ECUADOR: STRIKERS SEIZE OIL WELLS

from Weekly News Update on the Americas

On May 21, residents of the northern Ecuadoran provinces of Sucumbios and Orellana began an open-ended civic strike to demand improvements to roads, schools, housing and health care in the region, which borders on Colombia and Peru. The protesters seized 114 oil wells on nine fields operated by the state-run oil company Petroecuador and blocked access roads to oil facilities, forcing a shutdown of drilling and repair work.

As the strike continued on May 25, President Alfredo Palacio declared a 60-day state of emergency in Sucumbios and Orellana, deeming the oil region a “security territory.” The state of emergency allows the restriction of certain civil rights. (La Jornada, Mexico, May 25; AP, May 26)

Late on May 25, after the government signed an agreement promising to address their demands, the protesters ended their strike and left the oil fields. Under the terms of the agreement, Petroecuador and other state agencies must finance roads and electricification projects in the region. The state of emergency remains in effect. (AP, Reuters, May 26)

On May 24, Palacio outlined a six-point plan for restoring stability in Ecuador over the next 18 months with a call for “a great national accord.” The proposed steps include calling a “People’s Assembly” to define an agenda of change; the assembly’s proposals would then be put to a referendum, and in the same election, representatives would be chosen for a constitutional assembly. Palacio became president on April 20 after mass protests forced the ouster of Lucio Gutierrez from office. (LJ, May 25, 26, from wire services)

The National Federation of Campesino, Indigenous and Black Organizations (FENOCIN) and other grassroots organizations in Ecuador are planning protests during the 10th round of negotiations over a free trade treaty (TLC) with the US, Colombia and Peru, scheduled for June 6-19 in Guayaquil. Grassroots groups are demanding that Palacio suspend the TLC negotiations and instead call a referendum on the trade pact. (El Comercio, Peru, May 28, from EFE)

Weekly News Update on the Americas, May 29

Weekly News Update on the Americas
http://home.earthlink.net/~nicadlw/wnuhome.html

See also WW4 REPORT #109
/node/454

——————-

Reprinted by WORLD WAR 4 REPORT, June 10, 2005
Reprinting permissible with attribution

http://WW4Report.com

Continue ReadingECUADOR: STRIKERS SEIZE OIL WELLS 

PERU: COCALEROS, PEASANT ECOLOGISTS STAGE STRIKES

from Weekly News Update on the Americas


HUALLAGA VALLEY: COCALEROS CLASH WITH COPS

On May 29 in Tocache province, in the Huallaga valley of San Martin in north central Peru, at least 3,500 campesino coca growers (cocaleros) armed with sticks surrounded a group of 230 police agents charged with carrying out coca leaf eradication operations. According to police, the resulting clash left 17 agents hurt–one by a bullet, the rest by beatings. Twenty cocaleros were injured; Tocache mayor Nancy Zagerra said three of them are in serious condition with bullet wounds. (La Jornada, Mexico, May 31 from DPA)

The 230 anti-drug police agents had arrived in the area on May 26, along with 50 workers from the Control and Reduction of Coca Crops in the Alto Huallaga (CORAH) project. On May 28, the anti-drug forces set up camp in the village of 5 de Diciembre, where according to cocalero leader Nancy Obregon they forced the campesinos from their homes and destroyed their crops, even after the campesinos showed them documents from the state-run National Coca Company (ENACO) demonstrating that the crops were legal. “They said those [documents] were no good and they threw everyone out. The people have had to sleep outside,” said Obregon Outraged at the incident, Obregon organized nearly 4,000 cocaleros to confront the agents at their camp the next day. (La Republica, Lima, May 30)

On May 31 a representative of the Office of the Defender of the People, Manlio Alvarez Soto, traveled to Tocache from Tingo Maria, in neighboring Huanuco region, to meet with the cocaleros and gather information about the conflict. Alvarez also visited two of the wounded cocaleros in the Tingo Maria hospital, where they were taken for treatment. [LR 6/1/05] On June 3, some 6,000 cocaleros from Monzon and Alto Huallaga marched in Tingo Maria in support of the Tocache cocaleros. (LR, May 6) Obregon said the cocaleros will start an open-ended strike on June 27. (LR, May 30)

Weekly News Update on the Americas, June 5

CUSCO: RESIDENTS SEIZE MINE

On May 24, some 2,000 residents of Espinar province in the southern Peruvian region of Cusco seized a copper mining camp run by the British-Australian corporation BHP Billiton-Tintaya. The protesters looted and burned camp facilities, and police used tear gas to try to remove them; dozens of people were injured. Residents are demanding that the mining company provide $20 million a year in funding for social programs in the region and that it take measures to improve infrastructure and protect the environment. BHP Billiton-Tintaya is the third largest copper mine in Peru, producing 80,000 tons a year, 12.1% of national production.

As the number of residents surrounding the camp swelled to 4,000 on May 25, BHP Billiton-Tintaya pulled its personnel out and shut down operations at the camp. The same day, the protesters beat the mayor of Espinar when he asked them to dialogue with the mining company.

On May 26, a government delegation headed by Energy and Mines deputy minister Romulo Mucho arrived to negotiate with the protesters, who now numbered some 6,000 and were gathered in the plaza in Yauri, the provincial capital of Espinar. The crowd was furious to see that the Energy and Mines minister had not come with the delegation, but eventually agreed to a dialogue.

The company is not participating, saying it will not negotiate under pressure, and that it will not contribute more than what it agreed to in an 2003 contract: 3% of utilities, with a minimum payment set at $1.5 million a year. In the first year of the contract the company paid $2 million. (LJ, May 25 from Reuters; Reuters May 26)

Police in Yauri say that early on May 26 they found pamphlets of the Maoist rebel group Sendero Luminoso (Shining Path) scattered in the streets, calling on residents to “rid our land of the traitor dogs and those miserable gringos who loot our resources.” The news led some media to suggest that the Espinar protests were organized by “subversives,” but legislator Jose Taco, a member of the government negotiating team, rejected the theory. “I’m from the zone, I know the people, and I deny the subversive character, they’re not criminals, [though] there are groups which take advantage,” he said.

On May 27, after a 12-hour meeting with the government delegation, Espinar residents agreed to suspend their protests while local leaders consult with their bases about whether or not to accept a June 2 meeting to renew dialogue with the company. BHP Billiton-Tintaya has not yet agreed to the dialogue, and says it will keep its operations shut down for security reasons. Economy minister Pedro Pablo Kuczynski told the media on May 26 that the company will leave Peru if the protests are not resolved quickly. (Reuters, May 26, 27)

Weekly News Update on the Americas, May 29

AYACUCHO TO AMAZONIA: CAMPESINOS STRIKE

On May 23, thousands of campesinos in seven Peruvian regions began blocking highways in an agrarian strike to demand fair prices for their produce, protest unfair competition from imports and reject a free trade treaty being negotiated with the US, Ecuador and Colombia which they say will exacerbate their current crisis. In addition, the campesinos were demanding that sales tax be reduced from 19% to 4% for the agricultural sector, and that the state agrarian bank, Agrobanco, open up branches in rural areas to grant low-interest credits to campesinos. The strikers mainly produce rice, cotton and bananas in Peru’s northern regions, and potatoes in the south.

The protest was initially called as a 48-hour strike in Tumbes, Piura, Cajamarca, Loreto and Ayacucho departments, and as an open-ended strike in Lambayeque and San Martin. In Tumbes, on the northern coast bordering Ecuador, some 5,000 rice and banana producers blocked several kilometers of the Panamerican highway. In the northern coastal city of Chiclayo, in Lambayeque, police arrested some 20 people who were watching campesinos blockade the Panamerican highway. Strike actions also took place in Piura, also on the northern coast, and in Cajamarca, just inland in the northern Andes.

Further east, on the edge of the Peruvian Amazon, more than 10,000 rice growers from San Martin and Loreto departments blocked the road linking the towns of Yurimaguas (Loreto) and Tarapoto (San Martin) and shut down activities in the zone. Campesino leader Luis Zuniga, president of the National Convention of Peruvian Farmers (CONVEAGRO), noted that Peruvian authorities had encouraged farmers to grow more rice, causing a production glut which has forced prices down.

In Ayacucho, in the south-central Andean highlands, more than 8,000 campesino potato growers began their strike on May 23 by occupying the offices of the Regional Department of Agriculture and blocking the main access highways into the city of Huamanga.

Agriculture Minister Manuel Manrique said late on May 23 that he had reached a pre-accord with the Ayacucho producers, and that they had agreed to lift their strike once negotiations with campesino representatives from the other regions were successful. Under the terms of the accord, the government agreed to purchase 4,100 tons of potatoes from the Ayacucho producers. (Telam, AP, May 23, 24; Prensa Latina, May 24; ANSA, May 23; La Jornada, Mexico, May 26) The strikes ended May 26 after the government signed an accord with the northern producers, in which it pledged to buy this year’s entire crop of rice in order to stabilize prices. (LJ, May 27 from DPA)

President Alejandro Toledo left Peru on May 24 to begin a 17-day trip in which he is to visit China, Israel, Jordan and the Palestinian city of Ramallah in the Occupied Territories. Manrique, the agriculture minister, was also scheduled to take part in the trip. (AP, May 24)

The agrarian strike came in a conflictive week in Peru. On May 24, some 7,000 nurses employed by the state-run Social Security agency began an open-ended national strike to demand a wage increase. In the northern city of Trujillo, state workers burned tires and threw paint at offices of the Chilean airline Lan-Peru in a protest to demand a series of labor laws. On May 23, Aymara indigenous residents of the Uros islands in Lake Titicaca began a 48-hour strike to demand that the National Institute of Natural Resources stop barring them from using the lake’s flora and fauna. On May 24, the Aymara announced that their strike would be open-ended. (LJ, May 26 from DPA, AFP, Reuters; AP, May 24)

Weekly News Update on the Americas, May 29

Weekly News Update on the Americas
http://home.earthlink.net/~nicadlw/wnuhome.html

See also WW4 REPORT #107
/node/278

——————-

Reprinted by WORLD WAR 4 REPORT, June 10, 2005
Reprinting permissible with attribution

http://WW4Report.com

Continue ReadingPERU: COCALEROS, PEASANT ECOLOGISTS STAGE STRIKES 

BOLIVIA: GAS BILL PASSES, PROTESTS EXPLODE

from Weekly News Update on the Americas

PREZ FAILS TO EASE PROTESTS

Some 15,000 campesinos, students and other protesters filled the Plaza Murillo in La Paz on May 30 to demand nationalization of Bolivia’s natural gas resources and the seating of a constitutional assembly. Police did not repress the protests, which on May 30 were mainly limited to La Paz and the adjoining city of El Alto. (La Jornada, Mexico, May 31 from AFP, DPA)

The next day, May 31, more than 50,000 people gathered in La Paz for what Associated Press called the biggest demonstration since the latest round of protests began on May 16. Rural school teachers, members of El Alto’s neighborhood organizations, Aymara indigenous campesinos from the Altiplano region of La Paz department and other protesters closed off access to the center of the capital, blowing up sticks of dynamite and blocking all the major intersections with burning tires. Police used tear gas and clashed with the marchers, especially El Alto university students. In El Alto itself, everything was closed by a civic strike which began May 23. As night fell, thousands of protesters remained in La Paz, and police used more tear gas and rubber bullets to try to disperse them. At least 10 people were wounded by rubber bullets and seven people were arrested. (LJ, June 1 from correspondent; El Nuevo Herald, Miami, June 1 from AP)

On June 1, more than 10,000 rural and urban public school teachers marched again through La Paz, as did a huge contingent of small business owners and vendors from El Alto and Aymara campesinos from the Altiplano. By the afternoon of June 1, the protests in La Paz had calmed, but in the communities of Ayo Ayo and El Tholar in the Altiplano, Aymara campesinos began blockading the roads that connect the capital with cities to the south and east. The roads linking La Paz with Chile and Peru to the north and west had already been blocked since May 28. In Cochabamba, campesinos and factory workers led a massive march through the center of the city on June 1 for the same consensus demands of nationalization and a constitutional assembly. In Santa Cruz de la Sierra, where the wealthy business class has been pushing demands for regional autonomy, rightwing paramilitary thugs from the Union of Crucenista Youth attacked a campesino march arriving from the north of Santa Cruz department. Local police broke up the fight with tear gas. (LJ, June 2 from correspondent)

Transport workers in La Paz began a two-day strike on June 2. (Miami Herald , June 4)

At 11 PM on June 2, after the Bolivian Congress failed for the second consecutive day to reach agreement on bills to convoke a constitutional assembly and a national referendum on regional autonomy, President Carlos Mesa Gisbert announced he was issuing Supreme Decree 28195, which sets Oct. 16 as the date when Bolivians will elect representatives for the constitutional assembly and decide the regional autonomy question in a referendum. The decree must be ratified by Congress in order to be valid. In his televised announcement, Mesa emphasized that the constitutional assembly is the best forum to reconsider the hydrocarbons law which took effect on May 17 and to take up the issue of nationalization. La Paz mayor Juan del Granado, a former leftist, played a key role by meeting with Mesa earlier in the day and pressing him to issue the decree. “If this decision is not ratified by Congress,” announced Del Granado, “all the institutions of La Paz will go on hunger strike.” (LJ, June 3)

Abel Mamani of the El Alto Federation of Neighborhood Committees (FEJUVE) said on June 3 that the decree is “illegal” and fails to address “the main demand of the social organizations, which is the nationalization of the hydrocarbons.” (AP, June 3) Movement to Socialism (MAS) leader Evo Morales also blasted Mesa’s decree as “absolutely anti-constitutional” and called it a “show” with which the president seeks to “demobilize the people.” (LJ, June 3) Leaders of the Santa Cruz business class are likewise dissatisfied with Mesa’s decree; they insist the autonomy vote be held on Aug. 12. (Miami Herald, June 4)

Earlier on June 2, Morales and other MAS deputies had blocked Congress from simultaneously considering the bills on regional autonomy and the constitutional assembly, as it had agreed to do the night before. MAS said Congress must first pass the constitutional assembly bill. Congress president Hormando Vaca Diez, a senator from Santa Cruz, blasted the move by MAS, and citing inadequate conditions, suspended legislative sessions until June 7. Hundreds of campesino coca growers (cocaleros) from the Chapare region of Cochabamba department–Morales’ base of support–gathered outside the Congress building and tried to keep the legislators from leaving. They managed to beat up one senator, Gonzalo Chirveches. (LJ, June 3)

On June 3, as the transport strike paralyzed La Paz for a second day and protesters blockaded more than 40 highways in eight of Bolivia’s nine departments, leaders of the Catholic Church announced they would seek to mediate a solution to the conflict. (AP, June 3) Also on June 3, the Confederation of Urban Teachers of Bolivia announced it was rejecting the government’s latest salary offer and would maintain the open-ended national general strike which started May 6. The same day, La Paz teachers took Deputy Education Minister Celestino Choque hostage in an effort to force him to explain why the Education Ministry claimed that unionized teachers earn high salaries and bonuses. (Los Tiempos de Cochabamba, June 4)

In Santa Cruz department, Radio Erbol reported that nearly 2,000 campesinos had seized the gas wells of the Chaco company to demand nationalization and the constitutional assembly. (Resumen Latinoamericano, June 3 from Bolpress)

In San Pablo, Trinidad, a group of military and police agents were attacked with gunfire as they tried to dismantle a blockade from the San Pablo bridge on the highway linking Trinidad to Santa Cruz. Three people were killed. Presidency Minister Jose Galindo said the troops were ambushed by hired professionals. (Los Tiempos, June 4)

As of June 4, highways were blocked at more than 55 points in seven Bolivian departments, with La Paz and Oruro departments having the most blockades. Early on June 4, the Assembly of the Guarani People (APG) set up a blockade along the Camiri-Santa Cruz route, joining the demands for a constitutional assembly and nationalization of the gas. The APG is also demanding the creation of a 10th department in the Chaco region of Bolivia, to include four provinces currently located in Santa Cruz, Chuq uisaca and Tarija departments. In Cochabamba department, cocaleros say they will blockade a main highway through the Chapare on June 6 if the nationalization issue is not resolved. (La Razon, La Paz, June 5; Resumen Latinoamericano, June 3 from Bolpress]

In other news, in a May 25 operation organized by the Santa Cruz departmental government, military troops and police agents forcibly evicted members of the Bolivian Movement of Landless Rural Workers (MST) from the Los Yuquises estate in Santiesteban province, Santa Cruz department. No injuries were reported. From May 8 to 12, the Los Yuquises squatters had held hostage a group of 60 people who were hired to attack them. (Bolivia Press, from Centro de Documentacion e Informacion Bolivia, CEDIB, May 27; Alai-amlatina, May 25; Bolpress, May 25)

Weekly News Update on the Americas, June 5

On May 23, some 5,000 Bolivian coca growers (cocaleros) from the Chapare region of Cochabamba department arrived in La Paz after a four-day, 200-kilometer march from the town of Caracollo in Oruro department to press for national control of oil and natural gas resources and the convening of a constitutional assembly. The Federation of Neighborhood Committees (FEJUVE) in El Alto began an open-ended general strike the same day. As the cocaleros passed through El Alto into La Paz, El Alto’s organized indigenous majority chanted demands for “not 30%, nor 50% royalties–nationalization!” Bolivia’s popular movements are pressing for full nationalization of hydrocarbons resources, while MAS leader Evo Morales, who headed the cocalero march, has reaped harsh criticism for his compromise proposal that the government increase gas royalties to 50%.

