The West's 'double standards' in Middle East

Support for Bahraini government's crackdown on protests is a paradox as West supports Libyan rebels, activist argues.

On March 14, Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa, King of Bahrain, invited Saudi Arabia and other GCC forces into his tiny island kingdom to aid a crackdown on pro-democracy protests that had been going already for precisely one month.

The protests, launched on February 14 to coincided with the tenth anniversary of the King's issuance of the "National Action Charter", a text that was supposed to lead his country towards greater democracy. But the terms were subsequently betrayed by the King, leaving the parliamentary system he established with little power actually to enact laws and shape the country's political future.

The non-violent spirit of the protesters was very much in line with that of the Egyptian pro-democracy movement that only days earlier had managed to remove Hosni Mubarak from power.

Protests had in fact begun last year, before Egypt and Tunisia exploded, surrounding the October 2010 parliamentary elections.

One month later, Egypt's vote saw the government arrest prominent human rights activists and according to observers, move the country back towards the days of "full blown authoritarianism". It seems the Egyptian government was over-confident about its ability to more or less openly suppress a fair vote, and in response the political consciousness of the people was heightened rather than further beaten down.

An assessment one month in

One month into the uprising in Bahrain, the warnings of last fall have come to fruition. Bahrain has returned to absolutist rule, with the King declaring martial law a few days after the Saudis entered the country.

Aside from violently clearing out and even destroying Pearl Roundabout, the symbol of the protests, the crackdown has been noticeable for three factors.

The first is the fact that the government forces have taken over hospitals and prevented them from being used by injured protesters.

This move is clearly a violation of international human rights law, but it had the intended effect: major protests leaders have decided that further large scale protests were to dangerous to hold, considering that people shot or otherwise harmed by government forces would not be able to receive medical attention, likely leading to an unacceptably high number of deaths.

Second, the government has attempted to arrest leading human rights and pro-democracy activists, with the goal of silencing those with the best ability to document ongoing abuses and relay the information to the outside world.

Finally, the United States and other Western countries have clearly thrown their support behind the government, refusing to go beyond mild rebukes against the government-initiated violence, even though they have thrown their full military weight behind the Libyan rebels.

"This is the situation we're facing," explained Nabeel Rajab, President of the Bahrain Centre for Human Rights.

"We are not only facing a regime and neighbouring powers, but American influence as well. They either do not want to see change or only slight changes that do not give people real democracy because the monarchy might lose power. Everyone sees the US double standards very clearly now. They see Gaddafi hitting people and the US strike back. But here they even bring in foreign armies who don't believe in democracy and killing people on streets and the US does nothing. It is a big mistake the Americans are making, losing people, losing the faith of the streets."

Rajab has good reason to be angry, although he speaks with an equanimity utterly at odds with the fact that only days before we talked he had been arrested, beaten and threatened with death by security forces.

"They came at 1 am at night and knocked on my door, then my father's door and by the time I came downstairs after my wife called me, they already broke into my father's house and almost broke into mine. 25 masked men in civilian dress came in and she thought they were mercenaries coming to assassinate me. But I saw the government cars outside the window. I asked if they would wait till I took my sleeping daughter out of our bedroom before searching it but they burst in and she woke up to them and me handcuffed. They took everyone's laptops and cartons of papers, blindfolded me and pushed me into the back of a four-wheel drive car.

"And the moment I was in a car they started treating me worse. They started using sectarian abuse, saying I'm Shia, and then started beating me in the car while saying things like: 'we will rape you and kill you now'. They seemed to be looking for other activists but did not find them and ultimately they took me in another car to the Investigation Directorate of the Ministry of Interior. A senior agent asked me if I knew someone with a gun, and I replied that I did not and that I do not know anyone with a gun and believe we should not use guns because the protests. And with that, the man told the other agents to give me my things and take me back home."

A 'Shabak education'?

In Israel proper Palestinian friends of mine have a term for this kind of ordeal, a "Shabak education". It is when the Shin Bet, or internal intelligence services, take Palestinian citizens, rough them up and threaten them, not as a precursor to longer detention, but rather to let them know who is boss, and remind them what could happen to them if the state decided to get really tough.

Egypt's recently disbanded state security services had a similar modus operandi, as do most of the internal security services across the region.

But it is not stopping Rajab or his allies, although, as he pointed out, almost all of them are now in hiding. "I'm the only one still at home," he explained.

Bahrain, apparently, would not be hospitable place for gun-loving Americans.

"We do not have a culture of guns. We have people my age who have never had guns except royal family and those close to them. Only thugs from government have guns. But most important, everyone believes that fighting the government would be a losing battle, they have tanks and machine guns. But if we remain peaceful a lot of people will support our goal and work. By carrying flowers and giving them to the army, even though most of the soldiers are from outside Bahrain, we can achieve our goal, even if we lose a lot of people along the way."

A negative precedent?

Places on earth, if you are to believe the standard media portrait of the country, protests have remained largely peaceful despite mass killings by government forces.

It is very hard to sit in the distance, removed from such attacks, and criticise citizens who decide they have no choice but to resort to violent insurrection when their government has decided to kill them wholesale. However, the reality is that without foreign NATO intervention, Gaddafi would probably have succeeded in unleashing a far greater wave of death against them suggests that their calculus, however understandable, might have been fatally flawed.

