Interior secretary issued notice in Blackwater plea.

Daily Times
5 December 2009

Editor's Note: Vanity Fair interviewed former Blackwater/XE CEO Mr. Eric Prince to voice his views on the various allegations leveled against him and his former company. His allegation that he worked as a CIA asset has been recieving the most attention from the mainstream press.

Lahore High Court (LHC) Chief Justice (CJ) Khawaja Muhammad Sharif served notice on the Interior secretary for not replying to a petition against the alleged activities of Blackwater in the federal capital.

The CJ warned that if the secretary did not submit the reply by December 14 he would be prosecuted under the contempt of court law.

On November 20, the LHC sought replies from the Interior Ministry and the Islamabad inspector general.

The LHC chief justice expressed displeasure when told that the Islamabad IG had submitted his reply without signatures. He said: “Is this the way to address the court? It seems that all ineligible persons have been given jobs in (the) Police Department.”

Plea: Separately, the CJ also called a detailed report from the Foreign Ministry on a plea to order the search of US Embassy to recover illegal weapons.

Hashim Shaukat Khan, president of Watan Party Pakistan, had filed the petition.

Barrister Zafarullah, the petitioner’s counsel, cited several news reports according to which American and Dutch nationals were found patrolling the federal capital’s streets with sophisticated weapons. He said the diplomats and marines of both the countries had also beat up the people. He said the “culprits of these incidents” were set free and no action was taken against them for violating the law of the land.

He said an American magazine, The Nation, had disclosed the presence of Blackwater in Pakistan and its hideouts in Karachi, Peshawar and Islamabad.

The counsel also said that the Sihala Police Training Centre commandant had also complained that explosives were being heaped in the centre and he was not allowed to visit the sites.

Illegal weapons: Seeking search of US embassy, he said the day Blackwater had stepped into Pakistan, terror acts and suicide attacks had been scaled up. The counsel also alleged that in the US embassy illegal arms and ammunition were being stored, which were being used for “sabotage acts” in the country.

Eni, Gazprom Welcome France's Entry into South Stream Project.

ENI
12/4/2009
URL: http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=83347

Gazprom Chairman Alexey Miller and Eni CEO Paolo Scaroni signed, in the presence of the President of the Russian Federation Dimitrij Medvedev and Italy's Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, the agreement allowing the entry of France's EdF in the South Stream project, the gas pipeline system, currently under study, which will link Russia to the European Union across the Black Sea and will significantly contribute to improving the security of energy supply for Europe.

The agreement, in principle, welcomes EdF to participate in the South Stream project under conditions to be defined in the next months.

No Press Freedom in Ethiopia.

SAPA
4 December 2009

A leading Ethiopian newspaper said on Friday it had closed down as a result of months of government "persecution and harassment" against its staff.

"This is the culmination of months of persecution, harassment and black propaganda by the Ethiopian government on Addis Neger," the name of the paper launched two years ago, said executive editor Abiye Teklemariam.

Addis Neger, a weekly newspaper often critical of government policies published its last edition on Saturday before some of its staff fled the country for fear of arrest.

"Three of Addis Neger's editors left the country this week after the paper learnt that the government was preparing criminal charges against its top editors, reporters and owners based on the new anti-terror law and the criminal code," the paper said in a statement sent to AFP.

Freezing media firms' assets

Ethiopia's parliament adopted an anti-terror law earlier this year that opposition leaders and the New York-based rights group Human Rights Watch said would curb independent criticism of the ruling EPRDF party ahead of elections in 2010.

Four other media firms meanwhile, told AFP that the government was seeking to freeze their liquid and fixed assets under treason-related charges dating to electoral violence in 2005.

"The government has suddenly decided to pursue the case... and is appealing a pardon by the president in accordance with the law and the public pronouncements of Prime Minister Meles Zenawi in 2007," said Serkalem Fasil, speaking for the four groups.

The government was not immediately available for comment on the accusations.

The Horn of Africa nation is to hold elections on May 23, the first since 2005 when nearly 200 people were killed in post-poll violence sparked by allegations of vote-rigging.

Cuba to Train Uganda Oil Technicians.

The New Vision
3 December 2009

UGANDA is to send oil technicians to Cuba, a country which has been successful in oil and gas production, for training.

The plan to cooperate in the oil industry follows Uganda’s major oil and gas discoveries in the Albertine region stretching for about 23,000 square kilometres, from the West-Nile to the south-western tip in the district of Kanungu.

Visiting the Energas S.A. Plant at Veladero Matanza Province in Cuba on Thursday, President Yoweri Museveni said Uganda will use the gas from the oil wells for generating electricity.

A total of 34 oil wells have been drilled in the Albertine region, 32 of which have oil. The resource base, according to the energy ministry and the oil companies, can sustain long-term oil production that could propel Uganda to the top 50 oil producers in the world.

Sources in the Energy mnistry recently said the exploration had attracted about $506m (about sh961.4b) in foreign direct investments. The figure is expected to go up to $900m (about sh1.7 trillion) by January. Five exploration areas have been licensed to prospecting companies. The four oil prospecting companies include Tullow Oil, Heritage Oil and Gas, Dominion Petroleum and Neptune Resources.

According to a press release from State House, Museveni, who has been in Cuba for a four-day visit, congratulated the Cuban people for locally drilling oil and successfully utilising it to benefit their country. The President was accompanied by the First Lady, several ministers and permanent secretaries.

“I was last in Cuba 22 years ago. The country had not discovered oil. I am happy to find that for the last 10 years, Cuba has become an oil producer,” Museveni remarked.

Vadiva Garcia, Cuba’s gas minister, who briefed the Ugandans about the progress of Cuban oil exploration and production, said their electricity was generated from natural and associated gases using new engineering concepts and technology.

She added that oil and gas production in Cuba was a strategic national project, which was closely monitored from exploration, extraction and utilisation. Museveni also visited the Cuban Youth Centre Palace, where Cuban youth converge regularly to access benefits of new technologies. Cuba and Uganda established diplomatic relations in 1974.

