The West and Others~~Western Civilization, Global Continuity & The 'Third' World~~
Photo; the Turf... a little bit of Heaven, Abraka, Delta State, Nigeria
For 40 years, the French government has been fighting a secret war in Africa, hidden not only from its people, but from the world. It has led the French to slaughter democrats, install dictator after dictator – and to fund and fuel the most vicious genocide since the Nazis. Today, this war is so violent that thousands are fleeing across the border from the Central African Republic into Darfur – seeking sanctuary in the world's most notorious killing fields...
By Johann Hari in Birao, Central African Republic
Friday, 5 October 2007
I first heard whispers of this war in March, when newspapers reported in passing that the French military was bombing the remote city of Birao, in the far north-east of the CAR. Why were French soldiers fighting there, thousands of miles from home? Why had they been intervening in Central Africa this way for so many decades? I could find no answers here – so I decided to travel there, into the belly of France's forgotten war.
On the battlefield - Birao
I am standing now on its latest battlefield, looking out over abandoned mud streets streaked with ash. The city of Birao is empty and echoing, for the first time in 200 years. All around are miles of burned and abandoned homes, with the odd starved child scampering through the wreckage. What were all these buildings? On one faded green sign it says Ministry of Justice, on a structure reduced to a charcoal husk. In the market square, the people who have returned are selling a few scarce supplies – rice and manioc, the local yeasty staple food – and talking quietly. At the edges of the town, there are African soldiers armed and trained by the French, lolling behind sandbags, with machine guns jutting nervously at passers-by. They are singing weary nationalist anthems and dreaming of home.
To get here, you have to travel for eight hours on a weekly UN flight that carries eight passengers at most, and then ride on the back of a rusting flat-top truck for an hour along ravaged and broken roads. It is hard to know when you have arrived, because you are greeted only by emptiness and silence. What has happened here? Sitting amid the mud and dust and sorrow, I find Mahmoud, one of the 10 per cent of Birao's residents who have returned to the rubble.
He is a thin-faced 45-year-old farmer, and explains, in a low, slow voice, how his home town came to this. "I woke up for morning prayers on 4 March and there was gunfire everywhere. We were very frightened so we stayed in the house and hoped it would stop. But then in the early afternoon my brother's children came running to our house, screaming and crying. They told us the Forcés Armées Centrafricanes [Faca – the army trained and equipped by the French, on behalf of their friendly neighbourhood strongman, President François Bozize] had gone into their house. They wouldn't calm down and explain. So I ran there, and I saw my brother on the floor outside, dead. His wife explained they had forced their way in and rounded him up, along with three men who lived nearby. They took them out on to the street and shot them one by one in the head."
Mahmoud's friend, Idris, lived nearby, and feared he, too, would be shot. He says now: "We could see the villages burning and the children were screaming and really scared, so we ran two kilometres out into the jungle. From there we could see our whole city on fire. We fled along the river and stayed out there. We ate fish, but there weren't many. Some days we couldn't catch anything and we starved. The children were so terrified. Still, when they hear a loud noise, they think there are guns coming and they start shaking." Idris looks off into the distance and continues: "On the fourth day, we saw the French planes come. They each had six rockets that they fired. The explosions were loud. We don't know what they were targeting, or why. Then the French soldiers arrived." A military truck filled with French soldiers rumbles by not long after, its tanned troops wearing designer sunglasses and a "why am I here?" anxiety.
As Mahmoud and Idris talk it gets dark, and a suffocating blackness and silence falls on the city. There is no electricity and no moonlight. They explain in this blackness that the French-backed troops began firing and the French military began bombing in March for one reason: the desperate locals had begun to rise up against President Bozize, because he had done nothing for them. People here were tired of the fact that "there are no schools, no hospitals, and no roads". "We are completely isolated," they explain. "When it rains, we are cut off from the world because the roads turn to mud. We have nothing. All the rebels were asking was for government help." As I stumble around Birao, I hear this every time: the rebels were simply begging for government help for the hungry, abandoned people. Even the bemused French soldiers and the Bozize lackeys sent to the area admit this privately. Yet the French response was with bombs against the rebels' pick-up points. Why? What is there here that they want?
I look out towards the jungle and realise many of Birao's residents are still hiding out there, risking the wild beasts. In the similarly burned-out areas in the north-west, I drive out into the jungle with Unicef and find these clusters of starving families scattered everywhere. In one cleared patch, I find a group of four men with their wives and mothers, clearing an area of ground with their bare hands where they will try to plant peanuts. They are living in handmade huts and set traps to catch mice to eat. Ariette Nulguhom is cradling her eight-month-old grandson with his distended little belly and praying he will survive another night. She tells me: "He's been sick for a long time. We tried to get him to a nurse but there aren't any. We think it is malaria but there is no medicine here. We don't know what will happen... We are all weak and feverish. We're exhausted because we work all day, every day. I have not eaten for days now." When they left behind their houses, they left behind access to clean water, electricity, and medicine. When the Faca burned those homes, they burned away the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries for these families, too.
This is a forgotten corner of a forgotten country. Birao lies and dies in the far north-east of the Central African Republic. CAR itself has a population of just 3.8 million, spread across a territory bigger than Britain's, landlocked at the exact geographical heart of Africa. It is the least-reported country on earth. Even the fact that 212,000 people have been driven out of their homes in this war doesn't register on the global radar. In Birao, I realise I am too close to the immediate horror to find the deeper explanations for this war. I only begin to uncover the origins of this story when I stumble across a very rare find in the CAR – an old man.
A country of children - Paoua
In the CAR, you have beaten the odds if you live to be 42. There are times when this seems like a country of children, swarming around with guns and hardened laughs, without an adult in sight. So when I see Zolo Bartholemew limping past the wreckage of another burned-out town – this time in the distant north-west, outside the city of Paoua – he seems like a mirage. He has no teeth and a creased face, and when I ask, he does not know his age. But he remembers. He remembers the tail-end of the first time the French were here – and why.
"I watched my parents forced to work in the fields when I was a child," he says in Sango, the local language. "When they got tired, they were whipped and beaten and made to go faster. It was constantly like this." The French flag was first hoisted in the heart of Africa on 3 October 1880, seizing the right bank of the Congo for the cause of Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité – for the white man. The territory was swiftly divided up between French corporations, who were given the right effectively to enslave the people, like Zolo's parents, and force them to harvest its rubber. This rubber was processed into car tyres for sale in Paris and London and New York. A French missionary called Father Daigre described what he saw: " It is common to meet long files of prisoners, naked and in a pitiful state, being dragged along by a rope round their necks. They are famished, sick, and fall down like flies. The really ill and the little children are left in the villages to die of starvation. The people least affected often killed the dying, for food."
Zolo nods when I mention this. "When the whites were here, we suffered even more," he says. "They forced us to work. We were slaves."
One horrified French administrator wrote in the 1920s that the locals reacted to being enslaved by the corporations by becoming "a troglodyte, subsisting wretchedly on roots until he starves to death, rather than accept these terrible burdens". Areas that had "only a few months ago been rich, populous and firmly established in large villages" became, he wrote, "wasteland, sown with dilapidated villages and deserted plantations".
But in the 1950s, men like Zolo rose and refused to be enslaved. "We followed Boganda," he says. Barthélemy Boganda was born in a Central African village near here in 1910, and, as a child, he saw his mother beaten to death by the guards in charge of gathering rubber for a French corporation. He rose steadily through the Catholic priesthood, married a French woman, and, quite suddenly, became the leader of the CAR's pro-democracy movement. He would begin his speeches to the French by introducing himself as the son of a polygamous cannibal, and then lecture them on the values of the French Revolution with a fluency that left them stunned and shamed. He crafted a vision of a democratic Africa beyond tribe, beyond race and beyond colonialism. He was passionate about the need for a plurality of political parties, a free press, and human rights. He rhapsodised about his vision of a United States of Africa, linking together the countries of Central Africa into a USA Mk II.
"And they killed him," Zolo says, shaking his head and kicking at the earth beneath his feet. On 29 March 1959, not long after the French era of direct rule had ended, President Boganda's plane was blasted out of the air. The French press reported that there had been "suspicious materials " found in the remains of the fuselage – but on the orders of the French government, the local investigation was abandoned. The French installed the dictator David Dacko in his place. He swiftly shut down Boganda's democratic reforms, brought back many French corporations, and reintroduced their old system of forced labour, rebranding it "village work". French rule over the CAR – the whippings Zolo remembers – did not end with "independence". It simply mutated, into a new and slippery form, and it is at the root of the current war.
