Iraq: No Political Show Trial for Saddam Hussein
International Expert Participation Key to Trial
(New York, December 14, 2003) - The Iraqi Governing Council must not mount
a political show trial of Saddam Hussein, Human Rights Watch warned today.
The U.S. Fourth Infantry Division took Saddam Hussein into custody
yesterday. U.S. forces have not announced what they plan to do with the
former Iraqi leader, but have previously made clear their support for an
Iraqi tribunal to carry out prosecutions for crimes of the past. Last week,
the Iraqi Governing Council created a new tribunal to prosecute the crimes
of Iraq's past.
"Saddam Hussein's capture is a welcome development and it's important that
the Iraqi people feel ownership of his trial," said Kenneth Roth, executive
director of Human Rights Watch. "But it's equally important that the trial
not be perceived as vengeful justice. For that reason, international
jurists must be involved in the process."
Human Rights Watch has compiled substantial dossiers on the crimes of the
former Iraqi leader, and published numerous reports on human rights abuse
under his rule, including genocide and crimes against humanity.
On December 10, the Iraqi Governing Council issued a law establishing a
tribunal to try genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. The
tribunal law includes provisions on the rights of the accused and applies
definitions of international crimes that are largely consistent with
international law. However, key provisions are lacking to ensure
legitimate and credible trials.
The tribunal law does not require that judges and prosecutors have
experience working on complex criminal cases and cases involving serious
human rights crimes. Nor does the law permit the appointment of non-Iraqi
prosecutors or investigative judges with relevant expertise.
"Iraq has no experience with trials lasting more than a few days," said
Roth. "International expertise in prosecuting genocide, war crimes, and
crimes against humanity cases must be utilized to ensure a fair and
effective trial."
Human Rights Watch said any court conducting the trial must be independent
of political influence, and free of bias and partiality. The trial must
give the benefit of every protection for the rights of the accused under
international law. Saddam Hussein must be allowed to conduct a vigorous
defense that includes the right to legal counsel at an early stage.
The tribunal law does not prohibit the death penalty and does not ensure
that guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. In addition, the law
does not sufficiently address protection of witnesses and victims or
security for the tribunal and its staff.
"Any tribunal trying Saddam Hussein should apply international standards of
justice," said Roth. "To do otherwise would blur the distinction between
the Ba'ath Party period and the Iraq of the future."
Human Rights Watch has recommended forming a Group of Experts including
Iraqi and international specialists to suggest appropriate accountability
mechanisms and facilitate collection and preservation of evidence. A mixed
Group of Experts would allow Iraqi jurists to draw on international
experience gained from trying serious past crimes committed in the former
Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and Sierra Leone, Human Rights Watch said.
"The Iraqi Governing Council should partner with the United Nations to
create an accountability process that works," said Roth. "There won't be a
second chance to do this right."
Some of the crimes for which Saddam Hussein might be prosecuted include:
- The genocidal Anfal campaign against the Iraqi Kurds, which resulted in
the deaths of some 100,000 civilians and the destruction of more than
4,000 villages;
- The use of chemical weapons against Iranian troops and Kurdish
civilians;
- The large-scale killings that followed the failed 1991 uprisings in the
north and south of Iraq;
- The destruction and repression of the Marsh Arabs; and
- The forced expulsion of ethnic minorities in Northern Iraq during the
"Arabization" campaign.
For more information on justice and Iraq, please see
http://staging.hrw.org/campaigns/iraq/#Justice
To read the Human Rights Watch policy paper, "Ensuring Justice for Iraq:
Evidence Preservation and Fair Trials," please see:
http://www.hrw.org/press/2003/09/iraq091203.htm
These are just some unorganized idle thoughts before I've had a cup of coffee. Capturing Saddam is a good thing - he was a bad guy. I'm really glad he was captured and not killed.I think he needs that cup of coffee. It wasn't just the U.S. who called Saddam evil. It was every credible human rights organization in the world. And I'm all for focussing on the very serious human rights abuses committed by U.S. allies, but I'm also for drawing distinctions. And Saddam Hussein really was almost unique among living dictators in the evil he managed to pull off. I'd like to know which members of the Coalition of the Willing Atrios has in mind. I've been complaining about Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan for a while now, for example, but I still don't think the amount of suffering and harm caused by these U.S. allies is comparable to what Saddam Hussein was able to do even in the last decade while the U.S. kept him under wraps. Again, I'm all for bashing hypocrisy and ugly alliances, but this is just an insulting distortion of the facts.
But, it really doesn't change much. Capturing Saddam isn't going to end the resistance to the US occupation in Iraq. It may improve things slightly, or it could even make it worse, but the net effect will probably be negligible. Saddam was a bad guy, but it isn't clear he's any worse of a guy than some of the folks who are a part of our "Coalition of the Willing," so this pretense of moral clarity, etc... is ridiculous.
Saddam wasn't a threat to us. This was a war of choice and we made a bad choice (and many more bad choices subsequently). Kosovo was also a war of choice. Whether or not that was a bad choice, consider the disparity in the media coverage of those wars.
And, cynical me just has to ask - who's the enemy now? The base needs one.
Did they really call it "operation Red Dawn?" oy
Still, the solution of a local land-dispute between competing petty tribes ought not to be beyond the wit of man. The argument is contained within a quadrilateral. Either one side can defeat and expel or exterminate the other. Or there can be a sharing of the territory. Or the conflict may exhaust and destroy both parties. Or the status quo - a kind of armed and unstable apartheid truce - can be assumed to continue indefinitely.
In my opinion, Israel doesn't "give up" anything by abandoning religious expansionism in the West Bank and Gaza. It does itself a favor, because it confronts the internal clerical and chauvinist forces which want to instate a theocracy for Jews, and because it abandons a scheme which is doomed to fail in the worst possible way. The so-called "security" question operates in reverse, because as I may have said already, only a moral and political idiot would place Jews in a settlement in Gaza in the wild belief that this would make them more safe.Yes, yes, and yes, Mr. Hitchens. When you're not being a simplistic dolt you're really bang on.
Here's my proposal for an employer-sanctions program that would work: Any person who gives testimony leading to the conviction of an employer for hiring an undocumented worker, including the worker himself, gets a green card. As long as the identity system is strong enough so that employers can obey the law if they want to, the result would be an immediate drying-up of the demand for undocumented labor.Ah, but there's a problem with this: It would probably work. In fact, it would probably work so well that the courts would be full for a good long time. Also - and I admit my grasp of economics is not so hot - wouldn't the American economy tank if it (all of a sudden) couldn't rely on a pool of illegal (and therefore delightfully coercible) labour? And though it isn't a reason not to try, I think the strategy is risky since it targets the wrong social class. Many of the targets would be able to afford lawyers, and that is much more expensive than charging poor people. And not to sound paranoid, but you could expect the inevitable backlash: Inordinate attention paid to the few cases of people gaming the system for green cards, etc., all designed to generate strong resistance to the policy.
