The US and dirty wars

They say if you put a frog in water and slowly warm up the pot, the frog will not notice the increasing temperature and boil to death. A metaphor showing how often we get used to situations, as they gradually get worse and run out of control...

I watched the documentary movie "Dirty Wars" by Jeremy Scahill, an American investigative journalist who also exposed the "frog in boiling water" role of Blackwater in US wars and homeland security.

"Dirty Wars" exposes the increasing role of US covert operations to capture or (mostly) kill anyone, anywhere, without any due juridicial process or proper public oversight. "Dirty wars" takes the specific examples of the killing of civilians in Gardez (Afghanistan), women and children in Al Ma'jalah (Yemen) and of two US civilians in Yemen (cleric Anwar Awlaki and his 16-year-old son Abdulrahman Anwar al-Awlaki). It focuses on the role of JSOC, the notorious US para-military branch which reports directly to the US President, bypassing the "normal" military chain of command.

I think this is a typical example of "a frog in boiling water"... We all sympathized with the US, and the victims of the World Trade Center attacks on 9/11. There was a significant global consent of the US invasion of Afghanistan to eradicate the Taliban and kill Bin Laden. But as of then things have just turned for the worse and the US took the global sympathy of 9/11 to move on to abolish proper human rights, juridicial process, international law and public oversight. Be it the invasion of Iraq -now internationally recognized as based on fake evidence and subversive economic motives-, the capture and detention of civilians -Guantanamo-, to random drone attacks on the soil of sovereign countries -just about anywhere in the world-, to the use of private militia and obscure security firms to execute its own "private" wars, and intrusion of the privacy of citizens -the revelations of Edward Snowden on NSA practices-,....

As time went by, from 9/11 to now, I think it is time to jump out of the boiling water, and question the foreign politics of the US, with all of its related issues. How is it that a single country, which prouds itself to stand up for worldwide democracy, can get away with worldwide unilateral military action without being questioned?

The issue is not just the accountability, oversight, human rights, states' sovereignty, etc.. But the issue is also that it is getting worse. "Dirty wars" claims that the unilateral covert operations increased over time -more now under Obama than under Bush JR, for God's sake-. It gradually shaped the world's perception of the US, and how it turns the world more polarized "extremist" action against the US and its foreign policy. The issue is not just the foreign policy actions themselves, but how they clearly don't work. Proof in case is that the initial feeling of sympathy for the US in Afghanistan and even Iraq, turned completely against the US, and how they polarized the world so much "with us or against us". With a growing sense of "against us".

No matter how cynical it might be, but somewhere it is comforting to see how Russia bluntly and publicly put the US foreign policy with its back against the wall: in Syria - where Putin took the wind out of Obama's sails for an imminent assault on Syria through shrewd foreign diplomacy, and did so again in the Ukraine -by invading the country before the US could say "1-2-3"-. While the latter - the invasion of a sovereign country- can not be justified, it is reassuring that somewhere the world powers might be slightly more balanced than in 2001-2003, even it were by matching the US through employing the same foreign tactics.

It is time for us, frogs, the leap out of the boiling water, and call the US to justice. It would not only serve international political balance, but most of all serve the rights of us, the citizens of the world.

Photo courtesy J.Ronald Lee

Read the full post...

See Rio+20 and die...

João Luiz Telles Penetra, one of the two murdered activists

Almir Nogueira de Amorim and João Luiz Telles “Pituca” Penetra were both leaders of the Associação Homens do Mar. AHOMAR (Association of Sea Men) is an organisation set up in 2009 to defend the rights of the fisher-folk working in Rio de Janeiro, and particularly those affected by the construction of a gas pipeline for Petrobras.

On June 19, both fishermen attended a meeting at Peoples' Summit, a RIO+20 side event in Rio de Janeiro, to discuss the impacts of big projects in the country. Three days later they disappeared.

On June 22, at approximately 4:00pm, Almir Nogueira de Amorim went to João Luiz Telles Penetra’s home in Ilha de Paquetá, a neighbourhood in Rio de Janeiro, to collect him to go fishing. When they did not return the following day, local fishermen and fire fighters began a search of the Guanabara Bay.

