“Sri Lanka has been a friend and democratic partner of the United States since gaining independence in 1948 and has supported U.S. military operations overseas such as during the first Gulf War. Commercial contacts go back to 1787, when New England sailors first anchored in Sri Lanka’s harbors to engage in trade. Sri Lanka is strategically located at the nexus of maritime trading routes connecting Europe and the Middle East to China and the rest of Asia. It is directly in the middle of the ‘Old World,’ where an estimated half of the world’s container ships transit the Indian Ocean. American interests in the region include securing energy resources from the Persian Gulf and maintaining the free flow of trade in the Indian Ocean.” Senate Foreign Relations Committee Report, 2009.

Most Americans are not familiar with the long history of relations that Sri Lanka and the USA have together. In fact, most—and to be fair, a good deal of the world’s population—couldn’t pinpoint the country on a map even though Sri Lanka is one of the top trade partners of the USA.

Still, some may know Sri Lanka through the name Mathangi Arulpragasam, better known as M.I.A., a globally recognized musician/singer/artist. Many will remember that science fiction giant Arthur C. Clarke (2001 Space Odyssey) made his home in Sri Lanka. Perhaps a handful will know that Sri Lanka is a Cricket powerhouse.

Others may remember the 2004 Tsunami that destroyed large portions of the Sri Lankan coastline wiping out thousands of lives and leaving many more thousands internally displaced. Some will be familiar with the Sri Lankan’s military defeat of the LTTE—Tamil Tigers—in 2009 after roughly 26 years of conflict. The victory came with a burdensome price tag: thousands killed, nearly 460,000 Tamils/noncombatants confined in holding camps/displaced, and the horrible legacy that is one million landmines that dot former warfighting zones.

So what do they do in Sri Lanka besides producing excellent tea and Cricket players? Here is the industry/services breakdown for 2009:

Sri Lanka’s natural resource base consists of limestone, graphite, mineral sands, gems and phosphate.

The agricultural sector is 12.8 percent of GDP and includes rice, tea, rubber, coconut, and spices. The service industry is 58 percent with key sectors being tourism, wholesale and retail trade, transport, telecom and financial services. The industrial sector comprises 29.2% of GDP and includes garments and leather goods, rubber products, food processing, chemicals, refined petroleum, gems and jewelry, non-metallic mineral-based products and construction.

Major exports (amounting to $7 billion US) in 2009 were garments, tea, rubber products, jewelry and gems, refined petroleum, and coconuts. The main markets for those products were the USA ($ 1.54 billion US), the United Kingdom, India and Italy.

Major suppliers to the Sri Lankan economy were India, Singapore, Hong Kong, China, Iran, Malaysia, Japan, U.K., U.A.E., Belgium, Indonesia, South Korea and the USA (totaling $9.6 billion US of which $283 million was with the USA).

USA-India-China: Sri Lanka as Geopolitical/Economic Battlespace

For US policy makers and military planners, Sri Lanka has now become a top geopolitical priority. A sense of urgency is driving the grand brains in the White House and Pentagon to figure out how “not to lose Sri Lanka.” In short, that means an answer to the question, “How can we use Sri Lanka to further US national security interests in the Indian Ocean?”

“Friendly” economic competition (and the concomitant struggle for resources, markets, jobs) between the USA and China/India will inevitably move to military conflict at some future date. Why? There simply are not enough energy stores in the world to meet the needs of the three nations which, combined, make up 41 percent of the world’s population. And this excludes Indonesia and Brazil whom together make up just over 6 percent of the world’s population. The five nations make up 47 percent of the world’s population and their hunger for energy, raw materials, food, construction materials, “the better life”, is insatiable. All are pre-positioning for economic security which, of course, is an element of national security.

In State and Corporate governing circles within the five countries (USA, India, China, Indonesia, Brazil), there is a far graver threat to be dealt with: the prospect of restive populations revolting as their job prospects darken, social programs are cut, income inequality increases, and health/pension benefits become more restricted, even eliminated. Meanwhile, up above, the losing classes watch as their nation’s stock exchanges operate as though it’s business-as-usual. In this volatile environment, internal mass dissent/boycotts are, arguably, the number one threat to each nation’s security.

So where does Sri Lanka fit in?

