Africa Blog

Is Algeria Qadaffi's Ace in the Hole?

2011-03-02T15:16:00.000-08:00

By ROB PRINCE

At this moment when it appears that Muammar Qaddafi’s days in power are numbered, the Libyan leader has made it clear repeatedly that he will stay and fight. So far he has. His domestic support is evaporating around him, leaders of the country’s 140 tribes siding with the rebels, military units siding with the rebellion in larger and larger numbers, air force pilots and naval vessels defecting to Malta. Much of his government, other than his sons, has abandoned him as well.

What is left?

Those heavily armed private militias controlled by his sons? The army of mercenaries from sub-Saharan Africa? Some Mirage jet fighter planes with, until now, pilots less than willing to bomb rebel strongholds? All that is true. Yet while the U.S. and Europe work to isolate Qaddafi, he is not completely alone and without allies.

Given his ever shrinking domestic base, one has to wonder how it is that Qaddafi can appear so defiant? It might come from the fact that he is not entirely isolated and alone. Indeed, the support that Qaddafi is garnering has stiffened the colonel’s backbone.

Qaddafi has the support of at least one important regional ally, the Algerian government, which has both militarily and diplomatically thrown its full (and substantial) weight behind his effort to retain power. In so doing, it would appear that Algeria, which has long cooperated with the US and NATO on its North and Sub-Saharan Africa anti-terrorism policies, is breaking ranks to protect its regime’s very survival.

Since its independence, Algeria has been controlled by its military which lives high off the country’s oil profits at the expense of its own people. Algeria’s leaders fear that if Qaddafi falls, their hold on power will be that much more fragile. Their support of Qaddafi is very much designed to save their own skins.

If Mubarak saw the writing on the wall as Ben Ali’s little castle in Tunisia crumbled, so the Algerian military leadership understands that if Qaddafi falls, it very likely is next in line, or if not, not very far down the list. Desperate to cling to power, the Algerian government is – while offering a few political and economic concessions – essentially reorganizing the state’s substantial repressive apparatus to weather the protest storm. But in addition, it is pulling out all stops to support Qaddafi’s increasingly feeble hold on power.

Maybe it is the support of its North African oil producing ally Algeria, that has given Qaddafi that confident appearance that he can indeed – with a little help from his friends – hold out longer. An alliance of two of Africa’s most important oil producing countries is nothing to sneeze at, and could have all kinds of consequences. Should the alliance between the two tighten, and they engage in a common front oil embargo, which some news outlets speculate could happen, oil prices could jump to as high as $220 a barrel.

Less than a week ago, an Algerian human rights group based in Germany, Algeria Watch,published a statement alleging that the Algerian government is providing material aid – in the form of armed military units – to Muammar Qaddafi to help prop up his shrinking (and sinking) regime.

The statement opens thus:

“It is with both sadness and anger that we have learned that the Algerian government has sent armed detachments to Libya to commit crimes against our Libyan brothers and sisters who have risen up against the bloody and corrupt regime of Muammar Kadhafi. These armed detachments were first identified in western Libya in the city of Zaouia where some among them have been arrested. This has been reported in the media and confirmed by eye witnesses.”

Zaouia is the site of fierce fire fights between the residents of Zaouia, now a zone liberated from Tripoli’s control and under the authority of rebel forces on the one hand, and the military elements still faithful to Qaddafi on the others. There were recent reports of a 6-8 hour battle in which Qaddafi’s forces, led by one of his sons tried to recapture the city but were repulsed by the city’s defenders and pushed back after fierce fighting.

Algeria Watch goes on to accuse the Algerian government of having provided the air transport planes that have carried sub-Saharan African mercenaries from Niger, Chad and the Dafur province of Sudan to Libya to strengthen Qaddafi’s position militarily. It goes on to add that Algeria had played a similar role in transporting troops to Somalia to support the U.S. directed government military offensive against rebellious Somali tribes.

The statement goes on to allege that on the diplomatic front the Algerian government has been lobbying different European powers (which are presumably France, Italy, German, Belgium, Luxembourg and Spain) pressing them to continue to support Qaddafi. These diplomatic efforts are being led by Abdelkader Messahel, Algerian Minister of Maghrebian and African Affairs. On the all-European level, Amar Bendjama, Algerian ambassador to Belgium and Luxembourg, as well as Algeria’s representative to the European Union and NATO and Belkacem Belgaid, another Algerian diplomat whose responsibilities include NATO and the EU, have together opened up an active lobbying campaign in support of Qaddafi.

The political approach that Bendjama and Belgaid are pursuing echoes Qaddafi’s own statements – that if his government were to fall, Libya would fall into the hands of radical Islamic fundamentalists – all this nonsense about Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Ladin being behind the national uprising. Qaddafi’s argument is identical to what Ben Ali and Mubarak have been arguing for decades: that they are the alternative to an Islamic take over. The West might not like them, but better Qaddafi than Osama. This kind of fear mongering – the threat of Islamic radicalism – has lost its appeal in the current protest wave in which the Islamic fundamentalist element has been marginalized or irrelevant.

The lobbying is similar to what has happened in Tunisia, Egypt and Yemen, where the first offer of concessions consists of ceding as little as possible. Bendjama and Belgaid appear to be pressing (unsuccessfully) for a solution that would see Qaddafi’s son, Saif, replace his father. It is not clear if they are asking for some kind of arrangement that would protect Qaddafi from prosecution in exchange for stepping down, but such an approach is more than likely. But as one of the first demands in the Tunisian, Egyptian and Yemeni protests was precisely that no family member (sons or family member) succeed these elder and now disgraced statement to power, it is not likely that such arguments or suggestions will carry much if any weight.

There is more.

Under the direction of Colonel Djamel Bouzghaia, an advisor to Algerian President Bouteflika on security matters, Algeria has, according to the statement, `embraced’ a large number of elements of disposed Tunisian president Zine Ben Ali’s private security force and republican guard. These are the same units that were used as snipers to assassinate demonstrators in Kasserine, Sidi Bouzid and Thala in Tunisia. Now in the employ of Algeria, they too have been sent to Libya to shore up Qaddafi’s regime. Bouzghaia works directly under Major General Rachid Laalali (alias Attafi), head of Algeria’s external relations bureau.

Who else is helping Qaddafi? It will be interesting to see what shakes out.

Rob Prince lectures in International Studies at the University of Denver. He can be reached at robertjprince@comcast.net

Zimbabwe: 'Shock' at treason charges after North Africa protests lecture

2011-03-01T11:33:00.001-08:00

Amnesty International today expressed shock that at least 45 Zimbabwean activists have been charged with treason and could face the death penalty following their arrest at a lecture on the protests in North Africa.

Munyaradzi Gwisai, a former opposition parliamentarian, and 44 social justice, trade union and human rights activists were arrested by police on Saturday as they were attending a lecture entitled “Revolt in Egypt and Tunisia. What lessons can be learnt by Zimbabwe and Africa”.

Amnesty is also alarmed by reports that at least seven of the activists, including Munyaradzi Gwisai, were beaten by security agents while in custody and called on the government to investigate the allegations.

Amnesty International Africa Deputy Director Michelle Kagari said:

“This is a clear over-reaction by the state to an event in which the participants were exercising their legitimate right to freedom of expression which the government of Zimbabwe must guarantee under national and international law.

“The safety of detainees remains a serious concern as the Law and Order Section at Harare Central Police station has become notorious for the torture and ill-treatment of activists in their custody.

“These persistent abuses demonstrate the need for urgent reform of Zimbabwe’s security sector to bring to an end a culture of impunity for human rights violations and partisan enforcement of the law.”

Defence lawyers told Amnesty they had been denied the opportunity to consult their clients and were only informed of the charges facing the activists minutes before they were brought before the court. The proceedings were adjourned following protests from the lawyers and are expected to resume on Monday (28 February).

Amnesty is also concerned about reports that prison officers at the Magistrates court in Harare prevented the defence lawyers from taking instructions from their clients before they were transferred to Harare Remand Prison and Chikurubi Maximum Security Prison.

Michelle Kagari added:

“This restriction of the right of the activists to access their lawyer is unnecessary and throws serious doubts on the likelihood the detainees will receive a fair trial.

“The police continue to selectively apply the law in favour of President Robert Mugabe’s ZANU-PF party.”

Last month ZANU-PF supporters carried out attacks against opposition supporters in Harare’s suburb of Mbare, but to date, the police have not arrested anyone.

COSATU condemns arrest of ISO activists in Zimbabwe

2011-03-01T11:28:00.000-08:00

By COSATU

COSATU condemns the continued persecution of political activists in Zimbabwe and the never improving situation in that country. The detention of about 52 activists of the International Socialist Organisation (ISO) in Harare on baseless charges of plotting to topple the government indicates the state of insecurity in that country.

Amongst those arrested is Gwisai, a former MP for Highfield, who is also the general coordinator of International Socialist Organisation (ISO).

The arrests are a clear sign that the democratic and constitutional rights of the people of Zimbabwe are still a distant dream and that the GNU has not changed the situation for the better.

COSATU leadership received a full briefing on developments in Zimbabwe from the Deputy Secretary General of the ZCTU, Japhet Moyo last week during the trilateral meeting between Nigeria NLC, Ghana TUC and COSATU, who indicated that things are reaching desperate levels once again and that conditions for a free and fair elections are not obtaining in that country.

In this regard, we continue to pledge our full solidarity with the working and struggling people of Zimbabwe at this critical time and call upon SADC and the AU to act now in support of democracy and the people’s will in Zimbabwe and everywhere else in our region and continent.

It is no doubt that the Egyptian and Tunisian experience have inspired many workers and poor people all over the world to stand up and demand an end to dictatorship, corruption and injustice of whatever kind.

It is for that very reason that we call upon all workers and poor people to overthrow all forms of oppression, occupation and injustice in their countries, as we pledge our full and unconditional support to the fighting people of Bahrain, Yemen, Morocco, and Libya in their continuing struggles for democracy and justice.

Uprising spreads to Libyan capital

2011-02-22T11:42:00.000-08:00

By Ann Talbot

As the uprising in Libya spreads throughout the country, the toll of protesters killed and wounded by the regime of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi continues to rise. Jets have opened fire on protesters, including, according to some reports, in the capital Tripoli. Fighter planes reportedly attacked demonstrators and bombed the approach roads to the city, which is home to two million people.
Speaking live over the phone to Al Jazeera, Adel Mohamed Saleh, a Tripoli resident, described what was happening:
“What we are witnessing today is unimaginable. War planes and helicopters are indiscriminately bombing one area after another. There are many, many dead.
“Our people are dying. It is the policy of scorched earth. Every 20 minutes they are bombing.
“It is continuing, it is continuing. Anyone who moves, even if they are in their car, they will hit you.”
The uprising spread to Tripoli Sunday night when 4,000 protesters gathered in Green Square calling for the overthrow of the regime. Government thugs attacked them and security forces opened fire with live ammunition. Clashes went on until dawn. Heavily armed mercenaries were said to be driving through the streets shooting on sight and running people down. On-the-spot reports speak of the mercenaries including not only Africans, but also Italians.
Gaddafi’s son, Seif al-Islam Gaddafi, went on government television late Sunday night to threaten civil war. He warned “We will fight to the last minute, to the last bullet.” He said there would be “rivers of blood” in Libya if the protests continued.
The massacre of civilians in the capital is the regime’s answer to the escalating protests. The use of the Air Force against civilians is an indication of both the ruthlessness and the desperation of Gaddafi. The ruling clique around him has launched a civil war against the Libyan masses.
At least two pilots refused orders to fire on civilians and flew their planes to Malta, where they asked for asylum. In Stockholm, China, India and other countries, as well as at the United Nations, Libyan ambassadors resigned following the assault in Tripoli.
It is not just the Gaddafi regime that is to blame for these crimes. European foreign ministers meeting in Brussels formally condemned the use of heavy weapons against civilians. But speaking at a press conference after the meeting, the European Union high representative for foreign affairs and security policy, Baroness Catherine Ashton, called on “all parties to show restraint,” as though there was a balance of forces between a modern military machine and a civilian population.
Her words express the level of collusion that exists between the European Union (EU) and the Gaddafi regime. All EU states have been have been eager to develop close relations with Libya since international sanctions were lifted in 2004, with Britain under Tony Blair and the former colonial power Italy, under Silvio Berlusconi, leading the way.
UK Foreign Secretary William Hague spoke on the phone to Seif al-Islam Gaddafi shortly before he made his threats to the Libyan population. Britain has cancelled eight export licences for arms to Libya since the uprising began. But a vast amount of British-made equipment has already been shipped to Libya and has been used in the crackdown on protests.
The military hardware exported to Libya from Britain last year included tear gas, crowd control ammunition, surveillance equipment, small arms, sniper rifles and sights, command and control vehicles, and radio jamming equipment. Britain is also involved in training the Libyan police force, which has distinguished itself by its brutality.
For Britain and the other EU states the uprising in Libya is a disaster. The UK government has cultivated links with Gaddafi as part of their efforts to win oil contracts for British firms such as BP. Some 79 percent of Libya’s oil goes to the EU, making Europe Libya’s biggest customer.
Libya has just overtaken Saudi Arabia as the third largest supplier of oil to Europe behind Norway and Russia. Italy imports 32 percent of Libya’s oil, Germany 14 percent and France 10 percent. Some 23 percent goes to the rest of Europe.
Some demonstrators have alleged direct collusion by the Italian government with the repression. Berlusconi over the weekend said of Gaddafi, “No, I haven’t been in contact with him. The situation is still in flux and so I will not allow myself to disturb anyone.” It was yesterday before he issued a pro-forma condemnation of violence.
Only days ago the Italian oil company ENI assured investors that it was “business as usual” in Libya. On Monday it began evacuating its staff. Norway’s Statoil, which operates in a consortium with France’s Total and Spain’s Repsol, announced that it would close down its Tripoli offices. OMV of Austria is evacuating all but essential staff.
BP has suspended its plan to begin exploratory drilling in the massive Sirte oilfield. The drilling was due to begin within weeks. Sirte is considered dangerously close to Benghazi, which is now in the hands of anti-regime protesters.
Nor is the relationship between European governments and Libya confined to oil. Libya has extensive investments in Europe, especially Italy. In addition, Gaddafi has amassed foreign exchange reserves estimated at over $70 billion, which he uses to exercise influence. When his youngest son, Hannibal Gaddafi, was arrested in Switzerland for maltreating his domestic staff, Gaddafi cut off oil supplies and threatened a run on the Swiss banking system. He received an immediate apology from the authorities.
The popular uprising in Libya threatens to bring down a tyrant long courted by European governments and seen as a reliable partner who would ensure Europe’s oil supplies and invest the riches that his family had looted from the Libyan people in European banks, companies and universities.
In Brussels, Baroness Ashton insisted that North Africa is within the EU’s sphere of interest.
“This is our neighbourhood,” she declared, adding, “Europe should be judged by its ability to act in its own neighborhood.”
Ashton is due to visit Egypt next week, hard on the heels of UK Prime Minister David Cameron. European leaders are desperate to see friendly regimes established in North Africa that will ensure continuity with the ousted dictatorships.
Cameron presented himself as champion of democracy. The British government’s record of arm sales to the most repressive regimes in the region tells a different story. “Our two countries go back over decades, over centuries,” Cameron said of Egypt as he promised a package of aid to the new military government.
Britain was one of the main colonial powers in the region from 1882, when Britain and France sent warships to bombard Alexandria. France has exercised colonial authority over Tunisia and parts of Morocco. The Algerian masses fought a determined war to assert their independence from France from 1954 to 1962. Spain continues to occupy part of Morocco.
The European states are eager to steal a march on Washington by professing their enthusiasm for democracy and shaping compliant governments. In contrast to its rhetoric, the EU is effectively colluding in the Gaddafi regime’s massacre of civilians.
At the weekend the Financial Times showed a cartoon in which Berlusconi is depicted being crushed by a line of falling dominoes labelled Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain and Libya. Even as European foreign ministers gathered in Brussels, Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini gave vent to his alarm. “Would you imagine having an Islamic Arab Emirate at the borders of Europe? This would be a very serious threat,” he said.
In fact, Islamists have played only a small part in the Libyan uprising, as elsewhere in North Africa. From its beginning in Tunisia and in Egypt, the revolutionary movement has been predominantly secular in character, reflecting the grievances of unemployed young people, workers and the poor who are unable to afford rising prices.
What Frattini fears is a genuinely popular government. European governments have no difficulty working with Islamic regimes such as that in Saudi Arabia. What they want is a regime that is capable of suppressing its own people. Gaddafi offered them precisely that and now his sons are attempting to demonstrate that they can do the same, even if it means slaughtering men, women and children with jet fighters.
The Libyan masses are undeterred by Gaddafi’s threats. Calls are circulating for a million man march to Green Square in Tripoli. On Monday morning, the People’s Hall and other government buildings in Tripoli were reported to be ablaze. The state television station al-Jamahiriya 2 TV and al-Shababia radio were sacked and at least one police station was set on fire. On Monday night two television stations were reported to be occupied.
The eruption of protests in Tripoli follows a week of demonstrations and clashes in eastern Libya centred in Benghazi, Libya’s second city. In Benghazi, Monday brought celebrations on the streets after more overnight fighting in which 60 people were reported killed. Protesters are now reported to have taken control of the city.
The city of al-Zawiya is said to be under the control of anti-regime forces after police fled from protesters. Fighting is reported at the Ras Lanuf oil refinery and petrochemical complex on the Gulf of Sirte in the east of the country. Workers in the oil industry are reported to have gone on strike.
The entrance of the working class into the situation marks a significant turning point in the uprising, as it did earlier in Egypt.
Hundreds of people have protested in front of the Libyan embassy in Cairo and in Egypt’s northern port city of Alexandria, waving banners saying “down with the killer, down with Gaddafi,” and “Gaddafi has hired African mercenaries to kill Libyans.”
Aid convoys have been sent across the Egypt-Libya border. Ten Egyptians were shot to death in Tobruk, according to Egyptian doctor Seif Abdel Latif.
The working class of North Africa and the Middle East is the only force that can unite the oppressed masses and take the revolutionary movement through to completion, ousting the dictatorial regimes and expelling the international oil companies, banks and corporations that see North Africa as a source of immense profit. Their greatest support will come from other workers around the world, especially in Europe and America.
Already, protesting workers in Wisconsin have drawn parallels between their experiences and those of the North African and Middle Eastern masses. Millions more will do the same. The revolutionary upsurge that began in Tunisia only a few weeks ago marked the beginning of a new revolutionary epoch and no corner of the world will be left untouched by it.

Military aircraft attack Libya crowds: Al Jazeera

2011-02-21T12:13:00.001-08:00

LONDON (Reuters) - Military aircraft attacked crowds of anti-government protesters in the Libyan capital Tripoli on Monday, Al Jazeera television said.

A Libyan man, Soula al-Balaazi, who said he was an opposition activist, told the network by telephone that Libyan air force warplanes had bombed "some locations in Tripoli".

He said he was talking from a suburb of Tripoli.

No independent verification of the report was immediately available.

An analyst for London-based consultancy Control Risks said the use of military aircraft on his own people indicated the end was approaching for Muammar Gaddafi.

"These really seem to be last, desperate acts. If you're bombing your own capital, it's really hard to see how you can survive, " said Julien Barnes-Dacey, Control Risks' Middle East analyst.

"But I think Gaddafi is going to put up a fight. I think the rumours of him fleeing to Venezuela are going to prove wide of the mark. In Libya more than any other country in the region, there is the prospect of serious violence and outright conflict."

British Foreign Secretary William Hague said earlier that Gaddafi might be heading for Venezuela, but a senior government source in Caracas denied that.

Egyptian military repeats demands for end to strike wave

2011-02-17T10:01:00.000-08:00

By Patrick O’Connor

Egypt’s ruling military command yesterday again demanded an end to workers’ protests and strikes throughout the country.

“The council is well aware of the economic and social conditions being suffered by the community,” a military source told Egypt’s state news agency MENA. “However, it cannot resolve these issues until the strikes, protests, and the disruption of production ends... The result of that will be disastrous.” He continued that people had “the right to protest and organise strikes, but [such actions] are not suitable under the present circumstances”, adding that “the council does not have a magic wand with which it can instantly eliminate corruption”.

The army has issued such statements nearly every day since assuming power following the ousting of former President Hosni Mubarak. They reflect the acute fear with which the generals and the entire Egyptian ruling elite regard the developing movement of the working class.

Yesterday was a scheduled public holiday marking Prophet Muhammad’s birth, yet reports continued to emerge of workers’ protests. Authorities were forced to announce that the country’s banks would remain closed for the rest of the week, due to strikes by bank workers for better pay and conditions. In a statement broadcast on state television yesterday, Egypt’s central bank urged an end to the strikes “to ensure the stability of the national economy”.

Strikes in some factories have reportedly been called off after workers were granted significant wage increases. Many other plants, however, remain affected by industrial action.

According to reports citing the MENA news agency, Suez Canal workers yesterday staged a sit-in protest at the canal authority’s headquarters in Ismailia, demanding higher wages. The action did not affect ships’ navigation through the strategically vital naval passage. “We will continue our sit-in until the Suez Canal Authority chairman responds to our demands,” one of the protestors told MENA.

A textile industry web site reported that in the Nile Delta city of El-Mahalla El-Kubra, up to 24,000 employees of the state-owned Misr Spinning and Weaving Company have declared an indefinite strike to demand an increase in the minimum wage. Reuters also reported that Arafa Holding, Egypt’s largest garment exporter, announced a two-day closure of its factories in Tenth of Ramadan City, on Cairo’s outskirts, in response to a strike yesterday involving at least 1,500 workers.

The Associated Press noted some of the other protests and struggles: “Protests by hundreds continued in at least seven provinces outside Cairo, including by government workers and police over pay. Fishermen in the Nile Delta demanded an end to restrictions on where they can fish in a lake north of the capital. Sugar cane growers in the southern city of Luxor demonstrated demanding higher prices for their crops.”

The Egyptian workers’ fight for improved wages and decent working conditions poses a direct threat not only to the military’s substantial commercial operations in the country, but also to the operations of the global financial markets.

In Greece last year, just across the Mediterranean Sea from Egypt, international finance capital seized on a sovereign debt crisis to orchestrate a savage attack on workers’ living standards. Concerns are now being voiced in financial circles over the size of Egypt’s debt, signalling that it may soon become a target. On Monday, the head of Egypt’s Central Auditing Agency, Gawdat El Malt, announced that state debt stood at $184 billion in June 2010, equivalent to 89.5 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). This, he warned, was “above a safe level”.

Ratings agency Moody’s already downgraded Egypt’s sovereign debt rating on January 31, twelve days before Mubarak was overthrown. “There is a strong possibility that fiscal policy will be loosened as part of the government’s efforts to contain discontent,” Moody’s declared. “A background of rising inflationary pressures further complicates fiscal policy by threatening to increase the high level of budgetary expenditure on wages and subsidies.”

The military government has ordered a 15 percent increase in public sector salaries and pensions, further increasing the budget deficit, which stands at 8.1 percent of GDP. “I doubt that there is sustainability in this situation,” Abdel-Fattah El-Gabali, a monetary policy expert with the Ahram Center for Strategic and International Studies in Cairo, told the Associated Press. “Monetary policy is going to be very complicated in the coming period. After the elation over the revolution (dies down), you will have a sharp blow from reality.”

While drawing rebukes from the financial markets, the military’s limited concessions have not satisfied the working class. The BBC noted that at several workers’ rallies in Cairo this week, banners have featured the figure of 1,200 Egyptian pounds ($US205), which is the minimum monthly wage being demanded by some of the newly developed labour organisations. The sum is about double the average wage of a skilled Egyptian public sector worker.

The military is stepping up efforts to consolidate its rule. In a concession to demands for the prosecution of Mubarak’s brutal security chiefs, the generals have sacked Adly Fayed, the interior ministry’s director of public security, and Ismail El Shaer, Cairo’s security chief. There are also moves to recover the enormous wealth accumulated by the Mubarak family and close cronies, estimated in the tens of billions of dollars.

Egypt’s military government has ordered a new constitution to be drafted in just ten days by an unelected panel of eight jurists. Each panellist was selected by Field Marshal Mohamed Hussein Tantawi, Mubarak’s old right-hand man in the armed forces, who is personally overseeing the drafting of the new constitution. Tantawi reportedly chaired the panel’s first meeting yesterday.

Tareq al-Bishry, a retired judge, is the formal head of the panel, which also includes prominent member of the Muslim Brotherhood, former parliamentarian Sobeh Saleh. This appointment is another indication of the Islamists’ support for the military government. The Muslim Brotherhood yesterday announced it would form a political party once a new constitution permitted it to do so, but reiterated that it would not stand a presidential candidate when elections were convened.

All the official “opposition” tendencies—including the Muslim Brotherhood, Mohamed ElBaradei’s National Association for Change, the Wafd and Tagammu—are as hostile to the working class as is the military. Having initially stood aside as Egyptian workers and youth courageously challenged Mubarak’s security forces, they now hope to bring the revolutionary movement to a close as soon as possible.

