vendredi, septembre 29, 2006

Actualité - Rencontre secrète de PDG et de l'establishment de la défense à Banff: Militarisation et déconstruction de l'Amérique du Nord

Des ministres et des généraux cinq étoiles se frottent à certains des plus influents chefs d'entreprise d'Amérique du Nord dans le décor somptueux du Fairmont Banff Springs Hotel.

Cette rencontre secrète sur «La prospérité continentale dans le nouvel environnement de sécurité» porte sur l'«intégration profonde», qui consiste grosso modo à abolir la souveraineté nationale en faveur de la «forteresse nord-américaine».

Selon l'ordre du jour de la conférence, le secrétaire à la Défense Ronald Rumsfeld se serait rendu à Banff, en Alberta, pour y prononcer une allocution sur la coopération militaire. Le ministre de la Sécurité publique du Canada, Stockwell Day, aurait quant à lui abordé divers problèmes reliés à la sécurité publique en Amérique du Nord.

Plusieurs hauts gradés des armées américaine et canadienne y étaient. Y assistaient également le ministre de la Défense du Canada, Gordon O'Connor, et le chef d'état-major de la Défense, le général Rick Hillier.

Rien ne confirme que le premier ministre du Canada, Stephen Harper, ait participé à la conférence.

Du côté américain, plusieurs des hauts conseillers de Rumsfeld étaient présents, avec une poignée de chercheurs et de consultants.

Le commandant du NorthCom américain, l'amiral Tim Keating, était dans l'assistance accompagné de plusieurs membres de son personnel. Keating est également le commandant du NORAD, qui sera bientôt incorporé dans le NorthCom américain.

Intégration profonde

Le concept d'«intégration profonde» fut d'abord énoncé par le «Groupe de travail indépendant pour l'avenir de l'Amérique du Nord» dont la composante canadienne est présidée par l'ancien vice-premier ministre libéral John Manley et Tom D'Aquino, président du Conseil canadien des chefs d'entreprises. Le groupe composé de représentants américains, canadiens et mexicains était parrainé par le Conseil sur les relations étrangères.

«D'Aquino et ses partenaires dans le groupe de travail de la grande entreprise, l'ancien vice-premier ministre John Manley et l'ancien ministre des Finances Michael Wilson, nous disent que notre intégration progressive aux États-Unis va garantir notre prospérité en créant une forteresse nord-américaine pour concurrencer avec la Chine, l'Europe et d'autres rivaux.»[1]

En 2005, le groupe de travail de Manley publiait son «Appel trinational en faveur de la création d'une communauté économique et de sécurité nord-américaine d'ici 2010».

D'Aquino et Manley étaient tous deux à la conférence de Banff, qui est plus ou moins un suivi de l'initiative parrainée par le Conseil des relations étrangères. Un autre thème central de la conférence de Banff est l'intégration des structures de commandement militaire qui pourrait mener à l'abandon du NORAD et à l'intégration du Canada au Northern Command des États-Unis.[2]

La conférence de Banff était co-présidée par George Shultz, un fervent républicain et ancien secrétaire d'État du président Ronald Reagan devenu par la suite président et directeur de Bechtel.

Plusieurs des plus grands chefs d'entreprise du complexe militaro-industriel et des pétrolières, dont Lockheed Martin, Chevron, PEMEX du Mexique et Suncor Energy, étaient à la conférence.

Plusieurs hauts représentants politiques et analystes des groupes de recherche militaire, comme Livermore, étaient invités à participer à différents panels en tant qu'experts.

Les réunions ont porté sur l'interpénétration des systèmes de défense nord-américains, la militarisation, la sécurité nationale, les frontières, l'immigration, la production militaire et le contrôle des réserves d'énergie de l'Amérique du Nord.

La conférence avait davantage à voir avec la militarisation pour le profit qu'avec la «prospérité continentale».

Pas de journalistes, pas de communiqués de presse, pas de commentaires qui puissent informer l'opinion publique: le silence médiatique total. Le programme de la conférence, qui était un secret d'État bien gardé, a été révélé par l'auteur et politicien canadien Mel Hurtig dans un message sur Internet qui se lit:

J'ai cru que vous voudriez voir ceci. Les voilà repartis. Les vendus, les suspects habituels.

Du 12 au 14 septembre, au Banff Springs Hotel, une conférence sur l'intégration nord-américaine.

La longue liste des participants inclut Perrin Beatty, Peter Lougheed, Thomas d'Aquino, Stockwell Day, Wendy Dobson, Roger Gibbins, John Manley, Anne McLellan, Gordon O'Connor, James Schlesinger, Donald Rumsfeld, George Shultz et bien d'autres.

Ils aborderont entre autres les thèmes suivants: «Une vision pour l'Amérique du Nord», «Une stratégie énergétique nord-américaine», «Dimensions démographiques et sociales de l'intégration nord-américaine», «Possibilités de coopération en matière de sécurité».

Plusieurs hauts représentants du gouvernement américain y seront.

Beaucoup de militaires. Beaucoup de ministres adjoints.

Cachez vos objets précieux. Ne laissez pas sortir vos enfants.

Mel Hurtig


Notes
1. Murray Dobbin, avril 2005
2. Chossudovsky, novembre 2004

*(Traduit de l'anglais par Le Marxiste-Léniniste)

(GlobalResearch.ca - Michel Chossudovsky)

Libellés :

mardi, septembre 26, 2006

Actualité - IAEA qualifies U.S. report on Iran as outrageous and dishonest

Franc-Parler publie un article du Granma international à propos d'une lettre de Agence internationale de l'énergie atomique (AIEA) qui qualifie un rapport des États-Unis sur le programme nucléaire iranien de malhonnête. Rappelons que l'Irak s'est faite envahir sous prétexte de la présence d'armes de destruction massive qui n'ont jamais éxistée. Le résultat trois ans plus tard, le pays est présentement en plein chaos et toujours sous domination américaines.

Vienna, September 15 (Prensa Latina) — The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) qualified as outrageous and dishonest a report presented by a U.S. congressional intelligence committee on Iran’s nuclear program, according to diplomatic sources.

A letter to that effect, signed by Vilmos Cserveny, director of the Office of External and Policy Coordination for the IAEA, was delivered to Peter Hoekstra, Republican chairman of the House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and to Gregory Schuite, U.S. ambassador to the IAEA.

The letter qualified the information issued by the United States on Tehran’s alleged production of enriched uranium for military purposes as “erroneous, misleading and unsubstantiated.”

The IAEA noted that in order to produce weapons of mass destruction, uranium must be 90% enriched, and that to date, the Islamic Republic produces that substance at only 3.8% enrichment at its centrifuge plants.

Moreover, it dismisses as “outrageous and dishonest” U.S. claims that the agency removed one of its inspectors from Iran because he violated an “unstated IAEA policy barring its officials from telling the whole truth about the Iranian nuclear program.”

In that context, the letter notes that all countries that are signatories to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (TNP) have the right to demand the removal of any IAEA expert, and adds that Tehran has welcomed more than 200 of those specialists.

In early 2005, the Islamic Republic joined the Additional Protocol of the Treaty, which permits non-planned inspections, right as Washington was accusing the Persian nation of trying to build nuclear weapons.

By doing so, the White House created an artificial crisis around Iran’s nuclear program. The Middle East nation defends its inalienable right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy.

(Granma International)

Libellés :

Actualité - Shouts of Freedom for the Five shake the streets of Washington

Franc-Parler publie ce texte sur les cinq prisonniers politiques cubains emprisonnés présentement aux États-Unis. La lutte sans relâche pour leur libération se poursuit. Même le peuple américain se range de leur côté pour décrier les injustices faites par leur en leur nom.

"WE have participated in a historic event," expressed participants of the march that covered more than three kilometers of downtown Washington this Saturday, in support of the cause of the five Cubans who have been imprisoned in the United States for eight years for fighting terrorism.

With constant shouts of "Free, Free the Cuban Five" in what was the first event of this kind in the United States demanding their release, the protesters joined the World Solidarity Campaign currently underway for this cause.

In statements to Granma, activists Gloria la Riva and Andrés Gómez specified that the march consisted of contingents from the cities of New York, Washington, Philadelphia, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Ft. Lauderdale, as well as from the states of Ohio, New Jersey, Maine, Connecticut, new Mexico, Oregon, Tennessee and Kentucky, among others. "But the largest presence was from the Cuban community of Miami, Tampa and Cayo Hueso," they reported.

The peaceful protesters also condemned the Bush administration’s intention to release terrorist Luis Posada Carriles, and stayed outside of the White House for about an hour.

(Granma International)

Libellés :

lundi, septembre 25, 2006

Actualité - A Year After the FBI Murder: Filiberto Ojeda, Lares Still Inspire Puerto Rican Struggle

The flag of Lares, symbol of Puerto Rico's struggle for independence.

September 23 is among the most symbolic dates celebrated in Puerto Rico. Known as El Grito de Lares, this revolutionary holiday commemorates an 1868 rebellion, centered in the town of Lares, against chattel slavery and Spanish colonialism. Today, even the U.S. colonial government is compelled to give limited recognition to the holiday by closing public schools and government offices.

But after 2005, the day has new significance. In an outrageous act of colonial arrogance, the FBI chose the date to try to shatter the fighting spirit of the Puerto Rican masses by assassinating one of the most revered leaders of the struggle for Puerto Rico's independence, Filiberto Ojeda Rios.

The 1868 Uprising

El Grito de Lares -- the cry of Lares -- commemorates the day when an army of insurgents made up of former African slaves, city workers, peasants and other social layers that made up colonial Puerto Rican society, charged the city of Lares to wage battle against the hated Spanish military garrison.

At the town plaza, the people gathered to celebrate the defeat of their Spanish oppressors. With their weapons raised, the freedom fighters declared the Republic of Puerto Rico. They shouted for the first time the now solemn words: "¡Que viva Puerto Rico libre! Long live a free Puerto Rico!"

That uprising was ultimately crushed by Spanish colonial authorities. But El Grito de Lares marks the affirmation of the Puerto Rican people as a nation and the moment of definition for their struggle to achieve political independence and the right of self-determination from foreign colonial domination.

For the Spanish rulers at the time, this uprising represented the gradual decline of Spain as a colonizing power -- especially with rebellions taking place in its other colonized lands, such as Cuba and the Philippines.

The colonial rulers in Washington, who have dominated the island ever since U.S. troops invaded Puerto Rico in 1898, view this holiday with nothing but disdain, knowing that the annual celebration symbolizes the proud and rebellious traditions of the Puerto Rican masses.

The Assassination of Filiberto Filiberto Ojeda Rios

Throughout Puerto Rico, many believe that the FBI chose the anniversary of El Grito de Lares to attack Filiberto Ojeda Rios' home and assassinate him out of the U.S. government's hatred for the Puerto Rican independence movement.

Filiberto inspired many activists and liberation fighters in Puerto Rico and across Latin America. He devoted his life to the national liberation struggle of Puerto Rico. An anti-imperialist fighter, he was a socialist who believed that the capitalist system was the root cause of the plight of the Puerto Rican people.

He had great affection for Cuba. During his 15 years living underground, Filiberto frequently traveled there, preserving a centuries-long tradition between freedom fighters and revolutionaries from the two countries.

Filiberto founded and led the clandestine-military group known as the Boricua Popular Army (EPB), also known as Los Macheteros. For many years, the Macheteros carried out acts of armed propaganda to draw worldwide attention to the criminal presence of the United States in Puerto Rico.

