Iraq’s Crisis: Vice President Hashemi Speaks

Iraq’s Crisis: Vice President Hashemi Speaks

By Ma'ad Fayad, Asharq Al-Awsat

Asharq Al-Awsat Interview: Iraqi VP Tariq al-Hashimi February 2, 2012 Erbil, Asharq Al-Awsat- Iraqi Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi believes his greatest mistake was, "supporting Al-Maliki twice for the position of prime minister of Iraq." Speaking to Asharq Al-Awsat from his temporary residence in Erbil, the capital of the Iraqi Kurdistan region, al-Hashimi rejected standing before any court in Baghdad and stated that he will "sue Nuri al-Maliki constitutionally and legally because he harmed my reputation and honour." Al-Hashimi detailed the raid on his office and his home in the fortified Green Zone in Baghdad by Operation Forces and described his ordeal as "sectarian practices." The following is the full text of the interview: [Asharq Al-Awsat] Do you think you will remain in Erbil for long? [Al-Hashimi] I hope not. I hope that this crisis will end well in the near future. However, I cannot determine a time frame for remaining here. My situation is normal, praise be to God, and I am working with the rest of the leaders to find an appropriate way out. [Asharq Al-Awsat] what scenario do you see resolving this crisis? [Al-Hashimi] The crisis this time is a heavy weight, and I mean what I say. Nuri al-Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister, has created a national crisis and this requires an urgent political surgical resolution. In my opinion, Iraq today is at a crossroad: either we focus the attention of our political leaders to build a true democracy or everyone must give in to what happened over the past six years in terms of obvious polarization of power which could very possibly lead this country to tyranny. This political scene that I am summarizing and I am saying has put the country in great danger and all possibilities in the future are open. It is on this basis that it is now time for everyone to assume their national and legitimate roles, especially leaders of the National Alliance, in order to save Iraq and prevent the country from slipping back into tyranny and losing the opportunity. This could be the last opportunity. [Asharq Al-Awsat] In your opinion what led to this situation? [Al-Hashimi] This problem probably lies in the national project that was adopted by our Al-Iraqiya group. Frankly, this is how I read the situation. Personally over the past six years I have not been a personal rival of Al-Maliki, but I was in opposition. [Asharq Al-Awsat] You were a supporter of Al-Maliki! [Al-Hashimi] I never supported Al-Maliki. [Asharq Al-Awsat] Did you not support his nomination for the prime minister's position twice? [Al-Hashimi] Yes I did, on two occasions, and probably committed the biggest mistake of my life. [Asharq Al-Awsat] Do you regret supporting Al-Maliki? [Al-Hashimi] Yes, very much so. I supported him in 2006 when Al-Maliki was replaced by Ibrahim al-Jaafari. The scene was repeated again when the political position was altered in the final moments before the current government was formed. I deprived Al-Iraqiya the chance of brother Iyad Allawi forming the cabinet and of being the prime minister. We finally agreed on the nomination of Al-Maliki to form the government. I was also one of those people who did not think twice about blessing the nomination of Al-Maliki and this time in the hope that we will benefit from the experience of the previous session. This was the hope and this is what I told Al-Maliki when I met him alone a number of times in the hallways and spoke to him about my point of view on how the Iraqi state should be administrated over the next four years, which I brought down to one issue this time, and said we must steer clear of political one-upmanship and political haggling and focus over the next four years on serving the Iraqi citizen, serving Iraq, and working as contractors, both you and I, to serve Iraq. I have experience and political and security potentials that I want to utilize to serve my country but I was denied the opportunity to help the Iraqis over the past session, so can you this time open your heart to your brothers in the Al-Iraqiya List and strengthen true national partnership, a partnership that would be that of strong people and not one of the powerful with the weak, a leader and a follower which was the impression we had during the previous session? I asked him: Do you have the ability to strengthen this partnership and for everyone to be a supporter of the national project that was announced during the elections campaign? We in the Al-Iraqiya list are ready; in fact Tariq al-Hashimi was ready and I even go further and say clearly that this time we have to succeed and I insist on your personal success, Abu-Isra [REFERENCE to Al-Maliki] so are you ready? Al-Maliki said: I am ready, put your faith in God. However, nothing came out of this promise, the same policy that we had seen in the previous session remained and [continued down] the same path. Therefore, this is what happened. [Asharq Al-Awsat] In your opinion, what is the basis of the disagreement between your Al-Iraqiya grouping and the State of Law grouping or the government? [Al-Hashimi] In my view the basic issue is discrepancy between the two projects, there is a push between a national project that is adopted by Al-Iraqiya that is trying to save Iraq and bring about a tangible transformation in the fields of security, economy, service, and foreign relations with neighbouring countries, and between a project I do not want to describe but its features are clear on the ground and they are manifested in occasional security violations that affect innocent people, and there is no methodological review of this file, but there is arrogance. People are being killed and we say that our security situation is good. On the economic side and eight years after the regime has changed, Iraq depends on one resource and that is the crude oil despite the presence of other resources in Iraq that can be utilized. Therefore, the economic situation is very serious in the event that the sea trade is obstructed by Iran in the Strait of Hormuz. If the export of Iraqi oil is obstructed then Iraq will declare its bankruptcy and will even not be able to pay the salaries of its employees. Do you not think that we should feel ashamed because 36 percent of the Iraqi people, especially in the southern governorates, live below the poverty line and cannot find money for their daily bread? Iraq has huge resources and has huge financial capabilities. The Iraqi budget has not reached over 100 billion dollars throughout its history. As for the services side, we ask where does the Iraqi Government stand now in terms of [providing] electricity and providing fresh drinking water, education, and municipal services? In terms of health there is obvious deterioration and even the UN reports place Iraq in the category of very backward. The other issue pertains to the tense foreign policy with the neighbouring, Arab, and GCC countries in addition to all the countries around the world...the most dangerous aspect are the reports by registered international organizations about the huge degree of corruption that has hit the Iraqi state and the dangerous violations in human rights files which were confirmed by international human rights organizations affiliated to the United Nations, Amnesty, and Human Rights Watch. All these violations took place during the previous session and are happening today regardless of the available international support and the cooperation of the Iraqi people along with groupings and political personalities supporting a peaceful political process as was the case over the past few years. However, the result was tragic in my opinion even though some minor accomplishments were achieved here and there. Lessons should have been learned from what had happened during the previous session and I told Al-Maliki that he has to listen to the other point of view and not to "give yourself immunity and feel that you are not responsible." The accomplishments he had made in the economic, security, and services sectors are the greatest things that should have been achieved in previous years, in fact he should have admitted mistakes and failures and should have been frank with our people. He should have worked in the current session to avoid these shortcomings and to cooperate. However, this did not happen and therefore the disagreement continues between us and Al-Maliki. [Asharq Al-Awsat] Al-Hashimi is the vice president of the republic and Saleh al-Mutlaq is the deputy prime minister and both of you belong to one sect, which is the Sunni sect. I am forced to talk this way as you both belong to one group, which is a rival to the prime minister's group, a group that won the elections but did not form a government. Today you both face marginalization from the rival party in one way or another. Al-Maliki accuses you of terrorism and the prime minister is asking to withdraw confidence from Al-Mutlaq, how do you explain this? [Al-Hashimi] Of course what has happened to me and to brother Al-Mutlaq has a certain dimension. [Asharq Al-Awsat] Do you think it is a sectarian dimension? [Al-Hashimi] Precisely, and proof of this is that today there are people in the National Alliance against whom the courts have issued arrest warrants. But why have they not been implemented? Why is the media announcing the order that Al-Hashimi should be arrested and why was this order not made by the judicial quarters? Later, it transpired that the arrest warrant was issued by the judiciary a few days after it was announced to the public, why? The issue is a sectarian one no doubt and anyone observing this file will see clearly that there is sectarian targeting. A great part of the accusations of terrorism against me and the demands to withdraw confidence from Al-Mutlaq is that (Sunni) entity symbols are being targeted. We in Al-Iraqiya tried through our national project to overcome this sectarian issue. In fact, in our movement there is (renewal) and I am in charge of this renewal. Our first slogan is "Iraq from a country of entities to a country of citizenship." On the other hand, today you see clear bias and oppression from the opposite side. What is the problem in the governorates of Ninawa, Salahaldin, Diyala, and Al-Anbar? The problem is violations in the file of human rights. What is the problem in the southern governorates? Poverty and lack of services. Today, any citizen in these governorates cannot guarantee a secure house for himself or his family. A person cannot guarantee his family for the next day! Why? Therefore, people in these (Sunni) governorates are being targeted and sectarian practices are clear to everyone and they cannot in any way be denied. [Asharq Al-Awsat] The accusations of terrorism against you coincided with the requests by the prime minister to withdraw confidence from Al-Mutlaq and the announcement by the American Administration of the withdrawal of its troops from Iraq. How do you explain this? [Al-Hashimi] There is more than one theory in this regard and they deserve studying. First; has the American Administration given Al-Maliki the green light to do this especially since he says he provided the Americans with information about Al-Hashimi when Al-Maliki was in Washington and therefore they gave him the green light to hassle me upon his return to Baghdad. [Asharq Al-Awsat] Is it possible that a prime minister of an independent and a large sovereign country such as Iraq to give security information about the vice president of the republic to a country that occupied Iraq and to discuss the issue of arresting Al-Hashimi? [Al-Hashimi] This is what happened, and this is very regrettable. This man (Al-Maliki) violated the Constitution, law, and norms. He should have covered up this issue even if Al-Hashimi had made a mistake pertaining to the Constitution or the law. There is a red-line for a public position and when it is said that the vice president of the republic is involved in terrorism then what is left in the Iraqi state? This was an attack not only against Al-Hashimi but the entire Iraqi state and the public position. There was no justification to display our dirty laundry in public had we had any, and this issue was not a fabrication before the world and for us to be led into undermining our symbols and leaders in such a way and offering information to a country that ought to have nothing to do with a sovereign matter pertaining to an