Just Foreign Policy News, December 2, 2011
Senate Rebukes Romney on Afghanistan; Marc Ellis Facing "Starr Chamber" at Baylor
Support the Work of Just Foreign Policy
Go Straight to the News Summary
I) Actions and Featured Articles
*Action: Urge WaPo Ombud to "Factcheck" Iran "Quest for Nuclear Weapons" Claim
A key way that US media helped railroad the nation into war with Iraq in 2002-3 was by treating as "fact" key allegations about Iraq’s alleged WMD program which had not been proven – and which turned out to be false. Now the Washington Post is treating the unproven allegation that Iran has a nuclear weapons program as if it were a known fact. Urge the Washington Post Ombudsman to investigate.
https://www.justforeignpolicy.org/act/wapofactcheck
War-Weary Republicans Rebuke Romney On Afghanistan
On Wednesday night, the Senate adopted by voice vote an amendment introduced by Oregon Democrat Jeff Merkley calling on President Obama to speed up U.S. military withdrawal from Afghanistan. This was a watershed event towards ending the war. The previous high water mark of Senators calling for expedited withdrawal was 27; the previous high water mark on a vote was 18. The vote is a green light from the Senate to the White House for a faster military withdrawal that would save many American and Afghan lives and (at least) many tens of billions of taxpayer dollars.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/romney-afghanistan_b_1123711.html
Jewish Peace Advocate Marc Ellis Facing "Starr Chamber" at Baylor University
Jewish theologian and peace advocate Marc Ellis had a nice job at Baylor University, talking with young people about religion, ethics, and social justice. Then somebody had the bright idea of making Clinton impeachment prosecutor Ken Starr the president of Baylor.
Write up by Rabbi Brant Rosen of Jewish Voice for Peace:
http://rabbibrant.com/2011/11/30/support-prof-marc-elllis-and-tell-kenn-starr-to-stand-down/
Petition initiated by Cornel West, Rosemary Ruether, and Archbishop
Desmond Tutu:
http://www.change.org/petitions/ken-starr-president-of-baylor-university-stop-persecution-against-prof-marc-ellis
U.S. Employment Effects of Military and Domestic Spending Priorities: 2011 Update
Robert Pollin and Heidi Garrett-Peltier have updated their study showing that military spending is a poor job creator.
http://www.peri.umass.edu/236/hash/0b0ce6af7ff999b11745825d80aca0b8/publication/489/
Lisa Schirch: The Afghan Road to Peace Could Start in Bonn
Negotiations between men with guns aren’t enough; Afghanistan needs a broader process for a sustainable peace.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-schirch/afghan-peace-process_b_1122255.html
Sam Husseini: Asking Tom Ridge About the MEK Gets an Angry Response
The MEK had an event at the National Press Club, and Sam Husseini asked Tom Ridge how much the MEK was paying him to advocate for their removal from the State Department’s terrorist list. Was that nice?
http://husseini.posterous.com/asking-tom-ridge-about-the-mek-gets-an-angry
Help Support Our Advocacy for Peace and Diplomacy
The opponents of peace and diplomacy work every day. Help us be an effective counterweight.
https://www.justforeignpolicy.org/donate
II) Summary:
U.S./Top News
1) The Senate voted Wednesday to require President Obama to devise a plan for expediting the pullout of U.S. troops from Afghanistan, signaling growing impatience in Congress, Reuters reports. Sponsor Jeff Merkleysaid the chamber’s vote was a message to the president that it was time to end the U.S. combat role. A similar demand for an accelerated transition was narrowly defeated in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives in May.
2) House Speaker Boehner called on President Obama to help stop automatic cuts to the military budget, the Hill reports. The Speaker is in a difficult position when it comes to the automatic cuts, the Hill says. He negotiated the August agreement that put them in place, and he said last month that he felt "morally bound" to stick to the trigger.
