Press TV
A prominent Christian preacher that reportedly converted to Christianity from Islam has come under fire for making suspicious claims about his Muslim past.
Ergun Caner, the dean of Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary in Lynchburg, Virginia, claims that he was a radical Muslim teenager before immigrating to the US from Turkey and discovering Jesus Christ at a church in the US state of Ohio.
Soon after the September 11, 2001 attacks in New York and Washington, DC, Caner and his brother, Emir, published a book labeled Unveiling Islam: An Insider's Look at Muslim Life and Beliefs.
In the book, Caner portrays himself as a one-time extremist who received terrorist trainings in Turkey.
The publication of the book quickly propelled this unknown Baptist minister to the heights of fame, and in 2005 granted him his current post as the dean of Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary in Lynchburg, Virginia.
Since then, Caner has established himself as a leading Christian critic of Islam using his stature as the dean of one of the most prominent Evangelical theology schools.
However, Caner's contradictory stories and remarks have cast doubt on his past.
Recent reports show that he and his family had moved to Ohio when he was just a child -- before being able to receive terrorist training -- and that some "Arabic" phrases he had uttered in some of his speeches were actual gibberish.
Following the revelations, Liberty University Chancellor Jerry Falwell Jr. has initiated a probe into Caner's behavior, with results due later this month, the Associated Press reported recently.
Jerry Falwell Sr., the founder and former chancellor of the Liberty University who died in 2007, was an outspoken rhetorical critic of Islam that lacked little scholarly knowledge of the religion. On numerous occasions he had made offensive remarks regarding the Prophet of Islam (PBUH).
Many critics regard Caner to be just an opportunist who has sowed tension between the world's two largest faiths.
"He's done enormous harm … To listen to someone like Caner, you'd think house meetings to decide what to blow up next are daily fare for all Muslims," said Charles Kimball, director of religious studies at the University of Oklahoma.
Analysts say that Caner's climb to fame, however, illustrates how important Muslim conversion stories are among American Christian communities today.
It also brings back to mind the longstanding fascination of the American society -- dating back to the colonial period -- with tales of Muslims converting to Christianity.
Monday, June 14, 2010
View on the News -10/06/10
British Prisons: Inmates converting to Islam
Prisoners are converting to Islam to win benefits and gain the protection of powerful Muslim gangs inside jails, the Chief Inspector of Prisons has warned. Up to a third of Muslim prisoners adopted the religion while serving their sentence, a new report by inspectors has found. Chief Inspector Dame Anne Owers also warned of the need for greater engagement with Muslim prisoners to prevent them turning to extremism. Her report said attempts to crack down on Muslim fanatics in jail are pushing inmates into the arms of extremists, claiming prison staffs treat all Muslims - including converts - as if they could pose a security threat. But this 'blanket approach' risks turning moderates into radicals. There are 10,300 Muslim prisoners in jails in England and Wales. The number has increased fourfold since 1994. Less than 1 per cent are behind bars for terror-related offences. Miss Owers said prison officers need to focus on individual prisoners instead of treating them all alike. 'Without that there is a real risk of a self-fulfiling prophecy: that the prison experience will create or entrench alienation and disaffection, so that prisons release into the community young men who are more likely to offend, or even embrace extremism,' she said. The warning came as a survey found Islam is linked to violent extremism in the minds of most Britons. A YouGov poll of 2,152 adults also revealed widespread concern about the impact of the faith on British values. It found nearly six in ten associate Islam with radical views, and two-thirds believe it encourages the repression of women.
Anti-Islam Wilders in line for Cabinet role as Liberals narrowly win Dutch elections
The Freedom Party of the anti-Islam MP Geert Wilders emerged as the third force in Dutch politics last night, nearly doubling its number of seats in Parliament in the country’s general elections. Mr Wilders won 21 seats, up from 9 — pushing the Christian Democrats, led by the outgoing Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende, into fourth place. Mr Wilders, who wants to ban Muslim veils and the building of new mosques, is constitutionally bound to take part in coalition talks. He could be offered a place in a Cabinet chosen by Mr Rutte, who has said that the Freedom Party is “just another party”, but Mr Cohen has ruled out on moral grounds sharing power with the controversial critic of Islam on moral grounds. “We really want to be part of government, We want to participate. I don’t think the other parties can escape us,” Mr Wilders said.
US Defence Secretary Gates blames EU for Turkey 'drift'
Turkey's growing hostility to Israel may have been partly caused by its effective rejection by the European Union, the US defence secretary says. Robert Gates said Turkey may have been "pushed by some in Europe" away from the EU and into closer partnerships with states like Iran. Turkey has been put on the path to EU membership, but countries like France and Germany are openly opposed. Turkey and Israel's once-close alliance has come under severe strain. Their relations were already deteriorating before Israeli troops stormed a ship carrying aid to Gaza last month, killing nine Turks. "The deterioration in the relationship between Turkey and Israel over the past year-or-so is a matter of concern," Mr Gates said during a visit to London. "I think the two had a pretty constructive relationship and one that contributed to stability in the region, and I hope that, over time, that kind of constructive relationship can be re-established," he added. "I personally think that if there is anything to the notion that Turkey is, if you will, moving eastward, it is, in my view, in no small part because it was pushed, and pushed by some in Europe refusing to give Turkey the kind of organic link to the West that Turkey sought. I think we have to think long and hard about why these developments in Turkey [occurred] and what we might be able to do to counter them."
