Government Grants for All

Yemen and Somalia New Extremist Threats
By Gerald F. Seib (WSJ)

As U.S. Debates Afghan Strategy, the Two Nations Emerge as al Qaeda Breeding Grounds.

While Washington obsessed Monday over President Barack Obama’s plans in Afghanistan, as well as over a new burst of violence next door in Pakistan, some unsettling news arrived to remind everyone that the extremist threat isn’t limited to those troubled countries.

Reports from Yemen said government forces had killed 59 Shiite rebels in the country’s north.

The death toll is a sign of the intensity of the government’s current fight against a Shiite revolt that has forced tens of thousands of Yemenis out of their homes.

Combine that revolt in the north with separatist unrest in the south and a growing al Qaeda movement, all in the Arab world’s poorest country bordering Saudi Arabia, and you have a recipe for the kind of incubator for trouble that Afghanistan became before the 9/11 attacks. Lest we forget, barely a year has passed since al Qaeda forces struck the U.S. Embassy in the Yemeni capital of Sanaa.

Meanwhile, a second nation, this one in Africa, is moving much further down the track toward failed-state status and becoming a haven for Islamic extremists. It’s Somalia, where Islamist militias are not only battling a virtually powerless central government, but over the weekend threatened to advance across the border to hit targets in Kenya as well.

Somali President Sheik Sharif Sheik Ahmed visited the U.S. in recent days and warned that “a foreign idea” is taking hold in his country; he didn’t mention foreign terrorists, but that’s what he meant. The State Department’s most recent terrorism report says that al Qaeda “elements” are benefiting “from safe haven in the regions of southern Somalia.”

Taken together, the reports from Yemen and Somalia present a vivid reminder that al Qaeda became a direct threat during the 1990s precisely because it was able to fill the power vacuum that Afghanistan had become. That could happen again in Afghanistan or Pakistan, of course—but not only there.

Happily, the other threats aren’t going wholly unnoticed. In Somalia, U.S. military commandos just last month launched a daring helicopter assault in which they took out the most-wanted al Qaeda operative in that land, a man named Saleh Ali Saleh Nabhan, along with his bodyguards. Mr. Nabhan, long on the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s most-wanted list, was suspected of building the truck bomb that killed 15 people in a Kenya hotel in 2002, and of choreographing a failed missile launch at an Israeli airliner.

Meanwhile, Mr. Obama a few weeks ago sent a letter of support to Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh, U.S. officials said. According to Yemen’s state news agency, the letter pledged help in “the fight against terrorism” and said the U.S. will “stand beside Yemen, its unity, security and stability.”

Those are signs that the national-security apparatus isn’t asleep at the switch as these problems grow. The question is whether the broader U.S. political system is too overloaded with the Afghanistan debate to act against dangers elsewhere. Fighting extremism, after all, is like squeezing a balloon; when flattened in one place, it tends to bulge somewhere else.

That’s particularly important to keep in mind because, despite the turmoil in Afghanistan and Pakistan, U.S. analysts think the fight against al Qaeda in those countries has diminished the terror group’s ability to operate. The most recent State Department report on terrorism says that, over the past year or so, al Qaeda and “associated networks continued to lose ground, both structurally and in the court of world public opinion.”

Yet like-minded Islamic extremists in places such as Yemen and Somalia can pick up the cause, with or without guidance from al Qaeda’s home office.

The danger is most acute in Somalia, where lawlessness is rampant. The central government controls little outside the capital of Mogadishu, and not all of that city, international reports indicate. Meanwhile, the Islamist movement al Shabaab is led by men affiliated with al Qaeda, some of whom fought with it in Afghanistan, the State Department reports. The only good news in Somalia is that the Islamists have spent some of their time and energy in recent weeks fighting among themselves.

In the long run, Yemen may be the more worrisome spot. It is, after all, the ancestral homeland of al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, and it has a close relationship with oil-rich Saudi Arabia, whose monarchy is a perpetual bin Laden target. Al Qaeda-affiliated groups already have claimed responsibility for a list of small-scale attacks in Yemen over the past two years; Yemenis’ broader role is underscored by the fact that 92 of the 221 remaining terror detainees at the Guantanamo Bay prison are Yemenis.

The good news is that Mr. Saleh retains a good measure of control and wants help dealing with the threat, meaning it may be easier to help. Juan Zarate, a terrorism adviser to George W. Bush, says the best bet in Somalia may be a policy aimed at simply containing extremists there. But in Yemen, he says, hopes are brighter because of “a government that has some resources and some willingness to work with us,” as well as neighbors who are at least as concerned as is the U.S..

Criminalising Muslim Somalis counter-productive (ittefaq.com)

Recently, we have seen international media coverage of the alleged terror plot in Australia involving Australian citizens from Somalia and Lebanon. It was further stated that “the arrested men have links with a Somalia-based radical group called Al Shabaab.” According to the Australian-based newspaper the Herald Sun, “more than 1400 online reports have covered the arrests by 400 police officers and raids on 19 homes in Melbourne and county Victoria.” Some UK newspapers were quick to draw parallels with the UK using headlines such as “Somalis plot suicide blitz on UK target”; emanating reports that security chiefs fear British-based Somalis are now plotting terrorist activities in the UK. Some reports suggest that there is increasing concern about the number of young Somalis who have gone to fight in Somalia and now returned to life in the UK. We must address the problem.

The vast majority of Somalis in the UK do not support the actions of any terrorist group – the violent and criminal actions of these radicals divides communities and misrepresents our faith. Islam is built on values of peace and civic society. Here in the UK the young people that we work with are motivated and committed to making a positive contribution.

The UK has welcomed many Somalis and other immigrants during times of turmoil in our home nations. The search for safety is what brought our communities to the UK and we will do our best to sustain that at every level.

We are however, concerned about how the approach adopted by certain media outlets complicates and undermines the important work that organisations like the London Somali Youth Forum (LSYF) are undertaking in relation to community cohesion. It only serves to alienate people, something we would all seek to avoid. Muslim communities have been wrongly held accountable for the alleged actions of the four young men in Australia. Terrorism, or radical activity of any kind, is not a reflection of beliefs or values within communities – terrorism does not help communities, it hurts them. Suggesting otherwise gives more credence to terrorists than they deserve.

