Just Foreign Policy News
January 10, 2011
Help Support Our Advocacy for Peace and Diplomacy
The neocons never sleep. Help us be an effective counterweight.
https://www.justforeignpolicy.org/donate
Is Palin’s "Crosshairs" Map Relevant? Giffords Thought So
Was Sarah Palin’s "crosshairs" target map relevant to press coverage of the terrorist attack in Arizona? In their initial press coverage, the New York Times and the Washington Post diverged. According to the New York Times, it was relevant. According to the Washington Post, it wasn’t relevant. Rep. Giffords certainly thought Palin’s map was relevant to the threat of violence, as the video clip from her March 2010 interview with MSNBC shows.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/is-palins-crosshairs-map_b_806277.html
Protests At Fort Campbell Over Deployment Of Wounded Soldier
Civilian-Soldier Alliance organizers and members of Iraq Veterans Against the War are supporting Jeff Hanks, a soldier who is fighting his redeployment orders to Afghanistan.
http://civsol.org/content/protests-at-fort-campbell-over-deployment-of-wound
US Boat to Gaza: applications available
The period to apply will close on January 15.
http://ustogaza.org/
Summary:
U.S./Top News
1) On November 28, nearly three quarters of Haitians did not vote in the presidential and parliamentary elections, writes Just Foreign Policy President Mark Weisbrot in the Guardian. But according to an AP report, the OAS has decided that the election should go to a run-off between Mirlande Manigat and Michel Martelly. The OAS is proposing a runoff between presidential candidates who received about 6% and 4%, respectively, of the electorate’s votes in the first round. One reason that most Haitians did not vote is that the most popular political party in the country, Fanmi Lavalas, was arbitrarily excluded from the ballot. Washington and its allies are pushing these illegitimate elections for the same reason that they overthrew President Aristide; these people want to determine who rules Haiti, without allowing the majority of Haitians themselves to decide.
2) The Obama administration is holding the door open to having combat troops in Afghanistan beyond 2014, undercutting a promise made by Vice President Biden, reports Amanda Terkel in the Huffington Post. A senior administration official told reporters aboard Air Force Two that the "goal" is still to have Afghan forces take the lead for security by 2014, but refused to state that U.S. combat troops will be out of the country by that time.
3) A massive effort by U.S. and NATO forces has failed to dent Taliban numerical strength over the past year, AP reports. The Taliban are reported to be enjoying growing support among the population, which is exhausted by nine years of war and increasingly opposed to the foreign troop presence in their country, AP says. "Many people now perceive ISAF as an occupying force," said Anne Jones, a humanitarian activist and author who has lived in Afghanistan. "(They) are no longer part of the solution, they have become the problem."
4) The Obama administration has decided to offer Pakistan more military, intelligence and economic support, the Washington Post reports. President Obama and his top national security aides rejected proposals to allow U.S. ground forces to conduct targeted raids against insurgent safe havens as likely to cause more harm than good, officials said. The administration also plans to "redouble our efforts to look for political approaches" to ending the war, including a recognition that Pakistan "must play an important role" if not a dominant one, in reconciliation talks with the Taliban, a US official said.
5) Reagan administration budget director David Stockman says "the time has arrived for a classic post-war demobilization of the entire military establishment," Raw Story reports. "The wars of occupation are almost over and were complete failures – Afghanistan and Iraq. The American empire is done. There are no real seriously armed enemies left in the world that can possibly justify an $800 billion national defense and security establishment, including Homeland Security."
6) The news that federal prosecutors have demanded that Twitter provide the account details of people connected to the WikiLeaks case is noteworthy because it became public, writes Noam Cohen in the New York Times. Nicholas Merrill, who was the first person to file a constitutional challenge against the use of national security letters, praised Twitter’s policy of challenging the secrecy of government requests for information and seeking to notify users about government requests for their information. Former Senator Feingold said it was long past time for Congress "to rein in the use of national security letters."
7) Defense Secretary Gates’ proposals for cuts to nonwar military spending are not enough, argues the New York Times in an editorial. The Pentagon budget has more fat than any other area of federal spending, the Times says. Obama must recognize that shielding that fat means savaging vital domestic programs to make up the difference.
