Thursday, April 30, 2015

900 Women at the Hague Repeat: "Lay Down Your Arms"!  

Report on WILPF Centennial at the Hague 22nd-29th April By Irene Eckert

Reception at Vredespaleis

Sunday, April, 26th the Peace Palace at Carnegie Plein in The Hague is filled with a crowd of women from all corners of the world. Beautifully dressed, old and young they  assemble to unveil the bust of Aletta Jacobs, first female medical doctor, dedicated citizen and organizer. After 100 years of growing violent conflict, women have come to the Hague back to commemorate a century of efforts to end all wars and to establish peace and justice. They have come to commemorate women like Aletta Jabobs and her compatriots who have opened paths and developed tools for peaceful conflict solutions among nations. More than 900 women from 80 countries have travelled to the dutch metropole on the North Sea. Will the be able to make a difference?
Representing all continents some came to renew their efforts in the quest for peace. From around the world these women wanted to unite their voices and to help save the planet from the scourge of war. Like their ancestors from war ridden nineteenhundredfifteen women sincerely dedicated to peace have had to overcome barriers, borders and prejudices. Some had to struggle hard in order to find funds for the journey. They all invested creative energy in order to be able to  participate in a six days event named „Women's Power to Stop War“. In plenary and special sessions at the prestigeous premises of the World Forum of The Hague they would look at the most burning issues of the day from a women's perspective. Most of them did not take notice that Mr. Obama as well as Hillary Clinton were her before.

Welcoming citizens of the Hague, the spring blossoms of a flourishing dutch metropol and the most beautiful museums of the city offered space to relax and to forget in what state of affairs the world is in today.

Women's Nobel Peace Price Laureates: „Lay Down Your Arms“

In an opening ceremony the Irish Nobel Peace prize laureate Mairead Maguire denounced the ongoing demonizing and dehumanizing of elected political leaders of other countries. She recalled Bertha von Suttner and urged again „Lay Down Your Arms“. Maguire reminded her audience that „Peace is a Human Right“ and that waring governments needed to be confronted with this demand of the day. Referring to the UN and Nobel Charter and to Eleonor Roosevelt who had helped establish the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the nobel laureate advocated strongly: Respect International Law and redress ethical and moral values! Her co-laureates  Shirin Ebadi (2003), Leymah Gbowee (2011), Jody Williams (1997) were in the audience, listening. US journalist Amy Goodman of „Democracy Now“ and her German colleague Sabine Schiffer from the „Institute for Media Responsibility“ set another example in pleading  for independent media, media free from corporate interests. Such media should allow for investigative journalism and enable the quest for truth. Independent media were most needed in the struggle against vested interests and especially in times of war, they  said.93 year old Edith Ballantyne, UN-adviser of the oldest women's peace organisation urged to renew the strive for an alternative economic system, free from the bondage of profit making. She encouraged the younger generation to study the root causes of warfare, if they wanted to help abolish a world without military conflict, war and violence against women. Would the young staff women listen?
At the turn of the nineteenth century Bertha von Suttner, the Austrian duchess had vociferously pleaded for peaceful conflict settlement, long before the Great War had started. As an early woman peace maker she had convinced her former boss, Alfred Nobel to donate his profits from producing explosives to the foundation of the NOBEL PEACE PRIZE. She was the first woman to receive it in 1905. Are todays nobel peace price winners devoted to the  cause?

Fore-Mothers for Peace and Justice

Since April 26th in 2015 Aletta Jacobs 's bust duly stands next to Ms Suttner's at the Hague's Peace Palace. Whereas Bertha had died in June 1914, just before the beginning of World War I, Dr. Aletta Jacobs, Jane Addams, US-American social worker, Emily Green Balch, professor of economics at Wellesley College, Anita Augspurg, first German scholar in Law, Lida Gustava HeymannGertrud BaerRosika Schwimmer and some more outstanding 1 300 women from warrior countries had joined hands in the Hague in April 1915 to help stop the war machine then. Are todays "feminists" prepared to do the same?
During the small period between the two global slaughters of the last century some of early suffragettes from the Hague  had founded the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF)  in Zürich.
Jane Addams, their first president, was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1935. Emily Green Balch, general secretary for a while, received the price in 1946. Most  Wilpfers,  however, had been victimized by World War II . Many lost their homes, their families, their fortunes, some their health and others their lives in the struggle for peace and against fascism. Some survived under difficult circumstances.

In the fifties of the last centuries WILPF survivors and newcomers to the organization resisted the Witch Hunt of the McCarthy period in the USA. They denounced the atomic bomb and cold war policies. In Germany women like Magda Hoppstock-Huth and Ruth Gleisberg spoke out bravely against the re-militarization of their country, forced upon them by the US victor. In the United  States Wilpf women developed a "Women's Budget", focused on the needs of the cities not the Pentagon's. Over the decades WILPFERs collected millions of signatures in order to STOP THE ARMS RACE, they lobbied their politicians, they organized marches and civil disobedience. They sent delegations to theaters of war and they initiated diplomatic campaigns. The spirit of these women peace activists is still around, but how influential?

Respect Peace Agreements - Stop Developing War Robots - Do not Send Lethal Weapons Abroad – Savegard the Environment

Disquieting concerns about even more confrontative and desasterous war policies had mobilized women to The Hague again. Women from everywhere came motivated to put an end to the war machine. Some came to offer their expertise, acquired in life long struggle, to help stop the waste of natural and human ressources and  to raise their voices against the ongoing slaughtering sustained by private war machines and by some governments.
Women still strive to help stop the brutality and the violence bread by such monsters. They want the funding of the war machine to be halted and they still want  funds redirected for social needs. They want  the environment saved and the beauty of this planet be upkept. They care for a fairer distribution of wealth so that everybody will have access to clean water, healthy food and medical care. Women from the Global south pleaded that giving birth should be a pleasure not a plague ending in a violent death. 
As academics, as artists, mothers, lawyers, politicians and as peace activists many women took the floor in the World Forum. Women gave first hand witness to what it means being a victim of militarized conflict. Hanan Awwad from WILPF-Palestine reminded the audience of the courage  Palestian people still have to resist occupation, house demolishing and ongoing war against them. She reminded the audience that brave Palestinian women still suffer in Israeli prisons , all setting an example of strength and courage to world. Women from the revatilized Israeli section spoke about their joint efforts with Arab and Palestine women through Machsom Watch, documenting Israeli human rights violations at the checkpoints. Others like Jody Williams from the Campaing to ban landmines spoke out against drone warfare and against the development of  killer robots.
Resolutions were passed in support of the MINSK II Peace Agreement and demands forwarded to stop the war against Yemen, to end the blockade and to deliver human aid to this war torn country. 
The need to upkeep the established links and to strengthen international networking of women was generally felt and often expressed. Hands were stretched out between North and South, between East and West in order to help develop counter-balances to the war machinery on a communal, a national and an international level. Hopes were expressed that it would not take another hundreds years before a more peaceful world be established.
 As long as there is life on earth, as long as there are women, prepared to give birth to new life, humanity has chance to survive - but more bravery is needed to speak out truth to power.
Those bearing responsibilities for the war machine need to be pointed out and denounced for their wrong doing.