American Airlines cancelled all its flights to the La Paz international airport–located in El Alto–and other airlines cancelled some flights. As many as 50,000 street vendors and other small-scale merchants joined the cocalero marchers and El Alto residents in mobilizations in La Paz, culminating in a massive rally in San Francisco Plaza. As Morales spoke, some people in the crowd shouted “nationalization” and “close the parliament.” Morales, who is a legislative deputy, insisted that Congress should not be shut down. Other speakers included Bolivian Workers Central (COB) executive secretary Jaime Solares, who called for nationalization, the closing of the parliament and the resignation of President Carlos Mesa Gisbert, and urged the military to join the people in defeating the oligarchy.

Weekly News Update on the Americas, May 29

GAS LAW SPARKS PROTEST WAVE

On May 16, some 10,000 Bolivian workers, campesinos and unemployed people marched into the center of La Paz from El Alto to press for the nationalization of oil and gas resources, the convening of a constitutional assembly and other demands. The protesters tried to topple security fences and push past a heavy contingent of agents from the Special Security Group to reach the Plaza Murillo and seize the national legislature; police barely managed to keep them back using tear gas, rubber bullets and water cannons. The tear gas drifted into nearby schools, forcing teachers to abruptly cancel classes and children to flee through the streets in a panic. (El Diario, La Paz; AP, May 17)

At the same time, thousands of miners set up road blockades on May 16 at numerous points in the center of Bolivia, halting transportation between the departments of La Paz, Oruro, Potosi and Cochabamba. The action was organized by the National Federation of Mining Cooperatives (FENCOMIN) to draw attention to specific demands relating to the mining sector, and to push for nationalization of hydrocarbons resources. (ED, May 17)

The same day, May 16, 5,000 campesinos and workers began marching to La Paz from Caracollo, in Oruro department, to demand the nationalization of hydrocarbons and the immediate convening of a constitutional assembly. The marchers included members of the Only Union Confederation of Bolivian Campesino Workers (CSUTCB) and the COB, as well as campesino coca growers from the Cochabamba tropics, oil workers, irrigation workers and members of the MST. ([ED, May 17, 18)

On May 17, Senate president Hormando Vaca Diez signed into law a controversial hydrocarbons bill which maintains royalties on gas production at 18% but creates a new 32% direct tax on production and requires companies to renegotiate their existing contracts with the government to comply with the new rules. Congress passed the bill late on May 5, and Mesa declined to either sign it, return it Congress with recommended changes or veto it outright. Vaca Diez apparently had no choice but to sign the bill; article 78 of the Bolivian Constitution dictates that if the president fails to act on a law within 10 days of receiving it from Congress, the president of the Congress must promulgate it. The law was published and took effect on May 18. (AP, May 17)

On May 17, as soon as Vaca Diez signed the law, the Bolivian Chamber of Hydrocarbons (CBH), a business group of oil and gas companies with investments in Bolivia, issued a communique blasting the new legislation. The CBH said that while the gas companies would remain in Bolivia, they would freeze their investments. “We believe this law has a confiscatory character which affects rights recognized by the contracts, laws and the Political Constitution of the state and international treaties,” said the communique. The main players in CBH are the Spanish company Repsol YPF, British Gas and British Petroleum, Brazil’s Petrobras and the French company Total. (AP, May 18)

On May 17, after Vaca Diez signed the law, Mesa gave a lengthy address on television and radio announcing a new economic and social program called “Bolivia, Productive and in Solidarity,” for the period from 2005 to 2007. Most of the country’s social sectors seem to have ignored Mesa’s plan or dismissed it as a feeble attempt to stem popular protests. “Carlos Mesa is trying, once more, to fool Bolivians; but the simple working people, from the country and the city, have a clear idea that at this moment we have to nationalize the hydrocarbons and call a constitutional assembly to avoid a social uprising with unpredictable consequences,” said Cochabamba factory workers’ leader Oscar Olivera, spokesperson for the Gas Coordinating Committee. (ED, May 18; Servicio Informativo “Alai-amlatina”, May 19) MAS leader Evo Morales called Mesa’s plan a “distractionist maneuver.” (El Nuevo Herald, May 21 from AP)

On May 18, some 1,000 miners and El Alto residents marched into La Paz, firing off sticks of dynamite and demanding Mesa’s resignation; police used tear gas and water cannons to disperse them. (ENH, May 19 from AP)

Later on May 18, the government signed an agreement with the leaders of the mining cooperatives to end the blockades which had kept inter-city transportation in Bolivia almost completely shut down for three days. The government agreed to assign more of the new gas tax revenues to the departments of La Paz, Oruro and Potosi; provide some $7 million in credits and financial assistance, along with help in purchasing equipment and building homes; extend rent agreements between the state-run Bolivian Mining Corporation (Comibol) and mining cooperatives; limit taxes imposed on mining cooperatives; and regulate the companies which buy ore from the cooperatives. (ED, AP, May 19)

On May 19 nearly 2,000 miners, together with campesinos, unionists and El Alto residents, shut down the center of La Paz and forced Congress to suspend debate over a law authorizing a referendum on local autonomy being promoted by the rightwing oligarchies of Santa Cruz–the country’s wealthiest department–and the gas-rich southern department of Tarija. Despite conflicts among the legislators, the Chamber of Deputies gave initial approval to the autonomy referendum and was set to begin debate over each of the bill’s articles when COB leader Jaime Solares and El Alto council members Roberto de la Cruz and Wilson Soria, together with a group of workers, tried to occupy the legislative chamber. Police used tear gas to block their entry, but after Solares threatened to bring in “500 miners with dynamite to close the Parliament” the session was abruptly suspended and the Santa Cruz deputies fled out the back door. (LJ, May 20; ED, May 19)

Thousands of people marched again in La Paz on May 20 to press the same demands for nationalization of the gas, against the autonomy referendum and for a constitutional assembly. The march brought together campesinos, miners and unionists from the COB with university students, teachers and state health workers. Also on May 20, police arrested two people and confiscated 4,589 sticks of dynamite and other explosives in El Alto which they said might be used in protests. (LJ, May 21 from AFP, DPA)

On May 21, the Santa Cruz Provisional Autonomy Assembly (APA) announced it would not wait for Congress to approve the autonomy measure but would instead call its own binding referendum on autonomy to be held on Aug. 12. Tarija has reportedly joined in the call for the Aug. 12 referendum, as have the departments of Beni and Pando in the Bolivian Amazon. (LJ, May 22 from DPA, AFP, Reuters)

La Paz got a break from protests on May 21 and 22 as the city celebrated an important traditional folkloric dance festival in honor of the “Lord of Great Power.” (ENH, May 22 from AP)

Weekly News Update on the Ameicas, May 22

According to the Miami Herald, some of Mesa’s advisers had told him to reject the bill because foreign lenders had made clear that if the bill passed, Bolivia risked a cutoff of credits. High-ranking officials in Argentina, France, Spain and Brazil–home to companies with oil or gas investments in Bolivia–privately told the Mesa administration that if he signed the gas bill Bolivia would face reprisals, including billion-dollar lawsuits by the companies, according to an unnamed Western diplomat cited by the Miami Herald.

Other advisers had reportedly urged Mesa to sign the bill, saying that rejecting it would prompt new protests and perhaps force Congress to consider imposing even higher taxes on corporations. (Miami Herald, May 12 from correspondent)

Weekly News Update on the Americas, May 15


SQUATTERS TAKE HOSTAGES

On May 8, a group of armed assailants hired by local landowners, accompanied by Ayoreo indigenous people they had contracted as thugs, attacked the Pueblos Unidos (United Peoples) rural squatter encampment on the Los Yuquises estate in Santiesteban province in the eastern Bolivian department of Santa Cruz. According to Bolivia’s Movement of Landless Rural Workers (MST) and the Unity Pact, an eastern region coalition of indigenous, campesino and grassroots groups, at least three squatters were disappeared in the attack and a number of people were beaten. Two people were wounded, one squatter and one assailant. The assailants also burned rice and pineapple crops and several homes. (Bolivia Press, May 10; Adita, May 13)

MST members responded by taking 60 assailants hostage. On May 10, a delegation headed by Minister of Goverment Saul Lara and national police commander David Aramayo went to the area to try to negotiate the release of the hostages. The delegation included representatives from the Ministry of Sustainable Development, the Permanent Assembly for Human Rights of Bolivia (APDHB), the Catholic Church and the International Committee of the Red Cross. On May 12, the squatters agreed to release the hostages after the government promised to prioritize making a determination on ownership of the Los Yuquises estate, and distributed land to MST members. (Adital, May 13; El Diario, La Paz, May 11, 12)

The assailants said they were hired to harvest rice for 50 bolivianos ($6.18) a day, but when they arrived to work they were given weapons and told to violently evict the squatters. Local residents said landowners send recruiters to impoverished neighborhoods on the outskirts of the city of Santa Cruz to hire members for their “shock troops.”

MST leader Silverio Vera said the conflict at Los Yuquises concerns an estate which has no owner, but which is being sought by businessperson Rafael Paz and his brother. The land conflicts in Santa Cruz intensified after the MST exposed the illegal appropriation by business owners of properties in the north of the department which the government had promised to distribute to landless families. Both the squatters and the business owners blame the National Agrarian Reform Institute (INRA) for being too slow in assessing and distributing land. (Adital, May 13)

Bolivia’s conservative media mainly covered the incident at Los Yuquises from the perspective of Santa Cruz business owners who called the MST a “subversive” and “terrorist” group and demanded that the military forcibly evict all squatters in the region. Jose Cespedes, president of the Agricultural Chamber of the East (CAO), said that if authorities don’t stop the MST, “we will be obliged to make use of the legitimate right to defense, with measures proportionate to the constant aggressions we suffer at the hands of the invaders.” Cespedes claimed the MST is using its encampments as training camps for an armed movement. (ED, May 11; Adital, May 13)

Weekly News Update on the Americas, May 15

Weekly News Update on the Americas
http://home.earthlink.net/~nicadlw/wnuhome.html

See also WW4 REPORT #108
/boliviagasbill

——————-

Reprinted by WORLD WAR 4 REPORT, June 10, 2005
Reprinting permissible with attribution


http://WW4Report.com

Continue ReadingBOLIVIA: GAS BILL PASSES, PROTESTS EXPLODE 

PLASTIC TOTALITARIANISM

Bankruptcy, “Anti-Terror” Laws Make Americans Captive Wards of Credit Industry

by Chesley Hicks

“Bankruptcy should always be a last resort in our legal system. If someone does not pay his or her debts, the rest of society ends up paying them. In recent years, too many people have abused the bankruptcy laws. They’ve walked away from debts even when they had the ability to repay them. This has made credit less affordable and less accessible, especially for low-income workers who already face financial obstacles.”

If someone other than Dubya, who uttered these words upon signing the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005, had said that, I might’ve thought, Yes, you must pay for what you buy. My mind might’ve switched away from our country’s shrinking wild forests and shriveling civil liberties to images of absconded executives drinking mimosas in their Caribbean mansions after sinking a company and leaving behind employees without jobs, health care, and earned pensions. I might’ve thought of a deadbeat Dad on the lam with his new girlfriend in the sports car they bought and put in her name; or remembered the girl I knew in college who came from a wealthy family, spent her hearty cash allowance on drugs, and ran up credit card bills buying booze, clothes, and all the records I ever wanted before defaulting on her credit cards when her parents wouldn’t pay the bills.

“The law will also allow us to clamp down on bankruptcy mills that make their money by advising abusers on how to game the system.” Bush also said. Yeah, screw the slimy swindlers! I might say.

But this was Bush talking. So instead I assume that the would-be ire roused in the self-righteous, bill-paying part of me probably reflects what a portion of the rest of the country believes when they hear Bush decree.

The Republicans are masters at making you look with indictment over your shoulder to see if your neighbor might be getting over with your tax money or having ungodly sex in your country, while they go whole-hog with your money, land, and freedom. Though the Bush administration will blithely propound the most preposterous of subterfuges to keep you glaring in the wrong direction, there’s usually some grain of truth in their ruse to give it enough traction to stand for as long as they need the public to look away from reality.

In reality, the new bankruptcy law might very well put the breaks on the deadbeat dad, and teach the profligate college student a hard lesson in fiscal responsibility. But the percentage of bankruptcy filers who got there through wanton indulgence is not representative. A study published in February by the Harvard Medical and Law Schools found that “Half of personal bankruptcies are predated by medical problems, even among the insured–75.7% had insurance at the onset of illness. Even middle class, insured families often fall prey to financial catastrophe when sick. In 2001, 1.458 million American families filed for bankruptcy.” Anyone who is honestly interested in understanding the current dynamics of bankruptcy should look foremost at our volatile economy and a woefully imbalanced health care system.

“America is a nation of personal responsibility where people are expected to meet their obligations. We’re also a nation of fairness and compassion where those who need it most are afforded a fresh start,” Bush also said. Help the truly needy and keep everyone honest, I might’ve said… except:

As for those abusing the system, while Repubs are bearing down on low- and middle-income debtors, the mimosa-sucking executive can keep sucking because there’s a nifty little loophole in the bill that allows the protection of substantial assets from creditors even after a bankruptcy filing. It’s called the asset-trust provision, and according to a March 2 New York Times article, “For years, wealthy people looking to keep their money out of the reach of domestic creditors have set up [offshore asset protection trusts]. But since 1997, lawmakers in five states–Alaska, Delaware, Nevada, Rhode Island and Utah–have passed legislation exempting assets held domestically in such trusts from the federal bankruptcy code. People who want to establish one of these trusts do not have to reside in any of the five states; they need only set it up through an institution located there.” The trusts cost thousands of dollars to establish and maintain, making them an option only for wealthy people, earning the asset-trust provision the title “millionaires loophole.” Bush is sooo predictable.

With that in mind, go online and look over the list of amendments that were rejected during the Senate hearing that ultimately passed the new bankruptcy bill: amendments with names like “To exempt debtors whose financial problems were caused by failure to receive alimony or child support, or both, from means testing,” or “To modify the bill to protect families.” Reading the list of amendments clearly intended to make the bill more equitable but cynically rejected, you’ll see that the “millionaire loophole” was no oversight. Read between the lines and you’ll also see who really benefits from the new bill: the country’s largely unregulated credit industry.

The supporters of the new bankruptcy bill, including credit behemoth MBNA, the sixth highest contributor to Bush’s 2004 campaign, claim that by tightening bankruptcy laws, more money will be made available to a broad spectrum of people seeking credit and loans. While this might sound good in theory, the reality is that the credit industry is helping to create an underclass of people permanently stuck the debt cycle.

According to Business Daily Bulletin of May 15, citing data from the Federal Reserve, “A year ago, approximately 1.59 million people filed for personal bankruptcy, 700,000 more filings than a decade ago. Consumer debt also continues to rise, currently hovering at $2.12 trillion, 100 percent greater than a decade ago.”

We live in a debt culture. Many Americans begin their young adult lives in debt, paying back school loans. Over the last decade, most of us have probably noticed the proliferation of credit card culture. Credit card companies offer feeless cards, free airline miles, student accounts that don’t require a parental cosign, retail tie-ins, and zero-percent introduction rates. For the financially secure, this has been an opportunity to sometimes get something for nothing. For the growing numbers of financially insecure Americans, it’s been a lure into debt indenture. For the credit companies it’s been a windfall.

In 1996, the credit card industry made $1.7 billion dollars on late fees. In 2002, it made $7.3 billion. With the inclusion of other new fees: balance transfer fees, over-the-limit fees, cash advance fees, and foreign exchange fees, the number rises. In 1995 the industry made $8.3 billion in collected fees. In 2004 it made $24 billion.

Add to this the spoils collected via unchecked usury–that is, arbitrarily applying fees to any transaction, and inflating the fees every chance it gets–and you’ve got an industry that’s so far in the black, it’s benighted the entire system.

For those of you with cards, scrutinize the fine print. You’ll find that payment periods have shrunk from 30 to 20 days; grace periods have been eliminated, and a single late payment will result in the raising of your rates to 18, 29, or 35 percent. Some reports say that creditors are sending bills closer to their due dates in order to increase the odds of the bills being paid late. Creditors can also arbitrarily raise the rates on your non-delinquent accounts if they find out you were late paying off another account owned by another creditor.

Despite laws, including 1971’s Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), which protect consumers from unfair and inaccurate collection of personal information to form credit profiles, or “scores,” it is only within the last year that consumers have been allowed unfettered access to these reports (see www.annualcreditreport.com).

Still, information can be traded between credit card companies, insurance companies, landlords and other entities that handle your money. Even the recent privacy act (the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999) hasn’t been able to entirely lift the black veil. Insurance credit-evaluation policies, in particular, remain inscrutable. While the collection of credit data for risk-assessment is meant to provide for judicious lending that will ultimately supply more money to more people who will benefit from it, its flaws assist in keeping low- to mid-income people in debt. For instance, an employed mother who uses a credit card to get through a medical crisis, and misses or pays late one credit card bill, might find rates for other cards, with which she has not been late, rise due to those creditors having checked her updated credit score. If she subsequently should try to get her sixteen year-old son car insurance, she might find she is only offered high insurance rates, due to her now flawed record. So she’s now not only paying off her original medical bills, she’s now been sucked into a higher monthly overhead than she ever had. One that includes a credit card debt that exponentially grows, thereby insuring that she will owe more and more money every month. In this way, debtors become trapped.

For instance, with minimum (2%) monthly payments, a debt of $5000 with an 18 percent interest rate will take 46 years to pay off, having accrued $13, 931 in interest. Chances are, the mother, having missed a payment or two, will have even higher rates. But because she and her husband have jobs that place them at or above the median income level in their state, they are ineligible under the new law for chapter 7, or clean-slate bankruptcy. Instead, they have to file chapter 13, which requires, among many other things, that the mother take a course in debt management–at her expense. That mother is probably not going to get too excited about the free airline miles she’s earned.

