Everyone knows that the United States is bleeding jobs. According to one new study, the private sector in the United States has lost 10.5 million jobs since 2007. The U.S. economy lost 125,000 more jobs during the month of June. Approximately a million frustrated American workers have simply dropped out of the employment market altogether over the past two months. But the question not enough people are asking is why so many jobs are being lost. Yes, the large global corporations have been sending millions of jobs overseas where labor is far, far cheaper. And yes, the U.S. government has accumulated so much debt that it is absolutely suffocating the U.S. economy. But there is another very important factor that has been largely overlooked. Traditionally, about 75 percent of all new jobs are created by small businesses. But today, hundreds of thousands of small businesses are being strangled out of existence by all of the oppressive taxes, fees, rules, regulations, paperwork and demands that government keeps imposing on them. In such a repressive environment, it is getting close to impossible for small businesses to thrive, and if our small businesses can't succeed, then we simply are not going to see a lot of jobs being created.
You see, the truth is that over the past several decades the game has become dramatically stacked in favor of large businesses. Big corporations have the money to lobby Congress and other governmental institutions, they get almost all the tax breaks and they are the only ones who get bailouts. They even "help" write legislation on the federal level.
Many times large corporations will even lobby for more regulations for their own industry because they know that they can handle all of the rules and paperwork far easier than their smaller competitors can. After all, a large corporation with an accounting department can easily handle filling out a few thousand more forms, but for a small business with only a handful of employees that kind of paperwork is a major logistical nightmare.
When it comes to hiring new employees, the federal government has made the process so complicated and so expensive for small businesses that it is hardly worth it anymore. Things have gotten so bad that more small businesses than ever are only hiring part-time workers or independent contractors.
So what we actually have now is a situation where small businesses have lots of incentives not to hire more workers, and if they really do need some extra help the rules make it much more profitable to do whatever you can to keep from bringing people on as full-time employees.
In a recent article for the Las Vegas Review-Journal, Wayne Allyn Root described what he is hearing from his friends who are small business owners....
I've polled all my friends who own small businesses -- many of them in the Internet and high-tech fields. They all agree that in this new Obama world of high business taxes, income taxes, payroll taxes, capital gains taxes, and workers compensation taxes, the key to success is to avoid employees. The only way to survive as a business owner today is by keeping the payroll very low and by hiring only independent contractors or part-time employees provided by temp agencies.
Can the U.S. economy thrive in such an environment?
Of course not.
Small businesses are slowly being strangled out of existence.
Unless something changes quickly, small businesses are going to continue looking for ways to shed employees rather than hire them.
In the article referenced above, Wayne Allyn Root explained why this is true....
My small business-owning friends aren't creating one job. Not one. They are shedding jobs. They are learning to do more with fewer employees. They are creating high-tech businesses that don't need employees. And many business owners are making plans to leave the country. In a high-tech world where businesses can be run from anywhere, Obama has a problem. His one-trick pony -- raise taxes, raise taxes, raising taxes -- is chasing away the business owners he desperately needs to pay his bills.
The U.S. government has become like the 500 pound fat guy who jumps on a horse and then gets angry when it won't move.
Passing even more ridiculous regulations and raising taxes even higher is not going to fix business in America.
The burdens we have placed on our small businesses have gotten worse under every single presidential administration of the past several decades. Now our great economic machine has become so overburdened and so tired that it is simply refusing to move.
And this is not a short-term problem either. Yes, we have lost a ton of jobs since the beginning of the "Great Recession", but our problems go back a lot farther than that. The reality is that the U.S. population has grown by about 25 million people since they year 2000, and we needed to create millions upon millions of new jobs to support that increased population. Instead, we have lost a total of 3 million jobs since 2000.
Needless to say, that is not a good trend.
There are simply not enough jobs for everyone.
Today, there are more than 5 unemployed Americans for every single job opening.
It is becoming harder and harder to find a job, and the number of Americans who are chronically unemployed is absolutely exploding.
In America today, the average time needed to find a job has risen to a record 35.2 weeks.
There are millions of Americans out there tonight who feel like punching the walls or drinking themselves under the table out of frustration because they can't find a job.
And many of those who are "chronically unemployed" are about to experience even more pain.
So far, the U.S. Senate has refused to extend long-term unemployment benefits for about 1.3 million Americans. Without this assistance, these Americans and their families will be forced to survive on food stamps and whatever else they can scrape together.
The tent cities that are popping up all over the United States are about to get a lot more crowded.
More at source
Showing posts with label Article. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Article. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
From the 1953 CIA Overthrow of Democracy in Iran, to the Iraq War, to the Criminal Gulf Catastrophe and Deaths, BP Was There
If you were to draw an oily line from the first exploitation of oil in the Middle East by the British in 1901 (they were in the process of converting their then world dominating naval fleet from coal to oil and were in desperate need of it) to the overthrow of the secular democratic leader in Iran, Mohammed Mossadeq, in 1953, to the Iraq War, to the criminal environmental catastrophe in the Gulf, BP would have been there.
But the fourth largest company in the world wasn't always called BP. It used to be owned by the British Government (remember the navy armada in need of oil). It was named the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company when the CIA teamed up with the British because the Western style Iranian leader Mossadeq wanted to nationalize Britain's 100% owned and run giant oil concession in Iran, and the West would have none of that. So Eisenhower authorized "Operation Ajax," and the Shah of Iran was placed in power -- ruling with an iron fist and the dreaded SAVAK, all the time fully backed by the U.S. -- leading to the radical theocratic revolution that we still confront today. All the time BP, which formally adopted its current name in 1954, was there.
BP was there throughout the de facto colonization of the Middle East to provide oil to the West, the British and the U.S. remaining strong partners in keeping any recalcitrant nations in line. Which leads to the Iraq War and why many Americans and Brits were puzzled by Tony Blair's eagerness to go along with Cheney's secret oil committee plan to seize Iraq oil fields and Bush's belief that the war was Biblically justified. BP is the largest corporation in the UK and the third largest energy company. Do you have any more questions?
BP and its American counterparts are part of the corporate oligarchy that run governments when it comes to energy policy. They don't take orders from sovereign nations; they give them. They are unelected, but because of their hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue and profit, they run the show when it comes to oil policy, and profit comes first: forget about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Oil is their gold; we are just consumers who can be replaced at any time by more consumers, vassals to the oil company Masters of the Universe. There is no brake on their malfeasance, greed and criminal behavior, nor their ability to get nations to go to war, overthrow democratically elected leaders, and to get away with pollution of proportions beyond the imagination.
For over a century, whenever American and British GIs have died for oil, whenever pollution and toxicity have been let loose to ravage our shores, whenever residents have died of cancer caused by the oil refining process and spills, whenever Congress and White Houses have loosened regulations to allow reckless and massively damaging behavior, BP was there, along with their American counterparts: companies so large that they are above the law and governmental control.
Most American presidencies and Congress -- and particularly the Bush/Cheney Presidency -- have regarded oil companies and the control of oil resources as essential to the survival of the American economy. As a result oil companies and the secondary businesses that support them -- such as Halliburton and Transocean -- are indeed able to call the shots and get the U.S. and the UK to do their bidding. In the UK, BP is the power behind 10 Downing Street when it comes to foreign policy, drilling, and all things oil; that is why Tony Blair could not refuse to join the Bush/Cheney (and Rumsfeld) attack on Iraq.
Which leads us to the catastrophe in the Gulf. Of course, BP was off drilling in waters too deep for them to have developed a plan in case the well blew. Of course, they had memos indicating that they valued profits over lives and the environment. Of course, they have lied about the size of the oil pollution and their ability to fix it from the moment that more then 10 men died as the well exploded. That is their job. It has been since 1901, when their predecessor company began exploration in Iran. During her "reign," the iron maiden, Margaret Thatcher, allowed BP to be privatized, and it quickly -- Pac Man style -- gobbled up several other oil companies, including AMOCO.
For more than a century, we -- citizens of a nation founded on democratic principles of citizens deciding their nation's destiny -- have been nothing but pawns in the war over access to oil, wherever it is or might be found.
And the forecast in any shift of power from oil governance to governance by the people is looking bleaker every day.
Source
But the fourth largest company in the world wasn't always called BP. It used to be owned by the British Government (remember the navy armada in need of oil). It was named the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company when the CIA teamed up with the British because the Western style Iranian leader Mossadeq wanted to nationalize Britain's 100% owned and run giant oil concession in Iran, and the West would have none of that. So Eisenhower authorized "Operation Ajax," and the Shah of Iran was placed in power -- ruling with an iron fist and the dreaded SAVAK, all the time fully backed by the U.S. -- leading to the radical theocratic revolution that we still confront today. All the time BP, which formally adopted its current name in 1954, was there.
BP was there throughout the de facto colonization of the Middle East to provide oil to the West, the British and the U.S. remaining strong partners in keeping any recalcitrant nations in line. Which leads to the Iraq War and why many Americans and Brits were puzzled by Tony Blair's eagerness to go along with Cheney's secret oil committee plan to seize Iraq oil fields and Bush's belief that the war was Biblically justified. BP is the largest corporation in the UK and the third largest energy company. Do you have any more questions?