“Indian threat perceptions have grown as China has become more active in South Asia. Sri Lanka is no exception,” said Maria Kuusisto of Eurasia Group in an interview with Kari Lispschutz of World Politics Review. “Chinese investment has expanded rapidly, including the strategically situated commercial deep-sea port in Hambantota — which is [Sri Lankan] President Mahendra “Mahinda” Rajapaksa’s home constituency — and the two-phase coal power plant in Norochcholai. During the civil war in Sri Lanka, Beijing provided unconditional diplomatic, economic and military support to the Sri Lankan government, winning significant goodwill in Colombo. And China is now offering to provide financing and technical expertise to the Sri Lankan government, which is pursuing an aggressive, multi-million dollar reconstruction program. New Delhi sees this Chinese maneuvering as an incursion into its historic sphere of influence, and is consequently trying to outbid the Chinese for strategically important infrastructure projects.”

While India and China solidify their relationships with Sri Lanka, the USA/West has had a muddled foreign policy that seems to always be fixated—no matter the region–on Iran and China. Writing in Future Directions International, Sergei DeSilva-Ranasinghe indicated that the European Union used the war crimes card following the defeat of the LTTE simply to punish Sri Lanka for its trade relations with Iran and China, not out of any great concern for human rights.

“Following the LTTE defeat in May, the EU sought to pursue a motion against Sri Lanka for war crimes investigations at the UN Human Rights Council, which collapsed when 29 countries of the 47-member council voted in solidarity with Sri Lanka. India itself came out strongly in support of Sri Lanka at the Council and later even criticized the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. Commenting on Sri Lanka’s diplomatic feat, Sri Lankan Ambassador to the United Nations, Dayan Jayatillaka, said: ‘This is not a lesson that Sri Lanka taught the West. It is a victory of the developing countries and the global south. It was not a defeat of the Tiger Diaspora alone.

It was the defeat of a powerful bloc of forces. Geneva was a miniature diplomatic Dien Bien Phu or Bay of Pigs for the EU. The unfolding events earlier this year underscored the fact that Sri Lanka’s confrontation with the West, which has seen relations plummet to their lowest point since the 1970s, has had less to do with human rights and more to do with a fierce geopolitical struggle for influence. There is little doubt that Sri Lanka’s move to broaden relations with China and Iran, its rejection of Western demands in its internal affairs, the timing of its victory over the LTTE, and its acceptance in June 2009 as a Dialogue Partner to the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) were crucial in influencing the West’s attempts to take punitive action against Sri Lanka — moves which served to further strengthen Sri Lanka’s relations with China.”

Senate Foreign Relations Report 2009: The Americans Are Coming! The Americans Are Coming!

The Sri Lanka Foundation (SLF) reports that former Sri Lankan military commander Sarath Fonseka was favored by the USA to win the Sri Lankan presidential election in 2010 over rival and current president Mahendra Rajapaksa. Fonseka was apparently awarded permanent residency in the USA, according to the SLF, and spent too much time hanging around Washington, DC during the LTTE conflict.

Fonseka is now charged with Criminal Breach of Trust by the Sri Lankan government under Sri Lanka’s Property Act.

Many Sri Lankans here in the USA and in Sri Lanka itself see Fonseka as a tool of the US government and Western interests. Others, of course, don’t.

The SLF derides the Senate Foreign Relations Report of 2009 (see link above, also known as The Kerry Report) as being the product of a dumbfounded US foreign/military policy establishment that was shocked when the Sri Lankan military defeated its LTTE nemesis. Their criticisms of US foreign policy practices (subterfuge, spreading money around via NGO’s, fanning the flames of class conflict) are certainly not without ample historical precedent.

The SLF views the purpose of the Kerry Report as this: “Their mission: to make recommendations to prevent further erosion of US security interests in the island and increase US leverage in Sri Lanka for securing longer term US strategic interests and expanding the number of tools available at Washington’s disposal.”

No problem there, that’s what the large nations do.

But then it gets very interesting. SLF goes on to say, “If the LTTE had succeeded, the US would have gained control of two thirds of Sri Lanka coastline, enabling them to secure Persian Gulf energy resources to Japan, interfere if and when the need arose, with the flow of these same resources to China, selectively interfere with free trade in the Indian Ocean, and undermine stability in India by provoking Tamil and Hindu sentiments in Tamil Nadu…To make matters worse, not only did President Rajapaksa destroy the cornerstone of US policy in the region [by defeat of the LTTE], but he was, as The Kerry Report identified, responsible for the country’s drift towards China (and the non-Western world), considered one of the biggest challengers to US hegemony of the world. All this threatens US national security interests, and President Rajapaksa is considered a threat to US National Security. US policy, the report states, has to be re-charted. A regime change is considered imperative: Rajapaksa must go.