3) President Obama won plaudits from AIDS groups that have criticized him in the past with his announcement Thursday he is seeking additional money for efforts to prevent and treat the disease in the US and globally, the New York Times reports. Throughout his administration, activists have complained that the Obama administration has done less for the global fight than President Bush. During the 2010 mid-term election campaign season, they repeatedly heckled Obama at political appearances – a situation the White House surely wants to avoid as he seeks re-election in 2012, the Times says.
Syria
4) Russia is against imposing an arms embargo on Syria, saying that the arms embargo in Libya was enforced against the government but not against arms shipments to the rebels, RIA Novosti reports. Foreign Minister Lavrov said the Yemeni example should be studied as a way to resolve the Syrian crisis.
"All states, including those who have demanded to take some action against Syria, have taken a totally different approach towards Yemen, where negotiations on a peaceful plan proposed by the Gulf Cooperation Council have lasted for months," he said. As a result of "patience, insistence and equal pressure applied to all participants in the process,"the plan has eventually been signed, bringing a "real chance" to stabilize the situation in the country, he said.
5) Syrian rebels held secret talks with Libya’s new authorities, aiming to secure weapons and money for their insurgency, The Telegraph reports. Libyan officials denied that they would send fighters to Libya.
Iran
6) The Senate unanimously approved tough new sanctions on Iran’s Central Bank, AP reports. Lawmakers argued that concerns about a nuclear-armed Iran outweighed reservations about driving up oil prices and hurting Americans at the gas pump.
7) Recent polling data shows little public support for an attack on Iran, writes Danny Hayes in the Washington Post. But a study suggests that would change if political leaders advocated for such an attack.
Pakistan
8) Reporting from Pakistan, Alex Rodriguez writes in the Los Angeles Times that while the US and Pakistan have patched things up before, this crisis feels different. The rage coursing through Pakistani society over the Nov. 26 airstrike that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers suggests there may be permanent damage to the relationship. Former cricket star Imran Khan’s popularity has skyrocketed with demands that Pakistan "withdraw from this American war."
In previous crises, Pakistan’s willingness to find common ground with Washington has been influenced by the flow of U.S. aid, which opposition leaders are now urging the government to jettison. Many Pakistanis think China could fill the void. "If the U.S. refuses to give aid, this would be God’s greatest blessing: to free Pakistan from the curse of aid," Khan said.
Colombia
9) The president of Colombian oil union USO, which has been striking over pay and conditions at Canadian-owned oil company Pacific Rubiales, said members have received death threats from paramilitaries, according to Colombia Reports. The president of the oil workers union said union leaders had received verbal, email and pamphlet threats of death, torture, and kidnap, for their "activities" protesting conditions at Pacific Rubiales. The US Steelworkers union sent an open letter to three high-ranking US government officials alerting them to the threats.
Haiti
10) Contractor Agility Logistics has benefited from over $16 million in US funding in Haiti despite being under indictment for overcharging the U.S. military by up to $1 billion, writes Jake Johnston in The Hill. Agility has been barred from receiving government contracts since November 2009. Despite the blacklist designation Agility was able to secure government funding for work in Haiti through a joint venture.
Contents:
U.S./Top News
1) Senate pushes to hurry up Afghanistan pullout
Reuters, Wed, Nov 30 2011
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/01/us-afghanistan-usa-senate-idUSTRE7B008G20111201
Washington – The Senate voted on Wednesday to require President Barack Obama to devise a plan for expediting the pullout of U.S. troops from Afghanistan, signaling growing impatience in Congress.
Obama in June called for about a third of U.S. forces, or 33,000 troops, to leave Afghanistan by the end of next summer. The remaining 66,000 U.S. troops are to be slowly withdrawn until a final transition to Afghan security control in 2014.
The Democratic-controlled Senate’s vote for accelerating that drawdown came on an amendment to an annual defense bill, but the chances of the requirement becoming law are slim.
A similar demand for an accelerated transition of military operations from U.S. to Afghan authorities was narrowly defeated in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives in May.
The sponsor of the version that passed the Senate on Wednesday, Democrat Jeff Merkley, said the chamber’s vote was above all a message to the Democratic president that it was time to end the U.S. combat role.
