Israeli bulldozer crushes peace activist,
Sharon crushes ‘road map’
go to article

Brave new court with limited reach
go to article

Brazil recognizes indigenous land rights
go to article

Indigenous struggle in Ecuador
becomes a ‘cause beyond control’
go to article

Cheney still paid by Pentagon contractor
go to article

Prominent people in Sierra Leone
indicted for war crimes
go to article

Death squads out of control in Cote d’Ivoire
go to article

French women march against machismo
go to article

WORLD BRIEFS
go to Briefs

back to top

Israeli bulldozer crushes peace activist,
Sharon crushes ‘road map’

Compiled by Seán Marquis

Mar. 19 (AGR)— Rachel Corrie, 23, a student at The Evergreen State College in Olympia, WA was killed Sunday in the Gaza Strip while trying to stop a bulldozer from tearing down a Palestinian physician’s home.

Corrie was a member of the International Solidarity Movement (ISM), a Palestinian-led group that uses nonviolent methods to challenge the illegal Israeli occupation. Among their methods is standing in front of the bulldozers Israel sends into the area nearly every day to destroy buildings near the Gaza-Egypt border. The Israelis say Palestinian gunmen use the buildings as cover, and arms-smuggling tunnels dug under the border terminate in the buildings.

Corrie and other ISM members were attempting to prevent the destruction of the house of Dr. Samir Masri in the city of Rafah.

In a statement the ISM said that Rachel Corrie was in the line of vision of the bulldozer’s driver as she stood in his path to try to prevent the demolition of the house.

“When the bulldozer refused to stop or turn aside she climbed up on to the mound of dirt and rubble being gathered in front of it ... to look directly at the driver who kept on advancing,” the group said in a statement.

Ali Musa, a doctor from the al-Najar hospital in the southern Gaza Strip, said she died from skull and chest fractures.

A tearful Craig Corrie, Rachel’s father, described his daughter as “dedicated to everybody.”

“We’ve tried to bring up our children to have a sense of community, a sense of community that everybody in the world belonged to,” he said from his home in Charlotte, North Carolina. “Rachel believed that -- with her life, now.”

The Israeli army said her death was an accident. It claimed the driver’s vision was restricted because the bulldozer cab had small windows.

ISM member Charles Smith, who witnessed Corrie’s death, said the incident began when she sat down in front of the bulldozer. He said the driver scooped her up with a pile of earth, dumped her on the ground and ran over her twice. Smith said Corrie was dressed in a bright orange jacket with reflective stripes.

Smith added that protesters have stopped bulldozers in the past by sitting down in front of them.

“The soldier in control of the huge machine drove it deliberately over her. He then backed up, and ran over her again,” said activist/author Starhawk in a statement from Nablus.

“I am trying to fathom the mind that could pull the levers and gun the motor to crush the life out of her young body. That choice, that deliberate act of murder that ended her sweet life, seems incomprehensible.

“But here in occupied Palestine, that murder is a logical outgrowth of the system of total dehumanization that controls every aspect of life, that cannot see the human being in the Palestinian, that claims to be fighting terror by institutionalizing it,” Starhawk said.

Corrie was the first ISM member to be killed in the conflict. Several activists have been arrested in clashes with Israeli forces, some have been deported by Israeli authorities, and some have been shot.

Israeli forces fired teargas and stun grenades in an attempt to break up a memorial service for Rachel Corrie on Mar. 18.

Witnesses including several dozen foreigners and Palestinian supporters say Israeli armored vehicles tried to disperse the gathering at the spot in the Rafah refugee camp where Corrie was crushed to death.

Joe Smith, a young activist from Kansas City, said about 100 people were gathered to lay carnations and erect a small memorial when the first armored personnel carrier appeared.

“They started firing teargas and blowing smoke, then they fired sound grenades. After a while it got hectic so we sat down. Then the tank came over and shot in the air,” he said.

The army said it was investigating the incident.

‘Road map’ to nowhere

According to a Mar. 17 report in the Guardian (UK), Israel is to press US president George W. Bush to eliminate all reference to an “independent” Palestinian state from the US “road map” to a political settlement.

Ariel Sharon’s government has drawn up a list of amendments it wants made. They include the replacement of independence by “certain attributes of sovereignty.”