Last year, as Puerto Rican independence activists prepared to commemorate the 137th anniversary of the uprising in the city of Lares, 300 heavily armed FBI agents and sharpshooters surrounded the house in the town of Hormigueros, where Filiberto and his wife, Beatriz Rosado, lived. Given the heavy show of force, Filiberto was aware of the FBI's intentions.
He managed to negotiate the safety of Beatriz, who evacuated the house with her hands raised to then be arrested. Filiberto did not surrender and chose instead to stay behind and fight.

Using high-power military automatic weapons, as helicopters encircled Filiberto's home from above, the FBI launched an all-out assault. Although outnumbered, Filiberto fought back in a manner that demonstrated the same national dignity as those who fought against colonial oppression in Lares 137 years earlier.

Filiberto was shot through the shoulder during the gun battle, but not before he managed to critically wound an FBI agent in the stomach. As the Machetero leader lay wounded on the floor, the FBI encircled the house but chose not to enter.

People in the town of Hormigueros tried to get close to Filiberto's home, but were blocked by the FBI. Residents with medical credentials offered to provide emergency assistance to the wounded Filiberto, but they were rejected and pushed away by FBI agents.

The wound that Filiberto had sustained in his shoulder was not life threatening. He died not from the wound itself but from loss of blood.

Filiberto's death could have been prevented. The logic of the FBI must have been that it was better for a revolutionary to die bleeding than to survive and continue the struggle. Since the assassination of the Machetero leader, it was disclosed that the FBI could have easily avoided the bloodshed. New York Daily News reporter, Juan González, revealed on Oct. 6, 2005, that a former U.S. Navy intelligence officer provided FBI agents with precise information about the restaurant where Filiberto frequently came to eat and the house where he lived, weeks before the attack.

By killing the anti-colonial leader on the day celebrated by the full spectrum of the independence movement and Puerto Rican society as a whole, top Justice Department and FBI officials aimed to send a message to anyone opposing the U.S. presence on the island.

But the U.S. colonial forces' assassination unleashed the opposite reaction to what the FBI expected. Militant actions erupted across the island expressing outrage against the political murder of the Machetero leader. The quest for independence gained prestige among the youth. International support for Puerto Rico's independence struggle increased in the face of such blatant colonial arrogance.

Wider layers of Puerto Rican society -- even elements who support statehood and the colonial status quo -- began to question the FBI's presence in Puerto Rico. Human rights organizations, along with members of Congress and the U.S.-installed colonial government of Puerto Rico, have been pressured to condemn the FBI's actions and call for an investigation of the circumstances in Filiberto's death.

These mainstream and bourgeois circles, however, had always been silent about the FBI's role in Puerto Rico as an agency of colonialism. What compelled them to voice the mildest disapprovals of the FBI assassination of Filiberto were the thunderous expressions of outrage from the Puerto Rican people.

The FBI did not commit a "procedural mistake" on Sept. 23, 2005, in Hormigueros, Puerto Rico, as some apologists have claimed. The assassination of Filiberto Ojeda Rios was the direct consequence of U.S. colonial policy. Murder and imprisonment have historically been the punishment for outspoken leaders who dare to challenge U.S. domination. Since the U.S. invasion of Puerto Rico in 1898, violence has been used to scare the populace away from the independence cause.

The opposite resulted from Filiberto's assassination. What the U.S. rulers will soon learn is that the murder of the Puerto Rican freedom fighter served them no real purpose. The peoples' movement will eventually force the demise of U.S. imperialism. U.S. assassins may have taken the life of the beloved and respected Puerto Rican revolutionary leader, but in the end, his assassination will undermine the colonial power in the island.

Because Filiberto Ojeda Rios died defending himself from the maliciousness and violence of the colonial oppressor, his death has given the annual Sept. 23 commemoration of El Grito de Lares an added meaning. That will give greater strength to the struggle for a free Puerto Rico.

(Socialism and Liberation Magazine - Carlos "Carlito" Rovira)

Libellés :

Actualité - First soldier refuses to serve in Afghanistan

The Canadian government, under both Liberal and Conservative parties, has moved quickly over the last two years to prosecute on immigration charges, and to seek deportations of, several US soldiers who fled to Canada as war resisters. Now the recently elected pro-Bush Conservative government faces a revolt from within the ranks of the Canadian armed forces, as opposition to Canadian involvement in the imperialist adventure in Afghanistan appears to be growing.

Former army reserve member Francisco Juarez recently became the first documented Canadian soldier to refuse to serve in Afghanistan. During a training session in Gagetown, New Brunswick, Juarez refused to enter an obstacle course, telling his commanding officer: “I no longer wish to participate.”

Juarez, who has been involved with the Canadian military since 2002, knew he wanted out by the end of his first week of training in Gagetown. He explained his frustration with the attitude of his fellow soldiers: “They all want to go to Afghanistan. Afghanistan is the big game. If you're a concert pianist, you want to go to Carnegie Hall. They were all pretty gung-ho.”

Juarez initially left a message at the infantry school saying: “For personal and familial reasons, I wish to be returned to unit and released.” Juarez was quickly dragged before a series of captains for intensive one-on-one interviews in an attempt to break his resolve.

They tried to demean Juarez by calling him a failure who would be discredited his entire life, and threatened him with a court martial. In the end Juarez was fined C$500 and discharged without honour (in the eyes of the military establishment at least).

Juarez is convinced that the mission in Afghanistan has been ill-conceived. His preference is for political dialogue, rather than military might. His deep sense that the Canadian forces’ mission in Afghanistan is morally wrong continues to sustain Juarez and confirms his decision to refuse to go.

“I could have sat back and said, 'You're paid to do a job. Just do it and shut up’. But I decided I couldn't. I began to ask myself, could I give orders to subordinates that would result in them dying for a mission I did not believe in?” In the end the answer was clear to him. Juarez recalls that his main thought as he faced the obstacle course was simply: “I'm in control of my legs. Nobody can make me do this.”

A nationwide poll in July found that 47% of people supported the Canadian armed forces’ role in Afghanistan, partly reflecting the success of both Liberal and Conservative governments in framing the mission as a UN-led “peacekeeping” endeavour. This strikes a chord with many in Canada who view the UN peacekeeping mandate as a reflection of the country’s role in global affairs, and those who remember the part played by former prime minister and Nobel Laureate Lester Pearson in developing the concept of UN “peacekeeping”.

In part, the backing for the Afghanistan intervention also reflects support for Canadian troops rather than the mission itself. As word of Juarez's refusal gets out it may impact on this aspect of public opinion.

As fighting in which Canadian troops have taken part has worsened, and as the death toll, among troops and diplomats, has risen past 30, the mixed public support that exists has been shaken.

The Conservative government, in its rush to support the Bush regime, recently pushed a vote through parliament extending the Afghanistan mission to 2009. A British general recently commented that Afghanistan may require a 20-year involvement, a commitment the Canadian Conservatives appear ready and willing to make.

Courageous actions like those taken by Juarez could play an important part in preventing the government from continuing to participate in the Afghanistan war.

As the US-led wars and occupations in Afghanistan and Iraq have continued, Washington has faced growing dissent within the ranks of its troops.

Many war resisters in the US forces have chosen to cross the border into Canada, seeking the sanctuary that their predecessors, resisters opposing the Vietnam War, found over a generation ago. Estimates suggest that the number of war resisters who have entered Canada from the US is in the hundreds.

(Green Left Weekly)

Libellés :

Actualité - Harper donne un aperçu du programme impérialiste de l'élite canadienne

Le premier ministre canadien Stephen Harper a profité de son voyage à New York la semaine qui vient de passer pour faire pression pour des liens économiques, militaires et géopolitiques encore plus étroits entre le Canada et les Etats-Unis.

Dans ses discours, Harper voulait soutenir l’idée qu’un partenariat plus étroit entre les Etats-Unis et le Canada est vital pour les deux côtés pour le succès des ambitions mondiales de l’impérialisme américain et ceux plus modestes, mais aussi prédateurs, du Capital canadien.

Devant le Club économique de New York mercredi soir, un des forums les plus importants de l’élite de la grande entreprise et financière américaine, Harper a longuement expliqué combien « le Canada avait à offrir » aux Etats-Unis pour l’aider « à relever ses défis mondiaux » en vertu de sa position en tant que puissance économique et militaire proéminente.

Cet argument était combiné à un appel de l’élite américaine à porter une plus grande attention à la contribution du Canada dans le renforcement de la puissance américaine, y compris en s’ajustant à la politique américaine en accord avec les besoins canadiens dans plusieurs régions. Il a aussi répété ses affirmations emphatiques sur l’importance géopolitique du Canada et sur sa détermination à être une force dans les affaires du monde.

Harper a introduit la partie la plus importante de son discours avec une question : « Pourquoi donc, Mesdames et Messieurs, dans un monde agité et incertain, alors que notre économie et notre sécurité dépendent de développements qui se produisent dans des terres lointaines, pourquoi – dis-je – devrions-nous porter notre attention et nos énergies sur le Canada ? »

Presque tout le reste du discours de Harper voulait offrir une réponse à cette question, mais le cœur comme la forme de son argument était donné par les paragraphes qui suivaient :

« Parce que le Canada est… pays stable et une force du bien », un Etat qui a, de plus, « beaucoup à apporter dans ces temps chaotiques et éprouvants » et qui « a l’intention d’apporter sa contribution » sur la scène mondiale.

Harper a ensuite mis « en relief trois qualités que le Canada a à offrir » aux Etats-Unis :

« premièrement, une économie forte et robuste et en particulier un secteur de l’énergie qui est en train de devenir l’un des plus importants du monde,

« deuxièmement, un solide partenariat dans la construction d’une Amérique du Nord prospère, concurrentielle et sûre et

« troisièmement, une volonté commune de faire valoir, dans le monde entier et de concert avec nos alliés démocratiques, les valeurs et intérêts qui sont les nôtres. »

Continuant sur le rôle potentiel et actuel du Canada en tant que partenaire économique des Etats-Unis, Harper s’est vanté que les gouvernements canadiens successifs avaient mis en œuvre un programme néolibéral avec des budgets équilibrés et abaissé les impôts sur le revenu et sur les sociétés, ce qui a résulté en des impôts plus faibles pour les sociétés au Canada qu’aux Etats-Unis.

Mais il a souligné le rôle du Canada dans la « sécurité énergétique » des Etats-Unis. Le Canada, a fait remarquer Harper, est déjà le principal fournisseur étranger des Etats-Unis en pétrole, en gaz naturel, en électricité et en uranium et, avec les sables bitumineux riches en pétrole de l’Alberta, a le potentiel pour devenir un plus grand fournisseur encore.

Les États-Unis, a soutenu Harper, devraient reconnaître qu’ils ont une « superpuissance énergétique » comme voisin, et que ce voisin partage la croyance de Wall Street en un « marché libre et le respect des contrats. »

Ensuite, Harper a soutenu que si une Amérique du Nord plus « prospère, concurrentielle » et « sûre » devait être bâtie et que les défis commerciaux provenant de l’émergence de la Chine et de l’Inde et d’une Union européenne élargie devaient être surmontés, une « réaction continentale » devait alors être mise de l’avant sous la forme d’un partenariat plus étroit entre le Canada, les États-Unis et le Mexique.

