Banned Iranian terror group lobbies for legitimacy on Capitol Hill
22.05.2012, 15:24:00
MEK winning support in Congress - but questions raised over whether lobbying campaign amounts to support for terrorism A banned terrorist group is conducting what members of Congress describe as one of the most effective lobbying campaigns seen on Capitol Hill, winning support from politicians even in the face of a government investigation of its legality. Former heads of the CIA, FBI, homeland security and the US military have joined members of Congress of both major parties in backing a legal action by the People's Mujahideen Organisation of Iran, known as the MEK, to be removed from the US list of proscribed terrorist organisations. But the openness of the campaign and the large amounts of money backing it, with donations to congressional campaign funds and large payments for speeches in support of the MEK, has prompted an investigation into potential breaches of laws against financial dealings with banned organisations and whether the campaign amounts to material support for terrorism. Among those under investigation are the former chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff, General Hugh Shelton, the former FBI director, Louis Freeh, and Michael Mukasey, who, as attorney-general, oversaw the prosecution of terrorism cases. The heavyweight political backing for the MEK has surprised some US officials because of the organisation's past as a Marxist-Islamist group responsible for the killing of Americans. At one time the MEK supported the Islamic revolution in Iran. Later it allied itself with the Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. The group was banned in 1997. The MEK has also been described as a "cult" by a leading US thinktank for practices such as forcing members to give up their children in order to dedicate more time to the cause. But it has won backing on Capitol Hill by projecting itself as a democratic alternative to the present Iranian government. Among the group's strongest supporters in Congress is Dana Rohrabacher, an influential Republican member of the House of Representative foreign affairs committee and chairman of its oversight and investigations subcommittee. "These guys have got one of the best PR campaigns and political campaigns that I've seen on Capitol Hill for a long time," he told the Guardian. "They're a very efficient and effective lobbying effort. People on both sides here have been recruited by these people who know how to work the system here in Washington." Rohrabacher said he did not care that the MEK is listed as a terrorist organisation, arguing that it was only proscribed to appease the Iranian leadership at a time when Washington was attempting to improve relations with Tehran. The group has won a court order requiring the state department, which draws up the terrorism list, to review the case and make a decision on its application to be removed. This month, the state department stalled by saying that it cannot make a decision until the MEK clears out of a camp in Iraq, Camp Ashraf, where the group was once an armed military force. The organisation's supporters, including Rohrabacher, say that is a pretext because the state department fears that unbanning the MEK would outrage Tehran during delicate negotiations over Iran's nuclear programme. Rohrabacher said the government investigation is not legitimate and designed to suppress support for what he calls the Iranian opposition. "What we've got here is yet an escalation of a fundamentally dishonourable bargain that was made in the past, which should never have been made with the mullahs, and every step now they're having to protect that mistake. Now they're taking another step that is inconsistent with democratic government and agreeing that people can disagree," he said. "This attempt to silence people so that the rotten deal with the mullahs won't be disclosed somewhere along the line should indicate to the American people that somebody has done something wrong." At a hearing last week, all the members of Rohrabacher's subcommittee who attended spoke in favour of unbanning the MEK. Nearly 100 members of Congress have signed a resolution of support. Double standard But some critics contend that if the MEK's supporters were not so powerful, they would face the same treatment as that meted out to less influential Americans jailed after being convicted of supporting terrorism for actions such as offering conflict resolution advice, donating money for schools and rebroadcasting a Hezbollah television station. Reza Marashi, a former official on the US state department's Iran desk who was part of the team that reviewed evidence against the MEK and regards the terrorism designation as appropriate, said he is astonished that the group is able to operate so openly. "My former government colleagues are bewildered by the freedom of movement that a designated terrorist organisation enjoys on Capitol Hill. They're disgusted by former US government officials willing to make a quick buck by shilling for the MEK," said Marashi, who is now research director for the National Iranian American Council. "Do we really want to open the door to other terrorist organisations to spend millions of dollars lobbying to get off the terrorist list?" The MEK says that whatever its past, it has not done anything that fits the US definition of terrorism for at least a decade. Among those campaigning for the MEK to be unbanned are former CIA director James Woolsey; former New York