Just Foreign Policy News
October 7, 2011
Support the Work of Just Foreign Policy
Go Straight to the News Summary
I) Actions and Featured Articles
We, the 99%, Demand the End of the Wars Now
The gap between the Pentagon’s plans and the values and interests of the 99% is revealed by a CBS poll. 62% of Americans want US troops out of Afghanistan within two years. But the Pentagon wants to keep US troops in Afghanistan for another 13 years. [Includes video of anti-drone protest in DC this morning.] http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/10/07-11
Call Congress End the Wars and Cut the Military Budget
FCNL has established a toll-free number: 1-877-429-0678. Urge your Rep. and/or Senators to press the Supercommittee to end the wars and cut the military budget. In talking to your Rep., urge support for the Lee-Campbell bipartisan letter to the Super Committee on cutting military spending. You can report the results of your call here:
https://www.justforeignpolicy.org/10thanniversarycall-in
Lee-Campbell Bipartisan Letter to Super Committee on Military Spending:
Urges the Super Committee to consider cuts to military spending; notes that a trillion dollars can be cut from projected spending without harming national security.
https://www.justforeignpolicy.org/node/1031
Harvard Group Publishes White Paper Reviewing Human Rights Abuses by UN Stabilization Mission in Haiti; Calls for MINUSTAH withdrawal
On October 4th, Harvard students as part of a group of Canadian and US human rights advocates, doctors, public health experts, and journalists released a white paper reviewing the record of the UN Stabilization Mission in Haiti (known by its French acronym, MINUSTAH) and recommending the withdrawal of the force from Haiti.
http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=healthroots&pageid=icb.page462433
Jubilee South: UN troops out of Haiti!
Jubilee South has launched a campaign to get UN troops out of Haiti.
http://jubileesouth.blogspot.com/p/haiti-no-minustah.html
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) Hundreds of people marched in Kabul Thursday, demanding the immediate withdrawal of international military forces ahead of the 10th anniversary of the U.S. invasion, AP reports. The demonstrators chanted "no to occupation," and "Americans out" as they marched through the streets holding pictures of Afghans killed in violence, and later burned an American flag. "The United States said it came to help the Afghan people and provide a good life to Afghan people, but their true purpose was to occupy our country," said Farzana, a 22-year-old woman. "It is 10 years since the invasion of Afghanistan and all it has left behind is the blood of the Afghan people. We want the U.S. to leave our country." She added that "suicide attacks, insecurity and corruption are increasing day-by-day."
2) American militants like Anwar al-Awlaki are placed on a kill or capture list by a secretive panel of senior government officials, which then informs the president of its decisions, Reuters reports. There is no public record of the operations or decisions of the panel, which is a subset of the White House’s National Security Council. Neither is there any law establishing its existence or setting out the rules by which it is supposed to operate. Liberals criticized the drone attack on an American citizen as extra-judicial murder; conservatives criticized Obama for refusing to release a Justice Department legal opinion that reportedly justified killing Awlaki.
The Obama administration has not made public an accounting of the classified evidence that Awlaki was operationally involved in planning terrorist attacks; but officials acknowledged that some of the intelligence purporting to show Awlaki’s hands-on role in plotting attacks was patchy, Reuters says.
3) Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney says military spending should be increased instead of cut, the New York Times reports. "Over the last few years we’ve had a defense budget, excluding the cost of warfare, at about 3.8 percent of the economy, about 3.8 percent of the G.D.P.," he said. "I’d like that be a little higher, at about 4 percent."
Afghanistan
4) The anniversary of the U.S. invasion saw the largest attack on U.S. forces in Paktika Province since 2009, the New York Times reports. While U.S. soldiers organized and coordinated their part of the battle, Afghan soldiers did not participate, the Times says. Some simply sat and watched.