But the clues to this lie far to the west, in the capital city. " Nothing happens in this country without somebody pulling a lever in Paris," a taxi driver tells me as I leave to travel to Bangui at the bottom of the country, driving through clouds of red-dust and past swarms of street-children. I have an appointment with an underground figure in the opposition to keep.
A tortured president - Bangui
Bangui looks like a city that rose with a heave from the jungle a century ago, and has been sighing back into it ever since. Every building appears to be rusting away, and great eruptions of vegetation are shoving the homes and shops aside, reaching for the sky. On corner after corner there are huge, hideous caricature-statues of black people, showing them as thick-lipped and kinky-haired, giving the city the ambience of a Ku Klux Klan garage sale.
Every few hours, the power supply dies, and the city stammers to a halt. People dawdle in the streets, playing cards and wiping away their sweat with the back of their wrists. It is during one of these blackouts that I arrive at the office of a leader of the opposition with a delegation from the British campaigning group Waging Peace. His office is above a parade of shops, and it is a simple room filled with African carvings and pictures of past and faded glories. He walks towards us in a green suit, and – although he does not say it – we all know he is taking a huge risk by meeting us secretly like this. Last year, 40 political figures who criticised the government of President Bozize were tossed into jail and tortured. " They tried to kill my son. They are trying to assassinate me," he says, with a matter-of-fact shrug. He gives the long, horrible details. I cannot repeat them here because they would identify him – and become a death sentence.
"The country is in a dire situation," he says. "We have been described by the magazine Foreign Policy as one of the worst failed states in the world, after Iraq and Afghanistan." He says the CAR is now " a total and ferocious dictatorship" under the absolute command of Bozize. The roots of the wars in the north-east and north-west are, he says, simple. "Local people in these regions are rebelling against the government, because the government provides them with nothing. There are no services. There aren't even roads. So the rebels rise up to get attention – and the government retaliates by rampaging through the area, killing civillians and burning homes."
So who is this Francois Bozize, and why are the French supporting him with batallions and bombs? I telephone the vast presidential palace to meet the man who stares out from behind a smartly-trimmed moustache in the pictures hanging on every wall, and the President's press officer eventually gets back to me. "Call me back, I am running out of credit on my mobile phone," he snaps. Then he promises a meeting with the President, but finds mysterious "complications" that lead him to cancel every time. There are rumours across Bangui that Bozize is becoming ever-more paranoid and locked down, employing food tasters to check for poison before every meal and refusing to meet strangers. So I look instead to the few scraps of independent journalism that survive here for clues as to who this French love-child really is.
Le Citoyen is distributed on rough photocopied paper every day and sold on street corners for a few pennies – but it is one of the bastions of Central Africa's remaining freedoms. Its editor Maka Obossokotte has a neat grey beard, square cheekbones, and balls of steel. He has been jailed for criticising the President and his cronies more than once, but he insists I quote him on-the-record and by name. "In jail, you were given rotten fish to eat. I got gout. The toilets..." he shakes his head. "It is hell." He says he knows now that "it is very likely somebody from the presidential clan will kill me... Every morning when I wake up, I think there are three beds I could end up in tonight. Back here at home, the hospital, or the morgue." But he says: "I will not be afraid. It is when you are afraid that you lose."
Sitting in a delicious cloud of smoke, puffing away on high-tar cigarettes, Maka talks me through the President's biography. He was born in nearby Gabon, the son of a police officer from the CAR. He wasn't smart at school, but he managed to get a coveted job as bodyguard to Jean-Bedel Bokassa, one of the vicious dictators flattered and fawned over by the French. Bokassa was famously mad, declaring himself "Emperor of the CAR", eating the leader of the opposition, and opening fire on a group of children who were protesting for help to buy their school uniforms. Bozize carried Bokassa's cane and his bag, and, Maka explains: "It was through watching him that Bozize got his taste for power." The "Emperor" promoted him to the rank of general.
After a while, Bokassa's foaming madness made him an unreliable servant of the French, so they backed a coup against him. Bozize left to study at the Ecole Spécial Militaire de Saint-Cyr in France, and returned only to stage a farcical coup attempt of his own. In 1982, he seized control of one of the national radio stations and announced that he was now President. Everybody laughed; Bozize fled. A few years later he was deported back to Bangui to be punished. "They tortured him," Maka says. "They pissed in his mouth, they broke his ribs, they really mistreated him for three years."
Eventually, they let him go back to France for medical treatment – and the French government swiftly began to build him up as an alternative president, in case their current pick became too disobedient and got ideas of his own. From being a poor man, Bozize suddenly had the money to run a huge presidential campaign. He ran, and he lost. So in October 2002, he paid for a vast private mercenary army (you might wonder – with whose money?) to invade the CAR from neighbouring Chad, depose the sitting president and install himself as the supreme ruler. Since then, he has "won" a disputed election he arranged for himself and bathed in French approbation.
"France sees the CAR as a colony," Maka says. "The presidents are selected by France, not elected by the people. The presidents do not serve the interests of this country; they serve the interests of France." He lists the French corporations who use the CAR as a base to grab Central African resources. This French behaviour is, he reasons, at the root of the wars currently ripping apart the north of the country. Whoever becomes president knows his power flows down from Paris, not up from the people – so he has no incentive to build support by developing the country. Rebellions become inevitable, and the president crushes them with the house-burnings and French bombs I learned about in Birao.
"The country will only be able to develop when France stops putting in place these dictators and the people choose," Maka adds, stubbing out his cigarette into an overflowing ashtray. "The CAR will only progress when the president is scared of his people, not the French."
Into rebel country - Bossangoa
I am driving now through the skin-sizzling heat of Bossangoa, the home-town of Bozize – and the last outpost of his power before you stumble into bandit-and-rebel territory. The Marie Celeste villages stretch for miles once more. Silence. Walls eaten by fire. Dead towns. In the houses there are smashed pots, abandoned as their residents fled Bozize's marauding murderers. I find a stray shoe sitting alone in one. In another village, the bell that calls children to school is still hanging from a tree, forgotten. On the blackboard is the final lesson, still there: a map of the CAR in chalk.
But then, after an hour of driving beyond Bossangoa into the jungle, there are signs of life. In yet another burned village, there are 20 young men, all sweat and Kalashnikovs. We pull up, and realise we are in an unexpected rebel camp. The boys' leader strolls toward us – an elder, at the age of 24 – and shakes our hands. He explains they are part of the rebel Army for the Restoration of the Republic and Democracy (French acronym APRD), who have taken this area. His "troops" are dressed oddly. One is swearing ski glasses and a ski hat, in a place as far from a ski slope as any on earth. Another is wearing nothing but bright red swimming trunks, and half a dozen strings of bullets around his neck. He is wearing a single woman's flip-flop, silver and glittering in the sun.
They explain they are not allowed to make statements – only their leader can do that – but they are eager to have their photographs taken. As soon as I agree, they contort themselves into wild poses. They stick bullets in their mouths, flex their muscles and screw their faces into a fake rage, like they are recreating a Rambo poster. The baby-faced soldier in the corner, they tell me casually, is 13. They look like teenagers on any street corner anywhere in the world, playing at being rebels. Except these are real rebels, with real guns. A 13-year-old with a gun is a comic sight – until he points it towards you and smiles strangely.
Why, I ask, did you join the rebellion? "Bozize killed my father, my mother and my brother," their leader steps forward to say, in a low voice. He peels up his vest and shows an angry scar where he says he was bayoneted. "They thought I was dead, so they left me." I ask what the rebels want. "We want peace, we want schools, we want roads," the leader says. Most of them nod. Do you want power? "That's up to God. We want roads and schools."
With that, we drive away, and they cheerfully wave their guns in our direction. I follow the trail of burned homes up to Paoua, a town at the top of the north-west – and I am sitting now on a bench with the man who ordered so many to be torched. A lieutenant of the Garde Présidentiel (GP) is chewing gum in the sun, behind barbed wire and sleeping security guards. The GP is the jagged spike of the country's military accountable only to President Bozize – his own private militia. When you see them approach on the streets, with their wild eyes and ready guns, pulses surge and spines stiffen. In the market-square in Paoua, a GP "officer" put a gun to the head of a Médecins sans Frontières doctor and told him: "We will do what they did in Rwanda." And I am making small talk with one of its bosses.
