Xinhua News Agency
19 September 2009
A Turkish military spokesman said on Friday a possible purchase of Patriot missiles from the United States would cost one billion U.S. dollars, not the previously reported figure of 7.8 billion dollars, the semi-official Anatolia news agency reported.
General Ferit Guler, chairman of the Communication Office with the Turkish General Staff, said at a weekly press briefing in the Turkish capital of Ankara that Turkey was planning to buy four Patriot PAC-3 batteries at a cost of one billion U.S. dollars with a six-year repayment period.
U.S. Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA), a part of the U.S. Defense Department, said earlier it had notified the Congress of the possible sale to Turkey of 13 Patriot batteries with an estimated cost of around 7.8 billion U.S. dollars.
"The news reports which said the purchase would cost 7.8 billion U.S. dollars are not correct on the part of Turkey," said Guler.
The spokesman said the purchase was a part of the military's procurement plan, adding "it isn't against any specific country."
The purchase includes Patriot fire units, Patriot Advanced Capability (PAC-3) missiles and other related support and equipment.
19 September, 2009
Africom - Stop in the Name of the Law!
Pambazuka News
By Mark P. Fancher
17 September 2009
In an open letter to US Attorney General Eric Holder, the National Conference of Black Lawyers (NCBL) sets out the organisation's concerns about US military operation Africa Command (AFRICOM), and calls for it to be dismantled. While officials insist that it is 'a force for peace', says NCBL, AFRICOM is 'perceived as a military command that is designed to facilitate warfare'. The US has a 'history of using military advisors to guide and direct troops in other countries to no good end', says NCBL, and AFRICOM's agenda 'makes it possible for more lawsuits to be filed in the future, challenging US involvement in Africa's conflicts.'
The following open letter was recently sent to US Attorney General Eric Holder by National Conference of Black Lawyers' Africom Task Force members Mark P. Fancher, Jeffrey L. Edison and Ajamu Sankofa.
Dear Attorney General Holder,
The National Conference of Black Lawyers (NCBL) takes this opportunity to speak frankly to you about Africa Command (AFRICOM), a US military operation that has been almost universally rejected throughout the African continent. Likewise, criticism of AFRICOM has been sharp in Africa's diaspora. It is this widespread concern that prompts us to communicate with you in an open letter.
We believe that President Obama, as Commander-in- Chief, should dismantle Africa Command and permanently retire the AFRICOM concept. As one who has the president's ear, particularly with respect to matters of law, we feel it is important that we share with you some of the legal and policy concerns that lead us to that conclusion.
AFRICOM says its mission is '...to promote a stable and secure African environment in support of US foreign policy.' According to AFRICOM's public statements, the mission is built upon the proposition that Al-Qaeda and other terrorist forces are operating in Africa and presenting military challenges to African governments that they are unable to meet without US assistance.[1] President Obama's embrace of a faulty mission to fight terrorists who are probably not even in Africa leads us to fear that he has been very badly advised on this issue. To all appearances, he has been persuaded to adopt as his own the idea that Africa needs US military support. In our opinion, the rationale for AFRICOM's existence was manufactured by the Bush Administration for the purpose of giving the US an excuse to use military means to achieve dominance over African oil resources and at the same time stem the growing influence of China and other countries on the African continent.
For their part, the people of Africa are being asked to embrace a US military command for reasons that are illogical, and perhaps even nonsensical. In addition, AFRICOM appears against a historical backdrop of the US government having repeatedly intervened in Africa's affairs in ways that have caused severe destabilisation and underdevelopment. This history includes US complicity in a series of unsavoury operations that include: The overthrow of Ghana's President Kwame Nkrumah; plans to the assassinate Congo's Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba; support for counter-revolutionary forces in Angola and Mozambique[2], and much more.
Africans' suspicions about AFRICOM's plans to provide military 'advisors' are compounded by the fact that the US has a history of using military advisors to guide and direct troops in other countries to no good end. In some cases US advisors have directed foreign government troops. In other cases they have supported insurgents and mercenaries trying to overthrow foreign governments. In all cases, the consequences for everyday people in affected countries have been devastating. Over the years, a number of respected public servants have made known their objections to the use of military advisors. Members of Congress sued President Reagan because of his administration's use of military advisors to support a brutal regime in El Salvador and counter-revolutionaries in Nicaragua.[3] Although for technical reasons the courts were not inclined to inject themselves into those controversies, AFRICOM's agenda makes it possible for more lawsuits to be filed in the future, this time challenging US involvement in Africa's conflicts. For its part, the National Conference of Black Lawyers will not hesitate to speak in defence of any Africans who may be harmed by illegal acts committed by AFRICOM.
We urge that you not wait until the Administration receives threats of viable legal challenges to AFRICOM's activities, but that you instead affirmatively counsel the president to immediately and continually comply with the law and uphold its principles. With that in mind we note that certain core international law principles that have been incorporated into the United Nations Charter have significant implications for AFRICOM, and should be considered. Specifically:
Article 1(2) of the UN Charter affirms the right of countries to exercise rights to self-determination. Sovereign countries must be allowed to govern their own affairs and make their own decisions about their national destiny. The very concept of AFRICOM offends the most basic notions of self-determination. To appreciate how offensive AFRICOM can be to governments attempting to shake off the lasting effects of colonialism and establish true independence, imagine how the US government would react if the African Union were to announce that it had plans to gratuitously send military advisors into US urban centres to instruct the US National Guard on how to maintain order on those occasions when there are civil disturbances. Such 'assistance' would be unsolicited, unneeded, and highly insulting. It is no less so when AFRICOM intrudes into matters that are the province of sovereign African states.