employee in the presidency that represents the sovereignty of the Iraqi state! As for the second theory, it pertains to Al-Maliki who probably has his own agenda and he probably needs a long time to implement it. It is an agenda that starts with Al-Hashimi and ends with the symbols of the Iraqi leadership and probably then it will move to symbols of the National Alliance and the leaders of the Kurdish Alliance. Probably what is left of the life of this current session, the two years, is enough. But Al-Maliki will not bring down all the leaders and symbols opposing his policies. He started with Tariq al-Hashimi, and he said it outright: "I have files that will reach other political personalities." However, what stopped him right now from implementing his agenda is the reaction that took him by surprise from within and abroad in defense of the injustice to which Al-Hashimi was subjected. As for the third theory, then probably Al-Maliki faced pressure from a neighbouring country that has proved it is not far from fabricating this incident. Here I mean Iran in particular. The fourth theory is that it was probably a pre-emptive strike for reports that Al-Maliki received said that Al-Hashimi would carry out a coup attempt after the withdrawal of the American forces. [Asharq Al-Awsat] Was it a conspiracy that you were planning? [Al-Hashimi] No...this is laughable. I responded to him and said all that I have in terms of protective weapons are from the Ministry of Defense and they are merely simple Kalashnikov machine guns. The Ministry of Defense for the past four years has refused to complete my security regiment. I am a military officer and I know the number and equipment of the regiment. The only regiment that the Ministry of Defense is refusing to complete is the regiment to protect Al-Hashimi. Al-Maliki deprived patriotic personalities from serving their country and their people. Iraq is in dire need of these services and my dream was to leave public office having achieved something for my country and my people. I have security expertise and I have excellent relations with world leaders. [Asharq Al-Awsat] You mentioned that you were an officer in the Iraqi Army. What was your rank when you left the army? [Al-Hashimi] I was a staff lieutenant colonel when I was expelled from the army in 1975. Had I gone up in my military ranks in the legal way then today I would have held the rank of staff general. However, I altered my rank in 2005 when I put forward a request to take the years I was expelled from the army into account since I was politically expelled and I received the rank of a retired staff major general according to the service log. [Asharq Al-Awsat] Talking about the service log and military ranks, the officers' promotions were carried out according to lists that were published on the Army Day anniversary on 6 January and in July, is this still the case? [Al-Hashimi] In fact, the problem is in the military service and retirement law. I tried before the law was issued two years ago to have a modern law that attracts capabilities and places proper criteria for volunteering to join the Iraq Army and for promotion, end of service, and retirement. This did not happen because of Al-Maliki's insistence that the issues of volunteering, promotion, and end of service for the officers in the Iraqi Army should remain in his hands since he is the general commander of the armed forces when in fact the issue of ranks in the Iraqi Army since it was established was the responsibility of the sovereign and it must be left to the presidency according to the Constitution. However, Al-Maliki insisted despite all the laws that were adopted by the Iraqi state in 1921 to exclude military promotion from being issued by a republican decree and for these to be issued by the diwan [court] (the prime minister's court). Imagine...a decree from the diwan, which appoints a simple employee at the same time, offers a military rank that pertains to national security and sovereignty. It upsets me that the security and defense committee has let me down and has approved this law depriving the military institution of the republican decree. This is why today the estimates of those employed as officers in the army and their promotion and matters pertaining to their retirement are not in the hands of the military institution but in the hands of one person, and that is the general commander of the Armed Forces. [Asharq Al-Awsat] You are responsible for the detainee file as vice president of the republic; do you have a known number of those detained especially in the secret prisons? [Al-Hashimi] We do not have any definite information about the numbers of those detained or the number of secret prisons in Iraq. A year ago I launched a website on the Internet through which I wanted to know those people who disappear all of a sudden without their family knowing their fate, but Al-Maliki and his office objected on the grounds that how can the vice president of the republic launch such a website for the people and therefore embarrass the executive agency in the Iraqi state and they told me I am not a civil society organization. I asked them are you not interested in finding out the number of those who have been kidnapped, those who disappear, or those arrested? I am interested in this number because we have no numbers available. We follow the reports issued by the Supreme Judicial Council that such and such a number entered prison and such and such a number of prisoners were released. In addition to this, are there really no secret prisons in Iraq? So where are the detentions taking place and where is the torture taking place and the extraction of all these fabricated and baseless confessions? Are these practices taking place in normal prisons under the supervision of the Ministry of Justice? I doubt this. It is regrettable that I do not have any answer to your question. There is no number for those detained or the number of secret prisons. There are wide-scale violations pertaining to the detention period specified by the Constitution, which is 24 hours that can be doubled once only. Then you either release the prisoner or he is put on trial. I know that there are some political activists who spent years in prison and have not been released and every time there is a court order to release them they say wait maybe another case would come up in which you are accused. Months go by and they are in prison until new fabricated cases against come up so they stay in prison. As for the human rights file in Iraq, it requires international intervention. The situation today is worse than it was in the past and today I am talking about the new Iraq and the standards on which we agreed; standards the violation of which led to the changing of the former regime. Therefore today we cannot accept a single violation of human rights. The reports by the international human rights organizations bring shame to us all and harm the reputation of Iraq. [Asharq Al-Awsat] What about what happened to your security team and the employees in your office in Baghdad? [Al-Hashimi] What happened was horrific. They say that Al-Hashimi and his guards violated the law pertaining to terrorism, we understand this but it is my right and the right of my guards to defend ourselves before a fair and just trial that is not influenced by rivals. However, what have the women done? There is an employee called Rasha in the media office, she is married and has a child and is supporting a family of 11 people. Also there is another simple Christian woman who is married and has four children. What happened is that the 56th Brigade, the Baghdad Operations Brigade, went to Rasha's house to arrest her and when they couldn't find her they threatened her family and said they would arrest her brothers if she did not hand herself over, so she handed herself over because she was sure of her innocence. I am a witness to her good behaviour and her high ethics over the past years. However, they forced her to confess that she had carried out terrorist operations and that she enticed a police officer in order to kill him. This is what they leaked via the Internet and this is something very frightening; it is distortion of the reputation and honour of an Iraqi woman. I launched a campaign to defend the two women. Yesterday Amnesty International called us because it was horrified by the report to which I had gained access. I have not seen the arrest warrants against the two employees and we do not know the location where they are held. We are not able to assign a lawyer according to the Constitution in order to defend them. [Asharq Al-Awsat] How was it possible for a military force to raid the house and office of the vice president of the Republic of Iraq? Do you not have immunity? [Al-Hashimi] Of course there is immunity in accordance with Article 93 of the Constitution. It is very clear and it points out that any accusation made against the presidency, the prime ministry, or cabinet must be presented to the Federal Court and not to the regular courts. This did not happen and the Constitution was violated. In fact Al-Maliki is the one who received the file on day one and it continues to be supervised by him until this moment; he is speaking instead of the court and is making decisions for the judiciary and accepts or rejects [whatever he wants.] [Asharq Al-Awsat] There is a mayor who decided to obstruct the public highway between Baghdad and the Kurdistan Region in order to arrest you, is this true? [Al-Hashimi] Yes the mayor of Al-Khalis. There are two arrest warrants against him and two months ago before my own crisis with Al-Maliki, I wrote to the judiciary council and asked them why the general prosecution was not pursuing the arrest of Al-Khadran in accordance with the two warrants issued by the executive authority. There are arrest warrants issued by the judiciary against the undersecretary of the Trade Ministry and a former trade minister. There are hundreds of arrest warrants for other people and they have been covered up by Al-Maliki and the executive authority and there is no following up on the matter. They are moving around publicly and are living normal lives. However, an arrest warrant in a fabricated case against Al-Hashimi is made within days and within hours his office is besieged and raided along with his house and his guards' headquarters. Everything in his office and home was tampered with. I also learned that everything has been destroyed; some posters were put up in my office along with some sectarian slogans as though it was a historic battle against the Al-Hashimi office. Computers were seized along with communication equipment and other equipment used for my protection. My house was tampered with and all my equipment was seized. Even my bedroom, office, clothes, and pictures of my family were leaked on the Internet. It is regrettable that when I travelled from Baghdad to Al-Sulaymaniya to meet with President Jalal Talabani I took nothing but a small bag because I would have been returning the next day to my home and office and on the way I heard the miserable and fabricated confessions that were forced out of my guards. [Asharq Al-Awsat] This means that you left normally and you did not escape from Baghdad as it was announced? [Al-Hashimi] Of course I did not run. I left Baghdad with Khudayr al-Khazai, vice president of the republic and everything that was said was lies. They are very good liars and very capable of propaganda. Al-Maliki has committed many humanitarian violations and personally I am going to sue him both constitutionally and legally. [Asharq Al-Awsat] Will you go to court? [Al-Hashimi] Yes I will. [Asharq Al-Awsat] Even if it were in Baghdad? [Al-Hashimi] No, I will not go to Baghdad...certainly not. I will go to court when there is justice that is stipulated in the law in order to provide a fair trial and personal protection. How can I appear in front of a court that has forged facts? I have all the courage to go to court to defend my reputation and my honour. [Asharq Al-Awsat] Have you thought about leaving Iraq? [Al-Hashimi] No. Not at all. I will not leave Iraq. I am here in the Kurdistan Region and it is part of Iraq. I am here among my people and brothers. I thank the generous Kurdish people and the Kurdish leaders for being good hosts to me. There is no reason to force me to leave my country. The message I received was that these practices are aimed at forcing me to leave Iraq. From the first week they said Al-Hashimi's best option is to leave Iraq.

