TOKYO MASTER BANNER

MINISTRY OF TOKYO
US-ANGLO CAPITALISMEU-NATO IMPERIALISM
Illegitimate Transfer of Inalienable European Rights via Convention(s) & Supranational Bodies
Establishment of Sovereignty-Usurping Supranational Body Dictatorships
Enduring Program of DEMOGRAPHICS WAR on Europeans
Enduring Program of PSYCHOLOGICAL WAR on Europeans
Enduring Program of European Displacement, Dismemberment, Dispossession, & Dissolution
No wars or conditions abroad (& no domestic or global economic pretexts) justify government policy facilitating the invasion of ancestral European homelands, the rape of European women, the destruction of European societies, & the genocide of Europeans.
U.S. RULING OLIGARCHY WAGES HYBRID WAR TO SALVAGE HEGEMONY
[LINK | Article]

*U.S. OLIGARCHY WAGES HYBRID WAR* | U.S. Empire's Casino Unsustainable | Destabilised U.S. Monetary & Financial System | U.S. Defaults Twice A Year | Causes for Global Financial Crisis of 2008 Remain | Financial Pyramids Composed of Derivatives & National Debt Are Growing | *U.S. OLIGARCHY WAGES HYBRID WAR* | U.S. Empire's Casino Unsustainable | Destabilised U.S. Monetary & Financial System | U.S. Defaults Twice A Year | Causes for Global Financial Crisis of 2008 Remain | Financial Pyramids Composed of Derivatives & National Debt Are Growing | *U.S. OLIGARCHY WAGES HYBRID WAR*

Who's preaching world democracy, democracy, democracy? —Who wants to make free people free?
[info from Craig Murray video appearance, follows]  US-Anglo Alliance DELIBERATELY STOKING ANTI-RUSSIAN FEELING & RAMPING UP TENSION BETWEEN EASTERN EUROPE & RUSSIA.  British military/government feeding media PROPAGANDA.  Media choosing to PUBLISH government PROPAGANDA.  US naval aggression against Russia:  Baltic Sea — US naval aggression against China:  South China Sea.  Continued NATO pressure on Russia:  US missile systems moving into Eastern Europe.     [info from John Pilger interview follows]  War Hawk:  Hillary Clinton — embodiment of seamless aggressive American imperialist post-WWII system.  USA in frenzy of preparation for a conflict.  Greatest US-led build-up of forces since WWII gathered in Eastern Europe and in Baltic states.  US expansion & military preparation HAS NOT BEEN REPORTED IN THE WEST.  Since US paid for & controlled US coup, UKRAINE has become an American preserve and CIA Theme Park, on Russia's borderland, through which Germans invaded in the 1940s, costing 27 million Russian lives.  Imagine equivalent occurring on US borders in Canada or Mexico.  US military preparations against RUSSIA and against CHINA have NOT been reported by MEDIA.  US has sent guided missile ships to diputed zone in South China Sea.  DANGER OF US PRE-EMPTIVE NUCLEAR STRIKES.  China is on HIGH NUCLEAR ALERT.  US spy plane intercepted by Chinese fighter jets.  Public is primed to accept so-called 'aggressive' moves by China, when these are in fact defensive moves:  US 400 major bases encircling China; Okinawa has 32 American military installations; Japan has 130 American military bases in all.  WARNING PENTAGON MILITARY THINKING DOMINATES WASHINGTON. ⟴  
Showing posts with label Amnesty International. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Amnesty International. Show all posts

December 29, 2015

UAE Mercenaries Fighting in Yemen - Western Advisers

Article
SOURCE

http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/mercenaries-charge-uae-forces-fighting-yemen-764309832



Middle East Eye
British news website
'independently funded'
David Hearst, editor
(formerly at The Guardian)
wholly owned by MEE Ltd
sole director: Jamal Bassasso
fmr director at Qatari-funded al-Jazeera

MIDDLE EAST EYE

Revealed: The mercenaries commanding UAE forces in Yemen
The UAE has brought in experienced foreign military officers to command an elite force reporting to Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed

Rori Donaghy
Wednesday 23 December 2015 09:30 UTC

Last update:
Saturday 26 December 2015 12:25 UTC


An Australian citizen is the commander of an elite UAE military force deployed in Yemen as part of the Saudi-led coalition, which human rights groups accuse of war crimes.

Mike Hindmarsh, 59, is a former senior Australian army officer who is publicly listed as commander of the UAE’s Presidential Guard.

The Presidential Guard is a unit of marines, reconnaissance, aviation, special forces and mechanised brigades, according to the US State Department website.

Hindmarsh oversaw the guard’s formation in early 2010 shortly after he took up his estimated $500,000-a-year, tax-free job in Abu Dhabi, where he reports directly to Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nahyan.

The Presidential Guard has been lauded for playing a key role in the Saudi-led coalition seeking to reinstall the exiled Yemeni government of President Abd Rabbuh Mansour Hadi.

The coalition was formed in March to push back the rebel Houthi movement, which Arab Gulf states view as being backed by regional rival Iran.

Presidential Guard troops have been in Yemen since 4 May, and were reported to have played a key role in the recapturing of port city Aden by local Hadi-allied forces on 17 July.

Human rights groups
including Amnesty International have called for a suspension of arms exports to members of the Saudi-led coalition after reporting what they described as “damning evidence” of war crimes in Yemen. There is no evidence to suggest that Hindmarsh is responsible for the alleged war crimes claimed by rights groups.

At least 5,700 people – about half of them civilians – have been killed since the coalition launched its campaign. Yemen was already suffering a serious humanitarian crisis before the coalition's entry into the war; however, the country’s situation has since grown increasingly grave, with more than 80 percent of the population of 24.5 million needing humanitarian assistance.


The Australian connection

While the Arab coalition fighting in Yemen is widely described as being led by Saudi Arabia, one Gulf official told Middle East Eye on condition of anonymity that the external ground forces were in reality being steered by the UAE.

More than 10,000 coalition troops have been sent to Yemen and, while no official numbers have been released, it is believed that at least 1,500 Emirati troops are taking part in ground operations.