Media Note
Office of the Spokesman
Washington, DC
December 12, 2003
Progress in Clearing Iraq's Landmine Legacy
In May 2003, the U.S. Department of State established the first national mine action program in Iraq's history. Eight months later, professionally trained Iraqi managers and deminers are ready to tackle millions of persistent landmines and other explosive remnants of war that litter Iraq.
Since May, the Department, working with the Coalition Provisional Authority and with assistance from the Department of Defense's Humanitarian Demining Training Center, has:
* Established Iraq's National Mine Action Authority and Mine Action Center to
manage strategic planning and budgeting, project coordination, donor
relations, mine risk education, setting national mine action standards, and
maintaining the national mine action database. Iraq's ethnic and religious
communities are reflected in the composition of the staff;
* Engaged 60 Iraqi civil servants, men and women, to fill key positions at
the National Mine Action Authority and National and Regional Mine Action
Centers;
* Arranged for key National Mine Action Authority staff to receive senior and
mid-level management training from the Geneva International Center for
Humanitarian Demining and Mine Action Unit of the Royal Military College of
Sciences at Cranfield University;
* Created the 110-person non-governmental "Iraqi Mine/UXO Clearance
Organization" equipped with modern metal detectors, mine detecting dogs,
manual demining and explosive ordnance demolition expertise, highly
qualified medical technicians, and logistic and administrative support
personnel and equipment; and
* Transitioned a significant mine action program developed and operated
independently by the UN Office for Project Services in the three
predominantly Kurdish provinces of northern Iraq to the control of the
National Mine Action Authority in Baghdad.
Until last spring, humanitarian mine action efforts were limited to the former northern "no fly" zone. Civilians living under the Saddam Hussein regime risked injury or death from persistent landmines laid by his forces. Saddam Hussein actually prohibited humanitarian demining on territory that he controlled.
Some persistent landmines found in Iraq were laid in World War II. But most were placed by Iraqi forces during Saddam Hussein's internal and external conflicts in the 1970s and 1980s. Iraq laid more mines on its own soil during the 1991 Gulf War following its invasion of Kuwait, and sowed additional mines on its territory during the 2003 conflict.
Following the liberation, Coalition forces, the Department of State's Quick Reaction Demining Force, Department of State-contracted RONCO Consulting Corporation, and some non-governmental organizations rapidly began clearing landmines and unexploded ordnance throughout Iraq, returning valuable agricultural land and infrastructure to productive use. Quick Reaction Demining Force clearance of mines and unexploded ordnance around downed power lines enabled Iraqi crews to repair the electrical grid system and increase power to Baghdad by fifty percent, affecting the service of over 3 million Iraqis.
To learn more about the U.S. Department of State's humanitarian mine action programs in Iraq and 35 other countries and its related small arms and light weapons abatement efforts, visit www.state.gov/t/pm/wra.
CIA VETOES RELEASE OF 1968 PRESIDENTIAL BRIEF
Director of Central Intelligence George J. Tenet has intervened to prevent the partial declassification of a 1968 issue of the President's Daily Brief, overruling for the first time an interagency panel that had ordered release of the document.
DCI Tenet invoked the authority that was granted by a March 2003 Bush executive order which permits him to block the declassification decisions of the Interagency Security Classification Appeals Panel.
Independent historian Peter Pesavento had requested declassification of the President's Daily Brief (PDB) dated November 26, 1968 because it reportedly discusses the status and implications of the Soviet manned lunar program, a subject of his current research interest.
Remarkably, the Interagency Security Classification Appeals Panel (ISCAP), an executive branch body composed of representatives of five member agencies that considers declassification appeals, sided with Pesavento and voted in favor of partial declassification of the requested PDB. That is, a majority of the panel rejected the CIA's position and said the document could be safely disclosed in part.
But then DCI Tenet stepped in to block disclosure. Exercising the new secrecy powers granted him by President Bush for the first time, he vetoed the ISCAP decision.
Pesavento said that, pursuant to the provisions of the executive order, the National Archivist, an ISCAP member, has appealed the DCI's veto to the White House. But to date, no response to the appeal has been received from the White House. Under existing bylaws and orders, there is no deadline for response, ever.
J. William Leonard, director of the Information Security Oversight Office and ISCAP executive secretary, today confirmed Pesavento's general account but said he could not discuss it in detail because "it is a subject of pending deliberation."
Trying to imagine CIA's rationale for blocking release of the document, Pesavento speculated that "If this PDB gets okayed for declassification, then this will be the 'opening of the floodgates' it is feared to all PDBs now in the LBJ archives...and beyond...."
In fact, CIA has consistently treated PDBs as sacrosanct and beyond the purview of ordinary mortals. Regardless of their specific contents, the fact that the PDBs served as their intelligence conduit to the President should render them permanently beyond legal access and independent review, the CIA seems to believe.
The CIA approach is far from the ideal of a threat-based information security policy, in which classification is strictly limited to sensitive information that could damage national security. It represents instead a kind of fetishism on the part of CIA officials.
Most recently, the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks that is investigating September 11 clashed with the White House over access to PDBs, finally reaching an arrangement for limited access by a subset of Commissioners.
President Bush this year weakened the ISCAP by giving the DCI veto authority over the Panel's decisions to declassify CIA records. See executive order 13292, section 5.3(f):
http://www.fas.org/sgp/bush/eoamend.html
The CIA had challenged ISCAP in the past, but in a 1999 opinion the Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) determined that ISCAP was authorized by the President to declassify CIA records over CIA objections. That authority has been drastically curtailed by President Bush, leaving CIA free to classify, and over-classify, at will. See the 1999 OLC opinion here:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/advisory/iscap/olc_opinion.html
Peter Pesavento and space expert Charles Vick of GlobalSecurity.org are authors of a groundbreaking new study of the Soviet lunar program. Their paper, entitled "The Moon Race 'End Game': A New Assessment of Soviet Crewed Lunar Aspirations," will be published in Quest: The History of Spaceflight Quarterly in three parts beginning in January 2004.
http://www.spacebusiness.com/quest/
Another dead-end line of argument is that the war resolution never was intended to lead to war. Goodness, no. War was the last thing anyone had in mind when they voted to authorize a war. The idea was to give Bush enough leverage to work out an acceptable deal and thus avert an actual war. And then Bush ruined everything by going and having a war after all. Who'd have thunk it?Exactly right. But here's how Kinsley goes after Dean, who leads the pack, according to Kinsley, in consistency:
Among the Democrats, Howard Dean's position is almost coherent. He opposed the war before it started and believes it has not turned out well. There is a tiny question of why Dean bothers to have a "seven-point plan" for Iraq instead of just one point: Bring the troops home. After all, Iraq is less of a threat to international order and its own citizens than when Saddam was in power. If it wasn't worth American lives to improve the situation then, why is it worth more lives now?But this is just silly. For starters, Iraq is more of a threat to international order now, because it is potentially far less stable than it was before.
Yes, by destroying Saddam's regime and the real strategic threat posed to Israel by Iraq, the Bush team has taken away one of the strongest security arguments from Israeli hawks: that Israel needs to keep the West Bank, or at least troops on the Jordan River, as a buffer in case Iraq again tries to come through Jordan to strike Israel, as it has done before.I don't follow this.
