Syria, Libya, Bahrain... and Elena Bonner. A connection?

Soviet dissident, Yelena Bonner

I haven't been writing that much lately, as life does get in the way, but I still follow to a degree with what is happening around the world and, most significantly, how it is being packaged. What recently grabbed my attention was the recent death of prominent Soviet dissident Elena Bonner, wife of Andrei Sakharov. What amazed me was that she was still around! Ever since the fall of the USSR, in my mind she had totally disappeared from the radar, if you were to go by the amount of coverage she had been receiving (i.e. next to nothing). I wouldn't be surprised if many of the younger journalists out there would have had no idea who she was. Her comparatively low profile of late in the Western media would lead to believe that Bonner was quite pleased with the way Russia and the successor republics have turned out and her job in Soviet times had been completed by 1992. However, what surprised me about this report of Bonner's death is that she had continued her struggle for human rights. Initially under Yeltsin's rule in the 1990s (which according to accepted, but essentially flawed, Western lore was a time of 'true freedom'), Bonner was supportive of and played an active role in the new 'democratic' clique; however that changed when Bonner split with Yeltsin over the launch of the military campaign in Chechnya in December 1994. From then on, and more so after Putin's ascendancy to power in 2000, Bonner yet again became an opponent of the new, authoritarian Russian government. She also was quite vocal in her opposition to elements of various proposed Israel-Palestine peace accords, siding her very much on the Israeli hawkish right-wing - something of an inconsistency in principles when human rights for all is concerned. Bonner's continued dissidence is surprising in that prior to 1992, under Soviet times, Bonner had very high Western media exposure, to an extent that went far beyond her the level of her influence or profile in the USSR (many ordinary Russians still have no idea who she is!). Given that Bonner continued with her struggle in much the same intensity over the past two decades, despite the fall of the Communist Party, why did the Western media turn her back on her?

OK, I can answer that on - Bonner was no longer useful for Western interests. As I have previously commented about how different emphasis is placed by the media around the world in highlighting a cause or 'dissidents' out of self-interest above principle, Bonner and her fellow Soviet dissidents helped in achieving what the West wanted - to provide a 'moral' basis for the overthrow of Communist Party rule and to pave the way for the installation of a new capitalist system in Russia (note, not necessarily a 'democratic' system). By doing so, big business in the West stood to make loads of money from Russia. Bonner post-1992 had turned from someone who could help to make this change happen to someone who just made a lot of hot air. So not only was Bonner no longer needed by the West, she was an anachronism, hence the lack of Western exposure about her continued work.

Margaret Thatcher, Andrei Sakharov and Yelena Bonner. Who's serving who?

So how does Elena Bonner connect with Libya, Syria and Bahrain? Well, again, it involves coverage priority and an agenda grounded by Western big business interests with right-wing ideology. All three countries have experienced uprisings of various degrees, and all three have responded violently to them. However, the Western response to these 'revolutions' have not been consistent with principle. Libya is experiencing a Western intervention on the side of a murky group of rebels in what has now become a civil war. Syria faces constant demonstrations by the majority Sunni Muslims in regional centres, with constant reports of violent crackdowns. Bahrain, after mass protests in its capital, called Saudi Arabia in to quash the 'Shia' uprising and its authorities, through police intimidation and show trials, ever since have created an atmosphere of terror and fear so as to maintain the political status quo. However, what differentiates these crises is how the Western media is reporting about them.

When Nato decided to lob missiles into Libya, the first casualty was the truth. Since then, we in the West have been forced fed a steady stream of Nato propaganda. Having learnt from extensive experience in military campaigns in Yugoslavia in 1999 and Afghanistan since 2001, Nato has successfully convinced the West's media to toe the line that the mission there is 'humanitarian' and 'moral'; Nato is killing the 'killer' before it kills, so to speak. News about the Nato bombing of Libya comes solely from Nato sources i.e. Western governments. There is never any news of civilian casualties, let alone images - out of mind, out of sight, so to speak. Any Libyan news of the civilian deaths is quickly made out to be crude propaganda - well, takes one to know one. And the 'rebels'? A certain ambiguity is maintained as to their agenda, plans, structure and composure. This helps in keeping a fragile hope that they may conform to the self-formed, idealised and romantic image Western media consumers would like to have for them. What really seems to be the case with Western policy in Libya, is that Western big business can see huge amounts of money to made. Coverage of this bombing only serves to provide popular consent and a moral high horse for the Western public. The money in Libya comes not just from large oil reserves, but also because of Libya's centralised and socialised economy. Libyan public services and utilities are still largely in government hands, so a new Western-client state in Libya would then be forced to sell off its rather valuable assets such as telecommunications, water supplies and transport. This sell-off would mean bargain investments and, considering how cashed up Libya has appeared to be, potential huge profits for big business. The connection with Bonner here is that the 'rebels', who may be quite sincere with their aims for a fairer Libya, are just being used by the West now as they are useful in creating change to a capitalist system and, subsequently, massive profits for Western big business. Plus, to some on the extremes of ideology, Libya's war can be seen as a crude but visual battle of the Right triumphing over the Left.

Nato being 'humanitarian' by destroying Libya to save it

Extensive and prominent media coverage is given to Syria's opposition protests. Images are shown of civilian casualties, numbers of deaths heavily emphasised and a simplistic, good vs evil scenario is being painted with the majority Sunni Muslims portrayed as pro-West, pro-democracy and 'good', while Bashar Assad and the 'ruling elite' from the 'Alawite sect' ('sect' has negative connotations - it is deliberate that this is how the West describes the Alewis) are evil. There have been no calls (as yet) for foreign intervention in Syria on humanitarian grounds like Libya, but Western media coverage too has sacrificed principle for interests. The West too would like to see Syria's left-wing government fall for much the same reasons as with Libya. Syria's economy is still very much in publicly-owned, much to the chagrin of the West's ideology of privatisation at any cost. A new, pro-West government in Damascus, like the West's plans for Libya, will be forced to privatise its assets, only to be purchased at bargain prices by the rich. The only difference with Libya though is that Syria does not have as much oil, so that would explain why there has been no pressing need by the West to engage in a military campaign to 'avert a humanitarian crisis'. As to what exactly this 'humanitarian crisis' is, well, details have never been fully given, nor is it that certain that this hypothetical 'crisis' would have actually happened otherwise.

Anti-Assad protest in Syria

Why get bothered with technicalities?! OK, maybe we should with Syria. The country is much like Iraq - a sectarian mosaic. The majority Sunni Muslims, many of whom are rather pious and see the ruling Alewis, as well as all other religions and other Islamic denominations, as heretics, have in the past displayed solid support for fundamentalist-based movements such as the Muslim Brotherhood. The more religious parts of Syria have mainly been the scene of demonstrations while the largest, and more cosmopolitan, cities such as Aleppo and the capital Damascus has displayed very little support for the opposition. Even though it has been mentioned (although downplayed by the Western media), many Syrians still support Assad as they see secularist Baath rule is the only way of guaranteeing avoiding the sectarian violence that has plagued Iraq since its 'liberation' in 2003. Christians and Shias are particularly worried as they know very well that a Sunni-majority rule, by virtue of imposing its majority in all aspects, will spell the end Syria's harmonious coexistence among the faiths. As mentioned previously, the West has adopted Sunni fundamentalist terminology in describing the ruling Shia Alewi minority as a 'sect'. Based on Western (misguided) perceptions of what constitutes Shias (i.e. like the stereotype of Iranians of today), and as a 'sect' (like doomsday sects), they would appear to be sinister and evil. However, if you were to actually delve into the practices and history of the Alewis (and the related Alevis in Turkey), it would make more sense that based on Western principles of democracy and humanism, the West would support them. The Alewis strongly believe in equality of the sexes (men and women pray side-by-side, Alewi women are not required to wear hijab, and monogamy is strictly enforced), humanism and espouse respect for other denominations and religions - aspects many Sunni clerics believe to be heretic. However, the West supports the Sunnis who, if successful in toppling the secular system under Assad, would most likely impose an austere and considerably intolerant environment in place - a new Iraq. And just like Iraq, Syria would witness a mass exodus of all of its religious minorities (particularly Christians and the last remaining Jews), while the increased Sunni Muslim religious atmosphere would also make the situation for gay Syrians even worse than they are now. Again, like Bonner, the Sunnis are being used (for now) so that the ultimate aim of fulfilling Western interests are served. And then, we are fed with the rather simplistic but inherently false paradigm that Shias are supposedly all anti-West while the Sunnis are all pro-West...

