The tragedy of US created Afghan war coming home to US

We are reproducing 02 media reports below on the rampage shooting by a US army major at Fort Hood, US military base, who happens to be a Muslim of Palestinian origin.

Immediately creating an "Islamic fundamentalist" image that would provide provocation in society

It is no surprise for “southasiaspeaks” that this is also used to call ethno-religious calls against Muslims and it would not be limited to the US soil alone. It is only customary that the Head of State, who ever he is, and other dignitaries call for people to have patience and to pray for the victims.

Yet all media and all State personalities talk of possible links or investigating possible links with Islamic fundamentalists or the Al Qaeda. Such is how the ethno-religious hype is kept fired and how it is allowed to grow. It always becomes an issue when the dominant, deciding power feels the pinch of war.

Therefore when many hundreds were left dead and wounded after Obama as President of the US sanctioned “Drone attacks” on citizens of Pakistan and Afghanistan, such ethno-religious backlashes were never talked of or were never feared in the US or anywhere else. None in the US then said, they were Muslim people of another country that was killed by American Christians.

This war is thus a war for geopolitical dominance by the US and for its armament industry to survive. It thus has nothing to do with democracy in Afghanistan or its people. It nevertheless has everything to do with Islamic fundamentalism, for that provides the reason to continue with the war. Therefore the ethno-religious hype needs to be maintained too.

We therefore take this opportunity to stress that war anywhere will only leave societies with such unwanted human tragedy for the sake of the powerful. We take this opportunity to stress that US even under Obama, does not have any reason or right to wage war against Afghanistan. War only helps armed extremists to grow and spread. They only create a market for military hardware industry, US being its leader.

[News reports]

(01) Obama to attend Fort Hood rampage memorial on Tuesday

US President Barack Obama will attend a memorial service in Texas this week to honour victims of the shooting rampage on the military base in which 13 people died, the White House said on Saturday.

Investigators were meanwhile working around the clock to uncover the motives of the Muslim US army doctor suspected in the killings that also wounded 30 people.

Criminal investigators were poring over evidence to determine if the alleged shooter — Major Nidal Malik Hasan, who survived shooting wounds and is under guard at a military hospital — was motivated by Islamist ideology or had snapped under the pressure of his job counseling soldiers traumatized by combat.

In his weekly radio address on Saturday, Obama, ahead of the announcement of his traveling to the ceremony on Tuesday, called the mass-shooting “one of the most devastating ever committed on an American military base.”

An initial search of Hasan’s computer revealed no direct exchanges with known extremists, but US Army and FBI officials had yet to rule out possible links to terrorist groups, US media reported.

Earlier this year, the Federal Bureau of Investigation learned of Internet postings by a man calling himself Nidal Hasan that expressed support for suicide bombings.

Investigators were not able to determine yet whether the writer was Major Hasan, but the details fueled concerns that authorities may have missed warning signs prior to the attack at Fort Hood, Texas.

Neighbors reportedly said Hasan, 39, was in a rush when he gave away his belongings — including a Koran — shortly before Thursday’s bloody shooting spree.

“I’m not going to need them,” he told one neighbor, Patricia Villa, according to The New York Times, handing over bags of vegetables, a mattress and clothing.

A US-born Muslim of Palestinian heritage, Hasan had voiced dismay over US wars in Islamic countries and was distraught that he was about to be deployed to Afghanistan.

He reportedly said the US struggle against terror threats was a “war on Muslims,” while his family alleged he was the target of prejudice and harassment over his Islamic faith.

Poignant details released here Saturday of each of those killed in the rampage drove home the scale of the tragedy.

The victims included a 21-year-old mother-to-be Private Francheska Velez, who was due to return home to Chicago for maternity leave after a tour in Iraq, and 56-year-old John Gaffaney, a psychiatric nurse who had just persuaded the military to let him return to active duty for deployment in Iraq.

Private First Class Kham Xiong, 23, was a father of three whose own father had fought communist forces in Laos during the Vietnam war.

Specialist Ryan Hill, 28, came to the base with his young daughter Emma to put flowers and candles at the main gates as a mark of respect to the victims.

“It makes me mad. I don’t khow somebody can commit an act like that,” Hill told AFP. “Those soldiers were ready to take off and deploy and they won’t even get to do that.”

The bodies of those killed were taken on Friday to the same mortuary at Dover Air Base in Delaware that handles fallen soldiers from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

But at least some of those shot were making a good recovery, according to Roy Smythe, a surgeon at the Scott and White Hospital in Temple, Texas.

“We had initially six patients in the surgical intensive care unit, as of this morning we only have two left,” he said. “Those are no longer on the ventilator and they’re quite stable so a lot of progress has been made.

“There is a possibility that some of these patients will be physically impaired for the rest of their lives and there is certainly no doubt that many of them will be psychologically impaired for the rest of their lives.”

Obama in his radio address hailed the response of soldiers and civilians at the scene who rushed to help victims, tearing off bullet-riddled clothes to treat the injured and using blouses as tourniquets.

The president ordered flags to fly at half-staff at the White House and federal buildings, as troops at home and abroad held a minute’s silence to mourn the dead.

Hasan was shot and seriously wounded by a female civilian police officer who was being hailed as a heroine for ending his deadly rampage.

Witnesses reportedly heard Hasan, who investigators believe fired more than 100 rounds during the incident, shout “Allahu Akbar!” (God is greatest) before unloading a semiautomatic weapon and a handgun at a troop processing center.

Troops based in Fort Hood, by area the world’s largest US military base, have suffered the highest number of casualties and have undertaken multiple tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The shooting has meanwhile raised delicate questions about Muslim soldiers serving in the military, as some commentators warned of an Islamic “fifth column” infiltrating the army while Islamic groups called for calm amid concerns of a backlash.

(02) Fearing backlash, South Asian bodies in US appeal for harmony

Fearing a backlash after a Muslim US Army psychiatrist allegedly killed 13 during a shooting rampage at a military base in Texas, a coalition of 26 South Asian organisations has appealed for communal harmony.

“We call on political leaders, the media, and the public to set a tone of unity as the investigation unfolds and the healing process begins,” the National Coalition of South Asian Organizations (NCSO) said in a statement issued Friday.

“Regrettably, in the past, the actions of one individual from a particular ethnic background or religious faith have led to the scapegoating of entire communities based on actual or perceived ethnicity, religion, and national origin,” it noted.

Offering deepest condolences to the families and friends of the victims, it urged community members to explore how they can provide support and resources to address the impact of the violence. “As our country moves forward, the NCSO shares our condolences and commits to participating in our collective healing process.”

Suspected gunman Major Nidal Malik Hasan opened fire with two handguns at the Fort Hood Army post on Thursday, in one of the worst killing sprees ever reported on a US military base, army officials said.

The US-born son of Palestinian immigrants, Hasan’s Muslim and Arab heritage prompted immediate speculation on television stations and internet sites about his motives and whether they were influenced by his background.

Besides NCSO, some other US Arab and Muslim groups have condemned the shootings, offered condolences to the victims’ families, and stressed that no political or religious ideology justified such violence.

A Justice Department spokesman said its civil rights division was unaware of any incidents of violence directed against Arab-Americans or Muslim-Americans since the shooting.

Hate crimes against Arab Americans, Muslims, and Sikhs rose after the September 11, 2001 attacks. The number has since declined but many Arab and Muslim Americans still report verbal abuse and harassment.

Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council on American Islamic Relations, urged “American Muslims, and those who may be perceived to be Muslim, to take appropriate precautions to protect themselves, their families and their religious institutions from possible backlash.”

South Asian Organizations issuing the appeal were: Adhikaar for Human Rights, Andolan, Chaya, Coney Island Avenue Project, Council of Peoples Organization, Daya, Desis Rising Up and Moving, Hamdard Center, Indo, American Center, Manavi, Michigan Asian Indian Family Services, Narika, Raksha, Saathi of Rochester, Sahara of South Florida, Sakhi for South Asian Women, Sikh American Legal Defense & Education Fund, South Asian Americans Leading Together, South Asian American Policy and Research Institute, South Asian Council for Social Services, South Asian Health Initiative, South Asian Youth Action, The Sikh Coalition, Trikone NW, Turning Point and United Sikhs.

