Sudan Tribune
28 June 2008
China announced today the deployment of the second batch of peacekeepers to Darfur by mid-July. Beijing also announced the temporary transfer of its troops in south Sudan to Darfur.
Chinese peacekeepers prepare to depart for their UN mission to Sudan from an airport in Zhengzhou, central China’s Henan province, Jan. 16, 2007. China a close ally to the Sudanese government agreed to send a 315-member engineering unit to Darfur, the first group of 143 engineers had already been dispatched to Darfur since November 2007. The Chinese engineers are to build roads and bridges, and dig wells, and have also brought a medical team.
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Liu Jianchao said today China will deploy its follow-up troops next month. "According to the UN’s arrangement on the transportation of materials and equipment, China will deploy its follow-up troops in the region by mid-July." Jianchao said.
The spokesperson also announced the temporary transfer of some of its troops and facilities stationed in the UN mission in South Sudan to Darfur, helping the engineer troops in Darfur with construction of camps and roads.
Chinese troops, located in Western Bahr el Ghazal State, are supposed to be 435 officers and soldiers in total, has 275 engineers, 100 transport troops and 60 medical staff.
China is also ready to send well-diggers and relevant equipment to Darfur to solve the water shortage facing the hybrid forces, the Chinese official said.
He also reiterated China’s concern about the situation in Darfur saying that his country supported the duel-track strategy that promotes the deployment of peace-keeping mission and political negotiation in a balanced way in order to solve the Darfur issue politically.
He further reaffirmed the willing of Beijing to work with the international community and continue "to make our contribution for the early realization of peace, stability and development in Darfur.
28 June, 2008
Colombia's President Seeks Referendum on Disputed '06 Reelection.
By Juan Forero
Washington Post Foreign Service
Saturday, June 28, 2008; A09
Colombia's Supreme Court on Thursday questioned the legitimacy of President Álvaro Uribe's reelection in 2006, prompting President Uribe to call on Congress to enable a new presidential election that could ultimately extend his stay in office.
The president's decision to seek a referendum on whether to hold a rerun of the 2006 election plunged the South American country into what the largest newspaper, El Tiempo, called "confusion and uncertainty" yesterday.
Some analysts said it appeared that President Uribe saw the plebiscite as a way to gain popular support and propel efforts by his supporters, who would like him to run for a third term, which is not permitted under the current constitution.
President Uribe won his first four-year term in 2002, and enjoys popularity ratings of over 70 percent. He has declined to reveal whether he would entertain steps that would allow him to seek another term, keeping Colombia's political establishment on edge for months.
"Uribe clearly wants reelection," said Mark Schneider, an analyst with the Belgium-based International Crisis Group, which produces in-depth reports on Colombia.
Yesterday, the opposition Polo Democratic Party accused Uribe of trampling over institutions. Critics compared him to former Peruvian president Alberto Fujimori, who installed a quasi-dictatorship in Peru by leveraging his popularity to take control of Congress.
Political analysts said that Uribe's reaction to the court's ruling would not be viewed favorably in Washington, where Congress has shelved a proposed free-trade agreement with Colombia. Though the Bush administration praises Uribe for having stabilized a once-chaotic country, some influential Democrats, including Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.), have raised concerns about Uribe's confrontational behavior.
"He's combative, he's impulsive, and he didn't like the court's decision," said Michael Shifter, a senior analyst with the Inter-American Dialogue in Washington who closely follows Colombia. "It's him saying, 'I'm going to show you how popular I am, how loved I am.' That's the refuge for him, the people."
President Uribe has repeatedly lashed out at the Supreme Court in recent months. First, it was over the court's aggressive investigations of scores of lawmakers linked to death squads, virtually all of them allies of the president, the most prominent his cousin, former senator Mario Uribe.
The Uribe administration has more recently feuded with the court as it investigated Congress's approval of a 2004 constitutional amendment that allowed President Uribe to run for a second term. Yidis Medina, a former member of Congress, was recently found to have changed her vote and supported that amendment in exchange for jobs for political allies.
Using unusually blunt language, the court questioned the legality of the steps taken by Congress to approve Uribe's reelection in 2006 and called for a review by Colombia's other high judicial body, the Constitutional Court, as well as the inspector general's office.
The Supreme Court said a crime cannot "generate constitutional or legal legitimacy, reason by which the court orders this sentence to go to the Constitutional Court and the Inspector General of the nation." The Supreme Court did not annul the 2006 election, which Uribe won in a landslide.
Uribe, speaking on national television just before midnight Thursday, characterized the court's decision as "an abuse of power" designed to usurp authority from other institutions. By yesterday, the government had called on the Supreme Court's penal tribunal, which had issued the ruling, to be investigated for links to paramilitary commanders.
"The court went overboard," José Obdulio Gaviria, a top presidential adviser, told La W Radio in Bogota. He said that the court had "put in doubt the Colombian reelection" and that the government decided it was necessary to go to "the highest body, which is the people."
In a TV interview aired earlier this year, Medina made detailed allegations that high government officials offered jobs to her allies in exchange for her vote.
Washington Post Foreign Service
Saturday, June 28, 2008; A09
Colombia's Supreme Court on Thursday questioned the legitimacy of President Álvaro Uribe's reelection in 2006, prompting President Uribe to call on Congress to enable a new presidential election that could ultimately extend his stay in office.
The president's decision to seek a referendum on whether to hold a rerun of the 2006 election plunged the South American country into what the largest newspaper, El Tiempo, called "confusion and uncertainty" yesterday.
Some analysts said it appeared that President Uribe saw the plebiscite as a way to gain popular support and propel efforts by his supporters, who would like him to run for a third term, which is not permitted under the current constitution.
President Uribe won his first four-year term in 2002, and enjoys popularity ratings of over 70 percent. He has declined to reveal whether he would entertain steps that would allow him to seek another term, keeping Colombia's political establishment on edge for months.
"Uribe clearly wants reelection," said Mark Schneider, an analyst with the Belgium-based International Crisis Group, which produces in-depth reports on Colombia.
Yesterday, the opposition Polo Democratic Party accused Uribe of trampling over institutions. Critics compared him to former Peruvian president Alberto Fujimori, who installed a quasi-dictatorship in Peru by leveraging his popularity to take control of Congress.
Political analysts said that Uribe's reaction to the court's ruling would not be viewed favorably in Washington, where Congress has shelved a proposed free-trade agreement with Colombia. Though the Bush administration praises Uribe for having stabilized a once-chaotic country, some influential Democrats, including Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.), have raised concerns about Uribe's confrontational behavior.
"He's combative, he's impulsive, and he didn't like the court's decision," said Michael Shifter, a senior analyst with the Inter-American Dialogue in Washington who closely follows Colombia. "It's him saying, 'I'm going to show you how popular I am, how loved I am.' That's the refuge for him, the people."
President Uribe has repeatedly lashed out at the Supreme Court in recent months. First, it was over the court's aggressive investigations of scores of lawmakers linked to death squads, virtually all of them allies of the president, the most prominent his cousin, former senator Mario Uribe.
The Uribe administration has more recently feuded with the court as it investigated Congress's approval of a 2004 constitutional amendment that allowed President Uribe to run for a second term. Yidis Medina, a former member of Congress, was recently found to have changed her vote and supported that amendment in exchange for jobs for political allies.
Using unusually blunt language, the court questioned the legality of the steps taken by Congress to approve Uribe's reelection in 2006 and called for a review by Colombia's other high judicial body, the Constitutional Court, as well as the inspector general's office.
The Supreme Court said a crime cannot "generate constitutional or legal legitimacy, reason by which the court orders this sentence to go to the Constitutional Court and the Inspector General of the nation." The Supreme Court did not annul the 2006 election, which Uribe won in a landslide.
Uribe, speaking on national television just before midnight Thursday, characterized the court's decision as "an abuse of power" designed to usurp authority from other institutions. By yesterday, the government had called on the Supreme Court's penal tribunal, which had issued the ruling, to be investigated for links to paramilitary commanders.
"The court went overboard," José Obdulio Gaviria, a top presidential adviser, told La W Radio in Bogota. He said that the court had "put in doubt the Colombian reelection" and that the government decided it was necessary to go to "the highest body, which is the people."
In a TV interview aired earlier this year, Medina made detailed allegations that high government officials offered jobs to her allies in exchange for her vote.
India, Pakistan meet on peace process.
By ASHOK SHARMA
AP News
June 27, 2008
The foreign ministers of India and Pakistan held talks Friday on the ongoing peace process between the nuclear-armed South Asian rivals, including their dispute over the divided Himalayan region of Kashmir.
The meeting was the second between Indian Foreign Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee and his Pakistani counterpart, Shah Mahmood Qureshi, since a civilian government took power in Pakistan and comes ahead of a new round of peace talks scheduled to begin in July.
Qureshi said Friday's talks would focus on deepening the peace process, differences over Kashmir, and bilateral trade.
"The ongoing peace process is central to peace, security and prosperity in our region," he said in a statement after arriving in the Indian capital.
Expectations of progress on Kashmir have been dampened by the sidelining of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, who was instrumental in pushing for a solution to the dispute over the region, which both countries claim.
Musharraf dominated Pakistan for eight years but gave up his post as army chief last year and has taken a back seat since the new government took power. It is unclear if he retains any influence over the peace process.
Musharraf had previously proposed various ideas for resolving the Kashmir dispute, including a possible joint administration of the region, but India reacted cautiously. A cease-fire line currently serves as a de facto border.
India and Pakistan have fought three wars — two over Kashmir — since gaining independence from Britain six decades ago, but relations have improved since they embarked on the peace process in 2004.
However, little progress has been made over Kashmir.
At the last meeting, Qureshi said Pakistan stood by its position that the dispute must be resolved in line with U.N. resolutions that call for a referendum for Kashmiris on whether they want to be part of Pakistan or India — a position opposed by India.
Qureshi is also expected to meet with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and other leaders during his trip.
AP News
June 27, 2008
The foreign ministers of India and Pakistan held talks Friday on the ongoing peace process between the nuclear-armed South Asian rivals, including their dispute over the divided Himalayan region of Kashmir.
The meeting was the second between Indian Foreign Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee and his Pakistani counterpart, Shah Mahmood Qureshi, since a civilian government took power in Pakistan and comes ahead of a new round of peace talks scheduled to begin in July.
Qureshi said Friday's talks would focus on deepening the peace process, differences over Kashmir, and bilateral trade.
"The ongoing peace process is central to peace, security and prosperity in our region," he said in a statement after arriving in the Indian capital.
Expectations of progress on Kashmir have been dampened by the sidelining of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, who was instrumental in pushing for a solution to the dispute over the region, which both countries claim.
Musharraf dominated Pakistan for eight years but gave up his post as army chief last year and has taken a back seat since the new government took power. It is unclear if he retains any influence over the peace process.
Musharraf had previously proposed various ideas for resolving the Kashmir dispute, including a possible joint administration of the region, but India reacted cautiously. A cease-fire line currently serves as a de facto border.
India and Pakistan have fought three wars — two over Kashmir — since gaining independence from Britain six decades ago, but relations have improved since they embarked on the peace process in 2004.
However, little progress has been made over Kashmir.
At the last meeting, Qureshi said Pakistan stood by its position that the dispute must be resolved in line with U.N. resolutions that call for a referendum for Kashmiris on whether they want to be part of Pakistan or India — a position opposed by India.
Qureshi is also expected to meet with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and other leaders during his trip.
Pakistan says gas project offers South Asia peace hope.
Reuters
27 June 2008
Pakistan's foreign minister on Friday touted a cross-border deal bringing gas from Iran to India as a "pipeline of peace".
India and Pakistan, which have gone to war three times since independence in 1947, are trying to re-invigorate a sluggish four-year-old peace process.
"It can be a pipeline of peace and new bondage," Shah Mehmood Qureshi, on a three-day visit to India, told a news conference.
"The IPI (Iran-Pakistan-India) gas pipeline is to our mutual benefit. Both sides stand to gain."
India has been cautious about the $7.6 billion pipeline project, triggering a pledge from Iran and Pakistan to press ahead without Indian participation.
Analysts say New Delhi wants to reduce the risk of supplies being cut during times of tension with Pakistan and is under pressure from Washington to back down from the deal.
India had missed a meeting in September, citing issues including transit fees and transportation tariffs with Pakistan. India has disgreed over the delivery point of the gas -- the point where India takes control of supplies.
Officials from India, Pakistan and Iran will meet next month in Tehran over the pipeline.
"We are hopeful that it will be possible to resolve this issue both from technical, commercial and all aspects," India's Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee said.
BETTER TIES
Work on the pipeline could begin next year and is due to be finished by 2012.