Israel, Sharon says, will retain control of the Palestinian state’s external security, borders, airspace, and underground water resources, and will have a veto over treaties with other countries.

Sharon has also told his cabinet that he plans to extend the “security fence” Israel is building along the length of the West Bank so that it entirely encircles any future Palestinian state.

The 230-mile wall — 20 feet high with guard towers and topped with barbed wire — already under construction will extend the length of the West Bank, creeping deep inside Palestinian territory for long stretches.

Now Sharon is proposing to link the two ends of the fence already under construction with an additional section along the length of the Jordan valley. But he denied it was intended to define the borders of a Palestinian state ahead of the implementation of the US “road map.”

“A fence is not a political border. It is not a security border but rather another means to assist in the war against terror, and greatly assist in stopping illegal aliens,” Sharon said.

Jeff Halper, a respected documenter of Israeli expansion in the occupied territories, commented: “It’s hard not to conclude that they are using the wall to create a de facto border that basically reduces the West Bank to the 45 percent or 50 percent that Sharon is talking about giving the Palestinians, all truncated.”

Sources: Associated Press, Guardian (UK), Independent (UK),Indymedia

back to top

Brave new court with limited reach

By Sanjay Suri

London, England, Mar. 12 (IPS)— The International Criminal Court (ICC) opened in The Hague this week but its writ will not run over much of the world in conflict. And where it does, it could still be years away.

An agreement to set up an international court to try war crimes has been signed by 139 countries but ratified by 89. These 89 do not include many of the nations in conflict situations in which many cases for the court could arise.

Also, the International Criminal Court can only take up cases against those accused of war crimes after July 1, 2002 when it came into existence legally. And it can only deal with cases where the accused is a national of a signatory state or if the crime took place in a signatory state. And no one is certain how the court hopes to enforce its orders.

The US signed the ICC convention on Dec. 31, 2000 but then opted out. US officials wrote to the ICC in May last year: “This is to inform you, in connection with the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court adopted on July 17, 1998, that the United States does not intend to become a party to the treaty.”

US officials say that participation in the ICC would expose US troops to politically motivated cases, and undercut anti-terrorism efforts.

China, Russia, India and Pakistan, Israel, North Korea, Iraq and most countries run by military dictatorships have opted to remain outside its jurisdiction. “But the only really prominent opponent is the Bush administration,” William Pace, Convenor of the Coalition for the International Criminal Court told IPS from The Hague. The coalition represents about 2,000 non-governmental organizations that back the court.

The US ambassador declined to attend the inauguration of the court at The Hague in the Netherlands Monday. Under strong US pressure about 20 countries have signed immunity arrangements with Washington under which any complaints from them would exempt all US citizens.

The US is signing such agreements under Article 98 of the ICC’s statute which allows signatory countries to refuse to hand citizens serving abroad to the court if doing so would clash with another international agreement. According to some reports the US has threatened to cut off all assistance to nations that do not sign similar exemption agreements.

Although they have opted out, Russia and China have been making “neutral or pro-ICC statements over the past two or three years,” said Pace. There are also countries “in the middle of terrible conflicts who have joined,” he said. These include the Democratic Republic of Congo, Afghanistan, and Colombia.

In most cases the ICC is expected to take up cases that are referred either by the governments of countries that have ratified the agreement, or by NGOs and humanitarian organizations. But cases can also be referred by the United Nations Security Council and in such cases it makes no difference whether the government concerned has ratified the Rome agreement or not.

That means any referral by the Security Council could be subject to a veto by any of the five permanent members — the US, Russia, China, France, and Britain. But that could change “if the US determines over the next one month that in the future the veto does not mean what it used to in the past,” Pace said.

Where its jurisdiction does run, the ICC will still not override governments and national court systems at will. Take the case of Britain, which has ratified the convention to set up the ICC. If Britain joins an attack on Iraq and a complaint is made before the ICC against British soldiers or its leaders, it would still be “only remotely” possible that the court will launch prosecution, according to Pace.

“The court would tell the British government in such a scenario of the complaints it has received over war crimes, but the British could say they have a functioning legal system which would investigate the complaints and prosecute someone if necessary,” said Pace. The ICC could step in only if such an exercise proves to be a sham and a way of shielding individuals who should be found guilty.

The ICC would in effect have to sit in judgment on the judicial systems of nations before it can begin to try individuals.

Whatever actions result would be likely only in the somewhat distant future. Pace anticipates three or four cases going forward over the next 10 to 15 years. The court has already received hundreds of complaints even before it can begin dealing with cases.

Eighteen judges were inaugurated Tuesday this week. A prosecutor is due to be appointed over the next two months. That is a critical post because the prosecutor will decide finally what cases the court chooses to take up. There is much dispute at present over that appointment.

The court has begun with about 50 to 60 employees. But it will need about 200 employees for purposes of basic establishment. It will need 500 to 600 employees before it can begin dealing with cases. The tribunal to try war crimes in Yugoslavia needed 900 employees, the tribunal for Rwanda several hundred. Just setting up will take a year or two even with the fastest possible hiring of staff.

But the establishment of the court represents a “fundamental strengthening of the international legal order, despite the sound and fury over another impending war,” Pace says.

“There has been progress in the development of law and justice at an international level over the last ten years,” he says. “The development of international democracy in Europe over the past 35 years is as much a reality as pax Americana.”

The court represents a globalization of democracy, human rights and the rule of law, and has in a sense joined “the race between democracy and the principle of might is right,” Pace says. “The 20th century was the most violent in all of history and in this century so far that legacy is continuing. But the creation of this court has meant the creation of one of the greatest anti-war institutions in all of history.”

back to top

Brazil recognizes indigenous land rights

By Jim Lobe

Washington, DC, Mar. 12— A Brazilian judge has formally recognized the rights of Brazil’s last hunter-gatherer Indian tribe, the Awa, to almost 60,000 acres of land in Amazon Maranhao state as a first step toward saving the group from virtual extinction, according to the group Survival International.

The judge’s order Tuesday came a day before Survival handed Brazilian authorities a petition of more than 40,000 signatures urging the new government of President Luis Inacio Lula da Silva to protect the Awa area — and especially the estimated 60 Awa who still live in uncontacted groups — and ensure that ranchers and settlers who have moved into the territory are permanently removed.

Three years ago, London-based Survival filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Awa.

Most of the 300-400 Awa alive today live in small villages protected by the government’s national Indian agency, FUNAI, which has been helpless to prevent the invasion of ranchers and settlers into the area over the past 25 years or so. Because the Awa’s territory was never demarcated — mapped out and marked on the ground — many of the invaders believed they had as much rights as the Awa to live there.

In 1950, the Awa population was estimated at 800; many of the Indians were killed by settlers or died from diseases contracted from contact with them. Their origin is unclear but Survival, which has championed their cause for 20 years, believes they were farmers who were forced to adopt a nomadic lifestyle to survive waves of Portuguese and Brazilian settlers who invaded their ancestral lands 200-300 years ago.

The Indians remain largely self-sufficient for food and other essentials. “This is not a people who need aid or handouts, they can care for themselves,” says Fiona Watson, Survival’s director and one of the few westerners to visit the Awa. “They just need their land rights respected so they can live the life of their choosing,” she told BBC last summer.

In 1982, the Brazilian government and the mining company CVRD received loans worth $900 million from the World Bank and the European Union to develop iron ore deposits in the Carajas mountains.

One condition of the Bank’s loan was that all Indian territories within the project area should be demarcated by FUNAI. While this was done for most other Indian groups in the region, the Maranhao state authorities, which have been dominated by cattle interests, never acted.

The delay left the land unprotected from even greater invasion by loggers, ranchers, and settlers, some of whom have not hesitated to attack and even massacre Indians in the rush for land. As a result, some 276 properties are now settled in the Awa area, most of them since 1990. This process has added urgency to the call for demarcation and recognition of the Awa’s land rights.

The Awa area is considered critical also because it links two other indigenous areas in the state, the Caru to the south and the Alto Tunaco to the north, where Awa also live. Survival reported three years ago that there were clear indications that this area, too, may be inhabited by uncontacted groups of more than 50 people. In 1998, six of a group of 10 uncontacted Awa died, probably from disease transmitted by outsiders, according to Survival.