On June 24th, the body of Almir Nogueira de Amorim was found. he was tied to his boat. He had bruises on his neck and the boat had several holes in the hull.
The following day, João Luiz Telles Penetra’s body was found on the banks of Guanabara Bay. Both his hands and feet were tied with a rope.

Almir Nogueira de Amorim was a founding member and vocal activist of AHOMAR. João Luiz Telles Penetra was the leader of the association in Ilha de Paquetá and had been a key figure in a new campaign launched by the organisation. He led the struggle against Petrobras’ construction plans in Guaxindiba river, located within the Área de Proteção Ambiental Guapimirim (Environmental Protected Area of Guapimirim). The oil company wants to deepen the river to create a waterway, which would eliminate any possibility of fishing in these waters.

Since the founding of AHOMAR, the organisation its members have reported being subjected to death threats, physical attacks and killings. According to AHOMAR’s members, the attacks are perpetrated by people linked to death squads, security guards hired by the companies in charge of building pipelines and militias operating in the region.

Almir Nogueira de Amorim and João Luiz Telles Penetra are not the first members of AHOMAR to be murdered. On 19 January 2010, fisherman and human rights defender Marcio Amaro was assassinated one day after a demonstration, organised by AHOMAR, took place in front of the Petrobras headquarters in downtown Rio de Janeiro. Prior to his killing Marcio Amaro had filed a formal complaint concerning the presence of unlawfully armed men in Petrobras construction sites in Guanabara Bay.

On 22 May 2009 Paulo César dos Santos Souza, former treasurer of the association, was killed in front of his wife and children after being shot in the head five times. The crime occurred six hours after a government inspection decided to stop the pipeline construction due to irregularities.

To date no one has been brought to justice for these killings. Even with the high rate of violence in the region of Mauá and all the threats faced by human rights defenders, the only police station covering the region was shut down on 13 February 2012.

Source: CounterCurrents.org

Read the full post...

So why did the West push for South Sudan's independence?

75% of the oil reserve in Sudan, perhaps 6.5 billion barrels, is located in South Sudan (Source).

Since the "second" Sudan war between the North and South started in 1983, an estimated 2 million civilians were killed, and at least 4 million were displaced at least once.

During the war, aid agencies set up one of the largest, most costly and complex humanitarian relief operations ever, "Operation Lifeline Sudan", running a "relief pipeline" from Kenya (and partially Uganda) into the South. An operation which was often criticised as "fueling the conflict".

True or not, I guess "Operation Bulletline Sudan" fueled the conflict much more: While Russia -mostly through proxies- and China -mostly thru "oil-for-bullets" deals- made good business of arms deals with the North, the "West" kept "an extensive arms pipeline" running to the South during the whole conflict.
For years, the world kept their eyes closed, as business was good: selling weapons dearly, and getting cheap oil, I mean, what more can one wish?

This US arms supply to the South continues to run up to this very day, mostly through Kenya, one of the strongest US proxies in the region. Meanwhile, Russia and China continue to supply Khartoum. What will this lead to? An expanded conflict border zone where North and South Sudan dispute oil fields.

Aren't we lucky there is an embargo for selling arms to Sudan?

PS: this map might indicate the oilfields more clearly (Tnx @MFB)

Read the full post...

Video: The Girl Effect

We have covered advocacy campaigns by nonprofit organisations in the past. Here is a very simple non-pretentious video by The Girl Effect.

Simple is powerful.

Read the full post...

Sri Lanka's killing fields. The video.

We have been highlighting the plight of civilians caught up in the Sri Lanka civilian war since 2007. Back in 2009, after the last Tamil stronghold fell into the hands of the government, I published a post called "The killing fields of Sri Lanka".

Channel 4 just released a video, with the same title, documenting repetitive and systematically executed war crimes committed by both the government and Tamil fighters against unarmed civilians, clearly marked medical facilities and other non-combat targets.

It shows a forensic investigation into the final weeks of the quarter-century-long civil war between the government of Sri Lanka and the secessionist rebels, the Tamil Tigers.

Captured on mobile phones, both by Tamils under attack and government soldiers as war trophies, the disturbing footage shows the extra-judicial executions of prisoners; the aftermath of targeted shelling of civilian camps; and dead female Tamil fighters who appear to have been raped or sexually assaulted, abused and murdered.

