If we read the article shared yesterday about these few decades of growing global private mercenary corporations and what they are known to be doing-----drug, gun, sex slaves, operating with impunity-----then we see SALMAN RUSHDIE'S THE MOOR'S LAST SIGH----main character ABRAHAM married to AURORA. Rushdie's tale is centered in INDIA the characters ---the politics ---the religious anxieties mirror what was growing in CLINTON ERA America. ABRAHAM was simply that global corporation willing to do anything to advance wealth and power for Solomon and his family.
Here in US today we have MOVING FORWARD to OPPOSITES----our NATIONAL PUBLIC MILITARY tasked with protecting US sovereignty and all 99% of WE THE PEOPLE-----and CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA privatized global mercenary corporations pledged to do anything global corporations tell them to.
This is the difference in US in who is running for local, state, or national office no matter pretending to be right wing Republican ---or left wing Democrat-----if a military candidate wins in today's rigged and fraudulent elections it is because they are tied to global military mercenary corporations and not to being retired US public military.
'10 Frightening Facts About Private Military Companies - Listverse
Private military companies are essentially armies that are controlled by no one but their shareholders and whoever pays them the most. They're not about to
listverse.com'
So, ABRAHAM in this novel mirrors today's global corporations having black market business as their major money-maker and especially tied to running guns, drugs, slaves, and those 5% freemason/Greek civil unrest civil war military junta.
'Simultaneously, Abraham's commercial empire bursts asunder when its illegal underpinnings are uncovered. In a rapid denouement, all of the main characters, except Moraes, perish in an orgy of fire bombings that level much of Bombay'.
AN ORGY OF FIRE BOOMINGS THAT LEVEL MUCH OF BOMBAY-----of course this was at the time that BOMBAY was morphing int MUMBAI------that ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE city needing BOMBAY to be leveled to make way for SMART CITY MUMBAI.
The Moor's Last Sigh
Summary & Study Guide Description
The Moor's Last Sigh Summary & Study Guide includes comprehensive information and analysis to help you understand the book. This study guide contains the following sections:
The Moor's Last Sigh tells the family history of Moraes Zogoiby, known as "the Moor." He is the last survivor of a family descended from the Portuguese explorer Vasco da Gama (ca.1469-1524), who sailed to India in search of spice and whose offspring grew rich in shipping it to the West. Among his ancestors, Moraes also numbers Boabdil (Abu 'Abd Allah Muhammad XI, ca. 1460-1527), the last Muslim king in Spain, forced in 1492 to surrender his city to Ferdinand and Isabella. The spot from which Boabdil gazed for the last time at Granada is today a tourist attraction, known as 'The Last Sigh of the Moor.' His descendents, who made their way to southern India, took, as their family name, his nickname, "Zogoiby" - "The Unfortunate." Another branch of the family descended from Black Jews who immigrated to Cochin, India, and built a synagogue in 1568. It, too, is a famous landmark, preserved to this day. Moraes concentrates on the last four generations of his ancestors, spanning the first eight decades of the twentieth century. At every point in this fictional tale, authentic history is interwoven.
We first meet Moraes at age thirty-six in Spain, breathless, on the run, and determined that his quirky family's story will not perish when he dies. He introduces first his mother, Aurora, as a young girl and offers detailed depictions of her close relatives that help us understand how she could evolve into the strong, difficult character who would destroy the one true love of her only son's life, cast him out of her home and life, and, unreconciled, suffer a tragic, accidental death. The pain of these events fills Moraes' story long before the circumstances are relayed.
As we grow familiar with Moraes' maternal relatives, "the battling da Gamas of Cochin" - great grandmother, Epifania, and her husband, Francisco, grandmother, Belle, and her husband, Camoens, great aunt, Carmen, and her husband, Aires - we experience life in late, colonial India, an era of growing change.
Moraes gives less detail about his paternal line. His father, Abraham Zogoiby, is introduced as a manager in the Gama Trading Company warehouse. Aurora falls in love with him and seduces him away from his Jewish heritage. We meet his conniving mother, Flory, and witness their split over his decision. We see Abraham taking control of the business and returning it to prosperity (in the dangerous, early days of World War II) with financial help from Flory. Her condition on the loan is that he turns his first-born son over to her, to be raised as a Jew. Agreeing to this creates a rift with Aurora, whom we follow to Bombay and great success in the worlds of art and politics, as India comes to independence in 1947. Again, historical figures - Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru - are skillfully woven into the narrative.
Only after Flory's death do Abraham and Aurora reunite, and we are introduced to their four children, Ina, Minnie, Mynah, and Moor (Aurora intended the humor in their names), and the servants who care for the prosperous Bombay household. We meet a fellow artist, Vasco Miranda, who takes up residence in the house and helps Moraes come to grips with the forces that form his personality: a malformed right hand and a rare condition that causes him to physically age at twice the rate he develops chronologically and emotionally. Doorkeeper Lambajan teaches him to box. Ayah (the title of native nursemaids in India) Jaya Hé introduces him to the city's vibrant streets. Tutor Dilly Hormuz unleashes his sexuality. A cruel critic of his mother's work, Raman Fielding, brings us into the volatile mix of religion and politics that thrive in Mother India. Sitting for his mother's Moor paintings, and listening to her chatter, helps Moraes understand her personality. Like magnets, mother and son attract and repel one another. Abraham remains, for a long while, a distant, indistinct character; it is only hinted that they will some day reconcile and Moraes will learn - and dutifully relay - the dark details of his father's business.
Finally, as the first part of the novel ends, we are introduced to the long-anticipate lover, Uma Sarasvati. She is a mysterious, contradictory figure, who utterly shatters the Zogoiby family. Aurora, alone, is never taken in by her charms. How Uma can cause such a violent rift between her and her son remains a mystery for much of the book. The reality of it, however, is that Moraes must set upon a new, independent chapter of his life.
This chapter begins in prison, following Moraes' arrest for Uma's murder and involvement in his father's black marketeering in narcotics. He is rescued by Raman "Mainduck" Fielding, who is closing in on his goal of political mastery of Bombay. Moor becomes "Hammer," as a member of Fielding's elite goon squad that terrorizes and intimidates anyone who opposes the interests of the Hindu majority. For the first time Moraes is comfortable with his deformed right hand and administers savage beatings to foes, not just obediently, but enthusiastically and with relish. We meet Hammer's colorful, sadistic colleagues: Sammy "the Tin Man" Hazaré and Chhaghgan "Five-in-a-Bite."
Following Aurora's death, "Hammer" leaves Fielding's camp, which further unravels when the beauty queen Nadia Wadia drives a wedge between commander and Hazaré. "Moor" reconnects with Abraham and allies with him to bring peace to his mother's still tormented soul. Through a private investigator, we learn that both parents have had multiple sexual partners and harbored a multitude of secrets. While these unravel, it appears that Aurora's death was not an accident. "Hammer" once more goes into action, murdering Fielding, the presumed perpetrator.
Simultaneously, Abraham's commercial empire bursts asunder when its illegal underpinnings are uncovered. In a rapid denouement, all of the main characters, except Moraes, perish in an orgy of fire bombings that level much of Bombay.
Moreas flies to Spain, to search for four of his mother's paintings that survived the conflagration. Three, he was certain, had been stolen by Vasco Miranda, the artist whom Aurora had dismissed from her household fourteen years earlier. Miranda's painting, which Aurora had mocked as commercial fluff, had earned him a vast fortune and international fame. He used his riches to construct a hideous fortress on a hillside in Benengeli. We follow him, wandering the city, taken in by half-sisters who claim to be the aging recluse's housekeepers. When they bring Moraes word that a parcel has been delivered to the fortress, he convinces them to smuggle him inside. There, he is taken prisoner and locked up in the tower with a Japanese art conservator, Aoi Ué, kidnapped to remove Miranda's pedestrian over-painting of The Moor's Last Sigh in order to reveal the original portrait of a bare-breasted, young Aurora Zogoiby. Miranda orders his new companion to record his life story in full detail, promising that, like Scheherazade, he will be allowed to live so long as his tales amused his master. When both tasks are complete, Miranda turns his gun on them. Aoi perishes, but Moor is spared when the drug-crazed, bloated gunman's heart explodes as he had long ago predicted it would. Moor flees, nailing sheets of his story to trees and fences across the countryside, coming to rest in the overgrown cemetery where we first met him, hoping he will, in death, find peace.
__________________________________________
There is lot's of ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE global banking 1% freemasonry imagery in MOOR'S LAST SIGH----but this week we are discussing MILITARY JUNTA public policy goals in MOVING FORWARD US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES----so we will simply highlight those images. This novel is a great way to see how back in 1990s Clinton era the same global 1% using the same economic, black market criminality and corruption created the dynamic of global 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS fighting for India's sovereignty.
We liked the character MR FIELDINGS or THE FROG because he represented our US CITIES global banking BALTIMORE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION seeking to control all community economy, development recruiting his following throw his CORPORATION's FAKE LABOR AND JUSTICE organizations. As well, THE FROG in India was our RELIGIOUS RIGHT here in US while he PRETENDED to be HINDI -----our US religious right PRETENDED to be Christian while ignoring every religious tenet whether HINDI or Christian. THE FROG gained his power by sending his hired THUGS to break down any REAL POPULIST organizations trying to help Bombay's 99% of citizens.
MR FROG wanting to be MAYOR OF BOMBAY was the far-right wing religious theocracy being HINDI as is MOVING FORWARD today with TRUMP/PENCE. MR FROG was not shy about reinstating India's STRONG CASTE system making sure no Bombay citizen ever left his/her CASTE.
GLOBAL BANKING 1% CANNOT HAVE A FAR-RIGHT, AUTHORITARIAN, MILITARISTIC, EXTREME WEALTH EXTREME POVERTY LIBERTARIAN MARXIST MILITARY JUNTA REGIME WITHOUT SOME NUT-CASE CLAIMING TO BE THAT FAKE RELIGIOUS THEOCRACY LEADER.
Of course, neither MR FROG nor TRUMP are religious ----but 5% freemason/Greek FAKE RELIGIOUS players are a great way to recruit for MILITARY JUNTA. DAILY KOS and DAN DIEGO FREE PRESS are both raging global banking far-right wing CLINTON/BUSH media outlets with FAKE NEWS----pretending any of these religious stances are real.
The Trump-Pence Theocracy Continues to Take Shape, As “Abstinence” Is Elevated To National Policy
May 7, 2018 by Source
By Dartagnan / Daily Kos
Between 2007 and 2015, the rate of teen pregnancies in the United States dropped approximately 50%. Much of the credit for that goes to federal and state educational programs that teach teenagers about birth control and making informed choices about sex. The Teen Pregnancy Prevention program, implemented in 2010 during the Obama Administration, was one of the most effective of these efforts, providing annual grants totaling 200 million dollars to the states to operate and evaluate their public health programs aimed at preventing unwanted teen pregnancies.
These programs are vital because more than 25% of American girls become pregnant by age 20. Many of these pregnancies are neither expected or wanted. The drastic negative economic and social implications of that fact–to women and American society— should be obvious. The real beneficiaries of programs such as the TPP are women because it is women (in this country at least) who have been burdened socially with major responsibility for contraception. It is women’s lives and futures that are impacted the most by an unwanted pregnancy.
In August of last year the Trump Administration, through its Department of Health and Human Services, effectively ended funding for the TPP program two years before it was to be re-authorized. In its place, the Administration specified that any recipients of grants from the TPP must follow one of two “abstinence-based” agendas, de-emphasizing birth control as a method of preventing pregnancy.
Now women are essentially being told by the Trump Administration and these state programs that if they want to avoid becoming pregnant they should simply not have sex (the fact that Trump may be the most sexually licentious U.S. President in U.S. History doesn’t seem to factor into the equation).
The efforts of the Administration to impose sexual control over women are not limited to teenagers. This morning’s New York Times has compiled a litany of Administration’s recent efforts to implement its efforts to control adult female sexual behavior:
The administration is promoting a “just say no” approach to adults as well as to teenagers. It’s poised to shift Title X family planning dollars — funds largely intended to help poor adult women around the United States get birth control — toward programs that advocate abstinence outside of marriage, as well as unreliable forms of birth control like the rhythm method…[.]
There is virtually no evidence that these types of programs are effective. Not only are they ineffective at controlling teen pregnancy, they are even ineffective at promoting abstinence. Coupled with the elimination of education about contraception, they are a recipe for an explosion of teen pregnancy as well as a resurgence of sexually transmitted diseases among both teens and adults. They are also rife with disinformation intended to foster a subservient role for women in American society:
A 2004 government report found that many such curriculums undersold the effectiveness of condoms and made unscientific assertions, like a claim that a 43-day-old fetus is a “thinking person.” This kind of propaganda also promotes gender stereotypes. “Women gauge their happiness and judge their success by their relationships,” one curriculum taught students. “Men’s happiness and success hinge on their accomplishments.”
