It looks as if Pakistan could be in for more political unrest. Zardari seems to be a rather dubious character and quite corrupt. He promised Sharif that he would re-instate all the lawyers Musharraf had fired but did not do so. This is part of the reason Sharif left the coalition govt. I wonder where the U.S. fits into all this. Apparently there have been recent meetings between U.S. and army brass.
Purge of Bhutto Allies Raises Further Questions About Zardari
Posted August 30, 2008
Updated 8/30 8:45 PM EST
Less than a week after losing their largest coalition partner the Pakistani Peoples Party’s internal stability has been called into question, amid reports that acting party leader and presumptive future President of Pakistan Asif Ali Zardari has purged many of assassinated former leader Benazir Bhutto’s closest allies from the upper ranks of the party.
Close Zardari ally Zulfiqar Mirza reportedly blamed Naheed Khan, one of Bhutto’s most loyal allies, for the assassination, claiming she was in charge of security and had declined an offer of volunteer guards at the incident. Khan denied the charge, and insisted that Mirza and Interior Minister Rehman Malik were actually in charge of security during the incident. Last year, Pakistani police raided Mirza’s home in a failed attempt to arrest him for his connection to the murder of Sajjad Hussain, who was killed three days before he was scheduled to testify against Zardari on corruption charges.
The Times quoted Khan and other Bhutto loyalists as saying Zardari had wasted the past six months, and she also warned that party workers were growing increasingly disillusioned at their lack of access to him.
Though Bhutto’s son Bilawal was named as her successor, Zardari has emerged as the de facto party leader while Bilawal is in Britain finishing college. The PPP won a plurality in the February election, and formed a coalition government with Nawaz Sharif’s PML-N party. That coalition was shattered earlier this week when Zardari refused to reinstate 60 ousted judges before Sharif’s Monday deadline, despite an earlier signed promise to do so.
Though the PPP was expected to retain its control over the Pakistani government even without the PML-N, the incidents have added yet more doubts among Pakistanis of Zardari’s suitability for the office of President. He is still widely referred to as “Mr. 10 Percent” in Pakistan because of allegations that he stole millions of dollars during his tenure as Minister of Investment. The Swiss Government had kept some $60 million in Zardari’s assets frozen since 1997 in connection to the allegations, which it released after Zardari’s government informed them that the incident was no longer under investigation. Zardari spent 11 years in prison in connection with corruption charges, and doctors report that he has suffered from severe depression, dementia, and PTSD in connection with his incarceration.
Still, Zardari is expected to prevail in Pakistan’s Presidential election, to be held a week from today. He is one of three candidates for the position, as Sharif’s party is fielding former Supreme Court Chief Justice Saeed-uz-Zaman Siddiqui, while the PML-Q, the ruling party during Musharraf’s tenure, is running Senator Mushahid Hussain Syed.
Still, with his coalition in tatters, his party increasingly divided, and even his own family attacking him publicly, it is unclear how effective a leader he will be, or how long he can maintain his grip on power.
Sunday, August 31, 2008
OSCE observers fault Georgians in conflict.
This report probably will not get too much press play in the U.S. press. I just wonder how aware U.S. authorities were of what was going on. Even if the U.S. did not support Georgia's move you would think that they would have enough knowledge and influence to stop this reckless action if they had wanted to. But perhaps not. On the U.S. side there has been almost no blaming of Georgia at all which is rather surprising given the facts as this western report shows. The OSCE report supports the Russian line for the most part. Of course this does nothing to support the subsequent Russian incursion into Georgia proper.
From Monsters and Critics.com
Europe NewsSpiegel: OSCE observers fault Georgians in conflictBy DPAAug 30, 2008, 9:52 GMT
Hamburg - European observers have faulted Georgia in this month's Caucasus conflict, saying it made elaborate plans to seize South Ossetia, according to the German news magazine Der Spiegel on Saturday.
In a report to appear in its Monday edition, it said officials of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) had said acts by the Georgian government had contributed to the outbreak of the crisis with Russia.
Spiegel said OSCE military observers in the Caucasus had described preparations by Georgia to move into South Ossetia.
The onslaught had begun before Russian armoured vehicles entered a southbound tunnel under the Caucasus Mountains to South Ossetia.
It said the OSCE report also described suspected war crimes by the Georgians, including the Georgians ordering attacks on sleeping South Ossetian civilians.
© Copyright 2007 by monstersandcritics.com. This notice cannot be removed without permission.
From Monsters and Critics.com
Europe NewsSpiegel: OSCE observers fault Georgians in conflictBy DPAAug 30, 2008, 9:52 GMT
Hamburg - European observers have faulted Georgia in this month's Caucasus conflict, saying it made elaborate plans to seize South Ossetia, according to the German news magazine Der Spiegel on Saturday.
In a report to appear in its Monday edition, it said officials of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) had said acts by the Georgian government had contributed to the outbreak of the crisis with Russia.
Spiegel said OSCE military observers in the Caucasus had described preparations by Georgia to move into South Ossetia.
The onslaught had begun before Russian armoured vehicles entered a southbound tunnel under the Caucasus Mountains to South Ossetia.
It said the OSCE report also described suspected war crimes by the Georgians, including the Georgians ordering attacks on sleeping South Ossetian civilians.
© Copyright 2007 by monstersandcritics.com. This notice cannot be removed without permission.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Musharraf eyes comfy retirement home.
This is from wiredispatch.
Musharraf managed to negotiate a golden parachute with the help of the U.S. and the political parties that took over from him. It seems that he wants to stay in Pakistan. While his retirement home is not palatial it is certainly a cut above the average domicile in Pakistan! While security sounds not too tight the whole area is upscale so perhaps there is security around the whole area.
Musharraf eyes comfy retirement home
Musharraf eyes comfy, but high-security retirement as Pakistan political storm moves on
STEPHEN GRAHAMAP News
Aug 29, 2008 13:20 EST
Predictions that Pervez Musharraf will have to flee Pakistan to escape treason charges have died along with the coalition that drove him from the presidency.
The ex-general can now eye comfortable — though high-security — retirement in the luxury villa, complete with a swimming pool and strawberry patch, that he is building in an elite suburb of the capital.
Since resigning Aug. 18 to avoid impeachment, the former military ruler has stayed below the radar as the country he ran for nine years plunged into fresh political turmoil.
Nawaz Sharif, whose government Musharraf toppled in a 1999 coup, has been baying for revenge in the form of a trial for sedition — a crime punishable with death.
But he pulled his party out of the government this week as the widower of slain former leader Benazir Bhutto made a grab for Musharraf's succession.
Asif Ali Zardari, who has seized control of his late wife's party and expects lawmakers to elect him head of state on Sept. 6, has said he doesn't object to Musharraf putting his feet up in Pakistan.
And many believe Musharraf stepped down only after Zardari promised to leave him in peace — partly to please foreign backers such as the United States and Saudi Arabia.
"There is hardly any chance that Musharraf will ever be tried in Pakistan," said Nazir Naji, a commentator on Pakistan's top-selling Jang newspaper. "I believe Musharraf got all the guarantees he wanted."
Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani told reporters Friday that Zardari — who is widely expected to win a Sept. 6 presidential election by lawmakers — was staying at a hilltop mansion in Islamabad's government quarters "for security reasons."
He did not elaborate, but an intelligence official said there had been reports that the presidential hopeful could be the target of an attack and that he had switched locations after Musharraf's Aug. 18 resignation.
Musharraf, a gregarious 65-year-old who counted President Bush as a personal friend, has received a stream of guests at Army House in Rawalpindi, south of the capital, where he continues to live even though he stepped down as army chief nine months ago.
He has taken to the tennis court and the golf course to unwind after a tumultuous nine-year reign in which he took Pakistan into America's war on terror, warded of economic calamity and dealt with the aftermath of the devastating 2005 earthquake.
"He's laughed off the reports that he is about to leave the country," said Tariq Azim, a leader of the main pro-Musharraf party defeated in February elections.
"He said 'I'm not going anywhere, I'm staying in Pakistan. My house is being built and it will take another three or four months'" to complete, Azim said.
As well as a bogeyman for his feuding political enemies, Musharraf remains a prime target for Islamic extremists who hate him for allying the Muslim world's only nuclear power with the West.
He has escaped several assassination attempts and officials say the army will continue to guard its former commander closely.
But a visit to 1-A Park Road in Islamabad's Chak Shahzad district on Friday suggested that Musharraf and his wife Sehba are unwilling to live in a bunker, however well-appointed.
Behind a hedge, the spacious villa on a five-acre plot is protected only by a wall of less than six feet in places. Coils of shiny barbed wire run along the top of the barrier to thwart would-be intruders.
But for now at least, traffic can move freely on the roads along two sides and there was nothing to stop someone pressing through the bushes to get a clear view of the house.
Hammad Husain, the architect and a family friend, said the low-key security was all Musharraf's idea.
"Many people said the wall should be very high considering the security threats," Husain said. "But somehow, Mr. Musharraf has such a relaxed and cool personality that he said 'I don't want it to look like a huge, fortified castle.'"
Husain, whose father served with Musharraf in Pakistan's special forces, said the house might be finished in as little as four weeks. However, only a handful of laborers could be seen resting in the shade of the house on Friday, which has yet to be glazed or plastered.
Piles of bricks sat near the front door and a pair of idle cement mixers stood on the lawn.
By the standards of Pakistan's narrow elite, who think little of running a fleet of Land Cruisers in a country blighted by poverty, the house is quite modest.
Husain said it was one of few in the neighborhood — rough farmland on the southern edge of the city that has been parceled up for palatial residences — that abided by local planning laws that limit the house to 10,000 square feet.
The design is supposedly informed by Moroccan, Turkish and even Japanese influences — a medley partly inspired by Musharraf's travels. The facade is to be painted terra-cotta pink to strengthen the Mediterranean flavor.
Outside, the barrel-chested former commando will have a swimming pool designed for laps and a paved walking track which snakes past a moat-bound island and an orchard of lemon, peach and apple trees as well as the strawberries.
"He's into greenery," said Husain. While not a gardener himself, Musharraf likes "being with nature."
Musharraf bought the plot about five years ago from a banker who snapped up a chunk of what has become some of the country's hottest property.
Real estate dealers say the value of the land has risen sharply and that his new home will be worth as much as $2 million.
But Husain insisted Musharraf was not like previous Pakistani rulers — including some of those now back in the political saddle — who allegedly enriched themselves in power.
He said Musharraf had taken a keen interest in the design, insisted that none of the rooms be bigger than necessary and vetoed the use of expensive elements, such as imported Italian or Spanish tiles.
"Mr. Musharraf said he couldn't afford it, so we settled for medium-range tiles," said Husain. "It's definitely not a palace."
___
Musharraf managed to negotiate a golden parachute with the help of the U.S. and the political parties that took over from him. It seems that he wants to stay in Pakistan. While his retirement home is not palatial it is certainly a cut above the average domicile in Pakistan! While security sounds not too tight the whole area is upscale so perhaps there is security around the whole area.
Musharraf eyes comfy retirement home
Musharraf eyes comfy, but high-security retirement as Pakistan political storm moves on
STEPHEN GRAHAMAP News
Aug 29, 2008 13:20 EST
Predictions that Pervez Musharraf will have to flee Pakistan to escape treason charges have died along with the coalition that drove him from the presidency.
The ex-general can now eye comfortable — though high-security — retirement in the luxury villa, complete with a swimming pool and strawberry patch, that he is building in an elite suburb of the capital.
Since resigning Aug. 18 to avoid impeachment, the former military ruler has stayed below the radar as the country he ran for nine years plunged into fresh political turmoil.
Nawaz Sharif, whose government Musharraf toppled in a 1999 coup, has been baying for revenge in the form of a trial for sedition — a crime punishable with death.
But he pulled his party out of the government this week as the widower of slain former leader Benazir Bhutto made a grab for Musharraf's succession.
Asif Ali Zardari, who has seized control of his late wife's party and expects lawmakers to elect him head of state on Sept. 6, has said he doesn't object to Musharraf putting his feet up in Pakistan.
And many believe Musharraf stepped down only after Zardari promised to leave him in peace — partly to please foreign backers such as the United States and Saudi Arabia.
"There is hardly any chance that Musharraf will ever be tried in Pakistan," said Nazir Naji, a commentator on Pakistan's top-selling Jang newspaper. "I believe Musharraf got all the guarantees he wanted."
Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani told reporters Friday that Zardari — who is widely expected to win a Sept. 6 presidential election by lawmakers — was staying at a hilltop mansion in Islamabad's government quarters "for security reasons."
He did not elaborate, but an intelligence official said there had been reports that the presidential hopeful could be the target of an attack and that he had switched locations after Musharraf's Aug. 18 resignation.
Musharraf, a gregarious 65-year-old who counted President Bush as a personal friend, has received a stream of guests at Army House in Rawalpindi, south of the capital, where he continues to live even though he stepped down as army chief nine months ago.
He has taken to the tennis court and the golf course to unwind after a tumultuous nine-year reign in which he took Pakistan into America's war on terror, warded of economic calamity and dealt with the aftermath of the devastating 2005 earthquake.
"He's laughed off the reports that he is about to leave the country," said Tariq Azim, a leader of the main pro-Musharraf party defeated in February elections.
"He said 'I'm not going anywhere, I'm staying in Pakistan. My house is being built and it will take another three or four months'" to complete, Azim said.
As well as a bogeyman for his feuding political enemies, Musharraf remains a prime target for Islamic extremists who hate him for allying the Muslim world's only nuclear power with the West.
He has escaped several assassination attempts and officials say the army will continue to guard its former commander closely.
But a visit to 1-A Park Road in Islamabad's Chak Shahzad district on Friday suggested that Musharraf and his wife Sehba are unwilling to live in a bunker, however well-appointed.
Behind a hedge, the spacious villa on a five-acre plot is protected only by a wall of less than six feet in places. Coils of shiny barbed wire run along the top of the barrier to thwart would-be intruders.
But for now at least, traffic can move freely on the roads along two sides and there was nothing to stop someone pressing through the bushes to get a clear view of the house.
Hammad Husain, the architect and a family friend, said the low-key security was all Musharraf's idea.
"Many people said the wall should be very high considering the security threats," Husain said. "But somehow, Mr. Musharraf has such a relaxed and cool personality that he said 'I don't want it to look like a huge, fortified castle.'"
Husain, whose father served with Musharraf in Pakistan's special forces, said the house might be finished in as little as four weeks. However, only a handful of laborers could be seen resting in the shade of the house on Friday, which has yet to be glazed or plastered.
Piles of bricks sat near the front door and a pair of idle cement mixers stood on the lawn.
By the standards of Pakistan's narrow elite, who think little of running a fleet of Land Cruisers in a country blighted by poverty, the house is quite modest.
Husain said it was one of few in the neighborhood — rough farmland on the southern edge of the city that has been parceled up for palatial residences — that abided by local planning laws that limit the house to 10,000 square feet.
The design is supposedly informed by Moroccan, Turkish and even Japanese influences — a medley partly inspired by Musharraf's travels. The facade is to be painted terra-cotta pink to strengthen the Mediterranean flavor.
Outside, the barrel-chested former commando will have a swimming pool designed for laps and a paved walking track which snakes past a moat-bound island and an orchard of lemon, peach and apple trees as well as the strawberries.
"He's into greenery," said Husain. While not a gardener himself, Musharraf likes "being with nature."
Musharraf bought the plot about five years ago from a banker who snapped up a chunk of what has become some of the country's hottest property.
Real estate dealers say the value of the land has risen sharply and that his new home will be worth as much as $2 million.
But Husain insisted Musharraf was not like previous Pakistani rulers — including some of those now back in the political saddle — who allegedly enriched themselves in power.
He said Musharraf had taken a keen interest in the design, insisted that none of the rooms be bigger than necessary and vetoed the use of expensive elements, such as imported Italian or Spanish tiles.
"Mr. Musharraf said he couldn't afford it, so we settled for medium-range tiles," said Husain. "It's definitely not a palace."
___
Some Marines in Georgia during Russian assault.
This is from the Marinecorpstimes.
No mention of the presence of the marines in reports at the time of the Russian assault. The Russians are probably just making up stories about sending the Humvees they nabbed to Moscow to be examined. Heck. If Russia makes a half decent offer to GM for the Humvee division they could probably buy the whole kit and kaboodle at bargain prices! Russia can afford the gas more than the U.S. too. Maybe the Russians intend to present the Humvees as military aid to the South Ossetian armed forces! Of course it may just be the civilian division of Humvee that GM wants to get rid of. Probably GM makes a bundle on the military side.
Corps wants its Humvees back
By Dan Lamothe - Staff writerPosted : Friday Aug 29, 2008 17:36:04 EDT
U.S. officials continue to negotiate the release of five Marine Humvees seized by Russian forces in the Georgian port of Poti during their August assault on the U.S. ally.
The Humvees were taken Aug. 19, said Navy Lt. Cmdr. Corey Barker, a spokesman for U.S. European Command, and they contained no advanced tracking technology or cryptology hardware — a contrast with Russian news reports, which said the vehicles contained sophisticated communications gear and had been sent to Moscow for examination.
The Humvees were in Georgia as part of Operation Immediate Response, a multinational training exercise involving Marine and Army units, Barker said. They were awaiting commercial transport back to the U.S. when they were seized.
The team of Marines in Georgia — primarily assigned to Brooklyn, N.Y.-based 6th Communications Battalion and a Lexington, Ky.-based detachment with 4th Marine Logistics Group’s Military Police Company — were sent to a hotel in the capital, Tbilisi, when the Russian assault began.
No mention of the presence of the marines in reports at the time of the Russian assault. The Russians are probably just making up stories about sending the Humvees they nabbed to Moscow to be examined. Heck. If Russia makes a half decent offer to GM for the Humvee division they could probably buy the whole kit and kaboodle at bargain prices! Russia can afford the gas more than the U.S. too. Maybe the Russians intend to present the Humvees as military aid to the South Ossetian armed forces! Of course it may just be the civilian division of Humvee that GM wants to get rid of. Probably GM makes a bundle on the military side.
Corps wants its Humvees back
By Dan Lamothe - Staff writerPosted : Friday Aug 29, 2008 17:36:04 EDT
U.S. officials continue to negotiate the release of five Marine Humvees seized by Russian forces in the Georgian port of Poti during their August assault on the U.S. ally.
The Humvees were taken Aug. 19, said Navy Lt. Cmdr. Corey Barker, a spokesman for U.S. European Command, and they contained no advanced tracking technology or cryptology hardware — a contrast with Russian news reports, which said the vehicles contained sophisticated communications gear and had been sent to Moscow for examination.
The Humvees were in Georgia as part of Operation Immediate Response, a multinational training exercise involving Marine and Army units, Barker said. They were awaiting commercial transport back to the U.S. when they were seized.
The team of Marines in Georgia — primarily assigned to Brooklyn, N.Y.-based 6th Communications Battalion and a Lexington, Ky.-based detachment with 4th Marine Logistics Group’s Military Police Company — were sent to a hotel in the capital, Tbilisi, when the Russian assault began.
Friday, August 29, 2008
Malaysia Extends Philippine Peacekeeping Mission.
This welcome news for the Philippine government. Anything that may help the peace process is a plus. It seemed earlier as if Malaysia had given up on the peace process and was going to withdraw its peacekeepers. The ceasefire is monitored by personnel from as far away as Libya, as well as Japan and Brunei.
Malaysia Extends Philippine Peacekeeping Mission
By Nancy-Amelia Collins Jakarta28 August 2008
Malaysia agreed to extend a mandate to keep its peacekeepers in the volatile southern Philippines, where they will continue to monitor a shaky cease-fire between the Philippine government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front. Nancy-Amelia Collins in Jakarta has more.Malaysia agreed Thursday to keep its peace monitors in the war-torn southern Philippine island, Mindanao, for another three months, following appeals from the Philippine government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front.The announcement came after officials from the Philippine government and the MILF met in the Malaysian capital, Kuala Lumpur, for the first time since fighting broke out, earlier this month.MILF spokesman Eid Kabala told VOA the group welcomes the extension. "Anything that would improve the effort toward peace, contribute toward peace, will be a welcome development. It will help a lot in our effort to pursue the peaceful resolution of the Mindanao problem," he said. More than 40 people have died and more than 360,000 have been displaced after several renegade MILF commanders attacked several villages in the southern Philippine island, Mindanao.The attacks followed the Philippine Supreme Court's decision to issue a temporary restraining order against the signing of a crucial territorial agreement that would have given the MILF an expanded Muslim autonomous region.Thursday, the government announced aid had been stepped up to feed and shelter the hundreds of thousands left homeless by the fighting.The United Nations World Food Program says it is beefing up its food assistance with nearly 1,000 tons of rice and is trying to get food to places quickly and where it is most needed.The MILF and the government have been negotiating, on and off, since 1997 on ways to give Muslims more self rule in the south.Following the recent fighting - the worse seen in Mindanao in years - the government said it would need to review the peace agreement.But Eid Kabala says there is still hope for the two sides to return to the negotiating table. "We are still confident. And, right now the peace talks have yet to be broken down - not yet," he said.The peace talks between the government and the MILF have been brokered by Malaysia, which heads the cease-fire monitors, which include both military and nonmilitary personnel from Japan, Libya and Brunei.The Philippines is a predominately Roman Catholic. About five percent of the people are Muslim, most of them living in the south.
Malaysia Extends Philippine Peacekeeping Mission
By Nancy-Amelia Collins Jakarta28 August 2008
Malaysia agreed to extend a mandate to keep its peacekeepers in the volatile southern Philippines, where they will continue to monitor a shaky cease-fire between the Philippine government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front. Nancy-Amelia Collins in Jakarta has more.Malaysia agreed Thursday to keep its peace monitors in the war-torn southern Philippine island, Mindanao, for another three months, following appeals from the Philippine government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front.The announcement came after officials from the Philippine government and the MILF met in the Malaysian capital, Kuala Lumpur, for the first time since fighting broke out, earlier this month.MILF spokesman Eid Kabala told VOA the group welcomes the extension. "Anything that would improve the effort toward peace, contribute toward peace, will be a welcome development. It will help a lot in our effort to pursue the peaceful resolution of the Mindanao problem," he said. More than 40 people have died and more than 360,000 have been displaced after several renegade MILF commanders attacked several villages in the southern Philippine island, Mindanao.The attacks followed the Philippine Supreme Court's decision to issue a temporary restraining order against the signing of a crucial territorial agreement that would have given the MILF an expanded Muslim autonomous region.Thursday, the government announced aid had been stepped up to feed and shelter the hundreds of thousands left homeless by the fighting.The United Nations World Food Program says it is beefing up its food assistance with nearly 1,000 tons of rice and is trying to get food to places quickly and where it is most needed.The MILF and the government have been negotiating, on and off, since 1997 on ways to give Muslims more self rule in the south.Following the recent fighting - the worse seen in Mindanao in years - the government said it would need to review the peace agreement.But Eid Kabala says there is still hope for the two sides to return to the negotiating table. "We are still confident. And, right now the peace talks have yet to be broken down - not yet," he said.The peace talks between the government and the MILF have been brokered by Malaysia, which heads the cease-fire monitors, which include both military and nonmilitary personnel from Japan, Libya and Brunei.The Philippines is a predominately Roman Catholic. About five percent of the people are Muslim, most of them living in the south.
Philippines health dept. endorses condoms despite opposition from the RC Church.
I noticed that there were no tv ads for condoms in the Philippines or any other type either. If condoms are promoted probably the Health Department will have to pay for any advertisements. Perhaps manufacturers do not wish to alienate the Church by advertising condoms or maybe I just never noticed any advertisements. As I recall condoms are not displayed at drug stores either unless things have changed since I was there a couple of years ago.
Philippines endorses condoms despite church
21 hours ago
MANILA (AFP) — The Philippine Health Department will promote the use of condoms to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS despite disapproval from the influential Roman Catholic church, an official said Thursday.
"The use of condoms to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS is different from their use for birth control," Health Undersecretary Mario Villaverde told a media briefing.
"The church's position is detrimental to public health," he said.
Besides the use of condoms, which have 95 percent effectiveness in preventing HIV/AIDS, the government will also encourage education on the topic and promote measures to guard against the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, the official said.
Villaverde did not say how condoms would be promoted in a country where all forms of artificial contraception are strongly opposed by the church.
Although rates of HIV/AIDS remain low in the Philippines, the level has recently gone up with an average of 29 cases detected each month in 2007 and 2008, compared with 20 cases a month in previous years.
Philippines endorses condoms despite church
21 hours ago
MANILA (AFP) — The Philippine Health Department will promote the use of condoms to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS despite disapproval from the influential Roman Catholic church, an official said Thursday.
"The use of condoms to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS is different from their use for birth control," Health Undersecretary Mario Villaverde told a media briefing.
"The church's position is detrimental to public health," he said.
Besides the use of condoms, which have 95 percent effectiveness in preventing HIV/AIDS, the government will also encourage education on the topic and promote measures to guard against the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, the official said.
Villaverde did not say how condoms would be promoted in a country where all forms of artificial contraception are strongly opposed by the church.
Although rates of HIV/AIDS remain low in the Philippines, the level has recently gone up with an average of 29 cases detected each month in 2007 and 2008, compared with 20 cases a month in previous years.
"Red-lining"in Cuba and Georgia: Hornberger
This sums up the transparent hypocrisy of the U.S. While it is quite inappropriate and a red-line for Russia to have a missile defence system in Cuba it is OK for the U.S. to have one in Poland. It is OK for the U.S. to recognise Kosovo against Russian objections and in violation of the territorial integrity of Serbia. However, it is not OK for Russia to recognise South Ossetia and Abkazia in violation of the territorial integrity of Georgia. Personally I would support independence in all three cases since I don't think any of the areas can successfully stay within the borders of Serbia in the one case or Georgia in the others but to support territorial integrity in the one case but not the other is inconsistent. Of course Russia is being inconsistent as well but then we expect that of Evil Empire II but not the Leader of the Free World!
"Red-Lining" in Cuba and Georgiaby Jacob G. Hornberger
In my August 19 blog, I pointed out how President Bush knowingly and intentionally ignored Russian President Putin’s warning that pushing to admit Georgia into NATO would cross Russian “red lines.”
At the urging of the U.S. government, NATO, whose original mission was to defend against a Soviet attack, has already admitted many Soviet-bloc countries as members. U.S. officials have also been pushing for the installation of missile batteries in former Eastern-bloc countries.
The U.S. position, and that of U.S. neo-conservatives, is that the Russians have nothing to be concerned about. The United States is a peaceful, law-abiding country, the argument goes, whose foreign policy is not based on pressure, aggression, and regime change. The Russians are simply suffering a case of paranoia over the NATO encirclement of Russia and the installation of U.S. missile batteries along Russian borders.
Previously, in my August 13 blog, I posited a hypothetical situation in which Russia entered into an agreement with Cuba to install missiles in that country. I suggested that U.S. officials and American neo-cons would go ballistic over such action.
Well, guess what happened! Last Friday, Reuters reported that Russia and Cuba are talking about an alliance in which Russian missiles are installed in Cuba.
And what do you suppose a U.S. Air Force general said in response to such an idea? According to Reuters, the general said that such action would cross a “red line”—yes, the same term that Putin used to express to President Bush Russia’s objection to Georgia’s proposed admission into NATO.
So, the military alliances between the U.S. and former Soviet-bloc countries and the proposed installation of U.S. missiles in such countries is as repugnant to the Russians as military alliances between Russia and Cuba and the installation of Russian missiles in Cuba is to U.S. officials.
How come American neo-cons have a blind spot in understanding this? Indeed, why did Bush persist in crossing one of Russia’s “red lines” when he had to know that Russia’s reaction would be no different from that of the United States if the situation was reversed? What purpose did Bush’s actions serve, other than to produce a new crisis for the United States? Have Bush’s actions made America safer?
Regardless of Bush’s motives, two things are certain: First, thanks to his actions, neo-cons and the Pentagon have a new crisis to exclaim about—the return of the Soviet “communist threat.” Second, thanks to the new crisis the Pentagon and the military-industrial complex now have reason to call for new massive increases in “defense” spending on conventional weaponry to protect against the “communist threat,” on top of all the “defense” weaponry necessary to protect against the “terrorist threat.”
Just another day in the life of the U.S. Empire and its policy of producing perpetual crises in the pursuit of perpetual peace.
Mr. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation.
Hornberger’s Blog Archives
Jacob Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. Send him email.Sheldon Richman is senior fellow at The Future of Freedom Foundation, author of
"Red-Lining" in Cuba and Georgiaby Jacob G. Hornberger
In my August 19 blog, I pointed out how President Bush knowingly and intentionally ignored Russian President Putin’s warning that pushing to admit Georgia into NATO would cross Russian “red lines.”
At the urging of the U.S. government, NATO, whose original mission was to defend against a Soviet attack, has already admitted many Soviet-bloc countries as members. U.S. officials have also been pushing for the installation of missile batteries in former Eastern-bloc countries.
The U.S. position, and that of U.S. neo-conservatives, is that the Russians have nothing to be concerned about. The United States is a peaceful, law-abiding country, the argument goes, whose foreign policy is not based on pressure, aggression, and regime change. The Russians are simply suffering a case of paranoia over the NATO encirclement of Russia and the installation of U.S. missile batteries along Russian borders.
Previously, in my August 13 blog, I posited a hypothetical situation in which Russia entered into an agreement with Cuba to install missiles in that country. I suggested that U.S. officials and American neo-cons would go ballistic over such action.
Well, guess what happened! Last Friday, Reuters reported that Russia and Cuba are talking about an alliance in which Russian missiles are installed in Cuba.
And what do you suppose a U.S. Air Force general said in response to such an idea? According to Reuters, the general said that such action would cross a “red line”—yes, the same term that Putin used to express to President Bush Russia’s objection to Georgia’s proposed admission into NATO.
So, the military alliances between the U.S. and former Soviet-bloc countries and the proposed installation of U.S. missiles in such countries is as repugnant to the Russians as military alliances between Russia and Cuba and the installation of Russian missiles in Cuba is to U.S. officials.
How come American neo-cons have a blind spot in understanding this? Indeed, why did Bush persist in crossing one of Russia’s “red lines” when he had to know that Russia’s reaction would be no different from that of the United States if the situation was reversed? What purpose did Bush’s actions serve, other than to produce a new crisis for the United States? Have Bush’s actions made America safer?
Regardless of Bush’s motives, two things are certain: First, thanks to his actions, neo-cons and the Pentagon have a new crisis to exclaim about—the return of the Soviet “communist threat.” Second, thanks to the new crisis the Pentagon and the military-industrial complex now have reason to call for new massive increases in “defense” spending on conventional weaponry to protect against the “communist threat,” on top of all the “defense” weaponry necessary to protect against the “terrorist threat.”
Just another day in the life of the U.S. Empire and its policy of producing perpetual crises in the pursuit of perpetual peace.
Mr. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation.
Hornberger’s Blog Archives
Jacob Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. Send him email.Sheldon Richman is senior fellow at The Future of Freedom Foundation, author of
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Name change for the Philippines?
This is from globalnation.
I doubt that most people Filipinos included associate the Philippines with the sins of the Spanish despot. The idea of the Manila councilor seems sensible enough to me. But perhaps Rizal Islands would be more nationalistic. This article claims that Mongolia is now called Ulan Bator. That is news to me. Last I heard Ulan Bat0r was still just the capital.
GLOBAL NETWORKINGName Change for the Philippines
By Rodel RodisINQUIRER.netFirst Posted 11:35am (Mla time) 08/26/2008
When I visited Manila in January of 2006, a city councilor I knew excitedly informed me that his council had just voted to change the name of the Philippines. What? The country would no longer be named after a ruthless Spanish despot? We would finally be rid of this last vestige of colonialism? Hallelujah!
Breathlessly, I asked my friend, Councilor Cassie Sison, to pray tell me what name the good City Council of Manila had proposed.
“The Philippine Islands,” he replied.
After I recovered from my disappointment and picked up my jaw from the floor, I heard Cassie explain that Manila Mayor Lito Atienza believed that the country would draw more tourists if a more exotic name could replace the staid “Republic of the Philippines.” The proposed name, Cassie said, would conjure dreamy images of palm trees, cool breezes and sandy beaches.
While the country's name change would be at or near the bottom of the nation’s immediate priorities, it should not be ignored because no other country in the world is named after a mass murderer.If Ceylon could be changed to Sri Lanka, Mongolia to Ulan Bator, Siam to Thailand, Leningrad to St. Petersburg, Peking to Beijing, why can't the Philippines change its name?
When Ferdinand Magellan “discovered” the islands on March 16, 1521, he named it the Archipelago de San Lazaro. We would have been called “Lazaroans” if Magellan had survived the Battle of Mactan against LapuLapu on April 27, 1521.
Three unsuccessful Spanish expeditions followed Magellan but all failed to reach “San Lazaro.” The fourth expedition, led by Capt. Ruy Lopez de Villalobos, reached Sarangani Island off the eastern coast of Mindanao on February 2, 1543. He renamed the islands “Felipinas” after the crown prince of Spain, Felipe II, son of the Spanish King Carlos V.
Villalobos left “Las Islas Felipinas” after eight months and sailed to the Moluccas where he died. It would not be until 1572 when Felipinas islands would become a colony of the Spanish empire.
By then, the crown prince had become King Felipe II and he was to rule Spain from 1556 to 1598. Starting in 1581, he would also rule the Netherlands and Portugal as well as the kingdoms of Milan, Naples and Sicily. In his time, Felipe II was the most powerful monarch in the world and it was said that the sun did not set on his empire.
When he became master of the Netherlands, Felipe II reenacted the Edict of 1550 which prohibited the printing, copying, keeping, buying or giving of any book written by Luther, Calvin or other “heretics” condemned by the Holy Church as well as the breaking or damaging of any image of the Holy Virgin or any Vatican-canonized saints. The penalty for Edict-breakers would be death by the sword for men and burning at the stake for women. Informers against suspects were to be entitled on conviction to half the property of the accused.Before burning his opponents at the stake, this Catholic King insisted on going through an “Auto da Fe,” a religious ceremony which accompanied the sentencing of heretics by the Inquisition. Among the victims of Felipe’s inquisition were more than 10,000 Lutherans and more than 80,000 Andalucian Moriscos, Spanish Moors who had converted to Catholicism but who had violated Felipe’s edict prohibiting the speaking of the Arabic language or retaining of any of their ethnic culture.
While he was still crown prince, Felipe II married his first cousin, Princess Maria of Portugal, who gave him a son, Don Carlos of Spain (1545-1568). Following Maria's death in 1546, he married Catholic Queen Mary I of England in 1554 to cement an alliance with England.After Queen Mary died in 1558, Felipe wanted to marry her successor, the Protestant Queen Elizabeth I but the plan failed. He blamed his son, Don Carlos, for the failure of the planned marriage and threw him in prison where he later died.
Felipe then married his son’s fiancée, Princess Elisabeth of Valois, daughter of Henri II of France. Elisabeth provided him with two daughters, but no son. So Felipe married Anne, daughter of the Emperor Maximilian II, who provided him with an heir, Felipe III.
While he was engaged in wars with the Dutch, Felipe II put together the largest Spanish fleet (Armada) ever assembled, more than 100 ships with more than 30,000 men, to invade England in 1588. The pretext was Queen Elizabeth’s execution of Mary, the Catholic Queen of Scots. But English guile and the “Protestant Wind” thwarted Felipe’s ambitions, and destroyed the Spanish fleet.
When Felipe died in 1598, Spain was bankrupt and in decline as a European power.
What then does it mean to be named after Felipe, to be called Felipinos (later changed to Filipinos) – to be "like Felipe," intolerant of other people and other religions?
Changing the name would also end all the confusion about the spelling of the country (Phillipines) or the people (Philippinos).
When Andres Bonifacio formed the Katipunan revolutionary organization against Spain in 1896, he refused to use the term “Filipinas,” preferring Tagalog or “Katagalugan” to refer to the country.
Others objected on the grounds that Pilipinas sounded too much like “Alipinas” (land of slaves). Some have proposed “Kapatiran” (brotherhood) or “Katipunan”. Others have suggested “Luzviminda” referring to the country’s three major island groups.
In the late 1970s, the Dictator Ferdinand Marcos (who should have been named after Felipe the despot) seriously attempted to change the name of the country to “Maharlika,” the “warrior-noble” in pre-colonial Felipinas who, like the Samurai class of Japan, rendered military service to his feudal lord. But his proposal went nowhere.
If countries like Bolivia could be named after their liberators, why can’t the Pilipinas be named after Rizal? We would all be Rizalians.
My personal preference would be to call the country “Bayanihan” and we would all be “bayanis” (heroes) bound together in the "Bayanihan" spirit of working for the common good.
(Please send your comments to Rodel50@aol.com or log on to rodel50.blogspot.com or write to Law Offices of Rodel Rodis at 2429 Ocean Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94127, or call (415) 334-7800.)
Copyright 2008 INQUIRER.net. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
I doubt that most people Filipinos included associate the Philippines with the sins of the Spanish despot. The idea of the Manila councilor seems sensible enough to me. But perhaps Rizal Islands would be more nationalistic. This article claims that Mongolia is now called Ulan Bator. That is news to me. Last I heard Ulan Bat0r was still just the capital.
GLOBAL NETWORKINGName Change for the Philippines
By Rodel RodisINQUIRER.netFirst Posted 11:35am (Mla time) 08/26/2008
When I visited Manila in January of 2006, a city councilor I knew excitedly informed me that his council had just voted to change the name of the Philippines. What? The country would no longer be named after a ruthless Spanish despot? We would finally be rid of this last vestige of colonialism? Hallelujah!
Breathlessly, I asked my friend, Councilor Cassie Sison, to pray tell me what name the good City Council of Manila had proposed.
“The Philippine Islands,” he replied.
After I recovered from my disappointment and picked up my jaw from the floor, I heard Cassie explain that Manila Mayor Lito Atienza believed that the country would draw more tourists if a more exotic name could replace the staid “Republic of the Philippines.” The proposed name, Cassie said, would conjure dreamy images of palm trees, cool breezes and sandy beaches.
While the country's name change would be at or near the bottom of the nation’s immediate priorities, it should not be ignored because no other country in the world is named after a mass murderer.If Ceylon could be changed to Sri Lanka, Mongolia to Ulan Bator, Siam to Thailand, Leningrad to St. Petersburg, Peking to Beijing, why can't the Philippines change its name?
When Ferdinand Magellan “discovered” the islands on March 16, 1521, he named it the Archipelago de San Lazaro. We would have been called “Lazaroans” if Magellan had survived the Battle of Mactan against LapuLapu on April 27, 1521.
Three unsuccessful Spanish expeditions followed Magellan but all failed to reach “San Lazaro.” The fourth expedition, led by Capt. Ruy Lopez de Villalobos, reached Sarangani Island off the eastern coast of Mindanao on February 2, 1543. He renamed the islands “Felipinas” after the crown prince of Spain, Felipe II, son of the Spanish King Carlos V.
Villalobos left “Las Islas Felipinas” after eight months and sailed to the Moluccas where he died. It would not be until 1572 when Felipinas islands would become a colony of the Spanish empire.
By then, the crown prince had become King Felipe II and he was to rule Spain from 1556 to 1598. Starting in 1581, he would also rule the Netherlands and Portugal as well as the kingdoms of Milan, Naples and Sicily. In his time, Felipe II was the most powerful monarch in the world and it was said that the sun did not set on his empire.
When he became master of the Netherlands, Felipe II reenacted the Edict of 1550 which prohibited the printing, copying, keeping, buying or giving of any book written by Luther, Calvin or other “heretics” condemned by the Holy Church as well as the breaking or damaging of any image of the Holy Virgin or any Vatican-canonized saints. The penalty for Edict-breakers would be death by the sword for men and burning at the stake for women. Informers against suspects were to be entitled on conviction to half the property of the accused.Before burning his opponents at the stake, this Catholic King insisted on going through an “Auto da Fe,” a religious ceremony which accompanied the sentencing of heretics by the Inquisition. Among the victims of Felipe’s inquisition were more than 10,000 Lutherans and more than 80,000 Andalucian Moriscos, Spanish Moors who had converted to Catholicism but who had violated Felipe’s edict prohibiting the speaking of the Arabic language or retaining of any of their ethnic culture.
While he was still crown prince, Felipe II married his first cousin, Princess Maria of Portugal, who gave him a son, Don Carlos of Spain (1545-1568). Following Maria's death in 1546, he married Catholic Queen Mary I of England in 1554 to cement an alliance with England.After Queen Mary died in 1558, Felipe wanted to marry her successor, the Protestant Queen Elizabeth I but the plan failed. He blamed his son, Don Carlos, for the failure of the planned marriage and threw him in prison where he later died.
Felipe then married his son’s fiancée, Princess Elisabeth of Valois, daughter of Henri II of France. Elisabeth provided him with two daughters, but no son. So Felipe married Anne, daughter of the Emperor Maximilian II, who provided him with an heir, Felipe III.
While he was engaged in wars with the Dutch, Felipe II put together the largest Spanish fleet (Armada) ever assembled, more than 100 ships with more than 30,000 men, to invade England in 1588. The pretext was Queen Elizabeth’s execution of Mary, the Catholic Queen of Scots. But English guile and the “Protestant Wind” thwarted Felipe’s ambitions, and destroyed the Spanish fleet.
When Felipe died in 1598, Spain was bankrupt and in decline as a European power.
What then does it mean to be named after Felipe, to be called Felipinos (later changed to Filipinos) – to be "like Felipe," intolerant of other people and other religions?
Changing the name would also end all the confusion about the spelling of the country (Phillipines) or the people (Philippinos).
When Andres Bonifacio formed the Katipunan revolutionary organization against Spain in 1896, he refused to use the term “Filipinas,” preferring Tagalog or “Katagalugan” to refer to the country.
Others objected on the grounds that Pilipinas sounded too much like “Alipinas” (land of slaves). Some have proposed “Kapatiran” (brotherhood) or “Katipunan”. Others have suggested “Luzviminda” referring to the country’s three major island groups.
In the late 1970s, the Dictator Ferdinand Marcos (who should have been named after Felipe the despot) seriously attempted to change the name of the country to “Maharlika,” the “warrior-noble” in pre-colonial Felipinas who, like the Samurai class of Japan, rendered military service to his feudal lord. But his proposal went nowhere.
If countries like Bolivia could be named after their liberators, why can’t the Pilipinas be named after Rizal? We would all be Rizalians.
My personal preference would be to call the country “Bayanihan” and we would all be “bayanis” (heroes) bound together in the "Bayanihan" spirit of working for the common good.
(Please send your comments to Rodel50@aol.com or log on to rodel50.blogspot.com or write to Law Offices of Rodel Rodis at 2429 Ocean Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94127, or call (415) 334-7800.)
Copyright 2008 INQUIRER.net. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
U.S. vows enclaves will never be independent.
This is from this site.
This is rather a contrast to the U.S. reaction when Kosovo declared independence. At that time Russia specifically warned the U.S. that recognising Kosovo in spite of Russia's objections would have repurcussions with respect to Abkazia and South Ossetia. Now the U.S. knows what those repercussions are. Of course unlike the U.S. Russia may not be able to get most other nations to recognise the two entities but some probably will. In any event with the degree to which Abkazians and South Ossetians are now alienated from Georgia it seems quite unrealistic to think that they can peacefully integrate back into Georgia but Russia will not allow this to happen by force. Russia will simply ignore U.S. objections to its actions in the same way that the U.S. ignored Russia with respect to Serbia.
US Vows Enclaves Will Never Be Independent as Russian President Recognizes Abkhazia, South Ossetia
Posted August 26, 2008
Last Updated 8/26 8:40 PM EST
Earlier this month when presumptive Republican Presidential Nominee John McCain declared “we are all Georgians,” it is unclear if he was referring to the people of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Yet today the Bush Administration made it clear that this was to be America’s official position on the matter, whether the residents of those regions want to be or not.
Today, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev issued a decree recognizing the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia and ordered the foreign ministry to open talks on establishing diplomatic ties. The move comes just one day after both houses of Russia’s parliament unanimously voted to urge him to issue such a decree.
President Bush issued a statement condemning the move as irresponsible, saying it violated the ceasefire deal Russia signed earlier in the month. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice termed the decree “extremely unfortunate,” and vowed that the United States would use its position as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council to veto any recognition of the independence of either breakaway province.
The mood was considerably less sombre within Tskhinvali and Sukhumi, as excited people took to the streets waving flags in celebration and praising the Russian declaration. Though earlier this week Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili vowed to rebuild his military and reclaim the enclaves, President Medvedev promised to protect them from any future attacks and South Ossetia’s leader planned to ask Russia to set up a military base in his territory.
This marks another major downturn in US-Russian relations, already tense after the recent US missile shield agreements with Poland and the Czech Republic. President Medvedev insisted he was not afraid of the prospect of another Cold War, as rumors swirled that the planned docking of two US warships in Poti, a city still partially under Russian control, had been put on hold. The Russian government has expressed concerns that the ships were loaded down with weapons for the Georgian military, an accusation the White House rejected as “ridiculous”.
This is rather a contrast to the U.S. reaction when Kosovo declared independence. At that time Russia specifically warned the U.S. that recognising Kosovo in spite of Russia's objections would have repurcussions with respect to Abkazia and South Ossetia. Now the U.S. knows what those repercussions are. Of course unlike the U.S. Russia may not be able to get most other nations to recognise the two entities but some probably will. In any event with the degree to which Abkazians and South Ossetians are now alienated from Georgia it seems quite unrealistic to think that they can peacefully integrate back into Georgia but Russia will not allow this to happen by force. Russia will simply ignore U.S. objections to its actions in the same way that the U.S. ignored Russia with respect to Serbia.
US Vows Enclaves Will Never Be Independent as Russian President Recognizes Abkhazia, South Ossetia
Posted August 26, 2008
Last Updated 8/26 8:40 PM EST
Earlier this month when presumptive Republican Presidential Nominee John McCain declared “we are all Georgians,” it is unclear if he was referring to the people of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Yet today the Bush Administration made it clear that this was to be America’s official position on the matter, whether the residents of those regions want to be or not.
Today, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev issued a decree recognizing the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia and ordered the foreign ministry to open talks on establishing diplomatic ties. The move comes just one day after both houses of Russia’s parliament unanimously voted to urge him to issue such a decree.
President Bush issued a statement condemning the move as irresponsible, saying it violated the ceasefire deal Russia signed earlier in the month. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice termed the decree “extremely unfortunate,” and vowed that the United States would use its position as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council to veto any recognition of the independence of either breakaway province.
The mood was considerably less sombre within Tskhinvali and Sukhumi, as excited people took to the streets waving flags in celebration and praising the Russian declaration. Though earlier this week Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili vowed to rebuild his military and reclaim the enclaves, President Medvedev promised to protect them from any future attacks and South Ossetia’s leader planned to ask Russia to set up a military base in his territory.
This marks another major downturn in US-Russian relations, already tense after the recent US missile shield agreements with Poland and the Czech Republic. President Medvedev insisted he was not afraid of the prospect of another Cold War, as rumors swirled that the planned docking of two US warships in Poti, a city still partially under Russian control, had been put on hold. The Russian government has expressed concerns that the ships were loaded down with weapons for the Georgian military, an accusation the White House rejected as “ridiculous”.
Rice, In Israel, Criticizes Surge in Settlement Construction.
This is from the NY Times.
Israel as well as Palestine violate agreements. Israel is of course in violation of oodles of UN resolutions but nothing happens as a result. Probably little will happen because of this increase in settlement. When there is any movement of Israelis out of a settlement there is often considerable coverage. This coverage in a major newspaper is a welcome addition in covering the rest of the story but with all eyes focused on the Democratic Convention and Gustav the article may not attract too many readers.
August 27, 2008
Rice, in Israel, Criticizes Surge in Settlement Construction
By ETHAN BRONNER
JERUSALEM — Peace Now, the Israeli advocacy group, said in a report released Tuesday that in the last year Israel had nearly doubled its settlement construction in the occupied West Bank, in violation of its obligations under an American-backed peace plan.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, in Jerusalem on a short visit to help Israeli and Palestinian leaders in their negotiations, said when asked about the report that she had told Israeli officials that such building did not advance the cause of peace.
“What we need now are steps that enhance confidence between the parties, and anything that undermines confidence between the parties ought to be avoided,” she said with the Israeli foreign minister, Tzipi Livni, at her side.
Ms. Livni said that settlement building should not influence the negotiations because the goal should be “not to let any kind of noises that relate to the situation on the ground these days enter the negotiation room.”
Earlier, Ms. Rice had made clear that neither Israelis nor Palestinians had fully lived up to their obligations. Israel is supposed to end all settlement building and remove illegal settlement outposts, while the Palestinians are supposed to dismantle terrorist infrastructures.
Negotiators had hoped for a full two-state peace framework between the Palestinian Authority and Israel to be completed by the end of President Bush’s term. Lately, though, they have cautioned that such an aim may be out of reach although the talks, they say, are making progress.
Most say they prefer to continue the process rather than try to put together a partial document. But Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who has pledged to resign after his Kadima Party chooses a new leader in September, seems eager for an agreement before his term ends to burnish his legacy.
Standing with the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, in Ramallah after their meeting, Ms. Rice said that “God willing,” and with the hard work of the negotiators, the two-state goal could still be attained before year’s end.
Mr. Abbas seemed already to be looking beyond the Bush administration, however, and expressed hope that its successor “will continue what we have begun.”
He also complained about the increased settlement building.
The Peace Now report on settlements, based on aerial photos, visits and government data, says that more than 1,000 buildings are going up in the West Bank, including 2,600 housing units. It says that for the first five months of 2008, construction in the settlements was 1.8 times greater than in the same period of 2007.
Peace Now opposes Israeli construction on land captured in the 1967 war, like the West Bank, and favors furthering the creation of a Palestinian state there. Yet it is considered a reliable source of settlement information.
Its report says more than half of the building is beyond the separation barrier that Israel has built in recent years on the border of and inside the West Bank. This is significant, if true, because Israeli leaders have argued that ultimately a deal with the Palestinians will allow it to keep several settlement blocs and neighborhoods in East Jerusalem in exchange for land swaps. Therefore, they say, their building in East Jerusalem and close-in settlements on their side of the barrier should cause no concern.
The Peace Now report shows that the building in East Jerusalem is intensive, with the number of tenders for houses there up to 1,761 this year from 46 in 2007.
A spokesman for Israel’s Housing Ministry, Eran Sidis, said he could not check on all the data in the Peace Now report, but he defended building in areas Israel hopes to keep, saying, “There’s nothing to prevent strengthening settlement blocs that in the end of the day, in a peace agreement, will clearly be in Israel’s hands.”
American and Palestinian officials reject the idea that such building is harmless to negotiations. In addition, the Peace Now report challenges the government’s assertions that it is limiting construction to the western side of the barrier by showing that beyond the barrier, building continues apace. It also says that in the illegal outposts that were supposed to be removed, 125 new structures have been added, including 30 permanent houses.
Israel as well as Palestine violate agreements. Israel is of course in violation of oodles of UN resolutions but nothing happens as a result. Probably little will happen because of this increase in settlement. When there is any movement of Israelis out of a settlement there is often considerable coverage. This coverage in a major newspaper is a welcome addition in covering the rest of the story but with all eyes focused on the Democratic Convention and Gustav the article may not attract too many readers.
August 27, 2008
Rice, in Israel, Criticizes Surge in Settlement Construction
By ETHAN BRONNER
JERUSALEM — Peace Now, the Israeli advocacy group, said in a report released Tuesday that in the last year Israel had nearly doubled its settlement construction in the occupied West Bank, in violation of its obligations under an American-backed peace plan.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, in Jerusalem on a short visit to help Israeli and Palestinian leaders in their negotiations, said when asked about the report that she had told Israeli officials that such building did not advance the cause of peace.
“What we need now are steps that enhance confidence between the parties, and anything that undermines confidence between the parties ought to be avoided,” she said with the Israeli foreign minister, Tzipi Livni, at her side.
Ms. Livni said that settlement building should not influence the negotiations because the goal should be “not to let any kind of noises that relate to the situation on the ground these days enter the negotiation room.”
Earlier, Ms. Rice had made clear that neither Israelis nor Palestinians had fully lived up to their obligations. Israel is supposed to end all settlement building and remove illegal settlement outposts, while the Palestinians are supposed to dismantle terrorist infrastructures.
Negotiators had hoped for a full two-state peace framework between the Palestinian Authority and Israel to be completed by the end of President Bush’s term. Lately, though, they have cautioned that such an aim may be out of reach although the talks, they say, are making progress.
Most say they prefer to continue the process rather than try to put together a partial document. But Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who has pledged to resign after his Kadima Party chooses a new leader in September, seems eager for an agreement before his term ends to burnish his legacy.
Standing with the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, in Ramallah after their meeting, Ms. Rice said that “God willing,” and with the hard work of the negotiators, the two-state goal could still be attained before year’s end.
Mr. Abbas seemed already to be looking beyond the Bush administration, however, and expressed hope that its successor “will continue what we have begun.”
He also complained about the increased settlement building.
The Peace Now report on settlements, based on aerial photos, visits and government data, says that more than 1,000 buildings are going up in the West Bank, including 2,600 housing units. It says that for the first five months of 2008, construction in the settlements was 1.8 times greater than in the same period of 2007.
Peace Now opposes Israeli construction on land captured in the 1967 war, like the West Bank, and favors furthering the creation of a Palestinian state there. Yet it is considered a reliable source of settlement information.
Its report says more than half of the building is beyond the separation barrier that Israel has built in recent years on the border of and inside the West Bank. This is significant, if true, because Israeli leaders have argued that ultimately a deal with the Palestinians will allow it to keep several settlement blocs and neighborhoods in East Jerusalem in exchange for land swaps. Therefore, they say, their building in East Jerusalem and close-in settlements on their side of the barrier should cause no concern.
The Peace Now report shows that the building in East Jerusalem is intensive, with the number of tenders for houses there up to 1,761 this year from 46 in 2007.
A spokesman for Israel’s Housing Ministry, Eran Sidis, said he could not check on all the data in the Peace Now report, but he defended building in areas Israel hopes to keep, saying, “There’s nothing to prevent strengthening settlement blocs that in the end of the day, in a peace agreement, will clearly be in Israel’s hands.”
American and Palestinian officials reject the idea that such building is harmless to negotiations. In addition, the Peace Now report challenges the government’s assertions that it is limiting construction to the western side of the barrier by showing that beyond the barrier, building continues apace. It also says that in the illegal outposts that were supposed to be removed, 125 new structures have been added, including 30 permanent houses.
Philippines seeks help of UK and Sweden in peace talks with MILF
Gloria needs all the help she can get. Unless things start to cool down a bit on the ground any peace talks may be a bit premature. No doubt the MILF will not agree to start laying down their arms until they have an agreement they can live with and that may be some time if it is even possible at the present juncture.
Gloria seeks help of UK,Sweden in peace talks
BY JOCELYN MONTEMAYOR
PRESIDENT Arroyo is seeking the help of Sweden and the United Kingdom in the peace talks with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front.
Brunei is also offering scholarships for MILF members and their families to enable them to "learn to moderate Islam," Arroyo said in an informal interaction with media Monday night at the Well Being Spa at the Clark Freeport Zone.
Arroyo cited the experiences of former British Prime Minister Tony Blair in talks with Northern Ireland.
"Actually Blair is willing to come to help us because he (played) a very strong part in the negotiations of Northern Ireland, although Sweden is helping us on the DDR side," she said.
She said Sweden in 2005 came up with the Stockholm Initiative on Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration (DDR) which aims to "contribute to a secure and stable environment in which an overall peace process and transition can be sustained."
The President said an invitation to Blair, whom she met during her visit to London in December 2007, has yet to be sent.
Peace talks with the MILF were disrupted this month by major attacks launched by rebel commanders in several parts of Mindanao, including Lanao del Norte and North Cotabato.
A memorandum of agreement on ancestral domain with the MILF, seen as a major breakthrough in the talks, was to be signed August 5 but the Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order based on petitions questioning the constitutionality of the MOA.
Arroyo said the MILF attacks, which included atrocities against civilians, led to a change in the basic premise of the peace efforts. She said the government is now focusing the talks "from armed groups to the community" through public consultations.
Arroyo clarified she is not setting the disarming of MILF members as a precondition to the peace talks. But, she said, she wants the government and MILF panels to start tackling the DDR, particularly the disarmament aspect, when negotiations resume.
"It’s not a precondition, but part of the outcome of the talks. Part of the comprehensive agreement," she said.
Senate President Manuel Villar urged government to advance the internal revenue allotment funds of towns badly affected by hostilities in Mindanao.
"Towns, cities and provinces hit by MILF attacks are being saddled by unforeseen expenses caused by unforeseen events," he said.
Villar said towns need money to "care for the wounded, aid the displaced, bury the dead, rebuild homes, heal psychological wounds, construct damaged public infrastructure and other things needed to make things normal again."
For starters, he said the national government can release part of the P2-billion calamity fund to areas hit "by this man-made calamity."
This can be complemented by funds to be taken from the P800 million contingent fund, which is under the discretion of the President to release, he said. – With Dennis Gadil
Gloria seeks help of UK,Sweden in peace talks
BY JOCELYN MONTEMAYOR
PRESIDENT Arroyo is seeking the help of Sweden and the United Kingdom in the peace talks with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front.
Brunei is also offering scholarships for MILF members and their families to enable them to "learn to moderate Islam," Arroyo said in an informal interaction with media Monday night at the Well Being Spa at the Clark Freeport Zone.
Arroyo cited the experiences of former British Prime Minister Tony Blair in talks with Northern Ireland.
"Actually Blair is willing to come to help us because he (played) a very strong part in the negotiations of Northern Ireland, although Sweden is helping us on the DDR side," she said.
She said Sweden in 2005 came up with the Stockholm Initiative on Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration (DDR) which aims to "contribute to a secure and stable environment in which an overall peace process and transition can be sustained."
The President said an invitation to Blair, whom she met during her visit to London in December 2007, has yet to be sent.
Peace talks with the MILF were disrupted this month by major attacks launched by rebel commanders in several parts of Mindanao, including Lanao del Norte and North Cotabato.
A memorandum of agreement on ancestral domain with the MILF, seen as a major breakthrough in the talks, was to be signed August 5 but the Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order based on petitions questioning the constitutionality of the MOA.
Arroyo said the MILF attacks, which included atrocities against civilians, led to a change in the basic premise of the peace efforts. She said the government is now focusing the talks "from armed groups to the community" through public consultations.
Arroyo clarified she is not setting the disarming of MILF members as a precondition to the peace talks. But, she said, she wants the government and MILF panels to start tackling the DDR, particularly the disarmament aspect, when negotiations resume.
"It’s not a precondition, but part of the outcome of the talks. Part of the comprehensive agreement," she said.
Senate President Manuel Villar urged government to advance the internal revenue allotment funds of towns badly affected by hostilities in Mindanao.
"Towns, cities and provinces hit by MILF attacks are being saddled by unforeseen expenses caused by unforeseen events," he said.
Villar said towns need money to "care for the wounded, aid the displaced, bury the dead, rebuild homes, heal psychological wounds, construct damaged public infrastructure and other things needed to make things normal again."
For starters, he said the national government can release part of the P2-billion calamity fund to areas hit "by this man-made calamity."
This can be complemented by funds to be taken from the P800 million contingent fund, which is under the discretion of the President to release, he said. – With Dennis Gadil
60 children among Afghan Dead UN finds.
This is from the NY Times.
NATO and the U.S. insist they always show the utmost concern for civilian casualties. Yet they do not even count them. In this case as in others they insist on giving a quite different account of what happens inevitably downplaying any civilian deaths if they even admit any. Karzai has for his part been complaining about this for ages without any results. The U.S. is getting a bit peeved at his complaints however and for this and other reasons will try to arrange his replacement by a more amenable president such as Zalmay Khalilzad who has served the Bush administration well. Of course this arrangement will be democratic!
This example shows what probably happens reasonably often. Money is paid for intelligence and any Afghan who has a beef against another tribe can make some money and get even by fingering them as Taliban and indicating where they are.
August 27, 2008
60 Children Among Afghan Dead, U.N. Finds
By CARLOTTA GALL
KABUL, Afghanistan — A United Nations human rights team has found “convincing evidence” that some 90 civilians — among them 60 children — were killed in air strikes on a village in western Afghanistan on Thursday night, a statement issued by the United Nations mission in Kabul said, making it almost certainly the deadliest case of civilian casualties caused by any United States military operation in Afghanistan since 2001.
The United Nations the team visited the scene and interviewed survivors and local officials and elders, getting a name, age and gender of each person reported killed. The team reported that 15 people had been injured in the air strikes, which occurred in the middle of the night.
The numbers closely match those given by a government commission sent from Kabul to investigate the bombing, which put the total dead at up to 95.
Mohammad Iqbal Safi, the head of the parliamentary defense committee and a member of the government commission, said the 60 children were between three months old and 16 years old, all killed as they slept. “It was a heart breaking scene,” he said.
The death toll may even rise higher since heavy lifting gear is needed to uncover all the remains, said one Western official who had seen the United Nations report.
“This is a matter of grave concern to the United Nations,” Kai Eide, the United Nations special representative for Afghanistan said in a statement. “It is vital that the International and Afghan military forces thoroughly review the conduct of this operation in order to prevent a repeat of this tragic incident,” he said.
The United Nations report adds pressure to the United States military, which has to date said only that 25 militants and five civilians were killed in the air strikes, which were aimed at a Taliban named Mullah Saddiq. The military announced it was conducting an investigation after the high civilian death toll was reported.
The bombing occurred around midnight, the United Nations statement said. “Foreign and Afghan military personnel entered the village of Nawabad in the Azizabad area of Shindand district,” it said. “Military operations lasted several hours during which air strikes were called in.” “The destruction from aerial bombardment was clearly evident, with some 7-8 houses having been totally destroyed and serious damage to many others,” it said.
The parliamentarian, Mr. Safi, said the villagers were preparing for a ceremony the next morning in memory of a man who had died some time before. Extended families from two tribes were visiting the village and there were lights of fires as the adults were cooking food for the ceremony, he said.
How the military came to call in air strikes on a civilian gathering still remains unclear. Two parliamentarians, Mr. Safi and Maulavi Gul Ahmad, who is from the area, said the villagers blamed tribal enemies for giving the military false intelligence.
“According to the villagers their enemies give false report to Americans that foreign fighters were gathering in the village,” Mr. Safi said.
Mr. Ahmad directly blamed the United States Special Forces, who are training the Afghan National Army and were present in the joint operation. “I can’t blame the Afghan National Army for the incident as they had no authority for leading the operation,” Mr. Ahmad said.
The government commission met with the commander of the United States forces in Herat province but he declined to answer their questions, saying the United States military was conducting its own investigation, government officials said.
Russia, at odds with the United States and much of the West over its recognition of two breakaway regions in the Central Asian country of Georgia, said it would raise the issue on Tuesday afternoon at the Security Council.
Abdul Waheed Wafa contributed reporting.
NATO and the U.S. insist they always show the utmost concern for civilian casualties. Yet they do not even count them. In this case as in others they insist on giving a quite different account of what happens inevitably downplaying any civilian deaths if they even admit any. Karzai has for his part been complaining about this for ages without any results. The U.S. is getting a bit peeved at his complaints however and for this and other reasons will try to arrange his replacement by a more amenable president such as Zalmay Khalilzad who has served the Bush administration well. Of course this arrangement will be democratic!
This example shows what probably happens reasonably often. Money is paid for intelligence and any Afghan who has a beef against another tribe can make some money and get even by fingering them as Taliban and indicating where they are.
