Huge crowds in Costa Rica protest U.S. pact
By John McPhaul | September 30, 2007
SAN JOSE, Costa Rica (Reuters) - More than 100,000 Costa Ricans, some dressed as skeletons, protested a U.S. trade pact on Sunday they say will flood their country with cheap farm goods and cause job losses.
Chanting "No to the free-trade pact!" and "Costa Rica is not for sale!" demonstrators filled one of San Jose's main boulevards to show their opposition against the Central American Free Trade Agreement with the United States.
"The trade deal is putting at risk our workers' rights. We need an accord with the United States, but not this way," said Juan Chacon, a 50-year-old computer technician.
In the searing heat, some protesters wore masks of U.S. President George W. Bush and handed out fake dollar bills, lampooning U.S. trade policies.
A small contingent of pro-trade demonstrators turned out at the rally. A plane pulled a banner across the skyline reading: "Yes to the free-trade accord, for the benefit of the nation!" The drone of the plane's engine drowned out some of the protest speeches.
A government official told Reuters that more than 100,000 people turned out for the demonstration, a huge protest in a country of 4 million.
Costa Rica is the only country that has not ratified CAFTA -- which includes Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua and the Dominican Republic -- and will be the only nation to decide the issue by referendum.
The October 7 referendum has split the nation, with Costa Rican President Oscar Arias and some businesses saying CAFTA will bring investment and jobs. Opponents say it will mean a flood of cheap rice and dairy imports and limit the country's sovereignty by taking investment disputes to international arbitration.
Arias, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1987 for brokering a Central American peace plan during his first term as Costa Rica's president, says it would be "collective suicide" if Costa Rica rejects CAFTA.
The White House struggled to win support for CAFTA in the U.S. House of Representatives in 2005, where a partisan battle almost killed the deal.
A poll last week showed a slim majority would support CAFTA, with 50.6 percent saying they'd vote "yes," while 44.7 percent said they opposed it. The poll's margin of error was 3.8 percent.
© Reuters 2007 All rights reserved
Reuters : Huge crowds in Costa Rica protest U.S. pact
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Filed under
Costa Rica,
drones,
protests,
suicide
by Winter Patriot
on Sunday, September 30, 2007
[
link |
| home
]
| home
]
Reuters : London police start trial over Brazilian's shooting
Sunday, September 30, 2007
London police start trial over Brazilian's shooting
By Michael Holden | September 30, 2007
LONDON (Reuters) - London's police force goes on trial on Monday accused of breaking health and safety laws over the killing of an innocent Brazilian man, shot in the head seven times by officers who mistook him for a suicide bomber.
Jean Charles de Menezes, 27, was gunned down as he boarded an underground train in south London on July 22, 2005 by officers who had wrongly identified him as one of four men who tried to attack the London transport system the day before.
The botched suicide bombings, just two weeks after four young British Islamists killed themselves and 52 people on three underground trains and a bus in the capital's worst peacetime attack, sparked a frantic manhunt by British police.
Prosecutors brought the rare corporate case against London's Metropolitan Police Service after deciding last year there was insufficient evidence to charge individual officers involved in the operation, to the fury of de Menezes's family.
Police are accused under health and safety laws of failing to conduct "the planning and the implementation of the surveillance, pursuit, arrest and detention of a suspected suicide bomber" in a way that ensured the public and de Menezes "were not exposed to risks".
De Menezes, an electrician, happened to live in the same block of flats as Hussein Osman, one of four men jailed earlier this year for plotting the unsuccessful July 21 attacks.
When he left for work on July 22, undercover officers followed him onto two buses and then to Stockwell station, where he calmly headed to the platform before running to catch a train which had just pulled in.
Armed police who had been sent to intercept him got on board, pushed him to the floor of the carriage, and shot him seven times in the head and once in the shoulder.
A report by the Independent Police Complaints Commission watchdog said de Menezes had done nothing to arouse suspicion. Police later apologised and said they had made a mistake, citing the unprecedented pressures they were facing at the time.
In August, an IPCC probe ruled that Britain's top counter-terrorism officer, Andy Hayman, had misled colleagues and the public on the afternoon of the shooting by not telling them the dead man was innocent. That information was only made public 24 hours afterwards.
London police commissioner, Ian Blair, who bore the brunt of criticism, was cleared of lying.
The trial is due to last six weeks and if found guilty the police force, which said such a verdict would severely hamper its counter-terrorism work, faces a large fine.
© Reuters 2007 All rights reserved
By Michael Holden | September 30, 2007
LONDON (Reuters) - London's police force goes on trial on Monday accused of breaking health and safety laws over the killing of an innocent Brazilian man, shot in the head seven times by officers who mistook him for a suicide bomber.
Jean Charles de Menezes, 27, was gunned down as he boarded an underground train in south London on July 22, 2005 by officers who had wrongly identified him as one of four men who tried to attack the London transport system the day before.
The botched suicide bombings, just two weeks after four young British Islamists killed themselves and 52 people on three underground trains and a bus in the capital's worst peacetime attack, sparked a frantic manhunt by British police.
Prosecutors brought the rare corporate case against London's Metropolitan Police Service after deciding last year there was insufficient evidence to charge individual officers involved in the operation, to the fury of de Menezes's family.
Police are accused under health and safety laws of failing to conduct "the planning and the implementation of the surveillance, pursuit, arrest and detention of a suspected suicide bomber" in a way that ensured the public and de Menezes "were not exposed to risks".
De Menezes, an electrician, happened to live in the same block of flats as Hussein Osman, one of four men jailed earlier this year for plotting the unsuccessful July 21 attacks.
When he left for work on July 22, undercover officers followed him onto two buses and then to Stockwell station, where he calmly headed to the platform before running to catch a train which had just pulled in.
Armed police who had been sent to intercept him got on board, pushed him to the floor of the carriage, and shot him seven times in the head and once in the shoulder.
A report by the Independent Police Complaints Commission watchdog said de Menezes had done nothing to arouse suspicion. Police later apologised and said they had made a mistake, citing the unprecedented pressures they were facing at the time.
In August, an IPCC probe ruled that Britain's top counter-terrorism officer, Andy Hayman, had misled colleagues and the public on the afternoon of the shooting by not telling them the dead man was innocent. That information was only made public 24 hours afterwards.
London police commissioner, Ian Blair, who bore the brunt of criticism, was cleared of lying.
The trial is due to last six weeks and if found guilty the police force, which said such a verdict would severely hamper its counter-terrorism work, faces a large fine.
© Reuters 2007 All rights reserved
Filed under
Andy Hayman,
Jean Charles de Menezes,
suicide
by Winter Patriot
on Sunday, September 30, 2007
[
link |
| home
]
| home
]
NYT : Justices Begin Work on a Polarizing New Docket
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Justices Begin Work on a Polarizing New Docket
By LINDA GREENHOUSE | October 1, 2007
WASHINGTON, Sept. 30 — The Supreme Court has so many polarizing cases on the docket for its new term that the deep ideological divisions that characterized the last term are all but certain to remain on display after justices reconvene on Monday.
The conservative majority under Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. drove the court to the right in a series of high-profile rulings during the term that ended in June. That performance, as well as a series of books and articles by and about justices, has placed the court in an unusually bright spotlight as the new term opens.
The conservative bloc will not necessarily prevail in every important case. For example, the Bush administration is clearly on the defensive as the court prepares to hear a third-round challenge to policies governing those held as enemy combatants at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.
But the conservative justices clearly have the upper hand in the all-important task of shaping the court’s docket, a process that in effect shapes the country’s immediate legal agenda. They demonstrated their power last week in accepting 19 new cases, an unusually large number, including an employer’s appeal in a racial discrimination case that could provide a vehicle for limiting remedies available under one of the country’s oldest civil rights laws.
At issue in the latest Guantánamo case is whether Congress properly stripped the federal courts of jurisdiction to hear challenges brought by detainees. The justices had seemed willing to steer clear of the issue in April, when they declined to hear appeals from two groups of detainees.
But the day after the term ended, they reversed course and agreed to hear the cases, an action without modern precedent. Because the reconsideration required the votes of five justices, instead of the four ordinarily needed to grant a case, the development strongly suggested that a majority of the court retains concerns about the current regime for determining and challenging the detainees’ designation as enemy combatants. The Bush administration lost two earlier rounds at the court, in 2004 and 2006.
Among the new cases the justices granted last week was a challenge to a state law requiring voters to provide photo identification in order to cast a ballot, an issue that has divided legislators and judges along party lines throughout the country. Republicans generally stress the importance of preventing voter fraud, while Democrats view these increasingly popular measures as creating unwarranted barriers to voter access. Although the justices granted the case at the request of the Indiana Democratic Party and the American Civil Liberties Union, the action could well prove to be an example of “watch out what you wish for” if the result is to uphold the statute at issue and to encourage other states to follow Indiana’s lead.
The justices also took up a highly visible death penalty case, a challenge to the particular lethal injection method that is used in most states. While the validity of capital punishment, or even of lethal injection, is not at stake, the case will require the justices to take a position on the current meaning of the Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. It is far from clear whether a majority of the justices will read the Constitution as mandating one chemical formulation versus another.
The discrimination case the justices granted on Tuesday, which has attracted almost no notice, could nonetheless produce an important shift in the court’s approach to interpreting statutes. The question is whether a law that bars racial discrimination in business dealings, including employment, also prohibits retaliation against those who complain about discrimination.
Ordinarily, the court grants cases only to resolve conflicting interpretations in the lower courts. But in this instance, every federal appeals court to consider the issue has agreed that the statute does apply to retaliation. For the court to grant a case in the absence of a lower-court conflict — as it did in the case decided in June that invalidated voluntary integration plans in two public school systems — is often an indication that the case has been added to the docket as a vehicle for advancing a particular agenda.
The federal law at issue in the new case was originally part of the Reconstruction-era Civil Rights Act of 1866. Known now as Section 1981, it does not mention “retaliation.” Neither do most other anti-discrimination laws. In the past, that has been no barrier to the court in finding that protection against retaliation is inherently part of protection against discrimination.
But support on the court for an approach that goes beyond the margins of the constitutional text has been shrinking. Two years ago, the court ruled 5 to 4 that Title IX, a law that bars sex discrimination in schools, also covers retaliation. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote the majority opinion. It is likely that her successor, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., would have been among the dissenters.
Given that the new case, CBOCS West Inc. v. Humphries, No. 06-1431, does not meet the court’s most important criterion for review, it is likely that a new majority granted it in order to cut off the retaliation claim and perhaps also to issue a broader ruling against finding rights that are not spelled out in statutes.
Here are details of other important cases for the new term.
Detainees
A year ago, in response to the court’s most recent ruling in favor of a Guantánamo detainee, the Republican-controlled Congress passed the Military Commissions Act, providing that “no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction” to consider a detainee’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Senator Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican who was then chairman of the Judiciary Committee, voted for the measure, but has filed a brief telling the justices he believes it is unconstitutional.
The Constitution authorizes Congress to suspend the “privilege” of habeas corpus only at times of “rebellion or invasion.” Under Supreme Court precedents, a suspension at other times may nonetheless be permissible as long as adequate alternate procedures exist for challenging a conviction or sentence. So the question in these cases, Boumediene v. Bush, No. 06-1195, and Al Odah v. United States, No. 06-1196, is whether the justices will deem the limited procedures available to the detainees to be adequate.
Voting Rights
Challengers to Indiana’s two-year-old voter identification law, which requires current government-issued photo ID, call it the “most onerous” such law in the country. Voters lacking the proper identification have 10 days to obtain it in order for their provisional ballots to be counted.
A federal appeals court upheld the law, finding that it would prevent fraud while not keeping many people from the polls. The plaintiffs maintain that the poor and elderly would face a disproportionate burden.
The underlying question is how the justices will evaluate the competing interests of preventing fraud and protecting access. The cases are Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, No. 07-21, and Indiana Democratic Party v. Rokita, No. 07-25.
Criminal Law
The lethal injection case, Baze v. Rees, No. 07-5439, challenges the use of the most common three-drug lethal injection “cocktail,” which is conceded to place some inmates at risk of severe pain. The Kentucky Supreme Court concluded that the risk was not substantial enough to make the particular combination unconstitutional.
The question for the justices is what standard courts should use in evaluating the evidence from which to draw a conclusion on constitutionality, especially in light of evidence that pain can be avoided through a different combination of drugs and attention to a reliable level of anesthesia.
The court will also hear two more cases that address the question of judicial discretion in federal criminal sentencing.
The question in Gall v. United States, No. 06-7949, is the justification a judge must provide in issuing a sentence that differs substantially from the one called for by the federal sentencing guidelines. Kimbrough v. United States, No. 06-6330, addresses judicial discretion to mitigate the sentences required for offenses involving crack cocaine.
Federalism
The Texas courts have refused to accept a directive from President Bush to bypass procedural obstacles and grant a new hearing to a Mexican death-row inmate, after a 2004 World Court decision that the inmate’s rights under an international treaty were violated when he was not given the chance to meet with Mexican officials. The case, Medellín v. Texas, No. 06-984, presents unusual issues of state-federal relations.
By LINDA GREENHOUSE | October 1, 2007
WASHINGTON, Sept. 30 — The Supreme Court has so many polarizing cases on the docket for its new term that the deep ideological divisions that characterized the last term are all but certain to remain on display after justices reconvene on Monday.
The conservative majority under Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. drove the court to the right in a series of high-profile rulings during the term that ended in June. That performance, as well as a series of books and articles by and about justices, has placed the court in an unusually bright spotlight as the new term opens.
The conservative bloc will not necessarily prevail in every important case. For example, the Bush administration is clearly on the defensive as the court prepares to hear a third-round challenge to policies governing those held as enemy combatants at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.
But the conservative justices clearly have the upper hand in the all-important task of shaping the court’s docket, a process that in effect shapes the country’s immediate legal agenda. They demonstrated their power last week in accepting 19 new cases, an unusually large number, including an employer’s appeal in a racial discrimination case that could provide a vehicle for limiting remedies available under one of the country’s oldest civil rights laws.
At issue in the latest Guantánamo case is whether Congress properly stripped the federal courts of jurisdiction to hear challenges brought by detainees. The justices had seemed willing to steer clear of the issue in April, when they declined to hear appeals from two groups of detainees.
But the day after the term ended, they reversed course and agreed to hear the cases, an action without modern precedent. Because the reconsideration required the votes of five justices, instead of the four ordinarily needed to grant a case, the development strongly suggested that a majority of the court retains concerns about the current regime for determining and challenging the detainees’ designation as enemy combatants. The Bush administration lost two earlier rounds at the court, in 2004 and 2006.
Among the new cases the justices granted last week was a challenge to a state law requiring voters to provide photo identification in order to cast a ballot, an issue that has divided legislators and judges along party lines throughout the country. Republicans generally stress the importance of preventing voter fraud, while Democrats view these increasingly popular measures as creating unwarranted barriers to voter access. Although the justices granted the case at the request of the Indiana Democratic Party and the American Civil Liberties Union, the action could well prove to be an example of “watch out what you wish for” if the result is to uphold the statute at issue and to encourage other states to follow Indiana’s lead.
The justices also took up a highly visible death penalty case, a challenge to the particular lethal injection method that is used in most states. While the validity of capital punishment, or even of lethal injection, is not at stake, the case will require the justices to take a position on the current meaning of the Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. It is far from clear whether a majority of the justices will read the Constitution as mandating one chemical formulation versus another.
The discrimination case the justices granted on Tuesday, which has attracted almost no notice, could nonetheless produce an important shift in the court’s approach to interpreting statutes. The question is whether a law that bars racial discrimination in business dealings, including employment, also prohibits retaliation against those who complain about discrimination.
Ordinarily, the court grants cases only to resolve conflicting interpretations in the lower courts. But in this instance, every federal appeals court to consider the issue has agreed that the statute does apply to retaliation. For the court to grant a case in the absence of a lower-court conflict — as it did in the case decided in June that invalidated voluntary integration plans in two public school systems — is often an indication that the case has been added to the docket as a vehicle for advancing a particular agenda.
The federal law at issue in the new case was originally part of the Reconstruction-era Civil Rights Act of 1866. Known now as Section 1981, it does not mention “retaliation.” Neither do most other anti-discrimination laws. In the past, that has been no barrier to the court in finding that protection against retaliation is inherently part of protection against discrimination.
But support on the court for an approach that goes beyond the margins of the constitutional text has been shrinking. Two years ago, the court ruled 5 to 4 that Title IX, a law that bars sex discrimination in schools, also covers retaliation. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote the majority opinion. It is likely that her successor, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., would have been among the dissenters.
Given that the new case, CBOCS West Inc. v. Humphries, No. 06-1431, does not meet the court’s most important criterion for review, it is likely that a new majority granted it in order to cut off the retaliation claim and perhaps also to issue a broader ruling against finding rights that are not spelled out in statutes.
Here are details of other important cases for the new term.
Detainees
A year ago, in response to the court’s most recent ruling in favor of a Guantánamo detainee, the Republican-controlled Congress passed the Military Commissions Act, providing that “no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction” to consider a detainee’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Senator Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican who was then chairman of the Judiciary Committee, voted for the measure, but has filed a brief telling the justices he believes it is unconstitutional.
The Constitution authorizes Congress to suspend the “privilege” of habeas corpus only at times of “rebellion or invasion.” Under Supreme Court precedents, a suspension at other times may nonetheless be permissible as long as adequate alternate procedures exist for challenging a conviction or sentence. So the question in these cases, Boumediene v. Bush, No. 06-1195, and Al Odah v. United States, No. 06-1196, is whether the justices will deem the limited procedures available to the detainees to be adequate.
Voting Rights
Challengers to Indiana’s two-year-old voter identification law, which requires current government-issued photo ID, call it the “most onerous” such law in the country. Voters lacking the proper identification have 10 days to obtain it in order for their provisional ballots to be counted.
A federal appeals court upheld the law, finding that it would prevent fraud while not keeping many people from the polls. The plaintiffs maintain that the poor and elderly would face a disproportionate burden.