BP and its American counterparts are part of the corporate oligarchy that run governments when it comes to energy policy. They don't take orders from sovereign nations; they give them. They are unelected, but because of their hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue and profit, they run the show when it comes to oil policy, and profit comes first: forget about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Oil is their gold; we are just consumers who can be replaced at any time by more consumers, vassals to the oil company Masters of the Universe. There is no brake on their malfeasance, greed and criminal behavior, nor their ability to get nations to go to war, overthrow democratically elected leaders, and to get away with pollution of proportions beyond the imagination.
For over a century, whenever American and British GIs have died for oil, whenever pollution and toxicity have been let loose to ravage our shores, whenever residents have died of cancer caused by the oil refining process and spills, whenever Congress and White Houses have loosened regulations to allow reckless and massively damaging behavior, BP was there, along with their American counterparts: companies so large that they are above the law and governmental control.
Most American presidencies and Congress -- and particularly the Bush/Cheney Presidency -- have regarded oil companies and the control of oil resources as essential to the survival of the American economy. As a result oil companies and the secondary businesses that support them -- such as Halliburton and Transocean -- are indeed able to call the shots and get the U.S. and the UK to do their bidding. In the UK, BP is the power behind 10 Downing Street when it comes to foreign policy, drilling, and all things oil; that is why Tony Blair could not refuse to join the Bush/Cheney (and Rumsfeld) attack on Iraq.
Which leads us to the catastrophe in the Gulf. Of course, BP was off drilling in waters too deep for them to have developed a plan in case the well blew. Of course, they had memos indicating that they valued profits over lives and the environment. Of course, they have lied about the size of the oil pollution and their ability to fix it from the moment that more then 10 men died as the well exploded. That is their job. It has been since 1901, when their predecessor company began exploration in Iran. During her "reign," the iron maiden, Margaret Thatcher, allowed BP to be privatized, and it quickly -- Pac Man style -- gobbled up several other oil companies, including AMOCO.
For more than a century, we -- citizens of a nation founded on democratic principles of citizens deciding their nation's destiny -- have been nothing but pawns in the war over access to oil, wherever it is or might be found.
And the forecast in any shift of power from oil governance to governance by the people is looking bleaker every day.
Source
Monday, July 5, 2010
As the U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan comes under fire, his wife, Ching Eikenberry, says she’s grown to love her life in Kabul—and writes about the Af
Generals and diplomats come and go, armies attack and inevitably retreat, insiders indulge in political intrigue. But Afghanistan remains its indomitable, ornery self. There is much more to the hard-scrabble, poverty-stricken and largely illiterate country than the latest media firestorm—which is why The Daily Beast invited Ching Eikenberry, wife of U.S. ambassador Karl Eikenberry, to share her perspective.
***
When Karl was picked by President Obama to be the U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan in January, 2009, we both were extremely honored. At the time, Karl was a career Army officer serving our country as the Deputy Chairman of the Military Committee at NATO headquarters in Brussels; I was a freelance journalist who had been following this man, to whom I said “I do” decades ago, wherever in the world his career took him.
I never thought I would come to a war-torn Afghanistan and gain a family here. But this is what has happened.
Being a Chinese-American, I have often said I have two mothers: Mother China gave me life and Mother America gave me soul. Coming to the United States in the late 1960s, I witnessed the greatness of this country, its democracy and liberty available to all. So when my husband accepted the nomination, I raised my hand to accompany him and became the first ambassador’s spouse to live in Kabul since the fall of Taliban.
Before we departed for Afghanistan, I said goodbye to our families and updated my will. I told our two grown daughters that, should something happen to me, they shouldn’t grieve but instead burn red candles to celebrate my life. “You can take my daughter to Afghanistan, but bring us back bin Laden,” my 88-year-old mother told Karl in Mandarin.
“Mom, he is not a soldier now!” I reminded her.
“I know,” Mom said, winking. “But I don’t like bin Laden.”
According to State Department policy, spouses of those assigned to Kabul can accompany their mates if they are hired as an “Eligible Family Member.” As a former journalist, I was allowed to work in the Public Affairs office at USAID, and my life suddenly swung from living in leisurely European contentment to an intense war-fighting environment. But as a colleague said, “We don’t come to Afghanistan for comfort.”
The work in the U.S. Embassy is enormously demanding. We grew from an embassy of around 300 Americans to over 1,000 in just a few months, and we are constantly building and expanding to accommodate the mounting needs.
It didn’t take long for me to discover that Karl actually has two jobs: One is Kabul, one is Washington, and I am constantly brewing coffee in the kitchen for him at one or two in the morning while he is on the phone with Washington, watching his once-dark brown hair turn grayer by the week.
In other ways, too, life has changed. This is the first time since our two daughters left home that we’ve had such a full house. We have turned our living room into a dining hall, and the kitchen constantly cooks up breakfasts, lunches, dinners, and numerous Afghan tea shuras for our steady stream of visitors.
I never thought I would come to a war-torn Afghanistan and gain a family here. But this is what has happened. Among the family members are Jawid, resident manager, Jamshid, the chef, and Hassan, the housekeeper.
“KoKo” Hassan has earned his title—uncle—because of his age and seniority. He has served five ambassadors, and is an honest, diligent, dependable man. His thin, white hair and missing teeth make him look much older than the age he claims, which is closer to 50.
When we moved to Afghanistan, I brought the book, Obama, the Historic Journey, figuring our Afghan friends would be interested to learn more about our new president. As I was taking the book out of the box, Koko Hassan walked by.
“Do you know who this person is?” I asked him.
“Yes, he is Mr. Obama.”
Mistakenly, I had presumed that an illiterate man, living in an area with limited electricity, may not have kept up with world events.
Friday, July 2, 2010
Achieving a working peace agreement
Recent reports indicating that Israel and Syria are indirectly engaged in Turkish brokered peace talks suggest a major (albeit overdue) development in the Mid-East peace-making process. Since the collapse of the Israeli-Syrian peace negotiations in May 2000, I have consistently been advocating the need for Israeli-Syrian reconciliation specifically because there is not a single dispute in the region that is not affected in one form or another by this conflict. Should Israel and Syria successfully achieve a working peace agreement, the positions of Hezbollah, Hamas, and Iran would be substantially weakened. Any assuagement of these three actors, who regularly threaten Israel's existence, should give the Israelis all the more reason to corroborate in any Syrian peace efforts.
Both Israel and Syria know the high risks and returns such a peace treaty can bring about. On top of the Syrian agenda is regaining the Golan Heights, as well as normalizing relations with the US (which peace with Israel could secure) and recognition of Damascus' special interest in Lebanon. While the Bush administration has denounced Syria's heavy hand in Lebanese affairs, this must be a loss taken for the greater good. Syria's military, economic, and historical ties with Lebanon are far too intertwined at this point to be realistically separated for the sake of wider regional peace. Against these gains Damascus must recognize its role in weakening logistical and political support to Hezbollah and Hamas, as well as limiting influence from Tehran.
Returning the Golan will no doubt be quite difficult for the Israelis, but what a peace agreement ensures is a potentially secure border with Syria and Lebanon. In dealing with Iranian and radical Palestinian threats, this will allow Israel a strategic leverage of paramount importance. By removing Syria from Iran's grips, Israel could weaken Iran's meddling and influence in Lebanon and the Palestinian territories and thereby erode the position of Israel's most implacable threat, Iran. The goal in this situation is not only to make an Israeli-Syrian agreement, but to inherently shift the power structure away from an Iran-centric hegemony.
After years of direct and indirect involvement, I can attest that this turn of events has not come about without considerable posturing between Israel and Syria over the past 24 months. For years, Israel has insisted that it could handle only one track at a time - the Palestinians - but worsening security conditions and mounting difficulties in Palestinian negotiations has given a new priority to talks with Syria. Israel sought to commence tacit negotiations with Syria, but was rebuffed as a leak could be detrimental for relations with Syria's Muslim allies. This is where Turkey's good offices and relations with both Israel and Syria came to play. Syria sought public peace talks as long as each party knew where the other stood and there was a general understanding about both sides' expectations from these peace negotiations.
In an October 2007 conversation with Syria's Foreign Minister Walid Al Mualem, I was told that once the peace talks with Israel become public, Damascus' relations with its friends will be irreparably strained, which is why Syria wants to ensure a successful outcome. Syria, he said, has long since made peace with Israel a strategic option, and its friends in the region know that only too well. In retrospect, he was referring to Iran and Hezbollah's growing influence over Syria, knowing that Israeli-Syrian peace talks would have to be worth the risk of upsetting both of these powerful forces. For 12 years-from the time he was Syria's ambassador to the US Al Mualem has been adamant about his country's desires and the conditions it requires for peace, which suggests that Damascus now is quite committed to the success of these peace talks.
