Sudan Tribune
6 June 2009
Sudan, which is the world’s biggest producer, has ended the monopoly on production and export of the gum arabic, it was reported yesterday.
The Gum Arabic Company, Ltd., holder of the monopoly position for the export of crude Gum Arabic from the Sudan was founded by the Sudanese government in 1969.
Gum arabic is a resin that is used as an emulsifier in soft drinks, a thickener in candies and jellies, a binder in special-purpose inks and drugs, even a foam stabilizer in beer. Its name derives from the fact that the gum was shipped to Europe from Arabic ports.
Sudanese President Omer Al-Bashir issued a decree ending the monopoly rights held by the Gum Arabic Company on production, trade and export, SUNA said on Thursday.
The government hopes the end of the monopoly will allow growers to sell their harvest at higher prices.
The Sudanese gum is produced in Kordofan region 49.3%, Kassala region 24.4%, Darfur region 23.4 % and White and Blue Nile region 2.9%.
The gum works as an emulsifier enabling a stable mixture of water and sugar so that no sugary residues are left at the bottom of cola bottles.
The US, which buys about one-fourth of Sudan’s annual production of the commodity, has exempted it from its comprehensive economic sanctions that it imposed since 1997 for national security reasons.
07 June, 2009
Somaliland suspends licenses of nine NGOs.
Garowe Online
5 June 2009
The breakaway government in Somalia's separatist republic of Somaliland has declared that it has temporarily suspended the licenses of nine non-governmental organizations (NGOs), Radio Garowe reports.
A press release issued Friday by the Somaliland Ministry of Planning indicated that all 26 NGOs with operations in Somaliland were informed to submit the annual 2008 reports to the government in an April 19th press release in order to keep track of the various organizations' operations.
"That press release [of April 19] warned that any group [NGO] that refuses to report will face temporary suspension of its license," read Friday's press statement.
The statement went on to mention that nine NGOs have not reported back to the Somaliland government and therefore their operations in the breakaway region have been suspended.
The NGOs included Islamic Relief, Mercy USA for Aid Development and the Canadian African Indigenous Development, according to the press release.
Somaliland unilaterally declared independence from the rest of Somalia in 1991 but has not been recognized internationally.
5 June 2009
The breakaway government in Somalia's separatist republic of Somaliland has declared that it has temporarily suspended the licenses of nine non-governmental organizations (NGOs), Radio Garowe reports.
A press release issued Friday by the Somaliland Ministry of Planning indicated that all 26 NGOs with operations in Somaliland were informed to submit the annual 2008 reports to the government in an April 19th press release in order to keep track of the various organizations' operations.
"That press release [of April 19] warned that any group [NGO] that refuses to report will face temporary suspension of its license," read Friday's press statement.
The statement went on to mention that nine NGOs have not reported back to the Somaliland government and therefore their operations in the breakaway region have been suspended.
The NGOs included Islamic Relief, Mercy USA for Aid Development and the Canadian African Indigenous Development, according to the press release.
Somaliland unilaterally declared independence from the rest of Somalia in 1991 but has not been recognized internationally.
04 June, 2009
Iran, China Ink Deal on Phase 11 for South Pars Gas Project.
BBC Monitoring via Comtex
6/3/2009
URL: http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=76828
A $5 billion deal on the development of South Pars gas field phase 11 was signed by Iran and China in Beijing on Wednesday, June 3.
According to the correspondent of Mehr News Agency, aiming to produce 50 million cubic meters of natural gas per day, Iran and China singed the five billion dollar contract on the development of South Pars phase 11.
Following the French company Total's nine-year delay to implement the development project, this contract was signed by the managing director of the National Iranian Oil Company Seyfollah Jashnsaz, and the managing director of China's oil company CNPC.
6/3/2009
URL: http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=76828
A $5 billion deal on the development of South Pars gas field phase 11 was signed by Iran and China in Beijing on Wednesday, June 3.
According to the correspondent of Mehr News Agency, aiming to produce 50 million cubic meters of natural gas per day, Iran and China singed the five billion dollar contract on the development of South Pars phase 11.
Following the French company Total's nine-year delay to implement the development project, this contract was signed by the managing director of the National Iranian Oil Company Seyfollah Jashnsaz, and the managing director of China's oil company CNPC.
Venezuela, Russia Strike Deal on Orinoco Oil Fields.
by Raul Gallegos
Dow Jones Newswires
6/3/2009
URL: http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=76809
Venezuela and Russia have signed an agreement to develop two prized oil fields out of several in the Orinoco region that are currently up for licensing.
Venezuela's congress has approved an energy cooperation deal with Russia that includes the creation of a joint venture company to develop the Carabobo 1 north and Carabobo 1 center oil fields, two of the seven areas that the Andean country has offered to foreign oil companies, according to a copy of the agreement published in the latest Official Gazette.
The decision confirms President Hugo Chavez's vow to cement a close oil bond with Russia but leaves a number of questions regarding the bidding process for Orinoco areas, which has already suffered months of delays. The accord appears to give Russian companies two of the fields, even before the bidding has begun.
Lukoil Holdings (LKOH.RS), along with TNK, OAO Rosneft (ROSN.RS) and OAO Gazprom (GAZP.RS), have formed a consortium expected to develop fields jointly with Petroleos de Venezuela SA, or PdVSA.
Officials at PdVSA couldn't comment on the matter. A spokesman for Lukoil declined to comment, but said the company remains committed to the Carabobo tender.
Many industry executives expected these Russian firms to win several Orinoco areas in the Carabobo field tender, which includes developing several plants to upgrade heavy crude into more marketable oil for export.
The Carabobo field tender is the first such Venezuelan offer to foreign oil companies in decades. The opening gives interested companies the opportunity to serve as minority partners in a joint venture with the government. Foreign companies would own a 40% maximum stake in each venture.
The Carabobo 1 north and center fields are expected to each produce anywhere between 200,000 and 240,000 barrels of crude a day.
Companies interested in these and other fields have been asked to present an offer that includes the financing needed to develop the fields and build the crude upgrading plants. The process, however, has suffered months of delays and PdVSA officials have said they expect to receive formal offers on July 28 and a final selection of partners is expected on Aug. 14.
The tender was initially announced in late October with only four fields up for bid. Later on in the year, PdVSA added three more areas to the bidding process for a total of seven. Industry insiders have long speculated that PdVSA might have increased the number of areas offered with the intent of reserving some of these for its Russian partners.
Dow Jones Newswires
6/3/2009
URL: http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=76809
Venezuela and Russia have signed an agreement to develop two prized oil fields out of several in the Orinoco region that are currently up for licensing.
Venezuela's congress has approved an energy cooperation deal with Russia that includes the creation of a joint venture company to develop the Carabobo 1 north and Carabobo 1 center oil fields, two of the seven areas that the Andean country has offered to foreign oil companies, according to a copy of the agreement published in the latest Official Gazette.
The decision confirms President Hugo Chavez's vow to cement a close oil bond with Russia but leaves a number of questions regarding the bidding process for Orinoco areas, which has already suffered months of delays. The accord appears to give Russian companies two of the fields, even before the bidding has begun.
Lukoil Holdings (LKOH.RS), along with TNK, OAO Rosneft (ROSN.RS) and OAO Gazprom (GAZP.RS), have formed a consortium expected to develop fields jointly with Petroleos de Venezuela SA, or PdVSA.
Officials at PdVSA couldn't comment on the matter. A spokesman for Lukoil declined to comment, but said the company remains committed to the Carabobo tender.
Many industry executives expected these Russian firms to win several Orinoco areas in the Carabobo field tender, which includes developing several plants to upgrade heavy crude into more marketable oil for export.
The Carabobo field tender is the first such Venezuelan offer to foreign oil companies in decades. The opening gives interested companies the opportunity to serve as minority partners in a joint venture with the government. Foreign companies would own a 40% maximum stake in each venture.
The Carabobo 1 north and center fields are expected to each produce anywhere between 200,000 and 240,000 barrels of crude a day.
Companies interested in these and other fields have been asked to present an offer that includes the financing needed to develop the fields and build the crude upgrading plants. The process, however, has suffered months of delays and PdVSA officials have said they expect to receive formal offers on July 28 and a final selection of partners is expected on Aug. 14.
The tender was initially announced in late October with only four fields up for bid. Later on in the year, PdVSA added three more areas to the bidding process for a total of seven. Industry insiders have long speculated that PdVSA might have increased the number of areas offered with the intent of reserving some of these for its Russian partners.
Bolivia Forecasts $1.05B in Oil Industry Investment.
Rigzone
EFE 6/3/2009
URL: http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=76824
State and private investment in hydrocarbons exploration and production will total around $1.05 billion this year, state-owned Yacimientos Petroliferos Fiscales Bolivianos, or YPFB, said.
The investment will come from YPFB and about a dozen private companies, including Brazil's Petrobras, Spain's Repsol YPF, Britain's BG Group plc and France's Total, among others, a spokesman for the state-owned energy company told Efe.
Part of the funding will come from a partnership formed by YPFB and the foreign companies under the nationalization policy implemented by Bolivia.
Under the oil industry nationalization ordered by President Evo Morales in May 2006, YPFB, which owns Bolivia's estimated 48 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and much smaller reserves of crude oil, has authority to participate in every phase of the oil industry.
Petrobras plans $174.5 million in investment, while the figure for Repsol YPF is $109 million, with BG Group planning $88 million in investment, Total setting a target of $48 million and Argentina's Pluspetrol looking to put $26 million into the Andean nation's energy industry, a YPFB report said.
YPFB-Andina, a nationalized company, plans to invest $89 million and YPFB-Chaco is projecting some $55 million in investment.
The private oil companies and YPFB are negotiating the 2010-2015 investment plan, the report said.
Bolivia exports gas to Brazil and Argentina, and it is looking at projects that would make it possible to expand sales to Uruguay and Paraguay in the next few years.
EFE 6/3/2009
URL: http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=76824
State and private investment in hydrocarbons exploration and production will total around $1.05 billion this year, state-owned Yacimientos Petroliferos Fiscales Bolivianos, or YPFB, said.
The investment will come from YPFB and about a dozen private companies, including Brazil's Petrobras, Spain's Repsol YPF, Britain's BG Group plc and France's Total, among others, a spokesman for the state-owned energy company told Efe.
Part of the funding will come from a partnership formed by YPFB and the foreign companies under the nationalization policy implemented by Bolivia.
Under the oil industry nationalization ordered by President Evo Morales in May 2006, YPFB, which owns Bolivia's estimated 48 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and much smaller reserves of crude oil, has authority to participate in every phase of the oil industry.
Petrobras plans $174.5 million in investment, while the figure for Repsol YPF is $109 million, with BG Group planning $88 million in investment, Total setting a target of $48 million and Argentina's Pluspetrol looking to put $26 million into the Andean nation's energy industry, a YPFB report said.
YPFB-Andina, a nationalized company, plans to invest $89 million and YPFB-Chaco is projecting some $55 million in investment.
The private oil companies and YPFB are negotiating the 2010-2015 investment plan, the report said.
Bolivia exports gas to Brazil and Argentina, and it is looking at projects that would make it possible to expand sales to Uruguay and Paraguay in the next few years.
President Obama's Speech to the Muslim Community from Egypt.
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary (Cairo,Egypt)
________________________________________________
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE June 4, 2009
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
ON A NEW BEGINNING
Cairo University
Cairo, Egypt
Delivered at 1:10 P.M. (Local)
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Thank you very much. Good afternoon. I am honored to be in the timeless city of Cairo, and to be hosted by two remarkable institutions. For over a thousand years, Al-Azhar has stood as a beacon of Islamic learning; and for over a century, Cairo University has been a source of Egypt's advancement. And together, you represent the harmony between tradition and progress. I'm grateful for your hospitality, and the hospitality of the people of Egypt. And I'm also proud to carry with me the goodwill of the American people, and a greeting of peace from Muslim communities in my country: Assalaamu alaykum. (Applause.)
We meet at a time of great tension between the United States and Muslims around the world -- tension rooted in historical forces that go beyond any current policy debate. The relationship between Islam and the West includes centuries of coexistence and cooperation, but also conflict and religious wars. More recently, tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations. Moreover, the sweeping change brought by modernity and globalization led many Muslims to view the West as hostile to the traditions of Islam.
Violent extremists have exploited these tensions in a small but potent minority of Muslims. The attacks of September 11, 2001 and the continued efforts of these extremists to engage in violence against civilians has led some in my country to view Islam as inevitably hostile not only to America and Western countries, but also to human rights. All this has bred more fear and more mistrust.
So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, those who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity. And this cycle of suspicion and discord must end.
I've come here to Cairo to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world, one based on mutual interest and mutual respect, and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles -- principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.
I do so recognizing that change cannot happen overnight. I know there's been a lot of publicity about this speech, but no single speech can eradicate years of mistrust, nor can I answer in the time that I have this afternoon all the complex questions that brought us to this point. But I am convinced that in order to move forward, we must say openly to each other the things we hold in our hearts and that too often are said only behind closed doors. There must be a sustained effort to listen to each other; to learn from each other; to respect one another; and to seek common ground. As the Holy Koran tells us, "Be conscious of God and speak always the truth." (Applause.) That is what I will try to do today -- to speak the truth as best I can, humbled by the task before us, and firm in my belief that the interests we share as human beings are far more powerful than the forces that drive us apart.
Now part of this conviction is rooted in my own experience. I'm a Christian, but my father came from a Kenyan family that includes generations of Muslims. As a boy, I spent several years in Indonesia and heard the call of the azaan at the break of dawn and at the fall of dusk. As a young man, I worked in Chicago communities where many found dignity and peace in their Muslim faith.
As a student of history, I also know civilization's debt to Islam. It was Islam -- at places like Al-Azhar -- that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe's Renaissance and Enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities -- (applause) -- it was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires; timeless poetry and cherished music; elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation. And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality. (Applause.)
I also know that Islam has always been a part of America's story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco. In signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, our second President, John Adams, wrote, "The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims." And since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States. They have fought in our wars, they have served in our government, they have stood for civil rights, they have started businesses, they have taught at our universities, they've excelled in our sports arenas, they've won Nobel Prizes, built our tallest building, and lit the Olympic Torch. And when the first Muslim American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same Holy Koran that one of our Founding Fathers -- Thomas Jefferson -- kept in his personal library. (Applause.)
So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn't. And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear. (Applause.)
But that same principle must apply to Muslim perceptions of America. (Applause.) Just as Muslims do not fit a crude stereotype, America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire. The United States has been one of the greatest sources of progress that the world has ever known. We were born out of revolution against an empire. We were founded upon the ideal that all are created equal, and we have shed blood and struggled for centuries to give meaning to those words -- within our borders, and around the world. We are shaped by every culture, drawn from every end of the Earth, and dedicated to a simple concept: E pluribus unum -- "Out of many, one."
Now, much has been made of the fact that an African American with the name Barack Hussein Obama could be elected President. (Applause.) But my personal story is not so unique. The dream of opportunity for all people has not come true for everyone in America, but its promise exists for all who come to our shores -- and that includes nearly 7 million American Muslims in our country today who, by the way, enjoy incomes and educational levels that are higher than the American average. (Applause.)
Moreover, freedom in America is indivisible from the freedom to practice one's religion. That is why there is a mosque in every state in our union, and over 1,200 mosques within our borders. That's why the United States government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab and to punish those who would deny it. (Applause.)
So let there be no doubt: Islam is a part of America. And I believe that America holds within her the truth that regardless of race, religion, or station in life, all of us share common aspirations -- to live in peace and security; to get an education and to work with dignity; to love our families, our communities, and our God. These things we share. This is the hope of all humanity.
Of course, recognizing our common humanity is only the beginning of our task. Words alone cannot meet the needs of our people. These needs will be met only if we act boldly in the years ahead; and if we understand that the challenges we face are shared, and our failure to meet them will hurt us all.
For we have learned from recent experience that when a financial system weakens in one country, prosperity is hurt everywhere. When a new flu infects one human being, all are at risk. When one nation pursues a nuclear weapon, the risk of nuclear attack rises for all nations. When violent extremists operate in one stretch of mountains, people are endangered across an ocean. When innocents in Bosnia and Darfur are slaughtered, that is a stain on our collective conscience. (Applause.) That is what it means to share this world in the 21st century. That is the responsibility we have to one another as human beings.
And this is a difficult responsibility to embrace. For human history has often been a record of nations and tribes -- and, yes, religions -- subjugating one another in pursuit of their own interests. Yet in this new age, such attitudes are self-defeating. Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail. So whatever we think of the past, we must not be prisoners to it. Our problems must be dealt with through partnership; our progress must be shared. (Applause.)
Now, that does not mean we should ignore sources of tension. Indeed, it suggests the opposite: We must face these tensions squarely. And so in that spirit, let me speak as clearly and as plainly as I can about some specific issues that I believe we must finally confront together.
The first issue that we have to confront is violent extremism in all of its forms.
In Ankara, I made clear that America is not -- and never will be -- at war with Islam. (Applause.) We will, however, relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security -- because we reject the same thing that people of all faiths reject: the killing of innocent men, women, and children. And it is my first duty as President to protect the American people.
The situation in Afghanistan demonstrates America's goals, and our need to work together. Over seven years ago, the United States pursued al Qaeda and the Taliban with broad international support. We did not go by choice; we went because of necessity. I'm aware that there's still some who would question or even justify the events of 9/11. But let us be clear: Al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 people on that day. The victims were innocent men, women and children from America and many other nations who had done nothing to harm anybody. And yet al Qaeda chose to ruthlessly murder these people, claimed credit for the attack, and even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale. They have affiliates in many countries and are trying to expand their reach. These are not opinions to be debated; these are facts to be dealt with.
Now, make no mistake: We do not want to keep our troops in Afghanistan. We see no military -- we seek no military bases there. It is agonizing for America to lose our young men and women. It is costly and politically difficult to continue this conflict. We would gladly bring every single one of our troops home if we could be confident that there were not violent extremists in Afghanistan and now Pakistan determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can. But that is not yet the case.