Monday, April 27, 2015

Washington Choreographing All-Out War with Russia?

Finian CUNNINGHAM | 26.04.2015 | 00:00

The reckless American leaders are putting in place incendiary elements that heighten the risk of all-out war with Russia. 
For several weeks now the Ukrainian self-defence militia in the breakaway eastern Donbas region have been warning that the US-backed Kiev regime is readying to break a fragile ceasefire and resume its offensive. The refusal, as mandated by the truce, to fully withdraw heavy artillery and the ongoing practice of live-fire drills near the conflict zone are evidences cited.
With the reported arrival of 300 American paratroopers in Ukraine collaborating with Kiev’s Neo-Nazi National Guard brigades – the worst offenders over the past year’s fighting in eastern Ukraine – that development is an alarming harbinger of imminent conflict. 
The Minsk ceasefire – brokered by Russia, Germany and France – has up to this moment held for over two months. Given the Kiev regime’s past breach of previous ceasefires, the duration of the truce signed on February 12 surprised many. But now it seems the levee is about to burst ushering more violence in the region.
Of utmost concern is that the US military forces have reportedly moved into the Donetsk region near the conflict zone. 
The arrival of the US troops was already described by Moscow as a breach of the Minsk ceasefire. Bad enough was that the Americans were supposed to conduct their military exercises in the far west of the country, near the city of Lviv. Inexplicably, according to the Russian Ministry of Defence, US troops belonging to the 173rd Airborne Brigade have taken up «training» positions in Donetsk only 20-30 kilometres from the conflict zone. Those positions include the towns of Artemivsk, Severodonetsk and Volnovakha. 
Moreover, the military training given by the Americans to their charges include the use of US-made weapons, not the usual Soviet-style munitions that the Ukrainian Armed Forces traditionally use. Russia’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich notes that the mode of training indicates that Washington is preparing to fulfil its promises of supplying lethal weapons to the Kiev regime. 
The disturbing upshot of the ceasefire breaking in eastern Ukraine is that this time around the United States will be an overt participant in any renewed war. Not only the US, but two other closely aligned members of the NATO alliance – Canada and Britain. Nearly 600 troops from these three countries are in place acting as «military advisors» and providing weapons training to Kiev’s forces.
If the shaky Minsk ceasefire collapses, as many fear it might, then the situation has American, Canadian and British military boots on the ground and on the side of the Kiev regime. There is no equivocation about it. These NATO members will then be overtly at war in Ukraine fighting for a Neo-Nazi regime that has been responsible for 6,000 deaths over the past year in its wanton offensive on the Russian-speaking people of Donetsk and Luhansk. 
That new situation will have dispelled the erstwhile pretence of Washington and its allies «only» providing indirect support to Kiev. For these Western powers will be at war – officially.
In addition to the sinister military build-up on the ground, Washington has began a revamped choreographing of disinformation and war propaganda.
In recent days, the US ambassador to Kiev, Geoffrey Pyatt, took to social media with more shrill claims of Russian military presence in eastern Ukraine. Pyatt averred that it was «the highest concentration of Russian air defence forces in eastern Ukraine since [last] August.» He posted a photograph of a Buk Missile system, which actually turns out to be taken from a commercial military exhibition held in Russia two years ago.
Pyatt, along with State Department official Victoria Nuland, it may be recalled, was the architect of the coup in Kiev last February when the American CIA backed the violent overthrow of the elected government of President Viktor Yanukovych.
Meanwhile, back in Washington, the US State Department used the exact same formulation of words to claim Russia was installing advanced air defence systems in eastern Ukraine. There is «no doubt that Russia is involved,» said spokeswoman Marie Harf, without, as usual, providing any evidence. When asked about exact numbers of alleged Russian forces in eastern Ukraine, Harf's cosmetic demeanour appeared to crumble with uncertainty. «It is really hard to get precise information about Russian troop numbers specifically, but we know there is a substantial Russian presence,» she told reporters.
Ironically, Washington cited these alleged infractions to accuse Russia of «violating the Minsk ceasefire». That could be construed as an act of war «requiring» Kiev forces to «respond». The irony is cloyingly rich given that it is the US that has sent paratroopers into eastern Ukraine to train Neo-Nazi brigades on how to kill more ethnic Russians.
Apart from outright falsification of the alleged presence of Russian forces in Ukraine, the potential is rife for so-called false-flag terror attacks carried out by the Kiev regime and its American handlers. Such an atrocity, amplified by the dutiful Western news media, could in turn be cited as «justification» to relaunch hostilities. 
Earlier this year, for example, on January 13, near the town of Volnovakha, a bus carrying civilians was blown up reportedly with a roadside mine, killing 12 people onboard. The US-backed president in Kiev Petro Poroshenko immediately blamed «Russian terrorists». It has been a familiar routine over the past year whose choreography suggests premeditated planning. In the Volnovakha bus massacre only later did it emerge that the explosive device belonged to the Kiev forces who hold that area, and it may indeed have been set off deliberately to impute the pro-Russian rebels. Volnovakha is one of the towns in eastern Ukraine where US troops are now reportedly carrying out military exercises with the disreputable National Guard whose crimes against civilians in eastern Ukraine is amply documented, even by Western human rights groups. 
The combined factors in this equation do not bode well. US and NATO troops on the ground in eastern Ukraine working with Neo-Nazi paramilitaries plus renewed audacious media attempts to criminalise Russia. That array of factors equals a return to all-out war, this time with NATO openly participating. The provocation to Russia has to be seen in the wider even more troubling context of American-led NATO build-up of troops, warplanes, warships and missiles across Eastern Europe – and all pointed at Russia.
This begs the inimitable conclusion of Washington choreographing events for an all-out war with Russia. 
And given the decrepit, crumbling state of America’s global empire and its bankrupt capitalist economy, the pernicious motive for such a war begins to look compelling. 
Unless, of course, the American people and the rest of the world can somehow unite – to abolish the out-of-control regime in Washington.
WILPF Celebrating 100 Years of Searching Paths to Permanent Peace

Report from the Hague Centennial Conference April 27th-29th 2015

Over 900 women from 80 countries assemble today at the World Forum to strengthen women's power to Stop Wars. Nobel Peace Laureates Mairead Maguire. Leymah Gbowee and Shirin Ebadi repeat the call of Berta von Suttner „Lay Down your Arms“. They ask to stop demonizing and dehumanising political leaders that have been elected by their people. Madleine Reese, general secretary of the Women's International League for Peace and freedom (Wilpf) expresses the need to redirect funds from the militray to social needs. Amy Goodman from the alternative US „Democrazy Now“ is calling for independent Media that is representing the forth estate is not for state, a media that helps expressing concerns over war and peace. Women present are convinced to represent a majority, not even a silent majority of world citizens who wish to bring about PEACE.
Women will continue to work for peace, the majority of world citizens will not be silenced.

Sunday, April 26, 2015

8.MAI 1945 Tag der Befreiung

Gesellschaft zum Schutz von Bürgerrecht und Menschenwürde e.V.
Deutsche Sektion des Europäischen Friedensforums epf

 Zwei historische Gedenktage.