Guinea's president wounded in assassination attempt.

Daily Telegraph
4 December 2009

Capt Camara was shot at by his military aide, who heads the presidential guard, said Idrissa Cherif, the communications minister. Mr Cherif said his live was not in danger.

A statement read on state TV said the 45-year-old president had been slightly wounded but that his life was not in danger.

"The president of the republic is still the president of the republic and he is in good health," said Mr Cherif, as military helicopters and sporadic shooting could be heard in downtown Conakry.

The shooting came amid rumours of deep divisions within the army nearly three months after a military-led massacre of protesters at a peaceful rally.

Mr Cherif said Capt Camara had left the country's main military barracks, from where he has been running the country since seizing power in a military-led coup 11 months ago. He headed downtown to a military camp housing hundreds of men under the control of Abubakar "Toumba" Diakite, the president's aide-de-camp. The shooting occurred inside the camp.

The incident demonstrates the rifts inside the military clique that grabbed control of the nation of 10 million on Africa's western coast. Capt Camara had initially promised to quickly organize elections, but then reversed course and began hinting that he planned to run for office, prompting a massive protest Sept. 28.

Inshuti Organization Rejects UN Allegations.

INSHUTI ORGANIZATION
PRESS RELEASE
Manresa, 26th November 2009

Inshuti Association denies all accusations leaked by some
of the media and appears in an UN Security Council
report, which is neither official nor public up to today (1).

Firstly, INSHUTI wants to clarify that it is false to claim that money from public
funds have been diverted to finance FDLR guerrillas according to the above
mentioned accusation. Funds received from Catalan Cooperation Fund and
Manresa City Council have been set aside to assist the following projects:

· Cooperation with Ahadi Institute (Kigoma-Tanzània) Studies
Center camps in Tanzania, with European recognition, and winner of the prestigious international Opus Prize 2007.

· Cooperation with Maendeleo Youth Centre (Kigoma-Tanzània)religious community (Brothers of Charity), hosting youngsters and people with physical and psychological incapacities or people with special needs.

Secondly, INSHUTI wants to report that the Government of Rwanda,
through its political diplomacy (and probably through military intelligence
agents charged with this purpose), uses the United Nations to discredit S’Olivar Foundation de Mallorca, Inshuti, and all small NGOs that have made public statements on countless crimes such as:

· In February 2005, a group of organizations sued high-ranking officials from
the RPF/A (Rwandan Patriotic Front/Army), a politico-military group (and current
government of Rwanda) at the Spanish National High Court for
murdering nine spanish missionaries and aid workers, including a nurse
from Manresa, Flors Sirera. Although INSHUTI fully supports this cause
launched by the spanish courts regarding the violent deaths of our citizens
Flors Sirera and eight other spanish victims (along with other victims
from Rwanda and Congo), INSHUTI declares that our organization has
not been an interested party in this process of international justice,
neither in the past nor at present, against international crimes committed
in Central Africa.

1 Daily Press Briefing by the Office of the Spokesperson for the Secretary-General. UN Department of Public Information • News and Media Division • New York. 25 November 2009, see: http://www.un.org/News/briefings/docs/2009/db091125.doc.htm.

· On 6th February 2008 the Judge of Instruction Court Number 4 of the
National High Court, Judge Fernando Andreu Merelles issued an
international arrest warrant against 40 high-ranking members of the RPA
that has been governing Rwanda in a totalitarian manner since 1994 according to credible international studies (see The Economist and Freedom House for examples).

· A few months ago, one of the forty most wanted criminals by the National High
Court, Rwanda’s Chief of Staff General James Kabarebe, was under arrest in South Africa. His arrest was reported to Judge Merelles, who immediately started legal proceedings for an extradition that did not occur in the end.

· According to Rwanda’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, the government of
Rwanda is seriously concerned about the implications on its international
relations that this arrest order may imply.

· In this context, Rwanda’s diplomacy is working to discredit NGOs
that have somehow supported this international action of justice against
international crimes committed with impunity.

Finally, INSHUTI members declare that our association has always sided with
the victims of the Great Lakes, with the families of both aid workers and
murdered missionaries, and against the impunity that those responsible for
this tragedy seem to hold.

Burundi-Stop Deporting Innocent Rwandan Asylum Seekers:Forced Return After Rwandan Government Pressure Violates National + International Refugee Law.

Human Rights Watch
2 December 2009

Burundi’s government should immediately reverse a new policy of deporting Rwandan asylum seekers without considering their cases, Human Rights Watch said today. On November 27, 2009, Interior Minister Edouard Nduwimana ordered police to return 103 asylum seekers to Rwanda, in violation of international law.

Burundi’s decision came days after an official delegation from Rwanda told the Burundian government that recently arrived Rwandans should be sent back to Rwanda, the Burundi state news agency reported. Officials were quoted as saying that they wanted to protect Rwanda’s international image as a peaceful country that does not produce refugees. Several Burundian officials, who asked not to be named for fear of retaliation, told Human Rights Watch that Rwanda had an important role in the returns.

“Asylum seekers are entitled to an objective assessment of whether they would face persecution upon returning home,” said Georgette Gagnon, Africa director at Human Rights Watch. “Both national and international law guarantee these assessments, and Rwanda and Burundi should not be meddling in the process.”

The 103 deported asylum seekers were among several hundred Rwandans who fled to Burundi’s northern provinces of Kirundo and Ngozi, most between July and September. In October, Human Rights Watch interviewed several Rwandan asylum seekers in Kirundo province, some of whom appeared to have credible fears of persecution in Rwanda, including the risk of being unlawfully tried twice for the same crime by Rwanda’s community-based gacaca courts and the fear of being “disappeared.” Some reported that fellow villagers had been taken at night from their homes in Rwanda’s Southern province by unknown persons or by local defense forces.

Although 60 families (approximately 115 people) who said they were fleeing violence and repression in Rwanda managed to claim asylum in late October, others, perhaps owing to a fear of immediate deportation, did not come forward to lodge their claims until November 10.