Source: OneWorld.net

back to top

Indigenous struggle in Ecuador
becomes a ‘cause beyond control’

By Kenny Bruno

Mar. 13— Force majeure -- literally “major force” but translated also as “cause beyond control” -- usually describes unforeseen natural catastrophes such as earthquakes or major upheavals such as wars, which can void the obligations of a legal contract.

But the Ecuadorian government now uses force majeure to describe legitimate community opposition to oil concessions on indigenous territory in the Amazon rainforest.

On Mar. 4, 2003, the Ecuadorian newspaper Hoy reported that the Ministry of Environment has agreed to allow two transnational companies to cancel their oil concession contracts under the provision of force majeure. The force majeure they are referring to is the determined opposition of Kichwa, Shuar, and Achuar people who live in the concession areas to ongoing activities by the companies, Burlington Resources of Texas and Compania General de Combustibles (CGC) of Argentina. The CGC concession is owned partly by ChevronTexaco, according to Platt’s Oilgram News. (Oil giants Chevron and Texaco merged in 2000.)

This turn of events, in what has been a furious struggle between indigenous communities and transnational oil companies, leaves the communities and their supporters wondering if they have won a major victory or are in danger of increasing repression.

On the surface, it would seem to be an inspiring victory for the indigenous people whose ancestral territories in the Amazon rainforest have become known as Block 23 (the CGC block) and Block 24 (the Burlington concession). Taken at face value, the decision frees the companies of any obligation to the Ecuadorian government to carry out oil activities in the areas. It means the decision of the communities to oppose oil development in their territories will be respected.

“We will say no forever; we don’t want to think about the possibility of oil in the future. We definitely want another kind of future,” Achuar leader Santiago Kawarim was quoted as saying by the group Amazon Watch.

But there are reasons to be skeptical. Rene Ortiz, the president of the Association of Oil Companies in Ecuador, which includes both CGC and Burlington, has accused indigenous leaders of being “outlaws,” according to Hoy. He says the problems in the two blocks are due to the absence of authorities in the remote rainforest. For his part, the Minister of Environment has responded by calling for police presence in the area.

These statements have human rights advocates in Ecuador concerned that the force majeure ruling is the beginning of a campaign by the companies and their allies in government to force the indigenous communities to accept oil development in their territories against their will.

In a letter to Hoy, Jose Serrano, a lawyer with the Quito-based Center for Economic and Social Rights, points out that it is, in fact, the companies that have not complied with Ecuadorian law.

On Nov. 15, 2002 the Civil Commission Against Corruption determined that Burlington had not filled the requirements of its concession contract. In addition, Burlington has violated an injunction against communicating with individual members of the Shuar federation, a practice that Shuar leaders say is meant to divide their people by offering special deals to some and not others. Serrano points out that CGC has also violated the terms of a federal injunction relating to its operations in block 23.

“Who are the real outlaws [in these cases]?” he asks.

At stake are the basic rights of indigenous people of the Amazon. These communities have said “no” to oil development on their lands. Human rights advocates wonder if their wishes will be respected, or if excuses will be found for militarizing these communities in order to pave the way for oil companies to operate.

Oil impacted communities have seen such militarization many times before. ChevronTexaco, which controls 50 percent of Ecuador’s block 23, has been accused before of complicity with military repression in the countries in which it operates. The oil giant is a defendant in a US lawsuit for its alleged role in requesting and facilitating intervention by the Nigerian military, which led to the deaths of two activists peacefully protesting against Chevron.

Meanwhile, Texaco’s operations have led to massive contamination of the northern part of the Ecuadorian Amazon. Texaco is also a defendant in a class action lawsuit for that contamination and resulting impacts on the health and livelihood of some 30,000 Ecuadorian Indians and campesinos. Amazon Watch estimates that some 350 open toxic pools still remain in the backyards of many indigenous and forest communities. These pools are festering with cancer-causing chemicals including benzene, toluene, arsenic, lead, mercury, and cadmium, they say.

“This was an environmental crime of epic proportions that has created a black plague of cancer through the Amazon where ChevronTexaco drilled,” said Luis Yanza, a community organizer for the Frente de Defensa de Amazonia, during a San Francisco Bay Area tour last December.