Pro-Assad demonstration in Syria

Then we come to Bahrain. The island state is ruled by the Sunni Al-Khalifa family while the population has a downtrodden Shia majority. Bahrain has an oil-based economy which was one of the first in the Gulf to diversify and become an important banking centre. When the Arab Spring revolution spread to Bahrain, with giant protests in the capital Manama's Pearl Square, the Gulf (especially Saudi Arabia) and the West became tense. Reason being is that if Bahrain's revolution succeeded, then this could precipitate a domino-effect in which the other undemocratic emirates of the region could fall. On a principled basis, this should be what the West wants - human rights and democracy for all. However, in this case this is not in the West's interests. These absolute monarchies, of which Saudi Arabia is the largest, provide the world with much oil and are engaged, and engage in, considerable business worldwide. On an ideological basis, these emirates are extremely right-wing and capitalist. In a move, and for much same rationale that the Soviet Union intervened into Afghanistan in 1979, Saudi Arabia even staged a Western-sanctioned invasion of Bahrain to restore 'order'. According to Gulf propaganda and carried by the Western media, Bahrain had apparently 'invited' Saudi forces in; again, this is what the Soviets claimed Afghanistan did in 1979. Going by Western 'logic', it was wrong for the Soviet Union to go into Afghanistan to contain the spread of Islamic Fundamentalism reaching the bordering, poor, Muslim republics of Soviet Central Asia, but it is fine for Saudi Arabia to enter into Bahrain to stop the spread of democracy and people power. Since the Saudi invasion, many have been arrested, there has been a climate of fear and terror, and even a group of doctors and nurses, serving their Hippocratic oath of treating people regardless, have been handed life sentences for treating protesters shot by Bahraini and invading Saudi forces.

When Saudi forces are 'invited' into Bahrain, it's no party.

So what has the Western media done? While there are occasional reports about the repression occurring in Bahrain, such as the sentencing of the doctors and nurses (this one by the BBC is particularly good), overall coverage has been comparatively light and low profile. This clearly shows that the West sees no use or financial benefit out of democracy in Bahrain, despite maintaining supposed principled and 'humanitarian' stances on Libya and Syria. The fact that the West has given its blessing to Bahrain's repression of democracy-supporters came when a Bahraini prince, who is connected to Bahraini security structures responsible for conducting arrests and torture of democracy activists, and the Bahraini ambassador to the UK were invited to the recent royal wedding of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. The prince clumsily declined the invite, though the ambassador was there. This came despite much fanfare made by David Cameron's government through the media how the Syrian ambassador was taken off the invite list due to his country's 'repression of democracy activists'.

Naturally, the West, and especially the US with its navy's 5th Fleet based in Bahrain, have no desire for the Gulf state to fall into the hands of the Shia majority. This is not so much the case, as claimed by the corrupt Gulf emirs and their Western benefactors, that this would open the door for Iran to spread its influence, but because after almost 40 years of unbridled capitalism which has seen little of that wealth trickle down to the majority, a new government in Bahrain would move towards a more socialised economy and environment - not what Western big business wants. Plus, the comparative and perceived instability of having democracy in these countries would play havoc on oil prices, driving Western economies into greater economic turmoil. It's always easier to deal with unaccountable dictatorships in these cases, rather than face negotiating with popularly-elected parliaments.

Where are Western principles? These doctors are now facing life imprisonment for doing this.

The opposition in left-wing Libya and Syria are like Elena Bonner pre-1992 - a useful tool for Western big business and government in spreading free-for-all capitalism, while right-wing Bahrain's repressed activists are post-1992 Bonner - a threat. But like Bonner post 1992, the terrible situation in Bahrain threatens to wither away into aberration and out of Western focus. This would allow the Bahraini authorities to get away with the atrocities and injustice the Libyan and Syrian governments are also accused of perpetrating.

I have intended to point out here how self-interest and ideology plays a bigger role than principle in determining Western policy and manufacturing public consent, rather than give my standpoint on the actual situations in Libya, Syria and Bahrain (let the people in those countries decide how they want to be run). The fact that the West would claim that principles play the main role is hypocrisy to the extreme and acts just as a ploy to hide its true agenda. Mind you, the West is not alone in doing this. In the end, those who genuinely hold principles, even if they are like Bonner and apply them unevenly, will lose out to those who stand to profit in our disposable society.

Vile! - US State department disrespect for death of Cuban leader's wife

Vilma Espín and her husband Raúl Castro standing next to Che Guevara

If there is one thing that the leaked US State Department cables published by WikiLeaks have shown, the World's self-appointed defender of transparency, freedom and 'human rights', the United States government, has proven to be riddled with double standards and hypocrisy in its actions. It will only push for the promotion of its version of human rights when it suits its interests, which tend to be the interests of US big business. When it hates a country, usually a poor place without any resources accessible to US large corporations, then the US State Government is, you could say, un-Christian, to say the least.

Case in point is the unpublicised cable that recently appeared on the WikiLeaks site giving the US 'Special Interests Office' in Havana's view of the death of the Cuban president Raúl Castro's wife Vilma Espin. All I can say is that the unsubstantiated allegations and innuendos are vile and grossly inaccurate. The level of hate and disdain displayed by Michael Parmly, author of the cable, towards the Castro brothers is impalpable.

Parmly's vile comments include doubting that Fidel Castro would care very much about
the loss of Vilma Espin or much else beyond his own personal legacy, insinuating that Raúl Castro and his late wife (who had been comrade-in-arms and partners since their guerilla days in the 1950s) had been 'estranged for the past few years', relishing the thought that the loss of his wife would cause Raúl Castro to 'lose his bearings' and opening the way for leadership instability to precipitate regime change, as well as seeing Espin's death serving as 'a dry run for other much-more-anticipated deaths in the ruling family'. Parmly, a US government official, is clearly stating that he would like to see the Cuban leadership dead - how Christian of him!

The most hypocritical and unsubstantiated belief Parmly states in this cable is that he says 'yes, both Fidel and Raul Castro are mass murderers and cruel leaders, but Raul always has had a parallel reputation as a family man.' What the...? First of all, how are they mass murderers and evil? Where are the mass graves to testify this? Obviously, based on the picture painted by the US State Department cables we have seen so far, the Castro brothers are 'evil' solely because they have tirelessly work against US government actions and business interests. Judging by the nature of this cable, do you blame them? And what's with Parmly dismissing the Castro brothers as 'mass murderers and evil' anyway? The US government should not criticise as that has never stopped it supporting many dictators and leaders who were actually mass murderers and evil. And how would you describe US military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan then? If that isn't mass murder, then what is? If you don't believe me, then check out the classified documents allegedly leaked by the very brave Bradley Manning to WikiLeaks.

