Sudan Tribune
20 June 2009
The Ugandan president Yoweri Museveni appeared to be pointing blame to Khartoum over the violence in Sudan’s Western region of Darfur, according to New Vision news portal.
Uganda’s President Yoweri Museveni (Reuters) Museveni speaking from Germany where he is on an official visit said that the international community needs to take tough measures against the perpetrators of violence in Darfur.
“Darfur is a real problem to Africa; the international community must find a quick solution. Africans are being displaced from their land,” Museveni said.
He also called for an end to ‘Arab chauvinism against African sovereignty’ in Sudan.
The Ugandan head of state made the remarks during his meeting with Germany’s subcommittee on East Africa.
It is not clear what prompted Museveni’s strong remarks. His government backed the African Union (AU) position against the arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC) against Sudanese president Omer Hassan Al-Bashir.
However, Uganda’s position on the issue appeared ambiguous as Museveni said last March that he wants neither to “condemn Bashir” nor “condone his actions”.
He reiterated his position in Germany today saying that African leaders are not dismissing ICC accusations against Bashir but waiting on a report from a panel the AU established last February to look into ways to balance accountability with peace in Darfur.
The Ugandan president stressed that Africans are fair people who do not rush to judge others before hearing from both sides.
He revealed that he raised the Darfur issue during a meeting during the COMESA summit in Zimbabwe.
New Vision quoted Museveni as assuring the committee that a solution can be found for Darfur but that “Arabs should stop their hegemony over the Africans”.
Editor's Note: By criticizing the Khartoum Government and playing the pan-African card, Pres. Museveni is trying to save face with the western backers who oppose the Khartoum Government and have helped sustain his regime since he took power in 1986 and allied African states. At the same time, it keeps him aligned with the South Sudanese he has supported for so long. President Museveni went to school with the late SPLA/M founder John Garang at the University of Dar es Salaam. During the North-South civil war in Sudan, Ugandan soldiers armed, trained, and allowed the SPLA to utilize territory in northern Uganda as a rear base for operations and conducting business. To retaliate, Khartoum supported the LRA for a time until Operation Iron Fist I was launched in 2002. South Sudan, which is expected to vote for secession and independence in 2011, will seek to quickly integrate itself into the East African regional economic framework. Good relations with Uganda and Kenya in particular will be crucial not only for initial economic security (providing larger markets, access to ports via Kenya, shared infrastructure like roadways, encouraging private business investment within the region,etc.), but provide opportunities to expand existing economic initiatives into South Sudan in the future as it develops.
Recently, Uganda announced that Iran would fund the entire value chain of Uganda’s oil production and called on Chinese investors to set up an oil refinery and a pipeline from Western Uganda. By aligning himself with Iran and China in energy policy, President Museveni may have created a political dilemna for his administration. Uganda's oil reserves, which have far exceeded expectations, are highly sought after by the West. By pandering to the anti-Khartoum position, President Museveni is likely expecting to tip the political scale between Uganda's traditional backers and their recent business partners back towards the midpoint balance of power. We will see if this gesture is enough.
20 June, 2009
Former Prosecutor’s Spokeswoman Goes on Trial for Contempt.
IWPR
By Simon Jennings in The Hague
(TU No 606, 19-June-09)
A French journalist went on trial this week charged with disclosing confidential material from the Hague tribunal, with her defence seeking to challenge the confidential nature of the information she had published and invoking her right to freedom of expression.
Florence Hartmann is facing trial at the very court that employed her from 1999 until 2006 - as spokeswoman for the former chief prosecutor, Carla Del Ponte - on two counts of contempt of court for disclosing the contents of confidential decisions made by appeals judges during the trial of the late Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic.
According to an amended order in lieu of an indictment issued on October 28, 2008, Hartmann revealed information in her book - Paix et châtiment (Peace and Punishment) - published on September 10, 2007, about two separate appeals chamber decisions of September 20, 2005 and April 6, 2006 “including the contents and purported effects of these decisions, as well as specific reference to the confidential nature of these decisions”.
Milosevic faced trial at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, ICTY, for war crimes in Bosnia, Croatia and Kosovo, but he died in his cell in March 2006 before proceedings could be completed.
Hartmann, who was first charged on August 27, 2008, is also accused of revealing details of the same two decisions in an article, Vital Genocide Documents Concealed, published on the website of the Bosnian Institute on January 21, 2008.
As suggested by the evidence presented in court, the decisions relate to the granting of confidentiality to minutes of meetings of Serbia’s Supreme Defence Council, SDC, which are widely believed to contain crucial information about Belgrade’s involvement in the Yugoslav wars, and particularly the 1995 massacre of approximately 8,000 Bosniak men and boys at Srebrenica.
The prosecution took the position this week - in what it called “a relatively straightforward case” - that Hartmann was mindful of her actions and purposefully undertook to publish confidential details of the judges’ decisions.
“The case will demonstrate that the steps taken by the accused and the words she used and the comments she used in her publications were not mere inadvertence, were not an accident, they were deliberate,” Canadian prosecutor Bruce McFarlane told the court in his opening statement on June 15.
Hartmann’s own words “were a statement of defiance”, he claimed.
However, one of Hartmann’s lawyers, Karim Khan, argued that his client was not guilty of any intentional transgression as other journalists had quoted “exactly the same facts” included in his client’s book.
He presented judges with several articles published by IWPR which have discussed Serbia’s and the court’s handling of the SDC documents.
He said that by the end of the case “the prosecutor would have singularly failed in his responsibility to prove a guilty mind which it is his burden to do”.
It emerged in court this week that Hartmann received a warning from the court’s registrar, following the publication of her 2007 book, about the disclosure of classified information.
According to McFarlane, the court registry sent the cautionary letter to Hartmann on October 19, 2007. That date followed the publication of her book but preceded the publication of the article on January 21, 2008 which has also triggered the charges.
The defence disputed the prosecution’s submission of the letter into evidence on the grounds that it had not been forewarned by the prosecution. However, further discussion of the document and whether to admit it in evidence was conducted in private session.
The prosecution called two witnesses in the presentation of it case. The first was Yorric Kermarrec of the French publishing house Flammarion, which published Hartmann’s book in 2007. Kermarrec testified about the publishing agreement Flammarion had signed with Hartmann and said that the publisher had trusted the author when it came to the lawfulness of the content of the book.
McFarlane also called Robin Vincent, the registrar of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon, recently established in The Hague, to testify about the importance of respecting judges’ confidentiality orders, particularly in relation to states supplying evidence to international courts.
Vincent told judges that breaches of such confidentiality orders could threaten states’ levels of cooperation with the tribunal.
“If there is any lack of confidence in the tribunal so far as a state is concerned that is in a position to provide evidence… once it’s recognised there is a danger of breaches it’s unlikely that the cooperation that tribunal seeks will actually be forthcoming,” Vincent said.
In its cross-examination of Vincent, the Hartmann defence sought to play down the binding nature of orders granting confidentiality to the decisions, while also advancing its argument that the “tribunal made these facts public” in previous decisions issued by its own judges.
Khan took Vincent through a number of decisions of ICTY judges that cited the existence of the confidential decisions in the Milosevic trial, allegedly discussed by Hartmann, as a supporting legal argument.
Vincent agreed with Khan that “there is nothing unusual” about judges citing confidential decisions in public filings.
However, the presiding judge, Bakone Maloto, sought to establish from Vincent what he thought confidentiality orders issued by judges were actually protecting - either the existence of a particular decision or the contents of that decision.
“The contents of the decision,” Vincent said.
Khan further warned judges that convicting Hartmann of contempt would be tantamount to limiting freedom of expression that was a necessary contribution to international justice.
“In your powers to fulfil the overall mandate [of the tribunal] it is critical not to over extend the parameters of criminal responsibility so that they would stymie the freedom of speech that is needed,” Khan told judges.
The defence called a former member of the United Nations Sub-Commission on Human Rights, Louis Joinet, whose work and recommendations in the field of human rights helped lead to the establishment of the tribunal in 1993.
Joinet told judges that enforcing the confidentiality of decisions such as those published by Hartmann and limiting the right to freedom of expression should be an exception rather than the rule in judicial procedure. He said there was a principle of proportionality involved in determining the need to limit the right of freedom of expression against the court’s function of establishing the truth.
“[Limitations] are acceptable up to the moment they would end up impeding justice to look for the truth which is [the tribunal’s] final objective,” Joinet told the court.
The defence also called the director of the Humanitarian Law Center in Belgrade, Natasha Kandic, to give evidence. She testified that Hartmann’s book did not reveal any information that was not already being discussed by the media and the human rights community in relation to Serbia’s involvement in the war and particularly in the Srebrenica massacre.
Kandic said that it was the SDC documents that Serbia wanted to remain confidential rather than the actual decision granting their confidentiality, explaining that Serbia had sought confidentiality in order to defend itself from the accusation by Bosnia at the International Court of Justice, ICJ, that it had participated in the Srebrenica genocide. In February 2007, the ICJ did not find Serbia accountable for the genocide in Srebrenica.
The prosecution’s cross-examination of Kandic, which was largely in closed session, was not completed in the three scheduled hearings this week. Due to a congested schedule of cases at the court, the trial was adjourned until July 1 when the proceedings against Hartmann are expected to be completed.
By Simon Jennings in The Hague
(TU No 606, 19-June-09)
A French journalist went on trial this week charged with disclosing confidential material from the Hague tribunal, with her defence seeking to challenge the confidential nature of the information she had published and invoking her right to freedom of expression.
Florence Hartmann is facing trial at the very court that employed her from 1999 until 2006 - as spokeswoman for the former chief prosecutor, Carla Del Ponte - on two counts of contempt of court for disclosing the contents of confidential decisions made by appeals judges during the trial of the late Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic.
According to an amended order in lieu of an indictment issued on October 28, 2008, Hartmann revealed information in her book - Paix et châtiment (Peace and Punishment) - published on September 10, 2007, about two separate appeals chamber decisions of September 20, 2005 and April 6, 2006 “including the contents and purported effects of these decisions, as well as specific reference to the confidential nature of these decisions”.
Milosevic faced trial at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, ICTY, for war crimes in Bosnia, Croatia and Kosovo, but he died in his cell in March 2006 before proceedings could be completed.
Hartmann, who was first charged on August 27, 2008, is also accused of revealing details of the same two decisions in an article, Vital Genocide Documents Concealed, published on the website of the Bosnian Institute on January 21, 2008.
As suggested by the evidence presented in court, the decisions relate to the granting of confidentiality to minutes of meetings of Serbia’s Supreme Defence Council, SDC, which are widely believed to contain crucial information about Belgrade’s involvement in the Yugoslav wars, and particularly the 1995 massacre of approximately 8,000 Bosniak men and boys at Srebrenica.
The prosecution took the position this week - in what it called “a relatively straightforward case” - that Hartmann was mindful of her actions and purposefully undertook to publish confidential details of the judges’ decisions.
“The case will demonstrate that the steps taken by the accused and the words she used and the comments she used in her publications were not mere inadvertence, were not an accident, they were deliberate,” Canadian prosecutor Bruce McFarlane told the court in his opening statement on June 15.
Hartmann’s own words “were a statement of defiance”, he claimed.
However, one of Hartmann’s lawyers, Karim Khan, argued that his client was not guilty of any intentional transgression as other journalists had quoted “exactly the same facts” included in his client’s book.
He presented judges with several articles published by IWPR which have discussed Serbia’s and the court’s handling of the SDC documents.
He said that by the end of the case “the prosecutor would have singularly failed in his responsibility to prove a guilty mind which it is his burden to do”.
It emerged in court this week that Hartmann received a warning from the court’s registrar, following the publication of her 2007 book, about the disclosure of classified information.
According to McFarlane, the court registry sent the cautionary letter to Hartmann on October 19, 2007. That date followed the publication of her book but preceded the publication of the article on January 21, 2008 which has also triggered the charges.
The defence disputed the prosecution’s submission of the letter into evidence on the grounds that it had not been forewarned by the prosecution. However, further discussion of the document and whether to admit it in evidence was conducted in private session.
The prosecution called two witnesses in the presentation of it case. The first was Yorric Kermarrec of the French publishing house Flammarion, which published Hartmann’s book in 2007. Kermarrec testified about the publishing agreement Flammarion had signed with Hartmann and said that the publisher had trusted the author when it came to the lawfulness of the content of the book.
McFarlane also called Robin Vincent, the registrar of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon, recently established in The Hague, to testify about the importance of respecting judges’ confidentiality orders, particularly in relation to states supplying evidence to international courts.
Vincent told judges that breaches of such confidentiality orders could threaten states’ levels of cooperation with the tribunal.
“If there is any lack of confidence in the tribunal so far as a state is concerned that is in a position to provide evidence… once it’s recognised there is a danger of breaches it’s unlikely that the cooperation that tribunal seeks will actually be forthcoming,” Vincent said.
In its cross-examination of Vincent, the Hartmann defence sought to play down the binding nature of orders granting confidentiality to the decisions, while also advancing its argument that the “tribunal made these facts public” in previous decisions issued by its own judges.
Khan took Vincent through a number of decisions of ICTY judges that cited the existence of the confidential decisions in the Milosevic trial, allegedly discussed by Hartmann, as a supporting legal argument.
Vincent agreed with Khan that “there is nothing unusual” about judges citing confidential decisions in public filings.
However, the presiding judge, Bakone Maloto, sought to establish from Vincent what he thought confidentiality orders issued by judges were actually protecting - either the existence of a particular decision or the contents of that decision.
“The contents of the decision,” Vincent said.
Khan further warned judges that convicting Hartmann of contempt would be tantamount to limiting freedom of expression that was a necessary contribution to international justice.
“In your powers to fulfil the overall mandate [of the tribunal] it is critical not to over extend the parameters of criminal responsibility so that they would stymie the freedom of speech that is needed,” Khan told judges.
The defence called a former member of the United Nations Sub-Commission on Human Rights, Louis Joinet, whose work and recommendations in the field of human rights helped lead to the establishment of the tribunal in 1993.
Joinet told judges that enforcing the confidentiality of decisions such as those published by Hartmann and limiting the right to freedom of expression should be an exception rather than the rule in judicial procedure. He said there was a principle of proportionality involved in determining the need to limit the right of freedom of expression against the court’s function of establishing the truth.
“[Limitations] are acceptable up to the moment they would end up impeding justice to look for the truth which is [the tribunal’s] final objective,” Joinet told the court.
The defence also called the director of the Humanitarian Law Center in Belgrade, Natasha Kandic, to give evidence. She testified that Hartmann’s book did not reveal any information that was not already being discussed by the media and the human rights community in relation to Serbia’s involvement in the war and particularly in the Srebrenica massacre.
Kandic said that it was the SDC documents that Serbia wanted to remain confidential rather than the actual decision granting their confidentiality, explaining that Serbia had sought confidentiality in order to defend itself from the accusation by Bosnia at the International Court of Justice, ICJ, that it had participated in the Srebrenica genocide. In February 2007, the ICJ did not find Serbia accountable for the genocide in Srebrenica.
The prosecution’s cross-examination of Kandic, which was largely in closed session, was not completed in the three scheduled hearings this week. Due to a congested schedule of cases at the court, the trial was adjourned until July 1 when the proceedings against Hartmann are expected to be completed.
Lawmakers criticize federal insurance program for wartime contractors.
LA Times
By T. Christian Miller
June 19, 2009
Reporting from Washington — Lawmakers on Thursday sharply criticized a federal program that relies on private insurance companies to provide medical care and benefits to civilians injured while working in support of the U.S. military effort in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Members of a House subcommittee charged that the insurance firms had exploited the taxpayer-supported program to reap enormous profits while shortchanging workers.
"We've got to straighten out this mess and we're going to do that," said Rep. Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md).
Testifying before a panel of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, insurance executives, injured civilians and Obama administration officials all agreed that the program, created in 1941, is inadequate to meet the demands of modern-day warfare.
The Defense Base Act, a World War II-era law, requires federal contractors to purchase workers' compensation insurance for civilians working overseas. Taxpayers pay the premiums, which are built into contract costs.
The program grew dramatically after the U.S. sent tens of thousands of civilians into war zones in Iraq and Afghanistan. More than 1,500 civilian workers have died in the two countries, and more than 31,000 have reported injuries.
Injured workers testified Thursday that they had to fight insurers for months and sometimes years to receive medical care. The hearing included dramatic moments when workers confronted insurance executives sitting beside them.
John Woodson, 51, a truck driver from Oklahoma who lost a leg and most of his vision to a roadside bomb in Iraq, held up a magnifying glass and said American International Group Inc. had challenged his doctor's recommendation for prescription glasses.
"I ask why? Where has the oversight been? Who is in charge of this operation?" Woodson said.
Kevin Smith, 39, a Texas truck driver who was injured in a shooting in Iraq, said he struggled to persuade AIG to approve treatment for post-traumatic stress syndrome.
"We're not asking for millions in bonuses or lavish parties or even parades," Smith said. "We want what we're entitled to."
The hearing was prompted by an April report by the Los Angeles Times, ABC News and ProPublica.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt) said he was outraged by evidence that insurers made windfall profits. Chicago-based CNA Financial Corp. earned as much as 50% profit on some of its war-zone policies, according to company records submitted to the subcommittee.
"What we're looking at is a horrendous situation," Sanders said. "There has been huge wartime profiteering."
Insurance executives said they had done their best to dispense benefits fairly under challenging conditions.
Charles Schader, AIG's president of worldwide claims operations, said his firm had increased its claims-handling staff from five to 70 people over the last seven years. AIG holds a near-monopoly on the war-zone insurance, handling about 85% of all claims.
"We do agree that there are many changes in this system that would help in administration and provide a better product," Schader said. "I want to make it very clear . . . that we really do owe [civilian workers] a debt. This is not anything vindictive or a corporate policy of denial."
George R. Fay, executive vice president of CNA Financial Corp., said his firm had worked hard to make sure that injured civilians received medical care and benefits.
But Fay, a retired Army Reserve general who served in Iraq, said the law required payment for injuries within 14 days, forcing carriers to issue denials to protect their legal rights.
"A regulatory scheme that creates such incentives can only produce unintended and sometimes tragic results," Fay said.
t.christian.miller@ propublica.org
This report is published in cooperation with ProPublica, an independent investigative newsroom.
By T. Christian Miller
June 19, 2009
Reporting from Washington — Lawmakers on Thursday sharply criticized a federal program that relies on private insurance companies to provide medical care and benefits to civilians injured while working in support of the U.S. military effort in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Members of a House subcommittee charged that the insurance firms had exploited the taxpayer-supported program to reap enormous profits while shortchanging workers.
"We've got to straighten out this mess and we're going to do that," said Rep. Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md).
Testifying before a panel of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, insurance executives, injured civilians and Obama administration officials all agreed that the program, created in 1941, is inadequate to meet the demands of modern-day warfare.
The Defense Base Act, a World War II-era law, requires federal contractors to purchase workers' compensation insurance for civilians working overseas. Taxpayers pay the premiums, which are built into contract costs.
The program grew dramatically after the U.S. sent tens of thousands of civilians into war zones in Iraq and Afghanistan. More than 1,500 civilian workers have died in the two countries, and more than 31,000 have reported injuries.
Injured workers testified Thursday that they had to fight insurers for months and sometimes years to receive medical care. The hearing included dramatic moments when workers confronted insurance executives sitting beside them.
John Woodson, 51, a truck driver from Oklahoma who lost a leg and most of his vision to a roadside bomb in Iraq, held up a magnifying glass and said American International Group Inc. had challenged his doctor's recommendation for prescription glasses.
"I ask why? Where has the oversight been? Who is in charge of this operation?" Woodson said.
Kevin Smith, 39, a Texas truck driver who was injured in a shooting in Iraq, said he struggled to persuade AIG to approve treatment for post-traumatic stress syndrome.
