The Balkan Wars Created a Generation of Christian Terrorists

War radicalized the far-right — and nobody stopped them at home.

Supporters of Greece's far right Golden Dawn party protest against the construction of a mosque in central Athens on September 5, 2018.PANAYOTIS TZAMAROS/NURPHOTO VIA GETTY IMAGES

BY AZEEM IBRAHIM, HIKMET KARCIC

| MAY 24, 2019, 3:20 PM
The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the subsequent civil war were a powerful seedbed for Islamist radicalism. So were other wars, from Chechnya to Iraq. But one critical conflict that has shaped the course of global extremism and terrorism has been overlooked. Much of the current global far-right extremism was cooked in the furnace of the Balkan conflicts of the 1990s, especially the Bosnian War.

The Muslim side of this story is well known. Bosnian Muslim militias were joined by thousands of foreign volunteers. Some were fresh recruits from Western Europe. Others were veterans of the jihad in Afghanistan against the Soviet invasion in the ’80s. The fighting skills developed by the foreign volunteers in the war, the contacts forged with others from across the world, and the radicalization of the fire of battle laid the foundations of entire networks of Islamist extremist violence with which the world contends to this day.

These developments, however, were not unique to the Muslim side in the conflict. Thousands of volunteers from across Europe also joined the Orthodox Christian Bosnian Serb Army and the Catholic Bosnian Croat army. The Croat side in particular attracted many neo-Nazis from across the continent during this period. That was thanks in no small part to the decision by the national government in Zagreb to reprise as national markers the World War II-era symbols of the Independent State of Croatia, a fascist puppet regime of the Third Reich.

Just as with the Muslim volunteers, the Christian veterans returned to their home countries after the war, radicalized and ready for new action. At least some of these veterans became the core of new right-wing militias that would over time morph into potent political forces. One of the more notable examples of this is the Golden Dawn in Greece. Key Golden Dawn members were known to have participated in the Srebrenica massacre of over 8,000 Muslim Bosniaks in 1995, during the war.

Just as with the Muslim volunteers, European governments were very slow to recognize the threat these radicalized veterans posed to their own societies upon their return. Many in Greece at the time, including people in government, lionized the Greek participants in the massacres, especially along religious and ideological lines. The same held true in many countries in Eastern Europe, notably Ukraine, Romania, and Russia, and in certain circles in Western Europe as well.

And of course, no European government undertook any known programs to deradicalize and reintegrate returning fighters into mainstream society. The idea wasn’t even on the agenda. Nor was there any legal accountability for crimes committed by these people while they were away. If anything, some of the fighters were rewarded with notoriety and a political platform for the future.

This failure produced the same kinds of figures and networks of radical extremism on the European right as happened with Islamist terrorism.The list of terrorists and nationalist radical propagandists to emerge from, or be inspired by, the Bosnian war is proportionally extensive. Here we can point to some of the most publicly recognizable figures from the last two decades: Jackie Arklov, a Swede who fought for the Catholic Croats, and even, indirectly, Anders Breivik, the perpetrator of the worst terrorist attack in Norwegian history in 2011.

Arklov, for example, was a Liberian-Swedish neo-Nazi who joined the Croatian Defense Forces, and who victims say conducted brutal tortures in Croat-run concentration camps in Herzegovina. He was arrested and convicted for war crimes by the Bosnian government. After a year he was released as part of a prison exchange, and he returned to Sweden, where he was acquitted of the crimes for lack of evidence. He repaid the Swedish state’s lenience by subsequently starting a neo-Nazi group in Sweden with two others. Not long after, they were arrested and convicted for the murder of two Swedish police officers in 1999.

Breivik, by contrast, didn’t fight in the wars. He was only a teenager at the time. But his ideological outlook was later greatly inspired by the Orthodox Serb extremists. And indeed, his outlook is quite broadly representative of the European far-right. A recurrent theme in their thinking is the notion of an eternal war between European and Islamic civilizations, most acutely fought through the proliferation of populations, with what they term the “white European race” representing the Christian or Enlightenment Western culture—internal contradictions between Christianity and indigenous Europeanness, and between conservative Christianity and the outlook of the Enlightenment, notwithstanding—and the Middle Eastern, brown races representing what they see as Medieval, backward, repressive Islam.

