Minor C. Keith

Banana republic is a pejorative term that refers to a politically unstable country dependent upon limited primary productions (e.g. bananas), and ruled by a small, self-elected, wealthy, corrupt politico-economic plutocracy or oligarchy. The term banana republic originally denoted the fictional “Republic of Anchuria”, a “servile dictatorship” that abetted (or supported for kickbacks) the exploitation of large-scale plantation agriculture, especially banana cultivation. As a political science term banana republic is a descriptor first used by the American writer O. Henry in Cabbages and Kings (1904), a book of thematically related short stories derived from his 1896–97 residence in Honduras, where he was hiding from U.S. law for bank embezzlement.

A banana republic is a commercial enterprise for profit by collusion between the State and favoured monopolies, whereby the profits derived from private exploitation of public lands is private property, and the debts incurred are public responsibility. Such an imbalanced economy reduces the national currency to devalued paper-money, hence, the country is ineligible for international development credit and remains limited by the uneven economic development of town and country. Kleptocracy, government by thieves, features influential government employees exploiting their posts for personal gain (embezzlement, fraud, bribery, etc.), with the resultant deficit repaid by the native working people who “earn money”, rather than “make money”. Because of foreign (corporate) manipulation, the government is unaccountable to its nation, the country’s private sector–public sector corruption operates the banana republic, thus, the national legislature usually are for sale, and function mostly as ceremonial government.

The concept of the banana republic originated with the introduction of the banana fruit to Europe in 1870, by Captain Lorenzo D. Baker, of the ship The Telegraph, who initially bought bananas in Jamaica and sold them in Boston at a 1,000 percent profit. Yet, the banana business was incidentally established by the American railroad tycoon Henry Meigs and Minor C. Keith, his nephew, who, in 1873, started banana plantations, initially along the railroads, to feed the workers, and, upon grasping the potential profit of bananas sold in the U.S., also began exporting the fruit to the Southeastern United States. In the event, Keith founded the Tropical Trading and Transport Company, the future half of the corporate merger that established the United Fruit Company in 1899; and of which Minor C. Keith later became vice president.

The banana proved popular with Americans, because it was a tropical fruit cheaper than local U.S. fruits, such as the apple; in 1913 a dozen bananas sold for twenty-five cents, whilst the same money bought only two apples. The exporters profited from such low prices because the banana companies, via manipulation of the national land use laws, could cheaply buy large tracts of agricultural land for plantations in the Caribbean, Central American, and South American countries, whilst employing the native peoples as cheap manual labourers, having rendered them land-less. In 1899, the largest banana company, the United Fruit Company (Chiquita Brands International), resulted from a merger between Andrew Preston's Boston Fruit Company and Minor C. Keith's Tropical Trading and Transport Company; by the 1930s, its international politico-economic influence granted it control of 80–90 per cent of the U.S. banana trade. Moreover, in 1924, the Vaccaro Brothers established the Standard Fruit Company (Dole Food Company), to export Honduran bananas to New Orleans.

In Honduras, the United Fruit Company, the Standard Fruit Company, and Sam Zemurray's Cuyamel Fruit Company dominated the economy's key banana export sector, and the national infrastructure, such as the railroads and the ports. Moreover, the United Fruit Company's nickname was El Pulpo (The Octopus), because it freely interfered — sometimes violently — with Honduran national politics. In 1910, Zemurray hired mercenaries, led by “General” Lee Christmas, an American soldier of fortune from New Orleans, to effect a coup d’état in Honduras and install a government friendlier to the Cuyamel Fruit Company's business interests. In 1933, twenty-three years later, with a hostile takeover Sam Zemurray assumed control of the rival United Fruit Company.

In the 1950s, the United Fruit Company convinced the administrations of presidents Harry Truman (1945–53) and Dwight Eisenhower (1953–61) that the popular government of Colonel Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán in Guatemala was secretly pro-Soviet, for expropriating unused “fruit company lands” to land-less peasants. In the Cold War (1945–91) context of the pro-active anti-Communism of the McCarthy era of U.S. national politics, said geopolitical consideration facilitated President Eisenhower's ordering the CIA's Guatemalan coup d’état (1954) deposing the elected government of President–Colonel Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán, and installing the pro-business government of Colonel Carlos Castillo Armas. In the event, with the poem La United Fruit Co., Pablo Neruda denounced foreign banana companies' political dominance of Latin American countries.

Guatemala suffers the regional socio-economic legacy of the banana republic: inequitably distributed agricultural land and natural wealth, uneven economic development, and an economy dependent upon a few export crops, usually bananas, coffee, sugar cane. The inequitable land distribution is the principal cause of national poverty and the low quality of Guatemalan life, and the concomitant socio-political discontent and insurrection. Almost 90 per cent of the country's farms are too small to yield adequate subsistence harvests to the farmers, whilst two per cent of the country's farms occupy 65 per cent of the arable land, property of the local oligarchy.

Initially, short-story writer O. Henry’s coinage, “servile dictatorship”, bore a civil government face — a white-collar businessman president — yet when he proved an administrative incompetent, the military, usually the army, assumed government, and ruled as juntas (military government by committee) during the thirty-six-year Guatemalan Civil War (1960–96); nonetheless, in 1986, the Guatemalans promulgated a new political constitution, and elected Vinicio Cerezo (1986–91) president, then Jorge Serrano Elías (1991–93) five years later.

