De Blasio and the Left

The Big Apple’s Obama?

by LOUIS PROYECT

On August 16^th I wrote an article for my blog titled “A Dossier on Bill de Blasio” that mentioned in passing his occasional appearance at NY Nicaragua Solidarity steering committee meetings nearly 25 years ago, something I likened to Obama’s overtures to antiwar activists on Chicago’s South Side—an investment that could pay future dividends. As de Blasio escalated up the electoral ramps in New York, he was careful to retain his liberal coloration even though he became an ally of Dov Hikind, a Brooklyn pol who once belonged to Meir Kahane’s terrorist Jewish Defense League.

When Hikind spearheaded a drive to force Brooklyn College to add a speaker reflecting Zionist policies to a meeting on BDS, de Blasio issued the following statement: “The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement is inflammatory, dangerous and utterly out of step with the values of New Yorkers. An economic boycott represents a direct threat to the State of Israel–that’s something we need to oppose in all its forms. No one seriously interested in bringing peace, security and tolerance to the Middle East should be taken in by this event.”

Despite his anti-landlord rhetoric, he also endorsed Bruce Ratner’s downtown Brooklyn megaproject that ran roughshod over the local community’s needs. Originally based on a design by superstar architect Frank Gehry, the project so appalled novelist and Brooklynite Jonathan Lethem that he was inspired to write an open letter to Gehry calling the project “a nightmare for Brooklyn, one that, if built, would cause irreparable damage to the quality of our lives.”

There’s lots of excitement among liberals about the prospects of a de Blasio mayoralty. As might have been expected, the Nation Magazine endorsed him in the primary election as “reimagining the city in boldly progressive, egalitarian terms.” Peter Beinart, a New Republic editor who has gained some attention lately for veering slightly from the Zionist consensus, wrote an article for The Daily Beast titled “The Rise of the New New Left” that was even more breathless than the Nation editorial. Alluding to German sociologist Karl Mannheim’s theory of “political generations”, Beinart sees the de Blasio campaign as “an Occupy-inspired challenge to Clintonism.”

Most of Beinart’s article takes up the question of whether de Blasio’s momentum could unleash broader forces that would derail Hillary Clinton’s bid for the Democratic Party presidential nomination in 2016. Perhaps that analysis can only be supported if you ignore the fact that de Blasio was Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager when she ran for senator from New York in 2000. The NY Times reported on October 7, 2000: “At the White House, the president, Mrs. Clinton and her campaign team can often be found in the Map Room or the Family Theater, drilling for her debates, or fine-tuning lines in some speech.” One surmises that Bill de Blasio was there.

Reporting for CounterPunch on July 26, 2005, Joshua Frank referred to Hillary Clinton as the Margaret Thatcher of the Democratic Party, a reference to her acceptance of a top position with the Democratic Leadership Council, a body that sought to expunge all traces of George McGovern style liberalism from the party.

With respect to de Blasio’s campaign being “Occupy-inspired”, it is important to note that in an interview with Bhaskar Sunkara in the Nation, he tried to dance around the sticky problem of Bloomberg’s eviction of the protestors from Zuccotti Park: “The location that they were using did become a problem. I think it was appropriate to say that that had to change.” Of course, it had become a problem. It was a constant reminder that people were unhappy about the rich lording it over the rest of society.

Despite de Blasio’s liberal image and even more radical connections a quarter-century ago, he would have probably followed the same path as Oakland’s Mayor Jean Quan who sicced 600 cops on Occupy activists on October 25, 2011 just two weeks before Bloomberg’s sweep of Zuccotti Park. If anything, Quan had an even more radical past than de Blasio. In the 1960s she was a member of the Third World Liberation Front when she was an undergrad at Berkeley. But when you begin to run City Hall in a major American city, you have to leave all that behind you. Law and order comes first.

