COLOMBIA: ANTI-FTAA PROTESTS, INDIGENOUS UNDER ATTACK

by Weekly News Update on the Americas

FREE TRADE PACT PROTESTED

The seventh round of negotiations for a "free trade treaty" (TLC) between the US, Colombia, Peru and Ecuador began on Feb. 7 in the Colombian Caribbean port city of Cartagena. Opponents of the TLC held a nationwide day of protest in Colombia on Feb. 10. Thousands of workers, campesinos, indigenous people and students marched in Cartagena to protest the TLC. Police reported no incidents. The demonstrators were barred from approaching the convention center where the talks were taking place. At least 1,000 students and unionists marched in Bogota, surrounded by riot police. At least 400 demonstrators marched in Cali. A protest was also held in the city of Pereira.

In Medellin, students began their anti-TLC protest at the University of Antioquia, then moved out to the street, where three armored vehicles of the Mobile Anti-Riot Squad (ESMAD) police unit were waiting. As demonstrators clashed with police outside, and police sprayed the students with water cannons, an explosion injured 18 students in the university’s pharmaceutical chemistry department. According to university vice rector Martiniano Jaimes Contreras, the accident was caused by homemade explosives which the students were assembling to throw at police. Three of the injured students were in critical condition with burns over 80% of their bodies, said Jaimes. (AP, AFPO, Notimex, Feb. 10; El Universal, Caracas, Feb. 11)

The nearly 1,500 TLC negotiators meeting in Cartagena were meanwhile having their own problems: by the time the talks ended on Feb. 12, no agreement had been reached on any of the 23 areas being discussed. The biggest sticking points include agricultural policy–Andean farmers are concerned about being forced to compete against heavily subsidized US agribusiness–and intellectual property, since the Andean countries are concerned that the TLC will make it impossible for them to produce generic medicines. Other touchy issues are the mobile phone market and used clothing imports from the US. (AP, Feb. 10, 12; AFP, Feb. 13)

The lack of progress forced a new schedule for the remaining talks. The eighth round is still scheduled for March 14 in Washington to discuss investment, textiles, intellectual property, rules of origin, and revision of annexes on service measures. But during March, Washington will also host separate bilateral talks on agriculture: March 9-10 with Peru; March 16-17 with Ecuador; and March 21-22 with Colombia. The Andean TLC’s ninth round has been set to start April 18 in Lima, focused on pharmaceutical patents. (Article from Americaeconomica.com posted Feb. 13 on Colombia Indymedia; Prensa Latina, Feb. 12; AFP, Feb. 13)

On Feb. 10 in Peru, some 7,000 cotton growers protested the TLC with a 24-hour strike, including blockades on the Panamerican highway in Santa province, Ancash department (north of Lima) and marches in the cities of Ica and Chincha, in Ica department (south of Lima). The strike was called by the Association of Small-scale Agrarian Farmers. (La Republica, Lima, Feb. 11)

From Weekly News Update on the Americas, Feb. 13

MORE INDIGENOUS KILLED

On Feb. 3, members of the rightwing paramilitary United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC) murdered two young Wayuu indigenous men, Jose Eduardo Boscan Epinayu and Manuel Salvador Lopez Fernandez, in the village of Santa Cruz, Maicao municipality, in the northern Colombian department of La Guajira. Boscan and Lopez were members of the indigenous leadership of the Epinayu clan, and like many members of the community, they made a living peddling gasoline. The bodies of the two were found in the village of La Esperanza near the Venezuelan border; the killers had put AUC insignia on the victims’ clothing in order to sow doubts about the authors of the crime. On Feb. 2, the day before the killing, three AUC members known by the names "Zacarias," "Genito" and "Samir" had entered the home of Francia Boscan, the traditional matriarch of the community and mother of Jose Eduardo Boscan, and had threatened her and her family.

The Communities of the Wayuu People in Civil Resistence, based in the indigenous territory of Media and Alta Guajira, charge that the paramilitaries use violence to exert control over the region and establish a monopoly on gasoline sales and other economic activity. Community members say they even informed President Alvaro Uribe Velez on his recent trip to La Guajira that paramilitary groups were controlling the flow of contraband gasoline from Venezuela. In a statement, the communities ask why the government is seeking funds from the international community to give to "demobilized" paramilitaries, when the paramilitary groups "have accumulated enormous fortunes" and have given up none of the land or properties they control. (Comunidades del Pueblo Wayuu en Resistencia Civil, Feb. 3; National Indigenous Organization of Colombia (ONIC) Press Bulletin #15, Feb. 3)

The latest killings followed a Feb. 1 communique from the Communities of the Wayuu People in Civil Resistence which marked the first anniversary of the killing of Wayuu youths Roland Ever Fince and Alberto Ever Fince, shot to death on Feb. 1, 2004, by the AUC’s "Wayuu Counterinsurgency Bloc." The communities’ statement decried the impunity enjoyed by the killers, who followed up the double murder with a massacre in Bahia Portete in April. (Comunidades del Pueblo Wayuu en Resistencia Civil, Feb. 1)

In Cauca department, southern Colombia, members of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) murdered Nasa indigenous leader Ever Cunda on Jan. 29 at his home in the hamlet of El Cabildo, Miranda municipality. Cunda worked as a prosecutor for the La Cilia Miranda indigenous reserve, and in 2003 he served as president of El Cabildo’s Community Action Board. The FARC had recently threatened Cunda, accusing him of being an informer for the army and paramilitaries. The FARC have also threatened two other Nasa leaders, Unidad Paez coordinator Jairo Lasso and Ernesto Cunda, a council member of the Association of Indigenous Councils of Northern Cauca (ACIN). (ONIC Press Bulletin #14, Jan. 31)

PARAMILITARY MASSACRE IN ANTIOQUIA

On Jan. 29, rightwing paramilitaries apparently murdered seven people in a rural area of San Carlos municipality in Antioquia department, Colombia. The victims were sisters Luz Adriana and Flor Maria Garcia Ramirez; Jose Eugenio Garcia Quintero and his daughters Omaira and Gisela, who were 16 and 15 years old, respectively; and Hector Eduardo Giraldo and Giovanni Gallego. The mother of the Garcia Ramirez sisters survived and made her way with two of her children to the neighboring municipality of San Luis, where she reported the massacre to army troops. The killers had apparently accused the victims of being rebel sympathizers. (Message posted on Colombia Indymedia, Feb. 1)

ARMY KILLS CAMPESINO IN CHOCO

On Jan. 29, campesino leader Pedro Murillo was shot to death by members of the Colombian army’s 17th Brigade in the village of Cano Seco, Jiguamiando municipality, Choco department. The soldiers accused Murillo of being a guerrilla; he was hit with three bullets as he tried to flee, and the soldiers shot him three more times after he was wounded and on the ground. Shortly afterwards, some 500 soldiers from the 17th Brigade entered the town and over the course of Jan. 29 and 30, threatened and mistreated numerous residents of the Afro-Colombian community, accusing them of being leftist guerrillas or guerrilla supporters. The soldiers also detained a local resident for five hours, beating and threatening him and harassing his wife–who was giving birth at that moment–and his children.

The Interreligious Justice and Peace Commission urges human rights supporters to contact Vice President Francisco Santos to demand that a verification team including national and international non-governmental organizations be sent to the area immediately, and that the government respond to community demands for an end to the sowing of oil palm within the Collective Territory of Curvarado and Jiguamiando. Santos can be reached at fax #571-566-2387 or fsantos@presidencia.gov.co. The Commission also recommends asking Attorney General Edgardo Maya Villazon (fax #571-342-9723, reygon@procuraduria.gov.co) to investigate abuses by the 17th Brigade, and asking National Defender of the People (ombudsperson) Volmar Antonio Ortiz Perez (fax #571-640-0491, info@defensoria.org.co) to send a protective presence to the zone. (Comision Intereclesial de Justicia y Paz, Jan. 30)

From Weekly News Update on the Americas, Feb. 6

INDIGENOUS PROTESTS IN BOGOTA

On Jan. 20, more than 400 Embera Katio indigenous people from the Sinu and Verde rivers area of Cordoba department in northern Colombia marched with dozens of supporters in Bogota to press the government to resume talks over their demands. The Embera protesters had been camped out in Bogota since Dec. 20, demanding compliance with an April 2000 agreement on compensation for damages caused by the Urra hydroelectric dam. The government insists it won’t negotiate under pressure. Indigenous people from at least 11 different ethnic groups took part in the march, including a delegation of members of the Indigenous Guard of Cauca department, a civilian self-defense group armed only with traditional staffs.