Articles 1(1) and 2(3) of the UN Charter call for the settlement of international disputes by peaceful means. Regardless of how much officials may insist that AFRICOM is a force for peace, it is not perceived as a diplomatic delegation or a Peace Corps-type operation. It is perceived as a military command that is designed to facilitate warfare. In the context of African politics, the mere presence of AFRICOM will be perceived as an act of aggression that will decrease, not increase, the likelihood of peaceful resolution of conflicts.
Article 2(4) of the UN Charter requires that member states refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any country. AFRICOM's mere existence is a continuing threat of force. Whether intended or not, AFRICOM effectively communicates to African countries that they risk military consequences if they stray from the political, military or economic path that the US prefers that they follow. Even a few US military advisors in Africa are representatives of a super state that has the capacity to attack - with proxy African troops - whenever necessary to protect its interests.
As AFRICOM attempts to carve out for itself an advisor role, it does so at great risk. Africa has an unfortunate history of foreign private and public interests instigating for their own benefit bloody internecine conflicts that have taken the lives of countless innocents. As AFRICOM advisors train and equip individuals who may have pre-existing personal scores to settle; or who wish to reignite old hostilities, the US must bear morally, if not legally, the weight of any resulting war crimes, crimes against humanity or serious human rights violations.
The Rome Statute (which guides the work of the International Criminal Court) reflects generally accepted international law principles related to war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity. It speaks directly to the types of atrocities that AFRICOM may very well facilitate, and it contemplates the culpability of aiders, abettors, conspirators and others who are not direct participants in crimes. Even though the US has unfortunately declined to submit to the court's jurisdiction, and the US cannot be prosecuted in the International Criminal Court, it obviously would not reflect well on the Administration for admitted terrorists to be able to effectively deflect condemnation of their own crimes by credibly demonstrating that AFRICOM aided and abetted war crimes and crimes against humanity, and that prosecutions would be warranted if only the court had jurisdiction over US military personnel.
We note in closing that through our work, we are in touch with the mood and the thoughts of the black community. We know that there are many in our community who believe that care must be taken to avoid public statements and actions that appear critical, and as a consequence, compound the Administration's political challenges. However, at the same time, we also know that the plight of Africa and her children, born and living in practically every country in the world, is too desperate for us to be anything but forthright.
With that in mind we remind you that because neither you nor President Obama would have your positions had it not been for the sacrifices of our ancestors you are heavily indebted to them. In fact, the debt is so great that this Administration is compelled to honour obligations to the ancestors even if it means departing from the Presidency's institutional custom of ignoring what is owed to those who were enslaved and their descendants and to first and foremost protect corporate power. AFRICOM is offensive to everything our ancestors fought and in some cases died for. Contrary to President Obama's recent plea for Africa to become self-reliant, AFRICOM perpetuates a state of dependency. It perpetuates not only a state of dependency, but a military dependency that is potentially destructive in its own right, and which facilitates foreign theft and exploitation of the very resources that are the source of Africa's potential for political and economic redemption. For these and many other reasons, we believe AFRICOM must be dismantled, and the AFRICOM concept permanently retired.
Thank you for considering our thoughts on these matters. We certainly welcome the opportunity to speak with you or members of your staff about any questions, concerns or views that you might wish to convey.
Sincerely,
Mark P. Fancher
Coordinator, NCBL Africom Task Force
Mark P. Fancher is coordinator of the National Conference of Black Lawyers Africom Task Force.
NOTES
[1] See transcript of April 17, 2009 interview by Al-Jazeera with General William E. Ward, commander of U.S. Africa Command.
[2] The Assassination of Lumumba, Ludo De Witte (Verso 2001) p. 78; In Search of Enemies, John Stockwell (W.W. Norton 1978).
[3] Crockett v. Reagan, 558 F.Supp. 893 (1982).; and Sanchez-Espinoza v. Reagan, 568 F. Supp. 596 (1983).
By Mark P. Fancher
17 September 2009
In an open letter to US Attorney General Eric Holder, the National Conference of Black Lawyers (NCBL) sets out the organisation's concerns about US military operation Africa Command (AFRICOM), and calls for it to be dismantled. While officials insist that it is 'a force for peace', says NCBL, AFRICOM is 'perceived as a military command that is designed to facilitate warfare'. The US has a 'history of using military advisors to guide and direct troops in other countries to no good end', says NCBL, and AFRICOM's agenda 'makes it possible for more lawsuits to be filed in the future, challenging US involvement in Africa's conflicts.'
The following open letter was recently sent to US Attorney General Eric Holder by National Conference of Black Lawyers' Africom Task Force members Mark P. Fancher, Jeffrey L. Edison and Ajamu Sankofa.
Dear Attorney General Holder,
The National Conference of Black Lawyers (NCBL) takes this opportunity to speak frankly to you about Africa Command (AFRICOM), a US military operation that has been almost universally rejected throughout the African continent. Likewise, criticism of AFRICOM has been sharp in Africa's diaspora. It is this widespread concern that prompts us to communicate with you in an open letter.
We believe that President Obama, as Commander-in- Chief, should dismantle Africa Command and permanently retire the AFRICOM concept. As one who has the president's ear, particularly with respect to matters of law, we feel it is important that we share with you some of the legal and policy concerns that lead us to that conclusion.
AFRICOM says its mission is '...to promote a stable and secure African environment in support of US foreign policy.' According to AFRICOM's public statements, the mission is built upon the proposition that Al-Qaeda and other terrorist forces are operating in Africa and presenting military challenges to African governments that they are unable to meet without US assistance.[1] President Obama's embrace of a faulty mission to fight terrorists who are probably not even in Africa leads us to fear that he has been very badly advised on this issue. To all appearances, he has been persuaded to adopt as his own the idea that Africa needs US military support. In our opinion, the rationale for AFRICOM's existence was manufactured by the Bush Administration for the purpose of giving the US an excuse to use military means to achieve dominance over African oil resources and at the same time stem the growing influence of China and other countries on the African continent.
For their part, the people of Africa are being asked to embrace a US military command for reasons that are illogical, and perhaps even nonsensical. In addition, AFRICOM appears against a historical backdrop of the US government having repeatedly intervened in Africa's affairs in ways that have caused severe destabilisation and underdevelopment. This history includes US complicity in a series of unsavoury operations that include: The overthrow of Ghana's President Kwame Nkrumah; plans to the assassinate Congo's Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba; support for counter-revolutionary forces in Angola and Mozambique[2], and much more.
Africans' suspicions about AFRICOM's plans to provide military 'advisors' are compounded by the fact that the US has a history of using military advisors to guide and direct troops in other countries to no good end. In some cases US advisors have directed foreign government troops. In other cases they have supported insurgents and mercenaries trying to overthrow foreign governments. In all cases, the consequences for everyday people in affected countries have been devastating. Over the years, a number of respected public servants have made known their objections to the use of military advisors. Members of Congress sued President Reagan because of his administration's use of military advisors to support a brutal regime in El Salvador and counter-revolutionaries in Nicaragua.[3] Although for technical reasons the courts were not inclined to inject themselves into those controversies, AFRICOM's agenda makes it possible for more lawsuits to be filed in the future, this time challenging US involvement in Africa's conflicts. For its part, the National Conference of Black Lawyers will not hesitate to speak in defence of any Africans who may be harmed by illegal acts committed by AFRICOM.
We urge that you not wait until the Administration receives threats of viable legal challenges to AFRICOM's activities, but that you instead affirmatively counsel the president to immediately and continually comply with the law and uphold its principles. With that in mind we note that certain core international law principles that have been incorporated into the United Nations Charter have significant implications for AFRICOM, and should be considered. Specifically:
Article 1(2) of the UN Charter affirms the right of countries to exercise rights to self-determination. Sovereign countries must be allowed to govern their own affairs and make their own decisions about their national destiny. The very concept of AFRICOM offends the most basic notions of self-determination. To appreciate how offensive AFRICOM can be to governments attempting to shake off the lasting effects of colonialism and establish true independence, imagine how the US government would react if the African Union were to announce that it had plans to gratuitously send military advisors into US urban centres to instruct the US National Guard on how to maintain order on those occasions when there are civil disturbances. Such 'assistance' would be unsolicited, unneeded, and highly insulting. It is no less so when AFRICOM intrudes into matters that are the province of sovereign African states.
Articles 1(1) and 2(3) of the UN Charter call for the settlement of international disputes by peaceful means. Regardless of how much officials may insist that AFRICOM is a force for peace, it is not perceived as a diplomatic delegation or a Peace Corps-type operation. It is perceived as a military command that is designed to facilitate warfare. In the context of African politics, the mere presence of AFRICOM will be perceived as an act of aggression that will decrease, not increase, the likelihood of peaceful resolution of conflicts.
Article 2(4) of the UN Charter requires that member states refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any country. AFRICOM's mere existence is a continuing threat of force. Whether intended or not, AFRICOM effectively communicates to African countries that they risk military consequences if they stray from the political, military or economic path that the US prefers that they follow. Even a few US military advisors in Africa are representatives of a super state that has the capacity to attack - with proxy African troops - whenever necessary to protect its interests.
As AFRICOM attempts to carve out for itself an advisor role, it does so at great risk. Africa has an unfortunate history of foreign private and public interests instigating for their own benefit bloody internecine conflicts that have taken the lives of countless innocents. As AFRICOM advisors train and equip individuals who may have pre-existing personal scores to settle; or who wish to reignite old hostilities, the US must bear morally, if not legally, the weight of any resulting war crimes, crimes against humanity or serious human rights violations.
