Gaza Freedom March Faces Egyptian Repression

By Kevin Ovenden Viva Palestina Convoy Leader

Viva Palestina faced with 2,000 riot police in the port of Al-Arish!

To all friends of Palestine,
Our situation is now at a crisis point! Riot has broken out in the port of Al- Arish.
This late afternoon we were negotiating with a senior official from Cairo who left negotiations some two hours ago and did not return. Our negotiations with the official was regarding taking our aid vehicles into Gaza.
He left two hours ago and did not come back. Egyptian authorities called over 2,000 riot police who then moved towards our camp at the port.
We have now blocked the entrance to the port and we are now faced with riot police and water cannons and are determined to defend our vehicles and aid.
The Egyptian authorities have by their stubbornness and hostility towards the convoy, brought us to a crisis point.
We are now calling upon all friends of palestine to mount protests in person where possible, but by any means available to Egyptian representatives, consulates and Embassy’s and demand that the convoy are allowed a safe passage into Gaza tomorrow!

Christmas Message To PM Harper

The Great Helmsman
DEAR PM STEPHEN HARPER
I know that things haven't been going so good for you lately - what with all that communist hub-bub about so-called "global warming" and liberal whiners whining about the torture of our detainees in Afghanistan. Sheesh, haven't these people heard: there's a war on, moron. We have no right to second guess what our troops are doing over there - especially when you ordered them to do it and you were elected by, well, a lot of people voted for you anyway. So, who are these jerks to question you?
Anyway, since Christmas is coming and the year ended on such a poopy note for you, I just wanted to send you a season's greeting and tell you that your supporters are with you. We will follow you to the end of the earth and back. After all, yours is the first principled Canadian government in living memory and that's something worth celebrating. You have made it clear that in war there will be casualties, whether that is in Afghanistan or in Palestine. And anybody who criticizes the policies of your government or that of Israel's are traitors to democracy and must be silenced. So, bravo for taking away the $7 million in development funding that was going to KAIROS. They may not have said or did the things that Jason Kenney said that they did but they might have. And letting them off the hook for doing it will only encourage others to do the same thing. Next thing you know, they'll be teaching their garbage in our schools - all that nonsense about human rights as though our values of freedom, democracy and open markets should be sacrificed just because some TALIBAN or their Palestinian kin are riled up. Well, if you don't want your fingernails pulled out, your country bombed and foreign troops telling you what to do, you'll do what we tell you next time. Or maybe you should just leave, if you're in Palestine. After all, God promised the whole land of Israel to the Jews, like five thousand years ago, who are you "johnny-come-latelies" to question the ancient word of the Lord? If you hadn't converted to Islam in the 8th century, well, real Semites from Europe wouldn't be kicking you out - at least not for religious reasons.
Speaking of Jason Kenney, you may know that I gave some money to George Galloway's case against him for barring Galloway from entering the country earlier this year. I want you to know that I only did it because I think once the Canadian public hears how Galloway gave food and clothing and ambulances to those terrorists who live in the Gaza Strip, they'll understand why Kenney did what he did. And it will ensure that Canadians understand why we must stop "humanitarian" (ie. communist-islamist) aid for people we don't like in the future. The sooner everyone is like us, the sooner this world will be a better place. Wasn't that, after all, the message of Christ: do unto others as you would have them do unto you. It's right there in black and white - make other do as you say.

All the best this Xmas season and best of luck in the New Year, which will definitely start off much better if you prorogue Parliament till 2011 to shut up the "useful idiots" and Taliban sympathizers in the yapping Opposition and focus on what you do best: governing this great nation with decisive and firm leadership.

