David Swanson: Nobel Peace Prize in Toilet – Pressure Mounts to Rescind Obama Award and Clean Up the Entire Process

Ethics, Peace Intelligence
David Swanson

Petition: Investigate Betrayal of the Nobel Peace Prize

Dear Members of Stockholm's County Administrative Board:

The signers of this petition include an array of peace groups and peace activists based in the United States.   The undersigned wish to endorse and support the investigation that Stockholm’s County Administrative Board has reportedly begun based on it supervisory role over the Nobel Foundation and information received from Norwegian peace researcher/author Fredrik Heffermehl.  We understand your Board has formally asked the Nobel Foundation to respond to allegations that the peace prize no longer reflects Nobel's will that the purpose of the prize was to diminish the role of military power in international relations.  According to Heffermehl, “Nobel called it a prize for the champions of peace,…and it's indisputable that (Nobel) had in mind the peace movement, the movement which is actively pursuing a new global order … where nations safely can drop national armaments.”

The undersigned non-profit peace organizations and activists base their endorsement of your inquiry on the following facts:

Read full article.

What's the Matter With Norway?

The beautiful thing about the internet is that whenever you write an essay on a topic you imagine is new, some wonderful person contacts you within about an hour who's written a whole book about it.  This is different from writing a book about something new (or old) like the Kellogg-Briand Pact (everybody still thinks it must be a breakfast cereal).

Fredrik Heffermehl's book “The Nobel Peace Prize: What Nobel Really Wanted,” is a wonderful thing to discover.  I understand if you just can't stomach discovering that Norway and the committee that hands out the peace prizes have become as corrupted as a Congressman.  But if awardees like George Marshall, Henry Kissinger, Yasser Arafat, and Barack Obama already had you scratching your head a little bit, you may appreciate learning the details of where the prize bestowers ran off the rails and how they might manage to climb back aboard the peace train.

Alfred Nobel left behind a legally binding will that required giving a prize to “the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.”  Like the Carnegie Endowment for Peace, the Nobel Committee has largely abandoned its original mission.

. . . . . .

Heffermehl argues persuasively that no Nobel prize for peace has been awarded with appropriate justification since 2001.  In fact, in his analysis, 50 of the 120 prizes given between 1901 and 2009 were not justified.  Heffermehl bases that judgment primarily on the case made for each laureate by the committee awarding the prize.  Were he to examine the laureates and those passed over, the number of unjustified prizes might increase.

Heffermehl also looks at the justification for the prizes awarded under each of the 12 committee chairs and six committee secretaries that have ever held those posts.  The two chairs who have served since 2003 receive far and away the worst scores, while the two who served up through 1941 score dramatically better than the others.  Similarly, the two secretaries who held that position up through 1945 receive high marks, while the one, Geir Lundestad, who has been Secretary since 1990 has, in Heffermehl's scoring, performed miserably.

Read rest of article.

Event: 16-18 / 19-21 April London Executive Leadership in Peacebuilding, International Development, Human Rights

Peace Intelligence

Are you working in peacebuilding, international development or human rights?

Would you like to improve the strategic impact, quality and effectiveness of your operations?

Would you like to ensure effective monitoring and evaluation for your projects?

World renowned expert Kai Brand Jacobsen will be in London this April to run two programmes for practitioners working in peacebuilding, international development, violence prevention, human rights and related fields.

The details of the programme can be found on the following links, together with information on Kai.

1. Improving Strategic Impact, Quality and Effectiveness in Peacebuilding & Peace Support Operations 

Executive Leadership Programme 

16th – 18th of April, 2012, London, UK

Fee: GBP 495 (includes course fee, preparation materials, certification)

Special discount: Early Payment, Multiple Participants, Two Courses Taken Together

Improving Strategic Impact is a three-day Executive Leadership Programme (ELP) designed for senior practitioners, peacebuilding experts, and heads of agencies working in peacebuilding and peace support operations.

This includes:

crisis management; violence prevention; mediation, peacemaking and peace processes during armed conflict; peacebuilding and development; post-war recovery and reconciliation; and demobilization, disarmament and reintegration programmes.

The course draws on best practices in programme and strategic planning and design. It is a highly practical, hands-on training to help organisations, agencies and governments improve the quality, impact and effectiveness of their programmes and operations.

