Just Foreign Policy News
March 8, 2011
"No-Fly Zone"? Senator Kerry, the UN Charter Is Supreme Law
It’s one thing for Senator McCain to engage in what Defense Secretary Gates called "loose talk" about U.S. military intervention in Libya. It’s far more damaging for Senator Kerry to do it. Of course, Kerry voted yes on the Iraq war in 2002, and in August 2004 said he stood by his vote. Kerry was wrong then and is wrong now; a no-fly zone in Libya, if it is not authorized by the UN Security Council, would violate the UN Charter. The framers of the UN Charter gave this power to the Security Council for a reason: to ensure that military force would only be authorized with broad consent. The Security Council should use its leverage to press for a diplomatic resolution of the conflict that recognizes the interests of all the stakeholders in Libya.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/no-fly-zone-senator-kerry_b_833060.html
On Sunday, Kerry dodged a question from Washington Stakeout on whether a no-fly zone would require UN authorization:
Kerry: Authorization for No-Fly Zone "Would be Better"
http://www.washingtonstakeout.com/
Action: Urge President Obama and Members of Congress to oppose a unilateral U.S. military intervention in Libya
Unilateral U.S. military action without UN Security Council authorization would be a grave violation of the UN Charter. As U.S. military officials have pointed out, the imposition of a "no-fly zone" would not be "bloodless": it would be preceded by extensive bombing of Libya’s anti-aircraft facilities. Such bombing would almost certainly cause civilian casualties. As Defense Secretary Gates has said, the last thing the U.S. needs is a war in another Muslim country. Urge the White House and your representatives to oppose a unilateral U.S. military intervention.
https://www.justforeignpolicy.org/act/nobombsforlibya
*Action: Lee bill for military withdrawal from Afghanistan
"H.R.780 – To provide that funds for operations of the Armed Forces in Afghanistan shall be obligated and expended only for purposes of providing for the safe and orderly withdrawal from Afghanistan of all members of the Armed Forces and Department of Defense contractor personnel who are in Afghanistan."
Check to see if your Rep. has co-sponsored; ask them to co-sponsor if they haven’t. You can reach your Rep. through the Congressional switchboard: 202-225-3121.
You can view the cosponsors here (recent: Velazquez, 3/3/2011; Nadler, 3/3/2011; Hirono, 3/3/2011):
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:HR00780:@@@P
You can ask your Rep. to co-sponsor here:
https://www.justforeignpolicy.org/act/hr780
Al Jazeera video: Protesters in Jordan call for constitutional monarchy
"The government should be elected and should have more authority."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pHQsY9MG6g
Al Jazeera video: Protesters in Oman Call for Better Working Conditions, End to Corruption
Protesters say they support the Sultan and oppose violence. But they say they will continue protesting until their demands for reform are met.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESZNbgC_X48
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
Summary:
U.S./Top News
1) US officials describe a number of risks, some tactical and others political, to US military intervention in Libya, the New York Times reports. Of most concern to the president himself, one aide said, is the perception that the US would once again be meddling in the Middle East. "He keeps reminding us that the best revolutions are completely organic," the senior official said, quoting the president. But persistent voices – in Congress and even inside the administration – argue Obama is moving too slowly. They contend that there is too much concern about perceptions, and that the White House is too squeamish because of Iraq. Senator Kerry pressed the White House to "crater" Libya’s airfields.
[There is no mention anywhere in this article of the fact that under the UN Charter, a no fly zone, and any other US military action, would require UN Security Council authorization – JFP.]
2) Writing for Stratfor, George Friedman notes some problems with the bombing necessary to carry out a no-fly zone. When search radars and especially targeting radars are turned on, the response must be instantaneous, while the radar is radiating (and therefore vulnerable) and before it can engage. That means there will be no opportunity to determine whether the sites are located in residential areas or close to public facilities such as schools or hospitals. A no-fly zone would not come close to ending the fighting nor erode Gadhafi’s substantial advantages besides air power.
3) Senator McConnell said "arming the insurgents" in Libya could be an option, the Wall Street Journal reported. But the U.S. is cautious right now about providing military assistance to the rebels, on the grounds that Washington doesn’t know what aid is needed, who their leaders are and whether they can be trusted longer-term, the Journal says.
