Showing posts with label EU. Show all posts
Showing posts with label EU. Show all posts

Monday, April 23, 2007

Nigerian vote not credible, say EU observers

By Tom Ashby

Reuters
Monday, April 23, 2007; 8:43 AM

ABUJA (Reuters) - European Union observers said Nigeria's presidential election could not be considered credible on Monday as early results showed ruling party candidate Umaru Yar'Adua set for a landslide win.

Outgoing President Olusegun Obasanjo said elections were not perfect, but appealed to Nigerians not to lose faith in the democratic process.

The ballot for the first handover of power from one civilian leader to another in the vast oil producer was undermined by ballot-stuffing, violence and a shortage of millions of voting papers on Saturday.

"These elections have not lived up to the hopes and expectations of the Nigerian people and the process cannot be considered to have been credible," said Max van den Berg, chief EU observer, in a statement.

A local coalition of civil society observers called for the cancellation of the vote to allow a re-run in Africa's most populous country, scarred by decades of corrupt dictatorship since independence from Britain in 1960.

"The election was a charade. A democratic arrangement founded on such fraud can have no legitimacy," they said.

The EU observers called for urgent action over the election, but did not say if it should be cancelled and held again.

World leaders had expressed hopes that Nigeria, West Africa's economic powerhouse, would emerge as a major force for the spread of democracy across the continent.

Obasanjo appealed to any aggrieved parties to use legal avenues to seek redress, adding that results so far did not deviate from projections.

YAR'ADUA LEAD

Partial results from a third of Nigeria's 36 states showed Yar'Adua of the ruling People's Democratic Party (PDP) with 9.8 million votes versus 1.3 million for his nearest rival, local media said. A definitive result is expected later on Monday.

But the figures also revealed more evidence of fraud. Results from one area of Delta state were cancelled because they showed more votes than registered voters. Residents had reported a near total absence of ballots on voting day.

Obasanjo, whose election in 1999 returned Nigeria to democracy, must step down after failing to rewrite the constitution and stay for a third term.

Former military ruler Muhammadu Buhari, the leading opposition candidate, said he would not accept the result and called on parliament to impeach Obasanjo.

The opposition said it might bring its supporters out on the streets if the PDP claimed victory.

About 65 people have been killed in violence related to both the presidential election and regional polls a week earlier in the world's eighth-largest oil exporter. World oil prices rose on Monday because of the fears of further violence.

The government said unnamed coup plotters were trying to discredit the poll after failing to blow up electoral headquarters on election day with a petrol tanker.

Police arrested protesters at the electoral headquarters in the capital Abuja on Sunday and banned all rallies.

Election commission head Maurice Iwu acknowledged some materials arrived late at polling stations but said the "big picture" was of a free and fair election.

Analysts had predicted Yar'Adua would win due to unrivalled funding and the powers of incumbency, but Buhari had been expected to put up a credible challenge because of widespread disaffection with poverty and crime.

(Additional reporting by Austin Ekeinde in Port Harcourt, Camillus Eboh and Estelle Shirbon in Abuja, Tume Ahemba in Lagos)

Monday, April 9, 2007

EU: Shopping list could make you 'a terror suspect'

Related
27 April 2002: Eurofile: £33m budget passed for Euro-CIA
---
By Bruno Waterfield in Brussels

Last Updated: 1:10am BST 09/04/2007

The European Union's privacy watchdog has given warning that new access for Europol to personal data could lead to individuals being labelled as terror suspects based on hearsay or records of their shopping habits.

The warning, from the head of the European Data Protection supervisor, comes amid moves to allow the EU police agency to process so-called "soft data" in search of relevant information for its criminal investigations.

Peter Hustinx said that moves to give Europol the power to gather intelligence on "people who have not (yet) committed a crime" are without privacy safeguards.

He told The Daily Telegraph: "The proposal does not specify what data could be used in criminal investigations. It could be everything. It could be a vital detail such as an insurance company about a stolen car. But it could also be soft data, behavioural data."

The information could include statements of hearsay given to a local police force or data on personal shopping habits from a supermarket loyalty card, he said.

Under the new Europol rules, expected to be agreed by governments later this year, people will be unable to find out what information is held on them unless all 27 EU police forces unanimously grant permission.

Sayed Kamall, the Conservative Euro-MP, shares the watchdog's fears and is concerned that "behavioural data" will lead to ethnic profiling.

"For example, someone who purchases kosher meat and never shops on the sabbath, or who buys halal meat but not alcohol, can easily be

categorised and every purchase scrutinised, no matter how innocent it may be," he said.

Mr Hustinx, a Dutchman with decades of experience as a national privacy watchdog and data protection at the European level, is worried at the absence of proper safeguards to ensure the reliability of "soft data".

He said that individuals could easily be identified as suspects, giving the example of someone seen standing next to a terror suspect at a bus stop and becoming labelled "a facilitator for terrorism".

Max-Peter Ratzel, Europol's director, said that European law enforcers needed to update and extend the scope of intelligence gathering - which is unchanged since the EU police agency was set up in the early 1990s.

"Our databases are on organised or serious international crime so I would assume that ordinary citizens would not have any possibility of being there," he said.

Thursday, March 29, 2007

'Israel's right to exist': Is it a real issue?

Jeff Handmaker and Gentian Zyberi, The Electronic Intifada, 28 March 2007

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon (left) speaks at a joint press conference with Ehud Olmert, Prime Minister of Israel, in Jerusalem. (UN/Evan Schneider)

There are many aspects of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians in urgent need of legal scrutiny as part of a much-needed critical dialogue. One such issue is Israel's claim towards Hamas to acknowledge that it has a 'right to exist'. This claim has not only been uncritically taken on board by the Quartet. It has become one of the top conditions to be fulfilled by Hamas for receiving aid by the Quartet and other international donors. At the risk of stating the obvious, we argue that this position lacks any basis under international law and will serve no constructive political purpose in seeking to resolve the conflict.

What makes a State?

The criteria for statehood are laid out in the 1933 Montevideo Convention, namely: a permanent population, a defined territory, a government and capacity to enter into relations with other States. While Israel is a State and has been recognized as such by many States, it should not be forgotten that there is a fundamental distinction between the act of recognising a State and the mere fact of being of a State, or a State's 'right to existence'.

Recognition of a State is accorded under international law by way of two processes, namely recognition on the basis of objective criteria and explicit recognition by States. Explicit recognition by States is not necessary if the first factors (criteria for statehood) exist, though it obviously carries much political significance. This was illustrated by the Peoples Republic of China, a State of considerable size and stature, which was not recognized by many States for a long time and took its place in the UN only in 1971.

There are also many States which do not have diplomatic relations with other States, who withhold explicit recognition or who withdraw diplomatic relations for a variety of reasons, including objection to a government's human rights record. In the past this included the Soviet Union and South Africa. Many States, members of the UN, have also refused to recognise Israel, or have withdrawn diplomatic relations, for similar reasons. This includes the government of Venezuela, which withdrew its ambassador from Tel Aviv in August 2006 in protest at Israel's indiscriminate bombing of civilians in Lebanon.

Also largely forgotten in this discussion; a State's 'existence' carries with it many obligations, including the obligation to treat the inhabitants of territories under its control (occupied or otherwise) in accordance with human rights and humanitarian law. This includes respect for the rights of minorities, no discrimination on the grounds of race, religion or national origin and full and equal participation of all its citizens.

Last but not least, a 'right to existence' for a State is not an esoteric right, it must materialize within a clearly defined territory. Although this 'right to existence' is intrinsically connected with the issue of borders, the fact that the borders of Israel are not yet defined goes largely unnoticed.

Is Israel's existence at stake? A one-way demand

The current demand by the Quartet, US, Russia, UN and the European Union, is that Hamas recognise Israel's 'right to exist'. But even if the Quartet were to more properly insist on recognition of Israel's 'right to existence', Hamas is a political party and not a State and thus in no position to exercise any kind of legal recognition at all. Assuming, therefore, that the demand is instead being made for political reasons, we must question why it is made without any reciprocal demands by Israel.

Such a reciprocal demand might be, for example, that Israel acknowledge the right of return of Palestinian refugees in accordance with international law and that the West Bank, Gaza and Golan are occupied territories, neither of which Israel has done. Further, Israel might be asked to acknowledge the validity of the 2004 Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which provides a basis for resolving the conflict in accordance with international law, and also places explicit obligations on other States (including the members of the Quartet) and the UN itself.