The Rome Statute (which guides the work of the International Criminal Court) reflects generally accepted international law principles related to war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity. It speaks directly to the types of atrocities that AFRICOM may very well facilitate, and it contemplates the culpability of aiders, abettors, conspirators and others who are not direct participants in crimes. Even though the US has unfortunately declined to submit to the court's jurisdiction, and the US cannot be prosecuted in the International Criminal Court, it obviously would not reflect well on the Administration for admitted terrorists to be able to effectively deflect condemnation of their own crimes by credibly demonstrating that AFRICOM aided and abetted war crimes and crimes against humanity, and that prosecutions would be warranted if only the court had jurisdiction over US military personnel.
We note in closing that through our work, we are in touch with the mood and the thoughts of the black community. We know that there are many in our community who believe that care must be taken to avoid public statements and actions that appear critical, and as a consequence, compound the Administration's political challenges. However, at the same time, we also know that the plight of Africa and her children, born and living in practically every country in the world, is too desperate for us to be anything but forthright.
With that in mind we remind you that because neither you nor President Obama would have your positions had it not been for the sacrifices of our ancestors you are heavily indebted to them. In fact, the debt is so great that this Administration is compelled to honour obligations to the ancestors even if it means departing from the Presidency's institutional custom of ignoring what is owed to those who were enslaved and their descendants and to first and foremost protect corporate power. AFRICOM is offensive to everything our ancestors fought and in some cases died for. Contrary to President Obama's recent plea for Africa to become self-reliant, AFRICOM perpetuates a state of dependency. It perpetuates not only a state of dependency, but a military dependency that is potentially destructive in its own right, and which facilitates foreign theft and exploitation of the very resources that are the source of Africa's potential for political and economic redemption. For these and many other reasons, we believe AFRICOM must be dismantled, and the AFRICOM concept permanently retired.
Thank you for considering our thoughts on these matters. We certainly welcome the opportunity to speak with you or members of your staff about any questions, concerns or views that you might wish to convey.
Sincerely,
Mark P. Fancher
Coordinator, NCBL Africom Task Force
Mark P. Fancher is coordinator of the National Conference of Black Lawyers Africom Task Force.
NOTES
[1] See transcript of April 17, 2009 interview by Al-Jazeera with General William E. Ward, commander of U.S. Africa Command.
[2] The Assassination of Lumumba, Ludo De Witte (Verso 2001) p. 78; In Search of Enemies, John Stockwell (W.W. Norton 1978).
[3] Crockett v. Reagan, 558 F.Supp. 893 (1982).; and Sanchez-Espinoza v. Reagan, 568 F. Supp. 596 (1983).
18 September, 2009
Prohibited bore licences issued to US security firm in Pakistan.
Daily Times
18 September 2009
The government has issued 86 licences for banned weapons to a security company, contracted by the US embassy in Islamabad, a private TV channel reported on Thursday.
A source in the Interior Ministry told the channel that the licences had been issued to Inter Risk following Prime Minister Gilani’s approval. US ambassador to Pakistan Anne Patterson had held meetings with PM Gilani and the Interior Minister Rehman Malik in this regard, it said.
The channel said the weapons had been imported from the US and each weapon was worth Rs 800,000.
The security company had signed a contract with the embassy in April. A US embassy spokesman told the channel that it was no secret that the embassy had hired Inter Risk for security.
18 September 2009
The government has issued 86 licences for banned weapons to a security company, contracted by the US embassy in Islamabad, a private TV channel reported on Thursday.
A source in the Interior Ministry told the channel that the licences had been issued to Inter Risk following Prime Minister Gilani’s approval. US ambassador to Pakistan Anne Patterson had held meetings with PM Gilani and the Interior Minister Rehman Malik in this regard, it said.
The channel said the weapons had been imported from the US and each weapon was worth Rs 800,000.
The security company had signed a contract with the embassy in April. A US embassy spokesman told the channel that it was no secret that the embassy had hired Inter Risk for security.
CENTRAL ASIA: PENTAGON PLANS FOR DEPLOYMENT OF SPECIAL FORCES TO STATES OUTSIDE AFGHANISTAN.
EurasiaNet
By Deirdre Tynan
9/17/09
The US military is preparing for a worst-case scenario in Central Asia. The Pentagon is presently developing plans covering the potential deployment of elite Special Forces to Central Asian states other than Afghanistan.
In each of the Central Asian states, US Special Forces 3rd Group are preparing to conduct "foreign internal defense" missions -- military shorthand for counter-insurgency operations fought by host nation troops with training and other forms of assistance provided by Washington.
The 3rd Special Forces Group (Airborne), stationed in Fort Bragg, North Carolina, currently consists of four operational battalions. At least one battalion will be deployed to Central Asia on every rotation of troops serving in Afghanistan.
According to a military handbook, Joint Tactics, Techniques and Procedures for Foreign Internal Defense (FID), published under the auspices of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in 2004, "the United States will normally consider FID support only if the following three conditions exist: the existing or threatened internal disorder threatens US national strategic goals; the threatened nation is capable of effectively using US assistance; and the threatened nation requests US assistance."
It adds: "assistance will normally focus on civil-military operations (primarily, the provision of services to the local populace), psychological operations, communications and intelligence sharing, and logistic support."