 

Diving underwater, Maldive President Nasheed says “We must unite in a global effort to halt temperature rise”

 

Maldive President Nasheed

The Maldives Islands in the Indian Ocean could disappear by the end of the century. Global warming threatens to raise sea levels, submerging the low-lying archipelago. Newly-elected President Mohamed Nasheed has therefore set himself the task of holding back the tide of climate change.

 

The Maldivian president is 1.58 meters (5′2″) tall. Perhaps he was once a little taller, but his back was ruined in prison. He has forgiven the people who hurt him. He now has a very different problem on his hands. At its geographic peak, his country is not much higher above sea level than his actual height, and on average it is about a hand-width lower. Apart, that is, from the huge plastic-flecked mound of construction rubble behind the power plant in Male, the nation’s capital, although that doesn’t really count. What does count is the fact that the Indian Ocean could rise by half a meter by the end of the century. At the same time, a coral atoll is growing at a rate of up to a centimeter a year — provided the corals are left in peace, and waste isn’t simply tipped into the sea. Nothing is particularly simple anymore, and yet politics demands simple messages.

That’s how His Excellency Mohamed Nasheed, the president of the Republic of Maldives, ended up in the crystal-clear waters of the lagoon around Girifushi Island, his nose just a few centimeters above sea level, for the world’s first underwater cabinet meeting. “Mr. President!” calls an Indian journalist from Star TV, holding out a telescopic microphone like a lifesaving pole. “What will happen if the countries at the climate conference in Copenhagen fail to agree on binding CO2 levels?” “We’ll all die!” the president replies.

It was Nasheed who had the idea to hold a cabinet meeting five meters below sea level to sign a declaration entitled “SOS from the Frontline” in the run-up to International Climate Action Day on Oct. 24. “Climate change is happening and it threatens the rights and security of everyone on Earth,” read the declaration. “We must unite in a global effort to halt further temperature rises by slashing carbon dioxide emissions to a safe level of 350 parts per million. Endorsed by the cabinet of the Republic of Maldives on Oct. 17, 2009.”

And he was the one who commissioned a TV commercial in which three men calmly chat about the weather as if they were sitting in a café rather than underwater. The advert was aired on state TV channel TVM on an hourly basis.

Speaking to reporters on the day of his underwater meeting, the president said, “If we can’t save the Maldives today, we do not feel that there is much of a chance for the rest of the world,” adding that London and Manhattan could one day experience the same problems the Maldives were facing today.

In recent months Nasheed has become something of a Dalai Lama figure for environmentalists. Al Gore refers to him when warning about the possibilities of forced migration as a result of climate change. Time magazine recently included Nasheed in its ‘Heroes of the Environment’ list. He’s even had an audience with Britain’s Queen Elizabeth.

But all that was before Sept. 24, 2009, the day of the United Nations General Assembly in New York. Barack Obama had spoken, so too had Muammar Gaddafi. Then Nasheed stepped onto the podium, a slightly-built man with neatly-parted hair and unremarkable features.

“I am extremely pleased to be here,” his speech began, though it was more than a mere turn of phrase. “I have spent many of the past General Assembly sessions locked in a hot, humid, damp cell, with my hands shackled and my feet bound.”

No-one applauded — not out of ill will, but because UN delegates are rarely on the edge of their seat when a representative of the Maldives addresses them. It is usually a time to go for a coffee or to work on some files. Most of the seats were empty as Nasheed spoke.

 

Four legged concrete spikes to prevent sea erosion

“Every beach (could be) lost to rising seas, every house lost to storm surges, every reef lost to increasingly warm waters,” he said, his voice getting louder, and his articulation growing less clear. Nasheed said dwindling fish stocks threatened every job in the country, and every life was in danger of being lost to more extreme weather, making it harder and harder to govern the country “until the point is reached when we must consider abandoning our homeland.”

 

Nasheed urged world leaders to agree to climate goals at December’s summit in Copenhagen. “To do otherwise would be to sign a death warrant for the 300,000 Maldivians,” he said. And raising his voice a notch, he announced, “We are going to be the first country to go carbon-neutral in 10 years time.” Nasheed finished with the words, “If we want to save the world, I suggest that saving the Maldives is a very good starting point. Thank you, Mr. President.”

By the end of the century sea levels “could” rise by between 18 and 59 centimeters depending on the assumptions of the relevant model and your location on the planet.

It’s a mental game played in the subjunctive. Climate change skeptics and climate researchers, doomsayers and grumblers, malcontents, deniers, and doomsday hysterics are battling it out in the newspapers. Those on one side say the debate about greenhouse gases is being conducted like an ideological conflict that climate change has become a secular religion that is about “truth” rather than scientific probability.

Fair enough, the other side says. But with the polar icecaps melting, all those who insist on debating further rather than acting will have coming generations to answer to.

That’s also the position taken by Mohamed Nasheed. He says it’s like Blaise Pascal’s bet on God: “Even if you are skeptical about a sea level rise, in the case that it is true, it’s better to be secure.”

The Maldives have joined the Association of Small Island States, an alliance whose 43 members also include half- and quarter-islands like Belize. One if its demands is for preventative climatic asylum on the mainland. The south Pacific island states of Tuvalu and Kiribati have already filed the necessary applications in Australia and New Zealand. They will now be able to decide when their people should abandon their islands. When they do, the displaced islanders will be given work and residency permits in their new home.

At the end of last year Nasheed announced that the Maldives was setting up a fund to buy land in Australia as a kind of lifeline. Nasheed’s political adversaries call it scare-mongering — as do some of his allies.

Unfortunately there’s no money in the bank for such a plan, and Nasheed will need every dollar he can get if he’s to keep his other promises. The country is still relatively far from achieving carbon neutrality. Waste is still shipped to Thilafushi island, where it is burned, mostly at night.

Few islands have sewage treatment plants. Every half hour, the sewage and waste water produced on the main island is pumped out into the ocean, chemicals, radioactive waste, and all.

Bluepeace, a local environmental organization, says it has evidence this is starting to damage the coral banks around Male. That would be fatal. After all, the corals did more than any breakwater to protect the islands from the force of the tsunami that swept through Asia on December 26, 2004. These corals will continue growing — provided they’re left in peace, that is. This means halting the acidification of the oceans and preventing significant changes in temperature. Which again is linked to greenhouse gases. Local=global=local.

Nasheed is already thinking about his next moves. “We have an abundance of natural resources, for instance the sun, the wind, and the waves, the wind, ocean currents, and the sun. If we can harness them instead of using fuel we believe that this can happen, we believe that this is the intelligent way of doing things,” he said after his dive, wet but relieved. “The winners of the 21st century are those who are able to change and make technology jump.”

Source – Spiegel OnLine International

For the unabridged, unedited feature, visit Spiegel OnLine International – 31^st October, 2009, at  http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,658373,00.html

 

Delhi ‘South Bloc’ fears neighbourly journos

The Indian Foreign Ministry has declined to allow participation of foreign journalists in an Environmental Journalism Course – focusing on coastal management scheduled to be held in Tuticorin, India from October 26 to November 6 next.

The Institute for Further Education of Journalists (FOJO) of Sweden, in co-operation with Suganthi Devadason Marine Research Institute (SDMRI) of India is organising the programme to provide journalists some of the basic tools in covering environment issues with special emphasis on the coastal and marine environment.

SDMRI is a non-governmental and non-profit Marine Research and Higher Education organization in Tuticorin Tamil Nadu, established in 1998. It is an institute recognised by Manonmanian Sundaranar University of Tirunelveli and the UGC of India. SDMRI lists around 12 high profile Indian academics and researchers, some in the fields of molecular biology, biomedical engineering and bio technology, as their Alumni.

The training programme under SDMRI authority had methods of reporting and planning of work to be discussed and practiced in the course. Furthermore, the course was to focus on how to get access to and analyze scientific information and how to make it interesting to common people.

Also impacts of human activities on the coastal and marine environment was included to be presented and discussed and the opportunities and benefits provided by the coastal and marine environment highlighted.

Fifteen journalists from India, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka were selected for the course of which 4 were from Bangladesh and Sri Lanka each. Visa for these journalists were applied for, to participate in the programme.

But in the last minute, the foreign ministry of India, on October 20 declined to grant permission for the environmental course to be held with foreign participants.

“We are extremely sorry to inform that because of the unfortunate decision from the Ministry, the course is now conducted only with Indian participants,” SDMRI director JK Patterson Edward had said in an e-mail communiqué with the Bangladeshi and Sri Lankan participants.

“We were in receipt of the letter from the Ministry on 20th October 2009 and we tried our best to get things done, but now we felt that it was too late and not within our hands.”

A Bangladeshi journalist, who was deprived of participation in the course due to a last minute decision of the Indian foreign ministry said, “FOJO or the Swedish International Development Agency (SIDA), the financer of the programme, should rethink before further funding any project in India as it harass foreign journalists to get visa or let attend them in the programmes.”

SIDA sources say they are not involved in this training project or its funding, but FOJO is. The official FOJO web site says, “The vulnerable coastal zones and their crucial role for the ecological balance is the focus of a new Fojo project. The objectives of the project are to strengthen environmental journalism, especially regarding marine issues and to create networks between journalists and scientists working in the region.”

It then adds, with the Indian government’s decision to stop foreign journalist participation, the training programme is now underway for only the Indian journalists “who have unfortunately lost the opportunity to share experiences and knowledge with their colleagues from Sri Lanka and Bangladesh.”

SAS Editorial -

“SouthAsiaSpeaks” wish to add that these are all issues of democratic rights that need to be co-ordinated and acted upon with consensus by a regional network of human rights organisations that to date lack serious intellectual discourse, committed networking and a holistic approach in finding answers on a regional basis. In this regard, South Asian federations mandated to take up human rights in the region, are the most conspicuous in their absence. 

A comprehensive review of Indo – Myanmar Relations and Indian implications

Not so long ago, media reported Indian political interests over riding democratic life of the Myanmar people, with the Indian government accepting the second in Command of the Burmese military junta as their guest in Delhi and then accepting to fund the Dawei sea port in Myanmar. Indian geo politics has decided to reach into ASEAN trade through Myanmar, ignoring the early democratic ideals with which it treated Burma. [read Thinking business with ASEAN through conflict ridden North-East India and India and China competing for Malacca Straits in Burma in http://southasiaspeaks.wordpress.com/category/burmamyanmar/]

Relations between India and Myanmar over nearly five decades have been governed by many complex factors. Amongst them are the strategic location of Myanmar, India’s commitment to idealism-driven support to the restoration of democracy in Myanmar, realism-driven need to deal with those actually governing the country, the implications of China’s increasing presence and role in Myanmar etc. China, fortunately for it, has been able to make its foreign policy decisions without having to bother about the nature of the regime in any country.

This paper, titled “India-Myanmar Relations: A Review” prepared by Mr. R. Swaminathan, President & DG, International Institute for Security and Safety Management (New Delhi), former Special Secretary, DG (Security),Govt. of India and Vice-President, Chennai Centre for China Studies, was presentated on 29 October 2009 at the National Seminar on “Recent Developments in Myanmar : Implications for India”, organized jointly by the Department of Politics & Public Administration(University of Madras) and Center for Asia Studies (Chennai).

Mr. R. Swaminathan, can be contacted at rsnathan@gmail.com and the complete paper presented can be accessed at http://www.c3sindia.org/india/1012 and is recommended for all Indo-Myanmar enthusiasts.

“southasiaspeaks” regrets its inability to publish the whole document in full, due to its length.

 

German Limits on War Facing Afghan Reality

 

Forced to confront the rising insurgency in once peaceful northern Afghanistan, the German Army is engaged in sustained and bloody ground combat for the first time since World War II.

Soldiers near the northern city of Kunduz have had to strike back against an increasingly fierce campaign by Taliban insurgents, while carrying the burden of being among the first units to break the German taboo against military combat abroad that arose after the Nazi era.

At issue are how long opposition in Germany will allow its troops to stay and fight, and whether they will be given leeway from their strict rules of engagement to pursue the kind of counterinsurgency being advocated by American generals. The question now is whether the Americans will ultimately fight one kind of war and their allies another.

For Germans, the realization that their soldiers are now engaged in ground offensives in an open-ended and escalating war requires a fundamental reconsideration of their principles.

After World War II, German society rejected using military power for anything other than self-defense, and pacifism has been a rallying cry for generations, blocking allied requests for any military support beyond humanitarian assistance.

German leaders have chipped away at the proscriptions in recent years, in particular by participating in airstrikes in the Kosovo war. Still, the legacy of the combat ban remains in the form of strict engagement rules and an ingrained shoot-last mentality that is causing significant tensions with the United States in Afghanistan.

Driven by necessity, some of the 4,250 German soldiers here, the third-largest number of troops in the NATOcontingent, have already come a long way. Last Tuesday, they handed out blankets, volleyballs and flashlights as a goodwill gesture to residents of the village of Yanghareq, about 22 miles northwest of Kunduz. Barely an hour later, insurgents with machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades ambushed other members of the same company.

The Germans fought back, killing one of the attackers, before the dust and disorder made it impossible to tell fleeing Taliban from civilians.

“They shoot at us and we shoot back,” said Staff Sgt. Erik S., who, according to German military rules, could not be fully identified. “People are going to fall on both sides. It’s as simple as that. It’s war.”

The sergeant added, “The word ‘war’ is growing louder in society, and the politicians can’t keep it secret anymore.”

Indeed, German politicians have refused to utter the word, trying instead to portray the mission in Afghanistan as a mix of peacekeeping and reconstruction in support of the Afghan government. But their line has grown less tenable as the insurgency has expanded rapidly in the west and north of the country, where Germany leads the regional command and provides a majority of the troops.

The Germans may not have gone to war, but now the war has come to them.

In part, NATO and German officials say, that is evidence of the political astuteness of Taliban and Qaeda leaders, who are aware of the opposition in Germany to the war. They hope to exploit it and force the withdrawal of German soldiers — splintering the NATO alliance in the process — through attacks on German personnel in Afghanistan and through video and audio threats of terrorist attacks on the home front before the German elections last month.

Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the senior American and allied commander in Afghanistan, is pressing NATO allies to contribute more troops to the war effort, even as countries like the Netherlands and Canada have begun discussing plans to pull out. Germany has held out against pleas for additional troops so far.

Ties between Germany and the United States were strained last month over a German-ordered bombing of two hijacked tanker trucks, which killed civilians as well as Taliban. Many Germans, from top politicians down to enlisted men, thought that General McChrystal was too swift to condemn the strike before a complete investigation.

Germany’s combat troops are caught in the middle. In interviews last week, soldiers from the Third Company, Mechanized Infantry Battalion 391, said they were understaffed for the increasingly complex mission here. Two men from the company were killed in June, among 36 German soldiers who have died in the Afghan war.

The soldiers expressed frustration over the second-guessing of the airstrike not only by allies, but also by their own politicians, and over the absence of support back home.

While the intensity of the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan’s south has received most attention, the situation in the Germans’ part of the north has deteriorated rapidly. Soldiers said that just a year ago they could patrol in unarmored vehicles. Now there are places where they cannot move even in armored vehicles without an entire company of soldiers.

American officials have argued that an emphasis on reconstruction, peacekeeping and the avoidance of violence may have given the Taliban a foothold to return to the north.

German officers here said they had adjusted their tactics accordingly, often engaging the Taliban in firefights for hours with close air support. In July, 300 German soldiers joined the Afghan Army and National Police in an operation in Kunduz Province that killed more than 20 Taliban fighters and led to the arrests of half a dozen more.

