Regarding Hillary Clinton's trip to Pakistan:I followed her perigrinations with interest. I read the news reports and listened to radio soundbites and watched film snippets aired on TV showing her addressing young Moslem women, praying at a mosque, etc. etc. Our press, which with rare exceptions is incapable of examining US foreign policy in a rational, balanced way--(whatever Fox News claims)--and in accordance with tradition the trip and its on the surface polite reaction was presented to the gullible American public as if it was a success--a tour de force. But watching closely and reading between the lines, I had another opinion. For me, there were clear evidences that our Madam Secretary, Hillary Clinton, bombed in Pakistan. Her arrival, coinciding with the horrible Taliban explosions in Peshawar, was the political equivalent of a truck bomb. Whatever the policy-goals the Obama Administration hoped for with this Clinton trip--they were clearly not achieved.
But read what the Pakistanis had to say:
Two editiorials follow from "The Nation" (Pakistan Newspaper)
Otober 29, 2009, one entitled "Hillary's Tubewells"
http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Opinions/Editorials/29-Oct-2009/Hillarys-tubewells, Hl
And the other, on the next day, October 30, 2009 entitled, "Pointless Symbolism":
http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Opinions/Editorials/30-Oct-2009/Pointless-symbolism/
1. Hillary's Tubewells
HILLARY Clinton's visit has not brought anything new for the Pakistani people. In fact the visit seems like a PR exercise but who will buy what the US is selling is difficult to imagine, beyond the already compliant government. Unfortunately, she began her visit with the usual targeting of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal by declaring how worried the US was about nuclear-armed terrorists and proliferation. Now if that was really the case the US would hasten to shore up its own rather weak command and control mechanisms, given how its nuclear weapons have a tendency to going missing and are discovered on their air force planes without any authorisation. As for proliferation, after the US-India nuclear accord, the US itself stands guilty of breaching the NPT; and there is the continuing proliferation from the US to Israel that no one seems prepared to discuss. She also wants Pakistan to "work with" the US on the Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty despite the fact that Pakistan has serious reservations on the US draft, which seeks to put Pakistan at a permanent disadvantage to India in terms of fissile material.
But what was worse was the rather obvious effort by the US Secretary of State to send some sort of a "message" to the Pakistan military, not only through her nuclear diatribe but also her overuse of the "democracy" reference! In terms of concrete offerings, there seemed little beyond some 10,000 tube wells, although the usual promises of working for development and so on were there! Unfortunately, our Foreign Minister seems so beholden to the Americans that he goes into a spasmodic mode of gratitude in their company and yesterday was no different. He declared the US a "great friend of Pakistan" but refused to demand of this "friend" that it stop the flow of weapons coming to the TTP from Afghanistan. Given that the Peshawar blast had occurred before the joint press conference, it did not become our Foreign Minister not to have raised this crucial issue. After all, post-9/11 there is a terrorist incident every 40 hours in NWFP, and this cannot happen without the supply of weapons and money from Afghanistan.
On our energy problem, Ms Clinton merely declared that the US is committed to addressing the issue; but if its way of dealing with it is to demand that we end subsidies and abandon the Iran pipeline project then we are better off without their help. If the US is serious it should sign an India-like civil nuclear deal with Pakistan but who out of the present leadership will demand this and stick to it? And that is the problem with Pakistan's US relationship. The US approach towards Pakistan was summed up in the visual of Holbrooke slumped in his chair, chewing gum nonchalantly in the talks. After all, they have what they want from Pakistan. Our tragedy is that amongst all the US-groveling, there is no one left to speak for Pakistan."
[Note: "Tubewells" are small-diameter (10 cm @4") pipes driven into the ground to tap groundwater for domestic water supply. The reference was to some 10,000 wells promised by Ms Clinton for the often parched highlands of Pakistan.]
Then on October 30, 2009
October 30, 2009 Editorial, "Pointless Symbolism":
http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Opinions/Editorials/30-Oct-2009/Pointless-symbolism/
2. Pointless Symbolism
"It is a moment to ponder on the insensitivity of the Pakistani leadership that it failed to observe a sense of mourning over the Peshawar carnage with its official banqueting on Wednesday. But the leadership has never been overly sensitive to the people, except perhaps at election time. However, the US Secretary of State could have been more responsive to the tragedy since she was on a major PR exercise targeting the people of Pakistan. Yet, despite the tragic shadow of the Peshawar carnage, Ms Clinton has continued with what is now clearly solely a PR exercise aimed at winning over hearts and minds. But with what? A few sanitised meetings with selected media people, students and the ‘right’ civil society members? (One female scholar declined the invite when asked to come three hours in advance and wait for the coach!) And let us not forget the photo ops at the correct religious symbols - Sufism’s Bari Imam and the historic Lahore symbol, Badshahi Mosque. Clearly the US does not understand the Pakistani nation, which is neither purchasable nor so gullible. Just because Ms Clinton declares that she likes Pakistani food, or visits a Sufi shrine will hardly endear the US and make up for the loss of Pakistani lives in drone attacks; nor will it make us forget the present quagmire we have become stuck in as a result of this “war on terror” which has unleashed a rain of terror on the Pakistani people across the whole country.
There are, therefore, core issues of contention, if not outright conflict, between the US and the Pakistani nation at least, if not the leadership. Unfortunately, Ms Clinton chose to remain silent on them when they were raised even in the sanitised settings created for her. For instance, on the drone attacks, she declared she did not want to get into it. Earlier she had stated that in a war weapons like drones are used but she should have realised that one uses these against an enemy state not against an allied state’s territory!
Again, when asked about the illegal activities of US diplomats in the Capital she simply declared she did not know anything of this. Now given that all US diplomats come under the State Department and Ms Clinton is the Secretary of State, it is astonishing to find that she was ignorant on what has become a major diplomatic issue in Pakistan. All in all, if Ms Clinton really wants to win over the Pakistani nation to thinking positively about the US, she will have to tackle these contentious issues as well as stop the diatribes and warnings regarding our nukes. The time for beguiling the people of Pakistan with symbolism is long over; it is time to show intent through actions. Of course, had Ms Clinton chosen to show some sense of mourning for the over 100 dead Pakistanis in Peshawar, it would have been a most befitting symbolism."
Get the picture?
rjk
Friday, October 30, 2009
Thursday, October 29, 2009
ROBERT FISK ON OBAMA NOBEL PRIZE
It is strange that to be able to get some insight into the machinations in Washington we cannot read our own newspapers (where we are fed pablum and propaganda) but must turn to a British foreign correspondent who writes for the "Independent" in the UK. So for the real picutre read Fisk, a long-time Middle East commentator and resident of Beirut, Lebanon.
Below I copy his article--"Obama A Man Of Peace? No Just a Nobel Prize of A Mistake"-- in its entirety below: from:http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-obama-man-of-peace-no-just-a-nobel-prize-of-a-mistake-1800928.html (downloaded (dl) October 28, 2009.
"His Middle East policy is collapsing. The Israelis have taunted him by ignoring his demand for an end to settlement-building and by continuing to build their colonies on Arab land. His special envoy is bluntly told by the Israelis that an Arab-Israel peace will take "many years". Now he wants the Palestinians to talk peace to Israel without conditions. He put pressure on the Palestinian leader to throw away the opportunity of international scrutiny of UN Judge Goldstone's damning indictment of Israeli war crimes in Gaza while his Assistant Secretary of State said that the Goldstone report was "seriously flawed". After breaking his pre-election promise to call the 1915 Armenian massacres by Ottoman Turkey a genocide, he has urged the Armenians to sign a treaty with Turkey, again "without pre-conditions". His army is still facing an insurgency in Iraq. He cannot decide how to win "his" war in Afghanistan. I shall not mention Iran.
