Category: Middle East & Africa

  • Joseph Biden’s view of the world’s hot spots

    Joseph Biden’s view of the world’s hot spots

    From correspondents in Washington

    Article from: Agence France-Presse

    BARACK Obama’s vice presidential pick of Senator Joseph Biden is widely seen as shoring up the Democratic Party ticket’s foreign policy credentials in the battle against Republican John McCain.

    Here are Senator Biden’s main positions on the world’s hot spots:

    IRAQ
    Unlike Barack Obama, who opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning – but was not in the Senate at the time of the vote – Senator Biden voted in favour of an October 2002 resolution authorising President George W. Bush to use military force in Iraq.

    Senator Biden however became a fierce critic of Mr Bush’s Iraq policy, saying that while the United States should eliminate Saddam Hussein, a unilateral invasion was “the worst option”.

    In 2006 he wrote that a withdrawal of US troops from Iraq was desirable by 2008, a position close to that of Senator Obama, who supports a withdrawal over 16 months starting the day he takes office.

    In a 2007 interview with The Politico, Senator Biden said he regretted voting for the war.

    He fiercely opposed the so-called “surge” of US troops to Iraq that Mr Bush ordered in early 2007.

    Senator Biden has proposed a plan to end the conflict by dividing Iraq into three largely autonomous ethnic regions – a southern Shiite region, a western Sunni region, and a northern Kurdish regionheld together by a central government in Baghdad with limited powers.

    AFGHANISTAN and PAKISTAN

    Like Senator Obama, Senator Biden believes that the “real central front in the war on terrorism” is not Iraq, “but rather the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan”.

    “If we should have had a surge anywhere, it is Afghanistan,” Senator Biden said in a recent opinion article in the New York Times, because “Afghanistan’s fate is directly tied to Pakistan’s future and America’s security”.

    “The recent Pakistani elections gave the moderate majority its voice back,” Senator Biden wrote. “To demonstrate to its people that we care about their needs, not just our own, we must triple assistance for schools, roads and clinics, sustain it for a decade, and demand accountability for the military aid we provide.”

    Senator Biden also called for Mr Bush to fulfill a pledge for a plan for Afghanistan along the lines of the Marshall Plan for the reconstruction of Europe after World War II.

    IRAN

    Also like Senator Obama, Senator Biden supports direct talks with Iran.

    “I believe the United States should agree to directly engage Iran, first in the context of the ‘P-5 plus 1’, and ultimately country-to-country, just as we did with North Korea,” Senator Biden said in an early July press statement.

    The ‘P-5 plus 1’ refers to the five permanent UN Security Council members plus Germany.

    “The net effect of demanding preconditions that Iran rejects is this: We get no results and Iran gets closer to the bomb,” he said.

    MIDDLE EAST

    Senator Biden is a strong supporter of Israel.

    “I am a Zionist,” he said in a March 2007 interview with the US-based Jewish cable television network Shalom TV. “You don’t have to be a Jew to be a Zionist.”

    He described Israel as “the single greatest strength America has in the Middle East”.

    He travelled with Senator Obama to Israel in late July, when Senator Obama promised strong support for Israel against the threat from Iran, and said he would strongly support the Mid-East peace process soon after he takes office.

    GEORGIA and RUSSIA

    Senator Biden travelled to crisis-plagued Georgia last weekend on a fact-finding mission.

    “I am going to Georgia this weekend to get the facts first-hand and to show my support for Georgia’s people and its democratically-elected government,” Senator Biden said before his trip.

    In mid-August, following the Russian military incursion into Georgia, Senator Biden said: “I have long sought to help Russia realise its extraordinary potential as a force for progress in the international community, and have supported legislative efforts intended to forge a more constructive relationship with the Kremlin.”

    However, Russia’s actions “will have consequences” on its ties to Washington, he said.

    “Russia’s failure to keep its word and withdraw troops from Georgia risks the country’s standing as part of the international community.”