Eine Erklärung der Gesellschaft zum Schutz von Bürgerrecht und 

Die Mitglieder der Gesellschaft zum Schutz von Bürgerrecht und Menschenwürde  begehen den 8. Mai zusammen mit dem 9. Mai als „Tag der Befreiung vom Faschismus“ und als „Tag des Sieges der Sowjetunion im Großen Vaterländischen Krieg“.  In diesem Jahr wird der 70. Jahrestag dieser beiden herausragenden historischen Ereignisse des XX. Jahrhunderts begangen.    
In guter Tradition aus der Zeit der DDR würdigen wir die kolossalen Leistungen und Opfer, die die Völker der Sowjetunion, insbesondere das russische Volk, in der Antihitlerkoalition für den Sieg über den Hitlerfaschismus erbracht haben und damit wesentlich die Befreiung Europas und unseres Volkes vom faschistischen Regime ermöglicht.
Mit dieser Befreiungstat wurden
·       das deutsche faschistische Staatswesen zerschlagen, das in seinem terroristischen und mörderischen  Charakter nicht zu überbieten war, das die Menschenvernichtung fabrikmäßig organisierte und dabei war, die Völker Europas zu versklaven;
·       dem von ihm angezettelte Vernichtungskrieg mit unsäglichen menschlichen Opfern und Verwüstungen ein Ende gesetzt. Mehr als 27 Millionen Sowjetbürger haben dafür ihr Leben gegeben, an ihrer Seite Tausende Kämpfer der Alliierten und der Partisanenverbände in vielen europäischen Ländern;
·       das Abgleiten Europas in Barbarei und Sklaverei mit Millionen Arbeitssklaven unter der Knute einer privilegierten Rasse  aufgehalten.
Das sind die historischen Dimensionen und wer glaubt, diese nach 70 Jahren zu leugnen oder verdrängen zu können ist entweder ignorant oder böswillig.
Die Mitglieder unserer Gesellschaft wenden sich entschieden gegen alle Versuche diese historische Bedeutung des 8. Mai als Tag der Befreiung vom Faschismus und des 9. Mai als Tag des Sieges der Sowjetunion im Großen Vaterländischen Krieg zu relativieren und zu verfälschen oder sie der politischen Konjunktur zu unterwerfen.   

* * *
Diese historischen Gedenktage verpflichten zur Besinnung und zur Beantwortung der Frage: Wie konnte es geschehen? Wie konnte in Deutschland und in Europa, mit jahrhundertealten Werten in Kultur und politischer Tradition der Aufklärung, ein derart mörderisches Regime an die Macht befördert werden?
Diese Fragen sind zu beantworten, besonders auch angesichts des gegenwärtigen unwürdigen Umgangs der offiziellen Politik mit diesen Gedenktagen. 
Es  waren die Aushöhlung der Demokratie und der Missbrauch ihrer Institutionen im Interesse der Machterhaltung der Bourgeoisie; die politischen Freiräume, die damit für Rechtsnihilismus, für Revanchismus, für Rassismus und Antisemitismus geschaffenen wurden. Flagrante Menschenrechtsverletzungen, die Militarisierung der Gesellschaft und die ungeheure soziale Polarisierung und Verelendung der werktätigen Massen prägten die politischen Auseinandersetzungen der letzten Jahre der Weimarer Republik. Es hatte sich eine starke Arbeiterbewegung entwickelt, deren Einfluss ständig wuchs. In dieser Situation, die durch die Weltwirtschaftskrise noch verschärft wurde,  hat die Großbourgeoisie die Faschisten an die Macht geschoben, als „Ordnungsfaktor“ für den Erhalt des kapitalistischen Systems und ihrer Profitinteressen.
Birgt nicht die  heutige Gesellschaft, die viel beschworene freiheitlich-demokratische Grundordnung ähnliche  Gefahren in sich? Mögen die Bilder unterschiedlich sein – im Wesen sind sie gleich. Umso mehr ist es notwendig antifaschistische Aktionen zu organisieren bzw. zu unterstützen, antifaschistische Aufklärung zu betreiben, die die historischen und sozialen Wurzeln faschistischer Ideologie entlarvt.
Das ist eine abzutragende Schuld gegenüber den ungeheuren Opfern, die für die Befreiung vom Faschismus gebracht wurden und eine Verantwortung gegenüber kommenden Generationen.
Die Mitglieder unserer Gesellschaft werden sich in diesem Sinne auch zukünftig im Verbund mit anderen Organisationen aktiv an der antifaschistischen Arbeit beteiligen, stärker noch den antifaschistischen Charakter unserer Gesellschaft ausprägen.   

* * *
Der Umgang der Bundesregierung – und unter ihrem Einfluss vieler europäischer Regierungen – sowie der sogenannten Leitmedien mit diesen beiden Gedenktagen ist nicht dazu angetan, nationalistischen und rechts–populistischen  Stimmungen entgegenzuwirken. Im Gegenteil. Die viel beschworene offizielle Erinnerungskultur hat weder etwas mit Erinnerung – im Sinne der historischen Wahrheit – noch etwas mit Kultur - im Sinne eines kulturvollen Umgangs mit dem Erinnern – zu tun. Am deutlichsten wird das in dem Bemühen auf verschiedene Art und Weise Faschismus und Kommunismus auf eine Stufe zu stellen. Es ist beschämend festzustellen, welche Signale dazu vom politischen Establishment dieser BRD  in die Gesellschaft hinein getragen werden. 
Durch die politischen Eliten werden Gedenken und gar Lehren aus der Geschichte mehr und mehr durch die Ideologie einer neuen Vormachtstellung Deutschlands, der „größeren Wahrnehmung internationaler Verantwortung“ und des „stärkeren militärischen Engagements“ verdrängt. Dabei stützen sie sich auf die wirtschaftliche Macht; die vor allem durch wachsende Ausbeutung der Werktätigen erzwungen wurde und wird.
Diktiert von diesem neuen Machtstreben agiert die Regierung der BRD in der internationalen Politik, insbesondere bei der Lösung des Konfliktes um die Ukraine.  Sie stellte und stellt sich aktiv an die Seite der von radikal – nationalistischen und faschistoiden Elementen sowie Oligarchen durchsetzten Opposition  und unterstützte aktiv deren Machübernahme. 
Die in diesem Zusammenhang  von Regierung und Medien in treuer Gefolgschaft mit den USA betriebene Politik gegen Russland  richtet unermesslichen Schaden an für Frieden und Sicherheit in Europa, für die ökonomische Entwicklung des Kontinents aber auch für das Denken und Fühlen in der Gesellschaft, wo alte, antirussischen Ressentiments wieder um sich greifen.
„Deutschland ist wieder wer“ und ist in der NATO aktiv an der Schaffung eines aggressiven Rings um Russland beteiligt, nimmt dabei führende Positionen ein.
Deutschland spielt eine bestimmende Rolle bei der Durchsetzung der völkerrechtswidrigen Sanktionspolitik gegen Russland und bedient dabei die Interessen der USA.
So richtet sich seine Politik gegen das Land und die Menschen, die die größte Last bei der Befreiung vom Faschismus vor 70 Jahren getragen haben. 
Die Ignoranz der Geschichte ist kaum zu überbieten!
Unsere Gesellschaft sieht Deutschland nicht unter den Gesichtspunkt „wer wieder wer oder was ist“ sie sieht unser Land als ein Land, das aus seiner historischen Verantwortung  heraus, mit seinem menschlichen und ökonomischen Potential alles dafür tun sollte, nationalistische und rechtspopulistische Entwicklungen, die in neuen Formen von Faschismus münden können, zu verhindern sowie eine friedliche Entwicklung und einen Interessenausgleich zwischen den Völkern des europäischen Kontinents herbeizuführen.