Arafat long ago acknowledged, as head of the PLO, the 'right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security'.

So what does the current demand from Israel and the EU actually mean? Is it a real issue?

Since the European Union's demand that Hamas recognise Israel has no basis in international law, and in the absence of any reciprocal demands on Israel, we can only conclude that the EU, knowingly or not, is seeking to impose a one-sided political agenda that is counter-productive in finding a just peace. Such an approach undermines the EU's standing in the negotiating process towards achieving a just and long-lasting solution to this conflict.

The European Union must reconsider its position

Asking for an acknowledgement from Hamas of Israel's 'right to exist' is a disingenuous request, rooted neither in international law nor in any constructive political consideration.

As the largest trading partner of Israel, the European Union must reconsider its own position, expressed by the Quartet, at least with regard to this request. The EU should be guided by the even-handedness of international law principles as laid down in the 2004 Advisory Opinion of the ICJ. In this Opinion, the Court held that the obligations towards the international community as a whole violated by Israel are the obligation to respect the right of the Palestinian people to self determination, and certain of its obligations under international humanitarian law.

All States have an obligation to ask from Israel the recognition of the Palestinian people's right to self-determination. As the ICJ advised, the UN General Assembly (and the Quartet) need to encourage efforts with a view to achieving as soon as possible, on the basis of international law, a negotiated solution to the outstanding problems, with peace and security for all in the region.

This over-riding objective is not going to be achieved by such requests.

Jeff Handmaker lectures in human rights at the Institute of Social Studies in The Hague and Gentian Zyberi is a Ph.D. Candidate at the Netherlands Institute of Human Rights, Utrecht University.

Sunday, March 25, 2007

Friday, March 16, 2007

Israel risks isolation as Hamas-Fatah coalition takes office

· US fails to join boycott over peace conditions
· Europe and UK sound out moderates in new cabinet


Ian Black, Middle East editor, Rory McCarthy in Jerusalem and Ewen MacAskill in Washington
Friday March 16, 2007
The Guardian


Israel seems to be heading for confrontation with Britain and the EU after announcing a total boycott of the new Palestinian national unity government, due to be sworn in tomorrow after months of factional violence and political uncertainty.

"Israel will not deal with this new government and we hope the international community will stand firmly by its own principles and refuse to deal with a government that says no to peace and no to reconciliation," said Mark Regev, the foreign ministry spokesman.

Israel objects to the new government's failure to meet the three conditions laid down by the international community: recognise Israel, renounce violence and accept previous peace agreements. But Britain and the EU appear willing to deal with the unity government on a selective basis, and there are signs that even the US - anxious to appease its conservative Arab allies - may part company with the Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, over the issue. Washington conspicuously failed to announce a boycott of its own, saying it was reserving judgment.

The Hamas leader, Ismail Haniyeh, remains prime minister and his Islamist movement continues to have a major influence. Other key positions have been given to moderate independents in the hope of lifting the international financial boycott and alleviating the deepening economic crisis, especially in Gaza.

Diplomats said yesterday that the US had been close to agreeing to a total boycott but "pulled back from the brink" and agreed to work with the reforming finance minister, Salam Fayyad, a US-educated economist who has worked for the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, would like to open discussions with the non-Hamas members, in particular Mr Fayyad, it is understood. "It will be hard for the Americans to support a complete boycott," said one ambassador.

Asked if the White House would deal with Mr Fayyad, including as a channel for US aid funds, the state department spokesman Sean McCormack said: "Any questions about who we will or will not deal with, we are just going to wait."

But a senior British official was pessimistic, saying: "My impression at the moment is that the Americans are unwilling to work with the new government."

Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president and Fatah leader, has been in close contact with the US as well as Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan in recent days. Britain has told Israel it will deal with non-Hamas ministers - the official formulation is "different people in the government" - and other EU governments are likely to follow. France hailed the coalition as a "new page" in relations with the international community but linked future cooperation to Palestinian efforts to halt violence against Israel and secure the release of a captured Israel soldier, Gilad Shalit.

Final positions have yet to be agreed in internal discussions in several key capitals. "There's a huge row going on," said one European diplomat. "The Foreign Office is arguing with Downing Street, the state department with the national security council, and the German chancellery with the German foreign ministry."

Officials in Brussels said the EU might send funds through Mr Fayyad as a first step towards restoring direct assistance. Another possibility is broadening an existing mechanism for delivering purely humanitarian relief to include direct payments to the Palestinian government.

"We will not be taking any decisions before we have been able to judge the programme and actions of the new administration," said Emma Udwin, a spokeswoman for the European commission.

Under the spotlight will be the new government's political programme, which remains vague. Policies include continuing a four-month truce with Israel in Gaza and talk of "respecting" previous peace deals. However there is no explicit recognition of Israel and the platform appears to reaffirm a broad "right of resistance". The policies are broadly based on a Hamas-Fatah agreement reached last year.

Factional fighting, which continued sporadically in Gaza yesterday, has killed more than 130 Palestinians. Restoring security will be the job of the new interior minister, Hani Kawasmeh, a low-key, independent bureaucrat who has inherited the most difficult position in the government.

The hope is that even partial western engagement with the new government will create some sense of momentum before the Arab summit in Riyadh, the Saudi capital, at the end of the month.

Wednesday, January 24, 2007

EU Governments Directly Undermine Torture Ban

‘Diplomatic Assurances’ Against Torture Provide No Protection From Abuse

(New York, January 23, 2007) – The European Parliament report adopted today on the role of EU states in CIA renditions tells only half the story when it comes to European complicity in torture, Human Rights Watch said in a new briefing paper on how some EU governments have also directly undermined the global ban on torture.

" Diplomatic assurances simply do not protect against torture. European governments have used these empty promises as a fig leaf to justify sending people to places where they risk being tortured "
Holly Cartner
Director
Europe and Central Asia division

The briefing paper shows how EU states have relied upon empty promises of humane treatment, known as “diplomatic assurances,” in efforts to justify the return of terrorism suspects to countries where they risk being tortured. In the report adopted today, the European Parliament’s Temporary Committee on illegal CIA activity in Europe focuses on CIA flights and US-sponsored transfers of terrorism suspects. It also calls on EU member states to oppose the use of “diplomatic assurances” on torture in returning terrorism suspects. Europe pioneered the use of these “no torture” promises in the 1990s, well before the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States.

“The European Parliament is right to focus on ending European complicity in illegal CIA activity,” said Holly Cartner, Europe and Central Asia director of Human Rights Watch. “But if Europe is serious about ending its complicity in torture, it also needs to stop homegrown policies that undermine the global ban on torture.”

EU states such as the United Kingdom and Sweden have been among the most vocal proponents of employing diplomatic assurances to deport and extradite terrorism suspects. The UK is currently trying to deport terrorism suspects based on blanket no-torture promises from countries like Jordan and Libya. Austria, the Netherlands and Germany have also employed diplomatic assurances in attempts to extradite alleged terrorists to countries where they face the risk of torture. These EU governments have argued that diplomatic assurances allow them to deport or extradite terrorism suspects safely.

But the Human Rights Watch briefing paper, which includes research conducted over the last three years, indicates that promises from governments that practice torture or target specific groups for such abuse are unreliable, unenforceable and ineffective. The most notorious example involves Sweden, which sent two Egyptian terrorism suspects to Cairo in December 2001 in the hands of the CIA, based on promises of humane treatment. Both were tortured on their return, despite visits from Swedish diplomats. Two UN bodies – the Committee Against Torture and the Human Rights Committee – have since ruled that Sweden’s actions in the case violated the international ban on returning people to a risk of torture.

“Diplomatic assurances simply do not protect against torture,” said Cartner. “European governments have used these empty promises as a fig leaf to justify sending people to places where they risk being tortured.”

Part of what makes diplomatic assurances worthless is the nature of torture itself. Torture is criminal activity, practiced in secret using techniques that often defy detection – such as mock drowning, sexual assault, and the application of electricity on the victim’s body. In some countries, governments employ medical personnel in detention facilities to monitor the abuse to ensure that the torture is not easily detected. Detainees subjected to torture are often afraid to complain to anyone about the abuse for fear of reprisals against them or their family members. Post-return monitoring visits by diplomats or others under such conditions cannot adequately protect a suspect from abuse.

In July, the European Parliament called on member states “to reject altogether reliance on diplomatic assurances against torture.”

“Now that Germany has taken on the EU presidency, Chancellor Merkel’s government should urge all EU states to heed the parliament’s call,” said Cartner. “European governments’ complicity in torture must end.”