5) Dissension over Adm. Mullen’s accusation that the Haqqani network is a "veritable arm" of Pakistan’s ISI and the revelation that a U.S. official met with a Haqqani official provided new evidence of a struggle within the Obama administration over how to deal with the Haqqanis, Gareth Porter writes for Inter Press Service. The debate pits the Pentagon and CIA, who want to put priority on pressuring Pakistan to attack the Haqqani forces, against some in the State Department and the White House who doubt that the military effort can be decisive and support a political approach to the Haqqanis. A December 2010 intelligence assessment concluding there was nothing the US could do to change Pakistan’s stance towards the insurgency and that military efforts would fail in the absence of such change strengthened the hand of those pushing for a political solution, Porter notes.
While the Haqqanis have rejected US overtures to split them from Mullah Omar, the Haqqanis are ready to join broader negotiations whenever Mullah Omar agrees to begin talks, as was confirmed by a Haqqani network source to Reuters Sep. 17, Porter notes.
Iran
6) President Obama should test Iran’s offer to stop all enrichment of uranium beyond the 5 percent level, argues Graham Allison of the Kennedy School in an op-ed in the Washington Post. This would not solve the issue of Iran’s nuclear program, but it would be an improvement from the standpoint of the U.S., because it would push Iran further away from the capacity to develop a nuclear weapon, Allison says.
Bahrain
7) The muted U.S. response to the sentencing this week of doctors, teachers and opposition activists in Bahrain is renewing calls there for the Obama administration to take a stronger line against rights abuses in Bahrain, the Washington Post reports. Ali Alekri, a surgeon sentenced to a 15-year prison term, said he had been convicted only because he had treated injured protesters and because he is a Shiite Muslim. "The international community did nothing," said Alekri. "We expect pressure from the Americans, and we do not know why they did not do that."
Joe Stork, the deputy Middle East and North Africa director at Human Rights Watch, said the administration had been reserved in its criticism since May. "The U.S. government has plenty to say about human rights in Iran, Syria or Libya but rather loses its voice when it comes to Bahrain," he said.
Israel/Palestine
8) Despite strong opposition from the U.S., the Palestinians gained initial approval on Wednesday of a bid for full membership in Unesco, the New York Times reports. The executive board approved a draft resolution for membership by a 40-to-4 vote.
Colombia
9) House Ways and Means Committee members clashed over including a labor action plan into implementation language of the Colombia trade agreement, The Hill reports. 12 of 15 Democrats opposed the pact. "Colombian workers have long been without their basic rights due to a combination of inadequate laws, labor-related violence and impunity," said Rep. Sander Levin, the ranking member. The Obama Administration tried to meet Democratic concerns by promising that the trade agreement would not be implemented until Colombia implements the labor action plan.
Honduras
10) The UN formally launched a probe of abuses of freedom of the press in Honduras that have mounted since the 2009 coup, AFP reports. UN rapporteur Frank de La Rue is leading the investigation of abuses that include 16 murders of journalists just since 2010.
Contents:
U.S./Top News
1) Hundreds of Afghans demonstrate in Kabul, demand withdrawal of foreign troops
Associated Press, October 6
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia-pacific/hundreds-of-afghans-demonstrate-in-kabul-demand-withdrawal-of-foreign-troops/2011/10/06/gIQAiN7KPL_story.html
Kabul, Afghanistan – Hundreds of people marched through the streets of the Afghan capital on Thursday, demanding the immediate withdrawal of international military forces ahead of the 10th anniversary of the U.S. invasion.
The peaceful demonstration in downtown Kabul was meant to mark the Oct. 7 invasion of Afghanistan 10 years ago, following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks against the United States.
[…] The demonstrators chanted "no to occupation," and "Americans out" as they marched through the streets holding pictures of Afghans killed in violence, and later burned an American flag. The demonstration was organized by a small left wing party.
No official events have been announced so far to mark the invasion, neither by the government nor NATO.
"The United States said it came to help the Afghan people and provide a good life to Afghan people, but their true purpose was to occupy our country," said Farzana, a 22-year-old woman who goes by one name. "It is 10 years since the invasion of Afghanistan and all it has left behind is the blood of the Afghan people. We want the U.S. to leave our country."
She added that "suicide attacks, insecurity and corruption are increasing day-by-day."