On November 17, Interior Minister Edouard Nduwimana told Human Rights Watch that the claims of this latter group had been filed “too late” and that the Rwandans would be deported. He informed Human Rights Watch that no new cases would be heard, explaining, “We consider them illegals. We spent enough time waiting for them to come forward. They should have taken that responsibility.” Nduwimana signed a communiqué confirming his decision on November 23, four days before the Rwandans were deported.

International refugee law allows asylum seekers to pursue claims even if they are not submitted within the host nation’s required time frame. Both international refugee and human rights law prohibit refoulement, sending persons to a country where they would risk persecution, inhuman or degrading treatment, or other serious human rights abuses.

Burundi is a state party to the 1951 Refugee Convention, which prohibits states from expelling or returning refugees to places where their lives or freedom would be threatened on account of their race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. Burundi’s own refugee law (Loi n°1/32 du 13 novembre 2008 sur l’Asile et la Protection des réfugiés au Burundi, articles 19 and 20) provides similar protection.

The African Union Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa, to which Burundi is also a state party, not only prohibits refoulement, but also calls upon nations to receive refugees and secure their settlement. It says that “[t]he grant of asylum to refugees is a peaceful and humanitarian act and shall not be regarded as an unfriendly act by any Member State.”

A journalist from African Public Radio who observed the deportations from Kirundo province on November 27 said that large numbers of police and soldiers surrounded the site where 136 Rwandan asylum seekers had been staying for three weeks. The Kirundo governor read aloud the interior minister’s statement of November 23 – saying none of the Rwandans in the group would be allowed to lodge asylum claims – and then instructed police to force them onto trucks. Thirty-three of the asylum seekers fled the site.

The journalist said that when the remaining 103 refused to board the trucks, police struck several of them with clubs and forced all of them to board. They were driven to the Rwandan border and turned over to four officials from Rwanda’s Southern province. A police official told Human Rights Watch that at least three of the deported asylum seekers were unaccompanied children, whose parents had stayed behind in Kirundo.

One week earlier, on November 19 and 20, the Rwandan government delegation had visited Burundi to urge the authorities to send home all the Rwandans who had recently crossed the border into Burundi’s northern provinces. The report by the Burundian state news agency, Agence Burundaise de la Presse, said that the governor of Rwanda’s Southern province stated that the “illegals” presence in Burundi was damaging to Rwanda’s image and that they should be sent home.

On November 21, Human Rights Watch wrote to Minister Nduwimana and reminded him and other Burundian authorities that international and Burundian law prohibits refoulement. This prohibition covers all asylum seekers, including those who have not lodged their asylum claims within deadlines set by national legislation.

An official from Burundi’s refugee agency, National Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons (ONPRA), told Human Rights Watch that the decision was intended to prevent further influxes of Rwanda’s “peasant masses.”

“Burundi has a moral and legal obligation to receive Rwandans who fear for their lives,” Gagnon said. “In violation of the law, and because of political concerns, it is now sending the message that Rwandans wishing to flee their country are not welcome in Burundi.”


Background

Between July and September, hundreds of Rwandans, most from Rwanda’s Southern province, arrived in Burundi’s Kirundo and Ngozi provinces.

On October 8, Interior Minister Nduwimana declared that all recently arrived Rwandans – then estimated at 300 to 400 individuals – should be “rapidly expelled” from the country. On October 12, the government forced an unknown number of Rwandan asylum seekers to return to Rwanda, by falsely informing them that the United Nations refugee agency had decided they were not refugees.

Following queries by Human Rights Watch and other organizations, including the UN refugee agency (which funds Burundi’s refugee agency and helped draft Burundi’s new refugee laws), the Burundian authorities agreed to halt all further deportations and to review all Rwandan asylum seekers’ claims on a case-by-case basis, as required by Burundian law. In late October, 60 families lodged asylum claims and were individually interviewed by the country’s refugee agency.

All 60 claims were denied by a newly established government commission that works alongside the refugee agency, and Nduwimana initially proposed blocking the families’ right to appeal, although he later changed his decision. Thirty-six of the 60 have filed appeals. They remain in the country pending the evaluation and resolution of their appeals.

Meanwhile, Agence Burundaise de la Presse reported at least 70 more Rwandan asylum seekers who had been in hiding in households in the communes of Vumbi, Ntega, and Marangara for several months tried to claim asylum in the town of Kirundo on November 10. Many of them had not initially come forward out of fear that they would be deported immediately.

Instead of registering their claims, the police, who by law are supposed to serve as a “first point of contact” for asylum seekers and refer them to the refugee agency, tried to deport them. When the asylum seekers refused, the police left. The following week, refugee agency officials gave the Rwandans forms to fill out asking for basic information, but did not conduct individual interviews, as required by Burundi’s refugee law. These were among the 103 asylum seekers illegally deported on November 27.

To read the October 16, 2009 Human Rights Watch press release calling on the Government of Burundi to end all measures seeking to coerce Rwandan asylum seekers into returning to Rwanda, please visit:

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/10/16/burundi-review-rwandans-asylum-claims


For more information, please contact:

In New York, Georgette Gagnon (English,): + 1-212-216-1223; or +1-917-535-0375 (mobile)

In Washington, DC, Jonathan Elliott (English, French): + 1-202-612-4348; or +1-917-379-0713 (mobile)

In Geneva, Gerry Simpson (English, French): +41-22-738-0483; or +41-79-219-9568 (mobile)

Liberian Truth and Reconciliation Commission Releases Final Report.

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Liberia
2 December 2009
Press release

Editor's Note: The reports are available at:

https://www.trcofliberia.org/reports/final

THE TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION COMMISSION OF LIBERIA (TRC) has announced the release and publication of its final reports after several weeks of editing and technical work leading to its publication. The report which is an edited version of the “TRC FINAL REPORT, VOLUME II, CONSOLIDATED REPORT(UNEDITED)” was released on June 30, 2009. Atleast 1,500 copies of the report is now in print, courtesy of funding provided by the UNDP.