He is wearing long shining purple robes and a white fez, and he tells us haltingly that he will be interviewed, yes, but we cannot use his name. He is young – 33 – with hunched shoulders. His bodyguard is a muscled ripple of anxiety, and he watches every move we make, as if ready to pounce. So, lieutenant, why do you think people join the rebels and fight against you? He makes eye contact only with his bodyguard. "I don't know." Chew, chew. Why do you think people are so scared of the GP here? " There have been a few undisciplined elements, but we have dealt with them." Chew, chew, chew. So it is only undisciplined soldiers who burn all these thousands upon thousands of homes? You don't order them to? "If they burn homes, we deal with them." How have you dealt with them? "We use discipline." He stops leaning and sits up. Really? How many people have you disciplined? When? His bodyguard doesn't like this question; he glares at me. "I had an officer who went to the market when he was not supposed to. I disciplined him." That's it? "We have disciplined."
That's not what people in the villages say, I comment. They are terrified. "Show me the villages. I will show you how we have done good." After we drive away from his compound, we meet up with two pale, disturbed workers from the Italian charity Coopi. They explain that as the lieutenant was assuring us his forces are disciplined, a GP officer drove up on a motorbike and waved a gun in their faces.
At every one of these scenes, the question keeps coming back: why? Why are the French providing military support and training for these militia? The French government says it is in the CAR because it signed a military agreement back in the 1970s to protect the country from external aggression. The rebellions in the north are, they say, supported by Sudan – so this counts. Mes amis, we are protecting a democratically elected President from a tyrannical and genocidal neighbour.
But I couldn't find anyone in the CAR – not a single person, not even the most pro-French – who thought Sudan had anything to do with the rebels. So I arrange to meet up in Bangui with Louise Roland-Gosselin, an Anglo-French director of the group Waging Peace, who has been studying the Central African Republic. "The policies here in the CAR are part of a much bigger approach by France towards Africa," she says. "We call this system 'Franceafrique', and it was set up by Charles de Gaulle to replace the former colonial system. There is clear continuity from the imperial system to the present day."
The motives for this war are, Roland-Gosselin says, drenched in dollars and euros and uranium. "The overarching goal is to take African resources and funnel them towards French corporations," she says. "The CAR itself is a base from which the French can access resources all over Africa. That is why it is so important. They use it to keep the oil flowing to French companies in Chad, the resources flowing from Congo, and so on. And of course, the country itself has valuable resources. CAR has a lot of uranium, which the French badly need because they are so dependent on nuclear power. At the moment they get their uranium from Niger, but the CAR is their back-up plan." So this is, in part, a war for nuclear power? "Yes, but also a lot of this money has been funnelled, through corruption, straight back into the French political process. Say somebody needs a road built here in the CAR. The French government will insist on a French company – and the French company back home donates a lot to the 'right' French political party."
This neo-imperial war reached its psychotic apogee in 1994, when the French government used the CAR as a base to fund and fuel the Rwandan genocide, the most bloody since the death of Adolf Hitler. Vincent Mounie is a leading figure in Sur Vie, a French organisation monitoring its government's actions in Africa. He explains: "The French were totally complicit in the genocide. There were French troops there before, during and after the genocide, backing the most extreme Hutu forces as they murdered the Tutsis. You know the identity cards that divided the Rwandan population into Hutus and Tutsis in preparation for the slaughter? They were printed in Paris."
The French military base in Bangui had to be abandoned in 1996 after it was burned down by enraged locals, tired of the French ramming tyrants down their national gullet. Today the old base is overgrown, and the French military has shifted to new camps in Birao. But I stare at it now. The French planes that backed the Rwandan holocaust left from here.
President François Mitterrand began his career supporting one genocidal force, and he ended it supporting another. As a young man he rose through the ranks of the Hitler-hugging Vichy regime, only quitting and joining the Resistance when it became obvious the democrats would win. He then became nominally a Socialist and, finally, President – when at last genocide entered his life again. The French government had long seen the Hutu nationalists in Rwanda as Their Men, the people most friendly to French demands for military and corporate access. So when, starting in 1989, the Tutsi refugees who had been driven out decades before started to demand their right to return to their homes, the French were furious. Mitterrand saw this Tutsi rights movement as a creation of the CIA, designed to displace a pro-French regime and replace it with a buddy of Uncle Sam. His own aides told him there was no evidence of a link to the CIA – but he refused to listen. He announced that the Tutsis were a "Khmer Noir" , an evil anti-French force, and began to rapidly build up the Hutu Power forces to fight back.
In just four years, starting in 1990, the French buffed up the Hutu nationalist military forces in Rwanda from 10,000 to more than 40,000. The moderate forces within Rwanda began desperately trying to broker a power-sharing agreement between the two sides, "And the French government deliberately destroyed any attempt at a peace deal," Mounie says. Then the hacking up of Tutsi men, women and children began. Mitterrand extended bigger loans to the Hutus, which they used to buy more weapons and ammunition. He publicly mocked anyone who talked about a Hutu-led genocide.
Then, when the international outrage became so great even Mitterrand could not ignore it, the French announced they would send in a military force to stop the killing. "It was France's last lie, and the most cruel," Mounie adds. "Even at this point, Mitterrand's real aim was to recapture Kigali and restore the Hutus to power." In Birao today, many of the soldiers patrolling the city are veterans of this "rescue operation". I am sipping sweet tea in one of the local bigwig's ramshackle houses when a group of local soldiers on patrol arrive. They are working-class men from the Paris and Lyons banlieues, and in the course of the small talk, they admit that they were in Rwanda – and they are still traumatised by what they were ordered to do by Mitterrand and his men. " Children would bring us the severed heads of their parents and scream for help," one says, "but our orders were not to help them."
A year after the holocaust ended, Mitterrand told an aide: "Nobody in France cares about the genocide." These disturbed soldiers, sitting in the waning sunlight, show the old cynic was wrong, at least, about that.
Mother, do not beat us - Bangui
In the red-dusted heart of Bangui, there is a rusting, collapsing metaphor for this war – and where it is going. On one side of the road is the vast stadium the French government built for Bokassa in the 1970s, so he could crown himself Emperor of Central Africa and Lord of All He Surveyed. It is falling down now, a dangerous wreck. Opposite, there is a gleaming new sports stadium with plush seating and marble floors. It was built by the Chinese. France is only one slice of this new great game, this global scramble for Africa's resources. Every swaggering world power – the US, Britain, China – is grabbing Africa's remaining riches now, shunting aside democracy and human rights to get to them. But even the Chinese dictators remember to toss some of the loose change from the riches they have pillaged to Bangui. The French have long since given up even on that. They come only with bullets and bombs.
As I prepare to leave the CAR, I am told by senior French and African sources that Paris could be getting ready to ditch President Bozize. Like a string of Central African dictators before him, he has been tugging too hard on the French leash, imagining he is the independent ruler of an independent country. He has decided to nationalise some of the energy companies operating here, including the French mega-corporations Total and ELF. " If he wants the French to crush his rebellions and keep him in power, he has to do what they say," my source says. Bozize is trying to deal with this pre-emptively, by offering the rebel leaders a place in his cabinet. As I drive past his presidential palace for the last time, I wonder if the paranoia that kept me from meeting him was justified all along.
But as my plane finally propels me away from this place, one CAR voice – angry, crazed – seems to follow me. In the jungles around Paoua, I was taken to the entrance to a remote burned-out village to meet Laurent Djim-Woei, the spokesman for the rebels in the north-west. He is a man talked about in awe by his followers – and his enemies.
A group of young men greeted us. They were carrying spears alongside their ski hats and scars. Silently, they beckoned us to follow them through more charcoal villages and dense foliage and beyond. Eventually we reached a clearing. Laurent was dressed in stained combat gear. He had a big smile that was marred by the absence of almost all his teeth. There were three cellphones hanging from his neck. He led an inspection of his rag-tag forces for our benefit, getting them to stand to attention and yelling hoarse orders at them in Sango. Then Laurent told us to sit down and embarked on a rambling, barely comprehensible lecture.
