I haven't used this phrase for a while, but it seems an appropriate time to resurrect it...
Truth is only dangerous to the dangerous.
Friday, August 02, 2013
Security: NSA paid $150 mln to GCHQ to spy on UK citizens
Snowden's leaks continue to span the Atlantic. The latest revelations published by the Guardian show not only was Britain's Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) spying extensively on UK citizens - but it was receiving funds from Washington to do so. RT's Polly Boiko takes a closer look at the US role in it
Violence Against Women: A victim of gender based violence in Mali tells her story
Source: UN Radio
LISTEN
Fighting between Government forces and rebels in the northern part of Mali, which started early last year, has caused insecurity, instability and a growing refugee crisis.
The Human Rights Council says human rights violations were committed by rebels, terrorist groups and other organized transnational crime networkS, particularly in the north of the country.
These abuses, which included violence against women and children, summary and extrajudicial executions, and pillaging, were condemned by the Council.
Today, we tell you the story of Fatoumata, who is one of the victims of the atrocities.
Beng Poblete-Enriquez has more.
Duration: 2'40"
Fighting between Government forces and rebels in the northern part of Mali, which started early last year, has caused insecurity, instability and a growing refugee crisis.
The Human Rights Council says human rights violations were committed by rebels, terrorist groups and other organized transnational crime networkS, particularly in the north of the country.
These abuses, which included violence against women and children, summary and extrajudicial executions, and pillaging, were condemned by the Council.
Today, we tell you the story of Fatoumata, who is one of the victims of the atrocities.
Beng Poblete-Enriquez has more.
Duration: 2'40"
Uzbekistan: Tashkent Wants to Stifle Children to Protect Them
Originally published by EurasiaNet.org
Uzbekistan: Tashkent Wants to Stifle Children to Protect Them
by Murat Sadykov EurasiaNet.org
For months state-run media propaganda in Uzbekistan has warned about the supposedly detrimental effects of foreign media and culture on young people. Now President Islam Karimov’s administration seems intent on trying to legislate morality.
On July 9, the Uzbek Agency for the Press and Information, the government body responsible for regulating media outlets, announced that "in cooperation with interested state and non-state organizations" it had drafted a bill that would protect minors from information deemed harmful to their "physical and spiritual development."
Citing vaguely similar legislation adopted in the United States and in EU countries (mostly relating to pornography), the Uzbek agency's chairman, Amanulla Yunusov, claimed that adopting laws against the distribution of print, audio and video material, as well as computer games, "promoting violence, cruelty, drugs, pornography and other harmful information" would enable Uzbekistan to comply with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Such a claim raised the hackles of international human rights activists, who quickly pointed out a stark dichotomy in the Uzbek government’s attitude toward the welfare of its youngest citizens. When it comes to keeping foreign influences out, the Uzbek government seems ready to take a tough, proactive stance. But when it comes to the domestic economy, specifically the use of forced child labor in the country’s cotton fields, the government is far less interested in the best interests of children.
Observers point out Tashkent has been reluctant to allow an International Labour Organization mission to inspect whether forced child labor is used during cotton harvesting, despite ratifying the ILO Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention in 2008. School children were not seen in cotton fields during last year’s harvesting, but human rights activists said that teenagers aged 15 to 17 were forced to work in fields in the autumn instead of attending classes. Anticipating likely criticism of their practices, authorities reportedly coerced parents into signing a pledge agreeing to their children's cotton picking.
The morality bill is expected to be debated in Uzbekistan’s rubberstamp parliament – where its passage is almost certain – by the end of 2013. It builds on earlier efforts by the Uzbek government to limit public access to independent sources of information, especially on the Internet. Those efforts have been on-going since the country gained independence in 1991. They were significantly expanded following the large-scale killing of mostly peaceful protesters in the eastern city of Andijan in May 2005.
New life was breathed into the government’s desire to shape public attitudes after the beginning of the Arab Spring in December 2010. A massive campaign was launched in the Uzbek media against social-networking sites, the Internet and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), along with foreign cultural imports – elements that the government feared could be used to foment social unrest in the country. “We must pay attention to the fact that some destructive forces are seeking to control young minds and use the Internet in their own narrow goals, and this leads to negative consequences,” Karimov said in connection with a holiday celebrating media workers in June 2011.
That was two years ago, but the state propaganda barrage has continued. In July 2012 a documentary aired by the Yoshlar state-run television channel described social networking as a tool used by foreign powers to foment color-coded revolutions in Georgia and Ukraine back in 2003 and 2004 and, more recently, in some Middle Eastern states. To counter "destructive forces" on the Internet, Uzbekistan, which has been continuously ranked as an "Enemy of the Internet" by Reporters Without Borders in the past few years, has developed its own social-networking sites, including Muloqot.uz, Youface.uz (now defunct) and Sinfdosh.uz to "improve the moral and physical health of youth and form high morals."
The campaign against foreign influence hasn’t been limited to the Internet. In the recent past, authorities have declared war against toys that supposedly represent foreign values, censored rap music and banned five musical acts from singing for undermining Uzbek "moral heritage and mentality.” In addition, authorities have discouraged the observance of Western-oriented holidays, in particular Valentine’s Day and Christmas.
Internet penetration is steadily growing in Uzbekistan: The number of Internet users increased by over 250,000 to 10.1 million during the first quarter of 2013.
Meanwhile, Karimov has acknowledged that it is impossible to completely seal Uzbekistan off from outside influences. "The Internet cannot be fenced off by an iron wall or banned - this is unthinkable," he conceded in a speech in April. Uzbek media outlets are nevertheless keeping up a steady drumbeat against Western culture. For instance, ahead of the announcement of the morality bill earlier this month, two flagship state channels - Uzbekistan and Yoshlar - carried separate shows on the harms of the Internet and Western influence on Uzbek children.
"There are many websites on the Internet that disseminate false information and we can observe websites that aim to manipulate social consciousness. We can also see websites that aim at racism, discrimination, and cyberterrorism, and aim to deprive people of their historical memory and destroy the historical memory. Of course, our young people are surfing these websites when they are using social-networking sites," MP Shuhrat Dehqonov fumed on the "Munosabat" (Attitude) program, posted on Uzbekistan TV channel's website on July 9.
Speaking on the evocatively-titled "Bogeyman on the Screen" program, posted on Yoshlar’s website also on July 9, actor Hojiakbar Komilov joined ranks with those seeking to hold back the western cultural tide: "We won't notice it [influence] right now but children are growing. What nurturing are they receiving? [...] [Foreign] films show violence, blood and murders. What kind of nurturing will children receive after seeing this?"
Armed with the new bill, the Uzbek government appears to be gearing up for a long battle for the minds of its youngest citizens.
Editor's note: Murat Sadykov is the pseudonym for a journalist specializing in Central Asian affairs.
Zimbabwe: Age is no drawback in the Republic of Mugabwe
Age is no drawback in the Republic of Mugabwe1 August 2013
Source: ISS
Peter Fabricius, Foreign Editor, Independent Newspapers, South Africa
I spent a few days just before the elections in the Republic of Mugabwe, just across the Limpopo, not to report but as a guest of local editors and media freedom activists. Nevertheless it was impossible to avoid talking about what were then the imminent 31 July elections. I call it Mugabwe because it used to be named after the arch-imperialist Cecil John Rhodes who founded the country during the 19th century. Now it might just as well be named after the arch-anti-imperialist who ousted the last white ruler in 1980 and has ruled the country ever since. And because is a state largely dedicated to the power and glory of this grand chef, Africa’s last remaining liberation war hero president.
In one of the independent newspapers was a framed copy of an old poster which quoted the police chief saying that President Robert Mugabe had been appointed by God. The implication of course was that only God could remove him from office. That belief gives a peculiar flavour to elections. Unlike in most other countries, elections in Mugabwe, it seemed, are not really about giving the people an opportunity to choose their leader. They are essentially a ritual re-affirmation of the potency and popularity of Mugabe. That means the opposition must be given what looks superficially like a fair chance of unseating him. But in the end Mugabe must always win.
Maybe I’ll be proven wrong over the next few days and Mugabe’s main ‘rival’ Morgan Tsvangirai, leader of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), will finally oust him at the third attempt. After all he bested him in their last contest in 2008, before the Zimbabwe African National Union – Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF) unleashed its full violent power against his supporters to cow him into withdrawing from the second round of elections and giving an uncontested victory to Mugabe. In the power-sharing unity government which the Southern African Development Community (SADC) persuaded Mugabe to go into with Tsvangirai’s MDC and the smaller MDC, Mugabe and ZANU-PF retained all the hard power, leaving the MDCs to perform chores like keeping the economy, the schools and the hospitals ticking over.
One of the big questions about the current elections is whether Mugabe will take the iron fist out of the kid glove. The elections went off peacefully. But many Zimbabweans recalled that the first round of the 2008 elections was also peaceful – but not the second. Judging by Mugabe’s rare display of charm on the eve of voting, he expected to win on the first round this time. He gave a public assurance that he would step down if he lost the election. Presumably he was struck by the irony of the tremendous publicity this statement of the seemingly obvious generated.
Most Zimbabweans and diplomats I spoke to felt sure Mugabe and ZANU-PF would win again this time, probably on the first round. Certainly they had created the opportunity for doing so with a voters’ roll that excluded tens of thousands of voters mostly in the MDC urban strongholds, mainly because the registration process was rushed to meet the 31 July election date. And the voters’ roll conversely also contains tens of thousands of ghost voters, some well over 100 years old, according to the few analysts who have seen it. All those ghost voters could very well have come out to vote for Mugabe and ZANU-PF on 31 July, if called upon.