Earlier the same day, a group of Nasa (Paez) leaders from the Regional Indigenous Council of Cauca (CRIC), led by the Indigenous Guard and accompanied by other indigenous leaders, held a ceremony in Bogota’s Plaza de Bolivar to honor Colombia’s Constitutional Court for its rulings favoring indigenous rights. Inside the court building, Constitutional Court president Jaime Araujo Renteria accepted the Indigenous Guard’s flag, given to him as a symbol of support. (ONIC, Jan. 18, 20 via Colombia Indymedia; El Pais, CaliJan. 21)

The National Indigenous Organization of Colombia (ONIC) organized the Jan. 20 march to support the Embera Katio protesters and also to denounce the murders of at least seven indigenous people since Jan. 6. Also on Jan. 20, the Colombia office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNCHR) issued a statement condemning the "bloody beginning of the new year" for Colombia’s indigenous communities and urging the Colombian government "to take effective measures to protect indigenous people." (EP, Jan. 21; AFP, Jan. 20)

The UN office specifically condemned the Jan. 18 murders of Wiwa community leader Angel Loperena Montero and his brother Dario Loperena in the town of San Juan del Cesar, La Guajira department. (EP, Jan. 21) Loperena was the general treasurer of the Wiwa Yugumaiun Bukuanarua Tayrona organization, based in the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta mountains, which straddle the border of Cesar, La Guajira and Magdalena departments in northern Colombia. His brother was a teacher in the community. (ONIC, Jan. 19)

Authorities believe the murders were carried out by rightwing paramilitaries of the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC) under the command of AUC leader "Jorge 40"; the UN office urged AUC "to make a public statement about the killings, to require its members to fully comply with humanitarian norms that demand absolute respect for the civilian population, and to fully observe the declared ceasefire." (EP, Jan. 21)

"This year began very badly for us," ONIC president Luis Evelis Andrade Casama told AFP, "and we predict that the violations of indigenous people’s rights by illegal armed groups and, on some occasions, by government forces, will continue to rise." (AFP, Jan. 20)

On Jan. 6, indigenous leader Saul Marquez Tovar disappeared in Leticia, Amazonas department; his body was found the next day across the border in Brazil (see below). On Jan. 17, four members of an indigenous family from Bolivar municipality in the south of Cauca department were found shot to death. The victims were Hermes Cordoba Samboni, vice president of the Communal Action Board of the Las Cruces neighborhood of the San Juan indigenous community, and his family members John Fredy Samboni, Edgar Samboni and Cesar Samboni. The four went fishing on Jan. 11 and never returned; two of their bodies were found in a rural area of Bolivar municipality, and the other two were found in San Pablo municipality in neighboring Narino department. All had been shot in the head, and two of them appeared to have been tied up before being killed. (Colprensa, Jan. 19 via Colombia Indymedia)

From Weekly News Update on the Americas, Jan. 23

AMAZON INDIGENOUS LEADER KILLED

Saul Marquez Tovar, an indigenous Uitoto leader from Colombia’s Amazonas department and president of the Zonal Indigenous Association of Arica, disappeared on Jan. 6 in the Colombian city of Leticia, which is the capital of Amazonas department and borders on Peru and Brazil. On Jan. 7 Marquez’s body was found in the Brazilian town of Tabatinga; his tongue had been removed, his teeth and fingernails were pulled out and he had five bullet wounds. Marquez had gone to Leticia to carry out financial transactions on behalf of his community. (ONIC, Jan. 12)

From Weekly News Update on the Americas, Jan. 16

GUERILLA ATTACKS ESCALATE

On Feb. 8 or 9, rebels of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) attacked a patrol unit of the Boltigeros Battalion, part of the Colombian army’s 17th Brigade, killing 19 of the unit’s 28 soldiers and wounding at least five others. The attack took place in the area of Porrozo, on the border between the municipalities of Chigorodo and Mutata, in the Uraba region of Antioquia department. In a Feb. 9 communique, the FARC’s Jose Maria Cordoba bloc reported that it also killed nine soldiers and wounded an undetermined number of others in a Feb. 7 attack on the Bombona Battalion in the hamlet of La Sombra in Anori municipality, in eastern Antioquia. The FARC said no rebels were killed in the Porrozo attack, but two died in the Anori attack. Colombian government sources said 11 rebels were killed in the Porrozo clash. (Communique from FARC-EP Estado Mayor Bloque Jose Maria Cordoba, Feb. 29; El Tiempo, Bogota, Feb. 11)

On Feb. 11, the Bogota daily El Tiempo also reported that four soldiers and 18 alleged rebels were killed in combat in Vistahermosa municipality, in the southern department of Meta; a noncommissioned officer and six rebels were killed and five soldiers wounded in Urrao municipality, western Antioquia; and the FARC burned 10 vehicles on a highway in southern Narino department. (ET, Feb. 11) The latest attack came only a week after the FARC killed 14 marines in a surprise attack on Feb. 1 at the Iscuande naval base in Narino (see below). The wave of rebel attacks has led to much public and press speculation about the success of President Alvaro Uribe Velez’s "Patriot Plan" military offensive against the FARC. [AFP 2/12/05]

On Feb. 10, following the army’s humiliating defeat in Porrozo, Gen. Hector Jaime Fandino Rincon was dismissed as commander of the 17th Brigade and replaced by Gen. Luis Alfonso Zapata Uribe, head of the Military Forces Operations Directorate in Bogota. Fandino will remain in the army while the incident is investigated. (ET, Feb. 11) Fandino and Zapata studied together at the US Army School of the Americas, graduating from the same "small unit infantry tactics C-7" course in February 1976, while they were second lieutenants. (SOA Graduates List) The 17th Brigade, based in Carepa–just north of Chigorodo–was recently accused of brutalizing an Afro-Colombian community in Jiguamiando municipality, in neighboring Choco department. (See above)

From Weekly News Update on the Americas, Feb. 13

Early on Feb. 1, some 200 members of the FARC launched a surprise attack on a Colombian navy base in the southern department of Narino, killing 14 marines, including the lieutenant who commanded the unit, and wounding 25 others, most of them seriously. The rebels used assault rifles and homemade mortars fashioned from cooking gas canisters in their attack on the Iscuande naval base, located on the Iscuande river near where it empties into the Pacific, in Iscuande municipality. The attack lasted four hours; the rebels retreated when artilleried helicopters and planes of the Colombian Air Force arrived. A Navy communique said the attack was carried out by the FARC’s 29th Front.

Most of the dead and wounded were participants in the government’s "campesino soldier" program, whose members do permanent military service in the areas where they live. Colombian Navy commander Adm. Mauricio Soto said at a Bogota press conference that government forces–consisting of 60 marines and 40 police agents stationed in the town–"repelled this attack, prevented the taking of Iscuande municipality…"

While the government of President Alvaro Uribe Velez has launched a major offensive against rebel forces, especially in southern Colombia, a recent study by the Security and Democracy Foundation, headed by analyst Alfredo Rangel, showed that the FARC launched 900 attacks on government troops in the first two years of Uribe’s administration, compared to 907 over the previous four years. The previous president, Andres Pastrana Arango, pursued a policy of peace negotiations with the FARC. (Miami Herald, Feb. 2; AP, Feb. 1)

From Weekly News Update on the Americas, Feb. 6

BUSH REQUESTS MORE AID

On Feb. 7, US president George W. Bush sent the US Congress his fiscal year 2006 budget request, including $550 in "anti-drug" money for Colombia, of which more than $393 million is direct aid to the Colombian military and police forces. The total amount is about $10 million less than in fiscal year 2005, a State Department official said. The US has spent over $3 billion on mostly military aid for "Plan Colombia" since 2000, but that program is due to expire at the end of the current fiscal year on Sept. 30. The State Department official, who requested anonymity, dismissed the idea that some of the coming year’s military aid could be shifted to social programs: "The intent is indeed to change the focus as the military phase achieves success. We are achieving success, but we’re not there yet." The new Colombia aid proposal comes as part of a $735 million request for the Andean Counterdrug Initiative in fiscal 2006, $4 million more than 2005. Unlike Plan Colombia, the Andean Counterdrug Initiative has no expiration date. (Miami Herald, Feb. 8)

From Weekly News Update on the Americas, Feb. 13

VENEZUELA: KIDNAPPING CONFLICT RESOLVED?