mayor Rudolf Giuliani; ex-homeland security chief Tom Ridge; and Barack Obama's former national security adviser, James Jones. "Why is the state department waiting so long?" asked Giuliani at a conference earlier this year. "What is it, two years now that they have been delaying in making this decision? These are terrorism experts ... this group is not a terrorist group. Lift the designation and let's have our country on the right side." The former Democratic party presidential candidate, Howard Dean, has called on the US government to recognise one of the MEK's founders, Maryam Rajavi, as the legitimate president of Iran. The MEK also has supporters in the military including General George Casey, former chief of staff of the US army and commander in Iraq. Some former officers, such as Brigadier-General David Phillips, who commanded the US military police in Iraq and came into contact with the MEK as commander of Camp Ashraf, say they only receive expenses for speaking on behalf of the group. Others, such as Shelton, have taken substantial fees. Investigation That has prompted an investigation by the US treasury department, which has issued subpoenas to gather information on fees paid to Shelton, Freeh and Mukasey. It has also seized records from the former Pennsylvania governor, Edward Rendell, who has received $160,000 for attending conferences in support of the MEK in the US, France, Switzerland and Belgium. "I've been in politics 34 years, and I can tell you right now that I would not jeopardize my reputation for any amount of money," Rendell told the Washington Times. "If you indict me, I hope you know, you have to indict 67 other Americans who did the same thing, including seven generals." Shelton has described himself as "pretty miffed" at the treasury investigation and has denied any wrongdoing. Ridge said he believes the funds paid to him come from "legitimate sources". Others have declined to comment. The campaign in the US to unban the MEK is headed by an Iranian exile, Ali Safavi, who was for many years the group's official representative in Washington. He remains a member of the National Council of Resistance in Iran (NCRI) which portrays itself as a parliament in exile but which the state department calls the MEK's political arm and which is also banned. The treasury investigation is in part intended to find the source of the funds for the pro-MEK campaign. Safavi said they come from Iranian Americans. "The Iranian American community in the United States is a highly professional, highly educated community. There are many well-known businessmen and obviously these are law-abiding, tax-paying American citizens who want to use the money the way they want to," he said. But there are some US officials who suspect that, because of the amounts involved, money is also coming from other sources, mostly likely Saudi Arabia or Israel. Those officials point to circumstantial but not definitive evidence that Israel may have used the MEK in the assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists. Safavi denies it. "If the pro-Tehran lobby in Washington doesn't like it, so be it. I think the question that really the treasury should pay attention that under its nose the Iranian regime lobby has engaged in a major campaign of demonisation and propaganda to try to tarnish the image of these Iranians who are American citizens," he said. The MEK's campaign in the US follows a successful effort to be taken off terrorism lists in the UK, France and other European countries. In London, the MEK won a court case that Marashi said disturbed the British government. "In the UK, it slipped through the cracks - that's the common perception in the US government. We weren't happy when it happened. They weren't happy. But it happened. Once it happened they were able to start to pump the money into the UK. Then you had an additional way to move money," he said. Now some British politicians have thrown their weight behind the MEK cause in the US. A Conservative MP, David Amess, who is also a member of the British parliamentary committee for Iran freedom, this month described the MEK as "oppressed" and "wrongly labelled as terrorist". In the House of Lords, Muriel Turner and Ken Magginis have backed the call for the group to be unbanned in the US. Iran Support for the MEK is in part prompted by the showdown with Iran over its nuclear programme. Several of the group's supporters have spoken of it as a government in exile, even though there is little evidence the MEK commands real support in Iran. Rohrabacher said that the US needs to "take the shackles off" the MEK in order to "fight the mullah dictatorship". Colonel Wesley Martin, who headed the US antiterrorism force in Iraq and got to know the MEK as the first US commander in charge of Camp Ashraf, said he saw no evidence of a terrorist organisation. "Two of the spokesmen for the MEK today - James Woolsey and John Sano, the former director of the CIA and the former deputy director for clandestine operations - both are saying they're not a terrorist organisation. It's a resistance organisation. "They're not after the power in Iran, they're after democracy in Iran. We need to start by delisting these people as terrorists and recognising them as a valid democratic movement, and work with them closely to help force things from within," said Martin, who is not being paid for his support of the MEK. But Marashi, who as a state department official reviewed the evidence against the MEK, said it should remain on the terrorism