However even some MDC sympathisers in civil society suspect that Mugabe may not need them, or not many of them. His violent land reforms since 2000 may have sabotaged the economy and benefitted many Mugabe cronies. But thousands of small farmers also got bits of farms seized from white farmers and they and their families will surely vote ZANU-PF. And Mugabe’s indigenisation policy, promising his supporters also a slice of white businesses, has apparently resonated with many young Zimbabweans, even if that policy too is proving destructive economically.
But of course ZANU-PF’s policies have always been about short-term retention of power rather than long-term investment in the economy. And so the ZANU-PF local government minister Ignatius Chombo stole a march on the MDC which controls the cities, by cancelling billions of dollars of arrears in water bills for city dwellers. This was a promise unlikely to be kept – because it would probably cripple the cities – though it no doubt bought some votes. It is also true that Tsvangirai and the MDC did not do their cause much good by their performance in government, which also contributed to the likelihood of a first round victory for Mugabe.
And Mugabe probably needed a first round victory because he didn’t want to have to resort to violence again, with many more election observers from the African Union, SADC and the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) in the country this time, on the lookout for a repeat of 2008. The second round election violence in 2008 was so grim that even many opposition Zimbabweans said they would almost prefer Mugabe to win on the first round than to go through another second round campaign.
One almost detected an underlying and unspeakable hope by many opposition sympathisers that Mugabe and ZANU-PF would win because the implications of a Tsvangirai-MDC victory were so uncertain and unnerving. The generals are still on record as saying they would not serve Tsvangirai. The implication is that they would carry out a coup if he won. More than once I heard the sentiment expressed that ‘democratisation is a long-term process’, implying that the country would not yet be ready for it in these elections.
I did not feel the tension and the anxiety, the electricity in the air one would have expected if people really believed Tsvangirai and the MDC would win – or, perhaps that should rather be, if Mugabe and ZANU-PF allowed them to win – with the huge uncertainty that would usher in. Mugabe’s age really showed in this campaign. Since the MDC parties have been in government, Zimbabweans now know that their great leader often dozes off in cabinet meetings. And during the election campaign they discovered – courtesy of the Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation which faithfully transmitted his every word – that his speeches had become even more rambling than before, interspersed with longer pauses and following an even more tortuous logic.
Mugabe partly rejuvenated himself vicariously by taking his much younger wife Grace with him on the campaign trail, more or less repeating his messages with greater vigour. And his campaign posters carried almost unrecognisable photographs of him taken more than 20 years ago. But he was not able to disguise his age completely and that surely counted against him.
One of the voters on the roll, presumably the oldest, is Nhlanhla Khumalo, a soldier whose date of birth is registered on the roll as 15 August 1885, making him 127 years old. So the people presumably need not fear if they have re-elected a president this week to continue ruling the Republic of Mugabwe until he is 94 – and then perhaps to run again. In Zimbabwe, clearly, age is not a disadvantage.
Media: Lack of protection for journalists' sources remains a problem in U.S.
IFEX
Reporters Without Borders welcomes the action taken by the United States
Department of Justice (DOJ) to tighten the guidelines its prosecutors
use in investigations involving the news media, but remains concerned
about the direction of media freedom in the U.S. The new guidelines were
designed in response to criticism levied over the handling of
controversies involving the seizure of Associated Press telephone records and the search warrant for a Fox News reporter, but there is still much to be desired from the media freedom environment in the U.S.
“While the recently released guidelines by the DOJ are a step in the right direction, in that they restrict the use of subpoenas and search warrants for journalists, the war on
whistleblowers and the lack of protection for journalistic sources are still unaddressed at the federal level, as well as the recent ruling regarding James Risen poses major concerns. Essentially, this is one step forward, two steps back for media freedom in the United States,” said Reporters Without Borders.
On July 19, a two-to-one ruling from the fourth circuit appeals court in Richmond, Virginia found that New York Times reporter, James Risen, must give evidence at the criminal trial of a former CIA agent who is being prosecuted for unauthorized leaking of state secrets. Jeffrey Sterling, the agent in question, is charged with leaking information to Risen in violation of the Espionage Act . The information was made public in a chapter in Risen's book, State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration, which revealed a covert operation involving an attempt to supply Iranian officials with flawed nuclear weapons plans. In response to this verdict, Risen said to Reporters Without Borders, "although I am disappointed in the court's decision, I remain as resolved as ever to continue fighting. I will always protect my sources." At the time of publication of this press release, James Risen and his lawyer have not yet decided on their next legal action.
“Leaks are the lifeblood of investigative journalism,” stated Reporters Without Borders, “given that nearly all information related to national security is considered 'secret' and that the DOJ has argued in the past that reporter's privilege does not exist at all for national security reporters, it is safe to say that this crackdown against whistleblowers is designed to restrict all but officially approved versions of events and information. These developments highlight the need for a comprehensive, federal shield law in the U.S.” added the organization.
A shield law is a law that gives journalists protection against being forced to disclose confidential information or the identity of a source. Confidential sources are a vital element of a journalist's profession and without protection, sources are unlikely to come forward in the future and the truth surrounding controversial events may not materialize.
On May 15, 2013, the White House asked Senator Charles E. Schumer (D-NY) to reintroduce a version of the Free Flow of Information Act , a proposed shield law, that he'd championed back in the 2009 Senate. Representative John Conyers (D-Michigan), Representative Ted Poe (R-Texas) and Representative Trey Radel (R-Florida) have also sought to reintroduce a previous House version of a shield law.
However, the version the Obama administration is hoping to revive is the 2009 Senate version, which maintains broader exemptions for disclosing sources and confidential information than its House counterpart. Furthermore, similar to the Whistleblower Protection Act , the Senate bill contains major exemptions for any leak-based reporting that affects national security. Beyond national security, the proposed Senate shield law would specifically exclude WikiLeaks and other internet-based groups that do not fit the strict language crafted by lawmakers to define a news organization. Similarly, the language defining who qualifies for protection as a journalist would not cover some online reporters, bloggers and freelance writers, depending on their contractual status.
“It is important that any shield law passed actually addresses the issues that are currently plaguing journalists,” said Reporters Without Borders. “The Senate version would not have protected the Associated Press from the government's investigation of their phone records, nor would it have protected Fox News' James Rosen,” continued the Paris-based NGO. “Confidential sources have been integral in informing the public of the government's actions, such as the abuse of prisoners in Abu Ghraib and the Watergate scandal. These events highlight the fact that public debate on American military and intelligence methods is crucial for establishing government oversight. Without a properly equipped shield law, investigative reporting may be rendered toothless in America,” added Reporters Without Borders.
These media freedom concerns are part of a wider trend that has come to light in recent months. The Obama administration has named James Rosen of Fox News as a co-conspirator in its case against State Department leaker Stephen Jin-Woo Kim. Moreover, Jeffrey Sterling, the former CIA employee, is the seventh former government employee to face prosecution under the Espionage Act since Obama took office, alongside former NSA contractor Edward Snowden and Bradley Manning.
“While the recently released guidelines by the DOJ are a step in the right direction, in that they restrict the use of subpoenas and search warrants for journalists, the war on
whistleblowers and the lack of protection for journalistic sources are still unaddressed at the federal level, as well as the recent ruling regarding James Risen poses major concerns. Essentially, this is one step forward, two steps back for media freedom in the United States,” said Reporters Without Borders.
On July 19, a two-to-one ruling from the fourth circuit appeals court in Richmond, Virginia found that New York Times reporter, James Risen, must give evidence at the criminal trial of a former CIA agent who is being prosecuted for unauthorized leaking of state secrets. Jeffrey Sterling, the agent in question, is charged with leaking information to Risen in violation of the Espionage Act . The information was made public in a chapter in Risen's book, State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration, which revealed a covert operation involving an attempt to supply Iranian officials with flawed nuclear weapons plans. In response to this verdict, Risen said to Reporters Without Borders, "although I am disappointed in the court's decision, I remain as resolved as ever to continue fighting. I will always protect my sources." At the time of publication of this press release, James Risen and his lawyer have not yet decided on their next legal action.
“Leaks are the lifeblood of investigative journalism,” stated Reporters Without Borders, “given that nearly all information related to national security is considered 'secret' and that the DOJ has argued in the past that reporter's privilege does not exist at all for national security reporters, it is safe to say that this crackdown against whistleblowers is designed to restrict all but officially approved versions of events and information. These developments highlight the need for a comprehensive, federal shield law in the U.S.” added the organization.
A shield law is a law that gives journalists protection against being forced to disclose confidential information or the identity of a source. Confidential sources are a vital element of a journalist's profession and without protection, sources are unlikely to come forward in the future and the truth surrounding controversial events may not materialize.
On May 15, 2013, the White House asked Senator Charles E. Schumer (D-NY) to reintroduce a version of the Free Flow of Information Act , a proposed shield law, that he'd championed back in the 2009 Senate. Representative John Conyers (D-Michigan), Representative Ted Poe (R-Texas) and Representative Trey Radel (R-Florida) have also sought to reintroduce a previous House version of a shield law.
However, the version the Obama administration is hoping to revive is the 2009 Senate version, which maintains broader exemptions for disclosing sources and confidential information than its House counterpart. Furthermore, similar to the Whistleblower Protection Act , the Senate bill contains major exemptions for any leak-based reporting that affects national security. Beyond national security, the proposed Senate shield law would specifically exclude WikiLeaks and other internet-based groups that do not fit the strict language crafted by lawmakers to define a news organization. Similarly, the language defining who qualifies for protection as a journalist would not cover some online reporters, bloggers and freelance writers, depending on their contractual status.