It would initially transport 60 million cubic metres of gas (2.2 billion cubic feet) daily to Pakistan and India, half for each country. The pipeline's capacity would later rise to 150 million cubic metres.
Pakistan's new civilian-led government has high hopes of building better relations with India and the pipeline is seen as a platform for mending ties.
The nuclear-armed rivals began a peace process more than four years ago, having gone to the brink of a fourth war in 2002, but had been in a lull because of political turmoil in Pakistan.
"The political environment to make the peace process result-oriented is right on both sides," Qureshi said.
"We must not miss this opportunity. It would be great loss."
No reference was made to the disputed Himalayan region of Kashmir which the two countries claim in full but rule only in part.
Mukherjee said Indian and Pakistani foreign officials would meet in New Delhi on July 21-22 to try to push peace talks forward.
Editing by Alistair Scrutton.
27 June 2008
Pakistan's foreign minister on Friday touted a cross-border deal bringing gas from Iran to India as a "pipeline of peace".
India and Pakistan, which have gone to war three times since independence in 1947, are trying to re-invigorate a sluggish four-year-old peace process.
"It can be a pipeline of peace and new bondage," Shah Mehmood Qureshi, on a three-day visit to India, told a news conference.
"The IPI (Iran-Pakistan-India) gas pipeline is to our mutual benefit. Both sides stand to gain."
India has been cautious about the $7.6 billion pipeline project, triggering a pledge from Iran and Pakistan to press ahead without Indian participation.
Analysts say New Delhi wants to reduce the risk of supplies being cut during times of tension with Pakistan and is under pressure from Washington to back down from the deal.
India had missed a meeting in September, citing issues including transit fees and transportation tariffs with Pakistan. India has disgreed over the delivery point of the gas -- the point where India takes control of supplies.
Officials from India, Pakistan and Iran will meet next month in Tehran over the pipeline.
"We are hopeful that it will be possible to resolve this issue both from technical, commercial and all aspects," India's Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee said.
BETTER TIES
Work on the pipeline could begin next year and is due to be finished by 2012.
It would initially transport 60 million cubic metres of gas (2.2 billion cubic feet) daily to Pakistan and India, half for each country. The pipeline's capacity would later rise to 150 million cubic metres.
Pakistan's new civilian-led government has high hopes of building better relations with India and the pipeline is seen as a platform for mending ties.
The nuclear-armed rivals began a peace process more than four years ago, having gone to the brink of a fourth war in 2002, but had been in a lull because of political turmoil in Pakistan.
"The political environment to make the peace process result-oriented is right on both sides," Qureshi said.
"We must not miss this opportunity. It would be great loss."
No reference was made to the disputed Himalayan region of Kashmir which the two countries claim in full but rule only in part.
Mukherjee said Indian and Pakistani foreign officials would meet in New Delhi on July 21-22 to try to push peace talks forward.
Editing by Alistair Scrutton.
US Senate approves $150m for Pakistan.
Daily News
28 June 2008
By Khalid Hasan
The United States Senate on Friday approved a $150 million grant for Pakistan to be spent in part on the rehabilitation and development of the Federally Administered Tribal Areas. The bill, which earlier in the week had been approved by the House of Representatives, will become law after signatures by President George W Bush. The fresh assistance is part of the US supplemental budget measures to support war efforts in 2009. The $150 million to Pakistan will be in addition to what Pakistan is to receive through the regular budget.
28 June 2008
By Khalid Hasan
The United States Senate on Friday approved a $150 million grant for Pakistan to be spent in part on the rehabilitation and development of the Federally Administered Tribal Areas. The bill, which earlier in the week had been approved by the House of Representatives, will become law after signatures by President George W Bush. The fresh assistance is part of the US supplemental budget measures to support war efforts in 2009. The $150 million to Pakistan will be in addition to what Pakistan is to receive through the regular budget.
Total to Start Oil Drilling in Sudan After Court Victory.
Business Daily (Nairobi)
26 June 2008
By Badru Mulumba
Oil drilling is set to start at a formerly disputed area of Sudan, after a successful defence of mining rights by French oil giant Total in a London court.
Total got a judgement on the case last year and has since set up the base camp on location where they are mobilising facilities. A base camp stores drilling and disposal facilities. Its setting up ends uncertainty over the possibility of the drilling beginning before 2011 - the period covered by the peace agreement.
Usual flooding
Actual drilling work on the 67,000 square-kilometre are, is expected to start in October.
"This is the rainy season in places like Upper Nile and Jonglei, there's the usual flooding," Southern Sudan's Energy Minister John Luk said.
"Once the money is put together and the budget is complete, it will take another few months, up to October. After October, they will start moving."
Total reclaimed rights to oil block B after a three-year battle with a tiny UK based firm, White Nile. A London court in 2006 ruled in favour of the French oil firm.The French oil firm is part of an incomplete consortia that would develop the oil block.
"As you are aware, there was an American company, Marathon, which pulled out," Luk said. "So what we are doing now is to complete the consortium."
Total E&P Sudan, in 1980, signed an Exploration and Production Sharing Agreement with Sudan on oil blocks in southern Sudan, including block B - the main area for Total's exploration activity - alongside American firm Marathon Petroleum (32.5 per cent), Kuwait's Kufpec Sudan Ltd (25 per cent), and State-owned Sudapet (10 per cent).
The Sudan civil war, breaking out in 1983, brought work to a standstill, forcing Total to suspend work, in 1983, just as the consortium was about to drill 3 test oil wells.
Total's rights to the oil were extended annually until late December 2004, when the firm signed the Revised Exploration and Production Sharing Agreement with the Sudan government to update the 1980 contract.
Marathon's withdraw has led to changes in the shareholding, with Total at 32.5 per cent, and Kuwaiti firm Kufpec Sudan Ltd 27.5 per cent.
The Sudan-owned Sudapet and the South Sudan government (GOSS)-owned Nilepet own 10 per cent each, leaving Some 20 per cent of the stake in the oil block not apportioned.
Luk said the consortium partners are expected to draw up a budget, which would determine each firm's contribution, and what they would need from a new partner in the block."Once that is done, we will complete the consortium," Luk said.
Remaining bid
Several companies, Chinese firms China National Petroleum Corp. and Sinopec (SHI), United Emirates firm Mubadala Development Company, and Tri-Ocean Energy, controlled by Kuwait's al-Kharafi family, have bid for the remaining 20 per cent in the consortium.
"It must have the financial and technical competency to take part in the project," Luk said of what they are looking for in a partner. "Already, there's Nilepet, Sudapet, all these form part of the consortium, including the Kuwait Company."
26 June 2008
By Badru Mulumba
Oil drilling is set to start at a formerly disputed area of Sudan, after a successful defence of mining rights by French oil giant Total in a London court.
Total got a judgement on the case last year and has since set up the base camp on location where they are mobilising facilities. A base camp stores drilling and disposal facilities. Its setting up ends uncertainty over the possibility of the drilling beginning before 2011 - the period covered by the peace agreement.
Usual flooding
Actual drilling work on the 67,000 square-kilometre are, is expected to start in October.
"This is the rainy season in places like Upper Nile and Jonglei, there's the usual flooding," Southern Sudan's Energy Minister John Luk said.
"Once the money is put together and the budget is complete, it will take another few months, up to October. After October, they will start moving."
Total reclaimed rights to oil block B after a three-year battle with a tiny UK based firm, White Nile. A London court in 2006 ruled in favour of the French oil firm.The French oil firm is part of an incomplete consortia that would develop the oil block.
"As you are aware, there was an American company, Marathon, which pulled out," Luk said. "So what we are doing now is to complete the consortium."
Total E&P Sudan, in 1980, signed an Exploration and Production Sharing Agreement with Sudan on oil blocks in southern Sudan, including block B - the main area for Total's exploration activity - alongside American firm Marathon Petroleum (32.5 per cent), Kuwait's Kufpec Sudan Ltd (25 per cent), and State-owned Sudapet (10 per cent).
The Sudan civil war, breaking out in 1983, brought work to a standstill, forcing Total to suspend work, in 1983, just as the consortium was about to drill 3 test oil wells.
Total's rights to the oil were extended annually until late December 2004, when the firm signed the Revised Exploration and Production Sharing Agreement with the Sudan government to update the 1980 contract.
Marathon's withdraw has led to changes in the shareholding, with Total at 32.5 per cent, and Kuwaiti firm Kufpec Sudan Ltd 27.5 per cent.
The Sudan-owned Sudapet and the South Sudan government (GOSS)-owned Nilepet own 10 per cent each, leaving Some 20 per cent of the stake in the oil block not apportioned.
Luk said the consortium partners are expected to draw up a budget, which would determine each firm's contribution, and what they would need from a new partner in the block."Once that is done, we will complete the consortium," Luk said.
Remaining bid
Several companies, Chinese firms China National Petroleum Corp. and Sinopec (SHI), United Emirates firm Mubadala Development Company, and Tri-Ocean Energy, controlled by Kuwait's al-Kharafi family, have bid for the remaining 20 per cent in the consortium.
"It must have the financial and technical competency to take part in the project," Luk said of what they are looking for in a partner. "Already, there's Nilepet, Sudapet, all these form part of the consortium, including the Kuwait Company."
Sec. Cohen hints U.S. role in Charles Taylor’s ill-fated revolution.
The Analyst
14 June 2008
From his hideout somewhere along the long, porous Liberian-Ivorian border, Charles Ghankay Taylor announced five days after invading Liberia that was leading the National Patriotic Front of Liberia (NPFL) to topple the Doe government.
• Charles Ghankay Taylor
Taylor’s “populous people’s uprising revolution” cut across the Liberian grievances and he gained immediate acceptance amongst ordinary Liberians and victims of Samuel Doe’s 9-year political misadventure.
But two questions regarding Taylor’s uprising continue to haunt observers to date, even those who wanted Taylor to topple Doe: “Who sponsored Taylor and how did he get out the U.S. maximum security House of Corrections in Plymouth, Massachusetts where he was held under protective custody?” Those questions were never answered.
But now it seems the TRC sessions currently holding in the U.S. gave an inkling of an answer.
The Analyst Staff Writer has been sifting a press dispatch from TRC hearings in the U.S.Former US under Secretary of State for African Affairs, Herman J. Cohen, says the Bush Administration brokered a deal in 1990 to install Charles Taylor as President after the U.S. secretly evacuated President Samuel Doe and flew him to Togo.
He said the US had an understanding with defunct NPFL rebel leader Charles Taylor to take power following the evacuation of President Samuel K. Doe.
A TRC June 12 dispatch said Mr. Cohen, under secretary of state from 1989-1993 and earlier director of African Affairs from 1987-1989 was testifying Thursday at ongoing Public Hearings of Liberia’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission on the “Role of the United States in the Liberian Conflict,” at Hamlin University, St. Paul, Minnesota.
Cohen said the U.S. government was compelled by untold suffering and rising death toll in the Liberian capital at the time in 1990 to initiate discussions with President Doe, through its ambassador, for him (Doe) to be evacuated.
He however did not say what the U.S. government at the time felt about similar situations that prevailed in parts of rebel-held “Greater Liberia” such that it came to the conclusion that suffering and death in Monrovia could be ended by the super-imposition of Mr. Taylor’s rebel junta on Liberia’s political machinery.
At the time of the US deal, incidentally, Liberian political and social stakeholders under the aegis of ECOWAS and MRU were concluding modalities in the Gambian capital, Banjul, to design and installed a civilian interim government of national unity in Monrovia.
Many at the time, including the U.S. government at least covertly, thought the civilian interim government concept was the better of the two evils of uprooting a civilian, elected government by the force of arms.
Political and diplomatic pundits at the time said to allow the rebels to overrun a sitting civilian government was to condone and reward armed insurrection in a region that was used to and weary of the imposition of military violence over civil rule.
Notwithstanding that generally acclaimed understanding amongst stakeholders and peace brokers, the former maverick Foreign Service official noted that the U.S. moved unilaterally to reach the understanding with the rebels that once Doe left the country, Taylor would move into the capital and install his government.
The dispatch quoted Mr. Cohen as saying that after the plan was accepted by President Doe, he called President Gnassingbé Eyadéma of Togo who agreed to provide asylum for the embattled president.
It said Cohen noted further that following President Eyadéma’s consent, he called Taylor on a satellite phone to open corridors for troops loyal to President Doe to escape through the Liberian-Sierra Leonean frontier.
Whether the U.S. government also consulted with the Sierra Leonean government to allow the fleeing armed troops into their territory is not clear, neither was it made clear what would have become of the armed men once they entered a foreign country with rebel troops at their heels.
But Mr. Cohen reportedly said the plan “messed up” when defunct INPFL leader Prince Johnson seized control of Bushrod Island and blocked the corridor. The aging US diplomat said when the U.S. was set to sent an aircraft to carry on the evacuation; he received a directive from Washington to cease all engagements to end the Liberian conflict.