Prior to 2001, the 3rd Group traditionally was oriented toward sub-Saharan Africa. The struggle against international terrorism prompted the unit to refocus its attention on Central Asian affairs. "This adjustment in regional orientation just reflects the realities of today’s environment and requirements. The group has been conducting operations in Afghanistan since 2002," LCDR W. Fred Kuebler, a media relations officer with US Special Operations Command, told EurasiaNet.
"The 3rd Special Forces Group will continue to conduct operations in Afghanistan and be prepared to support training with militaries in Pakistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, and Kyrgyzstan when required by the commander of US Central Command [Gen. David Petraeus]," Kuebler added.
He said 3rd Group would continue to take part in "traditional Special Forces missions," which he said included "direct action," "special reconnaissance," "foreign internal defense," and "security force assistance."
The 3rd Group’s objective would be "to assist partner nations improve their ability to provide for their own security in Pakistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, and Kyrgyzstan," Kuebler said. "[They] will begin focusing their training in language, customs, and culture to reflect this adjustment in regional orientation."
According to an August 21 directive from US Special Operations Command, the realignment of the Special Forces was undertaken "in order to provide better and more consistent support to the geographic combatant commanders, stabilize Special Forces group headquarters deployments and spread the operational workload more evenly across the joint special operations community." The directive is scheduled to be fully implemented by February 1, 2010.
The prospect of US forces carrying out foreign internal defense operations in Central Asia is generating mixed views. Some analysts described it as routine, while others call it risky. All agree, however, that Russia will be agitated by any deployment.
"I think this is a normal practice, because there were cases when Turkish military partners used to come to train our military, and Special Forces as well," said Mars Sariev, a Kyrgyz political analyst. "The only thing, I think, is that Russia won’t like it so much."
By Deirdre Tynan
9/17/09
The US military is preparing for a worst-case scenario in Central Asia. The Pentagon is presently developing plans covering the potential deployment of elite Special Forces to Central Asian states other than Afghanistan.
In each of the Central Asian states, US Special Forces 3rd Group are preparing to conduct "foreign internal defense" missions -- military shorthand for counter-insurgency operations fought by host nation troops with training and other forms of assistance provided by Washington.
The 3rd Special Forces Group (Airborne), stationed in Fort Bragg, North Carolina, currently consists of four operational battalions. At least one battalion will be deployed to Central Asia on every rotation of troops serving in Afghanistan.
According to a military handbook, Joint Tactics, Techniques and Procedures for Foreign Internal Defense (FID), published under the auspices of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in 2004, "the United States will normally consider FID support only if the following three conditions exist: the existing or threatened internal disorder threatens US national strategic goals; the threatened nation is capable of effectively using US assistance; and the threatened nation requests US assistance."
It adds: "assistance will normally focus on civil-military operations (primarily, the provision of services to the local populace), psychological operations, communications and intelligence sharing, and logistic support."
Prior to 2001, the 3rd Group traditionally was oriented toward sub-Saharan Africa. The struggle against international terrorism prompted the unit to refocus its attention on Central Asian affairs. "This adjustment in regional orientation just reflects the realities of today’s environment and requirements. The group has been conducting operations in Afghanistan since 2002," LCDR W. Fred Kuebler, a media relations officer with US Special Operations Command, told EurasiaNet.
"The 3rd Special Forces Group will continue to conduct operations in Afghanistan and be prepared to support training with militaries in Pakistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, and Kyrgyzstan when required by the commander of US Central Command [Gen. David Petraeus]," Kuebler added.
He said 3rd Group would continue to take part in "traditional Special Forces missions," which he said included "direct action," "special reconnaissance," "foreign internal defense," and "security force assistance."
The 3rd Group’s objective would be "to assist partner nations improve their ability to provide for their own security in Pakistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, and Kyrgyzstan," Kuebler said. "[They] will begin focusing their training in language, customs, and culture to reflect this adjustment in regional orientation."
According to an August 21 directive from US Special Operations Command, the realignment of the Special Forces was undertaken "in order to provide better and more consistent support to the geographic combatant commanders, stabilize Special Forces group headquarters deployments and spread the operational workload more evenly across the joint special operations community." The directive is scheduled to be fully implemented by February 1, 2010.
The prospect of US forces carrying out foreign internal defense operations in Central Asia is generating mixed views. Some analysts described it as routine, while others call it risky. All agree, however, that Russia will be agitated by any deployment.
"I think this is a normal practice, because there were cases when Turkish military partners used to come to train our military, and Special Forces as well," said Mars Sariev, a Kyrgyz political analyst. "The only thing, I think, is that Russia won’t like it so much."
16 September, 2009
NA committee concerned over Blackwater presence in Capital.
Daily Times
16 September 2009
By Muhammad Bilal
ISLAMABAD: The National Assembly’s Standing Committee on Interior on Tuesday expressed concerns over the presence of US private security agency Blackwater in Pakistan and asked the Interior Ministry to submit a report on the matter to the panel.
During a meeting, presided by Abdul Qader Patel, the committee discussed the issue of Blackwater’s “activities” and its presence in various parts of the country.
The members said there were reports in the media that the US private security agency had been expanding its network in Islamabad and other areas.
The NA body decided to call Interior Minister Rehman Malik to the next meeting to brief the members and make a ‘categorical’ statement in this regard.
