Archive for Decembrie, 2004

2004: A Year In Review

Vineri, Decembrie 31st, 2004

Well folks, we’ve managed to come to the end of yet another year, and what a
long, strange trip it’s been for me.

Around March of this year, I was sitting deep underground in a bunker
on Atlanta, GA as part of a planning session for the G-8 meeting. I was
sitting next to a friend of mine, listening to the regional head of a
federal agency spouting off the most “tinfoil hat” conspiracy theories
about when and where terrorists would next strike, and how the casualty
rate in Iraq was “not that bad, considering”, and I just thought to
myself, “I’ve got to get out of here”.

A few years ago I was broke and looking for a job and somehow I wound
up in law enforcement, which I thought was just going to be a
“temporary” career move for me. But as time went on it became more and
more permanent until one day I found myself in that command bunker. I
was working 60 to 80 hour weeks, making fairly good pay, handling and
processing important information, but it wasn’t satisfying. Although I
am proud of what I did in those days, the hours were too long, the
stress was killing me and I knew I didn’t want to wake up in 20 years
and realize I was still doing the same job.

Partly to relieve the stress, and partly because it had always been
something I’d wanted to do (in the back of my mind, where we all keep
our real dreams), I took to writing on the internet. At first I wrote
for other people’s websites (especially Daily Kos).
I wanted to get information out there that nobody else seemed to be
covering – particularly focusing on international issues.

It was fairly commonplace for most of my “customers” in law enforcement
to be ignorant of world affairs but I was surprised to see how
prevalent that level of miseducation was even among people who should
know more, such as those planning for an international summit of world
leaders. I was just a low level grunt in that organization, mostly
there for my information processing skills and yet these men (and a few
women) running the organizations seemed to know less than I did. How
could this be?

Years and years ago, I had a roommate who was a young woman who had
been born and partly raised in Singapore. One day as I was reading the
newspaper in the livingroom, she scoffed at me and told me how much she
hated that paper because it had so little coverage of international
events, even important issues like Chinese weapon system developments
or ongoing wars overseas. And I looked at the paper with new eyes,
realizing she was right. And when the internet became more common and
more accessible, and I could read newspapers from other cities across
the United States, I saw what she meant. And it wasn’t just American
news sources either, foreign ones only picked up bits and pieces of
what to me was vital information.

I found the only way to really educate myself was to read dozens and
dozens of newspapers every day, in every language I could speak, read
or understand.

I started my blog in November of 2003, covering the revolution in the
Republic of Georgia. Here was a tiny, impoverished state where a paltry
sum (”just” a few million dollars) from western sources created a spark
that soon grew into a bonfire of public discontent, and it swept away a
corrupt government in a revolution without bloodshed, called the “Rose
Revolution”. Suddenly an American-educated and English-speaking
Georgian with a Dutch wife was in power in a country right on Russia’s
most volatile border (Chechnya and Ingushetia) and the old Communist
stalwart Eduard Shevardnadze was no more.

I was pretty young when something similar happened here in Romania, yet
here it was happening again. I found the events not only enthralling
but also inspiring, because regardless of who financed whom, it was by
capitalizing on the population at large’s discontent that radical, peaceful
change was accomplished in a country ruled by strongmen, cronies and
dictators for centuries. If it happened in Georgia, could it happen
somewhere else?

After the revolution in Georgia was finished, my writing petered out
somewhat. It wasn’t until I came back from a trip here to Romania in
January (2004) that I began to write in earnest – to write full-time.
That might not sound like much to some of you, to write full-time, but
the more I did it the more I realized that this
was what I wanted to do. I didn’t have the college education, the
formal training or the financial backing of a “professional”
journalist. I couldn’t travel to places to report on things first hand,
but I could use the internet to read hundreds of articles and
analyze them for the very best parts, the most important ones. And
sometime around March, when I was deep in that bunker, I realized I
wanted to get out of my job and that life forever and try and follow my
dream. I knew if I couldn’t do it now, I might never do it.

In June of this year, I quit my job once and for all. Some people who
read my blog think I’m still secretly working for some government
agency but I promise you I’m not – I quit because I was tired of that
life. I had some money saved up in the bank and knew I had at least a
few months ahead of me where I could just write, just publish articles
on my blog and see what happened. And friends, sitting here writing to
you on December 31, I’m happy to say that I have no intention of doing
anything else but write for the foreseeable future.

For me this year has been one of the most successful of my life – but
how to measure it? I consider myself successful because I now (just
barely, but I do it) pay my bills and expenses from donations from my
readers. Without those of you who have been so generous, I literally
would not be here today.

My blog could also not be what it is today without all the information,
tips and emails from my readers. I really cannot thank all of you
enough, and while most of you prefer to remain anonymous, I’ll use some
initials to thank you personally.

My humble and eternal gratitude goes to: PB, BC, HH, SS, BL, RC, PF,
EF, SM, CT, GB, MB, SM, EB, KC, EA, JK-S, TH-J, JG, SH, DT, VR, RYP,
JT, BS, DM and last but not least, Debra Bennett. I sure hope I haven’t
forgotten anyone :)

I also consider it a success that this blog has made it into the “printed” press
four times this year: The Philadelphia Inquirer (May 19), Sydney City Hub (August 1), The Times-Standard (California – August 4) and Asia Times
(August 12). I’ve also had conversations and correspondence from a
variety of “professional” journalists, ranging from CBC (Canada), ARD
(Germany), Reuters, Maxim magazine, the Fayetteville Observer, the
Dallas Morning Post and the Columbia Journalism Review to name a few.

In September, I packed up my bags and moved to Romania, a country which
has provided me with strange and wonderful adventures, some of which
have been chronicled right here. Tonight I’m going out to celebrate in
“typical” Romanian fashion, which I believe means lots of good food to
eat as well as a few stiff drinks. Sometimes it seems like I got here
yesterday, you know?

In total, I’ve written about 800 articles this year – a statistic even
I find hard to believe. And I’ve been blessed with about 50,000
visitors this year (yes that means you!).
I distinctly remember writing my first few articles and seeing that
only 8 people had come to visit my site – who would ever guess it would
grow this big? I currently have 11 subscribers, who get an email
whenever I write a new story (add your address to the “Adauga email”
box on the right if you’re interested) and an unknown number of people
syndicating this site (the XML button at the bottom right).

So, what were the biggest or most important stories of this blog in 2004? Let’s
review!

