October
8
2009
More bad news came today for peace efforts between Israel and the Palestinians. The Israeli foreign minister, just hours before meeting with President Obama’s special envoy on Mideast peace, George Mitchell, said there is no chance of reaching a final agreement with the Palestinians in the near future.
“Anyone who says that within the next few years an agreement can be reached ending the conflict … simply doesn’t understand the situation and spreads delusions, ultimately leading to disappointments and an all-out confrontation here,” right-wing Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman said, according to news reports.
Lieberman said the two sides should instead come up with a long-term interim arrangement that would ensure prosperity, security and stability, the Associated Press reported. He recommended leaving the toughest issues, the status of Jerusalem and a solution for Palestinian refugees who lost homes amid war, to some time in the distant future. This is a position that the Palestinians have already strongly rejected.
Lieberman’s statements, a rejection of Obama’s efforts to bring about a resumption of peace talks, could also be a reaction to the European Union actions on a controversial U.N. report that harshly criticized Israel’s military offensive in Gaza.
The EU gave its backing on Thursday to the report and offered praise for its chief author, saying the document is “worthy of consideration.”
“It is worthy of consideration needless to say, I think Mr. Goldstone is a person of high credibility and high integrity and accordingly his report carries weight,” Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt – whose country holds the EU presidency – told reporters in Stockholm, according to Agence France Presse (AFP).
The report by a fact-finding mission led by former international war crimes prosecutor Richard Goldstone condemned both Israel and Palestinian leaders for war crimes during Israel’s military invasion of Gaza from December 27 to January 18, but it primarily blasted Israel for “actions amounting to war crimes, possibly crimes against humanity.”
The 22-day conflict that saw more than 1,400 Palestinians killed, the great majority civilians, and only 13 Israelis killed, the majority soldiers.
Israel has condemned the report for its bias and even Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has been pressured into holding off on further action on the report so that current peace efforts wouldn’t be jeopardized. The report had called for the U.N. Security Council to refer allegations of war crimes to the International Criminal Court (ICC) if either side failed to investigate and prosecute suspects.
The only sign of hope in the Middle East seems to be the report saying that Hamas and the Palestinian Authority, which fought a week-long civil war in 2007 that killed over 100 people, are due to sign a deal later this month which is designed to pave the way for a unity government.
October
7
2009
I was just reading today the latest news about the multi-billion dollar Pakistan aid bill currently awaiting President Obama’s signature, when I got an email about the recent abduction of a Norwegian citizen traveling in Pakistan.
According to a letter sent out today from the Baloch Human Rights Council of Canada to Norway’s representative in Ontario, Norwegian Ehsan Arjemandi had gone to Pakistan to visit his family in July.
The BHRC said Arjemandi was traveling to Karachi by bus in August when several “unidentified vehicles intercepted the bus, armed men got into the bus and took Mr. Ehsan Arjemandi out of the bus and covered his head with a black blanket and took him away.”
His family hasn’t heard from him since. The council said that witnesses to the abduction say that Arjemandi was abducted by a team led by Major Mohammed Shahid, a military intelligence officer.
The BHRC said that Arjemandi has been “a very active voice in Norway and Europe against the human rights violation in Balochistan… had organized several peaceful processions in front of the Pakistan Embassy in Norway against the illegal abduction of political workers in Balochistan, where more than 8000 political workers have been made disappeared by the Pakistan military.”
The BHRC also said that it believes the Pakistan army and the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) carried out the abduction “to punish Mr. Ehsan Arjemandi and at the same time silence the voice of the Baloch Diaspora against the Pakistan army’s brutalities in Balochistan.”
Balochistan or Baluchistan is an area that covers parts of Pakistan, Iran and Afghanistan. Baloch political leaders in Pakistan want greater control of the region’s resources, protection for the Baloch minority and a halt to the building of military bases. The government has also used the Baloch region to test its nuclear weapons.
