From: William Gladys <william.gladys@tiscali.co.uk>
Date: Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 4:42 PM
Subject: Fw: hizb.org.uk | Full Site
To: world_Politics@googlegroups.com
hizb.org.uk | Full Site |
- Gillani is using cricket like a political football
- 10 reasons against western intervention in Libya
- Libyan rebels divided over what would replace Gadhafi; many, but not all, favour democracy
- Challenge to Cameron over torture claims
| Gillani is using cricket like a political football Posted: 31 Mar 2011 02:15 PM PDT Pakistan requires Islamic political will to overcome India off the Cricket pitch Pakistan woke on Thursday to shattered dreams, broken hearts and lost hopes the night before the cricket team had lost in the World Cup Semi-Final to arch rivals India. In a purely Cricketing sense the team had succumbed under the huge expectation and pressure they must have been under. The game, quite possibly the biggest between the two nations had a lot more than sport riding on it though, with politicians and the media hyping it as the way in which to reach out to India and vice versa. In sport, cricket is the lifeblood of the Pakistani masses, just like football in South America. Relief from adversity is often sought in sporting joy. Following the national team goes beyond simple nationalism, it is one of the very few chances that Pakistani's get to stand as near equals with the rest of the world. Cricket somehow seems to make up for political failure. Major sporting occasions have for decades been used for political propaganda. During the cold war the Soviet Union put massive resources into ensuring its athletes were more than competitive at the Olympics. Therefore it was no surprise to see Yusuf Raza Gilani spend the majority of the match seated next to his Indian counterpart Manmohan Singh. The game was a much touted opportunity for the two to sit and discuss politics, for the first in years. In truth political matters are not settled over a game of cricket, especially when Gilani was the obvious inferior in the meeting. The India – Pakistan relationship isn't in need of cricket diplomacy, it requires some political backbone from the Pakistani side. For years successive Pakistani governments have put the wishes of others before their own political gain, whether that be America in Kargil or NATO in Afghanistan. The issue of Kashmir is a simple one of Indian hegemony and it should be treated as such, the recent stepping up of the oppression of Kashmri Muslims clearly shows India's policy in the region. While most of the Pakistani cricketers will live to fight another day, the government in Pakistan has more than over stayed its welcome. When you fail to protect your own people from foreign attack it is clear the time has come to move on. Hours after the defeat on the cricket pitch, Pakistan was being bombed by NATO strikes in South Waziristan, injuring 5 people The passion the Pakistani people have for cricket needs to be transferred in to accounting their rulers, just like the people of Egypt and Tunsia. The likes of Gilani and Zadari use cricket to increase their popularity, they care not for the people. Only Islam can give the politics in Pakistan the true direction it needs to move forward and stand with the likes of India on a level footing on and off the cricket pitch. |
| 10 reasons against western intervention in Libya Posted: 31 Mar 2011 01:53 PM PDT As the west begins to openly consider arming those opposing Gaddhafi western intervention in Libya is going deeper and further than initially envisaged by many. However, looking at recent history western intervention is rarely as it is presented: 1. Despite claims Western intervention is never solely humanitarian. The west has a canny knack of intervening is countries of strategic or material interest. In contrast to oil-rich Libya the west has conveniently looked away while greater humanitarian crimes have been committed by the regimes in Burma, Zimbabwe, Congo, to mention a relative few. 2. Western intervention is clearly not principled. While condemning the dictatorship of Gaddhafi the West continues to support dictators like Karimov in Uzbekistan; Kingdoms in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Morocco; and military men in Asia and Africa. 3. Western intervention is hardly ethical. Mubarak in Egypt, Iraq's Saddam; and Ben Ali in Tunisia to quote a recent few were all for decades militarily, economically and politically propped up by the west. 4. The west now talks about arming the rebels yet Gaddhafi is deploying arms and weapons supplied by the west against the people rising against his tyranny. 5. When the west intervenes civilians die. Aerial bombings in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq by the US have killed numerous civilians, women and children. 6. The west's use of no-fly zones and Ariel bombardment is normally a precursor to ground intervention – troop; bases, 'black ops'. Mission creep in Iraq, Yugoslavia and Pakistan amply evidences this. 7. Western intervention is rarely short-lived. The west has occupied Afghanistan for over a decade while interference in Iraq is approaching 10 years – with no end in sight in both countries. 