The Failings of the UN War Crimes Mission to Gaza

By Peter Eyre, The Palestine Telegraph, Oct. 9, 2009

Gaza - We had all hoped that the findings of the UN investigation team into war crimes would have delivered swift and severe justice for the people of Gaza. The US on the other hand had other ideas and once again intervened.

We have over many years seen the manipulation and interference by the United States in not allowing the UN to carry out its rightful duties. Could anyone imagine stalling the outcome of a murder case because the pending result may convict a killer and upset the family?

What gives Hillary Clinton the right to say that such an outcome may directly affect any future peace plans with Israel? Does this mean that war crimes can be swept under the carpet as she shakes hands with the perpetrators and pretends nothing ever happened? Doesn't Clinton and the President understand that in carrying out swift action will gain respect from the Arab world. This is truly a sad day for international justice.

The extensive report highlighted the many crimes that had taken place but then backed off when it came to more serious issues. The report fell short of investigating some very serious allegations that had been made; both in submissions made or pointed out to them whilst in Gaza. It was also disgraceful that this investigation had been given time constraints. Since when have investigations into murder been restricted by time?

Let's take a look at some of the more important aspects of this report and reveal the many flaws associated with it and how some of the genuine serious allegations were swept under the carpet.

The remit for this investigation was to investigate events occurring between the ceasefire of 18th June 2008 and the Israeli attack on the 27th of December 2008 and during Operation Cast Lead.

On Page 16 Paragraph 48 of the report they talk about certain weapons used such as White Phosphorus (WP): Based on its investigation of incidents involving the use of certain weapons such as white phosphorous and flechette missiles, the Mission, while accepting that white phosphorous is not at this stage proscribed under international law, finds that the Israeli armed forces were systematically reckless in determining its use in built-up areas. Moreover, doctors who treated patients with white phosphorous wounds spoke about the severity and sometimes untreatable nature of the burns caused by the substance. The Mission believes that serious consideration should be given to banning the use of white phosphorous in built-up areas.

The wording in the above paragraph indicates that WP is not proscribed under international law and yet when one looks towards Geneva we find the following:

The use of White Phosphorus of densely populated areas - In violation of the Geneva Convention: Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons (Protocol III).

"Certain uses of incendiary weapons, in particular the use of air delivered incendiary weapons against targets situated amongst concentrations of civilians" (Protocol III to the Conventional Weapons Convention).

I am sure that we all agree that these weapons were continuously rained down on the densely populated city of Gaza and yet the Mission appeared to have played down is usage and made the recommendation "The Mission believes that serious consideration should be given to banning the use of white phosphorous in built-up areas". Didn't they know this was already covered under the above Protocol?

Let's go back to Page 8 Paragraph (F) when it states that forensic analysis of weapons and ammunitions collected at incident sites would be used. Again it appears that the Mission did not apply the forensic analysis it talked about.

Even if one had the name "Sherlock Holmes" and walked around Gaza with a spy glass in hand you would find more evidence that these forensic scientist found.

Why did the Mission not follow up on the issue of Flechette or DIME weapons that were reportedly used on Gaza? The doctors explained to them their findings, they had victims with such injuries and they had a multitude of fragments to show? The report gives clear indications of their usage but falls short of condemning Israel and obviously must leave this aspect of such an enquiry open pending further investigation. Why is this not being carried out?

In their report the following comment was made: "Mission notes that they are an area weapon incapable of discriminating between objectives after detonation. They are; therefore, particularly unsuitable for use in urban settings where there is reason to believe civilians may be present". Did they again forget to mention that these weapons are also in violation of the Geneva Convention?

Whilst on the subject of weapons used what happened to the more serious allegation that DU/EU weapons had been used on Gaza? They were raised in the submissions made to the UN before their visitation and by other third parties. If one again looks at the report we will see some small reference on this topic namely: The Mission received allegations that depleted and none depleted
uranium was used by Israeli forces in Gaza. These allegations were not further investigated by the Mission.

Of all the alleged war crimes committed the most evil act that anyone could inflict on a nation is that of DU/EU weapons. They are totally indiscriminate, totally illegal and lethal. So why did such an important allegation also get swept under the carpet. Did the Missions Sherlock Homes run out of spy glasses, were their sun glasses so dark they couldn't find any evidence or did they just simply run out of time? This report like all the previous UN reports concerning DU/EU weapons usage in the Balkans, Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon are deeply flawed so why should we expect any inspiration from the Gaza report?

Perhaps we must once again remind the Mission of the following:

Weaponry containing Depleted Uranium (DU) with indiscriminate effect or of a nature to cause superflouus injury or unnecessary suffering.

Protocols I to the Geneva Conventions have an obligation to ascertain that new weapons do not violate the laws and customs of war or any other international law. The International Court of Justice considers this rule binding customary humanitarian law.