The film is made and broadcast as UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon faces growing criticism for refusing to launch an investigation into 'credible allegations' that Sri Lankan forces committed war crimes during the closing weeks of the bloody conflict with the Tamil Tigers.

In April 2011, Ban Ki-moon published a report by a UN-appointed panel of experts, which concluded that as many as 40,000 people were killed in the final weeks of the war between the Tamil Tigers and government forces.

It called for the creation of an international mechanism to investigate alleged violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law committed by government forces and the Tamil Tigers during that time.

This film provides powerful evidence that will lend new urgency to the panel's call for an international inquiry to be mounted, including harrowing interviews with eye-witnesses, new photographic stills, official Sri Lankan army video footage, and satellite imagery. (Full article)

You can watch the 50 minute video here, but please beware the scenes are horrific and extremely graphic.


Picture courtesy Channel 4.

Read the full post...

In the shadow of the news: 1940's US syphilis experiments on humans

Guatemalans subjected to U.S. syphilis experiments in the 1940s are suing federal health officials to compensate them for health problems they have suffered.

The lawsuit comes after revelations that U.S. scientists studying the effects of penicillin in the 1940s deliberately infected about 700 Guatemalan prisoners, mental patients, soldiers and orphans. None was informed or gave consent. (...)

The Guatemalan experiments were hidden for decades, until a medical historian uncovered the records in 2009. (Source)

Why does this remind me of the experiments on humans another nation did around the 1940's?

Guess the earlier US apology did not help.


Cartoon courtesy Indiana University

Read the full post...

The subjectivity of war hunger

A week ago, it seemed that a military intervention in Libya was far fetched. Less so today.

That raises the question of the norms the international community uses to determine for which countries it should intervene.

If it is:
- use of unreasonable armed force against civilians
- atrocities against civilian population
- instigating civil war
- causing a mass exodus of civilian refugees

... then Israel should have been "invaded" a long time ago, I guess.

Certainly when we think of using internationally banned weapons against civilians and civilian targets (use of white phosphorus in densely populated civilian areas of Gaza), economic sanctions against Israel would have been justified. As well as expelling them from all kinds UN committees, a Security Council condemnation, engaging the ICC to prosecute Israeli government officials, and implementing a no-fly zone over the country...

So what are the prediction when this will all happen? For Libya, probably within the next week. For Israel, probably never.

Ok, but then how about a military intervention in Ivory Coast? Or a no-fly zone above Sudan?


Cartoon courtesy Al Jazeerah

Read the full post...

Shell in Nigeria.

Discovered via Platform London

Read the full post...

Human Rights for Dummies

If you don't understand what human rights are all about, after this video, then mmm...

Read the full post...

My Open Letter to the Executive Director of Human Rights Watch

Under the title "Sudan/United Nations: Do Not Meet With Officials Wanted for War Crimes", Kenneth Roth - the Executive Director of Human Rights Watch - published a letter to the UN Secretary General.

He questioned the sanity of UN officials attending the inauguration of Omar al-Bashir, the Sudanese president, who is indicted by the International Criminal Court (ICC) on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity in the country's western Darfur region.

I have mixed feelings about this stand, and decided to write an open letter to Mr. Kenneth Roth myself. Here are both letters:

Letter to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon
May 24, 2010
Dear Secretary-General:

I was dismayed to learn of your spokesperson's recent announcement that UN representatives Haile Menkerios and Ibrahim Gambari plan to attend the May 27 presidential inauguration of Omar al-Bashir in Khartoum. I urge you to reconsider this decision because it is both wrong and contrary to United Nations (UN) guidelines on this very issue.

UN guidelines limit UN interaction with individuals indicted by international criminal courts such as President al-Bashir to "what is strictly required for carrying out UN mandated activities." Attendance at the inauguration cannot be justified as "strictly required." To the contrary, the UN guidelines state that "[t]he presence of UN representatives in any ceremonial or similar occasion with [persons indicted by international criminal courts] should be avoided." In addition, I understand that further UN guidance specifically concerning President al-Bashir bearing your initials states that "interactions of a ceremonial nature with President Al-Bashir should be avoided, including courtesy calls, receptions, photo opportunities, attendance at national day celebrations and so on."

