Category: America

  • David Cameron’s Statement on Death of Osama Bin Laden

    David Cameron’s Statement on Death of Osama Bin Laden

    Number10door

    Prime Minister David Cameron has issued a statement on the news of the death of Osama Bin Laden.

    Osama Bin Laden, who was responsible for some of the worst terrorist atrocities including the 9/11 attack, was killed in a US operation in Pakistan.

    Mr Cameron congratulated President Obama on the operation and said now was a time to remember all those murdered by Osama Bin Laden.

    The PM said:

    “The news that Osama Bin Laden is dead will bring great relief to people across the world. Osama Bin Laden was responsible for the worst terrorist atrocities the world has seen –  for 9/11 and for so many attacks, which have cost thousands of lives, many of them British.

    “It is a great success that he has been found and will no longer be able to pursue his campaign of global terror.  This is a time to remember all those murdered by Osama Bin Laden, and all those who lost loved ones. It is also a time too to thank all those who work round the clock to keep us safe from terrorism. Their work will continue.

    “I congratulate President Obama and those responsible for carrying out this operation.”

    Mr Cameron also spoke on television at his residence at Chequers.

    The Prime Minister said:

    “This news will be welcomed right across our country.

    “Of course, it does not mark the end of the threat we face from extremist terrorism. Indeed, we will have to be particularly vigilant in the weeks ahead.

    “But it is, I believe, a massive step forward.

    “Osama bin Laden was responsible for the death of thousands of innocent men, women and children right across the world – people of every race and religion.

    “He was also responsible for ordering the death of many, many British citizens, both here and in other parts of the world.

    “I would like to congratulate the US forces who carried out this brave action. I would like to thank President Obama for ordering this action.

    “And I think it is a moment when too we should thank all of those who work day and night, often with no recognition, to keep us safe from the threat of terror.

    “But above all today, we should think of the victims of the poisonous extremism that this man has been responsible for.

    “Of course, nothing will bring back those loved ones that families have lost to terror.

    “But at least they know the man who was responsible for these appalling acts is no more.”

     

    The Prime Ministers Office

    TheNumber 10

  • Obama: Al-Qaida head bin Laden dead

    Obama: Al-Qaida head bin Laden dead

     

    Bin Laden
    In this April 1998 file photo, Osama bin Laden is shown in Afghanistan.

    By JULIE PACE and MATT APUZZO, Associated Press – 29 mins ago

    WASHINGTON – Osama bin Laden, the glowering mastermind behind the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks that killed thousands of Americans, was slain in a firefight Sunday with U.S. forces in Pakistan, ending a manhunt that spanned a frustrating decade.

    “Justice has been done,” President Barack Obama said in a dramatic late-night announcement at the White House.

    A jubilant crowd of thousands gathered outside the White House as word spread of bin Laden’s death. Hundreds more sang and waved American flags at Ground Zero in New York — where the twin towers that once stood as symbols of American economic power were brought down by bin Laden’s hijackers 10 years ago.

    Another hijacked plane slammed into the Pentagon on that cloudless day, and a fourth was commandeered by passengers who forced it to the ground before it could reach its intended target in Washington.

    U.S. officials said the helicopter raid in Pakistan was carried out by CIA paramilitaries together with the elite Navy SEAL Team Six. The U.S. team took custody of bin Laden’s remains, which American officials said were being handled in accordance with Islamic tradition.

    The death marks a psychological triumph in a long struggle, although its ultimate impact on al-Qaida is less clear.

    The greatest terrorist threat to the U.S. is now considered to be the al-Qaida franchise in Yemen, far from al-Qaida’s core in Pakistan. The Yemen branch almost took down a U.S.-bound airliner on Christmas 2009 and nearly detonated explosives aboard two U.S. cargo planes last fall. Those operations were carried out without any direct involvement from bin Laden.

    Obama said he gave the order for the operation after receiving intelligence information that he did not further describe.

    Former President George W. Bush, who was in office on the day of the attacks, issued a written statement hailing bin Laden’s death as a momentous achievement. “The fight against terror goes on, but tonight America has sent an unmistakable message: No matter how long it takes, justice will be done,” he said.

    Senior administration officials said the terrorist mastermind was found inside a custom-built compound with two security gates. They said it appeared to have been constructed to harbor one high-value target and that for undisclosed reasons, officials believed the hideout was bin Laden’s.