The battle lines were drawn for January 26, 2010. The battle was not between Rajapaksa and Fonseka, but between Sri Lanka and the US. On May 18, 2009, Sri Lanka won a historic proxy war on the banks of the Nanthikadal lagoon, defeating the scourge of terrorism [LTTE] and the threat of neocolonialism. Election day was crucial – Sri Lankans had to defeat the neocolonialist if they were to protect their victory at Nanthikadal.

The sovereignty of Sri Lanka is being challenged and is at stake…

With that in mind, it’s no wonder that Sri Lankan Ambassador Tamara Kunanayakam (Cuba and Venezuela) urged Sri Lankans to study Latin American and USA relations. Writing in Why Latin America is Important for Sri Lanka she states,

“Whereas the economic performance of China and India impress most observers in Sri Lanka and much of our efforts are focused on warding off attacks from our former colonial masters and their allies who continue to have a stake in this country, we have failed to grasp the significance of the history that is being written in Latin America. Sri Lanka cannot remain indifferent to this evolution. The quality of its international relations cannot be appreciated through the narrow vision of those who judge its good health solely through the state of relations with Western powers. Sri Lankan foreign policy must take into account the reality of a world that is changing and Latin America as constituting an important factor in that change.”

Become the Switzerland of the Indian Ocean

How can Sri Lanka—with 21 million people, just .3 percent of the global populace—rebuild and reunite its tattered country after 26 years of war and a Tsunmai, while at the same time avoid Faustian economic and military bargains with the world’s giant nation-states? Can its leaders avoid the lure of bribes (in any form), the sweetheart deals that will inevitably be forthcoming, and the trappings of power?

Can the Sri Lankan people calm the ethnic turbulence between (Sinhalese, Tamil and Muslim) that has plagued it and develop a common national consciousness/identity?

Can Sri Lanka avoid getting tangled in the competition between the world’s largest nations that will only escalate in the future?

DeSilva-Ranasinghe made this observation. “So far, at least, Sri Lanka appears to have successfully balanced the competing interests of India and China.” He cited the commentary of a former Sri Lankan diplomat named Jayantha Dhanapala on the delicate balancing act.

“There are elements in America and India who would like to raise the China bogey…This is not a zero sum game where our relationship with China is at the expense of our relationship with India. We cleverly balanced the relationship.”

How long that relationship can be balanced remains to be seen.

As they rebuild their country and amend their constitution, they would do well to look to Switzerland as an example of a neutral—even sane—nation state. Their survival may depend on it.

With the USA shifting focus and resources to the Indian Ocean, they’d best move quickly and warily.

••••••• ••••••• ••••••• ••••••• •••••••

“Round Up the Usual War Criminals!” — Alexander Cockburn, CounterPunch, (May 8-10, 2009, pertaining to the CounterPunch reports on “When NATO Killed Journalists.”)

Extract:

Ten years ago NATO and its battle-commander Wesley Clark deliberately murdered 16 journalists and kindred media workers, who had the courage and the misfortune to be working at Radio Television Serbia (RTS). At 2.06 am local a bomb launched from the NATO plane slammed into the building – news desks, studios, and the makeup room – in downtown Belgrade. Most of the victims were young people – a makeup artist, technicians and production personnel.

It was an obvious war crime, even though Amnesty International prudently waited an entire decade – until this last April – to issue a report saying so. Amnesty now issues a call for NATO to be held accountable for the lives of those killed at RTS: “the bombing of the headquarters of Serbian state radio and television was a deliberate attack on a civilian object and as such constitutes a war crime”.

In the new issue of our CounterPunch newsletter Tiphaine Dickson lays out the outrageous saga of how the Western powers dealt with this atrocity, by sponsoring a kangaroo court in Belgrade which sentencedto a lengthy term one of the targets of the bomb! This was the director of RTS , Dragoljub Milanovic,. He drew nine and a half years in prison for reckless endangerment of his staff! Newspapers like the New York Times raised not a word of protest at NATO’s claim that RTS deserved to be bombed.

