UN ENVOY WARNS OF SECRET ASSASSINS

Washington and London cannot be pleased with claims by a senior UN envoy that secret killing squads are operating in parts of Afghanistan that are under American and British control.
Professor Philip Alston, a special investigator for the UN’s Human Rights Council, recently completed a preliminary report on extra-judicial killings in Afghanistan and was scathing in his criticism of the US and its NATO allies for a lack of transparency and accountability in respect of their duties to fully abide by international law.
His most disturbing observations related to his expertise in what could be called dirty war tactics, or as it he chose to put it, “foreign intelligence agencies” using illegal, specially trained Afghan groups against the Taliban. They were, he claimed, carrying out killings that were planned and executed outside of the normal military chain of command. They were, he stressed, clearly beyond the law and “completely unacceptable.”
He was particularly troubled by what he called a “staggeringly high level of complacency” in response to “gratuitous” civilian killings and referred to the fact that it was “absolutely unacceptable for heavily armed internationals accompanied by heavily armed Afghan forces to be wandering around conducting dangerous raids that too often resulted in killings without anyone taking responsibility.
His use of language was a devastating indicting of certain types of what might be called “black ops” and he mentioned them as though they were being carried out in a cavalier fashion without any proper military oversight. For example he lashed out at NATO’s International Security Force, accusing it of not keeping proper records of the killing of civilians. He found its system was at times “deliberately opaque,” meaning in it effect that it was deliberately vague to prevent ordinary Afghans from finding out who had destroyed their homes or bombed their villages.
His comments echoed charges made in the past in Iraq, but this was the first someone of his stature had made them publicly. Reporters asked him to name the foreign intelligence agencies” running what he was implying were death squads but he refused. However, he may change his mind when he writes his full report due to be published later this year. Some observers felt he was indirectly pointing a finger at the CIA, which has been involved in training Afghans for counter insurgency. But the fact is there are other unnamed US intelligence agencies operating in Afghanistan, as well as Britain’s MI6 and SAS.
Prof. Alston told reporters there were large numbers of raids for which no state or military appeared to take responsibility.
“I have spoken to a large number of people in relation to the operation of foreign intelligence units. I don’t want to name them but they are at the most senior level of the relevant places. These forces operate with what appears to be impunity,” he added, and pointed to a raid in which two Afghan brothers were killed by soldiers operating out of a US Special Forces base. He also made mention of an Afghan group called Shaheen that functioned from a place under US control.
Just as in Iraq, there is a war being conducted in the shadows that does not come under the traditional military chain of command. It is run by intelligence agencies like the CIA but also by other groups that have a highly classified role tied to the Defense Department and the Ministry of Defence in London. As a rule, the military chain of command does not like the fact that operations are carried out without its approval by groups not tied to the military structure. For example, during the British army’s recent war against the IRA, generals became concerned about the activities of secret intelligence units that ran terrorist agents. Some agents carried out extra-judicial assassinations using targeted information provided by their intelligence handlers. In other instances, members of secret units carried out killings that were not attributed to them. The regular military chain of command did not approve of that form of warfare but had no authority to rein it in.
The shadowy war against Al Qaeda and the Taliban is an inevitable part of counter-insurgency in modern conflict but the Professor says he has evidence it lacks proper operational control. Therefore, those running are not accountable and feel they have immunity to do what they wish. He also believes it is claiming the lives of too many innocent civilians and that NATO has been turning a blind eye to the issue. His experience shows that the slaughter of innocents provides the enemy with propaganda and alienates the civilian population.
He was just as scathing about the Taliban and what he called other anti-government elements that were responsible for the majority of unlawful killings. In his opinion, it was time for people concerned with human rights to bring more pressure to bear on the Taliban to end their campaign of wanton and brutal murders and the routine use of suicide bombers. He was dismissive of those who said talking to the Taliban provided them with legitimacy.
“The Taliban exist, they are engaged in widespread killings; we have an obligation not to stand on formalities, but to seek to diminish civilian casualties and killings,” he told reporters
The Afghan police were not spared his critical view of the failure of the Afghan government to protect the right of its own people.
“The police are the face of the government. If they serve and protect the people the government will have legitimacy. If they extort, intimidate and kill, the government will have no legitimacy,” he warned.
He also derided the Afghan government for providing judicial impunity for the “wealthy and powerful” a clear reference to the fact that in such a corrupt society wealthy tribal and militia leaders are rarely held accountable for their actions, or for the actions of those close to them or under their command.
Prof. Alston’s observations and indictment of “foreign Intelligence agencies,” as well as the Afghan government and police, couldn’t have come at a worse time for the mainly US led war in Afghanistan. What will now worry NATO and its Afghan allies is whether more controversial revelations will surface when he publishes his full report later this year.