The situation in Blocks 23 and 24 can go in a number of directions. The companies might leave their concessions. The indigenous communities might welcome such a retreat, even if they are unfairly blamed for the pull-out. But this outcome would not suit the government, since it would mean the loss of revenues guaranteed by the concession contract. There is, therefore, a strong possibility that the force majeure ruling is a prelude to an effort to divide and conquer those opposed to oil exploitation.

If police or military presence is increased in blocks 23 and 24, the questions will be: are they there to protect the oil companies, or the Amazonian people? Will the rights of the communities -- including the right to say no to oil development -- be respected? Or will the need for oil to pay interest on a crushing external debt overshadow human rights?

For all the ambiguities and dangers in the current situation, the Ecuadorian government has shown innovation in using the force majeure provision to describe indigenous opposition to violations of their rights. Belatedly, they have officially recognized the movement in defense of indigenous rights as a “major force.” They have recognized that the will of indigenous communities is “beyond the control” of the government and the oil companies.

What is not clear is whether this major force will be respected or attacked.

Source: EarthRights International

back to top

Cheney still paid by Pentagon contractor

By Robert Bryce and Julian Borger

Austin, Texas and Washington, DC, Mar. 11— Halliburton, the Texas company which has been awarded the Pentagon’s contract to put out potential oil-field fires in Iraq and which is bidding for postwar construction contracts, is still making annual payments to its former chief executive, the vice-president Dick Cheney.

The payments, which appear on Cheney’s 2001 financial disclosure statement, are in the form of “deferred compensation” of up to $1 million a year. When he left Halliburton in 2000 to become George Bush’s running mate, he opted not to receive his leaving payment in a lump sum but instead have it paid to him over five years, possibly for tax reasons.

An aide to the vice president said yesterday: “This is money that Cheney was owed by the corporation as part of his salary for the time he was employed by Halliburton and which was a fixed amount paid to him over time.”

The aide said the payment was even insured so that it would not be affected even if Halliburton went bankrupt, to ensure there was no conflict of interest.

“Also, the vice president has nothing whatsoever to do with the Pentagon bidding process,” the aide added.

The company would not say how much the payments are. The obligatory disclosure statement filled by all top government officials says only that they are in the range of $100,000 and $1 million. Nor is it clear how they are calculated.

Halliburton is one of five large US corporations — the others are the Bechtel Group, Fluor Corp, Parsons Corp, and the Louis Berger Group — invited to bid for contracts in what may turn out to be the biggest reconstruction project since the second world war.

It is estimated to be worth up to $900 million for the preliminary work alone, such as rebuilding Iraq’s hospitals, ports, airports and schools.

The contract winners will be able to establish a presence in post-Saddam Iraq that should give them an invaluable edge in winning future contracts.

The defense department contract awarded to the Halliburton subsidiary, Kellog, Brown & Root (KBR), to control oil fires if Saddam Hussein sets the well heads alight, will put the company in an excellent position to bid for huge contracts when Iraq’s oil industry is rehabilitated.

KBR has already benefited considerably from the “war on terror.” It has so far been awarded contracts worth nearly $33 million to build the detention camp at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba for al-Qaida suspects.

Asked whether the payments to Cheney represented a conflict of interest, Halliburton’s spokeswoman, Wendy Hall, said: “We have been working as a government contractor since the 1940s. Since this time, KBR has become the premier provider of logistics and support services to all branches of the military.”

In the five years Cheney was at the helm, Halliburton nearly doubled the amount of business it did with the government to $2.3 billion. The company also more than doubled its political contributions to $1.2 million, overwhelmingly to Republican candidates.

Cheney sold most of his Halliburton shares when he left the company, but retained stock options worth about $8 million. He arranged to pay any profits to charity.

Source: Guardian (UK)

back to top

Prominent people in Sierra Leone
indicted for war crimes

By Lansana Fofana

Freetown, Sierra Leone, Mar. 11 (IPS)— Seven prominent persons, including the country’s Minister of Internal Affairs, Sam Hinga Norman, were this week indicted and detained ahead of an appearance before a UN-backed Special Court for alleged atrocities committed during Sierra Leone’s civil war.