On September 4^th I was contacted by Javier Hernandez, a NY Times reporter who was working on an article about de Blasio. He had seen my article and wanted more information about his role at the NY Nicaragua Network. I told him (and an NPR reporter who contacted me later on) that it was difficult to remember what someone said or did that long ago. I referred him to people who had remained active with the network long after I had dropped out. Hernandez dug up material from younger people whose memories have remained sharper than my own. They helped him recreate the Bill de Blasio of the good old days:

Mr. de Blasio’s answering machine greetings in those days seemed to reflect a search for meaning. Every few weeks, he recorded a new message, incorporating a quote to reflect his mood — a passage from classic literature, lyrics from a song or stanzas of a poem.

Over time, he became more focused on his city job, and using the tools of government to effect change. The answering machine messages stopped changing. He no longer attended meetings about Nicaragua.

His friends in the solidarity movement were puzzled. At a meeting early in 1992, Mr. de Blasio was marked absent. A member scribbled a note next to his name: “Must be running for office.”

If he told his comrades that he was running for office, he would have likely reassured them that it would be to challenge corporatist values after the fashion of Beinart’s new new left. Hernandez writes:

Increasingly, he was distressed by what he saw as “timidity” in the Democratic Party, as it moved to the political center in the dawning of the Clinton era, and he thought the government should be doing more to help low-income workers and maintain higher tax rates.

Nowadays de Blasio would probably confess to this being a youthful indiscretion, at least to those who were not eager—like me—to debunk the notion that he is an “Occupy-inspired” candidate. I for one am anxious to see Bill de Blasio become the next mayor of New York as part of the long, difficult but necessary task of waking Americans up from the deep slumber that allows them to trust capitalist politicians to turn back the ever-increasingly cruel attack on their standard of living. If you pay careful attention to what is happening behind the scenes, you will see that de Blasio will likely be known as the Big Apple’s version of Barack Obama. The NY Times reported on September 11:

But as Mr. Lhota [the Republican nominee] seeks to secure support, Mr. de Blasio, aware that his rhetoric has unsettled powerful people, has quietly been in touch with several establishment figures recently, including Rob Speyer, the chairman of the Real Estate Board of New York, and the financier Steven Rattner. Both men have close ties to Mr. Bloomberg, and supported the campaign of Christine C. Quinn in the Democratic primary.

In some of these conversations, Mr. de Blasio has played down his unabashedly liberal positions, pointing out that no public-sector union has endorsed him, and saying that he would represent the wealthy as well as the 99 percent if elected mayor, according to people familiar with the discussions.

The marketing of Bill de Blasio, like that of Barack Obama, has been most skillful. Most experts in the field regard the ad that featured his son Dante, sporting a 60s style Afro (de Blasio is married to an African-American), as key to his success. It played to both liberal and African-American constituencies. Two of Obama’s top campaign advisers are now working for de Blasio. His campaign manager is Bill Hyers and John Del Cecato has been producing his commercials.

Although I had no trouble telling the NY Times or NPR what I remembered about de Blasio, I sent the NY Post packing. To my surprise, some of my email correspondents charged me with abetting a redbaiting campaign against de Blasio as if NY Times readers or NPR listeners would be scandalized about the candidate’s youthful fling with the left. They make it sound as if going to Nicaragua was something to keep secret, like a New Yorker magazine cartoon of bearded anarchists assembling a bomb in the Paris sewers.

The Times article accurately noted that “Tens of thousands of Americans — medical workers, religious volunteers, antiwar activists — flocked to Nicaragua hoping to offset the effects of an economic embargo imposed by the United States.” Like Bill Clinton’s antiwar activities at Oxford, Kerry’s testimony to Congress as an embittered Vietnam veteran, or Obama’s friendship with CP’er Franklin Marshall Davis in Hawaii, these are the sorts of things you expect young people to do. It is only hard-core radicals who continue challenging the system well into their sixties and seventies such as the unrepentant author of this article.

