Pentagon asks for more than $705 billion in 2021 military budget

(February 11) For 2021 the US Pentagon has requested $705.4 billion. This includes a 3 percent pay raise for military personnel and also $15.4 billion of the new Space Force.

Breakdown of budget request

$21.3 billion is budgeted for munitions and that includes $11.3 billion for tactical missiles. A recent article breaks down the munitions expenditure: "The DoD has requested $21.3 billion in munitions, including $6 billion for conventional ammunition, $4 billion for strategic missiles and $11.3 billion for tactical missiles. Munitions and missiles make up 8.8 percent of overall procurement in the budget request."

The Trump administration is also requesting $46 billion to be spent on nuclear weapons. For the nuclear triad, the Defense Department' budget request asks for $1.5 billion to develop new intercontinental ballistic missiles to replace the Minuteman III nuclear missiles plus another $2.3 billion on new early warning satellites.

Most areas see little or no reduction except for a substantial budget cut for the paper the Stars and Stripes that often carries quite useful information.

Less money appropriated for the Afghan War

There is $14 billion appropriated to finance the Afghan War during 2021. This may sound large but it is the lowest amount requested for the 18-year old war for nearly a decade. The request is part of the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) part of the budget for Operation Freedom Sentinel as the Afghan War is euphemistically named. The lower figure assumes there will be a drawdown of US forces.

The US has had off and on peace talks for some time with the Taliban, but at present they seem to be bogged down over the issue of a cease fire and reduction of violence. Mark Esper, the US Secretary of Defense, claims the US is considering reducing its footprint in Afghanistan from 13,000 to 8,600 whether there is a peace deal with the Taliban or not. Ultimately, there needs to be a deal with the Afghan government or its members and other Afghans as well. The Taliban will not negotiate officially with the Afghan government because it considers it a puppet of the US.

Trump has indicated he wants to cut Afghan troop levels before the 2020 elections. However, other drawdown plans have been reversed. We will just have to wait and see what Trump decides to do.

Previously published in the Digital Journal

Air strike in Afghanistan kills five business men in a vehicle

(February 10) A number of provincial officials from Farah Province in Afghanistan report that on Saturday a vehicle was destroyed in an airstrike killing all five businessmen who were inside. The five were traveling from Farah city to Abu Nasar Farah Port.

One official, Farah Governor Massoud Bakhtor said that authorities are obliged to investigate and share findings about what had happened. He pledged serious action.

Not clear who was responsible for the strike

Provincial officials are in the dark so far about what happened. It could be a US airstrike thinking the vehicle was occupied by terrorists or it could be an Afghan military strike. The Afghan Ministry of Defense has had no comment as yet. The Afghan Defense Ministry is often tight-lipped about any reports where civilian casualties are concerned. However, not informing the Farah governor on such an event could further alienate the province from the central government.

Concerns expressed about civilian casualties in attacks

The Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission AIHRC expressed concern about the casualties and took note that the numbers had increased lately. The AIHRC spokesperson Zabiullah Farhang called on all parties to respect international law and the Afghan constitution. Zaman Sultani, Amnesty International Researcher for South Asia said:“Unfortunately, we do not see any proper action towards civilian victims of the Afghan conflict, and we do not see any accountability for those who caused civilian casualties.”

Last November Farah residents protested against another airstrike in the province that caused a number of casualties.

US delegation meets with families of airstrike victims

On Saturday a delegation of US troops went to Kunduz province to meet with and apologize to families of an airstrike two weeks ago. The strike allegedly caused the death of five militants but five civilians as well including two women and a child.

A spokesperson for the governor of Kunduz province said: “The foreign forces special operations commander had arrived on a trip with a delegation. They apologized to the family for the martyrdom of the five civilians in Dasht-e-Archi district and assured them that they would seriously investigate the airstrike." There was no word as to whether the families would receive any compensation for the deaths.

Previously published in the Digital Journal

US and Afghan troops killed in incident in Nangarhjar Province in Afghanistan

(February 8) News about an incident in Nangarhar province in Aghanistan involving US and Afghan forces and perhaps the Taliban or ISIS is unclear with conflicting reports on what happened.

Varying reports

The New York Times described the event as a deadly shootout between Afghan and US soldiers while engaged in a joint exercise. The Times quoted two Afghan officials reported that five or six US soldiers were killed and six Afghan troops as well. A US military official was quoted as saying the at least 6 Americans were killed but did not say how many on the other side were killed.

Another report by Colonel Sonny Leggett, a spokesperson for US forces in Afghanistan, said that a combined US and Afghan force in Nangarhar was engaged by direct fire. This implies that an enemy force either Taliban or ISIS were involved. Leggett said: "We are assessing the situation and will provide further updates as they become available." However, Mubartz Khadem, a senior security official in the province said that the clashes took place between US and Afghan forces and that he feared there were casualties. This could then be an insider or "green on blue" attack that have occurred a number of times before during the Afghan conflict.