"We're not asking for millions in bonuses or lavish parties or even parades," Smith said. "We want what we're entitled to."
The hearing was prompted by an April report by the Los Angeles Times, ABC News and ProPublica.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt) said he was outraged by evidence that insurers made windfall profits. Chicago-based CNA Financial Corp. earned as much as 50% profit on some of its war-zone policies, according to company records submitted to the subcommittee.
"What we're looking at is a horrendous situation," Sanders said. "There has been huge wartime profiteering."
Insurance executives said they had done their best to dispense benefits fairly under challenging conditions.
Charles Schader, AIG's president of worldwide claims operations, said his firm had increased its claims-handling staff from five to 70 people over the last seven years. AIG holds a near-monopoly on the war-zone insurance, handling about 85% of all claims.
"We do agree that there are many changes in this system that would help in administration and provide a better product," Schader said. "I want to make it very clear . . . that we really do owe [civilian workers] a debt. This is not anything vindictive or a corporate policy of denial."
George R. Fay, executive vice president of CNA Financial Corp., said his firm had worked hard to make sure that injured civilians received medical care and benefits.
But Fay, a retired Army Reserve general who served in Iraq, said the law required payment for injuries within 14 days, forcing carriers to issue denials to protect their legal rights.
"A regulatory scheme that creates such incentives can only produce unintended and sometimes tragic results," Fay said.
t.christian.miller@ propublica.org
This report is published in cooperation with ProPublica, an independent investigative newsroom.
19 June, 2009
HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATION INVESTIGATION CLOSED IN MID COURSE.
MISNA
18 June 2009
The commission investigating 16 noted human rights abuse cases perpetrated during the war in Sri Lanka since 2006 has been shut down. Nissanka Udalagama, former president of the supreme court who led the commission said that the panel was dissolved after the recent government decision not to renew the commission’s mandate. The investigation of seven cases had been completed and one of these involves the murder of 17 Tamil aid workers - working on behalf of the French NGO ‘Action contre la faim’ (Acf) - in August of 2006 in the area of Muttur during a Sri Lnakan army offensive against the LTTE. The soldiers had been accused of the murder, while the government insisted that the Tamil Tigers (LTTE ) guerrillas were those responsible. Udalagama did not speak about the investigations, noting that the final report must be delivered to president Mahinda Rajapaske. At the time of the events, under strong international pressure, Rajapakse finally entrusted a group of 11 international experts to carry out an inquiry, in parallel with the national commission. The group resigned in August 2008, denouncing obstructions and obstacles to the investigations. Human Rights NGO’s have asked that the Udalagama commission’s report be made public in order to give the victim’s families an answer; the NGO’s added that the closure of the national commission makes the lack of political will for credible investigations into the war crimes allegations against the army and the LTTE all the more evident.
18 June 2009
The commission investigating 16 noted human rights abuse cases perpetrated during the war in Sri Lanka since 2006 has been shut down. Nissanka Udalagama, former president of the supreme court who led the commission said that the panel was dissolved after the recent government decision not to renew the commission’s mandate. The investigation of seven cases had been completed and one of these involves the murder of 17 Tamil aid workers - working on behalf of the French NGO ‘Action contre la faim’ (Acf) - in August of 2006 in the area of Muttur during a Sri Lnakan army offensive against the LTTE. The soldiers had been accused of the murder, while the government insisted that the Tamil Tigers (LTTE ) guerrillas were those responsible. Udalagama did not speak about the investigations, noting that the final report must be delivered to president Mahinda Rajapaske. At the time of the events, under strong international pressure, Rajapakse finally entrusted a group of 11 international experts to carry out an inquiry, in parallel with the national commission. The group resigned in August 2008, denouncing obstructions and obstacles to the investigations. Human Rights NGO’s have asked that the Udalagama commission’s report be made public in order to give the victim’s families an answer; the NGO’s added that the closure of the national commission makes the lack of political will for credible investigations into the war crimes allegations against the army and the LTTE all the more evident.
'Darfur Was Just a Place Where Evil Lived'- An Interview with Mahmood Mamdani.
IPS
By Kristin Palitza
19 June 2009
interview
Cape Town — Analysing the colonial and historical roots of the violence in Darfur, Mahmood Mamdani concludes that the crisis in Darfur is not genocide, but a fight for land, triggered by drought, which has been racialised by outside powers. Mamdani, a third-generation Ugandan of Indian descent is Hebert Lehman Professor of Government and director of the Institute of African Studies, at New York's Columbia University. He launched his book, 'Saviours and Survivors. Darfur, Politics and the War on Terror' at the 2009 Cape Town Book Fair on Jun. 16.
Why did you decide to write a book about Darfur and not another humanitarian crisis?
I went to Sudan in 2003 for a few weeks to meet Sudanese intellectuals to get their sense of their society, the year the insurgency in Darfur began. A year later, Darfur was big news, very different from any [other conflict] on the continent. Even Rwanda hadn't been that big news until the genocide was over. The answer was very simple: Darfur was the focus of a domestic movement in the United States, the Save Darfur movement.
In 2006, I began to get the backdrop when the GAO [United States Government Accountability Office] found that the mortality estimates of the Save Darfur movement of 400,000 deaths were the least reliable, because it took figures from an unrepresentative sample, while the most reliable figure came from the World Health Organisation, which said about 112,000 people had died.
When reading the reports, I realised that those who died had not necessarily been killed. The major cause of death was drought and desertification, which killed between 70,000 and 80,000 people, mainly children, while only about 35,000 people did of violence. There was a gap between what was made public and what was happening on the ground. The Save Darfur publicity was simply about violence. Nothing told you why the violence was happening.
I realised that the violence had begun in 1987-89 with the drought. And then the big powers got involved in the mid-80s. When [former president Ronald] Reagan came to power in the United States, he declared Libya a terrorist state, and the Cold War began to focus on Chad. The US, France and Israel supported one side in the Chad, while Libya and the Soviet Union supported the other side. The [US-led] opposition was armed and trained in Darfur. So when the drought happened in Darfur in the mid-80s, the place was awash with guns.
The main premise of your book is that the context of the crisis in Darfur cannot be called genocide. How did you come to this conclusion?
I'm saying several things. We, the human rights movement, ignore issues and just focus on identifying violations, the perpetrator, the victim. We specialise in naming and shaming the perpetrator, and we demand criminal justice. In all this, what's lost is a sense of the issues that are driving the violence.
Violence has a history. In Darfur, it was driven in the context of a drought and a land settlement, which was as old as the colonial period when the British had created tribal lands. There was no land given to Nomadic tribes. So when the drought came, they had no fallback. So [the crisis] was land- driven.
It wasn't about race, but it began to get racialised. When the external agencies came in, they just assumed this was a conflict between Arab tribes and non-Arab tribes, and in this context the Arabs were the perpetrators and the non-Arabs were the victims. But the issue of land remained unaddressed.
You say the West's humanitarian intervention is a cover for military invasion. What facts do you base this assumption on?
Initially, I thought Save Darfur was another classic peace movement in the US. But I realised that Save Darfur was a war mobilisation. It's slogans were 'Out of Iraq into Darfur', 'Boots on the Ground', 'No Fly Zone'. Its emphasis was to never focus on the issues that were driving the violence. The entire focus was to demonise the perpetrator.
This emphasis was very much like the War on Terror, which said that any attempt to talk about issues was an apology for the perpetrator. Darfur was just a place where evil lived. They think if you do away with the perpetrator, the violence will stop. Yet the violence will go on, because the issues remain. If you understand the history of war, you understand victims and perpetrators are on the same side, and sometimes victims and perpetrators are the same people.
What is the post-Cold War international order and how does it related to the crisis in Darfur?
If you think of the African conflicts that have found some kind of a solution, you realise that in all these cases, you had to move away from criminalising the opposition to seeing this as a political conflict driven by certain issues. The best example to me was the solution to apartheid in [South Africa].
This had also worked in Mozambique and in south Sudan. There had not been court trials, but political reform. We have to accept the possibility that both sides may have committed crimes, and if we agree on political reforms, we [let go of] the crimes so that we can have a fresh beginning and a rule of law whereby everybody can be held accountable. That's the way to go.
Is there a hidden agenda to re-colonise Africa?
We know there is greater attention on Africa today than there was ten years ago. We know the US is not the single global power. There are new powers on the horizon, like China. The contest between the US and China globally is focused on Africa. And in Africa, it's focused on particular countries, and Sudan is one of them. It's about natural resources, without a doubt.
The US is neck-deep in Chad, for oil and uranium, and China is neck-deep in Sudan for the same reasons. The contention of the two of them is unavoidable. But hopefully, with the Obama administration, there is a more sober assessment of American power and therefore a more sober realisation that the US has to learn to co-exist in the world. It can't just call the shots. And I think we'll be seeing this in terms of a new global attitude inside Africa.
Is Africa's independence at stake? What should be the African Union's response?
The level of death and killing went down dramatically in Darfur after September 2004, to less than 200 a month. The main credit goes to the African Union (AU) because it figured out that the way to end the fighting was to put in place a political process, which would make negotiations and discussions possible.
But the AU was sabotaged consistently. The West, which is the Europeans, the Canadians, the Americans, agreed to fit the bill for the AU soldiers, and Africa agreed to provide the bodies on the ground, but [the West] never footed the bill.
Still, the AU has come out with some credibility. They have done much better than the UN. It was scepticism about the AU and the suggested political settlement, and huge scepticism about Africa being able to find its own solutions. Those who agreed to the AU coming in did it full of scepticism, as a temporary measure, simply because the West was not willing or ready to come in.
Therefore they never provided the resources they said they were going to provide and never honoured the conditions they said they were going to honour. It became a self-fulfilling prophecy. But still, the AU has done the most credible job of anybody in Sudan in that short space of time.
Your book ends with a proposal for a triple solution: regionally negotiated peace, combined with power reform in Sudan and land and governance reform in Darfur. Why do you think this would work?
There are several lessons here. One, you can't get big powers to come and solve your problems. If you need external involvement to solve a conflict, it is best if that involvement comes from your neighbours through an organised arrangement, either regional or continental. They will have a real interest in making peace in that country, because they will always be neighbours.
Second, Sudan needs power reforms like most countries becoming newly independent. You cannot expect a full-blown democracy being delivered in the womb of a colony. It's absurd. Creating representative power takes internal struggles.
The most intractable will be the land question. Partly because it's embedded in the tribal settlement of land that came out of the colonial period and then in the notions of absolute ownership of land.
By Kristin Palitza
19 June 2009
interview
Cape Town — Analysing the colonial and historical roots of the violence in Darfur, Mahmood Mamdani concludes that the crisis in Darfur is not genocide, but a fight for land, triggered by drought, which has been racialised by outside powers. Mamdani, a third-generation Ugandan of Indian descent is Hebert Lehman Professor of Government and director of the Institute of African Studies, at New York's Columbia University. He launched his book, 'Saviours and Survivors. Darfur, Politics and the War on Terror' at the 2009 Cape Town Book Fair on Jun. 16.
Why did you decide to write a book about Darfur and not another humanitarian crisis?
I went to Sudan in 2003 for a few weeks to meet Sudanese intellectuals to get their sense of their society, the year the insurgency in Darfur began. A year later, Darfur was big news, very different from any [other conflict] on the continent. Even Rwanda hadn't been that big news until the genocide was over. The answer was very simple: Darfur was the focus of a domestic movement in the United States, the Save Darfur movement.
In 2006, I began to get the backdrop when the GAO [United States Government Accountability Office] found that the mortality estimates of the Save Darfur movement of 400,000 deaths were the least reliable, because it took figures from an unrepresentative sample, while the most reliable figure came from the World Health Organisation, which said about 112,000 people had died.
When reading the reports, I realised that those who died had not necessarily been killed. The major cause of death was drought and desertification, which killed between 70,000 and 80,000 people, mainly children, while only about 35,000 people did of violence. There was a gap between what was made public and what was happening on the ground. The Save Darfur publicity was simply about violence. Nothing told you why the violence was happening.
I realised that the violence had begun in 1987-89 with the drought. And then the big powers got involved in the mid-80s. When [former president Ronald] Reagan came to power in the United States, he declared Libya a terrorist state, and the Cold War began to focus on Chad. The US, France and Israel supported one side in the Chad, while Libya and the Soviet Union supported the other side. The [US-led] opposition was armed and trained in Darfur. So when the drought happened in Darfur in the mid-80s, the place was awash with guns.
The main premise of your book is that the context of the crisis in Darfur cannot be called genocide. How did you come to this conclusion?
I'm saying several things. We, the human rights movement, ignore issues and just focus on identifying violations, the perpetrator, the victim. We specialise in naming and shaming the perpetrator, and we demand criminal justice. In all this, what's lost is a sense of the issues that are driving the violence.
Violence has a history. In Darfur, it was driven in the context of a drought and a land settlement, which was as old as the colonial period when the British had created tribal lands. There was no land given to Nomadic tribes. So when the drought came, they had no fallback. So [the crisis] was land- driven.
It wasn't about race, but it began to get racialised. When the external agencies came in, they just assumed this was a conflict between Arab tribes and non-Arab tribes, and in this context the Arabs were the perpetrators and the non-Arabs were the victims. But the issue of land remained unaddressed.
You say the West's humanitarian intervention is a cover for military invasion. What facts do you base this assumption on?
Initially, I thought Save Darfur was another classic peace movement in the US. But I realised that Save Darfur was a war mobilisation. It's slogans were 'Out of Iraq into Darfur', 'Boots on the Ground', 'No Fly Zone'. Its emphasis was to never focus on the issues that were driving the violence. The entire focus was to demonise the perpetrator.
This emphasis was very much like the War on Terror, which said that any attempt to talk about issues was an apology for the perpetrator. Darfur was just a place where evil lived. They think if you do away with the perpetrator, the violence will stop. Yet the violence will go on, because the issues remain. If you understand the history of war, you understand victims and perpetrators are on the same side, and sometimes victims and perpetrators are the same people.
What is the post-Cold War international order and how does it related to the crisis in Darfur?
If you think of the African conflicts that have found some kind of a solution, you realise that in all these cases, you had to move away from criminalising the opposition to seeing this as a political conflict driven by certain issues. The best example to me was the solution to apartheid in [South Africa].
This had also worked in Mozambique and in south Sudan. There had not been court trials, but political reform. We have to accept the possibility that both sides may have committed crimes, and if we agree on political reforms, we [let go of] the crimes so that we can have a fresh beginning and a rule of law whereby everybody can be held accountable. That's the way to go.
Is there a hidden agenda to re-colonise Africa?
We know there is greater attention on Africa today than there was ten years ago. We know the US is not the single global power. There are new powers on the horizon, like China. The contest between the US and China globally is focused on Africa. And in Africa, it's focused on particular countries, and Sudan is one of them. It's about natural resources, without a doubt.
The US is neck-deep in Chad, for oil and uranium, and China is neck-deep in Sudan for the same reasons. The contention of the two of them is unavoidable. But hopefully, with the Obama administration, there is a more sober assessment of American power and therefore a more sober realisation that the US has to learn to co-exist in the world. It can't just call the shots. And I think we'll be seeing this in terms of a new global attitude inside Africa.
Is Africa's independence at stake? What should be the African Union's response?
The level of death and killing went down dramatically in Darfur after September 2004, to less than 200 a month. The main credit goes to the African Union (AU) because it figured out that the way to end the fighting was to put in place a political process, which would make negotiations and discussions possible.
But the AU was sabotaged consistently. The West, which is the Europeans, the Canadians, the Americans, agreed to fit the bill for the AU soldiers, and Africa agreed to provide the bodies on the ground, but [the West] never footed the bill.
Still, the AU has come out with some credibility. They have done much better than the UN. It was scepticism about the AU and the suggested political settlement, and huge scepticism about Africa being able to find its own solutions. Those who agreed to the AU coming in did it full of scepticism, as a temporary measure, simply because the West was not willing or ready to come in.
Therefore they never provided the resources they said they were going to provide and never honoured the conditions they said they were going to honour. It became a self-fulfilling prophecy. But still, the AU has done the most credible job of anybody in Sudan in that short space of time.
Your book ends with a proposal for a triple solution: regionally negotiated peace, combined with power reform in Sudan and land and governance reform in Darfur. Why do you think this would work?
There are several lessons here. One, you can't get big powers to come and solve your problems. If you need external involvement to solve a conflict, it is best if that involvement comes from your neighbours through an organised arrangement, either regional or continental. They will have a real interest in making peace in that country, because they will always be neighbours.
Second, Sudan needs power reforms like most countries becoming newly independent. You cannot expect a full-blown democracy being delivered in the womb of a colony. It's absurd. Creating representative power takes internal struggles.
The most intractable will be the land question. Partly because it's embedded in the tribal settlement of land that came out of the colonial period and then in the notions of absolute ownership of land.
Ugandan President Urges China to Help Set Oil Refinery, Pipeline.
Xinhua News Agency
17 June 2009
Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni on Tuesday asked Chinese businessmen to help the east African country set up an oil refinery and a pipeline that will evacuate the oil from the fields in the western part of the country.
Craig Bond, the chief executive of Standard Bank told reporters here that Museveni who met a Chinese delegation earlier in the day highlighted oil as one of the key sectors that would fast track the country's economic development.
"The building of a refinery and a pipeline was number one of the key issues he mentioned," Bond said.
A 16-member delegation of the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (ICBC) was in the country to assess the business potential and investment opportunities.
The ICBC owns 20 percent of Standard Bank which in turn owns 80 percent of Uganda's Stanbic Bank.
Syda Bbumba, Uganda's finance minister, said at the meeting with the delegation that Uganda prefers to refine its oil instead of exporting crude.
She also urged the ICBC to sell the idea of setting up a refinery to its wealthy clients back in China.
Uganda has been locked up in negotiations with oil exploration companies on whether to set up an oil refinery or export the crude to the Kenyan seaport of Mombasa where it will be refined and exported to regional and international markets.
Oil producing Iran last month promised to jointly fund the construction of an oil refinery and also train Ugandans in relevant fields of petroleum.
According to the Ministry of Finance figures, the country currently has an estimated 2 billion barrels of oil.
More oil wells are being explored in the Albertine Graben with the latest being Kigogole-3 exploration well.
According to the government, part of the oil will be used to boost power production in the country. Currently, the country is facing a power deficit.
The oil production is also expected to offset the country's enormous fuel import bill of millions of U.S. dollars annually.
17 June 2009
Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni on Tuesday asked Chinese businessmen to help the east African country set up an oil refinery and a pipeline that will evacuate the oil from the fields in the western part of the country.
Craig Bond, the chief executive of Standard Bank told reporters here that Museveni who met a Chinese delegation earlier in the day highlighted oil as one of the key sectors that would fast track the country's economic development.
"The building of a refinery and a pipeline was number one of the key issues he mentioned," Bond said.
A 16-member delegation of the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (ICBC) was in the country to assess the business potential and investment opportunities.
The ICBC owns 20 percent of Standard Bank which in turn owns 80 percent of Uganda's Stanbic Bank.
Syda Bbumba, Uganda's finance minister, said at the meeting with the delegation that Uganda prefers to refine its oil instead of exporting crude.
She also urged the ICBC to sell the idea of setting up a refinery to its wealthy clients back in China.
Uganda has been locked up in negotiations with oil exploration companies on whether to set up an oil refinery or export the crude to the Kenyan seaport of Mombasa where it will be refined and exported to regional and international markets.
Oil producing Iran last month promised to jointly fund the construction of an oil refinery and also train Ugandans in relevant fields of petroleum.
According to the Ministry of Finance figures, the country currently has an estimated 2 billion barrels of oil.
More oil wells are being explored in the Albertine Graben with the latest being Kigogole-3 exploration well.
According to the government, part of the oil will be used to boost power production in the country. Currently, the country is facing a power deficit.