« Au printemps dernier à Cancun, les présidents Bush et Fox et moi-même avons développé davantage ce partenariat dans les domaines de la concurrence, de l’harmonisation de la réglementation, de la gestion des crises et des frontières intelligentes et sûres. »

Comme preuve de l’engagement du Canada à vouloir collaborer avec les États-Unis pour la sécurisation du continent, Harper a fait mention des milliards que le Canada avait dépensés dans la sécurité aux frontières et la capacité de réaction d’urgence depuis les attaques terroristes du 11 septembre. Il a aussi mentionné l’accord récent visant à étendre le pacte canado-américain de défense aérienne, NORAD, au contrôle commun des eaux territoriales de l’Amérique du Nord.

Pour terminer sa démonstration que le Canada avait beaucoup à offrir à Washington et à Wall Street, Harper a rappelé le rôle important qu’il jouait déjà en appuyant l’administration Bush dans sa supposée guerre au terrorisme, incluant en Afghanistan, en soulignant les milliards qu’Ottawa avait récemment investis pour le renforcement des Forces armées canadiennes (FAC), et en exprimant sa détermination que « le rôle du Canada dans le monde ne se limite pas à ce continent ».

« Alors que nous travaillons tous ensemble à assurer la sécurité et la prospérité de l’Amérique du Nord, nous devons aussi veiller à créer un monde plus stable et plus juste », a affirmé Harper.

Impatient de convaincre son auditoire que l’élite canadienne était prête à voir ses citoyens payer le prix des guerres visant à sécuriser les intérêts économiques et géopolitiques de leurs partenaires de Wall Street, Harper a souligné les « pertes réelles » dont les FAC avaient souffert dans la répression des talibans dans le sud de l’Afghanistan, ainsi que les 120 000 Canadiens tués durant les deux guerres mondiales du siècle dernier et durant la guerre de Corée.

Le discours de Harper voulait principalement convaincre la grande entreprise américaine qu’elle avait beaucoup à gagner d’un partenariat encore plus étroit entre les États-Unis et le Canada et que son gouvernement conservateur, comme l’a démontré le récent accord qui a mis un terme au conflit sur le bois d’oeuvre, était impatient de faire tomber tous les obstacles qui pouvaient nuire à un tel partenariat.

Mais le premier ministre canadien a émis deux objections face à l’actuelle politique américaine. En premier lieu, il a exprimé le risque de mesures de sécurité qui « n’ont pas été suffisamment raisonnées » ou qui « sont mal mises en œuvre » qui pourraient perturber le commerce transfrontalier et il a cité en exemple la loi américaine qui d’ici 2008 exigerait que tous les Américains et Canadiens aient un passeport ou un document similaire pour entrer ou retourner aux États-Unis.

Depuis septembre 2001, la grande entreprise canadienne est hantée par la peur que le renforcement des frontières américaines nuise sérieusement à leur « libre-échange » avec les marchés américains et, en vue d’empêcher une telle possibilité, elle a vanté les mérites du concept d’un périmètre de sécurité commun entre le Canada et les États-Unis.

Harper a également profité de l’occasion de son discours à New York pour exprimer encore une fois l’objection du gouvernement canadien au refus des Etats-Unis de reconnaître les revendications territoriales du Canada dans l’océan Arctique, où il y a potentiellement du pétrole et des minerais. De plus, Ottawa est anxieux de se voir reconnaître la souveraineté du « passage du Nord-Ouest » depuis que le réchauffement de la planète risque de transformer cette région en une importante voie maritime liant l’Asie et l’Europe.

Le mois dernier, le National Post, qui a des liens étroits avec les conservateurs, publiait un éditorial dans lequel il présentait l’argument selon lequel le gouvernement Harper devait insister auprès des Américains pour qu’en échange du rôle de porte-drapeau de l’administration Bush sur l’arène mondiale, la revendication canadienne en Arctique soit reconnue.

Harper a présenté ses doléances à l’égard des politiques américaines en des termes respectueux, voire obséquieux.

Comme un chacal suivant les traces d’un gros prédateur, l’impérialisme canadien connaît sa place. Quelles que soient les frustrations qu’il a de devoir se plier devant son puissant allié, il s’exprime pleinement devant les plus faibles et les blessés. Voilà la signification de la défense enthousiaste dans les grands médias de la participation du Canada à la campagne contre-insurrectionnelle de type colonial en Afghanistan.

Des masses de Canadiens sont opposées à l’administration Bush, qu’ils identifient correctement aux guerres d’agression contre les peuples afghan et irakien et avec la poursuite de politiques sociales réactionnaires aux États-Unis mêmes.

Mais au sein de l’establishment corporatif, il existe un fort appui pour les efforts du gouvernement Harper de forger des liens encore plus étroits avec l’impérialisme américain.

Le Globe and Mail, le principal journal canadien, titrait son éditorial de vendredi, « Le Canada et son rôle en tant que joueur mondial ». L’éditorial glorifiait le discours de Harper devant le Club économique de New York ainsi que son second discours donné le lendemain devant les Nations unies, discours largement consacré à présenter l’intervention canadienne en Afghanistan en soutien au gouvernement fantoche installé par les Etats-Unis, de mission pour la démocratie, comme une « vision bénie et cohérente du rôle international croissant du Canada ».

L’éditorial du Globe conclut : « Les deux discours constituent une approche réaliste à un monde formidable. Il y a de l’idéalisme. [Faisant ici référence à la rhétorique sur la défense de la démocratie]. Les coûts sont calculés froidement. Et il n’y a pas de doute que les intérêts des Canadiens sont centraux. Excellent. »

L’appui de l’Ottawa Citizen a une politique visant à lier d’encore plus près le Canada aux Etats-Unis – une puissance qui a imposé son droit de mener une guerre « préventive » illégale et qui est déterminée à empêcher une autre puissance ou coalition à défier ou même potentiellement défier sa suprématie globale – n’était pas moins empathique.

« Notre pays, » déclare le Citizen, « un joueur économique global, dépendant de ses alliés et d’alliances pour assurer sa sécurité et sa prospérité à la maison, à besoin d’une politique clairvoyante, pragmatique et musclé…Mr Harper est en train de nous redonner le sens de notre place dans le monde, après des années d’indifférence. »

(World Socialist Web Site)

Libellés :

dimanche, septembre 24, 2006

Actualité - Associated Press Propaganda About Iraq

On Monday, September 18, Associated Press (AP) ran a story titled, "Iraqi tribes fight Insurgency." At first glance, the average reader cannot be blamed for thinking that this is a story about how tribes in Iraq have decided to take up arms against the "insurgency."

The reader certainly cannot be blamed for thinking this, because the first paragraph in the AP story reads, "Tribes in one of Iraq's most volatile provinces have joined together to fight the insurgency there, and they have called on the government and the US-led military coalition for weapons, a prominent tribal leader said Monday."

Allow me to pause here and address the use of the word "insurgent." According to Webster's Third New International Dictionary, an insurgent is "a person who rises in revolt against civil authority or an established government: [a] rebel." This of course begs the existence of a legitimately elected government that the "insurgent" rises in revolt against, which in Iraq we do not have. How is it possible to have a legitimate government in a country that was first illegally invaded and today is illegally occupied?

Yet, AP uses the word unquestioningly.

The story continues: "Tribal leaders and clerics in Ramadi, the capital of violent Anbar province, met last week and have set up a force of about 20,000 men 'ready to purge the city of these infidels,' Sheik Fassal al-Guood, a prominent tribal leader from Ramadi, told the Associated Press, referring to the insurgents. 'People are fed up with the acts of those criminals who take Islam as a cover for their crimes,' he said. 'The situation in the province is unbearable, the city is abandoned, most of the families have fled the city and all services are poor.' Al-Guood said 15 of the 18 tribes in Ramadi 'have sworn to fight those who are killing Sunnis and Shiites and they established an armed force of about 20,000 young men ready to purge the city from those infidels.'"

At this point, either the author of this AP story, or the editor, or both, rightly assume that the reader is not aware that Sheik Fassal al-Guood tried to lead the local resistance against the occupation in Ramadi, but turned against the same resistance group when its members rejected him as a leader because they considered him a corrupt thief. Nor is the reader aware that today, Sheikh Fassal al-Guood lives in the "Green Zone" and happily talks to reporters from behind the concrete blast walls, and that his power in Al-Anbar now equals exactly nothing.

I contacted author and media critic Norman Solomon and asked him what he thought of this AP story. "The holes in this story beg for questions that it does not raise, much less answer," he wrote. "For instance: What are the past, present and hoped-for financial relationships between the quoted 'tribal leader' on the one hand and the US and Iraqi governments on the other? Are there any indications that money has changed hands? Is a mercenary arrangement being set up? Is this part of the Bush administration's strategy to get more Iraqis to kill each other rather than have Iraqis killing American troops - aka 'As the Iraqis stand up, we'll stand down?' Isn't there a good chance that such arrangements will actually fuel civil war in Iraq rather than douse its already horrific flames?"

He continued, "So, this AP story agreeably paraphrases an official from the US-backed Iraqi government's Defense Ministry as saying that 'Iraqi security forces had met with tribal leaders and had agreed to cooperate in combating violence.' But how will they be 'combating violence?' With massive violence, of course, although the article doesn't say so. Many sources are available to make such a point, but in this story AP availed itself of none of them."

Solomon, a nationally-syndicated columnist on media and politics who is also the founder and executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy, a national consortium of policy researchers and analysts, had this to say about why AP might get away with this type of "reportage" as consistently as it does: "AP is providing the kind of coverage that it and other mainstream US media outlets have provided in the past. The coverage does not seem conspicuously shoddy to most readers because it fits in with previous shoddy reportage. From all appearances, this AP article is based on statements from four sources - and each of them is in line with US government policies. There's one tribal leader from Ramadi who is seeking large quantities of material aid from the US and the Iraqi government; there are two spokespeople for that Iraqi government; and there's a general from the US military. That all four would present a similar picture of events is not surprising. But for an article to rely on only those sources is stenography for one side of the conflict - which should not be confused with journalism."

It is also important for the reader to note that, according to an August US Defense Intelligence Agency assessment, of 1,666 bombs exploded in Iraq in July, 90% were aimed at US-led forces. Along with this fact, attacks against US forces have increased dramatically in recent months, and the US military itself has admitted that less than 6% of the attacks against them are from foreign fighters (i.e., "terrorists"). Thus, at least 94% of all attacks against US forces in Iraq are from the Iraqi Resistance, as opposed to "terrorists."

It is time, too, that readers of mainstream news knew that any "tribal meeting" that discusses fighting "the insurgents" is currently being held secretly inside American military bases or inside the "green zone." Iraqi people who are trying to lead that operation are well known to Al-Anbar citizens. These leaders did succeed in some cases in recruiting certain groups to fight resistance fighters by paying considerable sums of money, but it was only temporary success.

A case in point would be Al-Qa'im last spring. A tribal fight occurred between local resistance fighters. Sheik Osama al-Jadaan was involved in engineering it by paying members of his tribe to take up arms against local resistance groups. Yet this conflict was settled, and when it was, al-Jadaan had to flee to the "green zone." He lived there for a short time before his work as a collaborator with occupation forces caught up with him, and he was killed in Baghdad.

Yet the AP story has this to say about al-Jadaan: "In late May, a prominent Sunni Arab tribal leader, Sheik Osama al-Jadaan, who provided fighters to help battle al-Qaeda in Anbar, was assassinated in Baghdad."

There are the usual token scraps of truth in the AP story, lending it a hue of credibility. The story quotes a US military spokesperson who goes out on a limb to say that tribal leaders in Anbar "very much want to see security brought back to that area."