“It is important that any shield law passed actually addresses the issues that are currently plaguing journalists,” said Reporters Without Borders. “The Senate version would not have protected the Associated Press from the government's investigation of their phone records, nor would it have protected Fox News' James Rosen,” continued the Paris-based NGO. “Confidential sources have been integral in informing the public of the government's actions, such as the abuse of prisoners in Abu Ghraib and the Watergate scandal. These events highlight the fact that public debate on American military and intelligence methods is crucial for establishing government oversight. Without a properly equipped shield law, investigative reporting may be rendered toothless in America,” added Reporters Without Borders.
These media freedom concerns are part of a wider trend that has come to light in recent months. The Obama administration has named James Rosen of Fox News as a co-conspirator in its case against State Department leaker Stephen Jin-Woo Kim. Moreover, Jeffrey Sterling, the former CIA employee, is the seventh former government employee to face prosecution under the Espionage Act since Obama took office, alongside former NSA contractor Edward Snowden and Bradley Manning.
Pakistan: Negotiating with the Taliban: Pakistan’s Dangerous Dilemma
Negotiating with the Taliban: Pakistan’s Dangerous Dilemma
The newly elected Pakistani government remains at
the forefront of efforts to negotiate with the Taliban. However, given
its identity and ideology, Salma M Siddiqui warns that the risks of
accommodation could be grave indeed.
In the run-up to the historic 11 May 2013 elections in Pakistan, the Tehreek-e-Taliban (TTP) launched its own campaign to “end the democratic system” in the country. In an open letter to the media, the group’s leader Hekimullah Mehsud stated that campaign rallies and election booths would be targeted by suicide bombers and urged voters to stay home. Mehsud’s appeal was based on religious grounds – he denounced democracy as ‘un-Islamic’ and specified three main parties that would be under fire: the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), the Mutahidda Quami Movement (MQM) and the Awami National Party (ANP), all widely perceived to be secular. Mehsud followed through on his threats and all three parties lost workers and politicians to TTP attacks.
Other political parties, however, including Imran Khan’s Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) and Nawaz Sharif’s Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), were not targeted by the TTP, despite taking part in the ‘un- Islamic’ democratic process. As a result, they were ‘free’ to hold mass rallies and campaign in peace. The PML-N went on to win the majority of the seats and the PTI formed the government in the critical province of Khyber Pakhtoun Khua (KPK). Although it is likely that the PML-N and PTI would have won the election regardless, due to the previous government’s perceived incompetence, it is important to note that the TTP was willing to selectively dismiss its anti-democratic dogma for the sake of political expediency.
The hallmark of the PTI and PML-N’s foreign policy manifesto was the vow to stop drone strikes and initiate a negotiation process with the Taliban. These objectives were amenable to the TTP (and its splinter groups) as drone strikes have caused substantial losses within its hierarchy and negotiations could potentially lead to a power-sharing deal giving the TTP movement a degree of legitimacy. For example, the opening of the Qatar office accorded the Afghan Taliban limited diplomatic status.
Significantly, however, PTI and PML-N’s policy objectives also converged with Pakistani public opinion. Although most Pakistanis remain uncomfortable about the negotiation process, they oppose drone strikes based on the widespread perception that these attacks violate Pakistan’s sovereignty and result in collateral damage. A leaked Pakistani report recently published by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism claims that between 2006-2009 at least 147 civilians were killed in drone attacks, out of which 94 were children. Hence, by simply pursuing the median voter, the PML-N and PTI managed to achieve a ceasefire of sorts with the TTP.
Endemic questions have been raised about whether the Taliban enjoys widespread support in Pakistan. Election Day provided the answer. Despite threats to voters and bombings throughout the day, numerous reports indicate that the May 2013 election had the highest voter turnout in Pakistan’s history. Most Pakistanis willingly defied the TTP’s fatwas and proceeded to cast their votes. The question that now remains is whether the new government will support the resolve of the people, or jeopardize their rights through accommodation with the TTP and the Taliban.
The identity of the TTP
The TTP and associated groups have repeatedly asserted their disregard for fundamental human rights. Since 2008, 5,152 civilians have died in bomb blasts and suicide attacks for which the TTP and its splinter groups have claimed responsibility. The TTP has targeted minority groups, schools, teachers, schoolchildren, and girls in particular. A total of 118 schools, most of which were primary schools, have reportedly been damaged or destroyed in armed attacks. On 9 October 2012, TTP gunmen shot and seriously injured 14 year-old Malala Yousafzai and two other schoolgirls who were returning from school in Mingora, KPK. Malala Yousafzai is a known child activist who spoke out against the closure of girls’ schools by the TTP in the Swat valley. A more recent attack killed 14 female students in Quetta and as the victims were taken to the hospital, an attacker struck there as well. Ever since the CIA’s use of a local doctor in the hunt for Osama Bin Laden was revealed, attacks against medical personnel have also risen. Eleven health workers administering polio vaccinations to children were killed and 4 more injured in targeted attacks in 2012.
The TTP’s track record leaves no room for ambiguity. Their stance regarding most issues, including women and minority groups, has remained unaltered and there are no indications that they are willing to make long-term changes to their policies. A week before he was due to be sworn in, Nawaz Sharif approached a hardline Islamist leader and politician, Sami ul Haq, and asked him to act as his envoy to the Taliban insurgents. Haq, also known as the ‘Godfather of the Taliban,’ agreed to serve as an intermediary. Despite these overtures, Ehsanullah Ehsan, the TTP spokesman stated that they would continue to attack those who oppose his organization.Although no incidents have occurred in Lahore and majority of the Punjab province – the stronghold of Sharif’s party -- the rest of the country continues to experience attacks. More recently, a double bomb attack was conducted against the frequently targeted Shia minority group in Parachinar, a tribal town west of Peshawar, killing 57 and injuring 167. On July 29 TTP militants in police uniform attacked the Central Jail in Dera Ismail Khan and managed to free around 247 inmates, while killing at least 11 people.
While the TTP continues violent assaults against local targets, PTI leader Imran Khan and PML-N leader Nawaz Sharif have repeatedly asserted that the effort to combat the group is not ‘our war’ They have stated that Pakistanis should not be involved in what they perceive to be an American venture. While their sentiments are not unpopular, there are key segments of the population – including many serving in law enforcement and the armed forces– which do not agree. As a senior police officer in Peshawar retorted, ‘What we need is a pat on the back, not daily derision; If Khan says this is not our war, then what does he think we are doing here sacrificing our lives?’ Pakistan has lost 49,000 residents during the war on terror out of which 15,681 were members of the armed forces. As the Pakistani government attempts to facilitate a negotiation process, it is imperative to avoid polarizing or isolating important segments of the country. As another police officer from Peshawar reported, ‘Our political leadership is confused when it comes to the Taliban, and that is undermining police morale and hindering us in our job.’
The dangers of accommodation
In April 2009, the Pakistani government, then headed by PPP leader Asif Zardari, concluded a peace agreement (Nizam e Adl) with a group allied to the TTP, the Tehreek-e-Nafaz-e-Shariat-e-Mohammadi (TNSM). The government allowed the implementation of Islamic Law (shariah) in Malakand district with the specific clauses that the interpretation of the law would be according to the sects of the persons involved in disputes, and that the judges (Qazi’s) would be appointed by the central government. After the agreement, the TNSM leader Maulana Fazlullah (a.k.a Radio Mullah) used illegal radio stations to indoctrinate women and threaten those who remained unconvinced with acts of violence, thereby limiting their mobility, education and access to health stations. Girls’ schools were burned down and women were not allowed to leave the house without male relatives. The agreement was short-lived, however: the Taliban soon began to appoint its own judges and eventually laid siege to a police station, before the Pakistani military commenced operation Rah-e-Rahst against the Taliban in the district. Until now, no further open attempts were made to reach an agreement.
Although the TTP has not yet come to the negotiating table due to continuing drone strikes, the ruling parties are already engaging in alarming practices, raising fears that women’s rights and liberties may be further undermined should negotiations materialize. Pre-election reports revealed that women would not be allowed to vote in parts of KPK – with the tacit approval of the PPP, ANP, JUI-F, PML-N, JI and PTI. In Lower Dir, following an agreement among the major political parties, women were again prevented from voting in the polls. In the Buner district, leaders from the winning party PML-N and Jamaat I Islami entered into a similar agreement to bar women from casting votes in the provincial assembly’s PK-78 constituency. In Swat district’s Amankot village, a Jirga attended by elders and political candidates from PPP, JI, PML-N, ANP and PTI decided that the village women would not cast their votes in the upcoming election. The decision stripped 138,905 registered female voters of their constitutional right to vote. As a result of this agreement, the district representatives for one national assembly seat and three provincial assembly seats were elected by only men. In the KPK, where PTI formed the government, all 12 elected ministers were male. The Social Welfare and Women Development Ministry, which was the focal point working on women’s issues and empowerment was merged with the Zakat and Ushr Ministry – which is a completely unrelated issue and deals with Islamic charity.
However, these views continue to be resisted by women of KPK in various ways. The women of Swat district, in an independent initiative, set up an all-female Jirga. Tabbassum Adnan, head of the all-female Jirga says she first asked to join the main Swat Qaumi Aman Jirga to ensure justice for women but was refused. As she explained: “we have formed our own jirga now and we will decide cases involving women. Our only aim is to provide legal support to women which we are doing by involving police and government authorities.” Based in Mingora, Adnan has thus far been successful in seeking legal aid, organizing protests and helping women register cases with the authorities.