BURMA'S JUNTA DEVOID OF COMPASSION

With tens of thousands dead and dying following the cyclone in Burma, now called Myanmar by its military leaders, it came as no shock to international rights groups that those same leaders appeared unmoved by the tragedy. Despite calls from world leaders and the UN to allow aid and aid workers to flow into the country the Burmese junta closed its nations’ borders to outsiders, especially the international media. When some aid arrived in the country generals put their names on it to convince the people it was a gift from them.
Burma was controversially named the Union of Myanmar by the junta in 1989 but it has really been a place apart since the military seized power in 1962 and eradicated all forms of dissent. A member of the Asian Human Rights Commission, who uses the pen name Awzar Twi, has provided the most telling description of what the country has become under the leadership of nineteen military figures:
“The gap between the haves and have-nots has grown so wide in the past few years that there are now said to be only two classes – those who have so much stuff they don’t know where to put it, and those who don’t eat.”
In recent years, “those who have so much stuff they don’t know where to put it,” have moved much of their private wealth into offshore accounts and into banks in places like Singapore and Hong Kong. The wives, children and relatives of the generals in power often travel abroad to buy the latest fashions and gamble in casinos. Most of them live in the largest city, Rangoon, now called Yangon by the junta, because it has a vibrant social scene and the largest mansions in the country. Gossip columns in Rangoon often describe the opulent lifestyles of the rich while the rest of the country lives below the poverty line. The population numbers 48.5 million and life expectancy is listed by the UN at 59 years for men and 65 for women and those figures are regarded as top of the range.
Any attempt to question the will of the military is suppressed and only the very rich have access to television. The media is so tightly controlled defeats by the national soccer team are not allowed to be reported. Anyone caught listening to BBC World Service or Voice of America is likely to be arrested. The junta fears democracy and rigs elections to keep its control on power. When it permitted free elections in 1990, Aung San Su Kyi and her democracy party won a landslide victory, which the junta quickly overturned. Since then Su Kyi, who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, has been held under house arrest. They generals and their aides run everything from major industries to drug trafficking and the export of wood. They have been accused of widespread human rights crimes including the use and movement of forced labor, the promotion of child labor and the torture and killing of thousands of dissidents, including students and Buddhist monks.
An example of their love of the high life was exposed in 2006 when General Than Shwe, 75, the junta leader, held a lavish wedding party for his daughter. A ten minute video clip of the event ended up on You Tube and caused a sensation inside and outside the country when it was revealed that aside from the opulence on show, the bride received gifts totaling at least $50 million. That home video also provided a rare glimpse of General Shwe decked out in extravagant military dress, sporting a huge bunch of glittering medals.
Over the years, he has avoided being photographed; creating the impression he is a reclusive figure. It is public knowledge that he and his fellow generals are highly superstitious, a personality trait found in many dictators throughout history. His superstition may relate to a real fear that at any time the country or some of those around him, will revolt and demand his head. He frequently consults astrologers and it was his idea to build a new capital called Niypyidaw, which has been described as a capital without a population, resembling an outrageously expensive folly.
Like the other military figures who make up the junta, he has an obvious paranoia that the outside world may somehow corrupt the junta’s powerbase. As a consequence, he and his sidekicks have created a society very much like the Rumania of Nicolai Ceausescu and Russia under Stalin. When the cyclone hit, it was clear the junta feared that allowing US and other foreign aid workers to enter the country risked “contamination” – that democracy would somehow find its way into the body politic through the basic interaction between the Burmese people and foreigners.
In the past year, Washington has tried to encourage the international community to isolate the junta but that is easier said than done. Burma’s neighbors, China and India have been reprimanded for being silent about the plight of the Burmese people. The French, especially the oil company, Total, have been heavily criticized in the past for working with the junta to develop oil and gas throughout the country. In Europe, there were claims France deliberately blocked EU measures aimed at isolating the junta. But, unless India and China put an economic squeeze on the generals it is unlikely a cyclone and the deaths of tens of thousands will weaken their control on power.
One group that has found a unique, if not questionable way to embarrass the junta, is “Panties for Peace” based in Thailand. It is composed of women activists who have used the internet to encourage women worldwide to send panties to General Shwe and his colleagues. The tactic is predicated on the belief that the generals are not only superstitious but have promoted rape by their military as a tactic to silence women. The “Panties for Peace” website explains its message as follows:
“Superstitious junta members believe that any contact with female undergarments – clean or dirty – will sap them of their power…..You can post, deliver or fling your panties at the closest Burmese embassy. Send early, send often.”
The site provides a long list of addresses of Burmese foreign missions across the globe and in the past year many of those missions have received packages from women. In many instances panties have been left outside “Union of Myanmar” embassies in cities like Washington DC.