U.N. Approves New Sanctions to Deter Iran
The United Nations Security Council leveled its fourth round of sanctions against Iran’s nuclear program on Wednesday, but the measures did little to overcome widespread doubts that they — or even the additional steps pledged by American and European officials — would accomplish the Council’s longstanding goal: halting Iran’s production of nuclear fuel. The new resolution, hailed by President Obama as delivering “the toughest sanctions ever faced by the Iranian government,” took months to negotiate and major concessions by American officials, but still failed to carry the symbolic weight of a unanimous decision. Twelve of the 15 nations on the Council voted for the measure, while Turkey and Brazil voted against it and Lebanon abstained. The United States and Europe acknowledged before negotiations started that they would not get the tough sanctions they were hoping for, promising to enact harsher measures on their own once they had the imprimatur of the United Nations. Congress is expected to pass a package of unilateral sanctions against Iran, and European leaders will begin discussing possible measures at a summit meeting next week.
Pakistan ranked fifth most unstable country
Pakistan is the world’s fifth most unstable country, better only than Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan and Sudan in that order, says the US State Department. The department’s Global Peace Index (GPI), released on Wednesday, reports that Pakistan’s overall score deteriorated steadily for the second successive year and it slid three places into the bottom five. Pakistan’s overall rank now is 145 on a list of 149 countries. All South Asian nations occupy the lower half of the regional table, headed by Nepal, in 82nd place. India, although better than Pakistan, is also in the red zone and is ranked 128. Israel rose two places to 144th in the 2010 index. Now it is one place ahead of Pakistan. Ongoing internal conflicts and related security concerns in Afghanistan and Pakistan contribute to their low rankings. Embroiled in conflict and instability for much of the past two decades, Afghanistan remained far from peaceful during 2009.
Musharraf’s All Pakistan Muslim League formally launched in Sindh
The organisation for the All Pakistan Muslim League (APML), headed by General (r) Pervez Musharraf, was formally launched in Sindh on Tuesday amid queries regarding accusations against the former military president of the country. APML’s organiser Barrister Mohammad Ali Saif accompanied by former president’s spokesman Rashid Qureshi, addressing a crowded press conference at the Karachi Press Club on Tuesday said the party has received a positive response in Karachi and other parts of Sindh during the last three days in the party leaders’ meetings that were held in the city. Responding to allegations against Musharraf including violation of constitution, dozens of killings at Lal Masjid and Jamia Hafsa, Benazir Bhutto and Nawab Akbar Bugti’s assassination, and killings of over 40 people in Karachi on May 12, 2007, the party leader said he knew such questions would be asked as they had faced the same questions from people at different places. He added that all accusations would be answered and defended with documentary proofs at an appropriate time. Saif remarked that everybody has the right to participate in the politics of the country.
Uzbekistan, China pledge closer energy and security ties
The leaders of Uzbekistan and China on Wednesday said they had signed deals aimed at increasing cooperation on energy and regional security. Speaking ahead of an annual meeting of the Chinese-led Shanghai Cooperation Organization meeting in Tashkent, Chinese President Hu Jintao and Uzbek President Islam Karimov pledged closer ties, particularly on nuclear fuel. "One of the question we discussed was that of long-term and stable cooperation in the field of ... uranium. It's necessary to work in such a way to develop natural uranium and uranium fields," Hu told reporters. Although the leaders said they had signed a number of agreements regarding the purchase of energy from Uzbekistan, including uranium and natural gas, they declined to provide specifics details on the deals. Karimov, who has led his isolated Central Asian state for nearly two decades since the collapse of the Soviet Union, pledged support for China's territorial integrity, specifically in Tibet and Taiwan. China has been increasingly active in ex-Soviet Central Asia in recent years, moving to secure access to the region's vast natural resources for its energy-starved industries.
Jun 10 2010
Prisoners are converting to Islam to win benefits and gain the protection of powerful Muslim gangs inside jails, the Chief Inspector of Prisons has warned. Up to a third of Muslim prisoners adopted the religion while serving their sentence, a new report by inspectors has found. Chief Inspector Dame Anne Owers also warned of the need for greater engagement with Muslim prisoners to prevent them turning to extremism. Her report said attempts to crack down on Muslim fanatics in jail are pushing inmates into the arms of extremists, claiming prison staffs treat all Muslims - including converts - as if they could pose a security threat. But this 'blanket approach' risks turning moderates into radicals. There are 10,300 Muslim prisoners in jails in England and Wales. The number has increased fourfold since 1994. Less than 1 per cent are behind bars for terror-related offences. Miss Owers said prison officers need to focus on individual prisoners instead of treating them all alike. 'Without that there is a real risk of a self-fulfiling prophecy: that the prison experience will create or entrench alienation and disaffection, so that prisons release into the community young men who are more likely to offend, or even embrace extremism,' she said. The warning came as a survey found Islam is linked to violent extremism in the minds of most Britons. A YouGov poll of 2,152 adults also revealed widespread concern about the impact of the faith on British values. It found nearly six in ten associate Islam with radical views, and two-thirds believe it encourages the repression of women.
Anti-Islam Wilders in line for Cabinet role as Liberals narrowly win Dutch elections
The Freedom Party of the anti-Islam MP Geert Wilders emerged as the third force in Dutch politics last night, nearly doubling its number of seats in Parliament in the country’s general elections. Mr Wilders won 21 seats, up from 9 — pushing the Christian Democrats, led by the outgoing Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende, into fourth place. Mr Wilders, who wants to ban Muslim veils and the building of new mosques, is constitutionally bound to take part in coalition talks. He could be offered a place in a Cabinet chosen by Mr Rutte, who has said that the Freedom Party is “just another party”, but Mr Cohen has ruled out on moral grounds sharing power with the controversial critic of Islam on moral grounds. “We really want to be part of government, We want to participate. I don’t think the other parties can escape us,” Mr Wilders said.