Jack Idema – By far my biggest story and the reason I made it
into three print newspapers. We’re up to Part 26 now with two more to
come out the first week of January. The story started just by me
learning of Idema’s arrest in July and finding it curious, comparing it
with David Passaro. I did just a little research and wrote one or two
articles on what I found and somehow my blog shot up to #4 on Google.
Soon people who knew Idema in the past found my blog, many of them
writing to me and telling me things I never could’ve found out
otherwise. I wrote a few more articles and somehow it became my longest
running saga. Although I’ve never met the man (or any of his
associates), I’ve come to know his life story like the back of my hand.
The ultimate irony with Jack Idema is that he has tried (and failed)
several times to make a movie about his own life and yet he really has lived a life that sounds more fictional than a Hollywood movie.

Viktor Bout – This guy is finally getting a little attention
from the mainstream press (particularly NPR and Newsweek), yet I’ve
been tracking the guy since May when I saw the U.S. making behind the
scenes moves to get him off the UN ban list because he had done so much
to further the civil wars in Liberia and Sierra Leone. Despite a
presidential order banning Americans from doing business with Viktor
Bout, the US military has been using his fleet of planes to deliver
supplies to the troops in Iraq. You can find my latest post about him here.

Nick Berg – A video was released in April showing the apparent
beheading of this man, causing a frenzy. Later events such as the
killing of four contract soldiers (Blackwater) in Fallujah and Abu
Ghraib soon overshadowed this story, but the conspiracy theories and
mainstream articles quickly multiplied. I wrote a total of 11 articles
on what was known, guessed or alleged about who this man was, how he
died, and who was behind it.  When the story broke, I kept finding
references to the fact that the video was released on “an Al-Qaeda
website” yet the website’s address was never given. I was determined to
find out what the original source was, and through a lot of hard work I
finally managed to find out. I also somehow managed to sign myself up
for a different Al-Qaeda friendly website (the original one was shut
down within hours of releasing the Berg video) where I later found the
gruesome beheading pictures of another American man, Robert C. Jacobs.
As for Nick Berg, through a lot of research and inquiry, I finally
managed to discover that a very prominent Saudi company (with offices
in London, UK and owned by a high-ranking member of the Saudi royal
family) was paying for and hosting these Al-Qaeda websites. I never saw
that reported in the mainstream media, however. You can read the last
post I did on Nick Berg here.

Robert C. Jacobs – The graphic video of his beheading,
unfortunately a lot more gruesome and explicit than Nick Berg’s, was
released on yet another website in June. As I was already a registered
member on an Al-Qaeda website (which had shut off new applicants), I
was able to download these photos directly at the same time as the
mainstream media. The pictures were horrific. Robert C. Johnson worked
for the Vinnell Corporation in Saudi Arabia (see below). It just so
happened that a family member of mine was going to Jacobs’ hometown
when he was buried, so I got a somewhat firsthound account of the
service. Jacobs’ body was found in Saudi Arabia under questionable
circumstances and the story of who abducted him, who dropped off his
body and what exactly happened has never been cleared up. Part 1 is here.

Saudi Civil War – Partly because of my investigation into Robert
Jacobs, I did a lengthy six-part series on the internal politics and
affairs of Saudi Arabia, one of the most closed countries on Earth.
This series went into detail on how the (American) Vinnell Corporation
has been working hand-in-glove for decades to keep the Saudi royal
family in power despite widespread discontent, not just from the Osama
bin Ladens. You can read part 4 of that series here. I firmly believe that there will be some kind of revolution or radical change
in this country within one year.

Charles Robert Jenkins – Served eight years in the military then
one day in 1965 slipped over the border into North Korea, where he
lived for 39 years. Married a kidnapped Japanese woman, fathered two
children, became elderly and ill and finally made his way to Japan
where he was court-martialed by the U.S. and thrown into a brig for 30
days. Now a free man, his story was quite interesting and still
mysterious. You can read the final installment here.

True Airport Stories – I haven’t written one of these in quite a
while, but I used to collect weird but true stories of people being
stopped, frisked, searched or otherwise detained while trying to
peacefully fly on commercial airline flights in the United States. You
can read one of these stories here.

Yemen Civil War – Barely even reported in the western press,
Yemen had a full-scale civil insurrection on its hands right on the
Saudi border. It seems to be over now but it revealed a deep discontent
for the (relatively) pro-Western policies of Yemen’s government and
just how fragile its grip on power really is. Worth noting here that
Yemen is where the USS Cole was berthed when it was attacked, the first
anti-American “blow” by Al-Qaeda. Part 9 of this series is here.

Haiti Coup – Only two nations in the world suffered a coup in
2004 – Haiti and the CAR. I remain firmly convinced that the US, in
conjunction with wealthy Haitian businessmen (with a powerful
Washington lobby) used trickery and force to remove Haitian president
Jean-Bertrand Aristide from power. You can read one of my articles on
the subject here.

Yushchenko’s Poisoning – When one of the handsomest politicians
suddenly becomes hideously disfigured, that’s a story. When a trusted
reader tells me his doctor is a complete fake, then you know it’s time
for an investigation. The final installment is here.

Civil War In Israel – Nope it hasn’t happened yet, but it’s close to happening. Don’t believe me? Read this.

I have also covered a variety of other civil wars (India, Sri Lanka,
Georgia, Nepal, Cote D’Ivoire) as well as non-reported and
poorly-reported American military exercises, moves and actions
(including in El Salvador and Ecuador). I have also covered strategic issues, including the Straits of Malacca, the importance of Iran (part 1 and 2), oil and who is buying, selling and making moves to acquire it, elections around
the world (Part 14 of my Ukrainian coverage) as well as a host of other topics.

There’s so many that I cannot really even begin to list them all – if
you’re interested in something try going to Google and type “keyword
site:www.weblog.ro” in the search box, where “keyword” is what you’re
looking for.

I want to also thank my occasional co-bloggers: Pistonhips and Steve in Thailand
for their contributions to this site. Both of them live in Thailand,
hit by the recent tsunami, and I really hope that they post something
on what they’ve seen and done here soon.

Folks, it’s been a long, strange but wonderful year. Thank you to all
of you who have come this far with me and I look forward to seeing you
on the “other side” in 2005. There will be a few improvements to how
the website looks and I’ll be announcing a new companion to this blog
as well (stay tuned!).

As always, if you’d like to email me, my address is on the top
right-hand corner of your screen. If you’d like to donate money to keep
me blogging, click on the spinning dollar sign to your right as well.

Thank you to each and every one of you, my critics and fans alike. Un an nou fericit and a Happy New Year to you all!



This about sums it up, don’t you think?