And now President Barack Obama has just won the Nobel Peace Prize. After only eight months in office. Not bad. No wonder he said he was "humbled" when told the news. He should have felt humiliated. But perhaps weakness becomes a Nobel Peace Prize winner. Shimon Peres won it, too, and he never won an Israeli election. Yasser Arafat won it. And look what happened to him. For the first time in history, the Norwegian Nobel committee awarded its peace prize to a man who has achieved nothing – in the faint hope that he will do something good in the future. That's how bad things are. That's how explosive the Middle East has become.
Isn't there anyone in the White House to remind Mr Obama that the Israelis have never obliged a US president who asked for an end to the building of colonies for Jews – and Jews only – on Arab land? Bill Clinton demanded this – it was written into the Oslo accords – and the Israelis ignored him. George W Bush demanded an end to the fighting in Jenin nine years ago. The Israelis ignored him. Mr Obama demands a total end to all settlement construction. "They just don't get it, do they?" an Israeli minister – apparently Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu – was reported to have said when the US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, reiterated her president's words. That's what Avigdor Lieberman, Israel's crackpot foreign minister – he's not as much a crackpot as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but he's getting close – said again on Thursday. "Whoever says it's possible to reach in the coming years a comprehensive agreement," he announced before meeting Mr Obama's benighted and elderly envoy George Mitchell, "... simply doesn't understand the reality."
Across Arabia, needless to say, the Arab potentates continue to shake with fear in their golden minarets. That great Lebanese journalist Samir Kassir – murdered in 2005, quite possibly by Mr Obama's new-found Syrian chums – put it well in one of his last essays. "Undeterred by Egypt since Sadat's peace," he wrote, "convinced of America's unfailing support, guaranteed moral impunity by Europe's bad conscience, and backed by a nuclear arsenal that was acquired with the help of Western powers, and that keeps growing without exciting any comment from the international community, Israel can literally do anything it wants, or is prompted to do by its leaders' fantasies of domination."
So Israel is getting away with it as usual, abusing the distinguished (and Jewish) head of the UN inquiry into Gaza war crimes – which also blamed Hamas – while joining the Americans in further disgracing the craven Palestinian Authority "President" Mahmoud Abbas, who is more interested in maintaining his relations with Washington than with his own Palestinian people. He's even gone back on his word to refuse peace talks until Israel's colonial expansion comes to an end. In a single devastating sentence, that usually mild Jordanian commentator Rami Khouri noted last week that Mr Abbas is "a tragic shell of a man, hollow, politically impotent, backed and respected by nobody". I put "President" Abbas into quotation marks since he now has Mr Ahmadinejad's status in the eyes of his people. Hamas is delighted. Thanks to President Obama.
Oddly, Mr Obama is also humiliating the Armenian president, Serg Sarkisian, by insisting that he talks to his Turkish adversaries without conditions. In the West Bank, you have to forget the Jewish colonies. In Armenia, you have to forget the Turkish murder of one and a half million Armenians in 1915. Mr Obama refused to honour his pre-election promise to recognise the 20th century's first holocaust as a genocide. But if he can't handle the First World War, how can he handle World War Three?
Mr Obama advertised the Afghanistan conflict as the war America had to fight – not that anarchic land of Mesopotamia which Mr Bush rashly invaded. He'd forgotten that Afghanistan was another Bush war; and he even announced that Pakistan was now America's war, too. The White House produced its "Afpak" soundbite. And the drones came in droves over the old Durand Line, to kill the Taliban and a host of innocent civilians. Should Mr Obama concentrate on al-Qa'ida? Or yield to General Stanley McChrystal's Vietnam-style demand for 40,000 more troops? The White House shows the two of them sitting opposite each other, Mr Obama in the smoothie suite, McChrystal in his battledress. The rabbit and the hare.
No way are they going to win. The neocons say that "the graveyard of empire" is a cliché. It is. But it's also true. The Afghan government is totally corrupted; its paid warlords – paid by Karzai and the Americans – ramp up the drugs trade and the fear of Afghan civilians. But it's much bigger than this.
The Indian embassy was bombed again last week. Has Mr Obama any idea why? Does he realise that Washington's decision to support India against Pakistan over Kashmir – symbolised by his appointment of Richard Holbrooke as envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan but with no remit to discuss divided Kashmir – enraged Pakistan. He may want India to balance the power of China (some hope!) but Pakistan's military intelligence realises that the only way of persuading Mr Obama to act fairly over Kashmir – recognising Pakistan's claims as well as India's – is to increase their support for the Taliban. No justice in Kashmir, no security for US troops – or the Indian embassy – in Afghanistan.
Then, after stroking the Iranian pussycat at the Geneva nuclear talks, the US president discovered that the feline was showing its claws again at the end of last week. A Revolutionary Guard commander, an adviser to Supreme Leader Khamenei, warned that Iran would "blow up the heart" of Israel if Israel or the US attacked the Islamic Republic. I doubt it. Blow up Israel and you blow up "Palestine". Iranians – who understand the West much better than we understand them – have another policy in the case of the apocalypse. If the Israelis attack, they may leave Israel alone. They have a plan, I'm told, to target instead only US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and their bases in the Gulf and their warships cruising through Hormuz. They would leave Israel alone. Americans would then learn the price of kneeling before their Israeli masters.
For the Iranians know that the US has no stomach for a third war in the Middle East. Which is why Mr Obama has been sending his generals thick and fast to the defence ministry in Tel Aviv to tell the Israelis not to strike at Iran. And why Israel's leaders – including Mr Netanyahu – were blowing the peace pipe all week about the need for international negotiations with Iran. But it raises an interesting question. Is Mr Obama more frightened of Iran's retaliation? Or of its nuclear capabilities? Or more terrified of Israel's possible aggression against Iran?
But, please, no attacks on 10 December. That's when Barack Obama turns up in Oslo to pocket his peace prize – for achievements he has not yet achieved and for dreams that will turn into nightmares."
Get the picture?
rjk
Below I copy his article--"Obama A Man Of Peace? No Just a Nobel Prize of A Mistake"-- in its entirety below: from:http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-obama-man-of-peace-no-just-a-nobel-prize-of-a-mistake-1800928.html (downloaded (dl) October 28, 2009.
"His Middle East policy is collapsing. The Israelis have taunted him by ignoring his demand for an end to settlement-building and by continuing to build their colonies on Arab land. His special envoy is bluntly told by the Israelis that an Arab-Israel peace will take "many years". Now he wants the Palestinians to talk peace to Israel without conditions. He put pressure on the Palestinian leader to throw away the opportunity of international scrutiny of UN Judge Goldstone's damning indictment of Israeli war crimes in Gaza while his Assistant Secretary of State said that the Goldstone report was "seriously flawed". After breaking his pre-election promise to call the 1915 Armenian massacres by Ottoman Turkey a genocide, he has urged the Armenians to sign a treaty with Turkey, again "without pre-conditions". His army is still facing an insurgency in Iraq. He cannot decide how to win "his" war in Afghanistan. I shall not mention Iran.