The best trained and equipped coalition troops are likely to be those from the UAE Presidential Guard, which was the only Arab force to undertake full military operations in Afghanistan, where they fought alongside American soldiers.

A defence website has estimated that there are around 5,000 soldiers in the Presidential Guard.

It was announced in 2014 that the UAE was to pay the US Marines $150mn to train the guards. Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed was reported to have ordered the force to be instilled with a “warrior ethos”.

Overseeing the development of this elite force has been Hindmarsh, who had a distinguished career in the Australian army before moving to Abu Dhabi.

Hindmarsh served in his home country’s military between 1976 and 2009, during which time he received 11 awards and took part in tours that included deployments to the Middle East.

Mike Hindmarsh (UAE Armed Forces)

After first heading up the Australian SAS between January 1997 and January 1999, he moved on to command Australian Special Forces between October 2004 and January 2008, before leading Australian forces in the Middle East from March 2008 until January 2009.

Hindmarsh was based in Baghdad and oversaw the moving of Australia’s regional base to the UAE after their withdrawal from Iraq. Local media reported that during this time Hindmarsh had “dealings at the highest security levels with senior officials and the UAE military”.

Since then Australian troops have been based at the Minhad Air base, and earlier this year then Prime Minister Tony Abbott announced that 600 Australian troops would be sent to the UAE as part of the wider fight against the Islamic State group in Syria and Iraq.

After moving back to Australia from the Middle East, Hindmarsh took up a new role in March 2009 heading up the Army Training Command at Victoria Barracks in Sydney for a salary of $230,000 a year.

However, in October 2009 it was announced that the Australian government had approved Hindmarsh retirement from the army to take up a new role commanding the UAE Presidential Guard.

Military expert Michael Knights said Hindmarsh's role in the guard, reported on Twitter, was a “smart” move by the UAE.

“All GCC (Gulf) states should be doing this. Don’t just buy the best equipment, buy talent too,” he wrote, referring to the Gulf state's huge investment in military hardware.

It would appear that the UAE has followed the principle of bringing in experience to develop the Presidential Guard, as a quick search through LinkedIn throws up numerous results of experienced soldiers - mainly from Australia - who occupy senior roles in the elite force.

Among those working in Abu Dhabi is Peter Butson, a former Australian soldier and intelligence corps officer who since February 2014 has been an adviser to the Presidential Guard.

Scott Corrigan, a former special operations commander in the Australian army, has been a specialist adviser to the Presidential Guard since January 2013. Kevin Dolan is an evaluator for the guard and was previously a warrant officer in both the Australian and British armies. Steve Nichols is another former senior commander in the Australian army who is now in his fifth year as a senior adviser to the guards.

It is not known how many Australians work for the UAE army; however, local media reported at the time of Hindmarsh's appointment that there were "dozens" working in "leadership, training and mentoring roles".

While Australians appear to dominate the foreign contingent of commanders in the Presidential Guard, there are other nationalities who are advising and training the force.

Dizzy Dawson, a former manager at the UK’s Ministry of Defence and an ex-Royal Marine officer, is a senior security adviser to the guard; and American Robert B Cross Sr headed up the UAE Presidential Guard Institute as part of the US Marine Corps training programme.

Responding to critical comments about the UAE employing mercenaries, military expert Knights tweeted: “It is the same business whether for your original state or a new one. A good general can end a war faster, save lives.”

Knights added that employing foreign mercenaries “was a fairly traditional part of conflict before the age of nationalism”.

Mike Hindmarsh speaks to a room of Emiratis (UAE Armed Forces)

Mercenaries killed in Yemen

Some mercenaries have been killed in Yemen. The Houthi-run Saba News reported on 8 December that six Colombians and their Australian commander were killed in fighting around the flashpoint southeast province of Taiz.

Saba News updated their report on 9 December to say 14 foreign mercenaries had been killed – including two Britons and one French citizen on top of the Australian and Colombians – although this claim is unconfirmed.

Colombian mercenaries were first reported to have been fighting in Yemen in October, when about 100 former Colombian soldiers were said to have joined coalition troops, with about 800 in total planned to be sent in to back up pro-Hadi forces.

The Colombians are believed to have been recruited to fight in Yemen by the UAE. The New York Times reported in 2011 that experienced Colombian troops had been offered high salaries to join a secretive UAE force established in response to the Arab Spring uprisings.

It is not known if the Colombians fighting in Yemen are linked to the Presidential Guard; however, both the secretive force established in 2011 and the guard report directly to Mohammed bin Zayed.

Many reports have referred to the Colombians as being employees of Blackwater – a controversial American military company whose guards killed 17 Iraqi civilians in Baghdad in 2007. However, as former Guardian Middle East editor Brian Whitaker has written, the contractor who set up the UAE force is a company called Reflex Responses.

Reflex Responses, which is also known as R2, has denied that Erik Prince, the former Blackwater chief, is behind their company.


Presidential Guard recruitment

While the Colombian and Australian mercenaries remain largely behind the scenes, the UAE Presidential Guard is far from secretive, at least in its recruitment strategies.

The guard has been promoted as a symbol of national strength, rooted in pride at how strong the UAE has become since its establishment in 1971.

The UAE has engaged in military action across the region, including in the Saudi-led coalition and the US-led coalition fighting against the Islamic State (IS) group in Iraq and Syria.

Abu Dhabi has independently launched air strikes in Libya – to the surprise of American officials – and been described as a “potent ally” for the US.

This developing sense of military strength is on full display in a 2011 promotional video for the Presidential Guard. Men in military fatigues singing nationalistic songs are interspersed with images of the country’s rulers and shots of the UAE’s military hardware.

A recruitment presentation posted online in October 2013 said the guard is at the “heart of the nation”. The presentation said recruitment should be targeted at men and women between the ages of 16 and 29 who are at a “crossroads” in their lives.

The guard has a Facebook page and Twitter account. Recruitment has been publicly advertised, projecting Emirati members as proud citizens protecting their country.

The Presidential Guard has not only sought to expand its numbers but its members experience has also been used to train young men completing their national service.