These guidelines are right. Disregarding them will significantly damage the UN's credibility. Attending the inauguration of an individual subject to an International Criminal Court (ICC) warrant for serious atrocity crimes would send a terrible message to victims of such crimes in Darfur and around the world that their suffering is not reason enough to dispense with ceremonial support for their alleged abuser. Attendance also risks signaling that the United Nations is not committed to the ICC's success-a signal that would be particularly unfortunate to send in the week before the first review conference of the ICC's Rome Statute, which takes place in neighboring Kampala, Uganda from May 31 to June 11, 2010. The review conference will be a moment of significant attention to the court's work and an important time to showcase dedication to the cause of international justice. Any short-sighted breach of the UN's own principles will be doing neither the court nor you any favors.

For all of these reasons, I hope you will reconsider the plans for UN officials at any level to attend the al-Bashir inauguration. Should you wish to discuss this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,

Kenneth Roth
Executive Director
Human Rights Watch

My answer reads:

Letter to Kenneth Roth, Executive Director, Human Rights Watch
May 27th 2010

Dear Mr. Roth,

While I applaud the tenacity in which your organisation pursues injustice and attempts to protect the weak and oppressed, I call upon you for a better balance in your actions, rather than pushing for issues "that suit The West".

You are correctly insisting the UN should be consequent in its actions towards Mr.al-Bashir. However, so should your organisation.

As an example: Back in 2003, George H.W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, Norman Schwarzkopf and Tommy Franks were indicted in a Belgian court for crimes against humanity, under the principle of universal jurisdiction. Under the pressure of the US, the Belgian law was changed. Apart from my amazement on the hypocrisy of the Belgian politicians, I would still like to point out that your organisation was one of the six human rights groups calling the loss of the universal jurisdiction component "a step backwards in the global fight against the worst atrocities."

Now I wonder, if you stood that firmly on the principle of universal jurisprudence, and indeed supported the indictment of the Bush gang, did you also write a letter to the UN Secretary General insisting on avoiding any official contact with the Bush administration?

I understand both cases are unsimilar. Bush was unfortunately not indicted by the ICC - even though he should have been. However, I call upon you, to stand by your universal principles. Bashing Mr.al-Bashir is singing a tune very popular in the West. Bashing Bush would not have been. Or was that goal too high? Too ambitious? Too costly for your organisation's supporters? Funders?

For all of these reasons, I hope you will admit the error at that time of the Bush administration. I encourage your organisation to pursue objective measures, and not only those suiting The West, or to those popular by demand, and easy hits in Western media.

Should you wish to discuss this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Peter Casier
World Citizen

Let's see what he says.

Picture courtesy AP Photo/Gerald Herbert

Read the full post...

Italy biggest donor in "Adopt a Clitoris" campaign

The charity "Clitoraid" is the most popular with the Italians, who account for 26.88% of the donations in 2009, according to the organisation's financial statement. This makes Italy the largest donor for the "Adopt-a-Clitoris" campaign.

I am not sure how to bring this news to you, as I don't know how it was meant. Female sexual mutilation is a crime. Punto.

How to react to the name of the charity and their campaign? I hope they actually meant it to be eye -or- ear catching and provocative.

Read the full post...

Video on Declaration of Human Rights

An excellent advocacy video from The Human Rights Action Center.

Discovered via Falling Whistles Blog, with thanks to Eric.

Read the full post...

2009 Humanity's Shame Top 10: Taking nominations now!

Update:
Comments are closed on this post, and the nominations are included in the poll.
Cast your vote on this post. The results are out - see this post.

Imagine we have an official mission from outaspace. As they get out of their spacecraft the leaders of our earth welcome them. For two months, the aliens will tour around the world, at their free will. Observing, asking, questioning,...

What according to you would be the things we -as a human race-, we -humanity as a whole- would be ashamed of? Things we would be unable to explain, to justify? Things we would have to bow our head with shame?

