Iran: The Mousavi 4-Point Message "Who Defends the Islamic Republic?"

Radio Zamaneh adds more English translations of Mir Hossein Mousavi's speech to war veterans on Sunday. The themes, put forth in a series of Mousavi declarations over the last week, are now well-established:

1. The Government is not the defender of Islam and the Islamic Republic.

“Islam does not beat people up; it does not arrest people; it does not slander people; it does not lock people up and create restrictions.”

The Latest from Iran (26 April): Points of View

2. The Iranian opposition is the defender of Islam and the Islamic Republic.

“We have not left the vessel of Islam. And as Muslims, we want to act in ways that will not disappoint our younger generation.”

3. Use of all possible media by as many people as possible -- "We Are the Media" --- is necessary to get out points 1 and 2.

"We must update our methods. Now that we do not have newspapers, we must find new ways. While we still pursue the possibility of newspapers, we must persist in informing the public through virtual media, gatherings, the family and the word of mouth.”

4. This message should address all of Iran's people --- villagers, farmers, tradespeople, workers and teachers --- and all their concerns.

“We must tell them that this kind of life [in Iran today] is below their dignity.”

Afghanistan: Turning a Blind Eye to Corruption? (Sengupta)

Kim Sengupta writes in The Independent of London:

NATO has agreed on its long-awaited road map for the future of Afghanistan amid warnings that the process risks tolerating corruption and the power of the warlords for the sake of security.

The Alliance's summit in the Estonian capital ended [Friday] night without the details of the framework for a handover of security to President Hamid Karzai's forces being made public. The Independent has learned, however, that an area will be deemed ready for transfer if serious violence has been in abeyance for a period of time, if there is access to power by different ethnic and tribal elements and if the conditions are present for development projects taking place in relative safety.

Afghanistan: US Overruling Afghan “Allies” for Kandahar Offensive? (Porter)

According to senior diplomatic sources, clusters of provinces, rather than individual ones, will be transferred to "provide critical mass" able to withstand the Taliban. The decisions on the locations for handover and the timeframe involved will be made at a Nato conference later this year after talks between Western and Afghan government officials.


The start of the handover will not, however, mean that troops can start to withdraw, NATO officials stressed. British troops in particular will have to wait before pulling out as the areas in the south where they are based – the main battleground with the Taliban --– will be among the last to be transferred to Afghan control. [British Prime Minister] Gordon Brown had stated that the handover process will start this year, allowing UK forces to begin returning home.

The NATO secretary general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, warned: "The future of this mission is clear and visible: more Afghan capability and more Afghan leadership... But it will not be a pullout. It will not be a run for the exit....Our soldiers will move into a more supportive role. So it will be a gradual process. This is conditions-based and not calendar-driven.''

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said: "We believe that with sufficient training and mentoring, the Afghans themselves are perfectly capable of defending themselves against insurgents. Does this mean it will be smooth sailing? I don't think so, just look at Iraq. A lot of progress has been made there but there are still problems with terrorism."

Mrs Clinton said she appreciated that there was a shortfall of staff to train the Afghan security forces. However, she added: "We have a gap that we're still working to fill. I'm convinced we'll get that filled. For me, the glass is way more than half full."

Although Afghan forces will take the lead, Western troops will be available to provide firepower and back-up if the insurgents appear to be making a comeback. If an area which has been handed back shows signs of suffering from endemic corruption or depredations of warlords the local people could protest through shuras – public meetings – said Nato officials. Mr Rasmusson, however, has said the handover process would be "irreversible" and a senior Western diplomat acknolwedged that a degree of corruption will necessarily have to be tolerated as long as it does not threaten the security of Nato forces. "It is not for us to detemine whether a particular district's governance is working or not, it is whether there is a threat to the area to a point that the insurgency threatens to take over," he said.

The diplomat pointed out that the policy of transfers remained uncertain. "Unless we are saying that we will stay and colonise the country we can't say everything is irreversible for ever and we will probably need to remain in support for several decades."

