Archive for November, 2008

Pakistan’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” Deal on US Air Strikes

November 17, 2008

Antiwar.com

Posted November 16, 2008

Pakistan’s loud complaints about the regular US air strikes in its tribal areas have had so little effect on American policy that it has been speculated that there must be a “secret understanding” between the two. Pakistan’s government denied this earlier in the month, but new reports are indicating that this is more or less exactly what’s been happening.

After US helicopters attacked a South Waziristan village in early September, the two nations reached a “tacit agreement” on what the Washington Post terms a “don’t-ask-don’t-tell” policy on US drone strikes. Under the deal, the US will not publicly acknowledge any of their attacks and the Pakistani government will continue to publicly complain about them.

Sort of a win-win for the two sides. The United States gets to continue launching unilateral attacks with no real consequences, and the Pakistani government gets the plausible deniability that comes from loudly complaining every time such an attack is launched. Whether this status quo can be maintained after public revelation of the deal is another matter, of course.

Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari says he receives no “prior notice” of the attacks, and gives the Americans the “benefit of the doubt” that their missiles meant to land on Afghan soil, no matter how many overflights they do over Pakistani cities or how regularly the strikes land in Pakistani villages.

The attacks have provoked popular outrage in Pakistan’s tribal areas, and the support of tribal area legislators is vital to the maintenance of the Zardari government’s narrow coalition. The revelation of this understanding may have serious political consequences for the Pakistani national government.

Related Stories

compiled by Jason Ditz [email the author]

Do Unto Others

November 17, 2008


World religions too often seem predicated on prejudice, when their true roots lie in compassion

The practice of compassion is central to every one of the major world religions – but sometimes you would never know it. Instead, religion is associated with violence, intolerance and seems more preoccupied by dogmatic or sexual orthodoxy.

People don’t even seem to know what compassion is; they imagine that it means to feel pity for somebody, whereas the root meaning of this Greco-Latin world is “to feel with” the other, realising at a profound level that we share the same human predicament. This is crucial at a time when we are bound together – politically, economically, and electronically – as never before but have rarely been more perilously divided.

This is why we have launched a Charter for Compassion. During the next few days, millions of Jews, Christians and Muslims worldwide will be invited to comment, stage by stage, on a draft Charter on a multilingual website. Later, a council of inspirational thinkers representing the different faiths will examine their findings and write the final version. Finally, there will be a large signing ceremony.

The charter will not just be a statement of intent, but will call for practical action: asking preachers, for example, to emphasise the importance of good interfaith relations; calling upon scholars to examine the difficult passages of their scriptures, and asking educators to find ways of presenting compassion to the young as a dynamic, attractive ideal.

Why is this important? Because the religions should be making a major contribution to what must be the chief task of our day: to build a global community where all peoples can live together in mutual respect and where the powerful do not treat other nations as they would not wish to be treated themselves. If we do not achieve this, it is unlikely that we will have a viable world to hand on to the next generation. Any ideology – religious or secular – that breeds hatred and disdain for others is failing the test of our time.

The first person to formulate what has become known as the Golden Rule was Confucius: “Do not do to others what you would not like them to do to you.” It was, he said, the central thread that ran through all his teaching and should be practised “all day and every day”.

It requires us to look into our own hearts, discover what gives us pain and refuse, under any circumstance whatsoever, to inflict that pain on anybody else. Every single one of the major faiths has developed its own version of the Golden Rule and has insisted that it is the prime religious duty.

“My religion is kindness,” says the Dalai Lama; faith that moves mountains is worthless without charity, said St Paul; the Golden Rule was the essence of Torah, said Rabbi Hillel: everything else was “only commentary”. The bedrock message of the Qur’an is not a doctrine but a summons to build a just and decent society where there is a fair distribution of wealth and vulnerable people are treated with absolute respect.

The religions also insist that it is not sufficient to confine your compassion to your own group. You must have what one of the Chinese sages called jian ai, “concern for everybody” – honouring the stranger and loving your enemies.

