Russia, Georgia the US and (sadly usual) hypocrisy

I haven't said much about the events in Georgia. partly because it looked like a situation that demanded watching rather than uninformed opinion. The background seems to be that Russia has long standing and declared interests in the region. The Russian ethnic minorities left behind in some of the former Soviet republics when the Soviet Union broke up are a serious issue for Russia and Russians.

Arguably, Russia has acted in defense of people it sees as Russians - the South Ossetians. Reports say some South Ossetians have been given Russian passports. This is understandable as when they were born, they likely were Russians. Just as people born in other countries to a British parent can get EU passports. I'm one of them myself. There is nothing strange about this.....US Republican party presidential nominee, John McCain, was born in Panama to US parents. Nothing has been said in the media about the basis for Russia giving passports to some South Ossetians. Only that some are getting them. The truth lies in the details.

The government in Georgia had been growing ever closer to the Bush Administration in the US. The US had supported joint military operations between Georgia and it's non-Russian neighbours. At the tail end of those exercises, Georgian troops rolled into South Ossetia, disturbing the effective truce that had pertained there for some time.

One of the interesting items picked up in trolling through the news from non-US sources over the past couple of weeks was that South Ossetia had been made a semi-autonomous region within Georgia by Stalin, decades ago. So this is nothing new at all.

One can readily understand why Russia might want to highlight how little substance there is to American support for Georgia and remind Georgia to show more respect toward Russia.

Another interesting aspect in this is how Russia has - effectively - emulated the foreign policy approach of the Bush Administration in unilaterally pursuing what it sees as in its best interests. The events of the past few weeks might be seen as former Russian Preisdent and current Prime Minister, Vladimir Putin, giving George W Bush the finger during Bush's last few months in office. After all, Putin pleaded with Bush for most of two years to follow a more moderate and co-operative foreign policy and Bush took no notice whatever.

I can readily imagine Putin and current Russian President Medvedev rendering the diplomatic version of "Talk to the hand" in response to hypocritical American thundering about Russia's self-interested military actions in defence of.....Russians.

Of course this isn't how it is presented in the usual right-wing, one-eyed, war-mongering media outlets - like the Telegraph in the UK and those in the US owned by weapons contractors who make more money when there is a war going on - or threat of one. In all that news coverage, we hear a great deal from the US and very little is reported in detail of what the Russians have to say. I'm sure they aren't silent. We simply aren't told what they are saying.

The Guardian and The Independent in the UK have distinguished themselves by their even-handed and level-headed appraisals of the situation in context and informed by history.

A more rounded and less cartoon-like assessment of the whole situation is out there. Unfortunately, you have go digging to find it. The truth isn't mainstream.

Once again, I see 5,000 English-language newpapers essentially delivering little more than whatever AP, Reuters and AFP dish up.....and those three wire services have clearly been captured by more-war political interests long ago.

In no particular order

The news is a bit thicker than usual this week. These stories broke through the mass into my consciousness.....in no particular order.

The iPhone 3G appears to have problems. Dropped calls (3% vs the normal 1%) and choppy Internet (as the devices swap frequently between low and high speed access) are the main issues, it appears. Fingers are pointing at Infineon Technologies' 3G chips. But Infineon says they work just fine in other phones and cites Samsung as an example.

Whatever. I'm glad I didn't go for one.

For the last few days, I've also had Georgia on my mind. Where the heck did THAT come from? I'm trying to make sense of it. I can see some long running threads amid the mess.

Russia (Putin) has grown tired of Bush-lead America following a "me first, screw you" approach to almost every aspect of foreign policy. 'Might makes right' wears thin over time. The EU and NATO are encroaching on Russian borders and Russia is frozen out of closer relations with the rapidly growing 'United States of Europe'. But thanks for all the oil and gas. The US continues to set up its missile shield setting up on Russia's doorstep in Poland, Turkey and elsewhere (supposedly directed at "rogue" states) despite Russia's vehement opposition. Then, the president of Georgia, Mikheil Saakashvili, tried to assert control in break-away South Ossetia immediately after US-funded joint military exercises began last month in Georgia. Those exercises were matched at the time by a Russian anti-terrorist operation on the other side of the border.