As expected, there remain several difficult issues that could stymie an agreement such as final borders, security, water, and the nature of the relationship between the two nations. Syria will undoubtedly continue to insist on the final borders to be the June 4, 1967 ceasefire line which will give Damascus "a leg in the water," that is, a commanding position over the eastern shores of the Sea of Galilee. Israel will still insist on pushing the Syrians eastward to the 1923 international border. Although the difference in land mass is not significant (less than seven square miles), for the Syrians returning back to the June 4 line represents a source of considerable national pride. It should be noted that the Israeli-Syrian negotiation in 2000 broke down over this border dispute. I suspect that the territorial discord will be resolved by Israel agreeing that while officially the border will be the June 4 ceasefire line, Syria will be forbidden from advancing beyond the 1923 international border. This will no doubt be an outcome of constructive ambiguity, though for the snake-like plot of land that at times is no more than 10-feet wide, any complete ownership will only be of symbolic importance.
With regard to national security, Israel will continue to demand that the Golan is demilitarized and only internal Syrian security personnel with light arms will be allowed-as was the condition for returning Sinai in the 1979 Egypt-Israeli peace treaty. There is a security issue that could complicate the negotiations, which relates to the nature of combat ready military units and installations Syria may station outside the Golan within striking distance from Israel. Israel will also insist that Syria stops the flow of weapons to Hezbollah and commits itself to help in disarming the organization. Other issues of great concern to Israel, including water supplies and normalization of relations, may prove to be easier to resolve because the Syrians appear to be determined not to allow these issues to prevent them from reaching an agreement. Ideally, both sides will be committed to finding solutions to mutually alleviate the security concern of each other, as this goes hand-in-hand with the risk of open negotiations. As was put to me by another Syrian official who asked to remain anonymous, "Once Israel concedes on the border dispute, we will surprise the Israelis with how flexible we can be on all other issues."
Read full report
Both Israel and Syria know the high risks and returns such a peace treaty can bring about. On top of the Syrian agenda is regaining the Golan Heights, as well as normalizing relations with the US (which peace with Israel could secure) and recognition of Damascus' special interest in Lebanon. While the Bush administration has denounced Syria's heavy hand in Lebanese affairs, this must be a loss taken for the greater good. Syria's military, economic, and historical ties with Lebanon are far too intertwined at this point to be realistically separated for the sake of wider regional peace. Against these gains Damascus must recognize its role in weakening logistical and political support to Hezbollah and Hamas, as well as limiting influence from Tehran.
Returning the Golan will no doubt be quite difficult for the Israelis, but what a peace agreement ensures is a potentially secure border with Syria and Lebanon. In dealing with Iranian and radical Palestinian threats, this will allow Israel a strategic leverage of paramount importance. By removing Syria from Iran's grips, Israel could weaken Iran's meddling and influence in Lebanon and the Palestinian territories and thereby erode the position of Israel's most implacable threat, Iran. The goal in this situation is not only to make an Israeli-Syrian agreement, but to inherently shift the power structure away from an Iran-centric hegemony.
After years of direct and indirect involvement, I can attest that this turn of events has not come about without considerable posturing between Israel and Syria over the past 24 months. For years, Israel has insisted that it could handle only one track at a time - the Palestinians - but worsening security conditions and mounting difficulties in Palestinian negotiations has given a new priority to talks with Syria. Israel sought to commence tacit negotiations with Syria, but was rebuffed as a leak could be detrimental for relations with Syria's Muslim allies. This is where Turkey's good offices and relations with both Israel and Syria came to play. Syria sought public peace talks as long as each party knew where the other stood and there was a general understanding about both sides' expectations from these peace negotiations.
In an October 2007 conversation with Syria's Foreign Minister Walid Al Mualem, I was told that once the peace talks with Israel become public, Damascus' relations with its friends will be irreparably strained, which is why Syria wants to ensure a successful outcome. Syria, he said, has long since made peace with Israel a strategic option, and its friends in the region know that only too well. In retrospect, he was referring to Iran and Hezbollah's growing influence over Syria, knowing that Israeli-Syrian peace talks would have to be worth the risk of upsetting both of these powerful forces. For 12 years-from the time he was Syria's ambassador to the US Al Mualem has been adamant about his country's desires and the conditions it requires for peace, which suggests that Damascus now is quite committed to the success of these peace talks.
As expected, there remain several difficult issues that could stymie an agreement such as final borders, security, water, and the nature of the relationship between the two nations. Syria will undoubtedly continue to insist on the final borders to be the June 4, 1967 ceasefire line which will give Damascus "a leg in the water," that is, a commanding position over the eastern shores of the Sea of Galilee. Israel will still insist on pushing the Syrians eastward to the 1923 international border. Although the difference in land mass is not significant (less than seven square miles), for the Syrians returning back to the June 4 line represents a source of considerable national pride. It should be noted that the Israeli-Syrian negotiation in 2000 broke down over this border dispute. I suspect that the territorial discord will be resolved by Israel agreeing that while officially the border will be the June 4 ceasefire line, Syria will be forbidden from advancing beyond the 1923 international border. This will no doubt be an outcome of constructive ambiguity, though for the snake-like plot of land that at times is no more than 10-feet wide, any complete ownership will only be of symbolic importance.
With regard to national security, Israel will continue to demand that the Golan is demilitarized and only internal Syrian security personnel with light arms will be allowed-as was the condition for returning Sinai in the 1979 Egypt-Israeli peace treaty. There is a security issue that could complicate the negotiations, which relates to the nature of combat ready military units and installations Syria may station outside the Golan within striking distance from Israel. Israel will also insist that Syria stops the flow of weapons to Hezbollah and commits itself to help in disarming the organization. Other issues of great concern to Israel, including water supplies and normalization of relations, may prove to be easier to resolve because the Syrians appear to be determined not to allow these issues to prevent them from reaching an agreement. Ideally, both sides will be committed to finding solutions to mutually alleviate the security concern of each other, as this goes hand-in-hand with the risk of open negotiations. As was put to me by another Syrian official who asked to remain anonymous, "Once Israel concedes on the border dispute, we will surprise the Israelis with how flexible we can be on all other issues."
Read full report
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Ahmadinejad: Israel has nukes while Iran banned from nuclear energy
Israel's nuclear arsenal is safeguarded by the United States, while Iran is prevented from establishing its peaceful nuclear energy program, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said at the opening of the First International Conference on Disarmament and Non-Proliferation in Tehran, Iran's state news agency IRNA reported on Saturday.
The conference, meeting under the slogan "Nuclear Energy for All, Nuclear Weapons for No One," was kicked off early Saturday, and included 10 foreign ministers, 14 deputy foreign ministers as well as nuclear experts from 60 countries.
China is to be represented at the conference by a low-ranking Foreign Ministry official and Russia by a deputy minister.
Advertisement
The conference is focused on disarmament, but analysts said a main aim would be another effort by Iran to persuade the international community that its nuclear projects are solely for peaceful and civilian purposes.
Referring to Israel's alleged nuclear program, Ahmadinejad said that "the Zionist regime which has over 200 nuclear warheads and has waged several wars in the region is fully supported by Washington and its allies."
"This is while other states are prevented from making peaceful use of nuclear energy," the Iranian president added.
Addressing the conference's aims, Ahmadinejad said that "wars, aggressions, occupation, threats, nuclear weapons, weapons of mass destruction and expansionist policies of certain countries have made the prospect of regional and international security as unclear and ambiguous.
The Iranian president also criticized the performance of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), saying that the UN nuclear watchdog has been turned to a tool for exerting pressure on those countries which have no nuclear weapons.
"Expecting those countries which have the veto right and are big sellers of weapons in the world to establish security and to disarm other states is illogical," Ahmadinejad said according to IRNA, suggesting the formation of a new group that would supervise global nuclear disarmament.
"[That] group should suspend membership of those countries possessing, using and threatening use of nuclear weapons at the IAEA and its Board of Governors," the Iranian President said.
Also Saturday, Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said that Islam forbade the use of nuclear weapons, saying that while the United States urged the reduction of the worldwide nuclear arsenal, it had taken no real steps toward achieving that aim.
In a statement read by aides at the opening of the nuclear disarmament conference headed by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Khamenei said that United States was still the only nation to commit what he called "atomic crimes."
Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, Saeid Jalili, also criticized the United States for its double-standard approach to nuclear disarmament.
"The U.S. is itself guilty of having used atomic weapons in Japan and can, therefore, not be a supervisor of countries using peaceful nuclear technology," said Jalili, who is also secretary of Iran's National Security Council. "The world should not allow nuclear criminals to have a supervising role."
Jalili blamed the U.S. and its allies for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and insisted that all nuclear projects by Iran were in line with the treaty and IAEA regulations.
On Friday, Iranian IRNA news agency quoted Lebanon's Foreign Minister Ali Shami International sa sayig that the pressure exerted by the international community on Iran's "peaceful nuclear program" could have "drastic impacts on the Middle East peace."
According to the IRNA report, Shami added that "contrary to Israel which has many nuclear arsenals, Iran seeks a peaceful nuclear program."