Why, then, do we hear so little about compassion from the religious? Because whether they are religious or secular, people often prefer to be right rather than compassionate. Certainly the religious traditions have a deeply intransigent strain. But we have a choice. We can either emphasise this intolerance, as extremists and fundamentalists do, or we can make a concerted effort to make the compassionate voice of religion audible in our troubled world.

Do we need God and/or religion to be compassionate? Of course not. That is why we hope that atheists and agnostics, instead of berating religion (a policy that, as history shows, tends to make religious movements more extreme), will also sign up to the charter, working alongside the religious for a more compassionate world.

U.S. Task Force Found Few Iranian Arms in Iraq

November 17, 2008

By Gareth Porter | Inter Press Service

WASHINGTON, Nov 15 (IPS) – Last April, top George W. Bush administration officials, desperate to exploit any possible crack in the close relationship between the Nouri al-Maliki government and Iran, launched a new round of charges that Iran had stepped up covert arms assistance to Shi’a militias.

Secretary of Defence Robert M. Gates suggested that there was “some sense of an increased level of [Iranian] supply of weapons and support to these groups.” And Washington Post reporter Karen DeYoung was told by military officials that the “plentiful, high quality weaponry” the militia was then using in Basra was “recently manufactured in Iran”.

But a U.S. military task force had been passing on data to the Multi-National Force Iraq (MNFI) command that told a very different story. The data collected by the task force in the previous six weeks showed that relatively few of the weapons found in Shi’a militia caches were manufactured in Iran.

According to the data compiled by the task force, and made available to an academic research project last July, only 70 weapons believed to have been manufactured in Iran had been found in post-invasion weapons caches between mid-February and the second week in April. And those weapons represented only 17 percent of the weapons found in caches that had any Iranian weapons in them during that period.

The actual proportion of Iranian-made weapons to total weapons found, however, was significantly lower than that, because the task force was finding many more weapons caches in Shi’a areas that did not have any Iranian weapons in them.

The task force database identified 98 caches over the five-month period with at least one Iranian weapon, excluding caches believed to have been hidden prior to the 2003 U.S. invasion.

But according to an e-mail from the MNFI press desk this week, the task force found and analysed a total of roughly 4,600 weapons caches during that same period.

The caches that included Iranian weapons thus represented just 2 percent of all caches found. That means Iranian-made weapons were a fraction of one percent of the total weapons found in Shi’a militia caches during that period.

The extremely small proportion of Iranian arms in Shi’a militia weapons caches further suggests that Shi’a militia fighters in Iraq had been getting weapons from local and international arms markets rather than from an official Iranian-sponsored smuggling network.

The database was compiled by MNFI’s Task Force Troy, which was directed to examine all weapons caches found in Iraq beginning in early January 2008 to identify Iranian-made weapons. The database was released by MNFI last July to the Empirical Studies of Conflict project, co-sponsored by the U.S. Military Academy and Princeton University, and was published for the first time by West Point’s Counter-Terrorism Centre last month as an appendix to a paper on Iranian strategy in Iraq by Joseph Felter and Brian Fishman.

In late April, the U.S. presented the Maliki government with a document that apparently listed various Iranian arms found in Iraq and highlighted alleged Iranian arms found in Basra. But the U.S. campaign to convince Iraqi officials collapsed when Task Force Troy analysed a series of large weapons caches uncovered in Basra and Karbala in April and May.

Caches of arms found in Karbala late last April and May totaled more than 2,500 weapons, and caches in Basra included at least 3,700 weapons, according to official MNFI statements. That brought the total number of weapons found in those former Mahdi Army strongholds to more than 6,200 weapons.

But the task force found that none of those weapons were Iranian-made. The database lists three caches found Apr. 19, but provides no data on any of them. It lists no other caches for the region coinciding with that period, confirming that no weapons had been found to be of Iranian origin.