And now President Barack Obama has just won the Nobel Peace Prize. After only eight months in office. Not bad. No wonder he said he was "humbled" when told the news. He should have felt humiliated. But perhaps weakness becomes a Nobel Peace Prize winner. Shimon Peres won it, too, and he never won an Israeli election. Yasser Arafat won it. And look what happened to him. For the first time in history, the Norwegian Nobel committee awarded its peace prize to a man who has achieved nothing – in the faint hope that he will do something good in the future. That's how bad things are. That's how explosive the Middle East has become.
Isn't there anyone in the White House to remind Mr Obama that the Israelis have never obliged a US president who asked for an end to the building of colonies for Jews – and Jews only – on Arab land? Bill Clinton demanded this – it was written into the Oslo accords – and the Israelis ignored him. George W Bush demanded an end to the fighting in Jenin nine years ago. The Israelis ignored him. Mr Obama demands a total end to all settlement construction. "They just don't get it, do they?" an Israeli minister – apparently Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu – was reported to have said when the US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, reiterated her president's words. That's what Avigdor Lieberman, Israel's crackpot foreign minister – he's not as much a crackpot as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but he's getting close – said again on Thursday. "Whoever says it's possible to reach in the coming years a comprehensive agreement," he announced before meeting Mr Obama's benighted and elderly envoy George Mitchell, "... simply doesn't understand the reality."
Across Arabia, needless to say, the Arab potentates continue to shake with fear in their golden minarets. That great Lebanese journalist Samir Kassir – murdered in 2005, quite possibly by Mr Obama's new-found Syrian chums – put it well in one of his last essays. "Undeterred by Egypt since Sadat's peace," he wrote, "convinced of America's unfailing support, guaranteed moral impunity by Europe's bad conscience, and backed by a nuclear arsenal that was acquired with the help of Western powers, and that keeps growing without exciting any comment from the international community, Israel can literally do anything it wants, or is prompted to do by its leaders' fantasies of domination."
So Israel is getting away with it as usual, abusing the distinguished (and Jewish) head of the UN inquiry into Gaza war crimes – which also blamed Hamas – while joining the Americans in further disgracing the craven Palestinian Authority "President" Mahmoud Abbas, who is more interested in maintaining his relations with Washington than with his own Palestinian people. He's even gone back on his word to refuse peace talks until Israel's colonial expansion comes to an end. In a single devastating sentence, that usually mild Jordanian commentator Rami Khouri noted last week that Mr Abbas is "a tragic shell of a man, hollow, politically impotent, backed and respected by nobody". I put "President" Abbas into quotation marks since he now has Mr Ahmadinejad's status in the eyes of his people. Hamas is delighted. Thanks to President Obama.
Oddly, Mr Obama is also humiliating the Armenian president, Serg Sarkisian, by insisting that he talks to his Turkish adversaries without conditions. In the West Bank, you have to forget the Jewish colonies. In Armenia, you have to forget the Turkish murder of one and a half million Armenians in 1915. Mr Obama refused to honour his pre-election promise to recognise the 20th century's first holocaust as a genocide. But if he can't handle the First World War, how can he handle World War Three?
Mr Obama advertised the Afghanistan conflict as the war America had to fight – not that anarchic land of Mesopotamia which Mr Bush rashly invaded. He'd forgotten that Afghanistan was another Bush war; and he even announced that Pakistan was now America's war, too. The White House produced its "Afpak" soundbite. And the drones came in droves over the old Durand Line, to kill the Taliban and a host of innocent civilians. Should Mr Obama concentrate on al-Qa'ida? Or yield to General Stanley McChrystal's Vietnam-style demand for 40,000 more troops? The White House shows the two of them sitting opposite each other, Mr Obama in the smoothie suite, McChrystal in his battledress. The rabbit and the hare.
No way are they going to win. The neocons say that "the graveyard of empire" is a cliché. It is. But it's also true. The Afghan government is totally corrupted; its paid warlords – paid by Karzai and the Americans – ramp up the drugs trade and the fear of Afghan civilians. But it's much bigger than this.
The Indian embassy was bombed again last week. Has Mr Obama any idea why? Does he realise that Washington's decision to support India against Pakistan over Kashmir – symbolised by his appointment of Richard Holbrooke as envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan but with no remit to discuss divided Kashmir – enraged Pakistan. He may want India to balance the power of China (some hope!) but Pakistan's military intelligence realises that the only way of persuading Mr Obama to act fairly over Kashmir – recognising Pakistan's claims as well as India's – is to increase their support for the Taliban. No justice in Kashmir, no security for US troops – or the Indian embassy – in Afghanistan.
Then, after stroking the Iranian pussycat at the Geneva nuclear talks, the US president discovered that the feline was showing its claws again at the end of last week. A Revolutionary Guard commander, an adviser to Supreme Leader Khamenei, warned that Iran would "blow up the heart" of Israel if Israel or the US attacked the Islamic Republic. I doubt it. Blow up Israel and you blow up "Palestine". Iranians – who understand the West much better than we understand them – have another policy in the case of the apocalypse. If the Israelis attack, they may leave Israel alone. They have a plan, I'm told, to target instead only US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and their bases in the Gulf and their warships cruising through Hormuz. They would leave Israel alone. Americans would then learn the price of kneeling before their Israeli masters.
For the Iranians know that the US has no stomach for a third war in the Middle East. Which is why Mr Obama has been sending his generals thick and fast to the defence ministry in Tel Aviv to tell the Israelis not to strike at Iran. And why Israel's leaders – including Mr Netanyahu – were blowing the peace pipe all week about the need for international negotiations with Iran. But it raises an interesting question. Is Mr Obama more frightened of Iran's retaliation? Or of its nuclear capabilities? Or more terrified of Israel's possible aggression against Iran?
But, please, no attacks on 10 December. That's when Barack Obama turns up in Oslo to pocket his peace prize – for achievements he has not yet achieved and for dreams that will turn into nightmares."
Get the picture?
rjk
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
The Jurist (jurist.law.pitt.edu)states the obvious..that the 600 or more people who have been killed by the US aerial drone attacks in Pakistan..since August 2008 may be illegal extrajudicial executions and thus violate international law. Read on...
UN rights investigator warns US drone attacks may violate international law
Amelia Mathias at 9:02 AM ET (See: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2009/10/un-rights-investigator-warns-us-drone.php, dl 10-29-09)
[JURIST] UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions Philip Alston [official website] said Tuesday that the use of unmanned warplanes by the US to carry out attacks in Pakistan and Afghanistan may be illegal. Alston criticized the US policy in a report to the UN General Assembly's human rights committee and then elaborated at a press conference [press release; recorded video]:
My concern is that these drones, these predators, are being operated in a framework which may well violate international humanitarian law and international human rights law. The onus is really on the government of the United States to reveal more about the ways in which it makes sure that arbitrary executions, extrajudicial executions, are not in fact being carried out through the use of these weapons. The response of the US is simply untenable, and that is that the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly by definition have no role in relation to killings that take place in relations to an armed conflict. that would remove the great majority of issues that come before these bodies right now.
Alston's report was presented as part of a larger demand that no state be free from accountability.
Alston previously raised the issue of US drone attacks in June. The US government responded that its position is that such attacks are carried out in a war zone where the UN has no role. The controversial attacks have killed about 600 people in northwestern Pakistan since August 2008, including around 400 militants. US Senator John Kerry said this week that the attacks would continue [RTTNews report], claiming that they have been successful in combatting al Qaeda and have resulted in minimal collateral damage. Also this week, a Pakistani court upheld the dismissal of a petition [The Nation report] against US drone attacks that sought to declare the US an enemy state.