The German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung called the operation “a fundamental transition out of the defensive and into the offensive.”

Germany’s military actions are controlled by a parliamentary mandate, which is up for renewal in December. The German contingent has unarmed drones and Tornado fighter jets, which are restricted to reconnaissance and are not allowed to conduct offensive operations.

German soldiers usually stay in Afghanistan for just four months, which can make it difficult to maintain continuity with their Afghan partners. The mandate also caps the number of troops in the country at 4,500.

A NATO official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly on the matter, called the mandate “a political straitjacket.”

A company of German paratroopers in the district of Chahar Darreh, where insurgent activity is particularly pronounced, fought off a series of attacks and stayed in the area, patrolling on foot and meeting with local elders for eight days and seven nights.

“The longer we were out there, the better the local population responded to us,” said Capt. Thomas K., the company’s commander. Another company relieved them for three days but then abandoned the position, where intelligence said that a bomb was waiting for the next group of German soldiers.

“Since we were there, no other company has been back,” the captain said.

Kunduz, Afghanistan — Stefan Pauly contributed reporting from Berlin.

Source – http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/27/world/27germany.html?_r=1&_

 

 

Everything depends on President Rajapaksa – even the Opposition “Common” candidate & SL’s future

by Kusal Perera

President Rajapaksa is expected back tomorrow morning at “Temple Trees” from his official Vietnam tour. He is expected to meet Monday evening with the Ceylon Petroleum Corporation (CPC) trade union leaders in resolving their salary issue which prompted them to go on a “work to rule” from Thursday last week. This created heavy panic buying of fuel and much chaos in commuting. If this trade union demand of the CPC employees is not met adequately (even if it is met, for that matter) other trade unions are threatening trade union action in very sensitive areas like electricity, ports and telecommunications.

Everything depends on President Rajapaksa right now. What he says and does would see a spate of changes in most things “Sri Lankan”.  Even the fate of the JVP initiated, UNP led national front’s latest pet, the “common” presidential candidate.

President Rajapaksa is expected to make a decision on the next elections in a few days, after his arrival. Perhaps, in a few weeks. He is expected to declare a presidential election, chopping off 02 years from his first term as president. Insiders, real insiders who have unrestricted access to his family dinners and breakfasts claim, the 02 year issue would be dealt with once the presidential election is over. Thus it is implied that the Rajapaksas have already decided “they” would win the next presidential election on their own conditions, what ever the Opposition feel or do about it.

The question that would then arise is, how certain would that be, if a broad Opposition alliance that includes the UNP, the JVP, SLFP-M Wing and other little rag tag groups and parties come up with the war hero, Fonseka, as the common opposition candidate ?

That too, that is Sarath F as the common candidate of the opposition could also be decided by President Rajapaksa. Perhaps it is reason why Chief of Defense Staff (CDS), Gen Fonseka to date has not made any comment what so ever on his speculated candidature, while allowing others to do the talking.

The legal responsibility of such high standing officials in the State, does not allow them to vacate their positions as and when they want. That holds more water, with the armed forces. This legal restriction has logic, in not allowing any such highly responsible positions to fall vacant without prior arrangement. Here lies the catch, President Rajapaksa could play to his absolute advantage.

Fonseka was shifted to the position of CDS before his service extension as Army Commander expired and he thus has time till 2009 December 18, for his retirement. President Rajapaksa will be qualified to go for the next presidential election any day after 2009 November 17, when he completes 04 years in office. Thus, it gives President Rajapaksa 30 days from his qualifying date of 17 November, to checkmate the Opposition Common candidate. If President Rajapaksa decides to have the nomination day for the next presidency fixed any time within those 30 days, it would technically leave the Opposition’s common candidate completely out of the scene.

The trap this common candidate has fallen to is that, he can not even retire prior to his official retirement date, unless the Commanding Chief of the Armed Forces, who is the President, accepts such retirement. Hence, President Rajapaksa has the discretion in his hand in keeping the CDS in service until 18 December, even if he tenders his retirement papers prematurely.

What then would the Opposition’s dilemma be ? They could try legal interpretations to say that the CDS position was created by parliament on an act that provides final decision making powers to the Secretary Defense and therefore the CDS position does not have such restrictions on responsibility. Yet, that would be a long drawn out battle in the Courts that may not give enough time to submit nominations, as the State could have a restrictive order served, till the case is closed and the case could be any way dragged out for over a month.

The opposition alliance and the JVP, would therefore have to find a fall back position. The other Sarath seems to be out of favour by now. He is any way expected to be investigated by the Bribery Commission and that may get accelerated, if any wind carries his name around.

What it clearly means is, the JVP is in the know of this catch 22 situ and have already decided to go on a “boycott the presidential elections” slogan. Their star theoretical orator, Anura Kumar Dissanayake has said they are in the process of forming an alternate front to demand the abolishing of the presidency. This has no ambiguity in that it could be turned into a boycott campaign, when President Rajapaksa declares his presidential election.

Will the UNP follow the same line ? They’ve got nothing to lose by joining in. They would any way lose the presidential elections, with no credible candidate and no credible programme in hand to be campaigned for. For now, the tide is for the Rajapaksas and against the general public. That, with the consensus of the Southern constituency, of course.

It would only be a matter of checking how many countries are still below us, in the “Failed State” index.

25 October, 2009

Panglong Agreement, Federal Principles and the 2008 Myanmar Constitution

by Kay Latt

Gen Aung San with Sir Huber Rance

In 1947, Bo Gyoke Aung San met with ethnic leaders, mostly Shan, Kachin and Chin, and concluded an agreement in a town named “Panglong.” The agreement became known as the “Panglong Agreement.” A Panglong principle or spirit of equal representation was born along with the Panglong Agreement. What is sad is that the spirit of the agreement was missing in each of the following Burmese constitutions.

So what is the Panglong Agreement and Panglong spirit?

In the Panglong Agreement preamble, it is described: “The members of the Conference, believing that freedom will be more speedily achieved by the Shans, the Kachins and the Chins by their immediate co-operation with the Interim Burmese Government, have accordingly, and without dissentients, agreed:”

With the Panglong Agreement, ethnic leaders entrusted their fate to Gen Aung San to determine their future by achieving absolute independence from the British followed by a power-sharing. In return for their cooperation, Aung San agreed to equal rights for ethnic people and assured them of a Union form of government with power sharing as well as a right of secession. An spirit of mutual trust and mutual benefit was born in the Panglong spirit. But it did not last long.

However, in the 1947 Constitution, ethnic leaders say that real power was not with the lower bodies, resulting in a semi-federal or unitary state in essence. The central government controlled all power at the local, state and central level, leaving non-Burman ethnic groups no power at all. An attempt was made to save the Panlong spirit just before the Ne Win era. In June 1961, more than 200 ethnic leaders from Shan, Kachin, Karenni, Karen, Chin, Mon and Rakhine met at Taung Gyi in Shan State and held a constitutional review conference in which they demanded a “genuine federal union.”

As promised in election campaigns, U Nu, then the prime minister, convened a National Convention in February 1962 in Rangoon. In this convention, which political parties, ethnic leaders and government representatives attended, Chao Khun Cho, the minister for Shan State, addressed the convention. He pointed out the flaws of the 1947 Constitution and submitted a plan to form union they preferred; to unite Burma as one state; to assure equal power to two houses; to send equal numbers of representatives to a “house of nationalities” and to give limited power to federal government whereas residual power remained in the states.

Gen Ne Win interrupted the process by a coup d’état, claiming he was preventing the union from disintegration. As a result, civil war intensified.

Ne Win suspended the 1947 constitution together with the Panglong Agreement. Ne Win launched propaganda a propaganda campaign linking “federal principles” to the disintegration of the union.