Ambassador Cohen clarified however that no further explanations were provided by Washington on the new policy. At that point, he said responsibilities to intervene in the Liberian crisis were passed on to the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS).
Observers say while they welcomed the inclination by the U.S. to intervene directly in the conflict to end the spate of cruelty and civilian deaths, they blamed Taylor’s insistence in having his way during dozens of peace talks organized by ECOWAS to end Liberia’s bloodbath on the secret nod he got from Washington to rule Liberia.
“Taylor was in the U.S. maximum security House of Corrections in Plymouth, Massachusetts where he was held under protective custody. His lawyer US Attorney General Ramsey Clark said he would fight his extradition from the safety of that prison since he argued that agents of the Liberian government would kill Taylor.
“Circumstances under which Taylor broke jail from that facility still baffle security minds to date. Who freed him from there and who sponsored his way out of the U.S. into Burkina Faso, Libya, and back to Burkina Faso, to Ivory Coast and eventually to Liberia to begin the killing spree under the guise of a liberation war?” wondered secondary school Civics teacher, Billy J. Toe.
He said at the time the U.S. was negotiating Taylor’s takeover of the Liberian government to replace it with a murderous rebel junta, his legal status was anything but baffling.
“It was clear that Taylor was a fugitive to both the Liberian and U.S. governments. He broke jail in the U.S., which is a crime, and he was wanted for theft of property for siphoning into a New York bank $922,000 of government funds intended for machinery parts.
So how come the U.S. laid a red carpet for its fugitive caught subverting a government that accused him of embezzling more than half a million dollars?” wondered Moses V. Andrews, another observer who said he lost his entire family to rebels in areas ruled by the man the U.S. saw as a savor for Monrovians.
He said even though Cohen’s testimony was scanty, it provided insight into the role the Regan and Bush administrations played in the death of millions of Liberians and the ravaging of Liberia.
“One day the full story will be told and Liberians will demand reparation for the wholesale missteps perpetrated by the U.S. government,” he said. Meanwhile, the TRC hearings, now it their fifth day, continues. They will be concluded on June 14, 2008.
In a related development, the TRC dispatch says one and a half million of Liberia’s citizens fled the country during the 27-year conflict, many of whom settled in the United States.
The hearings in Minnesota, it said, mark the first time in history that any truth commission has ever systematically sought to include its Diaspora citizens into the process of national healing.
Each day of the hearings, according to the dispatch, the commission will hear testimony from Liberians who fled to the United States, focusing on their experiences during the civil war, in flight, in refugee camps, and as they established new lives here.
The Advocates for Human Rights, based in Minneapolis, is assisting with coordination and implementation of the hearings. The Advocates for Human Rights was founded in 1983 by a group of Minnesota lawyers who recognized the community’s unique spirit of social justice as an opportunity to promote and protect human rights in the United States and around the world.
The mission of The Advocates for Human Rights is to implement international human rights standards to promote civil society and reinforce the rule of law.
The organization has produced more than 50 reports documenting human rights practices in more than 25 countries; educated over 10,000 students and community members on human rights issues; provided legal representation and assistance to over 3,000 disadvantaged individuals and families and works with partners overseas and in the United States to restore and protect human rights. The Advocates for Human Rights holds Special Consultative Status with the United Nations.
The TRC was agreed upon in the August 2003 peace agreement and created by the TRC Act of 2005. The TRC was established to “promote national peace, security, unity and reconciliation,” and at the same time make it possible to hold perpetrators accountable for gross human rights violations and violations of international humanitarian law that occurred in Liberia between January 1979 and October 2003.
14 June 2008
From his hideout somewhere along the long, porous Liberian-Ivorian border, Charles Ghankay Taylor announced five days after invading Liberia that was leading the National Patriotic Front of Liberia (NPFL) to topple the Doe government.
• Charles Ghankay Taylor
Taylor’s “populous people’s uprising revolution” cut across the Liberian grievances and he gained immediate acceptance amongst ordinary Liberians and victims of Samuel Doe’s 9-year political misadventure.
But two questions regarding Taylor’s uprising continue to haunt observers to date, even those who wanted Taylor to topple Doe: “Who sponsored Taylor and how did he get out the U.S. maximum security House of Corrections in Plymouth, Massachusetts where he was held under protective custody?” Those questions were never answered.
But now it seems the TRC sessions currently holding in the U.S. gave an inkling of an answer.
The Analyst Staff Writer has been sifting a press dispatch from TRC hearings in the U.S.Former US under Secretary of State for African Affairs, Herman J. Cohen, says the Bush Administration brokered a deal in 1990 to install Charles Taylor as President after the U.S. secretly evacuated President Samuel Doe and flew him to Togo.
He said the US had an understanding with defunct NPFL rebel leader Charles Taylor to take power following the evacuation of President Samuel K. Doe.
A TRC June 12 dispatch said Mr. Cohen, under secretary of state from 1989-1993 and earlier director of African Affairs from 1987-1989 was testifying Thursday at ongoing Public Hearings of Liberia’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission on the “Role of the United States in the Liberian Conflict,” at Hamlin University, St. Paul, Minnesota.
Cohen said the U.S. government was compelled by untold suffering and rising death toll in the Liberian capital at the time in 1990 to initiate discussions with President Doe, through its ambassador, for him (Doe) to be evacuated.
He however did not say what the U.S. government at the time felt about similar situations that prevailed in parts of rebel-held “Greater Liberia” such that it came to the conclusion that suffering and death in Monrovia could be ended by the super-imposition of Mr. Taylor’s rebel junta on Liberia’s political machinery.
At the time of the US deal, incidentally, Liberian political and social stakeholders under the aegis of ECOWAS and MRU were concluding modalities in the Gambian capital, Banjul, to design and installed a civilian interim government of national unity in Monrovia.
Many at the time, including the U.S. government at least covertly, thought the civilian interim government concept was the better of the two evils of uprooting a civilian, elected government by the force of arms.
Political and diplomatic pundits at the time said to allow the rebels to overrun a sitting civilian government was to condone and reward armed insurrection in a region that was used to and weary of the imposition of military violence over civil rule.
Notwithstanding that generally acclaimed understanding amongst stakeholders and peace brokers, the former maverick Foreign Service official noted that the U.S. moved unilaterally to reach the understanding with the rebels that once Doe left the country, Taylor would move into the capital and install his government.
The dispatch quoted Mr. Cohen as saying that after the plan was accepted by President Doe, he called President Gnassingbé Eyadéma of Togo who agreed to provide asylum for the embattled president.
It said Cohen noted further that following President Eyadéma’s consent, he called Taylor on a satellite phone to open corridors for troops loyal to President Doe to escape through the Liberian-Sierra Leonean frontier.
Whether the U.S. government also consulted with the Sierra Leonean government to allow the fleeing armed troops into their territory is not clear, neither was it made clear what would have become of the armed men once they entered a foreign country with rebel troops at their heels.
But Mr. Cohen reportedly said the plan “messed up” when defunct INPFL leader Prince Johnson seized control of Bushrod Island and blocked the corridor. The aging US diplomat said when the U.S. was set to sent an aircraft to carry on the evacuation; he received a directive from Washington to cease all engagements to end the Liberian conflict.
Ambassador Cohen clarified however that no further explanations were provided by Washington on the new policy. At that point, he said responsibilities to intervene in the Liberian crisis were passed on to the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS).
Observers say while they welcomed the inclination by the U.S. to intervene directly in the conflict to end the spate of cruelty and civilian deaths, they blamed Taylor’s insistence in having his way during dozens of peace talks organized by ECOWAS to end Liberia’s bloodbath on the secret nod he got from Washington to rule Liberia.
“Taylor was in the U.S. maximum security House of Corrections in Plymouth, Massachusetts where he was held under protective custody. His lawyer US Attorney General Ramsey Clark said he would fight his extradition from the safety of that prison since he argued that agents of the Liberian government would kill Taylor.
“Circumstances under which Taylor broke jail from that facility still baffle security minds to date. Who freed him from there and who sponsored his way out of the U.S. into Burkina Faso, Libya, and back to Burkina Faso, to Ivory Coast and eventually to Liberia to begin the killing spree under the guise of a liberation war?” wondered secondary school Civics teacher, Billy J. Toe.
He said at the time the U.S. was negotiating Taylor’s takeover of the Liberian government to replace it with a murderous rebel junta, his legal status was anything but baffling.
“It was clear that Taylor was a fugitive to both the Liberian and U.S. governments. He broke jail in the U.S., which is a crime, and he was wanted for theft of property for siphoning into a New York bank $922,000 of government funds intended for machinery parts.
So how come the U.S. laid a red carpet for its fugitive caught subverting a government that accused him of embezzling more than half a million dollars?” wondered Moses V. Andrews, another observer who said he lost his entire family to rebels in areas ruled by the man the U.S. saw as a savor for Monrovians.
He said even though Cohen’s testimony was scanty, it provided insight into the role the Regan and Bush administrations played in the death of millions of Liberians and the ravaging of Liberia.
“One day the full story will be told and Liberians will demand reparation for the wholesale missteps perpetrated by the U.S. government,” he said. Meanwhile, the TRC hearings, now it their fifth day, continues. They will be concluded on June 14, 2008.
In a related development, the TRC dispatch says one and a half million of Liberia’s citizens fled the country during the 27-year conflict, many of whom settled in the United States.
The hearings in Minnesota, it said, mark the first time in history that any truth commission has ever systematically sought to include its Diaspora citizens into the process of national healing.
Each day of the hearings, according to the dispatch, the commission will hear testimony from Liberians who fled to the United States, focusing on their experiences during the civil war, in flight, in refugee camps, and as they established new lives here.
The Advocates for Human Rights, based in Minneapolis, is assisting with coordination and implementation of the hearings. The Advocates for Human Rights was founded in 1983 by a group of Minnesota lawyers who recognized the community’s unique spirit of social justice as an opportunity to promote and protect human rights in the United States and around the world.
The mission of The Advocates for Human Rights is to implement international human rights standards to promote civil society and reinforce the rule of law.
The organization has produced more than 50 reports documenting human rights practices in more than 25 countries; educated over 10,000 students and community members on human rights issues; provided legal representation and assistance to over 3,000 disadvantaged individuals and families and works with partners overseas and in the United States to restore and protect human rights. The Advocates for Human Rights holds Special Consultative Status with the United Nations.
The TRC was agreed upon in the August 2003 peace agreement and created by the TRC Act of 2005. The TRC was established to “promote national peace, security, unity and reconciliation,” and at the same time make it possible to hold perpetrators accountable for gross human rights violations and violations of international humanitarian law that occurred in Liberia between January 1979 and October 2003.
27 June, 2008
US Military Aid to Kenya Will Continue Despite Human Rights Abuses in Mt. Elgon Area.
The Nation (Nairobi)
27 June 2008
By John Ngirachu
Editor's Note: Despite refusing to meet with PM Odinga during his recent visit, the US also cleared $75 million for donation to the new power-sharing government.
The United States will continue to provide military aid to Kenya despite allegations that the army was involved in human rights abuses during the operation against the Sabaot Land Defence Force in Mount Elgon.
US ambassador to Kenya Michael Ranneberger said on Thursday that his government intended to increase its assistance.
"The Kenya army is almost a model of professionalism and is the largest contributor to peace-keeping operations worldwide," he said, noting that the soldiers' conduct during the post-election crisis was commendable.
Rights abuses
However, the US envoy said the allegations of torture and other human rights abuses should be thoroughly investigated to ensure those guilty were brought to book.
Humanitarian agencies and the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights have accused the army of torturing civilians to flush out members of the SLDF.
Speaking at his residence in Nairobi, Mr Ranneberger also welcomed the stand taken by the Government on the situation in Zimbabwe.
He said Prime Minister Raila Odinga's initial calls for the African Union to act on President Robert Mugabe were notable since they were the first by an African leader in office and any action by the AU could be attributed to Kenya's strong stand.
On the issue of direct flights to and from the US, Mr Ranneberger said the signing of the Open Skies agreement during the PM's trip was part of a two-step process and negotiations were in place for a Safe Skies agreement that would mean Kenyan airports reach the security standard set by the US.
27 June 2008
By John Ngirachu
Editor's Note: Despite refusing to meet with PM Odinga during his recent visit, the US also cleared $75 million for donation to the new power-sharing government.
The United States will continue to provide military aid to Kenya despite allegations that the army was involved in human rights abuses during the operation against the Sabaot Land Defence Force in Mount Elgon.
US ambassador to Kenya Michael Ranneberger said on Thursday that his government intended to increase its assistance.
