Just Foreign Policy News
May 13, 2011
Support the Work of Just Foreign Policy
Go Straight to the News Summary
I) Actions and Featured Articles
Why We Must Sail To Gaza
A year ago, solidarity activists tried to break the blockade of Gaza with an international flotilla of ships. They failed, in the sense that the Israeli government attacked the flotilla, took control of the ships, and brought the ships to Israel. They succeeded, in the sense that the flotilla and the Israeli attack brought attention to the Israeli-U.S.-Egyptian siege of Gaza, dramatically increasing political pressure on the three governments, leading to a partial easing of the siege. Now an even larger flotilla, with the participation of more ships and more activists from more countries — including, crucially, the U.S. ship Audacity of Hope — is preparing to set sail in June.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/why-we-must-sail-to-gaza_b_861751.html
*Action: Urge your Rep. to co-sponsor the McGovern-Jones bill
Reps. McGovern and Jones have introduced a bill – HR 1735, the "Afghanistan Exit and Accountability Act" – requiring the President to: present Congress with a plan for the withdrawal of U.S. military forces from Afghanistan; report quarterly on the implementation of the plan for military withdrawal and the costs of continuing the war; report on the savings to taxpayers of ending the war in 6 months vs. continuing it for 5 years.
https://www.justforeignpolicy.org/act/hr1735
Dennis Kucinich: Possibilities for Circumventing Congress’ Constitutional Role Include Temporarily ‘Pausing’ the War
Kucinich responds to the New York Times report that the Administration may try to get around the War Powers Resolution time limits in Libya by "stopping" the war and "starting" it again.
http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2011/05/13-3
‘Budrus’ Shows ‘White Intifada’ Can Beat the Israeli Occupation
The documentary "Budrus," which shows how a Palestinian village in the West Bank defeated the Israeli occupation through nonviolent resistance, is now available on DVD. The widespread availability of this movie in the United States could not come at a more propitious time, because conditions are ripe for a "White Intifada" in the West Bank that would end the occupation through mass nonviolent resistance. Support for such a campaign in the U.S. would be crucial. It’s time to prepare the audience.
http://www.truth-out.org/budrus-shows-white-intifada-can-beat-israeli-occupation/1305217766
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) President Obama and his legal advisers are deliberating about how the US may lawfully continue participating in NATO bombing in Libya after next week, when the air war will reach a legal deadline for terminating combat operations that have not been authorized by Congress, the New York Times reports. Under the War Powers Resolution, a president must terminate such operations 60 days after he has formally notified lawmakers about the introduction of armed forces into actual or imminent hostilities. The Libya campaign will reach that mark on May 20.
The Obama legal team is now trying to come up with a plausible theory for why continued participation by the US does not violate the law. One concept being discussed is for the US to halt the use of its Predator drones in attacking targets in Libya.
By ending all strike missions for US forces, the argument then could be made that the US was no longer directly engaged in hostilities in Libya, but only providing support to NATO allies. Another idea is for the US to order a complete – but temporary – halt to all of its efforts in the Libya mission. Some lawyers make the case that, after a complete pause, the US could rejoin the mission with a new 60-day clock.
2) There is a newfound restlessness about the war in Afghanistan among House Republicans, the Politico reports. The new movement comes not just from conservative tea party members with an isolationist streak but from mainstream conservatives and moderates.
Oregon Rep. Greg Walden told a meeting of top Republican leaders he "had concerns that he was hearing from all over the country" about Afghanistan. Illinois Rep. Joe Walsh, a conservative Republican and tea party favorite, said he is not even sure that the war in Afghanistan is helping US efforts in the broader war on global terror. Cliff Stearns, a Republican who represents a conservative Florida district, said withdrawal should "begin immediately, sooner rather than later because of the deficit. The perception is we accomplished our mission."
Several lawmakers said being home in their districts, watching wounded soldiers come home to their families, has cemented their concern over the war.
3) NATO killed a 12-year-old girl in eastern Afghanistan along with her uncle, a policeman, when a NATO raid targeted their house by mistake, the New York Times reports. "They killed my 12 year-old innocent daughter and my brother-in-law and then told me, ‘We are sorry,’ " the girl’s father said. "What does it mean? What pain can be cured by this word ‘sorry’?"