The long history of political discontent and insurrection in Honduras derives from commercial and political competition between banana exporters, e.g. the United Fruit Company and the Cuyamel Banana Company, for control of Honduran agricultural land and workers. In 1911 Sam Zemurray, owner of the Cuyamel Company hired mercenaries, led by “General” Lee Christmas, to effect a coup d’état to depose the liberal President Miguel R. Dávila (1907–11), with whom the United Fruit Company was colluding for a banana monopoly in exchange for brokering U.S. Government loans for Dávila's government; the Cuyamel Banana Company deposed President Dávila and installed President Gen. Manuel Bonilla (1912–13) in his stead. Contemporarily, internal political instability and a great foreign debt — more than $4 billion — have excluded Honduras from capital investment, thereby continuing its economic stagnation, and reinforcing its banana republic status.

Read more »

United Nations

The United Nations (UN) is an international organization whose stated aims are facilitating cooperation in international law, international security, economic development, social progress, human rights, and achievement of world peace. The UN was founded in 1945 after World War II to replace the League of Nations, to stop wars between countries, and to provide a platform for dialogue. It contains multiple subsidiary organizations to carry out its missions.

There are currently 192 member states, including every internationally recognised sovereign state in the world but the Vatican City. From its offices around the world, the UN and its specialized agencies decide on substantive and administrative issues in regular meetings held throughout the year. The organization has six principal organs: the General Assembly (the main deliberative assembly); the Security Council (for deciding certain resolutions for peace and security); the Economic and Social Council (for assisting in promoting international economic and social cooperation and development); the Secretariat (for providing studies, information, and facilities needed by the UN); the International Court of Justice (the primary judicial organ); and the United Nations Trusteeship Council (which is currently inactive). Other prominent UN System agencies include the World Health Organization (WHO), the World Food Programme (WFP) and United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF). The UN's most visible public figure is the Secretary-General, currently Ban Ki-moon of South Korea, who attained the post in 2007. The organization is financed from assessed and voluntary contributions from its member states, and has six official languages: Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian, and Spanish.

Shortly after its establishment the UN sought recognition as an international legal person due to the case of Reparations for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations with the advisory opinion delivered by the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The question arose whether the United Nations, as an organisation, had "the capacity to bring an international claim against a government regarding injuries that the organisation alleged had been caused by that state."

The Court stated : the Organization was intended to exercise and enjoy, and is in fact exercising and enjoying functions and rights which can only be explained on the basis of the possession of a large measure of international personality and the capacity to operate upon an international plane ... Accordingly, the Court has come to the conclusion that the Organization is an international person. That is not the same thing as saying that it is a State, which it certainly is not, or that its legal personality and rights and duties are the same as those of a State ... What it does mean is that it is a subject of international law and capable of possessing international rights and duties, and that it has capacity to maintain its rights by bringing international claims.

The United Nations' system is based on five principal organs (formerly six–the Trusteeship Council suspended operations in 1994, upon the independence of Palau, the last remaining UN trustee territory); the General Assembly, the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), the Secretariat, and the International Court of Justice.

Four of the five principal organs are located at the main United Nations headquarters located on international territory in New York City. The International Court of Justice is located in The Hague, while other major agencies are based in the UN offices at Geneva, Vienna, and Nairobi. Other UN institutions are located throughout the world.

The six official languages of the United Nations, used in intergovernmental meetings and documents, are Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian, and Spanish,. The Secretariat uses two working languages, English and French. Four of the official languages are the national languages of the permanent members of the Security Council (the United Kingdom and the United States share English as a de facto official language); Spanish and Arabic are the languages of the two largest blocs of official languages outside of the permanent members (Spanish being official in 20 countries, Arabic in 26). Five of the official languages were chosen when the UN was founded; Arabic was added later in 1973. The United Nations Editorial Manual states that the standard for English language documents is British usage and Oxford spelling, the Chinese writing standard is Simplified Chinese. This replaced Traditional Chinese in 1971 when the UN representation of China was changed from the Republic of China to the People's Republic of China.

The General Assembly is the main deliberative assembly of the United Nations. Composed of all United Nations member states, the assembly meets in regular yearly sessions under a president elected from among the member states. Over a two-week period at the start of each session, all members have the opportunity to address the assembly. Traditionally, the Secretary-General makes the first statement, followed by the president of the assembly. The first session was convened on 10 January 1946 in the Westminster Central Hall in London and included representatives of 51 nations.

When the General Assembly votes on important questions, a two-thirds majority of those present and voting is required. Examples of important questions include: recommendations on peace and security; election of members to organs; admission, suspension, and expulsion of members; and, budgetary matters. All other questions are decided by majority vote. Each member country has one vote. Apart from approval of budgetary matters, resolutions are not binding on the members. The Assembly may make recommendations on any matters within the scope of the UN, except matters of peace and security that are under Security Council consideration.

Conceivably, the one state, one vote power structure could enable states comprising just eight percent of the world population to pass a resolution by a two-thirds vote (see List of countries by population). However, as no more than recommendations, it is difficult to imagine a situation in which a recommendation by member states constituting just eight percent of the world's population, would be adhered to by the remaining ninety-two percent of the population, should they object.