Mandatory national service was introduced by the UAE in June 2014. All men aged between 18 and 30 who completed secondary education must serve nine months, while those who did not must serve for two years. National service is voluntary for women, and those who sign up are trained for nine months.

A way of completing national service is to train with the Presidential Guard, according to the LinkedIn profile of one Emirati.

Some national service conscripts have been sent to fight in Yemen. However, this was stopped in September after 45 Emirati troops were killed in a Houthi attack.

Emirati families told MEE in August that they were shocked their sons had been sent to Yemen, as they had no conflict experience.

At the time, military expert Knights said the rationale behind sending national service conscripts to Yemen was likely to bring untrained troops experience as part of a nation-building exercise.

There is no official death toll of the number of UAE troops killed in Yemen.

'Ally with the Muslim Brotherhood'

There is no sign of the war in Yemen coming to an end. Peace talks between opposing sides ended in Switzerland at the weekend with little progress, while fighting continues on the ground.

According to one Gulf official, the UAE should build more pragmatic alliances on the ground in Yemen if they want the war to end soon.

The official, who spoke to MEE on condition of anonymity, said that the war could be over “in two to three weeks” if the Emiratis agreed to ally with Islah, the Muslim Brotherhood affiliate in Yemen
.

“But they won’t because they have this problem with the Muslim Brotherhood,” the official said.

The UAE has led a region-wide assault on the Muslim Brotherhood, including labelling the group as terrorists domestically and supporting the Egyptian army in overthrowing Egypt's first elected president Mohamed Morsi, who is a Brotherhood leader.

Abu Dhabi has refused to work with Islah, and Emirati officials have blamed the Brotherhood for the failure to drive Houthi rebels out of areas including Taiz province.

Emirati disdain for the Brotherhood has gone so far that Abu Dhabi is said to have aided and abetted the Houthis' takeover of Yemeni capital Sanaa in September last year, in order to undermine the role played by Islah in the country's governance, senior sources told Middle East Eye at the time. Now, 15 months later, the Emiratis are mired in a battle to push back the Houthis, but are wary of empowering their Brotherhood foe.

The Gulf official said: “It is time for the UAE to prioritise the lives of Yemenis and ally with Islah. Their men are being killed by the Houthis and there is a clear way to end this.”

http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/mercenaries-charge-uae-forces-fighting-yemen-764309832



SMH

Australia's basing its $87m secret on sensitive absurdity

Date     November 8, 2009

DON'T tell anyone, but the Federal Government is spending $87.5 million of your money on a new Middle East military base.
Not that it uses the word ''base''. Instead, budget papers say that the money is being spent on ''command and control enhancements'' which will ''consolidate ADF supporting assets to one location''.

Nor will it say where the base is because under a deal with the host country, Australia agrees not to reveal it. Nor does it give the location of the old bases the new one is replacing.

An ADF spokesman told The Sunday Age that Defence did not say where the bases are because of security considerations and ''host national sensitivities''.

The coyness has less to do with security and more to do with the ''sensitivities'' of the the Arab hosts, who don't want to advertise that they accommodate foreign troops and their hardware, including big, noisy aircraft with red kangaroos stencilled on the fuselage.

The secrecy leads to a curious absurdity: details and images of most of the bases are on the internet, in the Middle East press and even on ADF websites. Australian ambassadors have openly said where they are. They are mentioned in Hansard.

The Sunday Age is also a party to the subterfuge. On an ADF-escorted trip to the Middle East and Afghanistan, we undertook not to reveal ''operationally sensitive information'' - including ''the country in which ADF support bases are located outside of Iraq and Afghanistan''.

Without breaching that undertaking, we can reveal - drawing on what spies call ''open sources'' and Sunday Age readers call Google - where these bases are.

One of them has a big sign out the front, adorned with red kangaroos and the words ''Billabong Flats''. Drawing on the public record, we can reveal that bases have been or are being closed in Kuwait and Qatar.

The new one is at Al Minhad Air Base in Dubai, in the United Arab Emirates.

Australia's Middle East bases have mushroomed since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Now their focus is supporting the war in Afghanistan. Australian troops going to Afghanistan acclimatise in Kuwait, at a compound attached to a US base notorious for its fast food outlets on a stretch of sand and gravel known as Fat Alley.
The base is alongside Kuwait's Ali Al Salem Air Base. You can find more than you need to know about the base at globalsecurity.org, including its precise location: 29°20'48"N 47°31'15"E.

Liberal senator David Bushby visited the base on an ADF-escorted trip and told the Senate all about it on June 18. ''The ADF conducts a training course for all personnel arriving in the Middle East theatre at Billabong Flats, a base Australia maintains in Kuwait,'' he said.

The community information page on the website of the army's 3rd Brigade also mentions the Kuwait base and its fast food outlets, including one that boasts ''the world's best cheesesteak''.

About 110 soldiers at Billabong Flats form what is called the force support unit. Their presence in the emirate has been reported in newsletters issued by the Australian embassy in Kuwait.

Billabong Flats is due to close at the end of the year, in a phased consolidation of Australian bases. While its Kuwait location was handy for invading Iraq, it's not convenient for Afghanistan.

Moving it will slash flying time, saving fuel bills and offsetting the cost of the new base.

When the force support unit moves to Dubai, it will join Defence's regional headquarters and the RAAF.
The Government has not announced this but Australia's ambassador to the UAE has, in an interview with Abu Dhabi's The National newspaper last month.

The paper revealed that 250 ADF personnel have been stationed at Dubai's Al Minhad Air Base since December.

Air force Hercules and crews completed their move from Qatar to Dubai last Thursday, joining an Orion detachment that has been there since 2003.
By the end of the year, 500 Australians will be permanently based there, the numbers boosted by hundreds more as troops transit to and from Afghanistan.

The fact that the locations are widely known does not prevent media groups on ADF trips from spicing their stories with references to ''secret'' installations they can't identify ''for security reasons''.

Townsville radio host Steve ''Pricey'' Price revealed in a report last month, presumably filed from Billabong Flats, that: ''I'm with another wonderful bunch of Aussies in a secret spot that James Bond, Frodo Baggins or even Lawrence of Arabia could never find.''