With love,
redbedhead

Predator Drone - $4 million. Insurgent Hacking Program - $25. Pentagon Embarrassment - Priceless

THE PENTAGON SPENDS CLOSE TO $1 TRILLION EVERY YEAR, between its regular budget and the money allocated to its various wars, policing operations, counterinsurgency programs and other murderous hobbies. They have an impressive array of super-duper-high-tech equipment to blow your mind - and blow your head off if you are an enemy of the United States of America. However, it seems that insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan were using a piece of $25 software, purchased off of the internet to intercept the video signals sent by Predator drones back to the remote pilots in the USA. This allowed them to see exactly what areas and people the deadly unmanned planes were surveying for attack. The US military is, of course, now fixing the problem but it could take a while: they have 600 of the $4 million vehicles.
Besides being a public embarrassment for the military, which is always a pleasure to see, this snafu is further demonstration that no matter how powerful the US military, it can never close all the gaps - gaps that a popular anti-colonial movement can take advantage of to the detriment of US/NATO occupying forces. This DIY resistance has been most powerfully felt, of course, in the widespread use of IED's - roadside bombs. While a leviathan like the USA can - and has - crushed popular movements in countries around the world, they are not invulnerable, especially where that movement has the support of broad swathes of the population.

Does The USA Want Civil War In Pakistan?

THE ANNOUNCEMENT THIS WEEK THAT THE OBAMA WHITE HOUSE is considering expanding drone strikes into the major Pakistani city of Quetta has exposed the faultlines in Obama's AfPak strategy. If it weren't clear before, it is becoming more so every day that the US pressure for more military action by Pakistan in more areas is fracturing Pakistan's institutions and threatening the stability of even the powerful army and intelligence service, the ISI.
Up till now, the US has focused its extremely unpopular unmanned drone attacks in the relatively rural areas of Pakistan's tribal areas, along the Afghan border. Already this year some 50 drone strikes have killed perhaps 500 people. And while the US claims that the vast majority of these were Taliban militants, independent press have been barred from these provinces, making verification impossible. Officially, Pakistan is opposed to this violation of its sovereignty, however, it is widely known that Pakistan is supplying the intelligence necessary to carry out the attacks.
This alone has stretched the US-Pakistan alliance but with the US attempt to meddle with the military/civilian balance of forces in Pakistan, popular hatred and official suspicion of US intentions has become intense. Earlier this year, the US passed an aid bill, the Kerry-Lugar Bill, to provide $7.5 billion over five years to Pakistan, though this was predicated on the military accepting a subordinate role in Pakistani political life. The military was less than happy with this and has since been carrying out a campaign to undermine Pakistan's president Zardari - with the latest phase being the elimination of the amnesty granted to politicians charged with corruption. Meanwhile, a few months ago when Secretary of State Clinton was in Pakistan on an official visit, she was taken aside by the military and it was explained to her which side the bread is buttered on in that country. She came away suggesting that she would use her power to water down the provisions relating to civilian rule in the bill. Military supremacy is clearly the price the US is paying to maintain the allegiance of the Pakistan Army.
If, however, the US thought that this would be sufficient to win the kind of carte blanche that they had with Zardari, they have received a rude awakening. The Pakistani military and ruling class have their own strategic goals in this, their native, region. It was this that Obama was referring to when he told news columnists on December 1 that "the most important thing that we can do in Pakistan is to change their strategic orientation." Roughly speaking, Pakistan sees its regional enemy as being India and its strategic goals in Afghanistan being rooted in a perspective of preventing India from gaining any foothold there. There is wide speculation that the real reason Abdullah Abdullah dropped out of the second round of the Afghan elections, when there was a decent chance of him winning, was because Pakistan saw him as being too close to India. From this similar perspective, Pakistan has no interest in smashing the Afghan Taliban or the Quetta-based Taliban shura (council), led by Mullah Omar. Omar has made it clear that the Afghan Taliban have no interest in interfering in Pakistan's internal affairs and are only focused on fighting the US/NATO occupation. Omar is clearly conceived of as an asset in any future Afghan government of national unity, which must involve the Taliban. Any attack by the US on the Quetta Shura will be seen by Pakistan's military and intelligence services as an attack on Pakistan's national interest. This also applies to US pressure on Pakistan to take on other "talibans" based in Pakistan, which seems to lack a recognition of the fundamental differences between the various tribal militias.

