|
Secret war aid to US threatens Saudi
stability
Compiled by Shawn Gaynor
Apr. 26 (AGR) — Suspected Saudi extremists on took direct
aim at the regime in Riyadh Apr. 21 when they exploded two car bombs
outside a security building.
Reports said at least 10 people died in the attack, including a police
officer. The blasts followed publicity surrounding secret Saudi aid
to the US war effort in Iraq, and an US order to non-essential diplomatic
staff and family members to leave the kingdom.
In the past week Saudi security has seized five cars packed with explosives,
in an apparent sign that more massive attacks were being prepared. The
seizures came after the killing of five police officers in a clash with
militants in Riyadh.
Saad al-Faguih, a London-based Saudi dissident who closely watches militant
groups, said their strategy now includes targeting members of the Al
Saud royal family as well as buildings associated with intelligence
services.
According to a recent Associated Press (AP), report during the Iraq
war Saudi Arabia secretly helped the United States far more than has
been acknowledged, allowing operations from at least three air bases,
permitting special forces to stage attacks from Saudi soil, and providing
cheap fuel, US and Saudi officials say.
The American air campaign against Iraq was essentially managed from
inside Saudi borders, where military commanders operated an air command
center and launched refueling tankers, F-16 fighter jets, and sophisticated
intelligence gathering flights, according to the official who spoke
to the AP.
Much of the assistance has been kept quiet for more than a year by both
countries for fear it would add to instability inside the kingdom.
But senior political and military officials from both countries told
AP the Saudi royal family permitted widespread military operations to
be staged from inside the kingdom during the coalition force’s
invasion of Iraq.
While the heart of the ground attack came from Kuwait, thousands of
special forces soldiers were permitted to stage their operations into
Iraq from inside Saudi Arabia, the officials said. These staging areas
became essential once Turkey declined to allow US forces to operate
from its soil.
Gen. T. Michael Moseley, a top Air Force general who was a key architect
of the air campaign in Iraq, called the Saudis “wonderful partners’’
although he agreed to discuss their help only in general terms.
“We operated the command center at Saudi Arabia. We operated airplanes
out of Saudi Arabia, as well as sensors, and tankers,’’ said
Moseley. He said he treasured “their counsel, their mentoring,
their leadership and their support.”
During the war, US officials held media briefing about the air war from
Qatar, although the air command center was in Saudi Arabia — a
move designed to keep from inflaming the Saudi public.
US-Saudi cooperation raised eyebrows last week after it was disclosed
that President Bush shared his Iraq war plans with Saudi ambassador
Prince Bandar bin Sultan before the start of the war.
The Saudis provided tens of millions of dollars in discounted oil, gas
and, fuel for American forces. During the war, a stream of oil delivery
trucks at times stretched for miles outside the Prince Sultan air base,
said a senior US military planner.
The Saudis were influential in keeping down world oil prices amid concern
over what might happen to Iraqi oil fields. They increased production
by 1.5 million barrels a day during the run-up to war and helped keep
Jordan — which had relied on Iraqi oil — supplied.
Saudi officials said they provided significant military and intelligence
help on everything from issues of Muslim culture to securing the Saudi-Iraqi
border from fleeing Saddam Hussein supporters.
In an additional show of support for the Bush Administration, Prince
Bandar bin Sultan promised President Bush the Saudis would cut oil prices
before November to ensure the U.S. economy is strong on election day,
journalist Bob Woodward said in a television interview Apr. 18.
In an interview with CBS’s “60 Minutes” about his new
book “Plan of Attack” on the Bush administration’s preparations
for the Iraq war, Woodward, a senior editor at the Washington Post,
said Prince Bandar pledged the Saudi’s would try to fine-tune oil
prices to prime the US economy for the election — a move they understood
would favor Bush’s re-election.
Prince Bandar has been the Saudi envoy to the US for 20 years and is
part of the Saudi royal family, which has had a close relationship with
the Bush family for years.
Source: AP, Financial Times, Reuters
Cult students control the campus; parents
run Nigeria
By Sam Olukoya
Lagos, Nigeria, Apr. 24 (IPS) — Omoyele Sowore’s attackers
wore red baseball hats and covered their faces.
“Two of them followed me and pulled out their guns and forced me
to walk back to their members,” he says.
It was a well coordinated attack. “Around 150 of them were running
in my direction, shooting into the air, holding out knives and broken
bottles. As soon as they reached me they held guns to my waist and shot
into the air several times to scare away students who were surging in
large numbers toward my direction,” Sowore recalls.
“They took me into the hallway and stabbed me all over my body.
They pinned me to the wall and injected me; it was very painful, I felt
my entire body quaking. I managed to get out of the hallway with my
body covered in blood but I was seized by another group of cultists
who stripped me naked. They took me to the third floor and forced me
to jump down after hitting me with a baseball bat,” Sowore recalls.
The attackers injected Sowore with an unknown substance. “It was
a decision to kill me slowly by injecting me with an unknown chemical
substance,” he says.
Such incidents are common in Nigeria’s universities. The attackers
who assaulted Sowore were cult students at the University of Lagos.
Sowore’s crime was that as a student leader he led a campaign against
cultism. “I was working upon the mandate of the University of Lagos
to fight cultism. The campaign took a lot of dimensions. It was a principled,
very well organized and mass-based campaign that fearlessly targeted
cult gang members and exposed them. On so many occasions we had to physically
prevent them from harming students,” says the former students’
union leader.
Nigeria’s universities are under the grip of cult gang members.
About 20 cult groups operate in the country’s universities. The
most prominent are the Buccaneers, Vikings, Black Axe and Eiye Confraternities.