"The Kenya army is almost a model of professionalism and is the largest contributor to peace-keeping operations worldwide," he said, noting that the soldiers' conduct during the post-election crisis was commendable.
Rights abuses
However, the US envoy said the allegations of torture and other human rights abuses should be thoroughly investigated to ensure those guilty were brought to book.
Humanitarian agencies and the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights have accused the army of torturing civilians to flush out members of the SLDF.
Speaking at his residence in Nairobi, Mr Ranneberger also welcomed the stand taken by the Government on the situation in Zimbabwe.
He said Prime Minister Raila Odinga's initial calls for the African Union to act on President Robert Mugabe were notable since they were the first by an African leader in office and any action by the AU could be attributed to Kenya's strong stand.
On the issue of direct flights to and from the US, Mr Ranneberger said the signing of the Open Skies agreement during the PM's trip was part of a two-step process and negotiations were in place for a Safe Skies agreement that would mean Kenyan airports reach the security standard set by the US.
RWANDA GOVT BANS BRINGING FOOD TO PRISONERS STARTING 1 JULY.
Hirondelle News Agency
16 June 2008
The Rwandan government announced Wednesday new rule which bans persons from bringing food for prisoners beginning I July, reports Hirondelle Agency.
The new measure was announced Wednesday in Ngoma district, Eastern Province, by the Minister for Internal Security, Mussa Fazil Harerimana.
The state radio quoting Mr Harerimana said that the government considered that the food intake served in the prisons was sufficient.
“The back and forth movement of people bringing food to prisoners prevents people from engaging in other productive activities”, added Hererimana.
However, pregnant or nursing mothers and persons who are ill to which a particular diet has been prescribed by a doctor will be exempted from the new rule.
Some 3,572 women, some who live with 375 infants are imprisoned.
16 June 2008
The Rwandan government announced Wednesday new rule which bans persons from bringing food for prisoners beginning I July, reports Hirondelle Agency.
The new measure was announced Wednesday in Ngoma district, Eastern Province, by the Minister for Internal Security, Mussa Fazil Harerimana.
The state radio quoting Mr Harerimana said that the government considered that the food intake served in the prisons was sufficient.
“The back and forth movement of people bringing food to prisoners prevents people from engaging in other productive activities”, added Hererimana.
However, pregnant or nursing mothers and persons who are ill to which a particular diet has been prescribed by a doctor will be exempted from the new rule.
Some 3,572 women, some who live with 375 infants are imprisoned.
25 June, 2008
US Officials Reportedly Raid Charles Taylor's Monrovian Home.
News 24
24 June 2008
http://www.news24.com/News24/Africa/News/0,,2-11-1447_2346196,00.html
The family of former Liberian strongman Charles Taylor is up in arms after Americans allegedly searched his family home this weekend, Sando Johnson, the spokesperson for Taylor's family, told AFP on Tuesday.
The men came to the house in US embassy vehicles on Sunday backed by heavily armed national police officers and took the keys from Taylor's security guards at gunpoint, said Johnson.
According to the family, the Americans brandished a search warrant from the Special Court for Sierra Leone, where the former Liberian president is currently on trial for war crimes, but the court denied any involvement.
"Prosecutor Stephen Rapp told me it was not done by the special court or at the request of the special court," court spokesperson Peter Andersen told AFP by phone from Sierra Leone on Tuesday.
"They pushed the security man out and went in. They were there for 40 minutes while the police officers prevented us from entering to see what they were doing," Johnson told AFP.
During the search a huge crowd gathered in front of the residence, and began to boo the Americans. A lawyer for the family said the men showed him a warrant from the court.
A bunch of gangsters
The American embassy in Monrovia and the Liberian minister of justice both refused to comment on Tuesday.
Observers said the search might be linked to the US indictment of Charles Taylor's son Charles McArthur Emmanuel, also known as Chuckie Taylor, on torture charges.
Chuckie Taylor, formerly head of his father's anti-terrorism unit, is awaiting trial in the US on charges that he tortured several people in Liberia between 1999 and 2003.
Charles Taylor's party, the former ruling National Patriotic Party (NPP), reacted with fury to the search on Tuesday.
"I do not understand why the government will allow a bunch of gangsters to do what they feel like in our country," Cyril Alen, chairperson of the NPP, told Star Radio.
24 June 2008
http://www.news24.com/News24/Africa/News/0,,2-11-1447_2346196,00.html
The family of former Liberian strongman Charles Taylor is up in arms after Americans allegedly searched his family home this weekend, Sando Johnson, the spokesperson for Taylor's family, told AFP on Tuesday.
The men came to the house in US embassy vehicles on Sunday backed by heavily armed national police officers and took the keys from Taylor's security guards at gunpoint, said Johnson.
According to the family, the Americans brandished a search warrant from the Special Court for Sierra Leone, where the former Liberian president is currently on trial for war crimes, but the court denied any involvement.
"Prosecutor Stephen Rapp told me it was not done by the special court or at the request of the special court," court spokesperson Peter Andersen told AFP by phone from Sierra Leone on Tuesday.
"They pushed the security man out and went in. They were there for 40 minutes while the police officers prevented us from entering to see what they were doing," Johnson told AFP.
During the search a huge crowd gathered in front of the residence, and began to boo the Americans. A lawyer for the family said the men showed him a warrant from the court.
A bunch of gangsters
The American embassy in Monrovia and the Liberian minister of justice both refused to comment on Tuesday.
Observers said the search might be linked to the US indictment of Charles Taylor's son Charles McArthur Emmanuel, also known as Chuckie Taylor, on torture charges.
Chuckie Taylor, formerly head of his father's anti-terrorism unit, is awaiting trial in the US on charges that he tortured several people in Liberia between 1999 and 2003.
Charles Taylor's party, the former ruling National Patriotic Party (NPP), reacted with fury to the search on Tuesday.
"I do not understand why the government will allow a bunch of gangsters to do what they feel like in our country," Cyril Alen, chairperson of the NPP, told Star Radio.
BISHOPS FOR “INCLUSIVE POLITICAL DIALOGUE."
MISNA
24 June 2008
In welcoming a peace accord signed between the government of Bangui and two rebel groups of the north, the Bishops Conference of the Central African Republic urged an “inclusive political dialogue in a spirit of tolerance”. Based on a first agenda, dialogue was supposed to have begun on June 8, but a cease fire in the north-west was among the preliminary conditions for a national debate between President François Bozizé, who seized power in 2003 in a coup, the opposition and civil society, to seek solutions to the growing social-economic problems in the nation. “We hope and urge that the political dialogue respects the conditions posed by all the sides, without any exceptions; we also call on all to seek a true solution, in a spirit of tolerance, mutual respect and reconciliation”, wrote the Bishops in the closing message of a Conference meeting.
24 June 2008
In welcoming a peace accord signed between the government of Bangui and two rebel groups of the north, the Bishops Conference of the Central African Republic urged an “inclusive political dialogue in a spirit of tolerance”. Based on a first agenda, dialogue was supposed to have begun on June 8, but a cease fire in the north-west was among the preliminary conditions for a national debate between President François Bozizé, who seized power in 2003 in a coup, the opposition and civil society, to seek solutions to the growing social-economic problems in the nation. “We hope and urge that the political dialogue respects the conditions posed by all the sides, without any exceptions; we also call on all to seek a true solution, in a spirit of tolerance, mutual respect and reconciliation”, wrote the Bishops in the closing message of a Conference meeting.
23 June, 2008
Bolivia region 'chooses autonomy.'
BBC News
23 June 2008
Bolivia's gas-rich Tarija province has voted overwhelmingly in favour of greater autonomy, exit polls suggest.
About 80% of the voters in the eastern province backed the measure in a referendum, several pollsters said.
The result is seen as a rejection of left-wing President Evo Morales' drive to redistribute wealth in South America's poorest nation.
Tarija is the fourth province to back greater autonomy. The central government says the polls are illegal.
According to several exit polls, just over 80% of voters in Tarija voted Yes in the referendum.
However, pollsters say that most supporters of President Morales did not vote.
Some voters were deterred by unusually cold weather and a few minor outbreaks of violence, the BBC's Daniel Schweimler says.
Electoral officials have said final results are expected later this week.
Autonomy backers celebrated in Tarija's capital after the exit polls were released.
"A new Bolivia must be built on a foundation of autonomy. Centralism has left a bad legacy," regional Governor Mario Cossio told a crowd of supporters late on Sunday.
Earlier this year, the provinces of Santa Cruz, Beni and Pando also voted to distance themselves from the central government in La Paz.
Tarija's referendum is another brick in the wall that is increasingly dividing the poorer, predominantly indigenous western half of Bolivia from the gas and oil-rich eastern half, our correspondent says.
Constitution reform
President Morales, who has more than two years left in office, faces a recall referendum on his leadership in August.
The referendum will test whether Mr Morales still has the people's support
If successful in the ballot, Mr Morales says he wants to hold a public referendum on a draft constitution which has been awaiting approval since last year.
The constitution aims to enshrine reforms such as land redistribution to Bolivia's indigenous majority and sharing of wealth with the poorer western regions.
However, critics say it cedes too much control to the government in La Paz.
Mr Morales's opponents in the eastern states argue that his plans would unfairly privilege indigenous groups and would mean greater central control.
The proposals also include allowing the president to stand for re-election for another five-year term.
23 June 2008
Bolivia's gas-rich Tarija province has voted overwhelmingly in favour of greater autonomy, exit polls suggest.
About 80% of the voters in the eastern province backed the measure in a referendum, several pollsters said.
The result is seen as a rejection of left-wing President Evo Morales' drive to redistribute wealth in South America's poorest nation.
Tarija is the fourth province to back greater autonomy. The central government says the polls are illegal.
According to several exit polls, just over 80% of voters in Tarija voted Yes in the referendum.
However, pollsters say that most supporters of President Morales did not vote.
Some voters were deterred by unusually cold weather and a few minor outbreaks of violence, the BBC's Daniel Schweimler says.
Electoral officials have said final results are expected later this week.
Autonomy backers celebrated in Tarija's capital after the exit polls were released.
"A new Bolivia must be built on a foundation of autonomy. Centralism has left a bad legacy," regional Governor Mario Cossio told a crowd of supporters late on Sunday.
Earlier this year, the provinces of Santa Cruz, Beni and Pando also voted to distance themselves from the central government in La Paz.
Tarija's referendum is another brick in the wall that is increasingly dividing the poorer, predominantly indigenous western half of Bolivia from the gas and oil-rich eastern half, our correspondent says.
Constitution reform
President Morales, who has more than two years left in office, faces a recall referendum on his leadership in August.
The referendum will test whether Mr Morales still has the people's support
If successful in the ballot, Mr Morales says he wants to hold a public referendum on a draft constitution which has been awaiting approval since last year.
The constitution aims to enshrine reforms such as land redistribution to Bolivia's indigenous majority and sharing of wealth with the poorer western regions.
However, critics say it cedes too much control to the government in La Paz.
Mr Morales's opponents in the eastern states argue that his plans would unfairly privilege indigenous groups and would mean greater central control.
The proposals also include allowing the president to stand for re-election for another five-year term.
Minnawi reportedly arrives in Chad amid defection reports.
Sudan Tribune
23 June 2008
By Wasil Ali
Sudan’s senior presidential assistant Minni Arcua Minnawi arrived in Ndjamena after a week-long disappearance that led to speculation that he defected from the government of national unity.
A source speaking to Sudan Tribune by phone from Ndjamena on condition of anonymity said that he met with Minnawi who was expressed anger “in very harsh language” at the ruling National Congress Party (NCP) for not implementing the Darfur Peace Agreement (DPA).
“Minnawi said he managed to slip into Chad despite refusal by Khartoum to let him visit,” the source said.
But Sudan News Agency (SUNA) quoted the general Secretariat of Darfur Transitional Authority headed by Minnawi that he is in Darfur and claims did not visit Chad.
Minnawi has gone missing for 45 days but it was believed he was in Darfur.
Sudan broke off diplomatic relations with Chad Last month, blaming its neighbor for a foiled rebel attack by Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) against the Sudanese capital.
Minnawi was supposed to travel to Ndjamena last January but had to cancel it after Chadian rebels staged an attack against the capital to oust President Idriss Deby.
Exactly two years ago the Sudanese government has signed the DPA with the Sudan Liberation Army (SLA) faction led by Minnawi who was appointed as the senior assistant of the Sudanese president in August of the same year.
The source said Minnawi declined to confirm whether he defected or what his next step is, but that he felt that “he [Minnawi] is there to stay”
Earlier today Sudan Tribune contacted a number of Minnawi’s aides who were unable to confirm his whereabouts. Some claimed that he was in Abu-Gamar in North Darfur.