The recent UN Goldstone Report concerning the actions of Israel and Hamas during the recent Gaza attacks reveal how serious (and effective) UN investigations have become--thankfully. Perhaps the present administration should take notice of Mr. Netanyahu who is presently squirming under the microscope of world scrutiny for that nation's actions during the so called "Cast Lead" operation in Gaza where more than 1000 civilians were wontonly killed.
Questions such as those raised by Mr Alston regarding the US behavior in Afghanistan and Pakistan indicate a trend--a rightous indignation that all nations should be held accountable for their actions---and could we here in the USA deny that? With that in mind such questions should certainly be part of the President's "review process" on his "new" policy in Afghanistan. Apparently one of the options considered(the Biden gambit) is an expanions and further reliance on the use of extrajudical executions by means of drones.
In regard to the US goverment position that such attacks are carried out in a war zone where the UN has no role--that is poppycock. The controversial attacks are in Pakistan --outside of the war zone and have killed more than 600 people in northwestern Pakistan since August 2008--you can refer back in this blog to some of the more horrible attacks. The US claims to have killed around 400 militants out of this total but those numbers are suspect. Any male between the ages of 15 and 55 is considered a "militant" and counted in that number. US Senator John Kerry who claims that the attacks have been successful in combatting al Qaeda ignores the anger and hatred that these strikes engender in the local population. His statment that they have resulted in minimal collateral damage is simply based on what "collateral means". When an entire family of innocent women, children and grandparents is the "collateral" that is not "minimal" but stentorian senatorial blather.
Get the picture?
rjk
UN rights investigator warns US drone attacks may violate international law
Amelia Mathias at 9:02 AM ET (See: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2009/10/un-rights-investigator-warns-us-drone.php, dl 10-29-09)
[JURIST] UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions Philip Alston [official website] said Tuesday that the use of unmanned warplanes by the US to carry out attacks in Pakistan and Afghanistan may be illegal. Alston criticized the US policy in a report to the UN General Assembly's human rights committee and then elaborated at a press conference [press release; recorded video]:
My concern is that these drones, these predators, are being operated in a framework which may well violate international humanitarian law and international human rights law. The onus is really on the government of the United States to reveal more about the ways in which it makes sure that arbitrary executions, extrajudicial executions, are not in fact being carried out through the use of these weapons. The response of the US is simply untenable, and that is that the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly by definition have no role in relation to killings that take place in relations to an armed conflict. that would remove the great majority of issues that come before these bodies right now.
Alston's report was presented as part of a larger demand that no state be free from accountability.
Alston previously raised the issue of US drone attacks in June. The US government responded that its position is that such attacks are carried out in a war zone where the UN has no role. The controversial attacks have killed about 600 people in northwestern Pakistan since August 2008, including around 400 militants. US Senator John Kerry said this week that the attacks would continue [RTTNews report], claiming that they have been successful in combatting al Qaeda and have resulted in minimal collateral damage. Also this week, a Pakistani court upheld the dismissal of a petition [The Nation report] against US drone attacks that sought to declare the US an enemy state.
The recent UN Goldstone Report concerning the actions of Israel and Hamas during the recent Gaza attacks reveal how serious (and effective) UN investigations have become--thankfully. Perhaps the present administration should take notice of Mr. Netanyahu who is presently squirming under the microscope of world scrutiny for that nation's actions during the so called "Cast Lead" operation in Gaza where more than 1000 civilians were wontonly killed.
Questions such as those raised by Mr Alston regarding the US behavior in Afghanistan and Pakistan indicate a trend--a rightous indignation that all nations should be held accountable for their actions---and could we here in the USA deny that? With that in mind such questions should certainly be part of the President's "review process" on his "new" policy in Afghanistan. Apparently one of the options considered(the Biden gambit) is an expanions and further reliance on the use of extrajudical executions by means of drones.
In regard to the US goverment position that such attacks are carried out in a war zone where the UN has no role--that is poppycock. The controversial attacks are in Pakistan --outside of the war zone and have killed more than 600 people in northwestern Pakistan since August 2008--you can refer back in this blog to some of the more horrible attacks. The US claims to have killed around 400 militants out of this total but those numbers are suspect. Any male between the ages of 15 and 55 is considered a "militant" and counted in that number. US Senator John Kerry who claims that the attacks have been successful in combatting al Qaeda ignores the anger and hatred that these strikes engender in the local population. His statment that they have resulted in minimal collateral damage is simply based on what "collateral means". When an entire family of innocent women, children and grandparents is the "collateral" that is not "minimal" but stentorian senatorial blather.
Get the picture?
rjk
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
THE AFGHAN WAR, WHO NEEDS IT?
“In the end, it would seem that some of our leaders need the Afghanistan battleground more than the terrorists do” concludes Robert Scheer in a piece entitled:“War of Absurdity” (See: http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20091007_a_war_of_absurdity/) a title which is a thrust at President Obama’s recent speech in which he called Afganistan the “War of Necessity”. Scheer bases his absurdity claim on a statement made by Gen. George Jones, President Obama’s National Security Advisor, who is quoted as saying: “The al-Qaida presence is very diminished. The maximum estimate is less than 100 operating in the country, no bases, no ability to launch attacks on either us or our allies.” (See: http://content.usatoday.com/topics/quote/People/Politicians,+Government+Officials,+Strategists/U.S.+Senators/Jon+Kyl/0aYPaHV6O0eOE/04UO601epxcYS/3)
What could be more absurd...a surge of 40,000 troops to kill 100 al-Qaida? The enemy has virtually disappeared. Yet the generals and others are desperate to continue this war. Why?
Scheer informs us that al-Qaida is also declining in Pakistan, . “Even in neighboring Pakistan, the remnants of al-Qaida are barely hanging on. As The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday, ‘Hunted by U.S. drones, beset by money problems and finding it tougher to lure young Arabs to the bleak mountains of Pakistan, al Qaeda is seeing its role shrink there and in Afghanistan, according to intelligence reports and Pakistan and U.S. officials. … For Arab youths who are al-Qaida’s primary recruits, ‘it’s not romantic to be cold and hungry and hiding,’ said a senior U.S. official in South Asia.”
So who are we fighting in Afghanistan if not al-Qaida? On a near-daily basis we target and kill Taliban "insurgents". Are they simply a target of opportunity, where al-Qaida are scarce? If one is to believe our leaders in Washington (and try to follow this logic), we kill Taliban,--and any innocent civilians who get it our line of fire--because, if the Taliban were to return to power they “might, perhaps" invite al-Qaida back.
So if I understand this correctly, we have eliminated our real enemy, al-Qaida, from Afghanistan, but now we must purge any resurfacing Taliban too, and since they are rather popular in the countryside (where they engage with the locals and attempt to improve their lives), we must first change the character of the Afghan country-culture and society so that it is less likely to give succor to the Taliban. This "new and better" Afghanistan will be a society and culture more suited to our leaders and to General McChrystal’s tastes and will be more amenable to US interests. To achieve that goal may be a very costly and lengthy undertaking.
Increasing our footprint in Afghanistan with 40,000 new troops (to about 108,000) is, as Scheer concludes, ”a prescription, ........ for war without end. That (he adds) might satisfy the marketing needs of the defense industry and the career hopes of select military and political aspirants, but it has nothing to do with fighting terrorism. In the end, it would seem that some of our leaders need the Afghanistan battleground more than the terrorists do.” Well said, Mr. Robert Scheer!