Their objective is to control the universities for selfish ends.
They indulge in criminal acts like rape, robbery and extortion. They
also coerce lecturers into awarding them good grades. Strict lecturers,
who refuse to cooperate, are often shot dead in their offices. In the
past three months, six lecturers in different institutions in south-eastern
Nigeria have been killed by suspected cult members, according to the
police and university authorities.
Scores of students are killed yearly in cult-related violence. Some
are murdered for minor reasons like going out with female students whom
cult members fancied. Student leaders who wage campaigns against cult
members also risk being killed. One of the most remarkable attacks on
student leaders occurred in 1999 at the Obafemi Awolowo University in
Ife in south-western Nigeria.
Five students, including the secretary general of the students’
union, were killed. Many students are murdered in their final year just
after writing their last examinations.
Tola Kazeem, a student at the Obafemi Awolowo University, says cult
gangs inflict maximum agony and fear on the campus. “If you offend
them, they postpone their judgment and you think they have forgotten.
No, they haven’t. They retaliate in a way that hurts most,”
he says.
Kazeem escaped being killed when a cult member fired at him last year.
Many cult activists are themselves killed during gun battles between
rival groups.
The government and university authorities say they are making efforts
to curb the menace of cult gangs. Nigeria’s National Universities
Commission (NUC), the government agency coordinating the country’s
universities, is anxious to curb the activities.
“Not only is any student implicated in cult activities summarily
dismissed from the university, such students are also barred from gaining
entry into other universities,” says Peter Okebukola, NUC executive
secretary. The Nigerian government and some of the country’s 36
states are planning new legislations against the cult.
A proposed law in Nigeria’s north-central State of Kwara provides
for up to five years imprisonment for student cult members.
But Nigerians are not convinced that new legislations will make any
difference since not much has been done to prosecute cult members under
existing laws.
Taiwo Adepoju, a sociologist, believes it will be hard to eliminate
campus cults without addressing the root causes of the problems that
make students to join the group in the first place. “The nature
of the Nigerian society is such that most people want to get power at
all cost for their economic benefits,” he says.
Sowore says the cult students, who are mainly the children of Nigeria’s
ruling class, seek to control the universities in the manner their parents
control the country. “The cultists are the youth wing of the ruling
class. Most of them are the children of military officers, chiefs and
influential Nigerians who were responsible for the rot in the larger
society,” he says.
Cult students flout the law and go scot free just as their parents do.
“We have a class of Nigerians who have the license to kill and
these characters are in power. The same license or immunity is extended
to their children, friends and acquaintances; they also have immunity
to criminal prosecution. In short, they are above the law of the land;
every Nigerian knows this fact,” he says.
In most universities, students live in fear. No one knows who will be
the next target of the gangs. “Life on campus is unpredictable.
The cultists are everywhere. Some of them have graduated but chose to
remain on campus,” Kazeem says.
Kazeem says he has come across “weeping parents” who have
traveled to collect the bodies of their loved ones from the university.
Some rich parents who do not want to subject their children to cult
activities send them to study abroad.
US refuses full sovereignty for Iraq
despite faltering occupation
Compiled by Willy Rosencrans
Apr. 28 (AGR) -- Resistance to the US-led occupation continued
all week, triggering a three-day barrage by US forces against a Fallujah
slum. Rising war costs, inadequate troop strength, and the coalition’s
dissolution also threatened the occupation.
Rebels struck a US base north of Baghdad with rockets Apr. 24, killing
five American soldiers. In Sadr City, a Baghdad neighborhood also
serving as a stronghold for insurgents loyal to rebel cleric Moqtada
al-Sadr, US forces launched raids against suspected militiamen; during
the battle three Iraqi girls were badly burned when a shell exploded
in their bedroom where they slept.
Later, a rocket slammed into a crowded Sadr City market. It was unclear
who fired the rocket, but the attack heightened anti-American feelings:
US troops responding to the attack were met with shouts of abuse from
crowds.
“This Bush, we don’t want him,” one woman said as the
dead were carried out of the main hospital. “It wasn’t like
this under Saddam Hussein.”
Also on Apr. 24 suicide bombers attacked Basra’s oil terminal.
Three American sailors died.
On Apr. 25 in Baghdad, a US soldier died in an explosion on Canal
Street and several others were wounded; four Iraqi children dancing
around the burning Humvee were killed immediately afterwards, shot
dead by US troops firing at random, witnesses claimed.
“They killed all that moved”
Fallujah saw the week’s heaviest fighting, despite the declaration
of a ceasefire. Marines had demanded on Apr. 19 that insurgents there
turn in their weapons as a precondition for the return of about 60,000
refugees, who had fled during a three-week-long Marine-led siege.
The demand was refused. Throughout the week US forces threatened a
major attack as combat raged in the streets; on Apr. 21, witnesses
said Marines began destroying buildings and homes.
“They killed all that moved, even the animals,” said the
imam of a Fallujah mosque.
Uncounted hundreds of Iraqis in Fallujah have been killed over the
course of the siege. Khaled Abu Mujahed, a spokesperson for the Islamic
Party, stated that while some relief supplies were getting inside
the city, many families remain trapped in their homes, and the stench
of dead bodies was overpowering. Many civilians in Fallujah still
cannot get out.
Fighting escalated dramatically Apr. 26 despite US suggestions that
Marines would not attack the city, and on Apr. 27 US warplanes and
artillery attacked the city’s Jolan slum, a district of narrow
alleyways and ramshackle houses identified as a center of resistance,
in a thunderous show of force. An AC-130, a powerful gunship, joined
105mm howitzers; gunfire and explosions reverberated for hours.