As Pakistan’s ruling elite moves towards dialogue with the Taliban, there is a sense of fear that concessions will be made that jeopardize efforts such as Adnan’s. While it comes as no surprise that the TTP has been adamant in its refusal to recognize Pakistan’s constitution and laws, it is distressing when the state not only fails to extend constitutional rights to all its citizens but circumvents these rights intentionally. Given the dangerous precedents set in past negotiations (2009) and elections (2013), any agreements with these groups must keep the integrity of all citizens in mind if security and liberty are not to become mutually exclusive.
Africa: Case Watch - Narrowing the Door for Human Rights in East Africa
Source: Open Society Foundations
Case Watch: Narrowing the Door for Human Rights in East Africa
by Ben Batros & Haben Fecadu
In “Case Watch” reports, lawyers at the Open Society Justice Initiative provide analysis of notable court decisions and cases that relate to our work to advance human rights law around the world.
The East African Court of Justice (EACJ) hasn’t yet been granted formal human rights jurisdiction. But nevertheless, it has emerged as a growing legal venue in East Africa for human rights cases. In a recent post, we described how the EACJ had begun to hear more human rights cases after its influential Katabazi judgment, where the court held that community states had an obligation under the East African Community Treaty to follow the rule of law, which is itself closely linked with strengthening human rights. But since then, the court has issued a range of judgments that will affect its ability to hear cases involving human rights abuses and restrict the ability of victims to bring such cases.
This trend began with the appeal decision in IMLU v Kenya, which was pending at the time of our previous post and which we noted could have a huge impact on the role of the court in holding governments accountable. Unfortunately, we were right. Although the first instance decision had ruled that the court did have jurisdiction to hear the claims that the Kenyan government had failed to prevent or to investigate over 3,000 cases of murder, torture, or inhumane treatment committed by its security forces while combatting a local militant group in the Mount Elgon region, the appellate division overturned this judgment. It agreed that the court could hear cases involving human rights claims if the court could also identified how they fell under one of the existing grounds for jurisdiction (such as the rule of law), but considered that the first instance court had not explained how this case did so.
Ordinarily, this would not be a major cause for concern—the appellate division would just send the case back and tell the first instance division to do it again. But here, the court went further, and dismissed the case entirely on the basis that it was brought out of time. The East African Community Treaty establishes a very short two month time limit to bring claims. This tight time limit would pose difficulties for any victim of a human rights violation, especially as they often come from marginalized groups with limited access to the legal system. But those difficulties are even more acute in cases of a failure to investigate, when it is difficult to determine, and to prove, when the government’s failure began. Most human rights courts deal with this by accepting that certain violations, including the failure to investigate abuses, are “continuing violations.” But the East African Court rejected this, stating that the East African Community Treaty made no provision for continuing violations and struck out the case. The applicants later sought review of this decision, but the appellate division again rejected their request.
The appellate division maintained this position, and provided further explanation, in a second case, Att’y General of Uganda and Att’y General of Kenya v. Omar Awadh and six others. In this case, seven claimants who were suspected of involvement in the 2010 Kampala World Cup bombings argued that Kenya and Uganda had breached their rights, and the rule of law, when Kenyan officials arrested, detained, and transferred them to Uganda outside of the ordinary extradition procedures, where they were tortured and arraigned on terrorism charges. As with the IMLU case, the first instance division would have allowed the case to be heard, but the EACJ appellate division overturned that ruling and concluded that the case was in fact time barred because the applicants had knowledge of the acts more than two months before they brought the case. The appellate division reiterated that the EAC Treaty creates no exception for continuing violations, and explained its decision by distinguishing the East African Court of Justice from other human rights courts on grounds that its mandate is to interpret the EAC Treaty, while the sole purpose of the other courts is to guarantee that human rights are protected.
These rulings have narrowed the ability of individuals to bring cases before the East African Court of Justice, including cases that raise issues related to the violation of the rule of law and associated human rights, But the door hasn’t been closed entirely. In a recent case, Mhochi v. Att’y General of Uganda, the court upheld claims by a member of the Kenya chapter of the International Commission of Jurists who was detained at Entebbe airport by Ugandan authorities and returned to Kenya. While reiterating that the East African Court is not a human rights court, and therefore rejecting the applicant’s claims under the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, the court held that the Ugandan authorities had denied him due process (they had given no reason for denying entry and refused him a fair hearing or to consider his arguments). Such due process is a component of the rule of law, and this was therefore a violation of Article 6(d) of the East African Community Treaty.
The Mhochi decision reflects both the promise of the East African Court of Justice as a forum where community citizens can hold their governments to account for the commitments that they have made to the rule of law and to associated values of human rights and also the challenges they face in doing so. The court made a strong statement that the obligations under Article 6(d), which include “adherence to the principles of democracy, the rule of law, accountability, transparency, social justice, equal opportunities, gender equality”, “are solemn and serious governance obligations” which it can adjudicate and enforce. Yet it was only able to enforce these obligations because the applicant submitted his claim within the very tight two-month time limit the treaty sets. Given that a member of the International Commission of Jurists was able to submit his claim only on the last day possible, one can see the challenge this poses to the majority of those denied human rights and the rule of law, who will not have such immediate awareness of their rights and access to the legal process—a challenge highlighted by the two previous cases, both rejected by the appeals chamber.
The East African Court is not a human rights court, as it has reminded us in these recent decisions. However, it is still in its burgeoning stages, and through its judgments on the rule of law, it is finding its way as a non-traditional context in which some human rights claims may be vindicated. It remains a court to watch.
Case Watch: Narrowing the Door for Human Rights in East Africa
by Ben Batros & Haben Fecadu
In “Case Watch” reports, lawyers at the Open Society Justice Initiative provide analysis of notable court decisions and cases that relate to our work to advance human rights law around the world.
The East African Court of Justice (EACJ) hasn’t yet been granted formal human rights jurisdiction. But nevertheless, it has emerged as a growing legal venue in East Africa for human rights cases. In a recent post, we described how the EACJ had begun to hear more human rights cases after its influential Katabazi judgment, where the court held that community states had an obligation under the East African Community Treaty to follow the rule of law, which is itself closely linked with strengthening human rights. But since then, the court has issued a range of judgments that will affect its ability to hear cases involving human rights abuses and restrict the ability of victims to bring such cases.
This trend began with the appeal decision in IMLU v Kenya, which was pending at the time of our previous post and which we noted could have a huge impact on the role of the court in holding governments accountable. Unfortunately, we were right. Although the first instance decision had ruled that the court did have jurisdiction to hear the claims that the Kenyan government had failed to prevent or to investigate over 3,000 cases of murder, torture, or inhumane treatment committed by its security forces while combatting a local militant group in the Mount Elgon region, the appellate division overturned this judgment. It agreed that the court could hear cases involving human rights claims if the court could also identified how they fell under one of the existing grounds for jurisdiction (such as the rule of law), but considered that the first instance court had not explained how this case did so.
Ordinarily, this would not be a major cause for concern—the appellate division would just send the case back and tell the first instance division to do it again. But here, the court went further, and dismissed the case entirely on the basis that it was brought out of time. The East African Community Treaty establishes a very short two month time limit to bring claims. This tight time limit would pose difficulties for any victim of a human rights violation, especially as they often come from marginalized groups with limited access to the legal system. But those difficulties are even more acute in cases of a failure to investigate, when it is difficult to determine, and to prove, when the government’s failure began. Most human rights courts deal with this by accepting that certain violations, including the failure to investigate abuses, are “continuing violations.” But the East African Court rejected this, stating that the East African Community Treaty made no provision for continuing violations and struck out the case. The applicants later sought review of this decision, but the appellate division again rejected their request.
The appellate division maintained this position, and provided further explanation, in a second case, Att’y General of Uganda and Att’y General of Kenya v. Omar Awadh and six others. In this case, seven claimants who were suspected of involvement in the 2010 Kampala World Cup bombings argued that Kenya and Uganda had breached their rights, and the rule of law, when Kenyan officials arrested, detained, and transferred them to Uganda outside of the ordinary extradition procedures, where they were tortured and arraigned on terrorism charges. As with the IMLU case, the first instance division would have allowed the case to be heard, but the EACJ appellate division overturned that ruling and concluded that the case was in fact time barred because the applicants had knowledge of the acts more than two months before they brought the case. The appellate division reiterated that the EAC Treaty creates no exception for continuing violations, and explained its decision by distinguishing the East African Court of Justice from other human rights courts on grounds that its mandate is to interpret the EAC Treaty, while the sole purpose of the other courts is to guarantee that human rights are protected.
These rulings have narrowed the ability of individuals to bring cases before the East African Court of Justice, including cases that raise issues related to the violation of the rule of law and associated human rights, But the door hasn’t been closed entirely. In a recent case, Mhochi v. Att’y General of Uganda, the court upheld claims by a member of the Kenya chapter of the International Commission of Jurists who was detained at Entebbe airport by Ugandan authorities and returned to Kenya. While reiterating that the East African Court is not a human rights court, and therefore rejecting the applicant’s claims under the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, the court held that the Ugandan authorities had denied him due process (they had given no reason for denying entry and refused him a fair hearing or to consider his arguments). Such due process is a component of the rule of law, and this was therefore a violation of Article 6(d) of the East African Community Treaty.
The Mhochi decision reflects both the promise of the East African Court of Justice as a forum where community citizens can hold their governments to account for the commitments that they have made to the rule of law and to associated values of human rights and also the challenges they face in doing so. The court made a strong statement that the obligations under Article 6(d), which include “adherence to the principles of democracy, the rule of law, accountability, transparency, social justice, equal opportunities, gender equality”, “are solemn and serious governance obligations” which it can adjudicate and enforce. Yet it was only able to enforce these obligations because the applicant submitted his claim within the very tight two-month time limit the treaty sets. Given that a member of the International Commission of Jurists was able to submit his claim only on the last day possible, one can see the challenge this poses to the majority of those denied human rights and the rule of law, who will not have such immediate awareness of their rights and access to the legal process—a challenge highlighted by the two previous cases, both rejected by the appeals chamber.