A senior Afghan defense official told news media that it was not clear whether the clash was a result of clashes between Afghan and foreign soldiers or whether it was by Islamist militants. The official said: "We are not ruling any possibility out but we are not calling it an insider attack, Taliban attack, or 'green-on-blue' at this stage."

A provincial council member in Nangarhar, Sohra Qaderi said the clashes were between the Afghan army and foreign forces in the Shirzad district of the province on Saturday afternoon. Qaderi was unsure what had happened but said it seemed the clashes happened during a raid or there could have been a tactical mistake.

Taliban sources were not immediately available to comment. The Taliban now control more territory than at any point since they were ousted in 2001.

Peace talks have yet to be successful

There are about 14,000 US troops still in Afghanistan as part of a US-led NATO mission to train, assist and advise Afghan troops but also to carry out counter-terrorism operations. US negotiators have been for months attempting to arrange for withdrawal of foreign troops in exchange for security guarantees. However, conflict continues. The US would like to see the Taliban reduce violence during talks. However, neither side has stopped attacks.

Previously published in the Digital Journal

Russia accuses Israel of using civilian plane for cover during raid on Syria

(February 8)An Airbus 320 passenger jet with 172 passengers aboard was almost shot down over the Syrian capital Damascus on Thursday morning. Syrian missile defense systems were activated to respond to an incoming Israeli attack on the Damascus airport.

Israeli actions may be deliberate

Russian Defense Ministry officials said they do not think the incident was coincidental but that the Israeli military is deliberately using civilian passenger planes as cover while they are attacking targets in Syria as reported by Sputnik: "Russian MOD spokesman Maj. Gen. Igor Konashenkov said the Israeli jets effectively hid behind the radar signal of an Airbus A-320 as it approached Damascus international airport in order to launch air strikes on targets near the Syrian capital." Israeli F-16 fighter jets fired air-to-surface missiles at targets near the airport according to Konashenkov.

Israel could consider this a win-win strategy. Either Syria allows the Israelis to strike with impunity or it risks accidentally shooting down a civilian airliner leading to international condemnation.

Airbus plane escorted out of the area

The plane was safely escorted out of the area and landed in a base further west Hmeimim which is used by Russian planes.

Notice that there seems to be no attempt by the Russians to send planes to intercept the Israeli jets. Syrian State media confirmed that they had intercepted a number of Israeli missiles. The Syrian media did not appear to report on the near shoot-down of the Iranian Airbus.

Israel has not commented on their attack but one monitor claims that 23 people were believed killed on the ground.

An earlier decoy complaint

In September 2018 Russia accused Israel of intentionally placing a Russian reconnaissance IL-20 plane in danger with the result it was shot down by Syrian defenses who mistook it for an Israeli F-16 several of which were attacking Syrian territory with missiles at the time. Fifteen crew members on the plane were killed. A news report on CNN is on the appended video.

Israel denied it was using the Russian reconnaissance plane as a decoy. Israel said it was the incompetence of Syrian defense personnel that was responsible for the downing of the plane.

Israeli has carried out hundreds of air strikes on Syria

Israel usually neither confirms nor denies specific air strikes on Syria although according to at least one source Israeli commanders have admitted to hundreds over the last couple of years. Western mainstream media and western officials virtually never condemn the raids although it should be obvious that they are against international law. No doubt if pressed the Israelis would point out that the targets are Iranians or others who are a threat to Israeli security. This is a pitiful attempt at the use of a self-defense justification. However, as with the US, Israel feels that any attack that they claim is in the interests of national security is justified. The mainstream media is unlikely to question this unless the action were by some country such as North Korea, Cuba, Russia, or China. Over time, the general public view is that Israeli attacks are just a normal everyday occurrence.

Previously published in the Digital Journal

Iraqi military warned not to ask for US help

Tensions may have eased a bit since the US carried out the assassination of Qaseem Soleimani a top Iranian commander along with an Iraqi deputy commander of the Popular Mobilization forces in a drone strike near the Baghdad International Airport.

+ Add Image

Tensions still high

Iran in retaliation for the US assassinations attacked two US bases in Iraq with missiles. While no one appears to have been killed 64 in all are said to have had brain injuries. The Iraq parliament passed a resolution asking that all foreign troops leave Iraq 170 to 0 some time ago. The Iraqi government asked that the US discuss the withdrawal of US troops but the US refused to do so,

The tension continues as Iraqi military officials claim they have been ordered not to seek help from the US or coalition forces in any operations against the Islamic State (ISIS). (February 7) However, the whole point of the US being in Iraq is to counter ISIS. ISIS is now so weakened that it is basically in survival mode. It does not have permanent control of virtually any territory in Iraq now. Iraq does not really need the US to control any threat from ISIS. Nevertheless the US would like to stay in Iraq to counter the increasing influence of Iran on the Iraqi government.

So far Iraq has failed to expel US troops

In spite of being asked to leave by the Iraqi government and facing protests and even attacks on their bases the US shows no sign of leaving. Indeed, Trump has threatened Iraq with severe sanctions should it try to force the US out. However, at least by not cooperating with the US in joint military operations it is signalling its autonomy and desire to be independent of US forces.