The notion of an ongoing war between Christendom and Islam has a long-standing history in the Balkans and beyond. But the notion that this conflict is waged at this moment in time by demographic competition between races has a distinctive Serbian pedigree. Take for example this pronouncement by Radovan Karadzic, the leader of the Bosnian Serbs during the Bosnian War:

“The Muslims didn’t want to transform Bosnia into a confederation or into three constituent states for Croats, Serbs, and Muslims. They wanted the whole of Bosnia-Herzegovina for themselves. The Bosnian Muslims want, ultimately, to dominate, relying on a very high birth rate. They even wanted to move some Turks from Germany to Bosnia to help build their Islamic society. Since such a strategy of domination would be at the expense of Bosnian Serbs, we have resisted it by protecting our own villages.”

It was this kind of thinking that entrenched the general tendency toward genocidal attitudes among especially the Serbians throughout the Balkan wars, and which later evolved in today’s ubiquitous notion among the European (and indeed American) far-right of the so-called great replacement: the idea that white European culture, civilization, and race are being displaced in Europe by Muslim migration, which in turn justifies violent retaliation.

Breivik made the Balkans connection explicit when, in his manifesto, he praised Karadzic, saying that “for his efforts to rid Serbia of Islam he will always be remembered as an honorable Crusader and a European war hero.” It’s a choice of language and terminology that resonates equally strongly with both Serbian nationalism in the ’90s and far-right extremism today.

Yet for all that, perhaps the most important legacy of the Balkan wars and Bosnia, more important than the returning fighters or the ultra-radical discourse, was the shattering in Europe of the postwar illusion of a civilized international community watching over the world.

The Balkan wars, and especially the one in Bosnia-Herzegovina, were some of the very first conflicts to be broadcast live on television, right after the First Gulf War. And what the entire world saw were brutal atrocities and massacres, left, right, and center, including outright genocide committed against the Bosniak Muslim population. Random militias with more or less state support could set up camps, torture, rape, kill, and burn down religious and cultural heritage as the so-called free world just watched. They watched with horror, but all they did was watch—passively and impotently.

It would be another five years before the United States and the West intervened against Serbia, and over a decade until anyone saw justice in an international tribunal. Meanwhile, televised genocide was a great mobilizing factor for extremists on all sides. Those watching would be forgiven for coming away with the conclusion that atrocities could be committed with impunity. So, if you wanted to prevent atrocities by the other side, the only way would be to beat them to it and crush them before they could crush you.

The war marked a pivotal point in European history. Murderers and fascists were not only let off the hook but also glorified—live on television. With that precedent burned into the collective memory of a generation, the resurgence of European fascism writ large was only a matter of time.

Bolsonaro supporters take to Brazil’s streets as approval ratings drop

Rallies were reported in more than 300 towns and cities, including Rio de Janeiro, São Paulo and Juiz de Fora
Supporters of Brazil’s far-right president, Jair Bolsonaro, in Rio de Janeiro on 26 May. Photograph: Carl de Souza/AFP/Getty Images

Tom Phillips-Sun 26 May 2019 17.34 BST

Hardcore devotees of Brazil’s far-right president, Jair Bolsonaro, have taken to the streets across the country in their first major show of force since his landslide election victory last October.

“Wake up Brazilian people!!! Today is the day to march,” Carla Zambelli, a prominent Bolsonarista congresswoman, tweeted as supporters of the radical populist began gathering on Sunday morning.

Pro-Bolsonaro rallies were reported in more than 300 towns and cities, including Rio de Janeiro, São Paulo, Brasília, and Juiz de Fora, where Bolsonaro was stabbed on the eve of his election, although many of the demonstrations appeared small.

Flag-waving Bolsonaristas also turned out to protest in the Amazon, a region activists fear could suffer irreversible damage under a leader notorious for his hostility to the environment.

“Bolsonaro is not alone, OK? He never has been,” tweeted Éder Mauro, a pro-Bolsonaro congressman from the Amazon city of Belém.

Fernando Sampaio, a Bolsonaro activist who led a demonstration in the south-eastern city of Itabira, said he was marching in support of a leader he believed could rid Brazil of thieving politicians and crime.

“For me, having a president of the republic who isn’t corrupt is already a massive victory for our country,” Sampaio said.

Bolsonaro did not take part in the controversial mobilization, which critics have slammed as a dangerous attempt to radicalise supporters and bully Brazil’s democratic institutions into backing the president’s plans.

But he tweeted his approval, sharing cellphone videos of the rallies with his 4.3m followers.
“Today is the day that the people are taking to the streets to defend the future of this nation,”

Bolsonaro told reporters after attending a church service in Rio, where protesters marched down Copacabana beach wearing Trumpian caps reading “Make Brazil Great Again”.