"Our American forces have successfully pursued the two main goals set when we went to Afghanistan: stamping out the al Qaeda training camps and hunting down and bringing to justice those responsible for 9/11," Merkley said in a statement, referring to the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States.
"It is time to bring our men and women home. The Senate sent that message to the President today in unequivocal terms," Merkley said.
The amendment passed on a voice vote. Republican John McCain, who opposed it, declared that senior U.S. military commanders were already uncomfortable with the drawdown Obama announced in June, and said stepping it up would be "reckless and wrong."
The Senate vote came as U.S. lawmakers continued to look for ways to cut government spending and rein in massive budget deficits. Unease in Washington over the decade-long war in Afghanistan has escalated amid rising worries about tight budgets and high unemployment.
During debate on the amendment, Merkley said the conflict in Afghanistan had cost the United States nearly a half-trillion dollars, and that it was time to "bring our troops and our tax dollars home".
His amendment had 20 co-sponsors in the 100-member Senate, including two Republicans – Mike Lee and Rand Paul, both members of the chamber’s conservative Tea Party caucus.
2) Boehner: Mr. President, Help Stop The Automatic Cuts To Defense Spending
Russell Berman, The Hill, 12/01/11 02:37 PM ET
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/196611-boehner-calls-on-obama-to-intercede-in-fight-over-automatic-cuts-
House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) on Thursday called on President Obama to intercede in the growing push to change the automatic spending cuts to military and domestic programs triggered by the congressional supercommittee’s failure to strike a deficit-reduction deal.
The $1.2 trillion in across-the-board cuts will take effect in 2013, and Republican leaders, along with some Democrats, have said they want to change them to protect the military. Obama has threatened to veto any effort to undo the trigger, known as sequestration, although the White House is still pushing for a broad deficit pact.
[…] The Speaker is in a difficult position when it comes to the automatic cuts. He negotiated the August agreement that put them in place, and he said last month that he felt "morally bound" to stick to the trigger, which was created as an incentive for the supercommittee to come to a deal. But with concerns mounting within his own party, he has opened the door to changing the cuts so long as the minimum of $1.2 trillion in budget savings is maintained.
[…] Aides say House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) is trying to find a way to change the automatic cuts in a broader deal that would encompass year-end issues such as the extension of the payroll tax cut and unemployment insurance. Boehner would not say on Thursday whether he supports that particular effort.
[…]
3) Obama Says He Will Seek More Money for AIDS Programs
Jackie Calmes, New York Times, December 1, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/02/us/politics/obama-says-he-will-seek-more-money-for-aids-programs.html
Washington – President Obama won plaudits from AIDS groups that have criticized him in the past with his announcement on Thursday that he is seeking additional federal money for efforts to prevent and treat the disease in the United States and globally.
"So make no mistake, we are going to win this fight," Mr. Obama told an audience of international activists, celebrities and lawmakers of both parties assembled at George Washington University for the annual World AIDS Day, 30 years after the disease was identified. "But this fight is not over – not by a long shot."
That comment seemed directed at potential donors, whether organizations, individuals or other countries. Advocacy groups say contributions have suffered as perceptions have taken hold that the epidemic has been arrested. Mr. Obama acknowledged that while the rate of infection has declined elsewhere, in the United States it has remained steady, disproportionately hitting the young, African-Americans and Hispanics.
"This fight is not over – not for the 1.2 million Americans who are living with H.I.V. right now, not for the Americans who are infected every day" or their families, Mr. Obama said. And, he added, "It certainly isn’t over for your president."
For the domestic fight, Mr. Obama announced that he was committing to seek $15 million more for the Ryan White program supporting H.I.V. medical clinics in the United States and $35 million for state programs providing access to necessary drugs. For global efforts, he set a goal of nearly doubling to six million the number of infected people who will get antiretroviral AIDS drugs through a program that his predecessor, George W. Bush, started.
[…] Throughout his administration, activists have complained that the Obama administration has done less for the global fight than Mr. Bush. During the 2010 mid-term election campaign season, they repeatedly heckled Mr. Obama at political appearances – a situation the White House surely wants to avoid as he seeks re-election in 2012.