The implications of this scenario have raised red flags everywhere. On the one hand it is recognized as beating down regular Americans during a time of financial uncertainty. It also places a glaring spotlight–for those looking anyway–on the runaway power of consolidated credit agencies.

Some credit card companies, like Citigroup, now create their own internal credit reports. And as companies such as Citigroup and Chase own so many other companies that handle money across the culture spectrum, they’re allowed access to more information than most consumers realize. With such groups acting as lenders, creditors, and insurers, one wonders how far off we are from finding our health insurance rates raised because there are too many liquor-store, steakhouse, or whitewater-rafting trip purchases on our bills. In a climate where companies are allowed to deny health insurance to–or even fire–employees who smoke, this doesn’t seem so remote.

So my inner fiscal pragmatist and conceder to capitalism says: credit is a good that you don’t have to purchase. I know people who don’t use credit at all, ever. But these are people who either have a spouse who does use credit or have made the choice to not own anything for which they can’t pay in full upfront–a tall order for most people just starting out, as the credit experts say that having no credit history is as bad as having bad credit history. It also assumes a certain degree of cultural detachment: no online tickets, show bookings, payments, or retail, etc. Should you choose to use only a debit card instead, you’ll still be subject to the same kind of tracking and lack of credit history; and for folks seeking to buy a home or car or invest in beginning a new business–the embodiment of the American entrepreneurial spirit–buying with a loan or credit is usually the only option, and one upon which our economy relies. That someone drawing upon these resources should be setting themselves up for the extreme, fiscally fatal punishment allowed in the event they even lightly transgress is deeply insidious. That the government is going to such lengths to sanction and protect this voracious, totalitarian practice is cause for revolt.

And speaking of Senate bills: On May 10, the Senate passed legislation, subsequently signed into law by Dubya, called the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005. It is, indeed, an emergency appropriations bill that approves funds for, among other items, the Iraq war and tsunami relief. However, rolled into this rushed-to-pass legislation was also the REAL ID Act of 2005, which seeks “to establish and rapidly implement regulations” for a national ID system, ostensibly, of course, to protect Americans from terrorists.

However, among the Act’s stacks of flaws is the reality that there is little evidence to suggest harder-to-forge legal IDs would do anything to deter people already working outside law.

Proposals for the ID include using RFID tags–which can be read from several feet away–to store personal information on the card. Supporters say the REAL ID isn’t a national ID card, because states can refuse to follow the law. Yet the ID law states that federal agencies must require the card–and federal agencies control air travel, post offices, banking and other daily life institutions.

It’s tough to say what is more disturbing: the historically redolent implications of having to carry “papers” with you everywhere, all the time; or the fact that there was little debate over the bill before it slithered through the House and Senate. Though convincing arguments against the ID’s efficacy abound, it could be the threat of common criminals that most thwart its implementation, as critics say such a digitized, info-packed ID will provide one-stop shopping for identity thieves. Of course the threat of identity-theft hasn’t slowed the crush of credit hegemony.

So where is it going to end? Maybe here: During the recent Senate session, the Washington Post reported May 18 that both Dems and Repubs resoundingly agreed on one thing: “With startling unanimity, they agreed that without some combination of big tax increases and major cuts in Medicare, Social Security and most other spending, the country will fall victim to the huge debt and soaring interest rates that collapsed Argentina’s economy and caused riots in its streets a few years ago.” Of course reports say that the money lost in tax cuts for the rich could cover the amount needed to repair the deficit, but we don’t tend to riot over that sort of thing here. We’ll see.

In the meantime, I know that Chicken Little never helped anyone. There are numerous websites that will connect you to people and organizations offering detailed information on the bankruptcy law, the credit industry, and REAL ID. These measures will probably face challenge in the courts, where their final outcomes will be defined by attrition. So staying informed and active can only help.

RESOURCES:

Info on the credit industry:

Consumer Reports
http://www.consumerreports.org

Demos, a nonpartisan think-tank
http://www.demos-usa.org/pub125.cfm

Credit Card Nation, a Web-based financial literacy group
http://www.creditcardnation.com

Detailed breakdowns of the bancruptcy law:

A CommonDreams article by David Swanson
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0331-33.htm

Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) page on the law
http://www.pirg.org/consumer/bankrupt/index.htm#intro

PBS article on credit scores
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/credit/more/scores.html

Why the REAL ID won’t work:

Security technologist and blogger Bruce Schneier
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/05/real_id.html

——————-

Special to WORLD WAR 4 REPORT, June 10, 2005
Reprinting permissible with attribution

http://WW4Report.com

Continue ReadingPLASTIC TOTALITARIANISM 

INDONESIA: THE TSUNAMI’S DEADLY FALLOUT

Pentagon Exploits Humanitarian Mission to Rebuild Military Ties

by John M. Miller

In the immediate aftermath of the massive tsunami that swept through the Indian Ocean on Dec. 26, George W. Bush, safe on his Texas ranch, offered a paltry $35 million in aid to the affected countries. Bush was widely criticized for his hesitation. One U.N. official called the United States “stingy,” prompting Bush to up the aid to approximately a billion dollars.

The U.S. military showed no such hesitation, immediately dispatching ships loaded with aid from its own budget. But in the process the Pentagon seized a number of opportunities that in long run may harm the very people it was purportedly helping. Within days, a Navy strike force with initial orders to head to the Persian Gulf instead loaded up with humanitarian supplies in Guam and was soon diverted to tsunami relief duty. U.S. forces were quickly on the move, anchoring off the coast of Aceh, the area most devastated by the disaster.

The relief mission provided an opportunity to conduct an operation without land bases through “sea-basing,” a strategy designed to allow U.S. forces to operate free from the constraints of land bases and allies. The effort in Aceh was mainly confined to helicopter transport of relief to villages cut off by the disaster. U.S. troops spent very little time on the ground. Indonesia was wary of too many foreign eyes in Aceh, where a decades-long counter-insurgency war continues despite the crisis. In addition, nationalist Indonesians were reluctant to allow the deployment of U.S. troops on any Indonesian soil.

Nonetheless, the Pentagon leadership seized the opportunity to rebuild relations with officers of the Indonesian military forces, called TNI, for Tentara Nasional Indonesia (National Army of Indonesia). Contacts have been limited since the early 1990s, when Congress began to restrict U.S. military assistance to Indonesia because of serious human rights violations in occupied East Timor. The Pentagon also saw in the relief efforts a new excuse to campaign to lift remaining restrictions and fully restore military ties.

The U.S. Air Force flew in mechanics to repair several of Indonesia’s aging C-130 military cargo planes. In announcing the supply of parts, Secretary of State Colin Powell said Jan. 6 that he hoped that “if we can get this taken care of, the government of Indonesia will use the planes for the intended purpose … and would not use them in a way not intended, i.e. going after the GAM.” The GAM is Gerakan Aceh Merdeka, the Free Aceh Movement, which has been conducting a guerrilla war for independence from Indonesia since the 1970s.

Indonesian officials portrayed the supply of spare parts as a major shift in U.S. policy, but Indonesia has been allowed to purchase C-130 parts at least since 2002. Instead of buying the parts, Indonesia preferred to repeatedly misrepresent their availability in an effort to get the United States to remove all restrictions on weapons sales. Sharing the goal, the Bush administration rarely bothered to correct the misrepresentation publicly. Throughout the joint relief effort, senior administration officials, led by then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz described the Indonesian government and military as fully cooperative in the relief effort but argued that the operation would have gone more smoothly if only military relations were normal. What was needed, they said, was restoration of the International Military Education and Training (IMET) program.

Wolfowitz, Indonesia and IMET

Congress first voted to restrict IMET for Indonesia after Indonesian troops wielding U.S.-supplied M-16 rifles massacred East Timorese protesters in Santa Cruz cemetery, Dili, on November 12, 1991. That was the first cut in military aid to Indonesia. Through the 1990s, decisions by Congress and the Clinton administration gradually restricted other forms of assistance to Indonesia in a rare instance of human rights concerns affecting weapons sales. During that decade, as restrictions on Indonesia tightened, Wolfowitz, a former ambassador to Indonesia, help lead the charge against the restrictions, defending the Indonesian regime and exaggerating its very limited efforts to prosecute some mainly low-ranking soldiers, usually in response to intense international pressure.

All military ties with Indonesia were severed in September 1999 as the TNI and its militia proxies razed East Timor after the East Timorese voted overwhelmingly for independence. At that time, Congress placed some of these restrictions into law. Renewable annually were bans on IMET and sales of lethal military equipment. Conditions for lifting these bans have varied, but have largely focused on transparency in Indonesia’s military budget and accountability for human rights violations, as all senior Indonesian officials responsible for crimes against humanity in East Timor have escaped successful prosecution. Under the Congressional restrictions, IMET could be restored with State Department “certification” that Indonesia was meeting conditions.

Then, when George W. Bush assumed the presidency, Wolfowitz was appointed to the Pentagon. One of his goals was normalization of military relations with Indonesia. The Pentagon saw an opening after the attack of September 11, 2001, arguing that Indonesia, as the country with the largest Muslim population, was an important front in the war on terror and the Indonesian military was needed to fight terror in the region.

Yet under most definitions, the TNI itself conducts terrorist activities; using violence against civilians for political ends has been its modus operandi for decades. A 2002 study for the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, CA, notes that the Indonesian army has become “a major facilitator of terrorism” due to “radical Muslim militias they… organized, trained, and financed.” In the wake of the tsunami, the Indonesian military helped transport some of these militia to Aceh, ostensibly to help with the relief effort, but handy if needed to intimidate foreigners or create an impression of internecine conflict to deflect blame from their own operations. Both are tried and true tactics from East Timor and elsewhere. But the Pentagon’s allies in Congress were willing to set aside those criticisms, authorizing a post-9-11 Pentagon counter-terrorism training program open to Indonesian officers with no restrictions, although IMET and the sale of weapons remains banned.

The Papua Killings

Congress balked at completely lifting the IMET ban after three teachers, two from the United States and one from Indonesia, were murdered on land operated as a mineral concession of the U.S. multinational Freeport MacMoran (and under the control of TNI forces) in West Papua in August 2002. Instead, Congress declared that the ban could be lifted conditioned on certification of Indonesian cooperation in solving the crime. This past February 26, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice certified that Indonesia was cooperating with the FBI and was therefore eligible for full IMET. The certification came just days before the State Department issued its annual human rights report, which detailed how in 2004 Indonesia’s “security force members murdered, tortured, raped, beat, and arbitrarily detained civilians.”

The main argument for certification was an indictment for the murders drawn by a U.S. grand jury (under a legal doctrine retaining jurisdiction over the murder of U.S. citizens abroad) in June 2004 against Anthonius Wamang, an Indonesian. The FBI has said the investigation remains open but has essentially ignored any evidence that implicates the TNI in the killings, and instead blames Free West Papua Movement (or OPM for Organisesi Papua Merdeka), the local pro-independence guerrillas. But according to local human rights investigators, Wamang has extensive ties to the Indonesian military as a business partner of Kopassus, the Indonesian army’s notorious special forces. The TNI is largely funded by profit-making enterprises, and Wamang markets timber and gold in a joint venture with Kopassus. In August 2004, Wamang told Australian television that he obtained the ammunition for the attack from members of the Indonesian military. He has also said that these officers knew that he was about to carry out an attack in the Freeport concession. The TNI routinely uses proxies to stage attacks, in hopes of covering up their role. Furthermore, for the first six months after the indictment was unsealed, Indonesian police did not update U.S. investigators, nor has Wamang been indicted or apprehended in Indonesia. Nonetheless, Indonesia claims to be cooperating with U.S. authorities in the case. Given this lack of progress, rights organizations say the State Department’s certification of cooperation is false and misleading.

In announcing the restoration of IMET, the State Department said it “expects that Indonesia’s resumption of full International Military Education and Training will strengthen its ongoing democratic progress.” It is hard to see how bolstering Indonesia’s least democratic institution can do this. Even Indonesia’s “reformist” Minister of Defense Juwono Sudarsono told the New York Times Feb. 7, 2005 that the military “retains the real levers of power” and “from the political point of view, the military remains the fulcrum of Indonesia.” On June 23, 2004, while serving as Jakarta’s ambassador in London, Sudarsono wrote in the Jakarta Post, “Six years of civilian-based party politics has not resulted in any measurable degree of effective ‘civilian supremacy,’ much less ‘civilian control.'”

Revolt in Aceh

Aceh, on the northern tip of the island of Sumatra, is the site of one of Asia’s longest-running wars. For three decades, the GAM has fought for independence from Indonesia. On Dec. 9, 2002, an internationally-brokered cease-fire agreement was signed between Indonesia and the GAM, but it collapsed on the following May 19, when then-Indonesian President Megawati Sukarnoputri declared martial law in Aceh. A few hours later Indonesia launched its largest military operation since the 1975 invasion of East Timor. Aceh’s status was changed to “civil emergency” one year later, but the TNI remains in charge, and the reality on the ground has not changed. Hercules C-130 military transports, OV-10 Broncos, F-16 fighters, and other U.S. equipment have all been used during military operations in Aceh.

Support in Aceh for independence from Indonesia is widespread and growing because of the brutality of Indonesian security forces, as well as the desire for a fair share of Aceh’s vast natural resource wealth. The TNI generally assumes the average Acehnese is pro-independence and supports the guerrillas. For the notoriously corrupt TNI, the tsunami is an opportunity to assert further its control, as well as make some money–by pilfering aid, charging fees at road checkpoints, et cetera.

Despite the natural disaster, Indonesia has continued the civil emergency and offensive operations. Prior to the tsunami, Indonesia severely restricted the presence of foreigners in the territory. After the disaster it delayed for several days allowing foreign aid agencies in. The government regularly sets deadlines for most of them to leave. While so far, it has backed down from these threats, Indonesia did force out the UN’s refugee agency in March, arguing that there are no “refugees,” only “displaced persons.”

Norbert Vollertsen, a German doctor who has worked in North Korea, gave a strong sense of the repressive atmosphere in Aceh in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, in which he wrote, “I feel almost as if I am back in North Korea again. The military road blocks, heavily armed police tanks at every street corner and thousands of soldiers everywhere all remind me of the 18 months I spent in the Stalinist state.”

Abuses of humanitarian assistance by the TNI–including withholding food and other relief from civilians who lack proper identification or are alleged to support independence–are regularly reported. Reports also describe the TNI as creating obstacles to local organizations and volunteers who are trying to distribute humanitarian assistance. The Indonesian government says it has killed hundreds of rebels since the tsunami hit. Human rights groups say most of the dead were unarmed civilians. The GAM says that they have seen little let-up in military activity, despite declared post-tsunami ceasefires by both sides.

The Indonesian military also transported fundamentalist Islamic militias into Aceh, ostensibly to help with the relief effort. The groups, the Islamic Defenders Front and the Laskar Mujahidin (the military wing of the Indonesian Mujahidin Council), have a history of attacking opponents of the military, threatening foreigners and exacerbating conflicts, including the Christian-Muslim inter-religious conflict in Indonesia’s Moluccan Islands.

Lessons Learned

Most Acehnese have welcomed the foreign help, civilian and military. Many see the outsiders as far more efficient and less corrupt than the oppressive Indonesian government and military they so distrust. They also hope that the outside presence will temper the TNI’s worst abuses and shed light on the brutal repression in the province.

Most of the US, Australian and other foreign militaries allowed into Aceh after the disaster are now gone, except for a brief return after a massive aftershock hit in March. What remains is an intense debate over who will control the reconstruction and how long outside aid agencies will be allowed to remain, as the TNI awaits a full return to business as usual.

As Aceh moves from the disaster relief phase to reconstruction, the struggle has begun over who will control the planning and the vast sums pledged internationally. Acehnese and Indonesians monitoring the effort fully expect any money given directly to the government to be stolen. They doubt the TNI will be shut out of the lucrative rebuilding effort. History tells them that much aid will be siphoned off, despite government pledges to the contrary. “Every disaster in Indonesia is always colored by corruption, with lots of aid disappearing,” one Acehnese corruption watcher told Australia’s Courier Mail.

The U.S. Navy sees their intervention as much more than a successful effort in helping the disaster-stricken people of Aceh. Rear Admiral Christopher Ames, the commander of the Expeditionary Strike Group that arrived so quickly off the coast of Aceh, told the New Yorker Feb. 7, “We’ve talked about this idea of sea-basing for several years, of being able to project power anywhere in the world without asking permission.” He added, “What we’re doing here validates the beauty of it.”

For the Bush administration, the campaign to restore military assistance to Indonesia clearly received a real boost from the relief effort. Added to their rotating arguments for re-engagement is the need to support the TNI in humanitarian missions. This comes even as some in Indonesia are questioning the dependence on the TNI in dealing with Indonesia’s frequent natural disasters–floods, forest fires, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions. Indonesia’s Coordinating Minister for People’s Welfare recently announced a plan to create an alternative capacity by creating a “a ready-for-dispatch team, such as the National Guard in the United States, whose members are trained like troops, so we don’t need to disturb the military.”

Despite renewed peace talks now underway, the Acehnese and others in Indonesia may end up regretting the long-term impact of the U.S. military help. The restoration of military training and the expansion of other contacts can only serve to embolden the Indonesian military and increase their suffering.

