Sean Fenley's Open Salon Blog

Ms. Rousseff Goes to the White House

Fri, 13 Apr 2012 14:04:14 -0400

"One of Lula’s foreign policy advisors told a friend of mine that when Brazil looks at Iran, it doesn’t see just Iran, it also sees Brazil.” – Larry Rohter, New York Times Reporter

Barack Obama recently visited with current Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff. President Obama didn’t receive her, however, with the kind of pomp and circumstance, that has been given to nations like Indian and China. President Rousseff only met with Obama in a brief meeting, she did not receive a state dinner, and Obama spent most of the day rolling Easter eggs on the South Lawn. While CEOs, university presidents, and even the Chamber of Commerce — were literally chomping at the bit to meet with her — Obama seemed to be very low-key and nonplussed, about his meeting with this extraordinarily capable and singular woman. What could be the reasons/reasoning for such a cold shoulder, from our 44th and current president and commander-in-chief?

Could it be that Brazil has advocated for the cause of Palestinian statehood, that it has traditionally had amicable relations with Iran, that it is a member of CELAC (Community of Latin American and Caribbean States) and UNASUR (Union of South American Nations), or that it has pressured the US to include Cuba in the meetings of the OAS (Organization of American States)? Indeed, Brazil is currently involved in an $800 million modernization project of the western harbor of Havana.

Additionally, Brazil has inquired to the US government about a permanent position on the United Nations Security Council, and the US — has not responded in the affirmative, that it is interested in supporting that. Brazil also gave refuge to Honduran President Manuel Zelaya in its embassy, after the takeover (of the US-supported) coup regime. Furthermore, President Rousseff has been a cutting and incisive critic of the Federal Reserve’s quantitative easing policy, and moreover China has still fairly recently emerged as Brazil’s chief, cardinal — number one and foremost — trading partner/associate. A writer in the Financial Times, has even likened Brazil to the France of Latin America. Not obstructing US hegemony, and an attempted unimpeded global power monopoly; out of any sound principle, or deeply held belief or vision, but according to this bourgeois analyst, “[Brazil is] undermining our initiatives in Iran or over trade talks…[as a] way of forcing us to pay attention to them.”

Perhaps Obama thinks that Brazil, should be like a child bouncing on his leg (like the aforementioned FT “pundit”)? And is Brazil’s insufficient fealty to the Monroe Doctrine, and diktats coming from its “superior” northern nation, actually what ails this bilateral rapport/interrelationship? Perhaps, it’s simple envy as Rousseff enjoys a 77% approval rating, she has been seen as an effective battler of corruption, and Brazil’s economy — under her watch — is now considered to be the sixth largest in the world.

In comparison, Obama is trying to sell a non-existent recovery, and that the Republicans are absolutely, totally, and utterly batshit crazy, in order to win himself a reelection/second term. Rather than languid then, however, perhaps Obama should have been absolutely ecstatic, at the prospect of meeting — with the categorically more than serviceable Brazilian President. Unequivocally, Obama is far from Rousseff’s popularity, dynamism and overall effectiveness, but seemingly, it was far more important to him — to be rolling multi-colored Easter eggs on the White House South Lawn — than to be meeting with such an acute, capable, effectual and resultant; world leader, stateswoman, dignitary, and noteworthy head of government.

Video: Obama Second Term in Hands of 30 Million Unemployed

Thu, 12 Apr 2012 19:04:44 -0400

Interesting interview methinks, where the head of Gallup suggests that the election is going to come down to just pure economics. Since both major candidates are fundamentally (and essentially) creatures of big finance and the war industry, I’ll bet that we’re going to see a lot of faux overtures toward populism (you know things like pork rinds, clearing brush, pick-up trucks with dogs, etc.). The problem is that we’ve got two candidates who look like they’d be more at home at Whole Foods, the Apple Store, or IKEA. So I can’t say that I know how their spin doctors are going to do it.