Tens of thousands of supporters of Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez Frias marched in Caracas on Jan. 23 to protest the violation of Venezuela’s sovereignty by neighboring Colombia. The march came in response to the Colombian government’s Jan. 12 admission that it paid bounty hunters to kidnap FARC representative Rodrigo Granda Escobar in Caracas on Dec. 13. The marchers also carried banners reading "Bush: Venezuela Is Not Iraq!" Speaking on Jan. 23, Chavez accused the US government of being behind the Granda incident: "This provocation came from Washington, it is the latest attempt by the imperialists…to ruin our relations with Colombia," he said. The US had offered its "100% support" for Colombia’s actions. Anti-Chavez forces tried to organize a march the same day, Jan. 23, but only managed to draw a few dozen people. (Reuters, AFP, BBC, Jan. 24)

The Granda incident sparked a freeze in trade and diplomatic relations between Colombia and Venezuela. Colombian president Alvaro Uribe Velez announced on Jan. 29 that the conflict had been resolved; in a tour of the border department of Arauca, Uribe sent his greetings to Chavez and the Venezuelan people, and thanked the countries which intervened to negotiate a solution. Those countries reportedly included Brazil, Peru, Spain, Mexico and most notably Cuba, whose president Fidel Castro Ruz apparently played a key role. Speaking on Jan. 30 from Porto Alegre, Brazil, where he was attending the World Social Forum, Chavez said the crisis with Colombia was not yet resolved and that its resolution would depend on the results of a meeting planned between Uribe and him in Caracas on Feb. 3. (AP, AFP, DPA, Jan. 30)

From Weekly News Update on the Americas, Jan. 30

——————-

Reprinted by WORLD WAR 4 REPORT, March 7, 2005

Reprinting permissible with attribution

http://ww4report.com

Continue ReadingCOLOMBIA: ANTI-FTAA PROTESTS, INDIGENOUS UNDER ATTACK 

BOLIVIA: PRESIDENT RESIGNS AMID GROWING UNREST

by Weekly News Update on the Americas

EDITOR’S NOTE: As we go to press March 7, Bolivia’s President Carlos Mesa has handed in his resignation to the country’s congress, citing ongoing anti-government protests. Mesa was caught between leftist protesters demanding greater state control over oil and gas companies and a free-market-oriented separatist movement in Santa Cruz department, where much of the oil and gas reserves are located. Left opposition lawmaker Evo Morales had announced a nationwide road blockade unless congress passes legislation increasing taxes on foreign oil companies from 15 to 50% of their sales. Mesa refused to support this, saying “the international community rejects such a law.” In February, he had reshuffled his cabinet and deployed the military to maintain control of oil and gas fields. But protests continued, and Mesa, submitting his resignation, said, “I can’t continue to govern under these circumstances.” Congress could vote to keep Mr. Mesa in office, but if his request to step down is accepted, the leader of the Senate, Hormando Vaca Diez, will take power. (UK Guardian, VOA, UPI, March 7)—WW4 REPORT

MESA BACKS DOWN ON AUTONOMY

On Jan. 28, bowing to demands for regional autonomy from the powerful civic committee of Santa Cruz department, Bolivian president Carlos Mesa Gisbert agreed to let the country’s nine departments seek greater autonomy and elect their own governors. Mesa’s Supreme Decree 27988, signed Jan. 28, sets elections for governors in all departments for June 12 to finish out the current 2002-2007 terms. Until now, the governors have always been chosen by the president. Mesa also agreed to allow departments to hold referendums on autonomy, starting with a referendum in Santa Cruz in June.

Santa Cruz governor Carlos Hugo Molina resigned on Jan. 27, and an assembly of 200 legislators, council members and indigenous delegates gathered in the city of Santa Cruz, the departmental capital, on Jan. 28. In response to Mesa’s concessions, the assembly stopped short of defying the government with an autonomy declaration, instead approving the creation of a “provisional autonomous assembly” charged with directing the autonomy process and negotiating with the government. Mesa praised the assembly, calling it legal and consitutional. Santa Cruz residents held a victory rally on Jan. 28, and by the evening of Jan. 29, protesters had ended occupations at seven of the eight public buildings in Santa Cruz which they had taken over to demand autonomy. (A group of 53 university students were still holding the governor’s office.)

As part of the Jan. 28 agreement with the Santa Cruz Civic Committee, Mesa also ordered a tiny reduction in the price of diesel fuel, from 3.74 to 3.72 bolivianos per liter (3.72 bolivianos is about $0.46). Workers in Santa Cruz said they would stage new protests if Mesa didn’t completely scrap the fuel price hike he decreed on Dec. 30. (Los Tiempos de Cochabamba, NYT, Miami Herald, Jan. 29; La Jornada, Mexico, Jan. 30)

In the rest of Bolivia, and even among many Santa Cruz residents, feelings about the Santa Cruz “victory” were mixed. On Jan. 28, at least 100 indigenous people from the Altiplano came to Santa Cruz to block a main road there in protest against the Santa Cruz Civic Committee. The protesters said they support autonomy, but only through a constitutional assembly. Civic Committee members confronted the indigenous protesters and a clash ensued; several people were arrested. Marches were also held Jan. 28 in La Paz, Oruro and Potosi to protest the Santa Cruz Civic Committee’s autonomy pressures. (Los Tiempos, Jan. 29)

Also on Jan. 28, the Assembly of the Guarani People (APG) issued a 12-point public statement demanding the creation of a 10th department, called El Chaco. The indigenous Guaranies want to form the new autonomous department out of five provinces: Cordillera (now in Santa Cruz department), Hernando Siles and Luis Calvo (now in Chuquisaca department) and Gran Chaco and O’Connor (now in Tarija department). APG president Nelly Romero said the Guaranies can’t allow the regional oligarchy to continue speaking in their name and profiting from their oil-rich territory. (Los Tiempos, Jan. 29)

Evo Morales, cocalero leader and legislative deputy for the Movement to Socialism (MAS), criticized Mesa “for having ceded much to the Bolivian oligarchy organized in the Santa Cruz Civic Committee.” Morales said the calling of an election for departmental governors “violates the Constitution and resolves the issue of autonomy outside of what will be the Constitutional Assembly,” currently planned for the second half of 2005. Morales said campesinos and cocaleros would demonstrate against the new decree. (La Jornada, Jan. 30)

From Weekly News Update on the Americas, Jan. 30

PROTESTS CONTINUE IN LA PAZ

On Jan. 17, at least 10,000 people demonstrated in La Paz to demand the cancellation of an electricity contract with the Spanish company Electropaz. Following up on their victory in ousting a private water company from La Paz and neighboring El Alto, the protesters were also demanding state control of hydrocarbons resources, and that ex-president Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada face trial for the death of protesters in October 2003. Also on Jan. 17, campesino coca producers blocked roads in the Los Yungas region of La Paz department to protest the government’s coca eradication policies. (La Jornada, Jan. 18)

From Weekly News Update on the Americas, Jan. 23

EX-MINERS BLOCK ROADS

On Feb. 23, some 500 former miners from around Bolivia set up a roadblock in Caracollo and began a march to La Paz to demand the return of their payments into a government housing fund and to protest the fund’s recent payout to a construction company. The liquidator of the defunct National Social Housing Fund (Fonvis), Javier Elias Ayoroa, distributed $2 million to the construction company Cascarena after President Carlos Mesa issued a decree during the week of Feb. 14 releasing nearly $4.8 million. The retired miners are demanding the immediate return of their investments in the fund, which they paid into for over 22 years without ever receiving a land plot or a home, according to miners’ leader Serafin Chambi. The ex-miners are also demanding the removal of the Fonvis liquidator, Ayoroa, whom they accuse of corruption. (El Diario, La Paz, Feb. 24)

From Weekly News Update on the Americas, March 6

LAND CLASH IN COCHABAMBA

On Feb. 20, Bolivian police and local area residents attacked a group of 180 families, members of the Landless Movement (MST), who had established a squatter encampment in the zone of El Frutillar, near Tunari park. MST member Luis Quinaya was badly beaten in the confrontation and died on Feb. 21; his health had apparently been previously weakened by weather conditions at the encampment. Carlos Maldonado, local director of natural resources and environment, admitted there was a confrontation, but said the only two people injured in the clash were area residents, not squatters. MST leaders Johnny Tapurata and Hilda Viscarra said the residents who confronted the squatters pretend to be environmentalists interested in reforesting the area, but are actually trying to sell plots of land there. (Los Tiempos de Cochabamba, Feb. 23)