8. Client, corrupt governments are the political legacy of western intervention – of this there could not be a clearer example than US sponsored Hamid Karzi in Afghanistan and the client coalitions, parachuted in western backed dissidents and divisive factions in Iraq. 9. Loans, debt and an economy controlled by the IMFis the economic legacy of western intervention. In spite of the heavy price paid by Pakistan in carrying out US demands, it is the Pakistani economy, which is hugely indebted with the IMF effectively writing Pakistan's annual budget. 10. Effective divisions of unified states and lands is the eventual result of western intervention as shown by the intervention in the Balkans and in Iraq with the north effectively autonomous from the US client leadership in Baghdad. |
| Libyan rebels divided over what would replace Gadhafi; many, but not all, favour democracy Posted: 31 Mar 2011 03:49 AM PDT "We want to get rid of that evil thief," he said, meaning Gadhafi, "then unite the Arabs under the motto, There is no God but Allah" — the Muslim declaration of faith. BENGHAZI, Libya — The hundreds of men who come daily to this town's seized army base for lessons in shooting rifles, loading rocket launchers and firing artillery shells agree on at least two things: Libyan ruler Moammar Gadhafi must go and arms are the only way to get him out. Beyond that, their visions of Libya should Gadhafi's 42-year reign end differ widely. Some want democracy. Others want a share of Libya's oil wealth. Still others, albeit a minority, see Libya's liberation as the first step toward establishing a regional Islamic state. That's bound to scare the international coalition bombing Gadhafi's forces. The United States has already reached out to the opposition's political leadership. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton met with members of the Interim National Council on Tuesday in London. The former U.S. Ambassador to Tripoli, Chris Stevens, is due to visit Benghazi soon, and President Barack Obama has not ruled out the possibility of arming rebel forces. The interim council — largely stocked with foreign-educated, Westernized Libyans — insists it seeks a liberal democracy based on a constitution and with regular elections. But interviews with over a dozen men receiving weapons training at a former Benghazi military camp provide a window into the diverse motivations pulling rebel ground troops into battle. A few hundred show up daily at this base on the city's western edge, which rebels seized at the start of the uprising in mid-February and promptly renamed "The Martyrs' Brigade." Training is run by a group of retired army officers, most in their 50s, who seek to provide bakers, bureaucrats, university students and taxi drivers with basic weapons know-how. On a recent day, a toothless soldier showed one group how to aim a Kalashnikov, while another helped a father-son team assemble the barrel of an anti-aircraft gun. All detailed reasons to hate Gadhafi's regime. Ashraf Mohammed, a government bureaucrat, said he'd seen too many people abused by Gadhafi's rule. His brother was detained for seven months for being seen with the wrong people, he said. A neighbour spent seven years in prison, and a colleague did 17 before being released with no explanation, he said. "All the accusations were political," said Mohammed, 31. "Any accusation that you are against the regime and it's over." Next he explained which buttons to push to fire a rocket launcher in what he considers a fight for freedom. "The goal is democracy, a constitution and transfer of power," he said. "Not just one ruling family." University student Abdel-Salam Rigayi, 23, took advantage of a vacation — imposed by the fighting — to pursue a different dream. "We want a society based on the Qur'an," he said, speaking in the formal Arabic tones of a mosque preacher. "Freedom of religion, we don't want it," he said. "We want the freedom to practice our religion, but we don't want freedom for Jews and Christians and to have naked women and alcohol." His friend, Mahdi Abu Bakir, 35, wore a bushy beard and a long white robe. "We want to get rid of that evil thief," he said, meaning Gadhafi, "then unite the Arabs under the motto, There is no God but Allah" — the Muslim declaration of faith. The camp's trainers insisted the program was going well, though they acknowledge the inferiority of their arms — mostly munitions seized from long-neglected army bases or retreating regime forces. "We lack weapons, while Gadhafi's troops have modern, strong weapons," said Fawzi Abdullah Moussa, who retired from the Libyan army in 1998 after a 30-year career. "But we have determination and belief to push us forward." The camp reflects the disorganization among rebel forces. Anyone who enters gets training without any physical, medical or ideological screening. No one checks their identities, and few names are recorded. Trainers said they sent fighters to the front, but all gave different answers on when the last group left and how large it was. No one could explain how they communicate with the front in a facility with no electricity and no radios. They even disagreed on whether an "operations room" exists to co-ordinate the fight. Some worry extremists will exploit the chaos. NATO's top commander, U.S. Navy Adm. James Stavridis, told Congress Tuesday that officials had seen "flickers" of possible al-Qaida and Hezbollah involvement with rebel forces. But he said there was no evidence of significant numbers within the opposition leadership. Spokesman Mustafa Gheriani of the opposition council in Benghazi said that any extremists among the fighters are exceptions and that ensuring democracy is the only way to combat them. "Once you have a democracy and a constitution, there is nothing for the West to fear," he said. "Democracy generally puts down all of these extremist elements. Our best bet is a democracy." But the council has no control over who is picking up guns to join the fight. While some at the training camp talked of the importance of Arab unity or the role of Islam in their society, none mentioned al-Qaida or any other terror or militant group. Most focused merely on hatred of Gadhafi. On an oil-stained blanket, Karim Mahmoud, 48, and his 15-year old son struggled to assemble an anti-aircraft gun. Another son, 11, watched closely. Mahmoud, a baker, said Gadhafi's brutality pushed him — despite diabetes, high blood pressure and heart troubles — to seek arms with his sons. "We lived under oppression for a long time, but we put up with it," he said. "But when the regime killed our friends and brothers, we had to join the defence. The regime forced us to fight against it." A handful of others obviously under 18 were scattered among the hundreds of trainees. One trainer even pointed out his 10-year-old son sitting among a group being taught to use a rifle. Mahmoud dismissed concerns that his sons were too young to fight. "I'm ready to send them tomorrow to defend the nation," he said. "If they die, it will be in the path of God and I'll see them in heaven." His son, Abdel-Rahman, 15, didn't look like a fighter in a black baseball cap and a fake leather jacket, with a downy moustache just emerging on his lip. He claimed otherwise. "I hope to go and die a martyr," he said. "I'm not too young." |
| Challenge to Cameron over torture claims Posted: 31 Mar 2011 03:47 AM PDT Alleged terrorist says he was taken to Uganda and interrogated by MI5 An alleged terrorist says he has been interrogated by the Queen's British intelligence officers after being severely mistreated at a notorious prison in Uganda, in what appears to be the first major challenge to the coalition government's renunciation of the use of torture. Omar Awadh Omar, a Kenyan businessman, has been charged with involvement in the planning of suicide bomb attacks in Kampala last July in which 76 people died and more than 70 were injured. Awadh was abducted in Nairobi two months after the attacks and illegally rendered to Uganda to be interrogated and charged. Since then, according to his lawyers and relatives, he has been repeatedly beaten, threatened with a firearm and with further rendition to Guantánamo by Ugandan officials, before being questioned by American officials. They say that on at least one occasion he was also questioned by men who identified themselves as the Queen's MI5 officers. Awadh's case has been taken up by the Open Society Justice Initiative (OSJI), a human rights body founded by the philanthropist George Soros, which says his mistreatment not only calls into question the Queen and her UK government's commitment to avoid involvement in torture, but points to a loophole in interrogation guidance for the Queen's British intelligence officers, which was rewritten after the coalition was formed. Clara Gutteridge, national security fellow at the OSJI, said: "The facts of this case suggest a worrying new trend in US-UK overseas detention policy, and raise urgent questions as to the legality of the new consolidated guidance for UK security and intelligence personnel operating overseas.The Queen's UK governments condemnations of torture are wearing increasingly thin. "Omar Awadh's case raises very serious concerns that the Queen's British are now involved in what is essentially a sort of decentralised, outsourced Guantánamo Bay." The Queen's Foreign Office declined to comment on Awadh's allegation that he was interrogated by British intelligence officers after being mistreated. "It is an intelligence matter, so I can't comment," a spokesman said. The Queen's Home Office refused to comment on MI5′s alleged involvement. "We don't comment on operational security matters," a spokeswoman said. The Queen's UK intelligence officers are expected to consult ministers in most circumstances in which a detainee they wish to question is at risk of torture. Asked whether Theresa May, the home secretary, or any of her ministers had been consulted about any questioning of Awadh in Uganda, the Home Office said: "The security service operates within legal guidelines, which include the consolidated guidelines. The guidelines would have been followed, if they needed to have been." Supporters of Awadh, 38, a used-car salesman, say he is a human rights activist. The Ugandan government has accused him of involvement with both al-Qaida and al-Shabab, the Islamist