The oil production is also expected to offset the country's enormous fuel import bill of millions of U.S. dollars annually.
Angola and Senegal start new oil refining projects and increase capacity.
Alexander's Gas and Oil Connections
4 May 2009
The oil-rich African continent is expected to see rapid development in the oil sector with countries such as Senegal and Angola beginning to commission new oil refining projects and increase existing capacity. This move is expected to bring down gasoline imports and provide energy independence to these countries.
Angola, one of Africa's largest oil-producing countries, imports around 70 % of its gasoline demand from the US and presently has only one refinery, which has a capacity of 39,000 bpd located near the capital city, Luanda. The country's primary oil producer, Sociedade Nacional de Combustiveis de Angola (Sonangol) (Luanda), cognizant of the gap in demand and supply, is building a 200,000-bpd refinery with an investment of $ 8 bn.
The refining complex, known as "Project SONAREF" and located near the port city of Lobito, was initially estimated to cost $ 6.4 bn. However, the project was delayed for almost a decade, as it was not able to lure the interest of foreign investors.
KBR (Houston, Texas) has been awarded the contract to design the refinery, which will also include connectivity to marine offloading facilities and new roads that will assist in faster distribution in the country. The refinery complex will directly and indirectly employ 8,000 people. The plant is scheduled for commissioning by the end of 2011 and is expected to reduce gasoline imports within two years. About 90 % of the output from Project SONAREF will cater to domestic needs and demand from neighbouring countries. The remainder will be exported to other regions.
Oil is the lifeblood of Angola, accounting for 95 % of the country's export revenues and 40 % of its gross domestic product (GDP). Since the 1980s, the petroleum sector in the country has grown 25 % every year. As of January 1, 2008, the conservative estimate of Angola's oil reserves was about 9.04 bn barrels. However, industry experts indicate that with the recent discovery of new oilfields, the country's reserves could be as high as 20 bn barrels.
In September last year, Angola overtook Nigeria to become Africa's largest and the world's eighth-largest oil producer. Energy consultants Wood Mackenzie (Edinburgh, Scotland) forecast that Angolan oil production could reach 2.2 mm-2.3 mm bpd in the next five years. By 2015, the US is expected to import 25 % of its oil demand from Angola. Global players, keen on exploiting Angola's huge oil reserves, have increased investments in the country. Foreign direct investment in Angola's energy sector doubled to $ 36 bn between 2002 and 2007.
In another development, National Iranian Oil Refining and Distribution Company (NIORDC) (Tehran, Iran) entered into an agreement with Senegal's national oil company, Societe Africaine de Raffinage (SAR) (Dakar) to increase the capacity of an oil refinery in the country from 25,000 bpd to 64,000 bpd. NIORDC, which will hold a stake in the refinery, has also agreed to supply crude oil for a period of one year.
The supply from Iran will be made under special credit terms, which, among other conditions, will allow Senegal to benefit from the three-month credit period. NIORDC was established in 1992 and is part of the Iranian Ministry of Petroleum. The company owns and operates more than eight refineries in Iran. Iran also plans to build another refinery and petrochemical complex in Senegal.
Iran will invest $ 80 mm on a car-assembly facility to produce Samand cars. The investment will be made by Iran Khodro Company (IKCO) (Tehran), the country's premier automobile manufacturer. Founded in 1962, IKCO is the largest car producer in the Middle East, Africa and Central Asia. In July 2008, the company inaugurated its largest car assembly facility in Khorasan, Iran, which is expected to produce 100,000 vehicles by the end of this year.
This will help IKCO increase output to 1.13 mm units by 2012. IKCO plans to set up car assembly units in China and Egypt that are similar to the proposed facility in Senegal in order to produce Samand cars. The price of Samand model of car, which is built on Peugeot 405 technology, starts at $ 9,000.
These new projects come at a time when Nigeria, once Africa's largest oil producer, is facing violence, unrest and depleting reserves. As of January 1, 2008, Nigeria's oil reserves were about 32.93 bn barrels. Industry sources state that the reserves are diminishing at an annual rate of 2 %. Current reserves run the risk of drying up within the next 50 years, which has made the discovery of new reserves critical.
However, the oil-rich Niger delta is facing rampant violence from groups demanding that the government share funds with oil-producing states. Oil infrastructure has been destroyed extensively, which has reduced production by 20 % in the last few years. More than 250 foreign nationals working on oil refinery projects in the country have been held hostage in the past two years. The Nigerian government, which has developed a new energy policy against the backdrop of the current precarious energy situation, hopes to bring the industry back on track.
4 May 2009
The oil-rich African continent is expected to see rapid development in the oil sector with countries such as Senegal and Angola beginning to commission new oil refining projects and increase existing capacity. This move is expected to bring down gasoline imports and provide energy independence to these countries.
Angola, one of Africa's largest oil-producing countries, imports around 70 % of its gasoline demand from the US and presently has only one refinery, which has a capacity of 39,000 bpd located near the capital city, Luanda. The country's primary oil producer, Sociedade Nacional de Combustiveis de Angola (Sonangol) (Luanda), cognizant of the gap in demand and supply, is building a 200,000-bpd refinery with an investment of $ 8 bn.
The refining complex, known as "Project SONAREF" and located near the port city of Lobito, was initially estimated to cost $ 6.4 bn. However, the project was delayed for almost a decade, as it was not able to lure the interest of foreign investors.
KBR (Houston, Texas) has been awarded the contract to design the refinery, which will also include connectivity to marine offloading facilities and new roads that will assist in faster distribution in the country. The refinery complex will directly and indirectly employ 8,000 people. The plant is scheduled for commissioning by the end of 2011 and is expected to reduce gasoline imports within two years. About 90 % of the output from Project SONAREF will cater to domestic needs and demand from neighbouring countries. The remainder will be exported to other regions.
Oil is the lifeblood of Angola, accounting for 95 % of the country's export revenues and 40 % of its gross domestic product (GDP). Since the 1980s, the petroleum sector in the country has grown 25 % every year. As of January 1, 2008, the conservative estimate of Angola's oil reserves was about 9.04 bn barrels. However, industry experts indicate that with the recent discovery of new oilfields, the country's reserves could be as high as 20 bn barrels.
In September last year, Angola overtook Nigeria to become Africa's largest and the world's eighth-largest oil producer. Energy consultants Wood Mackenzie (Edinburgh, Scotland) forecast that Angolan oil production could reach 2.2 mm-2.3 mm bpd in the next five years. By 2015, the US is expected to import 25 % of its oil demand from Angola. Global players, keen on exploiting Angola's huge oil reserves, have increased investments in the country. Foreign direct investment in Angola's energy sector doubled to $ 36 bn between 2002 and 2007.
In another development, National Iranian Oil Refining and Distribution Company (NIORDC) (Tehran, Iran) entered into an agreement with Senegal's national oil company, Societe Africaine de Raffinage (SAR) (Dakar) to increase the capacity of an oil refinery in the country from 25,000 bpd to 64,000 bpd. NIORDC, which will hold a stake in the refinery, has also agreed to supply crude oil for a period of one year.
The supply from Iran will be made under special credit terms, which, among other conditions, will allow Senegal to benefit from the three-month credit period. NIORDC was established in 1992 and is part of the Iranian Ministry of Petroleum. The company owns and operates more than eight refineries in Iran. Iran also plans to build another refinery and petrochemical complex in Senegal.
Iran will invest $ 80 mm on a car-assembly facility to produce Samand cars. The investment will be made by Iran Khodro Company (IKCO) (Tehran), the country's premier automobile manufacturer. Founded in 1962, IKCO is the largest car producer in the Middle East, Africa and Central Asia. In July 2008, the company inaugurated its largest car assembly facility in Khorasan, Iran, which is expected to produce 100,000 vehicles by the end of this year.
This will help IKCO increase output to 1.13 mm units by 2012. IKCO plans to set up car assembly units in China and Egypt that are similar to the proposed facility in Senegal in order to produce Samand cars. The price of Samand model of car, which is built on Peugeot 405 technology, starts at $ 9,000.
These new projects come at a time when Nigeria, once Africa's largest oil producer, is facing violence, unrest and depleting reserves. As of January 1, 2008, Nigeria's oil reserves were about 32.93 bn barrels. Industry sources state that the reserves are diminishing at an annual rate of 2 %. Current reserves run the risk of drying up within the next 50 years, which has made the discovery of new reserves critical.
However, the oil-rich Niger delta is facing rampant violence from groups demanding that the government share funds with oil-producing states. Oil infrastructure has been destroyed extensively, which has reduced production by 20 % in the last few years. More than 250 foreign nationals working on oil refinery projects in the country have been held hostage in the past two years. The Nigerian government, which has developed a new energy policy against the backdrop of the current precarious energy situation, hopes to bring the industry back on track.
Ghana: On the cusp of an oil boom.
Modern Ghana
1 May 2009
by Bright B. Simons
Attempts to produce commercial quantities of oil in Ghana date from the late 19th Century, and at regular intervals between that time and the present the West African country has had its hopes dashed by enthusiastic announcements of commercial oil finds that have later turned out to be premature.
Anticipation was therefore far from fervent when the current crop of successful oil exploration companies expressed interest in prospecting for the valuable black stuff off the South-western coast of Ghana. It was a bold move, considering that just a few months before, Dana Petroleum, following a persistent pattern, had been compelled to abandon their concession in the area after failing to convince partners like Woodside and others that the commercial petroleum resource potential was worth their while in a risk-sharing joint venture.
Dana's experience was part of a trend that has dogged the West African country's oil ambitions throughout the 60s and 70s, the peak of the firstphase of government of Ghana's relentless search for black gold.
By the early 80s, a decade of strained hopes had compelled the "petro-economic establishment" in Ghana to seriously consider reform. A revolutionary-military government was then in power and felt obliged to demonstrate its technical and managerial superiority over the "inept" civilian and praetorian regimes it had overthrown.
The Ghana National Petroleum Corporation, formed primarily to harness Ghana's engineering talent, was placed at the vanguard of the new thrust. Plans were drawn to set up an integrated gas production and thermal generation system to produce electricity to power local industries, and to pay for this relatively ambitious scheme by exporting Ghanaian expertise abroad, particularly to Angola and the South-West Atlantic littoral shelf in Africa.
Energy distribution infrastructure also received attention, with intra-country pipelines and storage depot networks, as well as upgrades to the country's only refinery, forming part of a $ 100 mm strategy to alleviate the country's energy poverty.
Oil majors like Amoco were enticed to engage, and soon, with the Tano basin having become the prime focus, some exploratory wells begun to bud, confirming the earlier evidence of commercial potential. Companies such as Devon and Vanco begun to move in.
The gradual shifts of focus from shallow to deep waters, and from the eastern to the western shore, accounted for the increasingly favourable results, so that Dana Petroleum, its funding constraints notwithstanding, could confirm the presence of petrologically significant structures in 2003. The residual emphasis at this time on shallow exploration however meant nevertheless that resources continued to be misapplied, as they'd been for several decades, well until mid-2003. It was Dana Petroleum's highly favourable assessment of the Western Tano deep water section that in subsequent years changed the game.
Even so, it was not until 2007 that the transition of emphasis to deep water was consolidated with the entry of an alliance of mainly British and American prospectors -- Tullow, Anadarko and Kosmos -- and in their wake a flurry of spectacular early exploratory successes.
While much of the action today is happening on the Western Coast, the eastern Keta Basin continues to attract attention, most recently from UK-Nigerian firm Afren and Japan's Mitsui marking the first foray into Ghana of a Japanese player, albeit one backed predominantly by Japanese Government money. In the 1980s Keta was a major drawer, pulling in E&P operators like Diamond Shamrock into its inviting bosom.
According to the Ghana National Petroleum Corporation, a regulator cum government interest vehicle, 89 wells have so far been drilled in Ghana, and six discoveries have resulted from them, with 75 % of 50 exploratory wells encountering "varying degrees of hydrocarbon shows".
There are at least 15 active players, spread along the Ghanaian shoreline and parts of the coastal interior. They include Gulf investors; Russia's LUKoil, which has committed to spending upwards of $ 100 mm to onshore activity; and oilfield services companies from Norway and elsewhere in Europe, with one such company already providing equipment for the ongoing appraisal program in Jubilee.
1 May 2009
by Bright B. Simons
Attempts to produce commercial quantities of oil in Ghana date from the late 19th Century, and at regular intervals between that time and the present the West African country has had its hopes dashed by enthusiastic announcements of commercial oil finds that have later turned out to be premature.
Anticipation was therefore far from fervent when the current crop of successful oil exploration companies expressed interest in prospecting for the valuable black stuff off the South-western coast of Ghana. It was a bold move, considering that just a few months before, Dana Petroleum, following a persistent pattern, had been compelled to abandon their concession in the area after failing to convince partners like Woodside and others that the commercial petroleum resource potential was worth their while in a risk-sharing joint venture.
Dana's experience was part of a trend that has dogged the West African country's oil ambitions throughout the 60s and 70s, the peak of the firstphase of government of Ghana's relentless search for black gold.
By the early 80s, a decade of strained hopes had compelled the "petro-economic establishment" in Ghana to seriously consider reform. A revolutionary-military government was then in power and felt obliged to demonstrate its technical and managerial superiority over the "inept" civilian and praetorian regimes it had overthrown.
The Ghana National Petroleum Corporation, formed primarily to harness Ghana's engineering talent, was placed at the vanguard of the new thrust. Plans were drawn to set up an integrated gas production and thermal generation system to produce electricity to power local industries, and to pay for this relatively ambitious scheme by exporting Ghanaian expertise abroad, particularly to Angola and the South-West Atlantic littoral shelf in Africa.
Energy distribution infrastructure also received attention, with intra-country pipelines and storage depot networks, as well as upgrades to the country's only refinery, forming part of a $ 100 mm strategy to alleviate the country's energy poverty.
Oil majors like Amoco were enticed to engage, and soon, with the Tano basin having become the prime focus, some exploratory wells begun to bud, confirming the earlier evidence of commercial potential. Companies such as Devon and Vanco begun to move in.
The gradual shifts of focus from shallow to deep waters, and from the eastern to the western shore, accounted for the increasingly favourable results, so that Dana Petroleum, its funding constraints notwithstanding, could confirm the presence of petrologically significant structures in 2003. The residual emphasis at this time on shallow exploration however meant nevertheless that resources continued to be misapplied, as they'd been for several decades, well until mid-2003. It was Dana Petroleum's highly favourable assessment of the Western Tano deep water section that in subsequent years changed the game.
Even so, it was not until 2007 that the transition of emphasis to deep water was consolidated with the entry of an alliance of mainly British and American prospectors -- Tullow, Anadarko and Kosmos -- and in their wake a flurry of spectacular early exploratory successes.
While much of the action today is happening on the Western Coast, the eastern Keta Basin continues to attract attention, most recently from UK-Nigerian firm Afren and Japan's Mitsui marking the first foray into Ghana of a Japanese player, albeit one backed predominantly by Japanese Government money. In the 1980s Keta was a major drawer, pulling in E&P operators like Diamond Shamrock into its inviting bosom.
According to the Ghana National Petroleum Corporation, a regulator cum government interest vehicle, 89 wells have so far been drilled in Ghana, and six discoveries have resulted from them, with 75 % of 50 exploratory wells encountering "varying degrees of hydrocarbon shows".
There are at least 15 active players, spread along the Ghanaian shoreline and parts of the coastal interior. They include Gulf investors; Russia's LUKoil, which has committed to spending upwards of $ 100 mm to onshore activity; and oilfield services companies from Norway and elsewhere in Europe, with one such company already providing equipment for the ongoing appraisal program in Jubilee.
Iran and Total sign EUR 32 mm oil contract.
Fars News
30 April 2009
Tehran signed a EUR 32 mm deal with France's oil giant Total to receive technical support in developing Kharg's Doroud oil field. Managing Director of the National Iranian Offshore Oil Company Mahmoud Zirakchianzadeh and the executive of French Total SA signed the contract which was finalized on March 11.
The oil contract will optimize the technical services of the project in Kharg's Doroud oil field located in north-eastern Persian Gulf.
Zirakchianzadeh said that Total had agreed to provide technical support and operational services for the new facilities at the Doroud offshore oil field. The oil major is already one of Iran's partners in the development of Doroud oil field, which is producing 120,000 barrels of crude per day.
Iran, which sits on the world's second largest reserves of both oil and gas, is facing US sanctions over its civilian nuclear program. Iranian officials have dismissed US sanctions as inefficient, saying that they are finding Asian partners instead. Several Chinese and other Asian firms are negotiating or signing up to oil and gas deals.
Following US pressures on companies to stop business with Tehran, many western companies decided to do a balancing act. They tried to maintain their presence in Iran, which is rich in oil and gas, but not getting into big deals that could endanger their interests in the US.
Yet, after oil giants in the West witnessed that their absence in big deals has provided Chinese, Indian and Russian companies with excellent opportunities to sign up to an increasing number of energy projects and earn billions of dollars, many western firms are increasingly showing interest to invest or expand work in Iran.
Some European countries have also recently voiced interest in investment in Iran's energy sector after a gas deal was signed between Iran and Switzerland regardless of US sanctions. The National Iranian Gas Export Company and Switzerland's Elektrizitaetsgesellschaft Laufenburg signed a 25-year deal in March for the delivery of 5.5 bn cm of gas per year.
The biggest recent deal, worth EUR 100 mm ($ 147 mm, £ 80 mm), was signed by Steiner Prematechnik Gastec, the German engineering company, this year to build equipment for three gas conversion plants in Iran.
However, Total has been under pressure from Washington to abandon its cooperation in Iran's energy projects, such as the giant South Pars gas field, although as a French company it is outside of US jurisdiction. The European Commission has repeatedly rejected such extraterritorial US claims against lawful trade practices of European companies.
Total's CEO Christophe de Margerie has said that talks with Iran on developing the South Pars are advancing slowly due to the US pressure.
30 April 2009
Tehran signed a EUR 32 mm deal with France's oil giant Total to receive technical support in developing Kharg's Doroud oil field. Managing Director of the National Iranian Offshore Oil Company Mahmoud Zirakchianzadeh and the executive of French Total SA signed the contract which was finalized on March 11.
The oil contract will optimize the technical services of the project in Kharg's Doroud oil field located in north-eastern Persian Gulf.
Zirakchianzadeh said that Total had agreed to provide technical support and operational services for the new facilities at the Doroud offshore oil field. The oil major is already one of Iran's partners in the development of Doroud oil field, which is producing 120,000 barrels of crude per day.
Iran, which sits on the world's second largest reserves of both oil and gas, is facing US sanctions over its civilian nuclear program. Iranian officials have dismissed US sanctions as inefficient, saying that they are finding Asian partners instead. Several Chinese and other Asian firms are negotiating or signing up to oil and gas deals.
Following US pressures on companies to stop business with Tehran, many western companies decided to do a balancing act. They tried to maintain their presence in Iran, which is rich in oil and gas, but not getting into big deals that could endanger their interests in the US.
Yet, after oil giants in the West witnessed that their absence in big deals has provided Chinese, Indian and Russian companies with excellent opportunities to sign up to an increasing number of energy projects and earn billions of dollars, many western firms are increasingly showing interest to invest or expand work in Iran.
Some European countries have also recently voiced interest in investment in Iran's energy sector after a gas deal was signed between Iran and Switzerland regardless of US sanctions. The National Iranian Gas Export Company and Switzerland's Elektrizitaetsgesellschaft Laufenburg signed a 25-year deal in March for the delivery of 5.5 bn cm of gas per year.
The biggest recent deal, worth EUR 100 mm ($ 147 mm, £ 80 mm), was signed by Steiner Prematechnik Gastec, the German engineering company, this year to build equipment for three gas conversion plants in Iran.