Video: India’s Building up Its Military

Sun, 8 Apr 2012 23:04:08 -0400

India is beefing up its military, it is the world’s largest importer of arms. It’s spending 100 billion in ten years to build up its military. It’s interesting I wonder if Indian will become an enemy. They are buying a massive amount of this stuff from Russia. We were viewed as closer to Pakistan in the Cold War; India Russia. I don’t think the MSM is really covering this (so India must still be in an our ally, if shaky, camp, haha) can anyone imagine if Chavez was doing this, what we’d be hearing about! Or how about Iran or the West Bank/Fatah!

Rachel Maddow Defends the US Drone Program on Howard Stern

Thu, 5 Apr 2012 13:04:24 -0400

Rachel Maddow defended the legally fuzzy bombardment of Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Ethiopia, and other nations in an interview with Howard Stern. In Maddow’s words the drones, “don’t change the politics of it [war] that much.” In reality, however, the politics have changed markedly because of the US military’s use of their stable/panoply of death-inducing/mass immolating drones. And it is, moreover, exceedingly unclear what is meant by Maddow’s comments as, for example, families have embarked upon lawsuits against the US government for innocents, non-terrorists, and non-combatants — who have been unceremoniously snuffed out — by the legally hazy, and decidedly unmanned aerial drones.

Additionally and infamously, of course, whole wedding parties have been wiped out, by some detached and far-flung controller in the American Southwest or in Langley, VA. Is this what is meant by making war more and more “hospitable” and “sanitized”? I guess, in a sense, but not; of course, for those at the receiving end of the drone. Such questions, I think, force one to wonder about what Maddow thinks regarding the Constitution — vis a vis the war authorization for the US military conflict — in the so-called Afpak war zone.

Indeed, the aforementioned authorization for the war in Afghanistan, pertains to the US military’s actions in Afghanistan — and Afghanistan alone. Thus, of course, there is no constitutional basis for any sort of military, or even drone activities in the sovereign nation of Pakistan (or any of the other nations where they have been used). And furthermore, one wonders what Maddow’s position on the two American citizens — executed under unconstitutional bureaucratic fiat is — considering that this was not addressed in the Howard Stern interview. These Americans were, according to the Obama administration, guilty until proven innocent, but; of course, never received anything like their inalienable right to a trial, or the long-hallowed and (previously) integrally American jury of their peers.

International law scholar Richard Falk does believe that drones have changed the idea of war/military conflict seriously, and that their advent should be regarded with grave interest/concern. According to Falk the drones clearly raise questions about national sovereignty, and the parameters about presently held notions — of what are the currently permissible forms of war. Falk likens legal “rationalities” for the usage of the deathly — and indeed death-dealing — military drone technology, as analogous to John Yoo style torture memo-esque scrawlings of the George Bush Jr. administration/cabal. So, if some more mature, rational, and informed legal bases/doctrines, don’t arise regarding present and impending drone technology; Falk envisions a dystopian future scenario of rampant proliferation that will be imposed upon the world, by a small number of select, drone-armed, and exceedingly powerful elite states.

Falk posits that in our Machiavellian world, where a handful of nuclear countries have been able to cajole a vast majority of the world’s nations, into the signing of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, that a similar regime could come forward — regarding these still fairly nascent military drones. Falk sees no impediment to ridding the world of nuclear weapons, at present, and says that the same is essentially true of the drones. But the least evil (but still evil) route for the drones may; in fact, end similarly to nuclear armaments, in which the “great powers” — self-chosen — make elaborate and extensive use of their own specific unmanned aerial drones. And by that Falk means that some nations will use drones within their own territory, whilst more powerful international actors, will use them globally (and for attack purposes too).

Falk may be putting his realist hat on, and his spot-on theorizing may be of the Machiavellian reality/order of things, but in this humble observer’s opinion; the actually of the matter, is that the drones are totally (and utterly) illegal and unfair. Like a child in a candy shop, the military-industrial complex’s eyes have bulged out, at the advent of this facile way of grievously and insufferably slaughtering people — and so Falk’s analysis is, positively, very sound in this sense. But truth, facts, and reason, I think, must be defended also, even if they are ridiculed as utopian and overly idealistic, by the egregious, sly and unscrupulous actions — made by the technocrats, military, governmental and political elite officials — who rule our modern day Oceania-esque nation-state, and evermore integrated world.