America's pastime game: Bashing Palestinians

Opinion: America's pastime game: Bashing Palestinians

By Daoud Kuttab

February 2, 2012 Apologists for Israel’s continued occupation and control over Palestinian lives have long contended that Israel is more interested in peace than the Palestinians. One exaggerated argument, repeatedly put forward to justify military rule, is that Palestinians teach their children to hate Jews. Politicians in the US, especially during election campaigns, find that bashing Palestinians has no downside and, moreover, yields a vote (and donation) jackpot. Palestinian textbooks are scrutinized for any hostile reference to Israel — or praise of Palestinian nationalism — and every frame broadcast on Palestinian television stations is analyzed by experts to see if it contains any incitement to violence. Palestinian-Israeli committees spent hours researching these issues and concluded that there is no textbook glorification of violence or hate. European and bipartisan American committees reached similar conclusions. But anti-Palestinian attacks never stopped. All the efforts to respond scientifically and comprehensively to the unsubstantiated attacks failed to change the narrative that anti-Palestinian forces, especially in the United States, were keen on perpetuating. Self-declared professor and historian Newt Gingrich led the charge by negating Palestinian existence. Speaking on a Jewish online television station, Gingrich contradicted what the Israeli government did in 1993, when it recognized the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people. By cherry picking historical evidence to back his convoluted argument, Gingrich claimed that Palestinians are an "invented" people. A few days later, when pressed by ABC News anchor George Stephanopoulus, Gingrich repeated the blood libel against Palestinians by saying that Palestinian math books use killing Jews as part of their numeracy education. "They have textbooks that say, if there are 13 Jews and nine Jews are killed, how many Jews are left? We pay for those textbooks through our aid money." Of course, the textbook statement he referred to does not exist. The Associated Press went through the trouble of interviewing Israeli, Palestinian and American experts who have been deeply involved in the issue. Their conclusion was simple. According to researchers, Gingrich’s claim "is not in any of the texts". AP went further and stated: "A review of some texts by the AP, as well as several studies by Israeli, Palestinian and international researchers, found no direct calls for violence against Israel." Fact-checking sites, pundits and politicians failed to deal with the issue. And despite the AP story, no major American journalist, columnist, debater or think tank has called for or demanded that Gingrich admit and apologize for this brazen lie. Neither did the US government, which until recently funded Palestinian ministry of education projects, set the record straight even though the US presidential nominee implicated the US government in paying to print books that "teach terrorism". Worse is what is happening in the US Congress. A hold has been placed on US funding for Palestinian health and educational programs. The hold, which was placed in September by a Republican congresswoman from Florida, is intended to punish the Palestinian Authority because its leader, Mahmoud Abbas, dared to ask the United Nations to recognize Palestine as a state. Even more perplexing is what happened in early January when restrictions were placed on money already approved and allocated by the US Congress, including money for the Palestinian version of Sesame Street. The Washington Post and other US media outlets reported that $2.5 million committed for teaching Palestinian children tolerance and mutual respect was part of the hold instituted by congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen. American politicians appear to be using precious little long-term thinking when it comes to Israel and Palestinians. Falsehoods declared on national television about textbooks are debunked by no one in the US government. The silence appears to be less a consequence of ignorance than of fear. Politically, there is little to gain from saying an honest word regarding US policy on Israel and Palestine. Consequently, the Republican-controlled Congress proceeds merrily on its course and holds up the funding that could rectify what experts agree is a non-existent problem of Palestinian textbook incitement. Bashing Palestinians remains an easy political pastime, especially at election time. It is tragic, however, that demagogic electioneering — and outright lies — can lead to the loss of responsible children’s television programming for Palestinians. And it is telling that broader funding for Palestinian civil society can be stopped simply because Palestinian leaders asserted the right of Palestinians to live free in a state of our own. Daoud Kuttab is a journalist and former professor of journalism at Princeton University.

Muslim immigrants want Switzerland to change national flag

A group of Muslim immigrants wants to force Switzerland to abandon the current flag - a white cross on the red background. They say that it violates the rights of the representatives of non-Christian confessions. They seem to have been hurt by the recent ban on minarets construction. However, their proposal is unlikely to be welcomed by the native Swiss and will only increase the number of votes in favor of the treasury of the local far-right People's Party.
   


The first suggestion to remove the cross from the Swiss flag was made not by a Muslim, but (judging by the name) an ethnic Croat and Catholic vice-president of the association of immigrants Secondos Plus Ivica Petrushich. "The cross does not fit today's multicultural Switzerland," he said. The organization of the Turkish, Albanian and other immigrants from Muslim countries followed with a similar initiative. Instead, they suggested using a green-yellow-red flag of Helvetic Republic that existed at the turn of the 18th-19th centuries. It has no cross on it.

It is hardly coincidental that the issue of replacing the flag was raised by the representatives of immigrant organizations. Today, over 20 percent of seven million-strong Swiss population is immigrants. Naturally, the Muslims will be more than others insistent on replacing the flag. There are nearly 400,000 of them (more than five percent of the population). The largest "ethnic Muslim" community is Albanian, followed by the Turkish one. Arabs and Bosnian Muslims also reside in Switzerland. Many of them certainly do not like the cross.

The vast majority of Swiss Muslims virtually broke off with the religion of their ancestors. No more than 50 thousand of the faithful pray five times a day. However, women in headscarves have become an integral part of the cityscape of Zurich or Geneva. Furthermore, the birthrate in religious Muslim families is much higher than among the other population. Finally, all Swiss followers of Islam are not natives, but immigrants and their descendants. Their support of changing the appearance of the flag is, to say the least, ambiguous.


Apparently, this circumstance was taken into account by the head of the Federation of Islamic Organizations in Switzerland Mayzar Hisham, who called the idea of ​​changing the flag "counterproductive." He said that they did not demand anyone to change the ancient traditions of their countries. It is hard not to agree with his words. The relations of the indigenous Swiss and immigrants have already passed a difficult strength test. The desire to change the flag will only add fuel to the fire.
Two years ago the Muslim community wanted to attach minarets to the existing mosques. However, Switzerland is different from all other countries in a way that each more or less relevant issue is solved by holding a referendum. Negotiations with the government officials were not sufficient, and they had to ask the opinion of the population. This opinion was not in favor of the Muslim immigrants.

The initiator of the referendum two years ago was the ultra-right Swiss People's Party that called to stop the "creeping Islamization". A deputy of the Swiss Parliament Ulrich Shlyuer said that minarets were a political symbol of the implementation of Islam. Step by step, Sharia was conquering Switzerland, acting in parallel with the Swiss law. Statistics show that the degree of religiosity of the local Muslim population is exaggerated, but for the ordinary Swiss even a hint of a violation of their habitual way of living was sufficient.



The results of voting on November 29, 2009 shocked Europe. 57.5 percent of the Swiss population was in favor of a ban on construction of minarets. At the same time kosher and halal slaughter of animals was banned (because of cruelty). Islamic organizations, human rights activists, and many European politicians expressed their outrage. However, the law came into force. The EU could not influence Switzerland as it is not its member.
 
Many of those dissatisfied with the verdict (including indigenous Europeans who had departed from the religion) were eager for revenge, and eventually decided to strike from the other side. They inquired why the flag of the Swiss Confederation had a Christian cross on it if construction of minarets was banned. Allegedly, it violated the rights of not only Muslims but also non-believers. That is why the red-green-yellow flag of the Helvetic Republic would be better.

Would the majority of the Swiss agree with this point of view?

Unlike neighboring France and Germany, the Swiss society is rather conservative. While there is no case of absolute religiousness of the Swiss society, the number of believers in Switzerland is higher than in the neighboring countries. This can be partially explained by a high proportion of rural population scattered along numerous mountain valleys in 20 cantons and six half-cantons of the country. Approximately half of the indigenous Swiss are Catholics; a little fewer are Protestant Calvinists. The cross on the flag is something that unites the country, and does not divide it.


As for the flag, the current symbol was first used in Switzerland in 1339, when the union of separate cantons just started to take shape. It achieved its official status in 1848, when the last standoff on this land ended, crowned with a robust Swiss Confederation. To some extent, it is a symbol of freedom and peace, a path to which took many centuries and numerous wars. 
The Helvetic Republic, whose flag is offered instead of the current one, is not particularly respected by the Swiss. It was created by Napoleon who occupied the country and decided to build entities supervised by the French on its territory. For the free-spirited Swiss this flag is a symbol of oppression.

Not to mention the fact that the combination of green, red and yellow colors is characteristic mainly of African countries. In Europe, only Lithuania has a similar flag.
 
Do the immigrants have a right to teach the Swiss tolerance? For over 160 years there has been no bloodshed on this territory. This is all the more surprising considering that the country is multinational. Nearly three-quarters of the indigenous Swiss speak German, one-fifth speaks French, five or six percent speak Italian, and a little less than one percent - the Romansh language. All these languages ​​have the official status, but there is one dominant language group in each canton (with rare exceptions). They managed to combine small mono-national "houses" with a multinational one. The country is not threated by a collapse.
 
Encroaching on the foundation of the state, immigrants cause a reaction from the German Swiss, French Swiss and Italian Swiss.  