Many of the youth-based organisations that helped coordinate the anti-Mubarak protests are also working to bolster popular illusions in the role being played by the military. Walid Rachid of the “April 6” movement told the New York Times that some members of his organisation were concerned about the retired judge appointed to head the constitutional panel, but “were ultimately satisfied by his reputation for independence”.

According to Al Ahram, other representatives of “April 6” told the military on Monday that they did not want elections to be held before 9 to 12 months.
There are signs of emerging opposition to the military’s agenda. Yesterday, the newly formed “Professionals Coalition”—comprising new organisations of doctors, teachers, university staff, and intellectuals—demanded that the new constitution be determined by an elected constituent assembly.

An article in the British Guardian newspaper, “Egyptian army hijacking revolution, activists fear,” cited the remarks of an unnamed member of a coalition of youth groups: “It’s all very well for them [the military] to be apparently implementing our demands, but why are we being given no say in the process? Many of us are now realising that a very well thought-out plan is unfolding step by step from the military, who of course have done very well out of the political and economic status quo. These guys are expert strategic planners after all, and with the help of some elements of the old regime and some small elements of the co-opted opposition, they’re trying to develop a system that looks vaguely democratic but in reality just entrenches their own privileges.”

The Obama administration is continuing its efforts to support the military regime and oversee the transition to a right-wing government committed to both implementing the diktats of the financial markets and maintaining Egypt’s strategic alliance with the US and Israel. “What we’ve seen so far is positive,” President Obama declared yesterday. “The military council that is in charge has reaffirmed its treaties with countries like Israel and international treaties.”

The New York Times has reported that the White House and State Department are discussing plans for additional funding for programs designed “to bolster the rise of secular political parties”. Democrat Congressman Howard Berman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee has called for money to be directed toward the National Democratic Institute, the International Republican Institute, and the National Endowment for Democracy—organisations which played in a key role in helping install several pro-US governments through so-called colour revolutions in the Balkans and Central Asia under the former Bush administration.

Five Arab Countries That the "Jasmine Revolution" May Spread to Next

2011-02-15T08:49:00.000-08:00

by: Zaid Jilani | ThinkProgress | News Analysis

Last month, the world was shocked as the Tunisian autocrat Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali, who had ruled his country for 23 years, was overthrown in a protest movement that lasted only 29 days. The event was soon dubbed the “Jasmine Revolution,” a symbolic reference to a blooming flower. While many doubted that this revolution would spread, it was only days later that massive protests rocked Cairo, resulting in the resignation of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, who had been in power for more than 30 years. While the fate of both countries is still unresolved, one thing is clear: the people are demanding democracy, and they have forced massive changes in their government to get it.

Now, many are wondering if this pro-democracy movement that swept Tunisia and Egypt will spread throughout the rest of the Arab world. ThinkProgress has assembled a short list of other autocratic regimes in the region that are facing protests, particularly today, and which may soon be the next to go in the Middle East’s next “Jasmine Revolution”:

ALGERIA: Algeria has been in the iron grip of a military government since 1991, when the regime cancelled elections after an Islamist party won the first round. This set off a bloody civil war in the country, which peaked in violence between 1993 and 1997. In recent days, Algerians, inspired by their Tunisian and Egyptian neighbors, have organized large protest marches demanding democratic reforms. Saturday, despite officials outlawing the protest, nearly 10,000 people marched in Algiers anyway, facing off with three times as many riot police. Perhaps fearing that they will be the targets of the next revolution, Algerian officials recently announced that they will be lifting the country’s own emergency law — which has been in place for decades — in the “very near future.”

BAHRAIN: Bahrain’s Sunni leader, King Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa, has long oppressed his country’s Shi’a-majority population. Last August, his ruling party arrested hundreds of Shi’a activists and shut down the main opposition party’s websites right before the parliamentary election, fearing that it may lose its grip on power. Yet recent events in the Middle East have the king fearing for his rule, too. He has ordered “a hike in food subsidies and reinstated welfare support for low-income families to compensate for inflation,” and plans to deliver a speech today where he will offer further concessions. Additionally, Bahrain’s government announced that it will be giving $2,650 to each Bahraini family yesterday. Yet pro-democracy activists plan to march Monday anyway, demanding real reforms in the country.

JORDAN: Likely also fearing a Tunisian-style revolution, Jordan’s King Abdullah sacked his government and appointed a new Prime Minister at the beginning of this month. Yet some of the largest protests in modern history have rocked the nation in recent weeks, indicating that Jordanians do not see the concessions as enough. In perhaps a sign of the regime’s weakness, President Obama dispatched Adm. Mike Mullen, the head of Joint Chiefs of Staff, to meet with Abdullah this weekend.

SYRIA: Earlier this month, protesters planned a “day of rage” where they would protest their grievances against the unelected president Basher al-Assad. While the protesters ended up being few in number, the regime did deploy its security services in increased numbers across the country, visibly fearful of a protest movement like the ones in Egypt and Tunisia. The government also lifted a five-year ban on Facebook, in a move widely seen as appeasing a nascent protest movement.

YEMEN: The president of Yemen, “one of America’s foremost allies” in the region, promised to step down in 2013, as his people began to demonstrate against the ruling elite. Today, thousands of pro-regime demonstrators attacked anti-government demonstrators with clubs and knives, an eery parallel to an Egyptian tactic that failed to quell protests and destroyed the regime’s public reputation and international support.

An American abroad in Yemen captured the protests there, where Yemenis spontaneously erupted in protest and began marching to the country’s own iconic capital square — which is actually named Tahrir, just like Egypt’s. Watch it:

This list is far from comprehensive, as movements are being organized in a number of other countries such as Saudi Arabia and Oman. Whether these movements will ultimately be successful is unknown, but they symbolize a growing grassroots call for democracy that has been virtually unseen in the region. Given that the United States is a sponsor of many of the intelligence and military apparatuses of these countries and a close ally to their governments, we have not just an opportunity but a responsibility to work with the people towards a more democratic future.

Desperate Bid of the U.S. to Avoid Regime Change in Egypt

2011-02-14T13:47:00.000-08:00

The Anglo-Zionist imperialists, with the U.S. at the helm are desperately trying to divert the people's movement in Egypt from accomplishing its just aim of regime change and to block the further spread of this revolutionary fervour across the region. This situation constitutes arguably the greatest threat to the strategic interests of U.S. imperialism in decades, and it is a situation where the imperialists have little room to manoeuvre. As the Anglo-Zionist media today jubilantly declare that Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's resignation settles the question, the real play of the U.S. to block the people's movement in Egypt has just begun. The military bid, announced today, to take over the helm of the sinking Egyptian ship is a thinly disguised U.S.-backed coup aimed at establishing facts on the ground that will block the people's striving for empowerment.

No Rest for the Wicked
Their desperate bid entails a constant effort to buy time so as to put the facts on the ground necessary for a transition that suits their interests. Consider the scenario. The U.S. imperialists with the exception of a small coterie of recalcitrant elements, have always recognized that Mubarak must go but the question was always how. If, along with the rest of his regime, he was forced to step down according to the demands of the people, then the situation is grave for the imperialists. This is an equation where genuine regime change takes place, invariably leading to a renewed people's Egypt opposed to imperialism. Instead, the U.S., Israel and other foreign powers have opted to orchestrate a situation where Mubarak goes while another U.S.-client government is established -- the much sought after and acclaimed "orderly transition" of the reactionaries including Canada -- so that the people would continue to be marginalized while the foreign rule takes another form. Hence the announcement that the newly appointed Vice-President Omar Suleiman, former head of Mubarak's murderous intelligence agency, is assuming various presidential powers while the military has taken over control of the country.

To date the Egyptian people have refused to be diverted by either the carrot or the stick. In regard to the former, the token negotiations Mubarak claimed to conduct with some opposition forces failed to demobilize the people. There is no reason to believe that they will be demobilized by Mubarak's resignation while the military makes promises about lifting the State of Emergency once this situation ends. In regard to the use of the stick, all efforts to use the police forces, military or hired thugs (dubbed pro-Mubarak supporters) to quell the protests through violence, torture, murder, arrest or sheer chaos have also failed. If anything, the numbers and militancy of the protestors have swelled. Workers have joined the protestors after the unions held another General Strike starting on February 8 and large numbers of expatriates continue to arrive to join the protestors. So, the flip side of the equation is that the Egyptian people have been doing everything possible to block the imperialist and reactionary strategies aimed at wiping out their movement. How will this clash of interests manifest itself in the coming days?

The People's "Last Warning" Communiqué
Events in Egypt are unfolding quickly. Today is the day protestors, in the face of Mubarak's appearances on TV arrogantly running governmental meetings as if all were well, declared a deadline for the entire regime to step down. Entitled "Last Warning," the communiqué of the protestors stated that if this demand were not to be met by the deadline, they would mobilize towards the presidential palace in Cairo to arrest Mubarak for crimes against the people. In doing so, they would directly confront the military guarding the palace and the surrounding rich district where it is located. At the eleventh hour, with tens of thousands surrounding the presidential palace and millions assembled at Tahrir Square and in cities all over Egypt, Mubarak resigned, handing over the reins of power to the military, as if the Egyptian people want to exchange one form of military rule for another.

Today may yet prove to be the most decisive day since the protests erupted on January 25. The protestors' courageous proposal to arrest Mubarak was highly significant. In taking this stand, they cut through all the forked tongue talk of the reactionary regime and imperialists, forcing them to decide: will the army be mobilized against the people? What will the likes of Obama and others do with their proclamations of democracy and non-violence if a bloodbath is unleashed by the military against the people? Managing finally to have Mubarak resign and the military take over may de-escalate the situation temporarily, but everyone knows it is far from over. After 30 years of emergency rule, the Egyptian people are no more likely to accept a military takeover in the guise of democracy than they have the current regime.

Little Room to Manoeuvre
The contradictions are sharp. Even though Mubarak was the head of a U.S. client state, his refusal to follow U.S. dictate to make a clean exit when he saw it as a threat to his power made life especially difficult for the imperialists. Simultaneously, Mubarak knew that without U.S.-backing he had no chance of maintaining power. The army cannot survive without the long-standing funding of the U.S. Yet it is this same military that would be mobilized to break the protests, even as the U.S. recognizes that full-scale military attack against the protestors will likely only further enrage the people against the same U.S. known to back that military.

How will the imperialists put in place the orderly transition in the region -- that neoliberal multiparty system whose aim is to block the people from exercising political power in their own interests? The dictatorships the U.S. imperialists have propped up in the region from Egypt to Saudi Arabia are opposed to this token change which will see them lose their corrupt stranglehold in its present form. The people are refusing to accept any such U.S.-backed solutions whatsoever. A military takeover of the country will settle nothing so far as the people are concerned, even as it increases the potential for all-out military violence against the people.

This is the significance of Saudi Arabia giving refuge to the deposed President of Tunisia Zine Al Abidine Ben Ali, former friend of the U.S. who was abandoned by the Americans when it became clear that he could no longer maintain their interests in the face of the popular uprising. This is the significance of the earlier threat to the U.S. from Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah, that his kingdom will prop up the tottering regime of the Egyptian president if the U.S. withdraws its support, particularly its funding of that regime. Similarly, this is the significance of their claim that they would replace U.S. funding to the military if necessary. The contradictions are sharp between an Obama administration trying to pacify through token, superficial "democratic" change the masses of people who refuse to be diverted or fooled, and the dictatorships/militaries of the U.S. client states which are quickly becoming an obstacle to U.S. imperialist interests by refusing to give up their corrupt power to safeguard U.S. interests.

Egypt Is Not Honduras
The imperialist bid to pacify popular uprisings by imposing token democracy, with controlled elections and civil institutions run by the U.S., is a strategy the U.S. imperialists and countries of the European Union and Canada have been attempting to enact in the Middle East for a number of years. This started with the Charter of Paris signed in 1991 which declared that every country had to have a free market economy, multiparty system and abide by so-called human rights. The U.S. in particular has been funding regime changes in the name of democracy to deal with the ever-rising discontent of the peoples over the havoc wreaked by the so-called free market economy and U.S. imperialism and American client states on their societies. The British have provided the so-called Civitas Project to corrupt the Palestinian Authority and sabotage the liberation movement of the Palestinian people. Canada is a partner in this project and is mandated to provide the so-called electoral and judicial arms for these so-called democracy building initiatives. In Egypt the reactionaries are hoping to use the strategy used to smash the people's 2009 uprising in Honduras, orchestrating a coup against the popular government of Manuel Zelaya and then using ambiguity to gain time so as to declare it legal and institute the coup regime. Yet Egypt, with a population of 81,527,172, compared to 7,318,789 in Honduras, and with 1,001,449 square km compared to Honduras' 112,090 square km is a completely different kettle of fish. Pulling off in Egypt what
they did in Honduras will be much more difficult.

TML again salutes the revolutionary movement of the Egyptian people and the fearless unity of their ranks representing all sectors of the society. TML calls on the Canadian working class and its allies to go all out in support of the Egyptian people as events continue to unfold. A victory for the Egyptian people will transform the situation across the region, affirming the right to sovereignty for all, including the long suffering Palestinian people. A victory for the democratic aspirations of the Egyptian people is a victory for the peoples of the world in their striving to hold governments responsible for providing the human rights of all with a guarantee.

Cables: FBI trained Egypt’s state security ‘torturers’

2011-02-10T14:58:00.000-08:00

By Daniel Tencer

Egypt's secret police, long accused of torturing suspects and intimidating political opponents of President Hosni Mubarak, received training at the FBI's facility in Quantico, Virginia, even as US diplomats compiled allegations of brutality against them, according to US State Department cables released by WikiLeaks.

One cable, dated November 2007 and published by the Telegraph, describes a meeting between the head of the SSIS, Egypt's secret police, and FBI deputy director John Pistole, in which the secret police chief praises Pistole for the "excellent and strong" cooperation between the two agencies. (Pistole has since been appointed head of the TSA.)

SSIS chief Abdul Rahman said the FBI's training sessions at Quantico were of "great benefit" to his agency. The cables did not address what sort of training Egyptian secret police received at Quantico, or how many officers were trained there.

In another cable, dated October 2009, a US diplomat reported on allegations from "credible human rights lawyers" that the SSIS was behind the torture of terrorism suspects held in Egyptian jails.

TAKE ACTIONSorry, but your Flash player is outdated.
Click here to install the latest version.Petitions by Change.org|Get Widget|Start a Petition »Members of a Hezbollah cell arrested in 2008 were tortured "with electric shocks and sleep deprivation to reduce them to a 'zombie state'," the cable stated. The lawyers "asserted that 'this kind of torture' is different from what [name redacted] normally sees, and speculated that a special branch of Interior Ministry State Security (SSIS) could be directing the torture."

The history of torture allegations against the SSIS reaches back decades, but allegations have grown since the war on terror was launched after 9/11. In a 2007 report, Amnesty International accused the Egyptian government of turning the country into a "torture center" for war on terror suspects.

"We are now uncovering evidence of Egypt being a destination of choice for third-party or contracted-out torture in the 'war on terror'," Amnesty's Kate Allen said at the time.

The Egyptian government acknowledged in 2005 that the US had transferred 60 to 70 detainees to Egypt since 2001.

'THOUSANDS' MAY HAVE BEEN TORTURED AMID PROTESTS: REPORT

The latest accusations of torture coming out of Egypt focus not on the SSIS, but on the Egyptian army, which in the early days of the Egyptian protests was lauded for taking a hands-off approach and not attempting to suppress the demonstrations.

According to the Guardian, witnesses reported "extensive beatings and other abuses at the hands of the military in what appears to be an organized campaign of intimidation."

Egyptian human rights groups say families are desperately searching for missing relatives who have disappeared into army custody. Some of the detainees have been held inside the renowned Museum of Egyptian Antiquities on the edge of Tahrir Square. Those released have given graphic accounts of physical abuse by soldiers who accused them of acting for foreign powers, including Hamas and Israel.

Among those detained have been human rights activists, lawyers and journalists, but most have been released. However, Hossam Bahgat, director of the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights in Cairo, said hundreds, and possibly thousands, of ordinary people had "disappeared" into military custody across the country for no more than carrying a political flyer, attending the demonstrations or even the way they look. Many were still missing.

Protest in Egypt Takes a Turn as Workers Go on Strike

2011-02-10T07:19:00.000-08:00

Wednesday 09 February 2011
by: David D. Kirkpatrick, The New York Times News Service | Report

Protesters in Al Tahrir Square carry a banner that reads, "Strike till departure," on February 1, 2011. Egyptian protesters on Wednesday demonstrated a new ability to mobilize thousands to take over Cairo’s streets beyond Tahrir Square and to spark labor unrest. (Photo: Kodak Agfa)
Cairo - Protesters demanding the overthrow of President Hosni Mubarak appeared on Wednesday to have recaptured the initiative in their battle with his government, demonstrating a new ability to mobilize thousands to take over Cairo’s streets beyond Tahrir Square and to spark labor unrest.

As reports filtered in of strikes and unrest spreading to other parts of the city and the country, the government seemed to dig in deeper. Mr. Mubarak’s handpicked successor, Vice President Omar Suleiman, warned Tuesday that the only alternative to constitutional talks was a “coup” and added: “We don’t want to deal with Egyptian society with police tools.”

But the pressure on Mr. Mubarak’s government was intensifying, a day after the largest crowd of protesters in two weeks flooded Cairo’s streets and the United States delivered its most specific demands yet, urging swift steps toward democracy. Some of the protesters drew new inspiration from the emotional interview on Egypt’s most popular talk show with Wael Ghonim, the online political organizer who was detained for two weeks.

At dawn on Wednesday, the 16th day of the uprising, hundreds of pro-democracy demonstrators remained camped out at Parliament, where they had marched for the first time on Tuesday. There were reports of thousands demonstrating in several other cities around the country while protesters began to gather again in Tahrir Square, a few blocks from Parliament.

By midday, hundreds of workers from the Health Ministry, adjacent to Parliament and a few hundred yards from Tahrir Square, also took to the streets in a protest whose exact focus was not immediately clear, Interior Ministry officials said.

Violent clashes between opponents and supporters of Mr. Mubarak led to more than 70 injuries in recent days, according to a report by Al Ahram — the flagship government newspaper and a cornerstone of the Egyptian establishment — while government officials said the protests had spread to the previously quiet southern region of Upper Egypt.

In Port Said, a city of 600,000 at the mouth of the Suez Canal, protesters set fire to a government building and occupied the city’s central square. There were unconfirmed reports that police fired live rounds on protesters on Tuesday in El Kharga, 375 miles south of Cairo, resulting in several deaths. Protesters responded by burning police stations and other government buildings on Wednesday, according to wire reports.

On Tuesday, the officials said, thousands protested in the province of Wadi El Jedid. One person died and 61 were injured, including seven from gunfire by the authorities, the officials said. Television images also showed crowds gathering in Alexandria, Egypt’s second-largest city.

Before the reports of those clashes, Human Rights Watch reported that more than 300 people have been killed since Jan. 25.

Increasingly, the political clamor for Mr. Mubarak’s ouster seemed to be complemented by strikes in Cairo and elsewhere.

In the most potentially significant action, about 6,000 workers at five service companies owned by the Suez Canal Authority — a major component of the Egyptian economy — began a sit-in on Tuesday night. There was no immediate suggestion of disruptions to shipping in the canal, a vital international waterway leading from the Mediterranean to the Red Sea. But Egyptian officials said that total traffic declined by 1.6 percent in January, though it was up significantly from last year.

More than 2,000 textile workers and others in Suez demonstrated as well, Al Ahram reported, while in Luxor thousands hurt by the collapse of the tourist industry marched to demand government benefits. There was no immediate independent corroboration of the reports.

At one factory in the textile town of Mahalla, more than striking 1,500 workers blocked roads, continuing a long-running dispute with the owner. And more than 2,000 workers from the Sigma pharmaceutical company in the city of Quesna went on strike while some 5,000 unemployed youth stormed a government building in Aswan, demanding the dismissal of the governor.

For many foreign visitors to Egypt, Aswan is known as a starting point or destination for luxury cruises to and from Luxor on the Nile River. The government’s Ministry of Civil Aviation reported on Wednesday that flights to Egypt had dropped by 70 percent since the protests began.

In Cairo, sanitation workers demonstrated around their headquarters in Dokki.

While state television has focused its coverage on episodes of violence that could spread fear among the wider Egyptian public and prompt calls for the restoration, Al Ahram’s coverage was a departure from its usual practice of avoiding reporting that might embarrass the government.

Independent journalism is important. Click here to get Truthout stories sent to your email.

In the lobby of the newspaper, journalists on Wednesday were in open revolt against the newspaper’s management and editorial policies.

Some called their protest a microcosm of the Egyptian uprising, with young journalists leading demands for better working conditions and less biased coverage. “We want a voice,” said Sara Ramadan, 23, a sports reporter.

The turmoil at the newspaper has already changed editorial content, with the English-language online edition openly criticizing what it called “the warped and falsified coverage by state media” of the protests in Tahrir Square and elsewhere.

The paper described how “more than 500 media figures” issued a statement declaring “their rejection of official media coverage of the January 25 uprising and demanded that Minister of Information Anas El-Fikki step down.”

Members of the Journalists Syndicate moved toward a no-confidence vote against their leader, Makram Mohamed Ahmed, a former Mubarak speech writer, the daily Al Masry Al Youm reported on its English-language Web site.

Several of the dozens of protesters occupying the lobby on Wednesday said the editor of the English-language division heads to the square to join the protests every night, joined by many of the staff.

The scattered protests and labor unrest seemed symptomatic of an emerging trend for some Egyptians to air an array of grievances, some related to the protests and some of an older origin.

The government’s bid to project its willingness to make concessions has had limited success. On Tuesday, Vice President Suleiman announced the creation of a committee of judges and legal scholars to propose constitutional amendments.

But all the members are considered Mubarak loyalists.

The Obama administration was continuing its efforts to influence a transition. Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. called Mr. Suleiman on Tuesday to ask him to lift the 30-year emergency law that the government has used to suppress and imprison opposition leaders, to stop imprisoning protesters and journalists, and to invite demonstrators to help develop a specific timetable for opening up the political process. He also asked Mr. Suleiman to open talks on Egypt’s political future to a wider range of opposition members.

Mr. Suleiman has said only that Egypt will remove the emergency law when the situation justifies its repeal, and the harassment and arrest of journalists and human rights activists has continued even in the last few days.

And while he raised the prospect of a coup, he also said, “we want to avoid that — meaning uncalculated and hasty steps that produce more irrationality.”

“There will be no ending of the regime, nor a coup, because that means chaos,” Mr. Suleiman said. And he warned the protesters not to attempt more civil disobedience, calling it “extremely dangerous.” He added, “We absolutely do not tolerate it.”

On Tuesday , young organizers guiding the movement from a tent city inside Tahrir Square, or Liberation Square, showed the discipline and stamina that they say will help them outlast Mr. Mubarak and Mr. Suleiman, even if their revolt devolves into a war of attrition.

Many in the crowd, for example, said they had turned out because organizers had spread the word over loudspeakers and online media for demonstrators to concentrate their efforts on just Tuesdays and Fridays, enabling their supporters to rest in between. And while Mr. Mubarak remains in office, they say, there is no turning back.

Many in the crowd said discussed the inspiration they drew from the interview with the freed organizer, Mr. Ghonim. A Google executive, he had been the anonymous administrator of a Facebook group that enlisted tens of thousands to oppose the Mubarak government by publicizing a young Egyptian’s beating death at the hands of its reviled police force.

In the tearful conversation on Egypt’s Dream TV, Mr. Ghonim told the story of his “kidnapping,” secret imprisonment in blindfolded isolation for 12 days and determination to overturn Egypt’s authoritarian government. Both Mr. Ghonim and his interviewer, Mona el-Shazly, appeared in Tahrir Square Tuesday to cheer on the revolt.

Some protesters said they saw the broadcast as a potential turning point in a propaganda war that has so far gone badly against them, with the state-run television network and newspapers portraying the crowds in Tahrir Square as a dwindling band of obstructionists doing the bidding of foreign interests.

Organizers had hinted in recent days that they intended to expand out of the square to keep the pressure on the government. Then, around 3 p.m., a bearded man with a bullhorn led a procession around the tanks guarding the square and down several blocks to the Parliament. Many of the protesters still wore bandages on their heads from a 12-hour war of rocks and stones against Mubarak loyalists a few days before.

“Parliament is a great pressure point,” said Ahmed el-Droubi, a biologist. “What we need to do is unite this protest and Tahrir, and that is just the first step. Then we will expand further until Mr. Mubarak gets the point.”

Back in Tahrir Square, more members of the Egyptian elite continued to turn up in support of the protestors, including the pop star Shireen Abdel Wahab and the soccer goalkeeper Nader al-Sayed. Brigades of university employees and telephone company employees joined the protests, as did a column of legal scholars in formal black robes.

Many at the protests buttonholed Americans to express deep disappointment with President Obama, shaking their heads at his ambiguous messages about an orderly transition. They warned that the country risked incurring a resentment from the Egyptian people that could last long after Mr. Mubarak is gone.

Reporting was contributed by Kareem Fahim, Anthony Shadid, Mona El-Naggar, Thanassis Cambanis and Liam Stack.