8) The conditions under which Bradley Manning is being held at Quantico are inhumane and so harsh as to suggest he is being punished for conduct of which he hasn’t been convicted, writes the Los Angeles Times in an editorial. Some speculate that by treating Manning harshly, officials hope to induce him to implicate Julian Assange. But a desire to secure his cooperation isn’t a justification for protracted imprisonment under the conditions imposed on Manning. Regardless of one’s view of his alleged conduct, the conditions under which Manning is being held are indefensible, the LAT says.
Tunisia
9) Tunisia temporarily shut down all of its high schools and universities as it tried to stop riots over joblessness and poor prospects for youths, AP reports. Last week, State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said Tunisians should enjoy the right to protest publicly and expressed worries about a crackdown on social media in Tunisia.
Israel/Palestine
10) Physicians for Human Rights – Israel has demanded a criminal investigation of the death of a Palestinian suffering from liver disease in Gaza who was denied permission to travel to East Jerusalem for lifesaving medical treatment. On December 13 the family requested a permit to travel. On December 26, the army demanded the patient appear for interrogation, but by then he was in a coma.
11) Chile joined other South American nations to recognize Palestine as a "full, free and sovereign" state, Al Jazeera reports. Brazil, Argentina, Bolivia and Ecuador last month recognized Palestine within its borders prior to 1967, and Uruguay and Paraguay are expected to join them in the coming weeks. Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua and Costa Rica also recognize the Palestinian state.
Egypt
12) Thousands of Egyptian Muslims showed up at Coptic Christmas eve mass services in churches around the country and at candle light vigils held outside, honoring a pledge to act as "human shields" to protect Christian worship, Ahram reports from Cairo.
Contents:
U.S./Top News
1) OAS Backs Illegitimate Election in Haiti in Which Three-Quarters of Haitians Didn’t Vote
The OAS’s attempt to rehabilitate a fatally flawed process would be laughable if it were not a tragic injustice for Haitians
Mark Weisbrot, Guardian, Monday 10 January 2011 19.21 GMT
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/jan/10/haiti-oas-election-runoff
[CEPR’s report: Haiti’s Fatally Flawed Election
http://www.cepr.net/index.php/publications/reports/haitis-fatally-flawed-election]
What is it about Haiti that makes the "international community" think they have the right to decide the country’s fate without the consent of the governed? Yes, Haiti is a poor country, but Haitians have fought very hard, and lost many lives, for the right to vote and elect a government.
Yet, on 28 November, nearly three quarters of Haitians did not vote in the presidential and parliamentary elections. That is what we at the CEPR found when we went through 11,181 tally sheets from the election. This is a ridiculously low turnout for a presidential election.
Now, according to an AP report, the Organisation of American States has decided that the election should go to a runoff, finding that the top two finishers were former first lady Mirlande Manigat and the popular singer Michel Martelly. The OAS is proposing a runoff between presidential candidates who received about 6% and 4%, respectively, of the electorate’s votes in the first round.
One reason that most Haitians did not vote is that the most popular political party in the country, Fanmi Lavalas, was arbitrarily excluded from the ballot. This was also done in April 2009, in parliamentary elections, and more than 90% of voters did not vote. By contrast, in the 2006 presidential elections, participation was 59.3%. And it has been higher in the past, even for the parliamentary (non-presidential) election in 2000.
Haitians have taken great risks to vote when there was political violence, and have been pragmatic about voting even when their first choice was not on the ballot (as in 1996 and 2006). But the majority won’t vote when they are denied their right to choose. This is the big story of the election that most of the major media have missed entirely.
Our recount of the vote also showed that even among the votes cast, there was a sizable proportion of votes – about 12.7% – that were never received by the Provisional Electoral Council (CEP) or were quarantined by it. This quantity is much higher than was previously reported by either the CEP or the OAS.