The East African Court is not a human rights court, as it has reminded us in these recent decisions. However, it is still in its burgeoning stages, and through its judgments on the rule of law, it is finding its way as a non-traditional context in which some human rights claims may be vindicated. It remains a court to watch.
For more on human rights decisions from courts around the world, consult our Case Digest series.
India: India Irrelevant in Global Hotspots – Not Only in Egypt
NEW DELHI (IDN) - Official India does not call itself a ‘Superpower’. The preferred term is ‘Rising Power’. However, Rising Power or ‘Rising India’ is no less of a misnomer as it is unsuited to India’s status and relevance in world affairs.
There is not a single international event or development of consequence in recent times that saw India rising to the occasion. To the contrary, every major development in the world proved to be a forceful reminder of the growing irrelevance of India in global affairs.
Be it in Myanmar, Maldives, Pakistan and Afghanistan, in West Asia, in the case of Julian Assange or the cause of Edward Snowden, India is a player of little or no consequence. The unimportance of India is unmissable on every issue. New Delhi’s craven acceptance of U.S. cyber snooping shows that our ministers and mandarins cannot speak even where issues of sovereignty and national security are at stake.
Tiny Ecuador has acquitted itself more creditably than the world’s largest democracy in defending democratic freedoms and standing up to the intrusive bullying of western powers.
The violent churning in Egypt is one more reminder of India not rising to play a role it should, and could, have. India was neither seen nor heard during the Arab Spring. Similarly, when the uprising in Egypt ousted a military-backed dictator, India was nowhere in the picture.
Chequered relationship
Although India and Egypt have a long and chequered relationship and the two, along with Yugoslavia, were the founders of the Non-Aligned Movement, New Delhi did not come out in support of the Egyptian people and their democratic rights throughout the period of turmoil.
When the first round ended with Mohammed Morsi, backed by the Muslim Brotherhood, becoming President, India could have seized the opportunity to strengthen ties and emerge as a factor in the sustenance of democracy in Egypt.
In fact, President Morsi, who was overthrown by the military, could have survived had he looked to India and learned from its experience of managing electoral outcomes. He would have then realised the advantages of hastening slowly.
Besides, the situation in Egypt being akin to that of India’s troubled neighbour Pakistan — in terms of US links to the country’s armed forces and its acceptance of an Islamist agenda — it is to India that Morsi should have looked.
Seething cauldron
The world’s largest democracy is a seething cauldron of multiple and overlapping conflicts rooted in caste, class, religious, linguistic, regional and ideological divergences. The politics of representative democracy has been — cynically so, some might say — about managing diverse and disparate tendencies; about strengthening the state and boosting its power regardless of the ideological bias of those elected to govern.
Indian electoral democracy succeeded in mainstreaming Marxists, separatists and “communalists”. The CPM’s rise to elected office in Bengal where it ruled for over three decades is a landmark. So-called separatists like the DMK and the Akali Dal co-exist — and at great profit — with their one-time tormentor (the Congress party). In fact, national parties can learn from the DMK on how to cash in on opportunities at the Centre.
The “secularist” forces could not stop the BJP-led NDA of Vajpayee from forming a government in 1998 and 1999. The process Congressised the BJP and cast the Congress in a softer hue of Hindutva. Power is about survival, about pragmatism, and it makes nonsense of ideology.
India, which is assisting Nepal and Afghanistan with expertise on building a sustainable electoral democracy, could have taught President Morsi a thing or two for continuing in office. And, in the process, shown itself to be a Rising Power of relevance to a region in turmoil.
*The author is an independent political and foreign affairs commentator. A version of this article appeared on Daily News & Analysis (DNA) on July 30 and is published here by arrangement with the writer. [IDN-InDepthNews – July 30, 2013]
Whistleblowers: 'Snowden, Manning, Assange victims of morally bankrupt system'
NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden has been granted temporary asylum in Russia and is allowed to enter the country's territory. Investigative journalist Tony Gosling joins RT studio to discuss this.
Iraq: July deadliest month in years as violence kills over 1,000 people
The number of civilians killed was 928, including 204 civilian police, while the number of civilians injured was 2,109, including 338 civilian police, the UN Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI) said in a news release. A further 129 members of the Iraqi Security Forces were killed and 217 were injured.
“The impact of violence on civilians remains disturbingly high, with at least 4,137 civilians killed and 9,865 injured since the beginning of 2013,” the Acting Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Iraq, Gyorgy Busztin, warned.
“We haven’t seen such numbers in more than five years, when the blind rage of sectarian strife that inflicted such deep wounds upon this country was finally abating,” he added.
“I reiterate my urgent call on Iraq’s political leaders to take immediate and decisive action to stop the senseless bloodshed, and to prevent these dark days from returning.”
Baghdad was the worst-affected governorate in July with 957 civilian casualties (238 killed and 719 injured), followed by Salahuddin, Ninewa, Diyala, Kirkuk and Anbar. Babil, Wasit and Basra also reported casualties in the double digits.
On Monday, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon voiced alarm at the deterioration of the security situation in Iraq, where deadly attacks are becoming “all too commonplace,” and appealed to political leaders to take urgent action to stem the violence and bring the perpetrators to justice.
Corruption: New York - Fund manager, developer indicted in $96 million securities fraud scheme.
U.S. Attorney’s Office
Eastern District of New York
A 24-count indictment was unsealed this morning in federal court in Central Islip, New York, charging Brian R. Callahan, an investment fund manager, and Adam J. Manson, a real estate developer, with conspiracy to commit securities and wire fraud for their roles in operating a $96 million Ponzi scheme. Both defendants are in custody and will be arraigned this afternoon before United States Magistrate Judge A. Kathleen Tomlinson at the United States Courthouse in Central Islip. In addition, the government seized over $1 million of alleged criminal proceeds and moved to forfeit the defendants’ interest in the Panoramic View Resort & Residences in Montauk, New York (the Panoramic View).
The charges were announced by Loretta E. Lynch, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York; George Venizelos, Assistant Director in Charge, Federal Bureau of Investigation, New York Field Office (FBI); and Toni Weirauch, Special Agent in Charge, United States Internal Revenue Service, Criminal Investigation, New York (IRS).
According to the indictment and other court filings, between December 2006 and February 2012, Callahan raised more than $118 million from at least 40 investors in connection with four different investment funds that he managed. He had assured those investors that their money would be invested in mutual funds, hedge funds, and other securities. Instead of investing the money as he promised, Callahan misappropriated approximately $96 million and began to operate the investment funds as a large-scale Ponzi scheme. Among other things, Callahan diverted millions of dollars towards the Panoramic View, an unprofitable 117-unit beachfront resort and residence development in Montauk, New York, that he owned with his brother-in-law and co-defendant, Adam Manson. He also commingled the money from the various investment funds and used it to pay tens of millions of dollars in partial redemptions to his victim investors to keep the Ponzi scheme afloat, and to purchase luxury items such as expensive cars and homes in Old Westbury and Westhampton, New York. To avoid detection and continue the scheme, Callahan sent fake account statements to investors that falsely showed that their funds were invested and performing well, and he repeatedly lied to his investors about both the nature and status of their investments.
“As alleged, the defendants used one of Long Island’s landmarks, the Panoramic View Resort, to perpetrate a wide-ranging fraud,” stated United States Attorney Lynch. “Callahan gave his word that he would invest his clients’ funds safely and responsibly in established vehicles. Instead, he simply stole the funds to prop up his partner’s failing investment. To conceal their status as business failures, the defendants employed all the tricks in the typical con man’s bag. They created fake documents, stole a person’s identity and engaged in forgery. The defendants allegedly lied to the lender, they lied to the auditor, and Callahan repeatedly lied to his investors. The lies stop now. Today’s arrests demonstrate the Office’s commitment to aggressively prosecute those individuals who commit financial crimes.” Ms. Lynch expressed her grateful appreciation to the Securities and Exchange Commission and the British Virgin Islands Financial Investigation Agency for their cooperation and assistance in the investigation.
FBI Assistant Director in Charge Venizelos stated, “Allegedly, Mr. Callahan and Mr. Manson violated the trust of their clients, stealing victims’ hard earned money to perpetuate their fraud. Instead of investing the funds as promised, Mr. Callahan used the deposits to perpetuate the scheme, all while buying luxury cars and an estate in Westhampton. Mr. Callahan was so indiscriminant, he even stole from a Long Island Fire Department. Today, the game is up. The FBI will continue working to protect investors and stop alleged fraudsters.
IRS Special Agent in Charge Weirauch stated, “The architects of Ponzi-type schemes often employ a variety of sophisticated measures to keep them operating without detection. However, the cooperation between IRS-Criminal Investigation, the U.S. Attorney’s Office, and the FBI should give the investing public confidence that such schemes will ultimately be uncovered and thoroughly investigated, and that the scammers will be prosecuted.”
In one instance, Callahan allegedly solicited a $600,000 investment from a Long Island-based fire department by promising to invest the fire department’s money in mutual funds and other securities. Instead of investing the money, Callahan fraudulently diverted the fire department’s funds to the Panoramic View, and sent bogus account statements to the fire department that falsely showed that the funds had been invested in mutual funds. Callahan also convinced a Maryland resident to invest approximately $11 million after promising to invest those funds in low-risk securities. Callahan used the investor’s money to make redemption payments to other investors whom he had previously defrauded and to keep the Ponzi scheme afloat.