US Defence Secretary Gates blames EU for Turkey 'drift'
Turkey's growing hostility to Israel may have been partly caused by its effective rejection by the European Union, the US defence secretary says. Robert Gates said Turkey may have been "pushed by some in Europe" away from the EU and into closer partnerships with states like Iran. Turkey has been put on the path to EU membership, but countries like France and Germany are openly opposed. Turkey and Israel's once-close alliance has come under severe strain. Their relations were already deteriorating before Israeli troops stormed a ship carrying aid to Gaza last month, killing nine Turks. "The deterioration in the relationship between Turkey and Israel over the past year-or-so is a matter of concern," Mr Gates said during a visit to London. "I think the two had a pretty constructive relationship and one that contributed to stability in the region, and I hope that, over time, that kind of constructive relationship can be re-established," he added. "I personally think that if there is anything to the notion that Turkey is, if you will, moving eastward, it is, in my view, in no small part because it was pushed, and pushed by some in Europe refusing to give Turkey the kind of organic link to the West that Turkey sought. I think we have to think long and hard about why these developments in Turkey [occurred] and what we might be able to do to counter them."
U.N. Approves New Sanctions to Deter Iran
The United Nations Security Council leveled its fourth round of sanctions against Iran’s nuclear program on Wednesday, but the measures did little to overcome widespread doubts that they — or even the additional steps pledged by American and European officials — would accomplish the Council’s longstanding goal: halting Iran’s production of nuclear fuel. The new resolution, hailed by President Obama as delivering “the toughest sanctions ever faced by the Iranian government,” took months to negotiate and major concessions by American officials, but still failed to carry the symbolic weight of a unanimous decision. Twelve of the 15 nations on the Council voted for the measure, while Turkey and Brazil voted against it and Lebanon abstained. The United States and Europe acknowledged before negotiations started that they would not get the tough sanctions they were hoping for, promising to enact harsher measures on their own once they had the imprimatur of the United Nations. Congress is expected to pass a package of unilateral sanctions against Iran, and European leaders will begin discussing possible measures at a summit meeting next week.
Pakistan ranked fifth most unstable country
Pakistan is the world’s fifth most unstable country, better only than Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan and Sudan in that order, says the US State Department. The department’s Global Peace Index (GPI), released on Wednesday, reports that Pakistan’s overall score deteriorated steadily for the second successive year and it slid three places into the bottom five. Pakistan’s overall rank now is 145 on a list of 149 countries. All South Asian nations occupy the lower half of the regional table, headed by Nepal, in 82nd place. India, although better than Pakistan, is also in the red zone and is ranked 128. Israel rose two places to 144th in the 2010 index. Now it is one place ahead of Pakistan. Ongoing internal conflicts and related security concerns in Afghanistan and Pakistan contribute to their low rankings. Embroiled in conflict and instability for much of the past two decades, Afghanistan remained far from peaceful during 2009.
Musharraf’s All Pakistan Muslim League formally launched in Sindh
The organisation for the All Pakistan Muslim League (APML), headed by General (r) Pervez Musharraf, was formally launched in Sindh on Tuesday amid queries regarding accusations against the former military president of the country. APML’s organiser Barrister Mohammad Ali Saif accompanied by former president’s spokesman Rashid Qureshi, addressing a crowded press conference at the Karachi Press Club on Tuesday said the party has received a positive response in Karachi and other parts of Sindh during the last three days in the party leaders’ meetings that were held in the city. Responding to allegations against Musharraf including violation of constitution, dozens of killings at Lal Masjid and Jamia Hafsa, Benazir Bhutto and Nawab Akbar Bugti’s assassination, and killings of over 40 people in Karachi on May 12, 2007, the party leader said he knew such questions would be asked as they had faced the same questions from people at different places. He added that all accusations would be answered and defended with documentary proofs at an appropriate time. Saif remarked that everybody has the right to participate in the politics of the country.
Uzbekistan, China pledge closer energy and security ties
The leaders of Uzbekistan and China on Wednesday said they had signed deals aimed at increasing cooperation on energy and regional security. Speaking ahead of an annual meeting of the Chinese-led Shanghai Cooperation Organization meeting in Tashkent, Chinese President Hu Jintao and Uzbek President Islam Karimov pledged closer ties, particularly on nuclear fuel. "One of the question we discussed was that of long-term and stable cooperation in the field of ... uranium. It's necessary to work in such a way to develop natural uranium and uranium fields," Hu told reporters. Although the leaders said they had signed a number of agreements regarding the purchase of energy from Uzbekistan, including uranium and natural gas, they declined to provide specifics details on the deals. Karimov, who has led his isolated Central Asian state for nearly two decades since the collapse of the Soviet Union, pledged support for China's territorial integrity, specifically in Tibet and Taiwan. China has been increasingly active in ex-Soviet Central Asia in recent years, moving to secure access to the region's vast natural resources for its energy-starved industries.
Jun 10 2010
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Secret no more
The Daily Star
AS the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference concludes in New York, the United States-led Western powers are focussing on West Asia, because they want Iran to freeze its nuclear activities. But inevitably, attention is riveted on Israel, the region's sole nuclear weapons-state (NWS).
Against this backdrop comes the sensational disclosure that Israel sold nuclear warheads to apartheid South Africa in 1975, and the two coordinated their military programs and strategic approaches.
This is revealed in US-based scholar Sasha Pulakow-Suransky's just-published The Unspoken Alliance: Israel's Secret Relationship with Apartheid South Africa, based on recently declassified "top secret" minutes of top-level bipartite meetings.
The disclosure will seriously embarrass Israel, whose intransigence against ending its illegal occupation of Palestine is increasingly isolating it internationally.
The book says South Africa's defence minister P.W. Botha asked for nuclear warheads when he met Shimon Peres, Israel's then defence minister and now its president, who agreed. They signed a wide-ranging pact on bilateral military relations, with a clause stipulating its "very existence" must remain secret.