4) The US has asked Saudi Arabia if it can supply weapons to the rebels in Benghazi, Robert Fisk reported in the Independent. The Saudis had yet to respond to the request, Fisk said. If the Saudi government accedes to the US request, it would be almost impossible for President Obama to condemn the kingdom for any violence against the Shias of the north-east provinces, Fisk wrote.
Okinawa/Japan
5) Kevin Maher, head of the Japanese affairs office at the State Department, is said to have likened the Japanese cultural principle of maintaining social harmony to "extortion" and described Okinawans as "lazy" during a speech in Washington late last year, Kyodo News reports. According to a written account compiled by students at American University who attended the lecture at the State Department, Maher described Okinawan people as "masters of manipulation and extortion." Maher has been involved in the bilateral negotiations on relocating the U.S. Marine Corps Air Station Futenma and is known to be an advocate of relocating it elsewhere in the prefecture, an idea detested by local residents.
Libya
6) Thousands of migrant workers from sub-Saharan Africa have been trapped on the outskirts of Tripoli with scant food and water, no international aid and little hope of escape, the New York Times reports. Dark-skinned Africans say the Libyan war has caught them in a vise. Forces loyal to Qaddafi rob them. And Libyans who oppose Qaddafi attack the African migrants on the accusation that they are mercenaries. Racial xenophobia is common in Libya, the Times says.
Egypt
7) Egypt’s for-profit military has found ways to use US military aid to further its economic interests, the New York Times reports. Some experts and former US military officials say roughly $40 billion in aid from Washington since 1979 has served to shore up a military bureaucracy prone to insider dealing and corruption.
Yemen
8) Journalists covering the antigovernment movement in Yemen are reporting being attacked by supporters of President Saleh and in some cases by state security officers, the New York Times reports. Human Rights Watch issued a statement urging the authorities to stop these attacks. "Beating up journalists is a blatant attempt by the authorities to prevent the Yemeni people and the world from witnessing a critical moment in Yemen," HRW said.
Jordan
9) Journalists from state-controlled media demonstrated Monday for press freedom and demanded the ouster of the editor of the main government-controlled newspaper, a protest first in Jordan, the Washington Post reports. "We’re fed up," said a veteran broadcaster currently with state radio. "I’ve been waiting to say this all my life."
Tunisia
10) Tunisia’s interim rulers announced the abolition of the hated secret police, the Guardian reports. The state security agency had been widely accused of human rights abuses, as have most similar organizations across the region. Its abolition – a key demand of the protesters – has a powerful symbolism.
Colombia/Venezuela
11) In a remarkable turnaround in Colombia-Venezuela relations, Colombian President Santos now refers to Venezuelan President Chávez as "my new best friend," the New York Times reports. Santos is also pushing projects aimed at reducing Colombia’s alarming income inequality, the Times says.
Contents:
U.S./Top News
1) Discord Fills Washington on Possible Libya Intervention
David E. Sanger and Thom Shanker, New York Times, March 7, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/08/world/middleeast/08policy.html
Washington – Nearly three weeks after Libya erupted in what may now turn into a protracted civil war, the politics of military intervention to speed the ouster of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi grow more complicated by the day – for both the White House and Republicans.
President Obama, appearing Monday morning with Australia’s prime minister, tried to raise the pressure on Colonel Qaddafi further by talking about "a range of potential options, including potential military options" against the embattled Libyan leader.
Despite Mr. Obama’s statement, interviews with military officials and other administration officials describe a number of risks, some tactical and others political, to American intervention in Libya.
Of most concern to the president himself, one high-level aide said, is the perception that the United States would once again be meddling in the Middle East, where it has overturned many a leader, including Saddam Hussein. Some critics of the United States in the region – as well as some leaders – have already claimed that a Western conspiracy is stoking the revolutions that have overtaken the Middle East. "He keeps reminding us that the best revolutions are completely organic," the senior official said, quoting the president.
At the same time, there are persistent voices – in Congress and even inside the administration – arguing that Mr. Obama is moving too slowly. They contend that there is too much concern about perceptions, and that the White House is too squeamish because of Iraq. Furthermore, they say a military caught up in two difficult wars has exaggerated the risks of imposing a no-fly zone over Libya, the tactic discussed most often.
The American military is also privately skeptical of humanitarian gestures that put the lives of troops at risk for the cause of the moment, while being of only tenuous national interest.