***
Disinformation is at the center of this agenda. It makes it more difficult for women to acquire the knowledge they need to control if and when they become pregnant — a problem that is exacerbated by the administration’s hostility toward abortion rights. Beyond that, abstinence-only education keeps all people who are subjected to it in the dark about critical aspects of their health, and treats a normal part of life — sexuality, and women’s sexuality in particular — as aberrant and shameful.
Trump’s efforts to deny American women the right to engage in sex out of wedlock has also extended itself into American involvement with the rest of the world, with this Administration’s representatives at the UN single-mindedly obsessed with promoting abstinence as a condition for recipients of American aid:
Members of HHS, USAID, and the US Mission to the UN asked for references to contraception, abortion, and comprehensive sex education to be struck from a document on international gender equality, calling the US a “pro-life nation.”
Of course, the issue of abortion dominates Administration policy, from its efforts to defund Planned Parenthood, to its vocal support for anti-choice organizations and the implementation of novel anti-choice legislation, and its rabidly anti-choice judicial appointments. The clear goal of this Administration more than any before it is to control not only female reproduction but a women’s right to have sex out of marriage at all.
There’s only one explanation for this assault on women’s freedom—the Administration’s reliance on its (white) Evangelical “Christian” voter base. It doesn’t matter that the type of anti-women religious extremism that dominates the thinking of these closed-minded fanatics is at odds with the beliefs and values—religious or otherwise– of the great majority of Americans. It doesn’t matter that white Evangelicals themselves are a minority of the American electorate. In order to placate this vital Republican-voting demographic, Trump, and in particular his supposedly “devout” Vice President Pence, have injected this Evangelical brand of extremist, religious dogma into our national policies with a vengeance. As in most of the world’s religions, Americans’ peculiar strain of Evangelical religion presupposes that women (and correspondingly, women’s needs) are subservient to those of men. That is the way the “religion” germinated and perpetuated itself in this country. And more so than any Administration in history this one is bending over backward to accommodate these people.
Trump’s high placement of far-right conservatives such as Tom Price and Valerie Huber, who once ran an organization dedicated to abstinence-only education and now is in charge of Title X implementation at the HHS, is the clearest evidence of his desire to accommodate Christian extremists in formulating a national policy with far-reaching, destructive social impacts on the majority of Americans who don’t ascribe to these beliefs.
Nor does it matter that Trump himself is proving himself as morally depraved as any “whoremonger” or adulterer condemned by St. Paul in The Acts, or any prophet of the Old Testament, for that matter. For these Evangelicals, Trump is a tool, a means to an end, with the end being the imposition of a religious-centered pro-Christian governmental philosophy in this country. A theocratic government, with the ultimate goal of bringing the rest of Americans into line with their “teachings.”
The control of women’s behavior is only the first step towards that goal.
__________________________________________
MR FROG wanting a religious theocracy meets ABRAHAM with his global corporation filled with black market guns and military junta. Of course they have to battle it out for control of BOMBAY------each recruiting the 99% of Bombay citizens some coerced----some pushed because of no jobs-----pitted against each other having no real population group as WINNER as a goal.
ABRAHAM AS MR FROG not shy about deliberately making BOMBAY economy stagnant to force those 99% of citizens to join one military junta or the other.
Below we see global banking 1% raging neo-liberal LAISSEZ FAIRE UNITED NATIONS pretending there is any way to regulate GLOBAL CORPORATE PRIVATE MERCENARY ARMIES. We are now told these mercenary corporations will no doubt be GOOD UN PEACEKEEPERS-----as well as UNITED NATIONS MILITARY.
So, ABRAHAM was married to that global 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS European family----while THE FROG represented global 1% ASIAN KINGS AND QUEENS not liking these new immigrant rich. Both armed with their own military junta-----filling each avenue of BOMBAY civil society with these militant employees.
'Private military and security companies (PMSC)'
A private military company (PMC) is a private company providing armed combat or security services. They are one type of private security companies. PMCs refer to their staff as "security contractors" or "private military contractors". Private military companies refer to their business generally as the "private military industry" or "The Circuit".[1][2]
DON'T WORRY SAYS UNITED NATIONS---THOSE SAME GLOBAL CORPORATIONS BEHIND CONTINUOUS WARS AND CIVIL UNREST THESE SEVERAL DECADES WILL NOW BE OUR PEACEKEEPERS!
This is a long article but please glance through to see how global media pretend the United Nations is protecting and wanting to regulate the very military structures having created a few billion of our global citizens death and civil destruction and make them RESPECTABLE GUARDIAN ANGELS. BUT, for our US and Western Europe to get there we have to have the same decades of civil unrest civil wars and complete breakdown of society before these GUARDIAN ANGELS can be installed as MILITARY JUNTA.
----if PMSC sounds like PP1, 2, AND 3----public private partnerships installed during Clinton to hand complete control of all US national, state, and local government agencies to global corporations----you would be correct---this is simply MOVING FORWARD US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES with global militarized security corporations. THOSE CRAZY SWISS-----always looking out for our 99% WE THE PEOPLE stating SELF-REGULATION of global mercenary corporations will do.
THE SWISS of course being global 1% banking OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS----KNIGHTS OF MALTA.
The Role of Private Military and Security Companies in Modern Warfare – Impacts on Human Rights
Gross human rights violations have brought the use of Private Military and Security Companies as a tool of foreign policy into the limelight. Heavily armed forces with limited accountability are the outcome of an increasingly privatized security sector. Violations committed by these forces outside of their home states are unregulated and go unpunished. PMSCs put the security of their own staff as well as that of civilians at risk. In this article, Jose Gomez del Prado, former Chair of the UN Working Group on the use of Mercenaries, explores the negative implications of using PMSCs in today’s globalized world.
By Jose L. Gómez del Prado
The Brown Journal of World Affairs
August 11, 2012
Private military and security companies (PMSC) have been involved in grave human rights violations that have attracted international attention and debate over the legitimacy of PMSCs, the norms under which they should operate, and how to monitor their activities. These companies pose a real problem to human rights, to the foundations of the democratic modern state, and to the rule of law[1].
The widespread outsourcing of military and security functions has been a major phenomenon in recent years[2].The new industry that has developed is transnational in nature and has grown very rapidly with the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Following the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the collapse of the U.S.S.R., military and security functions, previously considered inherently state functions, have been increasingly contracted out to the private sector. This important change with regard to the monopoly on the legitimate use of force[3] has been primarily implemented in western countries in the context of the anarchical globalization of the world economy. The private military and security industry has taken advantage of the reduction of national armies and the globalization of the economy to find a profitable niche and grow it into a powerful global phenomenon estimated at over $100 billion yearly[4].It has benefitted from the insecurity and fear that followed the terrorist attacks of the early 2000s and within the context of countering terrorism reinvigorated by “the global war on terror”.
The availability of experienced security and military personnel for hire has enabled governments, intergovernmental and nongovernmental organizations to circumvent political constraints on the use of force[5]. PMSCs operate in zones of low-intensity armed conflict such as Afghanistan– and post conflict environments-such as Iraq and Colombia. These companies also provide services for extractive industries and multinational corporations operating in unstable environments[6].
The new export security industry expanded primarily, though not exclusively, in Western Europe and North America. The growth has been particularly pronounced in the United States and United Kingdom, where 70 percent of the companies of this new security industry are registered[7]. Parallel to this privatization of warfare, there has also been increased demand for private security at the international level and for protection of property at the domestic level in states all over the world. In many countries, the number of private security personnel is greater than the number of active state police[8].
A. INVOLVEMENT OF PMSCs IN HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS
The use of PMSC as a new instrument of foreign policy, particularly of the USA, may be due to a number of factors such as: (a) the lack of human resources in the armed forces; (b) that they are considered to be more cost efficient; (c) nepotism and/or good contacts with the Administration; (d) to avoid responsibility for the acts committed by PMSC; (e) to avoid the control of democratic institutions; (f) to intervene in the internal affairs of a country. The use of PMSC as a foreign policy tool, however, not only raises a number of dangers but indicates that the State is abdicating to the private sector an essential responsibility.
Heavily armed and operating in situations of conflict, private security companies have been functioning in the absence of national regulatory frameworks to vet the recruitment of their employees, to control their weapons and to monitor their activities. There has also been opacity in their behavior and a lack of transparency which companies have manage to establish through the creation of numerous layers of subsidiaries or subcontracts in diverse countries[9].
The lack of accountability for human right violations that they have committed has been partly due to the difficulties in the application of domestic laws to PMSC actuating in foreign countries as well as to the difficulties in carrying out investigations in failed states. It has also been partly due to the difficulties in establishing responsibilities. Indeed, if the direct responsibility of the State for human rights violations can easily be proved when one of its agents commits a human right abuse, it is much more difficult to establish the link when it is a contracted PMSC or one of its employees. Moreover under international law for human right abuses only the responsibility of natural persons, not legal person, are recognized. To these circumstances also has contributed the immunity granted by governments to PMSC operating in a number of situations[10].
Despite the argument of home or contracting states from which PMSCs operate that they cannot be responsible for human rights violations committed by PMSC employees outside their territories and national jurisdictions, home states[11] should be able to regulate PMSCs at the source because they have the effective territorial control over different activities of PMSCs. Their territorial competence and control should make it possible for the state where PMSCs have their business headquarters or operational seat to discharge its due diligence principle duty. Under International Human Rights Law, states have the responsibility “to take appropriate measures or to exercise due diligence to prevent, punish, investigate or redress the harm caused” by acts of private military companies or their staff that impair human rights[12].”
All these factors have provided a propitious terrain where the human rights of the civilian population have been violated. An additional fact important to bear in mind is that PMSC, in their search for profit, often neglect security putting their employees in dangerous or vulnerable situations which may have disastrous consequences, such as the 2004 Fallujah incident in which four Blackwater private contractors were killed allegedly due to a lack of safety precautions that Blackwater was supposed to provide. That particular incident changed the whole course of the war in Iraq. That incident may be considered as the turning point in the occupation of Iraq. It led to an abortive US operation to recapture control of the city and a successful recapture operation of Fallujah in November 2004, called Operation Phantom Fury, which resulted in the death of over 1,350 insurgent fighters. Approximately 95 America troops were killed, and 560 wounded.
PMSCs, particularly in Afghanistan and Iraq, have been operating in gray areas without any control or lines of command threatening the lives and security of the civilian population. The following examples, which are not exhaustive, may serve to illustrate the impact of PMSC in the enjoyment of human rights.
Afghanistan
29 June 2009, a number of civilian casualties occurred as a result of a shooting incident between an Afghan private entity operating as a security company (Afghan Special Guards) and the Afghan National Police inside the Attorney General’s Office in Kandahar[13].
5 May 2009, two Xe (formerly Blackwater) private security contractors working for the U.S. Army were involved in an incident in Kabul, in which one Afghan civilian was killed and three others injured according to a US military inquest in Kabul.[14] “While stopped for a car accident, the contractors were approached by a vehicle in a manner they felt threatening. The contractors were trainers hired by Paravant LLC, a subsidiary of Xe[15]. There were allegations that they were issued AK-47s despite guidelines from the U.S. Department of Defense specifically indicating that the Xe personnel would not be armed[16]. A US Senate inquiry found that the Blackwater subsidiary Paravant illegally signed out 500 machine guns from a US military store[17].
Iraq 9 October 2007 In central Baghdad, two Armenian women were shot dead when their car came too close to a convoy protected by Unity Resources Group (URG) contractors.[18] URG employees opened fire as they felt threatened that the women’s car approached the convoy at high speed and was not going to stop.[19].
The same company (URG) was also involved in the March 2006 shooting of a 72-year-old Australian professor[20]. This 25-year resident of Baghdad, who drove through the city every day, allegedly accelerated his vehicle as he approached the guards and did not pay attention to warnings to stop[21]
According to a U.S. Congressional memorandum, between 2005 and 2007 Blackwater guards were involved in nearly 200 shootings in Iraq. [22] The document raises serious questions about how State Department officials responded to reports of Blackwater killings of Iraqi civilians. For example, in the case of a shooting of a guard of Iraqi Vice President Adil Abd-al-Mahdi in December 2006 by a Blackwater contractor, the State Department allowed Blackwater to transport the contractor out of Iraq within 36 hours of the shooting and suggested a $15,000 fine.[23] A similar approach was taken in other cases involving the shooting of innocent Iraqi civilians. Iraq continues to grapple with the legal immunity granted to private security contractors under Order 17 issued by the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA). Such immunity has prevented prosecutions in Iraqi courts. Nor have prosecutions in the home countries of such companies been successful.