The committee members, including former interior minister Aftab Ahmed Khan Sherpao, criticised the government’s decision to promote police officers, adding that said some senior officers were superseded in this process.
The committee also decided to investigate the cases of all incomplete housing societies registered with the Islamabad Capital Territory (ICT).
It would examine audit reports, bank accounts and other details of the cooperative housing societies of National Assembly’s employees, the Senate, Commerce and Jinnah Garden in the next meeting.
It also expressed concern over the “slow-paced and ill-organised development” of the housing societies and directed the Interior Ministry to put forward proposed amendments in the Cooperative Societies Act 1925 and Rules 1927 and make them more common man-friendly.
It observed that the government must put in extra effort to secure the people’s savings and take punitive action against the land mafia who were swindling with the amounts of the people.
Earlier, the committee was informed that so far 49 societies had been registered with the ICT, of which 11 had been issued no objection certificates by the Capital Development Authority (CDA).
The committee took strong exception to the construction of bungalows at agriculture farmhouses.
Motion: The Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) had also submitted an adjournment motion to the National Assembly Secretariat, seeking a debate on the foreign policy, especially in the context of Blackwater’s activities in Islamabad.
PML-N members Asad Khan, Shakir Awan and Javed Shah had signed the motion.
16 September 2009
By Muhammad Bilal
ISLAMABAD: The National Assembly’s Standing Committee on Interior on Tuesday expressed concerns over the presence of US private security agency Blackwater in Pakistan and asked the Interior Ministry to submit a report on the matter to the panel.
During a meeting, presided by Abdul Qader Patel, the committee discussed the issue of Blackwater’s “activities” and its presence in various parts of the country.
The members said there were reports in the media that the US private security agency had been expanding its network in Islamabad and other areas.
The NA body decided to call Interior Minister Rehman Malik to the next meeting to brief the members and make a ‘categorical’ statement in this regard.
The committee members, including former interior minister Aftab Ahmed Khan Sherpao, criticised the government’s decision to promote police officers, adding that said some senior officers were superseded in this process.
The committee also decided to investigate the cases of all incomplete housing societies registered with the Islamabad Capital Territory (ICT).
It would examine audit reports, bank accounts and other details of the cooperative housing societies of National Assembly’s employees, the Senate, Commerce and Jinnah Garden in the next meeting.
It also expressed concern over the “slow-paced and ill-organised development” of the housing societies and directed the Interior Ministry to put forward proposed amendments in the Cooperative Societies Act 1925 and Rules 1927 and make them more common man-friendly.
It observed that the government must put in extra effort to secure the people’s savings and take punitive action against the land mafia who were swindling with the amounts of the people.
Earlier, the committee was informed that so far 49 societies had been registered with the ICT, of which 11 had been issued no objection certificates by the Capital Development Authority (CDA).
The committee took strong exception to the construction of bungalows at agriculture farmhouses.
Motion: The Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) had also submitted an adjournment motion to the National Assembly Secretariat, seeking a debate on the foreign policy, especially in the context of Blackwater’s activities in Islamabad.
PML-N members Asad Khan, Shakir Awan and Javed Shah had signed the motion.
Xe Worldwide (Blackwater) Deploys to Karachi.
The Nation
By: Maqbool Malik
September 15, 2009
Islamabad - US private security outfit Blackwater has begun to expand its presence in Karachi port city in the backdrop of the Peshawar debacle last month when Craig Davis a suspected operative of the US company was caught red handed involved in objectionable activities.
Well-placed sources told The Nation on Monday that Blackwater, which has been operating in the region including in Afghanistan and Pakistan under different names, is believed to have hired on rent at least seven private houses in posh Defence area of Karachi port city.
Sources were not sure whether the move to hire houses was part of any long-term strategy or as a stopgap arrangement because plans were afoot to hire services of retired personnel of Pakistani law enforcement agencies to oversea various operations including logistical support to handle consignments of the US private security company.
It was further learned from knowledgeable sources that Blackwater had acquired hundreds of acres of land near Pataro in Sindh in order to launch a supposedly Agriculture Research Institute.
Craig Davis along with some other US citizens came into spotlight in Peshawar after their Pakistani neighbours wrote a letter to the Interior Ministry demanding a thorough probe into their dubious activities.
Later Craig Davis was identified as operative of Creative Associates International Inc; a Washington- based US firm believed to be one the wings of Blackwater, now renamed Xe Worldwide. Davis, who had to leave Pakistan, is learnt to have returned again and resumed his “official” activities.
However, despite frequent attempts, it was not immediately possible to contact the US Embassy to confirm the status of Craig Davis.
By: Maqbool Malik
September 15, 2009
Islamabad - US private security outfit Blackwater has begun to expand its presence in Karachi port city in the backdrop of the Peshawar debacle last month when Craig Davis a suspected operative of the US company was caught red handed involved in objectionable activities.
Well-placed sources told The Nation on Monday that Blackwater, which has been operating in the region including in Afghanistan and Pakistan under different names, is believed to have hired on rent at least seven private houses in posh Defence area of Karachi port city.
Sources were not sure whether the move to hire houses was part of any long-term strategy or as a stopgap arrangement because plans were afoot to hire services of retired personnel of Pakistani law enforcement agencies to oversea various operations including logistical support to handle consignments of the US private security company.