In announcing the weapons totals discovered in Basra to reporters on May 7, Maj. Gen. Kevin Bergner said nothing about the provenance of the weapons, implicitly admitting that they were not Iranian-made.

Only two months before the new high-level propaganda push on alleged Iranian weapons supply to Shi’a militias, the U.S. command had put out a story suggesting that large numbers of Iranian-supplied arms had been buried all over the country. On Feb. 17, 2008, U.S. military spokesman Rear Admiral Gregory Smith told reporters that Iraqi and coalition forces had captured 212 weapons caches across Iraq over the previous week “with growing links to the Iranian-backed special groups”.

The Task Force Troy data for the week of Feb. 9-16 show, however, that the U.S. command had information on Iranian arms contradicting that propaganda line. According to the task force database, only five of those 212 caches contained any Iranian weapons that analysts believed might have been buried after the U.S. invasion. And the total number of confirmed Iranian-made weapons found in those five caches, according to the data, was eight, not including four Iranian-made hand grenades.

The task force database includes 350 armour-piercing explosively formed penetrators (EFPs) found in Iraqi weapons caches. However, the database does not identify any of the EFPs as Iranian weapons.

That treatment of EFPs in the caches appears to contradict claims by U.S. officials throughout 2007 and much of 2008 that EFPs were being smuggled into Iraq by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. The allegedly Iranian-manufactured EFPs had been the centrepiece of the U.S. military’s February 2007 briefing charging Iran with arming Shi’a militiamen in Iraq.

Press reports of a series of discoveries of shops for manufacturing EFPs in Iraq in 2007 forced the U.S. command to admit that the capacity to manufacture EFPs was not limited to Iran. By the second half of 2008, U.S. officials had stopped referring to Iranian supply of EFPs altogether.

Felter and Fishman do not analyse the task force data in their paper, but they criticise official U.S. statements on Iranian weapons in Iraq. “Some reports erroneously attribute munitions similar to those produced in Iran as Iranian,” they write, “while other Iranian munitions found in Iraq were likely purchased on the open market.”

The co-authors note that Iranian arms can be purchased directly from the website of the Defence Industries of Iran with a credit card.

*Gareth Porter is an investigative historian and journalist specialising in U.S. national security policy. The paperback edition of his latest book, “Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam”, was published in 2006.

Barack Obama will close the torture jail of Bush and Cheney

November 17, 2008

Obama ‘will close Guantanamo Bay’

By Leonard Doyle in Washington | The Independent, Nov 17, 2008

Change font size: A | A | A

In his first major interview since polling day, President-elect Barack Obama said last night that upon taking office he would close Guantanamo Bay and ban torture by the American military. He also said it would be “a disaster” if the US car industry were to collapse in the midst of today’s economic crisis.

Mr Obama provided America with a glimpse of both the problems his administration will face and the bipartisan tone he intends to adopt once he takes office. The President-elect, joined by his wife, Michelle, discussed his priorities and the impact of the election on his family.

His first priority, he said, was appointing a new national security team to ensure a smooth transition to power. But the wide-ranging interview focused largely on the threats to the US economy. “It’s my belief that we need to provide assistance to the auto industry,” Mr Obama told CBS’s 60 minutes, adding “But I think that it can’t be a blank check.”

The Senate, which he resigned from yesterday, is expected to vote this week on emergency loans to the beleaguered car industry, despite stiff opposition from Republicans.

Mr Obama meets his defeated rival, John McCain, today for the first time since crossing swords in the debates that punctuated their occasionally ill-tempered election battle. The meeting in Chicago is billed as an attempt to usher in a new era of bipartisanship, a frequent refrain of Mr Obama’s on the campaign trail.

Unlike Mr Obama’s other former rival, Hillary Clinton, who is among the top contenders for Secretary of State, Senator McCain is not being considered for a formal role in the administration. Advisers say he will be asked for help on issues where they share common ground, including climate change, ethics reform, immigration and torture.