I might add, the level of troop strength requested by McChrystal is about what the Russians fielded over their almost ten year debacle in Afghanistan. Of course they did not have the long supply lines which we have. Our supply routes are so long that a gallon on gas costs us $100.00 by the time it arrives in Kabul. And to field a single trooper in Afghanistan it costs the US taxpayer 3/4 of a million dollars--each! The 40,000 troops McChrystal wants will cost us (40,000 x $750,000 = $30,000,000,000.00) or $30 billion dollars! That is a lot of money the US will have to borrow from the Chinese and Japanese, (and you can add the carrying charges they will charge us!).
Why is it we hear no complaints about military expenses profligacy from Congress? But ask the government for some help for the US taxpayer, or for health-care, or sorely needed infrastructure and quality of life expenses and great clouds of angry dust are raised over Washington.
So let's summarize. Who's needs this war? The generals who see an opportunity to earn higher rank, the defense industry which sees more lucrative contracts, and those in Congress who will use it as a political weapon. The rest of us...we just pay the exorbitant bills...big bills..and suffer the consequences.
Recall how we all gulped and looked on, wide-eyed as Obama gave away a trillion dollars for the great Wall Stree "bail-out", well the Afghan war is the great give-away to the defense industry and the military. It is a transfer of funds from our now dusty and near-empty pockets into the well-lined coffers of the big companies. If they get their way, the Afghan War will cost about a trillion dollars too. It's for the rest of us--the taxpayers-- those who are fated to just look on...we have no one (with a few worthy exceptions) in Washington who will look out for our needs. We don't get any bail-out. We are the bailers!
Get the picture?
rjk
What could be more absurd...a surge of 40,000 troops to kill 100 al-Qaida? The enemy has virtually disappeared. Yet the generals and others are desperate to continue this war. Why?
Scheer informs us that al-Qaida is also declining in Pakistan, . “Even in neighboring Pakistan, the remnants of al-Qaida are barely hanging on. As The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday, ‘Hunted by U.S. drones, beset by money problems and finding it tougher to lure young Arabs to the bleak mountains of Pakistan, al Qaeda is seeing its role shrink there and in Afghanistan, according to intelligence reports and Pakistan and U.S. officials. … For Arab youths who are al-Qaida’s primary recruits, ‘it’s not romantic to be cold and hungry and hiding,’ said a senior U.S. official in South Asia.”
So who are we fighting in Afghanistan if not al-Qaida? On a near-daily basis we target and kill Taliban "insurgents". Are they simply a target of opportunity, where al-Qaida are scarce? If one is to believe our leaders in Washington (and try to follow this logic), we kill Taliban,--and any innocent civilians who get it our line of fire--because, if the Taliban were to return to power they “might, perhaps" invite al-Qaida back.
So if I understand this correctly, we have eliminated our real enemy, al-Qaida, from Afghanistan, but now we must purge any resurfacing Taliban too, and since they are rather popular in the countryside (where they engage with the locals and attempt to improve their lives), we must first change the character of the Afghan country-culture and society so that it is less likely to give succor to the Taliban. This "new and better" Afghanistan will be a society and culture more suited to our leaders and to General McChrystal’s tastes and will be more amenable to US interests. To achieve that goal may be a very costly and lengthy undertaking.
Increasing our footprint in Afghanistan with 40,000 new troops (to about 108,000) is, as Scheer concludes, ”a prescription, ........ for war without end. That (he adds) might satisfy the marketing needs of the defense industry and the career hopes of select military and political aspirants, but it has nothing to do with fighting terrorism. In the end, it would seem that some of our leaders need the Afghanistan battleground more than the terrorists do.” Well said, Mr. Robert Scheer!
I might add, the level of troop strength requested by McChrystal is about what the Russians fielded over their almost ten year debacle in Afghanistan. Of course they did not have the long supply lines which we have. Our supply routes are so long that a gallon on gas costs us $100.00 by the time it arrives in Kabul. And to field a single trooper in Afghanistan it costs the US taxpayer 3/4 of a million dollars--each! The 40,000 troops McChrystal wants will cost us (40,000 x $750,000 = $30,000,000,000.00) or $30 billion dollars! That is a lot of money the US will have to borrow from the Chinese and Japanese, (and you can add the carrying charges they will charge us!).
Why is it we hear no complaints about military expenses profligacy from Congress? But ask the government for some help for the US taxpayer, or for health-care, or sorely needed infrastructure and quality of life expenses and great clouds of angry dust are raised over Washington.
So let's summarize. Who's needs this war? The generals who see an opportunity to earn higher rank, the defense industry which sees more lucrative contracts, and those in Congress who will use it as a political weapon. The rest of us...we just pay the exorbitant bills...big bills..and suffer the consequences.
Recall how we all gulped and looked on, wide-eyed as Obama gave away a trillion dollars for the great Wall Stree "bail-out", well the Afghan war is the great give-away to the defense industry and the military. It is a transfer of funds from our now dusty and near-empty pockets into the well-lined coffers of the big companies. If they get their way, the Afghan War will cost about a trillion dollars too. It's for the rest of us--the taxpayers-- those who are fated to just look on...we have no one (with a few worthy exceptions) in Washington who will look out for our needs. We don't get any bail-out. We are the bailers!
Get the picture?
rjk
Sunday, October 4, 2009
A MAN REAPS WHAT HE SOWS
Today October 4, 2009, on the front page of the NY Times we read a story by Sabrina Tavernise and Sangar Rahimi:
“Eight U.S. Soldiers Dead in Bold Attack in Afghanistan”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/05/world/asia/05afghan.html?_r=1&hp
The authors and editors of the Times write:
“KABUL, Afghanistan – Groups of tribal militia attacked two American outposts in eastern Afghanistan on Saturday, the American military said, killing eight American soldiers and two Afghan police officers in a bold attack that was the deadliest for American soldiers in months.
.......The attack took place on Saturday night in the Nuristan province, a remote area that shares a border with Pakistan.”
They also report that:
”The area had suffered civilian casualties in the past, and villagers there are extremely wary of American forces.”
But they fail to tell us why the villagers are “extremely wary of American forces".
Are we not up to the full story.."all thats fit to print" about why the attitude of the Nuristan villagers?
Here is what the authors should have made at least some mention of so that the NY Times readership would have the full story and better understand what kinds of difficulties face our forces we so casually place in harms way:
The authors might have noted that extremely mountinous region of steep valleys, and cragy 14,000 foot peaks, was the site of many violent battles during the Russian invasion, and was the recent locus of a dramatic battle in which large numbers of civilians were killed.
Read how the Afghan Conflict Monitor describes this April 7 2008 story:
http://www.afghanconflictmonitor.org/nuristan/
“Afghanistan Probes Civilian Deaths Claim: Ministry, Agence France Presse, 7 April 2008
EXCERPT: "Afghanistan authorities said Monday [7 April 2008] they were investigating claims by provincial officials that up to 33 civilians were killed in a weekend offensive by US-led troops. The defence ministry said it could not confirm that civilians were killed in the raids by US and Afghan forces in the eastern province of Nuristan, a known stronghold of Taliban-led militants. The US-led coalition had earlier reported 'significant' insurgent casualties during the operation. Mohammad Aleem, Nuristan deputy governor, told AFP that 33 civilians, including women and children, were killed and dozens more injured in the day-long operation in the mountainous province's Do'aab district. District chief Qari Daud put the death toll at 28, all of them civilians. The defence ministry said in a statement that reports from the area 'indicate that non-civilians were hurt during that operation.' On Sunday, it had reported 'heavy' militant casualties."