It was further learned from knowledgeable sources that Blackwater had acquired hundreds of acres of land near Pataro in Sindh in order to launch a supposedly Agriculture Research Institute.
Craig Davis along with some other US citizens came into spotlight in Peshawar after their Pakistani neighbours wrote a letter to the Interior Ministry demanding a thorough probe into their dubious activities.
Later Craig Davis was identified as operative of Creative Associates International Inc; a Washington- based US firm believed to be one the wings of Blackwater, now renamed Xe Worldwide. Davis, who had to leave Pakistan, is learnt to have returned again and resumed his “official” activities.
However, despite frequent attempts, it was not immediately possible to contact the US Embassy to confirm the status of Craig Davis.
15 September, 2009
Obama to host African leaders.
SAPA
15 September 2009
US President Barack Obama will host a special meeting for African heads of state when they attend the UN General Assembly in New York next week, a US official said on Monday.
Obama will host a luncheon for presidents and prime ministers of sub-Saharan and African nations and invitations have been sent out, said US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice.
"The luncheon will focus on building a 21st century partnership to increase social and economic development in Africa," Rice said.
Rice said Obama will also meet with countries that have contributed the largest number of police and troops to UN peacekeeping operations around the world.
"This is an opportunity for the president of the United States to recognise the largely unheralded contribution to the UN... who have been doing essential work to build peace and security in fragile situations," she said.
First visit to the UN
The date and time of those meetings have not been made public.
Obama, who will make his first visit to the UN as US president, will take part on September 22 in a climate change summit and address the 64th UN General Assembly session the same day.
He will preside over a UN Security Council meeting on nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament on September 24. It will be the first time a US president will preside over the council because the US coincidentally holds the rotating presidency in September.
Obama has called for a world without nuclear weapons. But Washington has not yet ratified the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, which can enter into effect only if all countries with nuclear technology in the world ratify it.
15 September 2009
US President Barack Obama will host a special meeting for African heads of state when they attend the UN General Assembly in New York next week, a US official said on Monday.
Obama will host a luncheon for presidents and prime ministers of sub-Saharan and African nations and invitations have been sent out, said US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice.
"The luncheon will focus on building a 21st century partnership to increase social and economic development in Africa," Rice said.
Rice said Obama will also meet with countries that have contributed the largest number of police and troops to UN peacekeeping operations around the world.
"This is an opportunity for the president of the United States to recognise the largely unheralded contribution to the UN... who have been doing essential work to build peace and security in fragile situations," she said.
First visit to the UN
The date and time of those meetings have not been made public.
Obama, who will make his first visit to the UN as US president, will take part on September 22 in a climate change summit and address the 64th UN General Assembly session the same day.
He will preside over a UN Security Council meeting on nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament on September 24. It will be the first time a US president will preside over the council because the US coincidentally holds the rotating presidency in September.
Obama has called for a world without nuclear weapons. But Washington has not yet ratified the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, which can enter into effect only if all countries with nuclear technology in the world ratify it.
Israel eyes big arms sales in Africa.
UPI
14 September 2009
Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman's recent five-country tour of Africa was more about building up intelligence links and selling arms than diplomacy, according to one Israeli intelligence specialist.
Lieberman didn't sign any arms deals during his swing through Ethiopia, Kenya, Nigeria, Ghana and Uganda. But Israeli officials estimate there are African arms contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars waiting to be grabbed by Israel's export-hungry defense firms.
Yossi Melman, who writes extensively on Israel's intelligence establishment, questioned whether Israel should be engaging in such activities instead of sending in agricultural advisers and medical and educational experts to such economically distressed countries.
He noted that the publicly announced objective of the tour was "Israel's willingness to assist counties … to find solutions to their problems: hunger, insufficient clean water, epidemics."
But he wrote in the liberal daily Haaretz that the main but "less publicized" aspect of the tour was boosting "defense exports," such as the arms deals worth $500 million that Israel has signed with Nigeria in recent years.
Melman observed that an "even more secretive" goal was "the hope of developing intelligence ties and cooperation in the effort against international jihadist elements, and especially countering the activities of Iran in some of these African countries" where Israel has been engaged in some murky dealings over the years.
Lieberman's entourage included representatives of many key Israeli defense firms, both state-owned and private enterprises. These included Israel Military Industries, Israel Aerospace Industries, Soltam, Silver Shadow Advanced Security Systems, Israel Shipyards and Elbit Systems.
There was also a delegation from the Defense Ministry's foreign assistance and military sales department, known as Sibat.
And finally there was a team from Israel's intelligence community, including a senior official from the Mossad, the foreign intelligence service.
Israeli intelligence has operated in Africa for decades, and military teams have been active in training Africa armies, often clandestinely, with weapons sold by the Jewish state.
Melman observed: "Secret funding from the United States Central Intelligence Agency was channeled by American trade unions to (Israel's) Histadrut labor federation …to finance various activities.
"Among other things, the money was used to post an impressive array of Mossad agents in the African states."
These activities, Melman noted, "gave Mossad agents and Israeli Defense Forces officers an excuse to be involved in the internal affairs of African regimes."