The report, containing twenty-one (21) chapters, and approximately 1,500 pages in all is published in three volumes as follows:

Volume I: Preliminary Report , presented to the Government of Liberia December 20, 2008;
Volume II: Consolidated Final Report, presented to the Government of Liberia June 29, 2009;
Volume III: Appendices Containing thirteen (13) titles of supplemental and specialized reports.

Volume IV:Transcripts Containing ten thousand pages of testimonies from TRC witnesses during the Survivors’ Hearings, Thematic and Institutional Hearings and the TRC Diaspora Hearings, remains unpublished.

According to a TRC press release issued December 1, 2009 in Monrovia, the report provides a historical analysis of the conflict in Liberia, the root causes of the conflict and 142 pieces of recommendations intended to redress Liberia’s legacy of conflict, dysfunction, massive human rights violations and promote national peace, unity and reconciliation.

In all, the report includes eight (8) recommendations for public sanctions and prosecution combined and another eight (8) peieces of recommendations relating to economic crimes. The remaining total of 126 recommendations relate to a wide range of public interest issues including public integrity, corruption, human rights, economic empowerment, good governance, national identity and reparation, amongst others intended to resolve past conflicts as part of a national progression towards lasting peace and reconciliation.

The Report also contains a list of dead perpetrators, the names, nationalities and probable locations of 102 foreign fighters who operated in Liberia; 26 tables and 5 figures of TRC statistical information; a listing of 116 most notorious perpetrators recommended for prosecution by an Extraordinary Criminal Court and 58 perpetrators recommended for prosecution in the domestic courts of Liberia; public sanctions for 49 persons for their role in suppporting, financially and otherwise, various warring factions. Another 45 persons are recommended for economic crimes prosecution and 54 others recommended for further investigation into their activities related to economic crimes.

The TRC Release furthered that of the over 103,019 former combatants disarmed by the United Nations Mission in Liberia under its demobolization and disarmament programs, the report is recommending that a little over 7,000 face the “Palava Hut Program” as a community reconciliation initiative to build peace at the grass roots level, meaning that of the 103,019 documented perpetrators, 0.169% percent is being recommended for prosecution whilst 6.7% documented perpetrators have been identified to participate in the Palava Hut Program, as would those recommended for economic crimes prosecution and public sanctions on account of their support for various warring factions.

The release signed by TRC media department, quotes the TRC Chairman, Cllr Jerome J Verdier as saying that the report “is dedicated to the evergreen memory of all those who lost their lives during the Liberian conflict, the children of tomorrow and all who dare to hope for a better Liberia”. He said the completion of this exercise and the release of the report “marks the rebirth of a new Liberia in which all Liberians irrespective of their roles or expereinces in the past will acknowledge the throes of the bitter past and unite for a peaceful and more prosperous Liberia”.
The TRC Release called on Liberians to spare no efforts in working and praying for unity, peace, justice and reconciliation in Liberia while thanking the Almighty God for his benevolence to the nation and its people.

The release concluded that the Report is published on the TRC website at www.trcofliberia.org ,and will be dissiminated locally and internationally. The Commission, through the Release is thanking the government of Liberia, its many partners, stakeholders and the people of Liberia for their support during this national enterprise. The Commission now awaits its formal retirement by the Government of Liberia.

Signed: The TRC Media Department

Somalia: Government Clears Federal Constitution.

Daily Nation
2 December 2009
By Abdulkadir Khalif
1 December 2009

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mogadishu — The cabinet of ministers of the Transitional Federal Government approved a Federal Constitution during a meeting in Mogadishu on Sunday.

The document was discussed by the Cabinet ministers chaired by Prime Minister Omar Abdurashid Ali Sharmarke and later endorsed by the portfolio holders.

Abdi Haji Gobdon, a media advisor to the cabinet, announced the development after the meeting.

"A federal constitution has been endorsed by the ministers," said Gobdon.

The minister for Constitutional and parliamentary affairs, Madobe Nunow Mohamed, told the media that the document will be passed on to the Transitional Federal Parliament for endorsement. It will also be signed by the President.

Minister Nunow said that a special committee was assigned to harmonise various previous documents.

"This last version is very compatible with all the provisions of Sharia (Islamic), laws" said the minister.

The ministers also approved a Chief Judge for the Supreme Court. "Dr Mohamed Omar Farah alias Indhabur has been nominated and endorsed by the cabinet," said Gobdon.

Uganda: Rwanda Bans Border Agents.

Daily Monitor
2 December 2009
By Robert Muhereza

Rwanda customs officials have banned Ugandan clearing agents operating at Katuna border town from clearing goods in their country at the adjacent border town of Gatuna saying that they have enough staff to handle trucks entering and leaving their country.

The chairman of the Ugandan clearing agents at Katuna Mr. Micheal Sidi said that his counterpart at the Rwandan border town of Gatuna Mr Gilbert Manzi informed him on Monday that Rwandan custom officials had banned Ugandan clearing agents from entering Rwanda. "He has told me to inform my team to stop conducting their business across the border because they have enough clearing agents," he said.

The leader of the Rwandan clearing agents at border town, Mr Gilbert Manzi confirmed the ban yesterday saying Ugandan clearing agents have been rendering them jobless as they would clear vehicles and other goods from Uganda and then follow them into Rwanda as if they are no clearing agents there.

"We have agreed to stop Ugandan clearing agents from clearing goods within our area. They should transact their business in their country and leave us to handle everything that crosses into our country," he said. He said Ugandan clearing agents have been getting handling fees from clients promising to clear their goods at both sides of the border point.

Uganda: Leaked Report On Oil Deals Puts Pressure On Govt.

The Independent
2 December 2009
By Ariel Rubin
1 December 2009

Kampala — A scathing new report issued by the London-based environment and governance watchdog Platform has put government and oil companies under fire. Revealing for the first time one of the production sharing agreements (PSAs) between Heritage and the government, Platform's analysis reveals that, contrary to oil company and government executives' claims that the state would get up to 80% of oil revenues, internal figures reveal that the state will actually take in between 67%-74%. Platform's own analysis puts the government take even lower at a potential 47.4% - 79.5%, depending on a variety of external factors (price of oil, developmental costs, etc).