The same story from Information Iraq:
Read at: http://www.williambowles.info/iraq/uruk/2008/0408/uruk_080408.html
"The massacre in the Do’ab district, Nuristan Marc W. Herold, The Afghan Victim Memorial ProjectOn Sunday, April 6, 2008, in three isolated villages including Shok (Sharuk or Shawak), Daba (Dowaba) and Myan-i-Tok in the Shok Valley of the Do’ab district, western Nuristan Province about 15 kms north of the border with Laghman Province. In July 2007, the Taliban had captured the Do’ab and Mandol districts of Nuristan. The villages were intensely bombarded by U.S. warplanes while U.S.-led ground troops (of the Afghan 201st Kandak Company and the Afghan National Police) carried out a ground cordon-and-search assault upon the villages. A resident of Shok village (Shawak) told the independent Pajhwok Afghan News that U.S. helicopters had been fired-upon after which the U.S-led assault began. Heavy fighting lasting numerous hours ensued. As usual, U.S-Afghan soldiers called-in aerial close air support (CAS). Much of Shok village including the mosque was flattened. Yusuf Nuristani, a spokesman for the governor of Nuristan said that some 200 homes in the village of Myan-i-Tok village were badly damaged. 28-40 civilians including many women, elderly and children were slaughtered in the U.S. attack….
The same story from the RAWA, or Revolutionary Association of Women of Afghansitan (www.rawa.org) where the names of some of the victims of the attack are listed.
Read this account at: http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2008/04/29/the-massacre-in-the-do-8217-ab-district-nuristan.html
"The massacre in the Do’ab district, Nuristan
Killed by heavy U.S. “precision” bombing
In memory of and sympathy for14 civilians killed:
Saeed Rasul, 50, a fatherRahmatullah, 45, a fatherBibi Jan, 70, a motherHakim’s daughter, 6Hakim’s second daughter, 8Muhammed Aman, 60, a fatherWali Muhammed, 60, a fatherHayat’s son, 5Suleiman’s son, 7Muhammed Siddique’s wife, 40Sattar, 65, a fatherHazrat Shah, 70Reza Muhammed, 60, a fatherShawago’s daughter, 4
Another 7 civilians wounded:
Naik Muhammed, a fatherMuhammed Siddique, 80Karim, 80Haji Najmuddin’s wife, 65Azam, 50, a fatherAfghan, a 50-yr-old manKarim Hazir Mir’s son, 12.
St Paul, in(Galatians 6:7-10) warns us “Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life. Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up. Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people…”
Get the picture?
rjk
“Eight U.S. Soldiers Dead in Bold Attack in Afghanistan”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/05/world/asia/05afghan.html?_r=1&hp
The authors and editors of the Times write:
“KABUL, Afghanistan – Groups of tribal militia attacked two American outposts in eastern Afghanistan on Saturday, the American military said, killing eight American soldiers and two Afghan police officers in a bold attack that was the deadliest for American soldiers in months.
.......The attack took place on Saturday night in the Nuristan province, a remote area that shares a border with Pakistan.”
They also report that:
”The area had suffered civilian casualties in the past, and villagers there are extremely wary of American forces.”
But they fail to tell us why the villagers are “extremely wary of American forces".
Are we not up to the full story.."all thats fit to print" about why the attitude of the Nuristan villagers?
Here is what the authors should have made at least some mention of so that the NY Times readership would have the full story and better understand what kinds of difficulties face our forces we so casually place in harms way:
The authors might have noted that extremely mountinous region of steep valleys, and cragy 14,000 foot peaks, was the site of many violent battles during the Russian invasion, and was the recent locus of a dramatic battle in which large numbers of civilians were killed.
Read how the Afghan Conflict Monitor describes this April 7 2008 story:
http://www.afghanconflictmonitor.org/nuristan/
“Afghanistan Probes Civilian Deaths Claim: Ministry, Agence France Presse, 7 April 2008
EXCERPT: "Afghanistan authorities said Monday [7 April 2008] they were investigating claims by provincial officials that up to 33 civilians were killed in a weekend offensive by US-led troops. The defence ministry said it could not confirm that civilians were killed in the raids by US and Afghan forces in the eastern province of Nuristan, a known stronghold of Taliban-led militants. The US-led coalition had earlier reported 'significant' insurgent casualties during the operation. Mohammad Aleem, Nuristan deputy governor, told AFP that 33 civilians, including women and children, were killed and dozens more injured in the day-long operation in the mountainous province's Do'aab district. District chief Qari Daud put the death toll at 28, all of them civilians. The defence ministry said in a statement that reports from the area 'indicate that non-civilians were hurt during that operation.' On Sunday, it had reported 'heavy' militant casualties."
The same story from Information Iraq:
Read at: http://www.williambowles.info/iraq/uruk/2008/0408/uruk_080408.html
"The massacre in the Do’ab district, Nuristan Marc W. Herold, The Afghan Victim Memorial ProjectOn Sunday, April 6, 2008, in three isolated villages including Shok (Sharuk or Shawak), Daba (Dowaba) and Myan-i-Tok in the Shok Valley of the Do’ab district, western Nuristan Province about 15 kms north of the border with Laghman Province. In July 2007, the Taliban had captured the Do’ab and Mandol districts of Nuristan. The villages were intensely bombarded by U.S. warplanes while U.S.-led ground troops (of the Afghan 201st Kandak Company and the Afghan National Police) carried out a ground cordon-and-search assault upon the villages. A resident of Shok village (Shawak) told the independent Pajhwok Afghan News that U.S. helicopters had been fired-upon after which the U.S-led assault began. Heavy fighting lasting numerous hours ensued. As usual, U.S-Afghan soldiers called-in aerial close air support (CAS). Much of Shok village including the mosque was flattened. Yusuf Nuristani, a spokesman for the governor of Nuristan said that some 200 homes in the village of Myan-i-Tok village were badly damaged. 28-40 civilians including many women, elderly and children were slaughtered in the U.S. attack….
The same story from the RAWA, or Revolutionary Association of Women of Afghansitan (www.rawa.org) where the names of some of the victims of the attack are listed.
Read this account at: http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2008/04/29/the-massacre-in-the-do-8217-ab-district-nuristan.html
"The massacre in the Do’ab district, Nuristan
Killed by heavy U.S. “precision” bombing
In memory of and sympathy for14 civilians killed:
Saeed Rasul, 50, a fatherRahmatullah, 45, a fatherBibi Jan, 70, a motherHakim’s daughter, 6Hakim’s second daughter, 8Muhammed Aman, 60, a fatherWali Muhammed, 60, a fatherHayat’s son, 5Suleiman’s son, 7Muhammed Siddique’s wife, 40Sattar, 65, a fatherHazrat Shah, 70Reza Muhammed, 60, a fatherShawago’s daughter, 4
Another 7 civilians wounded:
Naik Muhammed, a fatherMuhammed Siddique, 80Karim, 80Haji Najmuddin’s wife, 65Azam, 50, a fatherAfghan, a 50-yr-old manKarim Hazir Mir’s son, 12.
St Paul, in(Galatians 6:7-10) warns us “Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life. Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up. Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people…”
Get the picture?
rjk
Saturday, October 3, 2009
MISS BRENDA'S BROKEN THUMB
Miss Brenda is my grandaughter’s bus driver. As consequence of their parent’s tight, morning schedules, I--the children's grandfather-- have been pressed into service. So each morning, I walk my two young granddauughters to the bus stop. Together, we listen for the big yellow bus, which arrives at 8:45 AM sharp. Its first stop is just up the road, in front of little Jason’s house. From our stop we watch Jason's mom corall the active youngster and get him on board. Then the bus rumbles up to our stop. I keep the eager little girls perched on the edge of my neighbor’s lawn.