A statistical analysis of the vote totals found that some 8.4% of tally sheets had vote totals that were irregular (that is, with irregularities that could be expected to occur by chance less that one in a hundred times). Another 5.4% of tally sheets had obvious clerical errors – for example, total votes cast exceeding the number of registered voters at a voting booth. We did not include these errors among the irregular vote totals, because they did not necessarily affect the outcome. But the high percentage of clerical errors on the tally sheets further undermines confidence in the overall results.
Our analysis confirmed what many observers saw on the ground, including ballot box stuffing, fraud and people unable to vote because they did not appear in the registry. People in the areas hardest hit by the earthquake had much lower participation rates.
This election was the first round of an election that was supposed to proceed to a runoff election, which has now been postponed until February. The top three finishers were Manigat, Martelly and the government’s candidate, Jude Celestin. But since second and third place were separated by just 0.6 percentage points, there is no way – given the massive irregularities – to tell which two candidates would proceed to the second round.
Clearly, an election that was so severely flawed and plagued by irregularities cannot be considered legitimate. But even less excusable is the exclusion of the country’s most popular political party – the equivalent of banning the Democrats or Republicans in the United States. This "exclusion will undermine both Haitians’ right to vote and the resulting government’s ability to govern," wrote 45 Democratic members of Congress to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on 7 October 2010. They asked her not to provide "funding for elections that do not meet these minimum, basic democratic requirements". These pleas were ignored.
Haiti’s first and last democratically elected president, Jean Bertrand Aristide, was overthrown (for the second time) in a coup that Washington helped to bring about in 2004. According to his account, he was kidnapped and put on a US plane to Africa, where he remains in exile, in violation of the Haitian constitution and international law.
Three weeks ago, Ricardo Seitenfus, the OAS’s special representative to Haiti, was removed from his post for publicly criticising the role of the UN mission and the international community in Haiti. Last week, he revealed something even more damning:
"At the meeting of Core Group (donor countries, UN and OAS), something that seemed just creepy [was discussed]. Some representatives suggested that President Rene Preval should leave the country and we should think of an airplane for that. I heard it and was appalled."
Washington and its allies, including the people who are currently making decisions about Haiti at the OAS, are pushing these illegitimate elections for the same reason that they overthrew Aristide, and will not let him back into his own country – in violation of the Haitian constitution and international law. These people want to determine who rules Haiti, without allowing the majority of Haitians themselves to decide. There will be resistance to this, as to the dictatorships and foreign occupations of the past. We can only hope that it does not result in similar levels of violence.
2) Undercutting Biden, Administration Official Won’t Say If Combat Troops Will Be Out Of Afghanistan By 2014
Amanda Terkel, Huffington Post, 01-10-11 04:38PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/10/biden-official-troops-afghanistan-2014_n_806927.html
Washington – The Obama administration is holding the door open to having combat troops in Afghanistan beyond 2014, undercutting a promise made by the Vice President.
Joe Biden made a surprise visit to Afghanistan on Monday to meet with President Hamid Karzai. He also met with Gen. David Petraeus, commander of U.S. and NATO forces in the conflict, and plans to visit U.S. troops and an Afghan Army training center.
En route to Kabul, a senior administration official told reporters aboard Air Force Two that the "goal" is still to have Afghan forces take the lead for security by 2014, but they refused to state that U.S. combat troops will be out of the country by that time:
Q: But 2014 is our goal to have all combat forces withdrawn?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: 2014 is our goal, I think, as the President said, to have Afghans in the lead throughout the country in Afghanistan. The Afghans will be taking lead responsibility in every district and province of Afghanistan. That’s the goal.
Q: But we might – we may have combat forces in Afghanistan in 2014?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I’m not going to speculate on what we may or may not have in 2014 or beyond. What we do know and what’s agreed is that the Afghans will be in the lead throughout the country.
The comments seem at odds with what Biden has said. In a December interview with "Meet the Press," Biden said of U.S. withdrawal in Afghanistan, "We’re starting it in July 2011, and we’re going to be totally out of there, come hell or high water, by 2014."
Later in the briefing, a reporter followed up and pointed out that the agreement at Lisbon between Afghanistan, NATO, and the United States was that "the U.S. would pull out all its combat forces by 2014." They also pointed to Biden’s comments.