The underlying question is how the justices will evaluate the competing interests of preventing fraud and protecting access. The cases are Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, No. 07-21, and Indiana Democratic Party v. Rokita, No. 07-25.
Criminal Law
The lethal injection case, Baze v. Rees, No. 07-5439, challenges the use of the most common three-drug lethal injection “cocktail,” which is conceded to place some inmates at risk of severe pain. The Kentucky Supreme Court concluded that the risk was not substantial enough to make the particular combination unconstitutional.
The question for the justices is what standard courts should use in evaluating the evidence from which to draw a conclusion on constitutionality, especially in light of evidence that pain can be avoided through a different combination of drugs and attention to a reliable level of anesthesia.
The court will also hear two more cases that address the question of judicial discretion in federal criminal sentencing.
The question in Gall v. United States, No. 06-7949, is the justification a judge must provide in issuing a sentence that differs substantially from the one called for by the federal sentencing guidelines. Kimbrough v. United States, No. 06-6330, addresses judicial discretion to mitigate the sentences required for offenses involving crack cocaine.
Federalism
The Texas courts have refused to accept a directive from President Bush to bypass procedural obstacles and grant a new hearing to a Mexican death-row inmate, after a 2004 World Court decision that the inmate’s rights under an international treaty were violated when he was not given the chance to meet with Mexican officials. The case, Medellín v. Texas, No. 06-984, presents unusual issues of state-federal relations.
NYT : U.S. Is Top Arms Seller to Developing World
Sunday, September 30, 2007
U.S. Is Top Arms Seller to Developing World
By THOM SHANKER | October 1, 2007
WASHINGTON, Sept. 30 — The United States maintained its role as the leading supplier of weapons to the developing world in 2006, followed by Russia and Britain, according to a Congressional study to be released Monday. Pakistan, India and Saudi Arabia were the top buyers.
The global arms market is highly competitive, with manufacturing nations seeking both to increase profits and to expand political influence through weapons sales to developing nations, which reached nearly $28.8 billion in 2006.
That sales total was a slight drop from the 2005 figure of $31.8 billion, a trend explained by the strain of rising fuel prices that prompted many developing states — except those that produce oil — to choose upgrading current arsenals over buying new weapons.
The report, “Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations,” was produced by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, a division of the Library of Congress, and presents a number of interesting observations linking arms sales and global politics. For example, Russia has been a major supplier of weapons to Iran in past years, including a $700 million deal for surface-to-air missiles in 2005.
But anxieties over Iran’s nuclear program can be seen as having deterred Moscow from concluding significant new conventional arms deals with Iran in 2006, deals that could be viewed as overly provocative while the Security Council debates new sanctions on Iran.
At the same time, though, Russia continues to nurture an arms-trade relationship that is deeply disturbing to the Bush administration, by signing weapons deals with oil-rich Venezuela and its anti-American leader, Hugo Chávez.
The Russian agreements with Venezuela in 2006 included the sale of two dozen Su-30 fighter jets valued at more than $1 billion, along with attack and transport helicopters valued at more than $700 million.
Russia also sold Venezuela a large number of AK-series assault rifles in a deal that included a pledge to build a factory in Venezuela to produce those rifles and ammunition, together valued at more than $500 million.
“Venezuela’s populist president, Hugo Chávez, has taken a hostile approach to relations with the United States in recent years,” wrote Richard F. Grimmett, a specialist in national defense at the Congressional Research Service.
“Thus his decision to seek advanced military equipment from Russia is a matter of U.S. concern,” Mr. Grimmett wrote in the report. “Chávez appears embarked on an effort to make Venezuela an important military force in Latin America.”
The study makes clear also that the United States has signed weapons-sales agreements with nations whose records on democracy and human rights are subject to official criticism.
The announcement of major new arms agreements with Pakistan last year renewed debate over whether the Bush administration was elevating its counterterrorism priorities above its pledge to spread democracy around the world.
Pakistan was a major recipient of American arms sales in 2006, including the $1.4 billion purchase of 36 new F-16C/D fighter aircraft and $640 million in missiles and bombs. The deal included a package for $890 million in upgrades for Pakistan’s older versions of the F-16.
At the same time, the State Department’s own survey of global human rights in 2006 noted a variety of shortcomings in Pakistan’s record on human rights and democratization.
But the Bush administration has argued that it is important to maintain the support of a nuclear-armed Pakistan in the broader counterterrorism fight, in particular as Al Qaeda and Taliban leaders regroup in the rugged North-West Frontier Province along the Afghan border.
In 2006, the United States agreed to sell $10.3 billion in weapons to the developing world, or 35.8 percent of these deals worldwide, according to the study. Russia was second with $8.1 billion, or 28.1 percent, and Britain was third with $3.1 billion, or 10.8 percent.
Pakistan concluded $5.1 billion in agreements to buy arms in 2006. That total was followed by India with $3.5 billion in agreements and Saudi Arabia with $3.2 billion in deals.
The combined value of arms sales worldwide to both developed and developing nations in 2006 reached $40.3 billion, a decline of nearly 13 percent from 2005.
When combining totals for arms sales to developed and developing nations, the ranking of world arms dealers remained the same. The United States led with $16.9 billion, followed by Russia with $8.7 billion and Britain with $3.1 billion. The 2006 sales figures for all three nations were higher than their totals in 2005.
China plays an interesting role in the arms market, being both a purchaser of advanced air and naval weapons, from Russia, and as a supplier of less-expensive arms to developing nations.
Mr. Grimmett’s study uses figures in 2006 dollars, with amounts for previous years adjusted for inflation, to give a constant financial measurement.
By THOM SHANKER | October 1, 2007
WASHINGTON, Sept. 30 — The United States maintained its role as the leading supplier of weapons to the developing world in 2006, followed by Russia and Britain, according to a Congressional study to be released Monday. Pakistan, India and Saudi Arabia were the top buyers.
The global arms market is highly competitive, with manufacturing nations seeking both to increase profits and to expand political influence through weapons sales to developing nations, which reached nearly $28.8 billion in 2006.
That sales total was a slight drop from the 2005 figure of $31.8 billion, a trend explained by the strain of rising fuel prices that prompted many developing states — except those that produce oil — to choose upgrading current arsenals over buying new weapons.
The report, “Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations,” was produced by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, a division of the Library of Congress, and presents a number of interesting observations linking arms sales and global politics. For example, Russia has been a major supplier of weapons to Iran in past years, including a $700 million deal for surface-to-air missiles in 2005.
But anxieties over Iran’s nuclear program can be seen as having deterred Moscow from concluding significant new conventional arms deals with Iran in 2006, deals that could be viewed as overly provocative while the Security Council debates new sanctions on Iran.
At the same time, though, Russia continues to nurture an arms-trade relationship that is deeply disturbing to the Bush administration, by signing weapons deals with oil-rich Venezuela and its anti-American leader, Hugo Chávez.
The Russian agreements with Venezuela in 2006 included the sale of two dozen Su-30 fighter jets valued at more than $1 billion, along with attack and transport helicopters valued at more than $700 million.
Russia also sold Venezuela a large number of AK-series assault rifles in a deal that included a pledge to build a factory in Venezuela to produce those rifles and ammunition, together valued at more than $500 million.
“Venezuela’s populist president, Hugo Chávez, has taken a hostile approach to relations with the United States in recent years,” wrote Richard F. Grimmett, a specialist in national defense at the Congressional Research Service.
“Thus his decision to seek advanced military equipment from Russia is a matter of U.S. concern,” Mr. Grimmett wrote in the report. “Chávez appears embarked on an effort to make Venezuela an important military force in Latin America.”
The study makes clear also that the United States has signed weapons-sales agreements with nations whose records on democracy and human rights are subject to official criticism.
The announcement of major new arms agreements with Pakistan last year renewed debate over whether the Bush administration was elevating its counterterrorism priorities above its pledge to spread democracy around the world.
Pakistan was a major recipient of American arms sales in 2006, including the $1.4 billion purchase of 36 new F-16C/D fighter aircraft and $640 million in missiles and bombs. The deal included a package for $890 million in upgrades for Pakistan’s older versions of the F-16.
At the same time, the State Department’s own survey of global human rights in 2006 noted a variety of shortcomings in Pakistan’s record on human rights and democratization.
But the Bush administration has argued that it is important to maintain the support of a nuclear-armed Pakistan in the broader counterterrorism fight, in particular as Al Qaeda and Taliban leaders regroup in the rugged North-West Frontier Province along the Afghan border.
In 2006, the United States agreed to sell $10.3 billion in weapons to the developing world, or 35.8 percent of these deals worldwide, according to the study. Russia was second with $8.1 billion, or 28.1 percent, and Britain was third with $3.1 billion, or 10.8 percent.
Pakistan concluded $5.1 billion in agreements to buy arms in 2006. That total was followed by India with $3.5 billion in agreements and Saudi Arabia with $3.2 billion in deals.
The combined value of arms sales worldwide to both developed and developing nations in 2006 reached $40.3 billion, a decline of nearly 13 percent from 2005.
When combining totals for arms sales to developed and developing nations, the ranking of world arms dealers remained the same. The United States led with $16.9 billion, followed by Russia with $8.7 billion and Britain with $3.1 billion. The 2006 sales figures for all three nations were higher than their totals in 2005.
China plays an interesting role in the arms market, being both a purchaser of advanced air and naval weapons, from Russia, and as a supplier of less-expensive arms to developing nations.
Mr. Grimmett’s study uses figures in 2006 dollars, with amounts for previous years adjusted for inflation, to give a constant financial measurement.
Reuters : Pakistani journalists protest police "brutality"
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Pakistani journalists protest police "brutality"
September 30, 2007
ISLAMABAD, Sept 30 (Reuters) - Pakistani journalists protested on Sunday against police violence against colleagues covering a protest against President Pervez Musharraf in Islamabad a day earlier.
About 400 journalists and human right activists chanted anti-government slogans and condemned police "brutality" as they marched from a press club in Islamabad to the parliament building.
More than a dozen lawyers, several journalists and a cabinet minister were injured in clashes on Saturday outside the Election Commission, where Musharraf's nomination was accepted for a vote on Oct. 6, which is expected to secure him a fresh term.
Police launched a baton charge and fired tear gas to disperse black-suited lawyers and opposition activists, who have been at the vanguard of a pro-democracy movement.
"They want to snatch our freedom which is unacceptable. We'll fight, we'll fight for our independence and freedom," Mazhar Abbas, president of Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists (PFUJ), told the marchers.
Similar rallies in support of press freedom were held in other cities including Karachi, Peshawar, Multan, as well as tribal areas where the army is fighting pro-Taliban militants.
Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry on Sunday ordered Islamabad's top administration and police officials to provide explanations to the Supreme Court on Monday to explain why force was used against lawyers and journalists.
The Supreme Court dismissed on Friday challenges to General Musharraf's bid to seek re-election while still army chief, removing a major obstacle to his securing another term.
Opposition parties say they will resign their seats before the presidential vote, even though Musharraf has vowed to quit the army, his main source of power, if he wins.
© Reuters 2007. All rights reserved.
September 30, 2007
ISLAMABAD, Sept 30 (Reuters) - Pakistani journalists protested on Sunday against police violence against colleagues covering a protest against President Pervez Musharraf in Islamabad a day earlier.
About 400 journalists and human right activists chanted anti-government slogans and condemned police "brutality" as they marched from a press club in Islamabad to the parliament building.
More than a dozen lawyers, several journalists and a cabinet minister were injured in clashes on Saturday outside the Election Commission, where Musharraf's nomination was accepted for a vote on Oct. 6, which is expected to secure him a fresh term.
Police launched a baton charge and fired tear gas to disperse black-suited lawyers and opposition activists, who have been at the vanguard of a pro-democracy movement.
"They want to snatch our freedom which is unacceptable. We'll fight, we'll fight for our independence and freedom," Mazhar Abbas, president of Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists (PFUJ), told the marchers.
Similar rallies in support of press freedom were held in other cities including Karachi, Peshawar, Multan, as well as tribal areas where the army is fighting pro-Taliban militants.
Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry on Sunday ordered Islamabad's top administration and police officials to provide explanations to the Supreme Court on Monday to explain why force was used against lawyers and journalists.
The Supreme Court dismissed on Friday challenges to General Musharraf's bid to seek re-election while still army chief, removing a major obstacle to his securing another term.
Opposition parties say they will resign their seats before the presidential vote, even though Musharraf has vowed to quit the army, his main source of power, if he wins.
© Reuters 2007. All rights reserved.
Filed under
elections,
Karachi,
Pakistan,
Pervez Musharraf,
protests
by Winter Patriot
on Sunday, September 30, 2007
[
link |
| home
]
| home
]
NYT (CFR) : Interview: Pakistan Facing Question on How to Handle Extremists
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Interview: Pakistan Facing Question on How to Handle Extremists
By TERESITA C. SCHAFFER AND BERNARD GWERTZMAN | August 8, 2007
Interviewee: Teresita C. Schaffer, Director, South Asia Program, Center for Strategic and International Studies
Interviewer: Bernard Gwertzman, Consulting Editor
Teresita C. Schaffer, a former State Department official with extensive experience in South Asia, says the violence in Pakistan since President Pervez Musharraf's crackdown on the Red Mosque in Islamabad may lead to rethinking among army leaders on the value of maintaining extremists in Pakistan as a political force. She says: “We need to watch and see if they have really decided they need to put these people out of business. If they have, that would be an important policy turn for the United States. To be fair, it’s a high-risk policy, but there are no risk-free policies in today’s Pakistan."
Pakistan has been in the news lately in part because of the continuing problems on the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan, and also by the indications that some in the administration might even countenance an American attack on terrorist sanctuaries inside of Pakistan. This has raised hackles in Pakistan where President Pervez Musharraf has considerable political problems of his own. What should concern Americans about Pakistan these days?
First, and I’m taking this in the order of the way the administration looks at priorities, is the connection between Pakistan and Afghanistan. This is complicated in part because the two countries have always gotten along badly. The issue of greatest concern to the United States is the terrorism issue and the extremely difficult time the United States and its NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organization] allies have had getting Afghanistan to stabilize and develop like a more normal country following the end of the Taliban regime in 2001 and through the turbulent fight that followed.
Second, I would say, is the internal situation in Pakistan. Musharraf has been the centerpiece of U.S. policymaking in the region. He took power in a military coup nearly eight years ago, and at this point is in serious trouble for a number of reasons. One was his effort to fire the Supreme Court Chief Justice, Iftikhar Muhammed Chaudhry, which backfired badly first by sparking months and months of protest, and second because the Supreme Court turned him down. Musharraf is now faced with an awakened political opposition, albeit not a particularly united one, as well as the black eye administered by the judicial system.
A second source of his trouble has to do with domestic extremism. The people involved are the same as the people involved in the Afghanistan problem, but their dynamic is a little different. Here the problem started with Musharraf’s decision to send in the army to the Red Mosque in Islamabad when the Red Mosque people had been involved in basic defiance of government authority: things like kidnapping people. Musharraf, a lot of people think, was rather slow to react as the situation had been unfolding in the Red Mosque. But the aftermath of that decision has been a string of violence that is unmatched in Islamabad, which is normally a sleepy suburban-feeling little town, as well as in the areas near the Afghan border, and also far away from that.
A third problem of course is the traditional feud between Pakistan and India, the nuclear neighbors. Kashmir is the poster child for this dispute but by no means the only part of it. I mention that third because at the moment India and Pakistan do have a dialogue going. It’s not clear to me that this dialogue is going to accomplish anything very much in the near term, but at least it represents a decision by both governments that they’d rather talk than squabble.
Are there elections scheduled yet?
According to present Pakistani law, the presidential election which is carried out not by the people but by the national assembly and the four provincial assemblies, must take place between September 15 and October 15, because the president of the national assembly’s term is scheduled to expire on November 15. November 15 is also the date when the national assembly’s term expires. They’ve got three months till the other national assembly election which is carried out by the people. That’s the current rule book on election timing. Now let me give you the complications.
The first is the sequence of the elections. Many people believe it is in some sense democratically inappropriate for President Musharraf to get himself elected by assemblies that are all about to go out of existence, so that may be challenged in the courts. I’m not sure how likely that is to get a sympathetic reading from the courts, but it’s going to be a focus for political protest. The more complicated issue however is that Musharraf wants to run as a general and head of the army. There his legal situation is much more complicated. The law is very confusing, but a lot of people believe the law to say that he needs legislative sanctions to continue to be both president and the head of the army either beyond the end of this term or beyond December 31. This is guaranteed to be challenged in court and the challenge could well be successful. So this adds another element of unpredictability. But the big election, which people are watching in the sense of participation of the parties and so on, is the legislative election. At this point the opposition political parties do not appear to be planning to put up a candidate in opposition to Musharraf. There has never, as far as I know, been a contested presidential election, because the way the constitution was originally written the presidency was supposed to be a relatively weak office. Of course at the moment that is not true.
Now, let me come back to the problems Musharraf has had with extremists in his own country. It would seem to be a plus for the United States if he were to really crack down on them. On the other hand, does that hurt him politically?
Musharraf’s basic approach to the extremists, both the domestic ones and those on the Afghan circuit, has been to hedge: try to keep them under control but not to attempt to put them out of business. This partly reflects his view of what’s possible, but the opinion—which is widespread in the army—is that they have used these people in the past as a foreign-policy instrument both in Kashmir and in Afghanistan. They may use them again; they don’t want them totally gone. I don’t think this hedging strategy can work anymore. But, I’m not sure the Pakistani army leadership has really reached that conclusion. Clearly what happened after the Red Mosque has been a shock. We need to watch and see if they have really decided they need to put these people out of business. If they have that would be an important policy turn for the United States. To be fair, it’s a high-risk policy, but there are no risk-free policies in today’s Pakistan.
There has also been talk about him trying to strike a deal with Benazir Bhutto, the former prime minster who was exiled from the country and who obviously leads a very moderate brand of Islam. Is that deal at all possible?