Gen Aung San with ethnic Kachin women

There are 135 races or tribes in Burma according to the military’s account. About half of the so-called 135 races are from Chin State, which makes up about only 3 percent of the population. Burma has only eight constituent states: Arakan, Chin, Kachin, Shan, Kayah, Karen, Mon and Burman. The Burman is the largest ethnic group, approximately 60 percent of the population, of about 50 million. The remainder is made up of other ethnic nationalities.

In a deeply divided country like Burma, a federal system is the only option for the formation of union. There is no better choice for a country between two most populated countries in the world. How does the Constitution approved in 2008 view federal principles and the Panglong spirit? We can look at it on the basis of what Sao Khun Hkio, then head of Shan State, submitted to the Taungyi Conference: the structure of the state, equality in the House of Nationalities, distribution of power in two Houses and power separation between federal and state governments.

Structure of the Union

A federal union type of constitution should provide for the distribution of state power between the center and constituent units. The constituent units usually possess exclusive authority to exercise power for the benefit of their local area and the authority to deal with their concerns. In the 2008 constitution, there are seven regions and seven states providing respective regions and states equality in status with a strong government in the center.

Based on the SPDC’s design of the union, all seven regions are populated overwhelmingly by ethnic Burman. In other words, equality does not exist for ethnic minorities in terms of representation in the House of Nationalities, or “Amyotha Hluttaw.” Despite the appearance of autonomy at all levels down to the self-administered zones, the states that now comprise very large numbers of minorities have been marginalized and become satellites of the center.

Equality of number in House of Nationalities

The Amyotha Hluttaw (House of Nationalities) shall be formed with a maximum number of 224 members including 56 representatives from the Defense Services nominated by the commander-in chief, plus elected members in an equal number of 12 representatives from each region or state. Therefore, the number of representatives of non-Burman and those of Burman will be equal, with only 84 seats representing non-Burman states.

Ethnic groups also complained of this unequal share of representation in the House for Nationalities in the 1947 constitution.

Division of Legislative Power

The legislative power is apportioned to two Houses namely; Pyithu Hluttaw and Amyotha Hluttaw. They have concurrent power to initiate legislative bills. However, the Union Budget Bill, the most important bill for the whole Union, can only be submitted at the Pyidaungsu Hluttaw (the two Houses combined), which is a deliberate attempt to ensure centralization. In the Pyidaungsu Hluttaw, 84 seats represent ethnic nationalities while Burmans occupy the remainder.

In articles 95 (b) of 2008 Constitution, it states: “If there is disagreement between the Pyithu Hluttaw and the Amyotha Hluttaw concerning a Bill, the Bill shall be discussed and resolved in the Pyidaungsu Hluttaw.” The Pyidaungsu Hluttaw, with only one-eight of the seats representing non-Burman ethnic groups, will determine the outcome.

Power Separation between Federal and State Government

By looking at the legislative duties of the Union legislative list and Region or State legislative list, it is clear that real power resides in the Pyidaungsu (Union) rather than in the regions and states. The list of legislation that can be approved at the Union level includes defense and security, foreign affairs, finance and planning, budgets and taxes, exports, imports, hotels and tourism, agriculture and livestock breeding, energy, electricity, mining and forestry, industry, transport and communication, as well as a social sector including education and health with, in all, 124 items under the aforesaid titles.

The legislative list for regions or states includes finance and planning, agriculture and livestock breeding, energy, electricity, mining and forestry sectors, medium and small-scale commercial production of electricity and salt production. Regions and states are allowed 41 items. Clearly, in the junta’s 2008 Constitution, there is no spirit of Panglong in terms of the constitution’s structure and essence.

The Panglong spirit represented mutual trust and mutual benefit among all ethnic nationalities but those principles have been excluded from the current Constitution, which is likely to foster more division among the ethnic nationalities and the majority Burman ethnic group which holds an unequal share of power.

Monday, October 19, 2009

——————
EBO South Asia Office
Green Park Main, New Delhi – 110016, India; Telefax  + 91-11-26511207

Euro-Burma Office (EBO)
Square Gutenberg 11/2, 1000 Bruxelles, Belgium
Tel: (32 2) 280 0691 / 280 2452; Fax: (32 2) 280 0310
Website: www.euro-burma.eu

The aim of the Euro-Burma Office is to promote the development of democracy in Burma by assisting the Burmese democracy movement to prepare for a transition to democracy.

The US State Department Report holds Sri Lankan Government responsible for war crimes abuses along with Tamil Tigers

The US State Department presented its ‘unclassified’ report titled “2009 – Report to Congress on Incidents During the Recent Conflict in Sri Lanka”

The report was mandated by the 2009 Supplemental Appropriations Act. The act directed the Secretary of State to submit a report “detailing incidents during the recent conflict in Sri Lanka that may constitute violations of international humanitarian law or crimes against humanity, and, to the extent practicable, identifying the parties responsible.”

This report presented to Congress on 21^st October and released on 22^nd October on the US State Department website, says, “Crimes against humanity are certain offences committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack against any civilian population with knowledge of the attack. Specific acts of crimes against humanity include murder; extermination; torture; rape; persecution; enforced disappearance; and other inhumane acts, when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population with knowledge of that attack.”

The report says, “In addition to allegations of incidents that may constitute violations of International Human Rights Law and/or crimes against humanity, and in our efforts to collect as much pertinent information as possible, we received reports regarding other alleged harms against civilians, including incidents that could constitute human rights abuses. These incidents are included in the report in the interest of providing a sense of the broad range of harms civilians allegedly suffered from January to May 2009.”

The Sri Lankan government has promised to ensure accountability through domestic inquiries. In a joint statement issued in May this year, President Mahinda Rajapaksa and the UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon, underlined the importance of an accountability process for addressing violations of international law and stated that “[t]he Government will take measures to address those grievances.” In the five months since the war ended, the SL government has not initiated any investigations.

“Concerned governments should use the US State Department report as a clarion call for an international investigation,” said Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “There are no more excuses for inaction.” he has added.

Following is the executive summary of the report.

Executive Summary

This report is submitted pursuant to the Joint Explanatory Statement accompanying the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009 (P.L. 111-32), which directed the Secretary of State to submit a report ―detailing incidents during the recent conflict in Sri Lanka that may constitute violations of international humanitarian law or crimes against humanity, and, to the extent practicable, identifying the parties responsible. The alleged incidents set forth herein occurred in the context of the final months of an armed conflict between the Government of Sri Lanka (GSL) and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), which has been listed as a terrorist organization by the United States since 1997. While the conflict lasted intermittently for 25 years, this report focuses on incidents that occurred from January 2009, when fighting intensified, through the end of May 2009, when Sri Lankan government forces defeated the LTTE. It does not provide, nor is it intended to be, a comprehensive portrayal of the conflict.

The United States recognizes a state’s inherent right to defend itself from armed attacks, including those by non-state actors such as terrorist groups. The United States also expects states and non-state actors to comply with their international legal obligations. This report compiles alleged incidents that transpired in the final stages of the war, which may constitute violations of international humanitarian law (IHL) or crimes against humanity and related harms. The report does not reach legal conclusions as to whether the incidents described herein actually constitute violations of IHL, crimes against humanity or other violations of international law. Nor does it reach conclusions concerning whether the alleged incidents detailed herein actually occurred.