There's a serious side to all this, said academic Richard Tanter, director of the Nautilus Institute at RMIT, which maintains an online database on Australian forces abroad.
''Governments ought to be as transparent as possible, and secrecy should only be justified in serious cases of potential danger to persons,'' Professor Tanter said.
''The double standard imposed by the UAE Government corrodes trust in co-operation between allies.

''They are fooling no one, certainly not their own people. Forcing Australia to collude in what's a fairly destructive process is a hypocritical basis for public policy.''

http://www.smh.com.au/national/australias-basing-its-87m-secret-on-sensitive-absurdity-20091107-i2vy.html



---------------------- ꕤ ----------------------

COMMENT

Who knew Australia was such buddies with the United Arab Emirates, and who knew Australia has a base in Iraq?

It sounds like the Emirates is some kind of proxy for Western interests in the region.

The Houthis don't deserve to be attacked by Columbian mercenaries (and the rest of them) in their own country, irrespective of the military expert's history lesson.

Foreign powers are interfering with the Yemen's right to self-determination.

Might have to come back to look at this.  Trouble taking it all in.





December 24, 2015

US-NATO War Machine - Humanitarian NGOs Shilling for US-NATO Wars

Summary
SOURCE
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/coleen-rowley/amnestys-shilling-for-usn_b_1607361.html


SUMMARY
[as article understood by me]

US-NATO War Machine

Humanitarian NGOs
Shilling for US-NATO Wars
Entwined with US-NATO
War Machine

Title:

"Amnesty's Shilling for US-NATO Wars"

By:

Coleen Rowley
Former FBI Special Agent
Wrote Whistleblower Memo 2002
Testified re FBI pre-9/11 Failures

Ann Wright
29-year U.S. Army/Army Reserve Colonel
16-year US diplomat
Resigned 2003 in Opposition to Iraq War
Summary of Article
[As understood by me]


Cornerstone Obama foreign policy:

  • "Right to Protect (R2P)"
  • "humanitarian intervention"
  • "Atrocity Prevention Board" newly created

served mainly to rationalize the launching of war on Libya

& now for U.S.-NATO military intervention in Syria

Suzanne Nossel (former Amnesty International USA chief)
coined 'Smart Power':

USA use of:

1. military power
2. 'soft power'

approach announced by Hillary Clinton
on confirmation as US Secretary of State

Suzanne Nossel paper on "Smart Power" (2004)
published in the Council on Foreign Relations
-- much like theories of:
  • - Samantha Power
  • - Madeline Albright

Suzanne Nossel article:

urges policy-makers to:
return to "great mainstay" of 20th Century
"US foreign policy:
LIBERAL
INTERNATIONALISM

Suzanne Nossel paper posits: global system of 'stable' in liberal democracies less prone to war

USA should offer leadership (diplomatic & economic), together with military might & "quarantine and elimination of dictators and weapons of mass destruction (WMD"

Amnesty International USA
hiring of a State Department shill
as executive director of its US affiliate

NATO Shadow Summit
closely mimicked CIA's latest suggested propaganda device [see post, here]

'CIA Red Cell' - new CIA think-tank
-- group of analysts
-- assigned to
- think 'outside the box'
- anticipate emerging challenges
-- & right to worry in 2010 re:
State Department
Bureau of Intelligence & Research (INR) found:
"80 percent of French and German citizens were opposed to continued deployment of their countries' militaries in the U.S.-NATO war in Afghanistan."

PUBLIC APATHY
-- allowed politicians (Germany & France)
-- to ignore voters
-- to increase troop contributions
-- to International Security Assistance Force (ISAF)
Afghanistan
-- CIA think-tank concern re anticipated NATO casualties
-- turning to calls for withdrawal (by Europeans)
-- worried re active & politically potent hostility
-- thus conversion of PASSIVE OPPOSITION into ACTIVE CALLS FOR IMMEDIATE WITHDRAWAL

CIA "Special Memorandum"
-- CIA propaganda expert
-- suggests USA-CIA European propaganda campaign 
[see post, here]
"Red Cell" memo was leaked
-- window into US govt propaganda
-- to work on NATO citizenry
-- to maintain public support for waging war on Afghans
-- via 'euphemistically titled
"International Security Assistance Force" (ISAF)'

CIA propaganda aims to:
-- tap into concerns of secular French public
-- provoke French indignation re 'girls' education' / women's issues
-- create rallying point
-- give voters reason to support war & ignore casualties
-- promote outreach initiatives
-- exploit Afghan women in media
-- esp. French, German & other European
-- feature emotive testimonials
-- on programs targeting disproportionately female audience
-- to overcome scepticism of women re war

Amnesty International - [NATO-CIA Echo]:
  • - strikes similar themes via:
  • - online announcements
  • - billboard advertisements, Chigaco bus stops

meanwhile, thousands of activists march in Chicago
to protest NATO wars

Bill board exploits feminism.

Huffington Post echoes same feminist propaganda with article:

HuffPo:
"Afghanistan:
The First Feminist War?"

HuffPo propaganda:
-- 'male domination' of three-quarters of worlds women
-- "Afghanistan is an extreme case in point"
-- "in what might be termed the first feminist war "
-- "women who have promised not to desert their Afghan sisters."

Amnesty International
'Shadow Summit'
-- featuring: former Sec. State, Madeline Albright
-- & other female foreign relations
-- Melanne Verveer, US Ambassador-at-Large, Global Women's Issues
-- US Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Illinois
-- Afifa Azim, Gen Dir. & Co-founder, Afghan Women's network
-- Gayle Tzemach Lemmon, Dep. Dir. CFR Women & Foreign Policy Program

Verveer
-- would not answer Ann Wright questions
-- hotel security guards tried to turn away anti-war protesters
-- registration desk reminded that Summit advertised as
-- 'Free Admissions' & some anti-war were members of Amnesty International
-- were then permitted to attend (on condition)

THE BIG SELL
UNDERPINNED BY EXPLOITING WOMEN'S ISSUES (just as CIA propagandist suggested  - [see post, here]):

"All generally linked the protection and participation of Afghan women in government as well as the progress made in educating Afghan women to the eventual peace and security of the country as envisioned by the new strategic "partnership" agreement that Obama had just signed with Afghan President Hamid Karzai."