The Human Rights Watch briefing paper also includes updated and new cases involving the use of assurances against torture in other countries, including the United States, Canada and Russia. A forthcoming briefing paper by Human Rights Watch will address the transfer of detainees from Guantanamo Bay to Russia and the torture and other abuse they suffered upon return, despite Russian assurances of humane treatment.

Tuesday, January 16, 2007

Taking Up the Slack in Central Asia

A few years back, European relations with Central Asian states were fairly quiet. And, at least as far as appearances went, the US, due to its close relationship with Uzbekistan, seemed to be less principled or more pragmatic (depending on your point of view) compared to Europe. RFE/RL today carries a story that shows just how pragmatic Europe (or at least the German-speaking parts of it) is getting about Central Asia. In fact, the focus of the story, EU External Relations Commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner, is sounding quite a bit like defenders of US policy toward Uzbekistan from a few years ago.

“I think it’s not a matter of securing the energy resources only — it’s really a matter of engaging with these [Central Asian] countries,” Ferrero-Waldner told Reuters. “If we don’t engage with these countries, these countries will turn eastwards and turn to Russia and China. And I think it’s highly important that [Central Asians] also look very strongly towards Europe.”

That sounds quite a bit like arguments that I made about US policy toward Uzbekistan a couple years back, and I think it is fairly safe to assume that though Ferrero-Waldner has engagement with Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan mostly in mind, arguments that EU engagement will produce marginal improvements over the status quo must most vigorously be applied toward convincing European states and publics to agree to reaching out to Turkmenistan and especially Uzbekistan.

Ever since Andijon, Western policy in the region has been a disjointed mess. The US has shifted its focus toward Kazakhstan, sought to maintain access to Manas airfield in Kyrgyzstan, and that is about it. Europe, with the exception of Germany, has also more or less been in a holding pattern since mid-2005. Meanwhile, Uzbekistan has been taking daily steps to overtake Turkmenistan as the universally-recognized most repressive state in the region. Is it time for someone in the West to pursue a comprehensive regional policy and reengage with Uzbekistan?

The RAND Corporation’s findings on US security assistance to Uzbekistan indicate that repackaged engagement and assistance to Uzbekistan can bear some fruit. Isolation has not accomplished anything, and any policy aimed at the entire region cannot exclude the country where nearly half the region’s population lives. If John Negroponte’s characterization of Central Asian governments as unreliable is any indication, the US is not terribly interested in either renewing ties with Uzbekistan or breathing new life into its regional policy, leaving Europe to take up the slack for the West.

Germany is at the fore in encouraging European engagement with Central Asian governments, and it is facing an uphill battle.

Germany argues engagement is the way to promote rights, but activists were concerned when it argued successfully against toughening sanctions on Uzbekistan last year and lobbied — inconclusively — for Kazakhstan to take the helm of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe in 2009.

Analysts say Germany will not find it easy to persuade all its 26 EU partners to follow an “interest-driven” policy.

Reuters packages activists’ concerns as being about German interest-driven rather than idealism-driven foreign policy. The Western experience with Uzbekistan over the past five years provides a good deal of empirical evidence about the merits and demerits of interest-driven versus idealism-driven foreign policy. Interest-driven policy accomplished little. But idealism, even though it has not been executed as I imagine most idealists would prefer, has not accomplished anything. Germany apparently feels that a little is better than nothing, especially when Europe’s interests in Central Asia are so strong.

Germany could, I suppose, go it alone if it wished. But one of the biggest problems with Western policy in Central Asia (and between agencies in US policy) has been not just that the region has rarely been treated as one region so much as a collection of neighboring states but also that Western states have not been on the same page. Though having the West as a whole on the same page would be preferable, a comprehensive EU policy would be a great achievement, and working together stands a far better chance of achieving (probably still marginal) results. Russian gas games prove to Europe that it needs Central Asia. And Central Asian governments know they do better with multiple partnerships. Developments in much of Central Asia over the last year-and-a-half have made the future look dim, and at least part of that is due to the West’s absence. Perhaps it is time for a second round of close relations.

Wednesday, January 3, 2007

Failure of Palestinian diplomacy in 2006

From palestine-info.co.uk

Analysis
By Khalid Amayreh
Jan 2, 2007, 15:21

In 2006, the Palestinian diplomacy failed, almost completely, in achieving its central goals.

These include, first, expediting the process of ending the Israeli military occupation that began in 1967; second, lifting the draconian siege imposed by Israel, the US, and EU, in connivance with certain Arab regimes, for the purpose of punishing the Palestinian people for electing Hamas; and, third, exposing Israeli brutality and criminality against our people.

In the past year, Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas visited many capitals, including Washington D.C. , and received in Ramallah scores of foreign leaders and diplomats.

However, these high-profile meetings and encounters yielded next to nothing in terms of positive tangible outcome, apart from the usual pleasantries and public relations trappings.

Indeed, a meticulous review of Abbas’s meetings with foreign leaders in 2006 (2005 was no different) shows that the Palestinian leadership failed utterly in communicating the messages that ought to have been communicated to these foreign visitors.

For example, Abbas made little or no efforts to tell the world community that it was unfair and unwise to punish ordinary Palestinians because of Hamas’s refusal to recognize Israel and that it was illogical to demand that Hamas recognize Israel without demanding a reciprocal Israeli recognition of a sovereign Palestinian state on the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip.

He also equally utterly failed to effectively and clearly convey the message that the election of Hamas in January 2006 didn’t really imply that a majority of Palestinians were against peace with Israel or dedicated to the destruction of the apartheid state as Israeli hasbara has been successfully trying to convince the international community.

Indeed, Abbas’s statements and remarks in the presence of foreign visitors often suggested that he more or less agreed that the Palestinian people erred, to put it mildly, by electing Hamas, and had to incur the consequences.

Furthermore, the PA leadership in 2006 was guilty of indulgence in seeking to appease and please the West, especially the United States , by creating the impression that the PA, especially Fatah, was joining the American-inspired “coalition of the moderates,” which includes pro-American regimes in the Middle East against the anti-Israeli coalition, which includes Hamas, Hizbullah , Syria and Iran .

Well, this impression is false and deceptive because Palestine and the Palestinians are occupied and tormented by Israel whose occupation of our land is supported, sustained and guarded by the United States , not by Iran or Hizbullah or Syria .

More to the point, we must take note of the fact that these artificial and disingenuous classifications (the coalitions of moderates and extremists) are being utilized by the bankrupt Bush administration in order to redefine the essence of the Palestinian cause, from an enduring criminal and racist occupation of Palestine and systematic repression of its people to a mere psychological problem of moderates and extremists. This is how the Bush administration, in coordination with some Zionist circles, such as the so-called Peres Peace Center , has come to understand the conflict in this region.

That is why they are always trying to get Palestinian soccer players (usually the young boys and girls uncorrupted by extremist thinking!!) to play Israeli counterparts or play with them in one team against a foreign soccer team, as happened recently in Spain . Well, they are trying to spread the message that the problem is not the rape of Palestine by the Jews, the expulsion of millions of Palestinians from their ancestral homeland, but merely a psychological problem and some unresolved psychological complexes.

Having effectively joined the “axis of moderates” (which actually is an axis of liars), Abbas may have hoped that this false perceived proximity vis-à-vis the Americans would have placed him in a better position to extract Palestinian rights from Israel ’s criminal hands.

But this view is short sighted if not outright naïve. This almost messianic American administration, which believes that the invasion, occupation and destruction of Iraq, was inspired by God, will not award or reward Abbas for being moderate (in the American lexicon “moderate” means coming to terms with the Israeli occupation and giving up Jerusalem as well as the right of return and much of the West Bank).

This is clear from the quality of the award the Bush Administration is already giving the PA.

Indeed, instead of ordering Israel to stop building racist Jewish-only colonies and put an end to the policy of narrowing Palestinians’ horizons, George Bush has decided to give us weapons and millions of bullets to kill each other. More to the point, the fact that the delivery of these weapons has been supported by the likes of Avigdor Lieberman and right-wing Jewish extremists in the US speaks volumes in itself.

This is the same Bush that once described Ariel Sharon (we know well who Sharon is) as a man of peace and awarded his artificial withdrawal from Gaza by bestowing legitimacy to scores of Jewish colonies in the West Bank .

Our leadership must realize that the Palestinian people are not an Eidul Adha ram, to be fed today in order to be slaughtered tomorrow.