"Right, but as I understand the agreement, where things stand is that there is an agreement that by 2014 Afghans will assume lead responsibility for security throughout the country in every district, in every province, et cetera," responded the senior administration official. "What ongoing role, if any, there will be for U.S. forces, for international security forces is to be determined."
[…]
3) Taliban strength unaffected by allied surge
Slobodan Lekic, Associated Press, Thursday, January 6, 2011; 11:55 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/06/AR2011010602522.html
Brussels – A massive effort by U.S. and NATO forces – including offensives in the insurgent heartland and targeted assassinations of rebel leaders – has failed to dent Taliban numerical strength over the past year, according to military and diplomatic officials.
A NATO official said this week that the alliance estimates current number of insurgent fighters at up to 25,000, confirming figures provided earlier by several military officers and diplomats.
That number is the same as a year ago, before the arrival of an additional 40,000 U.S. and allied troops, and before the alliance launched a massive campaign to restore government control in Helmand province and around the city of Kandahar, in southern Afghanistan.
The U.S.-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) has kept official figures of enemy strength under wraps throughout the nine-year war. But non-U.S. military assessments have tracked the growth of the Taliban from about 500 armed fighters in 1993 to 25,000 in early 2010. "These are rough estimates, because they’re not just standing around to be counted," said the NATO official who could not be named in line with standing regulations.
[…] But other analysts caution that the gains could be reversed because the Taliban have not been defeated, but have simply retreated in the face of superior forces. Employing classic guerrilla tactics they melted away into other areas, spreading the rebellion into new parts of the country.
Jovo Kapicic, a retired Montenegrin general who fought in the first modern guerrilla war – in occupied Yugoslavia during World War II – said it was never a problem for insurgents to make up losses in manpower despite massive losses. "Guerrillas who enjoy the support of the population can always bounce back," he added.
The Taliban are reported to be enjoying growing support among the population, which is exhausted by nine years of war and increasingly opposed to the foreign troop presence in their country. "Many people now perceive ISAF as an occupying force," said Anne Jones, a humanitarian activist and author who has lived in Afghanistan. "(They) are no longer part of the solution, they have become the problem."
[…]
4) U.S. to offer more support to Pakistan
Karen DeYoung, Washington Post, Saturday, January 8, 2011; 12:00 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/07/AR2011010706494.html
The Obama administration has decided to offer Pakistan more military, intelligence and economic support, and to intensify U.S. efforts to forge a regional peace, despite ongoing frustration that Pakistani officials are not doing enough to combat terrorist groups in the country’s tribal areas, officials said.
The decision to double down on Pakistan represents the administration’s attempt to call the bluff of Pakistani officials who have long complained that the United States has failed to understand their security priorities or provide adequate support.
That message will be delivered by Vice President Biden, who plans to travel to Pakistan next week for meetings with military chief Gen. Ashfaq Kayani and top government leaders. Biden will challenge the Pakistanis to articulate their long-term strategy for the region and indicate exactly what assistance is needed for them to move against Taliban sanctuaries in areas bordering Afghanistan.
The strategy, determined in last month’s White House Afghanistan war review, amounts to an intensifying of existing efforts to overcome widespread suspicion and anti-American sentiment in Pakistan, and build trust and stability.
President Obama and his top national security aides rejected proposals, made by some military commanders and intelligence officials who have lost patience with Pakistan, to allow U.S. ground forces to conduct targeted raids against insurgent safe havens, officials said. They concluded that the United States can ill afford to threaten or further alienate a precarious, nuclear-armed country whose cooperation is essential to the administration on several fronts.
The conclusions were referred to in a publicly released, five-page summary of the review as unspecified policy "adjustments." Several administration officials said that the classified review identified areas where stronger effort was needed rather than specific new programs.
The review resolved to "look hard" at what more could be done to improve economic stability, particularly on tax policy and Pakistan’s relations with international financial institutions.
[…].