[…]
2) Secret panel can put Americans on "kill list’
Mark Hosenball, Reuters, Wed, Oct 5 2011
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/05/us-cia-killlist-idUSTRE79475C20111005
Washington – American militants like Anwar al-Awlaki are placed on a kill or capture list by a secretive panel of senior government officials, which then informs the president of its decisions, according to officials.
There is no public record of the operations or decisions of the panel, which is a subset of the White House’s National Security Council, several current and former officials said. Neither is there any law establishing its existence or setting out the rules by which it is supposed to operate.
The panel was behind the decision to add Awlaki, a U.S.-born militant preacher with alleged al Qaeda connections, to the target list. He was killed by a CIA drone strike in Yemen late last month.
The role of the president in ordering or ratifying a decision to target a citizen is fuzzy. White House spokesman Tommy Vietor declined to discuss anything about the process.
[…] The White House is portraying the killing of Awlaki as a demonstration of President Barack Obama’s toughness toward militants who threaten the United States. But the process that led to Awlaki’s killing has drawn fierce criticism from both the political left and right.
In an ironic turn, Obama, who ran for president denouncing predecessor George W. Bush’s expansive use of executive power in his "war on terrorism," is being attacked in some quarters for using similar tactics. They include secret legal justifications and undisclosed intelligence assessments.
Liberals criticized the drone attack on an American citizen as extra-judicial murder.
Conservatives criticized Obama for refusing to release a Justice Department legal opinion that reportedly justified killing Awlaki. They accuse Obama of hypocrisy, noting his administration insisted on publishing Bush-era administration legal memos justifying the use of interrogation techniques many equate with torture, but refused to make public its rationale for killing a citizen without due process.
Some details about how the administration went about targeting Awlaki emerged on Tuesday when the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Representative Dutch Ruppersberger, was asked by reporters about the killing.
The process involves "going through the National Security Council, then it eventually goes to the president, but the National Security Council does the investigation, they have lawyers, they review, they look at the situation, you have input from the military, and also, we make sure that we follow international law," Ruppersberger said.
Other officials said the role of the president in the process was murkier than what Ruppersberger described.
They said targeting recommendations are drawn up by a committee of mid-level National Security Council and agency officials. Their recommendations are then sent to the panel of NSC "principals," meaning Cabinet secretaries and intelligence unit chiefs, for approval. The panel of principals could have different memberships when considering different operational issues, they said.
[…] Several officials said that when Awlaki became the first American put on the target list, Obama was not required personally to approve the targeting of a person. But one official said Obama would be notified of the principals’ decision. If he objected, the decision would be nullified, the official said.
[…] When the name of a foreign, rather than American, militant is added to targeting lists, the decision is made within the intelligence community and normally does not require approval by high-level NSC officials.
[…] The Obama administration has not made public an accounting of the classified evidence that Awlaki was operationally involved in planning terrorist attacks.
But officials acknowledged that some of the intelligence purporting to show Awlaki’s hands-on role in plotting attacks was patchy.
[…]
3) Romney Calls For More Defense Spending
Ashley Parker, New York Times, October 6, 2011, 4:37 PM
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/06/romney-calls-for-more-defense-spending/
Mt. Pleasant, S.C. – Standing among retired airplanes on the U.S.S. Yorktown, a decommissioned World War II aircraft carrier, Mitt Romney told a small group of veterans on Thursday that given the global threats to America’s interests, the nation’s defense spending should be increased instead of cut.
Acknowledging that waste and excess spending exist within the Defense Department, Mr. Romney still called for increasing the Pentagon’s budget.
"Over the last few years we’ve had a defense budget, excluding the cost of warfare, at about 3.8 percent of the economy, about 3.8 percent of the G.D.P.," he said. "I’d like that be a little higher, at about 4 percent."
[…]
Afghanistan
4) Attacks Punctuate 10th Year of U.S. Afghan Fight
C. J. Chivers, New York Times, October 7, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/08/world/asia/attacks-rock-us-outposts-near-afghanistan-pakistan-border.html
Forward Operating Base Tillman, Afghanistan – The sun had been up less than a half-hour on the 10th anniversary since the start of the American-led war in Afghanistan when the first rocket struck. Flying in from near the border with Pakistan, it shook this outpost with an explosion that hinted at the long day ahead.