* * *
Im Sinne dieser Erklärung werden  die Gesellschaft zum Schutz von Bürgerrecht und Menschenwürde e.V. und ihre Mitglieder im engen Verbund mit anderen fortschrittlichen Organisationen den 8. Mai als Tag der Befreiung von Faschismus und Krieg und den 9. Mai als Tag des Sieges der Sowjetunion im Großen Vaterländischen Krieg würdig begehen.
Wir sehen uns in der Pflicht des Schwurs der befreiten Häftlinge von Buchenwald, in dem es heißt
„Die Vernichtung des Nazismus
mit seinen Wurzeln ist unsere Losung.
Der Aufbau einer neuen Welt
des Friedens und der Freiheit
ist unser Ziel.“

Berlin, im April 2015

Friday, April 24, 2015

Yemen’s Mystery and Map of Lt. Col. Peters

Arkady DZIUBA | 25.04.2015 | 00:00

The US stance on Yemen is defined by two factors. One of them is internal political situation. The two leading parties differ in their views on the Middle East policy, especially when it comes to the question who America should rely on in the region. In some aspects the difference is substantial. 
The Democratic Party (or at least the fraction united around President Obama) believes that peaceful settlement of Iranian nuclear issue is crucial for success of US Middle East policy. The White House is ready to make concessions. Actually, it puts up with the fact that finally Iran will go nuclear in about ten years. The US expects Iran to make concessions too, including curbing its regional ambitions. In other words, Iran should not use its influence on Shia communities to detriment of US interests. Probably, a part of US liberal establishment believes it possible to go back to the days before 1979, when Iran played a pivotal role in US Middle East policy and Americans were immediately involved in its nuclear program. At present this scenario is hardly feasible, but nothing can be excluded as events unfold. 
The Republican Party takes quite a different stand. Ayatollah Khomeini called the United States «the Great Satan». Now Republicans play «the Great Satan’s» role. They oppose any concessions on the Iran’s nuclear program and insist on toughening sanctions (which are tough enough as they are). Many of them are ready to start a war. They rely on unconditional support of Israeli and Saudi lobbies, which are scared to death by prospects of US-Iran reconciliation. Republicans control Congress. They can oppose the Obama’s Middle East policy, including Iran, Yemen etc. 
At that, the US foreign policy decision making needs interparty consensus based on basic premises. The main thing is that, no matter America is still the world leading state, it has already seen its best days. Today the United States is not able to shoulder the burden of funding its clients abroad alone or win wars without allies. It has a great advantage compared with any potential adversary, but not to the extent to justify its claims to global leadership Bush and Clinton aspired to. 
The USD is still a global reserve currency, but more and more countries, including US allies, are involved in currency swaps with China. It gradually undermines the position of greenback. The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank may become a serious competitor to existing financial institutions led by US. China has become the second largest world economy and is on the way to catch up. The US military doctrine does not include the capability to fight a few wars simultaneously in different parts of the world. The US military budget goes through a period of cuts. 
The US might is on the wane. Soft power, economic competition, gunboat diplomacy – nothing can guarantee its global leadership anymore. Today, the United States is gradually losing its might. On international arena it has to hob-nob with dubious allies, rely on terrorists making them attack the US competitors and inciting them against each other. It does its best to foster tension in large regions. The US acts as kind of «moderator» and it brings in some dividends. 
The events in Yemen and other parts of Middle East bring back to memory the somewhat forgotten maps of Lt.Col. Peters. In 2006 Ralph Peters, a retired military intelligence officer, published an article in Armed Forces Journal called Blood Borders. 
He wrote that the borders established by European colonial powers were unjust. Peters suggested that a reimagining of Middle Eastern and Asian borders along ethnic, sectarian and tribal lines might ease regional tensions. He shared some thoughts with American politicians. According to him, «ethnic cleansing works». Winding his piece up he wrote, «If the borders of the greater Middle East cannot be amended to reflect the natural ties of blood and faith, we may take it as an article of faith that a portion of the bloodshed in the region will continue to be our own». The article was written when the war in Iraq was in full swing and Americans were looking for ways to put an end to the conflict. 
No need to retell the whole article. The gist of it is the need to remap the «Greater Middle East» starting from Iran and Saudi Arabia. 
According to Peters, «Iran, a state with madcap boundaries, would lose a great deal of territory to Unified Azerbaijan, Free Kurdistan, the Arab Shia State and Free Baluchistan, but would gain the provinces around Herat in today’s Afghanistan — a region with a historical and linguistic affinity for Persia. Iran would, in effect, become an ethnic Persian state again, with the most difficult question being whether or not it should keep the port of Bandar Abbas or surrender it to the Arab Shia State». Peters believes that the Shia-populated areas of Saudi Arabia in the south-east should become a part of Yemen. The north-eastern part of the kingdom is to be included into a new Shia state emerged mainly on the territory of contemporary Iraq. He believes the status of Mecca and Medina should change, «While non-Muslims could not effect a change in the control of Islam’s holy cities, imagine how much healthier the Muslim world might become were Mecca and Medina ruled by a rotating council representative of the world’s major Muslim schools and movements in an Islamic Sacred State — a sort of Muslim super-Vatican — where the future of a great faith might be debated rather than merely decreed». Peters thinks this is the best scenario, because «The rise of the Saudis to wealth and, consequently, influence has been the worst thing to happen to the Muslim world as a whole since the time of the Prophet, and the worst thing to happen to Arabs since the Ottoman (if not the Mongol) conquest». 
Democrats and Republicans may continue to argue who the US should rely on in the Middle East – Saudi Arabia or Iran. The substance of its policy will always remain destruction, inciting rebellions, conflicts and wars. Those in the Middle East who seriously believe America could guarantee their state sovereignty, territorial integrity and system of governance, may be greatly frustrated.
