tisdag 31 juli 2012

Ewa Björling/EU-Israel trade and diplomatic relations & Palestinians for Dignity/youth protest

"Handel, investeringar och influenser från omvärlden är centrala förutsättningar för jobben, välfärden och tillväxten - samtidigt som det gynnar viktiga mål som fattigdomsbekämpning, mänskliga rättigheter, fred och stabilitet."
Ewa Björling /Handelsminister
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fin fem fel! Eva, detta verkar gälla bara för vissa ... inte för Palestinier?! (se under) Moha
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Palestinians for Dignity----------- Occupied Ramallah, --July 30, 2012 - It has come to light over the last week that the European Union (EU) has decided to upgrade its trade and diplomatic relations with the state of Israel despite the latter’s intensification of its occupation, colonization and apartheid against the Palestinian people. The new deal will reportedly offer Israel upgraded trade and diplomatic relations in more than 60 areas, effectively reversing the freeze that was imposed after the vicious assault of the Israeli Occupation Forces on the Gaza Strip in December 2008 - January 2009. This latest move by the EU is nothing less than outrageous, particularly given the EU’s continuous verbal criticism of Israel’s belligerentsettlement plans. This duplicitous behavior epitomizes the reasons why the Palestinian people have no faith in the EU. While some in the Palestinian leadership might have common personal interests with the EU and Israel, the Palestinian people will not accept only hollow words of condemnation. We should not need to remind the EU that Israel continuously flouts the will of the international community, remains in breach of UN Security Council resolutions, continues to violate its international law (including IHL) obligations, and daily abuses the human rights of the Palestinian people. Whether in its settlement policies, construction of the Apartheid Wall, its ethnic cleansing and “Judaization” of Jerusalem and the Naqab (Negev), its criminal blockade of Gaza, its denial of the UN-sanctioned rights of the Palestinian refugees, its violation of the rights of Palestinian prisoners (including children), its demolition of Palestinian homes, and its countless other illegal policies, Israel is undoubtedly guilty of gross human rights abuses, deserving of condemnation and sanctions, not rewards and benefits. In its most recent plan Israel has decided to destroy eight Palestinian villages in southern Hebron, displacing more than 1000 Palestinians, in order to have more military training grounds for its soldiers. Rather than taking measures to ensure respect for international law as called for by Common Article 1 of the Geneva Conventions, it seems that EU Member States have decided to reward Israel for its continued abuse of the Palestinian people. Moreover, EU Member States have chosen to completely ignore Article 2 of the EU-Israel Association Agreement, which is designed to deter human rights abuses by clearly stating that EU-Israel ‘’relations shall be based on respect for human rights and democratic principles which must guide internal and international policy”. These actions can only send one clear message to the Palestinian people – that our rights and lives are trivial, deserving only the occasional lip service but never meaningful action. As Palestinian youth, we are tired of the EU’s hypocrisy and its contemptuous policies that use aid and development programs to mask political cowardice and complicity in Israel’s crimes; it has to be made clear that all the financial support going to the PA is futile when the EU offers unconditional political, trade, academic and other forms of support for Israel. The EU’s policies have only served to prolong Israel’s occupation and our oppression. The time has come for EU Member States, and the EU as a whole, to decide—to either demonstrate their support for human rights or continue their support of Israel’s violent occupation and apartheid regime and risk losing not only the Palestinian people but Arab peoples and people of conscience all over the world. We hereby call on the EU to(1) immediately freeze the new upgrade of relations with Israel; (2) suspend the existing EU-Israel Association Agreement until Israel complies with international law; and (3) investigate and halt the work of all European companies benefiting from Israel’s occupation and settlement policies. Barring meaningful action on the above, the Palestinian youth movement will organize to protest the latest manifestation of EU complicity and to challenge its presence and operations in Palestine. Palestinians for Dignity

fredag 18 februari 2011

US vs UN on Israeli settlements (alla dessa veto..roten till muslimsk terrorism?)