The lack of accountability for violations committed between 2003 and 2009 persists and the victims of such violations and their families are still waiting for justice.[24]The lack of vetting procedures by PMSCs is best illustrated by the case of Danny Fitzsimons, a former British Army paratrooper who fatally shot two colleagues at the U.K. security company ArmorGroup (now part of G4S) and injured an Iraqi security guard in Baghdad. Fitzsimons had been discharged from the British Army in Iraq. Despite having been diagnosed by several psychiatrics as suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, Fitzsimons was contracted without any vetting procedure. In 2009, 36 hours after arriving in Baghdad, he shot dead two of his colleagues- a British and an Australian- and injured an Iraqi guard. In February 2011, he was tried in Iraq and condemned to 20 years in prison[25].
The most egregious known human rights violation by a PMSC is the shooting massacre perpetrated on 16 September 2007 by Blackwater personnel in Nisour Square, Baghdad. Seventeen people were killed and twenty others were severely injured[26]. Blackwater [27] has also been accused of fabricating documents to acquire unauthorized weapons, defrauding the USA government, and tolerating the widespread use of steroids and cocaine by its personnel.[28] Only after the implementation of a new Status of Forces Agreement in January 2009 and the cancellation of Coalition Provisional Authority Order 17—which had granted immunity to contractors—was the government of Iraq able to deny Blackwater’s application for an operating license. However, the company still had a contract with the U.S. State Department, and some Blackwater personnel were working in Iraq at least until September 2009[29].
Two United-States-based corporations, CACI International and L-3 Services (formerly Titan Corporation), have allegedly been involved in torturing Iraqi detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad.[30] The two companies, contracted by the U.S. Government, were responsible for interrogation and translation services in several facilities in Iraq. The Center for Constitutional Rights and a team of lawyers brought claims against the two companies under the Alien Tort Claims Act in 2004 on behalf of over 250 plaintiffs. The plaintiffs claimed they were “subjected to rape and threats of rape and other forms of sexual assault; electric shocks; repeated beatings, including beatings with chains, boots and other objects; prolonged hanging from limbs; forced nudity; hooding; isolated detention; being urinated on and otherwise humiliated; and being prevented from praying and otherwise abiding by their religious practices.”
Rendition flights
A number of reports have indicated that private security guards have played a central role in some of the most sensitive activities of the CIA. These activities include arbitrary detention and clandestine raids against alleged insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan, involvement in CIA rendition flights, and joint covert operations[31]. Employees of PMSCs have been involved in the transport of detainees from pick-up points (such as Tuzla, Islamabad, and Skopje); in rendition flights to drop-off points (such as Cairo, Rabat, Bucharest, Amman, and Guantanamo); and in building, equipping, and staffing the CIA’s “black sites.[32]” In 2007, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit against Jeppesen DataPlan, Inc., a subsidiary company of Boeing, on behalf of five persons who had been kidnapped by the CIA and held in overseas secret prisons maintained by the United States[33]. Allegedly, Jeppesen would have participated in the rendition by providing flight planning and logistical support.The US government had petitioned to dismiss the case under the state secrets privilege The plaintiffs petitioned the US Supreme Court on 7 December 2010 asking it to hear an appeal of the dismissal. In May 2011 the Supreme Court declined to hear the plaintiffs appeal[34].
Ecuador
Three Ecuadorian provinces and 3,266 plaintiffs have initiated lawsuits against DynCorp—a private company contracted by the U.S. State Department—concerning grave health problems [35]as a consequence of the spraying of narcotic plants along the Colombian and Ecuadorian border under Plan Colombia[36].
Equatorial Guinea
The 2004 attempted coup d’état perpetrated in Equatorial Guinea is a clear example of the link between mercenaries and PMSCs and violation of the sovereignty of States.[37] In this particular case, the mercenaries involved were mostly former directors and personnel of Executive Outcomes, a PMSC that had become famous for its operations in Angola and Sierra Leone.[38] The team of mercenaries also included two employees of a PMSC, Meteoric Tactical Systems, who at the time were providing security to diplomats of western embassies in Baghdad, including the Ambassador of Switzerland.[39] It also included a security guard who previously worked for the PMSC Steele Foundation, which also provided protection to President Aristide of Haiti[40]. A number of people involved in the attempted coup in Equatorial Guinea were arrested in Zimbabwe, others in Equatorial Guinea itself. The coup was intended to overthrow the government and hijack rich oil resources.
B. ARE PMSCs THE NEW PRIVATE PROVIDERS OF THE USE OF FORCE, THE MERCENARIES OF THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY?
PMSCs are the modern reincarnation of a long lineage of private providers of physical force, such as corsairs, privateers, and mercenaries. PMSCs are non-state entities operating in extremely blurred situations, where the lines between what is allowed and what is not are difficult to identify.[41] The new security industry moves large quantities of weapons and military equipment. It provides services for military operations, recruiting former military as civilians to carry out what has been labeled as “passive or defensive security”.
During the French Revolution, Swiss “private soldiers were also exercising passive security to protect Louis XVI and his family in Versailles. They were mercenaries. Today in Iraq, legally registered employees of private military and security companies protect President Kharzai of Afghanistan, U.S. generals, and many other political or diplomatic figures.
Mercenaries have existed throughout history. They have been a constant in all wars, but almost disappeared for nearly one hundred years after privateers were outlawed in the nineteenth century[42], only to reappear in the 1960s during the decolonization period, which took place under the United Nations in Africa and Asia. To a certain extent PMSCs constitute the new corsairs.
The definition of “mercenary” is contained in two universal instruments and one regional convention.[43]. The universal instruments are Additional Protocol I (Article 47) to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, within the context of ius in bello, and the 1989 International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries, adopted by the United Nations within the context of ius ad bellum. Under International Humanitarian Law, mercenaries are not given the protection of combatants but are not outlawed. Under the UN convention, mercenaries are criminalized[44].
According to the UN Definition of Aggression[45], one of the obligations of Member States is to prohibit the use of its territory to recruit, train and send “armed bands, groups, irregulars, or mercenaries” abroad to be used in combat operations directed against the “sovereignty, territorial integrity, and political independence of another State.” PMSC personnel are one of the categories covered by the definition.[46] The term “political independence of another State” is a direct reference to the right of self-determination stipulated in Article 1 common to the International Human Rights Covenants.
According to the definition under Article 47 (2) of Additional Protocol I, to be considered a mercenary the person has to fulfill the six conditions set out in that instrument. A mercenary (a) is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict; (b) does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities; (c) is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party; (d) is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict; (e) is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and (f) has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces[47].
The definition of a mercenary under the UN Convention covers all the criteria of Additional Protocol I with the exception of “does in fact take a direct part in the hostilities.” In addition, the UN Convention includes “any other situation” in which a non-national is recruited to take part “in a concerted act of violence aimed at (i) overthrowing a Government or otherwise undermining the constitutional order of a State, or (ii) undermining the territorial integrity of a State.” Whereas Additional Protocol I only applies to international armed conflicts, the UN Convention covers both international and non-international armed conflicts. Furthermore, the UN Convention makes the recruitment, use, financing or training of mercenaries an offense under international law and implies that any foreigner taking part in any violent activity aimed at provoking a change of regime through a coup d’état during peacetime may be considered a mercenary.
A number of the activities fulfilled by PMSC[48] may meet the requirements contained in the international instruments regarding mercenaries. Also, the recruitment of former militaries and law enforcement personnel as “security guards who would be ’exposed to great risks [...] including but not limited to the threats inherent in a war situation,” included as a clause in a number of contracts that the private security contractors signed, is extremely close to the element of the definition that specifies that the mercenary must be specifically recruited “in order to fight in an armed conflict.” [49] Even if they do not conduct offensive operations but have been recruited to protect military objectives, “security guards” may be targeted by the enemy who consider them as being recruited in an armed conflict. A number of activities conducted by PMSC employees may be considered direct participation in hostilities, such as the involvement of Blackwater employees in Najaf, Iraq, on 4 April 2004.
According to the interpretation of some legal experts of the International Committee of the Red Cross, the majority of PMSC employees operating in international armed conflict could be considered civilians. Only a small number are seen as combatants and mercenaries, who would lose protection under International Humanitarian Law when taking “direct part in hostilities.” The UN Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries does not require the direct participation of “security guards” in hostilities.[50].
Even though the main motivation of many of the private contractors engaged by PMSCs may be private gain, it is extremely difficult to prove this in court. Moreover, for many private guards, the motivation is a mixture of monetary gain, the “excitement and adrenaline” of adventure, and the possibility to put in practice all of their training, as. PMSCs usually hire personnel who have been highly trained in dangerous and counterinsurgency operations such as members of US SEALs, or SWCC, the British SAS or the French Legion[51].
The criteria of nationality and residence could not be applied to contractors from the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and other countries which have been involved in the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. It could be applied to nationals of countries such as Peru, Honduras, and Chile that are not parties to the conflict. In the case of Chile, it is interesting to point out that while the government of Chile voted against the UN Security Council resolution to intervene in Iraq Chilean citizens were contracted by PMSCs to provide “passive protection” in Iraq. The requirement that a mercenary must not be a member of the armed forces of a party to the conflict could easily be circumvented by a given state that utilizes PMSCs by incorporating these employees into its own armed forces.
Each of the elements taken individually poses problems to classify PMSCs as mercenaries. For PMSCs and their employees to be considered mercenaries, all the requirements in the definition of the international instruments must be cumulatively met. PMSCs are commercial firms legally registered in their home countries, a large number of which have obtained contracts from governments (the Pentagon and the State Department in the United States).
In addition, only 32 states have ratified the International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries and most of the governments which contract PMSC are not parties to the Convention.
All these difficulties to apply the 1989 International Convention against mercenaries indicate that this international instrument has become obsolete to deal with the new phenomenon of PMSCs.
C. THE NEED FOR INTERNATIONAL REGULATION
Self-Regulation: The Swiss Initiative, the Montreux Document of 2008, and the International Code of Conduct of 2010.
In 2006, in order to address the demand for a clarification of legal obligations under International Humanitarian and International Human Rights Law with regard to PMSCs, the government of Switzerland and the International Committee of the Red Cross launched what has been known as the Swiss Initiative, an international consultation process with main stakeholders: governments, the new industry of PMSCs, and civil society.[52] The Swiss Initiative has been supported domestically and by the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom, where most of the industry (70 percent) and the lobbyists for the new security industry are located: the International Peace Operations Association (IPOA) and the British Association of Private Security Companies (BAPSC).[53]
On 17 September 2008, the process led to a common understanding by 17 states known as the Montreux Document on Pertinent International Legal Obligations and Good Practices for States Related to Operations of Private Military and Security Companies during Armed Conflict.[54] This set out what the signatories view as the relevant IHL and IHRL applicable to PMSCs as well as a set of good practices for them. The second phase of the Swiss Initiative is the International Code of Conduct for PMSCs, aimed at setting high standards for the industry worldwide and supporting the establishment of a voluntary enforcement mechanism to ensure compliance with such standards. This is, however, still in the process of elaboration.
The United Nations and the proposed draft convention to regulate and monitor PMSCs
In 2005, the United Nations established the Working Group on the use of mercenaries “To monitor and study the effects of the activities of private companies offering military assistance, consultancy and security services on the international market on the enjoyment of human rights, particularly the right of peoples to self determination, and to prepare draft international basic principles that encourage respect for human rights on the part of those companies in their activities”. [55]
In the course of five years, the UN Working Group on Mercenaries has found that there is a regulatory legal vacuum covering the activities of PMSCs. It has also discovered a lack of common standards for the registration and licensing of these companies, as well as for the vetting and training of their staff and the safekeeping of weapons. While a number of rules of IHL and IHRL could apply to states in their relations with PMSCs, the Working Group has observed that there are challenges to the application of domestic laws, in particular for international PMSCs operating in a foreign state, and difficulties in conducting investigations in conflict zones. The effect of this situation is that PMSCs are rarely held accountable for violations of human rights.
The military and security services provided by PMSCs are highly specific and dangerous. They should not be considered ordinary commercial commodities left to the self-regulation of the market and internal controls. PMSCs have succeeded in creating diffuse responsibility and a lack of accountability through a labyrinth of contractual and insurance layers and shells.
Moreover, one should not forget that legal responsibilities of states to take appropriate measures to prevent, investigate, punish, and provide effective remedies for relevant misconduct of PMSCs and their personnel fully remain even if states have chosen to contract out certain security functions.
The Working Group has conducted a series of consultations with governments of the five geopolitical regions of the world on the impact of PMSC activities on the enjoyment of human rights, as well as on regulating and monitoring the activities of private military and security companies.