And that's why we're partnering with a coalition of 46 countries. And despite the costs involved, America's commitment will not weaken. Indeed, none of us should tolerate these extremists. They have killed in many countries. They have killed people of different faiths -- but more than any other, they have killed Muslims. Their actions are irreconcilable with the rights of human beings, the progress of nations, and with Islam. The Holy Koran teaches that whoever kills an innocent is as -- it is as if he has killed all mankind. (Applause.) And the Holy Koran also says whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind. (Applause.) The enduring faith of over a billion people is so much bigger than the narrow hatred of a few. Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism -- it is an important part of promoting peace.
Now, we also know that military power alone is not going to solve the problems in Afghanistan and Pakistan. That's why we plan to invest $1.5 billion each year over the next five years to partner with Pakistanis to build schools and hospitals, roads and businesses, and hundreds of millions to help those who've been displaced. That's why we are providing more than $2.8 billion to help Afghans develop their economy and deliver services that people depend on.
Let me also address the issue of Iraq. Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world. Although I believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, I also believe that events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible. (Applause.) Indeed, we can recall the words of Thomas Jefferson, who said: "I hope that our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us that the less we use our power the greater it will be."
Today, America has a dual responsibility: to help Iraq forge a better future -- and to leave Iraq to Iraqis. And I have made it clear to the Iraqi people -- (applause) -- I have made it clear to the Iraqi people that we pursue no bases, and no claim on their territory or resources. Iraq's sovereignty is its own. And that's why I ordered the removal of our combat brigades by next August. That is why we will honor our agreement with Iraq's democratically elected government to remove combat troops from Iraqi cities by July, and to remove all of our troops from Iraq by 2012. (Applause.) We will help Iraq train its security forces and develop its economy. But we will support a secure and united Iraq as a partner, and never as a patron.
And finally, just as America can never tolerate violence by extremists, we must never alter or forget our principles. Nine-eleven was an enormous trauma to our country. The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable, but in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our traditions and our ideals. We are taking concrete actions to change course. I have unequivocally prohibited the use of torture by the United States, and I have ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed by early next year. (Applause.)
So America will defend itself, respectful of the sovereignty of nations and the rule of law. And we will do so in partnership with Muslim communities which are also threatened. The sooner the extremists are isolated and unwelcome in Muslim communities, the sooner we will all be safer.
The second major source of tension that we need to discuss is the situation between Israelis, Palestinians and the Arab world.
America's strong bonds with Israel are well known. This bond is unbreakable. It is based upon cultural and historical ties, and the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied.
Around the world, the Jewish people were persecuted for centuries, and anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust. Tomorrow, I will visit Buchenwald, which was part of a network of camps where Jews were enslaved, tortured, shot and gassed to death by the Third Reich. Six million Jews were killed -- more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today. Denying that fact is baseless, it is ignorant, and it is hateful. Threatening Israel with destruction -- or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews -- is deeply wrong, and only serves to evoke in the minds of Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve.
On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people -- Muslims and Christians -- have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than 60 years they've endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead. They endure the daily humiliations -- large and small -- that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: The situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. And America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own. (Applause.)
For decades then, there has been a stalemate: two peoples with legitimate aspirations, each with a painful history that makes compromise elusive. It's easy to point fingers -- for Palestinians to point to the displacement brought about by Israel's founding, and for Israelis to point to the constant hostility and attacks throughout its history from within its borders as well as beyond. But if we see this conflict only from one side or the other, then we will be blind to the truth: The only resolution is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and security. (Applause.)
That is in Israel's interest, Palestine's interest, America's interest, and the world's interest. And that is why I intend to personally pursue this outcome with all the patience and dedication that the task requires. (Applause.) The obligations -- the obligations that the parties have agreed to under the road map are clear. For peace to come, it is time for them -- and all of us -- to live up to our responsibilities.
Palestinians must abandon violence. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and it does not succeed. For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation. But it was not violence that won full and equal rights. It was a peaceful and determined insistence upon the ideals at the center of America's founding. This same story can be told by people from South Africa to South Asia; from Eastern Europe to Indonesia. It's a story with a simple truth: that violence is a dead end. It is a sign neither of courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That's not how moral authority is claimed; that's how it is surrendered.
Now is the time for Palestinians to focus on what they can build. The Palestinian Authority must develop its capacity to govern, with institutions that serve the needs of its people. Hamas does have support among some Palestinians, but they also have to recognize they have responsibilities. To play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations, to unify the Palestinian people, Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, recognize Israel's right to exist.
At the same time, Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel's right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine's. The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. (Applause.) This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop. (Applause.)
And Israel must also live up to its obligation to ensure that Palestinians can live and work and develop their society. Just as it devastates Palestinian families, the continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza does not serve Israel's security; neither does the continuing lack of opportunity in the West Bank. Progress in the daily lives of the Palestinian people must be a critical part of a road to peace, and Israel must take concrete steps to enable such progress.
And finally, the Arab states must recognize that the Arab Peace Initiative was an important beginning, but not the end of their responsibilities. The Arab-Israeli conflict should no longer be used to distract the people of Arab nations from other problems. Instead, it must be a cause for action to help the Palestinian people develop the institutions that will sustain their state, to recognize Israel's legitimacy, and to choose progress over a self-defeating focus on the past.
America will align our policies with those who pursue peace, and we will say in public what we say in private to Israelis and Palestinians and Arabs. (Applause.) We cannot impose peace. But privately, many Muslims recognize that Israel will not go away. Likewise, many Israelis recognize the need for a Palestinian state. It is time for us to act on what everyone knows to be true.
Too many tears have been shed. Too much blood has been shed. All of us have a responsibility to work for the day when the mothers of Israelis and Palestinians can see their children grow up without fear; when the Holy Land of the three great faiths is the place of peace that God intended it to be; when Jerusalem is a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims, and a place for all of the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully together as in the story of Isra -- (applause) -- as in the story of Isra, when Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed, peace be upon them, joined in prayer. (Applause.)
The third source of tension is our shared interest in the rights and responsibilities of nations on nuclear weapons.
This issue has been a source of tension between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran. For many years, Iran has defined itself in part by its opposition to my country, and there is in fact a tumultuous history between us. In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government. Since the Islamic Revolution, Iran has played a role in acts of hostage-taking and violence against U.S. troops and civilians. This history is well known. Rather than remain trapped in the past, I've made it clear to Iran's leaders and people that my country is prepared to move forward. The question now is not what Iran is against, but rather what future it wants to build.
I recognize it will be hard to overcome decades of mistrust, but we will proceed with courage, rectitude, and resolve. There will be many issues to discuss between our two countries, and we are willing to move forward without preconditions on the basis of mutual respect. But it is clear to all concerned that when it comes to nuclear weapons, we have reached a decisive point. This is not simply about America's interests. It's about preventing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that could lead this region and the world down a hugely dangerous path.
I understand those who protest that some countries have weapons that others do not. No single nation should pick and choose which nation holds nuclear weapons. And that's why I strongly reaffirmed America's commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons. (Applause.) And any nation -- including Iran -- should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. That commitment is at the core of the treaty, and it must be kept for all who fully abide by it. And I'm hopeful that all countries in the region can share in this goal.
The fourth issue that I will address is democracy. (Applause.)
I know -- I know there has been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years, and much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq. So let me be clear: No system of government can or should be imposed by one nation by any other.
That does not lessen my commitment, however, to governments that reflect the will of the people. Each nation gives life to this principle in its own way, grounded in the traditions of its own people. America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election. But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. These are not just American ideas; they are human rights. And that is why we will support them everywhere. (Applause.)
Now, there is no straight line to realize this promise. But this much is clear: Governments that protect these rights are ultimately more stable, successful and secure. Suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard around the world, even if we disagree with them. And we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments -- provided they govern with respect for all their people.
This last point is important because there are some who advocate for democracy only when they're out of power; once in power, they are ruthless in suppressing the rights of others. (Applause.) So no matter where it takes hold, government of the people and by the people sets a single standard for all who would hold power: You must maintain your power through consent, not coercion; you must respect the rights of minorities, and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise; you must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party. Without these ingredients, elections alone do not make true democracy.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Barack Obama, we love you!
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Thank you. (Applause.) The fifth issue that we must address together is religious freedom.
Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance. We see it in the history of Andalusia and Cordoba during the Inquisition. I saw it firsthand as a child in Indonesia, where devout Christians worshiped freely in an overwhelmingly Muslim country. That is the spirit we need today. People in every country should be free to choose and live their faith based upon the persuasion of the mind and the heart and the soul. This tolerance is essential for religion to thrive, but it's being challenged in many different ways.
Among some Muslims, there's a disturbing tendency to measure one's own faith by the rejection of somebody else's faith. The richness of religious diversity must be upheld -- whether it is for Maronites in Lebanon or the Copts in Egypt. (Applause.) And if we are being honest, fault lines must be closed among Muslims, as well, as the divisions between Sunni and Shia have led to tragic violence, particularly in Iraq.
Freedom of religion is central to the ability of peoples to live together. We must always examine the ways in which we protect it. For instance, in the United States, rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation. That's why I'm committed to working with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill zakat.
Likewise, it is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit -- for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear. We can't disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretence of liberalism.
In fact, faith should bring us together. And that's why we're forging service projects in America to bring together Christians, Muslims, and Jews. That's why we welcome efforts like Saudi Arabian King Abdullah's interfaith dialogue and Turkey's leadership in the Alliance of Civilizations. Around the world, we can turn dialogue into interfaith service, so bridges between peoples lead to action -- whether it is combating malaria in Africa, or providing relief after a natural disaster.
The sixth issue -- the sixth issue that I want to address is women's rights. (Applause.) I know –- I know -- and you can tell from this audience, that there is a healthy debate about this issue. I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal, but I do believe that a woman who is denied an education is denied equality. (Applause.) And it is no coincidence that countries where women are well educated are far more likely to be prosperous.
Now, let me be clear: Issues of women's equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam. In Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, we've seen Muslim-majority countries elect a woman to lead. Meanwhile, the struggle for women's equality continues in many aspects of American life, and in countries around the world.
I am convinced that our daughters can contribute just as much to society as our sons. (Applause.) Our common prosperity will be advanced by allowing all humanity -- men and women -- to reach their full potential. I do not believe that women must make the same choices as men in order to be equal, and I respect those women who choose to live their lives in traditional roles. But it should be their choice. And that is why the United States will partner with any Muslim-majority country to support expanded literacy for girls, and to help young women pursue employment through micro-financing that helps people live their dreams. (Applause.)
Finally, I want to discuss economic development and opportunity.
I know that for many, the face of globalization is contradictory. The Internet and television can bring knowledge and information, but also offensive sexuality and mindless violence into the home. Trade can bring new wealth and opportunities, but also huge disruptions and change in communities. In all nations -- including America -- this change can bring fear. Fear that because of modernity we lose control over our economic choices, our politics, and most importantly our identities -- those things we most cherish about our communities, our families, our traditions, and our faith.
But I also know that human progress cannot be denied. There need not be contradictions between development and tradition. Countries like Japan and South Korea grew their economies enormously while maintaining distinct cultures. The same is true for the astonishing progress within Muslim-majority countries from Kuala Lumpur to Dubai. In ancient times and in our times, Muslim communities have been at the forefront of innovation and education.
And this is important because no development strategy can be based only upon what comes out of the ground, nor can it be sustained while young people are out of work. Many Gulf states have enjoyed great wealth as a consequence of oil, and some are beginning to focus it on broader development. But all of us must recognize that education and innovation will be the currency of the 21st century -- (applause) -- and in too many Muslim communities, there remains underinvestment in these areas. I'm emphasizing such investment within my own country. And while America in the past has focused on oil and gas when it comes to this part of the world, we now seek a broader engagement.
On education, we will expand exchange programs, and increase scholarships, like the one that brought my father to America. (Applause.) At the same time, we will encourage more Americans to study in Muslim communities. And we will match promising Muslim students with internships in America; invest in online learning for teachers and children around the world; and create a new online network, so a young person in Kansas can communicate instantly with a young person in Cairo.
On economic development, we will create a new corps of business volunteers to partner with counterparts in Muslim-majority countries. And I will host a Summit on Entrepreneurship this year to identify how we can deepen ties between business leaders, foundations and social entrepreneurs in the United States and Muslim communities around the world.
On science and technology, we will launch a new fund to support technological development in Muslim-majority countries, and to help transfer ideas to the marketplace so they can create more jobs. We'll open centers of scientific excellence in Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia, and appoint new science envoys to collaborate on programs that develop new sources of energy, create green jobs, digitize records, clean water, grow new crops. Today I'm announcing a new global effort with the Organization of the Islamic Conference to eradicate polio. And we will also expand partnerships with Muslim communities to promote child and maternal health.
All these things must be done in partnership. Americans are ready to join with citizens and governments; community organizations, religious leaders, and businesses in Muslim communities around the world to help our people pursue a better life.
The issues that I have described will not be easy to address. But we have a responsibility to join together on behalf of the world that we seek -- a world where extremists no longer threaten our people, and American troops have come home; a world where Israelis and Palestinians are each secure in a state of their own, and nuclear energy is used for peaceful purposes; a world where governments serve their citizens, and the rights of all God's children are respected. Those are mutual interests. That is the world we seek. But we can only achieve it together.
I know there are many -- Muslim and non-Muslim -- who question whether we can forge this new beginning. Some are eager to stoke the flames of division, and to stand in the way of progress. Some suggest that it isn't worth the effort -- that we are fated to disagree, and civilizations are doomed to clash. Many more are simply skeptical that real change can occur. There's so much fear, so much mistrust that has built up over the years. But if we choose to be bound by the past, we will never move forward. And I want to particularly say this to young people of every faith, in every country -- you, more than anyone, have the ability to reimagine the world, to remake this world.
All of us share this world for but a brief moment in time. The question is whether we spend that time focused on what pushes us apart, or whether we commit ourselves to an effort -- a sustained effort -- to find common ground, to focus on the future we seek for our children, and to respect the dignity of all human beings.
It's easier to start wars than to end them. It's easier to blame others than to look inward. It's easier to see what is different about someone than to find the things we share. But we should choose the right path, not just the easy path. There's one rule that lies at the heart of every religion -- that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. (Applause.) This truth transcends nations and peoples -- a belief that isn't new; that isn't black or white or brown; that isn't Christian or Muslim or Jew. It's a belief that pulsed in the cradle of civilization, and that still beats in the hearts of billions around the world. It's a faith in other people, and it's what brought me here today.
We have the power to make the world we seek, but only if we have the courage to make a new beginning, keeping in mind what has been written.
The Holy Koran tells us: "O mankind! We have created you male and a female; and we have made you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another."
The Talmud tells us: "The whole of the Torah is for the purpose of promoting peace."
The Holy Bible tells us: "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God." (Applause.)
The people of the world can live together in peace. We know that is God's vision. Now that must be our work here on Earth.
Thank you. And may God's peace be upon you. Thank you very much. Thank you. (Applause.)
END
2:05 P.M. (Local)
Office of the Press Secretary (Cairo,Egypt)
________________________________________________
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE June 4, 2009
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
ON A NEW BEGINNING
Cairo University
Cairo, Egypt
Delivered at 1:10 P.M. (Local)
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Thank you very much. Good afternoon. I am honored to be in the timeless city of Cairo, and to be hosted by two remarkable institutions. For over a thousand years, Al-Azhar has stood as a beacon of Islamic learning; and for over a century, Cairo University has been a source of Egypt's advancement. And together, you represent the harmony between tradition and progress. I'm grateful for your hospitality, and the hospitality of the people of Egypt. And I'm also proud to carry with me the goodwill of the American people, and a greeting of peace from Muslim communities in my country: Assalaamu alaykum. (Applause.)
We meet at a time of great tension between the United States and Muslims around the world -- tension rooted in historical forces that go beyond any current policy debate. The relationship between Islam and the West includes centuries of coexistence and cooperation, but also conflict and religious wars. More recently, tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations. Moreover, the sweeping change brought by modernity and globalization led many Muslims to view the West as hostile to the traditions of Islam.
Violent extremists have exploited these tensions in a small but potent minority of Muslims. The attacks of September 11, 2001 and the continued efforts of these extremists to engage in violence against civilians has led some in my country to view Islam as inevitably hostile not only to America and Western countries, but also to human rights. All this has bred more fear and more mistrust.
So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, those who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity. And this cycle of suspicion and discord must end.
I've come here to Cairo to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world, one based on mutual interest and mutual respect, and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles -- principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.
I do so recognizing that change cannot happen overnight. I know there's been a lot of publicity about this speech, but no single speech can eradicate years of mistrust, nor can I answer in the time that I have this afternoon all the complex questions that brought us to this point. But I am convinced that in order to move forward, we must say openly to each other the things we hold in our hearts and that too often are said only behind closed doors. There must be a sustained effort to listen to each other; to learn from each other; to respect one another; and to seek common ground. As the Holy Koran tells us, "Be conscious of God and speak always the truth." (Applause.) That is what I will try to do today -- to speak the truth as best I can, humbled by the task before us, and firm in my belief that the interests we share as human beings are far more powerful than the forces that drive us apart.
Now part of this conviction is rooted in my own experience. I'm a Christian, but my father came from a Kenyan family that includes generations of Muslims. As a boy, I spent several years in Indonesia and heard the call of the azaan at the break of dawn and at the fall of dusk. As a young man, I worked in Chicago communities where many found dignity and peace in their Muslim faith.
As a student of history, I also know civilization's debt to Islam. It was Islam -- at places like Al-Azhar -- that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe's Renaissance and Enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities -- (applause) -- it was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires; timeless poetry and cherished music; elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation. And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality. (Applause.)
I also know that Islam has always been a part of America's story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco. In signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, our second President, John Adams, wrote, "The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims." And since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States. They have fought in our wars, they have served in our government, they have stood for civil rights, they have started businesses, they have taught at our universities, they've excelled in our sports arenas, they've won Nobel Prizes, built our tallest building, and lit the Olympic Torch. And when the first Muslim American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same Holy Koran that one of our Founding Fathers -- Thomas Jefferson -- kept in his personal library. (Applause.)
So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn't. And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear. (Applause.)
But that same principle must apply to Muslim perceptions of America. (Applause.) Just as Muslims do not fit a crude stereotype, America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire. The United States has been one of the greatest sources of progress that the world has ever known. We were born out of revolution against an empire. We were founded upon the ideal that all are created equal, and we have shed blood and struggled for centuries to give meaning to those words -- within our borders, and around the world. We are shaped by every culture, drawn from every end of the Earth, and dedicated to a simple concept: E pluribus unum -- "Out of many, one."