Another scrap of truth came earlier in the story where Al-Guood is quoted as saying that most of the tribes of Ramadi "have sworn to fight those who are killing Sunnis and Shiites and they established an armed force of about 20,000 young men ready to purge the city from those infidels."

This is true throughout Iraq, where even the US military has documented several cases of resistance groups fighting foreign terror groups that have infiltrated Iraq's porous borders in order to carry out attacks against Iraqi civilians.

The most disconcerting portion of this AP story, however, is the melding of the word "insurgent" with the word "terrorist." Clearly there is a flippancy, and I believe a malicious intent in this misuse. I have witnessed this melding repeated in AP stories from Iraq in which "insurgent" replaces "terrorist."

We can see the melding in a recent AP story, which states: "Attacks against US troops have increased following a call earlier this month from al-Qaeda in Iraq's leader to target American forces, the top US military spokesman said Wednesday."

Another example of this melding is in an AP story from September 17th about Bilal Hussein, an Iraqi citizen of Fallujah who has been held by the US military without charges for five months. Part of the story reads, "The military said Hussein was captured with two insurgents, including Hamid Hamad Motib, an alleged leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq."

Regarding the reference to al-Qaeda (read "terrorism"), Solomon had this to say: "The word 'terrorism' is clearly a pejorative. And it's an unwritten rule of US media coverage that the 'terrorism' label can only be used, or quoted with credence being given to the sources, if 'terrorism' applies to murderous violence opposed by the US government - in contrast to murderous violence inflicted or otherwise supported by the US government, in which case that violence is routinely presumed to be positive."

It is a melding that has the power to change minds.

A melding that may have prompted Orwell to say, "... language can also corrupt thought."

It is important to note that the board of directors of AP is composed of 22 newspaper and media executives that include the CEOs and presidents of ABC, McClatchy, Hearst, Tribune and the Washington Post. Two of the directors are members of very conservative policy councils that include the Hoover Institute. The Hoover Institute is a Republican policy research center that has been referred to as "Bush's brain trust." Its fellows include Condoleezza Rice and Newt Gingrich, a Distinguished Visiting Fellow, along with George Shultz.

Douglas McCorkindale, also on the board of directors at AP, is on the board of Lockheed Martin, the world's largest defense contract company. One does not require crystals to see that the board of AP displays a clear tilt toward right-wing conservative views, and comprises representatives of a huge corporate media network of the largest publishers in the US.

It is not difficult to demolish the myth of the liberal media and its prominent arms like AP.

Political language ... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. - George Orwell

(Dahr Jamail's Iraq Dispatches)

Libellés :

Actualité - Relatives of Terrorist Plane Bombing Demand Justice

The following is a statement released during the recently concluded 14th Summit of the Non Aligned Movement in Havana by relatives of the 73 persons who died in the October 6, 1976 sabotage of a Cuban commercial airplane off the coast of Barbados.

Statement by the Committee of Relatives of the Victims of the In-Flight Bombing of a Cuban Civilian Aircraft off Barbados

On September 11, 2001, millions of people all over the world watched in awe at the abominable acts of terrorism committed against the people of the United States.

We, relatives of the victims in the bombing of a Cubana Airlines plane off Barbados, were shaken to see the TV images of such a loathsome crime; the pain and the sorrow that have accompanied us for almost three decades were multiplied, as we saw a re-enactment of our own painful experience on new innocent victims.

Our loved ones were deprived of sharing transcendental moments in our lives; they cannot be revived. The only way to honor their memory and put an end to the stigma of terrorism is by making those responsible for such acts, feel the weight of justice.

In September of 1976, the U.S. Government learned in advance of the preparations for the sabotage of a Cuban civilian plane; they alerted no-one, and did nothing to prevent the terrorist act.

On October 6, 2006, it will be thirty years since that abominable crime against innocent passengers traveling in the Cubana plane. In that terrorist act 73 people were killed; of them 57 were Cuban citizens. To date, the relatives of the victims of that treacherous terrorist act, the Cuban people and the international community are still waiting for justice to be done.

Unlike the relatives of the victims of September 11, who do not know the "dark whereabouts" of Bin Laden, we do know where the assassins of our families are, who protects them and who offers them refuge.

The terrorists who assassinated our families are in the United States. One of them, Orlando Bosh, walks freely through the streets of Miami. Frequently, he boasts to the press that he does not feel the slightest twinge nor remorse and that if he had to do it to another civilian airplane in flight, he would do it again.

The other notorious international terrorist Luis Posada Carriles, who is currently detained in a U.S. immigration detention center, said with total cynicism and contempt for life to a leading U.S. newspaper in 1998, that his terrorist acts and murders did not prevent him from sleeping like a baby.

Today, we are closer than ever to witnessing an affront to the real war against terrorism, the memory of our loved ones and the victims of the 9/11 attacks. We were outraged and shocked to learn that Attorney Norbert Garney suggested that the Federal Judge Philips Martinez release self-confessed terrorist Luis Posada Carriles from jail. This happened at a time when the U.S. people and the whole world were commemorating the fifth anniversary of the attacks on the World Trade Center.

The arguments presented by the Attorney came as no surprise to us. The U.S. General Attorney has decided not to produce the countless pieces of evidence in the possession of the U.S. government which reveal the true terrorist nature of Luis Posada Carriles. Today the U.S. has decided not to act, just as they did not act thirty years ago and sit idly by to witness the mid-air explosion of a Cuban civilian plane. Posada, meanwhile, expects to be rewarded with his freedom.

President George W. Bush said on April 27, 2005: "if you harbor a terrorist, if you feed a terrorist, if you try to hide a terrorist, you, yourself, are just as guilty as the terrorist." Then we ask ourselves: What are Orlando Bosh and Posada Carriles? And, who protects them? They are the worst type of terrorists and they are protected by the U.S. government.

We, relatives of the victims of the sabotage to a civilian airliner in midair, demand that the Bush administration obey their own laws and international treaties, of which they are signatories. We demand them to honor the memory of the 9/11 victims.

We are not going to give up on our determination that the terrorists appear in court. We are not going to give up on our determination to reject the U.S. government's hypocrisy and double standards, which defend the supposed existence of a good and a bad terrorism. No one should doubt that we will make the unjust tremble, until Justice is done.

(Granma International)

Libellés :

Actualité - Venezuela, US Unfair Arrest Strains Ties

United Nations, Sep 24 (Prensa Latina) - Venezuela Foreign Relations Minister Nicolas Maduro advised the UN General Secretary Kofi Annan on his 90-minute arrest at the John F. Kennedy (JFK) airport in New York on Saturday.

The head of Venezuelan diplomacy returned to his nation after being arrested in that airport and even threatened by the police, he declared in an improvised press conference.

We were object of an illegal detention by the US government, said Maduro who explained he was asked to raise his arms and separate the legs to be submitted to a corporal search.

He confirmed his passport and ticket were retained and that although they were finally given back it was late to take his flight to Caracas.

Spokespeople of the airport's Internal Security Department tried to justify the facts by alleging there are no evidence of irregularities in the search procedures.

However, in his condition of Foreign Relations Minister Maduro is protected by the Geneva Convention and does not need any corporal search.

The fact adds a new dosage of irritation to the already strained relations between Venezuela and the US.

Maduro insisted that his government remains in contact with the UN and that is seeking a group of attorneys to investigate the incident violating of international laws.

(Prensa Latina News Agency)

Libellés :

vendredi, septembre 22, 2006

Actualité - Le New York Times invente le coup d’État militaire «démocratique» et «non-violent»

« Les généraux ont déclaré que c’était un coup d’État militaire pro-démocratie, et bien qu’ils aient renversé un des Premier ministre les plus populaires de l’histoire de la Thailande, la plupart des commentateurs ici s’accordent, ce mercredi, pour approuver [ce point de vue] » [1] indique le correspondant à Bangkok New York Times dans son édition du 21 septembre 2006 [2].

A l’attention des lecteurs que la notion de « coup d’État militaire pro-démocratie » (sic) laisse dubitatifs, le quotidien des élites américanistes poursuit en indiquant qu’il s’agissait d’un « coup d’État non-violent » (re-sic), les putchistes n’ayant pas eu à faire usage de leurs armes car le Premier ministre était en déplacement à l’étranger et que ses partisans n’habitent pas les beaux quartiers de la capitale.

Il n’échappera à personne que le New York Times, comme les élites de Bangkok, éprouve une certaine antipathie pour le Premier ministre renversé, Thaksin Shinawatra, qui a réalisé les plus ambitieuses réformes sociales jamais accomplies dans le royaume et dispose d’un soutien populaire massif. Le journal admet cet héritage (programmes de développement des villages ruraux, annulation du surendettement privé, création d’un service de santé à bas prix) qu’il qualifie avec dégoût de « mesures populistes » (sic) (et non de « mesures populaires »).

Le New York Times, qui s’était déjà félicité du coup d’État aux Philippines, précise sa pensée : « Avec ce coup d’État, la Thaïlande devient un État du Sud-Est asiatique de plus qui réinterprète la démocratie en des termes non-démocratiques, y compris en manipulant ou en suspendant le processus constitutionnel pour atteindre des objectifs politiques [démocratiques] » [3].

La leçon est complète. Pour la classe dirigeante états-unienne, la démocratie n’a pas grand chose à voir avec le gouvernement du peuple par le peuple, mais avec l’usage de tous les moyens possibles pour atteindre un régime qui serve les intérêts des États-Unis.

De son côté, le département d’État des États-Unis acondamné le recours au coup d’État militaire pour résoudre la crise politique thaïlandaise. Il a appelé à un « retour du pouvoir aux civils » (sic), ce qui signifie que Washington approuverait la désignation par les militaires d’un nouveau gouvernement en lieu et place de celui élu par le peuple… Cela tombe bien, c’est précisémment l’intention du général Sonthi Boonyaratglin.

« Les généraux ont déclaré que c’était un coup d’État militaire pro-démocratie, et bien qu’ils aient renversé un des Premier ministre les plus populaires de l’histoire de la Thailande, la plupart des commentateurs ici s’accordent, ce mercredi, pour approuver [ce point de vue] » [4] indique le correspondant à Bangkok New York Times dans son édition du 21 septembre 2006 [5].

A l’attention des lecteurs que la notion de « coup d’État militaire pro-démocratie » (sic) laisse dubitatifs, le quotidien des élites américanistes poursuit en indiquant qu’il s’agissait d’un « coup d’État non-violent » (re-sic), les putchistes n’ayant pas eu à faire usage de leurs armes car le Premier ministre était en déplacement à l’étranger et que ses partisans n’habitent pas les beaux quartiers de la capitale.

Il n’échappera à personne que le New York Times, comme les élites de Bangkok, éprouve une certaine antipathie pour le Premier ministre renversé, Thaksin Shinawatra, qui a réalisé les plus ambitieuses réformes sociales jamais accomplies dans le royaume et dispose d’un soutien populaire massif. Le journal admet cet héritage (programmes de développement des villages ruraux, annulation du surendettement privé, création d’un service de santé à bas prix) qu’il qualifie avec dégoût de « mesures populistes » (sic) (et non de « mesures populaires »).

Le New York Times, qui s’était déjà félicité du coup d’État aux Philippines, précise sa pensée : « Avec ce coup d’État, la Thaïlande devient un État du Sud-Est asiatique de plus qui réinterprète la démocratie en des termes non-démocratiques, y compris en manipulant ou en suspendant le processus constitutionnel pour atteindre des objectifs politiques [démocratiques] » [6].