Undoubtedly, many Britons, and British Muslims in particular, have grievances with British foreign policy and UK involvement in addressing terrorism. However civic engagement is producing real change.

Engaging in civic society through practices such as voting, dialogue, debate and ‘change from within’ is encouraged under Islam. LSYF feel it is paramount that British Somalis and Muslims as individuals recognise the powerful role that they can play in shaping British society, and in influencing Government and civic structures to make a real difference. Some may use the recent events in Australia and employ scare-mongering tactics in order to undermine integration and multiculturalism, and attack UK immigration laws. It is imperative that we challenge Islamophobia and articulate responses to all mis-information on the ideologies of Islam.

Disadvantaged and marginalised young Somalis that are allegedly involved in radical activities have been the centre of attention recently. Violent extremists often prey on vulnerable young people in order to propagate their radical views; therefore it is in all of our interests to understand why these young people are disengaged. While it is important to discuss these factors, attention must be given to the fundamental question of what remains to be done, if those who are currently disenfranchised are to be truly integrated.

Practical issues such as education and employment must continue to be addressed; there are about 2 million Muslims in the UK today so it is imperative that our values are accurately represented.

Investigations into foreign correspondents’ deaths ‘essential’

Tony Loughran says it is never too late to investigate someone’s death.

A fresh investigation into the deaths of the Balibo Five has sparked questions as to why no investigation has been held into the murder of ABC cameraman Paul Moran, who died in a car-bomb attack in northern Iraq in 2003.

The Australian Federal Police announced on September 9 it would look into the deaths of Australian-based journalists Greg Shackleton and Malcolm Rennie, along with sound recordist Tony Stewart and cameramen Gary Cunningham and Brian Peters, who were killed during the Indonesian invasion of East Timor in 1975.

Tony Loughran, the former head of international security at the BBC, has spent many years investigating the deaths of journalists, and has told Elizabeth Jackson on Correspondents Report that every investigation is vital.

He says he was stunned to hear there would be no investigation into Mr Moran’s death, when major investigations were held into the deaths of British media workers in Iraq around the same time.

“I was quite shocked because when I was coming over to Australia from the UK, I remember stopping off at Hawaii on a halfway kind of jaunt and hearing the actual bombs coming in on top of my contacts in the north at exactly the same time as Paul Moran’s death, or more or less the same time,” Mr Loughran said.

“There was a big investigation about that … Kate Preston as well, another journalist who was actually killed or executed – I would put my cards on the table about that, within Somalia, also had the right investigation.”

He says it is necessary to investigate all foreign correspondents’ deaths in order to learn from past mistakes and change protocols if necessary.

“In 1995, there was a correspondent, John Schofield, who was killed in Croatia, and we investigated his death then,” Mr Loughran said.

“We reinvestigated it in 2001, at the actual behest his wife Suzie, and we found some amazing things, which really helped us out as far as the training course was concerned for hostile environments.

“We looked at ambushes, we looked at vehicle check points, we looked at weapons that were being used, as we were able to put some reals good safety measures into the training courses.”

Mr Loughran says valuable lessons can always be learnt from such investigations.

“Normally with the BBC … managers and the individual specialists like myself were always involved in getting through to the facts and making sure at the end of the day that we actually learn from the facts, learn the lessons and make sure individuals themselves can’t go through that particular process again,” he said.

“For instance, if you look at one of the things that came out obviously with John Schofield’s death as well, was the misfitting of body armour.

“What we’re talking about now is the journalists themselves, so it came do individual pieces of equipment that we needed to look at as well – it would be exactly the same as with Paul’s death.

“But looking at the vehicle, looking at just exactly what was issues that day, looking at procedures, protocols, everything really, and training as well – what training did the actual individual have?”

‘Never too late’

Mr Loughran says it is not difficult to investigate someone’s death so long after the event.

“What tends to happen is that where it was very difficult before, because it was a war zone or because the local kind of political movement were actually in fear of their lives – were they going to be lynched or whatever – that tends to have subsided,” he said.

“Then an investigator like myself can come in and actually talk to people who may have closed up before, [who] may not have been able to give the information about what had gone on or whatever.”

Once on the ground, Mr Loughran says it is a matter of piecing things together.

“Once we’ve actually got the leads – whether they’re political, whether they’re military, whether they’re kind of humanitarian – if they’re on the ground, we then start to look at statements from individuals,” he said.

“That’s one of the things that I think that is missing in organisations failing to investigate, because they don’t take statements.

“You don’t get the true account of what went on, and as everyone knows, once you start taking statements from individuals, you can see it’s true or false – you can all of sudden start to see the big picture occurring in front of your eyes.”

‘Morally important’

Mr Loughran says it is a huge but worthwhile task for a news network to carry out an investigation into the death of one of its members.

“It sends the right message that when someone is injured or killed overseas, that somebody within the news networks, the management themselves, have taken the effort, taken the time, to look at the conclusions that could be drawn from the investigation,” he said.

“There’s a moral kind of commitment, that it’s saying to the individual’s family that when someone actually dies, we’re not just going to simply forget about them and say ‘well, you know, that’s the way it was – it was one of these heat of the moment things in war’.”

Mr Loughran says it is not only battle deaths which should be investigated.

“There are always some very interesting circumstances surrounding the deaths of individuals, and we’re not just talking about people dying in battle fields; the thing I talk about on our training courses is that a lot of the journalists die as the result of road traffic accidents overseas,” he said.

“Some of these in my particular role as the head of BBC’s security were very suspicious circumstances – wheels were loosened on vehicles, brake hoses were cut, a few other bits and pieces like that.

“These are the things that need to be investigated every single time – don’t leave anything to chance.”

Mr Loughran says if an investigation was carried out into Mr Moran’s death, there would be lessons the ABC would learn, which could potentially save lives in the future.