Now, much has been made of the fact that an African American with the name Barack Hussein Obama could be elected President. (Applause.) But my personal story is not so unique. The dream of opportunity for all people has not come true for everyone in America, but its promise exists for all who come to our shores -- and that includes nearly 7 million American Muslims in our country today who, by the way, enjoy incomes and educational levels that are higher than the American average. (Applause.)
Moreover, freedom in America is indivisible from the freedom to practice one's religion. That is why there is a mosque in every state in our union, and over 1,200 mosques within our borders. That's why the United States government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab and to punish those who would deny it. (Applause.)
So let there be no doubt: Islam is a part of America. And I believe that America holds within her the truth that regardless of race, religion, or station in life, all of us share common aspirations -- to live in peace and security; to get an education and to work with dignity; to love our families, our communities, and our God. These things we share. This is the hope of all humanity.
Of course, recognizing our common humanity is only the beginning of our task. Words alone cannot meet the needs of our people. These needs will be met only if we act boldly in the years ahead; and if we understand that the challenges we face are shared, and our failure to meet them will hurt us all.
For we have learned from recent experience that when a financial system weakens in one country, prosperity is hurt everywhere. When a new flu infects one human being, all are at risk. When one nation pursues a nuclear weapon, the risk of nuclear attack rises for all nations. When violent extremists operate in one stretch of mountains, people are endangered across an ocean. When innocents in Bosnia and Darfur are slaughtered, that is a stain on our collective conscience. (Applause.) That is what it means to share this world in the 21st century. That is the responsibility we have to one another as human beings.
And this is a difficult responsibility to embrace. For human history has often been a record of nations and tribes -- and, yes, religions -- subjugating one another in pursuit of their own interests. Yet in this new age, such attitudes are self-defeating. Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail. So whatever we think of the past, we must not be prisoners to it. Our problems must be dealt with through partnership; our progress must be shared. (Applause.)
Now, that does not mean we should ignore sources of tension. Indeed, it suggests the opposite: We must face these tensions squarely. And so in that spirit, let me speak as clearly and as plainly as I can about some specific issues that I believe we must finally confront together.
The first issue that we have to confront is violent extremism in all of its forms.
In Ankara, I made clear that America is not -- and never will be -- at war with Islam. (Applause.) We will, however, relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security -- because we reject the same thing that people of all faiths reject: the killing of innocent men, women, and children. And it is my first duty as President to protect the American people.
The situation in Afghanistan demonstrates America's goals, and our need to work together. Over seven years ago, the United States pursued al Qaeda and the Taliban with broad international support. We did not go by choice; we went because of necessity. I'm aware that there's still some who would question or even justify the events of 9/11. But let us be clear: Al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 people on that day. The victims were innocent men, women and children from America and many other nations who had done nothing to harm anybody. And yet al Qaeda chose to ruthlessly murder these people, claimed credit for the attack, and even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale. They have affiliates in many countries and are trying to expand their reach. These are not opinions to be debated; these are facts to be dealt with.
Now, make no mistake: We do not want to keep our troops in Afghanistan. We see no military -- we seek no military bases there. It is agonizing for America to lose our young men and women. It is costly and politically difficult to continue this conflict. We would gladly bring every single one of our troops home if we could be confident that there were not violent extremists in Afghanistan and now Pakistan determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can. But that is not yet the case.
And that's why we're partnering with a coalition of 46 countries. And despite the costs involved, America's commitment will not weaken. Indeed, none of us should tolerate these extremists. They have killed in many countries. They have killed people of different faiths -- but more than any other, they have killed Muslims. Their actions are irreconcilable with the rights of human beings, the progress of nations, and with Islam. The Holy Koran teaches that whoever kills an innocent is as -- it is as if he has killed all mankind. (Applause.) And the Holy Koran also says whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind. (Applause.) The enduring faith of over a billion people is so much bigger than the narrow hatred of a few. Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism -- it is an important part of promoting peace.
Now, we also know that military power alone is not going to solve the problems in Afghanistan and Pakistan. That's why we plan to invest $1.5 billion each year over the next five years to partner with Pakistanis to build schools and hospitals, roads and businesses, and hundreds of millions to help those who've been displaced. That's why we are providing more than $2.8 billion to help Afghans develop their economy and deliver services that people depend on.
Let me also address the issue of Iraq. Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world. Although I believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, I also believe that events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible. (Applause.) Indeed, we can recall the words of Thomas Jefferson, who said: "I hope that our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us that the less we use our power the greater it will be."
Today, America has a dual responsibility: to help Iraq forge a better future -- and to leave Iraq to Iraqis. And I have made it clear to the Iraqi people -- (applause) -- I have made it clear to the Iraqi people that we pursue no bases, and no claim on their territory or resources. Iraq's sovereignty is its own. And that's why I ordered the removal of our combat brigades by next August. That is why we will honor our agreement with Iraq's democratically elected government to remove combat troops from Iraqi cities by July, and to remove all of our troops from Iraq by 2012. (Applause.) We will help Iraq train its security forces and develop its economy. But we will support a secure and united Iraq as a partner, and never as a patron.
And finally, just as America can never tolerate violence by extremists, we must never alter or forget our principles. Nine-eleven was an enormous trauma to our country. The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable, but in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our traditions and our ideals. We are taking concrete actions to change course. I have unequivocally prohibited the use of torture by the United States, and I have ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed by early next year. (Applause.)
So America will defend itself, respectful of the sovereignty of nations and the rule of law. And we will do so in partnership with Muslim communities which are also threatened. The sooner the extremists are isolated and unwelcome in Muslim communities, the sooner we will all be safer.
The second major source of tension that we need to discuss is the situation between Israelis, Palestinians and the Arab world.
America's strong bonds with Israel are well known. This bond is unbreakable. It is based upon cultural and historical ties, and the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied.
Around the world, the Jewish people were persecuted for centuries, and anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust. Tomorrow, I will visit Buchenwald, which was part of a network of camps where Jews were enslaved, tortured, shot and gassed to death by the Third Reich. Six million Jews were killed -- more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today. Denying that fact is baseless, it is ignorant, and it is hateful. Threatening Israel with destruction -- or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews -- is deeply wrong, and only serves to evoke in the minds of Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve.
On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people -- Muslims and Christians -- have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than 60 years they've endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead. They endure the daily humiliations -- large and small -- that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: The situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. And America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own. (Applause.)
For decades then, there has been a stalemate: two peoples with legitimate aspirations, each with a painful history that makes compromise elusive. It's easy to point fingers -- for Palestinians to point to the displacement brought about by Israel's founding, and for Israelis to point to the constant hostility and attacks throughout its history from within its borders as well as beyond. But if we see this conflict only from one side or the other, then we will be blind to the truth: The only resolution is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and security. (Applause.)
That is in Israel's interest, Palestine's interest, America's interest, and the world's interest. And that is why I intend to personally pursue this outcome with all the patience and dedication that the task requires. (Applause.) The obligations -- the obligations that the parties have agreed to under the road map are clear. For peace to come, it is time for them -- and all of us -- to live up to our responsibilities.
Palestinians must abandon violence. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and it does not succeed. For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation. But it was not violence that won full and equal rights. It was a peaceful and determined insistence upon the ideals at the center of America's founding. This same story can be told by people from South Africa to South Asia; from Eastern Europe to Indonesia. It's a story with a simple truth: that violence is a dead end. It is a sign neither of courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That's not how moral authority is claimed; that's how it is surrendered.
Now is the time for Palestinians to focus on what they can build. The Palestinian Authority must develop its capacity to govern, with institutions that serve the needs of its people. Hamas does have support among some Palestinians, but they also have to recognize they have responsibilities. To play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations, to unify the Palestinian people, Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, recognize Israel's right to exist.
At the same time, Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel's right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine's. The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. (Applause.) This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop. (Applause.)
And Israel must also live up to its obligation to ensure that Palestinians can live and work and develop their society. Just as it devastates Palestinian families, the continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza does not serve Israel's security; neither does the continuing lack of opportunity in the West Bank. Progress in the daily lives of the Palestinian people must be a critical part of a road to peace, and Israel must take concrete steps to enable such progress.
And finally, the Arab states must recognize that the Arab Peace Initiative was an important beginning, but not the end of their responsibilities. The Arab-Israeli conflict should no longer be used to distract the people of Arab nations from other problems. Instead, it must be a cause for action to help the Palestinian people develop the institutions that will sustain their state, to recognize Israel's legitimacy, and to choose progress over a self-defeating focus on the past.
America will align our policies with those who pursue peace, and we will say in public what we say in private to Israelis and Palestinians and Arabs. (Applause.) We cannot impose peace. But privately, many Muslims recognize that Israel will not go away. Likewise, many Israelis recognize the need for a Palestinian state. It is time for us to act on what everyone knows to be true.
Too many tears have been shed. Too much blood has been shed. All of us have a responsibility to work for the day when the mothers of Israelis and Palestinians can see their children grow up without fear; when the Holy Land of the three great faiths is the place of peace that God intended it to be; when Jerusalem is a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims, and a place for all of the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully together as in the story of Isra -- (applause) -- as in the story of Isra, when Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed, peace be upon them, joined in prayer. (Applause.)
The third source of tension is our shared interest in the rights and responsibilities of nations on nuclear weapons.
This issue has been a source of tension between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran. For many years, Iran has defined itself in part by its opposition to my country, and there is in fact a tumultuous history between us. In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government. Since the Islamic Revolution, Iran has played a role in acts of hostage-taking and violence against U.S. troops and civilians. This history is well known. Rather than remain trapped in the past, I've made it clear to Iran's leaders and people that my country is prepared to move forward. The question now is not what Iran is against, but rather what future it wants to build.
I recognize it will be hard to overcome decades of mistrust, but we will proceed with courage, rectitude, and resolve. There will be many issues to discuss between our two countries, and we are willing to move forward without preconditions on the basis of mutual respect. But it is clear to all concerned that when it comes to nuclear weapons, we have reached a decisive point. This is not simply about America's interests. It's about preventing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that could lead this region and the world down a hugely dangerous path.
I understand those who protest that some countries have weapons that others do not. No single nation should pick and choose which nation holds nuclear weapons. And that's why I strongly reaffirmed America's commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons. (Applause.) And any nation -- including Iran -- should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. That commitment is at the core of the treaty, and it must be kept for all who fully abide by it. And I'm hopeful that all countries in the region can share in this goal.
The fourth issue that I will address is democracy. (Applause.)
I know -- I know there has been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years, and much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq. So let me be clear: No system of government can or should be imposed by one nation by any other.
That does not lessen my commitment, however, to governments that reflect the will of the people. Each nation gives life to this principle in its own way, grounded in the traditions of its own people. America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election. But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. These are not just American ideas; they are human rights. And that is why we will support them everywhere. (Applause.)
Now, there is no straight line to realize this promise. But this much is clear: Governments that protect these rights are ultimately more stable, successful and secure. Suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard around the world, even if we disagree with them. And we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments -- provided they govern with respect for all their people.
This last point is important because there are some who advocate for democracy only when they're out of power; once in power, they are ruthless in suppressing the rights of others. (Applause.) So no matter where it takes hold, government of the people and by the people sets a single standard for all who would hold power: You must maintain your power through consent, not coercion; you must respect the rights of minorities, and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise; you must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party. Without these ingredients, elections alone do not make true democracy.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Barack Obama, we love you!
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Thank you. (Applause.) The fifth issue that we must address together is religious freedom.
Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance. We see it in the history of Andalusia and Cordoba during the Inquisition. I saw it firsthand as a child in Indonesia, where devout Christians worshiped freely in an overwhelmingly Muslim country. That is the spirit we need today. People in every country should be free to choose and live their faith based upon the persuasion of the mind and the heart and the soul. This tolerance is essential for religion to thrive, but it's being challenged in many different ways.
Among some Muslims, there's a disturbing tendency to measure one's own faith by the rejection of somebody else's faith. The richness of religious diversity must be upheld -- whether it is for Maronites in Lebanon or the Copts in Egypt. (Applause.) And if we are being honest, fault lines must be closed among Muslims, as well, as the divisions between Sunni and Shia have led to tragic violence, particularly in Iraq.
Freedom of religion is central to the ability of peoples to live together. We must always examine the ways in which we protect it. For instance, in the United States, rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation. That's why I'm committed to working with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill zakat.
Likewise, it is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit -- for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear. We can't disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretence of liberalism.
In fact, faith should bring us together. And that's why we're forging service projects in America to bring together Christians, Muslims, and Jews. That's why we welcome efforts like Saudi Arabian King Abdullah's interfaith dialogue and Turkey's leadership in the Alliance of Civilizations. Around the world, we can turn dialogue into interfaith service, so bridges between peoples lead to action -- whether it is combating malaria in Africa, or providing relief after a natural disaster.
The sixth issue -- the sixth issue that I want to address is women's rights. (Applause.) I know –- I know -- and you can tell from this audience, that there is a healthy debate about this issue. I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal, but I do believe that a woman who is denied an education is denied equality. (Applause.) And it is no coincidence that countries where women are well educated are far more likely to be prosperous.
Now, let me be clear: Issues of women's equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam. In Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, we've seen Muslim-majority countries elect a woman to lead. Meanwhile, the struggle for women's equality continues in many aspects of American life, and in countries around the world.
I am convinced that our daughters can contribute just as much to society as our sons. (Applause.) Our common prosperity will be advanced by allowing all humanity -- men and women -- to reach their full potential. I do not believe that women must make the same choices as men in order to be equal, and I respect those women who choose to live their lives in traditional roles. But it should be their choice. And that is why the United States will partner with any Muslim-majority country to support expanded literacy for girls, and to help young women pursue employment through micro-financing that helps people live their dreams. (Applause.)
Finally, I want to discuss economic development and opportunity.
I know that for many, the face of globalization is contradictory. The Internet and television can bring knowledge and information, but also offensive sexuality and mindless violence into the home. Trade can bring new wealth and opportunities, but also huge disruptions and change in communities. In all nations -- including America -- this change can bring fear. Fear that because of modernity we lose control over our economic choices, our politics, and most importantly our identities -- those things we most cherish about our communities, our families, our traditions, and our faith.
But I also know that human progress cannot be denied. There need not be contradictions between development and tradition. Countries like Japan and South Korea grew their economies enormously while maintaining distinct cultures. The same is true for the astonishing progress within Muslim-majority countries from Kuala Lumpur to Dubai. In ancient times and in our times, Muslim communities have been at the forefront of innovation and education.
And this is important because no development strategy can be based only upon what comes out of the ground, nor can it be sustained while young people are out of work. Many Gulf states have enjoyed great wealth as a consequence of oil, and some are beginning to focus it on broader development. But all of us must recognize that education and innovation will be the currency of the 21st century -- (applause) -- and in too many Muslim communities, there remains underinvestment in these areas. I'm emphasizing such investment within my own country. And while America in the past has focused on oil and gas when it comes to this part of the world, we now seek a broader engagement.
On education, we will expand exchange programs, and increase scholarships, like the one that brought my father to America. (Applause.) At the same time, we will encourage more Americans to study in Muslim communities. And we will match promising Muslim students with internships in America; invest in online learning for teachers and children around the world; and create a new online network, so a young person in Kansas can communicate instantly with a young person in Cairo.
On economic development, we will create a new corps of business volunteers to partner with counterparts in Muslim-majority countries. And I will host a Summit on Entrepreneurship this year to identify how we can deepen ties between business leaders, foundations and social entrepreneurs in the United States and Muslim communities around the world.
On science and technology, we will launch a new fund to support technological development in Muslim-majority countries, and to help transfer ideas to the marketplace so they can create more jobs. We'll open centers of scientific excellence in Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia, and appoint new science envoys to collaborate on programs that develop new sources of energy, create green jobs, digitize records, clean water, grow new crops. Today I'm announcing a new global effort with the Organization of the Islamic Conference to eradicate polio. And we will also expand partnerships with Muslim communities to promote child and maternal health.
All these things must be done in partnership. Americans are ready to join with citizens and governments; community organizations, religious leaders, and businesses in Muslim communities around the world to help our people pursue a better life.
The issues that I have described will not be easy to address. But we have a responsibility to join together on behalf of the world that we seek -- a world where extremists no longer threaten our people, and American troops have come home; a world where Israelis and Palestinians are each secure in a state of their own, and nuclear energy is used for peaceful purposes; a world where governments serve their citizens, and the rights of all God's children are respected. Those are mutual interests. That is the world we seek. But we can only achieve it together.
I know there are many -- Muslim and non-Muslim -- who question whether we can forge this new beginning. Some are eager to stoke the flames of division, and to stand in the way of progress. Some suggest that it isn't worth the effort -- that we are fated to disagree, and civilizations are doomed to clash. Many more are simply skeptical that real change can occur. There's so much fear, so much mistrust that has built up over the years. But if we choose to be bound by the past, we will never move forward. And I want to particularly say this to young people of every faith, in every country -- you, more than anyone, have the ability to reimagine the world, to remake this world.
All of us share this world for but a brief moment in time. The question is whether we spend that time focused on what pushes us apart, or whether we commit ourselves to an effort -- a sustained effort -- to find common ground, to focus on the future we seek for our children, and to respect the dignity of all human beings.
It's easier to start wars than to end them. It's easier to blame others than to look inward. It's easier to see what is different about someone than to find the things we share. But we should choose the right path, not just the easy path. There's one rule that lies at the heart of every religion -- that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. (Applause.) This truth transcends nations and peoples -- a belief that isn't new; that isn't black or white or brown; that isn't Christian or Muslim or Jew. It's a belief that pulsed in the cradle of civilization, and that still beats in the hearts of billions around the world. It's a faith in other people, and it's what brought me here today.
We have the power to make the world we seek, but only if we have the courage to make a new beginning, keeping in mind what has been written.
The Holy Koran tells us: "O mankind! We have created you male and a female; and we have made you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another."
The Talmud tells us: "The whole of the Torah is for the purpose of promoting peace."
The Holy Bible tells us: "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God." (Applause.)