23 June 2008
By Wasil Ali
Sudan’s senior presidential assistant Minni Arcua Minnawi arrived in Ndjamena after a week-long disappearance that led to speculation that he defected from the government of national unity.
A source speaking to Sudan Tribune by phone from Ndjamena on condition of anonymity said that he met with Minnawi who was expressed anger “in very harsh language” at the ruling National Congress Party (NCP) for not implementing the Darfur Peace Agreement (DPA).
“Minnawi said he managed to slip into Chad despite refusal by Khartoum to let him visit,” the source said.
But Sudan News Agency (SUNA) quoted the general Secretariat of Darfur Transitional Authority headed by Minnawi that he is in Darfur and claims did not visit Chad.
Minnawi has gone missing for 45 days but it was believed he was in Darfur.
Sudan broke off diplomatic relations with Chad Last month, blaming its neighbor for a foiled rebel attack by Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) against the Sudanese capital.
Minnawi was supposed to travel to Ndjamena last January but had to cancel it after Chadian rebels staged an attack against the capital to oust President Idriss Deby.
Exactly two years ago the Sudanese government has signed the DPA with the Sudan Liberation Army (SLA) faction led by Minnawi who was appointed as the senior assistant of the Sudanese president in August of the same year.
The source said Minnawi declined to confirm whether he defected or what his next step is, but that he felt that “he [Minnawi] is there to stay”
Earlier today Sudan Tribune contacted a number of Minnawi’s aides who were unable to confirm his whereabouts. Some claimed that he was in Abu-Gamar in North Darfur.
Prison luxury then ‘home in two years’ for Simon Mann.
Times Online
23 June 2008
Martin Fletcher in Malabo
Mr. Simon Mann will receive a lengthy prison sentence this week for plotting to overthrow President Obiang of Equatorial Guinea. But there is a growing belief in the capital Malabo that whether he gets the 32 years demanded by the prosecution, or the 10 years sought by the defence, he will soon be back in Britain, pardoned by the man he sought to oust.
“He will be pardoned within a year, two at the most,” said a lawyer, adding that last week’s five-day trial was a “charade”. Mann had said what Equatorial Guinea’s regime wanted him to say. “They negotiated [a deal] with Mr Mann.”
Diplomatic sources broadly concurred, though they thought Mann may have to serve three or four years before being repatriated, perhaps on medical grounds.
It was reported last night that Scotland Yard was investigating the attempted coup, and was considering sending officers to interview Mann. Scotland Yard refused to comment.
Mann, 55, is clearly enjoying privileged treatment in Black Beach prison, notorious for abusing its prisoners. He has his own cell, an exercise machine, books and magazines, and makes regular calls home. He lunches most days with Manuel Nguema Mba, the Minister of Security. They eat food and wine delivered to the prison by the Hotel Paraiso, which Mr Nguema owns.
For Mr Obiang’s regime, long considered one of the most corrupt and repressive in Africa, Mann’s trial was a chance to confound its critics, to suggest that the tiny African state was more victim than victimiser. Unusually, it admitted foreign journalists, and made sure that Malabo’s diplomatic corps attended the trial in force to hear the former SAS officer and Old Etonian claim that there was an international conspiracy to seize the state’s vast oil riches.
Unprompted Mann said that his 2004 plot was in effect an “official operation”, sanctioned by the Spanish and South African governments, and tacitly endorsed by Washington. Sir Mark Thatcher was “part of the management team”, he said although all the available evidence suggests that he was merely an investor.
Mann said that a group led by Ely Calil, a London-based tycoon, was still conspiring to replace Mr Obiang with Severo Moto, an exiled opposition leader living in Spain.
Mann even expressed relief that his coup failed because he now realised that Equatorial Guinea was not such a bad place. Summing up, José Olo Obono, the Attorney-General, said the trial showed that Equatorial Guinea should never trust foreigners.
23 June 2008
Martin Fletcher in Malabo
Mr. Simon Mann will receive a lengthy prison sentence this week for plotting to overthrow President Obiang of Equatorial Guinea. But there is a growing belief in the capital Malabo that whether he gets the 32 years demanded by the prosecution, or the 10 years sought by the defence, he will soon be back in Britain, pardoned by the man he sought to oust.
“He will be pardoned within a year, two at the most,” said a lawyer, adding that last week’s five-day trial was a “charade”. Mann had said what Equatorial Guinea’s regime wanted him to say. “They negotiated [a deal] with Mr Mann.”
Diplomatic sources broadly concurred, though they thought Mann may have to serve three or four years before being repatriated, perhaps on medical grounds.
It was reported last night that Scotland Yard was investigating the attempted coup, and was considering sending officers to interview Mann. Scotland Yard refused to comment.
Mann, 55, is clearly enjoying privileged treatment in Black Beach prison, notorious for abusing its prisoners. He has his own cell, an exercise machine, books and magazines, and makes regular calls home. He lunches most days with Manuel Nguema Mba, the Minister of Security. They eat food and wine delivered to the prison by the Hotel Paraiso, which Mr Nguema owns.
For Mr Obiang’s regime, long considered one of the most corrupt and repressive in Africa, Mann’s trial was a chance to confound its critics, to suggest that the tiny African state was more victim than victimiser. Unusually, it admitted foreign journalists, and made sure that Malabo’s diplomatic corps attended the trial in force to hear the former SAS officer and Old Etonian claim that there was an international conspiracy to seize the state’s vast oil riches.
Unprompted Mann said that his 2004 plot was in effect an “official operation”, sanctioned by the Spanish and South African governments, and tacitly endorsed by Washington. Sir Mark Thatcher was “part of the management team”, he said although all the available evidence suggests that he was merely an investor.
Mann said that a group led by Ely Calil, a London-based tycoon, was still conspiring to replace Mr Obiang with Severo Moto, an exiled opposition leader living in Spain.
Mann even expressed relief that his coup failed because he now realised that Equatorial Guinea was not such a bad place. Summing up, José Olo Obono, the Attorney-General, said the trial showed that Equatorial Guinea should never trust foreigners.
UK Conservative Party Members to Return to Rwanda.
The New Times
23 June 2008
BY KITTY LLEWELLYN
About 100 members of the UK Conservative Party are coming back to Rwanda for the second phase of ‘Project Umubano’. Led by Andrew Mitchell MP, shadow secretary for international development, hand-picked representatives of the UK’s opposition party, among them ten MPs, doctors, lawyers, and bankers, will arrive in Kigali at the end of July. Last year 44 volunteers spent two weeks learning first hand Rwanda’s development challenges and offering targeted professional help according to their expertise. This year’s continuation project which emphasises skill transfer and capacity building will be “much bigger, but more narrowly focused than last year,” explained Mitchell from London.
The five projects covering much of Rwanda focus on health, the private sector, justice, education and construction.
A team of GPs, medical specialists and a dentist will work in rural health clinics and teaching hospitals.
According to Mitchell’s office, the Conservatives are also hoping to install solar energy in rural health clinics across Rwanda.
12 volunteers led by another MP, David Mundell, shadow secretary for Scotland, will be working with the Ministry of Justice to help in capacity building, particularly in respect to the East African Community legislation.
Mitchell himself will lead a project of Teaching English as a Foreign Language (TEFL) in association with the Ministry of Education. As part of the ministry’s month-long training programme for 1,500 primary school English language teachers, Conservatives will help train participants in English communication skills.
Following the success of last year’s renovation at Girubuntu primary school in Remera, Tobias Ellwood MP, shadow minister for culture, media and sport, is to direct a building and decorating team at a community centre in Kinyinya where the majority of households are child-headed. The project will be realised together with Rwandan builders.
“We are very excited about them coming back,” said Eugene Rudasingwa, director of Girubuntu. This year Conservatives are also turning their attention to the private sector, “the key driver of Rwanda’s long term development,” says an aide from Mitchell’s office.
22 volunteers will be divided between the Capital Markets Advisory Council, the Kigali School of Finance and Banking and the Private Sector Federation where they will run workshops depending on the needs of their Rwandan counterparts.
“True to its name, the project aims to build on existing relations and make new friendships”, says Jessica Lever, Mitchell’s chief of staff, who is currently in Kigali preparing the project.
Editor's Note: It was PM John Major and the Conservative Party that was in office from 1990-1997, when Great Britain trained RPA soldiers in Jinja as members of the Ugandan Army. The also reportedly provided funding for Radio Muhabura, the RPF's propaganda radio station.
23 June 2008
BY KITTY LLEWELLYN
About 100 members of the UK Conservative Party are coming back to Rwanda for the second phase of ‘Project Umubano’. Led by Andrew Mitchell MP, shadow secretary for international development, hand-picked representatives of the UK’s opposition party, among them ten MPs, doctors, lawyers, and bankers, will arrive in Kigali at the end of July. Last year 44 volunteers spent two weeks learning first hand Rwanda’s development challenges and offering targeted professional help according to their expertise. This year’s continuation project which emphasises skill transfer and capacity building will be “much bigger, but more narrowly focused than last year,” explained Mitchell from London.
The five projects covering much of Rwanda focus on health, the private sector, justice, education and construction.
A team of GPs, medical specialists and a dentist will work in rural health clinics and teaching hospitals.
According to Mitchell’s office, the Conservatives are also hoping to install solar energy in rural health clinics across Rwanda.
12 volunteers led by another MP, David Mundell, shadow secretary for Scotland, will be working with the Ministry of Justice to help in capacity building, particularly in respect to the East African Community legislation.
Mitchell himself will lead a project of Teaching English as a Foreign Language (TEFL) in association with the Ministry of Education. As part of the ministry’s month-long training programme for 1,500 primary school English language teachers, Conservatives will help train participants in English communication skills.
Following the success of last year’s renovation at Girubuntu primary school in Remera, Tobias Ellwood MP, shadow minister for culture, media and sport, is to direct a building and decorating team at a community centre in Kinyinya where the majority of households are child-headed. The project will be realised together with Rwandan builders.
“We are very excited about them coming back,” said Eugene Rudasingwa, director of Girubuntu. This year Conservatives are also turning their attention to the private sector, “the key driver of Rwanda’s long term development,” says an aide from Mitchell’s office.
22 volunteers will be divided between the Capital Markets Advisory Council, the Kigali School of Finance and Banking and the Private Sector Federation where they will run workshops depending on the needs of their Rwandan counterparts.
“True to its name, the project aims to build on existing relations and make new friendships”, says Jessica Lever, Mitchell’s chief of staff, who is currently in Kigali preparing the project.
Editor's Note: It was PM John Major and the Conservative Party that was in office from 1990-1997, when Great Britain trained RPA soldiers in Jinja as members of the Ugandan Army. The also reportedly provided funding for Radio Muhabura, the RPF's propaganda radio station.
22 June, 2008
LEGAL AID NOT YET WIDESPREAD IN RWANDA.
Hirondelle News Agency
20 June 2008
Even if it is law, the legal aid which gives the deprived people the possibility of being defended or to attack in justice does not seem to have been definitively installed in the Rwandan legal system.
This right, enshrined by conventional international law, was evoked in connection with the request of the ICTR prosecutor to transfer defendants to Rwanda. During the public hearing of 24 May, Human Rights Watch, as the defender of Yussuf Munyakazi, questioned the guarantees that the defendants could expect. To answer them, the representative of lawyers from Rwanda and afterwards the prosecutor general of Rwanda explained that this measure was regularly in effect.
According to a former head of the LWOB France mission in Rwanda, this guarantee is not really assured. “The public debate on legal aid has been ongoing for the last ten years” and it is still not organized, explained Hugo Moudiki Jombwe, the former head of the LWOB France mission, to the Hirondelle agency. According to him, since the legal reform of 2003/2004, “there is a real will, demonstrated to organize legal aid”; but “there is a gap between this will and reality”, especially due to “real financial difficulties”.
In August 2007, a meeting in Kigali was organized by the Conference of Lawyers from Rwanda for their tenth anniversary. The obstacles and the difficulties encountered were clarified. The inexperience of the majority of the legal partners, the insufficiency of the means necessary to respect the defence rights and the ignorance of people to their rights, was in particular mentioned.
At this meeting, Christine Tuyisenge, of the Forum of Legal Aid and the Haguruka association, had shown that the supply was far lower than the demand: “there is 1 lawyer for every 40,000 citizens and (…) only 10% of the population can afford the services of a lawyer”, she regretted.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 10 December 1948 presents in its article 11 that any person accused of a punishable act has the right that “all the necessary guarantees to their defence” is assured.
In the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 16 December 1966, that Rwanda signed on 6 April 1975, Article (14) 3 prescribes as a condition of minimum guarantees for a fair trial, that any person accused of a criminal offence has the right “to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing; to be informed, if he does not have legal assistance, of this right; and to have legal assistance assigned to him, in any case”.