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1163639.html
The conference, meeting under the slogan "Nuclear Energy for All, Nuclear Weapons for No One," was kicked off early Saturday, and included 10 foreign ministers, 14 deputy foreign ministers as well as nuclear experts from 60 countries.
China is to be represented at the conference by a low-ranking Foreign Ministry official and Russia by a deputy minister.
Advertisement
The conference is focused on disarmament, but analysts said a main aim would be another effort by Iran to persuade the international community that its nuclear projects are solely for peaceful and civilian purposes.
Referring to Israel's alleged nuclear program, Ahmadinejad said that "the Zionist regime which has over 200 nuclear warheads and has waged several wars in the region is fully supported by Washington and its allies."
"This is while other states are prevented from making peaceful use of nuclear energy," the Iranian president added.
Addressing the conference's aims, Ahmadinejad said that "wars, aggressions, occupation, threats, nuclear weapons, weapons of mass destruction and expansionist policies of certain countries have made the prospect of regional and international security as unclear and ambiguous.
The Iranian president also criticized the performance of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), saying that the UN nuclear watchdog has been turned to a tool for exerting pressure on those countries which have no nuclear weapons.
"Expecting those countries which have the veto right and are big sellers of weapons in the world to establish security and to disarm other states is illogical," Ahmadinejad said according to IRNA, suggesting the formation of a new group that would supervise global nuclear disarmament.
"[That] group should suspend membership of those countries possessing, using and threatening use of nuclear weapons at the IAEA and its Board of Governors," the Iranian President said.
Also Saturday, Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said that Islam forbade the use of nuclear weapons, saying that while the United States urged the reduction of the worldwide nuclear arsenal, it had taken no real steps toward achieving that aim.
In a statement read by aides at the opening of the nuclear disarmament conference headed by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Khamenei said that United States was still the only nation to commit what he called "atomic crimes."
Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, Saeid Jalili, also criticized the United States for its double-standard approach to nuclear disarmament.
"The U.S. is itself guilty of having used atomic weapons in Japan and can, therefore, not be a supervisor of countries using peaceful nuclear technology," said Jalili, who is also secretary of Iran's National Security Council. "The world should not allow nuclear criminals to have a supervising role."
Jalili blamed the U.S. and its allies for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and insisted that all nuclear projects by Iran were in line with the treaty and IAEA regulations.
On Friday, Iranian IRNA news agency quoted Lebanon's Foreign Minister Ali Shami International sa sayig that the pressure exerted by the international community on Iran's "peaceful nuclear program" could have "drastic impacts on the Middle East peace."
According to the IRNA report, Shami added that "contrary to Israel which has many nuclear arsenals, Iran seeks a peaceful nuclear program."
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1163639.html
Monday, March 22, 2010
US denies Olmert influenced UN vote
The US has denied that a telephone call made by Ehud Olmert, the Israeli prime minister, to George Bush, the US president, led to the US abstaining in a UN vote on the Gaza war last week.
In a speech late on Monday, Olmert said Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, was left "pretty shamed" at the vote and had to abstain on a resolution she had helped arrange.
Sean McCormack, a US state department spokesmen, who was with Rice at the UN last week during debate on the security council resolution, said the remarks were "just 100 per cent, totally, completely untrue".
McCormack said that Washington had no plans to seek clarification from Israel.
Mark Regev, a spokesman for Ehud Olmert, said the Israeli leader stood by his remarks.
Telephone influence
The Israeli prime minister said on Monday that he demanded to talk to Bush last Thursday, minutes before a vote in the UN Security Council on a resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza.
"When we saw that Rice, for reasons we did not really understand, wanted to vote in favour of the resolution ... I looked for President Bush," Olmert said.
Bush, who Olmert said was taken off a stage in Philadelphia where he was making a speech, said he was not informed on the resolution and was "not familiar with the phrasing".
"I'm familiar with it. You can't vote in favour." Olmert claimed telling the US president.
"He [Bush] gave an order to the secretary of state and she did not vote in favour of it, a resolution she cooked up, phrased, organised and manoeuvred for," Olmert said.
Bush was in Philadelphia on Thursday morning and gave a 27-minute speech on education policy that ended about 10 hours before the UN vote and there was no interruption of the public event.
The Israeli prime minister described Bush as an "unparalleled friend" of Israel.
UN call
Fourteen of the security council's 15 members supported the legally binding resolution, which has until now failed to stop Israel's offensive in Gaza.
Olmert criticised the UN resolution, saying that "no decision, present or future, will deny us our basic right to defend the residents of Israel".
Israel launched its offensive on December 27, in what it said was an attempt to stop Hamas firing rockets into southern Israel from Gaza.
After an intensive air campaign in the first week, Israel sent ground forces into Gaza in the second week of fighting and continues to push deeper into the strip.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Clashes in Palestine, East Jerusalem
Palestinians have clashed with Israeli police in two areas of occupied East Jerusalem after Palestinian groups called for a "day of rage" over the reopening of a synagogue in the Old City.
Palestinians threw stones at Israeli police who responded with stun grenades in the Shuafat and Essawiyya neighbourhoods early on Tuesday.
At least 90 people were wounded in the clashes, the Palestinian Red Crescent said, with around 15 people seriously hurt by rubber-coated steel bullets, teargas inhalation and at the hands of Israeli police.
Israel security forces said about eight police officers were lightly injured in clashes that ended with up to 60 arrests.
About 3,000 police officers had been deployed in East Jerusalem and nearby villages after Hamas and other Palestinian groups called for action in response to the reopening of the Hurva synagogue.
The Hurva, considered by some people to to be one of Judaism's most sacred sites, reopened for the first time in 62 years on Monday in the Jewish quarter of Jerusalem's Old City.
The walled Old City is at the heart of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which makes the reopening of the synagogue controversial.
Moreover, al-Aqsa, Islam's third holiest site, and the Hurva are about just 700 metres apart.
'Extremely tense'
Al Jazeera's Sherine Tadros, reporting from Essawiyya, said Palestinian protesters hurled stones at the Israeli border guards, who responded using stun grenades.
"It is an extremely tense standoff. Police want to patrol the situation using as little force as possible, they told us, but they are wearing full riot gear," she said.
More Here
Palestinians threw stones at Israeli police who responded with stun grenades in the Shuafat and Essawiyya neighbourhoods early on Tuesday.
At least 90 people were wounded in the clashes, the Palestinian Red Crescent said, with around 15 people seriously hurt by rubber-coated steel bullets, teargas inhalation and at the hands of Israeli police.
Israel security forces said about eight police officers were lightly injured in clashes that ended with up to 60 arrests.
About 3,000 police officers had been deployed in East Jerusalem and nearby villages after Hamas and other Palestinian groups called for action in response to the reopening of the Hurva synagogue.
The Hurva, considered by some people to to be one of Judaism's most sacred sites, reopened for the first time in 62 years on Monday in the Jewish quarter of Jerusalem's Old City.
The walled Old City is at the heart of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which makes the reopening of the synagogue controversial.
Moreover, al-Aqsa, Islam's third holiest site, and the Hurva are about just 700 metres apart.
'Extremely tense'
Al Jazeera's Sherine Tadros, reporting from Essawiyya, said Palestinian protesters hurled stones at the Israeli border guards, who responded using stun grenades.
"It is an extremely tense standoff. Police want to patrol the situation using as little force as possible, they told us, but they are wearing full riot gear," she said.
More Here
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Somalia signs deal with militia
Somalia's government has signed a deal with a militia group to bring it on side before an expected military offensive against armed groups fighting to topple the administration.
Ahlu Sunna Waljamaca (ASWJ), which is made up of moderate Sufi Muslims, reached an agreement in the Ethiopian capital, Addis Ababa on Monday to work together to battle al-Shabab and Hizbul Islam fighters.
Al-Shabab and Hizbul Islam have been fighting the western-backed transitional government since 2007.
They control much of southern and central Somalia, while government troops control a few blocks of the capital, Mogadishu.
ASWJ's spiritual leader, Sheikh Mahmoud Sheikh Hassan, said the groups would need financial support from the international community to integrate their administrative, leadership and military structures and fight al-Shabab and Hizbul Islam.
"This is not a fight or struggle against people but against an ideology," he said at the ceremony.
"The meaning of this agreement is to save the people of Somalia and the reputation of the Islamic faith."
Ancient Sufi tradition
Somalia has a Sufi tradition going back more than five centuries. The country's Sufis have been angered by the desecration of graves, the beheading of clerics, and bans on celebrating the birth of Prophet Muhammed imposed by the hardline Wahhabi fighters.
Al-Shabab, which professes loyalty to al-Qaeda, is battling to impose its own version of sharia (Islamic law) throughout Somalia.
IN DEPTH
Timeline: Somalia
Restoring Somalia
A long road to stability
Al-Shabab: Somali fighters undeterred
Somalia at a crossroads
Somaliland: Africa's isolated state
What next for Somalia?
Who are al-Shabab?
Riz Khan: The vanishing Somalis
The government Sharif Ahmed, Somalia's president, has agreed to implement a more moderate version of sharia.