Bradley Manning

Talking of which, disturbing reports are coming out that Manning, the US military intelligence analyst who, being a person of moral principle was disgusted at his own government and military's responsibility in the hidden deaths of many innocent people in Iraq and Afghanistan, decided to uncover this to the World for the sake of transparency (central to a democracy like the USA) and bring justice to those who perpetrated such crimes, is now facing 52 years in jail for his actions and is reportedly being held in inhumane conditions akin to torture. This is despite not having been formally charged with any 'crime' as yet. Furthermore, friends, family and supporters of Manning, have been facing US government harassment so as to shut them up - a tactic well used in all 'evil' totalitarian systems. What is also disgusting is that opponents to dropping the US military's 'Don't Ask Don't Tell' policy requiring gay US military personnel to keep quiet about their sexuality or else risk discharge, have used Manning, who happens to be gay, as an example that having homosexuals in such military positions threaten national security!

It says a lot about a society which will seek to severely punish and torture someone with a humane conscience but will reward those who kill innocent people in Iraq or Afghanistan. As his supporters' website states: exposing war crimes is not a crime.

More Desperate Dictator Housewives - Tunisia's Leila Ben Ali

Tunisia's president Zine Ben Ali and his wife Leila. Guess who wears the pants?

If one thing can be said about the cables appearing via WikiLeaks and selected media, the officials at US Embassies are a bunch of gossipy queens who love reporting on the intriguing developments of the Dynasty-esque lifestyles of dictators and their families. And I don't blame them! Why follow the comparatively dull proceedings on Wisteria Lane when you have the likes of Azerbaijan's Mehriban Aliyeva and Uzbekistan's Gulnara Karimova providing more than enough (shocking) entertainment.

Central Asia, though, does not have a monopoly on such shenanigans. WikiLeaks have published cables from the embassy in Tunisia giving details on the corruption orchestrated by the 74 year old Zine Ben Ali and his family. Tunisia follows the set pattern when it comes to corrupt dictatorships - dictator runs country like a mafia fiefdom, is massively rich despite the general population being extremely poor, has family members and spoilt kids in control of the economy and in positions of power (and act above the law with immunity), lots of kickbacks and pay-offs, and then there's the obligatory glamorous but despised wife. This character would like to see herself as an Evita Peron though her public more see her as Lady MacBeth. In Tunisia's case, it's Leila Ben Ali (née Trabelsi). As the cable details, the 53 year old and her family are involved in many shady deals and practices, much to the ire of the Tunisian public. Along with the numerous allegations of Trabelsi corruption are "often barbs about their lack of education, low social status, and conspicuous consumption". The cable is fascinating gossip - have a read of what no longer can be read in Tunisia here, now that the government there blocked the sale (along with access to its website) of the Lebanese newspaper publishing these cables.

Some background on madame Leila. Apparently, as internet gossip goes (who needs priest wives anymore), she was previously a simply salon owner but she was also Zine Ben Ali's mistress (then prime minister). The ambitious minx made sure she became pregnant to her married lover, lied to him and told him she was having a boy (very cunning!). Unhappy with his first wife (who bore him a daughter) and eager for a son, Bel Ali divorced and brought Leila into his new career as president, installing himself after dethroning former president and founder of Tunisia, the dictator Bourguiba, in a 1987 medical coup in which the senior president was declared senile - which was true and constitutional permissible. Leila gave birth to a girl, but Ben Ali was president now and divorcing while head of state was not acceptable (though Bourguiba did, but he dropped a French woman in order to marry a Tunisian woman like any proud Arab nationalist). Leila made the most of her new status and soon enough her whole family was benefitting handsomely from privatization schemes in the 1990s. Securing “loans” from banks, the Trabelsis established their own hotel chain, airline and travel agency (The Karthago Group). It is also rumoured that when Ben Ali’s brother passed away, the Trabelsi’s inherited his drug trade.

Madame Leila looking very Sarah Palin

The details of the Ben Alis' and Tarbelsis' lavish lifestyle are given in this cable. As reported in the Guardian the picture painted of the Tunisian president's son-in-law, Mohamed Sakher El Materi, provides "a striking illustration of the great wealth and excess fuelling resentment of the presidential family." Much like Uzbekistan's Gulnara Karimova, he has achieved so much in his life. How many 28 year olds do you know own a shipping cruise line, concessions for Audi, Volkswagen, Porsche and Renault, a pharmaceutical manufacturing firm, and real estate companies? Jeez, he's done well. Details are also given of an elaborate dinner to woo McDonalds to the north African Mediterranean state with "ice cream and frozen yoghurt brought in by private plane from St Tropez", and of the family's pet tiger named Pasha, who lives in a cage and consumes four chickens a day. This "reminded the US envoy of Uday Hussein's lion cage in Baghdad". Hmmm... interesting that.

Nesrine and Mohamed Sakhner El Materi

But wait, the plot thickens. There's a new person in Tunisia Lane - Yasser Arafat's widow, Suha Arafat. Oh, she's a piece! Coming from a rich Palestinian Christian family (her father was an Oxford-educated banker), she married PLO leader Yasser Arafat, 44 years her senior, in 1990. However, they rarely spent much time together as Suha much prefered living in Paris. She did give birth to a daughter with the Palestinian leader - Zahwa in 1995. Despite most Palestinians living in abject poverty, Suha was notorious for her extravagant lifestyle and expensive shopping excursions, funded from the alleged US$100,000 a month stipend she was receiving from the Palestinian Authority coffers, which in turn was financed from generous aid packages provided by Western countries.

Yasser, Zahwa and Suha Arafat

With the French prosecutors starting to investigate the large sums of money being transferred to her account and the death of her husband in 2004, Suha and daughter quickly made their way to Tunis, where they were greeted with open arms by the Ben Alis and later given Tunisian citizenship in 2006. This is where the soap opera really takes off. As the US cable explains, Suha had a long association with Tunisia and even held a Tunisian diplomatic passport, but still embassy officials were puzzled as to why she would go for citizenship. The only reason they could see for this was "that Tunisian law forbids foreigners to own agricultural land", which the US ambassador Robert Godec cattily (but correctly) added that La Arafat "is not known to be an aspiring farmer". The most likely reason why is that La Arafat was setting up a company to build an international school in the country and Tunisian laws (when applied) only allow for citizens to have majority shares in such undertakings.

Lurking behind all this was the rumour that not only had Suha been in a relationship with her best friend Leila Ben Ali's brother, Belhassen, they had secretly married. Oooh! Check out the stud muffin....

However, as in all soap operas, things aren't what they seem to be. The Tunisian government quietly revoked Suha Arafat's Tunisian citizenship less than a year after awarding it. As this cable testifies, the possible reasons for this are numerous. There had been a major falling out between best friends Suha and Leila, partly to do with the repercussions of the new international school they founded (and Suha had invested 2.5 million euros in). In true greedy, power-mad style, La Ben Ali closed a rival, prestigious private school so as to force Tunisia's elite to send their little darlings to the new school started by her first ladies club. This resulted in a major backlash by the students' parents. Suha Arafat apparently told her best friend that she had crossed the line by doing this, to which a furious La Ben Ali retaliated by ordering her (now former) best friend's citizenship be taken away from her. Arafat at the time was on a visit to her brother in Malta who happens to be the Palestinian ambassador there.

In another twist to the story, the word has it that it wasn't Leila Ben Ali who ordered the rival school to close but Suha Arafat herself! And Leila was so, so, so mad about this that she took it out on that bitch Suha, who responded with a 'talk to the hand'. Then other 'theories' (i.e. gossip circulating around Tunis - you know, what the hairdresser had heard but promised to not tell anyone) that Suha Arafat had called Qaddafi and said 'gimme money', to which Qaddafi then called Ben Ali and told him off for not looking after Suha. Then there's the rumour that Suha ran off with loads of the Ben Ali's assets (which they had stolen anyway, but that's beside the point). Finally, this whole citizenship revoking saga could all be revenge for Suha having broken the heart of Leila's brother Belhassen. Wow, Krystle and Alexis on Dynasty have nothing on this!!!