I also wonder whether the reason Western allies have been forced into this situation in Libya is not because Obama and his colleagues refused to come out strongly and from the start in support of all the pro-democracy protests across the Middle East and North Africa (and while we are at it, has Obama and the West forgotten about the equally murderous repression in Cote d'Ivoire? Or do black Africans killing each other still not matter to Americans, even to the son of an African? Don't they deserve a no-fly zone too?)

By not setting a clear agenda for democratisation, laying out a series of measures – the "allies" – as they are calling themselves with respect to Libya – would punish any and all governments that did not begin serious processes of democratisation (not "reform," as Hillary Clinton loved to say, but democratisation, with a capital D) and at the same time declaring that the West would not support armed uprisings.

Did the US and Europeans not open the door for precisely a situation in which protesters would have an incentive to move towards violence in response to government violence, hoping that the West would intervene if the situation got desperate enough?

Such questions do not suggest that the Libyan uprising is unjustified; it is very hard for an outsider to make such a judgement.

But most advocates of non-violent struggle argue that moving to violence, however understandable, usually leads to far more casualties against protesters than staying the course.

Had the world been prepared for Gaddafi's repression and had a clear cut and robust system in place to punish him and other leaders who use such violence, we have to ask whether it could have helped prevent the present situation.

And if Western assistance helps topple Gaddafi, might not Syrians rationally choose a similar path against their government's repression, given the long-standing American opposition to the Baathist regime.

Charges of hypocrisy

As it happens, in Bahrain, where the movement refuses to move towards violence so far, things have only gotten worse since the crackdown. Rajab declared with a hint of exasperation:

"More people died and injured. The gap between the ruling elite and the people is getting wider and wider. The government is trying hard to incite sectarianism, frightening both Bahraini Sunnis and neighbouring countries, which is why they sent troops to Bahrain. Indeed, by refusing to take a strong stand, did the US not open the way for the Saudis to take control of the situation for their interests. Look, the Bahrainis could have used their own police, not even the army, just the police, to stop this, because we were peaceful."

But they brought in the Saudis and GCC specifically to regionalise the conflict and raise the stakes. As he reminded me, the Bahraini Shias have always been hostage to this regional conflict between Iran and the Saudi-American axis.

"Now we are paying price of the growing power of Iran because America will be silent on the crackdown when it is defined as combating Iranian power."

Rajab also feels, as many do many Bahraini pro-democracy and their supporters, that Al Jazeera has not done enough to cover the protests, a dynamic which proved so important in increasing support for protesters in Tunisia and Egypt.

"Frankly, Al Jazeera has not even called me one time. I have talked to everyone else. They will bring only non-government people acceptable to the the government."

Rajab argues that the Bahraini government pressured the Qataris into avoiding too much coverage, especially on the Arabic channel.

I cannot verify this claim, but I can say that in a segment on this week's Al-Jazeera English program Listening Post in which I participated addressing this issue several guests made similar arguments.

So presence not the issue:

If Bahrainis see US support for the government has helping the crackdown, why don't Bahrainis protest against the US Embassy and troop presence?

Of course, this is precisely the problem. The US has little use for a military base it can not use however it wants.

Given the choice between a pliant authoritarian government that does not complain (too loudly) if the US uses its bases for military missions against other countries, or a democracy that would prohibit this, the US will naturally choose the former.

Similarly, when the King hears that most protesters do not want to overthrow the monarchy but rather create a constitutional system where most power is in the hands of the legislature, it is hard to blame him for wondering what the difference would be from his perspective.

In the end democracy is a zero-sum game. You can not really have a little, or some, because as long as non-democratic elements have a foothold they will use it to corrupt and control the system even if the formal shell of democracy remains.

This is precisely what has happened in the United States today, why its political system has become so dysfunctional. And it's what is happening in Egypt already only weeks after Mubarak's resignation, and according to Tunisian friends, what is starting to happen there as well.

And Bahrain is no different, which is why protesters are insisting on a full democratisation - something that cannot be reconciled with either the King's or the Americans' interests as presently defined.

What can be done?

The pro-democracy movement in Bahrain is trying to hold it's own, but there is little it can do at the moment. "It's powerless," Rajab explained.

But in his mind the government has not acted wisely.

"They could have met some key demands a month ago. We have always been ruled with tribal mentality - if you give people something they will always demand more so don't give them anything, just hit them hard. But you can not silence people anymore, especially as they see others achieve goal like in Egypt. Bahrainis will not be silent anymore, it is done, finished."

Rajab was very clear about why this is not on the pro-democracy movement's agenda, despite well-justified anger at American hypocrisy in this conflict.

"America is not our issue, your presence is not our issue. Even the opposition has declared the intention to uphold any existing agreements. No one has a problem with US there, but not if you're using our bases to fight Iraq or Lebanon or Iran. No one will accept killing people from neighbouring countries from Bahrain."

As Syria, Jordan and even Morocco see protests that are turning increasingly deadly, the era of the authoritarian bargain in the Middle East is clearly over.

What replaces it across the region has become the most compelling question in global politics today.

Courtesy:

Mark LeVine

http://english.aljazeera.net

Mourn and Organize:The Triangle Fire at 100

MOVEMENTS FOR justice must sometimes savor bitter fruit. Labor history tells the story of company goons and attacks on workers that catalyzed movements for justice. May Day, for instance, recalls the bloody Haymarket affair. And each March 25 in Greenwich Village, in front of a building that now houses the New York University chemistry department, people remember the 146 deaths at the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire and resolve to keep fighting.