    Source: www.news.com.au, August 24, 2008

  • France is Faced with its Genocidal History

    France is Faced with its Genocidal History

    Currently holding the EU Council Presidency, France, which assumes it as a duty to give human rights and democracy lessons to the world, is now being accused of genocide.

    Because of its role in the events that occurred between two tribes in 1994 and resulted in the death of 800 thousands of people, France is officially accused of genocide with a report declared by Rwandan government on August 5th 2008. In the report prepared by the Rwandan Investigatory Committee, it is mentioned that “The support of France had a political, military, diplomatic and logistical nature”.

    In the 500-pages report of the Commission, it is stated that France was aware of the genocide arrangements, took part in these arrangements, and played an active role in the murders. France is also being accused of providing intelligence, strategy and military support to the perpetrators of genocide, contributing to the determination of the list of people to be murdered, providing weapons, being directly involved in the killings. The commission suggests Rwandan government in its report that “Formal allegations against the French government should be submitted to the international institutions, legal action should be brought and 33 French political and military officials should be brought to trial”.

    The Investigatory Committee also makes heavy accusations against French soldiers who were on duty during the military operation carried out by France in June-August 1994 under the guise of “humanitarian assistance”. Rwandan Ministry of Justice tells in its statement on the issue that “French soldiers were also directly involved in the genocide, they killed Tutsis and those Hutus who had been blamed for hiding Tutsis, and they raped many Tutsi people who survived”. The Ministry of Justice emphasizes that “France’s great support for, decisiveness in and insistence on the murder policy in Rwanda prove that French military and political officials were accomplices in the execution and arrangement of Tutsi genocide in 1994”.

    Among the French officials who are being accused in the report are the President of the time Francois Mitterand, Prime Minister Eduard Balladur, Foreign Affairs Minister Alain Juppé, his former chief of staff Dominiques de Villepin, Elysee Secretary General Hubert Véedrine.

    As is known, the downing of the French airplane aboard which Rwandan and Burundian presidents were traveling in 1994, resulted in the incitement of massacres in Rwanda. It had been found out that the missiles used in the sabotage against the plane had come from the arsenal of the French army. All of the three French pilots had died in this sabotage.

    According to the United Nations, the genocide that resulted in the death of so many people in April-July 1994 had been “planned” for the annihilation of Tutsis by Hutus. In the statements made by the UN at different times, it was told that French companies had continued to supply weapons to this country even after the UN imposed arms embargo to Rwanda and that the UN had been warned about the massacres three months ago, but the initiatives for a resolution to be taken by the Security Council for tasking the UN troops in order to prevent any massacre had been hindered by France.

    Despite all these developments, French administration insistently continues to avoid making any explanation showing repentance. It is reported that in the course of the preparation of the report, France has been making efforts to prevent genocide allegations from getting official recognition by pressuring Rwandan government through a variety of means, Rwandans did not yield to pressures, and they opted for the truth to come to light.

    When the report was announced, France strictly rejected the accusations against its former political administrators and military officials and Romain Nadal, the Spokesman of the Foreign affairs Ministry, told that there were “unacceptable” accusations against French political and military leaders in the report prepared by the Committee; and this stance of France is accepted as an example of typical “French custom of denial”.

    Rwandan genocide is unfortunately neither the first nor the last damage to the humanity caused by France with its wars and intrigues. Despite all its denials, the dark past of France is full of serious crimes against humanity.

    This decision on genocide is not the first accusation against France in the international arena. In June 2006, French State and Railway Company “were convicted of playing a role in the transportation of the Jews to the concentration camps during the Second World War” and were ordered to pay compensation. The French Railway Company also had similar convictions previously.