August 27, 2008
60 Children Among Afghan Dead, U.N. Finds
By CARLOTTA GALL
KABUL, Afghanistan — A United Nations human rights team has found “convincing evidence” that some 90 civilians — among them 60 children — were killed in air strikes on a village in western Afghanistan on Thursday night, a statement issued by the United Nations mission in Kabul said, making it almost certainly the deadliest case of civilian casualties caused by any United States military operation in Afghanistan since 2001.
The United Nations the team visited the scene and interviewed survivors and local officials and elders, getting a name, age and gender of each person reported killed. The team reported that 15 people had been injured in the air strikes, which occurred in the middle of the night.
The numbers closely match those given by a government commission sent from Kabul to investigate the bombing, which put the total dead at up to 95.
Mohammad Iqbal Safi, the head of the parliamentary defense committee and a member of the government commission, said the 60 children were between three months old and 16 years old, all killed as they slept. “It was a heart breaking scene,” he said.
The death toll may even rise higher since heavy lifting gear is needed to uncover all the remains, said one Western official who had seen the United Nations report.
“This is a matter of grave concern to the United Nations,” Kai Eide, the United Nations special representative for Afghanistan said in a statement. “It is vital that the International and Afghan military forces thoroughly review the conduct of this operation in order to prevent a repeat of this tragic incident,” he said.
The United Nations report adds pressure to the United States military, which has to date said only that 25 militants and five civilians were killed in the air strikes, which were aimed at a Taliban named Mullah Saddiq. The military announced it was conducting an investigation after the high civilian death toll was reported.
The bombing occurred around midnight, the United Nations statement said. “Foreign and Afghan military personnel entered the village of Nawabad in the Azizabad area of Shindand district,” it said. “Military operations lasted several hours during which air strikes were called in.” “The destruction from aerial bombardment was clearly evident, with some 7-8 houses having been totally destroyed and serious damage to many others,” it said.
The parliamentarian, Mr. Safi, said the villagers were preparing for a ceremony the next morning in memory of a man who had died some time before. Extended families from two tribes were visiting the village and there were lights of fires as the adults were cooking food for the ceremony, he said.
How the military came to call in air strikes on a civilian gathering still remains unclear. Two parliamentarians, Mr. Safi and Maulavi Gul Ahmad, who is from the area, said the villagers blamed tribal enemies for giving the military false intelligence.
“According to the villagers their enemies give false report to Americans that foreign fighters were gathering in the village,” Mr. Safi said.
Mr. Ahmad directly blamed the United States Special Forces, who are training the Afghan National Army and were present in the joint operation. “I can’t blame the Afghan National Army for the incident as they had no authority for leading the operation,” Mr. Ahmad said.
The government commission met with the commander of the United States forces in Herat province but he declined to answer their questions, saying the United States military was conducting its own investigation, government officials said.
Russia, at odds with the United States and much of the West over its recognition of two breakaway regions in the Central Asian country of Georgia, said it would raise the issue on Tuesday afternoon at the Security Council.
Abdul Waheed Wafa contributed reporting.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Philippine co-ops insure themselves.
Here is a short article on Philippine Co-ops. I gather that most Philippine co-ops are rather small and as this article points out members sometimes run off with co-op funds! Co-ops are a good way to enable smaller producers to gain by combining operations and purchases that will give savings because of size. This is from Malaya.
Coops insure themselves
By AMADO P. MACASAET
There is a snake in every forest, so old folks say. It turns out that are a few scalawags in some cooperatives. It’s hard to run after them once they have absconded with the money.
According to Rep. Agapito "Butz" Aquino, replacing an absconding coop member is simply not enough. Those left behind need continuing education, a process going on for many decades. But the record of success is less than desirable.
Two weeks ago, the Federation of Cooperatives and the National Cooperative Movement headed by Aquino gathered to galvanize what they have always thought of as the solution to thievery in some cooperatives.
Sixteen large cooperatives with a combined membership of close to one million signed up to contribute to a fund. They used the word "contribute" to escape from the jurisdiction and control of the Insurance Commission.
But the contributions are actually insurance premiums remarkably similar to what banks pay the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corp., to protect its members.
According to Aquino, the growth of cooperatives specially in the small rural communities is stymied by scalawags who run off with the members money. They are hardly punished; worse, seldom do they return the stolen money.
With an insurance cover, members need not be afraid. The Federation of Cooperatives collects the contributions or premiums, puts them in safe investment instruments and assures the paying coops they will get their money in the event that one of their members runs off with their money.
Providing insurance cover to cooperatives is a messy job. To begin with, there are just too many of them, estimated at close to 60,000 coops with an estimated three million members.
Funds of cooperatives put together is estimated to be more than P6 billion. But the bulk of it belongs to bigger ones. The smaller ones are hardly growing.
Butz Aquino points out that one of the biggest problems is continuing education. The culture of the Filipino in working as a brigade for each other’s benefit is hard to instill.
In this, the Bureau of Cooperatives is focused on almost one single objective. It wants to organize a farm cooperative for land reform beneficiaries. The idea is to put back the commercial sizes of divided land to bring back the economies of scale.
Aquino says the prospective members in practically all cooperatives invariably ask what they can get, not what they can do so that in the end they can get more.
There are many different types. Members of credit cooperatives lend money to one another at interest rates which are close to commercial rates.
Marketing cooperatives sell almost exclusively to its members with hefty discounts.
At the end of every year, these cooperatives find themselves with some profits which in the language of the members is called surplus. The money is either used to make the cooperatives expand or is distributed to members as their patronage dividends.
Borrowers from credit cooperatives are not required to put up collateral. The security is the guarantee of another member.
While there is a very large percentage of failures among many types of cooperatives, there are quite a number that have become giants with hundreds of millions in operating funds.
One is Lipa Marketing Coop in Lipa City. It started out as a marketing coop that has expanded into the likes of a commercial establishment that sells everything that its members need.
Coops insure themselves
By AMADO P. MACASAET
There is a snake in every forest, so old folks say. It turns out that are a few scalawags in some cooperatives. It’s hard to run after them once they have absconded with the money.
According to Rep. Agapito "Butz" Aquino, replacing an absconding coop member is simply not enough. Those left behind need continuing education, a process going on for many decades. But the record of success is less than desirable.
Two weeks ago, the Federation of Cooperatives and the National Cooperative Movement headed by Aquino gathered to galvanize what they have always thought of as the solution to thievery in some cooperatives.
Sixteen large cooperatives with a combined membership of close to one million signed up to contribute to a fund. They used the word "contribute" to escape from the jurisdiction and control of the Insurance Commission.
But the contributions are actually insurance premiums remarkably similar to what banks pay the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corp., to protect its members.
According to Aquino, the growth of cooperatives specially in the small rural communities is stymied by scalawags who run off with the members money. They are hardly punished; worse, seldom do they return the stolen money.
With an insurance cover, members need not be afraid. The Federation of Cooperatives collects the contributions or premiums, puts them in safe investment instruments and assures the paying coops they will get their money in the event that one of their members runs off with their money.
Providing insurance cover to cooperatives is a messy job. To begin with, there are just too many of them, estimated at close to 60,000 coops with an estimated three million members.
Funds of cooperatives put together is estimated to be more than P6 billion. But the bulk of it belongs to bigger ones. The smaller ones are hardly growing.
Butz Aquino points out that one of the biggest problems is continuing education. The culture of the Filipino in working as a brigade for each other’s benefit is hard to instill.
In this, the Bureau of Cooperatives is focused on almost one single objective. It wants to organize a farm cooperative for land reform beneficiaries. The idea is to put back the commercial sizes of divided land to bring back the economies of scale.
Aquino says the prospective members in practically all cooperatives invariably ask what they can get, not what they can do so that in the end they can get more.
There are many different types. Members of credit cooperatives lend money to one another at interest rates which are close to commercial rates.
Marketing cooperatives sell almost exclusively to its members with hefty discounts.
At the end of every year, these cooperatives find themselves with some profits which in the language of the members is called surplus. The money is either used to make the cooperatives expand or is distributed to members as their patronage dividends.
Borrowers from credit cooperatives are not required to put up collateral. The security is the guarantee of another member.
While there is a very large percentage of failures among many types of cooperatives, there are quite a number that have become giants with hundreds of millions in operating funds.
One is Lipa Marketing Coop in Lipa City. It started out as a marketing coop that has expanded into the likes of a commercial establishment that sells everything that its members need.
Arroyo: All-out war, no; all-out peace, yes.
A neat slogan but peace will be difficult to obtain given that the two sides are really still in disagreement over some issues and there is opposition to the agreement from many on the government side and also on the MILF side. Several MILF commanders obviously acted to occupy territory and are now being driven out by the AFP. So far the conflict has not widened it seems. This is from Malaya.
Gloria: ‘All-out war, no; all-out peace, yes’
BY JOCELYN MONTEMAYOR
PRESIDENT Arroyo yesterday informed the Organization of Islamic Conference through the Kuwaiti government and businessmen that her administration is on a path of all-out peace in Mindanao and not all-out war.
Arroyo spoke at the inauguration of the Global Gateway Logistics at the Clark Freeport Zone attended by, among others, Kuwait Ambassador Doaud Salman Al-Sabah.
She said government forces in Mindanao are running only after members of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front who were responsible for the recent attacks in parts of North Cotabato, Lanao del Norte, and Sarangani.
She said the recent rampage of the "lawless" MILF elements calls for a "resolute military and police action."
"I say to the Filipinos, to the world, to our Muslim brothers in the South, to the OIC through our Kuwaiti friends, there is no all-out war. What we are doing is to have all-out peace in Mindanao," she said.
The OIC facilitated the peace agreement between the Philippine government and the Moro National Liberation Front forged in 1996. Through Malaysia, it is also facilitates peace negotiations with the MILF.
Arroyo said her government has never deviated from its objective of attaining lasting peace and development in Mindanao. But she said "peace must be anchored on justice."
She said the government’s move to offer a P10 million reward each for MILF Commanders Ameril Umbra Kato and Bravo (Abdullah Macapaar) shows the government’s resolve to hasten the arrest and "neutralization of these criminals, so that justice can be achieved and we can move on with the peace process."
Kato and Bravo led the attacks in 15 barangays in North Cotabato, Iligan City and four towns in Lanao del Norte.
Arroyo said the targeted MILF personalities are historically the recalcitrant commanders who have created trouble before and during the peace negotiations. These commanders, she said, are expected by the government to cause trouble even after a peace agreement is forged.
"So the campaign against them is intended to remove the obstacles to the peace process... We wish for all insurgents to turn their swords into ploughshares, their arms to farms. We ask all sectors to be with us, including our brothers in the OIC," she said.
Arroyo has been asked by Catholic bishops to consult stakeholders in its peace negotiations with the MILF.
The need for wider consultations was brought to Arroyo’s attention by at least 13 bishops during a meeting Friday in Malacañang, Cotabato auxiliary Bishop Jose Colin Bagaforo said over Church-run Radio Veritas.
He said they discussed means to involve Mindanao stakeholders "like lumads, civil societies, different sectors and communities" in drafting a peace agreement with the secessionist group.
Several bishops have questioned what they said was the lack of consultations in drafting the memorandum of agreement on ancestral domain which, among others, seeks to expand the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao by including 712 barangays in non-ARMM provinces.
The MOA is under question before the Supreme Court.
The government last week announced it is not signing the MOA in its current form because of the MILF attacks, among other reasons. It said it would review the agreement that would have been signed August 5 had the Supreme Court not issued a temporary restraining order.
MOA REVISION SOUGHT
Iligan Bishop Elenito Galido said the Mindanao bishops "strongly suggested" a revision of the MOA.
Bagaforo said the meeting was initiated by the Mindanao prelates led by Tandag (Surigao del Sur) Archbishop Nereo Odchimar.
Tuguegarao (Cagayan) Archbishop Diosdado Talamayan and Bayombong (Nueva Vizcaya) Bishop Ramon Villena, were also present in the meeting that lasted four hours.
Bagaforo said the bishops also formally proposed to Arroyo the need to replace the members of the government peace panel.
He said the President told them she will look "at it in light of a bigger, wider participation of Mindanao stakeholders."
Bagaforo said the peace panel massively failed in its responsibility of conducting the stakeholders.
Sen. Richard Gordon said the government could not proceed striking a peace deal with the MILF without pushing for the development of the ARMM.
"The peace process is just like a marriage – we have to continue strengthening the peace. And peace is strengthened when you see it being beneficial to the public, if there is education, if there’s economic development; if there’s security, consistency and transparency in everything that will happen when the peace process starts," he said.
Gordon, who is among those opposing the MOA, said those who would be affected should be made to understand what will happen to them if a peace accord is signed. – With Gerard Naval and Dennis Gadil
Gloria: ‘All-out war, no; all-out peace, yes’
BY JOCELYN MONTEMAYOR
PRESIDENT Arroyo yesterday informed the Organization of Islamic Conference through the Kuwaiti government and businessmen that her administration is on a path of all-out peace in Mindanao and not all-out war.
Arroyo spoke at the inauguration of the Global Gateway Logistics at the Clark Freeport Zone attended by, among others, Kuwait Ambassador Doaud Salman Al-Sabah.
She said government forces in Mindanao are running only after members of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front who were responsible for the recent attacks in parts of North Cotabato, Lanao del Norte, and Sarangani.
She said the recent rampage of the "lawless" MILF elements calls for a "resolute military and police action."
"I say to the Filipinos, to the world, to our Muslim brothers in the South, to the OIC through our Kuwaiti friends, there is no all-out war. What we are doing is to have all-out peace in Mindanao," she said.
The OIC facilitated the peace agreement between the Philippine government and the Moro National Liberation Front forged in 1996. Through Malaysia, it is also facilitates peace negotiations with the MILF.
Arroyo said her government has never deviated from its objective of attaining lasting peace and development in Mindanao. But she said "peace must be anchored on justice."
She said the government’s move to offer a P10 million reward each for MILF Commanders Ameril Umbra Kato and Bravo (Abdullah Macapaar) shows the government’s resolve to hasten the arrest and "neutralization of these criminals, so that justice can be achieved and we can move on with the peace process."
Kato and Bravo led the attacks in 15 barangays in North Cotabato, Iligan City and four towns in Lanao del Norte.
Arroyo said the targeted MILF personalities are historically the recalcitrant commanders who have created trouble before and during the peace negotiations. These commanders, she said, are expected by the government to cause trouble even after a peace agreement is forged.
"So the campaign against them is intended to remove the obstacles to the peace process... We wish for all insurgents to turn their swords into ploughshares, their arms to farms. We ask all sectors to be with us, including our brothers in the OIC," she said.
Arroyo has been asked by Catholic bishops to consult stakeholders in its peace negotiations with the MILF.
The need for wider consultations was brought to Arroyo’s attention by at least 13 bishops during a meeting Friday in Malacañang, Cotabato auxiliary Bishop Jose Colin Bagaforo said over Church-run Radio Veritas.
He said they discussed means to involve Mindanao stakeholders "like lumads, civil societies, different sectors and communities" in drafting a peace agreement with the secessionist group.
Several bishops have questioned what they said was the lack of consultations in drafting the memorandum of agreement on ancestral domain which, among others, seeks to expand the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao by including 712 barangays in non-ARMM provinces.
The MOA is under question before the Supreme Court.
The government last week announced it is not signing the MOA in its current form because of the MILF attacks, among other reasons. It said it would review the agreement that would have been signed August 5 had the Supreme Court not issued a temporary restraining order.
MOA REVISION SOUGHT
Iligan Bishop Elenito Galido said the Mindanao bishops "strongly suggested" a revision of the MOA.
Bagaforo said the meeting was initiated by the Mindanao prelates led by Tandag (Surigao del Sur) Archbishop Nereo Odchimar.
Tuguegarao (Cagayan) Archbishop Diosdado Talamayan and Bayombong (Nueva Vizcaya) Bishop Ramon Villena, were also present in the meeting that lasted four hours.
Bagaforo said the bishops also formally proposed to Arroyo the need to replace the members of the government peace panel.
He said the President told them she will look "at it in light of a bigger, wider participation of Mindanao stakeholders."
Bagaforo said the peace panel massively failed in its responsibility of conducting the stakeholders.
Sen. Richard Gordon said the government could not proceed striking a peace deal with the MILF without pushing for the development of the ARMM.
"The peace process is just like a marriage – we have to continue strengthening the peace. And peace is strengthened when you see it being beneficial to the public, if there is education, if there’s economic development; if there’s security, consistency and transparency in everything that will happen when the peace process starts," he said.
Gordon, who is among those opposing the MOA, said those who would be affected should be made to understand what will happen to them if a peace accord is signed. – With Gerard Naval and Dennis Gadil
Obama selects Biden to Reassure US ruling elite.
This is from Information Clearing House.
This article shows how mainstream Obama is. Of course those fearful of him will say it shows how he can hide his real tendencies! At any rate the two party system is a big sales media event The Democratic convention paid for partly by some taxpayers has no real purpose except as a media show since Obama is already the candidate. I have to stay away from U.S. news TV stations for several days. It is like the Olympics except there are no contests just the opening ceremonies but in no way as spectacular or entertaining. We don't even have any adorable little American girl lip-syncing the Stars and Stripes for us.
Obama Selects Biden to Reassure the US Ruling EliteBy Patrick Martin
25/08/08 "WSW" --- The selection of Senator Joseph Biden as the vice-presidential candidate of the Democratic Party underscores the fraudulent character of the Democratic primary campaign and the undemocratic character of the entire two-party electoral system. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, the supposed protagonist of “change,” has picked as his running-mate a fixture of the Washington establishment, a six-term US senator who is a proven defender of American imperialism and the interests of big business.
The rollout of the Biden selection over three days of escalating media attention, culminating in the text-message announcement early Saturday and a kickoff rally in Springfield, Illinois, is a metaphor for the entire Obama campaign. His presidential candidacy represents not an insurgency from below, but an effort to manipulate mass sentiments, using Internet technology and slick marketing techniques, aided by a compliant media, to produce a political result that is utterly conventional and in keeping with the requirements of the US ruling elite.
Long gone are the days when the selection of a vice-presidential candidate by one of the two major big business parties involved a complex balancing act between various institutional forces. In the Democratic Party, this would have involved consultations with trade union officials, civil rights organizations, congressional leaders and the heads of particularly powerful state and urban political machines.
Today, neither party has any substantial popular base. In both parties there is only one true “constituency”: the financial aristocracy that dominates economic and political life and controls the mass media, and whose interests determine government policy, both foreign and domestic. The selection of Biden, the senator from a small state with only three electoral votes, whose own presidential bids have failed miserably for lack of popular support, underscores the immense chasm separating the entire political establishment from the broad mass of the American people.
Obama has selected Biden to provide reassurance that, whatever populist rhetoric may be employed for electoral purposes in the fall campaign, the wealth and privileges of the ruling elite and the geo-strategic aims of US imperialism will be the single-minded concerns of a Democratic administration.
An establishment figure
Biden has been a leading figure in the political establishment for three decades. He was first elected to the US Senate from Delaware in 1972, when Richard Nixon was president and Obama was 11 years old, and he has held that position through seven administrations. He has headed two of the most important Senate committees: Judiciary, which vets nominations to judicial positions, including the Supreme Court, and Foreign Relations, which Biden chaired in 2001-2002 and again since the Democrats regained control of the Senate in the 2006 election. Biden ran for president 20 years ago and again this year.
In the 1990s, with Bill Clinton in the White House, Biden was one of the principal proponents of US intervention in the former Yugoslavia, a role that he describes in his campaign autobiography, published last year, as his proudest achievement in foreign policy. In the mid-1990s he called for the US to arm the Bosnian Muslim regime against Serbia, and then advocated a direct US attack on Serbia during the 1999 Kosovo crisis, joining with a like-minded Republican senator to introduce the McCain-Biden Kosovo Resolution, authorizing Clinton to use “all necessary force” against Serbia.
This legislative proposal provided a model for a 2002 congressional resolution authorizing Bush to wage war against Iraq, which Biden co-authored with Republican Senator Richard Lugar. The Bush administration opposed the Biden-Lugar resolution, because it was limited to ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, and successfully pressured the Democratic-controlled Senate to adopt a broader war resolution, for which Biden voted.
On domestic policy, Biden is a conventional liberal whose roots go back to the Cold War era. He combines occasional populist bromides about concern for the poor and downtrodden with close relations with the trade union bureaucracy and unquestioning defense of the profit system. Like every other senator, he has “looked after” the interests of those big corporations with major operations in his state, including the Delaware-based MBNA, the largest independent issuer of credit cards until it was acquired in 2005 by Bank of America.
In this capacity, Biden was one of the most fervent Democratic supporters of the reactionary 2005 legislation overhauling the consumer bankruptcy laws, making it much more difficult for working class and middle-class families to escape debt burdens exacerbated by the corrupt and misleading marketing tactics employed by companies like MBNA. The 2005 law has compounded the problems of distressed homeowners seeking to avoid foreclosure.
Biden defended the bankruptcy bill during the Senate debate and voted for the legislation along with the overwhelming majority of Republicans, including John McCain. Obama opposed the bill, and has attacked it repeatedly during the 2008 campaign as a punitive measure against working families.
Employees of MBNA were the biggest single financial supporters of Biden’s campaigns over the past two decades. In 2003, MBNA hired the senator’s son, Hunter Biden, fresh out of law school, quickly promoting him to the position of executive vice president. (While his father is not wealthy by US Senate standards, Hunter Biden has since become a hedge fund multi-millionaire).
Biden has occasionally taken positions slightly more liberal than those of Obama, most recently voting against the bill (which Obama supported) authorizing a massive expansion of government surveillance of telephone calls and e-mail, and providing legal immunity to the giant telecom firms that collaborated with such illegal spying over the past seven years. But he is a fervent supporter of the USA Patriot Act, defending it during the recent Democratic primary campaign against criticism by some of his opponents.
Biden and the war in Iraq
Senator Obama prevailed over Hillary Clinton in the Democratic nomination contest in large part because she had voted in October 2002 to authorize the Iraq war, while Obama, not then a US Senator, verbally opposed the decision to go to war. This difference in political biographies was utilized by Obama’s campaign to make an appeal to antiwar sentiment, although Obama’s record once he arrived in the Senate in January 2005 was indistinguishable from Clinton’s.
Biden’s record on Iraq makes his selection as the vice-presidential candidate all the more cynical, since he was an enthusiastic supporter of the war far longer than most Senate Democrats. He advocated measures to drastically increase the scale of the violence in order to win the war, including the dispatch of 100,000 additional US troops and the breakup of Iraq into separate Sunni, Shia and Kurdish statelets—on the model of the former Yugoslavia—which would presumably be more easy to control.
In the run-up to the launching of the unprovoked US aggression in March 2003, Biden echoed Bush administration propaganda. At a hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee just after Secretary of State Colin Powell’s notorious appearance before the United Nations Security Council in February 2003, Biden gushed, “I am proud to be associated with you. I think you did better than anyone could have because of your standing, your reputation and your integrity ...” Every major element of Powell’s indictment of Iraq has since proven to be false.
Once the Bush administration’s lies about weapons of mass destruction and Iraqi connections to Al Qaeda and the 9/11 attacks had been exposed, Biden began to express increasing alarm over the failure of the Bush administration to find an adequate rationale for maintaining public support for the war.
He bemoaned the Bush administration’s failure to sell the war effectively to the American people. In a speech to the Brookings Institution in June 2005, he declared, “I want to see the president of the United States succeed in Iraq...His success is America’s success, and his failure is America’s failure.”
Biden was particularly critical of the rosy forecasts of imminent success in Iraq being issued by the Pentagon and White House, which were at odds with the reality on the ground. “This disconnect, I believe, is fueling cynicism that is undermining the single most important weapon we need to give our troops to be able to do their job, and that is the unyielding support of the American people. That support is waning.”
Only after public opinion turned decisively against the war did Biden shift from advocating escalation to a limited pullout of US troops. A Washington Post column in late 2005—which noted the convergence of views of the longtime senator from Delaware and the newly elected senator from Illinois, Barack Obama—described Biden as “an early and consistent supporter of the US intervention against Saddam Hussein.”
Once the Democrats regained control of Congress in the November 2006, Biden became chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, where he played a major role in the capitulation by the congressional Democrats to the Bush “surge” policy. Millions of antiwar voters had cast ballots for the Democrats seeking an end to the war, but the White House escalated the war instead, and the Democrats postured impotently and then went along.
The Democratic-controlled Congress meekly submitted after Bush vetoed modest restrictions on the conduct of the war, and in May 2007 passed full funding for military operations in both Iraq and Afghanistan. When several Democratic senators voted against the funding bill as a protest—including Clinton and Obama—Biden denounced them for undermining the safety of the troops.
Two weeks after this critical vote, Biden denounced antiwar critics of the Democratic Congress, claiming, “We’re busting our neck every single day” trying to end the war. There could be no end to the war, he said, until a significant number of Republican senators defected, to provide the two-thirds majority needed to override a Bush veto, or until a Democratic president was in the White House. “We’re funding the safety of those troops there till we can get 67 votes,” he declared.
By then, the Democratic presidential contest was well under way, and Biden, despite winning little support and no delegates, played an important political role. As the World Socialist Web Site noted following a candidates’ debate in August 2007, “Biden has carved out a niche as the Democratic presidential candidate most willing to publicly rebuke antiwar sentiment.”
In the course of the debate, Biden attacked those who suggested that by threatening a quick withdrawal, the US government could compel Iraqi politicians to establish a stable government in Baghdad. He denounced illusions “that there is any possibility in the lifetime of anyone here of having the Iraqis get together, have a unity government in Baghdad that pulls the country together. That will not happen.... It will not happen in the lifetime of anyone here.” In other words, the US occupation would have to continue indefinitely.
There have been numerous suggestions from Democratic Party officials and the media over the past few days that, given Biden’s reputation for verbal confrontation, his selection signals a more aggressive attitude from the Obama campaign. On his record, however, it is quite likely that Biden will be deployed as an “attack dog” against antiwar critics of the Obama campaign.
This fact makes all the more despicable the fawning embrace of Biden by purportedly “antiwar” publications like the Nation. John Nichols, Washington editor of the left-liberal magazine, wrote that the choice of Biden was an “acceptable, perhaps even satisfying conclusion to the great veep search,” which could tip the polls back in Obama’s direction.
Commenting on the Springfield rally Saturday, Nichols gushed, “When Biden went after John McCain, with a vigor and, yes, a venom that has been missing from Obama’s stump speaking, it was a tonic for the troops who have been waiting for a campaign that is more prepared to throw punches than take them.”
This response only confirms a fundamental truth about the political crisis facing working people in the United States: it is impossible to conduct a serious struggle against American imperialism, and its program of social reaction and war, without first breaking free of the straitjacket of the Democratic Party.
Working people have no stake in the outcome of the Obama-McCain contest, which will determine, for the American ruling elite, who will be their commander-in-chief over the next four years. The task facing the working class is to break with the two-party system and build an independent political movement based on a socialist and internationalist program.
Copyright 1998-2008 - World Socialist Web Site - All rights reserved
This article shows how mainstream Obama is. Of course those fearful of him will say it shows how he can hide his real tendencies! At any rate the two party system is a big sales media event The Democratic convention paid for partly by some taxpayers has no real purpose except as a media show since Obama is already the candidate. I have to stay away from U.S. news TV stations for several days. It is like the Olympics except there are no contests just the opening ceremonies but in no way as spectacular or entertaining. We don't even have any adorable little American girl lip-syncing the Stars and Stripes for us.
Obama Selects Biden to Reassure the US Ruling EliteBy Patrick Martin
25/08/08 "WSW" --- The selection of Senator Joseph Biden as the vice-presidential candidate of the Democratic Party underscores the fraudulent character of the Democratic primary campaign and the undemocratic character of the entire two-party electoral system. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, the supposed protagonist of “change,” has picked as his running-mate a fixture of the Washington establishment, a six-term US senator who is a proven defender of American imperialism and the interests of big business.
The rollout of the Biden selection over three days of escalating media attention, culminating in the text-message announcement early Saturday and a kickoff rally in Springfield, Illinois, is a metaphor for the entire Obama campaign. His presidential candidacy represents not an insurgency from below, but an effort to manipulate mass sentiments, using Internet technology and slick marketing techniques, aided by a compliant media, to produce a political result that is utterly conventional and in keeping with the requirements of the US ruling elite.
Long gone are the days when the selection of a vice-presidential candidate by one of the two major big business parties involved a complex balancing act between various institutional forces. In the Democratic Party, this would have involved consultations with trade union officials, civil rights organizations, congressional leaders and the heads of particularly powerful state and urban political machines.
Today, neither party has any substantial popular base. In both parties there is only one true “constituency”: the financial aristocracy that dominates economic and political life and controls the mass media, and whose interests determine government policy, both foreign and domestic. The selection of Biden, the senator from a small state with only three electoral votes, whose own presidential bids have failed miserably for lack of popular support, underscores the immense chasm separating the entire political establishment from the broad mass of the American people.
Obama has selected Biden to provide reassurance that, whatever populist rhetoric may be employed for electoral purposes in the fall campaign, the wealth and privileges of the ruling elite and the geo-strategic aims of US imperialism will be the single-minded concerns of a Democratic administration.
An establishment figure
Biden has been a leading figure in the political establishment for three decades. He was first elected to the US Senate from Delaware in 1972, when Richard Nixon was president and Obama was 11 years old, and he has held that position through seven administrations. He has headed two of the most important Senate committees: Judiciary, which vets nominations to judicial positions, including the Supreme Court, and Foreign Relations, which Biden chaired in 2001-2002 and again since the Democrats regained control of the Senate in the 2006 election. Biden ran for president 20 years ago and again this year.
In the 1990s, with Bill Clinton in the White House, Biden was one of the principal proponents of US intervention in the former Yugoslavia, a role that he describes in his campaign autobiography, published last year, as his proudest achievement in foreign policy. In the mid-1990s he called for the US to arm the Bosnian Muslim regime against Serbia, and then advocated a direct US attack on Serbia during the 1999 Kosovo crisis, joining with a like-minded Republican senator to introduce the McCain-Biden Kosovo Resolution, authorizing Clinton to use “all necessary force” against Serbia.
This legislative proposal provided a model for a 2002 congressional resolution authorizing Bush to wage war against Iraq, which Biden co-authored with Republican Senator Richard Lugar. The Bush administration opposed the Biden-Lugar resolution, because it was limited to ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, and successfully pressured the Democratic-controlled Senate to adopt a broader war resolution, for which Biden voted.
On domestic policy, Biden is a conventional liberal whose roots go back to the Cold War era. He combines occasional populist bromides about concern for the poor and downtrodden with close relations with the trade union bureaucracy and unquestioning defense of the profit system. Like every other senator, he has “looked after” the interests of those big corporations with major operations in his state, including the Delaware-based MBNA, the largest independent issuer of credit cards until it was acquired in 2005 by Bank of America.
In this capacity, Biden was one of the most fervent Democratic supporters of the reactionary 2005 legislation overhauling the consumer bankruptcy laws, making it much more difficult for working class and middle-class families to escape debt burdens exacerbated by the corrupt and misleading marketing tactics employed by companies like MBNA. The 2005 law has compounded the problems of distressed homeowners seeking to avoid foreclosure.
Biden defended the bankruptcy bill during the Senate debate and voted for the legislation along with the overwhelming majority of Republicans, including John McCain. Obama opposed the bill, and has attacked it repeatedly during the 2008 campaign as a punitive measure against working families.
Employees of MBNA were the biggest single financial supporters of Biden’s campaigns over the past two decades. In 2003, MBNA hired the senator’s son, Hunter Biden, fresh out of law school, quickly promoting him to the position of executive vice president. (While his father is not wealthy by US Senate standards, Hunter Biden has since become a hedge fund multi-millionaire).
Biden has occasionally taken positions slightly more liberal than those of Obama, most recently voting against the bill (which Obama supported) authorizing a massive expansion of government surveillance of telephone calls and e-mail, and providing legal immunity to the giant telecom firms that collaborated with such illegal spying over the past seven years. But he is a fervent supporter of the USA Patriot Act, defending it during the recent Democratic primary campaign against criticism by some of his opponents.
Biden and the war in Iraq
Senator Obama prevailed over Hillary Clinton in the Democratic nomination contest in large part because she had voted in October 2002 to authorize the Iraq war, while Obama, not then a US Senator, verbally opposed the decision to go to war. This difference in political biographies was utilized by Obama’s campaign to make an appeal to antiwar sentiment, although Obama’s record once he arrived in the Senate in January 2005 was indistinguishable from Clinton’s.
Biden’s record on Iraq makes his selection as the vice-presidential candidate all the more cynical, since he was an enthusiastic supporter of the war far longer than most Senate Democrats. He advocated measures to drastically increase the scale of the violence in order to win the war, including the dispatch of 100,000 additional US troops and the breakup of Iraq into separate Sunni, Shia and Kurdish statelets—on the model of the former Yugoslavia—which would presumably be more easy to control.
In the run-up to the launching of the unprovoked US aggression in March 2003, Biden echoed Bush administration propaganda. At a hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee just after Secretary of State Colin Powell’s notorious appearance before the United Nations Security Council in February 2003, Biden gushed, “I am proud to be associated with you. I think you did better than anyone could have because of your standing, your reputation and your integrity ...” Every major element of Powell’s indictment of Iraq has since proven to be false.
Once the Bush administration’s lies about weapons of mass destruction and Iraqi connections to Al Qaeda and the 9/11 attacks had been exposed, Biden began to express increasing alarm over the failure of the Bush administration to find an adequate rationale for maintaining public support for the war.
He bemoaned the Bush administration’s failure to sell the war effectively to the American people. In a speech to the Brookings Institution in June 2005, he declared, “I want to see the president of the United States succeed in Iraq...His success is America’s success, and his failure is America’s failure.”
Biden was particularly critical of the rosy forecasts of imminent success in Iraq being issued by the Pentagon and White House, which were at odds with the reality on the ground. “This disconnect, I believe, is fueling cynicism that is undermining the single most important weapon we need to give our troops to be able to do their job, and that is the unyielding support of the American people. That support is waning.”
Only after public opinion turned decisively against the war did Biden shift from advocating escalation to a limited pullout of US troops. A Washington Post column in late 2005—which noted the convergence of views of the longtime senator from Delaware and the newly elected senator from Illinois, Barack Obama—described Biden as “an early and consistent supporter of the US intervention against Saddam Hussein.”
Once the Democrats regained control of Congress in the November 2006, Biden became chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, where he played a major role in the capitulation by the congressional Democrats to the Bush “surge” policy. Millions of antiwar voters had cast ballots for the Democrats seeking an end to the war, but the White House escalated the war instead, and the Democrats postured impotently and then went along.
The Democratic-controlled Congress meekly submitted after Bush vetoed modest restrictions on the conduct of the war, and in May 2007 passed full funding for military operations in both Iraq and Afghanistan. When several Democratic senators voted against the funding bill as a protest—including Clinton and Obama—Biden denounced them for undermining the safety of the troops.
Two weeks after this critical vote, Biden denounced antiwar critics of the Democratic Congress, claiming, “We’re busting our neck every single day” trying to end the war. There could be no end to the war, he said, until a significant number of Republican senators defected, to provide the two-thirds majority needed to override a Bush veto, or until a Democratic president was in the White House. “We’re funding the safety of those troops there till we can get 67 votes,” he declared.
By then, the Democratic presidential contest was well under way, and Biden, despite winning little support and no delegates, played an important political role. As the World Socialist Web Site noted following a candidates’ debate in August 2007, “Biden has carved out a niche as the Democratic presidential candidate most willing to publicly rebuke antiwar sentiment.”
In the course of the debate, Biden attacked those who suggested that by threatening a quick withdrawal, the US government could compel Iraqi politicians to establish a stable government in Baghdad. He denounced illusions “that there is any possibility in the lifetime of anyone here of having the Iraqis get together, have a unity government in Baghdad that pulls the country together. That will not happen.... It will not happen in the lifetime of anyone here.” In other words, the US occupation would have to continue indefinitely.
There have been numerous suggestions from Democratic Party officials and the media over the past few days that, given Biden’s reputation for verbal confrontation, his selection signals a more aggressive attitude from the Obama campaign. On his record, however, it is quite likely that Biden will be deployed as an “attack dog” against antiwar critics of the Obama campaign.
This fact makes all the more despicable the fawning embrace of Biden by purportedly “antiwar” publications like the Nation. John Nichols, Washington editor of the left-liberal magazine, wrote that the choice of Biden was an “acceptable, perhaps even satisfying conclusion to the great veep search,” which could tip the polls back in Obama’s direction.
Commenting on the Springfield rally Saturday, Nichols gushed, “When Biden went after John McCain, with a vigor and, yes, a venom that has been missing from Obama’s stump speaking, it was a tonic for the troops who have been waiting for a campaign that is more prepared to throw punches than take them.”
This response only confirms a fundamental truth about the political crisis facing working people in the United States: it is impossible to conduct a serious struggle against American imperialism, and its program of social reaction and war, without first breaking free of the straitjacket of the Democratic Party.
Working people have no stake in the outcome of the Obama-McCain contest, which will determine, for the American ruling elite, who will be their commander-in-chief over the next four years. The task facing the working class is to break with the two-party system and build an independent political movement based on a socialist and internationalist program.
Copyright 1998-2008 - World Socialist Web Site - All rights reserved
Monday, August 25, 2008
Karzai ousts general as religious leaders call for trials.
Perhaps the general gave the U.S. the information that led to the airstrikes. Probably he sanctioned the U.S. version of the incident as well. Maybe he even provided that disinformation to the U.S. authorities. Who would be on trial? The NATO brass. Forget it. Occupiers don't commit war crimes and the Afghan government has no power to bring them to court in any event. Also, this is a UN sanctioned mission with the neat acronym ISAF the International Security Assistance Force. There is also the US Enduring Freedom aspect of the situation too. With all those high sounding phrases surely a few dozen civilian deaths are a small price to pay for such a noble mission.
Karzai Ousts General as Religious Leaders Call for Trials
Posted August 24, 2008
As the fallout from the Herat bombing continues, Afghan President Hamid Karzai issued a Presidential decree today ordering the immediate firing of two Army officials, including the top ranking officer in western Afghanistan, General Jalandar Shah Behnam, for “negligence and concealing facts,” as al-Jazeera reports that the air strikes have cost Karzai considerable support in the area.
Meanwhile, a council of local religious leaders demanded that those involved in the deaths be brought to trial. In a statement released earlier today they declared “(we) will not accept their apologies this time,” while United Nations Envoy Kai Eide issued a statement cautioning that civilian casualties “undermine the confidence of the Afghan people.”
Stopping short of an apology, the White House expressed its “regret” for the loss of innocent life while promising an investigation. Though the US military had persistently denied that any civilians were killed in Friday’s strike, the Times reported that they had conceded the deaths of at least five civilians.
Initially reported by US military as a raid killing 30 militants and no civilians, Afghan officials quickly contested the account, claiming a large number of civilian deaths. The toll rose as Afghan officials completed their investigations to 95 dead and an unknown additional number wounded. Afghan Minister Nematullah Shahrani said that most were women and children, and challenged US forces to produce evidence that any Taliban were at the site of the strike, which stands as one of the largest incidents of US-inflicted civilian casualties since the 2001 invasion.
Karzai Ousts General as Religious Leaders Call for Trials
Posted August 24, 2008
As the fallout from the Herat bombing continues, Afghan President Hamid Karzai issued a Presidential decree today ordering the immediate firing of two Army officials, including the top ranking officer in western Afghanistan, General Jalandar Shah Behnam, for “negligence and concealing facts,” as al-Jazeera reports that the air strikes have cost Karzai considerable support in the area.
Meanwhile, a council of local religious leaders demanded that those involved in the deaths be brought to trial. In a statement released earlier today they declared “(we) will not accept their apologies this time,” while United Nations Envoy Kai Eide issued a statement cautioning that civilian casualties “undermine the confidence of the Afghan people.”
Stopping short of an apology, the White House expressed its “regret” for the loss of innocent life while promising an investigation. Though the US military had persistently denied that any civilians were killed in Friday’s strike, the Times reported that they had conceded the deaths of at least five civilians.
Initially reported by US military as a raid killing 30 militants and no civilians, Afghan officials quickly contested the account, claiming a large number of civilian deaths. The toll rose as Afghan officials completed their investigations to 95 dead and an unknown additional number wounded. Afghan Minister Nematullah Shahrani said that most were women and children, and challenged US forces to produce evidence that any Taliban were at the site of the strike, which stands as one of the largest incidents of US-inflicted civilian casualties since the 2001 invasion.
Pakistan coalition breaks apart..
This is not surprising. As the article notes Zardari has broken several key parts of the agreement that formed the coalition. He chose the presential candidate without consultation and has not agreed upon re-instatement of the lawyers and chief justice who were dismissed by Mussharaf. While Zardari may be able to govern as a minority or obtain enough support to survive from smaller parties the political situation seems to be becoming more unstable. This is from the NY Times.
August 26, 2008
Fractious Coalition in Pakistan Breaks Apart
By JANE PERLEZ
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — The five-month-old coalition government in Pakistan collapsed Monday when the head of the minority party, Nawaz Sharif, announced his members would leave the fractious alliance, citing broken promises by Asif Ali Zardari, the leader of the majority party.
“We have been forced to leave the coalition,” Mr. Sharif said in Islamabad. “We joined the coalition with full sincerity for the restoration of democracy. Unfortunately all the promises were not honored.”
The exit by Mr. Sharif’s party, the Pakistan Muslim League-N, had been expected in the last few days, and was finally spurred by the decision of Mr. Zardari to run for president, in an electoral college vote set for Sept. 6. President Pervez Musharraf resigned last week under threat of impeachment.
The departure of Mr. Sharif, whose party sat uneasily with Mr. Zardari’s Pakistan Peoples Party, is unlikely to result in immediate elections. Mr. Sharif said his members would sit in the opposition in the Parliament and try to play a “constructive” role.
The Pakistan Peoples Party holds the most seats in the Parliament, but not a majority. Political analysts said they expected it would be able to cobble together a new parliamentary coalition with smaller parties.
Still, Pakistan faces continued political instability that may distract from serious governance and serious efforts to turn back the growing strength of the Taliban in the northwestern parts of the nation.
The main problem between Mr. Sharif and Mr. Zardari was a profound disagreement over the future of the former chief justice, Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry, who was fired by President Musharraf in March 2007, reinstated by the court in July, and placed under house arrest in November. He was finally freed in March of this year, but has yet to be restored to the bench.
Mr. Sharif has insisted that Mr. Chaudhry along with some 60 other judges, who were also fired in November, when Mr. Musharraf declared emergency rule, should be restored to the bench.
To drive home the point about broken promises, Mr. Sharif, a former two-time prime minister, released an accord signed by the two men on Aug. 7.
The document shows that Mr. Zardari and Mr. Sharif agreed that all the judges would be restored by an executive order one day after Mr. Musharraf’s impeachment or resignation. But Mr. Zardari stalled.
In an interview with the BBC Urdu-language radio service on Saturday, Mr. Zardari defended his position, saying agreements with the Pakistan Muslim League-N were not “holy like the holy Koran.”
The Aug. 7 accord, signed as the two parties maneuvered to force Mr. Musharraf out, also said the two men would agree on a presidential candidate.
Instead, according to Mr. Sharif’s aides, Mr. Zardari went ahead to plan his own candidacy for the presidency, and arranged for the election to be held on Sept. 6 without consulting Mr. Sharif.
At the news conference in Islamabad, Mr. Sharif introduced his party’s candidate for president, Saeed-uz-zaman Siddiqui, a former chief justice. Mr. Siddiqui refused to take the oath of office to remain as chief justice after Mr. Musharraf took power from Mr. Sharif in a bloodless coup in 1999.
The presidential vote polls the national Parliament and four provincial assemblies. It is expected that Mr. Zardari will prevail.
There was no immediate official reaction from the Pakistan Peoples Party on the collapse of the coalition.
But a member of Parliament from the party, Fauzia Wahab, said the party would “conveniently and easily survive” without the support of the Pakistan Muslim League-N. She criticized Mr. Sharif for “holding the system hostage of one man,” meaning Mr. Chaudhry.
Mr. Zardari, the widower of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, who was assassinated in December, has consistently opposed the reappointment of Mr. Chaudhry since the coalition came together after Feb. 18 parliamentary elections.
The basis of Mr. Zardari’s objection appears grounded in a fear that the judge would undo the amnesty granted to Mr. Zardari on corruption charges when he returned to Pakistan on the death of his wife after years in exile.
Mr. Zardari served in government in the 1990s, when Ms. Bhutto was twice prime minister in the 1990s. He spent more than eight years in jail on various corruption charges that were dropped on his return and which he says were politically motivated.
In the week since Mr. Musharraf resigned, Mr. Zardari has emerged as the chief political force in Pakistan, and he appears to have the backing of the Bush administration as he drives forward toward the presidency.
In the past two days, Mr. Zardari’s statements have increasingly coincided with Washington’s policies, particularly on the campaign against terror, the United States’ central concern here.
In the BBC radio interview, Mr. Zardari used unusually strong words against the Taliban, whose presence in Pakistan’s tribal areas has gathered steam in the last year. “The world is losing the war,” he said of the fight against the Taliban. “I think at the moment they definitely have the upper hand.”
Mr. Zardari said in the interview the Tehrik-i-Taliban, an umbrella group of the Taliban in Pakistan, should be banned. On Monday, the Interior Ministry announced the group would be added to the list of banned organizations. Other Islamic extremist groups are on the Interior Ministry’s list, but the listing appears to have had little effect.
Several months ago, the government in the North-West Frontier Province, which is allied with Mr. Zardari’s party, signed a peace agreement with an Islamic extremist group, in the province’s Swat Valley. That accord is now broken and the Pakistani Army has been fighting the group for the last several weeks.
Salman Masood contributed reporting.
August 26, 2008
Fractious Coalition in Pakistan Breaks Apart
By JANE PERLEZ
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — The five-month-old coalition government in Pakistan collapsed Monday when the head of the minority party, Nawaz Sharif, announced his members would leave the fractious alliance, citing broken promises by Asif Ali Zardari, the leader of the majority party.
“We have been forced to leave the coalition,” Mr. Sharif said in Islamabad. “We joined the coalition with full sincerity for the restoration of democracy. Unfortunately all the promises were not honored.”
The exit by Mr. Sharif’s party, the Pakistan Muslim League-N, had been expected in the last few days, and was finally spurred by the decision of Mr. Zardari to run for president, in an electoral college vote set for Sept. 6. President Pervez Musharraf resigned last week under threat of impeachment.
The departure of Mr. Sharif, whose party sat uneasily with Mr. Zardari’s Pakistan Peoples Party, is unlikely to result in immediate elections. Mr. Sharif said his members would sit in the opposition in the Parliament and try to play a “constructive” role.
The Pakistan Peoples Party holds the most seats in the Parliament, but not a majority. Political analysts said they expected it would be able to cobble together a new parliamentary coalition with smaller parties.
Still, Pakistan faces continued political instability that may distract from serious governance and serious efforts to turn back the growing strength of the Taliban in the northwestern parts of the nation.
The main problem between Mr. Sharif and Mr. Zardari was a profound disagreement over the future of the former chief justice, Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry, who was fired by President Musharraf in March 2007, reinstated by the court in July, and placed under house arrest in November. He was finally freed in March of this year, but has yet to be restored to the bench.
Mr. Sharif has insisted that Mr. Chaudhry along with some 60 other judges, who were also fired in November, when Mr. Musharraf declared emergency rule, should be restored to the bench.
To drive home the point about broken promises, Mr. Sharif, a former two-time prime minister, released an accord signed by the two men on Aug. 7.
The document shows that Mr. Zardari and Mr. Sharif agreed that all the judges would be restored by an executive order one day after Mr. Musharraf’s impeachment or resignation. But Mr. Zardari stalled.
In an interview with the BBC Urdu-language radio service on Saturday, Mr. Zardari defended his position, saying agreements with the Pakistan Muslim League-N were not “holy like the holy Koran.”
The Aug. 7 accord, signed as the two parties maneuvered to force Mr. Musharraf out, also said the two men would agree on a presidential candidate.
Instead, according to Mr. Sharif’s aides, Mr. Zardari went ahead to plan his own candidacy for the presidency, and arranged for the election to be held on Sept. 6 without consulting Mr. Sharif.
At the news conference in Islamabad, Mr. Sharif introduced his party’s candidate for president, Saeed-uz-zaman Siddiqui, a former chief justice. Mr. Siddiqui refused to take the oath of office to remain as chief justice after Mr. Musharraf took power from Mr. Sharif in a bloodless coup in 1999.
The presidential vote polls the national Parliament and four provincial assemblies. It is expected that Mr. Zardari will prevail.
There was no immediate official reaction from the Pakistan Peoples Party on the collapse of the coalition.
But a member of Parliament from the party, Fauzia Wahab, said the party would “conveniently and easily survive” without the support of the Pakistan Muslim League-N. She criticized Mr. Sharif for “holding the system hostage of one man,” meaning Mr. Chaudhry.
Mr. Zardari, the widower of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, who was assassinated in December, has consistently opposed the reappointment of Mr. Chaudhry since the coalition came together after Feb. 18 parliamentary elections.
The basis of Mr. Zardari’s objection appears grounded in a fear that the judge would undo the amnesty granted to Mr. Zardari on corruption charges when he returned to Pakistan on the death of his wife after years in exile.
Mr. Zardari served in government in the 1990s, when Ms. Bhutto was twice prime minister in the 1990s. He spent more than eight years in jail on various corruption charges that were dropped on his return and which he says were politically motivated.
In the week since Mr. Musharraf resigned, Mr. Zardari has emerged as the chief political force in Pakistan, and he appears to have the backing of the Bush administration as he drives forward toward the presidency.
In the past two days, Mr. Zardari’s statements have increasingly coincided with Washington’s policies, particularly on the campaign against terror, the United States’ central concern here.
In the BBC radio interview, Mr. Zardari used unusually strong words against the Taliban, whose presence in Pakistan’s tribal areas has gathered steam in the last year. “The world is losing the war,” he said of the fight against the Taliban. “I think at the moment they definitely have the upper hand.”
Mr. Zardari said in the interview the Tehrik-i-Taliban, an umbrella group of the Taliban in Pakistan, should be banned. On Monday, the Interior Ministry announced the group would be added to the list of banned organizations. Other Islamic extremist groups are on the Interior Ministry’s list, but the listing appears to have had little effect.
Several months ago, the government in the North-West Frontier Province, which is allied with Mr. Zardari’s party, signed a peace agreement with an Islamic extremist group, in the province’s Swat Valley. That accord is now broken and the Pakistani Army has been fighting the group for the last several weeks.
Salman Masood contributed reporting.
The blowback from Kosovo
This is from antiwar.com
The U.S. recognised Kosovo when it unilaterally declared independence in the absence of any agreement with Serbia. Serbia always claimed that Kosovo was a part of its sovereign territory. This did not matter as the U.S. was able to get many countries to go along and recognise the newly minted state. At the time Russia warned that the recognition of Kosovo's independence without the agreement of Serbia would change Russia's policy with respect to Abkhazia and South Ossetia. This is the culmination of that change. Bush continually stresses that Abkhazia and South Ossetia are territories within Georgia in effect part of sovereign Georgia. In the light of Kosovo this is complete hypocrisy. While Serbia with Russian support complained about U.S. recognition of Kosovo the U.S. simply ignored Russia. Now Russia will return the favor with respect to South Ossetia and Abkazia. Of course most of the western media will treat the two cases quite differently and complain of Russian aggression.
Russian Parliament Unanimously Backs Independence for Abkhazia, South Ossetia
Posted August 25, 2008
In a move many see as retaliation for the February recognition of independence for Kosovo, both houses of Russia’s parliament voted unanimously to recognize the independence of the separatist regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Though not legally binding, the vote urges Russian President Dmitry Medvedev to officially recognize them and establish full diplomatic relations.
The Georgian Foreign Ministry condemned the vote as a continuation of “Russian aggression” and a violation of Georgia’s sovereignty. Yesterday, Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili vowed to rebuild his shattered military and reclaim the enclaves. Earlier this month, the Bush Administration reiterated its commitment to Georgia’s “territorial integrity.”
Both enclaves have enjoyed varying degrees of autonomy since 1992, and tensions with the Georgian government have led to intermittent violence. This all came to a head earlier this month, when the Georgian government launched an offensive against South Ossetia, shelling its capital city of Tskhinvali. The Russian military, along with thousands of Abkhaz and Ossetian volunteers, swept into Tskhinvali, and advanced into parts of Georgia. Though a cease-fire has been declared, Russian troops remain in and around certain strategic Georgian cities.
In February, the breakaway province of Kosovo, long part of Serbia, declared independence with United States backing. At the time, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov warned that the move would affect Russia’s policy toward Abkhazia and South Ossetia’s long-standing independence claims.
The U.S. recognised Kosovo when it unilaterally declared independence in the absence of any agreement with Serbia. Serbia always claimed that Kosovo was a part of its sovereign territory. This did not matter as the U.S. was able to get many countries to go along and recognise the newly minted state. At the time Russia warned that the recognition of Kosovo's independence without the agreement of Serbia would change Russia's policy with respect to Abkhazia and South Ossetia. This is the culmination of that change. Bush continually stresses that Abkhazia and South Ossetia are territories within Georgia in effect part of sovereign Georgia. In the light of Kosovo this is complete hypocrisy. While Serbia with Russian support complained about U.S. recognition of Kosovo the U.S. simply ignored Russia. Now Russia will return the favor with respect to South Ossetia and Abkazia. Of course most of the western media will treat the two cases quite differently and complain of Russian aggression.
Russian Parliament Unanimously Backs Independence for Abkhazia, South Ossetia
Posted August 25, 2008
In a move many see as retaliation for the February recognition of independence for Kosovo, both houses of Russia’s parliament voted unanimously to recognize the independence of the separatist regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Though not legally binding, the vote urges Russian President Dmitry Medvedev to officially recognize them and establish full diplomatic relations.
The Georgian Foreign Ministry condemned the vote as a continuation of “Russian aggression” and a violation of Georgia’s sovereignty. Yesterday, Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili vowed to rebuild his shattered military and reclaim the enclaves. Earlier this month, the Bush Administration reiterated its commitment to Georgia’s “territorial integrity.”
Both enclaves have enjoyed varying degrees of autonomy since 1992, and tensions with the Georgian government have led to intermittent violence. This all came to a head earlier this month, when the Georgian government launched an offensive against South Ossetia, shelling its capital city of Tskhinvali. The Russian military, along with thousands of Abkhaz and Ossetian volunteers, swept into Tskhinvali, and advanced into parts of Georgia. Though a cease-fire has been declared, Russian troops remain in and around certain strategic Georgian cities.
In February, the breakaway province of Kosovo, long part of Serbia, declared independence with United States backing. At the time, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov warned that the move would affect Russia’s policy toward Abkhazia and South Ossetia’s long-standing independence claims.
Sunday, August 24, 2008
After pullout, Russia envisions long-term shift
Russia is giving notice that it is not about to let the situation return to the status quo before Georgia tried to reassert control over South Ossetia. Russia also interprets the cease-fire in a much broader way than does the U.S. or France among others. The U.S. and Germany continue to support Georgia joining NATO a recipe for even more conflict. These events are going to create problems for Obama and McCain probably to the benefit of McCain who is more likely to be hawkish on relations with Russia. This is from the NY Times.
August 23, 2008
After Pullout, Russia Envisions Long-Term Shift
By CLIFFORD J. LEVY
MOSCOW — As the Russian Army withdrew most of its forces from Georgia, it was becoming ever more clear on Friday that Moscow had no intention of restoring what once was — either on the ground or diplomatically.
The West wants a return to early August, before an obscure territorial dispute on the fringes of the old Soviet empire erupted into an international crisis. But Russia’s forces are digging in and seizing ribbons of Georgian land that abut two breakaway enclaves allied with Moscow, effectively extending its zone of influence.
At the same time, the Kremlin is nearing formal recognition of the independence of the enclaves, South Ossetia and Abkhazia, possibly as early as next week.
These moves indicate that despite the French-brokered cease-fire framework that Russia accepted, it is striving to maintain considerable economic and military pressure on Georgia, a close ally of the United States. The ultimate goal, it seems, is the ouster of its president, Mikheil Saakashvili, who is detested by the Russian leadership, and the installation of a government that it considers less hostile.
The Russian president, Dmitri A. Medvedev, promised early this week that most Russian troops would be withdrawn by Friday, and throughout the day, soldiers were observed heading north toward the two enclaves. Russian tanks swept along Georgia’s main roadways, abandoning an important military camp and checkpoints outside the central city of Gori.
By the night, the defense minister, Anatoly E. Serdyukov, had declared the pullback completed, saying that “the Russian side has fulfilled” the cease-fire.
Even so, Russian soldiers maintained a series of armed checkpoints along Georgia’s main highway, leaving the Kremlin with the ability to cut off trade and traffic across the country and to isolate the capital, Tbilisi, from much of the nation.
It also continued to occupy areas near a military base in Senaki, the western city of Zugdidi and the vital port of Poti on the Black Sea. Russian officials say 500 soldiers they refer to as peacekeepers will remain in Georgia near South Ossetia.
In Washington on Friday, a State Department spokesman, Robert Wood, said that by establishing the buffer zones, the Russians “failed to live up to their obligations under the cease-fire agreement.” France expressed similar objections.
In spurning a complete pullback, the Kremlin is sending a message that it has no regrets about marching into its much smaller neighbor, even if the conflict has stirred the sharpest tensions between Moscow and Washington since the end of the cold war.
Having grown increasingly angry over NATO expansion into Eastern Europe, the Russians believe that they have finally and justly struck back, according to analysts and officials in Moscow.
The Russian leadership has also expressed more confidence in recent days that it is getting across its view that it attacked Georgia two weeks ago only in response to an unprovoked assault by the Georgian military on civilians in South Ossetia.
Alexei Pankin, a columnist for the Russian state news agency, said on Friday that the Kremlin had undoubtedly ordered tanks into Georgia because it wanted to somehow topple Mr. Saakashvili. While it did not immediately achieve that aim, it is now in a better position to do so than it was before the conflict.
“Their feeling now is, you made gains and you should keep them,” Mr. Pankin said. “After what happened, their successes, they are not really feeling constrained now.”
The Kremlin has signaled its intention to remove Mr. Saakashvili in part by trying to isolate him. The Russian Foreign Ministry, which has often suggested that Mr. Saakashvili is unstable, said this week that it would not negotiate directly with him “for reasons absolutely understandable to any sensible person.”
Still, dangers loom for the Kremlin, especially if it falls victim to its historical tendency to overreach. For now, the West has shied from severe steps to punish Russia, such as ousting it from the Group of 8. But should Russia be perceived in the coming weeks as actively trying to overthrow Mr. Saakashvili or retake parts of the country, it could set off new penalties that might threaten its robust economic revival.
Already, Russia’s financial markets have evinced concern about that, with the stock market falling since the conflict began and capital flowing out of the country at a fast pace.
In Tbilisi on Friday night, Mr. Saakashvili spoke live on national television, appearing grim and subdued. He warned Georgians to expect more problems, and he pledged to offer compensation to families who had lost relatives in the fighting.
Despite all Georgia’s setbacks in the last two weeks, Mr. Saakashvili vowed anew to restore Georgia’s territorial integrity — restating an ambition that had helped propel Georgia into a clash with its much more powerful neighbor to the north.
“Georgia has no extra territories to give to others,” he said.
The war started late on Aug. 7 when Mr. Saakashvili ordered his small, American-trained military to attack and seize Tskhinvali, the capital of South Ossetia, a tiny mountainous region on the southern face of the Caucasus Ridge. The region has been out of Georgia’s control, and under Russian support, since a brief war in the 1990s.
Mr. Saakashvili’s order, which he has said was necessary to prevent a Russian assault, turned into a disaster that threatened the Georgian state. Russian planes, rockets and artillery pounded Georgian positions, while armored units routed Georgian forces and swept into several principal cities.
Moreover, a wide plain of Georgian villages was largely depopulated and is now behind a new administrative border defended by Russian troops. Tbilisi was crowded on Friday with refugees, many subsisting in squalid conditions.
Even with many of the Russian troops withdrawn by Friday night, fears lingered that soldiers would try to conduct checks on the main east-west highway, creating economic stress on, or even a blockade of, Tbilisi and much of the rest of the country. Under the cease-fire accord, Russian forces are prohibited from blocking traffic, though they have done so this week.
“One of the Russian war goals was to bring down this government, and by economic pressure they hope to do that,” a senior NATO official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the situation with reporters. “Bringing down the government was more likely their goal than conquering Tbilisi.”
In response, NATO foreign ministers have sent civil emergency planning teams to help Georgia rebuild civilian infrastructure and restore its economy.
Georgia’s prime minister, Lado Gurgenidze, played down the risk of an extended blockade of Tbilisi. “There’s been no hoarding, no panic buying, apart from a few incidents,” Mr. Gurgenidze said.
He said the capital had stocks of gasoline and flour, though he declined to say how long they were expected to last.
At stores in Tbilisi, food prices have risen sharply since the conflict began and did not drop on Friday, even with the partial pullout. At one fruit stand, the price for peaches had risen by 40 percent, and for apples by 100 percent.
“We are afraid — most people are stocking up, it’s not just me,” said Lyuda Marishvili, an elderly woman who was shopping at a market in the capital. “The roads are closed. There will be no products.”
C. J. Chivers contributed reporting from Karaleti, Georgia, and Andrew E. Kramer from Tbilisi.
August 23, 2008
After Pullout, Russia Envisions Long-Term Shift
By CLIFFORD J. LEVY
MOSCOW — As the Russian Army withdrew most of its forces from Georgia, it was becoming ever more clear on Friday that Moscow had no intention of restoring what once was — either on the ground or diplomatically.
The West wants a return to early August, before an obscure territorial dispute on the fringes of the old Soviet empire erupted into an international crisis. But Russia’s forces are digging in and seizing ribbons of Georgian land that abut two breakaway enclaves allied with Moscow, effectively extending its zone of influence.
At the same time, the Kremlin is nearing formal recognition of the independence of the enclaves, South Ossetia and Abkhazia, possibly as early as next week.
These moves indicate that despite the French-brokered cease-fire framework that Russia accepted, it is striving to maintain considerable economic and military pressure on Georgia, a close ally of the United States. The ultimate goal, it seems, is the ouster of its president, Mikheil Saakashvili, who is detested by the Russian leadership, and the installation of a government that it considers less hostile.
The Russian president, Dmitri A. Medvedev, promised early this week that most Russian troops would be withdrawn by Friday, and throughout the day, soldiers were observed heading north toward the two enclaves. Russian tanks swept along Georgia’s main roadways, abandoning an important military camp and checkpoints outside the central city of Gori.
By the night, the defense minister, Anatoly E. Serdyukov, had declared the pullback completed, saying that “the Russian side has fulfilled” the cease-fire.
Even so, Russian soldiers maintained a series of armed checkpoints along Georgia’s main highway, leaving the Kremlin with the ability to cut off trade and traffic across the country and to isolate the capital, Tbilisi, from much of the nation.
It also continued to occupy areas near a military base in Senaki, the western city of Zugdidi and the vital port of Poti on the Black Sea. Russian officials say 500 soldiers they refer to as peacekeepers will remain in Georgia near South Ossetia.
In Washington on Friday, a State Department spokesman, Robert Wood, said that by establishing the buffer zones, the Russians “failed to live up to their obligations under the cease-fire agreement.” France expressed similar objections.
In spurning a complete pullback, the Kremlin is sending a message that it has no regrets about marching into its much smaller neighbor, even if the conflict has stirred the sharpest tensions between Moscow and Washington since the end of the cold war.
Having grown increasingly angry over NATO expansion into Eastern Europe, the Russians believe that they have finally and justly struck back, according to analysts and officials in Moscow.