Some of these critics seem motivated by political advantage. Others, including the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, John Kerry, who is among Mr. Obama’s closest allies, warn of repeating mistakes made in Iraqi Kurdistan, Rwanda, and Bosnia and Herzegovina by failing to step in and halt a slaughter.
The most vocal camp, led by Senators John McCain, the 2008 Republican nominee for president, and Joseph I. Lieberman, the Connecticut independent and another hawk on Libyan intervention, say the central justification for establishing a no-fly zone over Libya is that the rebel leaders themselves are seeking military assistance to end decades of dictatorship.
[…] For the administration, Mr. Kerry’s view is more troublesome, given that he is a normally a strong ally on foreign policy issues. He was a fierce critic of the war in Iraq, [as if! – JFP] but he sees Libya as a different matter. He has pushed the White House to do more – including "cratering" Libya’s airfields so the planes cannot take off.
[…] In interviews this week, even some military officials called Mr. Gates’s portrayal extreme. Executing a no-fly zone would not require covering the whole country. Most of the Libyan action would be along the coast, where the major cities now held by rebels are. Even so, the opening mission of imposing a no-fly zone would almost certainly include missile attacks on air defense sites of a sovereign nation, which some would indeed regard as an act of war.
[…] [query for the NYT: who is it that *wouldn’t* consider "missile attacks on air defense sites of a sovereign nation" to be an "act of war"? – JFP.]
2) How a Libyan No-fly Zone Could Backfire
George Friedman, Stratfor, Mar 8 2011 – 09:50
http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20110308-how-libyan-no-fly-zone-could-backfire
Calls are growing for a no-fly zone over Libya, but a power or coalition of powers willing to enforce one remains elusive. In evaluating such calls, it is useful to remember that in war, Murphy’s Law always lurks. What can go wrong will go wrong, in Libya as in Iraq or Afghanistan.
It has been pointed out that a no-fly zone is not an antiseptic act. In order to protect the aircraft enforcing the no-fly zone, one must begin by suppressing enemy air defenses. This in turn poses an intelligence problem. Precisely what are Libyan air defenses and where are they located? It is possible to assert that Libya has no effective air defenses and that an SEAD (suppression of enemy air defenses) attack is therefore unnecessary. But that makes assumptions that cannot be demonstrated without testing, and the test is dangerous. At the same time, collecting definitive intelligence on air defenses is not as easy as it might appear – particularly as the opposition and thieves alike have managed to capture heavy weapons and armored vehicles, meaning that air defense assets are on the move and under uncertain control.
Therefore, a no-fly zone would begin with airstrikes on known air defense sites. But it would likely continue with sustained patrols by SEAD aircraft armed with anti-radiation missiles poised to rapidly confront any subsequent threat that pops up. Keeping those aircraft on station for an extended period of time would be necessary, along with an unknown number of strikes. It is uncertain where the radars and missiles are located, and those airstrikes would not be without error. When search radars and especially targeting radars are turned on, the response must be instantaneous, while the radar is radiating (and therefore vulnerable) and before it can engage. That means there will be no opportunity to determine whether the sites are located in residential areas or close to public facilities such as schools or hospitals.
Previous regimes, hoping to garner international support, have deliberately placed their systems near such facilities to force what the international media would consider an atrocity. Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi does not seem like someone who would hesitate to cause civilian casualties for political advantage. Thus, the imposition of a no-fly zone could rapidly deteriorate into condemnations for killing civilians of those enforcing the zone ostensibly for humanitarian purposes. Indeed, attacks on air defenses could cause substantial casualties, turning a humanitarian action into one of considerable consequence in both humanitarian and political terms.
The more important question is what exactly a no-fly zone would achieve. Certainly, it would ground Gadhafi’s air force, but it would not come close to ending the fighting nor erode Gadhafi’s other substantial advantages. His forces appear to be better organized and trained than his opponents, who are politically divided and far less organized. Not long ago, Gadhafi largely was written off, but he has more than held his own – and he has held his own through the employment of ground combat forces. What remains of his air force has been used for limited harassment, so the imposition of a no-fly zone would not change the military situation on the ground. Even with a no-fly zone, Gadhafi would still be difficult for the rebels to defeat, and Gadhafi might still defeat the rebels.