Let's just help refresh their memory of the multiple attacks on Gaza using weapons containing uranium components. In the photograph on the left we see two such weapons exploding with another two on the way in. We have seen such explosions in many parts of Gaza and also in the Rafah.

If one looks at this investigation by the Mission you will once again see that these other extremely serious issues of DU/EU, WP, DIME, Flechette bombs have been bypassed and become insignificant. I again emphasise that this report into Israel's activities in Gaza should remain open pending further investigations.

The report also focused on the Palestinian rocket attacks but went outside of its remit in doing so. The Missions remit clearly states to investigate events between the ceasefire period and the end of Operation Cast Lead. The report failed to highlight the fact that the Palestinians held true its promise of a ceasefire for the entire duration and then only broke that ceasefire as a result of the continued intimidation by Israel.

Regarding Page 31 Paragraph 103 of the report. Why did the Mission go outside of their remit to quote the following? - "Palestinian armed groups have launched about 8000 rockets and mortars into southern Israel since 2001". In Paragraph 105 on the same page it again went outside of its remit to refer to data received in October of 2007: "The Mission has taken particular note of the high level of psychological trauma suffered by the civilian population inside Israel. Data gathered by an Israeli organization in October 2007 found that 28.4% of adults and 72-94% of children in Sderot suffered from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder" Based on this comment would it not be true to say the Palestinians have been under constant intimidation from the Israeli's since their States inception? Would it be true to say that the trauma of constant degradation, humiliation and land grabs goes beyond imagination.

The report even passed comment about Hamas fighting from within Gaza city and putting the civilian population at risk. Perhaps the Mission could explain how does want fight and defend such a densely populated city without being in amongst your own population? Does the Mission appreciate that the distance from the city to the border is very short and had Hamas taken up position in such an area the Israel Air Force with its sophisticated Fighter, Helicopters and UAV's would have picked them off without any effort. It is obvious that the experts writing this report have no understanding of the disproportionate force that Hamas faced and had no choice but to fight from within their city.

On Page 29 Paragraph 92 the report even extended into the West Bank when it stated: "In the West Bank, Israel has long imposed a system of movement restrictions. Movement is restricted by a combination of physical obstacles such as roadblocks, checkpoints and the Wall, but also through administrative measures such as identity cards, permits, assigned residence, laws on family reunification, and policies on the right to enter from abroad and the right of return for refugees" etc.

What the report did not point out was that the West Bank remains under total occupation and that two thirds of this so called Palestinian enclave is not available to the rightful owners. The Israelis in their usual arrogant way continue to land grab and take control of vast tracts of land. We have reason to believe that much of the land on the Dead Sea side is extremely rich in natural resources and therefore they have no intention of allowing the rightful owners to benefit from those resources.

Finally I would like to point out that the report draws attention to the odd missile or bomb here and there when in actual fact the strip was bombarded with a vast array of high tech weaponry. It is obvious that yet again the UN is playing down these serious violations and really has no intention of revealing the truth behind the use of these dirty weapons. Independent experts have received samples from Gaza in much the same way as they did from Lebanon and the findings were extremely upsetting. I again as the question of the UN Mission Team.....why didn't they use forensic evidence from the many missile/bomb sites to analyse exactly what had be used during the conflict and why wasn't these forensic experts used as stipulated at the beginning of their report?

The Palestinian people and their brothers in the Middle East should apply pressure on the UN to proceed without delay and bring justice to the people of Gaza. The manipulation by the US and the announced delay is appalling.

- Peter Eyre, Middle East Consultant

Not one penny has reached Gaza

By Omar Karmi, The National Newspaper, Aug. 31, 2009

Photo: Many structures in Gaza, such as the parliament building, are still in rubble. Alexei Kidel for The National

JERUSALEM - It has been six months since the international community pledged nearly US$5 billion (Dh18bn) in aid to the Palestinian people, chiefly for the reconstruction of the Gaza Strip after Israel’s devastating offensive there this year.

None of this aid has reached Gaza and no reconstruction has started.

Although Israel is slowly easing its restrictions on the flow of basic humanitarian goods to Gaza, including food and medicine, construction materials remain prohibited from entering, institutions and homes still lie in rubble, and critically needed projects to repair and upgrade Gaza’s power plant and tottering sewage network lie dormant.

The situation is frustrating to development agencies and experts. Two weeks ago, the UN was forced to issue another emergency appeal for funds for Gazans. The UN’s Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), which provides aid and education to Palestinian refugees, decried the condition of Gaza’s refugees as “shameful”. Numbering one million, refugees make up about 70 per cent of the total population in Gaza; and UNRWA asked for $181 million to help it through the rest of the year in a special Ramadan appeal.