    Officials also said they believe the death puts bin Laden’s al-Qaida on a path of decline that will be difficult to reverse, but there was no word on the whereabouts of bin Laden’s second-in-command, Ayman al-Zawahri.

    The stunning end to the world’s most widely-watched manhunt came just months before the 10th anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Centers and Pentagon, orchestrated by al-Qaida, that killed nearly 3,000 people.

    The attacks a decade ago seemed to come out of nowhere, even though al-Qaida had previously struck American targets overseas.

    The terrorists hijacked planes, flew one of them into one of Manhattan’s Twin Towers — and, moments later, into the other one. Both buildings collapsed, trapping thousands inside and also claiming the lives of firefighters and others who had rushed to help them.

    A third plane slammed into the Pentagon, defacing the symbol of America’s military night. Officials have speculated that the fourth plane had been heading for the U.S. Capitol or perhaps even the White House when it crashed in Pennsylvania.

    The attacks set off a chain of events that led the United States into wars in Afghanistan, and then Iraq, and America’s entire intelligence apparatus was overhauled to counter the threat of more terror attacks at home.

    A senior administration official said Obama gave the final order for U.S. officials to go after bin Laden on Friday. The official added that a small team found its quarry hiding in a large home in an affluent suburb of Islamabad. The raid occurred in the early morning hours Sunday.

    Administration officials offered some details of the operation.

    Based on statements given by U.S. detainees, intelligence officials have known for years that bin Laden trusted one al-Qaida courier in particular, and they believed he might be living with him in hiding. In November, intelligence officials found out where he was living, a huge fortified compound in an affluent suburb of Islamabad. It was surrounded by walls as high as 18 feet high, topped with barbed wire. There were two security gates and no phone or Internet running into the house.

    Intelligence officials believed the $1 million home was custom-built to harbor a major terrorist. CIA experts analyzed whether it could be anyone else, but time and again, they decided it was almost certainly bin Laden.

    Three adult males were also killed in Sunday’s raid, including one of bin Laden’s sons, whom officials did not name. One of bin Laden’s sons, Hamza, is a senior member of al-Qaida.

    Obama spoke with Bush and former President Bill Clinton Sunday night to inform them of the developments.

    The president struck a less than boastful tone in his brief announcement, although he said the death of bin Laden was “the most significant achievement to date in our nation’s effort to defeat al-Qaida.

    “His death does not mark the end of our effort. There’s no doubt that al-Qaida will continue to pursue attacks against us. We must and we will remain vigilant,” he added.

    Moments after Obama spoke, the State Department put U.S. embassies on alert and warned of the heightened possibility for anti-American violence. In a worldwide travel alert, the department said there was an “enhanced potential for anti-American violence given recent counterterrorism activity in Pakistan.”

    ____

    Associated Press reporter Kimberly Dozier contributed to this story..

    news.yahoo.com, 02 May 2011

  • Expert: Washington brushes aside anything that can harm relations with Turkey

    Expert: Washington brushes aside anything that can harm relations with Turkey

    minassianPanARMENIAN.Net – Gaidz Minassian, associate researcher at the Foundation of Strategic Research, said that the agreement between Turkey and Brazil on Iran, in 2010, opened a new stage of negotiations between the U.S. and Turkey.

    “For Washington, Iran has become a strategic priority. In Ankara, the Iranian issue allows it to strengthen its regional influence among Muslims states,” Minassian told a PanARMENIAN.Net reporter.

    “Turks and Americans have thus found a common ground to cooperate on the Iranian problem. That is why Washington brushes aside anything that can harm relations with Turkey. Other issues are secondary, including the Armenian Genocide. Hence, the burial of resolution H.Res 252 in the U.S. Congress, the appointment of Francis J. Ricciardone as the U.S. ambassador to Turkey despite the Senate hold, Americans’ confidence of the ratification of the protocols signed between Turkey and Armenia and the statements by Barack Obama on April 24 without the Genocide word are part of U.S. strategic partnership with Turkey,” he said.

    via Expert: Washington brushes aside anything that can harm relations with Turkey – PanARMENIAN.Net.

  • Secret memos expose link between oil firms and invasion of Iraq

    Secret memos expose link between oil firms and invasion of Iraq

    Greg Muttitt: ‘Big oil firms are still in the driving seat when it comes to the resource war’

    Secret MemosThis week, The Independent revealed how big oil firms influenced the invasion of Iraq. Greg Muttitt, who uncovered the story, exposes the lengths to which the occupying powers went to prise the country’s oil production out of the control of the Iraqi government and into the hands of international oil companies.