One of the most prominent government officials of any position — or any stripe — to come out, and unequivocally attack the drones is Hina Rabbani Khar, the Foreign Minister of Pakistan. Khar has said that, “Drones are not only completely illegal and unlawful and have no authorization to be used — within the domains of international law, but even more importantly, they are counterproductive to your objective of getting this region rid of militancy and terrorism and extremism. Furthermore she has stated that, “if one [drone] strike leads to getting you target number one, or target number three today; you are creating five more targets, or ten more targets — in the militancy that it breeds — in the fodder that it gives to the militants, to join their ranks.”

Earlier this year Amnesty International called upon the Obama administration to demonstrate the legal and factual basis of the lethal use of drones. Amnesty’s Asia-Pacific director — at the time — said that, “the US authorities must give a detailed explanation of how these strikes are lawful, and what is being done to monitor civilian casualties and ensure proper accountability.” And the director moreover asked, “What are the rules of engagement? What proper legal justification exists for these attacks? While the President’s confirmation of the use of drones in Pakistan, is a welcome first step towards transparency, these and other questions need to be answered.”

Thin and paltry “justifications” for the drone attacks have, in the past, been offered by US officials, and are “grounded” upon the spurious legal basis of a US global war on terrorism with Al-Qaeda — a concept that is not accepted or recognized, by international humanitarian or human rights law. Truthfully, the ultimate question is what law — if any — recognizes, or gives any credence to the deplorable bombardments, by these egregious, brutish, feral, and essentially barbaric (and deeply) inhuman drones?

International law scholar Philip Alston has said about the drones, “I’m particularly concerned that the United States seems oblivious to this fact when it asserts an ever-expanding entitlement for itself to target individuals across the globe….this strongly asserted but ill-defined license to kill without accountability is not an entitlement which the United States or other states can have without doing grave damage to the rules designed to protect the right to life and prevent extrajudicial executions.”

Alston, a former United Nations Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, has proposed a summit by the “great” military powers to clarify the legal limits, and the boundaries on the extrajudicial attacks by the killer drones. If such a summit doesn’t take place, and define a fixed, immutable, firm, resolute, and unbending (drone) operational blueprint Alston says that, “This expansive and open-ended interpretation of the right to self-defense [used to attempt to legitimize the drone strikes] goes a long way towards destroying the prohibition on the use of armed force contained in the [Charter of the UN].”

As made clear by Professor Richard Falk there is absolutely no reason whatsoever, to continue on with these savage, mass slaying, and annihilating — and indeed, authentically diabolical killer drones. Like the opening of Pandora’s box, though, these horrid, reprehensible, and unconscionable technological creations may be with us for good. Professor Falk is a more learned man than I, so sadly, if the forces of peace and justice can’t effectively resist, and potentially put an end to these stealthful mass-murderers — run by cowards who have never even envisaged any battlefields — then they will continue to amass great civilian murder, death, heinousness, invidiousness, and inordinate barbarity too. And this will more than likely be done by the nations, and regimes that trumpet human rights, democracy, liberty, transparency, openness, and unregulated; and unrestrained human thought, as articles that are necessary to their very basic foundational civic principles, and integral to their national essentia also.

A Look at the Coup in Mali

Mon, 2 Apr 2012 13:04:03 -0400

A Berber group, known as the Tuaregs, have recently been instrumental in the overthrow of President Amadou Toumani Toure of Mali. Some of these Tuaregs are returning veterans, that had fought for Qaddafi in the Libyan military theater. Much like the Kurds of the Levant, Iran, Iraq, Turkey and Syria the Tuaregs/Berbers have had long-held, and enduring nationalist aspirations for an independent, autonomous and self-determining country. Although, some are indeed purported to be Islamist-linked, and indeed card-carrying members of the AQIM (Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb). The Tuaregs/Berbers are associated with a number of names/classifications, and may be called by the appellations of the Amazighs, the Kabyle or the Riffs also.