These military relations were crucial -- Israel supplied South Africa with arms when it faced international economic-military sanctions. South Africa is believed to have made six nuclear weapons, which it destroyed before apartheid ended.
The disclosures undermine Israel's "nuclear ambiguity" policy of neither confirming nor denying nuclear weapons possession. Other sources, including Israeli whistleblower Mordechai Vanunu, confirm that Israel has 200 to 300 nuclear warheads.
The book also demolishes Israel's claim that it's a "responsible" state which wouldn't use nuclear weapons even if it had them -- supposedly, unlike Iran. But a nation which helped pariah South Africa overcome richly-deserved international isolation and supplied it mass-destruction weapons cannot be "responsible."
South Africa wanted nuclear weapons as a deterrent and for potential attacks upon its neighbours -- just as Israel did, and still does.
No state in modern history has been more inhumanly discriminatory than apartheid South Africa, a rogue state. Zionist Israel is in the same league.
Pulakow-Suransky shows that Israel "formally offered to sell South Africa" nuclear-capable Jericho missiles in March 1975. Present at the talks was South African military chief R.F. Armstrong whose "top secret" memorandum detailed the missiles' benefits for South Africa -- but only if they were fitted with nuclear weapons.
After the 1973 Yom Kippur war, Israel was short of uranium, of which South Africa has large reserves. Israel also needed hard currency. It got both by selling conventional weapons, and by sharing nuclear know-how with South Africa and converting some of its yellowcake (mixed oxides of uranium) into weapons-grade plutonium.
The Israel-South Africa alliance was strategic. In 1987, Israel adopted some sanctions against South Africa, but continued with existing arms contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars.
The alliance was based less on military imperatives than on the two leaderships' shared belief that theirs were two relatively small nations guarding "their land" and "identity" in a hostile environment. Both wanted to perpetuate their privileged colonial settlers' power.
Their self-assigned role as regional bulwarks against Communism brought them Western support -- until global opinion turned against apartheid. Israel forgot that Nazi sympathisers had helped put apartheid's architects into power.
In a secret deal, South Africa lifted safeguards on 450 tonnes of yellowcake sold to Israel, in return for tritium, used as a nuclear weapons booster. Israel bailed out a South African politician whose bankruptcy would have jeopardised the deal.
This revelation proves that Israel was cynically culpable of nuclear proliferation.
Israel had clandestine dealings from the 1950s onwards with Britain and France too, which supplied it nuclear materials, including heavy water. Its nuclear weapons are undeclared -- unlike those of the US, Russia, Britain, France, China, India, Pakistan or North Korea. Israel hasn't signed the NPT.
However, although dubious, Israel's record of clandestine nuclear collaborations, shady deals and complicity in other countries' weapons pursuits mirrors that of the other NWSs. They are all culpable of proliferation or violation of dual-use commitments.
India has had nuclear assistance from the US, UK, Canada, the USSR, China, Russia, even Norway. India built its first bomb on the basis of CIRUS, a reactor constructed with Canadian and US support.
India's 1974 explosion was called "peaceful" because India didn't want to be seen violating its professed commitment to nuclear disarmament or its "peaceful" use legal commitments to the US and Canada. It also lacked the stomach for more tests.
Pakistan has long received nuclear weapons designs, from China. A.Q. Khan, who pilfered centrifuge designs from Europe, made dirty deals with North Korea, Libya and Iran, with the Pakistani army's complicity. Washington ignored Islamabad's nuclear preparations during Afghanistan's Soviet occupation. North Korea made its bomb with a Soviet-built reactor.
The point is, all NWSs have been complicit in nuclear proliferation. Worse, they are the only nations to have used nuclear weapons and practised nuclear blackmail. So, their blackballing of Iran is hypocritical. Nuclear weapons are unacceptably dangerous in anybody's hands
Although NWSs rationalise nuclear weapons via "deterrence," they have doctrines for actually using them against non-combatant civilians. Deterrence entails the readiness to use them.
The US and USSR came close to using nuclear weapons during the Cold War; Israel in 1973; and Pakistan and India during the 1999 Kargil conflict and the 10 month-long standoff in 2001.
No government committed to exterminating millions of civilians is "responsible." The current hype about "terrorist groups" acquiring nuclear material serves to legitimise the NWSs' possession of them and to fraudulently distinguish between "responsible" and "irresponsible" actors.
"Responsible NWSs" is a contradiction in terms. The greatest nuclear danger emanates from the NWSs, which seek security through nuclear terror. Non-state actors like al-Qaeda cannot build the elaborate relatively sophisticated infrastructure that nuclear programs need. They have even failed to clandestinely buy fissile material.
Yet, so long as nuclear weapons exist and are regarded as a currency of power, state and non-state actors will be tempted to acquire them. The only way of preventing them is to eliminate nuclear weapons globally.
Praful Bidwai is an eminent Indian columnist.
Email: bidwai@bol.net.in.
AS the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference concludes in New York, the United States-led Western powers are focussing on West Asia, because they want Iran to freeze its nuclear activities. But inevitably, attention is riveted on Israel, the region's sole nuclear weapons-state (NWS).
Against this backdrop comes the sensational disclosure that Israel sold nuclear warheads to apartheid South Africa in 1975, and the two coordinated their military programs and strategic approaches.
This is revealed in US-based scholar Sasha Pulakow-Suransky's just-published The Unspoken Alliance: Israel's Secret Relationship with Apartheid South Africa, based on recently declassified "top secret" minutes of top-level bipartite meetings.
The disclosure will seriously embarrass Israel, whose intransigence against ending its illegal occupation of Palestine is increasingly isolating it internationally.