Iraq: Law Creating War Crimes Tribunal FlawedThere is an interesting question there about the death penalty. On the one hand, I've read that there is an impressive consensus in favour of the death penalty for such cases in Iraq. Perhaps Human Rights Watch overlooks the fact that a tribunal which lacked the power to put people to death might be a serious disappointment to many Iraqis. On the other hand, I'm sympathetic to the reasons HRW gives here.
Protections for Legitimate, Credible Trials Needed
(New York, December 11, 2003) -- The law establishing the Iraqi war crimes tribunal lacks essential elements to ensure legitimate and credible trials for perpetrators of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity, Human Rights Watch said. The Iraqi Governing Council yesterday issued a law creating a tribunal to try serious past crimes.
"Iraqis rightly insist that trials for past atrocities are of the utmost importance," said Richard Dicker, director of the International Justice Program at Human Rights Watch. "But any tribunal set up to try these crimes should be fair and effective. Justice must be done and be seen to be done."
Human Rights Watch welcomes the provision of the law that allows for the possibility of appointing non-Iraqi trial and appeals chamber judges with experience in trying serious human rights crimes if the Iraqi Governing Council deems it necessary. The law also includes some important protections for the rights of the accused and applies definitions of international crimes largely consistent with international standards, Human Rights Watch said.
At the same time, key provisions are lacking to ensure credible and legitimate trials, Human Rights Watch said. The law does not require that judges and prosecutors have experience working on complex criminal cases and cases involving serious human rights crimes. Nor does the law permit the appointment of non-Iraqi prosecutors or investigative judges, even if they have relevant experience investigating and prosecuting serious human rights crimes.
"Up until now, the most complex trials in Iraq have lasted no more than a few days," said Dicker. "The law should require that international judges with expertise trying serious human rights crimes sit on the bench alongside Iraqis. This would assist, not replace, Iraqi judges in ensuring justice for the horrific crimes committed."
Human Rights Watch is also concerned that the law does not prohibit the death penalty or trials in absentia, and does not ensure that guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. In addition, the law does not sufficiently address protection of witnesses and victims or security for the tribunal and its staff.
"Allowing the death penalty and trials in absentia sends a message," said Dicker. "The tribunal might be seen as a court of revenge, not justice."
The Iraqi Governing Council issued the tribunal law without providing any opportunity for transparent consultation or public comment. The drafting should have been transparent to help ensure an effective and fair accountability process, Human Rights Watch said.
Human Rights Watch had recommended that a Group of Experts including Iraqi and international specialists be created to suggest appropriate accountability mechanisms and facilitate collection and preservation of evidence. A mixed Group of Experts would have allowed Iraqi jurists to leverage accumulated international experience in trying serious human rights crimes, Human Rights Watch said.
Human Rights Watch over the years has engaged in extensive work to document
human rights violations in Iraq and press for justice for these crimes. Human Rights Watch played a particularly active role in documenting crimes committed as part of the Iraqi government's genocidal Anfal campaign against the Kurds in 1988. In 1992, Human Rights Watch obtained and analyzed 18 metric tons of Iraqi state documents. In 1994 and 1995, Human Rights Watch urged states to bring a case against Iraq for genocide against the Kurds before the International Court of Justice.
Human Rights Watch is preparing a detailed analysis of the tribunal law.
To read the Human Rights Watch policy paper, "Ensuring Justice for Iraq:
Evidence Preservation and Fair Trials," see:
http://www.hrw.org/press/2003/09/iraq091203.htm
Over the long term, it is almost impossible to have a country that is both unified and democratic when the people of a geographically defined region almost unanimously do not want to be part of that country. By meeting many Kurdish aspirations, a loose federation may be the best hope to hold Iraq together. Unfortunately, there is no evidence that the CPA, preoccupied as it is with the deteriorating security environment and with constitutional timetables and modalities, sees any of this.Yes, that's exactly right.
Coming from an administration that is usually so good about looking for its own self-interest, it is hard to know why no one seems to be watching out for Iraq as the election approaches and voters show more and more concern about the lack of visible progress on the ground.I'm astonished that anyone still thinks that the administration is good at looking after itself. They're not even good at that. They're actually quite incompetent. This goes well beyond questions of politics. Whatever your political orientation, you should be disgusted by the admin. Indeed, if you're an ideological ally you should be tearing your hair out as you watch the Bush team discredit all your favourite ideas.
What I don't personally understand is how the privatization can begin under the Anglo-American occupation. I read it as a violation of the fourth Geneva Convention for an occupation authority to alter the character of the occupied society. It is true that there was a Privatization Law under the Baath (which was used to throw private ownership to Saddam's cronies). It would probably be cleaner to put off a major privatization push until a proper Iraqi government is elected, which can make the decisions in light of what is best for the Iraqi citizens that are its constituents. Two of Bremer's people told al-Zaman yesterday that oil nationalization would not be pursued at this time, and that the Iraqi government will retain control of petroleum resources. You betcha. The US has Iraqi production up to 1.7 mn. barrels a day, and is counting on over $3 bn. in revenues from it this year, half of what will be needed to run the Iraqi government and start reconstruction (are US taxpayers paying for the other $3 bn?) All of a sudden, laissez faire folks like Bremer see the wisdom of government ownership of the petroleum industry . . . when they are running a third world government that needs the money!
Hello all you two-handed people! Many of you have been pounding those suckers together for years, wondering "When am I gonna get my big break?" Well if you take advantage of our special, once-in-a-lifetime offer, your percussive palms could be featured on
AN INTERNATIONALLY RELEASED LIVE JAZZ ALBUM!!!!
Alls you have to do is come to Greenwich Music House, Sunday Dec 14, 7:30pm, and for the lowlow price of $15 ($10 for scholars and old fogeys), your enthusiastic appreciations will be digitally encoded to a HIGH FIDELITY COMPACT DISC!!!! And folks, thats not all! The more you clap, the more of you there will be for the world to cherish! If you clap for 4 minutes (240 seconds) over the duration of a 90 minute concert by crack jazz unit 4inObjects, assuming 16 bit 44khz sampling rate, your hands will account for over 169,344,000 individual ones and zeros, microsopically etched into hundreds of circular plastic dinguses and perused by WORLD FAMOUS JAZZ CRITICS AND AFFICIANADOS!!!
So mark you calendars and fill your piggy banks! You may want to practice applause at home, just so you can shine during your moment of Glory:
SUNDAY DEC 14th
7:30PM
$10-15
Greenwich House Music School
46 Barrow Street just south of West 4th street off of Seventh Avenue
New York, NY
4inObjects
Yoon Choi - voice
Jacob Garchik - tenor trombone
Jacob Sacks - Steinway concert grand piano
Dave Ambrosio - contrabass viol
Dan Weiss - hits things
Reply if you want tickets in advance. Seating limited. No hecklers or exhibitionists, please. Absentees will recieve guilt.