    Interview by Phil England

    I would say the most surprising thing about my book is that someone else hasn’t written it in the past eight years. It’s an obvious question to ask, ‘what happened to the oil?’

    Published yesterday, Greg Muttitt’s explosive new history of post-occupation Iraq has been pulled together from hundreds of documents released under the Freedom of Information act – both here and in the US – as well as from numerous first-hand interviews. Muttitt was the source of The Independent’s front-page revelations on Tuesday that both BP and Shell had meetings with government officials in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq.

    With more revelations inside, his book is set to turn our understanding of the war on its head. As well as documenting just how highly oil figured in the thinking of those who led what is widely thought to have been an illegal invasion, Fuel on the Fire exposes the lengths to which the occupying powers went to prise the country’s oil production out of the control of the Iraqi government, and into the hands of international oil companies, against the wishes of the Iraqi people.

    It’s an absorbing account of what is a much more complex story than many pundits might prefer. “I didn’t feel it would be helpful to just chuck ammunition to one side in a polarised debate,” he explains. “I wanted to explore how this really works. I think it’s important to understand the nature of a resource war in the 21st century.”

    For many years Muttitt worked as a researcher and campaigner on the social and environmental impacts of the oil industry as a co-director of campaign group Platform, and in recent weeks he has been appointed campaigns and policy director for War on Want. After eight years of piecing this all together, including three visits to Iraq and several visits to Jordan, Muttitt is confident about some of his core findings. “Oil was the most important strategic interest behind the war and it shaped the decisions of the occupying powers,” he tells me. “The primary strategic interest for the US and Britain is to have a low and stable oil price. A secondary interest is for their own corporations to do well.”

    Bringing international oil companies back into Iraq, after 30 years of nationalised production, would put the country at odds with neighbouring producers such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iran, whose oil production has also been in the public sector since the 1970s. Part of the strategy seems to have been about changing that political culture.

    “In some of the documents I got hold of for the book it becomes quite clear,” says Muttitt. “The British government talks about using Iraq as a strong exemplar for the region and the International Tax and Investment Centre – the oil companies’ lobbying organisation – even described it as a beach-head for broader expansion of the oil companies into the Middle East.”

    One of the great achievements of Muttitt’s book is to have restored an Iraqi voice to a narrative from which it had largely been erased. The fact that the Iraqi people held a strong view that oil production should stay in their hands did not deter the occupying powers and international oil companies from pursuing their privatisation agenda relentlessly. But at some point it all had to come unstuck. At the heart of Fuel on the Fire is the story of the Iraqi peoples’ fight against the Oil Law – a law which would have removed the need for parliamentary approval of contracts with oil companies.

    It was a fight in which Muttitt himself played a role. At a meeting with Iraqi unions in Amman in Jordan in 2006, following his work on a report called Crude Designs, he helped make the law’s implications accessible. Although initiated by the unions, the two-year campaign which followed was joined by oil experts, religious and civil society groups, intellectuals and professionals.

    Iraq’s own oil experts, who had worked in the industry for decades, made the case against foreign investment. As Muttitt notes: “The industry was at its most effective in the 1970s immediately after nationalisation and before Saddam took the country into a series of wars.”

    Despite all the pressure brought to bear on the Iraqi government from outside the country – including aid and debt relief being made conditional on passing an oil law, direct briefings by oil companies, linking the surge strategy to passage of the oil law, and a threat to remove Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki from office – the campaign proved too popular for parliament to pass the law.

    You might think that was enough to force a rethink, but the Iraqi government went ahead and auctioned off 60 per cent of the country’s proven reserves anyway, under contracts of dubious legality, to companies such as BP, Shell and Exxon. In what was the biggest sell-off in the history of oil, some analysts believe the financial returns for the oil companies will be 20 per cent or more.

    Iraqi MP Shatha al-Musawi attempted to bring a legal case against the first contract: BP’s joint deal with the China National Petroleum Corporation for the Rumaila field. But the Supreme Court said this would cost her $250,000. Her fellow parliamentarians were supportive and promised to help raise the money, but that commitment fell apart as parties jostled for position after the March 2010 elections. After she decided not to re-stand for election, al-Musawi told Muttitt: “Most of the governing institutions are working without law and violating the constitution every day because they decided not to have an effective parliament. We really have a dictatorship.”