Peace

-Soj


How to post a Comment

  • WAIT for the page to finish loading!
  • Click on Comentarii
  • Nume means your name
  • Put what you want to say in the Mesaj area
  • Click on Trimite Comentarii – you did it!

  • Share/Bookmark

Site Update

Joi, Decembrie 30th, 2004



I’ve got a few holiday stopovers to make today, so this post is going to probably
be it for me today (December 30).

Tomorrow will be a year-end wrap up but then on January 1, 2005 the
floodgates will open on the long-running Jack Idema story. If you come
to this website for this story, stay tuned because some amazing new
stuff is set to come out. Simian HQ also has gotten hold of some shocking new documents that you’ve got to see.

I’ve included another one of the pics I took of the Rroma children here
because so many people have written to me to ask about them. I’ve been
downtown several times in the area where I met them but I haven’t seen
them again since that day. I hope they’re home and warm and safe,
well-fed and doing good, that’s all I can say. If I see them again, you
can be sure I’ll write about it here.

Several of you have made some very generous donations in the past two
weeks, so thank you from the bottom of my heart. It’s been an expensive
month, moving apartments and also applying for my Romanian visa (cross
your fingers as I’ll find out if I get it in January!). Without you, I
literally couldn’t spend all day reading news, scouring the internet
and writing articles about what I find.

If I don’t “see” you back here before January 1, have a wonderful New
Year’s Eve (Revelion) and may 2005 be the best year you’ve ever had.

Peace

-Soj


How to post a Comment

  • WAIT for the page to finish loading!
  • Click on Comentarii
  • Nume means your name
  • Put what you want to say in the Mesaj area
  • Click on Trimite Comentarii – you did it!

  • Share/Bookmark

Bulgaria Cashes In

Miercuri, Decembrie 29th, 2004

If you read my story My Big Fat Greek Pipeline
on December 12, then you won’t be surprised to see that the BBC has two
other stories today about Russian finding new ways to ship out its oil.

Russia is the world’s second largest oil exporter, with much of its
product being consumed in Europe. Unfortunately, right now most of
their oil must be transported by tanker ship from the Black Sea through
the Bosphorous Straits into the Mediterranean.

The BBC
has a bland article today about how Turkey is restricting shipping
levels through the Straits, primarily for ecological reasons. Russia
and Greece signed a deal earlier this month to build a pipeline between
the Bulgarian port of Burgas to the Greek port of Alexandropolous
(marked on map with black/white flag) precisely to evade Turkish
restrictions.

Now it seems that Bulgaria’s government has signed a deal with Macedonia and Albania to construct another pipeline – this time from Burgas to the Albanian port city of Viore (map here):

The
project aims to allow alternative ports for the shipping of Russian and
Caspian oil, that normally goes through Turkish ports.

It aims to transport 750,000 daily barrels of oil.

The pipeline will be built by the US-registered Albanian Macedonian Bulgarian
Oil Corporation (AMBO).

Bulgarian state media is reporting
that they expect to pocket about 100 million dollars a year in fees
from the pipeline. They also estimate the total cost to construct the
pipeline at just over 1 billion dollars.

So which will be built first, the Bulgaria-Greece pipeline or the
Bulgaria- Macedonia- Albania one? Hard to say actually, and probably
both will eventually be constructed.

Russia already has operational pipelines delivering oil to the
Ukrainian city of Odessa, one of the many reasons why Moscow has a
strong interest in that country’s politics.

Peace

-Soj


How to post a Comment

  • WAIT for the page to finish loading!
  • Click on Comentarii
  • Nume means your name
  • Put what you want to say in the Mesaj area
  • Click on Trimite Comentarii – you did it!

  • Share/Bookmark

Ukraine Elections: Part 14

Marţi, Decembrie 28th, 2004

I wish I could say this was the final part, but perhaps we’ll end this series
at Part 15. First, a quick look at the Kiev webcam shows large crowds in a Yushchenko celebration.

The votes have all been tabulated and the results seem to be directly
inverse of the first time they were held: Yushchenko is the winner with 51.99% of the vote (Yanukovych 44.19% and I don’t know where the other
6% went), the West hailing him as the “clear winner” and Russia and CIS observers crying foul and reporting electoral irregularities.

Although all the votes have been counted, the results aren’t final
until the Central Election Commission (KiSH in Ukrainian) finds out
whether any appeals will be filed. And indeed, Yanukovych has refused to concede victory and will file an appeal:

“I will never recognise such a defeat, because the constitution and human rights
were violated in our country and people died.”

The United States, NATO, Britain, Poland, Germany, Moldova, Latvia, Georgia, Lithuania, Holland and the European Union all rushed to congratulate Yushchenko. The
Russian observers however:

Alexander
Veshnyakov, the head of the Russian election commission, said there had
been some violations but none that “called into question the general
outcome”.

I am required to say this quote and link comes from RIA Novosti, a Russian news agency:

Vladimir
Rushailo, the chairman of the CIS executive committee and executive
secretary of the CIS, who headed the CIS monitoring mission at the
December 26 elections in Ukraine and in Uzbekistan, has expressed his
doubts over the legitimacy of the “rerun” of the presidential elections.

To illustrate his doubts, Mr. Rushailo cited the amendments that were
introduced to the presidential election law on December 8 and that are
to be abolished on the next day after the new president is inaugurated.

Mr. Rushailo expressed doubts that Western lawyers would be able to
find any similar precedents of one-time amendments to the election law
in any truly democratic country.

The OSCE election observers, expressing the West’s point of view, said:

The
repeat second round of the presidential election in Ukraine on 26
December brought Ukraine substantially closer to meeting international
standards.

Yanukovych will continue in his role as Prime Minister until the vote is completely finalized.

The eastern parts of the country strongly pro-Yanukovych are reportedly in mourning
but I don’t see any serious consideration of breaking away from the
rest of Ukraine, as almost happened after the first run-off vote. A
good story about what Donetsk and the neighboring regions were like can
be found here.

The Russian head of the Duma (parliament) Foreign Affairs Committee is warning
that the political crisis in Ukraine is not yet over (again RIA Novosti):


The political crisis, however, has not yet been fully resolved, and its
settlement will depend on the new government’s policies. “If [President
elect Viktor] Yushchenko fails to overcome the inertia of the election
campaign, when he came out with radical statements about not accepting
the Ukrainian government, when he spoke against the implementation of
projects for rapprochement with Russia, Ukraine is in for a grave
split,” the Russian lawmaker warned.

But if Yushchenko rises above the election passions and proves able to
develop a presidential program mindful of the interests of the entire
nation rather than just the western Ukrainians, whose support he
enjoys, Ukraine will have a chance to get out of the crisis, our
interviewee pointed out.