The book says South Africa's defence minister P.W. Botha asked for nuclear warheads when he met Shimon Peres, Israel's then defence minister and now its president, who agreed. They signed a wide-ranging pact on bilateral military relations, with a clause stipulating its "very existence" must remain secret.
These military relations were crucial -- Israel supplied South Africa with arms when it faced international economic-military sanctions. South Africa is believed to have made six nuclear weapons, which it destroyed before apartheid ended.
The disclosures undermine Israel's "nuclear ambiguity" policy of neither confirming nor denying nuclear weapons possession. Other sources, including Israeli whistleblower Mordechai Vanunu, confirm that Israel has 200 to 300 nuclear warheads.
The book also demolishes Israel's claim that it's a "responsible" state which wouldn't use nuclear weapons even if it had them -- supposedly, unlike Iran. But a nation which helped pariah South Africa overcome richly-deserved international isolation and supplied it mass-destruction weapons cannot be "responsible."
South Africa wanted nuclear weapons as a deterrent and for potential attacks upon its neighbours -- just as Israel did, and still does.
No state in modern history has been more inhumanly discriminatory than apartheid South Africa, a rogue state. Zionist Israel is in the same league.
Pulakow-Suransky shows that Israel "formally offered to sell South Africa" nuclear-capable Jericho missiles in March 1975. Present at the talks was South African military chief R.F. Armstrong whose "top secret" memorandum detailed the missiles' benefits for South Africa -- but only if they were fitted with nuclear weapons.
After the 1973 Yom Kippur war, Israel was short of uranium, of which South Africa has large reserves. Israel also needed hard currency. It got both by selling conventional weapons, and by sharing nuclear know-how with South Africa and converting some of its yellowcake (mixed oxides of uranium) into weapons-grade plutonium.
The Israel-South Africa alliance was strategic. In 1987, Israel adopted some sanctions against South Africa, but continued with existing arms contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars.
The alliance was based less on military imperatives than on the two leaderships' shared belief that theirs were two relatively small nations guarding "their land" and "identity" in a hostile environment. Both wanted to perpetuate their privileged colonial settlers' power.
Their self-assigned role as regional bulwarks against Communism brought them Western support -- until global opinion turned against apartheid. Israel forgot that Nazi sympathisers had helped put apartheid's architects into power.
In a secret deal, South Africa lifted safeguards on 450 tonnes of yellowcake sold to Israel, in return for tritium, used as a nuclear weapons booster. Israel bailed out a South African politician whose bankruptcy would have jeopardised the deal.
This revelation proves that Israel was cynically culpable of nuclear proliferation.
Israel had clandestine dealings from the 1950s onwards with Britain and France too, which supplied it nuclear materials, including heavy water. Its nuclear weapons are undeclared -- unlike those of the US, Russia, Britain, France, China, India, Pakistan or North Korea. Israel hasn't signed the NPT.
However, although dubious, Israel's record of clandestine nuclear collaborations, shady deals and complicity in other countries' weapons pursuits mirrors that of the other NWSs. They are all culpable of proliferation or violation of dual-use commitments.
India has had nuclear assistance from the US, UK, Canada, the USSR, China, Russia, even Norway. India built its first bomb on the basis of CIRUS, a reactor constructed with Canadian and US support.
India's 1974 explosion was called "peaceful" because India didn't want to be seen violating its professed commitment to nuclear disarmament or its "peaceful" use legal commitments to the US and Canada. It also lacked the stomach for more tests.
Pakistan has long received nuclear weapons designs, from China. A.Q. Khan, who pilfered centrifuge designs from Europe, made dirty deals with North Korea, Libya and Iran, with the Pakistani army's complicity. Washington ignored Islamabad's nuclear preparations during Afghanistan's Soviet occupation. North Korea made its bomb with a Soviet-built reactor.
The point is, all NWSs have been complicit in nuclear proliferation. Worse, they are the only nations to have used nuclear weapons and practised nuclear blackmail. So, their blackballing of Iran is hypocritical. Nuclear weapons are unacceptably dangerous in anybody's hands
Although NWSs rationalise nuclear weapons via "deterrence," they have doctrines for actually using them against non-combatant civilians. Deterrence entails the readiness to use them.
The US and USSR came close to using nuclear weapons during the Cold War; Israel in 1973; and Pakistan and India during the 1999 Kargil conflict and the 10 month-long standoff in 2001.
No government committed to exterminating millions of civilians is "responsible." The current hype about "terrorist groups" acquiring nuclear material serves to legitimise the NWSs' possession of them and to fraudulently distinguish between "responsible" and "irresponsible" actors.
"Responsible NWSs" is a contradiction in terms. The greatest nuclear danger emanates from the NWSs, which seek security through nuclear terror. Non-state actors like al-Qaeda cannot build the elaborate relatively sophisticated infrastructure that nuclear programs need. They have even failed to clandestinely buy fissile material.
Yet, so long as nuclear weapons exist and are regarded as a currency of power, state and non-state actors will be tempted to acquire them. The only way of preventing them is to eliminate nuclear weapons globally.
Praful Bidwai is an eminent Indian columnist.
Email: bidwai@bol.net.in.
UK monitors suspected radicals as part of European surveillance project
Guardian
Police keep tabs on activists from across the political spectrum, documents obtained by EU civil liberties NGO reveal
The UK is taking part in a European surveillance programme which is designed to gather personal information about suspected "radicals" from across the political spectrum.
Confidential documents reveal how an initiative to gather data on "radicalisation and recruitment" in Islamic terrorist groups has been expanded to incorporate other organisations.
Political activists who have no association with terrorism could now find themselves monitored by authorities mandated to discover information about their friends, family, neighbours, political beliefs, use of the internet and even psychological traits.