This article "Protest in Egypt Takes a Turn as Workers Go on Strike" originally appeared at The New York Times.

© 2011 The New York Times Company

International organizations call on Washington to stop aid to Cairo

2011-02-10T07:00:00.000-08:00

By Basant Zain-eddine

Fifty international organizations called on US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to stop sending aid to Egypt. They called it an “illegal” act, as the United States has local and international commitments not to provide aid to those who violate basic human rights. They cited violence used by the Egyptian security forces against peaceful demonstrators and journalists in the 25 January revolution.

The New York based National Lawyers Guild on Tuesday wrote to the US State Department requesting that Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak step down immediately for the sake of democracy and social justice in Egypt.

The letter also stated that “the US Foreign Assistance Act prohibits assistance to any country engaged in a pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights.”

The organizations noted that President Mubarak's regime also targeted defenders of human rights, such as the Hisham Mubarak Center, and cut off communications in the country.

They expressed opposition to the appointment of Omar Suleiman as vice-president, given his role in perpetuating the regime’s practice of torture and repression.

The letter called on the United States to issue an “unequivocal” statement that supports the right of the Egyptian people to determine their future and the fate of their country. It demanded an end to all overt and covert assistance to Egypt, an end to interference in Egypt’s internal affairs, and the beginning of an independent investigation of US officials supporting Mubarak’s regime.

The letter was signed by the National Association for Change, the International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network, the United National Anti-War Committee, the Peace and Freedom Party in California and the Center for Constitutional Rights.

28 hours in the dark heart of Egypt's torture machine

2011-02-10T06:32:00.000-08:00

A blindfolded Robert Tait could only listen as fellow captives were electrocuted and beaten by Mubarak's security services

By Robert Tait

The sickening, rapid click-click-clicking of the electrocuting device sounded like an angry rattlesnake as it passed within inches of my face. Then came a scream of agony, followed by a pitiful whimpering from the handcuffed, blindfolded victim as the force of the shock propelled him across the floor.

A hail of vicious punches and kicks rained down on the prone bodies next to me, creating loud thumps. The torturers screamed abuse all around me. Only later were their chilling words translated to me by an Arabic-speaking colleague: "In this hotel, there are only two items on the menu for those who don't behave – electrocution and rape."

Cuffed and blindfolded, like my fellow detainees, I lay transfixed. My palms sweated and my heart raced. I felt myself shaking. Would it be my turn next? Or would my outsider status, conferred by holding a British passport, save me? I suspected – hoped – that it would be the latter and, thankfully, it was. But I could never be sure.

I had "disappeared", along with countless Egyptians, inside the bowels of the Mukhabarat, President Hosni Mubarak's vast security-intelligence apparatus and an organisation headed, until recently, by his vice-president and former intelligence chief, Omar Suleiman, the man trusted to negotiate an "orderly transition" to democratic rule.

Judging by what I witnessed, that seems a forlorn hope.

I had often wondered, reading accounts of political prisoners detained and tortured in places such as junta-run Argentina of the 1970s, what it would be like to be totally at the mercy of, and dependent on, your jailer for everything – food, water, the toilet. I never dreamed I would find out. Yet here I was, cooped up in a tiny room with a group of Egyptian detainees who were being mercilessly brutalised.

I had been handed over to the security services after being stopped at a police checkpoint near central Cairo last Friday. I had flown there, along with an Iraqi-born British colleague, Abdelilah Nuaimi, to cover Egypt's unfolding crisis for RFE/RL, an American radio station based in Prague.

We knew beforehand that foreign journalists had been targeted by security services as they scrambled to contain a revolt against Mubarak's regime, so our incarceration was not unique.

Yet it was different. My experience, while highly personal, wasn't really about me or the foreign media. It was about gaining an insight – if that is possible behind a blindfold – into the inner workings of the Mubarak regime. It told me all I needed to know about why it had become hated, feared and loathed by the mass of ordinary Egyptians.

We had been stopped en route to Tahrir Square, scene of the ongoing mass demonstrations, little more than half an hour after leaving Cairo airport.

Uniformed and plainclothes police swarmed around our car and demanded our passports and to see inside my bag. A satellite phone was found and one of the men got in our car and ordered our driver to follow a vehicle in front, which led us to a nearby police station.

There, an officer subjected our fixer, Ahmed, to intense questioning: did he know any Palestinians? Were they members of Hamas? Then we were ordered to move again, and eventually drove to a vast, unmarked complex next to a telecommunications building.

That's when Ahmed sensed real danger. "I hope I don't get beaten up," he said. He had good reason to worry.

We were ordered out and blindfolded before being herded into another vehicle and driven a few hundred yards. Then we were pushed into what seemed like an open-air courtyard and handcuffed. I heard the rapid-fire clicking of the electric rattlesnake – I knew instantly what it was – and then Ahmed screaming in pain. A cold sweat washed over me and I thought I might faint or vomit. "I'm going to be tortured," I thought.

But I wasn't. "Mr Robert, what is wrong," I was asked, before being told, with incongruous kindness, to sit down. I sensed then that I would avoid the worst. But I didn't expect to gain such intimate knowledge of what that meant.

After being interrogated and held in one room for hours, I was frogmarched after nightfall to another room, upstairs, along with other prisoners. We believe our captors were members of the internal security service.

That's when the violence – and the terror – really began.

At first, I attached no meaning to the dull slapping sounds. But comprehension dawned as, amid loud shouting, I heard the electrocuting rods being ratcheted up. My colleague, Abdelilah – kept in a neighbouring room – later told me what the torturers said next.

"Get the electric shocks ready. This lot are to be made to really suffer," a guard said as a new batch of prisoners were brought in.

"Why did you do this to your country?" a jailer screamed as he tormented his victim. "You are not to speak in here, do you understand?" one prisoner was told. He did not reply. Thump. "Do you understand?" Still no answer. More thumps. "Do you understand?" Prisoner: "Yes, I understand." Torturer: "I told you not to speak in here," followed by a cascade of thumps, kicks, and electric shocks.

Exhausted, the prisoners fell asleep and snored loudly, provoking another round of furious assaults. "You're committing a sin," a stricken detainee said in a weak, pitiful voice.

Craving to see my fellow inmates, I discreetly adjusted my blindfold. I briefly saw three young men – two of them looked like Islamists, with bushy beards – with their hands cuffed behind their backs (mine were cuffed to the front), before my captors spotted what I had done and tightened my blindfold.

The brutality continued until, suddenly, I was ordered to stand and pushed towards a room, where I was told I was being taken to the airport. I received my possessions and looked at my watch. It was 5pm. I had been in captivity for 28 hours.

The ordeal was almost over – save for another 16 hours waiting at an airport deportation facility. It had been nightmarish but it was nothing to what my Egyptian fellow-captives had endured.

Later, I learned that Ahmed, the fixer, had been released at the same time as Abdelilah and me. He told friends we had been "treated very well" but that he had bruises "from sleeping on the floor". I had flown to Cairo to find out what was ailing so many Egyptians. I did not expect to learn the answer so graphically.

Robert Tait is a senior correspondent with RFE/RL. He was formerly the Guardian's correspondent in Tehran and Istanbul

The danger to Egypt's revolution comes from Washington

2011-02-07T06:57:00.000-08:00

Ali Abunimah, The Electronic Intifada, 6 February 2011

The greatest danger to the Egyptian revolution and the prospects for a free and independent Egypt emanates not from the "baltagiyya" -- the mercenaries and thugs the regime sent to beat, stone, stab, shoot and kill protestors in Cairo, Alexandria and other cities last week -- but from Washington.

Ever since the Egyptian uprising began on 25 January, the United States government and the Washington establishment that rationalizes its policies have been scared to death of "losing Egypt." What they fear losing is a regime that has consistently ignored the rights and well-being of its people in order to plunder the country and enrich the few who control it, and that has done America's bidding, especially supporting Israel in its oppression and wars against the Palestinians and other Arabs.

The Obama Administration quickly dissociated itself from its envoy to Egypt, Frank Wisner, after the latter candidly told the BBC on 5 February that he thought President Hosni Mubarak "must stay in office in order to steer" any transition to a post-Mubarak order ("US special envoy: 'Mubarak must stay for now'," 5 February 2011).

But one suspects that Wisner was inadvertently speaking in his master's voice. US President Barack Obama and his national security establishment may be willing to give up Mubarak the person, but they are not willing to give up Mubarak's regime. It is notable that the US has never supported the Egyptian protestors demand that Mubarak must go now. Nor has the United States suspended its $1.5 billion annual aid package to Egypt, much of which goes to the state security forces that are oppressing protestors and beating up and arresting journalists.

As The New York Times -- always a reliable barometer of official thinking -- reported, "The United States and leading European nations on Saturday threw their weight behind Egypt's vice president, Omar Suleiman, backing his attempt to defuse a popular uprising without immediately removing President Hosni Mubarak from power." Obama administration officials, the newspaper added, "said Mr. Suleiman had promised them an 'orderly transition' that would include constitutional reform and outreach to opposition groups" ("West Backs Gradual Egyptian Transition," 5 February 2011).

Moreoever, the Times reported, the United States has already managed to persuade two of its major European clients -- the United Kingdom and Germany -- to back continuing the existing regime with only a change of figurehead.

Suleiman, long the powerful chief of Egypt's intelligence services, has served -- perhaps even more so than Mubarak -- as the guarantor of Egypt's regional role in maintaining the American- and Israeli-dominated order. As author Jane Mayer has documented, Suleiman played a key role in the US "rendition" program, working closely with the CIA which kidnapped "terror suspects" from around the world and delivered them into Suleiman's hands for interrogation, and almost certainly torture ("Who is Omar Suleiman?," The New Yorker, 29 January 2011).

High praise for Suleiman's work has also come from top Israeli military brass. "I always believed in the abilities of the Egyptian Intelligence service [GIS]," Israeli General Amos Gilad told American, Palestinian Authority and Egyptian officials during a secret April 2007 meeting whose leaked minutes were recently released by Al Jazeera as part of the Palestine Papers. "It keeps order and security among 70 millions -- 20 millions in one city [a reference to the population of Egypt, actually closer to 83 million, and to Cairo] -- this is a great achievement, for which you deserve a medal. It is the best asset for the Middle East," Gilad said.

The notion that anyone, let alone US officials, could believe that Suleiman would lead an "orderly transition" to democracy would be laughable if it were not so sinister. Much more likely, the strategy is to try to ride out the protests and wear out and split the opposition, consolidate the regime under Suleiman's ruthless grip with the backing of the Egyptian army, and then enact cosmetic "reforms" to keep the Egyptian people politically divided and busy while business carries on as usual. Under any Suleiman "transition" political activists, journalists and anyone suspected of being part of the current uprising would be in grave danger.

From the American perspective, the strategy can be likened to what happened in the summer of 2008 when the house-of-cards international financial system started to collapse. Think of the Tunisian regime of deposed dictator Zine El Abidine Ben Ali as the investment bank Lehman Brothers. When a run on the bank began, the United States government refused to provide it with financial guarantees to bail it out, and it quickly went bankrupt.

But when the panic spread and even larger "too big to fail" financial firms including massive insurance company AIG began to see their positions suddenly deteriorate, the United States government stepped in to bail them out with hundreds of billions of dollars.

The Egyptian regime is the AIG of the region and what we are seeing now is an American attempt to bail it out. If Egypt goes under, the United States fears that the contagion would spread as Arab publics realize that the US-backed despots who rule them can be replaced, and that the toppling of these regimes whose only promise to their people has been "security" is not the end of the world but the start of renewal.

Of course, no analogy is exact. Whereas, allowing Lehman Brothers to collapse was a calculated decision, the United States did not see the revolution in Tunisia, or the uprising in Egypt coming. "Our assessment is that the Egyptian government is stable and is looking for ways to respond to the legitimate needs and interests of the Egyptian people," Secretary of State Hillary Clinton infamously declared on 25 January, the day the anti-regime protests broke out ("US urges restraint in Egypt, says government stable," Reuters, 25 January 2011).

Clinton's cluelessness is reminiscent of her predecessor Condoleezza Rice's famous words ("didn't see it coming") in relation to Hamas' victory in Palestinian legislative council elections in 2006.

According to The New York Times, Obama himself is unhappy with US intelligence failures in the Arab world ("Obama Faults Spy Agencies' Performance in Gauging Mideast Unrest, Officials Say," 4 February 2011). For close watchers of the United States, this obliviousness is no mystery.

As Helena Cobban has observed, the Israel Lobby, "AIPAC and its attack dogs," have conducted such a thorough "witch-hunt" over the past quarter century "against anyone with real Middle East expertise that the US government now contains no-one at the higher (or even mid-career) levels of policymaking who has any in-depth understanding of the region or of the aspirations of its people" ("Obama's know-nothings discuss Egypt," 28 January 2011).

But it is even worse than that. The US "policy" establishment seems only capable of viewing the region through Israeli eyes. This is why for so many officials and commentators the concerns of Israel to maintain a brutal hegemony trump the aspirations of 83 million Egyptians to determine their own future free from the shackles of the regime that has oppressed them for so long.

And different futures are possible. On the minds of many observers is the "Turkish model" of constitutional democracy, economic resurgence and foreign policy independence, all under the rule of a "moderate" Islamist party. Turkey, once closely in the orbit of the United States, started to break out with its refusal to allow the US to use the country's bases for the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

In recent years, Turkey has developed a deliberate "360 degree" foreign policy doctrine which includes maintaining relations with Europe and the United States, while restoring close ties with all its neighbors among them Iran and Arab countries, and assuming a greater regional mediating role. Since 2009, Turkey's once close alliance with Israel has deteriorated sharply, even though ties have not been cut. These shifts, along with its ubiquitous consumer and cultural products have given Turkey enormous regional influence and appeal.

Turkey has its own specific history and is no more perfect than any other country. But the bigger point is that subservience to the United States and Israel is not Egypt's only option. The worst case scenario from the American viewpoint is to have three major regional powers, Iran, Turkey and Egypt, that are not under Washington's control.

Of course Turkey is carving out its own path and Egyptians are struggling to go their own way which may be very different. There's no reason either to believe that Egypt would become "another Iran" as ceaseless Israeli propaganda suggests. But given a free choice, Egypt is not likely serve the "interests" of the United States and Israel the way the Mubarak regime has.

One example is that Egypt might dispense with US aid and still come out ahead by simply selling its natural gas on international markets rather than to Israel at what is reported to be a deep discount. Another is that a truly independent Egypt would eschew serving as Israel's proxy in enforcing the criminal siege of Gaza and stoking intra-Palestinian divisions.

By coming to the streets in their millions, by sacrifing the lives of some of their very finest, the Egyptian people have said that they and they alone want to decide their nation's future. Mubarak as a person is already irrelevant. The confrontation is now between the Egyptian people's desire for democracy and self-determination on the one hand, and, on the other, US insistence (along with its clients in Egypt and the region) on continuing the old regime. Let us offer whatever solidarity we can from wherever we are to help the Egyptian people to win.

Ali Abunimah is co-founder of The Electronic Intifada, author of One Country: A Bold Proposal to End the Israeli-Palestinian Impasse and is a contributor to The Goldstone Report: The Legacy of the Landmark Investigation of the Gaza Conflict (Nation Books).

For the US in Egypt, Blowback Is a Bitch

2011-02-06T20:40:00.000-08:00

by: Michael Winship, t r u t h o u t | News Analysis

Almost seven years have passed since I spent some time in the Middle East. The closest I get to the opinions of "the Arab street" these days is the fellow who runs the delicatessen a block away from me. Mohamed is Egyptian, with family living in Cairo and outside the city. All of them are safe - as far as he knows.

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak must go, Mohamed says, but he fears that, regardless of the promises, Mubarak will figure out a way to keep his henchmen in power and the brutal legacy of cruelty and torture will continue.

So much is confusing or unknowable; so much took everyone by surprise or remains to be seen. American intelligence already is being criticized for not being on top of the situation. Stephanie O'Sullivan, the White House nominee for principal deputy director of national intelligence told the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday that, late last year, the CIA warned President Obama "of instability [in Egypt] but not exactly where it would come from ... we didn't know what the triggering mechanism would be."

But how much could they have known, really? This is the Butterfly Effect writ large and in cosmic collision with realpolitik; small changes quietly accruing to create immense, unpredictable consequences for the global power dynamic.

Who can calculate where that first flutter of the lepidopteran wings took place? Long ago and faraway perhaps, but eventually there were two significant deaths: in December, the self-immolation of a fruit vendor named Mohamed Bouazizi, harassed to suicide by Tunisian police, and last June's murder of young Egyptian businessman Khaled Said, beaten by security men in Alexandria. Demonstrations in the wake of Bouazizi's death led to the overthrow of Tunisia's President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali; their success further inspired those who had marched in Egypt to protest the fatal attack on Khaled Said and led to millions making common cause in Cairo's Tahrir Square, across the country and beyond.

"I swear by Almighty God that I cried with joy to see Egypt reborn in Tahrir Square on Tuesday night," Emad El Din Hussein wrote in the independent Egyptian newspaper Al Shorouk. " ... Members of Muslim Brotherhood, Nasserists and Marxists were all present; you could recognize them from their physical appearance and the way they spoke or dressed. But they were few and far between ... The majority of those present were ordinary citizens ... thousands of people mingled together shouting different slogans and singing together ... other demonstrators sat talking about poverty, unemployment and violation of human dignity."

This week, in the shadow of the Egyptian Museum, filled with antiquities reflecting glories past, they battled Mubarak's thugs and goons, the warring sides using equally ancient weapons of stone and fire, even men with whips riding horses and camels. Then the guns came out. So far, the Egyptian Third Army stands in between, firing warning shots and using water cannons to put out the flames of Molotov cocktails, but not shooting into the crowds. As this is written, no one knows for sure where it's all headed. Clearly, as pressure mounts from within and without, there are deep internal rifts within the Egyptian government.

But as far as the United States and Egypt are concerned, one thing is certain: blowback - the unforeseen consequence of our policies abroad - is a bitch. "For too long," Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chair John Kerry wrote in The New York Times this week, "financing Egypt's military has dominated our alliance. The proof ... tear gas canisters marked 'Made in America' fired at protesters, United States-supplied F-16 fighters streaking over central Cairo." All because, Kerry said, there was "a pragmatic understanding that our relationship benefited American foreign policy and promoted peace in the region."

Or, in the words of a 2009 American embassy cable, part of the WikiLeaks document dump, "The tangible benefits to our ... relationship are clear: Egypt remains at peace with Israel, and the US military enjoys priority access to the Suez Canal and Egyptian airspace."

In exchange, we willfully paid little or no heed to the Egyptian dictatorship's abuse of human rights, despite its role in radicalizing such terrorists as Ayman al-Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden's operational and strategic commander. In fact, our strategy of rendition in the wake of 9/11 - sending terror suspects to other countries for interrogation - took advantage of Egypt's torture cells. As Jane Mayer writes in her book, The Dark Side, and on The New Yorker magazine's "News Desk" blog, Omar Suleiman, Egypt's new vice president and the former head of the country's general intelligence service, was "the CIA's point man in Egypt for renditions." Former US Ambassador to Egypt Edward S. Walker, Jr., described Suleiman as "very bright, very realistic" and "not squeamish."

One of those whose rendition Suleiman helped oversee was al-Qaeda suspect Ibn Sheik al-Libi, who told the CIA, according to a bipartisan report from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, that he was locked in a tiny cage for more than three days, then beaten because, at the behest of the United States, the Egyptians wanted him to say that Saddam Hussein was going to give al-Qaeda chemical and biological weapons. "They were killing me," he told journalists Michael Isikoff and David Corn. "I had to tell them something," and so his coerced confession wound up in Colin Powell's now notorious address before the United Nations in February 2003, justifying war against Iraq.

Ironically, blowback from the propaganda offense claiming the existence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction now enhances the credibility among Egyptian protesters of a man that same campaign tried to discredit - Mohamed ElBaradei, former director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Nobel Peace Prize laureate and, according to the BBC, a big fan of Woody Allen and Jerry Seinfeld (I am not making this up).

During the buildup to the invasion of Iraq and since, he has needed a sense of humor. Insisting that his agency's investigations proved that WMD's did not exist - followed by his moderate stance on the Iranian nuclear program - led to angry attacks by the Bush administration, especially from Ambassador to the UN John Bolton, and even the tapping of ElBaradei's telephone. They attack him still, yet in this current crisis he is, as one journalist wrote, "about as much of a liberal secularist as the US could realistically hope for."

A new "pragmatic understanding" is necessary by which, in the words of Moroccan-American author Laila Lalami, we dispose of our forked tongue, one moment lecturing on democracy, the next offering support to dictators.

If blowback shows us anything, as she writes in The Nation magazine, "A pro-American dictator is not a guarantee of protection from extremism; more often than not, his tyranny creates the very radicalism he was supposed to stop.

"The future of Egypt looks uncertain," Lalami continues, but if fears of Islamic extremism cause us to falter in our support of the pro-democracy movement, "What is certain is that siding with a repressive regime against the Egyptian people, especially against young Egyptians, will turn these fears of extremism into a reality."

U.S. Chickens Come Home to Roost in Egypt

2011-02-03T10:08:00.000-08:00

by Marjorie Cohn

Barack Obama, like his predecessors, has supported Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to the tune of $1.3 billion annually, mostly in military aid. In return, Egypt minds U.S. interests in the Middle East, notably providing a buffer between Israel and the rest of the Arab world. Egypt collaborates with Israel to isolate Gaza with a punishing blockade, to the consternation of Arabs throughout the Middle East. The United States could not have fought its wars in Iraq without Egypt’s logistical support.

Now with a revolution against Mubarak by two million Egyptians, all bets are off about who will replace him and whether the successor government will be friendly to the United States.

Mubarak’s “whole system is corrupt,” said Hesham Korayem, an Egyptian who taught at City University of New York and provides frequent commentary on Egyptian and Saudi television. He told me there is virtually no middle class in Egypt, only the extremely rich (about 20 to 25 percent of the population) and the extremely poor (75 percent). The parliament has no input into what Mubarak does with the money the United States gives him, $300 million of which comes to the dictator in cash each year.

Torture is commonplace in Egypt, according to Korayem. Indeed, Omar Suleiman, Egypt’s intelligence chief whom Mubarak just named Vice-President, was the lynchpin for Egyptian torture when the CIA sent prisoners to Egypt in its extraordinary rendition program. Stephen Grey noted in Ghost Plane, “[I]n secret, men like Omar Suleiman, the country’s most powerful spy and secret politician, did our work, the sort of work that Western countries have no appetite to do ourselves.”

In her chapter in the newly published book, “The United States and Torture: Interrogation, Incarceration, and Abuse,” Jane Mayer cites Egypt as the most common destination for suspects rendered by the United States. “The largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid after Israel,” Mayer writes, “Egypt was a key strategic ally, and its secret police force, the Mukhabarat, had a reputation for brutality.” She describes the rendering of Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi to Egypt, where he was tortured and made a false confession that Colin Powell cited as he importuned the Security Council to approve the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Al-Libi later recanted his confession.

The State Department’s 2002 report on Egypt noted that detainees were “stripped and blindfolded; suspended from a ceiling or doorframe with feet just touching the floor; beaten with fists, metal rods, or other objects; doused with hot or cold water; flogged on the back; burned with cigarettes; and subjected to electrical shocks. Some victims . . . [were] forced to strip and threatened with rape.”

In 2005, the United Nations Committee Against Torture found that “Egypt resorted to consistent and widespread use of torture against detainees” and “the risk of such treatment was particularly high in the case of detainees held for political and security reasons.”

About a year ago, an Italian judge convicted 22 CIA operatives and a U.S. Air Force colonel of arranging the kidnapping of a Muslim cleric in Milan in 2003, then flying him to Egypt where he was tortured. Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr told Human Rights Watch he was “hung up like a slaughtered sheep and given electrical shocks” in Egypt. “I was brutally tortured and I could hear the screams of others who were tortured too,” he added.

A former CIA agent observed, “If you want a serious interrogation, you send a prisoner to Jordan. If you want them to be tortured, you send them to Syria. If you want someone to disappear – never to see them again – you send them to Egypt.”

So what will happen next in Egypt?

Suleiman, who is intensely loyal to Mubarak, will not be an acceptable successor to the Egyptian people. Some fear the Muslim Brotherhood, which supports Hamas, will take power once Mubarak is forced out. But “[t]hough it is the largest opposition group, it by no means enjoys overwhelming support, and its leaders are for the most part moderate and responsible,” Scott MacLeod, Time magazine’s Middle East correspondent from 1995 to 2010, wrote in the Los Angeles Times. Korayem concurs. He says the Brotherhood, which has formally renounced terrorism and violence, is more educated and peaceful now. The Brotherhood provides social and economic programs that augment public services in Egypt.

Indeed, the Brotherhood supports Mohamed ElBaradei to negotiate with the Egyptian government. ElBaradei, the former U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency chief and Nobel Peace Prize recipient, recently returned to Egypt to stand with the protesters. He told Fareed Zakaria that the Brotherhood favors a secular state, and “has nothing to do with the Iranian movement, has nothing to do with extremism as we have seen it in Afghanistan and other places.”