SHORTFALL IN DONATIONS TO 2003 UN APPEAL FOR NORTH KOREA THREATENS 3.8 MILLION LIVES
New York, Dec 8 2003 4:00PM
Unless this year's Consolidated Appeal for the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) receives new pledges by May, countrywide cereal shortages will affect 3.8 million people, especially the 70,000 children who are already at risk of dying from severe malnutrition, the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) said today.
Quoting a food aid assessment by the UN World Food Programme (WFP), OCHA said the appeal for $225 million is only half funded and, at times this year, up to 3 million people in need of food assistance in the DPRK had to be dropped from WFP distributions.
According to the UN Children's Fund (UNICEF), 42 per cent of the DPRK's young children are chronically malnourished and 70,000 at high risk of dying if they do not receive critical hospital treatment, OCHA said.
In the northeast DPRK, water is available for only three to four hours a day because electricity is only provided for that period of time, while fuel for heating and cooling is also in short supply, it added.
Due to an industrial decline, people in the provinces of Ryanggang and North and South Hamgyong have been forced into heavy dependence on limited land, resulting in massive deforestation, it said.
The target for next year's Consolidated Appeal for the DPRK will be $221 million, it said.
Rummy's No. 2
Word is that Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz may bow out as soon as February. Replacement requirements: a strong manager, one who can repair relations with the military and could take over for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Several names have bubbled up, including Deputy White House National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley, a former Pentagon assistant, and NASA boss Sean O'Keefe, a former secretary of the Navy.
Minister Cauchon,
I am writing to register my disapproval of the Minister's recent decision to seek leave to appeal the July 12th, 2002 Ontario Divisional Court ruling on the constitutionality of the common law, opposite sex meaning of marriage.
The Ministry's press release on this issue dated July 29th, 2002 suggests that the Government is reluctant to accept the court's decision because there is, at present, no consensus on the question of same sex marriage. I accept that the issue is a controversial one, but in simply noting its controversiality the Minister sidesteps the substantive moral issue. The current definition of marriage is plainly discriminatory, and is thus incompatible with the Government of Canada's responsibility, noted in the same press release, to ensure equality for all Canadians. The clear intent of the law is to devalue same sex unions by denying them the same legal status as heterosexual unions. If the Minister believes that same sex unions are of lesser value than heterosexual unions, he should say so. Otherwise, he should accept that there is a strong moral claim for treating them equally.
I also note that controversiality as such is not sufficient grounds for denying a basic right such as the right to marry. In a democracy, most issues are obviously at the discretion of the majority, and its representatives, to determine. Nevertheless, our political tradition has long considered other matters, especially deeply personal ones, to be protected from the results of political bargaining. In some quarters, one still hears this refered to as undemocratic. But this objection confuses democracy with majoritarianism. It has been obvious at least from J.S. Mill onwards that a robust respect for democracy is compatible with legal and constitutional protections for minorities.
The Minister's moral failure is compounded by what is almost certainly an error in Constitutional law. The July 29th, 2002 press release cites two legal precedents to support its appeal, but the recent ruling cannot have come as a surprise to either the Minister or his staff. As the Minister knows, recent Supreme Court decisions have made it overwhelmingly likely that the July 12th, 2002 Ontario Divisional Court ruling will be affirmed on appeal. Thus, the only probable effect of the Minister's decision is to impose additional burdens on same sex couples in a pointless attempt to postpone the inevitable. The constitutional background to the Minister's decision adds to the impression that the decision is a cynical one, guided more by politics than either moral or constitutional considerations.
I want to note finally that while the issue obviously touches most closely the lives of same sex couples, it is one that a great many heterosexual Canadians have an interest in. In my own case, reflection on my own marriage has convinced me that the Government denies same sex couples a great good when it denies them the right to marry. Only a generation or two ago in some jurisdications in North America, anti-miscegination laws would have forbidden my own marriage. The current exclusionary definition of marriage that the Minister now seeks to uphold has much in common with such laws. Then, as now, progress was only made when bigots were forced to respect the moral rights of loving, consenting adults to make their own marital choices. The Minister has chosen to stand in the way of similar progress. Get out of the way, Minister Cauchon. Get out of the way.
Rosie DiManno's article on gay marriage ("Why mess with cultural success?"; Dec. 16th, 2000) is typical of the treatment that the subject usually receives. After some irrelevant chatter about which hair-styles she prefers, DiManno finally gets to the point. Her argument comes down to the suggestion that a recognition of gay marriage would "force straight society to embrace the gay life." This would weaken it as a symbol of heterosexual union, she claims, and the institution of marriage "means far more" to the straight majority than to gays and lesbians.
As DiManno seems to recognize, society permits heterosexuals an extraordinary degree of latitude in interpreting for themselves the meaning of the institution of marriage. If a man is married in Las Vegas by an Elvis impersonator on roller blades to a woman he has just met, his neighbours may laugh behind his back, his parents may be horrified, and the marriage may be shorter lived than a liberal mandate - but however ill-considered the union, society will recognize the marriage, and recognize the right of the couple to define it largely on their own terms. The legal recognition of such a marriage by society does nothing to "force" anyone to "embrace" a life of foolish heterosexual union. And even if the marriage were part of a trend which did arguably diminish the institution of marriage, many would find intrusion by government into such a personal matter invasive and inappropriate.
On the other hand, to exclude homosexuals from the institution of marriage by invoking considerations largely waived for heterosexuals does amount to discrimination. That - and not a concern about saving the institution of marriage for heterosexuals - is usually the point of the restriction. This is no doubt also the reason that many homosexuals, contrary to DiManno's (bizarre) suggestion, do care about achieving this sort of recognition. Homosexuals who are denied the legal right to marry are denied precisely what heterosexuals gain when they marry: an institution which is a deep source of stability and comfort during difficult times.
DiManno's claim that the courts are legislating marriage out of existence also deserves some remark. The courts are not legislating anything out of existence. They are forcing governments to respect the constitutional rights of homosexuals, as a non-enumerated but analogous group entitled to protection under Section 15 of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Since the existing ban on homosexual marriage can only be based on reasons which are waived in the case of heterosexual unions, the Supreme Court is likely to strike down the law sooner or later as discriminatory.
The claim that the court "legislates" when it strikes down discriminatory legislation is also confused. Arguments to this effect frequently make the mistake of supposing that protection from discrimination in a democracy can only legitimately come from a legislature representing the will of the majority. When such protections issue from the legislature the effect is indeed salutary, but - doubts about whether legislatures do represent the will of the majority in Canada aside - to find this the sole legitimate source of such protections is to confuse democracy with majoritarianism. There is a place in a constitutional democracy for minority protections. These protections are meaningless if legislatures are not bound to respect them.
DiManno's column raises a general question about how far we expect government to promote (and discourage) certain conceptions of a good life. Even those of us who are not uniformly impressed by popular morals are often reluctant to see the government intervene in the personal affairs of citizens. If nightclubs or Internet chat rooms were found to weaken the institution of marriage, would DiManno have the government restrict them?
DiManno insists that she has nothing against homosexuals, only against homosexual marriage. But if she denies homosexuals the same legal protections she would insist on for heterosexuals, it is discrimination all the same.
The document is also certain to further complicate Kissinger's legacy, which has been questioned in recent years as new evidence has emerged on his connection to human-rights violations around the world -- including in Chile, Indonesia and Bangladesh.
Underlying the new strategy, the Americans say, is the conviction that only a tougher approach will quell the insurgency and that the new strategy must punish not only the guerrillas but also make clear to ordinary Iraqis the cost of not cooperating.
"You have to understand the Arab mind," Capt. Todd Brown, a company commander with the Fourth Infantry Division, said as he stood outside the gates of Abu Hishma. "The only thing they understand is force — force, pride and saving face."
"The problem is that significant numbers of people don't want a fair solution. Given the relatively small number of rejectionist Israelis and Israel's strong military, it would appear that a government committed to a solution could impose one by force on dissident settler elements without too much trouble. On the Palestinian side, however, this doesn't seem to be true, and the PA has never evinced an ability to destroy the groups that oppose reaching any sort of peace with Israel. As long as that's the case, however, the Palestinians can't actually offer Israelis the thing they want out of a negotiation, so getting a majority, or even the political leadership, behind a deal won't lead to a lasting peace."
"Let's start from the top. Whether you agree with President Bush or not, it's hard to dispute that in terms of foreign policy he is the most radically pro-democracy president of the 20th century."
The paradox in this vituperation is that, of all the Administration's high-level policymakers, Wolfowitz is probably the one who is philosophically closest to his own detractors. You could irrigate the planet Mars with the crocodile tears that have been shed for the Iraqi people over the past 18 months, and the war's hawks have been as lachrymose as its doves. Wolfowitz stands out in this milieu by his comparative guilelessness. If consistency of message and purpose is any guide, the Defense Department's number two man is guided, at least in part, by a genuine belief in the very airiest and most Wilsonian ideals that brought about the fall of Saddam Hussein. In interviews, in public statements, in his travel itinerary, Wolfowitz consistently personalizes the Iraqis, cites his own experiences in post-Saddam Iraq, and speaks with passion about the brutality of the late Ba'athist regime.
National Security Archive Update, December 4, 2003
KISSINGER TO ARGENTINES ON DIRTY WAR: "THE QUICKER YOU SUCCEED THE BETTER"
Newly declassified documents show Secretary of State gave green light to junta, Contradict official line that Argentines "heard only what [they] wanted to hear."
While military dictatorship committed massive human rights abuses in 1976, Kissinger advised "If you can finish before Congress gets back, the better."
http://www.nsarchive.org/NSAEBB/NSAEBB104/index.htm
Washington, D.C., 3 December 2003 Newly declassified State Department documents obtained by the National Security Archive under the Freedom of Information Act show that in October 1976, Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and high ranking U.S. officials gave their full support to the Argentine military junta and urged them to hurry up and finish the "dirty war" before the U.S. Congress cut military aid.
Posted on the Web today at www.nsarchive.org, the new documents are two memoranda of conversations (memcons) with the visiting Argentine foreign minister, Admiral Cesar Augusto Guzzetti one with Kissinger himself on October 7, 1976. At the time, the U.S. Congress was about to approve sanctions against the Argentine regime because of widespread reports of human rights abuses by the junta. A post-junta truth commission found that the Argentine military had "disappeared" at least 10,000 Argentines in the so-called "dirty war" against "subversion" and "terrorists" between 1976 and 1983; human rights groups in Argentina put the number at closer to 30,000.
According to the verbatim memcon, Secretary of State Kissinger told Guzzetti: "Look, our basic attitude is that we would like you to succeed. I have an old-fashioned view that friends ought to be supported. What is not understood in the United States is that you have a civil war. We read about human rights problems but not the context. The quicker you succeed the better… The human rights problem is a growing one. Your Ambassador can apprise you. We want a stable situation. We won’t cause you unnecessary difficulties. If you can finish before Congress gets back, the better. Whatever freedoms you could restore would help."
The memcons contradict the official line given by Assistant Secretary of State Harry Shlaudeman in response to complaints from the U.S. ambassador in Buenos Aires that Guzzetti had come back "euphoric" and "convinced that there is no real problem with the USG" over human rights. Shlaudeman cabled, "Guz;etti [sic] heard only what he wanted to hear."
The two new memcons were not among the 4700 documents released in August 2002
by the Argentina Declassification Project of the U.S. Department of State. Much to the credit of Secretary of State Colin Powell and his predecessor, Madeleine Albright, who began the project, that release made front page news in Argentina, contributed dramatically to civilian control of the military, provided documentation on military decision making now being used in court cases related to the "dirty war," and for some of the families of the "disappeared," gave the first available evidence of what had actually happened to their loved ones.
The State Department project, however, did not include documents from the often-vigorous internal U.S. policy debates over Argentina; and neither the CIA nor the Pentagon participated in the declassification effort. Carlos Osorio and Kathleen Costar of the National Security Archive obtained the new memcons in November 2003 in response to a Freedom of Information Act request filed with the Department of State in November 2002, seeking to fill in the missing pieces from the larger release.
http://www.nsarchive.org/NSAEBB/NSAEBB104/index.htm
First, according to numerous government sources, the senior director for Asian affairs at the National Security Council, James Moriarty, and Doug Paal, the de facto U.S. ambassador to Taiwan, are urging President Bush to declare, privately and perhaps publicly, that the United States opposes Taiwan's independence. This would be a significant change in America's so-called "One-China Policy," a change very much in Beijing's favor.
Until now, the American position on Taiwan's independence has been agnostic. American presidents have said they do not support independence but have also insisted that the cross-Strait issue be settled peacefully and by common agreement of the two sides. The point was that no solution should be imposed on either side. It was also to leave open the possibility that both sides might agree on independence, as indeed might occur were mainland China ever to become democratic (just as Moscow let go of Ukraine after the fall of communism in Russia). If the Bush Administration changes its policy, it will place the United States in opposition to Taiwanese independence even under that scenario. Above all, however, if the administration makes this change, it will strike a severe blow against the vibrant Taiwanese democracy in a kow-tow to Beijing. After the President's recent stirring remarks in favor of democracy worldwide, this move against Taiwan's democracy would be a shameful betrayal of what seemed to be the President's core principle in foreign policy.
We hope the Bush Administration will pull back from this catastrophic change of course. The Clinton Administration bent to China on the issue of Taiwan as well, but never as dangerously as senior Bush Administration officials are now proposing. Nor so immorally. Taiwan is a thriving democracy. The Beijing government remains a tyranny. Will the Bush administration stifle democracy in Taiwan -- actually demanding that it not hold popular votes -- to curry favor with the dictatorship?
Before the Bush administration congratulates itself on doing the right thing in Georgia, it should be reminded that it is doing all the wrong things elsewhere in the region. In an effort to have allies in the war on terror, Washington has jumped into bed with a number of very unsavory dictators, some nearly as tyrannical as Saddam Hussein. These unholy alliances contradict the Bush administration's claims that it wants to spread democracy to dry up the breeding grounds for angry terrorists. In fact, the Faustian pacts are likely to cause more anger among suffering Central Asians who increasingly embrace virulent anti-Americanism and radical Islam.
