Egypt, Israel, US Capitalist Empire & Saudi Arabia

Egypt, Israel, US Capitalist Empire ... & Saudi Arabia [ Long (but interesting) series of articles ] 1973 Arab–Israeli War aka Yom Kippur War Arab Coalition (led by Egypt & Syria) v. Israel -- Sinai & Golan Heights, occupied by Israel since 1967 (Six Day War) -- surprise attack on Israeli occupied Syrian & Egyptian territories -- on Jewish holy day / coinciding with Ramadan -- US & Soviet Union resupply respective allies, leading to near-confrontation -- 1978 Camp David Accords led to return of Sinai to Egypt -- Egypt left Soviet sphere of influence [wikipedia] Summary 1973-1974 Oil Crisis -- world oil prices quadrupled -- by OPEC -- exacerbating economic difficulties in industrialised nations -- generated large surpluses for oil exporters -- unsatisfactory negotiations b/w OPEC & Western oil companies -- re petrol production & prices -- crisis ensued -- Richard Nixon took US off gold standard in 1971, contributing to oil crisis -- oil prices were set in dollars / end of Bretton Woods monetary system -- US dollar devalued & thus negatively impacted on oil exporting countries -- OPEC considered pricing oil in gold instead of dollars -- Arabs in response to 1973 Arab–Israeli War raised price of crude by 70% -- Arabs also embargo on exports to US & other nations allied with Israel -- following end of conflict, OPEC continued to use oil weapon -- oil exporters cut production by 25% -- then they doubled price of crude -- by 1974 world oil prices 4 times higher than at start of crisis -- prices stabilised but impact on international system -- rise in world energy prices ensues -- unprecedented current account surpluses for oil-exporting nations -- surpluses ended up deposited in US banks -- through 'petrodollar recycling' system funds -- oil-export surplus funds then loaned to oil-importing developing nations to to finance energy imports -- high energy prices stagnated industrialised economic growth     & led to inflation -- combination is known as:  'stagflation' -- developing nations reportedly demanded establishment of:      new international economic order, involving:     -- increased foreign aid levels [comment:  debt slavery]     -- sovereign debt relief [comment:  debt slavery]      -- preferential trade agreements with industrialised economies        [comment:  economic bondage?] -- end of cheap oil forced industrialised economies to curb energy use http://vm136.lib.berkeley.edu/BANC/ROHO/projects/debt/oilcrisis.html http://archive.is/HAW4Z http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/02/22/what-really-happened-in-the-yom-kippur-war/ February 22, 2012 What Really Happened in the “Yom Kippur” War? by Israel Shamir Moscow Here in Moscow I recently received a dark-blue folder dated 1975. It contains one of the most well-buried secrets of Middle Eastern and of US diplomacy. The secret file, written by the Soviet Ambassador in Cairo, Vladimir M. Vinogradov, apparently a draft for a memorandum addressed to the Soviet politbureau, describes the 1973 October War as a collusive enterprise between US, Egyptian and Israeli leaders, orchestrated by Henry Kissinger. If you are an Egyptian reader this revelation is likely to upset you. I, an Israeli who fought the Egyptians in the 1973 war, was equally upset and distressed, – yet still excited by the discovery. For an American it is likely to come as a shock. According to the Vinogradov memo (to be published by us in full in the Russian weekly Expert next Monday), Anwar al-Sadat, holder of the titles of President, Prime Minister, ASU Chairman, Chief Commander, Supreme Military Ruler, entered into conspiracy with the Israelis, betrayed his ally Syria, condemned the Syrian army to destruction and Damascus to bombardment, allowed General Sharon’s tanks to cross without hindrance to the western bank of the Suez Canal, and actually planned a defeat of the Egyptian troops in the October War. Egyptian soldiers and officers bravely and successfully fought the Israeli enemy – too successfully for Sadat’s liking as he began the war in order to allow for the US comeback to the Middle East. He was not the only conspirator: according to Vinogradov, the grandmotherly Golda Meir knowingly sacrificed two thousand of Israel’s best fighters – she possibly thought fewer would be killed — in order to give Sadat his moment of glory and to let the US  secure its positions in the Middle East. The memo allows for a completely new interpretation of the Camp David Treaty, as one achieved by deceit and treachery. Vladimir Vinogradov was a prominent and brilliant Soviet diplomat; he served as  ambassador to Tokyo in the 1960s, to Cairo from 1970 to 1974, co-chairman of the Geneva Peace Conference,  ambassador to Teheran during the Islamic revolution, the USSR Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation. He was a gifted painter and a prolific writer; his archive has hundreds of pages of unique observations and notes covering international affairs, but the place of honor goes to his Cairo diaries, and among others, descriptions of his hundreds of meetings with Sadat and the full sequence of the war as he observed it unfold at  Sadat’s hq as the big decisions were made. When published, these notes will allow to re-evaluate the post-Nasser period of Egyptian history. Vinogradov arrived to Cairo for Nasser’s funeral and remained there as the Ambassador. He recorded the creeping coup of Sadat,  least bright of Nasser’s men, who became Egypt’s president by chance, as he was the vice-president at Nasser’s death. Soon he dismissed, purged and imprisoned practically all important Egyptian politicians, the comrades-in-arms of Gamal Abd el Nasser, and dismantled the edifice of Nasser’s socialism. Vinogradov was an astute observer; not a conspiracy cuckoo. Far from being headstrong and  doctrinaire, he was a friend of Arabs and a consistent supporter and promoter of a lasting and just peace between the Arabs and Israel, a peace that would meet  Palestinian needs and ensure Jewish prosperity. The pearl of his archive is the file called The Middle Eastern Games. It contains some 20 typewritten pages edited by hand in blue ink, apparently a draft for a memo to the Politburo and to the government, dated January 1975, soon after his return from Cairo. The file contains the deadly secret of the collusion he observed. It is written in lively and highly readable Russian, not in the bureaucratese we’d expect. Two pages are added to the file in May 1975; they describe Vinogradov’s visit to Amman and his informal talks with Abu Zeid Rifai, the Prime Minister, and his exchange of views with the Soviet Ambassador in Damascus. Vinogradov did not voice his opinions until 1998, and even then he did not speak as openly as in this draft. Actually, when the suggestion of collusion was presented to him by the Jordanian prime minister, being a prudent diplomat, he refused to discuss it. The official version of the October war