However, Total has been under pressure from Washington to abandon its cooperation in Iran's energy projects, such as the giant South Pars gas field, although as a French company it is outside of US jurisdiction. The European Commission has repeatedly rejected such extraterritorial US claims against lawful trade practices of European companies.
Total's CEO Christophe de Margerie has said that talks with Iran on developing the South Pars are advancing slowly due to the US pressure.
Azerbaijani-Turkish holding to build petrochemical enterprise in Iran.
Alexander's Gas and Oil Connections
24 April 2009
The Turkish petrochemical holding Petkim, whose 51 % of stakes belong to the State Oil Company of Azerbaijan Republic (SOCAR) in alliance with Turcas, will build a petrochemical plant in Iran which will produce methanol and polyethylene, Turcas Board of Directors Chairman Erdal Aksoy said.
The Turkish Petkim company and the National Petrochemical Company of Iran signed a contract to construct the plant. A joint enterprise with 50/50 stakes will be formed with this purpose.
Capacity of methanol producing plant is 1.6 mm tpy and polyethylene -- 300,000 tons. Aksoy said the holding is interested in implementing projects in other countries. The negotiations are being held with Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
Forming the enterprise in Iran is explained with low cost of raw material (gas) in the Persian Gulf countries and low cost of power.
SOCAR in alliance with Turcas Petrol and Injaz Projects, possesses 51 % participation share in Petkim. Turkey currently imports 70-75 % of the necessary chemical products, but by developing Petkim, the investment alliance SOCAR/Turcas/Injaz will provide an opportunity to increase the import up to 30 %.
Petkim Petrokimya Holding is specialized in the production of plastic packages, fabric, detergents and is the only producer of these goods in Turkey exporting the fourth part of the output.
SOCAR intends to by 2015 increase the volume of the incomes of this enterprise to $ 4 bn from $ 1.9 bn today. Now the production capacity of this holding is 3.2 mm tons. By 2015 this index will grow to 6.3 mm tons.
Today the needs of Turkey for the petrochemical production equal $ 6.1 bn, and this demand will annually grow 11-12 %. Today the production of Petkim covers nearly 25 % of the market of Turkey.
As a result of the measures planned to be taken, the production of Petkim will cover 40 % of the Turkish market.
SOCAR invested approximately $ 2 bn in the development of petrochemical complex.
24 April 2009
The Turkish petrochemical holding Petkim, whose 51 % of stakes belong to the State Oil Company of Azerbaijan Republic (SOCAR) in alliance with Turcas, will build a petrochemical plant in Iran which will produce methanol and polyethylene, Turcas Board of Directors Chairman Erdal Aksoy said.
The Turkish Petkim company and the National Petrochemical Company of Iran signed a contract to construct the plant. A joint enterprise with 50/50 stakes will be formed with this purpose.
Capacity of methanol producing plant is 1.6 mm tpy and polyethylene -- 300,000 tons. Aksoy said the holding is interested in implementing projects in other countries. The negotiations are being held with Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
Forming the enterprise in Iran is explained with low cost of raw material (gas) in the Persian Gulf countries and low cost of power.
SOCAR in alliance with Turcas Petrol and Injaz Projects, possesses 51 % participation share in Petkim. Turkey currently imports 70-75 % of the necessary chemical products, but by developing Petkim, the investment alliance SOCAR/Turcas/Injaz will provide an opportunity to increase the import up to 30 %.
Petkim Petrokimya Holding is specialized in the production of plastic packages, fabric, detergents and is the only producer of these goods in Turkey exporting the fourth part of the output.
SOCAR intends to by 2015 increase the volume of the incomes of this enterprise to $ 4 bn from $ 1.9 bn today. Now the production capacity of this holding is 3.2 mm tons. By 2015 this index will grow to 6.3 mm tons.
Today the needs of Turkey for the petrochemical production equal $ 6.1 bn, and this demand will annually grow 11-12 %. Today the production of Petkim covers nearly 25 % of the market of Turkey.
As a result of the measures planned to be taken, the production of Petkim will cover 40 % of the Turkish market.
SOCAR invested approximately $ 2 bn in the development of petrochemical complex.
Iran-Iraq pipeline to link Basra-Abadan.
Press TV
23 April 2009
Tehran and Baghdad have agreed to build an oil pipeline connecting the main Iraqi oil hub of Basra to the oil-rich Iranian city of Abadan.
The agreement was reached between visiting Iraqi Oil Minister Hussein al-Shahristani and his Iranian counterpart Gholam-Hossein Nozari in Tehran, said Iran's Deputy Oil Minister Noureddin Shahnazizadeh.
Shahnazizadeh says Iran plans to import up to 200,000 barrels of oil per day from Iraq to feed the Abadan Refinery in the south-western province of Khuzestan. The official added that the two countries had signed an agreement that would allow Iranian companies to participate in the construction of five refineries in Iraqi cities.
Al-Shahristani was quoted as saying that the two sides had agreed to jointly develop their oil and gas fields.
Iran had earlier agreed to supply Iraq with 1.5 mm tons of fuel oil and 1.5 mm tons of diesel fuel per day. While Iran is the second-biggest oil producer in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), it spends billions of dollars on gasoline imports.
Iraq is the holder of the world's third-largest oil reserves. However, six years of conflict following the US invasion has battered the country's oil industry, negatively affecting its production ability.
23 April 2009
Tehran and Baghdad have agreed to build an oil pipeline connecting the main Iraqi oil hub of Basra to the oil-rich Iranian city of Abadan.
The agreement was reached between visiting Iraqi Oil Minister Hussein al-Shahristani and his Iranian counterpart Gholam-Hossein Nozari in Tehran, said Iran's Deputy Oil Minister Noureddin Shahnazizadeh.
Shahnazizadeh says Iran plans to import up to 200,000 barrels of oil per day from Iraq to feed the Abadan Refinery in the south-western province of Khuzestan. The official added that the two countries had signed an agreement that would allow Iranian companies to participate in the construction of five refineries in Iraqi cities.
Al-Shahristani was quoted as saying that the two sides had agreed to jointly develop their oil and gas fields.
Iran had earlier agreed to supply Iraq with 1.5 mm tons of fuel oil and 1.5 mm tons of diesel fuel per day. While Iran is the second-biggest oil producer in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), it spends billions of dollars on gasoline imports.
Iraq is the holder of the world's third-largest oil reserves. However, six years of conflict following the US invasion has battered the country's oil industry, negatively affecting its production ability.
Iran-Iraq pipeline to link Basra-Abadan.
Press TV
23 April 2009
Tehran and Baghdad have agreed to build an oil pipeline connecting the main Iraqi oil hub of Basra to the oil-rich Iranian city of Abadan.
The agreement was reached between visiting Iraqi Oil Minister Hussein al-Shahristani and his Iranian counterpart Gholam-Hossein Nozari in Tehran, said Iran's Deputy Oil Minister Noureddin Shahnazizadeh.
Shahnazizadeh says Iran plans to import up to 200,000 barrels of oil per day from Iraq to feed the Abadan Refinery in the south-western province of Khuzestan. The official added that the two countries had signed an agreement that would allow Iranian companies to participate in the construction of five refineries in Iraqi cities.
Al-Shahristani was quoted as saying that the two sides had agreed to jointly develop their oil and gas fields.
Iran had earlier agreed to supply Iraq with 1.5 mm tons of fuel oil and 1.5 mm tons of diesel fuel per day. While Iran is the second-biggest oil producer in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), it spends billions of dollars on gasoline imports.
Iraq is the holder of the world's third-largest oil reserves. However, six years of conflict following the US invasion has battered the country's oil industry, negatively affecting its production ability.
23 April 2009
Tehran and Baghdad have agreed to build an oil pipeline connecting the main Iraqi oil hub of Basra to the oil-rich Iranian city of Abadan.
The agreement was reached between visiting Iraqi Oil Minister Hussein al-Shahristani and his Iranian counterpart Gholam-Hossein Nozari in Tehran, said Iran's Deputy Oil Minister Noureddin Shahnazizadeh.
Shahnazizadeh says Iran plans to import up to 200,000 barrels of oil per day from Iraq to feed the Abadan Refinery in the south-western province of Khuzestan. The official added that the two countries had signed an agreement that would allow Iranian companies to participate in the construction of five refineries in Iraqi cities.
Al-Shahristani was quoted as saying that the two sides had agreed to jointly develop their oil and gas fields.
Iran had earlier agreed to supply Iraq with 1.5 mm tons of fuel oil and 1.5 mm tons of diesel fuel per day. While Iran is the second-biggest oil producer in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), it spends billions of dollars on gasoline imports.
Iraq is the holder of the world's third-largest oil reserves. However, six years of conflict following the US invasion has battered the country's oil industry, negatively affecting its production ability.
Iran plans to construct five oil refineries in Iraq.
Tehran Times
24 April 2009
Tehran and Baghdad are holding talks on the construction of 5 oil refineries in Iraq, including one in the holy city of Karbala, the Iranian deputy oil minister said.
Seyyed Noureddin Shahnazizadeh was quoted as saying that, "In a meeting held recently, the Iranian and Iraqi oil ministers agreed on the construction of a pipeline for transferring crude oil from Basra to Abadan oil refinery. The two sides agreed that each country is responsible for building the part within its borders."
He made the remarks during his visit to the 14th International Oil, Gas and Petrochemicals Exhibition in Tehran. Shahnazizadeh, who is also the National Iranian Oil Refining and Distribution Company's managing director, pointed out that once the Basra-Abadan crude pipeline is constructed, at least 50 % of the needs of the Abadan oil refinery will be supplied from Iraq.
Noting that Iran has exported nearly 800 mm litres of different oil products, including gasoline and gas oil to Iraq, he said these exports will continue until the end of 2009.
24 April 2009
Tehran and Baghdad are holding talks on the construction of 5 oil refineries in Iraq, including one in the holy city of Karbala, the Iranian deputy oil minister said.
Seyyed Noureddin Shahnazizadeh was quoted as saying that, "In a meeting held recently, the Iranian and Iraqi oil ministers agreed on the construction of a pipeline for transferring crude oil from Basra to Abadan oil refinery. The two sides agreed that each country is responsible for building the part within its borders."
He made the remarks during his visit to the 14th International Oil, Gas and Petrochemicals Exhibition in Tehran. Shahnazizadeh, who is also the National Iranian Oil Refining and Distribution Company's managing director, pointed out that once the Basra-Abadan crude pipeline is constructed, at least 50 % of the needs of the Abadan oil refinery will be supplied from Iraq.
Noting that Iran has exported nearly 800 mm litres of different oil products, including gasoline and gas oil to Iraq, he said these exports will continue until the end of 2009.
Iran offers new option for Caspian oil exports.
28 April 2009
APA
Iran has offered the Caspian states to transport part of their crude oil exports to the world markets through the Indian Ocean via a pipeline linking Iranian Ports of Neka to Jask, Jaleel Salari, Iranian Oil Company (NICO) corporate planning officer, told. According to him, Azerbaijan can send some part of its oil to the Persian Gulf via the 970-mile-long Neka-Jask pipeline that links the Caspian Sea to the Gulf of Oman through Iran.
"We are capable of storing 1.5 mm barrels of oil at Neka Terminal. I would like to mention that during Azerbaijan exports part of its crude to world markets through Iran during Georgian crisis in August," he added.
In his words, Iran and Azerbaijan are considering a number of joint projects in the Caspian Sea.
"We have offered to organize the processing of Azeri oil at a refinery in Tabriz. Today, Iran's capacity allows refining 350 tons of Azeri oil," he added.
First proposed in 2007, the Neka-Jask pipeline is planned to have a design capacity of 1 mm bpd.
APA
Iran has offered the Caspian states to transport part of their crude oil exports to the world markets through the Indian Ocean via a pipeline linking Iranian Ports of Neka to Jask, Jaleel Salari, Iranian Oil Company (NICO) corporate planning officer, told. According to him, Azerbaijan can send some part of its oil to the Persian Gulf via the 970-mile-long Neka-Jask pipeline that links the Caspian Sea to the Gulf of Oman through Iran.
"We are capable of storing 1.5 mm barrels of oil at Neka Terminal. I would like to mention that during Azerbaijan exports part of its crude to world markets through Iran during Georgian crisis in August," he added.
In his words, Iran and Azerbaijan are considering a number of joint projects in the Caspian Sea.
"We have offered to organize the processing of Azeri oil at a refinery in Tabriz. Today, Iran's capacity allows refining 350 tons of Azeri oil," he added.
First proposed in 2007, the Neka-Jask pipeline is planned to have a design capacity of 1 mm bpd.
US spy aircraft patrolling northern border.
AP
By WILLIAM KATES, Associated Press Writer
June 18, 2009
U.S. border officials are testing an unmanned surveillance aircraft to judge whether the drones can be used more widely along the U.S.-Canadian border, including at a crossing where cigarette and drug smuggling are a continuing problem.
The U.S. Customs and Border Protection has used the remote-controlled Predator B on the Mexican border for several years. The agency began flying the first Predator on the northern border out of Grand Forks Air Force Base in North Dakota in February and now is testing the aircraft along Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River.
"Lessons learned during this deployment will be a foundation for our future basing and deployment strategies for our unmanned aircraft system," said Michael Kostelnik, the agency's assistant commissioner for air and marine operations.
The unmanned aircraft has been temporarily based at the U.S. Army's Wheeler-Sack Airfield since June 8 and will fly patrols from Fort Drum until the end of the month, said John Stanton, executive director of the CBP's National Air Security Operations.
The Predator flies at about 19,000 feet and can stay aloft for up to 18 hours. It can take high definition and infrared video of anything within a 25-mile radius and has extra-sensitive radar.
Stanton said the drone has been carrying out surveillance missions for American and Canadian law enforcement agencies during its test run in upstate New York.
In assessing whether it could be deployed more widely along the 4,000-mile northern border, officials will look at how many days it could fly in the Northeast's weather, how many hours it logged and how many mission requests it fulfilled.
The CBP owns seven Predators. Three are based in Arizona and patrol the U.S.-Mexican border. Two others are in California and being converted for marine surveillance. The CBP estimates 18 unmanned aircraft could adequately cover the nation's southern and northern borders, Stanton said.
The plan to use the drones is a holdover from the 9/11 Commission Report, which recommended tighter security along borders with Mexico and Canada. The agency is using other high-tech equipment, including a network of video cameras and camouflaged ground sensors that detect heat, motion and metal.
The area the Predator has been watching includes the St. Regis Mohawk Reservation, which straddles the U.S.-Canadian border near Massena and is sliced in two by the St. Lawrence River. Its location has made the reservation a gateway for smugglers at least since Prohibition.
Last fall, federal authorities carried out two large-scale busts of drug smugglers operating through St. Regis, arresting 63 people in the sweeps. Investigators said one ring made as much as $45 million smuggling 11 tons of marijuana into the eastern U.S. between 2005 and 2008.
While arrests and drug seizures last year totaled less than 1 percent of those down south, a U.S. Customs and Border Protection report to Congress last year noted a "significant concern" that extremists could slip across the northern border.
By WILLIAM KATES, Associated Press Writer
June 18, 2009
U.S. border officials are testing an unmanned surveillance aircraft to judge whether the drones can be used more widely along the U.S.-Canadian border, including at a crossing where cigarette and drug smuggling are a continuing problem.
The U.S. Customs and Border Protection has used the remote-controlled Predator B on the Mexican border for several years. The agency began flying the first Predator on the northern border out of Grand Forks Air Force Base in North Dakota in February and now is testing the aircraft along Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River.
"Lessons learned during this deployment will be a foundation for our future basing and deployment strategies for our unmanned aircraft system," said Michael Kostelnik, the agency's assistant commissioner for air and marine operations.
The unmanned aircraft has been temporarily based at the U.S. Army's Wheeler-Sack Airfield since June 8 and will fly patrols from Fort Drum until the end of the month, said John Stanton, executive director of the CBP's National Air Security Operations.
The Predator flies at about 19,000 feet and can stay aloft for up to 18 hours. It can take high definition and infrared video of anything within a 25-mile radius and has extra-sensitive radar.
Stanton said the drone has been carrying out surveillance missions for American and Canadian law enforcement agencies during its test run in upstate New York.
In assessing whether it could be deployed more widely along the 4,000-mile northern border, officials will look at how many days it could fly in the Northeast's weather, how many hours it logged and how many mission requests it fulfilled.
The CBP owns seven Predators. Three are based in Arizona and patrol the U.S.-Mexican border. Two others are in California and being converted for marine surveillance. The CBP estimates 18 unmanned aircraft could adequately cover the nation's southern and northern borders, Stanton said.
The plan to use the drones is a holdover from the 9/11 Commission Report, which recommended tighter security along borders with Mexico and Canada. The agency is using other high-tech equipment, including a network of video cameras and camouflaged ground sensors that detect heat, motion and metal.
The area the Predator has been watching includes the St. Regis Mohawk Reservation, which straddles the U.S.-Canadian border near Massena and is sliced in two by the St. Lawrence River. Its location has made the reservation a gateway for smugglers at least since Prohibition.
Last fall, federal authorities carried out two large-scale busts of drug smugglers operating through St. Regis, arresting 63 people in the sweeps. Investigators said one ring made as much as $45 million smuggling 11 tons of marijuana into the eastern U.S. between 2005 and 2008.
While arrests and drug seizures last year totaled less than 1 percent of those down south, a U.S. Customs and Border Protection report to Congress last year noted a "significant concern" that extremists could slip across the northern border.
U.S. Congress Acts to Tame Prowling Vulture Funds.
Africa Action
Press Release
18 June 2009
Today advocacy organizations and debt relief campaigners welcome the reintroduction of the Stop Very Unscrupulous Loan Transfers from Underprivileged Countries to Rich, Exploitive Funds or "Stop VULTURE Funds" Act (H.R. 2932) This bill, introduced in the House of Representatives, is designed to protect developing nations from lawsuits by so-called Vulture Funds.
The Stop VULTURE Funds Act introduced by Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) would prevent U.S. companies from buying the debt of impoverished countries at cut-rate prices and then suing to collect exponential profits. The bill would limit the excessive profits that companies and hedge funds collect off the backs of the world's poorest citizens by capping the interest amounts for which the companies could sue at six percent. The legislation also increases transparency of these funds, requiring full disclosure from any fund that pursues Vulture Fund activity through the U.S. courts.
Vulture Funds are private equity or hedge funds that purchase the defaulted debt of developing countries, many of whom are Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC), at reduced rates and then sue the debtor nation for greatly inflated sums. Through the seizure of assets, litigation and political pressure, they seek repayments that are far in excess of the amount that the fund paid for the debt.
Led by Rep. Waters, the new legislation builds on the momentum from similar legislation introduced in the House in August 2008. The bill is co-sponsored by Representatives Spencer Bachus (R-AL), John Conyers (D-NJ), Donald Payne (D-NJ), Gregory Meeks (D-NY), Gwen Moore (D-WI), Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), Barbara Lee (D-CA), Eleanor Holmes-Norton (D-DC), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Luis Gutierrex (D-IL) and Wasserman Schultz (D-FL).
A coalition of non-governmental organizations working to prevent vulture funds from taking advantage of poor countries praised Rep. Waters' legislation. "We commend the leadership shown by U.S. congressional representatives. H.R. 2932 is a key step in protecting developing countries from Vulture Funds. Now the legislation needs support by the full House and to move forward for Senate review," Nicole Lee, Executive Director of TransAfrica Forum says.
The burden of Vulture Funds is being felt throughout Africa. "This year the Democratic Republic of the Congo could accrue fines of up to $80,000 a week as a result of a vulture lawsuit," said Gerald LeMelle, Executive Director of Africa Action. He added, "This would be a enormous barrier to the DRC's efforts to reconstruct its social and economic infrastructure amid years of conflict."