The Obama administration has been slow to acknowledge that Mubarak is on his way out. Vice President Joe Biden, still in denial, said on the PBS News Hour, “I would not refer to him as a dictator.” ElBaradei criticized Obama for supporting Mubarak in the face of the popular revolt in Egypt. “You are losing credibility by the day,” he told CBS News. “On one hand you’re talking about democracy, rule of law and human rights, and on the other hand you are lending support to a dictator that continues to oppress his people.”

Korayem sees the United States’ uncritical support for Israel as key to the problems in Egypt and elsewhere in the Middle East. If the United States acted as an honest broker, even “slightly fair to the Palestinians,” that would go a long way to solving the difficulties, he said. But, according to Gareth Porter, “The main function of the U.S. client state relationship with Egypt was to allow Israel to avoid coming to terms with Palestinian demands.” Chris Hedges adds, “The failure of the United States to halt the slow-motion ethnic cleansing of Palestinians by Israel has consequences. The failure to acknowledge the collective humiliation and anger felt by most Arabs because of the presence of U.S. troops on Muslim soil . . . has consequences.”

We are seeing those consequences in the streets of Egypt and the likelihood of similar developments in Jordan, Yemen, and other Middle Eastern countries. Until the U.S. government stops uncritically supporting tyrants, torturers, and oppressors, we can expect the people to rise up and overthrow them.

Marjorie Cohn is a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law and Deputy Secretary General of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers. Her anthology, “The United States and Torture: Interrogation, Incarceration, and Abuse,” was just published by NYU Press.

Testifying against genocide

2011-02-03T09:37:00.000-08:00

By Joanne Wiedman and François Laforge

February 3, 2011

SOME 250 people turned out to Rutgers University in New Brunswick, N.J., on January 29 to hear the testimonies of Jewish survivors of the Holocaust as well survivors of the Nakba, the 1948 ethnic cleansing of Palestine, who are touring the country together as part of the "Never Again for Anyone" (NAFA) speaking tour.

The tour brings together Jewish and Muslim panelists to attest to the inhumanity of genocide and to put a focus on the dehumanizing treatment of the Palestinians.

Unfortunately, about 100 Zionists, organized by Hillel at Rutgers and a local synagogue, protested and disrupted the event.

The "Never Again for Anyone" tour is sponsored by American Muslims for Palestine, the International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network and the Middle East Children's Alliance. The event at Rutgers was endorsed by BAKA: Students United for Middle Eastern Justice, which is an affiliate of Students for Justice in Palestine, and a number of other campus groups.

BAKA spokesperson and Rutgers student Hoda Mitwally introduced the event's message of solidarity: "Whenever we see injustice, we must speak out no matter how small or large it may be. All human suffering is equally unjust and unacceptable, and that is the purpose of tonight to say, never again to all forms of oppression."

Featured at the meeting were Auschwitz survivor Hajo Meyer; Osamah Abu-Irshaid, editor-in-chief of Al-Meezan newspaper; Hedy Epstein, an anti-Zionist Jew whose family died in Auschwitz; and Dawud Assad, a survivor of the 1948 Deir Yassin massacre in Palestine. It was an honor to hear the stories of Holocaust survivors and survivors of the Nakba together.

One of the most chilling moments was when Hedy Epstein described her elementary school experience in 1939 Nazi Germany. Epstein, the only Jewish child in her class, was regularly harassed by her SS teacher. One day, he asked her a question while holding a gun to her head to humiliate her in front of the class. She was 8 years old.

Decades later, she experienced a similar trauma in an Israeli airport when she returned from a solidarity trip to Gaza. She was detained, strip-searched and called a terrorist by an armed Israeli soldier.

The event was an eye-opener, challenging Zionist narratives of the Holocaust and the formation of the state of Israel, and bore witness to the plight of Palestinians and Jews. NAFA speakers countered the specification of the term "Never Again" to refer only to Jews killed in the Holocaust. Speakers condemned the racist ideology of Zionism and the dispossession of the Palestinians in the name of the Holocaust victims. They attested to the shared humanity of all people and the necessity of opposing oppression in all its manifestations.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

IN AN attempt to portray the NAFA meeting as "excluding" Jews, the Jerusalem Post reported, "The student-sponsored event was announced as an open invitation event, however the sponsoring organizations of 'Never Again for Anyone,' according to the reports, asked campus police to bar students wearing kippas from the event. The organizers eventually limited the attendance to supporters only."

These accusations are absolutely false. Anyone who paid the minimum entrance fee or who was a volunteer was allowed into the event regardless of their religious beliefs, political affiliation or views on the event. Several Zionists paid to enter the event and were allowed to bring their signs, one of which falsely accused the speakers of "Holocaust Denial."

The admission charge of $5, which was announced at the event, has become a source of controversy at Rutgers. BAKA in particular has been targeted with accusations that they changed the entrance fee from "suggested," as posted on the Facebook page, to "required" in order to prevent protesters from entering the event. This is not the case.

The event was not sponsored by Rutgers University or its student groups, such as BAKA. Because this was an outside event, it was within Rutgers' policy for the sponsors of the "Never Again for Anyone" tour to charge an entrance fee. Rutgers University has issued a press release on the issue.

The protesters called the event "anti-Semitic" because it allegedly trivialized the Holocaust by comparing it to the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians. But in Mitwally's introduction to the event and the other participants' testimonies, it was clearly stated that the goal of the event was not to formally compare the Holocaust to the Nakba or the current Palestinian situation, but to look at the similarities of these oppressions--a perfectly legitimate task.

The protesters' claims of anti-Semitism rest on their equating being Jewish with Zionism and the state of Israel--thus, any discussion of the atrocities of the Israeli state becomes an attack on all Jews. The speakers disproved this rhetoric by speaking about the history of Zionism in Europe, its lack of support before Second World War and the racist nature of the established Israeli state.

The racist nature of the Zionist ideology was on display when the pro-Israel protesters used Islamophobic slurs against some of the organizers and attendees, calling them "terrorists" and even calling a veiled woman a "suicide bomber." The YouTube video "Another Lie from BAKA" gives a sense of the attempt by protesters to disrupt the event.

The message of solidarity of "Never Again for Anyone" stood in stark contrast to the Zionist protesters. The tour is a much-needed testament of shared humanity and solidarity with the Palestinians and all the oppressed.

Egypt on the brink of civil war

2011-02-02T13:22:00.000-08:00

Written by Alan Woods
Wednesday, 02 February 2011

The revolution in Egypt is reaching a critical point. The old state power is collapsing under the hammer blows of the masses. But revolution is a struggle of living forces. The old regime does not intend to surrender without a fight. The counterrevolutionary forces are going onto the offensive. There is ferocious fighting on the streets of Cairo between pro- and anti-Mubarak elements.

Yesterday’s "protest of the millions" surpassed all expectations. More than a million people thronged Cairo’s Tahrir Square. There were 300,000 on the streets of Suez, 250,000 in Mahalla, 250,000 in Mansoura, and an impressive 500,000 in Alexandria. This mighty movement has no precedent in Egyptian history.

Protesters took to the streets out in every single city and town. According to some estimates four million demonstrated all over Egypt. By contrast, the numbers who took to the streets to voice their support for the President yesterday were small and undoubtedly made up of members of the security forces, bureaucrats and their families, all those who have something to lose if Mubarak is overthrown.

The Revolution has enormous reserves of support. However, there are weaknesses in the revolutionary camp. As we pointed out from the beginning, the spontaneous character of the movement was both its main strength and its principal weakness. The forces of the counterrevolution are numerically weaker (this was shown yesterday). But numbers are not everything in revolution as in war. Many times in history a large army composed of valiant soldiers has been defeated by a smaller professional army with good officers.

The revolutionaries have determination, courage and morale. But the counterrevolutionaries have a lot to lose: their jobs, positions, power and privilege. Desperation will give them the courage to resist. And they are organized and well trained. There is not the slightest doubt that the shock troops of the mob that attacked the demonstrators in Tahrir Square today were policemen out of uniform. This was not a spontaneous demonstration of loyalty to the President but a carefully prepared action that corresponds to a worked out plan.

Mubarak’s strategy

In Tunisia President Ben Ali decided relatively quickly that the game was up and took a plane to exile together with his wife and a large amount of loot. President Mubarak of Egypt is tougher and more stubborn. He has decided to ignore the millions of demonstrators shouting for his downfall in the streets. He does not care what happens to Egypt. Still less is he concerned with the preoccupations of his former friends and allies in Washington. His only programme is survival. His only perspective is the age-old slogan of despots: “Après moi le deluge” – “After me, the flood!”

Everyone must now realise that the only way of calming the country is for the president to go. The self-appointed “leaders of the opposition” have made it clear that they will not even talk unless Mubarak disappears. They have no choice, since the masses on the streets are vigilant and will not tolerate any compromise.

The immediate removal of Mubarak was therefore the only hope to secure the "orderly transition of power" that the US so fervently desires. But John Simpson – the editor of BBC News World Affairs, an intelligent bourgeois commentator – correctly points out: “The only trouble is no-one has told the crowds in Tahrir Square about this. Their slogan is ‘Mubarak out now’ not ‘Mubarak out with honour in a few months and the continuation of his system slightly improved’.”

In last night's speech, Mr Mubarak promised to leave at the next polls, and promised constitutional reform, but he announced that he would like to stay on until September to oversee the change. In his address on Tuesday, Mr Mubarak said he would devote his remaining time in power to ensuring a peaceful transition of power to his successor (he did not mention his son Gamal). He criticised the protests and said his priority was to "restore peace and stability". "This is my country. This is where I lived, I fought and defended its land, sovereignty and interests, and I will die on its soil," he said.

The speech was seen by the protestors as a provocation. Far from calming things down it again poured petrol on the flames. The reaction of the protesters to Mubarak’s statement was first disbelief, and then indignation. "The speech is useless and only inflames our anger," one protester, Shadi Morkos, told Reuters. "We will continue to protest." This was a universal reaction.

Last night the protesters remained camped out on Tahrir Square saying Mr Mubarak's promise was not enough, and chanting: "We will not leave! He will leave!" The masses do not want to give Mubarak time to manoeuvre. They want him overthrown and put on trial. On the demonstrations yesterday they hanged him in effigy. That shows the real frame of mind on the streets.

Everyone knows it was he who gave the order to shoot down the demonstrators last Friday. The television showed the father of a young man killed on a demonstration weeping as he cried: “They are killing our children”. Now the regime is attacking unarmed people with murderous intent. Unarmed people are being beaten, stoned and gassed in Tahrir Square. With this regime there can be no truce, no peace and no forgiveness.

An historical precedent

Egypt is in the grip of a titanic battle between revolution and counterrevolution. Until this moment the demonstrations had been completely peaceful. This had lulled the masses into a false sense of security. Now all the illusions have been dissolved. The masses are receiving their baptism of fire. Mubarak’s plan is to regain control of Tahrir Square and thus to seize the initiative, which has hitherto been in the hands of the revolutionaries. The struggle for power has begun in earnestness.

February 1, a dummy Mubarak is dangling from a lamp post. Photo: monasosh.
The whole thing has been carefully prepared in advance. The anti-government protestors are unarmed and were unprepared for the conflict. The pro-government forces are armed and have used tear gas, thrown into crowds including children. They have entered the Square mounted on horseback and camels. With the advantage of surprise and superior weapons and tactics, as I write these lines, the counterrevolutionaries are slowly forcing the revolutionaries back. They have arrested protestors who are then handed over to the army. Their fate is unknown.

In the context of these actions it is clear that Mubarak’s speech last night was an integral part of a plan to push the Revolution back step by step. By promising concessions and offering to stand down in September, he was hoping to win the support of the wavering elements: the middle classes who fear instability and long for “order”; the bourgeoisie who fear a revolution like the plague and would like business to return to normal; the backward, politically inert layers who understand nothing and gravitate to the big names, the strong men and whoever is in power; the depraved criminal classes and lumpenproletariat who sell their political allegiance to the highest bidder. These are the social reserves of the counterrevolution that are now being mobilized against the Revolution.

There is a clear historic precedent. On 17 October 1905 (30 October in the new calendar) in response to the Russian Revolution of 1905, Tsar Nicholas II issued the October Manifesto. The regime was in what seemed to be an impossible position. It was confronted with a colossal revolutionary movement and a general strike. In many areas the revolutionary committees of workers were taking control of society.

The Manifesto pledged to grant civil liberties to the people: including personal immunity, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of association; and the convening of an elected parliament – the Duma under universal male suffrage. On paper this was a major victory, but in practice the democratisation was insignificant. The Tsar remained in power and exercised a veto over the Duma, which he repeatedly dissolved.

The Manifesto was a gigantic fraud, just as the promised reforms of Mubarak, but it was sufficient to buy off a layer that had previously supported the Revolution. The bourgeois Liberals immediately supported it, broke with the Revolution and made their peace with the Tsar. They desired “stability”, as did a large part of the middle classes. Their defection prepared the way for a counterrevolutionary backlash.

At the same time as the Tsar announced his reforms, he unleashed the “dark forces” on the masses: the lumpenproletariat, the scum of the slums, the anti-Semitic pogroms, to drown the Revolution in blood. Mubarak is attempting to do the same. In Russia the pogroms were organized by the tsarist police. In Cairo the counterrevolutionary attacks are organized by plainclothes police posing as “pro-Mubarak demonstrators”.

At the same time as his henchmen crack skulls in Tahrir Square, Mubarak has announced that the banks and shops will reopen on Sunday, the first working day after the Islamic weekend. The intention is to create an impression of a return to normality. But normality will not return to Egypt for a long time.

Washington worried

In Washington they are getting increasingly nervous. The longer Mubarak clings to power, the greater the risk of what they call “chaos”. The latest developments have confirmed their worst fears. Egypt may be sliding towards civil war. The Americans would not be too worried about that, but the problem is that it would destroy all their plans for a “managed transition”.

In a statement after Mr Mubarak's address, Obama said the US would be happy to offer assistance to Egypt during the transition process. He modestly declared that it was not his country's right to dictate the path for Egypt, but that any transition must include opposition voices and lead to free and fair elections: "It is my belief that an orderly transition must be meaningful, it must be peaceful and it must begin now."

Despite Mr. Obama’s soothing words about having no right to choose the leaders of other nations, we seem to recall that Washington had something to do with the removal (and trial) of Slobodan Milosevic, and was somehow instrumental in the removal (and execution) of Saddam Hussein. We also recall the eagerness with which the USA proclaimed the policy of “regime change” as the best way to get rid of dictators and usher in “democracy” (under American control).

Here the cynical reality of bourgeois democracy stands out in all its uncouthness. US imperialism always considers it to be their country’s right to remove leaders that are disobedient and replace them with more pliant leaders. To this end, “democracy” is as good an excuse as any other. But when it comes to those regimes that are friendly to US interests, all scruples about democracy and human rights instantly vanish. The world’s policeman is suddenly afflicted by an attack of scrupulous legality: “it is not our country's right to dictate the path for Egypt” – or, of course, for Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Morocco, or any of the numerous unsavoury regimes that are America’s good friends in the world.

Obama said he had told Mr Mubarak all this during a 30-minute phone call. It would be interesting to know the precise content of this telephone conversation, but we imagine it would not have been very cordial. When the present occupant of the White House says that an orderly transition "must begin now", this is as near as the Americans dare to come to saying to Mubarak: “For God’s sake, go!”

There is very good reason why Obama cannot tell Mubarak to go, at least in public. The Americans have to choose their words very carefully because they are being carefully followed by the rulers of Jordan, Morocco and Saudi Arabia who feel the ground trembling underneath their feet. Simpson, again, explains:

“President Mubarak's offer to stand down will cause shock waves right across the Middle East. Until recently the regime in Egypt seemed pretty much rock solid.

“Now autocratic governments in North Africa right through to Yemen, Syria and maybe even Saudi Arabia will be looking for ways to buy off discontent at home.”

The shock waves from Egypt continue to shake all the neighbouring countries. Turkey's Prime Minister Erdogan is the latest to proffer friendly advice to the embattled Mubarak. In the kind of obscure utterance we associate with Ottoman diplomacy he advised his friend in Cairo to take a "different step". He omitted to add the small detail that it was a step over a very steep cliff.

What now?

John Simpson adds the following:

“In every revolution, popular or otherwise, there comes a critical moment – a tipping point – at which the future is decided. [...] The fact is we are still not at the tipping point quite yet. But we will know it when we see it.”

Suddenly there is an answer to the basic question: Are the protesters too strong for the power structure or can the country's leaders face them down?

He continues:

“All popular revolutions share certain basic similarities. The vast crowds, often gathering for the first time, believe that they are bound to win because there are so many of them and their determination is so great. But if the political structure refuses to take the hint and keeps the support of the army and the secret police then it can survive. It all depends on how strong and resilient the structure of government is.”

Simpson compares the situation in Egypt with the overthrow of the Stalinist regimes in Eastern Europe two decades ago. I made the same comparison in an article last week. The parallels are instructive. On paper these regimes seemed solid and unchallengeable. They possessed powerful armies, police and secret police. But in the moment of truth, they were shown to be brittle and wafer-thin.

The case of Russia in 1991 is even more striking. The demonstrators who brought down the old regime were few in number and nervous of the government reaction, but the government was even more feeble and collapsed without a fight. Now we see a similar phenomenon. In Eastern Europe the crowds kept on demonstrating until the old regime simply caved in. That is what we are seeing before our very eyes in Egypt. But there is a difference. Mubarak refuses to go.

The masses are on the streets in large numbers, but Mubarak has unleashed the forces of the counterrevolution against them and the army looks on. What is to be done? The people have correctly concluded that if a week of demonstrations has pushed the president this far then there's every incentive to keep up the pressure on him. The next flashpoint will be on Friday, when another mass demonstration will take place after Friday prayers. The word is going round that the next step will be a march on the President’s palace.

The people demand justice and revenge. Those who are guilty of crimes against the people must be handed over to popular tribunals to answer for their crimes. That is applicable not only to the police who fire upon unarmed demonstrators but also to the man who issued the orders. Insurrection is in the only way out. In order for it to succeed, the workers' movement must play a key role.

It was the long wave of workers’ strikes and protests that played a key role in weakening the regime and creating this movement. Workers are now setting up independent unions. They have the power to paralyse the country and also to organise the economy. There has been talk of railway workers refusing to transport troops and security forces to be used in repression.

The calling of a nationwide general strike is the only fitting answer to the use of thug tactics against unarmed demonstrators. In order to prepare for this and keep order, action committees should be set up everywhere (workplaces, neighbourhoods and barracks) and linked up at local, regional and national level. This way the revolutionary people can take power and elect their own representatives, not those who are self-appointed “leaders” or people put in place by the US ambassador.

What we are seeing is a desperate rearguard action of the old regime. The old order is like a wounded animal that refuses to die and is thrashing about. The new order is struggling to be born. The outcome of this life-and-death conflict will determine the immediate fate of the revolution. The Revolution must defend itself. It must arm itself to resist the attacks of the counterrevolutionaries. But the best form of defence is attack. It is time for the movement to go beyond mass rallies.

The only way to kill a snake is to knock it on the head. Passivity is the death of the Revolution. Power will not fall into your hands like a rotten apple. Instead of remaining in Tahrir Square, the masses should go onto the offensive, march on the presidential palace and take power. The revolutionary masses should trust only their own forces. That is the only way to save the Revolution and win a decisive victory.

It's Official: South Sudan Set to Secede With a 99.57 Percent Vote

2011-02-01T07:37:00.001-08:00

by: Maggie Fick | The Christian Science Monitor | Report

Juba, South Sudan - Cheers and spontaneous dancing broke out as the first official announcement of results from South Sudan’s independence vote was made in the oil-rich region’s capital by members of the commission that organized the referendum held earlier this month.

"The vote for separation was 99.57 percent," said Justice Chan Reec Madut, head of the southern bureau of the Referendum Commission, after reading the vote tallies for “unity” and “secession” for each of the south’s 10 states. Mr. Madut was referring to the results for the south, while Mohamed Ibrahim Khalil, the head of the Commission, announced the results from polling in northern Sudan and in eight countries that held voting for South Sudan’s far-flung diaspora population.

Six of the ten southern states registered a 99.9 percent vote for separation, with the lowest vote in favor of secession came in at 95.5 percent in Western Bahr al-Ghazal state, which borders Darfur. The long-awaited referendum produced an overwhelming turnout of 99 percent among voters in the south, one of the poorest and least developed regions on earth.

Think you know Africa? Take our geography quiz.

In northern Sudan, voter turnout was only 60 percent, and a modest 58 percent of voters – southerners who live in the north – were in favor of the oil-rich south breaking away. Many southerners opted to leave their lives and work in the north to move home ahead of the referendum, and the United Nations says it expects another 100,000 southerners to make the north-south journey within the next month. More than 190,000 southerners have flooded back into the south since early October, though the most recent arrivals were not able to participate in the referendum, since they had not registered to vote in either the north or the south.

Diaspora Voters

In the eight countries, including the United States and Egypt, where southerners cast votes, 99 percent chose independence for their homeland. In the US, 99 percent of the 5,800 voters voted for secession, at polling stations set up in Boston, Seattle, Omaha, and Washington, among other locations.

Before announcing the numbers for the ten southern states, Madut said that his fellow southerners “consider self-determination the centerpiece” of the 2005 peace deal that ended more than two decades of north-south war.

Mr. Khalil, a 90-year old northern Sudanese lawyer, had a noticeably somber tone has he announced the results, particularly in comparison to Madut, a southerner who is the deputy chief justice of the south’s Supreme Court. In his remarks, Khalil focused on the future relations between north and south.

“These results lead to a change of situation, that’s the emergence of two states instead of one state,” this prospect provoking applause from the crowd of southerners. “That change relates only to the constitutional form of relationship between north and south. North and south are drawn together in indissoluble geographic and historic bonds.”

Don’t miss a beat - get Truthout Daily Email Updates. Click here to sign up for free.

At a press conference held in the southern capital of Juba during the referendum, Khalil told reporters that the likely split of his country did not please him. On Sunday, he struck a more optimistic tone, saying that “if the example of the referendum is any use, we should entertain hope that we will be able to settle the unsettled issues in the six months remaining ahead before the emergence of the nation state of Southern Sudan.”

Speaking after the announcement, southern leader Salva Kiir thanked Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir for his leadership and for “making peace possible.” He said that the southern government would stand with Bashir as the split of north and south looms ever closer. Mr. Kiir made clear that the south will declare independence on July 9, but not before. “We are not going to put down the flag of Sudan until July 9,” he said.

Outstanding Issues

Kiir noted the importance of reaching an agreement with the Khartoum government on outstanding north-south issues including the future status of the contested border region of Abyei. The southern president was set to travel later Sunday to Addis Ababa for the African Union summit, which President Bashir is also attending.

In the run-up to Sunday’s announcement, Kiir issued several public calls to his people to act carefully in any celebrations they might hold after results were made official, urging restraint and forbidding “celebratory gunfire.”

After Kiir’s remarks, the crowd that had swelled to a few thousand broke into an impromptu dance party at the outdoor area where they had learned that their vote would yield independence in less than six months. The area is also the burial grounds for the late southern war hero, Dr. John Garang.

Swaying to the upbeat music crackling from speakers and the drumming of musicians in traditional garb, smiling southerners celebrated peacefully and joyfully.

In Khartoum, the scene was reportedly different, with police beating and arresting student protestors who are demanding the resignation of their government, apparently channeling the ongoing uprising in neighboring Egypt.

As Sudan moves ever closer to splitting in two, it remains unclear whether Khalil’s vision of north and south remaining connected, with intertwined fates, will be preserved.