The assault continued to rock Fallujah Apr. 28 as US forces renewed
their offensive. Mortar blasts, machine-gun fire, and three huge explosions
took place as US warplanes circled overhead.
The Mahdi Army, a militia group loyal to rebel cleric Moqtada al-Sadr,
continued fighting occupation forces in southern Iraq. Al-Sadr and
other Shia leaders have warned of widespread fury among the 15 to
16 million Iraqi Shia if occupation forces attempt to enter Najaf,
Iraq’s holiest Shiite city, where al-Sadr is currently located.
A US general declared Apr. 25 that American troops would enter parts
of the city to crush al-Sadr but would avoid sacred sites. US forces
killed 64 Iraqis in battles outside Najaf the following day. On Apr.
27 US troops moved into the city; they expanded operations out of
the base Apr. 28.
US war costs spiral out of control
Intense combat is chewing up military hardware and consuming money
at an unexpectedly rapid rate. Since Congress approved an $87 billion
defense request last year, the administration has steadfastly maintained
that military forces in Iraq will be sufficiently funded until early
next year; but forces in Iraq have outspent their budgets month after
month.
Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.), vice chairman of the House Armed Services
Committee, charged that the president is postponing further funding
until after the election, to try to avoid reopening debate on the
war.
Pressed on the funding issue Apr. 21, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul
D. Wolfowitz said that as of January, the US was spending $4.7 billion
a month.
The human cost has also been high; the number of American troops wounded
in Iraq has soared as the insurgency flared. The Pentagon announced
Apr. 23 that 3,864 troops have been wounded in action since the war
began in March 2003, an increase of 595 from two weeks earlier. The
total US military death toll as of Apr. 23 stood at 707, according
to the Pentagon’s count.
Gen. John Abizaid, regional US commander for the Middle East, suggested
in Qatar on Apr. 23 that he would likely ask for current troop levels
in Iraq, now at 135,000, to be extended, and might ask for more troops
beyond that.
Role of mercenary and Iraqi forces dubious
In the face of the insurgency, the US occupation is relying more and
more on private military contractors to bolster regular forces. Approximately
15,000 military contractors are in Iraq under the authority of the
Coalition Provisional Authority, not the US military. US law doesn’t
clearly apply to the contractors in Iraq, many of whom are not Americans.
Now, reports the Washington Post, the security firms are networking
formally, “organizing what may effectively be the largest private
army in the world, with its own rescue teams and pooled, sensitive
intelligence.”
The other supplementary force, the new US-trained Iraqi army, has
actually been a source of resistance.
“About 40 percent of them walked off the job because they were
intimidated,” said Maj. Gen. Mark Dempsey, commander of the 1st
Armored Division, on Apr. 22, “and about 10 percent actually
worked against us.”
Reversing a much-maligned occupation policy banning members of former
President Saddam Hussein’s regime from positions in the US-led
government, Iraqi generals who fought for Saddam are being reinstated
to strengthen the remaining members of the US-trained Iraqi security
force.
The most striking example of non-compliance with the US was that of
the 2nd Battalion of the Iraqi Armed Forces, who refused to fight
against rebels in Fallujah on Apr. 5. The US has imprisoned 200 of
them; other soldiers are demanding their release.
“They told us to attack the city and we were astonished,”
said a soldier named al-Shamari who escaped detention. “How could
an Iraqi fight an Iraqi like this? This meant that nothing had changed
from the Saddam Hussein days. We refused en masse.”
Coalition of the not-so-willing
The United States has said it hopes several nations will keep troops
in Iraq past their July deadline for withdrawal.
But Norway on Apr. 24 indicated its 180 troops would leave by then.
And in the face of worsening violence, three countries — Spain,
Honduras and the Dominican Republic — have announced they are
pulling out their troops.
The Netherlands and El Salvador may not be in Iraq after July 1. Russia
is evacuating contract workers from Russia and other former Soviet
republics. The Philippines are considering withdrawing Philippine
troops and aid workers. Thailand intends to withdraw its troops this
summer.
On Apr. 27, Italy, an important US ally, backed down from its unpopular
support for the war effort, saying it would keep its troops in Iraq
only with a new UN resolution underpinning the presence of international
forces in the country.
Britain’s Blair said he would not dispatch more soldiers to fill
the coalition gap but would maintain current troop strength. Australian
Prime Minister John Howard said his country could add to its 850 troops
in Iraq to help stabilize the country but not significantly and not
for a long-term occupation.
US intent on limiting Iraq sovereignty
On Apr. 22 Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz and Undersecretary
of State Marc Grossman said the US military will control Iraq’s
security under a law approved by the US-picked Iraqi Governing Council
– scheduled to turn power over to a new Iraqi interim government
with what Grossman called “limited sovereignty” on July
1 – and a UN Security Council resolution last October.
Under the current plan, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan’s special
adviser, Lakhdar Brahimi, will appoint a temporary government that
will run Iraqi government agencies from July 1 to elections in January
2005 for an assembly that will select a second, temporary government
and write a constitution.
“So we transfer sovereignty, but the military decisions continue
to reside indefinitely in the control of the American commander. Is
that correct?” Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.) asked Gen. Myers.
“That’s correct,” Myers replied.
Asked what would happen if the temporary government acted at variance
with US foreign policy – such as by seeking closer ties with
Iran – Grossman implied that would not be tolerated. “That
is why we want to have an American ambassador in Iraq,” he noted
cryptically.
At the UN on Apr. 22 several US-allied Iraqi leaders demanded full
sovereignty. Mohsen Abdel-Hamid, a Sunni Arab on the Governing Council,
said limited sovereignty is “not acceptable, this is totally
rejected.”
If the Americans do not give complete sovereignty, “then the
Iraqi people know what route to take,” he said.
WMD’s alleged to have been planted
A Mar. 13 story from the Mehr News Agency in Iran carried reports
that “in the wake of the bombings in Karbala and the ideological
disputes that delayed the signing of Iraq’s interim constitution…
US forces have unloaded a large cargo of parts for constructing long-range
missiles and weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in the southern ports
of Iraq.”
The story quoted an unnamed source from the Iraqi Governing Council
as saying it arrived on ordinary cargo ships carrying weapons like
US-produced Iraq weaponry of the 1980s and 1990s, while attention
was on bombings in Karbala and the signing of Iraq’s interim
constitution. It was taken to Basra.
On Apr. 12 the news agency reported allegations “that occupation
forces are using the recent unrest in Iraq to divert attention”
from the smuggling of WMD into the country.
The WMD “are in containers falsely labeled as containers of the
Maeresk shipping company and some consignments bearing the labels
of organizations such as the Red Cross or the USAID in order to disguise
them as relief shipments.”
Sources: Agence France-Presse, Al Jazeera,
Associated Press, AxisofLogic.com, BBC, CommonDreams.org, Guardian
(UK), Independent (UK), IPS, Mehr News Agency, NBC Nightly News, Reuters,
Washington Post
Coup plot exposed; Bolivia shaken
By Luis Gómez
La Paz, Bolivia, Apr. 17— Groups are plotting to destabilize
the government of Bolivian President Carlos Mesa, and are considering
a coup d’etat in order to finalize the sale of Bolivian gas to
Chile despite the outpouring of popular will against such a deal expressed
in last October’s insurrection.
And US government officials have a lot to do with it — including
Viceroy David N. Greenlee, the CIA, and officials from USAID (United
States Agency for International Development). It took a counterintelligence
memo, put together by confidential Bolivian and Chilean sources, specifically
accusing those foreign companies and politicians — to bring this
matter to light. Then Bolivian congressman Evo Morales came forward
with the report and denounced the coup attempt.
After taking office in October 2003, President Mesa promised to consult
the Bolivian people, through a referendum, on the possible exportation
of Bolivian gas to Chile and other markets — mainly in Mexico
and the United States. This had been one of the demands of the popular
insurrection that toppled Mesa’s predecessor, Gonzalo Sanchez
de Lozada. Predictably, the interests who could be harmed by such
a referendum, mobilized to protect their business deal. Among them
are multinational energy businesses like Enron, Repsol, and BG (formerly
British Gas) that control the exploitation and transport of oil and
gas in Bolivia, Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, and other countries. In
the same way, as the counterintelligence report mentions, members
of Bolivia’s armed forces, together with politicians linked to
former president Sanchez de Lozada, have been plotting to pressure
the government.
In the midst of these pressures from the right and from international
capital, are several US actors that, in recent weeks, have been putting
public pressure upon both Mesa’s administration and the social
sectors. An example is the recent conflict in Yungas, where the coca
growers blockaded the roads and stopped the construction of an anti-drug
base in La Rinconada financed by the Bush administration. As Narco
News South American Bureau Chief Alex Contreras reported, the blockades
begun on April 5 ended in an agreement between the farmers and government
minister Alfonso Ferrufino. The focus of this agreement is a more
profound dialogue between coca growers and the government, a freeze
on forced eradication in Yungas, and suspension of the construction
of the barracks at La Rinconada.
Viceroy Greenlee, Apr. 5, turned up the heat when he visited the offices
of Bolivia’s Secretary of State to say that the drug issue “is
delicate.” But he refused to comment openly on his position.
Instead, he deflected questions toward the issue of a treaty that
provides immunity for US military officials and whatever they do in
Bolivian territory, signed by the administration of Sanchez de Lozada,
but that was never ratified by the national congress.
“Hopefully one of these days it will be ratified because we want
to collaborate with Bolivia,” said Greenlee.
“Intelligence personnel at the US Embassy (CIA) are working with
other intelligence agencies (Chile-Israel) to destabilize the government
of President Mesa. Objectives: Stop the Referendum, the Constituents’
Assembly, passage of a new Hydrocarbons Law, and achieve the sale
of gas through Chile,” the counterintelligence report says. To
achieve these objectives, agents of the CIA are working on “various
hypotheses and action plans.” In reality, there are three concrete
plans, each of which not only attacks the government of Carlos Mesa
and the sovereignty of Bolivia, but also usurps the will of the people.
A Coup, an early election, or shut down the Congress
According to the information collected in the report, the preparations
for a coup d’état in Bolivia have the main goal of “provoking
the reaction of the social movements to create chaos and internal
division,” thus justifying, the entrance of Chilean military
troops, supported by US Marines, to “pacify” the country.
In the process, they would behead the social movements and create
a government in accordance with the interests at play: an operation
very similar to the coup against Jean Bertrand Aristide in Haiti.
The coup would be headed “by military officials, and supported
by military units, high police chiefs, and the US Embassy.”
But, according to this counterintelligence document, the preparations
have hit a snag: some military officials had patriotic reactions,
causing the planned date of the coup, Mar. 25, to be postponed. Among
the report’s list of military and police officials involved,
some of whom are retired, are three army generals as well as a dozen
police colonels, all linked to former defense minister Carlos Sanchez
Berzain. Berzain, who served under Sanchez de Lozada, was in charge
of the massacre of Aymara peasant farmers and citizens in El Alto
last October.
If the plan fails, the intelligence agencies of Chile, Israel, and
the US have a Plan B: they seek to pressure the Mesa government to
call early elections. Former Bolivian President Jorge “Tuto”
Quiroga appears to be involved in this, giving instructions to his
collaborators in Bolivia to work to call early elections “in
May or June of 2005.” The goal would be to “prevent the
Constituents’ Assembly, reform the Hydrocarbons Law, and bring
the exportation of gas to Chile.” Quiroga already declared during
a December 2002 visit to the United States that he had signed, with
George W. Bush, the first agreements for the sale of Bolivian gas.
Plan C then contemplates provoking the closing of the National Congress
and its dissolution, or at least keeping Senator Leopoldo Fernandez,
of the party founded by the late dictator Hugo Banzer and former president
Quiroga, at his post as Senate President until next August, in preparation
for a coup. According to the Constitution, if neither the President
nor the vice president are in office – in other words, if they
succeed in driving Carlos Mesa from power — right now Bolivia
has no Vice President: it had been Mesa before Sanchez de Lozada resigned
— the Senate President would become the new president.
Last Mar. 26, the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, General
Luis Aranda Granados, said on local television that, “generals,
colonels, and mid-level military officials on leave from the Armed
Forces are seeking to destabilize the government of President Carlos
Mesa, in coordination with some political parties and labor unions.”
The USAID agency has recently launched a project of “social and
democratic development” in the city of El Alto, the epicenter
of last October’s insurrection. They are spending $300 million,
basically to buy people, to encourage a discourse that is less radical
and more favorable to US policies, such as the sale of gas.
In a similar example, Narco News received a report a few days ago
accusing some organizations “promoted by the US government”
of attempting to influence the character of the proposed Bolivian
“Constituents’ Assembly.” Labor leader Oscar Olivera,
Chapare coca grower leader Leonilda Zurita, and human rights defender
Luis Sanchez made this accusation in a text circulated among participants
at a seminar in Cochabamba , one of several regional seminars organized
by the National Electoral Court on the issue of the Constituents’
Assembly. The text, which was also sent out to several media organizations,
mentioned interference from the National Democratic Institute for
International Affairs (NDI) and the International Republican Institute
(IRI).
The NDI, like the IRI, according to the accusation, have worked actively
in coup-plotting activities against the government of President Hugo
Chavez in Venezuela. In light of that, said Olivera, Zurita, and Sanchez’s
text, “there can be no doubt that the IRI comes here to Bolivia
to influence matters of hydrocarbons — oil and natural gas —
and the Constituents’ Assembly through activities similar to
those they have conducted in Venezuela — financing enemies of
the Constituents’ Assembly and groups that support the oil and
gas companies unconditionally, and fomenting separatist speeches that
only benefit the enemies of Bolivia.”
Source: Narco News Bulletin
Chilean troop movements as detailed in the counter
intelligence report:
* Oct. 24-- 30, 2003: More than 500 military vehicles came up from
the bases north of Santiago to the large barracks in Iquique (Huara),
approximately 62 miles from Pisiga… this movement of troops and
vehicles is part of joint exercises by the Chilean Army.
* Nov. 1-10, 2003: More than 100 armored and assault vehicles moved
from Huara to Colchane (a town seven kilometers from Pisiga) with
nearly 3,000 men. By the last estimate, in late February 2004, there
were 20,000 men deployed in the encampment, combing the border, south
and north of Colchane.
* Mar. 12-14, 2004: Nearly 400 armed vehicles, some with rockets,
move from north of Santiago to Huara.
* Mar. 22-23, 2004: Hercules transport planes and fighter planes arrive
at the airport of the Condors in Iquique. Nearly 3,000 men —
elite forces — also arrive, of which about 500 go to Colchane.
* Mar. 29, 2004: Two columns of vehicles go from Huara to Colchane.
Townspeople in the small communities in southern Bolivia, in the
Uyuni region, have denounced the entrance of Chilean military troops
that, they say, “enter the towns and act as if they are in their
own country’s territory.”
Source: Narco News Bulletin
General’s rise complicates Bush
‘war on terror’
By Jim Lobe
Washington, DC, Apr. 23 (IPS)— The Bush administration’s
“war on terrorism” in Southeast Asia could face a hurdle
after the nomination by Indonesia’s most popular political party
of an accused war criminal to run for the presidency.
Retired Gen. Wiranto, who was indicted by a special United Nations-East
Timor court for war crimes in connection with the killing of more
than 1,400 civilians and the destruction of much of the former Indonesian
province’s infrastructure five years ago, gained the official
presidential nomination earlier this week of the Golkar Party which,
during the Suharto dictatorship, was the Indonesian Armed Forces’
political arm.
A Suharto favourite, Wiranto rose to the military’s top position
in the mid-1990s, and reportedly played a role in persuading Suharto
to end his 30-year reign in 1998. But one year later, he was implicated
in the army-orchestrated mayhem that followed the overwhelming vote
by the East Timorese people in favor of independence from Indonesia,
which invaded and later annexed the territory in 1975.
“Golkar should be embarrassed to select someone who has been
indicted for crimes against humanity as its presidential candidate,”
said Brad Adams, who directs the Asia Division of Human Rights Watch
(HRW) in New York City.
“If Golkar has really reformed itself after the massive rights
violations of the Suharto years, it should be distancing itself from
its dark past instead of embracing it,” he added in a statement.
Wiranto, who like many Indonesians goes by only one name, is considered
likely to try to use his good looks and tough image, as well as the
growing nostalgia for the Suharto era, to unseat the incumbent, President
Megawati Sukarnoputri, when Indonesians go the polls in their first
direct presidential election July 5.
Megawati, the daughter of Indonesia’s first president, Sukarno,
has declined sharply in popularity over the past two years, largely
as a result of a lagging economy, growing corruption, the military’s
failure to achieve a clear victory over pro-independence rebels in
Aceh province and the perception that she has not been seriously engaged
in governing.
But both Megawati and Wiranto are still considered underdogs to retired
Gen Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, the candidate of the newly formed Democratic
Party, who served until recently as one of Megawati’s chief advisers.
In the latest polls, he led Megawati 44-21 percent.
Although like Wiranto, Yudhoyono made his career in the military,
he has long favored separating the army, which effectively ruled the
country through Golkar during the Suharto dictatorship, from the government
and from the many businesses and monopolies it operates. Wiranto,
on the other hand, has been seen as a promoter of the military’s
interests in both politics and the economy.
Since coming to office, and particularly since the Sept. 11, 2001
attacks on New York and the Pentagon, the Bush administration has
seen Indonesia as a key part of its “war on terror,” and
has made little secret of its desire to restore the close military
ties that were effectively suspended under the previous Clinton administration
after the violence that leveled East Timor in 1999.
Since Sept. 11, the administration has restored some security assistance
— mainly in the form of anti-terrorism aid — but Congress
has insisted that certain conditions be met before relations can be
fully normalized.
In January, legislators approved a provision of the 2004 foreign aid
bill that maintains a ban on US government financing of weapons sales,
export licenses for certain kinds of military equipment, and participation
in a State Department-administered military training for Indonesia
until Jakarta fully cooperates in the investigation and prosecution
of military units that are believed to have killed two US teachers
and their Indonesian colleague in an ambush in West Papua in 2002.
In addition, the bill requires Indonesia to extradite those indicted
by the joint UN-East Timor Serious Crimes Unit, conduct a public audit
of the military’s funds, and prosecute credible cases of serious
human rights abuses believed to have been carried out by the military
or military-backed militias. The Bush administration opposed the provision.
Wiranto, as well as several other senior Indonesian military officials,
was indeed indicted by the Crimes Unit, although an arrest warrant
has still to be issued. Soon after the indictment was handed down
in February 2003, the State Department placed Wiranto on its visa
watch list, meaning he could be barred from entering the United States.
Although the US ambassador in Jakarta said this week that Wiranto
would be treated as a head of state if were to win the election, most
officials and independent analysts believe that his record could make
relations more difficult, particularly compared to a reformer like
Yudhoyono, who has not been implicated in major rights abuses or in
corruption.
Even right-wing US analysts see Wiranto’s election as highly
problematic. In a paper issued Apr. 22, Dana Dillon of the Washington-based
Heritage Foundation called Wiranto both “passive and corrupt,”
but warned against explicit condemnations of the general.
According to Dillon, such statements would likely be used to fuel
a nationalist backlash, particularly given the strong rise in anti-American
sentiment as Washington has pursued its “war on terrorism.”
The vast majority of Indonesians are Muslims.
But rights groups are unrestrained in their criticism of Wiranto’s
candidacy, with the East Timor Action Network (ETAN) calling for his
arrest and prosecution by a yet-to-be-established international tribunal
for East Timor.
“We urge the US Congress and Bush administration to withhold
all military assistance for Indonesia until Wiranto and others responsible
for crimes against humanity in East Timor and Indonesia are brought
to justice in judicial processes consistent with international standards,”
said ETAN’s director, John Miller.
HRW called for other countries besides the United States to bar Wiranto
from visiting them. “Countries with a commitment to the rule
of law and justice should send a message that Wiranto’s election
could make Indonesia a pariah state that they would have difficulty
dealing with,” Adams said.
UN Commission only as strong as weakest
member
By Gustavo Capdevila
Geneva, Switzerland, Apr. 23 (IPS) — Three of the five
permanent members of the UN Security Council targeted during this
year’s sessions of the Commission on Human Rights eluded censure,
while countries that wield little political weight had to face the
consequences, say activists and diplomats.
China escaped condemnation of its human rights record by using a
procedural mechanism against a censure resolution sponsored by Washington.
Russia came out favored in a vote on the touchy issue of Chechnya.
The United States rested easy after Cuba withdrew its proposed resolution
condemning the continued detentions of foreign nationals at the
Guantanamo naval base.
The 53-member Commission on Human Rights, the highest United Nations
authority on this issue, approved censures against weaker countries,
such as Belarus, Cuba, North Korea, Myanmar, and Turkmenistan.
This unequal dynamic feeds one of the main criticisms of academics,
diplomats, and human rights activists against the Commission, which
concluded its six-week sessions in Geneva on Friday.
China, Russia and the United States are able to avoid being penalized
thanks to the political power of their governments, while it is
much easier to condemn politically isolated countries, Human Rights
Watch’s UN representative Joanna Weschler said.
But that imbalance does not prevent Weschler and other activists,
like Peter Splinter of the UK--based Amnesty International (AI),
from defending the validity of the Commission’s “Agenda
Item 9,” regarding the evaluation of the human rights and fundamental
freedoms situation in individual countries within the UN system.
In that respect the stance of the leading non-governmental organizations,
like HRW and AI, differs greatly from that of most developing countries,
particularly the African and Asian blocs, which favor the elimination
or suspension of Item 9.
Splinter said there is a trend towards shifting the evaluation of
individual countries from Item 9 to Item 19, which focuses on advisory
services and technical cooperation aimed at improving respect for
human rights in a given country.
Jean Martin Mbemba, representative of Congo (Brazzaville) and spokesman
for the African bloc, said that Item 9 is a “relic of the past”
and called on the Commission to adopt a culture of dialogue and
to do away with confrontation.