There have been contacts going back at least three years, which have stirred lots of overheated speculation, so this isn’t a new thing. The argument that is made by people close to Musharraf is that such a deal would permit him to reduce his dependence on the religious parties, which have been in opposition but in practice quasi-allies for the past five years. As of today, there is a widespread assumption the deal has virtually been done. I don’t altogether share that. It seems to me that really some very key issues aren’t settled. On Benazir Bhutto’s side, will she be allowed to run for prime minister and with what kind of powers? On Musharraf’s side, will he in fact take off his uniform? He’s dropping hints of maybe doing so next year or the year after but the last time he reached an agreement of stepping down from the army, he didn’t follow through.
Both of these people have ample reasons to mistrust each other and are very wary of what’s happening. Benazir Bhutto also has to watch her back; there are PPP [her political party] people who have been in Pakistan throughout the time she has been in exile, at least one of whom has received greater visibility in the political protests that followed the Supreme Court issue, because he was the chief justice’s lawyer. More dangerous from her point of view is that her archrival during the 1990s, former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, now in exile in London, has submitted a petition to the Pakistani Supreme Court to invalidate his exile. If the Supreme Court approves that and he goes back to Pakistan, she kind of has to be there to maintain her credibility, and this creates a very unpredictable situation.
Why has Musharraf been so insistent on remaining head of the army, when he could be de facto head of the army anyway? Or is that not possible?
Oh, sure it is. The president is commander in chief of the army. So it’s not only possible, but there is precedence for it. The precedence particularly has to do with Ayub Khan, who ruled Pakistan for eleven years starting in 1958. Ayub Khan, about a year into his presidency retired from the army, kept his rank (in fact promoted himself to field marshal), and remained commander in chief. The army eventually removed Ayub Khan as president. But Musharraf is very well aware that there were ten years between Ayub’s retirement from the army and his removal. So, on the one hand he might say “What’s the big deal?” On the other hand, Ayub Khan made that move when he was at the height of his power, which Musharraf is certainly not at now. His feeling is that as long as he is head of the army he directly commands troops, and he has very direct chain-of-command authority over all the senior officers. This is a very hierarchal and disciplined army. Besides, he’s more comfortable this way and that’s what he wants to do.
Does he spend more time in the army than anyone else?
He certainly spends plenty of time with the army. He regularly conducts meetings of the senior staff and meetings of the core commanders who are the people who command the major units all over Pakistan. This is widely regarded as his most important constituency.
There has been considerable speculation that the U.S. government might do something unilaterally in Pakistan. President Bush was asked about that while meeting with Karzai the other day and kind of fudged his answer. We have Special Forces, of course, in that region and they could do something secretly, but I think a publicized clash in Pakistan using U.S. forces would probably be quite unusual, wouldn’t it?
It would not only be unusual, it would be absolutely devastating both for Musharraf’s government and more generally for U.S. relations with Pakistan. That would unite Pakistanis in a ferocious nationalistic response. I don’t think this is something the United States is seriously considering at this time. But there is no question the administration is very frustrated with the inadequate results from whatever the Pakistanis have been doing to eliminate the Taliban safe havens in the areas near the Afghan border.
By TERESITA C. SCHAFFER AND BERNARD GWERTZMAN | August 8, 2007
Interviewee: Teresita C. Schaffer, Director, South Asia Program, Center for Strategic and International Studies
Interviewer: Bernard Gwertzman, Consulting Editor
Teresita C. Schaffer, a former State Department official with extensive experience in South Asia, says the violence in Pakistan since President Pervez Musharraf's crackdown on the Red Mosque in Islamabad may lead to rethinking among army leaders on the value of maintaining extremists in Pakistan as a political force. She says: “We need to watch and see if they have really decided they need to put these people out of business. If they have, that would be an important policy turn for the United States. To be fair, it’s a high-risk policy, but there are no risk-free policies in today’s Pakistan."
Pakistan has been in the news lately in part because of the continuing problems on the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan, and also by the indications that some in the administration might even countenance an American attack on terrorist sanctuaries inside of Pakistan. This has raised hackles in Pakistan where President Pervez Musharraf has considerable political problems of his own. What should concern Americans about Pakistan these days?
First, and I’m taking this in the order of the way the administration looks at priorities, is the connection between Pakistan and Afghanistan. This is complicated in part because the two countries have always gotten along badly. The issue of greatest concern to the United States is the terrorism issue and the extremely difficult time the United States and its NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organization] allies have had getting Afghanistan to stabilize and develop like a more normal country following the end of the Taliban regime in 2001 and through the turbulent fight that followed.
Second, I would say, is the internal situation in Pakistan. Musharraf has been the centerpiece of U.S. policymaking in the region. He took power in a military coup nearly eight years ago, and at this point is in serious trouble for a number of reasons. One was his effort to fire the Supreme Court Chief Justice, Iftikhar Muhammed Chaudhry, which backfired badly first by sparking months and months of protest, and second because the Supreme Court turned him down. Musharraf is now faced with an awakened political opposition, albeit not a particularly united one, as well as the black eye administered by the judicial system.
A second source of his trouble has to do with domestic extremism. The people involved are the same as the people involved in the Afghanistan problem, but their dynamic is a little different. Here the problem started with Musharraf’s decision to send in the army to the Red Mosque in Islamabad when the Red Mosque people had been involved in basic defiance of government authority: things like kidnapping people. Musharraf, a lot of people think, was rather slow to react as the situation had been unfolding in the Red Mosque. But the aftermath of that decision has been a string of violence that is unmatched in Islamabad, which is normally a sleepy suburban-feeling little town, as well as in the areas near the Afghan border, and also far away from that.
A third problem of course is the traditional feud between Pakistan and India, the nuclear neighbors. Kashmir is the poster child for this dispute but by no means the only part of it. I mention that third because at the moment India and Pakistan do have a dialogue going. It’s not clear to me that this dialogue is going to accomplish anything very much in the near term, but at least it represents a decision by both governments that they’d rather talk than squabble.
Are there elections scheduled yet?
According to present Pakistani law, the presidential election which is carried out not by the people but by the national assembly and the four provincial assemblies, must take place between September 15 and October 15, because the president of the national assembly’s term is scheduled to expire on November 15. November 15 is also the date when the national assembly’s term expires. They’ve got three months till the other national assembly election which is carried out by the people. That’s the current rule book on election timing. Now let me give you the complications.
The first is the sequence of the elections. Many people believe it is in some sense democratically inappropriate for President Musharraf to get himself elected by assemblies that are all about to go out of existence, so that may be challenged in the courts. I’m not sure how likely that is to get a sympathetic reading from the courts, but it’s going to be a focus for political protest. The more complicated issue however is that Musharraf wants to run as a general and head of the army. There his legal situation is much more complicated. The law is very confusing, but a lot of people believe the law to say that he needs legislative sanctions to continue to be both president and the head of the army either beyond the end of this term or beyond December 31. This is guaranteed to be challenged in court and the challenge could well be successful. So this adds another element of unpredictability. But the big election, which people are watching in the sense of participation of the parties and so on, is the legislative election. At this point the opposition political parties do not appear to be planning to put up a candidate in opposition to Musharraf. There has never, as far as I know, been a contested presidential election, because the way the constitution was originally written the presidency was supposed to be a relatively weak office. Of course at the moment that is not true.
Now, let me come back to the problems Musharraf has had with extremists in his own country. It would seem to be a plus for the United States if he were to really crack down on them. On the other hand, does that hurt him politically?
Musharraf’s basic approach to the extremists, both the domestic ones and those on the Afghan circuit, has been to hedge: try to keep them under control but not to attempt to put them out of business. This partly reflects his view of what’s possible, but the opinion—which is widespread in the army—is that they have used these people in the past as a foreign-policy instrument both in Kashmir and in Afghanistan. They may use them again; they don’t want them totally gone. I don’t think this hedging strategy can work anymore. But, I’m not sure the Pakistani army leadership has really reached that conclusion. Clearly what happened after the Red Mosque has been a shock. We need to watch and see if they have really decided they need to put these people out of business. If they have that would be an important policy turn for the United States. To be fair, it’s a high-risk policy, but there are no risk-free policies in today’s Pakistan.
There has also been talk about him trying to strike a deal with Benazir Bhutto, the former prime minster who was exiled from the country and who obviously leads a very moderate brand of Islam. Is that deal at all possible?
There have been contacts going back at least three years, which have stirred lots of overheated speculation, so this isn’t a new thing. The argument that is made by people close to Musharraf is that such a deal would permit him to reduce his dependence on the religious parties, which have been in opposition but in practice quasi-allies for the past five years. As of today, there is a widespread assumption the deal has virtually been done. I don’t altogether share that. It seems to me that really some very key issues aren’t settled. On Benazir Bhutto’s side, will she be allowed to run for prime minister and with what kind of powers? On Musharraf’s side, will he in fact take off his uniform? He’s dropping hints of maybe doing so next year or the year after but the last time he reached an agreement of stepping down from the army, he didn’t follow through.
Both of these people have ample reasons to mistrust each other and are very wary of what’s happening. Benazir Bhutto also has to watch her back; there are PPP [her political party] people who have been in Pakistan throughout the time she has been in exile, at least one of whom has received greater visibility in the political protests that followed the Supreme Court issue, because he was the chief justice’s lawyer. More dangerous from her point of view is that her archrival during the 1990s, former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, now in exile in London, has submitted a petition to the Pakistani Supreme Court to invalidate his exile. If the Supreme Court approves that and he goes back to Pakistan, she kind of has to be there to maintain her credibility, and this creates a very unpredictable situation.
Why has Musharraf been so insistent on remaining head of the army, when he could be de facto head of the army anyway? Or is that not possible?
Oh, sure it is. The president is commander in chief of the army. So it’s not only possible, but there is precedence for it. The precedence particularly has to do with Ayub Khan, who ruled Pakistan for eleven years starting in 1958. Ayub Khan, about a year into his presidency retired from the army, kept his rank (in fact promoted himself to field marshal), and remained commander in chief. The army eventually removed Ayub Khan as president. But Musharraf is very well aware that there were ten years between Ayub’s retirement from the army and his removal. So, on the one hand he might say “What’s the big deal?” On the other hand, Ayub Khan made that move when he was at the height of his power, which Musharraf is certainly not at now. His feeling is that as long as he is head of the army he directly commands troops, and he has very direct chain-of-command authority over all the senior officers. This is a very hierarchal and disciplined army. Besides, he’s more comfortable this way and that’s what he wants to do.
Does he spend more time in the army than anyone else?
He certainly spends plenty of time with the army. He regularly conducts meetings of the senior staff and meetings of the core commanders who are the people who command the major units all over Pakistan. This is widely regarded as his most important constituency.
There has been considerable speculation that the U.S. government might do something unilaterally in Pakistan. President Bush was asked about that while meeting with Karzai the other day and kind of fudged his answer. We have Special Forces, of course, in that region and they could do something secretly, but I think a publicized clash in Pakistan using U.S. forces would probably be quite unusual, wouldn’t it?
It would not only be unusual, it would be absolutely devastating both for Musharraf’s government and more generally for U.S. relations with Pakistan. That would unite Pakistanis in a ferocious nationalistic response. I don’t think this is something the United States is seriously considering at this time. But there is no question the administration is very frustrated with the inadequate results from whatever the Pakistanis have been doing to eliminate the Taliban safe havens in the areas near the Afghan border.
Filed under
CFR,
Pakistan,
Pervez Musharraf,
Taliban
by Winter Patriot
on Sunday, September 30, 2007
[
link |
| home
]
| home
]
Reuters : Arctic thaw may be at "tipping point"
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Arctic thaw may be at "tipping point"
By Alister Doyle | Environment Correspondent | September 28, 2007
OSLO (Reuters) - A record melt of Arctic summer sea ice this month may be a sign that global warming is reaching a critical trigger point that could accelerate the northern thaw, some scientists say.
"The reason so much (of the Arctic ice) went suddenly is that it is hitting a tipping point that we have been warning about for the past few years," James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, told Reuters.
The Arctic summer sea ice shrank by more than 20 percent below the previous 2005 record low in mid-September to 4.13 million sq km (1.6 million sq miles), according to a 30-year satellite record. It has now frozen out to 4.2 million sq km.
The idea of climate tipping points -- like a see-saw that suddenly flips over when enough weight gets onto one side -- is controversial because it is little understood and dismissed by some as scaremongering about runaway effects.
The polar thaw may herald a self-sustaining acceleration that could threaten indigenous peoples and creatures such as polar bears -- as Arctic sea ice shrinks, the darker ocean soaks up ever more heat than reflective snow and ice.
In Germany, the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research says Arctic sea ice has "already tipped."
Among potential "tipping elements" that are still stable, it lists on its Web site a melt of Siberian permafrost, a slowdown of the Gulf Stream and disruptions to the Indian monsoon.
"I'd say we are reaching a tipping point or are past it for the ice. This is a strong indication that there is an amplifying mechanism here," said Paal Prestrud of the Center for International Climate and Environmental Research in Oslo.
"But that's more or less speculation. There isn't scientific documentation other than the observations," he said.
SHIPPING, POLAR BEARS
Many experts now reckon Arctic ice may disappear in summer before mid-century, decades before earlier forecasts. The thaw would open the region to oil and gas exploration or shipping.
Reuters will host a summit of leading newsmakers on Oct 1-3 to review the state of the environment. Speakers will include Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the U.N. Climate Panel and Michael Morris, chief executive of American Electric Power.
"All models seem to underestimate the speed at which the ice is melting," said Anders Levermann, a Potsdam professor.
"I do not believe that this is alarmist... not all tipping points are irreversible," he said. And societies can weigh up remote risks, such as planes crashing or nuclear meltdowns.
Hansen said he is seeking more study of causes of the melt, widely blamed on greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels but perhaps slightly stoked by soot from forest fires or industries in Russia and China. Ice darkened by soot melts faster.
"It is a very good lesson, because the ice sheets (on Greenland and Antarctica) have their own tipping points, somewhat harder to get started but far more dangerous for humanity around the globe," he said.
A melt of floating Arctic sea ice does not affect sea levels but Greenland has enough ice to raise oceans by 7 meters and Antarctica by about 57 meters, according to U.N. estimates.
Pachauri's authoritative climate panel, in a summary report due for release in November, does not use the phrase "tipping point" but does say: "Climate change could lead to abrupt or irreversible climate changes and impacts."
It says, for instance, that it is "very unlikely" that the Gulf Stream bringing warm water north to Europe will switch off this century. That could bring a big regional cooling.
And it says that a melt of ice sheets could lead to big sea level rises over thousands of years. "Rapid sea level rise on century time scales cannot be excluded," it adds.
© Reuters 2007 All rights reserved
By Alister Doyle | Environment Correspondent | September 28, 2007
OSLO (Reuters) - A record melt of Arctic summer sea ice this month may be a sign that global warming is reaching a critical trigger point that could accelerate the northern thaw, some scientists say.
"The reason so much (of the Arctic ice) went suddenly is that it is hitting a tipping point that we have been warning about for the past few years," James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, told Reuters.
The Arctic summer sea ice shrank by more than 20 percent below the previous 2005 record low in mid-September to 4.13 million sq km (1.6 million sq miles), according to a 30-year satellite record. It has now frozen out to 4.2 million sq km.
The idea of climate tipping points -- like a see-saw that suddenly flips over when enough weight gets onto one side -- is controversial because it is little understood and dismissed by some as scaremongering about runaway effects.
The polar thaw may herald a self-sustaining acceleration that could threaten indigenous peoples and creatures such as polar bears -- as Arctic sea ice shrinks, the darker ocean soaks up ever more heat than reflective snow and ice.
In Germany, the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research says Arctic sea ice has "already tipped."
Among potential "tipping elements" that are still stable, it lists on its Web site a melt of Siberian permafrost, a slowdown of the Gulf Stream and disruptions to the Indian monsoon.
"I'd say we are reaching a tipping point or are past it for the ice. This is a strong indication that there is an amplifying mechanism here," said Paal Prestrud of the Center for International Climate and Environmental Research in Oslo.
"But that's more or less speculation. There isn't scientific documentation other than the observations," he said.
SHIPPING, POLAR BEARS
Many experts now reckon Arctic ice may disappear in summer before mid-century, decades before earlier forecasts. The thaw would open the region to oil and gas exploration or shipping.
Reuters will host a summit of leading newsmakers on Oct 1-3 to review the state of the environment. Speakers will include Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the U.N. Climate Panel and Michael Morris, chief executive of American Electric Power.
"All models seem to underestimate the speed at which the ice is melting," said Anders Levermann, a Potsdam professor.
"I do not believe that this is alarmist... not all tipping points are irreversible," he said. And societies can weigh up remote risks, such as planes crashing or nuclear meltdowns.
Hansen said he is seeking more study of causes of the melt, widely blamed on greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels but perhaps slightly stoked by soot from forest fires or industries in Russia and China. Ice darkened by soot melts faster.
"It is a very good lesson, because the ice sheets (on Greenland and Antarctica) have their own tipping points, somewhat harder to get started but far more dangerous for humanity around the globe," he said.
A melt of floating Arctic sea ice does not affect sea levels but Greenland has enough ice to raise oceans by 7 meters and Antarctica by about 57 meters, according to U.N. estimates.
Pachauri's authoritative climate panel, in a summary report due for release in November, does not use the phrase "tipping point" but does say: "Climate change could lead to abrupt or irreversible climate changes and impacts."
It says, for instance, that it is "very unlikely" that the Gulf Stream bringing warm water north to Europe will switch off this century. That could bring a big regional cooling.
And it says that a melt of ice sheets could lead to big sea level rises over thousands of years. "Rapid sea level rise on century time scales cannot be excluded," it adds.
© Reuters 2007 All rights reserved
Reuters : Secrecy shrouds U.N. mission to Myanmar
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Secrecy shrouds U.N. mission to Myanmar
By Aung Hla Tun | September 29, 2007
YANGON (Reuters) - An urgent United Nations mission to bring Myanmar's ruling generals and their many foes to the peace table was shrouded in secrecy on Sunday with no word on progress from the country's new jungle capital.
Officials were unreachable in Naypyidaw, 240 miles to the north of Yangon which has been the centre of an uprising led by Buddhist monks. Since mid-week the junta has been squeezing the life out of the protests by arresting or confining monks and barricading off the city centre.