[…] "The president just put a powerful down payment toward the end of the AIDS crisis," said Matthew Kavanagh, director of advocacy for Health GAP, an activist group, in a statement. And the international group Doctors Without Borders hailed Mr. Obama’s financing commitment as "the shot in the arm that the global H.I.V./AIDS response needs right now," and called on Congress "to turn this commitment into reality."
[…]
Syria
4) Russia opposes arms embargo on Syria – Lavrov
RIA Novosti, November 29
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20111129/169138657.html
Moscow – Russia is against imposing an arms embargo on Syria, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on Tuesday.
Speaking at a news conference in Moscow following his meeting with Arab ambassadors to Russia on Monday, Lavrov said lessons should be learnt from the situation in Libya, where an embargo on arms supplies was "only applied to the Libyan army."
"Groups, including those formed from citizens who penetrated to Syria from other states, have been actively supplied with arms," he said. "That is why proposals to introduce a ban on any arms supplies to Syria are quite unfair."
The United States and European Union have already banned arms supplies to Damascus, and the Arab League proposed to follow suit during its meeting on Syria on Sunday. Russia is Syria’s major arms supplier, with contracts worth at least $4 billion as of 2011.
"We know how the arms embargo was applied in Libya," Lavrov said on Tuesday. "The opposition was receiving arms, with such countries as France and Qatar publicly stating that they have supplied those arms."
[…] Lavrov said on Tuesday the Yemeni example should be studied as a way to resolve the Syrian crisis.
"All states, including those who have demanded to take some action against Syria, have taken a totally different approach towards Yemen, where negotiations on a peaceful plan proposed by the Gulf Cooperation Council have lasted for months," he said.
As a result of "patience, insistence and equal pressure applied to all participants in the process," the plan has eventually been signed, bringing a "real chance" to stabilize the situation in the country, he said.
[…]
5) Libya’s new rulers offer weapons to Syrian rebels
Ruth Sherlock, Telegraph, 25 Nov 2011, 11:34PM GMT
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/8917265/Libyas-new-rulers-offer-weapons-to-Syrian-rebels.html
Misurata – Syrian rebels held secret talks with Libya’s new authorities on Friday, aiming to secure weapons and money for their insurgency against President Bashar al-Assad’s regime, The Daily Telegraph has learned.
At the meeting, which was held in Istanbul and included Turkish officials, the Syrians requested "assistance" from the Libyan representatives and were offered arms, and potentially volunteers.
"There is something being planned to send weapons and even Libyan fighters to Syria," said a Libyan source, speaking on condition of anonymity. "There is a military intervention on the way. Within a few weeks you will see."
The Telegraph has also learned that preliminary discussions about arms supplies took place when members of the Syrian National Council [SNC] – the country’s main opposition movement – visited Libya earlier this month. "The Libyans are offering money, training and weapons to the Syrian National Council," added Wisam Taris, a human rights campaigner with links to the SNC.
[…] Last month, Libya’s interim government became the first in the world to recognise Syria’s opposition movement as the country’s "legitimate authority".
Large shipments of weapons have not yet been sent, said activists, mainly because of logistical difficulties. But proposals for a "buffer zone" inside Syria, monitored by the Arab League, or the likely emergence of an area inside the country controlled entirely by rebels could solve this problem.
"The [Libyan] council’s offer is serious," said Mr Taris. Turkey, which has denounced President Assad’s regime, is already sheltering about 7,000 Syrian opposition activists, including the leader of the Free Syrian Army, the nascent rebel movement, in a "safe zone" along Turkey’s border with Syria.
Sources in the Libyan town of Misurata suggested that some weapons may already have been sent. Some smugglers were caught selling small arms to Syrian buyers in Misurata, said a man who trafficked guns to Libya’s rebels during the country’s civil war.
Post-conflict Libya is awash with arms, many of them taken from the vast military stores maintained by Col Mummar Gaddafi’s regime. Kalashnikov assault rifles, modern missiles and even tanks found their way into Libya.