    It has been already written in the pages of history that France subjected 1 million people in Algeria to genocide with its attacks directed at innocent civilians during the Second World War and that it attempted to annihilate Algerian people by torturing 25.000 people and with the extrajudicial killings of 3.025 persons. In the course of the investigations into what happened in Algeria, it was established that in the murky operations of certain Algerian terrorist groups, there was a forth individual, mostly a police officer or a military security officer who accompanied them and that these terrorist groups confirmed that the police, military security or SDCE (French Secret Services) and a subordinate secret service called GIC gave them information slips and thus indicated their targets; in short, it is known they carried out the filthy activities on behalf of the police and the republican army.

    In that period, the Algerian Muslims called Harkis, who were conscripted in the French army, were disappointed with the result of their attempts to take refuge in France after the independence of Algeria. Only for 42 thousand of them, they had provided homes. Upon the request of De Gaulle in 1962, they were housed behind barbed wire deep in the French forests in small uncomfortable barracks constructed hastily. This is an interesting example of what has happened to the collaborators of the French against the independence of their country.

    Turkey is also one of the countries that have been targeted by France for her obscure policies. During World War I, France had occupied Ottoman territory and massacred millions of innocent civilian people. As a result of “the friendship ties that had strengthened for centuries” between the Armenians and France, the Armenian gangs were provided with arms in the end of the 19th century and provoked to rebel against the Ottoman Empire. Part of the members of these Armenian gangs who did not succeed to pull away territory from Turkey at the end of World War I, fled to France.

    These Armenians, who went to Marseilles, were brought together in the Oddo camp which had extremely bad housing conditions. The Oddo camp was officially closed down in 1928, but actually in 1935. Not any Armenian could leave the camp without a working contract. The authorities treated these Armenians like stateless people, but when France fought with Germany they were sent as soldiers constituting another hypocrisy in history that the French have to account for.

    It is still fresh in our minds that – until it caused harm to the country with the Orly attack – France did not show any reaction for years against the terrorist organization ASALA, which came into existence in the 1970’s and was known for its attacks against Turkish targets especially diplomats, and that France felt sympathy for the Armenian terrorists and adopted a tolerating attitude.

    In the 1980’s, the Armenian terrorist organizations changed their tactics upon the reactions they received from the world’s public opinion and resorted to cooperation with the terrorist PKK. The PKK was known for its attacks against Turkey and became now affiliated with ASALA which killed diplomats. These facts were stated many times by the relevant experts and supported with evidence. In spite of this, France did not take any measure against these terrorist organizations that were hostile towards Turkey and refrained from cooperation. This was extremely meaningful….

    When talking about “France” and “terror”, one of the names that comes up in our minds is Mitterand and his wife who are also accused for the genocide in Rwanda. The Turkish public opinion knows these two very well. The support provided by France to the PKK has increased considerably due to the foreign policy understanding of Mitterand and maybe also a little bit due the effect of the “special protection” shown to the PKK by First Lady Daniella Mitterand as a result of her “personal friendship” with Head of the Paris Kurdish Institute Kemdal Nezan. Consequently, France has become one of the most important bases of this terrorist organization in Europe. And it appears that France still continues to welcome terrorist groups that have no other aim than being hostile to Turkey.

    However, the Armenian diaspora in France as well as the terrorist organizations, that are striving against the independence and/or territorial integrity of other countries, are collaborating with France without foreseeing what will happen to them by trying to understand what has happened to those who betrayed Algeria, Rwanda and the Ottoman State. In the future, as it has happened before, France shall push aside the traitors in accordance with its own interests or shall, instead of her own children, send the traitors to other wars to die.

    As a matter of fact, it is not a coincidence that France is pronounced whenever we talk about a massacre, war or genocide at any place of the world. While she has a history of colonization, she continued her aggressive, expansionist policies in the 21st century. She holds control of an important part of the world’s arms trade. Her national income is bolstered with the blood shed in other countries darkly shadowing world peace. Every year, more than 300 thousand people are being killed on the world with conventional weapons. Even more people are being wounded, violated in their rights, forcefully deported and left helpless. In 2005, 82% of all the arms transfer on the world was realized by five countries. One of these countries is France. Thus, France has an important portion in the world’s arms trade. A war that is staged at any place on the world is sustaining the French economy.

    In France there is still a longing for colonization and laws that praise the era of imperialism and slavery are still in force. Although these raise some doubts about the long-term foreign policy goals of France, at present they talk about a “French crisis” on the world. Certain historians say that the “regression process” of this country started with the Prussian-French War in 1870. Although France won in World War I on paper, this was actually the beginning of the end. World War II followed by the Cold War era caused polarization between the USA and the USSR as a result of which France regressed even more and in the international arena this country was not taken so seriously anymore.

    The time has come for France to refresh her memory and encounter her past not only because of its inhuman acts in Rwanda, but also in the territories of the Ottoman Empire, in Algeria and in the other colonies.

    France should accept the role that she has played in the genocides throughout her history and apologize for that. French politicians and military officials that are responsible for the genocide in Rwanda should face trial in the international court for war criminals.

    In spite of everything is there still freedom, equality, brotherhood?…

    The Organization for the Commemoration of the Genocide Victims

    (SKAO)

  • Iran to supply gas to Armenia

    Iran to supply gas to Armenia

    TEHRAN, Aug. 27 (UPI) — Iran plans to start exporting 39 billion cubic feet of gas per year to Armenia beginning in October, the National Iranian Gas Co. said Wednesday.

    Rasoul Salmani with the export division of the state-run gas firm said the deal comes from negotiations between the two countries that concluded last week, Iran’s Mehr News Agency said.

    In exchange, Iran will import some 3.3 billion kilowatts per hour of electricity from Armenia through the city of Tabriz in northwestern Iran.

    “Iran plans to annually export some (39 billion cubic feet) of gas to Armenia. In the first phase Iran will export less volume to Armenia but will increase the export volume gradually,” Salmani said.

    Exports will travel through a $28.2 million pipeline to the Armenian capital, Yerevan.

    Salmani said Iran will satisfy all of Armenia’s gas needs by 2010.

  • Kurdish journalists under assault in Iraq

    Kurdish journalists under assault in Iraq

    Tue Aug 26, 2008 9:06pm EDT

    By Missy Ryan and Shamal Arqawi

    ARBIL, Iraq (Reuters) – Iraq’s northern Kurdish enclave may be a haven of relative peace and serenity but independent journalists there say challenges to the political establishment are being met with intimidation and threats.

    In the largely autonomous territory, streets are swept clean and people walk without fear — a stark contrast to the concrete walls and barbed wire that have defined life for most Iraqis in more than five years of war.

    Still, about 60 Kurdish journalists were killed, threatened, attacked, or taken to court in the first half of 2008, says the New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ).

    Last month, Soran Mamahama, a 23-year-old writer for Livin magazine, published in the Kurdish town of Sulaimaniya, was gunned down outside his home in Kirkuk, a week after his report linking security officials to prostitution rings.

    In the past few years, many other Kurdish journalists have been beaten, jailed, threatened with death or simply hassled by the authorities while doing their job.

    “In Kurdistan there is no freedom for journalists. I have proof of that — the most recent proof was Soran,” says Hemen Mamand, a young radio reporter in Arbil who wears a small likeness of Che Guevara around his neck.

    “We don’t know who killed him, but we do know that the government didn’t care,” said Mamand, who himself was threatened when he wrote a story about an alleged case of corruption linked to Kurdish President Masoud Barzani’s powerful KDP party.

    While the rest of Iraq was mired in chaotic, bloody civil strife following the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, the Kurdish north aggressively promoted its image as “the other Iraq” — a place of stability, prosperity and above all, security.

    The last decade has seen a scrappy independent press emerge to challenge the region’s two dominant political parties. But that has coincided with a “marked deterioration in press freedom” and spates of attacks, said Joel Campagna, who headed a CPJ mission to Kurdistan last year.

    “NO PROBLEMS HERE”

    CPJ and Amnesty International have launched campaigns to draw attention to such events and pressure Kurdish authorities to hold those who are threatening journalists to account.