The irony is that no matter the intent of the NY Times reportage, it will only make de Blasio more attractive to people sick and tired of business as usual. Today very few people have any idea of what Nicaragua stands for, many knowing it only as a spot featured from time to time on the House Hunters show on the HGTV cable network with a couple of gringos looking for a place on the beach at an affordable price. In fact Daniel Ortega would fit right in at some of those meetings de Blasio is going to right now. He learned long ago that the only way to get ahead in Nicaraguan politics is not to offend Uncle Sam. But at least Daniel Ortega came to this point only after putting up a valiant if doomed resistance that tested his own mettle and those of the people he risked his life to liberate. Bill de Blasio came a lot cheaper.

Louis Proyect blogs at http://louisproyect.wordpress.com and is the moderator of the Marxism mailing list. In his spare time, he reviews films for CounterPunch

______________________________

Nauseated by the
vile media?
Did you have enough of their lies, escapism,
and relentless manipulation?

GET EVEN.
Send a donation to TGP or

SHARE OUR ARTICLES WIDELY!
But do something.

________________________________

Obama Reeks of Sulfur at the UN

A Black Agenda Radio commentary by BAR executive editor Glen Ford

There was nothing conciliatory about President Obama’s speech to the UN. His message was blatantly subversive of the UN Charter, reserving the right to launch pre-emptive wars for “humanitarian” purposes and to circumvent the world body through proxies and “coalitions of the willing” in quest of regime change. No less than George Bush’s message in 2006, it was a declaration of war against peace.

“Obama’s speech was one long threat against world order and the rule of law.”

President Obama went to the United Nations this week and declared war [10] against the UN’s most fundamental founding principles, all the while claiming to be the world’s one indispensable, unique and exceptional nation.

The speech was a reminder of the reason rich people in America financed and sponsored Obama’s rise to the presidency in the first place, as the new, non-white face of U.S. imperial power. Obama’s foreign policy mission was to subvert United Nations prohibitions against the use of force except in self-defense, and to substitute a so-called “humanitarian” rationale justifying aggression by Washington and its allies. This constitutes a fundamental break with the UN Charter, signifying that the U.S. realizes it can no longer dominate the world by economic and other “soft power” means and must, therefore, sweep away the accumulated structures of international law that inhibit America’s ability to smash its adversaries with raw military force.

Obama’s speech was one long threat against world order and the rule of law. He baldly stated that the U.S. is prepared to “use all elements of [its] power, including military force, to secure [its] core interests in the region” – a statement that is, on its face, a violation of the UN’s prohibition against the threat of the use of force against other nations. International law forbids the powerful from rattling their sabers over perceived challenges to their economic or other interests in other people’s countries. Obama, like the honey badger, doesn’t give a damn about international law.

He says that, “wherever possible” he will try to “respect the sovereignty of nations,” but will “take direct action” – meaning, military force – “when it is necessary to defend the United States against terrorist attacks.” That’s another way of saying the U.S. reserves the right to send drones anywhere in the world to kill whoever it wants, whenever it wants, for its own reasons that are nobody else’s business – which is the behavior of an outlaw, rogue state.

“The U.S. reserves the right to send drones anywhere in the world.”

Among the “interests” that the U.S. sees as just cause for going to war, is the promotion of what Obama calls “democracy, human rights, and open markets” in the Middle East and North Africa. “These objectives,” says Obama, “are best achieved when we partner with the international community and with countries and people of the region.” Translation: The U.S. will continue to form “coalitions of the willing” to use military force for regime change or to preserve the status quo, circumventing the United Nations – a gross violation of international law.

Obama claims that “America is exceptional” precisely because it will go to war for so-called “humanitarian” reasons in order to prevent violence to civilians before it has occurred – that is, wars based on American readings of its own crystal balls, such as NATO’s war against Libya. This is actually the doctrine of pre-emptive war, which is a blatant violation of the UN Charter whether the rationale is “humanitarian” or some other excuse.

In a final obscenity, Obama concludes with a shameless reference to Dr. Martin Luther King’s “dream.” Forty-six years ago, Dr. King declared that the U.S. was the greatest purveyor of violence in the world. That is what is so exceptional about America: its relentless quest for military domination of the planet and utter disregard for the norms of law and civilization. Barack Obama is the planetary Warmonger-in-Chief. His breath smells of sulfur [11], just as George Bush’s did when he addressed the UN, seven years ago.