Bolsonaro supporters in front of the national congress in Brasília on 26 May. Photograph: Evaristo Sa/AFP/Getty Images

Monica de Bolle, director of Latin American studies at Johns Hopkins University, said Bolsonaro hoped to use the rallies to gauge his support amid growing criticism from some disillusioned portions of the Brazilian right.

“It’s a barometer more than anything else … He’s trying to assess what kind of support he has,” De Bolle said.

Despite Sunday’s show of strength from loyalists, opinion polls suggest the answer is less and less.
Five months into Bolsonaro’s four-year term his approval ratings have plummeted with Brazil’s economy stuttering, political infighting raging and the president facing uncomfortable questions over his family’s ties to organized crime and a corruption scandal involving one of his sons.

Bolsonaro has also faced international repudiation as a result of his extremist views, recently cancelling a visit to New York because of protests against him there.

In an editorial on Sunday the conservative Estado de São Paulo newspaper said support for Bolsonaro “was melting away before our eyes”, with about 36% of voters now considering his administration bad or awful, compared to just 17% in February.

The majority of Brazilians who were not seduced by Bolsonaro’s “salvationist gobbledygook” had little left but pessimism, the newspaper added.

Waning support for Bolsonaro has sparked growing chatter about his possible impeachment among political observers.

“I think the paths for him finishing out his term are getting very, very narrow,” said De Bolle.

“We have never had a president without political support [and] without popular support who has been able to make it to a full four-year term – that’s just never happened.”

But Sampaio insisted Bolsonaro – a former army captain who has vowed to stamp out crime and corruption – was the man for the job.

“Brazil’s biggest problem … is the 70,000 or so homicides we have each year … Brazil is in a world war,” he said. “I trust in the president’s work.”

Ghost towns and constant bombing: Life along Idlib's frontline

As many as 200,000 people have been displaced from areas of Syria’s opposition-held northwest. But what about the residents left behind?

A Khan Sheikhoun resident helps his friend gather belongings from his collapsed home on Thursday after a bomb hit it the previous evening (Abu Amjad)

By Madeline Edwards-26 May 2019 

The streets are nearly empty in Anas Diab’s hometown of Khan Sheikhoun.

Shops and apartment blocks lie in crumbled ruins, slabs of concrete are strewn in piles across bombed-out roads now deserted for several months. Few residents remain.

Khan Sheikhoun, a northern Syria town in Idlib province that sits along a major highway stretching from Damascus to Aleppo, has been at the epicenter of a massive pro-government forces bombing offensive for weeks.

Sky News crew in Idlib 'deliberately targeted' by Syrian government forces

Read More »

Diab’s neighbours have streamed out of the town by the thousands, fleeing a devastating bout of bombardment that has hit homes and hospitals.

By his estimate, and according to others in the town who spoke with Middle East Eye in recent days, around 95 percent of residents have left Khan Sheikhoun.

Diab counts just three of his friends remaining in the town. He only ever visits them at night - and when he can confirm that there aren’t warplanes overhead. There are no remaining bakeries where he can buy bread.

Khan Sheikhoun isn’t alone.

Since February, families in bombed-out southern Idlib and the neighbouring northern Hama province have packed up what belongings they could into their vehicles, hauling themselves and their children north into areas closer to the Syrian-Turkish border, away from the bombardment.

A Syrian youth prepares to flee Khan Sheikhun on 28 February (AFP)

More than half a dozen residents still left behind have told MEE of virtual ghost towns, with few public services and a scarcity of basic food supplies.

At least 37 communities in southern Idlib and northern Hama are now “empty or abandoned,” according to a report published in May by analysis group REACH, with severely limited freedom of movement and access to healthcare for those who remain.

As many as 200,000 people have been displaced north from their hometowns in recent weeks, according to the most recent UN estimate, escaping bombs that have fallen on residential districts and medical facilities.

A citizen journalist and volunteer rescue worker, 23-year-old Diab decided to stay behind in Khan Sheikhoun to continue his work, despite the dangers.

Every day it’s the same story. It’s just continuous bombing'

- Hmeid, Khan Sheikhoun resident

He is among the small number of people who are holding out in southern Idlib and northern Hama.

For them, daily life is eked out in abandoned highway towns and farming villages. Thieves reportedly roam the streets looting empty homes. More than a dozen hospitals have been bombed.