The Security Council is charged with maintaining peace and security among countries. While other organs of the United Nations can only make 'recommendations' to member governments, the Security Council has the power to make binding decisions that member governments have agreed to carry out, under the terms of Charter Article 25. The decisions of the Council are known as United Nations Security Council resolutions.

The Security Council is made up of 15 member states, consisting of 5 permanent members–China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States–and 10 non-permanent members, currently Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Colombia, Gabon, Germany, India, Lebanon, Nigeria, Portugal, South Africa. The five permanent members hold veto power over substantive but not procedural resolutions allowing a permanent member to block adoption but not to block the debate of a resolution unacceptable to it. The ten temporary seats are held for two-year terms with member states voted in by the General Assembly on a regional basis. The presidency of the Security Council is rotated alphabetically each month.

The United Nations Secretariat is headed by the Secretary-General, assisted by a staff of international civil servants worldwide. It provides studies, information, and facilities needed by United Nations bodies for their meetings. It also carries out tasks as directed by the UN Security Council, the UN General Assembly, the UN Economic and Social Council, and other UN bodies. The United Nations Charter provides that the staff be chosen by application of the "highest standards of efficiency, competence, and integrity," with due regard for the importance of recruiting on a wide geographical basis.

The Charter provides that the staff shall not seek or receive instructions from any authority other than the UN. Each UN member country is enjoined to respect the international character of the Secretariat and not seek to influence its staff. The Secretary-General alone is responsible for staff selection.

The Secretary-General's duties include helping resolve international disputes, administering peacekeeping operations, organizing international conferences, gathering information on the implementation of Security Council decisions, and consulting with member governments regarding various initiatives. Key Secretariat offices in this area include the Office of the Coordinator of Humanitarian Affairs and the Department of Peacekeeping Operations. The Secretary-General may bring to the attention of the Security Council any matter that, in his or her opinion, may threaten international peace and security.

The Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) assists the General Assembly in promoting international economic and social cooperation and development. ECOSOC has 54 members, all of which are elected by the General Assembly for a three-year term. The president is elected for a one-year term and chosen amongst the small or middle powers represented on ECOSOC. ECOSOC meets once a year in July for a four-week session. Since 1998, it has held another meeting each April with finance ministers heading key committees of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Viewed separate from the specialized bodies it coordinates, ECOSOC's functions include information gathering, advising member nations, and making recommendations. In addition, ECOSOC is well-positioned to provide policy coherence and coordinate the overlapping functions of the UN’s subsidiary bodies and it is in these roles that it is most active.

There are many UN organizations and agencies that function to work on particular issues. Some of the most well-known agencies are the International Atomic Energy Agency, the Food and Agriculture Organization, UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization), the World Bank and the World Health Organization.

It is through these agencies that the UN performs most of its humanitarian work. Examples include mass vaccination programmes (through the WHO), the avoidance of famine and malnutrition (through the work of the WFP) and the protection of vulnerable and displaced people (for example, by the UNHCR).

The United Nations Charter stipulates that each primary organ of the UN can establish various specialized agencies to fulfil its duties.

Some have questioned whether or not the UN might be relevant in the 21st century. While the UN’s first and second Charter mandates require the UN : “To maintain international peace and security.... (and if necessary to enforce the peace by) taking preventive or enforcement action,” due to its restrictive administrative structure, the permanent members of the Security Council themselves have sometimes prevented the UN from fully carrying out its first two mandates. Without the unanimous approval, support (or minimally abstention) of all 5 of the permanent members of the UN's Security Council, the UN's charter only enables it to "observe", report on, and make recommendations regarding international conflicts. Such unanimity on the Security Council regarding the authorization of armed UN enforcement actions has not always been reached in time to prevent the outbreak of international wars. Even with all of these restraints and limitations in place on the UN’s abilities to respond to situations of conflict, still various studies have found the UN to have had many notable successes in the 65 years of its existence.

In 1962 UN secretary general U Thant provided valuable assistance and took a great deal of time, energy and initiative as the primary negotiator between Nikita Khrushchev and John F. Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crisis, thus providing a critical link in the prevention of a nuclear Armageddon at that time. A 2005 RAND Corporation study found the UN to be successful in two out of three peacekeeping efforts. It compared UN nation-building efforts to those of the United States, and found that seven out of eight UN cases are at peace, as opposed to four out of eight US cases at peace. Also in 2005, the Human Security Report documented a decline in the number of wars, genocides and human rights abuses since the end of the Cold War, and presented evidence, albeit circumstantial, that international activism — mostly spearheaded by the UN — has been the main cause of the decline in armed conflict since the end of the Cold War.

Read more »

Sarah Palin launched her bus tour this Memorial Day weekend, not on a bus, but on the back of a Harley, with expected stops in Philadelphia, Gettysburg, and all the way through early primary state, New Hampshire.

Palin began her trip riding across the Potomac River from Virginia into the nation's capitol. During the first leg of her tour, she joined Rolling Thunder, an organization that aims to raise awareness about American military personnel who are missing in action, or prisoners of war.

Earlier this week the former vice presidential candidate released a slick video to announce her tour after weeks of being noticeably absent from the political stage. Palin's tour might appear to be more than just a public spectacle, as many other potential Republican presidential candidates gear up for the 2012 election.