NATO officials also said that the Afghan side in the talks to decide which provinces or districts were suitable for transfer would be represented by officials of the Karzai government at national and local levels and there would be no input from independent groups on the matter.

Some Afghan observers pointed out that NATO's seemingly relaxed attitude about corruption was in marked contrast to the public condemnation by the US and British governments of the corruption in President Karzai's government and his link to warlords such General Abdul Rashid Dostum and Marshal Muhammad Qasim Fahim.

Syed Ali Laghmani, a political analyst based in Kabul, said: "There is a big danger that areas will be given over to strongmen because they can deliver security for the right side and keep out the Taliban. If the West does not make sure that people do not suffer from corruption in these districts then there will be a lot of trouble in the future.''

Israel-Palestine: Washington's Carrots and Sticks for Netanyahu and Abbas (Yenidunya)

Following his second meeting with U.S. Mideast envoy George Mitchell, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu briefed his government on Sunday and said that it would soon become clear whether there would be Middle East peace talks. He added that Israel and the United States want to "begin a peace process immediately."

In a statement summing up his visit, Mitchell said he held "positive and productive talks" with Israeli and Palestinian leaders in an effort "to improve the atmosphere for peace and for proceeding with proximity talks".

On Thursday, the leader of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, received an official invitation to the proximity talks. In this message to Ramallah, the Obama Administration confessed that Washington had been unable to get a commitment from Israel to halt construction in East Jerusalem but had received a guarantee that Israel would refrain from "significant" actions in the eastern part of the city during negotiations.



To  get Ramallah's consent for the beginning of proximity talks, the Obama Administration also put forward the idea of an Obama-Abbas meeting, an invitation confirmed by Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat and Abbas aide Yasser Abed Rabbo, told Palestinian radio that there is talk about an invitation for Abbas to visit Washington, possibly next month.

Washington also reportedly lined up possible sanctions against Israel in case of a failure to comply with its commitments. American officials reported said that if Netanyahu takes an uncompromising stance in the negotiations, like the one he displays in public, Israel's Labor Party might quit the coalition and pave the way for a new government.

The US message to Netanyahu: "natural growth" is OK in East Jerusalem during negotiations, along with other confidence-building measures, as long as you are ready to change your position on East Jerusalem's status and to come to terms with Ramallah on other border issues at the end of indirect talks. Otherwise, the Labor Party will be out, the coalition government collapses, and you will lose your Premiership.

And to Abbas: if you co-operate and accept that Israeli "natural growth" is not a barrier to discussions leading to a settlement, you will get the public acclamation, symbolised by your trip to Washington, of being an international leader.

Iraq: An Open Letter to Iraqi People from Two US Soldiers on the "Collateral Murder" Video

Earlier this month, we featured the "Collateral Murder" video, footage obtained and disseminated by Wikileaks of a 2007 US attack that killed Iraqi civilians and Reuters journalists. Two soldiers in the American unit depicted in that video have now written an open letter to the Iraqi people:

Peace be with you.

To all of those who were injured or lost loved ones during the July 2007 Baghdad shootings depicted in the "Collateral Murder" Wikileaks video:

US Military & Iraq’s Civilians: The “Collateral Murder” Video (Full & Short Versions)

We write to you, your family, and your community with awareness that our words and actions can never restore your losses.

We are both soldiers who occupied your neighborhood for 14 months. Ethan McCord pulled your daughter and son from the van, and when doing so, saw the faces of his own children back home. Josh Stieber was in the same company but was not there that day, though he contributed to the your pain, and the pain of your community on many other occasions.


There is no bringing back all that was lost. What we seek is to learn from our mistakes and do everything we can to tell others of our experiences and how the people of the United States need to realize what have done and are doing to you and the people of your country. We humbly ask you what we can do to begin to repair the damage we caused.

We have been speaking to whoever will listen, telling them that what was shown in the Wikileaks video only begins to depict the suffering we have created. From our own experiences, and the experiences of other veterans we have talked to, we know that the acts depicted in this video are everyday occurrences of this war: this is the nature of how U.S.-led wars are carried out in this region.