It is true that the Pakistan army is currently fighting the Taliban. But there are four Talibans in Pakistan, and their policies toward the Islamabad government range from hostile, to neutral, to friendly.
Pakistan's army has locked horns in South Waziristan with the Mehsud Taliban, the Taliban group that was recently driven out of the Swat Valley and that has launched a bombing campaign throughout the Punjab.
But the wing of the North Waziristan Taliban led by Hafiz Gul Bahadur has no quarrel with Islamabad and has kept clear of the fighting. Another South Waziristan Taliban, based in Wana and led by Mullah Nazir, is not involved in the fighting and considers itself an ally of the Pakistani government.
Washington wants Pakistan to go after the Afghan Taliban, led by Mullah Omar and based in Pakistan. But Omar has refused to lend any support to the Mehsud Taliban. "We are fighting the occupation forces in Afghanistan. We do not have any policy whatsoever to interfere in the matters of any other country," says Taliban spokesperson Qari Yousaf Ahmedi. "U.S. and other forces have attacked our land and our war is only against them. What is happening in Pakistan is none of our business."

While pressure on Pakistan to go after other talibans may not be successful in achieving their aim in this regards, it is putting a serious strain on the US-Pakistan relationship. And there is some suggestion that it is putting a strain on the Pakistani security institutions themselves. It was the ISI, after all, that helped to create the Afghan Taliban and was its client throughout the 1990s. Significant elements are resentful of US demands to dismantle this carefully constructed edifice, which, it is felt, will weaken Pakistan's position vis a vis India. Based upon Obama's point above, the US wants to apply just enough pressure to Pakistan that it sees its strategic interests being rooted in aligning with American goals. Unfortunately for the Americans, the Pakistani elite are only too aware of the fickle nature of alliances with the US based upon their behaviour during and after the Afghan-Soviet war in the 1980s. As an article in the Long War Journal notes:

Pakistani officials claimed the US timeline on the Afghan 'surge' and Pakistan's desire to keep Mullah Omar and the Haqqanis as strategic depth against India and other actors in Afghanistan account for the intransigence. But US military and intelligence officials said Pakistan's military brass also fears acting against the Haqqanis and Mullah Army will fracture the services.
"Even if he wanted to moved against Haqqani, I think General Kiyani is concerned the moved will spark the nationalists elements of the Army and ISI [the Inter-Services Intelligence] to side with the pro-Islamists, and spark a civil war within the military," the official said.
There is already a low-grade conflict within the military and intelligence services over the Pakistani Army's move against the Mehsud branch of the Taliban in South Waziristan and the tribal areas.
"The reality is the Taliban have been able to successfully conduct attacks against secured targets, particularly GHQ [Army General headquarters] in Rawalpindi, because they've had inside help," the official continued. "The military at least can say the TTP [the Movement of the Taliban in Pakistan led by Hakeemullah Mehsud] is conducting attacks against Pakistan; Kiyani can't make that argument with the Haqqanis or the Quetta Shura. It would be a bridge too far."

One expression of this "low-grade" conflict within the military and intelligence services can be seen from the recent reports of the treatment of US diplomatic personnel. Over a 100 diplomatic personnel have seen their requests for visas or visa extensions turned down - an unprecedented act. This means that there are now no US helicopter mechanics in Pakistan to service US built helicopters presently being used for counter-insurgency operations. It also means that $1 billion in US payments to Pakistan for counter-insurgency operations have not been processed because all of the US accountants attached to the embassy have been forced to leave. There are also widespread reports of harassment, including extensive searches of vehicles, usually a diplomatic no-no.

The harassment has grown so frequent that American officials said they regarded it as a concerted effort by parts of the military and intelligence services that had grown resentful of American demands to step up the war against the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Pakistan’s tribal areas.
Though the United States has been sending large amounts of military assistance to the Pakistani Army, and helping its premier spy agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence directorate, the campaign shows the ambivalence, even “hatred” toward the United States in those quarters, the American official said.