When asked by ABC News what the motivation behind the tour was, Palin said, "It indicates a desire of ours to get across America and remind ourselves about our foundation; how important it is to respect and protect our Constitution."

Over the past few months the establishment Republican Party watched as Donald Trump flirted with running for office in what may have been a publicity stunt.

Political professionals are left wondering if Palin's latest step onto the public stage is a political move at all, since she does not have the required campaign structure to run a formidable race.

"This is a bit of a re-roll out," said Ken Vogel of Politico. "This is a chance for her to re-introduce herself in a more retail politics grass roots way than she has been conducting herself over the last several months where she has been really detached from it all."

Vogel added that building a strong campaign staff is an important step towards candidacy, but her hard-core base of supporters seem willing to follow her no matter where she goes.

"All she has to do is throw up a website, occasionally refer to it in a Facebook post and she can raise a lot of money," he said.

This weekend hints that other Republicans, including former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former New York Gov. George Pataki and current Texas Gov. Rick Perry may consider dipping a toe in the nomination waters.

Perry told reporters Friday that he is going to think about a run, and Giuliani has a scheduled fundraiser in New Hampshire later this week.

Republican strategist Karl Rove said Giuliani's fundraiser might indicate that the former mayor is seriously looking into joining the race.

"The question in his own mind is whether he going to be able to come to a strategy that gets him in earlier than he anticipated last time around," Rove said.

Republicans who have already announced their candidacy for the nomination expressed a certain level of eagerness to see other contenders join the race, including Palin.

Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty told ABC News' Christiane Amanpour: "The more the merrier. Let's go. It's time to get the debate on."

"[Republicans] are looking for someone who has not already declared, and some of that is just the normal ebb and flow of the presidential campaign," Vogel said of the current crop of candidates.

With more than 40 percent of Republicans finding themselves underwhelmed with the announced candidates, the field is wide open, just like Palin's tour schedule.

A Palin aide admitted to ABC News that they plan to figure out their stops as they roll through the Northeast in the coming week. (source:abcnews.go.com)

Read more »

Serbian President Boris Tadic has announced the arrest of longtime war crimes fugitive Ratko Mladic, the former commander of Bosnian Serb forces in the fighting that took place after the breakup of Yugoslavia.

President Tadic called an urgent news conference Thursday after word emerged that a man believed to be Mladic had been arrested. Tadic announced the 69-year-old Mladic, accused of masterminding the massacre of thousands of men and boys in the Bosnian town of Srebenic, had been arrested on Serbian soil and that an extradition process is under way.

Tadic said Serbia has now closed one chapter in its recent history that will bring the country a step closer to full reconciliation. He also said there will be an investigation into why it took so long - 15 years - to apprehend the former commander.

Mladic is wanted by the United Nations tribunal on war crimes committed in the former Yugoslavia.

The court, based in The Hague, Netherlands, indicted Mladic in 1995 for atrocities committed during the three-year siege of the Bosnian city of Sarajevo, and the massacre of 8,000 Bosnian men and boys near the city of Srebrenica.

Last week, the chief prosecutor for the U.N. war crimes tribunal, Serge Brammertz, said Serbia had not done enough to capture Mladic or another top fugitive suspect, Croatian Serb Goran Hadzic.

European Union officials have made delivering Mladic a key condition for granting Serbia EU-candidate status.(source:voanews.com)

Read more »

Accompanied in Ethiopia by a high profile delegation of ministers and India's most powerful chief executives, this is already the third visit to Africa by Manmohan Singh in his eight years as prime minister.

Whilst India's presence on the continent is not new, this visit is certainly symbolic of the opening of a new chapter in India-Africa relations, designed to expand the "strong and purposeful partnership between India and Africa", as Manmohan Singh declared before leaving for Africa.

Africa and India are two of the fastest-growing regions in the world.

Economic growth in Africa has averaged 5% in the past decade and, with a growing domestic market, major and emerging powers are competing to consolidate their positions in the continent.

With the growth of India's economy at an average rate of 9% per annum since the early nineties, New Delhi has expanded its reach and its influence in many parts of the globe, including Africa.

Chasing China?

Bilateral trade between India and Africa has recently boomed. With a 15-fold increase from 2001, trade soared to $46bn (£28bn) last year, and it is expected to reach $70bn by 2015.

Beside oil, the other main areas of trade are pharmaceutical, gold, diamonds, and information technology.

India is now Africa's second major trading partner after China.

Further, observers are keen to see India's late arrival in Africa as part of its strategy to catch up with its old arch enemy.

But New Delhi is firm in its claims that it is not planning to counter Beijing's rising influence in the continent. In fact, India does not have the same financial and political clout as China.

Trade-wise, India's investments in Africa are less than half of China, which is aiming to reach $110bn this year.

Equal relationship?

These unprecedented levels of Indian engagements in Africa are often seen purely as a means of extracting resources and opening new markets for the Indian economy, not much dissimilar to Chinese dealings in the continent.

Equally, India's hands-off approach to African state sovereignty is seen as largely analogous to that of China, even if utterly different to that of the West.

If India is not currently feeling the heat of Western opprobrium to the extent of China in Sudan, it is most likely only because India is hiding behind China to the extent that it is a smaller investor and trader, it is a democracy and considered more multilateral in its foreign policy.