    Muttitt worries about the lack of effective political oversight at a time of massive outside investment in Iraq’s oil resources. Studies of the “resource curse”, including the World Bank’s Extractive Industries Review show that effective governance is needed before you bring in tens of millions of dollars. “Unless you manage it effectively you get a distortion of the economy, you get corruption and you get investors that don’t serve national interests.”

    The Iraqi street worries about it, too. On 25 February people across the country protested against corruption and for better services in a “day of rage” where a number of people were killed by security forces. The slogans included: “The people’s oil is for the people not the thieves.” Sami Ramadani, a London-based Iraqi exile who writes regularly about the occupation, told me: “The general feeling is that Iraq’s oil is being given away and whatever is being retained in terms of income is being squandered by the regime. In terms of services, wherever you turn there is a very sharp deterioration – health, education, employment, clean water and so on.”

    The legitimacy of the post-Saddam regime is coming increasingly into question. After a “million person march” against the occupation led by the Sadrists on 9 April in Baghdad (Ramadani estimates the turnout was in the hundreds of thousands), a new military order was issued that decrees that demonstrations can only take place within designated football fields. One demonstrator who defied the ban one week later quipped: “Are we going to play a football match with the police?”

    Last week oil minister Abdul-Karim al-Luaibi announced another auction, this time for 12 “exploration and production” contracts, which are expected to go under the hammer in November. “Iraq has the greatest unexplored potential of any country in the world,” says Muttitt. “Most geologists reckon there’s about as much still to be found as currently exists in proven reserves. So this would tie up another chunk of Iraq’s future economic potential for 20-30 years.”

    This is on top of the massive planned increase in production from 2.5 million barrels per day to 12 million bpd, already implied by the existing contracts. Even the small number of Iraqi oil experts who supported privatisation are now arguing that such a rapid increase is not in Iraq’s interest as it will likely lead to a crash of the oil price.

    Muttitt says the government has been very effective in breaking organised opposition to the oil law. “The oil workers trade union still exists [although, like all trade unions in Iraq, is illegal] but has come under enormous pressure. The large group of oil experts that opposed the oil law, meanwhile, have been co-opted and broken apart. A lot of them have been offered very lucrative roles with multinationals and so on.”

    Nevertheless, he still has faith in ordinary Iraqis to deal with their problems. After all, it was civil society that won the fight against the oil law and it was a coalition of civil society groups that forced Iraq’s politicians to finally form a government after five months of post-election wrangling last December. “This struggle is not over and there is hope for the future. If Iraqi civil society is given the chance and the right kind of international support, these issues are still up for being contested. In spite of the politicians, there is cause for hope in Iraq.”

    “Fuel on the Fire: Oil and Politics in Occupied Iraq” by Greg Muttitt is published by The Bodley Head

    www.independent.co.uk, 22 April 2011
     

    comments

    Sort by

    Subscribe by email Subscribe by RSS

    • John Hawkins 4 days ago
      Oil is the primary resource in the world today, those who complain about oil company actions would soon change their tune if they could not fill their car tanks every week.
    • tomfrom66 3 days ago in reply to John Hawkins
      They would also complain if there was no artificial fertilizer – Haber Bosch process – to put food on their tables, and no plastics. 

      They might also – if the facts were put in front of them – be very afraid of what life is going to be like when oil becomes to so prohibitively expensive it cannot ‘fund’ all three aspects of the economy.

      Oil is not some self-replicating substance, John.

    • John Hawkins 3 days ago in reply to tomfrom66
      “Oil is not some self-replicating substance” 

      I agree Tom and did not intend to suggest oil could be used profligately, just that it is the ultimate essential to our present lifestyle.

      For good or bad, bad in my view, we have put ourselves in the hands of oil producers and bankers.

     

  • Ricciardone: US, Turkey share same strategic goals on Iran

    Ricciardone: US, Turkey share same strategic goals on Iran

    The US ambassador to Turkey has said the United States and Turkey share the same strategic goals with respect to what he calls “the most sensitive topic” between the two allies, Iran.