holds that on  October  6, 1973, in conjunction with Hafez al-Assad of Syria, Anwar as-Sadat launched a surprise attack against Israeli forces. They crossed the Canal and advanced a few miles into the occupied Sinai. As the war progressed, tanks of General Ariel Sharon  crossed the Suez Canal and encircled the Egyptian Third Army. The ceasefire negotiations eventually led to the handshake at the White House. For me, the Yom Kippur War (as we called it) was an important part of my autobiography. A young paratrooper, I fought that war, crossed the canal, seized Gabal Ataka heights, survived shelling and face-to-face battles, buried my buddies, shot the man-eating red dogs of the desert and the enemy tanks. My unit was ferried by helicopters into the desert where we severed the main communication line between the Egyptian armies and its home base, the Suez-Cairo highway. Our location at 101 km to Cairo was used for the first cease fire talks; so I know that war not by  word of mouth, and it hurts to learn that I and my comrades-at-arms were just disposable tokens in the ruthless game we – ordinary people – lost. Obviously I did not know it then,  for me the war was a surprise, but then,  I was not a general. Vinogradov dispels the idea of  surprise: in his view, both the canal crossing by the Egyptians and the inroads by Sharon were planned and agreed upon in advance by Kissinger, Sadat and Meir. The plan included the destruction of the Syrian army as well. At first, he asks some questions: how the crossing could be a surprise if the Russians evacuated their families a few days before the war? The concentration of the forces was observable and could not escape Israeli attention. Why did the Egyptian forces  not proceed after the crossing but stood still? Why did they have no plans for advancing? Why there was a forty km-wide unguarded gap between the 2d and the 3d armies, the gap that invited Sharon’s raid? How could Israeli tanks sneak to the western bank of the Canal? Why did Sadat refuse to stop them? Why were there no reserve forces on the western bank of the Canal? Vinogradov takes a leaf from Sherlock Holmes who said: when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. He writes: These questions can’t be answered if Sadat is to be considered a true patriot of Egypt. But they can be answered in full, if we consider a possibility of collusion between Sadat, the US and Israeli leadership – a conspiracy in which each participant pursued his own goals. A conspiracy in which each participant did not know the full details of other participants’ game.  A conspiracy in which each participant tried to gain more ground despite the overall agreement between them. Sadat’s Plans Before the war Sadat was at the nadir of his power: in Egypt and abroad he had lost  prestige. The least educated and least charismatic of Nasser’s followers, Sadat was isolated. He needed a war, a limited war with Israel that would not end with defeat. Such a war would release the pressure in the army and he would regain his authority. The US agreed to give him a green light for the war, something the Russians never did. The Russians protected Egypt’s skies, but they were against wars. For that, Sadat had to rely upon the US and part with the USSR. He was ready to do so as he loathed socialism. He did not need victory, just no defeat; he wanted to explain his failure to win by deficient Soviet equipment. That is why the army was given the minimal task: crossing the Canal and hold the bridgehead until the Americans entered the game. Plans of the US During decolonisation the US lost strategic ground in the Middle East with its oil, its Suez Canal, its vast population. Its ally Israel had to be supported, but the Arabs were growing stronger all the time. Israel had to be made more flexible, for its brutal policies interfered with the US plans. So the US had to keep Israel as its ally but at the same time Israel’s arrogance had to be broken. The US needed a chance to “save” Israel after allowing the Arabs to beat the Israelis for a while. So the US allowed Sadat to begin a limited war.   [comment:  I'm inclined to believe whatever happened is entirely the result of US-Israeli advance agreement.] Israel        Israel’s leaders had to help the US, its main provider and supporter. The US needed to improve its positions in the Middle East, as in 1973 they  had only one friend and ally, King Feisal. (Kissinger told Vinogradov that Feisal tried to educate him about the evilness of Jews and Communists.) If and when the US was to recover its position in the Middle East, the Israeli position would improve drastically. Egypt was a weak link, as Sadat disliked the USSR and the progressive forces in the country, so it could be turned. Syria could be dealt with militarily, and broken.  [comment:  I'm not inclined to believe that Israel 'had' to do anything; US is a provider and supporter by default, & I would wager whatever happened was agreed on between US-Israel in advance.  The Kissinger thing doesn't make sense.  Kissinger is Bavarian-born Jewish.  Why would the Saudi royal insult him?] The Israelis and Americans decided to let Sadat take the Canal while holding the mountain passes of Mittla and Giddi, a better defensive line anyway. This was actually Rogers’ plan of 1971, acceptable to Israel. But this should be done in fighting, not given up for free. As for Syria, it was to be militarily defeated, thoroughly. That is why the Israeli Staff did sent all its available troops to the Syrian border, while denuding the Canal though the Egyptian army was much bigger than the Syrian one. Israeli troops at the Canal were to be sacrificed in this game; they were to die in order to bring the US back into the Middle East.  [Comment:  Without US hegemony, I suspect Israel would be in difficulties, so if Israel can advance US aims, it will.  While it's initially shocking that a large number of Israelis may have been sacrificed, it's probably not that shocking in the great scheme of things.   Israel is ambitious and the stakes are high. ] However, the plans of the three partners were somewhat derailed by the factors on the ground: it is the usual problem with conspiracies; nothing works as it should, Vinogradov writes in his memo to be published in full next week in Moscow’s Expert. Sadat’s crooked game was spoiled to start with. His presumptions did not work out. Contrary to his expectations, the USSR supported the Arab side and began a massive airlift of its most modern military equipment right away. The USSR took the risk of confrontation with the US; Sadat had not  believed they would because the Soviets were adamant against the war, before it started. His second problem, according to Vinogradov, was the superior quality of Russian weapons in the hands of Egyptian soldiers  — better than the western weapons in the Israelis’ hands.  [comment:  that's a massive betrayal of the Russians.  