In this post, I had a go at MSF's top 10 humanitarian crisis highlights for 2009. So now is the time to prove WE can do better:

Let's make a list, our very own Top 10, our "2009 Humanity's Shame Top 10": things "we" -humanity as whole- should be ashamed of. What shameful 2009 event should we highlight, so we can improve in 2010?

Here is how we will do this:

1. I will take nominations for the "Shame List", as comments to this post. Deadline December 24th midnight EU time. So start posting your comments on this post NOW. The nominations should concern an event that happened, or peaked, or had a significant humanitarian impact in 2009.
   
2. On Dec 26th, I will put out a post with a poll with all nominees on the top 10 "Shame List". Then you can vote for those which you think we should be the most ashamed of until Dec 31st midnight.
3. On Jan 2nd, I will publish the top 10 with a summary of each "Shame".
   

To kick off the list, here are the "Shames" I have collected so far:

1. DRC: shame on us, on the international community to ignore the violence against civilians, mostly women and children, in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Shame on the UN in its inability to do anything significant about it.
2. Sudan: shame on us, the international community in failing to execute the international arrest warrant for the Sudanese President, on account of genocide and crimes against humanity, allowing him to continue his government's genocide in Darfur and arming fractions in South Sudan, preparing for a new war.
   
3. Copenhagen: shame on our political leaders to come up with a significant agreement during the Copenhagen Climate Change Summit.
4. Somalia: shame on us, on the international community to stop the politicization of the civil war supported by the US through its proxy Ethiopia, and supported by some Arab states through their proxy Eritrea. Shame on the donor community in its failure to provide sufficient aid to sustain the support of the feeding centers and refugee camps.
5. Zimbabwe: shame on us, the international community in failing to pressure Zimbabwe's government to provide sufficient social security, social safety nets and proper social welfare to its citizens, turning what once was the breadbasket of Subsaharan Africa into a well of hunger.
6. Afghanistan: shame on us, the international community, and the UN, in underestimating the level of corruption during the elections, trying to cover it up while supporting Karzai, ignoring all reports of large scale fraud.
7. Pakistan: shame on the Pakistani government into armed interventions in the Swat province, plunging the country into chaos, riddled with suicide attacks, displacing over 2 million people, with no hope of a longer term peace settlement. Shame of on the US government in bribing the Pakistan's ruling elite to take up arms
   
8. Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq: shame on the US for continuing the short sighted armed interventions, plunging any country they touch, into chaos.
9. Sri Lanka: shame on us, the international community in failing to highlight the crimes against humanity and genocide the Sri Lankan government covered up during the last weeks of their civil war. Shame on the Lanka government in trying to exterminate the Tamil population as a whole, locking up all civilians in camps which are rated as 'inhumane'.
10. H1N1: shame on WHO, for their inability to correctly estimate, leave alone forecast, the impact of H1N1 (not sure about this one. If you agree/disagree, leave a comment)
    
11. Palestine: shame on Hamas and the Israeli government in equally ignoring the rights of the civilian population during the recent Gaza conflict.
12. Guinee: shame on the Guinean government in violently suppressing protests through whatever means, including widespread rape.
13. World hunger record: shame on all of us allowing a record of 1 billion people to go hungry, while the world is producing sufficient food.
14. Seed and GMO market manipulation: shame on Monsanto and Cargill for monopolizing the seed market, using the US government to introduce GMO-food and seeds into developing countries. Shame on Monsanto for singlehandedly causing the autumn corn harvest in South Africa to fail.
    

So add your suggestions as a comment to this post. Nominations end Dec 24th midnight!

Picture courtesy David Gray/Reuters.

Read the full post...

International Human Rights Day: The struggle of Aminatou Haidar

Today, December 10th, is the International Human Rights Day and for the first time, we have a guest writer on The Road. Barbara Becker wrote this gripping article about Aminatou Haidar, a lifelong campaigner for the rights of the people in Western Sahara, occupied by Morocco since 34 years.

A Hunger for Justice: The perilous journey of a modern day Gandhi

Say the words “hunger strike” and many will recall images of an emaciated Mahatma Gandhi enduring several famous fasts to protest British rule of India.

But most Americans are currently unaware of an ailing human rights campaigner from Western Sahara now in the fourth week of a risky hunger strike after being expelled from her occupied homeland by Moroccan authorities.