There was no word even on who U.N. envoy Ibrahim Gambari has met in Naypyidaw, the greenfield site where the junta moved the entire government apparatus at just a few hours notice in 2005, apparently because astrologers had defined the auspicious hour for the shift.
The generals, directing moves to throttle the protests in Yangon and other cities from Naypyidaw, usually ignore outside pressure. Yet they bowed to the chorus of international concern that followed soldiers shooting down peaceful protesters last week to allow Gambari in at short notice.
The heavy-handed suppression of the protests had prompted criticism even from China, the closest the junta have to an ally, and rare condemnation from ASEAN (the Association of South East Asian Nations), of which Myanmar is a member.
State-run media have proclaimed the restoration of peace and stability, and insist that security forces handled the protests "with care, using the least possible force". Diplomats flown to Naypyidaw received similar assurances.
FEW ON STREETS
At their height last Monday and Tuesday the protests in central Yangon, formerly Rangoon, filled five city blocks. They are now reduced to a few hundred people taunting and cursing security forces, who have fenced off the protest area between two main pagodas, then vanishing into alleys when charged.
There is no sign now of the maroon-robed monks, the moral core of the deeply Buddhist nation, whose column stretched nearly a kilometer (more than half a mile) at the height of the protests against 45 years of military rule.
The monks were either arrested by the hundreds in overnight raids on their monasteries, or are penned in there by surrounding security forces who began a crackdown on Wednesday in Yangon, formerly known as Rangoon.
Soldiers and police fire occasional warning shots, ensuring the city remains scared of a repeat of 1988, when the army put down an uprising killing an estimated 3,000 people.
But there have been no further reports of deaths in the protests, which began in August with small marches against shock fuel price rises. The official count is 10 killed. Western governments believe the real toll is much higher.
GAMBARI TO MEET SUU KYI
The United States said Gambari going virtually directly to Naypyidaw, whisked out of Yangon as soon as he arrived from Singapore on Saturday, was a reason to worry about his mission, which followed an emergency U.N. Security Council meeting on Myanmar prompted by the bloody crackdown on protests.
"We have concerns that Mr. Gambari was swiftly moved from Rangoon to the new capital in the interior, far from population centers," White House National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said in a statement.
He urged the junta to allow Gambari wide access to people, including religious leaders and detained pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi.
Gambari was due to meet Suu Kyi, who has spent about 12 of the last 18 years in some form of detention, when he returned to Yangon.
The two met a year ago, the last time any senior foreign figure has seen the democracy icon, who has been confined to her lakeside Yangon villa without a telephone and requiring official permission, granted rarely, to receive visitors.
Since she was last detained in May 2003, some of her countrymen have been able to see her just once -- early in the monk-led protests when marchers were allowed through the barricades sealing off her street.
Suu Kyi, whose National League for Democracy won a landslide election victory in 1990 which the generals annulled, appeared at the gate of the house, riot police between her and the protesters.
There has been no explanation, and no repeat, of the incident.
However, in a sign any concessions to the protesters by the generals would be limited, state television is publicizing marches around the country condemning the Yangon protests and officials say there will be more during Gambari's visit.
© Reuters 2007 All rights reserved
By Aung Hla Tun | September 29, 2007
YANGON (Reuters) - An urgent United Nations mission to bring Myanmar's ruling generals and their many foes to the peace table was shrouded in secrecy on Sunday with no word on progress from the country's new jungle capital.
Officials were unreachable in Naypyidaw, 240 miles to the north of Yangon which has been the centre of an uprising led by Buddhist monks. Since mid-week the junta has been squeezing the life out of the protests by arresting or confining monks and barricading off the city centre.
There was no word even on who U.N. envoy Ibrahim Gambari has met in Naypyidaw, the greenfield site where the junta moved the entire government apparatus at just a few hours notice in 2005, apparently because astrologers had defined the auspicious hour for the shift.
The generals, directing moves to throttle the protests in Yangon and other cities from Naypyidaw, usually ignore outside pressure. Yet they bowed to the chorus of international concern that followed soldiers shooting down peaceful protesters last week to allow Gambari in at short notice.
The heavy-handed suppression of the protests had prompted criticism even from China, the closest the junta have to an ally, and rare condemnation from ASEAN (the Association of South East Asian Nations), of which Myanmar is a member.
State-run media have proclaimed the restoration of peace and stability, and insist that security forces handled the protests "with care, using the least possible force". Diplomats flown to Naypyidaw received similar assurances.
FEW ON STREETS
At their height last Monday and Tuesday the protests in central Yangon, formerly Rangoon, filled five city blocks. They are now reduced to a few hundred people taunting and cursing security forces, who have fenced off the protest area between two main pagodas, then vanishing into alleys when charged.
There is no sign now of the maroon-robed monks, the moral core of the deeply Buddhist nation, whose column stretched nearly a kilometer (more than half a mile) at the height of the protests against 45 years of military rule.
The monks were either arrested by the hundreds in overnight raids on their monasteries, or are penned in there by surrounding security forces who began a crackdown on Wednesday in Yangon, formerly known as Rangoon.
Soldiers and police fire occasional warning shots, ensuring the city remains scared of a repeat of 1988, when the army put down an uprising killing an estimated 3,000 people.
But there have been no further reports of deaths in the protests, which began in August with small marches against shock fuel price rises. The official count is 10 killed. Western governments believe the real toll is much higher.
GAMBARI TO MEET SUU KYI
The United States said Gambari going virtually directly to Naypyidaw, whisked out of Yangon as soon as he arrived from Singapore on Saturday, was a reason to worry about his mission, which followed an emergency U.N. Security Council meeting on Myanmar prompted by the bloody crackdown on protests.
"We have concerns that Mr. Gambari was swiftly moved from Rangoon to the new capital in the interior, far from population centers," White House National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said in a statement.
He urged the junta to allow Gambari wide access to people, including religious leaders and detained pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi.
Gambari was due to meet Suu Kyi, who has spent about 12 of the last 18 years in some form of detention, when he returned to Yangon.
The two met a year ago, the last time any senior foreign figure has seen the democracy icon, who has been confined to her lakeside Yangon villa without a telephone and requiring official permission, granted rarely, to receive visitors.
Since she was last detained in May 2003, some of her countrymen have been able to see her just once -- early in the monk-led protests when marchers were allowed through the barricades sealing off her street.
Suu Kyi, whose National League for Democracy won a landslide election victory in 1990 which the generals annulled, appeared at the gate of the house, riot police between her and the protesters.
There has been no explanation, and no repeat, of the incident.
However, in a sign any concessions to the protesters by the generals would be limited, state television is publicizing marches around the country condemning the Yangon protests and officials say there will be more during Gambari's visit.
© Reuters 2007 All rights reserved
Reuters : Iran MPs brand U.S. army, CIA "terrorists"
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Iran MPs brand U.S. army, CIA "terrorists"
September 29, 2007
TEHRAN, Sept 29 (Reuters) - Iranian lawmakers hit back on Saturday at the United States for considering sanctions against the Islamic state's Revolutionary Guards, branding the U.S. armed forces and the CIA as "terrorist".
A statement, signed by 215 MPs and read out at a session of the 290-seat legislature, criticised the U.S. military and the Central Intelligence Agency for what it called terrorist actions, the official IRNA news agency said.
It cited the World War Two atomic bombing of Japan, the Vietnam war and the conflict in Iraq as examples.
"Iranian lawmakers ... labelled the American army and the country's intelligence services (CIA) as terrorist," IRNA said.
The statement came four days after the U.S. House of Representatives approved a bill mandating sanctions on foreign energy companies doing business with Iran and urging the U.S. government to brand the Revolutionary Guards "terrorist".
The two nations, who have not had diplomatic ties since shortly after Iran's 1979 Islamic Revolution, are embroiled in a deepening rift over Tehran's nuclear ambitions. They also blame each other for the bloodshed in Iraq.
Iran has said any U.S. move to label the Guards a terrorist organisation -- which would enable Washington to target the force's financing -- would be illegal and amount to a confrontation with the entire Islamic Republic.
"TORTURE"
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said this week Washington was considering sanctions against the Guards' Qods force which it accuses of inciting violence in Iraq.
The Qods force is considered the elite unit of the Guards, which is an ideologically-driven wing of Iran's armed forces.
A month ago, there were plans within the U.S. administration to label the entire Guards Corps a terrorist group -- the first time the United States would place the armed forces of any sovereign government on such a list.
But U.S. officials have said the thinking now was that the Qods unit was easier to target. Washington accuses it of training and equipping insurgents who have attacked U.S. troops.
Iran denies this, as well as Western allegations its nuclear programme is aimed at developing atomic weapons.
The Iranian lawmakers' statement condemned "the violations by the American army and the creation of insecurity in the region."
It also listed the United States' "unlimited support for the racist and aggressive Zionist regime (Israel) and involvement in the terrorist operations of the government of that regime against the oppressed nations of Palestine and Lebanon".
The MPs called on the United Nations to intervene to prevent "places of torture" such as Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib and secret U.S. prisons, IRNA added.
The handling of detainees in the U.S. military lockup at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and at secret CIA prisons has fuelled allegations that the United States has wilfully violated international law.
© Reuters 2007 All rights reserved
September 29, 2007
TEHRAN, Sept 29 (Reuters) - Iranian lawmakers hit back on Saturday at the United States for considering sanctions against the Islamic state's Revolutionary Guards, branding the U.S. armed forces and the CIA as "terrorist".
A statement, signed by 215 MPs and read out at a session of the 290-seat legislature, criticised the U.S. military and the Central Intelligence Agency for what it called terrorist actions, the official IRNA news agency said.
It cited the World War Two atomic bombing of Japan, the Vietnam war and the conflict in Iraq as examples.
"Iranian lawmakers ... labelled the American army and the country's intelligence services (CIA) as terrorist," IRNA said.
The statement came four days after the U.S. House of Representatives approved a bill mandating sanctions on foreign energy companies doing business with Iran and urging the U.S. government to brand the Revolutionary Guards "terrorist".
The two nations, who have not had diplomatic ties since shortly after Iran's 1979 Islamic Revolution, are embroiled in a deepening rift over Tehran's nuclear ambitions. They also blame each other for the bloodshed in Iraq.
Iran has said any U.S. move to label the Guards a terrorist organisation -- which would enable Washington to target the force's financing -- would be illegal and amount to a confrontation with the entire Islamic Republic.
"TORTURE"
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said this week Washington was considering sanctions against the Guards' Qods force which it accuses of inciting violence in Iraq.
The Qods force is considered the elite unit of the Guards, which is an ideologically-driven wing of Iran's armed forces.
A month ago, there were plans within the U.S. administration to label the entire Guards Corps a terrorist group -- the first time the United States would place the armed forces of any sovereign government on such a list.
But U.S. officials have said the thinking now was that the Qods unit was easier to target. Washington accuses it of training and equipping insurgents who have attacked U.S. troops.
Iran denies this, as well as Western allegations its nuclear programme is aimed at developing atomic weapons.
The Iranian lawmakers' statement condemned "the violations by the American army and the creation of insecurity in the region."
It also listed the United States' "unlimited support for the racist and aggressive Zionist regime (Israel) and involvement in the terrorist operations of the government of that regime against the oppressed nations of Palestine and Lebanon".
The MPs called on the United Nations to intervene to prevent "places of torture" such as Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib and secret U.S. prisons, IRNA added.
The handling of detainees in the U.S. military lockup at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and at secret CIA prisons has fuelled allegations that the United States has wilfully violated international law.
© Reuters 2007 All rights reserved
Reuters : Suicide bomb on Afghan army bus kills 30 in Kabul
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Suicide bomb on Afghan army bus kills 30 in Kabul
By Sayed Salahuddin | September 29, 2007
KABUL (Reuters) - A suicide bomber killed 28 Afghan troops and two civilians on Saturday in an attack on an army bus in Kabul, the Afghan president said.
The Taliban claimed responsibility for the attack, the deadliest in the Afghan capital since the hard-line Islamist movement was ousted from power for harboring al Qaeda leaders following the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States.
A suicide bomber dressed in army uniform got on the bus carrying Afghan National Army personnel to work, the Defense Ministry said. The blast split the bus into two and shattered shop windows in a central district of the capital.
Police and soldiers piled bodies onto army vehicles. Residents also helped pick up pieces of flesh and put them into plastic bags. A boy stood crying next to a police cordon saying he was looking for his father who sold cigarettes from a hand-cart next to the site of the bomb.
"The explosion happened just after a group of Afghan National Army soldiers got onto the bus," said witness Mohammad Zaher who had cuts on his forehead from flying glass.
"I heard a big bang. I saw the bus ... destroyed," said witness Ahmad Waleed. "I saw several bodies of military personnel being carried from the site alongside bodies of some workers who were sitting at the roundabout. The army and police arrived very late."
'AGAINST ISLAM'
President Hamid Karzai condemned the blast, which he said killed 28 soldiers and two civilians.
"It was an act of extreme cowardice on the part of those that committed it. No doubt someone who did this was against people, against humanity, definitely against Islam," Karzai told reporters at his heavily fortified palace.
"(It is) something we condemn in the strongest possible terms and something that would indicate to us that the war against terrorism must go on with much strong vigor," he said, speaking in English.
The U.N. Security Council also condemned the attack and in a statement reiterated concern about "the increasing threat to the local population, national security forces, international military and international assistance efforts."
One soldier from the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) was killed in a clash with Taliban rebels in eastern Afghanistan on Saturday, a spokesman for the NATO-led force said.
Taliban insurgents have largely shied away from large-scale conventional attacks on foreign and Afghan forces since suffering heavy casualties in pitched battles last year.
Instead, the rebels have resorted to suicide and roadside bomb attacks aimed at convincing ordinary Afghans their government and its Western backers are unable to provide security.
A suicide bomb attack in June on a bus carrying police officers in Kabul killed 24.
© Reuters 2007 All rights reserved
By Sayed Salahuddin | September 29, 2007
KABUL (Reuters) - A suicide bomber killed 28 Afghan troops and two civilians on Saturday in an attack on an army bus in Kabul, the Afghan president said.
The Taliban claimed responsibility for the attack, the deadliest in the Afghan capital since the hard-line Islamist movement was ousted from power for harboring al Qaeda leaders following the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States.
A suicide bomber dressed in army uniform got on the bus carrying Afghan National Army personnel to work, the Defense Ministry said. The blast split the bus into two and shattered shop windows in a central district of the capital.
Police and soldiers piled bodies onto army vehicles. Residents also helped pick up pieces of flesh and put them into plastic bags. A boy stood crying next to a police cordon saying he was looking for his father who sold cigarettes from a hand-cart next to the site of the bomb.
"The explosion happened just after a group of Afghan National Army soldiers got onto the bus," said witness Mohammad Zaher who had cuts on his forehead from flying glass.
"I heard a big bang. I saw the bus ... destroyed," said witness Ahmad Waleed. "I saw several bodies of military personnel being carried from the site alongside bodies of some workers who were sitting at the roundabout. The army and police arrived very late."
'AGAINST ISLAM'
President Hamid Karzai condemned the blast, which he said killed 28 soldiers and two civilians.
"It was an act of extreme cowardice on the part of those that committed it. No doubt someone who did this was against people, against humanity, definitely against Islam," Karzai told reporters at his heavily fortified palace.
"(It is) something we condemn in the strongest possible terms and something that would indicate to us that the war against terrorism must go on with much strong vigor," he said, speaking in English.
The U.N. Security Council also condemned the attack and in a statement reiterated concern about "the increasing threat to the local population, national security forces, international military and international assistance efforts."
One soldier from the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) was killed in a clash with Taliban rebels in eastern Afghanistan on Saturday, a spokesman for the NATO-led force said.
Taliban insurgents have largely shied away from large-scale conventional attacks on foreign and Afghan forces since suffering heavy casualties in pitched battles last year.
Instead, the rebels have resorted to suicide and roadside bomb attacks aimed at convincing ordinary Afghans their government and its Western backers are unable to provide security.
A suicide bomb attack in June on a bus carrying police officers in Kabul killed 24.
© Reuters 2007 All rights reserved
Toronto Star : Taliban's deadliest weapons lie in wait
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Taliban's deadliest weapons lie in wait
September 29, 2007
KANDAHAR–Canadian troops are winning the war on the battlefield but risk losing their way on the roads, as the Taliban use buried bombs as their weapon of choice against Canadian convoys.
Surprisingly simple to make, easily buried in the dirt roads and deadly effective, one chilling estimate suggests there are hundreds of these bombs lying in wait for soldiers in Kandahar region.
"It is the major threat here in theatre," said Maj. Max Messier, of the 5th Combat Engineers Regiment, based in Valcartier, Que.
"That's the biggest challenge. We don't know where and how we're going to face it. On a daily basis, we are facing that threat."
Roadside bombs have been the biggest killer of Canadians here – of the 71 soldiers who have died in Afghanistan since 2002, 31 have been killed by buried bombs. And 22 of those deaths have occurred this year.
Perhaps most chilling for the Canadians is just how easy it is to make one of these weapons.
To prove that point, Messier reaches into a cardboard box and pulls out the components of a bomb, some of it taken from devices the Canadians have discovered and defused.
"This they can find everywhere, this is easily made," he said.
It starts with the explosive, typically a few mines or artillery shells, easily found in this war-ravaged land.
"This country has been at war for 20, 30 years. There's a lot of ammunition lying around. If there's a bit of explosive, they can make a (bomb) out of it," Messier said, cradling a disarmed artillery shell.
He shows off the trigger, in this case a "pressure plate," that will set off the detonation, usually fashioned from scrap metal and wood. This is one is made from two old saw blades.
When a vehicle rolls over it or a soldier steps it on, the two pieces of metal are squeezed together to make contact, completing the circuit that sparks the detonation.
But insurgents have also been setting off their bombs by radio signal, either with a cellphone, walkie-talkie, even garage door openers. Doing it this way lets an insurgent pick his target. Watching from a safe distance, he can use the radio signal to trigger the bomb just as a military vehicle rolls over it.
Finally, there's the household battery that powers the circuit – oddly enough, it's the one component of the bomb that is the toughest for the insurgents to acquire.