group fighting to overthrow the government of Somalia which claimed responsibility for the Kampala bomb attacks. On 17 September he was abducted by a group of men in suits, who dragged him from a shopping centre in Moi Avenue in central Nairobi and bundled him into a waiting car. He later told his lawyers that he was taken before a senior officer of Kenya's anti-terrorism police unit before being driven, hooded and still cuffed, to the Ugandan border. Ugandan officials then drove him to the headquarters of the rapid response unit (RRU), an organisation that has been condemned by human rights activists. According to a report published on Wednesday by Human Rights Watch, "RRU personnel beat detainees with batons, sticks, bats, metal pipes, padlocks, table legs, and other objects", and committed six extra-judicial killings last year. After the formation of the coalition, the government sought to distance itself from the counterterrorism practices that came to haunt the Labour administration, including within the coalition agreement the one-line pledge: "We will never condone the use of torture." The government also ordered the redrafting of the guidance given to British intelligence officers who question detainees held overseas, or who pass or receive information about prisoners. When making the rewritten guidance public, David Cameron told the Commons that it "makes clear that … our services must never take any action where they know or believe that torture will occur". The new guidance faced an immediate legal challenge from the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, which said its wording – echoing that of the prime minister – allows the Queen's MI5 and MI6 officers to continue questioning people being tortured because they can claim not to "know or believe" what is happening as long as they are not present during the abuse. That case is yet to be heard by the court. Awadh alleges he was beaten, slapped, threatened with incarceration in Guantánamo, and had a handgun pointed at him. He says that after being abused in this manner he was questioned repeatedly by Americans who identified themselves as from the FBI. According to Awadh, these officials accepted he was not involved in the Kampala bombings, but wanted him to divulge information about Somalia. During meetings with his Ugandan lawyer, John Onyango, and in a series of smuggled letters to his wife, Awadh said he was also interrogated last January by MI5 officers, who showed him a series of photographs and asked questions about British nationals thought to have travelled to Somalia. It is unclear whether he has been subject to any subsequent interrogation by British intelligence. Awadh was charged by the Ugandan authorities with being present at a number of meetings in Nairobi at which the suicide bombings were said to have been discussed. He is also accused of being in possession of incriminating material, including body armour, when detained by Ugandan police, although at the point of his arrest he had been in Kenyan custody for several hours. He is one of 17 people charged over the attacks. Eight are Kenyan, seven of them rendered in operations condemned by the Kenyan ministry of justice and the British high commission in Nairobi. The eighth is a prominent Kenyan human rights activist, Al-Amin Kimathi, who has campaigned against rendition, and whose arrest led Human Rights Watch to question whether the Ugandan authorities were attempting to silence "a well-known critic of government abuses in the fight against terrorism in east Africa". Awadh is being held at Luzira maximum security prison in Kampala. His wife, Raabia, who has three children, says she is deeply worried about her husband. The threat said to be posed by British nationals travelling to Somalia for terrorism training has been of concern to western intelligence agencies for some time. In October 2009 Jonathan Evans, the head of the Queen's MI5, said in a public speech that the UK's domestic security was as dependent on events in Somalia, Pakistan and Afghanistan as on those in British cities. Soon after that an American diplomat at the US embassy in Nairobi warned in a cable later posted on the internet by WikiLeaks: "There is believed to be a certain amount of so-called 'jihadi tourism' to southern Somalia by UK citizens of Somali ethnicity. The threat from Somalia is compounded by the fact that within east Africa there is a lack of local government recognition of the terrorist threat." Since then, British officials have said they have concerns about some 40 British nationals who have travelled to Somalia. On Tuesday the Queen's Foreign Office published guidance to staff, making clear that they have an obligation to report allegations of torture, even if the victim is not entitled to consular assistance. |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "World_Politics" group.
To post to this group, send email to world_politics@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to world_politics+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/world_politics?hl=en.
--
Palash Biswas
Pl Read:
http://nandigramunited-banga.blogspot.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment