Note for Readers: This article comes from TomDispatch. It is available on-line at http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175092/are_afghan_lives_worth_anything_
Mourning Michael Jackson, Ignoring the Afghan Dead
By Tom Engelhardt
It was a blast. I'm talking about my daughter's wedding. You don't often see a child of yours quite that happy. I'm no party animal, but I danced my 64-year-old legs off. And I can't claim that, as I walked my daughter to the ceremony, or ate, or talked with friends, or simply sat back and watched the young and energetic enjoy themselves, I thought about those Afghan wedding celebrations where the "blast" isn't metaphorical, where the bride, the groom, the partygoers in the midst of revelry die.
In the two weeks since, however, that's been on my mind -- or rather the lack of interest our world shows in dead civilians from a distant imperial war -- and all because of a passage I stumbled upon in a striking article by journalist Anand Gopal. In "Uprooting an Afghan Village" in the June issue of the Progressive magazine, he writes about Garloch, an Afghan village he visited in the eastern province of Laghman. After destructive American raids, Gopal tells us, many of its desperate inhabitants simply packed up and left for exile in Afghan or Pakistani refugee camps.
One early dawn in August 2008, writes Gopal, American helicopters first descended on Garloch for a six-hour raid:
"The Americans claim there were gunshots as they left. The villagers deny it. Regardless, American bombers swooped by the village just after the soldiers left and dropped a payload on one house. It belonged to Haiji Qadir, a pole-thin, wizened old man who was hosting more than forty relatives for a wedding party. The bomb split the house in two, killing sixteen, including twelve from Qadir's family, and wounding scores more... The malek [chief] went to the province's governor and delivered a stern warning: protect our villagers or we will turn against the Americans."
That passage caught my eye because, to the best of my knowledge, I'm the only person in the U.S. who has tried to keep track of the wedding parties wiped out, in whole or part, by American military action since the Bush administration invaded Afghanistan in November 2001. With Gopal's report from Garloch, that number, by my count, has reached five (only three of which are well documented in print).
The first occurred in December of that invasion year when a B-52 and two B-1B bombers, wielding precision-guided weapons, managed, according to reports, to wipe out 110 out of 112 revelers in another small Afghan village. At least one Iraqi wedding party near the Syrian border was also eviscerated -- by U.S. planes back in 2004. Soon after that slaughter, responding to media inquiries, an American general asked: "How many people go to the middle of the desert... to hold a wedding 80 miles from the nearest civilization?" Later, in what passed for an acknowledgment of the incident, another American general said: "Could there have been a celebration of some type going on?... Certainly. Bad guys have celebrations." Case closed.
Perhaps over the course of an almost eight-year war in Afghanistan, the toll in wedding parties may seem modest: not even one a year! But before we settle for that figure, evidently so low it's not worth a headline in this country, let's keep in mind that there's no reason to believe:
* I've seen every article in English that, in passing, happens to mention an Afghan wedding slaughter -- the one Gopal notes, for instance, seems to have gotten no other coverage; or
* that other wedding slaughters haven't been recorded in languages I can't read; or
* that, in the rural Pashtun backlands, some U.S. attacks on wedding celebrants might not have made it into news reports anywhere.
In fact, no one knows how many weddings -- rare celebratory moments in an Afghan world that, for three decades, has had little to celebrate -- have been taken out by U.S. planes or raids, or a combination of the two.
Turning the Page on the Past
After the Obama administration took office and the new president doubled down the American bet on the Afghan War, there was a certain amount of anxious chatter in the punditocracy (and even in the military) about Afghanistan being "the graveyard of empires." Of course, no one in Washington was going to admit that the U.S. is just such an empire, only that we may suffer the fate of empires past.
When it comes to wedding parties, though, there turn out to be some similarities to the empire under the last Afghan gravestone. The Soviet Union was, of course, defeated in Afghanistan by some of the very jihadists the U.S. is now fighting, thanks to generous support from the CIA, the Saudis, and Pakistan's intelligence services. It withdrew from that country in defeat in 1989, and went over its own cliff in 1991. As it happens, the Russians, too, evidently made it a habit to knock off Afghan wedding parties, though we have no tally of how many or how regularly.
Reviewing a book on the Soviet-Afghan War for the Washington Monthly, Christian Caryl wrote recently:
"One Soviet soldier recalls an instance in 1987 when his unit opened fire on what they took to be a 'mujaheddin caravan.' The Russians soon discovered that they had slaughtered a roving wedding party on its way from one village to another -- a blunder that soon, all too predictably, inspired a series of revenge attacks on the Red Army troops in the area. This undoubtedly sounds wearily familiar to U.S. and NATO planners (and Afghan government officials) struggling to contain the effects from the 'collateral damage' that is often cited today as one of the major sources of the West's political problems in the country."
And, by the way, don't get me started on that gloomy companion rite to the wedding celebration: the funeral. Even I haven't been counting those, but that doesn't mean the U.S. and its allies haven't been knocking off funeral parties in Afghanistan (and recently, via a CIA drone aircraft, in Pakistan as well).
Following almost two weeks in which the U.S. (and global) media went berserk over the death of one man, in which NBC, for instance, devoted all but about five minutes of one of its prime-time half-hour news broadcasts to nothing -- and I mean nothing -- but the death of Michael Jackson, in which the President of the United States sent a condolence letter to the Jackson family (and was faulted for not having moved more quickly), in which 1.6 million people registered for a chance to get one of 17,500 free tickets to his memorial service... well, why go on? Unless you've been competing in isolation in the next round of Survivor, or are somehow without a TV, or possibly any modern means of communication, you simply can't avoid knowing the rest.
You'd have to make a desperate effort not to know that Michael Jackson (until recently excoriated by the media) had died, and you'd have to make a similarly desperate effort to know that we've knocked off one wedding party after another these last years in Afghanistan. One of these deaths -- Jackson's -- really has little to do with us; the others are, or should be, our responsibility, part of an endless war the American people have either supported or not stopped from continuing. And yet one is a screaming global headline; the others go unnoticed.
You'd think there might, in fact, be room for a small headline somewhere. Didn't those brides, grooms, relatives, and revelers deserve at least one modest, collective corner of some front-page or a story on some prime-time news show in return for their needless suffering? You'd think that some president or high official in Washington might have sent a note of condolence to someone, that there might have been a rising tide of criticism about the slow response here in expressing regrets to the families of Afghans who died under our bombs and missiles.
Here's the truth of it, though: When it comes to Afghan lives -- especially if we think, correctly or not, that our safety is involved -- it doesn't matter whether five wedding parties or 50 go down, two funerals or 25. Our media isn't about to focus real attention on the particular form of barbarity involved -- the American air war over Afghanistan which has been a war of and for, not on, terror.
Now, we're embarked on a new moment -- the Obama moment -- in Afghanistan. More than seven-and-a-half years into the war, in a truly American fashion, we're ready to turn the page on the past, to pretend that none of it really happened, to do it "right" this time around. We're finally going to bring the Afghans over to our side.
We're ready to light out for the territories and start all over again. American troops are now moving south in force, deep into the Pashtun (and Taliban) areas of Afghanistan, and their commanders -- a passel of new generals -- are speaking as one from a new script. It's all about conducting a "holistic counterinsurgency campaign," as new Afghan commander General Stanley A. McChrystal put it in Congressional testimony recently. It's all about "hearts and minds"(though that old Vietnam-era phrase has yet to be resuscitated). It's all about, they say, "protecting civilians" rather than killing Taliban guerrillas; it's all about shaping, clearing, holding, building, not just landing, kicking in doors, and taking off again; it's all about new "rules of engagement" in which the air war will be limited, and attacks on the Taliban curbed or called off if it appears that they might endanger civilians (even if that means the guerrillas get away); it's all about reversing the tide of the war so far, about the fact that civilian casualties caused by air attacks and raids have turned large numbers of Afghans against American and NATO troops.
The commander of the Marines just now heading south, Brigadier General Larry Nicholson, typically said this:
"We need to make sure we understand that the reason we're here is not necessarily the enemy. The reason we're here is the people. What won the war in al-Anbar province [Iraq] and what changed the war in al-Anbar was not that the enemy eventually got tired of fighting. It's that the people chose a side, and they chose us... We'll surround that house and we'll wait. And here's the reason: If you drop that house and there's one woman, one child, one family in that house -- you may have killed 20 Taliban, but by killing that woman or that child in that house, you have lost that community. You are dead to them. You are done."
The Value of a Life
As it happens, however, the past matters -- and keep this in mind (it's what the wedding-party-obliteration record tells us): To Americans, an Afghan life isn't worth a red cent, not when the chips are down.
Back in the Vietnam era, General William Westmoreland, interviewed by movie director Peter Davis for his Oscar-winning film Hearts and Minds, famously said: "The Oriental doesn't put the same high price on life as does a Westerner. Life is plentiful. Life is cheap in the Orient."
In those years, there were many in the U.S., including Davis, who insisted very publicly that a Vietnamese life had the same value as an American one. In the years of the Afghan War, Americans -- our media and, by its relative silence, the public as well -- turned Westmoreland's statement into a way of life as well as a way of war. As one perk of that way of life, most Americans have been able to pretend that our war in Afghanistan has nothing to do with us -- and Michael Jackson's death, everything.
So he dies and our world goes mad. An Afghan wedding party, or five of them, are wiped off the face of the Earth and even a shrug is too much effort.
Here's a question then: Will what we don't know (or don't care to know) hurt us? I'm unsure whether the more depressing answer is yes or no. As it happens, I have no answer to that question anyway, only a bit of advice -- not for us, but for Afghans: If, as General McChrystal and other top military figures expect, the Afghan War and its cross-border sibling in Pakistan go on for another three or four or five years or more, no matter what script we're going by, no matter what we say, believe me, we'll call in the planes. So if I were you, I wouldn't celebrate another marriage, not in a group, not in public, and I'd bury my dead very, very privately.
If you gather, after all, we will come.
Tom Engelhardt, co-founder of the American Empire Project, runs the Nation Institute's TomDispatch.com. He is the author of The End of Victory Culture, a history of the Cold War and beyond, as well as of a novel, The Last Days of Publishing. He also edited The World According to TomDispatch: America in the New Age of Empire (Verso, 2008), an alternative history of the mad Bush years.
[Note: I documented as fully as I could the previous Afghan wedding slaughters in "The Wedding Crashers: A Short Till-Death-Do-Us-Part History of Bush's Wars" (July 2008). And here's a selection of TomDispatch pieces on related subjects, if you're interested in reading more: "Slaughter, Lies, and Video in Afghanistan" (September 2008), "What Price Slaughter?" (May 2007), "The Billion-Dollar Gravestone" (May 2006), "Catch 2,200: 9 Propositions on the U.S. Air War for Terror" (May 2006), and former U.S. diplomat John Brown's "Our Indian Wars Are Not Over Yet" (January 2006). You might also visit filmmaker Robert Greenwald's website Rethink Afghanistan.] To view these articles check out Tom's website today!
Copyright 2009 Tom Engelhardt
15 July 2009
Endangered Language Makes a Come Back in Syria
Syrian president Assad has set up an institute to revive interest in the language of Christ
Ian Black in Maaloula, Tuesday 14 April 2009 10.29 BST
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/14/aramaic-revival-syria
Ilyana Barqil wears skinny jeans, boots and a fur-lined jacket, handy for keeping out the cold in the Qalamoun mountains north of Damascus. She likes TV quiz shows and American films and enjoys swimming. But this thoroughly modern Syrian teenager is also learning Aramaic, the language spoken by Jesus.
Ilyana, 15, is part of an extraordinary effort to preserve and revive the world's oldest living tongue, still close to what it probably sounded like in Galilee, now in Israel, on the brink of the Christian era.
"In Nazareth when Jesus was born they spoke more or less the same language as we do in Maaloula today," said teacher Imad Reihan, one of the pillars of this picturesque village's Aramaic Language Academy, where Barqil is studying.
"Eli, Eli, lama sabachtani" ("My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me") – Christ's lament on the cross – was famously uttered in Aramaic.
Recognised by Unesco as a "definitely endangered" language, Aramaic is spoken by 7,000 people in Maaloula, dominated by Greek Catholics (Melikites) whose churches and rites long pre-date the arrival of Islam and Arabic. Western Neo-Aramaic, to use its proper linguistic title, is spoken by about 8,000 others in two nearby villages, one now wholly Muslim.
Aramaic's long decline accelerated as the area opened up in the 1920s when the French colonial authorities built a road from Damascus to Aleppo. Television and the internet, and youngsters leaving to work, reduced the number of speakers.
Nowadays, many local men are away driving the huge refrigerated trucks that cross the desert to Saudi Arabia. Still, many old traces remain: in nearby Sidnaya, worshippers at the Church of Our Lady speak Arabic with a distinct Aramaic accent.
But things are definitely looking up. "When I was at school over 30 years ago, we were not allowed to speak Aramaic," said Mukhail Bkheil, standing behind the counter in Abu George's souvenir shop in Maaloula's main square, where buses disgorge tourists visiting the beautiful Church of Mar Takla, an early Christian martyr, in a grotto on the steep cliffside. "Now, thanks to President Assad, we even have an institute teaching it."
Bkheil's party piece is reciting the Lord's Prayer in Aramaic. But he chats freely to friends, underlining the fact that the language is alive and well, not just liturgical.
Saada Sarhan, the language academy administrator, learned Aramaic as a child and is teaching her own children, but often feels social pressure to speak Arabic when non-Aramaic speakers are present. "Otherwise it's rude," she says.
Improbably, Aramaic was given a boost by a Hollywood film, Mel Gibson's controversial Passion of the Christ, released in 2004 before the academy was set up.
Founded by the University of Damascus with government help, its modern premises boast a bank of PCs, new textbooks, a teaching staff of six and 85 students at three different levels.
Elias Taja is another of them: this native Aramaic speaker and retired maths teacher wanted to learn how to write the language. "I talk to my wife and daughter Miladi only in Aramaic though my daughter does sometimes reply in Arabic," he explained over cardamom-flavoured coffee and locally grown pears.
Miladi, 25, recently married a man from Sidnaya who does not speak Aramaic. Taja worries she will not manage to pass it on to her children – his grandchildren.
Syria being Syria, there are political sensitivities, not least because "Arabisation" was a key feature of government education policy after the Ba'ath party came to power in the 1960s.
"In Syria there are a lot of minority groups: Circassians, Armenians, Kurds and Assyrians, so it's a big decision to allow the teaching of other languages in government schools," said Reihan. "But the government is interested in promoting the Aramaic language because it goes back so deep into Syria's history."
Observers say the opening of the Aramaic academy showed a more relaxed and confident attitude by the regime. Scholar George Rizkallah dedicated his 2007 Aramaic textbook to the "great leader and patron of the sciences and education Dr Bashar al-Assad". A large portrait of the president hangs in the principal's office, as in all public buildings in Syria.
Considering the bitter enmity between Syria and Israel, which still occupies the Golan Heights, it is striking that Aramaic letters are so similar to the Hebrew used in rabbinic texts; one reason, perhaps, why the only Aramaic sign in Maaloula is on the academy. "Otherwise people might think some buildings were Israeli settlements," joked one visitor from Damascus.
Linguistic experts say that Syria is doing well in fostering this part of its heritage. "Aramaic is actually pretty healthy in Maaloula," said Professor Geoffrey Kahn, who teaches semitic philology at Cambridge University. "It's the eastern Aramaic dialects in Turkey, Iraq and Iran that are really endangered."
Reihan and colleagues were delighted recently when a Unesco team came to visit and hope for funds to allow them to collect vanishing words into proper dictionaries. The teaching, meanwhile, goes on.
Ilyana started classes last November. "My father speaks Aramaic but my mother doesn't as she's from Lebanon," she said. "I speak OK already but I'm going to carry on as I want to become fluent. I don't know too much about the Aramaic language but I do know that it's ancient."
Ian Black in Maaloula, Tuesday 14 April 2009 10.29 BST
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/14/aramaic-revival-syria
Ilyana Barqil wears skinny jeans, boots and a fur-lined jacket, handy for keeping out the cold in the Qalamoun mountains north of Damascus. She likes TV quiz shows and American films and enjoys swimming. But this thoroughly modern Syrian teenager is also learning Aramaic, the language spoken by Jesus.
Ilyana, 15, is part of an extraordinary effort to preserve and revive the world's oldest living tongue, still close to what it probably sounded like in Galilee, now in Israel, on the brink of the Christian era.
"In Nazareth when Jesus was born they spoke more or less the same language as we do in Maaloula today," said teacher Imad Reihan, one of the pillars of this picturesque village's Aramaic Language Academy, where Barqil is studying.
"Eli, Eli, lama sabachtani" ("My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me") – Christ's lament on the cross – was famously uttered in Aramaic.
Recognised by Unesco as a "definitely endangered" language, Aramaic is spoken by 7,000 people in Maaloula, dominated by Greek Catholics (Melikites) whose churches and rites long pre-date the arrival of Islam and Arabic. Western Neo-Aramaic, to use its proper linguistic title, is spoken by about 8,000 others in two nearby villages, one now wholly Muslim.
Aramaic's long decline accelerated as the area opened up in the 1920s when the French colonial authorities built a road from Damascus to Aleppo. Television and the internet, and youngsters leaving to work, reduced the number of speakers.
Nowadays, many local men are away driving the huge refrigerated trucks that cross the desert to Saudi Arabia. Still, many old traces remain: in nearby Sidnaya, worshippers at the Church of Our Lady speak Arabic with a distinct Aramaic accent.
But things are definitely looking up. "When I was at school over 30 years ago, we were not allowed to speak Aramaic," said Mukhail Bkheil, standing behind the counter in Abu George's souvenir shop in Maaloula's main square, where buses disgorge tourists visiting the beautiful Church of Mar Takla, an early Christian martyr, in a grotto on the steep cliffside. "Now, thanks to President Assad, we even have an institute teaching it."
Bkheil's party piece is reciting the Lord's Prayer in Aramaic. But he chats freely to friends, underlining the fact that the language is alive and well, not just liturgical.
Saada Sarhan, the language academy administrator, learned Aramaic as a child and is teaching her own children, but often feels social pressure to speak Arabic when non-Aramaic speakers are present. "Otherwise it's rude," she says.
Improbably, Aramaic was given a boost by a Hollywood film, Mel Gibson's controversial Passion of the Christ, released in 2004 before the academy was set up.
Founded by the University of Damascus with government help, its modern premises boast a bank of PCs, new textbooks, a teaching staff of six and 85 students at three different levels.
Elias Taja is another of them: this native Aramaic speaker and retired maths teacher wanted to learn how to write the language. "I talk to my wife and daughter Miladi only in Aramaic though my daughter does sometimes reply in Arabic," he explained over cardamom-flavoured coffee and locally grown pears.
Miladi, 25, recently married a man from Sidnaya who does not speak Aramaic. Taja worries she will not manage to pass it on to her children – his grandchildren.
Syria being Syria, there are political sensitivities, not least because "Arabisation" was a key feature of government education policy after the Ba'ath party came to power in the 1960s.
"In Syria there are a lot of minority groups: Circassians, Armenians, Kurds and Assyrians, so it's a big decision to allow the teaching of other languages in government schools," said Reihan. "But the government is interested in promoting the Aramaic language because it goes back so deep into Syria's history."
Observers say the opening of the Aramaic academy showed a more relaxed and confident attitude by the regime. Scholar George Rizkallah dedicated his 2007 Aramaic textbook to the "great leader and patron of the sciences and education Dr Bashar al-Assad". A large portrait of the president hangs in the principal's office, as in all public buildings in Syria.
Considering the bitter enmity between Syria and Israel, which still occupies the Golan Heights, it is striking that Aramaic letters are so similar to the Hebrew used in rabbinic texts; one reason, perhaps, why the only Aramaic sign in Maaloula is on the academy. "Otherwise people might think some buildings were Israeli settlements," joked one visitor from Damascus.
Linguistic experts say that Syria is doing well in fostering this part of its heritage. "Aramaic is actually pretty healthy in Maaloula," said Professor Geoffrey Kahn, who teaches semitic philology at Cambridge University. "It's the eastern Aramaic dialects in Turkey, Iraq and Iran that are really endangered."
Reihan and colleagues were delighted recently when a Unesco team came to visit and hope for funds to allow them to collect vanishing words into proper dictionaries. The teaching, meanwhile, goes on.
Ilyana started classes last November. "My father speaks Aramaic but my mother doesn't as she's from Lebanon," she said. "I speak OK already but I'm going to carry on as I want to become fluent. I don't know too much about the Aramaic language but I do know that it's ancient."
A Flash of Memory
By ISSEY MIYAKE
Published: July 13, 2009
Tokyo
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/14/opinion/14miyake.html?_r=1
IN April, President Obama pledged to seek peace and security in a world without nuclear weapons. He called for not simply a reduction, but elimination. His words awakened something buried deeply within me, something about which I have until now been reluctant to discuss.
I realized that I have, perhaps now more than ever, a personal and moral responsibility to speak out as one who survived what Mr. Obama called the “flash of light.”
On Aug. 6, 1945, the first atomic bomb was dropped on my hometown, Hiroshima. I was there, and only 7 years old. When I close my eyes, I still see things no one should ever experience: a bright red light, the black cloud soon after, people running in every direction trying desperately to escape — I remember it all. Within three years, my mother died from radiation exposure.
I have never chosen to share my memories or thoughts of that day. I have tried, albeit unsuccessfully, to put them behind me, preferring to think of things that can be created, not destroyed, and that bring beauty and joy. I gravitated toward the field of clothing design, partly because it is a creative format that is modern and optimistic.
I tried never to be defined by my past. I did not want to be labeled “the designer who survived the atomic bomb,” and therefore I have always avoided questions about Hiroshima. They made me uncomfortable.
But now I realize it is a subject that must be discussed if we are ever to rid the world of nuclear weapons. There is a movement in Hiroshima to invite Mr. Obama to Universal Peace Day on Aug. 6 — the annual commemoration of that fateful day. I hope he will accept. My wish is motivated by a desire not to dwell on the past, but rather to give a sign to the world that the American president’s goal is to work to eliminate nuclear wars in the future.
Last week, Russia and the United States signed an agreement to reduce nuclear arms. This was an important event. However, we are not naïve: no one person or country can stop nuclear warfare. In Japan, we live with the constant threat from our nuclear-armed neighbor North Korea. There are reports of other countries acquiring nuclear technology, too. For there to be any hope of peace, people around the world must add their voices to President Obama’s.
If Mr. Obama could walk across the Peace Bridge in Hiroshima — whose balustrades were designed by the Japanese-American sculptor Isamu Noguchi as a reminder both of his ties to East and West and of what humans do to one another out of hatred — it would be both a real and a symbolic step toward creating a world that knows no fear of nuclear threat. Every step taken is another step closer to world peace.
Issey Miyake is a clothing designer. This article was translated by members of his staff from the Japanese.
Published: July 13, 2009
Tokyo
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/14/opinion/14miyake.html?_r=1
IN April, President Obama pledged to seek peace and security in a world without nuclear weapons. He called for not simply a reduction, but elimination. His words awakened something buried deeply within me, something about which I have until now been reluctant to discuss.
I realized that I have, perhaps now more than ever, a personal and moral responsibility to speak out as one who survived what Mr. Obama called the “flash of light.”
On Aug. 6, 1945, the first atomic bomb was dropped on my hometown, Hiroshima. I was there, and only 7 years old. When I close my eyes, I still see things no one should ever experience: a bright red light, the black cloud soon after, people running in every direction trying desperately to escape — I remember it all. Within three years, my mother died from radiation exposure.
I have never chosen to share my memories or thoughts of that day. I have tried, albeit unsuccessfully, to put them behind me, preferring to think of things that can be created, not destroyed, and that bring beauty and joy. I gravitated toward the field of clothing design, partly because it is a creative format that is modern and optimistic.
I tried never to be defined by my past. I did not want to be labeled “the designer who survived the atomic bomb,” and therefore I have always avoided questions about Hiroshima. They made me uncomfortable.
But now I realize it is a subject that must be discussed if we are ever to rid the world of nuclear weapons. There is a movement in Hiroshima to invite Mr. Obama to Universal Peace Day on Aug. 6 — the annual commemoration of that fateful day. I hope he will accept. My wish is motivated by a desire not to dwell on the past, but rather to give a sign to the world that the American president’s goal is to work to eliminate nuclear wars in the future.
Last week, Russia and the United States signed an agreement to reduce nuclear arms. This was an important event. However, we are not naïve: no one person or country can stop nuclear warfare. In Japan, we live with the constant threat from our nuclear-armed neighbor North Korea. There are reports of other countries acquiring nuclear technology, too. For there to be any hope of peace, people around the world must add their voices to President Obama’s.
If Mr. Obama could walk across the Peace Bridge in Hiroshima — whose balustrades were designed by the Japanese-American sculptor Isamu Noguchi as a reminder both of his ties to East and West and of what humans do to one another out of hatred — it would be both a real and a symbolic step toward creating a world that knows no fear of nuclear threat. Every step taken is another step closer to world peace.
Issey Miyake is a clothing designer. This article was translated by members of his staff from the Japanese.
01 July 2009
Iraq Marks Withdrawal of U.S. Troops From Cities
July 1, 2009
By ALISSA J. RUBIN
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/01/world/middleeast/01iraq.html?hpw
BAGHDAD — Iraq celebrated the withdrawal of American troops from its cities with parades, fireworks and a national holiday on Tuesday as the prime minister trumpeted the country’s sovereignty from American occupation to a wary public.
Even with a deadly car bombing and other mayhem marring the day — the deadline for the American troop pullback under an agreement that took effect Jan. 1 — Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki seized on the occasion to position himself as a proud leader of a country independent at last, looking ahead to the next milestone of parliamentary elections in January.
He made no mention of American troops in a nationally televised speech, even though nearly 130,000 remain in the country; most had already pulled back from Iraq’s cities before Tuesday’s deadline.
The excitement, however, has rung hollow for many Iraqis, who fear that their country’s security forces are not ready to stand alone and who see the government’s claims of independence as overblown.
From Basra in the south to Mosul in the north, Iraqis expressed skepticism about the proclamation of “independence.”
“They will not withdraw to their homes; they will stay here and there so that they can return in emergencies,” said Samir Alwan, 28, the owner of a mini-market in Basra. “So it is not sovereignty, according to my point of view, and I think that the Iraqi Army is only able to secure the south of the country and unable to secure Baghdad and Mosul.”
In a national address, Mr. Maliki focused his praise on Iraqi troops and security forces for their role in fighting the insurgency. “The national united government succeeded in putting down the sectarian war that was threatening the unity and the sovereignty of Iraq,” he said, as if the United States had played no role.
President Obama, who ran for office on a pledge to end the war, marked the occasion with minimal fanfare, declaring it “an important milestone” even as he warned of “difficult days ahead.”
“The Iraqi people are rightly treating this day as cause for celebration,” he said.
The withdrawal did not command its own presidential appearance — Mr. Obama’s brief remarks were delivered at a ceremony honoring entrepreneurs — a contrast with his predecessor, who rarely missed an opportunity to celebrate milestones in Iraq.
Underscoring the insecurity, a suicide bombing in a market in a Kurdish neighborhood of the volatile northern city of Kirkuk killed 33 people, according to the police there. In Baghdad, the American military reported that four United States soldiers were killed in an attack on Monday, evidence of the vulnerability of the troops as they withdraw.
Military experts anticipate more violence in the days ahead.
Mr. Maliki’s effort to capitalize on Iraq’s latent anti-Americanism and to extol the abilities of his troops is a risky strategy. If it turns out that Iraqi troops cannot control the violence, Mr. Maliki will be vulnerable to criticism from rivals — not only if he has to ask the Americans to return but also if he fails to enforce security without them.
Some American commanders have said they were taken aback by Mr. Maliki’s insistence on taking credit for all the security successes in Iraq. However, they also see the importance of having him and Iraqi troops appear strong, especially in the face of insurgent factions intent on destabilizing the government.
Gen. Ray Odierno, the top commander of American troops in Iraq, brushed aside the dismissive tone of public remarks by the country’s leaders about the Americans, saying that Mr. Maliki personally thanked him Monday night and again Tuesday for the sacrifices the American troops had made.
“I do not get these negative comments from the political leaders that are in the government,” he said at a news conference at the American military headquarters at Camp Victory. “In my mind, I frankly don’t worry about those comments because I understand that we are working this together.”
He also played down concerns about security in Iraq’s cities after the withdrawal of most American combat forces, noting that nearly 130,000 troops remained in Iraq. He said the American and Iraqi militaries continued to cooperate on security issues inside and outside the cities.
In most places the transition to the Iraqi forces has gone relatively smoothly, but there have been bumps, reminders of the underlying tensions between the two militaries and the resentment that American soldiers feel as the Iraqis appear eager to push them out the door even though they still want them to be on call.
In Diyala Province, where the Americans closed 11 of 18 bases or outposts before Tuesday’s deadline, the transfers did not go entirely smoothly. An official in Mr. Maliki’s office showed up early at a camp near Baquba and complained that the Americans had not left behind generators and air-conditioners for the Iraqis — something the American commander in the region said had never been part of the agreement. The dispute on Sunday delayed the formal transfer.
“You can’t treat your partners that way,” the commander, Col. Burt K. Thompson of the First Stryker Brigade, 25th Infantry Division, said in Baquba.
For Iraqis, claiming sovereignty is something of a national pastime, with various politicians celebrating different markers: 2004, when the American-led Coalition Provisional Authority handed power to the interim Iraqi government; 2006, when Iraq seated its first constitutionally elected Parliament; and Jan. 1, when the security agreement took effect.
Mr. Maliki seems to be making a conscious effort to cement his image as a strong ruler by using many of the same tools of power as the predecessor he hated so much, Saddam Hussein. He has used the state television network and newspaper to spread nationalist messages, and has used parades and festivals to encourage public pride.
Over the past several days the state television network, Al Iraqiya, not only ran a “Countdown to Sovereignty” clock but also broadcast promotional spots glorifying Iraqi history, culture and people. Its images of the marshes of southern Iraq, the markets of Baghdad, men performing traditional dances and children playing in the mountain meadows of Kurdistan — much of it filmed before the 2003 invasion — presented an image of Iraq completely unfamiliar to most Iraqis, who now live in neighborhoods cordoned off by blast walls and are forced to go through multiple checkpoints every day.
“This is all for the media,” said Amina al-Esadi, a female searcher at the compound of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, a religious Shiite political party.
“Some people are afraid because the Americans have left. Some think it will be better because then the enemies of the Americans will leave Iraq” and the country will be safer, she said.
Steven Lee Myers contributed reporting from Baghdad, Sheryl Gay Stolberg from Washington, and employees of The New York Times from Basra and Diyala Province.
By ALISSA J. RUBIN
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/01/world/middleeast/01iraq.html?hpw
BAGHDAD — Iraq celebrated the withdrawal of American troops from its cities with parades, fireworks and a national holiday on Tuesday as the prime minister trumpeted the country’s sovereignty from American occupation to a wary public.
Even with a deadly car bombing and other mayhem marring the day — the deadline for the American troop pullback under an agreement that took effect Jan. 1 — Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki seized on the occasion to position himself as a proud leader of a country independent at last, looking ahead to the next milestone of parliamentary elections in January.
He made no mention of American troops in a nationally televised speech, even though nearly 130,000 remain in the country; most had already pulled back from Iraq’s cities before Tuesday’s deadline.
The excitement, however, has rung hollow for many Iraqis, who fear that their country’s security forces are not ready to stand alone and who see the government’s claims of independence as overblown.
From Basra in the south to Mosul in the north, Iraqis expressed skepticism about the proclamation of “independence.”
“They will not withdraw to their homes; they will stay here and there so that they can return in emergencies,” said Samir Alwan, 28, the owner of a mini-market in Basra. “So it is not sovereignty, according to my point of view, and I think that the Iraqi Army is only able to secure the south of the country and unable to secure Baghdad and Mosul.”
In a national address, Mr. Maliki focused his praise on Iraqi troops and security forces for their role in fighting the insurgency. “The national united government succeeded in putting down the sectarian war that was threatening the unity and the sovereignty of Iraq,” he said, as if the United States had played no role.
President Obama, who ran for office on a pledge to end the war, marked the occasion with minimal fanfare, declaring it “an important milestone” even as he warned of “difficult days ahead.”
“The Iraqi people are rightly treating this day as cause for celebration,” he said.
The withdrawal did not command its own presidential appearance — Mr. Obama’s brief remarks were delivered at a ceremony honoring entrepreneurs — a contrast with his predecessor, who rarely missed an opportunity to celebrate milestones in Iraq.
Underscoring the insecurity, a suicide bombing in a market in a Kurdish neighborhood of the volatile northern city of Kirkuk killed 33 people, according to the police there. In Baghdad, the American military reported that four United States soldiers were killed in an attack on Monday, evidence of the vulnerability of the troops as they withdraw.
Military experts anticipate more violence in the days ahead.
Mr. Maliki’s effort to capitalize on Iraq’s latent anti-Americanism and to extol the abilities of his troops is a risky strategy. If it turns out that Iraqi troops cannot control the violence, Mr. Maliki will be vulnerable to criticism from rivals — not only if he has to ask the Americans to return but also if he fails to enforce security without them.
Some American commanders have said they were taken aback by Mr. Maliki’s insistence on taking credit for all the security successes in Iraq. However, they also see the importance of having him and Iraqi troops appear strong, especially in the face of insurgent factions intent on destabilizing the government.
Gen. Ray Odierno, the top commander of American troops in Iraq, brushed aside the dismissive tone of public remarks by the country’s leaders about the Americans, saying that Mr. Maliki personally thanked him Monday night and again Tuesday for the sacrifices the American troops had made.
“I do not get these negative comments from the political leaders that are in the government,” he said at a news conference at the American military headquarters at Camp Victory. “In my mind, I frankly don’t worry about those comments because I understand that we are working this together.”
He also played down concerns about security in Iraq’s cities after the withdrawal of most American combat forces, noting that nearly 130,000 troops remained in Iraq. He said the American and Iraqi militaries continued to cooperate on security issues inside and outside the cities.
In most places the transition to the Iraqi forces has gone relatively smoothly, but there have been bumps, reminders of the underlying tensions between the two militaries and the resentment that American soldiers feel as the Iraqis appear eager to push them out the door even though they still want them to be on call.
In Diyala Province, where the Americans closed 11 of 18 bases or outposts before Tuesday’s deadline, the transfers did not go entirely smoothly. An official in Mr. Maliki’s office showed up early at a camp near Baquba and complained that the Americans had not left behind generators and air-conditioners for the Iraqis — something the American commander in the region said had never been part of the agreement. The dispute on Sunday delayed the formal transfer.
“You can’t treat your partners that way,” the commander, Col. Burt K. Thompson of the First Stryker Brigade, 25th Infantry Division, said in Baquba.
For Iraqis, claiming sovereignty is something of a national pastime, with various politicians celebrating different markers: 2004, when the American-led Coalition Provisional Authority handed power to the interim Iraqi government; 2006, when Iraq seated its first constitutionally elected Parliament; and Jan. 1, when the security agreement took effect.
Mr. Maliki seems to be making a conscious effort to cement his image as a strong ruler by using many of the same tools of power as the predecessor he hated so much, Saddam Hussein. He has used the state television network and newspaper to spread nationalist messages, and has used parades and festivals to encourage public pride.
Over the past several days the state television network, Al Iraqiya, not only ran a “Countdown to Sovereignty” clock but also broadcast promotional spots glorifying Iraqi history, culture and people. Its images of the marshes of southern Iraq, the markets of Baghdad, men performing traditional dances and children playing in the mountain meadows of Kurdistan — much of it filmed before the 2003 invasion — presented an image of Iraq completely unfamiliar to most Iraqis, who now live in neighborhoods cordoned off by blast walls and are forced to go through multiple checkpoints every day.
“This is all for the media,” said Amina al-Esadi, a female searcher at the compound of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, a religious Shiite political party.
“Some people are afraid because the Americans have left. Some think it will be better because then the enemies of the Americans will leave Iraq” and the country will be safer, she said.
Steven Lee Myers contributed reporting from Baghdad, Sheryl Gay Stolberg from Washington, and employees of The New York Times from Basra and Diyala Province.
Europe Weighs Withdrawing Ambassadors From Tehran
July 2, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/02/world/middleeast/02iran.html?_r=1&hpBy ALAN COWELL and STEPHEN CASTLE
PARIS — Iran courted new levels of post-election isolation from the European Union on Wednesday as European diplomats pondered whether to withdraw the ambassadors of all 27 members nations in a dispute over the detention of the British Embassy’s local personnel.