The report addresses the following categories of incidents:

• Children in armed conflict—According to reports, on numerous occasions during the January to May 2009 reporting period the LTTE took both male and female children, some as young as 12, to join LTTE cadres.
• Harm to civilians and civilian objects—The State Department has not received casualty estimates covering the entire reporting period; sources alleged that a significant number of deaths and injuries incurred at the time of attack were likely never recorded. Senior Sri Lankan officials made repeated public statements denying that the GSL was shelling the NFZ or targeting hospitals and was not responsible for any civilian casualties. However, sources alleged that the majority of shelling in the NFZ was from GSL forces. The GSL announced that it would observe a 48-hour ceasefire on two occasions. The stated aim of these was to allow civilians to move into areas in which they would not be subject to shelling. Incident reports suggest, however, that the GSL may have begun shelling before the end of the second 48-hour ceasefire. Reports also indicated that the LTTE forcibly prevented the escape of IDPs and used them as ―human shields.
• Killing of captives or combatants seeking to surrender—A number of sources alleged that the GSL committed unlawful killings. Multiple reports alleged that in the final few days of fighting, senior LTTE leaders contacted international representatives in an effort to broker a surrender but were killed after they allegedly reached a surrender agreement with the GSL. Disappearances—According to reports, GSL forces or GSL-supported paramilitaries abducted and in some instances then killed Tamil civilians, particularly children and young men. Sources reported that these individuals were taken to undisclosed locations without any further information being provided to relatives. IDP checkpoints and camps were alleged to be particularly vulnerable areas, with a heavy military presence hindering the ability of international organizations to conduct protection monitoring and confidential IDP interviews.
• Humanitarian conditions—Reports include instances of severe food shortages; malnutrition, particularly among the very young and old; as well as surgeries being performed with little or no anesthetic. The GSL pledged to provide sufficient food and medical supplies to people in IDP camps and to those trapped in the NFZ. However, most reports point to significant gaps between food, medicine, and clean water needs and the available supplies in the NFZ and IDP camps.

The full report can be accessed by clicking the link below http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/131025.pdf

Crisis in Afghan elections and Karzai sticking in but Obama to decide what’s best for the US

The election commission is “going to act on the orders of the president (Karzai),” said the Western official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly. “The worst thing you could have is the president to reject the process that the international community has been hailing.” (The Washington Post)

The spokesman for Mr. Karzai’s campaign, Wahid Omar, denied that Mr. Karzai was rejecting the outcome of the audit but said that the campaign was concerned that the process was “being overshadowed by political discussions.” “We will not be committed to a result that is decided on politically,” Mr. Omar said. (The New York Times)

The war in Afghanistan entered its ninth year this month, with U.S. commanders acknowledging that the 100,000-strong U.S.-led international contingent and Afghan security forces are at risk of losing. A recent U.S. intelligence assessment estimated that there now are at least 25,000 full-time Islamist guerrillas in Afghanistan, 20 percent more than there were a year ago. (McClatchy)

“I think that we have taken into account every possible outcome as we have engaged in our strategic analysis,” Mrs. Clinton said during an interview with CNN. Mrs. Clinton also said that Mr. Obama will “make a decision on his own timetable, when he is absolutely comfortable with what he believes is in the best interest of the United States.” (CNN)

Armed riots threatened as Karzai scorns election inquiry

Hamid Karzai, the Afghan president, has threatened to ignore the findings of an investigation into widespread fraud that made it appear he had won an election victory over his rival in August.

The country’s Electoral Complaints Commission (ECC) had been due to announce yesterday that Karzai’s share of the ballots was being cut from 54.6% to about 47% as a result of the inquiry, triggering a second round of voting. But the announcement was delayed amid diplomatic efforts to convince Karzai to abide by the decision.

Karzai insists that he should be declared the outright winner and has dismissed reports of widespread fraud as “totally fabricated” and “politically motivated”.

In a bleak assessment to foreign ambassadors in Kabul last night the head of the United Nations in Afghanistan, Kai Eide, warned that the situation was “very tense”.

“He was encouraging the ambassadors to get their foreign ministers to call up Karzai and underline the importance of sticking to the constitution and accepting the ECC’s decision,” said an insider at the meeting.

The American senator John Kerry met the president for the second time in two days to emphasise “the need for a legitimate outcome”, an embassy official said. French diplomats said a surprise visit by their foreign minister, Bernard Kouchner, was also intended to defuse “tension created by the repeated delays in announcing the election results”.

Gordon Brown, the prime minister, has telephoned Karzai twice in seven days, while Hillary Clinton, the American secretary of state, spoke to him late on Friday night.

The final results have been delayed for more than eight weeks while investigators wade through more than 3,000 allegations of fraud, including almost 900 deemed serious enough to alter the result.

Karzai’s aides claim the West is trying to change the outcome to be unfavourable to him. Diplomats fear that if he rejects the ECC’s findings, opposition supporters will riot and the country could be paralysed.

Supporters of Abdullah Abdullah, the main opposition candidate, have threatened to hit the streets “with Kalashnikovs” if the president claims a victory in the first round. Both men still insist that they will never work together but their rhetoric has softened following the arrival of Zalmay Khalilzad, a former American ambassador to the UN, to negotiate. Some western officials believe a “programme of national consensus” may emerge, in which Abdullah’s ideas are incorporated into government policy even if he does not join a coalition.

The ECC is expected to order the Independent Election Commission (IEC), which ran the election, to annul thousands of votes because of fraud. But western officials said the IEC was “frantically searching the electoral law” to avoid this.

“It’s outrageous,” said a British official involved in the process. “Those orders are not optional.”

A UN spokesman said more than 200 district officials were being replaced because of “corruption and incompetence” in the first round.

In one district tribal elders have claimed that a brother of the president forged 23,900 votes after closing their polling stations and confiscating their ballot boxes.

Preparations are under way for a second round. But the onset of winter means the first week of next month is the latest date a run-off could be held. “I think we’ll get a deal between the two candidates before we get to a run-off,” said a senior western election monitor.

Afghanistan faces possible election run-off

A UN-backed Electoral Complaints Commission had been due to release the results of a recount on Saturday that Western diplomats believe will deprive Mr Karzai of enough votes to indicate a run-off with Abdullah Abdullah, his main rival.

However, delays in publishing the investigation’s findings stoked concerns among diplomats that Mr Karzai may use his influence over a separate Independent Election Commission, which must certify any final results, to block any attempt to deprive him of outright victory.

Those concerns will be heightened by comments from Zekria Barakzai, the deputy chief electoral officer at the IEC, who warned that it might be impossible to hold a run-off due to the threat of Taliban attacks and the encroaching winter. The IEC’s top officials are appointed by Mr Karzai.

“Holding a second round of the election is really challenging for the IEC. Security and weather will make it pretty impossible to run a second round,” Mr Barakzai told the Financial Times.

The prospect of protracted wrangling over the results of a complex recount process could prolong political uncertainty and throw Western strategy for fighting a strengthening Taliban insurgency deeper into disarray. A prolonged dispute could raise the risk of ethnic tensions between Mr Karzai’s Pashtun community in the south and the Tajik minority in the north, many of whom back Mr Abdullah.

Envoys are seeking to forge a compromise between Mr Karzai and Mr Abdullah that would resolve the crisis stemming from evidence of widespread fraud at the August 20 elections, though a source close to the discussions said no breakthrough seems imminent.

The source said Mr Karzai’s supporters were insisting that they be granted victory in the first-round to allow them to improve their bargaining position ahead of power-sharing talks with Mr Abdullah.

“They don’t want a second round, they think they have won the election, and that their right is being taken away from them. They want to negotiate from a position of strength,” the source said. “Ultimately whatever happens there has to be a broad political understanding to avoid polarisation and fault lines.”

The source added that Mr Abdullah’s camp was intent on the recount process being allowed to run its course in the belief that any order to hold a second round – even if it is not implemented – will bolster their hand in power-sharing talks.

Mr Karzai and his officials have already begun to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the recount in the past few days, reinforcing concerns that they may be preparing the ground to reject its conclusions.

Waheed Omer, a spokesman for Mr Karzai’s campaign, said he was concerned that the recount might be being “politically manipulated,” although he said he still had confidence in the process.

Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary-general, Hillary Clinton, the U.S. Secretary of State, and Gordon Brown, the UK prime minister, called the various candidates on Friday amid growing international concerns about Afghanistan’s political future.

Both Mr Karzai and Mr Abdullah’s supporters deny they are in discussions over any political solution. Diplomatic sources believe, however, that contacts between the two camps are taking place through various mediators.