Soon insurgents near the border were firing on four Afghan-American outposts simultaneously – a coordinated barrage and assault that included dozens of 107-millimeter rockets, and at one post, a suicide truck bomber, American military officers said.
Only one American soldier was wounded in the insurgent attack, which the American regional command called the largest in Paktika Province since 2009. His wounds were not life-threatening. But the events on Friday demonstrated that as the war begins its second decade and the Pentagon plans to start bringing tens of thousands of soldiers home after a buildup that since last year has made significant gains, the war remains bedeviled by a bold, resilient foe.
Most of the high-explosive rockets striking the outposts were fired from just inside Afghanistan, suggesting that the attack had been prepared and launched from Pakistan, and the rocket crews withdrew to sanctuaries there as the Americans fired back.
And the relative weakness of Afghan soldiers and police officers living and working on the American-built bases was equally clear.
As the attacks escalated in the morning, only the United States military possessed the firepower, communications and skills to fight back in what developed into a long-range, artillery-and-rocket duel – raising once more the familiar questions about how these Afghan forces, underwritten at tremendous expense, will fare when the United States pulls back.
While the American soldiers organized and coordinated their part of the battle on the outpost here, the Afghan soldiers did not participate. Some simply sat and watched.
[…]
5) U.S. Debate on Haqqani: Military or Political Solution?
Gareth Porter, Inter Press Service, Oct 6
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=105365
Washington – Dissension over Adm. Mike Mullen’s accusation that the Haqqani network of Afghan insurgents is a "veritable arm" of Pakistan’s intelligence agency and the revelation that a U.S. official met with a Haqqani official have provided new evidence of a long-simmering struggle within the Barack Obama administration over how to deal with the most effective element of the Afghan resistance to U.S.-NATO forces.
One issue under debate is whether is whether military force alone can settle the problem of the Haqqani network or if a political settlement is necessary.
The other issue is whether the United States should continue to carry out a drone war against the Haqqani network in defiance of Pakistan’s demand for a veto over the strikes, or reach an accommodation with Pakistan that would narrow the focus of the strikes.
That policy debate pits top military leaders, Pentagon officials and the CIA, who want to put priority on pressuring Pakistan to attack the Haqqani forces, against those in the Obama administration who doubt that the military effort can be decisive and support a political approach to that key insurgent force.
The military, the Pentagon and the CIA have been pushing aggressively since late 2010 to get the administration to force the Pakistani military leadership to carry out a major offensive against the Haqqani leadership and forces in North Waziristan, despite an intelligence assessment that Islamabad will not change its policy toward the Haqqani group.
Just days before his tenure of chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff ended, Mullen took advantage of the consternation of the entire Obama administration over the 20-hour siege of the U.S. Embassy and U.S.- NATO headquarters in Kabul Sep. 13 to raise the issue of Pakistani ties with the Haqqani group at a higher level of intensity.
He sought to exploit what he called "credible evidence" that Pakistan’s Inter Services Intelligence agency (ISI) was involved in the planning or execution of the Kabul attacks.
It soon became evident, however, that Mullen was not speaking for a united Obama administration. White House spokesman Jay Carney responded to a question about Mullen’s remarks on Sep. 28 by saying it was "not language that I would use".
A Sep. 27 article in the Washington Post quoted an unnamed U.S. official as saying that Mullen’s charge was "overstated" and that there was "scant evidence" of ISI "direction or control" over the Haqqani group.
Then Washington Times Pentagon correspondent Bill Gertz suggested Sep. 28 that the criticism of Mullen was coming from officials in the intelligence community and the State Department who wanted to relax the pressure on Pakistan over the Haqqani network rather than intensifying it.
The critics were calling for cutting back sharply on drone strikes in northwest Pakistan, according to the Pentagon official who leaked the disagreement to Gertz. Their argument, according to Gertz’s source, was that continuing the strikes at the present level is unlikely to damage Al-Qaeda any more than it already has been.
That argument parallels those made by former Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair in an Aug. 14 New York Times op-ed piece.