US government officials
-- EASILY use "good & necessary cause" of women's rights
-- to get audience into the palm of their collective hand
-- just as CIA propaganda expert predicted

Albright a PR blunder
-- given her involvement & defence of Iraqi sanctions 1990s
-- when 500,000 Iraqi children deaths deemed by Albright as:

"we think the price is worth it."
----

(article) reference source human rights blogger:

Amnesty International USA 
advertising posters described as:

-- pro-NATO posters
-- playing into prevailing tropes
-- re so-called "humanitarian intervention"
-- via "think of the women & children" imagery

Posters & the forum that includes Albright
= neither slight slips nor without context

Amnesty International USA
"used pro Nato imagery & slogans ahead of & during a controversial summit that has thousands protesting in the streets"

On Albright, humanitarian blogger comments:
Amnesty International USA asked:


"notorious apologist for mass murder of children to speak on the right of women and children"
Humanitarian Blogger (article reference source)
-- refers to Amnesty international USA's:
- "critical SERIES of errors"
- asks how such a series of 'errors' could be made.
Article authors contend:

Amnesty International USA
had chosen Madeleine Albright as main speaker
-- because Albright has paved the way for feminist war-hawks
-- to become Secretary of State (or candidates for same)
-- & became they take the lead of 'ruthless Grand Dame' Albright

Highest ranks of feminist wing of interventionism:
  • Madeline Albright
  • Condi Rice
  • Hillary Clinton
  • Susan Riche
  • Samantha Power

Passion & enthusiasm re:
  • -- 'nobility' of own goals
  • -- & American exceptionalism
that it sways others, like religious blind faith.

Nossel & Albright theories are flawed

NOTE
  1. as demonstrated by lady war-hawks lobbying
  2. & long list of democracies disproving assertion, incl:
  • Nazi Germany
  • Roman Empire
  • United Kingdom
  • France
  • USA
DEMOCRACIES ARE NOT LESS PRONE TO WAR

USA 'support' for democracies
involves much hypocrisy (& exploitation)
as the USA has a long record of
toppling (or attempting to topple) 
democracies in foreign countries

Examples:
  • Iran (Mossadequh)
  • Guatemala (Arbenz)
  • Chile (Allende)
USA history of bringing down democracies to:
-- to gain easier control of a foreign country
-- through an allied dictatorship

Goals of humanitarianism
-- preventing atrocities
-- furthering women's rights
are truly noble goals

*and, yes, women lack rights in Afghanistan

HOWEVER

this is convenient truth and:

best lies are always based on a certain amount of truth

devil lies in the details
re promoting equality & accomplishing humanitarianism

Article authors argue:

ends, even noble ends, never justify wrongful means

⟴ when people such as Samantha Power decide to bomb village (Libya) to save it

⟴ it will backfire on a pragmatic level

CIA PROPAGANDA - EXPLOITATION OF PUBLIC
(ESP. WOMEN)

VIA ADVERTISED & PR SPUN 'NOBILITY' OF US-NATO MOTIVATION

nobility of the U.S.-NATO's motivation that
-- as CIA propaganda department advised
-- should be relied upon to convince public (esp. women)
-- to support (or at least tolerate) war & military occupation

War & military occupation, now known to encompass

  • worst of war crimes
  • massacres of women and children
  • torture
  • cutting off body parts of those killed
US soldiers:
  • increasing mental illness
  • self-destructive behavior
  • suicides

corresponding cover-ups

Military scholars identify:

-- declining American public support for Vietnam war
-- as main factor responsible for USA Vietnam war loss

US GOVT. BY-PASS PUBLIC OPPOSITION

1. get rid of the military draft;
2. put the wars on a credit card ;
so fewer citizens pay attention
3. control over the type of free media

SERIES OF WAR PROPAGANDA SYSTEMS

-- planting retired generals as "talking heads" on TV
-- assistant to Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld
-- deciding to "embed the media"

⟴ work well to maintain
⟴ necessary level of war momentum
⟴ in mainstream media & amongst public opinion

SLEIGHT OF HAND
AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL USA
 & OTHER
BACK UP USA FOREIGN POLICY

JUST AS PUBLIC SOURS ON WAR

-- American polls approaching same as Europe
-- cited by the "CIA Red Cell" (that called for propaganda campaign) [see post, here]
-- & suddenly major human rights orgs
-- eg Amnesty International (& others)
-- applauding Obama's (and the feminist war-hawks')
-- "Atrocity Prevention Board"

Congress may allow
Pentagon propagandists
to target American citizens
through: National Defense Authorization Act of 2013

TWISTING & EXPLOITING HUMAN RIGHTS

"laudable need to further human rights should not be twisted into justifying harsh economic sanctions that kill hundreds of thousands of children or, even worse, "shock and awe" aerial bombing that takes the lives of the women and children the "humanitarian" propagandists say they want to help."
HUMAN RIGHTS EXPLOITED

FALSITY OF UTILITARIANISM
CONCOCTING FICTIONAL 'HAPPY' OUTCOMES
TO JUSTIFY WRONGFUL MEANS

Madeleine Albright
-- response re deaths HALF MILLION CHILDREN IN IRAQ
-- on 60 Minutes
-- that "the price was worth it"
-- illustrates falsity of what ethicists call
-- "act utilitarianism"
-- concocting fictional happy outcomes
-- to justify wrongful means

CORRUPTED
BY ALIGNMENT
WITH USA & NATO

  1. human rights NGOs - incl. Amnesty International
  2. Nobel Peace Prize

Nobel laureate
-- Mairead Maguire withdrew from the Nobel Peace Forum
-- held in CHICAGO during NATO
-- for that reason

"Good NGOS and non-profits that want to maintain the trust in their humanitarian work tend to be very careful to maintain their independence from any government"

SOURCE
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/coleen-rowley/amnestys-shilling-for-usn_b_1607361.html



RECOMMENDED FURTHER READING (POSTS)

CIA Propaganda - Selling War in Afghanistan
LINK | here

'CIA’s Hidden Hand in ‘Democracy’ Groups' | Robert Parry
LINK | here

Mainstream Media - Concentrated - Big-6 Corporate Control - Lies & Indoctrination
LINK | here

Modern Art As CIA Weapon
LINK | here

Other Interesting:

British Broadcasting Corporation
Syria: British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) - Fraud
LINK | here


---------------------- ꕤ ----------------------

COMMENT

As I've said before, this was a great article.