Omar Abdirashid Ali Sharmarke, the Somali prime minister, said that under Monday's deal, Ahlu Sunna would be given five, as yet undetermined, posts in the cabinet and would appoint deputy commanders of the military, the police and the intelligence services.
"This agreement is a victory for peace and a crushing defeat for extremist groups," he said.
"This day will go into history as the day of peace for the Somali people and the region as a whole."
The government has said for several months it will launch a major offensive but has yet to do so. Rebels have stepped up attacks in various parts of the capital this month.
Hizbul Islam said Ahlu Sunna would just lose support by joining a government which has little influence outside Mogadishu and is often criticised as being corrupt and divided.
"The Addis agreement will not have any positive impact. It will only lead to the destruction of the so-called Ahlu Sunna," Sheikh Mohamed Osman, Hizbul Islam spokesman, told the Reuters news agency.
However, a resident in the Ahlu Sunna-held town of Dusamareb in central Somalia said the deal brought some hope.
"The power sharing deal is likely to reduce Somalia's chaos," Ali Suleiman said by telephone.
"We now smell peace: if the government and Ahlu Sunna have united, the rebels will be pushed from opposite sides and thus weakened."
Source : http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2010/03/20103165416919724.html
Ahlu Sunna Waljamaca (ASWJ), which is made up of moderate Sufi Muslims, reached an agreement in the Ethiopian capital, Addis Ababa on Monday to work together to battle al-Shabab and Hizbul Islam fighters.
Al-Shabab and Hizbul Islam have been fighting the western-backed transitional government since 2007.
They control much of southern and central Somalia, while government troops control a few blocks of the capital, Mogadishu.
ASWJ's spiritual leader, Sheikh Mahmoud Sheikh Hassan, said the groups would need financial support from the international community to integrate their administrative, leadership and military structures and fight al-Shabab and Hizbul Islam.
"This is not a fight or struggle against people but against an ideology," he said at the ceremony.
"The meaning of this agreement is to save the people of Somalia and the reputation of the Islamic faith."
Ancient Sufi tradition
Somalia has a Sufi tradition going back more than five centuries. The country's Sufis have been angered by the desecration of graves, the beheading of clerics, and bans on celebrating the birth of Prophet Muhammed imposed by the hardline Wahhabi fighters.
Al-Shabab, which professes loyalty to al-Qaeda, is battling to impose its own version of sharia (Islamic law) throughout Somalia.
IN DEPTH
Timeline: Somalia
Restoring Somalia
A long road to stability
Al-Shabab: Somali fighters undeterred
Somalia at a crossroads
Somaliland: Africa's isolated state
What next for Somalia?
Who are al-Shabab?
Riz Khan: The vanishing Somalis
The government Sharif Ahmed, Somalia's president, has agreed to implement a more moderate version of sharia.
Omar Abdirashid Ali Sharmarke, the Somali prime minister, said that under Monday's deal, Ahlu Sunna would be given five, as yet undetermined, posts in the cabinet and would appoint deputy commanders of the military, the police and the intelligence services.
"This agreement is a victory for peace and a crushing defeat for extremist groups," he said.
"This day will go into history as the day of peace for the Somali people and the region as a whole."
The government has said for several months it will launch a major offensive but has yet to do so. Rebels have stepped up attacks in various parts of the capital this month.
Hizbul Islam said Ahlu Sunna would just lose support by joining a government which has little influence outside Mogadishu and is often criticised as being corrupt and divided.
"The Addis agreement will not have any positive impact. It will only lead to the destruction of the so-called Ahlu Sunna," Sheikh Mohamed Osman, Hizbul Islam spokesman, told the Reuters news agency.
However, a resident in the Ahlu Sunna-held town of Dusamareb in central Somalia said the deal brought some hope.
"The power sharing deal is likely to reduce Somalia's chaos," Ali Suleiman said by telephone.
"We now smell peace: if the government and Ahlu Sunna have united, the rebels will be pushed from opposite sides and thus weakened."
Source : http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2010/03/20103165416919724.html
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Broken Promises Keep Iraqis Displaced
BAGHDAD -- Othman al-Gawwam was forced to leave his cherished home twice.
The first time he fled insecurity, fearing for the lives of his loved ones.
But today it is the government’s empty promises that are sending him and his family to a displacement camp.
"I’m being forced to return to a camp with my kids who again will be unable to go back to school," the father of two told IslamOnline.net.
Gawwam, 38, had returned with his family to their home in the capital Baghdad, hoping the government would help them after long gruelling years in displacement camps.
But for long months he tried in vain to find a job to put food on the table for his family.
"Officials said that if we return we are going to be assisted and get some payment to help us rebuild our lives, but we only found lies."
Displaced families lack health care and are unable to send their children to school.
Some have taken shelter in abandoned public buildings without proper water, electricity or sanitation.
According to recent government figures, there are nearly 2.6 million internally displaced people (IDPs) in Iraq.
More than two million refugees live outside Iraq, mainly in Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon and UAE.
The International Organization for Migration (IOM) said that from all returnee families, 45 percent have one family member employed.
One third of assessed returnees, who are heads of household, reported they cannot find employment.
The report said some assessed returnees were worrying about having to move back to displacement camps for not finding a source of income.
Abandoned
Gawwam feels abandoned by his government.
"We heard promises and took the risk but when we found that nothing was being done to help us, the best thing was to return to displacement camps," he lamented.
"At least non-governmental organisations are helping us."
Ahmed Wissam Hayett, who has been displaced with his wife and four kids since 2006, has also lost any hope to return back home.
"I feel forced to stay in this camp because promises that the government is going to give us financial help are just a political propaganda."
Abdel-Muhssen Jalil, a senior official of the Ministry of Displacement and Migration, recognizes the hardships suffered by IDPs.
"Displaced people in Iraq are being left behind the progress," he told IOL.
"The government had allocated nearly US $80 to each displaced family but the majority didn’t receive it and the ones who were lucky enough just got the payment for one month and nothing more."
The government said that nearly US$170 millions are to be allocated in the 2010 budget for the Displacement and Migration Ministry.
It is a mediocre amount of money but if distributed correctly, many families would have at least the right to eat a fresh vegetable or but clean water for their children," says Jalil.
Still, aid workers say the amount is 30 percent less than what is needed to overcome the problem and improve the living conditions of the IDPs.
Others are sceptical that even that amount of money would reach people who need it because of rampant government corruption.
Gawwam, the father of two, says being forced to return to the displaced camp has left him disillusioned about anything the government promises.
"I don’t recognise my country anymore"
By Afif Sarhan, IOL Correspondent
Source : Islam online
The first time he fled insecurity, fearing for the lives of his loved ones.
But today it is the government’s empty promises that are sending him and his family to a displacement camp.
"I’m being forced to return to a camp with my kids who again will be unable to go back to school," the father of two told IslamOnline.net.
Gawwam, 38, had returned with his family to their home in the capital Baghdad, hoping the government would help them after long gruelling years in displacement camps.
But for long months he tried in vain to find a job to put food on the table for his family.
"Officials said that if we return we are going to be assisted and get some payment to help us rebuild our lives, but we only found lies."
Displaced families lack health care and are unable to send their children to school.
Some have taken shelter in abandoned public buildings without proper water, electricity or sanitation.
According to recent government figures, there are nearly 2.6 million internally displaced people (IDPs) in Iraq.
More than two million refugees live outside Iraq, mainly in Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon and UAE.
The International Organization for Migration (IOM) said that from all returnee families, 45 percent have one family member employed.
One third of assessed returnees, who are heads of household, reported they cannot find employment.
The report said some assessed returnees were worrying about having to move back to displacement camps for not finding a source of income.
Abandoned
Gawwam feels abandoned by his government.
"We heard promises and took the risk but when we found that nothing was being done to help us, the best thing was to return to displacement camps," he lamented.
"At least non-governmental organisations are helping us."
Ahmed Wissam Hayett, who has been displaced with his wife and four kids since 2006, has also lost any hope to return back home.
"I feel forced to stay in this camp because promises that the government is going to give us financial help are just a political propaganda."
Abdel-Muhssen Jalil, a senior official of the Ministry of Displacement and Migration, recognizes the hardships suffered by IDPs.
"Displaced people in Iraq are being left behind the progress," he told IOL.
"The government had allocated nearly US $80 to each displaced family but the majority didn’t receive it and the ones who were lucky enough just got the payment for one month and nothing more."
The government said that nearly US$170 millions are to be allocated in the 2010 budget for the Displacement and Migration Ministry.
It is a mediocre amount of money but if distributed correctly, many families would have at least the right to eat a fresh vegetable or but clean water for their children," says Jalil.
Still, aid workers say the amount is 30 percent less than what is needed to overcome the problem and improve the living conditions of the IDPs.
Others are sceptical that even that amount of money would reach people who need it because of rampant government corruption.
Gawwam, the father of two, says being forced to return to the displaced camp has left him disillusioned about anything the government promises.