We acknowledge our part in the deaths and injuries of your loved ones as we tell Americans what we were trained to do and carried out in the name of "god and country." The soldier in video said that your husband shouldn't have brought your children to battle, but we are acknowledging our responsibility for bringing the battle to your neighborhood, and to your family. We did unto you what we would not want done to us.

More and more Americans are taking responsibility for what was done in our name. Though we have acted with cold hearts far too many times, we have not forgotten our actions towards you. Our heavy hearts still hold hope that we can restore inside our country the acknowledgment of your humanity, that we were taught to deny.

Our government may ignore you, concerned more with its public image. It has also ignored many veterans who have returned physically injured or mentally troubled by what they saw and did in your country. But the time is long overdue that we say that the value of our nation's leaders no longer represent us. Our secretary of defense may say the U.S. won't lose its reputation over this, but we stand and say that our reputation's importance pales in comparison to our common humanity.

With such pain, friendship might be too much to ask. Please accept our apology, our sorrow, our care, and our dedication to change from the inside out. We are doing what we can to speak out against the wars and military policies responsible for what happened to you and your loved ones. Our hearts are open to hearing how we can take any steps to support you through the pain that we have caused.

Solemnly and Sincerely,

Josh Stieber, former specialist, U.S. Army
Ethan McCord, former specialist, U.S. Army

Viewing America: North Carolina, Tea Parties, and the Supreme Court (Matlin)

The University of North Carolina, located in Chapel Hill, is a wondrous place, an oasis of liberalism within a desert of reaction. Only here, since it is hunting season, might a visitor be treated with a juxtaposition between higher education and wild turkeys.

My own hunting has been less successful. I have been here for ten days and have yet to meet or track down a Republican.

I’m pretty sure I saw one on my ride from the airport, with the clue lying in the “Impeach Obama” sticker on the driver’s truck. Beyond that, however, it seems that this is an enclave free from members of the Grand Old Party. I am told that at a faculty meeting at the university last year, the subject of diversity arose.



“We have too many white men,” said the first speaker. “This needs to be addressed.”

“I agree,” came a response, “let’s find another Republican.”

This doesn't necessary mean, however, that Chapel Hill is a bastion of liberalism. There are Democrats and then there are Southern Democrats, and the twain do not meet with any comfort. A Southern Democrat is not necessarily a Republican in other clothes, but both on historical background --- tread carefully when approaching the story of segregation and civil rights --- and in contemporary context, there are tensions on political, economic, and social issues.

This complexity is overshadowed now on the national scene by two sweeping stories. The first, the Tea Party, should not be an issue at all. This is a collection, predominantly of late middle-aged, middle-class, comfortably well-off folks don’t want to pay anything for those Americans less fortunate than them. They are able to make sufficient noise to give certain areas of the media the opportunity to blow the alleged importance of the TP out of all proportion.

At first sight, the Tea Partiers could be mistaken for supporters of Ross Perot, the businessman who ran a third-party Presidential campaign in 1992. In that time of economic distress in the 1990s, a distrust of Washington gave rise to a desire amongst a minority to support an "independent" for President and shake up the established order.

So, where are the differences? First, Perot supporters came from both sides of the political aisle. Tea Partiers are from the right-wing of the Republican Party, screaming their love for Sarah Palin when she says, “We’ll keep the guns and our religion and they can have the rest.” Second, Tea Party activists seem to be older and wealthier than Perot fans. Third, TP ideology is focused on taxes and "Big Government". Perot’s supporters had much wider issues of concern.

The second big issue is President Obama’s next Supreme Court pick. Within a day of Justice John Paul Stevens’ decision to retire, Congressional Republicans threatened a filibuster if Obama did not choose a middle-of-the-roader who accorded with Republican thinking.

Presently, the court is pro-business and leans to the right. Surely, the Court needs a "left" thinker, capable of articulating the views of ordinary Americans and who understands how court decisions affect ordinary lives. But I am even more concerned, given the Republican stance, over their fear of a differing point of view on the Court? Why is diversity suddenly a dirty word?