[…]
3) GOP Prods Obama on Libya
McCain, McConnell Urge Direct Aid to Rebels as Gadhafi Presses Counterattacks
Margaret Coker, Charles Levinson, and Adam Entous, Wall Street Journal, March 7, 2011
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704504404576183880279597222.html
Forces loyal to Col. Moammar Gadhafi struck back against rebel-held cities across Libya on Sunday, while Republican leaders in Congress pressed for the U.S. to consider providing arms, intelligence and training to the rebels.
The fighting appeared to gain the Libyan government little ground against the rebels, increasing the likelihood of a prolonged standoff in the North African country.
With no evidence emerging that Col. Gadhafi is about to fall, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the top Republican on the Armed Services Committee, and Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky urged the U.S. to consider various moves that would mark a sharp escalation in American involvement.
Speaking on ABC’s "This Week," Mr. McCain said the U.S. can help the rebels now by pumping in humanitarian assistance; by providing technical assistance, intelligence and training; and by declaring support for a provisional government. Mr. McConnell of Kentucky, speaking on CBS’s "Face the Nation," said that "arming the insurgents" could be an option, citing as a possible model U.S. efforts against the Soviets during the Cold War.
Administration officials said later on Sunday that President Barack Obama is considering various options, but he wants any action, such as the establishment of a no-fly zone over Libya, to be closely coordinated with international allies. The U.S. is cautious right now about providing military assistance to the rebels, on the grounds that Washington doesn’t know what aid is needed, who their leaders are and whether they can be trusted longer-term.
[…]
4) America’s secret plan to arm Libya’s rebels
Obama asks Saudis to airlift weapons into Benghazi
Robert Fisk, The Independent, Monday, 7 March 2011
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/americas-secret-plan-to-arm-libyas-rebels-2234227.html
Desperate to avoid US military involvement in Libya in the event of a prolonged struggle between the Gaddafi regime and its opponents, the Americans have asked Saudi Arabia if it can supply weapons to the rebels in Benghazi. The Saudi Kingdom, already facing a "day of rage" from its 10 per cent Shia Muslim community on Friday, with a ban on all demonstrations, has so far failed to respond to Washington’s highly classified request, although King Abdullah personally loathes the Libyan leader, who tried to assassinate him just over a year ago.
Washington’s request is in line with other US military co-operation with the Saudis. The royal family in Jeddah, which was deeply involved in the Contra scandal during the Reagan administration, gave immediate support to American efforts to arm guerrillas fighting the Soviet army in Afghanistan in 1980 and later – to America’s chagrin – also funded and armed the Taliban.
But the Saudis remain the only US Arab ally strategically placed and capable of furnishing weapons to the guerrillas of Libya. Their assistance would allow Washington to disclaim any military involvement in the supply chain – even though the arms would be American and paid for by the Saudis.
The Saudis have been told that opponents of Gaddafi need anti-tank rockets and mortars as a first priority to hold off attacks by Gaddafi’s armour, and ground-to-air missiles to shoot down his fighter-bombers.
Supplies could reach Benghazi within 48 hours but they would need to be delivered to air bases in Libya or to Benghazi airport. If the guerrillas can then go on to the offensive and assault Gaddafi’s strongholds in western Libya, the political pressure on America and Nato – not least from Republican members of Congress – to establish a no-fly zone would be reduced.
US military planners have already made it clear that a zone of this kind would necessitate US air attacks on Libya’s functioning, if seriously depleted, anti-aircraft missile bases, thus bringing Washington directly into the war on the side of Gaddafi’s opponents.
[…] But Saudi Arabia is already facing dangers from a co-ordinated day of protest by its own Shia Muslim citizens who, emboldened by the Shia uprising in the neighbouring island of Bahrain, have called for street protests against the ruling family of al-Saud on Friday. After pouring troops and security police into the province of Qatif last week, the Saudis announced a nationwide ban on all public demonstrations. Shia organisers claim that up to 20,000 protesters plan to demonstrate with women in the front rows to prevent the Saudi army from opening fire.
If the Saudi government accedes to America’s request to send guns and missiles to Libyan rebels, however, it would be almost impossible for President Barack Obama to condemn the kingdom for any violence against the Shias of the north-east provinces. Thus has the Arab awakening, the demand for democracy in North Africa, the Shia revolt and the rising against Gaddafi become entangled in the space of just a few hours with US military priorities in the region.