“The problem you’ve got is if at the end of the day, networks like the ABC, like the BBC or CNN or whomever, don’t actually go after the governments and say ‘Let’s hold you accountable for what’s gone on here’, then it will happen time and time and time again,” he said.

“Journalists will not be able to actually operate with any particular sense of security or safety.”

(*) Elizabeth Jackson spoke with Tony Loughran for Correspondents Report

Obama And Nobel Prize: When War Becomes Peace, Lies Become The Truth

Obama and the Nobel Prize: When War becomes Peace, When the Lie becomes the Truth by Michel Chossudovsky

When war becomes peace,

When concepts and realities are turned upside down,

When fiction becomes truth and truth becomes fiction.

When a global military agenda is heralded as a humanitarian endeavor,

When the killing of civilians is upheld as “collateral damage”,

When those who resist the US-NATO led invasion of their homeland are categorized as “insurgents” or “terrorists” .

When preemptive nuclear war is upheld as self defense.

When advanced torture and “interrogation” techniques are routinely used to “protect peacekeeping operations”,

When tactical nuclear weapons are heralded by the Pentagon as “harmless to the surrounding civilian population”

When three quarters of US personal federal income tax revenues are allocated to financing what is euphemistically referred to as “national defense”

When the Commander in Chief of the largest military force on planet earth is presented as a global peace-maker,

When the Lie becomes the Truth.

Obama’s “War Without Borders”

We are the crossroads of the most serious crisis in modern history. The US in partnership with NATO and Israel has launched a global military adventure which, in a very real sense, threatens the future of humanity.

At this critical juncture in our history, the Norwegian Nobel Committee’s decision to award the Nobel Peace Prize to President and Commander in Chief Barack Obama constitutes an unmitigated tool of propaganda and distortion, which unreservedly supports the Pentagon’s “Long War”: “A War without Borders” in the true sense of the word, characterised by the Worlwide deployment of US military might.

Apart from the diplomatic rhetoric, there has been no meaningful reversal of US foreign policy in relation to the George W. Bush presidency, which might have remotely justified the granting of the Nobel Prize to Obama. In fact quite the opposite. The Obama military agenda has sought to extend the war into new frontiers. With a new team of military and foreign policy advisers, the Obama war agenda has been far more effective in fostering military escalation than that formulated by the NeoCons.

Since the very outset of the Obama presidency, this global military project has become increasingly pervasive, with the reinforcement of US military presence in all major regions of the World and the development of new advanced weapons systems on an unprecedented scale.

Granting the Nobel Peace Prize to Barack Obama provides legitimacy to the illegal practices of war, to the military occupation of foreign lands, to the relentless killings of civilians in the name of “democracy”.

Both the Obama administration and NATO are directly threatening Russia, China and Iran. The US under Obama is developing “a First Strike Global Missile Shield System”:

“Along with space-based weapons, the Airborne Laser is the next defense frontier. … Never has Ronald Reagan’s dream of layered missile defenses – Star Wars, for short – been as….close, at least technologically, to becoming realized.”

Reacting to this consolidation, streamlining and upgrading of American global nuclear strike potential, on August 11 the Commander-in- Chief of the Russian Air Force, the same Alexander Zelin cited earlier on the threat of U.S. strikes from space on all of his nation, said that the “Russian Air Force is preparing to meet the threats resulting from the creation of the Global Strike Command in the U.S. Air Force” and that Russia is developing “appropriate systems to meet the threats that may arise.”

(Rick Rozoff, Showdown with Russia and China: U.S. Advances First Strike Global Missile Shield System, Global Research, August 19, 2009)

At no time since the Cuban missile crisis has the World been closer to the unthinkable: a World War III scenario, a global military conflict involving the use of nuclear weapons.

1. The so-called missile defense shield or Star Wars initiative involving the first strike use of nuclear weapons is now to be developed globally in different regions of the World. The missile shield is largely directed against Russia, China, Iran and North Korea.

2. New US military bases have been set up with a view to establishing Us spheres of influence in every region of the World as well as surrounding and confronting Russia and China.

3. There has been an escalation in the Central Asian Middle East war. The “defense budget” under Obama has spiraled with increased allocations to both Afghanistan and Iraq.

4. Under orders of president Obama, acting as Commander in Chief, Pakistan is now the object of routine US aerial bombardments in violation of its territorial sovereignty, using the “Global War on Terrorism” as a justification.

5. The construction of new military bases is envisaged in Latin America including Colombia on the immediate border of Venezuela.

6. Military aid to Israel has increased. The Obama presidency has expressed its unbending support for Israel and the Israeli military. Obama has remained mum on the atrocities committed by Israel in Gaza. there has not even been a semblance of renewed Israeli-Palestinian negotiations.

7. There has been a reinforcement of the new regional commands including AFRICOM and SOUTHCOM.

8. A new round of threats has been directed against Iran.

9. The US is intent upon fostering further divisions between Pakistan and India, which could lead to a regional war, as well as using India’s nuclear arsenal as an indirect means to threaten China.

The diabolical nature of this military project was outlined in the 2000 Project for a New American Century (PNAC). The PNAC’s declared objectives are:

- defend the American homeland;

- fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars;

- perform the “constabulary” duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions;

-transform U.S. forces to exploit the “revolution in military affairs;” (Project for a New American Century, Rebuilding Americas Defenses.pdf, September 2000)

The “Revolution in Military Affairs” refers to the development of new advanced weapons systems. These include inter alia the militarization of space, advanced chemical and biological weapons, sophisticated laser guided missiles, bunker buster bombs, not to mention the US Air Force’s climatic warfare program (HAARP) based in Alaska, are part of Obama’s “humanitarian arsenal”.

War against the Truth

This is a war against the truth. When war becomes peace, the world is turned upside down. Conceptualization is no longer possible. An inquisitorial social system emerges.

An understanding of fundamental social and political events is replaced by a World of sheer fantasy, where “evil folks” are lurking. The objective of the “Global War on Terrorism” which has been fully endorsed by Obama administration has been to galvanize public support for a Worldwide campaign against heresy.