It is lamentable that PA spokesmen, from Abbas downward, are scandalously failing to get the right messages through to the world.

For these reasons, in 2007, we must seek to rethink our performance with regard to media tactics and public diplomacy and do away with the often jumbled and confused public discourse. And in order to do that, we must concentrate on the following messages.
First, that the Israeli occupation is an act of rape and that it is the mother of all problems in the Middle East and beyond, and that there can be no peace or stability between Islam and the West, let alone between Israel and the Muslim world, as long as the Israeli occupation persists and the Palestinian people are denied their rights, including the right to have a viable and sovereign state with East Jerusalem as its capital as well the repatriation of Palestinian refugees to their original hometowns and villages in what is now Israel.

Second, that Hamas is an authentic societal force that can’t be marginalized let alone eradicated and that it is futile and unrealistic to starve and torment the Palestinian people in order to weaken Hamas.

Third, that the Palestinian people will not be cajoled or bullied into accepting a deformed state, one with a form but without a substance.

Furthermore, the PA should stop talking about Hamas in the presence of foreign, especially American visitors since this would give the impression that the real problem lies in the existence of Hamas, not in the reality of the Israeli colonization and occupation of our homeland.

More to the point, the PA should really tell the international community that the PA itself is under the Israeli occupation and that the Israeli occupation of Palestine is still as sinister and as direct as it was prior to the conclusion of the Oslo Accords in 1993.

Indeed, giving the false impression of Palestinian statehood, by employing such bombastic but mendacious phrases as Palestinian “sovereignty” and Palestinian “government” and Palestinian “security forces,” is really self-defeating and very very harmful to Palestinian aspirations for real freedom and real statehood. After all, real freedom can only be attained following a real delivery from this Nazi-like occupation of our country.

Finally, it is sad that the PA continues to employ poorly qualified or unqualified spokespersons with inadequate political and linguistic abilities to communicate the Palestinian view point to the outside world. We need professional spokespersons with excellent knowledge of the world and mastery of foreign languages, especially English, to tell the world in straightforward manner that Israel is a murderer, liar and land thief and that the problem lies squarely in the Zionist theft of our land and savagery of our people.


© Copyright 2003 by palestine-info.co.uk email: webmaster@palestine-info.info

Saturday, December 23, 2006

Israel's immoral 'right to exist'

What is really being asked of the Palestinians is that they concede they are subhuman and thus deserve the horror to which they have been subject, writes John V Whitbeck

Now that the Palestinian civil war long sought after by Israel, the US and the EU appears on the verge of breaking out, it may be timely to examine the justification put forward by Israel, the US and the EU for their collective punishment of the Palestinian people ostensibly in retaliation for their having made the "wrong" choice in last January's democratic elections: the refusal of Hamas to "recognise Israel" or to "recognise Israel's existence" or to "recognise Israel's right to exist".

These three verbal formulations have been used by the media, politicians, and even diplomats interchangeably, as though they mean the same thing. They do not.

"Recognising Israel", or any other state, is a formal legal/ diplomatic act by a state with respect to another state. It is inappropriate -- indeed, nonsensical -- to talk about a political party or movement, even one in a sovereign state, extending diplomatic recognition to a state. To talk of Hamas "recognising Israel" is simply sloppy, confusing and deceptive shorthand for the real demand being made.

"Recognising Israel's existence" is not logical nonsense and appears on first impression to involve a relatively straightforward acknowledgement of a fact of life -- like death and taxes. Yet, there are serious practical problems with this formulation. What Israel, within which borders? The 55 per cent of historic Palestine reserved for a Jewish state by the UN General Assembly in 1947? The 78 per cent of historic Palestine occupied by Israel in 1948 and now viewed by most of the world as "Israel" or "Israel proper"? The 100 per cent of historic Palestine occupied by Israel since June 1967 and shown as "Israel" on maps in Israeli schoolbooks? Israel has never defined its own borders, since doing so would, necessarily, place limits on them.

Still, if this were all that were being demanded of Hamas, it might be possible for it to acknowledge, as a fact of life, that a State of Israel exists today within some specified borders. "Recognising Israel's right to exist", the actual demand, is in an entirely different league. This formulation does not address diplomatic formalities or the simple acceptance of present realities. It calls for a moral judgment.

There is an enormous difference between "recognising Israel's existence" and "recognising Israel's right to exist". From a Palestinian perspective, the difference is in the same ballpark as the difference between asking a Jew to acknowledge that the Jewish Holocaust happened and asking him to acknowledge that it was "right" that the Jewish Holocaust happened -- that the Jewish Holocaust (or, in the Palestinian case, the ) was morally justified.

To demand that Palestinians recognise "Israel's right to exist" is to demand that a people who have, for almost 60 years, been treated, and continue to be treated, as subhuman, publicly proclaim that they are subhuman -- and, at least implicitly, that they deserve what has been done, and continues to be done, to them. Even 19th century US governments did not require the surviving Native Americans to publicly proclaim the "rightness" of their ethnic cleansing by Pale Faces as a condition precedent to even discussing what reservation might be set aside for them -- under economic blockade and threat of starvation until they shed whatever pride they had left and conceded the point.

Some believe that Yasser Arafat did concede the point in order to buy his ticket out of the wilderness of demonisation and earn the right to be lectured directly by the Americans. In fact, in his famous statement in Stockholm in late 1988, he accepted "Israel's right to exist in peace and security". This formulation, significantly, addresses the conditions of existence of a state that, as a matter of fact, exists. It does not address the existential question of the "rightness" of the dispossession and dispersal of the Palestinian people from their homeland to make way for another people coming in from abroad.

The original conception of the formulation "Israel's right to exist" and of its utility as an excuse for not talking to any Palestinian leadership that still stood up for the fundamental rights of the Palestinian people, are attributed to Henry Kissinger, the grand master of diplomatic cynicism. There can be little doubt that those states which still employ this formulation do so in full consciousness of what it entails, morally and psychologically, for the Palestinian people and for the same cynical purpose -- as a roadblock against progress towards peace and justice in Israel/Palestine and as a way of helping to buy more time for Israel to create more "facts on the ground" while blaming the Palestinians for their own suffering.

Many private citizens of good will and decent values may be taken in by the surface simplicity of the words "Israel's right to exist" (and even more so by the other two shorthand formulations) into believing that they constitute a self- evidently reasonable demand and that refusing such a demand represents perversity (or a "terrorist ideology"), rather than a need of Palestinians to retain their self-respect and dignity as full-fledged human beings while being stripped of almost everything else that makes life worth living. That this is so is evidenced by polls showing that the percentage of the Palestinian population that approves of Hamas's steadfastness in refusing to bow to this humiliating demand by their enemies -- notwithstanding the intensity of the economic pain and suffering inflicted on them by the Israeli and Western siege -- substantially exceeds that of the population which voted for Hamas in January.

It may not be too late to focus decent minds around the world on the unreasonableness -- indeed, the immorality -- of this demand and of the verbal formulation on which it is based, whose use and abuse have already caused so much misery and threaten to cause more.

* The writer is an international lawyer and author of The World According to Whitbeck.

© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved

Al-Ahram Weekly Online

Monday, December 18, 2006

Supporters Call for the Recall of South African Ambassador From Tel Aviv and Sanctions Against Israel

Monday, December 18, 2006

Palestine Solidarity Committee (South Africa) and Supporters Call for the Recall of South African Ambassador From Tel Aviv and Sanctions Against Israel

At a press conference held today in South Africa the Palestine Solidarity Committee, COSATU (the Congress of South African Trade Unions representing 1.2 million workers) and the South African Council of Churches called on the South African government to recall the ambassador to Israel and to implement sanctions against Israel.

Speakers at the conference included Willie Madisha (president of COSATU) Eddie Makue (general secretary of the South African Council of Churches), Ali Halimeh (Palestinian Ambassador to South Africa), Virginia Tilley (academic and author), Na’eem Jeenah (chair), Salim Vally (Palestine Solidarity Committee and Patrick Craven (spokesperson for COSATU).