US vs UN on Israeli settlements

Vetoing UN resolutions condemning Israeli settlements violates broader US interests.
MJ Rosenberg on Aljazeera
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/02/2011215115925859109.html

Anyone who thought that the United States has learned anything from the various revolutions upturning the Arab world has another think coming. We didn't.
On Thursday, as the Egyptian revolution was culminating with the collapse of the Mubarak regime, the Obama administration announced that it intends to veto a United Nations Security Council resolution, sponsored by 122 nations, condemning Israeli settlement expansion.
This is from AFP's report on what Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg told the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
"We have made very clear that we do not think the Security Council is the right place to engage on these issues," Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg told the House of Representatives' Foreign Affairs Committee.
"We have had some success, at least for the moment, in not having that arise there. And we will continue to employ the tools that we have to make sure that continues to not happen," said Steinberg.
There is so much wrong with Steinberg's statement that it is hard to know where to start.
First is the obvious. Opposition to Israeli settlements is perhaps the only issue on which the entire Arab and Muslim world is united. Iraqis and Afghanis, Syrians and Egyptians, Indonesians and Pakistanis don't agree on much, but they do agree on that. They also agree that the US policy on settlements demonstrates flagrant disregard for human rights in the Muslim world (at least when Israel is the human rights violator).
Accordingly, a US decision to support the condemnation of settlements would send a clear message to the Arab and Muslim world that we understand what is happening in the Middle East and that we share at least some of its peoples' concerns.
The settlement issue should be an easy one for the United States. Our official policy is the same as that of the Arab world. We oppose settlements. We consider them illegal. We have repeatedly demanded that the Israelis stop expanding them (although the Israeli government repeatedly ignores us). The administration feels so strongly about settlements that it recently offered Israel an extra $3.5bn in US aid to freeze settlements for 90 days.
It is impossible, then, for the United States to pretend that we do not agree with the resolution (especially when its language was carefully drafted to comport with the administration's official position). So why will we veto a resolution that expresses our own views?
Steinberg says that "We do not think the Security Council is the right place to engage on these issues."
Why not? It is the Security Council that passed all the major international resolutions (with US support) governing Israel's role in the occupied territories since the first one, UN Resolution 242 in 1967.
He then adds, with clear pride that:
"We have had some success, at least for the moment, in not having that [the settlements issue] arise there."
Very impressive. The United States has had no success whatsoever in getting the Netanyahu government to stop expanding settlements — to stop evicting Palestinians from their homes in East Jerusalem to make way for ultra-Orthodox settlers — and no success in getting Israel to crack down on settler violence, but we have had "some success" in keeping the issue out of the United Nations.
The only way to resolve the settlements issue, according to Steinberg, "is through engagement through the parties, and that is our clear and consistent position". Clear and consistent it may be. But it hasn't worked. The bulldozers never stop.
Of course, it is not hard to explain the Obama administration's decision to veto a resolution embodying positions that we support. It is the power of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which is lobbying furiously for a US veto (actually not so furiously; AIPAC doesn't waste energy when it knows that its congressional acolytes — and Dennis Ross in the White House itself — will do its work for them).
The power of the lobby is the only reason we will veto the resolution. Try to come up with another one. After all, voting for the resolution (or, at least, abstaining on it) serves US interests in the Middle East at a critical moment and is consistent with US policy.
But it would enrage the lobby and its friends who will threaten retribution in the 2012 election.
Simply put, our Middle East policy is all about domestic politics. And not even the incredible events of the past month will change that.
That is why US standing in the Middle East will continue to deteriorate. We simply cannot deliver. After all, there is always another election on the horizon and that means that it is donors, not diplomats, who determine US policy.
MJ Rosenberg is a Senior Foreign Policy Fellow at Media Matters Action Network. The above article first appeared in Foreign Policy Matters, a part of the Media Matters Action Network.
Follow MJ's work on Facebook or on Twitter.
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.


Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

måndag 31 januari 2011

Tunisia and the IMF's Diktats: How Macro-Economic Policy Triggers Worldwide Poverty and Unemployment

Tunisia and the IMF's Diktats: How Macro-Economic Policy Triggers Worldwide Poverty and Unemployment



by Michel Chossudovsky


General Zine el Abidine Ben Ali , the defunct and deposed president of Tunisia is heralded by the Western media, in chorus, as a dictator.

The Tunisian protest movement is casually described as the consequence of an undemocratic and authoritarian regime, which defies the norms of the "international community".

But Ben Ali was not a "dictator". Dictators decide and dictate. Ben Ali was a servant of Western economic interests, a faithful political puppet who obeyed orders, with the active support of the international community.

Foreign interference in Tunisia's domestic affairs is not mentioned in the media reports. The food price hikes were not "dictated" by the Ben Ali government. They were imposed by Wall Street and the IMF.

The role of Ben Ali's government was to enforce the IMF's deadly economic medicine, which over a period of more than twenty years has served to destabilize the national economy and impoverish the Tunisian population.

Ben Ali as head of state did not decide on anything of substance. National sovereignty was foregone. In 1987, at the height of the debt crisis, the left nationalist government of Habib Bourguiba was replaced by a new regime, firmly committed to "free market" reforms.

Macroeconomic management under the helm of the IMF was in the hands of Tunisia's external creditors. Over the last 23 years, economic and social policy in Tunisia has been dictated by the Washington Consensus.

Ben Ali stayed in power because his government obeyed and effectively enforced the diktats of the IMF, while serving the interests of both the US and the European Union.

This pattern has occurred in numerous countries.

Continuity of the IMF's deadly reforms requires "regime replacement". The installation of a political puppet ensures the enforcement of the neoliberal agenda while also creating conditions for the eventual demise of a corrupt and unpopular government which has been draw upon to impoverish an entire population.

The Protest Movement

It is not Wall Street and the Washington based international financial institutions which are the direct target of the protest movement. The social implosion was directed against a government rather than against the interference of foreign powers in the conduct of government policy.

At the outset, the protests were not the result of an organized political movement directed against the imposition of the neoliberal reforms.

Moreover, there are indications that the protest movement was manipulated with a view to creating social chaos as well as ensuring political continuity. There are unconfirmed reports of armed militias conducting acts of repression and intimidation in major urban areas.

The important question is how will the crisis evolve? How will the broader issue of foreign interference be addressed by the Tunisian people?

From the standpoint of both Washington and Brussels, an unpopular authoritarian regime is slated to be replaced by a new puppet government. Elections are envisaged under the supervision of the so-called international community, in which case candidates would be pre-selected and approved.

Were this process of regime change to be carried out on behalf of foreign interests, the new proxy government would no doubt ensure the continuity of the neoliberal policy agenda which has served to impoverish the Tunisian population.

The interim government led by acting president Fouad Mebazza is currently in an impasse, with fierce opposition emanating from the trade union movement (UGTT). Mebazza has promised to "break with past", without however specifying whether this signifies a repeal of the neoliberal economic reforms.

Historical Background

The media in chorus have presented the crisis in Tunisia as an issue of domestic politics, without a historical insight. The presumption is that with the removal of "the dictator" and the instatement of a duly elected government, the social crisis will eventually be resolved.

The first "bread riots" in Tunisia date back to 1984. The January 1984 protest movement was motivated by a 100 percent hike in the price of bread. This hike had been demanded by the IMF under Tunisia's structural adjustment program (SAP). The elimination of food subsidies was a de facto condition of the loan agreement with the IMF.

President Habib Bourguiba, who played a historical role in liberating his country from French colonialism, declared a state of emergency in response to the riots:

While gunfire sounded, police and army troops in Jeeps and armored personnel carriers fanned out through the city to quell the "bread riot." The show of force finally brought an uneasy calm, but only after more than 50 demonstrators and bystanders were killed. Then, in a dramatic five-minute radio and television broadcast, Bourguiba announced that he was reversing the price hike. (Tunisia: Bourguiba Lets Them Eat Bread - TIME, January 1984)

Following president Bourguiba's retraction, the hike in the price of bread was reversed. Bourguiba fired his Minister of the Interior and refused to abide by the demands of the Washington Consensus.