Ultra People's Party is gaining popularity among all of them. Its symbol is three white sheep (the number of the top three language groups), kicking the fourth, black one. This is a clear hint to what should be done with immigrants. Four years ago, the party secured 29 percent of the Swiss votes, and it was a shock to Europe. In the parliamentary elections scheduled for October 23, the result may be even higher.



As is evident from the story with the restrictions on ritual slaughter of animals and minarets construction, the Swiss are not afraid to challenge the infamous political correctness. A ban on wearing the veil is to follow. The more you attempt to encroach on the foundation of the Swiss state, the stronger will be the response. It took Switzerland and its people too long to achieve stability and peace of mind to just give up on their values.


Vadim Trukhachev


Pravda.Ru

BOSNIA-Republic of Srpska: 20 years of struggle

Republic of Srpska: 20 years of struggle

02.02.2012 13:44

The beginning of this year marks the 20th anniversary of the establishment of the Republic of Srpska within Bosnia and Herzegovina. Its emergence was dictated by the realities of wars that began as a result of the collapse of former Yugoslavia. Everything pointed to the fact that this formation would not last long.

Orthodox Serbs are indigenous people of Bosnia just as Slavic Muslims (Bosniaks), Croats and Catholics. Before the Second World War, Serbs represented the largest number of ethnic groups in the Bosnian land. Subsequently the Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina was established, acknowledged by the formation of three people: Muslims, Serbs and Croats. According to the census of 1991, the Serbs accounted for 31.4 percent of the population.

In 1991, Croatia and Slovenia were considering leaving Yugoslavia, followed by Macedonia. In Bosnia, the situation was not that straightforward. Muslims and Croats thought of separation (the former wanted to establish their own state, the latter - to accede to Croatia). The Serbs did not want to turn into aliens in their homeland and separate from Serbia that remained the "core" of Yugoslavia.

In the spring of 1991 in the current capital of the Republika Srpska, Banja Luka (in the north-west of Bosnia-Herzegovina), the establishment of the Serbian Autonomous Region of Bosnian Krajina was announced. In the fall of 1991, as well as in the beginning of 1992, a few other self-proclaimed Serbian republics emerged, mainly in eastern Bosnia near the border with Serbia.

On October 15, 1991 Muslims and Croats voted to secede from Yugoslavia. The Serbs boycotted the referendum. When in early 1992, the Bosnian Muslim leader Alija Izetbegovic demanded Belgrade to recognize Bosnia's independence, various Serb autonomies merged into the Republic of Serbian people of Bosnia and Herzegovina in Yugoslavia. In August of 1992, the present name - the Republic of Srpska - was announced.

In the spring of 1992 blood was spilt in Bosnia. The Serbs had to defend the right to life with arms. Then-President of Bosnia Izetbegovic dreamt of a united and indivisible Islamic Bosnia-Herzegovina. The notorious "Al Qaeda" marked its presence on Bosnian soil, killing local Serbs and Croats. Parts of the Yugoslav People's Army (JNA) left Bosnia in the spring of 1992. Serbia that was under the pressure of international sanctions could not help.

Under these circumstances, the people who were later wanted by the Hague tribunal for over 10 years came to the forefront. Psychiatrist and poet Radovan Karadzic was a political leader of Republika Srpska (RS), and General Ratko Mladic - a military. Gradually, a large part of Bosnia came under the control of the Serbs. RS was later to reunite with Serbia. However, things turned out differently.

The Bosnian Serbs were struck by all of diplomatic and military might of the West. Their positions were bombed by NATO aircraft on multiple occasions, Karadzic and Mladic had been wanted for years, and in 2008 and 2011, respectively, they were detained in Serbia and taken to the Hague Tribunal. Under pressure from the U.S. and the EU Belgrade stopped helping the Bosnian compatriots. As a result, by late 1995 they were forced to leave part of the occupied territory.

The Dayton Accords signed in late 1995 crowned the war. Bosnia and Herzegovina became a confederation in the Muslim-Croat Federation and Republika Srpska. The latter was prohibited from uniting with Serbia, but its autonomous status was retained. Under pressure from the West, it had to make many concessions to the central government in Sarajevo, but is still holding.

Vladimir Putyatin, a historian, balkanist with the Department of History of Southern and Western Slavs of the MSU History Department commented on the situation in the Republika Srpska and its prospects in an interview with "Pravda.Ru":

"In contrast to the Republic of Serbian Krajina (Croatia), Serbs in Bosnia and Herzegovina were able to defend their independence in the war of 1992-1995 using weapons, despite the international pressure at the final stage of the Bosnian war of 1992-1995.

Muslims and some Croats (e.g., former Croatian President Stipe Mesic) state that the RS was created largely due to the genocide of the Muslims, and therefore this state institution has no right to exist. Continuing the logical series, a unitary Muslim state (for the Muslims with the center in Sarajevo) should be created. However, neither the Bosnian Serbs, nor Croats want this.

17 years ago the Dayton Accords were signed, putting an end to the war in Bosnia. In the Serbian society of the time they were seen as a capitulation, but are now the real basis for the existence of the Republika Srpska. During this long period not only it had defended its independence, but also proved to be successful, as opposed to "big" Bosnia and Herzegovina, existing only by the will of the West.

An important role in this is the personality of President of the RS Milorad Dodik, who is perceived by the Bosnian Serbs as the most sensible politician defending the national interests to the end. Even under international pressure, Dodik was not only able to defend the republic's sovereignty in domestic affairs, but also conduct his own foreign policy. Bosnia and Herzegovina because of the strong position of Dodik still has not recognized the independence of Kosovo, unlike Montenegro and Macedonia.

At the same time strong economic relations with Russia are developing. "Zarubezhneft" undertook the modernization of the refinery in Brod. In November of 2011, negotiations were held on the establishment of a branch from the "South Stream" on the territory of the Republic. The level of the relations between the Republic of Srpska and Russia is immeasurably higher than the federal, due to the obstacles for the Russian business placed by Sarajevo.

Currently a question about the future of Bosnia and Herzegovina is raised at various levels. The country has the right to prove its existence on the basis of the Dayton Accords. However, the creation of a unitary state, the new Yugoslavia, is out of question as its very right to existence was destroyed by direct intervention of several countries in the 1990s.

Dodik is often accused of undermining the foundations of Bosnia and Herzegovina. However, the rights of Croats who had been forced upon the union with the Bosniaks (Muslims) are still not discussed. Sarajevo holds an obvious course for the Islamization of the region, which threatens not only Bosnia and Herzegovina, but also all the Balkans. This policy has led to the fact that the recent enemies - Serbs and Croats - see each other as allies in prevention of the creation of a unitary Islamic Bosnia and Herzegovina.

The Republika Srpska in the past 20 years has shown the world that following the policy of defending the national interests is the only way to preserve the sovereign state, even under the most adverse conditions. No real concessions in the present are worth the bright European future."

Vadim Trukhachev

Pravda.Ru

Israel plans to demolish solar panels in village near Hebron

Israel plans to demolish solar panels in village near Hebron

Middle East Monitor

February 1, 2012 The Israeli occupation authorities have issued notice of their intention to demolish a renewable energy project which generates electricity and represents the only source of lighting for the houses in a Palestinian village near Hebron in the occupied West Bank. The people of Al-Mnazel received the demolition notice advising of Israel's plans to destroy the solar panels which provide them with electricity. The project was established a couple of years ago with funds from the Spanish government. The coordinator of the People's Committees in the district, Rateb Al-Jabour, told the media that the project provides more than 40 Palestinian families with electricity. He warned that the project's destruction by the Israeli "Civil Administration", "will take the village back to the stone age". Mr. Al-Jabour added that the Israeli occupation authorities have also given Khalil Al-Nwaja', who lives in Al-Mnazel, notice that his home will be demolished. The tents and caravans, claim the Israelis, do not have a licence. ---------------------------------------

Dirty and Deadly Secret: : NATO Troops Disguise Themselves as Civilians in Afghanistan

Dirty and Deadly Secret: : NATO Troops Disguise Themselves as Civilians in Afghanistan

