White Power USA

Is the US heading toward a future of racial tolerance or racially-motivated violence?

Almost a year ago the inauguration of President Barack Obama was hailed as a turning point in US race relations. The country was said to be entering a new era of post-racial politics, on the path to a future of greater diversity and tolerance. But while crowds flocked to Washington to witness the swearing in, others were refusing to join the party. Racially motivated threats against Obama rose to new heights in the first months of his presidency, with the US seeing nine high-profile race killings in 2009. Meanwhile white supremacist and neo-Nazi groups claim their membership is growing and that visits to their websites are increasing. Filmmakers Rick Rowley and Jacquie Soohen went inside the white nationalist movement to investigate. (Al Jazeera)

Disappointment all around

• US 'disappointed' as settlement building ban ends
• UN "disappointed" at Israeli settlement activity
• US joins condemnation of renewed settlement building
• U.S. 'disappointed' by Israeli decision to end settlement freeze
• World leaders criticize Israel for refusing to extend West Bank construction moratorium

Timing is everything

"Iran is the only party to the NPT that cannot demonstrate the peaceful intentions of its nuclear program, and those actions have consequences. Through U.N. Security Council Resolution 1929, we made it clear that international law is not an empty promise." - U.S. President Barack Obama

North Korea: Backed out of the NPT in 2003. Tested a nuclear weapon. World powers have limited influence over North Korea’s actions. Still in a state of war with its neighbour.

India: Never signed the NPT. Probably never will. Doesn’t need to sign because Pres. Bush and the U.S. Government agreed to a nuclear assistance package for India even though they tested a nuclear weapon. Still in a state of war with its neighbour.

Pakistan: Never signed the NPT. Probably never will. Tested a nuclear weapon. Billions of dollars in military aid over the last decade. The Pakistani secret service (ISI) is alleged to be aiding the Taliban and al-Qaeda. Still in a state of war with its neighbour.

Israel: Never signed the NPT. Probably never will. Billions of dollars in annual military aid. Still in a state of war with its neighbours. 

It is important to note that Iran is a signatory to the NPT and their (declared) nuclear facilities are under the supervision of the IAEA. The other three countries don’t have the problem of having to prove anything to the IAEA because they simply don’t allow the IAEA to poke around at all. Want proof? Here’s an excerpt from a Sept. 20, 2010 statement issued  by the IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano:

Turning to the safeguards issues on the agenda of this General Conference, the nuclear programme of the Democratic People´s Republic of Korea remains a matter of serious concern. The Agency has had no inspectors in the country since April last year, and I therefore have nothing to report on any activities of the IAEA in relation to the DPRK. The DPRK has not permitted the Agency to implement safeguards in the country since December 2002 and it has not implemented the relevant measures called for in Security Council resolutions 1718 and 1874. I again call on all parties concerned to make concerted efforts for a resumption of the Six-Party Talks at an appropriate time. (My emphasis)

This idea of waiting for 'an appropriate time' is significant because today the annual meeting of the IAEA voted down a proposal calling for Israel to accede to the NPT. The reasoning here being that passing the proposal at this time would derail the peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians and kill a conference on a nuclear-free Middle East planned for 2012.


So, wait, lemme get this straight: The countries with nukes (the P5 + the non-NPT4) get to decide when is an appropriate time for them to deal with those things that they don’t really wanna deal with. And those countries without nukes get bullied into proving that they don’t have nukes that they don’t have.

I get it now. If we allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, then we’ll have to let Iran get away with all of the things that the rest of us get away with right now.

Riz Khan - Sept. 22, 2010

An interview with Rwandan foreign minister, Louise Mushikiwabo, about the new UN allegations of genocide at the hands of Rwandan forces, followed by an interview with Russell Simmons on the Ground Zero Mosque debate.

Facts on the Ground - now in your pocket

Americans for Peace Now have released a new app for iPhone and iPad that allows users to track settlement activity in the West Bank. Read about it here and download it here from iTunes.

“This new app shows the unfiltered realities that settlements create on the ground of the West Bank. While people are entitled to their opinions on this divisive issue, there is only one set of facts, and our app makes these facts available in unprecedented clarity and detail,” said Debra DeLee, APN’s President and CEO. (Haaretz)

According to Canada, there was no Gaza War

I caught an interview on the CBC this morning with Peter Kent, Minister of State of Foreign Affairs for the Americas. He was asked to comment on the latest round of peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians that had taken place in Washington this week.

When asked about Canada’s more blindly supportive role of Israel under the leadership of Prime Stephen Harper, Kent replied, “Our policy in the Middle East is completely balanced. There is no moral equivalency between terror and democracy”, sounding a lot like the hasbara talking points that I alluded to in a previous post. As a matter of fact, phrases like this actually sound more like the official talking points of the Conservative government of which Minister Kent is a part.

Minister Kent explains this in a November 2009 interview with Steve Paikin:

PK: One of the strengths of our government and one of the shortcomings of the opposition parties is that we make sure everyone knows what our government’s position is.  We make sure we speak to issues with a united voice. 

SP: So that’s why you, and the prime minister, and other ministers all end up using the exact same quotes when you answer questions?

PK: Yes. So when we’re asked about the Israeli position on settlements, we never criticize Israel publicly. We say those settlements are “unhelpful” in finding a comprehensive peace settlement.

This type of careful, diplomatic language is the norm between states. But we must remember that Peter Kent is a highly respected journalist who has worked as a newsmaker in a variety of capacities for the past four decades. As a former anchor, he is a trusted name and face for many Canadians.

So when Minister Kent refers to the 2008 Gaza War as “the Gaza Incursion” as he did several times this morning, his ability to sanitize the language of the conflict can have a dangerous effect on the way crimes against humanity committed during that war are understood by viewers. An incursion doesn’t bring to mind any of the willful destruction that was the Gaza War and there is no mention of the condemnation of Israeli military actions that came from the international community and human rights organizations, including the UN-sponsored Goldstone Report. (download link included below)


If Minister Peter Kent describes the Gaza War as an "incursion" and we've also been told that the Conservative government always "speaks to issues with a united voice", then we can infer that this is the official position of the current Canadian government. According to the Canadian government, there was no Gaza war.

• Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict