RIGHTS-SIERRA LEONE: Activists Will Accept Only Full Abolition

August 28, 2008 By

Global Geopolitics – Global News Blog – IPS
Thursday, August 28, 2008

All rights reserved, IPS – Inter Press Service, 2008.

Lansana Fofana

FREETOWN, Aug 28 (IPS) – Sierra Leonean rights activists have served notice on the government that they will campaign against any attempt to retain the death penalty in the new constitution and insist the recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission are fully adopted.

Murder and robbery with violence should continue to be capital crimes in the revised constitution, the currently-sitting constitutional review commission has advised the government.

But the death penalty for treason and mutiny should be abolished, as long as no loss of life is involved.

The recommendations are believed to reflect the government’s position on the death penalty. They are expected to be incorporated into the country’s revised constitution which will be presented to parliament for ratification shortly.

”It is not enough to restrict the death penalty to cases of murder or aggravated robbery,” Brima Sheriff, Amnesty International’s director in Sierra Leone, told IPS.

”The death penalty must be abolished in its entirety because it has never been proven to be a deterrent. Its maintenance on the statute books violates the spirit of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC).”

John Caulker of the rights monitoring group Forum of Conscience agreed. Nothing less than full death penalty abolition was acceptable to activists, he told IPS.

”The government says it is committed to the implementation of the TRC’s recommendations yet it is backtracking on one key issue — the abolition of the death penalty. This sends conflicting signals.

”The time is now to mount our campaign ? mobilising abolitionist campaigners and civil society to continue this campaign. The constitutional review commission must be made to understand.”

At the end of the 11-year civil war, the TRC was set up in 2002 to investigate the reasons for the conflict and recommend ways of preventing a re-occurrence. Its goal was to lay the foundations for reconciliation and healing.

The TRC argued that since 1971, the death penalty had often been used by governments to eliminate political opponents.

The last executions in Sierra Leone were in 1998. Twenty-six senior military officers, convicted for their alleged roles in a coup that ousted civilian president Ahmad Tejan Kabba a year before, were executed by firing squad.

Attorney General and minister of justice, Abdul Serry Kamal, has denied that that the maintenance of the death penalty would be a rejection of the TRC’s recommendations.

”When you consider that we have come out of a war that consumed many lives, I think it is appropriate some of the punitive laws are kept on our statute books, though with some adjustments.

”The death penalty cannot altogether be abolished because crimes like murder are still being committed,” he said.

Activists have accused the government of failing to implement other TRC recommendations on the welfare of prison inmates, including those on death row.

”There are no facilities for recreation and skills-training for death row inmates. This is inhuman and degrading. Once in the cell on death row, you are isolated, deprived of basic services and psychologically tortured,” Caulker said.

But the government, which came to power a year ago, would do everything in its power to reverse the situation, he said.

Rights activists say the prison food is poor. Inmates are not issued with clothing or shoes. Cells are cold in the rainy season resulting in frequent outbreaks of diseases such as pneumonia and malaria.

But the acting director of the prisons department, Moses Showers, said all prisoners were being treated according to the rules.

”They all get normal rations of meals, toiletries and supplementary diets. In fact, the prisoners on death row get better diets than ordinary convicts. The prison laws do not discriminate against death row inmates.”

The minister of the interior, Dauda Sulaiman Kamara, has agreed that prison conditions are ”deplorable”.

”There are no workshops, no libraries or recreational facilities for inmates and this in no way helps the prisoners to be reformed,” he told IPS.

Sierra Leone’s maximum security prison at Pademba Road in Freetown holds all the country’s 14 death row inmates. Eleven of these were sentenced to death in 2003 for treason. They are still awaiting a decision on their appeals.

”We consider it mental torture and a clear denial of their rights to a speedy dispensation of justice,” said Sheriff. ”Justice delayed is justice denied. These people must have their appeals heard or be released without any further delays.”

Kamara has promised the government will do its best ”to ensure that death row inmates are not treated like lesser mortals”.

But he said he would not support the TRC’s call for death penalty abolition.

Filed Under: Africa, Human Rights, Justice, News, Politics

RIGHTS-INDONESIA: Spy Boss’ Trial May Reveal More on Munir Murder

August 28, 2008 By

Global Geopolitics – Global News Blog – IPS
Thursday, August 28, 2008

All rights reserved, IPS – Inter Press Service, 2008.

Stephen de Tarczynski

MELBOURNE, Aug 28  (IPS)  – The current trial of former top Indonesian spy Muchdi Purwopranjono may be another stepping stone on the road to justice in relation to the sensational 2004 murder of human rights activist Munir Said Thalib.

”This is the first-ever case in Indonesia’s political history where a high-ranked former military general, former deputy head of the intelligence agency, was brought to trial,” Usman Hamid, executive director of the Jakarta-based Commission for Missing Persons and Victims of Violence (Kontras) told IPS over telephone.

Muchdi Purwopranjono — deputy head of Indonesia’s state intelligence agency (BIN) at the time of Munir’s death and previously a chief of the Army Special Forces (Kopassus) –is currently on trial in Jakarta on charges of premeditating the murder of Indonesia’s foremost human rights defender.

Muchdi is also accused of orchestrating Munir’s death.

The activist died in agony on a Garuda Indonesia airlines flight from Singapore to Amsterdam in September 2004 after being poisoned with arsenic during a stopover in the island state. Munir, then 38 years old, was on his way from his homeland to the Netherlands where he was due to undertake postgraduate studies.

Prosecutors are arguing that Muchdi’s motivation for his alleged involvement in Munir’s death was revenge. They say that Munir was responsible for Muchdi’s dismissal as head of Kopassus after the human rights defender had exposed the latter’s involvement in the disappearances of several activists in the late 1990s.

Ironically, Muchdi’s sacking from Kopassus in 1998 after just 52 days at the helm of the special forces effectively allowed him to join BIN — which he did in 2003 — where he had the opportunity to target Munir for his outspoken stance on human rights abuses.

The trial of Muchdi, which began on Aug.21, is just the latest development related to the murder of Munir.

In 2005, former Garuda pilot Pollycarpus Priyanto was found guilty and sentenced to 14 years jail for poisoning Munir while at Singapore’s Changi airport. That conviction and sentence was subsequently overturned in 2006, only for Pollycarpus to again be found guilty in January this year following a judicial review, when he was handed a 20-year jail term.

But Munir’s murder remains an ongoing and controversial issue in Indonesia. His widow, Suciwati, has called for ”the intelligence people behind” Pollycarpus to be investigated following the former pilot’s guilty verdict, while a former chief of Garuda was sentenced to a year behind bars in February for his role in the death of Munir.

Indra Setiawan, who was president of Indonesia’s national carrier when Munir was killed, said during his trial that while he knew nothing of the plan to murder the rights activist, he did issue a letter which authorised Pollycarpus to travel on Munir’s flight as a ”security officer” — a letter which Indra maintained was only issued at the request of another former high-ranking BIN official, Mohammad As’ad.

While As’ad is expected to appear as a witness at the current trial, Muchdi — who his lawyer says is viewing the court proceedings as an opportunity to prove his innocence — faces the death penalty if found guilty.

Usman Hamid says that human rights activists are pleased to see Muchdi on trial. ”I think we all welcome the current legal proceedings on Muchdi,” Usman told IPS.

However, the head of Kontras — an organisation founded by Munir which has become one of the region’s most respected rights groups — says that it is too early to tell whether bringing a powerful figure like Muchdi to court, even on serious charges, indicates a move away from the apparent impunity for high-ranking officials that existed in Indonesia under former dictator Soeharto.

”It needs more action from the government, from the law enforcement agencies, to make sure that Muchdi’s trial is a symbol of a whole change in Indonesia,” says Usman.

And he argues that such symbolism would require that all those who were involved in Munir’s downfall, including other high-ranking individuals, be brought to justice.

”Since the beginning we have demanded that law enforcement agents bring [to trial] all the people who were involved in the case and I think that one of the most important people who needs to be brought to trial is former chief of the intelligence agency, [Abdullah Mahmud] Hendropriyono,” Usman told IPS.

Hendropriyono was head of BIN from 2001 to 2004, which encompassed the time of Munir’s murder. Although he has yet to be investigated by police regarding any possible involvement in the activist’s death, Usman says that Kontras will continue to push for such an investigation to take place.

”Unfortunately, until now we haven’t seen or haven’t heard that he has been under investigation by the police,” says Usman.

But he says that the previous trials of Pollycarpus and Indra provided a strong impetus for the likes of Hendropriyono to be brought to trial.

”Circumstantial evidence that has appeared in the court proceedings of the former director of Garuda and the former pilot of Garuda points strongly to the involvement of high ranking officials — not only Muchdi — but also the other deputies who were involved in the planning of the murder,” says Usman.

He is hopeful that Muchdi’s trial will reveal more evidence about others who were involved in Munir’s murder. ”The current proceedings can also bring more progress for future investigations,” he says.

”I think it has been experienced in the case of Pollycarpus where we were able to collaborate further evidence, further information about the involvement of the former director of Garuda, Indra Setiawan,” Usman told IPS, adding that Indra’s trial also provided information which helped in the investigation and subsequent arrest of Muchdi.

But in order for further evidence to be revealed during Muchdi’s trial, he argues that it is vital for the proceedings to be undertaken without interference.

”I hope that the prosecutors and also the judges can present all witnesses without exception and that they can present all evidence without exception, so that we can have more opportunities [to investigate further],” says Usman.

Filed Under: Human Rights, Justice, News, Politics

POLITICS-PAKISTAN: ‘Putting Musharraf on Trial is Pointless’

August 28, 2008 By

Global Geopolitics – Global News Blog – IPS
Thursday, August 28, 2008

All rights reserved, IPS – Inter Press Service, 2008.

Zofeen Ebrahim

KARACHI, Aug 28  (IPS)  – Pervez Musharraf resigned as Pakistan’s president on Aug. 18 to escape certain impeachment. But now there are calls from various quarters to have the former military dictator prosecuted for actions committed during his nine eventful years in office.

Humaira Ghazi, 39, is among those who think that Musharraf got away lightly with his resignation. ”I want Musharraf to be tried and sent to the gallows,” said the young widow of Maulana Abdul Rashid Ghazi, deputy chief cleric of Lal Masjid (Red Mosque) in Islamabad.

Ghazi was killed when Musharraf ordered Pakistan’s army to storm the mosque in July 2007 to flush out armed fundamentalists who had turned the complex into an armed fortress. At least 73 people died in the action.

”I want to see, with my own eyes, Musharraf’s wife and mother cry for him, when the noose tightens around his neck,” Humaira said. ”My Iddat (waiting period of four months and ten days that Islam has imposed upon a woman who has been divorced or widowed, after which a new marriage is permissible) was a trying time when I and my three children did not have even have a roof over our heads. For as long as I live, my heart will continue to bleed and my anger will not abate.”

Another person with vengeance on his mind is Abdul Qadeer Khan, famous as the man who created the ‘Islamic bomb’. ”He should be arrested and tried in the highest court,” Khan told television interviewers.

Khan, once considered a national hero, fell from grace and was forced to make a  televised confession, on Feb. 5, 2004, to selling nuclear technology to Libya, Iran and North Korea. He was put under house arrest, but never tried.

With Musharraf stepping down Khan hopes that the charges pending against him will be withdrawn. Many believe, however, that Khan was kept under arrest by Musharraf to avoid having to hand him over to U.S. authorities who have been pressing for a chance to interrogate him.

Munir A. Malik, who has been leading the legal defence for the reinstatement of  Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry as chief justice of Pakistan after he was sacked from the job by Musharraf, said he felt ‘’elated” by Musharraf’s resignation. His incarceration was, he felt, not in vain, though he would like to see through the restoration to their jobs of some 60 members of the higher judiciary that Musharraf dismissed for refusing to endorse an emergency he declared last November.

In the first parliamentary session after Musharraf resigned, a majority of the legislators opposed safe passage for him out of the country and demanded that he be place on trial for abrogating the Constitution twice.

In the first abrogation, in October 1999, Musharraf, then army chief, seized power in a bloodless coup and sent the then prime minister, Nawaz Sharif, into exile.

In June 2001, he replaced Rafiq Tarar as president. In October 2002, he held presidential elections and legitimised his presidency. Five years later, in October 2007, he won a second term, while retaining his army uniform.

However, fearing that the Supreme Court would declare his presidential candidature null and void, he suspended the Constitution and sacked all the judges of the higher courts. His justification: the judiciary was working at cross purposes to his government’s attempts to stamp out militancy.

Musharraf later acknowledged that the imposition of emergency rule was unconstitutional. While the charge sheet was drawn up by the ruling coalition, it has not been made public since Musharraf resigned before impeachment proceedings began.

But, Mian Mohammad Aslam, vice-president of the Lahore High Court Bar, has drafted a separate charge sheet and urged the government to try Musharraf for high treason under Article 6.

The major charges for which Aslam wants Musharraf to be tried include; toppling of the civilian government in 1999, getting himself appointed as president in 2002 through a ”bogus referendum”, handing over ”military bases to the United States without approval of the parliament” and ”handing over innocent Pakistani citizens to the U.S”.

But putting Musharraf on trial is easier said than done. Announcing his resignation in a televised speech on Aug 18, Mushrraf said confidently. ”No charge sheet can stand against me. Not even a single charge can be proven against me as I have full trust in Allah Almighty and I did everything with the belief of Pakistan First.”

According to Malik, ”A trial under Article 6 read with the High Treason (Punishment) Act 1973 requires that the complainant must be the federal government. Will the brass of this country permit the government to be the complainant?”

”Of course, any wrong-doer should be tried in court,” said Najma Sadeque, a rights activist, one of the persons leading the People’s Resistance Movement campaign, adding, ”but not selectively.”

”If he (Musharraf) is to be tried, so should Asif Ali Zardari (PPP co-chairperson, nominated for presidency), Rehman Malik (interior minister and a close crony of Zardari’s), Altaf Hussain (chief of Muttahida Qaumi Movement) and a  long string of their lackeys, mostly criminal,” said Sadeque.  ”Unless that happens, justice will remain a tool of the privileged and a commodity of patronage, and this elected and democratic government will just be a continuation of the same old farce.”

But should the Pandora’s Box of trying Musharraf be opened? ”If the Pandora’s Box is never opened, there will never be any addressing of the issues that have haunted us for over half-a-century,” said Sadeque. ”This is a risk we have to take. If we do nothing we shall have extra-constitutional interventions again,” said  Malik.

Some experts have said that for any trial to be fair, and Musharraf put in the dock, the old higher judiciary, that Musharraf dismissed on Nov.  3, 2007, needs to be restored. Malik disagrees. ”No, that is not necessary. The trial under Article 6 can take place in the trial court and not be placed before the Superior Courts.”

There are prominent citizens like Badar Alam who believe there is no need for a trial ”either by the current judiciary or by the old one”.

”The media, civil society and some politicians are emphasising too much on his (Musharraf’s) trial without realising the repercussions,” said Alam, a commentator and senior journalist with the monthly ‘Herald.’ ”Everyone, who is anyone, has skeletons rattling in his closet. Be it Nawaz Sharif or Asif Zardari. So what will we achieve by trying one individual?”

Alam would like to see a ”grand reconciliation” involving the army, the politicians, the judiciary, the clerics and the media. ”Anyone who has had a hand in bringing us to such a pass should come down from their confrontational stances, and help create a consensual path for the future.”

Malik finds such a course sound. ”Maybe the parliament can pass a legislation that a person who appears before a truth and reconciliation commission, set for this purpose shall, subject to truthful disclosure and repentance, be liable only for a reduced punishment than that prescribed by the High Treason (Punishment) Act, 1973.”

Filed Under: Commentary, Justice, Politics

Moscow’s plan is to redraw the map of Europe

August 28, 2008 By

Republished with Permission on Global Geopolitics – Global News Blog
Wednesday, August 27, 2008

Read the Original Article on The Financial Times.

By Mikheil Saakashvili

Published: August 27 2008 18:22 | Last updated: August 27 2008 18:22

Any doubts about why Russia invaded Georgia have now been erased. By illegally recognising the Georgian territories of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, Dmitry Medvedev, Russia’s president, made clear that Moscow’s goal is to redraw the map of Europe using force.

This war was never about South Ossetia or Georgia. Moscow is using its invasion, prepared over years, to rebuild its empire, seize greater control of Europe’s energy supplies and punish those who believed democracy could flourish on its borders. Europe has reason to worry. Thankfully, most of the international community has condemned the invasion and confirmed their unwavering support for Georgia’s territorial integrity and sovereignty.

Our first duty is to highlight Russia’s Orwellian tactics. Moscow says it invaded Georgia to protect its citizens in South Ossetia. Over the past five years it cynically laid the groundwork for this pretence, by illegally distributing passports in South Ossetia and Ab­khazia, “manufacturing” Russian citizens to protect. The cynicism of Russia’s concern for ethnic minorities can be expressed in one word: Chechnya.

This cynicism has become hypocritical and criminal. Since Russia’s invasion, its forces have been “cleansing” Georgian villages in both regions – including outside the conflict zone – using arson, rape and execution. Human rights groups have documented these actions. Moscow has flipped the Kosovo precedent on its head: where the west acted to prevent ethnic cleansing, in Georgia ethnic cleansing is being used by Russia to consolidate its military annexation.

Other Russian lies have also been debunked. The most egregious was Moscow’s absurd claim on the eve of the invasion that Georgia was committing genocide in South Ossetia, with 2,000 civilian deaths. A week later, Moscow admitted that only 133 people had died. These were overwhelmingly military casualties and came after the Russian invasion. But the genocide claim served its goal. In a media era hungry for content, the big lie still works.

Russia’s campaign to redraw the map of Europe is based on the propagation of misinformation. On Wednesday on this page, Mr Medvedev asserted that Georgia attacked South Ossetia. In fact, our forces entered the conflict zone after Russia rolled its tanks on to our soil, passing through the Roki tunnel into South Ossetia, Georgia. Mr Medvedev also claimed Russia had no designs on our territory. Why then did it bomb and occupy Georgian cities such as Gori? Why does it continue to occupy our strategic port of Poti?

Moscow also counts on historical amnesia. It hopes the west will forget ethnic cleansing in Abkhazia drove out more than three-quarters of the local population – ethnic Georgians, Greeks, Jews and others – leaving the minority Abkhaz in control. Russia also wants us to forget that South Ossetia was run not by its residents (almost half were Georgian before this month’s ethnic cleansing) but by Russian officials. When the war started, South Ossetia’s de facto prime minister, defence minister and security minister were ethnic Russians with no ties to the region.

The next step in Russia’s invasion script, of disinformation and annexation, is regime change. If Moscow can oust Georgia’s democratically elected government, it can then intimidate other democratic European governments. Where will this end? What we know about Russia, and especially the current regime, is not encouraging.

Last week Vaclav Havel, the former Czech president, put us on alert: “Russia does not really know where it begins and where it ends.” He noted that the Moscow regime is “a lot more sophisticated” than the Soviets under Leonid Brezhnev. He should know – he was on the front line the last time Russia invaded a European country.

Mr Medvedev is now making menacing statements about Ukraine and Moldova and is replicating its Georgia strategy in the Crimea by distributing Russian passports. The message is clear. Russia will do as it pleases.

I believe the most potent western response to Russia is to stay united and firm by providing immediate material and political support. If Moscow is trying to overthrow our government using its lethal tools, let us resist with democratic tools that have sustained more than 60 years of Euro-Atlantic peace. Backing Georgia with Europe’s political and financial institutions is a powerful response. Regrettably, this story is no longer about my small country, but the west’s ability to stand its ground to defend a principled approach to international security and keep the map of Europe intact.

The writer is president of Georgia

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008

Filed Under: Conflict, Featured, Geopolitics, Security

AFTER TRICKY MUSH, TRICKY ZARDARI

August 27, 2008 By

Global Geopolitics – Global News Blog
Wednesday, August 27, 2008

Copyright © B. Raman – South Asia Analysis Group
www.southasiaanalysis.org

B.RAMAN

Asif Ali Zardari, the co-Chairperson of the Pakistan People’s Party and the leader of the ruling coalition, which came into existence after the elections of February 18,2008, can be as tricky and as insincere  as Pervez Musharraf, who resigned as the President on August 18,2008, in order to avoid  humiliating impeachment proceedings against him by the Parliament.

2. There is no other way of interpreting his going back on the solemn commitments in writing made by him to Nawaz Sharif, the leader of the Pakistan Muslim League (PML-N), within a few hours of his signing those commitments. The first of these commitments related to the reinstatement of  former Chief Justice  Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhury and other judges sacked by Musharraf within 24 hours of the resignation of Musharraf through an executive order. The second commiment related to choosing a non-political candidate in consulatation with the PML (N) to succeed Musharraf as the President and to work for the removal of the powers of the President  to dismiss the elected Prime Minister and dissolve the National Assembly.

3. After forcing Musharraf to resign by mounting pressure on him with the co-operation of the PML (N), Zardari  has gone back on his commitment once again and has been dragging his feet on the reinstatement of the sacked Chief Justice due to a fear that, if reinstated, he may set aside the National  Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) under which all criminal cases  pending against him and Benazir Bhutto were withdrawn by Musharraf.

4.  Zardari has also  gone back on his commitment  to choose a non-political candidate through consensus for the post of President and decided to contest the post himself, ostensibly under pressure from his party and its electoral allies. After having announced his decision to seek office as the President, he has started dragging his feet on his commitment to work for the abolition of the powers of the President to dismiss the Prime Minister and dissolve the National Assembly. It is also apparent that he wants to chair the powerful National Security Council (NSC) set up by Musharraf. Thus, Zardari has made clear his intention—-kept concealed so far—- to be the successor to Muasharraf with the same powers as Musharraf.

5. What has shocked the PML (N) is not only his shamelessly going back on his solemn commitments, but also justifying it with the cynical argument that agreements are not holy like the Holy Koran and hence subject to change depending on the change in trhe circumstances. The shocked PML (N) has decided to withdraw from the ruling coalition and sit in the opposition. It has also decided to nominate  former Chief justice Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui,  who refused to take a fresh oath after Musharraf seized power in October,1999, and resigned office, as its candidate for President. The PML (Qaide Azam) headed by Shujjat Hussain, which was created by Musharraf in 2002 and which has remained loyal to him, has decided to nominate its own candidate ( Senator Mushahid Hussain Sayed). Even if such a three-cornered contest materialises, Zardari should have no difficulty in getting elected with the support of the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) of Altaf Hussain, living in exile in the UK, the Awami National Party (ANP) of the North-West Frontier Province (NWFP), the Jamiat-ul-Islam Pakistan of Maulana Fazlur Rahman and pro-PPP Independents.

6. The US and Musharraf, in their own ways, have been trying to ensure that Zardari is elected and Nawaz is marginalised. Like Zardari, the US does not want the reinstatement of Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhury since he was keen to enquire into the cases of missing Pakistanis, many of whom were informally and illegally handed over by Musharraf to the US intelligence on suspicion that they were having contacts with Al Qaeda. The US feels uncomfortable with Nawaz for the reason that he has been calling for major changes in the policy of co-operation with the US against Al Qaeda and the Taliban followed by Musharraf.

7. Even though the US does not rate highly Zardari’s leadership qualities, it prefers him to Nawaz because of his willingness to maintain Musharraf’s policy of co-operation with the US in its so-called war against terrorism in Afghanistan and his perceived amenability to pressure by the US because of its  role in persuading Musharraf, when he was the President, to issue the NRO. The US is also hopeful that, unlike Nawaz, Zardari will avoid any humiliation of Musharraf and will let him continue to live in Pakistan without fearing any harassment by the Government.

8. Musharraf has not been inactive since his resignation. According to well-informed MQM sources, he played a role in persuading Altaf Hussain  to support Zardari as the President. Musharraf has similarly been trying to persuade the PML (QA) to withdraw its candidate and support Zardari.

9. Well-informed PPP  sources say that the entire scenario has been proceeding according to a tacit understanding reached with US officials during the visit of Yousef Raza Gilani, the Prime Minister, and Rehman Malik, his Advisor on Internal Security, to Washington DC, in  the last week of July,2008. According to these sources, this understanding provided for: launching of a special land-cum-air operation by the Pakistan military against Al Qaeda and Taliban sanctuaries in the Bajaur Agency, permission to be accorded by the Gilani Government for continuing unmanned Predator strikes by the US intelligence agencies on terrorist hide-outs in the Federally-Administered Tribal Areas (FATA),  and US pressure on Musharraf to resign thus paving the way for the election of Zardari. The object of the entire exercise was to keep Nawaz out of power, marginalise him and keep up the present level of US-Pakistan co-operation against terrorism.

10. If Zardari gets elected as the President, how sincere will he be  in keeping up his commitment to extend full co-operation to the US in the war against terrorism? As proof of his good intention, he has already got  banned the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) on August 25,2008.This is a move meant to placate the US and convince it that Zardari is as keen to fight against terrorism as Musharraf was. The ban itself will make no difference to the activities of the TTP just as the bans imposed by Musharraf on the Lashkar-e-Toiba and other organisations on January 15,2002, did not make any difference They just changed their names and started operating under different names. The TTP would not even change its name. Musharraf in the past  and Zardari now  try to create an impression of co-operating with the US without actually doing so. They try to create a cosmetic effect through seemingly bold statements, formal bans etc.  If  they are really sincere  about their co-operation, their sincerity has to be reflected in the action takem by them on the ground against the TTP through measures such as locating and arresting or killing their leaders, destroying their training infrastructure etc. One sees very little sign of such action.

11. After 9/11, the US tried to project Musharraf as its frontline ally in the war against terrorism. He did co-operate, but not whole-heartedly.  It is now hoping that if elected as the President, Zardari will co-operate with it without reservations. Zardari is giving the impression that he will. It is most likely that he will turn out to be as insincere as Musharraf. He will give the impression of co-operating while avoiding it in effect. (26-8-08)

(The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )

Filed Under: Featured, Politics, Tensions

President Assad wants a Cold War

August 27, 2008 By

Global Geopolitics – Global News Blog
Wednesday, August 27, 2008

© Copyright 2008 Meir Javedanfar – Middle East Analyst. All rights reserved.

This article was originally published on Middle East Analyst. Read the article in its original form.

By Meir Javedanfar

The guns have barely fallen silent in the conflict between Georgia and Russia. The two sides are still squabbling over the implementation of the ceasefire agreement. Yet that didn’t stop President Bashar Al Assad of Syria from becoming the first head of state to visit Russia, where he declared his unyielding support for Moscow’s position regarding Georgia. “We understand Russia’s stance regarding the breakaway regions and understand that it came in retaliation to Georgian provocation,” he said.

Even more interesting was his follow-up statement: “We oppose any attempt to harm Russia’s position.” He even went as far as to generously offer to host Russian ground-to-ground missiles in his country.

Assad could see that Western demands for Russia to withdraw its forces from South Ossetia – and the recent agreement between Poland and the U.S. to place an anti -missile shield on Polish territory – are worrying Russia.

Moscow is concerned that the West, especially the U.S., is using every opportunity to undermine its position. Some Russians have gone as far as to view Georgia’s provocative decision to send its forces into South Ossetia as a Western-sponsored trap, meant to lure Russia into a conflict. The West would then use Russia’s response as justification for the expansion of NATO in the Caucasus, as well as in Eastern Europe, especially Ukraine. Both are very sensitive points for Moscow.

By throwing in his lot completely with Russia, Assad obviously hoped that he could use the current anti-Western sentiment in Moscow as capital to finance Russia’s support – both militarily and politically – for Syria and its position.
The purpose of his visit and supporting statement was clear. He was basically insinuating to the Russians:

Like it or not, the West has declared a new Cold War against you, and you must respond. I am willing to help you, if you are willing to reciprocate, by giving me the weapons I need, and by using your presence in the Middle East to scare the Americans and the Israelis who are undermining my position.

The motivations of his strategy are understandable. Unlike his father, when Bashar became president he did not have the support of the Soviet superpower. This made the job of purchasing sophisticated weaponry to counter that of Israel much more difficult. The loss of the Soviet Union as a backer also meant that Damascus lost a powerful ally on the international stage, especially in the UN. Although Syria consolidated power in the Middle East through its alliance with Hezbollah and Iran, on a global scale the country remains isolated, with no prospect of the U.S. or the EU giving their support as the USSR once did. Furthermore, the country’s present economic situation under Bashar is far worse than when his father was in charge. Back then, Syria was earning 80% of its income from oil. Now, due to dwindling resources, this figure is down to 20%. The same goes for water resources. There are reports from Damascus that repeated, lengthy cuts in water supply are making life for its citizens extremely difficult, especially in the summer heat.

Despite his efforts, it is unlikely that Assad can get the Cold War revival that he seeks. First and foremost, Russia of 2008 is far more different than Russia of 1988. Its economy is far more intertwined and dependent on Western capital and trade.

This was demonstrated recently when foreign investors pulled their money out of Russia in the wake of the Georgia conflict at the fastest rate since the 1998 ruble crisis. According to the Financial Times, Russian foreign currency reserves dropped by $16.4 billion in the fist week of the conflict with Georgia. This was one of the largest absolute weekly drops in ten years, which put pressure on the ruble and on foreign confidence in the Russian economy.
These days, thanks to trade with the West and high energy prices, Russians are used to the good life. “If the Georgians were smart, instead of attacking South Ossetia, all they needed to do was to threaten to bomb the Gucci shop in Moscow,” quipped a Russian businessman I know, who travels regularly between Israel and Russia. “Russians would have agreed to their annexation of South Ossetia in no time.”

Joking aside, Russia’s leadership is all too aware that economic misery could cost them votes and popularity at home. This is why they will not allow their relations with the EU and the U.S. to deteriorate too drastically by entering into another Cold War.

Unfortunately for Assad, the same goes for Russia’s relations with Israel. Level of trade and diplomatic relations between Russia and Israel, compared to the days of the USSR, have increased astronomically. Russia now hosts hundreds of thousands of its citizens who lived in Israel, have Israeli passports, and are now back living in their land of birth. Many more of its citizens live in Israel. Israeli companies have offices and have invested in the Russian economy,. They have also been instrumental in the high tech and jewelery industry. Today, Russians visit Israel in record numbers. The level of bilateral trade between them is estimated to stand at more than $2 billion – and is rising. Russia would have very little to gain by supporting Syria, at the cost of making Israel into its enemy.

Furthermore, with the emergence of China as a superpower, maintaining relations with as many sides as possible is considered crucial to Moscow’s foreign policy.

Russia’s cold shoulder to Syria’s hopes for a new Cold War should not worry Iran too much. Its case is different than that of Damascus. Tehran has much larger gas and oil reserves. For now, its economic situations is not dire as Syria’s is. Furthermore, China supports Russia’s stance in the UN vis a vis the Iranian nuclear program. This means that Russia does not have to make any dramatic changes in its relations with Tehran. Even though they would prefer it, Iran’s leadership can live without a Cold War between Russia and the West. For Syria’s leader, it will be much more difficult.

Meir Javedanfar
Middle East Analyst
www.meepas.com
The Middle East. Analysed.

Filed Under: Commentary, Middle East

MIDEAST: Israel Pushes Ahead with Settlement Expansion

August 27, 2008 By

Global Geopolitics – Global News Blog – IPS
Wednesday, August 27, 2008

All rights reserved, IPS – Inter Press Service, 2008.

Mel Frykberg

JERUSALEM, Aug 27  (IPS)  – Israel has published tenders for the construction of 1,761 illegal housing units for Israeli settlers in occupied east Jerusalem alone, according to the Israeli rights group Peace Now.

The expansion plans come despite promises by the Israeli government at last year’s peace summit at Annapolis, Maryland (in the U.S.) to freeze all settlement growth.

”Once again this government has shown that its words and commitments are meaningless, and they have no intention of keeping to their word,” says Peace Now.

United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has stressed repeatedly that settlement construction or expansion in the West Bank is contrary to international law and Israel’s commitments under the ‘road map’ peace process.

The road map was a series of peace-building measures proposed by U.S. President George W. Bush in 2002 and subsequently developed by the diplomatic Quartet of the European Union, the United Nations, Russia and the United States.

Ban Ki-moon further urged Israel to freeze all settlement activity and to dismantle outposts erected since March of 2001.

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, normally a diehard supporter of Israel, also expressed her concern about the settlement building during her last visit to Israel several months ago.

”It’s important to have an atmosphere of confidence and trust,” Rice said following talks she held with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas in Ramallah. ”The United States believes that the (settlement) actions and the announcements that are taking place are indeed having a negative effect on the atmosphere for negotiation.”

The new construction should not be allowed to shape future Israeli-Palestinian borders, which remain under negotiation, Rice said. ”The United States will not let these activities have any effect on final status negotiations, including final borders.”

The Geneva Conventions specifically forbid the transfer of a civilian population into occupied territory.

But even as Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert was meeting with Abbas in Jerusalem last week in an endeavour to further the peace process, plans for further settlement construction were already under way.

At the beginning of the month, prior to Peace Now’s statement, the Israel Lands Authority published tenders for the construction of 130 new housing units in Har Homa, East Jerusalem.

The Har Homa neighbourhood and all east Jerusalem settlements were built on land Israel occupied in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war. Israel subsequently incorporated the areas into Jerusalem’s boundaries in a move not recognised internationally.

In addition to the public announcement of the tenders, there are currently 500 houses already under construction in Har Homa, and 240 in the settlement of Maaleh Adumim in East Jerusalem.

At the same time as the Har Homa tenders were being published, Israeli officials also called for bids from construction companies to build more than 300 apartments in the West Bank settlement of Beitar Illit near Bethlehem, and about 20 minutes drive from Jerusalem.

This came on top of Olmert’s approval at the beginning of the year to build 750 new houses in the Givat Zeev settlement northwest of Jerusalem, and 100 in the Ariel settlement in the northern West Bank.

There are approximately 430,000 Israeli settlers residing illegally in the West Bank.

According to Israeli advocacy group B’Tselem, Israel has established 135 settlements in the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) that have been recognised by the Interior Ministry. Additionally, dozens of outposts of varying size have been established.

Sixteen settlements were established in the Gaza Strip and subsequently dismantled in 2005 during the implementation of the ‘disengagement plan’.

Land expropriation from Palestinian farmers for the building and enlargement of Israeli settlements has caused undue hardship and economic suffering for Palestinians, and some have initiated acts of civil disobedience in a bid to retain the pieces of agricultural land that have not been confiscated.

The villagers of Bil’in and Ni’ilin near Ramallah in the central West Bank, together with international activists and Israeli sympathisers, have staged weekly protests that have resulted in a number of deaths, arrests and injuries. The most infamous incident was the blindfolding, handcuffing and shooting of Ni’ilin resident Ashraf Abu Rahma.

The villagers of Ni’ilin have been protesting land expropriation which has seen the size of their village reduced from 5,700 hectares of land in 1948 to 3,300 hectares in 1967, to the present approximate of 1,000 hectares.

Ni’ilin olives farmer Bahjat Mesleh told IPS he had lost about 75 dunams (10 dunums is one hectare) of land to make way for the building of the separation barrier which divides Israel from the West Bank.

”This has cost me about 25,000 dollars, and I am more fortunate than other farmers as I’ve been able to continue supporting my family by working as a teacher. Not all farmers have been able to continue a livelihood,” said Mesleh.

According to B’Tselem, ”Israel has stolen thousands of dunams of land from the Palestinians. Israel forbids Palestinians to enter and use these lands, and uses the settlements to justify numerous violations of Palestinian rights, such as the right to housing, to earn a living, and freedom of movement.

”The settlers, on the other hand, benefit from all rights given to citizens of Israel who live inside the Green Line, and in some instances, even additional rights.”

The principal tool used to take control of land is to declare it state land. This process began in 1979, and is based on a manipulative implementation of the Ottoman Lands Law of 1858, which applied in the area at the time of occupation.

Other methods employed by Israel to take control of land include seizure for military needs, declaration of land as ”abandoned assets”, and the expropriation of land for public needs.

Filed Under: Featured, Middle East, Politics, Tensions

PERU: Courts Move Closer to Clarifying Accomarca Massacre

August 27, 2008 By

Global Geopolitics – Global News Blog – IPS
Wednesday, August 27, 2008

All rights reserved, IPS – Inter Press Service, 2008.