The neoliberal agenda had nonetheless been instated, leading to rampant inflation and mass unemployment. Three years later, Bourguiba and his government were removed in a bloodless coup d'Etat, "on the grounds of incompetence", leading to the instatement of General Zine el Abidine Ben Ali as president in November 1987. This coup was not directed against Bourguiba, it was largely intended to permanently dismantle the nationalist political structure initially established in the mid-1950s, while also privatizing State assets.

The military coup not only marked the demise of post-colonial nationalism which had been led by Bourguiba, it also contributed to weakening the role of France. The Ben Ali government became firmly aligned with Washington rather than Paris.

Barely a few months following Ben Ali's November 1987 instatement as the country's president, a major agreement was signed with the IMF. An agreement had also been reached with Brussels pertaining to the establishment of a free trade regime with the EU. A massive privatization program under the supervision of the IMF-World Bank was also launched. With hourly wages of the order of Euro 0.75 an hour, Tunisia had also become a cheap labor haven for the European Union.

Who is the dictator?

A review of IMF documents suggests that from Ben Ali's inauguration in 1987 to the present, his government had faithfully abided by IMF-World Bank conditionalities, including the firing of public sector workers, the elimination of price controls over essential consumer goods and the implementation of a sweeping privatization program. The lifting of trade barriers ordered by the World Bank was conducive to triggering a wave of bankruptcies.

Following these dislocations of the national economy, cash remittances from Tunisian workers in the European Union became an increasingly important source of the foreign exchange earnings.

There are some 650,000 Tunisians living overseas. Total workers' remittances in 2010 were of the order of US$1.960 billion, an increase of 57 percent in relation to 2003. A large share of these remittances in foreign exchange will be used to service the country's external debt.

The Speculative Hike in World Food Prices

In September 2010, an understanding was reached between Tunis and the IMF, which recommended the removal of remaining subsidies as a means to achieving fiscal balance:

Fiscal prudence remains an overarching priority for the [Tunisian] authorities, who also see the need for maintaining a supportive fiscal policy in 2010 in the current international environment. Efforts in the last decade to bring down the public debt ratio significantly should not be jeopardized by a too lax fiscal policy. The authorities are committed to firmly control current expenditure, including subsidies,... IMF Tunisia: 2010 Article IV Consultation - Staff Report; Public Information Notice on the Executive Board Discussion; and Statement by the Executive Director for Tunisia http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/scr/2010/cr10282.pdf

It is worth noting that the IMF's insistence on fiscal austerity and the removal of subsidies coincided chronologically with a renewed upsurge in staple food prices on the London, New York and Chicago commodity exchanges. These price hikes are in large part the result of speculative trade by major financial and corporate agribusiness interests.

These hikes in food prices, which are the result of outright manipulation (rather than scarcity) have served to impoverish people Worldwide. The surge in food prices constitutes a new phase of the process of global impoverishment.

"The media has casually misled public opinion on the causes of these price hikes, focusing almost exclusively on issues of costs of production, climate and other factors which result in reduced supply and which might contribute to boosting the price of food staples. While these factors may come into play, they are of limited relevance in explaining the impressive and dramatic surge in commodity prices.

Spiralling food prices are in large part the result of market manipulation. They are largely attributable to speculative trade on the commodity markets. Grain prices are boosted artificially by large scale speculative operations on the New York and Chicago mercantile exchanges. ...

Speculative trade in wheat, rice or corn, can occur without the occurrence of real commodity transactions. The institutions speculating in the grain market are not necessarily involved in the actual selling or delivery of grain.