Okinawa/Japan
5) U.S. diplomat accused of disparaging Okinawans
Islanders ‘masters of manipulation and extortion’ on Futenma issue
Kyodo News, Monday, March 7, 2011
http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20110307a2.html
[A summary of Maher’s lecture, based on the notes that the AU students took then, can be found here:
http://peacephilosophy.blogspot.com/2011/03/anger-spreads-over-kevin-mahers.html]
A U.S. official in charge of Japanese affairs at the State Department is said to have likened the Japanese cultural principle of maintaining social harmony to "extortion" and described Okinawans as "lazy" during a speech in Washington late last year.
According to a written account compiled by students who attended the lecture at the State Department, Kevin Maher, head of the Japanese affairs office and a former consul general in Okinawa Prefecture, described Okinawan people as "masters of manipulation and extortion" when dealing with the central government.
"I am not in a position to comment on the record at this time," Maher said, noting his briefing was an off-the-record event. He said the account made available to Kyodo News is "neither accurate nor complete."
Maher has been involved in the bilateral negotiations on relocating the U.S. Marine Corps Air Station Futenma and is known to be an advocate of relocating it elsewhere in the prefecture, an idea detested by local residents.
The remarks attributed to Maher are making waves.
They are "racially discriminating against Okinawa," said Teruo Hiyane, a scholar on postwar Okinawan history. Ukeru Magosaki, a former diplomat, said Maher’s reported view on Japan is "biased and completely distorted."
Maher gave the speech Dec. 3 at the request of American University to a group of 14 students who were about to embark on a roughly two-week study tour of Tokyo and Okinawa.
In the speech, Maher was quoted as saying, "Consensus building is important in Japanese culture. While the Japanese would call this ‘consensus,’ they mean ‘extortion’ and use this culture of consensus as a means of extortion. "By pretending to seek consensus, people try to get as much money as possible," he said.
Maher also criticized the people of Okinawa as "too lazy to grow ‘goya’ (bitter gourd)," a traditional summer vegetable in the prefecture, according to the account.
[…] Students who took notes during Maher’s speech said he definitely made the remarks, and at least one said it was surprising to hear statements full of bias coming from a person in the U.S. government.
[…] In the summer of 2008, while he was posted in Okinawa, Maher sparked controversy after questioning why the local authorities were allowing the construction of homes in the residential area around the Futenma air base. Plaintiffs seeking damages over noise from the U.S. base then presented him with a written demand calling on him to immediately leave Okinawa.
Magosaki, former head of the international intelligence office at the Foreign Ministry, said he had the impression that "U.S. officials in charge of recent U.S.-Japan negotiations shared ideas like those of Mr. Maher," adding "in that sense, his remarks were not especially distorted."
Libya
6) Libyan War Traps Poor Immigrants at Tripoli’s Edge
David D. Kirkpatrick and Scott Sayare, New York Times, March 7, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/08/world/middleeast/08refugees.html
Tripoli, Libya – As wealthier nations send boats and planes to rescue their citizens from the violence in Libya, a new refugee crisis is taking shape on the outskirts of Tripoli, where thousands of migrant workers from sub-Saharan Africa have been trapped with scant food and water, no international aid and little hope of escape.
The migrants – many of them illegal immigrants from Ghana and Nigeria who have long constituted an impoverished underclass in Libya – live amid piles of garbage, sleep in makeshift tents of blankets strung from fences and trees, and breathe fumes from a trench of excrement dividing their camp from the parking lot of Tripoli’s airport.
[…] The airport refugees, along with tens of thousands of other African migrants lucky enough to make it across the border to Tunisia, are the most desperate contingent of a vast exodus that has already sent almost 200,000 foreigners fleeing the country since the outbreak of the popular revolt against Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi nearly three weeks ago.
Dark-skinned Africans say the Libyan war has caught them in a vise. The heavily armed police and militia forces loyal to Colonel Qaddafi who guard checkpoints along the roads around the capital rob them of their money, possessions and cellphone chips, the migrants say. And the Libyans who oppose Colonel Qaddafi lash out at the African migrants because they look like the dark-skinned mercenaries many here say the Libyan leader has recruited to crush the uprising.
"Qaddafi has brought African soldiers to kill some of them, so if they see black people they beat them," said Samson Adda, 31, who said residents of Zawiyah, a rebellious city, had beaten him so badly that he could no longer walk.
Sub-Saharan Africans make up a vast majority of the estimated 1.5 million illegal immigrants among Libya’s population of 6.5 million, according to the International Organization for Migration. Many were desperately poor people made even more so by investments of up to $1,000 each to pay smugglers to bring them across Libya’s southern border for a chance at better work in its oil economy.