That bipartisan mood between the former rivals may be tested if Mr McCain opposes a taxpayer bailout of Detroit. The new bill would allow some of the $700bn (£350bn) fund to bail out the financial services industry to be used to rescue the car industry.

Mr Obama said he wants the aid to ensure there is a sustainable car industry, “so that we are creating a bridge loan to somewhere as opposed to a bridge loan to nowhere. And that’s, I think, what you haven’t yet seen.”

On the broader economy he said “the challenges that we’re confronting are enormous, and they’re multiple. And so there are times during the course of a given a day where you think, ‘Where do I start in terms of moving – moving things forward?’

“And part of this next two months is to really get a clear set of priorities, understanding we’re not going be able to do everything at once, making sure the team is in place, and moving forward in a very deliberate way and sending a clear signal to the American people that we’re going to be thinking about them and what they’re going through.”

Mr Obama published a farewell letter to newspapers in Illinois to accompany his formal resignation of his Senate seat. He compared himself with Abraham Lincoln, “another son of Illinois” who had left for Washington, “a greater man who spoke to a nation far more divided”.

Author hopes to pull Israel to the left with new party

November 17, 2008

The renowned Israeli author Amos Oz has joined 30 intellectuals and public figures to forge a leftwing party in an attempt to defeat the resurgent rightwing Likud party, which is leading the polls.

But Labour, not the hardline nationalists in Likud, may be the biggest losers if the party succeeds in Israel’s elections which are due in February next year.

“I hope the expanded leftist movement will become a replacement for the Labour party. The Labour party has finished its historic role, it isn’t putting forward a national agenda and it joins any coalition,” Oz told the Haaretz newspaper.

In 2006 Labour’s leading light and Nobel peace prize winner, Shimon Peres, defected to join the hawkish Ariel Sharon, who led a breakaway group from the hardline Likud party to form the more centrist Kadima, which heads the coalition government.

More recently Labour’s chairman, Ehud Barak, refused to rule out joining a coalition led by a resurgent Binyamin Netanyahu, whose Likud party is ahead in the polls.

Revelations last week that Barak, who is defence minister in the current coalition government led by Kadima’s Ehud Olmert, had authorised the construction of 400 housing units and lots for Israeli settlers in the West Bank have further tarnished its left-of-centre credentials.

“The Labour party is a body that does not seek political life, and does not fight for its life,” said Ami Ayalon, a former head of Israel’s domestic intelligence agency, the Shin Bet, who resigned yesterday and is expected to join the more centrist party, Kadima.

The new left of centre party hopes to attract disgruntled Labour supporters, environmentalists, Reform Jews and Israeli-Arabs.

The foreign secretary, David Miliband, arrived in Israel yesterday to begin a Middle East trip that will take in the Palestinian territories, Syria and Lebanon in the hope of promoting a regional peace plan.

But the trip has been overshadowed by Britain’s decision to crack down on products sold in the UK that come from Israeli settlements in the West Bank, which are illegal under international law.

Britain recently circulated a note within the EU expressing concern that goods may be entering the country improperly labelled as being produced in Israel when in fact they have been produced in the West Bank.

Use Your Illusions

November 16, 2008

London Review of Books, Nov 14, 2008

By Slavoj Žižek

Noam Chomsky called for people to vote for Obama ‘without illusions’. I fully share Chomsky’s doubts about the real consequences of Obama’s victory: from a pragmatic perspective, it is quite possible that Obama will make only some minor improvements, turning out to be ‘Bush with a human face’. He will pursue the same basic policies in a more attractive way and thus effectively strengthen the US hegemony, damaged by the catastrophe of the Bush years.

There is nonetheless something deeply wrong with this reaction – a key dimension is missing from it. Obama’s victory is not just another shift in the eternal parliamentary struggle for a majority, with all the pragmatic calculations and manipulations that involves. It is a sign of something more. This is why an American friend of mine, a hardened leftist with no illusions, cried when the news came of Obama’s victory. Whatever our doubts, for that moment each of us was free and participating in the universal freedom of humanity.