Nellika Little, a spokeswoman for the ECC, said that results had not been issued on Saturday due to the extreme care being taken by the commission, whose members are partly appointed by the UN. “The commissioners are being super-cautious about making sure that their numbers are right,” she said. “They see more the need to get this right than rush it because everyone’s waiting for a result.”

The ECC may start to release some of its findings on Sunday, although it is unclear how soon it will release a full enough picture to determine whether the IEC will be obliged to call a run-off.

Diplomats say repeated changes in the methodology used by the ECC for its audit in the past few weeks have added another layer of confusion to the elaborate process.

The IEC has also raised the prospect of further disputes by insisting that it reserves the right to question the ECC’s findings. “After the Electoral Complaints Commission hands over the results to the IEC then the IEC will take it’s time to review the results and see if any changes are required,” said a senior IEC official.

US senator warns on Afghan troops

US Senator John Kerry has said it would be irresponsible to send more US troops to Afghanistan before the result of the presidential election there is clear.

Mr Kerry’s comments came as foreign officials pressed Afghan President Hamid Karzai to accept that he might have to face a run-off.

A fraud investigation is expected to bring Mr Karzai’s vote count below the 50% needed to avoid a second round.

Washington is debating a request for 40,000 more troops in Afghanistan. Gen Stanley McChrystal, the US and NATO commander in the country, recommended sending the extra troops as the US reviewed its strategy. US and international troops are fighting resurgent Taliban forces in Afghanistan, an effort that observers say has been complicated by uncertainty over the 20 August election.

‘Good governance’

In comments to CNN to be broadcast on Sunday, Mr Kerry advised against a troop increase before the result of the vote was clear.

Afghan fraud allegations

13 Oct: Karzai casts doubt on fair functioning of ECC, but his opponents accuse him of manufacturing his concerns·

30 Sep: UN recalls envoy Peter Galbraith following row over the vote recount process·

15 Sep: ECC chief says 10% of votes need to be recounted·

8 Sep: IEC says votes from 600 polling stations “quarantined”·

3 Sep: Claims 30,000 fraudulent votes cast for Karzai in Kandahar·

30 Aug: 2,000 fraud allegations are probed; 600 deemed serious·

20 Aug: Election day and claims 80,000 ballots were filled out fraudulently for Karzai in Ghazni·

18 Aug: Ballot cards sold openly and voter bribes offered·

In an interview from the Afghan capital, Kabul, the senator said it would be “entirely irresponsible” for US President Barack Obama to commit more troops “when we don’t even have an election finished and know who the president is”.

“When our own… commanding general tells us that a critical component of achieving our mission here is, in fact, good governance, and we’re living with a government that we know has to change and provide it, how could the president responsibly say, ‘Oh, they asked for more, sure, here they are?’” he said.

Mr Kerry, who chairs the US Senate’s foreign relations committee, was one of several senior international figures in Kabul this weekend meeting Afghan leaders. Initial results from August’s election gave Mr Karzai 55% of the votes, with his nearest rival, Abdullah Abdullah, getting 28%.

But the UN-backed Electoral Complaints Commission (ECC) launched an investigation into the vote following allegations of widespread electoral fraud. It will report to the Independent Election Commission (IEC), which could adjust the final tally, bringing Mr Karzai’s vote total below 50% and triggering a run-off.

Officials say Mr Karzai is furious over the prospect of facing a second round, threatening to delay or block attempts to hold a second round. He has refused to accept the ECC’s findings before they are released.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown telephoned the main candidates on Friday, urging Mr Karzai to accept the findings of the ECC’s fraud investigations.

The French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner was also in Kabul to meet Mr Karzai and Mr Abdullah.

The ECC had been expected to announce its findings on Saturday. But the reported confrontation with Mr Karzai may delay the official announcement of results.

Sources used and quoted -

“Armed riots threatened as Karzai scorns election inquiry” – By Jerome Starkey in Kabul (The Sunday Times) October 18

‘Brick wall’ feared in Afghan election – By Joshua Partlow ; (The Washington Post) October 18 -

Allies press Karzai to accept election audit results – By Sabrina Tavernise (The New York Times) October 17 –

Karzai balking at deal to end Afghan election dispute (McClatchy)  October 17 –

Afghanistan faces possible election run-off  By Fazel Reshad, Kabul October 17 – (Financial Times)

Adhivasies speak out : Government’s “Offensive” is a formula for “Bloodshed and Injustice”

Adhivasies speak out : Government’s “Offensive” is a formula for “Bloodshed and Injustice”

The Campaign for Survival and Dignity, a national platform of adivasi and forest dwellers’ mass organisations from ten States, unequivocally condemns the reported plans for a military “offensive” by the government in the country’s major forest and tribal areas. This offensive, ostensibly targeted against the CPI (Maoist), is a smoke screen for an assault against the people, especially adivasis, aimed at suppressing all dissent, all resistance and engineering the takeover of their resources. Certain facts make this clear:

• The government tells us that this offensive will make it possible for the “state to function” in these areas and fill the “vacuum of governance.” This is grossly misleading. The Indian state is very, very active in these areas, often in its most brutal and violent form. A vivid example is the illegal eviction of more than 3,00,000 families by the Forest Departments a few years ago. Laws have been totally disregarded; Constitutional protections for adivasi rights blatantly ignored and their rights over water, forest and land (jal, jangal, jamin) glaringly violated. Every month an increasing number of people are jailed, beaten and killed by the police. If this is the picture of what “absence” of the state means, people are terrified of what the “presence” of the state will mean. It can only mean converting brutalized governance into militarized rule, a total negation of democracy.

• This is not a war over “development.” People’s struggles in India today are over democracy and dignity – Meaningful development must contribute to strengthening the right of all people to their resources and their production, and thereby to control over their own destiny. For generations, adivasis have fought for their Constitutional rights and entitlements. More recently, mass democratic movements have fought for new laws and policies, such as the Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act (PESA), the Forest Rights Act, the right to work and the right to food, in addition to earlier laws like the Minimum Wages Act, the Restoration of Alienated Lands Acts, and land reform and moneylending laws. These laws make it possible for people to fight for greater control over their lives, their livelihoods, their lands and their forests. However these laws are respected more in the breach; if the government wants “development”, let it first stop the blatant disregard of its own laws. Let people determine the path of their own development, in accordance with their rights over their resources and the type of infrastructure they desire. The Constitution itself requires this kind of planning. The claim that “development” can be provided through military force is both absurd and ridiculous.

• This war is not about “national security”; it is about ‘securing’ the interests of global and Indian capital and big business. Any government worried about security would send its troops against mining mafias, the forest mafias, violent vigilante groups like the salwa judum and others. Rather than being curbed, these killers are in fact supported by the police. Have the security forces ever been deployed to defend the people struggling to protect themselves, their forests, their livelihoods and their futures? The answer is no. The notion of “security” being advanced by the government clearly has nothing to do with the people. Rather, it is to enable big business to engage in robbery and expropriation of resources, which they have decided will be one of their main sources of accumulation. Hence, mining, “infrastructure”, real estate, land grabbing, all aimed at super-profits, are being projected as “development” needed by the people. Huge amounts of international and government money are being pumped into so-called “forestry projects” which displace people from their lands and destroy biodiversity (even while they are trumpeted as a strategy for climate change). The UPA is rushing into agreements with the US and other imperial countries to throw open mining and land to international exploitation. But where do the forests, land, water and minerals lie? They are found in the forest and tribal areas, where people – some organised under the CPI (Maoist), some organized under democratic movements, some in spontaneous local struggles, some simply fighting in whatever manner they can – are resisting the destruction of their homes, resources and their lives. The “offensive against the Maoists” is only a subterfuge to crush this citizens’ resistance and to provide an excuse for more abuse of power, more brutality and more injustice.

• The government knows perfectly well that it cannot destroy the CPI (Maoist), or any people’s struggle, through military action. How can the armed forces identify who is a “Maoist” and who is not? The use of brute military force will result in the slaughter of thousands of people in prolonged, bloody and brutal guerrilla warfare. This has been the result of every “security offensive” in India’s history from Kashmir to Nagaland. So why do this? And why now? Unless the goal has nothing to do with “wiping out the Maoists” and everything to do with having an excuse for the permanent presence of lakhs of troops, arms and equipment in these areas. To protect and serve whom?