Ángel Páez

LIMA, Aug 27   (IPS)  – ”They entered the village and called all the peasants together, tortured them to make them say who were terrorists, and killed them because they didn’t talk,” testified former soldier José Contreras, one of those involved in the 1985 killing of 69 people in the southern Peruvian village of Accomarca.

More than two decades after the massacre, Contreras and other soldiers have begun to be arrested and tried for killing 30 women, 23 children and 16 men in the highlands village of Accomarca, under the command of then lieutenant Telmo Hurtado.

Another former soldier, Francisco Marcañaupa, said in his testimony that the villagers were all rounded up in one small house, some of them after being ”pulled out of the bushes, while other escaped.”

”They didn’t shoot or do anything to us, and all of a sudden I saw Lieutenant Telmo Hurtado opening fire on them, then he threw in a grenade, and smoke starting coming out of the house,” said Marcañaupa.

A dozen other former soldiers are also facing arrest warrants in connection with the Aug. 14, 1985 killings in Accomarca, one of the worst massacres committed in the 1980-2000 counterinsurgency war against the Maoist Sendero Luminoso (Shining Path) guerrillas.

There are strong indications that the killings were not the work of one officer acting on his own, but formed part of a counterinsurgency operation approved by Hurtado’s superiors — and hidden later by the army.

Contreras revealed that the orders were to leave no survivors or witnesses. ”Lieutenant Telmo Hurtado shot the victims to finish them off,” the ex-soldier testified. He added that the victims ”were not armed,” and that Hurtado said they were ”supporters of the subversion,” according to the judicial records to which IPS had access.

”After Hurtado put all the people in one house, he tossed in a grenade. But since they didn’t all die, he started to finish them off with his gun, and ordered that the house be burnt down,” said Contreras.

”That’s when a woman appeared, and the lieutenant gave orders that she be shot, but they didn’t hit her. On his orders, Sergeant ‘Managua’ ran after the woman. He shot at her twice and missed. But he killed her on the third shot,” he said. The woman was 80-year-old villager Juliana Baldeón.

Contreras also told the court that Hurtado ”informed (then) army Major José Williams Zapata of everything that happened.”

At the time of the Accomarca killings, Zapata was the head of the Compañía Lince (Lynx Company), to which the patrol units commanded by lieutenants Hurtado and Juan Rivera Rondón belonged.

As commander of the Compañía Lince, Zapata took part in designing ”Plan Huancayocc”, whose goal was to eliminate Sendero rebels supposedly hiding in Accomarca.

Hurtado is currently in jail in Miami, Florida on charges of violating U.S. immigration laws, but will soon be deported to Peru. He was arrested in March 2007 by U.S. immigration agents.

And on Mar. 4, a U.S. federal judge ordered Hurtado to pay 37 million dollars to two survivors of the massacre, Teófila Ochoa and Cirila Pulido, who were 13 and 12 years old when they managed to escape the killings.

Rivera Rondón was extradited two weeks ago from the U.S. state of Maryland, where he had also been arrested on immigration charges.

By contrast, retired general Williams Zapata has received deferential treatment from the government of Alan García, despite the fact that he is facing legal action. The president appointed him as the country’s representative to the Inter-American Defence Board, based on Washington, even though the position must be occupied by a serving officer.

”Lieutenant Hurtado told us that Accomarca was a ‘red zone’, that we shouldn’t lose sight of each other, because if we did, we would be killed,” Marcañaupa told the court. ”They told us that the area was dominated by Sendero Luminoso and that we had to attack those people.”

When he was asked who commanded the Compañía Lince, to which he belonged, Marcañaupa responded that he did not know the officer’s full name. ”I only remember that it was a major whose last name was Zapata,” he testified.

After the judicial investigation established that Williams Zapata was the only major posted in that area, charges were brought against him. As a result, he has to fly back to Lima every two months from Washington to sign in at court.

Now that Rivera Rondón has been sent back to Peru, he could help establish the chain of command and demonstrate that Hurtado was following higher orders to kill innocent, unarmed rural villagers.

Contreras’ testimony made it clear that the military’s aim was to get villagers to confess to being members or supporters of Sendero Luminoso, or to point fingers at each other. ”Five women were stripped naked, submerged in water, and interrogated,” he said.

The soldiers also kept evidence of the massacre. ”All of the soldiers in my patrol unit and soldiers in other units collected the spent shells. At the army base, Hurtado told us to keep quiet, because we were all implicated,” he said.

The testimony given by Contreras and Marcañaupa has helped shed light on who was responsible for the massacre, especially with respect to Hurtado’s role. According to Karim Ninaquispe, the Peruvian lawyer representing the victims’ families, the former soldiers’ statements are helping to clarify a crime that has been forgotten and has gone unpunished for nearly a quarter of a century.

”Contreras said his patrol unit went out the day after the massacre to clean up the area, and that José Williams Zapata was aware of this. That means (the officer) had immediate knowledge of the execution of the victims,” said Ninaquispe.

Both Contreras and Marcañaupa have also stated that after the Accomarca killings, they were transferred to the Los Cabitos base in the city of Huamanga, which served as the headquarters of the Military Political Front under the command of General
Wilfredo Mori.

This indicates that the activities of the Compañía Lince had General Mori’s approval, which would explain why Hurtado moved around by helicopter.

”Indeed, it was the political-military chief Wilfredo Mori who authorised the patrols, especially the ones carried out by Compañía Lince,” Ninaquispe told IPS.

”The information provided by the ex-soldier Contreras would apparently make it clear that Zapata and Mori participated not only in planning the Plan Huancayocc, but also in the cover-up of those who were responsible for carrying out the massacre,” said the lawyer.

Filed Under: Human Rights, News

SIERRA LEONE: Commission Launches First Human Rights Report

August 27, 2008 By

Global Geopolitics – Global News Blog – IPS
Wednesday, August 27, 2008

All rights reserved, IPS – Inter Press Service, 2008.