There were only a few of us in a silent jungle, but he looked beyond us and boomed, like he was addressing a stadium full of supporters. The CAR needs "a guard dog" to "bark about justice" and not "the kind of dog that leads you, which we have had in the past", he said. It is the first of a string of odd metaphors. I kept trying to draw him back to specifics: what does he want? He would only use abstract nouns – justice, peace – but then occasionally he voiced his grievances succinctly, before they were doused in metaphor and burned into incomprehensibility again: "Bozize is burning our villages. A country shouldn't burn its own country's villages. It is like a mother and a child, a mother does not burn her child, it would be madness." His eyes danced nervously around the jungle as we spoke, as if he was waiting for a raid.
"France is the mother of Central Africa, and we are the child," he said, oddly picking up the old racist metaphor and making it his own. " The French must now change sides and support us, not Bozize. The French are our parents, we want them to be good parents." This is a sentiment that kept cropping up in the rubble of France's interventions – an appeal to the French to suddenly become a benevolent mother, acting on the side of good, despite all the evidence. France and the CAR are, it strikes me at last, locked in a sick embrace. The French crave the riches offered by this lush, hungry patch of Africa, and the people of Central Africa pine for a deus ex machina to enter stage right and resolve their internal disputes with raw force.
Looking into the far distance, Laurent cries: "We say to France: 'Mother, we are your child, you must love us like a mother should. Do not beat us.'" In the jungle, his voice echoes for miles, until it dies, unheard.
We have seen many threats and accusations made against Iran and its Nuclear Research Programme with condemnations coming from the US, UK, NATO countries and the "Big Boys Club" known as the UN Security Council. Repeated warnings and many dress rehearsals for such an attack have been carried out by Israel. This cat-and-mouse game has gone on for many years but have Israel and their allies ever looked at the consequences of this ill-conceived plan?
We should look at some of the work that has been carried out by two British experts, Dr Chris Busby and Dai Williams. These two extremely dedicated men have worked tirelessly on the continued military use of Depleted Uranium (DU) weapons. These weapons are manufactured in the US and used by US, UK, NATO forces and by many other countries. It is also believed that such weapons can or have been manufactured in Israel, Pakistan and any other country that has a nuclear capability. These two determined gentleman have very convincing evidence that not only have DU weapons been used but also a strong possibility of other uranium based weapons which could be linked to the so called "Dirty Bomb". Such evil weapons have been used in the Balkans, Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and Gaza with possible further use in Pakistan.
DU weapons leave a trail of misery and suffering to thousands upon thousands of soldiers and innocent civilians caught up in its indiscriminate use in all the many areas of conflict. The Gulf War Syndrome is directly linked to such weapons as is the dramatic rise in all types of cancers, diabetes, still births and badly disfigured babies. Uranium based weapons have the ability to change the cell structure and DNA in all humans that come into contact with it by either inhalation or ingestion. It has the ability to contaminate the local area, region, adjacent countries and the world once it becomes an aerosol and enter the upper atmosphere.
Dai Williams and Dr Chris Busby have written with great authority on this subject and have written to the then-British Prime Minster Tony Blair highlighting the many issues relating to the manufacturing and use of DU weapons. He also decided to look into what would happen if Israeli or any of its allies carried out such an attack on Iran's nuclear facility at Natanz.
He said,"If the current conflict escalates further I anticipate that Israeli and/or American forces will find an excuse to bomb nuclear facilities in Iran in the near future" "Whether Israeli or US forces use conventional (uranium cased) bunker busters or mini-nuclear warheads the effect of igniting uranium metal stockpiles in Iran (e.g. at Natanz) will spread radioactive contamination across the whole region within 2-3 days and around the world in 3-4 weeks."
The above simulation is within 48 hours of such an attack and one can clearly see that beyond this time the entire region will be contaminated. Could one even imagine that Israel would be prepared to do this and at the same time contaminate its own country? Dai Williams in his communication to Tony Blair summarised the following: Possibly your last chance to prevent widespread radiation contamination in the Middle East and Asia.
"I have tried to restrain my frustration at your support for US policies in Iraq and your apparent apathy over Palestine for the last 3 years," he wrote. "But I can no longer stay silent. However I also realise that you probably were not shown my previous correspondence and that you may still be unaware of the known development and suspected widespread use of large uranium weapons by US forces in the Balkans, Afghanistan and Iraq."
He continued:
"UK media coverage of these hazards has been very rare since 2000 when NATO was first confronted about mysterious deaths of Spanish and Italian troops soon after service near US bomb targets in the Balkans. An exception was the Sunday Times report of Uranium contamination in the UK during March/April 2003 (19 Feb 2006 available at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2047373,00.html ) Now that Israeli forces are using the same guided weapons in Lebanon the public is seeing their horrific effects on civilians for the first time. In Afghanistan and Iraq there was little coverage of civilian casualties from the new generation of US guided weapons".
He concluded:
"Despite the impending summer recess you have one last chance to warn the Israeli and US Governments that further aggression and use of uranium warhead guided weapons will no longer be tolerated by the UK Government. These systems are increasing global radiation Levels from their own contamination. This will be several times worse if they are used on nuclear installations. So it is strategically and environmentally essential that you oppose any military strikes on nuclear facilities in Iran."
I have decided to republish Dai Williams information for many good reasons.
1. That Gaza has now become a victim of Israel and is being used as an experimental testing ground for US and Israeli weapons that one can only imagine goes well beyond conventional weapons. 2. That the UN War Crimes team currently carrying out investigations in Gaza must understand that they should not be restricted by time constraints. 3. That they must carry out investigations across a broad range of issues from War Crimes to the many illegal weapons used in such a disproportionate way. Finally to all the members of the Arab League I urge you to support the people of Palestine and to denounce any such actions being taken by Israel or its allies. As you will all see from the evidence above the entire Middle East would become a victim of such an attack. It is your duty of care towards all your people to insist that this illogical thinking is stopped.
As recently as September 2008 CBS reported that Special Forces struck Qaeda leadership in Pakistan.
The decision faced by Holder, whether or not to appoint a Special Prosecutor on torture, is of a different gravity altogether. A weight of evidence keeps building which indicates torture was employed on innocent men, that it didn't work, and that it didn't prevent any attacks. And it gets worse. Bush's own FBI Director Robert Mueller recently confirmed to the New York Times what he told Vanity Fair a year ago, that "to [his] knowledge" torture didn't prevent a single attack. Former Legendary CIA Director William Colby has said that torture is "ineffective."
Harper's Magazine's Scott Horton nows suggests there are two Eric Holders at war with each other: Holder the good soldier who knows well the preference of his boss for prosecutions to not take place, and Holder the servant of the law who is aware that what he does now may determine what is likely to happen again.
It is becoming clear that such an investigation, if it happens, will not stop with a few low-ranking scapegoats. Horton notes:
"President Obama�s assurance to CIA officials who relied on the opinions of government lawyers in implementing these programs, an assurance that Holder himself repeated, would have to be worked in. That suggests that the focus would likely be on the lawyers and policymakers who authorized use of the new techniques."
And CIA whistleblower Ray McGovern writes this week:
the buck stops - actually, in this case, it began - with President Bush. Senate Armed Services Committee leaders Carl Levin and John McCain on Dec. 11, 2008, released the executive summary of a report, approved by the full committee without dissent, concluding that Bush's Feb. 7, 2002, memorandum "opened the door to considering aggressive techniques."
What changed with Holder? Horton writes in "The Torture Prosecution Turnaround?":
Holder began his review mindful of the clear preference of President Obama�s two key political advisers�David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel�that there be no investigation. Axelrod and Emanuel are described as uninterested in either the legal or policy merits of the issue of a criminal investigation. Their concerns turn entirely on their political analysis...Holder initially appeared prepared to satisfy their wishes.
This attitude seemed to change after Obama's speech at the CIA, when Emanual and Axelrod moved out front to say there would be no prosecutions. According to Horton:
"In the days after Obama�s speech at the CIA, both Axelrod and Emanuel insisted that the White House had made the decision that there would be no prosecutions. According to reliable sources, that incensed Holder, who felt that the remarks had compromised the integrity both of the White House and Justice Department by suggesting that political advisers made the call on who would or would not be criminally investigated."