Of the billions of dollars pledged for reconstruction by the international community, UNRWA noted in a press release on August 17, “not one penny” has reached Gaza, and reconstruction has proven to be a “mirage”. The humanitarian situation in Gaza, according to the UN, “remains precarious”.

That such serious humanitarian disasters as a cholera epidemic did not emerge in Gaza, said William Corcoran, the president of the American Near East Refugee Aid agency, (Anera) is partly down to “dumb luck”.

“We expected more serious health scares but thankfully they haven’t occurred,” Mr Corcoran said in an interview last week. “This is partly because sewage pipes have not yet burst into the streets. But they are at the stage where that can happen at any moment.”

In Gaza, Anera is a partner to USAID, the official US aid agency, and is supposed to repair and upgrade most of Gaza’s aged and faulty sewage system. That project – like all the projects, including construction of a seaport and the reopening of the airport, agreed to in the US-brokered 2005 Agreement on Movement and Access – has yet to get off the ground.

Mr Corcoran was keen to highlight the projects Anera has been able to implement in Gaza, including food and medicine deliveries, a programme to provide fresh milk to Gazan preschoolers and the reconstruction of 18 preschools using materials recycled from the destruction wrought in the Gaza war, but he admitted to frustration at the kind of projects Anera is now pursuing.

In the West Bank, he said, Anera helped establish four IT institutes affiliated to four different universities. In Gaza, while plans have been laid for a similar project, Anera’s newest project involved buying shoes for children. “We are forced to lower our expectations for what we can do.”

At heart, the problem is political. The expertise is there, whether with such agencies as the UN and Anera, or with local NGOs affiliated to those international bodies. The money has been pledged even if it has yet to be delivered. The statement from UNRWA noted that, pledges apart, the largest Arab donation to date had been a $34m contribution from the emir of Kuwait.

But what Mr Corcoran calls the “political stalemate” – whether in international efforts to pressure Israel to lift its siege on Gaza, which has been in place for more than two years, or in Palestinian reconciliation efforts – has stymied efforts to begin reconstruction in Gaza.

The latter is crucial in establishing a mechanism for distributing aid to Gaza. International sanctions on official contacts with Hamas tie the hands of agencies dealing with Gaza authorities. International funding, under the current proscriptions, cannot end up in the hands of Hamas, and even a clear commitment by Hamas, offered repeatedly over the past months, will not dissuade the international community from this stance.

The result is that international aid efforts are being channelled through the Palestinian Authority led by Mahmoud Abbas. As emphasised yesterday by Nabil Shaath, a senior aide to Mr Abbas, in a press conference in Ramallah, there will be no reconstruction of the Gaza Strip until there is a unity agreement between Fatah and Hamas.

Even then, however, the international community must still pressure Israel to lift the siege, aid organisations said. The destruction of the war in January aside, the greatest damage has been done not by bombs but by isolation. Unable to rebuild or improve, two years of sanctions have undermined the economy and infrastructure. According to a July survey by the Palestine Trade Centre, 95 per cent of industries in Gaza have had to shut as a result of sanctions and 120,000 private sector employees have been laid off.


okarmi@thenational.ae

UN rights chief slams Israel over Gaza violations

Reuters AlertNet, Aug. 14, 2009

GENEVA - There is significant evidence that Israeli forces violated international law and human rights in their invasion of Gaza between late December and mid-January, the United Nations human rights chief said on Friday.

A report by U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay lambasted the "nearly total impunity" for the violations.

The already critical human rights situation in the occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT) deteriorated further during the war, she said in the report, the first of a series of periodic reports ordered by the U.N. Human Rights Council in January during Israel's "Operation Cast Lead".

The 34-page report is one of two -- together with a forthcoming one by South African jurist Richard Goldstone who has been conducting hearings in Gaza -- that will be presented to the council next month.

"...significant prima facie evidence indicates that serious violations of international humanitarian law as well as gross human rights violations occurred during the military operations of 27 December 2008 to 18 January 2009, which were compounded by the blockade that the population of Gaza endured in the months prior to Operation Cast Lead and which continues," Pillay said.

Pillay said rights violations included arbitrary detention, torture and ill-treatment, extrajudicial execution, forced eviction and home demolition, settlement expansion and related violence and restrictions on freedom of movement and expression.

"While these violations are of deep concern in their own right, the nearly total impunity that persists for such violations (regardless of the responsible duty bearer) is of grave concern, and constitutes a root cause for their persistence," the former South African high court judge said.

Pillay's recommendations included the following:

-- Israel should lift the blockade of Gaza and restrictions on movement in and out of the West Bank, which amount to illegal collective punishment.

-- Allegations of violations of humanitarian law and human rights during the Gaza war should be investigated by independent bodies, and victims should have the right to reparations.