The Pakistanis "understand that Afghanistan-Pakistan has become the single most important foreign policy issue to the United States, and their cachet has gone up." But they also realize that they may have reached the point of maximum leverage, this official said, "and things about their region are going to change one way or the other" in the near future, as Congress and the American public grow increasingly disillusioned with the war and a timeline for military withdrawal is set. "Something is going to give," he said. "There is going to be an end-game scenario and they’re trying to guess where we’re heading."
[…] The administration also plans "redouble our efforts to look for political approaches" to ending the war, including a recognition that Pakistan "must play an important role" if not a dominant one, in reconciliation talks with the Taliban, he said.
[…] U.S. military commanders have pushed numerous times over the past 18 months for more latitude to allow Special Operations troops to carry out missions across the Pakistan border, officials said. The CIA has similarly sought to expand the territory inside Pakistan it can patrol with armed drones, prodding Pakistan repeatedly for permission to fly drones over Quetta, a city in Baluchistan where the Taliban’s political leaders are thought to be based.
The senior administration official, who called the proposals "ideas, not even operational concepts much less plans," said they have were rejected by the White House in the most recent review, as they have repeatedly been in the past, as likely to cause more harm than good.
[…]
5) America has ‘reached the point of no return,’ Reagan budget director warns
Nathan Diebenow, Raw Story, Monday, January 10th, 2011 – 8:53 am
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/01/america-has-reached-the-point-of-no-return-reagan-budget-director-warns/
The Obama administration’s $78 billion cut to US defense spending is a mere "pin-prick" to a behemoth military-industrial complex that must drastically shrink for the good of the republic, a former Reagan administration budget director recently told Raw Story.
"It amounts to a failed opportunity to recognize that we are now at a historical inflection point at which the time has arrived for a classic post-war demobilization of the entire military establishment," David Stockman said in an exclusive interview.
"The Cold War is long over," he continued. "The wars of occupation are almost over and were complete failures – Afghanistan and Iraq. The American empire is done. There are no real seriously armed enemies left in the world that can possibly justify an $800 billion national defense and security establishment, including Homeland Security."
[…]
6) Twitter Shines a Spotlight on Secret F.B.I. Subpoenas
Noam Cohen, New York Times, January 9, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/10/business/media/10link.html
The news that federal prosecutors have demanded that the microblogging site Twitter provide the account details of people connected to the WikiLeaks case, including its founder, Julian Assange, isn’t noteworthy because the government’s request was unusual or intrusive. It is noteworthy because it became public.
Even as Web sites, social networking services and telephone companies amass more and more information about their users, the government – in the course of conducting inquiries – has been able to look through much of the information without the knowledge of the people being investigated.
For the Twitter request, the government obtained a secret subpoena from a federal court. Twitter challenged the secrecy, not the subpoena itself, and won the right to inform the people whose records the government was seeking. WikiLeaks says it suspects that other large sites like Google and Facebook have received similar requests and simply went along with the government.
This kind of order is far more common than one may think, and in the case of terrorism and espionage investigations the government can issue them without a court order. The government says more than 50,000 of these requests, known as national security letters, are sent each year, but they come with gag orders that prevent those contacted from revealing what the agency has been seeking or even the existence of the gag orders.
"It’s a perfect example of how the government can use its broad powers to silence people," said Nicholas Merrill, who was the first person to file a constitutional challenge against the use of national security letters, authorized by the USA Patriot Act. Until August, he was forbidden to acknowledge the existence of a 2004 letter that the company he founded, the Calyx Internet Access Corporation, received from the F.B.I.
[…] One critic of the law, former Senator Russ Feingold, said in a statement that it was long past time for Congress "to rein in the use of national security letters."
"This is not a partisan issue," Mr. Feingold said, "it is about the legislative branch providing an adequate check on the executive branch. Republicans advocating limited government should take a close look at these statutes and consider supporting changes."
Mr. Merrill argues that the blanket gag orders have prevented a full public debate on the subject. He himself largely left the I.S.P. business in 2004, independent of his legal case, and only now has returned to hosting a couple of clients as part of a nonprofit project, the Calyx Institute, which aims to study how to protect consumers’ privacy.