Mr. Kosachev highlighted a number of positive aspects to Yushchenko’s
public statements, specifically his plan to have Russia as the
destination of his first foreign visit in the presidential capacity.

Yushchenko’s declared intention to withdraw Ukrainian troops from Iraq
attests to his readiness to pursue a foreign policy oriented toward
Ukraine’s national interests rather than those of European countries
and the United States, arguesthe legislator. “These indications are
good ones unless they are a mere declaration,” Mr. Kosachev said. If he
substantiates his pronouncements with some concrete actions, Yushchenko
is the right man for the job, he concluded.

On the downside, Yushchenko is unwilling to have Russian as Ukraine’s
second national language, and believes that the project of economic
reintegration with Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan will run counter to
Ukraine’s plans to join the European Union and the World Trade
Organization, Mr. Kosachev said.

I’m personally curious also to see if Yushchenko will honor his promise to withdraw all Ukrainian troops from Iraq.

Yushchenko meanwhile has given a victory speech to his supporters in downtown Kiev (”Maidan Nezalezhnosti” refers to the central
square, “Independence Square” in Ukrainian):

First,
I want to bow before the Ukrainian Maidan. (He bowed to everyone in
Independence Square.) Dear Friends! Our Ukraine has suffered in
servitude for 14 years. We were independent, but we were not free. For
14 years we have suffered the tyranny of Kuchma, Medvedchuk, and
Yanukovych. It’s all in the past now. Our future is a new, independent,
and free Ukraine.

(The Maidan: Uk-ra-ina!)

A month ago, my opponent said that the government has come and nothing
can change it. We have found the way to change it: with the election.
We have won elegantly and graciously.

You know, I cannot order Maidan to disperse. Where would you go? How?
We must protect our victory. We should bring truth to Ukrainian
authorities and recognize that the future of Ukraine does not depend on
Moscow, America, or Europe. The future depends on every single one of
us. Thus, I address you, the people: we should work to ensure Ukraine’s
prosperity.

I believe that businesses will offer a helping hand to the government,
and the government will extend its hand to businesses. Our goal is to
form a highly professional government. The national business elite
should dedicate its service to the Ukrainian nation. And I believe that
such politics will be successful.

On behalf of myself and my colleagues, let me congratulate every
Ukrainian family with the New Year of prosperity. When the clock counts
the last seconds of this very difficult yet victorious year, may the
dreams of every Ukrainian come true!

(The Maidan: Uk-ra -ina!)

I am happy that in the past four weeks the rest of the world has
understood Ukraine. I wish that on everyone’s shoulder there be an
angel that never sleeps, that he protect you not only in the coming
year but for many years.

Glory to you! Glory to Ukraine! God Bless!

(Here [famous pop singer] Ruslana gives Yushchenko a fifteen-meter [50 foot] long
orange scarf, a scarf of freedom.)

(The Maidan: Yush-chen-ko! Pre-si-dent!)

In other news, a key ally of Yanukovych, Transportation Minister Heorhiy Tirpa
has apparently killed himself:

Mr
Kyrpa was an important member of outgoing President Leonid Kuchma’s
entourage. He often accompanied the president on foreign trips and on
holidays.

During the election campaign the opposition accused him of arranging
transport to Kiev for Yanukovych supporters based in the eastern
Donetsk region. The government denied bringing in the pro-Yanukovych
miners, who staged brief protests in the capital before returning home.



Outgoing president Leonid Kuchma, for his part, said “Dear God let this be the
final vote”. Can’t argue with that one.

All in all, it looks like Ukraine finally has a new president. All
three rounds of voting (first round, run-off then second run-off) had
irregularities, fraud, deaths, violence, cheating, ballot stuffing and
other non-democratic incidents but I don’t think the country will stand
for another round. We’ll have to wait and see if Yanukovych’s appeal
makes any headway or if he finally throws in the towel before we can
write the final part to this series.

As for what will we here at Simian HQ project for the
future: the newly strengthened parliament will keep things on an even
keel, Yushchenko will make good with both Russia (even more so than
with the West), the Ukrainians will (in general) be optimistic for a
long time and hopefully things will settle down to a dull roar…



Now comes the hard part!

Peace

-Soj


How to post a Comment

  • WAIT for the page to finish loading!
  • Click on Comentarii
  • Nume means your name
  • Put what you want to say in the Mesaj area
  • Click on Trimite Comentarii – you did it!

  • Share/Bookmark

Alberto Gonzales Part 2

Marţi, Decembrie 28th, 2004

I saw that the Washington Post has a soft profile piece on the man soon to be the Attorney General, or head law enforcement officer of the United States, Alberto Gonzales. I
figured it was time for another look at this guy.

Undeniably, Alberto Gonzales rose from quite humble beginnings – starting life
in a tiny shack with his 7 brothers and sisters and two non-English
speaking (and possibly illegal) migrant parents from Mexico. Entirely
through his own efforts, Gonzales joined the military and then the Air
Force College (and later Rice University), where he graduated with a
political science degree. He then earned a law degree from Harvard in
1982.

He then had two fortunate events in his career – one was being hired by the immensely
powerful Texas law firm of Vinson and Elkins.
The other was meeting (then governor of Texas) George W. Bush in 1994,
who offered him a job as his general counsel or private lawyer.

Ever since then, he has been one of George Bush’s most trusted advisers
and Gonzales has profited from that relationship – becoming the Texas
Secretary of State (1997), a judge on the Texas Supreme Court (1999),
the president’s general counsel (2001) and now on the verge of becoming
confirmed as the Attorney General of the United States.

Vinson and Ellis is an international law firm and is headed up by a
group of very conservative lawyers, some of whom are among the biggest
financial contributors to George Bush’s electoral campaigns. Vinson and
Elkins’ largest client was the former energy giant Enron
and there are allegations that Gonzales (as the president’s counsel)
was warned by Vinson and Elkins before Enron collapsed. Gonzales has
also played a role in keeping Vice President Cheney’s “Energy Task
Force” notes from being turned over to the U.S. Congress.

During his tenure as general counsel for the Texas governor (Bush),
Gonzales had the responsibility of preparing a brief report on every
death row clemency request. The Atlantic Monthly
wrote a scathing article showing how Gonzales failed to include vital
information in these reports that Governor Bush relied upon in deciding
whether or not to overturn the death penalty – literally a life and
death decision.