From Weekly News Update on the Americas, Feb. 27

INDIGENOUS LEGAL OFFICE RAIDED IN AMAZON

On Jan. 5, some 30 people led by Arturo Vidal Tobias of the Agroforest Association of Riberalta (ASAGRI) forcibly entered the offices of the Center of Legal Studies and Social Research (CEJIS) in Riberalta, Beni department, which supports indigenous communities in the northern Amazon region of Bolivia. The assailants threatened the CEJIS staff with death, looted and destroyed office equipment and burned documents concerning land disputes. As they left, they told a CEJIS staff member that he must leave Riberalta within 48 hours, and if they saw him there after that they would set him on fire. The same day, deputy mayor Lucio Mendez Camargo of Vaca Diez province urged CEJIS to close its offices until Jan. 13, when a national government commission was to arrive to supposedly resolve a land conflict between the Miraflores indigenous community and the Yarari-Tirina brothers, who are fighting eviction from the territory owned by Miraflores. On Jan. 8, ASAGRI circulated a public statement signed by Arturo Vidal, justifying the raid against CEJIS and accusing organizations which support the Amazon indigenous communities of “pitting them against their campesino and indigenous brothers.” (Centro de Estudios Juridicos e Investigacion Social, Jan. 6, via Equipo Nizkor)

From Weekly News Update on the Americas, Jan. 23

EX-PREZ CHARGED WITH GENOCIDE

On Feb. 21, the Bolivian attorney general’s office formally charged ex-president Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada with genocide. Sanchez de Lozada and his cabinet are facing trial for responsibility in the October 2003 killing of at least 60 people, carried out by military and police forces seeking to crush a popular rebellion against his government in the cities of El Alto and La Paz. Prosecutor Pedro Gareca brought the formal charges against Sanchez de Lozada in the city of Sucre. Also accused of genocide are Sanchez de Lozada’s defense minister, Carlos Sanchez Berzain, and interior minister, Yerko Kukoc. Another 13 of Sanchez de Lozada’s cabinet ministers are charged with “complicity.” The rebellion forced Sanchez de Lozada to resign on Oct. 17, 2003, and flee to the US, where he remains. (AFP, Feb. 21))

From Weekly News Update on the Americas, Feb. 27

See also WW4 REPORT #93

——————-

Reprinted by WORLD WAR 4 REPORT, March. 7, 2005
Reprinting permissible with attribution

http://ww4report.com

Continue ReadingBOLIVIA: PRESIDENT RESIGNS AMID GROWING UNREST 

ISLAM KARIMOV: UZBEKISTAN DICTATOR, U.S. ALLY

by Eric Stoner

"He may be a son of a bitch," a U.S. president is said to have commented
about one brutal dictator or another, "but he’s our son of a bitch." The
fact that on the worldwide web the line is attributed to no fewer than five
presidents, from Teddy Roosevelt to Ronald Reagan, speaks volumes about
20th-century U.S. foreign policy.

Over the last decade, a new dictator, Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan, has
taken the "our son of a bitch" place. U.S. support for this Central Asian
tyrant exposes the degree of hypocrisy in a foreign policy that claims
democracy, freedom and human rights as its core values. It also invites
serious backlash against the United States in the future–and is leading to
immense suffering for the Uzbek people now.

In the heart of Central Asia, due west of the oil- and natural gas-rich
Caspian Sea and directly north of Afghanistan, the former Soviet republic
of Uzbekistan has gained significant strategic importance to the United
States in recent years. It is a land with a long and rich history, home to
several ancient cities that were once important stops on the famous Silk
Road connecting Europe and Asia. Islam has flourished there since its
introduction to the country in the seventh century. Now, nearly 90% of
Uzbekistan’s 26 million citizens are Muslim. And with such a large
population–almost 50% of Central Asia’s total–Uzbekistan has become the
region’s major power.

The new nation’s recent history has been turbulent. As in many struggling
countries, a wealth of natural resources has not translated into prosperity
for the majority of the population. In fact, Uzbekistan is one of the
poorest of the former Soviet republics, with nearly 80% of the population
living in poverty, according to Andrew Stroehlien of the International
Crisis Group. Uzbekistan can also claim to have the most repressive regime
of the former Soviet Union, with the possible exception of Turkmenistan.

President Islam Karimov, who rules with the proverbial iron fist, first
came to power as leader of the Communist Party in Uzbekistan in 1989, right
before the fall of the Soviet Union. At the time, he was adamantly opposed
to independence; CNN reported that in 1991 he said, "If we remain part of
the Soviet Union, our rivers will flow with milk. If we don’t, our rivers
will flow with the blood of our people."

Despite his efforts to keep the country tied to the collapsing Soviet
empire, Uzbekistan gained independence in 1991 and promptly held elections.
Karimov maintained power with 88% of the vote in an election that was
criticized heavily by foreign observers. He managed to extend his rule
through 2000 via an apparently fraudulent plebiscite in 1995. He won
another seven-year term in a 2000 election that, according to Human Rights
Watch, even U.S. officials admitted was "neither free nor fair and offered
Uzbekistan’s voters no true choice."

If democracy has not fared well in Uzbekistan since its independence,
neither have human rights. Throughout the 1990s, both the international
human rights community and the U.S. State Department were reporting on the
bleak situation in Uzbekistan. The annual State Department "Report on Human
Rights Practices" in 1997 found the police and security forces "used
torture, harassment, and illegal searches and arbitrarily detained or
arrested opposition activists on false charges… The Government severely
limits freedom of speech and the press, and freedom of expression is
constrained by an atmosphere of repression that makes it difficult to
criticize the Government publicly."

U.S. Rewards Abuse

So how did the United States, the self-proclaimed global protector of
democracy and human rights, react to those conditions?

By giving the heavy-handed dictator in Uzbekistan a firm pat on the back.
Detailed data compiled by the Center for Defense Information reveal that
the United States began giving the country military assistance through the
International Military Education and Training program starting in 1995, and
grants to buy U.S. equipment with Foreign Military Financing funds
beginning in 1997. The U.S also participated in the first joint training
exercise of the multinational Central Asian Battalion–called CENTRAZBAT–in
1997. According to Kenley Butler of the Center for Nonproliferation
Studies, for this operation-which was to be the first in a series of joint
exercises-500 soldiers from the U.S. Army’s 82nd Airborne Division did a
parachute drop from Air Force C-17 transport aircraft to train forces from
Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and several other countries in the
region.

Why would the United States aid such a tyrant militarily, especially on the
heels of such a damning report from the State Department? For the same
reason members of the Taliban were treated like royalty during a 1997 visit
to the United States: other interests-especially business interests-often
trump the stated ideals of U.S. foreign policy; in this case, the U.S.
desire for access to regional energy resources took precedence. As Michael
Klare pointed out in his recent book Resource Wars, surveys at the time had
just discovered "vast reserves of oil and natural gas in the Caspian Sea
region." He documents how numerous U.S. officials–up to President Bill
Clinton–began talking openly about the strategic importance of these
resources and their intimate relationship to U.S. "energy security."

"CENTRAZBAT 97," Klare notes, "must be viewed against this backdrop.
Having identified the Caspian’s energy supplies as a security interest of
the United States, the White House was now demonstrating–in the most
conspicuous manner possible–that the United States possessed both the will
and the capacity to defend that interest with military force if necessary."

Relations "Flourish"

While military ties with Uzbekistan were initiated during these years and
aid began to flow, it remained relatively limited. This was all to change
following the attacks of September 11, 2001. In the rush to war, the United
States was in need of a great deal of international cooperation, and
Karimov sat in the perfect strategic position. Uzbekistan provided critical
support for the attack on Afghanistan by allowing U.S. forces to use Uzbek
airspace and the Karshi-Khanabad base, located only about 90 miles north of
the Afghan border.