The people of the world can live together in peace. We know that is God's vision. Now that must be our work here on Earth.
Thank you. And may God's peace be upon you. Thank you very much. Thank you. (Applause.)
END
2:05 P.M. (Local)
KAZAKHSTAN: CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST DEBATE FLARES IN WASHINGTON.
EurasiaNet
4 June 2009
By Joshua Kucera
The government of Kazakhstan is paying an influential Washington think tank to write a series of reports and policy recommendations for the US and Kazakhstani governments concerning Astana's upcoming role as chairman of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.
The think tank, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), has partnered with a smaller Washington organization, the Institute for New Democracies (IND), to create the US-Kazakhstan Task Force. The task force's goal is the preparation of policy recommendations that aim to make Astana's 2010 OSCE chairmanship as productive as possible, said Margarita Assenova, the executive director of IND.
But many observers, including some task force participants, contend the project appears to be an attempt by the Kazakhstani government to influence Astana's image in Washington. The task force has issued its first report, which one participant in the process said "could have been written by the Kazakh Embassy." Others involved in the process have described it as "a complete puff piece" and "absurd, totally pro-government," according to one person who was at the last task force meeting and who spoke to EurasiaNet on condition of anonymity.
"I'm not even talking about hectoring, there's not even any criticism, there are no warts showing" in the report, said another person who was at the meeting. The source pointed to one passage in the report that reads; "Kazakhstan has emerged as a successful model of economic development in Central Asia and the secular Muslim world." According to the source; "If oligarchic crony capitalism is your idea of successful economic development, then yeah. But I don't think too many people would share that view. And that's to say nothing of the human rights part of that."
A third source, who was at the meeting, said that the entire tone of the report, not just selected sections, appeared to create an impression of Kazakhstani governmental influence. "The only way you could have accepted that kind of funding and maintained any kind of credibility . . . was to come out of the blocks with a very straightforward, honest report about the state of affairs in Kazakhstan. That way you could overcome the presumption of being suborned. But they have, in fact, reinforced the presumption of being suborned by the nature of the report," the person said.
The government of Kazakhstan paid CSIS and IND $290,000 to put together the task force, Assenova said. The funding is expected to pay for two conferences (one in Washington and one in Astana), five or six short reports and one longer report, meetings of the task force, consultants to work on publications, and travel expenses for staff members and task force members to go to the Astana conference. Task force members aren't paid, and current government officials are only on the task force as "observers, not members," Assenova said.
The CSIS webpage describing the project acknowledges that the funding comes from the Kazakhstani government: "The 'US-Kazakhstan Task Force: Shaping and Supporting Kazakhstan's OSCE Chairmanship Agenda' is a joint initiative of the CSIS New European Democracies Project and the Institute for New Democracies funded through a grant from the government of Kazakhstan."
However, in the report itself there is no acknowledgement of Kazakhstani government funding. And the report is not available from the CSIS website, only from the Institute for New Democracies website, which until recently did not mention that the funding came from Astana. On May 29, the website was updated to acknowledge the Kazakhstani government grant.
CSIS is one of the largest and most significant think tanks in Washington dealing with foreign affairs. It generally has a bipartisan reputation, and during the Bush administration it employed many leading Democratic foreign-policy experts. President Barack Obama has recruited several top officials from the think tank for his administration.
Asked whether CSIS had reservations about taking money from the same government that it was researching, Janusz Bugajski, the director of the New European Democracies Project at the think tank, said; "Not really. As CSIS, we've received money before from different governments, different sources to do projects . . . Of course, what we say is not going to be tailored to any kind of political requirements, it would be what our experts think Kazakhstan should be doing over the course of the chairmanship," he said. "This isn't unique in Washington, let's put it that way."
CSIS stands by the report, said Andrew Schwarz, the CSIS vice president for external relations. "We’re bipartisan, not ideologically driven, and intellectually honest. Anyone who funds any of our studies knows that they’re not funding something that is going to be a predetermined outcome," he said. "Any time an organization does studies there are going to be critics. . . . we stand by the conclusions that Janusz came to."
Kazakhstan's chairmanship of the OSCE in 2010 has generated controversy. Many OSCE member states expressed reservations about Kazakhstan's record on human rights and democracy -- key parts of the organization's mission. Kazakhstan pledged to reform its laws on the media, elections and political parties to better reflect OSCE standards, but critics have complained that the government is dragging its feet on those promises. On May 12, for example, a US Congressional hearing examined the progress Kazakhstan has made, and several lawmakers had harsh words about Kazakhstan's reform record.
Assenova said the Kazakhstani government welcomes criticism and that the CSIS-IND task force is taking a cooperative rather than a confrontational approach with Astana. She argued that such an approach can be more effective. "If you expect us to be the voice of Freedom House, that's not going to be the tone. We want to be constructive here. Not because the Kazakhstan government is sponsoring the project, because these scholars here are people with their own opinions, and they're not going to be led by who is paying for the project," she said.
"We can criticize from outside and alienate the government and the public . . . or we can work to influence their policy in one way or another," she said. "Eventually, constant criticism becomes irrelevant, like an annoying fly in the air. But engagement leads to good results."
She said that if the United States does not strongly support Kazakhstan, it risks losing influence to Russia and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. "If we are not working with them on OSCE, regardless of whether they deserved the chairmanship or didn't deserve it, if we don't work with them in OSCE then we leave them to the Shanghai Cooperation Organization . . . And is it better for us as Americans? No," she said.
Assenova acknowledged that some observers thought the first report was too soft on Kazakhstan. But the first report, she stressed, was not about the democratization process, but covered the relatively less controversial topic of Kazakhstan's strategic significance. "I heard criticism about the first paper, but we just wanted to outline why Kazakhstan is strategically important and why we care, and not necessarily . . . the democratic agenda, which will be included later. So it's a little early to judge what the project will be from one paper," she said. The next paper will be on democracy and human rights and should be released in early June, she said.
One of the task force participants agreed that the project will ultimately be judged on its future reports.
"For this product to be useful it's going to have to be credible, and the first report combined with the source of money really leads you to question whether it's credible," the source said.
"Now, they promised to do better and it's conceivable that having heard that this calls into question the reputation of these organizations, the next products will be better, and we can only hope [for] that," the source said. "Either they will do more credible work in their future reports and the Kazakhstan government will be mad because that's not what they paid for, or they will continue to do what the Kazakhs thought they paid for, in which case no one will take them seriously."
4 June 2009
By Joshua Kucera
The government of Kazakhstan is paying an influential Washington think tank to write a series of reports and policy recommendations for the US and Kazakhstani governments concerning Astana's upcoming role as chairman of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.
The think tank, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), has partnered with a smaller Washington organization, the Institute for New Democracies (IND), to create the US-Kazakhstan Task Force. The task force's goal is the preparation of policy recommendations that aim to make Astana's 2010 OSCE chairmanship as productive as possible, said Margarita Assenova, the executive director of IND.
But many observers, including some task force participants, contend the project appears to be an attempt by the Kazakhstani government to influence Astana's image in Washington. The task force has issued its first report, which one participant in the process said "could have been written by the Kazakh Embassy." Others involved in the process have described it as "a complete puff piece" and "absurd, totally pro-government," according to one person who was at the last task force meeting and who spoke to EurasiaNet on condition of anonymity.
"I'm not even talking about hectoring, there's not even any criticism, there are no warts showing" in the report, said another person who was at the meeting. The source pointed to one passage in the report that reads; "Kazakhstan has emerged as a successful model of economic development in Central Asia and the secular Muslim world." According to the source; "If oligarchic crony capitalism is your idea of successful economic development, then yeah. But I don't think too many people would share that view. And that's to say nothing of the human rights part of that."
A third source, who was at the meeting, said that the entire tone of the report, not just selected sections, appeared to create an impression of Kazakhstani governmental influence. "The only way you could have accepted that kind of funding and maintained any kind of credibility . . . was to come out of the blocks with a very straightforward, honest report about the state of affairs in Kazakhstan. That way you could overcome the presumption of being suborned. But they have, in fact, reinforced the presumption of being suborned by the nature of the report," the person said.
The government of Kazakhstan paid CSIS and IND $290,000 to put together the task force, Assenova said. The funding is expected to pay for two conferences (one in Washington and one in Astana), five or six short reports and one longer report, meetings of the task force, consultants to work on publications, and travel expenses for staff members and task force members to go to the Astana conference. Task force members aren't paid, and current government officials are only on the task force as "observers, not members," Assenova said.
The CSIS webpage describing the project acknowledges that the funding comes from the Kazakhstani government: "The 'US-Kazakhstan Task Force: Shaping and Supporting Kazakhstan's OSCE Chairmanship Agenda' is a joint initiative of the CSIS New European Democracies Project and the Institute for New Democracies funded through a grant from the government of Kazakhstan."
However, in the report itself there is no acknowledgement of Kazakhstani government funding. And the report is not available from the CSIS website, only from the Institute for New Democracies website, which until recently did not mention that the funding came from Astana. On May 29, the website was updated to acknowledge the Kazakhstani government grant.
CSIS is one of the largest and most significant think tanks in Washington dealing with foreign affairs. It generally has a bipartisan reputation, and during the Bush administration it employed many leading Democratic foreign-policy experts. President Barack Obama has recruited several top officials from the think tank for his administration.
Asked whether CSIS had reservations about taking money from the same government that it was researching, Janusz Bugajski, the director of the New European Democracies Project at the think tank, said; "Not really. As CSIS, we've received money before from different governments, different sources to do projects . . . Of course, what we say is not going to be tailored to any kind of political requirements, it would be what our experts think Kazakhstan should be doing over the course of the chairmanship," he said. "This isn't unique in Washington, let's put it that way."
CSIS stands by the report, said Andrew Schwarz, the CSIS vice president for external relations. "We’re bipartisan, not ideologically driven, and intellectually honest. Anyone who funds any of our studies knows that they’re not funding something that is going to be a predetermined outcome," he said. "Any time an organization does studies there are going to be critics. . . . we stand by the conclusions that Janusz came to."
Kazakhstan's chairmanship of the OSCE in 2010 has generated controversy. Many OSCE member states expressed reservations about Kazakhstan's record on human rights and democracy -- key parts of the organization's mission. Kazakhstan pledged to reform its laws on the media, elections and political parties to better reflect OSCE standards, but critics have complained that the government is dragging its feet on those promises. On May 12, for example, a US Congressional hearing examined the progress Kazakhstan has made, and several lawmakers had harsh words about Kazakhstan's reform record.
Assenova said the Kazakhstani government welcomes criticism and that the CSIS-IND task force is taking a cooperative rather than a confrontational approach with Astana. She argued that such an approach can be more effective. "If you expect us to be the voice of Freedom House, that's not going to be the tone. We want to be constructive here. Not because the Kazakhstan government is sponsoring the project, because these scholars here are people with their own opinions, and they're not going to be led by who is paying for the project," she said.
"We can criticize from outside and alienate the government and the public . . . or we can work to influence their policy in one way or another," she said. "Eventually, constant criticism becomes irrelevant, like an annoying fly in the air. But engagement leads to good results."
She said that if the United States does not strongly support Kazakhstan, it risks losing influence to Russia and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. "If we are not working with them on OSCE, regardless of whether they deserved the chairmanship or didn't deserve it, if we don't work with them in OSCE then we leave them to the Shanghai Cooperation Organization . . . And is it better for us as Americans? No," she said.
Assenova acknowledged that some observers thought the first report was too soft on Kazakhstan. But the first report, she stressed, was not about the democratization process, but covered the relatively less controversial topic of Kazakhstan's strategic significance. "I heard criticism about the first paper, but we just wanted to outline why Kazakhstan is strategically important and why we care, and not necessarily . . . the democratic agenda, which will be included later. So it's a little early to judge what the project will be from one paper," she said. The next paper will be on democracy and human rights and should be released in early June, she said.
One of the task force participants agreed that the project will ultimately be judged on its future reports.
"For this product to be useful it's going to have to be credible, and the first report combined with the source of money really leads you to question whether it's credible," the source said.
"Now, they promised to do better and it's conceivable that having heard that this calls into question the reputation of these organizations, the next products will be better, and we can only hope [for] that," the source said. "Either they will do more credible work in their future reports and the Kazakhstan government will be mad because that's not what they paid for, or they will continue to do what the Kazakhs thought they paid for, in which case no one will take them seriously."
Abacha Informed Me of His 1993 Coup - Powell.
Vanguard
4 June 2009
Okey Ndiribe, Luka Binniyat And Chris Ochai
4 June 2009
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Former US Secretary State and Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff of the American Armed Forces, General Colin Powell (rtd), has revealed that on the night the late General Sani Abacha was to overthrow the Interim National Government (ING), headed by Chief Ernest Shonekan, he was informed at 2 a.m.Powel said he had protested against the decision, but was ignored by the late head of state.
Powell, who had supervised American involvement in 28 conflicts around the world including the Panama intervention, and Persian Gulf Operation Desert Storm, also noted that Nigerians do not trust their leaders.
He said many do not consider the current Nigeria democracy as that of the people.
Powell made these remarks in his speech during the breakfast meeting organised by Tell Communications Limited (publishers of Tell Magazine) to mark Nigeria's 10 years of unbroken democracy (May 1999 - May 2009).
"I have watched as someone who sees and believes in the great potential of Nigeria as an economic power and a political leader in the region and the world- as someone who wants to see that potential realised," said Powell.
"Yes, I have seen the turmoil", he added. "Shortly after I retired from the Army in 1993, I began getting letters from Sani Abacha, telling me of the problems in Nigeria," he told the audience.
"His letters were disturbing, and foreboding," he added.
He continued: "Then, late one night, around 2 a.m, I got a phone call from him at my home that the situation, in his view had become so bad that he had to act.
Said he: "I pleaded with him not to, that America and the world would not understand and would react badly. He did not listen, and you know the rest of that story."
Powell said in 1999 he was part of the election monitoring team in Nigeria and had a profound experience.
He regretted that by all independent accounts he had seen the irregularities and corruption seen in subsequent elections is deeply troubling, adding that there is a real danger, that the will of the people is not being determined, but instead is being manipulated and pushed aside in the quest for power.
Vice-President Dr Goodluck Jonathan who also spoke at the event where he represented President Umar Yar'Adua said the government was committed towards ensuring that the votes of Nigerians count in all future elections.
Jonathan stated that part of what the nation was celebrating was the successful transition of one civilian government to another.
According to him: " This is the first time the nation's parliament has been in place for 10 years although the judiciary and executive existed throughout the period of military rule."
He further observed that Nigerian politicians had a tendency of challenging results of elections whenever they lost, noting that there was need for stability if the nation's democracy would grow. The Vice-President enjoined the mass media to be more balanced in its reporting of political events in the country.
Said he : " It is not in all cases that the ruling party is on the wrong side during political developments in the country" .
He cited the fraudulent manner in which state independent electoral commissions conduct local government polls in different states of the country where parties in power always swept the polls. He however regretted that the trend never attracted the attention of the media which only preferred bashing the Independent Electoral Commission ( INEC).
Said he: " If we cannot correct the rot at the lowest level, then it would be cumbersome to do same at the top" .
Also, speaking at the event was Justice George Oguntade, a Judge of the Supreme Court of Nigeria, who described the existence of the current 36 states structure as a drain pipe to the economy, and advocated that some states be merged.
4 June 2009
Okey Ndiribe, Luka Binniyat And Chris Ochai
4 June 2009
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Former US Secretary State and Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff of the American Armed Forces, General Colin Powell (rtd), has revealed that on the night the late General Sani Abacha was to overthrow the Interim National Government (ING), headed by Chief Ernest Shonekan, he was informed at 2 a.m.Powel said he had protested against the decision, but was ignored by the late head of state.
Powell, who had supervised American involvement in 28 conflicts around the world including the Panama intervention, and Persian Gulf Operation Desert Storm, also noted that Nigerians do not trust their leaders.
He said many do not consider the current Nigeria democracy as that of the people.
Powell made these remarks in his speech during the breakfast meeting organised by Tell Communications Limited (publishers of Tell Magazine) to mark Nigeria's 10 years of unbroken democracy (May 1999 - May 2009).
"I have watched as someone who sees and believes in the great potential of Nigeria as an economic power and a political leader in the region and the world- as someone who wants to see that potential realised," said Powell.
"Yes, I have seen the turmoil", he added. "Shortly after I retired from the Army in 1993, I began getting letters from Sani Abacha, telling me of the problems in Nigeria," he told the audience.
"His letters were disturbing, and foreboding," he added.
He continued: "Then, late one night, around 2 a.m, I got a phone call from him at my home that the situation, in his view had become so bad that he had to act.
Said he: "I pleaded with him not to, that America and the world would not understand and would react badly. He did not listen, and you know the rest of that story."
Powell said in 1999 he was part of the election monitoring team in Nigeria and had a profound experience.
He regretted that by all independent accounts he had seen the irregularities and corruption seen in subsequent elections is deeply troubling, adding that there is a real danger, that the will of the people is not being determined, but instead is being manipulated and pushed aside in the quest for power.
Vice-President Dr Goodluck Jonathan who also spoke at the event where he represented President Umar Yar'Adua said the government was committed towards ensuring that the votes of Nigerians count in all future elections.
Jonathan stated that part of what the nation was celebrating was the successful transition of one civilian government to another.
According to him: " This is the first time the nation's parliament has been in place for 10 years although the judiciary and executive existed throughout the period of military rule."
He further observed that Nigerian politicians had a tendency of challenging results of elections whenever they lost, noting that there was need for stability if the nation's democracy would grow. The Vice-President enjoined the mass media to be more balanced in its reporting of political events in the country.
Said he : " It is not in all cases that the ruling party is on the wrong side during political developments in the country" .
He cited the fraudulent manner in which state independent electoral commissions conduct local government polls in different states of the country where parties in power always swept the polls. He however regretted that the trend never attracted the attention of the media which only preferred bashing the Independent Electoral Commission ( INEC).
Said he: " If we cannot correct the rot at the lowest level, then it would be cumbersome to do same at the top" .
Also, speaking at the event was Justice George Oguntade, a Judge of the Supreme Court of Nigeria, who described the existence of the current 36 states structure as a drain pipe to the economy, and advocated that some states be merged.