La leçon est complète. Pour la classe dirigeante états-unienne, la démocratie n’a pas grand chose à voir avec le gouvernement du peuple par le peuple, mais avec l’usage de tous les moyens possibles pour atteindre un régime qui serve les intérêts des États-Unis.

De son côté, le département d’État des États-Unis acondamné le recours au coup d’État militaire pour résoudre la crise politique thaïlandaise. Il a appelé à un « retour du pouvoir aux civils » (sic), ce qui signifie que Washington approuverait la désignation par les militaires d’un nouveau gouvernement en lieu et place de celui élu par le peuple… Cela tombe bien, c’est précisémment l’intention du général Sonthi Boonyaratglin.

Notes

[1] « The generals billed it as a pro-democracy military coup, and although they had ousted one of the most popular prime ministers in Thailand’s history, most commentators here tended to agree on Wednesday ».

[2] « Thailand Reinterprets the Rules of Democracy, Again », The New York Times, 21 septembre 2006.

[3] « But with the coup, Thailand became one more Southeast Asian nation that has reinterpreted democracy in undemocratic terms, either manipulating or sidestepping constitutional processes to achieve political ends. »

[4] « The generals billed it as a pro-democracy military coup, and although they had ousted one of the most popular prime ministers in Thailand’s history, most commentators here tended to agree on Wednesday ».

[5] « Thailand Reinterprets the Rules of Democracy, Again », The New York Times, 21 septembre 2006.

[6] « But with the coup, Thailand became one more Southeast Asian nation that has reinterpreted democracy in undemocratic terms, either manipulating or sidestepping constitutional processes to achieve political ends. »

(Réseau Voltaire)

Libellés :

Actualité - Réponse inacceptable du ministre de la Sécurité publique aux recommandations du juge

En réponse au rapport du juge Dennis O'Connor sur l'affaire Maher Arar rendu public le 18 septembre, le ministre de la Sécurité publique Stockwell Day a dit: «Je crois que ces recommandations sont constructives et importantes et, je le répète, je crois que ce qui est arrivé à M. Arar est très regrettable. Nous espérons qu'à l'avenir dans des situations semblables cela ne se reproduise pas.»

Les Canadiens veulent une garantie que ce qui est arrivé à M. Arar ne se reproduise pas. Le fait que M. Day dit «espérer» qu'il en soit ainsi «dans des situations semblables» à l'avenir montre que, pour lui, ce qui est arrivé à M. Arar n'est pas un exemple d'impunité généralisée dans la «guerre contre la terreur». M. Day semble réagir aux recommandations du rapport par l'acceptation des pratiques condamnées par le rapport et que le Canada continuera de transmettre aux autorités américaines de renseignements inexacts sur des citoyens canadiens sous prétexte de la «guerre contre la terreur». Sauf que dorénavant il le fera «mieux» et «fera plus attention».

On crée l'impression que tout se résume à un manque d'attention de la GRC dans la préparation de la preuve, le service policier ne s'étant pas assuré que les renseignements donnés ne soient pas mal interprétés par les autorités américaines. Un éditorialiste disait que cela est compréhensible et pardonnable car ces policiers font un travail difficile. Si nous condamnons les agents de la GRC, nous aidons les terroristes, dit-il. D'autres disent qu'il n'y a rien de mal avec les renseignements comme tels ou même avec le fait qu'ils aient été transmis aux autorités américaines, si nous avons la conviction que celles-ci ne s'en serviront pas à mauvais escient.

Le gouvernement et les médias semblent résolus à détourner l'attention du fait que les renseignements recueillis et transmis par la GRC sont fallacieux. Dans le cas de Maher Arar, ils s'appuyaient sur le fait que M. Arar est d'origine arabe, qu'il a eu des contacts avec un autre Arabe, qui à son tour fait aussi l'objet de renseignements fallacieux et qu'il a voyagé et mangé en même temps que le font les Arabes et les musulmans à l'occasion de certains événements. De là il est considéré comme un suspect. Et parce qu'il est considéré comme un suspect, son épouse et ses enfants le sont aussi.

Comment la collecte de renseignements fallacieux défend-elle la sécurité publique? Qu'est-ce que cela nous dit de la «guerre contre la terreur» et de la participation du Canada à cette «guerre contre la terreur»? Ou de la campagne raciste organisée par l'État contre les Canadiens d'origine arabe et de croyance musulmane?

M. Day ne dénonce pas l'approche raciste, instituée par l'État, dans la collecte de renseignements parce que sa propre conception du monde est raciste et son que son gouvernement est un complice de la «guerre contre la terreur». Le racisme est une arme pour diviser les peuples. Aujourd'hui il sert les objectifs de la «guerre contre la terreur».

M. Day ne dit pas que le gouvernement canadien ne permettra plus que de telles choses se produisent. Il ne dit pas que les résultats d'enquête sur l'affaire Arar montrent qu'en tant que ministre de la Sécurité publique il doit s'assurer que l'État de droit est respecté. Il ne dit pas qu'il va renoncer aux méthodes d'impunité qui donnent aux ministres et aux forces policières le pouvoir d'arrêter et de détenir des gens indéfiniment au Canada ou de les remettre à des gouvernements étrangers sur la base de renseignements trompeurs. L'affaire Arar et d'autres cas semblables au Canada montrent que le critère établi pour déterminer qui est un terroriste est faux et dangereux. Il est basé sur des considérations politiques faussées selon lesquelles une personne qui pratique telle ou telle religion, qui appartient à telle ou telle nationalité, qui a tel ou tel comportement, est un «extrémiste» ou un «terroriste» ou un «terroriste potentiel à surveiller». Il semble maintenant que le gouvernement ait utilisé des agents secrets du SCRS pour monter un coup contre les jeunes musulmans à Toronto à partir de ce genre de «renseignements».

Les commentaires de M. Day confirment que le gouvernement a l'intention de continuer de violer les droits de tous les citoyens et résidents, surtout ceux de croyance musulmane et d'origine arabe.

Un ministre de la Sécurité publique digne du titre en ferait sa responsabilité de défendre en tout temps l'État de droit et de s'assurer que les droits des citoyens et résidents sont protégés. Il est dans l'intérêt de la classe ouvrière et du peuple du Canada de mettre un terme à cette situation où c'est le ministre qui décide qui a des droits et qui n'en a pas au nom de la sécurité publique. Tous les citoyens et résidents ont des droits inaliénables du fait de leur appartenance au corps politique. Ces droits ne se donnent pas et ne s'enlèvent pas. Ils sont affirmés.

(Le Marxiste-Léniniste)

Libellés :

Actualité - Le bois d'oeuvre, la concurrence monopoliste et l'annexion du Canada

Durant la session parlementaire qui vient de commencer, la Chambre des communes est censée débattre entre autres de l'entente sur le bois d'oeuvre. L'entente sur le bois d'oeuvre pose un véritable dilemme pour les Canadiens et les résidants du Canada. Les uns et les autres sont entraînés dans une concurrence ruineuse entre monopoles et dans le processus d'annexion du Canada dans les États-Unis des Monopoles d'Amérique du Nord. Pendant ce temps, les partis politiques au parlement sont incapables d'informer les gens des enjeux réels dans cette affaire. Ils sont plutôt préoccupés par leur positionnement dans l'éventail gauche-droite et préfèrent faire des déclarations qui les valorisent par rapport à leurs rivaux. Les gouvernements des États-Unis et du Canada ne sont pas du tout préoccupés par le besoin d'instituer des mesures qui restreignent le droit de monopole et qui réglementent la concurrence dans l'intérêts des peuples des deux pays. De plus, le gouvernement canadien abdique sa responsabilité de défendre la souveraineté du Canada.

Les gouvernements se rangent derrière tel ou tel monopole ou regroupement de monopoles au détriment de l'économie sociale et du bien-être des travailleurs forestiers et de leurs communautés, entraînés comme ils le sont dans la concurrence pour les marchés et les sources de matières premières.

Ce conflit pose un sérieux défi pour les travailleurs forestiers, leurs supporteurs et leurs communautés. Il fait ressortir la nécessité qu'ils deviennent politiques et trouvent les moyens de se faire élire eux-mêmes au parlement. Avec le pouvoir politique, le peuple est certainement capable d'instituer de nouveaux arrangements qui conviennent aux besoins des peuples des deux pays et qui défendent les droits de tous.

Les travailleurs forestiers et leurs communautés discutent de la situation que les monopoles et leurs représentants politiques ont imposée à la population. Plus les gens discutent de leur situation et agissent pour défende leurs intérêts communs, plus ils deviennent politiques dans un sens positif, c'est-à-dire dans le sens de défendre leurs intérêts et ceux de la société, du pays et des peuples étrangers. Cela ouvre la voie à d'autres arrangements économiques et politiques, des arrangements qui permettent de surmonter le blocage et la léthargie imposés par les monopoles et leurs représentants politiques. Tant que les travailleurs ne discutent pas de l'ordre du jour qui leur est favorable, ils sont l'otage des manoeuvres des différents partis politiques qui prétendent agir en leur nom. C'est ainsi que les travailleurs et le peuple sont maintenus apolitiques. Puis quand la catastrophe s'abat sur eux, ils ne sont pas organisés et n'ont pas les moyens d'y faire face.

Le conflit sur le bois d'oeuvre oppose différents monopoles forestiers avec des opérations en Amérique du nord et qui rivalisent pour les sources de matière première et les marchés. Les consommateurs américains se retrouvent également dans la mêlée, notamment les entreprises de construction domiciliaire. Ces monopoles ont parfois des intérêts commerciaux et au Canada, et aux États-Unis. Même chose pour les détenteurs des capitaux. Weyerhaeuser est un exemple de monopole forestier avec des opérations commerciales dans les deux pays et qui se retrouve des deux côtés du conflit. D'autres ont des détenteurs de capitaux ailleurs dans le monde.

La concurrence monopoliste dans l'industrie forestière porte sur les marchés pour le bois d'oeuvre, plus particulièrement les marchés américains, et sur les sources de matières premières dans toute l'Amérique du Nord. Un certain nombre de monopoles puissants avec des intérêts des deux côtés de la frontière manipulent le conflit sur le bois d'oeuvre pour accroître leurs marchés et sources de matières premières de part et d'autres et faire baisser les salaires et les conditions de travail des travailleurs forestiers. Ils ont réussi à manipuler le conflit à leur avantage grâce au contrôle qu'ils exercent sur les affaires politiques dans les deux pays dans le contexte de l'émergence des États-Unis des Monopoles d'Amérique du Nord et leur pouvoir par décret exécutif.

Pour les monopoles forestiers, les frontières de l'Amérique du Nord ne démarquent pas des pays souverains. Elles ne sont qu'une manière de jouer avec les affaires politiques du Canada et des États-Unis et d'utiliser le contrôle des marchés et des sources de matières premières à leur avantage. Le conflit leur a permis de resserrer leur contrôle de l'offre du marché du bois d'oeuvre sur le marché américain et de faire monter les prix. Ils se sont servi du conflit et de l'entente proposée pour accroître leur contrôle des sources de matières premières et des politiques gouvernementales sur l'exploitation forestière en bafouant la souveraineté du Canada et pour se garantir un surplus de main-d'oeuvre dans les communautés forestières de manière à pouvoir exercer une pression à la baisse sur les salaires et les conditions de travail.