"I don’t recognise my country anymore"
By Afif Sarhan, IOL Correspondent
Source : Islam online
Peace talks to resume soon
The Israeli prime minister has said he expects peace talks with the Palestinians, which have been stalled for more than a year, to resume in the coming weeks.
"I have reasons to believe, realistically, that we will resume the peace process with the Palestinians, without prior conditions, in the coming weeks," Binyamin Netanyahu told a conference on security in Herzliya, northern Israel, on Wednesday.
Without providing details, Netanyahu suggested that the United States had a hand in the breakthrough.
"It is customary to say that it takes two to tango, but it sometimes takes three in the Middle East, at least to get started dancing the tango, after which I suppose a couple can carry on dancing," he said.
New initiative
"I hope that if there is willingness on the Palestinian side to build peace, to conduct negotiations to reach a peace accord, we will see a resumption of the peace process in the coming weeks," he added.
Al Jazeera's Jacky Rowland, reporting from Herzliya, said that Netanyahu's optimisim was not reflected on the ground.
"Certainly there's nothing of a tangible, actual nature that seems to be happening on the ground at the moment that would give any calls for such optimism.
"I think he made very clear the yawning gap between the Israeli and Palestinian position."
Netanyahu did not reveal the basis on which the talks would take place.
But George Mitchell, the US Middle East envoy, was in the region at the end of January. He met with leaders on both sides and presented a new initiative aimed at bringing the parties closer together.
At the time, Netanyahu spoke of "interesting ideas," but did not elaborate.
For his part, Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, said on Monday that he would give a response to Mitchell's proposal within a week.
'US suggestion'
A senior Israeli official told AFP the United States had suggested "discussions take place initially at the level of teams working on different subjects, before proposing confidence-building measures."
Such a strategy would pave the way for "normal discussions to resume," the official added, without elaborating.
Abbas has not dropped his demand that Israel halt all settlement growth in the occupied West Bank and mostly Arab east Jerusalem ahead of any talks, or his insistance on a framework of guidelines for the negotiations.
Talks came to an abrupt halt when Israel invaded the Gaza Strip in December 2008 in a brief but very deadly war.
The four-day conference in Herzliya that started on Sunday was attended mainly by Israeli officials to discuss politics and the state of the Israeli nation.
Salam Fayyad, the Palestinian prime minister, met Ehud Barak, the Israeli defence minister, in a conference session on Tuesday - the first meeting of senior officials from the two sides since the talks broke down.
The annual conference has gained a reputation over the years as a platform for announcement of new Israeli policies.
Source: Al Jazeera
"I have reasons to believe, realistically, that we will resume the peace process with the Palestinians, without prior conditions, in the coming weeks," Binyamin Netanyahu told a conference on security in Herzliya, northern Israel, on Wednesday.
Without providing details, Netanyahu suggested that the United States had a hand in the breakthrough.
"It is customary to say that it takes two to tango, but it sometimes takes three in the Middle East, at least to get started dancing the tango, after which I suppose a couple can carry on dancing," he said.
New initiative
"I hope that if there is willingness on the Palestinian side to build peace, to conduct negotiations to reach a peace accord, we will see a resumption of the peace process in the coming weeks," he added.
Al Jazeera's Jacky Rowland, reporting from Herzliya, said that Netanyahu's optimisim was not reflected on the ground.
"Certainly there's nothing of a tangible, actual nature that seems to be happening on the ground at the moment that would give any calls for such optimism.
"I think he made very clear the yawning gap between the Israeli and Palestinian position."
Netanyahu did not reveal the basis on which the talks would take place.
But George Mitchell, the US Middle East envoy, was in the region at the end of January. He met with leaders on both sides and presented a new initiative aimed at bringing the parties closer together.
At the time, Netanyahu spoke of "interesting ideas," but did not elaborate.
For his part, Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, said on Monday that he would give a response to Mitchell's proposal within a week.
'US suggestion'
A senior Israeli official told AFP the United States had suggested "discussions take place initially at the level of teams working on different subjects, before proposing confidence-building measures."
Such a strategy would pave the way for "normal discussions to resume," the official added, without elaborating.
Abbas has not dropped his demand that Israel halt all settlement growth in the occupied West Bank and mostly Arab east Jerusalem ahead of any talks, or his insistance on a framework of guidelines for the negotiations.
Talks came to an abrupt halt when Israel invaded the Gaza Strip in December 2008 in a brief but very deadly war.
The four-day conference in Herzliya that started on Sunday was attended mainly by Israeli officials to discuss politics and the state of the Israeli nation.
Salam Fayyad, the Palestinian prime minister, met Ehud Barak, the Israeli defence minister, in a conference session on Tuesday - the first meeting of senior officials from the two sides since the talks broke down.
The annual conference has gained a reputation over the years as a platform for announcement of new Israeli policies.
Source: Al Jazeera
Peace agreement eludes Yemen
Yemen's government has presented northern Houthi fighters with a detailed ceasefire agreement in a bid to end a six-year conflict.
Abdul-Karim al-Iryani, an adviser to Yemen's President Ali Abdullah Saleh, said the peace deal issued on Saturday gives a "timetable" for a truce between the Houthis and the Yemeni government.
But heavy clashes between government forces and Houthi fighters continue to rock northern parts of Yemen.
Houthi fighters said they killed 23 Yemeni soldiers in two attacks on Saturday while the military said 11 Houthi fighters were killed in air attacks the same day.
Al-Iryani said the war will end if the group accepts to sign the truce.
"All this is happening while officials are trying to implement a new ceasefire deal," Al Jazeera's Hashem Ahelbarra, reporting from Sanaa, Yemen's capital, said.
"In a statement issued by the Houthis, they also accuse Saudis of attacks in many areas, firing more than 270 rockets and rounds of heavy artillery."
Discrimination alleged
The Houthis say their community of Shia Muslims from the Zaydi sect suffer discrimination and neglect and that the Yemeni government has allowed Sunni conservatives influenced by the Saudi religious establishment too strong a voice in the country.
Yemen has come under international pressure of late to end the conflict quickly and free up resources to confront a separate threat from an al-Qaeda offshoot that has set up operations there over the past year.
Last week, the Houthis accepted a conditional ceasefire first issued by the Saleh government in September.
The plan called on the Houthi fighters to disarm, free hostages and clear mountain hideouts.
However, the government dismissed the offer and said it would halt military operations against the fighters only "under a certain framework."
It also added a fresh demand that the fighters vow not to attack Saudi Arabia.
'Signature on deal'
Al-Iryani, the presidential adviser, said if Abdul-Malik al-Houthi, the Houthis' leader, "signs this document and accepts its mechanisms, the war will stop immediately".
Our correspondent said: "All that is required of Abdul-Malik al-Houthi is to put his signature on the deal, but now the problem lies within the details of the ceasefire."
The peace proposal calls for the formation of five committees made up of Houthi and government representatives that would implement the ceasefire, al-Iryani said.
The committee on border security would also include Saudi officials.
Neighbouring Saudi Arabia was drawn into the conflict in November after the Houthis crossed the border and killed two Saudi border guards.
At least 133 Saudi soldiers have died in the fighting.
Saudi connection
The fighters announced a unilateral ceasefire with Saudi Arabia in late January.
However, the Saudis responded cautiously to the group's announcement and demanded fighters pull back from border positions and return five missing soldiers.
Several earlier ceasefires quickly disintegrated, mainly because the Houthis said their demands were not addressed.
In what could deal a further blow to the peace process, a security court in Sanaa on Saturday sentenced Yahya al-Houthi, the brother of Abdul-Malik al-Houthi, in abstentia to 15 years in prison on charges of supporting the uprising.
Yahya al-Houthi has been living in Germany for the past three years.
Source: Al Jazeera
Abdul-Karim al-Iryani, an adviser to Yemen's President Ali Abdullah Saleh, said the peace deal issued on Saturday gives a "timetable" for a truce between the Houthis and the Yemeni government.
But heavy clashes between government forces and Houthi fighters continue to rock northern parts of Yemen.
Houthi fighters said they killed 23 Yemeni soldiers in two attacks on Saturday while the military said 11 Houthi fighters were killed in air attacks the same day.
Al-Iryani said the war will end if the group accepts to sign the truce.
"All this is happening while officials are trying to implement a new ceasefire deal," Al Jazeera's Hashem Ahelbarra, reporting from Sanaa, Yemen's capital, said.
"In a statement issued by the Houthis, they also accuse Saudis of attacks in many areas, firing more than 270 rockets and rounds of heavy artillery."
Discrimination alleged
The Houthis say their community of Shia Muslims from the Zaydi sect suffer discrimination and neglect and that the Yemeni government has allowed Sunni conservatives influenced by the Saudi religious establishment too strong a voice in the country.
Yemen has come under international pressure of late to end the conflict quickly and free up resources to confront a separate threat from an al-Qaeda offshoot that has set up operations there over the past year.
Last week, the Houthis accepted a conditional ceasefire first issued by the Saleh government in September.
The plan called on the Houthi fighters to disarm, free hostages and clear mountain hideouts.
However, the government dismissed the offer and said it would halt military operations against the fighters only "under a certain framework."