The Atlantic Monthly article suggests that either Gonzales was
quite deficient as an analyst of the legal matters or else was
furthering his agenda of enforcing the death penalty. It was under
Gonzales’ watch that George Bush approved the execution of Terry
Washington, a retarded man, leading to worldwide condemnation (more on
this here).

What follows is from an article I wrote back on November 12, 2004. In light of
the fact that FBI memos
have come to light which substantiate that George Bush might be liable
for prosecution on war crimes, it’s a bold act of self-preservation
that George Bush has nominated Gonzales as the chief enforcement
officer of the laws of the United States.

Alberto Gonzales played a key role in the decision making process of treating
men and boys
captured in Afghanistan as “illegal combatants” and not “prisoners of
war”. It was this process that led to Guantanamo Bay, Bagram, Abu
Ghraib, Diego Garcia and other secret detention centers where torture, intimidation and a suspension of human rights have made the United
States hated around the world.

A lot of dense legal language was used to transform the detainees into
“illegal combatants” so they could be stripped of their rights, and I
want to see if I can’t unravel this mystery a bit (here is Gonzales’ verson of it by the way).

For the record, I will use the word “detainees” instead of “prisoners”
because a prisoner is someone charged with a crime. Only a handful of
people captured have ever been charged with a crime, therefore they are
only being “detained”.

After the American invasion of Afghanistan began on October 7, 2001, the issue
of how to treat men and boys
captured on the battlefield was raised. Members of the Bush
Administration wanted to hold and interrogate detainees. However the
Geneva Conventions and international law held that anyone captured was
a “Prisoner of War”, which gives them certain rights and protects them
from being interrogated. Article 17 of the 3rd Convention states:

No
physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be
inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any
kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be
threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous
treatment of any kind.

Thus the idea was born to
classify them as “illegal combatants”, evade the protection given to
“Prisoners of War” and allow them to be held and interrogated for an
infinite amount of time without ever charging them with a crime.

A brief chronology:

January 9, 2002 – At the request of Alberto Gonzales, John Yoo and Robert Delahunty, two Department of Justice employees in the Office of Legal Counsel,
wrote a memo to William J. Haynes outlining how to convert the
detainees into “illegal combatants”. William J. Haynes is a lawyer
working for the Department of Defense.

January 18, 2004 – President Bush “determines” that the detainees are “illegal
combatants” and not “Prisoners of War”.

January 19, 2002 – Donald Rumsfeld, following the memo his counsel
(Haynes) received, instructs the commanders in the field that all
detainees are “illegal combatants” and can be interrogated.

January 22, 2002 – the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel write a memo to
Haynes and Alberto Gonzales, the President’s lawyer, explaining in
great detail how and why the President has the power to classify the
detainees as “illegal combatants”.

January 25, 2002 – Alberto Gonzales writes a memo to the President,
confirming the conclusions of the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel and
urging the President to classify the detainees as “illegal combatants”.

January 26, 2004 – Secretary of State Colin Powell writes a memo to
Gonzales, strongly disagreeing with his conclusions and urges the
President to reconsider his decision.

The DOJ Office of Legal Counsel is a team of lawyers who, when asked by
the President’s lawyer (in this case, Gonzales), offer their opinion on
the legality of issues. The DOJ-OLC also gives the President advice on
complex constitutional questions.

There were two legal hurdles to overcome to classify captured men and boys
as “illegal combatants” rather than “Prisoners of War”. One was the
Geneva Conventions, a treaty signed by the United States. The other was
the federal “War Crimes” law. Let’s start with the Geneva Conventions.

There were four separate articles “Geneva Conventions”, the first
signed in 1864 (treatment of battlefield casualties) and the last one
in 1949 (treatment of civilians during wartime). The Third Geneva
Convention specifically details how to treat “Prisoners of War”. Both
the United States and Afghanistan have fully ratified all four articles
of this treaty, including the additional protocols.

The manner by which Gonzales and the DOJ-OLC got around applying the
3rd Geneva Convention on Prisoners of War (GPW3) was by stating that
the treaty only dealt with “wars of an international nature”, that is
to say, a war between two countries. They determined that Afghanistan
was a “failed State” and therefore, in essence, the United States was
intervening in a kind of a “civil war” rather than a war against the
nation of Afghanistan.

Gonzales determined Afghanistan was a “failed State” because:

The
Taliban did not exercise full control over the territory and people,
was not recognized by the international community, and was not capable
of fulfulling its international obligations (e.g., was in widespread
material breach of its international obligations).

[and because] the Taliban and its forces were, in fact, not a government, but
a militant, terrorist-like group.

Using the same logic,
many other countries around the world could easily be labeled “failed
States”. China does not exercise “full control” over its legal
territory (Taiwan). Neither does India (Kashmir, Assam, etc.), Israel
(Gaza Strip), Nigeria (Ijaw) or Pakistan (NWFP) for that matter.

In fact, during President Clinton’s invasion of Somalia, this same
determination could’ve been used as well. Or in Serbia, which did not
exercise “full control” over Kosovo. Or Bosnia or Haiti. Frankly any
nation with serious domestic unrest could be said to “not exercise full
control” over its territory and people.

The DOJ-OLC determined that in previous “interventions” (including Viet
Nam!), the U.S. had “conduct[ed] operations in such circumstances as if
the Geneva Conventions applied”. In other words, the U.S. didn’t have to follow the Geneva Conventios before, the United States just generously decided
to do so of its own free will.

However at the time of the American invasion of Afghanistan, the
Taliban controlled about 90% of the territory with only the Panjshir
Valley and extreme north being somewhat independent. Of course this was
also true during the years of Soviet occupation as well.

The Taliban government was recognized by SOME of the international
community (esp. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia), just not all of it. I guess
the question is how many countries need to recognize your legitimacy
before you’re legitimate? David Ben-Gurion declared the “nation of
Israel” in 1948, which was recognized by some and not by others
(particularly Arab states). Somaliland and Western Sahara aren’t
considered legitimate while East Timor and Eritrea are. Transdniestr
and Abkhazia are considered “legitimate” by some and not by others. And
so on…

The charge of being “not capable of fulfilling international
obligations” specifically refers to the Taliban’s refusal to hand over
Usama bin Laden per U.N. Security Council Resolutions 1267 (PDF) and 1214
(PDF) . Ironically in these Resolutions, there are several references
to the “Taliban authorities”, thus indirectly referring to them as a
kind of government.

And nearly all of the quotes and references to Afghanistan being a
“failed” State came from either members of the Bush government
themselves or else American allies such as Tony Blair. It’s worth
noting here that there is no international definition of what a “failed
State” is.