“Every day it’s the same story,” said Hmeid, one of Khan Sheikhoun’s few residents still living in the town. He works as a rescuer with the Syrian Civil Defence organisation, also known as the White Helmets, a job that he said convinced him to stay behind.

“It’s just continuous bombing,” Hmeid said. His wife and 18-month-old son now live more than 50km north in Idlib city, after a bomb hit their next-door neighbour’s house three months ago.

According to Diab, women and children have all fled.

“The people left behind in Khan Sheikhoun now are all men, who are here to protect their homes and neighbourhoods from theft. Either that, or they just don’t want to leave their homes,” he said.

Others, residents said, simply don’t have the money to flee north.

David Swanson, a spokesperson for the United Nations’ humanitarian access agency UNOCHA, calls the situation for those remaining in southern Idlib and northern Hama “particularly worrying”.

“Those who [stayed behind] are often the most vulnerable,” he told MEE.

A last stand in Idlib?

Largely rural, Idlib province is Syria’s last major rebel stronghold, after a series of blitzkrieg military advances in recent years by pro-government forces.

That period has seen devastating siege and bombardment campaigns on former rebel-held areas, such as east Aleppo city and the Damascus suburbs of the Eastern Ghouta, rendering what were once densely populated urban districts into mountains of rubble.

Syrian war-wounded struggle for treatment amid hospital devastation

Read More »

Residents who survived bombing offensives faced an excruciating decision: stay behind under renewed control of the Syrian government - albeit in their own homes - or board the government’s green evacuation buses toward opposition-held territory in the country’s northwest.

Hundreds of thousands of people ended up forcibly displaced to the north, many of them to Idlib province.

The area is now home to an estimated three million Syrians, roughly half of them internally displaced.

Now Idlib - as well as parts of neighbouring rural Aleppo, Hama and Latakia - is facing the prospect of being the site of the next major military showdown between opposition and pro-government forces.

And while Russia’s President Vladimir Putin last month called an all-out offensive on Idlib “inadvisable”, Syrian and allied Russian forces have since April carried out a massive uptick in aerial and ground attacks on the rebel-held enclave.

A deal brokered by Russia and Turkey late last year in the Russian resort city of Sochi held off a massive pro-government assault on northwestern Syria for a time, but now appears to be unravelling as dozens of towns come under fire.

At least 105 people have been killed in the newest offensive since April, accordingto the UN. Among them are dozens of children.

Syrian state media maintains that the escalation is intended to target “terrorist groups” present in Idlib, where the militant coalition Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham and other armed groups maintain control.

‘I don’t know what I’ll do’

For Syrians living along the country’s now most-heated frontline, the offensive means long summer days punctuated by bombing attacks, with little shelter.

Abu Amjad, a father of three, told MEE a bomb struck his home in Khan Sheikhoun on Wednesday while he and his family were inside.

It was just half an hour before the local mosque’s evening call to prayer would signal the time for the family to break their Ramadan fast for the day and gather for an iftar dinner.

Their iftar never happened.

“We didn’t know what kind of a bomb it was - whether it was an air strike, a shell, or something else,” the 44-year-old said. “But I remember the house collapsing right over our heads.”

He and his wife grabbed their three children, and ran outdoors before the falling concrete could crush them.

“Thank God, we all made it out okay.”

Smoke billows following reported Syrian government forces' bombardment in the town of Khan Sheikhoun (AFP)

Photos Abu Amjad took the next morning on his phone show his home’s breeze-block walls collapsed over one another, broken mirrors and a formal living room furniture set caked in grey dust, surrounded by debris. Only a few white tiles remain stuck to the wall of what was once his kitchen.

He spent the following day salvaging what possessions he could with the help of a friend, and storing them with the few neighbours who remain on his street. He isn’t sure yet where he will sleep in the coming days.

Abu Amjad’s wife, 16-year-old son and two toddler-aged children both fled Khan Sheikhoun in the hours after the bomb to their home, to a town outside Idlib city where they have relatives.

He stayed behind in Khan Sheikhoun, he says, to “figure out what to do” - whether to salvage the family home, or use what few savings he still has from his internet cafe business and flee north.

Militant chief Jolani issues video call to arms to defend Syria's Idlib against bombing

Read More »

“I don’t have any money to pay rent on a home in another town. I don’t know yet what I’ll do, whether I’ll stay with neighbours or something else,” he said. 

Out of fear of similar bombings, few residents are staying in second- or third-storey flats these days, Diab, the photojournalist from Khan Sheikhoun, told MEE.