Libyans feel closely aligned to the Syrian cause, said Hameda al-Mageri, from the Tripoli Military Council. "Bashar sent Gaddafi weapons when he was fighting us. There are hundreds of people who want to go to fight in Syria, or help in other ways if they can."
But Libyan officials deny the claims. "This is what you hear in the street," said Ramadan Zarmoh, the leader of the Misurata military council. "Officially there is none of this. I would never send any fighters to fight outside the country."
[…]
Iran
6) Senate unanimously approves tough sanctions on Iran Central Bank
AP, December 1, 2011
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/congress/senate-unanimously-approves-tough-sanctions-on-iran-central-bank/2011/12/01/gIQATsYIIO_story.html
Washington – The Senate unanimously approved tough new sanctions on Iran’s Central Bank amid fears of Tehran developing a nuclear weapon.
The 100-0 vote Thursday was for an amendment to the defense bill. Lawmakers had argued that concerns about a nuclear-armed Iran outweighed reservations about driving up oil prices and hurting Americans at the gas pump.
Sens. Bob Menendez of New Jersey and Mark Kirk of Illinois offered the amendment that would target foreign financial institutions that do business with the Central Bank of Iran, barring them from opening or maintaining correspondent operations in the United States. It would apply to foreign central banks only for transactions that involve the sale or purchase of petroleum or petroleum products.
Administration officials cautioned that driving up oil prices could mean more money for Iran.
7) What influences public views on Iran action?
Danny Hayes, Washington Post, 12/02/2011
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/behind-the-numbers/post/what-influences-public-views-on-iran-action/2011/12/01/gIQAqu3aKO_blog.html
[Hayes is an Assistant Professor of Government at American University.]
The issue of American military action against Iran — what we might call, thanks to Arizona Sen. John McCain, the Bomb Iran Debate — has received renewed attention of late.
But largely missing from discussions of the public’s willingness to support such a confrontation is the role that political leaders themselves play in shaping opinion. A study Matt Guardino and I carried out this summer shows that the positions staked out by political elites — both here and abroad — would significantly influence public support for military action against Iran.
During last week’s GOP primary debate on foreign policy, several presidential hopefuls — including former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney and former House speaker Newt Gingrich — entertained the prospect of military action if it appears to be the only way to curtail the Iranian regime’s apparent nuclear ambitions.
[…] While many Americans see Iran as an "enemy," recent polling data shows little public support for an attack. In a CNN/ORC survey conducted days before the Washington debate, just 16 percent of Americans preferred military action over continued economic or diplomatic efforts. An earlier CBS News Poll found similar results.
But these data are limited in gauging public sentiment about military intervention were the president or other political leaders to advocate such a move. Public opinion in foreign affairs is driven not only by Americans’ own general preferences for force or diplomacy, but also by the arguments made by political leaders.
To test this notion with Iran, Guardino and I conducted an experiment in which subjects were divided into groups. Each group read different news articles describing a proposal by GOP congressional leaders for air strikes against suspected Iranian nuclear facilities. In the news stories we used — which were designed to mimic the real thing — we varied the positions taken by different politicians. For instance, in one version, President Obama supported the GOP’s proposal for military action. In another, he opposed it. After reading the story, subjects were asked how supportive they were of a strike against Iran.
Not surprisingly, public support for the GOP-backed military strike was significantly higher when Obama supported the plan than when he opposed it.
[…] As is also true in national survey data, Republicans were more supportive of an attack, regardless of Obama’s position. But they grew less supportive when he opposed action, indicating the influence of the president in military matters, even among the opposition party. Democratic opinion was affected by Obama’s position even more strongly, as shown by the steeper slope of the blue line.
But it’s not just the views of domestic politicians that matter. We also found that opposition from U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon moved public opinion. .
Again, both Republicans and Democrats became less inclined to endorse military action against Iran when the news story reported that Ban expressed reservations about it. Democrats were actually less responsive to Ban’s opposition than their GOP counterparts, most likely because of the counter-balancing influence of Obama’s support for military action.