Neil Watkins, Executive Director of Jubilee USA Network, an alliance of 75 religious denominations, development agencies, and human rights groups noted, "Vulture Funds make their profits by deepening the suffering of millions of people in some of the poorest countries in the world. They are stealing the resources that should be invested in education, health and infrastructure improvement."
Last May, some of the world's major creditor governments publicly committed not to sell or transfer any of their debt claims on HIPC countries to creditors who do not intend to provide debt relief under HIPC initiative, safeguarding this debt from litigation by Vulture creditors. Many countries, however, continue to sell their debt claims on vulnerable countries.
Press Release
18 June 2009
Today advocacy organizations and debt relief campaigners welcome the reintroduction of the Stop Very Unscrupulous Loan Transfers from Underprivileged Countries to Rich, Exploitive Funds or "Stop VULTURE Funds" Act (H.R. 2932) This bill, introduced in the House of Representatives, is designed to protect developing nations from lawsuits by so-called Vulture Funds.
The Stop VULTURE Funds Act introduced by Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) would prevent U.S. companies from buying the debt of impoverished countries at cut-rate prices and then suing to collect exponential profits. The bill would limit the excessive profits that companies and hedge funds collect off the backs of the world's poorest citizens by capping the interest amounts for which the companies could sue at six percent. The legislation also increases transparency of these funds, requiring full disclosure from any fund that pursues Vulture Fund activity through the U.S. courts.
Vulture Funds are private equity or hedge funds that purchase the defaulted debt of developing countries, many of whom are Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC), at reduced rates and then sue the debtor nation for greatly inflated sums. Through the seizure of assets, litigation and political pressure, they seek repayments that are far in excess of the amount that the fund paid for the debt.
Led by Rep. Waters, the new legislation builds on the momentum from similar legislation introduced in the House in August 2008. The bill is co-sponsored by Representatives Spencer Bachus (R-AL), John Conyers (D-NJ), Donald Payne (D-NJ), Gregory Meeks (D-NY), Gwen Moore (D-WI), Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), Barbara Lee (D-CA), Eleanor Holmes-Norton (D-DC), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Luis Gutierrex (D-IL) and Wasserman Schultz (D-FL).
A coalition of non-governmental organizations working to prevent vulture funds from taking advantage of poor countries praised Rep. Waters' legislation. "We commend the leadership shown by U.S. congressional representatives. H.R. 2932 is a key step in protecting developing countries from Vulture Funds. Now the legislation needs support by the full House and to move forward for Senate review," Nicole Lee, Executive Director of TransAfrica Forum says.
The burden of Vulture Funds is being felt throughout Africa. "This year the Democratic Republic of the Congo could accrue fines of up to $80,000 a week as a result of a vulture lawsuit," said Gerald LeMelle, Executive Director of Africa Action. He added, "This would be a enormous barrier to the DRC's efforts to reconstruct its social and economic infrastructure amid years of conflict."
Neil Watkins, Executive Director of Jubilee USA Network, an alliance of 75 religious denominations, development agencies, and human rights groups noted, "Vulture Funds make their profits by deepening the suffering of millions of people in some of the poorest countries in the world. They are stealing the resources that should be invested in education, health and infrastructure improvement."
Last May, some of the world's major creditor governments publicly committed not to sell or transfer any of their debt claims on HIPC countries to creditors who do not intend to provide debt relief under HIPC initiative, safeguarding this debt from litigation by Vulture creditors. Many countries, however, continue to sell their debt claims on vulnerable countries.
Congress Votes $721 Million for UN Troops, Erasing U.S. Debt.
Bloomberg
18 June 2009
By Bill Varner
June 18 (Bloomberg) -- The Senate joined the House of Representatives in passing an appropriations bill that includes $721 million for United Nations peacekeeping, erasing U.S. debts to the world body for the first time since 1999.
“This means the UN will be able to pay soldiers in all of its peacekeeping missions, in hotspots such as the Congo, Haiti and Lebanon, without borrowing from other accounts,” Peter Yeo, vice president of the UN Foundation, said in an interview. “It will restore the credibility of the U.S. at the UN so Ambassador Susan Rice can do her job effectively.”
The spending bill, which now goes to President Barack Obama for his signature, also includes $168 million to support the African Union’s peacekeeping mission in Somalia, aimed at fending off an Islamist insurgency. The UN Security Council decided to use UN funds to keep the African forces in Somalia after Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon was unable to recruit troops for a UN mission.
“This is a strong indication of the Obama administration’s commitment to working with the UN, and making sure we have the resources to do the jobs our members ask of us,” Marie Okabe, deputy spokeswoman for Ban, said in a statement.
The peacekeeping funds are part of a $106 billion measure that provides more than $82 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The U.S. began to fall behind in its payments to the UN’s operating and peacekeeping budgets during the Reagan administration and owed as much as $1.2 billion in 1997. The debt was erased in 1999 and then began to build up again through late payments and under funding during the Bush administration.
Congress last year paid off the amount due for the annual operating budget, leaving the peacekeeping arrears.
18 June 2009
By Bill Varner
June 18 (Bloomberg) -- The Senate joined the House of Representatives in passing an appropriations bill that includes $721 million for United Nations peacekeeping, erasing U.S. debts to the world body for the first time since 1999.
“This means the UN will be able to pay soldiers in all of its peacekeeping missions, in hotspots such as the Congo, Haiti and Lebanon, without borrowing from other accounts,” Peter Yeo, vice president of the UN Foundation, said in an interview. “It will restore the credibility of the U.S. at the UN so Ambassador Susan Rice can do her job effectively.”
The spending bill, which now goes to President Barack Obama for his signature, also includes $168 million to support the African Union’s peacekeeping mission in Somalia, aimed at fending off an Islamist insurgency. The UN Security Council decided to use UN funds to keep the African forces in Somalia after Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon was unable to recruit troops for a UN mission.
“This is a strong indication of the Obama administration’s commitment to working with the UN, and making sure we have the resources to do the jobs our members ask of us,” Marie Okabe, deputy spokeswoman for Ban, said in a statement.
The peacekeeping funds are part of a $106 billion measure that provides more than $82 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The U.S. began to fall behind in its payments to the UN’s operating and peacekeeping budgets during the Reagan administration and owed as much as $1.2 billion in 1997. The debt was erased in 1999 and then began to build up again through late payments and under funding during the Bush administration.
Congress last year paid off the amount due for the annual operating budget, leaving the peacekeeping arrears.
Iraq-based Ugandan guards face pay cut.
The New Vison
18 June 2009
UGANDAN security guards serving in Iraq will for the second time in two years see a drastic pay cut.
Conan Businge and Fortunate Ahimbisibwe report that the Government has approved a 25% salary reduction for new recruits, according to a communication from the Labour ministry.
The risky job of protecting American soldiers and installations will now earn the guards $450 (about sh1m) a month.
This is down from $600 last year and between $900 and $1,200 two years ago, according to figures from the labour ministry.
The new salary cut does not apply to on-going contracts where a higher figure was agreed upon.
The move is said to be a result of the global economic crisis. But it also has to do with stiff competition from neighbouring countries.
Labour state minister Emmanuel Otaala, in a letter to the recruitment agencies last week, attributed the salary reduction to a ‘dip in the employment market’.
“Many employers are choosing to respond to the economic crisis by taking measures to reduce their labour costs, which include reducing wages or working hours. Others are terminating employees,” the letter said.
The ministry, it adds, had received information that the American companies that employ Ugandan guards at $600 are shifting to recruiting Kenyans at $400.
Otaala confirmed the move in a telephone interview with The New Vision. In the last six months, he said, Uganda had failed to get slots for 1,000 guards in Iraq due to their high cost.
“It is on this basis that the Government has decided to revise the minimum wage. The reduction is to help Uganda remain competitive in the market.”
Dreshak International, one of the main companies recruiting for Iraq, initiated the first request for a salary cut in 2008.
After negotiating the reduction, however, the company took its business to Kenya, where it recruited about 3,000 Kenyans in April and November 2008. The Kenyans are in Camp Echo and Camp Summers in Baghdad.
Government records show that there are 12,300 Ugandan guards in Iraq. They are recruited through one of the seven recognised agencies.
18 June 2009
UGANDAN security guards serving in Iraq will for the second time in two years see a drastic pay cut.
Conan Businge and Fortunate Ahimbisibwe report that the Government has approved a 25% salary reduction for new recruits, according to a communication from the Labour ministry.
The risky job of protecting American soldiers and installations will now earn the guards $450 (about sh1m) a month.
This is down from $600 last year and between $900 and $1,200 two years ago, according to figures from the labour ministry.
The new salary cut does not apply to on-going contracts where a higher figure was agreed upon.
The move is said to be a result of the global economic crisis. But it also has to do with stiff competition from neighbouring countries.
Labour state minister Emmanuel Otaala, in a letter to the recruitment agencies last week, attributed the salary reduction to a ‘dip in the employment market’.
“Many employers are choosing to respond to the economic crisis by taking measures to reduce their labour costs, which include reducing wages or working hours. Others are terminating employees,” the letter said.
The ministry, it adds, had received information that the American companies that employ Ugandan guards at $600 are shifting to recruiting Kenyans at $400.
Otaala confirmed the move in a telephone interview with The New Vision. In the last six months, he said, Uganda had failed to get slots for 1,000 guards in Iraq due to their high cost.
“It is on this basis that the Government has decided to revise the minimum wage. The reduction is to help Uganda remain competitive in the market.”
Dreshak International, one of the main companies recruiting for Iraq, initiated the first request for a salary cut in 2008.
After negotiating the reduction, however, the company took its business to Kenya, where it recruited about 3,000 Kenyans in April and November 2008. The Kenyans are in Camp Echo and Camp Summers in Baghdad.
Government records show that there are 12,300 Ugandan guards in Iraq. They are recruited through one of the seven recognised agencies.
18 June, 2009
China is Not a Threat to Continent - Museveni.
The New Vision
17 June 2009
By Cyprian Musoke And Agencies
Yoweri Museveni has assured Western powers that Africa is capable of protecting its resources from any exploitation by foreign countries.
He was responding to concerns expressed by German President Horst Kohler over the growing Chinese influence in Africa on his second day of his visit to Germany.
Kohler observed that Africa had opened its doors wide for Chinese investments because the Beijing authorities do not put conditions in terms of democracy or human rights.
"For this reason, Africans believe that China is better than the West because for us we raise issues regarding democracy, corruption and human rights," the German President said at his Berlin palace.
Museveni, accompanied by the First Lady, Janet, said unlike in colonial times, African leaders have identified their priorities and are capable of protecting the continent's interests.
"Therefore, no power can exploit Africa," a press release from the State House quoted him.
Kohler's remarks come two days after the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China expressed interest in building an oil refinery and pipeline in Uganda.
Meeting Museveni at Entebbe Airport just before his departure for Germany, the Chinese bank's chairperson also said they were keen on constructing hydro-power stations and transmission lines.
Beijing a few years ago embarked on a policy to strengthen cooperation and trade ties with Africa.
The move is seen in Europe as China's scramble for Africa's natural resources, needed to meet the demands of its rapidly growing industries.
Trade between the Asian giant and Africa reached a record $107b in 2008, a 45% increase compared to the previous year and triple the total trade volume of 2004, according to statistics.
The surge is fuelled by China's increased imports of African oil and minerals, while Africa is buying more Chinese-made goods. Angola remained China's largest trading partner in Africa last year, followed by South Africa.
Museveni told his host in Berlin that the priorities identified by African leaders were infrastructure development, cheap energy and transport in the form of a modern and efficient railway system.
In addition, he said, there was need for education and industries that will provide jobs to the young educated Africans.
On the DRC, he said the country needed a strong army to ensure that terrorist organisations do not use their soil to terrorise neighbouring countries.
The joint military operation against the LRA has reduced the rebels' capacity to terrorise Ugandans at the border, he noted.
Kohler announced that Germany and other European countries want to start a new cooperation arrangement with Africa.
"We need a meeting with a few African Presidents to discuss the implementation of this new cooperation. We do not want to make the same mistakes Europe made during the colonial period."
17 June 2009
By Cyprian Musoke And Agencies
Yoweri Museveni has assured Western powers that Africa is capable of protecting its resources from any exploitation by foreign countries.
He was responding to concerns expressed by German President Horst Kohler over the growing Chinese influence in Africa on his second day of his visit to Germany.
Kohler observed that Africa had opened its doors wide for Chinese investments because the Beijing authorities do not put conditions in terms of democracy or human rights.
"For this reason, Africans believe that China is better than the West because for us we raise issues regarding democracy, corruption and human rights," the German President said at his Berlin palace.
Museveni, accompanied by the First Lady, Janet, said unlike in colonial times, African leaders have identified their priorities and are capable of protecting the continent's interests.
"Therefore, no power can exploit Africa," a press release from the State House quoted him.
Kohler's remarks come two days after the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China expressed interest in building an oil refinery and pipeline in Uganda.
Meeting Museveni at Entebbe Airport just before his departure for Germany, the Chinese bank's chairperson also said they were keen on constructing hydro-power stations and transmission lines.
Beijing a few years ago embarked on a policy to strengthen cooperation and trade ties with Africa.
The move is seen in Europe as China's scramble for Africa's natural resources, needed to meet the demands of its rapidly growing industries.
Trade between the Asian giant and Africa reached a record $107b in 2008, a 45% increase compared to the previous year and triple the total trade volume of 2004, according to statistics.
The surge is fuelled by China's increased imports of African oil and minerals, while Africa is buying more Chinese-made goods. Angola remained China's largest trading partner in Africa last year, followed by South Africa.
Museveni told his host in Berlin that the priorities identified by African leaders were infrastructure development, cheap energy and transport in the form of a modern and efficient railway system.
In addition, he said, there was need for education and industries that will provide jobs to the young educated Africans.
On the DRC, he said the country needed a strong army to ensure that terrorist organisations do not use their soil to terrorise neighbouring countries.
The joint military operation against the LRA has reduced the rebels' capacity to terrorise Ugandans at the border, he noted.
Kohler announced that Germany and other European countries want to start a new cooperation arrangement with Africa.
"We need a meeting with a few African Presidents to discuss the implementation of this new cooperation. We do not want to make the same mistakes Europe made during the colonial period."
17 June, 2009
China eyes oil refinery in Indian Ocean.
The New Vision
16 June 2009
The Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (ICBC) is interested in building an oil refinery and pipeline to the Indian Ocean, the chairperson, Jiang Jianqin, has said.
Meeting President Yoweri Museveni yesterday, Jianqin, who led a delegation from the Chinese bank and Stanbic Bank, said his institution was also keen on developing hydro-power stations, construction of power transmission lines and roads.
Speaking at the Entebbe International Airport’s VIP Lounge, Jianqin also said the Chinese bank wanted to develop the agricultural sector, a State House release said.
ICBC is the largest bank in the world and owns a stake in Standard Bank of South Africa. Standard Bank of South Africa is the majority share holder in Stanbic Bank Uganda.
The statement said the President pledged support to the ventures, saying the investments would boost the economy.
He urged the investors to explore other investment opportunities in Africa.
In a separate engagement, the President met officials of the China Heavy Machinery Corporation, which also expressed interest in the construction of hydro-power dams, ports and railway lines.
Museveni, who assured the investors of support, urged the delegation to consider building a fertiliser plant and an iron ore industry.
Later, the President left for Berlin, Germany, on a three-day working visit.
Accompanied by his wife Janet, he is expected to meet the President of Germany, Horst Kohler, and hold talks with the parliamentary committee on East Africa.
The State House said discussions with the committee would centre on the fast-tracking of the East African Federation.
The President is also scheduled to meet leaders of the German Christian Democratic Union and address the annual Berlin Gathering, an inter-faith conference.
Other engagements include an international prayer breakfast which he will attend with the First Lady.
16 June 2009
The Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (ICBC) is interested in building an oil refinery and pipeline to the Indian Ocean, the chairperson, Jiang Jianqin, has said.
Meeting President Yoweri Museveni yesterday, Jianqin, who led a delegation from the Chinese bank and Stanbic Bank, said his institution was also keen on developing hydro-power stations, construction of power transmission lines and roads.
Speaking at the Entebbe International Airport’s VIP Lounge, Jianqin also said the Chinese bank wanted to develop the agricultural sector, a State House release said.
ICBC is the largest bank in the world and owns a stake in Standard Bank of South Africa. Standard Bank of South Africa is the majority share holder in Stanbic Bank Uganda.
The statement said the President pledged support to the ventures, saying the investments would boost the economy.
He urged the investors to explore other investment opportunities in Africa.
In a separate engagement, the President met officials of the China Heavy Machinery Corporation, which also expressed interest in the construction of hydro-power dams, ports and railway lines.
Museveni, who assured the investors of support, urged the delegation to consider building a fertiliser plant and an iron ore industry.
Later, the President left for Berlin, Germany, on a three-day working visit.
Accompanied by his wife Janet, he is expected to meet the President of Germany, Horst Kohler, and hold talks with the parliamentary committee on East Africa.
The State House said discussions with the committee would centre on the fast-tracking of the East African Federation.
The President is also scheduled to meet leaders of the German Christian Democratic Union and address the annual Berlin Gathering, an inter-faith conference.
Other engagements include an international prayer breakfast which he will attend with the First Lady.
Georgia, U.S. Strategic Partnership Council Planned.
Civil Georgia
16 June 2009
An inaugural meeting of the U.S.-Georgia Strategic Partnership Council will be held in Washington on June 22 based on the charter signed between the two countries in January, Philip H. Gordon, the U.S. assistant secretary of state, said.
The meeting will be chaired by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Georgian Foreign Minister Grigol Vashadze. Interior Minister, Vano Merabishvili, is also expected to visit the United States.
In his prepared statement before the Subcommittee on Europe of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Gordon said that the move “reaffirms our commitment to deepen cooperation with Georgia.”
“The United States strongly supports Georgia’s territorial integrity and sovereignty and its commitment to further democratic reform,” he said. “We will maintain solidarity with the international community in refusing to recognize the independence of these separatist regions [of Abkhazia and South Ossetia] of Georgia. We regret that Russia blocked the extension of the OSCE and UN missions in Georgia.”
Grigol Vashadze said last week that concrete measures for implementing the strategic partnership charter between to countries would top the agenda of his planned trip to the United States.
16 June 2009
An inaugural meeting of the U.S.-Georgia Strategic Partnership Council will be held in Washington on June 22 based on the charter signed between the two countries in January, Philip H. Gordon, the U.S. assistant secretary of state, said.
The meeting will be chaired by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Georgian Foreign Minister Grigol Vashadze. Interior Minister, Vano Merabishvili, is also expected to visit the United States.
In his prepared statement before the Subcommittee on Europe of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Gordon said that the move “reaffirms our commitment to deepen cooperation with Georgia.”
“The United States strongly supports Georgia’s territorial integrity and sovereignty and its commitment to further democratic reform,” he said. “We will maintain solidarity with the international community in refusing to recognize the independence of these separatist regions [of Abkhazia and South Ossetia] of Georgia. We regret that Russia blocked the extension of the OSCE and UN missions in Georgia.”
Grigol Vashadze said last week that concrete measures for implementing the strategic partnership charter between to countries would top the agenda of his planned trip to the United States.
16 June, 2009
S. Sudan and US development arm sign understanding for $203m fund.
Sudan Tribune
16 June 2009
Officials from the governments of semi-autonomous Southern Sudan and the United States came together Monday to pen a Memorandum of Understanding on US$203 million in funding.
Minister Oyai Deng Ajak agrees with USAID official Earl Gast, June 15, 2009. The funds are part of an overall Regional Assistance Grant Agreement signed between USA and GOSS in September 2008.
In signing the agreement, the south Sudanese officials acknowledged US support in several development sectors: sustainable livelihoods, healthcare including HIV/AIDs and malaria treatment and prevention, expanded access to education through interactive radio and gender equality scholarships and other programs, governance, and elections preparations.