The vast majority of the drone strikes over the past two years, however, have targeted the Haqqani network, not Al-Qaeda or the Pakistani Taliban. The drone war has therefore become the basis for an alliance between the leadership of the CIA and the military in support of pressure on Pakistan’s military over its failure to attack the Haqqani network.
The military and the CIA have argued strongly against negotiating with the Haqqani network. In June 2010, CIA Director Leon Panetta declared publicly, "We have seen no evidence that they are truly interested in reconciliation where they would surrender their arms, where they would denounce Al-Qaeda, where they would really try to become part of that society."
That position also reflected the interests of the U.S. military. Panetta’s move to Defence and his replacement by Gen. David Petraeus at CIA ensures that the same alignment of interests will continue.
But the Obama administration’s December 2010 strategy review produced a potential alternative to that military-CIA approach.
An intelligence assessment circulated just as the 50-page classified review of progress in Afghanistan and Pakistan was being completed concluded that Pakistan was not likely to agree to carry out a major military operation against the Haqqani group, regardless of U.S. pressures. It also suggested that, without such a change in Pakistan’s policy, the U.S. military strategy in Afghanistan couldn’t succeed.
That strengthened the hand of those who had been sceptical about the military’s approach to the problem. The result, according to sources familiar with the document, was that the strategy review suggested the need for a "political approach" to the insurgency in general and the Haqqani network in particular.
The review, which is described as "diagnostic" rather than "prescriptive", did not mandate such a political approach, nor did it define what it would entail, according to the sources. The political approach "wasn’t off the ground yet", one source told IPS.
The implication, however, was that the Haqqani network would have to be integrated into the broader U.S. strategy of "dialogue" with the Taliban insurgent leadership, even as military pressure on the insurgents continued. It could not go further than that, because Obama had not made a decision to enter into peace negotiations with the Taliban.
After the December review, Pakistan stepped up its effort to persuade the United States to deal directly with the Haqqani network, telling the Obama administration that it could bring the Haqqanis to the negotiating table.
Despite opposition from the military-Pentagon-CIA phalanx to a Haqqani role in negotiations, those in the State Department and the White House who were backing a broader strategy of negotiations for Afghanistan and hoping to ease tensions with Pakistan supported separate talks with the Haqqani group.
In a hint of the direction U.S. policy was tilting, Mullen, who was no fan of direct contacts with the Haqqani network, declared in June that some members of the network might be open to "reconciliation".
ABC News revealed on "The Blotter" Oct. 3 that a U.S. official had met with Ibrahim Haqqani, the son of the patriarch of the organisation, Jalaludin Haqqani, a few months before the Sep. 13 Kabul attacks.
Sirajuddin Haqqani, who is now in day-to-day command of the network, told BBC the same day that the U.S. had raised the possibility of representation of the network in the Afghan government.
Although no U.S. official has confirmed that claim, it is consistent with past efforts to divide the Haqqanis from Mullah Mohammed Omar, to whom the Haqqanis have pledged their loyalty. In May 2004, Seyed Saleem Shahzad reported in the Asia Times Online that Siraj Haqqani had confirmed a report Shahzad had gotten from another source – presumably ISI – that the United States had offered through ISI to make Jalaludin Haqqani prime minister.
The elder Haqqani’s response, according to his son, was, "After so much killing of Afghans through ‘daisy cutter bombs’ and like, shall I sit in the government under U.S. command?"
While rejecting offers to end their resistance war in return for a position in the government, the Haqqanis are ready to join broader negotiations whenever Mullah Omar agrees to begin talks, as was confirmed by a Haqqani network source to Reuters Sep. 17.
Last week, unnamed U.S. officials were spreading the word to news media that there was reason to believe the Haqqanis were to blame for the assassination of Afghan High Peace Council Burhanuddin Rabbani, despite the apparent absence of any real evidence the group was involved.
That was another indication that the debates over the two Haqqani- related issues are far from being resolved.
Iran
6) Obama should test Iran’s nuclear offer
Graham Allison, Washington Post, October 6
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obama-should-test-irans-nuclear-offer/2011/10/06/gIQAdAmDRL_story.html
[Allison is director of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government and author of "Nuclear Terrorism: The Ultimate Preventable Catastrophe."]