These findings are consistent with an emerging line of research in political science that suggests foreign voices — officials from overseas governments and representatives of international organizations — can shape Americans’ attitudes toward U.S. foreign policy. Conventional wisdom has held that the views of foreign actors are irrelevant for U.S. opinion. But it now appears that the sources of domestic opinion may sometimes lie across the water’s edge.
When it comes to Iran, the level of public support for military action would depend in large part on the policy positions of congressional leaders, the president, and even international elites.
Pakistan
8) Mending U.S.-Pakistani Ties Isn’t A Given This Time
The rage coursing through Pakistan over the airstrike along the Afghan border that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers has a last-straw feel that suggests permanent damage to an already scarred relationship.
Alex Rodriguez, Los Angeles Times, December 2, 2011
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-us-pakistan-airstrike-20111202,0,3015847.story
Islamabad, Pakistan – Pakistan and the United States have been here before: a crisis followed by saber rattling, recriminations – and moves behind the scenes to patch things up.
This time feels different.
The rage coursing through Pakistani society over the Nov. 26 airstrike that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers suggests there may be permanent damage to a relationship already scarred this year by the killing of two Pakistani men by a CIA contractor, and by the U.S. commando raid that killed Osama bin Laden.
Public pressure to disengage from the U.S. is higher than ever, and it comes at a time when Washington needs Pakistani help to disengage from Afghanistan. Fiercely anti-American voices such as former cricket star Imran Khan are finding ways to channel the anger seething on the streets.
Khan has been a fringe player in Pakistani politics, but his popularity has skyrocketed amid widespread frustration with President Asif Ali Zardari, who has been unable to rein in corruption and get the economy moving.
The day after the airstrike, Khan told thousands of people at a rally in the southern city of Ghotki that Pakistan was paying too high a price for its involvement with the United States.
"I am telling this government that this is the time to withdraw from this American war," Khan told the crowd. "We don’t even know what we are achieving through this war, and neither do the Americans. They are wandering in the dark, and their slaves here in Pakistan are following their orders."
Khan and other opposition leaders are tapping anti-American sentiments at a sensitive moment. The government has been further tainted by recent charges that the civilian leadership sought Washington’s help in forestalling a possible military coup after the Bin Laden killing.
Zardari’s pro-U.S. government has been forced to take a harder line against Washington.
"Khan is speaking the language of the streets," said Ikram Sehgal, a Karachi-based security analyst. "If you’re a politician and you’re disconnected with the streets, you’re in trouble. Any politician who speaks against what the prevailing sentiment is in the country today is done for."
[…] Brigadiers, colonels and other high-ranking officers are putting pressure on the military’s powerful leader, Gen. Ashfaq Kayani, to radically reduce cooperation with the U.S. in counter-terrorism and in Afghanistan, experts say.
That pressure was intense in the weeks after the Bin Laden raid, and the airstrike last weekend rekindled it.
"Kayani has to command his troops at a time when there is a lot of anguish among the soldiers and the public about relations with the U.S., and a lot of questions about what are we fighting for, and what are we sacrificing lives for," said security analyst Talat Masood, a retired Pakistani lieutenant general.
"This creates a huge challenge for Kayani and the military leadership," Masood said. "That’s why they’re trying to steer the whole event in such a way that it pacifies the troops as well as the public."
[…] In previous crises, Pakistan’s willingness to find common ground with Washington has been influenced by the flow of U.S. aid, which opposition leaders are now urging the government to jettison. Many Pakistanis think China could fill the void.
"If the U.S. refuses to give aid, this would be God’s greatest blessing: to free Pakistan from the curse of aid," Khan told the crowd in Ghotki.
[…]
Colombia
9) Unionists representing Pacific Rubiales workers report paramilitary death threats
Toni Peters, Colombia Reports, Thursday, 01 December 2011 18:11
http://colombiareports.com/colombia-news/news/20841-oil-unionists-report-paramilitary-death-threats.html
The president of Colombian oil union USO, which has been striking over pay and conditions at Canadian-owned oil company Pacific Rubiales, said members have received death threats from paramilitaries.
