Category: Uncategorized

Thanks to Narae Lee, International Coordinator of Peace Boat US for sharing the following statement by South Korean civil society about the sinking of the Cheonan naval ship:

>><<

Dear all,

Please, find a statement below, issued by South Korean civil society, regarding the sinking of the Cheon-ahn navy warship. While no sufficient evidence on the direct involvement of North Korea has been found, the event is threatening to escalate with the neighboring countries getting involved. The Japanese government also started using this case as an excuse for strengthening the US-Japan alliance.

It seems like the S.Korean government will bring this case to the UN Security Council next week.

Best,

Narae Lee

International Coordinator of Peace Boat US

The Statement on the Current State of Affairs for Peace on the Korean Peninsula

We, Korean civil society, gather here today to overcome the crisis and conflicts caused by the Cheon-ahn incident and to take a major step forward toward our goal of democracy, co-existence and peace.

Since the South Korean Cheon-ahn navy warship mysteriously sank on March 26th, our society has grieved the tragic incident together, and tried to clarify the cause and to provide comprehensive countermeasures to prevent its recurrence.

However, a handful of governmental and military officials have tightly controlled the relevant information in the name of military secrets and national security, checking these voluntary acts of citizens to find out the truth of the incident. Despite the fact that the Lee Myung-bak administration kept warning of a premature conclusion, the administration released the resulting reports which contained a number of unexplained hypotheses and caused questions before necessary investigations were finished. The investigation was conducted by the military which should have been reprimanded. In addition, without allowing enough time for the public and the National Assembly to review the investigation, the Lee administration unilaterally announced dangerous diplomatic and military countermeasures against North Korea without a national agreement. These are the types of measures that make ineffective the ‘peaceful crisis-management system’, which has been gradually established since the “July7 Declaration” by the Roh Tae-woo administration. As a result, the Korean Peninsula is facing the most devastating tensions since the end of the military regime. As a result, the Korean Peninsula is facing the most devastating tensions since the end of the military regime.

Do you think that such impetuous and dogmatic measures by the Lee administration are helping to resolve the situation? Instead, those actions are shaking the very foundation of the systems of peace and prosperity, which would secure the future of the Korean Peninsula. Amid the international economic crisis, our economy was slowly recovering but now it is faltering again. The efforts of the Six-Party-Talks as well as the denuclearization of North Korea are missing in the Lee administration’s enforcements of military and economic countermeasures against North Korea.

People!

Did you witness such military tension when peace and engagement policies were consistently pursued in the past? Now we are at crossroads and need to decide whether to go back to the adventurism of the Cold War era, which the issue of security was ill-used for politics and blinded people to the truth. Or to take future-oriented peaceful realism, which emphasizes the democratic process, checks on the abuse of the administrative and military power, and seeks ways for peace and co-existence rather than provocative slogans.

In this regard, we express our opinions.

First, both North and South Korea should immediately stop the military confrontation, which will bring the Korean Peninsula to war and economic crisis. The South should withdraw its series of dangerous military measures and economic sanctions against North Korea, which were enforced without debates with the public, the Nation Assembly, and concerned countries. In addition, the North also should refrain from provocative rhetoric and radical military actions but instead cooperate with a rational process of uncovering the truth of the case.

First, we call on the South Korean government to take an additional measure to clarify the facts of the case, which should be able to answer a number of remaining questions regarding the sinking of Cheon-ahn vessel. In that regard, the National Assembly should be given a free hand in clarifying the truth and reviewing the investigations. Furthermore, an international investigation committee – including concerned parties, the United States, and China – should be established so as to ensure the credibility of investigation findings.

First, both the South Korean government and the media should not abuse this case, for the upcoming election, which is directly connected to the safety of people. The government and the majority party should explain if it was necessary to release the premature results of the investigation and to announce military countermeasures. In addition, we urge the government to immediately stop abusing its political and legal power to pressure the voters who raise rational questions to the government’s report and reactions.

We appeal to you!

The crisis on the Korean Peninsula took place without our intention, but we should be responsible to clarify the real cause and seek ways to resolve this problem in an appropriate way. It is directly related to our future of democracy and peace. It is time to call upon your wisdom and courage to achieve peace.

At 3pm, on May 29, let us show our will to uncover the truth and accomplish real peace on the Korean Peninsula. From today, let’s begin to light up candles for peace of the Peninsula, each and every night.