President Obama should take a page from Ronald Reagan’s playbook in winning the final inning of the Cold War. Obama can challenge President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to put his enriched uranium where his mouth is – by stopping all Iranian enrichment of uranium beyond the 5 percent level.
A quarter-century ago, Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev was touting a new "glasnost": openness. President Reagan went to Berlin and called on Gorbachev to "tear down this wall." Two years later, the Berlin Wall came tumbling down and, shortly thereafter, the Soviet "evil empire" fell as well.
While in New York for the opening of the U.N. General Assembly in September, Ahmadinejad on three occasions made an unambiguous offer: He said Iran would stop all enrichment of uranium beyond the levels used in civilian power plants – if his country is able to buy specialized fuel enriched at 20 percent, for use in its research reactor that produces medical isotopes to treat cancer patients.
Obama should seize this proposal and send negotiators straightaway to hammer out specifics. Iran has been enriching uranium since 2006, and it has accumulated a stockpile of uranium enriched at up to 5 percent, sufficient after further enrichment for several nuclear bombs. Iran is also producing 20 percent material every day, and it announced in June that it planned to triple its output. Halting Iran’s current production of 20 percent material and its projected growth would be significant.
A stockpile of uranium enriched at 20 percent shrinks the potential timeline for breaking out to bomb material from months to weeks. In effect, having uranium enriched at 20 percent takes Iran 90 yards along the football field to bomb-grade material. Pushing it back below 5 percent would effectively move Tehran back to the 30-yard line – much farther from the goal of bomb-grade material. Even more important, extracting from Iran a commitment to a bright red line capping enrichment at 5 percent would stop the Islamic Republic from advancing on its current path to 60 percent enrichment and then 90 percent.
Stopping Iran from enriching beyond 5 percent is not, in itself, a "solution" to its nuclear threat. Nor was Reagan’s proposal to Gorbachev. The question for Reagan was whether we would be better off with the Berlin Wall or without it.
[…] Arguments against testing the offer are easy to make. An embattled Ahmadinejad may not be able to deliver. Iran will use negotiations to seek to relax or escape current sanctions. If a deal were reached, it would be more difficult to win international support for the next round of sanctions. An agreement that stops only the 20 percent enrichment could imply a degree of acceptance of Iran’s ongoing enrichment up to 5 percent.
Recognizing all of these negatives, however, the policy question remains: Would the United States be better off with Iran enriching its uranium to 20 percent or without it?
President Obama should act now to test Ahmadinejad’s word.
Bahrain
7) Jailed doctors call for U.S. support in Bahrain
Alice Fordham, Washington Post, October 6
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/jailed-doctors-call-for-us-support-in-bahrain/2011/10/05/gIQAYVQGRL_story.html
The relatively muted U.S. response to the sentencing this week of doctors, teachers and opposition activists in Bahrain is renewing calls there for the Obama administration to take a stronger line against rights abuses in the tiny Persian Gulf kingdom.
Dozens of people detained after huge anti-government protests in February have been tried under emergency law in the quasi-military National Safety Court, and in recent days were given prison terms ranging from three years to life. A civilian court has ordered the retrial of 20 doctors, but at least 80 more people sentenced for crimes that include organizing illegal gatherings remain in prison.
Ali Alekri, a surgeon sentenced to a 15-year prison term, said he had been convicted only because he had treated injured protesters and because, like most of those involved in the uprising, he is a Shiite Muslim.
"The international community did nothing," said Alekri, speaking by telephone from Bahrain, where he has been released on bail. "We expect pressure from the Americans, and we do not know why they did not do that. Possibly there is a conflict of interest."
Alekri said that he had been beaten, that his family had been threatened and that he had been forced to sign a confession while in prison – charges echoed by others.
Bahrain is a key Middle Eastern ally for the United States, and government opponents say that status has led Washington to look the other way amid widespread allegations of torture and illegal detentions. The U.S. Navy’s 5th Fleet is anchored in Bahrain.