India may one day face the same pressure and the same dilemmas as China over the balance between sovereignty and, for instance, concern for human rights.

However, unlike China which has focused on resource extractions and large infrastructure projects, India's relationship with Africa, it is asserted, rests upon equality, mutual trust and a transparent approach.

India's own model of inclusive development is claimed to be accessible and transferable to Africa.

India's private-led engagement offers its African partners skills transfer and triple-A technology (affordable, adaptable and available).

To some extent, it also focuses on capacity building, value addition and human resources development rather than just resource extraction - and in the case of China the importation of Chinese labour to build the infrastructure associated with the deals.

New Delhi has recently signed a deal with 19 education institutions in Africa and it is planning to set-up diamond processing facilities in Botswana to help the country move up the value chain.

Global politics

Equally important to India-Africa relations are India's global power aspirations.

Whilst aiming to be the voice of developing world in negotiations at various global fora, New Delhi has lobbied for the restructuring and expansion of the United Nations and almost all African countries back India's bid for a permanent seat at the UN.

The new deal that India is planning to put on the table at the second India-Africa forum indicates India's intent at deepening this burgeoning partnership.

Proposals for new ways of strengthening trade and investments relations between India and Africa include the implementation of free-trade agreements with Africa's, the launching of a fresh line of credit with no links to India's own commercial interests, as well as support for two seats for Africa in an reformed Security Council.

These initiatives seem likely to bolster India-Africa partnerships.

If India lives up to its promises, it does still however remain to be seen how African states will respond to India's new advances, and indeed, how Africa will respond to this new multi-polarity in its international affairs. (source : bbc.co.uk)

Read more »

The Taliban, alternative spelling Taleban, (ṭālibān, meaning "students" in Arabic) is an Islamist militia group that ruled large parts of Afghanistan from September 1996 onwards. Although in control of Afghanistan's capital (Kabul) and most of the country for five years, the Taliban's Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan gained diplomatic recognition from only three states: Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. After the attacks of September 11 2001 the Taliban regime was overthrown by Operation Enduring Freedom. The Taliban mostly fled to neighboring Pakistan where they regrouped as an insurgency movement to fight the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (established in late 2001) and the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF).

Most Taliban leaders were influenced by Deobandi fundamentalism. Many also strictly follow the social and cultural norm called Pashtunwali. The Taliban movement is primarily made up of members belonging to Pashtun tribes, the largest ethnic group in Afghanistan. The main leader of the Taliban movement is Mullah Mohammed Omar. Omar's original commanders were “a mixture of former small-unit military commanders and madrassa teachers.” While in power, the Taliban enforced one of the strictest interpretations of Sharia law ever seen in the Muslim world, and became notorious internationally for their treatment of women. Women were forced to wear the burqa in public. They were allowed neither to work nor to be educated after the age of eight, and until then were permitted only to study the Qur'an. They were not allowed to be treated by male doctors unless accompanied by a male chaperon, which led to illnesses remaining untreated. They faced public flogging in the street, and public execution for violations of the Taliban's laws.

The Taliban's allies include the Pakistani army as well as Arab and Central Asian militants. The Taliban receive valuable training, supplies, and arms from the Pakistani government, particularly the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). They also receive recruits from Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam (JUI)-run madrassas for Afghan refugees in Pakistan. In the Taliban's (1996–2001) war against the United Front (Northern Alliance), regular battalions and regiments of Pakistan's Frontier Corps and Army fought alongside the Taliban against the United Front. Al Qaeda supported the Taliban with regiments of imported fighters from Arab countries and Central Asia. In the late period of the war, of an estimated 45,000 force fighting on the side of the Taliban, only 14,000 were Afghans.

Today the Taliban operate in Afghanistan and northwest Pakistan. US officials say one of their headquarters is in or near Quetta, Pakistan. The Taliban engage in terrorism against the civilian population of Afghanistan. According to a report by the United Nations, the Taliban were responsible for 76 % of civilian casualties in Afghanistan in 2009. The Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission (AIGRC) called the Taliban's terrorism against the Afghan civilian population a war crime. Religious leaders condemned Taliban terrorist attacks and said these kinds of attacks are against Islamic ethics. Several human rights groups have approached the International Criminal Court in The Hague, which has been conducting a preliminary inquiry into war crimes charges in Afghanistan. The New York Times called the systematic attacks against civilians — whom insurgents kill more than twice as often as they kill Afghan government or international coalition forces — an "insurgent killing rampage" among civilian targets.

In December 2007 the formation of the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan also referred to as Pakistani Taliban under the leadership of Baitullah Mehsud was announced. The Afghan Taliban and the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan differ greatly in their history, leadership and goals although they share a common interpretation of Islam and are both predominantly Pashtun. The Afghan Taliban have no affiliation with the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan and routinely deny any connection to the TTP. The New York Times quoted a spokesman for the Afghan Taliban stating that:

We don't like to be involved with them, as we have rejected all affiliation with Pakistani Taliban fighters... We have sympathy for them as Muslims, but beside that, there is nothing else between us.

