Just Foreign Policy News
August 3, 2011
Support the Work of Just Foreign Policy
Go Straight to the News Summary
I) Actions and Featured Articles
Rep. Lee introduces bill mandating US withdrawal from Iraq as planned
The bill prohibits funding to maintain US troops in Iraq past December.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:h.r.2757:
95 Reps. Call for Implementing Iraq withdrawal
When the dust settled, there were 95 Reps. on the Lee-Jones letter.
https://www.justforeignpolicy.org/node/976
NYT editorial: End routine use of solitary confinement
While the editorial concerns the routine use of solitary confinement in the U.S., many have noted that U.S. abuses of prisoners overseas are buttressed by routine abuse of prisoners in the U.S.; as the Times notes, prolonged use of solitary confinement is seen internationally as a form of torture.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/02/opinion/cruel-isolation-of-prisoners.html
Video: The IMF’s Policies in the Caribbean
Mark Weisbrot debates Therese Turner-Jones, Deputy Caribbean II Division Chief at the International Monetary Fund, on the IMF’s policies in the Caribbean, with a focus on Jamaica in particular.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lwvoUW68T8
Help Support Our Advocacy for Peace and Diplomacy
The opponents of peace and diplomacy work every day. Help us be an effective counterweight.
https://www.justforeignpolicy.org/donate
II) Summary:
U.S./Top News
1) The debt ceiling negotiations set up a fight among Republicans between those who want to cut taxes and those who want to protect military spending, writes Joshua Green in the Boston Globe. The tax-cutters crushed the military protectors in the first round. It is clear that most Republicans value lower taxes over large military expenditures, Green writes. "The Tea Party people are anti-military spending to a greater extent than establishment Republicans and have a healthy dose of isolationism thanks to American intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan,” says Rep. Barney Frank, who has long pushed to cut the defense budget. "On this issue, they were a positive force.”
2) More cuts in military spending are on the way, writes Joel Rubin for the Ploughshares Fund. There is a clear target for such cutting: nuclear weapons.
3) Muslim Americans and Jewish Americans agree on the solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict: an independent Palestinian state would coexist alongside Israel, Haaretz reports. 81% of Muslim Americans and 78% of Jewish Americans support a future in which an independent Palestinian state would coexist alongside Israel, according to a Gallup poll.
Afghanistan
4) The US must stop its night raids in Afghanistan in exchange for an end to the Taliban assassination offensive, Ahmad Rashid writes in the Financial Times. Otherwise, there is a risk that governance in Afghanistan will totally collapse before the US can hand off authority.
Israel/Palestine
5) Polls show the Israeli public (88%) overwhelmingly supports the "tent protests" against the high cost of living, Noam Sheizaf writes in +972. Only voters who support the hard right and settlers’ parties oppose the protests. Even 85 percent of Likud voters find the protests just, although they are largely directed at Netanyahu.
Libya
6) More than five months after rebellion, insurgents in eastern Libya remain locked in a stalemate, while they are divided along tribal and political lines, the Los Angeles Times reports. There are lingering concerns about the rebels’ insistence on Islamic law as the basis for any legislation in the post-Kadafi era. Another concern is that many Libyans are eager to settle scores with government security forces and tribal supporters. Sunday’s firefight between rebel factions may be a prelude to wider bloodletting if Kadafi falls, the LAT says. But the U.S. is still backing the rebels’ refusal to negotiate with the government.
7) Relatives and members of the tribe of Libyan rebels’ assassinated top military leader warned of dire consequences, including violence, if rebel leaders did not move quickly to find his killers, the New York Times reports. Their admonitions deepened the sense of crisis around the rebel leaders, the NYT says.
Iraq
8) Iraqi leaders authorized the Iraqi government to begin negotiations with the US about keeping military trainers in the country beyond the end of the year, the Washington Post reports. Admiral Mullen reiterated the U.S. position that any agreement must include guarantees of legal immunity for U.S. forces. But that request could prove difficult, the Post notes, as many Iraqi lawmakers, aware of widespread public opposition to a sustained U.S. military presence, are unwilling to grant such protections to U.S. troops.
Bahrain
9) Doctors Without Borders condemned an armed raid on its premises in Bahrain and the subsequent detention of one of its staff members. Repeated requests by MSF, his family, and his lawyer to have access to the arrested staff member have been denied, MSF says.