Ironically, Resolution 1214 states:

Any
outside interference in the internal affairs of Afghanistan, including
the involvementof foreign military personnel and supply of arms and
ammunition to all parties to the conflict, should cease immediately.

In a larger sense, many,
many nations have failed to heed multiple United Nations Resolutions,
including Israel, Turkey and Morocco. By the same logic, these nations
are also “not capable of fulfilling international obligations”.

As for “Al-Qaeda” members detained in Afghanistan, these were
determined to be members of a terrorist organization and not in any way
connected to the “legitimate” Afghan military and therefore did not
fall under the classification of “Prisoners of War”.

Therefore, the only “legal” combatants in Afghanistan were the Northern
Alliance and everyone else, Taliban, Al-Qaeda or otherwise, was a
“non-State actor” and therefore an “illegal combatant”. The DOJ-OLC and
Alberto Gonzalez determined that the President could suspend the GPW3
anytime he felt like it. And he did.

Here is some bitter irony from Gonzales’ memo to the President:

In
response to the argument that should decide to apply GPW to the Taliban
in order to encourage other countries to treat captured U.S. military
personnel in accordance with the GPW, it should be noted that your
policy of providing humane treatment to enemy detainees gives us the
credibility to insist on like treatment for our soldiers.

Secretary Powell disagreed with Gonzales’ conclusions and stated, in part:

It
will reverse over a century of U.S. policy and practice in supporting
the Geneva conventions and undermine the protections of the law of war
for our troops, both in this specific conflict and in general.

It has a high cost in terms of negative international reaction, with
immediate adverse consequences for our conduct of foreign policy.

It will undermine public support among critical allies, making military cooperation
more difficult to sustain.

Europeans and others will likely have legal problems with extradition
or other forms of cooperation in law enforcement, including in bringing
terrorists to justice.

It may provoke some individual foreign prosecutors to investigate and prosecute
our officials and troops.

We will be challenged in international fora (UN Commission on Human Rights; World
Court; etc.).

Determining GPW does not apply deprives us of a winning argument to oppose habeas
corpus actions in U.S. courts.

That last line is the
most important one, because that’s exactly what happened. On June 28,
2004, the Supreme Court determined in Rasul V. Bush
(PDF) that detainees in Guantanamo Bay DID have the right to habeas
corpus. That’s a fancy way to say they could use American courts to
challenge why they were being held in the first place.

However there is a key article in GPW3 that Gonzales and the DOJ-OLC decided to
overlook, which is Article 5:

Should
any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent
act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the
categories enumerated in Article 4 [Prisoners of War], such persons
shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as
their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

In Hamdi v. Bush
(PDF) the Supreme Court ruled that “prisoners are presumed to have POW
status until a tribunal determines otherwise”. It seems that Bush and
Gonzales’ current position is that the President (the “competent
tribunal”) determined, en masse, that all detainees were ineligible for Article 4 (Prisoner of War) protection.

U.S. military regulations 190-8 Section 1-6 state that a tribunal must be held
and yet this is only just now beginning to happen. And although no
“foreign prosecutor” has ever taken up this issue, it would seem fairly
clear that Bush’s decision to “suspend” GPW3 for detainees is in
violation of international law.

Let’s review:

Alberto Gonzales, the President’s lawyer, asked the DOJ-OLC to find a way to indefinitely
hold and interrogate captured men and boys
in Afghanistan. Their collective finding was that detainees were not
subject to GPW3 protections and therefore could be held indefinitely
without being charged.

Using a variety of legal tactics, the Bush administration held off
until June 28, 2004 all requests by the detainees to challenge their
detention. The Bush administration also ignored Article 5 requirements
to grant POW status to all detainees until a tribunal determined
otherwise. And until 2004, no tribunals were ever held to determine POW
status.

Now let’s review American domestic law, USC 18 § 2441, dealing with “War Crimes”. Since it’s short, I’ll publish the entire thing:

(a)
Offense.— Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits
a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b),
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of
years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be
subject to the penalty of death.

(b) Circumstances.— The circumstances referred to in subsection (a) are
that the person committing such war crime or the victim of such war
crime is a member of the Armed Forces of the United States or a
national of the United States (as defined in section 101 of the
Immigration and Nationality Act).

(c) Definition.— As used in this section the term “war crime” means any conduct—

(1) defined as a grave breach in any of the international conventions
signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to
which the United States is a party;

(2) prohibited by Article 23, 25, 27, or 28 of the Annex to the Hague
Convention IV, Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, signed
18 October 1907;

(3) which constitutes a violation of common Article 3 of the
international conventions signed at Geneva, 12 August 1949, or any
protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party and
which deals with non-international armed conflict; or

(4) of a person who, in relation to an armed conflict and contrary to
the provisions of the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the
Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices as amended at Geneva on 3
May 1996 (Protocol II as amended on 3 May 1996), when the United States
is a party to such Protocol, willfully kills or causes serious injury
to civilians.

It would seem pretty
obvious that (c)(1) would be the applicable section here, but what is a
“grave breach”? GPW3 Article 130 states:

Grave
breaches to which the preceding Article relates shall be those
involving any of the following acts, if committed against persons or
property protected by the Convention: wilful killing, torture or
inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, wilfully
causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, compelling
a prisoner of war to serve in the forces of the hostile Power, or
wilfully depriving a prisoner of war of the rights of fair and regular
trial prescribed in this Convention.

Even assuming that the
torture and “great suffering” at Abu Ghraib, Bagram and other locations
were the exception, it would seem that the last line about “fair and
regular trial” constitutes a grave breach.

The DOJ-OLC used about 10 pages of legal jargon to determine that,
since GPW3 didn’t apply, Article 131 also didn’t apply and therefore
the U.S. was not in “grave breach” of the treaty since the treaty
itself was suspended on the order of the President. The DOJ-OLC
language also states that the Geneva Conventions were signed before
terrorism was a real factor, and therefore don’t adequately address a
“War on Terror” and therefore don’t fully apply.

In other words, the President determined GPW3 didn’t apply therefore he
unilaterally interpreted an international treaty and thus determined
himself that he was not in violation of possible domestic War Crimes
charges.

Since George Bush was recently re-elected, it’s highly unlikely that
any federal prosecutor will attempt to bring War Crimes charges under
USC 18 § 2441 will ever be brought against the President or his
administration.

What makes this even more onerous is that anyone who carries out Bush’s
orders may be committing War Crimes themselves. This is because of the
“Nuremburg rule” wherein Nazi soldiers were not excused from their
conduct simply because they were given orders by their government.

