
In 2008 after investigating U.S. actions at Department of Defense-run prisons, the Senate Armed Services Committee concluded, “The abuse of detainees in US custody cannot simply be attributed to the actions of ‘a few bad apples’ acting on their own. The fact is that senior officials in the United States government solicited information on how to use aggressive techniques, redefined the law to create the appearance of their legality, and authorized their use against detainees." Despite this, to date, no legal actions have been brought by any government entities against any of the “senior officials” in the government. We now know that regular meetings occurred in the White House that regularly discussed torture. The meetings were attended by Cheney, Rice, Powell, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft and other top regime officials. Their actions were known and approved by Bush. Not one of these criminals has faced justice.
This case is important and may force U.S. officials to act. If arrest warrants are issued it forces the Obama administration to deal with whether an extradition request will be honored. The six defendants would also find it harder to leave the U.S. as they could be arrested like Pinochet was when he faced possible prosecution. He was arrested in England as a result of the Spanish court’s actions. But as important as this case is, it is just the beginning. Much more must be done for real justice to occur.
All the Bush regime officials, including the ex-president, deserve to be prosecuted for their criminal actions in office. Only a mass movement will make this possible.