After Karimov’s cooperation with the invasion, any pretense that human
rights were a priority of U.S. policy toward Uzbekistan was quickly
abandoned, and relations "flourished" (according to the State Department’s
2004 "Background Note" on the country). U.S. aid to Uzbekistan almost
quadrupled over the next year-from $85 million in 2001 to nearly $300
million in 2002. The Uzbek dictator was even honored with an invitation to
the White House; in March 2002, during their 45-minute meeting, Karimov and
President Bush signed a declaration on the strategic partnership between
their two countries. The horrifying stories of repression and abuse that
continued to emanate from Uzbekistan apparently had no affect on this
budding friendship.

Karimov seemed to take the administration’s warmth as a sign that he could
do no wrong in its eyes, and-like many other heads of state-began using the
new "war on terror" as a cover to silence his political opponents. In the
name of fighting Islamic fundamentalism-namely the outlawed nonviolent Hizb
ut-Tahrir (Party of Liberation) and the militant Islamic Movement of
Uzbekistan, or IMU, which has claimed several lives in armed attacks-his
government imprisoned an estimated 7,000 people. According to a 319-page
report released last March by Human Rights Watch, independent Muslims
accused of being fundamentalists have been "arrested, tried in grossly
unfair proceedings, and receive sentences of up to twenty years in prison.
Those targeted for arrest include people whom the state deems as ‘too
pious,’ including those who pray at home or wear a beard-which is a sign of
piety."

The Economist reported in March 2004 that after a 2002 visit to Uzbekistan,
Theo van Boven, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Torture, called torture
there "institutionalized, systematic and rampant." In one particularly
grotesque example, according to the UK Guardian of Feb. 13, 2004, a
forensic report commissioned by the British Embassy revealed that one
Muzafar Avazov died in an Uzbek prison in August 2002 after being
"immersed" in boiling water. Avazov’s mother was sentenced to six years
hard labor in a top-security prison after she complained to authorities
about her son’s death and "incriminating leaflets" were conveniently found
in her apartment.

This evidently constituted significant improvement to Washington, as the
State Department continued every six months to certify U.S. aid to
Uzbekistan, which was conditioned on "substantial and continuing progress"
in addressing human rights. The effect of this aid was predictable. As
Hakimjon Noredinov, a 68-year-old human rights activist whose son was
nearly beaten to death by the security service, told The Guardian May 26,
2003: "Because of the U.S. help, Karimov is getting richer and stronger."

In the last couple of years, U.S. aid to Karimov has slowed significantly.
This summer, for the first time, the United States decided to withhold $18
million in military and economic aid because of Uzbekistan’s lack of
progress. Interestingly though, it was not a lack of progress in human
rights that led Secretary of State Colin Powell to decertify Uzbekistan,
but rather the, "lack of progress on democratic reform and restrictions put
on U.S. assistance partners on the ground." In a press statement announcing
the secretary’s decision, the State Department was quick to emphasize that
the country remains, "an important partner in the war on terror," and that
the decision to cut aid by no means meant that "our desire for continued
cooperation with Uzbekistan has changed."

But in fact the administration is not merely unconcerned about torture and
human rights–in Uzbekistan or anywhere else for that matter. As the Sunday
Times of London revealed Nov. 14, 2004, U.S. officials have actually found
torture useful for their own purposes. The Times’ Stephen Grey obtained
evidence that agents of the U.S. Defense Department and the CIA have leased
a Gulfstream 5 jet to take suspected terrorists-reportedly bound, gagged
and sedated-to prisons in countries that are notorious for torture,
including at least seven trips to Uzbekistan.

Boiling Point

This U.S. policy and the brutality of Karimov’s regime have led to the
inevitable. As a report released last March by the International Crisis
Group stated: "Evidence suggests that Islamic radicalism is still on the
rise in Uzbekistan, and shifting from dissatisfaction with President
Karimov to wider dissatisfaction with the West’s support for his regime."
This past Nov. 1, in the town of Kokand, between 5,000 and 10,000
people took to the streets in protest against new government restrictions
on the market traders-the largest demonstration against Karimov’s
government in a decade. According to Galima Bukharbaeva of the Institute
for War and Peace Reporting, the demonstrators were actually protesting
more than just the new restrictions: they also "called on officials to rein
in the police, often criticized for excessively repressive behavior, and to
‘free Muslims from jail.’" Bukharbaeva adds: "Political analysts say public
discontent with government policies and the general economic situation in
Uzbekistan is close to boiling point, creating the potential for protests
on a wider scale, and further violence."

So the United States will have to choose. Will it side with the dictator or
the people? Will this country stick by Karimov until the bitter end, as it
did, for example, with the Shah of Iran? Or will it turn on Karimov and
invade his country once he outlives his usefulness or ceases to follow the
U.S. line, as successive U.S. administrations did with
Manuel Noriega in Panama or Saddam Hussein in Iraq?

Or will we choose yet another path? We could, for instance, live up to our
ideals and play a more constructive role, as the U.S. finally did in
Serbia. There Washington provided some $25 million for Otpor, the
nonviolent student-led movement, and other groups that ousted Slobodan
Milosevic in the fall of 2000. It was one time when the U.S. government
assisted in bringing down a dictator and giving new hope to a people who
for too long had lived under the dark cloud of repression. But given the
strategic stakes in Uzbekistan and the bellicose stance of the Bush
administration, it will probably take significant pressure from the U.S.
public to push their government to pursue such a course.

—

This article originally appeared in the Winter 2005 issue of the Nonviolent
Activist, the magazine of the War Resisters League, New York City:
http://www.warresisters.org/nva.htm

RESOURCES:

Center for Defense Information page on U.S. military aid to Uzbekistan:
http://www.cdi.org/friendlyversion/printversion.cfm?documentID=1623

U.S. State Department Background Note on Uzbekistan:
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2924.htm

The Economist on torture in Uzbekistan:
http://www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2551988

The Guardian on torture:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,963497,00.html

and on forced labor:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1146979,00.html

The Sunday Times on "torture flights":
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1357699,00.html

See also WW4 REPORT #97

——————-

Reprinted by WORLD WAR 4 REPORT, March. 7, 2005
Reprinting permissible with attribution

http://ww4report.com

Continue ReadingISLAM KARIMOV: UZBEKISTAN DICTATOR, U.S. ALLY 

NUCLEAR AGENDA 2005

Bush Charts New Generation of Warheads

by Chesley Hicks

Despite the Cold War’s conclusion 15 years ago, the United States’ being
party to several anti-nuclear proliferation treaties, and President Bush’s
strident commands for the cessation of all nuclear weapons programs in the
Middle East and Asia, the current administration is promoting domestic
nuclear programs that could initiate another arms race.

In November 2004, anti-proliferation advocates felt a jolt of optimism when
the Republican-majority congress hamstrung the Bush administration’s
proposals for the institution and expansion of four controversial nuclear
programs. However, during its recent February 2005 federal budget request,
the administration revived efforts to fund the programs.

During the 2004 session, Congress eliminated funding for two programs:
research into the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP), or "bunker
buster," a nuclear bomb that can tunnel deep beneath the earth’s surface,
and "advance concepts" research that would seek to design a new generation
of nuclear weapons. Similarly, funding was severely curtailed for the
development of a new "Modern Pit Facility." A pit facility is a factory
that produces the fissile cores–the plutonium detonators–for nuclear
weapons. Presently, the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico
produces small numbers of these plutonium pits, but the National Nuclear
Security Administration (NNSA) seeks to a build a larger, advanced factory
(at a still undisclosed location) that will produce them in greater numbers
and with new designs.

With bipartisan support, Representative David L. Hobson (R-Ohio), Chairman
of the House Energy Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water
Development, spearheaded the 2004 opposition, emphasizing that the
country’s current security issues do not call for more nuclear warheads,
and that the government’s mandate should be to reduce the absurdly
redundant nuclear stockpile rather than add to it.

Congress also requested a revision of the nuclear "Stockpile Plan," which
describes the size and structure of the country’s nuclear arsenal.
Congress’ message was that new money will not be allocated to nuclear
programs that do not articulate definitive goals–which is how many of the
Bush Administration’s nuclear pursuits have been characterized.

Hobson redirected $9 million the administration had requested for the
advanced concepts research toward studies to instead improve the
reliability and lifespan of existing warheads. Calling it research for a
"reliable replacement warhead," the initiative acknowledges nuclear
advocates’ contention that the country’s aging arsenal needs fixing, but
underscores Hobson’s hope to ultimately reduce the arsenal, albeit with
fewer but better weapons.