The event, held at Home and Away Business Center in Juba, was led by Government of Southern Sudan Minister of Regional Cooperation General Oyai Deng Ajak, and Earl Gast, Acting Deputy Administrator for the Bureau for Africa of the US Agency for International Development (USAID).
Also present were the USAID Mission Director in Sudan, William Hammink; the USAID Director of Sudan Programs, Bradley Wallach, who travelled from Washington; and the Acting Consul General of the US Consulate in Juba, Erin Tariot.
Minister Ajak had just arrived yesterday from a one week stay in South Africa to meet with ANC leadership in Johannesburg.
Among the attendees for the Government of Southern Sudan were: Minister for Presidential Affairs Luka Biong Deng, GOSS Minister of Commerce and Industry Barnaba Marial Benjamin, Minister of Agriculture and Forestry Samson Kwaje, Minister of Energy and Mining John Luk Jok, Minister of Animal Resources and Fisheries Festo Kumba, Minister of Water Resources and Irrigation Joseph Duer Joakok, Under-Secretary Ministry of Regional Cooperation Cirino Hiteng Ofuho, Under-Secretary Ministry of Roads and Transport Daniel Wani, and Director General of Roads and Bridges Jacob Marial.
16 June 2009
Officials from the governments of semi-autonomous Southern Sudan and the United States came together Monday to pen a Memorandum of Understanding on US$203 million in funding.
Minister Oyai Deng Ajak agrees with USAID official Earl Gast, June 15, 2009. The funds are part of an overall Regional Assistance Grant Agreement signed between USA and GOSS in September 2008.
In signing the agreement, the south Sudanese officials acknowledged US support in several development sectors: sustainable livelihoods, healthcare including HIV/AIDs and malaria treatment and prevention, expanded access to education through interactive radio and gender equality scholarships and other programs, governance, and elections preparations.
The event, held at Home and Away Business Center in Juba, was led by Government of Southern Sudan Minister of Regional Cooperation General Oyai Deng Ajak, and Earl Gast, Acting Deputy Administrator for the Bureau for Africa of the US Agency for International Development (USAID).
Also present were the USAID Mission Director in Sudan, William Hammink; the USAID Director of Sudan Programs, Bradley Wallach, who travelled from Washington; and the Acting Consul General of the US Consulate in Juba, Erin Tariot.
Minister Ajak had just arrived yesterday from a one week stay in South Africa to meet with ANC leadership in Johannesburg.
Among the attendees for the Government of Southern Sudan were: Minister for Presidential Affairs Luka Biong Deng, GOSS Minister of Commerce and Industry Barnaba Marial Benjamin, Minister of Agriculture and Forestry Samson Kwaje, Minister of Energy and Mining John Luk Jok, Minister of Animal Resources and Fisheries Festo Kumba, Minister of Water Resources and Irrigation Joseph Duer Joakok, Under-Secretary Ministry of Regional Cooperation Cirino Hiteng Ofuho, Under-Secretary Ministry of Roads and Transport Daniel Wani, and Director General of Roads and Bridges Jacob Marial.
Sudan’s CPA partners head to Washington to evaluate peace deal.
Sudan Tribune
16 June 2009
By James Gatdet Dak
A high level delegation of the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) heads to Washington, DC on Tuesday to participate in evaluation of the implementation of the 2005 peace deal.
Yasser Arman, the Deputy Secretary General for Northern Sector told the press on Monday in Juba that delegations of the National Congress Party (NCP) and SPLM will converge in the United States capital to evaluate the Comprehensive Peace Agreement’s (CPA) implementation.
He said the biggest issue on the agenda is the upcoming conduct of referendum in Southern Sudan which is scheduled to take place 18 months from now in January 2011.
“Referendum will be the biggest event ever in the history of modern Sudan since 1956,” said Arman, warning that the time was running out.
He said the SPLM’s strong team of about ten officials will be led by the party’s Deputy Chairperson, Malik Agaar, who is also the Governor of Southern Blue Nile state.
Countries that were witnesses to the CPA are also expected to participate in the Washington meeting.
Arman added that other issues to be discussed will include the undergoing review of national laws, the respective popular consultations for Nuba Mountains and Southern Blue Nile and the Darfur conflict, among others.
He did not say who was going to lead the NCP delegation to the meeting.
16 June 2009
By James Gatdet Dak
A high level delegation of the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) heads to Washington, DC on Tuesday to participate in evaluation of the implementation of the 2005 peace deal.
Yasser Arman, the Deputy Secretary General for Northern Sector told the press on Monday in Juba that delegations of the National Congress Party (NCP) and SPLM will converge in the United States capital to evaluate the Comprehensive Peace Agreement’s (CPA) implementation.
He said the biggest issue on the agenda is the upcoming conduct of referendum in Southern Sudan which is scheduled to take place 18 months from now in January 2011.
“Referendum will be the biggest event ever in the history of modern Sudan since 1956,” said Arman, warning that the time was running out.
He said the SPLM’s strong team of about ten officials will be led by the party’s Deputy Chairperson, Malik Agaar, who is also the Governor of Southern Blue Nile state.
Countries that were witnesses to the CPA are also expected to participate in the Washington meeting.
Arman added that other issues to be discussed will include the undergoing review of national laws, the respective popular consultations for Nuba Mountains and Southern Blue Nile and the Darfur conflict, among others.
He did not say who was going to lead the NCP delegation to the meeting.
Sudan expects removal from US sponsors of terrorism list.
Sudan Tribune
16 June 2009
The Sudanese foreign minister Deng Alor today told the parliament that he expects easing of US economic sanctions and removal from the list of states that sponsor terrorism.
Sudan’s Foreign Minister Deng Alor walks after a meeting his Syrian counterpart Walid al-Moualem in Damascus June 8, 2009 (Reuters) Alor was providing legislators with the state of Sudan’s foreign relations and performance of his ministry.
The top Sudanese diplomat came under fire from the parliament speaker earlier this month for failing to show up for the briefing he made today.
At the time Alor said his appointments prevented him from delivering his remarks back then.
On the relations with Washington the foreign minister said that bilateral dialogue is continuing and will soon lead to steps of normalization including lifting sanctions and delisting from the state sponsors of terrorism.
Alor said that the Netherlands convinced the US that sanctions policy do more harm than good in countries witnessing civil war particularly when the conflict is over resources and wealth.
He also revealed that a number of European countries including Germany and Sweden agreed to partially resume economic development aid to Sudan.
Hungary and Slovakia decided to forgive Sudan’s debt, he added.
The foreign minister hailed the cooperation between Sudan and the African Union (AU) as well as the United Nations (UN) on the deployment of Darfur peacekeepers and humanitarian work.
He also valued the role played by the AU panel headed by former South African president Thabo Mbeki looking into ways to resolve the Darfur crisis while ensuring accountability.
Alor said that efforts by his ministry and support received from Arab, African and Islamic countries against the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued for president Omer Hassan Al-Bashir last March.
He said this resulted in the failure by the ICC prosecutor this month to convince the UN Security Council (UNSC) to take action against Sudan for not cooperating with the court.
16 June 2009
The Sudanese foreign minister Deng Alor today told the parliament that he expects easing of US economic sanctions and removal from the list of states that sponsor terrorism.
Sudan’s Foreign Minister Deng Alor walks after a meeting his Syrian counterpart Walid al-Moualem in Damascus June 8, 2009 (Reuters) Alor was providing legislators with the state of Sudan’s foreign relations and performance of his ministry.
The top Sudanese diplomat came under fire from the parliament speaker earlier this month for failing to show up for the briefing he made today.
At the time Alor said his appointments prevented him from delivering his remarks back then.
On the relations with Washington the foreign minister said that bilateral dialogue is continuing and will soon lead to steps of normalization including lifting sanctions and delisting from the state sponsors of terrorism.
Alor said that the Netherlands convinced the US that sanctions policy do more harm than good in countries witnessing civil war particularly when the conflict is over resources and wealth.
He also revealed that a number of European countries including Germany and Sweden agreed to partially resume economic development aid to Sudan.
Hungary and Slovakia decided to forgive Sudan’s debt, he added.
The foreign minister hailed the cooperation between Sudan and the African Union (AU) as well as the United Nations (UN) on the deployment of Darfur peacekeepers and humanitarian work.
He also valued the role played by the AU panel headed by former South African president Thabo Mbeki looking into ways to resolve the Darfur crisis while ensuring accountability.
Alor said that efforts by his ministry and support received from Arab, African and Islamic countries against the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued for president Omer Hassan Al-Bashir last March.
He said this resulted in the failure by the ICC prosecutor this month to convince the UN Security Council (UNSC) to take action against Sudan for not cooperating with the court.
UN 'runs out of aid for Ethiopia.'
BBC News
16 June 2009
The UN has warned that it has run out of food to provide for nine million Ethiopians who rely on its assistance.
A UN spokesman told the BBC the port of Djibouti was seriously congested and there was little prospect of supplies arriving for the next five months.
Following a border war, Eritrea denied Ethiopia access to its ports, so the landlocked country relies on Djibouti.
Correspondents say this time of year is known as "the hunger season", three months before the next harvest.
The UN World Food Programme says breast-feeding mothers, children and refugees will be among those worst hit.
It warns after it hands out final rations this month there will be no further deliveries until September or October.
The agency says it has no option but to cut back on the food they provide, which has already been cut by a third since July 2008.
"We have a small refugee population here and their ration is being cut by half beginning this month. We run out of food and people will be very hungry," WFP's Barry Came told the BBC.
BBC Africa analyst Martin Plaut says in the jargon of the aid agencies, the food pipeline has ruptured.
The port of Djibouti is full to overflowing and the Ethiopian government has prioritised the delivery of fertiliser, to try to increase the next harvest.
But even when the grain gets through the WFP says there is an acute shortage of trucks, with the Ethiopian authorities preventing the agency from bringing in its own fleet from Sudan.
The UN says the Ethiopian authorities have exacerbated the situation by refusing it permission to use a fleet of trucks to transport the grain from Djibouti.
16 June 2009
The UN has warned that it has run out of food to provide for nine million Ethiopians who rely on its assistance.
A UN spokesman told the BBC the port of Djibouti was seriously congested and there was little prospect of supplies arriving for the next five months.
Following a border war, Eritrea denied Ethiopia access to its ports, so the landlocked country relies on Djibouti.
Correspondents say this time of year is known as "the hunger season", three months before the next harvest.
The UN World Food Programme says breast-feeding mothers, children and refugees will be among those worst hit.
It warns after it hands out final rations this month there will be no further deliveries until September or October.
The agency says it has no option but to cut back on the food they provide, which has already been cut by a third since July 2008.
"We have a small refugee population here and their ration is being cut by half beginning this month. We run out of food and people will be very hungry," WFP's Barry Came told the BBC.
BBC Africa analyst Martin Plaut says in the jargon of the aid agencies, the food pipeline has ruptured.
The port of Djibouti is full to overflowing and the Ethiopian government has prioritised the delivery of fertiliser, to try to increase the next harvest.
But even when the grain gets through the WFP says there is an acute shortage of trucks, with the Ethiopian authorities preventing the agency from bringing in its own fleet from Sudan.
The UN says the Ethiopian authorities have exacerbated the situation by refusing it permission to use a fleet of trucks to transport the grain from Djibouti.
India to deploy advanced aircraft along Pakistan, China borders.
Daily Times
16 June 2009
As part of a plan to build up forces along the borders of Pakistan and China, India on Monday deployed four Sukhoi fighter aircraft on Tezpur airbase in Assam along the Chinese border. The base would soon have a full squadron of the multi-purpose Sukhoi aircraft. Along the Pakistani border, the Indian Air Force would deploy a Sukhoi squadron each in Halwara near Ludhiana in Punjab and Jodhpur in Rajasthan by the end of 2010. Chabua, another fighter base in Assam, is also being prepared to host a Sukhoi squadron in the future. IAF plans to acquire over 200 Russian-made Sukhoi in the next five years.
16 June 2009
As part of a plan to build up forces along the borders of Pakistan and China, India on Monday deployed four Sukhoi fighter aircraft on Tezpur airbase in Assam along the Chinese border. The base would soon have a full squadron of the multi-purpose Sukhoi aircraft. Along the Pakistani border, the Indian Air Force would deploy a Sukhoi squadron each in Halwara near Ludhiana in Punjab and Jodhpur in Rajasthan by the end of 2010. Chabua, another fighter base in Assam, is also being prepared to host a Sukhoi squadron in the future. IAF plans to acquire over 200 Russian-made Sukhoi in the next five years.
15 June, 2009
Congo's Bemba to stand ICC trial.
BBC News
15 June 2009
Congolese ex-Vice-President Jean-Pierre Bemba will face five counts of war crimes, the International Criminal Court has ruled.
The charges relate to the actions of his troops in the neighbouring Central African Republic in 2002 and 2003.
Mr Bemba has denied all charges, saying the militia was not under his command once they had crossed the border.
He led a rebel movement during DR Congo's long civil war but became vice-president under a peace deal.
Mr Bemba is the most high-profile of four Congolese warlords facing trial at the ICC.
A pre-trial panel of judges "found that there is sufficient evidence to establish substantial grounds to believe that Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo is criminally responsible" for murders, rapes and pillaging, said a statement from the ICC.
He is to face trial on three counts of war crimes and two of crimes against humanity.
JEAN-PIERRE BEMBA
Son of famous businessman
Former assistant to Mobutu Sese Seko
1998: Helped by Uganda to former MLC rebel group
2003: Becomes vice-president under peace deal
2006: Loses run-off election to President Joseph Kabila but gets most votes in western DR Congo
2007: Flees after clashes in Kinshasa
Warlord trial gives victims hope
Profile: Jean-Pierre Bemba
Fighters from his Movement for the Liberation of Congo were accused of committing atrocities when they intervened in the conflict in CAR.
At a pre-trial hearing in January, the prosecutor said:
"Bemba wanted to traumatise and terrorise the civilian population so they would not support the rebels."
"He chose rape as his main method... rapes against mothers in the presence of their children and rapes of children as their parents were forced to watch."
Mr Bemba, 46, was arrested in Belgium last May and extradited to The Hague in July.
One of his defence lawyers suggested that the charges may be politically motivated, to remove Mr Bemba from future elections in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
He lost a landmark run-off election against President Joseph Kabila in 2006.
He fled the country after being charged with treason after his bodyguards clashed with the army in 2007.
15 June 2009
Congolese ex-Vice-President Jean-Pierre Bemba will face five counts of war crimes, the International Criminal Court has ruled.
The charges relate to the actions of his troops in the neighbouring Central African Republic in 2002 and 2003.
Mr Bemba has denied all charges, saying the militia was not under his command once they had crossed the border.
He led a rebel movement during DR Congo's long civil war but became vice-president under a peace deal.
Mr Bemba is the most high-profile of four Congolese warlords facing trial at the ICC.
A pre-trial panel of judges "found that there is sufficient evidence to establish substantial grounds to believe that Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo is criminally responsible" for murders, rapes and pillaging, said a statement from the ICC.
He is to face trial on three counts of war crimes and two of crimes against humanity.
JEAN-PIERRE BEMBA
Son of famous businessman
Former assistant to Mobutu Sese Seko
1998: Helped by Uganda to former MLC rebel group
2003: Becomes vice-president under peace deal
2006: Loses run-off election to President Joseph Kabila but gets most votes in western DR Congo
2007: Flees after clashes in Kinshasa
Warlord trial gives victims hope
Profile: Jean-Pierre Bemba
Fighters from his Movement for the Liberation of Congo were accused of committing atrocities when they intervened in the conflict in CAR.
At a pre-trial hearing in January, the prosecutor said:
"Bemba wanted to traumatise and terrorise the civilian population so they would not support the rebels."
"He chose rape as his main method... rapes against mothers in the presence of their children and rapes of children as their parents were forced to watch."
Mr Bemba, 46, was arrested in Belgium last May and extradited to The Hague in July.
One of his defence lawyers suggested that the charges may be politically motivated, to remove Mr Bemba from future elections in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
He lost a landmark run-off election against President Joseph Kabila in 2006.
He fled the country after being charged with treason after his bodyguards clashed with the army in 2007.
EU Probe Creates Burden for Saakashvili.
Der Spiegel
15 June 2009
By Uwe Klussmann
Unpublished documents produced by the European Union commission that investigated the conflict between Georgia and Moscow assign much of the blame to Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili. But the Kremlin and Ossetian militias are also partly responsible.
From her office on Avenue de la Paix, Swiss diplomat Heidi Tagliavini, 58, looks out onto the botanical gardens in peaceful Geneva. The view offers a welcome respite from the stacks of documents on her desk, which deal exclusively with war and war blame. They contain the responses, from the conflicting parties in the Caucasus region -- Russia, Georgia, South Ossetia and Abkhazia -- to a European Union investigative commission conducting a probe of the cause of the five-day war last August. The documents also include reports on the EU commission's trips to Moscow, the Georgian capital Tbilisi and the capitals of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, dossiers assembled by experts and the transcripts of interviews of diplomats, military officials and civilian victims of the war.
The Caucasus expert, nicknamed "Madame Courage" by the Zurich-based Swiss daily Neue Zürcher Zeitung, is considered a specialist on sensitive diplomatic matters. The Caucasus issue is the most difficult challenge she has faced to date. The final report by the commission she heads must be submitted to the EU Council of Ministers by late July. In the report, Tagliavini is expected to explain how, in August 2008, a long-smoldering regional conflict over the breakaway Georgia province of South Ossetia could suddenly have escalated into a war between Georgia and its much more powerful neighbor, Russia. Who is to blame for the most serious confrontation between East and West since the end of the Cold War?
In addition to having a budget of €1.6 million ($2.2 million) at her disposal, Tagliavini can draw on the expertise of two deputies, 10 specialists, military officials, political scientists, historians and international law experts.
Much hinges on the conclusions her commission will reach. Is Georgia, a former Soviet republic, a serious candidate for membership in NATO, or is the country in the hands of a reckless gambler? Did the Russian leadership simply defend South Ossetia, an ally seeking independence from Georgia, against a Georgian attack? Or did Russia spark a global crisis when its troops occupied parts of Georgia for a short period of time?
The confidential investigative commission documents, which SPIEGEL has obtained, show that the task of assigning blame for the conflict has been as much of a challenge for the commission members as it has for the international community. However, a majority of members tend to arrive at the assessment that Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili started the war by attacking South Ossetia on August 7, 2008. The facts assembled on Tagliavini's desk refute Saakashvili's claim that his country became the innocent victim of "Russian aggression" on that day.
In summarizing the military fiasco, commission member Christopher Langton, a retired British Army colonel, claims: "Georgia's dream is shattered, but the country can only blame itself for that."
Another commission member, Bruno Coppieter, a political scientist from Brussels, even speculates whether the Georgian government may have had outside help in its endeavor. "The support of Saakashvili by the West, especially military support," Coppieter writes, "inadvertently promoted Georgia's collision course."
Berlin journalist Jörg Himmelreich, who is also a member of the German Marshall Fund of the United States, disagrees. He advocates Georgia's acceptance into NATO and condones the "brief Georgian occupation of the South Ossetia capital Tskhinvali" with the argument that Georgian President Saakashvili faced "great pressure from within his own population to produce results," and to deliver on a promise he had made several times to achieve "reunification" with the separatist republic.
Self-Defense?
Himmelreich sharply condemns Russia's actions as "aggression" and a "violation of international law." Commission member Otto Luchterhandt, a Hamburg international law expert, reaches a more differentiated assessment. He argues that because the Georgians attacked a base used by Russian peacekeeping forces in the South Ossetian provincial capital Tskhinvali, Russia can invoke the right of self-defense under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.