It has also organized a series of consultations with a wide range of stakeholders on the content and scope of a possible draft convention. An initial draft text of the convention was circulated to some 250 experts, academics, and NGOs to collect their input on the contents and scope of the Convention. The Working Group received some 45 written submissions comprising a total of over 400 comments.
In 2010 the Working Group recommended to the UN Human Rights Council and the General Assembly principles, main elements, and text for a possible International Convention on the Regulation, Oversight and Monitoring of Private Military and Security Companies.[56] Both documents take into consideration the comments received from these stakeholders and feedback from member states.
The proposed binding international instrument aims to reaffirm and strengthen state responsibility for the monopoly on the legitimate use of force, identify inherent state functions that cannot be outsourced to PMSCs under any circumstances, and regulate the use of force and firearms by PMSCs under international human rights standards. It also envisages the development of a national regime of licensing, regulation, and oversight of the activities of PMSCs and their subcontractors. The proposed convention identifies inherent state functions that cannot be outsourced, making a bright line between functions that are permitted, but should be regulated, and functions that belong to the state and cannot be privatized.
The new instrument would establish an international register of PMSCs based on information provided by states. State parties would be compelled to provide data annually for the register on imports and exports of military and security services of PMSCs and standardized information on PMSCs registered in and licensed by the state party. This obligation to share information about companies in an open and transparent way would provide greater public and parliamentary scrutiny. An international committee would monitor the measures taken by state parties to implement the convention.
The proposed convention would apply not only to states, but also to intergovernmental organizations, within the limits of their competence, with respect to PMSCs, their activities, and their personnel. It would apply to all situations where PMSCs operate, regardless of whether the situation is considered to constitute an armed conflict or not.
The fact that PMSC personnel are not usually “mercenaries” is also a strong argument for the adoption of a new instrument to deal with a new type of actor. Contrary to the “dogs of war” mercenaries of the past, private military and security companies are legally registered, and the definition used in international instruments—such as the one contained in Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions and the one in the UN Convention on Mercenaries—typically does not apply to the personnel of PMSCs.
The argument that employing PMSCs is cost-effective may be true in the short term and if a number of socioeconomic variables are not taken into consideration, such as training in the use of weapons and counterinsurgency operations of former militaries and policemen, which is paid by taxpayers. In this regard, it is worth noting the increasing number of military personnel who, attracted by higher salaries, are leaving the army in developed and developing countries to join PMSCs. One way to decrease costs for PMSCs has been to contract more former military members and policemen from developing countries at much lower salaries. Issues of reintegration and post-traumatic stress disorder in individuals returning to their communities from military or security work abroad have not been assessed either. Because of the nature of their contracts, thousands of these disposable “guns for hire” are available in the market and ready to be employed in any conflict situation.
The aphorism that the invisible hand of the market is enough to regulate the activities of PMSCs without outside intervention seems to have been abandoned after a number of events have proved to the contrary.
The Working Group is not the only body calling for a legally binding instrument to regulate and monitor the activities of private military and security companies. This is also the position of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, which has adopted two reports recommending “that the Committee of Ministers draw up a Council of Europe instrument aimed at regulating the relations of its member states with PMSCs and laying down minimum standards for the activity of these private companies.”[57] The UN Working Group’s proposals follow the same logic as the “Stop Outsourcing Security Act” proposed by U.S. Congress Representative Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), a member of the U.S. House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
Most UN Member States, upon considering the impact of PMSCs on the enjoyment of human rights, assert the opinion that outsourcing functions related to the legitimate use of force to private contractors requires binding regulatory and monitoring mechanisms at the international level due to the transnational character of the industry. The position of western states, however, is that a binding instrument with regulatory and oversight mechanisms is too premature. The recommendation made by the Working Group to the United Nations to create an open-ended intergovernmental working group to consider an international regulatory framework to monitor PMSCs has been accepted despite the opposition of western states.[58] A process has been set up in the United Nations for political negotiations on this important issue by Member States, Intergovernmental Organizations, and civil society represented by human rights institutions and non-governmental organizations.[59]
___________________________________________
While ABRAHAM built his own PMSC---------PRIVATE GLOBAL MILITARY AND SECURITY CORPORATION-----MR FROG as sovereign citizens was getting mighty nervous over his ability as a sovereign INDIAN wanting wealth and power -----to be able to become that FROG TO PRINCE------just as our US 99% WE THE PEOPLE today understand that CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA has unleashed the same against our US sovereign nation ----indeed trying to take the US to colonial status.
THE MOOR'S LAST SIGH ends with these two factions along with global 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS fighting it out for BOMBAY-----as we stated above BOMBAY bursts into fire-----preparing BOMBAY to MOVE FORWARD to being MUMBAI------GLOBAL ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE SMART CITY.
Mumbai Metropolitan Region to develop 5 Smart Cities
December 20, 2014 smartadmincp Smart Cities News, Smart City Projects
MUMBAI now -----SMART CITIES being that global banking 1% militarized, deep, deep, really deep state controlled by global mercenary military and security corporations mirrors BALTIMORE MD USA being made BLOOMBERG FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE #2 NORTH AMERICA ------it too MOVING FORWARD SMART CITY control of US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES by these same PMSC-----PRIVATE GLOBAL MILITARY AND SECURITY CORPORATIONS.
MR FROG as a local INDIAN want-a-be PRINCE loses out when India's OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS join the global 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS of Europe, Arabia, Eastern Asia for ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE under UNITED NATIONS PRIVATE MILITARY/PEACEKEEPERS.
It's a good thing the only REAL development happening in US CITIES DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES is building of SMART CITIES infrastructure because these few decades of US civil unrest civil war causes all kinds of death, destruction, community citizens displaced.
ROBBER BARON 5% freemason/Greeks black, white,and brown players morphing from criminal fraud and government corruption to being leaders of military junta.
Books
Mumbai now, Bombay then
MEENA MENON
Chennai, March 02, 2010 09:42 IST
Updated: March 02, 2010 09:42 IST
This rather large and heavy coffee table book on Mumbai's past and present has a breezy essay on ‘Mumbai Now' by Naresh Fernandes and pictures by the renowned Chirodeep Chaudhuri. Fernandes draws upon his own maternal grandfather's history to illustrate how you can make it anywhere if you make it in Mumbai.
He starts off his contribution with the little known “shuttlers” who ferry film reels from theatre to theatre. “It's the kind of livelihood that could only have been invented in Mumbai.” Fastracking through enterprise, culture, food and movies, he hits on the central point — the point where the city changed dramatically, the communal riots in 1992-93 — and ends with the city becoming the target of terrorism. “No matter how bad things get, they seem to suggest, we have an infinite capacity to cope. But now it's all too clear that we're wearing thin.”
Succinct
In contrast, Jim Masselos presents a succinct and much more rosy picture of the past in the ‘Bombay Then' section, which is interesting and beautifully illustrated in black and white. “Bombay or Mumbai has always been a city of the here and now, of today, of tomorrow and even of the day after.” He brings out how “the efforts of citizens concerned with preserving the city's heritage” have contributed to the importance of Bombay's history.
And so we are taken back in time to the islands and the Elephanta caves and also treated to stories of drunken Portuguese soldiers who shot at the priceless statues out of boredom, the seven islands coming together, the early educational institutions, and how the city acquired a character of diversity. “Bombay town over the first half of the nineteenth century acquired a character of diversity and even cosmopolitanism.
There was a mix of ethnicities, communities, castes, religions and classes. Among them were Armenians and Greeks, Chinese and Persians, Arabs and Jews from outside the subcontinent; while from within it came not only immigrants from the immediate Marathi, Konkani and Gujarat hinterlands but from further afield — from Kerala, Rajasthan, North India and Bengal.”
Taking the reader through a rather snappy account of Bombay's rise as a city, Masselos says that “it was clear by the beginning of the 1920s that Bombay had begun to reach the limits of the seven islands from which it had begun and now needed to move outwards.” The city was beautiful and faithful to its reputation as Urbs Prima in Indis, the first city in India.
A Mumbai resident cannot but feel nostalgic reading about the city's better planned past, which comes out for instance in this observation: “Pherozeshah Mehta, like many other leading men of the city on many occasions and over many years, referred to the beauty of its harbour, the superiority of its location and the calibre of its public buildings.”
Masselos speaks of the “enormous civil pride in Bombay” something that has painfully eroded over the years, of the city's key role in the nationalist struggle, and how it became a “fully Indian city” after Independence.
Breathtaking
The opening page of the ‘Bombay Then' section is a breathtaking and rare photo from the 1880s of the city with a panoramic view along the coast. Other captivating features include: old pictures of the Ganpati festival with smaller crowds, giving it an almost personal touch; rare shots of the first railway line in India, between Bori Bunder and Thane, inaugurated in 1853; the Bombay-Pune railway line that cuts through the Western Ghats; the old Fort walls of the city which were pulled down later; and the old Churchgate station with approach through a moat and the harbour. The black-and-whites of yesteryear serve as a balm for the strained eyes that are so used to a crowded, congested and almost ugly city that Mumbai is now.
One of the pictures of Rampart Row with Flora Fountain (now Hutatma chowk) in the centre is particularly riveting. So are many of the city's aerial views of the Bombay Race Course, Victoria Terminus (now Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus) apart from the island city itself. Another blissful view is that of the promenade along Chowpatty and Marine Drive with only a few cars, unimaginable today.
In contrast, the ‘Mumbai Now' section is brightly coloured. While the city has changed so much, the picture showing hordes of people walking through a flooded thoroughfare is worth more than a thousand words. And that kind of says it all about Mumbai now.
_____________________________________________
We will end this week's public policy discussion referencing SALMAN RUSHDIE'S THE MOOR'S LAST SIGH----by pointing to the political conflicts in this novel----it is always a member of that wealthy global corporate family who is made the hero of COMMUNIST/MAOIST fighters for our 99% of WE THE WORKERS. We spoke earlier this week about the global banking 5% freemason/Greek players being ALT RIGHT ALT LEFT MARXIST REBELS VS RIGHT WING FASCISTS in Latin America----in Africa---in southeast Asia-----well, here too in Rushdie's novel come those global banking MARXISTS----and they do indeed invade SRI LANKA ----creating death, destruction continuous societal turmoil for those 99% of Sri Lankan citizens after which Sri Lanka is made a FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE with almost all of its native citizens dead or vanquished.
'Fastracking through enterprise, culture, food and movies, he hits on the central point — the point where the city changed dramatically, the communal riots in 1992-93 — and ends with the city becoming the target of terrorism'.
So too in Rushdie's novel does this become BOMBAY morphing to MUMBAI. Now, do US cities need global banking ---global corporations---do we need militarized juntas creating all kinds of violence, guns, drugs, population tensions in order to REBUILD OUR LOCAL US CITY ECONOMIES?
OF COURSE NOT-----WE CAN REBUILD OUR LOCAL US CITY ECONOMIES IN EACH COMMUNITY WITH SMALL BUSINESSES AND SMALL BUSINESS MANUFACTURING.
Why is CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA now TRUMP MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE? They are attacking our national, state, and local sovereignty to take US to colonial independent economic zones ruled by global military tribunal.
HOW PROGRESSIVE AND FREE MARKET IS THAT!!!
For those not knowing UNDERARMOUR -----loving that ARMOUR----is top global corporation is supplying military/global security and policing uniforms, boots, et al -------as what makes it a billion dollar corporation with some sales of sports wear on the side. Here is our former Baltimore Police chief now tied to global security corporation----being that
'Private military and security companies (PMSC)'
with lots of global banking 5% FAKE religious leaders ready for MILITARY JUNTA here in Greater Baltimore. This Baltimore police chief chasing BAD GUYS WITH GUNS led a police force filled with corrupt police officers we all knew were tied to political machine drug, gun, violence making Baltimore one of the most violent and third world in US. BEALEFELD as Rushdie's BOMBAY government and law enforcement never seemed to notice ABRAHAM as black market global corporation or MR FROG as THE CORPORATION running a mafiosa syndicate ----ONE VOTE ONE BRIBE said ABRAHAM and MR FROG. THE MOOR----the only survivor of the complete dissolution of both these crime families-----was arrested for his father's crimes as the low-level manager but freed with bribes.
Fred BealefeldVice President & Chief Global Security Officer at Under Armour
Bel Air, Maryland
Law Enforcement
Current
Experience
Here in US today we have MOVING FORWARD to OPPOSITES----our NATIONAL PUBLIC MILITARY tasked with protecting US sovereignty and all 99% of WE THE PEOPLE-----and CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA privatized global mercenary corporations pledged to do anything global corporations tell them to.