“They are being indicted for crimes ranging from murder, rape, extermination, acts of terror, enslavement, looting and burning, conscription of children in the combat forces to attacks on UN peacekeepers,” says David Crane, the America-born international prosecutor of the court.

Those in custody include Issa Sesay and Morris Kallon, all of the former Revolutionary United Front (RUF), a rebel outfit which has been accused of appalling atrocities. Former RUF leader, Foday Sankoh, who was already in prison, has also been transferred to UN custody.

Two indictees are on the run, former military leader Johnny Paul Koroma and the dreaded RUF commander Sam Mosquito Bockarie.

While reading out the names of the indictees and the statements of indictments Monday, Crane appealed to the people of Sierra Leone and the sub-region to turn over the two fugitives who “have warrants on their heads.”

He said: “The people of Sierra Leone have today made their voices heard, they say never again, and that the rule of the gun is over.”

The special court was requested by Sierra Leonean president Ahmad Tejan Kabbah with the mandate to try “individuals believed to bear the greatest responsibility for atrocities committed during the war.”

The premises of the court and the detention facilities are currently under construction with the court having a three-year mandate and a budget of some $45 million.

Reactions to the special court indictments have been sharp and drawn mainly along political lines.

“How could they arrest Sam Norman?” asks baffled ex-Kamajor militia fighter Munda Kamanda. “He fought the rebels to restore democracy. I think this move is bound to create fresh problems for the country.”

Norman led the pro-government Kamajor militia against the RUF during Sierra Leone’s conflict.

RUF ex-combatants and ordinary civilians are also concerned. “I thought the government had urged us to forgive those who hurt us and try to reconcile the nation. I hope they are not provoking those murderers to come and finish us off,” an amputee whose left arm was chopped off by the rebels told IPS Monday.

Ex-RUF fighter Captain Lion said: “This whole business about the special court baffles me a lot, it makes no sense at all. We agreed to end the war peacefully and here they are arresting our leaders.”

There is considerable hysteria in the country, which is just emerging from a vicious civil conflict. Concerned Sierra Leoneans cite the disappearance of the fugitive junta leader Koroma who they say may be planning a violent armed insurrection.

Plus, the ex-RUF commander Bockarie is believed to be hibernating in the neighboring West African state of Liberia and reports say he too, may want to foment trouble in an effort to torpedo the judicial process. But these are all legitimate fears coming from a people who are traumatized.

The West African state of Sierra Leone experienced a brutal war of boundless cruelty. Children sometimes as young as eight had their hands or legs cut off by murderous bands of armed fighters in the pursuit of political power and diamonds.

In January 2001, the war was declared over and elections held the following year. Recently attempts were made to destabilize the security of the state by armed dissidents and a number of persons picked up and interrogated.

There is concern now that that the special court may well be the next flashpoint for renewal of the conflict. But as David Heckt, the public affairs officer of the court told IPS earlier: “We have a presence of more than 16,000 UN peacekeeping forces in the country and that is pretty enough to keep the peace.”

Others are not so optimistic. The fear is that with the country’s newfound peace yet hanging in the balance, the special court may after all trigger a new round of conflict. But not in the eyes of journalist and rights activist, Pasco Temple, who says: “I welcome the indictments and arrests. I believe this action to seek justice will certainly break the cycle of impunity.”

back to top

Death squads out of control in Cote d’Ivoire

By Franky Kouakou

Abidjan, Cote d’Ivoire, Mar. 10 (IPS)— Death squads are terrorizing Cote d’Ivoire, leaving behind a trail of destruction and tears.

Just who is behind the death squads remains a mystery. President Laurent Gbagbo and his wife Simone Ehivet Gbagbo, as well as close family friends, were implicated in the killings by a UN report published in January. But Gbagbo, who is fighting rebel forces seeking to overthrow his government, denied all accusations made against them at a press conference held in Abidjan, the country’s economic capital, on Mar. 1.

“I am not a murderer,” Gbagbo exclaimed. “My political enemies are engaged in promoting sordid propaganda against my regime to discredit my standing as the country’s legitimate leader.”