There’s a tendency to recall tragedies like the Triangle fire in a way that suggests that good came from them. We should resist such simplifications. While our corporate Hollywood culture looks for happy endings, quick resolutions, and assurances that the good guys always win, the rest of us can recognize a harder, more clear-eyed reality. As the hundredth anniversary of the Triangle fire approaches this month, we can bear in mind what working-class movements have understood and Republicans continue to deny today: that working people, immigrants, and unions are the source of prosperity, growth, and stability, and that all of those are threatened by capitalists and retrograde political officials. Unlike the easy victories in a morality tale, looking back at the Triangle fire brings us face to face with more difficult truths.

THE TRIANGLE Shirtwaist Factory was a large garment shop on the top floors of a ten-story loft building. Just before closing time on Saturday, March 25, 1911, a fire broke out on the eighth floor. It spread rapidly through the room piled high with fabric, scraps, and clothing and engulfed the ninth and tenth floors. Desperate workers tried to flee, but the owners had locked some doors to stop workers from getting out during the workday. The fire escape quickly collapsed. Others tried to escape on the elevator, but the heat soon warped the elevators tracks, rendering it unusable. Law students from the adjoining New York University building helped some fifty workers climb from the rooftop of the factory to theirs, but most workers were trapped. In little more than fifteen minutes, 146 people were killed. The victims were mainly immigrant women, many from Russian-Jewish families.

I remember being horrified, as a child visiting a museum exhibit about the fire, when I read this journalist’s description:

I saw every feature of the tragedy visible from outside the building…I learned a new sound—a more horrible sound than description can picture. It was the thud of a speeding living body on a stone sidewalk.

Thud-dead, thud-dead, thud-dead, thud-dead…

The first two thud-deads shocked me. I looked up—saw there were scores of girls at the windows. The flames from the floors below were beating in their faces…

I even watched one girl falling. Waving her arms, trying to keep her body upright until the very instant she struck the sidewalk, she was trying to balance herself. Then came the thud—then a silent unmoving pile of clothing and twisted, broken limbs…

As I looked up I saw a love affair in the midst of all the horror. A young man helped a girl to the window sill. Then he held her out, deliberately away from the building, and let her drop...He held out a second girl the same way and let her drop. Then he held out a third girl...They were as unresisting as if he were helping them onto a streetcar instead of into eternity.

Then came the love amid the flames. He brought another girl to the window. Those of us who were looking saw her put her arms around him and kiss him. Then he held her out into space and dropped her. But quick as a flash he was on the window sill himself. His coat fluttered upward—the air filled his trouser legs. I could see that he wore tan shoes and hose. His hat remained on his head.

The image of people jumping to their own deaths shocked me then, and I thought of it ninety years after the Triangle fire when people in the World Trade Center took the same gruesome step.

THE DIFFICULT truth of the Triangle fire is that while such events galvanize movements, they don’t promise cathartic victory.

Justice never reached the factory’s owners. Garment workers had gone on a citywide strike a year before the fire seeking union recognition and improved conditions, but had been defeated by the stubborn resistance (and the violent thugs) led by Max Blanck and Isaac Harris, the very men who owned the Triangle factory. At the time of the fire, it was already illegal to lock exits. But Blanck and Harris were acquitted of responsibility for the fire, inadequate fire escapes, and locked factory doors. Nor were they chastened by the deaths of so many of their employees; two years later, Blank was found guilty ofonce again locking fire doors in his new factory. The two fought every wrongful death lawsuit brought against them for the Triangle fire. And though they collected insurance payments totaling more than $400 per worker who died, they settled with twenty-three families for an average of only $75 for each victim. (For more information about the fire and the workers, as well as information on commemorations in New York City, visit the website of the Remember the Triangle Fire Coalition.)

The fire catalyzed the growth of garment unions, but pressure to institute workplace safety regulations was stymied by business owners who made arguments, still familiar, that government should not (and cannot) regulate private industry. Just as we witness when crises strike today (whether the Arizona shooting or the budget crisis), even in extreme situations, opponents of labor movements (or gun control or corporate regulation) are not swayed. Movements convince some, but never convert everyone, and win only if they outmaneuver their opponents.

Often, the Triangle fire is presented as a starting point. Frances Perkins, a progressive New York activist, happened to witness the Triangle fire firsthand. Eventually, Perkins and a generation galvanized by the fire pushed the state to institute better workplace regulations. When she was named U.S. Secretary of Labor under President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, reformers were able to introduce similar regulations nationwide.

But presenting the Triangle fire as a narrative of redemptive reform succumbs to the telescopic distortion of time that can occur in historical accounts. The fire happened in 1911. Perkins wasn’t appointed as secretary of labor until 1933. Although Perkins lobbied successfully for reform at the state level, locked fire exits had already been illegal. For twenty-two years after the fire, no real national action was taken.

Delays dilute the meaningfulness of reform. The Triangle deaths were emblematic of the dangers immigrant workers encountered in the rapidly industrializing American economy, but by the time those conditions were addressed, the historic wave of immigrants of which the Triangle seamstresses had been a part had been choked off. By 1927, increasing anti-immigrant sentiment had crystallized in a bill virtually ending immigration. (The borders’ closure would last until 1965.)

In remembering Triangle, I resist the temptation to take a long view of things. Nonetheless, the dim light in which the nadir of Triangle occurred—a period when Blanck and Harris could lock their workers in fire traps with impunity, hire thugs to beat down efforts to organize unions, and pay whatever pittance they could get away with—was indeed the dawn of improvements in labor conditions and unionization that have not been equaled in a long time.