In the eyes of public opinion, possessing a “just cause” for waging war is central. A war is said to be Just if it is waged on moral, religious or ethical grounds. The consensus is to wage war.

People can longer think for themselves. They accept the authority and wisdom of the established social order.

The Nobel Committee says that President Obama has given the world “hope for a better future.” The prize is awarded for Obama’s

“extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama’s vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.”

…His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world’s population. (Nobel Press Release, October 9, 2009).

The granting of the Nobel “peace prize” to president Barack Obama has become an integral part of the Pentagon’s propaganda machine. It provides a human face to the invaders, it upholds the demonization of those who oppose US military intervention.

The decision to grant Obama the Nobel Peace Prize was no doubt carefully negotiated with the Norwegian Committee at the highest levels of the US government. It has far reaching implications.

It unequivocally upholds the US led war as a “Just Cause”. It erases the war crimes committed both by the Bush and Obama administrations.

War Propaganda: Jus ad Bellum

The “Just war” theory serves to camouflage the nature of US foreign policy, while providing a human face to the invaders.

In both its classical and contemporary versions, the Just war theory upholds war as a “humanitarian operation”. It calls for military intervention on ethical and moral grounds against “insurgents” , “terrorists” , “failed” or “rogue states”.

The Just War has been heralded by the Nobel Committee as an instrument of Peace. Obama personifies the “Just War”.

Taught in US military academies, a modern-day version of the “Just War” theory has been embodied into US military doctrine. The “war on terrorism” and the notion of “preemption” are predicated on the right to “self defense.” They define “when it is permissible to wage war”: jus ad bellum.

Jus ad bellum has served to build a consensus within the Armed Forces command structures. It has also served to convince the troops that they are fighting for a “just cause”. More generally, the Just War theory in its modern day version is an integral part of war propaganda and media disinformation, applied to gain public support for a war agenda. Under Obama as Nobel Peace Laureate, the Just War becomes universally accepted, upheld by the so-called international community.

The ultimate objective is to subdue the citizens, totally depoliticize social life in America, prevent people from thinking and conceptualizing, from analyzing facts and challenging the legitimacy of the US NATO led war.

War becomes peace, a worthwhile “humanitarian undertaking” , Peaceful dissent becomes heresy.

Military Escalation with a Human Face. Nobel Committee grants the “Green Light”

More significantly, the Nobel peace prize grants legitimacy to an unprecedented “escalation” of US-NATO led military operations under the banner of peacemaking.

It contributes to falsifying the nature of the US-NATO military agenda.

Between 40,000 to 60,000 more US and allied troops are to be sent to Afghanistan under a peacemaking banner. On the 8th of October, a day prior to the Nobel Committee’s decision, the US congress granted Obama a 680-billion- dollar defense authorization bill, which is slated to finance the process of military escalation:

“Washington and its NATO allies are planning an unprecedented increase of troops for the war in Afghanistan, even in addition to the 17,000 new American and several thousand NATO forces that have been committed to the war so far this year”.

The number, based on as yet unsubstantiated reports of what U.S. and NATO commander Stanley McChrystal and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Michael Mullen have demanded of the White House, range from 10,000 to 45,000.

Fox News has cited figures as high as 45,000 more American soldiers and ABC News as many as 40,000. On September 15 the Christian Science Monitor wrote of “perhaps as many as 45,000.”

The similarity of the estimates indicate that a number has been agreed upon and America’s obedient media is preparing domestic audiences for the possibility of the largest escalation of foreign armed forces in Afghanistan’ s history. Only seven years ago the United States had 5,000 troops in the country, but was scheduled to have 68,000 by December even before the reports of new deployments surfaced. (Rick Rozoff, U.S., NATO Poised For Most Massive War In Afghanistan’ s History, Global Research, September 24, 2009)

Within hours of the decision of the Norwegian Nobel committee, Obama met with the War Council, or should we call it the “Peace Council”. This meeting had been carefully scheduled to coincide with that of the Norwegian Nobel committee.

This key meeting behind closed doors in the Situation Room of the White House included Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and key political and military advisers. General Stanley McChrystal participated in the meeting via video link from Kabul.

General Stanley McChrystal ias said to have offered the Commander in Chief “several alternative options” “including a maximum injection of 60,000 extra troops”. The 60,000 figure was quoted following a leak of the Wall Street Journal (AFP: After Nobel nod, Obama convenes Afghan war council, October 9, 2009)

“The president had a robust conversation about the security and political challenges in Afghanistan and the options for building a strategic approach going forward,” according to an administration official (quoted in AFP: After Nobel nod, Obama convenes Afghan war council October 9, 2009)

The Nobel committee had in a sense given Obama a green light. The October 9 meeting in the Situation Room was to set the groundwork for a further escalation of the conflict under the banner of counterinsurgency and democracy building.

Meanwhile, in the course of the last few months, US forces have stepped up their aerial bombardments of village communities in the northern tribal areas of Pakistan, under the banner of combating Al Qaeda.

Nobel Peace Prize Warrior
By Keith Pavlischek

Back in the Reagan era the slogan was “Peace through Strength.” In the military ranks this was modified, with typical military humor as decidedly unofficial, politically incorrect, slogans such as “Peace through Fire-Superiority” or “Peace through Marksmanship” or “Peace through Close Combat,” and the like.

Hold that thought.

Last month the New York Times reported “U.S. Kills Top Qaeda Leader in Southern Somalia.” The target was Saleh Ali Saleh Nabhan, who was killed by American commandos in a daring daylight raid in southern Somalia. Here’s how the Times summarized the operation.

On Monday, around 1 p.m., villagers near the town of Baraawe said four military helicopters suddenly materialized over the horizon and shot at two trucks rumbling through the desert. . . .

The helicopters, with commandos firing .50-caliber machine guns and other automatic weapons, quickly disabled the trucks, according to villagers in the area, and several of the Shabab fighters tried to fire back. Shabab leaders said that six foreign fighters, including Mr. Nabhan, were quickly killed, along with three Somali Shabab. The helicopters landed, and the commandos inspected the wreckage and carried away the bodies of Mr. Nabhan and the other fighters for identification, a senior American military official said.