Mexico
10) Abuses of civilians by the Mexican military, including the disappearance of people detained by the military, as part of the "war on drugs," are attracting international criticism, the New York Times reports. In April, a UN panel urged Mexico to consider withdrawing its use of the military because of complaints about "involuntary disappearances."
Haiti
11) Haitian lawmakers rejected President Martelly’s second pick for prime minister, delivering a major blow as he struggles to get a government in place almost three months after taking office, AP reports. Lawyers alleged that Bernard Gousse, Martelly’s nominee, was guilty of false imprisonment and being an accomplice to murder during his time as justice minister in the government after the 2004 coup that drove President Aristide from office.
Contents:
U.S./Top News
1) Now, The Next Battle
Joshua Green, Boston Globe, August 3, 2011
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2011/08/03/now_the_next_battle/
By any rational measure, the deal struck last weekend to raise the debt ceiling – formally, the Budget Control Act of 2011 – is a victory for conservatives and an incredible disappointment for Democrats. President Obama initially sought a "clean” bill to raise the ceiling, with no conditions attached. House Speaker John Boehner wanted to include a deficit-cutting package composed of 85 percent spending cuts and 15 percent tax increases. What the president signed was a capitulation, and then some: It could amount to as much as $2.8 trillion, all cuts and no taxes. While it raises the debt ceiling, it does nothing to stimulate the economy, help the jobless, or support state and local governments.
But while conservatives are unquestionably the victors here, the deal is set up in a way that will force them to confront a number of major – and conflicting – policy priorities that they have usually been able to muddy. This doesn’t offer much in terms of balance, but it will be interesting to watch how they deal with them.
The biggest conflict is between the defense-oriented conservatives and those who prize tax cuts above all else. Both groups are vital Republican constituencies, whose animating issues are fundamentally opposed to each other. It’s hard to build a robust and active military while trying to shrink the size of government – wars and weapons systems are costly and require tax revenue to pay for them.
Up until now, Republican leaders have usually managed to satisfy both groups by pushing to cut taxes and increase military spending – that is, by ignoring the bottom line and running up huge deficits. During the George W. Bush administration, Dick Cheney captured this mindset to perfection when he famously remarked, "Reagan proved that deficits don’t matter.”
But the process established under the debt deal will expose the inherent tension between these competing factions, and could go a long way toward resolving it. At first glance, the tax-cutters have won in a rout. They didn’t get all they wanted – there’s no balanced budget amendment or extension of the Bush tax cuts – but their interests plainly prevailed. No one’s taxes will go up as a direct result of the new law, and the initial $1 trillion in cuts is likely to include hundreds of billions in military spending.
The second phase could cut even further. The law creates a bipartisan commission charged with finding an additional $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction over the next decade, and includes a trigger that will automatically enact deep reductions in military spending if the commission fails or deadlocks. It’s not yet clear what will go, although Medicaid, Social Security, and veterans’ benefits are exempted. But it is clear that most Republicans value lower taxes over large military expenditures.
That is a marked change from recent history, and it derives from a shift within the Republican Party on deficits. Conservatives like Cheney always professed a commitment to balancing the budget – at least in public – even though their actions often demonstrated otherwise.
But the debt deal enshrines in law the very opposite of what Cheney actually believed – it is founded on the premise that deficits do matter, and matter enough to force Republicans (and some Democrats) to finally confront their conflicting desires to cut taxes and increase spending.
The fact that military expenditures are being sacrificed to keep tax rates low reflects the new balance of power within the Republican Party, one partly brought about by the failures of Cheney and the defense crowd.
"The Tea Party people are anti-military spending to a greater extent than establishment Republicans and have a healthy dose of isolationism thanks to American intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan,” says Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, who has long pushed to cut the defense budget. "On this issue, they were a positive force.”
[…]
2) How the Debt Deal Creates an Opportunity to Cut Nuclear Weapons
Joel Rubin, Ploughshares Fund, Aug. 3 2011
http://ploughshares.org/news-analysis/blog/how-debt-deal-creates-opportunity-cut-nuclear-weapons
As the dust settles on the debt ceiling deal, it’s become clear that major cuts to defense spending have not only been approved in a bipartisan manner by Congress, but that even more are on the way. This means that the days of unlimited defense spending increases, where all systems can be purchased, are over.
So now is the time for tough choices to be made between defense programs that serve our warriors and those that we have maintained for too long due to bureaucratic, parochial or ideological reasons. It’s time to stop spending dollars that we don’t have on programs that we don’t need and that don’t make us more secure.