This is the difference in US in who is running for local, state, or national office no matter pretending to be right wing Republican ---or left wing Democrat-----if a military candidate wins in today's rigged and fraudulent elections it is because they are tied to global military mercenary corporations and not to being retired US public military.
'10 Frightening Facts About Private Military Companies - Listverse
Private military companies are essentially armies that are controlled by no one but their shareholders and whoever pays them the most. They're not about to
listverse.com'
So, ABRAHAM in this novel mirrors today's global corporations having black market business as their major money-maker and especially tied to running guns, drugs, slaves, and those 5% freemason/Greek civil unrest civil war military junta.
'Simultaneously, Abraham's commercial empire bursts asunder when its illegal underpinnings are uncovered. In a rapid denouement, all of the main characters, except Moraes, perish in an orgy of fire bombings that level much of Bombay'.
AN ORGY OF FIRE BOOMINGS THAT LEVEL MUCH OF BOMBAY-----of course this was at the time that BOMBAY was morphing int MUMBAI------that ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE city needing BOMBAY to be leveled to make way for SMART CITY MUMBAI.
The Moor's Last Sigh
Summary & Study Guide Description
The Moor's Last Sigh Summary & Study Guide includes comprehensive information and analysis to help you understand the book. This study guide contains the following sections:
The Moor's Last Sigh tells the family history of Moraes Zogoiby, known as "the Moor." He is the last survivor of a family descended from the Portuguese explorer Vasco da Gama (ca.1469-1524), who sailed to India in search of spice and whose offspring grew rich in shipping it to the West. Among his ancestors, Moraes also numbers Boabdil (Abu 'Abd Allah Muhammad XI, ca. 1460-1527), the last Muslim king in Spain, forced in 1492 to surrender his city to Ferdinand and Isabella. The spot from which Boabdil gazed for the last time at Granada is today a tourist attraction, known as 'The Last Sigh of the Moor.' His descendents, who made their way to southern India, took, as their family name, his nickname, "Zogoiby" - "The Unfortunate." Another branch of the family descended from Black Jews who immigrated to Cochin, India, and built a synagogue in 1568. It, too, is a famous landmark, preserved to this day. Moraes concentrates on the last four generations of his ancestors, spanning the first eight decades of the twentieth century. At every point in this fictional tale, authentic history is interwoven.
We first meet Moraes at age thirty-six in Spain, breathless, on the run, and determined that his quirky family's story will not perish when he dies. He introduces first his mother, Aurora, as a young girl and offers detailed depictions of her close relatives that help us understand how she could evolve into the strong, difficult character who would destroy the one true love of her only son's life, cast him out of her home and life, and, unreconciled, suffer a tragic, accidental death. The pain of these events fills Moraes' story long before the circumstances are relayed.
As we grow familiar with Moraes' maternal relatives, "the battling da Gamas of Cochin" - great grandmother, Epifania, and her husband, Francisco, grandmother, Belle, and her husband, Camoens, great aunt, Carmen, and her husband, Aires - we experience life in late, colonial India, an era of growing change.
Moraes gives less detail about his paternal line. His father, Abraham Zogoiby, is introduced as a manager in the Gama Trading Company warehouse. Aurora falls in love with him and seduces him away from his Jewish heritage. We meet his conniving mother, Flory, and witness their split over his decision. We see Abraham taking control of the business and returning it to prosperity (in the dangerous, early days of World War II) with financial help from Flory. Her condition on the loan is that he turns his first-born son over to her, to be raised as a Jew. Agreeing to this creates a rift with Aurora, whom we follow to Bombay and great success in the worlds of art and politics, as India comes to independence in 1947. Again, historical figures - Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru - are skillfully woven into the narrative.
Only after Flory's death do Abraham and Aurora reunite, and we are introduced to their four children, Ina, Minnie, Mynah, and Moor (Aurora intended the humor in their names), and the servants who care for the prosperous Bombay household. We meet a fellow artist, Vasco Miranda, who takes up residence in the house and helps Moraes come to grips with the forces that form his personality: a malformed right hand and a rare condition that causes him to physically age at twice the rate he develops chronologically and emotionally. Doorkeeper Lambajan teaches him to box. Ayah (the title of native nursemaids in India) Jaya Hé introduces him to the city's vibrant streets. Tutor Dilly Hormuz unleashes his sexuality. A cruel critic of his mother's work, Raman Fielding, brings us into the volatile mix of religion and politics that thrive in Mother India. Sitting for his mother's Moor paintings, and listening to her chatter, helps Moraes understand her personality. Like magnets, mother and son attract and repel one another. Abraham remains, for a long while, a distant, indistinct character; it is only hinted that they will some day reconcile and Moraes will learn - and dutifully relay - the dark details of his father's business.
Finally, as the first part of the novel ends, we are introduced to the long-anticipate lover, Uma Sarasvati. She is a mysterious, contradictory figure, who utterly shatters the Zogoiby family. Aurora, alone, is never taken in by her charms. How Uma can cause such a violent rift between her and her son remains a mystery for much of the book. The reality of it, however, is that Moraes must set upon a new, independent chapter of his life.
This chapter begins in prison, following Moraes' arrest for Uma's murder and involvement in his father's black marketeering in narcotics. He is rescued by Raman "Mainduck" Fielding, who is closing in on his goal of political mastery of Bombay. Moor becomes "Hammer," as a member of Fielding's elite goon squad that terrorizes and intimidates anyone who opposes the interests of the Hindu majority. For the first time Moraes is comfortable with his deformed right hand and administers savage beatings to foes, not just obediently, but enthusiastically and with relish. We meet Hammer's colorful, sadistic colleagues: Sammy "the Tin Man" Hazaré and Chhaghgan "Five-in-a-Bite."
Following Aurora's death, "Hammer" leaves Fielding's camp, which further unravels when the beauty queen Nadia Wadia drives a wedge between commander and Hazaré. "Moor" reconnects with Abraham and allies with him to bring peace to his mother's still tormented soul. Through a private investigator, we learn that both parents have had multiple sexual partners and harbored a multitude of secrets. While these unravel, it appears that Aurora's death was not an accident. "Hammer" once more goes into action, murdering Fielding, the presumed perpetrator.
Simultaneously, Abraham's commercial empire bursts asunder when its illegal underpinnings are uncovered. In a rapid denouement, all of the main characters, except Moraes, perish in an orgy of fire bombings that level much of Bombay.
Moreas flies to Spain, to search for four of his mother's paintings that survived the conflagration. Three, he was certain, had been stolen by Vasco Miranda, the artist whom Aurora had dismissed from her household fourteen years earlier. Miranda's painting, which Aurora had mocked as commercial fluff, had earned him a vast fortune and international fame. He used his riches to construct a hideous fortress on a hillside in Benengeli. We follow him, wandering the city, taken in by half-sisters who claim to be the aging recluse's housekeepers. When they bring Moraes word that a parcel has been delivered to the fortress, he convinces them to smuggle him inside. There, he is taken prisoner and locked up in the tower with a Japanese art conservator, Aoi Ué, kidnapped to remove Miranda's pedestrian over-painting of The Moor's Last Sigh in order to reveal the original portrait of a bare-breasted, young Aurora Zogoiby. Miranda orders his new companion to record his life story in full detail, promising that, like Scheherazade, he will be allowed to live so long as his tales amused his master. When both tasks are complete, Miranda turns his gun on them. Aoi perishes, but Moor is spared when the drug-crazed, bloated gunman's heart explodes as he had long ago predicted it would. Moor flees, nailing sheets of his story to trees and fences across the countryside, coming to rest in the overgrown cemetery where we first met him, hoping he will, in death, find peace.
__________________________________________
There is lot's of ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE global banking 1% freemasonry imagery in MOOR'S LAST SIGH----but this week we are discussing MILITARY JUNTA public policy goals in MOVING FORWARD US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES----so we will simply highlight those images. This novel is a great way to see how back in 1990s Clinton era the same global 1% using the same economic, black market criminality and corruption created the dynamic of global 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS fighting for India's sovereignty.
We liked the character MR FIELDINGS or THE FROG because he represented our US CITIES global banking BALTIMORE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION seeking to control all community economy, development recruiting his following throw his CORPORATION's FAKE LABOR AND JUSTICE organizations. As well, THE FROG in India was our RELIGIOUS RIGHT here in US while he PRETENDED to be HINDI -----our US religious right PRETENDED to be Christian while ignoring every religious tenet whether HINDI or Christian. THE FROG gained his power by sending his hired THUGS to break down any REAL POPULIST organizations trying to help Bombay's 99% of citizens.
MR FROG wanting to be MAYOR OF BOMBAY was the far-right wing religious theocracy being HINDI as is MOVING FORWARD today with TRUMP/PENCE. MR FROG was not shy about reinstating India's STRONG CASTE system making sure no Bombay citizen ever left his/her CASTE.
GLOBAL BANKING 1% CANNOT HAVE A FAR-RIGHT, AUTHORITARIAN, MILITARISTIC, EXTREME WEALTH EXTREME POVERTY LIBERTARIAN MARXIST MILITARY JUNTA REGIME WITHOUT SOME NUT-CASE CLAIMING TO BE THAT FAKE RELIGIOUS THEOCRACY LEADER.
Of course, neither MR FROG nor TRUMP are religious ----but 5% freemason/Greek FAKE RELIGIOUS players are a great way to recruit for MILITARY JUNTA. DAILY KOS and DAN DIEGO FREE PRESS are both raging global banking far-right wing CLINTON/BUSH media outlets with FAKE NEWS----pretending any of these religious stances are real.
The Trump-Pence Theocracy Continues to Take Shape, As “Abstinence” Is Elevated To National Policy
May 7, 2018 by Source
By Dartagnan / Daily Kos
Between 2007 and 2015, the rate of teen pregnancies in the United States dropped approximately 50%. Much of the credit for that goes to federal and state educational programs that teach teenagers about birth control and making informed choices about sex. The Teen Pregnancy Prevention program, implemented in 2010 during the Obama Administration, was one of the most effective of these efforts, providing annual grants totaling 200 million dollars to the states to operate and evaluate their public health programs aimed at preventing unwanted teen pregnancies.
These programs are vital because more than 25% of American girls become pregnant by age 20. Many of these pregnancies are neither expected or wanted. The drastic negative economic and social implications of that fact–to women and American society— should be obvious. The real beneficiaries of programs such as the TPP are women because it is women (in this country at least) who have been burdened socially with major responsibility for contraception. It is women’s lives and futures that are impacted the most by an unwanted pregnancy.
In August of last year the Trump Administration, through its Department of Health and Human Services, effectively ended funding for the TPP program two years before it was to be re-authorized. In its place, the Administration specified that any recipients of grants from the TPP must follow one of two “abstinence-based” agendas, de-emphasizing birth control as a method of preventing pregnancy.
Now women are essentially being told by the Trump Administration and these state programs that if they want to avoid becoming pregnant they should simply not have sex (the fact that Trump may be the most sexually licentious U.S. President in U.S. History doesn’t seem to factor into the equation).
The efforts of the Administration to impose sexual control over women are not limited to teenagers. This morning’s New York Times has compiled a litany of Administration’s recent efforts to implement its efforts to control adult female sexual behavior:
The administration is promoting a “just say no” approach to adults as well as to teenagers. It’s poised to shift Title X family planning dollars — funds largely intended to help poor adult women around the United States get birth control — toward programs that advocate abstinence outside of marriage, as well as unreliable forms of birth control like the rhythm method…[.]
There is virtually no evidence that these types of programs are effective. Not only are they ineffective at controlling teen pregnancy, they are even ineffective at promoting abstinence. Coupled with the elimination of education about contraception, they are a recipe for an explosion of teen pregnancy as well as a resurgence of sexually transmitted diseases among both teens and adults. They are also rife with disinformation intended to foster a subservient role for women in American society:
A 2004 government report found that many such curriculums undersold the effectiveness of condoms and made unscientific assertions, like a claim that a 43-day-old fetus is a “thinking person.” This kind of propaganda also promotes gender stereotypes. “Women gauge their happiness and judge their success by their relationships,” one curriculum taught students. “Men’s happiness and success hinge on their accomplishments.”
***
Disinformation is at the center of this agenda. It makes it more difficult for women to acquire the knowledge they need to control if and when they become pregnant — a problem that is exacerbated by the administration’s hostility toward abortion rights. Beyond that, abstinence-only education keeps all people who are subjected to it in the dark about critical aspects of their health, and treats a normal part of life — sexuality, and women’s sexuality in particular — as aberrant and shameful.
Trump’s efforts to deny American women the right to engage in sex out of wedlock has also extended itself into American involvement with the rest of the world, with this Administration’s representatives at the UN single-mindedly obsessed with promoting abstinence as a condition for recipients of American aid:
Members of HHS, USAID, and the US Mission to the UN asked for references to contraception, abortion, and comprehensive sex education to be struck from a document on international gender equality, calling the US a “pro-life nation.”
