NOVANEWS

By Kourosh Ziabari

Just a few hours before the midnight deadline of May 26, 2011, the US President Barack Obama signed a 4-year extension of the controversial USA Patriot Act to prove that his strategic plans are not significantly different from those of his hawkish predecessor, George W. Bush, who showed to the international community the real face of the American democracy with his warmongering policies.

Patriot Act is an Act of the US Congress which allows private security firms under the supervision of the government to monitor and search American citizens’ phone conversations, email communications, medical, financial and official records to discover potential terrorism-related threats and foil the probable plots which can jeopardize the country’s domestic security.

Some certain provisions of the Patriot Act also deal with the foreign immigrants suspected of terrorism-related activities and facilitate their deportation or incarceration under the US law.

The renewed extension of the Patriot Act involves three main stipulations including roving wiretaps, court-ordered searches of business records and conducting surveillance of the individuals engaged in terrorism-related activities without being linked to renowned terrorist organizations.

By signing into law the 4-year extension of the Patriot Act, President Obama once again confirmed that his appealing slogan of change and alluring gestures and promises to the American nation were essentially futile and unfounded.

The US Senate passed the bill with a wide margin of 72-23, permitting the government to adopt all the necessary measures to ensure the domestic security of the United States, despite the argumentations of the opponents of the law who believed the Patriot Act violates the privacy of the citizens and is contrary to their civil liberties.

The House of Representatives also voted 250-153 and endorsed the extension, signed into law while President Obama was in France, attending the summit of the G8 leaders in Paris.

The Republican leader of the US Senate Mitch McConnell jubilantly hailed the extension, calling the Patriot Act “an invaluable terror-fighting tool” which helps the US stay ahead of the terrorists who want to attack Washington.

However, there were also rational and sane people in the US Senate and House of Representatives who realized the evil nature of the law and warned their government against the terrible consequences of passing such a controversial bill. They have come to the conclusion that passing a bill which allows the government to eavesdrop the telephone conversations and email communications of its citizens are far beyond the so-called values of a country which calls itself a “beacon of freedom” and “cradle of democracy.”

The Oregon’s democrat senator Ron Wyden was among those who warned against passing the bill, saying that “I believe that when more of my colleagues and the American public come to understand how the Patriot Act has actually been interpreted in secret, they will insist on significant reforms too.”

According to CNET News columnist Declan McCullagh, among the three sections of the Patriot Act which were renewed on May 26, the Democratic senators are mainly concerned with Section 215 which enables FBI agents to obtain any tangible item, “including “books, records, papers, documents, and other items” from the citizens in cases which the possibility of a terrorism-related act is felt. This is in fact a flagrant violation of the personal freedom of the American citizens and an indelible blot on the reputation of the United States as a political entity which has always advocated itself as the number one defender of democracy and democratic values.

As said by McCullagh, the US Justice Department confirmed in March that Section 215 of the Patriot Act “has been used to obtain driver’s license records, hotel records, car rental records, apartment leasing records, credit card records, and the like.”

Now, the extension of Patriot Act has stirred up widespread controversy in the United States. Democratic senators and anti-capitalist activists and journalists who constitute the vocal critics of the Patriot Act have stepped up pressures on the White House to abort the law or at least modify parts of it which are in clear infringement of the individual freedom of the American citizens.

The opponents of the law say that since the 9/11 attacks which some authentic personalities believe was a false flag operation carried out with the complicity of Mossad and CIA, the US government waged two unjustifiable wars in the Middle East and took unreasonable steps to build up pressure on its own citizens while it knew well that no terrorist organization had threatened its security.

They say that the United States developed some kind of conspiracy theory following the 9/11 attacks and turned into the adversary of its own people and the people of the world by throwing accusations of terrorism at everybody; however, this is an undeniable fact that the US government has been constantly the big supporter and sponsor of terrorism and terrorist organizations all around the world. Some good examples can be the US government’s support for Saddam Hussein during the 8-year war with Iran and its close links with Osama bin Laden and backing him during the Afghan-Soviet war.

Lo and behold, the Patriot Act is a clear instance of how the United States regularly fails to practice what it preaches. Patriot Act unveils that the United States cannot continue to champion itself as the number one defender of freedom and democracy, even if its powerful propaganda machinery continues to advertise this claim. The Patriot Act demonstrates that the United States cannot even provide its own citizens with freedom and democratic values, let alone the other nations of the world to whim the United States wants to export democracy and freedom through wars and military expeditions.

NOVANEWS

 

A prominent activist has called on President Barack Obama to redress the deadly legacies  of Agent Orange, fifty years after the US first sprayed the toxic defoliant over South Vietnam.

Between 1961 and 1971, the US Army sprayed  80 million liters of Agent Orange, containing 366 kilograms of dioxin, over 30,000 square miles of southern Vietnam. Between 2.1 and 4.8 million Vietnamese were directly exposed to Agent Orange and other herbicides during the Vietnam War.

The following is a letter sent to Barack Obama by Secretary of the Britain-Vietnam Friendship Association Len Aldis, who has worked for years to spread awareness about the plight of Vietnam’s Agent Orange victims.

Dear President Obama,

You recently made a state visit to my country and received a very warm welcome. Both Houses of Parliament received you with great acclaim. For some, your address gave hope that, under your leadership, the United States will help solve many of the world’s problems.

Unfortunately, in Iraq, where the people are still trying to recover from the war instigated by your country [and I regret to state, mine] you still have 50,000 US troops on the ground.

When will they return home to their families?

In Afghanistan the fighting continues. This war, I remind you, has lasted longer than WWII.

During the Vietnam War, your country lost 58,000 and many thousands more were injured. For the Vietnamese, the devastation runs into the millions.

And the weapons used!

In addition to Agent Orange, the US dropped millions of cluster bomblets. Today your country refuses to sign the convention banning their manufacturing, storage and use. Yet, day by day, week by week, these vile weapons have continued to kill and injure hundreds of Vietnamese, particularly children. I have had the misfortune to see some of the victims.

Mr. President, fifty years ago, on August 4, 1961 you were born.  In becoming President of the United States you have made giant steps, and broken down many barriers. I offer my congratulations.

But let me remind you of another date in August of 1961. Six-days after you were born, your country began spraying an herbicide known as Agent Orange over South Vietnam. The spraying continued, day-in day-out, until you reached the age of 10. Eighty million liters of the chemical  were spread throughout the countryside.

That decade of uninterrupted spraying resulted in the deaths of many thousands of innocent babies. Many never reached the age of one month or one year – let alone ten. Thousands died in the wombs of their mothers and others survived with horrific deformities.

In all my years of travelling through Vietnam, I’ve made it my duty to visit as many of these tragic victims as possible.

To be frank, at times, the sight of some of them – especially the children – made me weep. Mr. President, I have no doubt in my mind that you, as a father, would also weep if your two children were so affected.

It would, I am sure, also make you angry to know that the government who gave the order for the use of Agent Orange and the thirty-six American Chemical companies that manufactured it continue to deny responsibility and refuse to pay financial compensation to the Vietnamese victims or their parents.

Too often the parents, who in so many cases, provide 24 hours of love and care to their disabled children are forgotten. I have had the privilege to see and meet many wonderful parents in Vietnam, and, Mr. President, they deserve much better, from you, your country and the chemical companies.

Let me end by expressing my hope that in this year, the 50th anniversary of the use of Agent Orange, you will accept responsibility for its use and agree to make good the damage unleashed on both the people and land of Vietnam.  In so doing I would ask you to make the manufacturers (Monsanto, Dow Chemical and DuPont et al) accept their responsibility, as well.

Finally, I look forward to the day when you visit Vietnam and meet with its leaders of the country – as you did here in the UK.

I strongly urge you to take the time to visit the victims of Agent Orange – [a visit that no sitting US president has made]. Only by doing so will you truly understand the pain they have suffered for so many years.

Yours sincerely,

Len Aldis

Secretary, Britain-Vietnam Friendship Society

NOVANEWS

by Jim Garamone

American Forces Press Service

SINGAPORE, June 3, 2011 – The United States will maintain its strong presence and robust military engagement policy in Asia under any circumstances, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said here.

In a speech the morning of June 4 at the Shangri-La Dialogue, an annual Asia security summit hosted here by the International Institute for Strategic Studies, Gates said the United States is a Pacific nation, and that requires the United States to sustain its allies while maintaining a robust military engagement and deterrent posture across the Pacific Rim.This is Gates’ fifth and final speech as defense secretary at the dialogue, as he is retiring at the end of the month. A record 18 defense ministers from around the region are attending the conference.

The U.S. posture commitment has been a bedrock principle of the United States over the past 50 years, the secretary said, and far from pulling out or retrenching, the United States will demonstrate the flexibility needed to enhance engagement in Asia. America will update its relationships with the nations of the region, develop new capabilities and transform its defense posture to meet today’s challenges, he added.

The fact is that the breadth and intensity of U.S. engagement in Asia has grown significantly in recent years, the secretary said, even during a time of economic uncertainty and major military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan.