Uganda Oil Reserves Rival Saudi Arabia's, Says U.S. Expert.
East African Business Week
2 June 2009
By Edris Kisambira
Uganda's oil reserves could be as much as that of the Gulf countries, a senior official at the US Department of Energy has said.
Based on the test flow results encountered at the wells so far drilled and other oil numbers, Ms. Sally Kornfeld, a senior analyst in the office of fossil energy went ahead to talk about Uganda's oil reservoirs in the same sentence as Saudi Arabia.
"You are blessed with amazing reservoirs. Your reservoirs are incredible. I am amazed by what I have seen, you might rival Saudi Arabia," Kornfeld told a visiting delegation from Uganda in Washington DC.
The group of Ugandans was in Washington on an international visitor programme and looked at the efficient use of natural energy resources.
The group comprised Ministry of Energy officials, a Member of Parliament, members from the civil society and one journalist.
At present, Uganda has four oil prospectors on the ground including Heritage Oil, Tullow Oil, Tower Oil and Dominion Oil.
Of the four prospectors, Tullow and Heritage have registered success at wells in two blocks in the Albertine basin, which lies in the upper-most part of the western arm of the Great Rift Valley.
According to data so far aggregated since the first discovery was made by Australian prospector Hardman Resources (now taken over by Tullow) in June 2006, Uganda has established reserves at 3.5 million barrels of oil per day.
Experts in oil exploration say this could be just a tip of the iceberg.
The sites are still building pressure and production might well exceed the current figures if what has happened elsewhere like Angola is anything to go by.
Flow tests at various wells have indicated flow rates ranging from as low as 1,500 to highs of 14,000 barrels per day. According to earlier releases, the prospectors are now certain that the commercial threshold for development has been exceeded.
Mr. Aidan Heavy, Tullow Oil's chief executive officer revealed early in the year that they assigned a dedicated team of experts to deliver a commercial development plan for the entire basin.
In April last year, Tullow embarked on what it termed as a major drilling campaign in the Butiaba area around Lake Albert targeting an overall reserve potential in excess of a billion barrels.
The Butiaba campaign was preceded by successes in two drilling campaigns in the Kaiso-Tonya area and the Kingfisher field and all these have been 100% successes so far.
The Butiaba campaign has thrown up successes but the two biggest so far have been the Buffalo-Giraffe wells - described as "one of the largest recent onshore oil discoveries in Africa".
"Combined with our other finds in the region, we have now clearly exceeded the thresholds for basin development," the chief executive of Tullow commented then.
The Giraffe-1 exploration well, which is located in the Butiaba region, came up with over 38 metres of net oil pay within an 89-metre gross oil bearing interval.
The data from the Giraffe discovery indicate a net reservoir thickness of 38 metres, the largest encountered in the area to date.
The Buffalo-1 exploration well in Block 1 encountered 15 metres of net gas pay and over 28 metres of net oil pay.
The gas and oil columns encountered are 48 metres and 75 metres respectively with the potential to be even larger.
As Kornfeld marveled at Uganda's oil finds, she was quick to add that for the country to benefit from the oil and gas resources but also avoid the pitfalls of oil producing countries like Nigeria, it is extremely important to set up strong governance structures.
Kornfeld and the other United States officials said they are ready to help Uganda's nascent oil and gas sector with anything including the key environmental issues that are crucial to the efficient management of oil and gas.
"Anything you might want us to help you with we will and we have a lot of expertise in environmental issues relating to oil and gas," Kornfeld said.
2 June 2009
By Edris Kisambira
Uganda's oil reserves could be as much as that of the Gulf countries, a senior official at the US Department of Energy has said.
Based on the test flow results encountered at the wells so far drilled and other oil numbers, Ms. Sally Kornfeld, a senior analyst in the office of fossil energy went ahead to talk about Uganda's oil reservoirs in the same sentence as Saudi Arabia.
"You are blessed with amazing reservoirs. Your reservoirs are incredible. I am amazed by what I have seen, you might rival Saudi Arabia," Kornfeld told a visiting delegation from Uganda in Washington DC.
The group of Ugandans was in Washington on an international visitor programme and looked at the efficient use of natural energy resources.
The group comprised Ministry of Energy officials, a Member of Parliament, members from the civil society and one journalist.
At present, Uganda has four oil prospectors on the ground including Heritage Oil, Tullow Oil, Tower Oil and Dominion Oil.
Of the four prospectors, Tullow and Heritage have registered success at wells in two blocks in the Albertine basin, which lies in the upper-most part of the western arm of the Great Rift Valley.
According to data so far aggregated since the first discovery was made by Australian prospector Hardman Resources (now taken over by Tullow) in June 2006, Uganda has established reserves at 3.5 million barrels of oil per day.
Experts in oil exploration say this could be just a tip of the iceberg.
The sites are still building pressure and production might well exceed the current figures if what has happened elsewhere like Angola is anything to go by.
Flow tests at various wells have indicated flow rates ranging from as low as 1,500 to highs of 14,000 barrels per day. According to earlier releases, the prospectors are now certain that the commercial threshold for development has been exceeded.
Mr. Aidan Heavy, Tullow Oil's chief executive officer revealed early in the year that they assigned a dedicated team of experts to deliver a commercial development plan for the entire basin.
In April last year, Tullow embarked on what it termed as a major drilling campaign in the Butiaba area around Lake Albert targeting an overall reserve potential in excess of a billion barrels.
The Butiaba campaign was preceded by successes in two drilling campaigns in the Kaiso-Tonya area and the Kingfisher field and all these have been 100% successes so far.
The Butiaba campaign has thrown up successes but the two biggest so far have been the Buffalo-Giraffe wells - described as "one of the largest recent onshore oil discoveries in Africa".
"Combined with our other finds in the region, we have now clearly exceeded the thresholds for basin development," the chief executive of Tullow commented then.
The Giraffe-1 exploration well, which is located in the Butiaba region, came up with over 38 metres of net oil pay within an 89-metre gross oil bearing interval.
The data from the Giraffe discovery indicate a net reservoir thickness of 38 metres, the largest encountered in the area to date.
The Buffalo-1 exploration well in Block 1 encountered 15 metres of net gas pay and over 28 metres of net oil pay.
The gas and oil columns encountered are 48 metres and 75 metres respectively with the potential to be even larger.
As Kornfeld marveled at Uganda's oil finds, she was quick to add that for the country to benefit from the oil and gas resources but also avoid the pitfalls of oil producing countries like Nigeria, it is extremely important to set up strong governance structures.
Kornfeld and the other United States officials said they are ready to help Uganda's nascent oil and gas sector with anything including the key environmental issues that are crucial to the efficient management of oil and gas.
"Anything you might want us to help you with we will and we have a lot of expertise in environmental issues relating to oil and gas," Kornfeld said.
Iraq and Britain agree draft naval deal.
AFP
3 June 2009
Iraq has signed a draft agreement with Britain for British naval personnel to remain in the country beyond their agreed withdrawal date, government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said on Wednesday.
Less than 100 British sailors and five naval vessels would remain in the country in a "non-renewable" one-year deal with London, Dabbagh said.
Under an accord signed between London and Baghdad last year, British troops must withdraw from Iraq by July 31 but the two countries have been working for months on a plan to allow a small number of training staff to stay on.
The draft agreement, which was signed by the Iraqi defence ministry on Tuesday, must still be ratified by parliament.
"The agreement will allow a limited number of not more than 100 British troops, and their civilian support personnel and five navy ships with their crews, to stay in Iraq for one year, after parliament has given its approval," Dabbagh said in a separate statement.
British troops will be subject to all Iraqi laws, he added.
Britain's military withdrawal from Iraq, more than six years after it was the second-biggest member of the US-led invasion of the country, will come shortly after American troops leave Iraqi urban areas on June 30.
London formally ceased combat operations and transferred authority of its military headquarters in the southern port city of Basra to the United States at the end of April, after the official withdrawal was launched on March 31.
3 June 2009
Iraq has signed a draft agreement with Britain for British naval personnel to remain in the country beyond their agreed withdrawal date, government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said on Wednesday.
Less than 100 British sailors and five naval vessels would remain in the country in a "non-renewable" one-year deal with London, Dabbagh said.
Under an accord signed between London and Baghdad last year, British troops must withdraw from Iraq by July 31 but the two countries have been working for months on a plan to allow a small number of training staff to stay on.
The draft agreement, which was signed by the Iraqi defence ministry on Tuesday, must still be ratified by parliament.
"The agreement will allow a limited number of not more than 100 British troops, and their civilian support personnel and five navy ships with their crews, to stay in Iraq for one year, after parliament has given its approval," Dabbagh said in a separate statement.
British troops will be subject to all Iraqi laws, he added.
Britain's military withdrawal from Iraq, more than six years after it was the second-biggest member of the US-led invasion of the country, will come shortly after American troops leave Iraqi urban areas on June 30.
London formally ceased combat operations and transferred authority of its military headquarters in the southern port city of Basra to the United States at the end of April, after the official withdrawal was launched on March 31.
Kenya police a 'major problem.'
SAPA
3 June 2009
A UN human rights investigator said on Wednesday that Kenya's police were "a major stumbling block" for probes into post-election violence and "official killings" in the country.
Philip Alston, the UN's special reporter on extrajudicial executions, who probed killings of political and human rights activists in Kenya, praised the efforts of several ministers and moves for police and judicial reforms.
"This does not yet mean, however, that the crisis has been resolved. The police in particular remain a major stumbling block," Alston told a session of the UN Human Rights Council.
In March, Alston called for an independent probe into the assassination of two rights activists who had been at the forefront of a campaign against extrajudicial killings.
Campaign against extrajudicial killings
He also produced a highly critical report on the violence since 2007, which called for the sacking of Kenya's police chief and attorney general.
Alston said he had recently been called a "bigoted activist" by a Kenyan police spokesperson who dismissed the UN expert's findings as baseless, while reports by local human rights officials and activists were regularly dismissed as the product of bribery.
"Attacks on those who document abuses do not absolve a government of its obligation to investigate, prosecute and punish those responsible for extrajudicial executions," Alston told the 47-member Council.
"This will not, however, be achieved while the current Police Commissioner is in charge of investigations and prosecutions."
"Instead, impunity for official killings will continue while the deck chairs are reshuffled and more character assassinations are launched," he added.
Alston also noted that while Prime Minister Raila Odinga had "roundly condemned" extrajudicial executions, President Mwai Kibaki "has yet to do so".
3 June 2009
A UN human rights investigator said on Wednesday that Kenya's police were "a major stumbling block" for probes into post-election violence and "official killings" in the country.
Philip Alston, the UN's special reporter on extrajudicial executions, who probed killings of political and human rights activists in Kenya, praised the efforts of several ministers and moves for police and judicial reforms.
"This does not yet mean, however, that the crisis has been resolved. The police in particular remain a major stumbling block," Alston told a session of the UN Human Rights Council.
In March, Alston called for an independent probe into the assassination of two rights activists who had been at the forefront of a campaign against extrajudicial killings.
Campaign against extrajudicial killings
He also produced a highly critical report on the violence since 2007, which called for the sacking of Kenya's police chief and attorney general.
Alston said he had recently been called a "bigoted activist" by a Kenyan police spokesperson who dismissed the UN expert's findings as baseless, while reports by local human rights officials and activists were regularly dismissed as the product of bribery.
"Attacks on those who document abuses do not absolve a government of its obligation to investigate, prosecute and punish those responsible for extrajudicial executions," Alston told the 47-member Council.
"This will not, however, be achieved while the current Police Commissioner is in charge of investigations and prosecutions."
"Instead, impunity for official killings will continue while the deck chairs are reshuffled and more character assassinations are launched," he added.
Alston also noted that while Prime Minister Raila Odinga had "roundly condemned" extrajudicial executions, President Mwai Kibaki "has yet to do so".
03 June, 2009
Iran proposes buying all Azeri gas produced at Caspian field.
RIA Novosti
3 June 2009
Iran has proposed buying all of the natural gas produced at an Azerbaijani gas field in the Caspian Sea, the South Caucasus republic's energy and fuel minister said on Wednesday.
"There are a lot of proposals on the purchase of gas from the Shah Deniz deposit. For example, Iran has now proposed purchasing the entire gas amount from this deposit. However, Azerbaijan, being in favor of diversification, will not consider just one option," Natik Aliyev told an international conference on Caspian oil and gas.
Azerbaijan is developing its giant Shah Deniz field, with gas reserves of 1.2 trillion cubic meters, under a production-sharing agreement signed in 1996. Seven companies, including BP, Norway's Statoil, France's Total and the State Oil Company of Azerbaijan are involved in the project.
The gas deposit is located in the south Caspian Sea, off the coast of Azerbaijan.
Azerbaijan first produced gas at the Shah Deniz field in December 2006. Today, the deposit produces 22 million cubic meters of gas and 45,000 barrels of condensate daily.
Russian energy giant Gazprom also earlier announced its interest in purchasing all of the gas produced at the Shah Deniz field.
Aliyev said that the State Oil Company of Azerbaijan was currently holding talks in Baku with representatives from the Russian oil giant on Azerbaijani gas purchases.
"However, this is a lengthy process as it involves long-term rather than short-lived cooperation. That is why, negotiations with Gazprom will continue," Aliyev said, adding that preference would be given to the most advantageous offer for the country.
3 June 2009
Iran has proposed buying all of the natural gas produced at an Azerbaijani gas field in the Caspian Sea, the South Caucasus republic's energy and fuel minister said on Wednesday.
"There are a lot of proposals on the purchase of gas from the Shah Deniz deposit. For example, Iran has now proposed purchasing the entire gas amount from this deposit. However, Azerbaijan, being in favor of diversification, will not consider just one option," Natik Aliyev told an international conference on Caspian oil and gas.
Azerbaijan is developing its giant Shah Deniz field, with gas reserves of 1.2 trillion cubic meters, under a production-sharing agreement signed in 1996. Seven companies, including BP, Norway's Statoil, France's Total and the State Oil Company of Azerbaijan are involved in the project.
The gas deposit is located in the south Caspian Sea, off the coast of Azerbaijan.
Azerbaijan first produced gas at the Shah Deniz field in December 2006. Today, the deposit produces 22 million cubic meters of gas and 45,000 barrels of condensate daily.
Russian energy giant Gazprom also earlier announced its interest in purchasing all of the gas produced at the Shah Deniz field.
Aliyev said that the State Oil Company of Azerbaijan was currently holding talks in Baku with representatives from the Russian oil giant on Azerbaijani gas purchases.
"However, this is a lengthy process as it involves long-term rather than short-lived cooperation. That is why, negotiations with Gazprom will continue," Aliyev said, adding that preference would be given to the most advantageous offer for the country.
Aid workers forced to leave Sri Lanka under strict new visa rules.
The Times
3 June 2009
By Jeremy Page, South Asia Correspondent
Sri Lanka is hampering international relief efforts by forcing dozens of British and other foreign aid workers to leave the country because it considers them sympathetic to the defeated Tamil Tigers, The Times has learnt.
Aid organisations say that the policy is costing them tens of thousands of pounds of donors’ money as they struggle to help 280,000 Tamil civilians in internment camps.
“The NGOs are all extremely scared. If you raise your voice you’ll be the next one thrown out,” a senior member of staff in one international aid group said.
The Government deported the Norwegian head of Forut, an Oslo-based NGO, on Saturday, and stopped a British employee of Forut from re-entering Sri Lanka last month.
It has also refused to renew visas for dozens of other foreign aid workers, citing new rules that prevent them from staying in Sri Lanka for more than three years.
Two foreigners working for Care International, including a Briton, were forced to leave last month because their visas were not extended, local sources told The Times.
A Briton working for the Norwegian Refugee Council, an Ethiopian working for the Save the Children Fund, and three foreign members of staff for ASB, a German NGO, have been forced to leave.
The British head of Solidar, a consortium of NGOs, was ordered to leave within seven days in December even though he had four children at school in Sri Lanka. He managed to negotiate a short extension.
The programme manager of Zoa Refugee Care, a Dutch NGO, was expelled from Sri Lanka in September and there are problems gaining visa extensions for five of the NGO’s foreign staff.
Among those who are likely to be forced to leave in the next few months are the country heads of Oxfam and the Danish Refugee Council.
“By September or October, 60 to 70 per cent of NGO heads will have left the country,” said one aid worker.
The Government said that it was simply enforcing the new visa rules, which were announced last year. Aid workers were granted one-year visas previously, which they could renew as often as they wanted.
The new rules are designed to weed out Tiger sympathisers, according to Sri Lankan officials. The head of Forut was deported because she stopped staff from raising a Sri Lankan national flag in their office to celebrate the defeat of the Tigers. She said that Forut should remain neutral.
Government officials said that the visa rules were to encourage NGOs to recruit more local staff.
“We need to build our own capacity,” Rajiva Wijesinha, the Secretary of the Ministry of Disaster Management and Human Rights, told the UN Human Rights Council last week. “We want NGOs who bring aid . . . but we also don’t want people sitting around begging for the crumbs from the rich man’s table.”
Aid workers said that the rules were being used to purge foreign critics and to limit the ability of NGOs to operate and lobby the Government. “The idea is to get rid of people with institutional and operational experience,” said one.
Another said: “It’s easier for the Government if NGO people don’t have the contacts, connections and experience.”
Aid workers estimated that replacing each foreign staff member cost up to $20,000 (£12,000).
3 June 2009
By Jeremy Page, South Asia Correspondent
Sri Lanka is hampering international relief efforts by forcing dozens of British and other foreign aid workers to leave the country because it considers them sympathetic to the defeated Tamil Tigers, The Times has learnt.
Aid organisations say that the policy is costing them tens of thousands of pounds of donors’ money as they struggle to help 280,000 Tamil civilians in internment camps.
“The NGOs are all extremely scared. If you raise your voice you’ll be the next one thrown out,” a senior member of staff in one international aid group said.
The Government deported the Norwegian head of Forut, an Oslo-based NGO, on Saturday, and stopped a British employee of Forut from re-entering Sri Lanka last month.
It has also refused to renew visas for dozens of other foreign aid workers, citing new rules that prevent them from staying in Sri Lanka for more than three years.
Two foreigners working for Care International, including a Briton, were forced to leave last month because their visas were not extended, local sources told The Times.