Police and security agencies have agreed to monitor "agents" who adhere to ideologies potentially involving violence. The documents define targets for the surveillance as people involved in "extreme right/left, Islamist, nationalist, anti-globalisation" groups.
Europol, a EU law enforcement agency, has been asked to produce a list of people involved in either promoting such groups, or in trying to recruit members.
The documents, obtained by Statewatch, the EU civil liberties monitoring NGO, set out a programme of "systematic data collection" ostensibly geared towards terrorism. But the inclusion of such a broad array of political interests will add to growing concerns that legitimate protest organisations are being subjected to state surveillance.
In the UK, the police have developed a centralised monitoring apparatus to spy on "domestic extremists", an umbrella term with no legal definition which, in practice, includes law-abiding environmental protesters, anti-war activists, and anti-racist campaigners.
The scheme has a central database held by the national public order intelligence unit, a secretive body funded by the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo). Monitoring of political activists is a task filled by the terrorism and allied matters division of Acpo.
The advice lists "environmental extremists" alongside far-right activists, dissident Irish republicans, loyalist paramilitaries, and al-Qaida inspired extremists, as among those "currently categorised as extremist [that] may include those who have committed serious crime in pursuit of an ideology or cause".
The UK government has also been criticised over Prevent, a programme aimed at stopping Muslims being lured into violent extremism. The initiative was branded a mass surveillance project after it was found it was being used to gather intelligence on innocent people who were not suspected of involvement in terrorism.
Under the new, approved, EU scheme, states have acquired a 70-question list on "agents of radicalisation" under their watch. Much of the information presumes a high-degree of intrusive monitoring, obtainable only via covert surveillance techniques, such as phone tapping.
It is assumed, for example, that law enforcement agencies will obtain information about a person's "feelings" about a group that could be "considered as the enemy". One section asks for information about "oral comments" made by targets, while others ask about religious knowledge, behaviour, and socio-economic status.
Under "relevant psychological traits", law enforcement agencies are asked to collate and share information on "psychological disorders, charismatic personality, weak personality, etc". Another question asks: "Is there a prior relationship between the agents? Schoolmates, friends, relatives, shared time in prison, etc."
This latest data-sharing agreement is the culmination of long-standing attempts to create a pan-European database of individuals whom police suspect could cause trouble at large demonstrations.
EU officials, principally led by Germany, have tried repeatedly to widen the shared data on suspected terrorists and serious criminals to include political activists, defined in documents as "troublemakers" who attend "large public gatherings".
The moves were stalled by objections from some member states, including the UK, concerned about civil liberties and data protection. But they reappeared as a firm commitment in the EU's five-year Stockholm programme.
Police keep tabs on activists from across the political spectrum, documents obtained by EU civil liberties NGO reveal
The UK is taking part in a European surveillance programme which is designed to gather personal information about suspected "radicals" from across the political spectrum.
Confidential documents reveal how an initiative to gather data on "radicalisation and recruitment" in Islamic terrorist groups has been expanded to incorporate other organisations.
Political activists who have no association with terrorism could now find themselves monitored by authorities mandated to discover information about their friends, family, neighbours, political beliefs, use of the internet and even psychological traits.
Police and security agencies have agreed to monitor "agents" who adhere to ideologies potentially involving violence. The documents define targets for the surveillance as people involved in "extreme right/left, Islamist, nationalist, anti-globalisation" groups.
Europol, a EU law enforcement agency, has been asked to produce a list of people involved in either promoting such groups, or in trying to recruit members.
The documents, obtained by Statewatch, the EU civil liberties monitoring NGO, set out a programme of "systematic data collection" ostensibly geared towards terrorism. But the inclusion of such a broad array of political interests will add to growing concerns that legitimate protest organisations are being subjected to state surveillance.
In the UK, the police have developed a centralised monitoring apparatus to spy on "domestic extremists", an umbrella term with no legal definition which, in practice, includes law-abiding environmental protesters, anti-war activists, and anti-racist campaigners.
The scheme has a central database held by the national public order intelligence unit, a secretive body funded by the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo). Monitoring of political activists is a task filled by the terrorism and allied matters division of Acpo.
The advice lists "environmental extremists" alongside far-right activists, dissident Irish republicans, loyalist paramilitaries, and al-Qaida inspired extremists, as among those "currently categorised as extremist [that] may include those who have committed serious crime in pursuit of an ideology or cause".
The UK government has also been criticised over Prevent, a programme aimed at stopping Muslims being lured into violent extremism. The initiative was branded a mass surveillance project after it was found it was being used to gather intelligence on innocent people who were not suspected of involvement in terrorism.
Under the new, approved, EU scheme, states have acquired a 70-question list on "agents of radicalisation" under their watch. Much of the information presumes a high-degree of intrusive monitoring, obtainable only via covert surveillance techniques, such as phone tapping.
It is assumed, for example, that law enforcement agencies will obtain information about a person's "feelings" about a group that could be "considered as the enemy". One section asks for information about "oral comments" made by targets, while others ask about religious knowledge, behaviour, and socio-economic status.
Under "relevant psychological traits", law enforcement agencies are asked to collate and share information on "psychological disorders, charismatic personality, weak personality, etc". Another question asks: "Is there a prior relationship between the agents? Schoolmates, friends, relatives, shared time in prison, etc."
This latest data-sharing agreement is the culmination of long-standing attempts to create a pan-European database of individuals whom police suspect could cause trouble at large demonstrations.
EU officials, principally led by Germany, have tried repeatedly to widen the shared data on suspected terrorists and serious criminals to include political activists, defined in documents as "troublemakers" who attend "large public gatherings".
The moves were stalled by objections from some member states, including the UK, concerned about civil liberties and data protection. But they reappeared as a firm commitment in the EU's five-year Stockholm programme.