This morning, observing some things to be laid up not as they should be by the girl, I took a broom and basted her till she cried extremely, which made me vexed, but before I went out I left her appeased.
Pakistan: Threats to Journalists Escalate
Musharraf Comments Bode Ill for Press Freedom
(New York, December 3, 2003) -- Pervez Musharraf's military government is becoming increasingly intolerant of press freedoms in Pakistan, Human Rights Watch charged today in a letter to the Pakistani president.
In the letter, Human Rights Watch highlighted the case of Amir Mir, Senior Assistant Editor of the monthly magazine Herald, whom Musharraf reportedly threatened at a November 20 reception for Pakistani newspaper editors. Musharraf is reported to have condemned the Herald for being "anti-army" and working against the "national interest," and argued that the time had come for the Herald and Mir to be "dealt with." Musharraf's comments reportedly included specific references to stories filed by Mir for the magazine. Two days later, unidentified persons set Amir Mir's car ablaze outside his house. Mir later received a message purporting to be from the Pakistani intelligence services (ISI) claiming responsibility for the attack and warning that this was "just the beginning."
"General Musharraf should publicly disassociate himself from the comments about the Herald and order an investigation into the attack on Amir Mir's car," said Brad Adams, executive director of the Asia Division of Human Rights Watch. "Instead of creating an environment hostile to the press, it is the responsibility of the Pakistani authorities to protect journalists."
Human Rights Watch also raised the case of Rasheed Azam, a journalist and political activist from Khuzdar in Balochistan province, who was arrested on charges of sedition in August 2002 for publishing a photograph of Pakistan army personnel beating a crowd of Baloch youth. Human Rights Watch has learned that Azam was abused and tortured by members of the Pakistani military, including beatings while hung upside down and sleep deprivation. Azam remains in jail after his bail application was rejected by the district judge. His colleagues have filed a bail application in the
Balochistan High Court that awaits hearing. Human Rights Watch wrote a letter to General Musharraf about Azam on October 10 this year, but to date has received no response.
Since Musharraf's 1999 coup, the Pakistani government has systematically violated the fundamental rights of members of the press corps through threats, harassment, and arbitrary arrests. Many have been detained without charge, mistreated and tortured, and otherwise denied basic due process rights. The government has sought to, and in several cases succeeded in, removing independent journalists from prominent publications. Meanwhile, the arrest of editors and reporters from local and regional newspapers on charges of sedition is becoming increasingly commonplace.
Human Rights Watch urged General Musharraf to demonstrate a commitment to genuine press freedom by releasing journalists arrested on trumped-up charges, and to bring to an end the use of coercion, intimidation and torture in his dealings with the national and regional Pakistani print media.
"It is time for General Musharraf to show the world whether he is a reformer -- or no different from other military rulers," said Adams. "How he deals with press freedoms is a big test. As of now he and his government are failing."
To read the letter to General Musharraf, please see
http://hrw.org/press/2003/12/pakistan-ltr120203.htm
A SENATE PUSH TO REVERSE RUSSIA’S G-8 MEMBERSHIP. U.S. Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Joe Lieberman (D-CT) have introduced legislation urging President George W. Bush to suspend Russia’s membership in the Group of Eight (G-8) industrialized democracies until Russia’s government ends “its assault on political freedom, independent media, and the rule of law,” PHXnews.com reports. The resolution would express the Sense of Congress that the “selective prosecution” of its political opponents, suppression of free media, and commission of widespread atrocities against civilians in Chechnya “do not reflect the minimum standards of democratic governance and rule of law that characterize every other member of the G-8.”
Jewish Holy Books On Display at the Alexandria Library:
The Torah & the 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion'
Recently, a manuscript museum opened at the new Alexandria Library, which was renovated by the Egyptian and Italian governments via UNESCO. In the November 17, 2003 issue of the Egyptian weekly Al-Usbu', correspondent Jihan Hussein reported(1) that the museum had added "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" to the display case of the holy books of the monotheistic religions, next to a Torah. The book on display is the first translation of the "Protocols" into Arabic, by Muhammad Khalifa Al-Tunisi, and its binding, according to the report, features "a Star of David, the Bolshevik Jewish symbol, surrounded by symbolic snakes." The following is an interview with the museum's director, Dr. Yousef Ziedan, in which he explains why he decided to add the "Protocols" to the exhibit:
'The Protocols of Zion Are More Important Than the Torah'
"When my eyes fell upon the rare copy of this dangerous book, I decided immediately to place it next to the Torah. Although it is not a monotheistic holy book, it has become one of the sacred [tenets] of the Jews, next to their first constitution, their religious law, [and] their way of life. In other words, it is not merely an ideological or theoretical book.
"Perhaps this book of the 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion' is more important to the Zionist Jews of the world than the Torah, because they conduct Zionist life according to it... It is only natural to place the book in the framework of an exhibit of Torah [scrolls]."
Dr. Ziedan maintains a website "for heritage and manuscripts" where he posts, among other things, articles that he writes. In his article "WWW and the Informatics Plexus [sic]," Dr. Ziedan writes of the difference between reality and reporting on reality:
"...There is no doubt that every 'news item' originates in a [particular] event, but the distance between the event and the news item is great... I will give an example: When Hitler's atrocities are mentioned, [people] immediately point out the cremation of the Jews in the gas chambers. This happens because of the knowledge that is passed on regarding the Holocaust.
"This is knowledge that has reached the world via a diverse stream of information from journalists' reports, historical research, compensation, [the] unceasing buzz in the media, and films such as Schindler's List which made the entire world cry and which was banned in our country [Egypt] so that we won't cry too over the fate of the poor Jews!"
'Only 1 Million Jews Were Killed by the Nazis... There Wasn't Enough Cyanide'
"What is important is that the information arrived, but what about reality? In reality, 50,000,000 fell victim to the Nazis, among them 1,000,000 Jews and the rest Gypsies, Poles, and other nations. In reality, an analysis of samples from the purported gas chambers has proven that these were sterilization chambers, without a sufficient quantity of cyanide to kill.
"In reality, had Hitler wanted to annihilate the Jews of Europe, he would have. He had an opportunity. The distance between events and widespread knowledge about them is great."
Endnote:
(1) Al-Usbu' (Egypt), November 17, 2003.
More Mush From the Wimp
"Former President Jimmy Carter called the American invasion of Iraq one of the country's worst foreign policy blunders, and predicted it may take a dozen years to bring stability and democracy to the region," reports the State newspaper of Columbia, S.C. A dozen years? Hmm, Carter took office more than two dozen years ago; if the Middle East can be made stable and democratic in just a dozen years, it's a shame he didn't start the process back then.
“In its current form, the Kyoto Protocol places significant limitations on the economic growth of Russia,” Mr. Putin's economic adviser, Andrei Illarionov, told reporters in the Kremlin. “Of course, in this current form this protocol can't be ratified.”