4) The Obama administration has decided to limit the expansion of Afghanistan’s army and police forces over the next 18 months, largely to hold down the costs of training, equipping and paying them, the Los Angeles Times reports. A senior U.S. officer said the decision to limit Afghan troop levels would not affect Obama’s decision on how many U.S. troops can come home this year, but that it would factor into deliberations on withdrawals in subsequent years.
5) Writing in the Washington Post, Senator McCain rejected the claim of former attorney general Michael Mukasey that the intelligence that led to bin Laden was the fruit of waterboarding. The information came from conventional interrogation, McCain wrote, re-asserting his belief that waterboarding is illegal torture.
6) WikiLeaks cables show the US embassy in Ecuador worked with multinational pharmaceutical companies and ministers within the government to try to undermine Ecuador’s policy of compulsory licensing to make essential medicines available and affordable, Public Citizen reports. The cables betray a strong U.S. Embassy bias against compulsory licensing, and damage the credibility of assurances offered elsewhere that the US supports the use of TRIPS flexibilities to promote public health, Public Citizen says. Ecuador’s access to medicines and compulsory licensing protocol remains in place.
Honduras
7) Repairing the damage done by the coup in Honduras will take more than the restitution of Manuel Zelaya’s rights, writes Viviana Krsticevic of the Centre for Justice and International Law in the Guardian. It requires restoration of the rule of law. It is absolutely fundamental to have an autonomous, unbiased and efficient judicial system, which ensures that officials who took part in the coup are replaced.
Colombia
8) Amnesty International commended human rights progress made in Colombia under President Santos, but said the country still faces serious problems, according to Colombia Reports. AI said: "human rights defenders and social leaders continued to be victims of threats and homicides"; civilians, particularly Afro-Colombian and indigenous communities, continue to suffer "the worst part of the long-standing armed conflict"; and security forces have often been as responsible as guerrillas and paramilitaries for "grave abuses" of human rights. AI denounced the slow progression of cases regarding extrajudicial killings.
Ecuador
9) Vote counting in Ecuador showed President Rafael Correa heading for a referendum victory on ten reforms of the judiciary and media, Reuters reports.
Contents:
U.S./Top News
1) At Deadline, U.S. Seeks to Continue War in Libya
Charlie Savage and Thom Shanker, New York Times, May 12, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/13/world/africa/13powers.html
Washington – President Obama and his legal advisers are deliberating about how the United States military may lawfully continue participating in NATO’s bombing campaign in Libya after next week, when the air war will reach a legal deadline for terminating combat operations that have not been authorized by Congress.
Under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, a president must terminate such operations 60 days after he has formally notified lawmakers about the introduction of armed forces into actual or imminent hostilities. The Libya campaign will reach that mark on May 20.
Though Congressional leaders have shown little interest in enforcing the resolution, James Steinberg, the deputy secretary of state, was asked Thursday about the deadline at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing.
He said the administration was examining the military’s "role and activities as we move through the next period of time" and would consult Congress about evaluating "what we think we can and can’t do."
"Mindful of the passage of time including the end of the two-month period, we are in the process of reviewing our role, and the president will be making decisions going forward in terms of what he sees as appropriate for us to do," Mr. Steinberg said.
The administration apparently has no intention of pulling out of the Libya campaign, and Mr. Steinberg said that Mr. Obama was committed "to act consistently with the War Powers Resolution." So the Obama legal team is now trying to come up with a plausible theory for why continued participation by the United States does not violate the law.
A variety of Pentagon and military officials said the issue was in the hands of lawyers, not commanders. Several officials described a few of the ideas under consideration.
One concept being discussed is for the United States to halt the use of its Predator drones in attacking targets in Libya, and restrict them solely to a role gathering surveillance over targets.
Over recent weeks, the Predators have been the only American weapon actually firing on ground targets, although many aircraft are assisting in refueling, intelligence gathering and electronic jamming.
By ending all strike missions for American forces, the argument then could be made that the United States was no longer directly engaged in hostilities in Libya, but only providing support to NATO allies.
Another idea is for the United States to order a complete – but temporary – halt to all of its efforts in the Libya mission. Some lawyers make the case that, after a complete pause, the United States could rejoin the mission with a new 60-day clock.