list, although he said he is barred from talking about specifics. "As somebody who's participated in the review process of their terrorist designation I can say unequivocally that the information exists to warrant the designation," he said. "The facts were so indisputable that nearly zero debate took place inside the state department and most neo-conservatives inside the Bush administration were unequivocal that a terrorist group is a terrorist group." But many of the MEK's American supporters speak of the organisation almost with a reverence. Martin is among them. "When I was in Iraq, and it was a combat zone and we were getting soldiers killed, the MEK was on our flank doing everything humanly possible to help us from getting soldiers killed. And when some of my soldiers got killed I saw the pain in their faces. They were very committed to working with us," he said. "It's become more and more obvious to the Americans who've worked with the MEK, myself included, that this is not a terrorist organisation. As we peel back the onion, we find out they were not a terrorist organisation with the energy focussed toward the United States." Free speech v support for terrorism Martin sees his right to campaign on behalf of the MEK as a freedom of speech issue, whether or not the group is banned. "We have the first amendment (to the constitution) protecting freedom of speech. The treasury department is in violation of our constitution," he said. Rendell has made a similar argument. "You tell me that anyone has the right to restrict my freedom of speech and I'll tell you you're dead wrong," he said. But critics say that Congress and some former officials are applying a double standard in having passed anti-terrorism legislation and vigorously applied laws that have sent people to prison for far less direct support of a banned group than that now being given to the MEK. David Cole unsuccessfully challenged the Patriot Act, passed in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, at the supreme court after members of a US humanitarian group gave advice on conflict resolution to two banned organisations, the Kurdistan Workers Party in Turkey and the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka. Cole argued that the project was promoting peace not violence and was in any case protected by a constitutional right to free speech. The court said even speech can amount to support for terrorism. Cole said he believes that Americans should be free to speak in favour of unbanning the MEK. But he regards it as hypocritical for officials to criminalise similar actions by others. "The MEK has demonstrated through very, very generous contracts that if you can get a lot of powerful people to speak up for you, you might succeed in getting yourself off the list," he said. "You need only compare this to the prosecution of the Holy Land Foundation in Dallas, Texas, which was the largest Muslim charity in the United States prior to 9/11. By basically giving aid to build schools and provide healthcare to organisations that were not designated as terrorist, these individuals had committed the crime of supporting terrorism and are spending 65 years in prison. "There are plenty of people sitting in jail today who were initially investigated by treasury but ultimately prosecuted by the justice department. That said, the people sitting in jail are not people with the power and the connections that Michael Mukasey, Tom Ridge, Ed Rendell, Louis Freeh and Rudi Giuliani have. "The reality is that people like that are very unlikely to be criminally prosecuted, whereas people without that power and without those connections will be prosecuted and have been. There's clearly a double standard." US Congress Iran Global terrorism US politics United States US foreign policy Chris McGreal guardian.co.uk © 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
|
|
|
Syria massacre survivor tells of killing of army defectors
22.05.2012, 17:04:24
Mohammed Rahman Sohail says he witnessed Assad regime forces corner men before 83 of them were gunned down Crouching in a gap between two grey boulders, Mohammed Rahman Sohail first heard the screams of defiance, then the machine guns opening up. Down the valley, around 300 metres away, he could make out about 100 men like him hiding behind jagged rocks, desperately trying to outmanoeuvre the turrets pointing their way. The tanks and men with machine guns had moved out from nearby villages and readied themselves on the high ground, herding their captives like dogs corralling stock to this small forsaken valley on a mountain plateau in northern Syria. With the men trapped below, gunmen loyal to the regime of President Bashar al-Assad walked steadily around the ridge until every man beneath them had no chance of escape. The only way out was a suicidal dash towards a five-metre wide exit to a large ravine below. Some of the men made the futile run for it. The rest accepted their fate. Sohail hid silently, trembling and terrified as everyone of the men were mowed down. "They were screaming and shouting Allahu Akbar as they died," said Sohail, weeping as he recalled the massacre. "The sounds of their death were agonising. They will stay with me forever." Sohail said the gunfire continued for six hours on that terrible day, 21 December last year. "They [the regime soldiers] had everyone out of the nearby villages, Kfra Arya and Sarji, by 9.45am," he said. "They started at 10am and finished at 4pm. I didn't move all that time. What could I do?" Sohail, an