Messier said the Canadians have seen the "whole spectrum" of roadside bombs, from the low-tech to sophisticated devices.
But now they're girding themselves for something even more deadly – roadside bombs that use shaped charges to blast through armoured plating.
"That's something that's being used in Iraq and we might believe it could be used here. The soldiers are trained to face that kind of threat as well. But it's not one of biggest threats we've seen here in Afghanistan," Messier said.
"The threat is moving from one theatre to another."
Another trend that Canadians are watching for is insurgents videotaping an attack to be used later for propaganda. That, too, has been done in Iraq with the footage easily found on the Internet.
Messier said he's seen no video showing Canadians under attack. But he tells the troops to always assume they're being watched if they hit a mine.
Troops in Afghanistan have already seen a worrisome trend to bigger bombs. With each fatal attack, Canadians have responded with new tactics – and heavier vehicles – and insurgents have responded in kind.
"The insurgents are doing the same thing as we're doing. They're adapting to the threat. If it means they have to make the biggest bomb to make what they want, they will do it," Messier said.
Cpl. Robbie Beerenfenger and Sgt. Robert Short were the first Canadians killed by a roadside bomb in Afghanistan when their unarmoured Iltis jeep was hit in 2003 in Kabul.
But now insurgents have blown apart the most heavily armoured vehicles in the Canadian fleet – the LAV III, a transport trusted by the troops, and the RG-31 Nyala armoured vehicle.
The Nyala is a brute of a truck and is built to withstand mine attacks with a V-shaped hull meant to deflect a blast from below.
But even that design wasn't enough to save troops in early July when their RG-31 hit buried explosives, killing the six Canadian soldiers and one Afghan interpreter onboard.
Still, the vehicle remains prized by troops in the field for the protection it does offer.
Messier refused to say how often Canadians are hitting roadside bombs. One report says at least once a week; within the last three weeks, there have been three strikes, injuring five soldiers.
And in July, defence officials released some disturbing statistics – vehicles travelling in Kandahar province had been hit by 150 bombs in a 12-month period, while another 150 of the devices had been detected and disarmed.
Canadian soldiers remain dangerously exposed to roadside bombs compared with their allies here. Unlike the United States, Britain and the Netherlands, Canada does not have helicopters and is forced to move personnel and equipment by road.
But progress is being made, Messier said. Canadians are finding three out of five buried bombs, thanks to their vigilance and tips from the local community.
September 29, 2007
KANDAHAR–Canadian troops are winning the war on the battlefield but risk losing their way on the roads, as the Taliban use buried bombs as their weapon of choice against Canadian convoys.
Surprisingly simple to make, easily buried in the dirt roads and deadly effective, one chilling estimate suggests there are hundreds of these bombs lying in wait for soldiers in Kandahar region.
"It is the major threat here in theatre," said Maj. Max Messier, of the 5th Combat Engineers Regiment, based in Valcartier, Que.
"That's the biggest challenge. We don't know where and how we're going to face it. On a daily basis, we are facing that threat."
Roadside bombs have been the biggest killer of Canadians here – of the 71 soldiers who have died in Afghanistan since 2002, 31 have been killed by buried bombs. And 22 of those deaths have occurred this year.
Perhaps most chilling for the Canadians is just how easy it is to make one of these weapons.
To prove that point, Messier reaches into a cardboard box and pulls out the components of a bomb, some of it taken from devices the Canadians have discovered and defused.
"This they can find everywhere, this is easily made," he said.
It starts with the explosive, typically a few mines or artillery shells, easily found in this war-ravaged land.
"This country has been at war for 20, 30 years. There's a lot of ammunition lying around. If there's a bit of explosive, they can make a (bomb) out of it," Messier said, cradling a disarmed artillery shell.
He shows off the trigger, in this case a "pressure plate," that will set off the detonation, usually fashioned from scrap metal and wood. This is one is made from two old saw blades.
When a vehicle rolls over it or a soldier steps it on, the two pieces of metal are squeezed together to make contact, completing the circuit that sparks the detonation.
But insurgents have also been setting off their bombs by radio signal, either with a cellphone, walkie-talkie, even garage door openers. Doing it this way lets an insurgent pick his target. Watching from a safe distance, he can use the radio signal to trigger the bomb just as a military vehicle rolls over it.
Finally, there's the household battery that powers the circuit – oddly enough, it's the one component of the bomb that is the toughest for the insurgents to acquire.
Messier said the Canadians have seen the "whole spectrum" of roadside bombs, from the low-tech to sophisticated devices.
But now they're girding themselves for something even more deadly – roadside bombs that use shaped charges to blast through armoured plating.
"That's something that's being used in Iraq and we might believe it could be used here. The soldiers are trained to face that kind of threat as well. But it's not one of biggest threats we've seen here in Afghanistan," Messier said.
"The threat is moving from one theatre to another."
Another trend that Canadians are watching for is insurgents videotaping an attack to be used later for propaganda. That, too, has been done in Iraq with the footage easily found on the Internet.
Messier said he's seen no video showing Canadians under attack. But he tells the troops to always assume they're being watched if they hit a mine.
Troops in Afghanistan have already seen a worrisome trend to bigger bombs. With each fatal attack, Canadians have responded with new tactics – and heavier vehicles – and insurgents have responded in kind.
"The insurgents are doing the same thing as we're doing. They're adapting to the threat. If it means they have to make the biggest bomb to make what they want, they will do it," Messier said.
Cpl. Robbie Beerenfenger and Sgt. Robert Short were the first Canadians killed by a roadside bomb in Afghanistan when their unarmoured Iltis jeep was hit in 2003 in Kabul.
But now insurgents have blown apart the most heavily armoured vehicles in the Canadian fleet – the LAV III, a transport trusted by the troops, and the RG-31 Nyala armoured vehicle.
The Nyala is a brute of a truck and is built to withstand mine attacks with a V-shaped hull meant to deflect a blast from below.
But even that design wasn't enough to save troops in early July when their RG-31 hit buried explosives, killing the six Canadian soldiers and one Afghan interpreter onboard.
Still, the vehicle remains prized by troops in the field for the protection it does offer.
Messier refused to say how often Canadians are hitting roadside bombs. One report says at least once a week; within the last three weeks, there have been three strikes, injuring five soldiers.
And in July, defence officials released some disturbing statistics – vehicles travelling in Kandahar province had been hit by 150 bombs in a 12-month period, while another 150 of the devices had been detected and disarmed.
Canadian soldiers remain dangerously exposed to roadside bombs compared with their allies here. Unlike the United States, Britain and the Netherlands, Canada does not have helicopters and is forced to move personnel and equipment by road.
But progress is being made, Messier said. Canadians are finding three out of five buried bombs, thanks to their vigilance and tips from the local community.
ISNA : Iran's parliament names U.S. army and CIA "terrorist"
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Iran's parliament names U.S. army and CIA "terrorist"
ISNA | TEHRAN September 29, 2007
Iran's parliament called the U.S. invader army and CIA, terrorists.
Iran's parliament members in a statement named some terrorist activities of U.S. invader army and CIA agents all around the world and backed their ideas with the following evidences:
1- Atomic bombard of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and employing uranium in bombing Balkan, Iraq and Afghanistan.
2- Occupying many countries such as Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.
3- Supporting the Zionist racist regime and cooperating in its terrorist operations against innocent nation of Palestine, Lebanon and other regional countries.
4- Illegal support of Iraq's dictator Saddam and terrorist groups such as MKO.
5- Training Al-Qaeda and Taliban terrorists by CIA while the Soviet Union occupied Afghanistan.
6- Killing innocent people of Iraq and Afghanistan, every day bombing, torturing civilians in Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib and other secret prisons particularly in Europe, all in all they make the black report of the U.S. military and CIA.
Ordinarily such measures violate all the world's criterions and international regulations such as the charter of the UN as well as human rights and war conventions.
Iran's parliament while condemning the U.S. military for its invasions and creating insecurity in the region particularly Iraq and Afghanistan called for the UN to prevent it from torturing more people in Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib and other secret prisons.
ISNA | TEHRAN September 29, 2007
Iran's parliament called the U.S. invader army and CIA, terrorists.
Iran's parliament members in a statement named some terrorist activities of U.S. invader army and CIA agents all around the world and backed their ideas with the following evidences:
1- Atomic bombard of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and employing uranium in bombing Balkan, Iraq and Afghanistan.
2- Occupying many countries such as Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.
3- Supporting the Zionist racist regime and cooperating in its terrorist operations against innocent nation of Palestine, Lebanon and other regional countries.
4- Illegal support of Iraq's dictator Saddam and terrorist groups such as MKO.
5- Training Al-Qaeda and Taliban terrorists by CIA while the Soviet Union occupied Afghanistan.
6- Killing innocent people of Iraq and Afghanistan, every day bombing, torturing civilians in Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib and other secret prisons particularly in Europe, all in all they make the black report of the U.S. military and CIA.
Ordinarily such measures violate all the world's criterions and international regulations such as the charter of the UN as well as human rights and war conventions.
Iran's parliament while condemning the U.S. military for its invasions and creating insecurity in the region particularly Iraq and Afghanistan called for the UN to prevent it from torturing more people in Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib and other secret prisons.
AP : Iran Labels CIA 'Terrorist Organization'
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Iran Labels CIA 'Terrorist Organization'
By ALI AKBAR DAREINI | September 29, 2007
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — Iran's parliament voted Saturday to designate the CIA and the U.S. Army as "terrorist organizations," a largely symbolic response to a U.S. Senate resolution seeking a similar designation for Iran's Revolutionary Guards.
The parliament said the Army and the CIA were terrorists because of the atomic bombing of Japan; the use of depleted uranium munitions in the Balkans, Afghanistan and Iraq; support of the killings of Palestinians by Israel; the bombing and killing Iraqi civilians and the torture of imprisoned terror suspects.
"The aggressor U.S. Army and the Central Intelligence Agency are terrorists and also nurture terror," said a statement by the 215 lawmakers who signed the resolution at an open session of the 290-member Iranian parliament. The session was broadcast live on state-run radio.
The resolution, which urges Ahmadinejad's government to treat the two as terrorist organizations, would become law if ratified by the country's hardline constitutional watchdog but probably would have little effect as the two nations have no diplomatic relations.
Ahmadinejad's government was expected to wait for U.S. reaction before making its decision. The White House declined to comment Saturday.
The U.S. Senate voted Wednesday in favor of a resolution urging the State Department to designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization. Charged with defending the system put in place after Iran's 1979 Islamic Revolution, the Guards answer to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and are revered by many for their defense of the country during the 1980s war with Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
The terrorist designation, the first such move against a foreign government entity, would cut the Revolutionary Guards off from the U.S. financial system and freeze the assets of its members or subsidiaries have in U.S. jurisdictions. It would also allow the Treasury to move against firms subject to U.S. law that do business with the Guards, which have vast business interests at home and abroad.
While the proposal attracted overwhelming bipartisan support, a small group of Democrats said they feared that labeling the state-sponsored organization a terrorist group could be interpreted as a congressional authorization of military action in Iran.
Back home after a tour of the U.S. and Latin America, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said the hostile reception he received at Columbia University failed to damage Iran's image and instead hurt America's prestige abroad.
University President Lee Bollinger said before an Ahmadinejad speech at his university that the hard-line leader exhibited "all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator" who was "brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated" for his denials of the Holocaust.
Ahmadinejad, who appeared shaken and irate but did not reciprocate the insult, said that the world had witnessed "the greatness of the Iranian nation" in the face of "insults" by its American host.
"With the grace of God, the Columbia University issue revealed their aggressive and mean-spirited image. ... It backfired. What happened was exactly opposite of what their shallow minds had presumed," Ahmadinejad said late Friday in comments broadcast Saturday on state television. "I believe they made a big mistake. ... They sacrificed the prestige of their whole system."
The harsh reception boosted Ahmadinejad's image at home during a time of high tensions with Washington over U.S. allegations that Iran is secretly trying to develop nuclear weapons and supplying Iraq's Shiite militias with deadly weapons that have killed U.S. troops. Iran denies both claims.
After Ahmadinejad told world leaders at the U.N. General Assembly in New York that his country would defy attempts to impose new sanctions by "arrogant powers" seeking to curb its nuclear program, accusing them of lying and imposing illegal penalties on his country.
Iran and the U.S. have not had diplomatic ties since Iranian students took American diplomats hostage in Tehran following the 1979 overthrow of U.S.-backed Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.
Iranians have a long list of grievances against the United States, including a CIA-backed coup in 1953 that overthrew democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh and put Pahlavi back on the throne.
More recently, there are fears in Iran that either the U.S. or Israel will carry out a military strike against it — something Iranian officials have said would provoke retaliation against Israeli or U.S. bases in the region.
Washington has said it is addressing the situation through diplomacy but refuses to rule out the use of military action.
By ALI AKBAR DAREINI | September 29, 2007
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — Iran's parliament voted Saturday to designate the CIA and the U.S. Army as "terrorist organizations," a largely symbolic response to a U.S. Senate resolution seeking a similar designation for Iran's Revolutionary Guards.
The parliament said the Army and the CIA were terrorists because of the atomic bombing of Japan; the use of depleted uranium munitions in the Balkans, Afghanistan and Iraq; support of the killings of Palestinians by Israel; the bombing and killing Iraqi civilians and the torture of imprisoned terror suspects.
"The aggressor U.S. Army and the Central Intelligence Agency are terrorists and also nurture terror," said a statement by the 215 lawmakers who signed the resolution at an open session of the 290-member Iranian parliament. The session was broadcast live on state-run radio.
The resolution, which urges Ahmadinejad's government to treat the two as terrorist organizations, would become law if ratified by the country's hardline constitutional watchdog but probably would have little effect as the two nations have no diplomatic relations.
Ahmadinejad's government was expected to wait for U.S. reaction before making its decision. The White House declined to comment Saturday.
The U.S. Senate voted Wednesday in favor of a resolution urging the State Department to designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization. Charged with defending the system put in place after Iran's 1979 Islamic Revolution, the Guards answer to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and are revered by many for their defense of the country during the 1980s war with Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
The terrorist designation, the first such move against a foreign government entity, would cut the Revolutionary Guards off from the U.S. financial system and freeze the assets of its members or subsidiaries have in U.S. jurisdictions. It would also allow the Treasury to move against firms subject to U.S. law that do business with the Guards, which have vast business interests at home and abroad.
While the proposal attracted overwhelming bipartisan support, a small group of Democrats said they feared that labeling the state-sponsored organization a terrorist group could be interpreted as a congressional authorization of military action in Iran.
Back home after a tour of the U.S. and Latin America, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said the hostile reception he received at Columbia University failed to damage Iran's image and instead hurt America's prestige abroad.
University President Lee Bollinger said before an Ahmadinejad speech at his university that the hard-line leader exhibited "all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator" who was "brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated" for his denials of the Holocaust.
Ahmadinejad, who appeared shaken and irate but did not reciprocate the insult, said that the world had witnessed "the greatness of the Iranian nation" in the face of "insults" by its American host.
"With the grace of God, the Columbia University issue revealed their aggressive and mean-spirited image. ... It backfired. What happened was exactly opposite of what their shallow minds had presumed," Ahmadinejad said late Friday in comments broadcast Saturday on state television. "I believe they made a big mistake. ... They sacrificed the prestige of their whole system."
The harsh reception boosted Ahmadinejad's image at home during a time of high tensions with Washington over U.S. allegations that Iran is secretly trying to develop nuclear weapons and supplying Iraq's Shiite militias with deadly weapons that have killed U.S. troops. Iran denies both claims.
After Ahmadinejad told world leaders at the U.N. General Assembly in New York that his country would defy attempts to impose new sanctions by "arrogant powers" seeking to curb its nuclear program, accusing them of lying and imposing illegal penalties on his country.
Iran and the U.S. have not had diplomatic ties since Iranian students took American diplomats hostage in Tehran following the 1979 overthrow of U.S.-backed Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.
Iranians have a long list of grievances against the United States, including a CIA-backed coup in 1953 that overthrew democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh and put Pahlavi back on the throne.
More recently, there are fears in Iran that either the U.S. or Israel will carry out a military strike against it — something Iranian officials have said would provoke retaliation against Israeli or U.S. bases in the region.
Washington has said it is addressing the situation through diplomacy but refuses to rule out the use of military action.
Daily Times : VIEW: Beyond the Supreme Court verdict
Saturday, September 29, 2007
VIEW: Beyond the Supreme Court verdict
Dr Hasan-Askari Rizvi | September 30, 2007
The opposition parties and the lawyers will have to ponder over ways and means to deal with the situation in the aftermath of the Supreme Court judgement
In functioning democracies, elections contribute to conflict management and consensus building. If the government and its political adversaries are stalemated on some key issues, they go to the voters for a new mandate. In Pakistan, elections have not generally played a consensus-building role because the dominant elites, especially military rulers, use the electoral process either to protect and legitimise the status quo or use elections to co-opt some political leaders for civilianising military rule. The voters are not normally given a fair and free opportunity to elect their rulers.
The latest judgement of the Supreme Court rejecting petitions against General Pervez Musharraf on technicalities is a big boost for the president because it has enabled him to pursue his election game plan. It has also given his team the confidence to steamroll opposition protests and ignore the impending resignations. However, this judgement has not defused the tension in the political system. The opposition will return to the Supreme Court with reference to the scrutiny of Musharraf’s nomination papers.
The ruling coalition and Musharraf are interested in the end product rather than the process. The end product is Musharraf’s re-election and the ruling party wants to secure it at any cost. They are not worried if the partisan management of the election causes disharmony and conflict as long as they are able to secure the political status quo in Islamabad.
The security arrangements in Islamabad and Rawalpindi by the local administration on September 27, the day Musharraf’s nomination papers were filed, showed that the government treated presidential nominations as a security exercise rather than a routine political affair. This reflected the paranoid military worldview that assigned a priority to order over law. All entry points to Islamabad were blocked and movement of people in Rawalpindi was also restricted as if the administration was protecting the capital city from an advancing enemy army.