You won’t find it in the Times story, but Fox News made it a point to report that ten days prior to the raid President Obama signed the Execute Order that gave the go-ahead to assassinate Nabhan. President Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize a month later.

So, who says President Obama hasn’t done anything to earn the award?

“Peace through Targeted-Assassinations” anyone?

West’s “Highways Of The Sea” Span Former Soviet Sphere

Baku to host TRACECA seminar “Marine highways of Black Sea and Caspian Sea”

[TRACECA: Transport Corridor Europe-Caucasus- Asia.]

-The “Motorways of the Sea for the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea” project will develop trade and transport in Europe-Black Sea region and the Caucasus-Central Asia region….The project covers Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Ukraine.

In mid-November 2009, Baku will host a seminar on “Marine Highways of the Sea (MoS) of the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea” as part of the TRACECA transport corridor, said Akif Mustafayev, TRACECA National coordinator from Azerbaijan.

He said at present the construction of the Baku-Tbilisi- Kars railway is underway and so the Black and Caspian Seas are now of great importance in terms of the functioning of the entire TRACECA transport corridor.

At present, the transport corridor is implementing three projects, including “Marine highways of the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea,” “Logistics Centers for Western CIS and Caucasus” and “TRACECA Civil aviation safety and security”.

The “Motorways of the Sea for the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea” project will develop trade and transport in Europe-Black Sea region and the Caucasus-Central Asia region through improving interaction of networks and multi-modal transport in the Black and Caspian Seas.

Egis BCEOM (France) is a consultant of the project. The project covers two years.

The project covers Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Ukraine.

The aim of the project is to promote and support effective intermodal freight transport in line with the concept of “Highways of the Sea” linking the neighboring countries of the Black and Caspian seas with the territory of the enlarged European Union.

NGOs Hold Arms Exporters to Account for Abuses
By Suzanne Hoeksema (IPS)

With 2,000 people dying daily in armed violence fuelled by irresponsible arms transfers, talks to create an international treaty regulating these weapons can no longer be delayed, says a coalition of NGOs in a new report “Dying for Action” published Wednesday.

While nuclear disarmament is high on the U.N. agenda these days, 90 percent of casualties in conflict areas are caused by small arms such as submachine guns, mortars and hand grenades, according to the Red Cross.

The main contributors to the report, Amnesty International and Oxfam argue that governments should be prevented from exporting arms to countries where there is a substantial risk that those arms will be used for serious human rights violations.

France, one of the main exporters of arms to Guinea, recently ceased all military trade with the West African country after the Guinean army broke up a civilian demonstration on Sep. 28 with extraordinary use of violence, including incidents of rape by soldiers.

A release by Amnesty Thursday said that Guinean police officers had been photographed in the capital Conakry on Oct. 1 carrying 56mm ‘Cougar’ tear gas grenade launchers, made in France, as well as kinetic impact grenades produced by the same French manufacturer.

France’s decision to suspend trade comes too late for the people who have died and suffered from violence, charged Brian Woods of the Military, Security and Police Team at Amnesty International.

Woods urged that the essence of an Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), to be discussed by governments at the United Nations in New York this month, should be preventive rather than punitive in order to avert humanitarian crises.

The NGO report shows that around 2.1 million people have died directly or indirectly as a result of armed violence since 153 governments agreed in a 2006 vote on the need to control illegal and illicit small arms trafficking.

The largest producer, supplier and importer of small arms, the United States, voted against the proposal, while 24 countries abstained, including major arms exporters like China and Russia, and major importers like Pakistan and Egypt.

Armed conflicts, most notably in Afghanistan, Somalia, Sudan and Sri Lanka, and the world’s deadliest war in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), caused more than 700,000 deaths.

While the proliferation of small illicit arms is not a direct cause of war, the abundance of these weapons in fragile states seriously exacerbates armed conflicts and pushes up the number of casualties.

However, not only conflict or post-conflict states suffer from irresponsible arms trafficking.

In her address to the “Dying for Action” conference held at the U.N. headquarters on Wednesday, Novelle Grant, a senior official representing the Jamaica Police Force, said that since the 1960s, when guns became prevalent on the island, criminal violence has become far more deadly, with murder rates now among the highest in the world.

Another panelist, Frances Mutuku Nguli from PeaceNet Kenya, said that traditional conflicts over land between cattle herders and farmers have escalated and left many Kenyans dead and wounded, with the trafficking of arms proliferating beyond state control.

The uncontrolled arms trade also indirectly hinders development efforts and exacerbates poverty, said the ambassador of Norway to the U.N., Mona Juul. Jamaica, for example, has suffered an estimated cumulative loss of 57 percent of its GDP because of crime.

One of the biggest problems in controlling illegal arms trade is state complicity, said Brigadier-General Mujahid Alam, head of the Pretoria Office of the U.N. Mission to the Democratic Republic of Congo (MONUC).

“It is not about so-called diversion of arms into the hands or armed groups which goes unseen. Most arms enter the country legally and are purposefully made illegal by complicity of national and regional authorities, with DRC as the most devastating example”, he said.

So what could a new treaty to control arms trade really achieve? Are states, and the arms companies that work within them, likely to stick to the ATT – and what happens when they do not?

Paul van den IJssel, the Dutch ambassador to the Conference on Disarmament, told IPS that some governments like that of the United States may fear that the ATT will interfere with sovereignty and national security, but that fear is unfounded since governments will keep their right to legally sell and buy weapons for the purpose of “national self-defence and law enforcement”.

Van den Ijssel and Debbie Hillier, a policy adviser with Oxfam, stressed that it is the responsibility of exporter states, in dialogue with arms companies, to follow a case-by-case risk assessment based on the foreseeable likelihood the weapons would be misused to harm civilians. However, it remains unclear what the consequences of non-compliance would be.