Chomsky sagt: die US ist der größte Terrorist der Welt
Euro News    ein Interview mit Noam Chomsky
18.4. 2015 „Euronews“  Isabelle Kumar (IK). „ Die Welt scheint 2015 ein sehr unsicherer Ort zu sein, aber wenn wir ein großes Bild davon machen, sind Sie optimistisch oder pessimistisch über den allgemeinen Zustand?
Noam Chomsky (NC): „Was die  globale Szene betrifft, laufen wir auf einen Abgrund zu, in den wir zu fallen bestimmt sind und die Aussicht zu überleben, sehr reduziert ist 
IK:  was für eine Klippe ist das?
NC:  Es sind tatsächlich zwei: das eine ist die Umweltkatastrophe, die  unmittelbar bevorsteht, wir haben nicht mehr viel Zeit, uns damit zu beschäftigen. Wir gehen einen falschen Weg. Und das andere ist  seit 70 Jahren  die Bedrohung eines nuklearen Krieges und diese wächst tatsächlich. Wenn man auf den Bericht blickt, ist es ein Wunder, dass wir bis jetzt überlebt haben. 
IK: Schauen wir uns das Umwelt-Problem an. Wir haben unsere sozialen Medien gebeten, uns Fragen zu schicken – und wir haben eine Menge erhalten. Wir erhielten diese Frage von Enoa Agoli, die fragt: wenn wir auf das Umweltproblem schauen und man durch die Linse eines Philosophen schaut, was denken Sie über die Klimaveränderung?
NC. Die menschliche Rasse lebt etwa seit 100 000 Jahren, und jetzt stehen wir einem einzigartigen Moment in ihrer Geschichte gegenüber. Diese Spezies ist jetzt in einer Lage, wo es sich sehr bald, in den nächsten paar Generationen entscheiden wird, ob das Experiment im sog. intelligenten Leben weitergehen wird  oder sind wir entschlossen, es zu zerstören? Ich denke an Wissenschaftler, die weithin erkennen, dass die meisten fossilen Kraftstoffe im Boden bleiben müssen, wenn unsere Enkel noch bescheidene Aussichten haben sollen. Aber die institutionellen Strukturen unserer Gesellschaft  drängen dahin, jeden Tropfen herauszuholen. Die Auswirkungen, die menschlichen Konsequenzen, die voraus gesagten  Wirkungen des Klimawandels in der nicht so fernen Zukunft sind katastrophal und wir rasen auf einen Abgrund zu. 
IK: Was den nuklearen Krieg betrifft sehen wir die Möglichkeit dieses Iran-Deal, der ein Vorbereitungsabkommen erreicht hat. Gibt Ihnen dies einen Hoffnungsschimmer, dass die Welt möglicherweise ein sicherer Ort werden könnte? 
NC. Ich bin für Verhandlungen, aber sie werden tiefgreifend beschädigt. Da gibt es zwei Staaten, die im Nahen Osten randalieren und Aggressionen, Gewalt, terroristische Akte, illegale Handlungen durchführen und zwar ständig. Es sind beides große Nuklearwaffen-Staaten. Und ihre Nuklearwaffen werden nicht in Betracht gezogen.
IK: Und wer ist das genau?
NC.: Die Vereinigten Staaten und Israel. Die beiden größten Nuklearstaaten der Welt. Ich denke, es gibt einen Grund, warum bei internationalen Volksbefragungen, von US-Befragungsagenturen geführt, die US als die größte Bedrohung des Weltfriedens angesehen werden – mit einem überwältigenden Stimmenvorsprung. Kein anderes Land kommt ihnen nah. Es ist interessant, dass die US-Medien sich weigern, dies zu veröffentlichen. 
IK:  Sie scheinen den US-Präsidenten nicht  sehr zu schätzen. Aber lässt Sie dieser Deal etwas besserüber ihn denken? Die Tatsache, dass er versucht, die Bedrohung  zu reduzieren?
NC. Nun, tatsächlich tut er dies nicht. Er ist gerade dabei,  ein Ein-Milliarde Dollarprogramm zur Modernisierung des nuklearen Waffensystems zu initiieren, was die Erweiterung des nuklearen Waffensystems bedeutet. Das ist einer der Gründe, warum die berühmte Glockenuhr –  vom Bulletin der Atomwissenschaftler errichtet-  zum Tag des Jüngsten Gerichts vor ein paar Wochen zwei Minuten näher an Mitternacht gerückt wurde. Mitternacht ist das Ende. Es ist jetzt drei Minuten vor Mitternacht.
IK:  Sie erwähnten die US und Israel  in Bezug auf den Iran. Jetzt  wünscht der israelische Präsident Netanjahu offensichtlich, dass das Abkommen mit dem Iran funktioniert.
NC Das ist interessant. Wir sollten fragen warum.  Wir wissen, warum. Der Iran hat einen sehr niedrigen militärischen Aufwand, selbst für den Standard der Region, geschweige denn den US. Irans Strategie-Doktrin ist defensiv. Sie ist dazu bestimmt, einen Angriff lang genug aufzuhalten, damit die Diplomatie beginnen kann. Und die US und Israel, die beiden Schurkenstaaten wollen keine Abschreckungsmittel tolerieren. Kein strategischer  Analytiker mit Vernunft denkt, dass der Iran je eine nukleare  Waffen benützen wird. Selbst wenn dies vorbereitet wäre,  würde das Land einfach in Rauch aufgehen. Es gibt keine Anzeichen dafür, dass die herrschenden Kleriker – egal was man über sie denkt – etwas in dieser Art sehen wollen.
IK:  Nur noch eine Frage von Morten Andersen: Glauben Sie dass die US ständige Aktionen durchführt, die vor allem für Israel  gefährlich sein würden?
NC:  Die USA führen ständig Aktionen aus, die für Israel gefährlich  sind. Sehr ernsthaft sogar. Die Unterstützung der israelischen Politik. Während der letzten 40 Jahre ist die größte Bedrohung seine eigene Politik gewesen. Wenn man 40 Jahre zurückblickt, etwa ins Jahr 1970, war Israel einer der geachtetsten und am meisten bewunderten Länder der Welt. Da gab es eine Menge positiver Einstellungen  ihm gegenüber.  Jetzt ist es einer der am wenigsten geliebten und am meisten gefürchteten Länder der Welt. In den frühen 70er-Jahren machte Israel eine Entscheidung. Sie hatten die Wahl, und sie entschieden sich für die Expansion statt für Sicherheit, was mit gefährlichen Konsequenzen verbunden war. Konsequenzen, die zu jener Zeit  schon offensichtlich waren.  Wenn man die Expansion der Sicherheit vorzieht, so führt dies zu interner Degeneration, zu Ärger, Opposition, Isolierung und  womöglich letztlich zur Zerstörung. Und wenn die US diese Politik unterstützten, beteiligen sie sich an den Bedrohungen, vor denen Israel steht. 
IK : Das bringt mich zum Thema des Terrorismus. Weil es tatsächlich ein globaler Feuerbrand ist  und manche Leute werden sagen , dass dies ein Rückschlag der US-Politik gegen Terror in aller Welt ist. In wie weit sind die US und ihre Verbündeten verantwortlich für das, was wir jetzt sehen hinsichtlich der Terrorangriffe in aller Welt?
NC: Man erinnere sich an die bei weitem schlimmste  terroristische Kampagne der Welt, die in Washington manipuliert wurde. Es gab niemals eine Terror-Kampagne von diesem Ausmaß. (9/11) …                                           Und dann die Drohnen-Kampagne  -  sie ist eine globale Mord-Kampagne.  Über weite Teile der Welt sind die US systematisch, öffentlich, offen – da gibt es kein Geheimnis, wir wissen es alle – da werden regelmäßig  Kampagnen durchgeführt, um Menschen zu ermorden, die die US verdächtigt, eines Tages etwas Schlimmes zu tun. Man bombardiert ein Dorf im Jemen, um eine bestimmte Person zu treffen, die man trifft oder auch nicht trifft – das sind aber noch andere zufällig in der Nähe, die getroffen werden. Wie werden  deren Verwandte reagieren. Sie werden Rache nehmen …

(dt. und stark gekürzt: Ellen Rohlfs).