Senior officials of the federal government and others in the official circles justified these restrictions in the name of protecting law and order. They wanted to pre-empt opposition plans to threaten law and order by staging protest marches in front of the Election Commission. It is an interesting argument because the government places the onus of respecting law on the opposition but wants to exercise its authority without paying any attention to the imperatives of law and justice.
The present tension between the government and the opposition can be traced to the arrest of an unknown number of opposition leaders and activists on the eve of Nawaz Sharif’s return on September 10. This was followed by more arrests on September 25-26 in order to pre-empt the opposition protest in front of the Election Commission. The arrested people included parliamentarians who were the electors in the presidential elections. Many were released soon after, while the remaining had to be released following an order of the Supreme Court on September 27.
While the government is determined to re-elect Musharraf, the opposition and the lawyers are equally firm in their resolve to stop him. Therefore, they are building pressure by mobilising their supporters and campaigning against Musharraf. Despite the failure of their attempt to disqualify Musharraf from contesting elections, they are expected to pursue their aim further through legal and political means.
The opposition will now pursue the resignation option more seriously. The All Parties Democratic Movement (APDM) has already overcome internal differences on this issue and decided on September 27 that its members in the national and provincial assemblies would resign on October 2. The Chief Minister of NWFP would recommend the dissolution of the NWFP Assembly on the same day and the MMA members of the Balochistan cabinet and assembly will also resign, causing a ministerial crisis in that province. From a purely legalistic perspective, the presidential election may still be held but it loses moral and political credibility if one province is fully excluded and the other is partly absent from the electoral college. There is a need to ponder over the negative consequences on national harmony and federalism of holding the presidential election with an incomplete electoral college.
The divergence between the government and the opposition is reflected in the strategies of the major opposition candidates: Justice (retd) Wajihuddin Ahmed and Makhdoom Amin Fahim. They have not filed their nomination papers for seeking the top job but to make sure that the process is completed to the fullest satisfaction of law. They can be described as candidates for the process. These nominations are also meant to block the uncontested election of Musharraf. These opposition candidates maintain that Musharraf cannot seek re-election in uniform from the existing assemblies. They advocate that parliamentary elections should be held first and the new assemblies should elect the next president.
The presidential election appears to be a stage in the long-drawn confrontation between the government and the opposition. This means that the completion of the presidential election on October 6 will not defuse tensions. If Musharraf gets away with the re-election in strictly legal sense, the existing conflict is likely to escalate. Although the government thinks that the president’s re-election will increase their options to deal with the opposition parties and the lawyers.
The opposition parties and the lawyers will have to ponder over ways and means to deal with the situation in the aftermath of the Supreme Court judgement. It seems that the opposition will not be able to cause political change without putting its house in order and mobilising the people for their cause. They may have to take to the streets to change the Musharraf-dominated centralised political order. If Pakistan is to move towards democracy, political leaders will have to deal with the increased responsibility placed on their shoulders in this new situation.
Attention is now focused on Benazir Bhutto’s on again-off again dialogue with Musharraf’s advisors for evolving a mutually acceptable framework for cooperation. If she supports Musharraf’s re-election in uniform or abstains from voting in favour of Musharraf, the PPP is expected to lose support in the Punjab, if not in interior Sindh. However, if PPP parliamentarians resign from the assemblies, the government can create obstacles in Benazir Bhutto’s return to Pakistan on October 18.
If the current controversies are not defused and the government and the opposition continue to drift in different directions, Musharraf’s expected re-election is no guarantee of a smooth second term for him. He is expected to face a host of challenges ranging from internal political disharmony and conflict to the escalating threat by Islamic extremists and socio-economic inequities. The Musharraf-led centralised political arrangements may continue for some time but they will not be sustainable as they’re not based on a broad societal consensus.
Dr Hasan-Askari Rizvi is a political and defence analyst
Dr Hasan-Askari Rizvi | September 30, 2007
The opposition parties and the lawyers will have to ponder over ways and means to deal with the situation in the aftermath of the Supreme Court judgement
In functioning democracies, elections contribute to conflict management and consensus building. If the government and its political adversaries are stalemated on some key issues, they go to the voters for a new mandate. In Pakistan, elections have not generally played a consensus-building role because the dominant elites, especially military rulers, use the electoral process either to protect and legitimise the status quo or use elections to co-opt some political leaders for civilianising military rule. The voters are not normally given a fair and free opportunity to elect their rulers.
The latest judgement of the Supreme Court rejecting petitions against General Pervez Musharraf on technicalities is a big boost for the president because it has enabled him to pursue his election game plan. It has also given his team the confidence to steamroll opposition protests and ignore the impending resignations. However, this judgement has not defused the tension in the political system. The opposition will return to the Supreme Court with reference to the scrutiny of Musharraf’s nomination papers.
The ruling coalition and Musharraf are interested in the end product rather than the process. The end product is Musharraf’s re-election and the ruling party wants to secure it at any cost. They are not worried if the partisan management of the election causes disharmony and conflict as long as they are able to secure the political status quo in Islamabad.
The security arrangements in Islamabad and Rawalpindi by the local administration on September 27, the day Musharraf’s nomination papers were filed, showed that the government treated presidential nominations as a security exercise rather than a routine political affair. This reflected the paranoid military worldview that assigned a priority to order over law. All entry points to Islamabad were blocked and movement of people in Rawalpindi was also restricted as if the administration was protecting the capital city from an advancing enemy army.
Senior officials of the federal government and others in the official circles justified these restrictions in the name of protecting law and order. They wanted to pre-empt opposition plans to threaten law and order by staging protest marches in front of the Election Commission. It is an interesting argument because the government places the onus of respecting law on the opposition but wants to exercise its authority without paying any attention to the imperatives of law and justice.
The present tension between the government and the opposition can be traced to the arrest of an unknown number of opposition leaders and activists on the eve of Nawaz Sharif’s return on September 10. This was followed by more arrests on September 25-26 in order to pre-empt the opposition protest in front of the Election Commission. The arrested people included parliamentarians who were the electors in the presidential elections. Many were released soon after, while the remaining had to be released following an order of the Supreme Court on September 27.
While the government is determined to re-elect Musharraf, the opposition and the lawyers are equally firm in their resolve to stop him. Therefore, they are building pressure by mobilising their supporters and campaigning against Musharraf. Despite the failure of their attempt to disqualify Musharraf from contesting elections, they are expected to pursue their aim further through legal and political means.
The opposition will now pursue the resignation option more seriously. The All Parties Democratic Movement (APDM) has already overcome internal differences on this issue and decided on September 27 that its members in the national and provincial assemblies would resign on October 2. The Chief Minister of NWFP would recommend the dissolution of the NWFP Assembly on the same day and the MMA members of the Balochistan cabinet and assembly will also resign, causing a ministerial crisis in that province. From a purely legalistic perspective, the presidential election may still be held but it loses moral and political credibility if one province is fully excluded and the other is partly absent from the electoral college. There is a need to ponder over the negative consequences on national harmony and federalism of holding the presidential election with an incomplete electoral college.
The divergence between the government and the opposition is reflected in the strategies of the major opposition candidates: Justice (retd) Wajihuddin Ahmed and Makhdoom Amin Fahim. They have not filed their nomination papers for seeking the top job but to make sure that the process is completed to the fullest satisfaction of law. They can be described as candidates for the process. These nominations are also meant to block the uncontested election of Musharraf. These opposition candidates maintain that Musharraf cannot seek re-election in uniform from the existing assemblies. They advocate that parliamentary elections should be held first and the new assemblies should elect the next president.
The presidential election appears to be a stage in the long-drawn confrontation between the government and the opposition. This means that the completion of the presidential election on October 6 will not defuse tensions. If Musharraf gets away with the re-election in strictly legal sense, the existing conflict is likely to escalate. Although the government thinks that the president’s re-election will increase their options to deal with the opposition parties and the lawyers.
The opposition parties and the lawyers will have to ponder over ways and means to deal with the situation in the aftermath of the Supreme Court judgement. It seems that the opposition will not be able to cause political change without putting its house in order and mobilising the people for their cause. They may have to take to the streets to change the Musharraf-dominated centralised political order. If Pakistan is to move towards democracy, political leaders will have to deal with the increased responsibility placed on their shoulders in this new situation.
Attention is now focused on Benazir Bhutto’s on again-off again dialogue with Musharraf’s advisors for evolving a mutually acceptable framework for cooperation. If she supports Musharraf’s re-election in uniform or abstains from voting in favour of Musharraf, the PPP is expected to lose support in the Punjab, if not in interior Sindh. However, if PPP parliamentarians resign from the assemblies, the government can create obstacles in Benazir Bhutto’s return to Pakistan on October 18.
If the current controversies are not defused and the government and the opposition continue to drift in different directions, Musharraf’s expected re-election is no guarantee of a smooth second term for him. He is expected to face a host of challenges ranging from internal political disharmony and conflict to the escalating threat by Islamic extremists and socio-economic inequities. The Musharraf-led centralised political arrangements may continue for some time but they will not be sustainable as they’re not based on a broad societal consensus.
Dr Hasan-Askari Rizvi is a political and defence analyst
Filed under
elections,
Pakistan,
Pervez Musharraf,
Rawalpindi
by Winter Patriot
on Saturday, September 29, 2007
[
link |
| home
]
| home
]
The Hindu : Lawyers vow to oust Musharraf in court battle
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Lawyers vow to oust Musharraf in court battle
Two candidates to challenge in the Supreme Court legality of President’s nomination
Nirupama Subramanian | September 29, 2007
ISLAMABAD: Aitzaz Ahsan, who fought the court battle for the reinstatement of Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhary, said on Saturday that even if President Pervez Musharraf won another term, he would be unseated in “a matter of months” by the process of law.
“This [presidential] election will be a virtual election. He may have the arithmetic [to win it] but it will have no impact. It will not secure him. Except for the blind American and British, everyone knows this is a fraudulent election. He is a serving military officer seeking a mandate from an Assembly that is past its shelf life,” Mr. Ahsan said.
Surrounded by several rings of lawyers trying to protect him from a possible arrest in the midst of violence outside the Supreme Court, Mr. Ahsan said the Supreme Court had “chickened out” by dismissing the petitions challenging Gen. Musharraf’s eligibility to contest the elections while in uniform and his dual offices.
“We will fight this out in the courts again,” he said. Two candidates in the presidential election said on Saturday they would challenge Gen. Musharraf’s eligibility to contest the election in the Supreme Court on Monday.
But with Gen. Musharraf’s victory in the election more than likely, there is new confidence in the government. On Friday, Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz warned that the government would use all measures at its disposal to check those planning protests against the verdict.
On Saturday, the administration showed none of its usual hesitation in dealing with the protesters. Senior police officials led the fierce baton charges. One of the lasting images of the day was that of a commando in Mr. Aziz’s motorcade pulling out his pistol and pointing it at journalists, his hand menacingly on the trigger.
But the lawyers too were determined not to give up without a fight.
“Here’s a military dictator who uses brute force, and who wants to stay in power by any means. Don’t we have a right to protest? Do we want to go down in history as a nation that never protested?” asked Asma Jehangir, leading human rights lawyer.
Constitution Avenue, where the Supreme Court is located, was a battlefield from 9 a.m. until late in the afternoon.
At each police charge, lawyers rushed into the Supreme Court, regrouped and returned to the road, running back in again when the caning and the teargassing started afresh. Many stones and at least one teargas shell landed in the Supreme Court, prompting the Registrar to come out and ask the police not to target the court.
Raja Yasir, a young lawyer from Rawalpindi, who returned to join the protests after getting 10 stitches on his head, his shirt still bloodstained, said he was fighting for democracy, constitutionalism, the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary.
He said the Supreme Court’s verdict was “a written statement by the dictator” to six judges who swung the nine-judge bench.
“They should feel ashamed of it,” he said.
Iqbal Haider, secretary-general of the independent Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, said he was “shocked” at the “barbarity” shown by the police against lawyers and journalists.
He said the HRCP condemned the police action, and would support the Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists call for a black day on Sunday. Deputy Information Minister Tariq Azeem was pulled out of an ambulance by journalists who rained several blows on him before he was led away to safety.
Journalists said he was trying to slip past the protesters in the safety of the vehicle, but the Minister told Geo TV he had brought the ambulance to take the injured journalists to hospital.
Two candidates to challenge in the Supreme Court legality of President’s nomination
Nirupama Subramanian | September 29, 2007
ISLAMABAD: Aitzaz Ahsan, who fought the court battle for the reinstatement of Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhary, said on Saturday that even if President Pervez Musharraf won another term, he would be unseated in “a matter of months” by the process of law.
“This [presidential] election will be a virtual election. He may have the arithmetic [to win it] but it will have no impact. It will not secure him. Except for the blind American and British, everyone knows this is a fraudulent election. He is a serving military officer seeking a mandate from an Assembly that is past its shelf life,” Mr. Ahsan said.
Surrounded by several rings of lawyers trying to protect him from a possible arrest in the midst of violence outside the Supreme Court, Mr. Ahsan said the Supreme Court had “chickened out” by dismissing the petitions challenging Gen. Musharraf’s eligibility to contest the elections while in uniform and his dual offices.
“We will fight this out in the courts again,” he said. Two candidates in the presidential election said on Saturday they would challenge Gen. Musharraf’s eligibility to contest the election in the Supreme Court on Monday.
But with Gen. Musharraf’s victory in the election more than likely, there is new confidence in the government. On Friday, Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz warned that the government would use all measures at its disposal to check those planning protests against the verdict.
On Saturday, the administration showed none of its usual hesitation in dealing with the protesters. Senior police officials led the fierce baton charges. One of the lasting images of the day was that of a commando in Mr. Aziz’s motorcade pulling out his pistol and pointing it at journalists, his hand menacingly on the trigger.
But the lawyers too were determined not to give up without a fight.
“Here’s a military dictator who uses brute force, and who wants to stay in power by any means. Don’t we have a right to protest? Do we want to go down in history as a nation that never protested?” asked Asma Jehangir, leading human rights lawyer.
Constitution Avenue, where the Supreme Court is located, was a battlefield from 9 a.m. until late in the afternoon.
At each police charge, lawyers rushed into the Supreme Court, regrouped and returned to the road, running back in again when the caning and the teargassing started afresh. Many stones and at least one teargas shell landed in the Supreme Court, prompting the Registrar to come out and ask the police not to target the court.
Raja Yasir, a young lawyer from Rawalpindi, who returned to join the protests after getting 10 stitches on his head, his shirt still bloodstained, said he was fighting for democracy, constitutionalism, the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary.
He said the Supreme Court’s verdict was “a written statement by the dictator” to six judges who swung the nine-judge bench.
“They should feel ashamed of it,” he said.
Iqbal Haider, secretary-general of the independent Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, said he was “shocked” at the “barbarity” shown by the police against lawyers and journalists.
He said the HRCP condemned the police action, and would support the Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists call for a black day on Sunday. Deputy Information Minister Tariq Azeem was pulled out of an ambulance by journalists who rained several blows on him before he was led away to safety.
Journalists said he was trying to slip past the protesters in the safety of the vehicle, but the Minister told Geo TV he had brought the ambulance to take the injured journalists to hospital.
Filed under
Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry,
Pakistan,
Pervez Musharraf,
protests,
Rawalpindi
by Winter Patriot
on Saturday, September 29, 2007
[
link |
| home
]
| home
]
NYT : Lawyers Battle Police Over Election Ruling in Pakistan
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Lawyers Battle Police Over Election Ruling in Pakistan
By CARLOTTA GALL | September 30, 2007
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, Sept. 29 — Riot police officers fought with batons and tear gas against lawyers protesting President Pervez Musharraf’s bid for re-election outside the Supreme Court and Election Commission on Saturday. Dozens of lawyers and some journalists were beaten and a number arrested in the clashes, witnesses said.
As the mood grew uglier, the state minister for information, Tariq Azim Khan, was badly beaten by angry journalists as he was leaving the election commission building.
The lawyers were protesting a Supreme Court ruling Friday that cleared the way for General Musharraf’s re-election as president while he is still in uniform. They tried to march on the Election Commission, which was examining nominations for the Oct. 6 presidential election on Saturday morning. It was the first time since July that the black-suited lawyers, who campaigned for months against General Musharraf’s dismissal of the chief justice in March, have come out in force on the streets here in the capital.
As they marched the hundred yards from the Supreme Court down Constitution Avenue to the Election Commission, police officers with helmets, shields and long sticks blocked their way. Lawyers began hurling stones, and the officers retaliated, throwing the stones back and firing tear gas, and then charging and beating protesters.
Plainclothes officers hauled lawyers off to police vans, including one of the leaders of the movement, Ali Ahmad Kurd. Aitzaz Ahsan, another leading member of the lawyers’ movement, was bludgeoned by a policeman who hit him with a heavy brick in his stomach.
Despite the commotion outside on the street, the Election Commission approved General Musharraf’s nomination for the presidential election, as well as those of two of his opponents, the former Supreme Court judge, Wajihuddin Ahmed, and the Pakistan Peoples Party politician, Makhdoom Amin Fahim. Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz and Mr. Khan, the information minister, were present as supporters of General Musharraf’s nomination.
Lawyers representing Mr. Ahmed lodged objections to General Musharraf’s candidacy, in particular that he holds the position of chief of army staff, has already served the limit of two terms, and should not be elected a second time by the same assembly. But the Election Commission did not accept the objections, and the lawyers emerged saying they would now take the matter to the courts on Monday.
“Twenty lawyers have been injured,” said Mohammed Ikram Chaudhry, former vice president of the Supreme Court Bar Association. “Three journalists were given a fierce beating. A lot of lawyers were taken away. They will use force against anyone who is against them,” he said of the authorities.
“We wanted to go to the Election Commission and demonstrate in a peaceful manner,” said Rafaqat Bashir, 32, an advocate from nearby Rawalpindi, who was carrying a police cane which he said he had snatched from a policeman beating him.
“The police hit me, and this is his stick,” he said. He said he had come with 300 other lawyers, traveling in twos and threes into the city since early morning, to protest General Musharraf’s military rule. “He has no right to rule. He is a soldier, he should serve on the borders,” he said.