On June 2, election day we will judge the situations of the country and the time with a sense of ownership and open our future toward democracy, co-existence, and peace for ourselves.

May 26, 2010

The Coalition for Peace on the Korean Peninsula

Creative Korea Party / Democratic Labor Party / Democratic Party /

New Progressive Party / The People’s Participation Party / 91 South Korean NGOs

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/mod-asked-red-cross-to-look-into-iraq-birth-defects-1964491.html

MoD asked Red Cross to look into Iraq birth defects

Letter reveals Government wanted charity to investigate claims following Fallujah attacks

By Robert Verkaik, Law Editor

Thursday, 6 May 2010

Britain was so concerned about reports from Iraq of an alarming increase in the number of babies being born with deformities that ministers asked the Red Cross to investigate the claims, it has emerged. The Government took the action last year amid allegations that weapons used by American and British forces in Iraq were linked to a rise in foetal abnormalities seven years after the invasion.

A letter seen by The Independent, and written by the international development minister, Gareth Thomas, reveals that the Government contacted the International Committee of the Red Cross sometime before September last year.

Mr Thomas wrote to Clare Short, who resigned from the Government in protest over the war, in answer to questions she had posed on behalf of a constituent.

“On DfID’s request,” said Mr Thomas, “the ICRC has discussed this [reports of a rise in foetal abnormalities] with the technical director of Al-Fallujah General Hospital as well as another doctor based there. Both responded that although there were occasional cases of foetal abnormalities, these did not exceed two to three cases per year.”

In another letter written in January this year Mr Thomas said that because of the continuing dearth of reliable information on such cases, DfID had formally asked the Iraqi Ministry of Health to release any data regarding the claims.

Allegations that the British Government was complicit in the use of chemical weapons linked to an upsurge in child deformity cases in Iraq are being investigated by the Ministry of Defence.

The legal case, which is being prepared for the High Court by Public Interest Lawyers, specifically raises serious questions about the UK’s role in the American-led offensive against the City of Fallujah in the autumn of 2004 in which hundreds of Iraqis died.

After the battle, in which it is alleged that a range of illegal weaponry was used against the civilian and insurgent population, evidence has emerged of large numbers of children being born with severe birth defects. Iraqi families who believe their children’s deformities are caused by the deployment of the weapons have begun legal proceedings against the UK Government.

They accuse the UK Government of breaching international law, war crimes and failing to intervene to prevent a war crime.

Lawyers for the Iraqis have sent a letter before action to the Ministry of Defence asking the Government to disclose what it knows about the Army’s role in the offensive, the presence of prohibited weapons and the legal advice given to the then prime minister, Tony Blair.

Last month the World Health Organisation said it was investigating evidence of a worrying rise in the incidence of birth defects in the city which Iraqi doctors attribute to the use of chemical weapons in the battle.

Phil Shiner, of Public Interest Lawyers, said: “The Government at all levels have deliberately buried their head in the sand on this. Having aided and assisted the US in indiscriminate attacks on civilians in Fallujah using illegal weapon systems, this letter shows it is hiding behind weasel words that Fallujah General Hospital ‘could not confirm a rise in [foetal] abnormalities’. This letter shows it knew full well there was a major problem in September 2009.”

Mazin Younis, a UK-based Iraqi human rights activist, said: “When I visited Fallujah weeks before the attack, I was shocked to see the majority of people had not left the city. The unlawful use of white phosphorus as a weapon in built-up areas was shown by media in the first days of war, but was never objected to by our British government who assisted in the attack on Fallujah.”

A government spokesman yesterday confirmed that the letters had been written.

This post on the Peace Philosophy blog exposes the corporate agendas behind the Okinawa base relocation issue.

>><<

http://peacephilosophy.blogspot.com/2010/05/corporate-interests-behind-futenma.html

Thursday, May 13, 2010

Corporate Interests Behind “Reduction of Okinawa’s Burden” 「沖縄の負担軽減」の本当の意味

This is a summary translation of one part of Tokyo Shimbun journalist Handa Shigeru’s lecture in Tokyo on December 15, 2009. I thought it would provide some significant background in understanding the current plan by the Hatoyama Govenment to build a runway off the coast of Henoko by placing thousands of steel pilings on the sea bed. Handa Shigeru has been writing extensively about corporate interests and corruption involving the plan to build a “replacement facility” for Futenma Air Station. I will provide more translation as time permits.  Read more…

http://www.fpif.org/articles/obama_and_us_military_engagement_in_africa

Obama and U.S. Military Engagement in Africa

By Daniel Volman, May 5, 2010

Originally published in Pambazuka

When Barack Obama took office as president of the United States in January 2009, it was widely expected that he would dramatically change, or even reverse, the militarized and unilateral national security policy toward Africa that had been pursued by the Bush administration. But, after a little more than one year in office, it is clear that the Obama administration is essentially following the same policy that has guided US military involvement in Africa for more than a decade. Indeed, it appears that President Obama is determined to expand and intensify US military engagement throughout Africa.