Il est important d'examiner les différents aspects de ce conflit et de voir comment l'entente proposée reflète l'affirmation du droit de monopole pour ce qui est de la production et de la distribution et comment cela affecte la condition des quelque 300 communautés forestières au Canada, des 360 000 travailleurs directement employés dans le secteur forestier et des près de 600 000 travailleurs employés dans les secteurs qui en dépendent. En voici cinq aspects:

1) Le contrôle politique qu'exercent les monopoles forestiers et la façon dont ils se font payer par l'État pour maintenir ce contrôle et bafouer la souveraineté du Canada par l'annexion aux États-Unis des Monopoles d'Amérique du Nord.

2) La manipulation du marché américain par le contrôle monopoliste de l'offre et des prix en jouant sur les frontières. Les frontières ne sont pas considérées comme une démarcation de pays souverains mais comme une arme contre les peuples des deux pays. Les tarifs actuels et ceux proposés qui ont un effet sur les prix et l'offre sur bois d'oeuvre canadien servent à contrôler les prix sur le marché américain à l'avantage des monopoles forestiers les plus puissants.

3) Le contrôle des sources de matières premières par la manipulation des frontières, la négation de la souveraineté du Canada et le pouvoir par décret exécutif des États-Unis des Monopoles d'Amérique du Nord.

4) Les politiques et les pratiques des monopoles forestiers nord-américains centrées sur le capital nient les droits politiques des travailleurs forestiers et le droit souverain du Canada de décider de ses politiques et de ses pratiques forestières.

5) Le besoin de nouveaux arrangements économiques et politiques pour le commerce bilatéral en Amérique du Nord qui restreignent le droit de monopole et reconnaissent la souveraineté du Canada, du Mexique et des États-Unis et la nécessité d'apporter un secours immédiat aux travailleurs forestiers et à leurs communautés.

Les médias au Canada ne jouent pas le rôle qui leur revient dans la société et n'aident pas à comprendre ce qui est en jeu dans cette entente sur le bois d'oeuvre, quels intérêts il sert et quelles sont les conséquences pour le Canada, pour les États-Unis, pour les relations canado-américaines et pour les peuples des deux pays, ni aucun autre aspect concernant l'avenir de la société et de ses membres. Puis les partis politiques au parlement ne s'intéressent qu'à leurs chances électorales. Eux non plus ne jouent pas le rôle qui leur revient dans le corps politique, c'est-à-dire débattre sérieusement des enjeux réels. Le gouvernement, le parlement, les partis politiques et les médias deviennent autant d'agents de désinformation et de saboteurs de la cohésion sociale. La seule façon de bâtir la cohésion sociale est de délibérer franchement et sérieusement des questions pour que le public soit informé, qu'il puisse voir sur quelle voie le pays est engagé et participer aux prises de décisions de façon assez significative pour pouvoir en assumer la responsabilité.

La classe ouvrière et le peuple du Canada doivent rejeter les manoeuvres des partis politiques au parlement qui réduisent ces questions à une affaire de chances électorales sous prétexte que s'ils sont élus ils vont appliquer de meilleures politiques.

(Le Marxiste-Léniniste)

Libellés :

Actualité - Kissinger aurait pu éviter l’assassinat de Letelier

Des fonctionnaires du gouvernement des Etats-Unis ont eu entre leurs mains la possibilité d’éviter l’assassinat d’Orlando Letelier, mais inexplicablement ils ne l’ont pas fait, selon des documents déclassifiés le mercredi 20 septembre par les Archives nationales de sécurité.

A la veille du 30e anniversaire de l’attentat terroriste à Washington, où ont perdu la vie l’ex-ministre des Affaires étrangères chilien et sa secrétaire nord-américaine, on a appris que Henry Kissinger, secrétaire d’Etat du gouvernement de George Bush père, avait chargé les ambassadeurs dans les pays participant au Plan Condor de demander aux dirigeants l’arrêt des assassinats politiques organisés avec l’aide du général Augusto Pinochet dans le Cône Sud.

Mais l’ordre est resté sans effet le 20 septembre, juste un jour avant que des gangsters cubains et nord-américains comme Michael Townsend, Orlando Bosch, Guillermo Novo Sampol et d’autres fassent exploser la bombe de la voiture dans laquelle circulaient Letelier et Ronni Moffitt dans Sheridan Circle, en plein centre de la capitale fédérale du puissant pays.

Les archives ont déclassifié un mémorandum à Kissinger qui indique un rapprochement de la CIA, durant les premiers jours d’octobre 76, avec le chef de la police secrète chilienne, le général Manuel Contreras, concernant les complots criminels de l’Opération Condor. Le mémorandum secret, écrit par Harry Schlaudeman, second de Kissinger, fait apparaître que Contreras avait nié tout autre objectif à l’Opération Condor que celui d’échanger des informations de renseignements. Mais malgré l’énorme répercussion suscitée par l’attentat dans le monde entier, vu qu’ils n’avaient même pas respecté ce sanctuaire sacré, le nom de Contreras n’avait même pas été évoqué, lui qui était considéré comme l’auteur intellectuel le plus probable, à tel point qu’un jury des Etats-Unis l’a accusé en 1978 d’avoir organisé le lâche attentat.

Cependant, quelques jours avant l’attentat, le 23 août de cette année-là, le Bureau de Kissinger avait envoyé un message très prudent aux ambassadeurs des Etats-Unis au Chili, en Argentine, en Bolivie, en Uruguay et au Paraguay, pour qu’ils s’adressent à ces gouvernements afin qu’ils cessent les missions criminelles de l’Opération Condor.

Mais le jour suivant l’ambassadeur au Chili, David Popper, a évité de faire les démarches auprès de Pinochet, car celui-ci « pourrait prendre comme une insulte toute allusion à ses liens avec ces complots d’assassinat ». A sa place, Popper demandait la permission d’envoyer le chef de la station de la CIA pour parler à Contreras.

L’ambassadeur d’Uruguay, Ernest Siracusa, craignait aussi pour sa sécurité personnelle en « devenant la cible de l’Opération Condor s’il accomplissait la mission diplomatique ».

Personne apparemment n’a tenté de le rassurer. Au contraire, pour des raisons encore classifiées, ces démarches n’ont pas été autorisées jusqu’au 4 octobre, deux jours après l’explosion de la voiture à Washington, dont Orlando Bosch allait vanter le « succès » pour faire preuve d’optimisme concernant l’opération de l’explosion quelques jours plus tard de l’avion de Cubana.

Au contraire, la veille de l’attentat terroriste, le 20 septembre 76, Schlademan lui-même a ordonné aux ambassadeurs du Cône Sud de n’entreprendre aucune action pour faire pression afin d’arrêter les assassinats. Il n’est pas besoin d’être très perspicace pour suspecter qu’il s’est passé quelque chose de louche, à tel point que certains documents déclassifiés à l’époque de Clinton, ont été écartés au printemps 2000 par Bush II comme preuve dans une enquête du Département de Justice sur la responsabilité du tyran en retraite.

Peter Komblush, qui dirige les Archives de documentation sur le Projet Chili, en rendant public les documents secrets, a déclaré que beaucoup d’autres n’avaient pas été encore déclassifiés, comme le mémorandum de la CIA sur la conversation avec Contreras.

Le réputé fonctionnaire des Archives nationales de sécurité a exhorté le gouvernement de Bush à déclassifier tous les documents, car « après six ans il est temps d’arrêter cette dissimulation, car bien qu’ils soient maintenant inutilisables pour une accusation légale, les documents peuvent servir comme accusation de l’histoire ».

(Granma International - Gabriel Molina)

Libellés :

mercredi, septembre 20, 2006

Actualité - Hugo Chavez Firmly Condemn the Principal Threat of the World Today : US Imperialism

Venezuelan President, Hugo Chavez, Delivers Remarks
to U.N. General Assembly, New York

Madam President, Excellencies, Heads of State, Heads of government and other government’s representatives, good morning.

First, and with all respect, I highly recommend this book by Noam Chomsky, one of the most prestigious intellectuals in America and the world, Chomsky. One of his most recent works: Hegemony or Survival: America’s Quest for Global Dominance (The American Empire Project) . It’s an excellent work to understand what’s happened in the world in the 20th Century, what’s currently happening, and the greatest threat on this planet; the hegemonic pretension of the North American imperialism endangers the human race’s survival.

We continue warning about this danger and calling on the very same U.S. people and the world to stop this threat, which resembles the Sword of Damocles over our heads. I had considered reading from this book, but for the sake of time, I shall just leave it as a recommendation. It reads easily. It's a very good book. I'm sure, Madam, you are familiar with it.

The book is in English, in Russian, in Arabic, in German.

I think that the first people who should read this book are our brothers and sisters in the United States, because their threat is in their own house. The devil is right at home. The devil -- the devil, himself, is right in the house.

And the devil came here yesterday.

Yesterday, the devil came here. Right here. Right here. And it smells of sulfur still today, this table that I am now standing in front of.

Yesterday, ladies and gentlemen, from this rostrum, the president of the United States, the gentleman to whom I refer as the devil, came here, talking as if he owned the world. Truly. As the owner of the world.

I think we could call a psychiatrist to analyze yesterday's statement made by the president of the United States. As the spokesman of imperialism, he came to share his nostrums, to try to preserve the current pattern of domination, exploitation and pillage of the peoples of the world.

An Alfred Hitchcock movie could use it as a scenario. I would even propose a title: "The Devil's Recipe."

As Chomsky says here, clearly and in depth, the American empire is doing all it can to consolidate its system of domination. And we cannot allow them to do that. We cannot allow world dictatorship to be consolidated.

The world parent's statement -- cynical, hypocritical, full of this imperial hypocrisy from the need they have to control everything.

They say they want to impose a democratic model. But that's their democratic model. It's the false democracy of elites, and, I would say, a very original democracy that's imposed by weapons and bombs and firing weapons.

What a strange democracy. Aristotle might not recognize it or others who are at the root of democracy.

What type of democracy do you impose with marines and bombs?

The president of the United States, yesterday, said to us, right here, in this room, and I'm quoting, "Anywhere you look, you hear extremists telling you can escape from poverty and recover your dignity through violence, terror and martyrdom."

Wherever he looks, he sees extremists. And you, my brother -- he looks at your color, and he says, oh, there's an extremist. Evo Morales, the worthy president of Bolivia, looks like an extremist to him.

The imperialists see extremists everywhere. It's not that we are extremists. It's that the world is waking up. It's waking up all over. And people are standing up.

I have the feeling, dear world dictator, that you are going to live the rest of your days as a nightmare because the rest of us are standing up, all those who are rising up against American imperialism, who are shouting for equality, for respect, for the sovereignty of nations.

Yes, you can call us extremists, but we are rising up against the empire, against the model of domination.

The president then -- and this he said himself, he said: "I have come to speak directly to the populations in the Middle East, to tell them that my country wants peace."

That's true. If we walk in the streets of the Bronx, if we walk around New York, Washington, San Diego, in any city, San Antonio, San Francisco, and we ask individuals, the citizens of the United States, what does this country want? Does it want peace? They'll say yes.

But the government doesn't want peace. The government of the United States doesn't want peace. It wants to exploit its system of exploitation, of pillage, of hegemony through war.

It wants peace. But what's happening in Iraq? What happened in Lebanon? In Palestine? What's happening? What's happened over the last 100 years in Latin America and in the world? And now threatening Venezuela -- new threats against Venezuela, against Iran?