They released the following joint statement:

We, delegates of organisations and movements that represent and have the support of the majority of South Africans, oppose and condemn the Israeli atrocities in Palestine and we make the following call:

  • We call on the South African government to immediately recall the South African ambassador from Tel Aviv and to begin the process of ending diplomatic relations with Israel.
  • We call on all South Africans to establish a strong, forceful and determined boycott and sanctions campaign against the Israeli apartheid state until the end of the occupation.
  • We call on South Africans to identify a national day of action in solidarity with the Palestinian people and to observe it with rolling mass action around the country.
  • We call on the South African government to ensure that no South African serves – in any capacity – in the Israeli Occupation Forces and that any South African citizen doing so will be prosecuted under the Regulation of Foreign Military Assistance Act.
  • We demand that Israel immediately withdraws all Israeli Occupation Forces from Gaza and ends the occupation of Palestinian lands.
  • We demand that Israel abides by the provisions of international humanitarian law and human rights law, and refrains from imposing collective punishment on Palestinian civilians (as per the UN Human Rights Council declaration issued on 6 July 2006).
  • Call on Israel to release all detained Palestinian ministers and legislators and to release all political prisoners – including hundreds of women and children.
  • We call on the EU to stop the severe sanctions imposed by Europe on the Palestinian Authority as a penalty for exercising their democratic right and electing a government of their choice. This by itself is a brutal intervention on behalf of the occupation.
  • We call on the United Nations to implement the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on Israel’s Apartheid wall.
  • We call on the United Nations to ensure that Israel fulfils its obligations in terms of international law.

EU to Israel: Stop violating int'l law

European Council urges Israel to release detained Hamas ministers alongside release of abducted IDF soldier Shalit; ‘Israel must put an end to all activities which are contrary to international law, including settlement activities and construction of barrier on Palestinian land
Ronny Sofer

The European Council called on Monday for Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to meet in the near future.

The Council urged Israel to release the detained Hamas ministers and parliament members and at the same time called on the Palestinians to release kidnapped IDF soldier Gilad Shalit.
Regional Threat

EU charges Iran with destabilizing Middle East / Reuters

Resolution slams Iran over nuclear program, threats towards Israel; condemns denial of Holocaust by Tehran
Full Story

The European Council reiterated its call for full and speedy implementation of the Roadmap.

The Council said in a statement, “As a first step, the following priorities should be pursued, following a calendar agreed between the parties and monitored by the Quartet: Full and speedy implementation of the Agreement on Movement and Access; full implementation of the Sharm-el Sheikh understandings, including the release of prisoners and resumption of security cooperation between the parties; parallel implementation by the parties of the obligations they have committed to under the first phase of the Roadmap.

“These, though important, are only initial steps, and must lead to meaningful negotiations on the final status, the ultimate goal of which is an end to the occupation that began in 1967 and the creation of an independent, democratic and viable Palestinian state, living side-by-side with Israel and its other neighbours in peace and security,” the statement said.

The Council added that, “Violations of the ceasefire must end and it should be extended to the West Bank. For the ceasefire to be meaningful and sustainable it must be consolidated through a political process.”


The Council further demanded that the parties “take concrete and immediate measures to put an end to all acts of violence, and to all activities which are contrary to international law, including settlement activities and the construction of the barrier on Palestinian land.”

“The EU will not recognise any changes to the pre-1967 borders other than those agreed by both parties,” the statement said
.

EU Report: Muslims Face 'Islamophobia'

Monday December 18, 2006 1:01 PM

By BRIAN MURPHY

AP Religion Writer

ATHENS, Greece (AP) - Muslims across Europe are confronting a rise in ``Islamophobia'' ranging from violent attacks to discrimination in job and housing markets, a wide-ranging European Union report indicated Monday.

The study, compiled by the European Monitoring Center on Racism and Xenophobia, urged European authorities to strengthen policies on integration. But it also noted that Muslims need to do more to counter negative perceptions driven by terrorism and upheavals such as the backlash to cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad.

The 117-page survey details the many divides between the EU mainstream and the estimated 13 million Muslims - now at least 3.5 percent of the 25-nation bloc's population - and seeks to offer a street-level view of the complexities blocking efforts to bridge the differences.

``The disadvantaged position of Muslim minorities, evidence of a rise in Islamophobia and concern over processes of alienation and radicalization have triggered an intense debate in the European Union,'' said Beate Winkler, director of the Vienna-based group.

The report reinforces the growing urgency of tackling religious tensions and suspicions in Europe.

During a trip to Turkey earlier this month, Pope Benedict XVI appealed for greater understanding between Christianity and Islam and sought to ease Muslim outrage over his remarks in September that cited a medieval emperor speaking about violence and Muhammad's teachings.

Last week, British Prime Minister Tony Blair called tolerance one of the ``essential values'' of his nation and denounced ``hatemongers, whatever their race, religion or creed.''

The report cited hundreds of reported cases of violence or threats against Muslims in the EU since 2004, including vandalism against mosques and Islamic centers, abuse against women wearing Islamic headscarves and attacks, such as a Somali family in Denmark assaulted by a gang carrying baseball bats emblazoned with swastikas and racist slogans.

The report, however, noted that ``data on religiously aggravated incidents is collected on a limited scale.'' It noted that only Britain publishes a hate-crime list that specifically identifies acts against Muslims.

``Muslims feel that acceptance by society is increasingly premised on 'assimilation' and the assumption that they should lose their Muslim identity,'' Winkler said. Since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, many Muslims feel ``they have been put under a general suspicion of terrorism.''

Islamophobic incidents shot up 500 percent in Britain in the weeks after the July 2005 bombings of London's transit system, but decreased dramatically after authorities and religious leaders worked together to ease tensions, Winkler said.

``The key word is 'respect,''' she said. ``People need to feel respected and included.''

The report urged EU nations to develop more clear legal frameworks for Muslim cultural and religious institutions, including ways to make more public funds available to Islamic community groups and help train local imams.

The report also said Europe's Muslims are ``often disproportionately represented'' in poor housing conditions, unemployment statistics and in lower education levels.

---

On the Net:

European Monitoring Center on Racism and Xenophobia: http://eumc.eu.int

Clandestine military teams clash with CIA, allies

By Greg Miller
Times Staff Writer

7:41 PM PST, December 17, 2006

WASHINGTON -- U.S. Special Forces teams sent overseas on secret spying missions have clashed with the CIA and carried out operations in countries that are staunch U.S. allies, prompting a new effort by the agency and the Pentagon to tighten the rules for military units engaged in espionage, according to senior U.S. intelligence and military officials.

The spy missions are part of a highly classified program that officials say has better positioned the United States to track terrorist networks and capture or kill enemy operatives in regions such as the Horn of Africa, where weak governments are unable to respond to emerging threats.

But the initiative has also led to several embarrassing incidents for the United States, including a shootout in Paraguay and the exposure of a sensitive intelligence operation in East Africa, according to current and former officials familiar with the matter. And to date, the Special Forces espionage effort has not led to the capture of a significant terrorism suspect.

Some intelligence officials have complained that Special Forces teams have sometimes launched missions without informing the CIA, duplicating or even jeopardizing existing operations. And they questioned deploying military teams in friendly nations -- including in Europe -- at a time when combat units are in short supply in war zones.

The program was approved in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks by Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, and is expected to get close scrutiny by his successor, Robert M. Gates, who takes over Monday and has been critical of the expansion of the military's intelligence operations.

Senior officials at the CIA and the Pentagon defended the program and said they would urge Gates to support it. But they acknowledged risks for the United States in its growing reliance on Special Forces troops and other military units for espionage.

"We are at war out there and frankly we need all the help that we can get," said Marine Maj. Gen. Michael E. Ennis, who since February has served as a senior CIA official in charge of coordinating human intelligence operations with the military. "But at the same time we have to be very careful that we don't disrupt established relationships with other governments, with their liaison services, or [do] anything that would embarrass the United States."

Ennis acknowledged "really egregious mistakes" in the program, but said collaboration has improved between the CIA and the military.

"What we are seeing now, primarily, are coordination problems," Ennis said in an interview with the Los Angeles Times. "And really, they are fewer and fewer."

The issue underscores the sensitivity of using elite combat forces for espionage missions that have traditionally been the domain of the CIA.

After Sept. 11, the Bush administration gave expanded authority to the Special Operations Command, which oversees the Army Green Berets, Navy SEALs and other elite units, in the fight against terrorism. At the same time, Rumsfeld, who lacked confidence in the CIA, directed a major expansion of the military's involvement in intelligence gathering to make the Pentagon less dependent on the agency.

Officials said this led to the secret deployment of small teams of Special Forces troops, known as military liaison elements, or MLEs, to American embassies to serve as intelligence operatives. Members of the teams undergo special training in espionage at Ft. Bragg and other facilities, according to officials familiar with the program.