The Russian troops were stationed in South Ossetia as a result of a 1992 agreement, binding under international law, between Russia and Georgia. Georgia's attack, Luchterhandt argues, constitutes a breach of this agreement, thereby giving Russia the right to intervene. Nevertheless, he writes, the Kremlin, with its overwhelming intervention in western Georgia, can be accused of "violating the principle of proportionality."
The experts found no evidence to support claims by the Georgian president, which he also mentioned in an interview with SPIEGEL, that a Russian column of 150 tanks had advanced into South Ossetia on the evening of Aug. 7. According to the commission's findings, the Russian army didn't enter South Ossetia until August 8.
Commission members note, on the other hand, that Saakashvili had already amassed 12,000 troops and 75 tanks on the border with South Ossetia on the morning of Aug. 7. In their research, they uncovered remarks by the Georgian president that demonstrate that he had long flirted with a military solution to the South Ossetian problem. "If you ask any Georgian soldier why he is serving in the armed forces, each of them will respond: 'To reestablish Georgia's territorial integrity,'" Saakashvili said in a television address on May 25, 2004.
Senior officials at the German Foreign Ministry in Berlin know that then German Ambassador Uwe Schramm warned in his reports of Saakashvili's penchant towards war. Schramm is now Tagliavini's deputy on the investigative commission.
When the five-day war began, Georgian General Mamuka Kurashvili said on television that his country would "reestablish constitutional order in the entire region." He may have been quoting from Georgian order No. 2, dated August 7. To date, the Georgians have not submitted a copy of this key document to the commission as requested, nor have they turned over copies of other official orders. The commission interprets these omissions as a sort of admission of guilt.
The commission members generally agree, however, that the Georgians and Russians alike violated the provision in the Geneva Convention for the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Both armies, for example, used cluster bombs, which distribute explosives over a wide area, killing several civilians and wounding many more. Georgia admits to having used the weapons, while Russia denies the charges.
"War Crimes"
The commission also cited many serious attacks on Georgian civilians by South Ossetia militias. According to a report for the commission by Swiss legal expert Théo Boutruche, militia members, most of them young men, looted and burned down several villages inhabited by Georgians, beat civilians and murdered more than a dozen Georgians. According to the Hague Convention on Land Warfare, the Russian occupying force was obligated to reestablish public order. But it did almost nothing to prevent the atrocities, which a commission dossier classifies as "war crimes."
It is now up to the Swiss head of the commission to prepare the final version of the report, and there are no plans to include dissenting opinions. However, Tagliavini has a reputation for avoiding harsh judgments against any party to a conflict. Commission members predict that she will likely integrate Himmelreich's position into the final report, keeping the door open for Georgia to join the Western defense alliance, despite its hot-headed president. In early June, Saakashvili boasted that his country was still at war with its Russian "enemy."
Another question will likely remain unanswered: What role did the United States, the sole remaining superpower, play in the Georgian conflict? For years, the government of former President George W. Bush provided Georgia with extensive military aid, which included sending about 150 military trainers to the country.
Nevertheless, a number of commission members are curious to know what John Tefft, the US ambassador in Tbilisi and a former advisor at the National War College in Washington, knew about Saakashvili's marching orders. One question they would like to ask is why no one at the US State Department took a call from Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Grigory Karasin when the war broke out in the early morning hours of August 8 -- when it was afternoon in Washington.
Other commission members would be interested in talking to Daniel Fried, the assistant secretary of state responsible for Georgia at the time. Fried recently told a German foreign policy expert privately that Saakashvili "went out of control" in August.
But Tagliavini's team won't be questioning any Americans. According to one member of the commission, "our director and the EU apparently lack the courage" to take that step.
15 June 2009
By Uwe Klussmann
Unpublished documents produced by the European Union commission that investigated the conflict between Georgia and Moscow assign much of the blame to Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili. But the Kremlin and Ossetian militias are also partly responsible.
From her office on Avenue de la Paix, Swiss diplomat Heidi Tagliavini, 58, looks out onto the botanical gardens in peaceful Geneva. The view offers a welcome respite from the stacks of documents on her desk, which deal exclusively with war and war blame. They contain the responses, from the conflicting parties in the Caucasus region -- Russia, Georgia, South Ossetia and Abkhazia -- to a European Union investigative commission conducting a probe of the cause of the five-day war last August. The documents also include reports on the EU commission's trips to Moscow, the Georgian capital Tbilisi and the capitals of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, dossiers assembled by experts and the transcripts of interviews of diplomats, military officials and civilian victims of the war.
The Caucasus expert, nicknamed "Madame Courage" by the Zurich-based Swiss daily Neue Zürcher Zeitung, is considered a specialist on sensitive diplomatic matters. The Caucasus issue is the most difficult challenge she has faced to date. The final report by the commission she heads must be submitted to the EU Council of Ministers by late July. In the report, Tagliavini is expected to explain how, in August 2008, a long-smoldering regional conflict over the breakaway Georgia province of South Ossetia could suddenly have escalated into a war between Georgia and its much more powerful neighbor, Russia. Who is to blame for the most serious confrontation between East and West since the end of the Cold War?
In addition to having a budget of €1.6 million ($2.2 million) at her disposal, Tagliavini can draw on the expertise of two deputies, 10 specialists, military officials, political scientists, historians and international law experts.
Much hinges on the conclusions her commission will reach. Is Georgia, a former Soviet republic, a serious candidate for membership in NATO, or is the country in the hands of a reckless gambler? Did the Russian leadership simply defend South Ossetia, an ally seeking independence from Georgia, against a Georgian attack? Or did Russia spark a global crisis when its troops occupied parts of Georgia for a short period of time?
The confidential investigative commission documents, which SPIEGEL has obtained, show that the task of assigning blame for the conflict has been as much of a challenge for the commission members as it has for the international community. However, a majority of members tend to arrive at the assessment that Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili started the war by attacking South Ossetia on August 7, 2008. The facts assembled on Tagliavini's desk refute Saakashvili's claim that his country became the innocent victim of "Russian aggression" on that day.
In summarizing the military fiasco, commission member Christopher Langton, a retired British Army colonel, claims: "Georgia's dream is shattered, but the country can only blame itself for that."
Another commission member, Bruno Coppieter, a political scientist from Brussels, even speculates whether the Georgian government may have had outside help in its endeavor. "The support of Saakashvili by the West, especially military support," Coppieter writes, "inadvertently promoted Georgia's collision course."
Berlin journalist Jörg Himmelreich, who is also a member of the German Marshall Fund of the United States, disagrees. He advocates Georgia's acceptance into NATO and condones the "brief Georgian occupation of the South Ossetia capital Tskhinvali" with the argument that Georgian President Saakashvili faced "great pressure from within his own population to produce results," and to deliver on a promise he had made several times to achieve "reunification" with the separatist republic.
Self-Defense?
Himmelreich sharply condemns Russia's actions as "aggression" and a "violation of international law." Commission member Otto Luchterhandt, a Hamburg international law expert, reaches a more differentiated assessment. He argues that because the Georgians attacked a base used by Russian peacekeeping forces in the South Ossetian provincial capital Tskhinvali, Russia can invoke the right of self-defense under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.
The Russian troops were stationed in South Ossetia as a result of a 1992 agreement, binding under international law, between Russia and Georgia. Georgia's attack, Luchterhandt argues, constitutes a breach of this agreement, thereby giving Russia the right to intervene. Nevertheless, he writes, the Kremlin, with its overwhelming intervention in western Georgia, can be accused of "violating the principle of proportionality."
The experts found no evidence to support claims by the Georgian president, which he also mentioned in an interview with SPIEGEL, that a Russian column of 150 tanks had advanced into South Ossetia on the evening of Aug. 7. According to the commission's findings, the Russian army didn't enter South Ossetia until August 8.
Commission members note, on the other hand, that Saakashvili had already amassed 12,000 troops and 75 tanks on the border with South Ossetia on the morning of Aug. 7. In their research, they uncovered remarks by the Georgian president that demonstrate that he had long flirted with a military solution to the South Ossetian problem. "If you ask any Georgian soldier why he is serving in the armed forces, each of them will respond: 'To reestablish Georgia's territorial integrity,'" Saakashvili said in a television address on May 25, 2004.
Senior officials at the German Foreign Ministry in Berlin know that then German Ambassador Uwe Schramm warned in his reports of Saakashvili's penchant towards war. Schramm is now Tagliavini's deputy on the investigative commission.
When the five-day war began, Georgian General Mamuka Kurashvili said on television that his country would "reestablish constitutional order in the entire region." He may have been quoting from Georgian order No. 2, dated August 7. To date, the Georgians have not submitted a copy of this key document to the commission as requested, nor have they turned over copies of other official orders. The commission interprets these omissions as a sort of admission of guilt.
The commission members generally agree, however, that the Georgians and Russians alike violated the provision in the Geneva Convention for the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Both armies, for example, used cluster bombs, which distribute explosives over a wide area, killing several civilians and wounding many more. Georgia admits to having used the weapons, while Russia denies the charges.
"War Crimes"
The commission also cited many serious attacks on Georgian civilians by South Ossetia militias. According to a report for the commission by Swiss legal expert Théo Boutruche, militia members, most of them young men, looted and burned down several villages inhabited by Georgians, beat civilians and murdered more than a dozen Georgians. According to the Hague Convention on Land Warfare, the Russian occupying force was obligated to reestablish public order. But it did almost nothing to prevent the atrocities, which a commission dossier classifies as "war crimes."
It is now up to the Swiss head of the commission to prepare the final version of the report, and there are no plans to include dissenting opinions. However, Tagliavini has a reputation for avoiding harsh judgments against any party to a conflict. Commission members predict that she will likely integrate Himmelreich's position into the final report, keeping the door open for Georgia to join the Western defense alliance, despite its hot-headed president. In early June, Saakashvili boasted that his country was still at war with its Russian "enemy."
Another question will likely remain unanswered: What role did the United States, the sole remaining superpower, play in the Georgian conflict? For years, the government of former President George W. Bush provided Georgia with extensive military aid, which included sending about 150 military trainers to the country.
Nevertheless, a number of commission members are curious to know what John Tefft, the US ambassador in Tbilisi and a former advisor at the National War College in Washington, knew about Saakashvili's marching orders. One question they would like to ask is why no one at the US State Department took a call from Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Grigory Karasin when the war broke out in the early morning hours of August 8 -- when it was afternoon in Washington.
Other commission members would be interested in talking to Daniel Fried, the assistant secretary of state responsible for Georgia at the time. Fried recently told a German foreign policy expert privately that Saakashvili "went out of control" in August.
But Tagliavini's team won't be questioning any Americans. According to one member of the commission, "our director and the EU apparently lack the courage" to take that step.
Communique of the 192nd Meeting of the AU Peace and Security Council.
The Peace and Security Council of the African Union (AU), at its 192nd meeting held on 10 June 2009, considered the report of the mission undertaken by the Council to West Africa, from 24 April to 1st May 2009, during which the Mission visited Guinea Bissau and Côte d'Ivoire, in order to evaluate the political and security situation and the state of preparations for the forthcoming presidential elections in these two countries, and adopted the following decision:
The Council,
1. Takes note of the Report [PSC/PR/2 (CXCIII)] on the mission which visited Guinea Bissau on 26 and 27 April 2009, and the briefing made by the Commission on the recent developments in the situation in this country;
2. Strongly condemns the assassination, on 5 June 2009, of Mr. Baciro Dabo, candidate in the presidential election scheduled for 28 June 2009, and Mr. Helder Proenca, former Minister of Defense, as well as the acts of violence and threats against other candidates in the presidential election;
3. Stresses the need for an independent and credible investigation to shed light on the series of political assassinations in the country since March 2009, and reiterates its support to the establishment of a commission of inquiry whose nature and mandate must reflect the requirements of establishing the truth and determining those involved;
4. Expresses its deep concern over the risk posed by the upsurge of violence to peace, security and stability in Guinea Bissau ahead of the presidential election and stresses the need to create the conditions necessary for holding a transparent, free and fair election.
In this respect, Council urges the security and armed forces to refrain from any interference in political issues and to take the necessary measures to guarantee the security of the candidates and the electoral process, as well as that of the population in general, within the framework of the joint commission created to this effected.
The Council also requests the Commission, in consultation with ECOWAS, to submit to it recommendations on immediate measures to be taken to ensure that optimal security conditions and the necessary serenity are created for the presidential election, as well as on the long-term support to be provided towards the stabilization of the country, including security sector reform, the fight against drug trafficking and post-conflict reconstruction and development;
5. Expresses support to the efforts of the Chairperson of the Commission, including through his Special Envoy for Guinea Bissau, Mr. João Bernardo de Miranda, in support to the stabilization process in that country and encourages him to continue these efforts and requests him to intensify coordination with ECOWAS and the UN to create the necessary conditions for a successful way out of the crisis in Guinea Bissau;
6. Decides to remain seized of the matter.
The Council,
1. Takes note of the Report [PSC/PR/2 (CXCIII)] on the mission which visited Guinea Bissau on 26 and 27 April 2009, and the briefing made by the Commission on the recent developments in the situation in this country;
2. Strongly condemns the assassination, on 5 June 2009, of Mr. Baciro Dabo, candidate in the presidential election scheduled for 28 June 2009, and Mr. Helder Proenca, former Minister of Defense, as well as the acts of violence and threats against other candidates in the presidential election;
3. Stresses the need for an independent and credible investigation to shed light on the series of political assassinations in the country since March 2009, and reiterates its support to the establishment of a commission of inquiry whose nature and mandate must reflect the requirements of establishing the truth and determining those involved;
4. Expresses its deep concern over the risk posed by the upsurge of violence to peace, security and stability in Guinea Bissau ahead of the presidential election and stresses the need to create the conditions necessary for holding a transparent, free and fair election.
In this respect, Council urges the security and armed forces to refrain from any interference in political issues and to take the necessary measures to guarantee the security of the candidates and the electoral process, as well as that of the population in general, within the framework of the joint commission created to this effected.
The Council also requests the Commission, in consultation with ECOWAS, to submit to it recommendations on immediate measures to be taken to ensure that optimal security conditions and the necessary serenity are created for the presidential election, as well as on the long-term support to be provided towards the stabilization of the country, including security sector reform, the fight against drug trafficking and post-conflict reconstruction and development;
5. Expresses support to the efforts of the Chairperson of the Commission, including through his Special Envoy for Guinea Bissau, Mr. João Bernardo de Miranda, in support to the stabilization process in that country and encourages him to continue these efforts and requests him to intensify coordination with ECOWAS and the UN to create the necessary conditions for a successful way out of the crisis in Guinea Bissau;
6. Decides to remain seized of the matter.
Full text of Israeli PM Netanyahu's foreign policy speech at Bar Ilan.
Honored guests, citizens of Israel,
Peace was always the desire of our people. Our prophets had a vision of peace, we greet each other with peace, our prayers end with the word peace. This evening we are in the center named for two leaders who were groundbreakers for peace -Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat - and we share their vision.
Two and a half months ago, I was sworn in at the Knesset as the Prime Minister of Israel. I promised that I would establish a unity government, and did so. I believed, and still believe, that we need unity now more than ever before.
We are currently facing three tremendous challenges: The Iranian threat, the financial crisis, and the promotion of peace.
The Iranian threat still is before us in full force, as it became quite clear yesterday. The greatest danger to Israel, to the Middle East, and to all of humanity, is the encounter between extremist Islam and nuclear weapons. I discussed this with President Obama on my visit to Washington, and will be discussing it next week on my visit with European leaders. I have been working tirelessly for many years to form an international front against Iran arming itself with nuclear armaments.
With the world financial crisis, we acted immediately to bring about stability to the Israeli economy. We passed a two-year budget in the government and will pass it through the Knesset very soon.
The second challenge, rather, the third, so very important challenge, facing us today, is promoting peace. I discussed this also with President Obama. I strongly support the idea of regional peace that he is advancing. I share the President of the U.S.A's desire to bring about a new era of reconciliation in our region.
I discussed this in my meetings with President Mubarak in Egypt and with King Abdullah in Jordan to obtain the assistance of these leaders in the effort to expand the circle of peace in our region.
I appeal tonight to the leaders of the Arab countries and say: Let us meet. Let us talk about peace. Let us make peace. I am willing to meet at any time, at any place, in Damascus, in Riyadh, in Beirut, and in Jerusalem as well. (Applause)
I call upon the leaders of the Arab countries to join together with the Palestinians and with us to promote economic peace. Economic peace is not a substitute for peace, but it is a very important component in achieving it. Together we can advance projects that can overcome the problems facing our region. For example, water desalinization. And we can utilize the advantages of our region, such as maximizing the use of solar energy, or utilizing its geographical advantages to lay pipelines, pipelines to Africa and Europe.
Together we can realize the initiatives that I see in the Persian Gulf, which amaze the entire world, and also amaze me. I call upon the talented entrepreneurs of the Arab world, to come and invest here, to assist the Palestinians and us, to give the economy a jump-start. Together we can develop industrial zones, we can create thousands of jobs, and foster tourism that will draw millions, people who want to walk in the footsteps of history, in Nazareth and Bethlehem, in the heights of Jericho and on the walls of Jerusalem, on the shore of the Sea of Galilee, and at the baptismal site of the Jordan. There is a huge potential for the development of tourism potential here. If you only agree to work together.
I appeal to you, our Palestinian neighbors, and to the leadership of the Palestinian Authority. Let us begin peace negotiations immediately without prior conditions. Israel is committed to international agreements, and expects all sides to fulfill their obligations.
I say to the Palestinians: We want to live with you in peace, quiet, and good neighborly relations. We want our children and your children to 'know war no more.'
We do not want parents and wives, sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, to know the sorrow of bereavement. We want our children to dream of a better future for humankind. We want us and our neighbors to devote our efforts to 'plowshares and pruning hooks' and not to 'swords and spears.' I know the terror of war, I participated in battles, I lost good friends who fell [in battle], I lost a brother. I saw the pain of bereaved families from up close very many times. I do not want war. No one in Israel wants war. (Applause)
Let us join hands and work together in peace, together with our neighbors. There is no limit to the flourishing growth that we can achieve for both peoples - in the economy, in agriculture, in commerce, tourism, education - but, above all, in the ability to give our younger generation hope to live in a place that's good to live in, a life of creative work, a peaceful life with much of interest, with opportunity and hope.
Friends, with the advantages of peace so clear, so obvious, we must ask ourselves why is peace still so far from us, even though our hands are extended for peace? Why has the conflict going on for over 60 years? To bring an end to it, there must be a sincere, genuine answer to the question: what is the root of the conflict? In his speech at the Zionist Congress in Basel, in speaking of his grand vision of a Jewish homeland for the Jewish People, Theodor Herzl, the visionary of the State of Israel, said: This is so big, we must talk about it only in the simplest words possible.
I now am asking that when we speak of the huge challenge of peace, we must use the simplest words possible, using person to person terms. Even with our eyes on the horizon, we must have our feet on the ground, firmly rooted in truth. The simple truth is that the root of the conflict has been ? and remains - the refusal to recognize the right of the Jewish People to its own state in its historical homeland.
In 1947 when the United Nations proposed the Partition Plan for a Jewish state and an Arab state, the entire Arab world rejected the proposal, while the Jewish community accepted it with great rejoicing and dancing. The Arabs refused any Jewish state whatsoever, with any borders whatsoever.
Whoever thinks that the continued hostility to Israel is a result of our forces in Judea, Samaria and Gaza is confusing cause and effect. The attacks on us began in the 1920s, became an overall attack in 1948 when the state was declared, continued in the 1950s with the fedaayyin attacks, and reached their climax in 1967 on the eve of the Six-Day War, with the attempt to strangle Israel. All this happened nearly 50 years before a single Israeli soldier went into Judea and Samaria.
To our joy, Egypt and Jordan left this circle of hostility. They signed peace agreements with us which ended their hostility to Israel. It brought about peace.