In The Contest of Faculties, Kant asked a simple but difficult question: is there true progress in history? (He meant ethical progress, not just material development.) He concluded that progress cannot be proven, but we can discern signs which indicate that progress is possible. The French Revolution was such a sign, pointing towards the possibility of freedom: the previously unthinkable happened, a whole people fearlessly asserted their freedom and equality. For Kant, even more important than the – often bloody – reality of what went on on the streets of Paris was the enthusiasm that the events in France gave rise to in the eyes of sympathetic observers all around Europe and in places as far away as Haiti, where it triggered another world-historical event: the first revolt by black slaves. Arguably the most sublime moment of the French Revolution occurred when the delegation from Haiti, led by Toussaint l’Ouverture, visited Paris and were enthusiastically received at the Popular Assembly as equals among equals.

Obama’s victory is a sign of history in the triple Kantian sense of signum rememorativum, demonstrativum, prognosticum. A sign in which the memory of the long past of slavery and the struggle for its abolition reverberates; an event which now demonstrates a change; a hope for future achievements. The scepticism displayed behind closed doors even by many worried progressives – what if, in the privacy of the voting booth, the publicly disavowed racism will re-emerge? – was proved wrong. One of the interesting things about Henry Kissinger, the ultimate cynical Realpolitiker, is how utterly wrong most of his predictions were. When news reached the West of the 1991 anti-Gorbachev military coup, for example, Kissinger immediately accepted the new regime as a fact. It collapsed ignominiously three days later. The paradigmatic cynic tells you confidentially: ‘But don’t you see that it is all really about money/power/sex, that professions of principle or value are just empty phrases which count for nothing?’ What the cynics don’t see is their own naivety, the naivety of their cynical wisdom which ignores the power of illusions.

The reason Obama’s victory generated such enthusiasm is not only that, against all odds, it really happened: it demonstrated the possibility of such a thing happening. The same goes for all great historical ruptures – think of the fall of the Berlin Wall. Although we all knew about the rotten inefficiency of the Communist regimes, we didn’t really believe that they would disintegrate – like Kissinger, we were all victims of cynical pragmatism. Obama’s victory was clearly predictable for at least two weeks before the election, but it was still experienced as a surprise.

Continued  >>

The Washington meeting

November 16, 2008

Reflections by Comrade Fidel

Granma, Nov 15, 2008

According to recent statements, some supportive governments do not cease to say they want to facilitate transition in Cuba. What kind of transition? Transition to capitalism, the only system they have absolute faith in. They do not say a word about the merits of our people, which for almost half a century of harsh economic sanctions and aggressions, has defended a revolutionary cause that together with its morale and patriotism, has given it the strength to put up a resistance.

They seem to forget that after laying down lives and making sacrifices in defense of sovereignty and justice, Cuba cannot be expected to end up on the side of capitalism.

They ingratiate themselves with the United States hoping that it will help them face their own economic problems injecting huge amounts of paper money to their shaky economies which maintain unequal and abusive terms of trade with the emerging nations.

This is the only way they can ensure the multimillion profits of Wall Street and the US banks. The non renewable natural resources of the planet and its ecology are not even mentioned. There is no claim for the end of the arms race and the banning of the potential and probable use of weapons of mass destruction.

None of the participants in the conclave hurriedly convened by the sitting President of the United States has said a word about the absence of over 150 nations facing the same problems or even worse. These will not have the right to speak on the international financial order as the pro tempore President of the UN General Assembly Miguel D’Escoto had proposed, even when they include most of the countries from Latin America, the Caribbean, Africa, Asia and Oceania.

The G-20 meeting will open in Washington tomorrow. Bush is delighted. He has stated that a new international financial order will result from the meeting and that the institutions set up at Bretton Woods should be more transparent, accountable and effective. It’s as much as he would admit. Referring to Cuba’s prosperity in the past, he said that it had once been full of sugarcane fields. By the way, he failed to mention that it was manually cut and that, for over half a century, the empire has deprived us from our quota. Also that this action was taken when the word socialism had yet to be spoken in our country, although we had certainly proclaimed: Homeland or Death!