Of course, the issue of abortion dominates Administration policy, from its efforts to defund Planned Parenthood, to its vocal support for anti-choice organizations and the implementation of novel anti-choice legislation, and its rabidly anti-choice judicial appointments. The clear goal of this Administration more than any before it is to control not only female reproduction but a women’s right to have sex out of marriage at all.
There’s only one explanation for this assault on women’s freedom—the Administration’s reliance on its (white) Evangelical “Christian” voter base. It doesn’t matter that the type of anti-women religious extremism that dominates the thinking of these closed-minded fanatics is at odds with the beliefs and values—religious or otherwise– of the great majority of Americans. It doesn’t matter that white Evangelicals themselves are a minority of the American electorate. In order to placate this vital Republican-voting demographic, Trump, and in particular his supposedly “devout” Vice President Pence, have injected this Evangelical brand of extremist, religious dogma into our national policies with a vengeance. As in most of the world’s religions, Americans’ peculiar strain of Evangelical religion presupposes that women (and correspondingly, women’s needs) are subservient to those of men. That is the way the “religion” germinated and perpetuated itself in this country. And more so than any Administration in history this one is bending over backward to accommodate these people.
Trump’s high placement of far-right conservatives such as Tom Price and Valerie Huber, who once ran an organization dedicated to abstinence-only education and now is in charge of Title X implementation at the HHS, is the clearest evidence of his desire to accommodate Christian extremists in formulating a national policy with far-reaching, destructive social impacts on the majority of Americans who don’t ascribe to these beliefs.
Nor does it matter that Trump himself is proving himself as morally depraved as any “whoremonger” or adulterer condemned by St. Paul in The Acts, or any prophet of the Old Testament, for that matter. For these Evangelicals, Trump is a tool, a means to an end, with the end being the imposition of a religious-centered pro-Christian governmental philosophy in this country. A theocratic government, with the ultimate goal of bringing the rest of Americans into line with their “teachings.”
The control of women’s behavior is only the first step towards that goal.
__________________________________________
MR FROG wanting a religious theocracy meets ABRAHAM with his global corporation filled with black market guns and military junta. Of course they have to battle it out for control of BOMBAY------each recruiting the 99% of Bombay citizens some coerced----some pushed because of no jobs-----pitted against each other having no real population group as WINNER as a goal.
ABRAHAM AS MR FROG not shy about deliberately making BOMBAY economy stagnant to force those 99% of citizens to join one military junta or the other.
Below we see global banking 1% raging neo-liberal LAISSEZ FAIRE UNITED NATIONS pretending there is any way to regulate GLOBAL CORPORATE PRIVATE MERCENARY ARMIES. We are now told these mercenary corporations will no doubt be GOOD UN PEACEKEEPERS-----as well as UNITED NATIONS MILITARY.
So, ABRAHAM was married to that global 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS European family----while THE FROG represented global 1% ASIAN KINGS AND QUEENS not liking these new immigrant rich. Both armed with their own military junta-----filling each avenue of BOMBAY civil society with these militant employees.
'Private military and security companies (PMSC)'
A private military company (PMC) is a private company providing armed combat or security services. They are one type of private security companies. PMCs refer to their staff as "security contractors" or "private military contractors". Private military companies refer to their business generally as the "private military industry" or "The Circuit".[1][2]
DON'T WORRY SAYS UNITED NATIONS---THOSE SAME GLOBAL CORPORATIONS BEHIND CONTINUOUS WARS AND CIVIL UNREST THESE SEVERAL DECADES WILL NOW BE OUR PEACEKEEPERS!
This is a long article but please glance through to see how global media pretend the United Nations is protecting and wanting to regulate the very military structures having created a few billion of our global citizens death and civil destruction and make them RESPECTABLE GUARDIAN ANGELS. BUT, for our US and Western Europe to get there we have to have the same decades of civil unrest civil wars and complete breakdown of society before these GUARDIAN ANGELS can be installed as MILITARY JUNTA.
----if PMSC sounds like PP1, 2, AND 3----public private partnerships installed during Clinton to hand complete control of all US national, state, and local government agencies to global corporations----you would be correct---this is simply MOVING FORWARD US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES with global militarized security corporations. THOSE CRAZY SWISS-----always looking out for our 99% WE THE PEOPLE stating SELF-REGULATION of global mercenary corporations will do.
THE SWISS of course being global 1% banking OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS----KNIGHTS OF MALTA.
The Role of Private Military and Security Companies in Modern Warfare – Impacts on Human Rights
Gross human rights violations have brought the use of Private Military and Security Companies as a tool of foreign policy into the limelight. Heavily armed forces with limited accountability are the outcome of an increasingly privatized security sector. Violations committed by these forces outside of their home states are unregulated and go unpunished. PMSCs put the security of their own staff as well as that of civilians at risk. In this article, Jose Gomez del Prado, former Chair of the UN Working Group on the use of Mercenaries, explores the negative implications of using PMSCs in today’s globalized world.
By Jose L. Gómez del Prado
The Brown Journal of World Affairs
August 11, 2012
Private military and security companies (PMSC) have been involved in grave human rights violations that have attracted international attention and debate over the legitimacy of PMSCs, the norms under which they should operate, and how to monitor their activities. These companies pose a real problem to human rights, to the foundations of the democratic modern state, and to the rule of law[1].
The widespread outsourcing of military and security functions has been a major phenomenon in recent years[2].The new industry that has developed is transnational in nature and has grown very rapidly with the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Following the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the collapse of the U.S.S.R., military and security functions, previously considered inherently state functions, have been increasingly contracted out to the private sector. This important change with regard to the monopoly on the legitimate use of force[3] has been primarily implemented in western countries in the context of the anarchical globalization of the world economy. The private military and security industry has taken advantage of the reduction of national armies and the globalization of the economy to find a profitable niche and grow it into a powerful global phenomenon estimated at over $100 billion yearly[4].It has benefitted from the insecurity and fear that followed the terrorist attacks of the early 2000s and within the context of countering terrorism reinvigorated by “the global war on terror”.
The availability of experienced security and military personnel for hire has enabled governments, intergovernmental and nongovernmental organizations to circumvent political constraints on the use of force[5]. PMSCs operate in zones of low-intensity armed conflict such as Afghanistan– and post conflict environments-such as Iraq and Colombia. These companies also provide services for extractive industries and multinational corporations operating in unstable environments[6].
The new export security industry expanded primarily, though not exclusively, in Western Europe and North America. The growth has been particularly pronounced in the United States and United Kingdom, where 70 percent of the companies of this new security industry are registered[7]. Parallel to this privatization of warfare, there has also been increased demand for private security at the international level and for protection of property at the domestic level in states all over the world. In many countries, the number of private security personnel is greater than the number of active state police[8].
A. INVOLVEMENT OF PMSCs IN HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS
The use of PMSC as a new instrument of foreign policy, particularly of the USA, may be due to a number of factors such as: (a) the lack of human resources in the armed forces; (b) that they are considered to be more cost efficient; (c) nepotism and/or good contacts with the Administration; (d) to avoid responsibility for the acts committed by PMSC; (e) to avoid the control of democratic institutions; (f) to intervene in the internal affairs of a country. The use of PMSC as a foreign policy tool, however, not only raises a number of dangers but indicates that the State is abdicating to the private sector an essential responsibility.
Heavily armed and operating in situations of conflict, private security companies have been functioning in the absence of national regulatory frameworks to vet the recruitment of their employees, to control their weapons and to monitor their activities. There has also been opacity in their behavior and a lack of transparency which companies have manage to establish through the creation of numerous layers of subsidiaries or subcontracts in diverse countries[9].
The lack of accountability for human right violations that they have committed has been partly due to the difficulties in the application of domestic laws to PMSC actuating in foreign countries as well as to the difficulties in carrying out investigations in failed states. It has also been partly due to the difficulties in establishing responsibilities. Indeed, if the direct responsibility of the State for human rights violations can easily be proved when one of its agents commits a human right abuse, it is much more difficult to establish the link when it is a contracted PMSC or one of its employees. Moreover under international law for human right abuses only the responsibility of natural persons, not legal person, are recognized. To these circumstances also has contributed the immunity granted by governments to PMSC operating in a number of situations[10].
Despite the argument of home or contracting states from which PMSCs operate that they cannot be responsible for human rights violations committed by PMSC employees outside their territories and national jurisdictions, home states[11] should be able to regulate PMSCs at the source because they have the effective territorial control over different activities of PMSCs. Their territorial competence and control should make it possible for the state where PMSCs have their business headquarters or operational seat to discharge its due diligence principle duty. Under International Human Rights Law, states have the responsibility “to take appropriate measures or to exercise due diligence to prevent, punish, investigate or redress the harm caused” by acts of private military companies or their staff that impair human rights[12].”
All these factors have provided a propitious terrain where the human rights of the civilian population have been violated. An additional fact important to bear in mind is that PMSC, in their search for profit, often neglect security putting their employees in dangerous or vulnerable situations which may have disastrous consequences, such as the 2004 Fallujah incident in which four Blackwater private contractors were killed allegedly due to a lack of safety precautions that Blackwater was supposed to provide. That particular incident changed the whole course of the war in Iraq. That incident may be considered as the turning point in the occupation of Iraq. It led to an abortive US operation to recapture control of the city and a successful recapture operation of Fallujah in November 2004, called Operation Phantom Fury, which resulted in the death of over 1,350 insurgent fighters. Approximately 95 America troops were killed, and 560 wounded.
PMSCs, particularly in Afghanistan and Iraq, have been operating in gray areas without any control or lines of command threatening the lives and security of the civilian population. The following examples, which are not exhaustive, may serve to illustrate the impact of PMSC in the enjoyment of human rights.
Afghanistan
29 June 2009, a number of civilian casualties occurred as a result of a shooting incident between an Afghan private entity operating as a security company (Afghan Special Guards) and the Afghan National Police inside the Attorney General’s Office in Kandahar[13].
5 May 2009, two Xe (formerly Blackwater) private security contractors working for the U.S. Army were involved in an incident in Kabul, in which one Afghan civilian was killed and three others injured according to a US military inquest in Kabul.[14] “While stopped for a car accident, the contractors were approached by a vehicle in a manner they felt threatening. The contractors were trainers hired by Paravant LLC, a subsidiary of Xe[15]. There were allegations that they were issued AK-47s despite guidelines from the U.S. Department of Defense specifically indicating that the Xe personnel would not be armed[16]. A US Senate inquiry found that the Blackwater subsidiary Paravant illegally signed out 500 machine guns from a US military store[17].
Iraq 9 October 2007 In central Baghdad, two Armenian women were shot dead when their car came too close to a convoy protected by Unity Resources Group (URG) contractors.[18] URG employees opened fire as they felt threatened that the women’s car approached the convoy at high speed and was not going to stop.[19].
The same company (URG) was also involved in the March 2006 shooting of a 72-year-old Australian professor[20]. This 25-year resident of Baghdad, who drove through the city every day, allegedly accelerated his vehicle as he approached the guards and did not pay attention to warnings to stop[21]
According to a U.S. Congressional memorandum, between 2005 and 2007 Blackwater guards were involved in nearly 200 shootings in Iraq. [22] The document raises serious questions about how State Department officials responded to reports of Blackwater killings of Iraqi civilians. For example, in the case of a shooting of a guard of Iraqi Vice President Adil Abd-al-Mahdi in December 2006 by a Blackwater contractor, the State Department allowed Blackwater to transport the contractor out of Iraq within 36 hours of the shooting and suggested a $15,000 fine.[23] A similar approach was taken in other cases involving the shooting of innocent Iraqi civilians. Iraq continues to grapple with the legal immunity granted to private security contractors under Order 17 issued by the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA). Such immunity has prevented prosecutions in Iraqi courts. Nor have prosecutions in the home countries of such companies been successful.
The lack of accountability for violations committed between 2003 and 2009 persists and the victims of such violations and their families are still waiting for justice.[24]The lack of vetting procedures by PMSCs is best illustrated by the case of Danny Fitzsimons, a former British Army paratrooper who fatally shot two colleagues at the U.K. security company ArmorGroup (now part of G4S) and injured an Iraqi security guard in Baghdad. Fitzsimons had been discharged from the British Army in Iraq. Despite having been diagnosed by several psychiatrics as suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, Fitzsimons was contracted without any vetting procedure. In 2009, 36 hours after arriving in Baghdad, he shot dead two of his colleagues- a British and an Australian- and injured an Iraqi guard. In February 2011, he was tried in Iraq and condemned to 20 years in prison[25].