The Taureg fighters — fresh from Libya — formed a powerful rebel group known as the Azawad National Liberation Movement (MNLA). They have long believed that they are a marginalized, and repressed group by the centralized Malian government/authority. And, in fact, in joining with young recruits, and former rebels who had been enlisted in the Malian national military, in only two short months, the Tuaregs took over several key northern Malian municipalities. Not only this, but perhaps more astonishingly, their capture of a large swathe of mountainous desert territory, proved as a catalyst for a mutiny — which turned into a coup d’etat, that befell the capital of Bamako on March 21st.

The coup fabricators (non-Tuareg) are currently being led by a thirty-something junior officer named Amadou Sanogo. He has seized power, even though the president — was due to step down at the holding of elections, only at the end of this month. Many Malians have felt, however, that Toure was insufficiently dealing with problems of Tuareg nationalism, calls for the imposition of Sharia law, and even a burgeoning drug smuggling trade under the authority of his administration (in the turbulent, disorderly, and exacting Malian north). So much so that a February protest in Bamako, involved hundreds of people setting up barricades, and burning tires in the streets over the government’s perceived ineffectuality on the problem.

Moreover, Malian military soldiers — seeking to pacify the north — felt humiliated that whilst the government claimed to be in resolute and stable control of that portion of the country, that they were being supplied with insufficient military armaments, resources, food provisions and overall support/backing. An anonymous government official, who spoke to the British Broadcasting Corporation said that, “Many within the government felt something could happen, we just didn’t know when and how.” And Abdul Aziz Kebe, a specialist in Arab-African relations at the University of Dakar, Senegal has opined that, “[The] Western powers have underestimated that getting rid of Qaddafi would have severe repercussions in the Sahel region.”

Mali had been a rare democratic government in the region, and one that had been that way for over twenty years. Sanogo appears to be equivocating already though, and is now saying that he plans to reinstitute the Constitution of 1992 (and hold free and fair elections). Mali’s neighbors are giving the country 72 hours to restore their previous form of government, or be punished with crippling sanctions. The inauspicious portent of a new rebel-controlled anarchic quasi-state entity that specializes in kidnapping and drug-trafficking, and serves as a locus for Islamist extremism — is now all, of course, too real.

The association between the Tuareg rebels, and the forces of extremist Islam is uncertain — at this point — and the details of their conceivable interconnectedness is insufficiently known. It has been reported, however, that hairdressers and shopkeepers were ordered to take down pictures of unveiled women, when the town of Kidal was seized upon and overwhelmed by the MNLA.

Toure had warned about post-Qaddafi aided Mali in an interview with L’Express, “[that] concerning the local Arabo-Tuareg rebellions, Qaddafi engaged in mediation, the disarmament and reintegration. His overthrow has left a vacuum….very early, we alerted NATO and others about the collateral effects of the Libyan crisis. To no avail.” Toure had very good relations with Qaddafi, of which he has said that he has no regrets. In the same interview with the periodical L’Express Toure stated, “Libya made substantial investments with us in tourism, hotels, agriculture and banking, contributing to our development.” Qaddafi made similar investments in Burkina Faso, and a number of other African nation-states also.

Former Canadian Diplomat Robert Fowler says that NATO has unleashed a “contagion” across the African Sahel region. Additionally, Mr. Fowler has elaborated that Mali had been considered by “everybody”, to be a “kind of a paragon of democracy”. And that Mali was held up as “the great example of an effective working democracy in West Africa.” There is certainly something to be said for the holding of elections; instead of presidents for life, or autocrats — or anything of that such.

In the West’s idea of democracy in the developing world; however, issues of economic democracy, are sparingly — if ever — taken seriously and robustly enough into account. Mali, in addition to having been a democracy, had long held a fixed position as one the 25 poorest countries in the world. Numerous countries in the world regularly and routinely hold elections, and profess someone to be the duly supported winner, but the spoils of that nation are held in the hands of the 1% (or in many cases an even smaller group).

A prophetic Toure illuminates us — on this score — again, “[P]overty and a precarious existence offer a fertile ground to terrorism and the Islamists. The Jihadists advance laden with charitable works. They intelligently target the poorest families or the unemployed youth. An oppressed youth steals a four-wheel drive vehicle or acts as a guide for them not out of ideological commitment, but for money. Our enemies infiltrate us using humanitarianism; we have to answer with economic development.”