“They’re just staying in shelters, or on the ground floors. We could be hit with bombs at any moment.”

When he buys staple items such as bread, he has to leave Khan Sheikhoun. The shelves in his own town are nearly empty, Diab said.

He goes by night, with his headlights off, to avoid detection. “The roads are simply too dangerous,” the 23-year-old said.

Diab rarely visits friends. Few of them remain, anyway - most have left town for safety. His own family left several months ago.

That’s despite the current month of Ramadan, normally a time of celebration and gathering with friends and family.

There is little to remain cheerful about in Khan Sheikhoun, according to Anas.

“Life now - it’s becoming just fear and anxiety.”

Getting the Australia–China relationship right

Source: Aritra Deb/Shutterstock

May 24 at 9:33 PM 

THERE’S no more important issue for Australia at this time in the history of its international economic and foreign affairs than to get the relationship with China right. It’s an issue that went through to the keeper during the election. But for the new Morrison government, forging a viable, credible strategy in its dealings with China will be a priority that plays into all its foreign relations strategies, prominently also with the United States.

Despite negative commentary about the health of the Australia–China relationship, the trade and economic partnership has thrived over the past few years.

Australia–China goods trade topped AU$192 billion in 2018, having grown more than five times as fast as the world average. This remarkable growth was largely due to strong Australian commodity exports and impressive trade diversification.

SEE ALSO: Tears, insults as media’s role in Australian election questioned

Australia’s share of Chinese iron ore imports was 60 percent in 2018. Chinese external procurement of iron ore rose to 90 percent of its consumption, up from 83 percent in 2014. Australia’s share of Chinese coal imports rose to a record 54 percent in 2018, from 48 percent in 2014. China’s coal imports from Australia grew by 9.8 percent year-on-year, despite China’s reportedly tightening import restrictions on coal in the last few months of 2018.

On the back of early-stage China–Australia Free Trade Agreement (ChAFTA) tariff reductions, Australian wine and dairy exports to China have seen strong growth, despite reports in June 2018 of wine shipments being held up in Chinese customs. Australian wine exports to China grew 18 percent in 2018 to AU$1.1 billion compared with 10 percent globally. Growth of 34 percent in dairy exports the last financial year made Australia China’s fourth-largest supplier.

Australia’s former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull shakes hands with China’s President Xi Jinping (R) before the G20 leaders’ family photo in Hangzhou on September 4, 2016.
World leaders are gathering in Hangzhou for the 11th G20 Leaders Summit from September 4 to 5. Source: Greg BAKER / AFP

In services, Australian exports to China grew 17.2 percent to AU$16.9 billion in 2017–18, more than double the growth in Australia’s total services exports over the same period. This included 16.7 percent growth in the travel sector. A record 1.43 million tourists in 2018 makes China Australia’s largest source of short-term visitor arrivals. The export of education also continues to grow. The total number of Chinese students in Australia stands at a record 205,000.

It’s properly functioning markets that have delivered these strong Australia–China trade results. Australia’s largest trade relationship is one that is interdependent with (not dependent on) China, as it already draws a quarter of its imports of strategic raw materials from Australia, a proportion that continues to grow.

The bilateral investment relationship is a different story, as the data released from the Asian Bureau of Economic Research’s Chinese investment database this week indicates. That’s in part because the political relationship has sputtered.

SEE ALSO: Trump’s approach to China has bad implications for global trade & world peace

The biggest risk is that Australia gets trapped in an uncertain US strategy towards China that will invite hostility from the country’s most important trading partner and change the global rules of engagement in a way that opens Australia to real damage.

That’s why establishing a constructive trajectory in political dealings with China is crucial: because of its importance to the economic ambitions of the Australian community; because it is central to preserving prosperity and political stability in the Asia Pacific region; and because it is critical to securing the rules-based global economic and political system that underpins Australia’s prosperity and political security.

Worrying about poor diplomatic messaging or the lack of a good ‘narrative’ to describe the Australia–China relationship is misplaced. The narratives about political influence and false ‘choices’ between economic and security interests and partners are not core problems, but Australian national housekeeping problems.

What needs to be done now is to bring into play all the machinery Australia has in the bilateral relationship to persuade China and the Australian public that there are strong joint interests that can escape the shadow of US–China trade and other tensions.

China’s President Xi Jinping (R) shakes hands with New Zealand’s Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern before their meeting at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing on April 1, 2019. Source: Kenzaburo Fukuhara/Pool/AFP

This does not mean any dramatic change in Australia’s security relationship with the United States, unless that country was to demand lockstep Australian support for an aggressive posture towards China and abandonment of rules-based multilateralism.