Which is where matters get murky. In the president’s budget released the
first week in February 2005, the Energy Department sought–reportedly at
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld’s behest–$4 million to continue the
"bunker-buster" study. If the DOE request passes, presumably Pentagon
appropriations will follow for the second phase of the project. Ostensibly,
the project meets Hobson’s "reliable replacement" plan, as the new study
seeks to put an already existing warhead, now in the B-83 nuclear gravity
bomb, into a new delivery system-one that is capable of deeply penetrating
the earth’s surface. Critics are now asking how this plan differs in any
meaningful way from either the bunker buster or the advanced concepts
programs shot down by congress last November.

All of which further begs the question: If a new bomb is developed, won’t
it need to be tested? Though the U.S. signed the Comprehensive Nuclear
Test-Ban Treaty in 1996, replacing field explosions with computer-simulated
tests based on data collected from decades of nuclear detonations, in the
ensuing years Congress has refused to ratify the treaty, effectively
preventing it from going into force. While the U.S. hasn’t conducted a full
nuclear explosion since 1992, in recent years the NNSA has conducted a
series of "subcritical" tests at the Nevada Test Site, which stop short of
a full detonation-but which use real plutonium pits, and which critics call
a threat to the languishing Test-Ban Treaty. The White House has recently
sought approval from Congress to shorten the amount of preparation time
legally required between completion of a new nuclear weapon and the
field-testing of that weapon in an underground explosion–which, despite
official denials, seems to indicate an intention to resume full testing.

So far Congress has contained the most aggressive of these ambitions. But
while Hobson has been quoted as praising the cooperative institution of the
reliable replacement warhead plan, Donald Rumsfeld’s Defense Department
seems to have found a way to twist that plan into serving its own nuclear
goals. The often inscrutable bureaucracy that surrounds the Defense
Department and federal budget allocation in general could very well allow
it to succeed.

"The reality is that the federal budget is a huge morass," says Stephen
Young, senior analyst for the Union of Concerned Scientists. "The
Congressional budget requests we’re discussing are in the millions, the
overall nuclear Stockpile Stewardship program’s budget is 6.3 billion." He
added that the outcome of this year’s budget request "depends on how
closely the issues are tracked."

Young and countless others contend that the administration would most
benefit the country’s security by heeding its own message to de-escalate
nuclear proliferation. The number of deployed and imminently deployable
nuclear weapons in the US arsenal could destroy the entire planet. Experts
maintain that any further refurbishing is unnecessary and critically
misguided. Young describes the warhead number as "preposterous," and says,
compounding the problem, "Russia currently maintains a large arsenal
because of the US’s recent unwillingness to decrease its own arsenal."

Already, Russia, China, North Korea, and India have shown that they are
closely following US nuclear developments and adjusting their postures
accordingly. Which means proliferation continues, as it seems wherever one
looks, the US still has both hands in the nuclear cookie jar.

The Natural Resources Defense Council revealed in February that the U.S.
currently has hundreds of warheads deployed across Europe. The NRDC’s
report states: "U.S. nuclear arsenal in Europe is larger than the entire
nuclear weapons stockpile of any nation except Russia. The United States is
the only country that deploys such weapons outside its own boundaries…[even
though] weapons based in the United States can cover all of the potential
targets covered by the bombs in Europe." The report, which describes the
deployment as "clinging to the Cold War," notes ironically: "Nearly all of
the countries that once were potential targets for the weapons are now
members of NATO."

Also according to the report: "All the weapons are gravity bombs of the
B61-3, -4, and -10 types. Germany remains the most heavily nuclearized
country with three nuclear bases (two of which are fully operational), and
may store as many as 150 bombs… Royal Air Force (RAF) Lakenheath [in the
UK] stores 110 weapons, a considerable number in this region given the
demise of the Soviet Union. Italy and Turkey each host 90 bombs, while 20
bombs are stored in Belgium and in the Netherlands… The current force level
is two-three times greater than the estimates made by non-governmental
analysts during the second half of the 1990s. Those estimates were based on
private and public statements by a number of government sources and
assumptions about the weapon storage capacity at each base… The 480 bombs
deployed in Europe represent more than 80 percent of all the active B61
tactical bombs in the U.S. stockpile. No other U.S. nuclear weapons are
forward deployed (other than warheads on ballistic missile submarines)…
Approximately 300 of the 480 bombs are assigned for delivery by U.S. F-15E
and F-16C/D aircraft…deployed in Europe or rotating through the U.S.
bases. The remaining 180 bombs are earmarked for delivery by the air forces
of five NATO countries, including Belgian, Dutch, and Turkish F-16s and
German and Italian PA-200 Tornado aircraft."

The Bush administration has also expressed a disturbing interest in
weaponizing space. The Outer Space Treaty of 1967, signed by more than 90
countries including the US, bans weapons of mass destruction (WMD) from
being put into orbit and stipulates that: "The exploration and use of outer
space…shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all
countries, irrespective of their degree of economic or scientific
development, and shall be the province of all mankind…[and] shall be guided
by the principle of co-operation and mutual assistance…"

The UN General Assembly has passed resolutions each year for the past 22
years establishing the continued peaceful use of space and the prevention
of an arms race in space. Though most of the UN resolutions have passed
unanimously, the US and Isreal have recently abstained from the vote, and
the Bush administration has revealed intentions to exploit areas not
explicitly covered in the various international space-protection
agreements. For instance, though the 1967 treaty bans putting WMD into
orbit, it does not specifically proscribe the transit of a WMD through
space. Currently, the US is developing reentry vehicles designed to deliver
a variety of weapons, including nuclear warheads, via an interceptor in
space that would in turn redirect the vehicle toward an earthbound target,
with greater precision than traditional launch and delivery systems.
Lockheed-Martin is leading this development effort. Alongside plans to put
non-nuclear defense mechanisms into orbit (despite treaty language
discouraging it), including anti-satellite weapons and the scientifically
dubious anti-ballistic missile interceptors, the Bush administration is
sending the message that it intends to dominate and control space.

Proposals are surfacing for new commercial uranium enrichment plants,
including a $1.3 billion facility in Eunice, New Mexico, be built by
Louisiana Energy Services, a partnership of several U.S. utilities and
Urenco, the UK-based global nuclear fuels corporation. Though allegedly
intended for the generation of power, the development of such facilities
could undercut an agreement made with Russia to turn tons of stockpiled
weapons-grade uranium and plutonium into power-plant fuel. As Bush
discourages the development of similar facilities in the Middle East, it’s
difficult to explain why the excess tonnage of unused plutonium and uranium
stored in thousands of US and Russian warheads would not be exhausted
before creating new reserves.

While the nuclear debate in Congress rages anew, the next review conference for the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), meets in New York in May. The events of spring 2005 could presage whether the climate for the next few years will more resemble the promise of a nuclear-free future or a return to Cold War paranoia.

—

RESOURCES:

NRDC report on U.S. Nuclear Weapons in Europe:
http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/euro/contents.asp

SpaceRef.com on new space-based nuclear targeting systems:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=11693

——————-

Special to WORLD WAR 4 REPORT, March. 7, 2005
Reprinting permissible with attribution

http://ww4report.com

Continue ReadingNUCLEAR AGENDA 2005 

THE TSUNAMI’S HIDDEN CASUALTIES

Indigenous Cultures "Wiped Off the Map" as Governments Exploit the Disaster

by Sarah Robbins

On December 26, 2004, the Indian Ocean tsunami wreaked unimaginable havoc, leaving devastation in its wake and a still-climbing death toll that’s already topped 160,000. But world media have taken little note that entire indigenous cultures–already battle-weary from generations of colonization, inappropriate tourism, war, and disease–may have been swallowed by the waves. And the national governments of some impacted countries are accused of actually exploiting the disaster against restive indigenous populations.

While government officials and aid workers toiled to assess damage and casualties on Thailand’s beaches and even Indonesia’s civil war battlegrounds, the gravest toll may be among small, already-threatened populations in places barely known to the outside world. "This disaster is really about indigenous populations who have been completely wiped off the map," says Rudolph Ryser, chairman of the Center for World Indigenous Studies, based in Olympia, WA. "We suspect that off the west coast of Sumatra, where a number of islands were completely obliterated, some of those populations have been wiped out."