CLUSTER BOMBS BAN PROBLEM FOR US MILITARY

This month an effort will be made by at least 90 countries to ratify a treaty ending the use of cluster bombs, but the U.S. and Israel, two nations that have most recently deployed cluster weapons, will not be at the conference table in the Irish capital, Dublin. The Russians and Chinese will not be there either but some of America’s allies like Britain, France and Germany will attend and if they sign the treaty it could negatively impact their joint military operations with the US in Afghanistan and Iraq.
A typical cluster weapon contain canisters with hundreds of explosive bomblets, each the size of a lemon. The canisters open in mid-air spraying a wide area with their deadly cargo. Whether they are dropped in artillery shells, bombs or missiles, they have high levels of inaccuracy and often fail to explode. As a result, unexploded bomblets can contaminate large swathes of land, killing innocent people decades after a conflict has ended. During the Vietnam War the US dropped an estimated 90 million bomblets on neighboring Laos. They were launched from B52s and in the decades since, 5,000 innocent men, women and children have been killed and many more have lost their limbs by handling or stepping on unexploded bomblets. The problem with trying to clear areas contaminated by cluster munitions is that the bomblets are so small and so widespread they are hard to find and do not deteriorate as a result of temperature or rain. In 1999, NATO dropped an estimated 200,000 bomblets during the Kosovo conflict. And, since the first Gulf War, several thousand Iraqis and Kuwaitis have been killed and maimed due to unexploded cluster munitions. More recently, the US has used the weapons in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Calls for a global treaty to ban cluster bombs have been ongoing for decades but gained momentum in 2007 when it was shown that Israel had cynically fired more than one million bomblets into Lebanon in the summer of 2006. The weapons were launched in artillery shells 72 hours before Israel agreed to a ceasefire in its short war with the Shiite guerilla army, Hezbollah. There was no apparent military value in launching the weapons and it was deemed by international human rights bodies to have been an act of revenge and a deliberate effort to contaminate large swathes of Lebanese land and villages close to the border with Israel so that people could not return to their homes.
An Israel military commander put it best in the Israel newspaper, Haaretz on September 12, 2006, when he declared: “What we did was insane and monstrous. We covered entire towns in cluster bombs.” According to him, the Israeli Defense Force fired 1,800 cluster bombs containing 1.2 million bomblets in the final days of the war. Haaretz also reported that phosphorous bombs, banned by international treaties, were also launched into Lebanon. The US was angered by Israel’s use of cluster weapons, all of which had been supplied by the US military as part of a regular supply of munitions to the IDF. It was clear to the State Department and Pentagon that Israel’s cynical firing of the cluster shells was bound to generate international outrage and provide the impetus for calls for a ban on cluster munitions and that is exactly what happened.
But even before the Israeli action, in March 2006, the Belgian government became the first country to pass legislation that made it criminal for its country’s banks to do business with companies involved in the manufacture of cluster weapons. The following year, the UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-Moon, appealed to Israel to provide maps of the areas in Lebanon it targeted with cluster weapons. To this day, Israel has refused that request, as well as pleas for help from mine clearing times in Lebanon, even though unexploded bomblets have killed dozens of innocent civilians and injured or maimed over 200.
The dynamics for a treaty to ban the weapons worldwide took shape in February 2007 in Oslo, Norway, when 46 countries took the unusual step of declaring that:
"We prohibit the use, production, transfer and stockpiling of cluster munitions that cause unacceptable harm to civilians and we aim to establish a framework for cooperation and assistance that ensures adequate provision of care and rehabilitation to survivors and their communities, clearance of contaminated areas, risk education and destruction of stockpiles of prohibited cluster munitions."
There are approximately 34 countries that make the weapons and prominent among them are the US, Russia and China but none of them is keen to get rid of its massive stockpiles of cluster bombs. For the US, however, the prospect of a Treaty signed by European allies, most of them members of NATO, could pose serious military issues in Afghanistan and Iraq, and in any future conflict in which the US may seek to use its cluster munitions. Should Britain, France, Germany and, as is likely, as well other EU nations sign up to a ban in Dublin later this month that could prove complicated when troops from NATO nations are asked to fight alongside US soldiers in war zones where the US military has authority to use cluster bombs.
The treaty will demand that signatories should not take part in joint military operations with any nation engaged in the use of cluster weapons. That could mean that NATO nations like Britain may soon be required to order its troops not to take part in certain types of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan where cluster munitions are going to be used by US units.
The US has remained silent on the issue but it is one that is certainly not going to vanish. On the contrary, after Dublin there may be more pressure on the US to end its use of cluster bombs in situations where it is operating alongside many of its European allies like the British, French, Norwegians, Germans, Danes and Belgians to name but a few.