The bus roars up, its breaks squeal. Then it comes to a noisy stop.
“OK, kids, let’s go,” I call.
Miss Brenda, a small woman of about 35 years, sitting high on the big driver's seat, opens the doors with a “woosh”, and the two little girls rush on board.
In these circumstances, it is common for little pleasantries to be passed by the adults present, such as: “Have a nice day!” or “Watch for the rainy weather predicted for this afternoon.” After several days, a strange form of on-going, intermittent conversation begins..consisting of a few words each day, separated by a twenty-four hour period. That's how, over about a week, by means of brief snatches of conversation, I learned that Miss Barbara had a minor mishap before entering her bus one morning.
One day, a few days prior, she had tripped over a loose piece of rubber on the lower step of her bus and jammed her thumb between the first seat-frame and the floor. She said, "I saw stars!" Her thumb swelled up and remained numb and very painful all that day. Though I'm no nosey-body, but in similar innocent-fashion I learned also that Miss Brenda has no medical insurance…she is working for the bus company in a part-time capacity. Her husband, a carpenter, is now employed only part-time as well, and has also has no medical coverage. The couple have a young daughter who attends the middle school---and a mortgage to pay. Miss Brenda’s small income as a school-bus driver, makes family’s financial-ends just about meet. If she were to get seriously hurt or sick…she would simply be out of work and out of that critical pay check. So with her very painful thumb she silently rode out that day, trying to keep her throbbing, swollen finger from touching the wheel.
A few days later her accident came to my notice one day when my granddaughter attempted to hand her a little bouquet of flowers. The child’s hand bumped hers and she winced in pain.
“Sorry honey,” she said with a crooked smile, I can’t take the flower” the ache in her swollen hand was clearly reflected in her face. Over the curly, be-ribboned head of my charge, she explained to me: “Been suffering with this thumb,” she said, shaking it gently to relieve the pain.
That’s when she explained how it happened.
“You should see a doctor,” I offered, raising my voice over the rumbling engine and the chatter of the youngsters greeting each other in the bus aisle.
“What doctor? I can’t afford to go to no doctor.”
“The swelling,” I began….
“Jest a little infection,” she said.
“Is it numb anywhere?”
“Naw, not no more,”
“But if the pain is so sharp,” I persisted, “the bone might be broken.” I added, feeling, I should give my professional opinion, even though I’m retired a long time now.
“I have a friend who’s a nurse, in St. Mary’s, I showed it to her and, she says, she thinks it’s jest a sprain,” said Miss Barbara, resting the hurt-hand gingerly on the big vibrating steering wheel.
“But you should…”
“I been takin’ big doses of ‘butes’ and that seems to help the pain,” she added, as she smiled wanly and waved to me.
Realizing our conversation was ended, I smiled too.
“Have a nice day,” she called out, as she closed the big folding doors.
I walked back home thinking of Miss Brenda. From what she said, and seeing her sharp reaction to the pain, I was pretty sure she had a broken thumb and thus she would at least need a good splint. I was determined to encourage her at our next encounter to perhaps go to the Emergency Room at St. Mary’s Hospital. There they would probably put it in a cast for her.
The weekend passed, and Monday arrived, as my little troop and I walked to the bus stop, I mentally prepared a quick statement for Miss Brenda. My brief time arrived when the two youngsters climbed the bus steps.
“Hi Miss Brenda, how’s the thumb?”
“Oh, still pretty painful, but I figured a way out,” she said, smiling and holding up her hand, for me to see. The hand revealed a wide strip of masking-tape which bound her thumb to her index finger.
“I found that by taping the thumb tight against my first finger, the pain ain’t so bad, and I could still hold the wheel pretty good. “
“Oh?, did the swelling go down?”
“Yeah, and the discoloring’s goin’ away too.”
“So you can drive OK?”
“Yeah, I’m a tough as an old....! You know what I mean! I can’t say it in front o’ these kids,” she said, reaching for the door-handle.
“Have a nice day,” I called out.
“Yeah…you too.”
"Hope you feel better...I yelled out as the door closed.
As the bus pulled away…and I walked back home, I thought about Miss Brenda. Perhaps her thumb would heal OK and she would recover and have full use of it. But Miss Brenda’s broken thumb, had me pondering, about how here in the US, our medical system--which serves some so well--but for others, there may only prolonged pain, over-the-counter medicines, and masking tape. And yeah...hope.
Get the picture?
rjk
The bus roars up, its breaks squeal. Then it comes to a noisy stop.
“OK, kids, let’s go,” I call.
Miss Brenda, a small woman of about 35 years, sitting high on the big driver's seat, opens the doors with a “woosh”, and the two little girls rush on board.
In these circumstances, it is common for little pleasantries to be passed by the adults present, such as: “Have a nice day!” or “Watch for the rainy weather predicted for this afternoon.” After several days, a strange form of on-going, intermittent conversation begins..consisting of a few words each day, separated by a twenty-four hour period. That's how, over about a week, by means of brief snatches of conversation, I learned that Miss Barbara had a minor mishap before entering her bus one morning.
One day, a few days prior, she had tripped over a loose piece of rubber on the lower step of her bus and jammed her thumb between the first seat-frame and the floor. She said, "I saw stars!" Her thumb swelled up and remained numb and very painful all that day. Though I'm no nosey-body, but in similar innocent-fashion I learned also that Miss Brenda has no medical insurance…she is working for the bus company in a part-time capacity. Her husband, a carpenter, is now employed only part-time as well, and has also has no medical coverage. The couple have a young daughter who attends the middle school---and a mortgage to pay. Miss Brenda’s small income as a school-bus driver, makes family’s financial-ends just about meet. If she were to get seriously hurt or sick…she would simply be out of work and out of that critical pay check. So with her very painful thumb she silently rode out that day, trying to keep her throbbing, swollen finger from touching the wheel.
A few days later her accident came to my notice one day when my granddaughter attempted to hand her a little bouquet of flowers. The child’s hand bumped hers and she winced in pain.
“Sorry honey,” she said with a crooked smile, I can’t take the flower” the ache in her swollen hand was clearly reflected in her face. Over the curly, be-ribboned head of my charge, she explained to me: “Been suffering with this thumb,” she said, shaking it gently to relieve the pain.
That’s when she explained how it happened.
“You should see a doctor,” I offered, raising my voice over the rumbling engine and the chatter of the youngsters greeting each other in the bus aisle.
“What doctor? I can’t afford to go to no doctor.”
“The swelling,” I began….
“Jest a little infection,” she said.
“Is it numb anywhere?”
“Naw, not no more,”
“But if the pain is so sharp,” I persisted, “the bone might be broken.” I added, feeling, I should give my professional opinion, even though I’m retired a long time now.
“I have a friend who’s a nurse, in St. Mary’s, I showed it to her and, she says, she thinks it’s jest a sprain,” said Miss Barbara, resting the hurt-hand gingerly on the big vibrating steering wheel.
“But you should…”
“I been takin’ big doses of ‘butes’ and that seems to help the pain,” she added, as she smiled wanly and waved to me.
Realizing our conversation was ended, I smiled too.
“Have a nice day,” she called out, as she closed the big folding doors.