Some militant forces want the entire Baloch region to be an independent country and have carried out bombings and other violent actions to get attention. Of course, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan want their territories to remain intact.
Pakistan’s Human Rights Commission backs up much of what the BHRC says about abductions and torture. It has tracked hundreds of Baloch political party members, students, doctors and tribal leaders who have been detained by government security forces, many disappearing for months or even years. Some have been tortured or have died in custody, according to the commission.
Members of Arjemandi’s family, who were already worried because Arjemandi has a heart condition, expressed fears that he would be tortured by the Pakistan military.
However, the BHRC said that they had confirmation that the Pakistan military had handed Arjemandi over to Iranian authorities who had transferred him to Zahidan prison.
The BHRC said it believes that Arjemandi’s life is now in even more danger because several Baloch political activists who were handed over to Iranian Authorities have been hanged after being tortured.
The U.S. aid package would give Pakistan $1.5 billion annually over the next five years ostensibly for democratic, economic and social development programs. That’s all fine. Those programs should be encouraged. But it’s the part that allows “such sums as are necessary” for military aid that bother me.
October
5
2009
U.S.-Colombia relations don’t get much press these days. It’s understandable given all that’s going on in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq.
And, besides, there has been considerable hope for a more balanced approach to Colombia after President Barack Obama earlier this year said he would initiate a new policy of “multilateral diplomacy” in South America. (And we all know good news doesn’t play as well as bad news.)
The Bush administration had considered Colombia a close ally. President George W. Bush described Colombia’s president, Alvaro Uribe, as a close friend, ignoring that country’s notorious human rights violations and pretty much neglecting other allies in the region. Colombia has received over $6 billion in military and economic aid during the past nine years.
But the general thinking was that the Obama administration would not be so quick to underwrite the Colombian military and ignore rights violations. Unfortunately, that line of thought was wrong.
In August, news broke that the United States and Colombia had signed a deal that would make Colombian army and naval bases available to the U.S. in return for support in Colombia’s war against the leftist FARC, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia. That support, of course, includes more millions for the Colombian military.
Some South American countries, including Chile and Brazil, see a threat to their sovereignty in the growing U.S. presence and have expressed concerns that Colombia is just a staging area for future U.S. operations, perhaps against such countries as Venezuela.
In September, coincidentally, I’m sure, the United States cleared the way for the delivery of full military aid to Colombia’s armed forces because Colombia had met human rights criteria despite lingering concerns from the U.S. State Department.
“There is no question that improvement must be made in certain areas,” department spokesman Ian Kelly said in a statement at that time.
The statement cited extrajudicial killings as one of the areas still in need of improvement. Nevertheless, the State Department certification to Congress cleared the way for full aid to flow to the Colombian military.
While the State Department did not go into detail about the continuing human rights concerns in Colombia, the most recent Amnesty International report does.
At least 296 people were extrajudicially executed by the security forces in the 12-month period ending in June 2008, compared to 287 in the previous 12-month period, the report said. Amnesty cited a November (2008), visit to Colombia by the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights who said extrajudicial executions in Colombia appeared to be systematic and widespread.
Amnesty said paramilitary groups remained active, despite claims by the government that all paramilitaries had demobilized in a government-sponsored process that began in 2003. Paramilitaries continued to kill civilians and to commit other human rights violations, the report said, “sometimes with the support or acquiescence of the security forces.”
Some 461 killings were attributed to paramilitaries in the 12-month period ending in June 2008, compared to 233 in the previous 12-month period, according to the report.
Also, there are at least three million people in Colombia who have been forcibly displaced by the fighting – a figure only surpassed by Sudan.
Is this really a country that the United States wants as our closest ally in South America? Does President Obama really want to continue to finance a military cited year after year for major human rights violations?
Don’t get me wrong. I think Obama has been doing some great things since he’s been in office, and he has the potential to do much more. But he has to make positive changes in U.S. foreign policies that match his positive rhetoric.