To make things worse for the Bush administration, evidence is emerging that they can no longer even rely on exhibit A and B of the Torture Works theory, Al Zabudaya and Kalid Shiek Mohammed, the latter of whom is still confessing to everything short of being the real Boston Strangler. I guess if I'd been waterboarded 82 times I'd be babbling too. The FBI Special Agent who interrogated Abu Zubayda, recently breaking a 7-year silence after reading the "torture memos," wrote in the New York Times:
"One of the most striking parts of the memos is the false premises on which they are based. The first, dated August 2002, grants authorization to use harsh interrogation techniques on a high-ranking terrorist, Abu Zubaydah, on the grounds that previous methods hadn�t been working. The next three memos cite the successes of those methods as a justification for their continued use.
It is inaccurate, however, to say that Abu Zubaydah had been uncooperative. Along with another F.B.I. agent, and with several C.I.A. officers present, I questioned him from March to June 2002, before the harsh techniques were introduced later in August. Under traditional interrogation methods, he provided us with important actionable intelligence...This experience fit what I had found throughout my counterterrorism career: traditional interrogation techniques are successful in identifying operatives, uncovering plots and saving lives."
Then there is the political risk to the Obama administration that Axelrod and Emanual have miscalculated, and that, in fact, the rest of the president's agenda is hamstrung while a growing number of Americans call for existing laws to be enforced. What is haunting Americans could be, in Washington jargon, "sucking oxygen" out of the debate, and "moving forward" is a pipe dream until pending business is dealt with. Spontaneous and planned rallies calling for a Special Prosecutor are growing, not diminishing. In addition, the worse revelations may be yet to come in the horrifying saga of what happened when, as Major General Anthony Taguba says:
[a] permissive environment [was] created by implicit and explicit authorizations by senior US officials to "take the gloves off"...
President Jimmy Carter wrote that the Red Cross, Amnesty International and the Pentagon "have gathered substantial testimony of torture of children, confirmed by soldiers who witnessed or participated in the abuse." In "Our Endangered Values" Carter said that the Red Cross found after visiting six U.S. prisons "107 detainees under eighteen, some as young as eight years old." And reporter Hersh, (who broke the Abu Ghraib torture scandal,) reported 800-900 Pakistani boys aged 13 to 15 in custody.
Journalist Seymour Hersh's (who broke the Abu Ghraib scandal) bombshell before the ACLU some years ago has been in a temporary slumber, as there is question as to whether the videotapes in possession of the Pentagon were among those claimed to be destroyed. Destroyed or not, there is still the conscience of soldiers and agents who bore witness to contend with, as the reign of political terror against whistleblowers which characterized the Bush administration subsides. Hersh said:
" Some of the worst things that happened you don't know about, okay? Videos, um, there are women there. Some of you may have read that they were passing letters out, communications out to their men. This is at Abu Ghraib ... The women were passing messages out saying 'Please come and kill me, because of what's happened' and basically what happened is that those women who were arrested with young boys, children in cases that have been recorded. The boys were sodomized with the cameras rolling. And the worst above all of that is the soundtrack of the boys shrieking that your government has. They are in total terror. It's going to come out."
Republican Senator Lindsey Graham said at the time:
"The American public needs to understand, we're talking about rape and murder here. We're not just talking about giving people a humiliating experience. We're talking about rape and murder and some very serious charges."
History is just beginning to sort out the Bush era, with stubborn facts showing a resilience that Fox News talking points cannot, and more emerging. Today, even among Republicans, it is difficult to find those who will embrace Richard Nixon, though for a while he was every bit the perceived victim of "left-wing hate" that Bush and Cheney are now. Incredibly, to compare Nixon to Bush-Cheney is to do a deeply flawed man a disservice. Nixon inherited Vietnam. He did not orchestrate from whole cloth a campaign to link Saddam with 9/11, and strenuously push to war despite the objections of his countrymen and the world. Nixon spied on political enemies. He did not use a tragedy to illegally spy on millions, the true numbers of which we still do not know because congress has never investigated.
It's almost possible to feel sorry for the shifty, friendless Nixon. It is less possible to feel so for the smirking Bush, who thought nothing of telling soldier's families that war critics were saying that their loved ones "had died in vain."
A compilation in November2008 of other evidence of alleged incidents involving children at the time recounts:
-- Iraqi lawyer Sahar Yasiri, representing the Federation of Prisoners and Political Prisoners, said in a published interview there are more than 400,000 detainees in Iraq being held in 36 prisons and camps and that 95 percent of the 10,000 women among them have been raped. Children, he said, "suffer from torture, rape, (and) starvation" and do not know why they have been arrested. He added the children have been victims of "random" arrests "not based on any legal text."
-- Former prisoner Thaar Salman Dawod in a witness statement said, "[I saw] two boys naked and they were cuffed together face to face and [a U.S. soldier] was beating them and a group of guards were watching and taking pictures and there was three female soldiers laughing at the prisoners."
-- Iraqi TV reporter, Suhaib Badr-Addin al-Baz, arrested while making a documentary and thrown into Abu Ghraib for 74 days, told Mackay he saw "hundreds" of children there. Al-Baz said he heard one 12-year-old girl crying, "They have undressed me. They have poured water over me." He said he heard her whimpering daily.
-- Al-Baz also told of a 15-year-old boy "who was soaked repeatedly with hoses until he collapsed." Amnesty International said ex-detainees reported boys as young as 10 are held at Abu Ghraib.
-- German TV reporter Thomas Reutter of "Report Mainz" quoted U.S. Army Sgt. Samuel Provance that interrogation specialists "poured water" over one 16-year-old Iraqi boy, drove him throughout a cold night, "smeared him with mud" and then showed him to his father, who was also in custody. Apparently, one tactic employed by the Bush regime is to elicit confessions from adults by dragging their abused children in front of them.
-- Jonathan Steele, wrote in the British "The Guardian" that "Hundreds of children, some as young as nine, are being held in appalling conditions in Baghdad�s prisons...Sixteen-year-old Omar Ali told the "Guardian" he spent more than three years at Karkh juvenile prison sleeping with 75 boys to a cell that is just five by 10 meters, some of them on the floor. Omar told the paper guards often take boys to a separate room in the prison and rape them.
-- Raad Jamal, age 17, was taken from his Doura home by U.S. troops and turned over to the Iraqi Army�s Second regiment where Jamal said he was hung from the ceiling by ropes and beaten with electric cables.
-- Human Rights Watch (HRW) last June put the number of juveniles detained at 513. In all, HRW estimates, since 2003, the U.S. has detained 2,400 children in Iraq, some as young as ten.
-- IRIN, the humanitarian news service, last year quoted Khalid Rabia of the Iraqi NGO Prisoners� Association for Justice(PAJ), stating that five boys between 13 and 17 accused of supporting insurgents and detained by the Iraqi army "showed signs of torture all over their bodies," such as "cigarette burns over their legs," she said.
-- One boy of 13 arrested in Afghanistan in 2002 was held in solitary for more than a year at Bagram and Guantanamo and made to stand in stress position and deprived of sleep, according to the "Catholic Worker."
Attorney General Holder is a man of conscience who now serves both President Obama and the law. A Newsweek piece last week says he has no illusions that:
Such a decision [to appoint a Special Prosecutor] would roil the country, would likely plunge Washington into a new round of partisan warfare, and could even imperil Obama's domestic priorities, including health care and energy reform. Holder knows all this, and he has been wrestling with the question for months. "I hope that whatever decision I make would not have a negative impact on the president's agenda," he says. "But that can't be a part of my decision."
There can be redemption for a nation which faces its past. One that does not can only become more monstrous.
Here is the flag of Persia, used prior to 1925. Note the ratio of length to height, more a banner than a flag. Note also the paler coloring.
Source, Wikipedia
Here is the flag of Iran during the time of the Pahlavi Dynasty. Note the ratio of length to height, like a modern flag, and the darker coloring.
Source, Wikipedia
Here is the modern day flag of Iran. This is the flag in use for the last 30 years.
Source, Wikipedia Also HERE
So, whose flag are they flying at the protests?
Judge for yourself. And remember, these flags were flown as part of protests that held in front of the White House, in Toronto, Irvine, on CNN and at it's Atlanta headquarter office, in Salt Lake City and on the Bellevue Washington, amongst others. There was definitely a clear impression and message being sent along.
Think! This design flag has not been used for 30 years. They are not just lying around "Flags-R-us". Somebody ordered these flags made in advance of the protests!
