MEDIA ROOTS – The Pentagon’s budget has grown from $267 billion in 2000 to $708.2 billion in 2011. In addition to budgetary increases, the Pentagon is expanding its arrogation of global jurisdiction. The Unified Combatant Command of USAFRICOM (est. 2007) is of particular concern.

The Pentagon spins AFRICOM’s presence as a boon for all parties. According to former AFRICOM commanding General William “Kip” Ward, AFRICOM allows African nations to first choose “African solutions to African problems.” Other U.S. military leaders emphasize the benefits African countries receive from the United States’ implicit dedication to helping local communities.

U.S. military officials also claim AFRICOM allows for the relentless pursuit of shadowy, devious terrorists. “Violent extremist organizations [residing in Africa] have very clearly articulated an intent to attack the United States, its allies, its citizens and its interests both within Africa and also more broadly, in Europe,” according to AFRICOM commanding General Carter Ham. To help shape public discourse, various militant groups are presented as terrifying, inexplicable threats to the United States. Among these “threats” are Ash-Shabaab in Somalia, Boko Haram in Nigeria, al-Qa’ida in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), anti-Western rulers in Libya, and the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) in central Africa.

AFRICOM officials cite Ash-Shabaab’s proximity to the Middle East and links with al-Qa’ida as reason to pursue them relentlessly. In pursuing Ash-Shabaab, Washington uses CIA assets, drone strikes, U.S. special mission units, and African proxy forces.

General Ham referred to Boko Haram in Nigeria as a “growing threat to Western interests,” while Admiral William McRaven, Commander of USSOCOM, called them a “terrorist group.” Such allegations from top U.S. military officials serve to expand U.S. military activity across Africa, while keeping an eye on oil in Nigeria, from which USA receives 8% of its petroleum imports.

The Pentagon’s press service hinted at the importance of oil in the Defense Department’s strategic calculus when stating Boko Haram’s challenge to the Nigerian government is troubling, considering how “Africa’s vast natural resources compound the region’s strategic importance… particularly oil that’s exported to the United States.” Since Boko Haram has yet to display a sufficiently threatening posture, General Ham ties it to AQIM in terms of training, funding, and activities in order to take Boko Haram’s profile to the next level and implicate it as a threat to the USA. By wrapping up Boko Haram in the same ball as AQIM, which according to General Ham has “very clearly” shown an intent and desire to attack U.S. citizens, AFRICOM is able to spread its forces across the rest of the Sahel without raising questions from the U.S. citizenry.

General Carter Ham asserts “each of those three [Ash-Shabaab, Boko Haram, and AQIM] pose a significant threat not only in the nations where they primarily operate, but regionally, and I think they pose a threat to the United States.” In addition to gross hyperbole, Ham points to these groups’ potential to collaborate and coalesce as further rationale for the Pentagon to assist African nations with “anti-terrorist capabilities” [read: spread U.S. forces throughout Africa]. Ham reiterated these same points earlier this summer.

In order to counter the inflated “terror” threat, General Ham follows a “theater engagement strategy,” which includes a wide variety of exercises, operations, “security cooperation programs,” training programs, and equipment sequences. Admiral Eric T. Olson (ret.), former Commander of USSOCOM, framed it as shifting the Pentagon’s “strategic focus” “largely to the south… certainly within the special operations community, as we deal with the emerging threats from the places where the lights aren’t,” referencing what is often referred to prejudicially as the “dark continent.” Hence, Pentagon strategists aim to “turn the lights on” across Africa.

Seizing upon any excuse and justification to expand AFRICOM’s jurisdiction, General Ham cites successful military operations in Libya, specifically Operation Odyssey Dawn. Even though Colonel Qaddafi is deceased, General Ham uses AFRICOM to try and fill the vacuum, which Qaddafi left behind:

“It’s very clear that extremist organizations, notably al-Qaida, with some direction from al-Qaida’s senior leaders, would seek to undermine that good governance that the Tunisians and the Libyans seek… And so I think that’s the real threat that is posed… I think we need to partner very closely with the security forces [and] armed forces of Tunisia and Libya to prevent the reestablishment of those networks [and] to prevent those violent extremist organizations from undermining the progress that both countries are seeking.”

Ham recently succeeded in normalizing military relations with the new Libyan leaders. Ham recalled how he visited Tripoli “a number of times, and has had “Libyan officials visit us in our headquarters in Germany, and we have started to map out what the U.S. assistance might be for Libya well into the future.” Ham’s words portend inauspicious obstacles in the form of U.S. interference with Libyan self-determination.