[…] Despite Colonel Qaddafi’s brotherly pan-African rhetoric, racial xenophobia is common here. Many Libyans, ethnically Arab, look down on Chinese, Bangladeshis and darker-skinned Africans, in that order. Many African refugees here and in the camps on the Tunisian border say Libyans often addressed them as "abd," or slave.
"Even if someone stabs you with a knife and you go to the police to report it, they won’t do anything about it," said Paul Eke, 34, a Nigerian who was camped out at the Tunisian border, displaying a mangled arm as evidence of his firsthand experience. "In the hospitals, no one will care for you. They just don’t like blacks."
But many said it was the presence of mercenaries from other African countries that made the situation unbearable. "Qaddafi brought the mercenaries who are black, so the people are chasing us," one 30-year-old Nigerian said.
Perhaps as many as 100,000 refugees, most of them sub-Saharan Africans, have made it to the Tunisian camps, where groups like the Red Crescent, the Muslim counterpart to the Red Cross, care for the sick. The United States has lent planes to fly Egyptian refugees home from Tunisia.
But the crowds left at the airport, now almost exclusively African, have no such support. Some have been there for two weeks or more.
[…]
Egypt
7) Egyptian Army’s Business Side Blurs Lines of U.S. Military Aid
Aram Roston and David Rohde, New York Times, March 5, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/06/world/middleeast/06military.html
In the late 1990s, the Pentagon announced that it would contribute tens of millions of dollars to a 650-bed International Medical Center that the Egyptian military was building in the desert outside Cairo. The money, for medical equipment, training and logistical support, would help improve health care for Egyptian soldiers.
Within a few years, though, an American training team realized that the Egyptian military was benefiting in a different way. The medical center was, as one Pentagon official called it, "a commercial enterprise," and many of its patients were civilians, not Egyptian soldiers. The hospital was even venturing into medical tourism; its Web site promotes "a lavishly furnished Royal Suite" for international patients.
An American doctor who has worked there, Wayne F. Yakes, recalls what his hosts told him about the hospital: "It was built with U.S. tax dollars under President Bill Clinton." Put simply, he said, "We bought it for them." Eventually, the United States moved to cut off financing and even recoup some of the money, said several former American military officials. The Pentagon, after all, is supposed to pay only for projects with a military purpose.
Yet with Washington giving Cairo $1.3 billion a year in military aid, the hospital episode shows that Egypt’s for-profit military has sometimes found ways to use that aid to further its economic interests. A review of the aid program raises questions about a variety of ventures – from the acquisition of a fleet of luxury Gulfstream jets to a company making Jeeps for commercial sale as well as for the army.
Now, as the generals steer Egypt toward a new civilian government after the fall of President Hosni Mubarak, those questions about the aid program echo a broader uneasiness, especially in the pro-democracy movement: will a military so deeply invested in a system that conferred great economic and political power be willing to let go?
"It will be a very sore point in the near future, I’m sure, that the generals, the Supreme military council, is a de facto, separate government with an economy in its own right," said Christopher Davidson, an expert on Egypt and a professor at Durham University in England.
Some experts and former American military officials say the aid from Washington – roughly $40 billion since the program’s inception as part of the 1979 Camp David peace accord signed by Israel and Egypt – has served to shore up a military bureaucracy prone to insider dealing and corruption.
Robert Springborg, a professor at the Naval Postgraduate School who studies Egypt’s military, said that by paying for expensive weapons systems, the aid program "has enabled the Egyptian military then to use resources it has for other purposes."
In part because of concerns about diversion of funds, only a sliver of the money from the American aid program actually goes to the Egyptian military. Instead, the Pentagon directly pays American companies that it has chosen to manufacture and ship the tanks, planes, guns and ammunition to Egypt.
Egyptian opposition groups have said that Mr. Mubarak and senior generals were nonetheless able to divert money. But American officials insist that the design of the program – known as Foreign Military Sales – ensures that money cannot be stolen.
Edward W. Ross, a former official at the Defense Security Cooperation Agency, which oversees the sales, said he was irked by allegations that Egyptians could have pocketed money. "That money goes to the Federal Reserve," he said, "and then it is only released to a U.S. contractor."