The troops typically work in civilian clothes and function much like CIA case officers, cultivating sources in other governments or Islamic organizations. One objective, officials said, is to generate information that could be used to plan clandestine operations such as capturing or killing terrorism suspects.

In a written response to questions from the Times, a spokesman for the Special Operations Command in Tampa, Fla., described MLEs as "individuals or small teams that deploy in support of (regional military commanders) in select countries, and always with the U.S. ambassador and country team's concurrence and support."

But critics point to a series of incidents in recent years that have caused diplomatic problems for the United States.

In 2004, members of an MLE team operating in Paraguay shot and killed an armed assailant who tried to rob them outside a bar, said former intelligence officials familiar with the incident. U.S. officials removed the members of the team from the country, the officials said.

In another incident, members of a team in East Africa were arrested by the local government after their espionage activity was discovered.

"It was a compromised surveillance activity," said a former senior CIA official familiar with the incident. The official said members of the unit "got rolled up by locals and we got them out." The former official declined to name the country or provide other details.

He said it was an isolated example of an operation that was exposed, but that coordination problems were frequent.

"They're pretty freewheeling," the former CIA official said of the military teams. It was not uncommon, he said, for CIA station chiefs to learn of military intelligence operations only after they were underway, and that many conflicted with existing operations being carried out by the CIA or the foreign country's intelligence service.

Such problems "really are quite costly," said John Brennan, who was director of the National Counterterrorism Center before retiring from government last year. "It can cost peoples' lives, can cost sensitive programs and can set back foreign policy interests."

Brennan declined to comment on specific incidents.

There have also been questions about where teams have been sent. Although conceived to bolster the U.S. presence in global trouble spots, the units have carried out operations in friendly nations in Europe and Southeast Asia where it is more difficult to justify, officials said.

On at least one occasion, a team tracked an Islamic militant in Europe. "They were trying to acquire certain information about a certain individual," said a former high-ranking U.S. intelligence official who spoke on condition of anonymity. The official declined to name the country, but said it was a NATO ally and that the host government was unaware of the mission.

Critics said such operations risk angering U.S. allies with a dubious prospect for payoff. In some countries where MLE teams are located, "There's not a chance ... we're going to send somebody in there to snatch somebody unilaterally," said a government official familiar with the program.

At a time when the military is stretched thin, the official questioned the priority of using Special Forces for espionage, noting that the MLE program has not produced a significant success in terms of disrupting a plot or capturing a terrorist suspect.

"These are a highly trained, short-supply resource of the U.S. government," the official said. "What ... are they doing there instead of Pakistan or Afghanistan?"

Gates, the former director of the CIA poised to run the Pentagon, has voiced concern over the military's encroachment on CIA missions. In an opinion piece published this year, Gates said that "more than a few CIA veterans, including me, are unhappy about the dominance of the Defense Dept. in the intelligence arena and the decline in the CIA's central role."

In response to such conflicts, the administration previously designated the CIA director as the head of all U.S. human-spying operations overseas, with CIA station chiefs serving as coordinators in specific countries.

Ennis, whose position at the CIA was created last year, said the agency and the Pentagon are developing a more rigorous system for screening proposed military intelligence operations.

"Like a pilot with a checklist," CIA station chiefs will be required to sign off on all aspects of a proposed military intelligence operation before it is allowed to proceed, Ennis said. The CIA station chief, he added, "would look at the risk in terms of embarrassment to the government. Do they have the right level of training to do what they claim that they want to do, and is this already being done somewhere else?"

Col. Samuel Taylor, director of public affairs for the Special Operations Command, dismissed the suggestion of coordination problems with other agencies, saying, "We have an excellent, effective and productive working relationship with the CIA."

Saturday, December 16, 2006

Testimony Helps Detail CIA's Post-9/11 Reach

Europeans Told of Plans for Abductions

By Craig Whitlock
Washington Post Foreign Service
Saturday, December 16, 2006; A01

MILAN -- A few days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the CIA station chief in Rome paid a visit to the head of Italy's military intelligence agency, Adm. Gianfranco Battelli, to float a proposal: Would the Italian secret services help the CIA kidnap terrorism suspects and fly them out of the country?

The CIA man did not identify which targets he had in mind but was "expressly referring to the possibility of picking up a suspected terrorist in Italy, bringing him to an airport and sending him from there to a foreign country," Battelli, now retired, recalled in a deposition.

This initial secret contact and others that followed, disclosed in newly released documents, show the speed and breadth with which the CIA applied in post-9/11 Europe a tactic it had long reserved for the Third World -- "extraordinary rendition," the extrajudicial abduction of Islamic radicals overseas for interrogation in friendly countries.

A year after the first contact, the CIA officer held another meeting with his Italian counterparts, this time sharing a list of more than 10 "dangerous people" the agency was tracking in Italy, Belgium, Austria and the Netherlands, according to a deposition from Gen. Gustavo Pignero, another high-ranking Italian military intelligence official. "It was clear that this was an aggressive search project, that their willingness to employ illicit means was clear," Pignero said, adding that the list was later destroyed and he could not recall the names.

U.S. spies drew up suspect lists with the help of European intelligence agencies and chased some of the men around the globe before putting a brake on the operations in early 2004, about a year after the invasion of Iraq, according to documents unearthed in criminal investigations, lawsuits and parliamentary inquiries.

All told, the U.S. agency took part in the seizure of at least 10 European citizens or legal immigrants, some of them from countries not cited in that list of "dangerous people" received by the Italian spies. Four renditions occurred on European soil: in Sweden, Macedonia and Italy. Six operations targeted people who were traveling abroad or who had been captured in Pakistan; European intelligence agencies provided direct assistance to the CIA in at least five of those cases, records show.

Each prisoner was then secretly handed over to intelligence services in the Middle East or Africa with histories of human rights abuses. Some remain imprisoned in those countries; others have been taken to the U.S. naval prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. One man was later released after being taken from the Balkans to Afghanistan, the victim of an apparent case of mistaken identity.

In the early stages, the CIA had prepared even more ambitious plans, according to the depositions from the Italian intelligence officials, who testified last summer during a criminal investigation into a CIA-sponsored kidnapping of a radical Islamic cleric in Milan.

For example, Pignero said in his deposition that the CIA's Rome station chief had offered in 2002 to abduct a fugitive leader of the Red Brigades -- a Marxist network blamed for dozens of assassinations in Italy -- who had found refuge in South America. "The Americans would capture him and turn him over to us, and we in return would have to 'extradite' him to Italy without any legal proceedings," Pignero said.

In exchange, the CIA wanted help in abducting Islamic radicals living in the Italian cities of Turin, Vercelli and Naples, Pignero said. Italian intelligence officials rejected the offer, he added, because it was "contrary to international laws."

Reports of clandestine CIA operations have fueled deep public anger in Europe, where many people regard renditions as a blatant violation of national sovereignty and international law. Since last year, prosecutors have opened four separate criminal investigations into CIA activities in Europe. A dozen countries have conducted legislative inquiries into whether local spy agencies were involved.

Last month, a European Parliament committee investigating CIA operations in Europe condemned the practice of rendition "as an illegal and systematic instrument used by the United States" and called it "counterproductive in the fight against terrorism."

"I think that after the 11th of September, the CIA thought that all the ways useful to capture their enemies, the alleged terrorists, were now possible," Giovanni Claudio Fava, an Italian legislator who led the parliamentary probe, said in an interview in Brussels. "They wanted to clean Europe of all these dangerous, alleged terrorists. They didn't have faith in the quality and capacity of our own security controls and our justice system."

In the past year, U.S. officials have sought to repair the diplomatic damage. They have met repeatedly with their European counterparts to defuse opposition to renditions, the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo and the disclosure in November 2005 that the CIA had set up secret prisons for terrorism suspects in Eastern Europe.

John B. Bellinger III, legal adviser to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, said U.S. diplomats have made some headway. But he added that ongoing political disputes have "undermined cooperation and intelligence activities."

"I'd say that many European government officials and academics acknowledge now that there is a legal murkiness that applies to international terrorism," he said in a telephone interview from Washington. "On the negative side of the ledger, we do continue to have these hysterical, inflated allegations denouncing the United States that unfortunately do fan the flames of suspicion and anti-Americanism."

The CIA declined to comment.

'He Was Too Loud'

The most detailed disclosures about the CIA's European rendition project have emerged from Milan, where Italian prosecutors have spent two years investigating the disappearance of Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr, a militant Egyptian-born cleric known as Abu Omar.