The Russian leadership has also expressed more confidence in recent days that it is getting across its view that it attacked Georgia two weeks ago only in response to an unprovoked assault by the Georgian military on civilians in South Ossetia.
Alexei Pankin, a columnist for the Russian state news agency, said on Friday that the Kremlin had undoubtedly ordered tanks into Georgia because it wanted to somehow topple Mr. Saakashvili. While it did not immediately achieve that aim, it is now in a better position to do so than it was before the conflict.
“Their feeling now is, you made gains and you should keep them,” Mr. Pankin said. “After what happened, their successes, they are not really feeling constrained now.”
The Kremlin has signaled its intention to remove Mr. Saakashvili in part by trying to isolate him. The Russian Foreign Ministry, which has often suggested that Mr. Saakashvili is unstable, said this week that it would not negotiate directly with him “for reasons absolutely understandable to any sensible person.”
Still, dangers loom for the Kremlin, especially if it falls victim to its historical tendency to overreach. For now, the West has shied from severe steps to punish Russia, such as ousting it from the Group of 8. But should Russia be perceived in the coming weeks as actively trying to overthrow Mr. Saakashvili or retake parts of the country, it could set off new penalties that might threaten its robust economic revival.
Already, Russia’s financial markets have evinced concern about that, with the stock market falling since the conflict began and capital flowing out of the country at a fast pace.
In Tbilisi on Friday night, Mr. Saakashvili spoke live on national television, appearing grim and subdued. He warned Georgians to expect more problems, and he pledged to offer compensation to families who had lost relatives in the fighting.
Despite all Georgia’s setbacks in the last two weeks, Mr. Saakashvili vowed anew to restore Georgia’s territorial integrity — restating an ambition that had helped propel Georgia into a clash with its much more powerful neighbor to the north.
“Georgia has no extra territories to give to others,” he said.
The war started late on Aug. 7 when Mr. Saakashvili ordered his small, American-trained military to attack and seize Tskhinvali, the capital of South Ossetia, a tiny mountainous region on the southern face of the Caucasus Ridge. The region has been out of Georgia’s control, and under Russian support, since a brief war in the 1990s.
Mr. Saakashvili’s order, which he has said was necessary to prevent a Russian assault, turned into a disaster that threatened the Georgian state. Russian planes, rockets and artillery pounded Georgian positions, while armored units routed Georgian forces and swept into several principal cities.
Moreover, a wide plain of Georgian villages was largely depopulated and is now behind a new administrative border defended by Russian troops. Tbilisi was crowded on Friday with refugees, many subsisting in squalid conditions.
Even with many of the Russian troops withdrawn by Friday night, fears lingered that soldiers would try to conduct checks on the main east-west highway, creating economic stress on, or even a blockade of, Tbilisi and much of the rest of the country. Under the cease-fire accord, Russian forces are prohibited from blocking traffic, though they have done so this week.
“One of the Russian war goals was to bring down this government, and by economic pressure they hope to do that,” a senior NATO official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the situation with reporters. “Bringing down the government was more likely their goal than conquering Tbilisi.”
In response, NATO foreign ministers have sent civil emergency planning teams to help Georgia rebuild civilian infrastructure and restore its economy.
Georgia’s prime minister, Lado Gurgenidze, played down the risk of an extended blockade of Tbilisi. “There’s been no hoarding, no panic buying, apart from a few incidents,” Mr. Gurgenidze said.
He said the capital had stocks of gasoline and flour, though he declined to say how long they were expected to last.
At stores in Tbilisi, food prices have risen sharply since the conflict began and did not drop on Friday, even with the partial pullout. At one fruit stand, the price for peaches had risen by 40 percent, and for apples by 100 percent.
“We are afraid — most people are stocking up, it’s not just me,” said Lyuda Marishvili, an elderly woman who was shopping at a market in the capital. “The roads are closed. There will be no products.”
C. J. Chivers contributed reporting from Karaleti, Georgia, and Andrew E. Kramer from Tbilisi.
This is from The News (Pakistan)
A great many people are being displaced by these conflicts. The United States is sending some aid to help but no doubt much more is probably needed. The commanders who began the conflict supposedly did so without authorisation but there has been no sign of any attempt on the part of the MILF to apprehend them. Without that happening surely neither the government nor the MILF will be able to punish them. If they really are renegade commanders it would seem suitable punishment to deliver them into the hands of the government. They don''t represent the MILF in any event! The situation does not look promising. At the same time there is still a long term conflict with the NPA (Maoists) with no sign of peace talks on that front. The U.S. has branded the NPA as a terrorist group and that seems to make negotiations more difficult. However with the MILF they have so far not been labelled terrorists though it is hard to see why given that sometimes they use similar guerilla warfare tactics to the NPA.
Over 100 killed in fierce battles
Peace process could collapse, says MILFSunday, August 24, 2008DARAPANAN, Philippines: Muslim rebels on Saturday urged the Philippine government to halt a military offensive they say threatens a years long peace process and escalates violence in the troubled south. The military has launched ground and air attacks on rebel positions in response to a guerrilla rampage Monday in which 37 people were shot or hacked to death in several villages. Al-Haj Murad, chairman of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), told a news conference at a tightly guarded rebel base near southern Cotabato city that the military has started indiscriminate attacks while pursuing rebel commanders blamed for leading the rampage. The rebels, who have been fighting for Muslim self-rule in the predominantly Roman Catholic nation’s south for decades, have said they regret a recent upsurge in violence and that the commanders responsible acted on their own. Murad said peace talks should resume, but repeated earlier rejections of a government demand that suspects be turned over to face the criminal justice system. “We cannot subject our members to the laws of the government,” Murad said from a stage where four rebels armed with M-16 rifles and grenade launchers stood guard. “We are a revolutionary force.” He suggested that the correct forum to deal with the rebel commanders should be a cease-fire committee involving the government, the rebels and an international truce monitoring group.Defence Secretary Gilbert Teodoro repeated the government’s demand. He accused rebel leaders of engaging in “extortion ...intransigence and arrogance” in their statements since the rampage when they should be showing “good faith to try to stop the conflict from escalating” by turning over the commanders. “We hope the (rebels are) reasonable enough to see that it does them no good to coddle these criminals,” Teodoro told reporters in Manila. Murad said a deadline of sorts looms because the truce group’s mandate is set to expire Aug 31. The military has reported heavy fighting in four towns since Thursday and estimated it has inflicted up to 100 casualties on rebel forces in ground battles and barrages of artillery and aerial bombing. Col. Marlou Salazar, an army brigade commander, said intercepted radio messages and accounts from villagers show 22 rebels have been killed in the last three days of fighting in four Maguindanao townships alone. Two government soldiers were killed and 15 others wounded in the area, Salazar said. Sen. Richard Gordon, head of the Philippine Red Cross, said about 500 civilians were escorted out of the combat zone in Datu Piang township on Friday and another 1,000 were being helped out of outlying villages.
A great many people are being displaced by these conflicts. The United States is sending some aid to help but no doubt much more is probably needed. The commanders who began the conflict supposedly did so without authorisation but there has been no sign of any attempt on the part of the MILF to apprehend them. Without that happening surely neither the government nor the MILF will be able to punish them. If they really are renegade commanders it would seem suitable punishment to deliver them into the hands of the government. They don''t represent the MILF in any event! The situation does not look promising. At the same time there is still a long term conflict with the NPA (Maoists) with no sign of peace talks on that front. The U.S. has branded the NPA as a terrorist group and that seems to make negotiations more difficult. However with the MILF they have so far not been labelled terrorists though it is hard to see why given that sometimes they use similar guerilla warfare tactics to the NPA.
Over 100 killed in fierce battles
Peace process could collapse, says MILFSunday, August 24, 2008DARAPANAN, Philippines: Muslim rebels on Saturday urged the Philippine government to halt a military offensive they say threatens a years long peace process and escalates violence in the troubled south. The military has launched ground and air attacks on rebel positions in response to a guerrilla rampage Monday in which 37 people were shot or hacked to death in several villages. Al-Haj Murad, chairman of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), told a news conference at a tightly guarded rebel base near southern Cotabato city that the military has started indiscriminate attacks while pursuing rebel commanders blamed for leading the rampage. The rebels, who have been fighting for Muslim self-rule in the predominantly Roman Catholic nation’s south for decades, have said they regret a recent upsurge in violence and that the commanders responsible acted on their own. Murad said peace talks should resume, but repeated earlier rejections of a government demand that suspects be turned over to face the criminal justice system. “We cannot subject our members to the laws of the government,” Murad said from a stage where four rebels armed with M-16 rifles and grenade launchers stood guard. “We are a revolutionary force.” He suggested that the correct forum to deal with the rebel commanders should be a cease-fire committee involving the government, the rebels and an international truce monitoring group.Defence Secretary Gilbert Teodoro repeated the government’s demand. He accused rebel leaders of engaging in “extortion ...intransigence and arrogance” in their statements since the rampage when they should be showing “good faith to try to stop the conflict from escalating” by turning over the commanders. “We hope the (rebels are) reasonable enough to see that it does them no good to coddle these criminals,” Teodoro told reporters in Manila. Murad said a deadline of sorts looms because the truce group’s mandate is set to expire Aug 31. The military has reported heavy fighting in four towns since Thursday and estimated it has inflicted up to 100 casualties on rebel forces in ground battles and barrages of artillery and aerial bombing. Col. Marlou Salazar, an army brigade commander, said intercepted radio messages and accounts from villagers show 22 rebels have been killed in the last three days of fighting in four Maguindanao townships alone. Two government soldiers were killed and 15 others wounded in the area, Salazar said. Sen. Richard Gordon, head of the Philippine Red Cross, said about 500 civilians were escorted out of the combat zone in Datu Piang township on Friday and another 1,000 were being helped out of outlying villages.
Saturday, August 23, 2008
Philippine govt. rejects call for all out war against MILF.
The chances of any acceptable agreement between the government and MILF at present seems to be less and less likely. The agreement has been deemed unconstitutional and opposition in the wider Philippine community seems to be quite strong from what I have read.
The AFP of the Philippines is Americanised even in its rhetoric of collateral damage. However, I guess that term has become universal as a fig leaf to cover killing of civilians. As with the Americans as well it seems that in actuality some of the tactics of the AFP are bound to cause civilian casualties. See for example the description of the AFP attacks in Malaya.
Philippine gov't rejects calls for all-out war against separatists
www.chinaview.cn 2008-08-22 19:38:09
MANILA, Aug. 22 (Xinhua) -- The Philippine government Friday rejected calls for an "all-out" war with the separatist Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), saying its ongoing military operations in the South are only meant to "neutralize" radicals involved in recent attacks against civilians.
"The President (Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo) wishes to allay fears that an all-out war will be launched by the government in light of increasing calls to do so," said Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita , quoted by Philippine TV network GMA News.
Calls for an all-out war against the MILF have been increasing following attacks by radical members of the MILF against civilians in the southern provinces of North Cotabato, Lanao del Norte and Sarangani in the past two weeks.
The clashes broke out, allegedly, as a result of the Philippine Supreme Court suspended a territorial pact scheduled for Aug. 5 to be signed between the government and the separatists.
The agreement on the territory of a projected Muslim-dominated state was regarded as the last remaining hurdle to a final political settlement that is expected to end the insurgency in the southern Philippines. Dozens were killed in the clashes, mostly civilians, and thousands were forced to leave their home for safety.
Among those who advocated total war was former President Joseph Estrada, who chided the Arroyo government of giving back territory that government forces seized from the separatist rebels in 2000 when he was in power.
On the other hand, religious leaders and human rights groups have warned that an all-out war could only aggravate the conflict that has divided Filipinos in the South for decades.
Adding to calls for peace last Thursday was former President Corazon Aquino, who said that peace is cheaper than war, GMA reported.
Ermita also said the government is not imposing on the MILF leadership to surrender their two commanders, Ameril Umbra Kato and Abdullah Makapaar, as a condition for peace negotiations to continue.
He said the government just has to "live up to that realization that they (MILF leaders) admit that they have elements that do not follow orders."
MILF leaders have said the attacks will be investigated jointly by the government and MILF ceasefire committees and that punishments await their men found responsible for the "unauthorized attacks."
Earlier on Friday, the Philippine National Police (PNP) filed charges of murder, kidnapping, and arson against Bravo, Kato and 89 others who were linked to attacks and burning of properties in parts of North Cotabato, Lanao del Norte and Sarangani provinces.
Ermita further said that government forces will continue to go after these "rogue" MILF members but are under strict orders to avoid "collateral damage," a term used for civilians getting caught in the crossfire.
"While the government's military and police forces are complying with the President's directive to neutralize the two erring commanders and other recalcitrant leaders and members of the MILF at all cost to the extent possible, collateral damage must be avoided," Ermita said.
The AFP of the Philippines is Americanised even in its rhetoric of collateral damage. However, I guess that term has become universal as a fig leaf to cover killing of civilians. As with the Americans as well it seems that in actuality some of the tactics of the AFP are bound to cause civilian casualties. See for example the description of the AFP attacks in Malaya.
Philippine gov't rejects calls for all-out war against separatists
www.chinaview.cn 2008-08-22 19:38:09
MANILA, Aug. 22 (Xinhua) -- The Philippine government Friday rejected calls for an "all-out" war with the separatist Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), saying its ongoing military operations in the South are only meant to "neutralize" radicals involved in recent attacks against civilians.
"The President (Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo) wishes to allay fears that an all-out war will be launched by the government in light of increasing calls to do so," said Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita , quoted by Philippine TV network GMA News.
Calls for an all-out war against the MILF have been increasing following attacks by radical members of the MILF against civilians in the southern provinces of North Cotabato, Lanao del Norte and Sarangani in the past two weeks.
The clashes broke out, allegedly, as a result of the Philippine Supreme Court suspended a territorial pact scheduled for Aug. 5 to be signed between the government and the separatists.
The agreement on the territory of a projected Muslim-dominated state was regarded as the last remaining hurdle to a final political settlement that is expected to end the insurgency in the southern Philippines. Dozens were killed in the clashes, mostly civilians, and thousands were forced to leave their home for safety.
Among those who advocated total war was former President Joseph Estrada, who chided the Arroyo government of giving back territory that government forces seized from the separatist rebels in 2000 when he was in power.
On the other hand, religious leaders and human rights groups have warned that an all-out war could only aggravate the conflict that has divided Filipinos in the South for decades.
Adding to calls for peace last Thursday was former President Corazon Aquino, who said that peace is cheaper than war, GMA reported.
Ermita also said the government is not imposing on the MILF leadership to surrender their two commanders, Ameril Umbra Kato and Abdullah Makapaar, as a condition for peace negotiations to continue.
He said the government just has to "live up to that realization that they (MILF leaders) admit that they have elements that do not follow orders."
MILF leaders have said the attacks will be investigated jointly by the government and MILF ceasefire committees and that punishments await their men found responsible for the "unauthorized attacks."
Earlier on Friday, the Philippine National Police (PNP) filed charges of murder, kidnapping, and arson against Bravo, Kato and 89 others who were linked to attacks and burning of properties in parts of North Cotabato, Lanao del Norte and Sarangani provinces.
Ermita further said that government forces will continue to go after these "rogue" MILF members but are under strict orders to avoid "collateral damage," a term used for civilians getting caught in the crossfire.
"While the government's military and police forces are complying with the President's directive to neutralize the two erring commanders and other recalcitrant leaders and members of the MILF at all cost to the extent possible, collateral damage must be avoided," Ermita said.
Afghan officials: US Airstrikes kill 76 civilians.
This is from antiwar.com.
The official U.S. story is almost always that it was only Taliban militants who were killed although after investigation this is often changed. In any event it should be no surprise that in a tribal society where revenge is demanded when relatives are killed that there are no shortages of recruits for the Taliban. Karzai has consistently decried the bombing policy. Notice that there has been no attempt to resurrect the Afghan air force. All of this activity seems to devolve upon the U.S. as far as I can see. The U.S. wants to stay in charge of air space both in Afghanistan and in Iraq.
Interior Ministry: US Airstrikes Kill 76 Afghan Civilians
Written on August 22, 2008
Just one day after US airstrikes in Laghman province were reported to have killed at least 20 civilians, a much larger incident has occurred on the opposite side of the country in Herat Province.
As with yesterday’s story, the initial US report claimed that 30 militants were killed, including an al-Qaeda commander. Though the Afghan Defense Ministry reported several homes were destroyed and that civilians were among the dead, US officials denied that there were any civilians killed.
Shortly later, Afghanistan’s Interior Ministry released a statement regarding the incident. In it they announced that 76 people, all civilians, had actually been killed in the strike. Among those killed were seven men, 19 women, and 50 children under the age of 15. The Ministry expressed “profound regret” for the killings, which they described as accidental, and promised to dispatch a delegation to conduct a full investigation.
In May of last year, US airstrikes in the same region killed over 50 civilians. After the incident, NATO promised to review its military tactics to ensure that similar incidents didn’t happen in the future. An American commander said he was “ashamed” of the incident, and announced that compensation of approximately $2,000 would be paid to each victim’s family.
The official U.S. story is almost always that it was only Taliban militants who were killed although after investigation this is often changed. In any event it should be no surprise that in a tribal society where revenge is demanded when relatives are killed that there are no shortages of recruits for the Taliban. Karzai has consistently decried the bombing policy. Notice that there has been no attempt to resurrect the Afghan air force. All of this activity seems to devolve upon the U.S. as far as I can see. The U.S. wants to stay in charge of air space both in Afghanistan and in Iraq.
Interior Ministry: US Airstrikes Kill 76 Afghan Civilians
Written on August 22, 2008
Just one day after US airstrikes in Laghman province were reported to have killed at least 20 civilians, a much larger incident has occurred on the opposite side of the country in Herat Province.
As with yesterday’s story, the initial US report claimed that 30 militants were killed, including an al-Qaeda commander. Though the Afghan Defense Ministry reported several homes were destroyed and that civilians were among the dead, US officials denied that there were any civilians killed.
Shortly later, Afghanistan’s Interior Ministry released a statement regarding the incident. In it they announced that 76 people, all civilians, had actually been killed in the strike. Among those killed were seven men, 19 women, and 50 children under the age of 15. The Ministry expressed “profound regret” for the killings, which they described as accidental, and promised to dispatch a delegation to conduct a full investigation.
In May of last year, US airstrikes in the same region killed over 50 civilians. After the incident, NATO promised to review its military tactics to ensure that similar incidents didn’t happen in the future. An American commander said he was “ashamed” of the incident, and announced that compensation of approximately $2,000 would be paid to each victim’s family.
Friday, August 22, 2008
Buffet, others say high U.S. debt levels pose risks.
Interesting that this article has lots to say about the costs of programs that help Americans stay healthy and provide needed services but nothing at all about the huge U.S. military expenditures that are far beyond those of any other country in the world. Cut Social Security and Medicare expenditures but leave the military-industrial-prison complex alone!
Buffett, others say high U.S. debt levels pose risks
Fri Aug 22, 2008 12:52am EDT
By Jonathan Stempel
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Warren Buffett, the billionaire co-founder of a top private equity firm and a prominent voice for U.S. fiscal responsibility, called on the United States and its elected officials to combat the nation's fast-growing, multi-trillion dollar debt load.
Buffett, Blackstone Group LP co-founder Peter Peterson, and former Comptroller General David Walker were part of a panel that spoke Thursday night in Omaha, Nebraska following the national premiere of the documentary "I.O.U.S.A." The talk was simulcast in more than 350 movie theatres.
The film argues the country might face economic disaster if it can't find a way to pay some $53 trillion it has committed to spend -- and doesn't have now -- as the population ages, and Medicare and Social Security costs soar.
It also argues, and panelists agreed, that the United States has become too dependent on foreign investors to buy its goods and its publicly-issued debt. There was also agreement that many politicians fear making tough policy choices that have ramifications far beyond the current election cycle.
"Our politics have become so embedded and so partisan, with so many special interests, that they require a massive effort from the public telling them, 'we want something done'," Peterson said.
Buffett, who runs Omaha-based Berkshire Hathaway Inc and turns 78 on Aug 30, was more sanguine than other panelists, though he said he doesn't want debt to grow as a percentage of gross domestic product.
"The prospects of being born in the United States are still better than being born anyplace else in the world," Buffett said.
Buffett, the world's richest person according to Forbes magazine, added: "It has not paid to sell America short since 1776, and the time to start is not in 2008."
He added that even if there are more debts to cover, the United States will have greater resources to pay them. "The pie gets larger over time," he said.
Another panelist was Bill Novelli, chief executive of the AARP advocacy group for people 50 and older, who called for bringing health care inflation under control. A fifth was William Niskanen, chairman of the libertarian Cato Institute, who said the nation's retirement age should rise to 70.
CREDIBLE PLAN SOUGHT
Roughly four-fifths of the $53 trillion figure is related to projected shortfalls in Medicare and Social Security.
Most of the rest is what is commonly called the "national debt," which in July totaled nearly $9.6 trillion, according to the U.S. Treasury Department's Bureau of Public Debt.
Walker as comptroller general ran Congress' Government Accountability Office from 1998 until this March. He said aggressive action is needed by whoever becomes the next president, likely either John McCain or Barack Obama.
Now running the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, Walker called for the creation of a "capable, credible and bipartisan" commission to make recommendations to ensure tough budget controls, comprehensive Social Security reforms that will last indefinitely, and "round one" of health care and tax reform.
"What we have to do is to recognize and reward elected officials -- Democrats, Republicans, independents, whatever -- who tell the truth and who stand up and try to help make tough choices sooner rather than later to make sure that America's future is better than its past, and reject the B.S. and the nothing types of solutions and platitudes that we hear from so many politicians today," he said.
Peterson added that the United States should consider the "provocative" notion of mandatory savings for individuals, as have some other countries, saying the nation had become "so consumption-obsessed and so borrowing-obsessed."
The 82-year-old Peterson is also a former chief executive of Lehman Brothers and former U.S. secretary of commerce under President Richard Nixon.
(Editing by Kim Coghill)
Buffett, others say high U.S. debt levels pose risks
Fri Aug 22, 2008 12:52am EDT
By Jonathan Stempel
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Warren Buffett, the billionaire co-founder of a top private equity firm and a prominent voice for U.S. fiscal responsibility, called on the United States and its elected officials to combat the nation's fast-growing, multi-trillion dollar debt load.
Buffett, Blackstone Group LP co-founder Peter Peterson, and former Comptroller General David Walker were part of a panel that spoke Thursday night in Omaha, Nebraska following the national premiere of the documentary "I.O.U.S.A." The talk was simulcast in more than 350 movie theatres.
The film argues the country might face economic disaster if it can't find a way to pay some $53 trillion it has committed to spend -- and doesn't have now -- as the population ages, and Medicare and Social Security costs soar.
It also argues, and panelists agreed, that the United States has become too dependent on foreign investors to buy its goods and its publicly-issued debt. There was also agreement that many politicians fear making tough policy choices that have ramifications far beyond the current election cycle.
"Our politics have become so embedded and so partisan, with so many special interests, that they require a massive effort from the public telling them, 'we want something done'," Peterson said.
Buffett, who runs Omaha-based Berkshire Hathaway Inc and turns 78 on Aug 30, was more sanguine than other panelists, though he said he doesn't want debt to grow as a percentage of gross domestic product.
"The prospects of being born in the United States are still better than being born anyplace else in the world," Buffett said.
Buffett, the world's richest person according to Forbes magazine, added: "It has not paid to sell America short since 1776, and the time to start is not in 2008."
He added that even if there are more debts to cover, the United States will have greater resources to pay them. "The pie gets larger over time," he said.
Another panelist was Bill Novelli, chief executive of the AARP advocacy group for people 50 and older, who called for bringing health care inflation under control. A fifth was William Niskanen, chairman of the libertarian Cato Institute, who said the nation's retirement age should rise to 70.
CREDIBLE PLAN SOUGHT
Roughly four-fifths of the $53 trillion figure is related to projected shortfalls in Medicare and Social Security.
Most of the rest is what is commonly called the "national debt," which in July totaled nearly $9.6 trillion, according to the U.S. Treasury Department's Bureau of Public Debt.
Walker as comptroller general ran Congress' Government Accountability Office from 1998 until this March. He said aggressive action is needed by whoever becomes the next president, likely either John McCain or Barack Obama.
Now running the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, Walker called for the creation of a "capable, credible and bipartisan" commission to make recommendations to ensure tough budget controls, comprehensive Social Security reforms that will last indefinitely, and "round one" of health care and tax reform.
"What we have to do is to recognize and reward elected officials -- Democrats, Republicans, independents, whatever -- who tell the truth and who stand up and try to help make tough choices sooner rather than later to make sure that America's future is better than its past, and reject the B.S. and the nothing types of solutions and platitudes that we hear from so many politicians today," he said.
Peterson added that the United States should consider the "provocative" notion of mandatory savings for individuals, as have some other countries, saying the nation had become "so consumption-obsessed and so borrowing-obsessed."
The 82-year-old Peterson is also a former chief executive of Lehman Brothers and former U.S. secretary of commerce under President Richard Nixon.
(Editing by Kim Coghill)
U.S. envoy: Russia's first Georgia move legitimate.
This is from the Globe and Mail (Canada).
This is an interesting statement from the U.S. ambassador to Russia. Certainly the mainstream western press has on the whole said little about the Georgian role in starting the fracas. While Russia may rightly be accused of over-reacting Georgia's attempt to take back control of South Ossetia by force was the main initial cause of the Russian incursion. Perhaps it is because of the audience for his comments that the envoy spoke in this manner.
Russia's first Georgia move legitimate: U.S. envoy
Reuters
August 22, 2008 at 6:33 AM EDT
MOSCOW — The U.S. ambassador to Moscow, in a rare U.S. comment endorsing Russia's initial moves in Georgia, described the Kremlin's first military response as legitimate after Russian troops came under attack.
U.S officials, including President George W. Bush, have strongly criticized Moscow's subsequent action but have not focused on the initial chain of events that triggered the conflict between Russian and U.S.-ally Georgia.
The war broke out after Georgia tried to retake its Moscow-backed breakaway region of South Ossetia, prompting a counter-attack by Russian forces.
In his first major interview since his arrival as Ambassador last month, John Beyrle gave the Russian daily Kommersant his views on the conflict and warned about its impact on U.S. investor confidence in Russia.
“Now we see Russian forces, which responded to attacks on Russian peacekeepers in South Ossetia, legitimately, we see those forces now having advanced on to the soil of Georgia; Georgian territorial integrity is in question here,” Mr. Beyrle told the newspaper.
He said Washington had not sanctioned Georgia's initial actions when on Aug. 8, after a succession of tense skirmishes, Georgian forces attacked South Ossetia, triggering a massive Russian reaction when its peacekeepers there came under fire.
“We did not want to see a recourse to violence and force and we made that very, very clear,” Mr. Beyrle was cited as saying in quotes the U.S. embassy confirmed as accurate.
“The fact that we were trying to convince the Georgian side not to take this step is clear evidence that we did not want all this to happen,” Mr. Beyrle said in the interview, which was published on Friday.
“We have seen the destruction of civilian infrastructure, as well as calls by some Russian politicians to change the democratically-elected government of Georgia. Some question the territorial integrity of Georgia. That is why we believe that Russia has gone too far,” the envoy said.
Mr. Beyrle said Washington still supports Russia's bid to join the World Trade Organization, which has still not been finalized after more than a decade of talks.
“But American investors are now looking at the situation around Russia with concern and asking questions,” he said.
This is an interesting statement from the U.S. ambassador to Russia. Certainly the mainstream western press has on the whole said little about the Georgian role in starting the fracas. While Russia may rightly be accused of over-reacting Georgia's attempt to take back control of South Ossetia by force was the main initial cause of the Russian incursion. Perhaps it is because of the audience for his comments that the envoy spoke in this manner.
Russia's first Georgia move legitimate: U.S. envoy
Reuters
August 22, 2008 at 6:33 AM EDT
MOSCOW — The U.S. ambassador to Moscow, in a rare U.S. comment endorsing Russia's initial moves in Georgia, described the Kremlin's first military response as legitimate after Russian troops came under attack.
U.S officials, including President George W. Bush, have strongly criticized Moscow's subsequent action but have not focused on the initial chain of events that triggered the conflict between Russian and U.S.-ally Georgia.
The war broke out after Georgia tried to retake its Moscow-backed breakaway region of South Ossetia, prompting a counter-attack by Russian forces.
In his first major interview since his arrival as Ambassador last month, John Beyrle gave the Russian daily Kommersant his views on the conflict and warned about its impact on U.S. investor confidence in Russia.
“Now we see Russian forces, which responded to attacks on Russian peacekeepers in South Ossetia, legitimately, we see those forces now having advanced on to the soil of Georgia; Georgian territorial integrity is in question here,” Mr. Beyrle told the newspaper.
He said Washington had not sanctioned Georgia's initial actions when on Aug. 8, after a succession of tense skirmishes, Georgian forces attacked South Ossetia, triggering a massive Russian reaction when its peacekeepers there came under fire.
“We did not want to see a recourse to violence and force and we made that very, very clear,” Mr. Beyrle was cited as saying in quotes the U.S. embassy confirmed as accurate.
“The fact that we were trying to convince the Georgian side not to take this step is clear evidence that we did not want all this to happen,” Mr. Beyrle said in the interview, which was published on Friday.
“We have seen the destruction of civilian infrastructure, as well as calls by some Russian politicians to change the democratically-elected government of Georgia. Some question the territorial integrity of Georgia. That is why we believe that Russia has gone too far,” the envoy said.
Mr. Beyrle said Washington still supports Russia's bid to join the World Trade Organization, which has still not been finalized after more than a decade of talks.
“But American investors are now looking at the situation around Russia with concern and asking questions,” he said.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
U.S. Role in Georgia Crisis.
This is from antiwar.com.
This is an excellent article in that it delves into the historical background of the Georgia Russia conflict and gives considerable detail about U.S. involvement in Georgia. On the whole the article is quite balanced and while critical of Russian over-reaction in Georgia also shows that the U.S. actions have been quite provocative and have supported Georgian leaders not only when they have been democratic but have cracked down on the opposition.
US Role in Georgia Crisis Cannot Be Ignored
by Stephen Zunes
The international condemnation of Russian aggression against Georgia – and the concomitant assaults by Abkhazians and South Ossetians against ethnic Georgians within their territories – is in large part appropriate. But the self-righteous posturing coming out of Washington should be tempered by a sober recognition of the ways in which the United States has contributed to the crisis.
It has been nearly impossible to even broach this subject of the U.S. role. Much of the mainstream media coverage and statements by American political leaders of both major parties has in many respects resembled the anti-Russian hysterics of the Cold War. It is striking how quickly forgotten is the fact that the U.S.-backed Georgian military started the war when it brutally assaulted the South Ossetian capital of Tskhinvali in an attempt to regain direct control of the autonomous region. This attack prompted the disproportionate and illegitimate Russian military response, which soon went beyond simply ousting invading Georgian forces from South Ossetia to invading and occupying large segments of Georgia itself.
The South Ossetians themselves did much to provoke Georgia as well by shelling villages populated by ethnic Georgians earlier this month. However, Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili ruled out signing a non-aggression pact and repeatedly refused to rejoin talks of the Joint Control Commission to prevent an escalation of the violence. Furthermore, according to Reuters, a draft UN Security Council statement calling for an immediate cease-fire was blocked when the United States objected to "a phrase in the three-sentence draft statement that would have required both sides 'to renounce the use of force.'"
Borders and Boundaries
In the Caucasus and Central Asia, the Russian empire and its Soviet successors, like the Western European colonialists in Africa, often drew state boundaries arbitrarily and, in some cases, not so arbitrarily as part of a divide-and-rule strategy. The small and ethnically distinct regions of South Ossetia, Abkhazia, and Adjara were incorporated into the Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic and – on the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991 – remained as autonomous regions within the state of Georgia. Not one of the regions was ethnically pure. They all included sizable ethnic Georgian minorities, among others. Despite cultural and linguistic differences, there was not much in the way of ethnic tension during most of the Soviet period, and inter-marriage was not uncommon.
As the USSR fell apart in the late 1980s, however, nationalist sentiments increased dramatically throughout the Caucasus region in such ethnic enclaves as Chechnya in Russia, Nagorno-Karabakh in Azerbaijan, as well as among those within Georgia. Compounding these nationalist and ethnic tensions was the rise of the ultra-nationalist Georgian President Zviad Gamsakhurdia, who assumed power when the country declared independence from the Soviet Union in 1991. With the possible exception of the Baltic states, Georgia had maintained the strongest sense of nationalism of any of the former Soviet republics, tracing its national identity as far back as the 4th century B.C. as one of most advanced states of its time. This resurgent nationalism led the newly re-emerged independent Georgia to attempt to assert its sovereignty over its autonomous regions by force.
A series of civil conflicts raged in Georgia in subsequent years, both between competing political factions within Georgia itself as well as in South Ossetia and Abkhazia, resulting in widespread ethnic cleansing. Backed by Russian forces, these two regions achieved de facto independence while, within Georgia proper, former Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze emerged as president and brought some semblance of stability to the country, despite a weak economy and widespread corruption.
Russian troops, nominally in a peacekeeping role but clearly aligned with nationalist elements within the two ethnic enclaves, effectively prevented any subsequent exercise of Georgian government authority over most of these territories. Meanwhile, the United States became the biggest foreign backer of the Shevardnadze regime, pouring in over $1 billion in aid during the decade of his corrupt and semi-authoritarian rule.
The Rose Revolution
Though strongly supported by Washington, Shevardnadze was less well-respected at home. For example, the New York Times reported how "Georgians have a different perspective" than the generous pro-government view from Washington, citing the observation in the Georgian daily newspaper The Messenger that, "Despite the fact that he is adored in the West as an 'architect of democracy' and credited with ending the Cold War, Georgians cannot bear their president." Though critical of the rampant corruption and rigged elections, the Bush administration stood by the Georgian regime, as they had the post-Communist dictatorships in Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, and most of the other former Soviet republics.
Georgia enjoyed relatively more political freedom and civil society institutions than most other post-Soviet states. Nevertheless, high unemployment, a breakdown in the allocation of energy for heating and other needs, a deteriorating infrastructure, widespread corruption, and inept governance led to growing dissatisfaction with the government. By 2003, Shevardnadze had lost support from virtually every social class, ethnic group, and geographical region of the country. Heavy losses by his supporters in parliamentary elections early that November were widely anticipated. Still, Shevardnadze continued to receive the strong support of President George W. Bush due to his close personal relationship with high-ranking administration officials. Contributing to this relationship were his pro-Western policies, such as embarking upon ambitious free market reforms under the tutelage of the International Monetary Fund, agreeing to deploy 300 Georgian troops to Iraq following the U.S. invasion, and sending Georgian troops trained by U.S. Special Forces to the Pankisi Gorge on the border of Chechnya to fight Chechen rebels. Opposition leaders Zurab Zhvania and Mikheil Saakashvilli strongly criticized the United States for its continued support of the Georgian president.
In addition to the electoral opposition, a decentralized student-led grassroots movement known as Kmara emerged, calling for an end to corruption and more democratic and accountable government as well as free and fair elections. Though not directly supported by the Bush administration, a number of Western NGOs, including the Open Society Institute (backed by Hungarian-American financier George Soros) and the National Democratic Institute (supported, ironically, by U.S. congressional funding) provided funding for election-monitoring and helped facilitate workshops for both the young Kmara activists and mainstream opposition leaders. This led to some serious tension between these non-governmental organizations and the U.S. embassy in the Georgian capital. For example, when the U.S. ambassador to Georgia learned that some leaders from the successful student-led nonviolent civil insurrection in Serbia three years earlier were in Tbilisi to give trainings to Kmara activists there, he told them to "Get out of Georgia! We don't want trouble here. Shevardnadze is our friend." (The young Serbs ignored him, and the scheduled trainings in strategic nonviolent action went forward anyway.)
The parliamentary elections that November were marred by a series of irregularities. These included widespread ballot-stuffing, multiple voting by government supporters, late poll openings, missing ballots, and missing voter lists in opposition strongholds. These attempts to steal the election elicited little more than finger-wagging from the Bush administration.
The Georgians themselves did not take the situation so lightly, however. They launched general strikes and massive street protests against what they saw as illegitimate government authority. This effort was soon dubbed the "Rose Revolution." Gaining support from the United States only after the success of the nonviolent civil insurrection appeared inevitable, this popular uprising forced Shevardnadze to resign.
Presidential elections, certified as free and fair by international observers, were held two months later, in which opposition leader Mikheil Saakashvili emerged victorious. Four months later, the authoritarian ruler of the autonomous region of Adjara, a Shevardnadze ally, was ousted in a similar nonviolent civil insurrection.
Though not responsible for the change of government itself, the Bush administration soon moved to take advantage of the change the Georgian people brought about after the fact.
U.S. Embrace of Saakashvili
Despite its longstanding support for Shevardnadze, the Bush administration quickly embraced Georgia's new president. Taking advantage of Georgia's desperate economic situation, the United States successfully lobbied for a series of additional free market reforms and other neoliberal economic measures on the country, including a flat tax of 14 percent. Though official corruption declined, tax collection rates improved, and the rate of economic growth increased, high unemployment remained and social inequality grew.
With strong encouragement from Washington, Saakashvili's government reduced domestic spending but dramatically increased military spending, with the armed forces expanding to more than 45,000 personnel over the next four years, more than 12,000 of whom were trained by the United States. Congress approved hundreds of millions of dollars of military assistance to Georgia, a small country of less than 5 million people. In addition, the United States successfully encouraged Israel to send advisers and trainers to support the rapidly expanding Georgian armed forces.
Although facing growing security concerns at home, the Bush administration also successfully pushed Saakashvili to send an additional 1,700 troops to Iraq. Thus, Georgia increased its troop strength in Iraq by more than 500 percent even as other countries in the U.S.-led multinational force were pulling out.
Though Georgia is located in a region well within Russia's historic sphere of influence and is more than 3,000 miles from the Atlantic Ocean, Bush nevertheless launched an ambitious campaign to bring Georgia into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). The Russians, who had already seen previous U.S. assurances to Gorbachev that NATO would not extend eastward ignored, found the prospects of NATO expansion to the strategically important and volatile Caucasus region particularly provocative. This inflamed Russian nationalists and Russian military leaders and no doubt strengthened their resolve to maintain their military presence in South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
Washington's embrace of Saakashvili, like its earlier embrace of Shevardnadze, appears to have been based in large part on oil. The United States has helped establish Georgia as a major energy transit corridor, building an oil pipeline from the Caspian region known as the BTC (Baku-Tbilisi-Ceylan) and a parallel natural gas pipeline, both designed to avoid the more logical geographical routes through Russia or Iran. The Russians, meanwhile, in an effort to maintain as much control over the westbound oil from the region, have responded by pressuring the governments of Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan to sign exclusive export agreements and to construct natural gas pipelines through Russia. (See Michael Klare's "Russia and Georgia: All About Oil.")
Amid accusations of widespread corruption and not adequately addressing the country's growing poverty, Saakashvili himself faced widespread protests in November 2007, to which he responded with severe repression, shutting down independent media, detaining opposition leaders, and sending his security forces to assault largely nonviolent demonstrators with tear gas, truncheons, rubber bullets, water cannons, and sonic equipment. Human Rights Watch criticized the government for using "excessive" force against protesters, and the International Crisis Group warned of growing authoritarianism in the country. Despite this, Saakashvili continued to receive strong support from Washington and still appeared to have majority support within Georgia, winning a snap election in January by a solid majority, which – despite some irregularities – was generally thought to be free and fair.
Lead-up to the Current Crisis
A number of misguided U.S. policies appear to have played an important role in encouraging Georgia to launch its Aug. 6 assault on South Ossetia.
The first had to do with the U.S.-led militarization of Georgia, which likely emboldened Saakashvili to try to resolve the conflict over South Ossetia by military means. Just last month, the United States held a military exercise in Georgia with more than 1,000 American troops while the Bush administration, according to the New York Times, was "loudly proclaiming its support for Georgia's territorial integrity in the battle with Russia over Georgia's separatist enclaves." As the situation was deteriorating last month, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice made a high-profile visit to Saakashvili in Tbilisi, where she reiterated the strong strategic relationship between the two countries.
Radio Liberty speculates that Saakashvili "may have felt that his military, after several years of U.S.-sponsored training and rearmament, was now capable of routing the Ossetian separatists ('bandits,' in the official parlance) and neutralizing the Russian peacekeepers." Furthermore, Saakashvili apparently hoped that the anticipated Russian reaction would "immediately transform the conflict into a direct confrontation between a democratic David and an autocratic Goliath, making sure the sympathy of the Western world would be mobilized for Georgia."
According to Charles Kupchan of the Council on Foreign Relations, the United States may have caused Saakashvili to "miscalculate" and "overreach" by making him feel that "at the end of the day that the West would come to his assistance if he got into trouble."
Another factor undoubtedly involved the U.S. push for Georgia to join NATO. The efforts by some prominent Kremlin lawmakers for formal recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia coincided with the escalated efforts for NATO's inclusion of Georgia this spring, as well as an awareness that any potential Russian military move against Georgia would need to come sooner rather than later.
And, as a number of us predicted last March, Western support for the unilateral declaration of independence by the autonomous Serbian region of Kosovo emboldened nationalist leaders in the autonomous Georgian regions, along with their Russian supporters, to press for the independence of these nations as well. Despite the pro-American sympathies of many in that country, Georgians were notably alarmed by the quick and precedent-setting U.S. recognition of Kosovo.
No Standing to Challenge Russian Aggression
Russia's massive and brutal military counter-offensive, while immediately provoked by Georgia's attack on South Ossetia, had clearly been planned well in advance. It also went well beyond defending the enclave to illegally sending forces deep into Georgia itself and inflicting widespread civilian casualties. It has had nothing to do with solidarity with an oppressed people struggling for self-determination and everything to do with geopolitics and the assertion of militaristic Russian nationalism.
While the international community has solid grounds to challenge Russian aggression, however, the United States has lost virtually all moral standing to take a principled stance.
For example, the brutally punitive and disproportionate response by the Russian armed forces pales in comparison to that of Israel's 2006 attacks on Lebanon, which were strongly defended not only by the Bush administration, but leading Democrats in Congress, including presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama.
Russia's use of large-scale militarily force to defend the autonomy of South Ossetia by massively attacking Georgia has been significantly less destructive than the U.S.-led NATO assault on Serbia to defend Kosovo's autonomy in 1999, an action that received broad bipartisan American support.
And the Russian ground invasion of Georgia, while a clear violation of international legal norms, is far less significant a breach of international law as the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, authorized by a large majority in Congress.
This doesn't mean that Russia's military offensive should not be rigorously opposed. However, the U.S. contribution to this unfolding tragedy and the absence of any moral authority to challenge it must not be ignored.
Reprinted courtesy of Foreign Policy in Focus.
This is an excellent article in that it delves into the historical background of the Georgia Russia conflict and gives considerable detail about U.S. involvement in Georgia. On the whole the article is quite balanced and while critical of Russian over-reaction in Georgia also shows that the U.S. actions have been quite provocative and have supported Georgian leaders not only when they have been democratic but have cracked down on the opposition.
US Role in Georgia Crisis Cannot Be Ignored
by Stephen Zunes
The international condemnation of Russian aggression against Georgia – and the concomitant assaults by Abkhazians and South Ossetians against ethnic Georgians within their territories – is in large part appropriate. But the self-righteous posturing coming out of Washington should be tempered by a sober recognition of the ways in which the United States has contributed to the crisis.
It has been nearly impossible to even broach this subject of the U.S. role. Much of the mainstream media coverage and statements by American political leaders of both major parties has in many respects resembled the anti-Russian hysterics of the Cold War. It is striking how quickly forgotten is the fact that the U.S.-backed Georgian military started the war when it brutally assaulted the South Ossetian capital of Tskhinvali in an attempt to regain direct control of the autonomous region. This attack prompted the disproportionate and illegitimate Russian military response, which soon went beyond simply ousting invading Georgian forces from South Ossetia to invading and occupying large segments of Georgia itself.
The South Ossetians themselves did much to provoke Georgia as well by shelling villages populated by ethnic Georgians earlier this month. However, Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili ruled out signing a non-aggression pact and repeatedly refused to rejoin talks of the Joint Control Commission to prevent an escalation of the violence. Furthermore, according to Reuters, a draft UN Security Council statement calling for an immediate cease-fire was blocked when the United States objected to "a phrase in the three-sentence draft statement that would have required both sides 'to renounce the use of force.'"
Borders and Boundaries
In the Caucasus and Central Asia, the Russian empire and its Soviet successors, like the Western European colonialists in Africa, often drew state boundaries arbitrarily and, in some cases, not so arbitrarily as part of a divide-and-rule strategy. The small and ethnically distinct regions of South Ossetia, Abkhazia, and Adjara were incorporated into the Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic and – on the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991 – remained as autonomous regions within the state of Georgia. Not one of the regions was ethnically pure. They all included sizable ethnic Georgian minorities, among others. Despite cultural and linguistic differences, there was not much in the way of ethnic tension during most of the Soviet period, and inter-marriage was not uncommon.
As the USSR fell apart in the late 1980s, however, nationalist sentiments increased dramatically throughout the Caucasus region in such ethnic enclaves as Chechnya in Russia, Nagorno-Karabakh in Azerbaijan, as well as among those within Georgia. Compounding these nationalist and ethnic tensions was the rise of the ultra-nationalist Georgian President Zviad Gamsakhurdia, who assumed power when the country declared independence from the Soviet Union in 1991. With the possible exception of the Baltic states, Georgia had maintained the strongest sense of nationalism of any of the former Soviet republics, tracing its national identity as far back as the 4th century B.C. as one of most advanced states of its time. This resurgent nationalism led the newly re-emerged independent Georgia to attempt to assert its sovereignty over its autonomous regions by force.
A series of civil conflicts raged in Georgia in subsequent years, both between competing political factions within Georgia itself as well as in South Ossetia and Abkhazia, resulting in widespread ethnic cleansing. Backed by Russian forces, these two regions achieved de facto independence while, within Georgia proper, former Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze emerged as president and brought some semblance of stability to the country, despite a weak economy and widespread corruption.
Russian troops, nominally in a peacekeeping role but clearly aligned with nationalist elements within the two ethnic enclaves, effectively prevented any subsequent exercise of Georgian government authority over most of these territories. Meanwhile, the United States became the biggest foreign backer of the Shevardnadze regime, pouring in over $1 billion in aid during the decade of his corrupt and semi-authoritarian rule.
The Rose Revolution
Though strongly supported by Washington, Shevardnadze was less well-respected at home. For example, the New York Times reported how "Georgians have a different perspective" than the generous pro-government view from Washington, citing the observation in the Georgian daily newspaper The Messenger that, "Despite the fact that he is adored in the West as an 'architect of democracy' and credited with ending the Cold War, Georgians cannot bear their president." Though critical of the rampant corruption and rigged elections, the Bush administration stood by the Georgian regime, as they had the post-Communist dictatorships in Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, and most of the other former Soviet republics.
Georgia enjoyed relatively more political freedom and civil society institutions than most other post-Soviet states. Nevertheless, high unemployment, a breakdown in the allocation of energy for heating and other needs, a deteriorating infrastructure, widespread corruption, and inept governance led to growing dissatisfaction with the government. By 2003, Shevardnadze had lost support from virtually every social class, ethnic group, and geographical region of the country. Heavy losses by his supporters in parliamentary elections early that November were widely anticipated. Still, Shevardnadze continued to receive the strong support of President George W. Bush due to his close personal relationship with high-ranking administration officials. Contributing to this relationship were his pro-Western policies, such as embarking upon ambitious free market reforms under the tutelage of the International Monetary Fund, agreeing to deploy 300 Georgian troops to Iraq following the U.S. invasion, and sending Georgian troops trained by U.S. Special Forces to the Pankisi Gorge on the border of Chechnya to fight Chechen rebels. Opposition leaders Zurab Zhvania and Mikheil Saakashvilli strongly criticized the United States for its continued support of the Georgian president.
In addition to the electoral opposition, a decentralized student-led grassroots movement known as Kmara emerged, calling for an end to corruption and more democratic and accountable government as well as free and fair elections. Though not directly supported by the Bush administration, a number of Western NGOs, including the Open Society Institute (backed by Hungarian-American financier George Soros) and the National Democratic Institute (supported, ironically, by U.S. congressional funding) provided funding for election-monitoring and helped facilitate workshops for both the young Kmara activists and mainstream opposition leaders. This led to some serious tension between these non-governmental organizations and the U.S. embassy in the Georgian capital. For example, when the U.S. ambassador to Georgia learned that some leaders from the successful student-led nonviolent civil insurrection in Serbia three years earlier were in Tbilisi to give trainings to Kmara activists there, he told them to "Get out of Georgia! We don't want trouble here. Shevardnadze is our friend." (The young Serbs ignored him, and the scheduled trainings in strategic nonviolent action went forward anyway.)
The parliamentary elections that November were marred by a series of irregularities. These included widespread ballot-stuffing, multiple voting by government supporters, late poll openings, missing ballots, and missing voter lists in opposition strongholds. These attempts to steal the election elicited little more than finger-wagging from the Bush administration.
The Georgians themselves did not take the situation so lightly, however. They launched general strikes and massive street protests against what they saw as illegitimate government authority. This effort was soon dubbed the "Rose Revolution." Gaining support from the United States only after the success of the nonviolent civil insurrection appeared inevitable, this popular uprising forced Shevardnadze to resign.
Presidential elections, certified as free and fair by international observers, were held two months later, in which opposition leader Mikheil Saakashvili emerged victorious. Four months later, the authoritarian ruler of the autonomous region of Adjara, a Shevardnadze ally, was ousted in a similar nonviolent civil insurrection.
Though not responsible for the change of government itself, the Bush administration soon moved to take advantage of the change the Georgian people brought about after the fact.
U.S. Embrace of Saakashvili
Despite its longstanding support for Shevardnadze, the Bush administration quickly embraced Georgia's new president. Taking advantage of Georgia's desperate economic situation, the United States successfully lobbied for a series of additional free market reforms and other neoliberal economic measures on the country, including a flat tax of 14 percent. Though official corruption declined, tax collection rates improved, and the rate of economic growth increased, high unemployment remained and social inequality grew.
With strong encouragement from Washington, Saakashvili's government reduced domestic spending but dramatically increased military spending, with the armed forces expanding to more than 45,000 personnel over the next four years, more than 12,000 of whom were trained by the United States. Congress approved hundreds of millions of dollars of military assistance to Georgia, a small country of less than 5 million people. In addition, the United States successfully encouraged Israel to send advisers and trainers to support the rapidly expanding Georgian armed forces.
Although facing growing security concerns at home, the Bush administration also successfully pushed Saakashvili to send an additional 1,700 troops to Iraq. Thus, Georgia increased its troop strength in Iraq by more than 500 percent even as other countries in the U.S.-led multinational force were pulling out.
Though Georgia is located in a region well within Russia's historic sphere of influence and is more than 3,000 miles from the Atlantic Ocean, Bush nevertheless launched an ambitious campaign to bring Georgia into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). The Russians, who had already seen previous U.S. assurances to Gorbachev that NATO would not extend eastward ignored, found the prospects of NATO expansion to the strategically important and volatile Caucasus region particularly provocative. This inflamed Russian nationalists and Russian military leaders and no doubt strengthened their resolve to maintain their military presence in South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
Washington's embrace of Saakashvili, like its earlier embrace of Shevardnadze, appears to have been based in large part on oil. The United States has helped establish Georgia as a major energy transit corridor, building an oil pipeline from the Caspian region known as the BTC (Baku-Tbilisi-Ceylan) and a parallel natural gas pipeline, both designed to avoid the more logical geographical routes through Russia or Iran. The Russians, meanwhile, in an effort to maintain as much control over the westbound oil from the region, have responded by pressuring the governments of Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan to sign exclusive export agreements and to construct natural gas pipelines through Russia. (See Michael Klare's "Russia and Georgia: All About Oil.")
Amid accusations of widespread corruption and not adequately addressing the country's growing poverty, Saakashvili himself faced widespread protests in November 2007, to which he responded with severe repression, shutting down independent media, detaining opposition leaders, and sending his security forces to assault largely nonviolent demonstrators with tear gas, truncheons, rubber bullets, water cannons, and sonic equipment. Human Rights Watch criticized the government for using "excessive" force against protesters, and the International Crisis Group warned of growing authoritarianism in the country. Despite this, Saakashvili continued to receive strong support from Washington and still appeared to have majority support within Georgia, winning a snap election in January by a solid majority, which – despite some irregularities – was generally thought to be free and fair.
Lead-up to the Current Crisis
A number of misguided U.S. policies appear to have played an important role in encouraging Georgia to launch its Aug. 6 assault on South Ossetia.
The first had to do with the U.S.-led militarization of Georgia, which likely emboldened Saakashvili to try to resolve the conflict over South Ossetia by military means. Just last month, the United States held a military exercise in Georgia with more than 1,000 American troops while the Bush administration, according to the New York Times, was "loudly proclaiming its support for Georgia's territorial integrity in the battle with Russia over Georgia's separatist enclaves." As the situation was deteriorating last month, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice made a high-profile visit to Saakashvili in Tbilisi, where she reiterated the strong strategic relationship between the two countries.
Radio Liberty speculates that Saakashvili "may have felt that his military, after several years of U.S.-sponsored training and rearmament, was now capable of routing the Ossetian separatists ('bandits,' in the official parlance) and neutralizing the Russian peacekeepers." Furthermore, Saakashvili apparently hoped that the anticipated Russian reaction would "immediately transform the conflict into a direct confrontation between a democratic David and an autocratic Goliath, making sure the sympathy of the Western world would be mobilized for Georgia."
According to Charles Kupchan of the Council on Foreign Relations, the United States may have caused Saakashvili to "miscalculate" and "overreach" by making him feel that "at the end of the day that the West would come to his assistance if he got into trouble."
Another factor undoubtedly involved the U.S. push for Georgia to join NATO. The efforts by some prominent Kremlin lawmakers for formal recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia coincided with the escalated efforts for NATO's inclusion of Georgia this spring, as well as an awareness that any potential Russian military move against Georgia would need to come sooner rather than later.
And, as a number of us predicted last March, Western support for the unilateral declaration of independence by the autonomous Serbian region of Kosovo emboldened nationalist leaders in the autonomous Georgian regions, along with their Russian supporters, to press for the independence of these nations as well. Despite the pro-American sympathies of many in that country, Georgians were notably alarmed by the quick and precedent-setting U.S. recognition of Kosovo.
No Standing to Challenge Russian Aggression
Russia's massive and brutal military counter-offensive, while immediately provoked by Georgia's attack on South Ossetia, had clearly been planned well in advance. It also went well beyond defending the enclave to illegally sending forces deep into Georgia itself and inflicting widespread civilian casualties. It has had nothing to do with solidarity with an oppressed people struggling for self-determination and everything to do with geopolitics and the assertion of militaristic Russian nationalism.
While the international community has solid grounds to challenge Russian aggression, however, the United States has lost virtually all moral standing to take a principled stance.
For example, the brutally punitive and disproportionate response by the Russian armed forces pales in comparison to that of Israel's 2006 attacks on Lebanon, which were strongly defended not only by the Bush administration, but leading Democrats in Congress, including presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama.
Russia's use of large-scale militarily force to defend the autonomy of South Ossetia by massively attacking Georgia has been significantly less destructive than the U.S.-led NATO assault on Serbia to defend Kosovo's autonomy in 1999, an action that received broad bipartisan American support.
And the Russian ground invasion of Georgia, while a clear violation of international legal norms, is far less significant a breach of international law as the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, authorized by a large majority in Congress.
This doesn't mean that Russia's military offensive should not be rigorously opposed. However, the U.S. contribution to this unfolding tragedy and the absence of any moral authority to challenge it must not be ignored.
Reprinted courtesy of Foreign Policy in Focus.
Iraq army raid in Diyala kills provincial official.
This is from McClatchy.
Imagine if something such as this happened in the U.S. This is outrageous behaviour. It remains to be seen if there is any followup investigation or news.
Iraqi army raid in Diyala leaves provincial official dead
By Nicholas Spangler and Laith Hammoudi McClatchy Newspapers
BAGHDAD — Iraqi forces raided the provincial government compound in Diyala early Tuesday morning, killing the governor's secretary and confiscating computers and cars before local police engaged them in a two-hour gun battle, police and local officials said.
Four policemen were wounded, according to a police source.
Forces arrested Hussein al Zubaidi, provincial council member and head of the security committee. A nearby raid conducted almost simultaneously by unidentified armed forces arrested the president of Diyala University.
Taha Dria, a Shiite lawmaker from Diyala who was not in the government compound during the raid, said the armed forces were from Iraq's Emergency Response Unit, an American-trained unit similar to U.S. Special Forces.
"They were wearing khaki. Their weapons were American. The Humvees they used looked American," said the governor's surviving secretary, Abbas Adnan, who was in the government compound when it was raided. "They didn’t have any ranks on their shoulders. They didn't talk."
Local police said they were fired on by U.S. helicopters during the gun battle. Two U.S. helicopters were on regular patrol in the area but did not fire their weapons, said a U.S. military spokesman.
Adnan gave this account of the raid: "At about 12:30 an Iraqi force entered the building. They were in seven Humvees and two black GMC's . . . They took all the weapons from the guards. When the secretary, Abbas Al Timimi, tried to go to the operational command building, he was shot dead, without a word. He is a civilian. He wasn't carrying any weapons."
Local police surrounded the raiders as they withdrew. A two-hour gun battle ensued, stopping only when orders came from Baghdad to let the raiders pass, said the police source.
Dria said that the soldiers beat up lawmakers, took computers and left the government compound in disarray. Governor Raad Rashid said he'd not been told about the raid beforehand. "Even the security forces in Diyala had no idea."
Majida Orebi, wife of university president Nazar Jabbar al Khafaji, said their house was raided around 1 a.m. Tuesday morning. "(Security forces) put him down. He said, 'I’m the president of Diyala University and I've done nothing wrong.' They told him to shut up, and started shooting down the doors upstairs. They brook into closets and took things from our room and others — about 10 million Iraqi dinars (equivalent to $8,000), two mobile phones, a laptop computer."
Spokesmen for the Iraqi government, Ministry of the Interior and Ministry of Defense were unavailable for comment.
Imagine if something such as this happened in the U.S. This is outrageous behaviour. It remains to be seen if there is any followup investigation or news.
Iraqi army raid in Diyala leaves provincial official dead
By Nicholas Spangler and Laith Hammoudi McClatchy Newspapers
BAGHDAD — Iraqi forces raided the provincial government compound in Diyala early Tuesday morning, killing the governor's secretary and confiscating computers and cars before local police engaged them in a two-hour gun battle, police and local officials said.
Four policemen were wounded, according to a police source.
Forces arrested Hussein al Zubaidi, provincial council member and head of the security committee. A nearby raid conducted almost simultaneously by unidentified armed forces arrested the president of Diyala University.
Taha Dria, a Shiite lawmaker from Diyala who was not in the government compound during the raid, said the armed forces were from Iraq's Emergency Response Unit, an American-trained unit similar to U.S. Special Forces.
"They were wearing khaki. Their weapons were American. The Humvees they used looked American," said the governor's surviving secretary, Abbas Adnan, who was in the government compound when it was raided. "They didn’t have any ranks on their shoulders. They didn't talk."
Local police said they were fired on by U.S. helicopters during the gun battle. Two U.S. helicopters were on regular patrol in the area but did not fire their weapons, said a U.S. military spokesman.
Adnan gave this account of the raid: "At about 12:30 an Iraqi force entered the building. They were in seven Humvees and two black GMC's . . . They took all the weapons from the guards. When the secretary, Abbas Al Timimi, tried to go to the operational command building, he was shot dead, without a word. He is a civilian. He wasn't carrying any weapons."
Local police surrounded the raiders as they withdrew. A two-hour gun battle ensued, stopping only when orders came from Baghdad to let the raiders pass, said the police source.
Dria said that the soldiers beat up lawmakers, took computers and left the government compound in disarray. Governor Raad Rashid said he'd not been told about the raid beforehand. "Even the security forces in Diyala had no idea."
Majida Orebi, wife of university president Nazar Jabbar al Khafaji, said their house was raided around 1 a.m. Tuesday morning. "(Security forces) put him down. He said, 'I’m the president of Diyala University and I've done nothing wrong.' They told him to shut up, and started shooting down the doors upstairs. They brook into closets and took things from our room and others — about 10 million Iraqi dinars (equivalent to $8,000), two mobile phones, a laptop computer."
Spokesmen for the Iraqi government, Ministry of the Interior and Ministry of Defense were unavailable for comment.
US and Poland sign missile deal
Even one of the most intelligent of the Bush crew is capable of mouthing the most ludicrous line without even wincing. These defences are supposed to be directed at Iran or North Korea. Such crap. Of course media dutifully report the line and usually leave it to be critiqued only by an equally official source from the bad side, Russia! Many commentators do not themselves bother to point out the ludicrousness of the U.S. explanation. It is particularly risible that the defence should be against North Korea given its location and the fact that it has just recently reached an agreement with the U.S. I wonder what the North Koreans think of the explanation not that the US or anyone else probably cares. Maybe they will think it is OK to go ahead again with nuclear expansion. Since the U.S. has a defence system against them their nuclear development will no longer threaten the U.S.
Anyway as part of the agreement the U.S. provided Poland with short range missiles that definitely are oriented to repelling an attack from Russia. The U.S. can hardly dress this up as aimed at Iran or North Korea. The U.S. has in effect guaranteed a new cold war. The problem is that in the last cold war there was a buffer zone around Russia but now there is none just a ring of mostly hostile states. If they all belong to NATO any conflict with any of them is liable to bring in NATO. This is exceedingly dangerous. We could theoretically go to war to protect the integrity of the borders of Georgia should South Ossetia claim independence and Russia support the claim with force. Bush can mouth off about the territorial integrity of Georgia but where was his mouth when it came to the territorial integrity of Serbia when Kosovo unilaterally declared independence?
US and Poland sign missile deal
Washington and Warsaw have signed a deal to deploy US interceptor missiles in Poland, despite Russian opposition to the move.Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, and Radoslaw, her Polish counterpart, signed the accord at a ceremony in the capital, on Wednesday.
The signing comes six days after the two countries agreed to a deal that will allow 10 of the missiles to be placed just 180km from Russia's westernmost frontier."The negotiations were very tough but friendly," Donald Tusk, Poland's prime minister, said.
"We have achieved our main goals, which means that our country and the United States will be more secure."'New threats'Rice told reporters: "This is an agreement that will establish a missile defence site here in Poland that will help us to deal with the new threats of the 21st century, of long range missiles ... from countries like Iran or North Korea." Russia sees the placing of the missiles in parts of central Europe as a threat to its security.
It says Washington and Warsaw rushed into finalising the deal as a response to its military action in Georgia.
Some Russian politicians and generals have said Poland must be prepared for a preventive attack on the site in the future.
Nato on Tuesday denounced threats against alliance member Poland as "unacceptable". It endorsed the missile plan for Europe at its summit in Bucharest in April even though some allies are sceptical about its effectiveness and concerned it could lead to a new arms race. The deal must now be approved by the Polish parliament, which is seen as a formality. Tusk's government demanded greater military co-operation with the US for agreeing to host the site.
Neave Barker, reporting for Al Jazeera from Moscow, said: "The first indication that this [signing] was going to happen took place a few days ago - mid-conflict [between Russia and Georgia] I might add - where Poland indicated it was willing to allow the US to station its missile defence shield on its territory."
Rice, left, and Sikorski say missile shield will help ward off Iran attacks [EPA]Russia then took this indication to mean that the intended target of the missiles, as the US claimed, "rogue states" - the likes of Iran - but Russia, said Barker.