Thus, in its budget request for the State Department for the 2010 financial year, the Obama administration proposed significant increases in funding for US arms sales and military training programmes for African countries, as well as for regional programmes on the continent, and is expected to propose further increases in its budget request for the 2011 financial year.

The 2010 budget proposed to increase foreign military funding spending for Africa by more than 300 per cent, from just over US$8.2 million to more than US$25.5 million, with additional increases in funding for North African countries. Major recipients included Chad, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Djibouti, Ethiopia, Kenya, Liberia, Morocco, Nigeria and South Africa.

The 2010 State Department budget request also proposed increased funding for several other security assistance programmes in Africa, including the African Contingency Operations and Training Assistance programme (which is slated to receive US$96.8 million), the International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement programmes in Algeria, Cape Verde, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, Morocco, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Sudan and Uganda, anti-terrorism assistance programmes in Kenya and South Africa, and the Africa regional programme.

The same is true for funding in the Defense Department budget for the operations of the new Africa Command (AFRICOM) which became fully operational in October 2008 and the Combined Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa (CJTF-HOA) forces, which have been stationed at the US military base in Djibouti since 2002. The Obama administration requested US$278 million to cover the cost of AFRICOM operations and Operation Enduring Freedom-Trans-Sahara Counter-Terrorism Partnership operations at the AFRICOM headquarters in Stuttgart, Germany. The administration also requested US$60 million to fund CJTF-HOA operations in 2010 and US$249 million to pay for the operation of the 500-acre base at Camp Lemonier in Djibouti, along with US$41.8 million for major base improvement construction projects. And the administration is now considering the creation of a 1,000-man Marine intervention force based in Europe to provide AFRICOM with the capability to intervene in Africa.

The continuity with Bush administration policy is especially evident in several key regions. In Somalia, for example, the Obama administration has provided some US$20 million worth of arms to the Transitional Federal Government (TFG) and initiated a major effort to provide training to TFG troops at the CJTF-HOA base in Djibouti and in Europe. Furthermore, President Obama has continued the programme initiated by the Bush administration to assassinate alleged al-Qaeda leaders in Somalia and, in August 2009, he authorised an attack by US Special Forces units that killed Saleh Ali Saleh Nabhan, who was accused to being involved in the bombing of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania by al-Qaeda in August 1998.

In the Sahel, the Obama administration has also sought increased funding for the Trans-Saharan Counter-Terrorism Program (US$20 million in 2010) and begun a special security assistance programme for Mali to provide the country with some US$5 million of all-terrain vehicles and communications equipment. Administration officials have justified this escalating military involvement in the Trans-Saharan region by arguing that the increasing involvement of al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb in criminal activity (including kidnapping for ransom and drug-trafficking) constitutes a growing threat to US interests in this resource-rich area.

In Nigeria, which supplies approximately 10 percent of US oil imports, the Obama administration has decided to expand US military support to Nigerian military forces, despite concerns about security in the Niger Delta, Islamic extremism in northern Nigeria and the country’s fragile democratic institutions. Thus, during her visit to Nigeria in August 2009, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton promised that the administration would consider any request by the Nigerian government for military support to enhance its capacity to repress armed militants in the Niger Delta region. The failure of the Nigerian government to implement major elements of its amnesty programme in this vital oil-producing area has recently led to a resumption of violent incidents and attacks on oil installations in the Niger Delta.