Several hundred miles south of Libya lays the Central African Republic, to where President Obama deployed over 100 “combat-equipped” U.S. troops in order to assist in fighting the Lord’s Resistance Army. These troops, augmented by U.S. civilians, headquarters personnel, communications equipment, and logistics experts, also roam Uganda, South Sudan, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. By depicting the LRA as a nothing more than a “terror group,” the Pentagon is again able to expand AFRICOM’s territory with minimal objection from the domestic U.S. audience, while acting as if its entire existence is altruistic and humanitarian in nature.

In order to justify this particular operation, General Ham invoked a classic public-relation ploy, referring to today’s enemy as “evil.” Ham remarked, “if you ever had any question if there’s evil in the world, it is resident in the person of [LRA leader] Joseph Kony and that organization.” Many other enemies-of-the-day have been deemed “evil” during recent years, including Russia, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Colonel Qaddafi, various “terrorists,” drug traffickers, those who resist U.S. imperialism, Afghanistan, Syria, et cetera. Meanwhile, the State Department couches the deployment to central Africa as consistent with Washington’s concern for “increasing civilian protection” and “providing humanitarian assistance.”

Harmful Presence

Contrary to the Pentagon’s illusion, AFRICOM’s existence is extremely detrimental to all involved. It perpetuates Africa’s dependency on external support. With AFRICOM looming large, African politicians and states-people can easily defer to the U.S. military instead of focusing on their respective internal and AU security apparatuses. This ease of deference is shown well in how the Pentagon is involved in “training, equipping and funding the African Union Mission and Somali forces from Uganda, Burundi, Djibouti, Sierra Leone and Kenya.” Furthermore, since the U.S. military’s FM 3-24 assumes responsibility for economic and diplomatic territory, AFRICOM’s presence now allows African politicians and states-people to defer to U.S. economic powerhouses and diplomatic initiatives. In allowing AFRICOM to assume manifold responsibilities across diplomatic, economic, and military fields, U.S. policymakers ignore Africa’s own proven capacity to stabilize violent internal strife, as evident in the Economic Community of West African States’ 1990 response to the Liberian civil war, as Danny Glover elucidated. After all, if Washington, D.C. were to admit Africa can take care of itself, then new pretexts must be invented in order to expand U.S. military operations across the continent.

Additionally, AFRICOM’s establishment and expansion provide another aperture through which Pentagon generals and politically-appointed policymakers exploit the uniformed troops. With little economic opportunity outside of corporate America’s increasingly dismal career prospects, more and more U.S. citizens are turning to the Armed Forces to make ends meet. With increasing frequency, the U.S. government and its corporate overlords send these troops to all corners of the globe to fight for mineral wealth, oil, and natural resources.

What may be most patent is AFRICOM allows the U.S. military to expand throughout the African continent. Many corollaries ensue, specifically an unbridled military-industrial complex; pretexts of chasing “terror” continue unabated, U.S. access to Africa’s natural resources is ensured militarily, and live targets abound against which the Pentagon and CIA may practice. 

Far from altruistic, the Pentagon’s presence across Africa is entirely self-serving. As the Pentagon’s own propaganda machine readily concedes, AFRICOM’s “aim is to promote a stable and secure environment in support of U.S. foreign policy” [my emphasis]. General Ham states, “We’ve prioritized our efforts, focusing on the greatest threats to America, Americans and American interests.” AFRICOM’s selfish drive is remarkably similar to USA’s traditional military policies towards Latin America, described candidly as always working to improve “internal security capabilities” in support of U.S. foreign policy (Chomsky: 49). Sound familiar? 

AFRICOM’s presence simply allows Washington to shape domestic African laws, to alter internal policy decisions regarding resource extraction and counterterrorism, to coerce African governments into adjusting their foreign policies to fit U.S. military and economic objectives, and to interfere with internal litigation (Lutz et al.: 118).

The Washington Post Editorial Board recently wrote of the Chinese arms trade in Africa:

“…an investigation might shed light on China’s undisciplined arms trade, which is driven by relentless mercenary interests and a desire to cozy up to oil-soaked and mineral-rich African leaders.”

Replace “China” with “USA,” and we’re treated to the candid truth, which Washington and the Washington Post may have a tough time swallowing: An investigation might shed light on USA’s undisciplined arms trade [and militarization of the African continent], which is driven by relentless mercenary interests, [corporate interests], and a desire to cozy up to oil-soaked and mineral-rich African leaders. The truth hurts.

Former AFRICOM commanding General William Ward still claims the United States’ presence doesn’t amount to further militarization of the African continent, but merely supports “the efforts of other U.S. government agencies,” like “State Department or U.S. Agency for International Development programs.” If this is truly the case, then the United States would have established an AFRIAID command or a massive diplomatic hub instead of numerous military facilities. Economic development and educational initiatives do not necessitate military intervention.