2. Designing & Implementing Effective Monitoring and Evaluation for Peacebuilding and Conflict Transformation Programmes, UN Missions & Post-War Recovery & Rebuilding

Executive Leadership Programme

19th – 21st of April, 2012, London, UK

Fee: GBP 495 (includes course fee, preparation materials, certification)

Special discount: Early Payment, Multiple Participants, Two Courses Taken Together

This is a three-day Executive Leadership Programme designed for senior practitioners, monitoring & evaluation units, field staff, and heads of agencies working in peacebuilding and peace support operations. This includes:

crisis management; violence prevention; mediation, peacemaking and peace processes during armed conflict; peacebuilding and development; post-war recovery and reconciliation; UN missions; and demobilization, disarmament and reintegration programmes

The programme has been designed to assist organisations, agencies and missions in the field to see how to develop appropriate monitoring & evaluation systems and processes customized for their exact needs and contexts.

Kai Frithjof Brand-Jacobsen

Director, Department of Peace Operations – PATRIR

Kai Frithjof Brand-Jacobsen is an international expert in strategic planning, mediation and peace processes, violence prevention, infrastructure for peace (I4P) and post-war stabilisation and recovery. Kai consults widely for governments, foreign ministries, and international and national organisations. He works as an advisor to several governments and international and national agencies, including the OSCE, the Commonwealth Secretariat, and the UK All-Party Parliamentary Group on Conflict Issues. He is a co-founder and President of the Peace Action, Training and Research Institute of Romania (PATRIR).

Further information and links:

Kai Brand Jacobsen

Kai's TED talk

PATRIR wins World Vision International Peace Prize.

Tip of the Hat to Berto Jongman.

Penguin: Mercenary Armies – What Does This Mean?

Commerce, Corruption, Government, Military, Peace Intelligence
Who, Me?

This appears to be another piece of the larger trend toward the complete failure of all governments — the most sophisticated governments have now become the most inept and the most corrupt (in the holistic sense of the term).  This does not bode well for humanity.

A Look At The World's Most Powerful Mercenary Armies

Security giant G4S is the second-largest private employer on earth

BusinessInsider, 26 February 2012
With more than 625,000 employees, this listed security giant is the second-largest private employer in the world(behind Wal-Mart). While some of its business is focused on routine bank, prison and airport security, G4S also plays an important role in crisis-zones right around the world.In 2008, G4S swallowed up Armorgroup, whose 9,000-strong army of guards has protected about one third of all non-military supply convoys in Iraq (it's also notorious for its wild parties and for having Afghan warlords on its payroll).

But the combined group has a security presence in more than 125 countries, including some of the most dangerous parts of Africa and Latin America, where it offers government agencies and private companies heavily-armed security forces, land-mine clearance, military intelligence and training.

Marcus Aurelius: SOF, Syria, and Pandora’s Box

02 Diplomacy, 07 Other Atrocities, 10 Security, 11 Society, Corruption, Director of National Intelligence et al (IC), DoD, Government, IO Deeds of Peace, Military, Officers Call, Peace Intelligence
Marcus Aurelius

SmallWarsJournal.com, February 17, 2012

This Week at War: The Toughest Op

By Robert Haddick

In my Foreign Policy column, I discuss whether Admiral William McRaven's request for greater operational freedom for Special Operations Command will extend to an unconventional warfare campaign in Syria.

This week, the New York Times reported on a draft proposal circulating inside the Pentagon that would permanently boost the global presence and operational autonomy of U.S. special operations forces. According to the article, Adm. William McRaven, the Navy SEAL who oversaw the raid that killed Osama bin Laden and who is now the commander of U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM), is requesting additional authority and independence outside of the normal, interagency decision-making process.

After the successful direct action strike against bin Laden and SOCOM's important role in training allied security forces in Afghanistan, the Philippines, and elsewhere, it is easy to understand how McRaven's command has become, as the New York Times put it, the Obama administration's “military tool of choice.” A larger forward presence around the world and more autonomy would provide McRaven's special operations soldiers with some of the same agility enjoyed by the irregular adversaries SOCOM is charged with hunting down.