Congress passed the War Powers Resolution at the end of the Vietnam War, overriding President Richard M. Nixon’s veto. It was intended to re-assert Congress’s constitutional role in making decisions about getting involved in significant military conflicts.
That role had been eroding for several decades, as presidents of both parties, taking advantage of the large standing army left in place after World War II, increasingly initiated or escalated combat operations on their own.
While many presidents of both parties have deployed forces into hostilities without prior Congressional permission, there is far less precedent for defying the section of the War Powers Resolution that imposes the 60-day deadline on hostilities. For the most part, the issue has not arisen because fighting was over by then, or Congress voted to continue an operation.
One event that set off a legal controversy came in 1999, when President Bill Clinton continued the bombing campaign in Kosovo more than two weeks after the deadline. But the Clinton legal team argued that Congress had implicitly authorized the operation to continue by appropriating specific funds for it.
That option is not available to Mr. Obama. This year, the Senate passed a resolution calling on the United Nations Security Council to impose a no-fly zone on Libya. But Congress has neither approved nor specifically financed United States participation in enforcing the zone, and the House of Representatives is in recess next week.
2) War fatigue in House GOP
Jake Sherman and John Bresnahan, Politico, May 13, 2011 04:57 AM EDT
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/54893.html
A newfound restlessness about the decadelong war in Afghanistan has reached the highest levels of the House Republican leadership, sparking serious concerns about war funding and murmurs about troop withdrawal – a sign that the GOP may be undergoing a shift in thinking about overseas intervention.
The new movement comes not just from conservative tea party members with an isolationist streak but from mainstream conservatives and moderates.
This week, Oregon Rep. Greg Walden told a meeting of top Republican leaders – which included Speaker John Boehner of Ohio and Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Virginia – that he "had concerns that he was hearing from all over the country" about Afghanistan, according to a Republican lawmaker who was in the session.
According to the lawmaker, Walden didn’t say the U.S. should pull out of Afghanistan but that Republicans should be aware of these feelings in the GOP conference. Asked by POLITICO for details about his talk, Walden declined, saying it was in a closed meeting of top Republican leaders.
Boehner, both publicly and privately, has declared that he has no desire to see a U.S. pullout from Afghanistan or even a substantial drawdown in the size of the American combat force in that country. On Thursday, he said, "This is no time to back away from our engagement" in Afghanistan.
Yet the list of Republicans ready for a change in Afghanistan is surprising – and growing.
It includes Republicans- like Reps. Jason Chaffetz of Utah, John Campbell of California and John Duncan of Tennessee – who joined a handful of Democrats and anti-war North Carolina GOP Rep. Walter Jones in sending a letter to President Barack Obama this week urging him to "re-examine our policy of nation building in Afghanistan."
Illinois Rep. Joe Walsh, a conservative Republican and tea party favorite, said he is not even sure that the war in Afghanistan is helping American efforts in the broader war on global terror.
"I come from a swing district," Walsh said, "a lot of blue-collar folks, and these are the most patriotic Americans in the world, and they’re wondering what we’re doing. There is a shift."
The new concern over Afghanistan is part of a growing war fatigue among a generation of Republicans that has for the past decade been largely in lock step over America’s foreign wars. Long advocates of militarism and "peace through strength," more GOP lawmakers are now starting to go public with their concerns about what seems to be an endless, expensive war.
"We always say we need to stay to win and achieve victory," a GOP lawmaker said. "We’re not totally sure what we mean by victory."
Still, many Republicans insist on anonymity when they express misgivings about the Afghanistan war, concerned they will look squishy on military action.
It’s still too early to say how this will play out on Capitol Hill. Some lawmakers are discussing amendments to the Defense Appropriations bill to be considered later this summer that limits funding for the war, draws down troops or demands additional information from the Obama administration and Pentagon about the status of the campaign. President Barack Obama has already scheduled an internal review of the war by top administration and military officials this summer.
In turn, Boehner and top Republicans are reaching out to rank-and-file members so that "there are no surprises," when defense-related bills come to the floor this year, a top Republican aide said.
It is not a knee-jerk reaction to Osama bin Laden’s death that has lawmakers demanding immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan. In fact, few want the U.S. to immediately leave Afghanistan. Theirs is more a sense of fatigue stemming from a decade of war.