With Suha stuck in Malta with her ambassador brother after being betrayed by her best friend Leila, what's a gal supposed to do? Of course, blab all the insider info of the Ben Alis to the US embassy. Don't tell anyone but Suha said that: the Tunisian president remained weakened by his battle with cancer; he simply does what his wife asks him to do; Leila Ben Ali and her family are stealing everything of value in the country; madame Ben Ali believes that she will succeed her husband as President of Tunisia and she dropped the American curriculum that had been planned for the international school because she fundamentally wants nothing to do with Americans, among other tidbits. The claws were out!

That's where the story is so far. Suha and her daughter remain in Malta, in a house apparently funded by Qaddafi, and has been very quiet. Perhaps she may make a surprise reappearance in a later episode of Desperate Dictator Housewives?

I don't know why the US State Department have been embarrassed by these cables when you have ambassadors like Godec making points in their cables like in this case that " Suha Arafat has an ax to grind with the Ben Ali clan, so her allegations must be taken with a big grain of salt." The US State Department is reporting it as it is. What is embarrassing is that the US government continues to support these countries, in contradiction to the principles it allegedly stands for and promotes. As these cables allude, much to the frustration of the ambassadors involved, the US government though sees the only alternative type of government ever cultivating in these types of client states are mini-Irans. So it's the lesser of two evils, so to speak. Fair enough. Please, could you just be honest that that is the case then. Otherwise don't go taking the moral high road of 'promoting democracy and freedom of expression' if these principles are not actively promoted in those client states that need them.

Kosovo leader head of 'mafia-like' group - Council of Europe report claims

Why can I hear many in the Balkans, including Albanians, saying 'told you so'. The shit will be hitting the proverbial fan once this article by the Guardian makes itself known in the Balkans. With attention focused on the disputed country/province (depending who you talk to) after last weekend's not-so-transparent elections, a Council of Europe (CofE) report into crime in Kosovo has confirmed allegations that members of the Kosovo Liberation Army kidnapped and killed Serbs, whose kidneys were then later sold.

The CofE report, tabled by human rights investigator Dick Marty, will not be news for people in the Balkans. They have known about these 'revelations' now for years. However, in a true display of the ever-persistent colonial, patronising and superiority complex attitude of the West towards the 'uncivilised' Balkans, now they are being taken seriously. One of the main (not-new) points highlighted was that former Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) and current Kosovo president Hashim Thaçi's links with organised crime date back more than a decade, when those loyal to his Drenica Group became the dominant faction within the KLA.

Marty has pointed out Western double standards towards human rights in Kosovo. Since 1998 the West has been purposely blind in its support for the KLA and, consequently, for the Kosovo government led by Thaçi. The West has chose to ignore suspected war crimes by the KLA, "placing a premium instead on achieving some degree of short-term stability". He concludes that during the Kosovo war and for almost a year after, Thaçi's forces meted out revenge against Serbs, Roma and ethnic-Albanians accused of "collaborating" with the enemy.

This inquiry was commissioned after the former chief prosecutor for war crimes at The Hague, Carla Del Ponte, said she had been prevented from investigating senior KLA officials. Del Ponte's claim has grounds in that only four Albanians have faced the War Crimes Tribunal, one of which was former KLA commander-turn-politician (or crime boss to others) Ramush Haradinaj, who was first acquitted but now is facing the dock again after the 'revelation' that his thugs intimidated witnesses.

No matter what the West says, an overwhelming majority of people in ex-Yugoslavia see the Tribunal as a politically-motivated show trial with no legitimacy, whereby a disproportionate number of Serbs have been tried, of the two Macedonians tried the 'clearly innocent' nobody gets 12 years while the 'guilty-as-hell' former Interior Minister is acquitted of all crimes, while so few Albanians have been tried. Then the West has the audacity to criticise Balkan countries for their less-than-transparent judicial systems!

What this report will signal is that all the suspicions many in the Balkans have had that the West were taking sides in the Balkan conflicts, despite the West's denials, are true. It has mainly been nationalist political groupings who have been the most vocal advocates of these former conspiracy theories now exposed as fact. The unwitting consequence of this is that it will increase the credibility of other political theories and tales of Western intrigue that many in the Balkans believe and propagate. However, they are not to blame. The West should not have supported criminals who are callous enough to fan the popular nationalist notion of 'regaining greater Albania' to disguise their organised crime and maintain the power structures which allow such illegal activities to thrive. The point is that this current system of governance in Kosovo is how Serbia under Milošević operated. The West rightfully was quick to at least vilify Milošević and Serbia; however when it comes to Kosovo now, they not only have looked the other away but have fully supported and protected its leaders and the corrupt system they have created!

I'll be keeping a close watch to see what the political fallout will be from this report. I hope that Kosovo's long-suffering population will finally be able to rid themselves of these corrupt criminals so that they can finally have leaders who will look past personal interest and deliver a decent standard of living for all of Kosovo's population and beyond.

And they don't notice the irony?

While the US Department of State is quick in denying that it is applying any pressure on anyone to silence WikiLeaks (it's just pure coincidence that all these companies are cutting off funds and website), it was proud to announce that next May it will be hosting "UNESCO’s World Press Freedom Day event in 2011, from May 1 - May 3 in Washington, D.C". According to the press release, UNESCO is the only UN agency with the mandate to promote freedom of expression and its corollary, freedom of the press.

Guess what the theme will be? Well the rather wanky sounding '21st Century Media: New Frontiers, New Barriers'. Without noticing the irony, it goes on to boast the following:

The United States places technology and innovation at the forefront of its diplomatic and development efforts. New media has empowered citizens around the world to report on their circumstances, express opinions on world events, and exchange information in environments sometimes hostile to such exercises of individuals’ right to freedom of expression. At the same time, we are concerned about the determination of some governments to censor and silence individuals, and to restrict the free flow of information. We mark events such as World Press Freedom Day in the context of our enduring commitment to support and expand press freedom and the free flow of information in this digital age.

Of course, an event like this can't go without some award ceremony. The UNESCO Guillermo Cano World Press Freedom Prize, decided by an 'independent' jury of international journalists, "honours a person, organization or institution that has notably contributed to the defence and/or promotion of press freedom, especially where risks have been undertaken". So then, will Julian Assange and WikiLeaks be in the running for that? I guess not. More likely someone in one of those 'bad' countries such as Cuba, China, Russia or Venezuela will get it - just look at the majority of its past recipients.

Rest assured, there's also a Facebook page for this event; however, comments on it are being 'moderated' (censored, in other words).

Crazy! This reminds me of the hypocrisy of countries such as the former USSR, or supposed democracies like Russia whose constitutions enshrine(d) the freedoms of speech, religion, protest, media, expression etc. when in practice they will apply pressure on those who pose a threat.

Quote

"We feel that [Visa and Mastercard] have bowed to government pressure. They say Wikileaks broke their terms and conditions but they accept payments from groups such as the Klu Klux Klan".

Anonymous member Coldblood to the BBC, on the decision made by companies like Visa and Mastercard of deeming Wikileaks illegal.

The lawless Wild West attacks WikiLeaks

Excellent piece by Glenn Greenwald how the West silences its dissidents using intimidation and a whole variety of actions beyond the rule of law. Here is part of what he had to comment about the worrying situation.

Just look at what the U.S. Government and its friends are willing to do and capable of doing to someone who challenges or defies them -- all without any charges being filed or a shred of legal authority. They've blocked access to their assets, tried to remove them from the Internet, bullied most everyone out of doing any business with them, froze the funds marked for Assange's legal defense at exactly the time that they prepare a strange international arrest warrant to be executed, repeatedly threatened him with murder, had their Australian vassals openly threaten to revoke his passport, and declared them "Terrorists" even though - unlike the authorities who are doing all of these things - neither Assange nor WikiLeaks ever engaged in violence, advocated violence, or caused the slaughter of civilians.