"That's the main concern here, and what we have been seeing over the past few days is Russia acting accordingly to beef- up its own defences as well," he added.
"We have heard some incendiary comments from the ministry of defence here that Poland would now be perhaps a new target for Russian missiles."
Philip Coyle, a senior adviser with the Centre for Defence Information in Washington DC, said the Bush administration has been trying for about 18 months to agree the deal, but the timing has turned out to be "most unfortunate from a Russian point of view".
"The tragedy in all of this confrontation with Russia is that the system that's proposed for Poland and the Czech Republic is a scarecrow," he told Al Jazeera.
"It's not something that Europe can rely on, it is not dependable.
"If Iran had missiles that could reach central Europe, which they don’t yet, this system couldn't be relied on to defend against them anyway."
The "commotion and sword-rattling with Russia is for nothing", Coyle said.
"Some of this may be just a threat, but Russia has shown in just the past week or so it has a formidable military force, so if I were Poland or the Czech Republic, I would be more worried about Russia than I would be about Iran or North Korea."
The US says the missile system is aimed at protecting it and Europe from future attacks from states such as Iran.
It rejects Moscow's insistence that it is a threat to Russia.
For Poles, it has a further dimension at a time when Russia's actions in Georgia have generated alarm throughout Eastern Europe.
They see it as offering a form of protection beyond that of Nato in light of a resurgent Russia to the east.
The two countries spent a year-and-a-half negotiating, and talks recently had stalled on Poland's demands that the US bolster Polish security with Patriot missiles in exchange for hosting the missile base.
Washington agreed to do so last week, as Poland invoked the Georgia conflict to strengthen its case.
Short-range missiles
The Patriots are meant to protect Poland from short-range missiles from neighbours - such as Russia.
Kaczynski said the shield was purely defensive.
"For that reason, no one who has good intentions toward us and toward the Western world should be afraid of it," he said.
Poles have been shaken by Russian threats against their nation in punishment for accepting the US site.
A day after Warsaw and Washington reached agreement on the deal last week, a leading Russian general made his country's strongest warning to date against the system.
"Poland, by deploying [the system] is exposing itself to a strike - 100 per cent," General Anatoly Nogovitsyn was reported as saying on Friday by the Interfax news agency.
Anyway as part of the agreement the U.S. provided Poland with short range missiles that definitely are oriented to repelling an attack from Russia. The U.S. can hardly dress this up as aimed at Iran or North Korea. The U.S. has in effect guaranteed a new cold war. The problem is that in the last cold war there was a buffer zone around Russia but now there is none just a ring of mostly hostile states. If they all belong to NATO any conflict with any of them is liable to bring in NATO. This is exceedingly dangerous. We could theoretically go to war to protect the integrity of the borders of Georgia should South Ossetia claim independence and Russia support the claim with force. Bush can mouth off about the territorial integrity of Georgia but where was his mouth when it came to the territorial integrity of Serbia when Kosovo unilaterally declared independence?
US and Poland sign missile deal
Washington and Warsaw have signed a deal to deploy US interceptor missiles in Poland, despite Russian opposition to the move.Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, and Radoslaw, her Polish counterpart, signed the accord at a ceremony in the capital, on Wednesday.
The signing comes six days after the two countries agreed to a deal that will allow 10 of the missiles to be placed just 180km from Russia's westernmost frontier."The negotiations were very tough but friendly," Donald Tusk, Poland's prime minister, said.
"We have achieved our main goals, which means that our country and the United States will be more secure."'New threats'Rice told reporters: "This is an agreement that will establish a missile defence site here in Poland that will help us to deal with the new threats of the 21st century, of long range missiles ... from countries like Iran or North Korea." Russia sees the placing of the missiles in parts of central Europe as a threat to its security.
It says Washington and Warsaw rushed into finalising the deal as a response to its military action in Georgia.
Some Russian politicians and generals have said Poland must be prepared for a preventive attack on the site in the future.
Nato on Tuesday denounced threats against alliance member Poland as "unacceptable". It endorsed the missile plan for Europe at its summit in Bucharest in April even though some allies are sceptical about its effectiveness and concerned it could lead to a new arms race. The deal must now be approved by the Polish parliament, which is seen as a formality. Tusk's government demanded greater military co-operation with the US for agreeing to host the site.
Neave Barker, reporting for Al Jazeera from Moscow, said: "The first indication that this [signing] was going to happen took place a few days ago - mid-conflict [between Russia and Georgia] I might add - where Poland indicated it was willing to allow the US to station its missile defence shield on its territory."
Rice, left, and Sikorski say missile shield will help ward off Iran attacks [EPA]Russia then took this indication to mean that the intended target of the missiles, as the US claimed, "rogue states" - the likes of Iran - but Russia, said Barker.
"That's the main concern here, and what we have been seeing over the past few days is Russia acting accordingly to beef- up its own defences as well," he added.
"We have heard some incendiary comments from the ministry of defence here that Poland would now be perhaps a new target for Russian missiles."
Philip Coyle, a senior adviser with the Centre for Defence Information in Washington DC, said the Bush administration has been trying for about 18 months to agree the deal, but the timing has turned out to be "most unfortunate from a Russian point of view".
"The tragedy in all of this confrontation with Russia is that the system that's proposed for Poland and the Czech Republic is a scarecrow," he told Al Jazeera.
"It's not something that Europe can rely on, it is not dependable.
"If Iran had missiles that could reach central Europe, which they don’t yet, this system couldn't be relied on to defend against them anyway."
The "commotion and sword-rattling with Russia is for nothing", Coyle said.
"Some of this may be just a threat, but Russia has shown in just the past week or so it has a formidable military force, so if I were Poland or the Czech Republic, I would be more worried about Russia than I would be about Iran or North Korea."
The US says the missile system is aimed at protecting it and Europe from future attacks from states such as Iran.
It rejects Moscow's insistence that it is a threat to Russia.
For Poles, it has a further dimension at a time when Russia's actions in Georgia have generated alarm throughout Eastern Europe.
They see it as offering a form of protection beyond that of Nato in light of a resurgent Russia to the east.
The two countries spent a year-and-a-half negotiating, and talks recently had stalled on Poland's demands that the US bolster Polish security with Patriot missiles in exchange for hosting the missile base.
Washington agreed to do so last week, as Poland invoked the Georgia conflict to strengthen its case.
Short-range missiles
The Patriots are meant to protect Poland from short-range missiles from neighbours - such as Russia.
Kaczynski said the shield was purely defensive.
"For that reason, no one who has good intentions toward us and toward the Western world should be afraid of it," he said.
Poles have been shaken by Russian threats against their nation in punishment for accepting the US site.
A day after Warsaw and Washington reached agreement on the deal last week, a leading Russian general made his country's strongest warning to date against the system.
"Poland, by deploying [the system] is exposing itself to a strike - 100 per cent," General Anatoly Nogovitsyn was reported as saying on Friday by the Interfax news agency.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Russia cancels all military cooperation with NATO
There seems to be a round of tit for tat punishments the last few days. It still remains to what extent Russia is withdrawing from Georgia. Certainly it will not withdraw from South Ossetia or Abkazia in the short term and I understand that even the ceasefire allows for some patrols around the perimeter of each area. However, the Russians were still present far beyond those areas last I heard.
This is from aftenpost. (Norway)
Russia cancels all military cooperation with NATORussia, apparently stung by NATO's condemnation of its military action in Georgia, plans to cease all military exercises with Norway and other NATO members.
News organization Aftenposten has received confirmation that Russian authorities informed the Norwegian Foreign Ministry Wednesday afternoon that officials in Moscow were about to send a "note" to Norway and all other countries that are members of the NATO military alliance.
The note, according to Aftenposten, will advise NATO members that Russia was immediately halting, cancelling or postponing all planned military cooperation with NATO's members.
Russia's relation to NATO would then be evaluated, reported Aftenposten.
The warning from Russia signals a further deterioration in relations between Russia and western nations.
It comes a day after NATO members meeting at a summit in Brussels criticized Russia's military aggression in Georgian territory and voted to suspend cooperation with NATO’s Russian council
This is from aftenpost. (Norway)
Russia cancels all military cooperation with NATORussia, apparently stung by NATO's condemnation of its military action in Georgia, plans to cease all military exercises with Norway and other NATO members.
News organization Aftenposten has received confirmation that Russian authorities informed the Norwegian Foreign Ministry Wednesday afternoon that officials in Moscow were about to send a "note" to Norway and all other countries that are members of the NATO military alliance.
The note, according to Aftenposten, will advise NATO members that Russia was immediately halting, cancelling or postponing all planned military cooperation with NATO's members.
Russia's relation to NATO would then be evaluated, reported Aftenposten.
The warning from Russia signals a further deterioration in relations between Russia and western nations.
It comes a day after NATO members meeting at a summit in Brussels criticized Russia's military aggression in Georgian territory and voted to suspend cooperation with NATO’s Russian council
Philippines: What Bush wants
This is an editorial from the Tribune.
I find this a bit puzzling. The Tribune is always suspicious of U.S. aims in the Philippines often with good reason. In spite of the fact that MILF has sometimes used tactics that are in effect terrorist in nature, it is not on the U.S. list of terrorist groups. The U.S. obviously supported the peace agreement as well. Some think that the U.S. wants to use the new territory for military bases among other things.
In any event the peace process seems to be breaking down. I doubt that the U.S. would be happy that the MILF taking advantage of the ceasefire builds up and regroups its forces as this article seems to imply. The defeat of the peace process is likely to turn the MILF even more radical and likely to resume armed struggle. I doubt too that the U.S. would really want that. In fact I doubt that Bush is even paying all that much attention to what is happening let alone wanting it to happen. If the MILF starts to employ terror tactics even more the U.S. could very well decide to place it on a terror list but it will not do this as long as negotiations are still ongoing.
What Bush wants
By Alejandro Lichauco
ANALYSIS
08/21/2008
Now the secessionist Moro group’s chieftain says he wants an end to the government offensives against the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) and again return to the negotiation table. At the same time, the MILF while asking its commanders to stand down, also stressed that Commanders Bravo and Kato will be investigated and penalized according to the MILF’s rules and “due process.”
The MILF also refuses to accept responsibility for the burning of homes, the looting and the murder of scores of civilians in the villages its forces pillaged.
This is unacceptable to Filipinos since the MILF commanders — no doubt with the green light given by the MILF leaders to attack the Mindanao villages and go into a killing rampage — have committed criminal acts and must therefore be charged and tried in our courts under the laws of the Philippines. For government to allow that which the MILF chief says, is for it to admit that the MILF is a sovereign government with laws of its own, and its criminals are beyond the pale of the Philippine criminal system.
But for all the MILF’s bravura of declaring war against the government and its vow to kill or be killed for their Islamic state, it is clear that at this time, the MILF forces are no match for the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the special units of the Philippine National Police if the country’s forces go all out against the rebel Muslim force.
This has been realized by the MILF chieftain, who now calls for an end to the military offensives and a return to the negotiating table.
Why is the MILF now interested in returning to the negotiating table, knowing for certain that the government panel, given the public opposition, can no longer grant the MILF the conditions on the establishment of the ancestral domain, which includes territory, natural resources to be exploited by foreigners, an armed force and, for all intents and purposes, an independent Islamic state under the protection of the United States, among others?
Elementary. With the Armed Forces of the Philippines taking a hardline stand against the MILF, the armed rebel group has again been destabilized, and there is that need for the MILF leaders and their fighters to regroup, recruit and train more fighters, along with getting for themselves from their Islamic allies abroad, the sophisticated firearms for their forces to use against government forces when the time is ripe.
Peace negotiations can take forever, and both panels know it. While the government can keep on dribbling the ball on this issue of a peace accord and ancestral domain for the MILF, and with the MILF playing along as long as it suits the secessionist group, government is also pretty much at a disadvantage, even as a ceasefire agreement is in place since the MILF will be using that time for peace negotiations to strengthen its forces against the government. A few tanks and aircraft the MILF can have in the meantime peace talks are ongoing, can make the MILF a force to reckon with, given time and the right equipment.
Then too, as it always is with the MILF whenever firefights and encounters erupt, it can always claim that these are not of its making but of some “lost command” while the military and the police special forces are again restrained by Malacañang on grounds of the peace talks having primacy.
But why should the government even bother to continue having peace talks with a group of rebels who can’t be trusted and whom government and the Filipino people know will not abide by the pact anyway?
To this day, even as the MILF chieftain talks of returning to the negotiating table, he refuses to take responsibility for the attacks mounted by his fighters. And as they can no longer be trusted, one can be certain that even with a negotiated peace accord, once the MILF establishes even a watered down version of a juridical entity plus gain its ancestral homeland, this Islamic group will still go all out to secure for itself an independent state, and when it has the aircraft, tanks and other war materiel, it will definitely invade the Republic and take the entire Mindanao and Palawan and declare these Philippine territories as its own.
By that time, the armed forces would easily be sitting ducks for the MILF.
I find this a bit puzzling. The Tribune is always suspicious of U.S. aims in the Philippines often with good reason. In spite of the fact that MILF has sometimes used tactics that are in effect terrorist in nature, it is not on the U.S. list of terrorist groups. The U.S. obviously supported the peace agreement as well. Some think that the U.S. wants to use the new territory for military bases among other things.
In any event the peace process seems to be breaking down. I doubt that the U.S. would be happy that the MILF taking advantage of the ceasefire builds up and regroups its forces as this article seems to imply. The defeat of the peace process is likely to turn the MILF even more radical and likely to resume armed struggle. I doubt too that the U.S. would really want that. In fact I doubt that Bush is even paying all that much attention to what is happening let alone wanting it to happen. If the MILF starts to employ terror tactics even more the U.S. could very well decide to place it on a terror list but it will not do this as long as negotiations are still ongoing.
What Bush wants
By Alejandro Lichauco
ANALYSIS
08/21/2008
Now the secessionist Moro group’s chieftain says he wants an end to the government offensives against the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) and again return to the negotiation table. At the same time, the MILF while asking its commanders to stand down, also stressed that Commanders Bravo and Kato will be investigated and penalized according to the MILF’s rules and “due process.”
The MILF also refuses to accept responsibility for the burning of homes, the looting and the murder of scores of civilians in the villages its forces pillaged.
This is unacceptable to Filipinos since the MILF commanders — no doubt with the green light given by the MILF leaders to attack the Mindanao villages and go into a killing rampage — have committed criminal acts and must therefore be charged and tried in our courts under the laws of the Philippines. For government to allow that which the MILF chief says, is for it to admit that the MILF is a sovereign government with laws of its own, and its criminals are beyond the pale of the Philippine criminal system.
But for all the MILF’s bravura of declaring war against the government and its vow to kill or be killed for their Islamic state, it is clear that at this time, the MILF forces are no match for the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the special units of the Philippine National Police if the country’s forces go all out against the rebel Muslim force.
This has been realized by the MILF chieftain, who now calls for an end to the military offensives and a return to the negotiating table.
Why is the MILF now interested in returning to the negotiating table, knowing for certain that the government panel, given the public opposition, can no longer grant the MILF the conditions on the establishment of the ancestral domain, which includes territory, natural resources to be exploited by foreigners, an armed force and, for all intents and purposes, an independent Islamic state under the protection of the United States, among others?
Elementary. With the Armed Forces of the Philippines taking a hardline stand against the MILF, the armed rebel group has again been destabilized, and there is that need for the MILF leaders and their fighters to regroup, recruit and train more fighters, along with getting for themselves from their Islamic allies abroad, the sophisticated firearms for their forces to use against government forces when the time is ripe.
Peace negotiations can take forever, and both panels know it. While the government can keep on dribbling the ball on this issue of a peace accord and ancestral domain for the MILF, and with the MILF playing along as long as it suits the secessionist group, government is also pretty much at a disadvantage, even as a ceasefire agreement is in place since the MILF will be using that time for peace negotiations to strengthen its forces against the government. A few tanks and aircraft the MILF can have in the meantime peace talks are ongoing, can make the MILF a force to reckon with, given time and the right equipment.
Then too, as it always is with the MILF whenever firefights and encounters erupt, it can always claim that these are not of its making but of some “lost command” while the military and the police special forces are again restrained by Malacañang on grounds of the peace talks having primacy.
But why should the government even bother to continue having peace talks with a group of rebels who can’t be trusted and whom government and the Filipino people know will not abide by the pact anyway?
To this day, even as the MILF chieftain talks of returning to the negotiating table, he refuses to take responsibility for the attacks mounted by his fighters. And as they can no longer be trusted, one can be certain that even with a negotiated peace accord, once the MILF establishes even a watered down version of a juridical entity plus gain its ancestral homeland, this Islamic group will still go all out to secure for itself an independent state, and when it has the aircraft, tanks and other war materiel, it will definitely invade the Republic and take the entire Mindanao and Palawan and declare these Philippine territories as its own.
By that time, the armed forces would easily be sitting ducks for the MILF.
Blowback against US backed Sunni fighters
There are still plenty of serious problems in Iraq but they will be studiously ignored by the press until some dramatic events occur and then they will be covered until McCain or Obama say something silly and then all media will turn to that! Here is an example of an unresolved issue.
By in effect bribing or hiring former Sunni insurgents to dispose of Al Qaeda in Anbar and other areas the U.S. waged one of the most successful campaigns of the occupation. This probably contributed much more to the relative peace than the surge. However, the Shiite majority are naturally fearful that these groups will use their arms to battle the Shiiite majority and are thus moving against some of them. This could further alienate Sunnis from the government and might even begin another round of civil conflict.
Iraq moves against some US-backed Sunni fighters
Iraqi troops move against US-supported Sunni Arab fighters in turbulent Diyala province
HAMZA HENDAWIAP News
Aug 18, 2008 11:58 EST
The Shiite-led government is cracking down on U.S.-backed Sunni Arab fighters in one of Iraq's most turbulent regions, arresting some leaders, disarming dozens of men and banning them from manning checkpoints except alongside official security forces.
The moves in Diyala province reflect mixed views on a movement that began in 2007 among Sunni tribes in western Iraq who revolted against al-Qaida in Iraq and joined the Americans in the fight against the terrorist network.
U.S. officials credit the rise of such groups, known variously as Awakening Councils, Sons of Iraq and Popular Committees, with helping rout al-Qaida.
But Iraq's government is suspicious of such groups, fearing their decision to break with the insurgency was a short-term tactic to gain U.S. money and support. The government fears they will eventually turn their guns against Iraq's majority Shiites.
The effort in Diyala northeast of Baghdad began last month as U.S. and Iraqi forces launched an operation against al-Qaida and other extremists in that region.
Mullah Shihab al-Safi, commander of Sunni fighters in Diyala, told The Associated Press that many senior leaders of his group had been detained and fighters evicted from their offices. He gave no figures.
Another senior commander said security forces evicted his men from all but seven of some 100 offices in Diyala. He spoke on condition of anonymity because he feared arrest.
The U.S. military confirmed the Diyala actions but gave few details. Fighters were only pushed out of buildings they did not own, a military spokesman, Capt. Matt Rodano, said.
Although there has been no general crackdown on Sunni volunteers elsewhere, some leaders outside Diyala have been arrested in western Baghdad and south of the capital — both one-time al-Qaida strongholds.
Government officials would not comment on specific claims about the push in Diyala. But aides close to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, a Shiite, said the government was not willing to tolerate the existence of armed groups with "blood on their hands."
"The continuation of the Awakening Councils as they are now is unacceptable," said Ali al-Adeeb, a close al-Maliki aide and a senior member of his Dawa Party.
A top Iraqi security official with access to classified information said authorities were especially suspicious of the Diyala groups because many of their estimated 14,000 fighters had been members of al-Qaida in Iraq.
But acting against the Sunni movements could alienate the once-dominant minority Sunni Arabs at a time when overtures to them appear to be making headway.
"We fought the Americans for four years and we fought al-Qaida, too," said al-Safi, a former Iraqi army commando during Saddam Hussein's regime who fought in the 1980-88 Iraq-Iran war. "We are an experienced armed group. We are fully capable of bringing the house down."
Since the rise of the allied Sunni movement, America has spent some $200 million on salaries, equipment and training for the fighters, which now number nearly 100,000. The U.S. goal is for many of them to be integrated into the Iraqi army or police, providing the fighters with long-term incomes.
The Americans believe the program has paid dividends not only in security but in reviving the economy in former insurgent hotbeds.
"It has put money in the local economy and reduced attacks on coalition forces," said Lt. Col. Michael Getchell, commander of U.S. troops in Iskandariyah. "You can see where the money is going — an irrigation pump here, a renovated home there."
But the Iraqi government has stonewalled U.S. efforts to get most of the Sunni fighters into the Shiite-dominated security forces.
It has repeatedly changed requirements for enrollment in the police and army, canceling and changing application forms without warning or insisting that training camps were full.
The U.S. military says that of the 99,859 Awakening Council members it recognizes, only 23,357 have been accepted into the security forces or given civilian jobs.
U.S. officers worry that disbanding the Sunni groups without providing alternate incomes could push the fighters back into the insurgency.
One Shiite official who is close to al-Maliki said the prime minister believes his successful crackdown this year on Shiite militias has given him enough authority to go after Sunni armed groups without alienating Sunni politicians.
But a lawmaker from the Iraqi Islamic Party, the country's largest Sunni party, warned that the government must take into consideration the groups' contribution to improved security.
"The government must listen to what the Awakening Councils have to say," Sunni lawmaker Hashem al-Taai said. "They deserve that because of all the sacrifices they have made."
___
Associated Press writer Qassim Abdul-Zahra contributed to this report
By in effect bribing or hiring former Sunni insurgents to dispose of Al Qaeda in Anbar and other areas the U.S. waged one of the most successful campaigns of the occupation. This probably contributed much more to the relative peace than the surge. However, the Shiite majority are naturally fearful that these groups will use their arms to battle the Shiiite majority and are thus moving against some of them. This could further alienate Sunnis from the government and might even begin another round of civil conflict.
Iraq moves against some US-backed Sunni fighters
Iraqi troops move against US-supported Sunni Arab fighters in turbulent Diyala province
HAMZA HENDAWIAP News
Aug 18, 2008 11:58 EST
The Shiite-led government is cracking down on U.S.-backed Sunni Arab fighters in one of Iraq's most turbulent regions, arresting some leaders, disarming dozens of men and banning them from manning checkpoints except alongside official security forces.
The moves in Diyala province reflect mixed views on a movement that began in 2007 among Sunni tribes in western Iraq who revolted against al-Qaida in Iraq and joined the Americans in the fight against the terrorist network.
U.S. officials credit the rise of such groups, known variously as Awakening Councils, Sons of Iraq and Popular Committees, with helping rout al-Qaida.
But Iraq's government is suspicious of such groups, fearing their decision to break with the insurgency was a short-term tactic to gain U.S. money and support. The government fears they will eventually turn their guns against Iraq's majority Shiites.
The effort in Diyala northeast of Baghdad began last month as U.S. and Iraqi forces launched an operation against al-Qaida and other extremists in that region.
Mullah Shihab al-Safi, commander of Sunni fighters in Diyala, told The Associated Press that many senior leaders of his group had been detained and fighters evicted from their offices. He gave no figures.
Another senior commander said security forces evicted his men from all but seven of some 100 offices in Diyala. He spoke on condition of anonymity because he feared arrest.
The U.S. military confirmed the Diyala actions but gave few details. Fighters were only pushed out of buildings they did not own, a military spokesman, Capt. Matt Rodano, said.
Although there has been no general crackdown on Sunni volunteers elsewhere, some leaders outside Diyala have been arrested in western Baghdad and south of the capital — both one-time al-Qaida strongholds.
Government officials would not comment on specific claims about the push in Diyala. But aides close to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, a Shiite, said the government was not willing to tolerate the existence of armed groups with "blood on their hands."
"The continuation of the Awakening Councils as they are now is unacceptable," said Ali al-Adeeb, a close al-Maliki aide and a senior member of his Dawa Party.
A top Iraqi security official with access to classified information said authorities were especially suspicious of the Diyala groups because many of their estimated 14,000 fighters had been members of al-Qaida in Iraq.
But acting against the Sunni movements could alienate the once-dominant minority Sunni Arabs at a time when overtures to them appear to be making headway.
"We fought the Americans for four years and we fought al-Qaida, too," said al-Safi, a former Iraqi army commando during Saddam Hussein's regime who fought in the 1980-88 Iraq-Iran war. "We are an experienced armed group. We are fully capable of bringing the house down."
Since the rise of the allied Sunni movement, America has spent some $200 million on salaries, equipment and training for the fighters, which now number nearly 100,000. The U.S. goal is for many of them to be integrated into the Iraqi army or police, providing the fighters with long-term incomes.
The Americans believe the program has paid dividends not only in security but in reviving the economy in former insurgent hotbeds.
"It has put money in the local economy and reduced attacks on coalition forces," said Lt. Col. Michael Getchell, commander of U.S. troops in Iskandariyah. "You can see where the money is going — an irrigation pump here, a renovated home there."
But the Iraqi government has stonewalled U.S. efforts to get most of the Sunni fighters into the Shiite-dominated security forces.
It has repeatedly changed requirements for enrollment in the police and army, canceling and changing application forms without warning or insisting that training camps were full.
The U.S. military says that of the 99,859 Awakening Council members it recognizes, only 23,357 have been accepted into the security forces or given civilian jobs.
U.S. officers worry that disbanding the Sunni groups without providing alternate incomes could push the fighters back into the insurgency.
One Shiite official who is close to al-Maliki said the prime minister believes his successful crackdown this year on Shiite militias has given him enough authority to go after Sunni armed groups without alienating Sunni politicians.
But a lawmaker from the Iraqi Islamic Party, the country's largest Sunni party, warned that the government must take into consideration the groups' contribution to improved security.
"The government must listen to what the Awakening Councils have to say," Sunni lawmaker Hashem al-Taai said. "They deserve that because of all the sacrifices they have made."
___
Associated Press writer Qassim Abdul-Zahra contributed to this report
Forget peace, wage just war: Philippines vs MILF
This is from the Tribune.
This editorial no doubt captures the feeling of many opposed to negotiations with the MILF. It really seems from what I have read that there is widespread opposition to the agreement and this opposition is strengthened by actions of some factions within the MILF who have created havoc when they have taken over some local areas of late.
The Tribune's tone is always rather shrill and especially strident in its criticism of the Arroyo government.
Forget peace, wage just war
EDITORIAL
08/21/2008
Muslim secessionist rebels have lost the war, amid too many unjust battles they fought over their control of the so-called ancestral domain.
The Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) leaders and fighters have proved all too clearly, their intention of establishing an independent Islamic state within the Philippine territory, by armed force, if they can’t get this from government, through peaceful means. But once done, they will invade the whole of Mindanao and Palawan and control both regions under their independent Islamic state.
It is most stupid for the MILF to claim that the initialed Memorandum of Agreement is a “done deal” as even this rebel group knows that nothing in that MoA can be implemented without congressional action that will moreover have to be ratified by the Filipino people — including the Muslims — who now see these Moro rebels as terrorists out to kill, burn and loot to force government into getting what they demand.
They lost the battle for the hearts and minds of the Filipino people, Christians and Muslims alike, in their bid for their claimed ancestral domain, and lost whatever little trust and goodwill they had before their terrorist attacks.
Even those bleeding hearts that cry for negotiated peace cannot be expected to support the so-called Bangsamoro state proposal — not after the monstrous attacks staged by the MILF commanders and their fighters on civilians, some of whom were even hacked to death.
Who, in his right mind, would accept the excuse of the MILF that its fighters attacked these villages and innocent civilians, both Christians and Muslims because they were angry over the collapse of the MoA on ancestral domain or that the commanders did it on their own?
The MILF leadership just proved it can’t control its commanders. Worse, it proved too that if the MILF leaders don’t get what they want, they will loot, burn homes, kill unarmed civilians to get what they want. Who is to trust the MILF today?
It will be extremely difficult for the Arroyo government to even resume peace talks with these Islamic terrorists, as Malacañang will definitely lose military and Gloria Arroyo’s Mindanao-Palawan local executives’ support, along with the general public’s support, something she cannot afford to lose completely in one blow, as it would be the end of her, and her regime.
Why negotiate with an armed rebel group that admits it has no control over its commanders and fighters? Why negotiate with this secessionist group that claims it represents the Muslim population, when clearly it is an empty claim? The MILF certainly does not represent the Moro National Liberation Front, nor the many Muslim Filipinos in the country.
Even if Gloria will not admit it, it was a huge mistake on her part to coddle the MILF and to engage in a general peace agreement in 2001, shortly after she grabbed power from then sitting President Joseph Estrada, granting the Muslim rebels the opening for their claim of ancestral domain, along with Gloria’s nod for the MILF to exercise control over territories, calling these the MILF-controlled areas, complete with the MILF armed force that will police these areas.
Estrada and his military, launching an all-out offensive against the MILF in 2000, succeeded in recapturing the government camps that the MILF controlled and used to train and recruit fighters. The MILF as a force was degraded and on the run, with its leader Hashim Salamat, already hiding out in a Muslim state.
But Gloria allowed the MILF back and in the past seven years, coddled the armed group so much that she gave them even more than what its leaders had bargained for — and all because she, her coup plotters and the MILF leaders were allies in toppling the Estrada government, and no doubt, having succeeded, she rewarded the MILF with that pledge of “freedom” and an ancestral domain given in an accord signed and sealed in Tripoli, Libya in 2001.
Today’s state of affairs between the Gloria government and the MILF has deteriorated and there is no choice but to wage an all-out war against the MILF.
It is clear that Estrada made the right move against the MILF in 2001 and Gloria the wrong move in 2001 in coddling these Islamic terrorists.
This editorial no doubt captures the feeling of many opposed to negotiations with the MILF. It really seems from what I have read that there is widespread opposition to the agreement and this opposition is strengthened by actions of some factions within the MILF who have created havoc when they have taken over some local areas of late.
The Tribune's tone is always rather shrill and especially strident in its criticism of the Arroyo government.
Forget peace, wage just war
EDITORIAL
08/21/2008
Muslim secessionist rebels have lost the war, amid too many unjust battles they fought over their control of the so-called ancestral domain.
The Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) leaders and fighters have proved all too clearly, their intention of establishing an independent Islamic state within the Philippine territory, by armed force, if they can’t get this from government, through peaceful means. But once done, they will invade the whole of Mindanao and Palawan and control both regions under their independent Islamic state.
It is most stupid for the MILF to claim that the initialed Memorandum of Agreement is a “done deal” as even this rebel group knows that nothing in that MoA can be implemented without congressional action that will moreover have to be ratified by the Filipino people — including the Muslims — who now see these Moro rebels as terrorists out to kill, burn and loot to force government into getting what they demand.
They lost the battle for the hearts and minds of the Filipino people, Christians and Muslims alike, in their bid for their claimed ancestral domain, and lost whatever little trust and goodwill they had before their terrorist attacks.
Even those bleeding hearts that cry for negotiated peace cannot be expected to support the so-called Bangsamoro state proposal — not after the monstrous attacks staged by the MILF commanders and their fighters on civilians, some of whom were even hacked to death.
Who, in his right mind, would accept the excuse of the MILF that its fighters attacked these villages and innocent civilians, both Christians and Muslims because they were angry over the collapse of the MoA on ancestral domain or that the commanders did it on their own?
The MILF leadership just proved it can’t control its commanders. Worse, it proved too that if the MILF leaders don’t get what they want, they will loot, burn homes, kill unarmed civilians to get what they want. Who is to trust the MILF today?
It will be extremely difficult for the Arroyo government to even resume peace talks with these Islamic terrorists, as Malacañang will definitely lose military and Gloria Arroyo’s Mindanao-Palawan local executives’ support, along with the general public’s support, something she cannot afford to lose completely in one blow, as it would be the end of her, and her regime.
Why negotiate with an armed rebel group that admits it has no control over its commanders and fighters? Why negotiate with this secessionist group that claims it represents the Muslim population, when clearly it is an empty claim? The MILF certainly does not represent the Moro National Liberation Front, nor the many Muslim Filipinos in the country.
Even if Gloria will not admit it, it was a huge mistake on her part to coddle the MILF and to engage in a general peace agreement in 2001, shortly after she grabbed power from then sitting President Joseph Estrada, granting the Muslim rebels the opening for their claim of ancestral domain, along with Gloria’s nod for the MILF to exercise control over territories, calling these the MILF-controlled areas, complete with the MILF armed force that will police these areas.
Estrada and his military, launching an all-out offensive against the MILF in 2000, succeeded in recapturing the government camps that the MILF controlled and used to train and recruit fighters. The MILF as a force was degraded and on the run, with its leader Hashim Salamat, already hiding out in a Muslim state.
But Gloria allowed the MILF back and in the past seven years, coddled the armed group so much that she gave them even more than what its leaders had bargained for — and all because she, her coup plotters and the MILF leaders were allies in toppling the Estrada government, and no doubt, having succeeded, she rewarded the MILF with that pledge of “freedom” and an ancestral domain given in an accord signed and sealed in Tripoli, Libya in 2001.
Today’s state of affairs between the Gloria government and the MILF has deteriorated and there is no choice but to wage an all-out war against the MILF.
It is clear that Estrada made the right move against the MILF in 2001 and Gloria the wrong move in 2001 in coddling these Islamic terrorists.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Russians detain Georgian soldiers at port.
This is from IHT.
The Russians are snubbing western criticism and rubbing in the Georgian defeat. Confiscating the Humvees that were used in joint Georgian U.S. military manouvers will probably enrage the U.S. The U.S. paid no attention to Russian objections to the manouvers and so this will be part of the punishment. It will be interesting to see what the U.S. does. From all these actions it seems that the Russians have no intention of going back to the status quo in which the U.S. expected Russia to co-operate on various issues even while helping to create a situation where Russia was surrounded by hostile regimes. At the very least Georgia can forget about re-integrating Abkazia and South Ossetia into Georgia. So far it seems as if the U.S. and some European nations still support Georgia joining NATO but this may prove impossible so long as the issue of Abkazia nad South Ossetia remains unsolved.
Russians detain Georgian soldiers at port
By Michael Schwirtz and C.J. Chivers
Published: August 19, 2008
POTI, Georgia: Russian forces detained 21 Georgian soldiers in the Black Sea port of Poti on Tuesday. On a day when Russian troops continued to dig in to positions across Georgia, the detention of the troops - who were bound and blindfolded - was further evidence of continued military activity on Georgian territory by Russia despite assurances that its troops would withdraw.
The Georgians, who were blindfolded and bound, were taken by the Russians to a military base at Senaki, along with five armored Humvees from the U.S. military that were to have been shipped back to the United States. The Humvees had been used in joint U.S.-Georgian military exercises three months ago, said Eduard Machevoriani, the port's commercial director.
A top Russian military official, Colonel General Anatoly Nogovitsyn, said that the Georgian soldiers were disarmed at a checkpoint Monday and that they had been armed with automatic rifles, submachine guns and grenade launchers, Interfax reported.
Another senior Russian military official, Colonel Igor Konashenkov, said the Russians would destroy all weapons and ammunition that they seized during their operation in Georgia but would take all tanks and armored vehicles that they find in good condition. Among the seized arms are 2,000 small arms and 65 tanks, of which 44 were in "excellent condition," he said, according to Interfax.
On Sunday, President Dmitri Medvedev of Russia announced that Russians would begin withdrawing from Georgia proper into the two pro-Russian breakaway regions, Abkhazia and South Ossetia, where the conflict began Aug. 7.
The Russians are snubbing western criticism and rubbing in the Georgian defeat. Confiscating the Humvees that were used in joint Georgian U.S. military manouvers will probably enrage the U.S. The U.S. paid no attention to Russian objections to the manouvers and so this will be part of the punishment. It will be interesting to see what the U.S. does. From all these actions it seems that the Russians have no intention of going back to the status quo in which the U.S. expected Russia to co-operate on various issues even while helping to create a situation where Russia was surrounded by hostile regimes. At the very least Georgia can forget about re-integrating Abkazia and South Ossetia into Georgia. So far it seems as if the U.S. and some European nations still support Georgia joining NATO but this may prove impossible so long as the issue of Abkazia nad South Ossetia remains unsolved.
Russians detain Georgian soldiers at port
By Michael Schwirtz and C.J. Chivers
Published: August 19, 2008
POTI, Georgia: Russian forces detained 21 Georgian soldiers in the Black Sea port of Poti on Tuesday. On a day when Russian troops continued to dig in to positions across Georgia, the detention of the troops - who were bound and blindfolded - was further evidence of continued military activity on Georgian territory by Russia despite assurances that its troops would withdraw.
The Georgians, who were blindfolded and bound, were taken by the Russians to a military base at Senaki, along with five armored Humvees from the U.S. military that were to have been shipped back to the United States. The Humvees had been used in joint U.S.-Georgian military exercises three months ago, said Eduard Machevoriani, the port's commercial director.
A top Russian military official, Colonel General Anatoly Nogovitsyn, said that the Georgian soldiers were disarmed at a checkpoint Monday and that they had been armed with automatic rifles, submachine guns and grenade launchers, Interfax reported.
Another senior Russian military official, Colonel Igor Konashenkov, said the Russians would destroy all weapons and ammunition that they seized during their operation in Georgia but would take all tanks and armored vehicles that they find in good condition. Among the seized arms are 2,000 small arms and 65 tanks, of which 44 were in "excellent condition," he said, according to Interfax.
On Sunday, President Dmitri Medvedev of Russia announced that Russians would begin withdrawing from Georgia proper into the two pro-Russian breakaway regions, Abkhazia and South Ossetia, where the conflict began Aug. 7.
Russia 'not pulling out troops."
This is from Aljazeera.
The headline is actually from Reuters and seems to come from Georgian commentators. However, other articles seem to support the basic thrust of the article if not all the details. Russia seems to be taking its own sweet time to withdraw. Perhaps this is meant to show that Russia is not about to jump when the West says to jump. This is not surprising since the U.S. in particular has continued to go ahead with its own projects such as joint military exercises with Georgia and a missile defence system without paying any attention to Russia's complaints.
This article is perhaps a bit of a surprise coming from Aljazeera which does not usually support western policy positions.
Russia 'not pulling out troops'
Russia said it was leaving Gori but its forces were instead fortifying positions [Reuters]
Georgia has said there are still no signs of Russia withdrawing its troops from deep inside the country as Nato foreign ministers meet in Brussels to work out a response to Moscow's military action.Shota Utiashvilli, the spokesman of Georgia's interior ministry, said on Tuesday there had been no significant Russian troop movements overnight.
He said Russian troops remained entrenched in previous positions, including in and around the flashpoint city of Gori."There is still no sign of a withdrawal, nothing at all," Utiashvili said.
Jonah Hull, Al Jazeera's correspondent in Tbilisi, said: "One suspects that there is unfinished business here for the Russians.
"One of their main motivations has been to see the back of Saakashvili [Georgia's president], Putin's long-time nemesis.
"It [the delay in retreating] is aimed at intimidating him and destabilising the country," Hull said.
On Monday Russia announced the start of its withdrawal from Georgia, but Tbilisi accused Moscow of stalling and seeking to spread further into the country.Access prevented
Russian soldiers were still preventing access into Gori, just 60km west of Tbilisi.
Four tanks were also present at the checkpoint, an AFP correspondent reported. "I really do not know how long we will be staying here," said one of the soldiers, who declined to give his name.
The Russian soldiers were bearing the insignia of "peacekeepers" on their uniforms. Tanks were also in evidence on the road to Gori from Igoeti, 30km west of Tbilisi.
Map
Key locations in the conflict
Maxime Verhagen, the Netherland's foreign minister, said ahead of the talks in Brussels that there was disproportionate use of violence by Russia.
"We should send a signal that that the agreement between Russia and Georgia should be fulfilled and the Russian troops should withdraw. But I am also convinced we should have the possibility for dialogue," he told Al Jazeera.Hannah Belcher, reporting for Al Jazeera from Georgia, said orders to pull out don't appear to have reached the Russian military patrolling the strategic east-west highyway near the city of Gori.
"Their [troops] only movement has been towards the Georgian capital Tbilisi," she said."The Russians are expected to be sent a strong message from Nato foreign ministers meeting in Brussels. Nato is set to back Georgia's territorial integrity and condemn Russia's military presence."She said Moscow seems determined to finish the operation on its town time table, and not one imposed by outsiders.Jonah Hull, also reporting for Al Jazeera from Tbilisi, said Russia was sending "all sorts of mixed signals" and in the same breath saying that the pull out is underway.
He said Al Jazeera's correspondents had seen with their own eyes that Russia is "simply making no preparations to withdraw at all".The United States has warned Russia to stop what it calls Moscow's "dangerous game" of using its military to assert its power.
Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, is expected to push Nato allies to send a strong message to Russia that it must stick to its ceasefire commitment with Georgia or risk diplomatic fallout.
At Washington's request, the 26 foreign ministers of Nato member countries are meeting to reaffirm their solidarity with Georgia.
"Russia will pay a price," Rice said on Monday before flying to Brussels for the talks.
"We are going to send the message that we are not going to allow Russia to draw a new line at those states that are not yet integrated into the transatlantic structures like Georgia and Ukraine. We are determined to deny them their strategic objective."
Consolidating positions
Russia promised to start withdrawing forces on Monday back to positions in Georgia's breakaway South Ossetia province in line with a peace deal brokered last week by Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president.
And the deputy chief of staff of Russia's army said on Monday that the withdrawal had begun.
Russian forces are concentrated in the town Gori and were also roaming the western town of Senaki, where they have occupied a Georgian military base.
Witnesses also reported Russian patrols in the port city of Poti, which has been repeatedly raided and there were also Russian forces in and around the town of Zugdidi, near the border with Abkhazia.
Rice has accused Moscow of using "disproportionate force" against its neighbour, whose hopes of joining Nato have angered Russia.
The US secretary of state is scheduled to travel to Warsaw later on Tuesday where she is to sign a deal on installing a missile defence shield pact with Poland - a move certain to further increase tensions with Russia.
US diplomats denied Russian claims that Washington wants to break up the Nato-Russian Council which was set up in 2002 to improve relations between the former Cold War foes.
Alliance unity
But a senior US official said on Monday that the alliance would have to rethink a range of planned activities - from a meeting with Russia's defence minister foreseen in October, to regular military consultations in areas such as counterterrorism, managing air space or rescue at sea.
Rice is expected to push Nato to affirm its commitment to Georgia [AFP]Some Nato officials said that approach was very likely to win support at Tuesday's emergency meeting, despite wariness among some European allies about further damaging relations with Moscow.
Despite one senior US official's assurance that "you'll see a Nato more united than you might expect", some diplomatic sources said the subject of Russia's role in Georgia had split Nato members.
Britain, Canada, the US and most Eastern European member states are in one camp seeking a tough stance on Russia's actions, the sources said.
But most of Western Europe, led by France and Germany and backed by Hungary and Slovenia among others, were more cautious of further hurting ties with Moscow.
Russian warning
Russia's ambassador to Nato warned that an "anti-Russian propaganda campaign" could jeopardise "the quality of co-operation" and that ties between Moscow and the alliance would suffer if the Nato foreign ministers failed to reach a "responsible decision".
"We hope that decisions by Nato will be balanced and that responsible forces in the West will give up the total cynicism that has been so evident [which] is pushing us back to the Cold War era,'' Dmitry Rogozin told reporters on Monday.
"We don't want to hear that [Mikheil] Saakashvili is a saint," he added, comparing the Georgian president's actions in the breakaway province of South Ossetia to the worst excesses of Hitler and Stalin.
The Nato meeting will also discuss support for a planned international monitoring mission in the region and a package of support to help Georgia rebuild infrastructure damaged in the conflict with Russia.
The ministers are also expected to restate Nato's firm opposition to the separatist ambitions of Georgia's pro-Russian breakaway regions South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
Saakashvili has accused Nato leaders of encouraging Russia's move into Georgian territory by postponing a decision in April to put Georgia and Ukraine on a fast track to Nato membership.
The alliance had held off because Germany and France were wary of Russian opposition to the move, since Russia is Europe's main energy supplier.
But on a visit on Sunday to Tbilisi, Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, repeated Western promises that Georgia will eventually join Nato.
Source:
Al Jazeera and agencies
The headline is actually from Reuters and seems to come from Georgian commentators. However, other articles seem to support the basic thrust of the article if not all the details. Russia seems to be taking its own sweet time to withdraw. Perhaps this is meant to show that Russia is not about to jump when the West says to jump. This is not surprising since the U.S. in particular has continued to go ahead with its own projects such as joint military exercises with Georgia and a missile defence system without paying any attention to Russia's complaints.
This article is perhaps a bit of a surprise coming from Aljazeera which does not usually support western policy positions.
Russia 'not pulling out troops'
Russia said it was leaving Gori but its forces were instead fortifying positions [Reuters]
Georgia has said there are still no signs of Russia withdrawing its troops from deep inside the country as Nato foreign ministers meet in Brussels to work out a response to Moscow's military action.Shota Utiashvilli, the spokesman of Georgia's interior ministry, said on Tuesday there had been no significant Russian troop movements overnight.
He said Russian troops remained entrenched in previous positions, including in and around the flashpoint city of Gori."There is still no sign of a withdrawal, nothing at all," Utiashvili said.
Jonah Hull, Al Jazeera's correspondent in Tbilisi, said: "One suspects that there is unfinished business here for the Russians.
"One of their main motivations has been to see the back of Saakashvili [Georgia's president], Putin's long-time nemesis.
"It [the delay in retreating] is aimed at intimidating him and destabilising the country," Hull said.
On Monday Russia announced the start of its withdrawal from Georgia, but Tbilisi accused Moscow of stalling and seeking to spread further into the country.Access prevented
Russian soldiers were still preventing access into Gori, just 60km west of Tbilisi.
Four tanks were also present at the checkpoint, an AFP correspondent reported. "I really do not know how long we will be staying here," said one of the soldiers, who declined to give his name.
The Russian soldiers were bearing the insignia of "peacekeepers" on their uniforms. Tanks were also in evidence on the road to Gori from Igoeti, 30km west of Tbilisi.
Map
Key locations in the conflict
Maxime Verhagen, the Netherland's foreign minister, said ahead of the talks in Brussels that there was disproportionate use of violence by Russia.
"We should send a signal that that the agreement between Russia and Georgia should be fulfilled and the Russian troops should withdraw. But I am also convinced we should have the possibility for dialogue," he told Al Jazeera.Hannah Belcher, reporting for Al Jazeera from Georgia, said orders to pull out don't appear to have reached the Russian military patrolling the strategic east-west highyway near the city of Gori.
"Their [troops] only movement has been towards the Georgian capital Tbilisi," she said."The Russians are expected to be sent a strong message from Nato foreign ministers meeting in Brussels. Nato is set to back Georgia's territorial integrity and condemn Russia's military presence."She said Moscow seems determined to finish the operation on its town time table, and not one imposed by outsiders.Jonah Hull, also reporting for Al Jazeera from Tbilisi, said Russia was sending "all sorts of mixed signals" and in the same breath saying that the pull out is underway.
He said Al Jazeera's correspondents had seen with their own eyes that Russia is "simply making no preparations to withdraw at all".The United States has warned Russia to stop what it calls Moscow's "dangerous game" of using its military to assert its power.
Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, is expected to push Nato allies to send a strong message to Russia that it must stick to its ceasefire commitment with Georgia or risk diplomatic fallout.
At Washington's request, the 26 foreign ministers of Nato member countries are meeting to reaffirm their solidarity with Georgia.
"Russia will pay a price," Rice said on Monday before flying to Brussels for the talks.
"We are going to send the message that we are not going to allow Russia to draw a new line at those states that are not yet integrated into the transatlantic structures like Georgia and Ukraine. We are determined to deny them their strategic objective."
Consolidating positions
Russia promised to start withdrawing forces on Monday back to positions in Georgia's breakaway South Ossetia province in line with a peace deal brokered last week by Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president.
And the deputy chief of staff of Russia's army said on Monday that the withdrawal had begun.
Russian forces are concentrated in the town Gori and were also roaming the western town of Senaki, where they have occupied a Georgian military base.
Witnesses also reported Russian patrols in the port city of Poti, which has been repeatedly raided and there were also Russian forces in and around the town of Zugdidi, near the border with Abkhazia.
Rice has accused Moscow of using "disproportionate force" against its neighbour, whose hopes of joining Nato have angered Russia.
The US secretary of state is scheduled to travel to Warsaw later on Tuesday where she is to sign a deal on installing a missile defence shield pact with Poland - a move certain to further increase tensions with Russia.
US diplomats denied Russian claims that Washington wants to break up the Nato-Russian Council which was set up in 2002 to improve relations between the former Cold War foes.
Alliance unity
But a senior US official said on Monday that the alliance would have to rethink a range of planned activities - from a meeting with Russia's defence minister foreseen in October, to regular military consultations in areas such as counterterrorism, managing air space or rescue at sea.
Rice is expected to push Nato to affirm its commitment to Georgia [AFP]Some Nato officials said that approach was very likely to win support at Tuesday's emergency meeting, despite wariness among some European allies about further damaging relations with Moscow.
Despite one senior US official's assurance that "you'll see a Nato more united than you might expect", some diplomatic sources said the subject of Russia's role in Georgia had split Nato members.
Britain, Canada, the US and most Eastern European member states are in one camp seeking a tough stance on Russia's actions, the sources said.
But most of Western Europe, led by France and Germany and backed by Hungary and Slovenia among others, were more cautious of further hurting ties with Moscow.
Russian warning
Russia's ambassador to Nato warned that an "anti-Russian propaganda campaign" could jeopardise "the quality of co-operation" and that ties between Moscow and the alliance would suffer if the Nato foreign ministers failed to reach a "responsible decision".
"We hope that decisions by Nato will be balanced and that responsible forces in the West will give up the total cynicism that has been so evident [which] is pushing us back to the Cold War era,'' Dmitry Rogozin told reporters on Monday.
"We don't want to hear that [Mikheil] Saakashvili is a saint," he added, comparing the Georgian president's actions in the breakaway province of South Ossetia to the worst excesses of Hitler and Stalin.
The Nato meeting will also discuss support for a planned international monitoring mission in the region and a package of support to help Georgia rebuild infrastructure damaged in the conflict with Russia.
The ministers are also expected to restate Nato's firm opposition to the separatist ambitions of Georgia's pro-Russian breakaway regions South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
Saakashvili has accused Nato leaders of encouraging Russia's move into Georgian territory by postponing a decision in April to put Georgia and Ukraine on a fast track to Nato membership.
The alliance had held off because Germany and France were wary of Russian opposition to the move, since Russia is Europe's main energy supplier.
But on a visit on Sunday to Tbilisi, Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, repeated Western promises that Georgia will eventually join Nato.
Source:
Al Jazeera and agencies
Monday, August 18, 2008
Musharraf resigns as Pakistan's president..
It remains to be seen what if any difference this will make with U.S. relations. The U.S. and Afghanistan have been critical of Pakistan of late suggesting that Pakistan is even cosying up to the Taliban in some cases and involved an attack on the Indian embassy in Kabul. The U.S. for its part has signed a nuclear agreement with India which is certain to anger Pakistan.
Musharraf more or less had to resign to avoid impeachment. Probably some deal has been made. He will probably have to leave Pakistan. He conferred with Saudi and U.S. officials before resigning so perhaps he may be off to the United States or Saudi Arabia!
Embattled Musharraf resigns as Pakistan's president
Coalition celebrates ex-general's departure as 'a victory of democratic forces'
Last Updated: Monday, August 18, 2008 2:17 PM ET
CBC News
A salesman at an electronics shop in Islamabad, Pakistan's capital, watches President Pervez Musharraf announce his resignation in a televised address to the nation. (Anjum Naveed/Associated Press)Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf resigned from office Monday before his political opponents could begin impeachment proceedings against him, saying he had "worked for the country in good faith."
Musharraf made the announcement in a nationally televised address a day after a committee of Pakistan's ruling coalition finalized a list of impeachment charges against the former army chief. The charges included violating the constitution and misconduct.
During his lengthy address, Musharraf dismissed the charges against him, calling them "baseless" and "a fraud against the nation." He said he was stepping down because he did not want Pakistan's "dignity to suffer."
"After consulting my legal advisers and nearest political supporters … in the interest of the nation, I resign from my post today," he said. "I hand over my future to the people's hands, and let them do justice."
Musharraf used his speech to defend his political and military record, citing his handling of Pakistan's economy, as well as education and infrastructure programs he instituted during his nine-year reign as president.
"For 44 years, I have protected this nation without thinking of my life," he said. "I hope the nation and the people will forgive my mistakes."
Choice for successor uncertain
Musharraf, a former general, had been facing intense pressure to quit from political opponents who defeated his allies in February's parliamentary elections.
Musharraf said he would submit his resignation to the speaker of the National Assembly later Monday but it was not immediately clear whether it would become effective the same day. The chairman of Pakistan's Senate, Mohammedmian Soomro, will take over as acting president when Musharraf steps down, Law Minister Farooq Naek said.
But it remains an open question whom parliament will elect to succeed Musharraf, partly because the ruling coalition has vowed to strip the presidency of much of its power.
There is speculation that the leaders of the two main ruling coalition parties — Asif Ali Zardari and Nawaz Sharif — are interested in the role, although neither has openly acknowledged as much.
After Musharraf made his announcement, television footage showed groups of people celebrating in the streets in towns across Pakistan.
"It is very pleasing to know that Musharraf is no more," said Mohammed Saeed, a shopkeeper among a crowd of people dancing to drum beats and hugging each other at an intersection in the northwestern city of Peshawar.
Pakistan's stock market and currency both rose strongly on hopes that the country was bound for political stability.
Came to power in 1999 coup
Musharraf, a key U.S. ally in the war against the Taliban and al-Qaeda, came to power in a 1999 bloodless coup. He stepped down as army chief last year to run for a third term in office but still maintains close ties to the military.
His reputation suffered last year when he ousted dozens of judges and imposed emergency rule. He said at the time the measures were necessary to protect Pakistan from extremism and political instability. Upon news of Musharraf's resignation, lawyers began pressuring the ruling parties to restore the ousted judges.
Musharraf more or less had to resign to avoid impeachment. Probably some deal has been made. He will probably have to leave Pakistan. He conferred with Saudi and U.S. officials before resigning so perhaps he may be off to the United States or Saudi Arabia!
Embattled Musharraf resigns as Pakistan's president
Coalition celebrates ex-general's departure as 'a victory of democratic forces'
Last Updated: Monday, August 18, 2008 2:17 PM ET
CBC News
A salesman at an electronics shop in Islamabad, Pakistan's capital, watches President Pervez Musharraf announce his resignation in a televised address to the nation. (Anjum Naveed/Associated Press)Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf resigned from office Monday before his political opponents could begin impeachment proceedings against him, saying he had "worked for the country in good faith."
Musharraf made the announcement in a nationally televised address a day after a committee of Pakistan's ruling coalition finalized a list of impeachment charges against the former army chief. The charges included violating the constitution and misconduct.
During his lengthy address, Musharraf dismissed the charges against him, calling them "baseless" and "a fraud against the nation." He said he was stepping down because he did not want Pakistan's "dignity to suffer."
"After consulting my legal advisers and nearest political supporters … in the interest of the nation, I resign from my post today," he said. "I hand over my future to the people's hands, and let them do justice."
Musharraf used his speech to defend his political and military record, citing his handling of Pakistan's economy, as well as education and infrastructure programs he instituted during his nine-year reign as president.
"For 44 years, I have protected this nation without thinking of my life," he said. "I hope the nation and the people will forgive my mistakes."
Choice for successor uncertain
Musharraf, a former general, had been facing intense pressure to quit from political opponents who defeated his allies in February's parliamentary elections.
Musharraf said he would submit his resignation to the speaker of the National Assembly later Monday but it was not immediately clear whether it would become effective the same day. The chairman of Pakistan's Senate, Mohammedmian Soomro, will take over as acting president when Musharraf steps down, Law Minister Farooq Naek said.
But it remains an open question whom parliament will elect to succeed Musharraf, partly because the ruling coalition has vowed to strip the presidency of much of its power.
There is speculation that the leaders of the two main ruling coalition parties — Asif Ali Zardari and Nawaz Sharif — are interested in the role, although neither has openly acknowledged as much.
After Musharraf made his announcement, television footage showed groups of people celebrating in the streets in towns across Pakistan.
"It is very pleasing to know that Musharraf is no more," said Mohammed Saeed, a shopkeeper among a crowd of people dancing to drum beats and hugging each other at an intersection in the northwestern city of Peshawar.
Pakistan's stock market and currency both rose strongly on hopes that the country was bound for political stability.
Came to power in 1999 coup
Musharraf, a key U.S. ally in the war against the Taliban and al-Qaeda, came to power in a 1999 bloodless coup. He stepped down as army chief last year to run for a third term in office but still maintains close ties to the military.
His reputation suffered last year when he ousted dozens of judges and imposed emergency rule. He said at the time the measures were necessary to protect Pakistan from extremism and political instability. Upon news of Musharraf's resignation, lawyers began pressuring the ruling parties to restore the ousted judges.
MILF attacks towns but peace talks continue.
This is from Malaya.
Many in the MILF are upset over the pace of the peace process and also by concerns that the agreement will be rendered null and void by the courts. Apparently these attacks were not authorised by the central command of MILF. I have posted another article from a Davao (Mindanao) that maintains talks are still ongoing.
MILF attacks Iligan,4 towns in Lanao Norte26 killed; AFP orders offensive
BY VICTOR REYES
MORO Islamic Liberation Front rebels occupied a town in Lanao del Norte and attacked three other towns in the province and Iligan City yesterday, prompting the military leadership to order another round of offensives.
As of press time, three soldiers and 23 civilians were reported to have died from the rebel attacks in parts of Kolambugan, Linamon, Maigo, and Kauswagan towns and Iligan City.
Some of the civilian fatalities were used by the rebels as human shields while they were withdrawing.
"The rebels killed them on their way out. That is the report given to us by the civilians," said Brig. Gen. Hilario Atendido, head of the AFP Task Force Tabak which is in charge of the Lanao provinces.
He said most of the civilian casualties were from the Kolambugan and Linamon. He said some of the civilian fatalities were hostages taken by the MILF during the Kolambugan attack.
The attacks followed those in Lanao del Norte Sunday that left four soldiers and four militiamen dead.
Also on Sunday in Iligan City, suspected MILF rebels detonated two bombs at two budget hotels, wounding three persons.
AFP chief Gen. Alexander Yano said the attacks are a "virtual declaration of war" by the MILF and "a clear manifestation of the insincerity to the peace process of a significant portion of the MILF."
"This was confirmed by Commander Bravo's declaration of jihad (holy war)," he said referring to the leader of the MILF forces that attacked Iligan City and the four towns.
"It appears that several MILF sub-commanders are not controlled by the MILF leadership and are just using the peace process as a blanket to launch violent attacks against the people of Mindanao," he also said.
MILF forces under Commander Umbra Kato last month forcibly occupied 15 barangays in North Cotabato. They were flushed out of the areas last week in four days of military offensives. The Maguindanao-based Kato reportedly had 500 to 800 men.
Atendido said about 500 rebels occupied Kolambugan and some 300 to 500 attacked Kauswagan.
Kolambugan was cleared around noon. Troops repulsed the attackers in Kauswagan.
MILF spokesman Eid Kabalu said the rebels actually pulled out of Kolambugan on the order of the Bangsamoro Islamic Armed Forces, the armed wing of the MILF.
"There is already a pullout upon command, upon orders of the leadership of the BIAF, MILF after several hours of trying to get in touch there (with fighters in Lanao). Apparently, they were reached because the command is for them to pull out from the area. Right now, the area is clear," he said.
Kabalu said rebels occupied the town because of frustration over the slow progress of the peace process and because of agitations by some quarters that a peace accord with the MILF would not be fully implemented by the government.
Kabalu said the actions of the MILF fighters were not authorized by the MILF leadership.
HUMAN SHIELDS
Atendido said the rebels attacked Kolambugan town around 4:30 a.m.
"They held hostage the whole town but we could not enter because the civilians were being used as human shields," he said. "Some of people were tied."
The rebels brought with them a number of hostages as they withdrew.
"They pulled out already of the area. They let go of the children and the women but took with them the adult men," he said.
The rebels also attempted to blow up two bridges leading to Kolambugan to prevent government reinforcements. "But they were not able to do it," he said.
Atendido said the rebels could not stay long because troops had been pre-positioned in the area.
MORE ATROCITIES
In Kauswagan, he said soldiers repelled the attacking rebels. On their withdrawal, they brought a number of the civilian hostages, he said.
The PNP said MILF rebels killed seven farmers in Barangay Tacub, Kauswagan in a pre-dawn attack.
Before the Lanao del Norte attacks, MILF forces under Commanders Dante Macaputang and Mursad Taya of the MILF's 104th Base Command ransacked the Sta. Cruz pawnshop, a drugstore, and the public market in Maasin town in Sarangani province at around 2 a.m. They also toppled a power generator, causing brownout in the area.
Two died in the incident, said Maj. Armand Rico, spokesman of the Eastern Mindanao Command.
TREACHEROUS
President Arroyo, in a nationwide address, described the latest attacks as "sneaky and treacherous."
"We will not tolerate and will crush any attempt to disturb peace and development in Mindanao.I assure the Filipino people that the government will defend them at all cost against any move or any group that will disrupt our aspirations for a genuine and lasting peace not only in Mindanao but in the whole country," said Arroyo, who convened the National Security Council yesterday afternoon.
Defense Secretary Gilbert Teodoro, who flew to Cotabato City, the North Cotabato and Lanao del Norte incidents are the biggest cease-fire violations so far and authorities are also looking at possible cohorts of the two MILF commanders, especially Bravo.
Teodoro said police and military forces in Mindanao remain on "combat alert."
Press Secretary Jesus Dureza said the MILF could show sincerity in the peace talks by taking appropriate actions.
"It is not for us to tell them what they should be doing. They have to do what is necessary especially in the light of these incidents now," he said.
The Coast Guard raised the alert level in the affected Mindanao areas.
Vice Adm. Wilfredo Tamayo, Coast Guard chief, also ordered the tightening of security in major ports in the region. - With Raymond Africa, Jocelyn Montemayor and Gerard Naval
This is from the Mindanao Times.
Even the cease fire let alone the peace agreement seems tenuous. There is a widespread opposition to the agreement it seems and widespread disillusionment also within the MILF. Some obviously want to continue an armed struggle.
Many in the MILF are upset over the pace of the peace process and also by concerns that the agreement will be rendered null and void by the courts. Apparently these attacks were not authorised by the central command of MILF. I have posted another article from a Davao (Mindanao) that maintains talks are still ongoing.
MILF attacks Iligan,4 towns in Lanao Norte26 killed; AFP orders offensive
BY VICTOR REYES
MORO Islamic Liberation Front rebels occupied a town in Lanao del Norte and attacked three other towns in the province and Iligan City yesterday, prompting the military leadership to order another round of offensives.
As of press time, three soldiers and 23 civilians were reported to have died from the rebel attacks in parts of Kolambugan, Linamon, Maigo, and Kauswagan towns and Iligan City.
Some of the civilian fatalities were used by the rebels as human shields while they were withdrawing.
"The rebels killed them on their way out. That is the report given to us by the civilians," said Brig. Gen. Hilario Atendido, head of the AFP Task Force Tabak which is in charge of the Lanao provinces.
He said most of the civilian casualties were from the Kolambugan and Linamon. He said some of the civilian fatalities were hostages taken by the MILF during the Kolambugan attack.
The attacks followed those in Lanao del Norte Sunday that left four soldiers and four militiamen dead.
Also on Sunday in Iligan City, suspected MILF rebels detonated two bombs at two budget hotels, wounding three persons.
AFP chief Gen. Alexander Yano said the attacks are a "virtual declaration of war" by the MILF and "a clear manifestation of the insincerity to the peace process of a significant portion of the MILF."