A month ago, I had the good fortune of spending a week at the side of this often called “Sahrawi Gandhi,” Aminatou Haidar. Aminatou and I share many things: we’re both 42, we’re both mothers of two young children, we laugh at the same stories, and we both love the shrimp dish at our hideaway DuPont Circle restaurant. We are, as Aminatou says, like sisters.

And while we both call ourselves human rights activists, our day to day work is conditioned entirely by our life experiences. A product of the U.S., my brand of human rights activism is all but removed from the day to day horrors of abusive regimes. I develop strategic campaigns for human rights organizations and advocates like Aminatou, making sure their issues are heard in the media and in the corridors of Capitol Hill.

Aminatou, on the other hand, is in the thick of it. For over twenty years, she has led the nonviolent struggle to free the people of Western Sahara from Morocco’s 34-year occupation. In 1988, both parties agreed to settle the dispute through a UN-administered referendum that would allow the people of Western Sahara to choose between independence or integration with Morocco. The vote still has not been held, and UN facilitated peace talks have stalled over disagreements, including who qualifies to participate in the potential referendum.

During this time, Aminatou has spent nearly five years in prison for her peaceful activism, much of it in solitary confinement undergoing repeated torture. I have seen the pictures of Aminatou bloodied and scarred.

As I write this on my laptop in a coffee shop in New York, Aminatou is lying back against cushions on the floor of a waiting area in Lanzarote airport, in Spain's Canary Islands, fading in and out of wakefulness.

I am writing because Aminatou’s life is literally in peril, and this keyboard is, frustratingly, one of my only tools to bring attention to my colleague and friend.

The details of her circumstance are straightforward. After Aminatou’s visit to the U.S. to receive the 2009 Civil Courage Prize from the Train Foundation, she boarded a connecting flight in the Canary Islands to return home to her family in Laayoune, the main city in the Moroccan occupied zone of Western Sahara. As she had many times before, she declared Western Sahara as her country of origin on the immigration entry form. This time, though, Moroccan authorities seized her Moroccan passport (Morocco administers all travel documents for Western Saharans), held her for interrogation, and — claiming she had renounced her Moroccan citizenship — summarily deported her to the Canary Islands. Spain allowed her entry against her will and without travel documents, but insisted she could not travel back to Laayoune because she had no passport.

It is a direct violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, signed by Morocco in 1979, for anyone to be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his or her own country. According to a statement by the New York City Bar, this amounts to a breach of Morocco's international law obligations.

Now Aminatou is, in effect, stateless. She has refused an offer of a Spanish passport, insisting that she will not be a “foreigner in her own country.” The Moroccan Government refuses to reinstate her passport until she publically apologizes for her “act of treason.”

Hunger strikes are last resorts, never to be taken casually – particularly if you have a perforated ulcer and the other residual maladies Aminatou carries with her as a result of the years of beatings. According to Wikipedia, after three weeks of non-stop fasting, the body enters into "starvation mode," at which point the body mines the muscles and vital organs for energy, and loss of bone marrow becomes life-threatening.

Aminatou is prepared to take this hunger strike “to the death.” When I last managed to reach her by cell phone, she told me that her body was failing, but her will was as strong as ever. Mostly, she was preoccupied with the well-being of her children, whom she speaks with by cell phone every day.

Pressure has mounted on Spain to resolve the situation, and Aminatou’s plight has ignited the attention of the media there. Filmmaker Pedro Almodóvar has lead protests in her name and the actor Guillermo “Willie” Toledo has set up a makeshift office in the airport to be near her.

By stalling in this crisis, Morocco’s standing in the international community is called into question. The situation clearly undermines the ongoing negotiations between Morocco and Western Sahara mediated by U.N. Special Envoy Christopher Ross. And many policy watchers have begun to ask how the U.S. should relate to a solid ally whose human rights record is better than the norm in the region, but is now heading in the wrong direction.

This week Senator Patrick Leahy called the situation “unacceptable” and urged President Obama to defend those whose fundamental rights are denied, wherever it occurs. Senator Russ Feingold and Representative Donald Payne, chairmen of the Senate and House Subcommittees on Africa, also expressed deep concern.