———

John M. Miller is Media and Outreach Coordinator of the East Timor Action Network and Treasurer of the War Resisters League. This article is adopted from a version appearing in the April edition of the Non-Violent Activist, the magazine of the War Resisters League

RESOURCES:

For more information on Aceh and Indonesia: East Timor Action Network (ETAN), (718)596-7668, etan@etan.org; www.etan.org. Opposes U.S. assistance to the Indonesian military. For news and analysis of the situation in Aceh, see Aceh Eye (www.acheh-eye.org) and AcehKita (www.acehkita.com/en/). For information on human rights throughout Indonesia, see TAPOL (http://tapol.gn.apc.org/) and IndonesiaAlert! (www.indonesiaalert.org/).2900000

See also:

WW4 REPORT’s March 31 post on Indonesian army atrocities in West Papua
/node/348

WW4 REPORT’s last updates on Aceh:

/94.html#southeast1

/93.html#subcontinent2

/92.html#southeast2

/91.htm1#southeast1

/90.html#southeast1

——————-

Adopted for WORLD WAR 4 REPORT, June 10, 2005
Reprinting permissible with attribution

http://WW4Report.com

Continue ReadingINDONESIA: THE TSUNAMI’S DEADLY FALLOUT 

COLOMBIA: PEACE INITIATIVES UNDER ATTACK

Uribe’s “Counter-Guerilla” Campaign Targets Indigenous Models for Demilitarization

by Bill Weinberg

The carnage in Iraq has pushed several other US military commitments from the headlines. Afghanistan, with 18,000 US troops, jumps to mind. But nearly forgotten is Colombia, where the US has 800 military troops and 600 more private contractors on the ground. The troops, largely advisors from Army Special Forces, are ostensibly barred from combat missions, but they intimately direct Colombian army operations. And the parallels with Iraq are increasingly obvious for those who care to look.

As in Iraq, US forces have been implicated in torture and attacks on civilian communities. As in Iraq, US-backed forces and increasingly ruthless insurgents alike are making life unsustainable for local people caught between both sides. And perhaps even more so than in Iraq, civilian initiatives for peace and local autonomy are themselves being targeted by all sides in the conflict.

In recent weeks, the government of President Alvaro Uribe has launched a major counter-guerilla offensive, a showcase of his Orwellian “democratic security” program. The offensive itself is called the Patriot Plan, in apparent emulation of the US anti-terrorist legislation. One frontline in this contest is Toribio, a Nasa Indian village in the mountains of conflicted Cauca department, where residents have proclaimed their own right not to participate in the war.

Toribio maintained a precarious autonomy until it was occupied by government troops in August 2003, and secured from guerilla attempts to take the town after several weeks of fighting. This April, the guerillas again mounted an offensive to drive the army from Toribio, and the town has since been a war zone once again.

Ezequiel Vitonas, a former mayor of Toribio and a leading voice in the Association of Indigenous Councils of North Cauca (ACIN), was in New York City in May for the annual meeting of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. “We have a policy of not involving ourselves in the conflict of country,” Vitonas says. “We seek to protect our form of self-government and self-determination. We have our own forms of participation in which everyone in the community is consulted. We have our own health and education systems, and solidarity economics based on collective work. But this project is not liked by either the left or the right. Our community process doesn’t fit their ideologies and interests.”

The Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) attacked Toribio on April 14, and the government sent in the new US-trained High Mountain Battalion, an elite force of battle-hardened troops, backed up by a larger force of regular troops from the army’s Third Brigade based in Cali. Military planes and helicopters circled above. On the following day, Uribe himself arrived in Toribio, accompanied by Cauca governor Juan Jose Chaux Mosquera–the latest in a series of grand-standing moves to govern from the war zones.

Over the next two weeks, bullets flew through the village intermittently. A young child was killed, some 20 residents wounded and as many homes destroyed. Hundreds of residents have been forced to flee, and many are now being held in public buildings converted into makeshift refugee centers in Santander de Quilichao, a town some 50 kilometers down winding mountain roads on the Pan-American Highway. Vitonas claims residents saw North American soldiers in camouflage directing the Colombian troops on the operations.

Residents also reported mysterious black-uniformed troops–probably special anti-guerilla units of the National Police in the fighting. And the neighboring villages of Silvia, Jambaló, Caloto were also occupied by government forces.

Despite guarantees for indigenous self-government in the Colombian constitution, the Nasa’s model for autonomy is under attack by the government nearly explicitly. Toibio’s indigenous-language community station, Radio Nasa, was ordered closed by the government last August. Army troops invaded the premises and took away the equipment. A narrow bureaucratic rationale was used, but Vitonas has no doubt of the real reasons.

Says Vitonas: “The government demands we broadcast army statements with their war language. We refuse, and they threaten us. And then the armed insurgents do the same and demand that we present their position, instead of respecting our position. So we also refuse to do that. We don’t want to express their views, we want to express our own and expect them to support that. And this brings about the difficulties.”

The move also came three weeks before last September’s historic cross-country march of 60,000 Indians and their supporters on Cali to demand armed groups respect their autonomy. But indigenous technicians devised mobile bicycle-powered transmitters that actually broadcast live from the march, with the signal bounced throughout the region by Radio Payumat, a bilingual Spanish-Nasa community station in Santander de Quilichao. (Payumat is a Nasa salutation.) Then, students in Cali put the live transmissions on the Internet.

The march called for the establishment of a popular congress, with representatives from indigenous and campesino councils from throughout the country to determine a way our of the war and advance a new economic model. Uribe has staked his future to Colombia’s entry into the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), with concomitant privatization of the nation’s oil, mineral and energy sectors. Uribe accused the marchers of “putting forth lies” and having a hidden “political objective”–a barely-veiled reference to the guerillas.

In early March, indigenous communities in Cauca held a consulta, or series of community meetings, in which they overwhelmingly rejected FTAA. This move precipitated further tension over the Nasas’ independent radio initiative. Uribe’s agriculture minister, Andres Felipe Arias Leiva, again responded to the consulta with a veiled accusation that it originated with the guerillas: “certain sectors are taking advantage of fears,” and thereby undermining “our struggle against terrorism.”

On March 9, Arias Leiva arrived at Radio Payumat to tell the “truth” about the FTAA. The station responded with a letter from the indigenous councils demanding an apology and retraction for his earlier statements. The statement also noted that the councils had invited government representatives to debate on the FTAA since the September march on Cali, to no avail. Arias Leiva refused to back down, and Radio Payumat refused to grant him access to their airwaves.

Violence continues in Toribio and surrounding communities. On May 21, DAS–the Administrative Security Department, or secret police–raided home of Vicente Otero, ex-mayor of Caldono village and a key organizer of the consulta that rejected the FTAA. Otero wasn’t home, but his home was roughly searched, a child there threatened–and some 20 other residents of Caldono arrested on suspicion of guerilla collaboration. They are now being held by the Third Brigade in Cali. DAS has announced it has arrest orders for some 200 residents of Caldono.

Vitonas brought three demands to UN in May. The first was for international recognition of the indigenous guard, an unarmed civil defense body made up of village residents. In the prelude to the September march, Toribio’s Mayor Arquimedes Vitonas–Ezequiel’s cousin, who has been officially honored by the UNDP for his efforts to preserve indigenous knowledge–was kidnapped by the FARC with other Nasa leaders. They were released days later when hundreds of indigenous guard members marched on the guerilla camp where they were being held.

His other demands were for a UN special rapporteur to monitor indigenous rights in Colombia, and Colombian government reparations for war damage to indigenous communities.

Peasant peace initiatives are under attack throughout Colombia. In February, eight civilians, including community leader Luis Eduardo Guerra and three children, were massacred in the Peace Community of San Jose de Apartado, a village in northern Uraba region which eight years ago declared its lands as a neutral and demilitarized zone. Witnesses identified the killers as members of the Colombian military, and peace community members saw the army’s 17th and 11th Brigades in the area around the time of the murders.

Since the massacre, Uribe’s administration has done little to investigate the murders, but the president wasted no time in accusing the peace community leaders of being “auxiliaries of the FARC.” Army and National Police forces have flooded San Jose. All but five of the 100 families that formed the Peace Community have been forced to abandon their homes and land. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees is helping to manage a camp which has been formed by displaced residents.

Uribe has still not replied to demands from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights to secure the safety of San Jose’s residents. Statements such as Uribe’s make the residents a target not only for the army, but its own (ostensibly outlawed) paramilitary auxiliaries. Gloria Cuartas, an advocate for the peace community and ex-mayor of the local municipality of Apartado, reports receiving threatening telephone messages since she has been publicly demanding justice for the massacre. On May 23, Colombia’s attorney general did announce charges against four army commanders for failure to prevent paramilitary incursions into San Jose de Apartado. Paramilitaries have carried out numerous attacks on village residents over the past two years.

After the massacre, SOA Watch, the group that monitors the US Army’s School of the Americas (now officially the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation), reported that the commander of the 17th Brigade of the Colombian army received training at the SOA. Gen. Hector Jaime Fandiño Rincon attended the “Small-Unit Infantry Tactics” course in 1976.

Tolemaida, a key military base outside Bogota, has taken on a reputation as Colombia’s Abu Ghraib. The Bogota daily El Espectador reported claims January 8 that last October US military officers and private contractors had overseen a session at the base in which three young girls from a nearby village were tortured and raped. The sessions were apparently videotaped, and the tapes then distributed in the local village of Melgar, where the girls were from. They were subsequently ostracized and forced to flee the village with their families. The most disturbing thing about the allegations is that the girls were not even suspected of anything; they had been lured to the base in exchange for money and a promise of visas to enter the US, and apparently used in a simple torture demonstration.

El Espectador wrote in an editorial: “The recording of these acts of sadism and the public diffusion of the images is part of the message the invaders must establish that the subjugated people are inferior and deserve any kind of inhuman treatment.” The piece also noted that even if Uribe were to pursue the case, Colombia has no recourse to the International Criminal Court, having signed on to an agreement with the United States not to recognize its jurisdiction over any US personnel.

“The marginal of the planet must find a way to unite to promote our own methods of development,” Ezequiel Vitonas says. But this is becoming a greater challenge every day as Colombia’s war escalates, with Pentagon direction, in a strategy which seeks to polarize and eliminate any political space not beholden to armed factions.

RESOURCES:

Association of Indigenous Councils of North Cauca (ACIN)
http://nasaacin.net/noticias.htm

Peace Community of San Jose de Apartado
http://www.cdpsanjose.org/

SOA Watch on the San Jose de Apartado massacre
http://www.soaw.org/new/article.php?id=1024

El Espectador on torture at Tolemaida
http://www.elcorreo.eu.org/esp/article.php3?id_article=4747

See also:

“Colombia: Peace Community Under Occupation” by Virginia McGlone, WW4 REPORT #108 /peacesanjosedeapartado

For more on Gen. Fandiño Rincon see WW4 REPORT #107
/node/284

————–

Special to WORLD WAR 4 REPORT, June 10, 2005
Reprinting permissible with attribution

http://WW4Report.com

Continue ReadingCOLOMBIA: PEACE INITIATIVES UNDER ATTACK 

COLOMBIA: CHEMICAL WARFARE EXPANDS

Ecologists Warn of Disaster as U.S. Sprays Glyphosate in Threatened National Parks

by Daniel Leal and combined sources

In the past few months, the people of Quibdo, capital city of the Colombian Pacific coast department of Choco, have observed daily the landing at their local airport of helicopters and small aircraft, packed with “gringos” from Plan Colombia and their Colombian associates.

They have come with one objective: to spray the illicit crops located in the huge territory of Choco. In the Feb. 11 edition of the Colombian news magazine Semana, Choco journalist Alejo Restrepo, writes that biodiversity and watersheds of the region are threatened by this chemical assault.

For centuries, indigenous peoples and Afro-Colombians have preserved the natural environment of Choco, one of the richest areas in flora and fauna of the country. Their way of life, based on fishing and small-scale cultivation of yucca and banana, is now threatened. Restrepo especially protests the decision to approve the spraying of glyphosate without an environmental impact study.

Bismarck Chaverra, director of the Choco-based Institute for Environmental Studies of the Pacific, interviewed in that same issue of Semana, reported 347 documented cases of people with acute respiratory and dermatological diseases in Choco, with 70% of the affected children under three years old.

Chaverra’s group is part of a coalition of Colombian and international environmental and human rights groups that oppose the spraying. A February petition against the spraying in Choco has been signed by Friends of the Earth Latin America, the Open Society Institute, Washington Office on Latin America and the biodiversity protection organization Grupo Semillas, as well as several Colombian groups.

Also of special concern is potential damage to Colombia’s 50 national parks, which cover 10 million hectares, according to Ecolombia, a network of Colombian environmental groups. Ecolombia also notes the irony that this threat comes just as the parks are increasingly being opened to “eco-tourism” interests. Ecolombia protests this policy as a “privatization” of the nation’s parks. The group writes that “the national parks are the genetic bank of Colombia. To privatize them or bombard them with poison would be much more grave than to put the National Library to the flame.”

In late March 2004, Senator Jorge Enrique Robledo of Independent Workers Revolutionary Movement (MOIR) led a significant number of Colombian legislators in issuing a formal statement of protest against the spraying. The Transnational Institute, a global group of activist scholars, notes that spraying in the national parks would constitute a violation of several treaties to which Colombia is signatory, including the Biodiversity Convention, ILO Convention 169 on the rights of indigenous peoples, the Ramsar Convention on wetlands, and articles 97 and 80 of the Colombian constitution, which protect natural resources.

Under such pressures, the administration of President Alvaro Uribe agreed to suspend spraying in the parks last March pending further study. In the 2003 Colombia aid package approved by the US Congress under the Andean Counterdrug Initiative, conditions were also imposed mandating protection of water sources and protected areas, and restitution for damaged property and legal crops. The measure required that funds for the aerial eradication only be made available if the Department of State certified to Congress that certain condition are being met. In December 2003, the Deparment of State issued a study to Congress, “Report on Issues Related to the Aerial Eradication of Illicit Coca in Colombia,” officially certifying that the conditions were being met. In February 2004, the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA), a hemispheric alliance of environmental law professionals, issued a statement contesting the certification and urging Congress to “withhold funding for the chemical eradication program until DoS demonstrates full compliance with the conditions.” AIDA stated: “A thorough look at the DoS report demonstrates that the…conditions have not been satisfied. For example, DoS fails to demonstrate that the spraying does not pose unreasonable risks of adverse effects on the environment, or that complaints of harm to health or legal crops are appropriately evaluated and fair compensation provided.”

But Congress did not act, and the Uribe administration has just announced its intention to resume spraying in three national parks: Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta, a northern park declared a biosphere reserve in 1986 by UNESCO; and Catatumbo and La Macarena, both in the cloud forests of the eastern Andean slopes.

Colombia’s deputy interior minister Mario Iguarán told reporter Yadira Ferrer of Tierramérica, a Mexico-based trans-American environmental journal, that the renewed spraying is permitted by Resolution No. 0013, issued in 20003 by the Colombian National Narcotics Council (CNE). The Resolution allows fumigation of nature reserves where there is evidence of illicit crops and little possibility of eradicating the drug plants by hand.

Colombian environmental groups have filed a motion to annul the resolution before the Council of State, the highest juridical body for administrative decisions, but Iguarán argued that it does not have the power to suspend the operations. In Ferrer’s May 14 account, Iguarán also noted the March study by the Inter-American Drug Abuse Control Commission (CICAD), an OAS body, finding that glyphosate does not have significant environmental impacts.

The report, requested by the US, Colombia and the United Kingdom, investigated the human health and environmental effects of the glyphosate mixture used for drug eradication in Colombia. The report concluded that human health risks from exposure to the spray mixture–glyphosate mixed with a surfactant, Cosmo-Flux–were “minimal,” while the risk of direct effects for wildlife were judged to be “negligible.” But the US Office on Colombia, a coalition of NGOs, notes that buried deep in the 121-page report are concerns about the impact of the spraying on aquatic organisms and amphibians. The report points out that the environmental “toxicity of the mixture of glyphosate and Cosmo-Flux was greater than that reported for formulated glyphosate itself.” (This contrasts with the toxicity of the mixture for humans, which was found to be consistent with the levels reported for glyphosate alone.) The report states that “aquatic animals and algae in some shallow water bodies may be at risk” from “direct overspray of surface waters.” The report recommends the eradication program “identify mixtures of glyphosate and adjuvants that are less toxic to aquatic organisms than the currently used mixture.” There was no immediate response from US or Colombian governments to this recommendation. Colombia praised the report. “This scientific study shows us the way. We are doing the right thing and we are going to continue the spraying program,” said Colombian Interior Minister Sabas Pretelt.

Ferrer’s story questioned the report’s findings that the herbicide’s risk for the environment “is not significant.” Santiago Salazar Córdova, coordinator of a commission of Ecuador’s Environment Ministry that advises the Foreign Ministry on drug fumigation policy, protested to Ferrer that the report failed to define what would constitute a “significant” threat. Spraying in Colombian areas near the Ecuador border has been a source of tension with Quito, which has formally protested to the Uribe government.

Salazar also said the study was conducted between September and March, “too little time to talk in terms of cancer-causing effects, for example…”

Iguarán admitted the ideal option would be manual eradication of drug crops, a method the government hopes to use on some 3,000 hectares of protected areas. But he insisted that it is necessary to fumigate some 75,000 hectares, which include areas of the national parks where the presence of armed groups impedes access by land.

The decision to fumigate in the parks may cost Colombia development aid from EU countries. The Colombian daily El Espectador reported April 28 that the Netherlands asked the national parks director, Julia Miranda, to confirm the decision to fumigate in the protected areas, because the measure “could be motive to request the suspension of activities financed by this Embassy.”