It’s also coming from other, more moderate Republicans, who are home every two weeks seeing injured soldiers from the Middle East.
Rep. Cliff Stearns, a Republican who represents a conservative Florida district, said withdrawal should "begin immediately, sooner rather than later because of the deficit. The perception is we accomplished our mission."
"The reason is because of [bin Laden’s] death; that was the original reason," Stearns told POLITICO. "But now that we got him, coupled with the huge deficit and cost of the war, I think a lot of people in my congressional district – including myself – think we should start looking at ways to save money and to use a Navy SEALs operation as an example of how to stop the Taliban instead of having [hundreds of thousands] of troops."
[…] Jones, who turned against the Iraq war early, is working to identify other Republicans who might join with him to push for an expedited withdrawal. FreedomWorks, an instrumental organization in the development of the tea party movement, provided him with a list of 11 freshmen who had shown an openness to adjusting the U.S. mission in Afghanistan during their 2010 campaigns.
Jones said he has also been meeting with advisers to find outside voices – perhaps celebrities or former military officers – who can help raise public awareness of the legislative effort to bring the war to a close.
"There are some members of the Republican Party that have asked me for the bill," Jones told POLITICO on Thursday. [Referring to the McGovern-Jones bill: https://www.justforeignpolicy.org/act/hr1735 – JFP.] […] Once again, the House schedule is playing a big part in this debate. Several lawmakers said being home in their districts, watching wounded soldiers come home to their families, has cemented their concern over the war.
Walsh, the freshman from Illinois, said his unease with the war began during last year’s campaign and that seeing "boys come home almost every month, some maimed, some hurt" has taken a toll. People are "beginning to look at it again, and when you look at it, you do sort of scratch your head now and say ‘What are we doing?’"
3) Girl, 12, Killed in NATO Raid on Wrong Afghan Home
Alissa J. Rubin, New York Times, May 12, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/13/world/asia/13afghan.html
Kabul, Afghanistan – In the fertile lowlands of eastern Afghanistan it is already summer, and the warm nights send families out of sweltering houses and into their courtyards so that they can sleep in the relative cool of the night breezes.
That is why a 12-year-old girl, Nelofar, was sleeping outside with her family early Thursday morning.
A raid by NATO troops singled out the wrong house, and she was killed along with her uncle, who was the target of the raid, because he was incorrectly believed to be a local Taliban leader. NATO apologized for its error.
It was the third time in the past 18 months that raids had caused civilian casualties in Surkhrod District, which is just outside Jalalabad, the largest city in eastern Afghanistan.
"It was around 12 o’clock midnight, and we heard someone knocking at the door," said Neik Mohammed, whose home was raided. "We thought it was thieves or criminals. A short time after the knocking we heard a loud explosion; the explosion was from a grenade thrown into our yard. As it is warmer now, we sleep in the courtyard.
"My daughter, who was sleeping with us in the courtyard, was hit by the bomb’s shrapnel in her head, and she died on the spot," Mr. Mohammed said.
NATO issued a statement that said she had been shot. "An individual ran out the back of the compound toward the outer security perimeter and was killed when the security force mistakenly identified what they suspected was a weapon on the individual," it said. "Later, the force discovered the individual was an unarmed Afghan female adolescent."
The uncle, Shukrullah, who like many Afghans uses only one name, was a police officer; he had recently been transferred to Surkhrod District, where the raid occurred. He was 25 and had a wife and two daughters, said Mr. Mohammed, who was his brother-in-law and in whose home he was staying.
[…] For Mr. Mohammed, the words were little comfort. "They killed my 12 year-old innocent daughter and my brother-in-law and then told me, ‘We are sorry,’ " he said. "What does it mean? What pain can be cured by this word ‘sorry’ ?"
4) U.S. To Limit Afghan Forces’ Growth
The decision is intended to help curb the cost of the Afghan war as training and salaries are paid by the U.S. But experts say it may necessitate a smaller initial reduction in U.S. troops set to begin in July.
David S. Cloud, Los Angeles Times, May 13, 2011
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-afghanistan-withdrawal-20110513,0,3985100.story
Washington – After months of internal deliberations, the Obama administration has decided to limit the expansion of Afghanistan’s army and police forces over the next 18 months, largely to hold down the costs of training, equipping and paying them.