For Black Agenda Radio, I’m Glen Ford. On the web, go to BlackAgendaReport.com.

BAR executive editor Glen Ford can be contacted at Glen.Ford@BlackAgendaReport.com [12].

_[13]
_{Source URL: http://www.blackagendareport.com/content/obama-wreaks-sulfur-un}

_________________________________

Nauseated by the
vile media?
Did you have enough of their lies, escapism,
and relentless manipulation?

GET EVEN.
Send a donation to TGP or

SHARE OUR ARTICLES WIDELY!
But do something.

________________________________

On Pravda: An ordinary America responds to McCain’s hypocritical puffery

Opinion » Readers feedback

Perspective of an Average American on John McCain

By Mike Lazuka, Pravda.ru

Vile or even gangster is too kind a term to define John McCain. Let's just call him a typical politician of a system that needs to be swept away if the world is to have a chance of survival, peace or equality.

Vile scum is too kind a term to define the hyperegotistical John McCain, a typical figure in the top tier of the filthy American ruling establishment.

It was with great disgust that I read John McCain’s sanctimonious opinion piece directed at the people of Russia and published last week here on Pravda.ru, and it is my hope that the people of Russia can see right through his rhetoric. I would imagine that the average Russian citizen has little idea of who Mr. McCain is beyond being an American politician who unsurprisingly holds himself in very high regard, and thus deems it appropriate for him to preach to the citizens of other countries about how he cares for you much more than your own elected officials.

As an American citizen I feel that it is my moral responsibility to let you know the truth, and hopefully in the process bring to light some of the reasons why you should never put one bit of trust or faith in the words of Mr. McCain, or any other American politician. I have lived in America my entire life, growing up as a child during the Cold War, and later attending a prestigious university in the evening while I worked during the day building medical equipment, contributing to the good of society while building a career. I am from a working middle class family that has earned everything we ever had, and lived what the overwhelming majority would call an average American life.

On the upper end of the spectrum in America is Mr. McCain, a member of the American political and financial elite. His net worth is over one billion dollars by some estimates, and when asked during the 2008 presidential election the question of how many homes he owns, he could not answer – as he had lost count. I do not begrudge the wealth of the man, but feel that it is safe to assume that he could not tell you what a gallon of milk or a loaf of bread costs at the grocery store, let alone relate to the lives of any average citizen in either the U.S. or Russia. His life is one where unimaginable wealth and power are a given, and as with the other members of the American ruling class, his life is centered solely on gaining more.

As an example of how detached Mr. McCain is from the lives of the American citizenry, take the example of a town hall meeting in Cedar Falls, Iowa. At this meeting he was presented with a question regarding American soldiers, many of whom were also fathers and suffering with the issue of their wives filing for divorce while the soldier was deployed, resulting in these soldiers coming home to find that they no longer had access to their children, and were instead relegated to four days a month “visitation” with their children and saddled with an unmanageable monetary obligation to their ex-wives. Under American law these soldiers were supposed to be protected from court action while deployed, but this obligation was being ignored by the courts. Asked what action Mr. McCain would take to rectify this injustice, his response was that this “was a tar baby of enormous proportions” and that he would do absolutely nothing.

The press in the United States made a big issue out of the use of the racial slur “tar baby”, which is a derogatory term relating to people with dark skin, and rightfully so. What most media outlets ignored however was the rest of Mr. McCain’s answer, which speaks volumes about his character beyond that of his use of hate speech. Here we have a supposed war hero who was captured during the Vietnam War and makes a very public display of his military service in an effort to gain political favor. Now years later as a politician he blatantly and deliberately turns his back on military fathers who, in the service of their country, risk losing the single most important and valuable piece of any human life – their children. I ask you: does that sound like someone who is worthy of your trust?