Many seem to dream that after a simple change of leadership in the empire, this would be more tolerant and less hostile. Apparently, contempt for the incumbent ruler makes some entertain illusions about a probable change in the system.

The innermost ideas of the citizen who will take over the issue are yet unknown. It would be extremely naïve to believe that the good will of a smart person could change what is the result of centuries of selfishness and vested interests.

Let’s watch attentively what everyone says in that major financial conclave. There will be plenty of news. We shall all be a bit better informed.

Fidel Castro Ruz
November 14, 2008

100 Nations to Ban Cluster Bombs – But not the biggest user, the USA

November 16, 2008

By Angus Crawford | RINF.COM, Nov 14, 2008

On 3 December, more than 100 countries, including the UK, will sign a treaty banning cluster bombs.

As a result Britain, by law, will have to destroy more than 30 million explosives.

The UK does not have the facilities, so they are being exported to Germany for disposal.

“I feel good to work for a good thing in the world and for peace,” says Jorg Fiegert, production manager for Nammo Demil.

It runs a site in Pinnow in Germany which destroys munitions.

Over the next five years its work will include taking apart bomblets from British cluster munitions.

“It can punch through armour,” Jorg explains as he holds up a British bomblet.

It is only the size of an egg cup, and came from the MLRS, the Multiple Launch Rocket System.

Each one has six rockets, and within each rocket are 644 bomblets. They are designed to split open in the air and spread small bomblets over a wide area.

Cluster bombs have been used in countries including Cambodia, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Lebanon, and were used in the conflict in Lebanon in 2006.

Those who ratify the convention in December will then have eight years to get rid of their stockpiles of the weapons.

The UK government had already begun getting rid of its stocks by shipping them to Germany and elsewhere.

Nammo has a contract with the UK Ministry of Defence to destroy 28 million of these bomblets, and there are another 3.5 million in other systems to be disposed of.

“In principle everything except the explosive can be recycled,” explains Ola Pikner, Nammo’s vice president of marketing.

Whole weapons enter the factory, but raw materials for civilian use leave it.

He shows me how the MLRS rocket is split open.

The bomblets are extracted, the fuses are cut off and the copper inners are removed.

The explosive is then burnt off using red hot plasma.

MLRS

The bombs have been used in Cambodia, Lebanon and Kosovo

The copper, aluminium and other metals are sold for scrap. The packaging for the bomblets is burnt for heating.

This will take up to 40% of their work for the next five years.

“There is huge potential”, says Ola Pikner, “but the number of cluster munitions from each country is not known.”

Campaigners believe there may be as many as a billion of them across Europe.

But the world’s biggest users – Israel and the USA – will not sign this treaty.

Nor, it’s thought, will China, Russia, India and Pakistan.

But Thomas Nash from the Cluster Munition Coalition remains undaunted by this.

“What you are going to see is a comprehensive stigmatisation of the weapon,” he says.

“Countries that don’t sign up won’t be able to use this weapon on operations with those that do.

“You’re going to see this weapon becoming a thing of the past.”

Protect Civilians From Brutal Rebel Attacks

November 16, 2008

Killings, Abductions, and Pillaging by Lord’s Resistance Army Continue

Human Rights Watch

LRA leader, Joseph Kony, is continuing his brutal and abusive tactics. The US and UK, along with the UN and governments in the region, should actively work together to apprehend LRA leaders wanted by the ICC.

Georgette Gagnon, Africa director at Human Rights Watch

(New York, November 13, 2008) – The UN Security Council should urgently increase the number of peacekeepers to help protect civilians in northern Democratic Republic of Congo following renewed attacks by the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA), four international and national human rights organizations said today.