The transactions may use commodity index funds which are bets on the general upward or downward movement of commodity prices. A "put option" is a bet that the price will go down, a "call option" is a bet that the price will go up. Through concerted manipulation, institutional traders and financial institutions make the price go up and then place their bets on an upward movement in the price of a particular commodity.

Speculation generates market volatility. In turn, the resulting instability encourages further speculative activity.

Profits are made when the price goes up. Conversely, if the speculator is short-selling the market, money will be made when the price collapses.

This recent speculative surge in food prices has been conducive to a Worldwide process of famine formation on an unprecedented scale." (Michel Chossudovsky, Global Famine, Global Research, May 2, 2008, http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8877)

From 2006 to 2008, there was a dramatic surge in the prices of all major food staples including rice, wheat and corn. The price of rice tripled over a five year period, from approximately 600$ a ton in 2003 to more than 1800$ a ton in May 2008.

(Michel Chossudovsky, http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9191, For further details, see Michel Chossudovsky, Chapter 7 Global Poverty and the Economic Crisis in Michel Chossudovsky and Andrew Gavin Marshall, editors, The Global Economic Crisis, The Great Depression of the XXI Century, Global Research, Montreal 2010, http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=20425 )

The recent surge in the price of grain staples is characterized by a 32 percent jump in the FAO's composite food price index recorded in the second half of 2010.

"Soaring prices of sugar, grain and oilseed drove world food prices to a record in December, surpassing the levels of 2008 when the cost of food sparked riots around the World, and prompting warnings of prices being in "danger territory".

An index compiled monthly by the United Nations surpassed its previous monthly high – June 2008 – in December to reach the highest level since records began in 1990. Published by the Rome-based Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), the index tracks the prices of a basket of cereals, oilseeds, dairy, meat and sugar, and has risen for six consecutive months." (Jill Treanor, World food prices enter 'danger territory' to reach record high, The Guardian, January 5, 2011)

Bitter irony: Against a background of rising food prices, the IMF recommends the removal of the subsidies with a view to reaching the goal of fiscal austerity.

Manipulating the Data on Poverty and Unemployment

An atmosphere of social despair prevails, people's lives are destroyed.

While, the protest movement in Tunisia is visibly the direct result of a process mass impoverishment, the World Bank contends that the levels of poverty have been reduced as a result of the free market reforms adopted by the Ben Ali government.

According to the World Bank's country report, the Tunisian government (with the support of the Bretton Woods institutions) was instrumental in reducing the levels of poverty to 7 percent (substantially lower than that recorded in the US and the EU).

Tunisia has made remarkable progress on equitable growth, fighting poverty and achieving good social indicators. It has sustained an average 5 percent growth rate over the past 20 years with a steady increase in per capita income and a corresponding increase in the welfare of its population that is underscored by a poverty level of 7% that is amongst the lowest in the region.

The steady increase in per capita income has been the main engine for poverty reduction. ... Rural roads have been particularly important in helping the rural poor connect to urban markets and services. Housing programs improved the living conditions of the poor and also freed up income and savings to spend on food and non-food items with resulting positive impacts on poverty alleviation. Food subsidies, which have been targeted to the poor, albeit not optimally, have also helped the urban poor. (World Bank Tunisia - Country Brief)

These poverty figures, not to mention the underlying economic and social "analysis", are outright fabrications. They present the free market as the engine of poverty alleviation. The World Bank's analytical framework is used to justify a process of "economic repression", which has been applied Worldwide in more than 150 developing countries.

With a mere 7 percent of the population living in poverty (as suggested by the World Bank "estimate") and 93 percent of the population meeting basic needs in terms of food, housing, health and education, there would be no social crisis in Tunisia.

The World Bank is actively involved in cooking the data and distorting the social plight of the Tunisian population. The official rate of unemployment is 14 percent, the actual level of unemployment is much higher. Recorded youth unemployment is of the order of 30 percent. Social services, including health and education have collapsed under the brunt of the IMF-World Bank economic austerity measures.

Tunisia and the World

What is happening in Tunisia is part of a global economic process which destroys people's lives through the deliberate manipulation of market forces.