Oil executives have publicly proclaimed that Uganda has secured some of the best deals in the world for its oil exploration, but this new report suggests otherwise. An April 2009 analysis of Heritage's operations in Uganda by Credit Suisse noted that while "the Uganda exploration campaign has been a phenomenal success", the "Ugandan fiscal terms are unattractive, with government take rising from 55% at $30 oil to 67% at $70 oil." A November 22 Sunday Monitor story referenced an August 2008 report commissioned by the Norwegian Agency for International Cooperation (NORAD) which noted:

"The 2006 model PSA provides for production sharing on the basis of daily production volume. This model does not provide for the Government to capture economic rent as a consequence of higher prices, and cannot be regarded as being in accordance with the interests of the host country. "

Government and oil company sources have gone to great lengths to assure people that Uganda's PSAs are more than generous. In September, a New Vision article about Aiden Heavey, the chief executive of Tullow Oil proclaimed that "Uganda secured one of the best deals in the world for its oil exploration." However, Platform's report represents a major crack in the windshield. Without disclosure and (likely) renegotiations, it appears as though Ugandan oil exploitation could go much in the same, worrisome direction as other oil-rich, rent-seeking African countries.

In August of this year, Energy and Mineral Development Minister Hilary Onek stated that revenue PSAs signed by the government must remain confidential in order to protect the interests of both parties. But in a recent interview with The Independent, Neptune country manager Marilyn Hill said that any lack of transparency is "only on the government's side", before quickly assuring that "in all my experience and looking at the PSAs in other countries - it's one of the most advantageous for government I have ever seen."

According to the Platform report, Heritage's deal with the Kurdistan Regional Government in northern Iraq is actually a better one than Uganda's, and "the KRG isn't even a recognised state, doesn't have legal authority to negotiate and remains under military occupation." In other words, it seems as though the wool might have been pulled over a naïve government's eyes. Or perhaps the hundreds of millions of dollars in signature bonuses have enticed key government figures to look the other way.

The shirking of responsibility to the citizens of Uganda allows for oil companies and government to quietly work together, securing short term deals that enrich certain elites and give the transnational oil corporations (TNOC) strongholds in the market. This in turn allows for, as Platform argues, "excessive profit-taking". According to Godber W. Tumushabe, Executive Director for Advocates Coalition for Development and Environment (ACODE), this is emblematic of the "strategic alliance" between the government and the TNOCs where "each of them can give the other as the excuse for not being transparent."

This concern about lack of transparency has been further echoed by other civil society groups including the Wildlife Conservation Society, who have expressed concern at the lack of full-scale environmental impact surveys being conducted in the Albertine region. Sarah Prinsloo, the Oil Impact Mitigation Manager at WCS (Wildlife Conservation Society) notes that for oil companies, like all businesses, the first and foremost priority is profit maximisation. Much of the frustration lies with the Ministry of Energy where the apparent refusal to allow stakeholders to be involved in discussions over the potential impact of the extensive drilling emanates from the quandary of a Janus-faced government: trying to represent its constituents and its business interests. The Ministry of Energy is against additional investment in conservation measures because these expenses will be claimed back by the companies in the cost-recovery mechanisms. This is the problem facing the Petroleum Exploration and Production Department (PEPD) in its dual role as developer and as a ministry. It renders them totally not independent.

Speaking at the launch of the Civil Society Coalition for Oil (CSCO) on November 24, PEPD Senior Geologist Dozith Abenomugisha called Platform's report "misleading" in comparing Uganda's deal with established oil-rich countries like Libya and Iraq as opposed to other newly explored countries like Chad and Sudan. Furthermore, he maintained, because the government's take is based on production "if prices increase then the take for goverment also increases."

Regarding the news that Heritage has sold its Ugandan interests to ENI, Minister of Energy Hilary Onek was quoted by the Daily Monitor on November 23 as being "unaware" of any sale. Interestingly, Heritage's PSA stipulates that government has to agree any new license holders. Repeated requests for comments were ignored and the Ministry of Energy's website is defunct, not a promising sign for proponents of transparency.

For Tumushabe, the way towards reclaiming the oil exploitation process lies in serious civil society mobilisation and pressure; the answer may lie in the newly-formed CSCO. This 17-member coalition is comprised of different civil society groups with an interest in oil issues, with the objective to face and inform all relevant stake-holders "on the challenges and opportunities presented by oil and gas". Pressure from below will remain an essential tool in ensuring governmental accountability and robust democratic freedom. Platform's report and the Civil Society Coalition on Oil are two potential catalysts for change, demanding both government's engagement with the people it represents and the companies' engagement with the country from which they profit.

Rights group finds mass graves in Indian-Held Kashmir.

Daily Times
2 December 2009

A human rights group in Indian-held Kashmir (IHK) said Tuesday it had found unmarked graves containing several thousand bodies in the revolt-hit region during a three-year survey of dozens of villages. International People’s Tribunal on Human Rights and Justice said it had found the unidentified bodies buried in villages bordering Azad Kashmir. The independent Srinagar-based group said that its report to be released on Wednesday documented 2,700 “unknown, unmarked, and mass graves” containing at least 2,900 bodies. A police officer said most of the bodies were likely those of Pakistan militants killed in fighting with Indian forces.

NATO to fund spy system.

By Sandra Jontz, Stars and Stripes
European edition, Tuesday, December 1, 2009

Naples, Italy — Fifteen NATO nations will provide funding for an air surveillance command and control system to be located at the shared Italian-U.S. Navy base in Sicily.

The Air Ground Surveillance system is expected to boost the military presence at Naval Air Station Sigonella by about 800 troops, officials said.

The system consists of eight RQ-4B Global Hawk high-altitude, long-range unmanned aerial vehicles. The ground portion will be developed by Canadian and European industry, according to a NATO news release.

The NATO surveillance project is expected to cost between $1.5 billion to $2.3 billion. Plans are for the project to be in place by 2012.