It also added a fresh demand that the fighters vow not to attack Saudi Arabia.
'Signature on deal'
Al-Iryani, the presidential adviser, said if Abdul-Malik al-Houthi, the Houthis' leader, "signs this document and accepts its mechanisms, the war will stop immediately".
Our correspondent said: "All that is required of Abdul-Malik al-Houthi is to put his signature on the deal, but now the problem lies within the details of the ceasefire."
The peace proposal calls for the formation of five committees made up of Houthi and government representatives that would implement the ceasefire, al-Iryani said.
The committee on border security would also include Saudi officials.
Neighbouring Saudi Arabia was drawn into the conflict in November after the Houthis crossed the border and killed two Saudi border guards.
At least 133 Saudi soldiers have died in the fighting.
Saudi connection
The fighters announced a unilateral ceasefire with Saudi Arabia in late January.
However, the Saudis responded cautiously to the group's announcement and demanded fighters pull back from border positions and return five missing soldiers.
Several earlier ceasefires quickly disintegrated, mainly because the Houthis said their demands were not addressed.
In what could deal a further blow to the peace process, a security court in Sanaa on Saturday sentenced Yahya al-Houthi, the brother of Abdul-Malik al-Houthi, in abstentia to 15 years in prison on charges of supporting the uprising.
Yahya al-Houthi has been living in Germany for the past three years.
Source: Al Jazeera
Malaysia detains 'terror suspects'
Malaysian police have arrested 10 people for "acts of terrorism", saying they were members of an international terror organisation and a threat to national security.
The country's home minister confirmed that the arrests were made under the Internal Security Act (ISA), the British colonial-era law which allows for indefinite detention without trial.
Hishamuddin Hussein said in Kuala Lumpur on Wednesday the detainees included nine foreigners, most of whom had arrived in Malaysia recently and were believed to have links to an international terrorist organisation.
"This is a very serious threat to the security of our country," he said.
"We have worked with international intelligence organisations in this operation," he said.
Hussein said all 10 were involved in international terrorism.
He did not reveal their nationalities, or whether they had planned or carried out any attacks.
Hishamuddin said that "if they are with an international terror organisation and if they are caught in Malaysia, then we will take action on them".
'Go to trial'
Rights activists condemned the new detentions and said that suspects should face the normal justice system.
"We oppose the new arrests. We are against detention without trial and the use of ISA on these 10 individuals. We want the government to charge or release them," Nalini Elumalai, co-ordinator of the Abolish ISA Movement, told the AFP news agency.
"If the government has evidence that they pose a threat to national security, please bring them to court and put them through an open trial, don't use ISA on Malaysian citizen or any other individuals."
The controversial ISA has in the past been used against suspected fighters, including members of Jemaah Islamiyah, a Southeast Asian group believed to be linked to al-Qaeda.
Malaysian authorities reportedly detained 50 people under the law last week although most of them were subsequently released, according to the advocacy movement, which said that 12 others were still in detention.
The detentions come at a time of raised religious and ethnic tensions over the use of the word "Allah" by Christians to denote their God in Malay language publications.
The government had threatened to use the ISA to keep tensions from boiling over.
Source: Aljazeera
The country's home minister confirmed that the arrests were made under the Internal Security Act (ISA), the British colonial-era law which allows for indefinite detention without trial.
Hishamuddin Hussein said in Kuala Lumpur on Wednesday the detainees included nine foreigners, most of whom had arrived in Malaysia recently and were believed to have links to an international terrorist organisation.
"This is a very serious threat to the security of our country," he said.
"We have worked with international intelligence organisations in this operation," he said.
Hussein said all 10 were involved in international terrorism.
He did not reveal their nationalities, or whether they had planned or carried out any attacks.
Hishamuddin said that "if they are with an international terror organisation and if they are caught in Malaysia, then we will take action on them".
'Go to trial'
Rights activists condemned the new detentions and said that suspects should face the normal justice system.
"We oppose the new arrests. We are against detention without trial and the use of ISA on these 10 individuals. We want the government to charge or release them," Nalini Elumalai, co-ordinator of the Abolish ISA Movement, told the AFP news agency.
"If the government has evidence that they pose a threat to national security, please bring them to court and put them through an open trial, don't use ISA on Malaysian citizen or any other individuals."
The controversial ISA has in the past been used against suspected fighters, including members of Jemaah Islamiyah, a Southeast Asian group believed to be linked to al-Qaeda.
Malaysian authorities reportedly detained 50 people under the law last week although most of them were subsequently released, according to the advocacy movement, which said that 12 others were still in detention.
The detentions come at a time of raised religious and ethnic tensions over the use of the word "Allah" by Christians to denote their God in Malay language publications.
The government had threatened to use the ISA to keep tensions from boiling over.
Source: Aljazeera
UK releases 'US torture evidence' of former Guantanamo Bay detainee : binyan Mohamed
A British court has ordered the government to disclose classified information about the treatment of a former Guantanamo Bay detainee who said he was tortured in US custody.
The information, contained in seven paragraphs redacted from a high court judgement, described the treatment of Binyam Mohamed by US authorities as "at the very least cruel, inhuman and degrading".
It was released after judges at an appeals court on Wednesday rejected the UK government's claim that disclosing the information would damage intelligence co-operation with US agencies.
Mohamed was arrested in Pakistan in April 2002, after which he says he was flown by the CIA to Morocco and held for 18 months, where he says he was tortured. Morocco has denied holding him.
'Significant mental stress'
The redacted paragraphs summarise an American account of Mohamed's treatment by US authorities before he was interviewed by a British intelligence agent in May 2002.
They report that Mohamed had been "intentionally subjected to continuous sleep deprivation" and "threats and inducements were made to him".
"His fears of being removed from United States custody and 'disappearing' were played upon," the information says.
The interviews by US authorities, in which he was sometimes shackled, caused him "significant mental stress and suffering", it said.
The text said that the treatment would have been "in breach of the undertakings given by the United Kingdom in 1972" if administered in Britain.
"Although it is not necessary for us to categorise the treatment reported, it could readily be contended to be at the very least cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment by the United States authorities," it said.
David Miliband, Britain's foreign secretary, had argued that full disclosure of the information could lead to reduced intelligence-sharing with the US and
prejudice Britain's national security.
But in a statement following the ruling, Miliband said there would not be an appeal.
'Resounding victory'
Lawyers for Mohamed said the decision was a "resounding victory for freedom of speech".
They had long claimed the secret paragraphs prove he was mistreated and that the US and British governments were complicit in his abuse.
Mohamed, 31, says he was tortured in Pakistan, and that interrogators in Morocco
beat him, deprived him of sleep and sliced his genitals with a scalpel.
He was later transferred to the US prison facility at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba before being released in February last year.
Shami Chakrabarti, the director of the rights group Liberty, said a "full and broad" public inquiry into British complicity in torture is needed in light of the information contained in the newly released paragraphs.
"It shows the British authorities knew far more than they let on about Binyam Mohamed and how he was tortured in US custody," she said.
"It is clear from these seven paragraphs that our authorities knew very well what was happening to Mr Mohamed. Our hands are very dirty indeed."
MI5 has said it did not know Mohamed was being tortured, or held in Morocco.
Source : Aljazeera
The information, contained in seven paragraphs redacted from a high court judgement, described the treatment of Binyam Mohamed by US authorities as "at the very least cruel, inhuman and degrading".
It was released after judges at an appeals court on Wednesday rejected the UK government's claim that disclosing the information would damage intelligence co-operation with US agencies.
Mohamed was arrested in Pakistan in April 2002, after which he says he was flown by the CIA to Morocco and held for 18 months, where he says he was tortured. Morocco has denied holding him.
'Significant mental stress'
The redacted paragraphs summarise an American account of Mohamed's treatment by US authorities before he was interviewed by a British intelligence agent in May 2002.
They report that Mohamed had been "intentionally subjected to continuous sleep deprivation" and "threats and inducements were made to him".
"His fears of being removed from United States custody and 'disappearing' were played upon," the information says.
The interviews by US authorities, in which he was sometimes shackled, caused him "significant mental stress and suffering", it said.
The text said that the treatment would have been "in breach of the undertakings given by the United Kingdom in 1972" if administered in Britain.
"Although it is not necessary for us to categorise the treatment reported, it could readily be contended to be at the very least cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment by the United States authorities," it said.
David Miliband, Britain's foreign secretary, had argued that full disclosure of the information could lead to reduced intelligence-sharing with the US and
prejudice Britain's national security.
But in a statement following the ruling, Miliband said there would not be an appeal.
'Resounding victory'
Lawyers for Mohamed said the decision was a "resounding victory for freedom of speech".
They had long claimed the secret paragraphs prove he was mistreated and that the US and British governments were complicit in his abuse.
Mohamed, 31, says he was tortured in Pakistan, and that interrogators in Morocco
beat him, deprived him of sleep and sliced his genitals with a scalpel.
He was later transferred to the US prison facility at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba before being released in February last year.