The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, ratified by Rwanda on 15 July 1983, also mentions the right to be defended by a lawyer of one’s choice (Article 7). On the other hand, it does not mention free legal aid. However, it is fair to think, so that the right of defence does not remain theoretical, it is the duty of the government to provide representation by a lawyer.
Beyond the prescribed international law to which Rwanda became involved by signing the conventions, it enshrines legal aid for the poor in article 19 of its constitution, which takes exactly the terms used in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
It is law n°3/97 of 19 March 1997 which created the Bar of Rwanda which concretely creates legal aid.
Article 60 poses the general principle, “the assistance to people whose incomes are weak” is ensured by the Office of Consultation and Defence (OCD) of the Bar of Rwanda. It is “charged with advising, consulting and defending the poor”, explains the website of the Bar of Rwanda.
The OCD, which became fully operational at the end of 2000, designates defenders to represent defendants and victims.
Whereas the law of 1997 which created the Office of Consultation and Defence provides (articles 61 to 63) that interns and lawyers will be paid for their assistance mission to indigent on the basis of legal aid, it is on the basis of foreign funds that the lawyers are paid. The OCD has been thus supported for several years, in particular, by the Belgian and French NGO Lawyers Without Borders (LWOB).
In theory, the funds for legal aid are managed by the control of the order of lawyers and are allocated by grants from the state and “various contributions”. But the presidential decree project issued in 1998, and renewed in 2003, which was suppose to finance the legal aid fund has still not been adopted.
To alleviate the missing fund, the Rwandan government decided to allot 20 million Rwandan francs (approximately 40 000 USD) from the budget to pay the lawyers who provide legal aid. But until 14 month ago, when Moudiki Jombwe was still in his position for LWOB in Kigali, the Bar had never received it, he tells.
“All of this is rather complicated”, he adds. “On one side are the legal institutions which look towards international cooperation to obtain the means of financing legal aid. On the other side, the co-operation estimates that legal aid must come from the state” knowing that the national budget of Rwanda is still to 60 even to 70% tributary of international assistance, points out the former mission head.
Practically at the same time that the OCD was created, the Organ of Legal Defenders was instituted, composed of lawyers, to alleviate the number of lawyers at the time of the creation of the Bar (about thirty lawyers in 1997. 131 lawyers were recorded on 30 August 2007). This Organ of Legal Defenders still exists. It benefits from technical and financial support, in particular, from the Danish Institute for Human Rights (DIHR), which also works hard on the creation of the assistance fund.
Other types of associations or national and international institutions also provide legal counsel and assistance to vulnerable groups such as the survivors of the genocide and orphans. Some of them pay for a lawyer, such as the association of genocide widows Agahozo, provided that the person is a widow of the genocide and a member of the association. UNICEF, in partnership with the ministry of justice and institutional relations, ensures the representation of minors in cases of genocide and criminal cases implicating rape.
In the decision to refuse the transfer in the Kanyarukiga case last week, the First Instance Chamber seemed reassured by the Rwandan assurances, even if it specified that it did not belong to it to study if the legal aid fund allocated to transfer cases (approximately 500 000 dollars) would be sufficient or not. It reminded that potential financial problems should be the object of the evaluation of the monitoring mechanism envisaged by article 11 bis of the ICTR Rules of Procedure and Evidence.
20 June 2008
Even if it is law, the legal aid which gives the deprived people the possibility of being defended or to attack in justice does not seem to have been definitively installed in the Rwandan legal system.
This right, enshrined by conventional international law, was evoked in connection with the request of the ICTR prosecutor to transfer defendants to Rwanda. During the public hearing of 24 May, Human Rights Watch, as the defender of Yussuf Munyakazi, questioned the guarantees that the defendants could expect. To answer them, the representative of lawyers from Rwanda and afterwards the prosecutor general of Rwanda explained that this measure was regularly in effect.
According to a former head of the LWOB France mission in Rwanda, this guarantee is not really assured. “The public debate on legal aid has been ongoing for the last ten years” and it is still not organized, explained Hugo Moudiki Jombwe, the former head of the LWOB France mission, to the Hirondelle agency. According to him, since the legal reform of 2003/2004, “there is a real will, demonstrated to organize legal aid”; but “there is a gap between this will and reality”, especially due to “real financial difficulties”.
In August 2007, a meeting in Kigali was organized by the Conference of Lawyers from Rwanda for their tenth anniversary. The obstacles and the difficulties encountered were clarified. The inexperience of the majority of the legal partners, the insufficiency of the means necessary to respect the defence rights and the ignorance of people to their rights, was in particular mentioned.
At this meeting, Christine Tuyisenge, of the Forum of Legal Aid and the Haguruka association, had shown that the supply was far lower than the demand: “there is 1 lawyer for every 40,000 citizens and (…) only 10% of the population can afford the services of a lawyer”, she regretted.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 10 December 1948 presents in its article 11 that any person accused of a punishable act has the right that “all the necessary guarantees to their defence” is assured.
In the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 16 December 1966, that Rwanda signed on 6 April 1975, Article (14) 3 prescribes as a condition of minimum guarantees for a fair trial, that any person accused of a criminal offence has the right “to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing; to be informed, if he does not have legal assistance, of this right; and to have legal assistance assigned to him, in any case”.
The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, ratified by Rwanda on 15 July 1983, also mentions the right to be defended by a lawyer of one’s choice (Article 7). On the other hand, it does not mention free legal aid. However, it is fair to think, so that the right of defence does not remain theoretical, it is the duty of the government to provide representation by a lawyer.
Beyond the prescribed international law to which Rwanda became involved by signing the conventions, it enshrines legal aid for the poor in article 19 of its constitution, which takes exactly the terms used in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
It is law n°3/97 of 19 March 1997 which created the Bar of Rwanda which concretely creates legal aid.
Article 60 poses the general principle, “the assistance to people whose incomes are weak” is ensured by the Office of Consultation and Defence (OCD) of the Bar of Rwanda. It is “charged with advising, consulting and defending the poor”, explains the website of the Bar of Rwanda.
The OCD, which became fully operational at the end of 2000, designates defenders to represent defendants and victims.
Whereas the law of 1997 which created the Office of Consultation and Defence provides (articles 61 to 63) that interns and lawyers will be paid for their assistance mission to indigent on the basis of legal aid, it is on the basis of foreign funds that the lawyers are paid. The OCD has been thus supported for several years, in particular, by the Belgian and French NGO Lawyers Without Borders (LWOB).
In theory, the funds for legal aid are managed by the control of the order of lawyers and are allocated by grants from the state and “various contributions”. But the presidential decree project issued in 1998, and renewed in 2003, which was suppose to finance the legal aid fund has still not been adopted.
To alleviate the missing fund, the Rwandan government decided to allot 20 million Rwandan francs (approximately 40 000 USD) from the budget to pay the lawyers who provide legal aid. But until 14 month ago, when Moudiki Jombwe was still in his position for LWOB in Kigali, the Bar had never received it, he tells.
“All of this is rather complicated”, he adds. “On one side are the legal institutions which look towards international cooperation to obtain the means of financing legal aid. On the other side, the co-operation estimates that legal aid must come from the state” knowing that the national budget of Rwanda is still to 60 even to 70% tributary of international assistance, points out the former mission head.
Practically at the same time that the OCD was created, the Organ of Legal Defenders was instituted, composed of lawyers, to alleviate the number of lawyers at the time of the creation of the Bar (about thirty lawyers in 1997. 131 lawyers were recorded on 30 August 2007). This Organ of Legal Defenders still exists. It benefits from technical and financial support, in particular, from the Danish Institute for Human Rights (DIHR), which also works hard on the creation of the assistance fund.
Other types of associations or national and international institutions also provide legal counsel and assistance to vulnerable groups such as the survivors of the genocide and orphans. Some of them pay for a lawyer, such as the association of genocide widows Agahozo, provided that the person is a widow of the genocide and a member of the association. UNICEF, in partnership with the ministry of justice and institutional relations, ensures the representation of minors in cases of genocide and criminal cases implicating rape.
In the decision to refuse the transfer in the Kanyarukiga case last week, the First Instance Chamber seemed reassured by the Rwandan assurances, even if it specified that it did not belong to it to study if the legal aid fund allocated to transfer cases (approximately 500 000 dollars) would be sufficient or not. It reminded that potential financial problems should be the object of the evaluation of the monitoring mechanism envisaged by article 11 bis of the ICTR Rules of Procedure and Evidence.
CHAMBER DENIES PROSECUTION’S THIRD TRANSFER REQUEST OF GENOCIDE ACCUSED TO KIGALI.
Hirondelle News Agency
22 June 2008
Third successive Trial Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda has turned down prosecution’s request to transfer another genocide accused Lieutenant Ildenphonse Hategekimana, former Commander of Ngoma Camp, to stand a trial in Kigali on grounds that the suspect may not able to get a fair trial.
The Chamber presided by Khalida Khan (Pakistan) ruled it was not satisfied that Rwanda’s legal framework criminalizes command responsibility. The other members of three-bench judges were: Asoka de Silva (Sri Lanka) and Emile Short (Ghana).
“The Chamber is not satisfied that Rwanda can ensure Mr Hategekimana’s right to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as the witnesses against him,” the judges ruled in their unanimous 24-page decision.
In the ruling, the Chamber considered it possible that, pursuant to Rwandan law, Mr Hategekimana “may face life imprisonment in isolation without adequate safeguards in violation of his right not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment’’.
On June 6,another ICTR Chamber rued that the 63-year-old former businessman Gaspard Kanyarukiga would not receive a fair trial if transferred, adding that the suspect would not be able to call witnesses residing outside Rwanda “to an extend and in a manner which will ensure a fair trial.”
Late last month, another Chamber rejected the Prosecution’s request to transfer trader, Yusuf Munyakazi (73), on similar grounds.
However, all three Chambers have acknowledged in their separate decisions that Rwanda has made significant progress in rebuilding its judicial system in post-genocide, including abolishing the death penalty since last year.
In addition to submissions by the Prosecution and the Defence, the judges considered briefs from the Rwandan government, the Kigali Bar Association, Human Rights Watch and the International Criminal Defence Attorneys Association, which had been given amicus curiae(friends of the court) status.
The other two accused targeted for transfers and their decisions are awaited are: former Mayor Jean Baptist Gatete and former Inspector of Judicial Police, Fulgence Kaysihema. The latter is still at large.
22 June 2008
Third successive Trial Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda has turned down prosecution’s request to transfer another genocide accused Lieutenant Ildenphonse Hategekimana, former Commander of Ngoma Camp, to stand a trial in Kigali on grounds that the suspect may not able to get a fair trial.
The Chamber presided by Khalida Khan (Pakistan) ruled it was not satisfied that Rwanda’s legal framework criminalizes command responsibility. The other members of three-bench judges were: Asoka de Silva (Sri Lanka) and Emile Short (Ghana).
“The Chamber is not satisfied that Rwanda can ensure Mr Hategekimana’s right to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as the witnesses against him,” the judges ruled in their unanimous 24-page decision.
In the ruling, the Chamber considered it possible that, pursuant to Rwandan law, Mr Hategekimana “may face life imprisonment in isolation without adequate safeguards in violation of his right not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment’’.
On June 6,another ICTR Chamber rued that the 63-year-old former businessman Gaspard Kanyarukiga would not receive a fair trial if transferred, adding that the suspect would not be able to call witnesses residing outside Rwanda “to an extend and in a manner which will ensure a fair trial.”
Late last month, another Chamber rejected the Prosecution’s request to transfer trader, Yusuf Munyakazi (73), on similar grounds.
However, all three Chambers have acknowledged in their separate decisions that Rwanda has made significant progress in rebuilding its judicial system in post-genocide, including abolishing the death penalty since last year.
In addition to submissions by the Prosecution and the Defence, the judges considered briefs from the Rwandan government, the Kigali Bar Association, Human Rights Watch and the International Criminal Defence Attorneys Association, which had been given amicus curiae(friends of the court) status.
The other two accused targeted for transfers and their decisions are awaited are: former Mayor Jean Baptist Gatete and former Inspector of Judicial Police, Fulgence Kaysihema. The latter is still at large.
LAWYERS REQUEST DISCLOSURE OF INVESTIGATIONS OVER MURDERS OF RWANDA BISHOPS.
Hirondelle News Agency
20 June 2008
The defence counsels in the trial of four officers on trial before the Arusha-based International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) Friday requested the Chamber to order the Prosecutor to transmit the investigations into the 1994 murders of several clergymen, including three bishops, reports the Hirondelle Agency.
The Rwandan Military Court in Kigali this week charged four soldiers of the Rwanda Patriotic Front (RPF) for the murders. The arrests were made following joint investigations by the Rwandan Prosecutor General and the Office of the Prosecutor of the ICTR, according to Kigali sources.