The system would be beneficial for missions as far from the Mediterranean as Afghanistan, and an asset to coalition navies’ ongoing efforts to quash piracy off the Somali coast and into the Gulf of Aden, said Ludwig Decamps, head of the Armaments Program Support Section of NATO’s Defense Investment Division.

The system would provide NATO forces with key technologies such as radar signals that can be transformed into images to be analyzed by technicians, and an unmanned plane that can track moving targets and at the same time zoom in on those targets to provide analysts with detailed information, Decamps said.

Fifteen NATO countries will pay for the system, while all 28 NATO member nations have been invited to contribute manpower, he said.

The 15 countries are Bulgaria, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Germany, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Norway, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and the United States.

No decisions have been made on what infrastructure changes will be necessary at Sigonella to accommodate the new system and additional personnel, NATO and U.S. Navy officials said.

Blair adviser: US did not expect to stabilize Iraq.

By Meera Selva, Associated Press Writer
November 30, 2009

American troops did not expect to play a role in stabilizing Iraq after overthrowing Saddam Hussein, a key adviser to former British Prime Minister Tony Blair said Monday.

David Manning, who served as a Blair's top foreign policy aide before being appointed ambassador to Washington in 2003, told a British inquiry into the Iraq war the American military did not believe peacekeeping was their responsibility.

"The American military thought that they were fighting a war and when the war was over they were expecting to go home," he said.

Manning said British troops in Basra talked to local people, but that American troops were not willing to do the same.

"I was very struck ... by the reluctance of U.S. soldiers to get out of their tanks, to take off their helmets and to trying to build up links with local communities," he said. "They looked still much more in fighting mode than in peacekeeping mode."

He also said he believed Paul Bremer — the U.S. diplomat charged with overseeing the reconstruction of Iraq — made the situation worse by disbanding the army and trying to bar members of Saddam Hussein's Baath party from public life.

The inquiry, which is in its second week, is not set up to apportion blame or hold anyone liable for the conflict, but it does have the potential to embarrass officials in the U.S. and Britain who argued — wrongly — that the war was justified because Saddam was developing weapons of mass destruction and building close links with al-Qaida.

Jeremy Greenstock, the former British ambassador to the United Nations, told the inquiry on Friday that the U.S. was "hell bent" on war with Iraq from the very beginning and undermined efforts by Britain to win international authorization for the invasion. Manning's predecessor as ambassador to the United States, Christopher Meyer, also testified that the U.S. was looking for connections between Iraq and Sept. 11 within hours of the attacks.

Manning echoed Meyer's claim, saying that then-President George W. Bush talked about possible links between Saddam Hussein, al-Qaida and Osama Bin Laden right after the Sept. 11 terror attacks, but that Blair had counseled caution.

"The prime minister's response to this was that the evidence would have to be very compelling indeed to justify taking any action against Iraq," Manning said, adding that the British leader followed the conversation up with a letter stressing the need to focus on the situation in Afghanistan, where al-Qaida was based.

Manning said Blair had initially said Britain could only support the United States in military action against Iraq through the United Nations, though he did later accept that military action may be possible during a meeting with Bush at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, in April 2002.

"I look back at Crawford as the moment that he (Blair) was saying: 'Yes, there is a route through this that is an international, peaceful one, and it is through the U.N. But if it doesn't work, we will be willing to undertake regime change.'"

Manning said Blair asked British officials to present him with some options for military operations in Iraq in June and July 2002, though he did not want to make a firm decision at the time.

Over the weekend, Blair denied that he had tried to gag his main legal advisor Peter Goldsmith after he questioned the legality of the Iraq war in a letter.

The Mail on Sunday newspaper reported that Blair sidelined Goldsmith after the letter, but when asked by CNN on Sunday if it was true that he had bullied Goldsmith into keeping quiet, Blair replied: "No, its not."

Blair refused to comment further on the claims, saying: "I think the best thing with this inquiry is actually to let us all give our evidence to the inquiry."

Agathon Rwasa to run for president on FNL ticket.

BBC News
30 November 2009

Former rebel leader Agathon Rwasa has been chosen by his party as its candidate for Burundi's 2010 presidential election.

Mr Rwasa led his National Liberation Forces (FNL) who disarmed in April. It was the last active rebel group in Burundi.

Reuters news agency reports that the party was not allowed to register using the name Palipehutu - party for the liberation of Hutus - as parties based on ethnic affiliations are banned.

After being chosen by FNL officials as their candidate, he promised to govern on behalf of all Burundians, if elected.

"The time of taking power by force is over. Now is the time for dialogue and democracy," Reuters quoted him as saying.

Iraq Inquiry bombshell: Secret letter to reveal new Blair Iraq war lies.

Daily Mail
29 November 2009
By Simon Walters

An explosive secret letter that exposes how Tony Blair lied over the legality of the Iraq War can be revealed.

The Chilcot Inquiry into the war will interrogate the former Prime Minister over the devastating 'smoking gun' memo, which warned him in the starkest terms the war was illegal.

The Mail on Sunday can disclose that Attorney General Lord Goldsmith wrote the letter to Mr Blair in July 2002 - a full eight months before the war - telling him that deposing Saddam Hussein was a blatant breach of international law.

It was intended to make Mr Blair call off the invasion, but he ignored it. Instead, a panicking Mr Blair issued instructions to gag Lord Goldsmith, banned him from attending Cabinet meetings and ordered a cover-up to stop the public finding out.
He even concealed the bombshell information from his own Cabinet, fearing it would spark an anti-war revolt. The only people he told were a handful of cronies who were sworn to secrecy.

Lord Goldsmith was so furious at his treatment he threatened to resign - and lost three stone as Mr Blair and his cronies bullied him into backing down.
Sources close to the peer say he was 'more or less pinned to the wall' in a Downing Street showdown with two of Mr Blair's most loyal aides, Lord Falconer and Baroness Morgan.

The revelations follow a series of testimonies by key figures at the Chilcot Inquiry who have questioned Mr Blair's judgment and honesty, and the legality of the war.