Lesson to be learned:  (a) keep close watch on allies, (b) seek out the weak link among allies and either eliminate or exploit.  And either pay back Egypt or turn Egypt, which probably remains the weakest link.  LOL ] As an Israeli soldier of the time I must confirm the Ambassador’s words. The Egyptians had the legendary Kalashnikov AK-47 assault rifles, the best gun in the world, while we had FN battle rifles that hated sand and water. We dropped our FNs and picked up their AKs at the first opportunity. They used anti-tank Sagger missiles, light, portable, precise, carried by one soldier. Saggers killed between 800 and 1200 Israeli tanks. We had old 105 mm recoilless jeep-mounted rifles, four men at a rifle (actually, a small cannon) to fight tanks. Only new American weapons redressed the imbalance. Sadat did not expect the Egyptian troops taught by the Soviet specialists to better their Israeli enemy – but they did. They crossed the Canal much faster than planned and with much smaller losses. Arabs beating the Israelis – it was bad news for Sadat. He overplayed his hand. That is why the Egyptian troops stood still, like the sun upon Gibeon, and did not move. They waited for the Israelis, but at that time the Israeli army was fighting the Syrians. The Israelis felt somewhat safe from Sadat’s side and they sent all their army north. The Syrian army took the entire punch of Israeli forces and began its retreat. They asked Sadat to move forward, to take some of the heat off them, but Sadat refused. His army stood and did not move, though there were no Israelis between the Canal and the mountain passes. Syrian leader al Assad was convinced at that time that Sadat betrayed him, and he said so frankly to the Soviet ambassador in Damascus, Mr Muhitdinov, who passed this to Vinogradov. Vinogradov saw Sadat daily and asked him in real time why he was not advancing. He received no reasonable answer: Sadat muttered that he does not want to run all over Sinai looking for Israelis, that sooner or later they would come to him. The Israeli leadership was worried: the war was not going as expected. There were big losses on the Syrian front, the Syrians retreated but each yard was hard fought; only Sadat’s passivity saved the Israelis from a reverse. The plan to for total Syrian defeat failed, but the Syrians could not effectively counterattack. This was the time to punish Sadat: his army was too efficient, his advance too fast, and worse, his reliance upon the Soviets only grew due to the air bridge. The Israelis arrested their advance on Damascus and turned their troops southwards to Sinai. The Jordanians could at this time have cut off the North-to-South route and king Hussein proposed this to Sadat and Assad. Assad agreed immediately, but Sadat refused to accept the offer. He explained it to Vinogradov that he did not believe in the fighting abilities of the Jordanians. If they entered the war, Egypt would have to save them. At other times he said that it is better to lose the whole of Sinai than to lose a square yard on the Jordan: an insincere and foolish remark, in Vinogradov’s view. So the Israeli troops rolled southwards without hindrance. During the war, we (the Israelis) also knew that if Sadat advanced, he would gain the whole of Sinai in no time; we entertained many hypotheses why he was standing still, none satisfactory. Vinogradov explains it well: Sadat ran off his script and was waited for  US involvement. What he got was the deep raid of Sharon.  [comment:  LOL ... the double-crosser Sadat got double-crossed?  Nah, it was probably pre-arranged.  Sacrificial piece or something.] This breakthrough of the Israeli troops to the western bank of the Canal was the murkiest part of the war, Vinogradov writes. He asked Sadat’s military commanders at the beginning of the war why there is the forty km wide gap between the Second and the Third armies and was told that this was Sadat’s directive. The gap was not even guarded; it was left wide open like a Trojan backdoor in a computer program. Sadat paid no attention to Sharon’s raid; he was indifferent to this dramatic development. Vinogradov asked him to deal with it when only the first five Israeli tanks crossed the Canal westwards; Sadat refused, saying it was of no military importance, just a “political move”, whatever that meant. He repeated this to Vinogradov later, when the Israeli foothold on the Western bank of became a sizeable bridgehead. Sadat did not listen to advice from Moscow, he opened the door for the Israelis into Africa. This allows for two explanations, says Vinogradov: an impossible one, of the Egyptians’ total military ignorance and  an improbable one, of Sadat’s intentions. The improbable wins, as Sherlock Holmes observed. The Americans did not stop the Israeli advance right away, says Vinogradov, for they wanted to have a lever to push Sadat so he would not change his mind about the whole setup. Apparently the gap was built into the deployments for this purpose. So Vinogradov’s idea of “conspiracy” is that of dynamic collusion, similar to the collusion on Jordan between the Jewish Yishuv and Transjordan as described by Avi Shlaim: there were some guidelines and agreements, but they were liable to change, depending on the strength of the sides. Bottom line The US “saved” Egypt by stopping the advancing Israeli troops. With the passive support of Sadat, the US allowed Israel to hit Syria really  hard. The US-negotiated disengagement agreements with the UN troops in-between made Israel safe for years to come. (In a different and important document, “Notes on Heikal’s book Road to Ramadan”, Vinogradov rejects the thesis of the unavoidability of Israeli-Arab wars: he says that as long as Egypt remains in the US thrall, such a war is unlikely. Indeed there have been no big wars since 1974, unless one counts Israeli “operations” in Lebanon and Gaza.) The US “saved” Israel with military supplies. Thanks to Sadat, the US came back to the Middle East and positioned itself as the only mediator and “honest broker” in the area. Sadat began a violent anti-Soviet and antisocialist campaign, Vinogradov writes, trying to discredit the USSR. In the Notes, Vinogradov charges that Sadat spread many lies and disinformation to discredit the USSR in the Arab eyes. His main line was: the USSR could not and would not  liberate  Arab soil while the US could, would and did. Vinogradov explained elsewhere that the Soviet Union was and is against offensive wars, among other reasons because their end is never certain. However, the USSR was ready to go a long way to defend Arab states. As for liberation, the years since 1973 have proved that the US can’t or won’t deliver that, either – while the return of Sinai to Egypt in exchange for separate peace was always possible, without a war as well. After the war, Sadat’s positions improved drastically. He was hailed as hero, Egypt took a place of honor among the Arab states. But in a year, Sadat’s reputation was in tatters again, and that of Egypt