Thursday, April 23, 2015

US-backed Criminal Slaughter in Yemen Revealed

Finian CUNNINGHAM | 22.04.2015 | 09:17

Former UN envoy to Yemen, Jamal Benomar, has given an undiplomatic assessment of the crisis in that country, in which he rhetorically explodes Saudi myths «justifying» the US-backed aerial bombing campaign. The Moroccan diplomat told media at the weekend that the ongoing conflict was a direct result of Houthi rebels having been excluded from the political process last year. 
Furthermore, Benomar went on to say unequivocally that during his tenure as UN envoy in Yemen he saw no evidence of Iranian involvement stirring the country’s strife. 
That testimony debunks the Western media-contrived whitewash of the continuing Saudi slaughter in Yemen – a slaughter that is being aided and abetted, politically and militarily, by Washington. 
Benomar resigned from his diplomatic post last week after three years of being charged with facilitating political talks between Yemeni rebels and the US, Saudi-backed regime of now-ousted president Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi. Benomar’s task had always been a futile one because the foreign sponsors of the Hadi regime were never interested in a genuine transition to a more democratic, representative government in the Arab Peninsula country.
The US, Saudi-backed puppet-president Hadi, who was elected in an uncontested ballot in February 2012, was only ever supposed to hold a transitional office for a year, while in theory overseeing the formation of an elected, fully representative government. 
For three years, Hadi under the tutelage of Washington reneged on promises to hand over power to a more democratic constitution. Among those shut out from the transition were the northern-based Houthis. When Hadi and his ruling clique refused to fulfil promises, the Houthis took over government institutions by force and deposed the so-called caretaker president at the beginning of this year.
That account of events has now been substantiated by the former UN envoy, who more than anyone is best-placed to make a call, having had a ringside seat in Yemen for three years. 
Benomar’s more recent diplomatic task of trying to re-engage Yemeni opponents in talks was again made impossible because the Gulf Arab backers of the Hadi regime – in particular Saudi Arabia – refused to countenance engagement of the Houthi rebels. This is because the Arab dictators are implacably opposed to allowing a wider franchise in the formation of a new government in Yemen, one that would have genuine democratic participation. Benomar’s resignation last week was prompted by muted antagonism from the Saudi and Qatari rulers. 
Saudi Arabia launched an aerial bombing campaign on Yemen on March 26, along with support from other Arab dictatorships, including Egypt, Jordan and the Persian Gulf monarchies of Qatar, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates and Bahrain. The United States has given full political backing to the bombing campaign along with supply of munitions and logistical targeting of air strikes. 
The constant air strikes on Yemen for more than three weeks has resulted in hundreds of civilian deaths. Last week, eight civilians, including a mother and three children, were killed when a school in Malahidh region near the Saudi border was hit in an air strike. The true death toll of the Saudi-led bombing campaign may be several thousand, much more than official UN figures, according to Yemeni military and medical sources. 
The military intervention has been denounced by Russia, China and Iran, with all three countries calling for an immediate halt to the violence. A Russian draft resolution put to the UN Security Council last week calling for a humanitarian ceasefire was rejected by the US and its Arab allies. But an alternative resolution was passed, despite Russia’s abstention, that imposes an arms embargo on the Yemeni rebels.
Washington and its Arab allies have claimed that the Houthis illegally overthrew the Hadi «government». Their justification for the all-out bombing campaign is that they are responding to the «legitimate requests for assistance» from «President Hadi» who last month fled to Saudi Arabia. Last week, in the Saudi capital Riyadh, a «deputy president» of Yemen was sworn into office and continues to reside in the Saudi capital, along with Hadi. This remnant regime in exile can therefore hardly be construed as a «legitimate government». 
Moreover, there are clear double standards over the way Washington in particular has tried to uphold the Hadi regime compared with the way it immediately delegitimised the deposed president of Ukraine, Victor Yanukovych. At least Yanukovych was constitutionally elected and had a democratic mandate from a large section of the Ukrainian population. The ousted Yemeni nominal president can make no such claims.
Former UN envoy Jamal Benomar clearly makes the US and Saudi «justifications» for their actions in Yemen untenable. Hadi was an unscrupulous, dishonest broker who had long abused his transitional office for the purpose of obstructing democratic transition, in accordance with the geopolitical wishes of his foreign masters. 
The other disclosure by Benomar that Iran has conducted no covert interference in Yemen is equally significant. The alleged subversive role of Iran trying go expand Shia influence in the region has also been held up by the Saudis and the US-coordinated bombing coalition as another «justification». That rationale never posited an acceptable legal argument anyway, even if there had been some Iranian involvement in supporting the popular uprising spearheaded by the Houthis. But what Benomar is saying is that there is not a scintilla of Iranian malfeasance. 
Earlier this month, US Secretary of State John Kerry warned Iran over allegedly «destabilising the region» and he used the claim to rationalise American support for the bombing of Yemen. Kerry claimed without citing specific evidence that Iran was flying in weapons to Houthi rebels. How the Iranians could carry out such a mission while hundreds of Arab warplanes have imposed a no-fly zone over Yemen was not explained by the imaginative Kerry.
Besides, the Iranian government and the Houthi rebels have both strenuously denied any such military connection. Several other independent monitors have also rejected the notion that Iran had infiltrated the country with «fifth columnists» and military supplies.
With the Iranian «bogeyman» factor nullified, that strips the US, Saudi bombing of Yemen down to what it is: criminal foreign aggression. 
The broad swathe of Yemeni public have from the outset denounced the foreign coalition as foreign aggression. A Yemeni Army Colonel Sharaf Luqman was quoted by Al Manar news agency as calling the US-Arab bombing a «war crime». He listed the civilian infrastructure destroyed so far to include government buildings, power plants and fuel depots, hospitals, schools, family residences, mosques, markets and businesses. 
«Saudi Arabia is the international supporter of terrorism. It is hiring foreign armies because its troops cannot dare to fight in Yemen,» noted Colonel Luqman.
Another Yemeni Army source, Colonel Adel Sattar al Boushali, said that Saudi Arabia had recently sent up to 5,000 Takfiri Al Qaeda mercenaries into Yemen to step up the ground war. The mercenaries, he said, had been relocated from Syria, where they have been waging a covert war on behalf of Western and Arab allies to topple the government of Bashar al Assad. 
The US, Saudi criminality in Yemen is thus emerging as both egregious and transparent. There is not a shred of justification for their military operations. Civilians are being mass murdered and a country – the poorest in the region – is being destroyed simply because the foreign powers are refusing to give way to a democratic uprising. These powers are trying to bludgeon the democratic will of the Yemeni people in order to reinstall a discredited, unelected regime that serves to suppress democracy. 
Meanwhile over the weekend, the «benevolent» Saudi rulers announced that they were pledging $275 million in «humanitarian aid» to Yemen. How depraved is that? Bombing and massacring with one hand, and then with the other handing out bandages and analgesics to mutilated children. 
Surely, a day of judgement is urgently needed whereby Washington and its despotic Arab allies are prosecuted for war crimes in Yemen.