Tensions after the US assassination performed without permission of the Iraqi government led to a brief suspension of joint operations. The US announced late last week they would be resumed but it seems clear that Iraq is not interested in doing so certainly not to the scale as was happening earlier. The US is anxious to resume operations to make it appear that the US is still needed and carrying out its mission in Iraq. However, it is clear that the US is no longer welcome.

An anonymous senior military official said: “After the killing of Soleimani, the Iraqi government decided to inform us formally not to cooperate and not to seek assistance from the U.S.-led international coalition in any operation. Until now, we have not asked the Americans to provide assistance, we rely on our capabilities to pursue IS elements. The presence of the Americans in the joint operations is only formal."

Previously published in the Digital Journal

US accounts for about 79 percent of global arms trade about $143 billion per year

(February 6) The world spends a total of nearly $3 trillion a year on armaments. According to the US State Department the US drives about 79percent of the world total.

	1 of 3

The US State Dept. World Military Expenditures and Arms Transfers report publish last December represents the latest assessment of world military expenditure from 2007 to 2017.

Growth in international arms transfers

From 2007 to 2017 international arms transfers rose about 65 percent from about $119 billion to almost $195 billion according to figures from the US State Department's Bureau of Arms Control, Verification and Compliance that compiled the report.

The report claims that both the growth in the world arms trade and the high proportion of arms imports coming from the US appear largely due to the reliance of rich often democratically-governed governments on US arms according to the report. The existence of what is often called the military-industrial complex especially in the US may have a considerable effect on this development as well.

Wikipedia provides a short description of the complex: "The military–industrial complex (MIC) is an informal alliance between a nation's military and the defense industry that supplies it, seen together as a vested interest which influences public policy..The term is most often used in reference to the system behind the military of the United States, where it is most prevalent due to close links between defense contractors, the Pentagon and politicians and gained popularity after a warning on its detrimental effects in the farewell address of President Dwight D. Eisenhower on January 17, 1961."

US dominates arms export business

According to the report the US accounts for 79 percent of the world arms trade or on average $143 billion annually. The European Union was responsible for about 10 percent. Russia had only 5 percent and China less than 2 percent. The US exported four times more than the next ten countries combined. The State Dept. claims that over half of the exports have been delivered to the richest and most democratic fifth of the world's population. However, the US also delivers to authoritarian regimes such as Saudi Arabia and US close allies such as Israel. The report claims that countries in the richest fifth of the world population export 97 percent of arms and import more than 63 percent. The report also notes that nations in the most democratic fifth of world population account for about 92 percent of world arms exports and 50 percent of world arms imports.

Often advanced capitalist countries which are democratic develop their own military industrial complexes so that they manufacture most world armaments for export, however many authoritarian countries such as Saudi Arabia have little or no arms manufacturing facilities and thus must rely on imports. Export percentages have changed radically over time with respect to different countries as shown on the appended video.

Previously published in the DIgital Journal

CENTCOM Commander Gen. McKenzie visits Iraq to try to mend relations

(February 5) General Kenneth "Frank" McKenzie, Centom Commander, made a quiet visit to Iraq on Tuesday. Multiple media reports claim that McKenzie "slipped" into Iraq in an attempt to mend ties during what he called a period of "turbulence" between the two countries.

Assassination by the US near Baghdad airport caused protests against the US

On January 3 the US carried out a drone attack near the Baghdad airport that killed a top Iranian general Qassem Soleiman as well as Iraqi General Abu al-Muhandis a deputy commander of the government approved and financed Popular Mobilization Forces (PMC).

Iraqis were furious. The Iraqi parliament passed a resolution 170 to 0 demanding that all foreign troops be withdrawn from Iraq. The resolution however was not binding and some Sunnis stayed away from the session. The Iraqi government did not give permission for the US attack and were not even informed. No doubt, most Iraqis saw the attack as a clear violation of their sovereignty.

Iran retaliated by missile attacks on two US bases in Iraq. There was considerable damage. While no one was reported killed as of last reporting there were 64 cases of concussion caused by blasts. There have also been attacks on US Iraq bases by Iraqi militia that are pro-Iran.

McKenzie's visit

McKenzie is the most senior US military official to visit Iraq since the US drone assassinations. The US has made it clear that it has no intention of leaving Iraq at the present. The US is supposed to be in the country to help fight ISIS but ISIS has lost all the territory it has held and is more or less in survival mode. The Iraqis probably have the ability to deal with any threat that remains on their own. However, the US worries about Iranian influence in Iraq and would like to stay to counteract that influence as much as possible.

McKenzie said he believes there will be a "way forward", presumably one that involves few or no US troop withdrawals. The Pentagon has not been forthcoming about who exactly McKenzie had talks with but did say that McKenzie was personally heartened by the reaction he had received. McKenzie also asked Iraq for permission to install Patriot missiles as US bases do not have sufficient defenses against Iranian missiles.