October
2
2009
As President Obama studies his next move in Afghanistan, he would do well to consider a United Nations report released Saturday that described 2009 as the worst year for civilian deaths since the war started in 2001.
The report, the Mid-Year Bulletin on the Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict in Afghanistan, said 1,500 civilians had been killed in attacks by both the Taliban insurgents and Afghan and international forces up to the month of August.
The report also showed that the number of civilian casualties in Afghanistan has been increasing each month since 2005. Although, for the first time, Taliban forces were blamed for the majority of the deaths – about 68 percent – U.S. and allied forces were blamed for the rest. Airstrikes, for example, killed 200 civilians between January and June of this year.
Previously Taliban attacks had been more precise, limiting civilian deaths, but in the past year, more of their actions have been indiscriminate and the civilian death toll has been rising.
But it is the U.S. – and allied-caused civilian deaths that have sparked the most anger from the Afghan people and from within the Afghan government. No one expects much from the Taliban. On the other hand, the United States and its allies are supposed to be there to help and protect the people. Orwellian excuses about “collateral damage” do little to ease the situation.
Obama’s top commander in Afghanistan, Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, spoke of winning hearts and minds in the country when he recently unveiled his report calling for more troops to fight the Taliban and help stabilize the Afghan government. But the rising death toll among civilians will do just the opposite.
Obama is currently weighing two major options on Afghanistan: increase the number of troops, which likely will increase the number of civilians killed in the conflict; or to narrow the focus of the war by targeting Al-Qaida, which would shift most of the combat to mountainous regions bordering Pakistan and into Pakistan itself.
The latter move might actually start winning the hearts and minds of Afghans. Increasing the number of troops in Afghanistan won’t do that.
October
1
2009
Most of us don’t know how to react to major disasters around the world, especially when several things happen at once. And because it all seems so overwhelming, often we just go on about our daily lives, reading the horrific headlines and collectively shrugging our shoulders.
In the past couple of days a 7.6 magnitude earthquake in Indonesia has killed at least 531 and trapped thousands in rubble, a separate quake-related tsunami in the Samoas has killed 120 people and left thousands homeless, and a massive storm in the Philippines left more than 270 people dead and flooded the homes of nearly 1.9 million. But, what can we do?
For starters, there are two hardworking aid organizations in our region (Pacific Northwest), Mercy Corps and World Vision, rushing to help.
Mercy Corps is responding to the two quake-related disasters. Emergency teams are already on the way to the areas most affected.
World Vision is trying to help the estimated 100,000 people affected by flooding in Manila which was caused by Typhoon Ketsana. Many of these people lost everything they owned to the flood. World Vision staff, working with the Philippine Coastguard, has already begun distributing aid by helicopter.
These are hard economic times for a lot of us, I know, but we can do a lot more than just shrug our shoulders. No help is too little; only too late.
Both groups are in urgent need of money to make sure aid continues to reach those in need. Both aid agencies accept donations through their web sites. Both web sites also have more details on their aid efforts in the region.
Go there. Give what you can. Mercy Corps – http://www.mercycorps.org; World Vision – http://www.wvi.org/wvi/wviweb.nsf
September
30
2009
An EU-sponsored report into the Russia-Georgia war in 2008 has blamed both countries for the conflict and said both countries violated international humanitarian law.
The report released Wednesday said about 850 people were killed in the August 2008 war, and that more than 100,000 fled their homes, about 35,000 of whom are still displaced.
Both Georgia and Russia issued statements welcoming the report. And both countries called it a vindication of their respective actions and during the war.
The report blames Georgia for starting the conflict, although it adds that Georgia had been provoked.
The five-day war started on Aug. 7, 2008, when Georgia shelled the breakaway region of South Ossetia, in an attempt to regain control over it and claiming that Russian forces were invading. The previous months had seen a series of clashes between Georgia and the Russian-backed forces.