I thought about Triangle—without forgetting that it was too little, too late—when listening to a colleague at a union meeting, fresh back from the front lines of the Wisconsin sit-in to defend labor rights. To me the event had been so depressing I could barely watch. Like a serial killer stalking through the house, corporate power had first strangled private sector unions, and now had turned to throttle the life out of public sector unions. I was nominated to the slate of my own union’s progressive caucus, only half-jesting that I wanted to be involved with a union while they still existed. Yet as people came back from Wisconsin, their reports were qualitatively different. It felt like a beginning. It was inspiring. It felt powerful.

I would take little comfort from the two-decade march from Triangle to reform were the current situation not so grim. Rather than representing the end, the current assault could be another nadir. Activists in Wisconsin have inspired many of us, just as the women who went to work March 25, 1911 motivated a generation. Despite a lifetime of pervasive anti-union propaganda, the largely non-unionized public remains on the side of unionized public workers. Labor activists have known for years that we desperately need to increase union membership, not just for the unions themselves, but for the broad benefits a society gains from high rates of membership in democratic workplace organizations with a commitment to the conditions of working-class people.

TRIANGLE HAD had stood for decades as the worst industrial fire in history. But that distinction was erased in the era of recent globalization. The most direct analogies to the Triangle fire today most often occur in Asia and are largely ignored in the United States. In 1991 more than eighty people were killed in a fire in Dongguan, China. In 1993, sixty women died in a fire in Fuzhou Province; many suffocated in their dormitory beds from the fumes of burning textiles. To these deaths were added those from the Kader toy factory fire in Thailand on May 10, 1993. Kader’s death toll surpassed Triangle: 188 people were killed, largely young women who had migrated to the industrial area. Once again exit doors were locked. There were calls for improved fire regulation, and despair that little change would result. The brutality continued unabated. Six months after the Kader fire, eighty-four women were killed in a toy factory fire in Shenzhen, China.

I’ve often thought the full text of the famous aphorism should be, Never again, and again, and again. On February 25, 2010, twenty-one workers were killed in the Garib & Garib Sweater Factory fire in the Dhaka region of Bangladesh. The workers sewed clothes for H&M and other retailers. Workers perished in the smoke from huge heaps of fabric because, as at the Triangle Factory, doors were locked. Families of the victimswere paid $2,800—shamefully consistent with the payments made to families of Triangle victims (which would total about $2,000 in current dollars). Something to think about the next time you marvel at how H&M can sell such stylish clothes for such low prices.

Just this past December, twenty-six workers were killed and over 100 injured in the Ha-Meem factory fire in Bangladesh. In yet more echoes of the Triangle fire, the blaze began on the ninth floor and quickly spread to the tenth. Witnesses said four of the seven exits were locked. Workers couldn’t make it down the crowded stairways. The heat and flames drove all but three of those who died to jump from the windows.

The Triangle fire was never extinguished. It continues to burn just as destructively today. The fire spreads each time garment factories move to a new low-wage location. Despite the dangers to workers in Bangladesh, more factories are rushing in. Difficult as it is to believe in an era when everything seems to be made in China, the latest reports are that manufacturers are leaving China for lower-wage locations. Coach, for example, the manufacturer of women’s luxury handbags, recently announced plans to shift some production from China to India. The second-largest women’s clothing company in Germany is shifting production to Vietnam, Bangladesh, and North Korea. While workers in southern China make a scant $235 per month, an article in the business press enticed its readers with reports that workers in Jakarta, Indonesia make only $148. Those in Vietnam’s capital are paid only $100. Workers in Dhaka, Bangladesh, site of the Garib & Garib fire, earn an average of only $47 per month. Workers at the Triangle Factory earned between $.50 and $3 per day. Incredible as it sounds, that means that garment workers today are paid less than women who perished at the Triangle fire—not after accounting for a hundred years of inflation, but in the actual, nominal dollar value they see on their pay stubs.

With attacks against the U.S. unions that have made workplaces here safer, and with conditions in other countries that reproduce the conditions at the Triangle Factory with numbing fidelity, the difficult truth is that a century after the fire, labor still has no sure footing. And so we have fought—not because we’re going to win, but because of what capitalists and their political cronies have done to us already, and will continue to do to us if we don’t fight. If the arc of the universe tilts toward justice, it is only because we bend it that way.

Greg Smithsimon is assistant professor of sociology at Brooklyn College, CUNY.