“The current abuse of Item 9 to target Islamic and developing
countries does not augur well for the future of this Commission,”
said Pakistan’s ambassador Shauka Umer, representing the Organization
of the Islamic Conference in the human rights debates here.
According to Rajmah Hussain, representative from Malaysia: “Agenda
Item 9 has been the avenue for the developed countries of the West
to push for the adoption of politically motivated country-specific
resolutions vilifying developing countries for policies which are
not to their liking.”
The United States takes an entirely different position. Richard
Williamson, Washington’s representative to the Commission,
said there are countries “who routinely abuse their own people,
who seek membership often successfully, to get on the Commission
in order to protect themselves. It is not surprising that some of
those of countries might like to eliminate Item 9.”
In unofficial comments, Williams said the United States would consider
leaving the Commission if its members were to decide to eliminate
Item 9.
Despite the zeal of the United States and of some other countries
of the Commission’s Western bloc to carry out investigations
of individual countries, as stipulated in Item 9, this year there
was a noteworthy exception: the situation in Iraq was ignored.
“It is a perplexing and troubling omission,” commented
interim UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Bertrand Ramcharan
as the sessions drew to an end.
“There must be accountability in warfare,” he said. “At
this time there is no international monitoring of the human rights
situation in Iraq,” whether in relation to terrorism or to
“the extent of the use of force and the treatment of civilians.”
The European Union, which usually put forth the Iraqi case for consideration
of the Commission, this year abstained.
Chris Sidoti, director of the Geneva-based non-governmental organization
International Service for Human Rights, said that the situation
in Iraq has fallen under the “consensus of silence” that
prevailed on several key issues during the Commission’s sessions,
such as the status of the Guantánamo prisoners.
But the divergence of opinion in the Commission extends also to
the thematic issues, like racism, discrimination, and xenophobia.
The international community’s leading human rights body failed
to reach consensus on a “common position” against racism.
The proposal of the African group, with support of developing countries,
was ultimately approved, but the United States voted against it
and the European Union abstained.
Hardeep Puri, India’s representative on the Commission, wondered,
“Are we then to conclude from these reservations that there
are some human rights causes that are worthy of support and others
no?”
“I hope that is not the case,” said the diplomat, stressing
that human rights represent a “composite indivisible whole.”
The United States has seen its credibility undercut by its positions
on the thematic issues, said HRW’s Weschler, citing Washington’s
opposition to debate on matters like the right to health and the
right to food.
She also recalled that the United States was voted off the Commission
a few years ago after a series of such moves, but as long as they
hold seats, “you have a situation in which the strongest countries
are able to defend themselves from the Commission scrutiny.”
Arab ally snubs Bush amid ‘unprecedented
hatred’ for US
By Ewin MacAskill and Suzanne Goldenberg
Apr. 21 — A growing rift between America and the Arab
world was exposed yesterday when two Middle Eastern allies delivered
damaging rebuffs to President George Bush’s policies in the
region.
King Abdullah of Jordan flew home from the US after abruptly canceling
a meeting planned for today with the president in Washington. The
king’s move came as the Egyptian President, Hosni Mubarak,
said there was more hatred of Americans in the Arab world today
than ever before.
Abdullah and Mubarak are two of the most moderate leaders in the
Middle East and the two are normally the closest to the US.
Abdullah’s cancellation was in retaliation for Bush’s
support last week for a plan by the Israeli prime minister, Ariel
Sharon, in which he offered to pull out of Gaza in return for US
recognition of illegal settlements on the West Bank and an end of
the right of 3.6 million Palestinians to return to Israel.
Mubarak cited as reasons for the increased hatred Israel and the
US occupation of Iraq. In an interview with Le Monde published yesterday,
he said : “After what has happened in Iraq, there is an unprecedented
hatred. What’s more -- they [Arabs] see Sharon act as he wants,
without the Americans saying anything.”
The Jordanian government said yesterday it was seeking clarification
of US intentions towards Israel and the Palestinians before agreeing
to a new meeting with Bush.
Bush’s administration yesterday tried to play down the rift
with one of its few allies in the Middle East. The Secretary of
State, Colin Powell, said the White House remained committed to
a negotiated settlement between Israel and the Palestinians, and
was not acting in the interests of the Jewish state.
“I think people will see over time that the US is committed
to the welfare and benefit and the hopes and dreams and aspirations
of Arab nations,” he told reporters,
Pressure on Abdullah to make a gesture has been building in Jordan,
half of whose population is made up of Palestinians.
There has long been a threat of an Islamic militant backlash, a
point reinforced yesterday when the Jordanian government said it
had killed three militants in a shootout in the capital, Amman.
A Jordanian government spokeswoman, Asma Khader, said yesterday
that Abdullah, who had been in the US for a business conference,
still wanted to meet Bush but felt more time was needed to prepare
for it.
A palace statement said the meeting would not be held “until
discussions and deliberations are concluded with officials in the
American administration to clarify the American position on the
peace process and the final situation in the Palestinian territories.”
The Arab League, which represents all Arab countries, welcomed the
king’s decision to cancel his meeting. Ali Muhsin Hamid, its
London ambassador, said Mr Bush’s statement had reduced US-Arab
relations to a level comparable to 1967.
The countries are trying to get a resolution through the UN condemning
the assassination of the Hamas leader, Abdel-Aziz Rantissi. About
40 countries have spoken in the debate so far, all of them - other
than the US -- critical of Israel.
Sharon secured his deal with Bush partly through brinkmanship, sitting
at Ben Gurion airport for three hours last week and threatening
to cancel his Washington visit. Bush caved in.