More generally, "the harsh economic and social realities underlying IMF intervention are soaring food prices, local-level famines, massive lay-offs of urban workers and civil servants and the destruction of social programs. Internal purchasing power has collapsed, health clinics and schools have been closed down, hundreds of millions of children have been denied the right to primary education." (Michel Chossudovsky, Global Famine, op cit.)

tisdag 28 december 2010

WikiLeaks and Julian Assange on Al Jazeera

Julian Assange, the co-founder of the whistleblowing website WikiLeaks - which is currently releasing over 250,000 confidential American diplomatic cables - is in the UK fighting extradition to Sweden where he is wanted on charges for sexual assault.

He joins Sir David to talk about a host of issues, from his personal situation to the role of WikiLeaks as a bastion of transparency, championing the right to reveal government secrets, when it is in the publics' interest.

When he co-founded WikiLeaks he saw that he could encourage, through successful examples, people to step forward to reveal abuses by governments - to produce more justice. Subscribing to the motto that "courage is contagious", Assange claims not to be an anarchist; rather his modus operandi is to promote responsible governance.

Now his lawyers are concerned that he will end up in an American jail, either directly through extradition from the UK, or through extradition from Sweden.

Assange heavily implies that receiving a fair trial in Sweden is doubtful. Why was the most senior prosecutor in Sweden removed (and replaced) after he said there was "no evidence or even suspicion" of rape? Why do Swedish authorities refuse to provide British officials with any evidence of crimes Assange allegedly commited - including witholding the statements of the victims?

He is hesitant to blame his two accusers for their allegations against him, suggesting they could be innocently caught up in a greater political scheme.

This special episode of Frost over the World can be seen from Tuesday, December 21, at the following times GMT: Tuesday: 2330; Wednesday: 0830, 1430, Thursday: 1930.

Julian Assange interview - FROST OVER THE WORLD - Al Jazeera English

Julian Assange interview - FROST OVER THE WORLD - Al Jazeera English

fredag 9 april 2010

Trial against Anat Kamm or against the entire Israeli press

Israel lifts whistleblower gag


Officials said Kamm tried to harm national security, but her lawyer said her motive was moral [AFP]



Israel has lifted censorship on reports that a former soldier is under house arrest for leaking more than 2,000 classified military documents to an Israeli newspaper.

An Israeli court had ruled that local media could not report Anat Kamm's detention since December for allegedly taking the documents when on mandatory military service between 2007-9.

However, information concerning the 23-year-old's arrest had been reported in international newspapers and websites over the past couple of weeks prompting the easing of the ban on Thursday, subsequently raising discontent over press freedom in Israel.

Authorities have accused Kamm of giving the copied documents to a journalist at the Haaretz newspaper, which subsequently published information in 2008 that a top army officer authorised the assassination of Palestinian fighters in violation of a Supreme Court ruling.

About 700 of the documents were classified as "top secret".

Moral cause

Kamm, now a journalist, is accused of intending to harm national security by leaking the information, although this is denied by her spokesman who said that Kamm's motivation was moral.

"Anat is not a member of any political group and she does not want anyone to use her plight to further their cause," Nissim Dwek, the spokesman, told Israel's Channel 10 TV.

"State security has not been harmed and there was no intent to harm state security," Dwek said.

Kamm could face up to life in prison if convicted of espionage.

The Justice Ministry said that the gag order was necessary in order that the documents could be recovered. Yet, they added they were only partially reclaimed as Uri Blau, the Haaretz journalist who received the material, had left the country.

That journalist was assigned to London to avoid Israeli prosecutors, while the newspaper has said it is talking with legal authorities to allow for his return.

Press freedom

Gideon Levy, a journalist with Haaretz, told Al Jazeera: "Israel is now in turmoil over a women who couldn’t be silent.


Kamm, now a journalist, has been under
house arrest since December [AFP]

"I think that the main issue should be what were those secrets. One should look at the content of what was published, about who was assassinated. We don’t know enough at this stage," Levy said.