I walked back home thinking of Miss Brenda. From what she said, and seeing her sharp reaction to the pain, I was pretty sure she had a broken thumb and thus she would at least need a good splint. I was determined to encourage her at our next encounter to perhaps go to the Emergency Room at St. Mary’s Hospital. There they would probably put it in a cast for her.
The weekend passed, and Monday arrived, as my little troop and I walked to the bus stop, I mentally prepared a quick statement for Miss Brenda. My brief time arrived when the two youngsters climbed the bus steps.
“Hi Miss Brenda, how’s the thumb?”
“Oh, still pretty painful, but I figured a way out,” she said, smiling and holding up her hand, for me to see. The hand revealed a wide strip of masking-tape which bound her thumb to her index finger.
“I found that by taping the thumb tight against my first finger, the pain ain’t so bad, and I could still hold the wheel pretty good. “
“Oh?, did the swelling go down?”
“Yeah, and the discoloring’s goin’ away too.”
“So you can drive OK?”
“Yeah, I’m a tough as an old....! You know what I mean! I can’t say it in front o’ these kids,” she said, reaching for the door-handle.
“Have a nice day,” I called out.
“Yeah…you too.”
"Hope you feel better...I yelled out as the door closed.
As the bus pulled away…and I walked back home, I thought about Miss Brenda. Perhaps her thumb would heal OK and she would recover and have full use of it. But Miss Brenda’s broken thumb, had me pondering, about how here in the US, our medical system--which serves some so well--but for others, there may only prolonged pain, over-the-counter medicines, and masking tape. And yeah...hope.
Get the picture?
rjk
Thursday, October 1, 2009
US AND IRAN AT GENEVA:VIEW FROM FRANCE
Le Monde (October 1, 2009)
American and Iranian Gestures In Advance Of The Nuclear Meeting.
Less than a week after the dramatic and brusque revelation of the Iranian nuclear “dossier”. The Obama administration has made gestures of good will in the prelude to the Council of Six great powers meeting (US, China, Russia, Germany, France, and the UK) with, Iran on Thursday first of October in Geneva.
According to the Dept of State, Barak Obama has given authorization to his negotiator, political director William Burns, to meet with his Iranian counterpart, Said Jalili, on the side of the plenary session, if he wishes. That is not the first time that Mr. Burns has participated in a meeting with the Iranian delegation, but it the first time he has the authority to speak directly, head-head, with a fortiari (even stronger) authority and engage in direct dialog.
The administration has also authorized the (Iranian) minister of foreign affairs Manoucheher Mottaki, who is assigned to New York at the UN, to come to Washington to visit the Iranian-interest-section of the Pakistani delegation, (which functions to represent Iran) in absence of diplomatic relations between the two countries. Such a visit has not been put in place for the last ten years.
The spokesman of the Department of State Philip Crowley, has called this a “coincidence”. Responding to this question, on the eve of the Geneva meeting, (as to why) the administration has provided the visa. “If this is taken as a small gesture and might contribute to making (the meeting) much more (successful), that is excellent”, he added.
Mottaki has not met with the Americans, but he has given an interview on public radio (NPR). The opponents of the dialogue suggest that his visit plays a part in an attempt by the Iranian regime to restore legitimacy, by showing a de-escalation (of tensions) with Washington.
On the other hand, in Teheran, the Swiss ambassador, who represents the interests of the Americas, has received authorization to make a visit to the three Americans arrested in early August in Kurdistan.
In Geneva, where the Swizz authorities have had a preview of the major questions in front of a flood of journalists, diplomats and observers, and where the Americans released on Thursday (a list) of their objectives. The first task: “Establish if the Iranians are ready to engage on the nuclear issue.” Other priorities: That Iran permit “complete access and without hindrance” to the clandestine Qum site, to full revelation, as has been demanded by the AIEA.
The Council of Six wish to obtain gestures (from Iran) that (will) “build confidence”. The proposition which has been on the table for a long time is called “freeze for freeze”, which envisions an intermediary period in advance of suspension of enrichment, and is the “point of departure” of all negotiations, has stated an American official.
This new stage in the (Iranian) dossier is opposed by some American experts. Some such as Flynt and Hillary Leverett, members of the National Security Council under George Bush, plead for a “grand bargain”, a global accord which seemed to be the wish of the Iranians in 2003.
The others such as Gary Milhollin and Valery Lincy of the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control, suspect Iran of possessing a clandestine “nuclear archipelago” and (they) call for the allies to demand that Iran release all the plans of its installations. The neo-conservatives, as well as the Republican John McCain are coming back to the idea that “change of regime” is more necessary than ever.
Le Monde: Corine Lesnes
Translated: rjk (Oct 1, 2009)
American and Iranian Gestures In Advance Of The Nuclear Meeting.
Less than a week after the dramatic and brusque revelation of the Iranian nuclear “dossier”. The Obama administration has made gestures of good will in the prelude to the Council of Six great powers meeting (US, China, Russia, Germany, France, and the UK) with, Iran on Thursday first of October in Geneva.
According to the Dept of State, Barak Obama has given authorization to his negotiator, political director William Burns, to meet with his Iranian counterpart, Said Jalili, on the side of the plenary session, if he wishes. That is not the first time that Mr. Burns has participated in a meeting with the Iranian delegation, but it the first time he has the authority to speak directly, head-head, with a fortiari (even stronger) authority and engage in direct dialog.
The administration has also authorized the (Iranian) minister of foreign affairs Manoucheher Mottaki, who is assigned to New York at the UN, to come to Washington to visit the Iranian-interest-section of the Pakistani delegation, (which functions to represent Iran) in absence of diplomatic relations between the two countries. Such a visit has not been put in place for the last ten years.
The spokesman of the Department of State Philip Crowley, has called this a “coincidence”. Responding to this question, on the eve of the Geneva meeting, (as to why) the administration has provided the visa. “If this is taken as a small gesture and might contribute to making (the meeting) much more (successful), that is excellent”, he added.
Mottaki has not met with the Americans, but he has given an interview on public radio (NPR). The opponents of the dialogue suggest that his visit plays a part in an attempt by the Iranian regime to restore legitimacy, by showing a de-escalation (of tensions) with Washington.
On the other hand, in Teheran, the Swiss ambassador, who represents the interests of the Americas, has received authorization to make a visit to the three Americans arrested in early August in Kurdistan.
In Geneva, where the Swizz authorities have had a preview of the major questions in front of a flood of journalists, diplomats and observers, and where the Americans released on Thursday (a list) of their objectives. The first task: “Establish if the Iranians are ready to engage on the nuclear issue.” Other priorities: That Iran permit “complete access and without hindrance” to the clandestine Qum site, to full revelation, as has been demanded by the AIEA.
The Council of Six wish to obtain gestures (from Iran) that (will) “build confidence”. The proposition which has been on the table for a long time is called “freeze for freeze”, which envisions an intermediary period in advance of suspension of enrichment, and is the “point of departure” of all negotiations, has stated an American official.
This new stage in the (Iranian) dossier is opposed by some American experts. Some such as Flynt and Hillary Leverett, members of the National Security Council under George Bush, plead for a “grand bargain”, a global accord which seemed to be the wish of the Iranians in 2003.
The others such as Gary Milhollin and Valery Lincy of the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control, suspect Iran of possessing a clandestine “nuclear archipelago” and (they) call for the allies to demand that Iran release all the plans of its installations. The neo-conservatives, as well as the Republican John McCain are coming back to the idea that “change of regime” is more necessary than ever.
Le Monde: Corine Lesnes
Translated: rjk (Oct 1, 2009)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)