He spoke to the people of Lebanon. Many of you, he said, have seen how your homes and communities were caught in the crossfire. How cynical can you get? What a capacity to lie shamefacedly.

The bombs in Beirut with millimetric precision? Is this crossfire?

He's thinking of a western, when people would shoot from the hip and somebody would be caught in the crossfire.

This is imperialist, fascist, assassin, genocidal, the empire and Israel firing on the people of Palestine and Lebanon. That is what happened. And now we hear, "We're suffering because we see homes destroyed.'

The president of the United States came to talk to the peoples -- to the peoples of the world. He came to say -- I brought some documents with me, because this morning I was reading some statements, and I see that he talked to the people of Afghanistan, the people of Lebanon, the people of Iran. And he addressed all these peoples directly.

And you can wonder, just as the president of the United States addresses those peoples of the world, what would those peoples of the world tell him if they were given the floor? What would they have to say?

And I think I have some inkling of what the peoples of the south, the oppressed people think. They would say, "Yankee imperialist, go home." I think that is what those people would say if they were given the microphone and if they could speak with one voice to the American imperialists.

And that is why, Madam President, my colleagues, my friends, last year we came here to this same hall as we have been doing for the past eight years, and we said something that has now been confirmed -- fully, fully confirmed.

I don't think anybody in this room could defend the system. Let's accept -- let's be honest. The U.N. system, born after the Second World War, collapsed. It's worthless.

Oh, yes, it's good to bring us together once a year, see each other, make statements and prepare all kinds of long documents, and listen to good speeches, like Evo's yesterday, or President Lula's. Yes, it's good for that.

And there are a lot of speeches, and we've heard lots from the president of Sri Lanka, for instance, and the president of Chile.

But we, the assembly, have been turned into a merely deliberative organ. We have no power, no power to make any impact on the terrible situation in the world. And that is why Venezuela once again proposes, here, today, September 20th, that we re-establish the United Nations.

Last year, Madam, we made four modest proposals that we felt to be crucially important. We have to assume the responsibility, our heads of state, our ambassadors, our representatives, and we have to discuss it.

The first is expansion, and Lula talked about this yesterday right here: The Security Council’s expansion, both regarding its permanent and non-permanent categories. New developed and developing countries, the Third World, must be given access as new permanent members. That's step one.

Second, effective methods to address and resolve world conflicts, transparent decisions.

Point three, the immediate suppression -- and that is something everyone's calling for -- of the anti-democratic mechanism known as the veto, the veto on decisions of the Security Council.

Let me give you a recent example. The immoral veto of the United States allowed the Israelis, with impunity, to destroy Lebanon. Right in front of all of us as we stood there watching, a resolution in the council was prevented.

Fourthly, we have to strengthen, as we've always said, the role and the powers of the secretary general of the United Nations.

Yesterday, the secretary general practically gave us his speech of farewell. And he recognized that over the last 10 years, things have just gotten more complicated; hunger, poverty, violence, human rights violations have just worsened. That is the tremendous consequence of the collapse of the United Nations system and American hegemonistic pretensions.

Madam , Venezuela a few years ago decided to wage this battle within the United Nations by recognizing the United Nations, as members of it that we are, and lending it our voice, our thinking.

Our voice is an independent voice to represent the dignity and the search for peace and the reformulation of the international system; to denounce persecution and aggression of hegemonistic forces on the planet.

This is how Venezuela has presented itself. Bolivar's home has sought a nonpermanent seat on the Security Council.

Let's see. Well, there's been an open attack by the U.S. government, an immoral attack, to try and prevent Venezuela from being freely elected to a post in the Security Council.

The imperium is afraid of truth, is afraid of independent voices. It calls us extremists, but they are the extremists.

And I would like to thank all the countries that have kindly announced their support for Venezuela, even though the ballot is a secret one and there's no need to announce things.

But since the imperium has attacked, openly, they strengthened the convictions of many countries. And their support strengthens us.

Mercosur, as a bloc, has expressed its support, our brothers in Mercosur. Venezuela, with Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay, is a full member of Mercosur.

And many other Latin American countries, CARICOM, Bolivia have expressed their support for Venezuela. The Arab League, the full Arab League has voiced its support. And I am immensely grateful to the Arab world, to our Arab brothers, our Caribbean brothers, the African Union. Almost all of Africa has expressed its support for Venezuela and countries such as Russia or China and many others.

I thank you all warmly on behalf of Venezuela, on behalf of our people, and on behalf of the truth, because Venezuela, with a seat on the Security Council, will be expressing not only Venezuela's thoughts, but it will also be the voice of all the peoples of the world, and we will defend dignity and truth.

Over and above all of this, Madam President, I think there are reasons to be optimistic. A poet would have said "helplessly optimistic," because over and above the wars and the bombs and the aggressive and the preventive war and the destruction of entire peoples, one can see that a new era is dawning.

As Silvio Rodriguez says, the era is giving birth to a heart. There are alternative ways of thinking. There are young people who think differently. And this has already been seen within the space of a mere decade. It was shown that the end of history was a totally false assumption, and the same was shown about Pax Americana and the establishment of the capitalist neo-liberal world. It has been shown, this system, to generate mere poverty. Who believes in it now?

What we now have to do is define the future of the world. Dawn is breaking out all over. You can see it in Africa and Europe and Latin America and Oceania. I want to emphasize that optimistic vision.

We have to strengthen ourselves, our will to do battle, our awareness. We have to build a new and better world.

Venezuela joins that struggle, and that's why we are threatened. The U.S. has already planned, financed and set in motion a coup in Venezuela, and it continues to support coup attempts in Venezuela and elsewhere.

President Michelle Bachelet reminded us just a moment ago of the horrendous assassination of the former foreign minister, Orlando Letelier.

And I would just add one thing: Those who perpetrated this crime are free. And that other event where an American citizen also died were American themselves. They were CIA killers, terrorists.

And we must recall in this room that in just a few days there will be another anniversary. Thirty years will have passed from this other horrendous terrorist attack on the Cuban plane, where 73 innocents, in a Cubana de Aviacion airliner, died.

And where is the biggest terrorist of this continent who took the responsibility for blowing up the plane? He spent a few years in jail in Venezuela. Thanks to CIA and then government officials, he was allowed to escape, and he lives here in this country, protected by the government.

And he was convicted. He has confessed to his crime. But the U.S. government has double standards. It protects terrorism when it wants to.

And this is to say that Venezuela is fully committed to combating terrorism and violence. And we are one of the people who are fighting for peace.

Luis Posada Carriles is the name of that terrorist who is protected here. And other tremendously corrupt people who escaped from Venezuela are also living here under protection: a group that bombed various embassies, that assassinated people during the coup. They kidnapped me and they were going to kill me, but I think God reached down and our people came out into the streets and the army was too, and so I'm here today.

But these people who led that coup are here today in this country protected by the American government. And I accuse the American government of protecting terrorists and of having a completely cynical discourse.

We mentioned Cuba. Yes, we were just there a few days ago. We just came from there happily.

And there you see another era born. The Summit of the 15, the Summit of the Nonaligned, adopted a historic resolution. This is the outcome document. Don't worry, I'm not going to read it.

But you have a whole set of resolutions here that were adopted after open debate in a transparent matter -- more than 50 heads of state. Havana was the capital of the south for a few weeks, and we have now launched, once again, the group of the nonaligned with new momentum.

And if there is anything I could ask all of you here, my companions, my brothers and sisters, it is to please lend your good will to lend momentum to the Nonaligned Movement for the birth of the new era, to prevent hegemony and prevent further advances of imperialism.

And as you know, Fidel Castro is the president of the nonaligned for the next three years, and we can trust him to lead the charge very efficiently.

Unfortunately they thought, "Oh, Fidel was going to die." But they're going to be disappointed because he didn't. And he's not only alive, he's back in his green fatigues, and he's now presiding the nonaligned.

So, my dear colleagues, Madam President, a new, strong movement has been born, a movement of the south. We are men and women of the south.

With this document, with these ideas, with these criticisms, I'm now closing my file. I'm taking the book with me. And, don't forget, I'm recommending it very warmly and very humbly to all of you.

We want ideas to save our planet, to save the planet from the imperialist threat. And hopefully in this very century, in not too long a time, we will see this, we will see this new era, and for our children and our grandchildren a world of peace based on the fundamental principles of the United Nations, but a renewed United Nations.

And maybe we have to change location. Maybe we have to put the United Nations somewhere else; maybe a city of the south. We've proposed Venezuela.

You know that my personal doctor had to stay in the plane. The chief of security had to be left in a locked plane. Neither of these gentlemen was allowed to arrive and attend the U.N. meeting. This is another abuse and another abuse of power on the part of the Devil. It smells of sulfur here, but God is with us and I embrace you all.

May God bless us all. Good day to you.

Libellés : ,

Actualité - U.S. Resorting to 'Collective Punishment'

Ramadi, Sep 18 - U.S. forces are taking to collective punishment of civilians in several cities across the al-Anabar province west of Baghdad, residents and officials say.

"Ramadi, the capital of al-Anbar province, is still living with the daily terror of its people getting killed by snipers and its infrastructure being destroyed," Ahmad, a local doctor who withheld his last name for security purposes told IPS. "This city has been facing the worst of the American terror and destruction for more than two years now, and the world is silent."

Destroying infrastructure and cutting water and electricity "for days and even weeks is routine reaction to the resistance," he said. "Guys of the resistance do not need water and electricity, it's the families that are being harmed, and their lives which are at stake."

Students and professors at the University of al-Anbar told IPS that their campus is under frequent attack.

"Nearly every week we face raids by the Americans or their Iraqi colleagues," a professor speaking on condition of anonymity told IPS. Students said that U.S. troops occupied their school last week..

"We've been under great pressure from the Americans since the very first days of their occupation of Iraq," a student told IPS.

Such raids are being reported all over Ramadi. "The infrastructure destruction is huge around the governorate building in downtown Ramadi," said a 24-year-old student who gave his name as Ali al-Ani. "And they are destroying the market too."

IPS reported Sep. 5 that the U.S. military was bulldozing entire blocks of buildings near the governorate to dampen resistance attacks on government offices.

Such U.S. action seems most severe in al-Anabar province, where resistance is strongest, and which has seen the highest U.S. casualties.

The city of Hit 80km west of Ramadi was surrounded by U.S. troops for several days earlier this week. Several civilians were killed and at least five were detained by U.S. forces. Checkpoints are in place at each entrance to the city after the U.S. military lifted the cordon around it. This has stifled movement and damaged local businesses.

"There was an attack on a U.S. convoy, and three vehicles were destroyed," a local tribal chief who gave his name as Nawaf told IPS. "It wasn't the civilians who did it, but they are the ones punished. These Americans have the bad habit of cutting all of the essential services after every attack. They said they came to liberate us, but look at the slow death they are giving us every day."

In Haditha, a city of 75,000 on the banks of the Euphrates River in western al-Anbar, collective punishment is ongoing, residents say. This was the site of the massacre of 24 civilians by U.S. marines in November 2005.

"The Americans continue to raid our houses and threaten us with more violence," a local tribal leader who gave his name as Abu Juma'a told IPS. "But if they think they will make us kneel by these criminal acts, they are wrong. If they increase the pressure, the resistance will increase the reaction. We see this pattern repeated so often now."

Abu Juma'a added: "I pray that the Americans return to their senses before they lose everything in the Iraqi fire."

In Fallujah, local police say residents have turned against them due to the collective punishment tactics used by U.S. forces.