In fact, Mr. McCain is in lock step with other American politicians when it comes to such basic human rights as the one to raise one’s own children. All of them like to tout terms like “freedom” and “equality” and phrases like “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”, all the while believing in none of it. The actual application of those ideals are provided not to everyone, but only those groups that the political elite deem fit – the groups that will help them amass ever more power and money. This can also be seen with the revelation of America’s domestic spying program, where the individual right to privacy has been removed and the same citizens that are the subject of such unchecked surveillance are also the same citizens that are being forced to pay for it through ever-increasing taxes. For yet another example, look at American warfare in general. The same political elite that is so willing to send troops into baseless conflicts around the globe also happens to have ownership in the defense companies that produce the missiles, drones, and other equipment used. The elite are enriched by war while everyone else, troops as well as innocent civilians, die as a result. In need of another example? Take note of the fact that while the United States has less than 5% of the world’s population it has 25% of the world’s prison population, and that the privately owned prison companies typically have contracts with state governments that require 80% to 100% occupancy.

In short, Mr. McCain and other American politicians may think it is their right to preach to you from their hypocritical pulpit, but keep in mind that the same values they are preaching they in fact deny to citizens of America. Recently I have seen the Russian people stand up to do much good in the world, and pray that it continues. The world needs your voice.

—Mike Lazuka

It’s Still Class Warfare

Pretend All You Like

by DAVID MACARAY

Ebven the New York Times recently had to ruin a series on "class" in the US, albeit defined simply as income levels, not in Marxist terms.

Even the New York Times recently ran a series on “class” in the US, albeit defined simply as income levels, not in Marxist terms.

It’s an old joke, but it bears repeating: An Oxford professor meets a former student on the street. He asks what he’s been up to lately. The student tells him he’s working on a doctoral thesis about the survival of the class system in the United States. The professor expresses surprise. “I didn’t think there was a class system in the United States,” he says. “Nobody does,” the student replies. “That’s how it survives.”

The growing chasm between the so-called middle-class and the rich, coupled with the on-going, systematic assault on organized labor, isn’t simply the result of some unfortunate decisions. Rather, it’s evidence of a well-oiled drive, led by Wall Street and its minions, to separate and segregate the working class from the rest of the economy. It’s class warfare, plain and simple, fought the way our “real” wars are now fought—heavily muscled and sanitized.

Because there’s no opposition (not the Congress, or the Church, or organized labor, or citizen groups), the timing couldn’t be more perfect. The rich and powerful are actively seizing all they can get, and they’re doing it boldly, audaciously, in broad daylight, in front of our eyes, making it reminiscent of those frontier land-grabs where they took everything they wanted, knowing no one could stop them.

So what can we do about it? Vote for progressives and hope for the best? Write to our congressmen? Write to the president?

Actually, we can write the president. Not that anything meaningful will result from it, but it’s easy to do. Anyone interested in getting an opinion heard, getting a gripe off their chest, presenting a personal manifesto, or simply hurling insults at the Oval Office can write to President Obama at this address: http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/

It might take a month or two, but unless you’ve issued a death threat or written a particularly vulgar letter, you’ll get a response. Of course, it won’t be President Obama who writes you. Indeed, it’s unlikely he’ll even read your letter. Rather, it will a nameless and faceless intern assigned to mail duty who writes back.

Six or seven weeks ago I wrote the president, grousing about how pitifully little he’s done for working people. Beginning with his abandonment of the EFCA (Employee Free Choice Act, which would’ve made card-check the law of the land), and his appointment of his old Chicago crony, that anti-union shill Arne Duncan, as Secretary of Education, I lamented the fact that he has been a profound disappointment.

Because this was my first letter to the president, and because I had no idea how it would play out, I was more interested in testing the water than in overwhelming the man with a long list of grievances, or coming off as wildly aggressive. After all, isn’t that Ted Cruz’s job?

Accordingly, I avoided ideology. There was no mention of class distinctions, class warfare, class protests, dialectics, or the Democrats’ betrayal of the American worker. Instead, I politely expressed my surprise at his reluctance to use the bully pulpit to promote the virtues of organized labor, and very gingerly accused him of being either insincere or gutless when it came to supporting unions.