The Mail on Sunday has learned that the inquiry has been given Lord Goldsmith's explosive letter, and that Mr Blair and the peer are likely to be interrogated about it when they give evidence in the New Year.

Lord Goldsmith gave qualified legal backing to the conflict days before the war broke out in March 2003 in a brief, carefully drafted statement. As The Mail on Sunday disclosed three years ago, even that was a distortion as Lord Goldsmith had told Mr Blair a week earlier he could be breaking international law.

But today's revelations show that Lord Goldsmith told Mr Blair at the outset, and in writing, that military action against Iraq was totally illegal.

The disclosures deal a massive blow to Mr Blair's hopes of proving he acted in good faith when he and George Bush declared war on Iraq. And they are likely to fuel further calls for Mr Blair to be charged with war crimes.

Lord Goldsmith's 'smoking gun' letter came six days after a Cabinet meeting on July 23, 2002, at which Ministers were secretly told that the US and UK were set on 'regime change' in Iraq.

The peer, who attended the meeting, was horrified. On July 29, he wrote to Mr Blair on a single side of A4 headed notepaper from his office.

Friends say it was no easy thing for him to do. He was a close friend of Mr Blair, who gave him his peerage and Cabinet post. The typed letter was addressed by hand, 'Dear Tony', and signed by hand, 'Yours, Peter'.

In it, Lord Goldsmith set out in uncompromising terms why he believed war was illegal. He pointed out that: War could not be justified purely on the grounds of 'regime change'.

Although United Nations rules permitted 'military intervention on the basis of self-defence', they did not apply in this case because Britain was not under threat from Iraq.

While the UN allowed 'humanitarian intervention' in certain instances, that too was not relevant to Iraq.

It would be very hard to rely on earlier UN resolutions in the Nineties approving the use of force against Saddam.

Lord Goldsmith ended his letter by saying 'the situation might change' - although in legal terms, it never did.

The letter caused pandemonium in Downing Street. Mr Blair was furious. No.10 told Lord Goldsmith he should never have put his views on paper, and he was not to do so again unless told to by Mr Blair.

The reason was simple: if it became public, Lord Goldsmith's letter could make it impossible for Mr Blair to fulfil his secret pledge to back Mr Bush in any circumstances. More importantly, it could never be expunged from the record as copies were stored in No10 and in the Attorney General's office.

Although Lord Goldsmith had Cabinet status, he attended meetings only when asked. After his letter, he barely attended another meeting until the eve of the war. Mr Blair kept him out to reduce the chance of him blurting out his views to other Ministers.

When Mr Blair is quizzed by the Chilcot Inquiry, he will be asked why he never admitted he was told from the start that the war was illegal.

Equally ominously for Mr Blair, a defiant Lord Goldsmith is ready to defend the letter when he appears before the inquiry. Friends of the peer, widely derided for his role in the Iraq War, believe it will vindicate him.

A source close to Lord Goldsmith said: 'He assumed, perhaps naively, that Blair wanted a proper legal assessment. No10 went berserk because they knew that once he had put it in writing, it could not be unsaid.

'They liked to do things with no note-takers, and often no officials, present. That way, there was no record. Everything could be denied.

'Goldsmith threatened to resign at least once. He lost three stone in that period. He is an honourable man and it was a terribly stressful experience.'

Lord Goldsmith's wife Joy, a prominent figure in New Labour dining circles, played a crucial role in talking him out of quitting.

'Joy was always very ambitious on Peter's behalf and did not want to see him throw it all away,' said a source.

Lord Goldsmith's letter contradicts Mr Blair's repeated statements, before, during and after the war on its legality.

In April 2005, the BBC's Jeremy Paxman repeatedly asked him if he had seen confidential Foreign Office advice that the war would be illegal without specific UN support.

Mr Blair said: 'No. I had the Attorney General's advice to guide me.' At best, it was dissembling. At worst, it was a blatant lie.

Mr Blair knew all along that Lord Goldsmith had told him the war was illegal, and that when the peer finally gave it his cautious backing, he did so only under extreme duress.

The Mail on Sunday has also obtained new evidence about the way Lord Goldsmith was bullied into backing the war at the 11th hour.

He was summoned to a No.10 meeting with Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer and Baroness Sally Morgan, Mr Blair's senior Labour 'fixer' in Downing Street. No officials were present.

A source said: 'Falconer and Morgan performed a pincer movement on Goldsmith. They more or less pinned him up against the wall and told him to do what Blair wanted.'
After the meeting, Lord Goldsmith issued his brief statement stating the war was lawful.

Lord Falconer said in response to the latest revelations: 'This version of events is totally false. The meeting was Lord Goldsmith's suggestion and he told us what his view was.'

Baroness Morgan has also denied trying to pressure Lord Goldsmith.

The legal row came to a head days before the war, when the UN refused to approve military action. Stranded, Mr Blair had to win Lord Goldsmith's legal backing, not least because British military chiefs refused to send troops into action without it.
On March 17, three days before the conflict started, Lord Goldsmith said the war was legal on the basis of previous UN resolutions threatening action against Saddam - even though in his secret letter of July 2002, he had ruled out this argument.

A spokesman for Lord Goldsmith said: 'This letter is probably in the bundle that has been supplied to the inquiry by the Attorney General's department. It is presumed they will want to discuss it with him. If so, Lord Goldsmith is content to do so.
'His focus is on the legality of the war, its morality is for others.'

A spokesman for the Chilcot Inquiry said: 'We are content we have obtained all the relevant documents.'

A spokesman for Mr Blair refused to say why the former Prime Minister had not disclosed Lord Goldsmith's July 2002 letter.

'The Attorney General set out the legal basis for action in Iraq in March 2003,' he said. 'Beyond that, we are not getting into a running commentary before Mr Blair appears in front of the Chilcot committee.'

Leading international human rights lawyer Philippe Sands said: 'The Chilcot Inquiry must make Lord Goldsmith's note of 29 July, 2002, publicly available to restore public confidence in the Government.'