This is all grounded in the toxic mindset expressed yesterday on Meet the Press (without challenge, naturally) by Republican Sen. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who said of Assange: "I think the man is a high-tech terrorist. He’s done an enormous damage to our country, and I think he needs to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. And if that becomes a problem, we need to change the law." As usual, when wielded by American authorities, the term "terrorist" means nothing more than: "those who impede or defy the will of the U.S. Government with any degree of efficacy." Anyone who does that is, by definition, a Terrorist. And note McConnell's typical, highly representative view that if someone he wants to punish isn't a criminal under the law, then you just "change the law" to make him one.

But that sort of legal scheming isn't even necessary. The U.S. and its "friends" in the Western and business worlds are more than able and happy to severely punish anyone they want without the slightest basis in "law." That's what the lawless, Wild Western World is: political leaders punishing whomever they want without any limits, certainly without regard to bothersome concepts of "law." Anyone who doubts that should just look at what has been done to Wikileaks and Assange over the last week. In this series of events, there are indeed genuine and pernicious threats to basic freedom and security; they most assuredly aren't coming from WikiLeaks or Julian Assange.

People often have a hard time believing that the terms "authoritarian" and "tyranny" apply to their own government, but that's because those who meekly stay in line and remain unthreatening are never targeted by such forces. The face of authoritarianism and tyranny reveals itself with how it responds to those who meaningfully dissent from and effectively challenge its authority: do they act within the law or solely through the use of unconstrained force?

Greenwald goes on to mention how the American mainstream media quickly followed the official line by no longer describing WikiLeaks as a 'whistleblower' website. Greenwald also added:

Just to underscore the climate of lawless initmidation that has been created: before WikiLeaks was on many people's radars (i.e., before the Apache video release), I wrote about the war being waged on them by the Pentagon, interviewed Assange, and urged people to donate money to them. In response, numerous people asked - both in comments and via email - whether they would be in danger, could incur legal liability for providing material support to Terrorism or some other crime, if they donated to WikiLeaks. Those were American citizens expressing that fear over an organization which had never been remotely charged with any wrongdoing.

Similarly, I met several weeks ago with an individual who once worked closely with WikiLeaks, but since stopped because he feared that his country - which has a very broad extradition treaty with the U.S. - would arrest him and turn him over to the Americans upon request. He knew he had violated no laws, but given that he's a foreigner, he feared - justifiably - that he could easily be held by the United States without charges, denied all sorts of basic rights under the Patriot Act, and otherwise be subject to a system of "justice" which recognizes few limits or liberties, especially when dealing with foreigners accused of aiding Terrorists.

All the oppressive, lawless policies of the last decade - lawless detention, Guantanamo, disappearing people to CIA black sites, rendition, the torture regime, denial of habeas corpus, drones, assassinations, private mercenary forces, etc. - were designed, first and foremost, to instill exactly this fear, to deter any challenge. Many of these policies continue, and that climate of fear thus endures. As the treatment just thus far of WikiLeaks and Assange demonstrates, that reaction -though paralyzing and counter-productive - is not irrational. And one thing is for sure: there is nothing the U.S. Government could do - no matter how lawless or heinous - which (with rare exception) would provoke the objections of the American establishment media.

Fear and intimidation - the tools of an authoritarian ruling elite. These are the insinuations levelled at countries like Russia, China and Iran. But it is obvious that the West employs the same control tools... just in a more sophisticated way.

Barack, Hillary... just to remind you...

It seems like that Mr Obama and Mrs Clinton have forgotten some of the things that have said about internet censorship...

Obama said to Chinese students in November 2009 while on a visit there:
I'm a big believer in openness when it comes to the flow of information. I think that the more freely information flows, the stronger the society becomes, because then citizens of countries around the world can hold their own governments accountable. They can begin to think for themselves. That generates new ideas. It encourages creativity.

And so I've always been a strong supporter of open Internet use. I'm a big supporter of non-censorship. This is part of the tradition of the United States that I discussed before, and I recognize that different countries have different traditions. I can tell you that in the United States, the fact that we have free Internet -- or unrestricted Internet access is a source of strength, and I think should be encouraged.

And what did Hillary Clinton have to say at the Newseum in Washington D.C. in January this year? Well, this:
...technologies with the potential to open up access to government and promote transparency can also be hijacked by governments to crush dissent and deny human rights. In the last year, we've seen a spike in threats to the free flow of information. China, Tunisia, and Uzbekistan have stepped up their censorship of the internet...

On their own, new technologies do not take sides in the struggle for freedom and progress. But the United States does. We stand for a single internet where all of humanity has equal access to knowledge and ideas. And we recognize that the world's information infrastructure will become what we and others make of it.

You remember? Well, if you tend to forget these things, how about you do what Sarah Palin does and write it on your hand.

Julian Assange - latest

He is a genius! That's all I can say. Before his arrest today, Assange wrote an open letter to Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard published today in the Murdoch-owned The Australian newspaper. Assange knew how to play upon the parochialism and identity politics which dominates Australian political and social discourse, while also comparing himself to Rupert Murdoch's father - master stroke!

Assange wrote that he sees himself as following in the footsteps of Keith Murdoch, who revealed that Australian troops were being needlessly sacrificed by incompetent British commanders on the shores of Gallipoli (Australia's first engagement as an independent entity in World War I and is core to the nation's historic identity), and reveals that his values were forged while growing up in pre-Fitzgerald era Queensland towns, where distrust of government ran strong.

In the wake of US figures calling for him to be "hunted down", Mr Assange wrote: "Australians should observe with no pride the disgraceful pandering to these statements by the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, and her government. The powers of the Australian government appear to be fully at the disposal of the US as to whether to cancel my Australian passport or to spy on or harass WikiLeaks supporters. We are the underdogs". Again, using the 'underdog' context is another plus to him in gaining the side of Australian public sympathy.

Assange went to say: "The Gillard government is trying to shoot the messenger because it doesn't want the truth revealed, including information about its own diplomatic and political dealings. The Prime Minister, and especially the Attorney-General, are meant to carry out their duties of their office with dignity and above the fray. Rest assured, these two mean to save their own skins. They will not."

Meanwhile, an open letter posted on the Australian public broadcaster ABC's website, signed by Noam Chomsky and a wide range of prominent Australian media, political and literary figures, called upon the Australian government to protect its own citizen, Julian Assange, from physical harm in light of threats made from US journalists and politicians. The threats made include:

- Jefffrey Kuhner in the Washington Times: "We should treat Mr Assange the same way as other high-value terrorist targets: Kill him";

- William Kristol, former chief of staff to vice president Dan Quayle: “Why can’t we use our various assets to harass, snatch or neutralize Julian Assange and his collaborators, wherever they are?”;

- Jonah Goldberg: “Why isn’t Julian Assange dead?”;

- John Hawkins on Right Wing News site: “The CIA should have already killed Julian Assange”;

- Sarah Palin compared Assange to an Al Qaeda leader with 'blood on his hands';

- Rick Santorum, former Pennsylvania senator and potential presidential contender, accused Assange of “terrorism”.

These threats on people, many of whom consider themselves to be good Christians, are disgusting.

The rather swift moves made by authorities to arrest Assange has been questioned by rape victims' groups, whose members have often faced major obstacles and delays in getting their cases heard and charges made. This very swiftness and inconsistency in the application of legal procedures is leading many to wonder how much has political pressure actually played - well... it seems quite a lot. Had Julian Assange not been the face of a high-profile dissident organisation that is embarrassing the most power government in the world, we can safely assume that the extradition charges from Sweden would not have been so rigorously applied and executed. The parallels with the uncharacteristic effectiveness that the Russian justice system was applied when dissident Yukos boss Mikhail Khodorkovsky was charged for 'tax avoidance' to that of Assange's swift extradition are uncanny. The West, especially the same people who are now calling for Assange's head, are quick to describe Russia as an undemocratic, authoritarian state, but they are so blinded by their myopic view of the world to see that they are of the same ilk. He who casts the first stone...