Though it lacks foolproof safeguards, the risk that it would prosecute a U.S. citizen is pretty small: It is designed to punish war criminals in failed states, not citizens of countries with their own functioning justice systems.
My work as a foreign correspondent in Moscow ended, probably for good, in October last year, when I encountered two violent entrepreneurs in a pedestrian walkway under Kutuzovsky Prospect, a main road in the west of Moscow where I had an office. A prolonged transaction ensued. I spent the following week in a neurological institute and much of the winter as an outpatient at hospitals and clinics. By Christmas I could open my mouth normally. By March I could write again.
By Adam Entous
CRAWFORD, Texas (Reuters) - For a president fond of a tough-guy image, George W. Bush was uneasy when an aide casually asked him, "You want to go to Baghdad?"
With Bush safely back at his Crawford ranch on Friday, White House supporters seized on the U.S. Thanksgiving Day visit to Iraq as a public-relations coup that could boost troop morale and Republican fund raising.
But the trip -- one of the most secretive by any U.S. president -- also highlighted how precarious security remains in the Iraqi capital, captured by U.S. forces in April.
Despite unprecedented precautions, the president slipped into Baghdad under cover of darkness on Thursday to minimize the risk of being targeted by surface-to-air missiles and was confined to the heavily guarded airport throughout his 2-1/2-hour stay.
By now you've realized that I was prepared for this war. I got rid of all my W.M.D., hid explosives and set up an underground network to fight you once you were in country. But God bless the Turkish Parliament. By not allowing you to use Turkey to invade from the north, my boys in the Sunni Triangle were spared. By the time you got here from the south, we just receded into the shadows. You occupied our Sunni towns, but never defeated them. Had you been able to sweep down from the north, my boys would have had to engage you, and you would have killed them wholesale by the hundreds. Now you have to kill them retail — one by one.
Michael Ledeen, who can easily match Laurie Mylroie for obsessiveness (can you imagine the two of them locked in a room? Saddam is the source of all evil! No, Tehran is the source of all evil! Saddam bombed Khobar! No, the Iranians did! Saddam was behind 9/11! No, Iran was! Hey, maybe Saddam was actually an Iranian agent, and that whole 8 year war in the 1980s was just an elaborate ruse to pull the wool over America's eyes - you guys ever think of that?)...
Sudan: Oil Companies Complicit in Rights Abuses
(London, November 25, 2003) The Sudanese government's efforts to control oilfields in the war-torn south have resulted in the displacement of hundreds of thousands of civilians, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today. Foreign oil companies operating in Sudan have been complicit in this displacement, and the death and destruction that have accompanied it.
The report, "Sudan, Oil, and Human Rights," investigates the role that oil has played in Sudan's civil war. This 754-page report is the most comprehensive examination yet published of the links between natural-resource exploitation and human rights abuses.
"Oil development in southern Sudan should have been a cause of rejoicing for Sudan's people," said Jemera Rone, Sudan researcher for Human Rights Watch. "Instead, it has brought them nothing but woe."
The report documents how the government has used the roads, bridges and airfields built by the oil companies as a means for it to launch attacks on civilians in the southern oil region of Western Upper Nile (also known as Unity state). In addition to its regular army, the government has deployed militant Islamist militias to prosecute the war, and has armed southern factions in a policy of ethnic manipulation and destabilization.
Human Rights Watch urged that the current peace negotiations deal comprehensively with the legacy of Sudan's oil war, particularly the ethnic divisions that persist in oilfields of the south and threaten the long-term peace.
The report provides evidence of the complicity of oil companies in the human rights abuses. Oil company executives turned a blind eye to well-reported government attacks on civilian targets, including aerial bombing of hospitals, churches, relief operations and schools.
"Oil companies operating in Sudan were aware of the killing, bombing, and looting that took place in the south, all in the name of opening up the oilfields," said Rone. "These facts were repeatedly brought to their attention in public and private meetings, but they continued to operate and make a profit as the devastation went on."
Conditions for civilians in the oilfields actually worsened when the Canadian company Talisman Energy Inc. and the Swedish company Lundin Oil AB were lead partners in two concessions in southern Sudan. Amid mounting pressure from rights groups, Talisman sold its interest in its Sudanese concessions in late 2002, and Lundin followed in June.
These Western-based corporations were replaced by the state-owned oil companies of China and Malaysia- CNPC, or China National Petroleum Corp., and Petronas, or Petrolium Nasional Berhad-which had already been partners with Talisman and Lundin. Following CNPC and Petronas, a third state-owned Asian oil company, India's ONGC Videsh Ltd., began operations in Sudan.
Statistics from the Sudanese government and the oil companies show how the major share (60 percent) of the US$580 million received in oil revenue by this poverty-stricken country in 2001 was absorbed by its military, both for foreign weapons purchases and for the development of a domestic arms industry.
"The Sudanese government has used the oil money in conducting scorched-earth campaigns to drive hundreds of thousands of farmers and pastoralists from their homes atop the oil fields," said Rone. "These civilians have not been compensated nor relocated peacefully-far from it. Instead, government forces have looted their cattle and grain, and destroyed their homes and villages, killed and injured their relatives, and even prevented emergency relief agencies from bringing any assistance to them."
The 20-year civil war in Sudan has been fought between the Islamist, northern-based Arab-speaking government and the vast marginalized African populations of southern Sudan, where the Sudan People's Liberation Movement/Army (SPLM/A) has been the largest rebel group. The war spread to eastern and central Sudan, and while the parties signed a cease-fire agreement in October 2002 western Sudan remains engulfed in war.
The report also covers the SPLM/A's role in the struggle over oilfields. The regular SPLM/A forces have carried out serious human rights abuses, including summary execution of captured combatants. Commanding officers of the SPLM/A have taken no steps to investigate or punish these crimes.
Peace talks promoted by a troika of the United States, Britain and Norway have been underway in Kenya since June 2002. However, the Sudanese government and the SPLM/A, the only parties to the talks, have yet to agree on how to share revenue from the oil reserves, most of which lie in the south. The northern-based government has agreed to a self-determination referendum for the south, but not until 6 1/2 years after the peace agreement is signed.
"The hundreds of thousands of persons displaced from the oilfields should be allowed to return, with guarantees of safety and compensation for their losses," Rone said. "This needs to be a central part of the peace agreement."
Related Material
Sudan, Oil, and Human Rights
Report, November 2003 available online at:
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/sudan1103/
Sudan: Human Rights and Political Inclusion Must Be Part of Sudan Peace Agreement
Briefing Paper, September 2003
http://hrw.org/backgrounder/africa/sudan091703-bck.htm
Iraq is unique in the Muslim world as a country where Sunnis and Shias, both secular and religious leaders, have often collaborated against internal oppression and external aggression, and have not engaged in the vicious sectarian bloodshed seen in Pakistan, or the Wahabbi view of Shias as heretics and polytheists. Shia Ayatollahs supported Sunni opposition movements, and a radical Shia movement like the Da’wa party had a Sunni membership of ten percent...