"The Americans started pushing us to fight the resistance despite our contracts that clearly assigned us the duties of civil protection against normal crimes such as theft and tribal quarrels," a police lieutenant told IPS. "Now 90 percent of the force has decided to quit rather than kill our brothers or get killed by them for the wishes of the Americans."

At least one U.S. vehicle is reported destroyed every day on average in the face of mounting U.S. raids and a daily curfew. The scene is one of destruction of the city, not rebuilding.

"Infrastructure rebuilding is just a joke that nobody laughs at," Fayiq al-Dilaimy, an engineer in Fallujah told IPS. He was on the rebuilding committee set up after the November 2004 U.S.-led operation which destroyed approximately 75 percent of the city..

"People of this city could rebuild their city in six months if given a real chance. Now look at it and how sorrowful it looks under the boots of the 'liberators'."

Many of the smaller towns have been badly hit. "Khaldiyah (near Fallujah) and the area around it have faced the worst collective punishments for over two years now," said a government official in Ramadi. "But of course most cities in al-Anbar are being constantly punished by the Americans."

Samarra and Dhululiyah towns, both north of Baghdad, have also been facing collective punishment from the U.S. military, according to residents.

"Curfews and concrete walls are permanent in both cities, which makes life impossible," Ali al-Bazi, a lawyer who lives in Dhululiyah and works in Samarra told IPS. "There are so many killings by American snipers. So many families have lost loved ones trying to visit relatives or even just stepping outside of their house."

While Baghdad is not in al-Anbar province, occupation forces have used similar tactics there. In January 2005 IPS reported that the military used bulldozers to level palm groves, cut electricity, destroy a fuel station and block access roads in response to attacks from resistance fighters.

A U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad did not comment on specific cases, but told IPS that the U.S. military "does its best to protect civilians from the terrorists."

(Inter Press Service - Dahr Jamail and Ali al-Fadhily)

Libellés :

Actualité - Cuban Representant at the 61st Session of the UN General Assembly Call for "the Right to Live in Peace, Justice and Dignity for All"

Franc-Parler reproduit l'allocution du représentant de la délégation cubaine aux Nations Unies, Esteban Lazo, à l'occasion de la 61e Assemblée générale de l'ONU. Franc-Parler accorde une couverture particulière aux interventions à l'Assemblée générale de l'ONU de différentes nations luttant pour leur souveraineté. Avec le contexte international où l'impérialisme le plus débridé pille et oppresse les nations du monde, la lutte contre l'ingérence et à la défense du droit à l'autodétermination prend davantage d'importance à tous les jours.
Draft Speech by Esteban Lazo, Head of the
Delegation to the 61st Session of the United Nations
General Assembly, New York

Mrs. President,
Mr. Secretary General,
Your Excellencies:

A mere four days ago, the 14th Summit of the Non-Aligned Movement held in Cuba was oncluded. Today, I speak on behalf of the Movement's Chairman, President Fidel Castro, fulfilling our obligation to inform this Assembly of the main decisions agreed on at the Summit Conference held in Havana.

As First Vice-President of the Councils of State and Ministers of the Republic of Cuba Raúl Castro said in his opening speech:

"The current international situation, characterised by the one superpower's irrational attempts to control the world, aided by its allies, shows that we need to be increasingly united in defence of the principles and purposes upon which the Non-Aligned Movement was established, which are those enshrined in the international law and the Charter of the United Nations."

While the founding of the Movement was necessary more than four decades ago, its continued relevance in today's world is beyond doubt.

The NAM Summit held in Cuba was an indisputable success, in spite of the threats and pressures of those who oppose the unity and common efforts of the countries of the South.

The Summit saw high levels of participation, both in terms of the number of countries which attended the conference and that of Heads of State or Government.

Profound and fruitful debates were held, in an atmosphere of true understanding, unity and cohesion, which allowed for the adoption of documents of crucial importance to the future of the Non-Aligned Movement.

As the new Chairman, Cuba was given clear mandates and an action program which shall govern its activities as head of the Movement.

As a result of the Summit, the Non-Aligned Movement has been strengthened and, consequently, so has the political unity of the countries of the South. The diverse and heterogeneous nature of the Movement's membership, far from weakening it, constitutes its essential strength. These features have allowed for the creation of solid consensuses that are a positive contribution to our efforts to overcome the many and serious challenges humanity faces today.

The commendable work of M Malaysia as the Movement's Chairman overt he last three years was acknowledged at the Summit.

There was no cause of or demand by a South country which was not duly considered by or which did not meet with the support of the Movement.

The urgent need to make progress in the defense of multilateralism, to demand respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all States and ensure the full realization of our peoples' right to development and peace were ratified at the Summit as the Movement's principles.

The Heads of State or Government decided to work to suppress acts of aggression and other actions contrary to the preservation of peace and to encourage the peaceful settlement of international conflicts.

The Summit called on all nations to abstain from the use of force or from threatening to use force against the territorial integrity or independence of any State. Participating nations promoted the development of relations of friendship based on respect towards the principle of equal rights and the will of all peoples to struggle against foreign occupation.

They urged nations to extend international cooperation with a view to overcoming the serious economic, social, cultural and h humanitarian challenges t hat face the world and to promote respect towards the human rights and fundamental liberties of all and for the benefit of all.

The fundamental and inalienable right of all peoples to self-determination was reaffirmed in Havana.

Non-Aligned countries agreed that world peace and security are today more in periled than ever as a result, among other factors, of the growing trend of the most powerful States to resort to unilateral measures and to the threat of preemptive wars.

The Movement's commitment to general and complete disarmament and nuclear disarmament in particular, under strict and efficient international monitoring, was underscored. The Summit also reaffirmed the basic and inalienable right of all States to research, development, production and the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, and to be free from any kind of discrimination in this connection, in conformity with their respective international obligations. In addition to this, the Summit clearly and firmly pronounced itself against terrorism, double standards in international relations, coercive unilateral measures against any nation, "regime change" policies and the failure of developed countries to fulfill their commitments in economic and social areas.

The Heads of State or Government of the Movement reaffirmed their hope to live in a peaceful world in which all nations have the right to a better future and a fair and equitable world order based on the sustainable development of all nations. They affirmed that, in its current form, globalization perpetuates and even exacerbates the marginalization of the countries of the South, and demanded that it be radically transformed into a positive force for change, for the benefit of all peoples.

Participants reaffirmed the right of the Palestinian people to have their own State and condemned the government of Israel for the new wave of crimes and massacres in Gaza and other occupied territories. They also vigorously condemned Israel's merciless acts of aggression against Lebanon and the serious violations of this nation's sovereignty and territorial integrity.

The people and government of Bolivia, facing attempts aimed at destabilizing the country instigated by external forces, met with a gesture of support and solidarity from the Summit. The process which is underway in that sister nation, aimed at guaranteeing the real rights of all Bolivians and at securing full national control over the country's natural resources, was offered solid support.

The Movement considered, with great concern, the aggressive policies and the intensification of actions aimed at undermining the stability of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and expressed support for the inalienable right of the Venezuelan people to determine its form of government and choose its economic, political and social system, free from foreign intervention, subversion, coercion or restrictions of any kind.

Non-Aligned countries undertook to promote and participate in a true process of democratization and reform of the United Nations to put behind the anti-democratic impositions and practices of the Security Council and to give the General Assembly its due decisive role, in conformity with the roles and powers described in the UN Charter.

I have mentioned only a few examples of the positions adopted at the Summit held in Havana, with respect to the most diverse issues on the international agenda.

The documents adopted shall be offcially distributed to all UN member States. A number of the decisions adopted at the Summit shall soon be put into practice in this Session of the General Assembly.

Mrs. President:

Cuba is aware of the immense responsibility inherent to presiding over the Non-Aligned M Movement i n one of the most difficult times in human history, when we face more inequality and injustice than ever before.

We shall not rest in our efforts to have the Movement occupy the place it can and must occupy in the international arena, in keeping not only with its broad membership of 118 countries, nearly two thirds of the UN membership, but also of its history on behalf of the loftiest causes.

On inaugurating the 6th Summit of the Non-Aligned Movement 27 years ago, President Fidel Castro expressed:

"The struggle for peace and for a just economic order, and a workable solution to the pressing problems that weigh on our peoples is, in our opinion, increasingly becoming the main question posed to Movement of Non-Aligned Countries. Peace, and the immense risks that threaten is not something that should be left exclusively in the hands of the big military Powers. Peace is possible, but world peace can only be assured to the extent that all countries are consciously determined to fight for it -- peace, not just for a pa rt of the world, but for all peoples".

Days later, in this same hall, on repo rting on that Summit, President Fidel Castro expressed:

"The sounds of weapons, of threatening language, and of prepotent behavior on the international arena must cease. Enough of the illusion that the problems of the world can be solved by nuclear weapons. Bombs may kill the hungry, the sick, and the ignorant, but they cannot kill hunger, disease, and ignorance. Nor can they kill the righteous rebellion of the peoples."

The countries of the South shall work, united, for justice, peace and the development of our nations and the entire World, convinced that a better world is possible if we all struggle for it.

Mrs. President:

I would now like to say a few words on behalf of the people and government of Cuba.

Our people's exercise of its right to self-determination faces new threats. The Bush administration has stepped up its brutally hostile measures against Cuba with new economic sanctions which further intensify the longest blockade human history has known. More severe reprisals are also being taken against those who have business dealings with Cuba from other nations and financial transactions with our country are viciously persecuted. The very government of the United States recognizes that it is spending more, today, in persecuting and punishing those who have business dealings with Cuba than in monitoring the finances of those who attacked the Twin Towers.

This past June, the Bush administration approved the second version of its most recent plan of aggression and domination against our country, aimed not only at overthrowing the Revolution but also at destroying the Cuban nation. In violation of international norms and laws, an unprecedented build- up in the financial and material support to subversive actions aimed at overthrowing the constitutional order freely chosen by the Cuban people is being promoted.

The abovementioned anti-Cuban plan contains a chapter, which is being held in secret. The antecedents of these decisions are the covert actions undertaken against the Cuban revolution, which include mercenary invasions, terrorists actions, the introduction of plagues and epidemics into the country and over 600 plots to assassinate Fidel. Thousands of Cubans have lost their lives or have been maimed for life as a result of this criminal policy.

At the height of hypocrisy and irresponsibility, the government of the United States tolerates the presence of and protects the terrorists who plan new actions against our people on US soil. While maneuvering to free the murderers responsible for monstrous crimes, such as the notorious international terrorist and CIA agent Luis Posada Carriles, whom they refuse to extradite to Venezuela, it illegally and unjustly keeps five courageous anti-terrorist Cuban activists in prison.

But, in spite of these acts of aggression and the criminal blockade, the Cuban people shall never be defeated. Cuba's internationalist efforts continue unhindered. More than 30 thousand Cuban doctors and other health professionals are saving lives in 68 different countries today; we are participating in the struggle against illiteracy in several continents; we are developing a plan to train 100 thousand doctors for the Third World and we are helping hundreds of thousands of people in many countries regain their sight through Operation Miracle. With these efforts, we are but fulfilling our fundamental duty to aid all of the peoples of the world.

Your Excellencies:

Cuba is making progress and shall continue to face the future with optimism and unity. Its educated and hard-working people, to whom the homeland is humanity, shall struggle hand in hand with the peoples you represent for the right to live in peace, justice and dignity for all.

Thank you, very much.

Libellés : ,