On a continent already rife with conflict and excess weapon imports, General Ward nonetheless focused AFRICOM on “promoting regional cooperation through military-to-military engagements that strengthen regional capabilities,” and “further strengthening the unity of efforts with other U.S. agencies and, as appropriate, the international community.” Regrettably, neither one of these primary AFRICOM objectives helps Africa meet its true wishes: less foreign military interference and more African unity.

Full Coverage

U.S. policymakers who approved AFRICOM’s formation, specifically the 2007 Senate Armed Services Committee, neglected to consider USA’s history of military and espionage intervention across the African continent. Cold War games, postcolonial proxy wars, and chess matches with the USSR destabilized the continent almost beyond repair. These events were detailed lucidly in former Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ 1996 memoir From the Shadows. Given Africa’s recent history as a colonial punching bag and such a lurid history of military and espionage exploitation, U.S. policymakers ought to have deliberated AFRICOM’s formation with greater care. Instead, U.S. Congress ignored mass opposition to AFRICOM from an array of African nations, including South Africa and Nigeria.

AFRICOM is off to a fine start from a hegemonic perspective, having increased its footprint on the African continent by 1,500 personnel in less than a year, from the summer of 2009 to the spring of 2010. By the fall of 2011, the U.S. military had a presence in the Djibouti, Seychelles, Ethiopia, and Sao Tome & Principe. The Washington Post later revealed that U.S. ISR platforms and Special Operations Forces were also operating out of Burkina Faso, Mali, Mauritania, Uganda, and Kenya. According to Reuters, the U.S. military has a presence in over 34 sub-Saharan African countries. Adding to this troop saturation, the Pentagon will deploy U.S. infantry troops to Africa next year, a move which permanently aligns a stateside combat brigade with continuous, rotational deployments to the African continent.

Concerned citizens should rest well, because the former commanding officer of Camp Lemonnier, Djibouti, assures us the U.S. “must always be transparent in our operations.” One surmises that such statements are not applicable to the counter-terrorism operations stemming from the Combined Joint Task Force – Horn of Africa (CJTF-HOA), with an Area of Responsibility covering “the countries of Kenya, Somalia, Ethiopia, Sudan, Eritrea, Djibouti, and Seychelles, and an Area of Interest including Yemen, Tanzania, Mauritius, Madagascar, Mozambique, Burundi, Rwanda, Comoros, Chad, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Uganda.”

The Trans-Sahara Counterterrorism Partnership (TSCTP), whose motivation and strategic outlook were approved by a National Security Council committee in 2005, is AFRICOM’s instrument of choice when implementing counterterrorism efforts in Africa’s Sahel and Maghreb regions.

One must also consider the orientation of the American Army’s Third and Fifth Special Forces groups, which are by design geared towards operations in sub-Saharan Africa and Northeast Africa respectively.

Whether Washington utilizes CJTF-HOA, TSCTP, a random drone, conventional troop deployments, a Special Forces A-team, or a covert military flight, U.S. foreign policy remains committed to interference on the ground in sovereign African nations. Based on the preceding evidence, it is reasonable to conclude that the Pentagon effectively operates at will throughout the entire African continent. The implications are profound: no African is safe and accountability is nil. Barring a few competent U.S. journalists, like Jeremy Scahill and Nick Turse, the U.S. military’s expansion throughout the African continent receives little attention from the United States’ press.

Tricks of the Trade

Despite all evidence to the contrary, the Pentagon still insists it has no intent or plans for establishing permanent bases in Africa. Concerned citizens wonder how AFRICOM is able to claim such a small “footprint” in Africa, even though U.S. military forces clearly infest the continent. It does so in two ways. Firstly, AFRICOM defines the term “base” as a facility of a specific, size, scale, and composition. Since only one of the Pentagon’s numerous military facilities in Africa meets “base” criteria, Washington can continue to claim AFRICOM has only one base on the continent and no interest in constructing long term bases in Africa. Secondly, the Pentagon claims a small “footprint” in Africa by not assigning troops directly to AFRICOM. Instead, the Pentagon has AFRICOM draw its forces from tangential commands and European-based forces. When used together, the aforementioned bureaucratic loopholes allow the Pentagon to claim innocence and idealism vis-à-vis operations on the African continent, while evidence clearly shows the U.S. military operating there relentlessly.