The following is his (his intern’s) response, filled with enough platitudes, weasel words, and assorted bullshit to give politicians a bad name. Had he (his intern) said, “Before you start bitching, fella, try dealing with a Congress whose sole goal is to see you fail,” I would’ve respected him. But instead, I got platitudes. And call me nitpicky, but I objected to his (his intern’s) use of the upper case in the word “Nation.”

“Dear David:

Thank you for writing. I have heard from many Americans about the concerns of working men and women, and I appreciate your perspective.

Since our Nation’s founding, we have relied on the firm resolve and commitment of working Americans. These men and women are the backbone of our communities and power the engine of our economy.

Workers have not always possessed the same rights and benefits many enjoy today. But throughout our history, hardworking individuals have joined together to exercise their right to a voice in the workplace. Through these efforts, the labor movement has improved the lives of countless working Americans and their families by representing their views and advocating for better wages and safe, fair working conditions. Over time, this work has helped lay the cornerstones of middle-class security—the 40-hour workweek and weekends, paid leave and pensions, the minimum wage and health insurance, and Social Security and Medicare. As we support the groundbreaking contributions of the American workers who have built our country and brightened our tomorrow, we must continue to protect the role and rights of workers in our national life, including their right to collective bargaining.

Every day, hard-working men and women across America prove that, even in difficult times, our Nation is still home to the most innovative, dynamic, and talented workers in the world. Generations of working people have built our Nation—from our highways and skylines to the goods and services driving us in the 21st century. My Administration remains committed to supporting their efforts in moving our economy forward.

Thank you, again, for writing. I encourage you to read more about my Administration’s approach to this complex issue and other critical matters at www.WhiteHouse.gov.

Sincerely,

Barack Obama”

_{David Macaray, an LA playwright and author (“It’s Never Been Easy: Essays on Modern Labor,” 2nd edition), is a former union rep.}

Kenya: Islamist militia attacks Nairobi’s Westgate mall, killing 68

By Alex Lantier, wsws.org

Gunmen assaulted the upscale Westgate mall in the Kenyan capital of Nairobi over the weekend, killing 68 and wounding 200 in an attack claimed by Somalia’s Al Qaeda-linked Al Shabab militia. Kenyan security forces surrounded and repeatedly attacked the gunmen, who took 36 hostages and as of this writing continue to hold out inside sections of the mall.

The Westgate attack came amid an international wave of Taliban or Al Qaeda-linked bombings, including a string of car bombings in southern Yemen Friday and yesterday’s church bombing in northwestern Pakistan. (See: “Suicide-bomb attack on Christian church kills 80 in Pakistan”)

The Nairobi attack began Saturday around noon, when 10 to 15 gunmen armed with automatic rifles and rocket-propelled grenades attacked the mall, one of Nairobi’s main luxury shopping centers, well known to international visitors. Shoppers who escaped said the attackers, including both women and men, shot accurately and seemed highly trained.

While Kenyan forces secured the top floors of the mall Saturday evening, fighting on lower floors continued throughout the weekend. Many people were trapped in the mall until Sunday. Shopper Cecile Ndwiga told the BBC, “the shootout was all over—left and right.”

Several Kenyan soldiers were reportedly killed by grenade fire yesterday while storming the mall’s Nakumatt supermarket.

A Kenyan security official told AFP that Israeli forces had also entered the mall and were “rescuing the hostages and the injured.” Security forces at the mall, which is in part Israeli-owned, were reportedly also receiving assistance from US and British advisors.

Yesterday afternoon, Kenyan army and police forces backed by helicopters began a renewed assault around 4 p.m. Last night there were reports of powerful explosions in Nairobi, as officials announced they were launching a “final assault” on the mall.

Victims killed in the attack included Ghanaian poet Kofi Awoonor; Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta’s nephew Mbugua Mwangi and his fiancée, Rosemary Wahito; Peruvian doctor and former UNICEF official Juan Jesús Ortiz; and citizens of South Africa, Britain, France, China, India, South Korea, and Canada. Four US citizens were injured.