If the Americans go ahead an unilaterally begin operations in Quetta, or expand operations elsewhere, this low level conflict could begin to break into the open. The two drone attacks that killed up to 20 people in North Waziristan on Thursday indicate that Obama - who has dramatically increased such attacks since being elected - intends to move forward with this strategy. With a decent possibility that President Zardari will be gone in the near future, from the president's office it not from the country itself, and with another 8,000 politicians facing corruption charges, there is also the possibility that the shift in balance towards open military rule could also open up fractures, as elements see this shift as an opportunity to exert more independence from American demands.
Into this volatile mixture must also be placed the difficult situation of the Pakistani economy, which has had to take an $11 billion IMF loan this year and which has seen foreign investment drop by almost 26 percent - foreign direct investment fell by 52 percent. The country is mired in stagnant growth at a time of civil war in South Waziristan - leading to the largest population displacements since Partition - with intense bombing campaigns in the cities, an unpopular government and rising anti-US sentiment. With all these elements in place for an explosion, one can only wonder if the White House wants Pakistan to fracture or if they are utterly stupid.

Is Copenhagen A Flop?

This excellent post was originally on lenin's tomb, from where I shamelessly stole it.

FROM SUMMIT TO NADIR SO QUICKLY? Copenhagen was, according to the most powerful state leaders represented at it, flop from the beginning. Obama said so, and he wouldn't lie to me. But not only is Copenhagen almost a complete waste of time as far as securing real measures to prevent climate change are concerned. Even the most ambitious rhetoric doesn't address the reality of the reforms required. Gordon Brown claims that he wants to reduce carbon emissions by 30% from 1990 levels by 2020. He does not appear to be taking any measures, unilaterally or multilaterally, to actually accomplish such a reduction. But perhaps he doesn't have to do too much. This is in part because, as George Monbiot points out, 'carbon offsetting' is factored into the overall target - so, the UK may continue to expand its polluting industries, particularly air travel, and will purchase carbon credits from other countries.
Based on the current arrangements, that means that the poorest countries, would have to sell so many carbon credits that they would end up reducing their total carbon emissions by 60% while the richer countries reduce theirs by only 40%. This limits the development capacities of those nations in need of development, while placing the burden of climate reform on those least responsible for the greenhouse gas effect. Quite aside from the issue of justice, the current targets agreed by the G8 countries currently dominating discussions in Copenhagen would not actually reduce carbon emissions enough to prevent global temperatures rising by 2 degrees - which itself may not be the best target anyway. Recall that a recent IPCC report predicted that 20-30% of animal and plant species may end up extinct if global average temperatures exceed 1.5 degrees above the levels of the late twentieth century. This would in itself be a catastrophic shock to the ecosystem upon which we appear to depend. And if the temperature does rise by more than 2 degrees, then the likelihood of 60% of the populated surface of the earth being flooded does rise substantially.
But the summit is also, if the 'Danish text' is any guide, the means by which the representatives of wealthy capitalist nation-states will further assert their dominance over the poor. More power is to be accumulated by the rich countries, and unequal limits on carbon emissions are to be imposed. These efforts have already resulted in a brief rebellion by African countries at the talks, who say that the rich countries are trying to overthrow Kyoto. The text also allows for developed countries to derive targets based on their own standards, rather than basing them on the science. Now, some commentators say that the release of such a draft document is not all that significant, that the circulation of these proposals is part of the drama of international negotiations, but that it does not necessarily preclude a more hopeful outcome to the talks. But the coincidence between the interests of the most powerful states at the summit and the measures vaunted in the text drafted at the COP suggests that something like the 'Danish text' will be the end result any way.
Now, I know what you're saying. There is nothing to worry about. The leaked e-mails from leading climatologists show that climate change is a fraud, and that global temperatures have actually declined. David Davis says so. Well, the good news is that the world's climate scientists are not engaged in an international conspiracy to defraud the public. The climate 'sceptics' are whistling dixie. Here's an effective debunking:



The bad news is, that means there is still the whole species-death thing to worry about, though the PR industry is still working assiduously to put your mind at ease on this score. Even worse news follows. Capitalism is a system of competitive accumulation and, as such, is a perpetual growth machine. The rate at which the system grows in normal circumstances has already taxed the earth's life-support systems to the limit. The effects of the amount of carbon already pumped into the atmosphere have not yet fed through the ecological systems that we depend on, meaning that we have probably already guaranteed ourselves a much more difficult - and for some, potentially unliveable - future on the planet.