Indonesia was hit the hardest—about 115,000 deaths in total–and the war-torn province of Aceh, on Sumatra, was the closest to the earthquake. Aceh’s coastline was shattered, villages were destroyed, and much of Banda Aceh, the capital, was obliterated. Relief efforts are complicated by the Indonesian government’s military campaign against the Free Aceh Movement (GAM), which has been engaged in a struggle for independence from Indonesia since 1976. Before the disaster, the Indonesian government had banned foreign journalists and observers from visiting the province, and now aid workers must register with officials before leaving. GAM’s international supporters accuse the Indonesian military of obstructing aid efforts.

"It’s important for people to realize that these countries have been engaged in battles against the indigenous population for the last generation," says Ryser. "Indonesia has been involved in a war against the West Paupuans, and of course the people of Aceh."

In Sri Lanka–where more than 30,000 people were killed and over a million displaced–questions arise over whether the government has given enough aid to the northeastern part of the country, which is controlled by Tamil rebels. The country’s aboriginal inhabitants, the Veddhas, may also be profoundly affected. "They’ll suffer enormously," Ryser says, "because they were very small, and are right in the middle of the target area."

The death toll in the Indian province of Tamil Nadu was 7,800, and indigenous peoples may be disproportionately affected there as well. "There’s been such substantial physical disruption, and I’m not sure the Indian government is going to be so friendly," Ryser says, noting that the Yenadi and Bondo indigenous peoples are particularly threatened.

Cascading down a the Bay of Bengal like a broken necklace, the 572 islands that constitute the Andaman and Nicobar archipelago–36 of which are inhabited–were also hit hard. The India-governed island chain–days’ sailing from the mainland–was a source of tension and speculation in the wake of the disaster, as the Indian government barred foreign aid from the archipelago. Fear mounted that those who survived the tsunami’s initial impact now faced starvation.

According to the Sydney Morning Herald, most of the fatalities occurred in Katchal, once dubbed "Sunrise Island," in the Nicobar chain. Of its population of 8,300, over 300 have been confirmed dead, while up to 4,500 remain unaccounted for.

The archipelago has a history of displacement of its native population. After the 1857 Indian Mutiny, the British established prisons on the islands, though prisoners sent there often died of disease or were shot by natives unhappy with the encroachment onto their traditional lands. The Japanese occupied some of the islands during World War II, further displacing native communities. The penal colony was closed in 1945 and is now a tourist attraction. After independence, many Bengali and Bangladeshi settlers came to the islands, as did Tamils from Sri Lanka. Of the twelve indigenous tribes that once occupied the islands, six remain. For years, the islands have faced a situation of unsympathetic cohabitation between the native population and the settlers–with the latter facing a threat of actual extinction.

After settlers from the Indian mainland, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, the largest population in the archipelago is the Nicobarese tribe. These estimated 22,000 people have for the most part cordial relations with the settlers, and have even adopted some of their ways. The other tribes maintain greater distance, and their isolation from modern society has allowed them to preserve the hunter-gatherer ways of their ancestors. The Jarawas, who only came in contact with government authorities in 1996, remember bitter experience with violence and disease in World War II and still stay clear of outsiders. They live in six jungle settlements in the Andamans, surviving on wild pork and fish killed with arrows. On Jan. 6, seven Jarawa tribesmen, who had marched out of the forest armed with bows and arrows to establish contact with outsiders after the disaster, reported that all 250 of their people had escaped inland and were living on coconuts. The tribesmen, speaking through an interpreter, objected to an Associated Press photographer taking their picture, saying that they fall sick when photographed.

Only a few families of the indigenous Andamanese ethnicity remain, as 150 years ago missionaries, in their attempt to "civilize" the people, ended up exposing them to measles and mumps. The 40 remaining Sentinelese, another hunter-gatherer society that subsists largely on wild boar, have not been contacted directly by the government, as they are typically hostile, but they have been seen from the air.

The largest group on the Andaman Islands are the Onge, most of whom, according to a representative of the islands’ Tribal Welfare Department, were found safe in the forested highlands of the interior. "Development has been taking place all around these people," Ryser said. "There were 678 members of the Onge tribe in 1901. Now there are only 101." Their ability to survive the tsunami is likely attributed to their ancient wisdom. Sophie Grig, a campaign officer for Survival International, said that a member of the Onge tribe told rescue workers that they took the ocean’s suddenly receding waters–a signal of the oncoming tsunami not heeded elsewhere–as a sign to rush for higher ground.

The most threatened group in the archipelago are the Shom Pens, who are scattered across 17 villages on the Great Nicobar islands, situated at the closest point to the epicenter of the quake. Only 250 tribe members existed before the disaster, and the area around their remote villages has been devastated to the point that relief workers are forced to reach them by foot.

Ryser says that in order to preserve the remnants of these cultures, the relief effort must be focused and sustained. "When you have so many people in a society rubbed out in a day, you lose major parts of the cultural infrastructure," Ryser says. "The equivalent would be losing teachers, doctors, political leaders. It’s not about money, it’s about the restoration of a whole society in all its aspects. Clearly we need different policies all over the world, and India’s tribal policies are the worst."

The Indian government is the only affected nation to refuse outside help, and though the death toll in the Andaman and Nicobar islands may account for half of that in all of India, the government has denied humanitarian groups access. This is likely due to the archipelago’s strategic sensitivity. The Indian military uses Car Nicobar as a listening post, and other islands are used to monitor oil shipments through the Strait of Malacca between Sumatra and the Malay Penninsula.

But tourism may ultimately be a greater threat than military activities to indigenous cultural survival in the islands. The region is celebrated for its marine life and pristine beaches–Andaman’s Havelock Island beach was recently rated one of the best in the world by Time magazine–and the influx of tourists has increased almost tenfold since 1980. The Andaman Association, an NGO that supports indigenous peoples in the islands, has posted a letter on its website written by tribals who want protection from the illegal presence of non-tribals on traditional lands.

Ryser charges that state officials are using the disaster to integrate indigenous populations into the majority culture. Almost 10,000 people have been evacuated to the capital, Port Blair, and 21,000 or more are living in relief camps. Not all natives seem disappointed by this prospect. Washington Post reporter Rama Lakshimi met Patlo Ma, a tribal coconut farmer whose extended family traveled through the jungle for two days, surviving on bananas and coconuts. "We want to go to the city of Port Blair and lead a different kind of life from now on," he is quoted by Lakshimi.

Ryser notes that the brief media focus on tribal peoples in the archipelago represents a rare exception in a world where indigenous cultures are under daily attack. "This is interesting to us because CNN sent 38 reporters over there, and it’s pretty dramatic with all the water rushing around," he says. “But there are 100 people dying every day in the Congo, all of whom are indigenous people. There are 100 indigenous populations in Iraq, but we cover it up by calling them all Iraqis. I guess if there’s a message here, we need to notice that indigenous people are suffering enormously all over the world, not only because of natural disasters, but because of human disasters."

RESOURCES:

Andaman Association page on the disaster

——————-

Special to WORLD WAR 4 REPORT, Jan. 17, 2005
Reprinting permissible with attribution

WW4Report.com

Continue ReadingTHE TSUNAMI’S HIDDEN CASUALTIES 

THE WAR’S TOLL AT HOME

With all eyes on the troops in Iraq, their families—a huge and growing segment of the population—are suffering largely in media silence

by Peter Gorman

Lynn Jeffries is a single mother from Lubbock, Texas, whose son Nathan was deployed to Iraq in late 2003. A registered nurse who worked for years in an emergency room at a Lubbock hospital, Jeffries says that shortly after her son was deployed, she found herself unable to take care of trauma patients and left the emergency room for work as a hospice nurse. "I just started crying at everything," she says. "I was so angry about this war, but at the same time I felt like I couldn’t fight against it without betraying my son. It just ate at me every day, more and more."

Jeffries’ depression grew until, she says "at one point I thought of taking my own life in order to get my son home. It’s just made me a little crazy. I’ve never felt so helpless in my life–there are days I could not even leave the house."

Jeffries’ son was home on leave when she spoke with this reporter, and she said she was feeling a little better–but having difficulty facing that her son is scheduled for redeployment to Iraq early in 2005. "What will happen the day I have to put him back on the plane to go back? I would do anything to have him go to Canada, but he says his friends need him and he can’t leave them."

Teri Wills Allison of Austin, is a mother of two boys–one of whom is deployed in Iraq. She says that the depressions she began to have after her son left for Iraq got so bad that "though I’d never taken pills before I’ve needed Xanax just to get through the day since my son’s deployment."