And there is a clear target for such cutting: nuclear weapons. Making these cuts will fit neatly into the broader framework on defense cutting that this debt deal has created.
It’s worth noting that even though the debt deal has detractors who are concerned that it doesn’t specify the exact defense cuts to be made, this deal is already having an impact on the political debate, as profligate defense spenders are up in arms. There are real spending caps in the deal that, because of perpetual inflation, will reduce the Pentagon’s purchasing power and force cutbacks.
Therefore, the strategic success that this agreement has created by reining in defense spending through the budgetary spending caps, while not conventional wisdom yet in Washington, has set the stage for a battle on the types of specific cuts – yet to be defined – that are envisioned in this plan.
It’s worth noting that what this debt deal essentially does is provide Congressional approval for the President’s call for major defense cuts, which was initially announced at a level of $400 billion over 12 years. Not only that, but Congress has now approved steeper annual cuts, which according to the White House will be $350 billion to the base defense budget over 10 years, which is equivalent to $420 billion over a dozen years.
The argument about whether to cut defense is now over. Bipartisan support for its cutting is real.
So with Congress now endorsing the President’s position, and poised to make additional cuts in the second phase of the debt ceiling process – potentially $500 billion worth – it’s a new fact of life in Washington that defense will be cut.
Yet while the topline limits for a new category – security spending, which includes defense – have been set, Congress still has the responsibility to fill in the blanks on which programs will live and which will die.
This is because Congress has, in essence, approved its first Budget Resolution in more than two years. That’s right. What this debt ceiling deal has done is install budget caps on discretionary spending in a manner that Washington hasn’t seen since Democrats controlled both Chambers of Congress.
This is where the opportunity to cut nuclear weapons spending lies.
In essence, the new budget caps, which fit within a "security" spending category that defines security as defense, homeland security, international affairs, veterans affairs, and nuclear weapons, are the forcing mechanism for nuclear pork cuts. This is because in fiscal year 2012, the new budget ceiling for security is $684 billion; the President’s request however totaled over $720 billion for these accounts – meaning that nearly $36 billion in cuts from the President’s request need to be found.
Yet because the security category is broader than the traditional Budget Resolution accounts, which are typically broken down into appropriations account categories, questions have arisen about how the cuts will be made.
The answer therefore is to cut wasteful defense programs that do not advance our national security.
Fortunately, the new budget ceiling will help do just that, by putting downward pressure on appropriators to make real decisions within the security accounts, forcing them to make tough tradeoffs and choices – the kinds of tradeoffs typically avoided during appropriations processes that lack budget caps.
Hard choices about our defense spending will have to be made. And there are some clear targets for cutting, particularly in the nuclear weapons accounts.
This means that nuclear weapons should be on the chopping block.
As Congress begins to define the contours of the debt ceiling deal that it just approved, it’s clear that the debate now isn’t whether or not to cut defense spending, but is instead about which defense programs should disappear.
There is still much to be defined, yet the inherently competitive situation now shaping up on defense spending is welcome news to those who have been long seeking to get rid of the bloated weapons systems that weaken our economy while doing scant little to advance our national security.
3) Gallup poll reveals common ground for Jewish and Muslim Americans
Shlomo Shamir, Haaretz, 17:15 02.08.11
http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/gallup-poll-reveals-common-ground-for-jewish-and-muslim-americans-1.376598
A substantial majority of Muslim Americans and Jewish Americans support a future in which an independent Palestinian state would coexist alongside Israel.
A recent Gallup poll has revealed that not only do Muslim Americans and Jewish Americans have similar views regarding how the Palestinian-Israeli conflict might be resolved, but Muslim Americans are significantly more moderate than often believed.
A substantial majority of Muslim Americans (81%) and Jewish Americans (78%) support a future in which an independent Palestinian state would coexist alongside Israel.
According to the poll, 89% of Muslim Americans say there is never a justification for attacks on civilians, compared to 79% of Mormon Americans, 75% of Jewish Americans, and 71% of Protestant and Catholic Americans. It was also found that the frequency with which Muslim Americans – or any other faith group – attend religious services has no effect on whether they justify violence against civilians.
Despite this surprisingly high Muslim opposition to attacks against civilians, most Americans of other faiths, according to the poll, feel Muslim Americans’ do not speak out often enough against terrorism. Of the Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, and Mormon Americans surveyed, no more than about one-third and as few as one-quarter believe U.S. Muslims are sufficiently vocal in condemning terrorism.