Survivors vow that the death squads exist. One of them, Francois Guei, the head of Cote d’Ivoire’s prison department, claims a death squad nearly wiped out his family on Feb. 1.

“They arrived at 8:35pm and rang the bell at our gate. Over the intercom, my wife asked who it was, and someone answered: ‘Police, we’re doing a routine check’.”

Guei’s wife went to the gate and through the peephole, saw several men in military uniform, wearing hoods. “They were heavily armed. Naturally, she was frightened and rushed back towards the house,” Guei recalls.

“They tried to force the gate open,” Guei says. The siege lasted for about half an hour. By 9pm, it seemed that they had given up and went away.

But five minutes later they returned. “This time, they left their cars, idling, but turned off the headlights,” Guei explains. “They had blocked the alley with three vehicles, one of which was a four-by-four, and another a sedan. At around 9:35pm, the group gave up and left ... for good.”

Guei, who lives in Cocody, a posh suburb of Abidjan, which is less than two kilometers from President Gbagbo’s residence, says he called the minister of defense to protect his family. But no soldier arrived until the men had left. Guei vows that the men are part of the death squad terrorizing Cote d’Ivoire.

That same day, the body of television star Camara Yerefe, commonly known by his stage name “Camara H,” was found on an Abidjan street after being taken away by men in military uniform that evening.

Those who have perished under similar circumstances in Abidjan, include Emile Tehe, the leader of a small opposition party, and Dr. Benoit Dakoury-Tabley, the younger brother of Louis Dakoury-Tabley, a top official of the Patriotic Movement of Cote d’Ivoire (MPCI), the country’s main rebel group.

President Gbagbo has said he would file a complaint with the International Court of Justice in The Hague, The Netherlands, about the crimes committed in Cote d’Ivoire since Sept. 19. He also has asked the United Nations to send a commission of inquiry to Cote d’Ivoire.

back to top

French women march against machismo

By John Lichfield

Paris, France, Mar. 9— After a month-long tour of the grimmest places in France, four young women and two young men led a march through Paris yesterday to protest against the oppression of women in the poor suburbs of French cities.

The demonstrators — who call themselves ni putes, ni soumises (neither whores, nor downtrodden women) — have been touring the poor, racially mixed suburbs of French cities since Feb. 1. They hope to encourage young women in the banlieues — many, but not all of them, of Arab descent — to revolt against a chauvinist culture that divides women into two groups: the submissive and “respectable,” and the sexual prey.

The marchers, who have been met with counter-protests by Islamic groups and verbal assaults by gangs of young men on a tour of 24 cities in the last month, were received yesterday by the French Prime Minister, Jean-Pierre Raffarin.

Their march was inspired by two events. A 16-year-old girl, Sohane, was burned to death in the Parisian suburb of Vitry last year after being doused in lighter fluid by a spurned former boyfriend. And Samira Bellil, a woman of North African origin, published a book last year describing how she had been gang-raped as a teenager.

The six leaders of the protest — three of Arab origin, three of French origin — led a march of several thousand people from the Place de la République in Paris to mark International Women’s Day yesterday. Safia, Loubna, Christelle, Ingrid, Farid and Olivier (who preferred not to give their second names) say the increasing oppression of women in the banlieues of French cities is partly explained by the advance of militant strains of Islam but that it extends to women of French, African or eastern European origin who are not from Muslim families.

Any girl who does not adopt a submissive attitude, lowering her eyes when she sees a man, or staying at home most of the time, is regarded as a sexual target, they say. Gang-rapes of girls as young as 13 are common. Wives are often beaten up, and young women fear to go out on the street on their own.

Safia, 29, said that normal relationships had become impossible, viewed as a sign of softness on the part of the boys and promiscuity on the part of girls.

“Sohane was just one victim among many,” she said. “I have known 10 similar events. A friend of mine had her throat cut in front of her children because she wanted a divorce.”

The demonstrators were ambushed when they visited Asnières in the northern Paris suburbs last month by an Islamic-inspired counter demonstration involving men calling themselves ni machos, ni proxos (neither machos nor pimps). The counter-protesters claimed that the publicity given to the protesters was reinforcing racial and religious stereotypes about the poor suburbs of French cities.

Source: Independent (UK)

back to top