The most egregious known human rights violation by a PMSC is the shooting massacre perpetrated on 16 September 2007 by Blackwater personnel in Nisour Square, Baghdad. Seventeen people were killed and twenty others were severely injured[26]. Blackwater [27] has also been accused of fabricating documents to acquire unauthorized weapons, defrauding the USA government, and tolerating the widespread use of steroids and cocaine by its personnel.[28] Only after the implementation of a new Status of Forces Agreement in January 2009 and the cancellation of Coalition Provisional Authority Order 17—which had granted immunity to contractors—was the government of Iraq able to deny Blackwater’s application for an operating license. However, the company still had a contract with the U.S. State Department, and some Blackwater personnel were working in Iraq at least until September 2009[29].
Two United-States-based corporations, CACI International and L-3 Services (formerly Titan Corporation), have allegedly been involved in torturing Iraqi detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad.[30] The two companies, contracted by the U.S. Government, were responsible for interrogation and translation services in several facilities in Iraq. The Center for Constitutional Rights and a team of lawyers brought claims against the two companies under the Alien Tort Claims Act in 2004 on behalf of over 250 plaintiffs. The plaintiffs claimed they were “subjected to rape and threats of rape and other forms of sexual assault; electric shocks; repeated beatings, including beatings with chains, boots and other objects; prolonged hanging from limbs; forced nudity; hooding; isolated detention; being urinated on and otherwise humiliated; and being prevented from praying and otherwise abiding by their religious practices.”
Rendition flights
A number of reports have indicated that private security guards have played a central role in some of the most sensitive activities of the CIA. These activities include arbitrary detention and clandestine raids against alleged insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan, involvement in CIA rendition flights, and joint covert operations[31]. Employees of PMSCs have been involved in the transport of detainees from pick-up points (such as Tuzla, Islamabad, and Skopje); in rendition flights to drop-off points (such as Cairo, Rabat, Bucharest, Amman, and Guantanamo); and in building, equipping, and staffing the CIA’s “black sites.[32]” In 2007, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit against Jeppesen DataPlan, Inc., a subsidiary company of Boeing, on behalf of five persons who had been kidnapped by the CIA and held in overseas secret prisons maintained by the United States[33]. Allegedly, Jeppesen would have participated in the rendition by providing flight planning and logistical support.The US government had petitioned to dismiss the case under the state secrets privilege The plaintiffs petitioned the US Supreme Court on 7 December 2010 asking it to hear an appeal of the dismissal. In May 2011 the Supreme Court declined to hear the plaintiffs appeal[34].
Ecuador
Three Ecuadorian provinces and 3,266 plaintiffs have initiated lawsuits against DynCorp—a private company contracted by the U.S. State Department—concerning grave health problems [35]as a consequence of the spraying of narcotic plants along the Colombian and Ecuadorian border under Plan Colombia[36].
Equatorial Guinea
The 2004 attempted coup d’état perpetrated in Equatorial Guinea is a clear example of the link between mercenaries and PMSCs and violation of the sovereignty of States.[37] In this particular case, the mercenaries involved were mostly former directors and personnel of Executive Outcomes, a PMSC that had become famous for its operations in Angola and Sierra Leone.[38] The team of mercenaries also included two employees of a PMSC, Meteoric Tactical Systems, who at the time were providing security to diplomats of western embassies in Baghdad, including the Ambassador of Switzerland.[39] It also included a security guard who previously worked for the PMSC Steele Foundation, which also provided protection to President Aristide of Haiti[40]. A number of people involved in the attempted coup in Equatorial Guinea were arrested in Zimbabwe, others in Equatorial Guinea itself. The coup was intended to overthrow the government and hijack rich oil resources.
B. ARE PMSCs THE NEW PRIVATE PROVIDERS OF THE USE OF FORCE, THE MERCENARIES OF THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY?
PMSCs are the modern reincarnation of a long lineage of private providers of physical force, such as corsairs, privateers, and mercenaries. PMSCs are non-state entities operating in extremely blurred situations, where the lines between what is allowed and what is not are difficult to identify.[41] The new security industry moves large quantities of weapons and military equipment. It provides services for military operations, recruiting former military as civilians to carry out what has been labeled as “passive or defensive security”.
During the French Revolution, Swiss “private soldiers were also exercising passive security to protect Louis XVI and his family in Versailles. They were mercenaries. Today in Iraq, legally registered employees of private military and security companies protect President Kharzai of Afghanistan, U.S. generals, and many other political or diplomatic figures.
Mercenaries have existed throughout history. They have been a constant in all wars, but almost disappeared for nearly one hundred years after privateers were outlawed in the nineteenth century[42], only to reappear in the 1960s during the decolonization period, which took place under the United Nations in Africa and Asia. To a certain extent PMSCs constitute the new corsairs.
The definition of “mercenary” is contained in two universal instruments and one regional convention.[43]. The universal instruments are Additional Protocol I (Article 47) to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, within the context of ius in bello, and the 1989 International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries, adopted by the United Nations within the context of ius ad bellum. Under International Humanitarian Law, mercenaries are not given the protection of combatants but are not outlawed. Under the UN convention, mercenaries are criminalized[44].
According to the UN Definition of Aggression[45], one of the obligations of Member States is to prohibit the use of its territory to recruit, train and send “armed bands, groups, irregulars, or mercenaries” abroad to be used in combat operations directed against the “sovereignty, territorial integrity, and political independence of another State.” PMSC personnel are one of the categories covered by the definition.[46] The term “political independence of another State” is a direct reference to the right of self-determination stipulated in Article 1 common to the International Human Rights Covenants.
According to the definition under Article 47 (2) of Additional Protocol I, to be considered a mercenary the person has to fulfill the six conditions set out in that instrument. A mercenary (a) is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict; (b) does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities; (c) is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party; (d) is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict; (e) is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and (f) has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces[47].
The definition of a mercenary under the UN Convention covers all the criteria of Additional Protocol I with the exception of “does in fact take a direct part in the hostilities.” In addition, the UN Convention includes “any other situation” in which a non-national is recruited to take part “in a concerted act of violence aimed at (i) overthrowing a Government or otherwise undermining the constitutional order of a State, or (ii) undermining the territorial integrity of a State.” Whereas Additional Protocol I only applies to international armed conflicts, the UN Convention covers both international and non-international armed conflicts. Furthermore, the UN Convention makes the recruitment, use, financing or training of mercenaries an offense under international law and implies that any foreigner taking part in any violent activity aimed at provoking a change of regime through a coup d’état during peacetime may be considered a mercenary.
A number of the activities fulfilled by PMSC[48] may meet the requirements contained in the international instruments regarding mercenaries. Also, the recruitment of former militaries and law enforcement personnel as “security guards who would be ’exposed to great risks [...] including but not limited to the threats inherent in a war situation,” included as a clause in a number of contracts that the private security contractors signed, is extremely close to the element of the definition that specifies that the mercenary must be specifically recruited “in order to fight in an armed conflict.” [49] Even if they do not conduct offensive operations but have been recruited to protect military objectives, “security guards” may be targeted by the enemy who consider them as being recruited in an armed conflict. A number of activities conducted by PMSC employees may be considered direct participation in hostilities, such as the involvement of Blackwater employees in Najaf, Iraq, on 4 April 2004.
According to the interpretation of some legal experts of the International Committee of the Red Cross, the majority of PMSC employees operating in international armed conflict could be considered civilians. Only a small number are seen as combatants and mercenaries, who would lose protection under International Humanitarian Law when taking “direct part in hostilities.” The UN Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries does not require the direct participation of “security guards” in hostilities.[50].
Even though the main motivation of many of the private contractors engaged by PMSCs may be private gain, it is extremely difficult to prove this in court. Moreover, for many private guards, the motivation is a mixture of monetary gain, the “excitement and adrenaline” of adventure, and the possibility to put in practice all of their training, as. PMSCs usually hire personnel who have been highly trained in dangerous and counterinsurgency operations such as members of US SEALs, or SWCC, the British SAS or the French Legion[51].
The criteria of nationality and residence could not be applied to contractors from the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and other countries which have been involved in the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. It could be applied to nationals of countries such as Peru, Honduras, and Chile that are not parties to the conflict. In the case of Chile, it is interesting to point out that while the government of Chile voted against the UN Security Council resolution to intervene in Iraq Chilean citizens were contracted by PMSCs to provide “passive protection” in Iraq. The requirement that a mercenary must not be a member of the armed forces of a party to the conflict could easily be circumvented by a given state that utilizes PMSCs by incorporating these employees into its own armed forces.
Each of the elements taken individually poses problems to classify PMSCs as mercenaries. For PMSCs and their employees to be considered mercenaries, all the requirements in the definition of the international instruments must be cumulatively met. PMSCs are commercial firms legally registered in their home countries, a large number of which have obtained contracts from governments (the Pentagon and the State Department in the United States).
In addition, only 32 states have ratified the International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries and most of the governments which contract PMSC are not parties to the Convention.
All these difficulties to apply the 1989 International Convention against mercenaries indicate that this international instrument has become obsolete to deal with the new phenomenon of PMSCs.
C. THE NEED FOR INTERNATIONAL REGULATION
Self-Regulation: The Swiss Initiative, the Montreux Document of 2008, and the International Code of Conduct of 2010.
In 2006, in order to address the demand for a clarification of legal obligations under International Humanitarian and International Human Rights Law with regard to PMSCs, the government of Switzerland and the International Committee of the Red Cross launched what has been known as the Swiss Initiative, an international consultation process with main stakeholders: governments, the new industry of PMSCs, and civil society.[52] The Swiss Initiative has been supported domestically and by the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom, where most of the industry (70 percent) and the lobbyists for the new security industry are located: the International Peace Operations Association (IPOA) and the British Association of Private Security Companies (BAPSC).[53]
On 17 September 2008, the process led to a common understanding by 17 states known as the Montreux Document on Pertinent International Legal Obligations and Good Practices for States Related to Operations of Private Military and Security Companies during Armed Conflict.[54] This set out what the signatories view as the relevant IHL and IHRL applicable to PMSCs as well as a set of good practices for them. The second phase of the Swiss Initiative is the International Code of Conduct for PMSCs, aimed at setting high standards for the industry worldwide and supporting the establishment of a voluntary enforcement mechanism to ensure compliance with such standards. This is, however, still in the process of elaboration.
The United Nations and the proposed draft convention to regulate and monitor PMSCs
In 2005, the United Nations established the Working Group on the use of mercenaries “To monitor and study the effects of the activities of private companies offering military assistance, consultancy and security services on the international market on the enjoyment of human rights, particularly the right of peoples to self determination, and to prepare draft international basic principles that encourage respect for human rights on the part of those companies in their activities”. [55]
In the course of five years, the UN Working Group on Mercenaries has found that there is a regulatory legal vacuum covering the activities of PMSCs. It has also discovered a lack of common standards for the registration and licensing of these companies, as well as for the vetting and training of their staff and the safekeeping of weapons. While a number of rules of IHL and IHRL could apply to states in their relations with PMSCs, the Working Group has observed that there are challenges to the application of domestic laws, in particular for international PMSCs operating in a foreign state, and difficulties in conducting investigations in conflict zones. The effect of this situation is that PMSCs are rarely held accountable for violations of human rights.
The military and security services provided by PMSCs are highly specific and dangerous. They should not be considered ordinary commercial commodities left to the self-regulation of the market and internal controls. PMSCs have succeeded in creating diffuse responsibility and a lack of accountability through a labyrinth of contractual and insurance layers and shells.
Moreover, one should not forget that legal responsibilities of states to take appropriate measures to prevent, investigate, punish, and provide effective remedies for relevant misconduct of PMSCs and their personnel fully remain even if states have chosen to contract out certain security functions.
The Working Group has conducted a series of consultations with governments of the five geopolitical regions of the world on the impact of PMSC activities on the enjoyment of human rights, as well as on regulating and monitoring the activities of private military and security companies.
It has also organized a series of consultations with a wide range of stakeholders on the content and scope of a possible draft convention. An initial draft text of the convention was circulated to some 250 experts, academics, and NGOs to collect their input on the contents and scope of the Convention. The Working Group received some 45 written submissions comprising a total of over 400 comments.
In 2010 the Working Group recommended to the UN Human Rights Council and the General Assembly principles, main elements, and text for a possible International Convention on the Regulation, Oversight and Monitoring of Private Military and Security Companies.[56] Both documents take into consideration the comments received from these stakeholders and feedback from member states.
The proposed binding international instrument aims to reaffirm and strengthen state responsibility for the monopoly on the legitimate use of force, identify inherent state functions that cannot be outsourced to PMSCs under any circumstances, and regulate the use of force and firearms by PMSCs under international human rights standards. It also envisages the development of a national regime of licensing, regulation, and oversight of the activities of PMSCs and their subcontractors. The proposed convention identifies inherent state functions that cannot be outsourced, making a bright line between functions that are permitted, but should be regulated, and functions that belong to the state and cannot be privatized.