According to the indictment, Manson managed the Panoramic View property and poured the money that Callahan had diverted from the investors into Manson’s struggling real estate project at the Panoramic View. To help Callahan carry out his investment scheme, Manson lied to the independent auditor of Callahan’s investment funds and, together with Callahan, provided fake documents, including bogus promissory notes and doctored balance sheets, to the independent auditor. Manson’s and Callahan’s fraudulent actions concealed the misuse of the investors’ funds and caused the auditor to overstate the value and profits of Callahan’s investment funds to the victim investors. As a result of Manson and Callahan’s fraudulent actions, investors were lulled into believing that the funds were performing, and they continued to “invest” their money with Callahan.
As alleged in the indictment, Manson also defrauded a New York-based lending institution that had loaned more than $45 million to Manson in connection with his real estate development project at the Panoramic View. While attempting to extend these loans past their maturity date, Manson misled the lender about the money that the Panoramic View had received from Callahan’s funds, and falsely told the lender that the funds were from his father. Manson engaged in this fraudulent conduct in an effort to conceal the fact that he was simultaneously telling the independent auditor of the Callahan funds that there were no other creditors or debt associated with the Panoramic View.
The charges contained in the indictment are merely allegations, and the defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty. If convicted, the defendants each face a maximum sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment on each of the securities fraud, wire fraud and conspiracy to commit wire fraud counts, five years’ imprisonment on the conspiracy to commit securities fraud count, and Callahan faces two years’ imprisonment for each of the aggravated identity theft counts. Additionally, if convicted, Callahan and Manson may be fined up to $5,000,000 for each of the securities fraud counts, $250,000 for each of the wire fraud, conspiracy to commit wire fraud and conspiracy to commit securities fraud counts, and Callahan may be fined up to $250,000 for each of the aggravated identity theft counts. In addition to seizing over $1 million in alleged criminal proceeds, the government is also seeking to forfeit all Panoramic View cooperative units held by Callahan and Manson, together with Callahan’s residence in Old Westbury, New York, and Manson’s beachfront condominium in Westhampton, New York.
The government’s case is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorneys David C. Woll, Jr., Christopher C. Caffarone, Brian D. Morris, and Karin Orenstein.
The Defendants:
BRIAN R. CALLAHAN Age: 43
Old Westbury, New York
ADAM J. MANSON Age: 41
Old Westbury, New York
Eastern District of New York
A 24-count indictment was unsealed this morning in federal court in Central Islip, New York, charging Brian R. Callahan, an investment fund manager, and Adam J. Manson, a real estate developer, with conspiracy to commit securities and wire fraud for their roles in operating a $96 million Ponzi scheme. Both defendants are in custody and will be arraigned this afternoon before United States Magistrate Judge A. Kathleen Tomlinson at the United States Courthouse in Central Islip. In addition, the government seized over $1 million of alleged criminal proceeds and moved to forfeit the defendants’ interest in the Panoramic View Resort & Residences in Montauk, New York (the Panoramic View).
The charges were announced by Loretta E. Lynch, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York; George Venizelos, Assistant Director in Charge, Federal Bureau of Investigation, New York Field Office (FBI); and Toni Weirauch, Special Agent in Charge, United States Internal Revenue Service, Criminal Investigation, New York (IRS).
According to the indictment and other court filings, between December 2006 and February 2012, Callahan raised more than $118 million from at least 40 investors in connection with four different investment funds that he managed. He had assured those investors that their money would be invested in mutual funds, hedge funds, and other securities. Instead of investing the money as he promised, Callahan misappropriated approximately $96 million and began to operate the investment funds as a large-scale Ponzi scheme. Among other things, Callahan diverted millions of dollars towards the Panoramic View, an unprofitable 117-unit beachfront resort and residence development in Montauk, New York, that he owned with his brother-in-law and co-defendant, Adam Manson. He also commingled the money from the various investment funds and used it to pay tens of millions of dollars in partial redemptions to his victim investors to keep the Ponzi scheme afloat, and to purchase luxury items such as expensive cars and homes in Old Westbury and Westhampton, New York. To avoid detection and continue the scheme, Callahan sent fake account statements to investors that falsely showed that their funds were invested and performing well, and he repeatedly lied to his investors about both the nature and status of their investments.
“As alleged, the defendants used one of Long Island’s landmarks, the Panoramic View Resort, to perpetrate a wide-ranging fraud,” stated United States Attorney Lynch. “Callahan gave his word that he would invest his clients’ funds safely and responsibly in established vehicles. Instead, he simply stole the funds to prop up his partner’s failing investment. To conceal their status as business failures, the defendants employed all the tricks in the typical con man’s bag. They created fake documents, stole a person’s identity and engaged in forgery. The defendants allegedly lied to the lender, they lied to the auditor, and Callahan repeatedly lied to his investors. The lies stop now. Today’s arrests demonstrate the Office’s commitment to aggressively prosecute those individuals who commit financial crimes.” Ms. Lynch expressed her grateful appreciation to the Securities and Exchange Commission and the British Virgin Islands Financial Investigation Agency for their cooperation and assistance in the investigation.
FBI Assistant Director in Charge Venizelos stated, “Allegedly, Mr. Callahan and Mr. Manson violated the trust of their clients, stealing victims’ hard earned money to perpetuate their fraud. Instead of investing the funds as promised, Mr. Callahan used the deposits to perpetuate the scheme, all while buying luxury cars and an estate in Westhampton. Mr. Callahan was so indiscriminant, he even stole from a Long Island Fire Department. Today, the game is up. The FBI will continue working to protect investors and stop alleged fraudsters.
IRS Special Agent in Charge Weirauch stated, “The architects of Ponzi-type schemes often employ a variety of sophisticated measures to keep them operating without detection. However, the cooperation between IRS-Criminal Investigation, the U.S. Attorney’s Office, and the FBI should give the investing public confidence that such schemes will ultimately be uncovered and thoroughly investigated, and that the scammers will be prosecuted.”
In one instance, Callahan allegedly solicited a $600,000 investment from a Long Island-based fire department by promising to invest the fire department’s money in mutual funds and other securities. Instead of investing the money, Callahan fraudulently diverted the fire department’s funds to the Panoramic View, and sent bogus account statements to the fire department that falsely showed that the funds had been invested in mutual funds. Callahan also convinced a Maryland resident to invest approximately $11 million after promising to invest those funds in low-risk securities. Callahan used the investor’s money to make redemption payments to other investors whom he had previously defrauded and to keep the Ponzi scheme afloat.
According to the indictment, Manson managed the Panoramic View property and poured the money that Callahan had diverted from the investors into Manson’s struggling real estate project at the Panoramic View. To help Callahan carry out his investment scheme, Manson lied to the independent auditor of Callahan’s investment funds and, together with Callahan, provided fake documents, including bogus promissory notes and doctored balance sheets, to the independent auditor. Manson’s and Callahan’s fraudulent actions concealed the misuse of the investors’ funds and caused the auditor to overstate the value and profits of Callahan’s investment funds to the victim investors. As a result of Manson and Callahan’s fraudulent actions, investors were lulled into believing that the funds were performing, and they continued to “invest” their money with Callahan.
As alleged in the indictment, Manson also defrauded a New York-based lending institution that had loaned more than $45 million to Manson in connection with his real estate development project at the Panoramic View. While attempting to extend these loans past their maturity date, Manson misled the lender about the money that the Panoramic View had received from Callahan’s funds, and falsely told the lender that the funds were from his father. Manson engaged in this fraudulent conduct in an effort to conceal the fact that he was simultaneously telling the independent auditor of the Callahan funds that there were no other creditors or debt associated with the Panoramic View.
The charges contained in the indictment are merely allegations, and the defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty. If convicted, the defendants each face a maximum sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment on each of the securities fraud, wire fraud and conspiracy to commit wire fraud counts, five years’ imprisonment on the conspiracy to commit securities fraud count, and Callahan faces two years’ imprisonment for each of the aggravated identity theft counts. Additionally, if convicted, Callahan and Manson may be fined up to $5,000,000 for each of the securities fraud counts, $250,000 for each of the wire fraud, conspiracy to commit wire fraud and conspiracy to commit securities fraud counts, and Callahan may be fined up to $250,000 for each of the aggravated identity theft counts. In addition to seizing over $1 million in alleged criminal proceeds, the government is also seeking to forfeit all Panoramic View cooperative units held by Callahan and Manson, together with Callahan’s residence in Old Westbury, New York, and Manson’s beachfront condominium in Westhampton, New York.
The government’s case is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorneys David C. Woll, Jr., Christopher C. Caffarone, Brian D. Morris, and Karin Orenstein.
The Defendants:
BRIAN R. CALLAHAN Age: 43
Old Westbury, New York
ADAM J. MANSON Age: 41
Old Westbury, New York
Lebanon: Third-largest Lebanese city shows signs of recovery after clashes
Sidon, Lebanon – After last month’s clashes between the Lebanese Army and militant Sunni cleric Ahmad Al-Assir in Sidon, the third largest city in Lebanon, which ended with no less than 48 dead and 90 wounded, many members of Lebanon’s parliament have come together to call for co-existence.
Similarly, in Sidon, people are picking up the pieces of our shattered security and reconstructing the areas affected by violent conflict. Many have even come from other parts of the country to assist us.
The Holy Month of Ramadan is an ideal time for citizens to come together in the spirit of peace and coexistence. And, as a resident of Sidon who was caught up in last month’s violence, I am grateful.
On Sunday, 23 June, radical Sunni Sheikh Ahmed Al-Assir’s supporters reportedly shot at the Lebanese army in the Abra district of Sidon. Other reports claim that the same shooting may have been set up by the Hezbollah-affiliated Lebanese Resistance Brigades to spur the two day clashes.