Singer, songwriter. Jackson was born August 29, 1958, in Gary, Indiana, to an African-American working-class family. His father, Joseph Jackson, had been a guitarist but had put aside his musical aspirations to provide for his family as a crane operator. Believing his sons had talent, he molded them into a musical group in the early 1960s. At first, the Jackson Family performers consisted of Michael’s older brothers Tito, Jermaine, and Jackie. Michael joined his siblings when he was five, and emerged as the group’s lead vocalist. He showed remarkable range and depth for such a young performer, impressing audiences with his ability to convey complex emotions. Older brother Marlon also became a member of the group, which evolved into the Jackson 5.
Michael died today, 25 June 2009 of a heart attack, he was aged 50. May his gentle soul rest in perfect bliss.
STUTTGART, Germany — A social science research center is under development at U.S. Africa Command headquarters, where researchers from the academic world are being recruited to help map the complicated human terrain on the African continent.
The research center, which falls under AFRICOM’s knowledge development division, will be designed to focus on the long-term with an eye toward forecasting potential flashpoints and preventing them from developing into conflicts.
But mixing military and social science has long been a source of controversy, going all the way back to the Vietnam era when information collected by researchers was used for targeting people.
More recently, the Army’s Human Terrain System, used in Iraq and Afghanistan, has been met with resistance from groups such as the Network of Concerned Anthropologists, made up of social scientists opposed to the mingling of academia and the military.
Though defenders of the Human Terrain System argue that social scientists are providing information to commanders that potentially can reduce levels of violence, opponents say human terrain mapping benefits the U.S. military, not local populations.
As AFRICOM sets out to recruit and build its staff of social scientists, word is beginning to spread about the latest effort, and some professors are already expressing similar concerns.
"There is a contradiction between anthropology and AFRICOM or the U.S. military," said David Hughes, an environmental anthropologist from Rutgers University’s Center for African Studies.
Hughes, who participated in an interview for a position on the AFRICOM team — a position Hughes said he was never interested in but wanted to learn more about — contends that academic researchers shouldn’t accept employment with the Defense Department.
While pursuing national security interests is the military’s objective, "Our concern is to take the concerns of the subject first and foremost. It would be difficult to negotiate that conflict," he said.
For example, researching the degree of pro or anti-American sentiment in a given area and turning over those findings to the military could open to door to selective targeting of individuals, according to Hughes.
"Then I might immediately endanger my subjects. This is the sort of thing we don’t want to be involved in and facilitate," said Hughes, whose department has issued a statement vowing that it would not collaborate with the military’s efforts in Africa.
AFRICOM officials, however, say fears about militarizing social science are misplaced. So are comparisons between AFRICOM’s research center and the Human Terrain System, which embeds academics on the battlefield to provide cultural advice to commanders in support of their missions, officials said.
"We have no combat mission in Africa," said Col. Dean Bland, who is heading up AFRICOM’s research center effort and insists the social scientists would have no role in targeting people.
Rather, the academics will fill in gaps in knowledge and help commanders craft more effective programs, he said. For example, as military training initiatives are developed, having an awareness of the ethnic mixes and traditions in a given area would be valuable information, he said. Knowing when there’s a disenfranchised minority sub-group in a region also would be valuable as the military tries to anticipate flashpoints and prevent conflict, he said.
"You have to understand how societies tick to make better decisions," Bland said.
Examining the relationship between geography and environment, culture and politics, and how these factors can come together to create instability is a new approach to intelligence-gathering, Bland said.
The research center will deal largely in the unclassified realm. The intent is to work together with other think tanks, non-governmental organizations and release reports into the public domain, Bland said. Papers will be peer-reviewed and the work will be available for others working on the continent, he said.
Despite some early criticism in academia, recruiting hasn’t been a problem, Bland said.
Currently, about a dozen staffers are on board. Within six months, the knowledge development team is expected to be fully manned with 25 to 30 members. The majority will be based in Stuttgart. A team of about six people will be stationed at Camp Lemonier in Djibouti, where they will work closely with AFRICOM’s Combined Joined Task Force-Horn of Africa.
At times, the Germany-based members could deploy to the continent for short research missions.
The need for a research center, Bland said, boils down to the fact that there’s a lot the military doesn’t know regarding Africa — a continent of 53 countries, hundreds of languages, tribes and cultures.
Indeed, Africa is a place Americans generally know little about and tend to regard as one big country instead of a diverse continent of nearly one billion people, AFRICOM officials say.
Could AFRICOM’s social scientists help leaders anticipate events, such as the violence that followed last year’s elections in Kenya? Could they advise commanders on the potential destabilizing effects of global warming and desertification in certain regions? Could the next genocide be prevented?
That’s the goal, though measuring effectiveness will be difficult, Bland said.
"We’ll never know if we are successful, because if we do our job right, flashpoints will go away," Bland said.
DATELINE: Abuja. The Umaru Musa Yar’Adua’s administration in Nigeria might have finally decided to take the bulls by the horn by deciding to acquire nuclear capabilities for various peaceful purposes, especially for the nation’s intractable power sector.
Zumarockreports.com has been reliably informed by inside sources at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs that President Yar’Adua and President Dimitri Medvedev of Russia will in Abuja, Nigeria’s capital, on June 24, initial an agreement for the provision of nuclear technology to Nigeria.
President Medvedev who will be in Nigeria as part of an African business trip is expected to arrive here with about 300 prospective investors on his entourage will also initial other agreements with Nigerian officials.
A formal hint to Nigeria’s decision to acquire nuclear technology was dropped by the Minister of National Planning, Shamsudeen Usman, last week when he announced that Nigeria and 16 other African countries may soon start power generation from nuclear plants, under a power base diversification program being backed by the Austria-based International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), adding that already IAEA has organized a regional training program for personnel from countries participating in the project.
President Medvedev’s historic visit to Nigeria will be the first time a Russian head of state would be visiting Africa. The trip will also take him to Angola, Namibia and Egypt. Informed sources have told our correspondent that apart from the nuclear deal, another important reason for the Russian leader’s visit would be to seal agreements for the Russian involvement in Nigeria’s gas and petroleum sector through its giant Gazprom, which, as is being speculated may replace Royal Dutch Shell in Nigeria.
Nigeria may have decided to terminate its contract with the Anglo-Dutch company for the development of an oil and gas deposit in the Ogoniland region of the Niger Delta, even after the company has made a huge pay-out to the Ogoni people for years of environmental degradation suffered by the communities.
Zumarockreports.com also learnt that Shell abandoned the fields, which hold proven reserves of over 10 trillion cubic meters (353 trillion cubic feet) of gas, 15 years ago after its relations with the Ogoni people reached its nadir, to the extent that Ogonis vowed to ensure that Shell never sets its feet on Ogoniland.
A hint to the possible involvement of the Russian energy giant, Gazprom in Nigeria’s booming energy sector was dropped about one year ago in South Africa by President Yar’Adua himself when he announced that, "by the end of the year another oil operator will take over Shell Petroleum interests in Ogoniland."
Earlier this year, Gazprom had confirmed negotiating a seven-billion dollar contract for offshore gas exploration with the Nigerian government. Earlier this month, Gazprom chief executive Alexei Miller, who will be on Medvedev’s delegation to Africa had met with the group managing director of the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation and Tanimu Yakubu, the chief economic adviser to the president, to discuss the details of the cooperation.
Look what they are doing to our world, that we may become zombies!
With the discovery of vaccines to eradicate polio, smallpox, diptheria, and other killers, and, the discovery of potent antibiotics, the last 50 years of the 20th Century heralded a hope for conquering disease by the 21st Century. In the 1980's it was obvious that we would not conquer disease when we were challenged with the discovery of HIV and HCV. The 1990's brought us the realization that our antibiotics would not be a panacea. Diseases formerly controlled by antibiotics were becoming resistant to the drugs. Diseases like TB were making a comeback and with a vengence. Our climate is changing rapidly, and with this change, we are seeing emerging and re-emergiing diseases not endemic to the particular areas of outbreak.