IRAQ: VIOLENCE AGAINST FEMALES ON THE RISE

While the US military “Surge” in Iraq has limited insurgent attacks in some parts of the country it has done little to halt “honor killings” or the rape of teenage girls and women. If First Lady Laura Bush’s claim that the fight against terrorism is also a fight for the rights and dignity of women it appears that battle has been lost in Iraq and in Afghanistan.
In Iraq particular, “honor killings” and rape have become more widespread. Near Basra a 17-year-old girl was stabbed to death by her father because he believed she was infatuated with a British soldier. A 19-year-old was taken to a rural spot by her relatives and then beaten before being shot seven times because she had an unknown number on her cell phone. Last year, a killing that caused outrage was the public stoning to death of a girl by members of her tribe because she had dared fall in love with an outsider. It was estimated that almost 2,000 men from her tribe attended her beating and stoning and photos of the killing were captured on cell phones and later found their way to Internet sites.
In southern Iraqi cities like Basra, where Shiite militias dominate life, women are regularly murdered for not conforming to Islamic dress codes. Often they are beheaded and their bodies left on the street for people to see. The killings are carried out under the guise of Islamic Sharia Law and no effort is being made by the authorities to bring the culprits to justice.
In the Kurdish north of the country a government appointed unit was set up to investigate acts of violence against women but in many respects engrained cultural mores continue to limit prospects for change. In one instance, a father murdered his 12-year-old daughter because he suspected she was involved with an older neighbor. The increasing brutality against females young and old stands in stark contrast to the statement of President Bush in 2004, the year after the invasion of Iraq, when he declared that the “advance of freedom” had given women hope and new rights in the Middle East. He said the use of rape, which was prevalent during the Saddam era, had ended with the American occupation. Nothing was further from the truth. Rape is now one of the most under reported crimes against girls and women in Iraq. As of 2008, the overall plight of women in Iraq and also in Afghanistan has worsened, yet during the secular rule of Saddam Hussein Iraqi women were regarded as the most liberated in the Arab world and many were leading professionals both in business and education. A 1959 family statute gave them equal property and custody rights in divorce disputes and also allowed them to petition the courts if their husbands abused them. All of that changed with the fall of Saddam. Suddenly, the door opened to Shiite domination with the ever increasing specter of religious intolerance and a strict application of Islamic codes, many of which have their genesis in the religious domination of Iranian political life. Iraqi women, however, have quickly found themselves in a worse position than their Iranian counterparts because militias are enforcing Islamic codes while the central government in Baghdad displays little appetite for curbing strict adherence to Sharia Law.
Shiite militias are not alone in killing women. According to women’s rights organizations in the country, Sunni insurgents are just as likely to engage in honor killings. At the core of the problem is the Iranian influence with its roots in the Iranian Revolution, which led to the rise of the Ayatollah Khomeini and subsequently the over arching role of clerics. Many of Iraq’s current leaders have close links to Iran and greater allegiance to Iranian values than American concepts of justice and freedom.
One group that has sought to highlight the plight of women is the OWFI – Organization for Women’s Freedom in Iraq. When it wrote to the Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki several months ago, it described what women faced in just the southern part of the country, which it described as “no woman zones” “totally under the grip” of Islamist parties:
“Female physical appearance is not acceptable in the streets, educational institutions, or at work places. Although veiled and passive, death awaits women around street corners, in the market, and visits them inside their homes daily in the city of Basra. Although the top police official announced that 15 women are killed in the city of Basra every month, the hired ambulance drivers disclose that they pick up many bodies early every morning as they are paid to "clean" the streets. Since the 2003 occupation of Iraq, these cities were open land to "Propagation of Virtue and Prevention of Vice- PVPV" Islamist militant squads, gangs and individuals. These groups have increased over the few years to positions of governmental officials, institutions, militias, self-appointed vigilantes and hired guns. They guard the university gateways from "evil" unveiled women. They crack down on mixed gatherings of students. They also detain disobedient students in assigned detainment and torture rooms. When a woman is killed, the only given justification is that she was promiscuous or adulterous. While in fact, the top of the female death toll list is occupied by PhD holders, professionals, activists, regular office workers, and then prostitutes. This PVPV campaign terrorizes the female population so as to restrain women into the domestic domain and end all female participation from the social and political scene.” According to the OWFI, as many as 4,000 women and girls have disappeared since the US invasion and many of them may have been trafficked into prostitution outside the country.
The true horror of the violence against young girls can best be seen in the brutal killing of 11-year-old Sara Jaffar Nimat in Kurdistan last August. She was beaten and stoned to death before her body was burned and dumped in an abandoned building. All evidence pointed to an honor killing. In many instances, families of victims like fifth-grader Sara are reluctant to claim the bodies of their children.
In the midst of all the talk about the surge it is easy to forget that the invasion of Iraq unleashed the potential for a society that may eventually be dominated by religious fanatics who see females as mere chattels. And for all the talk about freedom, it seems women in Afghanistan too have little to cheer when President Bush and his First Lady claim the war on terror has improved their rights and dignity.

OIL AND CONFLICT SPELL RECESSION

As soaring oil prices bring recession closer to American consumers, the fact that much of our oil comes from unstable parts of the globe means things can only get worse in the months and years ahead.
A stark example of how conflict impacts the oil market and the US economy was the decline on Wall Street when oil recently jumped to $117 a barrel following an attack by rebels on two Shell pipelines in the Niger Delta. As a result, oil exports from Nigeria dropped by 162,000 barrels a day of light crude, the type most favored by US refineries.
Nigeria is the fourth largest exporter of light crude and petroleum to the US and each time rebels attack oil platforms, seize foreign workers or blow up pipelines, the international markets panic and prices increase. Conflict zones like Nigeria are now having a bigger impact on increasing oil prices because overall global demand has increased and the dollar is at an all time low. Therefore, when oil output from Iraq, Nigeria or Sudan is shut off or reduced by terrorism or internal civil strife the price of oil soars. Two factors that made oil costlier this past year were Russia’s decision to cut back because of a lack of investment and China’s massive increase in usage over the past 18 months with an 8% increase in March alone.
If one looks at the latest figures for US oil and petroleum imports, the top ten countries we rely on are as follows in order of importance:
1. Crude: Canada, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Nigeria, Venezuela, Iraq, Angola, Kuwait, Columbia and Ecuador.
2. Petroleum: Canada, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Nigeria, Venezuela, Iraq, Russia, Angola, Virgin Islands and Algeria.