After the creation of the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan in 2007 its members have officially defined goals to establish their rule over Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas. They engage the Pakistani army in heavy combat operations. Some intelligence analysts believe that the TTP's attacks on the Pakistani government, police and army strained the TTP's relations with the Afghan Taliban. The Afghan Taliban have always relied on support by the Pakistani army in the past and are still supported by them today in their campaign to control Afghanistan. Afghan Taliban leader Mullah Omar asked the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan in late 2008 and early 2009 to stop attacks inside Pakistan, to change their focus as an organization and to fight the Afghan National Army and ISAF forces in Afghanistan instead. Some regional experts state that the common name "Taliban" may be more misleading than illuminating. Gilles Dorronsoro, a scholar of South Asia currently at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington says:

The fact that they have the same name causes all kinds of confusion.

As the Pakistani Army began offensives against the Pakistani Taliban, many unfamiliar with the region thought incorrectly that the assault was against the Afghan Taliban of Mullah Omar which was not the case.

The word Taliban is Pashto, طالبان ṭālibān, meaning "students", the plural of ṭālib. This is a loanword from Arabic طالب ṭālib, plus the Indo-Iranian plural ending -an ان (the Arabic plural being طلاب ṭullāb, whereas طالبان ṭālibān is a dual form with the incongruous meaning, to Arabic speakers, of "two students"). Since becoming a loanword in English, Taliban, besides a plural noun referring to the group, has also been used as a singular noun referring to an individual. For example, John Walker Lindh has been referred to as "an American Taliban", rather than "an American Talib". In the English language newspapers of Pakistan the word talibans is often used when referring to more than one taliban. The spelling 'Taliban' has come to predominate over 'Taleban' in English.

The history of Taliban

After the fall of the communist Mohammad Najibullah-regime in 1992, several Afghan political parties agreed on a peace and power-sharing agreement (the Peshawar Accords). The Peshawar Accords created the Islamic State of Afghanistan and appointed an interim government for a transitional period. According to Human Rights Watch:

The sovereignty of Afghanistan was vested formally in the Islamic State of Afghanistan, an entity created in April 1992, after the fall of the Soviet-backed Najibullah government. With the exception of Gulbuddin Hekmatyar's Hezb-e Islami, all of the parties... were ostensibly unified under this government in April 1992. Hekmatyar's Hezb-e Islami, for its part, refused to recognize the government for most of the period discussed in this report and launched attacks against government forces and Kabul generally. Shells and rockets fell everywhere.

Pakistan was keen to gear up for a breakthrough in Central Asia. Islamabad could not possibly expect the new Islamic government leaders... to subordinate their own nationalist objectives in order to help Pakistan realize its regional ambitions. Had it not been for the ISI's logistic support and supply of a large number of rockets, Hekmatyar's forces would not have been able to target and destroy half of Kabul.

In addition, Saudi Arabia and Iran – as competitors for regional hegemony – supported Afghan militias hostile towards each other. According to Human Rights Watch, Iran assisted the Shia Hazara Hezb-i Wahdat forces of Abdul Ali Mazari, as Iran attempted to maximize Wahdat's military power and influence. Saudi Arabia supported the Wahhabite Abdul Rasul Sayyaf and his Ittihad-i Islami faction. Conflict between the two militias soon escalated into a full-scale war. A publication by the George Washington University describes:

[O]utside forces saw instability in Afghanistan as an opportunity to press their own security and political agendas.

Due to the sudden initiation of the war, working government departments, police units or a system of justice and accountability for the newly-created Islamic State of Afghanistan did not have time to form. Horrific crimes were committed by individuals of different factions. Rare ceasefires, usually negotiated by representatives of Ahmad Shah Massoud, Sibghatullah Mojaddedi or Burhanuddin Rabbani (the interim government), or officials from the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), commonly collapsed within days.

Meanwhile southern Afghanistan was neither under the control of foreign-backed militias nor the government in Kabul, but was ruled by local leaders such as Gul Agha Sherzai and their militias. In 1991, the Taliban (a movement originating from Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam-run religious schools for Afghan refugees in Pakistan) also developed in Afghanistan as a politico-religious force, reportedly in opposition to the tyranny of the local governor. Mullah Omar started his movement with fewer than 50 armed madrassah students in his hometown of Kandahar. The most credible and often-repeated story of how Mullah Omar first mobilized his followers is that in the spring of 1994, neighbors in Singesar told him that the local governor had abducted two teenage girls, shaved their heads, and taken them to a camp where they were raped repeatedly. 30 Taliban (with only 16 rifles) freed the girls, and hanged the governor from the barrel of a tank. Later that year, two militia commanders killed civilians while fighting for the right to sodomize a young boy. The Taliban freed him.

The Taliban's first major military activity was in 1994, when they marched northward from Maiwand and captured Kandahar City and the surrounding provinces, losing only a few dozen men. When they took control of Kandahar in 1994, they forced the surrender of dozens of local Pashtun leaders who had presided over a situation of complete lawlessness and atrocities. The Taliban also took-over a border crossing at Spin Baldak and an ammunition dump from Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. In the course of 1994, the Taliban took control of 12 of 34 provinces not under central government control, disarming the "heavily armed population". Militias controlling the different areas often surrendered without a fight.