Wednesday, April 22, 2015

Women's International League For Peace and Freedom is Celebrating 100th Birthday at Peace Palace in The Hague

Women's International League for Peace and Freedom was born in The Hague, when  over 100 suffragettes assembled to help stop the  then ongoing WAR, later named World War I.

 This time a couple of hundred women have come from all continents again with the strong sentiment  against the ongoing wars, against wars that are mushrooming, wars that bear the potential to destroy life on earth. They are assembled at the PEACE PALACE in the Hague discussing the future program of the organisation. 

Will it be possible to develop truthful  and effective peace policies from these these loaden  premises once  again?


The Peace Palace, the premises on which it stands and the Library are the property of the Carnegie Foundation. The Foundation encourages the organisation of seminars and other initiatives to foster the peace ideal and is part of the international philanthropic network of Carnegie Institutions.
The Carnegie Foundation

Andrew Carnegie was a wealthy Scottish-American steel magnate turned philanthropist. In 1903 he donated the astronomical sum of $1.5 million to the Kingdom of the Netherlands for the construction of a building to house the newly-formed Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA): the now famous Peace Palace. His condition was that it would not only house the PCA but also a legal library that would meet the highest possible standards.
In 1904 a special foundation was set up to manage the funds and the preparations of the construction. Nowadays the Carnegie Foundation receives financial support from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands but remains the owner and manager of the grounds and buildings, including the Peace Palace Library.
The foundation also awards the annual Wateler Peace Prize to private individuals or institutions which have furthered the cause of peace. Some famous names among these prize winners include Lord Baden Powell, Mrs. Martin Luther King, Max van der Stoel and Peace One Day.
For more information, you can download the PDF about the Carnegie Foundation.

Carnegie Foundation

Peace Palace
Carnegieplein 2
2517 KJ The Hague

Telephone: 070 302 42 42
International Organisation
11 September 2009
28 April 2014

Tuesday, April 21, 2015


US Responds to Escalation of Conflict in Yemen Nikolai BOBKIN | 22.04.2015 | 00:00
 The US expands its involvement into the events in Yemen. It was reported that a U.S. aircraft carrier was dispatched to the waters off Yemen on April 20 to join other American ships prepared to block any Iranian weapons shipments to Shiite Houthi rebels fighting in the country. The USS Theodore Roosevelt – along with her escort ship, the USS Normandy, a guided-missile cruiser – left the Persian Gulf on April 19 route for the Arabian Sea, to help enforce the blockade. The ships will join the naval force including seven warships and three auxiliary vessels deployed in the Arabian Sea, the Aden Gulf and Bab-el-Mandeb Strait. Formally the mission is to ensure the vital shipping lanes in the region remain open and safe. The statement of U.S. Naval Forces Central Command Public Affairs emphasizes that the United States remains committed to its regional partners and to maintaining security in the maritime environment. The real purpose of naval blockade is to deny Iranian ships access to Yemeni ports and deprive the insurgent Houthis of aid coming from Iran.   Saudi Arabia is not up to the task. Once again Americans side with the enemies of Iran. Riyadh feels pretty comfortable under the US umbrella. The development of events may aggravate the situation. The White House has taken another hasty step on the way of rendering its support to Saudi Arabia in its confrontation with Iran. Somehow the US administration is sure that the regional tensions exacerbated as a result of the conflict in Yemen don’t threaten the nuclear deal with Iran. Tehran thinks differently. It is time for the US and its allies to choose between cooperation and confrontation, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said in reference to current nuclear negotiations with the West in a April 20 New York Times op-ed he wrote. «We agreed on parameters to remove any doubt about the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program,» Zarif wrote, claiming that the Iranian people had done their part to facilitate an agreement, and now the onus is on the US and its allies to follow suit. «It is time for the United States and its Western allies to make the choice between cooperation and confrontation, between negotiations and grandstanding, and between agreement and coercion,» he said. After the air campaign against Yemen was launched, the intensity of air strikes against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria is visibly on the wane. With the USS Theodore Roosevelt battle group leaving its position, the Pentagon actually stopped fighting the Islamic State militants in favor of joining the operation against the Houthis. The battle group was the main strike force in the anti-Islamic State operation. The White House hopes the tensions between Saudi Arabia and Iran will escalate. In Iraq Riyadh adopted the policy of inciting political groups, tribes and clans to violence against each other to make the country plunge in the quagmire of chaos and unrest after the US forces were gone. President Obama says the United States has «renewed our alliances from Europe to Asia». There is no ground to believe it is relevant in case of the Middle East. As before, the United States relies on military alliances with Israel and Saudi Arabia. Nothing makes believe that the progress achieved at the nuclear talks with Iran will lead to reduction of tensions when it comes to other regional problems. There is no normalization of US-Iran relationship in sight. In Yemen the US administration supports the military operation against the Shiites who control the larger part of the country and fight the terrorists of Al Qaeda. True, the United States abstains from having boots on the ground like it did at the start of the century. But the strategy remains the same. Now Washington prefers to let others do the dirty work. The prospect for an overwhelming nuclear deal with Iran is still a purely hypothetical one. New forms of regional cooperation should be created to make the agreement a turning point in the process of bringing peace and security to the Middle East. Americans believe they could make Tehran forget its national interests. The West is reluctant to lift sanctions because in this case it would lose leverage over Tehran. All Iran’s proposals and initiatives on regional security are refused without any serious consideration. On April 14, the United Nations Security Council imposed an arms embargo against the Houthi rebels in Yemen and blacklisted the son of Yemen’s former president and a Houthi leader. The resolution urges the Houthis, who are based in northwestern Yemen, to give up the areas they have seized as well as their weapons, including «missile systems». Arab states said the resolution was a diplomatic victory. The document makes possible to increase pressure on the Houthis. Russia is not satisfied with the resolution. According to Russian deputy foreign minister Gennady Gatilov, the resolution was somewhat one-sided with too much focus on condemning the Houthis. Moscow said the resolution was not fully in line with what was required by the crisis in Yemen. The text failed to take into account proposals his country had made and to call on all sides to halt fire, did not provide for due reflection on consequences and lacked clarity on a humanitarian pause. There were also inappropriate references to sanctions. By and large, this position was echoed by Iran. The Iranian government sent a letter to the UN Secretary General with proposals on managing the Yemeni crisis. Iran’s foreign minister on April 17 submitted a letter to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon outlining a four-point peace plan for Yemen. The plan, which Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif announced earlier this month, calls for an immediate ceasefire and end of all foreign military attacks, humanitarian assistance, a resumption of broad national dialogue and «establishment of an inclusive national unity government.» «It is imperative for the international community to get more effectively involved in ending the senseless aerial attacks and establishing a ceasefire, ensuring delivery of humanitarian and medical assistance to the people of Yemen and restoring peace and stability to this country through dialogue and national reconciliation without pre-conditions», said Zarif’s letter. No way should Yemen become a springboard used by Saudi Arabia for attacking Iran. If Americans had paid at least some attention to the Iranian plan on peaceful settlement in Yemen, they would not have to deal with the situation created by their excessively aggressive Arab partners. America should look into the future, not the past. The United States has done more bad than good for the Middle East. President Obama likes to say that when he came to power there were over 180 thousand US servicemen in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now the number is less than 15 thousand. It would be more important to stress that the both countries have so far failed to stop civil wars. The United States has spent over $800 billion for Operation Enduring Freedom. The situation in the country has not improved. Not normalization is in sight. In Iraq the Islamic State jihadists control a third of the country’s territory, as well as large chunks of land in Syria. The threat of spreading their activities on the whole region is quite real. Having unleashed a war in Yemen, the United States and its allies add fuel to the fire.