And that, ladies and gentleman, is how men and boys
from many lands who were captured in Afghanistan were held without
charge, interrogated and denied their rights as defined under the Third
Geneva Convention.

Alberto Gonzales, as the President’s Counsel, played a significant role
in furthering this decision and this should be taken into consideration
during his confirmation hearings as the next Attorney General of the
United States, the man George Bush says “embodies the American dream”.

Peace

-Soj


How to post a Comment

  • Click on Comentarii
  • Nume means your name
  • Put what you want to say in the Mesaj area
  • Click on Trimite Comentarii – you did it!

  • Share/Bookmark

NYT Blames Govts for Tsunami Deaths

Luni, Decembrie 27th, 2004

I am beginning to detest the mighty New York Times with a real passion. Partly this is because of specific NYT-related incidents,
such as Judith Miller cheering for a war she’ll never fight (or die) in to employing the lying Jayson Blair simply based on the color of his skin to regularly biased articles concerning
the Israel/Palestinian situation (see here).

It’s not only the New York Times of course, the general
American mainstream media is incredibly biased, arrogant and often
quite lazy when reporting stories, especially ones with an
international focus. I started this blog specifically for the purpose
of filling in those gaps, to bring stories to the English-speaking (and
often American) reader than the NYT and other organizations should be reporting. The NYT is just the most respected print publication in the States,
called The Grey Lady, and therefore to me it represents all that’s wrong with American journalism.

There was an article in today’s NYT that exemplifies what I’m talking about entitled “With No Alert
System, Indian Ocean Nations Were Vulnerable”.

The article goes on to say that a “warning system” such as already in
place in Hawaii could’ve alerted the nations affected by the tsunamis
on Sunday. Yes, I suppose that’s true. What the article neglects to
mention however is that the affected nations (see map here) are in a political chaos:

Indonesia (Aceh), where the earthquake began – the Aceh portion of the
northern island of Sumatra is under martial law and the government is
fighting an independence movement.

Thailand – the southern half of the nation is home to an ongoing
unrest and violence between the minority Muslim population and the
Buddhist dominated government. Some of the tsunami waves hit popular
tourist areas (such as Phuket), which are heavily guarded to prevent
kidnappings and other violence.

Sri Lanka – the nation has been embroiled in a civil war between the Tamil minority
and Sinhalese majority

India – Many southern states are practically in a civil war with
Naxalite (Indian communist) forces fighting the central government

Somalia – Barely even a functioning state and the government lives and operates
in neighboring Kenya

And yet the NYT:

There’s
no reason for a single individual to get killed in a tsunami,” Dr.
Murty said. “The waves are totally predictable. We have travel-time
charts covering all of the Indian Ocean. From where this earthquake
happened to hit, the travel time for waves to hit the tip of India was
four hours. That’s enough time for a warning.”

Please don’t
misunderstand me. I am sorry for the loss of all the people from all
the nations which were hit by the tsunami and earthquake. And I
certainly do wish that some kind of warning system had been in place so
more people could’ve survived.

It’s just the arrogance of the article that got under my skin,
tantamount to saying to the governments “it’s all your fault, we tried
to warn you”. An event like a tsunami is extremely rare, occurring
every 25 to 50 years. What’s far more important to the peoples of these
areas is an end to war and politically based violence. They kill far
more people, year after year, than freak waves, and are far more
preventable.

But where’s the “early warning system” for that?

Peace

-Soj


How to post a Comment

  • WAIT for the page to finish loading!
  • Click on Comentarii
  • Nume means your name
  • Put what you want to say in the Mesaj area
  • Click on Trimite Comentarii – you did it!

  • Share/Bookmark

Rendering

Luni, Decembrie 27th, 2004

This isn’t a full article, just a heads up to point you an excellent article
at the Washington Post.

As I wrote just yesterday (concerning the Uzbekistan elections), the US
has been flying prisoners in the “War on Terror” to such nations as
Uzbekistan so they can be tortured using techniques (still) forbidden
for Americans to do (this is called “rendering” in Washington-speak).

The Washington Post piggybacks on the work of bloggers (what a surprise
there!) but does a great job of showing, in detail, just how the CIA
has been skirting domestic policies by using this horrific practice.

Peace

-Soj


How to post a Comment

  • WAIT for the page to finish loading!
  • Click on Comentarii
  • Nume means your name
  • Put what you want to say in the Mesaj area
  • Click on Trimite Comentarii – you did it!

  • Share/Bookmark

The Forbidden Carrot

Duminică, Decembrie 26th, 2004

This is just too funny to not repost here. The CIS is an organization of countries that were formerly part of the Soviet Union.

From Maidan:

On
Dec. 26, the representatives of the CIS observation mission gave press
conference at the UNIAN premises. They gave way their “being extremely
indignant” by the numerous violations on the part of presidential
candidate, Viktor Yushchenko. In particular – “Entire Kyiv is dressed
up in the color of orange”. One of those representatives, Mr. Roman
Tkach, blamed the Yushchenko supporters for conducting the election
campaign on the day when it was banned: “People are wearing orange
scarves. This color is everywhere …”

As a correspondent asked him, if it is politically incorrect to make
use of orange color or if the color itself can be politically biased,
Mr. Tkach answered positive and said, this color was officially
registered by the Yushchenko headquarters to be the color of his
election campaign.

Being asked about the political correctness of oranges and carrots, the
CIS observers scowled and said, the Ukrainians have a right to think
so. But they requested that the mass media do not mention the
“political vegetables” while breaking news.

Peace

-Soj


How to post a Comment

  • WAIT for the page to finish loading!
  • Click on Comentarii
  • Nume means your name
  • Put what you want to say in the Mesaj area
  • Click on Trimite Comentarii – you did it!

  • Share/Bookmark

Oil Aboard!

Duminică, Decembrie 26th, 2004

In
this “modern” age, it’s a fairly good rule of thumb to say that wars
are caused by countries fighting over natural resources – especially
petroleum. There are many who feel the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor
in 1941 in revenge for an oil embargo by the United States.

As such, I always keep track of major oil deals as a measuring stick to
see what’s going on around the world’s stage. And lately, it seems
China has been quite busy.

In October, China signed a 50 billion dollar oil deal with Iran. And now I see that China has signed a lucrative deal
with Venezuela. Right now Venezuela sells 60% of its oil to the United
States but fiercely independent leader Hugo Chavez is angling for a
more sympathetic customer in the Chinese.

China and Japan are two growing Asian economies who rely heavily on
imported oil. I wrote a post just a few days ago discussing how China
and Japan are both sending research vessels into the East China Sea for
oil and gas resources. And this new deal will bring Chinese capital
into developing Venezuelan oilfields.