At least one news report does indicate some of those who spoke with McKenzie: "McKenzie said it’s difficult to predict how Tuesday’s discussions will pan out, particularly because the government is in transition. McKenzie spoke with Prime Minister Adel Abdul-Mahdi, President Barham Saleh, and Speaker of the House Salim al-Jabouri, but he did not speak with Mohammed Allawi, who is expected to succeed the current prime minister."

Protesters have been demanding a new independent policy that is not determined by the US or Iran. However, the US assassination may have directed much of protesters' anger against the US. The US has refused to discuss any withdrawal mechanism with the Iraqi government even though the Iraqi government asked it to do so.

Previously published in the Digital Journal

Medical flights allowed out of Houthi-controlled Sanaa airport

(February 4) On Monday flights from the Houthi-controlled Yemeni capital of Sanaa began carrying patients needing urgent medical care to Amman Jordan. This is a welcome step said the World Health Organization (WHO).

Move will be a long-sought confidence-building step

These flights took two years to negotiate said Lise Grande at the Sanaa airport. Grande said: “There are thousands of patients who need this care. This is the first flight, there will be more” Grande noted that the real solution to the medical problems of Yemen was to end the war. The airport has been closed to civilian flights from 2015 when Saudi Arabia and its allies took control of Yemen's airspace. However, last November the Saudis said that those needing medical care could be flown out of Sanaa.

The flights are being supervised by the UN and the WHO. The flights will first go to Amman in Georgia and then on to Cairo in Egypt. Most of the patients are women and children suffering from cancer or brain tumors. There are also patients needing organ transplants or reconstructive surgery.

The Norwegian Refugee Council said it hoped that the flights would open an regular medical bridge for sick patients. The Council said there was no justification for punishing very sick civilians by blocking them from traveling to access medical treatment.

Mohammed Ali al-Houthi, who heads the Houthis’ Supreme Revolutionary Committee, claimed 32,000 people are registered on medical evacuation lists.

Background

Even since the Iranian-backed Houthi rebels ousted the government of Mansur Hadi from the capital and much of the country in late 2014 the country has been mired in a civil war. A Saudi coalition intervened in 2015 in an attempt to restore the Hadi government. Even though the Houthis are in control on the ground in the capital Sanaa they do not control the airspace which the Saudi coalition closed to civilian aircraft after 2015. However, UN planes have been allowed to land there.

Opening the airport again has been a key demand at UN-led peace talks and of the Houthis as well. UN Yemen envoy Martin Griffiths claimed in an address last month to the UN Security Council in January that the medical flight project had received a great deal of diplomatic support . According to authorities Griffiths held last minute talks with Houthi authorities last Sunday with respect the plans for the flights. About 60 patients and their relatives are expected to leave on flights this week.

The UN has been attempting to try to relaunch negotiations to end the war. There are also separate informal talks between the Houthis and Saudis in Riyadh since September last year about de-escalation. There are signs that the Saudis would like to abandon its attempt to reinstall the Hadi government to allow it to come to an agreement with the Houthis and extricate themselves from a costly war that they seem unable to win.

Previously published in the Digital Journal

Saudi newspaper article suggests the Kingdom should cease support for Hadi's Yemen government

(February 4) It is five years since the Saudis began their invasion and bombing of Yemen in an attempt to defeat the Houthi rebels in the north and reinstall the ousted government of Mansur Hadi.

Saudi newspaper article argues that Hadi government is a burden

The whole point of the Saudi operation was to reinstate the Hadi government. The Houthi rebels, supported by Iran rule much of the north including the capital Sanaa. The Hadi government's temporary capital is in the southern Yemen port of Aden but much of the leadership remains in Riyadh Saudi Arabia.

No one previously had raised the issue of supporting a government which probably has limited support within the country. The was has been costly to the Saudis both in material terms and in international condemnation for its air attacks that have killed many Yemeni civilians. The Saudis have been unable to defeat the Houthis, have faced attacks on their own territory and lately have suffered casualties.

An article in the Saudi newspaper Okaz by Hammoud Taleb has brought up the subject of Saudi support for Hadi for the first time. Okaz asks whether everyone would be better off if the Hadi government were replaced. No one even pointed out that Hadi's electoral mandate had run out years ago.

The Saudi government would be unlikely to allow such an article without tacitly approving it. Taleb must have felt safe in attaching his name to the article.

Taleb argues that the Hadi government is a burden both on Yemen and the Saudi invading coalition that includes the UAE. Taleb says that “it is absurd to rely on its members, who are distributed between capitals, and conspire against the alliance from inside their luxury hotels.” Much of the Hadi leadership remains in Saudi Arabia and some work within rival factions. The article could be a test balloon by the Saudi government. It shows at least, that such a move might be under consideration.

The Saudis may be losing patience with the Hadi government

The Saudi's are not allowing some members of the Hadi government out of Riyadh where they are in exile. Some have even described Hadi himself as effectively under house arrest at times. No doubt the Saudis are angry that the Hadi government has undermined attempts at negotiation. In particular the Hadi government baulked at having southern separatists become part of the Hadi government after the Saudis made a deal with their coalition partner the UAE and the Southern Transitional Council(STC).