Human Rights Watch, Enough, Resolve Uganda, and the Justice and Peace Commission of Dungu/Doruma also called on the United Nations, the United States, the United Kingdom, and governments in the region to develop and carry out an arrest strategy for LRA leaders wanted by the International Criminal Court (ICC).

According to reports, LRA combatants have killed at least 10 civilians, abducted scores of children, and pillaged and burned untold numbers of homes and schools in northeastern Congo in the last two months alone. On November 1, 2008, LRA forces attacked Dungu, the capital of Haut-Uélé district, in Orientale province. According to local sources, after fighting in which three government soldiers were killed, LRA fighters abducted at least 36 boys and 21 girls.

“The LRA leader, Joseph Kony, is continuing his brutal and abusive tactics,” said Georgette Gagnon, Africa director at Human Rights Watch. “The US and UK, along with the UN and governments in the region, should actively work together to apprehend LRA leaders wanted by the ICC.”

UN peacekeepers are currently struggling to protect civilians in North Kivu province, in eastern Congo, where combat between the rebel leader Laurent Nkunda and government soldiers and their allied militias has led to the displacement of a quarter of a million people and the deaths of hundreds of civilians since late August.

The United Nations says it has too few peacekeepers and logistical resources to protect civilians. On October 3, Alan Doss, the special representative of the UN secretary-general in Congo, asked the Security Council for reinforcements, but it has not yet taken any action and no countries have offered reinforcements. Some governments argue that the UN already has enough troops in the DRC that could simply be deployed differently. The continuing abduction of children by the LRA in northeastern Congo over recent months demonstrates those peacekeepers are overextended and struggling to fulfill their mandate to protect civilians. Troops are desperately needed in both the Kivus and Orientale.

On October 19-20, LRA rebels killed at least six people and abducted 17 others to transport their looted goods. Local youths then formed a self-defense unit to try to fend off the LRA. On September 17-18, the LRA attacked several villages simultaneously, abducting at least 45 children from Kiliwa and Duru. The LRA forces killed local leaders, pillaged, and burned as they swept through the villages. Precise information of these attacks has been difficult because of problems of access and security.

The ICC has issued warrants for the arrest of Joseph Kony and other Lord’s Resistance Army leaders for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

“Our people live in fear,” said Abbé Benoît Kinalegu of the Dungu/Doruma Justice and Peace Commission. “Our children are preyed on by the LRA rebels.”

Abducted children are forced to become combatants and girls are forced to provide sexual services for more senior combatants.

“The LRA is committing new abductions of children with the clear purpose of restocking its ranks,” said Michael Poffenberger of Resolve Uganda. “This was the strategy in Uganda for two decades.”

In August, 150 peacekeepers of the UN force in Congo, MONUC, and Congolese army soldiers were sent to Orientale province to contain the LRA and help provide protection for civilians. On October 25 and 29, armed clashes between the Congolese army and the LRA resulted in the death of six Congolese army soldiers and three LRA combatants, according to local reports.

Some 25,000 persons fled their homes after attacks in September and October, and another 50,000 have been displaced by the attack in Dungu. According to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, virtually all of the people living in an area of more than 10,000 square kilometers of northeastern Congo fled because they feared future LRA attacks. Displaced people urgently require basic humanitarian support.

The government of Uganda and the LRA negotiated a peace deal in early 2008, but Kony failed to appear at a ceremony scheduled for signing the agreement on April 10. Since then he has occasionally promised to sign, but continues his attacks on civilians.

“For 20 years the international community has not had a comprehensive strategy to end the LRA insurgency,” said John Norris, executive director of the Enough Project. “Unless the world acts now to execute the ICC warrants, Joseph Kony’s war on civilians will continue and an already fragile region will be further destabilized.”

Continued . . .

George W Bush could pardon spies involved in torture

November 16, 2008

George W Bush is considering issuing pardons for US spies embroiled in allegations of torture just before he leaves the White House.

By Tim Shipman in Washington  | Telegraph.co.uk

Senior intelligence officers are lobbying the outgoing president to look after the men and women who could face charges for following his orders in the war on terrorism.