-- Israel should tackle impunity for violations, and curb its use of the military justice system, which does not meet international standards.

-- Israel should end the illegal expansion of settlements in the occupied territory, halt evictions and demolitions of Palestinian homes, and end settler violence.

Unlike rulings of the U.N. Security Council, the findings and recommendations of the Human Rights Council are not binding.

Islamic and African countries, backed by Russia, China, Cuba and Nicaragua, currently have a majority on the 47-member council, which has spent more time on Israel/Palestine than on any other issue since being set up three years ago.

In a separate statement, a U.N. special committee on human rights in the occupied territories said it would report to the U.N. General Assembly on violations of humanitarian law including increasing violence by settlers against Palestinians in the West Bank while Israeli police and troops looked on.

The committee, set up in 1968, was again unable to visit Israel or the occupied territories on its latest 10-day mission this month, but travelled to Egypt, Jordan and Syria to hear testimony. Its members are from Sri Lanka, Malaysia and Senegal. (For Pillay's full report go to http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/12session/A%20HRC%2012%2037_AEV.pdf )

(Reporting by Jonathan Lynn; Editing by Stephanie Nebehay)

G20 countries practice ‘agricolonialism’ in developing countries

By Betsey Piette, Workers World, Aug. 3, 2009

Collectively the countries which participate in the Group of Twenty comprise 85 percent of the global gross national product, 80 percent of world trade and two-thirds of the world’s population. What many G-20 countries lack, however, is sufficient arable land to meet the needs of growing urban populations.

In recent years, many G-20 nations have engaged in agricolonialism, taking over arable land in developing countries.

One billion people worldwide face starvation, according to United Nations reports. The global recession is expected to drive 103 million more into hunger.

However, the land grabs, concentrated in Africa, Asia and Latin America where hundreds of millions lack sufficient food, are intended to grow food and biofuel crops for export, not for use by at-risk populations.

While the U.S., Britain and European Union nations have a long history of colonial control over land in developing countries, other G-20 countries, including China, south Korea, Japan and Saudi Arabia, have recently bought up global farmland.

After the collapse of the former Soviet Union, even Russia and other former Soviet states became targets of land grabs.

Global “AgInvesting”

Last year, as the global economic crisis deepened, food “riots” destabilized many countries. In December, spiking grain prices that had led to food shortages fell by 50 percent. Today, grain prices remain above their 20-year average, and global food stocks continue at 40-year lows.

Over the next 40 years the world’s population is projected to grow from 6 billion to 9 billion, doubling demand, while arable land and water become scarcer. As a result, the cost of farmland keeps rising.

Food now rivals oil as a basis of power and economic security. Arable land has become the latest target for international investors, with more than 90 funds invested directly in farmland.

With the current credit crunch, large companies are investing in farmland as a means of control over future food supplies when food security could become a major concern.

In June a Global AgInvesting 2009 Conference, held in New York, aimed at investors eager for opportunities to invest in agricultural lands, commodities and infrastructure. It brought together top players from the global agricultural and investing industries, including Soyatech, Altima Partners, Bayer CropScience, Brazil AgroLogic, DuPont, Rabobank and the World Bank. The participating firms own and/or manage over 11 million acres of productive farmland worldwide.

The International Food Policy Research Institute reports that 37 million to 49 million acres of land in poor countries, valued at $20 to $30 billion, were sold or under negotiation for sale to foreign buyers since 2006.

Foreign investments in agriculture are not new, but today they are more strategic than commercial, with many transactions intended to insulate the foreign investor’s home country from future global food and energy crises.

Another significant difference is the scale of these purchases. A “big land deal” used to be 240,000 acres. Now the largest ones are many times that size.

The investment firm Blackrock has set up a $200 million hedge fund to invest in land. Dow Chemical has invested its pension funds in farmland futures. Morgan Stanley bought nearly 100,000 acres of Brazilian farmland.

Multibillionaire George Soros is getting into the global land-buying business. Jim Rogers Jr., Soros’ partner at the Quantum Fund, is involved with two farmland investment funds–Agrifirm and Agcaptia Farmland Investment Partnership. “I’m convinced that farmland is going to be one of the best investments of our time,” Rogers told ContrarianProfits. (July 27)

Land in Africa targeted

Africa imports 25 percent of its food, and the continent has become a prime target of land grabbers. Although sub-Saharan Africa is rich in minerals and natural resources, more than 450 million people live there on less than $2 a day. More than one-third of the population suffers from malnutrition.

A recent Food and Agricultural Organization study of five African countries found that 6.2 million acres of farmland valued at $920 million were bought or leased by foreign investors since 2004.

Most of the nearly 1 million acres taken over in Ghana were for biofuel production. Philippe Heilberg, chairman of New York-based Jarch Capital, controls nearly 2 million acres of land in south Sudan.