The White House decision, which has not been announced, also appears to signal that President Obama may approve only a modest reduction of U.S. troops in Afghanistan this summer, U.S. officials said Thursday.
With fewer Afghan troops to bolster security, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, is expected to argue against a major drawdown of the nearly 100,000 U.S. troops deployed in the country, several military officials said.
[…] Petraeus and senior Pentagon officials had pushed to add as many as 73,000 troops to the Afghan force, officials said. Instead, the administration has limited the addition to 47,000, which would bring the authorized Afghan force to a total of 352,000. The U.S. government provides most of the money to recruit, train and pay the Afghan troops.
The limited expansion of the Afghan force, plus the uncertain battlefield effect of the death of Osama Bin Laden, sets the stage for a difficult debate. The White House, Pentagon and State Department must determine how to meet Obama’s pledge to begin a "significant" drawdown in July.
A senior U.S. military officer in Afghanistan said the decision to limit Afghan troop levels would not affect Obama’s decision on how many U.S. troops can come home this year, but that it would factor into deliberations on withdrawals in subsequent years.
Petraeus has not submitted his recommendations on troop withdrawals for 2011 to Obama, but his proposals are expected soon, said Marine Col. David Lapan, a Pentagon spokesman. Obama then must decide whether to follow the advice of his military commander, or order steeper reductions sooner.
The deliberations on the drawdown will be one of Petraeus’ last major tasks before he gives up command. Obama has nominated him to take over as director of the CIA, a job he will assume in early fall, after the expected Senate confirmation. The decision to limit the size of Afghan security forces suggests the White House may be willing to question Petraeus’ blueprint.
Officials said the administration made its decision because it would save money in the long run. The Pentagon says the war costs $5.6 billion a month, but senior members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee this week estimated the cost at $10 billion a month.
[…]
5) Bin Laden’s death and the debate over torture
Senator John McCain, Washington Post, May 11
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bin-ladens-death-and-the-debate-over-torture/2011/05/11/AFd1mdsG_story.html
[…] Former attorney general Michael Mukasey recently claimed that "the intelligence that led to bin Laden . . . began with a disclosure from Khalid Sheik Mohammed, who broke like a dam under the pressure of harsh interrogation techniques that included waterboarding. He loosed a torrent of information – including eventually the nickname of a trusted courier of bin Laden." That is false.
I asked CIA Director Leon Panetta for the facts, and he told me the following: The trail to bin Laden did not begin with a disclosure from Khalid Sheik Mohammed, who was waterboarded 183 times. The first mention of Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti – the nickname of the al-Qaeda courier who ultimately led us to bin Laden – as well as a description of him as an important member of al-Qaeda, came from a detainee held in another country, who we believe was not tortured. None of the three detainees who were waterboarded provided Abu Ahmed’s real name, his whereabouts or an accurate description of his role in al-Qaeda.
In fact, the use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" on Khalid Sheik Mohammed produced false and misleading information. He specifically told his interrogators that Abu Ahmed had moved to Peshawar, got married and ceased his role as an al-Qaeda facilitator – none of which was true. According to the staff of the Senate intelligence committee, the best intelligence gained from a CIA detainee – information describing Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti’s real role in al-Qaeda and his true relationship to bin Laden – was obtained through standard, noncoercive means.
[…]
6) Leaked Cables Show U.S. Tried, Failed to Organize Against Ecuador Compulsory Licensing
Public Citizen, May 10, 2011
http://www.citizen.org/documents/leaked-cables-show-US-tried-failed-to-organize-against-ecuador-compulsory-licensing.pdf
In October 2009, Ecuador’s President Rafael Correa issued Decree 118 to improve access to medicines and support public health programs through a protocol that would reduce drug costs.
The protocol established procedures for the compulsory licensing of pharmaceutical patents. Compulsory licensing authorizes generic competition with patented, monopoly protected drugs. Generic competition reduces costs and enables public agencies to scale-up treatment and other services.
Ecuador’s protocol limits compulsory licensing to medical conditions that are priorities for public health, requiring interagency cooperation to grant licenses on a case-by-case basis and pay royalties to patent holders.