Distance is not just geographical

In case you didn't know, US-sponsored (and that is meant in all meanings of the term) peace talks are under way in the chic Sinai beachside resort of Sharm el-Sheikh, and already failure is being pre-emptied. One of the reasons given for a failed outcome is growing Israeli apathy. As Time magazine and now the BBC report, Israelis in places like Tel Aviv are more concerned about 'making money' and enjoying the good life rather than making peace. In that Western morally superior way, this is interpreted as being bad and callous. The BBC, like many Western media outlets are also quick to point out that Tel Aviv is 'less than an hour away from the West Bank'. However, what we have here are some serious double standards and a failure to understand the true implications of these attitudes.

The truth is, many Israelis are more concerned about holidays and consumerism than making peace with the Palestinians. But why would they be otherwise? Israelis are human like the rest of us - many are apathetic and it is so much easier to avoid dealing with social issues when they are out of mind, out of sight. Just like how more people in the USA are more concerned about what Snooki will be doing on Jersey Shore than the US occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq (ostensibly to guarantee the security of the US), or that there are far more Aussies interested in Masterchef than tackling Aboriginal health, the same goes for many Israelis with their occupation versus nice lifestyle. So why then are the Israelis portrayed as being the bad ones? Aren't we all guilty of not caring? It's from this viewpoint that accusations of anti-Semetism have been made at Time magazine for its recent story (cover below).

But what about the Palestinians? Surely they would be wanting peace? Like the Israelis, they do, but they too are human, and there are plenty of Palestinians who after many decades of stalemate are less concerned about the occupation and more with other things. For some living in Gaza, it has to do with getting food, while for others in the West Bank, their priorities mirror those of many Israelis - fashion, consumerism, cars. Likewise, there are also plenty of poor Israelis whose main concerns are similar to those living in Gaza - food, shelter, health.

Israelis and Palestinians alike have been at loggerheads now for over 60 years. Many people have died in needless acts of violence and war, and simply, people are tired. They all would like to have a quiet life that doesn't involve polemics; one that ensures that they live comfortably. The politics of the region and the promise of peace guaranteeing prosperity is now ringing quite hollow. Why this has failed, and why their is little faith in the peace talks is that they are going about it the wrong way. As has been proven in the past many times, peace does not necessarily bring prosperity, but prosperity does bring peace. When the prospect that plenty of money can be made and people can espire to living comfortably, then there's not much incentive to create other purposes in life such as the honour in fighting for a greater cause. It has been said that had the amount of money the USA spent on Vietnam War or Iraqi occupation been distributed evenly to each Vietnamese or Iraqi instead, that rather large individual amount would have guaranteed such prosperity that the outcomes in those conflicts would have been quite different. We have witnessed conflicts reduce in relation to the growth in propserity in places like Northern Ireland. Even when there is conflict, you can always count that the people making the money are usually blind to it. For instance, even that supposed defender of all things Serbian, the warlord Arkan was in close terms with Albanian underworld figures during the Serbian-Kosovo conflict in 1998-1999, despite his very anti-Albanian public stance at the time. So why would it be different in the Middle East? Or Afghanistan? It isn't.

The problem for peace in the Middle East is not apathy. I'm afraid to say it but the wall and the roadblocks which keep the Palestinians away from Israel have been so successful. The main reason why the Wall was installed was to cut the amount of terrorist attacks in Israel to zero - and that has been largely achieved. So too are the roadblocks. The West Bank may be extremely close geographically from Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, however with the bureaucratic and physical hurdles in place for Palestinians to get from one part of the West Bank to the other, let alone into Israel, they are practically thousands of kilometres away psychologically. With the West Bank now contained behind a wall and no terrorist attacks to worry about, Israelis now can lead somewhat normal lives and prosper. They have found a solution to their main problem of security and as such, don't really need a flimsy peace anymore.

Governments, and kings before them, did not invest hugely into walls because they were unsuccessful. The GDR erected the wall across Berlin, dividing the city as well as Germany, as it would successfully stem the flow of much needed professionals seeking great financial and career opportunities in the West. It was so successful at first that the GDR authorities were even brave enough to launch a liberalisation of the system in the early 1960s. Much like in Israel's case geographically, even though they were the same city, East and West Berlin psychologically were worlds apart. However, the only thing which the GDR could not stop was the airwaves - West German TV and radio could be picked up throughout most of the GDR, giving East Germans an insight to a rather obviously more prosperous system. It did not matter that not everything that was on West German TV, such as advertisements for luxury goods, was accessible to everyone in the West, the fact that it existed was reason enough to show the difference. So what caused the Wall to fall was the inspiration of many East Germans (and Eastern Europeans) to be able to live like Crystal and Alexis as seen on Dynasty episodes on Western TV channels or VHS cassettes rather than a political and civic desire to be able to have a greater say in the way they are governed.

As the GDR showed, the Wall meant everything to its existence. Once penetrated, it led to the downfall of the psychological distance. The same can be said of Israel. The only way that Israeli apathy towards the West Bank and moves towards peace can significantly change is if the Wall is breached and the West Bank makes its way to the streets of Tel Aviv again. With this contained, Israel is now more focused in stopping a greater threat - missiles, either conventional medium-range ones fired by Hizbollah from Southern Lebanon or nuclear ones from Iran. So these days, Iran is a closer threat psychologically than the West Bank or Gaza, but still sufficiently distant to not be an overwhelming concern.

But what if the Wall is to be breached? Wouldn't a long-lasting peace be a better alternative? Of course it would be. However there is one psychological wall that both sides to the Mid-East conflict have yet to conquer for that to happen - one that combines machismo and honour. Being a 'man' and defending one's honour is paramount to most males in the Middle East regardless of religion. Compromise is seen as a sign of weakness, which is something neither manly nor honourable. Only once this far deeper wall has been penetrated, and not just apathy, may we see any true change come to anywhere, let alone the Middle East.

By the way, figure out where the café is up top, and where these poor people live: West Bank or Israel?

CIA's 'Red Cell' Hypocrisy on Terror

From the Consortium News blog, by Robert Parry. Interesting reading about US government hypcocrisy about its role of exporting terrorism and harbouring terrorists. Remember, unlike Putin who was just a KGB agent, Bush senior actually headed the CIA!

The Central Intelligence Agency has scoffed at an internal memo that cites a few terrorist acts by some American citizens as possibly causing foreign nations to see the United States as an “exporter of terrorism.” The CIA notes that the paper came from its “red cell” analysts who are assigned to “think outside the box” to “provoke thought.”

However, what’s most striking about the secret three-page memo, dated Feb. 4 and disclosed by WikiLeaks last month, is how it reflects CIA self-censorship regarding the agency’s own long history of supporting acts of terror and protecting terrorists.

Cases of terrorism that implicate the CIA or its operatives, such as the blowing up of a Cubana airliner in 1976 or the arming of Nicaraguan contra rebels in the 1980s, are ignored by the “red cell” analysts even though many of the alleged perpetrators and their funders are still harbored in the United States – and include current and past U.S. government officials.

Yet, instead of citing these well-documented terrorism cases, the “red cell” memo references a few cases of individual Americans who have gone abroad and committed terrorist acts as well as some distant history of terrorism linked to U.S. immigrants.

The “red cell” memo notes that Irish-Americans have supported the Irish Republican Army back to the 19th Century. The analysis then skips to Zionist terrorist Baruch Goldstein, who murdered 29 Palestinians as they prayed at a mosque in Hebron in 1994.

In sketching this background, the analysts jump over a lot of blood-soaked history of CIA-connected terrorism. Though assigned to “think outside the box,” the “red cell” analysts apparently knew better than to open a can of worms that they might have found inside CIA’s document vaults.