went to an all time low, Vinogradov writes. The Syrians understood Sadat’s game very early: on October 12, 1973 when the Egyptian troops stood still and ceased fighting, President Hafez el Assad said to the Soviet ambassador that he is certain Sadat was intentionally betraying Syria. Sadat deliberately allowed the Israeli breakthrough to the Western bank of Suez, in order to give Kissinger a chance to intervene and realise his disengagement plan, said Assad to Jordanian Prime Minister Abu Zeid Rifai who told it to Vinogradov during a private breakfast they had in his house in Amman. The Jordanians also suspect Sadat played a crooked game, Vinogradov writes. However, the prudent Vinogradov refused to be drawn into this discussion though he felt that the Jordanians “read his thoughts.” When Vinogradov was appointed  co-chairman of the Geneva Peace Conference, he encountered a united Egyptian-American position aiming to disrupt the conference, while Assad refused even to take part in it. Vinogradov delivered him a position paper for the conference and asked whether it is acceptable for Syria. Assad replied: yes but for one line. Which one line, asked  a hopeful Vinogradov, and Assad retorted: the line saying “Syria agrees to participate in the conference.” Indeed the conference came to nought, as did all other conferences and arrangements. Though the suspicions voiced by Vinogradov in his secret document have been made by various military experts and historians, never until now they were made by a participant in the events, a person of such exalted position, knowledge, presence at key moments. Vinogradov’s notes allow us to decipher and trace the history of Egypt with its de-industrialisation, poverty, internal conflicts, military rule tightly connected with the phony war of 1973. A few years after the war, Sadat was assassinated, and his hand-picked follower Hosni Mubarak began his long rule, followed by another participant of the October War, Gen Tantawi. Achieved by lies and treason, the Camp David Peace treaty still guards Israeli and American interests. Only now, as the post-Camp David regime in Egypt is on the verge of collapse, one may hope for change. Sadat’s name in the pantheon of Egyptian heroes was safe until now. In  the end, all that is hidden will be made transparent. Postscript. In 1975, Vinogradov could not predict that the 1973 war and subsequent treaties would change the world. They sealed the fate of the Soviet presence and eminence in the Arab world, though the last vestiges were destroyed by  American might much later: in Iraq in 2003 and in Syria they are being undermined now. They undermined the cause of socialism in the world,  which began its long fall. The USSR, the most successful state of 1972, an almost-winner of the Cold war, eventually lost it. Thanks to the American takeover of Egypt, petrodollar schemes were formed, and the dollar that began its decline in 1971 by losing its gold standard – recovered and became again a full-fledged world reserve currency. The oil of the Saudis and of sheikdoms being sold for dollars became the new lifeline for the American empire. Looking back, armed now  with  the Vinogradov Papers, we can confidently mark 1973-74 as a decisive turning point in our history. ISRAEL SHAMIR has been sending dispatches to CounterPunch from Moscow. http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/02/22/what-really-happened-in-the-yom-kippur-war/ http://archive.is/p5Hg US Capitalist Regime Military Aid to Repressive Egypt Egypt 2014: -- annual $1.3 billion American military aid package -- having signed peace agreement with Israel (1979) -- cash flow finance - preferential military hardware orders from USA -- granted only to:  Israel & Egypt -- 2013:  900 protesters killed crackdown on demonstration, Cairo -- Abdel Fattah el-Sisi reportedly took control by military coup (2013) -- "deposed strongman Hosni Mubarak" -- NYT reports 'rigged election' & claims Muslim Brotherhood leaders 'unfairly branded as terrorists' http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/05/opinion/sunday/reining-in-egypts-military-aid.html?_r=0 Washington Post 2013: -- since early 1980s, US grants Egypt -- extraordinary ability to place orders with American arms contractors -- worth far more than Congress allotted to military aid -- mechanism:  'cash-flow financing' -- orders of a size that take years to produce & deliver -- like a credit card in billions of dollars -- likewise granted to Israel -- only Israel & Egypt -- Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) -- subcommittee State Dept. re foreign ops & related: -- "we are mortgaged years into the future for expensive equipment" -- "stuck on autopilot for more than 25 years" -- windfall for U.S. defence contractors -- replacing Egypt's ageing Soviet hardware / deepening Egypt's dependence on US-made arms -- USA gets:     -- expedited access to the Suez Canal for Navy ships     -- overflight rights for military aircraft     -- 'face time' with Egypt generals -- Egypt gets:     -- one of regions strongest militaries -- US relationship w/ Egypt deemed:  "increasingly volatile, it’s increasingly fluid" -- country:  unpredictability -- USA fiscally tied to policy -- were USA to push-back re Egypt, would impact US arms production industries -- practice of 'cash-flow financing' commits USG to ongoing financing -- to ensure signed contracts for arms are honoured -- oddly:  U.S. law. Leahy and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) are for cutting off aid 2013 https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/in-debate-over-military-aid-to-egypt-contractual-issues-loom-large-for-us/2013/07/25/9d0834c0-f4a5-11e2-aa2e-4088616498b4_story.html https://theintercept.com/2016/05/12/state-department-fails-to-vet-or-monitor-military-aid-to-egypt/ State Department Fails to Vet or Monitor Military Aid to Egypt Alex Emmons May 13 2016, 8:27 a.m. The U.S is not sufficiently vetting the sale of weapons to the repressive government of Egypt, and doesn’t know enough about how those weapons are being used – including night vision goggles and riot control weapons. According to a new report by the Government Accountability Office, the State Department also fails to consistently conduct legally-required review of the Egyptian forces that are supplied and trained by the U.S. The U.S. government has sent Egypt more than $6.4 billion in military aid since 2011, which has been used to purchase F-16 jets, Apache helicopters, tanks, explosives, and police equipment. The U.S. government has bankrolled the Egyptian military for decades, propping up the rule of longtime dictator Hosni Mubarak. But the aid was widely criticized after 2013, when a military coup deposed Egypt’s new democratically elected president, Mohammed Morsi. To skirt a law banning aid to coup regimes, the State Department has refused to call what happened a “coup.” After the military regime came to power, led by General Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, it immediately cracked down on protestors and members of the Muslim Brotherhood, the political party of the former president. One morning that August, government forces killed 900 people. In the year that followed, the government detained at least 41,000 people, and sentenced citizens to die hundreds at a time. But U.S. aid continued. Congress has passed several laws restricting military aid to countries that systematically violate human rights. One such law, called the “Leahy Law,” named after its sponsor in the Senate, requires the State Department to suspend military aid to any individual, unit, or country that it determines “has committed a gross violation of human rights.” But the GAO’s new report alleges that the State Department regularly makes that certification without any justification. “While the memos declare State’s compliance with the Leahy laws,” the report says, “State [Department] officials acknowledged that there is no required process used to support the statements in the memos.” Additionally, the report alleges that “officials with information about human rights violations in Egypt are not involved in [the] drafting” of the memos, and that the officials who normally manage Leahy vetting at the embassy “do not play a role in the development of these memos.” The report also found that the Embassy was repeatedly failing to conduct end-use checks on weapons shipments. Between 2010 and 2015, the State Department has issued 1,280 weapons export licenses to Egypt, but it has only conducted four post-shipment checks in the past five years. In one check on riot control gear – including rubber bullet cartridges and smoke grenades – the Egyptian Interior Ministry simply did not respond to the State Department’s repeated requests for information. But the State Department nonetheless closed the request as “favorable.” The GAO also reports that the U.S. “did not complete all required vetting” for recipients of U.S. training, “prior to providing training.” Between 2011 and 2015, the U.S. embassy vetted more than 5,500 individuals or units in the Egyptian security forces and rejected only 18 – far less than 1 percent. The State Department did not reject a single case after the military coup in 2013. The State Department’s internal regulations require embassies to upload information on “gross human rights violations” into a computer system, so that future employees can conduct vetting. But the GAO found that since 2011, only three reports of human rights violations had been uploaded, and none since the military coup in 2013. Under current law, 15 percent of U.S. aid to Egypt can be withheld if it doesn’t meet certain human rights conditions. There is an exemption, however, based on the U.S.’s “national security interest,” which was invoked last year to send the full amount. Despite that fact, as my colleague Zaid Jilani reported, President Obama has proposed stripping out human rights restrictions on aid sent to Egypt. https://theintercept.com/2016/05/12/state-department-fails-to-vet-or-monitor-military-aid-to-egypt/ http://archive.is/K6S3e http://presstv.ir/Detail/2016/05/13/465455/UN-human-rights-Israel-Saudi-Arabia-Palestine Press TV UN panel warns about Israel, Saudi human rights violations Fri May 13, 2016 10:10PM HomeMiddle EastPalestine A United Nations panel against torture has warned about violations of human rights by the Israeli regime and Saudi Arabia. In a Friday report called "Concluding Observations", the Committee against Torture voiced concern about issues such as Israel's administrative detention of Palestinians, the excessive use of force by Israeli forces against Palestinians, the conditions of Palestinian detainees, including hunger strikes and solitary confinements, the demolition of Palestinian houses, and Israeli settler violence against Palestinians. Administrative detention is a sort of imprisonment without trial or charge that allows the Tel Aviv regime to incarcerate Palestinians for up to six months. The detention order can be renewed for indefinite periods of time. Over 7,000 Palestinians are reportedly incarcerated in 17 Israeli prisons and detention camps, many of them without charge or trial. Regarding the use of excessive force, the report said that some of Israeli forces’ reactions to alleged Palestinian attacks “strongly suggest unlawful killings, including possible extrajudicial executions.” The committee also expressed concern about “torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment of persons deprived of liberty, including minors,” by the Tel Aviv regime. Jailed Saudi blogger Raif Badawi (file photo) Saudi rights violations In its first review of Saudi Arabia since 2002, the committee also voiced its “deep concern” over issues like torture and ill-treatment in Saudi prisons and detention centers, mistreatment of journalists and migrant workers, coerced confessions and death penalty in the kingdom. The report further warned against “continued sentencing to and imposition of corporal punishments” by Saudi officials. As an instance, it pointed to the case of Raif Badawi, a Saudi blogger who has been sentenced to 1,000 lashes and 10 years in jail for his writings on the internet, which Saudi authorities described as an affront to Islam. Riyadh “should review the case of Raif Badawi with, at a minimum, a view to invalidating any aspect of his sentence involving corporal punishment,” the report said. It also lamented the “persistence of the death penalty and the growing number of executions carried out in Saudi Arabia.” Riyadh has long been under fire at the international level for its grim human rights record. The kingdom reportedly executed 153 individuals, including 71 foreign nationals, in 2015. Amnesty International said in a report last year that court proceedings in Saudi Arabia “fall far short” of global norms of fairness. The Committee against Torture generally examines countries every five years or so, but it could not do so for Saudi Arabia because Riyadh's report on its compliance with the UN Convention against Torture was already four years overdue. The committee also published its concluding observations about France, Tunisia, Turkey and the Philippines on Friday as part of regular reviews by the panel. http://presstv.ir/Detail/2016/05/13/465455/UN-human-rights-Israel-Saudi-Arabia-Palestine http://archive.is/gHAtw  COMMENT Egypt & Israel are top two (by miiiiiiiiiiiiiiles) US capitalist regime military aid recipients, and both stand accused of human rights violations.   The US capitalist regime ignores legislative prohibitions in relation to advancing aid in these circumstances, as such legislation is merely token.  If we step back and look at the larger picture, we see. 'National interests' are a get out of 'human rights' violations free card that can be invoked at any time by the US capitalist regime.  