Indeed, Israelis were reportedly involved in military coups in Uganda and Zanzibar, or as Melman drily observed "at least had prior knowledge of them."
The African countries where the Israeli agents operated included those of geostrategic interest to Israel on the periphery of the Arab world, such as Ethiopia, Kenya and Sudan.
These remain of some importance to Israel today because of their proximity to Egypt, Yemen and Saudi Arabia. Ethiopia and Sudan control the Red Sea shipping lanes to Eilat, Israel's only southern port in the Gulf of Aqaba.
In July and August, amid growing tensions with Iran, Israel deployed one of three German-built Dolphin-class submarines and two corvettes into the Red Sea in a clear warning to Tehran.
In January and February, Israeli warplanes were reported to have destroyed at least two convoys in the Sudanese desert that were carrying Iranian arms to Hamas in the Gaza Strip.
The Israelis have long had close intelligence links with Ethiopia, a Christian-dominated Red Sea state ringed by Muslim countries. Addis Ababa is currently propping up the Western-backed transitional government in neighboring Somalia, where al-Qaida is reputed to be operating.
Melman lamented: "It is a sad truth that … almost all Israeli activity on the African continent is related to weapons exports.
"The 'ugly Israeli' in the guise of the arms dealer (mostly former intelligence and military officials), who promotes weapons sales on behalf of Israeli military industries, with the backing of the defense establishment, has given Israel a bad name worldwide.
"Israelis have been involved in civil wars (in Angola, Liberia, Sierra Leone and the Ivory Coast) and in aiding regimes such as in Equatorial Guinea and the two Congo republics."
14 September 2009
Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman's recent five-country tour of Africa was more about building up intelligence links and selling arms than diplomacy, according to one Israeli intelligence specialist.
Lieberman didn't sign any arms deals during his swing through Ethiopia, Kenya, Nigeria, Ghana and Uganda. But Israeli officials estimate there are African arms contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars waiting to be grabbed by Israel's export-hungry defense firms.
Yossi Melman, who writes extensively on Israel's intelligence establishment, questioned whether Israel should be engaging in such activities instead of sending in agricultural advisers and medical and educational experts to such economically distressed countries.
He noted that the publicly announced objective of the tour was "Israel's willingness to assist counties … to find solutions to their problems: hunger, insufficient clean water, epidemics."
But he wrote in the liberal daily Haaretz that the main but "less publicized" aspect of the tour was boosting "defense exports," such as the arms deals worth $500 million that Israel has signed with Nigeria in recent years.
Melman observed that an "even more secretive" goal was "the hope of developing intelligence ties and cooperation in the effort against international jihadist elements, and especially countering the activities of Iran in some of these African countries" where Israel has been engaged in some murky dealings over the years.
Lieberman's entourage included representatives of many key Israeli defense firms, both state-owned and private enterprises. These included Israel Military Industries, Israel Aerospace Industries, Soltam, Silver Shadow Advanced Security Systems, Israel Shipyards and Elbit Systems.
There was also a delegation from the Defense Ministry's foreign assistance and military sales department, known as Sibat.
And finally there was a team from Israel's intelligence community, including a senior official from the Mossad, the foreign intelligence service.
Israeli intelligence has operated in Africa for decades, and military teams have been active in training Africa armies, often clandestinely, with weapons sold by the Jewish state.
Melman observed: "Secret funding from the United States Central Intelligence Agency was channeled by American trade unions to (Israel's) Histadrut labor federation …to finance various activities.
"Among other things, the money was used to post an impressive array of Mossad agents in the African states."
These activities, Melman noted, "gave Mossad agents and Israeli Defense Forces officers an excuse to be involved in the internal affairs of African regimes."
Indeed, Israelis were reportedly involved in military coups in Uganda and Zanzibar, or as Melman drily observed "at least had prior knowledge of them."
The African countries where the Israeli agents operated included those of geostrategic interest to Israel on the periphery of the Arab world, such as Ethiopia, Kenya and Sudan.
These remain of some importance to Israel today because of their proximity to Egypt, Yemen and Saudi Arabia. Ethiopia and Sudan control the Red Sea shipping lanes to Eilat, Israel's only southern port in the Gulf of Aqaba.
In July and August, amid growing tensions with Iran, Israel deployed one of three German-built Dolphin-class submarines and two corvettes into the Red Sea in a clear warning to Tehran.
In January and February, Israeli warplanes were reported to have destroyed at least two convoys in the Sudanese desert that were carrying Iranian arms to Hamas in the Gaza Strip.
The Israelis have long had close intelligence links with Ethiopia, a Christian-dominated Red Sea state ringed by Muslim countries. Addis Ababa is currently propping up the Western-backed transitional government in neighboring Somalia, where al-Qaida is reputed to be operating.
Melman lamented: "It is a sad truth that … almost all Israeli activity on the African continent is related to weapons exports.
"The 'ugly Israeli' in the guise of the arms dealer (mostly former intelligence and military officials), who promotes weapons sales on behalf of Israeli military industries, with the backing of the defense establishment, has given Israel a bad name worldwide.
"Israelis have been involved in civil wars (in Angola, Liberia, Sierra Leone and the Ivory Coast) and in aiding regimes such as in Equatorial Guinea and the two Congo republics."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