Georgia wants to join NATO. Hard to imagine Russia letting that happen.

Who is the US 'saving'? Georgia is nominally a democracy. No need to fight for 'freedum-n-dumocrasee' there. South Ossetia has a large Russian population and doesn't want to be part of Georgia. They've made that fairly clear. Russia compares it to Kosovo in that respect, which the West assisted in seceding from rump-Yugoslavia, though it would not be fair to compare Saakashvili to Serbia's now-dead former leader, Slobodan Milosevic.

Looks to me like some (unnecessary) brinksmanship going on and Russia either took the bait (October Surpise!) or called US President George Bush and Georgian President Saakashvili's bluff.

Either way, the US elections would have to feature in the overall calculations somewhere....especially on the American side. One of the key tools Bush has for helping out Republican nominee, John McCain is the ability to stir up trouble as a background for McCain to posture in front of. Democrat contender, Barack Obama has sensibly spoken of a more moderate and co-operative approach to foreign policy. What better way to make him look soft than to go around the world stirring up trouble making it look like talking isn't an option? Meanwhile.....real people die. Bush couldn't give a rat's arse about that, as his record clearly shows. For its part, Russia will be betting the US and EU don't want their oil and gas supplies disrupted by a wider war and anyway the US is busy with all the other endless wars it has underway.

I'm sure it will get worse before it gets better. Obama is still ahead in the polls. It's a risky strategy. The Republicans are already in trouble with many voters for starting stupid wars and waing Everests of tax money. Intensifying the apparent stupidity heading into an election could backfire. Though many Americans are suckers for some flag-waving war-mongerig and might go with it no matter how stupid it is. After all, they backed the invasion of Iraq on he evidential equivalent of the smell of an oily rag.

The Beijing Olympics are on. There was never any doubt in my mind that China would put on one hell of a show. The intelligence, energy and creativity of China are enormous and a set piece like the Olympics is the perfect platform to display all of the above. Virtually every person I know of Chinese nationality or extraction is bursting with pride - and rightly so. Having said that, I'm either working all day, spending time with the family, walking the dog or reading and thinking or sleeping, so haven't seen more than a couple of minutes worth of coverage here and there, now and again. Much like the last Olympics and the several before that. Not being one to spend endless hours in fromt of the tube watching anything (let alone sport) the O-rings aren't getting much of a look in.

The last time I sat and spent hours watching an Olympics was in 1976 in Montreal, where I had a friend attending as an alternate. He won gold in the heavyweight class in Edmonton in 1978 at the Commonwealth Games. He was to be the primary competitor in 1980, but the Soviets invaded Afghanistan to forestall muslim extremists taking control of the place and almost every Western country boycotted the Moscow Olympics....and my friend was very disappointed. He'd spent most of a decade preparing for that day. He left Canada after winning gold in the heavyweight plus class at the Commonwealth Games in Brisbane in 1982 and still doesn't live there full time even now. Last time I spoke to him, he was spending about half the year in Beijing and half in Vancouver and has done for over 20 years. His experience at the hands of cynical political interests sort of ruined the Olympics for me. It's even worse now we know the US funded those muslim extremists in Afghanistan in the first place and Canada was suckered into supporting a boycott regarding a war the US had played a part in provoking. Another one.

War criminal to visit NZ soon

US Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice, will be visiting New Zealand on July 26th.

This shameless enabler of Bush's war crimes and violations of US law and their Constitution should be in prison along with her boss.

Condoleezza Rice: Liar, Secretary of State, War Criminal pt1




Condoleezza Rice: Liar, Secretary of State, War Criminal pt2




Condoleezza Rice: Liar, Secretary of State, War Criminal pt3

"Israel ready to act" over Iran

As Iran conducts its second day of missile tests, the BBC reports Israel is ready to act over Iran "if it feels threatened".

As in past conflicts, Israel has effectively provoked the current tensions by steadily ratcheting up the rhetoric until the target responds in a provocative way. Israel then uses this response as evidence of the threat.

I've had the same thing happen to me in the playground at school when someone wanted to pick a fight. They would harrass and needle until you finally had a go at them....only to find them then playing the victim and you end up looking like the bully. No one is interested in your protestations to the contrary.....especially the influential friends of the harrasser.