"This was confirmed by Commander Bravo's declaration of jihad (holy war)," he said referring to the leader of the MILF forces that attacked Iligan City and the four towns.
"It appears that several MILF sub-commanders are not controlled by the MILF leadership and are just using the peace process as a blanket to launch violent attacks against the people of Mindanao," he also said.
MILF forces under Commander Umbra Kato last month forcibly occupied 15 barangays in North Cotabato. They were flushed out of the areas last week in four days of military offensives. The Maguindanao-based Kato reportedly had 500 to 800 men.
Atendido said about 500 rebels occupied Kolambugan and some 300 to 500 attacked Kauswagan.
Kolambugan was cleared around noon. Troops repulsed the attackers in Kauswagan.
MILF spokesman Eid Kabalu said the rebels actually pulled out of Kolambugan on the order of the Bangsamoro Islamic Armed Forces, the armed wing of the MILF.
"There is already a pullout upon command, upon orders of the leadership of the BIAF, MILF after several hours of trying to get in touch there (with fighters in Lanao). Apparently, they were reached because the command is for them to pull out from the area. Right now, the area is clear," he said.
Kabalu said rebels occupied the town because of frustration over the slow progress of the peace process and because of agitations by some quarters that a peace accord with the MILF would not be fully implemented by the government.
Kabalu said the actions of the MILF fighters were not authorized by the MILF leadership.
HUMAN SHIELDS
Atendido said the rebels attacked Kolambugan town around 4:30 a.m.
"They held hostage the whole town but we could not enter because the civilians were being used as human shields," he said. "Some of people were tied."
The rebels brought with them a number of hostages as they withdrew.
"They pulled out already of the area. They let go of the children and the women but took with them the adult men," he said.
The rebels also attempted to blow up two bridges leading to Kolambugan to prevent government reinforcements. "But they were not able to do it," he said.
Atendido said the rebels could not stay long because troops had been pre-positioned in the area.
MORE ATROCITIES
In Kauswagan, he said soldiers repelled the attacking rebels. On their withdrawal, they brought a number of the civilian hostages, he said.
The PNP said MILF rebels killed seven farmers in Barangay Tacub, Kauswagan in a pre-dawn attack.
Before the Lanao del Norte attacks, MILF forces under Commanders Dante Macaputang and Mursad Taya of the MILF's 104th Base Command ransacked the Sta. Cruz pawnshop, a drugstore, and the public market in Maasin town in Sarangani province at around 2 a.m. They also toppled a power generator, causing brownout in the area.
Two died in the incident, said Maj. Armand Rico, spokesman of the Eastern Mindanao Command.
TREACHEROUS
President Arroyo, in a nationwide address, described the latest attacks as "sneaky and treacherous."
"We will not tolerate and will crush any attempt to disturb peace and development in Mindanao.I assure the Filipino people that the government will defend them at all cost against any move or any group that will disrupt our aspirations for a genuine and lasting peace not only in Mindanao but in the whole country," said Arroyo, who convened the National Security Council yesterday afternoon.
Defense Secretary Gilbert Teodoro, who flew to Cotabato City, the North Cotabato and Lanao del Norte incidents are the biggest cease-fire violations so far and authorities are also looking at possible cohorts of the two MILF commanders, especially Bravo.
Teodoro said police and military forces in Mindanao remain on "combat alert."
Press Secretary Jesus Dureza said the MILF could show sincerity in the peace talks by taking appropriate actions.
"It is not for us to tell them what they should be doing. They have to do what is necessary especially in the light of these incidents now," he said.
The Coast Guard raised the alert level in the affected Mindanao areas.
Vice Adm. Wilfredo Tamayo, Coast Guard chief, also ordered the tightening of security in major ports in the region. - With Raymond Africa, Jocelyn Montemayor and Gerard Naval
This is from the Mindanao Times.
Even the cease fire let alone the peace agreement seems tenuous. There is a widespread opposition to the agreement it seems and widespread disillusionment also within the MILF. Some obviously want to continue an armed struggle.
Crisis in Georgia: How Misha messed up..
This is from the Globe and Mail.
This is a good article in that it details some of the background to the conflict. It also does not gloss over the fact that it was Georgia not Russia that in effect started the conflict by its attack on South Ossetia's capital. In the process they managed to kill some Russian peacekeepers who were stationed there as part of a long standing agreement. There were talks scheduled within the next few days just before the attack. Perhaps Saakashvili thought he would strengthen his hand or come to the talks with a fait accompli. Perhaps too he thought that with U.S. backing him the Russians would roll over and play dead. For now Georgians will rally around Saakashvili but once the dust settles the opposition will probably rise against him since he has caused Georgia to in effect lose any hope of regaining South Ossetia or Abkazia and has caused many casualties and damage to Georgia. Although Bush and Merkel continue to support Georgia's membership in NATO other European countries may have a quite different view. If Georgia does get to join NATO this will be a sign that we are in Cold War II an even more dangerous sequel to the first Cold War.
Crisis in Georgia: How Misha messed up
Why on earth did Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili provoke this week's conflict and rekindle Russian expansionism?
MARK MACKINNON
Globe and Mail Update
August 16, 2008 at 11:50 AM EDT
As fighting raged all over his tiny former Soviet country this week, a CNN anchor asked Georgia's brash and unpredictable President Mikhail Saakashvili whether he had believed his country could actually win a military showdown with Russia. "I'm not crazy," the President answered in his American-inflected English.
Others weren't so sure. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev charged that Mr. Saakashvili had acted like a "lunatic" in provoking the conflict and said he needed to be removed from office. A French diplomat suggested Mr. Saakashvili had been mad to take on Russia, and American officials wondered how he could have so badly misread their signals calling for restraint in his efforts to reclaim the breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
Many of his own people are shaking their heads at how "Misha," as he is affectionately known, could have backed their country into such a dangerous corner.
Videos
It was on Monday afternoon in the tree-lined city of Gori that Mr. Saakashvili came face to face with the scale of the error he made in attacking South Ossetia and triggering war with Russia, Georgia's giant neighbour to the north.
Sporting a green camouflage flak jacket, he was preparing to address the international media when Russian jets suddenly roared overhead. Someone in his entourage shouted, "Air! Air!" and Mr. Saakashvili looked at the sky, then broke into a sprint. Eventually he dove for cover, his bodyguards piling on top, hoping to shield their President from shrapnel.
Many bombs fell in and around Gori — the geographic heart of this strikingly beautiful country on the southeastern edge of Europe — and none came close to hurting him.
But the video of him ducking and running may prove to be the bookend to a tumultuous political career that began five years ago with another famous image: Mr. Saakashvili striding into Georgia's Soviet-era parliament building clutching a rose, at the vanguard of a democratic revolution that was supposed to remake not only his own tiny country but the entire former USSR.
Even if he remains in office after this crisis, the era of hope, democracy and pro-Western reform that Mr. Saakashvili — still boyish-looking at 40 — was supposed to herald has ended. The moment he ordered his troops to attack the South Ossetian capital of Tskhinvali a week ago, Georgia once more became a failed state, a place where wars, coups and instability are the norm and one that Western investors would be wise to avoid.
Georgia's loss is Russia's gain. Moscow is once again emerging as the regional hegemon, on the verge of pushing the U.S. back out of the former Soviet Union, an area Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin calls "the near abroad." The leaders of Ukraine, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, all former Soviet republics, rushed to stand with Mr. Saakashvili in the Georgian capital of Tbilisi this week in what was as much a demonstration of fear as it was of solidarity. They were joined by the President of Poland, another country that remembers when the Red Army regularly ranged far beyond its borders and thus fears Russia's resurgence.
Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko is probably the most concerned member of the quintet. While Poland and the Baltic states are under the protective umbrella of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Ukraine is not. Along with Georgia's, its application to join NATO was shelved back in April for fear of offending Russia, which considers both states to be properly part of its "sphere of influence."
It all makes Mr. Saakashvili's decision to attack last Friday — while the world was distracted by the opening of the Beijing Olympic Games — extremely difficult to understand. In the name of "reuniting" Georgia, which has never been united since it gained independence in 1991, hundreds of people are dead (each side accuses the other of ethnic cleansing) and Georgia's sovereignty is under renewed threat.
As the sound of gunfire recedes, questions about Mr. Saakashvili's judgment — and his ability to continue governing — are growing louder.
Young and restless
Mr. Saakashvili has always been bold, daring and idealistic. Born into a family of Tbilisi intelligentsia in the Soviet period, he was a member of the generation who grew up as the Communist bloc was crumbling and the Soviet Union was splitting apart. What had seemed eternal suddenly disappeared and the old rules vanished, providing an opportunity for his generation — less indoctrinated than its elders — to write new ones.
Even though he had grown up in the USSR, born in Leonid Brezhnev's time and gone to school in Mikhail Gorbachev's, Mr. Saakashvili was never going to be the homo sovieticus the Russian leaders tried to create. At one of our meetings, he told me that he took particular relish in being interviewed by The Globe and Mail, since it was the first foreign newspaper he had ever read after discovering copies of it in the library of Kiev University, where he studied international law in the late 1980s and early 1990s. He surreptitiously read every page, soaking up information usually blocked by the Soviet censors.
After the Soviet Union fell apart and Georgia became an independent state, Mr. Saakashvili received a U.S.-government sponsored fellowship to continue his law studies at Columbia University, from which he graduated in 1994.
While in New York, he did exactly what the U.S. State Department had hoped when it sent him and thousands of other young students from the former Soviet Union to schools in the U.S: He fell in love with America.
He initially intended on settling in New York and practising law, but in 1995 he was personally headhunted by Georgian president Eduard Shevardnadze, who was looking to surround himself with talented young Georgians unhindered by old ideas. Mr. Saakashvili came home and, at just 26, was elected to parliament, along with Zhurab Zhvania and Nino Burdjanadze, two other young Georgians recruited to the cause. The young lawyer quickly made a name for himself as an anti-corruption campaigner and within five years his mentor made him justice minister.
But Mr. Saakashvili was cut from a very different cloth than Mr. Shevardnadze, the former Soviet foreign minister who won fame for helping bring an end to the Cold War.
Dubbed the Silver Fox, Mr. Shevardnadze was a cautious and careful consensus builder who effectively negotiated away Tbilisi's hold over South Ossetia and Abkhazia in exchange for an end to the fighting and Russian interference that plagued his country during the early 1990s. While he spoke of cracking down on Georgia's endemic corruption problem, he was reluctant to tackle the problem head-on, fearful of upsetting the country's hard-won stability.
For Mr. Saakashvili — stereotypically Georgian in his passion and taste for the impulsive — these were unforgivable compromises.
A year after he was made justice minister, he resigned, declaring that Mr. Shevardnadze was complicit in the criminality bedevilling Georgia.
In opposition, he caught the eye of George Soros, the American billionaire and philanthropist who had initially become involved in Georgia at Mr. Shevardnadze's request. Mr. Soros also had become irritated by the Silver Fox's go-slow approach, and he decided that Mr. Saakashvili was the embodiment of Georgia's future.
The Soros foundations began pouring millions of dollars into organizations that were nominally interested in free media and democracy building but mainly served to undermine Mr. Shevardnadze's rule and push for Mr. Saakashvili to succeed him (including the youth movement Kmara, which would provide the backbone of the protests during the Rose Revolution).
On the pipeline
The U.S. State Department came to see Georgia that same way Mr. Soros did, although for very different reasons: The country stands on a key transit route for getting oil and gas from Central Asia and the Caspian Sea to markets in the West. The world's largest and most expensive pipeline project — the $4-billion Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil line — was to run across Georgian territory, and Mr. Shevardnadze's habit of playing Moscow and Washington off each other was deemed a risk to the investment.
Russia had always vehemently opposed the BTC, viewing the pipeline's route, which dances along the South Caucasus while carefully avoiding both Russia's territory and Iran's, as an effort to break through its growing stranglehold on the supply of energy to Europe.
For a country few outside the old Soviet Union had previously heard of, Georgia was suddenly thrust into the heart of international intrigue when U.S. Vice-President Dick Cheney declared after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that the BTC pipeline was of "vital strategic interest" to his country. The U.S. embassy in Tbilisi began to court Mr. Saakashvili, as well as Mr. Zhvania and Ms. Burdjanadze, who had joined him in opposition.
Mr. Saakashvili was a fast-rising force in Georgian politics. He founded the United National Movement, which caught the imagination of voters with a vision of Georgia as a modern, European country that could also reclaim its pre-Russian history by using the red-and-white, five-cross flag of the medieval kingdom of Georgia as its new party banner.
Just months after quitting Mr. Shevardnadze's cabinet, Mr. Saakashvili was elected mayor of Tbilisi, setting the stage for his head-to-head confrontation with the Silver Fox.
In many ways, the Rose Revolution in 2003 — which saw massive street protests force Mr. Shevardnadze from office and Mr. Saakashvili elected in his place — was as much an American victory over Russia on the geopolitical chessboard as it was a pro-democracy uprising. Within two years of the revolt, oil was flowing westward through a completed BTC pipeline and Georgia was seeking NATO membership with U.S. help.
Mr. Saakashvili's brashness and unpredictability made him the perfect leader for the protests. Even his closest associates don't know what inspired him to carry a rose as he charged into parliament to demand Mr. Shevardnadze's resignation over election fraud. The idea was Mr. Saakashvili's alone, they say.
The revolt inspired copycat people-power movements that overthrew the old order in the former Soviet republics of Ukraine the following year (the Orange Revolution) and Kyrgyzstan (the Pink, or Tulip, Revolution) in 2005. The Kremlin initially feared that the wave of "colour revolutions" would wash over Red Square too.
Mr. Saakashvili won 96 per cent of the vote in the barely contested post-revolution elections, and once more made the five-cross banner Georgia's national flag. His audacious style helped him carry out astonishing reforms during his first years in office — including a remarkable decision to simultaneously fire all the country's notoriously corrupt traffic policemen, rehiring only a third after forcing them to apply for their old jobs.
With Mr. Zhvania as his prime minister and Ms. Burdjanadze as speaker of parliament, the trio rapidly remade Georgia, at least in the eyes of the White House, from a corrupt post-Soviet backwater into a plucky friend of the West and a favoured destination of Western investors. He even won some belated admiration from Mr. Shevardnadze, who told me after the Rose Revolution that Mr. Saakashvili had the country on the right path, though the septuagenarian worried that "the youngsters" would take it too far.
Autocratic turn
In the eyes of some of his one-time allies, however, Mr. Saakashvili's early successes had the effect of convincing the young President that only he could fix Georgia. Worried that he was turning into an autocrat, a group of 14 non-governmental organizations that initially backed him signed a petition warning that the Rose Revolution was becoming "anti-democratic." When Mr. Zhvania mysteriously died in 2005 from gas poisoning in 2005, Mr. Saakashvili lost his closest friend and a moderating influence whom colleagues say often talked him out of rash decisions.
Radical economic reforms inevitably left many Georgians behind. Discontent grew as Mr. Saakashvili slashed the size of the civil service, and opposition demonstrations — including some organized by a group known simply as Anti-Soros — became a regular feature on Tbilisi's streets last year. In November, the President ordered riot police to disperse the protests with tear gas, water cannons and batons.
With the opposition in disorder, he called snap elections and won a second term in January with a much less resounding, though still impressive, 53 per cent of the vote. His reputation in Europe was badly tarnished by the November crackdown. Ms. Burdjanadze, long his ally and arguably the country's second most popular politician, signalled her own discomfort with her snap decision to quit politics four months ago.
Mr. Saakashvili's impulsive penchant, combined with his overt distrust of nearly all things Russian, led to the escalating confrontation with Moscow that finally boiled over this week. In his world view, the Russians' military presence as "peacekeepers" in separatist South Ossetia and Abkhazia was the leash holding Georgia back, guaranteeing the Kremlin's lingering and malicious influence over its ex-colony.
Though the territories are small — and Abkhazians and South Ossetians are ethnically distinct from both Georgians and Russians, with their own languages — Mr. Saakashvili saw the Russian presence as a present and future threat to his country's sovereignty. The nebulous state of the two regions gives the Kremlin a lever for destabilizing the country should it ever get too close to its ambitions of joining NATO and the European Union.
To Georgia's young President, the United States — the country that had given him his education and then backed his rise to power — was his country's potential saviour from what he perceived as renewed Russian imperialism.
"People have been feeling the change — that's obvious. They feel that things are moving forward," Mr. Saakashvili proudly told me a few years ago when we met in his office for a talk about the successes and failures of the Rose Revolution, during which he lavished praise on the U.S. for its support. The phone rang and he asked me to excuse him for a moment: It was George W. Bush.
Determined to tie his country to the West, Mr. Saakashvili enthusiastically signed Georgia up to the American-led war in Iraq, and until last week only the United States and Britain were contributing more troops to the "coalition of the willing" (the 2,000 Georgian soldiers in Iraq were flown home this week on U.S. military aircraft to help deal with the crisis). The road connecting Tbilisi to its international airport was renamed President George W. Bush Street.
Last straw for Moscow
The step that sealed Mr. Saakashvili's fate was his decision this year to formally seek NATO membership.
Despite Mr. Bush's enthusiastic support, the bid predictably failed, with France and Germany voicing concerns about taking on an ally that had outstanding territorial disputes with Russia. Old Europe didn't want to see the Third World War break out over a place called South Ossetia.
The fact that Mr. Saakashvili went ahead with the bid was enough to convince the Kremlin once and for all that he was an implacable enemy. Now that it has humbled him militarily, many expect a Russian-sponsored push to oust him from within.
While Russia doesn't seem interested in occupying Tbilisi, it could easily throw its clout behind Georgia's political opposition or, more dangerously, use its separatist allies as proxy armies. South Ossetian irregulars were reportedly behind the violence that continued after the French-brokered ceasefire this week, while troops from the second separatist region, Abkhazia, launched their own attack on Georgian troops in the northwest of the country.
Washington has escalated its tough talk in recent days, dispatching Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to the region and using warships and military aircraft to deliver aid. But with its military already overstretched by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and worried about a potential confrontation with Iran, it seems unlikely the U.S. can offer much more than moral support.
Although, in reality, Russia and the United States have been backstage antagonists for years now, the sound of explosions echoing off the Caucasus mountain range also heralds the final end of the hopeful era that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union. Moscow and Washington are once more now fully at odds over everything from the World Trade Organization (which the U.S. has blocked Russia's efforts to join) to Iran's nuclear program (which the Kremlin has helped to build). South Ossetia is only the first hot conflict zone in this New Cold War.
"Georgia is the first test case... We should realize what is at stake for America: America is losing the whole region," an increasingly desperate Mr. Saakashvili said this week in an attempt to rally the West to Georgia's side. While Russia said it had accepted the ceasefire, he charged the next day that Russian troops were encircling Tbilisi, a claim later denied by his own Interior Minister.
All of which calls into question why Mr. Saakshvili chose Aug. 8 to launch his military offensive in South Ossetia, which had been outside Tbilisi's control since a short war in 1992. While his election platform this year centred on restoring Georgian authority in the breakaway territories, few expected him to try it militarily. Given that Mr. Putin, who retains wide power in the country as Mr. Medvedev's Prime Minister, had issued Russian passports to Abkhazians and South Ossetians during his eight-year presidency, a heavy-handed military response to Georgia's assault was as predictable as it was disproportionate.
Ten Russian peacekeepers reportedly died in the initial Georgian attack, which followed days of tit-for-tat shelling between South Ossetian and Georgian forces. The Russian fatalities made a counteroffensive inevitable even if Mr. Medvedev and Mr. Putin hadn't been waiting for just such an excuse to humble Mr. Saakashvili.
Short tempers
Indeed, they were waiting. Ever since the Rose Revolution, the Kremlin has viewed Mr. Saakashvili as an American pawn and his government as a threat to Russia's resurgence. The BTC pipeline blew a hole in Moscow's efforts to monopolize the supply of energy to Europe, while the effort to join NATO was taken as something close to a declaration of war.
"In the end, Saakashvili clearly underestimated Putin's personal hatred for him — an enmity that became intense after an aide told Putin that Saakashvili described him as 'Lilliputian,'ƒ" columnist Yulia Latynina wrote in The Moscow Times this week. Mr. Putin, who stands five-foot-seven, is known to be insecure about his height.
The impetuousness that was so useful when Mr. Saakashvili was leading street demonstrations has proved to be a dangerous trait in a national leader in such a sensitive corner of the world.
Zaza Gachechiladze, editor-in-chief of The Messenger, an English-language newspaper in Tbilisi, said the sudden war smelled to him of a Kremlin trap. The shelling in South Ossetia was the bait, and Mr. Saakashvili leaped at it.
"It was a very well-organized provocation," he said in a telephone interview. "Unfortunately for Georgia, we made this dramatic and fatal step [of attacking South Ossetia]."
For now, he said, Georgians will rally around their flag and their leader — thousands of citizens attended a pro-Saakashvili rally in the centre of Tbilisi this week — because few want to see a return to Russian domination. But eventually a reckoning will follow. Many will look to see what Ms. Burdjanadze, who has twice served capably as acting president, does and her evaluation of Misha's latest gambit may determine what happens next.
"When there's a threat to the country's existence as such, all the parties are united," said Mr. Gachechiladze, whose own paper saw one reporter killed and two others injured during the Russian counterattack. "Afterwards, we can discuss what went wrong and who has to pay — and whether he will stay as President."
Mark MacKinnon is The Globe and Mail's correspondent in the Middle East
This is a good article in that it details some of the background to the conflict. It also does not gloss over the fact that it was Georgia not Russia that in effect started the conflict by its attack on South Ossetia's capital. In the process they managed to kill some Russian peacekeepers who were stationed there as part of a long standing agreement. There were talks scheduled within the next few days just before the attack. Perhaps Saakashvili thought he would strengthen his hand or come to the talks with a fait accompli. Perhaps too he thought that with U.S. backing him the Russians would roll over and play dead. For now Georgians will rally around Saakashvili but once the dust settles the opposition will probably rise against him since he has caused Georgia to in effect lose any hope of regaining South Ossetia or Abkazia and has caused many casualties and damage to Georgia. Although Bush and Merkel continue to support Georgia's membership in NATO other European countries may have a quite different view. If Georgia does get to join NATO this will be a sign that we are in Cold War II an even more dangerous sequel to the first Cold War.
Crisis in Georgia: How Misha messed up
Why on earth did Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili provoke this week's conflict and rekindle Russian expansionism?
MARK MACKINNON
Globe and Mail Update
August 16, 2008 at 11:50 AM EDT
As fighting raged all over his tiny former Soviet country this week, a CNN anchor asked Georgia's brash and unpredictable President Mikhail Saakashvili whether he had believed his country could actually win a military showdown with Russia. "I'm not crazy," the President answered in his American-inflected English.
Others weren't so sure. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev charged that Mr. Saakashvili had acted like a "lunatic" in provoking the conflict and said he needed to be removed from office. A French diplomat suggested Mr. Saakashvili had been mad to take on Russia, and American officials wondered how he could have so badly misread their signals calling for restraint in his efforts to reclaim the breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
Many of his own people are shaking their heads at how "Misha," as he is affectionately known, could have backed their country into such a dangerous corner.
Videos
It was on Monday afternoon in the tree-lined city of Gori that Mr. Saakashvili came face to face with the scale of the error he made in attacking South Ossetia and triggering war with Russia, Georgia's giant neighbour to the north.
Sporting a green camouflage flak jacket, he was preparing to address the international media when Russian jets suddenly roared overhead. Someone in his entourage shouted, "Air! Air!" and Mr. Saakashvili looked at the sky, then broke into a sprint. Eventually he dove for cover, his bodyguards piling on top, hoping to shield their President from shrapnel.
Many bombs fell in and around Gori — the geographic heart of this strikingly beautiful country on the southeastern edge of Europe — and none came close to hurting him.
But the video of him ducking and running may prove to be the bookend to a tumultuous political career that began five years ago with another famous image: Mr. Saakashvili striding into Georgia's Soviet-era parliament building clutching a rose, at the vanguard of a democratic revolution that was supposed to remake not only his own tiny country but the entire former USSR.
Even if he remains in office after this crisis, the era of hope, democracy and pro-Western reform that Mr. Saakashvili — still boyish-looking at 40 — was supposed to herald has ended. The moment he ordered his troops to attack the South Ossetian capital of Tskhinvali a week ago, Georgia once more became a failed state, a place where wars, coups and instability are the norm and one that Western investors would be wise to avoid.
Georgia's loss is Russia's gain. Moscow is once again emerging as the regional hegemon, on the verge of pushing the U.S. back out of the former Soviet Union, an area Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin calls "the near abroad." The leaders of Ukraine, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, all former Soviet republics, rushed to stand with Mr. Saakashvili in the Georgian capital of Tbilisi this week in what was as much a demonstration of fear as it was of solidarity. They were joined by the President of Poland, another country that remembers when the Red Army regularly ranged far beyond its borders and thus fears Russia's resurgence.
Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko is probably the most concerned member of the quintet. While Poland and the Baltic states are under the protective umbrella of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Ukraine is not. Along with Georgia's, its application to join NATO was shelved back in April for fear of offending Russia, which considers both states to be properly part of its "sphere of influence."
It all makes Mr. Saakashvili's decision to attack last Friday — while the world was distracted by the opening of the Beijing Olympic Games — extremely difficult to understand. In the name of "reuniting" Georgia, which has never been united since it gained independence in 1991, hundreds of people are dead (each side accuses the other of ethnic cleansing) and Georgia's sovereignty is under renewed threat.
As the sound of gunfire recedes, questions about Mr. Saakashvili's judgment — and his ability to continue governing — are growing louder.
Young and restless
Mr. Saakashvili has always been bold, daring and idealistic. Born into a family of Tbilisi intelligentsia in the Soviet period, he was a member of the generation who grew up as the Communist bloc was crumbling and the Soviet Union was splitting apart. What had seemed eternal suddenly disappeared and the old rules vanished, providing an opportunity for his generation — less indoctrinated than its elders — to write new ones.
Even though he had grown up in the USSR, born in Leonid Brezhnev's time and gone to school in Mikhail Gorbachev's, Mr. Saakashvili was never going to be the homo sovieticus the Russian leaders tried to create. At one of our meetings, he told me that he took particular relish in being interviewed by The Globe and Mail, since it was the first foreign newspaper he had ever read after discovering copies of it in the library of Kiev University, where he studied international law in the late 1980s and early 1990s. He surreptitiously read every page, soaking up information usually blocked by the Soviet censors.
After the Soviet Union fell apart and Georgia became an independent state, Mr. Saakashvili received a U.S.-government sponsored fellowship to continue his law studies at Columbia University, from which he graduated in 1994.
While in New York, he did exactly what the U.S. State Department had hoped when it sent him and thousands of other young students from the former Soviet Union to schools in the U.S: He fell in love with America.
He initially intended on settling in New York and practising law, but in 1995 he was personally headhunted by Georgian president Eduard Shevardnadze, who was looking to surround himself with talented young Georgians unhindered by old ideas. Mr. Saakashvili came home and, at just 26, was elected to parliament, along with Zhurab Zhvania and Nino Burdjanadze, two other young Georgians recruited to the cause. The young lawyer quickly made a name for himself as an anti-corruption campaigner and within five years his mentor made him justice minister.
But Mr. Saakashvili was cut from a very different cloth than Mr. Shevardnadze, the former Soviet foreign minister who won fame for helping bring an end to the Cold War.
Dubbed the Silver Fox, Mr. Shevardnadze was a cautious and careful consensus builder who effectively negotiated away Tbilisi's hold over South Ossetia and Abkhazia in exchange for an end to the fighting and Russian interference that plagued his country during the early 1990s. While he spoke of cracking down on Georgia's endemic corruption problem, he was reluctant to tackle the problem head-on, fearful of upsetting the country's hard-won stability.
For Mr. Saakashvili — stereotypically Georgian in his passion and taste for the impulsive — these were unforgivable compromises.
A year after he was made justice minister, he resigned, declaring that Mr. Shevardnadze was complicit in the criminality bedevilling Georgia.
In opposition, he caught the eye of George Soros, the American billionaire and philanthropist who had initially become involved in Georgia at Mr. Shevardnadze's request. Mr. Soros also had become irritated by the Silver Fox's go-slow approach, and he decided that Mr. Saakashvili was the embodiment of Georgia's future.
The Soros foundations began pouring millions of dollars into organizations that were nominally interested in free media and democracy building but mainly served to undermine Mr. Shevardnadze's rule and push for Mr. Saakashvili to succeed him (including the youth movement Kmara, which would provide the backbone of the protests during the Rose Revolution).
On the pipeline
The U.S. State Department came to see Georgia that same way Mr. Soros did, although for very different reasons: The country stands on a key transit route for getting oil and gas from Central Asia and the Caspian Sea to markets in the West. The world's largest and most expensive pipeline project — the $4-billion Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil line — was to run across Georgian territory, and Mr. Shevardnadze's habit of playing Moscow and Washington off each other was deemed a risk to the investment.
Russia had always vehemently opposed the BTC, viewing the pipeline's route, which dances along the South Caucasus while carefully avoiding both Russia's territory and Iran's, as an effort to break through its growing stranglehold on the supply of energy to Europe.
For a country few outside the old Soviet Union had previously heard of, Georgia was suddenly thrust into the heart of international intrigue when U.S. Vice-President Dick Cheney declared after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that the BTC pipeline was of "vital strategic interest" to his country. The U.S. embassy in Tbilisi began to court Mr. Saakashvili, as well as Mr. Zhvania and Ms. Burdjanadze, who had joined him in opposition.
Mr. Saakashvili was a fast-rising force in Georgian politics. He founded the United National Movement, which caught the imagination of voters with a vision of Georgia as a modern, European country that could also reclaim its pre-Russian history by using the red-and-white, five-cross flag of the medieval kingdom of Georgia as its new party banner.
Just months after quitting Mr. Shevardnadze's cabinet, Mr. Saakashvili was elected mayor of Tbilisi, setting the stage for his head-to-head confrontation with the Silver Fox.
In many ways, the Rose Revolution in 2003 — which saw massive street protests force Mr. Shevardnadze from office and Mr. Saakashvili elected in his place — was as much an American victory over Russia on the geopolitical chessboard as it was a pro-democracy uprising. Within two years of the revolt, oil was flowing westward through a completed BTC pipeline and Georgia was seeking NATO membership with U.S. help.
Mr. Saakashvili's brashness and unpredictability made him the perfect leader for the protests. Even his closest associates don't know what inspired him to carry a rose as he charged into parliament to demand Mr. Shevardnadze's resignation over election fraud. The idea was Mr. Saakashvili's alone, they say.
The revolt inspired copycat people-power movements that overthrew the old order in the former Soviet republics of Ukraine the following year (the Orange Revolution) and Kyrgyzstan (the Pink, or Tulip, Revolution) in 2005. The Kremlin initially feared that the wave of "colour revolutions" would wash over Red Square too.
Mr. Saakashvili won 96 per cent of the vote in the barely contested post-revolution elections, and once more made the five-cross banner Georgia's national flag. His audacious style helped him carry out astonishing reforms during his first years in office — including a remarkable decision to simultaneously fire all the country's notoriously corrupt traffic policemen, rehiring only a third after forcing them to apply for their old jobs.
With Mr. Zhvania as his prime minister and Ms. Burdjanadze as speaker of parliament, the trio rapidly remade Georgia, at least in the eyes of the White House, from a corrupt post-Soviet backwater into a plucky friend of the West and a favoured destination of Western investors. He even won some belated admiration from Mr. Shevardnadze, who told me after the Rose Revolution that Mr. Saakashvili had the country on the right path, though the septuagenarian worried that "the youngsters" would take it too far.
Autocratic turn
In the eyes of some of his one-time allies, however, Mr. Saakashvili's early successes had the effect of convincing the young President that only he could fix Georgia. Worried that he was turning into an autocrat, a group of 14 non-governmental organizations that initially backed him signed a petition warning that the Rose Revolution was becoming "anti-democratic." When Mr. Zhvania mysteriously died in 2005 from gas poisoning in 2005, Mr. Saakashvili lost his closest friend and a moderating influence whom colleagues say often talked him out of rash decisions.
Radical economic reforms inevitably left many Georgians behind. Discontent grew as Mr. Saakashvili slashed the size of the civil service, and opposition demonstrations — including some organized by a group known simply as Anti-Soros — became a regular feature on Tbilisi's streets last year. In November, the President ordered riot police to disperse the protests with tear gas, water cannons and batons.
With the opposition in disorder, he called snap elections and won a second term in January with a much less resounding, though still impressive, 53 per cent of the vote. His reputation in Europe was badly tarnished by the November crackdown. Ms. Burdjanadze, long his ally and arguably the country's second most popular politician, signalled her own discomfort with her snap decision to quit politics four months ago.
Mr. Saakashvili's impulsive penchant, combined with his overt distrust of nearly all things Russian, led to the escalating confrontation with Moscow that finally boiled over this week. In his world view, the Russians' military presence as "peacekeepers" in separatist South Ossetia and Abkhazia was the leash holding Georgia back, guaranteeing the Kremlin's lingering and malicious influence over its ex-colony.
Though the territories are small — and Abkhazians and South Ossetians are ethnically distinct from both Georgians and Russians, with their own languages — Mr. Saakashvili saw the Russian presence as a present and future threat to his country's sovereignty. The nebulous state of the two regions gives the Kremlin a lever for destabilizing the country should it ever get too close to its ambitions of joining NATO and the European Union.
To Georgia's young President, the United States — the country that had given him his education and then backed his rise to power — was his country's potential saviour from what he perceived as renewed Russian imperialism.
"People have been feeling the change — that's obvious. They feel that things are moving forward," Mr. Saakashvili proudly told me a few years ago when we met in his office for a talk about the successes and failures of the Rose Revolution, during which he lavished praise on the U.S. for its support. The phone rang and he asked me to excuse him for a moment: It was George W. Bush.
Determined to tie his country to the West, Mr. Saakashvili enthusiastically signed Georgia up to the American-led war in Iraq, and until last week only the United States and Britain were contributing more troops to the "coalition of the willing" (the 2,000 Georgian soldiers in Iraq were flown home this week on U.S. military aircraft to help deal with the crisis). The road connecting Tbilisi to its international airport was renamed President George W. Bush Street.
Last straw for Moscow
The step that sealed Mr. Saakashvili's fate was his decision this year to formally seek NATO membership.
Despite Mr. Bush's enthusiastic support, the bid predictably failed, with France and Germany voicing concerns about taking on an ally that had outstanding territorial disputes with Russia. Old Europe didn't want to see the Third World War break out over a place called South Ossetia.
The fact that Mr. Saakashvili went ahead with the bid was enough to convince the Kremlin once and for all that he was an implacable enemy. Now that it has humbled him militarily, many expect a Russian-sponsored push to oust him from within.
While Russia doesn't seem interested in occupying Tbilisi, it could easily throw its clout behind Georgia's political opposition or, more dangerously, use its separatist allies as proxy armies. South Ossetian irregulars were reportedly behind the violence that continued after the French-brokered ceasefire this week, while troops from the second separatist region, Abkhazia, launched their own attack on Georgian troops in the northwest of the country.
Washington has escalated its tough talk in recent days, dispatching Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to the region and using warships and military aircraft to deliver aid. But with its military already overstretched by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and worried about a potential confrontation with Iran, it seems unlikely the U.S. can offer much more than moral support.
Although, in reality, Russia and the United States have been backstage antagonists for years now, the sound of explosions echoing off the Caucasus mountain range also heralds the final end of the hopeful era that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union. Moscow and Washington are once more now fully at odds over everything from the World Trade Organization (which the U.S. has blocked Russia's efforts to join) to Iran's nuclear program (which the Kremlin has helped to build). South Ossetia is only the first hot conflict zone in this New Cold War.
"Georgia is the first test case... We should realize what is at stake for America: America is losing the whole region," an increasingly desperate Mr. Saakashvili said this week in an attempt to rally the West to Georgia's side. While Russia said it had accepted the ceasefire, he charged the next day that Russian troops were encircling Tbilisi, a claim later denied by his own Interior Minister.
All of which calls into question why Mr. Saakshvili chose Aug. 8 to launch his military offensive in South Ossetia, which had been outside Tbilisi's control since a short war in 1992. While his election platform this year centred on restoring Georgian authority in the breakaway territories, few expected him to try it militarily. Given that Mr. Putin, who retains wide power in the country as Mr. Medvedev's Prime Minister, had issued Russian passports to Abkhazians and South Ossetians during his eight-year presidency, a heavy-handed military response to Georgia's assault was as predictable as it was disproportionate.
Ten Russian peacekeepers reportedly died in the initial Georgian attack, which followed days of tit-for-tat shelling between South Ossetian and Georgian forces. The Russian fatalities made a counteroffensive inevitable even if Mr. Medvedev and Mr. Putin hadn't been waiting for just such an excuse to humble Mr. Saakashvili.
Short tempers
Indeed, they were waiting. Ever since the Rose Revolution, the Kremlin has viewed Mr. Saakashvili as an American pawn and his government as a threat to Russia's resurgence. The BTC pipeline blew a hole in Moscow's efforts to monopolize the supply of energy to Europe, while the effort to join NATO was taken as something close to a declaration of war.
"In the end, Saakashvili clearly underestimated Putin's personal hatred for him — an enmity that became intense after an aide told Putin that Saakashvili described him as 'Lilliputian,'ƒ" columnist Yulia Latynina wrote in The Moscow Times this week. Mr. Putin, who stands five-foot-seven, is known to be insecure about his height.
The impetuousness that was so useful when Mr. Saakashvili was leading street demonstrations has proved to be a dangerous trait in a national leader in such a sensitive corner of the world.
Zaza Gachechiladze, editor-in-chief of The Messenger, an English-language newspaper in Tbilisi, said the sudden war smelled to him of a Kremlin trap. The shelling in South Ossetia was the bait, and Mr. Saakashvili leaped at it.
"It was a very well-organized provocation," he said in a telephone interview. "Unfortunately for Georgia, we made this dramatic and fatal step [of attacking South Ossetia]."
For now, he said, Georgians will rally around their flag and their leader — thousands of citizens attended a pro-Saakashvili rally in the centre of Tbilisi this week — because few want to see a return to Russian domination. But eventually a reckoning will follow. Many will look to see what Ms. Burdjanadze, who has twice served capably as acting president, does and her evaluation of Misha's latest gambit may determine what happens next.
"When there's a threat to the country's existence as such, all the parties are united," said Mr. Gachechiladze, whose own paper saw one reporter killed and two others injured during the Russian counterattack. "Afterwards, we can discuss what went wrong and who has to pay — and whether he will stay as President."
Mark MacKinnon is The Globe and Mail's correspondent in the Middle East
Saturday, August 16, 2008
Philippines:Agreement with MILF unconstitutional?
THis is from Malaya.
There are so many objections to this agreement from the courts and many citizens and politicians that it seems as if it is doomed not to be implemented. This in turn may result in increased conflict as MILF may see no hope in negotiations at the present time. The U.S. seems to be involved in all this behind the scenes. I doubt the U.S. would want independence for the area included under the agreement. It seems unlikely that the area would be favorably inclined to grant the U.S. a military base but then you never know. The region is quite poor on the whole.
'Clear Charter violations'SC hearing finds wholesale infirmities in pact
BY JP LOPEZ
ASSOCIATE Justice Antonio Carpio yesterday said several provisions of the Constitution were violated in the memorandum of agreement on ancestral domain that the government was supposed to sign with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front last week.
At the start of the oral arguments at the Supreme Court, Carpio said the expansion of the Autonomous Region for Muslim Mindanao with the creation on Bangsamoro Juridical Entity, as proposed in the MOA, does not take into consideration the existence of tribal groups in the area other than the Moro people.
The tribunal is hearing the arguments on the petitions of North Cotabato and Zamboanga and Iligan cities which are opposing their inclusion in the expanded ARMM.
On North Cotabato's petition, the high court last week issued a temporary restraining order, aborting the MOA signing scheduled August 5 in Kuala Lumpur.
Motions for intervention were also filed by Sen. Mar Roxas, former Senate President Franklin Drilon and United Opposition spokesman Adel Tamano.
Carpio said tribal groups, particularly Lumads, were not consulted on whether they want to be included in the BJE.
The MOA proposes the inclusion of 712 barangays from the non-ARMM provinces of Lanao del Norte, North Cotabato, Sultan Kudarat, Zamboanga Sibugay and Palawan.
The ARMM is composed of Maguindanao, Tawi-Tawi, Basilan, Lanao del Sur, Sulu and Shariff Kabunsuan.
A plebiscite will be held next year in these barangays as proposed in the MOA.
Carpio said the MOA also violated the Constitution in a provision which states that the BJE would maintain its own security force. He said the Constitution provides for a single police force, national in nature and civilian in character.
The national police, he added, should be under the National Police Commission and not any other entity.
Carpio said another violation is that the MOA did not commit the legislative to approve the agreement to pave the way for a plebiscite if it is brought to Congress.
A provision calling for the creation of a separate justice system for the BJE is likewise a clear violation of the Constitution. Carpio said under the Constitution, the country must have a unitary justice system headed by the Supreme Court.
On the plebiscite, Carpio said it encroaches into the power of the legislature to schedule a plebiscite to decide on such issues.
Carpio said the BJE cannot have its own electoral body because the Commission on Elections is the only authorized electoral body.
NO SECESSION
Supreme Court Chief Justice Reynato Puno rejected the creation of a separate state in Mindanao, saying the Constitution does not allow secession but only autonomy.
"The most that can be done is autonomy. It should be done within the framework of the Constitution, national sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic of the Philippines," he said.
CONSTITUTIONALITY ISSUE
Drilon said he was compelled to raise the constitutionality of the MOA because the earlier petitions raised only the issue of "non-consultation with the public."
"This was understandable because when the North Cotabato officials filed their petition, they were not yet given a copy of the MOA. Thus, their lawyers were unable to question the unconstitutionality of its provisions," Drilon said.
Unless permanently barred by the court, Drilon and Tamano said the members of the GRP panel would be acting "beyond their constitutional authority and jurisdiction and represents a grave abuse of discretion amounting to a lack of jurisdiction."
Drilon and Tamano said their interest in the case was material and direct. "The MOA is blatantly injurious to intervenors who are citizens of the Republic of the Philippines, eroding, as it does, the national sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Philippine state," the petition said.
"The peace panel exercised powers beyond its constitutional authority, effectively ceding the entire Muslim-Palawan-Sulu geographical territory to the MILF and creating within that region a state separate and distinct from the Republic."
DUE PROCESS
Earlier in the day, the tribunal dismissed a petition of Solicitor General Agnes Devanadera to defer the oral arguments.
Devanadera said the government motion was a request for "due process."
In an interview before the hearing, Devanadera said, "The reason for the request was that there were interventions filed . and we were not even asked to file comments. that is part of due process . we shouldn't be going to court unless we have inputs."
Devanadera said they needed more time to answer all the petitioners and coordinate with the government peace panel.
FLAWED MOA
Roxas welcomed the high court decision to proceed, saying there is a need to resume the oral arguments so that the court can determine the constitutionality of the agreement.
"The MOA-AD is flawed in the process just as it is flawed in its provisions. What was lost in the process was an appreciation for legitimacy in a democracy that stems from winning consensus, including the consent of the governed," he said.
"The MOA violates many provisions of the Constitution, which strangely enough the memorandum never mentions by name," he added.
Roxas also alleged that the government could be trying to "cover up" something in the MOA. "It's impossible that government lawyers won't be able to answer questions about the MOA since they prepared it," he said.
The Supreme Court adjourned the hearing past 5 p.m. and scheduled a second hearing for oral arguments on August 22.
DELAYING TACTICS
Roxas said it was clear that the government legal panel headed by Devanadera could not provide a clear explanation for the actions of the GRP panel that negotiated the MOA.
"In creating this MOA, the peace panel knew the people wouldn't accept the agreement if consultations were held. In the same way, they know they would be unable to argue their case in the Supreme Court, hence the resort to delaying tactics. Dalawa lang ang isyu dito: ang kakulangan ng konsultasyon, at constitutionality," he said.
Senate majority leader Francis Pangilinan pushed for the renegotiation of agreement.
"THE MOA should not be forced down our throats. The credibility of this peace pact is now highly suspect with Malacañang pressing for Cha-cha along with it, and the flawed, exclusive process undertaken to have the agreement," he said.
CHARTER CIRCUMVENTED
Roxas said the business sector has added its voice to the millions of Filipinos who are opposing the controversial agreement.
He said the Makati Business Club in a statement summed up how the government peace panel has disregarded the people's interests and circumvented the Constitution.
The MBC statement said it opposing the MOA "because it is flawed in the process just as it is flawed in its provisions."
"What was lost in the process was any appreciation for legitimacy in a democracy that stems from winning consensus, including the consent of the governed. Many, if not all, of its provisions violate the Constitution, which strangely enough the Memorandum never mentions by name ."
The MBC also said the MOA "will result in a diminution of Philippine sovereignty as it empowers its juridical creation to enter into economic agreements and trade relations with foreign countries, to open trade missions abroad, and to participate in meetings of the ASEAN and UN specialized agencies where only sovereign states take part."
MINDANAO INDEPENDENCE
US Ambassador Kristie Kenney said the US does not believe that independence for Mindanao is appropriate.
At the 45th founding anniversary of the National Defense College of the Philippines at Club Filipino in San Juan, she said a lasting peace agreement would "be a good deterrent to terrorism, good for security and would help spur economic development in Mindanao."
On questions about her presence in Kuala Lumpur for the MOA signing, Kenney said, "I was invited as a member of the diplomatic corps of the Philippines."
She called "pure speculations' reports that the US plans to build military bases in Mindanao, the reason for its strong support for the peace process.
"I have a very honest answer, no. We do not have plans to have military bases in the Philippines, not in Mindanao, not anywhere," she said. - With Ashzel Hachero
There are so many objections to this agreement from the courts and many citizens and politicians that it seems as if it is doomed not to be implemented. This in turn may result in increased conflict as MILF may see no hope in negotiations at the present time. The U.S. seems to be involved in all this behind the scenes. I doubt the U.S. would want independence for the area included under the agreement. It seems unlikely that the area would be favorably inclined to grant the U.S. a military base but then you never know. The region is quite poor on the whole.
'Clear Charter violations'SC hearing finds wholesale infirmities in pact
BY JP LOPEZ
ASSOCIATE Justice Antonio Carpio yesterday said several provisions of the Constitution were violated in the memorandum of agreement on ancestral domain that the government was supposed to sign with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front last week.
At the start of the oral arguments at the Supreme Court, Carpio said the expansion of the Autonomous Region for Muslim Mindanao with the creation on Bangsamoro Juridical Entity, as proposed in the MOA, does not take into consideration the existence of tribal groups in the area other than the Moro people.
The tribunal is hearing the arguments on the petitions of North Cotabato and Zamboanga and Iligan cities which are opposing their inclusion in the expanded ARMM.
On North Cotabato's petition, the high court last week issued a temporary restraining order, aborting the MOA signing scheduled August 5 in Kuala Lumpur.
Motions for intervention were also filed by Sen. Mar Roxas, former Senate President Franklin Drilon and United Opposition spokesman Adel Tamano.
Carpio said tribal groups, particularly Lumads, were not consulted on whether they want to be included in the BJE.
The MOA proposes the inclusion of 712 barangays from the non-ARMM provinces of Lanao del Norte, North Cotabato, Sultan Kudarat, Zamboanga Sibugay and Palawan.
The ARMM is composed of Maguindanao, Tawi-Tawi, Basilan, Lanao del Sur, Sulu and Shariff Kabunsuan.
A plebiscite will be held next year in these barangays as proposed in the MOA.
Carpio said the MOA also violated the Constitution in a provision which states that the BJE would maintain its own security force. He said the Constitution provides for a single police force, national in nature and civilian in character.
The national police, he added, should be under the National Police Commission and not any other entity.
Carpio said another violation is that the MOA did not commit the legislative to approve the agreement to pave the way for a plebiscite if it is brought to Congress.
A provision calling for the creation of a separate justice system for the BJE is likewise a clear violation of the Constitution. Carpio said under the Constitution, the country must have a unitary justice system headed by the Supreme Court.
On the plebiscite, Carpio said it encroaches into the power of the legislature to schedule a plebiscite to decide on such issues.
Carpio said the BJE cannot have its own electoral body because the Commission on Elections is the only authorized electoral body.
NO SECESSION
Supreme Court Chief Justice Reynato Puno rejected the creation of a separate state in Mindanao, saying the Constitution does not allow secession but only autonomy.
"The most that can be done is autonomy. It should be done within the framework of the Constitution, national sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic of the Philippines," he said.
CONSTITUTIONALITY ISSUE
Drilon said he was compelled to raise the constitutionality of the MOA because the earlier petitions raised only the issue of "non-consultation with the public."
"This was understandable because when the North Cotabato officials filed their petition, they were not yet given a copy of the MOA. Thus, their lawyers were unable to question the unconstitutionality of its provisions," Drilon said.
Unless permanently barred by the court, Drilon and Tamano said the members of the GRP panel would be acting "beyond their constitutional authority and jurisdiction and represents a grave abuse of discretion amounting to a lack of jurisdiction."
Drilon and Tamano said their interest in the case was material and direct. "The MOA is blatantly injurious to intervenors who are citizens of the Republic of the Philippines, eroding, as it does, the national sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Philippine state," the petition said.
"The peace panel exercised powers beyond its constitutional authority, effectively ceding the entire Muslim-Palawan-Sulu geographical territory to the MILF and creating within that region a state separate and distinct from the Republic."
DUE PROCESS
Earlier in the day, the tribunal dismissed a petition of Solicitor General Agnes Devanadera to defer the oral arguments.
Devanadera said the government motion was a request for "due process."
In an interview before the hearing, Devanadera said, "The reason for the request was that there were interventions filed . and we were not even asked to file comments. that is part of due process . we shouldn't be going to court unless we have inputs."
Devanadera said they needed more time to answer all the petitioners and coordinate with the government peace panel.
FLAWED MOA
Roxas welcomed the high court decision to proceed, saying there is a need to resume the oral arguments so that the court can determine the constitutionality of the agreement.
"The MOA-AD is flawed in the process just as it is flawed in its provisions. What was lost in the process was an appreciation for legitimacy in a democracy that stems from winning consensus, including the consent of the governed," he said.
"The MOA violates many provisions of the Constitution, which strangely enough the memorandum never mentions by name," he added.
Roxas also alleged that the government could be trying to "cover up" something in the MOA. "It's impossible that government lawyers won't be able to answer questions about the MOA since they prepared it," he said.
The Supreme Court adjourned the hearing past 5 p.m. and scheduled a second hearing for oral arguments on August 22.
DELAYING TACTICS
Roxas said it was clear that the government legal panel headed by Devanadera could not provide a clear explanation for the actions of the GRP panel that negotiated the MOA.
"In creating this MOA, the peace panel knew the people wouldn't accept the agreement if consultations were held. In the same way, they know they would be unable to argue their case in the Supreme Court, hence the resort to delaying tactics. Dalawa lang ang isyu dito: ang kakulangan ng konsultasyon, at constitutionality," he said.
Senate majority leader Francis Pangilinan pushed for the renegotiation of agreement.
"THE MOA should not be forced down our throats. The credibility of this peace pact is now highly suspect with Malacañang pressing for Cha-cha along with it, and the flawed, exclusive process undertaken to have the agreement," he said.
CHARTER CIRCUMVENTED
Roxas said the business sector has added its voice to the millions of Filipinos who are opposing the controversial agreement.
He said the Makati Business Club in a statement summed up how the government peace panel has disregarded the people's interests and circumvented the Constitution.
The MBC statement said it opposing the MOA "because it is flawed in the process just as it is flawed in its provisions."
"What was lost in the process was any appreciation for legitimacy in a democracy that stems from winning consensus, including the consent of the governed. Many, if not all, of its provisions violate the Constitution, which strangely enough the Memorandum never mentions by name ."
The MBC also said the MOA "will result in a diminution of Philippine sovereignty as it empowers its juridical creation to enter into economic agreements and trade relations with foreign countries, to open trade missions abroad, and to participate in meetings of the ASEAN and UN specialized agencies where only sovereign states take part."
MINDANAO INDEPENDENCE
US Ambassador Kristie Kenney said the US does not believe that independence for Mindanao is appropriate.
At the 45th founding anniversary of the National Defense College of the Philippines at Club Filipino in San Juan, she said a lasting peace agreement would "be a good deterrent to terrorism, good for security and would help spur economic development in Mindanao."
On questions about her presence in Kuala Lumpur for the MOA signing, Kenney said, "I was invited as a member of the diplomatic corps of the Philippines."
She called "pure speculations' reports that the US plans to build military bases in Mindanao, the reason for its strong support for the peace process.
"I have a very honest answer, no. We do not have plans to have military bases in the Philippines, not in Mindanao, not anywhere," she said. - With Ashzel Hachero
Friday, August 15, 2008
Georgia signs ceasefire, Rice says Russia must now pull out
So I wonder who authorises the U.S. to give orders to Russia? Rice even being in Tbilisi is a sign of Big Brother looking after its own and sending the black sister for a photo op and to show solidarity with David against the newly minted Evil Empire Goliath. Nevertheless the ceasefire is certainly a positive development and from the Russian reaction acceptable to the Russian side as well. These events will probably fade from the western press after a time but the tensions will remain. The U.S. still remains committed to Georgia joining NATO. This will cause conflict with some members of the European Union within NATO who are not willing to confront Russia even more, since much of Europe depends upon Russia for energy supplies especially natural gas. Russia is not about to forget that the missile defence system is going ahead in spite of continued objections from the Russian side. There is no doubt about that there is a new Cold War developing. In time I expect that there will be more conflict with China as well and perhaps a coming together of China and Russia once again in confronting U.S. hegemony. Already we have the tired old phrases about the Free World versus Russia (and China no doubt). I have seen blogs even talking about Russia in terms of a country run by atheistic communists! Wow!
Georgia signs ceasefire, Rice says Russia must now pull out
Breakaway regions "unlikely to live together with Georgia," Russian president says
Last Updated: Friday, August 15, 2008 12:26 PM ET
CBC News
Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili said Friday he signed a ceasefire agreement with Russia that protects the former Soviet republic's interests despite concessions to Moscow.
He said he will "never, ever surrender" in a showdown with Russia, and he accused the West of inviting Russian aggression.
Saakashvili made his remarks in the Georgian capital of Tbilisi with United States Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice standing nearby. Rice said she had been assured that Russian President Dmitry Medvedev will sign an identical document.
"With this signature by Georgia," Rice said, the Russian pullback "must take place and take place now."
Saakashvili's announcement comes just hours after Medvedev said the Georgian breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia are "unlikely to live together with Georgia" after recent conflicts there.
Medvedev spoke to reporters in Moscow earlier Friday, a week after heavy fighting between Russian and Georgian troops broke out over the Moscow-backed breakaway republic of South Ossetia.
Medvedev said that while Russia respects the principle of territorial integrity, after what happened, it's unlikely Ossetians and Abkhazians will ever be able to live together with Georgia in one state. Russian troops drove Georgian forces out of both regions last week.
Bush stands firmly behind Georgia
Meanwhile U.S. President George W. Bush repeated on Friday his demand that Russia get out of Georgia, saying the Cold War is over.
"Bullying and intimidation are not acceptable ways to conduct foreign policy in the 21st century," he told reporters at the White House. He said Georgians have cast their lot with the free world and "we will not cast them aside."
The U.S. president said that Russia has damaged its relationship with the United States and other countries.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel said on Friday some of Russia's actions against Georgia over South Ossetia had been "disproportionate." Her comments carry weight as Germany is Russia's largest trading partner.
"Some of Russia's actions were not proportionate," Reuters quoted Merkel as saying at a joint news conference with Medvedev. "Russian troops should withdraw from central areas in Georgia," she added.
Rice says difficult questions can be addressed later
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili shake hands in Tbilisi on Friday. (Irakli Gedenidze/Pool/Associated Press)Rice told reporters travelling with her to Tbilisi that the immediate goal is to get Russian combat forces out of Georgia and that more difficult questions can be addressed later.
But she said the U.S. would never ask Georgia to agree to something that isn't in its best interests.
The French-brokered agreement calls for both sides to pull back to positions they held before the fighting started last Friday, when Georgia sent troops to try to retake the separatist province of South Ossetia.
Russia responded to the action by pushing Georgian forces back and advancing far into undisputed Georgian territory. Rice said earlier that the deal would allow Russian peacekeepers stationed in South Ossetia before the conflict began to stay in the region. The troops would also be temporarily allowed to patrol a few kilometres outside the area.
Russia said it is committed to pulling fighting forces out of Georgia, but the Associated Press reported on Friday that Russian troops were still blocking an entrance to the key central Georgian city of Gori.
Displaced Georgian civilians rest just outside the town of Gori on Friday. (Uriel Sinai/Getty Images)Russia has said more than 2,000 people, mostly civilians in South Ossetia, as well as 74 of its own soldiers, have been killed in the conflict. Georgia put the figure much lower, at around 175 dead. None of the figures has been independently verified.
While South Ossetia's independence is not recognized internationally, it has close ties to Russia, and almost all of its 70,000 residents have Russian passports.
The International Committee of the Red Cross says tens of thousands of people in Georgia, including its two breakaway provinces, need urgent help but that security concerns are keeping its staff out of the region.
It says residents of South Ossetia are living without basic services, such as water and electricity.With files from the Associated Press
Georgia signs ceasefire, Rice says Russia must now pull out
Breakaway regions "unlikely to live together with Georgia," Russian president says
Last Updated: Friday, August 15, 2008 12:26 PM ET
CBC News
Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili said Friday he signed a ceasefire agreement with Russia that protects the former Soviet republic's interests despite concessions to Moscow.
He said he will "never, ever surrender" in a showdown with Russia, and he accused the West of inviting Russian aggression.
Saakashvili made his remarks in the Georgian capital of Tbilisi with United States Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice standing nearby. Rice said she had been assured that Russian President Dmitry Medvedev will sign an identical document.
"With this signature by Georgia," Rice said, the Russian pullback "must take place and take place now."
Saakashvili's announcement comes just hours after Medvedev said the Georgian breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia are "unlikely to live together with Georgia" after recent conflicts there.
Medvedev spoke to reporters in Moscow earlier Friday, a week after heavy fighting between Russian and Georgian troops broke out over the Moscow-backed breakaway republic of South Ossetia.
Medvedev said that while Russia respects the principle of territorial integrity, after what happened, it's unlikely Ossetians and Abkhazians will ever be able to live together with Georgia in one state. Russian troops drove Georgian forces out of both regions last week.
Bush stands firmly behind Georgia
Meanwhile U.S. President George W. Bush repeated on Friday his demand that Russia get out of Georgia, saying the Cold War is over.
"Bullying and intimidation are not acceptable ways to conduct foreign policy in the 21st century," he told reporters at the White House. He said Georgians have cast their lot with the free world and "we will not cast them aside."
The U.S. president said that Russia has damaged its relationship with the United States and other countries.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel said on Friday some of Russia's actions against Georgia over South Ossetia had been "disproportionate." Her comments carry weight as Germany is Russia's largest trading partner.
"Some of Russia's actions were not proportionate," Reuters quoted Merkel as saying at a joint news conference with Medvedev. "Russian troops should withdraw from central areas in Georgia," she added.
Rice says difficult questions can be addressed later
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili shake hands in Tbilisi on Friday. (Irakli Gedenidze/Pool/Associated Press)Rice told reporters travelling with her to Tbilisi that the immediate goal is to get Russian combat forces out of Georgia and that more difficult questions can be addressed later.
But she said the U.S. would never ask Georgia to agree to something that isn't in its best interests.
The French-brokered agreement calls for both sides to pull back to positions they held before the fighting started last Friday, when Georgia sent troops to try to retake the separatist province of South Ossetia.
Russia responded to the action by pushing Georgian forces back and advancing far into undisputed Georgian territory. Rice said earlier that the deal would allow Russian peacekeepers stationed in South Ossetia before the conflict began to stay in the region. The troops would also be temporarily allowed to patrol a few kilometres outside the area.
Russia said it is committed to pulling fighting forces out of Georgia, but the Associated Press reported on Friday that Russian troops were still blocking an entrance to the key central Georgian city of Gori.
Displaced Georgian civilians rest just outside the town of Gori on Friday. (Uriel Sinai/Getty Images)Russia has said more than 2,000 people, mostly civilians in South Ossetia, as well as 74 of its own soldiers, have been killed in the conflict. Georgia put the figure much lower, at around 175 dead. None of the figures has been independently verified.
While South Ossetia's independence is not recognized internationally, it has close ties to Russia, and almost all of its 70,000 residents have Russian passports.
The International Committee of the Red Cross says tens of thousands of people in Georgia, including its two breakaway provinces, need urgent help but that security concerns are keeping its staff out of the region.
It says residents of South Ossetia are living without basic services, such as water and electricity.With files from the Associated Press
MILF sought U.S. intervention in peace talks with Philippine Govt.
This is from the Inquirer. The MILF has been cagey in relationships with the U.S. The MILF has managed to keep itself off the U.S. list of terrorist organisations in spite of its conflicts with the AFP and what appear to be links between some of its commanders and radical groups that are on the U.S. list. As this article notes there is considerable suspicion of U.S. involvement in the Philippines. Perhaps the U.S. thinks that a peace agreement will stop the drift of separatists towards more radical organisations. This may happen and it may very well further isolate the more radical organisations. But this could cause them to increase violent attacks.
SAYS US GROUP:MILF sought US intervention in peace talks with RP gov’t
By TJ BurgonioPhilippine Daily InquirerFirst Posted 21:12:00 08/15/2008
MANILA, Philippines—The Moro Islamic Liberation Front asked the United States' help in securing an “equitable peace agreement” because of its strong influence over the Philippine government, according to the US Institute of Peace (USIP).
The late MILF chairman Hashim Salamat requested US support for the peace process in a January 2003 letter to President George Bush, USIP said.
The USIP, in a February 2008 special report on Mindanao peace, said Salamat's request for US help was based on the belief that it had “strong leverage” over the government for the conclusion of an “equitable peace agreement.”
“Its leaders and other Moros frequently stated that unless the US government became involved and used its influence to persuade the GRP to implement a fair settlement, the talks would not succeed,” it said.
The government panel, on the other hand, held a different view then, and wanted the US to use the threat of designating the MILF as a terrorist organization to pressure the separatist group to agree to a quick settlement, USIP said.
“Without question, the US government could and must take an active lead role in any peace process in Mindanao,” it said, citing US special relations with the Philippines, security interests, and investment in development projects.
The US' role in the peace process has come under a spotlight amid the furor over a government deal with the MILF expanding the Bangsamoro’s territory in southern Philippines.
The memorandum of agreement on ancestral domain, whose August 5 signing was halted by the Supreme Court, was seen as a concession to the separatist group to give up its fight for a separate Bangsamoro state.
Representative Satur Ocampo and University of the Philippines law professor Merlin Magallona had claimed that the US had been actively involved in the peace process through USIP.
Ocampo, a party-list lawmaker, further charged that the US prodded the government into forging the controversial agreement with the MILF.
In its website, USIP says it was tapped by the US State Department in 2003 to undertake a project to help expedite a peace agreement between the government and the MILF.
Through the Philippine Facilitation Project (PFP), the Institute held meetings with government officials and MILF leaders, and hosted workshops on ancestral domain, and trainings on conflict management for all stakeholders.
This lasted from 2003 to June 2007. In the special report, which is a summary of the project written by G. Eugene Martin and Astrid S. Tuminez, USIP said that while it was in close touch with the State Department, it kept a “degree of separation” from official policy channels.
After the project was introduced in 2003, President Macapagal-Arroyo and the government welcomed the institute's engagement, but appeared to have reservations and lack of understanding of its “quasi-official, track-one-a-half role',” according to USIP.