    “The recent incidents have really stripped off the veneer and revealed it’s not much different than other parts of Iraq,” Campagna said.

    Although violence has dropped sharply, Iraq remains the world’s most dangerous place for the press, with more than 130 journalists killed working there since 2003.

    Many reporters in Kurdistan see themselves as most at risk when they report critically about Kurdish security forces, government officials or political parties.

    They say Barzani’s KDP party, based in Arbil, and the PUK, its historic rival, controlled by Iraqi President Jalal Talabani and based in Sulaimaniya, wield near-total control of their respective Kurdish domains.

    “In Kurdistan, there isn’t really a political opposition. So the government thinks that journalists are the opposition,” said Rebin Rasul Esmail, who until 2004 was a senior editor for Hawlati, a leading independent newspaper.

    In 2006, men tried to abduct his wife, fellow journalist Azhen Abdul Khaleq, off the street. The couple believed the attack was related to Abdul Khaleq’s reporting on officials’ attempts to sexually assault female journalists.

    Kurdish officials categorically reject suggestions they strong-arm the press or look the other way when violence occurs.

    They paint a picture of a feckless, ill-trained media that traffics in unsubstantiated reports and personal attacks.

    “The problem, you know, with our journalists, they think they are free to say anything and do anything,” State Interior Minister Karim Sinjari said in an interview. “Somebody tells them something, and they make a story.”

    Asked about attacks or intimidation of the press, Arbil Governor Nawzad Hadi Mawlood said only: “No problems here.”

    Sinjari pledges to protect reporters and investigate crimes, but says he can do nothing if journalists fail to report them.

    “NO RED LINES”

    Reporters acknowledge the Kurdish media often fails to properly source reports or back up assertions. It’s also an open secret that many reporters are on government and party payrolls.

    “Journalists are a big part of the problem,” the former editor Rasul Esmail said.

    Others blame the government for starving the press of information, leaving reporters little choice but to cast about for leads or trust disgruntled insiders.

    Kurdistan’s parliament may soon resume debate on a new press law some hope will encourage a more mature, thriving press.

    An earlier version of the law laid down fines of up to $8,400 for reports about people’s private lives that “insult” them — even if true — or “stain common customs and morals”.

    Facing a widespread outcry, President Barzani rejected the draft law.

    A U.S. official in Arbil said the draft caused concern because it “could be used to stifle free expression”. “A free and independent press will make an important contribution to democratic development” in Kurdistan, he said.

    Ahmed Mira, editor of Livin magazine, is awaiting the results of a probe into his colleague Mamahama’s death.

    Mira is no stranger to intimidation. In 2007, he was seized from his home and thrown into solitary confinement after he wrote an article calling into question Talabani’s health. Talabani is in his 70s and had heart surgery this month.

    Still, Mira promises his magazine will not be cowed.

    “There are no red lines. There is no censorship for any subject published in Livin,” he said.

    (Additional reporting by Sherko Raouf in Sulaimaniya; Editing by Catherine Evans)

  • Iran says new oil and gas deals more attractive

    Iran says new oil and gas deals more attractive

    TEHRAN, Aug 25 (Reuters) – Iran’s revised oil and gas development contracts offer more incentives to foreign firms and Turkey’s reservations about the deals reflect an initial lack of knowledge, the Iranian oil minister said on Monday.

    A Turkish Energy Ministry source said last week Turkey would not sign a natural gas accord with Iran until changes acceptable to global investors were made to so-called “buy-back” deals, which are often criticised by foreign firms.

    The gas deal was expected to have been signed when President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad visited Turkey earlier in August.

    “The Oil Ministry’s international agreements have made good progress. The modification of the buy-back contracts provides more incentives for foreign companies to participate in Iranian projects,” Oil Minister Gholamhossein Nozari said.

    He did not give details.

    “The Turks were not informed about the culture of the buy-back contracts. But with the negotiations that took place there (in Turkey), they were told the price ceiling of the contract is determined after carrying out tenders,” he said.