The UAE had supported the STC in seizing the port of Aden and some surrounding areas last October. This put the UAE in conflict with the Saudis. However, a deal was worked out by the Saudis to give the STC seats in the cabinet of the Hadi government. All armed forces would be placed under government control. However. the Hadi government strongly resisted an attempt to have the STC and others join the government. The STC wants a separate independent state in the south as existed once before but the Hadi government wants a unified Yemen.

A possible scenario

The Saudis have already settled with the STC. The Saudis may be able to negotiate with the Houthi's to leave them in control of the northern part of Yemen with the STC along with some members of the Hadi government to take control of the southern remainder of Yemen. Those members of the Hadi government which did not accede to such a solution would be left virtually powerless. The UAE could very well be involved in such a settlement. It remains to be seen whether the Houthis would agree to such a solution but they are dependent to some extent on the support of Iran and Iran may see such an agreement as lowering tensions in the region. The Saudis may find this plan better than continuing in a so far fruitless attempt to reinstall a dubious ruler.

Previously published in the Digital Journal

The US Cuba embargo's effects on the Cuban economy

(February 3)The US first imposed an arms embargo on Cuba on March 14, 1958. On October 19, 1960 almost two years after Batista was overthrown the embargo was extended to other imports except for food and medicine after Cuba took over US-owned oil refineries.

On February 7, 1962 the embargo was extended to include almost all exports. The embargo does not prohibit the trade of food and humanitarian supplies. The US can use it economic power to enforce US sanctions on other countries but it is not always possible. The European Union is Cuba's largest trading partner. Even the US is the sixth largest exporter to the US. 6.6 percent of Cuba's imports come from the US no doubt all food and humanitarian supplies. However, Cuba must pay cash for everything a factor that also limits its imports.

While some of Cuba's economic problems may be traced to poor management, the role of the US embargo also remains an important factor.

Cuba plagued by electricity shortages caused by US embargo

As noted, in 1962 the US imposed an embargo on Cuba. As a result Cuba often does not have enough fuel to run all of its power plants causing electricity blackouts. Just last year, the Trump administration sanctioned Cypriot and Panamanian tankers that were bringing oil to Cuba's power plants. US thinks nothing of enforcing its own sanctions on other countries which it can do to some extent because of its economic power especially on weaker countries.

Cuban economic problems

Many of Cuba's economic problems can be traced back to the collapse of the USSR in 1991. Having lost its main trading partner along with large Soviet subsidies, the Cuban GDP shrunk by a whopping 35 percent between 1989-1993. As a result Cuba decided to reduce some of its government owned projects that were inefficient and introduce more market capitalist features into its economy. However, the government retained control of major industries and kept a free health care and education system as well as subsidizing many cultural events.

At the same time, Cuba encouraged small businesses especially in the restaurant area and tourist bed and breakfast lodging. At present the government still controls 68 percent of jobs but the private sector controls the other 32 percent.

The Obama boom

In 2015 then president Barack Obama reinstated diplomatic relations with Cuba although he did not rescind the blockade. However, US travelers were able to flood into Cuba including many Cubans who had fled to the US but still had relatives in Cuba. The influx of US tourists gave a big boost to hotels, restaurants and the entire tourist industry. The relaxation of the terms of the embargo had even led to US Cuba cooperation on the development of drugs. However just as trade and other relations between Cuba were improving, Donald Trump came into power in the US.

The Trump reversal

Last year Trump revoked many of Obama's changes. Among other changes he banned US residents from staying in Cuban government hotels, eating in state restaurants, or using government tourism agencies. In other words, he wants the US to use only private enterprise facilities in Cuba as far as possible. Even with the new restrictions in the first four months of last year, 257,000 people visited Cuba from the US and this excludes passengers on cruise ships. Perhaps the new restrictions will result in a rise of prices in private restaurants, hotels and tourist agencies and discounts in government facilities to attract more customers from other countries.

The drop in US tourism since the imposition of new Trump restrictions has meant Cuba has less foreign currency to buy foreign goods the require cash payment. US pressure against third country tankers has reduced oil shipments increasing fuel prices and even shortage of fuel to deliver goods from place to place.

Cuban president Miguel Diaz-Canal has announced plans to increase state workers salaries. He wants to encourage self-sufficiency in food production. The president also pledges to get rid of the dual currency system which has one peso that is equivalent in value to the US dollar and another national peso that is worth at present just 1/24 of the convertible peso.

One thing is certain the US embargo hurts ordinary Cubans but has failed to change the regime. In fact Cuba can always blame its economic woes on the US that may help strengthen support for the government.

Trump recently reduced flights to Cuba

In January the US reduced flights allowed to fly to Cuba quite significantly. The announcement of the reduction clearly shows it was meant to reduce hard currency revenue going to the Cuban government, currency it needs to purchase goods it needs overseas. Charter flights will now only be allowed to fly to Havana and no other airports a step already taken with respect to commercial flights.