    Francis J. Ricciardone
    Francis J. Ricciardone

    Francis J. Ricciardone told the Anatolia news agency ahead of a business meeting with American companies in İstanbul that the US and Turkey have shared interests and the same strategic goals in the region but that “naturally, we sometimes have different views,” when he was asked to comment on Turkey’s role in its region and whether this role is compatible with the Turkish-US strategic partnership. “This is very natural. Turkey is in this region. We are afar,” the ambassador said in remarks published on Monday.

    Ricciardone said both countries are reluctant to see Iran developing a nuclear weapon and added that both Turkey and the US agreed that Iran has the right to possess peaceful nuclear energy once it meets necessary international obligations. The ambassador said Turkey and the US are largely on the same page on ways to persuade Iran to comply with its international commitments and that the fundamental agreement between the two countries is that diplomacy, if not the only tool, is the best one to deal with the Iranian nuclear standoff.

    Ricciardone hailed a partnership between Turkey and the US on strategic, political and defense levels as exemplary and said the importance of Turkey’s NATO membership for the US and the alliance has been evident during his three-months as ambassador. He pointed to Turkey’s influence in shaping discussions at NATO regarding its policy in Libya, adding that the two allies are in close consultations beyond the scope of NATO with respect to developments in the region and constantly continue to have high-level meetings.

    Ricciardone said Turkey has made great progress since the 1970s and praised the strength of Turkish companies in competing globally. He said there is now a great interest in Turkey among US businessmen in investment and trade and said the challenge that needs to be overcome now is transforming this interest into actual trade and investment.

    He recalled the Framework for Strategic Economic and Commercial Cooperation that was launched by Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and US President Barack Obama in December 2009 to hear the voices of Turkish and American business circles and said the sides might gather this June.

    Meanwhile, the Turkish ambassador to Iran has said Turkey takes its ties with Iran into consideration before entering into any international agreement, including any NATO agreement on the establishment of a ballistic missile defense shield in Turkey.

    “In any political process, when we are weighing up options, we certainly take account of our relationship with Iran,” Ambassador to Tehran Umit Yardim said in an interview with the Fars News Agency when asked to comment on the possible establishment of a missile defense shield in Turkey near the border with Iran.

    “It is completely a technical issue. During the Lisbon summit, Turkey transparently expressed its views on the issue. In this process, the most important matter is the Iran-Turkey relationship and Turkey expressed its concerns in this regard,” Yardım said.

    via Ricciardone: US, Turkey share same strategic goals on Iran.

  • Obama calls Turkey’s PM Erdogan after Armenia row

    Obama calls Turkey’s PM Erdogan after Armenia row

    (AFP) – 8 hours ago

    erdoganWASHINGTON — US President Barack Obama spoke to Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, following complaints from Ankara about his remarks on Armenian massacres under the Ottoman Empire, the White House said Monday.

    Officials said Obama and Erdogan spoke about humanitarian efforts in Libya and the brutal government crackdown on protestors in Syria.

    Obama also expressed hopes that Israel and Turkey could improve their recently difficult relations in a bid to bring some stability to the restive Middle East, a White House statement said.

    On Sunday, Turkey had voiced “deep regret” over Obama’s remarks on Armenian massacres under the Ottoman Empire, saying his annual statement on the issue “distorts the historical facts.”

    “Therefore, we find it very problematic and deeply regret it… One-sided statements that interpret controversial historical events by a selective sense of justice prevent understanding of the truth,” the foreign ministry said.

    In the message on the World War I-era massacres, Obama on Saturday however stopped short of using the “genocide” label that Turkey, a NATO ally, rejects, while urging “full” acknowledgment of the “horrific events.”

    On April 24, 1915, the Ottoman authorities rounded up some 200 Armenian intellectuals and community leaders in Istanbul in a clampdown that was followed by massacres and deportations until 1917.

    Armenians say up to 1.5 million of their kin died in a “genocide.”

    The White House did not mention the Armenian issue in a statement on Obama’s conversation with Erdogan, seeking to stress agreement on Libya and Syria.

    “The leaders agreed that attacks against civilians must stop and that Qaddafi must step down and depart Libya permanently in order for there to be a lasting solution that reflects the will of the Libyan people,” the White House said.

    “President Obama and Prime Minister Erdogan expressed their deep concern about the Syrian government’s unacceptable use of violence against its own people.

    “The leaders agreed that the Syrian government must end the use of violence now and promptly enact meaningful reforms that respect the democratic aspirations of Syrian citizens.”

    via AFP: Obama calls Turkey’s PM Erdogan after Armenia row.erdogan