Vast areas near the occupied Dead Sea are closed off by Israel as “military area” (Who Profits, October 2010)

WhoProfits, a research project of the Coalition of Women for Peace, has documented corporate plunder of natural resources in the occupied West Bank. For example, Israeli cosmetics firm Ahava’s extraction of mud from the occupied Palestinian Dead Sea and HeidelbergCement and Cemex’s role in operating quarries in the West Bank. HeidelbergCement and Cemex headquarters are based in Germany and Mexico, respectively.

Last September, the Open Society Institute published the updated “Corporate War Crimes, Prosecuting the Pillage of Natural Resources,” a manual written by law professor James G. Stewart. The manual is useful for lawyers, rights organizations and Palestine solidarity activists to explore options to hold business representatives to account for their role in the plunder of Palestinian natural resources.

Natural resources in the West Bank are owned by the Palestinian people

Sovereignty over natural resources and the right to self-determination are closely tied. The Palestinian people unquestionably have the right to self-determination. The League of Nations already affirmed this right in 1917 and the International Court of Justice (ICJ) did so in its 2004 authoritative legal opinion on Israel’s wall built on occupied Palestinian land. The ICJ also found that “Israel is bound to comply with its obligation to respect the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and its obligations under international humanitarian law and international human rights law.”

The UN General Assembly declared that sovereignty over natural wealth and resources is a “basic constituent of the right to self-determination” by adopting Resolution 1803 in 1962. The UN Security Council affirmed peoples’ rights to natural resources on several occasions.

By granting companies permits to extract natural resources in the occupied Palestinian territories for the benefit of Israel and the companies, Israel disregards its international obligations. Moreover, Ahava, HeidelbergCement and Cemex have conscientiously requested Israel army’s civic administration – the occupying power – for permission, instead of the owners – the Palestinians.

Ahava, HeidelbergCement and Cemex extract Palestinian natural resources

WhoProfits has documented the extraction of Palestinian natural resources by Israeli cosmetics firm Ahava and multinational building materials industries HeidelbergCement and Cemex.

Ahava operates an excavation site on the shores of the occupied Dead Sea to extract mud for its products. In a letter of 26 April 2011, the Israeli army’s civic administration informedWho Profits that it had granted Ahava a license for operating a site for collecting mud from the occupied area of the Dead Sea for commercial uses. Ahava received the license in 2004 and has been operating the excavation site ever since. The company is selling its products containing stolen Dead Sea minerals in Ahava flagship stores in Germany, Hungary, the Philippines, Korea and Singapore.

The multinational building materials industries HeidelbergCement and Cemex from Germany and Mexico, respectively, are involved in the operation of quarries in the occupied West Bank.

HeidelbergCement’s subsidiary Hanson Israel operates the Nahal Raba quarry in the West Bank near the green line — Israel’s internationally-recognized boundary with the occupied West Bank — and Kfar Qasim, a Palestinian village in Israel.

Cemex owns fifty percent of Yatir Quarry through its subsidiary ReadyMix Industries. The Yatir quarry lies next to the Israeli settlement of Teneh Omarim in the south Hebron hills of the West Bank.

In May 2011, The Electronic Intifada documented the transportation of construction material from Yatir and Nahal Raba quarries in the occupied West Bank into Israel.

International law prohibits plundering of natural resources

In his manual, Stewart writes that the laws of war protect property against pillage during armed conflict. In the Hague Regulations of 1907, two provisions stipulate that “the pillage of a town or place, even when taken by assault, is prohibited,” and that “pillage is formally forbidden.” According to an interpretation by Julius Stone, “wasteful or negligent destruction of the capital value, whether by excessive cutting or mining or other abusive exploitation” by the occupying state in the territory it occupies is “contrary to the rules of good husbandry,” Stone is recognized internationally for his expertise in international law. In addition, the Geneva Conventions of 1949 reaffirmed that “pillage is prohibited.” 

ICJ sets important precedent in case of illegal occupation of Namibia by apartheid South Africa

The South African apartheid regime illegally occupied Namibia for decades. The ICJ set an important precedent in its 1971 Advisory Opinion on South Africa’s presence in Namibia. Stewart refers to the Namibia Opinion in his manual by quoting the Court’s conclusion, “[O]fficial acts performed by the Government of South Africa on behalf of or concerning Namibia after the termination of the Mandate are illegal and invalid, this invalidity cannot be extended to those acts, such as, for instance, the registration of births, deaths and marriages, the effects of which can be ignored only to the detriment of the inhabitants of the Territory.” Therefore, attempts by the apartheid South African regime to grant title in Namibian natural resources were “illegal and invalid,” because the expropriation of natural resources is not analogous with registering births, deaths, and marriages.

Moreover, one of the judges on the case explicitly confirmed this interpretation in a separate opinion by adding that “other States should not regard as valid any acts and transactions of the authorities in Namibia relating to public property, concessions, etc.” The UN Security Council and United Nations Council for Namibia, later confirmed this view.

Palestinian natural resources exploited for the benefit of Israel and companies

Stewart presents in his manual also the argument that non-renewable resources can be exploited by an occupying army, provided that the money from these sales is spent exclusively on the humanitarian needs of the local population.

However, this is certainly not the case with Heidelberg Cement and Cemex. The Israeli daily Haaretz reported that Israel’s state comptroller revealed in its annual report for 2005, that although any royalties from the quarries should be used for the benefit of the Palestinian population, they were paid into the Israeli state treasury instead (“Digging up the dirt,” 3 September 2010).