Juan Mayr, a former environment minister, told Ferrer the 2003 CEN resolution has created “one of the gravest situations that can happen in regards to the environment in Colombia” and is “an attack against the collective heritage of the Colombian people.”

Peasants and Bari indigenous peoples who inhabit the threatened areas are also protesting the planned fumigations. The Bogota daily El Tiempo reported May 16 that 11 peasant organizations from the Rio Guayabero region and La Macarena National Park issued a statement calling for manual eradication rather than spraying. Gustavo del Rio, spokesman for the Association of Peasant Environmentalists of the Ariari and Guayabero Rivers (ACARIGUA) said that spraying will only cause the peasants to start planting coca in other areas, destroying more forest. He said that the peasants would be willing to eradicate the crops manually if the government were to provide them with alternatives for survival and eventual relocation outside the park area, where farming is officially forbidden.

Spraying has apparently already begun in Sierra Nevada National Park. Elber Dimas, a community leader from the corregimiento of Guachaca, located on the slopes of the Sierra Nevada, told El Tiempo that that children are suffering from diarrhea and skin problems as a result of exposure, and that some Kogui and Wiwa Indians have been forced to abandon their communities due to the spraying. Col. Oscar Atehortua, commander of the Counternarcotics Police North Region, assured that the spraying is taking place outside the national park and the indigenous reserves.

There are two opposite international perspectives on what has to be done in Colombia to address the roots of the coca phenomenon. The first, dictated by the US, calls for simple eradication of the crops, by force and by chemical spraying. The second, promoted by the European Community, is to address the injustice of the Colombian social structure, and investing in the needs that drive peasants to plant coca. But Uribe is now jeopardizing relations with the EU to pursue a national agenda that calls for privatization and free trade as well as forcible eradication of illicit crops. Free trade and the eradication program were said to be the top items on the agenda in Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s five-hour meeting with Uribe in Bogota April 26.

RESOURCES:

Alejo Restrepo Mosquera in Semana, Feb. 11
http://semana2.terra.com.co/archivo/articulosView.jsp?id=84740

Bismark Chaverra interview in Semana, Feb. 11
http://semana2.terra.com.co/archivo/articulosView.jsp?id=84735

“El Choco Tambien es Colombia,” petition online at Rebelion
http://www.rebelion.org/noticia.php?id=11667

Ecolombia page on threat to national parks
http://www.ecolombia.org/parques.htm

TNI Drugs and Democracy program page on Colombia
http://www.tni.org/drugscolombia-docs/thedebate-e.htm

Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) statement
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:Z8z58__oJ40J:www.aida-americas.org/template
s/aida/uploads/docs/AIDA_on_DOS_2003_certification.pdf+Resolution+No.+0013+colom
bia&hl=en

AIDA homepage
http://www.aida-americas.org/aida.php

Yadira Ferrer in Tierramerica, May 14
http://www.tierramerica.net/2005/0514/iarticulo.shtml

US Office on Colombia Info-Brief on the CICAD report
http://usofficeoncolombia.org/InfoBrief/042505.htm

CountryWatch summary of article from El Tiempo, May 16
http://aol.countrywatch.com/aol_wire.asp?vCOUNTRY=54&UID=1521182

——————-

Special to WORLD WAR 4 REPORT, June 10, 2005
Reprinting permissible with attribution

http://WW4Report.com

Continue ReadingCOLOMBIA: CHEMICAL WARFARE EXPANDS 

PLAN COLOMBIA’S SECRET AIR FORCE PROGRAM IN PERU

A Father Waits for Justice as Deadly Accident Reveals Air-Interception Exercises

A tragic air accident on Peru’s northern coastline in August of 2001 cost the lives of two exemplary pilots, one Peruvian and one American. It received little notice at the time. But a WW4 REPORT investigation into the incident has exposed a series of blunders, mysterious official silence from both Lima and Washington, and finally a trail of corruption extending from the hand of Peru’s former intelligence czar Vladimir Montesinos–now convicted on multiple corruption charges–to the U.S. State Department. The regime of Peru’s authoritarian President Alberto Fujimori, ousted in November 2000, is now widely recognized to have allowed drug flights to get through, and the U.S.-coordinated program to shoot the flights down was officially suspended after the embarrassing downing of an innocent missionary plane in April 2001. But training for the program apparently continued at least through 2003 and the State Department won’t talk. The father of the Peruvian pilot killed in the 2001 accident wants to know why. And since your tax-dollars may be funding a clandestine military operation in South America that violates official policy–you should too.

by Peter Gorman

“If you want to talk about corruption, the United States is continuing to sacrifice youth such as my son in the name of stopping cocaine. But this is not what they are doing. This is a charade.”

So says Carlos Lama Borges, a retired Peruvian Air Force captain whose pilot son’s body was found washed up on a desert beach four years ago. Despite evidence of faulty equipment in his son’s plane, a Peruvian government investigation blamed the pilot in the accident, prompting Lama to file a lawsuit against the Peruvian armed forces and U.S. military contractors to discover the truth. For his effort, his home was burglarized, and materials related to the case stolen. The ongoing case, ignored by both the U.S. and Peruvian media, may reveal that a controversial air-interception program launched under Plan Colombia continued well after its official suspension.

In 1990, Washington and Peru entered into an agreement–formalized as a bilateral treaty in 1993–whereby the U.S. would aid Peru’s armed forces in the location, identification, interception and/or neutralization of small aircraft suspected of carrying coca base from Peruvian territory to finishing laboratories in Colombia. The Airbridge Denial Program, as it was known, defined the role of U.S.-contracted planes and pilots (and later, radar operators) as one of location and identification, with the Peruvian Air Force (FAP) calling the shots on which planes were to be intercepted or shot down. The actual shooting was also to be the responsibility of the Peruvians. A similar program with the same name was also utilized in Colombia with the same public protocol.

That either the Peruvians or Colombians were actually given the green light to call the shots on shootdowns has been disputed by former DEA agent Celerino Castillo, who was one of the US men involved in a precursor program to Airbridge Denial in Peru in the 1980s. Castillo, in conversation with this reporter, claimed that despite the Peruvians being given the final word on paper, the shootdown orders “always originated with the U.S. That was not something we were going to trust to anyone else.”

Castillo, a Bronze Star winner in Vietnam who served with the DEA in Peru in 1984 and ’85, said the real authority was with the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, whose men accompanied the DEA flights that in turn accompanied the FAP flights. “I flew on those shoot-down missions. Nobody, I mean nobody, shoots down anything unless the CIA says so. n those days we flew on helicopters and the Peruvian soldiers would lean out the window with FN rifles and blast holes from above drug smugglers’ planes. I was on those flights. Yes, the Peruvians did the shooting but it was always the U.S. who gave the OK.” Several Peruvian pilots involved with the program, speaking on condition of anonymity, concurred with Castillo’s assessment.

Between the years 1990 and 2001, official FAP reports claim to have intercepted and forced down or shot down a total of 101 drug-carrying planes. Whether that number is accurate has long been open to debate, as it omits all reference to planes that were forced or shot down which were not found to be carrying drugs. If those are included the total would probably be considerably higher. But the program probably never would have come under public scrutiny if not for some deadly incidents which cost innocent lives. The first actually resulted in the program’s suspension, following an investigation and demands for justice from the survivors.

BUNGLE IN THE JUNGLE

On April 20, 2001, at roughly 10:35 AM, a Cessna 185 pontoon plane carrying three missionaries and an infant was misidentified as a suspected drug-carrying plane by US pilots contracted by the CIA as part of the Airbridge Program and shot out of the sky outside of Pevas, in the Peruvian Amazon. The pilot, Kevin Donaldson, had his leg shattered by a gunshot fired by a Peruvian fighter jet, a Cessna A-37B Dragonfly, but managed to bring the plane down into the Amazon safely. James Bowers, like Donaldson a missionary with the Association for Baptist World Evangelism, as well as Bower’s son Cory, escaped unharmed–but his wife, Veronica Bowers, and their infant adopted daughter Chastity, were both killed by a single bullet that passed through the mother’s head and then killed the baby. Donaldson believes the same shot set the engine alight and ricocheted into his leg.

The shootdown occurred on the eve of newly elected President George Bush’s first appearance at the Summit of the Americas in Quebec. In the weeks leading up to the summit, the president of Uruguay, Jorge Battle Ibanez, had announced his intention to call for an end to the failed War on Drugs. Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and Vicente Fox of Mexico had announced their intentions to second Ibanez’ call. If they proceeded with their plan, George Bush–who had inherited Bill Clinton’s Plan Colombia and intended to expand it–would have not only been upstaged, but the entire Plan Colombia could have been thrown into a political tailspin. The shootdown, therefore, was either tragic serendipity–or carried out on orders that a drug plane be encountered and shot down that day to give Bush a “victory” to trumpet in Quebec.

If it was the former, the shootdown involved absolute stupidity on the part of the two CIA-contracted pilots who identified the plane as a possible drug flight, as the Cessna was known throughout the region and had filed a flight plan and was following it to the letter. If it was the latter–if an order was given take down a drug flight to undermine Ibanez’ position at Quebec–then any plane would have served the purpose, and it was simply bad luck that Donaldson and the Bowers happened to be in the sky that morning.

As both Donaldson and his wife later maintained, the plane was repeatedly strafed while listing upside down in the river. A photographer in Iquitos, the Amazon port city where the plane was brought, reported that only one bullet out of over 60 came from anywhere other than the bottom of the plane.

Did the CIA contractors know the plane was not carrying drugs? Was the strafing was intended to ignite the plane’s remaining fuel, causing an explosion which would have erased all trace of its occupants and identification number, allowing Washington to claim the plane was a drug flight? In any event, the plane did not explode–but the shoot-down did upstage the call for an end to the Drug War by the three South American presidents.

The shoot-down also caused Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) to call for Congressional hearings into the Airbridge Denial Programs in both Peru and Colombia. The programs were suspended immediately. At the subsequent hearings it was decided that both programs would be revamped–with better procedures in place to protect innocent planes–before the suspensions would be lifted.

A U.S. investigation into the shoot-down placed the blame on the Peruvian pilots and poor communications; the Peruvian investigation exonerated the Peruvian pilots, while blaming the U.S. personnel and, again, poor communications. Both countries agreed to financial settlements with survivors. (See postcript below.)

DEATH PLUNGE ON THE PACIFIC

On August 19, 2003, more than two years after the suspensions began, the White House announced that President Bush had approved resumption of the Colombian Airbridge Denial Program within three days. Among the changes to the program was that the State Department, through Plan Colombia, would take over the training of Colombian pilots and the flying of the identification planes, effectively taking it out of the hands of the CIA. The subcontractor DynCorp, which had been assigned the mission of identifying the drug flights for the CIA, lost that contract. (The company continues to carry out aerial fumigation flights in Colombia.)

However, a new State Department contract went to ARINC, a Maryland-based aviation company that regularly contracted with the U.S. Department of Defense–particularly in the areas of providing communications, electronics and night-vision capacity to fighter craft. According to an ARINC press release dated April 24, 2002, over a year before the program was resumed in Colombia, the company was “awarded a competitive contract by the U.S. Army Communications and Electronics Command to act as contractor for the U.S. Airbridge Denial Program in Colombia and Peru.” The release said the contract was to run “through July 28, 2003.” Yet the Airbridge Program has never been officially resumed in Peru.

In fact, ARINC was working with the Airbridge Denial Program long before the missionary plane shoot-down. A contract between the FAP and ARINC dated June 2, 2000, secured by WW4 REPORT, has ARINC in charge of upgrading Peru’s fleet of Cessna A-37B Dragonfly jets and training FAP pilots in interception techniques and tactics. Calls to ARINC and Flight Test Associates, an Oklahoma company subcontracted by ARINC to run the pilot training program, verifies that the contract was ongoing even prior to 2000. No White House announcement of the continued training after the Amazon shoot-down was made, however, and no one outside a small group of people involved it was aware of its existence.

Nonetheless, the training did continue after the shoot-down, and on August 23, 2001, several months after the Airbridge Program was suspended, FAP pilot Lieutenant Miguel Angel Lama Barreto, 28, and USAF Lt. Col. (r) Arnold Balthazar, 47, plunged into the Pacific Ocean just north of Piura, on Peru’s northern Pacific coast, while executing drug-plane interception practice maneuvers in a Dragonfly. Both Lama and Balthazar died in the crash, caused when their jet stalled and their ejection equipment failed. Lama’s body, still strapped into his seat in the ejection position, was recovered two days later. Balthazar’s body has never been recovered. A team of U.S. Navy divers brought in from Hawaii searched for more than eight days before search was called off.

Lt. Miguel Angel Lama was one of Peru’s brightest pilots, specializing in flight maneuvers in the Dragonfly. A drug-plane interdiction instructor, he was the son of FAP Captain Carlos Lama, a highly respected pilot in the Peruvian Air Force. Miguel is referred to in official Peruvian materials as “an instructor’s instructor.”

Arnold Balthazar’s resume reads like an induction speech at the Air Force Hall of Fame. A cum laude graduate of the University of Portland, OR, which he attended on an Air Force ROTC scholarship, he graduated from USAF Pilot Training in 1978, became an Air Combat Maneuvering Instructor the same year, training in basic interceptions. He became a Flight Commander in 1982 and an F-15 instructor pilot the same year, a position he held, with increasing responsibilities, until 1988. Between 1988-1991 he was Chief of Weapons and Tactics at Hickam AFB in Hawaii, during which time he was selected by the USAF Chief of Staff Gen. Merrill McPeak to brief Joint Chiefs of Staff Chariman Gen. Colin Powell, Secretary of the Air Force Donald Rice and Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney on the F-15’s capability and employment during Operation Desert Storm.

Balthazar retired from the Air Force in 1991, joining the Air National Guard and working out of the Air Force Reserve Test Center in Tucson, AZ, from 1991-1998. He retired as a lieutenant colonel USAF.

Awards he earned during his career included the Wing Top Gun F-15 Award in 1988, the Pacific Air Force’s Outstanding Performer of the Year Award in 1991; and the Lt. Gen. Claire Lee Channault Award as the USAF’s Outstanding Aerial Tactician of the Year in 1995–the only time the award has been presented to someone not on active duty in the Air Force. He also developed no-cabin-light night-flying systems currently in use in the Air Force, and developed an F-15 Training Plan that was included in USAF manuals “in its entirety”.

In short, both Lama and Balthazar were superior pilots who should not have crashed and died while performing an exercise. But they did. And they did it while exercising for a program that was supposed to be suspended. Unraveling their deaths leads to a web of corruption as well as an abyss of incompetence.

THE TRAIL

Following his retirement Balthazar became an owner/operator of Lead Turn Enterprises, a flight-test, navigational training, air-to-air engagement and aviation systems consulting firm. He contracted with Flight Test Associates of Tucson, AZ, to install his night-vision system in FAP interceptor planes in 1999, and had a second contract with Flight Test Associates as a counter-drug intercept instructor for Colombian and Peruvian instructor pilots that ran from 1999-2000. Flight Test Associates was itself subcontracted by ARINC, already established as a contractor for both aircraft upgrades and intercept training for the Defense Department. Balthazar’s partner in the intercept training, USAF Captain (r) Neville Sonner, was employed directly by Flight Test Associates.

After the missionary shoot-down, someone–though neither the State Department, DoD, ARINC or Flight Test Associates will admit it was them–decided that one of the key ingredients to maximize the safety of non-drug flights was to have Peruvian pilots pull up alongside all planes suspected of carrying drugs and make eye contact with the pilots. Eye contact would theoretically allow the pilots to make a judgement as to whether the suspect plane was being piloted by someone who looked like a drug-smuggler or a missionary and respond accordingly. For some aircraft–those capable of flying at speeds the A-37B is capable of–this was a wacky but physically possible maneuver. For others–like the single-engine Cessna that Kevin Donaldson was flying when it was hit–eye contact with the pilot of an A-37B was impossible: Donaldson’s plane had a top speed of 137 mph when empty; with five passengers it couldn’t hit 125 mph. The A-37B, on the other hand, with a top speed of over 500 mph, stalls at under 140 except when the flaps are in a take-off or landing position.

On the flight in question, FAP pilot Miquel Lama and Balthazar were practicing exactly this intercept maneuver with a second plane piloted by FAP Lt. Nilton Lopez Zuniga and Sonner. They had already practiced three maneuvers; the fourth called for the planes to drop in altitude to under 3,000 feet, slow to 140, intersect, and then for one of them to try an evasive maneuver. Lopez and Sonner did just that; when Lama and Balthazar turned to chase, their plane stalled. Moments later Sonner claimed he saw the cockpit roof fly off the stalled plane; he expected to see both pilots eject and parachute to the sea. He and Lopez took their plane up to 9,000 feet to be able to identify the exact points where the parachutes landed, but there were no parachutes. The ejection seats failed and both pilots crashed into the Pacific still strapped into the plane.

A Peruvian military investigation into the accident quickly blamed it on “pilot error”–blaming Lama and Balthazar for their own deaths. But Lama’s father, retired FAP pilot Carlos Lama, demanded a Peruvian congressional investigation and launched a lawsuit against both the FAP and ARINC. His legal demands unleashed a mountain of official paperwork–nearly 1,000 pages, including the contracts between the FAP and ARINC, Balthazar’s training logs in Peru, US Embassy and DoD paperwork, and a host of other materials.