This statistic is in blatant contradiction with the statistic showing that 72% of Muslim Americans believe that they are, in fact, outspoken in their condemnation of terror.
This mismatch may suggest that U.S. Muslims simply have not found the appropriate outlets to make themselves heard. These statistics also reflect the frustration Muslim Americans often express that their repeated condemnations of terrorism seem to go unheard or unnoticed.
Rabbi Marc Schneier, founder and president of the Foundation for Ethnic Understanding, said Tuesday that "the findings of this up-to-date Gallup poll prove that the projects that we have been running for the past several years throughout the U.S. geared toward bringing Jews and Muslims together were successful and achieved their goal."
Afghanistan
4) Afghanistan needs a break from the Seals
Ahmed Rashid, Financial Times, August 2, 2011 10:50 pm
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/d056abd6-bd39-11e0-9d5d-00144feabdc0.html
A series of Taliban assassinations has spread panic in Afghanistan’s ruling elite, increasing ethnic tensions and jeopardising the imminent transition from US and Nato forces to Afghan forces. As the military situation deteriorates, the dialogue process with the Taliban must be sped up. But for this to happen America must also suspend its own lethal night raids against Taliban targets.
[…] Many senior officials have reacted to this new unrest by sending their families abroad, or stopping them from leaving their heavily guarded homes. Governance outside Kabul is at an all-time low, as officials bunker down in their offices. At the same time Mr Karzai faces a parliamentary crisis, with the opposition threatening impeachment and a cabinet that has still not been completed after six months of delays. The state faces financial problems too. The International Monetary Fund, along with other agencies and donors, has sent no payments or loans to the central bank for four months, due to corruption scandals at the Kabul Bank that Mr Karzai has failed to address.
[…] As a result, Afghans are more doubtful than ever that the west can safely hand over to Afghan forces who can protect its population. This, in turn, creates a difficult backdrop for the early stages of peace discussions with the Taliban. Here there are growing criticisms of the secret talks from important Afghan minority groups, raising fears that an eventual power-sharing deal may not be accepted, leading to serious ethnic differences or a new civil war.
This is where the night raids matter. The Pentagon, which has been at odds with President Barack Obama over the troop withdrawal, is not fully supportive of the current round of talks. It also considers night raids, carried out by special forces such as the elite Navy Seals, to be one of its major weapons to degrade the Taliban. Yet while the raids have killed numerous commanders, they also generate enormous fear among the wider population. There are strident demands by Mr Karzai to stop them. The Pentagon is not listening.
[…] But public anger at night raids remains one of the main justifications for the current Taliban offensive, in addition to being a form of retaliation for previous US raids. If the offensive continues, there is a risk that further assassinations could lead to a complete collapse of leadership in the frail Afghan government bureaucracy and police.
Given this precarious situation, it is becoming more urgent for the US and Nato to speed up talks with Taliban leaders. Faster negotiations, however, require confidence-building measures. These should include a promise from the US to halt night raids in exchange for an end to the assassination campaign of Afghan officials. Further measures could then aim gradually to lower the level of violence, making it easier to carry out the transition.
The Taliban say they are not going to hamper a US withdrawal from selected areas, as long as the Americans do not target them. Meanwhile aides close to Mr Karzai say it is America’s finger that is on the trigger, and there is little they can do beyond asking for an end to night raids. The onus for stability rests on the Americans but if they continue down the present path, the transition to Afghan forces could quickly turn into a debacle.
Israel/Palestine
5) Tent protest in polls: One big unhappy middle class
Noam Sheizaf, +972, Wednesday, August 3 2011
http://972mag.com/tent-protest-in-numbers-1522720-11/
Recently published polls regarding the social protest reveal potential for major political changes in Israel, though not necessarily immediate ones
The Tent Protest has been dominating the news cycle in Israel for two weeks, and now there are also a couple of interesting polls regarding its possible political impact.
While it would be unwise to try and predict what sort of effect these unprecedented demonstrations will have on Israeli politics, the polls do confirm some of the hunches we had in the last three weeks, and most notably, a potential for far-reaching changes in the political system in the years to come.