At the same time most of the militia factions (Hekmatyar's Hezb-i Islami, Junbish-i Milli and Hezb-i Wahdat) which had been fighting in the battle for control of Kabul were defeated militarily by forces of the Islamic State's Secretary of Defense Ahmad Shah Massoud. Bombardment of the capital came to a halt. Massoud tried to initiate a nationwide political process with the goal of national consolidation and democratic elections, also inviting the Taliban to join the process and to contribute to stability. Ahmad Shah Massoud had been named "The Afghan who won the cold war" by The Wall Street Journal. He had defeated the Soviet Red Army nine times in his home region of Panjshir, in north-eastern Afghanistan. Massoud, unarmed, went to talk to some Taliban leaders in Maidan Shar to convince them to join the initiated political process, so that democratic elections could be held to decide on a future government for Afghanistan. He hoped for them to be allies in bringing stability to Afghanistan. But the Taliban declined to join such a political process. When Massoud returned unharmed to Kabul, the Taliban leader who had received him as his guest paid with his life (he was killed by other senior Taliban) for failing to execute Massoud while the possibility had presented itself.

The Taliban started shelling Kabul in early 1995 but were defeated by forces of the Islamic State government under Ahmad Shah Massoud. see video Amnesty International, referring to the Taliban offensive, wrote in a 1995 report:

This is the first time in several months that Kabul civilians have become the targets of rocket attacks and shelling aimed at residential areas in the city.

The Taliban's early victories in 1994 were followed by a series of devastating defeats that resulted in heavy losses. Pakistan started to provide stronger military support to the Taliban. Many analysts like Amin Saikal describe the Taliban as developing into a proxy force for Pakistan's regional interests which the Taliban decline. On September 26, 1996, as the Taliban with military support by Pakistan and financial support by Saudi Arabia prepared for another major offensive, Massoud ordered a full retreat from Kabul. The Taliban seized Kabul on September 27, 1996, and established the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan.

Organization

Consistent with the governance of early Muslims was the absence of state institutions or "a methodology for command and control" that is standard today even among non-Westernized states. The Taliban did not issue press releases, policy statements, or hold regular press conferences. The outside world and most Afghans did not even know what their leaders looked like, since photography was banned. The "regular army" resembled a lashkar or traditional tribal militia force with only 25,000 men (of whom 11,000 where non-Afghans).

Cabinet ministers and deputies were mullahs with a "madrasah education." Several of them, such as the Minister of Health and Governor of the State bank, were primarily military commanders who left their administrative posts to fight when needed. Military reverses that trapped them behind lines or led to their deaths increased the chaos in the national administration. At the national level, "all senior Tajik, Uzbek and Hazara bureaucrats" were replaced "with Pashtuns, whether qualified or not." Consequently, the ministries "by and large ceased to function."

The Ministry of Finance had neither a budget nor "qualified economist or banker." Mullah Omar collected and dispersed cash without book-keeping.

Read more »

Armed with automatic weapons and rocket-propelled grenades, Taliban militants infiltrated a Pakistani naval air base in the Arabian Sea port of Karachi, setting off explosions that illuminated the night sky and sparking a 12-hour gun battle. At least seven people were killed, Pakistani officials said.

The Pakistan Taliban, an offshoot of the Afghan insurgent movement, said its fighters attacked the base in revenge for the May 2 U.S. raid that killed Osama bin Laden, making Sunday's assault the second major strike by the militant group since the al Qaeda leader's death at the hands of an U.S. Navy SEAL team.

"We can attack anyone at any moment in Pakistan, Europe and America," said Pakistan Taliban spokesman Ehsanullah Eshan in a telephone interview, adding that the assailants had supplies for three days of fighting.

The attack and the ensuing fight to clear the base, which was still going on 12 hours after the militants set off the first explosion, was quickly proving the latest in a series of embarrassments for Pakistan's military. The force is ordinarily accustomed to adulation from most Pakistanis, yet it has been subjected to a torrent of criticism for failing to detect or stop the U.S. raid against bin Laden, and, to a lesser extent, for not finding the al Qaeda leader itself.

By Monday morning, it was also facing a determined force of Taliban fighters inside the perimeter of a supposedly secure military base in Pakistan's largest city, raising questions about whether the attackers had help on the inside.

With the base sealed off by military authorities, there were conflicting and fragmented reports of what was taking place inside. Pakistan navy spokesman Irfan ul-Haq said between 10 and 15 militants had slipped into the base Sunday night. They then split into small groups and began setting off explosions shortly after 10:30 p.m. local time.

Shortly thereafter, Pakistan TV stations were broadcasting images of flames leaping from a hangar at the base, Pakistan Naval Station Mehran, which is located inside a larger air force base. One news channel, Epxress 24/7, reported as many as 13 explosions in the three hours after the fighting began. Witnesses reported lines of ambulances waiting to get into the base, and gunfire could be heard throughout the night.

Mr. ul-Haq, the navy spokesman, said six navy personnel and a paramilitary Pakistan Ranger were killed in the fighting. It wasn't clear how many, if any, of the militants had been killed.

At least one U.S.-made maritime-surveillance and anti-submarine aircraft was destroyed in the initial fighting around midnight, he and other officials said.

By morning, Pakistani military helicopters could be seen hovering over the base as hundreds of Pakistani navy commandos and marines and paramilitary soldiers tried to flush out the militants. Sporadic gunshots could still be heard as noon approached, and snipers could be seen scanning for targets from rooftops.