While there are examples of arms suppliers being brought justice û the most prominent being the Russian dealer Viktor Bout, who was arrested in 2008 and inspired the Hollywood film “Lord of War” û an international treaty would make it much harder “for any warlord to obtain new arms and ammunition”, said Jeremy Hobbs, head of Oxfam International.

While governments are often complicit in shady arms deals, the actual transactions are usually conducted by intermediaries which operate on the border of legality and illegality, such as Aerocom, a Moldovan air cargo firm; Henrich Thomet, a Swiss arms broker; and Bao Ping Ma/Poly Technologies, a Chinese arms manufacturing firm, some of which were allegedly involved in violating U.N. arms embargos on Angola, Liberia and DRC, as reported by Amnesty last month.

Hobbs said that “eight out of every 10 governments want to get an Arms Trade Treaty agreed and ordinary citizens are calling for one too. This month we need the majority of enlightened countries at the U.N. to make it happen. An intransigent few cannot be allowed to keep their foot on the brakes forever.”

Plot to bomb US buildings, disrupt World Cup
By Makhudu Sefara and Peter Fabricius

Tired of fighting, and largely losing, against the US in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Somalia, a group of Somali terrorists devised a strategy to take on the superpower in South Africa.

The Sunday Tribune can reveal that the US’s closure of its offices in the country was because of intercepted cellphone communication detailing planned attacks on American interests here. It is unclear whether American interests necessarily include a possible visit by US President Barack Obama for the official opening of the World Cup.

Intelligence officers, according to two sources, intercepted a call made in Khayelitsha, Cape Town, to a group based in Somalia, and the conversation confirmed a plot to blow up American interests in South Africa last month.

A source said US intelligence agents, South Africa’s National Intelligence Agency and SAPS Crime Intelligence operatives launched a surveillance operation on the Cape-based group, gathering crucial information before the operation was thrown into disarray.

NIA spokeswoman Lorna Daniels refused to comment yesterday, threatening legal action.

As the embassies were closed just before Heritage Day, National Police Commissioner Bheki Cele went on TV to say the country’s intelligence structures were on top of the situation.

This, it was established, led to the group discarding the SIM cards and the phones they had used, to cover their tracks.

The source said: “What has been established is that the Cape guys are linked to al-Qaeda cells in Somalia, who are connected to the group in Afghanistan. We have established that most al-Qaeda operatives are relocating from Afghanistan to Pakistan, attracted by increased lawlessness in Pakistan.

“Our information is that there is a trail that links Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia and, most interestingly, Mozambique, where Somalis have formed an anti-US cell already.

“The interception revealed that these people plan to move en masse from Mozambique to here (South Africa) in 2010 to attack American interests. Their point is that South Africa is not a target, but if South Africans are caught in the crossfire, then that would be unfortunate.”.

US embassy spokeswoman Sharon Hudson-Dean said: “We don’t comment on intelligence matters.”

An NIA official said yesterday: “This is classified information. If you publish it, this will jeopardise an operation already under way”.

The source said this was untrue because Cele had already said publicly that intelligence officers were on the trail of the extremists – which is why they changed phones and went underground without arrests.

“The US was right to take these people seriously because we now know that these people have links with shady characters who have access to old military hardware in Eastern Europe,” said the source.

Rich Mkhondo, the chief communications officer for the Fifa 2010 World Cup Organising Committee South Africa, said security for the event was provided by the state.

The Mozambican embassy could not be reached yesterday.

Hundreds of war crimes lawsuits filed against Israelis
By David Sapsted

Almost 1,000 lawsuits alleging war crimes by Israeli ministers and military personnel have now been filed around the world, Israel has admitted.

And the situation could become immeasurably worse for Israel’s politicians and soldiers as efforts continue to have the Goldstone report, which accuses Israel and Hamas of crimes against humanity during last winter’s Gaza Strip invasion, raised at the United Nations.

Last week, Moshe Yaalon, one of four deputies to Benjamin Netanyahu, the prime minister, cancelled a planned fundraising trip to Britain because he feared arrest on war-crimes warrants issued by human rights and pro-Palestinian groups.

The week before, the defence minister, Ehud Barak, only avoided arrest on a visit to the British Labour Party conference in Brighton after a court ruled that he had diplomatic immunity.

Israelis travelling without such diplomatic protection now face the possibility of arrest in many countries across the globe, including Norway, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, Holland and Canada.

Human rights lawyers are using the principle of universal jurisdiction in international law to file suits worldwide for war crimes, genocide, torture and crimes against humanity.

According to Avigdor Lieberman, Israel’s foreign minister and a hardline nationalist, the estimated 964 international lawsuits now outstanding represent “a campaign to delegitimise Israel”.

But Sarit Michaeli, a spokesman for B’Tselem, an Israeli human rights group, describes the problem as one of Israel’s own making.

“Israel has only itself to blame for possible legal proceedings that might be taken against leading politicians and officers abroad because of its lack of internal investigations into wrongdoing by its security forces,” she said.

“The first line of defence against external prosecutions is independent, credible internal investigations conducted outside of the army.”

And that, according to the Goldstone report, is exactly what has not happened since the atrocities and civilian deaths in Gaza.

Although many of the existing warrants have been issued in countries that Israeli officials are scarcely likely to visit in the near future – Iran, for example – the situation has become serious enough for Mr Netanyahu to order his justice, defence and foreign ministers to hatch a plan to confront the problem.

There have even been attempts in the United States to bring lawsuits against senior Israeli officials and the future of such legal action now appears to rest on the outcome of a wholly unrelated case.

The US Supreme Court is to review a lower court’s ruling that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act does not apply to individuals but only to foreign states and their agencies. This review follows the go-ahead for a case to be brought against Mohamed Ali Samantar, the former prime minister and defence minister of Somalia, who is accused of overseeing a string of killings, tortures and rapes in the 1980s and early 1990s.

Marc Stern, acting co-executive director of the American Jewish Congress, wrote in a memo: “Given the effort to pursue legal action against Israel, its officials and soldiers in foreign courts in the wake of the Goldstone Report, Israel has much riding on the outcome of the case, though saying so means aligning oneself with a rather disreputable Somali official in this case, and many serial human rights violators in others.”