officer in the rebel Free Syrian Army (FSA) had been in the fields when the army arrived that day. He heard the commotion in the nearby villages and stayed put. As far as he knows he is the only living witness to what took place in this remote rural hamlet of Jebel al-Zawiya. In the 18 months of violence that has ravaged Syria, it is one of the worst single massacres to have taken place. It is also one of the most well-documented acts of savagery, with local men meticulously filming the aftermath of murdered men piled amid a pristine ravine. The images had a Jonestown-like depravity. When the guns fell silent, 83 men were dead. Among them were two of Sohail's brothers and 10 of his cousins. Every one of the corpses was riddled with bullets from heavy weapons. "There was even an imam whose throat they had cut," he said. "They were barbarians." In December last year, regime troops had gone hunting for defectors in northern Syria, particularly those who had fled to two rebellious areas, Jebel al-Zawiya and Jisr al-Shughour, which the Assad regime claims are hotbeds of Islamic militancy. The FSA considered this part of the country to be one of its strongholds. It was able to seize and hold swathes of ground and launch attacks on military columns that came their way. The ranks of defectors were starting to swell and pose a serious threat to the regime's ability to retain control here. "There were many defectors coming in to us every day," said Sohail, sitting with a group of men - in effect a military platoon - in a nearby village last week. Another officer said: "It is true that around half, roughly 43, of the men were defectors. They had been with the revolution for only a short time and the army had tricked them into leaving the village. By the time they realised the conspiracy, they could not escape." Several weeks after mourning his dead family members, Sohail returned to the lead the ravaged local FSA unit. Not long afterwards a new defector arrived. "He said he was one of the men in the tanks firing his machine gun," said Sohail. "He asked for my forgiveness and said [his officers] had told him that we were all from Libya and members of al-Qa'ida and that every one of us was to be killed. "I forgave him and said he was welcome." Sohail said that, despite the terrible price the defector's gun had helped take on his family, he could not bring himself to hold a grudge against him. "He was just following orders," said Sohail. "If he had refused to fire, they would have killed him." Four days before the Guardian met Sohail, the army unit from which the defector had fled caught up with him. "He was driving a bread van out towards another village," said Sohail. "They took him from his car and shot him dead." Defections - and bloody reprisals - still take place almost daily in this part of the rebel heartland. Regime troops have retaken the biggest city in northern Syria, Idblib, and their hold on some of the outlying villages appears to be increasing. But Jebel al-Zawiya remains, for now, an uncontrollable corner of a deeply unstable country. "That's all they can do - kill," said the second officer. "We have paid a heavy price here. But so have they." Syria Middle East and North Africa Martin Chulov guardian.co.uk © 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
|
Terre'Blanche murder: farmworker guilty
22.05.2012, 17:22:00
Chris Mahlangu, 29, is convicted of bludgeoning the white supremacist to death at his farmhouse in South Africa A black farmworker has been found guilty of murdering Eugene Terre'Blanche, the white supremacist whose brutal demise threatened to inflame racial tensions in South Africa. Chris Mahlangu, 29, was convicted at a court in the small rural town of Ventersdorp. His co-accused, Patrick Ndlovu, 18, was acquitted of murder, but found guilty of housebreaking. Terre'Blanche, co-founder of the far-right Afrikaner Resistance Movement (AWB), who wanted to overthrow South Africa's black majority government, was killed at his farmhouse in Ventersdorp on 3 April, 2010. Prosecutors had accused Mahlangu and Ndlovu of breaking into the 69-year-old's home, where they found him asleep, and bludgeoning him to death with a steel pipe. A post-mortem report revealed he sustained 28 injuries. Mahlangu and Ndlovu pleaded not guilty to murder, housebreaking and robbery with aggravating circumstances. Both declined to testify. Judge John Horn ruled on Tuesday: "After all the evidence given, I conclude that accused number one is guilty as charged." Horn dismissed Mahlangu's claim that he acted in self-defence and said there was no evidence that Terre'Blanche was killed due to his political views. The dispute had been over wages on the farm. While Terre'Blanche was portrayed as arrogant and violent, neither of the accused testified about this, or any claims of abuse, the judge added. "None of these things could justify the brutal attack on the deceased." His verdict marked the end of a two-year case that had raised fears of a violent backlash along racial lines that would evoke apartheid demons, but ultimately lost its sting to prosaic concerns over legal delays and a botched police investigation. The AWB organisation waged a bloody and futile campaign to resist the end of white minority rule and the establishment of democracy under Nelson Mandela in 1994. Terre'Blanche, a burly fascist known for his thick white beard, piercing blue eyes and fiery rhetoric, had become an irrelevant figure by the time of his death. "He was revered by some, but despised by