The Russian military quickly repelled the assault, and pushed further into Georgia before a ceasefire was reached. Russia pulled back, but continued to build up its military presence in both South Ossetia and Abkhazia, another disputed region.
Russia has recognized South Ossetia and Abkhazia as independent and has vowed to protect them. But Georgia and the most of the international community still view them as part of Georgia, and the report’s author, Swiss diplomat Heidi Tagliavini, said Russia’s recognition “must be considered as being not valid in the context of international law, and as violations of Georgia’s territorial integrity and sovereignty.”
The report also warned of a “serious” risk of new confrontation in the region.
Overall, the report appears to be good news for Russia, which had been accused by Georgia of launching an invasion. For Georgia, the report is not so good. Georgia had been seen as the brave underdog, standing up to its giant, aggressive neighbor. That definitely was the view pushed by Georgia’s president, Mikheil Saakashvili, who has withstood calls to resign over the conflict.
It will be interesting to see how the citizens of Georgia view this report. Salome Samadashvili, Georgia’s ambassador to the EU, has already made his government’s position on the report clear Wednesday.
“The allegations of my country have been proven. It was Georgia which came under invasion from another country, in violation of the international law,” he said.
September
28
2009
It has been three months since Honduras’ democratically elected president, Manuel Zelaya, was forcibly removed from office. Zelaya, who on June 28 was put on a plane out of the country by the Honduran military, is now back in Honduras. He is holed up in Brazil’s embassy in the capital, Tegucigalpa, which is surrounded by police and military forces.
News reports today say that the coup-installed government has silenced two dissident broadcasters, Radio Globo and Channel 36 TV, just hours after it suspended civil liberties to prevent what it called an uprising by Zelaya backers. On Sunday, he had called for mass protests.
The government’s suspension of civil liberties violates the Honduran Constitution. The decree issued by the government prohibits unauthorized gatherings and allows police to arrest without a warrant.
The United Nations and the international community have condemned the coup and continue to demand that the deposed president be reinstated and allowed to complete his term which ends in January.
Since this attack on democracy is taking place in our own backyard, you might think that the United States would be using every diplomatic weapon at its disposal to make sure that the democratically elected president was returned to power.
But the reality is, despite its condemnation of the illegal government in Honduras and the suspension of $30 million in assistance to Honduras, the Obama administration has been sitting back, (the United States won’t even officially call this coup a coup) perhaps waiting for a negotiated accord hammered out by Costa Rica President Oscar Arias, to run its course. The San Jose Accord calls for Zelaya’s return to power, the creation of a unity government and early elections. But it has already been rejected by the coup government of Honduras. Other negotiations are under way.
The U.S. response has been decidedly tepid. Could it be that this administration is holding back because Zelaya, like many other Latin American leaders, is a little left of center? I thought we ended that way of thinking when Obama was elected.
September
25
2009
It’s good to know that world leaders are on top of any effort by Iran to build nuclear weapons. President Barack Obama and the leaders of France and Britain said on Friday that Iran needs to make full disclosure about its nuclear program and allow international inspectors inside a previously undisclosed site.
The leaders threatened new sanctions against Iran if it fails to comply.
All good, I suppose. We definitely need fewer nuclear arms in the world, not more. (The current roster of nuclear-armed nations, including the U.S., France and Britain, would do the world an enormous service by beginning to dismantle their stockpile.) And Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has not endeared himself to the world community over the years. That unpopularity combined with Iran’s violent response to the disputed presidential vote makes him and his country an easy target. Maybe too easy.
Turns out this previously undisclosed site, which Iran, itself, told the International Atomic Energy Agency about in a letter earlier this week, was well known to our intelligence community. Also, after the statement on possible new sanctions, Iran said it would allow inspectors to visit the site.
So, this all seems a little overblown. Wasn’t there enough to concentrate on at the G-20 economic summit? Does this mean that the economy is rosy? I don’t think so.