Nigeria Files Charges Against Cheney in Halliburton Bribery Scheme

2010-12-08T07:41:00.000-08:00

by: Jason Leopold, t r u t h o u t | Report

Dick Cheney is officially a wanted man.
The former vice president was indicted Tuesday by Nigeria's Economic and Financial Crime Commission along with eight other current and former company executives in a bribery and conspiracy scheme related to the construction of a liquefied natural gas facility in the country that took place while Cheney was chief executive of Halliburton.
Halliburton and its one-time subsidiary, Kellogg, Brown & Root (KBR), were also charged. KBR, which also has handled lucrative US government support contracts for US troops in Iraq and elsewhere, was spun off from Halliburton in 2007 into a separate company.
"It includes Dick Cheney," said Nigerian prosecutor Godwin Obla, about the 16-count charge filed in Abuja, Nigeria's capital. "There are conspiracy charges and giving gratification to public officers. There is also a charge for obstruction of justice...It is important to stress that the filing of this charge today is just one out of many steps that would be taken by the prosecution."
"The illicit proceeds of that enterprise would be located. Properties acquired in consequence of this would be traced and forfeited and organizations associated with the criminal enterprise may be liable to forfeiture to the state of Nigeria," Obla added.
Although Nigerian government officials said they would seek Cheney's extradition to respond to the charges, the US government likely won't entertain such a request. Each charge in the indictment carries a three-year prison sentence.
Cheney's lawyer, Terrence O'Donnell, said an investigation conducted by federal prosecutors in the United States "found no suggestion of any impropriety by Dick Cheney in his role of CEO of Halliburton."
"Any suggestion of misconduct on his part, made now, years later, is entirely baseless," O'Donnell said.
Tara Mullee, a Halliburton spokeswoman said, “It is still our position that Halliburton was not involved in the project to which this bribery investigation relates and there is no legal basis for charges."
The charges revolve around $180 million in bribes allegedly paid to Nigerian government officials between 1994 and 2004 to win a $6 billion construction contract for the Bonny Island natural gas liquefaction plant. The bribes allegedly went to the notoriously corrupt Nigerian dictator Sani Abacha and some of his subordinates.
Get Truthout delivered to your email for free.
The cash allegedly was laundered through UK lawyer Jeffrey Tesler, who served as a consultant to KBR after it was formed in a 1998 merger that Cheney engineered between Halliburton and Dresser Industries. Tesler was hired in 1995 as an agent of a four-company joint venture that was awarded four engineering, procurement and construction (EPC) contracts by Nigeria LNG Ltd., (NLNG). Tesler was indicted last year and he is fighting extradition to the US.
In a quarterly filing to the Securities and Exchange Commission in October 2007, Halliburton said it was subpoenaed by the DOJ and the SEC over the use - by the KBR-led consortium known as TSKJ - "of an immigration services provider, apparently managed by a Nigerian immigration official, to which approximately $1.8 million in payments in excess of costs of visas were allegedly made between approximately 1997 and the termination of the provider in December 2004..."
Nigerian prosecutors also filed charges Tuesday against the TSKJ consortium.
The charges against Cheney and others come as Nigeria prepares for a presidential election in April. Anti-corruption officials last week raided Halliburton's Lagos offices and arrested 23 people, including 10 who worked for the company, and seized documents. Those arrested have since been released.
On Monday, the Justice Department (DOJ) announced that Tesler's associate, Wojciech J. Chodan, the former vice president to KBR's UK subsidiary, pleaded guilty to violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) for his role in the bribery scandal.
Chodan was extradited to the United States last week from England. He is scheduled to be sentenced in February and faces a maximum five years in federal prison.
French Disclosures
The bribery investigation was launched in 2003 when Georges Krammer, a former executive with the French company Technip (also charged Tuesday), a member of the consortium for the Bonny Island project, informed French magistrate Renaud Van Ruymbeke that the contracts his group obtained came as a result of payments Tesler made to Nigerian officials from a slush fund the lawyer allegedly managed.
In June, the DOJ filed a deferred prosecution agreement and criminal information against Technip. The company, also charged in the bribery scheme in Nigeria Tuesday, agreed to pay a total of $338 million in criminal and civil fines and retain an independent compliance monitor for two years.
For more than a year, the French magistrate poured over evidence to determine whether Cheney may have been responsible under French law for at least one of four bribery payments to the Nigerian officials.
Under French law, "the head of a company can be charged with 'misuse of corporate assets' for bribes paid by any employee - even if the executive didn't know about the improper payments."
During Cheney's tenure, Halliburton did expand operations in Nigeria despite human rights abuses by General Abacha's regime and environmental damage to the Niger Delta caused by international oil companies, Shell and Chevron, both of which signed contracts with Halliburton subsidiaries.
Shell and some of its corporate executives are also the subject of a separate bribery investigation in Nigeria. The company paid $48 million in fines last month to the US government to settle criminal charges that it violated FCPA in connection with that case.

In April 2000, Brown & Root Energy Services, a business unit of Halliburton, was selected by Shell Petroleum Development Co. of Nigeria to work on the development of an offshore oil and gas facility, the first of its kind for Shell.
The deal, valued at $300 million, had been questioned by activists who have tried to hold Shell accountable for the pollution and the human rights abuses that have harmed Nigerian indigenous groups in a part of the Niger Delta known as Ogoniland.
In its four-plus decades of oil exploration in Nigeria, Shell has been responsible for repeated environmental calamities, involving oil spills, noxious gas flares, cleared forests, despoiled farmland and pipeline blowouts.
General Abacha's appreciation for the money that Shell's operations put into his coffers made him an eager ally when the oil industry faced popular protests, which were crushed by the dictator's army and security forces.
In 1995, the year Cheney joined Halliburton, renowned writer and environmental advocate Ken Saro-Wiwa and eight of his colleagues were hanged by the Abacha government for their efforts to prevent Shell from continuing to poison the environment of the Niger Delta.
It is estimated that more than 2,000 people have been murdered for their involvement in protests against Shell's activities in the Delta. Most of those murdered were Ogoni who had rallied behind Saro-Wiwa in the early 1990s.
In 1998, General Abacha died of an apparent heart attack.
Guilty Pleas
Last year, KBR pleaded guilty to violating FCPA and admitted that it paid $180 million in "consulting fees" to Tesler and a Japanese trading company for use in bribing Nigerian government officials. KBR paid a $402 million fine to as part of its plea deal.
Under the terms of the plea agreement, KBR agreed to retain an independent compliance monitor for three years to ensure it is abiding by US laws, limit its use of foreign agents and promised to file regular reports on the compliance program with the DOJ.
But KBR said in a 10-K filing with the SEC last year that "limitations on our use of agents as part of our efforts to comply with applicable laws, including the FCPA, could put us at a competitive disadvantage in pursuing large-scale international projects."
However, the plea deal did not impact KBR’s ability to secure lucrative government contracts.
In fact, according to KBR's SEC filing, the company said it received written notification from the US. Department of the Army “stating that it does not intend to suspend or debar KBR from [Department of Defense] contracting as a result of the guilty plea by KBR LLC.”
Additionally, KBR revealed in the same SEC filing that the company uncovered "information" that shows former executives may have been involved in a bidding scheme with its competitors, but that the DOJ agreed not to pursue the matter in exchange for KBR's guilty plea.
"In connection with the investigation into payments relating to the Bonny Island project in Nigeria, information has been uncovered suggesting that [former KBR CEO Albert "Jack"] Stanley and other former employees may have engaged in coordinated bidding with one or more competitors on certain foreign construction projects, and that such coordination possibly began as early as the mid-1980s," the company's SEC filing said. "In connection with KBR LLC's agreeing to enter into the plea agreement described above, the DOJ has agreed not to pursue any further investigation or penalties relating to the coordinated bidding allegations."
Stanley was a close associate of Cheney. The former vice president promoted him in 1998 to head KBR.

According to the DOJ, at critical junctures before the EPC contracts were awarded, Stanley and others allegedly met with three successive former holders of a top-level office in the executive branch of the Nigerian government to ask the office holder to designate a representative with whom the joint venture should negotiate the bribes.
In September 2008, Stanley pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit wire and mail fraud and conspiring to violate FCPA. Stanley faces seven years in prison and nearly $11 million in restitution payments. He remains free on bail pending a sentencing hearing scheduled for January.
According to last year's plea deal, Stanley started paying bribes in 1995, the year Cheney was named chief executive of the corporation, and ended when Stanley was fired in 2004.
Stanley, KBR's current CEO William Utt and Halliburton CEO David Lesar, were also named in the indictment filed by Nigerian officials Tuesday.
Aggressive Accounting Practices
Although Cheney's five-year tenure at the helm of Halliburton made him a rich man, controversies surrounding the Houston-based company have dogged him since he became vice president.
During the 2004 presidential campaign, Halliburton agreed to a $7.5 million settlement with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) over suspect accounting practices that took place during Cheney's affiliation with the company.
The SEC said Halliburton changed the way it accounted for construction revenues in 1998 and did not report that change to investors for more than a year, a violation of securities rules.
The accounting sleight of hand by Halliburton caused the company's public statements regarding its income in 1998 and 1999 to be materially misleading, boosting Halliburton's paper profits by $120 million.
"In the absence of any disclosure, the investing public was deprived of a full opportunity to assess Halliburton's reported income more particularly, the precise nature of that income, and its comparability to Halliburton's income in prior periods," the SEC said.
The changes to the company's accounting practices led to a "significant difference in their respective effects on Halliburton's financial presentation: the new practice reduced losses on several large construction projects" and allowed the company to report a higher profit, the SEC said.
The accounting practices, which gave Wall Street the false impression that the oil-field services company was profitable between 1998 and 1999, boosted the value of Halliburton's stock and helped Cheney earn more than $35 million when he sold his shares in 2000.
The New York Times quoted two former Dresser Industries executives in a May 22, 2002, story as saying that after Cheney guided the merger of Dresser with Halliburton in 1998, Halliburton "instituted aggressive accounting practices to obscure its losses."
The accounting change altered the way Halliburton booked revenues from cost overruns on construction projects. Previously, the company waited until a figure was agreed upon with a client. After 1998, however, Halliburton booked revenues that it assumed a customer would pay even though the agreed-upon number might turn out to be lower.
Halliburton spokeswoman Wendy Hall said at the time that Cheney "was aware we accrued revenue on unapproved claims in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles."
The gimmick, signed off on by the now-defunct accounting firm Arthur Andersen, allowed Halliburton to add $89 million in revenues to its books in 1998, helping the company beat its earnings target by 2 cents a share for the year and boosting its stock value.
If the accounting change hadn't been employed, said Wall Street analysts, the company would have missed its earnings target by 11 cents a share, which would surely have depressed the stock price.
During Cheney's tenure, accounting irregularities at the company exceeded $234 million, according to documents obtained by the watchdog group Center for Public Integrity.

Halliburton also faced allegations that it overbilled for work at Fort Ord in California under Cheney's watch, a complaint similar to more recent charges that Halliburton padded its military contract work in Iraq.
Following revelations that Cheney made $35 million from his sales of Halliburton stock before the company's share price fell on the announcement in 2000 that the company was being investigated, The Washington Post, on July 16, 2002, summed up Cheney's tenure at Halliburton this way:
The developments at Halliburton since Cheney's departure leave two possibilities: Either the vice president did not know of the magnitude of problems at the oilfield services company he ran for five years, or he sold his shares in August 2000 knowing the company was likely headed for a fall.
As Halliburton's CEO, Cheney was responsible for Halliburton's books. He went out of his way to praise the work done for Halliburton by Arthur Andersen, the accounting firm that unraveled in 2002 after it was found guilty of obstruction of justice for destroying documents for another energy-related client, Enron.
In a 1996 promotional video for Arthur Andersen, Cheney lauded the firm for its business advice:
One of the things I like that they do for us is that, in effect, I get good advice, if you will, from their people based upon how we're doing business and how we're operating, over and above the, just sort of the normal by-the-books audit arrangement.
The SEC questioned Cheney during its two-year-long probe of Halliburton's accounting irregularities and concluded that he should not be held responsible for what went on behind the scenes at the company.

Rwanda says it will charge "Hotel Rwanda" manager for aiding opposition

2010-10-27T15:18:00.000-07:00

By: Edmund Kagire,Jason Straziuso, The Associated Press

Paul Rusesabagina smiles after receiving an honorary degree from the University of Guelph on Tuesday, June 12, 2007. Rusesabagina, the former manager at the Mille Collines hotel, saved more than 1,200 people from slaughter during the Rwandan genocide and inspired the Academy Award-nominated film "Hotel Rwanda."
KIGALI, Rwanda - The Rwandan hotel manager portrayed by Don Cheadle in the movie "Hotel Rwanda" could face charges by Rwandan authorities over allegations the man sent money to opposition commanders, Rwanda's top prosecutor said.
But the former manager, Paul Rusesabagina, told The Associated Press on Wednesday that he hasn't sent any money to Rwanda in years, and that the government is launching a smear campaign against him because he has opposed President Paul Kagame in the past.
Rwanda's top prosecutor, Martin Ngoga, said Rusesabagina helped finance what he described as terrorist activities in Rwanda by helping fund commanders with the FDLR, or Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda. No formal charges have yet been filed.
Ngoga said he is asking U.S. officials for assistance in gathering evidence. Some of the financial transactions he alleges were criminal originated in San Antonio, Texas. Rusesabagina has a house in Texas but said he has never sent money to Burundi or Tanzania as is alleged by Ngoga.
"Those who want to continue considering him as a hero can go on," Ngoga told a news conference late Tuesday. "We consider him a serious criminal suspect who has been financing FDLR and we are challenging whoever speaks on his behalf to tell us whether he never sent money to these FDLR commanders we have in custody."
After his story was publicized in "Hotel Rwanda," Rusesabagina was hailed as a hero around the world. Former U.S. President George W. Bush gave him the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2005, the highest civilian honour in the U.S.
However, the government of Rwanda did not view him as a hero after Rusesabagina began criticizing the regime of Kagame, who has since called Rusesabagina a "manufactured hero," according to Terry George, the director of "Hotel Rwanda."
Rusesabagina, 56, who was released from a hospital operation last week to find that his home in Brussels, Belgium had been broken into and documents stolen, says he has done nothing wrong.
"It is the latest step in a campaign against me by the Rwandan government that has included public insults, lies and physical harassment," Rusesabagina said.
"My foundation is advocating for a truth, justice and reconciliation process to try to foster sustainable peace in Rwanda ... but anyone who opposes Kagame inside or outside the country is treated with this kind of harassment."
More than 500,000 Rwandans, mostly ethnic Tutsis and moderate Hutus, were killed in Rwanda's 1994 genocide. Kagame, an ethnic Tutsi, has tried to downplay the role of ethnicity in post-genocide Rwanda, and people in the country rarely refer to themselves as Hutu or Tutsi and can face charges for speaking publicly about ethnicity.
Human rights groups accuse Kagame's regime of iron-fisted control and of silencing opposition politicians and media outlets. Human rights groups and other critics decried the arrest of several opposition figures in the lead-up to Rwanda's August president election, and noted that several others were killed or attacked under suspicious circumstances.
The potential charges against Rusesabagina appear to be intertwined with those against Victoire Ingabire, a Hutu opposition politician who was jailed earlier this month on charges of forming a terrorist group.
Ingabire earlier this year sought representation by Peter Erlinder, a U.S. lawyer who was jailed by Rwandan authorities for about three weeks when he arrived in Rwanda in May to meet with Ingabire. Erlinder was welcomed back to the U.S. in July by Rusesabagina, and the two appeared together on a news program.
"The Kagame regime is beginning to show signs of desperation and lashing out in all directions," Erlinder said Wednesday, adding that the Rwandan government has been working toward charges against Rusesabagina for some time.
"He's already been declared persona non grata by Kagame several years ago," Erlinder said.
Ngoga said that the FDLR commanders in Rwandan custody have given evidence against both Ingabire and Rusesabagina.
Ngoga said Western Union money transfers by Rusesabagina were sent to two commanders in the FDLR with the aim of recruiting fighters for a new military wing of FDU-Inkingi, which is the political party headed by Ingabire.
"We are not talking in general terms, we are mentioning the names, the transactions which were done from San Antonio, Texas," Ngoga said. "It was received in Dar es Salaam and Bujumbura and sent by Paul Rusesabagina himself."
Rusesabagina told AP that the last time he sent money to Rwanda was in 2002 or 2003, and that it totalled at most 1,000 euros ($1,380). He said he supports Ingabire and other opposition candidates through press releases from his foundation and advocates for free, fair and open elections without violence or human rights abuses.
Rusesabagina said he was just released from the hospital following surgery and that when he went to his home in Belgium he discovered someone had broken in his house and stolen documents that are written in a Rwandan language.
"I am asking myself what a Belgian thief might want with documents with only a Rwandan could read?" Rusesabagina said.
___
Associated Press reporter Jason Straziuso contributed from Nairobi, Kenya. Associated Press writer Amy Forliti in Minneapolis contributed to this report.

MN Law Prof. Discusses Expected Charges In Rwanda

2010-10-23T07:52:00.000-07:00

A Minnesota law professor jailed in Rwanda earlier this year on allegations that he minimized that country's 1994 genocide said Friday he has "no doubt" he'd be killed if he returned to Rwanda to face expected charges.

Peter Erlinder, a professor at William Mitchell College of Law in St. Paul, Minn., spoke to The Associated Press a day after Rwanda's chief prosecutor, Martin Ngoga, said he would charge Erlinder with genocide denial, based on articles Erlinder wrote that were published on the Internet.

Erlinder said Friday that formal charges against him had not been filed, but he expected them to be. He said he would follow his attorneys' advice, but when asked if he thought he would be killed if he returned to Rwanda, he replied, "I have no doubt."

Erlinder has been a lead defense attorney for the U.N. International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, which is prosecuting Rwandans charged with participating in the mass killings. He was arrested May 28 after going to Rwanda to help an opposition leader who wants to run for president. A judge released him June 17 on medical grounds.

Since then, an opposition leader and an opposition journalist have been killed, and a former Rwandan general who is in exile has been shot. Erlinder's former client, opposition leader Victoire Ingabire, was arrested this month, accused of being involved in the formation of a terrorist organization.

More than 500,000 Rwandans, mostly ethnic Tutsis but some moderate Hutus, were massacred by Hutus during the 1994 genocide. The massacres ended when mostly Tutsi rebels led by current Rwandan president Paul Kagame defeated the extremists.

Erlinder has said the official version of events is wrong and it's inaccurate to blame one side. He said killings by Hutus of Hutus who were protecting Tutsis would not be genocide under the U.N. definition, but may count as war crimes or crimes against humanity. He also said the tribunal ruled last year that there was insufficient evidence to support the view that the genocide was a conspiracy planned long in advance. He said other researchers have concluded that more Hutus than Tutsis may have been slain.

"These are not my conclusions, these are conclusions of others," Erlinder said. "Essentially I'm being accused of reporting evidence and the conclusions of others. That's really what lies behind the criminal charges against me."

Meanwhile, a United Nations report released Oct. 1 accuses Rwandan troops and rebel allies of slaughtering tens of thousands of Hutus in Congo in the 1990s. The report outlines many incidents that qualify as crimes against humanity, or possibly genocide if taken together, by the Rwandan army, which was hunting down rebel Hutus.

At the time of the report's release, the genocide suggestion angered Rwandan officials. Rwandan Foreign Affairs Minister Louise Mushikiwabo called it "flawed and dangerous from start to finish."

A message left with the Rwandan Embassy in Washington was not immediately returned Friday. The U.S. Department of State had no immediate comment on the possible charges against Erlinder.

Erlinder said his prosecution could have larger implications: If defense attorneys aren't immune from prosecution by Kagame's government, U.N. tribunal defendants won't be able to get any meaningful representation.

"It means all the defense counsel for the U.N. tribunal have got to say, 'How do we do our job?' They have to go to Rwanda, and their investigators have to go to Rwanda," he said. "How can the tribunal function? It's almost impossible."

RWANDA TO SUMMON AMERICAN LAWYER TO FACE GENOCIDE DENIAL CHARGES

2010-10-22T06:35:00.001-07:00

Arusha, October 21, 2010 (FH) – Rwandan Prosecutor General, Martin Ngoga said Wednesday that his country would summon American lawyer Peter Erlinder, a defence counsel at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) in the coming few weeks to face charges of genocide denial.
‘’It is going to happen very soon. I would say in a couple of weeks,’’ Ngoga told a press conference jointly conducted by the Spokesperson of the ICTR, Roland Amoussouga.

Erlinder is lead counsel for genocide-convict Major Aloys Ntabakuze who has appealed against life imprisonment sentence rendered by ICTR on December 18, 2008. His appeal is yet to be heard.

Ngoga’s statement follows a recent decision by the Appeals Chamber of the Tribunal on a motion filed by Ntabakuze.

‘’We have a substantive case against Erlinder,’’ Ngoga pointed out , adding that ‘’genocide denial is not acceptable. It doesn’t matter wherever you come from.’’

He explained that if Erlinder does not respond to the summons he would be a fugitive and Rwanda would opt to use the Interpol, to track him down for his arrest. ‘’He is a lawyer and he knows the consequences of jumping bail,’’ he warned.

‘’We will proceed as planned to prosecute him for genocide denial and make sure that throughout the process we are not infringing his functional immunity as defence lawyer of the ICTR,’’ Rwandan Prosecutor General emphasized.

In its decision of October 6, the Appeals Chamber recognized the functional immunity of the defence counsels in the course of executing their duties in defence of their clients before the ICTR.

‘’The small reference to a particular document that was seen to be infringing his immunity will be withdrawn from our charge sheet,’’ Ngoga said.

Erlinder went to Rwanda to defend the opposition leader, Victoire Ingabire of unregistered United Democratic Forces (UDF-Inkingi) party, who wished to run for presidency alongside President Paul Kagame and who has herself been charged with genocide denial.

St. Paul attorney facing denial-of-genocide charges in Rwanda

2010-10-21T08:16:00.000-07:00

By BOB VON STERNBERG, Star Tribune

A St. Paul law professor jailed last spring in Rwanda will be criminally charged with denying the genocide that devastated that country in the early 1990s.

Rwanda's chief prosecutor, Martin Ngoga, said Peter Erlinder will be charged with denying the genocide. Erlinder, a law professor at the William Mitchell College of Law in St. Paul was arrested in May and was released in June on bail.

Ngoga made his remarks in Arusha, Tanzania, where the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda is based.

Erlinder, 62, is a well-known human rights lawyer who represented Victoire Ingabire, a Hutu leader who unsuccessfully challenged President Paul Kagame in last August's 9 elections.

Ingabire was arrested in April on a charge similar to Erlinder's -- denying the genocide of the nation's Tutsis.

More than 500,000 Rwandans, mostly ethnic Tutsis, were massacred by Hutus during the 1994 genocide. Erlinder contends it's inaccurate to blame one side. He believes Rwandan authorities intended to make him disappear when he was arrested but his contact with a U.S. diplomat saved him.

Earlier this year, Erlinder helped file suit in U.S. federal court alleging that Kagame helped incite the violence that triggered the genocide. He also has raised questions about Kagame's complicity during his work before the United Nations International Criminal Tribunal, which is weighing Rwandan war crimes.

Erlinder was imprisoned for 21 days before Rwandan officials released him and allowed him to fly home.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Rusesabagina Challenges the UN to take the Next Steps to End the Culture of Impunity in Rwanda

2010-10-04T10:42:00.000-07:00

Paul Rusesabagina, Founder and President of the Hotel Rwanda Rusesabagina Foundation (HRRF), today challenged the United Nations to take the next logical steps after the release last week of the “Democratic Republic of the Congo, 1993-2003, The Report of the Mapping Exercise.” He asked the UN to take next steps to investigate the crimes that the Rwandan Government has perpetrated within Rwanda and to pursue legal action on the charges outlined in the report.

Rusesabagina said “During the Rwandan Genocide, as I struggled day after day to save the 1,268 people under my watch at the Mille Colline Hotel in Kigali, I often thought the UN had stopped caring about the people of Rwanda. But, the release of this report, and, the idea that the world will now be better informed about the realities in the Great Lakes Region of Africa, makes me believe that the UN has not completely forgotten about my fellow Rwandans.”

“Now, the UN, and the International community, must continue to push Rwanda and the countries of the Great Lakes region and end the culture of impunity once and for all,” said Rusesabagina. “I most strongly urge the United Nations to pursue the charges outlined in the report until justice is served for the victims.”

In addition to pursuing the Court cases, the HRRF also asks the United Nations to look at not only the crimes that have take place inside the Congo, but also those crimes that the Rwandan Government has committed with in Rwanda.

The report is an important first step for the more than 5 million innocent victims of murder, rape, and crimes against humanity in the Congo. The Rwandan government and others in the region are shown to have used the Congo as a killing field while they plundered the natural resources to fuel this conflict and line their pockets.

"A full and independent international investigation is needed for all of these allegations. It is essential that the Rwandan government and others involved not be allowed to use the threat of withdrawing its peace keepers, or any other political motives, as an excuse to halt the important justice process that is only beginning with this report,” Rusesabagina said.

Rusesabagina urges the use of the full power of the United Nations to look in to the atrocities, war crimes and crimes against humanity that the Rwandan government has perpetrated against innocents throughout the region, including inside the country of Rwanda. "The Congolese government has already noted that it may not have the ability to pursue all of these charges, and thus international action to pursue justice for the victims is clearly needed."

He concluded, “This UN mapping report highlights the need for a truth, justice and reconciliation process that can bring lasting peace to the region. We hope that the United Nations and the international community will stand with the Hotel Rwanda Rusesabagina Foundation as we push for the next steps and work to end the cycle of impunity in the region.”

Paul Rusesabagina Applauds UN Report

2010-10-01T15:46:00.001-07:00

Paul Rusesabagina, Founder and President of the Hotel Rwanda Rusesabagina Foundation (HRRF), today applauded the release of the “Democratic Republic of the Congo, 1993-2003, The Report of the Mapping Exercise” and the idea that the world will now be better informed about the realities in the Great Lakes Region of Africa.

“My Foundation has worked for years to educate the international community about the reality of life in Rwanda and the Great Lakes Region and to advocate for a Truth and Reconciliation process to heal the people of the region and stop the violence. There have been atrocities, human rights violations, and war crimes and yes, even genocide, committed by all the sides in the Rwandan civil war and since then. This report acknowledges that truth.” said Rusesabagina.

This report validates critiques that the Hotel Rwanda Rusesabagina Foundation and many other human rights organizations have been making of the Rwandan Government in recent years.

The recent election brought internal repression in to the public view. This report is an essential recognition by the UN that the current Rwandan government has been involved for years in war crimes, crimes against humanity, and the plundering of the Congo.