Dickson, a defense attorney specialized in international criminal law, recently visited Milanovic in prison, and discovered he is eligible for parole but his persecutors are trying to lock him away for a further term. In her riveting story she gives close attention to the murky role of CNN and of Eason Jordan, then chief news executive of CNN international and later – by a satisfactory irony, fired by CNN for alleging that the US military was deliberately targeting journalists in Iraq.

••••••• ••••••• ••••••• ••••••• •••••••

“Rolling Out the Product Again — A Full-Court Press for Pakistan War,” Chris Floyd, CounterPunch, May 7, 2009.

A great piece from Chris Floyd (whose blog is Empire Burlesque), dissecting The New York Times, McClatchy Newspapers, and a bevy of unnamed Washington “experts” who are labouring at creating Pakistan into a new Temple of Doom so as to inevitably justify further American intervention in a regional conflict already widened, Americanized, and militarized by current American intervention:

This week brings yet another bumper crop of panic buttons and alarm bells from the powers-that-be, with ever-increasing emphasis on the “Taliban kooks with Muslim nukes” theme: one more variation on the old “mushroom clouds rising in American cities” ploy that has worked like a charm for our militarists lo these 60 years or more.

Some of the war-pushing powers-that-be are public figures in the Obama Administration (including Obama himself, who has dutifully taken on the Bushian mantle of Fearmonger-in-Chief), and some of them are shadowy, unnamed eminences in the military-security apparat….

….It seems the Times has discovered an unusually loquacious “Pakistani logistics tactician” who for some reason has spent the last six months spilling the beans on the Taliban’s strategy to the leading newspaper of the American establishment. The anonymous 28-year-old guy from somewhere in Pakistan’s tribal lands told a harrowing tale of the “workings and ambitions of the Taliban” as they prepare to defeat Obama’s Afghan surge from their safe havens in Pakistan, then seize Islamabad’s nuclear arsenal.

What’s more, the “logistics tactician” has provided his American enemies with a ready-made, pre-positioned “justification” for the mass civilian slaughter that will inevitably accompany Obama’s surge:

“He acknowledged that the Americans would have far superior forces and power this year, but was confident that the Taliban could turn this advantage on its head. ‘The Americans cannot take control of the villages,’ he said. ‘In order to expel us they will have to resort to aerial bombing, and then they will have more civilian casualties.’”

This is of course the precise “reason” trotted out every time American-led occupation forces kill a group of civilians in Afghanistan: the Taliban made us do it. This happened just yesterday, in the village of Gerani, where village leaders tried to shield children, women and elderly men in housing compounds far away from fighting between Taliban forces and Afghan troops with American “advisors.”…

….But now the great and good can turn from this disturbing story to the convenient divulgings of the unnamed 28-year-old guy from an unnamed place in Pakistan, and see that such slaughters are all just part of the Taliban’s fiendish plan. In fact, he provides grist for the PR mill of the great imperial blood libel of them all: There no “civilians.”

“The tactician says he embeds his men in what he described as friendly Afghan villages, where they will spend the next four to six months with the residents, who provide the weapons and succor for the missions against American and NATO soldiers.”

There, you see? Every villager is a two-faced sneak, working to kill Americans. If they die — then they deserve it. Boy, that makes the prunes and Post Toasties a little easier to digest, doesn’t it!

••••••• ••••••• ••••••• ••••••• •••••••

As if to make Floyd’s point, an article from the Associated Press, “US-Afghan probe confirms civilian deaths” (May 9, 2009):

…the initial findings released Saturday appeared to blame Taliban militants who used locals as “human shields.”…

Neither the U.S. nor Afghan forces took responsibility for killing civilians in Saturday’s statement, but appeared to lay the blame on militants.

“The joint investigation team strongly condemns the brutality of the Taliban extremists deliberately targeting Afghan civilians and using them as human shields,” the statement said.

Yes, of course, the Taliban made the U.S. bomb a civilian village. Word has it that the Taliban may have also flown the planes that dropped the bombs.

••••••• ••••••• ••••••• ••••••• •••••••

NATO Troops Kill 12-Year-Old Afghan Girl — Democracy Now! May 4, 2009

In other news from Afghanistan, NATO-led troops opened fire on a civilian car Sunday killing a twelve-year-old Afghan girl. The girl and her family were driving to a wedding. Two other members of her family were injured. Meanwhile, at least twenty-five people died in Afghanistan today in a series of bomb attacks.