In the case of Ahava, part of the profit will directly flow into the settlements of Mitzpeh Shalem and Kalia. The kibbutzes in these illegal settlements in the West Bank own 37% and 7,5% of Ahava, respectively.

Israel accelerates exploitation of Palestinian quarries after it occupied the West Bank

Stepping up the extraction of natural resources in war zones or conflict areas is a characteristic of the war crime of pillage. Until the early 1970s only two Palestinian quarries had existed in the area, according to Haaretz. The Israeli daily reports that Israel’s stone and gravel quarries in the West Bank came into operation in the early 1970s.

Israel’s plundering drew the attention of the UN General Assembly in 2010, expressing “its concern at the exploitation by Israel of the natural resources of the Occupied Palestinian Territory,” and called upon Israel “not to exploit, cause loss or depletion of or endanger the natural resources in the OPT.” It also recognized the right of the Palestinian people to claim restitution as a result of any exploitation, loss or depletion of, or danger to, their natural resources.

Business representatives can be held to account for plundering

Criminal courts are capable of prosecuting business representatives for pillage perpetrated during the course of commercial activities in a conflict zone, writes Stewart in his manual. After the Second World War, the Nuremberg Tribunal ruled that “[i]nternational law… binds every citizen just as does ordinary municipal law.” The Tribunal concluded that crimes against international law “are committed by men, not by abstract entities,” to ensure that the corporate structure did not shield business representatives from individual criminal liability. It contributed to broad consensus that the laws of war bind individuals.

Stewart argues that perpetrating, aiding, and abetting or instigating pillage of natural resources renders individual business representatives guilty of a war crime. He mentions that for example Germany, home country of HeidelbergCement, the 2002 Code of Crimes against International Law states that “Whoever in connection with an international armed conflict or with an armed conflict not of an international character pillages or, unless this is imperatively demanded by the necessities of the armed conflict, otherwise extensively destroys, appropriates or seizes property of the adverse party contrary to international law, such property being in the power of the perpetrator’s party, shall be punished with imprisonment from one to ten years.”

The boycott, divestment and sanctions movement has exposed the complicity of a number of multinational corporations in the Israeli occupation, alerting investors to the incompatibility with corporate social responsibility. In addition, Ahava has been targeted by the movement with protests and a boycott and protests.

The manual “Corporate War Crimes, Prosecuting the Pillage of Natural Resources” provides an additional tool. It can be used by lawyers, rights organizations and Palestine solidarity activists to explore options to hold business representatives to account for their role in the plunder of Palestinian natural resources.

First published at The Electronic Intifada.

AUTHOR: Adri Nieuwhof
URL: http://www.samora.org
E-MAIL: a.nieuwhof [at] samora.org

According to the Law Enforcement Examiner source, none of the military commanders have any plans of recognizing the Turkish court’s authority over them and the Israeli government refuses to even comment on these indictments.

Relations between Turkey and Israel have been tense since Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) special forces soldiers raided the Mavi Marmara aid vessel in May 2010 to enforce a naval blockade of the Gaza Strip and killed nine Turks in clashes with activists on board the ship.

According to several reports, the activists were intent on causing a confrontation between members of Free Gaza and the Israeli authorities.

The Turkish indictment alleges that Chief of General Staff Gabi Ashkenazi who recently retired from active duty, and three senior military commanders ordered the raid on the Mavi Marmara, according to state news agency Anatolian said on its web site.

Turkey had previously said it would try to prosecute all Israelis responsible for alleged crimes committed during the raid and the prosecutor had written to the Israeli government to obtain the identities of all IDF members involved in the operation. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu refused to comply.

In June 2010, the group known as Free Gaza sponsored a flotilla from Turkey that engaged in deadly clashes with Israeli special forces troops and among the Free Gaza members were Weather Underground founders William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn as well as Jodie Evans, the leader of the radical activist organization Code Pink.

Ayers and Dohrn were close associates of President Obama during his Chicago years, while Code Pink’s leader Evans was a fundraiser and financial bundler for Obama’s presidential campaign. In fact, one of Obama’s fundraisers was held in the home of Ayers and Dohrn.

“Ayers’ and Dohrn’s continued activities appear to elude the attention of the people responsible for reporting the news without bias. These two are terrorists, plain and simple, so why would anyone be surprised to discover their connection to an anti-Semitic organization that supports terror groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah and al-Qaeda?” asks former New York Police detective Michael Snopes.

The passengers reportedly included 100-plus members of various Muslim Brotherhood chapters, at least 20 of whom taped al Qaeda-style “martyr” videos before embarking, according to terrorist expert Steve Emerson, founder of The Investigative Project on Terrorism.

AUTHOR: Jim Kouri
URL: http://www.renewamerica.com/
E-MAIL: COPmagazine [at] aol.com

“While diplomats argued over details of Annan’s peace plan, Syrian tanks and helicopters attacked one town in Idlib after another,” said Anna Neistat, associate director for program and emergencies at Human Rights Watch.

Human Rights Watch documented large-scale military operations that government forces conducted between March 22 and April 6, 2012, in opposition strongholds in Idlib governorate, causing the death of at least 95 civilians. In each attack, government security forces used numerous tanks and helicopters.
In nine separate incidents documented by HRW, government forces executed 35 civilians in their custody. The majority of executions took place during the attack on Taftanaz, a town of about 15,000 inhabitants northeast of Idlib city on April 3 and 4.

In several other cases documented by HRW, government forces opened fire and killed or injured civilians trying to flee the attacks.Upon entering the towns, government forces and shabeeha (pro-government militias) also burned and destroyed a large number of houses, stores, cars, tractors, and other property.

AUTHOR: Martin Hijmans
URL: http://the-pessoptimist.blogspot.com/
E-MAIL: m.hijmans [at] planet.nl

Introduction

The jarring silence of the Surinamese civility speaks volumes, and predicates the disequilibrium between the different arenas in Suriname. Linz and Stepan (1996) among others demonstrate that all arenas must work in tandem-like structure to make democracy work. Before going into to detail, to explain the reasons behind the dysfunctioning of the Surinamese civility. I want to address the current situation, the events leading up to the calling of an amnesty law to expunge crimes committed against humanity. There are several scenarios here that spring to mind, but one stands foreground, the fact that the incumbent government took its time to groom the people for the enactment of this amnesty law; The president from the beginning worked toward nullification of the proceedings, using religion and his spiritual guru to do his dirty laundry. His silence, his absence from public life, while all kinds of political allies were locked in bitter arguments, could occur because some of civil society turned their backs, while other continued to give government the benefit of the doubt. Many people simply wanted nothing to do with politics, arguing that the people had chosen, and there was nothing they could do.

Many people also felt that for them a repetition of 2000 was not an option, toppling the government to bring back the old nomenclature. In Februari 2012, the Surinamese society looked forward to a reshuffle in government. This was not announced by the president, but leaked to the press by undisclosed sources. Some ministers went as far as clearing out their offices, but nothing happened. All these events coincided with the damning testimony of Mr. Ruben Rozendaal, the fact that his (second) testimony placed Mr Bouterse smack in the middle of the 8 December 1982 massacres.

The proposal of the amnesty law only stirred public opinion, its enactment brought the civil society in Suriname to the streets. Many observers ask if its not a day late and a dollar short. To answer this question one needs to go back to the genesis of Surinamese civil society.

The origins of Civility in Suriname

The Surinamese civil society is very diverse, affable and preemptive. These qualities stem from their genesis, their original rooting in religious organisations, churches, temples and mosques. This type of civil organisation is the oldest and the most stable form of organization in the country; at one point in history, the only type of organization allowed. Through religious organization, membership of workers organization became kindled, with the stipulation that people had to operate within the confines of the doctrine always serving the good of the umbrella organization, the higher order.

The role of specifically the churches, became less relevant during the middle of the 1900s, when political parties incorporated workers unions into their organization, to ensure a steady cash-flow from dues paying members. The ethnification of the political landscape in the 1950s brought on a shift in the civility, rather its subordination to first the ethnic and second to the political. A large segments of the civility, specifically the segment that catered to the upper middle classes, drew a stark line between their activities, being active in charities, social functions and networking, and the political, shunning the political arena because of its quagmire qualities and its folksy appeal.

The lacuna left by the notable absence of the civility, rather the fact that it declined to become a watchdog, and credible sparing partner to help push democracy forward, has negatively impacted society. The silence of the civility and their adversity and denial of the political arena bled through the younger generations. The younger generations too shunned politics, based on the contention that not getting involved in politics, in the dirty games, infighting and cronyism would keep them out of trouble.

The vicious circle that manifested itself because lack of civil courage to demand change from the political arena, to go out and vote and punish political parties for their (in)action at the ballot. During the 1950s and early 1960s ethnic political parties indeed benefited from this absence of this specific type of civility, but as the late 1960s downed, a new type of civility emerged, one that came to life to challenge the status quo.

This new of civility, consisted primarily of intellectuals and workers, tied together by a common goal, to change or transform government, to demand more social equality and economic justice. This specific civility was in part closely connected to the nationalist party, PNR. This party acquired its raison d’etre from the fact that it could preemptively take action, and keep government for ransom. The traditional civility felt that this type of social action too fell out of their realm and again they distanced themselves from the working classes, the nationalists and the trade union.

All of that changed when in the fall of 1981 the military recanted on their promise to retreat from civilian life. Also problematic was the fact that extreme leftist parties entered the political arena, setting out to transform the Surinamese society into a Cuban style socialist Nirvana. Repression proliferated to all spheres of society, fueling distrust up to the point of paranoia and hysteria as society became inundated by spies and snitchers. The shift to the left by the military, transformed the Surinamese social landscape, making class as a cleavage more prominent than ethnicity. From that point on the conflict changed, together with the part of the civil society, where the middle classes had been over-represented. The culture of fear that manifested itself, however did deter the middle classes, lawyers and other intellectuals (zie earlier postings on their stance) and students all took the street protesting against the military and the decay of democracy.

What rekindled civil courage? The fact that the conflict in society no longer became determined by race, but by class. Relevant is that the military appealed to specific social categories instead of racial categories, which in a sense objectified the conflict. The middle classes staunchly opposed ideas of a Socialist Nirvana, and the military and their allies fought back, calling this specific social categories not only ‘rich’ but also adepts of colonialism, the Netherlands (and later the CIA).

Civility and Civil Courage 1987-1999

The return of democracy and consecutive, the old nomenclature, the traditional ethnic parties, again brought on a watershed. As Donald Horowitz (1985) writes, in ethnic societies all actions have an ethnic consequence. The middle classes recalibrated, mimicking the ethnic fissures of the Surinamese society. I argue, also based on Horowitz (ibid) that ethnification in Suriname, in fact marginalized the civil society, by subjecting it to the ethnic (political) cartel. This explains the retreat, back to obscurity and silence. This pattern repeats itself, when in 1996, the party led by the former military comes to power, winning the elections with the support of the disenfranchised and the victims of austerity.