    His comments were made to journalists, according to the Oil Ministry’s news website SHANA.

    Turkey and Iran last year signed a preliminary accord on joint gas production and export under which Iranian gas would be exported to Europe through Turkey and Turkey would produce 20.4 billion cubic metres of natural gas in the South Pars gas field.

    The United States, which is seeking to isolate Iran in a row over Tehran’s nuclear ambitions, has opposed the deal.

    The Turkish ministry source said the proposed buy-back system created “serious risks” for Turkey in terms of pricing. Turkey wants to buy gas directly from the fields and wants Iran to give a guarantee on contributing towards investments.

    Under such buy-backs, firms generally hand over operations of fields to Iran after development and receive payment from oil or gas production for a few years to cover their investment.

    Iran says it is revising terms but has not given details.

    The Turkish source said the risks linked to the buy-back system included issues such as commodity price rises, financing costs, the lack of a production guarantee and insurance costs.

    Nozari dismissed the idea of production sharing deals, a form of oil contract found elsewhere. “Such contracts have been abolished in the world and less than 10 percent of oil production is done using this mode of contract,” he said.

    An Iranian oil official told Reuters this month Iran was negotiating a deal with Asian oil firms for two oil and gas blocks in the Caspian Sea and this could involve a production sharing contract, if parliament and the authorities agreed that the model was best for the high-cost Caspian area.

    Iran says a study has shown Iran’s Caspian region contains an estimated 21 billion barrels of oil and gas equivalent.

    “A number of wells have been drilled in the shallow parts of the Caspian Sea in order to determine commerciality but we have not received a definitive answer on that,” Nozari said, adding that seismological tests were also going ahead. (Reporting by Hashem Kalantari, writing by Edmund Blair)

  • Syria: we’ll host Russian missile system

    Syria: we’ll host Russian missile system


    AFP Photo / Vladimir Rodionov

     

    <I class=annotation>Syria says it’s ready to put a Russian missile system on its soil as a counterweight to U.S. plans to deploy a missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic. The offer was made during a meeting between Syrian leader Bashar Al-Assad and President Dmitry Medvedev in the Black Sea resort of Sochi. Meanwhile, Moscow is considering a request from Syria for more Russian-made weapons.

    It was the first meeting between the two leaders, and President Al-Assad was keen to show Syria’s support for Russia.

    “We understand what is behind Russia’s position … We believe this is a response to Georgian provocation. We support Moscow in this and are against any attempts to blacken Russia,” Al-Assad said.
     
    Many expected a tit-for-tat response after the U.S. sealed a deal to deploy interceptors in Poland as a part of their missile defence system.

    Ahead of the visit, there were reports that Russia might deploy a missile system in Syria, in particular, the Iskander system. It’s something Syria has been requesting for a long time. After Friday’s meeting, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that Russia is ready “to consider the offers of the Syrian government in connection to the delivery of new weapons, only for defence purposes”.

    Moscow has temporarily suspended cooperation with NATO. It follows NATO’s criticism of Russia’s actions in South Ossetia and threats to shut down the NATO-Russia Council. Lavrov was clear on Russia’s course: “We are not going to slam the door on NATO. NATO could slam this door, though. Everything depends on NATO’s priorities: if the priorities are absolutely supportive of Saakashvili’s bankrupt regime to the detriment of partnership with Russia, then it is not our fault,” he said.
     
    Meanwhile, the withdrawal of Russian troops from the conflict zone is well under way. There will be at least 500 peacekeepers deployed in the so-called security zone near the border. The rest of the peacekeepers will remain within the de facto borders of South Ossetia. The rest of the troops in the area will return to Russia.

    Russia says it’s fully committed to the six principles of the cease-fire, but, according to Lavrov, some countries are resorting to diplomatic tricks.

    Both South Ossetia and Abkhazia, Georgia’s two separatist regions, have again asked Moscow to recognise their independence.

    Post this story to del.icio.us