In Central Africa and the Horn of Africa, the Obama administration is increasing security assistance to Uganda, Rwanda, the Kenya, Ethiopia and other countries in the region, and has conducted major training exercises both in Uganda and in Djibouti for the new East African Standby Force (EASF). The EASF is a battalion-sized force authorised by the African Union for independent African peacekeeping operations and other missions, but it remains dependent upon external support – especially from the United States – and is not expected to be able to operate on its own for many years to come. And in the Democratic Republic of Congo, the Obama administration has just authorised the deployment of US Special Forces troops to train an infantry battalion at a base at Kisangani that was recently rehabilitated by the United States. The Obama administration has chosen to engage in this training programme despite the continuing involvement of Congolese troops in gross human rights violations (including the rape and murder of civilians) and in the illegal exploitation of the country’s mineral resources.

This growing US military engagement in Africa reflects the Obama administration’s genuine concerns about the threat posed by Islamic extremism and by instability in key resource-producing regions, and its desire to help resolve conflicts throughout the continent. However, all these measures increase the militarisation of Africa and tie the United States even more closely to unstable, repressive and undemocratic regimes. Furthermore, despite President Obama’s rhetorical commitment to an approach that combines military and non-military activities, the administration lacks a comprehensive and effective plan to address the underlying issues – the lack of democracy and economic development – that lead to extremism, instability and conflict in Africa.

This is chiefly because the Obama administration lacks the diplomatic and economic means to address these issues. The State Department and the Agency for International Development have been systematically starved of funding and other resources for years and simply lack the capacity to engage in Africa in the manner that would make such an effort possible. It will take many years and substantial increases in funding to build this capacity. And the Obama administration’s food security programme – its one major new initiative for Africa – is highly problematic since it relies on the use of expensive petroleum-based fertilizers, the mechanisation of agricultural production and the use of genetically-modified seeds.

In the meantime, President Obama has decided that he has no choice except to rely primarily on military instruments and to hope that this can protect US interests in Africa, at least in the short term, despite the risk that this military engagement will exacerbate existing threats. The Obama administration would be well advised to curtail its military engagement in Africa and devote its attention to developing the capacity for diplomatic and economic efforts to address Africa’s underlying problems (as Joint Chief of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen argued in a recent speech) and to working with the European Union, China and other stakeholders on a cooperative engagement with Africa that will not further undermine African security and jeopardise America’s long-term interests.

Daniel Volman is the director of the African Security Research Project in Washington DC and a member of the board of directors of the Association of Concerned Africa Scholars. He is a specialist on US military policy in Africa and African security issues and has been conducting research and writing on these issues for more than 30 years.

Recommended Citation:

Daniel Volman, “Obama and U.S. Military Engagement in Africa” (Washington, DC: Foreign Policy In Focus, May 5, 2010)

http://www.colombianobases.org/index.php/news/1-aca/64-us-bases-in-colombia-rattle-the-region

U.S. Bases in Colombia Rattle the Region

By Benjamin Dangl, March 2010 issue

On the shores of the Magdalena River, in a lush green valley dotted with cattle ranches and farms, sits the Palanquero military base, an outpost equipped with Colombia’s longest runway, housing for 2,000 troops, a theater, a supermarket, and a casino.

Palanquero is at the heart of a ten-year, renewable military agreement signed between the United States and Colombia on October 30, 2009, which gives Washington access to seven military bases in the country. Though officials from the U.S. and Colombian governments contend the agreement is aimed at fighting narcotraffickers and guerrillas within Colombian borders, a U.S. Air Force document states the deal offers a “unique opportunity” for “conducting full spectrum operations” in the region against various threats, including “anti-U.S. governments.”

The Pentagon sought access to the bases in Colombia after Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa canceled the lease for the U.S. military base in Manta, Ecuador. The U.S. capability in Colombia will now be greater than at Manta, which worries human rights advocates in Colombia and left-leaning governments throughout the region.

“The main purpose of expanding these bases is to take strategic control of Latin America,” opposition senator Jorge Enrique Robledo of the Polo Democrático Alternativo told me over the phone from Bogotá.

Every president in South America outside of Colombia is against the bases agreement, with Hugo Chávez of neighboring Venezuela being the most critical. Chávez said that by signing the deal the United States was blowing “winds of war” over the region, and that the bases were “a threat against us.”

“Colombia decided to hand over its sovereignty to the United States,” said Chávez in a televised meeting with government ministers. “Colombia today is no longer a sovereign country. . . . It is a kind of colony.” The Venezuelan president responded by deploying troops to the border in what has become an increasingly tense battle of words and flexing of military muscle.

Correa in neighboring Ecuador said the new bases agreement “constitutes a grave danger for peace in Latin America.”