Source:http://www.dissentmagazine.org/

Defend The Rights of The Libyan People

Mission Creep

by Marwan Bishara Why the opposition regarding NATO taking charge of the Libya operation? In short, non-Western international powers distrust the Western military alliance. BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India and China) and South Africa within IBSA's southern democracies (India, Brazil and South Africa) have all voiced concerns and outright objections. They reckon that Western powers are exploiting Arab and international support for the international no-fly zone to expand the alliance's role and mission in the future beyond its core mission of defending Europe. They specifically oppose the notion of NATO becoming de facto the UN Security Council enforcer. Moreover, like the Arab League, these powers worry that NATO members have gone beyond the UN mandate, and that the likes of France and the UK would probably go further if not put in check. They suspect NATO is redefining the Libyan mission and implementing it beyond its original no-fly zone objectives, or what has been commonly referred to in strategic affairs as "mission creep". President Obama's insistence that 'Gaddafi must go' and president Sarkozy's de facto recognition of the 'Libyan Transitional Council' have added fuel to worries that NATO members are going beyond protecting civilians to regime change. Whichever way the new NATO command goes, it will be under a US commander and will be heavily dependent on US military hardware and software. From a less political and more historical perspective, opposition to NATO's handling of Libya draws on a long record of failures of the use of force to affect positive, constructive or democratic change in a given country. And what about the confusion or opposition within NATO? In the absence of imminent danger against the alliance's territories, one should not expect its 28 democracies with different national priorities to agree on the specifics of NATO's military intervention in a foreign country. This is especially the case when its two European nuclear powers, France and the UK, pull ahead and expect the rest to follow in their stead and cheer. Even after the 28 members agreed to NATO's unified command, the alliance's secretary-general, Andres Fogh Rasmussen, said on Thursday that for the time being the Libya operation would be handled by both NATO and the coalition and that no final decision has been reached yet on exclusive NATO command. In other words, there are not two parallel military campaigns, that of NATO and the coalition of the willing! There is suspicion that the likes of Sarkozy and Cameron are motivated by cynical political and economic calculations, and strategically seek greater roles for their countries in future European defence. Indeed, the French president has insisted on unconstrained military action within a 'coalition of the willing' to implement UNSC resolution 1973. On the other hand, while agreeing grudgingly to unified NATO command of the Libya operation, the Turks and the Germans are wary of the lack of clear strategic objectives and an exit strategy. They also expect more expanded and less subjective political oversight for the NATO operations. Since their summit in Lisbon in the Autumn, NATO members have struggled to redefine their alliance beyond its Cold War posture to include the 'right to intervene' or 'right to protect' in cases of war crimes or crimes against humanity, such as genocide etc. But even on this front, many within Europe oppose large scale military intervention in Libya in the absence of serious war crimes, threats against Benghazi notwithstanding. I spoke twice to NATO's Rasmussen since the Lisbon summit, and it is clear to me that the more he stressed clarity or unity on the part of NATO, he seemed to conceal disagreements or at least varied and nuanced priorities within the alliance. What does all this mean to Libya? After six days of bombing, the Gaddafi forces have been seriously hampered, but the balance of power on the ground is yet to be reversed. Meanwhile, the Libyan revolutionaries continue to fight bravely despite the superiority of the regime's firepower. Their high spirits and readiness to sacrifice continues to make up for their military inferiority. As highly paid mercenaries and well armed militias confront highly motivated rebels ready to sacrifice all including their lives, history tells us the latter is bound to win, if not sooner, then later. Remember, while armed militias fight out of loyalty to a despotic leader, patriots sacrifice for their country and its freedom. Arming the latter could reverse the balance of power in no time and perhaps ending the Gaddafi regime. Concerns that Libya could descend into civil war or become dependent client state are legitimate in light of the Western military intervention. But it's up to the Libyans to reject any such notion of dependency in the future, and for the new democracies flourishing around them to support their collective rights for free self determination from neo- colonial influence. Unlike dictatorships, democracies tend to be less prone to clientalism. No 'I-owe-you's have gone out and no receipts or down payments have been issued to Western powers thus far by the Transtional National Council that we know of, and it could and should remain that way. As the Libyans go to Addis Ababa at the invitation of the African Union that has long voiced its concerns of Western intervention, political or diplomatic efforts should concentrate on ending the Libyan suffering sooner rather than later. The end game hasn't change. Gaddafi must go. Not because Obama said it, rather because as the Arab revolution puts it, "the people want to bring down the regime". Source: http://english.aljazeera.net

UPA= United Partners of America!

It Is Now In Black and White- In The Words of Manmohan Singh’s Beloved American Masters!

Wikileaks Cable Show How UPA Subjugated India’s Sovereignty To US Dikatats!

US Agent UPA Government Must Quit Immediately!

The leaked Radia tapes revealed how corporate houses control crucial decisions made by the Central government, and exposed several UPA Ministers as corporate appointees. Now, US embassy cables leaked by the whistleblower website Wikileaks have revealed clear evidence of the lengths to which the US monitors and influences the functioning of Government and Parliament. Not only have Cabinet appointments been tailored by the Manmohan Singh Government to suit US interests, the Congress party even spent crores of cash to buy MPs’ votes during the Nuke Deal trust vote, with the collusion and approval of US representatives.

Cabinet Reshuffle According to US Desire

A U.S. Embassy cable dated January 30, 2006 sent by Ambassador David C. Mulford to Washington observed that in January 2006, the Manmohan Singh Government appointed Murli Deora (described by the Ambassador as “pro-US” ) as Petroleum Minister, removing Mani Shankar Aiyar, who is described as a “contentious and outspoken Iran pipeline advocate”. Mulford adds that “The UPA inducted a large number of serving MPs (among them Deora), including seven from the IUPF (Indo-US Parliamentary Forum) who have publicly associated themselves with our strategic partnership.” Mulford therefore concludes approvingly that the Cabinet reshuffle is “likely to be excellent for US goals in India (and Iran),” signifies the Manmohan Singh Government’s “determination to ensure that US/India relations continue to move ahead rapidly.” In fact, “to ensure that there are no foreign policy ripples before the (US) President’s visit, PM Singh retained the critical Ministry of External Affairs portfolio.” In other words, the Manmohan Singh Government appointed Cabinet Ministers with the express purpose of tailoring India’s foreign policy as well as domestic energy policy to bring them in line with US interests!