Dr. Brian Endless, Senior Advisor to the HRRF noted that “The report is an important step for the more than 5 million innocent victims of murder, rape, and crimes against humanity in the Congo. The Rwandan government is shown to have used the Congo as a killing field while they plundered the natural resources to fuel this conflict and line their pockets.”

The report shows that Rwanda and the region are still far from peace and reconciliation since the 1994 genocide and that the violence has continued. The fact that the Rwandan government is fighting a proxy war in the Congo is clearly shown by this report. This document is an important step for the future of the region that highlights the need for a truth, justice and reconciliation process that can bring lasting peace to the region.

South Africa's Israel boycott

2010-09-29T20:36:00.000-07:00

By Ronnie Kasrils

When Chief Albert Luthuli made a call for the international community to support a boycott of apartheid South Africa in 1958, the response was a widespread and dedicated movement that played a significant role in ending apartheid. Amid the sporting boycotts, the pledges of playwrights and artists, the actions by workers to stop South African goods from entering local markets and the constant pressure on states to withdraw their support for the apartheid regime, the role of academics also came to the fore.

One significant move was the resolution taken by 150 Irish academics not to accept academic posts or appointments in apartheid South Africa. In 1971, the council of Trinity College Dublin took a decision not to own shares in any company that traded or had a subsidiary that traded in the Republic. The council later resolved that the university would not retain any formal or institutional links with any academic or state institution in South Africa.

Almost four decades later, the campaign for boycott, divestment and sanctions is gaining ground again in South Africa, this time against Israeli apartheid.

Earlier this month, more than 100 academics across South Africa, from over 13 universities, pledged their support to a University of Johannesburg initiative for ending collaboration with the Israeli occupation. The campaign has since grown to include up to 200 supporters. The nationwide academic petition calling for the termination of an agreement between the University of Johannesburg and the Israeli Ben-Gurion University of the Negev has attracted widespread attention. With the recent endorsement of some of the leading voices in South Africa, such as Kader Asmal, Breyten Breytenbach, John Dugard, Antjie Krog, Mahmood Mamdani, Barney Pityana and Desmond Tutu, the statement confirms the strength of the boycott call in South Africa:

"As academics we acknowledge that all of our scholarly work takes place within larger social contexts – particularly in institutions committed to social transformation. South African institutions are under an obligation to revisit relationships forged during the apartheid era with other institutions that turned a blind eye to racial oppression in the name of 'purely scholarly' or 'scientific work'."

Israeli universities are not being targeted for boycott because of their ethnic or religious identity, but because of their complicity in the Israeli system of apartheid. As the academics who have supported the call clearly articulate in their statement, Ben-Gurion University maintains material links to the military occupation. Israel's attacks on Gaza in 2009, which saw the killing of more than 400 children, drew immediate and widespread international condemnation. Israel's violation of international law was further confirmed by South Africa's Justice Richard Goldstone in his report to the United Nations. Ben-Gurion University directly and indirectly supported these attacks, through the offering of scholarships and extra tuition to students who served in active combat units and by providing special grants to students who went on reserve duty for each day of service.

The principled position of academics in South Africa to distance themselves from institutions that support the occupation is a reflection of the advances already made in exposing that the Israeli regime is guilty of an illegal and immoral colonial project. South Africa's Human Sciences Research Council, in a response to an investigation commissioned by the South African government in 2009, issued a report confirming that the everyday structural racism and oppression imposed by Israel constitutes a regime of apartheid and settler colonialism similar to the one that shaped our lives in South Africa.

More recently, the international response to the shameful attack on the flotilla carrying medical supplies and other basic goods to the ghettoised population of Gaza was a sign of the erosion of Israel's legitimacy in the eyes of the international community. In South Africa, the recall of our ambassador to Israel and the issuing of one of the strongest forms of diplomatic condemnation, the démarche, to Israel's ambassador in Pretoria was a strong statement of recognition by the South African government that Israel's actions deserve our utmost contempt.

The campaign for boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel has now launched in South Africa. Trade unions in South Africa have publicly committed their support; most notably with the action by South African Transport and Allied Workers Union dockworkers early last year to refuse offloading Israeli goods at Durban harbour – a commitment that was renewed in July this year.

The consumer boycott has also been gaining ground, including the launch of the recent public campaign by leading South African activists to boycott Ahava Dead Sea Cosmetics and to join the international movement to boycott Israeli products.

The boycott and sanctions campaign ultimately helped liberate both black and white South Africans. Palestinians and Israelis will similarly benefit from this international non-violent campaign – a campaign that all South Africans can take forward.

The petition to terminate the relationship between University of Johannesburg and Ben-Gurion University of the Negev can be accessed at www.ujpetition.com.

Outrage at UN Decision to Exonerate Shell for Oil Pollution in Niger Delta

2010-08-30T15:05:00.001-07:00

Oil giant blamed for 10% of 9m barrels leaked in 40 years • Report claims rest of leaking oil caused by saboteurs
by John Vidal

A three-year investigation by the United Nations will almost entirely exonerate Royal Dutch Shell for 40 years of oil pollution in the Niger delta, causing outrage among communities who have long campaigned to force the multinational to clean up its spills and pay compensation.

Oil pipelines in Okrika, near Port Harcourt. The UNEP denies it has been influenced by Shell, which paid for its $10m, three-year study. (Photograph: Ed Kashi)

The $10m (£6.5m) investigation by the UN environment programme (UNEP), paid for by Shell, will say that only 10% of oil pollution in Ogoniland has been caused by equipment failures and company negligence, and concludes that the rest has come from local people illegally stealing oil and sabotaging company pipelines.

The shock disclosure was made by Mike Cowing, the head of a UN team of 100 people who have been studying environmental damage in the region.

Cowing said that the 300 known oil spills in the Ogoniland region of the delta caused massive damage, but added that 90% of the spills had been caused by "bunkering" gangs trying to steal oil.

His comments, in a briefing in Geneva last week, have caused deep offence among the families of Ken Saro-Wiwa and the eight other Ogoni leaders who were hanged by the Nigerian government in 1995 after a peaceful uprising against Shell's pollution.

With 606 oil fields, the Niger delta supplies 8.2% of the crude oil imported by the US. Life expectancy in its rural communities, half of which have no access to clean water, has fallen to little more than 40 over the past two generations.

Communities accept that bunkering has become rife in some areas of Ogoniland, but say this is a recent development and most of the historical pollution has been caused by Shell operations.

Last year, Amnesty calculated that the equivalent of at least 9m barrels of oil has been spilled in the delta over the past half a century, nearly twice as much as the 5m barrels unleashed in the Gulf of Mexico by the Deepwater Horizon disaster.

Tonight the investigation was accused of bias by Nigerians and environmental groups who said the study - paid for by Shell and commissioned by the Nigerian government, who both have massive oil interests in the region - was unbalanced.

Ben Ikari, an Ogoni activist, said: "Nobody from Ogoniland would be surprised, because the federal government of Nigeria and Shell are the same cabal that killed Ken Saro-Wiwa and others."

Ben Amunwa of London-based oil watchdog group Platform said: "The UNEP study relies on bogus figures from Shell and incomplete government records. Many Ogoni suspect that the report's focus on sabotage and bunkering will be used to justify military repression notorious in the Niger delta, where non-violent activists, including Ken Saro-Wiwa, were executed."

Cowing defended the UN report. In a series of emails seen by the Guardian, he said: "UNEP is not responsible for allocating responsibility for the number of spills being found in Ogoniland. Rather, we are focusing on the science. The figures referred to are those of the ministry of the environment and the department of petroleum resources.

"This is a Nigerian issue, not a UNEP issue. However, I would add that from our extensive field work throughout Ogoniland we have witnessed, on a daily basis, very large scale bunkering operations.

"It's very controversial. We cannot say whether a particular spill is from one cause or another. Our observation is that there is a serious [bunkering ] problem. I am being seen to be siding with the oil companies, but I am not.

"We were provided with the official spill site list. This is given by the oil companies themselves but is endorsed by the [government] agencies. We are not on the side of the oil companies."

He denied the UN was being influenced by Shell or the government. "We believe that it is correct that Shell [Nigeria] fund the study, as this is in compliance with the internationally accepted norm of the 'polluter pays'. No party ... will be able to influence the science."

The full report, due to be published by December, is expected to warn of an environmental catastrophe.

"This is not directly comparable to the spills that occurred in the Gulf [of Mexico]," said Cowing. "But we have a serious and profound problem."

Tonight, environmental groups expressed shock at the report. Nnimmo Bassey, chair of Friends the Earth International and director of Environmental Rights Action, Nigeria's leading environment group, said: "It is incredible that the UN says that 90% is caused by communities. The UNEP assessment is being paid for by Shell. Their conclusions may be tailored to satisfy their client. We monitor spills regularly and our observation is the direct opposite of what UNEP is planning to report."

A June 2009 report by Amnesty International called the damage in the delta a "human rights tragedy", and blamed the government and oil firms, mainly Shell, for years of pollution. It recognised that oil bunkering had caused spills, but said "the scale of this problem is not clear".

The UN report saw more than 1,000 soil and water tests and other investigations carried out, and hundreds of communities consulted. The data generated is the first step towards a massive clean-up.

Oil production in the delta started during the 1950s, but was suspended in the 90s due to unrest. The oil fields in Ogoniland have since remained dormant.

World Bank Land Grab Report Under Fire

2010-08-30T14:54:00.001-07:00

July 29, 2010, 8:21 AM ET

Source: Wall Street Journal

The World Bank has prepared a report on massive investments into developing world agriculture, a practice shorthanded as land grabbing.

The report is due for publication next month, but leaks are already getting out, and causing a stir among Brussels’ huge development activist community.

Amid the food and land bubble leading up to 2008, African land became the target of big corporations and sovereign wealth funds.

Most famously, Daewoo Logistics Corp. in 2008 was able to get a 99-year lease on a spread of land in Madagascar as big as Qatar, a deal that was later overturned after a coup.

The World Bank report criticizes land grabbing for not meshing with proper development strategies and leading to conflict.

Development advocates are up in arms about the Bank’s handling of the report, which say flatly contradicts the Bank’s own policy of encouraging international trade and investment. That’s why the bank proposes releasing it at the height of the summer, when noone will be watching, they claim.

In a phone interview, Olivier de Schutter, a Belgian who has been U.N. Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food since 2008, explained the outrage.

“The World Bank encourages these investments,” he said. “They argue it’s a solution for the lack of equipment, the lack of storage facilities in the development world.”

“Investment is needed,” continued Mr. de Schutter, who teaches at the University of Louvain in Belgium and Columbia Unversity. “But not investment under any conditions. You don’t want to encourage or allow a market for speculators.”

The arrival of big outside investors “often pushes the original land users off the land,” he said. “It’s an important consequence for communities who have no legal titles.”

His goal, and that of other development activists, he said, is to raise awareness about the land grab issue. “The World Bank is a complex animal, it’s not going to change right away.”

Still, he added, “this report is embarrassing for the Bank, and that’s why they’re releasing it in the middle of summer.”

A World Bank official said the Washington-based institution would never seek to muffle the work and findings of its researchers.

ICTR Defense Lawyers Condemn Murder of ICTR Lawyer Mwaikusa: Continuing Threats from Rwandan Government

2010-08-30T06:43:00.001-07:00

ARUSHA, TZ --The Bureau of the ICTR Association des Avocats de la Defense (ADAD), notes with sadness and alarm the murder of our ICTR colleague, University of Dar es Salaam Law Professor Jwani Mwaikusa, who was shot to death at his home on July 14. Professor Mwaikusa had recently prevented the transfer of ICTR defendants to Rwanda on “lack of fair trial” grounds, and announced the appeal of his client’s July 3 conviction.

Our colleague’s murder is not an isolated incident. Within the past month, a prominent Rwandan opposition journalist was also shot to death in front of his home; a former Rwandan general survived an apparent assassination attempt in front of his home in South Africa, where he is seeking asylum; the de-capitated body of the Rwandan Green Party Vice-president was found near his abandoned car and, the Party’s President has been publicly threatened with assassination.

Hundreds of potential Rwandan opposition candidates and supporters have been arrested or disappeared. Presidential candidate Victoire Ingabire was arrested for suggesting that both Tutsi and Hutu were victims during the 1990-94 civil war and genocide, and her Dutch, U.S. and Rwandan lawyers were also arrested.

The Mwaikusa murder also follows the illegal arrest of other lawyers. U.S. Law Professor Peter Erlinder was arrested in late May on “genocide-denial” charges based on his public statements arising from his work in the ICTR Military 1 Trial, in which four former senior military officers were acquitted of “genocide conspiracy” charges in February 2009, and his representation of Madame Ingabire. ICTR defense lawyers refused to participate in proceedings after his arrest, and he was released after an international campaign.

But, the Rwandan government refuses to recognize meaningful UN-granted immunity for Erlinder or other ICTR defense counsel. Defense lawyer Peter Robinson (a former Assistant U.S. Attorney) has asked to withdraw from the ICTR representation because a meaningful defense is not possible, under current conditions. Other ICTR defense attorneys are considering similar measures.

Rwandan government threats to ICTR defense counsel are also not isolated incidents. In 2006, ICTR defense lawyer Me. Gakwaya was arrested on a Rwandan “genocide” warrant when he arrived at the ICTR to represent his client and, although he was eventually released, he was forced to end his ICTR work. Many other defense team members have been forced to give up ICTR work, because of threats, or arrest, by the Rwanda government. The Erlinder arrest, Mwaikusa murder and continuing threats against defense team members make clear that the ICTR cannot guarantee the safety of defense team members, anywhere in Africa.

In addition, during the past-2 months credible media reports have documented the systematic withholding of evidence helpful to the defense by the ICTR Prosecutor, which further deepens our concern because only the losing side in the Rwanda civil war has been prosecuted at the ICTR. The ADAD Bureau is deeply concerned that the impossibility of meaningful defense at the ICTR has called into question the legitimacy of the ICTR, itself, an open question.

ADAD calls on the UN Security Council to ensure the safety of ICTR defense teams; to undertake an independent investigation of the Mwaikuza murder; and, to re-establish the integrity of the Tribunal by fully disclosing evidence of crimes committed by both the former and current Rwandan government .

- 30 -

Prof. Peter Erlinder
Wm. Mitchell College of Law
St. Paul, MN. USA
651-290-6384

Guinea protests over 'rigged polls'

2010-07-13T08:17:00.001-07:00

Around 3,000 people marched in Conakry to protest the election results [AFP]
Police in Guinea have fired teargas at thousands of people marching against alleged fraud in last month's first round of presidential elections.

The protest took place in the capital Conakry on Monday, in defiance of a government ban on demonstrations.

Cellou Dalein Diallo, the former prime minister, won the June 27 election with nearly 40 per cent of the vote and is set to go forward into a runoff with second-placed Alpha Conde on July 18.

But losing parties including supporters of Sidya Toure, another ex-prime minister, say they have evidence of rigging.

On Monday a crowd of around 3,000 people, largely composed of women, marched in front of the electoral commission and the supreme court chanting "Sidya was cheated" and "we want Sidya for the second round".

Irregularities

Toure missed out on a place in a runoff vote to be the west African country's first freely elected president, after gaining 15.60 per cent of the first-round vote, according to provisional results.

Diallo scored 39.72 per cent and Conde 20.67 per cent.

Many of the initial 24 candidates have alleged irregularities in voting and they have eight days to contest the results, according to electoral commission rules.

The commission has itself admitted "many cases of fraud".

Over three million Guineans, 77 per cent of registered voters, participated in the country's first democratic election since independence from France in 1958 in a bid to end half a century of civilian and military dictatorships.

Arrests made over Uganda bombings

2010-07-13T08:15:00.000-07:00

Andrew Simmons reports on the destruction in Kampala and the president's response

Ugandan authorities have made a number of arrests in connection with explosions at two sites in Kampala that left at least 74 people dead.

Kale Kayihura, the inspector-general of police, said on Tuesday that investigators had also found a unexploded suicide bomb belt at a third site, a discotheque, in the capital.

Somalia's al-Shabab group has said it carried out the attacks on Sunday.

"We have established that what was found at the discotheque was in fact a suicide vest, and it could also be used as an IED [improvised explosive device]," Kayihura said.

The vest, laden with explosives and fitted with a detonator, was found on Monday, packed in a laptop bag at a club in the southwestern Kampala district of Makindye.

"It's possible that the person who was supposed to do this was [a coward] because the system was intact," he said.

One blast hit an Ethiopian restaurant in the south of the city on Sunday, while the other occurred at a rugby sports club as people watched the World Cup final.

Al-Shabab statement

The near-simultaneous attacks on Sunday were the first time the group, which has carried out multiple suicide attacks inside Somalia, has struck outside of the country.

"Al-Shabab was behind the two blasts in Uganda," Sheik Ali Mohamud Rage, the group's spokesperson, announced in Mogadishu.

"We thank the mujahideens that carried out the attack. We are sending a message to Uganda and Burundi, if they do not take out their Amisom [African Union Mission in Somalia] troops from Somalia, blasts will continue and it will happen."

INTERACT

Were you at the scene of the Kampala attacks?
Send us your photos, video and personal accounts
Uganda and Burundi currently have peacekeepers in Somalia as part of a stabilisation mission supported by the African Union.

"[Al-Shabab's] strategy is to undermine getting troops into Somalia through attacks like this," Simmons said.

Hussein Mohammed Noor, a Somalia analyst, said the Ethiopian restaurant was likely targeted because of "Ethiopia's involvement in Somalia".

However, he told Al Jazeera that these attacks were unlikely to make African countries reconsider sending troops to Somalia.

Lieutenant-Colonel Felix Kulaigye, a Ugandan army spokesman, said: "Al-Shabab is the reason why we should stay in Somalia. We have to pacify Somalia."

Kayihura that the attacks, which took place amid large crowds at the two locations, could have been carried out by suicide bombers.

"These bombs were definitely targeting World Cup crowds," he said.

Severed head found

Investigators reportedly found the severed head of a Somali national at the scene of one of the blasts.

Officials said 60 Ugandans, nine Ethiopians or Eritreans, one Irish woman, and one Asian were also among those killed.

Two people could not be identified. At least 85 people were wounded.

The blasts had 'all the hallmarks' of al-Shabab
The attacks left scores of football fans reeling in shock.

"We were watching soccer here and then when there were three minutes to the end of the match an explosion came ... and it was so loud," Juma Seiko, who was at the Kampala Rugby Club, said.

Hassan Isilow, a Somali analyst living in Kampala, said that Somalis in Uganda feared reprisals after the claims that al-Shabab launched the attacks.

"There is fear within the Somali community at the moment," he said. "People are in panic."

"[Somalis] own lots of businesses around the city and most of them are not working today."

Ramtane Lamamra, the AU commissioner for peace and security, condemned the attack "in the strongest possible terms".

"The attacks prove that terrorists can hit anywhere, including Africa," he said.

Lamamra said that the body's annual meeting of heads of state would go ahead in Kampala next week.

Rwanda: Kagame tortures opposition, arrests Ingabire's new lawyer

2010-07-06T08:15:00.000-07:00

By Ann Garrison.

Rwandan opposition leaders Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza and Frank Habineza report ongoing torture of opposition party members arrested in Kigali on June 24th, 2010, as they attempted to protest exclusion from this year's presidential election.
Ingabire is the presidential candidate of Rwanda's FDU-Inkingi Party, Habineza of the Democratic Green Party of Rwanda.

Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza, presidential candidate of Rwanda's FDU-Inkingi Party, whom Peter Erlnder flew to Rwanda to defend against charges he is now facing himself. She has been warned that she will be arrested again if she continues to speak to the press, and now her Rwandan lawyer, Theogene Muhayeyezu, has been arrested as well.

Ingabire also reports that her Rwandan lawyer, Mr. Theogene Muhayeyezu, has been arrested, tortured, and detained incommunicado. Yesterday her former U.S. lawyer, Peter Erlinder, and his Kenyan lawyers Kennedy Ogeto and Otachi Gershom, addressed the Chicago Chapter of the National Lawyers' Guild, about the meaning of Erlinder's three weeks incarceration in Rwanda after traveling there to defend Ingabire against charges of "genocide ideology," which he called "trumped up charges" and "thought crime." Rwanda's genocide ideology statutes ban disagreement with the official version of the 1994 Rwanda Genocide, or, many say, disagreement with sitting President Paul Kagame.
Rwandan Police arrested hundreds of opposition party members on June 24th, including presidential candidate Bernard Ntaganda. Ntaganda had called for the day's protest, saying that "silence is acceptance" of the opposition's exclusion from the election. He remains in prison, now on a hunger strike, and two other P.S. Imberakuri Party officers, including the Secretary General, have
Parti Social-Imberakuri
Rwandan Police arrested Bernard Ntaganda, presidential candidate of the dissident wing of Rwanda's Parti Social-Imberakuri, on the morning of April 24th, before he could leave his home to attend a protest of the opposition's exclusion from the election, which he had called, saying "Silence is acceptance."

No candidates who've been allowed to run against Kagame in the election now heading for August 9th polls have the remotest chance of defeating him; most observers describe them as faux candidates who agreed to run so as to make Kagame's re-election look credible. Banned Umuseso Newspaper Editors Didas Gasana and Charles Kabonero, both of whom have fled to Uganda to escape imprisonment themselves, say that election observers from the UK and the US can do no more than validate a sham.

Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza of the United Democratic Forces, reports, from Kigali, that the opposition members still under arrest are being held in cells, handcuffed day and night, and tortured, with the following consequences:
"1. Ms. Alice MUHIRWA, the FDU-Inkingi Party Treasurer, is still bleeding due to boots kicks into her stomach. She has been denied access to a medical doctor.
2. Mr. Sylvain SIBOMANA, the FDU Secretary General, needs an urgent X-Ray after being beaten hard several times with legs and arms tied behind his back.
3. Mr. Theoneste SIBOMANA, FDU Party Leader in Kigali, needs to be evaluated for head injury, possibly a concussion, after his head was banged on the wall many times.
4. Maitre Theogene MUHAYEYEZU, the new defense lawyer for Ms. Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza, the party's chair and presidential candidate, has been tortured after arrest and detained incommunicado.
5. The medical condition of the party member Martin NTAVUKA is not known."
The US Embassy is next door to Rwandan President Paul Kagame's offices, and the U.S.A. and the UK are the dominant foreign powers in the region, and the most generous donors to the Rwandan government. Opposition leaders Habineza and Ingabire have both called on the U.S. and the UK to make real democracy and respect for human rights in Rwanda a condition of their ongoing support.
Umuseso Editor Didas Gasana said, "I would like the American people to know that their tax dollars are not going to build hospitals and schools, but to support one of the most brutal dictatorships in Africa."

New row over colonial past as Congo marks independence

2010-06-30T18:38:00.000-07:00

50th anniversary triggers rancorous debate as Belgians may face charges over Lumumba killing

Leigh Phillips in Brussels

King Albert II of Belgium will today join African leaders including Jacob Zuma and Robert Mugabe at a ceremony in Kinshasa to mark the 50th anniversary of Congo's independence. The capital of the Democratic Republic of the Congo has received a facelift for today's military parade, but the anniversary has triggered a rancorous debate about the colonial record of Belgium, where a campaign is under way to prosecute ageing civil servants over the 1961 murder of a Congolese independence hero.
Thousands of Congolese lined the streets to cheer the arrival of "their" king on Monday night , according to Le Soir, Belgium's bestselling Francophone daily, which refigured its masthead from blue to leopard print and renamed itself Le Soir de Kinshasa for a day.
The Belgian monarch will not be making speeches while in Congo, however. He is keen to avoid any echo of his brother's notorious farewell speech in 1960, in which he saluted the "genius" of Belgium's colonialism.
The Belgian government is also anxious that the visit should not be seen as endorsing Congo's poor human rights record under President Joseph Kabila.
Meanwhile, a team of Belgian, American and German lawyers is preparing to file criminal complaints relating to the assassination in January 1961 of Patrice Lumumba, Congo's first post-independence prime minister.
The legal team is targeting 12 former civil servants who worked in the Belgian colonial administration.
Led by Christophe Marchand, the lawyers represent Lumumba's three sons and are basing their case on a Belgian parliamentary investigation in 2001 into the country's involvement in the assassination.
"The parliamentary commission found that Belgium was morally responsible but not legally responsible," Marchand said.
"We analysed the documents, the facts established by the commission, and found there were international legal consequences.
"The events of 1960-61 occurred at a time of international armed conflict. This means there is no statute of limitations, as these constitute war crimes."
The complaint will be filed in October against individuals Marchand declines to name and who are now in their 80s and 90s.
"It's going to be a hard case, for sure. The defence will be very tough," Marchand said. "The descendants of Belgians in Congo want to avoid trials at all cost.They will argue that this is not the right jurisdiction, that the statute of limitations does apply, and that this does not count as an international conflict. And there is still a strong taboo in Belgium about discussing this subject."
Researchers believe that around half the population was killed in the Belgian colony of the Congo Free State – in effect, the personal property of Leopold.
Louis Michel, Belgium's liberal ex-foreign minister and until last year the EU's development commissioner, caused controversy last week by declaring Leopold II "a true visionary for his time, a hero", and a man who "brought civilisation".
Michel, now an MEP, said: "The Belgians built railways, schools and hospitals and boosted economic growth. Yes," he said, "maybe colonisation was domineering, but at a certain moment, it brought civilisation."
Adam Hochschild, author of King Leopold's Ghosts, about the Belgian Congo, said that sections of Belgian society were still unwilling to address the past: "Leopold's aim was quite open: to extract as much wealth from the territory as he could. In today's money, this amounted to $1bn in profit over 23 years. He did so by putting much of the male population under forced labour. Between 8 and 10 million Congolese died."
Leopold pioneered particularly brutal forms of forced labour for rubber extraction. To make sure the Congolese men did not run off, the Belgians held their women hostage until they came back.
"The men were worked to death and the women raped and starved. Quite how this can be hailed as the delivery of progress and civilisation is a mystery to me," said Hochschild.
Belgium still boasts a Royal Belgian Overseas Union which aims "to restore the image of the Belgian colonial period, and to combat all libel and disinformation against the Belgian colonial era."In the Matonge quarter of Brussels, home to Belgium's many Congolese immigrants, posters denounce the royal visit and Belgian "neocolonialism".
At the Bana Congo barber's, Masudi Serge said the royal visit was unwanted.
"We are not happy, not happy at all. Leopold was a Hitler. There have never been any real inquiries here, any trials. How can we be happy when they are still profiting from Congo?"