Regarding the news about Twitter, he wrote in an e-mail: "I commend Twitter’s policy of notifying their customers of government requests for their private data and for their challenging and subsequently removing the gag order. This is a great example of the government’s misuse of secrecy provisions and of exemplary privacy ethics on behalf of Twitter."
[…]
7) Digging Deeper At The Pentagon
Editorial, New York Times, January 8, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/09/opinion/09sun2.html
Handing the Pentagon blank checks backed with borrowed money never impressed us as wise. So we applaud Defense Secretary Robert Gates for making clear last week that those profligate days are over. The $78 billion, five-year reduction in projected spending plans he proposed is the biggest dose of austerity to hit the Pentagon since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
It is especially striking that Mr. Gates is ready to cut, since far less responsible Republicans on Capitol Hill are putting the defense budget off limits for political reasons. But in overall budget terms, it is not big enough.
Mr. Gates has managed to contain further real growth in his baseline budget by eliminating costly and unworkable weapons like the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, cutting future troop strength for the Army and the Marines, increasing health insurance payments for working-age military retirees, and squeezing out bloat and inefficiency across the board. (This does not include combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, which are funded separately.)
That will still leave next year’s nonwar military spending at $553 billion, higher in real terms than at the cold war’s peak. And, under Mr. Gates’s plan, it will inch upward for two more years after that before flattening out in fiscal 2015.
Even that slowed rate of increase, which depends on uncertain Congressional approval, is fiscally unsustainable. Military spending consumes more than 50 cents of every dollar of federal government discretionary spending. And the Pentagon spends those dollars with more waste and less economic bang for the buck than other federal departments.
President Obama exempted the Pentagon from his announced freeze on most other discretionary spending. His bipartisan budget committee rightly called for ending that exemption. The Pentagon budget has more fat than any other area of federal spending. Mr. Obama must recognize that shielding that fat means savaging vital domestic programs to make up the difference.
[…]
8) Soldier’s inhumane imprisonment
For five months, Pfc. Bradley Manning is confined to his cell for 23 hours a day, with no sheets and without exercise, while he awaits trial on charges of providing documents to WikiLeaks.
Editorial, Los Angeles Times, January 10, 2011
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-manning-20110110,0,3558552.story
Pfc. Bradley Manning, the 23-year-old Army intelligence analyst suspected of providing documents to WikiLeaks, can’t reasonably complain that the military has him in custody. But the conditions under which he is being held at the Marine detention center at Quantico, Va., are so harsh as to suggest he is being punished for conduct of which he hasn’t been convicted.
Manning has been charged with unlawfully downloading classified information and transmitting it "with reason to believe that the information could cause injury to the United States." He has been incarcerated at Quantico for five months and has yet to receive the military equivalent of a preliminary hearing.
Nevertheless, Manning is in "maximum custody." Also, under a "Protection of Injury" order, he is confined to his cell for 23 hours a day, even though his lawyer says a psychologist has determined he isn’t a threat to himself. His lawyer also says that Manning is denied sheets and is unable to exercise in his cell, and that he is not allowed to sleep between 5 a.m. and 8 p.m. If he attempts to sleep during those hours, he is made to sit up or stand by his guards.
Some speculate that by treating Manning harshly, officials hope to induce him to implicate WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange (though Assange would be subject to civilian, not military, justice). But a desire to secure his cooperation isn’t a justification for protracted imprisonment under the conditions imposed on Manning.
[…] Manning’s status is periodically reviewed. Ideally, the next review will confirm what seems obvious: that he doesn’t pose a threat to himself or others and that his presence at future legal proceedings can be secured with a much more humane confinement. If the review doesn’t lead to a change in Manning’s treatment, the Pentagon should conduct its own inquiry.
Some see Manning as a whistle-blower who deserves leniency for exposing official duplicity; others believe that, like anyone who engages in civil disobedience, Manning, if guilty, should accept punishment for his actions. But regardless of one’s view of his alleged conduct, the conditions under which he is being held are indefensible.