Canadian Veterans Advocacy

This practice invites Taliban attacks on Afghans and NGOs February 1, 2012 A dirty and deadly secret of the war in Afghanistan is that some of the so-called Taliban attacks on civilians have really been attacks aimed at NATO forces who drive unmarked civilian vehicles and wear "nonstandard uniforms," which is Pentagon-speak for civilian clothes. This NATO practice violates the rules of war, which mandate that military forces clearly distinguish their personnel from the civilian population. The consequences of this and other NATO policies are evident every day as NGOs and civilians are increasingly being considered legitimate targets. The blurring of the distinction between belligerents and civilians has tainted the statistics of the United Nations, which has been attempting to distinguish between military and civilian casualties. On January 19, 2012, this issue was once again highlighted after a Taliban suicide car bomber attacked and killed seven "civilians" at the outskirts to Kandahar Air Field (KAF). Two witnesses told Mirwais Khan of the Associated Press that the Taliban driver was attempting to kill U.S. special forces personnel who had exited the base in two civilian pickup trucks, which the witnesses said was a common practice for troops at the base. NATO has employed several disturbing tactics in Afghanistan. The first tactic is that special operations, civil affairs and military members operating in Provincial Reconstruction Teams have been observed in civilian vehicles and dressed as civilians. When questioned about this, the NATO response has been (1) that it is a necessary "force protection" measure and (2) that it aids in intelligence gathering. These arguments (while probably true) were rejected over one hundred years ago when the rules of war were first drafted. The logic behind the rule is that military forces cannot hide among the civilian population because it then invites attacks on that civilian population. Under international law it is called the Principle or Custom of Distinction. Military forces must be clearly distinct from the civilian population. In December 1944, the Allied Command in Europe arrested 18 members of Otto Skorzeny’s Panzer Brigade 150 commando unit that had operated behind U.S. lines gathering intelligence during the Ardennes Offensive. Because they were arrested wearing American uniforms (even though they did not engage in combat in those uniforms), all 18 were summarily tried and executed. The official Allied position was that there are no exceptions to the rule that military combatants must wear their own distinctive uniforms, and the punishment must be death for anyone who violates this rule. The second NATO tactic being employed in Afghanistan and Pakistan is a steady shift towards targeting Taliban civilians. With limited success against Taliban troops, the focus seems to have shifted to capturing or killing Taliban supporters and sympathizers, even if those persons have never carried a weapon. The problem is that the term "sympathizer" is vague and ambiguous, therefore it opens up the target list to include anyone who opposes the NATO presence in Afghanistan. On March 16, 2011, two CIA Predator drones fired an unknown number of missiles at a jurga or meeting of elders in the village of Datta Khel in North Waziristan, Pakistan. The strike killed at least 40 elders and wounded dozens more, including children. One of the targets was reportedly an elder affiliated with local warlord Hafiz Gul Bahadur. A senior U.S. military official, speaking off the record to the Associated Press, dismissed the casualties with the comment that those killed and wounded (apparently including the children) were either enemy officials or "sympathizers." The official apparently declined to define what a sympathizer is. Another official speaking to Greg Miller of the Washington Post on March 18, 2011, brushed off the casualties by summarily stating, "This was a gang of terrorists." Pakistan General Ashfaq Parvez Keyani responded to the killing by stating: "A jirga of elders, including seniors were carelessly and callously targeted with complete disregard for human life." In 2008, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a brief with the Washington D.C. Court of Appeals in the case of Huzaifa Parhart v. Gates. Mr. Parhart is a Uighur who fled repressive conditions in China. He apparently had some contact with people who may belong to ETIM (the East Turkistan Islamic Movement). Parhart was arrested in Afghanistan and illegally flown to the extra-judicial prison in Guantanamo, Cuba. The "evidence" against Parhart, according to the government’s brief, was: "Parhart is properly designated as an enemy combatant because he is affiliated with forces associated with al-Qaeda." What does it mean to be "affiliated" with "forces" and when are those forces considered to be "associated" with al-Qaeda? The above terminology gives NATO and others the authority to kill or detain virtually anyone that disagrees with them, based merely on the belief that they are sympathetic to or indirectly affiliated with persons who are associated with a growing list of NATO enemies. This could also permit the targeting of peace activists. The situation is even more confused because the Pentagon has authorized the killing of "suspected" sympathizers. What that means is that a foreigner or even an American may be killed based on suspicion that they may be sympathetic to either the Taliban or al-Qaeda. A still additional problem is the apparent inability or unwillingness of NATO officials to distinguish between pro-Taliban sympathizers and Afghans who are simply anti-West. On April 5, 2011, The New York Times published an article by Rod Norland entitled: "Taliban Exploit Tensions Seething in Afghan Society." The report detailed how there is an "undercurrent of unease and discontent caused by the foreign presence" and described how the Taliban are able to manipulate that discontent. Afghans who are opposed to the NATO presence are not necessary pro-Taliban, but they are all broadly treated as such. An issue not raised by Mr. Norland, and one which Western officials have consistently refused to discuss is: How many of the armed militants fighting NATO and U.S. forces today in Afghanistan are both anti-West and anti-Taliban? Pentagon officials prefer to portray this conflict in simplistic terms of the (good) West against the (bad) al-Qaeda and Taliban. They have refused to acknowledge the presence of true rebel forces in Afghanistan, who may be motivated by nationalism and patriotism to oppose the foreign forces. The existence of such rebel units would be inconsistent with NATO talking points that this is a just war between two sides. Despite the concerns raised in this story, it may very well be that NATO forces employ a high standard before they target Taliban logistics personnel, supporters and sympathizers with air strikes and night raids, but we do not know that. There are no credible checks and balances to ensure that unlawful arrests and killings are not occurring. NATO has only itself to blame for its lack of credibility. Regarding the NATO policy of allowing military forces to dress and operate as civilians; that policy may well have saved some Western military lives, but potentially at the cost of more Afghan civilians and foreign aid workers being killed, which is not acceptable. While some may not consider it fair to hold NATO to the rules of war while the Taliban ignore them, the West has to hold the moral high ground. If there is no moral high ground, then what is this war all about?

Iraq in Retrospect-What did we accomplish?

Iraq in Retrospect
What did we accomplish?

by Justin Raimondo

February 01, 2012 Long out of the news, Iraq – you remember Iraq? – is falling apart. The "government" is in chaos, with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki at war with Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi, whom he accuses of "terrorism." Days after ending his party’s participation in Parliament, an arrest warrant for al-Hashimi was issued. Sixteen of the VP’s bodyguards have been arrested, along with two women who worked in Hashimi’s press office, and al-Hashimi himself has been forced to flee Baghdad. The dysfunctional government is a reflection of the nation at large, with violence so widespread that even Washington has noticed it. That hasn’t stopped the Obama administration from claiming credit for a US "withdrawal" that has upped the number of mercenaries – "private contractors" in the pay of the US government – and increased drone flights in Iraqi airspace. Ali al-Mosawi, a senior aide to Maliki, told the New York Times: "Our sky is our sky, not the U.S.A.’s sky," But is it? What will the Iraqis do about the drones – shoot them down? If it happens,  it’ll be with US-supplied fighter jets. So what did we get in return for the thousands of lives lost and billions spent "liberating" Iraq? We got a veritable dictatorship that routinely suppresses dissent, murders journalists, and is so infused with corruption that Iraqis routinely argue which government agency is the most venal. Well, then, what about the good will of the Iraqi people,who must surely be grateful for their "liberation" at our hands? Well, no – instead, anti-Americanism is a force that all Iraqi politicians play to, and one can’t help thinking the sentiment is fully justified. After all, if some foreign army had killed hundreds of thousands of Americans, and left our country in ruins, what other sort of response would anyone have a right to expect? The costs of the war range in the $1 – 3 trillion range. We are left with tens of thousands of horribly wounded veterans, many fatherless and motherless children, and what do we have to show for it? Iraq today is a crippled nation, which doesn’t even have the capacity to supply electricity to its citizens: it is a nation on the brink of yet another civil war, so divided by tribe, clan, religion, and politics that it threatens to come apart at the seams every few months or so. In short, we have a country that really no longer exists in any meaningful sense. To which the architects of this war can add: "Mission accomplished!" Because, in the end, that was the purpose of our policy in Iraq from the very beginning. Oh, they told us it was all about Saddam’s "weapons of mass destruction," and when that lie was blown out of the water they said it was building a "friendly democracy," but the actual purpose was to blow the country to smithereens: to atomize it, and crush it, so that it would never rise again. When we invaded and occupied Iraq, we didn’t just militarily defeat Iraq’s armed forces – we dismantled their army, and their police force, along with all the other institutions that held the country together. The educational system was destroyed, and not reconstituted. The infrastructure was pulverized, and never restored. Even the physical hallmarks of a civilized society – roads, bridges, electrical plants, water facilities, museums, schools – were bombed out of existence or else left to fall into disrepair. Along with that, the spiritual and psychological infrastructure that enables a society to function – the bonds of trust, allegiance, and custom – was dissolved, leaving Iraqis to fend for themselves in a war of all against all. Oh, but our intentions were good – weren’t they? In retrospect, one has to wonder. Of course, anyone can proclaim their intentions to be anything they like, but the trick is to peel away the rhetoric and observe what is actually going on – and what actually did go on was and is a horror show. What we are witnessing in post-Saddam Iraq is the erasure of an entire country. We can say, with confidence: We came, we saw, we atomized. And we are repeating the pattern elsewhere in the region: in Libya, for example, the result is very similar to what we witness in Iraq. Western relief agencies are fleeing, human rights groups are pointing to widespread torture and repression, and Gadhafi loyalists are making a comeback. In Egypt, too, our support for the "Arab Spring" has ushered in a military dictatorship and the promise of more chaos to come. In Syria, we are supporting rebels who are conducting a terrorist campaign against the regime, and the future of the country is looking very … Iraqi. In short, the effects of US actions in the region amount to a reverse Midas touch: everything we touch turns to lead. It’s enough to make one think the policy is deliberate: not the consequences of mistakes leading to failure, but the results of a policy successfully implemented. Put another way: if the United States is now engaged in a long term strategy of applying economic, political, and military pressure on the various Arab (and Persian) states so as to cause them to implode, then one has to judge the effort a triumph. Which raises the question: to what purpose? Again, we are back to the question of intentions, both good and bad, which are mysterious to all but the mind-readers amongst us. As for myself, I ignore the whole issue of intent, because when all is said and done it doesn’t amount to a hill of beans. I judge people and nations by what they do, not what they say they want to do. By this standard, we wanted to sow chaos and that is precisely what we have wrought.