Saudi Arabian investors spent $100 million to raise grain on land leased to them by the Ethiopian government; the entire crop is for export back to Saudi Arabia. Meanwhile, millions of Ethiopians face hunger and malnutrition and require emergency food assistance.

A proposed 99-year land lease deal with the south Korean company Daewoo would have included nearly half of Madagascar’s arable land, with almost no benefits to the host country. Public protest over this deal contributed to the overthrow of President Marc Ravalomanana earlier this year.

Genetically modified sugar cane in Latin America

Since 1994, U.S. farm policies through the so-called “North American Free Trade Agreement” have devastated farmers who produced corn throughout Mexico. NAFTA opened Mexican markets to corn imports from the U.S. and to the introduction of genetically modified seeds.

Now other countries are getting into the act. A French investment firm is buying up cattle ranches in Argentina and Uruguay to convert the acreage to the production of barley, corn and soy.

Within a 10-year span, nearly the entire Argentine pampas and large areas of forest and farmland in Brazil, Bolivia, Uruguay and Paraguay have been converted to produce soy as a solo crop. Agribusiness giants Cargill, Archer Daniels Midland, and Bunge made billions selling chemical fertilizers, while Monsanto and Syngenta raked in record profits from modified seeds and chemical pesticides.

Corporations that led the boom in soy production in Latin America are now aggressively moving into genetically modified sugar cane production. GM and Monsanto have been working on “Roundup Ready” sugar cane and sugar beets. Production of genetically modified sugar cane crops would devastate cane growers in Colombia, where panela, a sugar cane byproduct, is a source of nutrition.

Protests erupt in Southeast Asia

Many of the anti-agricolonialism protests have taken place in Asia. The 15-million-member Asian Peasant Coalition recently began a five-month Asia-wide Peasants’ Caravan for Land and Livelihood. The group is acting against global land grabbing in 10 Asian countries, including Sri Lanka, Philippines, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nepal. In India and Thailand, the theme is “Stop Global Land Grabbing! Struggle for Genuine Agrarian Reform and Peoples’ Food Sovereignty.”

An estimated 365 million people in Asia make their living off the land. Globalization has increasingly integrated Asian countries into the global market and intensified landlessness among Asian peasants. In Pakistan and the Philippines, almost 75 percent of peasants are now landless.

In the Philippines, Fil-Japan is using 1.49 million acres of land for biofuel production. South Korea has leased 232,000 acres of farmland for 25 years to grow 10,000 tons of corn annually. Protests halted plans to allow China to use 3 million acres of farmland.

Wagar Ahmad Khan, the Pakistani federal minister for investment, assures legal cover and tax breaks for investors and says his government “has decided to raise a special security force, which will help create an investment-friendly atmosphere.” (IslamOnline.net, April 21)

Impact on Indigenous populations

Since the 1970s, more than half of the farmland expansion has come at the expense of natural forests, including large tracts of land in Brazil’s Amazon region. While biofuels are promoted as a means to reduce climate change, expanding cropland for biofuel production has devastated rainforests and savannas.

Conversion of natural ecosystems for production of corn and sugar cane for ethanol, and soy and palm oil for biodiesel, causes substantial greenhouse gas emissions since these crops absorb far less carbon dioxide than the forests and wetlands they replace.

Monsanto, DuPont, Archer Daniels Midland, Deere & Co. and the Renewable Fuels Association have formed the Alliance for Abundant Food and Energy, which spends billions of dollars to lobby U.S. lawmakers to support subsidies for biofuel production and to promote genetically modified crops.

The social consequences of these land grabs are significant. Indigenous groups who have lived off the land for generations are being driven off their lands. Even when local peasant farmers are able to retain the land, larger land tracts draw off most of the water supply.

G-8 code of conduct

Faced with growing pressure from developing countries, the recent G-8 Summit issued a code of conduct in international agricultural investments that reflects the debate over foreign land purchases in poor countries. It is not clear, however, how the code might work.

“The G-8 statement is pretty weak,” said Sarah Gillam of ActionAid, an anti-poverty group which is calling for an independent U.N. commission to establish an enforceable code of conduct for foreign land purchases. It would include adequate compensation for affected communities and an assessment of the impact on local food security and rural livelihoods.

Devlin Kuyek of GRAIN, an international nonprofit organization that supports struggles for community-controlled, biodiversity-based food systems, compared the danger of land investments to the subprime mortgage crisis. “It’s not just that they want to produce food. It’s that they want to produce it in a way that makes profit. ... Nothing is being done to address speculation or the amount of profits taken by the corporations in control of the food system.

“Land is fundamental to life particularly in many countries of the South,” stated Kuyek. “Governments are playing with fire, and better watch out what they are doing.” (See www.farmlandgrab.org.)