U.S. leaders have consulted with Asian leaders often, Gates noted. This trip, for example, marks Gates’ seventh trip to the region in 18 months.

“Indeed, one of the most striking and surprising changes I’ve observed during my travels to Asia is the widespread desire across the region for stronger military-to-military relationships with the United States much more so than during my last time in government 20 years ago,” he said.

U.S. engagement in Asia has been guided by a set of enduring principles that have fostered the economic growth and stability of the region, Gates said. These principles, supported by both U.S. major political parties, include free and open commerce; a just international order that emphasizes rights and responsibilities of nations and fidelity to the rule of law; and open access by all to the global commons of sea, air, space, and now, cyberspace.

The principles also embrace resolving conflict without the use of force, he said.

American defense engagement  from forward-deployed forces to exercises with regional partners  will continue to play an indispensable role in the stability of the region, Gates said. The United States’ commitment to Japan and South Korea is absolute, but America will, in consultation with Japanese and South Korean leaders, modernize basing arrangements, he added.

Meanwhile, the secretary said, America will do more and expand into other areas in nontraditional ways.

“We’ve taken a number of steps towards establishing a defense posture across the Asia-Pacific that is more geographically distributed, operationally resilient, and politically sustainable,” the secretary said. The military posture proposed will maintain American presence in Northeast Asia while enhancing U.S. presence in Southeast Asia and the Indian Ocean area, he said.

U.S. and Australian officials are examining expanding opportunities for both militaries to train and operate together including alliance arrangements that would allow for more combined defense activities and shared use of facilities, Gates said.

“We are evaluating a range of options, including increasing our combined naval presence and capabilities to respond more rapidly to humanitarian disasters improved Indian Ocean facilities a region of growing international importance,” he said.

U.S. and Australian officials are also looking to expand training exercises for amphibious and land operations, activities that could involve other partners in the region.

“In Singapore, we are strengthening our bilateral defense relationship within the context of the Strategic Framework Agreement and pursuing more operational engagement  most notably, by deploying U.S. littoral combat ships to Singapore,” Gates said. “We are examining other ways to increase opportunities for our two militaries to train and operate together, to include pre-positioning supplies to improve disaster response, improved command and control capabilities, and expanding training opportunities to help prepare our forces for the challenges both militaries face operating in the Pacific.”

It would be a mistake to measure U.S. commitment to Asia solely by counting the number of service members permanently stationed in the region, Gates said.

“In the coming years, the United States military is also going to be increasing its port calls, naval engagements and multilateral training efforts with multiple countries throughout the region,” he said. “These types of activities not only broaden and deepen our relationship with friends and allies, but help build partner capacity to address regional challenges.”

These developments demonstrate U.S. commitment to sustaining a robust military presence in Asia, Gates said, a commitment “that underwrites stability by supporting and reassuring allies while deterring, and if necessary defeating, potential adversaries.”

This will be expensive and cannot be disentangled from the wider discussions of the U.S. fiscal predicament in general, and the pressures on the U.S. defense budget in particular, he said.

In the past two years, the secretary noted, he has dropped most of the troubled and questionable weapons programs from the U.S. defense budget and ordered an effort to find more savings and to look at the risks that budget decisions entail.

“We are left with modernization efforts that our defense leaders have deemed absolutely critical to the future relating to air superiority and mobility; long-range strike; nuclear deterrence; maritime access; space and cyber; and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance,” he said. “Though the review is not complete, I am confident that these key remaining modernization programs systems that are of particular importance to our military strategy in Asia will rank at or near the top of our defense budget priorities in the future.”

Many of those key programs would address one of the principal security challenges possible in the future: the prospect that new and disruptive technologies and weapons could be employed to deny U.S. forces access to key sea routes and lines of communications.

The U.S. Navy and Air Force have been concerned about anti-access and area-denial scenarios for some time, the secretary said, and the two services are working together to develop a new concept of operations called “Air-Sea Battle.” The concept is aimed to ensure the U.S. military will continue to be able to deploy, move, and strike over great distances in defense of allies and vital interests.

Gates said programs and strategies are on track to grow and evolve further, even in the face of new threats abroad and fiscal challenges at home.

Yet even with the evidence to the contrary, Gates said, there are some who argue that America cannot sustain its Asian-Pacific role. “There are some voices of gloom and doom who would also argue that the best days of the United States are behind it,” he added.

The challenges facing America are daunting, Gates acknowledged, but he said he remains “completely optimistic about the prospects of the United States, because I have seen firsthand the staying power and adaptability of America over the course of my life.”