A Journey To The End Of Empire

A Journey To The End Of Empire
It is Always Darkest Right Before it Goes Completely Black

Phil Rockstroh

February 1, 2012 When the poet stands at nadir the world must indeed be upside-down. If the poet can no longer speak for society, but only for himself, then we are at the last ditch. — Excerpt from, The Time of the Assassins, a study of Rimbaud, by Henry Miller There is no reality-based argument denying this: The present system, as defined by the neoliberal economic order, is as destructive to the balance of nature as it is to the individual, both body and psyche. One’s body grows obese while Arctic ice and wetlands shrink. Biodiversity decreases as psyches are commodified by ever-proliferating, corporatist/consumer state banality. But the raging soul of the world will not be assaulted without consequence. Mind and body are intertwined and inseparable from nature, and, when nature responds to our assaults, her replies are known to humankind as the stuff of mythic tragedy and natural catastrophe. When the poet lives his hell, it is no longer possible for the common man to escape it. — Excerpt from, The Time of the Assassins, a study of Rimbaud, by Henry Miller But take heart. As the saying goes, it is always darkest right before it goes completely black. Rejoice in this: Seeds of futurity require the darkness within soil to dream. To go into the dark with a light is to know the light. /To know the dark, go dark. Go without sight,/ and find that the dark, too, blooms and sings,/ and is traveled by dark feet and dark wings. — Wendell Berry, To Know The Dark What "tangible" and "constructive" things can a poetic sensibility contribute to everyday existence? Here’s one: The atomized denizens of neoliberal culture are in dire need of a novel yet durable sensibility, one bearing the creativity and stamina required, for example, to withstand the police state rebuffs inflicted by the ruthless authoritarian keepers of the present order…as is the case when OWS dissidents initiate attempts to retake, inhabit, and re-imagine public space. Yet, while it is all well and good to be politically enlightened, approaching the tumult of human events guided by reason and restraint, if the self is not saturated in poetry, one will inhabit a dismal tower looking over a desiccated wasteland. The crackpot realist’s notion that poetry has no value other than what can be quantified in practical terms emerges from the same mindset that deems nature to be merely worth what it can be rendered down to as a commodity. The trees of a rain forest can be pulped to paper cups. A human being is only the content of his resume. The underlying meaning of this sentiment: The value of one’s existence is derived by the act of being an asset of the 1%. Resultantly, the tattered remnants of the neoliberal imagination (embodied in lofty but content-devoid Obama speechifying and the clown car demolition derby of Republican politics) spends its days in a broken tower of the mind, insulated from this reality: The exponentially increasing consequences (e.g., economic collapse, perpetual war, ecocide) created by the excesses of the present paradigm will shake those insular towers to theirs foundations, and, will inevitably caused the structures to totter and collapse. The bells, I say, the bells break down their tower; And swing I know not where. Their tongues engrave Membrane through marrow, my long-scattered score Of broken intervals…And I, their sexton slave! – Hart Crane , excerpt from The Broken Tower We have been "sexton slave" to this destructive order long enough; its lodestar is a death star. In polar opposition, a poetic view of existence insists that one embrace the sorrow that comes at the end of things. The times have bestowed on us a shuffle to the graveside of our culture, and, we, like members of a New Orleans-style, second line, funeral procession, must allow our hearts to be saturated by sorrowful songs. Yet when the service is complete, the march away from the boneyard should shake the air with the ebullient noise borne of insistent brass. Often we’re not so much afraid of our own limitations, as we are of the infinite within us. — Nelson Mandela (from an interview from his prison cell, conducted by the late Irish poet and priest, John O’Donnahey) In this way, we are nourished by the ineffable, whereby unseen components of consciousness provide us the strength to carry the weight of darkness. Therefore, to those who demand this of poets: that all ideas, notions, flights of imagination, revelries, swoons of intuition, Rabelaisian rancor, metaphysical overreach, unnerving apprehensions, and inspired misapprehensions be tamed, rendered practical, and only considered fit to be broached in reputable company when these things bring "concrete" answers to polite dialog–I ask you this, if the defining aspects of our existence were constructed of concrete, would not the world be made of the material of a prison? Moreover, is this not the building material and psychic criteria comprising the neoliberal paradigm? Is it any wonder that the concept of freedom is under siege? Carl Jung averred, when a disconnect occurs between the inner life of the individual and the outward exigencies of daily life that "the Gods […] become diseases." One way, this assertion can be taken is: There are multiple forces, tangible and intangible, in play in our lives and the trajectory of events; e.g., the personal, in the form of the ghosts of trauma that haunt individual memory, but there exist, as well, extant and within, the collective spirit of an age. Tragically, in our own time, within the precincts of power, our national house of spirits has become a madhouse. Yet beneath the gibbering cacophony of the insane asylums of past eras, beneath the haze of pharmacologically induced stupors of the institutions of the present, there exists much pain. This is the toll taken by a manic flight from honest suffering. At present, this is what we’re given in our age of cultural and political disconnect and its attendant sense of nebulous dread. Paradoxically, while the forces of nature are impersonal, the dilemma feels very personal. Therefore, on this journey to the end of empire, when impersonal elements are in play, one can become alienated from the dehumanizing trajectory of the times. Likewise, as exemplified by the U.S. political system, what process is more impersonal than the process of decay? Apropos, the air is permeated with a reek of putrefaction. Yet the earth is kind, for one can use putrescent material in the process of renewal. The loam of earth is enriched by the rancid…just don’t swallow it down whole…doing so, will cause you to become ill. Importantly, because a cultural breakdown is occurring, and culture carries the criteria of psyche, the acts of social engagement through dissent, cultural re-imagining and rebuilding can have a propitious effect upon individual consciousness, an endeavor James Hillman termed "soul-making". Remember to disguise yourself as yourself when approached by ghosts of calcified habit and gods of tumultuous change. This is essential: Because what takes hold and brings about the collapse of an empire…is a loss of collective soul; e.g., the type of loss of meaning and purpose evinced when only a meaningless, zombie-like drive remains, because, even though, the culture is dead, it refuses to accept the shroud of the earth’s enveloping soil…to have its decomposing remains broken down and returned to the cycle of all things. As circumstances stand, at present, for the 1%, their refusal to accept the inevitable has yielded grave ramifications for the people, fauna, and flora of the planet. Although, due to their seemingly vacuum-sealed insularity, ensured by vast wealth, the economic and political elite have yet to be touched by the consequences of their actions, much less forced down to earth. Of course, this behavior defies logic, is in breach of the law, and is an affront to any workable code of ethics–as well as stands in defiance to the laws of nature, including the force of gravity. But you can count on this, "the unseen hand of the market" (actually the buckling backs of the 1%) can’t hold up the 99%’s swaying tower of hubris for much longer, and when it comes down, stand clear, for there are no bystanders when an empire crumbles. "That’s just the way it is." As exhibited by the often bland, "normal" outward appearance of a serial killer, when the apologists and operatives of an exploitive, destructive system appear to be reasonable, they can go about their business without creating general alarm. By the same token, while many present day Republicans are zealots–barnburners raving into the flames of the conflagrations created by the militarist/national security/police/prison industrial state–Barack Obama and the Democratic Party serve as normalizers of the pathologies of late empire. In this manner, atrocious acts can be committed by the state, with increasing frequency, because, over the passage of time, such outrages will have been allowed to pass into the realm of the mundane, and are thus bestowed with a patina of acceptability. In nineteenth century Britain, the sugar that sweetened the tea of oh-so civilized, afternoon teatime was harvested by brutalized, Caribbean slaves, who rarely lived past the age of thirty, as, for example, in our time, in our blood-wrought moments of normalcy, we trudge about in sweatshop sewn clothing, brandishing i-Phones manufactured by factory enslaved teenage girls who are forced to work 14 hour plus shifts. "That’s just the way it is" might be one of the most soul-defying phrases in the human lexicon. Contrast this with the OSW slogan, "The beginning is near." Hold both sentiments in your mind and discover which one allows your own heart to beat in sync with the heart of the world, and which will grant the imagination and stamina required to remake the world anew. Phil Rockstroh is a poet, lyricist and philosopher bard living in New York City. He may be contacted at phil@philrockstroh.com and FaceBook: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000711907499 .