In fact, attempts to bring legal action against Israelis in foreign countries has been going on for more than 25 years, with a marked lack of success.

The first was launched in 1982 in Belgium against Ariel Sharon, then defence minister, for his role in the Sabra and Shatila massacres in Lebanon. A court dismissed the charges, which included crimes against humanity, and Belgium later changed the universal jurisdiction principle – after the United States threatened to move Nato headquarters out of Brussels – and will now pursue cases only where there is a distinct Belgian interest.

Spain’s legislature has recently followed suit, limiting international jurisdiction to cases where their own nationals are involved, and the United States and Israel are expected to put pressure on other European countries to do the same.

One upshot of the Spanish move has been the shelving this year of a long-running case alleging crimes against humanity by Israelis after the 2002 air raid in Gaza, which killed Salah Shehadeh, a Hamas leader, along with 14 civilians, nine of them children.

Other European countries, notably Britain and the Nordic nations, where human rights lawyers are particularly aggresive, steadfastly refuse to give up the principle of universal jurisdiction.

In 2005, Gen Doron Almog, a former head of Israeli forces in the Gaza Strip, refused to leave an El Al airliner when it landed in London after being tipped off by Israeli diplomats that British police were about to arrest him on war crimes charges.

According to pro-Palestinian sources in London, Mr Barak only avoided arrest on his recent visit to the Labour Party after the UK foreign office upgraded his visit from a private one to an official one to give him diplomatic immunity.

The cancellation of this month’s visit by Mr Yaalon to Britain was hailed by Palestinian groups as showing that Israeli ministers now have “a real fear” of travelling abroad.

Sarah Colborne, the director of campaigns and operations at the Palestine Solidarity Campaign in London, said this was a victory for the determination of campaigners seeking to bring suspected Israeli war criminals to justice.

“Israeli war criminals must not be allowed to come into Britain, walk freely and remain unpunished,” she said. “We are committed to bringing those responsible for war crimes against Palestinians to justice.”

But Gerald Steinberg, a professor of political science at Bar-Ilan University in Israel, said he does not believe that successful prosecutions will result, however uncomfortable the lawsuits might make prominent Israelis travelling abroad.

“There have been at least a dozen such cases around the world involving Israelis. All of the cases were dismissed,” he told Jewish Week.

“The whole purpose of this is to present Israelis as war criminals. Nobody expects that Israelis will actually be brought to trial, but what they want is to have that label. The Goldstone report is just another aspect of this.”

Controversial DNA testing suspended by UK Border Agency
By Helen Young

In a move that was deliberately low-key the UK Border Agency has decided to halt the controversial and roundly denounced DNA testing system for identifying nationality.

The UKBA had been under considerable fire from academics and human rights groups following their announcement to implement the testing system which involved isotope analysis of hair and fingerprint DNA analysis.

The scheme, labelled the ‘Human Provenance Pilot’, was decried as both naive and scientifically flawed by the founder of fingerprint analysis Sir Alec Jeffreys. British authorities have announced that the scheme has been suspended with no indication of future plans, claiming simply that staff would be notified of the resumption at the time.

The hotly debated scheme was designed to test the validity of claims from asylum seekers from Africa who attempted to cite a war ravaged country as home in order to remain in the UK. The Home Office had argued that the technology was employed to stop fraudulent nationality swapping which they said was rife throughout Africa. The bloodshed in Somalia in particular has frequently been used as reasoning for seeking asylum.

The program has been condemned by almost every section of society. Opponents have labelled it useless, biased and fundamentally flawed. Scientists have pointed out that cross-border genetic mixing is commonplace and that DNA does not recognise borders.

Most criticism was reserved for the UK Border Agency’s lack of creditable sourcing for its information and exactly who had recommended they use such methods.

We do not send pictures with these reports, because of the volume, but picture this emetic scene with your inner eye:

A dying Somali child in the macerated arms of her mother besides their bombed shelter with Islamic graffiti looks at a fat trader, who discusses with a local militia chief and a UN representative at a harbour while USAID provided GM food from subsidised production is off-loaded by WFP into the hands of local “distributors” and dealers – and in the background a western warship and a foreign fishing trawler ply the waters of a once sovereign, prosper and proud nation, which was a role model for honesty and development in the Horn of Africa. (If you feel that this is overdrawn – come with us into Somalia and see the even more cruel reality yourself!) – and if you need lively stills or video material on Somalia, please do contact us.

There is no limit to what a person can do or how far one can go to help
- if one doesn’t mind who gets the credit !

ECOTERRA Intl. maintains a register for persons missing or abducted in the Somali seas (Foreign seafarers as well as Somalis). Inquiries by family member can be sent by e-mail to office[at]ecoterra-international.org

For families of presently captive seafarers – in order to advise and console their worries – ECOTERRA Intl. can establish contacts with professional seafarers, who had been abducted in Somalia, and their wives as well as of a Captain of a sea-jacked and released ship, who agreed to be addressed “with questions, and we will answer truthfully”.

ECOTERRA – ALERTS and pending issues:

PIRATE ATTACK GULF OF ADEN: Advice on Who to Contact and What to Do http://www.noonsite.com/Members/sue/R2008-09-08-2

NATURAL RESOURCES & ARMED FISH POACHERS: Foreign navies entering the 200nm EEZ of Somalia and foreign helicopters and troops must respect the fact that especially all wildlife is protected by Somali national as well as by international laws and that the protection of the marine resources of Somalia from illegally fishing foreign vessels should be an integral part of the anti-piracy operations. Likewise the navies must adhere to international standards and not pollute the coastal waters with oil, ballast water or waste from their own ships but help Somalia to fight against any dumping of any waste (incl. diluted, toxic or nuclear waste). So far and though the AU as well as the UN has called since long on other nations to respect the 200 nm EEZ, only now the two countries (Spain and France) to which the most notorious vessels and fleets are linked have come up with a declaration that they will respect the 200 nm EEZ of Somalia but so far not any of the navies operating in the area pledged to stand against illegal fishing. So far not a single illegal fishing vessel has been detained by the naval forces, though they had been even informed about several actual cases, where an intervention would have been possible. Illegally operating Tuna fishing vessels (many from South Korea, some from Greece and China) carry now armed personnel and force their way into the Somali fishing grounds – uncontrolled or even protected by the naval forces mandated to guard the Somali waters against any criminal activity, which included arms carried by foreign fishing vessels in Somali waters.