Colombian President Alvaró Uribe dismissed critics and said the increased U.S. collaboration was necessary to curtail violence in the country. Uribe told The Washington Post, “We are not talking about a political game; we are talking about a threat that has spilled blood in Colombian society.”

But plans for the expansion of the bases show that the intent is to prepare for war and intimidate the region, likely spilling more blood in the process.

The Palanquero base, the largest of the seven in the agreement, will be expanding with $46 million in U.S. taxpayers’ money. Palanquero is already big enough to house 100 planes, and its 10,000-foot runway allows three planes to take off at once. It can accommodate enormous C-17 planes, which can carry large numbers of troops for distances that span the hemisphere without needing to refuel.

The intent of the base, according to U.S. Air Force documents, “is to leverage existing infrastructure to the maximum extent possible, improve the U.S. ability to respond rapidly to crisis, and assure regional access and presence at minimum cost. . . . Palanquero will provide joint use capability to the U.S. Army, Air Force, Marines, and U.S. Interagency aircraft and personnel.”

The United States and Colombia may also see the bases as a way to cultivate ties with other militaries.“The bases will be used to strengthen the military training of soldiers from other countries,” says John Lindsay-Poland, the co-director of the Fellowship of Reconciliation Task Force on Latin America and the Caribbean Program. “There is already third-country training in Colombia, and what the Colombia government says now is that this agreement will strengthen that.”

“This deal is a threat to the new governments that have emerged,” says Enrique Daza, the director of the Hemispheric Social Alliance, currently based in Bogotá. These new governments are “demanding sovereignty, autonomy, and independence in the region, and this bases agreement collides directly” with that, he says.

The Obama Administration, with the new agreement, is further collaborating with the Colombian military in spite of that institution’s grave human rights abuses in recent years.

In a July 2009 letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Senators Patrick Leahy and Christopher Dodd wrote: “What are the implications of further deepening our relationship with the Colombian military at a time of growing revelations about the widespread falsos positivos (“false positives”) scandal, in which the Colombian military recruited many hundreds (some estimates are as high as 1,600) of boys and young men for jobs in the countryside that did not exist and then summarily executed them to earn bonuses and vacation days?”

The military base agreement needs to be understood in the context of two other U.S. initiatives in Colombia.

First, Plan Colombia, which began under President Clinton, committed billions of dollars ostensibly to fight the war on drugs but also to fighting the guerrillas, intensifying the country’s already brutal conflict in rural areas. This has led to increasing displacement of people from areas that are strategically important for mining multinationals.

Second, the U.S.-Colombia free trade agreement, which was signed in 2006, could pry open the country to more U.S. corporate exploitation. But it has been met with opposition in the United States, delaying its ratification. Daza says the signing of the bases deal is part of “a military strategy that complements the push for the free trade agreement.” The trade accord will serve “transnational corporate investments,” and these investments, he says, “are sustained by a military relationship.”

Opposition to the military bases agreement is vocal in Colombia. In a column written in July 2009, Senator Robledo denounced it, saying, “There is no law that allows bases of this type in Colombia.” One struggle, Robledo said, is on the legal and political front. The other is among social movements in Colombia and beyond. “It is important to organize a type of democratic citizens’ movement, a national campaign against these foreign bases, as well as a continental social alliance that promotes the denunciation of this agreement,” he says.

Daza is working with Mingas, a cross-border solidarity organization consisting of activists in Colombia, Canada, and the United States. Mingas wrote a letter to Obama, condemning the President’s decision to go forward with the deal on the bases. “At the Summit of the Americas in April 2009 you promised to foster a ‘new sense of partnership’ between the United States and the rest of the Western Hemisphere,” the letter states. “But your Administration has yet to address the grave concerns expressed by national leaders throughout Central and South America and the Caribbean regarding the U.S.-Colombia military base agreement.”

By signing this bases agreement, and by equivocating over the coup in Honduras, Obama has sent ominous signals to Latin America.

“Obama has not renounced the policies of Bush,” Robledo says. “Speaking in economic and military terms, on the fundamental issues, the similarities between Bush and Obama are bigger than the differences. Obama has not produced a change.”

Benjamin Dangl is the author of “The Price of Fire: Resource Wars and Social Movements in Bolivia,” the forthcoming “Dancing with Dynamite: Social Movements and States in Latin America,” and the editor of Toward Freedom and Upside Down World.