"We shouldn’t look at the messenger but the message.

"The penalty might be life. This is really out of proportion while we are dealing with a naive and good intentioned soldier who couldn’t keep silent about what she knew."

Critisism has been aimed at the gag order as international reports are easily available in Israel on the Internet, and many were referred to by local media regarding the case.

'Illegal killing'

Israel has used a policy of targeted killings against Palestinians since the second Palestinian intifada began in 2000 to prevent attacks.

Yet, the policy has been criticised as illegal, with the Supreme Court ruling in 2006 that such assassinations in the occupied West Bank must be limited to extraordinary cases.

The military in turn officially stopped the practice. But Haaretz reported a 2007 document including an order from Yair Naveh, a then commander, allowing firing upon three top Palestinian fighters even if they were not viewed as posing a clear and present danger.

Haaretz then quoted legal experts who said that the subsequent killing of one of the Palestinians was illegal, although Naveh, now retired, disputed this.

Kamm was serving in Naveh's office at the time of the memos.

Eitan Lehman, Kamm's lawyer, said that punishing her for this would be "a mortal blow to the state of Israel as a democratic country that believes in the freedom of the press.

"This trial is not a trial against Anat Kamm or against this journalistic source or another but rather against the entire Israeli press,'' Lehman said.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

fredag 18 december 2009

CIA Helps Torturing Hamas Activists

CAIRO – The CIA is cooperating with Palestinian security agents to torture Hamas activists and sympathizers in the West Bank prisons, the Guardian reported.
"There is a connection, but there is no supervision by the Americans," Palestinian Authority’s interior minister Sa'id Abu-Ali said.
"It is solely a Palestinian affair. But the Americans help us."
CIA agents were reportedly working closely with Palestinian security forces to torture Hamas sympathizers in the West Bank prisons.
The Guardian named the Preventive Security Organization (PSO) and General Intelligence Service (GI) as the two Palestinian agencies working closely with the CIA.
"The [Central Intelligence] Agency consider them as their property, those two Palestinian services," a senior Western diplomat said.
The CIA links to the two Palestinian agencies are so close to be seen as supervising their work.
A diplomatic source said the US influence over the two agencies was so great they could be considered "an advanced arm of the war on terror".
Between 400 and 500 Hamas sympathisers are held by the PSO and GI, according to Palestinian officials.
International human rights groups have accused Palestinian security forces of abusing and torturing Hamas detainees in the West Bank.
They say the detainees were severely beaten and tortured in the Palestinian Authority prisons, citing a torture technique known as shabeh, during which detainees are shackled and forced to assume painful positions for long periods.
Among the techniques are also sleep deprivation and cramming the detainees into small cells to prevent rest.
Hamas detainees are also being tried before military justice, under which they are held without charges for six months before being brought to court.
Three Hamas sympathizers have died in the custody of the Palestinian Authority.
Haitham Amr, a 33-year-old nurse and Hamas supporter, died in the Palestinian Authority custody, four days after his detention.
Extensive bruising around his kidneys suggested he had been beaten to death.
US Hand
Human rights groups blame the US administration for the mistreatment of Hamas detainees in the West Bank prisons.
"The Americans could stop it any time,” Shawan Jabarin, general director of Palestinian rights watchdog al-Haq, told the Guardian.
“All they would have to do is go to [prime minister] Salam Fayyad and tell him they were making it an issue.. Then they could deal with the specifics.
“They could tell him that detainees needed to be brought promptly before the courts."
The CIA does not deny working with Palestinian security forces, but denies turning a blind eye to abuses of Hamas detainees.
But a diplomat in the region insists that CIA agents were “at the very least” aware of the torture of Hamas detainees and did not do enough to stop it.
"There are a number of questions for the US administration: what is their objective, what are their rules of engagement?
“Do they train the GI and PSO according to the manual which was established by the previous administration, including water-boarding? Are they in control, or are they just witnessing?"

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,