When Nasr vanished in February 2003, police and prosecutors in Milan thought at first that he had slipped out of the country on his own, perhaps to join resistance forces in Iraq in advance of the U.S.-led invasion. The CIA lent credence to their suspicions a few months later, when it delivered an intelligence bulletin to Rome stating that Nasr had been seen in the Balkans.

In fact, prosecutors later discovered, Nasr had been grabbed on the street in Milan as he was walking to a mosque and stuffed into a white van, which sped to Aviano Air Base, a joint U.S.-Italian military installation. From there, he was put on a plane to Ramstein Air Base in Germany, and onward to Cairo, where Nasr claims he was tortured for months with electric shocks and sexually abused.

Prosecutors in Milan have since issued arrest warrants on kidnapping charges for 25 CIA operatives and a U.S. Air Force officer, alleging that they conspired with Italian secret service agents to abduct Nasr. Although none of the Americans is likely to be extradited to Italy, prosecutors have served notice that they intend to try them in absentia and asked a judge last month to formally indict the defendants.

Senior Italian intelligence officials have also been charged in the case, including Gen. Nicolo Pollari, director of the Italian military intelligence agency known as Sismi. Pignero, his former deputy, was arrested in June, shortly after he gave his deposition to prosecutors. He died of cancer three months later, on Sept. 11.

European investigators are still examining other mysterious cases of missing or detained people. Among them is the disappearance a few weeks before Nasr's kidnapping of another Egyptian-born Islamic fundamentalist.

Gamal al-Menshawi, a physician and occasional mosque preacher who knew Nasr personally, had left his home in Graz, Austria, bound for the Islamic holy city of Mecca, Saudi Arabia. His wife was waiting for him there, but he never arrived, according to Egyptian exiles in Austria and Italy who know him.

Menshawi's trail vanished after he arrived in Amman, Jordan, for a flight connection. He later surfaced in Egypt. European Parliament investigators have concluded he was detained there for two years without facing charges.

He was released in 2005 and is living in Alexandria, Egypt, according to Austrian journalists. He has severed contact with friends and colleagues in Europe, who strongly suspect he was subjected to a rendition, although they lack proof or direct evidence of U.S. involvement.

Arman Ahmed al-Hissini, imam of the Viale Jenner mosque in Milan and an acquaintance of Menshawi and Nasr, said both have been silenced by the Egyptian security services.

"The Arab secret services, they give names to the CIA of people who they want, people who are on the outside, such as Europe," said Hissini, an Egyptian native known locally as Abu Imad. "They give the names to the CIA, because the CIA can go to work in these countries."

There is also little doubt about Menshawi's fate among those who knew him in Austria's Islamic community.

"I see the American government as being primarily responsible," said Mohamed Mahmoud, chairman of a group called Islamic Group of Austria. "This is not the first time someone has disappeared."

"The Americans look around in Europe for who is being loud, who is speaking out, and then those people are kidnapped," he added. "He was very vocal; he was too loud for them. He talked openly about Egypt's government, about the U.S. government, about the Islamic community in Austria."

'They Needed Information'

About the same time, another Islamic militant from Austria disappeared during a stopover at the Amman airport.

Masaad Omer Behari, a Sudanese citizen who had lived in Austria for more than a decade, has said he was arrested by Jordanian secret service agents on Jan. 12, 2003, as he was traveling home to Vienna from a trip to Sudan.

Behari told European Parliament investigators in October that he was held for three months in a Jordanian prison, where he was interrogated about Islamic militants in Austria and elsewhere in Europe. "On the first day I was in prison, they told me they did not think I was a terrorist, but that they needed information about the Islamic scene in Vienna," he said.

Documents obtained by the investigators show that Behari had been under surveillance by Austria's domestic intelligence service since 1998, when he was interrogated about an alleged plot to blow up the U.S. Embassy in Vienna. Behari said he was innocent and never faced charges, but was pressured by Austrian secret service agents to leave the country after the Sept. 11 hijackings.

"I have experienced hard times because I did not cooperate with the security authorities in Europe and with the Americans," Behari said, according to a transcript of his testimony. The Austrians "threatened me that they would cause me problems. I thought it was only 'blah-blah,' but it was the truth."

Austrian authorities said they have not opened official inquiries into the disappearances of Menshawi or Behari, in part because neither is an Austrian citizen.

"Since the alleged abductions did not take place on Austrian soil, in an Austrian airplane or on an Austrian ship, we see no need for action," said Rudolf Gollia, spokesman for the Austrian Interior Ministry.

Special correspondent Shannon Smiley in Berlin contributed to this report.

Thursday, December 14, 2006

Most European capitals are targets for our air force

Thursday, December 14, 2006

Mordechai Vanunu is claiming that the ongoing restrictions on his freedom – including prohibition from even talking to reporters – are as a result of his having revealed that Israel has the bomb, something which the Prime Minister of Israel has now confirmed. The confirmation was not a mistake, but is a veiled threat to the rest of the world, particularly Europe (see also here or here, and here). The intentional ambiguity over the issue had been destroyed – no doubt in Zionist minds as part of a Baker-directed American Establishment ‘anti-Semitic’ plot – by Robert Gates, and the Israeli strategists had to fall back on Plan B, which is to try to make the most of the threat.

Vanunu makes an excellent point: if Israel doesn’t grant him his full freedom, shouldn’t it put Olmert in jail for at least the length of Vanunu’s sentence?

Monday, December 4, 2006

National Bankruptcy faces US but also UK & EU

November 28, 2006

Germany Goes Bankrupt Too!
by Martin Hennecke

Regular readers of websites like this one will already be well informed of the onrushing financial collapse and national bankruptcy of the United States, as this topic is receiving ample coverage nowadays from an abundance of writers and economists, including unmistakable warnings from many former senior government officials and central bankers as well as from the very institutions that are presently in charge, such as the International Monetary Fund, the Bank of International Settlements or the US Federal Reserve. So I will save myself repeating the obvious here, suffice to say that anyone who is new to the real world and would scoff at such notion may want to start educating himself/herself by reading some introductory books such as Bill Bonner's 'Empire of Debt', or browse the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis' report 'Is the United States Bankrupt?' published earlier this year.

What a large number of even the more educated US Dollar bear-and US financial crisis expectation camp however do NOT seem to be aware of is the global nature of the problem. It is completely wrong to assume, for example, that the Euro or the British Pound are inherently 'hard' and healthy currencies that would provide protection from a plunging US Dollar. It is not known by most, that in fact the majority of the Western 'developed' world and not just the United States is facing national bankruptcy shortly ahead, and that this has been officially predicted by the world's leading rating agency, Standard & Poor's.

US, Germany, France and UK face junk debt status

--MORE--

Thursday, November 30, 2006

US State Dept. Official On Tony Blair: "We Typically Ignore Them And Take No Notice"

The Times November 30, 2006

Kendall Myers, a State Department analyst, said he felt "a little ashamed" at George Bush's treatment of Tony Blair


'London's bridge is falling down'

Tom Baldwin in Washington and Philip Webster, Political Editor

Damning verdict on one-sided US-UK relations after Iraq

State Department official says Blair is ignored by Bush

See pictures of the Bush/Blair "special relationship" from first meeting to "Yo, Blair"

Timeline


In a devastating verdict on Tony Blair’s decision to back war in Iraq and his “totally one-sided” relationship with President Bush, a US State Department official has said that Britain’s role as a bridge between America and Europe is now “disappearing before our eyes”.

Kendall Myers, a senior State Department analyst, disclosed that for all Britain’s attempts to influence US policy in recent years, “we typically ignore them and take no notice — it’s a sad business”.

He added that he felt “a little ashamed” at Mr Bush’s treatment of the Prime Minister, who had invested so much of his political capital in standing shoulder to shoulder with America after 9/11.

Speaking at an academic forum in Washington on Tuesday night, he answered a question from The Times, saying: “It was a done deal from the beginning, it was a onesided relationship that was entered into with open eyes . . . there was nothing. There was no payback, no sense of reciprocity.”

His remarks brought calls from British politicians last night for the special relationship to be rethought, but also attracted scathing criticism from one close supporter of the Prime Minister.

Dr Myers had hard words for his own Administration’s record in the Iraq war: “It’s a bad time, let’s face it. We have not only failed to do what we wanted to do in Iraq but we have greatly strained our relationship with [Britain].”

Dr Myers, a specialist in British politics, predicted that the tight bond between Mr Bush and Mr Blair would not be replicated in the future. “What I think and fear is that Britain will draw back from the US without moving closer to Europe. In that sense London’s bridge is falling down.”