– The support for the protest crosses sectors and party lines. According to Channel 10’s poll conducted on Monday, 88 percent of Israelis support the protest. The middle class parties lead the way: 98 percent of Kadima voters (!), 95 percent of Labor’s and even 85 percent of Netanyahu’s Likud voters find the protest just. Even if these figures dropped in the last couple of days-which had some fractions and public disputes in the protest movement-they are still exceptionally high.
[…] – The hard right is the only group not identifying with the protest. Half of Shas’ voters and most of those voting for the settlers’ parties think the protest is politically motivated. Voters of those parties are more inclined to oppose the protest than any other group. I believe that these groups sense that the protest might challenge the dominant political arrangements in Israel – ones with benefit the settlers and the religious parties.
[…] To sum it up, all figures point to a unique phenomenon: the secular middle class – usually the backbone of society-is unsatisfied with the political and economical trends, and more important, with the entire political system (usually it’s the other way around – the more you move to the edges of the system, the less satisfied people there are). Under these circumstances, the potential for major political changes-though not necessarily immediate ones-is enormous.
Libya
6) Resignation And Suspicion Set In For Libya’s Strapped Rebels
Kadafi’s foes are resigned to a long fight now, as they unhappily await more aid from Western nations. Meanwhile, rebel divisions are evident.
David Zucchino, Los Angeles Times, August 3, 2011
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-libya-rebels-mood-20110803,0,6659474.story
Benghazi, Libya – Graffiti and billboards here tell a tale of dashed hopes and an uncertain future in a nation divided between Moammar Kadafi’s tenacious regime in western Libya and the fragile rebel government-in-waiting in the east.
The graffiti that proclaimed "Game over" for Kadafi in February and spoke longingly of freedom have faded in the scorching summer sun. Gone are rebel billboards that once blared "No foreign intervention!"
Now billboards warn rebel gunmen to stop firing their weapons into the air because ammunition is precious and, as the image of a distressed baby attests, it terrifies families.
Frayed posters still thank NATO nations for airstrikes and sea and air embargoes, but the rebel leadership is growing impatient with unfulfilled promises of cash payments and with NATO’s failure to topple Kadafi.
The enthusiastic daily rallies that once clogged streets and sent tracer fire into the night skies are gone. Thousands of eager young men who volunteered for the rebel army are either mired in battle on three fronts, back home to rest, or part of the growing roster of war casualties.
More than five months after rebellion erupted here, insurgents in this eastern Libya stronghold remain locked in a military and diplomatic stalemate in their efforts to overthrow Kadafi. A sense of weariness and unease has settled over the de facto rebel capital, where rival street militias answer to no one but themselves.
The killing of a top rebel commander, Gen. Abdul Fatah Younis, by his own men Thursday exposed divisions within a rebel movement now facing rising anger from Younis’ powerful Obeidi tribe. The rebel Transitional National Council seemed paralyzed by the killing, issuing a disingenuous communique that refused to acknowledge that a dissident rebel faction had killed Younis.
On Sunday, rebel militiamen engaged in a shootout here with militiamen described as "fifth column" saboteurs loyal to Kadafi. The firefight underscored the deep fissures along tribal and political fault lines, pitting ex-Kadafi loyalists against former street protesters and tribal-based militias.
Meanwhile, the council is desperately short of cash and fuel as its poorly trained fighters struggle to make headway against the government’s military. Most rebel supporters are resigned to a long, bloody fight to overthrow Kadafi.
[…] On July 15, the U.S. formally recognized the rebel council as the sole legitimate representative of the Libyan people. While saying it ultimately favors a political settlement, the U.S. backs rebel refusals to negotiate with Kadafi unless he and his inner circle step down. "The American message is: No deals," Ben Ali said.
Recently, France and Britain softened their positions and said Kadafi could possibly remain in Libya if he gave up power, a move Ben Ali called "very cynical."
The council president, Mustafa Abdul Jalil, said recently that he could envision a scenario in which Kadafi remained in Libya. But he quickly backtracked under pressure from other council members.
The current rebel position is that Kadafi must be put on trial, either in Libya or by the International Criminal Court, which has issued arrest warrants for Kadafi, his son and his intelligence chief on charges of crimes against humanity.
In recognizing the rebels, the U.S. has accepted council assurances that it harbors no Al Qaeda-style Islamic radicals, council members and diplomats said. Western powers are comfortable with council promises to hold elections, draft a constitution guaranteeing individual liberties and form an inclusive transitional government.