Continue reading “Marcus Aurelius: SOF, Syria, and Pandora's Box”

Chuck Spinney: The Shadow World of the Global Arms Trade

04 Inter-State Conflict, 07 Other Atrocities, Commerce, Corruption, DoD, Government, Military, Money, Banks & Concentrated Wealth, Peace Intelligence, Power Behind-the-Scenes/Special Interests
Chuck Spinney

In my opinion, one of the most important books written in recent years on the subject of the global arms trade and its corrupting effects is Andrew Feinstein's, The Shadow World, Inside the Global Arms Trade. This voluminous book is mind numbing in its detail, but it is thoroughly sourced and, I believe, it will become a standard reference over time.  Anyone trying to understand the dark and dangerous corner of the global economy and its politics must read this book. (To be sure, I am biased because I was a minor source in this book and I consider Andrew a good friend.)

Naturally, the arms makers are not too happy with the Shadow World and want to keep it hidden in the musty stacks of your local library.  I am attaching two recent essays to help you determine if this book should be forgotten.  They were published on the Lexington Institute' Early Warning Blog.  Lexington is funded in large part by defense contractors and is hardly impartial on all matters regarding defense spending, so the first essay is quite expected; the second, however, comes as a surprise, to Lexington's credit.

The first essay is a predictable critique of Andrew's book by Robert Trice, a retired Senior Vice President of Lockheed Martin.  Think of his effort as an attempt to move Andrew's book to a forgotten corner in the back room.

To understand the saliency of Trice's effort, consider his career.  Robert Trice is a case study in  the quintessential pattern of gorging oneself on cash flow pumped out by the Military – Industrial – Congressional Complex's big green spending machine. Holding a PhD in political science, he began his defense career in the Office of the Secretary of Defense in the Pentagon, where he eventually became Director for Technology and Arms Transfer Policy — or in plain english, a resident shill in the Pentagon for promoting international arms sales — the subject painted in not so flattering terms by Feinstein.  Trice then moved to Capital Hill and worked as the defense Legislative Assistant to Senator Dale Bumpers (D-AR) for about three years. I met him in this position because Bumpers was interested in the military reform work my colleagues (Pierre Sprey and John Boyd) and I were doing in the Pentagon.  But Trice, as Bumpers' advisor, was clearly a reluctant reformer. (Although Bumpers showed initial and enthusiastic interest in our work, nothing came of it.)  In the essay below Trice now slings a little mud, saying the three of us are not just wrong but wrongly motivated, because we are “anti-defense.”  Soon thereafter, the presumably pro-defense Trice cashed out of Bumpers office to work in the Defense industry, serving first as a Vice President for Business Development at McDonnel Douglas (in plain english this is a marketing job and in the MICC, marketing, or business development, means greasing the skids in Congress and the Pentagon for your firm's tinker toys — which is a good position for a poly sci type, because he couldn't design airplanes at McAir or Lockheed).  Trice then moved to Lockheed Martin where his business development portfolio including shaping L-M's new business strategies and operations for the global market, which of course is the subject of Andrew's book.  Obviously a person with his background of bottom feeding so successfully in the MICC's money machine, especially in the international arms trade arena, comes to the reviewing table with … shall we say … a certain amount of bias.

The second essay is Andrew Feinstein's polite repost to Trice's bucket of grease.  Andrew's background could not be more different than that of Trice. Whereas Trice gorged himself and became a wealthy ‘pillar of the establishment' by slopping in America's defense trough, Andrew put his ass on the line trying to rein in the excesses of that trough's South African equivalent.  In the late 1980s, Andrew, a young white South African, joined Nelson Mandella's African National Congress (ANC), because he opposed Apartheid.  In 1994, after the fall of Apartheid, he was elected in South Africa's first democratic election to be an ANC member of parliament.  But Andrew took his parliamentary oversight responsibilities seriously, and while in parliament, he set up a kind of one man Truman Committee to investigate allegations of ANC corruption in some international weapons deals.  And he hit pay dirt, but rather than shutting up when he was pressured by party elders to close down his investigation into a £5bn arms deal that was tainted by allegations of high-level corruption, he resigned in protest from Parliament. His political memoir, After the Party: A Personal and Political Journey Inside the ANC, was published in 2007 and became a bestseller in South Africa.