“Some Moro and non-Moro leaders and civil society activists assumed that USIP was a Central Intelligence Agency front organization whose true objective was to infiltrate the MILF...,” it added in the report titled “Toward Peace in Southern Philippines.” But over the years, the project built sufficient trust among most Mindanao leaders and observers, and affirmed the institute's status as a “track one-and-half, non-partisan player,” USIP said.
Copyright 2008 Philippine Daily Inquirer. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
SAYS US GROUP:MILF sought US intervention in peace talks with RP gov’t
By TJ BurgonioPhilippine Daily InquirerFirst Posted 21:12:00 08/15/2008
MANILA, Philippines—The Moro Islamic Liberation Front asked the United States' help in securing an “equitable peace agreement” because of its strong influence over the Philippine government, according to the US Institute of Peace (USIP).
The late MILF chairman Hashim Salamat requested US support for the peace process in a January 2003 letter to President George Bush, USIP said.
The USIP, in a February 2008 special report on Mindanao peace, said Salamat's request for US help was based on the belief that it had “strong leverage” over the government for the conclusion of an “equitable peace agreement.”
“Its leaders and other Moros frequently stated that unless the US government became involved and used its influence to persuade the GRP to implement a fair settlement, the talks would not succeed,” it said.
The government panel, on the other hand, held a different view then, and wanted the US to use the threat of designating the MILF as a terrorist organization to pressure the separatist group to agree to a quick settlement, USIP said.
“Without question, the US government could and must take an active lead role in any peace process in Mindanao,” it said, citing US special relations with the Philippines, security interests, and investment in development projects.
The US' role in the peace process has come under a spotlight amid the furor over a government deal with the MILF expanding the Bangsamoro’s territory in southern Philippines.
The memorandum of agreement on ancestral domain, whose August 5 signing was halted by the Supreme Court, was seen as a concession to the separatist group to give up its fight for a separate Bangsamoro state.
Representative Satur Ocampo and University of the Philippines law professor Merlin Magallona had claimed that the US had been actively involved in the peace process through USIP.
Ocampo, a party-list lawmaker, further charged that the US prodded the government into forging the controversial agreement with the MILF.
In its website, USIP says it was tapped by the US State Department in 2003 to undertake a project to help expedite a peace agreement between the government and the MILF.
Through the Philippine Facilitation Project (PFP), the Institute held meetings with government officials and MILF leaders, and hosted workshops on ancestral domain, and trainings on conflict management for all stakeholders.
This lasted from 2003 to June 2007. In the special report, which is a summary of the project written by G. Eugene Martin and Astrid S. Tuminez, USIP said that while it was in close touch with the State Department, it kept a “degree of separation” from official policy channels.
After the project was introduced in 2003, President Macapagal-Arroyo and the government welcomed the institute's engagement, but appeared to have reservations and lack of understanding of its “quasi-official, track-one-a-half role',” according to USIP.
“Some Moro and non-Moro leaders and civil society activists assumed that USIP was a Central Intelligence Agency front organization whose true objective was to infiltrate the MILF...,” it added in the report titled “Toward Peace in Southern Philippines.” But over the years, the project built sufficient trust among most Mindanao leaders and observers, and affirmed the institute's status as a “track one-and-half, non-partisan player,” USIP said.
Copyright 2008 Philippine Daily Inquirer. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Raimondo on Saakashvili
This is from antiwar.com. Not only Raimondo rails against Georgia but Pat Buchanan does so as well. Buchanan also has an article at antiwar.com.
The Georgian role in starting this war and their attacks on civilians is downplayed if even mentioned by the mainstream media. Of course U.S. official spokespeople such as Rice also barely mention this but that is to be expected. The lack of critical acumen is to be expected in some sources but the omission seems almost universal. Reports of Russian misdeeds however are legion. One would expect such reports from Georgian media naturally but they are often reported uncritically by the western media. This is not to say that some of these reports are not true. Some probably are. However, much of the violence also seems a result of general lawlessness and armed gangs or militias.
Mikheil Saakashvili:War Criminal
A politician's hubris causes untold human suffering
by Justin Raimondo
Amid all the geopolitical analyses and ideological posturing on the occasion of the Three-Day War between Russia and Georgia, we are losing sight of the very real human costs of this conflict: thousands of civilians killed and grievously wounded, a city, Tskhinvali, the capital of South Ossetia, in ruins, and the hopes and dreams of the inhabitants of this largely overlooked backwater dashed on the rocks of a politician's hubris.
That politician is Mikheil Saakashvili, the all too glib president of Georgia, whose slickness is so apparent that it seems to leave an oily residue on every word he utters. The decidedly apolitical, non-ideological Web site Reliefweb put it this way:
"The place that has suffered most is South Ossetia which is home to both ethnic Ossetians and Georgians, the latter accounting for about a third of the population. The destruction there has been appalling and it looks as though many hundreds of civilians have died, in the first place as a result of the initial Georgian assault of August 7-8. Gosha Tselekhayev, an Ossetian interpreter in Tskhinvali with whom I spoke by telephone on August 10 said, 'I am standing in the city center, but there's no city left.'
"Ossetians fleeing the conflict zone talk of Georgian atrocities and the indiscriminate killing of civilians."
They may be talking of Georgian atrocities, but we in the West have not heard them – nor will we, given the bias of our media, which is in thrall to the Georgia lobby and its U.S. government sponsors. The "mainstream" has already settled on a narrative to explain events in the Caucasus, and nothing short of a South Ossetian holocaust will wake them from their hypnotic state. The Russians, in their view, have got to be the bad guys, i.e., the aggressors. Anything that doesn't fit into that storyline is cut from the script. Yet, as Reliefweb reports:
"On August 7, after days of shooting incidents in the South Ossetian conflict zone, Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili made a speech in which he said that he had given the Georgian villagers orders not to fire, that he wanted to offer South Ossetia 'unlimited autonomy' within the Georgian state, with Russia to be a guarantor of the arrangement.
"Both sides said they were discussing a meeting the next day to discuss how to defuse the clashes.
"That evening, however, Saakashvili went for the military option. The Georgian military launched a massive artillery attack on Tskhinvali, followed the next day by a ground assault involving tanks.
"This was a city with no pure military targets, full of civilians who had been given no warning and were expecting peace talks at any moment."
As if to underscore the utter indifference of Western media to the suffering of anyone politically incorrect enough to be pro-Russian, CNN broadcast footage of war-torn Tskhinvali even as its news announcer solemnly "reported" that the Russians were wreaking devastation on a city in Georgia proper, a classic case of the Orwellian media manipulation techniques that pass for journalism in the West. An unintended irony: the footage was a few feet from the spot where Russian peacekeepers had been slaughtered, the first victims of the Georgian assault. Or was it intended?
The tragicomic aspects of this media-induced cognitive dissonance came to the fore on Fox News the other day, when the announcer was interviewing a 12-year-old American girl who happened to be sitting in a café in Tskhinvali when Georgian bombs started raining down on her head. The announcer's eyebrows shot up when the girl thanked the Russian soldiers. After the girl and her aunt finished their recounting of Georgian atrocities, the announcer capped off his report by intoning: "There are gray areas in war."
The matter of attacking civilians is no doubt a moral "gray area" for the neocons at Fox, but what about the rest of the media – or is there no longer much of a difference, at least when it comes to the Russian question?
The Georgians were the aggressors here, and not only that, it was a particularly vicious sneak attack, undertaken while "peace talks" were supposedly taking place. As Reliefweb put it:
"The attack looked designed to take everybody by surprise – perhaps because much of the Russian leadership was in Beijing for the opening of the Olympic Games. It also unilaterally destroyed the negotiating and peacekeeping arrangements, under the aegis of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, that have been in place for 16 years. Russian peacekeeping troops based in South Ossetia were among those killed in the Georgian assault."
The Georgian offensive provoked a massive exodus to the north. Thousands fled, and with good reason. As the Guardian reports:
"Many had traveled in their nightclothes on rocky roads through the mountains and gave bloodcurdling accounts of Georgian atrocities. 'I came in the boot of a car. Georgian snipers were firing at us from the forest. My brother stayed to fight. Our grandparents' home was reduced to rubble. We don't know where they are. Nothing is left of their village. It was totally destroyed by rockets and tank fire,' Alisa Mamiyeva, 26, a teacher in Tskhinvali, said from the safety of Vladikavkaz in North Ossetia."
The South Ossetians claim 1,400 dead, thus far, most of them victims of the Georgian assault on Tskhinvali, and Vladimir Putin went so far as to accuse the Georgians of launching a "genocide." According to the BBC, however, "Russia failed to back up its claims of Georgian atrocities." Not that the West is all that interested in airing the evidence. As Variety put it in a piece on how this war is being reported,
"Coverage in the U.S. and Europe is leaning heavily toward reports on the Georgian casualties of Russian bombing over the weekend. Few details are being given about the thousands said to have been killed when Georgia attacked Tskhinvali, the capital of South Ossetia, on Thursday and Friday."
The blatant media bias displayed by the "mainstream" news organizations is more than matched by the shameful cover-up of Georgian atrocities by the mainline "human rights" organizations, first and foremost Human Rights Watch. In the most brazen display of willful ignorance since Walter Duranty overlooked the Soviet gulags, HRW spokeswoman Anna Neistat told the Guardian that Ossetian claims of Georgian atrocities were "suspicious":
"The figure of 2,000 people killed is very doubtful. Our findings so far do not in any way confirm the Russian statistics. On the contrary, they suggest the numbers are exaggerated."
Neistat avers that no more than 44 were killed and around 200 were wounded in the Georgian attack on Tskhinvali. Perhaps she should talk to International Red Cross spokeswoman Anna Nelson, who reports area hospitals "overflowing" with the dead and the wounded.
The voices of the Ossetians are barely reaching the West, but when they do – as in this Australian Broadcasting Corp. news report – they underscore the sheer ugliness of HRW's appalling apologetics::
"One woman told how a family of four including two children tried to flee from a Georgian tank but it 'fired on their car and they were all burned' to death, said Angela, who like all the refugees only gave her first name. In another incident, a woman eight months pregnant and two family members fleeing from the city under attack were hit by tank fire and 'nothing remained of them,' Angela said.
"She saw the Georgian tanks roll into Tskhinvali, the soldiers shouting 'Hail Saakashvili,' who is the president of Georgia. 'They destroyed the city,' added Inna, 33, who said she could not understand how the Georgian troops 'could do that to civilians.'
"'You see your friend's home burning and there's nothing you can do. You just watch and cry, it's a genocide,' Inna said. An old woman among the refugees said all she had left was the dress she was wearing. 'My house is destroyed,' she said."
More important than the hypocrisy and ideology-induced moral myopia of the "human rights" crowd, however, is the very real human suffering that is being pointedly overlooked. These are real people being killed and rendered homeless, people who now live in terror and uncertainty while we in the West sit around discussing the geopolitical implications as if individual human beings were pieces on a chessboard.
The U.S. is now delivering "humanitarian" aid under the aegis and protection of the U.S. military, a gesture that underscores the Bizarro World absurdity of a foreign policy that has us arming the Georgians and then paying to clean up the damage done by our proxies. This is truly an odd sort of "humanitarianism," one inextricably linked to the inveterate sadism of our foreign policy.
This "humanitarian" gambit is just that: a device designed to legitimize our growing intervention in the region. While Defense Secretary Robert Gates is clearly not at all thrilled by the prospect of U.S. soldiers entering the battle zone, it seems unavoidable, at some point, since we'll be supervising "humanitarian" flights and relief efforts. (Not to mention future military joint exercises involving U.S. and Georgian forces, such as the ones that concluded shortly before the war commenced.) With Russian troops intent on staying in Ossetia, Abkhazia, and other regions such as Adjaria eager to take this opportunity to break free of the Georgian central government, the likelihood of renewed fighting is high.
To Antiwar.com's audience, and regular readers of this column, none of this – Saakashvili's folly, the Ossetian question, the volatile immediacy of the crisis – is anything new. As I wrote in November 2006:
"Russian 'peacekeepers,' OSCE 'observers,' South Ossetian troops, and the U.S.-trained-and-equipped Georgian military are facing off along ill-defined borders, with renegade 'rebel' bands supporting one side or the other running wild in the no-man's land in between. This is a recipe for disaster, and an armed confrontation is bound to occur, with the distinct possibility of escalating into all-out warfare. The Russians would soon be drawn in, and the U.S. could not escape being dragged into this particular vortex – with fateful consequences all 'round.
"I can just hear McCain barnstorming the country in '08, denouncing 'Russian imperialism' and demanding that we 'stop Putin' in the Caucasus before Russian troops cross the Bering Straits."
We at Antiwar.com have been warning of the dangers of Russophobia, which seems to have run rampant on the neoconservative right in recent days. It was always present (at least since the Kosovo war) as an animating force on the "humanitarian interventionist" left, i.e., George Soros & Co. As much as I hate to say "I told you so," in this case, it seems unavoidable, albeit not in very good taste. Yet there's no time for such niceties, these days. It is time to be blunt and get right to the point.
Antiwar.com is fighting a war on two flanks: a constant struggle against the disinformation dumped daily into the airwaves, most of it originating in the Washington offices of the War Party, and another battle on another front – a war for our very survival.
The rising costs, human as well as financial, of carrying on this campaign for truth are exacting a heavy toll. Our tiny staff is grossly overworked, we're cutting corners left and right, and we don't know where the money to make it through the next quarter is going to come from. And that's where you come in.
Look, you're being dunned daily on the main page of the site, and I don't want to hector you much more. All I can say is that Antiwar.com has earned your financial support, and then some. We've been waging a pretty effective fight against the War Party, giving them tit for tat and giving our readers a far more realistic perspective on world events than any "mainstream" outlet. Yet the War Party still poses a deadly danger, and they're always up to new tricks. More importantly, we don't have the resources they can mobilize at a moment's notice, and we don't have any hopes of doing so. But we don't need all that moolah. We just need to reach the American people with our message, and we can do that quite effectively via the Internet. They have mega-millions, but we have something they can never match: the credibility our brand name has built up over the years.
Since 1995, we've been in the front lines of the battle, breaking the real news and fact-checking government officials within an inch of their lives – and we need your help to keep going. Once again, we're swimming against the tide on this South Ossetia-Georgia story, debunking the official media narrative and bringing our readers a commodity more precious than gold: the truth.
That's why it's so important that we continue our work, but we can't do it without your support. We depend on the generosity and acute awareness of our readers, who know how important it is to win the battle for hearts and minds. We have the War Party on the run, but we need your support to keep going. Your contribution is 100% tax-deductible, and you can give online or via mail. Contribute today. ~ Justin Raimondo
The Georgian role in starting this war and their attacks on civilians is downplayed if even mentioned by the mainstream media. Of course U.S. official spokespeople such as Rice also barely mention this but that is to be expected. The lack of critical acumen is to be expected in some sources but the omission seems almost universal. Reports of Russian misdeeds however are legion. One would expect such reports from Georgian media naturally but they are often reported uncritically by the western media. This is not to say that some of these reports are not true. Some probably are. However, much of the violence also seems a result of general lawlessness and armed gangs or militias.
Mikheil Saakashvili:War Criminal
A politician's hubris causes untold human suffering
by Justin Raimondo
Amid all the geopolitical analyses and ideological posturing on the occasion of the Three-Day War between Russia and Georgia, we are losing sight of the very real human costs of this conflict: thousands of civilians killed and grievously wounded, a city, Tskhinvali, the capital of South Ossetia, in ruins, and the hopes and dreams of the inhabitants of this largely overlooked backwater dashed on the rocks of a politician's hubris.
That politician is Mikheil Saakashvili, the all too glib president of Georgia, whose slickness is so apparent that it seems to leave an oily residue on every word he utters. The decidedly apolitical, non-ideological Web site Reliefweb put it this way:
"The place that has suffered most is South Ossetia which is home to both ethnic Ossetians and Georgians, the latter accounting for about a third of the population. The destruction there has been appalling and it looks as though many hundreds of civilians have died, in the first place as a result of the initial Georgian assault of August 7-8. Gosha Tselekhayev, an Ossetian interpreter in Tskhinvali with whom I spoke by telephone on August 10 said, 'I am standing in the city center, but there's no city left.'
"Ossetians fleeing the conflict zone talk of Georgian atrocities and the indiscriminate killing of civilians."
They may be talking of Georgian atrocities, but we in the West have not heard them – nor will we, given the bias of our media, which is in thrall to the Georgia lobby and its U.S. government sponsors. The "mainstream" has already settled on a narrative to explain events in the Caucasus, and nothing short of a South Ossetian holocaust will wake them from their hypnotic state. The Russians, in their view, have got to be the bad guys, i.e., the aggressors. Anything that doesn't fit into that storyline is cut from the script. Yet, as Reliefweb reports:
"On August 7, after days of shooting incidents in the South Ossetian conflict zone, Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili made a speech in which he said that he had given the Georgian villagers orders not to fire, that he wanted to offer South Ossetia 'unlimited autonomy' within the Georgian state, with Russia to be a guarantor of the arrangement.
"Both sides said they were discussing a meeting the next day to discuss how to defuse the clashes.
"That evening, however, Saakashvili went for the military option. The Georgian military launched a massive artillery attack on Tskhinvali, followed the next day by a ground assault involving tanks.
"This was a city with no pure military targets, full of civilians who had been given no warning and were expecting peace talks at any moment."
As if to underscore the utter indifference of Western media to the suffering of anyone politically incorrect enough to be pro-Russian, CNN broadcast footage of war-torn Tskhinvali even as its news announcer solemnly "reported" that the Russians were wreaking devastation on a city in Georgia proper, a classic case of the Orwellian media manipulation techniques that pass for journalism in the West. An unintended irony: the footage was a few feet from the spot where Russian peacekeepers had been slaughtered, the first victims of the Georgian assault. Or was it intended?
The tragicomic aspects of this media-induced cognitive dissonance came to the fore on Fox News the other day, when the announcer was interviewing a 12-year-old American girl who happened to be sitting in a café in Tskhinvali when Georgian bombs started raining down on her head. The announcer's eyebrows shot up when the girl thanked the Russian soldiers. After the girl and her aunt finished their recounting of Georgian atrocities, the announcer capped off his report by intoning: "There are gray areas in war."
The matter of attacking civilians is no doubt a moral "gray area" for the neocons at Fox, but what about the rest of the media – or is there no longer much of a difference, at least when it comes to the Russian question?
The Georgians were the aggressors here, and not only that, it was a particularly vicious sneak attack, undertaken while "peace talks" were supposedly taking place. As Reliefweb put it:
"The attack looked designed to take everybody by surprise – perhaps because much of the Russian leadership was in Beijing for the opening of the Olympic Games. It also unilaterally destroyed the negotiating and peacekeeping arrangements, under the aegis of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, that have been in place for 16 years. Russian peacekeeping troops based in South Ossetia were among those killed in the Georgian assault."
The Georgian offensive provoked a massive exodus to the north. Thousands fled, and with good reason. As the Guardian reports:
"Many had traveled in their nightclothes on rocky roads through the mountains and gave bloodcurdling accounts of Georgian atrocities. 'I came in the boot of a car. Georgian snipers were firing at us from the forest. My brother stayed to fight. Our grandparents' home was reduced to rubble. We don't know where they are. Nothing is left of their village. It was totally destroyed by rockets and tank fire,' Alisa Mamiyeva, 26, a teacher in Tskhinvali, said from the safety of Vladikavkaz in North Ossetia."
The South Ossetians claim 1,400 dead, thus far, most of them victims of the Georgian assault on Tskhinvali, and Vladimir Putin went so far as to accuse the Georgians of launching a "genocide." According to the BBC, however, "Russia failed to back up its claims of Georgian atrocities." Not that the West is all that interested in airing the evidence. As Variety put it in a piece on how this war is being reported,
"Coverage in the U.S. and Europe is leaning heavily toward reports on the Georgian casualties of Russian bombing over the weekend. Few details are being given about the thousands said to have been killed when Georgia attacked Tskhinvali, the capital of South Ossetia, on Thursday and Friday."
The blatant media bias displayed by the "mainstream" news organizations is more than matched by the shameful cover-up of Georgian atrocities by the mainline "human rights" organizations, first and foremost Human Rights Watch. In the most brazen display of willful ignorance since Walter Duranty overlooked the Soviet gulags, HRW spokeswoman Anna Neistat told the Guardian that Ossetian claims of Georgian atrocities were "suspicious":
"The figure of 2,000 people killed is very doubtful. Our findings so far do not in any way confirm the Russian statistics. On the contrary, they suggest the numbers are exaggerated."
Neistat avers that no more than 44 were killed and around 200 were wounded in the Georgian attack on Tskhinvali. Perhaps she should talk to International Red Cross spokeswoman Anna Nelson, who reports area hospitals "overflowing" with the dead and the wounded.
The voices of the Ossetians are barely reaching the West, but when they do – as in this Australian Broadcasting Corp. news report – they underscore the sheer ugliness of HRW's appalling apologetics::
"One woman told how a family of four including two children tried to flee from a Georgian tank but it 'fired on their car and they were all burned' to death, said Angela, who like all the refugees only gave her first name. In another incident, a woman eight months pregnant and two family members fleeing from the city under attack were hit by tank fire and 'nothing remained of them,' Angela said.
"She saw the Georgian tanks roll into Tskhinvali, the soldiers shouting 'Hail Saakashvili,' who is the president of Georgia. 'They destroyed the city,' added Inna, 33, who said she could not understand how the Georgian troops 'could do that to civilians.'
"'You see your friend's home burning and there's nothing you can do. You just watch and cry, it's a genocide,' Inna said. An old woman among the refugees said all she had left was the dress she was wearing. 'My house is destroyed,' she said."
More important than the hypocrisy and ideology-induced moral myopia of the "human rights" crowd, however, is the very real human suffering that is being pointedly overlooked. These are real people being killed and rendered homeless, people who now live in terror and uncertainty while we in the West sit around discussing the geopolitical implications as if individual human beings were pieces on a chessboard.
The U.S. is now delivering "humanitarian" aid under the aegis and protection of the U.S. military, a gesture that underscores the Bizarro World absurdity of a foreign policy that has us arming the Georgians and then paying to clean up the damage done by our proxies. This is truly an odd sort of "humanitarianism," one inextricably linked to the inveterate sadism of our foreign policy.
This "humanitarian" gambit is just that: a device designed to legitimize our growing intervention in the region. While Defense Secretary Robert Gates is clearly not at all thrilled by the prospect of U.S. soldiers entering the battle zone, it seems unavoidable, at some point, since we'll be supervising "humanitarian" flights and relief efforts. (Not to mention future military joint exercises involving U.S. and Georgian forces, such as the ones that concluded shortly before the war commenced.) With Russian troops intent on staying in Ossetia, Abkhazia, and other regions such as Adjaria eager to take this opportunity to break free of the Georgian central government, the likelihood of renewed fighting is high.
To Antiwar.com's audience, and regular readers of this column, none of this – Saakashvili's folly, the Ossetian question, the volatile immediacy of the crisis – is anything new. As I wrote in November 2006:
"Russian 'peacekeepers,' OSCE 'observers,' South Ossetian troops, and the U.S.-trained-and-equipped Georgian military are facing off along ill-defined borders, with renegade 'rebel' bands supporting one side or the other running wild in the no-man's land in between. This is a recipe for disaster, and an armed confrontation is bound to occur, with the distinct possibility of escalating into all-out warfare. The Russians would soon be drawn in, and the U.S. could not escape being dragged into this particular vortex – with fateful consequences all 'round.
"I can just hear McCain barnstorming the country in '08, denouncing 'Russian imperialism' and demanding that we 'stop Putin' in the Caucasus before Russian troops cross the Bering Straits."
We at Antiwar.com have been warning of the dangers of Russophobia, which seems to have run rampant on the neoconservative right in recent days. It was always present (at least since the Kosovo war) as an animating force on the "humanitarian interventionist" left, i.e., George Soros & Co. As much as I hate to say "I told you so," in this case, it seems unavoidable, albeit not in very good taste. Yet there's no time for such niceties, these days. It is time to be blunt and get right to the point.
Antiwar.com is fighting a war on two flanks: a constant struggle against the disinformation dumped daily into the airwaves, most of it originating in the Washington offices of the War Party, and another battle on another front – a war for our very survival.
The rising costs, human as well as financial, of carrying on this campaign for truth are exacting a heavy toll. Our tiny staff is grossly overworked, we're cutting corners left and right, and we don't know where the money to make it through the next quarter is going to come from. And that's where you come in.
Look, you're being dunned daily on the main page of the site, and I don't want to hector you much more. All I can say is that Antiwar.com has earned your financial support, and then some. We've been waging a pretty effective fight against the War Party, giving them tit for tat and giving our readers a far more realistic perspective on world events than any "mainstream" outlet. Yet the War Party still poses a deadly danger, and they're always up to new tricks. More importantly, we don't have the resources they can mobilize at a moment's notice, and we don't have any hopes of doing so. But we don't need all that moolah. We just need to reach the American people with our message, and we can do that quite effectively via the Internet. They have mega-millions, but we have something they can never match: the credibility our brand name has built up over the years.
Since 1995, we've been in the front lines of the battle, breaking the real news and fact-checking government officials within an inch of their lives – and we need your help to keep going. Once again, we're swimming against the tide on this South Ossetia-Georgia story, debunking the official media narrative and bringing our readers a commodity more precious than gold: the truth.
That's why it's so important that we continue our work, but we can't do it without your support. We depend on the generosity and acute awareness of our readers, who know how important it is to win the battle for hearts and minds. We have the War Party on the run, but we need your support to keep going. Your contribution is 100% tax-deductible, and you can give online or via mail. Contribute today. ~ Justin Raimondo
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Moldovan separatists break off talks over Georgia.
If plebiscites were held in Transdniestria, Abkazia, or South Ossetia no doubt they all would choose either independence or joining with Russia. The example of Kosovo provides ammunition for these separatists. As with Serbia and Kosovo in the case of Georgia and South Ossetia no doubt the Georgians would claim that South Ossetia is an inseparable part of Georgian territory and also Abkazia. However, it is unlikely that Russians will let Georgian authorities regain control of either South Ossetia or Abkazia. It remains to be seen even if any arrangement can be made to have peacekeepers in the area such as was the case before the Georgian attack.
Moldovan separatists break off talks over Georgia
Dmitry ChubashenkoReuters North American News Service
Aug 12, 2008 13:52 EST
CHISINAU, Aug 12 (Reuters) - Leaders of Moldova's separatist Transdniestria region said on Tuesday they would break off all contacts with the ex-Soviet state's central government until it denounced Georgian "aggression" in South Ossetia.
Transdniestria's Russian-speaking leaders split from Moldova in 1990 in Soviet times on the grounds that the republic's Romanian-speaking majority would join neighbouring Romania.
That never happened -- but the two sides fought a brief war in 1992 and a resolution has yet to be found. Transdniestria's leader met Moldova's president in April for the first time since 2001, but the talks produced few results.
"Transdniestria hereby declares a moratorium on contacts (with Moldova) until the Moldovan side issues a decisive, unconditional denunciation of Georgia's aggression," the separatist region's Foreign Ministry said in a statement.
It accused Moldova of behaving like Georgia by trying to "change the format of talks, reduce Russia's role to a minimum and create conditions for the use of force to solve the conflict".
Moldova's Foreign Ministry had earlier endorsed a European Union statement noting the "worsening situation in South Ossetia". Moldovan President Vladimir Voronin, on holiday, has yet to comment on events in Georgia.
Georgia sent troops into South Ossetia last week to try to retake the territory, but Russia, which backs the separatists, responded with a military incursion into Georgia proper.
A six-point peace plan for South Ossetia proposed by the EU and the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe called for troops to withdraw to pre-conflict areas and a pledge to renounce the use of force.
Transdniestria, like the Georgian regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, broke away as the Soviet Union was near to collapse. None of the three has international recognition.
Like Georgia, Moldova proposes broad autonomy for its rebel region, but Transdniestria's leaders say they will settle for nothing less than independence.
The region's voters have overwhelmingly backed independence in a referendum, as well as the idea of joining Russia one day. (Writing by Ron Popeski, editing by Meg Clothier)
Source: Reuters North American News Service
Moldovan separatists break off talks over Georgia
Dmitry ChubashenkoReuters North American News Service
Aug 12, 2008 13:52 EST
CHISINAU, Aug 12 (Reuters) - Leaders of Moldova's separatist Transdniestria region said on Tuesday they would break off all contacts with the ex-Soviet state's central government until it denounced Georgian "aggression" in South Ossetia.
Transdniestria's Russian-speaking leaders split from Moldova in 1990 in Soviet times on the grounds that the republic's Romanian-speaking majority would join neighbouring Romania.
That never happened -- but the two sides fought a brief war in 1992 and a resolution has yet to be found. Transdniestria's leader met Moldova's president in April for the first time since 2001, but the talks produced few results.
"Transdniestria hereby declares a moratorium on contacts (with Moldova) until the Moldovan side issues a decisive, unconditional denunciation of Georgia's aggression," the separatist region's Foreign Ministry said in a statement.
It accused Moldova of behaving like Georgia by trying to "change the format of talks, reduce Russia's role to a minimum and create conditions for the use of force to solve the conflict".
Moldova's Foreign Ministry had earlier endorsed a European Union statement noting the "worsening situation in South Ossetia". Moldovan President Vladimir Voronin, on holiday, has yet to comment on events in Georgia.
Georgia sent troops into South Ossetia last week to try to retake the territory, but Russia, which backs the separatists, responded with a military incursion into Georgia proper.
A six-point peace plan for South Ossetia proposed by the EU and the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe called for troops to withdraw to pre-conflict areas and a pledge to renounce the use of force.
Transdniestria, like the Georgian regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, broke away as the Soviet Union was near to collapse. None of the three has international recognition.
Like Georgia, Moldova proposes broad autonomy for its rebel region, but Transdniestria's leaders say they will settle for nothing less than independence.
The region's voters have overwhelmingly backed independence in a referendum, as well as the idea of joining Russia one day. (Writing by Ron Popeski, editing by Meg Clothier)
Source: Reuters North American News Service
Moscow Times on the Georgia situation
This is from the Moscow Times.
This article is noteworthy in that it contains quite a few reports from the Georgian side rather than toeing a Kremlin line and leaving out anything critical of Russia. In fact the article confirms that Russia was still in Georgia andhad a checkpoint two kilometres east of Gori a city inside Georgia proper. The casualty reports sound quite low compared to what other sources have claimed.
Charges Fly as Georgia, Russia Mourn14 August 2008By Nabi Abdullaev, Nikolaus von Twickel / Staff WritersTBILISI-SUKHUMI HIGHWAY, Georgia -- Georgia and Russia angrily accused each other of breaching a truce as they mourned for their dead Wednesday.Georgia said Russia had sent dozens of tanks into the town of Gori, inside Georgia proper near the border with South Ossetia. A convoy of journalists and diplomats heading to Gori from Tbilisi was stopped at a checkpoint manned by Russian officers two kilometers east of Gori's city limits on the Tbilisi-Sukhumi Highway at about 8 p.m. Moscow time.A Moscow Times reporter saw about 50 trucks with Russian soldiers moving toward Gori from the east, the direction of Tbilisi. An armored personnel carrier led the Russian military convoy.A senior adviser to Saakashvili, Gotcha Javakhishvili, who accompanied the convoy, said the Russian military was using Gori as a staging ground for looting raids on villages in Georgia proper."This is a blatant and very serious breach of the treaty agreed between Moscow and Tbilisi," he said.Several Russian armored personnel carriers were seen maneuvering outside Gori, but no tanks could be seen at sunset.Also in the convoy were French philosopher Bernard Levi, European Parliament lawmaker Marie Isler Beguin of France, Estonian Ambassador Tomas Luk and Georgian Security Council chief Alexander Lomaya.A Russian officer at the checkpoint refused to identify himself, but he and his peers looked relaxed.Later, he allowed a car carrying the politicians to travel on to Gori. Reporters were waiting late Wednesday night for word of what they had seen.In Moscow, the Defense Ministry denied sending tanks to Gori or using troops to support armed units of South Ossetians there. The ministry said Russian forces had shot down two Georgian drones over South Ossetia that flew there in violation of the cease-fire agreement Wednesday.Wednesday was declared a day of national mourning in both countries after six days of fighting that followed Georgia's attempt to reclaim its separatist province of South Ossetia.Russian and South Ossetian officials have said 1,600 civilians died in the fighting there, which started Friday and continued Tuesday, when President Dmitry Medvedev ordered a halt to military actions by Russian troops who had moved into Georgia.Medvedev, in his decree on national mourning, described the events in South Ossetia as a "humanitarian catastrophe" and the actions of the Georgian military there "genocide."The deputy head of the armed forces' General Staff, Anatoly Nogovitsyn, told reporters that the military had lost 74 men, with another 171 wounded and 19 missing.Georgia's Health Ministry said 175 people were killed, but this figure did not include casualties among Georgians living in South Ossetia.Medvedev ordered national flags lowered to half-mast and national television channels to refrain from broadcasting entertainment shows Wednesday.In Tbilisi, black bands were attached to national flags hanging on the official buildings.Late Tuesday, Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili accepted a six-point peace plan agreed upon by Medvedev and French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who stepped in to mediate the conflict. France holds the rotating presidency in the European Union.Saakashvili demanded that the peace plan be modified to exclude a provision to begin discussions on the future status of South Ossetia and another separatist Georgian republic, Abkhazia. Moscow accepted the changes in the text, with the Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov saying, "In essence, it doesn't change anything."The plan effectively restores the status quo ante.Emerging from talks with Saakashvili in the Georgian president's residence early Wednesday, Sarkozy told reporters, "I found interlocutors in Moscow and Tbilisi who are prepared to make a peace effort."Peter Semneby, the Caucasus envoy for EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana, said the document agreed upon by Moscow and Tbilisi "will eventually lead to a signed contract which in turn could yield a United Nations Security Council resolution."After the talks with Sarkozy, Saakashvili said the Russian military had committed atrocities in South Ossetia and Georgia proper. Speaking in stumbling French to reporters, he accused Moscow of "carpet bombings" in South Ossetia."The situation is extreme and worse than in 1992 in Abkhazia," he said, referring to a war between Tbilisi and Abkhaz separatists who were backed by Russia. "They are not just destroying houses, but killing people on the ground."Leaders of the Baltic states, Ukraine and Poland descended on Tbilisi late Tuesday and spoke before a cheerful crowd gathered on Rustaveli Avenue."You Georgians stay united, and only united you will win," Latvian President Vladis Zatlers told the crowd, which chanted "Sakartvelo!" ("Georgia!")."Me Kartveli var! [I am a Georgian!]" Estonian president Toomas Hendrik Ilves shouted from the podium.Sarkozy did not go out to address the gathering, apparently in order not to be associated with leaders who have offered enormous support to Georgia in its conflict with Russia.Later Wednesday, 27 EU foreign ministers who gathered in Brussels agreed, after terse debates, to send monitors to supervise the cease-fire between Russia and Georgia in South Ossetia. "The EU must be ready to engage, including on the ground, to support all efforts, including those of the United Nations and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe for a lasting and peaceful settlement of the conflict in Georgia," the joint statement said. (Story, Page 3.)France's foreign minister, who accompanied Sarkozy on a lightning visit to Moscow on Tuesday, told reporters Wednesday that he was convinced that Moscow would accept a European presence in Georgia.Meanwhile, Abkhaz leader Sergei Bagapsh and South Ossetian leader Eduard Kokoity said they would not negotiate with Tbilisi. "Only a judge of an international tribunal should talk to them," Kokoity said, Interfax reported.Staff Writer Nikolaus von Twickel reported from Gori and Tbilisi; Staff Writer Nabi Abdullaev reported from Moscow.
This article is noteworthy in that it contains quite a few reports from the Georgian side rather than toeing a Kremlin line and leaving out anything critical of Russia. In fact the article confirms that Russia was still in Georgia andhad a checkpoint two kilometres east of Gori a city inside Georgia proper. The casualty reports sound quite low compared to what other sources have claimed.
Charges Fly as Georgia, Russia Mourn14 August 2008By Nabi Abdullaev, Nikolaus von Twickel / Staff WritersTBILISI-SUKHUMI HIGHWAY, Georgia -- Georgia and Russia angrily accused each other of breaching a truce as they mourned for their dead Wednesday.Georgia said Russia had sent dozens of tanks into the town of Gori, inside Georgia proper near the border with South Ossetia. A convoy of journalists and diplomats heading to Gori from Tbilisi was stopped at a checkpoint manned by Russian officers two kilometers east of Gori's city limits on the Tbilisi-Sukhumi Highway at about 8 p.m. Moscow time.A Moscow Times reporter saw about 50 trucks with Russian soldiers moving toward Gori from the east, the direction of Tbilisi. An armored personnel carrier led the Russian military convoy.A senior adviser to Saakashvili, Gotcha Javakhishvili, who accompanied the convoy, said the Russian military was using Gori as a staging ground for looting raids on villages in Georgia proper."This is a blatant and very serious breach of the treaty agreed between Moscow and Tbilisi," he said.Several Russian armored personnel carriers were seen maneuvering outside Gori, but no tanks could be seen at sunset.Also in the convoy were French philosopher Bernard Levi, European Parliament lawmaker Marie Isler Beguin of France, Estonian Ambassador Tomas Luk and Georgian Security Council chief Alexander Lomaya.A Russian officer at the checkpoint refused to identify himself, but he and his peers looked relaxed.Later, he allowed a car carrying the politicians to travel on to Gori. Reporters were waiting late Wednesday night for word of what they had seen.In Moscow, the Defense Ministry denied sending tanks to Gori or using troops to support armed units of South Ossetians there. The ministry said Russian forces had shot down two Georgian drones over South Ossetia that flew there in violation of the cease-fire agreement Wednesday.Wednesday was declared a day of national mourning in both countries after six days of fighting that followed Georgia's attempt to reclaim its separatist province of South Ossetia.Russian and South Ossetian officials have said 1,600 civilians died in the fighting there, which started Friday and continued Tuesday, when President Dmitry Medvedev ordered a halt to military actions by Russian troops who had moved into Georgia.Medvedev, in his decree on national mourning, described the events in South Ossetia as a "humanitarian catastrophe" and the actions of the Georgian military there "genocide."The deputy head of the armed forces' General Staff, Anatoly Nogovitsyn, told reporters that the military had lost 74 men, with another 171 wounded and 19 missing.Georgia's Health Ministry said 175 people were killed, but this figure did not include casualties among Georgians living in South Ossetia.Medvedev ordered national flags lowered to half-mast and national television channels to refrain from broadcasting entertainment shows Wednesday.In Tbilisi, black bands were attached to national flags hanging on the official buildings.Late Tuesday, Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili accepted a six-point peace plan agreed upon by Medvedev and French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who stepped in to mediate the conflict. France holds the rotating presidency in the European Union.Saakashvili demanded that the peace plan be modified to exclude a provision to begin discussions on the future status of South Ossetia and another separatist Georgian republic, Abkhazia. Moscow accepted the changes in the text, with the Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov saying, "In essence, it doesn't change anything."The plan effectively restores the status quo ante.Emerging from talks with Saakashvili in the Georgian president's residence early Wednesday, Sarkozy told reporters, "I found interlocutors in Moscow and Tbilisi who are prepared to make a peace effort."Peter Semneby, the Caucasus envoy for EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana, said the document agreed upon by Moscow and Tbilisi "will eventually lead to a signed contract which in turn could yield a United Nations Security Council resolution."After the talks with Sarkozy, Saakashvili said the Russian military had committed atrocities in South Ossetia and Georgia proper. Speaking in stumbling French to reporters, he accused Moscow of "carpet bombings" in South Ossetia."The situation is extreme and worse than in 1992 in Abkhazia," he said, referring to a war between Tbilisi and Abkhaz separatists who were backed by Russia. "They are not just destroying houses, but killing people on the ground."Leaders of the Baltic states, Ukraine and Poland descended on Tbilisi late Tuesday and spoke before a cheerful crowd gathered on Rustaveli Avenue."You Georgians stay united, and only united you will win," Latvian President Vladis Zatlers told the crowd, which chanted "Sakartvelo!" ("Georgia!")."Me Kartveli var! [I am a Georgian!]" Estonian president Toomas Hendrik Ilves shouted from the podium.Sarkozy did not go out to address the gathering, apparently in order not to be associated with leaders who have offered enormous support to Georgia in its conflict with Russia.Later Wednesday, 27 EU foreign ministers who gathered in Brussels agreed, after terse debates, to send monitors to supervise the cease-fire between Russia and Georgia in South Ossetia. "The EU must be ready to engage, including on the ground, to support all efforts, including those of the United Nations and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe for a lasting and peaceful settlement of the conflict in Georgia," the joint statement said. (Story, Page 3.)France's foreign minister, who accompanied Sarkozy on a lightning visit to Moscow on Tuesday, told reporters Wednesday that he was convinced that Moscow would accept a European presence in Georgia.Meanwhile, Abkhaz leader Sergei Bagapsh and South Ossetian leader Eduard Kokoity said they would not negotiate with Tbilisi. "Only a judge of an international tribunal should talk to them," Kokoity said, Interfax reported.Staff Writer Nikolaus von Twickel reported from Gori and Tbilisi; Staff Writer Nabi Abdullaev reported from Moscow.
Gorbachev: A Path to Peace in the Caucasus
Gorbachev naturally analyses the situation from a primarily pro-Russian point of view. However, his remarks make much sense to me. In particular he emphasizes the provocative nature of Georgia's military attempt to simply take back South Ossetia. Gorbachev is also probalby correct that Georgia thought it could get away with this because it had the support of the U.S. and NATO. After all Israel has helped arm and train the Georgian army and so has the United States. The United States also supported Georgia's bid to join NATO. The U.S. simply dismisses Russian objections to anything that the U.S. wants to do. A prime example is the Missile Defence system in Eastern Europe. There is no doubt that the Cold War is warming up again. Cheney will be happy.
A Path to Peace in the CaucasusBy Mikhail Gorbachev12/08/08 "Washington Post -- - MOSCOW -- The past week's events in South Ossetia are bound to shock and pain anyone. Already, thousands of people have died, tens of thousands have been turned into refugees, and towns and villages lie in ruins. Nothing can justify this loss of life and destruction. It is a warning to all.The roots of this tragedy lie in the decision of Georgia's separatist leaders in 1991 to abolish South Ossetian autonomy. This turned out to be a time bomb for Georgia's territorial integrity. Each time successive Georgian leaders tried to impose their will by force -- both in South Ossetia and in Abkhazia, where the issues of autonomy are similar -- it only made the situation worse. New wounds aggravated old injuries.Nevertheless, it was still possible to find a political solution. For some time, relative calm was maintained in South Ossetia. The peacekeeping force composed of Russians, Georgians and Ossetians fulfilled its mission, and ordinary Ossetians and Georgians, who live close to each other, found at least some common ground.Through all these years, Russia has continued to recognize Georgia's territorial integrity. Clearly, the only way to solve the South Ossetian problem on that basis is through peaceful means. Indeed, in a civilized world, there is no other way.The Georgian leadership flouted this key principle.What happened on the night of Aug. 7 is beyond comprehension. The Georgian military attacked the South Ossetian capital of Tskhinvali with multiple rocket launchers designed to devastate large areas. Russia had to respond. To accuse it of aggression against "small, defenseless Georgia" is not just hypocritical but shows a lack of humanity.Mounting a military assault against innocents was a reckless decision whose tragic consequences, for thousands of people of different nationalities, are now clear. The Georgian leadership could do this only with the perceived support and encouragement of a much more powerful force. Georgian armed forces were trained by hundreds of U.S. instructors, and its sophisticated military equipment was bought in a number of countries. This, coupled with the promise of NATO membership, emboldened Georgian leaders into thinking that they could get away with a "blitzkrieg" in South Ossetia.In other words, Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili was expecting unconditional support from the West, and the West had given him reason to think he would have it. Now that the Georgian military assault has been routed, both the Georgian government and its supporters should rethink their position.Hostilities must cease as soon as possible, and urgent steps must be taken to help the victims -- the humanitarian catastrophe, regretfully, received very little coverage in Western media this weekend -- and to rebuild the devastated towns and villages. It is equally important to start thinking about ways to solve the underlying problem, which is among the most painful and challenging issues in the Caucasus -- a region that should be approached with the greatest care.When the problems of South Ossetia and Abkhazia first flared up, I proposed that they be settled through a federation that would grant broad autonomy to the two republics. This idea was dismissed, particularly by the Georgians. Attitudes gradually shifted, but after last week, it will be much more difficult to strike a deal even on such a basis.Old grievances are a heavy burden. Healing is a long process that requires patience and dialogue, with non-use of force an indispensable precondition. It took decades to bring to an end similar conflicts in Europe and elsewhere, and other long-standing issues are still smoldering. In addition to patience, this situation requires wisdom.Small nations of the Caucasus do have a history of living together. It has been demonstrated that a lasting peace is possible, that tolerance and cooperation can create conditions for normal life and development. Nothing is more important than that.The region's political leaders need to realize this. Instead of flexing military muscle, they should devote their efforts to building the groundwork for durable peace.Over the past few days, some Western nations have taken positions, particularly in the U.N. Security Council, that have been far from balanced. As a result, the Security Council was not able to act effectively from the very start of this conflict. By declaring the Caucasus, a region that is thousands of miles from the American continent, a sphere of its "national interest," the United States made a serious blunder. Of course, peace in the Caucasus is in everyone's interest. But it is simply common sense to recognize that Russia is rooted there by common geography and centuries of history. Russia is not seeking territorial expansion, but it has legitimate interests in this region.The international community's long-term aim could be to create a sub-regional system of security and cooperation that would make any provocation, and the very possibility of crises such as this one, impossible. Building this type of system would be challenging and could only be accomplished with the cooperation of the region's countries themselves. Nations outside the region could perhaps help, too -- but only if they take a fair and objective stance. A lesson from recent events is that geopolitical games are dangerous anywhere, not just in the Caucasus.The writer was the last president of the Soviet Union. He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1990 and is president of the Gorbachev Foundation, a Moscow think tank. A version of this article, in Russian, will be published in the Rossiyskaya Gazeta newspaper tomorrow.© 2008 The Washington Post Company
A Path to Peace in the CaucasusBy Mikhail Gorbachev12/08/08 "Washington Post -- - MOSCOW -- The past week's events in South Ossetia are bound to shock and pain anyone. Already, thousands of people have died, tens of thousands have been turned into refugees, and towns and villages lie in ruins. Nothing can justify this loss of life and destruction. It is a warning to all.The roots of this tragedy lie in the decision of Georgia's separatist leaders in 1991 to abolish South Ossetian autonomy. This turned out to be a time bomb for Georgia's territorial integrity. Each time successive Georgian leaders tried to impose their will by force -- both in South Ossetia and in Abkhazia, where the issues of autonomy are similar -- it only made the situation worse. New wounds aggravated old injuries.Nevertheless, it was still possible to find a political solution. For some time, relative calm was maintained in South Ossetia. The peacekeeping force composed of Russians, Georgians and Ossetians fulfilled its mission, and ordinary Ossetians and Georgians, who live close to each other, found at least some common ground.Through all these years, Russia has continued to recognize Georgia's territorial integrity. Clearly, the only way to solve the South Ossetian problem on that basis is through peaceful means. Indeed, in a civilized world, there is no other way.The Georgian leadership flouted this key principle.What happened on the night of Aug. 7 is beyond comprehension. The Georgian military attacked the South Ossetian capital of Tskhinvali with multiple rocket launchers designed to devastate large areas. Russia had to respond. To accuse it of aggression against "small, defenseless Georgia" is not just hypocritical but shows a lack of humanity.Mounting a military assault against innocents was a reckless decision whose tragic consequences, for thousands of people of different nationalities, are now clear. The Georgian leadership could do this only with the perceived support and encouragement of a much more powerful force. Georgian armed forces were trained by hundreds of U.S. instructors, and its sophisticated military equipment was bought in a number of countries. This, coupled with the promise of NATO membership, emboldened Georgian leaders into thinking that they could get away with a "blitzkrieg" in South Ossetia.In other words, Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili was expecting unconditional support from the West, and the West had given him reason to think he would have it. Now that the Georgian military assault has been routed, both the Georgian government and its supporters should rethink their position.Hostilities must cease as soon as possible, and urgent steps must be taken to help the victims -- the humanitarian catastrophe, regretfully, received very little coverage in Western media this weekend -- and to rebuild the devastated towns and villages. It is equally important to start thinking about ways to solve the underlying problem, which is among the most painful and challenging issues in the Caucasus -- a region that should be approached with the greatest care.When the problems of South Ossetia and Abkhazia first flared up, I proposed that they be settled through a federation that would grant broad autonomy to the two republics. This idea was dismissed, particularly by the Georgians. Attitudes gradually shifted, but after last week, it will be much more difficult to strike a deal even on such a basis.Old grievances are a heavy burden. Healing is a long process that requires patience and dialogue, with non-use of force an indispensable precondition. It took decades to bring to an end similar conflicts in Europe and elsewhere, and other long-standing issues are still smoldering. In addition to patience, this situation requires wisdom.Small nations of the Caucasus do have a history of living together. It has been demonstrated that a lasting peace is possible, that tolerance and cooperation can create conditions for normal life and development. Nothing is more important than that.The region's political leaders need to realize this. Instead of flexing military muscle, they should devote their efforts to building the groundwork for durable peace.Over the past few days, some Western nations have taken positions, particularly in the U.N. Security Council, that have been far from balanced. As a result, the Security Council was not able to act effectively from the very start of this conflict. By declaring the Caucasus, a region that is thousands of miles from the American continent, a sphere of its "national interest," the United States made a serious blunder. Of course, peace in the Caucasus is in everyone's interest. But it is simply common sense to recognize that Russia is rooted there by common geography and centuries of history. Russia is not seeking territorial expansion, but it has legitimate interests in this region.The international community's long-term aim could be to create a sub-regional system of security and cooperation that would make any provocation, and the very possibility of crises such as this one, impossible. Building this type of system would be challenging and could only be accomplished with the cooperation of the region's countries themselves. Nations outside the region could perhaps help, too -- but only if they take a fair and objective stance. A lesson from recent events is that geopolitical games are dangerous anywhere, not just in the Caucasus.The writer was the last president of the Soviet Union. He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1990 and is president of the Gorbachev Foundation, a Moscow think tank. A version of this article, in Russian, will be published in the Rossiyskaya Gazeta newspaper tomorrow.© 2008 The Washington Post Company
U.S. Allies weigh punishment for Russia
European allies of the U.S. may very well not be enthusiastic about "punishing" Russia for not acceding to the U.S. push to surround Russia with "democratic" pro-US states without resistance. There is increasing evidence that both China and Russia are not anxious to toe any western line on global events. The U.S. is developing some new allies such as India and has long had the undying devotion of some Commonwealth countries and the UK. However Europe is dependent upon Russian natural gas among other things so it is not likely to provoke the Russian bear without very good reason.
Russia seems to be emulating the Georgian president however in going too far by actually sending troops into Georgia proper and taking the opportunity to destroy a lot of Georgian military infrastructure. However, with the pressure from the U.S. and the international community Russia will probably more or less obey the terms of the ceasefire.
US, Allies Weigh Punishment for RussiaBy MATTHEW LEEWASHINGTON (AP) -- Scrambling to find ways to punish Russia for its invasion of pro-Western Georgia, the United States and its allies are considering expelling Moscow from an exclusive club of powerful nations and canceling an upcoming joint NATO-Russia military exercise, Bush administration officials said Tuesday.But with little leverage in the face of an emboldened Moscow, Washington and its friends have been forced to face the uncomfortable reality that their options are limited to mainly symbolic measures, such as boycotting Russian-hosted meetings and events, that may have little or no long-term impact on Russia's behavior, the officials said.With the situation on the ground still unclear after Russian President Dmitri Medvedev on Tuesday ordered a halt to military action in Georgia, U.S. officials were focused primarily on confirming a ceasefire and attending to Georgia's urgent humanitarian needs following five days of fierce fighting, including Russian attacks on civilian targets."It is very important now that all parties cease fire," Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said. "The Georgians have agreed to a ceasefire, the Russians need to stop their military operations as they have apparently said that they will, but those military operations really do now need to stop because calm needs to be restored."At the same time, however, President Bush and his top aides were engaged in frantic consultations with European and other nations over how best to demonstrate their fierce condemnations of the Russian operation that began in Georgia's separatist region of South Ossetia, expanded to another disputed area, Abkhazia, and ended up on purely Georgian soil."The idea is to show the Russians that it is no longer business as usual," said one senior official familiar with the consultations among world leaders that were going on primarily by phone and in person at NATO headquarters in Brussels where alliance diplomats met together and then with representatives of Georgia.For now, the Bush administration decided to boycott a third meeting at NATO on Tuesday at which the alliance's governing board, the North Atlantic Council, was preparing for a meeting with a Russian delegation that has been called at Moscow's request, officials said.On the table for future action is the possible cancellation or U.S. withdrawal from a major NATO naval exercise with Russia that is scheduled to begin Friday, the officials said. Sailors and vessels from Britain, France, Russia, and the U.S. were to take part in the annual Russia-NATO exercise aimed at improving cooperation in maritime security.The exercise, which is being hosted by Russia this year, began a decade ago and typically involves around 1,000 personnel from the four countries, the officials said.In the medium term, the United States and its partners in the Group of Seven, or G-7, the club of the world's leading industrialized nations that also includes Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy and Japan, are debating whether to effectively disband what is known as the "G-8," which incorporates Russia, by throwing Moscow out, the officials said.The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because no decisions have yet been made and consultations with other countries involved are still ongoing.Bush spoke on Monday and Tuesday with fellow G-7 leaders as well as the heads of democratically elected pro-Western governments in formerly Eastern Bloc nations, some of which are among NATO's newest members and have urged a strong response to Russia's invasion of a like-minded country.On Monday on his way home from the Olympics in China, Bush talked with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Lithuanian President Valdas Adamkus and Polish President Lech Kaczynski. He then spoke to Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili, the White House said. On Tuesday, he spoke with Italian Premier Silvio Berlusconi and German Chancellor Angela Merkel.Rice, who returned early to Washington late Monday from vacation to deal with the crisis, held a second round of talks with foreign ministers from the Group of Seven countries in which they were briefed on European Union mediation efforts led by French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who met Tuesday with Medvedev in Moscow."They believe that they have made some progress and we welcome that and we certainly welcome the E.U. mediation," Rice told reporters at the White House.Despite the flurry of activity, there was still uncertainty about whether Russia had in fact halted its military action in Georgia with reports of continued shelling of civilian and military sites.The State Department on Tuesday recommended that all U.S. citizens leave Georgia in a new travel warning, saying the security situation remained uncertain. It said it was organizing a third evacuation convoy to take Americans who want to leave by road to neighboring Armenia. More that 170 American citizens have already left Georgia in two earlier convoys.Just hours after Bush said in a White House address that the invasion had "substantially damaged Russia's standing in the world" and demanded an end to what he called Moscow's "dramatic and brutal escalation" of violence, Medvedev said he had ordered an end to military action.But Georgia insisted that Russian forces were still bombing and shelling and White House spokesman Tony Fratto said Tuesday it was too early to comment on Medvedev's move. "We are trying to get an assessment of what a halt means and whether it is taking place, of course," the spokesman added.Typifying the administration's dilemma, a planned late-morning White House briefing by national security adviser Stephen Hadley was postponed "until further notice" due to ongoing developments in Georgia and in Moscow, where Sarkozy was meeting with Russian officials on behalf of the West.The State Department on Tuesday recommended that all U.S. citizens leave Georgia in a new travel warning, saying the security situation remained uncertain. It said it was organizing a third evacuation convoy to take Americans who want to leave by road to neighboring Armenia. More that 170 American citizens have already left Georgia in two earlier convoys.___
Russia seems to be emulating the Georgian president however in going too far by actually sending troops into Georgia proper and taking the opportunity to destroy a lot of Georgian military infrastructure. However, with the pressure from the U.S. and the international community Russia will probably more or less obey the terms of the ceasefire.
US, Allies Weigh Punishment for RussiaBy MATTHEW LEEWASHINGTON (AP) -- Scrambling to find ways to punish Russia for its invasion of pro-Western Georgia, the United States and its allies are considering expelling Moscow from an exclusive club of powerful nations and canceling an upcoming joint NATO-Russia military exercise, Bush administration officials said Tuesday.But with little leverage in the face of an emboldened Moscow, Washington and its friends have been forced to face the uncomfortable reality that their options are limited to mainly symbolic measures, such as boycotting Russian-hosted meetings and events, that may have little or no long-term impact on Russia's behavior, the officials said.With the situation on the ground still unclear after Russian President Dmitri Medvedev on Tuesday ordered a halt to military action in Georgia, U.S. officials were focused primarily on confirming a ceasefire and attending to Georgia's urgent humanitarian needs following five days of fierce fighting, including Russian attacks on civilian targets."It is very important now that all parties cease fire," Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said. "The Georgians have agreed to a ceasefire, the Russians need to stop their military operations as they have apparently said that they will, but those military operations really do now need to stop because calm needs to be restored."At the same time, however, President Bush and his top aides were engaged in frantic consultations with European and other nations over how best to demonstrate their fierce condemnations of the Russian operation that began in Georgia's separatist region of South Ossetia, expanded to another disputed area, Abkhazia, and ended up on purely Georgian soil."The idea is to show the Russians that it is no longer business as usual," said one senior official familiar with the consultations among world leaders that were going on primarily by phone and in person at NATO headquarters in Brussels where alliance diplomats met together and then with representatives of Georgia.For now, the Bush administration decided to boycott a third meeting at NATO on Tuesday at which the alliance's governing board, the North Atlantic Council, was preparing for a meeting with a Russian delegation that has been called at Moscow's request, officials said.On the table for future action is the possible cancellation or U.S. withdrawal from a major NATO naval exercise with Russia that is scheduled to begin Friday, the officials said. Sailors and vessels from Britain, France, Russia, and the U.S. were to take part in the annual Russia-NATO exercise aimed at improving cooperation in maritime security.The exercise, which is being hosted by Russia this year, began a decade ago and typically involves around 1,000 personnel from the four countries, the officials said.In the medium term, the United States and its partners in the Group of Seven, or G-7, the club of the world's leading industrialized nations that also includes Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy and Japan, are debating whether to effectively disband what is known as the "G-8," which incorporates Russia, by throwing Moscow out, the officials said.The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because no decisions have yet been made and consultations with other countries involved are still ongoing.Bush spoke on Monday and Tuesday with fellow G-7 leaders as well as the heads of democratically elected pro-Western governments in formerly Eastern Bloc nations, some of which are among NATO's newest members and have urged a strong response to Russia's invasion of a like-minded country.On Monday on his way home from the Olympics in China, Bush talked with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Lithuanian President Valdas Adamkus and Polish President Lech Kaczynski. He then spoke to Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili, the White House said. On Tuesday, he spoke with Italian Premier Silvio Berlusconi and German Chancellor Angela Merkel.Rice, who returned early to Washington late Monday from vacation to deal with the crisis, held a second round of talks with foreign ministers from the Group of Seven countries in which they were briefed on European Union mediation efforts led by French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who met Tuesday with Medvedev in Moscow."They believe that they have made some progress and we welcome that and we certainly welcome the E.U. mediation," Rice told reporters at the White House.Despite the flurry of activity, there was still uncertainty about whether Russia had in fact halted its military action in Georgia with reports of continued shelling of civilian and military sites.The State Department on Tuesday recommended that all U.S. citizens leave Georgia in a new travel warning, saying the security situation remained uncertain. It said it was organizing a third evacuation convoy to take Americans who want to leave by road to neighboring Armenia. More that 170 American citizens have already left Georgia in two earlier convoys.Just hours after Bush said in a White House address that the invasion had "substantially damaged Russia's standing in the world" and demanded an end to what he called Moscow's "dramatic and brutal escalation" of violence, Medvedev said he had ordered an end to military action.But Georgia insisted that Russian forces were still bombing and shelling and White House spokesman Tony Fratto said Tuesday it was too early to comment on Medvedev's move. "We are trying to get an assessment of what a halt means and whether it is taking place, of course," the spokesman added.Typifying the administration's dilemma, a planned late-morning White House briefing by national security adviser Stephen Hadley was postponed "until further notice" due to ongoing developments in Georgia and in Moscow, where Sarkozy was meeting with Russian officials on behalf of the West.The State Department on Tuesday recommended that all U.S. citizens leave Georgia in a new travel warning, saying the security situation remained uncertain. It said it was organizing a third evacuation convoy to take Americans who want to leave by road to neighboring Armenia. More that 170 American citizens have already left Georgia in two earlier convoys.___
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Real Political Soap Opera Philippine Style
Maybe some enterprising U.S. TV station could start covering corruption stories in the Philippines. It would take a while to build up public interest in the characters but after while these corruption soap operas might attract more viewers than those stations that cover every smile or frown of Obama and McCain and might even rate up there with UK soap operas. This is from the Tribune.
Maybe the Philippines should have a contest for the best corruption story on one of their big TV stations. By the way Malacanang, the castle, is like the White House in U.S. journalism. Arroyo and her husband have property in the U.S. Some day they may need it if the government changes and corruption charges against them, especially Mike, threaten retirement in the Philippines!
Ping threatens to spill beans on Pidal II
08/14/2008
Opposition Sen. Panfilo Lacson is threatening to drop a bombshell on the presidential couple amid reports of a lifestyle check probe on him by the Ombudsman which he insists is Malacañang-initiated.
He said his exposé will prove to be far worse than his exposé on the Jose Pidal case where he pointed the finger at presidential spouse Jose Miguel “Mike” Arroyo as the brains, adding a privilege speech will be delivered by him if Malacañang does not back off from “harassing” him.
An obviously peeved Lacson yesterday warned Malacañang that he will strike back if Palace minions will continue harassing and intimidating him, the latest form taken being the not-so-discreet lifestyle check being conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman as well as the reported efforts of Malacañang and its loyal generals in reviving the Dacer-Corbito double murder case implicating him.
Earlier, it was claimed by Lacson that former Presidential Security Group chief and top security aide of President Arroyo, now chief of the Intelligence Service of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (Isafp) Brig. Romeo Prestoza, was wooing former police officer Cesar Mancao who is now in Miami, Florida, to be a witness against his former boss in the now defunct Presidential Anti-
Organized Crime Task Force. In exchange for his testimony, Mancao was reportedly offered by Prestoza safety for him and his family in Singapore, along with all their needs to be shouldered by the Arroyo government.
Moncao, in a radio interview last Tuesday, stated that it was the Isafp chief himself who called him to do the dirty on Lacson.
Yesterday, Lacson threatened Malacañang occupants, saying: “When I hit back back, they (the presidential couple) will really get hit,” Lacson stressed, adding that “the last time I remember was in 2001. They hit me with a fishing expedition by (then Intelligence Service of the Armed Forces of the Philippines chief Victor) Corpus. I found out
that everything came from FG (Mr. Arroyo), including the identification of my supposed residence in America and my so-called (secret) bank accounts.
A few weeks back, a former Arroyo ally who testified against Lacson on this secret bank accounts confessed that she was hired by the presidential spouse to fabricate a case of money laundering against Lacson.
Blanquita Pelaez, a convict with an existing arrest warrant for the crime of estafa (fraud), claimed she was shortchanged by Malacañang and double crossed, as she had not been paid the fees that she was hired for the dirty job.
Lacson reminded Malacañang that he can play the same tit for tat game, if it doesn’t ease up on him.
“So I hit back with the Pidal expose. Now that they are starting again the vilification campaign using their minions including some military officers. Maybe if I hit back again, it will be another Pidal style, but with a bigger magnitude.”