Iraq snapshot - February 1, 2012

Iraq snapshot - February 1, 2012

The Common Ills

Wednesday, February 1, 2012. Chaos and violence continue, the political crisis continues, Iraq executes 17 people, the VA plays Abbot & Costello while testifying to -- or babbling before -- Congress, and more. "Time and time again," declared Michael Michaud this morning, "VA comes up here and testifies that it has wonderful policies in place. Unfortunately no one ever seems to follow these policies and procedures and they seem to be no consequences for the failure to follow these procedures." He was speaking at a House Veterans Affairs Committee hearing which Chair Jeff Miller explained in his opening remarks, "I want to thank everybody for coming to hearing today entitled 'Examining VA's Pharmaceutical Prime Vendor Contract.' We started investigating PPVs and the contract well before the story on this hit the press and we found enough that questions were raised to warrant the hearing that we're going to hold today and possibly subsequent hearings in the future. Now a PPV contract, when written and executed correctly, is intended to ensure VA receive the needed medical pharmaceuticals at a competitive price and in a timely fashion. Medical facilities throughout the nation rely on this system to ensure that the patients get the best care. That the veterans get the best care that they need. they deserve and they've earned. The Committee's investigation began when discrepancies appeared in how VA ordering officials had been handling open market purchases of items not available on the PPV contract. These purchases go back much further than just the last year or two. In fact, they span multiple administrations showing many within VA chose to ignore whether than fix a problem they knew about." Appearing before the Committee on the first panel was the Deputy Secretary of Veterans Affairs W. Scott Gould (accompanied by the VA's John R. Gingrich, Glenn D. Haggstrom, Jan R. Frye, Philip Matkovsky, Steven A. Thomas and Michael Valentino), on the second panel the Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Audits and Evaluations Office of Inspector General's Linda Halliday (with Mark Myer sand Michael Grivnovics) and on the third panel McKesson Corporations' Vice President on Health Systems' Sharon Longwell. This was a hearing where first panel witnesses tossed around terms and words that were unfamiliar -- US House Rep and Dr. Phil Roe would stop a witness at one point and tell him no one understood what he was saying. And the issues could get complicated. So what you need to remember on this is that there are guidelines the VA must follow on ordering. Those guidelines exist for many reasons. The three primary reasons are (1) safety of the veterans, (2) ensuring that the government gets the best price possible, and (3) ensuring that cronyism or kickbacks are not taking place as the VA invents its own rules (or disregards those in place). US House Rep Bob Filner is the Ranking Member of this Committee. He was not present at the hearing and Michaud served as the Ranking Member. He declared in his opening statements, "The VA admits that it did not follow all applicable laws and regulations for approximately 1.2 billion dollars in what was called Open Market Drug Purchases since 2004. VA assures us that changes have been implemented to fix deficiencies at hand. Frankly, Mr. Chairman, we've heard this before." There was a lot of justifying and minimizing by the VA and, as Michaud noted, the claim that Congress need not worry, that the VA had already fixed everything on its own. Gould insisted that what took place "was not criminal and at no time were our veterans at risk." Miller asked him, "Is this a violation of the law?" Gould replied, "Yes." Chair Jeff Miller: [. . .] When did senior leadership first learn of the unlawful purchasing? And I'd like to ask each individual at the table independently to let me know when you first heard about it and what you specifically did when you heard about it? W. Scott Gould: Sir, to be responsive on that question, then each of us you will answer that. What you will see is a range of dates as the problem escalated through the system. To answer personally for the senior management team, I first knew about this issue in September of last year, September of 2011. Chair Jeff Miller: And we'll start down here, Mr. Valentino? Michael Valentino: I became aware of the issue with Open Market Purchases in December of 2010 when the clause was removed from the draft solicitation. Philip Matkovsky: I became aware in September of 2011. John Gingrich: I became aware in September of 2011. Glenn D. Haggstrom: With respect to the improper use of the Open Market Clause, I became aware of it in March 2011. Chair Jeff Miller: When did you hear about the illegal use? Glenn D. Haggstrom: March of 2011. Jan R. Frye: I became aware in March 2011, March 29th, to be exact. Steven A. Thomas: And I became aware in January of '09 when a Logistics Manager from the CMA* identified this as an issue. At that point, I worked with general counsel, acquisition review, IG, other at the NAC [National Acquisition Center], VHA including PBM and the CMA to try to correct the issue for the CMA which we became responsible for at the National Acquisition Center in December of '08. I tried to add items to the federal supply schedule as much as possible to cover that gap. I tried to have additional things put on requirements, types of contracts, that we had limited success on. But the main thing I did was, I corrected the issue for the CMA. So the CMA follows appropriate procedures at that point. And that was the area of responsibility that I had. W. Scott Gould: So, Mr. Chairman, today you've gone down the list to see what people knew, when they knew. The people at the table today collectively identified the problem, took action and we are collectively responsible for-for that fact. Chair Jeff Miller: Mr. Thomas, you took great pains a second ago to talk about all the things that you tried to do. Can you explain why you were unable to do some of the things you wanted to do? Could you turn your mic on too, please? Steven A. Thomas: Apologize. Yes, sir. I think what we have in this case is a changing industry to a certain degree. There are -- as you probably are aware, there's a lot of drug shortages that are currently going on right now. Uhm, there's the Trade Agreements Act that we have to be responsible for to make sure that products are coming from responsible countries and a lot of the manufacturing for drug -- for drugs right now are going overseas to India and China and those two countries are not trade agreement countries. So there's a number of issues going through there when we put our requirements contracts out for some of the generic products, we are able to award about a third of them as they came through. It didn't stop our efforts in that but it made us try to figure out how we could get more products on contract. Thomas never shuts up. [*And I have no idea if he was saying CMA or what. He pronounced the term various ways throughout the hearing. I don't know it.] He offers a lot of blather about what he did for someone who broke the law. Miller wanted to know "how much was spent illegally after the 8th of November" 2011. Gould gave a response about how they didn't want the veterans to suffer. So Gould is arguing not only that the law was broken but that it was knowingly broken by the leadership composing the first panel. He went on for over two minutes and then swapped to Matkovsky and neither ever answered Miller's question as to how much was spent from November 8, 2011 through the end of the year? Chair Jeff Miller: I apologize Mr. Secretary if I didn't hear you, but did you give me a number for what money was spent? Philip Matkovsky: Two numbers. The first number for the month of December which we are still analyzing is roughly 1.4 million [dollars]. The total number of transactions which we are reviewing for ratification is 5,733 transactions. Miller pointed out that this wasn't just about drugs, the spending. Gould admitted this was true. Michaud asked if they had waivers for "the 1.2 billion in open market purchases dollars dating back to 2004" which led Gould to insist he needed to consult with the witnesses at the table followed by Frye stating, "Sir, I'm not familiar with your question. Waiver for what again?" Michaud attempted to jog their memories, "Waiver request for Open Market Purchases, that's required under the handbook." Still the panel was baffled by what he was talking about. Michaud then had to cite the rule specifically ("That's 7408.1") at which point it was immediately agreed that Michaud knew what he was talking about. But the waivers? Haggstron stated, "I'm not aware of any waivers." The dummy up and pass the issue around was used repeatedly. So much that you might think they were trying to run out the clock on Michaud's questioning time. US House Rep Phil Roe would ask a basic question, one that the witnesses should have known the answer to before they arrived at the hearing, "My second question is are there any penalties -- I know this is civil, not criminal -- but are there any penalties for the people who knowingly broke this law?" The witnesses were unable to answer the second question and an attorney for the VA stood up and declared that "there are no penalties attached or sanctions attached." Had the VA fixed the problem -- as they claim -- and had they addressed it, then surely these seven VA leaders would have discussed whether or not criminal charges needed to be brought. The fact that they didn't know the answer indicates they never asked that question which would lead many to believe that they were only focused on damage control and not addressin the issues involved. They played idiots very well. At one point, Chair Miller would ask them if they were aware, as they offered some interesting statements, that the Committee would have the documents in their possession and that a subpoena had been issued? That would seem a rather basic question. But Gould especially (though not only) wanted to insist that there was no subpoena. He said there were Freedom of Information requests but no subpoena and wanted to argue this with the Chair. Even after the Chair stated that US House Rep Darrell Issa issued the subpoena on January 19th (his Committee,on Oversight and Reform), they wanted to insist there was no subpoena. Then they wanted to add, maybe there was one, but it had not yet been received. After this ridiculous scene seemed in danger of never ending, "Counsel appears to be nodding to us that a subpoena has been issued." So, yes, there was a subpoena and that, yes, it had been received. Again, the seven leaders at the table should have known that. Appearing before Congress to testify about records that the Congress is subpoenaing should be known. This group of leaders appeared completely disinterested in the topic being explored and not at all concerned about meeting oversight obligations. "We need to fix this," Thomas said was the response in 2009 when the issue was first known (at least first known among the witnesses). "And we didn't fix it until recently?" Chair Miller asked. He received nothing resembling an answer. Gould insisted that the 7 at the table (including himself) had identified the problem and "we addressed it in six weeks." Chair Jeff Miller: Is it your testimony that the time frame between January of '09 and today is six weeks? W. Scott Gould: No, Mr. Chairman, as I said a moment ago when you went down the list of folks here, when did senior management know? And I have testified that I knew in September. And by November 8th, the problem was solved. Chair Jeff Miller: Does it bother you that you have somebody sitting at the table that knew of the issue in January '09 and you -- or somebody at that table -- did not know? W. Scott Gould:Sir, of course it does and as I have testified that is a problem for which we are collectively responsible and accountable. I am very unhappy with this risk up the chain of command. All I'm saying is, that it did not happen and when it did it was absolutely solved by this team. We got together and resolved the issues and came up with a clear course of action to fix the problem. But as Miller pointed out, the problem was known by at least Thomas in 2009. So, no, the issue was not dealt with in six weeks. As for taking accountability, a resignation or two would indicate that accountability was being taken. Instead, they want to pretend that the violation of the law doesn't matter because it's not criminal. And they want to pretend that taking nearly three years to address the situation after leadership first learned of the problem can be passed off as six weeks. There's no accountability, there's not even any honesty. In Iraq, the political crisis continues and this crisis was created by the White House when they overruled the will of the Iraqi people who voiced their preference in the March 2010 elections. The Constitution was quite clear on what happened next. But the White