Fall 1999, New York area experienced just such an event. A non endemic disease broke out in a "hot zone" in Northern Queens. Was this altered strain a result of climate change or did it emerge from a Lab, Plum Island, Yale, or some other lab? Plum Island is located less then 2 miles from the Eastern shore of Long Island, Orient Pt. It is less then 13 miles across Long Island Sound from our Submarine base at Groton, Ct. (Pathogens deemed too dangerous to enter via JFK, are brought via submarine and transferred to a Govt. Ferry to Plum Island. Plum Island is a biolevel 5 facility. In 1996 SUNY Stoney Brook had been considering joint experiments with Plum Island, using the biolevel 4 lab at Plum Island. Why then do we hear in the press, that Plum Island is seeking funds to upgrade from level 3 to a level 4 facility? This request to "upgrade" to "bogus" level 4 came on the heels of the West Nile like outbreak. March 1999 and also. during the summer there were a sequence of power outages. Some background on Plum is needed. March 1999, Plum island installed an undersea fiberoptic cable. During the finalization of the cable, by STV Inc. all power to Plum Island was lost. Plum Island needs power to maintain biocontainment. Plum Island has had a horrific safety violation record and has been cited by the EPA as late as Spring 1999. In March 1999, the (now previous) Director, Alfonso Torres, gave his resignation. A new Director, Dr. LeeAnn Thomas, took over in July of 1999. Some of the attached links prove that Plum is not a biolevel 3, but it is a biolevel 5 faciliity, one of only a few worldwide. According to Dr. Alfonso Torres and also Dr. Kiley of Plum Island, Plum Island is the only biolevel 5 facility in the US. Why would Plum Island seek the bogus level 4 upgrade after the outbreak of the WNV? I do not have that answer. It is theorized that Plum island needs funds just to maintain its present biocontainment. (according to Dr. Kiley 1998 meeting USAHA Committee on Government Relations.) Plum Island had been working with Japanese Encephalitis since the early 1990's. Plum Island/Yale Scientists had even tested JE vaccine on HUMAN VOLUNTEERS. Background: 1978 bioaccident. FMD microbes escaped. Workers were evacuated in paper coveralls, lab animals were incinerated and the island was sprayed with toxic chemicals. I have corresponded with a person who lived near Plum Island at that time, and claims to have contracted Foot and Mouth Disease, as was the case with other children at that time. Was this same toxic spraying done March 1999 and other times when the power was out? http://www.nalusda.gov/ttic/tektran/data/000009/05/0000090536.html Yes, Plum Island has been working with JE as the above link proves. Why would an animal facility test JE vaccine on HUMAN VOLUNTEERS? There has been a loss of the lobster population in Long Island Sound, Fall 1999. Did installation of the STV Inc. Cable cause the hazardous waste that Plum Island was cited for illegally dumping in 1998 to be drudged up? Did this or toxic chemical spraying of the island cause the algal bloom to become toxic and thereby cause the killoff? Why did the Mayor of the City of New York, OVER REACT, and spray deadly Malathion when he learned of 3 deaths of elderly people. He did not follow legal steps to obtain a permit for the spraying. History of Plum Island: In 1954 Ft. Terry, a biowar research facility closed its doors on that scruffy island. It handed over to the new lab, 134 strains of 13 viruses collected from every Continent of the World. At that time, the prime directive of Plum Island, was to find an efficient manner to infect Soviet Livestock. In 1969, President Nixon OFFICIALLY ended the biowar research program. Plum Island, officially, became an Animal Foreign Disease diagnostic facility. The advent of the 21st Century has the world in fear of bioterrorism. Bioweapons are cheaply fabricated, easy to carry and undetectable. Countries unable to fund expensive defense programs are able to put together an arsenol of bioweapons. Individual terrorists are able to strike fear into the hearts and souls of Nations at just the mention of a bioweapon threat. In 1993, after a 10 year hiatus, Dugway Proving Ground began bioresearch. In 1983, after a bioaccident which resulted in the anthrax death of sheep in neighboring pastures, Dugway had ended its biowar research. Now, 10 years later, in the name of biowar DEFENSE, Dugway opened for business without any opposition. Dugway is testing BIDS (BioIntegrated Defense System). At first the tests were conducted in liquid with "designer" simulants anthrax, bottulism, plague and smallpox etal. Now, testing of the defensive weapon is aerosol. The pathogens are (synthetic, a type of "designer" pathogen) deemed no more harmful then bacteria found in dirt. Only time will tell, I guess. Now, for a PLUM ISLAND UPDATE I now know why Plum Island is a biolevel 5 facility. In 1970, just one year after President Nixon officially ended our offensive biowar research, Plum Island was granted 10 million dollars by the Federal Govt. The purpose of the grant was to research the use of mycoplasma for use in germ warfare. The original 10 million dollar grant was for a 5 year period. In 1975, the funding was continued as the mycoplasma research was deemed very successful. In the 1980's a young scientist had just completed his graduate research at Cornell. He was hired by Plum Island to head up the mycoplasma research project. This scientist was Dr. Jawad Al Aubaidi. When it was obvious that hostilities would break out in the Persian Gulf, he went back home to his native Iraq, where he headed up the mycoplasma research at the Univ. of Bagdad. I have recently received a letter from Dr. Aubaidi's professor at Cornell, Dr. Carmichael. Dr. Carmichael pointed out that Dr. Aubaidi was a brilliant young researcher and a very nice person. He also sent me a medline reference sheet for me to look up Dr. Aubaidi's research prior to and while at Cornell. I am still trying to figure out how Dr. Carmichael was able to locate my mailing address. I had applied to the National Archives, under FOIA, for information on Ft. Terry, Plum Island, and information about Dr. Aubaidi and the circumstances of his untimely death. I received a letter from the NSA dated June 5, 2000 regarding my FOIA request. They informed me that the circumstances of the death of Dr. Jawad Al-Aubaidi, and information on his research is classified in accordance with Executive Order 12958. My request for information was therefore denied. They further went on to state that such information would involve breaching National Security and Foreign Relations. According to Prof. Garth Nicolson, Dr. Aubaidi was murdered by the Israelis. Yet, according to Dr. Carmichael, Dr. Aubaidi was hit by a truck when fixing a flat tire. Dr. Carmichael said that according to Dr. Aubaidi's wife, the flat tire and subsequent "Accident" was arranged by agents of Sadam. Were the Iraqis responsible for his death? According to Cornell Univ. Dr. L. E. Carmichael, Dr. Aubaidi and his family were planning to move back to the US. At the time of Dr. Aubaidi's death, Dr. Carmichael states that Dr. Aubaidi's planned move back to the US was to take place a week after Dr. Aubaidi's accident. According to Dr. Carmichael, Dr. Aubaidi deserves better. I therefore, am very interested in finding out exactly why Dr. Jawad Al Aubaidi was murdered in such a manner.
I could never understand how the US and the Pentegon could insist that biological agents were not used in the Persian Gulf. There was NO MONITORING FOR BIOLOGICALS in place during the Gulf War. There was only LIMITED Chemical weapon monitoring. The BIDS moniitoring technology was not in place at that time. It only commenced in 1993. According to accurate and verified accounts, Sadam Hussein purchased mycoplasma as well as other biologicals, which included West Nile Virus, from the US right up to 2 weeks before Desert Storm. I have further discovered that Plum Island had projects in which "clean" ticks were infected with brucella. They also had a project infecting ticks with African Swine Fever. Plum Island Scientists, Dr. Fred Brown and former Plum Island Director, Alfonso Torres have been working with BSE and other Prion diseases. It is my contention that the disease we now call Lyme Disease, originated in a lab at Plum Island. The funding for research would be covered in the Mycoplasma grant. The very first case of Lyme Disease was isolated in a youth, in 1975, within a few miles of the dock where the Plum Island Government Ferry boat lands on the Connecticut side of Long Island Sound. I have heard that a young Connecticut girl who had received yet, not responded to all known treatments for Lyme Disease, and who was dying, was sent to the inhouse isolation ward at Plum Island and "emerged" from that Animal Facility, totally CURED OF LYME DISEASE. When I first began the investigation into Plum Island and its connection to the New York outbreak of Kunjin/West Nile-like disease, I never imagined that Plum island would be so immersed in biowar projects. In any event, I now know why it was designated a biolevel 5 facility. At the time, 1970, it was illegal to work with mycoplasma in the Continental US. As Plum island was and is a top secret biowar facility, and it is an island, it was designated biolevel 5 and given the funding to proceed with mycoplasma research. So, indeed, Plum Island is a biolevel 5 facility.