Initially, Lama was trying to ascertain whether ARINC’s “aircraft modernization” contract held them responsible for modernizing the ejection equipment and parachutes in his son’s plane–equipment that was more than 29 years old. Some of that remains unclear: the paperwork suggests that the FAP was responsible for changing the equipment, but that GRUCAM, the U.S. Defense Department military liaison program in Peru–which had contracted ARINC–was to provide that equipment with monies from Plan Colombia. ARINC’s Bob Warner, who heads up the corporation’s Oklahoma City office, claims that the modernization contract “had us there to install night vision cockpits but nothing in our contract called for us looking into the ejection seat apparatus.” When asked about the accident, Warner said “The flight that went down was not one of the modernized aircraft,” then quickly added that “I cannot speak to the accident in which the pilots died. There’s a lawsuit going on related to that and my lawyers have told us not to talk about it.”

But Carlos Lama’s investigation turned up more than he’d anticipated. Shortly after his investigation into his son’s death began his home in Lima was subject to a robbery in which all of his initial notes and nearly everything he owned pertaining to his son was looted. “They took pictures, his military things, paperwork, his letters telling me about the intercept program–everything. I was supposed to stop looking. No one wants anyone looking too deeply into this.”

There were reasons for his feelings. One of the names that comes up on three separate contracts that connect the U.S. Embassy in Lima to GRUCAM and the DoD as well as to ARINC, Flight Test Associates and the FAP is a retired Peruvian Air Force major, Jose Luis Gamboa Burgos, listed as the official representative of ARINC and FTA in Peru. The address he lists as the official address of both ARINC and FTA in Peru is that of his brother, Luis Felipe Gamboa Burgos–today recognized as a major player in Peru’s cocaine mafia.

While there has never been any proof that the lawyer Jose Luis Gamboa is dirty, his brother Luis Felipe is another story–and the use of his address as the official location in Peru of a DoD subcontractor raises eyebrows. A former security officer in the FAP, Luis Felipe left the military (and his five brothers who were still in it at the time) in 1989 to become an aide to Vladimiro Montesinos, a former Peruvian army captain with School of the Americas training who was then working on the presidential campaign of Alberto Fujimori. The following year, Fujimori was elected to his first term as Peru’s president and Montesinos became the power behind the Fujimori throne as well as the CIA’s man in Peru, earning $1 million a year from the Agency for ostensibly helping Peru eliminate the coca trade. Montesinos actually used that money to create a secret police force–the National Intelligence Service (SIN)–that helped coordinate all of the coca base shipments moving from Peru to Colombia for finishing and export. Between 1990 and 2000, Montesinos became the jefe to whom all those who wanted their shipments protected paid protection money. Those who didn’t pay, with few exceptions, found their shipments being discovered and confiscated by the Peruvian narcotics police with the help of the DEA–or their planes shot out of the sky by the FAP with the help of the CIA. Montesino’s SIN rarely missed anything.

To help him coordinate his efforts, after Fujimori’s election, Montesinos hired Luis Felipe Gamboa to work with CORPAC–the Peruvian corporation that runs all commercial aviation in the country, including security. Rumors began to spread almost instantly that Gamboa was helping cocaine leave the country by circumventing security, through his work with CORPAC. It wasn’t until several years had passed, however, that he was indicted for security fraud, a charge that appears to have disappeared as quickly as it came up. He nonetheless left CORPAC and went to work as a liaison between the FAP and Montesinos.

Not long after he began working with Montesinos, Luis Filipe Gamboa suggested that his wife, Maria del Carmen Lozada Rendon de Gamboa would make a good congresswoman, and in 1995 she was elected to Peru’s Congress. She had a reputation for strong-arming her colleagues, but nothing came of it until July, 27, 2001, when she was impeached after it was revealed that she had received the monies used in her 1995 election campaign from Montesinos. She was removed from Congress on August 18, 2001 and remains under investigation for influence peddling and spying for Montesinos in Congress.

During the investigation of Carmen Lozada Gamboa, it became public record in the notorious “vladi-videos”–secret videos of Vladimir Montesinos meeting with top Peruvian politicians whose relase were instrumental in the downfall of the Fujimori regime–that her husband had been receiving between $3,000 and $5,000 monthly from Montesinos for more than 10 years from 1990 to spy on CORPAC and later the FAP for the SIN. He became a fugitive shortly after his indictment and remains in hiding.

When questioned by WW4 REPORT on the propriety of using the address of a man who was (at that time) a suspected cocaine mafioso and spy, ARINC’s Bob Warner responded: “He [Jose Luis Gamboa] was a fellow vetted and recommended to us by the US embassy. He was a former officer in the Peruvian Air Force. I think this ends this conversation.”

More than two-dozen calls to the State Department over a three-month period asking about Luis Felipe’s connection to ARINC and their having cleared the use of his address as ARINC’s Peruvian location–as well as inquiring as to why there continued to be Airbridge Denial exercises when the program had been shut down indefinitely–went unreturned.

Calls to the former GRUCAM commandant who signed off on at least one contract between ARINC and the FAP that named the indicted Luis Felipe Gamboa’s address as ARINC’s official Peruvian address, were met with a genteel response from his spokesman, Lee Rials. “Col. Perez doesn’t remember that contract. He probably signed off on thousands of things while he was Group Commander down in Lima and he just doesn’t remember it.”

Rials is probably telling the truth for Col. Gilberto Perez, who is now the Commandant of the Western Hemisphere Institite for Security Cooperation (formerly known as the School of Americas) at Fort Benning, Georgia.

The question of who signed off on the vetting of Jose Luis Gamboa as ARINC’s representative is a valid one, and that of ARINC’s official Peruvian headquarters being in the home of his brother Luis Felipe, a man who was spying for Montesinos, even more so. Luis Felipe would be privy to flight schedules and missions, the number of U.S. planes in the air on a given day, even what pilots were working in Peru at a given time as well as a host of other information that would be invaluable to someone moving drugs through the air.

That the State Department refuses to return calls addressing the issue after several months of calling would appear inexcusable.


IN THE END

What began as a father’s concern that his son was being wrongfully blamed for pilot error in the accident that cost his life, is certainly more than that. How much more is difficult to ascertain given that no one will answer the questions. And there are several.

First: Who authorized the Airbridge Denial Program practice exercises to continue after the program was suspended indefinitely?

Second: Who decided it was in the interests of the pilots to look into the eyes of the pilots they were intercepting, potentially requiring them to fly at stall-speed?

Third: Who was actually supposed to modernize the ejection systems? A second stall occurred over Piura on Feb. 10, 2004 while the pilots performed the same maneuver as Lama and Balthazar, but in that crash both pilots ejected successfully. ARINC’s Warner says his company’s contract ran out at the end of 2003, and so denies any knowledge of it. In a second suit, Carlos Lama brought a civil action against the Peruvian government for continuing to perform the dangerous maneuver; Peruvian authorities claimed they were no longer carrying out such maneuvers, and dismissed the case.

Fourth: Who allowed Luis Filipe Gamboa’s address to be utilized as the official Peruvian address of ARINC and FTA–and why didn’t anyone notice that that would be the equivalent of putting the fox in charge of the henhouse?

No one is liable to take the responsibility for any of those decisions. Carlos Lama has already been offered a settlement by the Peruvian FAP for the loss of his son’s life, but he has turned it down, preferring to find out who was responsible rather than taking the money to shut up. His lawsuit against ARINC is proceeding but may not get far: ARINC has apparently never officially registered as a company in Peru and therefor not only has avoided paying taxes, but has avoided having any assets to lose either. And it is doubtful that the DoD will permit any lawsuit to be pursued in the U.S. that would require the release of classified documents–which involve much of ARINC’s work in Peru.

“My Angel is gone,” says Carlos Lama. “I just want to find out who is responsible, but I don’t know if they will let me. They have too much to protect and don’t want light in those dark corners.”

POSTSCRIPT: The Missionary Plane Shootdown Settlement

The April 20, 2001 shoot-down of a plane carrying American missionaries over the Peruvian Amazon by the Peruvain Air Force (FAP) after it was identified by CIA-contractors as possibly carrying drugs continues to have ramifications in both Peru and the US.

US Payment for the Shoot-down:

In 2002, the US, which maintained that the wrongful shoot-down was the result of a problem with Peruvian communications, nonetheless agreed to pay the survivors and their families a total of $8 million dollars. The monies were paid out in this way:

James Bowers: $3,270,000.
Cory Bowers (James and Veronica’s son): $1,000,000.
Kevin Donaldson (surviving pilot of plane): $1,000,000.
Barbara Donaldson (Kevin’s wife): $1,000,000.
Garnett Luttig, Sr (Veronica’s father): $ 575,000.
Charlotte Luttig (Veronica’s mother): $ 575,000.
Garnett Luttig, Jr.(Veronica’s brother): $ 290,000.
Patrick Luttig (Veronica’s brother) : $ 290,000.

In addition, Peru agreed to reimburse the Association of Baptists for World Evangelism $100,000, for medical expenses incurred as a result of Kevin Donaldson’s wounds, and $43,561 in reimbursement for expenses incurred in the funerals of Veronica and Charity Bowers. The Peruvian government also agreed to refurbish or replace the plane that was shot down and to contribute to the building of a recreation center for the association in Iquitos, to be open to the public.

The final decree ordering and accepting the above payments, which was signed in Peru on March 21, 2002, also included a gag order, which effectively prevents Kevin and Barbara Donaldson–who initially stated that the downed plane continued to be strafed while upside down in the Amazon–from repeating that claim.

RESOURCES
:

Peter Gorman’s October 2001 story on the Iquitos shoot-down from Narco News
http://www.narconews.com/Issue15/junglebungle.html

Peter Gorman’s wesbite
http://www.pgorman.com/

————————

Special to WORLD WAR 4 REPORT, June 10, 2005
Reprinting permissible with attribution

http://WW4Report.com

Continue ReadingPLAN COLOMBIA’S SECRET AIR FORCE PROGRAM IN PERU 

DARFUR: NATO PREPARES INTERVENTION

Moral Imperative or “Regime Change” Strategy?

by Wynde Priddy

After two years of violence in western Sudan, in late April the African Union (AU) moved to triple its peacekeeping troops in Darfur to 7,700–and asked NATO for logistical support. NATO agreed within hours of the request and discussions have already started. The United States encouraged NATO’s involvement against French resistance. James Appathurai, NATO’s chief spokesperson, told reporters the intervention would mark “the first time NATO would be engaged in any significant way in sub-Saharan Africa.” If NATO goes in, it will be in defiance of the Sudanese government; leaders in Khartoum, Sudan’s capital, insist that only African troops can be involved in the Darfur mission. But Appathurai told the press NATO and European Union (EU) diplomats are frustrated by the limited progress made by the AU.

With the UN now claiming 180,000 dead from hunger, disease and violence, the situation has certainly not improved on the ground. Motasim Adam is president of Darfur Peoples Association of New York, made up of exiles and immigrants from the war-torn region who support some kind of international intervention there. He speaks with gravity of his home village near the town of Al Fasher in North Darfur, which is now swollen with thousands of refugees from villages destroyed by the government-backed militias known as the Janjaweed. “Our town, called Tawilla, 50 kilometers west of Al Fasher, has been attacked by Janjaweed and Sudanese government warplanes,” he says. “My brother is in Darfur right now and some of my family members are still there.”

There are now some 100,000 people at Al Fasher, surviving only on international aid, and still vulnerable to militia attack. “The situation is very bad,” Adam says. “Janjaweed are still raping the girls and women.” He claims that up to 200 rape victims at Al Fasher have given birth in recent weeks.

Mark Crane with World People for Peace, which coordinates groups active around Darfur in the New York area, blames the lack of international action. “The problem is that nobody is dealing with the crisis like you deal with a crisis–which is to bring relief immediately.” When asked for a plausible solution, he says he puts his faith in the International Criminal Court (ICC)–a body that the United States refuses to recognize. “If the ICC could actually get some prosecutions going, that might have a chilling effect on these people in power” in Sudan, Crane says.

But others, in contrast, see an eagerness for intervention–and suspect motives other than the humanitarian. The new zeal of the AU and the entrance of NATO comes on the heels of a Feb. 17 meeting in Washington between George Bush, Don Cheadle, and Paul Rusesabagina, the hotel manager portrayed by Cheadle in the recent movie “Hotel Rwanda.” Rusesabagina, who is credited with saving hundreds of lives during Rwanda’s 1994 genocide, told the press, “What is going on in Darfur is exactly what was going on in Rwanda.” This echoes the finding by Congress last July that the violence in Darfur constitutes “genocide.” Rusesabagina (who now runs a transport company in Zambia) and Cheadle had recently visited Darfur with a delegation of five U.S. Congress members.

But Phil Taylor, who worked at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in defense of accused war criminals with former U.S. attorney general Ramsey Clark, sees more propaganda than genocide at work in Darfur. “The Americans are obviously driving this process,” he says. “They’re recruiting Hollywood to get people who aren’t giving this very much thought to endorse a policy which is going to involve regime change. Everybody has to be very careful about these things.”

Though some might call his recent article, “Carving Sudan” (on his website, Taylor Report), apologetic towards the Khartoum regime, Taylor says: “What I see here is a game, which is Washington’s favorite game, of demonizing. It’s a form of political and psychological warfare that I’m very much against. I’m not making apologetics for Khartoum, but I’m not going to condemn them either.”

Taylor alludes to probable U.S. covert actions behind the emergence of two guerilla groups in Darfur (the Sudan Liberation Army and the Justice and Equality Movement), which sparked the crisis early last year. “I know that by all reports a war broke out there initiated by two groups that suddenly just appeared, and they seem to be rather well armed,” he says. “Their leaders say they don’t want the African Union to be the intermediary, they say they want the United States. That’s not good.”

Dr. Ibrahim Imam Mahmoud, Philadelphia-based president of Sudan Liberation Movement, political arm of the Sudan Liberation Army, agrees that the Darfur rebels are suspicious of the AU. “I support a peacekeeping force from outside of Africa,” he says. “Even if African troops are equipped enough, they still need peacekeepers from outside to watch them. We believe African Union troops are helping, but for one thing, they are weak; for another, they are not enough; and for a third, some of them have been corrupted by the Sudanese government.”

Motasim Adam is even more explicit about corruption among AU troops. “We don’t want the African Union because they don’t report the truth. All the African Union troops come from very poor countries like Rwanda, and the Sudanese government can easily change their minds by paying them money. In countries like Rwanda, the army salary is only $40 a month. So the Sudanese government pays them $100 or $200 a month right now… They act like they are a part of the Sudanese military, not as an African Union force to keep peace.”

He also protests that the AU mandate is too limited. “They don’t have authorization to do anything even if there is an incident,” he says.

Adam also emphasizes that Sudanese government forces offer no protection from the militias–and that the two have become almost indistinguishable. “The Janjaweed come wearing the uniform of the policemen, and they attack the people. If you go complain to the police they just tell you that you are a liar and you are working for the Americans, you are an agent.”

Adam says Khartoum uses anti-U.S. and anti-UN sentiment to justify attacks against civilians. “The Sudanese government has announced a holy war against the United Nations; they say that the United Nations is just an umbrella for imperialism…”

Phil Taylor, on the other hand, is convinced that imperialist designs on Sudan are real. He says he titled his piece “Carving Sudan” because he believes the US wants “to encourage the breakup of Sudan. The US does not want to see large African states capable of fending for themselves because that makes them less dependent on London and Washington. They play the game of divide and rule.”

He challenges the Darfur rebel groups’ quest for autonomy or independence. “If someone says ‘Darfur needs to be independent,’ you’d want to look closely and see what Darfurians are they talking about. I’d like to know the demographics. Are we saying the majority would like to break away from Sudan?” He charges that “the State Department wants to encourage–and has across Africa encouraged–minority movements so as to give themselves an excuse to intervene… to make these groups their allies and put themselves in the position to exploit the resources of these countries.”

Recently, major media in the U.S. have been implying that the rebel groups in Darfur are not disciplined enough to enforce a cease-fire within their own ranks–an idea that Dr. Mahmoud of the SLM denies. “They are organized. The problem is that every day, the Sudan government is bombing them, fighting them.” He also argues that repression has given the people of Darfur no choice but to take up arms. “Politically active in people in Darfur are being killed,” he says.

The genocide argument has been raging in the UN alongside the touchy question of intervention. In January, a UN report officially found that the violence in Darfur does not constitute “genocide” (which means that signatories to the Genocide Convention are not obliged to act), even while noting 70,000 killed and two million forced to flee. “The UN talks too much,” Adam says. “There is no action. Now they have adopted three or four resolutions regarding the Darfur conflict. But there is no compliance by the Sudanese government regarding all these resolutions.”

“What we want now is more pressure on the Sudanese government, whether politically or militarily, in order to comply,” Adam says. He warns that if refugees cannot safely repatriate in the following weeks, the humanitarian crisis will greatly deepen. “There is no security in that area, so the people cannot come back to their villages or homes. Most of them are now in Chad, in the camps. The rainy season will come in three months and the situation is really very hard. The people have no good tents or places to sleep.”

And he says that the refugees who have made it across the border to the camps in Chad face a better situation than those still in camps within Darfur. “The people who were displaced to Chad are lucky because there, there is some kind of respect for human beings. But in Darfur, the Sudanese government and the Janjaweed are coming into the camps, attacking the people and raping the women. If you open your mouth they will shoot you down and kill you immediately… There is no person to complain to; you either have to shut your mouth or be killed yourself. That the situation inside the camps.”

U.S. deputy secretary of state Robert Zoellick’s brief mid-April visit to Al Fasher refugee camp speaks to the possibility Washington is seeking to exploit Darfur’s suffering for political ends. But Zoellick’s photo-op also coincided with a visit by Sudan’s intelligence chief, Salah Abdallah Gosh, to Washington, where he reportedly met with CIA and FBI personnel on increased cooperation against Islamic militants in Africa, hailed as a milestone in thawing relations between the U.S. and Khartoum. Whether NATO really intervenes in Darfur may ultimately depend less on the actual conditions there than on whether Sudan’s regime can recast itself as a U.S. ally in the eyes of the Bush administration.