Mohamed Fofanah

FREETOWN, Aug 27 (IPS) – A barefoot girl watches expressionless as men clad in expensive suits and women in designer clothes make their way on foot to the Community Centre in Kroo Bay, Freetown. They are here to launch the first ever State of Human Rights Report for Sierra Leone; Zainab, 12, is in the midst of another day on the narrow, muddy streets of the area, selling groundnuts to help support her family.

Home for her is the warren of patchwork wood and tin dwellings that sits at the bottom of the west end of the Sierra Leonean capital, Freetown. The paths in Kroo Bay are of hardened dirt that turns to mud during the rainy season. There are no sewage pipes or water mains beneath them and they are too narrow for a car to travel.

Children bare to the waist play in the mud. Most of them, like Zainab, will never see the inside of a school. Babies strapped to their mothers’ backs cry as if they knew how many among them will not survive to see their fifth birthday. The community’s 10,000 residents are served by a single clinic.
[Read more...]

Filed Under: Africa, Report

PHILIPPINES: Gov’t Urged to Resume Talks With Muslim Rebels

August 27, 2008 By

Global Geopolitics – Global News Blog – IPS
Wednesday, August 27, 2008

All rights reserved, IPS – Inter Press Service, 2008.

Stella Gonzales

MANILA, Aug 27  (IPS)  – About 100 people have been killed or injured and more than 130,000 others displaced since hostilities resumed this month between government troops and Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) rebels, said to be ”frustrated” by a new hitch in a peace agreement

The 2003 agreement had sought to end the decades-old insurgency in Mindanao that had cost 120,000 lives and up to 270 billion pesos (5.9 billion US dollars) in losses. Instead, this product of secret negotiations (leaked to the public just days before the scheduled signing of the agreement) created a backlash and is now being blamed for triggering the violence.

Former president Joseph Estrada told the government to pursue an ”all-out war” against the MILF, similar to what he tried out during his term in office. But former presidents Corazon Aquino and Fidel Ramos have advised the two parties to instead return to the negotiating table, a position shared by the human rights group Karapatan (Alliance for the Advancement of Human Rights).

Karapatan deplored the attacks on civilians and reminded the separatist MILF that in advancing the interests of the Bangsamoro people, the rebels should also respect the rights of civilians. Karapatan expressed concern for those displaced from their homes as a result of the fighting. ”The two sides must stop the hostilities and return to the negotiating table to resolve the thorny issues,” said secretary-general Marie Hilao-Enriquez.

Representatives of the government and the MILF were scheduled to sign a memorandum of agreement (MOA) on ancestral domain last August.  The MOA, which took almost five years to craft, had already been ”initialled” a week before by peace negotiators from both sides following meetings in Kuala Lumpur. The MOA would have paved the way for the expansion of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) to include about 700 villages. It would have given Muslims wider economic and political powers.

But on Aug. 4, the Supreme Court issued a restraining order stopping the signing of the agreement after local executives from Mindanao filed a petition claiming that the agreement would result in the dismemberment of the country and was unconstitutional. The aborted signing of the MOA was said to have angered some MILF commanders, prompting the attacks on several towns.

The government later said it would not sign the MOA in its present form and would instead renegotiate the agreement. It also wanted the MILF to surrender the MILF commanders who were responsible for the attacks.

But MILF chairman Al Haj Murad Ebrahim said the MOA was ”a final document, a done deal” and was subjected by the government to ”legal review by experts for almost four months.”

In the MILF website, Murad said the MOA ”is just a framework agreement and not the final compact” and that the necessary public consultations, congressional actions and enactments, and plebiscite would be conducted for the people’s final decision.

Much of the blame for the breakdown of the peace negotiations is being placed at the door of President Gloria Arroyo. Politicians who had petitioned the Supreme Court said the government did not consult them regarding the MOA.

The leftist group Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (Bayan), or New Patriotic Alliance, said Arroyo ”negotiated in bad faith and raised the expectations of the MILF and the Moro people.”

”The MOA, while recognising on paper the Moro people’s right to self-determination…was calculated to flounder and fail in the face of legal challenges and the unfounded outcry that it would dismember the Philippine Republic,” said Renato Reyes, Bayan secretary-general. He said the government knew that the agreement would require an amendment to the Constitution — a very unpopular move in the Philippines — and that the Supreme Court was very likely to intervene.

Bayan questioned the involvement of the United States in the peace process and in the forging of agreements. Reyes said that in doing so, Arroyo had ”undermined national sovereignty.”

The U.S., which fears that Mindanao could turn into a base militants linked to al-Qaeda, has promised millions of dollars in aid to Mindanao once a final peace agreement is signed. In fact, the U.S. ambassador to the Philippines  flew to Malaysia to witness the (now aborted) signing of the MOA.

The involvement of third  countries adds to the already ”daunting task” of reconciling seemingly clashing interests of the government, the MILF, politicians and local oligarchs, said political analyst Prof. Bobby Tuazon of the Center for People Empowerment in Governance.

Tuazon told IPS that ”the peace process, which reveals the craftsmanship of the U.S., purports to offer the MILF a political authority and a degree of ownership over ancestral lands and maritime resources.” But, he pointed out, politicians, landlords and oligarchs cannot be expected to ”disengage from power politics to make way for MILF juridical power.”

He said there was a need to re-examine the peace process between the government and the MILF.  The peace talks, he said, fall into the ”peace process paradigm” of capitalist countries that is similar to the United Nations’ ”peace building,” ”conflict resolution” or ”dispute settlement.”

”The trouble is, not all ‘peace processes’ are success stories,” Tuazon said. He said talks between the two parties should be conducted independently ”with no interference by external parties, except to facilitate as in the case of Malaysia and to monitor the truce, as in the case of the International Monitoring Team (IMT).”

The IMT, composed of mostly military officers from Malaysia, Brunei, Libya and Japan, acts as mediator on violations of the ceasefire agreement between the government and the MILF. The IMT, which has maintained a presence in Mindanao since 2004, is ending its tour of duty at the end of the month. There are last-minute negotiations for an extension of its stay, which many parties see as crucial in the peace process.

”I think the core issues of the peace talks should be considered as a national concern,” said Tuazon. ”More democratic dialogues, deliberations and forums should have been conducted to distill the dichotomy of diverse positions and competing interests.”

Filed Under: Commentary, Peace Efforts, Politics
« Older Posts
Newer Posts »