So, instead of noting the obvious truth – that other countries might view the United States as “an exporter of terrorism” because the U.S. government and particularly the CIA have had a long history of exporting terrorism – the “red cell” analysts confine their study’s frame to some individual Americans with no connection to the U.S. government or the CIA.

Thus, terrorists who have ties to Official Washington are left outside the frame.

For instance, there is no mention of Luis Posada Carriles, the alleged right-wing Cuban mastermind of the bombing of a Cubana airliner that killed 73 people, nor to any of the former Nicaraguan contras who slaughtered civilians as part of a bloody campaign to destabilize the leftist Sandinista government. Yet, Posada and many ex-contras still openly live in or visit Miami.

The CIA files are surely filled with data about Posada and the contras because the CIA worked closely with and provided material support for them.

Not that self-censorship by the “red cells” is all that surprising. It’s been practiced by U.S. government officials and the Washington news media for decades now.

Otherwise, the American people would have been confronted with the uncomfortable reality that many esteemed U.S. government officials, including Republican icon Ronald Reagan and both Bush presidents, had their hands dipped in the blood of innocent victims of terrorism.

What if ex-President George W. Bush’s dictum – that a government that harbors or helps terrorists should be punished as severely as the terrorists themselves – were applied to the United States or even to his own family? Maybe the “red cell” should have asked that “out-of-the-box” question.

In other words, the U.S. political/media system – including these “red cell” analysts – continue to view the world through a cracked lens that focuses outrage on “enemy” regimes and groups while refracting away a comparable fury from similar actions by U.S. officials.

So, for instance, American officials, pundits and journalists rage against Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez for allegedly assisting Colombian guerrillas, but are getting ready for a year-long celebration of Reagan’s centennial birthday in 2011.

Yet, not only did Reagan arm the Nicaraguan contras, but he continued the covert war after the ruling Sandinistas won an election in 1984 that most outside observers praised as free and fair. He also wasn’t deterred by disclosures of the contras’ human rights abuses – kidnapping, raping, torturing and murdering civilians – even when those acts were acknowledged by some senior contra leaders.

Reagan was well aware of the contras’ cruelty (he privately called them “vandals” in a conversation with CIA officer Duane Clarridge), while he hailed them publicly as “freedom fighters” and equated them with America’s “Founding Fathers.”

Reagan kept arming the contras even after Congress ordered him to stop and the World Court denounced the CIA’s secret mining of Nicaragua’s harbors.

Reagan also backed vicious rebel forces in Angola and Afghanistan (including foreign Islamic fundamentalists who later coalesced into al-Qaeda), and he supported state terror against civilian populations in Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras, killing hundreds of thousands.

By any stretch of the imagination – if any other country had so brazenly violated international law and human rights standards – that government would be condemned by civilized nations and would be treated as a terrorist pariah.

But the vast majority of Republicans and many Democrats view Reagan as a political hero. In a ceremony last year, President Barack Obama feted former First Lady Nancy Reagan at the White House for the signing of a special law to commemorate Reagan’s 100th birthday.

To suggest that the late President was a war criminal or a sponsor of terrorism is unthinkable within the U.S. political mainstream.

Similarly, it is unacceptable to note how the Bush Family has protected Cuban-American terrorists – from 1976 when George H.W. Bush ran the CIA to 2008 when George W. Bush balked at extraditing Posada to stand trial in Venezuela. At times, the hypocrisy was staggering.

On May 2, 2008, more than six years into Bush-43’s “war on terror,” there was a remarkable scene in Miami as Posada, then 80, was feted at a gala fundraising dinner. Some 500 supporters chipped in to his legal defense fund.

Posada arrived to thundering applause. Then, in a bristling speech against the Castro regime in Cuba, Posada told his supporters, “We ask God to sharpen our machetes.”

Venezuela’s Ambassador the United States, Bernardo Alvarez, protested the Bush administration’s tolerance of the dinner. “This is outrageous, particularly because he kept talking about [more] violence,” the ambassador said.

Posada, a naturalized Venezuelan citizen who worked for Venezuela’s intelligence agency in the 1970s, masterminded the Cubana Airlines bombing in 1976, according to an overwhelming body of evidence compiled by the U.S. government and in South America.

Despite the strong evidence against Posada in U.S. government files, Florida Gov. Jeb Bush made little effort to capture Posada when he sneaked into Miami in 2005. Posada was detained only after he held a news conference.

Then, instead of extraditing Posada to Venezuela to stand trial for a terrorist mass murder, the Bush administration engaged in a lackadaisical effort to have him deported for lying on an immigration form.

During a 2007 court hearing in Texas, Bush administration lawyers allowed to go unchallenged testimony from a Posada friend that Posada would face torture if he were returned to Venezuela. The judge, therefore, barred Posada from being deported there.

After that ruling, Ambassador Alvarez accused the Bush administration of applying “a cynical double standard” in the “war on terror.” As for the claim that Venezuela practices torture, Alvarez said, “There isn’t a shred of evidence that Posada would be tortured in Venezuela.”

The kid-glove treatment of Posada and other right-wing Cuban terrorists stood in marked contrast to George W. Bush’s tough handling of Islamic militants. While Posada was afforded all U.S. legal protections and then some, suspected Islamic terrorists were locked away without trial at the U.S. military base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

In a further ironic twist, the Bush-43 administration allowed Venezuela to be smeared about torture while Bush and his top aides were concealing the fact that they had authorized extensive torture on suspected Islamic “terrorists,” including waterboarding, sleep deprivation and other brutal torture techniques at CIA “black sites.”

Posada also made no apologies for his long terrorist career. In 1998, in interviews with a New York Times reporter, Posada admitted a role in a wave of Havana bombings, citing a goal of frightening tourists away from Cuba.

Similarly, his alleged co-conspirator in the Cubana Airlines bombing, Orlando Bosch, showed no remorse for his violent past. In a TV interview with reporter Manuel Cao on Miami's Channel 41, Bosch justified the mid-air bombing that killed 73 people in 1976.

When Cao asked Bosch to comment on the civilians who died when the Cubana plane crashed off the coast of Barbados, Bosch responded, "In a war such as us Cubans who love liberty wage against the tyrant [Fidel Castro], you have to down planes, you have to sink ships, you have to be prepared to attack anything that is within your reach.”

“But don’t you feel a little bit for those who were killed there, for their families?” Cao asked.

“Who was on board that plane?” Bosch responded. “Four members of the Communist Party, five North Koreans, five Guyanese.” [Officials tallies actually put the Guyanese dead at 11.]

Bosch added, “Four members of the Communist Party, chico! Who was there? Our enemies…”

“And the fencers?” Cao asked about Cuba’s amateur fencing team that had just won gold, silver and bronze medals at a youth fencing competition in Caracas. “The young people on board?”

Bosch replied, “I was in Caracas. I saw the young girls on television. There were six of them. After the end of the competition, the leader of the six dedicated their triumph to the tyrant. … She gave a speech filled with praise for the tyrant.

“We had already agreed in Santo Domingo, that everyone who comes from Cuba to glorify the tyrant had to run the same risks as those men and women that fight alongside the tyranny.”

[The comment about Santo Domingo was an apparent reference to a meeting by a right-wing terrorist organization, CORU, which took place in the Dominican Republic in 1976 and which involved a CIA undercover asset.]

“If you ran into the family members who were killed in that plane, wouldn’t you think it difficult?” Cao asked.

“No, because in the end those who were there had to know that they were cooperating with the tyranny in Cuba,” Bosch answered.

Though Bosch and Posada have formally denied masterminding the Cubana Airlines bombing, Bosch’s incriminating statements and other evidence make the case of his and Posada’s guilt overwhelming.