Article copyright 1995-2009 Workers World. Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved.

Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011
Email: ww@workers.org
Subscribe: wwnews-subscribe@workersworld.net
Support independent news: http://www.workers.org/orders/donate.php
Web: http://workers.org
http://workersworld.net

Israel Evicts More Than 50 Palestinians From East Jerusalem Homes

By Robert Berger, VOA News, August 2, 2009

Photo: Israeli Jews enter a house after police evicted its Palestinian residents in the East Jerusalem neighborhood of Sheikh Jarrah, 02 Aug 2009

Jerusalem - Israel evicted dozens of Palestinians from their homes in Jerusalem on Sunday. The move touches on one of the core issues of the Middle East conflict.

Israeli police moved into the Arab neighborhood of Sheikh Jarrah in disputed East Jerusalem and forcibly removed more than 50 Palestinians from their homes. They were members of two families who have lived in the area for more than 50 years.

U.N. officials say they saw Jewish settlers moving in afterwards to occupy the houses.

"They [are] planning to take house by house, and they claim that they own all this neighborhood," said Maher Hannoun, one of the evicted Palestinians.

Police cited a ruling by Israel's Supreme Court that the houses belong to Jews and that the Arab families had been living there illegally. The court backed Jewish settlers who produced documents showing that the property was legally purchased from its former Arab owner. But Hannoun called that "nonsense".

"I'm sure that later, they can't take any house from this neighborhood because our lawyer, he has all the documents to prove that another Palestinian owns this land," he said.

Israel captured East Jerusalem from Jordan during the Six Day War in 1967 and claims the city as its capital. But the Palestinians want East Jerusalem as the capital of their future state.

The U.S. State Department condemned the evictions, saying "unilateral actions . . . cannot prejudge the outcome of negotiations and will not be recognized by the international community."

Israel has rejected repeated U.S. demands for a freeze on settlement activity in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, leading tensions with Washington. Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says the right of Jews to build and live anywhere in Jerusalem is not negotiable.

UN: Civilian deaths up 24 percent in Afghanistan

By ROBERT H. REID, AP, Google News, Aug. 1, 2009

KABUL — Civilian deaths in the escalating Afghan war soared by 24 percent during the first half of 2009 compared with the same period last year, the United Nations said Friday, blaming most of the casualties on Taliban attacks launched with little regard for civilian lives.

The U.N. Assistance Mission to Afghanistan also pointed to stepped-up military operations by the United States and its allies, especially airstrikes, for the steady increase in Afghan civilian casualties over the past two years.

However, the report also said the number of civilians killed by the Taliban and other "anti-government forces" during the first half of the year was double those attributed to the U.S.-led coalition and Afghan government forces. The U.N. termed that a "significant shift" from 2007, when the coalition was responsible for 41 percent of civilian deaths.

Both the U.S. and some elements of the Taliban appear sensitive to the issue of civilian casualties, fearing a loss of support among the embattled Afghan population.

This month, the new commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, issued orders to curb the use of airstrikes to hold down civilian casualties.

A new Taliban "code of conduct," attributed to Taliban leader Mullah Omar, instructs fighters to make "the utmost effort" to avoid killing civilians and to curb the use of suicide attacks. NATO officials dismissed the code as propaganda.

Despite the Taliban code, the U.N. report said insurgent suicide attacks and roadside bombings claimed more civilian lives "than any other tactic used by the parties to the conflict" and were launched "in violation of the relevant principles of international law."

"Far from taking action to minimize the impact of their activities on civilians, sectors of the armed opposition appear to deliberately favor the use of indiscriminate tactics, such as the use of IEDs," the report said, referring to improvised explosive devices or roadside bombs.

"Although such attacks are frequently directed against military or government targets, they are often carried out in crowded areas with apparent disregard for the extensive injury and death they cause to civilians," the report added.

According to the U.N., at least 1,013 civilians were killed in the first six months of this year compared with 818 for the same period in 2008 — an increase of 24 percent.

Of those, 595 died as a result of Taliban attacks, many of them against "civilian traffic, residential compounds and marketplaces," the report said. International and Afghan government forces killed another 310 civilians, including 200 in 40 airstrikes, according to the U.N. The 108 other civilian deaths could not be attributed to either side, the report said.

The U.N. figures are higher than an Associated Press count of civilian deaths based on reports from Afghan and international officials. The AP count shows that 524 civilians died in the first six months of the year — a 27 percent increase over the same period last year.

The report was released at the end of the bloodiest month for U.S. and NATO forces in the nearly eight-year war. At least 42 U.S service members and 31 from other international military forces were killed in July, according to military announcements.

The U.N. said the Taliban and other insurgents have been hiding in civilian areas as part of "an active policy aimed at drawing a military response" to areas where there would be a "high likelihood" that civilians would be killed or injured.