Hanging on the wall of my office is a quote from Archbishop Desmond Tutu which reads, “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor." Remaining silent or ambiguous for fear of damaging our long-standing relations with Morocco is simply unconscionable.

It is urgent for the United States to help resolve this situation by asking Morocco to return Aminatou’s passport and allow her to return to her family. We must be firm in asking Spain to intercede with Morocco to ensure her safe return. It is also time for the U.S. to use its influence in the United Nations to reaffirm support for the negotiations and the long-overdue referendum on self-determination for the people of Western Sahara.

U.S. citizens should express their concern to their elected officials, as well as signing an open letter to the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. Amnesty International has also launched a letter writing campaign to Secretary of State Clinton and another to government officials in Morocco.

People like Aminatou capture our imaginations and give us hope that the path to peace -- wherever it may be -- is achievable through non-violent measures. Simply put, we must ensure that one of the world’s rare role models, lives to carry out her life’s mission surrounded by her family and her people.

______________
Barbara Becker is a principal of EqualShot. The views expressed in this piece are solely her own and are, in no way, meant to reflect the opinions of her clients.


Follow the latest on Aminatou Haidar via Humanitarian News

Picture courtesy Canarias 24horas

This post is part of "Bloggers Unite - International Human Rights Day". Are you a blogger? Write a post about this cause today!

Read the full post...

Picks of the Week: War jewelry, Seychelles and Africa...

It has been a while since I published my "Picks" or "Links" of the week, so time to catch up:

• Project Diaspora is all about empowering Africa by Africans. Read their moving pledge.
  
• WikiGender is a Wiki aimed at exchanging and improving the knowledge on gender-related issues around the world.
  
• On a lighter note: Africa goes webcam with this Kilimanjaro webcam.

• And even lighter: Gado is one of the true great African cartoonists.
  
• The Hauser Center for Nonprofit Organisations at Harvard University now features its own blog with some in depth coverage of international justice and human rights.
  
• It is great to see blogs, as a social media advocacy tool, to go mainstream. My list of nonprofit blogs became so large I could not feature them on The Road anymore, so I collected them on a Delicious bookmark list. I tagged them differently for organisations, individuals, magazines, teams and projects.
  A collection of the latest articles of these blogs, you find on nonprofitblogs.info.
  
• One example of a UN agency using a blog to propagate the work they do is the UN World Food Programme's Logistics blog. UNDP does similar on their blog too.
  
• During our holiday in the Seychelles, we got bedazzled by the beauty and diversity of its nature. WildLife Direct, which hosts dozens of nature conservation blogs, now features a project blog of Nature Seychelles, a local NGO. Get bedazzled too...
  
• For some truly inspirational pictures, try Open Photo...
  
• Something special to end: Lovetta Conto, a 16 year old war survivor combines high fashion with heartfelt compassion. She makes gorgeous jewelry from bullets used in the Liberian civil war that affected her directly and uses the profits to help rescue other displaced young people. She was a finalist for the International Children's Peace Prize, given by Desmond Tutu at the Hague in December. Check out Akawell...
  

More Picks of the Week on The Road.

Read the full post...

A telephone call from Tehran

How long will the regime be able to keep this up?

Read the full post...

Heading for trouble in Sudan

Judges at the International Criminal Court have decided to issue an arrest warrant for President Omar Hassan al-Bashir of Sudan, brushing aside diplomatic requests to allow more time for peace negotiations in the conflict-riddled Darfur region of his country, according to court lawyers and diplomats.

It is the first time the court has sought the detention of a sitting head of state, and it could further complicate the tense, international debate over how to solve the crisis in Darfur.

Ever since international prosecutors began seeking an arrest warrant last year, opponents have pressed the United Nations Security Council to use its power to suspend the proceedings. But a majority of Council members have argued that the case should go forward, saying Mr. Bashir has not done enough to stop the bloodshed to deserve a reprieve.

Many African and Arab nations counter that issuing a warrant for Mr. Bashir’s arrest could backfire, diminishing Sudan’s willingness to compromise for the sake of peace. Others, including some United Nations officials, worry that a warrant could inspire reprisal attacks against civilians, aid groups or the thousands of international peacekeepers deployed there. (Full)

While Sudan still plays down reports on al-Bashir arrest decision for the moment, there was plenty of press in the past months where Sudan claimed indicting their president would risk bloodshed.