The resilience of the Australia–China trade relationship depends fundamentally on both partners’ commitment to the international market system and the rules under which it has flourished. That system is the core of economic and political security in Asia and it’s under threat from the Trump administration’s ‘America First’ trade and decoupling strategies.

Australia and China have common cause with their partners in the region in dealing with this global threat. At the same time the political anxieties caused by China’s rise, partly but not wholly because of its different political system, have to be confronted frankly in Australia’s dialogue with China.

The core task is to enunciate these substantial strategic interests that both countries share in a time of great change. This task will be on-going. It cannot sensibly be dealt with at a single point in time. The Comprehensive Strategic Partnership between Australia and China, the Strategic Economic Dialogue and ChAFTA are key vehicles for addressing them over time. Both countries can commit to strengthening this machinery by building-in a broad-based infrastructure of dialogue to engage on the evolving agenda of a partnership focused on change.

What’s clear is that the new Australian government now has an opportunity to propose to China’s leaders a high-level dialogue on shared interests. China’s policymakers will want to talk about difficult things like Huawei and the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and Australia’s will want to talk about difficult things like militarising the South China Sea, the Uyghurs and ways of dealing with BRI problems. But that need not frustrate sympathetic engagement on the very big agenda that both countries share.

Peter Drysdale is Head of the Asian Bureau of Economic Research and Editor-in-Chief of East Asia Forum in the Crawford School of Public Policy at The Australian National University. He was co-author of the Australia–China Joint Economic Report in 2016 and of a new report released this week titled Getting the Australia–China Relationship Right

This article is republished from East Asia Forum under a Creative Commons licence. 

Reparative Approach Towards Victims Of Armed Conflict

Global experiences and lessons for India

by Bhabani Sonowal and D. Dube-2019-05-25

In recent years, relentless efforts have been made worldwide for repairing the past harms done to victims of armed conflict. There has been a paradigm shift in international human rights law to addressing the victims’ need for reparation rather than emphasizing punishment for the perpetrators. A rights-based approach has been adopted towards making amends for the harm caused to victims in the past. Reparation is such a rightsbased approach, a diverse complementary form of justice to restore the life of the victims/survivors by means of restitution, compensation, rehabilitation, satisfaction and guarantee of non-recurrence of the violations upon the victims. Effective and inclusive response to violations during armed conflict and addressing those wrongs by way of reparation has become a priority within the international community to sustain peace and development in conflict-ridden countries. India, over the last few decades, has faced persistent violence perpetrated through armed conflict in regions such as Jammu and Kashmir as well as the North East. The lives of common people have been unsettled as a result of incessant killings, rapes and other brutalities. This article explores the development of reparation in the regime of international law and its implication for the victims of armed conflict. It underlines the initiatives of countries emerging from armed conflict in addressing the plight of victims by means of a reparative approach and argues that India needs to adopt a framework to reach out to those whose lives have been destroyed as the result of such violence and provide necessary reparation to them.

Click here to Read the Full Paper published in BRICS Law Journal

About Authors:

Bhabani Sonowal, Doctoral Research Fellow, Rajiv Gandhi School of Intellectual Property Law, Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, India

D. Dube, Professor of Criminal Law at Rajiv Gandhi School of Intellectual Property Law, Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, India

Bolton’s ‘Nefarious Plot’ to somehow go to War with Iran!

‘AN OLD HAND’ IS UP TO HIS TRICKS AGAIN! 

by Selvam Canagaratna-May 25, 2019, 6:58 pm

"The art of war is like the art of the courtesan – indeed, they might be called sisters, since both are the slaves of desperation." – Pietro Aretino in letter to Amgbrogio

Eusebio, 1537.

John Bolton, Donald Trump's National Security Advisor, has gotten away with a dangerous deception, writes investigative journalist Gareth Porter, winner of the 2012 Gellhorn Prize for journalism. Bolton’s recent announcement that the Pentagon has deployed air and naval forces to the Middle East, which he combined with a threat to Iran, points to a new manoeuvre to prepare the ground for an incident that could justify a retaliatory attack against that country.

Bolton’s claim was a response to alleged intelligence about a possible Iranian attack on US targets in the Middle East. But what has emerged indicates that the alleged intelligence does not actually reflect any dramatic new information or analysis from the US intelligence community. Instead, it has all the hallmarks of a highly political case concocted by none other than Bolton himself, wrote Porter.

