Showing posts with label State Department. Show all posts
Showing posts with label State Department. Show all posts

Wednesday, September 28, 2011

Yemeni Political Activists Visit St. Louis


I was one of several bloggers and new media "experts" who met with a group of Yemeni journalists, bloggers, and activists in downtown St. Louis. Jim Hoft the Gateway Pundit, Ben Evans of the St. Louis Tea Party, and Brian Hook of the Missouri Journal were also there. The meeting was sponsored by the World Affairs Council and focused on the use of social media and blogging. With Yemen going through a great deal of turmoil, current events provided the context for our discussion about new media tools like facebook, twitter, Blogger/Blogspot, flickr, and YouTube.

News from Yemen was covered in the Financial Times today:
[Yemen's President Ali Abdullah] Saleh has survived at the helm of the Arab world’s most impoverished country for more than 30 years. Since an uprising erupted in Yemen in February as part of the wave of revolts sweeping the Arab world, he has repeatedly expressed support for a transfer of power proposed by Yemen’s Gulf neighbours while managing to scuttle the initiative at every turn.
During our discussion with the Yemenis today, one of them remarked that they have a saying: "whatever the president says, he does the opposite." That certainly seems to be the case with respect to the democratic reforms that activists and neighboring countries have advocated for.

Those activists have paid a heavy price for their protests. As this thirty second video illustrates, they sometimes come under automatic weapon fire (background story in Arabic). As I reported back in March, the Yemeni government has used gas on massed protesters.

The use of poison gas came up in our discussion today. I mentioned my belief that Iran was the source of a nerve agent used in Sana'a in March; however, the Yemenis rejected that idea. They pointed out that weapons including spent gas canisters were stamped "made in the USA". Truth is always the first casualty of war.

My original analysis was based on what I had seen on twitter and Internet news sources. At the time of the attack, someone tweeted that "one of the bottles of gases used in the attack on Tagheer square in #Sanaa is CN gas." Australia's Sky News reported the use of nerve gas and a Big Peace article reported on the symptoms of an alleged Iranian tear gas:
The Islamic regime in IRAN is using a new “tear gas” that renders those exposed into a state of semi paralysis and violent sickness. We want to reach out to chemical engineers of the world to help us identify the gas and how to defuse it? 
Symptoms include:
  • Severe nausea and vomiting (in some cases blood),
  • Semi paralysis,
  • Blurry vision.
The Wikipedia entry for CN gas notes:
...this compound irritates the mucous membranes (oral, nasal, conjunctival and tracheobronchial). Sometimes it can give rise to more generalized reactions such as syncope, temporary loss of balance and orientation. More rarely, cutaneous irritating outbreaks have been observed and allergic contact permanent dermatitis
At high concentrations CN has caused corneal epithelial damage and chemosis. It has also accounted for at least five deaths, which have resulted from pulmonary injury and/or asphyxia."
So there you have it: nausea, semi paralysis (syncope), and eye damage from CN gas quite possibly sold to the Yemeni dictator by the the United States. A safer tear gas (CS gas) has been available since at least World War II.

There's obviously an imbalance of power between the protesters and government forces, yet in a carefully worded condemnation last week, the Obama administration resorted to equivocation when it "called upon all parties to exercise restraint." The Yemenis that we met with pointed out the lopsided nature of this call for restraint since they had exercised restraint themselves. Many Yemenis have guns; however, they did not bring them to the protests.

The unrest back home obviously weighs on our visitors. One of them said that they will be called US agents when they return. They worry about their country and their fellow citizens as well fearing that assassinations and political killings will continue for sometime.

We asked them if there were national leaders for their revolution. They described a movement of many different groups that occupy the complete spectrum of political thought in Yemen, but share the same overpowering vision of riding the country of its dictator. Because of that, no one leader has emerged.

Much more from Jim Hoft at the first link below.

Sunday, November 28, 2010

The Secrets of Diplomatic Channels

Germany's Der Spiegel created an interactive map to show the location, sensitivity (color), and quantity (circle size) of the diplomatic cables recently published on wikileaks.
The New York Times has written a good introduction to the recent WikiLeaks dump of US diplomatic communications. Their title asserts that Cables Uncloak U.S. Diplomacy; however, they also reveal the emperor's new clothes:
WASHINGTON — A cache of a quarter-million confidential American diplomatic cables, most of them from the past three years, provides an unprecedented look at backroom bargaining by embassies around the world, brutally candid views of foreign leaders and frank assessments of nuclear and terrorist threats.

...A statement from the White House on Sunday said: “We condemn in the strongest terms the unauthorized disclosure of classified documents and sensitive national security information.”

“President Obama supports responsible, accountable, and open government at home and around the world, but this reckless and dangerous action runs counter to that goal,” the statement said. “By releasing stolen and classified documents, WikiLeaks has put at risk not only the cause of human rights but also the lives and work of these individuals.”
How does hiding diplomatic communications behind a veil of secrecy support responsible, accountable, and open government? It clearly does nothing of the sort, so the administration and its enablers scurry for cover behind the cause of human rights and the lives and work of [human rights advocates]. Reuters provides the full text of another letter from the State Department which was released Saturday:
As you know, if any of the materials you intend to publish were provided by any government officials, or any intermediary without proper authorization, they were provided in violation of U.S. law and without regard for the grave consequences of this action. As long as WikiLeaks holds such material, the violation of the law is ongoing.

It is our understanding from conversations with representatives from The New York Times, The Guardian and Der Spiegel, that WikiLeaks also has provided approximately 250,000 documents to each of them for publication, furthering the illegal dissemination of classified documents.
Maybe our betters at Foggy Bottom could orchestrate trilateral talks with The New York Times, The Guardian, and Der Spiegel with particular emphasis on the pressing question: Why does the WikiLeaks founder (Julian Assange) hate us?

The Saturday letter then rehashes the same talking points noted above before devolving into preachy hypocritical sermonizing:
Publication of documents of this nature at a minimum would:

* Place at risk the lives of countless innocent individuals -- from journalists to human rights activists and bloggers to soldiers to individuals providing information to further peace and security;

* Place at risk on-going military operations, including operations to stop terrorists, traffickers in human beings and illicit arms, violent criminal enterprises and other actors that threaten global security; and,

* Place at risk on-going cooperation between countries - partners, allies and common stakeholders -- to confront common challenges from terrorism to pandemic diseases to nuclear proliferation that threaten global stability.

In your letter, you say you want -- consistent with your goal of "maximum disclosure" -- information regarding individuals who may be "at significant risk of harm" because of your actions.

Despite your stated desire to protect those lives, you have done the opposite and endangered the lives of countless individuals. You have undermined your stated objective by disseminating this material widely, without redaction, and without regard to the security and sanctity of the lives your actions endanger. We will not engage in a negotiation regarding the further release or dissemination of illegally obtained U.S. Government classified materials. If you are genuinely interested in seeking to stop the damage from your actions, you should: 1) ensure WikiLeaks ceases publishing any and all such materials; 2) ensure WikiLeaks returns any and all classified U.S. Government material in its possession; and 3) remove and destroy all records of this material from WikiLeaks' databases.
And, you, Mr. Preachy Self-Important State Department Hack, if you were genuinely interested in seeking to stop the damage from WikiLeaks, you would ask Congress to issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal so that enterprising American hackers could destroy WikiLeaks.org. You wont do that. You'll continue to negotiate. Therefore, you will continue to be embarrassed every few months.

Obviously a leak like this is damaging; however, it is also amusing. In addition to revealing the irony of our own government ("responsible, accountable, and open government") we learn via Der Spiegel (h/t Gateway Pundit), that physical abuse is not limited to the prison system in Iran: Ahmadinejad was smacked by one of his generals:
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's emissaries also learn of a special "Iran observer" in the Azerbaijan capital of Baku who reports on a dispute that played out during a meeting of Iran's Supreme National Security Council. An enraged Revolutionary Guard Chief of Staff Mohammed Ali Jafari allegedly got into a heated argument with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and slapped him in the face because the generally conservative president had, surprisingly, advocated freedom of the press.