Even so, the United States has considerably less control over how goods are used once they arrive in Egypt. In interviews, several former American military officials said that keeping the aid flowing often seemed to trump questions of how effective it was. Some of them asked to remain anonymous because they did not want to alienate the Egyptian military. The yearly $1.3 billion, one retired colonel explained, is viewed as "an entitlement."
At times, American officials have argued with Egyptian generals over whether certain equipment was actually for military use. That was the case with the Gulfstream jets.
The retired colonel, who worked at the American Embassy’s Office of Military Cooperation in Cairo, said that the Egyptians assured him the planes would be used for "mapping," but that he was skeptical. "It was obvious to us that these were going to be used at least in part for V.I.P. travel," the colonel said. Officers tried to block the deal, he recalled, but "our contacts at the Ministry of Defense were applying pressure" to make sure the sale went through.
A former high-ranking Pentagon official said he also protested. "I remember that it was made very clear to the Egyptians that ‘You use this for military purposes and not for a luxury airline for V.I.P.’s,’ " he said. But the Egyptian military did indeed use the Gulfstreams for the V.I.P.’s, and the luxury jets became a popular symbol of the Mubarak government’s excess.
[…] Over the years, the Gulfstream fleet – which now totals nine jets – has cost American taxpayers $333 million, government officials said. The most recent purchase was in 2002, but the Pentagon continues to pay $10 million a year to service the planes. The Pentagon referred questions about military aid for Egypt to the State Department, which has formal jurisdiction.
[…]
Yemen
8) Journalists in Yemen Say They Are Being Attacked
Laura Kasinof, New York Times, March 7, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/08/world/middleeast/08yemen.html
Sana, Yemen – Journalists covering the antigovernment movement in Yemen are reporting being attacked by supporters of President Ali Abdullah Saleh and in some cases by state security officers.
The Yemeni Journalists Syndicate has been alerted to 53 cases of harassment in the last few weeks. Those included threatening phone calls and serious physical attacks.
One Yemeni journalist, Mohammed al-Jaradi, said he was walking from the antigovernment demonstration at Sana University back to the office of the newspaper Al Ahali on Friday, when three men dressed in civilian clothes approached him.
One grabbed him by the collar. Mr. Jaradi said he immediately knew why. "They asked me what I had been taking photos of," Mr. Jaradi said. "They accused me of taking photos of women." In Yemen, it is traditionally inappropriate to photograph women. "I said to them, ‘I am taking photos for the sake of freedom,’ " he said.
Mr. Jaradi said he was then beaten and thrown to the ground. One attacker took out a jambiya, a traditional dagger that is customary for Yemeni men to carry, and stabbed Mr. Jaradi in the arm. The attackers stole his jacket and shoes, but did not get his camera, which was in his pocket.
Journalists in Yemen typically enjoy greater freedoms than those in most other Arab countries. Many independent news outlets freely criticize government policies, and some opposition members directly attack the president. But the government also has a history of preventing coverage of specific events, like its war with Houthi rebels in the northern Saada Province.
Human Rights Watch, which issued a statement urging the authorities to stop these attacks, believes the government is trying to carry out this type of selective news blackout now.
"Beating up journalists is a blatant attempt by the authorities to prevent the Yemeni people and the world from witnessing a critical moment in Yemen," Sarah Leah Whitson, director of the group’s Middle East and North Africa division, said in a statement.
Ashraf al-Raify, of the journalists’ syndicate’s committee for press freedom, said that before the current political unrest began, the Ministry of Interior would respond to claims of harassment by sending officers to investigate. But in recent weeks, he said, "nothing" has been done.
[…]
Jordan
9) Jordanian journalists call for press freedom
Joel Greenberg, Washington Post, Monday, March 7, 2011; 7:13 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/07/AR2011030702135.html
Amman, Jordan – In the first protest of its kind here, journalists from state-controlled media demonstrated Monday for press freedom and demanded the ouster of the editor of the main government-controlled newspaper.
"We’re fed up. We’ve reached the point where there’s no turning back," said Amer Smadi, a veteran broadcaster currently with state radio and formerly a news anchor on Jordanian television. "We have nothing to fear now. I’ve been waiting to say this all my life."
Inspired by the anti-government uprisings sweeping the Arab world and mounting calls for change at home, about 200 journalists from official and independent media rallied near the headquarters of Al-Rai, the main state-controlled paper. They then marched to the building, shouting slogans and calling for the dismissal of the government-appointed editor of Al-Rai, Abdel Wahab Zgheilat.