Shami Chakrabarti, the director of the rights group Liberty, said a "full and broad" public inquiry into British complicity in torture is needed in light of the information contained in the newly released paragraphs.
"It shows the British authorities knew far more than they let on about Binyam Mohamed and how he was tortured in US custody," she said.
"It is clear from these seven paragraphs that our authorities knew very well what was happening to Mr Mohamed. Our hands are very dirty indeed."
MI5 has said it did not know Mohamed was being tortured, or held in Morocco.
Source : Aljazeera
Somali capital clashes claim lives
Anti-government fighters have fired mortar bombs at the presidential palace in the Somali capital, prompting return fire by troops that killed at least 16 people, medical officials and residents say.
Residents and medical officials said on Monday that several bombs hit Mogadishu's northern Suqa Holaha, or livestock market, district.
"At least 16 people died and 71 others were wounded in four districts of Mogadishu," Ali Yasin Gedi, vice-chairman of the Elman Peace and Human Rights Organisation, told the Reuters news agency.
The latest clashes come days after fighters fired mortar bombs on the presidential palace to disrupt a ceremony marking President Sharif Ahmed's first year in office.
More than 30 people were wounded in the fighting, Ali Muse, the head of the ambulance service in Mogadishu, said.
Fighters from al-Shabab, which the US says is al-Qaeda's proxy in Somalia, routinely fire at the hilltop Villa Somali palace from other parts of Mogadishu.
Troops at the palace often launch shells back.
More AU troops
At an African Union summit in Addis Ababa, the Ethiopian capital on Friday, Ali Jama Jangeli, Somalia's foreign minister, called for more AU forces to help about 5,000 peacekeepers from Uganda and Burundi who are currently based in Mogadishu.
Earlier, African leaders attending the summit expressed concern over the deteriorating situation in Somalia, saying it had posed an enormous threat to world peace.
The delegates also criticised the international community for turning a blind eye to the Somalia crisis.
The foreign ministers of Kenya and Sudan backed the call for more troops, with Djibouti saying it would send 450 soldiers soon.
But Sheikh Ali Mohamud Rage, al-Shabab's spokesman, called on Djibouti to reconsider its decision.
"We warn the Djibouti government and strongly recommend that it not send its troops here, otherwise there will be bad consequences for it," Rage said in Mogadishu on Sunday.
Violence has killed at least 21,000 people in the failed Horn of Africa nation since the start of 2007 and driven another 1.5 million from their homes, sparking one of the world's worst humanitarian emergencies.
Somalia has had no central government for nearly two decades, leading to the rise of warlords, heavily armed militias and pirates terrorising shipping mainly in the Gulf of Aden.
Western security agencies say the country has become a safe haven for fighters who are using it to plot attacks across the region and beyond.
Source: Al Jazeera
Residents and medical officials said on Monday that several bombs hit Mogadishu's northern Suqa Holaha, or livestock market, district.
"At least 16 people died and 71 others were wounded in four districts of Mogadishu," Ali Yasin Gedi, vice-chairman of the Elman Peace and Human Rights Organisation, told the Reuters news agency.
The latest clashes come days after fighters fired mortar bombs on the presidential palace to disrupt a ceremony marking President Sharif Ahmed's first year in office.
More than 30 people were wounded in the fighting, Ali Muse, the head of the ambulance service in Mogadishu, said.
Fighters from al-Shabab, which the US says is al-Qaeda's proxy in Somalia, routinely fire at the hilltop Villa Somali palace from other parts of Mogadishu.
Troops at the palace often launch shells back.
More AU troops
At an African Union summit in Addis Ababa, the Ethiopian capital on Friday, Ali Jama Jangeli, Somalia's foreign minister, called for more AU forces to help about 5,000 peacekeepers from Uganda and Burundi who are currently based in Mogadishu.
Earlier, African leaders attending the summit expressed concern over the deteriorating situation in Somalia, saying it had posed an enormous threat to world peace.
The delegates also criticised the international community for turning a blind eye to the Somalia crisis.
The foreign ministers of Kenya and Sudan backed the call for more troops, with Djibouti saying it would send 450 soldiers soon.
But Sheikh Ali Mohamud Rage, al-Shabab's spokesman, called on Djibouti to reconsider its decision.
"We warn the Djibouti government and strongly recommend that it not send its troops here, otherwise there will be bad consequences for it," Rage said in Mogadishu on Sunday.
Violence has killed at least 21,000 people in the failed Horn of Africa nation since the start of 2007 and driven another 1.5 million from their homes, sparking one of the world's worst humanitarian emergencies.
Somalia has had no central government for nearly two decades, leading to the rise of warlords, heavily armed militias and pirates terrorising shipping mainly in the Gulf of Aden.
Western security agencies say the country has become a safe haven for fighters who are using it to plot attacks across the region and beyond.
Source: Al Jazeera
Nigeria : Boko Haram - civilian public killings.
Nigerian police and military units carried out extra-judicial killings last year in the aftermath of clashes with members of a Muslim group in the north of the country, footage obtained by Al Jazeera appears to confirm.
An estimated 1,000 people were killed as Nigerian government forces fought Boko Haram in Borno, Yobe, Kano and Bauchi states in July and August of 2009.
But the footage obtained by Al Jazeera shows that many of the deaths occurred only after the fighting was over.
Elements of the security forces staged a follow-up operation in which house-to-house searches were conducted and individuals were apparently selected at random and taken to a police station.
'Shoot him in the chest'
In the video, a number of unarmed men are seen being made to lie down in the road outside a building before they are shot.
As one man is brought out to face death, one of the officers can be heard urging his colleague to "shoot him in the chest not the head - I want his hat".
As the executions continue another man is told: "Sit properly we want to take your picture."
The shootings continue as a crowd gathers further up the street in front of the police station.
Voices can be heard saying: "No mercy, no mercy."
Two officers seen in the video can be clearly identified by the name tags on their chests.
The family of Baba Fugu Mohammed, a respected community leader, told Al Jazeera that he was among those put to death outside the police station.
"He was killed, he was killed, that's what we believe. He was shot by the police," one relative said.
Fugu Mohammed was the father-in-law of Mohammed Yusuf, the Boko Haram leader whose group had battled the police, but the two had become estranged.
His family said that he had come to help police restore order, but was shot.
'Killings of the innocent'
In the days following the clashes between the police and Boko Haram, the government, police and military repeatedly denied that civilians had been killed by their personnel.
But Nigerian officials have since acknowledged that extra-judicial killings took place and an inquiry was set up to investigate the incident.
"It was obvious [from] what we have seen and from the eye witnesses that the government police were doing the killings of the innocent," Abubakar Umar Garda, a senator and a member of Nigeria's ruling People's Democratic party, told Al Jazeera.
"The government is investigating the incident and as we go along the perpetrators will be put in front of the law and the law will take its course ... the government acknowledged that this was a crime against humanity ... you cannot shoot an unarmed civilian."
Fugu Mohammed's family have given their story to the government commission set up to investigate the events that took place, but they are still waiting to receive an official explanation for the deaths.
Senator Umar Garda could not confirm to Al Jazeera whether there had been any arrests relating to the killings and there have been few tangible signs of the inquiry bringing anyone to account.
Boko Haram leader killed
Aster Van Kregten, a Nigeria expert with rights group Amnesty International, told Al Jazeera that the group's research suggested extra-judicial killings were widespread in Nigeria.
"Our research shows that the Nigerian police are getting away with murder, they killed hundreds of people a year without any investigation - any investigation on whether the use of force was lawful or not," she said.
"What we saw on the footage happened seven month ago and we haven't heard anything from the government whether they have arrested anyone and how far the investigation is going."
Among those killed in the aftermath of the clashes between Boko Haram and the police, was Boko Haram leader Mohammed Yusuf.
In the Al Jazeera footage, he is seen wearing handcuffs and surrounded by heavily armed police officers.
Nigerian police have said that Yusuf was killed while attempting to escape, but he died still wearing the handcuffs.
In another video, which was made available shortly after last year's fighting, Yusuf is shown inside the police station, his body covered with marks and bruises, as he is questioned about the organisation that he led.
It is not known whether the injuries were caused during the fighting, arrest, or detention.
'Extra-judicial killing'
The New York-based Human Rights Watch described Yusuf's death as "an extra-judicial killing".
"The extra-judicial killing of Mr Yusuf in police custody is a shocking example of the brazen contempt by the Nigerian police for the rule of law," Eric Guttschuss, the organisation's Nigeria researcher, said.
Boko Haram, which means "Western education is prohibited" in the local Hausa dialect, has called for the nationwide enforcement of a strict interpretation of Islamic law, or sharia, even among non-Muslims.
Last year's clashes took place after suspected Boko Haram members, armed with machetes, knives, bows and arrows, and home-made explosives, attacked police buildings and officers.
Nigeria's 150 million people are nearly evenly divided between Christians, who dominate the south, and the primarily northern-based Muslims.
Islamic law was implemented in 12 northern states after Nigeria returned to civilian rule in 1999 following years of military rule.
Source : Aljazeera
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)