With the backgrounds of these two protagonists in mind, I urge you to read Trice's critique of Andrew's latest book first (Attachment 1 below) and then Andrew's repost (Attachment 2 below) and judge for yourself who is closer to being a straight shooter — and read The Shadow World.

Whole Enchilada (Both Articles) Below the Line

Continue reading “Chuck Spinney: The Shadow World of the Global Arms Trade”

Marcus Aurelius: Special Forces Bypass Department of State?

02 Diplomacy, 10 Security, Ethics, Government, Military, Peace Intelligence
Marcus Aurelius

Do Special Ops Forces Have Too Much Autonomy?

By ANDREW ROSENTHAL

New York Times, 15 February 2012

Special Operations forces have long enjoyed an elite position in the United States military, and achieved something like folk-hero status when Navy Seals killed Osama bin Laden in Pakistan last May. The admiration is well-deserved, but an article in Monday’s Times drew attention to the power they’ve accrued of late, and raised questions about just how much independence they should have.

Carol Giacomo, who covers foreign affairs for the editorial board, says that the Obama administration has increasingly made Special Operations Forces its military tool of choice to handle threats overseas. It plans to rely on them even more widely as it draws down conventional troops from Afghanistan.

Eventually, Special Ops Forces will make up the bulk of any residual force left in Afghanistan, hunting down militants and helping train Afghan security forces. Administration and military officials are also talking about using them in regions where they have not operated in large numbers for the past decade, including Asia (the Philippines, specifically), Africa and Latin America.

The article on the front page of Monday’s Times reported that the top Special Operations officer, Adm. William H. McRaven, is now seeking authority to move his forces faster and outside of normal Pentagon deployment channels. The proposal has not been fully explained publicly but The Times reported that it would give him more autonomy to position his forces and their equipment where intelligence and global events indicate they are most needed.

Among congressional, staff—who have not yet been briefed on the proposal—there are questions about how such new authority might affect operations. “What problem are they trying to solve?” one aide asked. A Pentagon official, who spoke on background, insisted that Admiral McRaven “is not trying to fix something that’s broken. The proposal is anticipating what the future will be for these guys and getting ahead of it.”

The Pentagon official stressed that Admiral McRaven “is not looking for complete autonomy unanswerable to anybody” and that Special Operations Forces would still be ordered on specific missions by the regional four-star commander. But one concern is that the new plan would cut out the State Department. In the past, some ambassadors in crisis zones have opposed increased deployments of Special Operations teams, and they have demanded assurances that diplomatic chiefs of missions will be fully involved in their plans and missions.

The “global war on terror” has been used to justify a lot of things. But not everything changed on Sept. 11, 2001. Civilian control of the military is one thing that did not change. I can’t imagine a circumstance under which it should.

Gordon Duff: Independent Report Contradicts Western Portrait of Syria

Civil Society, Corruption, Cultural Intelligence, Government, IO Deeds of War, Media, Military, Peace Intelligence
Gordon Duff

Independent Report Contradicts Western Portrait of Syria

Arab League Report Shows that Syria Has Been Mischaracterized

While the Western media act like the Syrian government is wantonly and indiscriminately killing its own people without provocation, an independent investigation has found a different reality on the ground.

Specifically, over 160 monitors from the Arab League – comprised of both allies and mortal enemies of Syria – toured Syria and published a report on January 27th showing that the situation has been mischaracterized.

Initially, the report noted general cooperation by the Syrian government:

The Mission [i.e. the Arab League investigative team] noted that the Government strived to help it succeed in its task and remove any barriers that might stand in its way. The Government also facilitated meetings with all parties. No restrictions were placed on the movement of the Mission and its ability to interview Syrian citizens, both those who opposed the Government and those loyal to it.

The report noted that the media has greatly exaggerated the amount of violence in Syria:

The Mission noted that many parties falsely reported that explosions or violence had occurred in several locations. When the observers went to those locations, they found that those reports were unfounded.

The Mission also noted that, according to its teams in the field, the media exaggerated the nature of the incidents and the number of persons killed in incidents and protests in certain towns.

***

Since it began its work, the Mission has been the target of a vicious media campaign. Some media outlets have published unfounded statements, which they attributed to the Head of the Mission. They have also grossly exaggerated events, thereby distorting the truth.

Continue reading “Gordon Duff: Independent Report Contradicts Western Portrait of Syria”

noble gold