Wait a minute:  they're the very same (and strategically selective) 'human rights' 'concerns' the capitalist regime invokes as a pretext to bomb weaker foreign targets. Meanwhile, privately owned American military manufacturers are rolling in obscene amounts of US taxpayer money, and rolling in arms orders on US taxpayer funded credit of a magnitude to support orders for many years to come.   At the same time, US infrastructure is crumbling and ordinary Americans are drinking polluted water and driving on rickety bridges etc.   That's capitalism in action.   The American 'land of the free' masses are duped slaves of the ruling wealthy, who apparently do as they please ... interspersed with US oligarchy bankrolled & controlled phony show-elections, like the election coming up later this year (funded by Wall Street).   That's 'democracy' for you, in the US capitalist-controlled regime's model society that serves as TEMPLATE FOR THE REST OF THE WORLD.  YIKES! Oh, and this is pretty much the extent of the American capitalist phony commitment to 'human rights' ideals, so often frowned over by 'concerned' 'champions' of 'hooman rights', such as Samantha Power.   Yep.  The same 'human rights' international law provisions that have manifested in dispossession and demographic slaughter of Europeans on their ancestral homelands, in line with the US-led capitalist destruction of nations earmarked for 'integration' into global markets; an agenda that has been imposed on Europe since WWII.  And this is the same phony concern for 'human rights' that's invoked by the US capitalist regime, in attempts to undermine or otherwise attack targeted foreign states. *That was a cool series of articles.

British In Bed With The Saudis - No Regard for Human Rights - It's A Scam

ꕤ Article SOURCE http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/01/05/bribery-over-humanity-the-uk-saudi-arabia-and-the-un-human-rights-council/ http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/01/05/bribery-over-humanity-the-uk-saudi-arabia-and-the-un-human-rights-council/ January 5, 2016 Bribery over Humanity: The UK, Saudi Arabia and the UN Human Rights Council by Binoy Kampmark Wither human rights – especially when it comes to strategic partnerships. The UK-Saudi Arabia relationship has been one of a seedier sort, filled with military deals, mooted criticism and hedging. When given the John Snow treatment as to what Britain’s role behind securing Saudi Arabia its position on the UN Human Rights Council was, Prime Minister David Cameron fenced furiously before embellishing Riyadh’s value in its relations with the West. [comment:  not sure who John Snow is ... it may be Channel 4 presenter, Jon Snow - here] The paper trail in such matters is always useful, and given that Britain remains one of the most secretive states in the western world, those things are not always easy to come by. Light, however, was already shed by cables released through WikiLeaks suggesting that a degree of haggling had taken place between the states over the subject of compromising human rights. The Saudi cable trove, made available to WikiLeaks last June, has spurred various groups to comb through the foreign ministry collection with an eye to decoding the Kingdom’s sometimes inscrutable positions. The relevant documentation in this case touches on talks between Saudi and British officials ahead of the November 2013 vote on membership of the 47 member body. Cables from January and February 2013, separately translated by UN Watch and The Australian, discloses proposed positions of support. One cable posits how, “The [Saudi] delegation is honoured to send to the ministry the enclosed memorandum, which the delegation has received from the permanent mission of the United Kingdom asking it for the support and backing of their country to the membership of the human rights council (HRC) for the period 2014-2016, in the elections that will take place in 2013 in the city of New York.” It goes on to say how, “The ministry might find it an opportunity to exchange support with the United Kingdom, where the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia would support the candidacy of the United Kingdom to the membership of the council for the period 2014-2015 in exchange for the support of the United Kingdom to the candidacy of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.” The cables also reveal how money was expended for the campaign to gain the seat, noting a transfer of $100,000 for “expenditures resulting from the campaign to nominate the Kingdom for membership of the human rights council for the period 2014-2016.” While the itemisation of that item is not available, the Kingdom’s record on sugaring and softening its counterparts to improve its image is well known. A spokesman from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office attempted to nip any suspicions in the bud in rather unconvincing fashion. “Saudi Arabia took part in an uncontested election for a seat as one of the Asian Group members in the UN’s Human Rights Council.” Besides, the UK’s position, so went the argument, was of no consequence, whatever might have been said behind closed doors. The UK might not publicise “how it votes” but as “this was not a contested election within the Asian Group… the UK’s vote was immaterial.” The situation has also been further excited by the mass execution on Saturday of 47 individuals, including the outspoken Shia cleric Sheik Nimr al-Nimr. It was the largest show of death put on by the Kingdom since 1980. Neither the Green Party leader, Natalie Bennett or Tim Farron of the Liberal Democrats, could let that one pass. “In light of the weekend’s events,” claimed Bennett, “the government should be launching an inquiry to establish who made the decision to so abuse the UN process and the principle of universal human rights.” The perennial problem here is that any government inquiry tends to be an exercise of exculpation rather than revelation. [comment:  eluding responsibility rather than fact-finding / exposing] The response from the British FCO to the spectacular bloodletting on Saturday was of the tepid, pedestrian variety, taken straight out of its precedent book of tepid, pedestrian responses. “The UK opposes the death penalty in all circumstances and in every country. The death penalty undermines human dignity and there is no evidence that it works as a deterrent.” The statement goes on to suggest that the foreign secretary is doing his job, regularly raising “human rights issues with his counterparts in countries of concern, including Saudi Arabia. We seek to build strong and mature relationships so that we can be candid with each other about these areas on which we do not agree, including on human rights.” So candid were these exchanges, they led to a compromise regarding Britain’s own stance on human rights abuses. If anything, it induced a cynical caricature, one of positioning and sponsorship for an image distinctly at odds with the reality. For Riyadh, this could not be seen as anything other than a coup in international diplomacy. The Kingdom had found its own useful, complicit fool. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email:  bkampmark@gmail.com http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/01/05/bribery-over-humanity-the-uk-saudi-arabia-and-the-un-human-rights-council/ ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- COMMENT The human rights topic is wasted on me. As I see things, universal human rights principles are just a means of (a) interfering with other nations (bullying, shaming, undermining, pressuring, smearing, fomenting dissent etc), while maintaining pious intentions; and (b) a means of politically assaulting and manipulating domestic political opponents (or other targets), in the usual guise of 'concern', 'condemnation' and other holier than thou rubuke, or whatever else. I highly doubt that those at the top end of national government (whoever they may be) actually consider the notion of 'human rights' (and certainly not domestic rights), as they plot their way to domination and exploitation of whatever is coveted and targeted for gain, on behalf of whoever their masters may be. Western governments that pour billions of dollars (while depriving their own citizens and/or condemning them to generations of debt slavery to finance wars etc), Western governments that supply tons of arms over decades of relentless interference in the affairs of foreign targets, with the aim of destabilising sovereign states, when they're not raining down tons of bombs, or otherwise pursuing regime change, faking reasons to wage war, waging war illegally and destroying entire regions, regardless of the grand scale of destruction and number of direct and indirect deaths, probably don't really care much for universal human rights principles ... or much beyond the principles of self-interest. The British Foreign Office personnel wouldn't lose any sleep over beheadings in Saudi Arabia.   In fact, they're probably in favour of whatever blood-letting it takes the Saudis, if it serves to preserve the power of the Saudis (whom the British installed on the throne), because the British elite interests and the Saudi elite interests coincide beyond the UNHRC body. The rote non-statement 'nowhere' response, that serves to create an appearance of an appropriate official 'response', must be standard practice in British politics -- and maybe all politics.  I've not really been listening. Getting a bit off topic:  what's the bet that the following isn't an aberration, and that it's also a standard British political manoeuvre?   No Evidence of Iran’s role in violence and instability in Iraq – confirms British Foreign Minister by Mehrnaz Shahabi(CASMII Columns) Wednesday, July 18, 2007 David Milliband, British foreign secretary, confirmed in an interview (1) with the Financial times, 8th July, that there is no evidence of Iranian complicity in instability in Iraq or attacks on British troops: Asked by the FT, “What do you think of Iran’s complicity in attacks on British soldiers in Basra”?, Miliband’s first response was, “Well, I think that any evidence of Iranian engagement there is to be deplored. I think that we need regional players to be supporting stability, not fomenting discord, never mind death. And as I said at the beginning, Iran has a complete right, and we support the idea that Iran should be a wealthy and respected part of the future. But it does not have the right to be a force of instability”. However, prompted more closely, “Just to be clear, there is evidence?”, he replied, “Well no, I chose my words carefully…”. This confession came in the context of an implied accusation or a not so subtle suggestion of Iranian role in the instability in Iraq which seem to have stimulated the question “There is evidence?”, to which the reply “Well no …”; a possible disappointment, was nonetheless crystal clear: There is no evidence. Contextually, this important admission by the British Foreign Minister of absence of any evidence linking Iran to the violence and instability in Iraq was preceded by the discussion about Iran’s nuclear programme and Britain’s readiness to impose another set of punishing sanctions on Iranian people, for Iran’s non-compliance with the security council’s resolutions which have no basis in international law, imposed based on supposed suspicions for which again, there is no evidence. [...] CONTINUED http://www.campaigniran.org/casmii/?q=node/2609 In Summary FT did not dwell on Milibrand admission FT had published without evidence that Iran govt cooperation w/ al-Qaeda using Iran territory for launching anti-coalition ops in Iraq mainstream media response re Milibrand admission, also silence war media / orchestrated chorus "finding shadows of Iranian culprits at every corner" Tape of Abu Omar al Baghdadi al-Qaeda Iraq leader released by Associated Press >> threatens to war w/ Iran  >> unless Iran stops supporting Shia in Iraq >> no USA govt response >> absence of media interest That caught my eye somewhere today (not sure what I was reading) ... and it sort of stuck. Lucky the Financial Times guy followed up the misleading statement with a clarifying question.  lol EDIT:  It looks like FT itself didn't then follow up further on the Milibrand admission, nor did the media in general. This is the funniest British-Saudi image I could find.  Not sure how accurate it is -- as in, who is really in control in this relationship?  [CLICK image for clarity / enlargement] ꕤ COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research. ꕤ

Assange - Denied Medical Treatment

ꕤ Article SOURCE 'Navidad con Assange' / 'Assange Christmas' Spanish:  http://www.entornointeligente.com/articulo/7609906/-26122015 English Google trans: https://archive.is/jium4 EXTRACT ONLY GOOGLE TRANSLATION SPANISH / ENGLISH Saturday, December 26, 2015 But the decline is evident. He can barely move his right shoulder because of pain that came and visited the doctors who have been unable to diagnose, partly because the British authorities do not allow him to move to a medical center to get an MRI or CT scan. He has a broken tooth that bit by something hard in [his] food during a brief stay in a British prison. An extraction or at least a root canal is needed, but his request to visit a dental office has also been rejected. To ease your pain take pills every day. For a time his doctors gave him morphine, but months ago they changed the drug, he says, without the change will produce a withdrawal. Has spent two years trying to get a doctor to treat him, beyond the informal visit, because several British and German doctors who had consulted refused because his insurance did not cover the Ecuadorian jurisdiction and because they feared that association with Assange could hurt them professionally. These potentially dangerous physical ailments increasingly noticeable pale from lack of sunlight and an obvious lack of muscle tone due to lack of exercise add up. As the embassy is located on the ground floor, more than three years since climbs a ladder ago. Before hurting his shoulder practiced boxing with a Wikileaks volunteer working life bodyguard wins, but since then the only activity performed is walking and jogging on a treadmill. Which it makes less and less because the tape will reinforce the feeling of confinement because he did not go anywhere and do not enlarge the objects as you go on your walk and approaches them, as would happen if he were released. Near him they say that Assange has lost all notion of time and space, spends hours without realizing that evening turns into night and despite his inactivity slimline because rarely remembers eating until one of his staff tells you. As he has received multiple death threats, even threats of crazy Americans ... English Google trans: https://archive.is/jium4 'Christmas With Assange' Open Democracy - English Translation (Full Article) https://www.opendemocracy.net/democraciaabierta/santiago-odonnell/christmas-with-assange ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- COMMENT Article isn't easy reading because it's only a Google translate from Spanish. I've only plucked out these bits that relate to Assange health concerns. Getting medical treatment, as an assylee in an embassy, isn't straightforward. It doesn't help that the British are denying Assange access to medical treatment. The British are obviously determined not to let up on the political persecution (and the pressure) they are subjecting him to, ahead of intended arrest and extradition. Ireland, surely there's an ex-IRA dentist that's willing to pull out a tooth, and maybe an ex-IRA doctor that's not afraid of attending the Ecuador embassy in London? Otherwise:  doctors campaigning re full inquiry into Dr David Kelly's death, might not be too intimated by the state (and might be worth approaching, by the sound of them):   2004 and 2013. ꕤ

Deportations to Pakistan Suspended

ꕤ Article SOURCE http://www.reuters.com/article/us-pakistan-eu-idUSKCN0T70S220151118 World | Wed Nov 18, 2015 2:19am EST Related: World Pakistan suspends deal to accept deportations from Europe ISLAMABAD | By Katharine Houreld Pakistan will refuse to accept any citizens deported from mainland Europe, halting repatriations at a time when European leaders facing an influx of migration are desperate to streamline procedures, the interior ministry said on Wednesday. Globally, around 90,000 people were deported back to Pakistan last year for a variety of offences, but in some cases they had been sent back without proper determination they were Pakistan nationals, an interior ministry spokesman said. It was not immediately clear exactly how many came from Europe, although the figure is in the thousands, he said. European Union nations signed a deal with Pakistan in 2009 allowing them to repatriate illegal immigrants and other nationalities who transited through Pakistan on their way to Europe. "There were some irregularities in the implementation of this agreement," the spokesman, who asked not to be named, said. "The signing country had to first verify the nationality of that person who was being deported but there were instances where the nationality was not being verified. The minister took notice and the agreement is temporarily suspended." EU officials in Pakistan were not immediately available for comment on the Pakistani decision. Europe is facing its biggest influx of migrants in decades, with many families fleeing war in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan. Some European leaders are calling for tighter controls over fears of Islamic State infiltration after attacks in Paris last week killed 127 people and injured around 200. Pakistan's refusal to accept deportees could slow down the removal of illegal economic migrants, making it harder to accept those genuinely fleeing persecution. On Tuesday, Pakistan Interior Minister Chaudhry Nisar said that airlines returning deportees without Pakistani permission would be penalized. "Any airline that brings deportees to Pakistan without Interior Ministry permission and without Pakistan travel documents will be fined heavily," he said. Britain has a separate deal on deportations with Pakistan and is not affected by Tuesday's decision. Nisar added that Pakistan would not accept any deportees accused of militant links without clear evidence of guilt. "Accusing any Pakistani of terrorism without evidence is human rights violation," he said. As an example of problems with the system, the interior ministry cited the case of a Pakistani deported from Italy earlier this year who had been accused of militant links. "When the FIA (Federal Investigation Agency) investigated, it was found he just visited jihadi websites," the spokesman said. (Additional reporting by Syed Raza Hassan in Karachi; Editing by Sanjeev Miglani) http://www.reuters.com/article/us-pakistan-eu-idUSKCN0T70S220151118 ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- COMMENT Are Western European politicians completely INSANE? The sane option would be to have some very unpleasant holding ground that's off-shore and well away from Europe, where all invaders (no matter what their status or identification status) are immediately shipped to, where they shall remain (put to work), for as long as it takes to identify and process them them. And if that takes decades of processing, it shouldn't be a problem if violators of sovereign territory are put to useful work that profits the state. What's the bet that the prospect of immediate quarantined penal detention and forced hard labour at an off-shore site would abruptly put an end to the illegal immigration to Europe? Investment in acres of barbed wire and land-mines along all southern European borders, and gun ships authorised to deploy weapons on any and all unauthorised entry, wouldn't go astray as back-up. Yes, I'm well aware that this does not accord with human rights laws, but those laws can be by-passed by making national laws superior. The 'human rights' nonsense has to go.  Europe is going under if it doesn't toughen up and take the attitude that those that violate European sovereign territory shall not be granted or entitled to any rights upon territory they have invaded, as non-members of the tribe (people) that is heir, inhabitant, and absolute controller of such sovereign territory. Reading this and having read prior accounts of how difficult it is to deport invaders, it's beyond me why anybody would champion laws and principles that are irrational, as well as impractical, costly, and damaging to targeted host populations, which are bled financially and otherwise imposed upon. Universal human rights principles are based on the irrational premise that all things are equal, when they're not. I don't have anything in common with Western liberal human rights defender types  ...  I'm more into hierarchies of things and into specifics, rather than into broad, sweeping ideals. ꕤ