The weak foundation of the ethnic party system now becomes more pronounced, because they lost the elections due to lack of communication with the public. For example, Nieuw Front failed to mention to the general public that without austerity, bankruptcy would have been eminent. “People want some light in their lives and president is a gloomy, silent figure” remarked one observer. Other observers attributed the regime change to the fact that certain Hindustani hardliners challenged the preponderance of the Creoles the fact that they had delivered the president and had occupied some key-posts. “No more” said Mrs Marijke Jawalapersad, “we want what is ours and we will not back down”, a stance that led to a split in the coalition, giving the party of the military the upper hand in parliament.

The absence of the civil society in the previous described situation, reverberates the divorce from the civility from political life, specifically from what they call the dirty side of politics. The fight over position and status, is viewed with disdain and disgust. People argue that many politicians use politics and the state resources to acquire personal wealth and divorce themselves from the political. The adverse effect of their reaction, is that politicians feel that they can do everything, constantly pushing the envelope, betting on the public silence rather public docility.

But as long as their existence is not threatened, the civil society continues to function behind the scenes. In 2000 again they came to the streets demanding the resignation of President Wijdenbos, after it became clear that a huge sell-out of Surinamese companies, the tropical rain forest was ensuing, all in the name of economic reform and restructuring. I will not go into details about this conflict, because there is a lot that needs to be researched first. What I do argue in this instance is that the traditional parties in Suriname, used the civil society to send government home, and then resorted to snatch away their power, by taking the fight to parliament.

Civil Strength and Civil Courage Today

The disillusionment over the events of 2000, the fact that the traditional parties used the middle classes to get the power fueled the notions in the middle classes that ‘politics is a dirty game’. The fact that the ethnic parties operate as closed bulwarks feeds into the aforementioned image. The civil society between 2000-2010 although dissatisfied with government, did not demand reform or change. Instead they tried to resolve the lacuna left open by weak government themselves. For example increasing criminality led to a deluge in private security agencies; shop owners hired armed security guards to protect their shops; private charities and NGO’s took care of the sick, the orphaned, the elderly and the needy. The civil society again abstained from the balloting in 2010, helping in fact the incumbency to gain a majority in the city and coastal districts except for one where Salim Somohardjo’s Javanese Pertjayah Luhur controls the ballots.

Conclusion

Did the civil society acted after the fact? Probably, but there are extenuating circumstances, such as the fact that many people feel divorced from the political arena, and the fact that many people fear possible repression, violence and possible run inns with the secret services. But like in Tunis and Syria where repression was more massive and wide-spread, people will get over that fear, shedding the burdens of the past culture of fear and building courage to continue this struggle to save democracy. Mr Bouterse has not threatened anybody and many people who came to the streets and to social media to bully the protesters did so on a personal title.

AUTHOR: Natascha Adama
URL: http://natascha23.blogspot.com
E-MAIL: nataliapestova23 [@] yahoo.com

The country’s International Crimes Tribunal issued arrest warrant for Azad on Apr. 2 for his alleged involvement with crimes against humanity committed in Faridpur, in the west of capital Dhaka during the bloody war of independence in 1971.

Meanwhile, elite police forces detained two sons and a brother-in-law of Azad for obstruction of justice and abetting the fugitive war crimes suspect to flee the country. They are being grilled by police.

The 64 year old Azad was described by war crimes investigators as henchman of marauding Pakistan army responsible for genocide of millions, sexual abuse of Hindu women and torching villages suspected for harboring guerillas.

Azad is accused for abduction, murder and missing of scores of pro-independence supporters. He was an accomplice of jailed Ali Ahsan Mohammad Mujaheed, leader of Islamist party Jamaat-e-Islami also charged with crime against humanity.

Only recently, Azad was a popular TV host of Islamic program. A Muslim evangelist had often travelled abroad including United States advocating for converting a pro-secular Bangladesh into an Islamic state and implementation of Sharia laws, a strict Islamic code.

AUTHOR: Saleem Samad
URL: http://bangladeshwatchdog.blogspot.com
E-MAIL: saleemsamad [at] hotmail.com

Desi Bouterse

Why is the Surinamese government so set on drafting a ‘new’ Amnesty law? Why are calls from the international community not to disturb the course of Justice ignored? But above all where is the Surinamese president, why has he remained silent, while he lets Madam House speaker dr. Jennifer Simons and other members of parliament defend this monstrosity? Is it because he wants to create an impression of a parliamentary democracy in full swing, or does he keep his distance because he said all that he had to say last week during a bogus protest meeting on the Independence Square? It is a known fact that the president doesn’t like parliament, during his time as an MP he was never present, always out on a loo, always avoiding what he calls “the chatter” (Dutch geouwehoer). But he needs parliament, he cannot stage a coup or declare a state of emergency, in a time of relative calm and peace. Mr Bouterse is fully aware that only in peace-time will he be able to make his agenda work, only in peacetime will he be able to protect his interests. But that doesn’t mean that he will continue to acquiesce if parliament fails to come up with new legislation to protect him and his allies from prosecution.