A Briton working for the Norwegian Refugee Council, an Ethiopian working for the Save the Children Fund, and three foreign members of staff for ASB, a German NGO, have been forced to leave.
The British head of Solidar, a consortium of NGOs, was ordered to leave within seven days in December even though he had four children at school in Sri Lanka. He managed to negotiate a short extension.
The programme manager of Zoa Refugee Care, a Dutch NGO, was expelled from Sri Lanka in September and there are problems gaining visa extensions for five of the NGO’s foreign staff.
Among those who are likely to be forced to leave in the next few months are the country heads of Oxfam and the Danish Refugee Council.
“By September or October, 60 to 70 per cent of NGO heads will have left the country,” said one aid worker.
The Government said that it was simply enforcing the new visa rules, which were announced last year. Aid workers were granted one-year visas previously, which they could renew as often as they wanted.
The new rules are designed to weed out Tiger sympathisers, according to Sri Lankan officials. The head of Forut was deported because she stopped staff from raising a Sri Lankan national flag in their office to celebrate the defeat of the Tigers. She said that Forut should remain neutral.
Government officials said that the visa rules were to encourage NGOs to recruit more local staff.
“We need to build our own capacity,” Rajiva Wijesinha, the Secretary of the Ministry of Disaster Management and Human Rights, told the UN Human Rights Council last week. “We want NGOs who bring aid . . . but we also don’t want people sitting around begging for the crumbs from the rich man’s table.”
Aid workers said that the rules were being used to purge foreign critics and to limit the ability of NGOs to operate and lobby the Government. “The idea is to get rid of people with institutional and operational experience,” said one.
Another said: “It’s easier for the Government if NGO people don’t have the contacts, connections and experience.”
Aid workers estimated that replacing each foreign staff member cost up to $20,000 (£12,000).
Former Somalia senior military officials to meet in Washington, DC.
UNPOS
03 Jun 2009
PRESS RELEASE 019/2009
Nairobi, 03 June 2009 – Former Somali senior military officials will convene on the 4and 5 June in Washington DC at a meeting organized by the United Nations Political Office for Somalia (UNPOS) under the auspices of the Somali Ministry of Defence.
The meeting will serve as a preparatory forum that will solicit support and participation from prominent Somali military leaders with follow-up meetings expected to be held in late July.
In keeping with the Djibouti Agreement and the Government's commitment to build up security institutions, the meeting will look at the structures of Somalia's military before the collapse of the state and the best ways to address the current and future security needs.
"We are expecting this to be the first of several fruitful meetings," UN Special Representative for Somalia Ahmedou Ould-Abdallah said. "The senior military officials that will participate in this meeting are respected for their past professional experience during a period in Somalia's history when it was called upon to help train soldiers from other African nations."
During the meeting, the participants will discuss best practices and the way forward for security sector development.
"This is a great opportunity for Somalis to find within their past some solutions to their future," Mr. Ould-Abdallah said.
For more information please contact: Susannah Price, Public Information Officer, UN Political Office for Somalia (Nairobi, Kenya) Tel. +254 20 762 1192 (o) or +254 733 902020 (m). Please visit: www.UN-Somalia.org
03 Jun 2009
PRESS RELEASE 019/2009
Nairobi, 03 June 2009 – Former Somali senior military officials will convene on the 4and 5 June in Washington DC at a meeting organized by the United Nations Political Office for Somalia (UNPOS) under the auspices of the Somali Ministry of Defence.
The meeting will serve as a preparatory forum that will solicit support and participation from prominent Somali military leaders with follow-up meetings expected to be held in late July.
In keeping with the Djibouti Agreement and the Government's commitment to build up security institutions, the meeting will look at the structures of Somalia's military before the collapse of the state and the best ways to address the current and future security needs.
"We are expecting this to be the first of several fruitful meetings," UN Special Representative for Somalia Ahmedou Ould-Abdallah said. "The senior military officials that will participate in this meeting are respected for their past professional experience during a period in Somalia's history when it was called upon to help train soldiers from other African nations."
During the meeting, the participants will discuss best practices and the way forward for security sector development.
"This is a great opportunity for Somalis to find within their past some solutions to their future," Mr. Ould-Abdallah said.
For more information please contact: Susannah Price, Public Information Officer, UN Political Office for Somalia (Nairobi, Kenya) Tel. +254 20 762 1192 (o) or +254 733 902020 (m). Please visit: www.UN-Somalia.org
Shiite-Christian alliance shakes Lebanon politics.
HAMZA HENDAWI and SAM F. GHATTAS
AP News
Jun 02, 2009 03:08 EST
It's an unusual alliance in a country where your religion usually determines your politics: Christians siding with Shiite Muslim militant Hezbollah. But it has shaken up Lebanon's politics, and backers say it represents the future of this long divided nation.
The coalition is also strong enough it could bring the anti-Israel and anti-U.S. Hezbollah to power in next week's parliamentary elections. That possibility has turned this election into a fierce battle for Lebanon's Christians.
Sunday's vote pits factions backed by the United States and the West against a coalition led by the pro-Iranian and pro-Syrian Hezbollah and its ally, Christian leader Michel Aoun. Sunni Muslims overwhelmingly support the former, Shiites the latter — and Christians are divided between them.
That makes Christians the swing vote, so campaigning has been heavy. Pro-Western factions are playing on Christians' fears of Shiite domination, warning that Hezbollah could spread Iranian-style Islamic conservatism in the Mideast's most liberal country and draw Lebanon into another war with Israel, as many here feel it did in 2006.
"It's your choice between peace and war," Sami Gemayel, a Christian Phalange Party candidate, said in a recent TV appearance.
"The choice is between Gaza and a developed, civilized Lebanese state," he said, comparing a Hezbollah-led Lebanon to the isolated, war-torn Gaza Strip, ruled by Hezbollah's ally Hamas.
Christian critics have blasted Aoun as an opportunist, selling out his community for power.
Indeed, Lebanon's Shiites and Christians make an odd fit.
The Christians have historically looked to the West in politics, culture and even fashion — while Shiite Hezbollah and its supporters take their cues from Iran. Hezbollah is famed for its fight against Israel and support for the Palestinians, while Christians have been less interested in the Palestinians' cause, or even outright hostile to them, since they were on opposite sides of Lebanon's 1975-1990 civil war.
Moreover, Hezbollah is a close ally of Syria, while Aoun — a former general and army commander — battled Syria in 1989 in a failed uprising against its control of Lebanon.
But three years after its formation, the Hezbollah-Aoun alliance has not only survived but is going strong. Also backed by Lebanon's ethnic Armenian Christians, it has a strong chance of winning a majority in the 128-seat parliament next week. That would enable it to form a new government, removing the current one dominated by pro-Western factions.
The one thing that might prevent the coalition's victory is a number of Christian candidates billing themselves as independents, aligned with neither Hezbollah nor the pro-Western camp. They may be able to draw enough votes to keep some Christian seats out of Aoun's hands.
The durability of the Aoun-Hezbollah coalition has stunned many who had thought it a cynical Aoun move that would quickly fall apart.
"This is more than a tactical alliance," said Bilal Saab, a Lebanon expert with the Brookings Institution in Washington. "But what it is exactly we still don't know."
Backers depict the alliance as a blow to politics-as-usual, saying it points to a more democratic, less sectarian political future.
Since Lebanon's independence in 1943, politics here have been solidly sectarian, feudal and clannish: Chiefs of powerful families in each sect lead the main political parties, and their followers almost invariably vote for them.
Aoun and Hezbollah say they are breaking those traditional lines of power. They campaign on promises of reform, playing on widespread frustration with political bickering.
In a campaign speech Friday, Aoun said the alliance "saved the nation from a lot of bad possibilities" and points the way to greater harmony among Lebanon's sects.
"I've never felt a day that I am a cover for the 'Persian invasion,'" he said, dismissing warnings of Iranian domination through Hezbollah.
But rather than breaking sectarianism, the alliance may represent a cold-eyed assessment of Lebanon's new sectarian demographics.
Christians were once a majority in Lebanon, giving them a sense of power in the country. But Christian emigration and higher Muslim birthrates have changed the balance: Christians, Shiites and Sunnis are believed to make up roughly a third each of the estimated 4 million population. Shiites are thought to be the largest single sect, and Hezbollah is undoubtedly the most organized and well-armed faction in the country.
So hitching their star to Hezbollah may make sense to many Christians. Hezbollah's military strength and Shiites' sheer numbers give protection to Christian allies, who preserve a say in power.
Hezbollah, in turn, gains a foothold outside the Shiite community, allowing it to project an image of being a national movement.
"The alliance plucked Hezbollah out of political marginalization," said Amal Saad-Ghorayeb, a Hezbollah expert. "Without it, it would have still be Shiites versus the rest of the country."
Hezbollah has sought to assure Christians it won't try to dominate the country.
"We will be at the service of our allies in the next government," Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah said in one of his many television appearances ahead of the election. "No one can govern on his own."
Holding power could exacerbate potential tensions. Many Christians want Hezbollah's guerrillas disarmed, a demand the group has opposed.
Hezbollah also wants reforms that would eventually reduce Christians' power. Lebanon's sectarian system dedicates half parliament's seats to Christians, while the rest are divvied among Shiites, Sunnis and others. Hezbollah wants to get rid of that system since it no longer reflects the demographics.
Hoping to woo Christians, the main pro-Western Sunni-dominated parties are promising to preserve Christians' 50 percent proportion.
Source: AP News
AP News
Jun 02, 2009 03:08 EST
It's an unusual alliance in a country where your religion usually determines your politics: Christians siding with Shiite Muslim militant Hezbollah. But it has shaken up Lebanon's politics, and backers say it represents the future of this long divided nation.
The coalition is also strong enough it could bring the anti-Israel and anti-U.S. Hezbollah to power in next week's parliamentary elections. That possibility has turned this election into a fierce battle for Lebanon's Christians.
Sunday's vote pits factions backed by the United States and the West against a coalition led by the pro-Iranian and pro-Syrian Hezbollah and its ally, Christian leader Michel Aoun. Sunni Muslims overwhelmingly support the former, Shiites the latter — and Christians are divided between them.
That makes Christians the swing vote, so campaigning has been heavy. Pro-Western factions are playing on Christians' fears of Shiite domination, warning that Hezbollah could spread Iranian-style Islamic conservatism in the Mideast's most liberal country and draw Lebanon into another war with Israel, as many here feel it did in 2006.
"It's your choice between peace and war," Sami Gemayel, a Christian Phalange Party candidate, said in a recent TV appearance.
"The choice is between Gaza and a developed, civilized Lebanese state," he said, comparing a Hezbollah-led Lebanon to the isolated, war-torn Gaza Strip, ruled by Hezbollah's ally Hamas.
Christian critics have blasted Aoun as an opportunist, selling out his community for power.
Indeed, Lebanon's Shiites and Christians make an odd fit.
The Christians have historically looked to the West in politics, culture and even fashion — while Shiite Hezbollah and its supporters take their cues from Iran. Hezbollah is famed for its fight against Israel and support for the Palestinians, while Christians have been less interested in the Palestinians' cause, or even outright hostile to them, since they were on opposite sides of Lebanon's 1975-1990 civil war.
Moreover, Hezbollah is a close ally of Syria, while Aoun — a former general and army commander — battled Syria in 1989 in a failed uprising against its control of Lebanon.
But three years after its formation, the Hezbollah-Aoun alliance has not only survived but is going strong. Also backed by Lebanon's ethnic Armenian Christians, it has a strong chance of winning a majority in the 128-seat parliament next week. That would enable it to form a new government, removing the current one dominated by pro-Western factions.
The one thing that might prevent the coalition's victory is a number of Christian candidates billing themselves as independents, aligned with neither Hezbollah nor the pro-Western camp. They may be able to draw enough votes to keep some Christian seats out of Aoun's hands.
The durability of the Aoun-Hezbollah coalition has stunned many who had thought it a cynical Aoun move that would quickly fall apart.
"This is more than a tactical alliance," said Bilal Saab, a Lebanon expert with the Brookings Institution in Washington. "But what it is exactly we still don't know."
Backers depict the alliance as a blow to politics-as-usual, saying it points to a more democratic, less sectarian political future.
Since Lebanon's independence in 1943, politics here have been solidly sectarian, feudal and clannish: Chiefs of powerful families in each sect lead the main political parties, and their followers almost invariably vote for them.
Aoun and Hezbollah say they are breaking those traditional lines of power. They campaign on promises of reform, playing on widespread frustration with political bickering.
In a campaign speech Friday, Aoun said the alliance "saved the nation from a lot of bad possibilities" and points the way to greater harmony among Lebanon's sects.
"I've never felt a day that I am a cover for the 'Persian invasion,'" he said, dismissing warnings of Iranian domination through Hezbollah.
But rather than breaking sectarianism, the alliance may represent a cold-eyed assessment of Lebanon's new sectarian demographics.
Christians were once a majority in Lebanon, giving them a sense of power in the country. But Christian emigration and higher Muslim birthrates have changed the balance: Christians, Shiites and Sunnis are believed to make up roughly a third each of the estimated 4 million population. Shiites are thought to be the largest single sect, and Hezbollah is undoubtedly the most organized and well-armed faction in the country.
So hitching their star to Hezbollah may make sense to many Christians. Hezbollah's military strength and Shiites' sheer numbers give protection to Christian allies, who preserve a say in power.
Hezbollah, in turn, gains a foothold outside the Shiite community, allowing it to project an image of being a national movement.
"The alliance plucked Hezbollah out of political marginalization," said Amal Saad-Ghorayeb, a Hezbollah expert. "Without it, it would have still be Shiites versus the rest of the country."
Hezbollah has sought to assure Christians it won't try to dominate the country.
"We will be at the service of our allies in the next government," Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah said in one of his many television appearances ahead of the election. "No one can govern on his own."
Holding power could exacerbate potential tensions. Many Christians want Hezbollah's guerrillas disarmed, a demand the group has opposed.
Hezbollah also wants reforms that would eventually reduce Christians' power. Lebanon's sectarian system dedicates half parliament's seats to Christians, while the rest are divvied among Shiites, Sunnis and others. Hezbollah wants to get rid of that system since it no longer reflects the demographics.
Hoping to woo Christians, the main pro-Western Sunni-dominated parties are promising to preserve Christians' 50 percent proportion.
Source: AP News
02 June, 2009
Les massacres de Kinihira de 1993 à 1999.
(Traduit du kinyarwanda par Eugène Shimamungu)
240 agents ont été entraînés à la torture par le FPR en 1993 jusqu’au 6/04/1994. Ils en ont fait l’expérience à Musenda dans les communes Cyumba et Karama de l’ex-préfecture de Byumba. Des armes à feu leur ont été distribuées par le FPR-Inkotanyi. Dès que le FPR a abattu l’avion de Habyarimana Juvénal, ils ont immédiatement commencé des massacres inouïs:
Hatangimana Athanase, Kimiryi-Cyungo, BYUMBA
Inyamibwa Fideli, Kinihira-Cyungo BYUMBA
Rwangampuhwe Damien, Kimiryi-Cyungo, BYUMBA
Rwibasira Eugène, ex S/Préfet de Kinihira
Sibomana Célestin, Barayi-Cyungo, BYUMBA. Ex-enseignant à Kinihira.
Musoni Kimiri, Cyungo BYUMBA, il était employé chez un Européen qui travaillait à l’Usine de thé Cyohoha Rukeri.
Zigirishiti Alphonse Kabera, Bwimo-Cyungo, BYUMBA
Munyakayanza Florien, ex-Conseiller de Secteur à Bwimo-Cyungo, BYUMBA de 1994 à 1997.
Renzaho Télesphore, ex-Conseiller de Secteur de Karama-Cyungo, BYUMBA de 1994 à 1998, il est décédé en 1998.
Rwabirwi, Karama-Cyungo, BYUMBA
Mazuru, petit-fils de Karyabwite, Kinihira-Cyungo, BYUMBA
Phocas, Karama-Cyungo, BYUMBA. Il faisait le pesage du thé de 1994 à 1997
Mutabaruka Augustin, Nyakibande-Kabingo, BYUMBA
Mulinda, Nyakibande-Kabingo, BYUMBA
Habimana Eric, Gatorwa-Kabingo, Cyungo, BYUMBA
Nshimiyimana Appolinaire, ex-conseiller de Kabingo, Cyungo BYUMBA
Munyengabe Tito, ex-conseiller de Kabingo, Cyungo, BYUMBA
Ndabita, fils de Gakwisi et de Gahwazi, Kavumo, Bwimo, Cyungo BYUMBA.
Hakuzimana, fils de Nakabonye, Kavumo, Bwimo Cyungo, BYUMBA.
Mulinda, Karama, Cynugo, BYUMBA, il faisait le pesage du thé à Cyohoha Rukeri
Murenzi Joseph, Gatorwa, Kabingo, Cyungo Byumba, il s’est tué avec une arme en 2000 après avoir abattu 4 personnes
Nsengumuremyi Kabera, Bwimo, Cyungo, BYUMBA
Mukeza, Karama Cyungo Byumba, ex-conseiller de Karama Cyungo BYUMBA, décédé en 1998.
Pancrace, Ndorandi, Kinihira, Cyungo, BYUMBA, il est devenu fou parce qu’il a versé le sang d’une multitude d’individus
Rwamafuni, Mutara, Kabingo, Cyungo, BYUMBA
Murangeri, Mutara, Kabingo, Cyungo, BYUMBA
Sakindi, Rukozo, Cyungo, Byumba, c’est le frère du Docteur Constantin à Rukozo.
Ceux-là mêmes en collaboration avec plusieurs autres, ont massacré la population de la S/Préfecture Kinihira, BYUMBA. Ils ont continué à tuer avec l’appui du FPR qui leur a donné des armes. Je fais cette déclaration en toute vérité, les éléments contenus dans ce document peuvent être confrontés à d'autres renseignements.