To our deep regret, this is not happening with the Palestinians. The closer we get to a peace agreement with them, the more they are distancing themselves from peace. They raise new demands. They are not showing us that they want to end the conflict.
A great many people are telling us that withdrawal is the key to peace with the Palestinians. But the fact is that all our withdrawals were met by huge waves of suicide bombers.
We tried withdrawal by agreement, withdrawal without an agreement, we tried partial withdrawal and full withdrawal. In 2000, and once again last year, the government of Israel, based on good will, tried a nearly complete withdrawal, in exchange for the end of the conflict, and were twice refused.
We withdrew from the Gaza Strip to the last centimeter, we uprooted dozens of settlements and turned thousands of Israelis out of their homes. In exchange, what we received were missiles raining down on our cities, our towns and our children. The argument that withdrawal would bring peace closer did not stand up to the test of reality.
With Hamas in the south and Hezbollah in the north, they keep on saying that they want to 'liberate' Ashkelon in the south and Haifa and Tiberias.
Even the moderates among the Palestinians are not ready to say the most simplest things: The State of Israel is the national homeland of the Jewish People and will remain so. (Applause)
Friends, in order to achieve peace, we need courage and integrity on the part of the leaders of both sides. I am speaking today with courage and honesty. We need courage and sincerity not only on the Israeli side: we need the Palestinian leadership to rise and say, simply "We have had enough of this conflict. We recognize the right of the Jewish People to a state its own in this Land. We will live side by side in true peace." I am looking forward to this moment.
We want them to say the simplest things, to our people and to their people. This will then open the door to solving other problems, no matter how difficult. The fundamental condition for ending the conflict is the public, binding and sincere Palestinian recognition of Israel as the national homeland of the Jewish People. (Applause)
For this to have practical meaning, we need a clear agreement to solve the Palestinian refugee problem outside of the borders of the State of Israel. For it is clear to all that the demand to settle the Palestinian refugees inside of Israel, contradicts the continued existence of the State of Israel as the state of the Jewish People. We must solve the problem of the Arab refugees. And I believe that it is possible to solve it. Because we have proven that we ourselves solved a similar problem. Tiny Israel took in the hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees from Arab countries who were uprooted from their homes.
Therefore, justice and logic dictates that the problem of the Palestinian refugees must be solved outside the borders of the State of Israel. There is broad national agreement on this. (Applause)
I believe that with good will and international investment of we can solve this humanitarian problem once and for all.
Friends, up to now, I have been talking about the need for the Palestinians to ecognize our rights. Now I will talk about the need for us to recognize their rights.
The connection of the Jewish People to the Land has been in existence for more than 3,500 years. Judea and Samaria, the places where our forefathers Abraham, Isaac and Jacob walked, our forefathers David, Solomon, Isaiah and Jeremiah ? this is not a foreign land, this is the Land of our Forefathers. (Applause)
The right of the Jewish People to a state in the Land of Israel does not arise from the series of disasters that befell the Jewish People over 2,000 years -- persecutions, expulsions, pogroms, blood libels, murders, which reached its climax in the Holocaust, an unprecedented tragedy in the history of nations. There are those who say that without the Holocaust the State would not have been established, but I say that if the State of Israel had been established in time, the Holocaust would not have taken place. (Applause) The tragedies that arose from the Jewish People?s helplessness show very sharply that we need a protective state.
The right to establish our sovereign state here, in the Land of Israel, arises from one simple fact: Eretz Israel is the birthplace of the Jewish People. (Applause)
As the first PM, David Ben Gurion, in the declaration of the State, the State of Israel was established here in Eretz Israel, where the People of Israel created the Book of Books, and gave it to the world.
But, friends, we must state the whole truth here. The truth is that in the area of our homeland, in the heart of our Jewish Homeland, now lives a large population of Palestinians. We do not want to rule over them. We do not want to run their lives. We do not want to force our flag and our culture on them. In my vision of peace, there are two free peoples living side by side in this small land, with good neighborly relations and mutual respect, each with its flag, anthem and government, with neither one threatening its neighbor's security and existence.
These two facts ? our link to the Land of Israel, and the Palestinian population who live here, have created deep disagreements within Israeli society. But the truth is that we have much more unity than disagreement.
I came here tonight to talk about the agreement and security that are broad consensus within Israeli society. This is what guides our policy. This policy must take into account the international situation. We have to recognize international agreements but also principles important to the State of Israel. I spoke tonight about the first principle - recognition. Palestinians must truly recognize Israel as the state of the Jewish people. The second principle is demilitarization. Any area in Palestinian hands has to be demilitarization, with solid security measures. Without this condition, there is a real fear that there will be an armed Palestinian state which will become a terrorist base against Israel, as happened in Gaza. We do not want missiles on Petah Tikva, or Grads on the Ben-Gurion international airport. We want peace. (Applause)
And, to ensure peace we don't want them to bring in missiles or rockets or have an army, or control of airspace, or make treaties with countries like Iran, or Hizbullah. There is broad agreement on this in Israel. We cannot be expected to agree to a Palestinian state without ensuring that it is demilitarized. This is crucial to the existence of Israel, we must provide for our security needs.
This is why we are now asking our friends in the international community, headed by the USA, for what is necessary for our security, that in any peace agreement, the Palestinian area must be demilitarized. No army, no control of air space. Real effective measures to prevent arms coming in, not what's going on now in Gaza. The Palestinians cannot make military treaties.
Without this, sooner or later, we will have another Hamastan. We can't agree to this. Israel must govern its own fate and security. I told President Obama in Washington, if we get a guarantee of demilitarization, and if the Palestinians recognize Israel as the Jewish state, we are ready to agree to a real peace agreement, a demilitarized Palestinian state side by side with the Jewish state. (Applause)
Whenever we discuss a permanent arrangement, Israel needs defensible borders with Jerusalem remaining the united capital of Israel. (Applause)
The territorial issues will be discussed in a permanent agreement. Till then we have no intention to build new settlements or set aside land for new settlements. But there is a need to have people live normal lives and let mothers and fathers raise their children like everyone in the world. The settlers are not enemies of peace. They are our brothers and sisters. (Applause)
Friends, unity among us is, to my view, vital, and unity will help with reconciliation with our neighbors. Reconciliation must begin now. A strong Palestinian government will strengthen peace. If they truly want peace, and educate their children for peace and stop incitement, we for our part will make every effort, allow them freedom of movement and accessibility, making their lives easier and this will help bring peace.
But above all, they must decide: the Palestinians must decide between path of peace and path of Hamas. They must overcome Hamas. Israel will not sit down at conference table with terrorist who seek to destroy it. (Applause)
Hamas are not willing to even let the Red Cross visit our abducted soldier Gilad Shalit who has been in captivity three years, cut off from his family and his country. We want to bring him back whole and well.
With help of the international community, there is no reason why we can't have peace. With help of USA, we can do we can do the unbelievable. In 61 years, with constant threats to our existence we have achieved so much. Our microchips power the worlds computers unbelievable, we have found cures for incurable diseases. Israeli drip irrigation waters barren lands throughout the world. Israeli researchers are making worldwide breakthroughs. If our neighbors only work for peace, we can achieve peace. (Applause)
I call upon Arab leaders and Palestinian leaders: Let's go in the path of Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat, Yitzhak Rabin, and King Hussein. Let's go in the path of Prophet Isaiah, who spoke thousands of years ago, they shall beat their swords into plowshares and know war no more. Let us know war no more. Let us know peace.
Peace was always the desire of our people. Our prophets had a vision of peace, we greet each other with peace, our prayers end with the word peace. This evening we are in the center named for two leaders who were groundbreakers for peace -Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat - and we share their vision.
Two and a half months ago, I was sworn in at the Knesset as the Prime Minister of Israel. I promised that I would establish a unity government, and did so. I believed, and still believe, that we need unity now more than ever before.
We are currently facing three tremendous challenges: The Iranian threat, the financial crisis, and the promotion of peace.
The Iranian threat still is before us in full force, as it became quite clear yesterday. The greatest danger to Israel, to the Middle East, and to all of humanity, is the encounter between extremist Islam and nuclear weapons. I discussed this with President Obama on my visit to Washington, and will be discussing it next week on my visit with European leaders. I have been working tirelessly for many years to form an international front against Iran arming itself with nuclear armaments.
With the world financial crisis, we acted immediately to bring about stability to the Israeli economy. We passed a two-year budget in the government and will pass it through the Knesset very soon.
The second challenge, rather, the third, so very important challenge, facing us today, is promoting peace. I discussed this also with President Obama. I strongly support the idea of regional peace that he is advancing. I share the President of the U.S.A's desire to bring about a new era of reconciliation in our region.
I discussed this in my meetings with President Mubarak in Egypt and with King Abdullah in Jordan to obtain the assistance of these leaders in the effort to expand the circle of peace in our region.
I appeal tonight to the leaders of the Arab countries and say: Let us meet. Let us talk about peace. Let us make peace. I am willing to meet at any time, at any place, in Damascus, in Riyadh, in Beirut, and in Jerusalem as well. (Applause)
I call upon the leaders of the Arab countries to join together with the Palestinians and with us to promote economic peace. Economic peace is not a substitute for peace, but it is a very important component in achieving it. Together we can advance projects that can overcome the problems facing our region. For example, water desalinization. And we can utilize the advantages of our region, such as maximizing the use of solar energy, or utilizing its geographical advantages to lay pipelines, pipelines to Africa and Europe.
Together we can realize the initiatives that I see in the Persian Gulf, which amaze the entire world, and also amaze me. I call upon the talented entrepreneurs of the Arab world, to come and invest here, to assist the Palestinians and us, to give the economy a jump-start. Together we can develop industrial zones, we can create thousands of jobs, and foster tourism that will draw millions, people who want to walk in the footsteps of history, in Nazareth and Bethlehem, in the heights of Jericho and on the walls of Jerusalem, on the shore of the Sea of Galilee, and at the baptismal site of the Jordan. There is a huge potential for the development of tourism potential here. If you only agree to work together.
I appeal to you, our Palestinian neighbors, and to the leadership of the Palestinian Authority. Let us begin peace negotiations immediately without prior conditions. Israel is committed to international agreements, and expects all sides to fulfill their obligations.
I say to the Palestinians: We want to live with you in peace, quiet, and good neighborly relations. We want our children and your children to 'know war no more.'
We do not want parents and wives, sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, to know the sorrow of bereavement. We want our children to dream of a better future for humankind. We want us and our neighbors to devote our efforts to 'plowshares and pruning hooks' and not to 'swords and spears.' I know the terror of war, I participated in battles, I lost good friends who fell [in battle], I lost a brother. I saw the pain of bereaved families from up close very many times. I do not want war. No one in Israel wants war. (Applause)
Let us join hands and work together in peace, together with our neighbors. There is no limit to the flourishing growth that we can achieve for both peoples - in the economy, in agriculture, in commerce, tourism, education - but, above all, in the ability to give our younger generation hope to live in a place that's good to live in, a life of creative work, a peaceful life with much of interest, with opportunity and hope.
Friends, with the advantages of peace so clear, so obvious, we must ask ourselves why is peace still so far from us, even though our hands are extended for peace? Why has the conflict going on for over 60 years? To bring an end to it, there must be a sincere, genuine answer to the question: what is the root of the conflict? In his speech at the Zionist Congress in Basel, in speaking of his grand vision of a Jewish homeland for the Jewish People, Theodor Herzl, the visionary of the State of Israel, said: This is so big, we must talk about it only in the simplest words possible.
I now am asking that when we speak of the huge challenge of peace, we must use the simplest words possible, using person to person terms. Even with our eyes on the horizon, we must have our feet on the ground, firmly rooted in truth. The simple truth is that the root of the conflict has been ? and remains - the refusal to recognize the right of the Jewish People to its own state in its historical homeland.
In 1947 when the United Nations proposed the Partition Plan for a Jewish state and an Arab state, the entire Arab world rejected the proposal, while the Jewish community accepted it with great rejoicing and dancing. The Arabs refused any Jewish state whatsoever, with any borders whatsoever.
Whoever thinks that the continued hostility to Israel is a result of our forces in Judea, Samaria and Gaza is confusing cause and effect. The attacks on us began in the 1920s, became an overall attack in 1948 when the state was declared, continued in the 1950s with the fedaayyin attacks, and reached their climax in 1967 on the eve of the Six-Day War, with the attempt to strangle Israel. All this happened nearly 50 years before a single Israeli soldier went into Judea and Samaria.
To our joy, Egypt and Jordan left this circle of hostility. They signed peace agreements with us which ended their hostility to Israel. It brought about peace.
To our deep regret, this is not happening with the Palestinians. The closer we get to a peace agreement with them, the more they are distancing themselves from peace. They raise new demands. They are not showing us that they want to end the conflict.
A great many people are telling us that withdrawal is the key to peace with the Palestinians. But the fact is that all our withdrawals were met by huge waves of suicide bombers.
We tried withdrawal by agreement, withdrawal without an agreement, we tried partial withdrawal and full withdrawal. In 2000, and once again last year, the government of Israel, based on good will, tried a nearly complete withdrawal, in exchange for the end of the conflict, and were twice refused.
We withdrew from the Gaza Strip to the last centimeter, we uprooted dozens of settlements and turned thousands of Israelis out of their homes. In exchange, what we received were missiles raining down on our cities, our towns and our children. The argument that withdrawal would bring peace closer did not stand up to the test of reality.
With Hamas in the south and Hezbollah in the north, they keep on saying that they want to 'liberate' Ashkelon in the south and Haifa and Tiberias.
Even the moderates among the Palestinians are not ready to say the most simplest things: The State of Israel is the national homeland of the Jewish People and will remain so. (Applause)
Friends, in order to achieve peace, we need courage and integrity on the part of the leaders of both sides. I am speaking today with courage and honesty. We need courage and sincerity not only on the Israeli side: we need the Palestinian leadership to rise and say, simply "We have had enough of this conflict. We recognize the right of the Jewish People to a state its own in this Land. We will live side by side in true peace." I am looking forward to this moment.
We want them to say the simplest things, to our people and to their people. This will then open the door to solving other problems, no matter how difficult. The fundamental condition for ending the conflict is the public, binding and sincere Palestinian recognition of Israel as the national homeland of the Jewish People. (Applause)
For this to have practical meaning, we need a clear agreement to solve the Palestinian refugee problem outside of the borders of the State of Israel. For it is clear to all that the demand to settle the Palestinian refugees inside of Israel, contradicts the continued existence of the State of Israel as the state of the Jewish People. We must solve the problem of the Arab refugees. And I believe that it is possible to solve it. Because we have proven that we ourselves solved a similar problem. Tiny Israel took in the hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees from Arab countries who were uprooted from their homes.
Therefore, justice and logic dictates that the problem of the Palestinian refugees must be solved outside the borders of the State of Israel. There is broad national agreement on this. (Applause)
I believe that with good will and international investment of we can solve this humanitarian problem once and for all.
Friends, up to now, I have been talking about the need for the Palestinians to ecognize our rights. Now I will talk about the need for us to recognize their rights.
The connection of the Jewish People to the Land has been in existence for more than 3,500 years. Judea and Samaria, the places where our forefathers Abraham, Isaac and Jacob walked, our forefathers David, Solomon, Isaiah and Jeremiah ? this is not a foreign land, this is the Land of our Forefathers. (Applause)
The right of the Jewish People to a state in the Land of Israel does not arise from the series of disasters that befell the Jewish People over 2,000 years -- persecutions, expulsions, pogroms, blood libels, murders, which reached its climax in the Holocaust, an unprecedented tragedy in the history of nations. There are those who say that without the Holocaust the State would not have been established, but I say that if the State of Israel had been established in time, the Holocaust would not have taken place. (Applause) The tragedies that arose from the Jewish People?s helplessness show very sharply that we need a protective state.
The right to establish our sovereign state here, in the Land of Israel, arises from one simple fact: Eretz Israel is the birthplace of the Jewish People. (Applause)
As the first PM, David Ben Gurion, in the declaration of the State, the State of Israel was established here in Eretz Israel, where the People of Israel created the Book of Books, and gave it to the world.
But, friends, we must state the whole truth here. The truth is that in the area of our homeland, in the heart of our Jewish Homeland, now lives a large population of Palestinians. We do not want to rule over them. We do not want to run their lives. We do not want to force our flag and our culture on them. In my vision of peace, there are two free peoples living side by side in this small land, with good neighborly relations and mutual respect, each with its flag, anthem and government, with neither one threatening its neighbor's security and existence.
These two facts ? our link to the Land of Israel, and the Palestinian population who live here, have created deep disagreements within Israeli society. But the truth is that we have much more unity than disagreement.
I came here tonight to talk about the agreement and security that are broad consensus within Israeli society. This is what guides our policy. This policy must take into account the international situation. We have to recognize international agreements but also principles important to the State of Israel. I spoke tonight about the first principle - recognition. Palestinians must truly recognize Israel as the state of the Jewish people. The second principle is demilitarization. Any area in Palestinian hands has to be demilitarization, with solid security measures. Without this condition, there is a real fear that there will be an armed Palestinian state which will become a terrorist base against Israel, as happened in Gaza. We do not want missiles on Petah Tikva, or Grads on the Ben-Gurion international airport. We want peace. (Applause)
And, to ensure peace we don't want them to bring in missiles or rockets or have an army, or control of airspace, or make treaties with countries like Iran, or Hizbullah. There is broad agreement on this in Israel. We cannot be expected to agree to a Palestinian state without ensuring that it is demilitarized. This is crucial to the existence of Israel, we must provide for our security needs.
This is why we are now asking our friends in the international community, headed by the USA, for what is necessary for our security, that in any peace agreement, the Palestinian area must be demilitarized. No army, no control of air space. Real effective measures to prevent arms coming in, not what's going on now in Gaza. The Palestinians cannot make military treaties.
Without this, sooner or later, we will have another Hamastan. We can't agree to this. Israel must govern its own fate and security. I told President Obama in Washington, if we get a guarantee of demilitarization, and if the Palestinians recognize Israel as the Jewish state, we are ready to agree to a real peace agreement, a demilitarized Palestinian state side by side with the Jewish state. (Applause)
Whenever we discuss a permanent arrangement, Israel needs defensible borders with Jerusalem remaining the united capital of Israel. (Applause)
The territorial issues will be discussed in a permanent agreement. Till then we have no intention to build new settlements or set aside land for new settlements. But there is a need to have people live normal lives and let mothers and fathers raise their children like everyone in the world. The settlers are not enemies of peace. They are our brothers and sisters. (Applause)
Friends, unity among us is, to my view, vital, and unity will help with reconciliation with our neighbors. Reconciliation must begin now. A strong Palestinian government will strengthen peace. If they truly want peace, and educate their children for peace and stop incitement, we for our part will make every effort, allow them freedom of movement and accessibility, making their lives easier and this will help bring peace.
But above all, they must decide: the Palestinians must decide between path of peace and path of Hamas. They must overcome Hamas. Israel will not sit down at conference table with terrorist who seek to destroy it. (Applause)
Hamas are not willing to even let the Red Cross visit our abducted soldier Gilad Shalit who has been in captivity three years, cut off from his family and his country. We want to bring him back whole and well.
With help of the international community, there is no reason why we can't have peace. With help of USA, we can do we can do the unbelievable. In 61 years, with constant threats to our existence we have achieved so much. Our microchips power the worlds computers unbelievable, we have found cures for incurable diseases. Israeli drip irrigation waters barren lands throughout the world. Israeli researchers are making worldwide breakthroughs. If our neighbors only work for peace, we can achieve peace. (Applause)
I call upon Arab leaders and Palestinian leaders: Let's go in the path of Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat, Yitzhak Rabin, and King Hussein. Let's go in the path of Prophet Isaiah, who spoke thousands of years ago, they shall beat their swords into plowshares and know war no more. Let us know war no more. Let us know peace.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