Iraq’s Sunnis and Shias are related by common history and often common tribal relations, since Iraq only became a majority Shia state after Sunni tribes converted to Shiism in the 18th century. Even the most extreme Iraqi Shias are Iraqi nationalists and view Iran with suspicion. Iraqi Shias believe their country is the rightful leader of the Shia world, since Shiism began in Iraq, most sacred Shia sites are in Iraq and the Hawza, or Shia clerical academy of Najaf, dominated Shia thought until recently. Iran is a rival for them. Iraqi nationalism and unity were proven when all members of the Iraqi Governing Council unanimously rejected the American proposal to introduce Turkish peacekeepers into the country...
Kurdish leaders from all political parties have called for inclusion in the new Iraq, and while many may dream of an eventual Kurdish state, all recognize that it is quixotic at this juncture. There is only a light American presence in Kurdistan anyway, and it is not the reason troops are meeting resistance elsewhere. A Kurdistan without US troops is the greatest fear of most Kurds today who live under the ominous shadow of their Turkish, Iranian, and even Syrian neighbors. There is no clear border for Kurdistan. Kurds covet Mosul and Kirkuk, where many Arabs, Assyrians and Turkmen would violently oppose secession...
Gelb’s proposal is the singularly least democratic suggestion offered to solve the Iraq crisis to date. Moreover, no neighboring country would accept the idea of dividing Iraq. How many small, artificial and unviable countries (like Jordan and the Gulf countries) does the west wish to create in repetition of its post Ottoman errors? Unlike Yugoslavia, Iraq’s different groups have no history of separate existence and they have no history of mutual slaughter. It is true that Iraq was to a certain extent an invention. But all states begin as an imagined idea. A state succeeds if its people believe in it. Iraqis believe in Iraq. If anything, the American occupation is only uniting Iraqis in resentment of the foreigners and non Muslims who
rule them, and increasing their desire to be “free, independent and democratic” as the graffiti says on walls throughout the country. Iraqis believe in Baghdad, an extremely diverse capital city, where Shias, Sunnis and Kurds live together and even intermarry.
"The United States could extricate most of its forces from the so-called Sunni Triangle, north and west of Baghdad, largely freeing American forces from fighting a costly war they might not win. American officials could then wait for the troublesome and domineering Sunnis, without oil or oil revenues, to moderate their ambitions or suffer the consequences."
"For example, [the Sunnis] might punish the substantial minorities left in the center, particularly the large Kurdish and Shiite populations in Baghdad. These minorities must have the time and the wherewithal to organize and make their deals, or go either north or south. This would be a messy and dangerous enterprise, but the United States would and should pay for the population movements and protect the process with force."
National Security Archive Update, November 24, 2003
KENNEDY SOUGHT DIALOGUE WITH CUBA
INITIATIVE WITH CASTRO ABORTED BY ASSASSINATION, DECLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS SHOW
Oval Office Tape Reveals Strategy to hold clandestine Meeting in Havana; Documents record role of ABC News correspondent Lisa Howard as secret intermediary in Rapprochement effort
For more information contact:
Peter Kornbluh - 202/994-7116
email - pkorn@gwu.edu
http://www.nsarchive.org/NSAEBB/NSAEBB103/index.htm
Washington D.C. - On the 40th anniversary of the assassination of John F. Kennedy, and the eve of the broadcast of a new documentary film on Kennedy and Castro, the National Security Archive today posted an audio tape of the President and his national security advisor, McGeorge Bundy, discussing the possibility of a secret meeting in Havana with Castro. The tape, dated only seventeen days before Kennedy was shot in Dallas, records a briefing from Bundy on Castro's invitation to a U.S. official at the United Nations, William Attwood, to come to Havana for secret talks on improving relations with Washington. The tape shows President Kennedy's approval if official U.S.
involvement could be plausibly denied.
The possibility of a meeting in Havana evolved from a shift in the President's thinking on the possibility of what declassified White House records called "an accommodation with Castro" in the aftermath of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Proposals from Bundy's office in the spring of 1963 called for pursuing "the sweet approach…enticing Castro over to us," as a potentially more successful policy than CIA covert efforts to overthrow his regime. Top Secret White House memos record Kennedy's position that "we should start thinking along more flexible lines" and that "the president, himself, is very interested in [the prospect for negotiations]." Castro, too, appeared interested. In a May 1963 ABC News special on Cuba, Castro told correspondent Lisa Howard that he considered a rapprochement with Washington "possible if the United States government wishes it. In that case," he said, "we would be agreed to seek and find a basis" for improved relations.
The untold story of the Kennedy-Castro effort to seek an accommodation is the subject of a new documentary film, KENNEDY AND CASTRO: THE SECRET HISTORY, broadcast on the Discovery/Times cable channel on November 25 at 8pm. The documentary film, which focuses on Ms. Howard's role as a secret intermediary in the effort toward dialogue, was based on an article -- "JFK and Castro: The Secret Quest for Accommodation" -- written by Archive Senior Analyst Peter Kornbluh in the magazine, Cigar Aficionado. Kornbluh served as consulting producer and provided key declassified documents that are highlighted in the film. "The documents show that JFK clearly wanted to change the framework of hostile U.S. relations with Cuba," according to Kornbluh. "His assassination,
at the very moment this initiative was coming to fruition, leaves a major 'what if' in the ensuing history of the U.S. conflict with Cuba."
Please follow the link below:
http://www.nsarchive.org/NSAEBB/NSAEBB103/index.htm
But with so much connective tissue exposed — some the result of "custodial interviews" of prisoners — the burden of proof has shifted to those still grimly in denial.
Bremer's style, direct and briskly decisive, also appeals to Bush. "When you deal with Jerry, you don't have to worry about what he says behind your back. He tells you exactly what he thinks," said former Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger, who has worked with Bremer since the 1970s.
But I still can't believe that anyone with half a brain -- which may even include some of the people currently planning military operations -- would consider this an effective way to fight a guerrilla war. Granted, the Brits did have some success using air power to suppress a popular revolt in Iraq back in the '20s. But they used poison gas. I don't think Centcom is ready to dig that deep into its bag of war crimes.
I'd like to see the Saudi royal family get out in front on this issue by forcefully condemning the Istanbul attacks, and by linking them to the Riyadh one, and by coming out against the anti-Jewish bigotry that has become so widespread in the Muslim world. Arabs are always saying they are against Zionism, not against Jews. Well, Turkey's 25,000 remaining Jews are in Turkey because they did not want to be ingathered. The front page of the Saudi daily al-Watan covers the Istanbul bombing. It then quotes President Bush at the end of the article condemning it. But this is a Saudi paper. What are Saudi high officials saying? They are not quoted to my knowledge. The bottom link on the first page is to the campaign by US Zionist organizations to discredit Saudi Arabia and to attempt to link the royal family to terrorism. Well, what better way to change that image than by video of a forceful condemnation by Crown Prince Abdullah of this attack on Jews? Saudi Prince al-Waleed bin Talal has recently said that the Saudi authorities have cracked down on preachers making anti-Jewish comments, since Islam respects the right of Jews to practice their religion. That is a start, but it isn't enough. And, it isn't visible in the West.
Subscribe to
Posts [Atom]