He added: “You know, we never sleep (in cases like this). We always obtain information and it is not necessarily clean. So what anomaly they have committed, they should now scramble to cover this early because the moment I go to the Senate floor to deliver my privilege speech, they wouldn’t know what hit them,” Lacson said in an interview.
The senator indicated that he will not be silenced by these efforts to malign him, much more just allow Palace officials continue their tactics to smear his name before the public.
“I won’t take this sitting down though. I will strike back,” he said.
Lacson, however, would not provide even a hint as to the latest scandal he will expose soon.
Indications, as gleaned from his statements, hint at Lacson not delivering his “bombshell” of a Pidal ll if Malacañang drops the lifestyle check on him.
The senator said the moves against him are supposedly connected to the issue of the botched national broadband network (NBN) deal.
“The harassment against me started when I delivered my privilege speech on the NBN-ZTE which resulted in a full Senate investigation, and Malacañang knew that I would not back off because they (the presidential couple) can’t buy my silence.
Angie M. Rosales
Maybe the Philippines should have a contest for the best corruption story on one of their big TV stations. By the way Malacanang, the castle, is like the White House in U.S. journalism. Arroyo and her husband have property in the U.S. Some day they may need it if the government changes and corruption charges against them, especially Mike, threaten retirement in the Philippines!
Ping threatens to spill beans on Pidal II
08/14/2008
Opposition Sen. Panfilo Lacson is threatening to drop a bombshell on the presidential couple amid reports of a lifestyle check probe on him by the Ombudsman which he insists is Malacañang-initiated.
He said his exposé will prove to be far worse than his exposé on the Jose Pidal case where he pointed the finger at presidential spouse Jose Miguel “Mike” Arroyo as the brains, adding a privilege speech will be delivered by him if Malacañang does not back off from “harassing” him.
An obviously peeved Lacson yesterday warned Malacañang that he will strike back if Palace minions will continue harassing and intimidating him, the latest form taken being the not-so-discreet lifestyle check being conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman as well as the reported efforts of Malacañang and its loyal generals in reviving the Dacer-Corbito double murder case implicating him.
Earlier, it was claimed by Lacson that former Presidential Security Group chief and top security aide of President Arroyo, now chief of the Intelligence Service of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (Isafp) Brig. Romeo Prestoza, was wooing former police officer Cesar Mancao who is now in Miami, Florida, to be a witness against his former boss in the now defunct Presidential Anti-
Organized Crime Task Force. In exchange for his testimony, Mancao was reportedly offered by Prestoza safety for him and his family in Singapore, along with all their needs to be shouldered by the Arroyo government.
Moncao, in a radio interview last Tuesday, stated that it was the Isafp chief himself who called him to do the dirty on Lacson.
Yesterday, Lacson threatened Malacañang occupants, saying: “When I hit back back, they (the presidential couple) will really get hit,” Lacson stressed, adding that “the last time I remember was in 2001. They hit me with a fishing expedition by (then Intelligence Service of the Armed Forces of the Philippines chief Victor) Corpus. I found out
that everything came from FG (Mr. Arroyo), including the identification of my supposed residence in America and my so-called (secret) bank accounts.
A few weeks back, a former Arroyo ally who testified against Lacson on this secret bank accounts confessed that she was hired by the presidential spouse to fabricate a case of money laundering against Lacson.
Blanquita Pelaez, a convict with an existing arrest warrant for the crime of estafa (fraud), claimed she was shortchanged by Malacañang and double crossed, as she had not been paid the fees that she was hired for the dirty job.
Lacson reminded Malacañang that he can play the same tit for tat game, if it doesn’t ease up on him.
“So I hit back with the Pidal expose. Now that they are starting again the vilification campaign using their minions including some military officers. Maybe if I hit back again, it will be another Pidal style, but with a bigger magnitude.”
He added: “You know, we never sleep (in cases like this). We always obtain information and it is not necessarily clean. So what anomaly they have committed, they should now scramble to cover this early because the moment I go to the Senate floor to deliver my privilege speech, they wouldn’t know what hit them,” Lacson said in an interview.
The senator indicated that he will not be silenced by these efforts to malign him, much more just allow Palace officials continue their tactics to smear his name before the public.
“I won’t take this sitting down though. I will strike back,” he said.
Lacson, however, would not provide even a hint as to the latest scandal he will expose soon.
Indications, as gleaned from his statements, hint at Lacson not delivering his “bombshell” of a Pidal ll if Malacañang drops the lifestyle check on him.
The senator said the moves against him are supposedly connected to the issue of the botched national broadband network (NBN) deal.
“The harassment against me started when I delivered my privilege speech on the NBN-ZTE which resulted in a full Senate investigation, and Malacañang knew that I would not back off because they (the presidential couple) can’t buy my silence.
Angie M. Rosales
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Abkazia sends army to drive out Georgian troops
This is from wiredispatch.
President Saakaschvili certainly made an impetuous and disastrous move in trying to take over South Ossetia. Not only has he now lost South Ossetia to complete rebel control backed by the Russians but he has allowed a situation where the rebels in Abkazia can drive the Georgians from their last remaining stronghold in that breakaway area.
For the short term the opposition in Georgia will probably support the president but in the longer term questions will be raised about a policy that has been nothing short of disastrous. There is no way that Georgia will ever join NATO now hard as some countries such as the U.S. may press for that. Nevertheless the Cold War may be coming back with a vengeance.
Abkhazia sends army to drive out Georgian troops
Georgia faces 2nd separatist rebellion; Abkhazia sends fighters to drive out Georgian troops
RUSLAN KHASHIGAP News
Aug 10, 2008 05:33 EST
Separatist authorities in Georgia's breakaway province of Abkhazia mobilized the army and called up reservists Sunday to drive Georgian government forces out of the small part of the province still under Georgian control.
The move dramatically raises the stakes in the conflict between Georgia and Russia over another separatist province, South Ossetia. With most Georgian troops concentrated on fighting Russian troops in South Ossetia, it could be hard for Georgia to repel the Abkhazian offensive.
In addition, Russia troops were seen moving through Abkahzia toward the border with Georgia, which lies on the Black Sea between Turkey and Russia.
Abkhazia's President Sergei Bagapsh said he issued a decree putting the province's troops on high alert and mobilizing some reservists after Georgia launched a military campaign to regain control over South Ossetia.
Both South Ossetia and Abkhazia have run their own affairs without international recognition since splitting from Georgia in the early 1990s and have built up close ties with Moscow. Russia has granted passports to most of their residents.
Russia's NTV television said more Russian troops arrived in Abkhazia in addition to peacekeepers deployed there for more than a decade, heading toward the border with Georgia. It showed a long convoy of armored vehicles rolling through the Abkhaz capital, Sukhumi.
Bagapsh said he wouldn't conduct any talks with Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili's government. "There can be no dialogue with the Georgian leadership, they are criminals," he said.
Bagapsh said Abkhazian troops aim to push Georgian troops out of the Kodori Gorge in Abkhazia. The northern part of the gorge is the only area of Abkhazia that has remained under Georgian government control.
"We are conducting artillery shelling and air strikes there," Bagapsh said at a news conference.
Georgia's Security Council Secretary Alexander Lomaia confirmed that Kodori came under attack, but he blamed it on Russia. Russian aircraft on Sunday also bombed Georgia's Zugdidi region, which lies next to Abkhazia, he said.
Bagapsh said Abkhazian forces also moved into a buffer zone on the border with Georgia's Zugdidi region to "enforce order" and eliminate the Georgian militants who had mounted attacks on Abkhazian police and security forces from there.
Russian military officials wouldn't comment on the deployment, but the Georgian government said 4,000 Russian troops landed in Abkhazia on Saturday.
Bagapsh acknowledged the Abkhazian move into the buffer zone would violate a peace agreement that ended the 1992-1993 war in which the region won de-facto independence, but claimed that Georgia was the first to violate the truce.
"We will call up more reservists if necessary," Bagapsh said, adding that Russia has sent its naval squadron to Georgia's Black Sea coast at his request.
The Georgian government issued a statement Sunday warning Abkhazia against joining the conflict.
Source: AP News
President Saakaschvili certainly made an impetuous and disastrous move in trying to take over South Ossetia. Not only has he now lost South Ossetia to complete rebel control backed by the Russians but he has allowed a situation where the rebels in Abkazia can drive the Georgians from their last remaining stronghold in that breakaway area.
For the short term the opposition in Georgia will probably support the president but in the longer term questions will be raised about a policy that has been nothing short of disastrous. There is no way that Georgia will ever join NATO now hard as some countries such as the U.S. may press for that. Nevertheless the Cold War may be coming back with a vengeance.
Abkhazia sends army to drive out Georgian troops
Georgia faces 2nd separatist rebellion; Abkhazia sends fighters to drive out Georgian troops
RUSLAN KHASHIGAP News
Aug 10, 2008 05:33 EST
Separatist authorities in Georgia's breakaway province of Abkhazia mobilized the army and called up reservists Sunday to drive Georgian government forces out of the small part of the province still under Georgian control.
The move dramatically raises the stakes in the conflict between Georgia and Russia over another separatist province, South Ossetia. With most Georgian troops concentrated on fighting Russian troops in South Ossetia, it could be hard for Georgia to repel the Abkhazian offensive.
In addition, Russia troops were seen moving through Abkahzia toward the border with Georgia, which lies on the Black Sea between Turkey and Russia.
Abkhazia's President Sergei Bagapsh said he issued a decree putting the province's troops on high alert and mobilizing some reservists after Georgia launched a military campaign to regain control over South Ossetia.
Both South Ossetia and Abkhazia have run their own affairs without international recognition since splitting from Georgia in the early 1990s and have built up close ties with Moscow. Russia has granted passports to most of their residents.
Russia's NTV television said more Russian troops arrived in Abkhazia in addition to peacekeepers deployed there for more than a decade, heading toward the border with Georgia. It showed a long convoy of armored vehicles rolling through the Abkhaz capital, Sukhumi.
Bagapsh said he wouldn't conduct any talks with Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili's government. "There can be no dialogue with the Georgian leadership, they are criminals," he said.
Bagapsh said Abkhazian troops aim to push Georgian troops out of the Kodori Gorge in Abkhazia. The northern part of the gorge is the only area of Abkhazia that has remained under Georgian government control.
"We are conducting artillery shelling and air strikes there," Bagapsh said at a news conference.
Georgia's Security Council Secretary Alexander Lomaia confirmed that Kodori came under attack, but he blamed it on Russia. Russian aircraft on Sunday also bombed Georgia's Zugdidi region, which lies next to Abkhazia, he said.
Bagapsh said Abkhazian forces also moved into a buffer zone on the border with Georgia's Zugdidi region to "enforce order" and eliminate the Georgian militants who had mounted attacks on Abkhazian police and security forces from there.
Russian military officials wouldn't comment on the deployment, but the Georgian government said 4,000 Russian troops landed in Abkhazia on Saturday.
Bagapsh acknowledged the Abkhazian move into the buffer zone would violate a peace agreement that ended the 1992-1993 war in which the region won de-facto independence, but claimed that Georgia was the first to violate the truce.
"We will call up more reservists if necessary," Bagapsh said, adding that Russia has sent its naval squadron to Georgia's Black Sea coast at his request.
The Georgian government issued a statement Sunday warning Abkhazia against joining the conflict.
Source: AP News
Israelis trained Georgian armed forces.
This is from Haaretz.
This is a rather optimistic view of Georgian troops capabilities. Russia is making sure that Georgian military equipment is being smashed. This will provide more sales for both Israeli and U.S. manufacturers no doubt but will ensure that in the short term Georgia will not be apt to try and take back South Ossetia or Abkazia. I imagine that the U.S. was also involved in training Georgian armed forces.
Jewish Georgian minister: Thanks to Israeli training, we're fending off Russia
By Haaretz Service
Jewish Georgian Minister Temur Yakobshvili on Sunday praised the Israel Defense Forces for its role in training Georgian troops and said Israel should be proud of its military might, in an interview with Army Radio. "Israel should be proud of its military which trained Georgian soldiers," Yakobashvili told Army Radio in Hebrew, referring to a private Israeli group Georgia had hired. Yakobashvili, Georgia's minister of reintegration, added that this training provided Georgia with the know-how needed to defend itself against Russian forces in the clashes which erupted last last week in the separatist region of South Ossetia.
Yakobashvili said that a small group of Georgian soldiers had able to wipe out an entire Russian military division due to this training. "We killed 60 Russian soldiers just yesterday," said Yakobashvili. "The Russians have lost more than 50 tanks, and we have shot down 11 of their planes. They have enormous damage in terms of manpower," Yakobashvili warned that the Russians would try and open another battlefront in Abkhazia and he denied reports that the Georgian army was retreating. "The Georgian forces are not retreating. We move our military according to security needs." "There was no attack on the airport in Tbilisi. It was a factory that produces combat airplanes," said Yakobashvili referring to the attacks in the country's capital. "The whole world is starting to understand that what is happening here will determine the future of this region, the future price of crude oil, the future of central Asia, and the future of NATO," the Georgian minister added. According to him, "every bomb that falls over our heads is an attack on democracy, on the European Union and on America."
This is a rather optimistic view of Georgian troops capabilities. Russia is making sure that Georgian military equipment is being smashed. This will provide more sales for both Israeli and U.S. manufacturers no doubt but will ensure that in the short term Georgia will not be apt to try and take back South Ossetia or Abkazia. I imagine that the U.S. was also involved in training Georgian armed forces.
Jewish Georgian minister: Thanks to Israeli training, we're fending off Russia
By Haaretz Service
Jewish Georgian Minister Temur Yakobshvili on Sunday praised the Israel Defense Forces for its role in training Georgian troops and said Israel should be proud of its military might, in an interview with Army Radio. "Israel should be proud of its military which trained Georgian soldiers," Yakobashvili told Army Radio in Hebrew, referring to a private Israeli group Georgia had hired. Yakobashvili, Georgia's minister of reintegration, added that this training provided Georgia with the know-how needed to defend itself against Russian forces in the clashes which erupted last last week in the separatist region of South Ossetia.
Yakobashvili said that a small group of Georgian soldiers had able to wipe out an entire Russian military division due to this training. "We killed 60 Russian soldiers just yesterday," said Yakobashvili. "The Russians have lost more than 50 tanks, and we have shot down 11 of their planes. They have enormous damage in terms of manpower," Yakobashvili warned that the Russians would try and open another battlefront in Abkhazia and he denied reports that the Georgian army was retreating. "The Georgian forces are not retreating. We move our military according to security needs." "There was no attack on the airport in Tbilisi. It was a factory that produces combat airplanes," said Yakobashvili referring to the attacks in the country's capital. "The whole world is starting to understand that what is happening here will determine the future of this region, the future price of crude oil, the future of central Asia, and the future of NATO," the Georgian minister added. According to him, "every bomb that falls over our heads is an attack on democracy, on the European Union and on America."
Filipinos less optimistic about future..
This is from this site.
The combination of slowing economic growth increased cost of staple foods such as rice and soaring energy costs is no doubt causing increasing hardships for many filipinos. As I recall there is a much different public outlook in countries such as China. The Filipinos however share a gloomy outlook with Americans.
More Filipinos say quality of life has worsened
Ellalyn B. de VeraThe number of Filipinos who said that their personal quality of life worsened has increased further, the Social Weather Stations (SWS) said.
Those surveyed added that their personal quality of life was better last year compared to at present, the SWS said.
The nationwide survey conducted last June 27-30 among 1,200 respondents showed that 62 percent (losers) of Filipinos surveyed experienced worsened personal quality of life, and only 12 percent (gainers) said it improved in the past 12 months
The SWS said the proportion of those who said that personal quality of life worsened consistently increased in the past four quarters, from 42 percent in September 2007, 45 percent in December 2007, 50 percent last March, and 62 percent last June.
The independent pollster added that the latest gainers-losers gap of -50 is the worst since SWS started its monitoring in April 1983.
Compared to the first quarter, the gainers-losers gap in the second quarter worsened by 22 points in the Balance Luzon from 23 to -45. The SWS said it is a new record-high gap for Balance Luzon.
In the Visayas, it fell by 19 points from -42 to -61, surpassing the previous record-high gap of -60 in October 2000.
It fell by 18 points in Mindanao, from -32 to -50, and by eight points in Metro Manila from -44 to 52.
Among socio-economic classes, the gainers-losers gap worsened by 35 points among the upper-middle classes ABC, from net -6 in March to -41 last June.
It fell by 18 points among the "masa" (masses) or Class D from -32 to -50. The SWS said the new figure for Class D is a record-high since it was first reported in July 1985.
In Class E, it dropped by 13 points from -40 to -53, a new record-high.
The SWS said 30 percent expected their personal quality of life to worsen, while 24 percent expected it to improve in the next 12 months.
SWS said that in the past five quarters, the proportion of personal pessimists has increased consistently from 11 percent in June 2007 to 30 percent in June 2008.
The number of personal optimists declined steadily since 32 percent in September 2007 to 24 percent at present.
The net personal optimism, or the difference of personal optimism over personal pessimism, went down from +22 in June 2007, +18 in September 2007, +14 in December 2007, +6 in March 2008, to -6 in June 2008.
The combination of slowing economic growth increased cost of staple foods such as rice and soaring energy costs is no doubt causing increasing hardships for many filipinos. As I recall there is a much different public outlook in countries such as China. The Filipinos however share a gloomy outlook with Americans.
More Filipinos say quality of life has worsened
Ellalyn B. de VeraThe number of Filipinos who said that their personal quality of life worsened has increased further, the Social Weather Stations (SWS) said.
Those surveyed added that their personal quality of life was better last year compared to at present, the SWS said.
The nationwide survey conducted last June 27-30 among 1,200 respondents showed that 62 percent (losers) of Filipinos surveyed experienced worsened personal quality of life, and only 12 percent (gainers) said it improved in the past 12 months
The SWS said the proportion of those who said that personal quality of life worsened consistently increased in the past four quarters, from 42 percent in September 2007, 45 percent in December 2007, 50 percent last March, and 62 percent last June.
The independent pollster added that the latest gainers-losers gap of -50 is the worst since SWS started its monitoring in April 1983.
Compared to the first quarter, the gainers-losers gap in the second quarter worsened by 22 points in the Balance Luzon from 23 to -45. The SWS said it is a new record-high gap for Balance Luzon.
In the Visayas, it fell by 19 points from -42 to -61, surpassing the previous record-high gap of -60 in October 2000.
It fell by 18 points in Mindanao, from -32 to -50, and by eight points in Metro Manila from -44 to 52.
Among socio-economic classes, the gainers-losers gap worsened by 35 points among the upper-middle classes ABC, from net -6 in March to -41 last June.
It fell by 18 points among the "masa" (masses) or Class D from -32 to -50. The SWS said the new figure for Class D is a record-high since it was first reported in July 1985.
In Class E, it dropped by 13 points from -40 to -53, a new record-high.
The SWS said 30 percent expected their personal quality of life to worsen, while 24 percent expected it to improve in the next 12 months.
SWS said that in the past five quarters, the proportion of personal pessimists has increased consistently from 11 percent in June 2007 to 30 percent in June 2008.
The number of personal optimists declined steadily since 32 percent in September 2007 to 24 percent at present.
The net personal optimism, or the difference of personal optimism over personal pessimism, went down from +22 in June 2007, +18 in September 2007, +14 in December 2007, +6 in March 2008, to -6 in June 2008.
Monday, August 11, 2008
U.S.: Russia wants regime change in Georgia.
Hmmm..Seems to me that wanting regime change is a familiar phrase. The U.S. wanted regime change half way around the world in Iraq and also in Afghanistan and helped promote regime changes in other countries on Russia's doorstep such as the Ukraine or yes even Georgia! Zalmay Khalilzad the US ambassador to the UN is a potential president of Afghanistan to replace the out of favor (in the US) Karzai. He was a promoter of the Project for a New American Century so he should know all about regime change and imperialism.
Probably Russian aims are as follows:
i) to show Georgia that it cannot just solve the Abkazia and South Ossetia problem by military might. I find it surprising that Georgia thought that it could simply move in and take back South Ossetia.
ii) to ensure that Abakazia and South Ossetia remain at least autonomous and will not be further threatened by Georgian central government militarily.
iii) to send a message to the United States that Russia cannot be pushed around any more and that NATO should back off considering Georgia as a member.
Perhaps Khalilzad is correct. Certainly Russia would be happier if Georgia had a more pro-Russian leader but Russia will probably be content for now if Georgia simply accepts the status quo in Abkazia and South Ossetia.
ReutersU.S. suggests Russia wants "regime change" in Georgia08.10.08, 4:48 PM ET
Russian Federation - (Adds comments from Russian envoy, meeting on resolution)
By Louis Charbonneau
UNITED NATIONS, Aug 10 (Reuters) - The United States suggested on Sunday that Russia was interested in "regime change" in Georgia after Moscow rejected Tbilisi's offer of a cease-fire in the separatist enclave of South Ossetia.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that the president of Georgia Mikheil Saakashvili "must go," the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Zalmay Khalilzad, told the Security Council.
Khalilzad then looked straight at Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin and asked if Moscow was looking for "regime change."
"Is the goal of the Russian Federation to change the leadership of Georgia?" he said.
Churkin did not directly address the question but said there are leaders who "become an obstacle."
"Sometimes those leaders need to contemplate how useful they have become to their people," he told reporters later.
"Regime change is purely an American invention," he said. "We're all for democracy in Georgia."
Russian troops took the capital of South Ossetia earlier after a three-day battle as Georgian forces retreated and the Tbilisi government offered a cease-fire and talks.
In Moscow, Lavrov said the departure of Saakashvili, who was re-elected by popular vote early this year, was not a must to solve the crisis but that Russia no longer saw him as a partner.
Khalilzad told reporters the telephone call between Rice and Lavrov was "disturbing," adding that the days of overthrowing European governments by force were over.
Churkin insisted Russia was not out to take over South Ossetia. "Let's state clearly that we are ready to put an end to the war, that we will withdraw from South Ossetia, that we will sign an agreement on non-use of force," he said.
The U.S. envoy said he would introduce a U.N. resolution condemning Moscow, even though Russia is a permanent council member with the power to veto it. He was meeting later with British, French diplomats and other allies on the council.
The council has been unable to take any action in four emergency meetings on the crisis in as many days due, though the heated exchanges have been reminiscent of the Cold War.
'CAMPAIGN OF TERROR'
Georgian envoy Irakli Alasania told the Security Council that Churkin's comments were all "Soviet propaganda" and said Russia intended to repeat what it did in Chechnya.
Moscow plans to "erase Georgian statehood and exterminate the Georgian people," he said. Churkin in turn accused the Georgians of "genocide" and "ethnic cleansing".
Khalilzad said Russia was waging "terror" in Georgia.
"We must condemn Russia's military assault on the sovereign state of Georgia ... including the targeting of civilians and the campaign of terror against the Georgian population," he said.
Khalilzad also accused Russia of preventing the withdrawal of Georgian forces from South Ossetia to prolong the conflict and prevent Georgia from laying down its arms.
"Since Russia is impeding Georgian forces from withdrawing, rejecting a cease-fire and continuing to carry out military attacks against civilian centers, its claims of a humanitarian purpose clearly are not credible," Khalilzad said.
Churkin was furious that Khalilzad used the word "terror".
"This statement, ambassador, is completely unacceptable, particularly from the lips of the permanent representative of a country whose actions we are aware of, including with regard to the civilian populations in Iraq and Afghanistan and Serbia," Churkin told the council. (Editing by Philip Barbara) Copyright 2008 Reuters,
Probably Russian aims are as follows:
i) to show Georgia that it cannot just solve the Abkazia and South Ossetia problem by military might. I find it surprising that Georgia thought that it could simply move in and take back South Ossetia.
ii) to ensure that Abakazia and South Ossetia remain at least autonomous and will not be further threatened by Georgian central government militarily.
iii) to send a message to the United States that Russia cannot be pushed around any more and that NATO should back off considering Georgia as a member.
Perhaps Khalilzad is correct. Certainly Russia would be happier if Georgia had a more pro-Russian leader but Russia will probably be content for now if Georgia simply accepts the status quo in Abkazia and South Ossetia.
ReutersU.S. suggests Russia wants "regime change" in Georgia08.10.08, 4:48 PM ET
Russian Federation - (Adds comments from Russian envoy, meeting on resolution)
By Louis Charbonneau
UNITED NATIONS, Aug 10 (Reuters) - The United States suggested on Sunday that Russia was interested in "regime change" in Georgia after Moscow rejected Tbilisi's offer of a cease-fire in the separatist enclave of South Ossetia.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that the president of Georgia Mikheil Saakashvili "must go," the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Zalmay Khalilzad, told the Security Council.
Khalilzad then looked straight at Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin and asked if Moscow was looking for "regime change."
"Is the goal of the Russian Federation to change the leadership of Georgia?" he said.
Churkin did not directly address the question but said there are leaders who "become an obstacle."
"Sometimes those leaders need to contemplate how useful they have become to their people," he told reporters later.
"Regime change is purely an American invention," he said. "We're all for democracy in Georgia."
Russian troops took the capital of South Ossetia earlier after a three-day battle as Georgian forces retreated and the Tbilisi government offered a cease-fire and talks.
In Moscow, Lavrov said the departure of Saakashvili, who was re-elected by popular vote early this year, was not a must to solve the crisis but that Russia no longer saw him as a partner.
Khalilzad told reporters the telephone call between Rice and Lavrov was "disturbing," adding that the days of overthrowing European governments by force were over.
Churkin insisted Russia was not out to take over South Ossetia. "Let's state clearly that we are ready to put an end to the war, that we will withdraw from South Ossetia, that we will sign an agreement on non-use of force," he said.
The U.S. envoy said he would introduce a U.N. resolution condemning Moscow, even though Russia is a permanent council member with the power to veto it. He was meeting later with British, French diplomats and other allies on the council.
The council has been unable to take any action in four emergency meetings on the crisis in as many days due, though the heated exchanges have been reminiscent of the Cold War.
'CAMPAIGN OF TERROR'
Georgian envoy Irakli Alasania told the Security Council that Churkin's comments were all "Soviet propaganda" and said Russia intended to repeat what it did in Chechnya.
Moscow plans to "erase Georgian statehood and exterminate the Georgian people," he said. Churkin in turn accused the Georgians of "genocide" and "ethnic cleansing".
Khalilzad said Russia was waging "terror" in Georgia.
"We must condemn Russia's military assault on the sovereign state of Georgia ... including the targeting of civilians and the campaign of terror against the Georgian population," he said.
Khalilzad also accused Russia of preventing the withdrawal of Georgian forces from South Ossetia to prolong the conflict and prevent Georgia from laying down its arms.
"Since Russia is impeding Georgian forces from withdrawing, rejecting a cease-fire and continuing to carry out military attacks against civilian centers, its claims of a humanitarian purpose clearly are not credible," Khalilzad said.
Churkin was furious that Khalilzad used the word "terror".
"This statement, ambassador, is completely unacceptable, particularly from the lips of the permanent representative of a country whose actions we are aware of, including with regard to the civilian populations in Iraq and Afghanistan and Serbia," Churkin told the council. (Editing by Philip Barbara) Copyright 2008 Reuters,
Bribes used to get relatives to turn in militants: Philippines
There still seem to be problems with the agreement between MILF and the government. U.S. forces have been involved in some operations. As part of the war on terror the U.S. works with the AFP. This is a sensitive issue for many filipinos.
It seems that bribes are given regularly to militants' families in order to get them to turn in their relatives. This is a rather nasty policy and as has happened elsewhere often people use these offers to make money and wreak vengeance on those they don't like. Some innocent persons have ended up in Guantanamo as a result of such policies. Maybe this should be called the "mother-in-law" effect but I guess that would not be politically correct. Here is a snippet of an article from the Tribune.
So far P17.3 million has been paid out to informants whose help has either led to the arrest or death of at least nine militants, Allaga said.
“These people are not political they are bandits,” he said.
One of those killed was Khadaffy Janjalani, the leader of the Al Qaeda linked Abu Sayyaf group.
In dollar terms the payout may seem paltry to outsiders but to poor Filipinos a million pesos is a windfall.
“It can change their lives for ever,” Allaga said urging relatives, friends or acquaintances of Abu Sayyaf militants to come forward and turn them in and get paid for it.
He said the identity of those who give information against the militants is protected.
Money is normally handed out in crisp one thousand peso notes, often bundled up in bags and the “informants” wear hoods.
Many of the informants are either former Abu Sayyaf rebels or relatives seeking easy cash.
“The reward for justice programme has been very effective in ending much of the lawlessness in the region,” Allaga said although he is reluctant to talk about the operations of US Special Forces in the area.
The US Special Forces have been rotating in and out of western Mindanao since 2003 training and helping the Philippine military combat Muslim extremists. So far P17.3 million has been paid out to informants whose help has either led to the arrest or death of at least nine militants, Allaga said.
“These people are not political they are bandits,” he said.
One of those killed was Khadaffy Janjalani, the leader of the Al Qaeda linked Abu Sayyaf group.
In dollar terms the payout may seem paltry to outsiders but to poor Filipinos a million pesos is a windfall.
“It can change their lives for ever,” Allaga said urging relatives, friends or acquaintances of Abu Sayyaf militants to come forward and turn them in and get paid for it.
He said the identity of those who give information against the militants is protected.
Money is normally handed out in crisp one thousand peso notes, often bundled up in bags and the “informants” wear hoods.
Many of the informants are either former Abu Sayyaf rebels or relatives seeking easy cash.
“The reward for justice programme has been very effective in ending much of the lawlessness in the region,” Allaga said although he is reluctant to talk about the operations of US Special Forces in the area.
The US Special Forces have been rotating in and out of western Mindanao since 2003 training and helping the Philippine military combat Muslim extremists.
It seems that bribes are given regularly to militants' families in order to get them to turn in their relatives. This is a rather nasty policy and as has happened elsewhere often people use these offers to make money and wreak vengeance on those they don't like. Some innocent persons have ended up in Guantanamo as a result of such policies. Maybe this should be called the "mother-in-law" effect but I guess that would not be politically correct. Here is a snippet of an article from the Tribune.
So far P17.3 million has been paid out to informants whose help has either led to the arrest or death of at least nine militants, Allaga said.
“These people are not political they are bandits,” he said.
One of those killed was Khadaffy Janjalani, the leader of the Al Qaeda linked Abu Sayyaf group.
In dollar terms the payout may seem paltry to outsiders but to poor Filipinos a million pesos is a windfall.
“It can change their lives for ever,” Allaga said urging relatives, friends or acquaintances of Abu Sayyaf militants to come forward and turn them in and get paid for it.
He said the identity of those who give information against the militants is protected.
Money is normally handed out in crisp one thousand peso notes, often bundled up in bags and the “informants” wear hoods.
Many of the informants are either former Abu Sayyaf rebels or relatives seeking easy cash.
“The reward for justice programme has been very effective in ending much of the lawlessness in the region,” Allaga said although he is reluctant to talk about the operations of US Special Forces in the area.
The US Special Forces have been rotating in and out of western Mindanao since 2003 training and helping the Philippine military combat Muslim extremists. So far P17.3 million has been paid out to informants whose help has either led to the arrest or death of at least nine militants, Allaga said.
“These people are not political they are bandits,” he said.
One of those killed was Khadaffy Janjalani, the leader of the Al Qaeda linked Abu Sayyaf group.
In dollar terms the payout may seem paltry to outsiders but to poor Filipinos a million pesos is a windfall.
“It can change their lives for ever,” Allaga said urging relatives, friends or acquaintances of Abu Sayyaf militants to come forward and turn them in and get paid for it.
He said the identity of those who give information against the militants is protected.
Money is normally handed out in crisp one thousand peso notes, often bundled up in bags and the “informants” wear hoods.
Many of the informants are either former Abu Sayyaf rebels or relatives seeking easy cash.
“The reward for justice programme has been very effective in ending much of the lawlessness in the region,” Allaga said although he is reluctant to talk about the operations of US Special Forces in the area.
The US Special Forces have been rotating in and out of western Mindanao since 2003 training and helping the Philippine military combat Muslim extremists.
Sunday, August 10, 2008
McCain adviser lobbied for Georgia
This is from McClatchy.
This is a good glimpse of some of the relationships between corporate America and U.S. foreign policy. Authoritarian tendences are apparently OK in Georgia but not in Russia! Independence is OK in Kosovo from Serbia but not South Ossetia or Abkazia from Georgia. And of course independence was just hunky dory in Ukraine, Georgia, etc. from the Evil Empire of the former USSR..
Top McCain adviser lobbied for nation of Georgia
By Greg Gordon, McClatchy NewspapersFri Aug 8, 7:28 PM ET
WASHINGTON — John McCain's top foreign policy adviser, Randall Scheunemann , lobbied for the nation of Georgia for four years, including for about a year after he joined the Republican senator's presidential campaign staff in early 2007.
Georgia has paid Scheunemann's firm, Orion Strategies, LLC , nearly $900,000 since 2004, including $200,000 for an eight-month contract that began on May 1 , two weeks after McCain issued a strong statement criticizing Russia and supporting Georgia .
Scheunemann took a leave from lobbying for Orion in March, two months before McCain barred active lobbyists from serving on his staff. He's still listed as Orion's president and owner.
Reached by phone, Scheunemann declined comment and referred a reporter to the campaign.
Asked about Scheunemann's lobbying connections, McCain campaign spokesman Tucker Bounds said that the Arizona senator's interest in Georgia "predated" his first visit to the republic in 1997. He said that McCain "has spoken for years about Russian policies that threaten the sovereignty of its neighbors, from Estonia to Ukraine to Georgia ."
Bounds said that McCain returned to Georgia in 2002 to urge then-president Eduard Shevardnadze to conduct free and fair elections, and when those "badly flawed elections" led to a revolution, McCain became a strong supporter of newly elected President Mikhail Saakashvili .
Orion's filings with the Justice Department's Foreign Agents Registration Office indicate that Scheunemann and his partner, Mike Mitchell , had more than 40 phone conversations and meetings with McCain, his Senate chief of staff Mark Salter and his foreign policy aide Richard Fontaine , on behalf of Georgia , which is seeking membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization .
The briefings picked up in the summer of 2006, when Scheunemann briefed McCain and his aides several times before McCain took another trip to Georgia , this time with Republican Sens. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia , Lindsey Graham of South Carolina , Mel Martinez of Florida , Richard Burr of North Carolina and John Sununu of New Hampshire . Scheunemann joined them in Georgia , where they met with Saakashvili.
Saakashvili has been criticized for authoritarian tendencies following a crackdown on demonstrators last year, but McCain has been a staunch ally, sternly criticizing Moscow for its backing of pro-Russian, separatists.
On April 17 of this year, McCain issued a stern statement assailing " Russia's moves to undermine Georgian sovereignty." Two weeks later, Georgia gave Orion a $200,000 contract extension.
After Russian tanks rolled into the breakaway region of South Ossetia Friday amid fighting between Georgian troops and the separatist rebels, McCain called for an immediate Russian pullout and urged the Bush administration to request an emergency meeting of the United Nations Security Council .
This is a good glimpse of some of the relationships between corporate America and U.S. foreign policy. Authoritarian tendences are apparently OK in Georgia but not in Russia! Independence is OK in Kosovo from Serbia but not South Ossetia or Abkazia from Georgia. And of course independence was just hunky dory in Ukraine, Georgia, etc. from the Evil Empire of the former USSR..
Top McCain adviser lobbied for nation of Georgia
By Greg Gordon, McClatchy NewspapersFri Aug 8, 7:28 PM ET
WASHINGTON — John McCain's top foreign policy adviser, Randall Scheunemann , lobbied for the nation of Georgia for four years, including for about a year after he joined the Republican senator's presidential campaign staff in early 2007.
Georgia has paid Scheunemann's firm, Orion Strategies, LLC , nearly $900,000 since 2004, including $200,000 for an eight-month contract that began on May 1 , two weeks after McCain issued a strong statement criticizing Russia and supporting Georgia .
Scheunemann took a leave from lobbying for Orion in March, two months before McCain barred active lobbyists from serving on his staff. He's still listed as Orion's president and owner.
Reached by phone, Scheunemann declined comment and referred a reporter to the campaign.
Asked about Scheunemann's lobbying connections, McCain campaign spokesman Tucker Bounds said that the Arizona senator's interest in Georgia "predated" his first visit to the republic in 1997. He said that McCain "has spoken for years about Russian policies that threaten the sovereignty of its neighbors, from Estonia to Ukraine to Georgia ."
Bounds said that McCain returned to Georgia in 2002 to urge then-president Eduard Shevardnadze to conduct free and fair elections, and when those "badly flawed elections" led to a revolution, McCain became a strong supporter of newly elected President Mikhail Saakashvili .
Orion's filings with the Justice Department's Foreign Agents Registration Office indicate that Scheunemann and his partner, Mike Mitchell , had more than 40 phone conversations and meetings with McCain, his Senate chief of staff Mark Salter and his foreign policy aide Richard Fontaine , on behalf of Georgia , which is seeking membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization .
The briefings picked up in the summer of 2006, when Scheunemann briefed McCain and his aides several times before McCain took another trip to Georgia , this time with Republican Sens. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia , Lindsey Graham of South Carolina , Mel Martinez of Florida , Richard Burr of North Carolina and John Sununu of New Hampshire . Scheunemann joined them in Georgia , where they met with Saakashvili.
Saakashvili has been criticized for authoritarian tendencies following a crackdown on demonstrators last year, but McCain has been a staunch ally, sternly criticizing Moscow for its backing of pro-Russian, separatists.
On April 17 of this year, McCain issued a stern statement assailing " Russia's moves to undermine Georgian sovereignty." Two weeks later, Georgia gave Orion a $200,000 contract extension.
After Russian tanks rolled into the breakaway region of South Ossetia Friday amid fighting between Georgian troops and the separatist rebels, McCain called for an immediate Russian pullout and urged the Bush administration to request an emergency meeting of the United Nations Security Council .
Georgia: US training gives Georgia military advantage
This is from the Telegraph.
While the U.S. training and equipment may give the Georgians an advantage, Georgia is still a pygmy facing a Goliath. Georgia no doubt hoped that taking back the capital of South Ossetia would strengthen its hand in any peace talks. However the result has been not only considerable losses to the Ossetians but also bombing of Georgian military bases inside Georgia proper and also it seems other destruction. The rockets coming from mobile vehicles are not accurate at all.
Now apparently the Russians have a firm hold on South Ossetia and the Georgians have withdrawn. They have nothing for their efforts except perhaps to exacerbate already tense relations between the U.S. and Russia. Russia is not likely to give much in the peace talks. It will insist that Goergia leave South Ossetia and Abkazia alone.
Georgia: US training gives Georgia military advantage
The problem the Russians face in South Ossetia is that their peacekeepers have had to make the transition overnight to what is, in effect, a war-fighting force.
By Allan Mallinson, Defence Historian Last Updated: 12:11AM BST 10 Aug 2008
The Russians lack of enough force to deploy decisively from the outset has forced them to over-rely on artillery especially the multi-barrelled rocket launcher Photo: REUTERS
While they are not operating like Scandinavian peace forces in light blue berets, the transition will not have been smooth.
Ironically, as former peacekeepers, they may be inflicting far more civilian casualties than would a force that had been training and planning for combat operations.
Not least, this is because they did not have enough force to deploy overwhelmingly and therefore decisively from the outset – which might have overawed the Georgians without a shot.
This has forced them to over-rely on artillery, one of the least discriminating weapons systems, especially the multi-barrelled rocket launcher.
Nor has the speed with which the fighting developed helped the civilian population either to evacuate the combat zones, or take effective cover.
The Russians will no doubt justify their use of air power beyond Ossetia as defensive action in depth and draw comparisons with the United Nations' use of ground-attack aircraft in Bosnia during the peacekeeping mandate; but it will also be in some measure an attempt to overwhelm the Georgians psychologically, and with the only means to hand.
The reinforcements being sent by Moscow will be special forces – more subtle, more highly trained than the troops already on the ground. However sinister their deployment sounds, they should be welcomed for their professionalism. Despite the money pumped into the army by Vladimir Putin, the quality of its regular officers is a problem. Despite South Ossetia's semi-autonomous status, the Georgian army is operating on essentially interior lines of communication, while the Russians are deployed at the end of a very long line indeed. On paper, Georgian forces number some 18,000, but there are probably fewer than 12,000 effective combat troops, which is why the contingent in Iraq is being recalled.
The Georgians, though outnumbered, in the shorter term have several advantages. They are not badly equipped. The former Soviet T72, for example, their main battle tank, is a reasonable match for the Russians' T90. The army has been American-trained, and increasingly American-equipped, for the past 10 years, and strongly focused on Nato admission: there will be some capable commanders and staff officers, therefore.
It is a strange irony to note that their troops have seen action, against Chechen rebels, but fighting alongside the Russians.
While the U.S. training and equipment may give the Georgians an advantage, Georgia is still a pygmy facing a Goliath. Georgia no doubt hoped that taking back the capital of South Ossetia would strengthen its hand in any peace talks. However the result has been not only considerable losses to the Ossetians but also bombing of Georgian military bases inside Georgia proper and also it seems other destruction. The rockets coming from mobile vehicles are not accurate at all.
Now apparently the Russians have a firm hold on South Ossetia and the Georgians have withdrawn. They have nothing for their efforts except perhaps to exacerbate already tense relations between the U.S. and Russia. Russia is not likely to give much in the peace talks. It will insist that Goergia leave South Ossetia and Abkazia alone.
Georgia: US training gives Georgia military advantage
The problem the Russians face in South Ossetia is that their peacekeepers have had to make the transition overnight to what is, in effect, a war-fighting force.
By Allan Mallinson, Defence Historian Last Updated: 12:11AM BST 10 Aug 2008
The Russians lack of enough force to deploy decisively from the outset has forced them to over-rely on artillery especially the multi-barrelled rocket launcher Photo: REUTERS
While they are not operating like Scandinavian peace forces in light blue berets, the transition will not have been smooth.
Ironically, as former peacekeepers, they may be inflicting far more civilian casualties than would a force that had been training and planning for combat operations.
Not least, this is because they did not have enough force to deploy overwhelmingly and therefore decisively from the outset – which might have overawed the Georgians without a shot.
This has forced them to over-rely on artillery, one of the least discriminating weapons systems, especially the multi-barrelled rocket launcher.
Nor has the speed with which the fighting developed helped the civilian population either to evacuate the combat zones, or take effective cover.
The Russians will no doubt justify their use of air power beyond Ossetia as defensive action in depth and draw comparisons with the United Nations' use of ground-attack aircraft in Bosnia during the peacekeeping mandate; but it will also be in some measure an attempt to overwhelm the Georgians psychologically, and with the only means to hand.
The reinforcements being sent by Moscow will be special forces – more subtle, more highly trained than the troops already on the ground. However sinister their deployment sounds, they should be welcomed for their professionalism. Despite the money pumped into the army by Vladimir Putin, the quality of its regular officers is a problem. Despite South Ossetia's semi-autonomous status, the Georgian army is operating on essentially interior lines of communication, while the Russians are deployed at the end of a very long line indeed. On paper, Georgian forces number some 18,000, but there are probably fewer than 12,000 effective combat troops, which is why the contingent in Iraq is being recalled.
The Georgians, though outnumbered, in the shorter term have several advantages. They are not badly equipped. The former Soviet T72, for example, their main battle tank, is a reasonable match for the Russians' T90. The army has been American-trained, and increasingly American-equipped, for the past 10 years, and strongly focused on Nato admission: there will be some capable commanders and staff officers, therefore.
It is a strange irony to note that their troops have seen action, against Chechen rebels, but fighting alongside the Russians.
Kurdish rebels threaten more attacks in Turkey
This is from AP.
In spite of this oil prices seem to be going down rather than up. Perhaps next week they will reverse themselves.
Kurdish rebels threaten more attacks in Turkey
By SUZAN FRASER – 1 day ago
ANKARA, Turkey (AP) — Kurdish rebels threatened on Friday to stage more attacks on economic targets in Turkey, days after claiming responsibility for a fire at a key oil pipeline, a pro-Kurdish news agency said.
Turkish authorities have not confirmed the pipeline fire was sabotage, as claimed by the Kurdistan Workers' Party, a militant group that seeks autonomy for in the Kurdish region of southeastern Turkey.
The pipeline, which carries oil from Central Asia, caught fire Tuesday, briefly pushing up global oil prices. The blaze was largely brought under control Thursday, but was still burning Friday and officials said it could be shut down for up to 15 days.
The pro-Kurdish Firat news agency quoted rebel leader Behroz Erdal as saying the group would make much such economic attacks if Turkey's military pressed ahead with military operations against Kurdish fighters both inside Turkey and across the border in northern Iraq.
"As long the Turkish state insists on this war, such actions will justifiably be expanded," Erdal was quoted as saying.
"We believe these actions carried out against economic resources have a deterring effect on its war to destroy the (Kurdish) people," Erdal said.
Energy Minister Hilmi Guler said Friday that authorities would make a statement on the cause of the fire and the extent of the damage after the fire was out, probably in another day or two.
The 1,100-mile Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline brings oil from Azerbaijan to the Mediterranean for shipment to the West, bypassing Russia and Iran. It normally pumps slightly more than 1 million barrels a day, more than 1 percent of the world's daily crude output.
In spite of this oil prices seem to be going down rather than up. Perhaps next week they will reverse themselves.
Kurdish rebels threaten more attacks in Turkey
By SUZAN FRASER – 1 day ago
ANKARA, Turkey (AP) — Kurdish rebels threatened on Friday to stage more attacks on economic targets in Turkey, days after claiming responsibility for a fire at a key oil pipeline, a pro-Kurdish news agency said.
Turkish authorities have not confirmed the pipeline fire was sabotage, as claimed by the Kurdistan Workers' Party, a militant group that seeks autonomy for in the Kurdish region of southeastern Turkey.
The pipeline, which carries oil from Central Asia, caught fire Tuesday, briefly pushing up global oil prices. The blaze was largely brought under control Thursday, but was still burning Friday and officials said it could be shut down for up to 15 days.
The pro-Kurdish Firat news agency quoted rebel leader Behroz Erdal as saying the group would make much such economic attacks if Turkey's military pressed ahead with military operations against Kurdish fighters both inside Turkey and across the border in northern Iraq.
"As long the Turkish state insists on this war, such actions will justifiably be expanded," Erdal was quoted as saying.
"We believe these actions carried out against economic resources have a deterring effect on its war to destroy the (Kurdish) people," Erdal said.
Energy Minister Hilmi Guler said Friday that authorities would make a statement on the cause of the fire and the extent of the damage after the fire was out, probably in another day or two.
The 1,100-mile Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline brings oil from Azerbaijan to the Mediterranean for shipment to the West, bypassing Russia and Iran. It normally pumps slightly more than 1 million barrels a day, more than 1 percent of the world's daily crude output.
Saturday, August 9, 2008
Medvedev tells Bush Russia aims to force Georgia to accept peace
This is from RIA Novosti (Russia)
This is more or less an official Russian viewpoint on the conflict or at least a state sanctioned report. The report of Georgian peacekeepers shooting Russian peacekeepers is interesting for it has never been mentioned in any western media reports I have seen. According to another RIA Novosti report the South Ossetian capital has been taken back from Georgia forces who had occupied it. This situation would have been been even more serious if Georgia was a member of NATO. Of course the U.S. is a big ally of Georgia. Georgia has sent troops to aid the U.S. in Iraq. It now wants them to be flown back home by the U.S. Georgia probably hoped to bolster its position prior to peace talks which had already been scheduled before Georgia mounted this offensive. The attack has no doubted backfired and created a very dangerous volatile situation.
Medvedev tells Bush Russia aims to force Georgia to accept peace
09/ 08/ 2008
MOSCOW, August 9 (RIA Novosti) - The Russian president told his U.S. counterpart on Saturday that Russia's ongoing military operation in Georgia's breakaway republic of South Ossetia is aimed at forcing Georgia to accept peace.
Bush's phone conversation with Dmitry Medvedev came after the U.S. leader called on Russia to stop bombing targets in Georgia, and voiced concern over the escalating violence.
Medvedev was quoted by the Kremlin as telling Bush: "Acting within our peacekeeping mission, and in line with the mandate issued by the international community, Russia is engaged in the task of forcing the Georgian side to accept peace, while defending the lives and property of its citizens, as is required under the Constitution and laws of the Russian Federation, and the legal standards of any civilized country.
Georgia, the main U.S. ally in the Caucasus Region, launched a major ground and air offensive to seize control of South Ossetia on Friday, prompting Russia to send in tanks and hundreds of troops. Georgia imposed martial law on Saturday after Russian warplanes began bombarding military bases.
Russia says 12 of its servicemen have been killed in the violence, and 2,000 civilians in South Ossetia have lost their lives. Around 30,000 refugees have flooded across the border into Russia to escape the violence since Friday morning.
A senior Russian diplomat said on Saturday that the country may ask the International Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights to investigate war crimes committed by Georgia.
"I do not rule out that the Hague and Strasbourg courts and institutions in other cities will be involved in investigating these crimes, and this inhuman drama that has been played out," Deputy Foreign Minister Grigory Karasin told news agencies in an interview broadcast on the Vesti-24 TV channel.
Russian peacekeepers "were killed by their own [Georgian] partners in the peacekeeping forces," he said.
"There is a Russian battalion, an Ossetian battalion, and a Georgian battalion... and all of a sudden the Georgians, Georgian peacekeepers, begin shooting their Russian colleagues. This is of course a war crime," Karasin said.
The ongoing conflict is the most severe since South Ossetia fought its way to independence from Georgia in 1992. The majority of the local population have Russian citizenship.
Georgian Interior Ministry spokesman Shota Utiashvili said earlier that Russian combat aircraft had bombed several Georgian military bases, one near the capital Tbilisi, as well as the Black Sea port city of Poti.
Georgian media also reported airstrikes on the city of Gori, and said several civilians had been killed.
However, Russian Deputy Air Force Commander Col. Gen. Anatoly Nogovitsyn denied that warplanes had struck non-military targets.
"We are not fighting peaceful towns, and are not conducting military strikes against civilians. We are only seeking to ensure peace," he said.
Georgia says it has shot down a total of 10 Russian combat aircraft, while Russia says it has lost two planes.
The Russian government has warned that a humanitarian disaster is developing as South Ossetians, many of them injured, flee across the border into Russia.
This is more or less an official Russian viewpoint on the conflict or at least a state sanctioned report. The report of Georgian peacekeepers shooting Russian peacekeepers is interesting for it has never been mentioned in any western media reports I have seen. According to another RIA Novosti report the South Ossetian capital has been taken back from Georgia forces who had occupied it. This situation would have been been even more serious if Georgia was a member of NATO. Of course the U.S. is a big ally of Georgia. Georgia has sent troops to aid the U.S. in Iraq. It now wants them to be flown back home by the U.S. Georgia probably hoped to bolster its position prior to peace talks which had already been scheduled before Georgia mounted this offensive. The attack has no doubted backfired and created a very dangerous volatile situation.
Medvedev tells Bush Russia aims to force Georgia to accept peace
09/ 08/ 2008
MOSCOW, August 9 (RIA Novosti) - The Russian president told his U.S. counterpart on Saturday that Russia's ongoing military operation in Georgia's breakaway republic of South Ossetia is aimed at forcing Georgia to accept peace.
Bush's phone conversation with Dmitry Medvedev came after the U.S. leader called on Russia to stop bombing targets in Georgia, and voiced concern over the escalating violence.
Medvedev was quoted by the Kremlin as telling Bush: "Acting within our peacekeeping mission, and in line with the mandate issued by the international community, Russia is engaged in the task of forcing the Georgian side to accept peace, while defending the lives and property of its citizens, as is required under the Constitution and laws of the Russian Federation, and the legal standards of any civilized country.
Georgia, the main U.S. ally in the Caucasus Region, launched a major ground and air offensive to seize control of South Ossetia on Friday, prompting Russia to send in tanks and hundreds of troops. Georgia imposed martial law on Saturday after Russian warplanes began bombarding military bases.
Russia says 12 of its servicemen have been killed in the violence, and 2,000 civilians in South Ossetia have lost their lives. Around 30,000 refugees have flooded across the border into Russia to escape the violence since Friday morning.
A senior Russian diplomat said on Saturday that the country may ask the International Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights to investigate war crimes committed by Georgia.
"I do not rule out that the Hague and Strasbourg courts and institutions in other cities will be involved in investigating these crimes, and this inhuman drama that has been played out," Deputy Foreign Minister Grigory Karasin told news agencies in an interview broadcast on the Vesti-24 TV channel.
Russian peacekeepers "were killed by their own [Georgian] partners in the peacekeeping forces," he said.
"There is a Russian battalion, an Ossetian battalion, and a Georgian battalion... and all of a sudden the Georgians, Georgian peacekeepers, begin shooting their Russian colleagues. This is of course a war crime," Karasin said.
The ongoing conflict is the most severe since South Ossetia fought its way to independence from Georgia in 1992. The majority of the local population have Russian citizenship.
Georgian Interior Ministry spokesman Shota Utiashvili said earlier that Russian combat aircraft had bombed several Georgian military bases, one near the capital Tbilisi, as well as the Black Sea port city of Poti.
Georgian media also reported airstrikes on the city of Gori, and said several civilians had been killed.
However, Russian Deputy Air Force Commander Col. Gen. Anatoly Nogovitsyn denied that warplanes had struck non-military targets.
"We are not fighting peaceful towns, and are not conducting military strikes against civilians. We are only seeking to ensure peace," he said.
Georgia says it has shot down a total of 10 Russian combat aircraft, while Russia says it has lost two planes.
The Russian government has warned that a humanitarian disaster is developing as South Ossetians, many of them injured, flee across the border into Russia.
Arroyo at the Olympics
The Tribune has an article on Gloria at the Olympics. The Tribune seems to think that MILF are not obeying the orders to withdraw from positions north of Cotabato but Malaya reports that MILF troops are obeying. Anyway here is a bit about what Gloria is doing on the side in China:
What Gloria did amid this heated atmosphere that again she helped create, was to pack herself off to the Olympics.
What appears to be her first supposed working visit action was to witness the signing of a mining deal between a local company in which her close aide, Mike Defensor, who was also the former Environment and Natural Resources secretary who had the responsibility of overseeing mining projects, and sits as chairman of the board, sealed a $150 million joint venture with big Chinese mining companies.
So much for rekindling relations with the Chinese after the $329 million National Broadband Network fiasco that involved Chinese supplier ZTE Corp.
Gloria had all the reasons to stay in China for the longest possible time.
What Gloria did amid this heated atmosphere that again she helped create, was to pack herself off to the Olympics.
What appears to be her first supposed working visit action was to witness the signing of a mining deal between a local company in which her close aide, Mike Defensor, who was also the former Environment and Natural Resources secretary who had the responsibility of overseeing mining projects, and sits as chairman of the board, sealed a $150 million joint venture with big Chinese mining companies.
So much for rekindling relations with the Chinese after the $329 million National Broadband Network fiasco that involved Chinese supplier ZTE Corp.
Gloria had all the reasons to stay in China for the longest possible time.
Georgian jets and troops pound separatists
This is from thenational(Dubai)
I have seen other sources that put the casualties in the South Ossetian capital as much higher than this article reports. The separatist side had already declared a ceasefire and talks were to take place. It seems that instead Georgia decided to retake the capital first. Perhaps it was a move to put Georgia in a more powerful bargaining position as Saakashvilli is now calling for a ceasefire and negotiations. It is doubtful that Russia will have any part of this until it has re-establish at least control of the capital for the separatists.
Not only South Ossetia is a problem for Georgia but so is Abazia. Both breakaway provinces have pointed to Kosovo as a paradigm case of separation without agreement of the state (Serbia) from which Kosovo separated. Of course this time you have an ally of the US with troops in Iraq and trying to hard to join NATO. Georgia already receives lots of military aid from the U.S. This has the makings of a new cold war that might not be so cold.
Georgian jets and troops pound separatists
Last Updated: August 08. 2008 6:45PM UAE / August 8. 2008 2:45PM GMT
MEGVREKISI, Georgia // Fighting raged in and around the capital of Georgia’s breakaway South Ossetia region today as Georgian troops, backed by warplanes, pounded separatist forces in a bid to retake control of the territory.Georgia said three Russian jets had entered Georgian airspace and dropped bombs on two places just south of the territory, which has been outside central government control since the 1990s. There was no immediate comment from Moscow.The pro-western Georgian president, Mikheil Saakashvili, said his forces had “freed” the greater part of Tskhinvali, capital of the region, and accused Russia of conducting a “large-scale” operation against Georgia. He ordered a full-scale mobilisation of military reservists.
The Russian prime minister Vladimir Putin said Russia would respond to aggressive Georgian action.“The Georgian leadership has resorted to very aggressive actions in South Ossetia, in fact it started warfare using heavy armour and artillery,” Mr Putin said in Beijing, where he is on a visit.“There are casualties, including among Russian peacekeepers,” he added, speaking at a meeting with the Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbayev. “This is very sad and this will incur a response.” He did not give details.
Russian news agency Interfax said Georgian troops had entered Tskhinvali after intense battles overnight.The Georgian interior ministry spokesman Shota Utiashvili said Georgian forces had also fought two convoys of “mercenaries” that had entered South Ossetia from Russia, heading for Tskhinvali.The government and separatists envoys had been due to meet in Tskhinvali for Russian-mediated peace talks on Friday. Many houses were ablaze.
Russian peacekeepers said three of their men had been wounded and their headquarters damaged during shelling of the town, Interfax news agency reported.The Georgian prime minister Lado Gurgenidze said the military operation would continue until a “durable peace” had been reached.Russia, main backer of the separatists, accused Georgia of treachery and urged the world community to avert “massive bloodshed.”
The Kremlin said Russian President Dmitry Medvedev was holding consultations with aides on “restoring peace in South Ossetia and defending the local civilian population within the peacekeeping mandate we have”.Russian news agencies said he later summoned his top security advisers.At an emergency session of the United Nations on Thursday night, Russia failed to push through a statement that would have called on both sides to stop fighting immediately.
Council diplomats said a phrase calling on all sides to “renounce the use of force” had been unacceptable to the Georgians, backed by the United States and the Europeans.The crisis has fuelled fears of full-blown war in the region, which is emerging as a vital energy transit route and where Russia and the West are vying for influence.Georgia said the operation, launched after a week of clashes between separatists and the troops in which nearly 20 people were killed, was aimed at ending South Ossetia’s effective independence, won in a 1991-92 war.
“We are forced to restore constitutional order in the whole region,” the commander of Georgian peacekeepers in South Ossetia, Mamuka Kurashvili, told Georgian television.In Tskhinvali, thousands of people took refuge from the shelling in cellars.A Vesti-24 correspondent in Tskhinvali, Andrei Chistyakov, said at least 15 civilians had been killed in the town. “These are the people whose bodies were seen in their yards and in the streets,” he said by telephone.
Mr Saakashvili, who wants to take his small Caucasus nation into Nato, has made it a priority to win back control of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, another rebel region on the Black Sea.The issue has bedevilled Georgia’s relations with Russia, which is angered by Tbilisi’s moves towards the Western fold and its pursuit of Nato membership.On Thursday, Mr Saakashvili announced a unilateral truce and gave a go-ahead for peace talks. But just few hours later Tbilisi accused separatists of shelling Georgian-populated villages and set troops in motion.
Georgian National Security Council secretary Kakha Lomaia told Reuters that several Soviet-designed Su-25 planes took part in a strike on the village of Tkverneti.“These planes can be used again if the need arises to strike foreign mercenaries arriving in the region,” he said. “But they will not be used in Tskhinvali.”*Reuters
I have seen other sources that put the casualties in the South Ossetian capital as much higher than this article reports. The separatist side had already declared a ceasefire and talks were to take place. It seems that instead Georgia decided to retake the capital first. Perhaps it was a move to put Georgia in a more powerful bargaining position as Saakashvilli is now calling for a ceasefire and negotiations. It is doubtful that Russia will have any part of this until it has re-establish at least control of the capital for the separatists.
Not only South Ossetia is a problem for Georgia but so is Abazia. Both breakaway provinces have pointed to Kosovo as a paradigm case of separation without agreement of the state (Serbia) from which Kosovo separated. Of course this time you have an ally of the US with troops in Iraq and trying to hard to join NATO. Georgia already receives lots of military aid from the U.S. This has the makings of a new cold war that might not be so cold.
Georgian jets and troops pound separatists
Last Updated: August 08. 2008 6:45PM UAE / August 8. 2008 2:45PM GMT
MEGVREKISI, Georgia // Fighting raged in and around the capital of Georgia’s breakaway South Ossetia region today as Georgian troops, backed by warplanes, pounded separatist forces in a bid to retake control of the territory.Georgia said three Russian jets had entered Georgian airspace and dropped bombs on two places just south of the territory, which has been outside central government control since the 1990s. There was no immediate comment from Moscow.The pro-western Georgian president, Mikheil Saakashvili, said his forces had “freed” the greater part of Tskhinvali, capital of the region, and accused Russia of conducting a “large-scale” operation against Georgia. He ordered a full-scale mobilisation of military reservists.
The Russian prime minister Vladimir Putin said Russia would respond to aggressive Georgian action.“The Georgian leadership has resorted to very aggressive actions in South Ossetia, in fact it started warfare using heavy armour and artillery,” Mr Putin said in Beijing, where he is on a visit.“There are casualties, including among Russian peacekeepers,” he added, speaking at a meeting with the Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbayev. “This is very sad and this will incur a response.” He did not give details.
Russian news agency Interfax said Georgian troops had entered Tskhinvali after intense battles overnight.The Georgian interior ministry spokesman Shota Utiashvili said Georgian forces had also fought two convoys of “mercenaries” that had entered South Ossetia from Russia, heading for Tskhinvali.The government and separatists envoys had been due to meet in Tskhinvali for Russian-mediated peace talks on Friday. Many houses were ablaze.
Russian peacekeepers said three of their men had been wounded and their headquarters damaged during shelling of the town, Interfax news agency reported.The Georgian prime minister Lado Gurgenidze said the military operation would continue until a “durable peace” had been reached.Russia, main backer of the separatists, accused Georgia of treachery and urged the world community to avert “massive bloodshed.”
The Kremlin said Russian President Dmitry Medvedev was holding consultations with aides on “restoring peace in South Ossetia and defending the local civilian population within the peacekeeping mandate we have”.Russian news agencies said he later summoned his top security advisers.At an emergency session of the United Nations on Thursday night, Russia failed to push through a statement that would have called on both sides to stop fighting immediately.
Council diplomats said a phrase calling on all sides to “renounce the use of force” had been unacceptable to the Georgians, backed by the United States and the Europeans.The crisis has fuelled fears of full-blown war in the region, which is emerging as a vital energy transit route and where Russia and the West are vying for influence.Georgia said the operation, launched after a week of clashes between separatists and the troops in which nearly 20 people were killed, was aimed at ending South Ossetia’s effective independence, won in a 1991-92 war.
“We are forced to restore constitutional order in the whole region,” the commander of Georgian peacekeepers in South Ossetia, Mamuka Kurashvili, told Georgian television.In Tskhinvali, thousands of people took refuge from the shelling in cellars.A Vesti-24 correspondent in Tskhinvali, Andrei Chistyakov, said at least 15 civilians had been killed in the town. “These are the people whose bodies were seen in their yards and in the streets,” he said by telephone.
Mr Saakashvili, who wants to take his small Caucasus nation into Nato, has made it a priority to win back control of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, another rebel region on the Black Sea.The issue has bedevilled Georgia’s relations with Russia, which is angered by Tbilisi’s moves towards the Western fold and its pursuit of Nato membership.On Thursday, Mr Saakashvili announced a unilateral truce and gave a go-ahead for peace talks. But just few hours later Tbilisi accused separatists of shelling Georgian-populated villages and set troops in motion.