By sunset, my house was surrounded by snipers and other men wielding RPGs. Masked gunmen unknown to my family and our neighbours were on our street. Landlines, cellular phones and the electricity were cut off. My family hunkered down at the bottom of the staircase and the inner corridor, using a mattress to protect us from the windows that could have shattered from the loud blasts or revealed us to armed men. We spent the night hiding in the darkness, our voices at a whisper.
For many people seeking safety in their homes, social media was one of the main ways to communicate our feelings and perspectives about the events occurring in Sidon. In Lebanon, most news sources used the Sidon clashes to validate their current political standpoints, twisting and moulding the situation to fit their propaganda and neglecting the voices of innocent civilians. This upset me greatly as someone who lived through them.
Abra is a very populated district and many civilians were injured, confined to their buildings or both during 36 hours of clashes. As civilians, we had nothing to do with either party in the conflict and it felt extremely disempowering to be trapped inside our home, hiding.
Days later, youth and civil society organisations started coordinating to restore the semblance of daily life and reconstruct affected infrastructure. My hometown is already showing signs of recovery.
One organisation that I’m volunteering with, Bikaffi Khof (Enough Fear), is collecting data to estimate the costs of the damage, raising money and reconstructing infrastructure in the affected areas.
Offre Joie (Joy of Giving), an organisation specialising in aid to reconstruct homes, is carrying out projects to reconstruct damaged homes in Abra. Youth from all regions and confessions have offered aid to the affected area, uniting the big Lebanese family. With the efforts and generosity of many, Sidon is getting past this tough time.
Sidon is renowned for its ambiance during the Holy Month. And despite the recent violence, mosques in the old city of Sidon are still decorated with strings of lights, flowers and bright coloured carpets. And the seaside cafes and old outdoor markets are still alive with visitors enjoying the music, jallab (a drink made from carob, dates, grape molasses and rose water), water pipes and traditional sweets.
The recent clashes have not affected the heart of Sidon this holiday season, and the Ramadan values of forgiveness, togetherness and tolerance are still present.
###
* Aisha Habli works as a public relations and media specialist. She is a peace activist and a member of the Media Association for Peace and MasterPeace Lebanon. You can follow her on Twitter @HyperchickAisha. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).
Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 30 July 2013, www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission is granted for publication.
Bangladesh: Security Forces Kill Protesters Demonstrators, Bystanders, Children Killed, Often by Excessive Force
Source: Human Rights Watch
Bangladeshi security forces have frequently used excessive force in responding to street protests, killing at least 150 protesters and injuring at least 2,000 more since February 2013. While large numbers of protesters have been arrested, the Bangladeshi authorities have made no meaningful efforts to hold members of the security forces accountable.
The 48-page report, “Blood On The Streets: The Use of Excessive Force During Bangladesh Protests,” is based on 95 interviews with victims and their family members, witnesses, human rights defenders, journalists, and lawyers. The report documents case after case in which police, the paramilitary Rapid Action Battalion (RAB), and the Border Guards Bangladesh (BGB) opened fire into crowds or beat protesters in a brutal and unlawful manner. In some cases, security forces carried out extrajudicial executions. Human Rights Watch also documented the killing of at least a dozen members of the security forces and police officers over the course of the protests, as well as three members of the ruling Awami League party.
“With national elections and more war crimes verdicts ahead, street protests are likely to be frequent and the risk of further violence is high,” said Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “Unless the government takes firm action to rein in the security forces, there is going to be a lot more blood on the streets before the year is over.”
Large protests began in Februaryin Bangladesh in response to decisions by the International Crimes Tribunal (ICT), a domestic court set up to put on trial those responsible for war crimes and other abuses during Bangladesh’s liberation war in 1971. Large numbers of protesters came onto the streets to demand the death penalty after the court handed down a life sentence for a senior member of the Jamaat-e-Islami Party. Jamaat supporters later called strikes, engaged in violence, and staged demonstrations against the February 28, 2013 death sentence against the vice-president of the Jamaat party, Delwar Hossain Sayedee. Security forces killed dozens and injured hundreds of protesters and bystanders as they tried to break up Jamaat protests and targeted individual protesters between February and April.
Another bloody round of violence took place in response to a massive march and demonstration on May 5 and 6 in Dhaka by the Islamist Hefazat-e-Islami movement. Security forces confronted tens of thousands of protesters. While some police efforts at dispersing crowds appeared to adhere to international standards, in other cases the police use of force was unlawful. This left at least 50 dead and more than 2,000 injured.
Human Rights Watch spoke to witnesses who described seeing the police beat protesters they had detained and shoot others at close range with buckshot and tear gas canisters. “He was aiming at my chest but six small rubber pellets hit my face,” 12-year-old A.R. told Human Rights Watch. “The man who fired it was standing about 2 meters away from me. I then pretended to be dead and they dumped me with some other bodies.”
The Bangladeshi government needs to ensure that the security forces immediately stop using excessive force against protesters, Human Rights Watch said. The government should appoint an independent commission to investigate the deaths of dozens of protesters, including children, and prosecute anyone responsible for unlawful killings. Bangladesh should also allow United Nations special rapporteurs into the country to conduct independent assessments.
“There are more verdicts to come from the ICT, which will inevitably mean more protests,” Adams said. “That makes it all the more critical for the government to take immediate steps to train its forces in crowd control and hold them accountable.”
The security forces have used spurious criminal charges to intimidate witnesses and family members of protesters killed by security forces, Human Rights Watch said. After protests, police lodged criminal complaints – called “First Information Reports,” or FIRs – against hundreds and sometimes thousands of “unknown assailants.” Police would then enter the communities where protesters lived, using these reports as justification for arbitrary arrests of scores of individuals, particularly men thought to be Jamaat supporters. The sweeps left men in these communities fearful and drove many into hiding.
Human Rights Watch also documented a shrinking space for media and civil society to independently report on the protests. Two television stations that support opposition political parties, Islamic TV and Diganta TV, were taken off the air by the government on the night of May 5 and 6 and have been closed down ever since. The stations were reporting live from the site of the protests. The government also shut down the opposition newspaper Amar Desh and jailed its editor, Mahmdur Rahman, and other journalists, as well as four bloggers who had expressed atheistic sentiments in their writings.
“The government’s claims to be the most open and democratic in Bangladesh’s history are undermined by censorship of critical voices,” Adams said. “The government can take reasonable steps to restrict incitement to violence, but this doesn’t mean closing down opposition media.”
Human Rights Watch called on the government to publicly order the security forces to follow the United Nations Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials, which state that security forces shall “apply non-violent means before resorting to the use of force and firearms,” and that “whenever the lawful use of force and firearms is unavoidable, law enforcement officials shall: (a) Exercise restraint in such use and act in proportion to the seriousness of the offence and the legitimate objective to be achieved; (b) Minimize damage and injury, and respect and preserve human life.” The Principles make clear that intentional lethal use of firearms is only permitted when “strictly unavoidable in order to protect life.” Human Rights Watch also called for effective investigations into the deaths of all killed during the demonstrations.
Opposition parties such as the main opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) and the Jammat-e-Islam Party, as well as independent organizations such as Hefazat, should take steps to deter their supporters from carrying out unlawful attacks, including on law enforcement officers or members of the public with different political views.
“Bangladesh’s reputation is at stake, and all responsible leaders should counsel calm, avoidance of violence, and respect for the law,” Adams said.
Selected Statements from the Report
12-year-old A.R., who was shot by police during security operations on May 6:
Bangladeshi security forces have frequently used excessive force in responding to street protests, killing at least 150 protesters and injuring at least 2,000 more since February 2013. While large numbers of protesters have been arrested, the Bangladeshi authorities have made no meaningful efforts to hold members of the security forces accountable.
The 48-page report, “Blood On The Streets: The Use of Excessive Force During Bangladesh Protests,” is based on 95 interviews with victims and their family members, witnesses, human rights defenders, journalists, and lawyers. The report documents case after case in which police, the paramilitary Rapid Action Battalion (RAB), and the Border Guards Bangladesh (BGB) opened fire into crowds or beat protesters in a brutal and unlawful manner. In some cases, security forces carried out extrajudicial executions. Human Rights Watch also documented the killing of at least a dozen members of the security forces and police officers over the course of the protests, as well as three members of the ruling Awami League party.
“With national elections and more war crimes verdicts ahead, street protests are likely to be frequent and the risk of further violence is high,” said Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “Unless the government takes firm action to rein in the security forces, there is going to be a lot more blood on the streets before the year is over.”
Large protests began in Februaryin Bangladesh in response to decisions by the International Crimes Tribunal (ICT), a domestic court set up to put on trial those responsible for war crimes and other abuses during Bangladesh’s liberation war in 1971. Large numbers of protesters came onto the streets to demand the death penalty after the court handed down a life sentence for a senior member of the Jamaat-e-Islami Party. Jamaat supporters later called strikes, engaged in violence, and staged demonstrations against the February 28, 2013 death sentence against the vice-president of the Jamaat party, Delwar Hossain Sayedee. Security forces killed dozens and injured hundreds of protesters and bystanders as they tried to break up Jamaat protests and targeted individual protesters between February and April.
Another bloody round of violence took place in response to a massive march and demonstration on May 5 and 6 in Dhaka by the Islamist Hefazat-e-Islami movement. Security forces confronted tens of thousands of protesters. While some police efforts at dispersing crowds appeared to adhere to international standards, in other cases the police use of force was unlawful. This left at least 50 dead and more than 2,000 injured.