The new instrument would establish an international register of PMSCs based on information provided by states. State parties would be compelled to provide data annually for the register on imports and exports of military and security services of PMSCs and standardized information on PMSCs registered in and licensed by the state party. This obligation to share information about companies in an open and transparent way would provide greater public and parliamentary scrutiny. An international committee would monitor the measures taken by state parties to implement the convention.
The proposed convention would apply not only to states, but also to intergovernmental organizations, within the limits of their competence, with respect to PMSCs, their activities, and their personnel. It would apply to all situations where PMSCs operate, regardless of whether the situation is considered to constitute an armed conflict or not.
The fact that PMSC personnel are not usually “mercenaries” is also a strong argument for the adoption of a new instrument to deal with a new type of actor. Contrary to the “dogs of war” mercenaries of the past, private military and security companies are legally registered, and the definition used in international instruments—such as the one contained in Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions and the one in the UN Convention on Mercenaries—typically does not apply to the personnel of PMSCs.
The argument that employing PMSCs is cost-effective may be true in the short term and if a number of socioeconomic variables are not taken into consideration, such as training in the use of weapons and counterinsurgency operations of former militaries and policemen, which is paid by taxpayers. In this regard, it is worth noting the increasing number of military personnel who, attracted by higher salaries, are leaving the army in developed and developing countries to join PMSCs. One way to decrease costs for PMSCs has been to contract more former military members and policemen from developing countries at much lower salaries. Issues of reintegration and post-traumatic stress disorder in individuals returning to their communities from military or security work abroad have not been assessed either. Because of the nature of their contracts, thousands of these disposable “guns for hire” are available in the market and ready to be employed in any conflict situation.
The aphorism that the invisible hand of the market is enough to regulate the activities of PMSCs without outside intervention seems to have been abandoned after a number of events have proved to the contrary.
The Working Group is not the only body calling for a legally binding instrument to regulate and monitor the activities of private military and security companies. This is also the position of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, which has adopted two reports recommending “that the Committee of Ministers draw up a Council of Europe instrument aimed at regulating the relations of its member states with PMSCs and laying down minimum standards for the activity of these private companies.”[57] The UN Working Group’s proposals follow the same logic as the “Stop Outsourcing Security Act” proposed by U.S. Congress Representative Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), a member of the U.S. House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
Most UN Member States, upon considering the impact of PMSCs on the enjoyment of human rights, assert the opinion that outsourcing functions related to the legitimate use of force to private contractors requires binding regulatory and monitoring mechanisms at the international level due to the transnational character of the industry. The position of western states, however, is that a binding instrument with regulatory and oversight mechanisms is too premature. The recommendation made by the Working Group to the United Nations to create an open-ended intergovernmental working group to consider an international regulatory framework to monitor PMSCs has been accepted despite the opposition of western states.[58] A process has been set up in the United Nations for political negotiations on this important issue by Member States, Intergovernmental Organizations, and civil society represented by human rights institutions and non-governmental organizations.[59]
___________________________________________
While ABRAHAM built his own PMSC---------PRIVATE GLOBAL MILITARY AND SECURITY CORPORATION-----MR FROG as sovereign citizens was getting mighty nervous over his ability as a sovereign INDIAN wanting wealth and power -----to be able to become that FROG TO PRINCE------just as our US 99% WE THE PEOPLE today understand that CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA has unleashed the same against our US sovereign nation ----indeed trying to take the US to colonial status.
THE MOOR'S LAST SIGH ends with these two factions along with global 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS fighting it out for BOMBAY-----as we stated above BOMBAY bursts into fire-----preparing BOMBAY to MOVE FORWARD to being MUMBAI------GLOBAL ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE SMART CITY.
Mumbai Metropolitan Region to develop 5 Smart Cities
December 20, 2014 smartadmincp Smart Cities News, Smart City Projects
MUMBAI now -----SMART CITIES being that global banking 1% militarized, deep, deep, really deep state controlled by global mercenary military and security corporations mirrors BALTIMORE MD USA being made BLOOMBERG FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE #2 NORTH AMERICA ------it too MOVING FORWARD SMART CITY control of US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES by these same PMSC-----PRIVATE GLOBAL MILITARY AND SECURITY CORPORATIONS.
MR FROG as a local INDIAN want-a-be PRINCE loses out when India's OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS join the global 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS of Europe, Arabia, Eastern Asia for ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE under UNITED NATIONS PRIVATE MILITARY/PEACEKEEPERS.
It's a good thing the only REAL development happening in US CITIES DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES is building of SMART CITIES infrastructure because these few decades of US civil unrest civil war causes all kinds of death, destruction, community citizens displaced.
ROBBER BARON 5% freemason/Greeks black, white,and brown players morphing from criminal fraud and government corruption to being leaders of military junta.
Books
Mumbai now, Bombay then
MEENA MENON
Chennai, March 02, 2010 09:42 IST
Updated: March 02, 2010 09:42 IST
This rather large and heavy coffee table book on Mumbai's past and present has a breezy essay on ‘Mumbai Now' by Naresh Fernandes and pictures by the renowned Chirodeep Chaudhuri. Fernandes draws upon his own maternal grandfather's history to illustrate how you can make it anywhere if you make it in Mumbai.
He starts off his contribution with the little known “shuttlers” who ferry film reels from theatre to theatre. “It's the kind of livelihood that could only have been invented in Mumbai.” Fastracking through enterprise, culture, food and movies, he hits on the central point — the point where the city changed dramatically, the communal riots in 1992-93 — and ends with the city becoming the target of terrorism. “No matter how bad things get, they seem to suggest, we have an infinite capacity to cope. But now it's all too clear that we're wearing thin.”
Succinct
In contrast, Jim Masselos presents a succinct and much more rosy picture of the past in the ‘Bombay Then' section, which is interesting and beautifully illustrated in black and white. “Bombay or Mumbai has always been a city of the here and now, of today, of tomorrow and even of the day after.” He brings out how “the efforts of citizens concerned with preserving the city's heritage” have contributed to the importance of Bombay's history.
And so we are taken back in time to the islands and the Elephanta caves and also treated to stories of drunken Portuguese soldiers who shot at the priceless statues out of boredom, the seven islands coming together, the early educational institutions, and how the city acquired a character of diversity. “Bombay town over the first half of the nineteenth century acquired a character of diversity and even cosmopolitanism.
There was a mix of ethnicities, communities, castes, religions and classes. Among them were Armenians and Greeks, Chinese and Persians, Arabs and Jews from outside the subcontinent; while from within it came not only immigrants from the immediate Marathi, Konkani and Gujarat hinterlands but from further afield — from Kerala, Rajasthan, North India and Bengal.”
Taking the reader through a rather snappy account of Bombay's rise as a city, Masselos says that “it was clear by the beginning of the 1920s that Bombay had begun to reach the limits of the seven islands from which it had begun and now needed to move outwards.” The city was beautiful and faithful to its reputation as Urbs Prima in Indis, the first city in India.
A Mumbai resident cannot but feel nostalgic reading about the city's better planned past, which comes out for instance in this observation: “Pherozeshah Mehta, like many other leading men of the city on many occasions and over many years, referred to the beauty of its harbour, the superiority of its location and the calibre of its public buildings.”
Masselos speaks of the “enormous civil pride in Bombay” something that has painfully eroded over the years, of the city's key role in the nationalist struggle, and how it became a “fully Indian city” after Independence.
Breathtaking
The opening page of the ‘Bombay Then' section is a breathtaking and rare photo from the 1880s of the city with a panoramic view along the coast. Other captivating features include: old pictures of the Ganpati festival with smaller crowds, giving it an almost personal touch; rare shots of the first railway line in India, between Bori Bunder and Thane, inaugurated in 1853; the Bombay-Pune railway line that cuts through the Western Ghats; the old Fort walls of the city which were pulled down later; and the old Churchgate station with approach through a moat and the harbour. The black-and-whites of yesteryear serve as a balm for the strained eyes that are so used to a crowded, congested and almost ugly city that Mumbai is now.
One of the pictures of Rampart Row with Flora Fountain (now Hutatma chowk) in the centre is particularly riveting. So are many of the city's aerial views of the Bombay Race Course, Victoria Terminus (now Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus) apart from the island city itself. Another blissful view is that of the promenade along Chowpatty and Marine Drive with only a few cars, unimaginable today.
In contrast, the ‘Mumbai Now' section is brightly coloured. While the city has changed so much, the picture showing hordes of people walking through a flooded thoroughfare is worth more than a thousand words. And that kind of says it all about Mumbai now.
_____________________________________________
We will end this week's public policy discussion referencing SALMAN RUSHDIE'S THE MOOR'S LAST SIGH----by pointing to the political conflicts in this novel----it is always a member of that wealthy global corporate family who is made the hero of COMMUNIST/MAOIST fighters for our 99% of WE THE WORKERS. We spoke earlier this week about the global banking 5% freemason/Greek players being ALT RIGHT ALT LEFT MARXIST REBELS VS RIGHT WING FASCISTS in Latin America----in Africa---in southeast Asia-----well, here too in Rushdie's novel come those global banking MARXISTS----and they do indeed invade SRI LANKA ----creating death, destruction continuous societal turmoil for those 99% of Sri Lankan citizens after which Sri Lanka is made a FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE with almost all of its native citizens dead or vanquished.
'Fastracking through enterprise, culture, food and movies, he hits on the central point — the point where the city changed dramatically, the communal riots in 1992-93 — and ends with the city becoming the target of terrorism'.
So too in Rushdie's novel does this become BOMBAY morphing to MUMBAI. Now, do US cities need global banking ---global corporations---do we need militarized juntas creating all kinds of violence, guns, drugs, population tensions in order to REBUILD OUR LOCAL US CITY ECONOMIES?
OF COURSE NOT-----WE CAN REBUILD OUR LOCAL US CITY ECONOMIES IN EACH COMMUNITY WITH SMALL BUSINESSES AND SMALL BUSINESS MANUFACTURING.
Why is CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA now TRUMP MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE? They are attacking our national, state, and local sovereignty to take US to colonial independent economic zones ruled by global military tribunal.
HOW PROGRESSIVE AND FREE MARKET IS THAT!!!
For those not knowing UNDERARMOUR -----loving that ARMOUR----is top global corporation is supplying military/global security and policing uniforms, boots, et al -------as what makes it a billion dollar corporation with some sales of sports wear on the side. Here is our former Baltimore Police chief now tied to global security corporation----being that
'Private military and security companies (PMSC)'
with lots of global banking 5% FAKE religious leaders ready for MILITARY JUNTA here in Greater Baltimore. This Baltimore police chief chasing BAD GUYS WITH GUNS led a police force filled with corrupt police officers we all knew were tied to political machine drug, gun, violence making Baltimore one of the most violent and third world in US. BEALEFELD as Rushdie's BOMBAY government and law enforcement never seemed to notice ABRAHAM as black market global corporation or MR FROG as THE CORPORATION running a mafiosa syndicate ----ONE VOTE ONE BRIBE said ABRAHAM and MR FROG. THE MOOR----the only survivor of the complete dissolution of both these crime families-----was arrested for his father's crimes as the low-level manager but freed with bribes.
Fred BealefeldVice President & Chief Global Security Officer at Under Armour
Bel Air, Maryland
Law Enforcement
Current
- Under Armour,
- U.S. Department of Justice
- Community College of Baltimore
Experience
Vice President & Chief Global Security Officer
Under Armour
July 2014 – Present (4 years 1 month)Baltimore, Maryland AreaResponsible for the development, implementation and oversight of all global security efforts for Under Armour; including personal security for UA teammates, facility and asset protection.- Member; Bureau of Justice Assistance Law Enforcement Forecasting Group
U.S. Department of Justice
March 2014 – Present (4 years 5 months)- The U.S. Department of Justice's Law Enforcement Forecasting Group (LEFG) helps the Bureau of Justice Assistance anticipate emerging crime trends and identify developments in tactics, strategies, and technologies that might assist law enforcement agencies provide quality police services. Composed of law enforcement executives and criminal justice researchers, LEFG members provide invaluable environmental scanning that BJA uses to develop new programs to test concepts and to create training and technical assistance programs that are immediately relevant to the law enforcement field. LEFG members have identified five top priorities for BJA law enforcement programs as:
Crime Analysis & Capacity Building
Gun Violence
Information Sharing
Human Resources (recruiting, training, retaining)
Social Media
https://www.bja.gov/Programs/LEFG-Bealefeld.html
RSS Feed