Jeffries and Wills Allison are not unique. They are part of a growing number of military families who find themselves dealing with what psychologists are beginning to recognize as Secondary Traumatic Stress Disorder. Like the better-known Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, Secondary TSD can clearly be debilitating.

Says Wills Allison: "We, the mothers and fathers of the boys in Iraq–we’re getting by, but barely. Some of them tell me they need a six-pack before bed to fall asleep. Others can’t leave the house for fear they’ll come home to have that call from the military waiting on the machine. Some families are just torn apart by this."

Some more than others. In late November, Marine Lance Cpl. Charles Hanson Jr., was killed in a roadside bombing of his convoy in Iraq. One week later, on Nov. 30, his stepdad, 39-year-old Mike Barwick, entertained guests at his Crawfordville, FL, home with stories of the stepson he loved so much. Three days later, just hours before guests were coming for a viewing at the home Barwick shared with Hanson’s mother, Dana Hanson, Barwick shot and killed himself. Family members were quoted in the local newspapers as saying it was clear he simply couldn’t live with the pain.

Misha ben-David, a drug and trauma counsellor in Austin, says he remembers his family being torn apart when his father went to Vietnam, and is beginning to fear the same thing will happen now that his son is being deployed to Iraq. "The stress on the family is unbearable," he says. "I can already hear my ex-wife starting to freak out, retreating into a ‘rah-rah, do you love your son or not?’ frame of mind. We’ve got so much pressure on us from people like the Fox network to see this as a black-and-white issue–either you’re for the war and a patriot or you’re a no good, liberal, anti-American. Add to that stress that it’s your child that might be killed, or wounded, or permanently maimed and you’ve got a lot of family members going crazy out there."

"Every member of every family who has ever sent a loved one to war has suffered," says Nancy Lessin from Massachusetts, whose stepson, Joe Richardson, served in Iraq during the invasion and is expected to be called back for a second deployment there any day. "But this one is different. The stresses are different."

Lesson is a co-founder, with her husband, Charlie Richardson and a friend, Jeffrey McKenzie, of an organization called Military Families Speak Out. MFSO was started in November, 2002, after Joe Richardson and Jeffrey McKenzie’s son–who is scheduled for a second tour in Iraq in 2005–was initially deployed to Iraq. "We realized we had no place to turn, no one to talk to about our anger at this war, about the feeling of helplessness we had, about our outrage over our sons being used in this unjust war. So we started our own organization." Since its inception, MFSO has grown to over 2,000 members, most of whom are against the war in Iraq.

Lesson was asked why she thinks the suffering of families is different in this war than in other wars. "Because this is a war that didn’t have to happen. This is a war built on lies. We were told that this war was about weapons of mass destruction, about Iraq’s ties to al-Qaeda and the Twin Towers horror. But there were no weapons of mass destruction, no ties to al-Qaeda. We were told ‘Mission Accomplished’ when Saddam Hussein fell, but there was no mission accomplished.”

Lesson portrays a betrayal of the government’s most fundamental commitment to its soldiers. "All of our loved ones signed up to protect our country and our country’s constitution. They took a vow to give their lives, if necessary. But the assumption was that they would be fighting for a just cause. And if this were a just war–while Charlie and I would still have been terrified of that knock on the door or that telephone message telling us that Joe had died–we would have been able to move on. But in this war, a war for oil markets and corporate interests, a war in which every reason given for fighting it has proven to have been a lie, I don’t know that we would ever be able to move on if that knock on the door came. And what that has done to the families of the men and women fighting this war is horrible.”

There is also the added stress–not just on the soldiers, but on the family members as well–of involuntary tour extensions, multiple deployments, shortages of both body and vehicle armor. "Put it all together, and what you’ve created is an emotionally explosive situation," says ben-David.

This is also the first war in which soldiers have access to the internet, intended by the military to keep morale up by giving soldiers regular contact with their families. But there have been unintended consequences to such regular contact as well. Says Lessin: "It’s not a letter every couple of weeks, where parents can try to imagine that everything is OK. With the internet we’re learning that our loved ones don’t have enough food or water or weapon replacements or armored vests, things that leave us feeling helpless."

"Don’t even get me started on that," says Sharon Allen, a single mother from Fort Worth, whose son is in Germany preparing for a second deployment to Iraq. "While he was in Iraq the first time, my son wrote me that the Halliburton people who were hired to bring things like mail and water and parts for the troops said it was too dangerous to go where my son was, and that the company would have to send people to a safer place to get what they needed. They were in the middle of a war, and they couldn’t. My son said the only way he kept his tank going was to steal parts from another tank. Can you imagine giving that choice to a 22-year-old? I’m a wreck knowing he’s going back."

Wills Allison eloquently described her feelings of helplessness in an essay she wrote titled "A Mother’s View”, that initially appeared on the internet. "A just war there may be, but there is no such thing as a good war. And the burdens of an unjust war are insufferable. I know something about the costs of an unjust war, for my son, Nick–an infantryman in the US Army–is fighting one in Iraq… First, the minor stuff: my constant feelings of dread and despair; the sweeping rage that alternates with petrifying fear; the torrents of tears that accompany a maddening sense of helplessness and vulnerability… I feel like a mother lion in a cage, my grown cub in danger, and all I can do is throw myself furiously against the bars, impotent to protect him."

One of the worst aspects of this war, wrote Wills Allison, is the wedge it’s driven between her and much of her family. "They don’t see this war as one based on lies. They’ve become evangelical believers in a false faith, swallowing Bush’s fear-mongering, his chicken-hawk posturing and strutting, and cheering his ‘bring ’em on’ attitude as a sign of strength and resoluteness… These are the same people who have known my son since he was a baby, who have held him and loved him and played with him, who have bought him birthday presents and taken him fishing. I don’t know them anymore."

The military offers social services and family counseling for husbands, wives and children of servicemen and women deployed overseas. But the services are only available to those who live on base. As few parents do, they have almost nowhere to turn for support.

There are a couple of exceptions. In August, 2003, under the watch of Lt Col Anthony Baker, Sr., the National Guard began working with Guard families in crisis situations, sometimes in a one-to-one setting. The Tragedy Assistance Program for Survivors (TAPS)–a non-profit with strong ties to the Department of Defense and the Dept. of Veterans’Affairs–primarily provides services to those who have lost a loved one while serving in the armed forces. But director Bonnie Carroll says the people who staff the 24-hour hotline (1-800-959-8277) will try to help anyone in a crisis situation resulting from the stress of a loved one deployed in Iraq.

"We’ll try the best we can," Carroll says. But for most families, MFSO.org and a few other internet forums are the only places filling the void. "It’s the only place I can go at 4 AM when I can’t sleep, even with the Xanax, to talk with people who feel like I do," says Wills Allison. "One of my friends has a son who returned home with such PTSD that he had flashbacks of the smell of burning flesh, of the sight of dead people torn to bits on the side of the road." While home on leave, Allison says, he crawled to his mother’s bed every night to cry and fall asleep. "And then he was redeployed. His mother is barely holding on. There’s no-one in the military there for her."

Cathy Wiblemo, deputy director for health care at the American Legion, the veterans’ organization that serves as a watchdog on the Veteran’s Administration, says there is simply no funding to provide services for the families of deployed or returning soldiers. "We do have a hotline [1-800-5040-4098] referral service for family members where we try to find them the services they need in their local community, but in terms of paying for those, they’re on their own.

She takes a stark view of the situation. "The truth is that the VA is not ready to supply the services that are going to be needed for the returning vets. And if we can’t even provide those services for soldiers, how could they possibly be available to family members?"

Unfortunately, because the phenomenon of Secondary Traumatic Stress Disorder is just beginning to be recognized, there are no studies on the numbers of people severely affected to the point where they are functioning less well than normal. It might be thousands; it might be tens of thousands. It’s also unknown how long the stress will last even after the family members return home.

"We’ll find out as we go along," says ben-David. Until we do, they’re on their own–just incidental collateral damage.

RESOURCES:

Military Families Speak Out

Tragedy Assistance Program for Survivors

——————-

Special to WORLD WAR 4 REPORT, Jan. 17, 2005
Reprinting permissible with attribution

WW4Report.com

Continue ReadingTHE WAR’S TOLL AT HOME