Georgian National Security Council secretary Kakha Lomaia told Reuters that several Soviet-designed Su-25 planes took part in a strike on the village of Tkverneti.“These planes can be used again if the need arises to strike foreign mercenaries arriving in the region,” he said. “But they will not be used in Tskhinvali.”*Reuters
Friday, August 8, 2008
Musharraf allies vow support against impeachment
This is from the BBC.
Now that Musharraf seems to be on his way out in Pakistan, U.S. policy is in dissaray. The dismissed judges have yet to be restored to their positions apparently since there is disagreement among major parties as to how this is to be done. The U.S. has been quite critical of Pakistan lately and has also negotiated a nuclear deal with India. This does not bode well for future Pakistan U.S. relationships.
Allies vow support for Musharraf
Supporters of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf have vowed to oppose moves to impeach him in parliament.
The former ruling PML-Q party says it is confident it can deny the governing coalition the two-thirds majority it needs in both houses of parliament.
Mr Musharraf has been meeting legal advisers to plan his next moves.
Ruling parties say he is incompetent and standing in the way of democracy. He has yet to respond. The US says it is an internal matter for Pakistan.
The BBC's M Ilyas Khan in Karachi says the president has apparently been exploring both his legal options and his chances to manipulate members of parliament, where the numbers appear to be loaded against him.
To observers in Pakistan, Mr Musharraf appears a worried man, as indicated by his decision to put off a visit to the Olympic Games opening ceremony in Beijing twice in as many days, our correspondent says.
'Recipe for disaster'
The media in Pakistan are quoting sources close to the president as saying he will contest the charges in parliament.
STEPS TO IMPEACHMENT
Impeachment proposers need 50% majority in Senate or National Assembly
President given notice of impeachment, and has three days to respond
Joint session of Senate and Assembly must be held between 7 and 14 days later to investigate charges
If resolution presented, joint session must approve with two-thirds majority
He himself has been keeping a low profile, but PML-Q leaders have not.
Mushahid Hussain, general secretary of the PML-Q, told Dawn News TV: "I personally oppose the president's power to sack the parliament and the government and believe it should be scrapped, but I also oppose the president's impeachment."
Another party leader, Chaudhry Pervez Elahi, said the ruling alliance had "made a hasty decision and they will be trapped in their own game".
Tariq Azim, who served as information minister under Mr Musharraf, called the impeachment move a "sure recipe for disaster".
"We are going to oppose it. It is a half-baked effort," he told the AFP news agency.
He was speaking a day after Pakistan's governing alliance leaders Asif Ali Zardari and former prime minister Nawaz Sharif addressed a packed news conference in Islamabad.
Please turn on JavaScript. Media requires JavaScript to play.
Mr Zardari (r) vowed to try to restore judges sacked under emergency rule
"The coalition believes it is imperative to move for impeachment against Gen Musharraf," said Mr Zardari, the widower of assassinated former PM Benazir Bhutto and leader of Pakistan People's Party (PPP).
PML-N leader Mr Sharif said: "Pakistan cannot afford to see democracy derailed."
The leaders also promised to restore judges sacked under Mr Musharraf's emergency rule last November once impeachment was successful.
How to proceed on that issue has caused deep divisions between the two coalition parties since they swept elections in February.
Military role
An impeachment would take Pakistani politics into new territory, since no Pakistani leader has faced it before. Coalition leaders insist they have the numbers in parliament.
Mr Musharraf has previously said he would rather resign than face impeachment proceedings, but our correspondent says he appears bent on fighting back.
The process could drag on for weeks through Pakistan's provincial assemblies, its parliament and also perhaps its courts.
The president retains the power to dissolve parliament, but most analysts believe he is unlikely to do this.
He took power in a bloodless coup in 1999 and gave up control of the army last year. His allies were routed in elections in February.
Mr Musharraf was elected president for a five-year term last October in a controversial parliamentary vote. He is still thought to have heavy influence over the military and its reaction will remain crucial.
Pakistan has been ruled by military leaders for more than half of its existence since Partition in 1947.
Now that Musharraf seems to be on his way out in Pakistan, U.S. policy is in dissaray. The dismissed judges have yet to be restored to their positions apparently since there is disagreement among major parties as to how this is to be done. The U.S. has been quite critical of Pakistan lately and has also negotiated a nuclear deal with India. This does not bode well for future Pakistan U.S. relationships.
Allies vow support for Musharraf
Supporters of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf have vowed to oppose moves to impeach him in parliament.
The former ruling PML-Q party says it is confident it can deny the governing coalition the two-thirds majority it needs in both houses of parliament.
Mr Musharraf has been meeting legal advisers to plan his next moves.
Ruling parties say he is incompetent and standing in the way of democracy. He has yet to respond. The US says it is an internal matter for Pakistan.
The BBC's M Ilyas Khan in Karachi says the president has apparently been exploring both his legal options and his chances to manipulate members of parliament, where the numbers appear to be loaded against him.
To observers in Pakistan, Mr Musharraf appears a worried man, as indicated by his decision to put off a visit to the Olympic Games opening ceremony in Beijing twice in as many days, our correspondent says.
'Recipe for disaster'
The media in Pakistan are quoting sources close to the president as saying he will contest the charges in parliament.
STEPS TO IMPEACHMENT
Impeachment proposers need 50% majority in Senate or National Assembly
President given notice of impeachment, and has three days to respond
Joint session of Senate and Assembly must be held between 7 and 14 days later to investigate charges
If resolution presented, joint session must approve with two-thirds majority
He himself has been keeping a low profile, but PML-Q leaders have not.
Mushahid Hussain, general secretary of the PML-Q, told Dawn News TV: "I personally oppose the president's power to sack the parliament and the government and believe it should be scrapped, but I also oppose the president's impeachment."
Another party leader, Chaudhry Pervez Elahi, said the ruling alliance had "made a hasty decision and they will be trapped in their own game".
Tariq Azim, who served as information minister under Mr Musharraf, called the impeachment move a "sure recipe for disaster".
"We are going to oppose it. It is a half-baked effort," he told the AFP news agency.
He was speaking a day after Pakistan's governing alliance leaders Asif Ali Zardari and former prime minister Nawaz Sharif addressed a packed news conference in Islamabad.
Please turn on JavaScript. Media requires JavaScript to play.
Mr Zardari (r) vowed to try to restore judges sacked under emergency rule
"The coalition believes it is imperative to move for impeachment against Gen Musharraf," said Mr Zardari, the widower of assassinated former PM Benazir Bhutto and leader of Pakistan People's Party (PPP).
PML-N leader Mr Sharif said: "Pakistan cannot afford to see democracy derailed."
The leaders also promised to restore judges sacked under Mr Musharraf's emergency rule last November once impeachment was successful.
How to proceed on that issue has caused deep divisions between the two coalition parties since they swept elections in February.
Military role
An impeachment would take Pakistani politics into new territory, since no Pakistani leader has faced it before. Coalition leaders insist they have the numbers in parliament.
Mr Musharraf has previously said he would rather resign than face impeachment proceedings, but our correspondent says he appears bent on fighting back.
The process could drag on for weeks through Pakistan's provincial assemblies, its parliament and also perhaps its courts.
The president retains the power to dissolve parliament, but most analysts believe he is unlikely to do this.
He took power in a bloodless coup in 1999 and gave up control of the army last year. His allies were routed in elections in February.
Mr Musharraf was elected president for a five-year term last October in a controversial parliamentary vote. He is still thought to have heavy influence over the military and its reaction will remain crucial.
Pakistan has been ruled by military leaders for more than half of its existence since Partition in 1947.
Georgia fighting undermines markets (Russian)
This is from Reuters.
Imagine what would happen if Georgia were already part of NATO. If that were the case then other world markets might be down on this news as well. Not too much coverage of this in the West. Everyone is busy with the opening of the Olympics in China!
Georgia fighting undermines markets
Fri Aug 8, 2008 6:35am EDTBy Peter AppsLONDON, Aug 8 (Reuters) - Heavy fighting between Georgia and separatists -- and Russian threats of a "response" -- undermined Russian assets and broader emerging markets on Friday, with a stronger dollar also hitting currencies.Georgian troops and warplanes pounded separatist forces around the capital of its breakaway South Ossetia region, and Georgia accused Russian jets of bombing its territory.Benchmark emerging equities were down 0.91 percent by 1000 GMT, with Russian stocks among the greatest losers, down 2.89 percent -- a move also attributed in part to a weaker oil price and broader global equity sell-off."The military conflict is obviously adding to negative sentiment, not just for Russia but for emerging markets in general," said emerging market strategist Nigel Rendell at Royal Bank of Canada. "If it is still continuing after the weekend I think we will see further weakness."Russian President Vladimir Putin said the Georgian leadership had resorted to "very aggressive actions", saying some Russian peacekeepers were among the casualties and that would "incur a response".The rouble weakened around 20 kopecks against the basket of 0.55 dollar and 0.45 euros, although analysts said this was in part due to a sharp retreat in the euro after dovish European Central bank comments on Thursday.But investor sentiment in Russia is already dented by sharp falls in oil and commodity prices during July as well as worries over a battle for control of oil giant BP's local joint-venture and an attack by Putin on coalminer Mechel. So a clash with the West over Georgia is seen as bad news.Russian stocks are down 22 percent this year."There is now a very serious risk of mass equity sales on the Russian market," said Sobinbank head of market analysis Alexander Razauvaev, advising against short-term positions in an increasingly volatile market. The cost of insuring Russian debt in the credit default swaps market increased slightly to 106 basis points from Thursday's 102.Georgia has little in the way of traded international instruments except for its $500 million Eurobond launched earlier this year, which is relatively illiquid. Ratings agency Fitch warned on Thursday before overnight fighting that an escalation to all out conflict could hurt its creditworthiness.
© Thomson Reuters 2008. All rights reserved. Users may download and print extracts of content from this website for their own personal and non-commercial use only.
Thursday, August 7, 2008
MILF told to pull back from area in North Cotabato
This is from Malaya. Barangays are local areas somewhat like counties in the U.S. or townships in Canada. Issues involving the MILF (Moro Islamic Liberation Front) aren't solved yet even though it seems as if there is a general agreement and a ceasefire seems to be holding more or less.
MILF told: Pull back in 24 hours or else.14 barangays occupied by 800-man rebel band
BY RAYMOND AFRICA
INTERIOR Secretary Ronaldo Puno yesterday gave the Moro Islamic Liberation Front up to 10 a.m. today to vacate areas it has occupied in North Cotabato, on pain of an all-out offensive.
Puno said reports reaching his office showed some 800 MILF members under one Commander Umbrahato of the MILF's 105th Base Command have taken over 14 barangays in five towns since July 1.
Puno clarified that the 24-hour ultimatum was not a declaration of war but a "declaration of the rule of law."
He said the rebels also torched nearly 100 houses, looted farms and stole cattle and other livestock. Their actions forced hundreds of farmers from nearby areas to arm themselves, Puno said.
The MILF said the reports have to be verified. If proven true, the rebels should leave, said Ghadzali Jaafar, MILF vice chairman for political affairs.
North Cotabato Vice Gov. Manny Piñol said the MILF has long taken control of at least three communities in his province and had even taken hostage 20 government personnel, seven of them soldiers. He also said MILF attacks have been escalating in the past three weeks.
Puno said the areas occupied by the MILF are not included among at least 700 barangays to be covered by a proposed expanded Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao.
These are barangays Bago-Libas, Dungguan, Dulaing, and Panganan in Aleosan town; Central Labas, Patindigan, Upper Labas, Lagumbingan, Rangaban, and Baliki in Midsayap; Cabpangi in Pigkawayan; Gayunga in Northern Kabuntulan; and Cabpangi and Gumagun in Libungan.
Puno said 1,596 families composed of 6,547 individuals were displaced in Midsayap, 907 families in Aleosan, 2,611 families in Dualing, and 2,806 in Pagangan.
Puno said the decision to give the MILF an ultimatum followed a meeting Wednesday night with the National Security Council.
He instructed PNP chief Avelino Razon Jr. to deploy three battalions (about 900 men) from the PNP Special Action Force to enforce the law in the area.
The SAF contingent, which will be backed by soldiers, was tasked to disarm some 400 civilian military volunteers who were seen roaming in barangays of Aleosan carrying firearms and have reportedly occupied Muslim communities.
"This contingent of the PNP will lead the clearing of these barangays that have been forcibly occupied (by the MILF) and enforce the rules and the laws on the carrying of firearms by CVOs (civilian volunteer organizations)," he said.
Puno said the government views the incident as "plain lawlessness since there is no justification for taking arms."
"The main purpose of this exercise is to allow them (displaced residents) to return to their residences and resume their normal lives," he said.
NO FORCES
Jaafar said the MILF has no forces to withdraw from the areas. He said MILF men have long been deployed in the areas that were supposedly forcibly occupied by the secessionist group.
"Hindi incursion yun dahil matagal na sila diyan," he said, adding an impartial investigation will clear the matter.
He said if additional MILF men went to those areas, the MILF will withdraw them. "We respect the cease-fire agreement as we have been explaining to everybody."
"Yung MILF na hindi dapat nandun, yun ang aalis kung meron. Pero I doubt kung meron. Ang MILF na nandiyan ay dati nang nandiyan, yung mga local na MILF," he said.
"Ang ibig sabihin kung may pumunta diyan at pumwesto dun sa lugar na hindi nila dati puwesto, kung meron, e dapat i-withdraw yun and we will comply," he added.
Jaafar said the MILF does not see the ultimatum as a form of harassment. He noted Puno's order was for the disarming of the civilian volunteers.
Eid Kabalu, MILF spokesman, said: "We only know of one town where there was fighting last month, so we can't really say our forces forcibly occupied several villages in three to five towns in North Cotabato."
CO-EXISTENCE
North Cotabato Gov. Jesus Sacdalan said the local government had been "co-existing" with the MILF until the arrival of the 105th Base Command under Umbrahato. He said at least three women have died in atrocities committed by Umbrahato's men.
Sacdalan also said they are surprised as to why the MILF has been occupying the communities when the MOA has not been signed.
"Wala pa nga yung BJE, ito na umaarte na itong militant na MILF. Actually yung mga MILF na nandito, yung mga nagha-harass sa amin, nanununog ng bahay, nagnanakaw ng hayop at hina-harvest yung mga palay ng Kristyano at mga local na mga Muslims ay hindi taga rito. Taga kung saan saan galing," he said.
Sacdalan, Piñol and other officials are opposing the inclusion of their province in the expanded ARMM, to be called the Bangsamoro Juridical Entity.
On Monday, the Supreme Court granted their petition for a temporary restraining order on the signing of a memorandum of agreement on ancestral domain with the MILF. The signing had been set for the next day in Kuala Lumpur. The MOA, among others, would expand the ARMM through at least 700 barangays in the non-ARMM provinces. Zamboanga City has filed a similar petition with the tribunal.
'NORMAL MOVEMENT'
Warnings about the outbreak of clashes between the MILF and government forces have been aired following the aborted MOA signing. The MILF has said it considers the MOA a done deal.
Piñol said Hermogenes Esperon, presidential adviser on the peace process, was aware of the MILF attacks in two barangays as early as last June.
He said he told Esperon there was a movement by the MILF in Aleosan and Pikit areas before he left for the US late June "and all they told me it's just a normal movement of the MILF, there's nothing to worry about."
"When I was already in the US, I was informed that the group of Ameril Umbrakatu (Umbrahato), parang fundamentalist group ng MILF under Ustadz Jamir Salamat, 'yung kapatid ni Hashim Salamat, attacked Barangay Dungguan in Aleosan and Barangay Baliki, these are neighboring barangays," he told a forum at the Senate.
COTABATO OUTRAGED
Piñol said the attacks even resulted in the hostage-taking of 13 paramilitary personnel and seven soldiers by the MILF.
He said the whole of North Cotabato is outraged that such attacks happened right under the noses of the military.
"Can you imagine allowing the MILF to encircle 20 of your men? Can you imagine what self-respecting government would do this, would allow this?" Piñol said.
Armed Forces chief Gen. Alexander Yano, who was in North Cotabato yesterday, said hostilities could break out if the rebels refuse to leave the communities they have forcibly occupied.
But he expressed optimism the rebels would withdraw in line with the cease-fire agreement forged in 2004 and in deference to the ongoing peace negotiations between the government and the MILF.
"The lands owned and tilled by some of our settlers here are forcibly occupied allegedly by MILF elements so because of that the settlers forcibly left. We will enforce the law by evicting this people so that we can bring back the lawful and rightful owners of those lands," he said.
MILF told: Pull back in 24 hours or else.14 barangays occupied by 800-man rebel band
BY RAYMOND AFRICA
INTERIOR Secretary Ronaldo Puno yesterday gave the Moro Islamic Liberation Front up to 10 a.m. today to vacate areas it has occupied in North Cotabato, on pain of an all-out offensive.
Puno said reports reaching his office showed some 800 MILF members under one Commander Umbrahato of the MILF's 105th Base Command have taken over 14 barangays in five towns since July 1.
Puno clarified that the 24-hour ultimatum was not a declaration of war but a "declaration of the rule of law."
He said the rebels also torched nearly 100 houses, looted farms and stole cattle and other livestock. Their actions forced hundreds of farmers from nearby areas to arm themselves, Puno said.
The MILF said the reports have to be verified. If proven true, the rebels should leave, said Ghadzali Jaafar, MILF vice chairman for political affairs.
North Cotabato Vice Gov. Manny Piñol said the MILF has long taken control of at least three communities in his province and had even taken hostage 20 government personnel, seven of them soldiers. He also said MILF attacks have been escalating in the past three weeks.
Puno said the areas occupied by the MILF are not included among at least 700 barangays to be covered by a proposed expanded Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao.
These are barangays Bago-Libas, Dungguan, Dulaing, and Panganan in Aleosan town; Central Labas, Patindigan, Upper Labas, Lagumbingan, Rangaban, and Baliki in Midsayap; Cabpangi in Pigkawayan; Gayunga in Northern Kabuntulan; and Cabpangi and Gumagun in Libungan.
Puno said 1,596 families composed of 6,547 individuals were displaced in Midsayap, 907 families in Aleosan, 2,611 families in Dualing, and 2,806 in Pagangan.
Puno said the decision to give the MILF an ultimatum followed a meeting Wednesday night with the National Security Council.
He instructed PNP chief Avelino Razon Jr. to deploy three battalions (about 900 men) from the PNP Special Action Force to enforce the law in the area.
The SAF contingent, which will be backed by soldiers, was tasked to disarm some 400 civilian military volunteers who were seen roaming in barangays of Aleosan carrying firearms and have reportedly occupied Muslim communities.
"This contingent of the PNP will lead the clearing of these barangays that have been forcibly occupied (by the MILF) and enforce the rules and the laws on the carrying of firearms by CVOs (civilian volunteer organizations)," he said.
Puno said the government views the incident as "plain lawlessness since there is no justification for taking arms."
"The main purpose of this exercise is to allow them (displaced residents) to return to their residences and resume their normal lives," he said.
NO FORCES
Jaafar said the MILF has no forces to withdraw from the areas. He said MILF men have long been deployed in the areas that were supposedly forcibly occupied by the secessionist group.
"Hindi incursion yun dahil matagal na sila diyan," he said, adding an impartial investigation will clear the matter.
He said if additional MILF men went to those areas, the MILF will withdraw them. "We respect the cease-fire agreement as we have been explaining to everybody."
"Yung MILF na hindi dapat nandun, yun ang aalis kung meron. Pero I doubt kung meron. Ang MILF na nandiyan ay dati nang nandiyan, yung mga local na MILF," he said.
"Ang ibig sabihin kung may pumunta diyan at pumwesto dun sa lugar na hindi nila dati puwesto, kung meron, e dapat i-withdraw yun and we will comply," he added.
Jaafar said the MILF does not see the ultimatum as a form of harassment. He noted Puno's order was for the disarming of the civilian volunteers.
Eid Kabalu, MILF spokesman, said: "We only know of one town where there was fighting last month, so we can't really say our forces forcibly occupied several villages in three to five towns in North Cotabato."
CO-EXISTENCE
North Cotabato Gov. Jesus Sacdalan said the local government had been "co-existing" with the MILF until the arrival of the 105th Base Command under Umbrahato. He said at least three women have died in atrocities committed by Umbrahato's men.
Sacdalan also said they are surprised as to why the MILF has been occupying the communities when the MOA has not been signed.
"Wala pa nga yung BJE, ito na umaarte na itong militant na MILF. Actually yung mga MILF na nandito, yung mga nagha-harass sa amin, nanununog ng bahay, nagnanakaw ng hayop at hina-harvest yung mga palay ng Kristyano at mga local na mga Muslims ay hindi taga rito. Taga kung saan saan galing," he said.
Sacdalan, Piñol and other officials are opposing the inclusion of their province in the expanded ARMM, to be called the Bangsamoro Juridical Entity.
On Monday, the Supreme Court granted their petition for a temporary restraining order on the signing of a memorandum of agreement on ancestral domain with the MILF. The signing had been set for the next day in Kuala Lumpur. The MOA, among others, would expand the ARMM through at least 700 barangays in the non-ARMM provinces. Zamboanga City has filed a similar petition with the tribunal.
'NORMAL MOVEMENT'
Warnings about the outbreak of clashes between the MILF and government forces have been aired following the aborted MOA signing. The MILF has said it considers the MOA a done deal.
Piñol said Hermogenes Esperon, presidential adviser on the peace process, was aware of the MILF attacks in two barangays as early as last June.
He said he told Esperon there was a movement by the MILF in Aleosan and Pikit areas before he left for the US late June "and all they told me it's just a normal movement of the MILF, there's nothing to worry about."
"When I was already in the US, I was informed that the group of Ameril Umbrakatu (Umbrahato), parang fundamentalist group ng MILF under Ustadz Jamir Salamat, 'yung kapatid ni Hashim Salamat, attacked Barangay Dungguan in Aleosan and Barangay Baliki, these are neighboring barangays," he told a forum at the Senate.
COTABATO OUTRAGED
Piñol said the attacks even resulted in the hostage-taking of 13 paramilitary personnel and seven soldiers by the MILF.
He said the whole of North Cotabato is outraged that such attacks happened right under the noses of the military.
"Can you imagine allowing the MILF to encircle 20 of your men? Can you imagine what self-respecting government would do this, would allow this?" Piñol said.
Armed Forces chief Gen. Alexander Yano, who was in North Cotabato yesterday, said hostilities could break out if the rebels refuse to leave the communities they have forcibly occupied.
But he expressed optimism the rebels would withdraw in line with the cease-fire agreement forged in 2004 and in deference to the ongoing peace negotiations between the government and the MILF.
"The lands owned and tilled by some of our settlers here are forcibly occupied allegedly by MILF elements so because of that the settlers forcibly left. We will enforce the law by evicting this people so that we can bring back the lawful and rightful owners of those lands," he said.
Israel to free 150 prisoners to boost Abbas in peace talks
This is from AFP.
There are still over 11000 Palestinians in Israeli jails. Rather surprisingly Abbas even asked for the release of some prisoners who are not part of Fatah. The article does not say if any Hamas prisoners were released. It is unlikely. Hamas prisoners could be a bargaining chip in obtaining the release of an Israeli captured by Hamas.
Israel to free 150 prisoners to boost Abbas in peace talks
JERUSALEM (AFP) — Israel will release more than 150 Palestinian prisoners later this month as a goodwill gesture to president Mahmud Abbas as part of US-backed peace talks, officials said on Wednesday.
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's spokesman Mark Regev said the release came in response to a request by Abbas.
"We hope this gesture will help the peace process," he told reporters after the latest meeting between the two leaders, referring to US-backed talks formally relaunched at an international conference in November.
Senior Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erakat said the meeting was "successful" and that Israel had agreed to release more than 150 Palestinian prisoners.
"We agreed with the Israelis there will be a new batch of prisoners released on the 25th of August," Erakat told reporters after the meeting.
Erakat declined to give names but said Abbas urged Israel to release several prominent and long-serving prisoners, including Marwan Barghuti, a popular leader in Abbas's Fatah party seen as a leading contender to succeed the Palestinian president.
Barghuti, a West Bank leader considered to have masterminded the second Palestinian uprising in 2000, was jailed in 2004 and is serving five life sentences for his role in deadly attacks.
Abbas also wants Israel to release prominent leaders from other factions, including parliament speaker Aziz Dweik from the Islamist Hamas movement, and Ahmed Saadat, the leader of the leftist Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), Erakat said.
There are currently more than 11,000 Palestinians jailed in Israel, including at least 85 women and children, and 11 seriously ill people.
There are still over 11000 Palestinians in Israeli jails. Rather surprisingly Abbas even asked for the release of some prisoners who are not part of Fatah. The article does not say if any Hamas prisoners were released. It is unlikely. Hamas prisoners could be a bargaining chip in obtaining the release of an Israeli captured by Hamas.
Israel to free 150 prisoners to boost Abbas in peace talks
JERUSALEM (AFP) — Israel will release more than 150 Palestinian prisoners later this month as a goodwill gesture to president Mahmud Abbas as part of US-backed peace talks, officials said on Wednesday.
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's spokesman Mark Regev said the release came in response to a request by Abbas.
"We hope this gesture will help the peace process," he told reporters after the latest meeting between the two leaders, referring to US-backed talks formally relaunched at an international conference in November.
Senior Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erakat said the meeting was "successful" and that Israel had agreed to release more than 150 Palestinian prisoners.
"We agreed with the Israelis there will be a new batch of prisoners released on the 25th of August," Erakat told reporters after the meeting.
Erakat declined to give names but said Abbas urged Israel to release several prominent and long-serving prisoners, including Marwan Barghuti, a popular leader in Abbas's Fatah party seen as a leading contender to succeed the Palestinian president.
Barghuti, a West Bank leader considered to have masterminded the second Palestinian uprising in 2000, was jailed in 2004 and is serving five life sentences for his role in deadly attacks.
Abbas also wants Israel to release prominent leaders from other factions, including parliament speaker Aziz Dweik from the Islamist Hamas movement, and Ahmed Saadat, the leader of the leftist Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), Erakat said.
There are currently more than 11,000 Palestinians jailed in Israel, including at least 85 women and children, and 11 seriously ill people.
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Philippines should develop higher value strategy in electronics industry
This is from Buiness Week. This makes good sense. Developing a higher value strategy would also provide high tech jobs for Filipinos and allow them to stay at home rather than exporting skilled labor to other countries.
The Philippines: Competing with China and Vietnam
Technology columnist Dennis Posadas says the Philippines can no longer compete on the basis of cheap labor. It must switch to a higher-value strategy
by Dennis Posadas
The Philippines, like many countries in Asia, relies significantly on electronics and semiconductors for job growth and export earnings. According to the Semiconductor & Electronics Industries of the Philippines, the local industry advocacy group, the sector currently earns around $31 billion annually in exports and employs around 460,000 people. The industry in the Philippines dates back to the 1970s and 1980s, the years of the first wave of manufacturing outsourcing to Asia by the electronics and semiconductor industry. Companies like Texas Instruments (TXN) and Intel (INTC) took advantage of cheaper wages to transfer labor-intensive assembly operations such as chip inspection, packaging, and eventually chip electrical testing.
The three-decade strategy of wooing foreign semiconductor/electronics multinationals to locate in the Philippines mainly through a cost carrot has worked well. But emerging signs indicate that a major strategy shift for the Philippines is long overdue. While TI has a new chip factory in Clark, a former U.S. Air Force base north of Manila that is now a free-trade zone, the country is becoming less attractive for some electronics manufacturers. Companies like Toshiba, for instance, have moved their laptop manufacturing operations from the Philippines to China; others are looking closely at Vietnam, where Intel has a new plant.
Unlike neighbors Malaysia, Singapore, and Taiwan, the Philippines has never pursued a serious higher-value strategy approach to electronics and semiconductors, preferring instead to rely on the country's status as a cheap manufacturing destination to attract investors. The key parts of this strategy are the export processing zones, tax- and duty-free areas designated by the government since the '70s to attract factories (and therefore jobs) in various places around the country. The idea was for a foreign multinational to import the sophisticated equipment and material that go into a chip, hire local labor, and export the products back to home while keeping costs down until a cheaper location came along.
Seasoned Engineers Are a Must
Aside from the typical concerns about political stability and business climate, cost considerations are extremely important in considering where to locate a major high-tech factory. But as high-tech manufacturing becomes more sophisticated and technical problems become harder to solve, one important consideration that these new semiconductor processes require is access to large pools of seasoned engineers and scientists with graduate degrees. Another consideration is access to suppliers of equipment and materials.
To shift to this new, higher-value-added strategy, the Philippines needs to make sure that industry works closely with key universities. This also means the Philippine government really needs to beef up its efforts in science and technology education. The Engineering Research & Development for Technology consortium, a group of seven universities led by the University of the Philippines to increase the number of master's and PhD degree holders in engineering and the sciences, is a right step in this direction. So if the Philippines really wants to show it can offer value to these big technology names, it should work on beefing up the numbers of engineers and scientists and have them work closely with industry.
One of the possible areas the Philippines can explore is chip and firmware design. Although the chip designer population is still small relative to its neighbors, big companies like Sanyo, Bit Micro, Numonyx, Rohm, and Canon (CAJ), and smaller startups like Symphony Consulting and Blue Chip, are designing chips and firmware using local talent. At the University of the Philippines, students and faculty members are designing chips and sending them for fabrication to TSMC (TSM) in Taiwan, courtesy of a grant by Intel.
Cost Savings in Local Suppliers
Another way to improve its value-added proposition is for the Philippines to try to localize some of the equipment and materials requirements of high-tech multinationals. Purchasing managers from these multinational companies are always on the lookout for better, faster, and cheaper suppliers for their needs. A year before Toshiba pulled its laptop assembly operations out of the Philippines, the company announced it was trying to localize some of its suppliers, presumably to save on costs. If it had succeeded in localizing enough of its suppliers, they could have acted as an additional buffer against Toshiba's eventual decision to pull out from the country. It would have also kept some jobs intact, even with the pullout, as supplier contracts (particularly for equipment and materials) do not necessarily terminate when a factory pulls out.
From my experience as a former chip industry engineer and analyst, a breakdown of the accounting costs of assembling and testing a microchip in Asia will reveal that most of the costs associated with chipmaking are really from the capital costs of the equipment and the direct materials (such as multilayer printed circuit boards and plastic molding compounds) that go into the chip, and not from electricity or even labor costs.
But to be able to come up with a local tech sector composed of these sophisticated, locally developed equipment and materials suppliers, the Philippines needs to develop and nurture the technology entrepreneurs who will eventually supply their products to the Intels, Toshibas, and TIs of the world. It requires a Silicon Valley-type innovation ecosystem where technology entrepreneurs are supported by universities, research laboratories, technology suppliers, patent laws, and angel and venture capital.
Moving Beyond Contract Manufacturing
Malaysia, Taiwan, China, Singapore, and Korea have done the same in the past and have executed it successfully. One Malaysian equipment supplier I worked with during my stint as an engineer at Intel started out as a machine shop, then slowly worked its way up to become a sophisticated equipment supplier to companies like Intel and Motorola (MOT). In the U.S., of course, Intel and Microsoft (MSFT) saw their fortunes change when they became suppliers for IBM (IBM) in the '80s. To some extent, some of the local electronics manufacturing companies like Integrated Microelectronics and Ionics are moving beyond contract manufacturing to become original device manufacturers and eventually original brand manufacturers like what HTC in Taiwan and Ningbo Bird in China are doing.
It is not easy, but companies like Intel and TI have been in the Philippines for three decades now, and yet their purchasing power for locally developed technology suppliers has barely been touched. No single country or company can dominate the whole spectrum and permutations of equipment and material needs for the sector. Therefore, companies and countries can simply pick the equipment and material niches they want to specialize and do business in.
For the Philippines to think it can still win the cost game using only the traditional metrics like labor and electricity against countries like Vietnam and China is simply sheer folly. To expand its electronics and semiconductor sector vis-à-vis the rest of Asia, it should seriously pursue a higher-value-added strategy premised on beefing up the number of MS/PhD degree holders, doing higher-value-added activities like chip design, and localizing equipment and materials to make itself more attractive to the tech giants.
Dennis Posadas is a former Intel engineer/analyst and is currently the deputy executive director of the Philippines' Congressional Commission on Science & Technology and Engineering (COMSTE). He is the author of RICE & CHIPS: Technopreneurship and Innovation in Asia (Singapore: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2007) and is a Manila-based technology columnist.
The Philippines: Competing with China and Vietnam
Technology columnist Dennis Posadas says the Philippines can no longer compete on the basis of cheap labor. It must switch to a higher-value strategy
by Dennis Posadas
The Philippines, like many countries in Asia, relies significantly on electronics and semiconductors for job growth and export earnings. According to the Semiconductor & Electronics Industries of the Philippines, the local industry advocacy group, the sector currently earns around $31 billion annually in exports and employs around 460,000 people. The industry in the Philippines dates back to the 1970s and 1980s, the years of the first wave of manufacturing outsourcing to Asia by the electronics and semiconductor industry. Companies like Texas Instruments (TXN) and Intel (INTC) took advantage of cheaper wages to transfer labor-intensive assembly operations such as chip inspection, packaging, and eventually chip electrical testing.
The three-decade strategy of wooing foreign semiconductor/electronics multinationals to locate in the Philippines mainly through a cost carrot has worked well. But emerging signs indicate that a major strategy shift for the Philippines is long overdue. While TI has a new chip factory in Clark, a former U.S. Air Force base north of Manila that is now a free-trade zone, the country is becoming less attractive for some electronics manufacturers. Companies like Toshiba, for instance, have moved their laptop manufacturing operations from the Philippines to China; others are looking closely at Vietnam, where Intel has a new plant.
Unlike neighbors Malaysia, Singapore, and Taiwan, the Philippines has never pursued a serious higher-value strategy approach to electronics and semiconductors, preferring instead to rely on the country's status as a cheap manufacturing destination to attract investors. The key parts of this strategy are the export processing zones, tax- and duty-free areas designated by the government since the '70s to attract factories (and therefore jobs) in various places around the country. The idea was for a foreign multinational to import the sophisticated equipment and material that go into a chip, hire local labor, and export the products back to home while keeping costs down until a cheaper location came along.
Seasoned Engineers Are a Must
Aside from the typical concerns about political stability and business climate, cost considerations are extremely important in considering where to locate a major high-tech factory. But as high-tech manufacturing becomes more sophisticated and technical problems become harder to solve, one important consideration that these new semiconductor processes require is access to large pools of seasoned engineers and scientists with graduate degrees. Another consideration is access to suppliers of equipment and materials.
To shift to this new, higher-value-added strategy, the Philippines needs to make sure that industry works closely with key universities. This also means the Philippine government really needs to beef up its efforts in science and technology education. The Engineering Research & Development for Technology consortium, a group of seven universities led by the University of the Philippines to increase the number of master's and PhD degree holders in engineering and the sciences, is a right step in this direction. So if the Philippines really wants to show it can offer value to these big technology names, it should work on beefing up the numbers of engineers and scientists and have them work closely with industry.
One of the possible areas the Philippines can explore is chip and firmware design. Although the chip designer population is still small relative to its neighbors, big companies like Sanyo, Bit Micro, Numonyx, Rohm, and Canon (CAJ), and smaller startups like Symphony Consulting and Blue Chip, are designing chips and firmware using local talent. At the University of the Philippines, students and faculty members are designing chips and sending them for fabrication to TSMC (TSM) in Taiwan, courtesy of a grant by Intel.
Cost Savings in Local Suppliers
Another way to improve its value-added proposition is for the Philippines to try to localize some of the equipment and materials requirements of high-tech multinationals. Purchasing managers from these multinational companies are always on the lookout for better, faster, and cheaper suppliers for their needs. A year before Toshiba pulled its laptop assembly operations out of the Philippines, the company announced it was trying to localize some of its suppliers, presumably to save on costs. If it had succeeded in localizing enough of its suppliers, they could have acted as an additional buffer against Toshiba's eventual decision to pull out from the country. It would have also kept some jobs intact, even with the pullout, as supplier contracts (particularly for equipment and materials) do not necessarily terminate when a factory pulls out.
From my experience as a former chip industry engineer and analyst, a breakdown of the accounting costs of assembling and testing a microchip in Asia will reveal that most of the costs associated with chipmaking are really from the capital costs of the equipment and the direct materials (such as multilayer printed circuit boards and plastic molding compounds) that go into the chip, and not from electricity or even labor costs.
But to be able to come up with a local tech sector composed of these sophisticated, locally developed equipment and materials suppliers, the Philippines needs to develop and nurture the technology entrepreneurs who will eventually supply their products to the Intels, Toshibas, and TIs of the world. It requires a Silicon Valley-type innovation ecosystem where technology entrepreneurs are supported by universities, research laboratories, technology suppliers, patent laws, and angel and venture capital.
Moving Beyond Contract Manufacturing
Malaysia, Taiwan, China, Singapore, and Korea have done the same in the past and have executed it successfully. One Malaysian equipment supplier I worked with during my stint as an engineer at Intel started out as a machine shop, then slowly worked its way up to become a sophisticated equipment supplier to companies like Intel and Motorola (MOT). In the U.S., of course, Intel and Microsoft (MSFT) saw their fortunes change when they became suppliers for IBM (IBM) in the '80s. To some extent, some of the local electronics manufacturing companies like Integrated Microelectronics and Ionics are moving beyond contract manufacturing to become original device manufacturers and eventually original brand manufacturers like what HTC in Taiwan and Ningbo Bird in China are doing.
It is not easy, but companies like Intel and TI have been in the Philippines for three decades now, and yet their purchasing power for locally developed technology suppliers has barely been touched. No single country or company can dominate the whole spectrum and permutations of equipment and material needs for the sector. Therefore, companies and countries can simply pick the equipment and material niches they want to specialize and do business in.
For the Philippines to think it can still win the cost game using only the traditional metrics like labor and electricity against countries like Vietnam and China is simply sheer folly. To expand its electronics and semiconductor sector vis-à-vis the rest of Asia, it should seriously pursue a higher-value-added strategy premised on beefing up the number of MS/PhD degree holders, doing higher-value-added activities like chip design, and localizing equipment and materials to make itself more attractive to the tech giants.
Dennis Posadas is a former Intel engineer/analyst and is currently the deputy executive director of the Philippines' Congressional Commission on Science & Technology and Engineering (COMSTE). He is the author of RICE & CHIPS: Technopreneurship and Innovation in Asia (Singapore: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2007) and is a Manila-based technology columnist.
Mauritania army stages coup
This is from AP
I wonder what the U.S. position will be on this. The govt. was freely elected but it has been reaching out to Islamic hardliners which is a no-no for the U.S. Maybe the U.S. will formally criticise the coup but in effect recognise the junta as happened in Thailand. It will request a return to democracy but not with the old guard in power of course but a new government more in line with U.S. thinking.
Mauritania army stages coup; junta takes charge
By AHMED MOHAMED and TODD PITMAN – 59 minutes ago
NOUAKCHOTT, Mauritania (AP) — Army officers upset with government overtures toward Islamic hard-liners staged a coup in Mauritania on Wednesday, overthrowing the first government to be freely elected in this sprawling desert nation in more than 20 years.
The coup in Africa's newest oil producer took place after the president and prime minister fired the country's top four military officials, reportedly for supporting lawmakers who had accused the president of corruption and disagreed with how he was reaching out to Islamic hard-liners.
A brief announcement read over state television Wednesday said the new "state council" will be led by presidential guard chief Gen. Mohamed Ould Abdel Aziz, one of the four fired generals. The statement also restored the jobs of the other three generals.
President Sidi Ould Cheikh Abdallahi was being held by renegade soldiers at the presidential palace in Nouakchott, according to presidential spokesman Abdoulaye Mamadouba. Soldiers also detained Prime Minister Yahya Ould Ahmed Waqef, he said.
State radio and television went off air as the coup began and witnesses said soldiers were deployed throughout the capital. No violence was reported.
The continentwide African Union condemned the coup and said it would send the head of its peace and security council to the Mauritanian capital later this week. The AU's top official, Jean Ping, said in a statement the organization "demands the restoration of constitutional legality."
I wonder what the U.S. position will be on this. The govt. was freely elected but it has been reaching out to Islamic hardliners which is a no-no for the U.S. Maybe the U.S. will formally criticise the coup but in effect recognise the junta as happened in Thailand. It will request a return to democracy but not with the old guard in power of course but a new government more in line with U.S. thinking.
Mauritania army stages coup; junta takes charge
By AHMED MOHAMED and TODD PITMAN – 59 minutes ago
NOUAKCHOTT, Mauritania (AP) — Army officers upset with government overtures toward Islamic hard-liners staged a coup in Mauritania on Wednesday, overthrowing the first government to be freely elected in this sprawling desert nation in more than 20 years.
The coup in Africa's newest oil producer took place after the president and prime minister fired the country's top four military officials, reportedly for supporting lawmakers who had accused the president of corruption and disagreed with how he was reaching out to Islamic hard-liners.
A brief announcement read over state television Wednesday said the new "state council" will be led by presidential guard chief Gen. Mohamed Ould Abdel Aziz, one of the four fired generals. The statement also restored the jobs of the other three generals.
President Sidi Ould Cheikh Abdallahi was being held by renegade soldiers at the presidential palace in Nouakchott, according to presidential spokesman Abdoulaye Mamadouba. Soldiers also detained Prime Minister Yahya Ould Ahmed Waqef, he said.
State radio and television went off air as the coup began and witnesses said soldiers were deployed throughout the capital. No violence was reported.
The continentwide African Union condemned the coup and said it would send the head of its peace and security council to the Mauritanian capital later this week. The AU's top official, Jean Ping, said in a statement the organization "demands the restoration of constitutional legality."
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Proposal may end Iraqi Provincial Election bill stalemate
This is from the NY Times.
Strange the Iraqis let the UN and the U.S. in on their election planning. At least the UN advisor seems to have been of some help. It remains to be seen if this compromise can pass muster in parliament. Sadr and others may very well oppose it.
August 5, 2008
Proposal May End Stalemate on Iraqi Provincial Elections
By CAMPBELL ROBERTSON
BAGHDAD — After a third day of intense negotiations, Iraqi political leaders may have come to an agreement that would allow nationwide provincial elections to take place by the end of the year.
The disputes that have held up a law to provide for the elections centered on the ethnically mixed city of Kirkuk, which is claimed by Arabs and Kurds, and heavily populated by Turkmens.
The Kurds have been insisting that the law include a clause mandating a referendum on whether Kirkuk will join the Kurdistan regional government or remain under the control of Baghdad. The Arabs and Turkmens have consistently refused to include such a clause.
The proposed solution, put forth by a representative of the United Nations late Monday night, is simply to include an article calling for a resolution to the Kirkuk issue sometime before the end of October. Preparations for the elections could then proceed in the rest of the country, if Parliament passed the bill at a session scheduled for Tuesday.
“This removes a huge burden from everyone’s shoulders,” said Haider al-Abbadi, a member of the Dawa party who attended the meetings. “Kirkuk is the problem, and we’re delaying the whole election.”
He said that he was unsure if the proposal would pass on Tuesday, but that elections could take place this year if it did.
Mahmoud Othman, an independent Kurd, said that though there were some technical issues to be worked out, he otherwise supported the idea. “I think it’s not bad, just to delay it so these elections can take place,” he said.
Parliament was scheduled to begin a monthlong recess last week but has remained in session because a supplementary budget has not been passed. Several lawmakers said that if an election law was not approved on Tuesday, Parliament members would pass the budget and put aside the election law until they reconvened in September.
The past weekend, Iraqi political leaders, along with United Nations representatives and the United States ambassador, Ryan C. Crocker, met in a series of sessions at the Baghdad residence of the Shiite vice president, Adel Abdul Mahdi. The talks appeared headed for stalemate until the United Nations representative made the proposal.
The new law would require that Kirkuk’s provincial election take place no later than December 2009.
“It is a very good solution,” said Hashimi al-Taei, a Sunni member of Parliament. “The Kirkuk issue is a very sensitive political issue.”
Strange the Iraqis let the UN and the U.S. in on their election planning. At least the UN advisor seems to have been of some help. It remains to be seen if this compromise can pass muster in parliament. Sadr and others may very well oppose it.
August 5, 2008
Proposal May End Stalemate on Iraqi Provincial Elections
By CAMPBELL ROBERTSON
BAGHDAD — After a third day of intense negotiations, Iraqi political leaders may have come to an agreement that would allow nationwide provincial elections to take place by the end of the year.
The disputes that have held up a law to provide for the elections centered on the ethnically mixed city of Kirkuk, which is claimed by Arabs and Kurds, and heavily populated by Turkmens.
The Kurds have been insisting that the law include a clause mandating a referendum on whether Kirkuk will join the Kurdistan regional government or remain under the control of Baghdad. The Arabs and Turkmens have consistently refused to include such a clause.
The proposed solution, put forth by a representative of the United Nations late Monday night, is simply to include an article calling for a resolution to the Kirkuk issue sometime before the end of October. Preparations for the elections could then proceed in the rest of the country, if Parliament passed the bill at a session scheduled for Tuesday.
“This removes a huge burden from everyone’s shoulders,” said Haider al-Abbadi, a member of the Dawa party who attended the meetings. “Kirkuk is the problem, and we’re delaying the whole election.”
He said that he was unsure if the proposal would pass on Tuesday, but that elections could take place this year if it did.
Mahmoud Othman, an independent Kurd, said that though there were some technical issues to be worked out, he otherwise supported the idea. “I think it’s not bad, just to delay it so these elections can take place,” he said.
Parliament was scheduled to begin a monthlong recess last week but has remained in session because a supplementary budget has not been passed. Several lawmakers said that if an election law was not approved on Tuesday, Parliament members would pass the budget and put aside the election law until they reconvened in September.
The past weekend, Iraqi political leaders, along with United Nations representatives and the United States ambassador, Ryan C. Crocker, met in a series of sessions at the Baghdad residence of the Shiite vice president, Adel Abdul Mahdi. The talks appeared headed for stalemate until the United Nations representative made the proposal.
The new law would require that Kirkuk’s provincial election take place no later than December 2009.
“It is a very good solution,” said Hashimi al-Taei, a Sunni member of Parliament. “The Kirkuk issue is a very sensitive political issue.”
Initial agreement reached on withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq
This is from Monsters and Critics.
In the debates between McCain and Obama it seems to be assumed that it is the U.S. that decides when it will withdraw not the Iraqis! This status of forces agreement does not get very much press in the U.S. It remains to be seen whether the draft mentioned in the article will pass must in the Iraqi parliament Nothing is said about the status of contractors with respect to Iraqi law or the status of U.S. troops either. The agreement probably refers only to combat troops not support troops.
From Monsters and Critics.com
Middle East NewsInitial agreement reached on withdrawal of US troops from IraqBy DPAAug 4, 2008, 9:04 GMT
Cairo - Iraqi and US teams negotiating a controversial security pact have reached an initial agreement that states that US troops will withdraw from Iraq between 2010 and 2011, the pro- government Iraqi Al-Sabah newspaper reported Monday.
The newspaper reported that 'the Iraqi and American technical teams have already reported the outcome of their negotiations to their political leaders during the past days.'
The paper also reported that ongoing negotiations between both parties is nearing an end, allowing the signing of a 'memorandum of understanding' very soon.
The paper quoted anonymous Iraqi sources as saying that 'there is a great development in the talks and we reached an initial bilateral agreement for the pullout of US troops by 2010 and 2011.'
The US and Iraq have been negotiating the security pact, also called the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), since March.
The long term agreement would lay down the legal basis for a continued US military presence in Iraq after a UN mandate expires in December.
However, after months of disputes and criticism, the United States and Iraq are working on a short-term 'memorandum of understanding' instead.
Several Iraqi politicians and lawmakers are against the mandate, saying it will violate the country's sovereignty.
The most vocal of critics is radical Shiite cleric Moqtada al- Sadr, who strongly opposes the US presence in Iraq. He called on Iraqis to unite and stand up against the accord by all means possible.
Iran also opposes any deal between Baghdad and Washington which extends the presence of US troops in the neighbouring country.
© Copyright 2007 by monstersandcritics.com. This notice cannot be removed without permission.
In the debates between McCain and Obama it seems to be assumed that it is the U.S. that decides when it will withdraw not the Iraqis! This status of forces agreement does not get very much press in the U.S. It remains to be seen whether the draft mentioned in the article will pass must in the Iraqi parliament Nothing is said about the status of contractors with respect to Iraqi law or the status of U.S. troops either. The agreement probably refers only to combat troops not support troops.
From Monsters and Critics.com
Middle East NewsInitial agreement reached on withdrawal of US troops from IraqBy DPAAug 4, 2008, 9:04 GMT
Cairo - Iraqi and US teams negotiating a controversial security pact have reached an initial agreement that states that US troops will withdraw from Iraq between 2010 and 2011, the pro- government Iraqi Al-Sabah newspaper reported Monday.
The newspaper reported that 'the Iraqi and American technical teams have already reported the outcome of their negotiations to their political leaders during the past days.'
The paper also reported that ongoing negotiations between both parties is nearing an end, allowing the signing of a 'memorandum of understanding' very soon.
The paper quoted anonymous Iraqi sources as saying that 'there is a great development in the talks and we reached an initial bilateral agreement for the pullout of US troops by 2010 and 2011.'
The US and Iraq have been negotiating the security pact, also called the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), since March.
The long term agreement would lay down the legal basis for a continued US military presence in Iraq after a UN mandate expires in December.
However, after months of disputes and criticism, the United States and Iraq are working on a short-term 'memorandum of understanding' instead.
Several Iraqi politicians and lawmakers are against the mandate, saying it will violate the country's sovereignty.
The most vocal of critics is radical Shiite cleric Moqtada al- Sadr, who strongly opposes the US presence in Iraq. He called on Iraqis to unite and stand up against the accord by all means possible.
Iran also opposes any deal between Baghdad and Washington which extends the presence of US troops in the neighbouring country.
© Copyright 2007 by monstersandcritics.com. This notice cannot be removed without permission.
U.S. India nuclear deal.
This is from AP through Yahoo. I was not aware that this deal fell victim to a shortened U.S. legislative calendar. This is just a snippet from a longer article.
Bush's administration also offered India novel cooperation in developing civilian nuclear energy that critics say would let India build up its nuclear arsenal and spoil global efforts to stop the spread of atomic weapons. The deal survived what had seemed fatal opposition in India only to fall victim to the election-shortened U.S. legislative calendar.........
This dealmaking with India also threatens the possibility of any close alliance with Pakistan. Indeed the deal will fire up the conflict between Pakistan and India. Perhaps the U.S. has deliberately chosen India as a new ally in the area as a counterweight to Pakistan and China as well. It is a dangerous gambit. Internal conflict in India may also increase since powerful parties opposed the deal.
Although it may be possible for a new U.S. administration to repudiate the disastrous Bush policy," of case-by-case dealmaking, "a tremendous amount of damage will already have been done," said William C. Potter, nonproliferation director at the Monterey Institute of International Studies. He said the India deal is the worst of the three.
Bush's administration also offered India novel cooperation in developing civilian nuclear energy that critics say would let India build up its nuclear arsenal and spoil global efforts to stop the spread of atomic weapons. The deal survived what had seemed fatal opposition in India only to fall victim to the election-shortened U.S. legislative calendar.........
This dealmaking with India also threatens the possibility of any close alliance with Pakistan. Indeed the deal will fire up the conflict between Pakistan and India. Perhaps the U.S. has deliberately chosen India as a new ally in the area as a counterweight to Pakistan and China as well. It is a dangerous gambit. Internal conflict in India may also increase since powerful parties opposed the deal.
Although it may be possible for a new U.S. administration to repudiate the disastrous Bush policy," of case-by-case dealmaking, "a tremendous amount of damage will already have been done," said William C. Potter, nonproliferation director at the Monterey Institute of International Studies. He said the India deal is the worst of the three.
Monday, August 4, 2008
Philippines say Muslim homeland must pass through plebiscite
This from monstersandcritics. I assume the plebiscite will be only in the areas projected to be in the expanded autonomous region. The MILF has complained that agreements about the earlier autonomous region have not always been honoured by the government side. The government may drag its feed this time as well. As the article mentions there is opposition to the deal in the rest of the Philippines which is predominantly Roman Catholic. If there were a plebiscite in the entire Philippines I expect the expansion would be doomed!
Philippines says Muslim homeland must pass through plebiscite
By DPA
Aug 3, 2008, 6:02 GMT
© Copyright 2007 by monstersandcritics.com.
This notice cannot be removed without permission.
Philippines says Muslim homeland must pass through plebiscite
By DPA
Aug 3, 2008, 6:02 GMT
Manila - An agreement to expand a Muslim autonomous region in the southern Philippines will have to be approved through a plebiscite, a government official said Sunday.
The agreement is scheduled to be signed on Tuesday by the Philippine government and the separatist Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Amid opposition to the expansion of the existing six-province Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM), presidential peace adviser Hermogenes Esperon stressed that the agreement is only preliminary.
Esperon said the agreement on the Muslim homeland was needed to resume formal peace talks with the MILF, the largest Muslim separatist rebel group in Mindanao.
'All provisions must conform to the constitution,' he said. 'Any addition to the ARMM will be by plebiscite, and this plebiscite will not happen without the enabling law enacted by Congress.'
Under the agreement, a plebiscite would be held in 2009 to add more than 700 villages in Mindanao to the ARMM. A new form of government would also be set up for Muslims after a final peace deal is reached.
Some Catholic politicians in Mindanao have opposed the agreement and asked the Supreme Court to stop the signing, alleging that the government was giving up sovereignty over the southern region.
The Supreme Court has asked the government to respond to the petition, but did not halt the signing.
Esperon rejected the allegations, saying, 'We are not giving away sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Philippines. It is just enabling the Bangsamoro (Muslim nation) to be in one place, in one contiguous area.'
The 11,000-strong MILF has been fighting for the establishment of an independent Islamic state in Mindanao since 1978. It agreed to hold peace talks with the government about 10 years ago.
© Copyright 2007 by monstersandcritics.com.
This notice cannot be removed without permission.
Seoul probes civilian "massacres" by U.S.
Seoul probes civilian `massacres' by US
By CHARLES J. HANLEY and JAE-SOON CHANG, Associated Press WritersSun Aug 3, 3:31 PM ET
This is from AP via Yahoo.
Long after the fact these issues are finally being investigated. Events such as these give the lie to the idea that the U.S. gives great priority to preventing civilian casualties. It does so only in terms of public relations. More importance is given to military aims and saving the lives of their own troops although those lives too may sometimes be sacrificed for limited military gains. One of the most flagrant violations of the rule that one should avoid killing innocent civilians was in the atomic bomb attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. With events such as this and the firebombing of Dresden any idea of a modern just war went out the window.
South Korean investigators, matching once-secret documents to eyewitness accounts, are concluding that the U.S. military indiscriminately killed large groups of refugees and other civilians early in the Korean War.
A half-century later, the Seoul government's Truth and Reconciliation Commission has more than 200 such alleged wartime cases on its docket, based on hundreds of citizens' petitions recounting bombing and strafing runs on South Korean refugee gatherings and unsuspecting villages in 1950-51.
Concluding its first investigations, the 2 1/2-year-old commission is urging the government to seek U.S. compensation for victims.
"Of course the U.S. government should pay compensation. It's the U.S. military's fault," said survivor Cho Kook-won, 78, who says he lost four family members among hundreds of refugees suffocated, burned and shot to death in a U.S. Air Force napalm attack on their cave shelter south of Seoul in 1951.
Commission researchers have unearthed evidence of indiscriminate killings in the declassified U.S. archive, including a report by U.S. inspectors-general that pilots couldn't distinguish their South Korean civilian allies from North Korean enemy soldiers.
South Korean legislators have asked a U.S. Senate committee to join them in investigating another long-classified document, one saying American ground commanders, fearing enemy infiltrators, had adopted a policy of shooting approaching refugees.
The Associated Press has found that wartime pilots and declassified documents at the U.S. National Archives both confirm that refugees were deliberately targeted by U.S. forces.
The U.S. government has been largely silent on the commission's work. The U.S. Embassy here says it has not yet been approached by the Seoul government about compensation. Spokesman Aaron Tarver also told the AP that the embassy is not monitoring commission findings.
The commission's president, historian Ahn Byung-ook, said the U.S. Army helped defend South Korea in the 1950-53 war, but also "victimized" South Korean civilians. "We feel detailed investigation should be done by the U.S. government itself," he said.
The citizen petitions have accumulated since 1999, when the AP, after tracing Army veterans who were there, confirmed the 1950 refugee killings at No Gun Ri, where survivors estimate 400 died at American hands, mostly women and children.
In newly democratized South Korea, after decades of enforced silence under right-wing dictatorships, that report opened floodgates of memory, as families spoke out about other wartime mass killings.
Sunday, August 3, 2008
U.S. releases thousands of Iraqi detainees
This is from wiredispatch.
Although there are thousands of detainees being released there are still over 20 thousand in U.S. detention. The U.S. can arrest people at will:
Although there are thousands of detainees being released there are still over 20 thousand in U.S. detention. The U.S. can arrest people at will:
The U.S. military says its detention system is authorized by a U.N. resolution under which the Iraqi government allows U.S. troops to arrest people at will. U.S. military attorneys say it also complies with international laws covering warfare and was created in "the spirit" of the Geneva Conventions.
Commanders say they are entitled to hold any prisoner until the detainee is no longer considered a threat to U.S. forces. Local law and court rulings do not apply, they add.
Rights groups have criticized U.S. detention policy as a misrepresentation of international law, which they say requires some form of legal process to detain someone.
The right of the U.S. to detain Iraqi citizens has been one of the contentious areas of debate with the Iraqis over a new security agreement that would keep U.S. forces in the country after a U.N. mandate expires at year's end.
So after in effect legalizing an occupation and invasion that was against international law the UN then provides cover for the occupiers and allows them to detain people in ways that many think are also violations of international law. Of course the same thing happened in Afghanistan. The NATO and ISAF and U.S. operate under UN resolutions passed after the occupation which was never itself authorised and was also a violation of international law. Of course some claim that the action was self defence although the Taliban certainly never threatened the U.S. in an direct way. In fact Colin Powell had not long before the invasion given the Taliban a check for among other things their work in stopping opium production. Maybe they are waiting for the next check!
Palestinian civil strife deepens divide
Palestinian civil strife deepens divide
August 4, 2008 - 12:00AM
This is from the Age. This internal strife makes it difficult to forge a peace agreement and makes the Palestinians even weaker in their negotiations with Israel. Israel would no doubt like to obtain a weak agreement with Abbas and Fatah and leave Hamas out completely.
Bitter weekend fighting between rival Palestinian factions left nine people dead and about 100 wounded. There were fears the death toll would rise as rescue workers began sifting through the rubble of a three-storey apartment block detonated by Hamas on Saturday.
It is believed that Hamas militants fired 300 mortar shells and dozens of rocket-propelled grenades into the Sajaiya neighbourhood in Gaza City.
The area is a stronghold of the Hilles clan, which is aligned to Fatah, the secular party that controls the West Bank.
Hamas marksmen also positioned themselves on the minarets of several mosques and fired at anyone who came out into the street.
So fierce was Hamas' pursuit of the Hilles clan that Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak allowed 190 clan members fleeing Hamas militants to cross into Israel.
Mr Barak made the decision on humanitarian grounds after receiving a phone call from Palestinian President — and Fatah leader — Mahmoud Abbas appealing for help.
"Yesterday evening Abu Mazen (Abbas) and (Palestinian Prime Minister Salam) Fayyad made a request for Israel to allow them to cross into Israel and then to hospitals and the West Bank," a senior Israeli official said yesterday.
"Shortly afterwards Barak was contacted again by Abbas who asked him to allow all of them to return to Gaza," the official said.
Among those who escaped were 30 wounded people, at least six in a serious condition.
Israeli security officials began transferring the 190 Palestinians to the West Bank late yesterday.
The violence was part of Hamas' response to a series of bombings in Gaza 10 days ago that killed five Hamas operatives and a six-year-old girl.
Hamas blames Fatah for the bombings. Hamas encircled the Sajaiya neighbourhood yesterday and said that it would conduct house-to-house searches to find those suspected of involvement in the bombings.
"We got hit hard," one Fatah official was quoted as saying yesterday. "Those battles were meant to erase our presence in the Gaza Strip. This is political cleansing."
Residents of Gaza described the battles in Sajaiya as the fiercest yet in the Gaza Strip.
Mohammad Darawshe, co-director of the Abraham Fund, an organisation aimed at advancing co-existence and equality between Jews and Arabs in Israel, said the weekend fighting was another dark page in Palestinian history.
"When you have Palestinians being forced to flee their own territory by other Palestinians, it is a tragedy," Mr Darawshe said.
"Hamas might win the battle, but this behaviour makes it so much harder to win international support to create an independent state. This is the behaviour of a brutal dictatorship, not a political party working towards advancing the interests of its people."
Hebrew University professor of philosophy Gabriel Motzkin, who heads a discussion forum that promotes efforts to increase reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians, said the faint hopes for the current round of peace talks being sponsored by the US had been all but extinguished.
"It is beyond doubt that there are now two separate Palestinian territories, so who does Israel deal with?" he asked. "Mahmoud Abbas does not speak for Palestinians in Gaza. And Hamas is not interested in any negotiations with Israel at all. This civil war makes a permanent solution impossible to negotiate."
With AFP
This story was found at: http://www.theage.com.au/world/palestinian-civil-strife-deepens-divide-20080803-3pbx.html
Saturday, August 2, 2008
Iraq govt. calls for calm as Kirkuk row intensifies
This is from wiredispatch.
Not too much attention is being paid to this in the western media. This dispute is causing the election law to be delayed. The status of the city was to be settled by a vote but that has been delayed. As the article notes Al Qaeda is trying to increase the conflict among the various groups while the Kurds seem bound and determined to include the city in Kurdistan.
Iraq govt calls for calm as Kirkuk row intensifies
Khalid al-Ansary
Reuters North American News Service
Aug 01, 2008 10:39 EST
BAGHDAD, Aug 1 (Reuters) - Iraq's government called for calm on Friday to dampen a bitter row over the status of Kirkuk, a day after Kurdish councillors called for the city to become part of the largely autonomous region of Kurdistan.
The government rejected the move, insisting control of the disputed oil-rich city in northern Iraq would be decided through political consensus with the city's other ethnic groups.Thursday's decision by Kurdish councillors at a provincial council meeting was symbolic because other factions boycotted the session. The council's head, himself a Kurd, also noted the call was unconstitutional.But tensions have been rising over the city's fate, with demonstrators taking to the streets several times this week."The Iraqi government calls upon all parties and factions to be calm, wise and to resort to the constitution," a statement from government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said.He said all sides should not allow Iraq's "enemies" to make use of the situation. Al Qaeda has sought to exploit the divisions in the city to fan tensions.
A suicide bomber killed 23 people at a rally in Kirkuk on Monday against a provincial elections law that would delay voting in the city, a mix of Kurds, Arabs and ethnic Turkmen.
The prime minister of neighbouring Turkey, Tayyip Erdogan, told Iraq's President Jalal Talabani late on Thursday of his "anxiety" over the Kurdish councillors' call.
Kurds consider Kirkuk -- which sits atop one of Iraq's key oil producing areas -- their ancient capital, but Arabs and Turkmen want the city to stay under central government control.
It lies just outside the largely autonomous Kurdistan region. The Kurdish councillors on Kirkuk's provincial council want the city and the surrounding province -- which some Iraqis also call Kirkuk -- to be included in Kurdistan.
The United States also expressed concern about the tensions.
"Individuals or groups in Kirkuk should avoid any sort of unilateral or provocative action ... And what is needed is passage of a provincial election law," U.S.