The extraordinarily frank remarks will be seen as further evidence of the long-standing unease felt within some parts of the State Department over the direction of White House policy. They may also be an indication of the weakness of President Bush as he struggles to stop Iraq sliding into civil war and faces a Democrat-dominated Congress elected this month.

Sir Menzies Campbell, the Liberal Democrat leader, said: “These remarks reflect a real sense of distaste among thinking Americans for Mr Blair’s apparent slavish support for President Bush . . . The special relationship needs to be rebalanced, rethought and renewed.”

But Denis MacShane, Labour MP for Rotherham and a former Foreign Office minister, who supported the Iraq war, said: “After the Republican defeat in the midterm election, every little rat who feasted during the Bush years is now leaving the ship. I would respect this gentleman, who I have never heard of, if he had had the guts to make any of these points two or five years ago.”

Last night Dr Myers, who is thought to have attended the discussions over the infamous Downing Street memo in 2002 before the Iraq war, was disowned by the State Department. Terry Davidson, a spokesman, said: “The US-UK relationship is indeed a special one. The US and the UK work together, along with our allies in Europe and across the world, on every issue imaginable. The views expressed by Mr Myers do not represent the views of the US Government. He was speaking as an academic, not as a representative of the State Department.”

Privately, US officials are furious about the comments made by a man not even involved in the policymaking process, which can only rock relations at a time of high-wire tension in international diplomacy. Dr Myers himself was said to be considering early retirement.

He said on Tuesday that Mr Blair had been left “ruined for all time” by the Iraq war and that if he had “only read a book” on the last British invasion of Iraq in the 1920s, “he might have hesitated”.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2478925,00.html

Wednesday, November 29, 2006

European Union countries shamed for role in US renditions programme


Amnesty International


The preliminary report by the Rapporteur of the European Parliament's Temporary Committee investigating CIA activity in Europe, Claudio Fava, confirms Amnesty International’s conclusions that complicity by European countries has allowed CIA renditions to occur in Europe.

The draft report found national security services in various countries were not being held accountable for their role in renditions. The report also highlights the failure of EU institutions and member states, candidate and associated countries to fully cooperate with the investigation as well as their failure to carry out independent investigations into the role played by their authorities in the US programme of renditions.

"Confronted once again with these facts, European leaders cannot continue to deny them just as the EU cannot maintain that it is not its business," said Amnesty International.

http://news.amnesty.org/index/ENGIOR300172006

Monday, November 27, 2006

European Stocks Drop on Dollar


European Stocks Drop on Dollar, Led by DaimlerChrysler, Hanson

By Alexis Xydias


Nov. 27 (Bloomberg) -- European stocks dropped for a fourth day, led by DaimlerChrysler AG and Hanson Plc, after the dollar's retreat against the euro and pound raised concern exporters' profits may fall.

``A weakening dollar is a problem for European earnings,'' said Guillaume Duchesne, equity strategist at Fortis Private Banking in Luxembourg, which manages $76 billion. ``The earnings momentum was very strong, and a break in that would be a problem for stocks.''

The Dow Jones Stoxx 600 Index slipped 0.7 percent to a three-week low of 353.46 at 2:10 p.m. in London. Almost five stocks fell for each that rose. The Stoxx 50 also lost 0.7 percent, while the Euro Stoxx 50, a measure for the 12 nations sharing the euro, decreased 0.8 percent.

Bayer AG rose after profit at Germany's largest drug company fell last quarter less than analysts had forecast. RWE AG, Germany's No. 2 utility, jumped on takeover speculation and after Morgan Stanley advised investors to buy the stock.

A slump in the dollar against the euro last week sent the Stoxx 600 to its worst weekly decline since the five days ended Sept. 8. A weaker dollar erodes the value of exports to the U.S., Europe's biggest export market accounting for a fifth of all the region's sales.

Through last week, the Stoxx 600 gained 15 percent in 2006 as companies beat earnings estimates and a record year in takeovers lifted share prices.

National benchmarks retreated in all 18 western European markets today, except for Portugal and Luxembourg. Germany's DAX Index lost 1 percent, the U.K.'s FTSE 100 Index slipped 0.5 percent and France's CAC 40 also fell 0.5 percent.

Daimler, Hanson

The dollar retreated for a fifth day against the euro on speculation the Federal Reserve will reduce interest rates in the first quarter. The U.S. currency slid to $1.3123 euros in London, its lowest since March 2005, from $1.3094 in New York on Nov. 24. It also slipped against the pound and the Swiss franc.

DaimlerChrysler, maker of the Jeep and Dodge cars, fell 2.9 percent to 44.23 euros. The carmaker gets about 45 percent of its sales from the U.S. Bayerische Motoren Werke AG, the biggest luxury carmaker, dropped 2.2 percent to 41.86 euros. The company made a quarter of its sales in North America last year.

Automakers were the worst performers today among 18 industry groups in the Stoxx 600.

Hanson the world's largest supplier of sand and gravel for building, declined 1.7 percent to 728.5 pence. The U.S. is the largest market for the U.K. company.

Nokia Oyj, the world's biggest mobile phone maker, decreased 1.8 percent to 15.71 euros. Espoo-based Nokia gets about eight percent of its revenue from the U.S. Siemens AG, Europe's biggest engineering company, fell 2.4 percent to 72.81 euros. The U.S. is the source of about a fifth of Siemens' revenue.

Bayer, RWE Gain

The dollar's drop ``will lead to analysts adjusting their numbers in the euro zone down for earnings forecasts for the fourth quarter,'' said Gary Dugan, the head of research and investment strategy at Barclays Wealth Management in London, which oversees $100 billion.

Bayer gained 2.3 percent to 39.90 euros. Third-quarter profit fell 35 percent to 320 million euros ($420 million) on the cost of integrating Schering AG, the rival German drugmaker it bought earlier this year. That beat the median estimate of 195 million euros in a Bloomberg survey of nine analysts.

Leverkusen, Germany-based Bayer also raised the forecast for its pharmaceuticals unit.

Record High

RWE rose 3.9 percent to a record 89.95 euros on continued speculation that it may get a takeover bid and after Morgan Stanley said investors should buy the stock because of the company's earnings outlook. RWE stock surged 3.3 percent Nov. 24 after the Rheinische Post reported the company may receive a bid.

``Although no buyer has been named, RWE shares still benefit from takeover speculation,'' said Thomas Nagel, a trader at Equinet Securities AG in Frankfurt. Morgan Stanley recommended the stock as ``overweight.''

BAE Systems Plc dropped 3.8 percent to 388 pence. Europe's largest defense company fell the most in more than five months after the U.K.'s Serious Fraud Office said yesterday a probe into the firm's contracts with Saudi Arabia is ``ongoing.''

MyTravel Group Plc, a U.K. tourism company, gained 6.6 percent to 213 pence after saying it approached First Choice Holidays Plc about buying the company's short-haul package-travel division. First Choice surged 15 percent to 261 pence.

Wilson Bowden Plc jumped 14 percent to 2,081 pence. The U.K. homebuilder said it's in talks with a ``number of parties'' about a possible takeover offer for the company. Negotiations are at an early stage, the company said.

Premier Oil, LVMH

Premier Oil Plc increased 1.5 percent to 1,333 pence. The U.K. company exploring for crude oil in the North Sea, Asia and Africa, rose after reports Kuwait Petroleum Corp. and Oil & Natural Gas Corp. may bid for the company.

India's Oil & Natural Gas may offer to buy Premier to add assets, the Economic Times reported on Nov. 25, citing the company's chairman. Kuwait Petroleum, the Middle East's biggest fuels exporter, may also be interested in Premier, the U.K.'s Sunday Times said yesterday, without saying where it got the information.

Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria SA fell 3.4 percent to 18.41 euros. Spain's second-biggest bank said it plans to raise 3 billion euros in a stock sale after acquisitions in Asia and the Americas depleted its capital.

LVMH Moet Hennessy Louis Vuitton SA, the world's largest luxury-goods maker, lost 1.8 percent to 80.4 euros. Deutsche Bank AG analysts rated LVMH shares as ``sell'' in new coverage. The German brokerage said a recovery in Japanese consumption has stalled, while slowing growth in the U.S. and China will hurt the company's cognac business.

To contact the reporter on this story: Alexis Xydias in London at axydias@bloomberg.net .

Last Updated: November 27, 2006 09:25 EST

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aErI8O.CTJfw&refer=home