Also, I’m starting to understand why these world leaders are often accused of having a double-standard regarding certain nations of the world.
Obama, in his statement Friday said, “The Iranian government must now demonstrate through deeds its peaceful intentions or be held accountable to international standards and international law.”
There is another nation in that part of the world that has defied “international standards and international laws” for years yet neither the United States, France, nor Britain has called for sanctions against it.
Yes, I’m talking about Israel.
Israel has been the subject of 138 resolutions. Not surprisingly, most of those resolutions call upon Israel to comply, in its actions towards Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, with basic principles of international law embodied by the UN Charter.
Way back in 1967, the UN Security Council, under Resolution 237, called upon Israel to “ensure the safety, welfare and security of the inhabitants, facilitate the return of those inhabitants who have fled the areas since the outbreak of the hostilities and recommends the scrupulous respect of the humanitarian principles contained in the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949.”
Israel ignored the Security Council and defied the world community and today, 42 years after that resolution, it continues to defy it and all related resolutions since then.
When was the last time you heard a U.S. president, or a French or British president, call for sanctions against Israel?
Oh, and, by the way, Israel has a “secret” nuclear weapons program and a nuclear arsenal.
September
24
2009
I have been trying to come up with a reason everyone but President Obama seems to have seen a top general’s request for more troops in Afghanistan. The request, which is part of a report that is expected to arrive at the Pentagon later this week, came from Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan. The report won’t be seen by the president until some still undisclosed time, according to published reports out of the Pentagon.
McChrystal warned in his report that the war in Afghanistan will be lost unless more troops are sent within the next year. U.S. troop strength in Afghanistan is already scheduled to reach 68,000 by the end of this year. But McChrystal is asking for an additional 21,000.
Even more remarkable, considering Obama still hasn’t had a look at McChrystal’s assessment, Gen. David Petraeus, the head of U.S. Central Command, said Wednesday that he and the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman, Adm. Mike Mullen, endorsed McChrystal views of the situation.
As far back as the presidential election campaign, Obama talked of getting out of Iraq and beefing up forces in Afghanistan. But public opinion polls of late show that the majority of U.S. citizens are against sending more troops to Afghanistan.
So, does this mean there is a major rift between the administration and military leaders? Or is something else at work here? Could this whole discussion of McChrystal’s report being played out in the news media simply be a roundabout way of building up public support for what is now being viewed by the administration and the Pentagon as an unpopular decision to expand the war in Afghanistan?
What do you think?
September
22
2009
Seattle’s own filmmaker, James Longley, who has kept Iraqis and Palestinians at the forefront of his documentary films, has been awarded one of the prestigious MacArthur Awards for 2009. In addition to an incredible amount of kudos, the award, better known as the “genius award,” includes $500,000. That should fund a lot more people-focused coverage of the Middle East, which we all know is badly needed.
In an interview on YouTube about his film, Iraq in Fragments, Longley talks about the difficulty of shooting the lives of ordinary people during a war – with no crew, only a camera and a laptop, for the two years he spent in the country. Because of the danger of bombings, assassinations and kidnappings, most other foreign media types were holed up in the Green Zone, sending local, Iraqi journalists out to get photos and news. Not Longley. He took tremendous risks to get up close and personal with the people.
I first met Longley in 2002 when we traveled to Iraq with a group called the Iraqi Peace Team, which went there to work in clinics, food distribution sites, hospitals and other sites to make an anti-war statement and, if necessary, to act as human shields if war started while they were there. He was there on his own to shoot video about Iraqis struggling to live under brutal sanctions. I was sent there by the Seattle Post-Intelligencer to write about people living under the threat of the war that began in 2003.
Longley was quiet, serious and very dedicated to his work. It’s obvious he still is. This award couldn’t have happened to a nicer guy.
James Longley during a PBS interview. (PBS photo)