We've been seeing the same thing with respect to Israel and Iran for some years now (roughly since Bush got into the White House) and Iran has typically responded in a reasonably measured way to the ongoing threats from the US and Israel to unilaterally nuke Iran.

Why Iran now appears to have taken the bait is worth speculating on. Is it simply bad judgement based on hubris? Or is Iran bluffing? Or is Iran taking a "Make my day...." stance with respect to the usual Israeli threats of attack for some other purpose?

Certainly by keeping tensions high, Israel, the US and Iran are all doing their best to keep the price of oil high, which keeps the economic pressure on everyone who uses oil. That ties in with Iranian President Ahmedinejad's view that the US is "on the threshold of bankruptcy — from political to economic".

From the perspective of the Bush Administration and the Kadima-lead conservative government in Israel, a tensions, or perhaps even conflict, with Iran may help John McCain take the White House or, failing that, make it all but impossible for a more moderate Barak Obama to adopt a more conciliatory stance with respect to Iran. The current governments in Israel and the US do not want this situation to be resolved. That is made evident by their fresh threats each time things calm down.

The best way to undertstand why these tensions have arisen is too look at who gains by them: the groups currently in power in the US and Israel. Their respective political constituencies are held together by fear as much as any other thing. So fear it is.

There is no benefit for Iran in any of this.

It's worth remembering we have not yet seen any evidence that Iran is actually working on nuclear weapons. The attempts to create panic about Iran appear to be designed to stop anyone from bothering to ask for such proof.

How can anyone trust anything they say?

As in past cycles, Iran has responded to months of escalating threats from the US and Israel by demonstrating its intention (NZ Herald) to defend itself if attacked.

The story in the print version of the Herald Wednesday morning included this hilarious, presumably straight-faced, lie:

"Israel does not threaten Iran, but the Iranian nuclear programme combined with their aggressive ballistic missile programme is a matter of grave concern", Mark Regev, spokesman for Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, said after the tests

In fact, Israel is on record in the past several weeks alone overtly threatening Iran with attack and has been threatening Iran overtly with nuclear attack over the past 5 years at least.

This quote is not included on the online version of the Herald's report, which will be seen by fewer people than the print version.

Iran responds to US / Israeli threats of attack

Iran appears to be taking the US and Israeli threats of attack seriously, moving long rang missiles into defensive positions.

I keep using Al Jazeera clips because for depth of coverage of ALL sides, they are leaving everyone else I can see in the shade. (I can't see any BBC coverage). The US broadcast media I have seen do not question the completely unproven Bush Administration claims that Iran has a nuclear weapons program. I'm not saying no one is questioning it. Just no one I've seen.

Inside Story - Iran/Israel tensions - 29 Jun 08 - Part 1



Inside Story - Iran/Israel tensions - 29 Jun 08 - Part 2

Seymour Hersh on US escalation against Iran

Seymour Hersh, author of an article in the New Yorker that I posted about yesterday, talks on Al-Jazeera about the US escalation against Iran.


I was going to add the "stupid people" label, but G W Bush is already among the labels.

Iraq II: Iran in the frame?

I won't beat around the Bush (so to speak). I don't claim to know either way whether Iran is making nukes or not. How could I?

I am suspicious, but not just about Iran.

The escalating rhetoric and allegations about weapons of mass destruction (Nukes! Nukes!) being made by the United States and Israel against Iran is looking more and more like a re-run of the same claims made against Iraq in 2002.

Then, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), was fed essentially false and é or misleading (dis)information by the United States and others and was (ab)used by the United States and others to front a steadily escalating propaganda campaign against Iraq.

Last week, the IAEA released a Board Report (PDF) that essentially verified Iran's compliance on all material matters, but at the same time asked Iran to respond to allegations that it was progressing tasks that would see a nuclear weapon eventuate.

Iran has responded in detail. As with Iraq in 2002, each time the Iranians respond to allegations, refuting them, still more allegations are made, effectively preventing the process from arriving at a conclusion. Like Iraq, in 2002, it looks like this is running to a time table with some conclusion in mind. Perhaps an attack on Iran in the near future. (I will detail the converging indications of such an attack in a post later today or tomorrow.)