A good analysis of the Venezuelan-Chinese oil deal here:

Another
important area of cooperation will be to help China to build up a
strategic oil reserve, so as to protect China from possible short-term
oil shortages. Chavez emphasized that Venezuela is planning on
expanding a pipeline through Panama, in order to more easily transport
Venezuelan oil to the Pacific Ocean and then to China.

Venezuelan President
Chavez was also recently in Russia and I wrote a post about that as
well. The Russian deal is a lot smaller in terms of overall monetary
investment but indicates that Chavez is forming non-western
partnerships.

The Washington Post has an informative but extremely biased article on China’s development of oil
fields in The Sudan.
The article makes the Chinese look like devils for both arming a
ruthless dictatorship at the same time it develops and buys the
country’s oil fields.

Are China’s investments in the oil fields and sales of weapons aiding
and abetting a horrific regime in The Sudan? Most certainly. But
China’s policies parallel those of American oil firms in other nations,
especially Saudi Arabia, Azerbaijan and Equatorial Guinea. And until very recently, Indonesia was on that list (now democratic).

The United States and China are the two largest consumers
of petroleum products in the world therefore it makes sense,
geopolitically, that these two nations would be trying to corner the
market on oil suppliers.

Let’s look at the top world exporters of oil in this framework for a moment:

  1. Saudi Arabia – Oil dominated by western firms, sells to U.S. and Japan, buys
    weapons from United States
  2. Russia – Oil dominated by domestic firms, sells to Europe, Japan and China, sells weapons to China
  3. Norway – Oil dominated by western and domestic firms, sells to Europe, buys weapons
    from Europe and US
  4. Iran – Oil dominated
    by domestic firms, buys weapon systems from Russia and China, signed
    major deal to sell oil to China in October 2004
  5. UAE – Oil dominated by western firms, sells to Europe, US, China and Japan, buys
    weapons from US
  6. Venezuela – Oil
    dominated by domestic firms, sells to US, Western Hemisphere and signed
    major deals Russia and China, buys weapons from Russia
  7. Kuwait – Oil dominated by western firms, sells to Europe, US, China and Japan,
    buys weapons from US
  8. Nigeria – Oil dominated by western firms, sells to Europe, US, China and Japan
  9. Mexico – Oil dominated by domestic  firms, sells to US and Western Hemisphere, buys weapons from US
  10. Algeria – Oil dominated by western firms, sells to Europe, US, China and Japan,
    buys weapons from US
  11. Libya – Oil dominated
    by domestic firms, recently started reselling oil to Europe and Japan
    but primarily delivers to Asia, buys weapons from China

And if you look at developing areas of oil exportation and who dominates:

Equatorial Guinea – US oil firms

Azerbaijan – Western oil firms and Iranian

Kazakhstan – China and Russia

Sao Tome & Principe – US domain

Sudan – China

Indonesia – western oil firms

Gabon – western oil firms

Senegal – western oil firms

Chad – western oil firms

Cameroon – western oil firms

Angola – western oil firms and China

Iraq – western oil firms

It’s worth noting here of course that pre-2003 Iraq had major oil deals with both
Russia and China, now largely vacated.

Peace

-Soj


How to post a Comment

  • WAIT for the page to finish loading!
  • Click on Comentarii
  • Nume means your name
  • Put what you want to say in the Mesaj area
  • Click on Trimite Comentarii – you did it!

  • Share/Bookmark

Uzbekistan Elections

Duminică, Decembrie 26th, 2004

Ukraine is not the only country having an election today (see my report Part 13) – the Central Asian nation of Uzbekistan is
holding parliamentary elections today. This is only the second time
since becoming independent in 1991 that elections have been held. The
single body called the “Supreme Assembly” will be converted to a
bicameral system.

Actually I should just call these “elections” with quote marks, since not a single opposition candidate
has been allowed to run. All the seats in the parliament will be held
by politicians who support strongman president Islam Karimov:

Though
more than 500 candidates from five pro-government political parties –
Adolat (Justice), Fidokorlar (Selfless), Liberal-Democratic Party,
Milly Tiklanish (National Revival), and the People’s Democratic Party –
will take part in the election, differences between official party
platforms are slight. Candidates for the 120 seats available, many of
them businessmen with close ties to the government, have directed only
modest criticism at Karimov administration policies.

Despite the complete lack of real democracy, the OSCE is sending 20 people to
monitor the elections and Malaysia is sending four.

It’s also likely that turnout will be extremely low:

There
are almost no campaign posters, other than official government banners
reminding citizens to vote. And few people in the capital, Tashkent,
are even aware of who is running in their district.

Some parties are calling for voters to cast blank ballots in protest, while others
say the polls should be boycotted altogether.

The state-regulated local media is praising the election as a
democratic triumph. But foreign and independent groups say voters see
little meaning in the exercise and that turnout will likely be low.

Only 33% of registered
voters have to cast ballots to “validate” the elections, so its likely
that the Karimov-supported parliament will easily be elected.

Despite some mild criticism
by the United States concerning the elections, America and Uzbekistan
continue to have close relations as part of the “War on Terror”. The
United States has a permanent military base in Uzbekistan, which puts
millions of dollars into Karimov’s treasury every year. Karimov has
been to the White House once to receive George Bush’s “thanks” and
Donald Rumsfeld has made several trips to Uzbekistan.

In addition:

In
August 2004, the Bush Administration awarded $21 million in aid to
Uzbekistan, a figure that puts the total this year close to $60 million.

Uzbekistan, despite being
a majority Muslim country, is a dictatorship that largely suppresses
religious expression. Many Muslim activists are arrested and tortured
and there are approximately 6,000 political prisoners currently being
held. There are also reports
that the United States sends prisoners captured in the “War on Terror”
to Uzbekistan so that harsher interrogation measures (torture) can be
used to extract information.

Peace

-Soj


How to post a Comment

  • WAIT for the page to finish loading!
  • Click on Comentarii
  • Nume means your name
  • Put what you want to say in the Mesaj area
  • Click on Trimite Comentarii – you did it!

  • Share/Bookmark

Parerea ta conteaza

Echipa Weblog.ro e alaturi de tine! Da-ne un semn!

  • Vrei sa iti faci cont pe www.weblog.ro si intampini dificultati?

  • Ai intrebari legate de folosirea site-ului?

  • Doresti sa ne comunici comportamentele abuzive ale unor membri?

  • Vrei sa faci comentarii sau sa ne dai anumite sugestii?