State Department spokesman Mark Toner said in a statement that the United States was "deeply disturbed" by the sentencing of 20 medical professionals and urged the Bahraini government to commit to transparent judicial proceedings. But officials have stopped short of directly condemning Bahrain’s authorities.
Bahraini officials announced Thursday that the National Safety Court would be discontinued, although similar assurances were made earlier this year without effect. While it is officially a combined civil and military court, doctors said the trials were heavily dominated by the military.
"We respect the views of important ally countries," government spokesman Abdulaziz al-Khalifa said. He said appeals for all cases would be heard in civilian courts, but insisted that the trials under emergency law were necessary.
[…] President Obama had strong words on Bahrain when he spoke about the Arab uprisings in May, condemning "mass arrests and brute force." The statement gave hope to hundreds of prisoners and their families, said Bassim Dhaif, another surgeon who treated protesters and was sentenced to 15 years in prison.
"We thought there were positive signs in Obama’s speech. He encouraged the government of Bahrain to have real dialogue with the opposition," he said. "But they are not really active, because the American Navy is stationed in Bahrain."
Joe Stork, the deputy Middle East and North Africa director at Human Rights Watch, said the administration had been reserved in its criticism since May. "The U.S. government has plenty to say about human rights in Iran, Syria or Libya but rather loses its voice when it comes to Bahrain," he said.
[…] Alekri, the surgeon, said there were areas of the country he could no longer visit because he feared that Sunni people would attack him. He said he has been described as a killer doctor on state television. His daughter has been bullied in school by her Sunni classmates, he added.
The fear goes both ways. "Among the Sunni community, there is a fear of the protesters vastly disproportionate to the threat they pose," said Jane Kinninmont of the London-based Chatham House think tank.
She said a state media campaign portraying Shiite protesters as armed and dangerous had widened the gap between the sects.
[…] Although the monument at Pearl Square in Bahrain’s capital was destroyed by government forces in March, hundreds of protesters still take to the streets every day.
"Many Shia who were not political before have been alienated as they see nonpolitical, professional Shia people being targeted," Kinninmont said. "The society is now deeply divided."
Israel/Palestine
8) Palestinians Win a Vote on Bid to Join Unesco
Scott Sayare and Steven Erlanger, New York Times, October 5, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/06/world/middleeast/palestinians-win-initial-vote-on-unesco-bid.html
Paris – Despite strong opposition from the United States, Germany and several other European states, the Palestinians gained initial approval on Wednesday of a bid for full membership in Unesco – the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization – as part of their broader campaign for recognition as a state by the United Nations Security Council.
[…] The initial approval came in a vote by Unesco’s 58-nation executive board. Full membership would have to be approved by the 193-nation General Conference, which meets later this month. The Palestinians submitted their bid for full recognition to the United Nations Security Council on Sept. 24, while international political leaders continue work to revive Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.
"We need the issue of the state of Palestine to be resolved in the U.N. system," said Riyad Mansour, the Palestinian envoy to the United Nations. Unesco, Mr. Mansour said, "is one place where we can acquire our rightful place among the community of nations as a full member."
Membership would allow Palestinian officials to seek the protection of Palestinian historical sites by the cultural organization, other officials noted. That would create further conflict with Israel. For instance, some of those sites are in east Jerusalem, which Israel has annexed. [An annexation which the world – including the U.S. – does not recognize – JFP.]
The executive board approved a draft resolution for membership, sponsored by several Arab states, by a 40-to-4 vote. Fourteen delegations abstained, including those from Belgium, France, Italy and Spain, while the American delegation joined Germany, Latvia and Romania in opposing the measure. (Israel does not presently sit on the executive board, where membership rotates.) Russia joined African and Arab states, among others, in support.
[…]
Colombia
9) Three free trade deals cleared by House panel
Vicki Needham, The Hill, 10/05/11 03:14 PM ET
http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/1005-trade/185751-three-free-trade-deals-cleared-by-house-panel
Three pending free trade deals cleared a House panel on Wednesday, setting them up for probable floor action next week.
After some spirited debate over workers’ rights issues in Colombia, the House Ways and Means Committee approved all three agreements – South Korea, Panama and, the most controversial among Democrats, the U.S.-Colombia accord.
Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp (R-Mich.) said he expects the House to vote on the three trade agreements along with a trade preferences-worker assistance bill soon.
"These agreements create sustainable and well-paying jobs and it is my expectation that when we finish our work here today, the House will vote on the agreements and on the GSP/TAA package as soon as possible so that America can start to reap the benefits," Camp said.
[…] Lawmakers clashed over whether including a so-called labor action plan into Colombia’s implementation language would provide U.S. trade officials with greater recourse in rescinding Colombia’s trading privileges if workers’ rights are violated.
Panel ranking member Sander Levin (D-Mich.) and Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.) have led the charge for months to link the labor action plan to the trade deal’s implementing language as a way to strengthen the Colombia agreement.
They had plenty of support from other Democrats in the committee – 12 of 15 Democrats opposed the pact.
"Colombian workers have long been without their basic rights due to a combination of inadequate laws, labor-related violence and impunity," Levin said during the markup.
"There remain troubling problems with how Colombia is addressing key elements related to the action plan," he said. "The flaws are magnified by the failure to incorporate the action plan in the implementation bill as a result of the adamant refusal of Republicans – and the Obama administration’s acquiescence to that refusal."
Levin and other Democrats did not offer amendments to the Colombia bill, which wasn’t protected by the fast-track process. In 2008, Colombia lost its Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) protections when then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) blocked the deal after President Bush submitted it to Congress for a vote without her consent.
A senior administration official from the U.S. Trade Representative’s Office acknowledged that ensuring Colombia remains on track "will require hard work." The official reiterated a vow made by President Obama that the deal wouldn’t be implemented with Colombia until all requirements are met.
[…] In sending up the trade deals to Capitol Hill on Monday, Obama tried to quell concerns about the Colombia agreement, saying he expects the Latin American nation to fulfill all the requirements of a labor action plan designed to provide greater protections for workers and more severe punishments for violence acts against labor leaders and groups.
"Colombia must successfully implement key elements of the action plan before I will bring the agreement into force," Obama said Monday in a transmission statement.
Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas) expressed concerns like other Democrats about the continued violence against workers in Colombia calling it the "trade union murder capital of the world."
"Do we want to approve an agreement with a country that has acted this way," he said.
A Human Rights Watch report released this week showed that "while the number of trade unionists killed every year is certainly less today than a decade ago, it remains higher than any other country in the world."
While the report expressed encouragement over steps being taken by the Colombia government it added "yet we also believe further measures are needed to ensure that your efforts succeed and the era of unchecked violence against trade unionists in Colombia is finally overcome."
"A major reason for this ongoing violence has been the chronic lack of accountability for cases of anti-union violence," the report said.
In a memo released prior to the markup, the AFL-CIO, which opposes all three trade deals, said "after more than five months of implementation, Colombia has failed to deliver real change to workers and left many of its commitments unfulfilled" and urged Congress not to take up the trade deal. "The systematic repression of workers in Colombia serves the interest of neither the Colombian nor the American people."
The other two agreements sailed through the committee with votes of 32-3 for Panama and 31-5 for Korea.
Honduras
10) U.N. launches probe of press abuses in Honduras
16 journalists have been murdered in Honduras since 2010, the most in the region besides Mexico.
AFP, Wednesday, October 05, 2011
http://www.ticotimes.net/Current-Edition/News-Briefs/U.N.-launches-probe-of-press-abuses-in-Honduras-_Wednesday-October-05-2011
The United Nations on Wednesday formally launched a probe of abuses of freedom of the press in Honduras that have mounted since a 2009 coup in the Central American nation.
UN rapporteur Frank de La Rue is leading the investigation of abuses that include 16 murders of journalists just since 2010.
De La Rue, a Guatemalan based in Washington, arrived in Tegucigalpa for a three-day stay including a forum on "Impunity, Free Speech and Justice."
He met Wednesday with relatives of slain reporters and also was meeting with victims of human rights abuses that followed the June 28, 2009 coup against elected president Manuel Zelaya, a rancher who veered to the left after taking office.
[…]
–
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