A 36-year-old carpenter, Wazir Mohammad, believes his family fell victim to that tactic when fighting broke out last month between U.S. troops and insurgents in the village of Nangalam in the eastern province of Kunar.

As the family huddled inside their home, a rocket slammed into the ground floor, killing Mohammad's father, brother and grandmother, he said. Five other relatives were wounded. Mohammad, a 36-year-old carpenter, said he didn't know which side fired the rocket.

A doctor in the village, who uses only one name, Nizamuddin, said Taliban and U.S. forces exchange fire almost daily around the village and that rockets and mortars detonate from time to time in civilian districts.

"We are so depressed," Mohammad said by telephone. "We do not know what the future holds for us."

Afghan President Hamid Karzai has publicly berated NATO commanders over civilian deaths and has called for new rules governing the conduct of Western military operations if he wins a second term in the August elections.

However, the U.N. report said the Afghan government also shares responsibility "for a rising toll in terms of civilian deaths and injuries" and the destruction of property.

The report said civilian deaths rose every month this year as compared with 2008 except February. The report cited increased fighting in urban areas, more complex Taliban attacks and the return of militants who had fled across the border into Pakistan.

May was the deadliest month, with 261 civilians killed. The Taliban and other insurgents were responsible for most of the deaths, but 81 were killed by government or international forces, the U.N. said.

The U.N. also noted what it called a "new trend" in insurgent attacks. Since May, insurgents have attached magnetic explosive devices to vehicles to target civilians who have worked with government or international military forces. A provincial council candidate was killed by a magnetic bomb May 29 in Khost.

A month later, such bombs killed a translator and another individual working for the international forces.

Music shops and other places selling "immoral" goods such as DVDs have also been targeted. In an April attack, a young boy was killed when a bomb placed in his wheelbarrow exploded prematurely 50 feet from a government building in Aybak city. The boy had no knowledge of the bomb, the report said.

Associated Press Writers Amir Shah and Fisnik Abrashi in Kabul and Bradley Klapper in Geneva contributed to this report.

Commander concerned over UN abuse rumours in DR Congo

AFP, Google News, July 24, 2009

KINSHASA — The head of UN peacekeepers in DR Congo has said he is concerned at "persistent rumours" of sexual abuse perpetrated by his troops and has sent a fact-finding mission to the east of the country, the UN mission said in a statement.

"General Babacar Gaye said he was concerned at persistent rumours of misconduct, and hoped the fact-finding team would shed light on them," the statement released in Kinshasa said.

"If they find indications of misconduct, we will refer their findings to a more formal process of investigation," said Gaye, head of the world's largest UN peacekeeping mission, known as MONUC.

In a directive to all brigade commanders on June 27, Gaye said that 10 cases of sexual exploitation and abuse had been investigated by military police in 2008, but he was concerned that other cases might have gone undetected, the statement said.

He said he was particularly concerned about possible breaches of conduct by soldiers in remote locations.

"What we are talking about here is zero tolerance for any behaviour that disrespects women and girls and the communities in which they live," explained the UN secretary-general's special envoy to DR Congo, Alan Doss.

"A very small number of peacekeepers have abused the trust of the Congolese people in the past, and the overwhelming majority who serve with honour in this mission resent the damage that a few individuals can do to the credibility of peacekeeping."

Gaye said in the statement that any evidence brought to light by the fact-finding team would be the subject of formal investigation by the UN's investigative arm, which operates outside of the MONUC chain of command.

"I have instructed my commanders to ensure our peacekeepers understand that everyone, regardless of rank, is responsible to be alert to the possibility of offences and to report transgressors," the general said.

MONUC spokesman Lieutenant-Colonel Jean Paul Dietrich told AFP there had been no specific allegations of abuse.

MONUC said the fact-finding mission will visit a number of bases as well as camps responsible for the protection of tens of thousands of Congolese displaced by violence in Nord-Kivu province.

The team is expected to report back by the end of the month.

Some 17,000 UN troops are taking part in the mission, mostly in the northeastern part of the country, where government forces have been fighting Ugandan and Rwandan rebels for several years, and some 1.8 million people have been displaced.

Eight US Congress members enter Gaza Strip

Ma'an News Agency, July 27, 2009

Gaza – A delegation of eight US congressmen and women entered the Gaza Strip on Monday morning through the Erez crossing point between Israel and the northern Gaza Strip.

The head of the de facto governmental committee for hosting delegations, Hamdi Sha’ath, confirmed that the group had entered.

Sha’ath asserted that the delegation would visit destroyed buildings in the Strip and meet the director of UN operations in Gaza, John Ging, before they leave.