The United States’ gluttonous military-industrial-corporate behemoth finds Djibouti quite attractive as a main base of operations on the African continent. From a strategic perspective, Djibouti rests across the vitally important Bab-el-Mandeb, a narrow chokepoint connecting the Gulf of Aden with the Red Sea, overseeing traffic to and from the Suez Canal. In this capacity, Djibouti is a regional transit port, an international trans-shipment node, and a refueling center for many. Local, unelected elites welcome USA’s presence, since these rulers benefit greatly from USA’s foreign assistance. Last fall, Camp Lemonnier was upgraded, receiving runway additions and a new dining facility, indicating AFRICOM’s intent to remain indefinitely. (Curiously, the leader of Djibouti, Ismail Omar Guelleh, who plays host to USA’s Camp Lemonnier, doesn’t even conform to USA’s professed standards of “spreading democracy.” This is never mentioned in the U.S. corporate media).

In military parlance, Djibouti is “a great strategic location. It facilitates not only our operations for U.S. Africa Command, but also U.S. Central Command and U.S. Transportation Command. It is a very key hub and important node for us, a good location that allows us to extend our reach in East Africa and partner with the countries of East Africa,” according to General Ham.

Rubbing salt in the imperial wound, U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta thanked the U.S. servicemen and women who are deployed to Camp Lemonnier for “their role in maintaining stability and preventing conflict in the region.” Panetta oozed, “I can’t tell you how proud I am as Secretary of Defense to visit you… thanks on behalf of a grateful nation… You’ve done everything the nation has asked you to do.” Concerned U.S. citizens do not recall asking fellow countrymen and countrywomen to travel across the world in order to protect U.S. corporate greed or imperial configurations. Panetta later thanked the Camp Leomonnier crowd for “continuing the American dream of ensuring a better life for the next generation.” Details are not forthcoming regarding how a military presence in Djibouti helps perpetuate the so-called “American dream.”

The Pentagon press service describes the U.S.-Djibouti relationship as “‘a very important partnership’ in dealing with counterterrorism, counter-piracy and outreach into Africa.” Educational initiatives, stipulation-free economic assistance, and non-militarized humanitarian aid fall by the wayside. Any humanitarian aid, like the East and West African Malaria Task Forces, is wielded selfishly in order to co-opt African nations, improve the health of their militaries, and protect U.S. troops operating in the region.

According to AFRICOM’s chief medical doctor, Colonel John Andrus, combating malaria supports AFRICOM’s chief goal of promoting regional stability. In other words, combating malaria in Africa is not altruistic or sincerely benevolent, but rather employed as a selfish strategy in order to achieve imperial military objectives. Chief of AFRICOM’s health protection branch advises us how “each person [deployed to AFRICOM] is critical. If you have one person go down, that person can’t do his or her job.” If only we cared equally about the anonymous millions of non-military personnel who die annually from starvation, disease, and bullets across the African continent.

Yet the Pentagon still insists USA’s presence on the African continent is purely selfless. The Undersecretary of Defense for Policy claims creating peaceful political processes, which provide conditions essential to development, “is the name of the game in Africa.” USA’s strategy “puts a premium on supporting democratization and the emergence of democracies in Africa,” the Undersecretary affirms. Her verbal piffle completely disregards U.S. support for Hosni Mubarak, U.S. support for Mobutu Sese Seko in Zaire, U.S. involvement in the coup against Ghana’s Kwame Nkrumah, CIA collaboration with the South African apartheid state, and the Cold War games USA played in Angola, Libya, Chad, et cetera.

As if it hasn’t suffered enough through slavery, colonialism, and decades of resource pillaging, the African continent is going to be plundered even more in the future. In the words of Professor Chalmers Johnson, “While the globalization of the 1990s was premised on cheating the poor and defenseless and on destroying the only physical environment we will ever have, its replacement by American militarism and imperialism is likely to usher in something much worse for developed, developing, and underdeveloped nations alike” (Johnson: 281). Reality contrasts starkly with the Pentagon’s artifice.

A Beacon of U.S. Journalism

This background on AFRICOM and its activities serves as a primer for Nick Turse’s stellar journalism. Nick Turse is the premier U.S. journalist covering Pentagon expansion across the African continent. Turse excels at highlighting Pentagon excess and imperialism. After publishing a candid portrayal of AFRICOM, Turse received an email from Colonel Tom Davis, an AFRICOM public affairs official. For their ensuing, riveting correspondence, click here.

For further reading on the excess of AFRICOM and militarized U.S. foreign policy, consult The Counter-Counterinsurgency Manual by the Network of Concerned Anthropologists. (Chicago: Prickly Paradigm Press, 2009).

***

Christian Sorensen for Media Roots.

Photo provided by Flickr user The U.S. Army.