Human Rights Watch spoke to witnesses who described seeing the police beat protesters they had detained and shoot others at close range with buckshot and tear gas canisters. “He was aiming at my chest but six small rubber pellets hit my face,” 12-year-old A.R. told Human Rights Watch. “The man who fired it was standing about 2 meters away from me. I then pretended to be dead and they dumped me with some other bodies.”
The Bangladeshi government needs to ensure that the security forces immediately stop using excessive force against protesters, Human Rights Watch said. The government should appoint an independent commission to investigate the deaths of dozens of protesters, including children, and prosecute anyone responsible for unlawful killings. Bangladesh should also allow United Nations special rapporteurs into the country to conduct independent assessments.
“There are more verdicts to come from the ICT, which will inevitably mean more protests,” Adams said. “That makes it all the more critical for the government to take immediate steps to train its forces in crowd control and hold them accountable.”
The security forces have used spurious criminal charges to intimidate witnesses and family members of protesters killed by security forces, Human Rights Watch said. After protests, police lodged criminal complaints – called “First Information Reports,” or FIRs – against hundreds and sometimes thousands of “unknown assailants.” Police would then enter the communities where protesters lived, using these reports as justification for arbitrary arrests of scores of individuals, particularly men thought to be Jamaat supporters. The sweeps left men in these communities fearful and drove many into hiding.
Human Rights Watch also documented a shrinking space for media and civil society to independently report on the protests. Two television stations that support opposition political parties, Islamic TV and Diganta TV, were taken off the air by the government on the night of May 5 and 6 and have been closed down ever since. The stations were reporting live from the site of the protests. The government also shut down the opposition newspaper Amar Desh and jailed its editor, Mahmdur Rahman, and other journalists, as well as four bloggers who had expressed atheistic sentiments in their writings.
“The government’s claims to be the most open and democratic in Bangladesh’s history are undermined by censorship of critical voices,” Adams said. “The government can take reasonable steps to restrict incitement to violence, but this doesn’t mean closing down opposition media.”
Human Rights Watch called on the government to publicly order the security forces to follow the United Nations Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials, which state that security forces shall “apply non-violent means before resorting to the use of force and firearms,” and that “whenever the lawful use of force and firearms is unavoidable, law enforcement officials shall: (a) Exercise restraint in such use and act in proportion to the seriousness of the offence and the legitimate objective to be achieved; (b) Minimize damage and injury, and respect and preserve human life.” The Principles make clear that intentional lethal use of firearms is only permitted when “strictly unavoidable in order to protect life.” Human Rights Watch also called for effective investigations into the deaths of all killed during the demonstrations.
Opposition parties such as the main opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) and the Jammat-e-Islam Party, as well as independent organizations such as Hefazat, should take steps to deter their supporters from carrying out unlawful attacks, including on law enforcement officers or members of the public with different political views.
“Bangladesh’s reputation is at stake, and all responsible leaders should counsel calm, avoidance of violence, and respect for the law,” Adams said.
Selected Statements from the Report
12-year-old A.R., who was shot by police during security operations on May 6:
Two of the men grabbed my right arm, two grabbed my left arm, and the fifth man aimed his gun at me. I started weeping and couldn’t say anything. They told me not to move but just as he fired I dropped my head. He was aiming at my chest but six small rubber pellets hit my face. The man who fired it was standing about 2 meters away from me. I then pretended to be dead and they dumped me with some other bodies. Then I saw some RAB coming. I called for help and one gave me some water and told me to go away.N.U., a shop owner whose nephew was killed by police in Cox’s Bazar:
The processions dispersed and there were people running. He [Sajat] ran through the police and was scared and ran up the stairs to the rooftop on the 2nd floor. One or two people ran up behind him. A police officer followed him; it was only one officer carrying a rifle, the rest were downstairs. I heard a gunshot and I noticed the other guys who had gone upstairs run away. I didn’t know my nephew had been shot. After everyone left l went upstairs … I found my nephew with a shot in the left temple on the rooftop … I heard a single gunshot….There were no bruises, but there was a lot of blood, the side of his temple was missing, it was blown away.A 20-year-old witness described the killing of his mother in a protest on February 28 in Bogra:
People started throwing bricks and then the police started to open fire. The women were in the front of the procession, they were all sitting down in front of the police station in protest. My mother was among other women sitting… First they used tear gas, and then they started firing. Everything was chaotic, once the police fired the teargas, all the people started running in different directions. When they started firing the guns we ran in different directions.
Africa: LRA "weaker than it has been in at least 20 years"
Source: IRIN
KAMPALA, 1 August 2013 (IRIN) - Joseph Kony is losing his grip on the fighters of his rebel Lord's Resistance Army (LRA), with many wanting to defect, according to a new report by The Resolve LRA Crisis Initiative, an US-based advocacy group.
According to the report, Loosening Kony's Grip: Effective Defection Strategies for Today’s LRA, many LRA combatants in the Central African Republic (CAR) and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) are increasingly disillusioned by the leadership’s failure to maintain contact with the increasingly fragmented group and by the difficulty of life in remote rainforests far from home, made worse by pressure from Ugandan military forces and US military advisers operating in the region. Some are also disenchanted with the group's recent shift towards forms of banditry, including harvesting elephant ivory.
"The Lord’s Resistance Army is likely weaker than it has been in at least 20 years... and morale among the Ugandan combatants that comprise the core of its force is at a new low," the authors noted.
Weakening the LRA
The report says the LRA currently has an estimated 250 combatants - including 200 Ugandans and 50 low-ranking fighters from CAR, DRC and South Sudan - and another 250 dependents.
The authors suggest that a campaign dubbed "Come Home" - a collaboration between the Ugandan and US militaries that uses speakers mounted on helicopters circling LRA-occupied areas as well as leaflets, radio broadcasts and Safe Reporting Sites to encourage defection from the LRA - would yield better results if it were conducted in more areas where the group operates. According to the report, at least 31 Ugandan LRA combatants defected in 2012 and through the first six months of 2013.
Kony and his fighters are thought to operate in the border regions of CAR, DRC, Sudan and South Sudan; Uganda has some 2,500 soldiers deployed around these areas under the auspices of the African Union. In late 2011, the US deployed 100 special forces to the region as military advisers to the effort.
"The apparent weakening of the LRA's internal cohesion, their long tradition of holding civilian populations hostage to deter attacks, and the historic failure of military operations to achieve a decisive victory [suggest] that the most timely and cost-effective approach to dismantling the LRA is to encourage increased defections," the authors said. "The large majority of people in the LRA were forcibly conscripted, and most, including many Ugandans, want to defect."
Ugandan officials continue to encourage defection from the LRA, promising defectors amnesty from prosecution; an Amnesty Act that lapsed in 2012 was reinstated in 2013. The Amnesty Act does not extend to top LRA commanders.
"The amnesty law is still there for those who are not indicted by ICC (International Criminal Court) - Kony and three of his most senior commanders have been indicted on several charges, including crimes against humanity and war crimes]. We encourage them to abandon the rebellion and come out. They are welcome back home," Lt Col Paddy Ankunda, Uganda People's Defence Forces (UPDF) spokesperson, told IRIN. "If they have no fighters, they have no future."
He added, "The hard-core ones like Kony and his top leadership can't surrender. We have an AU [African Union] force there. We shall resume hunting them once AU gets authorization from the new CAR authorities."
The hunt for Kony was suspended following a coup in CAR by the Séléka rebel group, which overran the capital, Bangui, on 24 March, putting President François Bozizé to flight and naming Michel Djotodjia as the new head of state.
"There is need to continue to encourage and persuade the LRA members to defect. Let them abandon the rebellion and come back home. They are victims of circumstances," retired bishop Baker Ochola, a member of Acholi Religious Peace Initiative (ALPI), told IRIN. "Let them leave LRA to Kony and his people who started it... Kony will remain alone and will not have support."
Ochola warned that while the LRA may be weaker, "they are still at large. They still pose a challenge and are dangerous".
Beyond defection
Some analysts feel that defection is an incomplete strategy to tackle the LRA menace.
"The LRA survival strategy is abduction, as opposed to voluntary recruitment, and for every defectee, the LRA abducts double the number to replenish its forces, which keeps the insurgency in circles," Stephen Oola, a transitional justice and governance analyst at Uganda's Makerere University Refugee Law Project. "To suggest that the LRA can be dismantled from the bottom-up through defection is a recognition of the failed militaristic approach and an opportunity to call for resumption of peace talks to find lasting solutions.
"A comprehensive strategy to end the LRA conflict must engage top LRA leadership, address its legacy, and deal with Uganda's own governance crisis to find lasting peace," he added.
The authors of the report said there was a need for better disarmament, demobilization and reintegration strategy in order to increase the rate of defections, noting that the future remained uncertain for people who chose to defect, with "shamefully inadequate" reintegration support.
"Former abductees, particularly adults, must often face the challenge of rebuilding livelihoods, overcoming trauma, and coping with community stigmatization with little support. Awareness of these difficulties, combined with the risks of attempted escape, discourages many from defecting," the authors stated. "A well-resourced and dynamic disarmament, demobilization and reintegration (DDR) strategy could help break Kony's grip on the rebel group, allow hundreds of abductees to peacefully return to their families, and help keep civilians safer from further LRA attacks."
The Resolve LRA Crisis Initiative recommended, among other things, a broadened "Come Home" programme, funding for comprehensive mapping of the LRA's command structure, and better funding for organizations providing medical and psychosocial assistance to returnees.
The LRA came into existence in the late 1980s, and fought a lengthy and brutal war with the government in northern Uganda for close to 20 years; for years, more than one million people were forced to live in camps for internally displaced people under terrible humanitarian conditions. The last LRA attacks in Uganda were in 2006.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