Pompeo said that the restrictions would further restrict Cuba to obtain financing that he termed was used for the ongoing repression of the Cuban people and also to support what he terms the dictator Maduro in Venezuela. Pompeo boasted that the suspension of public charter flights to nine other Cuban airports the US further impeded Cuba from gaining access to hard currency from US tourists.

The Trump attempts to increase pressure on Cuba has resulted in Cuba developing closer relations with Russia as shown in the appended video from October of last year.

Previously published in the Digital Journal

Palestinians demonstrate in opposition to Trump's "Deal of the Century" peace plan

(February 2) Three days after US President Donald Trump presented the "deal of the century" his proposal to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Palestinians held demonstrations against his plan across the occupied territories on Friday.

The Trump Plan

The Trump long-awaited Palestine peace plan termed "the deal of the century" was 181 pages long. It shows what a future Palestinian state and Israel would appear. Israel would have full control over Jerusalem as well as its holy sites. However, the Palestinians want East Jerusalem to be their capital. Yet in the Trump document Jerusalem remains the undivided capital of Israel.

The US had already recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel on December 6, 2017 and moved its embassy there from Tel Aviv. The Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu welcomed and praised the decision. Most world leaders condemned the decision that changed long-standing US policy. A meeting of the UN Security Council resulted in a motion in which 14 of 15 members condemned the US decision but the US vetoed the resolution.

The Trump plan would also formalise the annexation of much of the West Bank, and maintain military control of what would be a fragmented Palestinian state. The plan would also deny any right of return to refugees who had been forced to flee Palestine in 1948 when Israel was formed. The main architect of the plan was Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law. The plans favors Israeli interests over those of the Palestinians. Not surprisingly Israeli PM Netanyahu has praised the plan and accepted it.

A recent BBC article notes that when the deal was announced the atmosphere at the East Room of the White House was more that of a party than a news conference. The BBC describes the scene: "The host, US President Donald Trump, and the guest of honour, Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, backslappingly beamed at each other. The guests drawn from the entourages of the two leaders clapped and whooped.The biggest cheers were for President Trump's reminders of what he has done for Israel. Prime Minister Netanyahu said the day would be remembered in the same breath as Israel's day of independence in 1948. It was, said Mr Netanyahu, one of the most important moments of his life."

Netanyahu's reaction should not be surprising since the deal of the century offers Palestinians very little., beyond a fragmented truncated state with limited sovereignty surrounded by Israeli territory and threading between Jewish settlements on land seized by the Israelis.

Palestinians unite in rejecting the Trump plan

Even before the plan was released rival Palestinian groups came out in unison opposing it. Thousands protested in towns and villages both in the Gaza Strip and towns and villages in the occupied West Bank. This is hardly surprising given that the Palestinians were not in any way involved in forming the plan which is a solution to the situation very much in the favor of Israel and does not meet most Palestinian demands. Not surprisingly, Jared Kushner said the Palestinians were quite foolish to reject the agreement. One could ague that it was quite foolish of the US and Israel to think that Palestinians would ever accept an agreement which ignores most of their key demands and in which they were not involved could ever be accepted by the Palestinians. Perhaps they had no expectations of Palestinian acceptance. There may be attempts to gradually implement the terms of the deal in spite of Palestinian objections. The US for example will no doubt support Israeli moves to further annex Palestinian territory.

The president of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, said that he had refused to discuss the plan by phone with Trump or even to receive a copy of it the plan that Trump had offered. Abba said that he did not want Trump to be able to say that he had consulted Abbas on the plan. He reiterated last Tuesday that he completely rejected the plan.

Kushner, who prior to joining the Trump administration had no experience either in policy or politics said: "The Palestinians probably need a little bit of time to take a cold shower and to kind of digest the plan."

Palestinian demonstrations

In at least 12 different locations across the occupied West Bank, thousands of Palestinians staged a "Friday of Rage" in opposition to the Trump plan. Israeli security forces shot live ammunition, rubber-coated steel bullets, sound bombs, and tear gas at demonstrators. The Palestinian Red Crescent claimed that at least 48 Palestinians had been hurt within the West Bank. At least three people were reported to have been detained by Israeli security forces..

In the Ramallah governorate, demonstrators in Bilin village raised Palestinian flags and a map of historic Palestine on it was inscribed "Jerusalem is the capital of the eternal Palestine" and "Palestine is not for sale."

Protests even took place in the sleepy city of Jericho not noted for political activism. In Hebron, Israel fired large quantities of tear gas at demonstrators in the city's Bab al-Zawiya Square.

In the Gaza Strip after Friday prayers, thousands of Palestinians flooded the streets in mass demonstrations all denouncing the Trump deal of the century. On Martyr's Square in Gaza City chants called for Palestinian unity in opposing the deal which they called a conspiracy.