Further underscoring the deceptive character of Bolton’s manoeuvre is evidence that senior Israeli national security officials played a key role in creating the alleged intelligence rationale for the case.

The new initiative follows an audacious ruse carried out by Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in February, to cast the firing of a few mortar rounds in the vicinity of the US embassy and a consulate in Iraq as ‘evidence of an effort by Tehran to harm US diplomats. Bolton exploited that opportunity to press Pentagon officials to provide retaliatory military options, which they did, reluctantly.

Bolton and Pompeo thus established a policy that the Trump administration would hold Iran responsible for any incident involving forces supported by Iran that could be portrayed as an attack on either US personnel or US "interests."

Bolton’s recent one-paragraph statement considerably broadened that policy. It repeated the previously stated principle that the United States will respond to any alleged attack, whether by Iranian forces or by what the administration calls "proxy" forces. But it added yet another major point to Trump administration policy: "a clear and unmistakable message to the Iranian regime that any attack on United States interests or on those of our allies will be met with unrelenting force [emphasis added]."

That language represents an obvious move by Bolton to create potential options for US retaliation against Iran for a real or alleged attack by "proxy forces" on Israeli or Saudi forces or "interests." Such a commitment to go to war with Iran over incidents related to Israeli or Saudi conflicts should be the subject of a major debate in the press and in Congress. Thus far, it has somehow escaped notice.

Bolton is an old hand at using allegedly damning intelligence on Iran to advance a plan of aggressive US war. In 2003-04, he leaked satellite photographs of specific sites in Iran’s Parchin military complex to the
press, claiming those images provided evidence of covert Iranian nuclear weapons-related experiments – even though they showed nothing of the sort. He then tried to pressure International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Mohamed ElBaradei to insist on an inspection of the sites. When ElBaradei finally relented, he found nothing in that inspection to support Bolton’s claim.

Bolton’s deceptive manoeuvre has the effect of increasing the range of contingencies that would trigger a US strike on Iran and represent a major advance toward his long-declared intention to attack it. More alarmingly, however, some media outlets have reported his claims without any serious questioning.

Given the violent struggles in Iraq, Yemen, Syria and Israel itself, Bolton and the Netanyahu government will be able to portray an incident as an attack by Shiite militias, the Houthis or Hamas on Israeli, Saudi or US "interests," just as Bolton and Pompeo did last fall. That, in turn, would offer an opportunity for urging Trump to approve a strike against one or more Iranian military targets.

Even more alarming is that both acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan and new CENTCOM Commander, Gen. Kenneth McKenzie, have signed up for the Bolton initiative. That means that the Pentagon and military leaders can no longer be counted on to oppose such a war, as they did in 2007, when Vice President Dick Cheney pushed unsuccessfully for a plan to retaliate against a future Iraqi militia attack on US troops in Iraq.

The United States is in danger of falling for yet another war ruse as malignant as those that led Congress and the mainstream media to accept the invasion of Iraq or the Gulf of Tonkin resolution.

Bolton and his staff claimed to the news media that what he characterizes as "troubling and escalatory indications and warnings" are based on "intelligence." Media reports about Bolton’s claim suggest, however, that his dramatic warning is not based on either US intelligence reporting or analysis.

Significantly, on a flight to Finland recently, Pompeo repeated the threat he made last September to respond to any attack by "proxy forces" on US "interests." He made no reference to possible attacks against "allies".

Citing US officials, The Wall Street Journal recently reported that the alleged intelligence "showed that Iran drew up plans to target US forces in Iraq and possibly Syria, to orchestrate attacks in the Bab el-Mandeb strait near Yemen through proxies and in the Persian Gulf with its own armed drones."

But in the very next paragraph, the report quotes an official saying it is "unclear whether the new intelligence indicated operations Tehran planned to carry out imminently or contingency preparations in the case US-Iran tensions erupted into hostilities."

The timing of the alleged new intelligence also suggests that Bolton’s claim is false. "As recently as last week there were no obvious sign of a new threat," the Wall Street Journal reported. The New York Times similarly reported that "several Defence officials" said "as recently as last Friday they have had not seen reason to change the American military’s posture in the region.

Normally, it would require intelligence from either a highly credible source within the Iranian government or an intercept of a sensitive communication from Iran to justify this kind of accusation. But no news outlet has brought word that any such spectacular new intelligence has found its way to the White House or the Pentagon.