"We want press freedom, not government censorship!" they chanted. "We want the liberation of the media! Self-censorship destroys professionalism!"
A statement read to the crowd demanded a halt to "intervention in the media" by the Jordanian government and security agencies, and a change of the state-controlled press "to independent newspapers."
In an apparent sign of greater official tolerance of such protests, Information Minister Taher Adwan, a former newspaper editor, arrived at the rally and expressed his support, rejecting "intervention by any party" in media work. "There can be no economic or political reform if we don’t start with the media," he said.
[…] Smadi, the veteran broadcaster, said that in 20 years of work for Jordanian television, there was "no freedom to say what we want," but now there were signs of change. A mere three months ago, he said, the journalists’ protest could have been violently broken up by the police. "We don’t know what will happen six months from now," he added, suggesting that a crackdown was also possible. "But if I have to end my career, at least I will be saying something I believe."
Tunisia
10) Tunisia dissolves secret police to meet key demand of protesters
Interim rulers distance themselves from old regime with abolition of force widely accused of human rights abuses
Ian Black, Guardian, Monday 7 March 2011 20.47 GMT
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/07/tunisia-abolishes-secret-police-force
Tunisia’s interim rulers have taken a radical step to distance themselves from the old regime by announcing the abolition of the hated secret police.
The country has gone further than neighbouring Egypt in seeking to rid itself of an apparatus associated with decades of repression under former president Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali, whose flight into exile on 14 January marked the first achievement of the wave of Arab popular uprisings from the Gulf to Libya.
The state security agency had been widely accused of human rights abuses, as have most similar organisations across the region. Its abolition – a key demand of the protesters – has a powerful symbolism.
Tunis Afrique Presse quoted an official communique ordering the moves, saying that they were done "in harmony with the values of the revolution".
The interim prime minister, Béji Caïd Essebsi, named only last week, also announced a government that includes no new members from the old regime.
All the newcomers are technocrats rather than career politicians. Tunisians will elect a constituent assembly in late July to rewrite the constitution.
[…]
Colombia/Venezuela
11) Colombia Leader Seeks Wide-Ranging Changes, and Looks Beyond the U.S.
Simon Romero, New York Times, March 5, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/06/world/americas/06colombia.html
Neiva, Colombia – President Juan Manuel Santos of Colombia glows when speaking of a plan by Chinese and European investors to build a city for 250,000 people near the Caribbean coast. His foreign minister has circled the globe in the seven months that Mr. Santos has been president, visiting places like Cambodia, but not Washington.
In a reconciliation that has taken many in Latin America by surprise, Mr. Santos is now so friendly with President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela, who just last year was accusing Mr. Santos of plotting to assassinate him, that he takes delight in referring to Mr. Chávez as "my new best friend."
Mr. Santos, in a wide-ranging interview here, insisted that the United States, which has long considered Colombia its top ally in the region, remains a "great partner," even as some in Colombia’s establishment grow increasingly frustrated with a stalled trade deal and a steady reduction in American counterinsurgency aid.
But he also emphasized a remarkable foreign policy move under way in which Colombia is shifting its gaze from the United States to Asia, repairing ties with Venezuela and Ecuador and adopting a measured posture within Latin America that stands in stark contrast to the hawkish style of Mr. Santos’s conservative predecessor, Álvaro Uribe.
"I consider myself very pro-American; I want to continue and even strengthen our relationship, but it’s common sense and common logic to diversify your international relations, especially in a world that is changing," said Mr. Santos, 59.
Retooling foreign policy is not the only abrupt change Mr. Santos is seeking in Colombia, which has received $6.5 billion in security and development aid from the United States since 2000. Startling some in Colombia’s more conservative sectors, he is also pushing projects aimed at reducing Colombia’s alarming income inequality.
The expansion of a program to return land to thousands of farmers who were forced to flee their homes during the country’s long civil war, improvements in tax collection and a broad upgrade in Colombia’s infrastructure rank among the most ambitious of the president’s proposals.
Smiling broadly, Mr. Santos, the Harvard-educated scion of a Bogotá publishing family that is one of Colombia’s most powerful clans, said he would be pleased if these social projects resulted in his being called a "traitor to his class" by the end of his presidency, a nod to the title of the biography of President Franklin D. Roosevelt by H. W. Brands.
[…]
–
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