Army general quizzed over 'hooding'
UKPA
A senior Army officer was unaware that troops under his command wrongly believed hooding Iraqi prisoners was standard operating procedure, an inquiry has heard. In April 2003, Major General Robin Brims, later promoted to Lieutenant General, outlawed the hooding of detainees throughout 1st (UK) Armoured Division, then serving in Iraq.
But asked if he was aware that some soldiers had been routinely hooding prisoners at the point of capture, Lt Gen Brims said: "I did not see it."
The Lt Gen was giving evidence during an inquiry investigating allegations that British soldiers beat to death hotel receptionist Baha Mousa, 26, in Basra, southern Iraq, in September 2003.
It has heard that troops used "conditioning" methods on Iraqi prisoners, such as hooding, sleep deprivation and making them stand in painful stress positions with their knees bent and hands outstretched.
These techniques were outlawed by the Government in 1972 after an investigation into an interrogation in Northern Ireland.
Gerard Elias QC, counsel for the inquiry, asked Lt Gen Brims: "Did you know at the time of issuing that order that there were troops on the ground that believed it was a standard operating procedure to hood prisoners at the point of capture?"
The Lt Gen responded: "I didn't know at the time, I now know it, yes."
The Lt Gen insisted that he had not seen a standard operational procedure telling soldiers to use hoods at the point of capture. But he said there was some confusion as to whether hooding prisoners was lawful or not.
The Lt Gen also told the inquiry he gave an oral order to ban hooding after witnessing a detainee at the Umm Qasr prisoner of war handling centre being moved while wearing a sandbag hood.
A senior Army officer was unaware that troops under his command wrongly believed hooding Iraqi prisoners was standard operating procedure, an inquiry has heard. In April 2003, Major General Robin Brims, later promoted to Lieutenant General, outlawed the hooding of detainees throughout 1st (UK) Armoured Division, then serving in Iraq.
But asked if he was aware that some soldiers had been routinely hooding prisoners at the point of capture, Lt Gen Brims said: "I did not see it."
The Lt Gen was giving evidence during an inquiry investigating allegations that British soldiers beat to death hotel receptionist Baha Mousa, 26, in Basra, southern Iraq, in September 2003.
It has heard that troops used "conditioning" methods on Iraqi prisoners, such as hooding, sleep deprivation and making them stand in painful stress positions with their knees bent and hands outstretched.
These techniques were outlawed by the Government in 1972 after an investigation into an interrogation in Northern Ireland.
Gerard Elias QC, counsel for the inquiry, asked Lt Gen Brims: "Did you know at the time of issuing that order that there were troops on the ground that believed it was a standard operating procedure to hood prisoners at the point of capture?"
The Lt Gen responded: "I didn't know at the time, I now know it, yes."
The Lt Gen insisted that he had not seen a standard operational procedure telling soldiers to use hoods at the point of capture. But he said there was some confusion as to whether hooding prisoners was lawful or not.
The Lt Gen also told the inquiry he gave an oral order to ban hooding after witnessing a detainee at the Umm Qasr prisoner of war handling centre being moved while wearing a sandbag hood.
Thousands wrongly detained in police terror law blunder
Times Online
Fourteen police forces have unlawfully stopped and searched thousands of people on the streets under controversial counter terror powers, the Home Office disclosed today. The blunder occurred when police detained people without having permission to do so from a Home Office minister. On other occasions police continued to stop and search people for longer than they had been given authorisation under the law.
The 14 police forces involved are now in the process of establishing how many people have been wrongly stopped and search but in London alone the figure is 840.
The serious errors were uncovered during an internal Home Office review of the authorisation process for stop and searches under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000. Under the power police can stop and search members of the public in a designated area without having a reasonable suspicion that they are involved in crime.
Baroness Neville-Jones, the Security Minister, said: “I am very concerned by these historical administrative errors. To maintain public confidence in our counter-terrorism powers, it is absolutely crucial all those responsible for exercising them do so properly.
“I take these matters extremely seriously and have instructed the department to conduct an urgent review of current procedures to ensure that errors can be prevented in future.”
She added: “The Government is already committed to undertaking a review of counter-terrorism legislation which will include the use of stop-and-search powers in section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000. We shall make our findings known as soon as possible.”
In a written ministerial statement to MPs, Nick Herbert, the Police Minister, said that the Metropolitan Police had found one authorisation to stop and search people in April 2004 that had not been authorised by the Home Secretary within 48 hours, as required by law.
The police paperwork error led to a review in May this year of all authorisations under Section 44 powers since the Terrorism Act 2000 became law in February 2001.
It found that on 33 occasions authorisations were said to be for 29 days and on two occasions for 30 days when the lawful maximum is 28 days. In two cases authorisations were not confirmed by the Home Secretary within 48 hours.
Mr Herbert said: “All of these cases appear to have been as a result of administrative errors that were not identified at the time by either the police or the Home Office.”
The police forces involved in the paperwork blunder are Kent, Sussex, Durham, Cleveland, City of London, Metropolitan Police, Thames Valley, North Yorkshire, Hampshire, Bedfordshire, Essex, Greater Manchester, Fife and South Wales.
Fourteen police forces have unlawfully stopped and searched thousands of people on the streets under controversial counter terror powers, the Home Office disclosed today. The blunder occurred when police detained people without having permission to do so from a Home Office minister. On other occasions police continued to stop and search people for longer than they had been given authorisation under the law.
The 14 police forces involved are now in the process of establishing how many people have been wrongly stopped and search but in London alone the figure is 840.
The serious errors were uncovered during an internal Home Office review of the authorisation process for stop and searches under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000. Under the power police can stop and search members of the public in a designated area without having a reasonable suspicion that they are involved in crime.