It is easy to argue that proposal for Amnesty was an ad hoc decision, made after Ruben Rozendaal started to spill the beans. Mr. Bouterse has done everything to avoid being put on trial, he has done everything to avoid accountability and responsibility for what happened on September 7 and 8, 1982. His explanations undermine the very nature of an army, a hierarchically organized tiered commando structure, that without an order of the commander-in-chief would not even move, let alone engage in executions of civilians. Mr Bouterse said that he was not present during the killings, but yet he fears judgement day.

His cabinet and coalition partners pleaded for reconciliation and a trued commission, like South Africa’s TRC. They omit the fact that the South Africans DID bring people to trial as a direct result of the hearings, Winnie Mandela a prominent ANC-member was punished for the killing of Stompie Serkei. The TRC are also about retribution, about removing the sense of impunity out of society to allow healing and reconciliation. Two pivotal aspects that are also overlooked are cost and technical expertise. Suriname lacks the legal experts to set up a TRC, people with ample knowledge on how to organize such an operation, and people with enough social dexterity to invoke trust and confidence in the public.

Indeed the Surinamese Judiciary is a respectable institution, its members upstanding citizens with ample experience, but there are other pressing matters that need addressing. A TRC will impede the daily routine of an already overburdened court system with a lot on its plate. Crime rates are high and the family court deals with a disproportionate number of cases of child and spousal abuse and child neglect. The courts will have a hard time usurping this extra, very complex task and gleaning from this reality, chances for a TRC to achieve its objectives are therefore virtually zero.

It is interesting to note that many people argued for a TRC without delving into its ramifications. The people arguing for a TRC are typically not the supporters of Mr. Bouterse, but people who feel that its time to move on, or that the killings received disproportionate attention because it concerned intellectuals and rich folk. Indeed, 8 december 1982, forefronted the deep class divide in Suriname, a divide that is also palpable in the current debate. And it is this divide that will hurt the chances for a TRC to become successful. The fact is that if the middle classes oppose amnesty or a TRC , the civil society which had been a crucial component in South Africa and other Latin American societies, will not participate.

It is apparent that Mr Bouterse and his allies have called for an amnesty law out to escape retribution. Mr Bouterse is convinced that amnesty will help keep him safe from prosecution. But the international community is adamant in their calls not to impede the justice system. As the second day of deliberations ensues, the chances for a change in opinion and voting by the members of the coalition diminish. Mr. Bouterse keeps many the MP’s of the NDP, for ransom, paying for cars, positions, trips and doling out cash and it is therefore unlikely that the number of Nay sayers will increase.

Suriname is on the cusp of becoming an authoritarian state in a continent where democracy is rapidly becoming the only game in town. It is inconceivable that Mr Bouterse will get away with this amnesty, but it will make the process to bring the people who committed crimes against humanities during the 1980s to justice more lengthy and arduous.

AUTHOR: Natascha Adama
URL: http://natascha23.blogspot.com
E-MAIL: nataliapestova23 [@] yahoo.com

Desi Bouterse tried to seek forgiveness through religion, becoming a devout, a devoutness not grounded in piety, but in the idea that prayer would bring absolution from sin. When the trial came the lawyers did their utmost to delay and defray the trial. At first the tactic of the defense team seemed to work; it helped mr. Bouterse to enter the 2010 electoral campaign without a worry in the world, making it possible for Mr. Bouterse to become president.

In vijf maanden verdiende Van Haperen, meldt Opgelicht, 60 duizend euro, maar bracht hij het toegezegde juridisch en financieel advies nooit uit. Als de gedupeerden hun geld terugvragen, ontvlucht Van Haperen zijn huis. De 70-jarige bejaarde Mimi Snoek, die haar spaargeld van 50 duizend euro wil beleggen en aan wie door Van Haperen een hoog rendement wordt beloofd, is aan de Costa Blanca ook één van zijn slachtoffers. Ze wacht echter nog steeds op haar geld, blijkt uit de uitzending. Nu duikt dezelfde Van Haperen (60) op in Paramaribo en is hij er in zijn eentje verantwoordelijk voor, dat het 8 decemberproces tegen Bouterse is geschorst. Want de man, die tijdens de decembermoorden in 1982 (toen 15 tegenstanders van het militaire regime werden geëxecuteerd) werkzaam zou zijn geweest voor de Nederlandse militaire inlichtingendienst, wil nu dolgraag een boekje opendoen over de Haagse steun voor de vele coupplannen tegen Bouterse cum suïs. 

This attempt to influence the course of trial with this witness did not work out as the defense had hoped, as a matter of fact, the testimony by Mr van Haperen was vague and not helping the defendant. But than the unthinkable happened when a witness came forward testifying that he was coerced by the president to say that Mr. Bouterse had not been present in the Fort Zeelandia during the killings. Mr Rozenblad it can be argued, is testifying out of malice, out of spite because Mr Bouterse did not make due on his promises. Putting Mr Rozendaal’s testimony in the light of   comeuppance and retribution, uncloaks a culture of cover-up and blackmail. Indeed Mr Bouterse could not keep Ruben Rozendaal for ransom unless he delivered and forked over some good cash and other goodies promised. Mr Rozendaal is now sick and lives off of a small pension, and has nothing more to loose, or so he says. He is now ready to spill all the beans, because he has been misled. During his first trial Mr Rozendaal in 2010 seemed to be suffering from amnesia:

Ex-legerofficier Ruben Rozendaal lijdt ook aan kennelijk geheugenverlies. Net als andere getuigen en verdachten weet hij weinig meer van de gebeurtenissen rond 8 december 1982. Voor hem was een aparte dag vrijgemaakt voor verhoor als getuige en als verdachte. (source: http://www.waterkant.net/suriname/2010/05/09/surinaamse-ex-militair-rozendaal-weet-weinig-meer/)

The latest testimony by Ruben Rozendaal are damming for Mr Bouterse, placing him smack in the middle of the murder scene. “He Mr Bouterse was there”, (“hij was daar”).