And then there is of course the statement of the UN envoy to Sudan saying Bashir's government warned the UN of "serious consequences" for its staff and facilities if the International Criminal Court issues an arrest warrant.
This resulted in the Sudanese government denying such threats (Full), and the UN denying it was to evacuate its staff in view of the upcoming arrest warrants (Full).

All politics and maneuvering... My predictions:
- Sudan will not surrender its president to the ICC
- UN and the powers-that-be will further pressure Sudan
- Masses will come onto the streets in all major cities, attacking UN and NGO facilities, causing the latter to seriously reduce staff.
- Darfur rebels and South Sudanese fractions will see a potential vacuum, and will renew military actions.
- ..causing the Sudanese military to respond more violently than before
- UN and NGOs evacuate
- ...giving either warring fractions enough space to do whatever they want in a free-for-all genocide.
- and by the time all of this is finished with a political compromise, Sudan will have one million people less. And the world will have one more genocide to justify.

But that is just me and my cynical mind, of course.

Picture courtesy AFP/Getty Images

Read the full post...

Who said the UN is only taking sides against Israel?

United Nations Humanitarian Affairs Chief John Holmes blasted Hamas for its "cynical" use of civilian facilities during recent hostilities in the Gaza Strip.

"The reckless and cynical use of civilian installations by Hamas and indiscriminate firing of rockets against civilian populations are clear violations of international humanitarian law," Holmes told the UN Security Council. (Full)

Picture courtesy AP Photo

Read the full post...

Amnesty International accuses Israel

In two separate cases, Amnesty International accuses Israel of not respecting international conventions during the recent Gaza conflict:

Under the Geneva Conventions, medical personnel searching, collecting, transporting or treating the wounded should be protected and respected in all circumstances. Common Article 3 of the Conventions says that the wounded should be collected and cared for, including combatants who are hors de combat.

These provisions of international law have not been respected during the recent three-week conflict in the Gaza Strip. Emergency medical rescue workers, including doctors, paramedics and ambulance drivers, repeatedly came under fire from Israeli forces while they were carrying out their duties. At least seven were killed and more than 20 were injured while they were transporting or attempting to collect the wounded and the dead. (Full)

The Israeli army’s use of white phosphorus in densely populated civilian areas of Gaza has captured much of the world’s media interest. However, the Israeli forces also used a variety of other weapons against civilian residential built-up areas throughout the Gaza Strip in the three-week conflict that began on 27 December.

Among these are flechettes - tiny metal darts (4cm long, sharply pointed at the front and with four fins at the rear) that are packed into 120mm shells. (...)

Flechettes are an anti-personnel weapon designed to penetrate dense vegetation and to strike a large number of enemy soldiers. They should never be used in built-up civilian areas. (Full)

Read the full post...

Gaza: Did Israel want a human(itarian) crisis?

Ben White wrote a provocative opinion piece in the Guardian, under the title "Israel wanted a humanitarian crisis:"

Targeting civilians was a deliberate part of this bid to humiliate Hamas and the Palestinians, and pulverise Gaza into chaos.(...)

First, to what this war on Gaza is not about: it's not about the rockets. During the truce last year, rocket fire from the Gaza Strip was reduced by 97%, with the few projectiles that were fired coming from non-Hamas groups opposed to the agreement. Despite this success in vastly improving the security of Israelis in the south, Israel did everything it could to undermine the calm, and provoke Hamas into a conflict.(...)

Estimates for the proportion of civilian deaths among the 1,360 Palestinians killed range from more than half to two-thirds. Politicians, diplomats and journalists are by and large shying away from the obvious, namely that Israel has been deliberately targeting Palestinian civilians and the very infrastructure of normal life, in order to – in the best colonial style – teach the natives a lesson. (Full)

Another clip, also published in The Guardian, features an audio-slides about the use of phosphorous shells in the bombing of the Gaza UN school.

Discovered via The Road Daily.

Picture courtesy PopulistAmerica

Read the full post...