But similar tactics by King Abdullah are unlikely to achieve the
same result. The palace statement said the king had written to Bush
before his meeting with Sharon saying the Israeli withdrawal from
Gaza had to be part of an overall peace plan, not an alternative
to it. But Bush ignored his plea.
Source: Guardian (UK)
Inquiry after Israeli forces caught
using boy as shield
By Donald Macintyre in Jerusalem
Apr. 24 — A photograph of a Palestinian boy tied to
an Israeli police jeep has been handed to justice officials charged
with investigating complaints over the use of “human shields”
against demonstrators.
The boy, 13-year-old Mohammed Bedwan, and three adult protesters
were tied to border police vehicles last week during one of what
have become almost daily demonstrations against the routing of the
Israeli government’s barrier through Palestinian land.
Activists claim Mohammed was tied to the jeep by police.
The photograph, taken by human rights activists in the village of
Biddo, north-west of Jerusalem, shows Mohammed tied by an arm to
a mesh on the jeep windscreen - a mesh intended to protect the vehicle
and its driver against stones and rocks. Police said last night
that the Justice Ministry’s police complaints unit was investigating
the case.
At least four Palestinians have been shot dead in Biddo this year
in rock-throwing protests against the barrier. An elderly man also
died of heart failure after inhaling tear gas. Palestinian activists
say border police had in two separate instances this month used
villagers as shields to prevent stone-throwing, and that forces
had also repeatedly used both rubber and live bullets to disperse
protesters.
The Supreme Court barred the use of Palestinians as human shields
in 2002 after an incident in which soldiers forced the neighbor
of a suspected militant to knock on his door and deliver their ultimatum
to surrender. The militant shot and killed the man.
Rabbi Arik Ascherman, who heads the organizationRabbis for Human
Rights, says he was also tied to the front of a separate jeep, along
with a Palestinian and a Swedish activist from the International
Solidarity Movement, after they protested that the boy had been
beaten after he was detained. He said he himself was head-butted
by the border police unit commander when he was arrested.
Rabbi Ascherman said the group’s subsequent complaints to police
had been treated “politely and efficiently,” but the Justice
Ministry’s investigation would be a test of whether police
were prepared to conduct a fundamental rethink of “violation
of police rules” in the handling of demonstrations.
He said the danger was that the inquiry would treat the case as
an isolated incident, which, he said, it was not. He also wanted
the inquiry to examine whether such tactics were an inevitable consequence
of the “pressure- cooker atmosphere created by the occupation”
of Palestinian territories.
The Israeli High Court is due to pass judgment on May 2 on a series
of petitions from both Palestinians and some of their Israeli neighbors
about the planned route of the fence which would cut off Biddo,
Beit Surik, and other Palestinian villagers from their olive groves
and fruit orchards.
Gil Kleiman, a police spokesman said last night: “As a general
rule we do not willingly expose civilians to physical damage. In
this case there was prima facie evidence that procedures were carried
out which were incorrect, and this has been passed to the Justice
Ministry.”
Source: Independent (UK)
Police will be able to order eye
scans under ID card plan
By Ben Russell
Apr. 26 — British police will have powers to stop and
check people against a national biometric database under plans for
a compulsory identity card scheme to be unveiled today.
David Blunkett, the British Home Secretary, confirmed that police
would be able to compare people against national fingerprint or
iris records even if they did not carry the controversial document.
The draft Bill will outline plans to introduce biometric data on
passports in three years’ time, with a compulsory scheme introduced
by 2013.
Civil liberties campaigners expressed alarm at the proposals, but
a defiant Blunkett insisted that legislation would be put before
Parliament by the autumn after consultation on technical issues
are resolved. A pilot test of the equipment needed for the cards
will be launched this week.
Blunkett said: “This isn’t some kind of fetish. This is
about recognizing the massive change that’s taken place in
the world around us.”
Under the draft Bill, people renewing their passports from 2007
will have to be scanned for biometric data such as their irises
and fingerprints. Driving licenses could also include the data.
By 2013, when the scheme is expected to become compulsory, 80 percent
of people of working age are expected to be included. The cost of
the scheme, estimated at $5.5 billion, will be met by increasing
the price of passports to around $129.
The Home Office confirmed that police would be able to ask people
to undergo a scan to be compared with the national list of identities.
Blunkett said: “Even if the person didn’t carry the card,
[the police] would be able to check their biometric automatically
with the equipment. “It’s more than simply having a card.
This is about true identity, being known, being checkable, being
used in order to ensure we know who is in the country, what they’re
entitled to and whether they’re up to no good.” Under
the draft legislation, the scheme can become compulsory without
fresh legislation.
Tony Blair will attempt to counter fears about ID cards tomorrow
in a speech to promote planned immigration. The Prime Minister will
argue that planned immigration from Europe and beyond is good for
the British economy at a time of economic growth. But civil liberties
campaigners expressed alarm at the prospect of compulsory ID tests.
Shami Chakrabarti, a director of the pressure group Liberty, told
GMTV: “He is too quick to offer various draconian measures
as a magic bullet to whatever our fears are this week: terrorism,
illegal immigration and so on. It does not actually solve these
deep-seated problems we face.”
David Winnick, the Labor MP for Walsall North and a member of the
Commons Home Affairs Select Committee, said: “David Blunkett
says that the British card will be more sophisticated than the existing
Spanish card, but where is the evidence that any type of ID card
would have stopped the massacre in Madrid?
“This is a costly exercise which will not do what is claimed
by the Home Secretary and other enthusiasts.”
David Davis, the shadow Home Secretary, said ID cards should be
introduced without delay if civil liberties and technical objections
could be overcome.
Source: Independent (UK)
|