others," Horn said during his judgment. His body was found on his bed with his underwear pulled down to reveal his genitals. Initial testimony suggested that there was semen on his body, but the substance was never analysed. Mahlangu claimed that he acted in self-defence after Terre'Blanche had raped him - an allegation that the prosecution said was made up and was rejected by the court. Judge Horn asked why it was only mentioned towards the end of the trial, and only through other witnesses. He said: "Sodomy is such a personal intrusion, I can't believe [Mahlangu] would not have raised it immediately." Ndlovu was 15 at the time of the killing and was tried as a minor. The trial has been held behind closed doors to protect his identity. Last month, the judge ruled that most evidence against the teenager was inadmissible because police failed to follow South Africa's child protection law in handling the case. Terre'Blanche's family said Mahlangu should spend the rest of his life in jail and expressed disappointment at the acquittal of Ndlovu. "He was guilty," relative Andre Nienaber told South Africa's Mail & Guardian. "He was part of it. He admitted it. He should never go free." During the trial, the defence alleged that the farmworkers had been abused by Terre'Blanche and were trying to defend themselves. A lawyer for Ndlovu said he had been subject to "appalling conditions ... not fit for human habitation [and] child exploitation" on the farm." Terre'Blanche had been jailed in 1997 and sentenced to six years for the attempted murder of a black security guard and assaulting a black petrol-station worker. After Terre'Blanche's death, some members of the local black community called Mahlangu a hero for his alleged role in the crime. Some Afrikaners claimed his murder highlighted the violence faced by white farmers in South Africa, with around 3,000 said to have been killed since 1994. On Tuesday, protesters from both sides scuffled outside the courthouse in Ventersdorp, about 80 miles west of Johannesburg. Scores of AWB members wearing military fatigues set up camp with their red, white and black, swastika-style flags planted in the ground. Nearby, a bigger group of supporters of the two farmworkers sang anti-apartheid songs. Police set up cordons to keep the two sides apart but the tensions did not explode into broader violence, and the crowd showed little reaction to the verdict. Former AWB leader Andre Visagie said the group would be watching closely what prison sentence Mahlangu now receives. "We as a people want to see what message the court send out to the farm murderers out there," he told the Mail & Guardian. "Do they spend three or five years in jail, and then get out to murder again? If a firm message is not sent out to the farm murderers, then the rainbow nation will remain a dream." Eugene Terre'Blanche South Africa Africa David Smith guardian.co.uk © 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
|
From the archive, 23 May 1861: 'War to the knife' in American civil war
23.05.2012, 06:30:00
As the American civil war begins, an editorial in the Manchester Guardian questions whether the Union can survive in its present form War to the knife must now be understood to be the resolution adopted, on second thoughts, by the government of the United States. We say on second thoughts, because it will be remembered that Mr. Lincoln, at the time of his inauguration, allowed no sign of a desire to push matters to this extremity. He was going, he said, to hold the property belonging to the Union in the seceded states, and to insist upon the collection of the federal revenue, but he disclaimed all intention of making war upon the self-styled Confederation of the South. May we not think that the creditable and unexpected manifestation of loyalty in the North has had more even than the aggressive movement made by the rebels at Fort Sumter to do with the change for the fiercer which has come over the spirit of the President? The effect of that change is most forcibly expressed in the first letter of instructions sent by Mr. Secretary Seward to the new American Minister at Paris, which, with the curious taste observed in American public manners, is given to the world at large before it can have been received by the foreign government to which it is virtually addressed. Hereby we are given to understand that there is to be no further parley with the rebels, who, on the contrary, are to be reduced to submission with an uncompromising sternness of resolution which even imperialism may well envy. 'You cannot,' he says, 'be too decided or explicit in making known to the French government that there is not now, nor has there been, nor will there be any, the least, idea existing in this government of suffering a dissolution of this Union to take place in any way whatever. There will be here only one nation, and one government; and there will be the same Republic and the same constitutional Union that have already survived a dozen national changes of government in almost every other country. These will stand, hereafter, as they are now, objects of human wonder and human affection.' Whatever may be the course or duration of the civil struggle, that 'the same Republic and the same constitution' which we have hitherto known should be evolved from it is not, on any hypothesis, a conceiveable issue. To predict such results with the precision and emphasis which he employs, may possibly seem to Mr. Seward's countrymen an inspiriting example of courage in the face of