Congress Assuring US About its Ability to Buy Victory in the Parliament With Cash

Another official US cable dated July 17, 2008 reveals that when the US Embassy’s Political Counsellor visited Congress MP Satish Sharma, Sharma’s political aide reported on how MPs were being brought for Rs 10 crore each, and is quoted as saying that “money was not an issue at all, but the crucial thing was to ensure that those who took the money would vote for the government.” Further, to convince the US representative that the Congress was indeed doing its utmost to ensure a pro-Nuke Deal vote, Sharma’s aide showed him chests full of crores of cash which was meant for buying the votes of MPs! It must be noted that cable vouches for Satish Sharma’s credentials by describing him “as a close associate of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi considered to be a very close family friend of Sonia Gandhi.” The American representative also quotes a “Congress Party insider” as assuring that Minister of Commerce and Industry Kamal Nath was helping to “pay for votes with jets”. The American representatives also quotes Sharma as saying that he would persuade “former Prime Minister Vajpayee’s (foster) son-in-law Ranjan Bhattacharya to speak to BJP representatives.”

Clearly, the official representative of the US Government - always ready to pose as custodian of ‘democracy’ worldwide - was virtually supervising this breathtaking subversion of Indian Parliament. It is also shamefully apparent that the Congress party was dutifully reporting to the US representative on the sordid process of buying elected Indian MPs to ensure the safe passage of a pro-US law in Indian Parliament.

US Confident of Manmohan Govt.’s Allegience to US and Betrayal to Indian People

Other cables testify to the fact that the UPA Government lies to the Indian public on the real nature of its relationship with Israel and Iran. One cable makes the assessment that India’s seemingly warm engagement with Iran meant for “public consumption,” mostly to please the “domestic Muslim and Non-Aligned Movement audience.” Another cable quotes then National Security Adviser M.K. Narayanan as saying that India would like to vote against Iran when the matter came up in the IAEA a second time, was worried about the reaction in its “domestic political constituency.” The US cables also record that US representatives warned India that failure to vote against Iran at the IAEA would jeopardise the Nuke Deal. Events show that the Manmohan Singh Government ably served their US masters by voting as directed by the US.

Another cable commented on India’s practice “of publicly condemning Israeli actions for public consumption and privately protecting healthy bilateral relations” including expanded military and commercial trade with Israel. More than once the US representatives disparage the “domestic political constituency” (i.e the Indian people) as a “Muslim votebank” and expresses the hope that the Indian Government will formulate its Iran and Middle East policy with US interests rather than democratic opinion in India. The US Ambassador Mulford quite openly calls the UPA Government “gutless” for its hypocritical stand on Israel, harking back nostalgically to the days of the NDA which had been under less political compulsion to keep up the lip service on Palestine.

Clearly, the UPA Government has acted as a faithful agent of US imperialism. In the process, it has not only played with India’s sovereignty and democracy, it has, by introducing the Nuke Deal through dubious means, jeopardised the health and lives of Indian people. The nuclear explosions in Japan have exposed the UPA Government’s claims of ‘civilian nuclear power’ as a ‘safe’ and ‘clean’ source of India’s energy needs to be a lie. India’s people cannot be put at risk to serve US political and commercial interests, and India must immediately declare a moratorium on all future nuclear projects while conducting an independent review of existing projects.

Till now it was evident that the Manmohan Singh Government had presided over scams and corporate loot of epic proportions. Now, to cap it all, it is shamefully apparent that the UPA Government ‘fixed’ Cabinet appointments and corrupted the process of voting on the floor of Parliament to ensure that the outcome suited US interests. Nor is this an empty allegation by opponents. Now we have it from the horse’s mouth - the records of the Government’s own trusted ‘strategic partner’ and master, the United States of America.

UPA= United Partners of America!

Assert Sovereignty of Indian People! Boot Out The Reign of American Stooges!!

Congress Government bows to U.S dictats over Cabinet Reshuffle,Palestine & Iran

Hillary checks out Pranab, and the competition

P. Sainath The Hindu March 18 2011

MUMBAI: “To which industrial or business groups is [Pranab] Mukherjee beholden? Whom will he seek to help through his policies? What are Mukherjee's priorities in the upcoming budget... ?”

“Why was Mukherjee chosen for the finance portfolio over Montek Singh Ahluwalia? How do Mukherjee and Ahluwalia get along?”

These were among the questions U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton posed in a cable to the New Delhi Embassy in September 2009, a few months after Prime Minister Manmohan Singh settled in for a second term. The questions are focussed on India's “New Government Economic Leaders,” particularly on the Finance Minister. They seem to imply that Washington had been expecting either P. Chidambaram to return as Finance Minister or Montek Singh Ahluwalia to be elevated to that post.

“How does Ahluwalia feel about remaining in this position? Which, if any, particular agenda items will he be pushing? Does he get on well with the prime minister?” Also, “What is Mukherjee's relationship with the Governor of the Reserve Bank of India, D.V. Subbarao? How does Subbarao view the removal of Chidambaram from the Minister of Finance slot? What impact has his removal had on relations between the finance ministry and the RBI?”

The September 14, 2009 cable ( 225053: secret/noforn) asks: “What are Mukherjee's primary economic concerns and his views on Prime Minister Singh's economic reform Agenda? How quickly does he plan to pursue these reforms? What is his ability to enact reforms?” The sharp Secretary of State also asks: “What are Mukherjee's views of the US bilateral economic relationship and where does he see the relationship Headed? What areas of cooperation is he eager to advance? How does he see the US-China economic relationship in comparison to the US-India relationship?”