The new testimony gave rise to frenzy, a panicky Mr Bouterse whose damage control ensued the beseeching of parliament to vote for an Amnesty law, which will exempt all crimes committed against humanity in Suriname during the 1980s and 1990s from punishment. 

The public outcries,reverberate the rising unease and concern with the incumbency, whose actions feel like a big “blast from the past”. The cover-ups, the secret para military force headed by Mr Bouterse son, massive corruption and cronyism. But the concerned citizens are in the minority, the urban middle classes and Surinamese in Diaspora. The docility of the ordinary citizens ,a category still waiting for a miracle cure, for a quick fix, free cash from the man they voted for in May 2010.

Today, more that 500 people signed the petition to protest the upcoming Amnesty law:  http://www.petities24.com

Noteworthy is that many of the signers, signed the petition anonymously, probably out of fear for repercussions by the government. The fact that many people fear the government is telltale sign that democracy is indeed in jeopardy, but also that a culture of fear is spreading like wildfire over the Surinamese society today. If the Amnesty enters into effect, the sense of impunity will help to break down the last shreds of democracy, and Suriname will then be on the road of becoming an authoritarian regime of proportions surpassing that of the 1980s. 

AUTHOR: Natascha Adama
URL: http://natascha23.blogspot.com
E-MAIL: nataliapestova23 [@] yahoo.com

What NBC also did not tell is about the myriads of local efforts in the Acholi region, as symbolized by the indigenous mechanism of justice and conflict of Mato Oput (of course with its own weakness!) to respond to trauma as well as reintegrate Kony’s combatants, many of whom are former abductees, back into the Ugandan society. These and many other aspects are part of the larger context critics are saying the Invisible Children project has ignored. But more importantly, the NBC fact-finding mission failed to report or check on many questions raised against the IC, especially their program’s impact on survivors and victims of Kony’s brutalities.

While pondering the Kony2012 video, I also thought of Clooney’s Satellite Sentinel Project (SSP), and the Save Darfur project in South Sudan. With all good intention, they all somehow displayed ignorance and naivety with regards to their approach and intervention in Africa. As an African, not only does it makes me cringe, but it also worry when I see solutions towards Africa’s complex problem are driven by ratings, and the number of celebrity tweets generated.

AUTHOR: Ndumba Jonnah Kamwanyah
URL: http://foreignpolicyblogs.com/
E-MAIL: Ndumba.Kamwanyah [at] umb.edu

Guinea Pigs

During world war two in Tuskegee, Alabama the American government on behalf of American pharmaceutical industry started a syphilis, and gonorrhea experiment. Without the knowledge of African Americans the American government ejected them with the syphilis, and gonorrhea viruses to test the affect of syphilis, and gonorrhea on the human body, African Americans were used as guinea pigs. Hundreds of African American died, left crippled, or went blind, before the American government release the cure (penicillin) . They knew what the cure was, before they introduce the viruses into the Black communities.This experiment took place all across America in black communities. The American government want everyone to believe that these experiments only took place in Tuskegee, Alabama. Syphilis, and gonorrhea are sexually transmitted disease, so many more caught the disease, and as you know Men with syphilis, and gonorrhea experience a very painful burning sensation, while urinating. Black men, and women were infected, but black men as always was the America government primary target. The viruses remained in the black community many decades, after the initial introduction. Black men suffered all manners of injustice in America economic, judicial, and political. I don’t understand why they are royal to this country, maybe some black men are animals. The American pharmaceutical industry made tens of millions of dollars over the decades dispensing the cure for these viruses to the African American communities across this country.

Japan

America government didn’t have to drop the atomIc bombs on Japan. They had already won the war, but they needed guinea pigs, because the atomic bomb was a new weapon, and American government needed to see the affects the atomic bomb’s blast, intense heat and radiation have on the human body, building, air, and water, etc. Dropping those bombs on Japan had little to do with ending the war, and saving American soldier’s lives.The point was made with the first bomb, but dropping the second bomb was totally ridiculous, and evil. Hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians were murdered. America could had used conventional bombs to end the war with Japan. The American government have always been evil, and still is.

The real America (A State of War)