Interior Minister Rehman Malik, who flew to Karachi overnight, said militants were in control of a building on the base. But officials dismissed reports that the militants were holding hostages.

Mr. ul-Haq said the operation was going slowly because Pakistani forces were taking care not to damage the expensive aircraft stored at the base.

Officials said the focus of the initial attack appeared to be a hanger housing U.S.-made P-3 Orion aircraft, which are used for maritime surveillance and anti-submarine operations. Pakistan is the process of buying eight of the aircraft from the U.S. Navy, and the aircraft destroyed was delivered to Pakistan last year.

U.S. personnel work at Mehran, and the U.S. Embassy said they were all safe and accounted for. It wasn't immediately clear what the Americans do at the base and if they work on the Orions. (source : online.wsj.com)

Read more »

Needless to say, election campaigns are often characterized by inflated rhetoric, un-keep-able promises and personal attacks. How one interprets this dynamic is pretty much always determined by perspective. If it comes from your side then it’s OK, and if it doesn’t then it’s not. What one partisan sees as a personal attack might be viewed by others as a legitimate questioning of the credibility of the individual in question because credibility is a live issue when we’re choosing a governing party.

This past federal election was no different and one aspect of particular interest was the approach taken by the Liberals to once again try to falsify and demonize the record of Prime Minister Harper and the Conservative government on issues relating to Israel. This is especially important given recent events in which President Obama declared as U.S. policy a framework that is as pollyannish and dangerous as it is unworkable.

So offensive was the Liberal campaign tactic that I chose to reach out to correct the record by sending a letter to constituents in the riding where I was working for the local Conservative candidate.

My motivation was the repeated mantra of the Liberals that the Prime Minister was being duplicitous. In a pamphlet distributed at a candidates’ forum sponsored by B’nai Brith, the Liberals said the following: “When we hear Prime Minister Harper, he says the right words. But when his government is voting in the UN and the Canadian Jewish community is not listening, the record is otherwise.”

The document went on to list a number of UN Resolutions that Canada had either opposed or abstained from voting on. It compared Canada’s vote to the U.S. and illustrated that the Canadian votes on the subject resolutions were all contrary to the U.S. The pamphlet went on to conclude that the US votes were pro-Israel and Canada’s were not.

On its face, this had an unintended effect for me. While the Liberals have consistently tried to drape themselves in nationalism and tell voters that Conservatives were toadies for evil U.S. everything, the UN voting record shows clearly that Canada has been incredibly independently-minded. Our government voted on a principled basis and not as a proxy for the U.S. or anyone else. The chart used in the campaign therefore was completely self-defeating of the Liberal’s nationalistic propagandizing and showed as a matter of fact that our government has no trouble at all in advancing and promoting its own positions against what the Americans are doing.

As to the substance of the resolutions that Canada opposed or abstained from, one only has to look at the full content of them to understand the merit of Canada’s position. I invite you to do so at the United Nations website. Please take the time to inform yourself because it’s a very good way to understand the level of deceit in the Liberal campaign attack. Moreover, these resolutions laid the groundwork for the speech given by the U.S. President last week in which he pronounced the U.S. policy going forward. They can all be found in the website section devoted to the General Assembly resolutions for the 2010 session. The Liberal pamphlet made reference to 11 specific resolutions: 16, 17, 88, 98, 99, 100, 101, 103, 104, 106 and 202. (Their official designation is 65/16 and so on).

Let’s take Resolution 16, entitled ‘Peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine’ as an example and consider its contents.

There are a total of 37 paragraphs in the preamble and 26 paragraphs to the Resolution itself.

It is an amalgam of the usual grievances against Israel as an Occupying Power. The UN apparently still doesn’t like the security fence even though it’s success in reducing terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians has been well documented. Nor does the UN seem particularly interested in Israel’s right to defend itself generally because the language of the Resolution reverts to the usual ‘give back the land’ mantra. Predictably it decries Israel’s alleged avoidance of International law in spite of the fact that Israel grants to both Arab Israelis and inhabitants of the West Bank and Gaza more civil rights than does the Palestinian Authority or any other Middle East government.

In short, it’s just another in the litany of UN Resolutions that would have Israel fold its tent.

Canada’s vote against it was not a vote against Israel as the Liberal campaign material would have you believe. Rather, our vote was a clear demonstration that Canada will not become part of the gang-up that’s being orchestrated in which the national security of Israel becomes compromised in favour of enemies who remain sworn to destroy it.

People may have differing views about these issues and that of course is fair game. Such diversity is in many ways no different than the political spectrum within Israel itself, and it’s important that the dialogue be vibrant and open. It was in this vein that I chose to speak up, and will continue to do so, about what I considered to be a very serious falsification by the Liberals of the position taken by Canada toward Israel. It wasn’t merely election rhetoric. It was a series of bald-faced lies.

If the Liberal party chooses to reinvent itself then hopefully it will find clarity on its position regarding Israel and foreign policy generally. Until then, the record of the Conservative government on this issue is factually unshakable and it was repeated in the aftermath of President Obama’s attempt to formulate a plan for peace which parrots the demands of the Palestinian Authority and would severely dilute the legitimate interests of Israel. (source : fullcomment.nationalpost.com)

Read more »

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is 47 today.

Read more »

Political commentator Michelle Malkin is 39 today.

Read more »