The accused apprehended are General Wilson Gumisiriza, Major Wilson Ukwishaka, and Captains John Butera and Dieudonné Rukeba.
“It is necessary that all the aspects of the investigations carried out on the Kabgayi massacres be transmitted”, said Charles Taku, the lead counsel for Major François-Xavier Nzuwonemeye, who commanded the government army's reconnaissance battalion in 1994.
“This trial has dealt with the subject of the Kabgayi massacres, a place on which you will have to pronounce, therefore we ask that the investigations of the prosecutor be transmitted to us”, added Takou. The lawyer did not agree for the prosecutor “to distance these investigations from this tribunal”.
“It is in the interest of justice that this investigation be communicated in this case’’, added, Gilles Saint-Laurent, lead lawyer of General Augustin Bizimungu, the Chief of Staff of the Rwandan army.
The two other defence teams also supported the request on which the Chamber has not yet rendered a decision.
Alphonse Van of the prosecution team promised to report the matter to the prosecutor Hassan Bubacar Jallow, who is personally involved in the case.
20 June 2008
The defence counsels in the trial of four officers on trial before the Arusha-based International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) Friday requested the Chamber to order the Prosecutor to transmit the investigations into the 1994 murders of several clergymen, including three bishops, reports the Hirondelle Agency.
The Rwandan Military Court in Kigali this week charged four soldiers of the Rwanda Patriotic Front (RPF) for the murders. The arrests were made following joint investigations by the Rwandan Prosecutor General and the Office of the Prosecutor of the ICTR, according to Kigali sources.
The accused apprehended are General Wilson Gumisiriza, Major Wilson Ukwishaka, and Captains John Butera and Dieudonné Rukeba.
“It is necessary that all the aspects of the investigations carried out on the Kabgayi massacres be transmitted”, said Charles Taku, the lead counsel for Major François-Xavier Nzuwonemeye, who commanded the government army's reconnaissance battalion in 1994.
“This trial has dealt with the subject of the Kabgayi massacres, a place on which you will have to pronounce, therefore we ask that the investigations of the prosecutor be transmitted to us”, added Takou. The lawyer did not agree for the prosecutor “to distance these investigations from this tribunal”.
“It is in the interest of justice that this investigation be communicated in this case’’, added, Gilles Saint-Laurent, lead lawyer of General Augustin Bizimungu, the Chief of Staff of the Rwandan army.
The two other defence teams also supported the request on which the Chamber has not yet rendered a decision.
Alphonse Van of the prosecution team promised to report the matter to the prosecutor Hassan Bubacar Jallow, who is personally involved in the case.
UN WILL FINANCE BURUNDI TRANSITIONAL JUSTICE CONSULTATIONS.
Hirondelle News Agency
20 June 2008
The Government of Burundi, Joint Steering Committee for Consolidation of Peace in Burundi and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) have signed an agreement to support the national consultations on the set up of the mechanisms for transitional justice in Burundi, which will cost USD 1, 380 000.
According to an official of the representative of the UN in Bujumbura, the objective of the project was “to involve the Burundian population in the national reconciliation process for the set up of the mechanisms of transitional justice”.
The consultations are aimed at creating an environment favourable to the appropriation of the mechanisms of transitional justice and to the participation of the population in the process of reconciliation; to consult the population as a whole and at all the territorial levels to collect its points of view on the mechanisms of transitional justice and ; to ensure that the points of view of the population on the mechanisms of the transitional justice are consigned in a widely distributed report.
The agreement should pave way for the start of the national consultations, expected to last about one year.
The project falls under the priorities expressed by Burundi in its Priority Plan of Consolidation of Peace in regards to the reconciliation and the fight against impunity envisaged by the Arusha Accords for peace and reconciliation in Burundi.
20 June 2008
The Government of Burundi, Joint Steering Committee for Consolidation of Peace in Burundi and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) have signed an agreement to support the national consultations on the set up of the mechanisms for transitional justice in Burundi, which will cost USD 1, 380 000.
According to an official of the representative of the UN in Bujumbura, the objective of the project was “to involve the Burundian population in the national reconciliation process for the set up of the mechanisms of transitional justice”.
The consultations are aimed at creating an environment favourable to the appropriation of the mechanisms of transitional justice and to the participation of the population in the process of reconciliation; to consult the population as a whole and at all the territorial levels to collect its points of view on the mechanisms of transitional justice and ; to ensure that the points of view of the population on the mechanisms of the transitional justice are consigned in a widely distributed report.
The agreement should pave way for the start of the national consultations, expected to last about one year.
The project falls under the priorities expressed by Burundi in its Priority Plan of Consolidation of Peace in regards to the reconciliation and the fight against impunity envisaged by the Arusha Accords for peace and reconciliation in Burundi.
Central Africa Republic, rebels sign peace pact.
Reuters
22 June 2008
By Antoine Lawson
Central African Republic's government has signed a peace accord with rebel groups that seeks to end several years of bush guerrilla war in the poor former French colony that borders with Sudan and Chad.
The accord, signed in Gabon's capital Libreville on Saturday, consolidates individual ceasefires already made by President Francois Bozize's government with three insurgent movements as part of a national peace process.
Bozize, who seized power in 2003 and won elections two years later, is promoting a political dialogue in Central African Republic to end rebellions in the northwest and northeast which have forced tens of thousands of civilians from their homes.
The violence, which has razed and emptied rural villages, driving their inhabitants into the bush, has included raids by armed groups crossing over the border from Chad and Sudan's Darfur region and counter-attacks by government troops.
The signing of the peace pact in the Gabonese capital was witnessed by Bozize and Gabon's President, Omar Bongo, who helped broker the deal, officials from both countries said.
It was signed by leaders of two rebel groups, the Popular Army for the Restoration of the Republic and Democracy (APRD), whose fighters operate in the northwest bordering Cameroon and Chad, and the Union of Democratic Forces for Unity (UFDR), which had been active in the northeast near the frontier with Sudan.
"We will pursue our efforts to reach a lasting peace," APRD President Jean-Jacques Demafouth, who initialled the peace pact along with UFDR leader Damane Zakaria, told reporters.
The leader of a third rebel group, the Democratic Front for the Central African People (FDPC), Abdoulaye Miskine, missed the signing ceremony as he was unable to make the trip from Tripoli. But the accord would be held open for his later signature.
Bozize, who plans to bring together for talks the rebel groups which have signed ceasefires, the government and civilian opponents, is hoping the deal will shield his country from the interlocking conflicts in Sudan's Darfur and eastern Chad.
AMNESTY AND DEMOBILISATION
The United Nations and foreign governments say only similar internal political settlements between the warring parties in Darfur and Chad can end the conflicts there.
Landlocked Central African Republic, one of the world's poorest states, has suffered 11 attempted coups or mutinies in the past decade alone. Instability had hampered the full exploitation of its gold, diamond and uranium wealth.
A contingent of European Union soldiers, part of a larger EU force (EUFOR) sent to east Chad this year to protect civilians and refugees, has been deployed in northeast Central African Republic to carry out similar security duties there.
Central African Republic's Communications Minister, Cyriaque Gonda, said the deal signed in Libreville included amnesty for the rebel fighters and foresaw their demobilisation for reintegration either into the national army or civilian life.
The amnesty offered to the rebel fighters under the peace deal did not however give immunity from prosecutions for war crimes or crimes against humanity which might by initiated by the International Criminal Court, based in The Hague.
The violence in Central African Republic stemmed from Bozize's 2003 overthrow of President Ange-Felix Patasse, following bloody fighting that included the systematic rape of hundreds of women. Many alleged rapes were carried out by Jean-Pierre Bemba's fighters from Democratic Republic of Congo, who backed Patasse.
(Writing by Pascal Fletcher)
22 June 2008
By Antoine Lawson
Central African Republic's government has signed a peace accord with rebel groups that seeks to end several years of bush guerrilla war in the poor former French colony that borders with Sudan and Chad.
The accord, signed in Gabon's capital Libreville on Saturday, consolidates individual ceasefires already made by President Francois Bozize's government with three insurgent movements as part of a national peace process.
Bozize, who seized power in 2003 and won elections two years later, is promoting a political dialogue in Central African Republic to end rebellions in the northwest and northeast which have forced tens of thousands of civilians from their homes.
The violence, which has razed and emptied rural villages, driving their inhabitants into the bush, has included raids by armed groups crossing over the border from Chad and Sudan's Darfur region and counter-attacks by government troops.
The signing of the peace pact in the Gabonese capital was witnessed by Bozize and Gabon's President, Omar Bongo, who helped broker the deal, officials from both countries said.
It was signed by leaders of two rebel groups, the Popular Army for the Restoration of the Republic and Democracy (APRD), whose fighters operate in the northwest bordering Cameroon and Chad, and the Union of Democratic Forces for Unity (UFDR), which had been active in the northeast near the frontier with Sudan.
"We will pursue our efforts to reach a lasting peace," APRD President Jean-Jacques Demafouth, who initialled the peace pact along with UFDR leader Damane Zakaria, told reporters.
The leader of a third rebel group, the Democratic Front for the Central African People (FDPC), Abdoulaye Miskine, missed the signing ceremony as he was unable to make the trip from Tripoli. But the accord would be held open for his later signature.
Bozize, who plans to bring together for talks the rebel groups which have signed ceasefires, the government and civilian opponents, is hoping the deal will shield his country from the interlocking conflicts in Sudan's Darfur and eastern Chad.
AMNESTY AND DEMOBILISATION
The United Nations and foreign governments say only similar internal political settlements between the warring parties in Darfur and Chad can end the conflicts there.
Landlocked Central African Republic, one of the world's poorest states, has suffered 11 attempted coups or mutinies in the past decade alone. Instability had hampered the full exploitation of its gold, diamond and uranium wealth.
A contingent of European Union soldiers, part of a larger EU force (EUFOR) sent to east Chad this year to protect civilians and refugees, has been deployed in northeast Central African Republic to carry out similar security duties there.
Central African Republic's Communications Minister, Cyriaque Gonda, said the deal signed in Libreville included amnesty for the rebel fighters and foresaw their demobilisation for reintegration either into the national army or civilian life.
The amnesty offered to the rebel fighters under the peace deal did not however give immunity from prosecutions for war crimes or crimes against humanity which might by initiated by the International Criminal Court, based in The Hague.
The violence in Central African Republic stemmed from Bozize's 2003 overthrow of President Ange-Felix Patasse, following bloody fighting that included the systematic rape of hundreds of women. Many alleged rapes were carried out by Jean-Pierre Bemba's fighters from Democratic Republic of Congo, who backed Patasse.
(Writing by Pascal Fletcher)
US taps Lithuania as alternative to Poland for missile shield plan.
AFP
19 June 2008
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/US_taps_Lithuania_as_alternative_to_Poland_for_missile_shield_plan_999.html
The United States has begun to sound out Lithuania as a possible alternative host for a controversial missile shield as talks with Poland on the project grind on.
After a Polish minister said Tuesday that talks between Washington and Vilnius were indeed underway, US officials confirmed that chief missile defence negotiator John Rood had visited Lithuania, stressing all the while there were in actual fact no negotiations with the ex-Soviet Baltic state.
Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell, however, made it clear Poland was not the only option the United States had to host the shield.
"There are several European nations that could host the (missile) interceptors and Lithuania is one of them," Morrell told reporters in Washington Tuesday.
The United States wants to install an anti-ballistic missile shield in northern Poland and an associated high-powered tracking radar in the neighbouring Czech Republic by 2011-13 to counter the alleged threat of attacks by so-called "rogue" states, notably Iran.
Seeing it a major security threat, Russia is vehemently opposed.
Lithuania on Wednesday denied any negotiations with Washington, but left the door open.
"Lithuania would consider the possibility of participating in the anti-missile shield if asked. We should consider all the pluses and minuses," Lithuanian Defence Minister Juozas Olekas told Lithuanian public radio.
He however played down any immediate prospect of NATO member Lithuania stepping in to replace alliance ally Poland, adding: "We believe that the agreement with Poland will be made".
Polish officials, however, are convinced the United States has already held preliminary consultations with Lithuania, a former Soviet republic which became a NATO ally in 2004.
"We know there are talks," Poland's chief missile defence negotiator, Deputy Foreign Minister Witold Waszczykowski, told AFP.
Waszczykowski believes they are a "tool of pressure" to speed-up the negotiations with Poland, which have dragged on for 13 months so far, in order to strike a deal before US President George W. Bush leaves office early next year.
"The United States know time is an issue," Waszczykowski said, adding policy decisions will effectively be frozen as the US presidential campaign comes into full swing this fall.
In April the United States concluded the deal for the radar base in the Czech Republic, but talks with Poland have been slowed by Warsaw's demands for substantial aid to modernise its armed forces.