House was equally clear and much louder on the fact that they wanted Nouri -- whose political slate came in second to Iraqiya -- to remain prime minister. With the White House backing, Nouri was able to bring the government to a standstill for 8 months (Political Stalemate I). Without White House support, the Constitution would have been followed and Nouri would not be prime minister. In November 2010, the White House had polical parties meet in the KRG and hammer out an agreement that put into writing a great deal of the White House's promises. They'd long asked Ayad Allawi (leader of Iraqiya) to step aside and allow Nouri to be prime minister. They promised him that, in doing what was 'best' for Iraq, Iraqiya would also head a newly created and independent national security council. The Kurds were also promised many things. The main thing for Nouri was he got to remain prime minister. All parties signed off on this agreement. The next day, Parliament met and President Jalal Talabani named Nouri prime minister (unofficially -- he'd name him prime minister 'officially' later in the month to give him over 30 days to form a Cabinet -- the Constitution requires you do it in 30 days or the president names a new prime minister-designate). Nouri loved the Erbil Agreement. Loved it. Until he was named prime minister-designate. Then he was no longer interested in it. He blew it off. This is the current Political Stalemate II. The crisis begins in the dying days of summer when the Kurds have had enough and begin demanding that the Erbil Agreement be followed. Their patience exhausted, they begin floating various scenarios. Among other things, the Kurds want the issue of Kirkuk resolved. That's not an unreasonable request. Not only were they promised in the Erbil Agreement that it would be resolved, but when the Constitution was written in 2005, Article 140 demanded that the prime minister hold a referendum to resolve the issue of Kirkuk by the end of 2007. The first prime minister after the Constitution was written was Nouri al-Maliki. He became prime minister in April 2006. He refused to follow the Constitution. He forever had an excuse and it wasn't the right time or it will be addressed in the near future. He's now been prime minister since 2006, the Constitution compells him to resolve the issue of Kirkuk (and states how, take a census, take a vote) and to do so by 2007. He has repeatedly refused. He is forever in violation of the Constitution. And yet every time the White House backs Thug Nouri who runs torture chambers and secret prisons, whose forces physically attack journalists and demonstrators, this is who the White House -- under Bush before, under Barack now -- has backed. The Brookings Institution's Kenneth M. Pollack provides an analysis at The Atlantic which includes: It is important to understand what actually happened this week. Iraqiya ended its parliamentary boycott but not its boycott of meetings of the Council of Ministers. The parliament is due to consider Iraq's annual budget, and the Iraqi leadership felt it would be disastrous for their party and the communities they represent if they were not present to ensure that they received their fair share of Iraq's governmental pie. Iraqiya has not ended its ministerial boycott of Council of Ministers meetings, with the result that its ministers are still under suspension by Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, and it has threatened to withdraw from the parliament again if the prime minister does not end his attacks on them. It was Maliki who provoked the current crisis with his assault on Iraqiya, in several instances employing unsavory and even unconstitutional acts to do so. If he is willing to make some concessions to Iraqiya, it might be possible not just to defuse the current crisis but also to begin a larger process of compromise and national reconciliation that could start addressing the problems in Iraqi politics that gave rise to this crisis. Unfortunately, the prime minister appears to see Iraqiya's decision as a victory--he outlasted them, broke them, forced them rejoin the government without getting anything that they wanted. Indeed, Maliki has shown no sign of relenting, although he and his allies did tone down their rhetoric in recent weeks. But the prime minister has continued to fire and arrest senior Iraqiya leaders, insist that the Kurds hand over Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi for trial--despite charges that the warrant for his arrest was based on confessions induced by torture--and steadfastly refused to agree to a national conference to resolve the current impasse as proposed by Kurdish leader Massoud Barzani and accepted by the Iraqiya leadership. Although the Kurds have their own differences with Iraqiya and the Sunnis (and their own reasons for wanting to reconcile with Maliki), they see the prime minister's actions as "final proof" that he is determined to make himself a new dictator, and so they have refused to hand over Hashimi. What's truly stunning is that multiple reports have surfaced to indicate that the United States has decided that the real long-term problem is Iraqiya and that Washington's solution is to try to split the party and convince the part they see as more "progressive"--along with the Kurdish parties--to join Maliki in a new, majoritarian government that would be somewhat smaller and nimbler than the ridiculously unwieldy national-unity government that the administration foolishly insisted on back in 2010. There is more to his analysis including running various potential outcomes of the crisis. It does not include any thoughts on influence from other countries (other than the US). But Hossam Accomok (Al Mada) notes Iraqiya leader Ayada allawi reportedly met with Iran's Ambassador to Iraq (Hassan Danaii) and was accompanied by Ahmed Chalabi. Iraqiya is saying nothing at present about the alleged three hour meeting which may also have included Saleh al-Mutlaq and others. The meeting reportedly covered issues that have resulted in the political crisis. If the meeting did take place, the US government better be paying attention. They've strung Ayad Allawi for so long, promising him that they would mediate and not offered any real mediation, begged him to set aside his claim to prime minister for the good of the country, etc. Iraqiya has spent most of last week and this week denying that there would be any meet-up with Iran (mainly that Allawi was headed to or already in Tehran) but if they are entering into a dialogue, good for them. Maybe they'll get something from Tehran or it will wake up the White House to the fact that they can't string everyone along forever in their rush to protect Nouri. In another report, Al Mada notes unnamed officials are stating that there is strong polarization in the leadership of Iraiqya -- Allawi, Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi, Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi and Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq. These rumors have floated for some time but have, thus far, not resulted in any huge split. In fact, there were angry words exchanged in November 2010 between Allawi and al-Nuajaifi -- when Iraqiya walked out of the Parliament over Nouri's refusal to address the security council and the clearing of the names of Iraqiya members -- over al-Nujaifi's decision to continue the session. That was put aside after its airing. If anyone gets ditched quickly, my guess would be that it would be Saleh al-Mutlaq who could find himself out of a position and would then be quickly whisked out of the country. (If he loses his position, he loses his immunity and Nouri would sue him.) Tareq al-Hashemi might be the more obvious choice were it not for the fact that he has Kurdish support. In fact, Talabani is al-Hashemi's weakest support in that the protection Talabani's offered has come as a result of the demands of other Kurdish officials. Al Rafidayn has a report asserting al-Mutlaq met with Dawa leaders (highest ranking thus far, Dawa's Secretary-General Hashim al-Musawi) about resolving the issues between himself and Nouri. Pollack, in his analysis, feels that Iraqiya's leaders are unlikely to be divided against one another. Dar Addustour reports that Aiham Alsammarae, former Minister of Electricity and Constitutional expert, is calling for Nouri to step down as prime minister. Alsammarae served as Minister of Electricity from 2003 to 2005 and was the only Minister of Electricity to manage to increase the output of electricity to Iraqis. After he resigned, the output fell and has still not reached the levels of production under his leadership. Dar Addustour doesn't state whether he made the call from Iraq or not. (His family was living in Chicago. I thought they still were -- including him.) Al Mada notes KRG President Massoud Barzani has called the current political crisis the biggest one Iraq has faced since the 2003 invasion. He is calling for the partnership to be honored and stated that the Kurds had attempted to play mediator with no success due to a lack of commitment from other players. Nouri's actions are said to be harming Iraq's chances on the national stage. In a lenghty examination of Iraq's oil industry, Ben Van Heuvelen (Foreign Policy) offers: Production has rebounded from just over 1 million barrels per day after the invasion to nearly 3 million today. Baghdad's 11 international oil contracts promise to deliver a total of more than 13 million barrels per day within seven years -- a figure that would make Iraq the largest oil producer, ever. There are good reasons to doubt these projections. For one thing, the current political crisis has underscored Iraq's failure to build the kinds of institutions -- a credible judiciary, non-politicized security forces -- that support a stable, functioning, democratic state. Even if Iraq weren't plagued by daily bombings and political dysfunction, it would be hard-pressed to achieve what would be the most rapid oil expansion in world history. Steve Hargreaves (CNNMoney) sees similar problems as well: For some, it's the increasingly dire political situation that's more problematic than the violence. "The government is slowly fracturing," said Andreas Carleton-Smith, managing director of Middle East operations for Control Risks, a consultancy. "The political risks are far more serious than the security risks." Of course, political risk could lead to serious security risks, especially in a worst-case civil war-type scenario. But political risk can also manifest itself in a crushing bureaucracy, or simply the inability to get something done because the government office that's supposed to approve something no longer exists. This type of situation has also become more common in Iraq. "It's becoming more difficult to work here," said Carleton-Smith. Still on the issue of oil, Grant Smith (Bloomberg News) reports, "Iraq's legislation doesn't prevent oil companies from signing deals with the central government and with semi-autonomous authorities in the North, as in the case of Exxon Mobil Corp., said Adnan al-Janabi, chairman of the nation's Oil and Energy Committee." Back in October, ExxonMobil signed a deal with the KRG and you may remember Nouri's outrage and his Deputy Prime Minister for Energy's outrage (that's Hussein al-Shahristani) as they insisted that Iraq would consider sanctions, that the contract was illegal and more. And the Minister of Oil Abdul-Kareem Luaibi was insisting that they had demanded a response (repeatedly) from ExxonMobil which had refused to respond. It's not at all surprising that all the bluster, the deal goes through. A puppet like Nouri is installed for a reason, after all. In other news, Manila's Sun Star reports, "Crisis alert level 3 has been raised Wednesday in Iraq due to 'higher-than-expected' surge in terrorist and sectarian violence in the Western Asia nation, foreign affairs officials said. Under alert level 3, which covers all regions of Iraq except the northern autonomous region of Kurdistan, Filipinos who wish to leave Iraq are offered voluntary repatriation at government expense." Gulf News adds, "All of Iraq, except Kurdistan, an autonomous region in the north, near Turkey, was assessed under a high alert level of disorder, said Manila's foreign ministry statement." Despite massive unemployment in Iraq, the country continues to bring in foreign workers for jobs that Iraqi could easily be doing. These are not security contract jobs. They're construction jobs and hospitality industry jobs largely. GMA News notes the Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs Sectrary Albert del Rosario: While nearly 4,000 Filipinos were secured by the US military, the US troop pullout has significantly reduced the number of Filipinos in Iraq and has also resulted in a diminution of their security, the DFA noted. "In addition, we further believe that there may be undocumented Filipinos working as household service workers and we are, therefore, fully committed to ensuring the safety and welfare of all our countrymen in Iraq," Del Rosario said.