I've just banged out the summary.

Might have to come back to check for typos etc.



2012 - Afghanistan - "Amnesty's Shilling for US-NATO Wars" - And NATO-CIA Propaganda

Article
SOURCE
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/coleen-rowley/amnestys-shilling-for-usn_b_1607361.html



2012 Article

Relates to Amnesty International USA.

Former USA Executive Director 2012-2013:
Suzanne Nossel
Suzanne Nossel:
currently executive director of PEN American Centre
largest of the 144 centres that form a loose federation that comprise PEN International


Current USA Executive Director appointment:
Steven W. Hawkins
Steven W. Hawkins:
American social justice leader & litigator


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/coleen-rowley/amnestys-shilling-for-usn_b_1607361.html

Huffington Post - 2012

Coleen Rowley
Former FBI Special Agent

Amnesty's Shilling for US-NATO Wars

Posted: 20/06/2012 00:50 AEST Updated: 18/08/2012 19:12 AEST

By Ann Wright and Coleen Rowley



The new Executive Director of Amnesty International USA -- Suzanne Nossel -- is a recent U.S. government insider. So it's a safe bet that AI's decision to seize upon a topic that dovetailed with American foreign policy interests, "women's rights in Afghanistan," at the NATO Conference last month in Chicago came directly from her.

Nossel was hired by AI in January 2012. In her early career, Nossel worked for Ambassador Richard Holbrooke under the Clinton Administration at the United Nations. Most recently, she served as Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Organizations at the U.S. Department of State, where she was responsible for multilateral human rights, humanitarian affairs, women's issues, public diplomacy, press and congressional relations.

She also played a leading role in U.S. engagement at the U.N. Human Rights Council (where her views about the original Goldstone Report on behalf of Palestinian women did not quite rise to the same level of concerns for the women in countries that U.S.-NATO has attacked militarily).

Nossel would have worked for and with Hillary Clinton, Madeleine Albright, Samantha Power and Susan Rice, and undoubtedly helped them successfully implement their "Right to Protect (R2P)" -- otherwise known as "humanitarian intervention" -- as well as the newly created "Atrocity Prevention Board."

This cornerstone of President Barack Obama's foreign policy (which has served mainly to rationalize the launching of war on Libya) is now being hauled out to call for U.S.-NATO military intervention in Syria.

"Smart Power" = smart wars?

In fact, Nossel is herself credited as having coined the term "Smart Power," which embraces the United States' use of military power as well as other forms of "soft power," an approach which Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced at her confirmation as the new basis of State Department policy.

An excerpt from Nossel's 2004 paper on "Smart Power," published in the Council on Foreign Relations' Foreign Affairs magazine, sounds a lot like Samantha Power's (and also traces back to Madeleine Albright's) theories:



To advance from a nuanced dissent to a compelling vision, progressive policymakers should turn to the great mainstay of twentieth-century U.S. foreign policy: liberal internationalism, which posits that a global system of stable liberal democracies would be less prone to war.

Washington, the theory goes, should thus offer assertive leadership -- diplomatic, economic, and not least, military [our emphasis] -- to advance a broad array of goals: self-determination, human rights, free trade, the rule of law, economic development, and the quarantine and elimination of dictators and weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

Following the CIA Red Cell

Perhaps the AI's hiring of a State Department shill as executive director of its U.S. affiliate was merely coincidental to how/why its "NATO Shadow Summit" so closely mimicked the CIA's latest suggested propaganda device, but....

The "CIA Red Cell," a group of analysts assigned to think "outside the box" to anticipate emerging challenges, was right to worry in March 2010 when the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) found that 80 percent of French and German citizens were opposed to continued deployment of their countries' militaries in the U.S.-NATO war in Afghanistan.

Even though public apathy had, up to that point, enabled French and German politicians to "ignore their voters" and steadily increase their governments' troop contributions to Afghanistan, the CIA's newly-created think tank was concerned that a forecasted increase in NATO casualties in the upcoming "bloody summer ... could become a tipping point in converting passive opposition into active calls for immediate withdrawal."


In a confidential memo, the "Red Cell" wrote:


The Afghanistan mission's low public salience has allowed French and German leaders to disregard popular opposition and steadily increase their troop contributions to the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). Berlin and Paris currently maintain the third and fourth highest ISAF troop levels, despite the opposition of 80 percent of German and French respondents to increased ISAF deployments, according to INR polling in fall 2009.

Public Apathy Enables Leaders To Ignore Voters ...

Only a fraction (0.1-1.3 percent) of French and German respondents identified 'Afghanistan' as the most urgent issue facing their nation in an open-ended question, according to the same polling. These publics ranked 'stabilizing Afghanistan' as among the lowest priorities for US and European leaders, according to polls by the German Marshall Fund (GMF) over the past two years.

According to INR polling in the fall of 2009, the view that the Afghanistan mission is a waste of resources and 'not our problem' was cited as the most common reason for opposing ISAF by German respondents and was the second most common reason by French respondents. But the 'not our problem' sentiment also suggests that, so for, sending troops to Afghanistan is not yet on most voters' radar.

But Casualties Could Precipitate Backlash

If some forecasts of a bloody summer in Afghanistan come to pass, passive French and German dislike of their troop presence could turn into active and politically potent hostility. The tone of previous debate suggests that a spike in French or German casualties or in Afghan civilian casualties could become a tipping point in converting passive opposition into active calls for immediate withdrawal.

The CIA "Special Memorandum" went a step further, inviting "a CIA expert on strategic communication and analysts following public opinion" to suggest "information campaigns" that State Department polls showed likely to sway Western Europeans.