Nevertheless, cables from U.S. Embassy personnel in Ecuador to the U.S. Department of State, released by Wikileaks, show the United States, multinational pharmaceutical companies, and three Ministers within the government shared information and worked to undermine Ecuador’s emerging policy
According to the cables, shortly before President Correa issued Decree 118, the U.S. mission in Quito explored organizing wealthy countries with patent-based pharmaceutical industries against Ecuador’s policy. This effort apparently met with relatively little interest.
The U.S. Ambassador warned officials in Ecuador’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the "IPR eligibility requirements" of trade benefit programs including the Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act, implying that compulsory licensing could jeopardize Ecuador’s eligibility But Ecuador’s compulsory licensing protocol complies fully with the World Trade Organization’s TRIPS Agreement on intellectual property. And even the Office of the United States Trade Representative has bound itself to "respect[] its trading partners’ rights to grant compulsory licenses, in a manner consistent with the provisions of the TRIPS Agreement."
U.S. Embassy officials met repeatedly with multinational pharmaceutical companies, and separately met some of the companies’ "well-placed contacts" in "potentially sympathetic ministries." The companies, their government contacts, and Embassy officials shared strategies to prevent or limit Ecuador’s use of compulsory licensing.
[…] The cables betray a strong U.S. Embassy bias against compulsory licensing, and damage the credibility of assurances offered elsewhere that the United States supports the use of TRIPS flexibilities to promote public health
In spite of efforts to undermine Ecuador’s access protocol, Ecuador issued its first compulsory license in April 2010, enabling generic imports of the HIV/AIDS drug ritonavir. IFI, the association of multinational pharmaceutical companies operating in Ecuador, issued a statement "democratically accepting" President Correa’s decision. The United States has refrained from public criticism.
Ecuador’s access to medicines and compulsory licensing protocol remains in place.
[…]
Honduras
7) Restoring the rule of law in Honduras
Honduras wants readmission to the Organisation of American States – but how, with a supreme court that backed the coup?
Viviana Krsticevic, Guardian, Thursday 12 May 2011 22.00 BST http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/may/12/honduras-usforeignpolicy
[Krsticevic is executive director of the Centre for Justice and International Law; she has litigated cases before the Inter-American Commission and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.]
The image of then President Manuel Zelaya in his pyjamas, being forced out of the presidential palace by the military and on to a plane bound for Costa Rica, is easy to remember. Perhaps less memorable is that the coup d’état of June 2009 was carried out with the active participation of the entire supreme court of justice as well as the attorney general of Honduras.
Zelaya’s arrest was ordered by Honduras’ supreme court and carried out by the armed forces. The court took no action to ensure the protection of Zelaya’s rights, or those of thousands of Hondurans who were arbitrarily detained following the coup. Worse still, Honduras’ highest court urged its judges to take part in a street demonstration in support of what was dubbed a "constitutional succession". Later, the court went as far as to fire a group of judges that participated in pro-democracy marches.
The dismissal of these judges was roundly and jointly condemned by the United Nations special rapporteurships on independence of judges and lawyers, promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, and human rights defenders. Similar statements were made by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights at the Organisation of American States (OAS) and by the United Nations in its universal periodic review (UPR). On 14 April, the Inter-American Commission notified the judges who had been arbitrarily dismissed by the pro-coup supreme court of Honduras that their case had been admitted. In the coming months, it may indeed be submitted to the Inter-American Court.
During and since the coup, Honduras’ attorney general has displayed inefficiency and bias with regard to the investigation of crimes committed against Zelaya, his cabinet, journalists, teachers, union members, opposition members and activists of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) community. A blatant illustration of this is the impunity that prevails regarding the assassinations of journalists and LGBTI people since the coup d’état.
Faced with the possibility of Honduras’ readmission to the OAS, we in civil society feel compelled to raise the following questions: how will the secretary general and the political bodies of the OAS position themselves vis à vis a judicial administration that is unable to respond to the needs of large segments of the population? How will they address the continued presence of pro-coup actors within key sectors of power? What position will they adopt regarding the arbitrary dismissal of the judges who supported democracy? Will their position be in line with the protection of rights enshrined in the Inter-American Democratic Charter?