LLWs / NLWs: According to recently leaked information the anti-piracy operations in the Gulf of Aden are also used as a cover-up for the live testing of recently developed arsenals of so called non-lethal as well as sub-lethal weapons systems. (Pls request details) Neither the Navies nor the UN has come up with any code of conduct in this respect, while the Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Program (JNLWP) is sponsoring several service-led acquisition programs, including the VLAD, Joint Integration Program, and Improved Flash Bang Grenade. Alredy in use in Somalia are so called Non-lethal optical distractors, which are visible laser devices that have reversible optical effects. These types of non-blinding laser devices use highly directional optical energy. Somalia is also a testing ground for the further developments of the Active Denial System (ADS) Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration (ACTD). If new developments using millimeter wave sources that will help minimize the size, weight, and system cost of an effective Active Denial System which provides “ADS-ACTD-like” repel effects, are used has not yet been revealed. Obviously not only the US is developing and using these kind of weapons as the case of MV MARATHON showed, where a Spanish naval vessel was using optical lasers – the stand-off was then broken by the killing of one of the hostage seafarers. Local observers also claim that HEMI devices, producing Human Electro-Muscular Incapacitation (HEMI) Bioeffects, have been used in the Gulf of Aden against Somalis. Exposure to HEMI devices, which can be understood as a stun-gun shot at an individual over a larger distance, causes muscle contractions that temporarily disable an individual. Research efforts are under way to develop a longer-duration of this effect than is currently available. The live tests are apparently done without that science understands yet the effects of HEMI electrical waveforms on a human body.

WARBOTS, UAVs etc.: Peter Singer says: “By cutting the already tenuous link between the public and its nation’s foreign policy, pain-free war would pervert the whole idea of the democratic process and citizenship as they relate to war. When a citizenry has no sense of sacrifice or even the prospect of sacrifice, the decision to go to war becomes just like any other policy decision, weighed by the same calculus used to determine whether to raise bridge tolls. Instead of widespread engagement and debate over the most important decision a government can make, you get popular indifference. When technology turns war into something merely to be watched, and not weighed with great seriousness, the checks and balances that undergird democracy go by the wayside. This could well mean the end of any idea of democratic peace that supposedly sets our foreign-policy decision making apart. Such wars without costs could even undermine the morality of “good” wars. When a nation decides to go to war, it is not just deciding to break stuff in some foreign land. As one philosopher put it, the very decision is “a reflection of the moral character of the community who decides.” Without public debate and support and without risking troops, the decision to go to war becomes the act of a nation that doesn’t give a damn.”

ECOTERRA Intl., whose work does focus on nature- and human-rights-protection and – as the last international environmental organization still working in Somalia – had alerted ship-owners since 1992, many of whom were fishing illegally in the 200 nm Exclusive Economic Zone, to stay away from Somali waters. The non-governmental organization had requested the international community many times for help to protect the coastal waters of the war-torn state, but now lawlessness has seriously increased and gone out of hand.

ECOTERRA members with marine and maritime expertise, joined by it’s ECOP-marine group, are closely and continuously monitoring and advising on the Somali situation. (for previous information concerning the topics please google keywords ECOTERRA (and) SOMALIA)

The network of the SEAFARERS ASSISTANCE PROGRAMME helped significantly in most sea-jack cases. ECOTERRA Intl. is working in Somalia since 1986 on human-rights and nature protection, while ECOP-marine concentrates on illegal fishing and the protection of the marine ecosystems. Your support counts too.

Please consider to contribute to the work of SAP, ECOP-marine and ECOTERRA Intl. Please donate to the defence fund.

Contact us for details concerning project-sponsorship or donations via e-mail: ecotrust[at]ecoterra.net

Kindly note that all the information above is distributed under and is subject to a license under the Creative Commons Attribution. ECOTERRA, however, reserves the right to editorial changes. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/uk/

Send your genuine articles, networked or confidential information please to: mailhub[at]ecoterra.net (anti-spam-verifier equipped)

Pls cite ECOTERRA Intl. – www.ecoterra-international.org as source for onward publications, where no other source is quoted.

Press Contacts:

ECOP-marine
East-Africa
+254-714-747090
marine[at]ecop.info
www.ecop.info

ECOTERRA Intl.
Nairobi Node
africanode[at]ecoterra.net
+254-733-633-733

EA Seafarers Assistance Programme
SAP Media Officers
+254-722-613858
+254-733-385868
sap[at]ecoterra.net

N.B.: If you are missing certain editions of our updates, this can have two reasons: Either you have not white-listed our sender address office[at}ecoterra-international.org for your inbox and your server provides for censorship (beware of yahoo and barracudacentral as filter - it shows only that you want to remain dumb folded) or you do not belong [yet] to our trusted friends and supporters, who receive all updates including those with classified content. Join the network or become a funding supporter to get them all. Look up earlier updates on the internet – e.g. at: http://www.australia.to/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&id=136&Itemid=229

To subscribe to or unsubscribe from this listserve – just send a mail with reference SMCM to office[at]ecoterra-international.org

We welcome the submission of articles for publication through the SMCM.

Note: ECOTERRA is not responsible for the spam that sometimes appears to come from our domains. This is spoofed mail, is part of a systematic, ongoing harassment of independent groups and websites, and is under FBI investigation.

For more information see this article in The Nation or this article in Wired News.

One tree makes approx. 16.67 reams of copy/printing paper or 8,333.3 A4 sheets.
Kindly print this email only if strictly necessary.

Tags: 2009, Chronicle, December, Ecoterra, June, Press, Release, Somalia