European diplomats said that no formal decision to order their envoys home had been taken but that the measure was an option under consideration as the European Union — Iran’s biggest trading partner — tries to work out how to defuse the dispute in a way that would shield other embassies in Tehran from similar action.
Withdrawing all 27 ambassadors would represent a rare and unusually forceful display of European anger at Iran’s behavior, and several diplomats said the European Union would prefer to avoid it. Diplomats in Europe said they could not recall such concerted action by the entire, expanded bloc.
The initial Iranian response seemed characteristically bellicose. A high-ranking military official demanded that the Europeans apologize for interference in Iran’s affairs, which, he said, disqualified European countries from negotiating on the fraught issue of Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
In a statement quoted by the semi-official Fars news agency on Wednesday, Iran’s chief of staff, Hassan Firouzabadi, was quoted as saying that because of the European Union’s “interference” in “the post-election riots, they have lost their qualification to hold nuclear talks with Iran.”
“Before apologizing for their huge mistake,” he said, the European countries have “no right to talk about nuclear negotiations,” according to a Fars report quoted by Reuters.
It was the first sign that Iran might use its post-election dispute to cast further doubt over the stalled nuclear negotiations, buying time to continue a nuclear enrichment program which Tehran says is for peaceful, civilian purposes. Many in the west suspect that Iran is seeking the ability to build nuclear weapons.
Moreover, the statement seemed to add one more layer of complexity to Western assessments of how to deal with Iran.
Since the presidential vote on June 12, members of the European Union have taken a lead in condemning a subsequent violent crackdown on dissenters who have accused the government of manipulating the results to keep the incumbent, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, in power.
The Iranian authorities have especially sought to cast Britain as an instigator of the unrest. They arrested nine local employees of the British Embassy in Tehran over the weekend, though five were released by Monday night. The Iranian authorities accused the local employees of fomenting unrest.
Press TV, a television station financed by the Iranian government, announced that three of the employees were released Wednesday, leaving just one still in custody. That employee, Fars news agency said Wednesday, “had a remarkable role during the recent unrest in managing it behind the scenes.”
As the dispute unfolded, the European Union said it would support Britain, but it has been unclear what form that backing would take.
Carl Bildt, the foreign minister of Sweden, told reporters in Stockholm on Wednesday — the day his country took over the rotating presidency of the European Union — that it was in the interests of both the European Union and Iran to retain full diplomatic ties. But he did not specifically exclude the withdrawal of ambassadors, saying that “from the diplomatic perspective, all options are on the table.”
However, he added that the bloc has “an interest in maintaining full diplomatic relations” with Tehran and that he thought “it would be in Iranian interests that we retain diplomatic courtesies in a situation like this.”
“We are in a dialogue with the Iranian authorities to see if we can sort out the issue,” Mr. Bildt said.
The Swedish prime minister, Fredrik Reinfeldt, said that the European Union had to strike a difficult balance in its relationship with both the Iranian authorities and those protesting for democratic rights. The aim was to do so without polarizing the relationship with Iran and thus offering the government there a pretext for repression by blaming foreign intervention.
In a statement on Sunday, European foreign ministers promised a “strong and collective response” to the diplomatic crisis in Tehran. That led to discussions among senior European diplomats in Brussels on Tuesday. Separate talks among European officials are set to take place in Stockholm on Thursday and Brussels on Friday, a European diplomat said.
European countries have not yet agreed on a course of action, with Germany, Iran’s biggest individual trade partner, and Italy taking a cautious position, while Britain pushes for a tougher and more radical response, the diplomat said on condition of anonymity because of the delicacy of the issue.
Some Europeans believe the Iranians can be persuaded to avert a confrontation by quickly releasing the remaining British Embassy staff member.
But the Iranian response, invoking the question of nuclear negotiations that has dominated the relationship between Iran and the West, has illuminated broader implications for the Obama administration’s avowed hopes for a new dialogue with Iran.
In April, the administration said that it would start participating regularly with other major powers in negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program.
At the time, the decision seemed to be a further step toward the direct engagement with Iran that President Obama had promised. It followed an invitation to Iran to join in a new round of talks, which would include Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China. And it coincided with an unusual expression of conciliation toward the United States by President Ahmadinejad of Iran, who said that his government would welcome talks with the Obama administration, provided that the shift in American policy was “honest.”
In the past, the Bush administration largely shunned the European-led negotiations with Tehran, but, one year ago, it reluctantly sent a senior diplomat to a single round of talks that ended in stalemate.
Later in April, President Ahmadinejad said he was preparing a new proposal to resolve disputes with the West over Iran’s nuclear program, although he did not give details.
But the aftermath of the June 12 presidential election in Iran seems to have reset the clock. President Obama initially sought to refrain from criticism of the Iranian authorities. After he finally expressed outrage at Tehran’s crackdown, Mr. Ahmadinejad demanded an apology and said Mr. Obama was echoing the policies of the Bush administration.
The elections led to weeks of protest that presented the strongest challenge to the authorities in 30 years.
Late Tuesday, an opposition candidate again insisted he would not accept the outcome and challenged the legitimacy of President Ahmadinejad’s re-election. Mehdi Karroubi, a former Parliament speaker who came a distant fourth in the June 12 vote, said on his Web site that he did not recognize the legitimacy of the ballot.
“I will continue my fight using every means and I’m ready to cooperate with pro-reform people and groups,” he said on the site. Mir Hussain Moussavi, the runner-up, on Wednesday also reasserted his claim that the election was illegitimate, Reuters reported. In an apparent sign of the leadership’s edginess after the protests, Mr. Ahmadinejad canceled a planned overseas trip to Libya on Wednesday, news reports said. His government did not explain why.
In another apparent diplomatic upset, the sultan of Oman, Qaboos bin Said, was reported on Wednesday to have postponed indefinitely a visit to Tehran which would have been the first since the fall of the Shah in the 1979 revolution.