Perhaps imperialism’s feminists-of-convenience missed this and countless other stories of women and girls being slaughtered in Afghanistan by NATO and U.S. forces. Maybe women’s rights only matter when it’s a single woman in question: Paula Loyd.

“Concern over burns on Afghans caught in battle,” Associated Press, May 10, 2009:

Note:

“an appeal by Human Rights Watch for NATO forces to release results of an investigation into a March 14 incident in which an 8-year-old Afghan girl was burned by white phosphorus munitions in Kapisa province.”

••••••• ••••••• ••••••• ••••••• •••••••

…but it’s all good, because ultimately it is all for Christ. Onward go these Christian Soldiers in their imperial crusade against Islam, and against Afghanistan for daring to be so Afghan-like:

“Crusading in Afghanistan: Soldiers “Hunt” Afghans for Jesus,” by Steve Hynd, Rethink Afghanistan, May 4, 2009

Lieutenant-Colonel Gary Hensley:“The Special Forces guys, they hunt men, basically. We do the same things as Christians: we hunt people for Jesus. We do. We hunt them down, get the hound of heaven after them, so we get them into kingdom. Right? That’s what we do. That’s our business.”

••••••• ••••••• ••••••• ••••••• •••••••

“Conflating Afghanistan and Pakistan — Obama’s Axis of Obedience,” Paul Wolf, CounterPunch, May 8-10, 2009.

They bomb their own people! Who? Is this a story about the regime of Saddam Hussein? No? Then it must be about Darfur, right? No, it’s about America’s ally regime in Pakistan:

In the first six month’s of Zardari’s presidency, the relationship between the governments of America and Pakistan has been that of colonial power to colony. Zardari’s support of the American bombing campaign in Pakistan’s Northwest Frontier Province, and Pakistani military operations there, both resulting in disproportionate civilian casualties, have infuriated the Pakistani people and put the country on the brink of revolution. As another prominent Pakistani opposition figure, Imran Khan, has noted, “what country bombs its own people?”

••••••• ••••••• ••••••• ••••••• •••••••

“Desperation in Pakistani hospitals, refugee camps,” Associated Press, May 9, 2009.

MINGORA, Pakistan – Civilians cowered in hospital beds and trapped residents struggled to feed their children Saturday, as Pakistani warplanes pounded a Taliban-held valley in what the prime minister called a “war of the country’s survival.”…

••••••• ••••••• ••••••• ••••••• •••••••

“Rights group: Sri Lanka shelling hospitals,” Associated Press, May 9, 2009

COLOMBO, Sri Lanka – Human Rights Watch on Saturday accused Sri Lankan forces of repeatedly striking hospitals in the northern war zone with indiscriminate artillery and aerial attacks that have killed scores of people, a charge the military denied.

The New York-based group claimed military commanders responsible for ordering or conducting such attacks “may be prosecuted for war crimes.”

The accusation came amid growing international concern for an estimated 50,000 civilians caught in the fighting between government forces and the separatist Tamil Tigers….

The response from Washington?

“The world must respond to Sri Lanka,” by Suren Surendiran, The Guardian, 28 April 2009

What is important here is that the US, UK and EU are allies of Sri Lanka and have strongly backed the military campaign against the Tamil Tigers, while holding out hope – and it was nothing but misguided hope – that Colombo would put forward a political solution to the decades-long Tamil question.

Now, despite the “never again” rhetoric that appeared in the wake of the ethnic cleansing in the Balkans and the genocide in Rwanda and Darfur, the UK and like-minded states are, by their lacklustre response, emboldening Sri Lanka’s defiance of international norms and its wholesale killing of Tamil civilians.

This human catastrophe is happening on Brown’s, Sarkozy’s, Ban Ki Moon’s and Obama’s watch.

••••••• ••••••• ••••••• ••••••• •••••••

A witch hunt gathers to ban another anti-Semitic Jewish critic of Israeli war crimes:

Clearly enraged that a professor should have his own point of view to present to his class, outside of class time, outraged that he should do so without seeking approval of its relevance from the Israel lobby first, loud braying is to be heard from StandWithUs. For our convenience, it provides talking points to be memorized and recycled by those chasing Robinson. Their first refutation of Robinson’s critique reads as follows:

The e-mail did not simply condemn Israel’s war against Hamas. It equated Nazi atrocities with Israel’s military action. It was also an attack on the founding of Israel and, by selective use of facts, on the history of Israel’s foreign policy. He wrote, “It should be no surprise that a state founded on the negation of a people was one of the principal backers of the apartheid South African state not to mention of the Latin American military dictatorships until those regimes collapsed under mass protest, and today arms, trains, and advises military and paramilitary forces in Colombia, one of the world’s worst human rights violators.”