The "Red Cell" memo was quickly leaked, however, furnishing a remarkable window into how U.S. government propaganda is designed to work upon NATO citizenry to maintain public support for the euphemistically titled "International Security Assistance Force" (ISAF) waging war on Afghans. Here are some of the CIA propaganda expert's suggestions:


...messaging that dramatizes the potential adverse consequences of an ISAF defeat for Afghan civilians could leverage French (and other European) guilt for abandoning them. The prospect of the Taliban rolling back hard-won progress on girls' education could provoke French indignation, become a rallying point for France 's largely secular public, and give voters a reason to support a good and necessary cause despite casualties... Outreach initiatives that create media opportunities for Afghan women to share their stories with French, German, and other European women could help to overcome pervasive skepticism among women in Western Europe toward the ISAF mission...Media events that feature testimonials by Afghan women would probably be most effective if broadcast on programs that have large and disproportionately female audiences.

Amnesty International struck similar themes in announcements posted online as well as billboard advertisements on Chicago bus stops (like the one above). Telling "NATO: Keep the Progress Going!", the ads beckoned us to find out more on Sunday, May 20, 2012, the day thousands of activists marched in Chicago in protest of NATO's wars.

The billboard seemed to answer a recent Huffington Post blog post, "Afghanistan: The First Feminist War?"

The feminist victory may be complete in America, but on the international stage it's not doing so well with three quarters of the world's women still under often-severe male domination. Afghanistan is an extreme case in point in what might be termed the first feminist war ... a war that now may not be won even if Hillary Clinton dons a flack jacket and shoulders an M16 on the front lines. Still, since the Bush Administration to the present America 's top foreign policy office has been held by women ... women who have promised not to desert their Afghan sisters.

Our curiosity was further piqued because we consider ourselves to be women's rights and human rights proponents and also due to our own prior federal careers in intelligence and military. (Colonel Wright is retired from the State Department/US military and Rowley is from the FBI.)

So along with a few other anti-war activists, we packed into a taxi to head to the Chicago hotel where Amnesty International's "Shadow Summit" featuring former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and other female foreign relations officials was being held. We happened to carry our "NATO bombs are not humanitarian"; "NATO Kills Girls" and anti-drone bombing posters that we had with us for the march later that day.

As we arrived, an official-looking black car dropped off Melanne Verveer, U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women's Issues, who was to be a main speaker (on the first panel, along with former Secretary Albright; U.S. Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Illinois; and Afifa Azim, General Director and Co-Founder, Afghan Women's Network; along with Moderator Gayle Tzemach Lemmon, Deputy Director of the Council on Foreign Relations' Women and Foreign Policy Program).

Verveer cast a cold glance at us and would not answer Ann Wright's questions as she scurried into the hotel with her aides surrounding her and us following behind. At first the hotel security guards tried to turn us away but we reminded the registration desk the Summit was advertised as "Free Admissions" and that some of us were members of Amnesty International.

So they let us register and attend as long as we promised to leave our signs outside and not disrupt the speakers. The hotel conference room was about half full. We stayed long enough to hear the opening remarks and the moderator's first questions of Albright and the other speakers on the first panel.

All generally linked the protection and participation of Afghan women in government as well as the progress made in educating Afghan women to the eventual peace and security of the country as envisioned by the new strategic "partnership" agreement that Obama had just signed with Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

Ms. Verveer said Afghan women do not want to be seen as "victims" but are now rightfully nervous about their future. When we saw that audience participation was going to be limited to questions selected from the small note cards being collected, we departed, missing the second panel as well as kite-flying for women's rights.

We noted, even in that short time, however, how easy it was for these U.S. government officials to use the "good and necessary cause" of women's rights to get the audience into the palm of their collective hand -- just as the CIA's "strategic communication" expert predicted!

But Why Ms. Albright?

Not everyone was hoodwinked however. Even before the "Summit" was held, Amnesty realized it had a PR problem as a result of its billboard advertisement touting progress in Afghanistan. An Amnesty official tried to put forth a rather lame defense blaming an accidental poor choice of wording.

But many readers (and AI members) posted critical comments and questions, including concerns about Albright's involvement given her infamous defense of Iraqi sanctions in the 1990s, which were estimated to have caused the deaths of a half million Iraqi children, with the comment "we think the price is worth it."

Under the blogger's explanation: "We Get It / Human Rights Now," there were comments like these:


...Could someone from AI please explain why Madeleine Albright was invited to participate in this event? We (and especially those of us who are familiar with AI) should all be able to understand that the wording on the poster was a genuine, albeit damaging, mistake. But why Ms. Albright?

The posters are pro-NATO and play into prevailing tropes about so called "humanitarian intervention" via "think of the women & children" imagery. The posters & the forum that includes Albright are neither slight slips nor without context. AI is coping heat because they have miss-stepped dramatically. There is NOTHING subtle about either the imagery nor the message! It is not a case of "oh sorry we didn't realize it it could be interpreted that way! They used pro Nato imagery & slogans ahead of & during a controversial summit that has thousands protesting in the streets. Tell me again how that is not taking sides? They asked a notorious apologist for mass murder of children to speak on the right of women and children...tell me again: how is that not taking sides. So it is absolutely reasonable for past supporters (and board members like myself) to be asking how it is that Amnesty USA so lost its bearings they could make a critical SERIES of errors like this?

Of course the defensive AI blog author never answered the numerous questions asking why Amnesty had chosen Madeleine Albright as their main speaker. So we will venture an answer that probably lies in the fact that all of the powerful feminist-war hawks who have risen to become Secretary of State (or are waiting in the wings) are now taking their lead from the ruthless Grand Dame who paved the way for them, Madeleine Albright -- (see Coleen Rowley's recent blogs: "Obama's New 'Atrocity Prevention Board': Reasons for Skepticism" and "Militarization of the Mothers: You've Come a Long Way, Baby, from Mother's Day for Peace").

It's also possible the highest ranks of the feminist wing of military interventionism (i.e. Madeleine Albright, Condi Rice, Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, Samantha Power, et al.) are so passionate and hubristic about the nobility of their goal and "Amercan exceptionalism" that some have simply succumbed to a kind of almost religious (blind faith) type fervor.

The Road to Hell Is Paved With Good Intentions

Nossel's and Albright's theories are flawed in many ways but suffice it to say that democracies are actually not less prone to war. A long list of "democracies" -- including Nazi Germany, the Roman Empire, the United Kingdom, France and the United States itself -- disprove this assertion.

In any event, the U.S. has been terribly hypocritical in its support of "democracies" in foreign countries, often toppling or attempting to topple them (i.e. Iran's Mossadeqh, Guatemala's Arbenz, Chile's Allende) in order to gain easier control of a foreign country through an allied dictatorship.

No one is going to argue that the goals of humanitarianism, preventing atrocities and furthering women's rights around the world are not "good and necessary" (in the words of the CIA strategic communications expert). We would go so far as to say these ARE truly noble causes!

Testimonials about human rights' abuse are often true and fundamentalist regimes' treatment of women seems to vary only in degrees of horrible. But while it's true that many women lack rights in Afghanistan, some would argue that it's
conveniently true. And that the best lies are always based on a certain amount of truth.

The devil, however, lies in the details of promoting equality and accomplishing humanitarianism. Most importantly the ends, even noble ends, never justify wrongful means. In fact, when people such as Samantha Power decide to bomb the village (Libya) to save it, it will backfire on a pragmatic level.

It must be realized that it is the nobility of the U.S.-NATO's motivation that -- as CIA propaganda department has advised -- should be relied upon to convince otherwise good-hearted people (especially women) to support (or at least tolerate) war and military occupation (now known to encompass the worst of war crimes, massacres of women and children, torture, cutting off body parts of those killed, as well as increasing mental illness, self-destructive behavior and suicides among U.S. soldiers and the corresponding cover-ups of all such horrible means).

In the decades after Vietnam, a number of military scholars identified declining American public support for that war as the main factor responsible for the U.S. "losing" Vietnam. One lesson learned and quickly implemented was to get rid of the military draft and put the wars on a credit card so fewer citizens would pay attention.

Some control also had to be gained over the type of free media (that led to trusted TV anchor Walter Cronkite broadcasting his public souring on the Vietnam War). A whole series of war propaganda systems, from planting retired generals as "talking heads" on TV to the assistant to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld deciding to "embed the media," have worked pretty well to maintain the necessary level of war momentum in mainstream media and amongst public opinion.

But now, with American polls approaching the same problematic levels as those in Europe cited by the "CIA Red Cell," we suddenly see major human rights organizations like Amnesty International (as well as others) applauding Obama's (and the feminist war-hawks') "Atrocity Prevention Board."

Such sleight of hand seems to work even better amongst political partisans. By the way, it should be noted that Congress may allow these Pentagon propagandists to target American citizens through the National Defense Authorization Act of 2013. Should we connect the dots?

There are some clear lines where the laudable need to further human rights should not be twisted into justifying harsh economic sanctions that kill hundreds of thousands of children or, even worse, "shock and awe" aerial bombing that takes the lives of the women and children the "humanitarian" propagandists say they want to help.

Madeleine Albright's response about the deaths of a half million children on 60 Minutes, that "the price was worth it," illustrates the quintessential falsity of what ethicists call "act utilitarianism" or concocting fictional happy outcomes to justify the terrible wrongful means.

It also seems that a human rights NGO, in this case Amnesty International, which had gained a solid reputation and hence the trust of those it has helped through the years, will be jeopardized in aligning itself with the U.S. Secretary of State and NATO.

This is exactly how the Nobel Peace Prize got corrupted, aligning itself with the U.S. Secretary of State and NATO, which is why Nobel laureate Mairead Maguire withdrew from the Nobel Peace forum held in Chicago during NATO.

Good NGOS and non-profits that want to maintain the trust in their humanitarian work tend to be very careful to maintain their independence from any government, let alone any war-making government. When NGOs, even good ones, become entwined with the U.S./NATO war machine, don't they risk losing their independent credibility?

Ann Wright is a 29-year U.S. Army/Army Reserve Colonel and a 16-year U.S. diplomat who served in Nicaragua, Grenada, Somalia, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Sierra Leone, Micronesia, Afghanistan and Mongolia. She resigned in 2003 in opposition to the Iraq war. She returned to Afghanistan in 2007 and 2010 on fact-finding missions.

Coleen Rowley, a FBI special agent for almost 24 years, was legal counsel to the FBI Field Office in Minneapolis from 1990 to 2003. She wrote a "whistleblower" memo in May 2002 and testified to the Senate Judiciary on some of the FBI's pre-9/11 failures. She retired at the end of 2004, and now writes and speaks on ethical decision-making and balancing civil liberties with the need for effective investigation.



(Originally posted on Consortiumnews.com)




RECOMMENDED FURTHER READING (POSTS)

CIA Propaganda - Selling War in Afghanistan
LINK | here

'CIA’s Hidden Hand in ‘Democracy’ Groups' | Robert Parry
LINK | here

Mainstream Media - Concentrated - Big-6 Corporate Control - Lies & Indoctrination
LINK | here

Modern Art As CIA Weapon
LINK | here

Other Interesting:

British Broadcasting Corporation
Syria: British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) - Fraud
LINK | here




Summary
US-NATO War Machine

Humanitarian NGOs Shilling for US-NATO Wars
Entwined with US/NATO War Machine


Title: "Amnesty's Shilling for US-NATO Wars"



US-NATO / CIA PROPAGANDA
SELLING AFGHANISTAN WAR

USA UNSIGNING ROME STATUTE

USA THREATENING MILITARY ACTION RE BRINGING USA BEFORE ICC

CIA PROPAGANDA & MEDIA CONTROL - GENERAL



---------------------- ꕤ ----------------------

COMMENT


Feel like I've maybe read and posted this before.

It's a pain tracking anything on this blog, so I've not looked to see if I've covered this.

Memory's shocking, so it's all like new to me.   lol

Anyway, I really enjoyed this article. 

Even though it dates back to 2012, everything is applicable today in terms of how government, military, foreign policy, NGOs, humanitarian organisations etc operate.