MEDIA ROOTS – At Ground Zero this past September 11, a more docile crowd congregated at the site for eternal mourning. The number of family members and protestors were generally smaller and most in the 9/11 Truth movement honored a four-hour silence out of respect for the victims and their families. What ensued was a gathering of people from across the 9/11 landscape with several constructive conversations and very few emotional diatribes.

The goal for this year’s annual gathering of 9/11 questioners was to capture activists’ collective experience. Several individuals from around the country were featured, some whom made the pilgrimage from as far as the state of Georgia. New York City is the de facto home of the 9/11 Truth movement where weekly street actions continue at Ground Zero every Saturday for several hours each afternoon.

Reflections from the 9/11 Truth movement after 11 years.

***

Oscar Mosko is a producer at truth-march and is managing editor at Media Roots.

MEDIA ROOTS – The Pentagon and the corporate media establishment are again attempting to control the 9/11 and War on Terror narrative by claiming that they are considering legal action against former Navy SEAL Matt Bissonnette (a.k.a. Mark Owen) for publishing his book No Easy Day. The supposed context for the publication of his story, scheduled for release on Tuesday, is that the veteran did not offer the manuscript to the Department of Defense for prior review and he now may face legal recourse from the agency. Additionally, his name was leaked by the Associated Press last week, resulting in possible threats to his life.

The book was originally scheduled for release on September 11 of this year. It was an attempt made by Owen to remain apolitical about arguably the most politicized event of the decade. But the current debate appears to be scripted for the history books as several hard questions about the death of bin Laden continue to be ignored and will most likely not be answered in the upcoming publication distributed by Dutton.

The first and probably the most obvious discrepancy is if military intelligence had known of his precise location for eight months prior to the raid, then why hasn’t more proof of his whereabouts been released to the American public? “Despite the intense surveillance effort the CIA was unable to obtain a photograph of Bin Laden or a recording of the voice of the mysterious man, presumed to be the al-Qaida leader,” states the Guardian the week after the raid.

With such precise knowledge of the bunker, why was bin Laden not captured for trial in a court of law? Attorney General Eric Holder answers that the operation was not only lawful according to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (2001) but was simply an act of national self-defense. But in a nation where children are taught the belief of liberty and justice for all, it’s quite contradictory for this nation’s leadership to not protect and promote these ideals worldwide.

Furthermore, Owen recounts a scene where bin Laden may actually have already been dead upon their arrival. “At first it was funny because it was so wrong,” Owen reflected in his account of May 1, 2011. This version is in direct conflict with that of the White House in which bin Laden was allegedly reaching for a weapon at the time of the fatal shots. Owen confirms that the suspected terrorist was unarmed at the time of his death and their team may have just been on a kill mission.

But the greatest and most pertinent question has still not been asked: was Osama Bin Laden actually killed on May 1, 2011? This past March, the online hacker group Anonymous was able to obtain emails from the intelligence analysis group Stratfor which directly contradicts the official story about what happened with bin Laden’s body after the raid. While possibly the smoking gun of a White House cover-up, several news stories reported before the raid also directly contradict the official narrative. Below are a just few examples:

2001 – “Usama bin Laden has died a peaceful death due to an untreated lung complication, the Pakistan Observer reported, citing a Taliban leader who allegedly attended the funeral of the Al Qaeda leader.” [Fox News]

2002 – “Pakistan’s president says he thinks Osama bin Laden is most likely dead because the suspected terrorist has been unable to get treatment for his kidney disease.” [CNN]

2006 – “Saudi intelligence services seem to be sure that Osama bin Laden is dead. The elements gathered by the Saudis indicate that the head of Al Qaeda was the victim, while he was in Pakistan on Aug. 23, 2006, of a strong case of typhoid fever that led to a partial paralysis of his lower limbs.” [France’s Directorate-General for External Security]

2007 – “… he also had dealings with Omar Sheikh, the man who murdered Osama bin Laden.” [Benazir Bhutto]

2008 – “The last relatively reliable bin Laden sighting was in late 2001.” [Time]

2009 – “What if everything we have seen or heard of him on video and audio tapes since the early days after 9/11 is a fake – and that he is being kept ‘alive’ by the Western allies to stir up support for the war on terror? Incredibly, this is the breathtaking theory that is gaining credence among political commentators, respected academics and even terror experts.” [Daily Mail]

The War on Terror is riddled with unanswered questions that range in depth and consequence. From numerous eyewitness accounts of what actually hit the Twin Towers to this morning’s attack at a US military base, the corporate media hardly scratches the surface of investigation, often simply regurgitating government propaganda. But as more individuals combat societal ignorance, becoming proactively aware of the atrocities committed by their military establishment and the history of their empire, the War on Terror is destined to end.