August 30,2001 Plum Island Update
The Plum Island upgrade to biolevel 4 has not occurred as of this writing. There is now a citizen watchdog group overseeing the upgrade and the activities at Plum Island. It was my hope that the committee would monitor Plum Island and there would be safeguards in place. I have recently learned that Plum Island IS doing research on Nipah virus. Nipah virus, in the paramyxovirus group along with Hendra virus is a biolevel 4 pathogen. In other words, labs working with this virus mandate a biolevel 4 designation. This designation is required because Nipah is zoonotic, jumping species barrier from animal to man, and, has no cure or preventive vaccine. So, why is a lab who claims to be only a biolevel 3 and not a level 5, working on a biolevel 4 pathogen? Is the fact that they are an island status and a biolevel 5 a factor in their working on Nipah? How many other biolevel 4 pathogens are being studied at Plum Island? Remember, Plum Island is less then 2 miles from Long Island's coast. Birds and probably bats fly to and from the island. Nipah is a virus that is vectored by bats. It joins Hendra, another paramyxovirus and Tioman, also paramyxovirus, as a bat vectored virus. Although it is in the paramyxovirus family, Nipah and Hendra, and Tioman are in a separate group. I wrote to Dr. Daniel Rock who heads the Nipah research unit and, as of this writing, have not had a response to my mail. I am wondering where the watch dog group is and why are they not monitoring the Nipah research. I hope that we can get a response from Plum Island regarding their Nipah research in a biolevel 3 lab. According to APHIS/ARS, Plum Island needs funds to upgrade the facility JUST TO MAINTAIN ITS BIOLEVEL 3 DESIGNATION. This is the same facility that is working on a biolevel 4 pathogen?
AJV states that it “recognizes the powerful role of U.S. policy in the region and believes that the United States’ unconditional support of Israeli government policy is profoundly harmful to the cause of peace with justice. We will work to promote a U.S. policy that is consistent with international law and human rights. We will work to combat the myth of American Jewish consensus in support of Israeli government policy.”~~Another Jewish Voice
"You must be celebrating,” the interviewer from a popular radio station told me after Netanyahu’s speech. “After all, he is accepting the plan which you proposed 42 years ago!” (Actually it was 60 years ago, but who is counting?)
The front page of Haaretz carried an article by Gideon Levy, in which he wrote that “the courageous call of Uri Avnery and his friends four decades ago is now being echoed, though feebly, from end to end (of the Israeli political spectrum).”
I would be lying if I denied feeling a brief glow of satisfaction, but it faded quickly. This was no “historic” speech, not even a “great” speech. It was a clever speech.
It contained some sanctimonious verbiage to appease Barack Obama, followed right away by the opposite, to pacify the Israeli extreme right. Not much more.
* * *
NETANYAHU DECLARED that “our hand is extended for peace.”
In my ears, that rang a bell: in the 1956 Sinai war, a member of my editorial staff was attached to the brigade that conquered Sharm-al-Sheikh. Since he had grown up in Egypt, he interviewed the senior captured Egyptian officer, a colonel. “Every time David Ben-Gurion announced that his hand was stretched out for peace,” the Egyptian told him, “we were put on high alert.”
And indeed, that was Ben-Gurion’s method. Before every provocation he would declare that “our hands are extended for peace”, adding conditions that he knew were totally unacceptable to the other side. Thus an ideal situation (for him) was created: The world saw Israel as a peace-loving country, while the Arabs looked like serial peace-killers. Our secret weapon is the Arab refusal, it used to be joked in Jerusalem at the time.
This week, Netanyahu wheeled out the same old trick.
* * *
I DO NOT underrate, of course, the significance of the chief of the Likud uttering the two words: “Palestinian state”.
Words carry political weight. Once released into the world, they have a life of their own. Unlike dogs, they cannot be called back.
In a popular Israeli love song, the boy asks the girl: “When you say no, what do you mean?” One could well ask: When Netanyahu says yes, what does he mean?
But even if the words “Palestinian state” passed his lips only under duress, and when Netanyahu has no intention at all of turning them into reality, it is still important that the head of the government and the chief of the Likud was compelled to utter them. The idea of the Palestinian state has now become a part of the national consensus, and only a handful of ultra-rightists reject it directly. But this is only the beginning. The main struggle will be about turning the idea into reality.
* * *
THE ENTIRE speech was addressed to one single person: Barack Obama. It was not designed to appeal to the Palestinians. It was quite clear that the Palestinians are only the passive object of a discussion between the President of the USA and the Prime Minister of Israel. Except in some tired old clichés, Netanyahu spoke about them, not to them.
He is ready, so he says, to conduct negotiations with the “Palestinian community”, and that, of course, “without preconditions”. Meaning: without Palestinian preconditions. On Netanyahu’s part, there are plenty of preconditions, every one of which is designed to make certain that no Palestinian, no Arab and indeed no Muslim will agree to enter negotiations.
Condition 1: The Arabs have to recognize Israel as “the nation-state of the Jewish people” (and not just “a Jewish state”, as many in the media erroneously reported.) As Hosny Mubarak has already answered: No Arab will accept this, because it would mean that 1.5 million Arab citizens of Israel are cut off from the state, and because it would deny in advance the Right of Return of the Palestinian refugees - the main bargaining chip of the Arab side.
It should be remembered that when the United Nations resolved in 1947 to partition Palestine between a “Jewish state” and an “Arab state”, they did not mean to define the character of the states. They were just stating facts: there are two mutually hostile populations in the country, and therefore the country has to be divided between them. (Anyhow, 40% of the population of the “Jewish” state was to consist of Arabs.)
Condition 2: The Palestinian Authority must first of all establish its rule over the Gaza Strip. How? After all, the Israeli government prevents travel between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, and no Palestinian force can pass from one to the other. And the solution of the problem by establishing a Palestinian unity government is also ruled out: Netanyahu flatly declared that there would be no negotiations with a Palestinian leadership that includes “terrorists who want to annihilate us” – his way of referring to Hamas.
Condition 3: The Palestinian state will be demilitarized. This is not a new idea. All peace plans that have been put forward up to now speak about security arrangements that would protect Israel from Palestinian attacks and Palestine from Israeli attacks. But that is not what Netanyahu has in mind: he did not speak about mutuality, but about domination. Israel would control the air space and the border crossings of the Palestinian state, turning it into a kind of giant Gaza Strip. Also, Netanyahu’s style was deliberately overbearing and humiliating: he obviously hopes that the word ‘demilitarized” would be enough to get the Palestinians to say “no”.
Condition 4: Undivided Jerusalem will remain under Israeli rule. This was not proposed as an opening gambit for negotiations but presented as a final decision. That by itself ensures that no Palestinian, nor any Arab or even any Muslim, could accept the proposal.
In the Oslo Agreement, Israel undertook to negotiate about the future of Jerusalem. It is an accepted legal rule that if one undertakes to negotiate, one accepts to do so bona fide, on the basis of give and take. Therefore, all peace plans provide that East Jerusalem - wholly or partly – will be returned to Arab rule.
Condition 5: Between Israel and the Palestinian state there will be “defensible borders”. These are code-words for extensive annexations by Israel. Their meaning: no return to the 1967 borders, not even with a swap of territory that would allow for some of the large settlements to be joined to Israel. In order to create “defensible borders”, a major part of the occupied Palestinian territories (which altogether make up just 22% of pre-1948 Palestine) will be absorbed into Israel.
Condition 6: The refugee problem will be solved “outside the territory of Israel”. Meaning: not a single refugee will be allowed to return. True, all realistic people agree that there can be no return of millions of refugees. According to the Arab peace initiative, the solution must be “mutually agreed” – which means that Israel has to agree to any solution. The assumption is that the two parties will agree on the return of a symbolic number. This is a highly charged and sensitive matter, which must be treated with prudence and the utmost sensitivity. Netanyahu does the opposite: his provocative statement, devoid of all empathy, is clearly designed to bring about an automatic refusal.
Condition 7: No settlement freeze. The “normal life” of the settlers will continue. Meaning: the building activity for the “natural increase” will go on. This illustrates the saying of Michael Tarazy, a legal advisor to the PLO: “We are negotiating about sharing a pizza, and in the meantime Israel is eating it.”
All this was in the speech. No less interesting is what was not in it. For example, the words: Road Map. Annapolis. Palestine. The Arab peace plan. Occupation. Palestinian Sovereignty. Opening of the Gaza Strip border crossings. Golan Heights. And, even more important: there was not a hint of respect for the enemy who must be turned into a friend, in the words of the ancient Jewish saying.
By Uri Avnery
Uri Avnery is an Israeli writer and peace activist with Gush Shalom.
.svg.jpg)
.svg.jpg)