Reading the report, were from unspecified sources as they are not named in the report. They are based on documents provided to the IAEA only in electronic form. The IAEA was not allowed - or able to - provide some of these documents to Iran for a response. Iran's response to those documents it was shown appears to be credible - at least as credible as the documents that raised the allegations. The key paragraphs are 17-24 of the report. Read them for yourself (in the report) and see if you don't think this doesn't look, smell and sound like an "Iraq II" WMD smear job.

The media globally are lapping it up with most US-based media reporting it - explicitly or implicitly - as though it is a given that Iran is making nukes.

Iran says the documents are fakes and that it dos not have a nuclear weapons program. They say the electronic documents provided contain inconsistencies that reveal they are forgeries. Iran says it cannot respond to the documents that it has not been allowed to examine. In all cases, the documents were in electronic format and Iran says they could have easily been manipulated.

Speaker of the Iranian Parliament, the Majlis, Ali Larijani said:

Larijani said last week that certain aspects of the IAEA report suggested that, "services of some countries are trying to mislead the agency".

Speaking after Sunday's parliamentary session, Larijani said that "this active misleading of the agency will harm both Iran and the IAEA".

He said that Iran has been warning the IAEA inspectors about the false feeding of information by US and Israeli intelligent services, "but they kept getting the wrong information and we used to clarify everything according to the law."

"Iran does not like this happen and will devise another solution," he added.

Summarising, we have essentially anonymous allegations based on documents provided in a form that can easily be manipulated or forged, some of which can't be released in any form to Iran or anyone else. As detailed in the report, the documents that have been released have alternative, non-nuclear explanations. The documents that have not been released purport to show an administrative connection between the ambiguous activities and the nuclear energy program. Yet these most crucial documents are the least visible.

The United States and Israel have been making accusations against Iran repeatedly. Both countries have been threatening to unilaterally attack Iran. These threats have often explicitly refrred to the pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons. Here is a small representative sample of US and Israeli military threats against Iran, with just one example from each of the past 5 years: 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008.

For the last 3 years, as those links show, Israel has been threatening unilateral strikes, using nuclear weapons, against Iranian sites it deems to be in need of destroying.

Iran's response throughout this period has been to co-operate with the IAEA and to state repeatedly that it does not threaten anyone and will not attack any country, though it will defend itself against any attacks. Iran says it is not developing nuclear weapons as they are un-islamic.

As Iran is a (somewhat democratic) Islamic theocracy, the fatwah issued by head cleric, Ayotollah Khamenei, declaring

"developing, producing, or stockpiling nuclear weapons is forbidden under Islam"

can't be lightly disregarded.

If anyone does attack Iran, its leaders have made it clear there will be dire consequences. The Iranian reaction to American and Israeli threats of pre-emtive attacks have been widely portrayed as aggressive anti-semitic attacks.

It boils down to whether or not the allegations against Iran by anonymous accusers (the US and Israel) are credible. Neither country has an impressive track record for telling the truth. In particular, the US President has already lied to start a war in Iraq. As we now know, the allegations against Iraq were supported by faked documents, bogus interpretations of mundane satellite imagery and other misleading "evidence". They were found, in the end, to be false. But not before they had been successfully used to justify a military adventure that is still underway 5 years later.

Prior to the Iraqi conflict, the IAEA was fed forged documents purporting to show the Iraqis attempting to procure nuclear materials from Niger. It was difficult then for Iraq to respond because the matters contained in the documents were mythical. It's not easy to prove something doesn't exist.

Today, we are seeing the same thing again. The critical piece in the `case` against Iran is the connection between the military and the nuclear energy program, but it is precisely this connection that is most vague and ill-defined. The documents purporting to demonstrate it can`t be seen by anyone..including the Iranians.

On this basis, it looks like the case against Iran is simply not credible. It is being made by countries with a proven track record of using deception - including out right lies and forgery - to justify military adventure.

I hope the New Zealand government looks long and hard at any case against Iran before taking sides. So far, the case doesn't come close to stacking up.