Oskar Mosco for Media Roots.

Photo provided by Flickr user Ben Sutherland.

MEDIA ROOTS – This article by David Noriega, published on TheNewInquiry, vividly diagrams the pressures inherent on a young college graduate when he goes to work for the NYC Civilian Complaint Review Board, wherein he investigates citizens’ complaints against NYPD officers. Where other areas that have the means use attorneys for the important task of holding peace officers accountable to citizens, the overextended CCRB provided steady employment for recent grads like Mr. Noriega, as long as they could accomplish the task of minimizing paperwork and consequences for the NYPD.

Younger, more inexperienced workers were more likely to follow orders and be amenable to a culture that valued exoneration of officers, discounting citizen grievances, and not taking a stand on controversial issues like stop-and-frisk. The author expresses some guarded hope, and lists some recent, albeit limited, improvements to the CCRB’s function. This cautionary tale will give you a glimpse of what it feels like to be on the inside of a powerless bureaucratic machine whose ostensible task is keeping the NYPD from abusing its authority. 

Laurie Kirchner for Media Roots

*****

THENEWINQUIRY – I will always remember the first time a cop lied to me. Or rather, the first time that I knew beyond a doubt that a cop was lying to me, sitting right there in the interview room with a tape recorder in front of him.

It was early in my tenure as an investigator at the New York City Civilian Complaint Review Board, the city agency established in 1993 to investigate allegations of misconduct against NYPD officers. The case was a fairly straightforward stop-and-frisk incident near the massive New York City Housing Authority complexes along Avenue D in Manhattan. The complainant, a man in his early 20s, alleged that a plainclothes cop had stopped, frisked, and searched him after he stepped out of a bodega. He’d given a guy a cigarette, and before he knew it, the cop came up from behind him, grabbed him by the coat, and after a quick scuffle, pushed him against a wall.

I’d already interviewed the cop’s unusually forthcoming partner, whose testimony matched the complainant’s. That’s how I knew the cop was making stuff up. Lots of stuff.

Continue reading The Thin Blue Line

*****

photo by Jean-Edouard BABIN under creative commons

Read part one of this series about Israeli espionage against the U.S.

MEDIA ROOTS – The United States boasts a storied history of protecting Israel on the United Nation Security Council (UNSC) and was the lone dissenter against the most recent UN resolution that condemned Israeli settlements in the West Bank. The fourteen other Security Council members backed the resolution. One could almost hear the global community’s collective wheeze when U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice voiced the United States’ incongruence on 18 February 2011.

While claiming the United States strongly opposes Israeli settlement activity, Rice still refused to vote in line with the decency of the international community. Instead, she opted to pepper the world with diplomatic platitudes, as if that lessened the blow. By claiming her actions are somehow helpful to the peace process – although one cannot be sure how voting to perpetuate colonization in violation of international law is helpful – Susan Rice vetoed the resolution and continued the U.S. tradition of irresponsibility. Employing the utmost diplomatic circumlocution, Secretary of State Clinton deemed the colonies “illegitimate,” not illegal.

Reaction to the February 2011 veto was enlightening:

“The Anti-Defamation League, the American Jewish Committee, the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, B’nai B’rith International and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee all issued statements expressing appreciation for the veto. “Exercising the veto is a painful decision, particularly for an administration with a deep and sincere commitment to multilateralism,” said David Harris, the executive director of the American Jewish Committee. “That is why we salute President Obama and his team for their courage in vetoing this mischievous resolution, which would have caused irreparable damage to the future prospects of direct talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.”

Contrary to David Harris’ assertion, the only mischievous behavior is the United States’ tradition to abuse its power. From 1972 – 2006, the U.S. vetoed over forty UN Security Council resolutions that criticized or condemned Israel’s actions.