Alan Cowell reported from Paris and Stephen Castle from Stockholm. Michael Slackman contributed reporting from Cairo.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/02/world/middleeast/02iran.html?_r=1&hpBy ALAN COWELL and STEPHEN CASTLE
PARIS — Iran courted new levels of post-election isolation from the European Union on Wednesday as European diplomats pondered whether to withdraw the ambassadors of all 27 members nations in a dispute over the detention of the British Embassy’s local personnel.
European diplomats said that no formal decision to order their envoys home had been taken but that the measure was an option under consideration as the European Union — Iran’s biggest trading partner — tries to work out how to defuse the dispute in a way that would shield other embassies in Tehran from similar action.
Withdrawing all 27 ambassadors would represent a rare and unusually forceful display of European anger at Iran’s behavior, and several diplomats said the European Union would prefer to avoid it. Diplomats in Europe said they could not recall such concerted action by the entire, expanded bloc.
The initial Iranian response seemed characteristically bellicose. A high-ranking military official demanded that the Europeans apologize for interference in Iran’s affairs, which, he said, disqualified European countries from negotiating on the fraught issue of Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
In a statement quoted by the semi-official Fars news agency on Wednesday, Iran’s chief of staff, Hassan Firouzabadi, was quoted as saying that because of the European Union’s “interference” in “the post-election riots, they have lost their qualification to hold nuclear talks with Iran.”
“Before apologizing for their huge mistake,” he said, the European countries have “no right to talk about nuclear negotiations,” according to a Fars report quoted by Reuters.
It was the first sign that Iran might use its post-election dispute to cast further doubt over the stalled nuclear negotiations, buying time to continue a nuclear enrichment program which Tehran says is for peaceful, civilian purposes. Many in the west suspect that Iran is seeking the ability to build nuclear weapons.
Moreover, the statement seemed to add one more layer of complexity to Western assessments of how to deal with Iran.
Since the presidential vote on June 12, members of the European Union have taken a lead in condemning a subsequent violent crackdown on dissenters who have accused the government of manipulating the results to keep the incumbent, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, in power.
The Iranian authorities have especially sought to cast Britain as an instigator of the unrest. They arrested nine local employees of the British Embassy in Tehran over the weekend, though five were released by Monday night. The Iranian authorities accused the local employees of fomenting unrest.
Press TV, a television station financed by the Iranian government, announced that three of the employees were released Wednesday, leaving just one still in custody. That employee, Fars news agency said Wednesday, “had a remarkable role during the recent unrest in managing it behind the scenes.”
As the dispute unfolded, the European Union said it would support Britain, but it has been unclear what form that backing would take.
Carl Bildt, the foreign minister of Sweden, told reporters in Stockholm on Wednesday — the day his country took over the rotating presidency of the European Union — that it was in the interests of both the European Union and Iran to retain full diplomatic ties. But he did not specifically exclude the withdrawal of ambassadors, saying that “from the diplomatic perspective, all options are on the table.”
However, he added that the bloc has “an interest in maintaining full diplomatic relations” with Tehran and that he thought “it would be in Iranian interests that we retain diplomatic courtesies in a situation like this.”
“We are in a dialogue with the Iranian authorities to see if we can sort out the issue,” Mr. Bildt said.
The Swedish prime minister, Fredrik Reinfeldt, said that the European Union had to strike a difficult balance in its relationship with both the Iranian authorities and those protesting for democratic rights. The aim was to do so without polarizing the relationship with Iran and thus offering the government there a pretext for repression by blaming foreign intervention.
In a statement on Sunday, European foreign ministers promised a “strong and collective response” to the diplomatic crisis in Tehran. That led to discussions among senior European diplomats in Brussels on Tuesday. Separate talks among European officials are set to take place in Stockholm on Thursday and Brussels on Friday, a European diplomat said.
European countries have not yet agreed on a course of action, with Germany, Iran’s biggest individual trade partner, and Italy taking a cautious position, while Britain pushes for a tougher and more radical response, the diplomat said on condition of anonymity because of the delicacy of the issue.
Some Europeans believe the Iranians can be persuaded to avert a confrontation by quickly releasing the remaining British Embassy staff member.
But the Iranian response, invoking the question of nuclear negotiations that has dominated the relationship between Iran and the West, has illuminated broader implications for the Obama administration’s avowed hopes for a new dialogue with Iran.
In April, the administration said that it would start participating regularly with other major powers in negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program.
At the time, the decision seemed to be a further step toward the direct engagement with Iran that President Obama had promised. It followed an invitation to Iran to join in a new round of talks, which would include Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China. And it coincided with an unusual expression of conciliation toward the United States by President Ahmadinejad of Iran, who said that his government would welcome talks with the Obama administration, provided that the shift in American policy was “honest.”
In the past, the Bush administration largely shunned the European-led negotiations with Tehran, but, one year ago, it reluctantly sent a senior diplomat to a single round of talks that ended in stalemate.
Later in April, President Ahmadinejad said he was preparing a new proposal to resolve disputes with the West over Iran’s nuclear program, although he did not give details.
But the aftermath of the June 12 presidential election in Iran seems to have reset the clock. President Obama initially sought to refrain from criticism of the Iranian authorities. After he finally expressed outrage at Tehran’s crackdown, Mr. Ahmadinejad demanded an apology and said Mr. Obama was echoing the policies of the Bush administration.
The elections led to weeks of protest that presented the strongest challenge to the authorities in 30 years.
Late Tuesday, an opposition candidate again insisted he would not accept the outcome and challenged the legitimacy of President Ahmadinejad’s re-election. Mehdi Karroubi, a former Parliament speaker who came a distant fourth in the June 12 vote, said on his Web site that he did not recognize the legitimacy of the ballot.
“I will continue my fight using every means and I’m ready to cooperate with pro-reform people and groups,” he said on the site. Mir Hussain Moussavi, the runner-up, on Wednesday also reasserted his claim that the election was illegitimate, Reuters reported. In an apparent sign of the leadership’s edginess after the protests, Mr. Ahmadinejad canceled a planned overseas trip to Libya on Wednesday, news reports said. His government did not explain why.
In another apparent diplomatic upset, the sultan of Oman, Qaboos bin Said, was reported on Wednesday to have postponed indefinitely a visit to Tehran which would have been the first since the fall of the Shah in the 1979 revolution.
Alan Cowell reported from Paris and Stephen Castle from Stockholm. Michael Slackman contributed reporting from Cairo.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