In his office inside the Supreme Court, Mr. Ahsan seemed to recognize that the lawyers could no longer stop the Oct. 6 election, but he said the lawyers would continue to expose the illegitimacy of General Musharraf’s rule. “Elections are all about a mandate from the people,” he said. “This is going to be a virtual election. It’s not an election. Nobody is deceived.”
The lawyers would return to the courts to challenge General Musharraf’s re-election and would be out protesting at every court hearing in the coming days and weeks, Mr. Ahsan said. “The man is on very thin ice and he is slipping,” he added.
By CARLOTTA GALL | September 30, 2007
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, Sept. 29 — Riot police officers fought with batons and tear gas against lawyers protesting President Pervez Musharraf’s bid for re-election outside the Supreme Court and Election Commission on Saturday. Dozens of lawyers and some journalists were beaten and a number arrested in the clashes, witnesses said.
As the mood grew uglier, the state minister for information, Tariq Azim Khan, was badly beaten by angry journalists as he was leaving the election commission building.
The lawyers were protesting a Supreme Court ruling Friday that cleared the way for General Musharraf’s re-election as president while he is still in uniform. They tried to march on the Election Commission, which was examining nominations for the Oct. 6 presidential election on Saturday morning. It was the first time since July that the black-suited lawyers, who campaigned for months against General Musharraf’s dismissal of the chief justice in March, have come out in force on the streets here in the capital.
As they marched the hundred yards from the Supreme Court down Constitution Avenue to the Election Commission, police officers with helmets, shields and long sticks blocked their way. Lawyers began hurling stones, and the officers retaliated, throwing the stones back and firing tear gas, and then charging and beating protesters.
Plainclothes officers hauled lawyers off to police vans, including one of the leaders of the movement, Ali Ahmad Kurd. Aitzaz Ahsan, another leading member of the lawyers’ movement, was bludgeoned by a policeman who hit him with a heavy brick in his stomach.
Despite the commotion outside on the street, the Election Commission approved General Musharraf’s nomination for the presidential election, as well as those of two of his opponents, the former Supreme Court judge, Wajihuddin Ahmed, and the Pakistan Peoples Party politician, Makhdoom Amin Fahim. Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz and Mr. Khan, the information minister, were present as supporters of General Musharraf’s nomination.
Lawyers representing Mr. Ahmed lodged objections to General Musharraf’s candidacy, in particular that he holds the position of chief of army staff, has already served the limit of two terms, and should not be elected a second time by the same assembly. But the Election Commission did not accept the objections, and the lawyers emerged saying they would now take the matter to the courts on Monday.
“Twenty lawyers have been injured,” said Mohammed Ikram Chaudhry, former vice president of the Supreme Court Bar Association. “Three journalists were given a fierce beating. A lot of lawyers were taken away. They will use force against anyone who is against them,” he said of the authorities.
“We wanted to go to the Election Commission and demonstrate in a peaceful manner,” said Rafaqat Bashir, 32, an advocate from nearby Rawalpindi, who was carrying a police cane which he said he had snatched from a policeman beating him.
“The police hit me, and this is his stick,” he said. He said he had come with 300 other lawyers, traveling in twos and threes into the city since early morning, to protest General Musharraf’s military rule. “He has no right to rule. He is a soldier, he should serve on the borders,” he said.
In his office inside the Supreme Court, Mr. Ahsan seemed to recognize that the lawyers could no longer stop the Oct. 6 election, but he said the lawyers would continue to expose the illegitimacy of General Musharraf’s rule. “Elections are all about a mandate from the people,” he said. “This is going to be a virtual election. It’s not an election. Nobody is deceived.”
The lawyers would return to the courts to challenge General Musharraf’s re-election and would be out protesting at every court hearing in the coming days and weeks, Mr. Ahsan said. “The man is on very thin ice and he is slipping,” he added.
Filed under
Carlotta Gall,
elections,
Pakistan,
Pervez Musharraf,
protests,
Rawalpindi
by Winter Patriot
on Saturday, September 29, 2007
[
link |
| home
]
| home
]
AP : Pakistan Cracks Down on Election Protest
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Pakistan Cracks Down on Election Protest
By PAUL ALEXANDER | September 29, 2007
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP) — Police used tear gas and batons to disperse lawyers protesting a new — and widely expected — legal victory Saturday for President Gen. Pervez Musharraf re-election bid.
A day after the Supreme Court dismissed several petitions challenging Musharraf's pursuit of a new five-year term, the Election Commission approved his candidacy. Saturday's ruling is expected to be challenged.
Police first tried to disperse the lawyers, then turned on journalists covering the chaotic clashes. Deputy Information Minister Tariq Azim was also caught up in the melee, receiving a few punches from protesters before being bundled into a car by aides and driven away.
More legal maneuvers are expected from the opposition — a request for the Supreme Court to review its decision and a planned mass resignation from Parliament for the Oct. 6 vote by federal and provincial lawmakers.
Despite dwindling popularity and increasingly bitter opposition, Musharraf, a close U.S. ally, seems set to win the election. The ruling coalition says it has the numbers it needs, and even the general's main challenger, retired Judge Wajihuddin Ahmed, has admitted he has little chance.
The Election Commission approved only six of the 43 candidates, including Ahmed, who was nominated by lawyers, and Makhdoom Amin Fahim, vice chairman of ex-Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto's Pakistan People's Party. Fahim's party earlier said he would only run if Musharraf were disqualified.
The opposition alliance has said its lawmakers would quit Parliament on Tuesday to protest the general's candidacy, a move also aimed at depriving the election of legitimacy.
Musharraf, who seized power in a 1999 coup, has pledged to give up his powerful post as army chief if he wins the election and restore civilian rule in a country that has lurched between unstable elected governments and military regimes during its 60-year history.
But he has faced growing opposition since his failed attempt to oust Pakistan's top judge in March. He is also struggling to contain growing Islamic militancy and growing public sentiment that his alliance with Washington has fanned extremism.
Still, he has been trying to retake the initiative while clamping down on his most vociferous opponents.
Police have arrested hundreds of opposition activists over the last week and sealed off the capital Thursday, when Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz and 16 other allies filed the general's nomination papers. The government defended the detentions as necessary to maintain law and order in the face of promised street protests.
The chief justice on Thursday ordered the detainees freed immediately — saying they deserved compensation — and told officials that blockading Islamabad was unacceptable.
On Friday, the Supreme Court dismissed petitions filed by opposition parties and lawyers arguing that Musharraf was ineligible to run because he was still army chief.
Aziz and other officials arrived at the Election Commission Saturday morning to respond to opposition objections to Musharraf's nomination. About 200 lawyers — who had just earlier burned copies of the court ruling — tried to approach from the nearby Supreme Court building.
Chaos ensued on barricaded avenue, with security forces and protesters pelting each other with rocks. Police fired tear gas shells and beat the protesters, with one officer using a tree branch. At least two lawyers suffered bloody head injuries.
Live television coverage also showed police arresting some female supporters from Bhutto's party and shoving them into a waiting van. Three opposition legislators also were dragged away.
Running clashes continued for more than two hours. At least seven journalists were taken to hospitals after being beaten severely by police, with ARY news channel correspondent Asma Sherazi saying they were deliberately targeted. An AP reporter was beaten on the back with a baton and punched in the mouth.
Lawyers also rallied in Lahore and Karachi, where police arrested some and beat others.
Associated Press writers Zarar Khan and Munir Ahmad contributed to this report.
By PAUL ALEXANDER | September 29, 2007
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP) — Police used tear gas and batons to disperse lawyers protesting a new — and widely expected — legal victory Saturday for President Gen. Pervez Musharraf re-election bid.
A day after the Supreme Court dismissed several petitions challenging Musharraf's pursuit of a new five-year term, the Election Commission approved his candidacy. Saturday's ruling is expected to be challenged.
Police first tried to disperse the lawyers, then turned on journalists covering the chaotic clashes. Deputy Information Minister Tariq Azim was also caught up in the melee, receiving a few punches from protesters before being bundled into a car by aides and driven away.
More legal maneuvers are expected from the opposition — a request for the Supreme Court to review its decision and a planned mass resignation from Parliament for the Oct. 6 vote by federal and provincial lawmakers.
Despite dwindling popularity and increasingly bitter opposition, Musharraf, a close U.S. ally, seems set to win the election. The ruling coalition says it has the numbers it needs, and even the general's main challenger, retired Judge Wajihuddin Ahmed, has admitted he has little chance.
The Election Commission approved only six of the 43 candidates, including Ahmed, who was nominated by lawyers, and Makhdoom Amin Fahim, vice chairman of ex-Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto's Pakistan People's Party. Fahim's party earlier said he would only run if Musharraf were disqualified.
The opposition alliance has said its lawmakers would quit Parliament on Tuesday to protest the general's candidacy, a move also aimed at depriving the election of legitimacy.
Musharraf, who seized power in a 1999 coup, has pledged to give up his powerful post as army chief if he wins the election and restore civilian rule in a country that has lurched between unstable elected governments and military regimes during its 60-year history.
But he has faced growing opposition since his failed attempt to oust Pakistan's top judge in March. He is also struggling to contain growing Islamic militancy and growing public sentiment that his alliance with Washington has fanned extremism.
Still, he has been trying to retake the initiative while clamping down on his most vociferous opponents.
Police have arrested hundreds of opposition activists over the last week and sealed off the capital Thursday, when Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz and 16 other allies filed the general's nomination papers. The government defended the detentions as necessary to maintain law and order in the face of promised street protests.
The chief justice on Thursday ordered the detainees freed immediately — saying they deserved compensation — and told officials that blockading Islamabad was unacceptable.
On Friday, the Supreme Court dismissed petitions filed by opposition parties and lawyers arguing that Musharraf was ineligible to run because he was still army chief.
Aziz and other officials arrived at the Election Commission Saturday morning to respond to opposition objections to Musharraf's nomination. About 200 lawyers — who had just earlier burned copies of the court ruling — tried to approach from the nearby Supreme Court building.
Chaos ensued on barricaded avenue, with security forces and protesters pelting each other with rocks. Police fired tear gas shells and beat the protesters, with one officer using a tree branch. At least two lawyers suffered bloody head injuries.
Live television coverage also showed police arresting some female supporters from Bhutto's party and shoving them into a waiting van. Three opposition legislators also were dragged away.
Running clashes continued for more than two hours. At least seven journalists were taken to hospitals after being beaten severely by police, with ARY news channel correspondent Asma Sherazi saying they were deliberately targeted. An AP reporter was beaten on the back with a baton and punched in the mouth.
Lawyers also rallied in Lahore and Karachi, where police arrested some and beat others.
Associated Press writers Zarar Khan and Munir Ahmad contributed to this report.
Filed under
Karachi,
Lahore,
Pakistan,
Pervez Musharraf,
protests
by Winter Patriot
on Saturday, September 29, 2007
[
link |
| home
]
| home
]
NYT : Pakistan Court Clears Musharraf’s Path to Election Day
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Pakistan Court Clears Musharraf’s Path to Election Day
By CARLOTTA GALL and SALMAN MASOOD | September 29, 2007
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, Sept. 28 — The Supreme Court cleared the way Friday for Pakistan’s president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, to run for re-election while still in uniform. The ruling removes the last major obstacle for the president before the Oct. 6 vote, which he is expected to win.
The decision is a clear victory for the embattled General Musharraf and a stinging blow to the lawyers’ movement and political parties that have opposed his continued rule.
They had brought two challenges to General Musharraf’s eligibility, on the grounds that it was unconstitutional for him to be both president and army chief, and for him to run for election while still in uniform.
But the bench of nine judges dismissed the two cases by a vote of 6 to 3 on a technicality. The cases were “not maintainable,” said the senior presiding judge, Justice Rana Baghwandas, citing an article of the Constitution that specified cases that should be heard by the provincial high court rather than by the Supreme Court.
The terse ruling was met by an audible gasp, and then shouts of “Shame! Shame!” from lawyers, politicians and others gathered in the high-ceilinged chamber, as the judges filed out.
“It is despicable,” said Roedad Khan, a retired senior civil servant and former federal secretary, who attended all 10 days of hearings. “We reject it. They are lackeys of General Musharraf,” he said angrily.
The Supreme Court had shown a newfound independence after its chief justice, Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, fended off an attempt by General Musharraf to dismiss him earlier this year.
But Chief Justice Chaudhry did not preside over the two cases decided Friday, removing himself in order to ensure the impartiality of the court, and, according to opposition lawyers, to avoid another direct confrontation with General Musharraf.
Lawyers and politicians say that despite the change of mood in the country and in the judiciary after the chief justice was reinstated in July, most of the 13 Supreme Court judges, who were all appointed during General Musharraf’s tenure, are still pro-government.
While they were prepared to make a stand in the case of the chief justice, since it touched on the judiciary’s own self-preservation, they were not ready to derail the entire system by challenging a military chief who could then invoke martial law.
In the end, the nine judges proved conservative when faced with the two cases, which presented strong challenges to the military establishment as well as to the country’s political stability.
“This is a dubious decision where important issues are taken on technical grounds,” said Hamid Khan, one of the lawyers arguing the case against General Musharraf. “They have abrogated their duty to decide on the future of the nation. Jurisdiction of such matters is their duty, and they are deciding on mere technicalities,” he said as he walked from the court.
The ruling was welcomed by the government. “Justice has triumphed,” a presidential spokesman, Rashid Qureshi, said. “The opposition has suffered a huge setback.”
The opponents were behaving like sore losers, he said, championing the independence of the judiciary one moment, but when the ruling went against them, accusing the court of serious wrongdoing. He added that he had no doubts that the general’s bid for another five-year term would be successful.
The attorney general, Malik Muhammad Qayyum, who argued the case on behalf of General Musharraf, said the ruling had cleared the way for the president’s re-election. “Absolutely, there is no hurdle for it,” he told The Associated Press.
In the courtroom, the reaction to the verdict left the government team nervous, as angry opposition lawyers chanted slogans against Mr. Qayyum and Syed Sharifuddin Pirzada, the counsel to the president.
Mr. Pirzada remained slouched in his chair until the courtroom emptied. An aide to Mr. Qayyum turned down the suggestion of one court official to use the main exit. “No, the lawyers are really aggressive,” the aide said.
After some minutes of consultations, the government lawyers decided to go to the basement that opens into the parking lot behind the court building. Court officials opened a side door, which is normally closed, and the officials rushed out. “Come on sir, don’t worry. It is all right,” Mr. Qayyum urged a reluctant Mr. Pirzada.
Outside on the steps of the court, the lawyers and opposition politicians vowed to keep fighting.
“You can take a poll among the people of Pakistan, anywhere in the country, and you will see they do not support this,” said Muneer Malik, one of the leaders of the lawyers’ campaign against military rule.
The lawyers had expected the verdict and were prepared for their next challenge, he said. They will file objections to General Musharraf’s candidacy in the Election Commission on Saturday, and return to the Supreme Court next week with a petition from their own presidential candidate, he said.
Friday’s ruling “brings into question the idea that the judiciary had become independent,” Ali Dayan Hasan, from Human Rights Watch, said outside the court.
“This verdict will not bring political stability to Pakistan,” Mr. Hasan said. “It will not resolve General Musharraf’s crisis of legitimacy.”
By CARLOTTA GALL and SALMAN MASOOD | September 29, 2007
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, Sept. 28 — The Supreme Court cleared the way Friday for Pakistan’s president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, to run for re-election while still in uniform. The ruling removes the last major obstacle for the president before the Oct. 6 vote, which he is expected to win.
The decision is a clear victory for the embattled General Musharraf and a stinging blow to the lawyers’ movement and political parties that have opposed his continued rule.
They had brought two challenges to General Musharraf’s eligibility, on the grounds that it was unconstitutional for him to be both president and army chief, and for him to run for election while still in uniform.
But the bench of nine judges dismissed the two cases by a vote of 6 to 3 on a technicality. The cases were “not maintainable,” said the senior presiding judge, Justice Rana Baghwandas, citing an article of the Constitution that specified cases that should be heard by the provincial high court rather than by the Supreme Court.
The terse ruling was met by an audible gasp, and then shouts of “Shame! Shame!” from lawyers, politicians and others gathered in the high-ceilinged chamber, as the judges filed out.
“It is despicable,” said Roedad Khan, a retired senior civil servant and former federal secretary, who attended all 10 days of hearings. “We reject it. They are lackeys of General Musharraf,” he said angrily.
The Supreme Court had shown a newfound independence after its chief justice, Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, fended off an attempt by General Musharraf to dismiss him earlier this year.
But Chief Justice Chaudhry did not preside over the two cases decided Friday, removing himself in order to ensure the impartiality of the court, and, according to opposition lawyers, to avoid another direct confrontation with General Musharraf.
Lawyers and politicians say that despite the change of mood in the country and in the judiciary after the chief justice was reinstated in July, most of the 13 Supreme Court judges, who were all appointed during General Musharraf’s tenure, are still pro-government.
While they were prepared to make a stand in the case of the chief justice, since it touched on the judiciary’s own self-preservation, they were not ready to derail the entire system by challenging a military chief who could then invoke martial law.
In the end, the nine judges proved conservative when faced with the two cases, which presented strong challenges to the military establishment as well as to the country’s political stability.
“This is a dubious decision where important issues are taken on technical grounds,” said Hamid Khan, one of the lawyers arguing the case against General Musharraf. “They have abrogated their duty to decide on the future of the nation. Jurisdiction of such matters is their duty, and they are deciding on mere technicalities,” he said as he walked from the court.
The ruling was welcomed by the government. “Justice has triumphed,” a presidential spokesman, Rashid Qureshi, said. “The opposition has suffered a huge setback.”
The opponents were behaving like sore losers, he said, championing the independence of the judiciary one moment, but when the ruling went against them, accusing the court of serious wrongdoing. He added that he had no doubts that the general’s bid for another five-year term would be successful.
The attorney general, Malik Muhammad Qayyum, who argued the case on behalf of General Musharraf, said the ruling had cleared the way for the president’s re-election. “Absolutely, there is no hurdle for it,” he told The Associated Press.