“Indeed,” he continued, “history’s dustbin is littered with dictators and aggressors who underestimated America’s resilience, will and underlying strength.”

No one can predict the future, Gates said. “But I believe our work in Asia is laying the groundwork for continued prosperity and security for the United States and for the region,” he added. “It has been enormously gratifying through the course of my career to see the profound good that has come about from American engagement in Asia.

“For when America is willing to lead the way, when we meet our commitments and stand with our allies, even in troubling times, when we prepare for threats that are on the horizon and beyond the horizon, and when we make the necessary sacrifices and take the necessary risks to defend our values and our interests, then great things are possible, and even probable, for our country and the world,” he said.

(Editor’s note: Singapore is 12 hours ahead of Eastern Daylight Time.)

NOVANEWS

by Jim Garamone

American Forces Press Service

SINGAPORE, June 4, 2011 – Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates explained U.S. policy toward China, the future in Afghanistan and the threat posed by cyber attacks and anti-access capabilities during a question-and-answer session at the Shangri-La Dialogue security summit here today.

The annual conference is sponsored by the International Institute of Strategic Studies, and it brings together defense leaders from around the region.The questions from the delegates were direct and pointed, but respectful, and Gates put his answers in context.

The Chinese often object to U.S. military planes and ships sailing near their coast. A delegate wanted to know why the United States didn’t just stop such provocations. Gates explained that everything the U.S. military does is covered by international law, and the United States respects all international boundaries.

“But it all comes down to one word: transparency,” the secretary said. “The more transparent nations are in regards to what they are doing, what their intentions are, what their programs are, the less need there is for us unilaterally to figure that out on our own.

“One of my colleagues long ago in the intelligence business said there are two types on information we seek secrets and mysteries,” the secretary continued. “Mostly what we are trying to break are the mysteries. Greater transparency of intent, and greater transparency of capabilities which we are fully prepared to reciprocate will help us in this arena.”

China is just one of the nations that is developing anti-access capabilities designed to keep forces from approaching an area. The terror group Hezbollah a nonstate entity  has anti-ship cruise missiles with a range of 65 miles that potentially put U.S. ships operating off the coast of Lebanon at risk. Still, anti-access capabilities are not an imminent concern, the secretary said.

“We have a number of programs under way that are intended to deal with this issue,” Gates said. “We have been paying attention to this problem for a number of years. We take this seriously, we understand the long-term challenge, and we are spending significant sums of money in these efforts in a number of different areas.” The secretary added that he believes that military investments in these technologies will be protected from the budget knife.

The cyber world is a growing domain, and threats abound, Gates said.

“One of the things I have been doing over the past four and a half years is to examine this world of cyber in the context of defense responsibilities, and what in fact does constitute an offensive act by a government, what would constitute an act of war in the cyber world that would require some kind of response, in kind or kinetically,” Gates said.

The Defense Department is beginning the process, Gates said, and he called for a more open dialogue among countries that would establish “rules of the road with respect to cyber so we have some understanding of the left and right lanes.”

The secretary said he does not want some country to inadvertently or intentionally begin something that escalates out of control.

“We could avoid some serious international tensions in the future if we could establish some rules of the road as early as possible to let people know what kind of acts are acceptable, what kind of acts are not, and what kind of acts may, in fact, be acts of war,” he said.

The secretary also spoke about the need for Taliban reconciliation in Afghanistan.

“I think there is a generally accepted view that nearly all conflicts of this kind eventually come to a close through some kind of political settlement,” he said. “The reality is, in my view, the prospects for a political settlement will not become real until the Taliban the others begin to conclude they cannot win militarily.”

Coalition and Afghan forces have expelled the Taliban from their stronghold in Helmand and Kandahar provinces, Gates noted. “If we sustain those successes, we can expand the security bubble,” he said. The Taliban already are under pressure in Afghanistan, and coalition and Afghan forces are degrading their capabilities. If the pressure can continue through the year, he added, “then perhaps this winter there is the possibility of some type of political talks” on reconciliation.

The secretary made it clear that the Taliban must sever relationship with al-Qaida, must agree to live under the Afghan constitution and must put down their arms.

“That said, the Taliban are probably part of the political fabric of Afghanistan at this point,” Gates said. “If they abide by … all the conditions, … they potentially have a political role in the future.”

The secretary said the political opportunities will flow from the military pressure.

“The growth of the Afghan national security forces, the transition to Afghan security lead and the various development programs that many nations have under way in Afghanistan all are important contributors to the future of the country,” he said.