The U.S. Government Must Stop Supporting Repressive Regimes

The political terrain is changing hourly in the Middle East, with governments responding to the peoples' uprising in different ways.  But we're seeing one constant: the U.S. at every point pushes its own interests, regardless of the status of the peoples' rights.

World Can't Wait exists to "stop the crimes of our government." So we should be vigilant.  We've pointed out Washington's deep and long support for repressive regimes across the region, including Egypt, Yemen, Jordan, Saudi Arabia & Bahrain, and also the huge amount of military and political support given to Israel by successive U.S. administrations.  In Bahrain, where the U.S. has a strategic base, Hillary Clinton weakly, and hypocritically, defended the protesters' rights (only days after witnessing prominent anti-war veteran Ray McGovern brutalized during a speech of hers in the US).  As if she and the government she has long represented was unaware of what these regimes do to their people!

In Egypt, protesters showed the lethal tear gas canisters used against them by the government - labeled "Made in the USA." These were just a small fraction of the overall budget of military aid given to Egypt by the US.

In Libya hundreds of people are being slaughtered in the streets by mercenaries.  Though Qaddafi's government has appeared more oppositional to the U.S., the U.S. reestablished full diplomatic relations with Libya, under pressure from U.S. oil companies.  Military aid followed.  But in the wake of the absolutely righteous upsurge of the people against Qaddafi's repression, will the U.S. take the opportunity to install a more compliant government to its own interests?  U.S. military intervention will do no more good in Libya than it's done elsewhere... which is to say: it will be a disaster for the people, but good for U.S. interests in holding onto strategic oil and territory.

In Pakistan, there's news of the first drone strike in a month, this one killing civilians: US Drone Strikes Kill 15 in Pakistan.

The Washington Post reported yesterday on the last years of U.S. drone bombings:

Despite a major escalation in the number of unmanned Predator strikes being carried out under the Obama administration, data from government and independent sources indicate that the number of high-ranking militants being killed as a result has either slipped or barely increased. Even more generous counts - which indicate that the CIA killed as many as 13 "high-value targets" - suggest that the drone program is hitting senior operatives only a fraction of the time.

While the CIA contends they've killed just 2 civilians, the article goes on to say:

The New America Foundation estimates that at least 607 people were killed in 2010, which would mean that a single year has accounted for nearly half of the number of deaths since 2004, when the program began. Overall, the foundation estimates that 32 of those killed could be considered "militant leaders" of al-Qaeda or the Taliban, or about 2 percent.

Glenn Greenwald looks at the CIA's role in Pakistan.  In This week in winning hearts and minds, he describes Raymond Davis, the ex-Special Forces, current CIA operative held in Pakistan for personally killing 4 Pakistanis in an incident on the street, and:

The State Department first said he worked for the consulate, not the embassy, which would make him subject to weaker immunity rights than diplomats enjoy (State now says that its original claim was a "mistake" and that Davis worked for the embassy).  President Obama then publicly demanded the release of what he absurdly called "our diplomat in Pakistan"; when he was arrested, Davis "was carrying a 9mm gun and 75 bullets, bolt cutters, a GPS unit, an infrared light, telescope, a digital camera, an air ticket, two mobile phones and a blank cheque."

There's a major diplomatic crisis over Davis between Pakistan, and competing forces within its government, and the U.S. government.  Greenwald describes the complexity for the U.S.:

There's the gross hypocrisy of the U.S. State Department invoking lofty "rule-of-law" and diplomacy principles under the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations -- the very same State Department that just got caught systematically violating that convention when WikiLeaks cables revealed that U.S. "diplomats" were ordered to spy on U.N. officials and officials in other countries.  Then there's the delusional notion -- heard mostly from progressives with romanticized images of the State Department -- that WikiLeaks' release of diplomatic cables was terrible because it's wrong to undermine "diplomacy" with leaks, since the State Department (unlike the Big, Bad Pentagon) is devoted to Good, Humane causes of facilitating peace.  As this episode illustrates, there's no separation among the various arms of the U.S. Government; they all are devoted to the same end and simply use different means to accomplish it (when the U.S. Government is devoted to war, "diplomatic" functions are used to bolster the war, as Colin Powell can tell you).

...Not in our name
will you wage endless war
there can be no more deaths
no more transfusions
of blood for oil...