In an exclusive interview with Colombia Reports Thursday, the president of the oil workers union said union leaders had received verbal, email and pamphlet threats of death, torture, and kidnap, for their "activities" protesting conditions at Pacific Rubiales, Colombia’s largest privately-owned oil company.
Rodolfo Vecino said four unidentified persons who claimed to be from the AUC, a now-defunct paramilitary group, told leaders of the union in Bogota that he now had a "sentence" and could be kidnapped at any moment.
The union leader explained, "They said that this was for our activities in Pacific Rubiales, and that we are an obstacle.
"They had declared us a military target for what we are doing, and they are going to kill us. Our families have been threatened.
"They are carrying out an anti-USO campaign in the towns of Barranca de Upia and Puerto Gaitan.
"Without doubt, they are making the fundamental rights and the expressions of trade unionist freedoms more vulnerable."
Vecino said that these threats have been reported to the Prosecutor General’s Office in Bogota and other state organizations.
Pacific Rubiales told Colombia Reports that it was not aware of the events, and condemned threats of all kinds.
Jorge Rodriguez, the company’s head of corporate affairs, said "We are very sorry for the USO union. We reject any type of threat, any type of intimidation, not only to trade unionists but to anyone in the country."
[…] The United Steelworkers Union (USW), a union in the U.S. with links to USO, has sent an open letter to three high-ranking United States government officials alerting them to the threats.
USW international president Leo W. Gerard wrote, "We just received the following alert from the USO union in Colombia: ‘The USO has been informed of the decision taken by paramilitaries operating in the area of Pacific Rubiales oil exploitation to take out the USO union there and to kill the leaders of the USO in the area.’"
Haiti
10) Blacklisted contractor continues receiving government money through Haiti contracts
Jake Johnston, The Hill, 12/02/11 10:47 AM ET
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/196851-blacklisted-contractor-continues-receiving-government-money-through-haiti-contracts
Following the devastating earthquake in Haiti on January 12, 2010, the U.S. launched an unprecedented relief effort, eventually totaling over one billion dollars. But the lead agency in the immediate aftermath was not the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), as is typically the case when our nation provides humanitarian assistance, but the military. Just after the earthquake, the U.S. had over 20,000 troops in Haiti. Of the $1.1 billion in humanitarian funding from the U.S. in 2010, nearly half was channeled to the Department of Defense.
As has been the case in Iraq and Afghanistan, relief efforts have relied heavily on contractors, a number of which have a history of waste, fraud and abuse. An analysis of federal contracts has revealed that Kuwait-based Agility Logistics (formerly PWC Logistics) — currently under indictment for overcharging the U.S. military by up to $1 billion — has benefited from over $16 million in funding awarded in the aftermath of the earthquake.
With so much on the line, the U.S government, across the board, must step up its oversight of contractors to ensure taxpayer dollars are not wasted on companies with poor track records.
Agility has been barred from receiving government contracts since November 2009, when a federal grand jury indicted the company for overcharging the U.S. military on $8 billion in contracts to supply food for troops in Iraq, Kuwait and Jordan. Agility was accused of "intentionally failing to purchase less expensive food items, knowingly manipulating and inflating prices, and receiving product rebates and discounts that it did not pass on to the government as required." The prospect of additional charges still exists.
In November 2009 Agility was added to the U.S.’s Excluded Party List System (EPLS), which prevents them from procuring contracts from any government agency. The EPLS designation has been extended to over 125 related organizations as the investigation has continued; all of them have been indefinitely barred.
Despite the blacklist designation Agility was able to secure government funding for work in Haiti through a joint venture. An analysis of the Federal Procurement Data System shows that Contingency Response Services LLC (CRS) has received over $16 million in government funding from the Department of the Navy since the earthquake. The particularly bland sounding Contingency Response Services consists of three defense contractor giants — Dyncorp, Parsons and Agility Logistics (then PWC logistics).
[…]
–
Just Foreign Policy is a membership organization devoted to reforming US foreign policy so it reflects the values and interests of the majority of Americans. The archive of the Just Foreign Policy News is here:
https://www.justforeignpolicy.org/blog/dailynews