Many fear that Barack Obama, who has pledged to close the Guantanamo Bay detention camp and put an end to the policy of extraordinary rendition, could launch a legal witch hunt against those who oversaw the policies after he is sworn in on Jan 20.

Most vulnerable are US intelligence officers who took part in intensive interrogations against terrorist suspects, using techniques including water boarding, which many believe crossed the line into torture.

A former CIA officer familiar with the backstage lobbying for pardons, said: “These are the people President Bush asked to fight the war on terror for him. He gave them the green light to fight tough. The view of many in the intelligence community is that he should not leave them vulnerable to legal censure when he leaves.

“An effort is under way to get pre-emptive pardons. The White House has indicated that the matter is under consideration.”

In addition to frontline CIA and military officers, others at risk could include David Addington, Dick Cheney’s former counsel, and William Haynes, the former Pentagon general counsel who helped draw up the regulations governing enhanced interrogations.

Many in the Democratic party and human rights groups are calling on President-Elect Obama to tear up Mr Bush’s executive orders licensing intensive interrogations on his first day in the Oval Office. They also want an immediate end to rendition, whereby suspects are flown to countries that practise torture.

But some in the intelligence community fear that an overhaul of the justice department could embolden those who would like a full-blown investigation of what went on at Guantanamo Bay, with charges to follow for those involved.

Presidents can issue pardons at their discretion and those granted the immunity of a pardon do not need to have been previously charged with a crime.

Granting pardons to spies who allegedly used torture would complicate the politics surrounding Mr Obama’s moves to end aspects of the war on terror that are blamed for tarnishing America’s international reputation.

In meetings over the last two weeks, Mr Obama has been briefed by US intelligence chiefs on the extreme danger posed by some terrorist suspects in the Guantanamo Bay camp. His advisers last week floated the idea that, while some will be released and some put on trial in normal courts, a third category of legal status may have to be created for the most dangerous – a move that met with howls of protest from civil liberties groups.

There are just 255 prisoners still held at the base on the island of Cuba, but they include the so-called “Dirty 30”, bodyguards to Osama bin Laden captured during the early stages of the war in Afghanistan.

The ex-CIA official said: “The Bush people are trying to be helpful but this is the one thing that they are pushing hard on. They’re saying, ‘Don’t rush into anything.’ It’s easy to say close the place, but what do you do with the detainees? There are some serious head cases in there.”

Some conservatives argue that if Mr Bush were to issue pardons to protect those who took part in his administration’s security regime, it would make it easier for the incoming administration to find out exactly what went on, the goal of many who want to prevent repetition of what they view as abuses.

The ex-CIA official said: “If you want people to tell the truth, the best way would be to give them legal guarantees. A pardon is not the only way you can do that, but if Bush does it, it will save Obama the political problem he would have if he offered people immunity later.”

But critics say such a move would be a disgrace. James Ross, legal and policy director for Human Rights Watch, said: “It would be the first pre-emptive pardon in US history for war crimes. Such a pardon might seek to protect low-level government officials who relied on legally dubious Justice Department memos on interrogations.

“But it would also provide blanket immunity to senior administration officials who bear criminal responsibility for their role in drafting, orchestrating and implementing a US government torture programme.”

Mr Bush has received around 3,000 requests for pardons and conservatives would like him to help Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Vice-President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff. He was found guilty of obstruction of justice for his role in leaking the name of a CIA officer, Valerie Plame. Mr Bush has already commuted Mr Libby’s sentence.

Presidential pardons are always controversial, though Mr Bush has granted fewer than 200 so far, less than half of those handed out by Ronald Reagan. Bill Clinton issued 140 pardons on his last day in office alone. When Gerald Ford took over from Richard Nixon, he pardoned his predecessor, forgiving all federal crimes he may have committed during the Watergate scandal.

Andrew Johnson pardoned the soldiers of the Confederacy and Jimmy Carter did the same for Vietnam War draft dodgers.