Russia and China have vetoed a series of UN Security Council resolutions, which condemn Syria over its harsh crackdown on anti-government protestors. Susan Rice condemned the Russian/Chinese October 2011 veto, saying it was a “cheap ruse by those who would rather sell arms to the Syrian regime than stand with the Syrian people.” She then concluded “the United States is outraged that this council has utterly failed to address an urgent moral challenge and a growing threat to regional peace and stability.” Surely she sees the irony in her words. Firstly, USA’s use of the veto to protect Israel from criticism is also a “cheap ruse,” whereby the United States government prefers to bow to AIPAC pressure and give Israel weaponry (paid for by the U.S. taxpayer) rather than stand with the Palestinian people and the Israeli citizens who want justice. Secondly, the council’s failure “to address an urgent moral challenge and a growing threat to regional peace and stability” is precisely what the United States does each time it vetoes resolutions critical of Israel’s destructive policies. Israeli foreign policy can easily be categorized as a “growing threat to regional peace and stability, yet the U.S. government continually blocks any progress confronting this particular “urgent moral challenge.” Syria’s brutal internal crackdown and Israel’s ethnic cleansing of historical Palestine are worthy of international condemnation. To condemn the former while protecting the latter exposes the United States’ double-standards and failed policies.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s words are an accurate reflection of the international community’s frustration in dealing with Israel’s obstinacy and the United States’ complicity. She reportedly communicated to Prime Minister Netanyahu, after Germany voted in favor of condemning Israel’s settlement activity: “How dare you? You haven’t made a single step to advance peace.” The Chairman of the Bundestag’s Foreign Affairs Committee clarified Chancellor Merkel is “trying to explain to the Israeli government that with the extraordinary changes taking place across the Middle East, time is not on its side when it comes to resolving the conflict with the stateless Palestinians.” British politician Lord Dykes acknowledged the United States’ tradition of harm by stating: “a seemingly unanimous decision in a moderately worded resolution asking Israel to obey its international law duties in occupied Palestine was deliberately – I am sad to use the verb – wrecked by the U.S.” Notably, Netanyahu’s former colleagues, such as Ehud Olmert and Ariel Sharon, have referred to him as a liar (Sharon). The former French President Nicolas Sarkozy also referred to Netanyahu in one word: “liar.” The list goes on, as even the former chief of Shin Bet has no confidence in Netanyahu as a leader.

A leading Zionist pundit unintentionally describes Netanyahu’s view with alarming candor: “Israel, of course, says it’s all the Palestinians’ fault. It says their UN gambit is just the latest move in their campaign to isolate and delegitimize Israel, proving again that they won’t accept Israel’s existence. Israel has no choice but to resist their assault using the tools at its disposal, including the American veto.”

This pundit’s view is enlightening in many ways. Firstly, Netanyahu and many in the Israeli government view the U.S. veto as a “tool at its disposal.” Israel uses the United States’ position on the UN Security Council as an instrument to be manipulated, similar to the manner in which AIPAC views the U.S. Congress. During a 2006 interview with Bill Maher, Netanyahu insinuated as much when he noted: “the secret is that we have America.” In his capacity as Prime Minister of Israel, Ariel Sharon had conveyed a similar, disturbing view during a 3 October 2001 interview with Kol Yisrael radio. Secondly, instead of viewing the Palestinian bid for statehood as an attempt at self-determination, the Israeli propaganda machine spins it as a refusal to accept Israel’s existence. Israel and the United States both declared independence unilaterally but the populaces seem quick to forget. Haaretz columnist Gideon Levy underscored this severety from the Holy Land: “Five million Israelis are deeply convinced today that they are right and seven billion people of the world are wrong.”

Continued Colonialism

The Israeli government persistently colonizes the West Bank, facilitated by the U.S. government’s unconditional, unapologetic support. In referencing the war of 1967, former Israeli Attorney General Michael Ben Yair concedes the war “continues to this day and is the product of our choice. We enthusiastically chose to become a colonialist society, ignoring international treaties, expropriating lands, transferring settlers from Israel to the occupied territories, engaged in theft and finding justification for all this” (Stern: 103). Yair frames the situation well.

This sad political reality, implemented by a relentless ideology, has moved roughly half a million Israelis into more than 100 colonies across the West Bank and East Jerusalem since 1967, amounting to a de facto annexation of land for Israeli use. Over 20,000 Israeli colonists now live in the Golan Heights alone, which was Syrian territory prior to 1967. Meanwhile, Israel’s separation barrier in the West Bank, which many refer to as an apartheid wall, carves chunks out of the future de facto Palestinian state and places favorable amounts of water resources on Israel’s side of the wall. Israeli colonies, which Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D – Florida) prefers to call “suburbs,” elsewhere receive a disproportionate share of the water supply.