difficulties; but we regret to say that our own experience does not induce us to associate such vain affectations with clearness of purpose or consciousness of strength. We shall, perhaps, be reminded that opinions and intentions declared by an American Secretary of State ought not to be judged so literally as avowals of a corresponding kind given to the world under the hands of English Ministers. It may be that Mr. Seward means to say not exactly what his government is bent on doing or thinks itself capable of accomplishing, but what it knows that, theoretically it ought to aim at, and what, to the fullest extent of its intellectual power, it will try to approach. The American Minister does not seem to be at all disturbed by having to promise that the Republic and its constitutional Union, 'shall stand hereafter, as they are now, objects of human wonder and human affection.' Had these words been written twelve months earlier, they would by this time have been pathetic. As it is, they narrowly escape being ridiculous. What are the Union and Republic now, when more than a third part of the community have not only repudiated the federal compact, but are in open war against the remainder? American civil war US politics United States US military Republicans Democrats Slavery guardian.co.uk © 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
|
Somalia's private sector can help rather than hinder development | Samuel Carpenter
23.05.2012, 06:00:01
Somalia's business community can support aid efforts - but humanitarian agencies must better understand how Despite - or perhaps because of - more than 20 years of war, Somalia has a remarkably strong private sector , particularly in the money transfer, telecommunications and livestock spheres. Yet, as the 2010 Inter-Agency Standing Committee evaluation of the humanitarian response in Somalia points out, aid agencies have failed to engage systematically the Somali private sector and disapora in their work. This is no small omission, given that remittances alone are estimated at $1bn-2bn (£6.3-12.6m) a year in Somalia - and this figure does not even take into account the vital role the diaspora plays in providing basic services such as healthcare, education and water, as well as infrastructure and enterprise. There are significant operational challenges to working with businesses in Somalia. Legitimate concerns surround preventing the diversion of aid, upholding humanitarian and " do no harm " principles, and managing reputational risk. However, working with the private sector in protracted crises is both an operational necessity and a major opportunity for recovery and development. A new report by the Humanitarian Futures Programme, released in the runup to the 31 May-1 June Istanbul Conference on Somalia, shows how initiatives led by the UN during the 2011 famine provide examples of new mechanisms for addressing these long-standing challenges. Over the years, a relationship has become institutionalised in Somalia whereby local businesses serve as contractors to support international aid operations, supplying goods, transportation and private security services. However, the unregulated nature of Somali business has complicated and sometimes undermined the efforts of international agencies reliant on its services. In 2010 for example, there was significant controversy surrounding the role of three World Food Programme (WFP) contractors accused by the UN Monitoring Group on Somalia and Eritrea of diverting food aid, a claim the WFP denied. Somalia's civil war means the existence of relationships between Somali businesses and parties to the conflict, such as the Islamist insurgency group al-Shabaab, are not always easy to determine. These matters are of particular sensitivity, given the importance for relief agencies of upholding humanitarian principles , particularly neutrality and independence, and not falling foul of the sanctions regime . Aiming to introduce greater accountability in its dealings with Somali contractors, the UN has established a risk management unit, intended to develop a database covering every contract between a UN agency and a Somali business. The database is set to include performance and security assessments of Somali enterprises, as well as political and economic affiliations, thus highlighting potential conflicts of interest - although breaches of contract are still not automatically transferable across agencies. Managing reputational risk and avoiding unintended impacts on the conflict is clearly vital for the UN, but Somalis must be involved in this process too. For such a process to be perceived as neutral, legitimate and effective, it must be a participatory undertaking, encompassing the voices of the Somali business community. A further challenge relates to the threat of the private sector exacerbating the cyclical crises that continue to blight Somalia - as witnessed most recently in the 2011 famine. Last year, as prices were rising in the agricultural river valleys of the south, some in the private sector were maximising their profits in the face of a looming humanitarian crisis. It has been suggested al-Shabaab may have been working to keep the support of small traders by preventing humanitarian access and the distribution of food aid to ensure prices did not fall in local markets. In a market economy, where assets provided free of charge have hindered the development of local markets and the private sector more broadly, it is perhaps unsurprising that local traders would be deeply