NB: In February, 2008, the US imported from Nigeria and Iraq close to 2 million barrels a day of crude and 2 million barrels a day of petroleum.

When there is a stoppage in supplies from troubled countries like Nigeria, Iraq, Angola, Algeria or Columbia, the US is forced to seek other suppliers and inevitably pays higher prices that are then passed on to the consumer. This feature of the ongoing damage to the US economy from our reliance on foreign oil is nothing new. In his State of the Union speech in 2006, President Bush remarked that our dependence on foreign energy sources posed a major security challenge because oil was “often imported from unstable countries.” Before he made those remarks he was aware that Nigeria in particular was becoming increasingly violent due to endemic corruption that had led to the disappearance of almost one trillion dollars in oil revenues over several decades and the failure of major oil companies like Shell to treat the environment with respect. For example, National Geographic painted what has become one of the starkest portraits of Nigeria. The author was Tom O’Neill:
“Oil fouls everything in southern Nigeria. It spills from the pipelines, poisoning soil and water. It stains the hands of politicians and generals, who siphon off its profits. It taints the ambitions of the young, who will try anything to scoop up a share of the liquid riches—fire a gun, sabotage a pipeline, kidnap a foreigner……. Dense, garbage-heaped slums stretch for miles. Choking black smoke from an open-air slaughterhouse rolls over housetops. Streets are cratered with potholes and ruts. Vicious gangs roam school grounds. Peddlers and beggars rush up to vehicles stalled in gas lines. This is Port Harcourt, Nigeria's oil hub, capital of Rivers state, smack-dab in the middle of oil reserves bigger than the United States' and Mexico's combined.”
That description of Nigeria sitting atop massive reserves of oil and gas reserves and a human garbage heap points to a volatile future in which heavily armed gangs like MEND – Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta - continue to attack oil facilities in the Niger Delta in order to force out foreign companies. When the West looks at countries like Nigeria, there must be military planners envisaging a scenario when it may be necessary for the US and its allies to send in troops to protect the oil supply as oil becomes a scarce commodity.
China’s role in the oil crisis is now clear but it has taken the Bush administration longer than some of its predecessors to recognize the growing role of China in Africa where some of the world’s largest gas and oil reserves are still waiting to be tapped. Beijing has demonstrated in its dealing with the Sudanese regime, which has overseen the genocide in Darfur, that it cares little about the nature of the regimes it does business with as long as those regimes cater for China’s insatiable appetite for energy, wood and minerals.
On the world stage, the major oil suppliers are not necessarily countries the US can rely on in the longer term and some are downright hostile towards America. According to BP Global the top ten oil reserves are in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Venezuela, Russia, Kazakhstan, Libya and Nigeria.
If Iraq, as now seems likely, becomes dominated by Shiites, who feel closer to their co-religionists in Iraq than their American liberators, the Bush Administration will effectively have created a major oil block that could at some time in the future shut off supplies to the United States. Then there is Russia that has begun to use its massive energy supplies in tandem with his foreign policy, a factor that could someday bring it into conflict with the US. Libya has recently become an ally on the war on terror and has signed deals with major US oil companies. It has even paid lobbyists in Washington to try to prevent Congress enacting laws that would give victims of terrorism the right to seize Libyan assets as compensation. Libya is, however, run by a fickle leader who could, at a whim, eject the American oil companies he is now courting. Like Libya, Venezuela, which holds massive oil reserves, also has a fickle leader who has helped generate anti-American sentiment through Latin America. And our reliance over decades on Arab, especially Saudi Arabia has come at a heavy price, leading to the fact that most of the hijackers of 9/11 were Saudis. They emerged from Wahabbism, the extreme form of Islam that wealthy, petrol dollar Saudis promoted throughout the Middle East, Pakistan and Indonesia.
All in all, our dependence on foreign oil will continue to be problematic for our economy and our national security. Some might argue that the time has come for the nation that put the first man on the moon to be the first to develop alternative energy sources that will eradicate our reliance on a black gold that is fuelling conflict across the globe. As gas prices rise higher than most Americans ever though they would there will be a clamor for change and this time Washington lawmakers may have to act rather than nod.