Washington analysts, writes Ms. Clinton to the New Delhi Embassy, “are closely monitoring the newly appointed economic leaders in the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) coalition government. We are interested in their views regarding future economic policy, opportunities for bilateral economic cooperation, and their ability to work together as a cohesive team. As time and resources permit, we would highly value any information on the following topics and questions, and plan to incorporate post reporting into finished analysis for policymakers.” The topics include the attitudes and likely directions of a few Ministers and top officials.

“What policies are Mukherjee and other leaders considering to address the global financial crisis? What does Prime Minister Singh think about Mukherjee's new role as finance minister?”

Ms. Clinton wants to get the measure of Minister for Commerce and Industry Anand Sharma. “Why was Sharma chosen for the job? What are his larger ambitions? Why was [Kamal] Nath moved to the road transport and highways portfolio? What are Nath's views on the change? Does Sharma get along with Mukherjee and Prime Minister Singh?” And also, “What is Sharma's relationship with Ahluwalia?”

Other queries on Mr. Sharma: “What policies does Sharma plan to pursue? How does he view India's trade policies? What are his views on Prime Minister Singh's plans for gradual economic reform? What does he perceive as India's primary trade obstacles? What are Sharma's views on the World Trade Organization (WTO)? How will he approach initial meetings with his counterparts? What does he think of previous Minister of Commerce Kamal Nath's actions over the past five years? How close will Sharma remain to the NAMA-11? Is he willing to begin discussions with the US to advance WTO negotiations? How does Sharma view US-India economic relations?”

“How does Sharma view India's current Foreign Direct Investment guidelines? Which sectors does he plan to open further? Why is he reluctant to open multi-brand retail? What are his views on the special economic zones?”

Satish Sharma aide showed U.S. Embassy employee cash to be used as ‘pay-offs' in confidence vote

Siddharth Varadarajan

The Hindu March 17 2011

‘Two chests containing cash' part of a bigger fund of Rs. 50 crore to Rs. 60 crore.

Five days before the Manmohan Singh government faced a crucial vote of confidence on the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal in 2008, a political aide to Congress leader Satish Sharma showed a U.S. Embassy employee “two chests containing cash” he said was part of a bigger fund of Rs. 50 crore to Rs. 60 crore that the party had assembled to purchase the support of MPs. The aide also claimed the four MPs belonging to Ajit Singh's Rashtriya Lok Dal had already been paid Rs. 10 crore each to ensure they voted the right way on the floor of the Lok Sabha.

In a cable, dated July 17, 2008, sent to the State Department ( 162458: secret), accessed by The Hindu through WikiLeaks, U.S. Charge d'Affaires Steven White wrote about a visit the Embassy's Political Counselor paid to Satish Sharma, who is described as “a Congress Party MP in the Rajya Sabha ... and a close associate of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi considered to be a very close family friend of Sonia Gandhi.”

Mr. Sharma told the U.S. diplomat that he and others in the party were working hard to ensure the government won the confidence vote on July 22. After describing the approaches the Congress leader said had been made to the Bharatiya Janata Party and the Akali Dal, Mr. White drops a bombshell of a revelation:

“Sharma's political aide Nachiketa Kapur mentioned to an Embassy staff member in an aside on July 16 that Ajit Singh's RLD had been paid Rupees 10 crore (about $2.5 million) for each of their four MPs to support the government. Kapur mentioned that money was not an issue at all, but the crucial thing was to ensure that those who took the money would vote for the government.”

Lest this should be construed by the visiting diplomats as an empty boast, Mr. Sharma's aide put his money where his mouth was: “Kapur showed the Embassy employee two chests containing cash and said that around Rupees 50-60 crore (about $25 million) was lying around the house for use as pay-offs.”

Independently, Mr. Sharma told the Political Counselor “that PM Singh and others were trying to work on the Akali Dal (8 votes) through financier Sant Chatwal and others, but unfortunately it did not work out.” He said “the Prime Minister, Sonia Gandhi, and Rahul Gandhi were committed to the nuclear initiative and had conveyed this message clearly to the party.” Efforts were also on to try and get the Shiv Sena to abstain. Further, “Sharma mentioned that he was also exploring the possibility of trying to get former Prime Minister Vajpayee's son-in-law Ranjan Bhattacharya to speak to BJP representatives to try to divide the BJP ranks.”

The cable makes it clear the Congress campaign to buy votes was not confined to the cash-filled war chests that Nachiketa Kapur and Satish Sharma had gathered.

“Another Congress Party insider told PolCouns that Minister of Commerce and Industry Kamal Nath is also helping to spread largesse. ‘Formerly he could only offer small planes as bribes,'” according to this interlocutor, ‘now he can pay for votes with jets.'”

Despite these efforts, the U.S. Embassy concluded that the UPA maintained only a “precarious lead” in the forthcoming confidence vote. “Our best guess at this time show the government maintaining its slim majority with the anticipated vote count at about 273 in favor, 251 opposed, and 19 abstentions.”

The prediction was impressively close to the mark. Prime Minister Singh got 275 votes in favour with 256 against and 10 abstentions.

Just before the vote, the BJP produced cash on the floor of the House and alleged that this was the money the government had used to try and buy the support of MPs. But subsequent investigations ran aground. The secret U.S. Embassy cable, however, is likely to reignite Opposition allegations that bribery was resorted to on a massive scale to ensure the UPA won the 2008 vote of confidence.

The fact that Congress politicians could speak so freely to American diplomats about their bribing spree during the run up to the confidence vote — and that the latter could be so blasé about the subversion of democracy — underlines the all-encompassing but ultimately corrosive nature of the “strategic partnership” the two governments were trying to build.