Niringiyimana Christopher
Tel 0046(0)737363215
Hab 0046(0)611511814
Sweden
240 agents ont été entraînés à la torture par le FPR en 1993 jusqu’au 6/04/1994. Ils en ont fait l’expérience à Musenda dans les communes Cyumba et Karama de l’ex-préfecture de Byumba. Des armes à feu leur ont été distribuées par le FPR-Inkotanyi. Dès que le FPR a abattu l’avion de Habyarimana Juvénal, ils ont immédiatement commencé des massacres inouïs:
Hatangimana Athanase, Kimiryi-Cyungo, BYUMBA
Inyamibwa Fideli, Kinihira-Cyungo BYUMBA
Rwangampuhwe Damien, Kimiryi-Cyungo, BYUMBA
Rwibasira Eugène, ex S/Préfet de Kinihira
Sibomana Célestin, Barayi-Cyungo, BYUMBA. Ex-enseignant à Kinihira.
Musoni Kimiri, Cyungo BYUMBA, il était employé chez un Européen qui travaillait à l’Usine de thé Cyohoha Rukeri.
Zigirishiti Alphonse Kabera, Bwimo-Cyungo, BYUMBA
Munyakayanza Florien, ex-Conseiller de Secteur à Bwimo-Cyungo, BYUMBA de 1994 à 1997.
Renzaho Télesphore, ex-Conseiller de Secteur de Karama-Cyungo, BYUMBA de 1994 à 1998, il est décédé en 1998.
Rwabirwi, Karama-Cyungo, BYUMBA
Mazuru, petit-fils de Karyabwite, Kinihira-Cyungo, BYUMBA
Phocas, Karama-Cyungo, BYUMBA. Il faisait le pesage du thé de 1994 à 1997
Mutabaruka Augustin, Nyakibande-Kabingo, BYUMBA
Mulinda, Nyakibande-Kabingo, BYUMBA
Habimana Eric, Gatorwa-Kabingo, Cyungo, BYUMBA
Nshimiyimana Appolinaire, ex-conseiller de Kabingo, Cyungo BYUMBA
Munyengabe Tito, ex-conseiller de Kabingo, Cyungo, BYUMBA
Ndabita, fils de Gakwisi et de Gahwazi, Kavumo, Bwimo, Cyungo BYUMBA.
Hakuzimana, fils de Nakabonye, Kavumo, Bwimo Cyungo, BYUMBA.
Mulinda, Karama, Cynugo, BYUMBA, il faisait le pesage du thé à Cyohoha Rukeri
Murenzi Joseph, Gatorwa, Kabingo, Cyungo Byumba, il s’est tué avec une arme en 2000 après avoir abattu 4 personnes
Nsengumuremyi Kabera, Bwimo, Cyungo, BYUMBA
Mukeza, Karama Cyungo Byumba, ex-conseiller de Karama Cyungo BYUMBA, décédé en 1998.
Pancrace, Ndorandi, Kinihira, Cyungo, BYUMBA, il est devenu fou parce qu’il a versé le sang d’une multitude d’individus
Rwamafuni, Mutara, Kabingo, Cyungo, BYUMBA
Murangeri, Mutara, Kabingo, Cyungo, BYUMBA
Sakindi, Rukozo, Cyungo, Byumba, c’est le frère du Docteur Constantin à Rukozo.
Ceux-là mêmes en collaboration avec plusieurs autres, ont massacré la population de la S/Préfecture Kinihira, BYUMBA. Ils ont continué à tuer avec l’appui du FPR qui leur a donné des armes. Je fais cette déclaration en toute vérité, les éléments contenus dans ce document peuvent être confrontés à d'autres renseignements.
Niringiyimana Christopher
Tel 0046(0)737363215
Hab 0046(0)611511814
Sweden
Les massacres de Byumba, Témoignage d'Ismaïl Mbonigaba.
Je voudrais vous donner quelques détails sur un criminel qui figure sur la liste des assassins de Kinihira (et pourquoi pas les assassins de Byumba?) Le nommé Damien Rwangampuhwe est originaire du secteur Busoro (ancienne commune Buyoga, rebaptisée Kisaro sous le régime Kagame.) Rwangampuhwe est un rescapé tutsi dont le frère Charles, enseignant au primaire, aurait été assassiné par les Interahamwe en 1994. Damien Rwangampuhwe, également enseignant au primaire après avoir raté son diplôme au Petit Séminaire de Rwesero, a rejoint le FPR en tant que "Umukada" (cadre politique) et s'est livré à des atrocités innommables. Damien Rwangampuhwe est tristement célèbre dans la fameuse "zone tampon" qui tomba automatiquement sous le contrôle du FPR depuis la mort du président Habyarimana. Jusqu'en 1998, Damien qui avait acquis le titre d'agent de renseignements dans l'administration FPR au niveau préfectoral (Byumba), n'a cessé de procéder à des tueries sélectives, en ciblant particulièrement les Hutu instruits de sa région d'origine. Ainsi, Augustin Ndabananiye, un brillant diplômé de Rwesero, Epaphrodite, Cyrille Twizeyumuremyi (ancien responsable du CCDFP-Tumba qui avait fait une année d’études à l’UNR) ainsi que Raphael Habumugisha (ancien Huissier du Tribunal de première instance de Byumba et diplômé de Rwesero + une année à l’ESM), tous voisins ou relativement voisins de Damien, ont été tués presque dans la même période (1997-1998).
Cyrille est mon grand frère, tandis que Raphael est mon beau-frère (mari de ma sœur Speciose). Les deux intellectuels ont été arrêtés sous prétexte qu'ils collaboraient avec les infiltrés (Abacengezi) et qu'ils échangeaient en français lors des rondes de nuits (Amarondo). Damien m'a lui-même dit, alors qu’il me croisait à Kigali, qu'il avait arrêté les deux hommes. Tous les membre de ma famille avaient fait objet d'arrestation et torturés à Kinihira, avant d'être relâchés sauf Cyrille et Raphael qui furent transférés dans le camp militaire de Byumba. Ma sœur Speciose a pu leur rendre quelques visites dans cette prison, mais au bout de deux mois, les militaires qui gardaient la prison lui ont dit que Cyrille et Raphael avaient été transférés vers une autre prison sans en préciser le nom. Les témoignages des prisonniers disent que Cyrille et Raphael ont été tués et jetés dans un fossé près de la prison. Damien Rwangampuhwe est nommément cité parmi les tortionnaires et meurtriers des deux innocents. Il faut mentionner que toutes les victimes citées dans ce témoignage arrivaient fraichement de l’exil et commençaient les procédures de recherche d’emploi, ce qui probablement aura fait peur aux cadres du FPR dont la plupart étaient littéralement incompétents.
Voila, d'autres détails pourraient arriver ultérieurement, j'essaie de collecter les informations au sujet de nos assassins de Byumba. En l'an 2001, le FPR a incinéré pendant trois jours les restes de plusieurs victimes des massacres du stade de Byumba. Nous n'aurons probablement pas la chance d'enterrer en dignité nos proches massacrés par milliers en 1994 dans la seule commune de Buyoga. La vallée de Shagasha, non loin de la paroisse de Muyanza, est devenue légendaire à la suite du massacre des réfugiés hutu rassemblés pour une réunion par les militaires du FPR.
Ismaïl Mbonigaba
02/6/2009
Cyrille est mon grand frère, tandis que Raphael est mon beau-frère (mari de ma sœur Speciose). Les deux intellectuels ont été arrêtés sous prétexte qu'ils collaboraient avec les infiltrés (Abacengezi) et qu'ils échangeaient en français lors des rondes de nuits (Amarondo). Damien m'a lui-même dit, alors qu’il me croisait à Kigali, qu'il avait arrêté les deux hommes. Tous les membre de ma famille avaient fait objet d'arrestation et torturés à Kinihira, avant d'être relâchés sauf Cyrille et Raphael qui furent transférés dans le camp militaire de Byumba. Ma sœur Speciose a pu leur rendre quelques visites dans cette prison, mais au bout de deux mois, les militaires qui gardaient la prison lui ont dit que Cyrille et Raphael avaient été transférés vers une autre prison sans en préciser le nom. Les témoignages des prisonniers disent que Cyrille et Raphael ont été tués et jetés dans un fossé près de la prison. Damien Rwangampuhwe est nommément cité parmi les tortionnaires et meurtriers des deux innocents. Il faut mentionner que toutes les victimes citées dans ce témoignage arrivaient fraichement de l’exil et commençaient les procédures de recherche d’emploi, ce qui probablement aura fait peur aux cadres du FPR dont la plupart étaient littéralement incompétents.
Voila, d'autres détails pourraient arriver ultérieurement, j'essaie de collecter les informations au sujet de nos assassins de Byumba. En l'an 2001, le FPR a incinéré pendant trois jours les restes de plusieurs victimes des massacres du stade de Byumba. Nous n'aurons probablement pas la chance d'enterrer en dignité nos proches massacrés par milliers en 1994 dans la seule commune de Buyoga. La vallée de Shagasha, non loin de la paroisse de Muyanza, est devenue légendaire à la suite du massacre des réfugiés hutu rassemblés pour une réunion par les militaires du FPR.
Ismaïl Mbonigaba
02/6/2009
Tullow to sell 50% stake in Uganda.
The New Vision
2 June 2009
By Ibrahim Kasita
Tullow Oil wants to sell 50% of its stake in the Ugandan oil fields in order to realise optimum production. The Irish-based firm, which is exploring for oil and gas, has three licences on the Ugandan side of the Lake Albert Rift Basin, which can deliver up to one billion barrels of oil.
The discovered oil and gas in the Albertine Graben is about 600 million barrels of oil, an amount considered viable for commercial oil production.
Over 22 oil wells have been confirmed to contain world-class reservoir quality and productivity. The Irish Times quoted Aidan Heavey, the Tullow chief executive officer, as saying: “What we are looking at is bringing in a partner to fund the pipeline.”
Heavey said the first phase would produce around 20,000 barrels of oil per day (bpd), while the next phase would be more expensive and time-consuming since it would require a pipeline.
He said exploration companies rarely take 100% of any licence or interest and usually bring in partners. For Uganda, Tullow decided to keep full ownership in order to move quickly through the exploration phase.
Simon D’Ujanga, the energy state minister, said in an interview on Monday:“We have been having numerous discussions with Tullow. When they bring their proposal, we shall consider it and make a decision.”
The announcement follows a disagreement between the Government and the oil firm, which was threatening to postpone the project indefinitely. The Government wants the oil to be refined locally to satisfy the country’s energy demands and boost the economy. However, Tullow had insisted the oil should be exported to Mombasa for regional and international markets. Also, the Government wants production to start with about 100,000 bpd.
Heavey said Tullow was likely to begin finding a suitable partner next year when production is about to start.
By 31 March, 2009, Tullow had a net debt of £276m (sh993.6b). However, it can borrow up to $2b (sh4,400b) to replace the existing debts and provide future capital commitments, enabling it to continue pursuing its investments plans and long-term strategy.
In January, the group completed a successful share issue and raised £402m (sh1,447.2b).
2 June 2009
By Ibrahim Kasita
Tullow Oil wants to sell 50% of its stake in the Ugandan oil fields in order to realise optimum production. The Irish-based firm, which is exploring for oil and gas, has three licences on the Ugandan side of the Lake Albert Rift Basin, which can deliver up to one billion barrels of oil.
The discovered oil and gas in the Albertine Graben is about 600 million barrels of oil, an amount considered viable for commercial oil production.
Over 22 oil wells have been confirmed to contain world-class reservoir quality and productivity. The Irish Times quoted Aidan Heavey, the Tullow chief executive officer, as saying: “What we are looking at is bringing in a partner to fund the pipeline.”
Heavey said the first phase would produce around 20,000 barrels of oil per day (bpd), while the next phase would be more expensive and time-consuming since it would require a pipeline.
He said exploration companies rarely take 100% of any licence or interest and usually bring in partners. For Uganda, Tullow decided to keep full ownership in order to move quickly through the exploration phase.
Simon D’Ujanga, the energy state minister, said in an interview on Monday:“We have been having numerous discussions with Tullow. When they bring their proposal, we shall consider it and make a decision.”
The announcement follows a disagreement between the Government and the oil firm, which was threatening to postpone the project indefinitely. The Government wants the oil to be refined locally to satisfy the country’s energy demands and boost the economy. However, Tullow had insisted the oil should be exported to Mombasa for regional and international markets. Also, the Government wants production to start with about 100,000 bpd.
Heavey said Tullow was likely to begin finding a suitable partner next year when production is about to start.
By 31 March, 2009, Tullow had a net debt of £276m (sh993.6b). However, it can borrow up to $2b (sh4,400b) to replace the existing debts and provide future capital commitments, enabling it to continue pursuing its investments plans and long-term strategy.
In January, the group completed a successful share issue and raised £402m (sh1,447.2b).
Sudan Seeks Foreign Blocks, Plans to Double Oil Ouput by 2015.
by Tahani Karrar
Dow Jones Newswires 6/2/2009
URL: http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=76732
Sudan is aiming to double its current oil production by 2015 and has started talks to acquire exploration and production rights in foreign blocks in Indonesia, Sudan's national oil company head said Tuesday.
"Sudan is currently producing more than 500,000 barrels a day and that is from only 20% of the sedimentary basins. There is still 80% of the basins to be explored," Salah Wahbi, Chief Executive of Sudan Petroleum Corp., or Sudapet, told Zawya Dow Jones in an interview.
"We are expecting within five to seven years from now to produce about one million barrels a day," he added.
Sudapet is also considering further cooperation with other national oil companies, in particular expansion to overseas oilfields, after being approached by Indonesia's Petramina to do an oilfield swap.
"About five weeks ago the Indonesian's proposed we acquire some of their blocks in Indonesia and they acquire more blocks in Sudan so they can strengthen their presence in Sudan," Wahbi said, adding the companies have started talks and a top delegation from Sudapet will be visiting Indonesia in August.
Dow Jones Newswires 6/2/2009
URL: http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=76732
Sudan is aiming to double its current oil production by 2015 and has started talks to acquire exploration and production rights in foreign blocks in Indonesia, Sudan's national oil company head said Tuesday.
"Sudan is currently producing more than 500,000 barrels a day and that is from only 20% of the sedimentary basins. There is still 80% of the basins to be explored," Salah Wahbi, Chief Executive of Sudan Petroleum Corp., or Sudapet, told Zawya Dow Jones in an interview.
"We are expecting within five to seven years from now to produce about one million barrels a day," he added.
Sudapet is also considering further cooperation with other national oil companies, in particular expansion to overseas oilfields, after being approached by Indonesia's Petramina to do an oilfield swap.
"About five weeks ago the Indonesian's proposed we acquire some of their blocks in Indonesia and they acquire more blocks in Sudan so they can strengthen their presence in Sudan," Wahbi said, adding the companies have started talks and a top delegation from Sudapet will be visiting Indonesia in August.
US FORCES APPEAR TO HAVE DEAL TO STAY AT MANAS AIR BASE.
EurasiaNet
2 June 2009
By Deirdre Tynan
Although the Kyrgyz government adamantly denies it, it appears as though US forces will be staying at Manas air base outside Bishkek for at least another year.
President Kurmanbek Bakiyev initiated eviction proceedings against US-led coalition forces based at Manas in early February. Following a parliamentary vote on February 19, US forces were given until August to vacate Manas. But with less than three months to go before the eviction deadline, several indicators suggest US forces will be remaining at the base for the foreseeable future.
On June 1, officials in Bishkek insisted that no lease-extension arrangement had been agreed upon. "The decision on air base has been made. The necessary documents are signed. The air base will be closed," said Almaz Turdumambetov, the head of the President’s press office.
But the US Embassy in Bishkek told EurasiaNet on June 1 the matter is not closed and behind-the-scene talks on the base’s fate never stopped. "We remain in contact with the government of the Kyrgyz Republic on issues surrounding the base," the embassy said in a statement.
Perhaps the clearest indicator that US forces will be staying beyond August is the fact that a series of tenders for base services have recently been issued, calling for contract bids for work starting in July 2009 and running through to June 2010.
In addition, a source at the base said that "absolutely nothing" is being done to wind down operations and that fuel suppliers, who work on a nine month order-to-delivery schedule, have been told to continue with business as normal.
"It’s a clear indication that the Americans are not expecting to leave, unless they [intend on] paying out massive amounts in compensation," he said.
Publicly available tender documents, such as one for a shuttle bus service, issued on May 30 with a June 5 application deadline, clearly state the contract term is from July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2010.
Maj. Damien F. Pickart, head of public affairs at the base, confirmed to EurasiaNet that no work on dismantling the base is underway, and that operations continue without disruption. The facility is "busier than ever," he said.
A source who is familiar with the Kyrgyz government decision-making process added the challenge is now on for President Kurmanbek Bakiyev to spin the American stay at the base to Moscow. Analysts and foreign officials widely believe that Bakiyev acted to close down Manas in exchange for a massive Kremlin aid package. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. Both Bishkek and Moscow deny any quid-pro-quo arrangement.
"It was never about ideology, but always about money," the source said. "We don’t know the exact details of the package Washington is offering yet, but you can be sure that the $30 million improvement to air traffic control at Manas airport is part of it, even though the Kyrgyz keep saying it’s not."
The head of US Central Command, Gen. David Petraeus revealed in January while on an official visit to Bishkek, that more than $150 million from Washington flows into the Kyrgyz budget annually, $63 million of which is directly related to the air base. The US would be willing to part with even more cash for continued rights to Manas, he added.
However, the American contribution to the Kyrgyz purse is dwarfed by Russia’s $2.15 billion in loans and investments announced in early February.
Observers say the pressure on the United States to cough up more cash has been extreme in light of the Obama administration’s intended surge in Afghanistan. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].
Kyrgyz political scientist Nur Omarov told EurasiaNet that the United States is desperate to hang on to Manas, despite their insistence that they have other options in the region. "I heard rumors about an extension from the moment Bakiyev said that the base would be closed. When Barack Obama was running for the presidency he stressed the point that the Afghan factor would be one of the most important [tests of] US foreign policy. Operations in Afghanistan are almost not possible without having use of Manas air base," Omarov said.
For all Washington’s talk of alternatives and the opening of distribution lines for non-military goods from Northern Europe to Afghanistan via Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, Manas remains the air base of choice, Omarov continued. "Creating another base [comparable to Manas] is too expensive and time consuming. The US simply cannot afford to lose it," he added.
2 June 2009
By Deirdre Tynan
Although the Kyrgyz government adamantly denies it, it appears as though US forces will be staying at Manas air base outside Bishkek for at least another year.