• Hence the need for fear mongering and hysteria about Maoist “sympathisers” and their “infiltration” into “civil society.” The government has a very long history of labeling any form of dissent as “Naxalite” or “Maoist.” The Maoists’ politics are known; their positions are public; the only secret aspect of their work is their personal identities and military tactics. We who work in these areas do not fear this bogey of “infiltration” in our groups by Maoists, for the different stands taken by our organizations and theirs are clear, and in some areas there are open disputes. This scaremongering is just an excuse to justify a crackdown on all forms of dissent and democratic protest in these areas, a crushing of all people’s resistance, and the branding of any questioning, any demand for justice, as “Maoist.”

In the final analysis, peace and justice will only come to India’s workers, peasants, adivasis, dalits and other oppressed sections through the mass democratic struggle of the people. A democratic struggle requires democratic space. The conversion of a region into a war zone, by anyone, is unacceptable. In the forest areas in particular, there is now a need for a new peace, one that can only be achieved through a genuine democratic dialogue between the political forces involved. For this to happen, this horrific “offensive” must first be called off. If the government really wishes to claim that it is committed to protecting people and their rights, let its actions comply with the requirements of law, justice and democracy.

Bharat Jan Andolan, National Front for Tribal Self Rule, Jangal Adhikar Sangharsh Samiti (Mah), Adivasi Mahasabha (Guj), Adivasi Jangal Janjeevan Andolan (D&NH), Jangal Jameen Jan Andolan (Raj), Madhya Pradesh Jangal Jeevan Adhikar Bachao Andolan, Jan Shakti Sanghatan (Chat), Peoples Alliance for Livelihood Rights, Chattisgarh Mukti Morcha, Orissa Jan Sangharsh Morcha, Campaign for Survival & Dignity (Ori), Orissa Jan Adhikar Morcha, Adivasi Aikya Vedike (AP), Campaign for Survival and Dignity – TN, Bharat Jan Andolan (Jhar).

The Campaign for Survival and Dignity, a national platform of adivasi and forest dwellers’ mass organisations from ten States, unequivocally condemns the reported plans for a military “offensive” by the government in the country’s major forest and tribal areas. This offensive, ostensibly targeted against the CPI (Maoist), is a smoke screen for an assault against the people, especially adivasis, aimed at suppressing all dissent, all resistance and engineering the takeover of their resources. Certain facts make this clear:

• The government tells us that this offensive will make it possible for the “state to function” in these areas and fill the “vacuum of governance.” This is grossly misleading. The Indian state is very, very active in these areas, often in its most brutal and violent form. A vivid example is the illegal eviction of more than 3,00,000 families by the Forest Departments a few years ago. Laws have been totally disregarded; Constitutional protections for adivasi rights blatantly ignored and their rights over water, forest and land (jal, jangal, jamin) glaringly violated. Every month an increasing number of people are jailed, beaten and killed by the police. If this is the picture of what “absence” of the state means, people are terrified of what the “presence” of the state will mean. It can only mean converting brutalized governance into militarized rule, a total negation of democracy.

• This is not a war over “development.” People’s struggles in India today are over democracy and dignity – Meaningful development must contribute to strengthening the right of all people to their resources and their production, and thereby to control over their own destiny. For generations, adivasis have fought for their Constitutional rights and entitlements. More recently, mass democratic movements have fought for new laws and policies, such as the Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act (PESA), the Forest Rights Act, the right to work and the right to food, in addition to earlier laws like the Minimum Wages Act, the Restoration of Alienated Lands Acts, and land reform and moneylending laws. These laws make it possible for people to fight for greater control over their lives, their livelihoods, their lands and their forests. However these laws are respected more in the breach; if the government wants “development”, let it first stop the blatant disregard of its own laws. Let people determine the path of their own development, in accordance with their rights over their resources and the type of infrastructure they desire. The Constitution itself requires this kind of planning. The claim that “development” can be provided through military force is both absurd and ridiculous.

• This war is not about “national security”; it is about ‘securing’ the interests of global and Indian capital and big business. Any government worried about security would send its troops against mining mafias, the forest mafias, violent vigilante groups like the salwa judum and others. Rather than being curbed, these killers are in fact supported by the police. Have the security forces ever been deployed to defend the people struggling to protect themselves, their forests, their livelihoods and their futures? The answer is no. The notion of “security” being advanced by the government clearly has nothing to do with the people. Rather, it is to enable big business to engage in robbery and expropriation of resources, which they have decided will be one of their main sources of accumulation. Hence, mining, “infrastructure”, real estate, land grabbing, all aimed at super-profits, are being projected as “development” needed by the people. Huge amounts of international and government money are being pumped into so-called “forestry projects” which displace people from their lands and destroy biodiversity (even while they are trumpeted as a strategy for climate change). The UPA is rushing into agreements with the US and other imperial countries to throw open mining and land to international exploitation. But where do the forests, land, water and minerals lie? They are found in the forest and tribal areas, where people – some organised under the CPI (Maoist), some organized under democratic movements, some in spontaneous local struggles, some simply fighting in whatever manner they can – are resisting the destruction of their homes, resources and their lives. The “offensive against the Maoists” is only a subterfuge to crush this citizens’ resistance and to provide an excuse for more abuse of power, more brutality and more injustice.

• The government knows perfectly well that it cannot destroy the CPI (Maoist), or any people’s struggle, through military action. How can the armed forces identify who is a “Maoist” and who is not? The use of brute military force will result in the slaughter of thousands of people in prolonged, bloody and brutal guerrilla warfare. This has been the result of every “security offensive” in India’s history from Kashmir to Nagaland. So why do this? And why now? Unless the goal has nothing to do with “wiping out the Maoists” and everything to do with having an excuse for the permanent presence of lakhs of troops, arms and equipment in these areas. To protect and serve whom?

• Hence the need for fear mongering and hysteria about Maoist “sympathisers” and their “infiltration” into “civil society.” The government has a very long history of labeling any form of dissent as “Naxalite” or “Maoist.” The Maoists’ politics are known; their positions are public; the only secret aspect of their work is their personal identities and military tactics. We who work in these areas do not fear this bogey of “infiltration” in our groups by Maoists, for the different stands taken by our organizations and theirs are clear, and in some areas there are open disputes. This scaremongering is just an excuse to justify a crackdown on all forms of dissent and democratic protest in these areas, a crushing of all people’s resistance, and the branding of any questioning, any demand for justice, as “Maoist.”

In the final analysis, peace and justice will only come to India’s workers, peasants, adivasis, dalits and other oppressed sections through the mass democratic struggle of the people. A democratic struggle requires democratic space. The conversion of a region into a war zone, by anyone, is unacceptable. In the forest areas in particular, there is now a need for a new peace, one that can only be achieved through a genuine democratic dialogue between the political forces involved. For this to happen, this horrific “offensive” must first be called off. If the government really wishes to claim that it is committed to protecting people and their rights, let its actions comply with the requirements of law, justice and democracy.

Signatories -

Bharat Jan Andolan, National Front for Tribal Self Rule, Jangal Adhikar Sangharsh Samiti (Mah), Adivasi Mahasabha (Guj), Adivasi Jangal Janjeevan Andolan (D&NH), Jangal Jameen Jan Andolan (Raj), Madhya Pradesh Jangal Jeevan Adhikar Bachao Andolan, Jan Shakti Sanghatan (Chat), Peoples Alliance for Livelihood Rights, Chattisgarh Mukti Morcha, Orissa Jan Sangharsh Morcha, Campaign for Survival & Dignity (Ori), Orissa Jan Adhikar Morcha, Adivasi Aikya Vedike (AP), Campaign for Survival and Dignity – TN, Bharat Jan Andolan (Jhar).