From the perspective of human rights and the defence of democracy, repairing the damage done in the context of the coup in Honduras will take more than the restitution of Manuel Zelaya’s rights – though these rights do need to be restored. Such a process also entails the restoration of the rule of law. For this to happen, it is absolutely fundamental to have an autonomous, unbiased and efficient judicial system, which ensures that officials who took part in the coup are replaced. As such, Honduras’ readmission to the OAS must go beyond political pacts between national and international powerbrokers. It should be the product of an objective assessment based on respect for basic principles of the rule of law, the very principles that are unfortunately lacking in Honduras today.
Colombia
8) Amnesty International: Colombia’s human rights progress not enough
Marguerite Cawley, Colombia Reports, Thursday, 12 May 2011 16:20
http://colombiareports.com/colombia-news/news/16222-amnesty-international-human-rights-progress-in-colombia-not-enough.html
Amnesty International (AI) commended human rights progress made in Colombia under President Juan Manuel Santos, but said the country still faces serious problems, during a Thursday presentation in London, Colombian media reported.
At the presentation of the organization’s 2010 global human rights report, AI officials highlighted the strides that have been made since Santos took office in August 2010. They stated that "In marked contrast with the previous government, he [has] adopted a less hostile posture towards human rights defenders," and congratulated the country on progression in the Victims Law legislation.
The humanitarian NGO also recognized that, regarding the numerous parapolitics scandals that have been uncovered, the Colombian Supreme Court of Justice has made a number of advances in investigations and convictions of politicians linked to paramilitary groups.
However, AI also mentioned that victims organizations and human rights NGOs continue to have "reservations" regarding the Victims Law legislation, and that "the human rights defenders and social leaders [have] continued to be victims of threats and homicides."
What is more, Amnesty also stated that Colombia’s civilian population, and particularly Afro-Colombian and indigenous communities, continues to suffer "the worst part of the long-standing armed conflict" and that security forces have often been as responsible as guerrillas and paramilitaries for the "grave abuses" of human rights.
Finally, AI denounced the slow progression of cases regarding extrajudicial killings, stating that, "the progress of the criminal investigations (…) regarding more than 2,300 of those homicides committed since 1985 continued to be slow."
Ecuador
9) Ecuador vote count puts Correa back in the lead
Correa admits win margin not as wide as forecast
Says rivals and officials are manipulating count
Reforms will give Correa power over judges, media
Eduardo Garcia, Reuters, Thu, May 12 2011
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/12/ecuador-referendum-idUSN1229248420110512
Quito – Vote counting in Ecuador showed President Rafael Correa heading for a referendum victory on Thursday after he accused electoral officials of delaying the tally in pro-government regions.
Correa […] had already declared victory after the vote on Saturday when polls and a quick count gave him a clear lead in the referendum on ten reforms that will give him more power over the judiciary and media in the South American OPEC nation. But a sluggish official tally by the National Electoral Council initially indicated two key questions were facing rejection by voters and slim support for the others.
By Thursday, though, official counting showed all the reforms being endorsed.
"The ‘Yes’ vote has won in the 10 questions and it has won by a wide margin," Correa told reporters, while conceding that early polls showing an overwhelming victory had been wrong. "We’re happy because we’re having a clear electoral victory, and the opposition is also happy because they expected a heavier defeat. We’re all happy," he said.
With 67 percent of ballots counted, pro-Correa "Yes" votes on the questions ranged from 44 to 49 percent, while the "No" vote was between 41 and 44 percent.
[…] Correa says the reforms are needed to get rid of corrupt and inefficient judges and let police fight crime better — a huge concern in this Andean country of 14 million people.
Opposition leaders say the reforms are a power grab and fear he will appoint allies to top courts. They say a proposal to create a media watchdog threatens freedom of expression.
The referendum has widely been seen as a plebiscite on the president’s popularity, since polls showed supporters planned to endorse the reforms — even though they did not grasp them.
The charismatic 48-year-old economist has won a string of votes to increase executive power since taking power in 2007, prompting critics to cast him as the latest in Latin America’s history of authoritarian leaders or "caudillos."
He has also boosted state spending on roads, schools and hospitals, making him very popular among the poor majority. "Correa remains by far the most popular politician in Ecuador and … the split vote reflects a desire to constrain Correa rather than to replace him," British-based newsletter LatinNews said on Thursday.
–
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