Sudanese rebels surrender to ICC

2010-06-23T20:12:00.000-07:00

Submitted by Jurist

Two Sudanese rebel leaders suspected of committing war crimes related to the ongoing Darfur violence surrendered June 16 to the International Criminal Court (ICC). Abdallah Banda Abakaer Nourain (Banda) and Saleh Mohammed Jerbo Jamus (Jerbo) are suspected in connection with the September 2007 attack on African Union (AU) peacekeeping troops at Haskanita, which resulted in the death of 12 peacekeepers. Summonses for Banda and Jerbo were issued under seal by Pre-Trial Chamber I last August and include charges of murder, intentionally attacking a peacekeeping mission, and "pillaging."

ICC Chief Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo praised the voluntary appearance of the men saying, "It shows the importance of co-operation by all parties to the conflict, as required by United Nations Security Council Resolution 1593." Ocampo also indicated that the appearance of the men means that the ICC will have the chance to prosecute all suspects they wished to prosecute in connection with the Haskanita attack. A third rebel leader, Bahar Idriss Abu Garda, was charged by the ICC earlier this year in connection with the attack, but the charges were dropped due to lack of evidence. Banda and Jerbo are scheduled to make their first appearance before the court tomorrow.

Last week, Ocampo called on the UN Security Council to support the arrest of two other Sudanese men who have been indicted for war crimes in Sudan. Ocampo urged the Security Council to secure the execution of the outstanding arrest warrants for Ahmad Harun and Ali Kushayb in light of the fact that the Sudanese government, which bears the primary responsibility to do so, has not. Last month, Ocampo referred Sudan to the Security Council for lack of cooperation in the pursuit of Harun and Kushayb. Sudan, which is not a permanent member of the ICC under the Rome Statute, refuses to recognize the court's jurisdiction, stating that "the International Criminal Court has no place in this crisis at all."

Peacekeepers shot dead in Darfur

2010-06-23T20:09:00.000-07:00

Reuters

Unidentified assailants have killed three Rwandan peacekeepers in Sudan's Darfur region.

Monday's attack is the latest assault on members of Unamid, a joint peacekeeping mission by the UN and the African Union.

More than 20 camouflaged attackers opened fire on the soldiers as they guarded civilian engineers building a Unamid base in the mountainous Jabel Mara area, the peacekeeping force said in a statement.

A Unamid official said on condition of anonymity that three attackers were also killed in the hour-long gun battle that ensued.

Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary-general, has called on Khartoum to arrest the attackers.

Surge in fighting

Aid workers say they have been unable to get access to large parts of eastern Jabel Mara since February, when there was a surge in fighting between Sudanese army forces and rebels.

The Unamid force, made up of mostly African soldiers and police, took over from a African Union mission. It is still short of its expected strength of 26,000 and is supposed to keep the peace in an area the size of Spain.

A total of 27 Unamid police officers and soldiers have been killed in attacks since the force came to Darfur in 2008, Unamid said.

A Unamid patrol travelling towards Jabel Mara in March was ambushed and held overnight. Five Rwandan peacekeepers were killed in two attacks in Darfur in December.

Violence flared in the mostly desert region in 2003 when rebels demanding more autonomy for the territory launched a revolt against Sudan's government.

Sudanese government troops and allied fighters launched a counter-insurgency campaign which Washington and some activists called genocide.

Khartoum dismisses the accusation and accuses the Western media of exaggerating the conflict.

Deadly Silence: Rwanda's Never Again Is Once Again?

2010-06-23T11:27:00.000-07:00

by Alice Gatebuke

People often say, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." As a Rwandan Genocide survivor, I would not be alive if not for good people who stood up, advocated for, and protected me, facilitating my ultimate survival amidst the deafening silence of the international community. I was nine-years-old when I found myself caught in a maelstrom of violence that threatened to destroy everything I knew and held dear. And in many ways, all of those things, including family, friends, neighbors, home, and communities were destroyed.

I remember having a group of men wrap me in a blanket and smuggling me to a safe house in a different neighborhood. Petrified, I watched as these men accosted and negotiated with my would-be killers on a daily basis to save my life. I watched in horror and helplessness as my mother and brother were taken from my sister, young cousin and I to be killed. My mother and brother were told they had reached the end of their lives, and were then given tools to dig their own graves. Through the intervention of old friends, strangers, and new allies, my mother and brother's lives were spared, and our family was reunited.

I cannot imagine how my life would have been different had these individuals not intervened. They placed themselves and their families in danger by advocating for us. In our darkest moments I witnessed the zenith of human compassion. I saw the beauty and potential of the human spirit when good people unite for a good cause. Farmers, street kids, courageous women with children raised their voices against a group of evil doers. Through their acts of solidarity, lives were spared. My faith in humanity was reassured even in the midst of so much violence, death, and destruction. Sadly though, the international community remained silent about what was taking place in my country.

As I watch today the increasingly disturbing downward spiral in my country of birth, I am once again reminded of the international community's complicity and silence in the destruction of an entire nation. In recent times, when the first woman ever to run for president in my country was attacked by a mob, there was silence. While local newspapers were shut down, their writers exiled, and others incarcerated, I witnessed nothing but shrugs from the international community. When Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International reported on the growing repression and jailing of an increasing number of people based on vague laws applied to political opponents of the ruling regime, I saw nothing but rationalization from the international community.

Recently, Peter Erlinder, an American lawyer and professor who is representing a hopeful presidential candidate, was jailed in Rwanda. His arrest and subsequent charges were based on his work as a defense lawyer at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in Arusha, Tanzania. He stands accused of genocide ideology and negationism, the same crimes of which his client is also accused. As a genocide survivor, I take genocide crimes very seriously and strongly believe that each and every perpetrator of these crimes should be brought to justice and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I also believe that each accused deserves and must be accorded a fair trial. The right to a fair trial and due process is a highly valued universal principle. Therefore I am perplexed by the silence around the professor's arrest, and the length of time it took the international community to intervene.

Due to Rwanda's economic progress, some of which is unfortunately derived from Congolese minerals and "supply side economics," human rights abuses are mere inconveniences to those strictly focused on economic growth. While Rwanda has become one of the most praised and progressive economies in Africa, the international community has watched it ravage neighboring Democratic Republic of Congo with impunity. An estimated six million Congolese lives have been claimed, and tragically, half of those deaths are children under the age of five.

The Rwandan Genocide was catastrophic. I know... I was there. And I survived. However, it should not be used as a pretext for repressing freedom of others and destroying innocent lives. Although the international community still remains silent in the face of all these grotesque abuses and human rights violations within and outside of Rwanda, the potential positive impact the international community could have on the situation should not be underestimated.

I witnessed first hand the power of good people who cared for a frightened 9 year old girl and her family. Everyday people opened their mouths and raised their voices. My family, especially my mother and brother, was spared because of ordinary people's courageous acts of generosity. I am eternally grateful to have lived to share my story. With all that is taking place in Rwanda today, especially the present-day eerie similarities to the pre-1994 genocide period, will the international community intervene now? One can only imagine the millions of lives that could be saved.

Alice Gatebuke is a Rwandan Genocide and war survivor, Cornell University graduate, and a human rights activist. She can be reached at gatebuke.alice@gmail.com.

Rwanda: Govt Denies Any Role in Attempt to Kill Nyamwasa

2010-06-23T11:21:00.000-07:00

Kezio-Musoke David and agencies

Kigali — An exiled Rwandan general was in the intensive care unit of a Johannesburg hospital today after being shot in the stomach.

Lieutenant-General Faustin Kayumba Nyamwasa was shot in South Africa on Saturday in what his wife Rosette Kayumba called a Rwandan-backed assassination attempt, a charge the Kigali government dismissed as "preposterous".

In Kigali, the Rwanda government condemned the shooting of Lt Gen Nyamwasa.

Ms Louise Mushikiwabo, Rwanda's government spokesperson said in a statement: "We learned the news through the media, and have no confirmation or details of the incident."

"The government of Rwanda does not condone violence, and we wish the family strength and serenity. We trust in the ability of South African authorities to investigate the incident thoroughly."

Once a close confidant of President Paul Kagame, Lt-Gen Nyamwasa fled to South Africa this year after falling out with the president, later accusing him of using an anti-corruption campaign to frame opponents.

Lt-Gen Nyamwasa's wife said she, her husband, their children and a driver had returned home from a shopping trip when an armed man approached their car and shot her husband.

Her husband and the driver got out of the car and scuffled with the gunman before he fled, she said. She said doctors told her husband would survive.

Mrs Kayumba said she believed President Kagame was behind the attack, and ruled out an attempted robbery or carjacking because the gunman targeted only her husband and did not try to steal the car.

"He must be behind this, I don't have proof... but we've been harassed for such a long time," she said of President Kagame.

The flight of Nyamwasa, who fought alongside Kagame to end the 1994 genocide in the central African nation, was a sign of a growing rift between the president and some of his top aides.

During and after the war to end the genocide, Nyamwasa held a number of key positions, including army chief of staff and head of the country's intelligence services.

Despite his heroic stature Kigali wants him back to answer to charges of alleged terrorism in connection with bomb blasts which rocked the country early this year something he has vehemently denied.

General Kayumba is also subject to two indictments. France and Spain have in the past issued arrest warrants against Nyamwasa and other RPF officials, for his alleged role in the lead-up to and during the 1994 genocide.

Rwanda is due to hold a presidential election in August, which Kagame is widely expected to win. The United States has toughened its stance on the country, saying it is concerned about democratic freedom there.

In the run-up to elections, Rwanda has suspended two independent newspapers, arrested a high-profile opposition figure and prevented two opposition parties from registering, US Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Johnnie Carson told the US Congress this year. Rwandan authorities link Nyamwasa and another fugitive senior officer in South Africa to a series of deadly grenade attacks in the capital this year, and accuse him of nepotism and unlawful accumulation of wealth.

He has rejected the charges and said the president has used his anti-corruption campaign to frame opponents.

"If accountability is going to be used as a political weapon to frame perceived opponents, then it ceases to be meaningful or useful," Lt-Gen Nyamwasa said in a statement printed in the Ugandan newspaper the Monitor in May.

Meanwhile, South African media reported various accounts of the attack, including one where Mrs Kayumba said she and her husband were returning from shopping to the upscale gated community where they live in northern Johannesburg when a lone gunman fired on him.

Mrs Nyamwasa also told the Associated Press that she felt the shooting was an assassination attempt since there had been no demand for money or goods.

She is also quoted saying that the gunman had shot at them, until his gun jammed.

Other contradicting reports indicate that the ex-army chief until 2002 was shot by unknown assailants while on his way to watch a FIFA World Cup football march between Ghana and Austria.

However according to Sapa (the South African Press Association), a non-governmental news wire based in Johannesburg, the South African police is quoted as saying that authorities have no information on the shooting.

SAPA also said that a South African foreign ministry official referred questions to police and declined to comment unless the incidence is ascertained.

"We are still trying to find out details. At the moment we don't know whether there was shooting or

US lawyer jailed in Rwanda: US Embassy didn't help

2010-06-23T11:17:00.000-07:00

By JASON STRAZIUSO

NAIROBI, Kenya — A U.S. lawyer released from a Rwandan prison on medical grounds credited America's Secretary of State with his release but said Sunday the U.S. Embassy did not help him secure food or medicine while in prison.

Peter Erlinder, 62, said he had to sleep on a concrete floor without a blanket and without assistance from the embassy after his May 28 arrest in Kigali, Rwanda's capital. The Minnesota law professor thanked U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton for saying Rwanda shouldn't arrest lawyers but said embassy officials in Kigali and Nairobi have not helped much.

"My government insisted that I take my medications from my captors rather than bringing me medications directly," Erlinder told a news conference in Nairobi, his first public comments since his arrest. "It was impossible for them to arrange a doctor whom I would pay so that I wouldn't have to get my food and my medication from my captors."

A spokesman in Kigali said the U.S. embassy there offered regular assistance to the imprisoned lawyer.

"Embassy officials visited Erlinder every day and were in a constant touch with his family," embassy spokesman Edwina Sagitto said. "The Embassy also provided him food every day, and medicine from his doctors in the United States every day."

Erlinder did not outright say that he feared taking food from Rwandan authorities, but that was the implication. He added that it wasn't clear to him that "my own embassy was working in my interests." He did not elaborate.

A Rwandan judge ruled Thursday that Erlinder, a lawyer at the International Criminal Tribunal of Rwanda, should be freed from prison on medical grounds. Erlinder said he would soon go to the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota. He did not explain his health problems and declined to comment on his statements in a Rwandan court that he had attempted suicide in prison.

Rwanda's top prosecutor said after the medical release that he would continue his investigation of Erlinder, who said Sunday he would return to Rwanda to face charges if called by the court to do so. Erlinder has not yet been charged, but Rwandan authorities detained Erlinder on suspicion of what it calls minimizing the country's genocide.

That fact did not prevent Erlinder from making new statements that could anger the government of Rwanda, which has laws against minimizing the 1994 genocide in which hundreds of thousands of Rwandans, the vast majority of them ethnic Tutsis, were massacred by extremist Hutus over 100 days.

International accounts of the violence say at least 500,000 ethnic Tutsis and moderate Hutus were killed during Rwanda's genocide, which began after President Juvenal Habyarimana's plane was brought down in April 1994.

Erlinder has said there are two sides of the story, and said Sunday that there may be enough evidence to show that more ethnic Hutus died than Tutsis, a statement that could anger the government of President Paul Kagame.

"There is no question that there was a genocide in Rwanda. I've never denied it, and the prosecutors, after scouring all of my publications, were not able to find one time that I denied that there was a genocide against Tutsis," said Erlinder, a professor at William Mitchell College of Law in St. Paul.

"What I did say is that the story that this terrible genocide occurred after the assassination of Habyarimana was not something that had been long planned before the assassination, not because I say so but because that was the finding of the ICTR (International Criminal Tribunal of Rwanda)," he said.

Erlinder was in Rwanda to help with the legal defense of opposition leader Victoire Ingabire. Ingabire, a Hutu, wants to run for president in Aug. 9 elections, challenging incumbent President Kagame, a Tutsi. But she was arrested in April and charged with promoting a genocidal ideology. She was freed on bail but her passport was seized and she cannot leave Kigali.

Erlinder said he does not believe the conventional story line of the Rwandan genocide based on documents from the U.S. and U.N. that have recently been made public. He said the U.S. government has "systematically suppressed" evidence of the genocide.

Erlinder also said he can no longer act as an attorney for Ingabire. Choking back tears, he thanked his two Kenyan lawyers for traveling to Rwanda to defend him even though they could have been arrested. He also complained that only one of his lawyers has been given a U.S. visa and said he will not leave Kenya until his other lawyer is also given a visa.

Somalia: U.S. Military Aid Denounced

2010-06-19T17:24:00.001-07:00

By JEFFREY GETTLEMAN

A second United States senator complained Thursday about American military assistance to Somalia’s government, which the United Nations considers one of the most flagrant users of child soldiers in the world. Senator Russ Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, said in a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton that the American government should press the Somali military to halt any use of child soldiers and “until we have that confirmation, I believe it is inappropriate to continue providing the T.F.G. with security assistance.” American officials said they have urged the Somali military not to recruit children but that with few American personnel in Somalia, it is impossible to guarantee this does not happen.

PETER ERLINDER TO BE RELEASED

2010-06-17T11:09:00.000-07:00

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contacts: Gena Berglund, International Humanitarian Law Institute of
Minnesota, 651-208-7964; Scott Erlinder, brother of Peter Erlinder,
312-656-6098.

Peter Erlinder received "unconditional medical release" from the
Rwandan court.

Thursday, June 17, 2010 (Washington, DC) – Peter Erlinder, Professor
of Law at William Mitchell College of Law in St. Paul, MN and Lead
Defense Counsel at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda
(ICTR) was arrested in Kigali, Rwanda on May 28, 2010. On June 7,
2010, his application for bail was denied.

The U.S. Embassy in Rwanda reported to the family at 10:30 CST that
Peter Erlinder will be allowed to return to the United States, but
charges have not been dropped. Erlinder's attorneys were informed that
he would be receive “unconditional medical release” by the Rwanda
Court. The process has to work it's way through the court and prison
system. Actual release is possible on Friday, June 18. At 10:30 a.m.
CST the attorneys were on their way to the hospital to inform Erlinder
of the decision. Erlinder was not present in the courtroom when the
decision was announced.

Peter Erlinder's family credits the massive outpouring of support and
education of all the various stake holders and thanks each and every
person and organization for their work on behalf of Peter Erlinder.
And the family urges the Rwandan government to drop all charges,
citing the ICTR ruling that Professor Erlinder has diplomatic immunity
because of his work as ICTR defense attorney.

In a two-page letter issued this week the ICTR Office of the Registrar
in Arusha wrote, "The ICTR hereby informs the Rwandan authorities that
Professor Erlinder enjoys immunity and requests, therefore, his
immediate release."1

On June 14, 2010, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton responded
to a question at the Diplomacy Briefing Series Conference on Sub-
Saharan Africa in Washington, DC.

SECRETARY CLINTON: …
We’ve made [those concerns] known to the Rwandan Government. We really
don’t want to see Rwanda undermine its own remarkable progress by
beginning to move away from a lot of the very positive actions that
undergirded its development so effectively. We still are very, very
supportive of Rwanda. ... But we are concerned by some of the recent
actions and we would like to see steps taken to reverse those actions.
On the one hand, I understand the anxiety of the Rwandan leadership
over what they view as genocide denial or genocide rejectionism. There
are many countries that have been in a similar historic position, so I
do understand that and I know that they are hypersensitive to that,
but – because, obviously, they don’t want to see anything ignite any
kind of ethnic conflict again. So I’m very sympathetic to that.
But I think that there are ways of dealing with that legitimate
concern other than politically acting against opposition figures or
lawyers and others. So on the one hand, I understand the motivation
and the concern. On the other hand, I want to see different actions
taken so that we don’t see a collision between what has been a
remarkably successful period of growth and reconciliation and healing
with the imperatives of continuing to build strong democratic
institutions.2
END OF CLINTON'S REMARKS

Why is Peter Erlinder in Prison in Rwanda?

2010-06-16T11:09:00.000-07:00

By Sarah Erlinder

Peter Erlinder, Professor of Law at William Mitchell College of Law in St. Paul, MN and lead defense
counsel at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) was arrested in Kigali, Rwanda on May
28, 2010. On June 7, 2010, his application for bail was denied and
he remains in Kigali Central Prison.
Although no indictment has been issued, the bail decision indicates
that Erlinder will be charged under Rwanda’s law “Relating to
Punishment of the Crime of Genocide Ideology”1 for allegedly
denying genocide and addition to spreading rumors capable of
endangering the security of the Rwandan people -- a crime
punishable in Rwanda by up to 20 years' imprisonment.
Among the grounds cited by the court for its decision was his
successful defense before the ICTR of Aloys Ntabakuze, who was acquitted of planning and executing
genocide. The ICTR was created by the United Nations Security Council in 1994 to prosecute accused war
criminals from events in Rwanda in 1994. The tribunal’s spokesman, Roland Amoussouga, stated that,
“ICTR will not allow anyone to be prosecuted for the work that it has done for it.”1 More than 30 ICTR
defense lawyers have called on the tribunal to act on Erlinder’s behalf, saying it is impossible for them to
carry out their missions as zealous advocates for their clients when one of their own is jailed for his work.
The court also referred to articles, press releases and open letters to public officials he had written, calling
for a deeper examination of the events that happened in 1994 and Erlinder’s suggestion that there could be
a different narrative based on factual evidence. Finally, the court noted that Erlinder had filed a wrongful
death lawsuit filed against Rwanda’s president, Paul Kagame, in the Oklahoma federal court under the
Alien Tort Claims Act on behalf of Agathe Habyarimana, the widow of the former Rwandan president.
Erlinder was in the Rwandan capital, Kigali, to represent Victoire Ingabire, chairperson of the United
Democratic Forces political party. Ingabire, who is seeking to run against President Kagame in the 9
August presidential elections, herself has been charged with propagating genocide ideology and ethnic
divisionism.
Erlinder is a former president of the National Lawyers Guild, the first of many human rights and legal
organizations to rally to his defense. The Guild points out that his prosecution reflects more on Rwanda
than it does on Erlinder, saying that “a government that seeks to prevent lawyers from being vigorous
advocates for their clients cannot be trusted.”
The American Bar Association has urged the government of Rwanda to observe the U.N. Basic Principals
on the Role of Lawyers, which state that lawyers “shall not be identified with their clients or their client's
causes as a result of discharging their functions” and that “governments shall ensure that lawyers are able
to perform all of their functions without intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper influence.”
These principals also provide that “lawyers like other citizens are entitled to freedom of expression, belief,
association and assembly.” Among others who have called for Erlinder’s release are the International
Association of Democratic Lawyers, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and Lawyers
Rights Watch Canada. Paul Rusesabagina, the real-life hero of Hotel Rwanda, has also strongly advocated
for Erlinder’s immediate release.
Find more information www.nlg.org/news/free-peter-erlinder and www.freepeternow.org.

Rwanda charges US lawyer

2010-06-06T14:52:00.000-07:00

A Rwandan judge has charged an American lawyer with denying Rwanda's 1994 genocide and publishing articles that threaten national stability.

Peter Erlinder, who is known for taking on controversial cases, pleaded not guilty at a five-hour hearing in a court in Kigali, the capital, on Friday.

"It is the first time I have come to know that my obscure publications back in America were that bad and could amount to genocide denial," Erlinder said at the hearing.

"I believed the country has grown democratically, but if I am detained and prosecuted, my case will confirm what is being said out there."

He indicated that the charges may have arisen due to misunderstanding or misinterpretation.

Genocide court

He could face up to 25 years in prison if convicted. The judge said that he will decide on Monday whether Erlinder will be granted bail.

Erlinder was arrested on May 28, several days after flying into Rwanda to defend Victoire Ingabire, a presidential candidate in the country's upcoming August 9 elections.

"It is the first time I have come to know that my obscure publications back in America ... could amount to genocide denial"

Peter Erlinder, US lawyer

Ingabire was arrested in April on charges of promoting genocide ideology, and later released on bail.

Erlinder is the head of a group of defence lawyers at the UN's International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) that is trying suspected leaders of the 1994 genocide in which an estimated 800,000 people, mostly Tutsis and moderate Hutus, died.

He is defending a suspected genocide mastermind at the ICTR and has previously accused its prosecution of hiding the crimes committed by the Rwandan Patriotic Front, led by Paul Kagame, the incumbent president.

Kagame headed the group of mostly Tutsi fighters to defeat mostly Hutus fighters behind the slayings.

Hospitalisation

Erlinder has requested bail to return to the US and receive treatment for injuries.

He asserted that he had not been maltreated in prison but had also not had contact with another person including family members and his doctor.

He said that he would comply with any bail conditions.

On Tuesday, Erlinder was hospitalised after police said he had attempted suicide by taking dozens of pills. However, Erlinder's family has disputed the suicide attempt claim.

On Thursday, the US called for Erlinder to be released on compassionate and humanitarian grounds.

"We are pressing the Rwandan government to resolve this case quickly, and we would like to see him released on compassionate grounds," Philip Crowley, a state department spokesman, said.

Niger Delta: an Exxon Valdez every year for 50 years

2010-06-06T14:46:00.000-07:00

Submitted by WW4 Report
From a June 4 op-ed in the International Herald Tribune by Anene Ejikeme, "The Oil Spills We Don't Hear About":

Experts estimate that some 13 million barrels of oil have been spilt in the Niger Delta since oil exploration began in 1958. This is the equivalent of one Exxon Valdez every year for 50 years.