suspicious of the humanitarian sector. While criticisms of humanitarian aid undercutting markets are nothing new, there is a gap in activities aimed at addressing this recurring challenge in conflict-affected situations such as Somalia. Private sector development programmes provide an opportunity to mitigate this threat. The London Conference on Somalia in February agreed that "Somalia's long-term reconstruction and economic development depended on a vibrant private sector". Of course, it is not within the mandate of humanitarian agencies to engage in private sector development. But development agencies can help enable Somali businesses to move away from short-term, speculative investments that exacerbate cyclical crises towards longer-term investments that contribute to recovery, peace and development. Donors should consider prioritising projects that deliver formal business training, promote co-operation with entrepreneurs in providing basic services and improving infrastructure, and look for more effective ways to draw on the business acumen of the diaspora. It is inevitable that humanitarians will at times be compelled to engage with the private sector in conflict-affected situations such as Somalia, if only to support their own operations. This engagement can both harm and enhance relief and recovery efforts. For that reason, it is essential, both for the future of humanitarian action and for the future of countries such as Somalia, that new initiatives along the lines of those described here are adequately supported. o Samuel Carpenter is a programme officer with the Humanitarian Futures Programme, King's College London Private sector Aid Somalia Africa Samuel Carpenter guardian.co.uk © 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
|
Iran nuclear talks in Baghdad begin
23.05.2012, 05:19:00
Six world powers to make 'confidence-building' proposal for Tehran to scale down its enrichment programme World powers will test Iran's readiness under pressure of sanctions to scale back its nuclear programme at talks in Baghdad aimed at easing the decade-old standoff. The meeting between Iran and six nations - the US, Russia, China, Germany, France and Britain - is the second since diplomacy resumed in mid-April in Istanbul after a tense 15-month hiatus. Around 15,000 Iraqi police and troops will protect the venue inside the capital's heavily fortified Green Zone on Wednesday. Tehran's suggestion of a meeting in Iraq, whose leadership is friendly to Iran, was seen by some diplomats as it testing western commitment to seeking a deal. Formal talks are expected to start around noon. "Istanbul was important because for us it was a test of the Iranians' willingness to engage. Baghdad should focus on concrete substance," a European diplomat said. "The ball is in their court. It is they who must make the first step." One senior western official said the six, led by the EU foreign policy chief, Catherine Ashton, would make Iran "a detailed proposal that will include confidence-building measures". No details were available on what these would be. The main goal of the six powers - known as the P5+1, for the five permanent UN security council members plus Germany - is expected to be an Iranian agreement to shut down higher-grade uranium enrichment, which it launched in 2010 and has since expanded in an underground plant at Fordow. Much to Israeli alarm, the plant would be largely impervious to attack from the air. Producing such highly enriched material in larger quantities has shortened the time Iran would need to build an atomic bomb. Iran says its nuclear programme is a peaceful bid to generate electricity and has repeatedly ruled out suspending all its enrichment of uranium, an activity that can have both civil and military purposes. But it has indicated possible flexibility on the higher-grade enrichment of uranium to a fissile concentration of 20%, the part of Iran's work that most worries the west. In a possible sign of a new Iranian willingness to address concerns, the UN nuclear supervisor said on Tuesday he expected to sign a deal soon to unblock an investigation into suspected work on nuclear bombs. But western diplomats will be wary of past failures to carry out extra inspection deals between the International Atomic Energy Agency and Iran. They want Iran to cease work at the Fordow site and export its stockpile of higher-grade uranium - demands that analysts say Tehran would be unlikely to accept while sanctions remain. Iran maintains that it needs uranium refined to a fissile concentration of 20% for its medical isotope reactor. Enrichment to 5% of fissile purity is suitable for power plant fuel, while 90% constitutes fuel for bombs. Ashton has said she hopes the Baghdad talks will form the basis for Tehran to eventually abandon its suspected nuclear weapons programme. Iran has suggested it will try to leverage its reported improved relations with the IAEA into a deal in Baghdad to relax sanctions inflicting increasing damage to its economy, including a European Union oil embargo due to take effect in July. Western officials ruled out such a big concession so soon, even though their call for a "step-by-step" negotiating process is widely seen as a tacit admission that sanctions will have to be eased at some point. Iran Nuclear weapons European Union US foreign policy guardian.co.uk © 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
|
China criticises Iran nuclear sanctions ahead of Ahmadinejad visit
23.05.2012, 04:42:00