RESOURCES:

“Sudan Becomes US Ally in ‘War on Terror’,”
UK Guardian, April 30

“Nato poised for first African engagement in Darfur,”
UK Independent, April 28, 2005

“A Sudanese city of refugees with no plans to go home,” NY Times, April 17, 2005

“Sudan death toll: 180,000 die from hunger in Darfur,” UK Guardian, March 26, 2005

“Carving Sudan: Hollywood’s helping hand,”
The Taylor Report, Feb. 17, 2005

“UN ‘rules out’ genocide in Darfur,”
BBC News, Jan. 31, 2005

“U.S. lobbies Security Council on Darfur prosecution,”
NY Times, Jan. 29, 2005

Sudan Liberation Movement/Sudan Liberation Army

World People for Peace

See also:

Wynde Priddy, “Darfur: Power Politics Trump Genocide Convention,”
WW4 REPORT #104

——————-

Special to WORLD WAR 4 REPORT, May 10, 2005
Reprinting permissible with attribution

http://WW4Report.com

Continue ReadingDARFUR: NATO PREPARES INTERVENTION 

BOMBS AWAY

Global Activists Gather in New York to Revive Nuclear Disarmament Call

by Sarah Ferguson

Sometimes peace needs a good enemy.

It was President Reagan who really jump-started the nuclear freeze movement in the early 1980s with his roughhouse talk about actually using nuclear weapons against the Soviet Union. “We start bombing in five minutes,” was the Gipper’s famous quip.

Now with the Bush administration threatening Iran and North Korea as it schemes about funding a whole new generation of smaller, “more usable” nukes, activists say the movement for a global moratorium on nuclear weapons is ripe for a revival.

The May 1 march in New York City from the United Nations to Central Park was a start. The protest was called by the anti-war group United for Peace and Justice and the international anti-nuke coalition Abolition Now! to highlight the Bush administration’s hypocrisy on the eve of a month-long conference at the UN to review the imperiled Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which began on May 2.

“One of the lies the Bush administration used to go to war was that Iraq was seeking nuclear weapons,” says UFPJ national coordinator Leslie Cagan. “Now they’re using the same rationale to go after Iran and North Korea, so as a movement, we really need to take up this cause.”

“We’re saying that no nations should have nuclear weapons, including the US, which continues to violate this treaty by pouring billions of dollars into the arms race, at the same time that they threaten other nations for not meeting their obligations.”

First introduced in 1970, the NPT calls for the five major nuclear powers–the US, Russia, China, France and Britain–to work toward eliminating their nuclear weapons and other countries to pledge not to obtain them. But since 9-11, the Bush administration has been openly disdainful of the treaty, arguing that it is antiquated to deal with the modern threat of terrorism, and that Iran and North Korea are exploiting loopholes to obtain nuclear weapons anyway.

As if to underscore that point, on May 1 North Korea lobbed a short-range missile into the Sea of Japan, and Pentagon officials now say satellite images appear to show North Korea on the verge of conducting its first nuclear weapons test. Meanwhile, Iran has openly threatened to end a moratorium on the production of enriched uranium fuel (ostensibly for power generation).

Yet as former military analyst Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked the Pentagon Papers in 1971, noted backstage during the rally, Bush’s “preemptive strike doctrine” and his insistence on building tactical battlefield nukes are actually pushing countries like Iran and North Korea to get nukes of their own as a deterrent to US aggression.

“Bush’s policies are certain to increase nuclear proliferation,” says Ellsberg. “We’re promoting it. The idea that somebody like Iran doesn’t have a need for nuclear weapons at this point is ridiculous.”

The president claims the US is reducing America’s arsenal of more than 10,000 warheads. But at the same time, Ellsberg notes, the Pentagon is actively seeking to build new ones and “modernize” the ones it’s keeping. Just last month, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld pressed Congress to fund research into earth-penetrating “bunker busters.” According to Physicians for Social Responsibility, these “busters” would be 80 times more powerful than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima.

“That’s why we need a global moratorium on all these weapons,” says Ellsberg. “Not just Iran and North Korea, but the US and Israel and everyone else, too.”

Admittedly, calling for global disarmament these days sounds like pie-in-the-sky idealism. But activists say their stance is actually quite mainstream. A recent ABC news poll showed two thirds of Americans believe no nations should have nukes, including the US, while 52 percent believe that a nuclear attack by one country against another is likely by 2010. In Europe and Asia, public support for disarmament is even greater.

Still, a movement has to be more than just a mechanism for marching. With the Bush administration playing the terrorism and “Axis of Evil” cards to justify its abuses of the NPT, activists will have to find new ways to unravel the spiraling militarism that keeps generating more nukes as world leaders give lip service to renouncing them.

For decades, anti-nukes has been a feel-good cause. But can activists find a way to put some teeth in it?

Chris Connor of Abolition Now! concedes public apathy is a problem. “Sometimes I think the only thing that will spark a renewed movement is if some loose nuke goes off somewhere and makes people feel really threatened by nuclear proliferation.”

Indeed, as UFPJ was marching uptown in New York City on May 1, the more hard-left Troops Out Now! coalition was rallying in Union Square to demand more jobs and to bring the troops home from Iraq. Working-class soldiers dying abroad for lack of opportunities at home, they argued, was a more appropriate May Day cause than the stereotypically lily-white anti-nuke movement. Some of the left argue it’s hypocritical for American peaceniks to call on countries like North Korea to disarm when the Bush administration has such overwhelming power to invade them.

“Personally I think to talk about global disarmament misses the point of who has weapons and who they are being used against,” says Dustin Langley, a spokesperson for Troops Out Now! and member of the International Action Center, the anti-imperialist group founded by Ramsey Clark. (IAC helped spawn the anti-war ANSWER coalition, from which they recently splintered, and has long been sympathetic to North Korea’s Kim Jong Il regime.) “We say Iran and North Korea have a right to get any kind of weapon they need to defend themselves against the largest military machine on the planet. Considering that Bush has listed them as two potential targets, they have as much right to nuclear weapons as any other country,” Langley maintains.

Though the ongoing splits in the anti-war movement may have lessened the turnout, the disarmament march was larger than many expected, especially considering that it was not all that actively promoted in NYC (perhaps, ironically, because this time the Parks Department did not contest the permit for the rally site at Central Park’s Heckscher Ballfields, which are “under renovation” and hence less precious than the Great Lawn’s grass). Organizers claimed 40,000 people turned out, noting at one point the march spanned 15 blocks. Unofficial police estimates put the crowd at 8,000 to 10,000.

Still, it was probably the largest anti-nuke demo in the U.S. since the massive march to Central Park in 1982, which drew more than 1 million. (Hundreds of thousands more marched in cities across Japan on May Day to call for a nuclear moratorium and oppose revisions in the Japanese constitution that would loosen the ban on the use of military force.)

What struck out most was how international the New York demonstration was. In addition to more than 1,000 demonstrators from Japan, there was a delegation of mayors from 35 countries and large contingents from France, Germany and New Zealand. There were also Korean drummers clanging gongs, Vietnam Vets sounding off anti-war calls, Portuguese and Finnish peaceniks, and members of the International Peace Walk, led by Japanese monks, who trekked all the way from Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Oak Ridge is home to the Y-12 National Security Complex, which built some of the components of the Hiroshima bomb and is now hard at work refurbishing existing nukes to extend their shelf life.

“One of the reasons I’m marching is my father was an occupying soldier in Nagasaki with the Australian forces there,” said Bilbo Taylor, 36, of Melbourne, who made the pilgrimage from Tennessee. “When he came back from war, he got iller and iller and died when I was 15 years old. I spent the first 12 years of my life in and out of hospitals dealing with that, and now there are thousands of soldiers from this war in Iraq who will suffer for a long time because of depleted uranium.”

Photo exhibits set up in the rear of the rally showed gruesome pictures of Iraqi women and children suffering from leukemia, believed to have been caused by depleted uranium shells exploded during the 1991 Gulf War.

Others sought to bring the threat even closer to home. Longtime nuclear opponent Dr. Helen Caldicott painted a vivid picture of what would happen if one of the 40 nuclear bombs Russia still has trained on New York City were to hit town. She described an 800-foot deep crater in the center of Central Park and nuclear winds extending 20 miles out.

Luis Acosta, founder of El Puente community center in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, urged the crowd to ban “New York’s secret dirty bomb”–the Radiac Research Corporation, which stores radioactive and hazardous waste in that residential neighborhood, and which they fear is a sitting duck target for a terrorist attack. “All it could take is one small spill and one spark,” for a nuclear disaster in Williamsburg, he said.

But the most chilling testimony of the day came from survivors of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki blasts, who came to offer a living record or the horrors of nuclear war.

Keiko Inagaki was 14 years old when the US atomic bomb struck her hometown of Nagasaki in 1945. “It was a hot wind, and a rainbow of different colors flashed in the sky. I got blown away,” said the 74-year-old, dressed in an elegant flowered kimono and holding up one-end of a 20-foot anti-nuke banner. When the bomb hit, she and her fellow classmates were working in a munitions factory, having been requisitioned for Japan’s war effort. “All the windows blew out, and I was burned on my face, chest and arms,” she recalled, speaking through a translator. Still, Inagaki counts herself as lucky. “There were two people outside the factory, and their whole skin just immediately rotted off in seconds.”

For many years, Inagaki hid the fact that she was a survivor–or “hibakusha,” as they are called in Japan–fearing that concerns about radiation poisoning would hinder her chances of marrying or getting a job. But 9-11, the US invasion of Iraq, and the growing threat of terrorism worldwide convinced her to come forward to tell her harrowing story.

“I don’t know when I’m going to die. It’s time to speak out in order to save the younger generation.” she said.

RESOURCES:

Abolition Now!

United for Peace & Justice

Troops Out Now!

Federation of American Scientists page on the NPT

RELATED STORIES:

“Two Years Later: NYC Anti-War Protests Smaller–and Tilting to the Hard Left,” by Sarah Ferguson, April 2005

“Nuclear Agenda 2005,” by Chesley Hicks, March 2005

——————-

Special to WORLD WAR 4 REPORT, May 10, 2005
Reprinting permissible with attribution

http://WW4Report.com

Continue ReadingBOMBS AWAY 

THE PROVOCATEUR STATE

Is the CIA Behind the Iraqi “Insurgents”—and Global Terrorism?

by Frank Morales

The requirement of an ever-escalating level of social violence to meet the political and economic needs of the insatiable “anti-terrorist complex” is the essence of the new US militarism. What is now openly billed as “permanent war” ultimately serves the geo-political ends of social control in the interests of US corporate domination, much as the anti-communist crusade of the now-exhasuted Cold War did.

Back in 2002, following the trauma of 9-11, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld predicted there would be more terrorist attacks against the American people and civilization at large. How could he be so sure of that? Perhaps because these attacks would be instigated on the order of the Honorable Mr. Rumsfeld. According to Los Angeles Times military analyst William Arkin, writing Oct. 27, 2002, Rumsfeld set out to create a secret army, “a super-Intelligence Support Activity” network that would “bring together CIA and military covert action, information warfare, intelligence, and cover and deception,” to stir the pot of spiraling global violence.

According to a classified document prepared for Rumsfeld by his Defense Science Board, the new organization–the “Proactive, Preemptive Operations Group (P2OG)”–would actually carry out secret missions designed to provoke terrorist groups into committing violent acts. The P2OG, a 100-member, so-called “counter-terrorist” organization with a $100-million-a-year budget, would ostensibly target “terrorist leaders,” but according to P2OG documents procured by Arkin, would in fact carry out missions designed to “stimulate reactions” among “terrorist groups”–which, according to the Defense Secretary’s logic, would subsequently expose them to “counter-attack” by the good guys. In other words, the plan is to execute secret military operations (assassinations, sabotage, “deception”) which would intentionally result in terrorist attacks on innocent people, including Americans–essentially, to “combat terrorism” by causing it!

This notion is currently being applied to the problem of the Iraqi “insurgency,” it seems. According to a May 1, 2005 report by Peter Maass in the New York Times Magazine, two of the top US advisers to Iraqi paramilitary commandos fighting the insurgents are veterans of US counterinsurgency operations in Latin America. Loaning credence to recent media speculation about the “Salvadorization” of Iraq, the report notes that one adviser currently in Iraq is James Steele, who led a team of 55 US Army Special Forces advisers in El Salvador in the 1980s. Maass writes that these advisors “trained front-line battalions that were accused of significant human rights abuses.”

The current senior US adviser at the Iraqi Interior Ministry, which Maass writes “has operational control over the commandos,” is former top US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) official Steve Casteel, who worked “alongside local forces” in the US-sponsored “Drug War” in Bolivia, Peru and Colombia, “where he was involved in the hunt for Pablo Escobar, the head of the Medellin cocaine cartel.”

The US “drug war” in Latin America also serves as a cover for ongoing counterinsurgency, employing terrorist methods to achieve two aims: one, actually combating genuine insurgency; two, the ratcheting up of a “strategy of tension,” heightened social violence designed to induce fear among the citizenry and the subsequent call for greater “security.”

This was the essence, for example, of Operation Gladio, a decades-long covert campaign of provocateur-style terrorism and deceit. The ostensible purpose of Gladio, officially launched as a covert NATO program in 1952, was to establish a clandestine network of “stay-behind” teams which would organize armed resistance and sabotage in the event of a Soviet invasion of Western Europe. But the network actually took a far more proactive role. Directed by US/NATO intelligence services of the West against their own populations, Operation Gladio led to possibly hundreds of innocent people being killed or maimed in “terrorist” attacks which were then blamed on “leftist subversives” or other political opponents. The most notorious such attack was the 1980 bombing of the train station at Bologna, which left 85 dead. Initially blamed on left-wing radicals, the blast was revealed upon investigation to be the work of an ultra-right network linked to the Italy’s Gladio team; four Italian neo-fascists were eventually convicted of the crime.

The purpose was again twofold: to demonize designated enemies (the “communists”) and to frighten the public into supporting ever-increasing powers for the national security state. It appears the Pentagon has been implementing Gladio-style operations for quite some time–possibly including 9-11. A stretch? Maybe not.

Witness the US Joint Chiefs discussion of “Operation Northwoods” back in 1962, a plan to blow up U.S. “assets”–including U.S. citizens–in order to justify an invasion of Cuba. Later, US Army Field Manual 30-31B, entitled “Stability Operations Intelligence – Special Fields,” dated March 18, 1970 and signed by Gen. William C Westmoreland, promoted terrorist attacks (and the planting of false evidence) in public places which were then to be blamed on “communists” and “socialists.” It called for the execution of terrorist attacks throughout Western Europe, carried out through a network of covert US/NATO armies, in order to convince European governments of “the communist threat.”

What’s striking is that during this period the primary source for US government info on the Russian “threat” was coming from the Gehlen Organiation, Hitlers eastern front intelligence apparatus, which in the aftermath of World War II had cut a deal with the CIA’s Allen Dulles and worked out of Fort Hunt, just outside Washington DC, before being relocated back to Munich. Headed up by super-spy Nazi General Reinhard Gehlen, the Org’s “special operations” expertise was heeded, financed and well-protected by U.S. tax dollars well into the 1970’s. Could the Gehlen Org have had an influence in the production of FM 30-31B?

According to FM 30-31B, “there may be times when Host Country Governments show passivity or indecision in the face of communist subversion and according to the interpretation of the US secret services do not react with sufficient effectiveness. Most often such situations come about when the revolutionaries temporarily renounce the use of force and thus hope to gain an advantage, as the leaders of the host country wrongly consider the situation to be secure. US army intelligence must have the means of launching special operations which will convince Host Country Governments and public opinion of the reality of the insurgent danger.”

The U.S. Army now claims the document was a Russian forgery. Journalist Allan Francovich in his BBC documentation on Gladio and US/NATO “special operations” terrorism, asked Ray Cline, CIA deputy director from 1962 to 1966, if he believed FM 30-31B was for real and he replied: “Well, I suspect it is an authentic document. I don’t doubt it. I never saw it but it’s the kind of special forces military operations that are described,” to be implemented at the discretion of the president and Defense Department on the “appropriate occasion.”

It could be that in Iraq–and elsewhere around the world–the “appropriate occasion” has arrived. Bush’s war on terrorism could be the ultimate manifestation of the provocateur state; carrying out of clandestine “executive actions” and “special operations” directed against populations, including our own, who are truly ignorant of the real “enemy” in the face of the ever-present manufactured one, traumatized by strategic terror designed to engender fear and acquiescence to further “security measures”–thereby enriching the military, police agencies, and munitions and nuclear business enterprises.

RESOURCES:

Peter Maass, “The Salvadorization of Iraq?,” New York Times Magazine, May 1, 2005.

A.K. Gupta, “Unraveling Iraq’s Secret Militias,” Z Magazine, May 2005

Lila Rajiva, “The Pentagon’s ‘NATO Option’,” CommonDreams, Feb. 10, 2005.

Statewatch Briefing on Operation Gladio

US Joint Chiefs of Staff, “Operation Northwoods”, 1962

National Security Archives on Operation Northwoods


US Army, Field Manual 30-31B, 1970


FM 30-31B excerpts from Cryptome.org

WW4 REPORT #58 on P2OG

Frank Morales, “John Negroponte and the Death Squad Connection,” WW4 REPORT #108

——————

Special to WORLD WAR 4 REPORT, May 10, 2005
Reprinting permissible with attribution

http://WW4Report.com

Continue ReadingTHE PROVOCATEUR STATE 

CAN IRAQ AVOID CIVIL WAR?