Although the Obama administration has come under much criticism for not responding quickly enough, nor adequately, to the BP oil spill, there is no denying that top government officials, including the president himself, have felt compelled to speak about the spill and to insist that BP will be held accountable.

How differently things play out in Nigeria. Not only does the Nigerian government usually not bother to issue statements, it never feels compelled to decry such spills.

Even more striking, perhaps, is the very different ways in which the international media deals with oil spills. Of course, it is entirely appropriate that the U.S. media have been giving constant coverage to the BP Gulf spill.

But it is not just the U.S. media that have been covering the Gulf disaster with great dedication... I would be willing to bet that even residents of the smallest Nigerian villages have heard about the Gulf oil spill. By contrast, I know few people in the United States who have heard about the oil spills in the Niger Delta. Yet Nigeria is among the top five suppliers of oil to the U.S.

The Niger Delta, which is home to more than 30 million people and is considered one of the world’s most important ecosystems, produces almost all of Nigeria's foreign exchange earnings.

Dead fish and oily water are part of daily life for Niger Delta residents, as are gas flares... There is a law against gas flaring in Nigeria, but it continues to be widely breached.

Oil companies operate in Nigeria with little or no oversight from the government. It must be noted that the government has part ownership in the subsidiaries of all the oil multinationals which operate in Nigeria.

A year ago, Amnesty International published a report, “Petroleum, Pollution and Poverty in the Niger Delta.” The report focused on Royal Dutch Shell because Shell is by far the largest operator in the Delta. According to the Oil Spill Intelligence Report, a 10-year study commissioned by Greenpeace, although Shell operates in more than 100 countries, 40 percent of all its oil spills happen in Nigeria.

Deaths in Mogadishu attack

2010-06-02T14:24:00.001-07:00

Somalia's al-Shabab, the armed anti-government group, has attacked the presidential palace in Mogadishu, leaving at least 14 civilians dead, officials and witnesses say.

Government forces backed by African Union troops retaliated on Saturday against the fighters, whose attack came as Sharif Sheikh Ahmed, the Somali president, was attending a conference in Turkey.

Al-Shabab, which has been fighting to topple Somalia's government, launched its main attack on the northern Shibis and Bondhere neighbourhoods of the seaside capital late on Saturday.

After a brief lull, the battle resumed at dawn on Sunday.

"The number of civilians killed during the clashes overnight has reached 11 and it could be higher, because the violent militants using mortars attacked several other positions in southern Mogadishu this morning," Mohamed Ali Idle, a Somali government security official, told the AFP news agency.

'Heavy fighting'

The victims included five members of the same family who were killed when a mortar shell struck their home, several witnesses told AFP.

"The fighting was very heavy here in Bondhere and Shibis. Many people died and I saw five family members who were killed when a mortar round struck their house. Several others were also injured," Abdirahman Ise, a local resident, said.

"I'm also hearing that several other civilians were killed in the crossfire in the neighbourhood. Unfortunately the fighting continued and there was no transport to collect the wounded overnight."

At least three other civilians were killed and 25 wounded as a result of an exchange of mortar fire in the southern neighbourhoods of Holwadag and Black Sea, Ali Muse, head of Mogadishu's ambulance services, told AFP.

Al-Shabab's offensive began when its units moved down from their stronghold towards Kilometre Zero, a strategic crossroads leading towards the port and the presidential compound, according to witnesses and officials.

Major Ba-Hoku Barigye, a spokesman for the African Union Mission in Somalia (Amisom), said al-Shabab's progress required immediate action.

"People need to understand what our mandate is; We are here to protect the transitional federal institutions of Somalia and we also have red lines. If our forces are endangered, they have the right to protect themselves," he said.

Hundreds of civilians have died this year as a result of both al-Shabab attacks and retaliatory fire by Amisom or government forces.

Thousands have been killed in such incidents over the past three years and hundreds of thousands have been forced out of the city into crowded camps.

Al-Shabab controls most of southern and central Somalia, but it has failed to reach the well-protected presidential compound and topple Ahmed.

The US state department says al-Shabab has links to al-Qaeda.

Success claimed

Sheikh Ali Mohamoud Rage, the group's senior spokesman, claimed on Sunday that its fighters had killed dozens of government forces.

"Our fighters attacked several positions controlled by the apostate government soldiers. We killed dozens of them and took control of their barracks overnight," he said.

Ahmed was elected in January 2009 but has since failed to assert his authority and to prevent the expansion of al-Shabab.

He is also facing dissent within his own government.

He is currently in Istanbul for an international conference aimed at bolstering support for his transitional institutions and drafting a road map to peace.

On the opening day of the conference on Saturday, Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary-general, told delegates from 55 nations and 12 international organisations that "the only way to restore stability is to support this government in its reconciliation effort and its fight against extremism."

"If the international community acts now, I think it can make the difference," he said.

Somalia has had no effective government for 19 years and Western nations and neighbours say the country is used as a shelter by fighters planning attacks in East Africa and further afield.

France backs Africa for UN seat

2010-06-02T14:16:00.000-07:00

The French president has said Africa should be represented on the UN Security Council, promising to back changes when France leads the G8 and G20 groups of big economies next year.

Speaking on Monday at the launch of the 25th Africa-France summit in the French city of Nice, Nicolas Sarkozy said it was time for the world to make a place for Africa on the global stage to discuss international crises and overhaul.

"I am convinced that we can't talk about big global questions without Africa any longer," Sarkozy told about 800 delegates from 40 African states.

He said it was "not normal" that no African country had a permanent seat on the Security Council.

African nations have been asking for two rotating permanent seats with veto power as well as more non-permanent seats since 2005, given the continent has about 27 per cent of members at the UN, its size and the involvement of global powers on its territory.

France is pushing for a change proposed previously with the UK whereby non-permanent membership on the Security Council would be raised to 10 years instead of two now, without the right of veto, a French diplomatic source said.

China, the US, Russia, Britain and France are the permanent members of the Security Council.

Nigeria, Gabon and Uganda are among 10 members that hold rotating seats.

'Summit of renewal'

The Nice gathering has been touted as a "summit of renewal" and Sarkozy stressed that France needed to look to the future instead of "perpetuating the illusion of an outdated role".

This Africa-France summit is Sarkozy's first since taking office in 2007 and reflects France's shift away from its traditional West African allies towards engagement with the continent as a whole.

France is seeking to use the two-day gathering as a springboard for business deals.

"Africa is our future and will be a principle reservoir for world economic growth in the decades to come," Sarkozy said.

Alain Joyandet, France's development minister, said it would be "the summit of renewal, a sort of launch of a new era".

Breaking away from tradition, France has invited nearly 200 business leaders from France and Africa to this year's summit including heads of big French companies such as energy giant Total and nuclear firm Areva.

The push on the economic front comes as France has taken a back seat to China, Africa's biggest trade partner, which has injected billions over the past decade to tap into raw materials needed to fuel its hungry economy.

Rwandan Arrest of U.S. Lawyer Motivated by Politics

2010-05-31T10:03:00.000-07:00

By Marjorie Cohn

Professor Peter Erlinder, noted criminal defense lawyer and past president of the National Lawyers Guild, was arrested Friday morning in Rwanda for "genocide ideology." Erlinder's representation of high-profile defendants before the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) has incurred the wrath of government officials, who have charged him with "negation of the Tutsi genocide" for mounting defenses of his clients that conflict with the government party line about who was responsible for the 1994 genocide.

The Rwandan government recently blasted the U.S. government for criticizing Rwanda's restrictions on the media and human rights organizations in advance of the upcoming August national elections. A Human Rights Watch researcher had been barred from the country and several independent newspapers had been shuttered. Opposition supporters had been attacked and jailed.

Erlinder had recently filed a lawsuit in Oklahoma against Rwandan president Paul Kagame, which likely angered the government in Rwanda. Erlinder had traveled to Kigali, Rwanda to represent his client, Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza, who is also charged with "denying genocide." Ms. Umuhoza happens to be opposing President Kagame in the forthcoming August elections. Since he arrived in Kigali, the government-sponsored media there has been very critical of Erlinder.

The "Law Relating to the Punishment of the Crime of Genocide Ideology," unique to Rwanda, defines genocide broadly and does not require that one have any link to a genocidal act. It punishes legitimate forms of expression protected by international treaties. Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and the U.S. State Department have denounced the law as a means for political repression.

In an interview shortly before he traveled to Kigali, Erlinder stated that Ms. Umuhoza was not in Rwanda in 1994 and the charges against her are not supported by a verdict of the ICTR.

Regardless of the merits of the case, however, it is unsupportable that an attorney be arrested and jailed for vigorously representing his client. In 1770, John Adams defended nine British soldiers including a captain who stood accused of killing five Americans. No other lawyer would defend them. Adams thought no one in a free country should be denied the right to a fair trial and the right to counsel. He was subjected to scorn and ridicule and claimed to have lost half his law practice as a result of his efforts. Adams later said his representation of those British soldiers was "one of the most gallant, generous, manly and disinterested actions of my whole life, and one of the best pieces of service I ever rendered my country."

Bar associations including the National Lawyers Guild (NLG) and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) have condemned Erlinder's arrest. "There can be no justice for anyone if the state can silence lawyers for defendants whom it dislikes and a government that seeks to prevent lawyers from being vigorous advocates for their clients cannot be trusted," said NLG president David Gespass. "Government intimidation and interference with criminal defense lawyers is unacceptable in all its forms and it fundamentally undermines justice," according to an NACDL press release.

Erlinder should be released immediately. He should be given immediate access to counsel and the charges against him should be dismissed.

Rwanda arrests Ingabire's American lawyer Erlinder in Kigali

2010-05-28T15:11:00.000-07:00

Rwandan Police have arrested Peter Erlinder, the American lawyer who traveled to Rwanda's capitol, Kigali, on Monday, May 23rd, to join the defense team of Rwandan presidential candidate Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza.

Ingabire was released after being summoned to a Rwandan police station yesterday, much to the relief of her supporters, but this morning both she and the Rwanda News Agency (RNA) reported that Erlinder had been arrested and charged with "genocide ideology," a crime unique to Rwanda which Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and even the U.S. State Department have denounced as a tool of political repression.
Erlinder, a prominent critic of Rwandan President Paul Kagame's regime, and of the received history of the Rwanda Genocide, had traveled to Kigali after attending the Second Intetnational Criminal Defense Lawyers' Conference in Brussels.

State run Rwandan media have attacked Erlinder since his arrival and the Rwandan News Agency report that he is now in custody and being interrogated at the Rwandan Police Force’s Kacyiru headquarters.

The RNA also reports that the American embassy in Kigali have taken up the matter, but it is not yet clear in what form. The Embassy is located just meters away from the police headquarters.

Before leaving for Bruxelles and then Kigali, Erlinder notified the U.S. State Department, his Minnesota Congressional Representative Keith Ellison, and Minnesota Senators Al Franken and Amy Klobuchar.

Erlinder bases his critique of the Kagame regime and the received history of the 1993 Rwanda Genocide on the evidence collected in his Rwanda Documents Project.

ERI Asks Supreme Court to Hear Case on Corporate Complicity in Crimes Against Humanity in Sudan

2010-05-27T15:31:00.000-07:00

As the law in New York’s federal courts stands now, a company can knowingly provide fuel and runways for government bombing raids against civilians and support the murderous displacement of entire communities, without having any responsibility for the injuries made possible by their assistance of gross human rights abuses committed in part for their own benefit. On May 20, 2010, EarthRights International (ERI) filed an amicus brief in the case of Presbyterian Church of Sudan v. Talisman Energy, Inc., urging the U.S. Supreme Court to consider and overturn the incorrect and unjust ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that condones such behavior.

It is hard to imagine a clearer case of corporate complicity in human rights abuses than the involvement of Canadian oil company Talisman Energy in the atrocities committed by the Sudanese government against Southern tribespeople starting in the late 1990s. Talisman bought a major share in a consortium exploiting oil near the volatile border between North and South Sudan in 1998, despite knowledge that the Sudanese government was engaged in gross abuses in its suppression of Southern secessionist groups. In the course of its due diligence, Talisman also learned that the government preferred to established a “cordon sanitaire” around oil fields in the area – which meant brutally attacking surrounding villages and driving the survivors out of the area. During the years that it maintained its stake in the consortium, Talisman funded and built bases to provide air cover for bombing campaigns against civilians, and hired and deployed military advisors to work closely with Sudanese military personnel as they cleared the local population from the areas around the oil facilities. Talisman employees refueled Sudanese air force planes to go on bombing raids against the surrounding populace. All this was known at the highest levels of Talisman’s management, including the fact that the air force’s targets were civilians, and not legitimate military objectives.

On behalf of a group of Sudanese victims, plaintiffs’ attorney Carey D’Avino filed suit against Talisman in New York federal court in 2001, charging it with complicity in the Sudanese government’s grave violations of human rights. The case worked its way through the court system for eight years, until it ran afoul of one side of an important doctrinal debate that is currently in front of the courts. Although the legal battle is fought out in highly technical terms, the basic issue is quite real and practically significant. When an individual (either a company or a private person) aids in the commission of grave human rights abuses, knowing that his assistance will contribute to the abuses, is that individual then liable for the abuses? Or does the individual become liable only if it can be proven that he specifically intended for his assistance to lead to the human rights violations – that he shared the purpose of the primary violator? In its own cases and its amicus briefs, ERI has repeatedly argued in favor of a “knowing assistance” rule. Requiring a shared purpose might well exonerate, for example, businessmen who manufactured and sold the poison gas Zyklon B to the Germans during World War II, since they intended not to contribute to genocide but simply to make money; some of these businessmen were in fact convicted at Nuremburg.

In its 2009 decision, the Second Circuit agreed with Talisman that the courts must look to international law for the rules of aiding and abetting grave human rights abuses – and that international law requires a shared purpose. The court found that the plaintiffs had not put forward facts showing that Talisman specifically intended its acts of assistance to contribute to genocide, war crimes, torture, and crimes against humanity, and therefore dismissed the case. The plaintiffs petitioned for a writ of certiorari, asking the Supreme Court to hear their claims and reverse the Second Circuit’s decision. Paul Hoffman, who is ERI’s co-counsel in several cases, presented the appeal to the Second Circuit and the Supreme Court.

Although ERI does not represent the Talisman plaintiffs, the outcome of this debate has the potential to affect almost all of our cases. ERI therefore filed an amicus brief supporting the petition, arguing that this question is so important, and the Second Circuit’s ruling so plainly wrong, that the Supreme Court should grant the plaintiffs’ petition and hear the case. ERI previously filed two other amicus briefs in the same case, and we now hope that the Supreme Court will step in and guide the courts on the proper standards.

Swaziland: trade unionist "killed" in custody

2010-05-19T07:04:00.001-07:00

Submitted by WW4 Report on Thu, 05/13/2010 - 14:18.

Local trade unionists are demanding answers following the apparent killing in custody of Sipho Jele, an activist in the Swaziland Agriculture and Plantation Workers' Union (SAPWU) and People's United Democratic Movement (PUDEMO), who was arrested during May Day protests. Swaziland's largest opposition party, PUDEMO is being relentlessly persecuted under the government's notorious Suppression of Terrorism Act. Swaziland has been living under a State of Emergency since 1973. Swazi authorities are calling the Jele's death a suicide.

South Africa's powerful trade union COSATU has also taken up the case, issuing a joint statement with the Brussels-based International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) pronouncing their "strongest denunciation of the suspicious death in custody of Sipho Jele." Swazi King Mswati has stated he sees "akukhanywane"—throttling or strangling—as the best way to deal with opposition. Several PUDEMO members have been killed in recent years. (Afrol News, May 12)

Africa: Oil, Minerals And the Militarisation of Globalisation

2010-05-08T06:49:00.000-07:00

by Julius Barigaba

ANALYSIS | This casts a very grim picture on the fortunes of Uganda that struck oil only a few years ago but has since been on the brink of slipping back into conflict.

Nairobi — A new study has linked conflicts in Africa with the continent's oil and mineral resources that Western powers are fighting to control through the militarised foreign policy of the United States in Africa, and geopolitical wars.

The study, Globalisation in Africa: Commercial Wars and State Failure in Uganda, is a University of Malaya PhD thesis by Ugandan scholar Yunus Lubega Butanaziba.

Released in October 2009, it says the West's "imperial" interest in Africa's wealth first led to conquest and more recently the creation of a centralised military force, the US African Command (Africom) to police these resources, including Uganda's oil.

This interest has shaped global geopolitics from pre-World War II through the Cold War to the present in Congo, Darfur, Somalia, Sudan, Angola, Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Uganda.

No wonder these countries are among the world's conflict flashpoints of the post-Cold War era.

The study also postulates that commercial and resource wars are a US agenda with its allied Western powers -- all members of the Bretton Woods institutions since 1944 that seeks to weaken internal political systems and take control of resources.

This casts a very grim picture on the fortunes of Uganda that struck oil only a few years ago but has since been on the brink of slipping back into conflict.

When Uganda discovered oil in 2006, the two-decade long war in the north was on the ebb, but since then, there have been flashes of violence -- last year's Banyoro-Bakiga tribal clashes and the clash between Congo and Uganda armies -- which could point to eruption of conflict, this time in the oil fields of western Uganda.

However, it is the creation of the Djibouti-based Africom, based on theories of American political scientist Samuel Huntington that explain why more resource wars are set to unfold in oil and mineral rich countries.

Huntington had taken the global strategy theory to another level in his "Next pattern of conflict" essay that Butanaziba says guided Washington's model of globalised security, which others have called the militarisation of globalisation.

This model saw the creation of four strategic military commands to keep close watch on resources.

Other commands are Eucom (Europe), Centcom (Africa/Asia), Pacom (Pacific) and Southcom (South America).

This stage had been arrived at following years of implementing the global strategy to control world resources that the US political strategists Halford Mackinder and Nicholas Spykman had laid ground for earlier.

It would guide imperial interests in Africa through the colonial, Cold War and post-Cold War periods.

Mackinder argued that whoever rules East Europe commands the Heartland, and eventually, the world and its resources.

Spykman took the argument to taking control of the World Island (Africa and Eurasia) by seizing Eurasia's coastal lands, also known as the Rimland, while in the post-Cold War era, Huntington saw the use of the military to control continents as the perfect way to control global resources.

Batanaziba says events that have unfolded since the creation of Africom confirm that in creating this force, Washington was clearly executing Huntington's post-Cold War theory.

"In the thinking of Pentagon and White House officials, the world today is too dangerous a place not to be policed by Washington. The establishment of Africom... is being driven by two main strategic concerns: First, the growing demand for African oil and gas..."

Africom has the force of law to intervene in African security because African states have agreed to it.

American geopolitics analyst William Engdahl wrote in November 2008 that the birth of Africom had more to do with a fight for resources than mere security concerns.

Indeed, in a matter of weeks after President George W. Bush assented to the creation of Africom, a new wave of conflict erupted in mineral-rich eastern Congo to pre-empt the major agenda of the incoming Barack Obama presidency.

To focus the US's military and other resources on dealing with the Congo, the oil rich Gulf of Guinea and oil rich Darfur, as well as the increasing Somali pirate threat in the Red Sea and Indian Ocean waters.

"The legitimate question is whether it is mere coincidence that Africa appears to just at this time become a new geopolitical 'hotspot' or whether it has a direct link to the formal creation of Africom," wrote Mr Engdahl.

This position had been stated by Washington adviser Dr Peter Pham in unequivocal terms in 2007, while justifying Africom's creation before Congress, saying its purpose was to protect "access to hydrocarbons and other strategic resources which Africa has in abundance... a task which includes ensuring against the vulnerability of those natural riches and ensuring that no other interested third parties, such as India, China, Japan or Russia obtain monopolies or preferential treatment."

The irony of it is that these countries have enormous resources but they are also saddled with raging poverty hence the dreaded resource curse.

In the thesis, Mr Butanaziba clearly alludes to this failure stated in Uganda's Oil and Gas Policy 2008.

"The reports of the National Oil and Gas Policy of Uganda indicated that oil and gas are non-renewable extractive resources which in addition to having potentially immense benefits to the country, also pose the challenge of insecurity to the country."

Clearly, the military option that the west preaches is no panacea for Africa: it has bred havoc in Sudan, left Somalia split along clan lines and reduced Liberia to shambles.

It has not tamed several midlevel powers like France, Libya and Israel that enjoy impunity in their swash buckling exploits in Africa.

Copyright © 2010 The East African. All rights reserved. Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com).

Eritrea's Issaias Afeworki world's worst press freedom "predator": RSF

2010-05-05T17:25:00.000-07:00

Submitted by WW4 Report
Paris-based Reporters Without Borders (RSF), in a survey of global press-freedom "Predators" released May 3, ranks Eritrea's President Issaias Afeworki as the world's worst abuser of media freedom. RSF charges that Eritrea permits no independent media and the state-run newspapers and television network do not allow stories that challenge the nation's leadership or its policies. The government has described a free press as "incompatible" with Eritrean culture and last year President Isaias said no Eritrean should want or need to attack their own country.

"Around 30 journalists are currently held in its 314 prison camps and detention centres. Four of them have died as a result of the extremely cruel conditions in these prisons. Others have just disappeared," RSF said in a statement. "Ruled with an iron hand by a small ultra-nationalist clique centered on Afeworki, this Red Sea country has been transformed in just a few years into a vast open prison, Africa's biggest prison for the media."

RSF charges that Eritrea denies the existence of large prison camps in parts of the country off-limits to independent observers, and says international rights groups invent statistics and anecdotes so they can follow their own business interests in Africa.

Basic freedoms of the press were officially suspended in 2001 after some former members of Eritrea's ruling party began pressing for more democracy, RSF said. "Any hint of opposition is seen as a threat to national security. The privately-owned media no longer exist. There are just state media whose content is worthy of the Soviet era." RSF has ranked Eritrea below North Korea three years in a row. (Reuters, May 3)

(Mis)Investment in Agriculture

2010-05-04T07:33:00.001-07:00

A New Report from the Oakland Institute

"Africa needs investment in agriculture-better seeds and inputs, improved extension services, education on conservation techniques, regional integration, and investment to build local capacity. It does not need policies that enable foreign investors to grow and export food for their own people to the detriment of the local population. I'll be even bolder-such policies will hurt Africa, fueling conflict over land and water. Africa is not a commodity. It must not be labeled "open for business."

-- Howard G. Buffett, Foreword, (Mis)Investment in Agriculture

Oakland, CA--As a major two-day conference on Land Policy & Administration, hosted by the World Bank, gets under way to supposedly "improve land governance" and "contribute to the well-being of the poorest," Oakland Institute's new report, (Mis)Investment in Agriculture: The Role of the International Finance Corporation in the Global Land Grab, exposes the role of the Bank's private sector branch, International Finance Corporation (IFC), in fueling land grabs, especially in Africa.

"Land grabs - the purchase or lease of vast tracts of land from poor, developing countries by wealthier, food-insecure nations and private investors - has led to the acquisition of nearly 50 million hectares of farmland," said Shepard Daniel, Oakland Institute's Fellow and author of the report. "While rising food prices, demand for biofuels, and investors seeking quick returns have been emphasized as the principal drivers of this trend, the role of the World Bank has gone virtually unnoticed. (Mis)advice from IFC's Technical Assistance and Advisory Services (TAAS) and Foreign Investment Advisory Services (FIAS) to developing country governments to spur foreign direct investment in agriculture has fueled the dangerous trend of vast land deals in some of the world's most vulnerable countries," she continued.

"Following the 2008 food and financial crises, World Bank was to play a central role in what was intended to be a massive overhaul in international food policy and a vast improvement to food security in the developing world," said Anuradha Mittal, Executive Director of the Oakland Institute. "Evidence, however, reveals that World Bank Group policies and efforts are doing just the opposite. IFC has actually increased the ability of foreign investors to acquire land in developing country markets. It is promoting "products" - such as the 'Access to Land' and the 'Land Market for Investment' whose purpose is to open land access to investors. Further more the creation of "investment promotion agencies" and rewriting of national laws, has provided the institutional back up for such investments. In doing so, it has overlooked the urgent problem of hunger that persists in client countries, and lost sight of its principle mission, which is to alleviate poverty," she continued.

For instance, in Ethiopia, IFC's recommended changes to policy and legislature have completely transformed the landscape of Ethiopian investment climate. Accordingly, huge investments in land market have followed. "Ethiopia is one of the hungriest countries in the world with more than 13 million people in need of food aid," said Daniel, "but paradoxically the government has already offered at least 7.5 million acres of its most fertile land to rich countries and some of the world's most wealthy individuals to export food back to their own countries."

(Mis)Investment in Agriculture concludes that the promotion of investor access into developing country land markets threatens local food security, displaces local populations, and therefore operates in direct violation of IFC's Performance Standards as well as several UN Human Rights Conventions. The Report contends that it is crucial that IFC be investigated and held accountable for the land grabs promoted by its technical assistance and advisory services. World Bank's current practices that promote land grabs must be stopped in order to protect the food security and livelihoods of the world's most vulnerable populations.

(Mis)Investment in Agriculture: The Role of the International Finance Corporation in the Global Land Grab, is a publication of the Oakland Institute (www.oaklandinstitute.org), an independent policy think tank whose mission is to increase public participation and promote fair debate on critical social, economic, and environmental issues.