Bolton and his staff claimed to the news media that what he characterizes as "troubling and escalatory indications and warnings" are based on ‘intelligence’. Media reports about Bolton’s claim suggest, however, that his dramatic warning is not based on either US intelligence reporting or analysis.

"We now know, in fact, that the sources behind Bolton’s claim were Israel’s national security adviser and intelligence agency. Axios published a report by leading Israeli journalist Barak Ravid, who covers national security for Israel’s Channel 13, revealing that a delegation of senior Israeli officials had given Bolton ‘informationʼ about "possible Iranian plots against the US or its allies in the Gulf" two weeks earlier.

Americans don’t want Congress to impeach, but Democrats aren’t listening

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said May 23 that she "wishes" President Trump's administration and family would intervene for the "good of the country." (Reuters)

By Marc A. Thiessen-May 23

The American people are sending a pretty clear message to Washington: They are sick and tired of the investigations into President Trump and don’t want Democrats in Congress to impeach him. But the Democrats aren’t listening.

A Harvard-Harris poll finds that 65 percent of Americans say Congress should not begin impeachment proceedings against Trump. Sixty percent agree with Attorney General William P. Barr that “the facts and public actions of President Trump did not amount to obstruction of justice, especially since there was no underlying collusion.” And 58 percent believe that “Given the Mueller report . . . we should turn the page on investigations of President Trump.”

To put that in perspective, Trump’s job approval averages 42.9 percent. So there are millions of Americans who don’t approve of Trump, but also don’t approve of the Democrats’ endless investigations.

Yet The Post reports that “At least five members of Pelosi’s leadership team — four of whom also sit on the House Judiciary Committee, with jurisdiction over impeachment — pressed Pelosi in a closed-door leadership meeting to allow the panel to start an [impeachment] inquiry.” Rep. John Yarmuth (D-Ky.), chairman of the House Budget Committee, declared, “I think there is a growing understanding that an impeachment process is going to be inevitable.”

Talk about tone deaf.

If the Democrats go ahead with impeachment proceedings, they face a real danger that voters will see Democrats investigating at the expense of governing. In the Harvard-Harris poll, an overwhelming 80 percent of Americans say they want their “congressional representatives working more on infrastructure, health care, and immigration [than] investigations of President Trump.” Right now, that’s not what is happening. Five months into their newly attained majority, Democrats have accomplished almost nothing — little or no progress on health reform, drug prices or public works projects.

Every day that Democrats choose to make news on impeachment and investigations is another day when voters see no action on a positive agenda for the American people. As the president made clear in his fiery news conference on Wednesday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) can’t accuse him of engaging in a coverup in the morning and expect him to negotiate with her on a $2 trillion infrastructure package in the afternoon. It is simply not going to happen.

However, there is one area where Americans do want an investigation: They want to know how in the world their government wasted two years and tens of millions of their tax dollars chasing a Trump-Russia conspiracy that turned out not to exist. The Harvard-Harris poll also found that 55 percent of respondents say they think “bias against President Trump in the FBI played a role in launching investigations” against him, and 61 percent favor “appointing a special counsel to investigate potential abuses at the FBI.” Democrats may mock Trump for calling the probe a witch hunt, but most Americans think he is right. And when Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) accuses the attorney general of “perpetuating conspiracy theories” they think: Wasn’t “collusion with Russia” the conspiracy theory?

Democrats have no credibility when they accuse the president of obstruction, because Americans know that Democrats misled them. For the past two years, voters listened with alarm as Democratic members of the House and Senate Intelligence and Judiciary committees implied that they had seen secret evidence showing Trump had colluded with Russia. They were told that Trump was a Russian agent and a traitor who had committed crimes of “a size and scope probably beyond Watergate.” None of it was true. And now the very people who lied to them are accusing Trump of obstructing their “impartial” investigations? Sorry, Americans aren’t buying it.

Democrats are effectively seeking to redo the Mueller investigation. This is ridiculous. Is a partisan House committee really going to uncover evidence of a Trump-Russia conspiracy that special counsel Robert S. Mueller III and his team missed? Give me a break. And given the lack of an underlying crime, their claims of obstruction ring hollow for most Americans.

When Trump declares it’s time to “get these phony investigations over with” the American people are with him. If Democrats keep pushing to impeach him, they risk driving many of these disgusted voters into Trump’s waiting arms.

The president has given Democrats a choice — impeachment or bipartisan progress. It’s clear where the American people stand: They want Congress to stop investigating and start governing. If Democrats don’t listen, they could hand Trump a second term.