(And Can the U.S. Anti-War Movement Help?)

by Bill Weinberg

The anti-war movement in the U.S. is at its lowest ebb since the March 2003 invasion of Iraq. Two broad, mutually hostile tendencies have emerged: one increasingly supportive of the armed resistance, the other increasingly equivocal about supporting an immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces. They hold separate marches (as they did in New York City on May 1) for which they marshal radically diminishing numbers. They seem equally oblivious to their manifest inability to meaningfully communicate with the general populace, and equally uninterested in meaningfully engaging the Iraqi people they claim to support.

This inability and this disinterest appear to indicate that they are no more serious about really looking squarely at the situation in Iraq than the Bush administration they love to hate. Iraq has been drifting towards civil war virtually since the day Saddam fell two years ago. Like the White House, the remnants of the anti-war movement seem to have everything invested in ignoring this reality and holding out for a deus ex machina–whether it is to be delivered (against all evidence) by the occupation or resistance. There is virtually no interest in the hard, realistic work of offering solidarity and a stateside voice to Iraqis who will have to seek a semblance of freedom and control over their own lives no matter what kind of regime or situation obtains in their country. Yet this is precisely the kind of work which can give us the moral legitimacy we need to rebuild a disintegrating movement.

THE NEW REGIME: IMBALANCE OF POWER

For a third time now, Iraq has undergone a transition towards supposed self-govenment and stabilty. The first was the transfer of official “sovereignty” to the interim regime in June 2004. Then came the elections of January 2005. Now, after months of tense haggling, a government coalition has congealed and taken power. But it represents largely a coalition of the two demographic sectors which had been marginalized under the Saddam Hussein dictatorship: the Kurdish north and the Shi’ite south. The Sunni center, where Saddam had his primary base of support, is nearly excluded from the new order, and arguably has greater support for the insurgents than for the new regime. And the new ruling coalition itself appears precariously fragile.

On April 7, interim prime minister Iyad Allawi submitted his resignation. The new government is to be led by President Jalal Talabani, leader of the Kurdistan Alliance, itself made up of two rival Kurdish nationalist parties, including Talabani’s Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK).

Talabani is to share power with Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari of the Dawa Party, one of the prominent Shi’ite opposition groups under Saddam, founded by Muhammed Baqir al-Sadr, a dissident executed by the regime in 1980. It is today one of several Shi’ite religious factions, all fiercely conservative but, to varying degrees, mutually suspicious, and each with an armed militia yet to be brought under any real centralized control.

The new interior minister is Bayan Jabr of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, the Shi’ite faction traditionally backed by Iran.

Ahmad Chalabi–a secular Shi’ite and the one-time Pentagon favorite to rule a post-Saddam Iraq, who had been arrested on charges of spying for Iran just a year ago–is now acting oil minister. His relative Ali Allawi is finance minister.

There are two vice presidents, largely ceremonial posts. One is Adel Abdul Mahdi of a Shiite Islamist bloc inappropriately named the United Iraqi Alliance. The other is Sheikh Ghazi al-Yawar, a Sunni leader of Iraqis Party, who is the most hostile to the U.S. occupation of the new regime figures, and the only Sunni in a position of power–although not much power. The Defense Ministry post is also said to be reserved for a Sunni, but a suitable one has apparently not been found yet. The speaker of the transitional national assembly is Hajim al-Hassani of the United Iraqi Alliance, which holds the large majority of seats.

In short, the new governing coalition is both dominated by clerical or ethno-nationalist authoritarians, and a seeming recipe for further instability.

WOMEN UNDER ATTACK

A New York Times story of April 13 highlighted the emerging role of women in the new Iraq, painting a picture of general progress while acknowledging harsh obstacles. It noted that Nasreen Barwari, the Harvard-educated public works minister in the interim government who is said to represent secular women, will be retaining her post, the only woman in the cabinet. The article also noted that she is the “third wife” of Sheikh Ghazi al-Yawar–a polygamous rather than serial affair. It failed to note that Barwari is a Kurd, and has been subject to much abuse in the Kurdish nationalist press for betraying her people by marrying an Arab. The Kurdistan Observer ran a letter last Oct. 12 stating that it is “strange and insipid” that “a reasonably attractive and well-educated Kurdish girl” is so “naive” as to become “emotionally involved with a polygamist tribal sex maniac.”

Also quoted in the Times was Songul Chapuk Omer, a Turkmen women’s leader from Kirkuk, who voiced suspicion of the Shiite women in the new government, saying they “want to hinder woman, put shackles on her. They despise secular women. They consider that she has committed crimes.”

The Times has failed to report on the ongoing wave of assassinations of outspoken women across Iraq. On March 21, the UN news agency IRIN ran a little-noticed story on the chilling string of misogynist murders. It led with the case of Baghdad pharmacist Zeena Qushtiny, who was seized at gunpoint from her pharmacy–“by insurgents,” the account said. Her body was found 10 days later with two bullet holes in the head, covered in a traditional abaya veil with a message pinned to it: “She was a collaborator against Islam.” Qushtiny, the divorced mother of two young girls, had been working for women’s rights and greater democracy in Iraq, according to her friends and colleagues. The report also said “her dress was seen as being too extravagant for Iraq.”

A Baghdad police commander, Col. Subhi al-Abdullilah, told IRIN that decapitated female corpses have been turning up around the city in recent weeks with notes bearing the word “collaborator” pinned to their chests. Authorities in Mosul were cited reporting 20 women killed by Islamic militants so far this year, including three gynecologists, two pharmacists and several students. In Latifiyah, south of Baghdad, where 11 women have been killed so far this year, Sunni militants have pasted leaflets on the walls prohibiting women from leaving their homes without the traditional abaya under penalty of death.

Last November, Amal al-Mamalachy, a well-known women’s rights activist and government adviser, was killed in a hail of 10 bullets on her way to work. Her car was hit by a total of 160 bullets, and many of her security guards were also killed. Akilla al-Hashimia, a member of the interim government, was killed in October 2003.

The IRIN story also quoted the Turkmen women’s leader Songul Chapuk saying she has received numerous death threats, and that several women have been attacked with a spray containing acid in Kirkuk because they weren’t wearing the veil. The story also noted that public works minister Nasreen Barwari survived an attack last year in which two of her bodyguards were killed. The New York Times coverage which cited both these women deemed fit to overlook these rather salient details.

IRIN quoted Houzan Mahmoud, UK representative for the Organization of Women’s Freedom in Iraq (OWFI) warning that the new government seems little better than the insurgents as far as the status of women is concerned: “With the win of the United Alliance in the election, the Islamization can grow fast and the women in Iraq could lose more… I just ask for everyone to open their eyes to this issue and help the true entities that are looking for their rights as women.”

THE INSURGENTS: “RESISTANCE” OR ETHNIC CLEANSING?

The insurgents that many stateside activists glorify as the Iraqi “resistance” have been very busy lately, with deadly explosions becoming a nearly daily affair. On May 6, at least 26 were killed and twice as many wounded when a suicide bomber struck a marketplace in Suwaira and another bomb blew up a bus carrying Iraqi police in Tikrit. On May 4, a suicide bomber infiltrated a line of police recruits in Irbil, killing 46 and injuring nearly 100–a rare but exceptionally deadly attack in the Kurdish north. On May 2, at least 24 were killed in a string of car bomb attacks, including six residents at a Baghdad apartment complex and a child in Mosul. On April 29, an impressive 17 car bombs exploded, killing 50, mostly in Baghdad. On April 14, twin car bombs detonated as a police convoy was passing the Interior Ministry, killing 14 and wounding 50. While many of these attacks were ostensibly aimed at government targets, the victims were typically civilians; all but one of the dead at the Interior Ministry were civilians.

And the same forces which have taken up arms against the occupation also seem bent on war against perceived ethnic and sectarian enemies within Iraq. On April 9, thousands of followers of militant Shi’ite cleric Moktada al-Sadr marked the two-year anniversary of the invasion by marching on Baghdad’s Firdous Square, where the statue of Saddam Hussein had been toppled on that day in 2003. They chanted “No to America!” and called for U.S. troops to leave Iraq. But this apparently won them little solidarity from Sunni insurgents who share this demand. Unknown gunmen–said to be Sunni militants–opened fire on the protesters as they gathered, injuring two. Protesters also carried the coffin of an al-Sadr movement leader who had been gunned down the previous night.

On March 31, Shi’ites across Iraq celebrated Arabaein (also rendered: Arbayeen), the festival marking the end of Ashura, the 40-day mourning period for Imam Hussein, grandson of the Prophet Mohammed killed in the 680 CE Battle of Karbala. This is the most sacred day in Shia Islam. It was marked–for a second consecutive year–by bloody attacks on Shi’ite worshippers throughout the country. This year the death toll fell far short of 2004’s 143, but was still grisly enough. A suicide bomber drove a van full of explosives into a crowd of worshippers in the northern city of Tuz Khurmato, killing four, including a child. A similar attack in the Shi’ite holy city of Samarra–although ostensibly aimed at a U.S. military vehicle–left one civilian dead and several injured.

Samarra holds the tombs of two of Shia’s revered twelve imams–the tenth, Ali il-Hadi and the eleventh, Hadi al-Askari–and is said to be where the twelfth imam, Muhammad al-Mahdi, went into “occultation” to await judgement day hidden from the eyes of mortals. It is the third holiest site in Shia after Karbala and Najaf, which holds the remains of Imam Ali, the first imam and the Prophet’s son-on-law, killed in 661.

All three of these cities saw violence around the Ashura period. Pilgrims in Karbala slept on the city’s streets for nights following the celebrations because they feared travelling by night following threats and attacks. On April 8, four civilians were injured as a bomb exploded at the Najaf bus station.

On March 10, a suicide bombing at a funeral at a Shiite mosque in Mosul left 40 dead, mostly Shiite Kurds and Turkmen.

New mass garves are also being unearthed–most recently in northeast Baghdad, where a worker using earth-moving equipment discovered 12 bodies approximately a week old May 6, shot in the head and showing signs of torture and beatings. It is uncertain if this is the work of “insurgents” or the new paramilitary groups said to be overseen by the regime and U.S. forces to fight the insurgents.

OIL: BROKEN PIPELINES, BROKEN DREAMS

Iraq has the second greatest oil reserves on Earth after Saudi Arabia, but it has never been efficiently exploited–and now the situation is worse than ever. A March 2 New York Times story, “A Promise Unfulfilled: Iraq’s Oil Output is Lagging,” noted:

“As recently as this April, a senior Iraqi leader evoked the eternal dream that Iraq could produce 10 million barrels a day–close to the Saudi levels–within 10 to 15 years. Far less than that could alter the global oil market and aid consumers everywhere. But two years after Saddam Hussein was toppled production is limping along at about two million barrels a day, less than before the war, and even at that rate it may be causing long-term damage to poorly maintained fields. Americans had hoped that output at this stage would be at three million barrels a day, generating badly needed funds for reconstruction. That level of production could also reduce oil prices, which are now around $50 a barrel and a global source of inflationary pressure. But close to $2 billion worth of American technical aid to the oil sector has brought only limited gains. Sabotage of a pipeline to Turkey has choked off exports from Iraq’s northern fields, around Kirkuk, and violence has slowed efforts to renovate the larger southern fields.”

While Iraq’s oil remains officially in the hands of state-owned companies, the new government is awaiting the results of a technical study by BP and Royal Dutch Shell on how to best revive the faltering industry, the Times informs us. There are apparently only 2,300 wells in all Iraq–compared to over a million in Texas, with far less (and less geologically accessible) oil. And Iraq’s existing infrastructure eroded dramatically under the economic sanctions in the 1990s.

Meanwhile, as U.S. aid pours into patching up oil infrastructure that the insurgents quickly blow up in a vicious cycle, social development projects that were supposed to be funded by oil revenues are dying on the vine. The Times reported April 16 that a $10 million potable water project for Halabja–the same Kurdish city that was gassed by Saddam in 1988, leaving 5,000 dead–was cancelled for lack of funds.

SOCIAL COLLAPSE: BITTER FRUIT OF “LIBERATION”

A March 30 BBC report, “Children ‘starving’ in new Iraq,” notes a bitterly paradoxical result of the country’s supposed “liberation.” According to a new report prepared for the annual meeting of the UN Human Rights Commission in Geneva, malnutrition rates in children under five have almost doubled since the US-led intervention–to nearly 8% by the end of last year. Jean Ziegler, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, who prepared the report, blamed the worsening situation in Iraq on the war which has ensued since the 2003 invasion.

U.S. and U.K. officials wasted little time in challenging Ziegler’s findings. “He is wrong,” charged U.S. envoy to the UN, Kevin Moley, saying American and British studies indicated the rise in child malnutrition actually began under Saddam. But Ziegler is not alone in offering such grim news. An April 21 USA Today report on languishing water projects in Iraq noted a hepatitis outbreak in Baghdad’s impoverished Shi’ite neighborhood, Sadr City, and the emergence of typhoid in another Baghdad neighborhood. The LA Times reported May 2 that the daily output of Iraq’s electrical grid is 4,000 megawatts–400 megawatts below the pre-war average. Last Dec. 4, UPI, citing Iraqi government figures, noted that unemployment had dropped in 2004 from from 28% at the start of the year to a still-ghastly 26.8%. But an Al-Jazeera report from Aug. 1, 2004, citing a study by Baghdad University, contested the government figures, putting unemployment at a disastrous 70%.

SECULAR LEFT REPUDIATES “TWO POLES OF TERRORISM”

Despite the growing violence and polarization, a secular left continues to exist in Iraq, caught between the occupation and collaborationist forces on one side, and the Islamist insurgents on the other. This besieged, principled opposition remains universally overlooked by both the world’s mainstream and–shamefully–left media.

On the occasion of the two-year anniversary of the invasion, the Left Worker-Communist Party of Iraq issued a statement addressed “To All Civilized Humanity,” calling on progressives around the world to “support our struggle for the immediate expulsion of the US/UK troops from Iraq, and the disarm[ament] of all reactionary Islamic/nationalist groups.” The somewhat awkward English translation read, in part:

“The world is witnessing the 2nd anniversary of the US war on the people of Iraq. This war has been causing the killing of thousands of innocent people…the ruining of the foundation of Iraqi civil society, and the subjugating of its fate to the will of a handful reactionary powers… The domination of these forces will further drag society [in]to the worst division based on religious, ethnic, and sectarian conflicting cantons… the trans[formation] of Iraq into an open confrontation grounds between the forces of international terrorism: the terrorism of the US state from one side and the terrorism of international Political Islam and Saddam Hussein’s supporters on the other. The victims of this reactionary war are the innocent citizens of Iraq. This war has turned people’s lives in Iraq into a living hell.”

The statement called for:

“The immediate expulsion of the occupying forces provided they are replaced by international peacekeeping forces of the United Nations, with the exclusion of the current occupying countries of Iraq and the regional countries that support Islamic groups…

“The disarmament of all Islamic and nationalist forces that arose after the fall of the Baathist regime and which have their hands stained with people’s blood.

“Putting military…officials and personnel of both the occupying forces and the nationalist and religious groups [on] trial as war criminals.

“Securing [a] social and political environment which would guarantee all political groups in Iraq…free political activity, in a secure environment, and thus the possibility of people’s conscious participation in the formation of a state that suits them in Iraq.

“To this end, we call on all humanitarian, egalitarian, and progressive people all over the world to support our demands to rescue the people of Iraq from the destructive …war between the two poles of terrorism…in order to create the suitable circumstances for the people to achieve their freedom and political choices.”

It ends with the slogans: “Immediate Expulsion of the US-UK forces from Iraq! Disarmament of All Islamic and Reactionary Nationalists! Long Live Freedom [for] the people of Iraq, Away [with] Terrorism and Intimidation!”

We can take issue with this program, and certainly the question of who is to disarm the Islamist insurgents, and how it is to be done without escalating the war, has no easy answer. But the Left Worker-Communist Party of Iraq has at least raised a call for solidarity around principles of secularism, pluralism, socialism and basic respect for the rights of civil society.

The anti-war movement in the U.S. and Britain exhibits little interest in answering this call or even engaging in dialogue with what should be its own natural allies in Iraq. Instead, it either allows its fetishization of armed resistance to betray its own supposed values of elementary freedom and equality, or else looks to the day the U.S. can honorably leave a stable and democratic Iraq–a day which inevitably recedes further and further beyond the horizon.

The two tendencies appear too busy demonizing each other to meaningfully engage either the American public or Iraqi progressives–much less offer desperately needed solidarity. The anti-war movement’s current isolation is, alas, well-earned.

———–

RESOURCES:

“Iraq: Focus on threats against progressive women”, IRIN, March 21, 2005

“Children ‘starving’ in new Iraq”, BBC, March 30, 2005

“Security costs drain funds for water projects in Iraq,” USA Today, April 21

“To All Civilized Humanity”
, Left Worker-Communist Party of Iraq, March 15, 2005

Previous WW4 REPORT Iraq updates:

“Is There a ‘Third Alternative’ in Iraq?”
, March 2005

“Iraq & Afghanistan: Is Bush Hallucinating?”, October 2004

“Iraq Meets the New Boss”, July 2004

“Iraq: Bloody Countdown to Bogus Sovereignty”
, June 2004

“Iraq: Civil War Inevitable?”, March 2004

“How the Anti-War Movement is Blowing It,” September 2003

“Beware Bush’s Boomerang,” April 2003

——————-

Special to WORLD WAR 4 REPORT, May 10, 2005
Reprinting permissible with attribution

http://WW4Report.com

Continue ReadingCAN IRAQ AVOID CIVIL WAR?