2002
April 6: Blair meets Bush at Crawford, Texas. They secretly agree 'regime change' war against Iraq.
July 23: Blair tells secret Cabinet meeting of war plan. Goldsmith is asked to check legal position.
July 24: Blair tells MPs: 'We have not got to the stage of military action...or point of decision.'
July 29: Goldsmith secretly writes to Blair to tell him war is illegal.
July 30: No.10 rebukes Goldsmith. He is excluded from most War Cabinet meetings.
November 8: UN urges Saddam to disarm, but stops short of backing war.

2003

March 7: Despite duress from No10, Goldsmith tells Blair war could be unlawful.
March 13: Goldsmith is allegedly 'pinned against wall' by Blair cronies Charlie Falconer and Sally Morgan.
March 17: UN rules out backing war.
March 17: Goldsmith U-turn. In carefully worded brief 'summary', he says war is lawful.
March 20: War begins.

2005
April 21: Jeremy Paxman asks Blair if he saw Foreign Office advice saying war was illegal. Blair says: 'No. I had Lord Goldsmith's advice to guide me.'
April 24: Mail on Sunday reveals Goldsmith told Blair two weeks before war that it could be illegal.

2009
November 24: Chilcot Iraq War Inquiry begins.
Today: Mail on Sunday reveals Goldsmith's 'smoking gun' letter to Blair in July 2002.

Blair 'knew WMD claim was false'
By DAVID ROSE

By the time Tony Blair led Britain to attack Iraq, he had stopped believing his own lurid claims about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, according to an unpublished interview with the late Robin Cook, the former Leader of the Commons who resigned from the Cabinet just before the invasion in March 2003.
In the interview, which Cook gave me in 2004, the year before his death, he described Blair's actions as 'a scandalous manipulation of the British constitution', adding that if the then Prime Minister had revealed his doubts, they would have rendered the war illegal.

Cook, who was in almost daily contact with Blair in the months before his resignation, said that in September 2002, when the Government published its infamous dossier claiming Saddam had tried to buy uranium for nuclear weapons and could deploy WMDs within 45 minutes, Blair did believe these claims were true. But he added: 'By February or March, he knew it was wrong. As far as I know, at no point after the end of 2002 did he ever repeat those claims.'

But according to Robin Cook, the PM already knew WMD claims were untrue
On March 18, Blair had to face the Commons to ask it to vote for war but he knew, Cook added, 'that if he now publicly withdrew the dossier's claims, his position would be lost'.

Therefore Blair kept silent and so secured the war resolution, though 139 Labour MPs voted against him.

Cook added that if Blair had revealed his doubts, this would also have made it impossible for Lord Goldsmith to issue the fateful legal advice that Britain's Service chiefs had been demanding: that war would be lawful.

'What I've never seen satisfactorily defended by the Government is whether that opinion still stands up if the premise on which it was based - the claims in the dossier - turn out to be false,' Cook said.

'Tony didn't focus on WMDs only for political reasons, but for legal reasons. He knew he was not going to get the Attorney General on side on any basis other than that Saddam had illegal weapons and could not be disarmed by any means other than war.'

Cook's is not the only bombshell that remains unpublished. Last week, Sir Christopher Meyer, the former British Ambassador to Washington, told the Chilcot Inquiry that though Blair kept insisting almost to the end that 'nothing was decided' on Iraq, his decision to support the invasion actually went back to April 2002, when he visited President Bush's Texas ranch.

However, both Meyer and other British and American officials told me in 2004 that Blair made up his mind even before April and that even then, Blair was saying in private that Britain would join the attack as long as Bush got UN backing. That meant proving Saddam had active WMDs, as the UN would not authorise an attack on any other basis.

Meyer told me: 'Some time during the first quarter of 2002, Blair had become resigned to war.'

Having committed himself to war, Blair believed he had to get military action approved by the UN to make the invasion legal, and to get the support of his own party back home. But leading figures close to Bush were deeply hostile to this idea, and would have much preferred to attack unilaterally.

Perhaps the most shocking disclosures concerned Blair's propensity to bend the truth. For example, on July 26, 2002, Clare Short, then International Development Secretary, asked Blair whether war was looming.

His response was that she should go on holiday untroubled, because 'nothing had been decided, and would not be over the summer'.

In fact, at that very moment, his adviser Sir David Manning was engaged in feverish diplomacy in Washington - because although Blair thought Bush had promised to go to the UN, he seemed to be changing his mind. Manning even had a personal audience with Bush.

A few days later, Bush and Blair spoke by telephone. A senior White House official who read the transcript told me: 'The way it read was that, come what may, they were going to take out the regime. I remember reading it and thinking, "OK, now I know what we're going to be doing for the next year."'

Later, both leaders would state repeatedly that they had not decided to go to war. But the official said: 'War was avoidable only if Saddam ceased to be president of Iraq. It was a done deal.'

Yet the hawkish neo-conservatives at the Pentagon were still fighting hard to avoid the UN route, which would require a narrowing of focus on to WMDs. The crunch came at a summit at Camp David on September 7, 2002, when, most unusually, not only Bush but vice president Dick Cheney met Blair. Cheney's role, Meyer said, was solely to try to persuade Bush not to go to the UN.

In desperation, Blair, according to another White House official, told Bush and Cheney that he could be ousted at the Labour conference later that month if Bush ignored the UN. Afterwards, the official said, he and his colleagues pored over the party's constitution, discovering that it was most unlikely that this threat would materialise.

But by then it was too late: a week after the summit, Bush spoke at the UN General Assembly, and announced America would be seeking what became Resolution 1442 - the resolution that, in Lord Goldsmith's eyes, allowed British soldiers to kill Iraqis without being prosecuted for murder.

But not all who once saw Blair as a friend have forgiven him. 'Blair was absolutely the reason why we went to the UN, because it was believed that his political fortunes absolutely demanded it,' said David Wurmser, formerly Cheney's chief Middle East adviser. 'It really was a political concession to Blair - and also a disastrous misjudgment.'