But there are lingering concerns about the council’s insistence on Islamic law as the basis for any legislation in the post-Kadafi era, according to diplomats here. Another concern is that after 41 years of jailings, torture and killings of dissidents under Kadafi, many Libyans are eager to settle scores with his security forces and tribal supporters. Sunday’s firefight between rebel factions may be a prelude to wider bloodletting if Kadafi falls.
[…]
7) Killing of General Vexes Rebels in Libya
Kareem Fahim, New York Times, August 2, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/03/world/africa/03libya.html?ref=world
Benghazi, Libya – In a mourning tent for the Libyan rebels’ top military leader, who was assassinated last week in mysterious circumstances, relatives and members of his tribe warned on Tuesday of dire consequences, including violence, if rebel leaders did not move quickly to find his killers.
The relatives, including three of his sons, warned that the provisional rebel government, the Transitional National Council, was moving too slowly to form a committee to investigate the death the commander, Gen. Abdul Fattah Younes. General Younes and two colleagues were shot to death by unknown gunmen on Thursday.
"A week passed with no information," said one of the sons, who demanded that his first name not be published. "What we cannot take by law, we’ll take by arms."
Other people at the gathering spoke in more measured terms but also warned of untold consequences if the Transitional National Council failed to identify the killers and explain their motives. Their admonitions deepened the sense of crisis around the rebel leaders, who are facing homegrown strife while struggling to root out what they say is a well-armed fifth column of supporters of the Libyan leader, Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, who lurk in the rebel stronghold of Benghazi.
[…]
Iraq
8) Iraq To Seek Talks To Keep American Trainers Past 2011
Ed O’Keefe, Washington Post, August 2
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle-east/mullen-urges-iraq-to-decide-soon-on-troops-status/2011/08/02/gIQA5ri3oI_story.html
Baghdad – In a significant first step toward resolving the issue of future U.S. military involvement in Iraq, top political leaders Tuesday night authorized the Iraqi government to begin negotiations with the United States about keeping military trainers in the country beyond the end of the year.
[…] Mullen also reiterated that any agreement to keep U.S. troops in Iraq must include guarantees of legal immunity for American forces.
But that request could prove difficult, as many Iraqi lawmakers, aware of widespread public opposition to a sustained U.S. military presence, are unwilling to grant such protections to American troops.
[…]
Bahrain
9) Bahrain: MSF Condemns Armed Raid On Office and Detention of Staff Member
MSF, August 3, 2011
http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/press/release.cfm?id=5484&
Brussels — The international medical humanitarian organization Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) today condemned an armed raid on its premises in Bahrain and the subsequent detention of one of its staff members.
On July 28, armed security personnel violently raided MSF’s premises in Manama, damaging office property and confiscating all medical and office equipment and supplies. A Bahraini MSF volunteer, Saeed Mahdi, who works with the organization as a translator and driver, was arrested.
Since February, when demonstrations began in Bahrain, MSF has seen almost 200 injured and ill patients who did not seek care in health facilities because they feared being arrested for any involvement in protests. The MSF team has seen patients in villages across the country who have refused urgently needed hospitalization due to the high risk of arrest, and others who were severely beaten in jail.
"MSF has been transparent about its work and its intentions with the authorities in the country, including the Ministries of Health and Interior," said Jerome Oberreit, MSF director of operations in Brussels. "As such, we find the violation of MSF facilities and the detention of our volunteer both unwarranted and unacceptable."
Last week, a patient with a serious head injury arrived at the MSF premises. An MSF doctor provided first aid and an ambulance was called to transport the patient to the Salmaniya Medical Complex. It is MSF’s obligation to provide treatment regardless of a patient’s ethnicity, religion, or political affiliation.
Despite only assisting MSF and a patient by calling an ambulance, Saeed Mahdi remains detained. Repeated requests by MSF, his family, and his lawyer to have access to him have been denied. MSF has also not been able to obtain any information about the original patient, even after visiting Salmaniya to inquire about him.
[…]
Mexico
10) Rights Groups Contend Mexican Military Has Heavy Hand in Drug Cases
Randal C. Archibold, New York Times, August 2, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/03/world/americas/03mexico.html
Monterrey, Mexico – The marines barged in at dawn and grabbed her 27-year-old son, dragging him away with a look of fear frozen on his face, Maria del Socorro Maldonado said. He was rushed out clad only in orange shorts. "I asked if I could give him some clothes, flip-flops, a shirt, and they just took him," she said, still in shock as she recounted the June 28 raid at her home near here.