Tunisia
9) Tunisia shuts down schools amid unrest
Bouazza ben Bouazza, Associated Press, Monday, January 10, 2011; 3:09 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/10/AR2011011001264.html
Tunis, Tunisia – Tunisia on Monday temporarily shut down all of its high schools and universities as it tried to stop deadly riots over joblessness and poor prospects for youths. At least 14 people were killed in unrest this weekend.
Tunisia’s president went on national television and announced a plan to create 300,000 jobs over two years in the North African nation. President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali also blamed rioters for what he called "terrorist acts."
Demonstrators have attacked public buildings and set cars on fire during more than three weeks of unrest, while police have opened fire on rioters several times. Washington has expressed concerns over Tunisia’s handling of the situation, and its ambassador was summoned Monday to the Foreign Ministry.
Tunisia’s Interior Ministry said 14 people died in unrest this weekend. An opposition figure, however, said that 25 people died from police bullets. The unrest in the popular tourist destination on the Mediterranean has embarrassed the government, which tolerates little public dissent.
[…] Last week, U.S. State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley urged all sides in Tunisia to show restraint. He said Tunisians should enjoy the right to protest publicly and expressed worries about a crackdown on social media in Tunisia. He also said the U.S. summoned the country’s ambassador to express its opinions.
In return, Tunisian Foreign Ministry official Saida Chtioui told Washington’s ambassador to Tunis, Gordon Gray, of authorities’ "surprise" at the U.S. reaction, TAP said.
[…] In neighboring Algeria, meanwhile, three people died over four days of rioting, the Interior Ministry there said this weekend. Algerian youths took to streets to protest rising prices of staples like sugar and cooking oil. The Algerian government announced Saturday it was slashing taxes on those products by 41 percent.
Israel/Palestine
10) Human Rights Organizations Demand Criminal Investigation into Death of 20 Year-Old Palestinian Patient Denied Permit by Israeli Authorities to Leave Gaza
The Israeli authorities insisted that an unconscious patient appear for questioning by the Israel Security Agency; the patient died in Gaza while waiting for a response
Physicians for Human Rights – Israel, 6.1.2011
http://www.phr.org.il/default.asp?PageID=190&ItemID=993
On 5 January 2011, Adalah in its own name and on behalf of Physicians for Human Rights – Israel and Al Mezan Center for Human Rights (Gaza) submitted a complaint to the Attorney General of Israel, Yehuda Weinstein and to the Israeli Military Advocate General, Avichai Mendelblit, demanding the opening of a criminal investigation and prosecution of those responsible into the suspicious death of Mr. Anas Saleh, a 20-year old Gaza resident, who died on 1 January 2011 from a liver disease in Shifa Hospital in Gaza. Although the patient was in a critical medical condition, which was known to the Israeli authorities, Israel prevented his exit from Gaza for lifesaving medical treatment. Adalah Attorney Fatmeh El-Ajou filed the complaint on behalf of the victim whose case was followed and documented by PHR-I and Al Mezan.
The human rights organizations argue in the complaint that the denial of an exit permit in these circumstances is an act against the legal obligation to provide medical treatment to save the life of the patient, an act which brought about, or at least hastened, the death of the deceased. The aforementioned act, or failure, raises the suspicion of manslaughter (section 298 of the penal law, 1977), and/or causing death by negligence (sections 304 and 309 (4) of the penal law, 1977) and responsibility for helpless person and violation of obligation of perant or of responsible person (sections 322 and 337 of the penal law).
In September 2010, Anas Saleh was diagnosed with a liver disease, Budd Chiari Syndrome (a clinical syndrome resulting from obstruction of the veins in the liver). Due to a lack of appropriate medical treatment in the Gaza Strip health system, his condition deteriorated into acute liver failure and hepatitis.
The patient was referred for lifesaving medical treatment to Muqassed Hospital in East Jerusalem, and a hospital referral and appointment were in his possession for 26 December 2010. On 13 December 2010 the family presented a request, via the Palestinian Liaison Office, to the Israeli authorities in order to obtain an exit permit from Gaza.