As six countries discuss disputed programme, Beijing says it opposes measures taken by groups of nations outside the UN The Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, will visit China in June for a security summit and discuss his country's disputed nuclear programme with Chinese president Hu Jintao, a senior Chinese diplomat has said, while criticising new sanctions against Tehran. Ahmadinejad will attend the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation (SCO) meeting hosted by Beijing in June, China's vice-foreign minister Cheng Guoping told reporters at a briefing. The SCO is a regional security forum comprising China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. Iran is attending as an observer to the conference, which risks being overshadowed by the presence of Ahmadinejad, whose country is at the centre of a standoff with the west over its nuclear programme. "Certainly during his meeting with President Hu the Iran nuclear issue will be an important talking point," Cheng said. Iran is under persistent pressure to curb its nuclear programme and its security council chief is due to hold talks in Iraq on Wednesday with six world powers: the US, Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has announced it is close to a deal to unblock monitoring of Iran's suspected work on a nuclear weapon. China has a veto on the UN security council and has resisted US demands for sanctions on Iran. Iran, Opec's second-largest producer, exports most of its 2.2m barrels of oil per day to Asia, home to its four main customers: China, Japan, India and South Korea. All four nations have cut back on their purchases, dissuaded by a previous package of US financial sanctions due to take effect at the end of June as well as an EU oil embargo and a ban on shipping insurance that takes effect on 1 July. The US Senate unanimously approved on Monday a package of new economic sanctions on Iran's oil sector. China has repeatedly urged a negotiated solution to the dispute. Asked about new US and European Union sanctions targeting Iran's oil exports, Cheng repeated China's opposition to what it views as unilateral moves made outside the framework of the United Nations. "We strictly follow the relevant UN resolutions on the Iran nuclear issue. But at the same time China opposes using bilateral sanctions to force other countries or to harm other countries from normal trading with Iran," he said. The Chinese premier, Wen Jiabao, warned Tehran in January against any effort to acquire nuclear weapons but Beijing has generally been reticent about publicly warning Iran. Communist party newspaper the People's Daily warned in a commentary on Wednesday that increased US pressure on Iran risked worsening the crisis. "The United States still has a lot of room for manouevre on the Iran nuclear issue. But ... stubbornly sticking to confrontation will most likely lead to new strategic misjudgments," it wrote. China Iran Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Nuclear weapons guardian.co.uk © 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
|
Hugo Chávez appears on TV chairing cabinet meeting
23.05.2012, 04:21:30
Venezuelan president, who is battling cancer, tells opposition to brace for 'unprecedented' defeat in October elections Hugo Chávez has chaired a Venezuelan cabinet meeting live on television - the first time he has been seen in public view since returning from cancer treatment in Cuba almost two weeks ago. Chávez spoke in a strong voice and did not appear tired during the broadcast, which lasted more than two hours. He made no reference to his health, of which few details are known. The president's uncharacteristic disappearances have become longer and more frequent this year. They have fuelled speculation his condition has worsened and may complicate a re-election bid in October. Chávez, 57, cracked jokes with government ministers during Tuesday's broadcast and repeated his plans to register his candidacy for the 7 October election next month as set out by the country's electoral commission. "The defeat that we're going to deal to the opposition will be unprecedented," Chávez said. "It's part of our challenge to move to a new phase," he said, adding that his government would strive for annual economic growth of 8% and single-digit inflation if elected for another six-year term. Consumer prices rose by 27.6% in the Venezuela last year, one of the world's highest rates. It was only Chávez's third appearance in public since mid-April. He called state television twice in recent days but Tuesday's speech was his first in public since he returned from Cuba after completing radiotherapy sessions on 11 May. The official line in recent weeks has been that Chávez was out of the public limelight to ensure he gets sufficient rest, but is on the road to recovery and will soon begin his re-election campaign. His appearance could help dampen speculation, stoked by leaks from pro-opposition journalists, that his condition may be grave. Most opinion polls give the former soldier a lead over opposition challenger Henrique Capriles, a young governor who pledges to install a Brazilian-style, center-left government. Capriles said Chávez appeared on television in an attempt "to undermine, intimidate and cause fear". "We're sure that on October 7 people will choose peace and the future, not the past that this government represents," Capriles said. Hugo Chávez Venezuela Americas guardian.co.uk © 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
|
|
Home | Bookmark this site
Google News