The American government is the most corrupt government in the world, and America is not a democracy, its an oligarchy. Don’t be fooled by the democratic facade. When it comes to America you must read between the lines. In American the needs of the few out weigh the needs of the many. America government, and both political parties are owned, and controlled by the wealthiest 5% of the population, they are the real rulers, or government of America, and they owner, and/ or control 80% of America’s wealth. They are sitting on hundreds of billions of dollars, not to mention they control over how American tax dollars are spent. These people have been bailed out by American tax dollars many times. They make all the laws, foreign policies, war policies, rules, laws, and regulations governing the America government, and its people. These wealthy American, and American Jews rule this country from behind the scenes with their tens of millions of dollars in disposable cash. Like kings, and queens they answer to no one, they never run for office, they pay less taxes, and their children never fight in wars. They only do business within their group of 5%, and they are heavily invested, and control every major industry in America, the pharmaceutical industry, the media, and oil companies, the military industrial complex, and the American government. They retain an army of lobbyists in Washington D.C. , and individual States. These lobbyist drown out the voices of the average American citizen. When America government goes to war America goes to war on the ruler’s (the 5%) behalf. They instructed the American government to lied about the reason for attacking the countries of Korea, Vietnam, Palestine, and Iraq. How can a small poorly armed, third world country be a threat to a super power like the United States? War is very profitable, and the wealthiest 5%, the rulers of America made lots of money off wars at the expense of American tax payer, who they have no regard. Tens of thousands of dumb American soldiers, and stupid allied soldiers lost their lives. Hundreds of thousands of the enemy soldiers lost their lives for no good reasons.The rulers of America are heavily invested in the American corporations that manufacture the bombs, bullets, aircraft, naval vessels, America uses in war, and they are heavily invested in the multi-national American corporations that move into those countries to do business, after the war is over. They made money on both ends of the wars. Those third world countries were source of revenue for the rulers of America. The American government, attacked Palestine, and stole their land, so the Jews can have a homeland. Israel receives tens of billions of dollars a year from America most of the money is used to purchase military weapons. Israel has the most powerful military in their region, but the Israeli government can’t afford to feed their citizens, that’s a damn shame. Now, they are on American television begging for food, pitiful S.O.B’s. Israel is blessed by the great Satan, American white men. The American government attacked Korea, and Vietnam to gain access to those countries markets, and economy, not because they’re communist. China is communist, just like Korea, and Vietnam, why didn’t America attack China, the answer is the American government is afraid of China, damn cowards. America attacked Iraq, and murdered Saddam Hussein to gain control of Iraq’s economy, and oil fields. Only the rulers of America benefited from these wars. Now you know the real reason for the wars against Korea, Vietnam, Palestine and Iraq. The white men that control the

These arrogant, self-righteous, and cowardly Americans, and American Jewish men,and women are responsible for the unrest in the Middle East.The American government paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to get the votes for the land Israel falsely occupy. In the mind of the American government the land is being taken from poorly armed third world countries, how much trouble can they be for a super power? If you have something the rulers of America wants they will label you a communist, terrorist, or tyrant, and attack your country without provocation, especially if the country they are about to attack is a poorly armed third world nation. The rulers of America is also responsible for the economic crisis that starting in 2008. They are misusing the taxes, and powers of the American government for their owe benefit. I don’t know who the hell these people are. I do know they rule with an iron fist. They are the owners of national, multi-national, and international American corporations, and they are cruel, murderous, and unscrupulous. Be wary of these people, and the American government. The rulers goals are world domination, and to create an one world order, that they plan the head. When you talk to the American government, you are not talking to the people that make the final decisions. America is not a democracy, because the American people do not control this government. I’m just trying to show you the type of people your government elected to be the leader of the free world. Note: American white men, and American Jews are demons, and only attack poorly armed third world nations.The United Nations should prosecute the American government for war crimes. If you allow America to be the leader of the free world, you will not be free for long, and you will always be in a state of war.

Why wouldn’t you hire a man like me? I’m royal to those who are royal to me. I’m trying to make enough money to retire comfortably. I’m willing to relocate anywhere in the world. I left out many details on these topics, please don’t try to second guess me.

I’m 59 years old. I’m a10 year U.S. Air force veteran, I worked on F-4E fighter / bomber aircraft. I have 29 years expert in geophysics, which includes global warming, the weather, volcanoes, earthquakes, tsunamis, gravity, and magnetic fields. I want to do research with super conducting magnets. I don’t have experience manufacturing super conducting magnets, but I would like to learn. I assure you I can improve upon these magnets.

AUTHOR: Mr. Willie McDonald
URL: http://www.orbital-decay1.blogspot.com
E-MAIL: cdnld30 [at] gmail.com

Michael Mansfield addressing the Russell Tribunal on Palestine. (David Vilaplana / Russell Tribunal on Palestine)

Israel was the focus of discussions by the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) earlier this month. Israel is obliged to submit a report to the Geneva-based committee on how it has implemented the rights enshrined in the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) every two years.

However, Israel waited until this year to submit a series of reports that were formally due in 2006, 2008 and 2010.

The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination is a body of independent experts that monitors the implementation of the convention. ICERD states that that any doctrine of superiority based on racial differentiation is scientifically false, morally condemnable, socially unjust and dangerous, and that there is no justification for racial discrimination, in theory or in practice.

ICERD defines racial discrimination as “any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, color, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life” (see International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination).

Israel’s presented its last three bi-annual reports in one 183-page volume (see Reports submitted by States parties under article 9 of the Convention” 17 January 2011).

In addition, Palestinian and Israeli human rights organizations submitted shadow reports to inform the committee about the situation, and a designated UN rapporteur for Israel identified a list of themes as guidance for the discussions. After examination of all the reports, the committee will write its concerns and recommendations to Israel in its “concluding observations.”

The Russell Tribunal on Palestine submitted a shadow report about apartheid in Israel in January 2012, and delegated Michael Mansfield — one of its jurors — to address the committee. Mansfield is a well-known, respected attorney from the United Kingdom and is the president of the Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers. The Electronic Intifada contributor Adri Nieuwhof interviewed Mansfield in Geneva.

Adri Nieuwhof: Can you please introduce yourself and maybe give some examples of successes in your work that are close to your heart?