Dozens of Palestinians gathered near the boundary with Israel where they burned tires. The Gaza Ministry of Health reported that at least 12 Palestinians sustained injuries near the barrier with Israel.

Previously published in the Digital Journal

Kelly Craft US Ambassador to the UN warns Palestinians not to criticize Trump's Deal of the Centruy

(February 1) Kelly Craft, US Ambassador to the United Nations, on Friday issued a statement warning the Palestinians against expressing any criticism of Trump's "Deal of the Century" peace plan. She said that any complaints would achieve nothing.

Craft noted that she anticipated initial negative reactions to the plan but Palestinian displeasure should be channeled into negotiations. She said: "Bringing that displeasure to the United Nations does nothing but repeat the failed pattern of the last seven decades. Let's avoid those traps and instead take a chance on peace." Why not negotiate in the first place instead of presenting a one-sided deal without any Palestinian negotiation? I think the answer is that the deal is intended not to be an agreement with the Palestinians but a plan to impose a solution on them that favors Israeli interests and is backed by the global power of the US.

US expected to veto any critical resolution in the UN Security Council

If there is a resolution criticizing the Trump peace plan, it is expected that the US will veto. Even if this happens the resolution would show the extent to which other countries reject the plan. No doubt this is why Riyad Mansour the Palestinian Ambassador to the UN has taken the plan to the UN already.

The Mansour resolution

Mansour is working on a resolution critical of the Trump peace deal. He called the plan a "recipe for the destruction of the national rights of the Palestinian people." The Mansour resolution wants to condemn the text of the deal in the strongest possible language. This is doing exactly what the US envoy warned against.

Should the US veto the resolution the Palestinians will very likely take the issue from the Security Council to the General Assembly giving the resolution even more publicity and no doubt showing that many countries reject the plan.

The plan was created with absolutely no input from the Palestinian side. The plan is very much slanted towards the interests of Israel and many argue that it is slanted towards US interests. It would encourage Israeli annexation of the West Bank among other things. The US no doubt realizes that the plan will be roundly rejected by the UN. This is no doubt expect and will be used to advance the argument that the Palestinians will not negotiate peace. However, it is hardly surprising that the Palestinians do not accept a deal in which they were not involved and which favors Israeli interests.

Former President Carter's criticism

Carter noted that the Trump plan violated repeated calls by the UN for a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders. It was that year the Israel occupied Palestinian territories in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The Trump plan considers occupied Jerusalem Al-Quds to be part of Israel's undivided capital. However, Palestinians want that part to be the capital of a future Palestinian state.

Carter claimed that the US deal broke international law concerning issues of Palestinian self-determination, acquisition of foreign land by force, and annexation of occupied territories. He urged UN member states "to adhere to UN Security Council resolutions and to reject any unilateral Israeli implementation of the proposal by grabbing more Palestinian land."

The US proposal also "breaches international law" addressing the issues of Palestinian self-determination, acquisition of foreign land by force, annexation of occupied territories, and also denied Palestinians equal rights, he added.

Arab League rejects and condemns plan

In a statement this Saturday the pan-Arab bloc announced it "rejects the US-Israeli 'deal of the century' considering that it does not meet the minimum rights and aspirations of Palestinian people."

The Arab states agreed not to cooperate with the US administration if it attempts to implement the plan and said that Israel should not implement the plan by force. The group insisted on a two-state solution based on borders before the 1967 war. They also called on East Jerusalem to be the capital of any future Palestinian State. The session was called by Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the Palestinian Authority. The Arab League took a clear stance opposed to the Trump plan as Mahmoud had requested.

However, Oman, Bahrain, and the UAE had attended the unveiling of the plan. Saudi Arabia and Egypt said they appreciated Trump's efforts. Some Arab countries appear to be cosying up to Israel.

The Trump deal is a dud

The Trump deal was not a deal in the first place but a plan that would have the US and Israel impose conditions on the Palestinians that would favor the Israelis. There was no participation by the Palestinians. What sort of agreement is it when one party is not involved or even consulted?

The US and Israel paint the deal as a grand opportunity for the Palestinians which would solve many of their problems and if rejected would be a huge lost opportunity. Israel may very well try to implement the deal in spite of its rejection by many. In doing so Israel will no doubt have the support of the United States. Resistance by the Palestinians will be taken as showing they are ungrateful and impossible to negotiate with. Any violent resistance will be retaliated against as fighting terrorism.

Previously published in the Digital Journal

Aston Martin delays the launch of its all electric vehicle

(January 30) Aston Martin has officially delayed the launch of all of its planned electric vehicles as it attempts to get back on a solid financial basis.

Company to receive emergency funding

On Friday the company said that it would accept about $659 million in emergency funding from a group of investors led by the Lawrence Stroll the Canadian billionaire. Stroll will get about 20 percent of the company in return for the funding. As part of its plan to become financially stable, Aston Martin will focus on gasoline cars before it manufactures any electric vehicles.

The emergency funding comes after what Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Andy Palmer claimed was a very bad 2019 during which the company lost more than 100 million pounds or over $132 million US in spite of increased sales.

EV production delayed

The Rapid E supposed to be Aston Martin's first EV has had its production delayed indefinitely. The relaunch of the all-electric Lagonda sub-brand has been delayed until some time after 2025.

The Rapide E was first announced back in 2015. After setbacks it was announced that 155 Rapide E's would be available by 2019. However, earlier this month a report claimed that the company had decided to turn the car into a research project.

Aston Martin accepted Stroll's offer over that of Chinese auto group Geely

The Financial Times claimed that the Geeley offer would actually have accelerated the production of EVs as Geeley has developed EV technology with Volvo that Geeley had bought in 2010. Nevertheless Palmer insisted that he was a great advocate of electric cars and it committed to them going forward. However, at present, he seems to be concentrating on gas models. However, he said he was also focusing on the company's V6 hybrid engine for now.

Palmer noted that the electric vehicle market was developing slowly: “You also have to remember that none of our competitors, bar Porsche, will have an electric car on sale before 2025. So we are on a pretty similar timeline to them, and at the vanguard of the luxury market still."

Aston Martin needs to improve financial results

Aston Martin has been around for over a hundred years. In that time it has faced bankruptcy seven times. One again it is fighting for near-term survival. CEO Palmer said that auto manufacturing was a tough industry that he had been in for 40 years. He claimed to be good at bringing innovations to market with success. 2019 he said was a bad year but that his job now was to navigate that and he believed with the new emergency funding he had what he needed to do so

Previously published in the Digital Journal

Former US Air Force psychologist questioned about his role in Guantanamo interrogation

(January 30) Former Air Force psychologist Dr. James Mitchell was pressed by lawyers representing alleged plotters of the 9/11 terrorist attacks as to his major part of helping the CIA's rendition, detention, and interrogation program.

The Guantanamo interrogation program

Mitchell's company was paid more than $80 million for its portion of the program. The program involved at least 119 detainees who were held in agency black sites following the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.

Black sites and enhanced interrogation

Enhanced interrogation techniques are a euphemism for the techniques used at black sites such as Guantanamo Bay to questions detainees. Black sites were secret facilities often controlled by the CIA used by the US government to detain terror suspects. The detainees were often subject to torture and mistreatment. Then US president George W Bush confirmed the existence of the sites in a speech on Sept. 6, 2006. The sites included Bagram, Gitmo, and Abu Ghraib.

Methods used included beating, binding in stress positions, hooding, deafening noise, sleep and food deprivation and withholding of medical treatment. As well there was waterboarding, sexual humiliation, subjection to extreme heat and cold and confinement in small boxes.

US and European officials have claimed that "enhanced interrogation" was a euphemism for torture. Those officials include former CIA director Leon Panetta, a Guantanamo prosecutor, and a military tribunal judge. Both former president Obama and his Attorney General Eric Holder also said that certain techniques used amounted to torture. Although they repudiated the use of these techniques no one was prosecuted for their use.

Mitchell's role

Dr. Mitchell was first hired in April of 2002 as a short term contractor to consult on the interrogation of an Al Qaeda agent Abu Zubaydah. However, by June of the same year, the CIA asked him to help design as well as operate their interrogation program. He and partner Dr. Bruce Jessen then became two of three official CIA waterboarders. Mitchell was paid over $1.4 million and Jessen over $1.2 million from the period 2002 to 2005. The two formed the company Mtchell Jessen Associates that earned $81 million for its work for the US government.

The two also had an agreement that protected them from legal liability for their actions. The US government paid out a million dollars in 2014 and another undisclosed amount in 2017 to representatives of 3 former inmates through a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

Mitchell who is now 68 insisted that the techniques he used which were derived through retro-engineering material from the military's Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape Program (SERE) were approved by the president, justified by Justice Dept. legal memos, and given the green light by the CIA. However, as noted many critics considered the techniques forms of torture. Dr. Mitchell throughout his testimony condemned those who mistreated detainees whom he claimed were CIA officers operating outside his guidelines. He said there were FBI agents at Guantanamo doing similar work to him.

Obama drops contract with Mitchell and Jessen

Mitchell notes that the company year-to-year contract was dropped upon the election of Barack Obama. He said: "They were being pressured by the White House and the Senate, and for the convenience of the government, they said that they were going to cancel our contract. It was canceled after we’d been told it had been renewed.”

Many thought the waterboarding and other enhanced interrogation techniques were not effective. The Democratic-led Senate Intelligence Committee concluded in 2014 that the enhanced techniques were not either a safe nor effective means of collecting intelligence. However, Republican members and some former CIA directors responded that they had no doubt that the program saved lives and was effective in weakening AL Qaeda. Obama banned the use of the techniques with an executive order in 2009 and in 2015 a law further limited methods of interrogation. However, Guantanamo is still open despite Obama's promise to close it and much international condemnation of the facility. In January of 2018 US President Trump issued an executive order that will keep the facility open indefinitely. As of May 2018 there were just 40 inmates left at the facility.

Previously published in the Digital Journal