Thirteen days later, on 26 December 2010, the patient’s hospital appointment date, the army informed the Palestinian Liaison Office that the patient must appear for interrogation by the Israel Security Agency (ISA or Shabak) on 30 December 2010 to further consider his request. However, on that date the patient was already unconscious, in a comatose state, and could not appear at the interrogation. This information was forwarded, according to the Palestinian health coordinator, to the Israeli military on that same day, with a request to speed up the request procedure and to issue an exit permit from Gaza urgently.
Paradoxically, despite the ISA continued to insist that the patient appear for questioning. According to the father’s testimony, on 28 December 2010 he received a telephone call from a man who introduced himself as an ISA representative, and requested that his ill son present himself for questioning on the following day. The father informed him that his son was in a coma and asked that he be allowed to leave for medical treatment without delay.
Throughout this process, medical documents substantiating the patient’s medical condition were transmitted to the Israeli authorities. A final medical document confirming the patient’s critical condition was sent on 29 December 2010.
The patient died in Shifa Hospital in Gaza 1 January 2011 at 18:00 (6 pm). Until today, no response to the request has been issued by the Israeli authorities.
Prof. Zvi Bentwich, PHR-I Chairperson states that: The patients could have been saved had he been granted immediate entry for emergency surgery. This is just one of many examples of Israel’s enduring intransigence towards residents of the Occupied Territories, which leads to unnecessary harm and in this case even led to a loss of life that could have been prevented.
[…]
11) Chile recognises Palestinian state
Chile joins other South American nations to recognise Palestine as a "full, free and sovereign" state.
Al Jazeera, 08 Jan 2011 00:26 GMT
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2011/01/201117232287571.html
Chile has become the latest South American country to officially recognise Palestine as an independent state.
"The government of Chile has adopted the resolution today recognising the existence of the state of Palestine as a free, independent and sovereign state," Alfredo Moreno, the foreign minister, said on Friday. "Chile has permanently and consistently supported the right of the Palestinian people to constitute themselves as an independent state, in peaceful coexistence with the state of Israel," Moreno said. Chile’s decision follows a meeting in Brazil between Chilean President Sebastian Pinera and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.
Brazil, Argentina, Bolivia and Ecuador last month recognised Palestine within its borders prior to 1967, and Uruguay and Paraguay are expected to join them in the coming weeks. Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua and Costa Rica also recognise the Palestinian state.
[…]
Egypt
12) Egypt’s Muslims attend Coptic Christmas mass, serving as "human shields"
Muslims turned up in droves for the Coptic Christmas mass Thursday night, offering their bodies, and lives, as "shields" to Egypt’s threatened Christian community
Yasmine El-Rashidi, Ahram, Friday 7 Jan 2011
http://english.ahram.org.eg/News/3365.aspx
Egypt’s majority Muslim population stuck to its word Thursday night. What had been a promise of solidarity to the weary Coptic community, was honoured, when thousands of Muslims showed up at Coptic Christmas eve mass services in churches around the country and at candle light vigils held outside.
From the well-known to the unknown, Muslims had offered their bodies as "human shields" for last night’s mass, making a pledge to collectively fight the threat of Islamic militants and towards an Egypt free from sectarian strife.
"We either live together, or we die together," was the sloganeering genius of Mohamed El-Sawy, a Muslim arts tycoon whose cultural centre distributed flyers at churches in Cairo Thursday night, and who has been credited with first floating the "human shield" idea.
Among those shields were movie stars Adel Imam and Yousra, popular Muslim televangelist and preacher Amr Khaled, the two sons of President Hosni Mubarak, and thousands of citizens who have said they consider the attack one on Egypt as a whole.
"This is not about us and them," said Dalia Mustafa, a student who attended mass at Virgin Mary Church on Maraashly Street. "We are one. This was an attack on Egypt as a whole, and I am standing with the Copts because the only way things will change in this country is if we come together."
In the days following the brutal attack on Saints Church in Alexandria, which left 21 dead on New Year’ eve, solidarity between Muslims and Copts has seen an unprecedented peak. Millions of Egyptians changed their Facebook profile pictures to the image of a cross within a crescent – the symbol of an "Egypt for All". Around the city, banners went up calling for unity, and depicting mosques and churches, crosses and crescents, together as one.
[…]
–
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.