Michael Mansfield: I like to describe myself as an angry young man but now I am an angry old man. It has been the driving force against manifestations of injustice within the UK. To speak for the victims of injustice, wrongly accused people in the criminal court and families that suffered from terrible events — for example the events on Bloody Sunday [30 January 1972, when the British army shot at unarmed civil rights protesters and bystanders in Northern Ireland].

The Brits have been instrumental in some of the most terrible events. Israel has inherited the military court system and administrative detention from the Brits. Providing a voice is the thing I do best, inside and outside courts. Now it is more outside the courts.

I am conscious of the fact that there a number of successes people think I would chose. I choose my fighting on behalf of the Lawrence family in relation to a racist murder. The representation of the miners that were unjustly attacked by the police during the mines strike [at Orgreave, Sheffield in 1984]. Representing the family of Jean Charles de Menezes who was shot by the police in the London underground. Representing the relatives of the victims of a pleasure ship that went down on the Thames. They fought to get safety regulations changes.

The most satisfying success, because I was there to see the result, was in 2010 — just after the election of [UK Prime Minister] David Cameron — when he issued after six years of waiting the Saville report on Bloody Sunday and the Anglo-Irish history. It said that the British troops that killed 14 people committed murder. It was the joy of relief on the faces of the families that their family members were not terrorists. Thousands of people were in Derry [Northern Ireland] to be present at the presentation of the report. The killing took place in 1972. The people were totally vilified, tainted with the same brush as the Irish Republican Army, which they were not. It was the British that were hostile. The inquiry was opposed. The real wonder of the moment was that it was a conservative prime minister [Cameron] who said for the first time, “I am sorry.” And it was a conservative prime minister [Ted Heath] who was in power on Bloody Sunday.

AN: The Russell Tribunal on Palestine presented a shadow report to the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. How do you assess Israel’s report on its actions to eliminate racial discrimination?

MM: I quickly skimmed through it. The author of our shadow report read Israel’s report in detail. I base my response on the findings of the author of our shadow report. Israel is trying to trick the organizations by quantity. The delegate will read it in the meeting and nobody can keep up. They flood the arena with verbiage. Let’s take apartheid — there is only one paragraph devoted to Article 3 of the convention [ICERD] on apartheid [which says that] there is no separation in Israel. It is a blatant disregard of the truth. There are pages and pages on racism making it appear as if they don’t accept racism. A case may be taken to court but the system of apartheid is not dealt with in the report.

AN: Did you present the findings of the Russell Tribunal on Palestine shadow report in the meeting of the committee?

MM: I had five minutes for my presentation. I decided to deal with one issue that was not mentioned in the report. The committee members read the shadow report and there is no need to repeat what is written. I asked the committee, why are we here? You — the committee — know full well all the violations that Israel has committed that amount to apartheid. You know from the last session that they [Israel] refuse to provide information about your questions using the spurious argument that the [occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip] is outside its borders. You make recommendations and you aim at making changes. Yes, there is change, it got worse. This session is critical for the situation in the Middle East and North Africa. It is critical for you as a committee to take all actions you can. It is about actions, not words.

This is what you can do: (1) CERD has to come up with a definitive, unequivocal finding of apartheid. (2) Lest the committee is concerned that this may not be enough, they can request the UN General Assembly (UNGA) to request an advisory opinion to the International Court of Justice. (3) The committee can ask UNGA to reconstitute the Committee against Apartheid with its first task to examine Israel and Palestine with the prospect of identifying acts of apartheid perpetrated. No country can veto suggestion 2 and 3. (4) An approach is made to the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) to investigate and prosecute war crimes and crimes against humanity. You then ask the [UN] Security Council to refer the case to the ICC. That is where a veto comes in. (5) The UN have to reconsider the membership of Israel. Why should Israel continue to be a member? They show no respect, they have broken more resolutions than any other state.

AN: How did the committee respond to your presentation?

MM: They were very responsive. There were a large number of [non-governmental organizations] at the meeting. Their contributions were of a very high level. It provoked a large number of questions that were informative and telling.

There were about 15 questions of committee members on how does the situation compare to South Africa, and about the Bedouins in the Negev [Naqab].

AN: Many people, including Palestine solidarity activists feel that UN resolutions do not lead to any improvement towards the situation of the Palestinian people. What is your advice?

MM: It is discouraging. Activists have to appreciate that those who are not on the front lines also find it discouraging. The two have to work together to isolate Israel. The activists on the front line and the people working behind the front line — it can lead to results. For example, UNESCO [the United Nations’ Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization] was courageous enough to accredit Palestine, no matter the threats. Israel must feel that as a defeat. It has taken a long time.

In South Africa it also took a long time. In Ireland, the struggle for some kind of identity took over a hundred years. They want those on the front line and a bit behind it to be overcome with fatigue and to give in. But the principles are too important. We don’t give up. Every violation by Israel is another brick in the wall. We have now come to a situation — unless you are a Zionist or close to Zionists — where people have lost faith that Israel is a democratic and reasonable state. It needs pressure from all sides.

AN: Will you continue to be involved in defending the rights of the Palestinian people?

MM: Having been to Palestine twice, I do think about the people I left behind. I feel uneasy. I live in situation where I am relatively secure. And I have the possibility to enjoy things they don’t have, it does not need to be materialistic. I will not give in until I don’t feel uncomfortable anymore. I cannot turn my back to it.

First published at The Electronic Intifada.

AUTHOR: Adri Nieuwhof
URL: http://www.samora.org
E-MAIL: a.nieuwhof [at] samora.org