Begun in May 2007, talks advanced quickly under conservative Prime Minister Jaroslaw Kaczynski. But after taking power in November last year, the liberal administration of Prime Minister Donald Tusk quickly raised the stakes, demanding more than the 47 million dollars (30 million euros) in military aid President Bush promised Poland would receive by 2009.
Worried by Russia's threat to point its missiles at Poland should it host the shield, Warsaw wants the United States to provide substantial cash to upgrade the Polish armed forces and finance a Patriot 3 or THAAD-type air defence system.
"If the United States believes that installing the missile shield will not have an important impact on Poland's security, it will be difficult for us to convince Poles (to accept the missile shield)," Waszczykowski said.
But an alternative location for the missile shield in Lithuania would be problematic. The 3.4-million strong Baltic state which became a Soviet republic after World War II, only regained independence as the USSR crumbled in 1991.
Planting the shield on Lithuanian soil, directly adjacent to the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad, would likely exacerbate Moscow's fears the system is aimed against Russia -- something Washington has repeatedly denied.
"It seems that someone wants to take little steps to cross the red line which marks the boundaries of our national security," Konstantin Kossatchev, head of the Russian parliament's foreign affairs committee, told AFP Wednesday.
"We are quite likely becoming enemy number one or two of Russia," Lithuanian political analyst Kestutis Gernius observed.
19 June 2008
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/US_taps_Lithuania_as_alternative_to_Poland_for_missile_shield_plan_999.html
The United States has begun to sound out Lithuania as a possible alternative host for a controversial missile shield as talks with Poland on the project grind on.
After a Polish minister said Tuesday that talks between Washington and Vilnius were indeed underway, US officials confirmed that chief missile defence negotiator John Rood had visited Lithuania, stressing all the while there were in actual fact no negotiations with the ex-Soviet Baltic state.
Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell, however, made it clear Poland was not the only option the United States had to host the shield.
"There are several European nations that could host the (missile) interceptors and Lithuania is one of them," Morrell told reporters in Washington Tuesday.
The United States wants to install an anti-ballistic missile shield in northern Poland and an associated high-powered tracking radar in the neighbouring Czech Republic by 2011-13 to counter the alleged threat of attacks by so-called "rogue" states, notably Iran.
Seeing it a major security threat, Russia is vehemently opposed.
Lithuania on Wednesday denied any negotiations with Washington, but left the door open.
"Lithuania would consider the possibility of participating in the anti-missile shield if asked. We should consider all the pluses and minuses," Lithuanian Defence Minister Juozas Olekas told Lithuanian public radio.
He however played down any immediate prospect of NATO member Lithuania stepping in to replace alliance ally Poland, adding: "We believe that the agreement with Poland will be made".
Polish officials, however, are convinced the United States has already held preliminary consultations with Lithuania, a former Soviet republic which became a NATO ally in 2004.
"We know there are talks," Poland's chief missile defence negotiator, Deputy Foreign Minister Witold Waszczykowski, told AFP.
Waszczykowski believes they are a "tool of pressure" to speed-up the negotiations with Poland, which have dragged on for 13 months so far, in order to strike a deal before US President George W. Bush leaves office early next year.
"The United States know time is an issue," Waszczykowski said, adding policy decisions will effectively be frozen as the US presidential campaign comes into full swing this fall.
In April the United States concluded the deal for the radar base in the Czech Republic, but talks with Poland have been slowed by Warsaw's demands for substantial aid to modernise its armed forces.
Begun in May 2007, talks advanced quickly under conservative Prime Minister Jaroslaw Kaczynski. But after taking power in November last year, the liberal administration of Prime Minister Donald Tusk quickly raised the stakes, demanding more than the 47 million dollars (30 million euros) in military aid President Bush promised Poland would receive by 2009.
Worried by Russia's threat to point its missiles at Poland should it host the shield, Warsaw wants the United States to provide substantial cash to upgrade the Polish armed forces and finance a Patriot 3 or THAAD-type air defence system.
"If the United States believes that installing the missile shield will not have an important impact on Poland's security, it will be difficult for us to convince Poles (to accept the missile shield)," Waszczykowski said.
But an alternative location for the missile shield in Lithuania would be problematic. The 3.4-million strong Baltic state which became a Soviet republic after World War II, only regained independence as the USSR crumbled in 1991.
Planting the shield on Lithuanian soil, directly adjacent to the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad, would likely exacerbate Moscow's fears the system is aimed against Russia -- something Washington has repeatedly denied.
"It seems that someone wants to take little steps to cross the red line which marks the boundaries of our national security," Konstantin Kossatchev, head of the Russian parliament's foreign affairs committee, told AFP Wednesday.
"We are quite likely becoming enemy number one or two of Russia," Lithuanian political analyst Kestutis Gernius observed.
Possibilities In Colombia For A U.S. Military Base.
22 June 2008
Council on Hemispheric Affairs
U.S. Ambassador Maintains: "Without a doubt. There are possibilities in Colombia (for a US military base)"
Last Monday, Colombia's Defense Minister Juan Manuel Santos once again has reiterated that Colombia "does not have, nor will have" any American military bases. However, rumors persist that the US plans to relocate its military facility from Manta, Ecuador to an unspecified location in Colombia. These have been circulating since late last year, but several recent incidents lend additional credence to them. First, the Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff's visit to Colombia early in January could signal, according to Colombian Liberal senator Juan Manuel Galante, a subtle indication that the U.S. is, in fact, interested in establishing a military base in the country. The Colombian senator assured his listeners at the time that there is a base with the necessary infrastructure at Tres Esquinas, which has already been provided with radar equipment by the U.S.
SEARCH NZ JOBS
Search Businesses FindA
Check Your SALARY Level
Find the property for you
In an April 22 meeting between Santos and US ambassador to Colombia, William Brownfield, the Colombian defense minister was informed that due to an improvement in the country's human rights performance, as well as in its military operations, the veto against the military base at Palanquero, that in effect, de-certified the base from receiving U.S equipment, had now been lifted. According to Santos, the US now aims to provide intensified assistance in Bogota's fight against narco-trafficking and terrorism as a result of the removal of this veto. As deputy secretary John Negroponte, who was ambassador to Honduras during much of the Reagan presidency and who at the time served one of the most controversial ambassadorial tenures in Central America when it came to ignoring human rights, stated in a June 2 press conference in Medellin, that the United States and Colombia have a "very extensive relationship of cooperation." This particularly was the case in the areas of "military cooperation, military assistance, military advisors, and so forth."
Although its suggestions hint otherwise, the Colombian government has posited that the US will not be able to establish bases in Colombia, and as Juan Manuel Santos declared, they "have already discussed this with the Americans." Furthermore, this past May, Colombian Foreign Minister Fernando Araujo also declared that Colombia did not have intentions to place a US military base on its territory.
The question then arises: if the US and Colombian administrations already have concluded discussions on the issue, and if Washington was already aware of the official stance of the Colombian government, then why did US ambassador Brownfield declare on June 7th that "without a doubt. There are possibilities in Colombia" to replace the military base at Manta? One wonders if this statement was the result of a lack of poor communication between Colombia and the United States, or if it was in fact, a demonstration of the sizeable influence wielded by the U.S over Colombia's basic government decisions.
To comprehend Bogota's motives and actions, the implications of a US base in Colombia for the Uribe administration must be fully understood. Agreeing to a military base publicly, especially after Ecuador's president has vehemently refused to renew his country's military contract with the US at Manta, might spell a significant political mistake and a massively imprudent step for President Uribe to take. Furthermore, taking into consideration Colombia's episodically expressed fear of being dominated by the United States and remembering the humiliating days of the United Fruit Company and the massacre of the "Bananeros," establishing a US military base in Colombia would be seen by some Colombians as a threat to the nation's sovereignty and a loss of their country's sense of dignity.
With the prospect of a likely reelection campaign looming in the near future, President Uribe needs to remain as popular as he can and at the same time not lose U.S. support. Furthermore, the Peruvian government also seems to be hoping for a U.S. military base on its territory and the aid that such relationship is sure to bring. Yesterday, according to the Latin News, a Peruvian army general reported that they were in negotiations with the U.S. Army about building an airbase in the zone of Pichari, in Ayacucho, Peru.
Perhaps, the Uribe administration, as well as Peruvian authorities view the US military presence as an opportunity to obtain an increase of economic aid under Plan Colombia, or a new version of it for Lima, as well as a more advantageous position with the United States towards achieving a free trade agreement. If this were so, Colombia might come to feel that the price being paid for it was too high and comparable to the nation's flag being dragged down a dusty street where it could be bought and sold to the highest bidder, while its neighbors contemptuously stare at Bogota's loss of its sovereignty.
This analysis was prepared by COHA Research Associate Erina Uozumi
June 17th, 2008
Council on Hemispheric Affairs
U.S. Ambassador Maintains: "Without a doubt. There are possibilities in Colombia (for a US military base)"
Last Monday, Colombia's Defense Minister Juan Manuel Santos once again has reiterated that Colombia "does not have, nor will have" any American military bases. However, rumors persist that the US plans to relocate its military facility from Manta, Ecuador to an unspecified location in Colombia. These have been circulating since late last year, but several recent incidents lend additional credence to them. First, the Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff's visit to Colombia early in January could signal, according to Colombian Liberal senator Juan Manuel Galante, a subtle indication that the U.S. is, in fact, interested in establishing a military base in the country. The Colombian senator assured his listeners at the time that there is a base with the necessary infrastructure at Tres Esquinas, which has already been provided with radar equipment by the U.S.
SEARCH NZ JOBS
Search Businesses FindA
Check Your SALARY Level
Find the property for you
In an April 22 meeting between Santos and US ambassador to Colombia, William Brownfield, the Colombian defense minister was informed that due to an improvement in the country's human rights performance, as well as in its military operations, the veto against the military base at Palanquero, that in effect, de-certified the base from receiving U.S equipment, had now been lifted. According to Santos, the US now aims to provide intensified assistance in Bogota's fight against narco-trafficking and terrorism as a result of the removal of this veto. As deputy secretary John Negroponte, who was ambassador to Honduras during much of the Reagan presidency and who at the time served one of the most controversial ambassadorial tenures in Central America when it came to ignoring human rights, stated in a June 2 press conference in Medellin, that the United States and Colombia have a "very extensive relationship of cooperation." This particularly was the case in the areas of "military cooperation, military assistance, military advisors, and so forth."
Although its suggestions hint otherwise, the Colombian government has posited that the US will not be able to establish bases in Colombia, and as Juan Manuel Santos declared, they "have already discussed this with the Americans." Furthermore, this past May, Colombian Foreign Minister Fernando Araujo also declared that Colombia did not have intentions to place a US military base on its territory.
The question then arises: if the US and Colombian administrations already have concluded discussions on the issue, and if Washington was already aware of the official stance of the Colombian government, then why did US ambassador Brownfield declare on June 7th that "without a doubt. There are possibilities in Colombia" to replace the military base at Manta? One wonders if this statement was the result of a lack of poor communication between Colombia and the United States, or if it was in fact, a demonstration of the sizeable influence wielded by the U.S over Colombia's basic government decisions.
To comprehend Bogota's motives and actions, the implications of a US base in Colombia for the Uribe administration must be fully understood. Agreeing to a military base publicly, especially after Ecuador's president has vehemently refused to renew his country's military contract with the US at Manta, might spell a significant political mistake and a massively imprudent step for President Uribe to take. Furthermore, taking into consideration Colombia's episodically expressed fear of being dominated by the United States and remembering the humiliating days of the United Fruit Company and the massacre of the "Bananeros," establishing a US military base in Colombia would be seen by some Colombians as a threat to the nation's sovereignty and a loss of their country's sense of dignity.
With the prospect of a likely reelection campaign looming in the near future, President Uribe needs to remain as popular as he can and at the same time not lose U.S. support. Furthermore, the Peruvian government also seems to be hoping for a U.S. military base on its territory and the aid that such relationship is sure to bring. Yesterday, according to the Latin News, a Peruvian army general reported that they were in negotiations with the U.S. Army about building an airbase in the zone of Pichari, in Ayacucho, Peru.
Perhaps, the Uribe administration, as well as Peruvian authorities view the US military presence as an opportunity to obtain an increase of economic aid under Plan Colombia, or a new version of it for Lima, as well as a more advantageous position with the United States towards achieving a free trade agreement. If this were so, Colombia might come to feel that the price being paid for it was too high and comparable to the nation's flag being dragged down a dusty street where it could be bought and sold to the highest bidder, while its neighbors contemptuously stare at Bogota's loss of its sovereignty.
This analysis was prepared by COHA Research Associate Erina Uozumi
June 17th, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