In the courtroom, the reaction to the verdict left the government team nervous, as angry opposition lawyers chanted slogans against Mr. Qayyum and Syed Sharifuddin Pirzada, the counsel to the president.
Mr. Pirzada remained slouched in his chair until the courtroom emptied. An aide to Mr. Qayyum turned down the suggestion of one court official to use the main exit. “No, the lawyers are really aggressive,” the aide said.
After some minutes of consultations, the government lawyers decided to go to the basement that opens into the parking lot behind the court building. Court officials opened a side door, which is normally closed, and the officials rushed out. “Come on sir, don’t worry. It is all right,” Mr. Qayyum urged a reluctant Mr. Pirzada.
Outside on the steps of the court, the lawyers and opposition politicians vowed to keep fighting.
“You can take a poll among the people of Pakistan, anywhere in the country, and you will see they do not support this,” said Muneer Malik, one of the leaders of the lawyers’ campaign against military rule.
The lawyers had expected the verdict and were prepared for their next challenge, he said. They will file objections to General Musharraf’s candidacy in the Election Commission on Saturday, and return to the Supreme Court next week with a petition from their own presidential candidate, he said.
Friday’s ruling “brings into question the idea that the judiciary had become independent,” Ali Dayan Hasan, from Human Rights Watch, said outside the court.
“This verdict will not bring political stability to Pakistan,” Mr. Hasan said. “It will not resolve General Musharraf’s crisis of legitimacy.”
Filed under
Carlotta Gall,
elections,
Pakistan,
Pervez Musharraf,
Salman Masood
by Winter Patriot
on Saturday, September 29, 2007
[
link |
| home
]
| home
]
Guardian : Pakistan Cracks Down on Election Protest
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Pakistan Cracks Down on Election Protest
By PAUL ALEXANDER | Associated Press Writer | September 29, 2007
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP) - Police used tear gas and batons to disperse lawyers protesting a new - and widely expected - legal victory Saturday for President Gen. Pervez Musharraf re-election bid.
A day after the Supreme Court dismissed several petitions challenging Musharraf's pursuit of a new five-year term, the Election Commission approved his candidacy. Saturday's ruling is expected to be challenged.
Police first tried to disperse the lawyers, then turned on journalists covering the chaotic clashes. Deputy Information Minister Tariq Azim was also caught up in the melee, receiving a few punches from protesters before being bundled into a car by aides and driven away.
More legal maneuvers are expected from the opposition - a request for the Supreme Court to review its decision and a planned mass resignation from Parliament for the Oct. 6 vote by federal and provincial lawmakers.
Despite dwindling popularity and increasingly bitter opposition, Musharraf, a close U.S. ally, seems set to win the election. The ruling coalition says it has the numbers it needs, and even the general's main challenger, retired Judge Wajihuddin Ahmed, has admitted he has little chance.
The Election Commission approved only six of the 43 candidates, including Ahmed, who was nominated by lawyers, and Makhdoom Amin Fahim, vice chairman of ex-Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto's Pakistan People's Party. Fahim's party earlier said he would only run if Musharraf were disqualified.
The opposition alliance has said its lawmakers would quit Parliament on Tuesday to protest the general's candidacy, a move also aimed at depriving the election of legitimacy.
Musharraf, who seized power in a 1999 coup, has pledged to give up his powerful post as army chief if he wins the election and restore civilian rule in a country that has lurched between unstable elected governments and military regimes during its 60-year history.
But he has faced growing opposition since his failed attempt to oust Pakistan's top judge in March. He is also struggling to contain growing Islamic militancy and growing public sentiment that his alliance with Washington has fanned extremism.
Still, he has been trying to retake the initiative while clamping down on his most vociferous opponents.
Police have arrested hundreds of opposition activists over the last week and sealed off the capital Thursday, when Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz and 16 other allies filed the general's nomination papers. The government defended the detentions as necessary to maintain law and order in the face of promised street protests.
The chief justice on Thursday ordered the detainees freed immediately - saying they deserved compensation - and told officials that blockading Islamabad was unacceptable.
On Friday, the Supreme Court dismissed petitions filed by opposition parties and lawyers arguing that Musharraf was ineligible to run because he was still army chief.
Aziz and other officials arrived at the Election Commission Saturday morning to respond to opposition objections to Musharraf's nomination. About 200 lawyers - who had just earlier burned copies of the court ruling - tried to approach from the nearby Supreme Court building.
Chaos ensued on barricaded avenue, with security forces and protesters pelting each other with rocks. Police fired tear gas shells and beat the protesters, with one officer using a tree branch. At least two lawyers suffered bloody head injuries.
Live television coverage also showed police arresting some female supporters from Bhutto's party and shoving them into a waiting van. Three opposition legislators also were dragged away.
Running clashes continued for more than two hours. At least seven journalists were taken to hospitals after being beaten severely by police, with ARY news channel correspondent Asma Sherazi saying they were deliberately targeted. An AP reporter was beaten on the back with a baton and punched in the mouth.
Lawyers also rallied in Lahore and Karachi, where police arrested some and beat others.
Associated Press writers Zarar Khan and Munir Ahmad contributed to this report.
By PAUL ALEXANDER | Associated Press Writer | September 29, 2007
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP) - Police used tear gas and batons to disperse lawyers protesting a new - and widely expected - legal victory Saturday for President Gen. Pervez Musharraf re-election bid.
A day after the Supreme Court dismissed several petitions challenging Musharraf's pursuit of a new five-year term, the Election Commission approved his candidacy. Saturday's ruling is expected to be challenged.
Police first tried to disperse the lawyers, then turned on journalists covering the chaotic clashes. Deputy Information Minister Tariq Azim was also caught up in the melee, receiving a few punches from protesters before being bundled into a car by aides and driven away.
More legal maneuvers are expected from the opposition - a request for the Supreme Court to review its decision and a planned mass resignation from Parliament for the Oct. 6 vote by federal and provincial lawmakers.
Despite dwindling popularity and increasingly bitter opposition, Musharraf, a close U.S. ally, seems set to win the election. The ruling coalition says it has the numbers it needs, and even the general's main challenger, retired Judge Wajihuddin Ahmed, has admitted he has little chance.
The Election Commission approved only six of the 43 candidates, including Ahmed, who was nominated by lawyers, and Makhdoom Amin Fahim, vice chairman of ex-Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto's Pakistan People's Party. Fahim's party earlier said he would only run if Musharraf were disqualified.
The opposition alliance has said its lawmakers would quit Parliament on Tuesday to protest the general's candidacy, a move also aimed at depriving the election of legitimacy.
Musharraf, who seized power in a 1999 coup, has pledged to give up his powerful post as army chief if he wins the election and restore civilian rule in a country that has lurched between unstable elected governments and military regimes during its 60-year history.
But he has faced growing opposition since his failed attempt to oust Pakistan's top judge in March. He is also struggling to contain growing Islamic militancy and growing public sentiment that his alliance with Washington has fanned extremism.
Still, he has been trying to retake the initiative while clamping down on his most vociferous opponents.
Police have arrested hundreds of opposition activists over the last week and sealed off the capital Thursday, when Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz and 16 other allies filed the general's nomination papers. The government defended the detentions as necessary to maintain law and order in the face of promised street protests.
The chief justice on Thursday ordered the detainees freed immediately - saying they deserved compensation - and told officials that blockading Islamabad was unacceptable.
On Friday, the Supreme Court dismissed petitions filed by opposition parties and lawyers arguing that Musharraf was ineligible to run because he was still army chief.
Aziz and other officials arrived at the Election Commission Saturday morning to respond to opposition objections to Musharraf's nomination. About 200 lawyers - who had just earlier burned copies of the court ruling - tried to approach from the nearby Supreme Court building.
Chaos ensued on barricaded avenue, with security forces and protesters pelting each other with rocks. Police fired tear gas shells and beat the protesters, with one officer using a tree branch. At least two lawyers suffered bloody head injuries.
Live television coverage also showed police arresting some female supporters from Bhutto's party and shoving them into a waiting van. Three opposition legislators also were dragged away.
Running clashes continued for more than two hours. At least seven journalists were taken to hospitals after being beaten severely by police, with ARY news channel correspondent Asma Sherazi saying they were deliberately targeted. An AP reporter was beaten on the back with a baton and punched in the mouth.
Lawyers also rallied in Lahore and Karachi, where police arrested some and beat others.
Associated Press writers Zarar Khan and Munir Ahmad contributed to this report.
Filed under
Karachi,
Lahore,
Pakistan,
Pervez Musharraf,
protests
by Winter Patriot
on Saturday, September 29, 2007
[
link |
| home
]
| home
]
Dawn : The day of the General: Musharraf to run for president in uniform, Petitioners, lawyers’ leaders livid
Saturday, September 29, 2007
The day of the General: Musharraf to run for president in uniform, Petitioners, lawyers’ leaders livid
By Nasir Iqbal | Islamabad | September 28, 2007
The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed on technical grounds petitions against Gen Pervez Musharraf holding two offices, giving a legal boost to the president to contest the election for the second term in uniform.
It was a majority (six-three) verdict by a nine-member bench headed by Justice Rana Bhagwandas.
The bench threw out the petitions challenging the dual offices of the army chief and the president held by Gen Musharraf, declaring that these were not maintainable. In other words, the merit of the cases which had been debated for two weeks along with the issue of maintainability, became irrelevant as the majority of judges dismissed the challenge by declaring that the petitions could not be entertained at this forum.
After suffering a series of setbacks from the superior judiciary over the past few months, such as the restoration of the chief justice, acceptance of Nawaz Sharif’s right to return from exile and bail to Javed Hashmi, President Musharraf received the first good news from the Supreme Court.
Government supporters termed the verdict a ‘great victory’ and said the day clearly belonged to Gen Musharraf.
The verdict received an immediate adverse reaction inside the packed courtroom the moment the bench rose for the day. Though the short order was heard in pin drop silence by scores of lawyers and some political leaders, the courtroom echoed with slogans of ‘shame, shame’ and ‘go Musharraf go’ which later turned into real protest as lawyers and supporters of the petitioners walked out to join a much bigger crowd.
Some of the lawyers described the judgment as revival of the doctrine of necessity in the country’s chequered judicial history.
Former vice-chairman of the Pakistan Bar Council Ali Ahmed Kurd asked lawyers to lay siege to the Election Commission on Saturday -- the day of scrutiny of nomination papers of the presidential candidates.
“For reasons to be recorded later, as per majority view of 6 to 3, the petitions are held to be not maintainable within the contemplation of Article 184(3) of the Constitution (court’s original jurisdiction under the fundamental rights),” the judgment announced by Justice Rana Bhagwandas said.
“As per minority view of Justice Rana Bhagwandas, Justice Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan and Justice Mian Shakirullah Jan, all these petitions are held to be maintainable under Article 184(3) and hereby accepted. As per majority view these petitions are hereby dismissed as not maintainable,” he said.
Attorney-General Malik Mohammad Qayyum appreciated the judgment and said it was a correct decision and the dissent in the bench reflected that judges had applied their independent mind.
Soon after the verdict, police escorted president’s counsel Sharifuddin Pirzada and the AG out of the courtroom to ensure their security from the wrath of a furious crowd outside.
Reacting to the judgment, PML (N) acting president Makhdoom Javed Hashmi said the infamous doctrine of necessity, under which all military rules had been validated by the apex court, was still continuing. “We thought the judiciary has become totally independent, but this impression proved to be wrong,” he deplored.
He announced that a campaign would be launched against the regime and for complete independence of the judiciary.
MMA parliamentarian Farid Paracha said the judgment did not reflect the aspiration of the people, rather it strengthened the rule of a military dictator. He said the people of Pakistan had rejected it, adding that the MMA would file a review petition. He said that the struggle for restoration of genuine democracy in the country would be intensified.
Supreme Court Bar Association president Munir A. Malik said it was not a verdict which had been unexpected. “Though the July 20 judgment of restoring Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry was a step ahead, we still have a long way to go for complete independence of the judiciary. Although the judgment is disappointing, our battle is not over,” he added.
He said the three dissenting judges would always be remembered as Justice A.R. Cornelius and added that history would record its own conclusion regarding the other six judges.
Senior Advocate Hamid Khan said judges had abdicated their jurisdiction in deciding the matter, adding that the order was a continuation of the Tameezuddin and Dosso cases (in which the concept of the doctrine of necessity was introduced).
However, he said, the judgment would not dampen lawyers’ struggle which would continue till the end of dictatorship.
Advocate Akram Sheikh said that by dismissing the petitions under the cover of technicality, the Supreme Court had resurrected the infamous decision in the Maulvi Tameezuddin case dismissing the petition on technical grounds.
He said he had been asked by his client (Jamaat-i-Islami) to move a review petition against the decision which he would file on Monday.
Earlier, Advocate Akram in his arguments before the court emphasised that it was the duty of the court to scrap the uniform of President Musharraf because it had allowed him to keep the uniform. Any validation by the court, he said, would not be accepted.
Advocate Hamid Khan said President Musharraf’s holding of two offices derogated the constitutional provision of equality before the law because he was holding the gun.
A.K. Dogar said that Article 63(1-d) allowed President Musharraf to hold one office, but the President to Hold Another Office dealt with the dual-office law which was against constitutional provisions.
Abdul Hafeez Pirzada, appearing as amicus curiae, said: “We as a nation have reached the final stage of transition where there is an opportunity to all candidates for the presidential election that they would enter upon the office of the president as civilians.”
By Nasir Iqbal | Islamabad | September 28, 2007
The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed on technical grounds petitions against Gen Pervez Musharraf holding two offices, giving a legal boost to the president to contest the election for the second term in uniform.
It was a majority (six-three) verdict by a nine-member bench headed by Justice Rana Bhagwandas.
The bench threw out the petitions challenging the dual offices of the army chief and the president held by Gen Musharraf, declaring that these were not maintainable. In other words, the merit of the cases which had been debated for two weeks along with the issue of maintainability, became irrelevant as the majority of judges dismissed the challenge by declaring that the petitions could not be entertained at this forum.
After suffering a series of setbacks from the superior judiciary over the past few months, such as the restoration of the chief justice, acceptance of Nawaz Sharif’s right to return from exile and bail to Javed Hashmi, President Musharraf received the first good news from the Supreme Court.
Government supporters termed the verdict a ‘great victory’ and said the day clearly belonged to Gen Musharraf.
The verdict received an immediate adverse reaction inside the packed courtroom the moment the bench rose for the day. Though the short order was heard in pin drop silence by scores of lawyers and some political leaders, the courtroom echoed with slogans of ‘shame, shame’ and ‘go Musharraf go’ which later turned into real protest as lawyers and supporters of the petitioners walked out to join a much bigger crowd.
Some of the lawyers described the judgment as revival of the doctrine of necessity in the country’s chequered judicial history.
Former vice-chairman of the Pakistan Bar Council Ali Ahmed Kurd asked lawyers to lay siege to the Election Commission on Saturday -- the day of scrutiny of nomination papers of the presidential candidates.
“For reasons to be recorded later, as per majority view of 6 to 3, the petitions are held to be not maintainable within the contemplation of Article 184(3) of the Constitution (court’s original jurisdiction under the fundamental rights),” the judgment announced by Justice Rana Bhagwandas said.
“As per minority view of Justice Rana Bhagwandas, Justice Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan and Justice Mian Shakirullah Jan, all these petitions are held to be maintainable under Article 184(3) and hereby accepted. As per majority view these petitions are hereby dismissed as not maintainable,” he said.
Attorney-General Malik Mohammad Qayyum appreciated the judgment and said it was a correct decision and the dissent in the bench reflected that judges had applied their independent mind.
Soon after the verdict, police escorted president’s counsel Sharifuddin Pirzada and the AG out of the courtroom to ensure their security from the wrath of a furious crowd outside.
Reacting to the judgment, PML (N) acting president Makhdoom Javed Hashmi said the infamous doctrine of necessity, under which all military rules had been validated by the apex court, was still continuing. “We thought the judiciary has become totally independent, but this impression proved to be wrong,” he deplored.
He announced that a campaign would be launched against the regime and for complete independence of the judiciary.
MMA parliamentarian Farid Paracha said the judgment did not reflect the aspiration of the people, rather it strengthened the rule of a military dictator. He said the people of Pakistan had rejected it, adding that the MMA would file a review petition. He said that the struggle for restoration of genuine democracy in the country would be intensified.
Supreme Court Bar Association president Munir A. Malik said it was not a verdict which had been unexpected. “Though the July 20 judgment of restoring Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry was a step ahead, we still have a long way to go for complete independence of the judiciary. Although the judgment is disappointing, our battle is not over,” he added.
He said the three dissenting judges would always be remembered as Justice A.R. Cornelius and added that history would record its own conclusion regarding the other six judges.
Senior Advocate Hamid Khan said judges had abdicated their jurisdiction in deciding the matter, adding that the order was a continuation of the Tameezuddin and Dosso cases (in which the concept of the doctrine of necessity was introduced).
However, he said, the judgment would not dampen lawyers’ struggle which would continue till the end of dictatorship.
Advocate Akram Sheikh said that by dismissing the petitions under the cover of technicality, the Supreme Court had resurrected the infamous decision in the Maulvi Tameezuddin case dismissing the petition on technical grounds.
He said he had been asked by his client (Jamaat-i-Islami) to move a review petition against the decision which he would file on Monday.
Earlier, Advocate Akram in his arguments before the court emphasised that it was the duty of the court to scrap the uniform of President Musharraf because it had allowed him to keep the uniform. Any validation by the court, he said, would not be accepted.
Advocate Hamid Khan said President Musharraf’s holding of two offices derogated the constitutional provision of equality before the law because he was holding the gun.
A.K. Dogar said that Article 63(1-d) allowed President Musharraf to hold one office, but the President to Hold Another Office dealt with the dual-office law which was against constitutional provisions.
Abdul Hafeez Pirzada, appearing as amicus curiae, said: “We as a nation have reached the final stage of transition where there is an opportunity to all candidates for the presidential election that they would enter upon the office of the president as civilians.”
Filed under
elections,
Pakistan,
Pervez Musharraf
by Winter Patriot
on Saturday, September 29, 2007
[
link |
| home
]
| home
]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