Baroness Neville-Jones, the Security Minister, said: “I am very concerned by these historical administrative errors. To maintain public confidence in our counter-terrorism powers, it is absolutely crucial all those responsible for exercising them do so properly.
“I take these matters extremely seriously and have instructed the department to conduct an urgent review of current procedures to ensure that errors can be prevented in future.”
She added: “The Government is already committed to undertaking a review of counter-terrorism legislation which will include the use of stop-and-search powers in section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000. We shall make our findings known as soon as possible.”
In a written ministerial statement to MPs, Nick Herbert, the Police Minister, said that the Metropolitan Police had found one authorisation to stop and search people in April 2004 that had not been authorised by the Home Secretary within 48 hours, as required by law.
The police paperwork error led to a review in May this year of all authorisations under Section 44 powers since the Terrorism Act 2000 became law in February 2001.
It found that on 33 occasions authorisations were said to be for 29 days and on two occasions for 30 days when the lawful maximum is 28 days. In two cases authorisations were not confirmed by the Home Secretary within 48 hours.
Mr Herbert said: “All of these cases appear to have been as a result of administrative errors that were not identified at the time by either the police or the Home Office.”
The police forces involved in the paperwork blunder are Kent, Sussex, Durham, Cleveland, City of London, Metropolitan Police, Thames Valley, North Yorkshire, Hampshire, Bedfordshire, Essex, Greater Manchester, Fife and South Wales.
Officer tells of Iraq priority: secure oil
MSO
A former senior British army officer has told an inquiry into abuses by British forces in Iraq that his main priority had been to secure the country's oil infrastructure.
Lieutenant General Robin Brims, the former general officer commanding of 1 Armoured Division, made the comment during testimony to the Baha Mousa inquiry in London.
Mr Mousa was beaten and kicked to death by British troops in September 2003 while in custody at BG Main detention facility. The inquiry has heard numerous accounts of how Mr Mousa was abused for 36 hours and kept hooded for up to 24 hours, despite this being officially recognised as inhumane treatment.
Lt Gen Brims was summoned to the inquiry to answer questions about an order he issued banning the practice of hooding prisoners of war and detainees some months before Mr Mousa's arrest and subsequent death.
Gerard Elias QC, counsel for the inquiry, asked Lt Gen Brims if he was aware that troops were apparently under the impression it was "a standard operating procedure to hood prisoners at the point of capture."
The officer responded: "I didn't know at the time, I now know it, yes."
He also told the inquiry that he gave an oral order to ban hooding in April 2003 after witnessing such an incident at Umm Qasr detention centre.
Mr Elias put it to him: "It would have been desirable, wouldn't it, that the order should have been cascaded down clearly and therefore desirable in writing."
Lt Gen Brims said that at the time he had not seen it as a priority.
When later asked what his priority had been at that time he said it had been to "secure the flank" as US forces moved north and "secure the oil infrastructure."
The inquiry also heard evidence from former secretary of state for defence Geoff Hoon.
In a statement to the inquiry Mr Hoon said he had been unaware that hooding was being used by troops until after Baha Mousa's death. He further said that it had been former armed forces minister Adam Ingram who dealt with issues such as the proper treatment of prisoners of war and detainees in Iraq.
Mr Hoon said Mr Mousa's death had resulted in a number of questions that had to be answered.
"Why was this man hooded for so long? What were the circumstances? Why was hooding being used? Was it being used for purposes that were for example unlawful?" he asked.
The former minister also said he "did not recall being aware of" a review of interrogation and questioning practices or that the International Committee of the Red Cross had expressed concerns over the use of hooding.
A former senior British army officer has told an inquiry into abuses by British forces in Iraq that his main priority had been to secure the country's oil infrastructure.
Lieutenant General Robin Brims, the former general officer commanding of 1 Armoured Division, made the comment during testimony to the Baha Mousa inquiry in London.
Mr Mousa was beaten and kicked to death by British troops in September 2003 while in custody at BG Main detention facility. The inquiry has heard numerous accounts of how Mr Mousa was abused for 36 hours and kept hooded for up to 24 hours, despite this being officially recognised as inhumane treatment.
Lt Gen Brims was summoned to the inquiry to answer questions about an order he issued banning the practice of hooding prisoners of war and detainees some months before Mr Mousa's arrest and subsequent death.
Gerard Elias QC, counsel for the inquiry, asked Lt Gen Brims if he was aware that troops were apparently under the impression it was "a standard operating procedure to hood prisoners at the point of capture."
The officer responded: "I didn't know at the time, I now know it, yes."
He also told the inquiry that he gave an oral order to ban hooding in April 2003 after witnessing such an incident at Umm Qasr detention centre.
Mr Elias put it to him: "It would have been desirable, wouldn't it, that the order should have been cascaded down clearly and therefore desirable in writing."
Lt Gen Brims said that at the time he had not seen it as a priority.
When later asked what his priority had been at that time he said it had been to "secure the flank" as US forces moved north and "secure the oil infrastructure."
The inquiry also heard evidence from former secretary of state for defence Geoff Hoon.
In a statement to the inquiry Mr Hoon said he had been unaware that hooding was being used by troops until after Baha Mousa's death. He further said that it had been former armed forces minister Adam Ingram who dealt with issues such as the proper treatment of prisoners of war and detainees in Iraq.
Mr Hoon said Mr Mousa's death had resulted in a number of questions that had to be answered.
"Why was this man hooded for so long? What were the circumstances? Why was hooding being used? Was it being used for purposes that were for example unlawful?" he asked.
The former minister also said he "did not recall being aware of" a review of interrogation and questioning practices or that the International Committee of the Red Cross had expressed concerns over the use of hooding.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)