President Kurmanbek Bakiyev initiated eviction proceedings against US-led coalition forces based at Manas in early February. Following a parliamentary vote on February 19, US forces were given until August to vacate Manas. But with less than three months to go before the eviction deadline, several indicators suggest US forces will be remaining at the base for the foreseeable future.
On June 1, officials in Bishkek insisted that no lease-extension arrangement had been agreed upon. "The decision on air base has been made. The necessary documents are signed. The air base will be closed," said Almaz Turdumambetov, the head of the President’s press office.
But the US Embassy in Bishkek told EurasiaNet on June 1 the matter is not closed and behind-the-scene talks on the base’s fate never stopped. "We remain in contact with the government of the Kyrgyz Republic on issues surrounding the base," the embassy said in a statement.
Perhaps the clearest indicator that US forces will be staying beyond August is the fact that a series of tenders for base services have recently been issued, calling for contract bids for work starting in July 2009 and running through to June 2010.
In addition, a source at the base said that "absolutely nothing" is being done to wind down operations and that fuel suppliers, who work on a nine month order-to-delivery schedule, have been told to continue with business as normal.
"It’s a clear indication that the Americans are not expecting to leave, unless they [intend on] paying out massive amounts in compensation," he said.
Publicly available tender documents, such as one for a shuttle bus service, issued on May 30 with a June 5 application deadline, clearly state the contract term is from July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2010.
Maj. Damien F. Pickart, head of public affairs at the base, confirmed to EurasiaNet that no work on dismantling the base is underway, and that operations continue without disruption. The facility is "busier than ever," he said.
A source who is familiar with the Kyrgyz government decision-making process added the challenge is now on for President Kurmanbek Bakiyev to spin the American stay at the base to Moscow. Analysts and foreign officials widely believe that Bakiyev acted to close down Manas in exchange for a massive Kremlin aid package. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. Both Bishkek and Moscow deny any quid-pro-quo arrangement.
"It was never about ideology, but always about money," the source said. "We don’t know the exact details of the package Washington is offering yet, but you can be sure that the $30 million improvement to air traffic control at Manas airport is part of it, even though the Kyrgyz keep saying it’s not."
The head of US Central Command, Gen. David Petraeus revealed in January while on an official visit to Bishkek, that more than $150 million from Washington flows into the Kyrgyz budget annually, $63 million of which is directly related to the air base. The US would be willing to part with even more cash for continued rights to Manas, he added.
However, the American contribution to the Kyrgyz purse is dwarfed by Russia’s $2.15 billion in loans and investments announced in early February.
Observers say the pressure on the United States to cough up more cash has been extreme in light of the Obama administration’s intended surge in Afghanistan. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].
Kyrgyz political scientist Nur Omarov told EurasiaNet that the United States is desperate to hang on to Manas, despite their insistence that they have other options in the region. "I heard rumors about an extension from the moment Bakiyev said that the base would be closed. When Barack Obama was running for the presidency he stressed the point that the Afghan factor would be one of the most important [tests of] US foreign policy. Operations in Afghanistan are almost not possible without having use of Manas air base," Omarov said.
For all Washington’s talk of alternatives and the opening of distribution lines for non-military goods from Northern Europe to Afghanistan via Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, Manas remains the air base of choice, Omarov continued. "Creating another base [comparable to Manas] is too expensive and time consuming. The US simply cannot afford to lose it," he added.
Rwanda Tribunal Must Prosecute RPF/A War Crimes.
For Immediate Release
June 1, 2009
More than 70 scholars and human rights advocates issued a joint letter today calling on the United Nations Secretary General, the US President, and the UK Prime Minister to ensure that the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) fulfils its mandate by prosecuting soldiers of the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) who committed crimes against humanity and war crimes in Rwanda during 1994.
On June 4, 2009, the ICTR Prosecutor is due to address the United Nations Security Council about the Tribunal's completion strategy. This represents the last chance for the Prosecutor to announce RPF indictments before the end of year deadline for completing all trials.
The ICTR is to be commended for vigorously prosecuting numerous perpetrators of the 1994 genocide. Yet, despite the UN's insistence on impartial justice for all international crimes committed in Rwanda in 1994, the ICTR has failed to indict a single RPF soldier for killing civilians during that period. Such one-sided justice stands in sharp contrast to the impartial justice achieved by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and the Special Court for Sierra Leone, which have resolutely prosecuted all sides of those conflicts.
Unless the Prosecutor acts swiftly to announce indictments, the ICTR will squander not only its last chance to provide accountability for those serious crimes, but also its legitimacy. This would cause the Tribunal to be dismissed as “victor's justice,” set a dangerous precedent for future international prosecutions, and undermine efforts at achieving peace, security, and reconciliation in Rwanda and the Great Lakes region as a whole.
Media Contacts
Professor Victor Peskin, Arizona State University,
Author, International Justice in Rwanda and the Balkans: Virtual Trials and the Struggle for State Cooperation
US Cell: (001) 510-847-4743
Email: Victor.Peskin@asu.edu
Professor Nigel Eltringham, University of Sussex, UK
Author, Accounting for Horror: Post-Genocide Debates in Rwanda
UK Cell: (44) 07976841230
Email: npeltringham@sussex.ac.uk
June 1, 2009
More than 70 scholars and human rights advocates issued a joint letter today calling on the United Nations Secretary General, the US President, and the UK Prime Minister to ensure that the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) fulfils its mandate by prosecuting soldiers of the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) who committed crimes against humanity and war crimes in Rwanda during 1994.
On June 4, 2009, the ICTR Prosecutor is due to address the United Nations Security Council about the Tribunal's completion strategy. This represents the last chance for the Prosecutor to announce RPF indictments before the end of year deadline for completing all trials.
The ICTR is to be commended for vigorously prosecuting numerous perpetrators of the 1994 genocide. Yet, despite the UN's insistence on impartial justice for all international crimes committed in Rwanda in 1994, the ICTR has failed to indict a single RPF soldier for killing civilians during that period. Such one-sided justice stands in sharp contrast to the impartial justice achieved by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and the Special Court for Sierra Leone, which have resolutely prosecuted all sides of those conflicts.
Unless the Prosecutor acts swiftly to announce indictments, the ICTR will squander not only its last chance to provide accountability for those serious crimes, but also its legitimacy. This would cause the Tribunal to be dismissed as “victor's justice,” set a dangerous precedent for future international prosecutions, and undermine efforts at achieving peace, security, and reconciliation in Rwanda and the Great Lakes region as a whole.
Media Contacts
Professor Victor Peskin, Arizona State University,
Author, International Justice in Rwanda and the Balkans: Virtual Trials and the Struggle for State Cooperation
US Cell: (001) 510-847-4743
Email: Victor.Peskin@asu.edu
Professor Nigel Eltringham, University of Sussex, UK
Author, Accounting for Horror: Post-Genocide Debates in Rwanda
UK Cell: (44) 07976841230
Email: npeltringham@sussex.ac.uk
Iraqi lawmakers demand halt to Kuwait reparations.
AFP
1 June 2009
Iraqi MPs on Monday urged a halt to reparation payments to Kuwait for Saddam Hussein's 1990 occupation, with some wanting the emirate to compensate Iraq for its role in the US-led 2003 invasion.
"We request a parliamentary debate to seek financial compensation from Kuwait for having allowed American forces to use its territory for the attack on Iraq and to cause damage and destruction here," Sunni MP Ezzedine al-Dawla of the National Concord Front said.
Kurdish MP Mahmud Othman said Iraq "cannot accept the new border with Kuwait because it was imposed on us" by the United Nations in 1991 after Saddam's forces were driven out of Kuwait.
A senior Kuwaiti official last week called on Iraq to implement UN resolutions before the lifting of sanctions in place since 1990.
"We understand the Iraqi desire to exit from Chapter 7," Kuwaiti foreign ministry undersecretary Khaled al-Jarallah was quoted as saying by Al-Qabas newspaper.
"But there are obligations (on Iraq) and outstanding issues that are illogical to be left unresolved," he added.
The binding Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, which is invoked in case of threats to international peace and security, can open the door to sanctions or even military action.
Kuwaiti officials said in April that Iraq still owes the oil-rich emirate 25.5 billion dollars in reparations for its seven-month occupation of the country under the regime of executed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.
In addition, Kuwait says Baghdad owes the emirate around 16 billion dollars in debt from loans to Saddam during Baghdad's eight-year war with Iran.
Iraq is required to put five percent of its oil revenues into a fund created by the UN Security Council to finance the reparations.
Up to April, the UN fund had received claims worth 368 billion dollars and had approved payment of just over 52 billion dollars, based on figures from the fund and Kuwait.
The fund paid out almost 27 billion dollars to claimants up to the end of January, according to figures posted on the fund's website.
Kuwait's stance has irked Iraqi MPs across parliament.
"All parliamentary blocs agreed to open the files with Kuwait and to cancel the compensation as a reply to the Kuwaiti attitude," said Jaber Habib Jaber, vice-president of a parliamentary bloc of independent MPs.
"Kuwait's attitude was a negative change," he said.
The UN Security Council imposed crippling sanctions on Baghdad after Saddam's forces invaded Kuwait on August 2, 1990.
Some were lifted in the wake of the US-led invasion but an arms embargo and financial restrictions remain.
Iraq has been urging the Security Council to lift the remaining sanctions, particularly those concerning war reparations.
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said during a visit to Baghdad in February that the United Nations is considering scrapping all sanctions, with the Security Council due to conduct a review in June.
1 June 2009
Iraqi MPs on Monday urged a halt to reparation payments to Kuwait for Saddam Hussein's 1990 occupation, with some wanting the emirate to compensate Iraq for its role in the US-led 2003 invasion.
"We request a parliamentary debate to seek financial compensation from Kuwait for having allowed American forces to use its territory for the attack on Iraq and to cause damage and destruction here," Sunni MP Ezzedine al-Dawla of the National Concord Front said.
Kurdish MP Mahmud Othman said Iraq "cannot accept the new border with Kuwait because it was imposed on us" by the United Nations in 1991 after Saddam's forces were driven out of Kuwait.
A senior Kuwaiti official last week called on Iraq to implement UN resolutions before the lifting of sanctions in place since 1990.
"We understand the Iraqi desire to exit from Chapter 7," Kuwaiti foreign ministry undersecretary Khaled al-Jarallah was quoted as saying by Al-Qabas newspaper.
"But there are obligations (on Iraq) and outstanding issues that are illogical to be left unresolved," he added.
The binding Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, which is invoked in case of threats to international peace and security, can open the door to sanctions or even military action.
Kuwaiti officials said in April that Iraq still owes the oil-rich emirate 25.5 billion dollars in reparations for its seven-month occupation of the country under the regime of executed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.
In addition, Kuwait says Baghdad owes the emirate around 16 billion dollars in debt from loans to Saddam during Baghdad's eight-year war with Iran.
Iraq is required to put five percent of its oil revenues into a fund created by the UN Security Council to finance the reparations.
Up to April, the UN fund had received claims worth 368 billion dollars and had approved payment of just over 52 billion dollars, based on figures from the fund and Kuwait.
The fund paid out almost 27 billion dollars to claimants up to the end of January, according to figures posted on the fund's website.
Kuwait's stance has irked Iraqi MPs across parliament.
"All parliamentary blocs agreed to open the files with Kuwait and to cancel the compensation as a reply to the Kuwaiti attitude," said Jaber Habib Jaber, vice-president of a parliamentary bloc of independent MPs.
"Kuwait's attitude was a negative change," he said.
The UN Security Council imposed crippling sanctions on Baghdad after Saddam's forces invaded Kuwait on August 2, 1990.
Some were lifted in the wake of the US-led invasion but an arms embargo and financial restrictions remain.
Iraq has been urging the Security Council to lift the remaining sanctions, particularly those concerning war reparations.
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said during a visit to Baghdad in February that the United Nations is considering scrapping all sanctions, with the Security Council due to conduct a review in June.
Britain sold weapons to help Sri Lankan army defeat Tamil Tigers.
The Times
2 June 2009
By Jeremy Page, South Asia Correspondent
Britain and other EU countries sold military equipment worth millions of pounds to the Sri Lankan Government in the last three years of its bloody civil war with the Tamil Tigers, The Times has learnt.
Britain approved commercial sales of more than £13.6 million of equipment including armoured vehicles, machinegun components and semiautomatic pistols, according to official records.
Slovakia provided 10,000 rockets worth £1.1 million, while Bulgaria approved sales of guns and ammunition worth £1.75 million, according to EU documents and officials.
It is impossible to verify whether all the approved sales were delivered as the governments involved do not publish those details. Only Slovakia has confirmed delivery of the rockets.
The approval of the sales still raises the question of whether weapons from the EU were used in the last five months of Sri Lanka’s 26-year civil war, during which UN officials estimate that 20,000 civilians were killed.
“I think we need answers about what these were used for,” said Mike Gapes, a Labour MP who chairs the Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee and is a member of the Committee on Arms Export Controls.
The sales were cleared despite the 1998 EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports, which restricts transfers to countries facing internal conflicts or with poor human rights records and a history of violating international law.
They were approved while the EU called for peace talks in Sri Lanka, saying that it did not support a military solution, and expressing concerns about human rights abuses after the collapse of a 2002 ceasefire.
The US also sold Sri Lanka millions of pounds of military equipment in 2006-07 but suspended all military aid and sales early last year because of concerns about alleged rights abuses.
British MPs and MEPs, as well as activists against the arms trade, said that the EU should have done the same as early as 2006, when the ceasefire began to unravel.
“The EU had an obligation not to supply these things,” said Malcolm Bruce, a Liberal Democrat MP who visited Sri Lanka last month. “There were too many unanswered questions. With hindsight, Britain’s sales did violate the EU code of conduct.”
John Battle, a Labour MP, former Foreign and Commonwealth Office minister and now a member of the Committee on Arms Export Controls, said: “We should have been sharper off the mark and so should the EU.”
He called for an immediate suspension of EU arms sales to Sri Lanka until it lifted all restrictions on journalists and aid workers.
Several MPs and MEPs also called for the EU code of conduct, which became legally binding on December 8, to be strengthened to ensure consistency and transparency across the 27 member states.
The code says: “Member states will not allow exports which would provoke or prolong armed conflicts.” It also says that member states should “not issue an export licence if there is a clear risk that the proposed export might be used for internal repression”.
Until December 8, however, it was up to member states to decide whether the criteria applied to any given arms sale.
Slovakia said that its rocket deal was justified because there was no UN arms embargo on Sri Lanka, the island had a right to defend itself and the Tigers were banned in the EU as a terrorist organisation.
Britain disputed Slovakia’s position at the time but approved its own arms sales out of concern that countries, such as China, would take its place.
Arms deals
Arms sales approved by the British Government include:
2008 £4 million of equipment including military sonar detection items and components; components for aircraft military communications equipment and military communications equipment
2007 £1 million of equipment including ejector seats, grenades, ground vehicle military communications equipment, military parachutes
2006 £8.6 million of equipment including 50 semi-automatic pistols, components for combat aircraft, military aircraft communications equipment, armoured all-wheel-drive vehicles, components for general purpose and heavy machineguns, small arms ammunition.
2 June 2009
By Jeremy Page, South Asia Correspondent
Britain and other EU countries sold military equipment worth millions of pounds to the Sri Lankan Government in the last three years of its bloody civil war with the Tamil Tigers, The Times has learnt.
Britain approved commercial sales of more than £13.6 million of equipment including armoured vehicles, machinegun components and semiautomatic pistols, according to official records.
Slovakia provided 10,000 rockets worth £1.1 million, while Bulgaria approved sales of guns and ammunition worth £1.75 million, according to EU documents and officials.
It is impossible to verify whether all the approved sales were delivered as the governments involved do not publish those details. Only Slovakia has confirmed delivery of the rockets.
The approval of the sales still raises the question of whether weapons from the EU were used in the last five months of Sri Lanka’s 26-year civil war, during which UN officials estimate that 20,000 civilians were killed.
“I think we need answers about what these were used for,” said Mike Gapes, a Labour MP who chairs the Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee and is a member of the Committee on Arms Export Controls.
The sales were cleared despite the 1998 EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports, which restricts transfers to countries facing internal conflicts or with poor human rights records and a history of violating international law.
They were approved while the EU called for peace talks in Sri Lanka, saying that it did not support a military solution, and expressing concerns about human rights abuses after the collapse of a 2002 ceasefire.
The US also sold Sri Lanka millions of pounds of military equipment in 2006-07 but suspended all military aid and sales early last year because of concerns about alleged rights abuses.
British MPs and MEPs, as well as activists against the arms trade, said that the EU should have done the same as early as 2006, when the ceasefire began to unravel.
“The EU had an obligation not to supply these things,” said Malcolm Bruce, a Liberal Democrat MP who visited Sri Lanka last month. “There were too many unanswered questions. With hindsight, Britain’s sales did violate the EU code of conduct.”
John Battle, a Labour MP, former Foreign and Commonwealth Office minister and now a member of the Committee on Arms Export Controls, said: “We should have been sharper off the mark and so should the EU.”
He called for an immediate suspension of EU arms sales to Sri Lanka until it lifted all restrictions on journalists and aid workers.
Several MPs and MEPs also called for the EU code of conduct, which became legally binding on December 8, to be strengthened to ensure consistency and transparency across the 27 member states.
The code says: “Member states will not allow exports which would provoke or prolong armed conflicts.” It also says that member states should “not issue an export licence if there is a clear risk that the proposed export might be used for internal repression”.
Until December 8, however, it was up to member states to decide whether the criteria applied to any given arms sale.
Slovakia said that its rocket deal was justified because there was no UN arms embargo on Sri Lanka, the island had a right to defend itself and the Tigers were banned in the EU as a terrorist organisation.
Britain disputed Slovakia’s position at the time but approved its own arms sales out of concern that countries, such as China, would take its place.
Arms deals
Arms sales approved by the British Government include:
2008 £4 million of equipment including military sonar detection items and components; components for aircraft military communications equipment and military communications equipment
2007 £1 million of equipment including ejector seats, grenades, ground vehicle military communications equipment, military parachutes
2006 £8.6 million of equipment including 50 semi-automatic pistols, components for combat aircraft, military aircraft communications equipment, armoured all-wheel-drive vehicles, components for general purpose and heavy machineguns, small arms ammunition.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