Der Kundschafter des Friedens stellt Fragen - Zur Debatte um den friedenspolitischen Kurs der JW

Neuer Beitrag auf

Der Kundschafter des Friedens stellt Fragen

by Hyoksin
Historische Entwicklungen werfen ihre Schatten voraus. Rainer Rupp, der unter dem Decknamen „Topas“  im NATO-Hauptquartier in Brüssel über 10 Jahre konspirativ tätig war und nach der konterrevolutionären „Wende“ über 9 Jahre in der JVA Saarbrücken in Gesinnungshaft saß (ohne einen Antrag auf Begnadigung zu stellen!), hat jetzt nach vielen inneren Kämpfen mit sich einen Brief an die vermeintlich „fortschrittliche“ Zeitung Junge Welt gerichtet, in  dem er gegen seine „Säuberung“ aus dem Autorenkollektiv wegen andersdenkender Auffassung auf das Übelste intrigantenweise gesäubert wurde. Frei nach dem Faschisten Hermann Görig, der einst sagte: „Wer Jude ist, bestimme ich“, glauben heute anscheinend bestimmte Kreise in der Jungen Welt, einen solchen großen Patrioten das Wasser im Auftrag der antideutschen Ulla Jelpke-Fraktion abgraben zu können. Innerhalb des Redaktionskollektivs der Jungen Welt (verkaufte Auflage ca. 20.000 Exemplare täglich) sollte man sich sehr gut überlegen, in welche Richtung man geht. Wir sind keine Kassandra-Rufer, die Menschen gegeneinander ausspielen, sondern Revolutionäre, die heute – wie seit vielen Jahren – die Parole des 2. Weltkongresses der Kommunistischen Internationale (KI) aus dem Jahre 1921 „getrennt marschieren – vereint schlagen“ zur Richtschur Ihres Handelns macht.

Nachtrag zur friedenspolitischen Debatte in der Jungen Welt - Rainer Rupp-Leserbrief -Verunglimpfung von Ken Jebsen durch Monty Schädel

Betreff: Brief von Rainer Rupp an die jw-Redaktion

... der Ansicht von Rainer Rupp kann ich mich nur anschließen und ich habe deshalb schon vor einiger Zeit meine Genossenschaft  und mein Abo gekündigt.  Die Ignoranz gegenüber denen, die in dieser friedenspolitisch existenziellen Frage nicht der Ansicht von Herrn Koschmieder sind, ist offensichtlich und tut - unter GENOSSEN !!! - sehr weh. 

sfg   Helmut Schmidt - Bolanden 

Gesendet: Dienstag, 22. April 2014 um 23:29 Uhr
Betreff: Falsche Freunde
Helmut Schmidt  - Bolanden
Hallo Genossinnen und Genossen in der jW-Redaktion !
 Fangt ihr jetzt auch mit der Hetze gegen die Montagsdemos an ?
 "Die Widrigkeiten einer komplexen Welt werden mit einem schlichten Feindbild erklärt"  -    ja, die Sache ist ganz einfach:  Krieg ist Geschäft  -  Brecht in Mutter Courage  :  "Der Krieg ist nix als die Geschäfte und statt mit Käse ist's mit Blei " - 
Imperialismus-Kritik, dachte ich, ist doch euer /unser Ding - das sag ich als jW-Genossenschaftler und online-Abonnent ! 
 Und die allererste Kritik, bevor ich den und den und den (BRD-KapitalismusPutinKapitalismusChinaKapitalismusKuba ...) kritisiere,  ist die Kritik am US-Imperialismus, an dessen Finanzkapital  (FED, Goldman Sachs u.a.m), an den HedgeFonds (BlackRock etc) an der Army/Navy/Airforce , an ihren Söldnern, an ihren 16 Geheimdiensten, an ihren 700 Basen weltweit, an ihren gewesenen und aktuellen, dreckigen, schmutzigen Kriegen ....und dieser US-Imperialismus marschiert voran auf unserem Planeten und exekutiert einen Kapitalismus, der  absolut menschenfeindlich ist und immer höhere  Leichenberge  und  weltweites Elend produziert  - und das klagt  ihr  (die jW)  an und ihr müsst dabei auch die handelnden Akteure benennen, wenn ihr  euch nicht in einer nur pauschalen  Anklage verlieren wollt ... und dann kommt ihr auf  die US-Finanzkonzerne etc.  s.o.  zu sprechen !
So, ... und warum wollt ihr jetzt die Leute, die Frieden wollen und soziale Entwicklung und Medien, die sie nicht belügen und in Kriege hineinführen ...  warum wollt ihr diese Leute jetzt anpissen ?
Natürlich kann mensch dicke Bücher und Analysen verfassen ...   und mensch kann es auch ganz einfach und schlicht sagen:  MAKE LOVE, NOT WAR !
Also ganz ohne Scheiß:  Wenn ihr auch - wie andere ( beim taz-Gesindel nicht anders zu erwarten/ bei attac für mich überraschend und sehr schmerzhaft)  -  die Antisemitismus- und die Verschwörungstheoretiker-Keule rausholt , dann werd ich  zweimal drüber schlafen ....  und dann habt ihr sehr wahrscheinlich  einen Genossen/und einen Abonnenten weniger !    Es täte mir sehr leid !
Schaut euch Jebsen an und sagt mir, was daran falsch ist :  
 solidarisch-friedliche Grüße

Hallo (Genossen in der jW)  !
Wir wären uns wahrscheinlich in vielen Positionen einig,
wenn wir uns träfen und diskutierten.
Ein für mich wesentlicher Satz von dir :
*deshalb aber traue ich denen genausowenig über den Weg *

Wem kann ich trauen ? 

Ich höre die Interviews von K. Jebsen mit
Ganser, Roth, Bartalmai, Wahl, Fleck, Wimmer,
Hecht-Galinski, Rügemer, ... informativ-kritisch-aufklärerisch -
das ist investigativer Journalismus vom Feinsten !
Meine Unterstützung für Ken Jebsen - Crowd-Funding -
setze ich fort,  die für die jW nicht.
Ich lese (weiterhin)  die jW, es gibt so viele gute Leute bei euch
(auch wenn ein Werner (Pirker) unersetzlich  ist !) ...
Solidarisch-friedliche Grüße

Diese E-Mail wurde von einem Kontaktformular von - Arbeitskreis für Friendenspolitik ( gesendet