Are they trying to make Robinson’s case for him, by simply restating his point without challenge?

“It should be no surprise that a state founded on the negation of a people was one of the principal backers of the apartheid South African state not to mention of the Latin American military dictatorships” — it should be no surprise, if anyone has followed news over the past couple of decades, because there is an over abundance of data to support Robinson. Here is the tiniest sample:

ISRAELIS REASSESS SUPPLYING ARMS TO SOUTH AFRICA
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN, Special to the New York Times
Published: Thursday, January 29, 1987

The exact nature of Israel’s military relationship with South Africa is a well-kept secret. But military officials say it is extensive enough to involve hundreds, if not thousands, of jobs in Israeli military industries and several hundred million dollars in earnings. With unemployment in Israel on the rise, particularly in military and high-tech industries, longterm arm sales are prized by Israel today.

According to press reports, Israel in the last 15 years has sold South Africa a variety of military equipment, including light weapons and communications gear and, more important, technology-data packages containing the designs for several major Israeli weapons systems, which were subsequently assembled by South Africa’s own military industry. These reportedly include the Saar-class missile boats, the Gabriel sea-to-sea missile and avionics electronic countermeasures for South Africa’s new Cheetah fighter-bomber.

In addition, American military sources say Israel recently helped South Africa develop a KC-135-type surveillance aircraft and air-to- air refueling abilities for the South African Air Force. Israel and South Africa are also rumored to have cooperated in developing nuclear weapons technology, although this has been denied by both nations.

And when it was still politically correct to question, this prescient note at the end of the article, based on statements by Israelis themselves:

The Israeli advocates of taking a public stand against South Africa also argue that in ”realpolitik” terms Israel, by maintaining the ties with Pretoria, is going against the tide of history and one day will pay for it.

Let’s just ignore that, and pile on top of Prof. Robinson in the latest gang bang against the truth. The rest might be interested in reading these instead:

“Israeli Arms for Sale,” TIME, 28 March, 1983.

Or,

Helping to raze indigenous villages in Guatemala: (Jane Hunter, “Israeli arms sales to Central America: An Overview,” Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, January 1987, pages 4-5)

In Guatemala, Israel also provided military, counterinsurgency, and intelligence advisers for what has been called a genocidal war against the largely Mayan Indian population of the country’s northwestern highlands. The Israeli firm Tadiran installed two intelligence computers, one of which reportedly was used to select death squad victims and, by monitoring utility usage, pinpoint urban guerrilla safe houses. Israel is now advising the Guatemalan military, many of whom go on scholarships to Israel, on a forced resettlement scheme in the rural highlands. Tadiran has funded an electronics school for the army, and Israel has helped it set up a factory to manufacture ammunition and replacement parts for its Israeli rifles….Israel started selling weapons to Guatemala in 1974, beginning with the Arava aircraft, followed by “RBY armored personnel carriers, patrol boats, light cannons, grenade launchers, machine guns, and 15,000 Galil assault rifles,” Hunter continues. “… The aspect of Israeli cooperation with Guatemala which has the most serious implications is the role played by Israeli personnel in the universally condemned rural pacification program.” In 1982, Israel military advisors had helped develop and conduct the devastating scorched-earth policy that General Rios Montt unleashed on the highland Maya population (source).

••••••• ••••••• ••••••• ••••••• •••••••

Posted in COLONIALISM/IMPERIALISM, EUROCENTRISM & UNIVERSALISM, HEGEMONY Tagged: afghanistan, apartheid, Asif Ali Zardari, Guatemala, Imran Khan, Israel, Karzai, NATO, obama, Pakistan, serbia, South Africa, sri lanka, StandWithUs, UCSB, war crime, war criminals, William I. Robinson ]]> http://zeroanthropology.net/2009/05/09/the-war-criminals-roundup-serbia-afghanistan-pakistan-sri-lanka-and-israel/feed/ 6 maxforte