A Twitter account belonging to the Al Shabab militia claimed responsibility for the attacks. It claimed the attacks were retribution for the invasion of Somalia by Kenyan troops—supported by the United States, including US drone strikes. This intervention aimed to fight Al Shabab and support Somalia’s corrupt Transitional Federal Government. (See: “US-backed Kenyan forces invade Somalia”)

Before the Twitter account was shut down, it posted several messages, such as: “The attacks are just retribution for the lives of innocent Muslims shelled by Kenyan jets in Lower Jubba and in refugee camps … For long we have waged war against the Kenyans in our land, now it’s time to shift the battleground and take the war on their land.”

It also posted a message blaming the Kenyan government, which it said had “turned a deaf ear to our repeated warnings and continued to massacre innocent Muslims in Somalia.”

Al Shabab military operations spokesman Sheikh Abdiasis Abu Musab told Reuters: “We have been fighting Kenyan forces for two years … If Uhuru wants peace from us, he should withdraw his troops from Somalia.”
UN officials had reportedly warned Kenyan officials of the threat of “attempted large-scale attacks” in Kenya. Last week, Nairobi police broke up a plot in “advanced stages” of planning by terrorists located in the Somali neighborhood of Eastleigh, and armed with grenades, AK-47 assault rifles, and suicide vests stuffed with ball bearings.

Journalists in Nairobi reported the city was in a state of shock at the horrific scale of the killings. With blood supplies running low at the city’s hospitals, thousands of people lined up to donate blood.

Kenyan officials appealed for calm and national unity during the siege of the Westgate mall, six years after inter-ethnic massacres claimed 1,000 lives and displaced 600,000 after the disputed 2007 elections.

Citing the necessity of staying to oversee the Westgate siege, Kenyan officials said Kenyatta and Deputy President William Ruto, who face trial at the International Criminal Court (ICC) for their role in inciting the 2007 killings, would not attend this week’s UN General Assembly. They were due to speak at the UN, as part of the African Union’s effort to dismiss the ICC charges against them.

“Whereas very important multilateral and bilateral meetings had been planned for President Kenyatta during the week, including a speech to the General Assembly, we very much regret that he cannot be out of the country at the same time as the Deputy President,” Kenya’s Permanent UN Representative Machariah Kamau told UN General Secretary Ban Ki-moon.

The horror of the Westgate attack underscores the criminal character of the support offered by the United States government and its allies to Al Qaeda-linked opposition militias in Syria. These forces have carried out hundreds of terrorist attacks in that country, according to US officials, killing large numbers of innocent civilians.

The rise in support from Washington and its allied Persian Gulf sheikhdoms to Al Qaeda-linked forces internationally, first in the 2011 Libya war and now in Syria, has set the stage for more attacks and new, catastrophic “blowback” against civilian targets. Already, on September 11, 2012, Islamist forces in Libya who seized control of portions of Benghazi during the NATO war attacked US installations, killing US diplomat Christopher Stevens.

The rise in Al Qaeda-linked attacks globally comes less than two weeks after the Obama administration, facing deep popular opposition and the threat of a military clash with Iran and Russia, postponed a war with Syria to support Al Qaeda-linked opposition forces. This has led to expectations of talks between the United States, Syria, and Syria’s allies Iran and Russia at the UN. These talks are bitterly opposed by Syria’s Islamist opposition, which faces defeat.

Whether the Kenyan attacks are a response to the postponement of the Syrian war, or an attack driven by local objectives and facilitated by rising international funding and political support for Al Qaeda in the context of the war in Syria, is still unclear. However, US officials are acting on the assumption that Al Qaeda-linked forces may mount further retaliatory attacks aimed at UN talks.

MSNBC reported yesterday that, in response to the Nairobi attack, New York City law enforcement agencies are boosting security in Manhattan ahead of this week’s UN General Assembly meeting.