She has not seen him since. The marines, increasingly used as part of a military saturation of the area to fight drug gangs, say they do not have her son, René Jasso Maldonado, while the local police keep telling the family to check with the marines. Where he is, or even who took him, remains a mystery.
Mr. Jasso’s relatives believe he fell under suspicion because he is a taxi driver, many of whom are gang lookouts. But they insist he had no involvement in crime and have filed complaints with every authority they can think of – even sending a letter to the president – as they confront the kind of a bureaucratic black hole that human rights activists and international organizations contend is all too common.
The widespread use of the military to back up the local police, who often lack the capability or willingness to take on drug organizations, has led to the capture or killing of dozens of people suspected of participation in organized crime. But cases like that of Mr. Jasso, with their mix of suspicion, fear and unanswered questions, show the darker side of the strategy, human rights groups say.
Like the police, the military has been accused of acting with impunity, getting rebukes by the United States, international organizations and human rights advocates. Last year, the United States withheld part of its drug enforcement aid out of concerns over police and military abuse, and in April, a United Nations panel urged Mexico to consider withdrawing its use of the military because of complaints about "involuntary disappearances."
The most recent, and possibly farthest-reaching, effort to bring accountability to the military, however, has come out of Mexico itself: a Mexican Supreme Court decision last month that may help lift the lid on the thousands of complaints against the military about disappearances, torture and other abuse.
The court, concurring with a ruling by an international court, said rights cases against the military belonged in civilian courts, not in military tribunals where wrongdoers are rarely punished.
The decision raises the prospect of more transparent civilian investigations into the cases, said Nik Steinberg, a researcher with Human Rights Watch, which has been tracking military cases. But military leaders declared afterward that they could not operate without some protection from prosecution, and several lawmakers came out to support them.
[…] But as complaints of human rights abuses rise, Mexico has grappled with how, or even whether, to police the military.
The National Human Rights Commission said it has logged more than 5,000 complaints of abuse at the hands of the military, chiefly the army. In addition, it has said, more than 5,300 people have been missing since Mr. Calderón began his offensive against organized crime in 2006.
Under international pressure to curb the use of torture and arbitrary detentions, Mr. Calderón proposed to Congress late last year that allegations of rape, kidnapping and torture against the military be heard in civilian courts. Murder was left off the list, to the dismay of human rights advocates, and the bill has not advanced.
The State Department last year withheld part its counternarcotics military aid over human rights concerns. The money, $26 million under the $1.4 billion Merida Initiative, still has not been delivered, though the court’s decision on July 12 could help persuade lawmakers to release it, State Department officials said.
But several analysts questioned whether the civilian justice system was prepared to take on such cases. "Mexico’s civilian courts have proved woefully ineffective," [David Shirk, principal investigator for the Justice in Mexico project at the University of San Diego’s Trans-Border Institute] said. "If military human rights violators find the same degree of impunity we see for other criminal actors, then their victims will have little justice and this decision will have little real meaning."
[…]
Haiti
11) Haiti lawmakers reject leader’s 2nd pick for PM
Trenton Daniel, Associated Press, August 2, 2011
http://news.yahoo.com/haiti-lawmakers-reject-leaders-2nd-pick-pm-031800867.html
Port-au-Prince, Haiti – Haitian lawmakers rejected President Michel Martelly’s second pick for prime minister Tuesday, delivering a major blow to the new leader as he struggles to get a government in place almost three months after taking office.
In a sometime raucous debate that began in the afternoon and lasted into the night, 16 senators voted against the nomination of Bernard Gousse, a controversial former justice minister. The rest of the 30-member Senate refrained from voting.
The rejection of Gousse as Martelly’s second choice for Haiti’s No. 2 official means the president will begin the selection process all over again, which stands to push back the potential installation of a Cabinet by several weeks if not longer.
[…] Martelly’s first pick as prime minister, businessman Daniel-Gerard Rouzier, was turned down by the Chamber of Deputies because of questions over his citizenship and taxes. But Gousse, an attorney, seemed like a candidate who would meet even more opposition because he was so controversial.
A local law firm filed a petition last month for the legislature to investigate Gousse. The lawyers alleged he was guilty of false imprisonment and being an accomplice to murder during his time as justice minister in the interim government that took office after a violent rebellion in 2004 drove then-President Jean-Bertrand Aristide into exile.
Gousse resigned back then amid charges that he was persecuting Aristide supporters.
[…]
–
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