As for Mr. Kapur, his candid display of crores of rupees to be used by the Congress as “pay offs” for the trust vote was not seen by the U.S. Embassy as compromising his democratic credentials in any way. In November 2008, he was sent to the U.S. under the State Department's I-Vote 2008 programme as an observer for that year's presidential election. “The move to invite international observers”, he wrote in a blog post, “reflects the open and democratic nature of the American society.”

Indian support for Palestine ‘historical rhetorical'

P. Sainath The Hindu

March 18 2011

MUMBAI: U.S. Ambassador to India David Mulford was clear in his assessment of what India's support for Palestine really was about in recent times. In a cable dated September 6, 2005, he spoke of India's “historical rhetorical support for Palestinian statehood (important for domestic politics)” ( 39915: secret/noforn).

“The UPA derives an important portion of its support from India's 150 million Muslims, and it came to power in May 2004 with a stated goal of recalibrating India's relations with the Muslim world, especially on the Palestinian question. Portraying itself as a defender of Muslims in India and a champion of the Palestinian cause, the UPA has made reinvigorating ties with Middle East and Muslim countries a high priority.”

The cable goes on to say: “The second goal is to rally support for India's perennial battle to be admitted in some status to the Organization of the Islamic Conference, which has been critical of India's Kashmir stance. Although both of these goals derive mostly from domestic electoral political considerations, rather than strictly foreign policy objectives, New Delhi has recognized that its lacklustre relations with Arab and Muslim states have become a foreign policy liability, and is working to rectify that.”

It adds: “As part of these broader goals of deeper engagement in the Middle East, New Delhi has floated suggestions recently that it could play a mediating role in the Israel-Palestinian conflict, as a state with growing working relations with Israel and (at least) bona fides in the eyes of Palestinians (Note: Ref C reports on the latest disappointing India-Israel interaction. End Note). However, given its generally weak relations with most Middle Eastern countries and lack of gravitas, most dismiss this vision as unrealistic.”

The cable presents a discussion on the August 10, 2005 visit of West Asia Envoy Chinmaya Gharekhan: “Our contacts tell us that India's prime concern with Syria is for its influence on the Israel-Palestinian conflict, where India is trying to carve out a role for itself, after recognizing New Delhi's increasing marginalization. The other current interest, as illustrated by Gharekhan's recent Damascus visit, is India's desire to find low-risk options for re-engaging on Iraq.”

Nuclear pact: U.S. reads India the riot act over Iran

Siddharth Varadarajan

March 18 2011

NEW DELHI: On the eve of Manmohan Singh's meeting with George W. Bush and Condoleeza Rice in New York in September 2005, a cable ( 40501: confidential) from Ambassador David Mulford in New Delhi advised the U.S. Secretary of State to tell the Prime Minister that his government's failure to take “difficult steps” on Iran could jeopardise the civil nuclear agreement with Washington.

According to the cable, sent on September 13, 2005, Mr. Mulford complained to Dr. Rice about the unhelpful attitude of senior Indian officials and advised her to encourage the Prime Minister to “exercise leadership.” He wrote: “In my meetings with the Foreign Minister and Foreign Secretary [Shyam] Saran, I have found them reluctant to acknowledge that Iran could jeopardize both our nuclear initiative and India's regional security interests.”

He urged her to “sketch the real challenges we face in implementing legislative actions necessary for us to fulfill the civil nuclear vision of the July 18 Joint Statement, and to challenge India to take equally difficult steps on relations with Tehran and separation of India's civil and military nuclear facilities.”

The linkage Mr. Mulford made was surprising, for though India had agreed in that Joint Statement to separate its civil and military nuclear facilities, it had not made any commitments on Iran. Nevertheless, he advised Dr. Rice to use her meeting with the Prime Minister and the External Affairs Minister “to encourage the GOI to exercise leadership on this Iran issue, rather than hiding behind the NAM consensus, as happened on UN reform.”

Congressional hearings had already alerted India to the need to stop sitting on the fence on the question of Iran's ‘nuclear weapons program', he wrote. “New Delhi is trying to support us without alienating Tehran, on whom it depends for current oil supplies, future natural gas imports (pipeline and LNG), and access to Afghanistan and Central Asia,” the cable noted. Though India's attachment to Iran could weaken in the long run if it “is able to secure other energy sources (e.g., gas pipeline from Bangladesh) and alternative access routes to Central Asia (e.g., overland transit through Pakistan),” its leaders “must be made to recognize that Congress is watching India's role at the IAEA with great care, and the Indian vote in Vienna will have real consequences for our ability to push ahead on civil nuclear energy cooperation.”

Mr. Mulford said the looming Iran vote at the International Atomic Energy Agency was a “significant early test of India's readiness to exercise the responsibilities of global leadership.” The country felt “squeezed between admonitions from us and pressure from the Iranians.” Under the circumstances, “the Indian instinct will be to lie low and hope that discussions in New York avoid the unpleasant prospect of [an IAEA] vote on September 19. We need to give a clear accounting of these stakes, while also preserving the significant equity that we have built-up in the transforming U.S.-India relationship.”

President Bush and Dr. Rice met the Prime Minister later that day. None of the WikiLeaks India Cables provide a readout of that meeting. But shortly thereafter, instructions were sent to the Indian Ambassador in Vienna to vote in favour of the U.S. resolution at the IAEA censuring Iran.