USA and Israel walk hand in hand. For example, Shimon Peres’ April 2011 visit to Washington, D.C., coincided with a Jerusalem planning committee’s approval of 942 housing units in the Gilo neighborhood, south of Jerusalem, which the international community considers illegal. On 4 August 2011, the Israeli Interior Ministry approved of 900 new homes to be built in the Har Homa area, amounting to a de facto slice between Palestinian neighborhoods in East Jerusalem and Bethlehem. Less than two weeks later, Israeli officials approved 277 new homes in the West Bank colony of Ariel. One month later, Israel’s government approved 1,100 additional housing units to be built in the Gilo area of occupied east Jerusalem. Another 2,600 housing units were given the green light two weeks later. After Palestine received membership in UNESCO, Israel expedited construction of roughly 2,000 homes in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, all of which would “remain in Israeli control under any future peace agreement,” according to Prime Minister Netanyahu. One month later, the Israeli government approved more colonial construction in the dead center of a Palestinian neighborhood in Jerusalem. In April 2012, the Israeli government threw its full weight behind this misery and authorized the West Bank colonies of Bruchin, Rechelim, and Sansana. Israel’s ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in the West Bank in 2011 rose eighty percent when compared to 2010 rates, while the Israeli government increased its spending on West Bank colonies by 38 percent over the same period. 600 Palestinians lost their homes in the first five months of 2012. Israeli officials cite lack of “proper permits” as one pretext for bulldozing Palestinian homes, restaurants, schools, and even demolishing residential solar panels. On 6 June 2012, Netanyahu ordered the construction of 300 new homes in the West Bank colony of Beit El.  Zionism marches on, enabled by the U.S. government.

Israeli officials point to symbolic, menial efforts as proof they care to comply with international consensus. As of 1 March 2011, the Israeli government began dismantling all “illegal settlement outposts built on privately-owned Palestinian land.” Such a concession sounds tremendous, but it only applied to three outposts. Moreover, Israeli authorities simultaneously began to “legalize” illegal colonies built on state land, and even going so far as confiscating an olive grove for “agricultural cultivation” and granting the plot of land to a colonist “with no known farming skills.” Overall, the Israeli government stripped almost 250,000 Palestinians of their residency rights from 1967-1994, a figured which doesn’t include the hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who were driven from their homes around 1948. As a result, Israel gains far more than it loses.

Israel’s colonial obstinacy manifests itself in many forms. As President Obama delivered a major speech on events in the Middle East on 19 May 2011, the Israeli government approved plans to build more than 1,500 new homes on two settlements around East Jerusalem. Arieh Eldad, a member of the Israeli Knesset and head of the Hatikva faction, stated “I hope that [this] sends a clear message to the American administration. I hope that the new building of new settlements next week will send a similar message.” Contrary to Mr. Eldad’s assertions, the United States’ active role in perpetuating Israeli colonization of the West Bank has aligned criminally with Israeli deviance:

“The endorsement of ‘land swaps’ by President Obama, which is a euphemism for the annexation by Israel of major Jewish settlement blocs in the West Bank, is one demonstration of the unquestioning acceptance by the United States of the Israeli narrative of the conflict. By accepting the ‘land swap’ argument, President Obama has in effect declared that it is legitimate for the occupying power to settle and colonize occupied lands. This suits the settler-colonial mentality of the Israeli establishment for, despite arguments to the contrary, Israel itself is a product of settler colonialism with the British mandate over Palestine acting as its midwife. It was British rule that facilitated Jewish migration from Europe to Palestine and laid the basis of the demographic transformation of the mandated territory with the Jewish population in Palestine rising from approximately 10 percent at the beginning of the mandate to roughly 30 percent at its end. An American position endorsing Israel’s annexation of settler colonies is bound to put it at odds with the majority opinion in the international system.”

The modicum of pressure, which President Obama placed on Israel to freeze settlement expansion, was neither laudable nor realistic without proper confrontation of AIPAC. Backing down only days later, President Obama looked like a clown in front of the international community, further undermining the United States’ arrogation of global leadership. Wolf Blitzer foretold of such an occurrence in the event a U.S. administration got tough with Israel on any number of issues:

“If the U.S. administration did pressure Israel and was subsequently forced to back down in the face of reactions from Congress, the Jewish community, and others in the United States as well as Israel and around the world, there would be another price to pay. The limits of U.S. policy would be advertised for all to see. No president wants to show off American impotence” (Blitzer: 14).

According to Blitzer, such pressure would stem from a comprehensive Israeli mobilization against the U.S. presidential administration, an anti-administration enterprise directed by the Jewish community and allegations of anti-Semitism (ibid: 13-14). The Oracle at Blitzer’s predictions came true.

The U.S.-Israel relationship is one of paradox. Israel spies ferociously against the United States, while the U.S. Congress and Executive Branch work overtime to support Israel “unconditionally.” (President Obama even awarded Israeli President Shimon Peres the U.S. Presidential Medal of Freedom). Meanwhile, U.S. public is sound asleep. Until we wake up, the Israeli government will continue to capitalize upon this lopsided relationship.

Christian Sorensen for Media Roots

***
Photo by Flickr user lilivanili.