Declassified U.S. documents show that soon after the Cubana plane was blown out of the sky on Oct. 6, 1976, the CIA, then under the direction of George H.W. Bush, identified Posada and Bosch as the masterminds of the bombing.

But in fall 1976, Bush’s boss, President Gerald Ford, was in a tight election battle with Democrat Jimmy Carter and the Ford administration wanted to keep intelligence scandals out of the newspapers. So Bush and other officials kept the lid on the investigations.

Still, inside the U.S. government, the facts were well known. According to a secret CIA cable dated Oct. 14, 1976, intelligence sources in Venezuela relayed information about the Cubana Airlines bombing that tied in Bosch, who had been visiting Venezuela, and Posada, who then served as a senior officer in Venezuela’s intelligence agency, DISIP.

The Oct. 14 cable said Bosch arrived in Venezuela in late September 1976 under the protection of Venezuelan President Carlos Andres Perez, a close Washington ally who assigned his intelligence adviser Orlando Garcia “to protect and assist Bosch during his stay in Venezuela.”

On his arrival, Bosch was met by Garcia and Posada, according to the report. Later, a fundraising dinner was held in Bosch’s honor. “A few days following the fund-raising dinner, Posada was overheard to say that, ‘we are going to hit a Cuban airplane,’ and that ‘Orlando has the details,’” the CIA report said.

“Following the 6 October [1976] Cubana Airline crash off the coast of Barbados, Bosch, Garcia and Posada agreed that it would be best for Bosch to leave Venezuela. Therefore, on 9 October, Posada and Garcia escorted Bosch to the Colombian border, where he crossed into Colombian territory.”

In South America, police began rounding up suspects. Two Cuban exiles, Hernan Ricardo and Freddy Lugo, who got off the Cubana plane in Barbados, confessed that they had planted the bomb. They named Bosch and Posada as the architects of the attack.

A search of Posada’s apartment in Venezuela turned up Cubana Airlines timetables and other incriminating documents.

Posada and Bosch were charged in Venezuela for the Cubana Airlines bombing, but the case soon became a political tug-of-war, since the suspects were in possession of sensitive Venezuelan government secrets that could embarrass President Andres Perez.

After President Reagan and Vice President George H.W. Bush took power in Washington in 1981, the momentum for fully unraveling the mysteries of anti-communist terrorist plots dissipated. The Cold War trumped any concern about right-wing terrorism.

In 1985, Posada escaped from a Venezuelan prison, reportedly with the help of Cuban-Americans. In his autobiography, Posada thanked Miami-based Cuban activist Jorge Mas Canosa for the $25,000 that was used to bribe guards who allowed Posada to walk out of prison.

Another Cuban exile who aided Posada was former CIA officer Felix Rodriguez, who was close to then-Vice President Bush. At the time, Rodriguez was handling secret supply shipments to the Nicaraguan contra rebels, a pet project of President Reagan.

After fleeing Venezuela, Posada joined Rodriguez in Central America and began using the code name “Ramon Medina.” Posada was assigned the job of paymaster for pilots in the White House-run contra-supply operation.

By the late 1980s, Orlando Bosch also was out of Venezuela’s jails and back in Miami. But Bosch, who had been implicated in about 30 violent attacks, was facing possible deportation by U.S. officials who warned that Washington couldn’t credibly lecture other countries about terrorism while protecting a terrorist like Bosch.

But Bosch got lucky. Jeb Bush, then an aspiring Florida politician, led a lobbying drive to prevent the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service from expelling Bosch. In 1990, the lobbying paid dividends when Jeb's dad, President George H.W. Bush, blocked proceedings against Bosch, letting the unapologetic terrorist stay in the United States.

In 1992, also during the Bush-41 presidency, the FBI interviewed Posada about the Iran-Contra scandal for 6 ½ hours at the U.S. Embassy in Honduras. Posada filled in some blanks about the role of Bush’s vice presidential office in the secret contra operation.

According to a 31-page summary of the FBI interview, Posada said Bush’s national security adviser, former CIA officer Donald Gregg, was in frequent contact with Felix Rodriguez.

“Posada … recalls that Rodriguez was always calling Gregg,” the FBI summary said. “Posada knows this because he’s the one who paid Rodriguez’ phone bill.” After the interview, the FBI agents let Posada walk out of the embassy to freedom.

The double standards on terrorism are now so deeply engrained in Official Washington that the well-established history of U.S. government officials collaborating with terrorists is not only kept “outside the box” of the city’s conventional wisdom but is ignored by the CIA's “red cell” analysts who are assigned to “think outside the box.”

So, the “red cell” analysts may take note of Irish-Americans filling coffee cans with cash for the IRA, dating back to the 1880s, and of individual Americans conducting outrages on their own, but the analysts know better than to look into their own agency’s files for the real reasons why foreigners might “see the United States as an ‘Exporter of Terrorism.’”

When all else fails, smear

I was wondering when they were going to sully Wikileaks founder, Julian Assange. It didn't take long. Apparently he raped in Sweden (where the Wikileaks server is located), so the news was splashed around the world. Apparently the charges have quietly been downgraded to 'molestation', but you only need to ask Michael Jackson's publicist that even if these accusations are not true, the damage done to image is itself more than enough. The thing I am most surprised is that 'they' didn't try to ping him with a paedophilia charge - a stigma no one can get over.

When I saw this news, it first reminded me of the supposed dirty tactics that those naughty 'un-democratic' countries use when they go after their dissidents. Anwar Ibrahim of Malaysia, for instance, the former right-hand man to Dr. Mahatir turned leading opposition leader has been facing constant court charges for sodomy, in a case which the Western media (rightfully) portray as a set-up to discredit and destroy the image of Malaysia's number one dissident. I also thought of the likes of former Yukos boss Mikhail Khodorkovskii in Russia who is in jail for tax evasion. The West make him to be a hero of democracy and a victim of trumped-up charges and misjustice when his charges are actually legitimate. The only thing in his case is that if Khodorkovskii is jailed for tax evasion, then so should all the rest of Russia's oligarchs. However, the Russian establishment showed that they have such dirt on all of Russia's rich and powerful so if they do try to rock the boat, it won't be hard to charge them with something. Essentially, what is happening with Assange is something we associate with a place like mean Russia, when yet again, the West does the same. This adds yet another example of malpractice that countries like Russia will use as an example of 'yeah, but we are only doing what you do' when levelled with some Western criticism about its supposed Soviet-style actions.

If this is an elaborate but ultimately poorly managed smear campaign by the CIA, well, they do forget or just plainly cannot see beyond a US political mindset in that what might constitute a career-destroying public humiliation in the US does not necessarily have the same dire consequences elsewhere. Sometimes it is quite the opposite. Case in point was the CIA in the 1960s seeking to destroy Indonesia's anti-imperialist first president Sukarno, at a time when his opposition to the West had earned him massive support at home as well as a budding relationship with the Soviet Union. The CIA thought capturing some images of Sukarno having sex with a woman who was not his wife and then distributing them would attract the scorn of Muslim Indonesia. Well who had egg on their face? The result was a huge disaster for the CIA as rather than creating a mass scandal, Sukarno's prowess as a guy getting the chicks led to his already massive popularity grow to even higher levels. Machismo beats Islam in Indonesia. With Assange's case, just the mere accusation of rape would have destroyed him in US circumstances, but elsewhere, the belief of innocent until proven guilt has a higher chance of prevailing, especially considering the rather murky circumstances these charges have been made and then quickly dropped. Still, I am sure some damage is done, if only the likes of Fox News will probably refer to him as an 'accused rapist' from now on.

The bottom line is that we are quick to judge supposedly repressive societies using dirty tricks and blackmail to control dissent, all in a smug sense of Western moral superiorty, when in actual fact the West uses the same tactics on its dissidents such as Julian Assange. This certainly puts a spotlight on whether we are truly 'free' as they would like us to believe?