You'd think water would be a basic right

By Peter Asmus, The Sacramento Bee, July 5, 2009

In the slums of Kibera in Nairobi, Kenya, about 1 million poor people pay up to 30 times more for water of dubious quality brought to them in old tanker trucks than middle-class citizens pay for clean and safe water provided by the local public water utility via standard household connections.

Some may be shocked by these disturbing disparities in the developing world, but a lack of access to safe, affordable and clean water is also an issue in California, particularly in the Central Valley and along the Central Coast. In these communities, more than 90 percent of drinking water is sucked from contaminated groundwater sources. All told, more than 150,000 California residents lack safe water for drinking, bathing and washing dishes; even more have water service disconnected because they cannot afford to pay their bill.

While the arid West – including California – has always suffered from more severe water challenges than the rest of the country, experts claim 36 states will experience local or regional water shortages over the next five years. Spain is also facing an extreme water crisis, with some wondering whether the Sahara Desert will cross the Mediterranean Sea from Africa. And droughts seem to have become a permanent way of life in Australia.

Society appears to face a global crisis in water supply as one in six people – more than 1 billion humans – do not have adequate potable water to meet their most basic survival needs. These facts have spurred efforts to enshrine the human right to water at the United Nations and in the national constitutions of countries such as South Africa and Ecuador.

Interestingly enough, the prime opponent of guaranteeing a human right to water on the international stage at the United Nations has been the United States, which, by the way, is also opposed to a human right to housing and food. It is this political dynamic of our federal government opposing human rights to water that makes Assembly Bill 1242 by Assemblyman Ira Ruskin, D-Los Altos, so interesting. The bill is moving through the California Legislature and a key vote is scheduled Monday.

International debate rages

"The language included in AB 1242 is typical of that used by organizations and campaigns around the world declaring a legal human right to water," said Jeff Conant, international research and communications coordinator for Food and Water Watch, one of the sponsors of the legislation. He went on to say that it would be up to state and local agencies to figure out how to "operationalize" this concept.

On the international stage, much of the discussion about a human right to water is wrapped up in the legal mechanics of treaties and policies at the United Nations. Patricia Jones, program manager for the environmental justice program of the Unitarian Universalist Service Committee, favors the concept of an "International Bill of Human Rights" that would be comprised of direct obligations and treaties that would make the human right to water both explicit and implicit. World Health Organization activists have been working on similar ideas but focused more on trying to stop the spread of endemic diseases, requiring regional governments to commit to the human right to water to receive funding for water projects.

"From a legal point of view, there most definitely is a human right to water, which is part of the right to an adequate standard of living," argues Thorsten Keifer, a human rights expert with Bread for the World, a 50-year-old German nonprofit organization. "The question of how such a right to water can finally be recognized is a very good one as there is nothing like an agreed-upon check list for recognition of implied or new human rights in international law."

From his vantage point, the right to water is not at all at odds with goals of efficiency, reduced water use and effective pricing. "The right to water does not mean that water should per se be for free, but that it should be affordable for all people," he said. "That the human right to water means that everyone should have access to water free of charge is a common misconception – propagated by a handful of activists – that has really interfered with discussions on the issue for far too long. Everyone who can pay should pay!"

So how does a corporation fulfill the human right to water? Coca-Cola has developed a "rights-based approach" because water is so fundamental to its business, and has such large impacts on ecosystems and people. This policy applies to existing and new production, and bottling plants.

"In essence, what this approach means is that our use of water should not infringe on the ability of humans to access water or impact the groundwater or the general population. Our presence as an economic entity should not raise the price of water and make water less affordable to the local community," said Greg Koch, global director, water stewardship, for the Coca-Cola Co.

Harry Ott, a retired Coca-Cola executive and a senior fellow with Future 500, a San Francisco-based organization, added this: "What I've learned is that one must meet with the local community on a regular basis, ideally, before you begin building or operating. One not only needs a government license, but a social license."

He noted that Coca-Cola's employees benefit from better water management. "If our employees have poor water quality at their homes, then they get sick and cannot work."

The California context

Californians will likely face escalating water bills to pay for facilities to treat contamination and to upgrade aging infrastructure. Many supporters of AB 1242 are concerned about the cost implications for disenfranchised citizens, particularly low- income Central Valley residents.

Some environmental organizations, such as the Natural Resources Defense Council, argue that we do not charge enough for water, and that's why so much is wasted.

"We need to decouple revenue from sales," argued Ronnie Cohen, water policy director for NRDC, referencing pricing strategies employed in the electricity sector in California. "The city of Los Angeles has such an adjustment mechanism to account for (water) conservative programs, but most water agencies lose money if people conserve too much. These water agencies need to sell water to collect revenue to run their programs."

California part of the conversation

AB 1242 does not delve into any of these specifics of water pricing or water management, but it is viewed as the first step in addressing water issues most pressing in the Central Valley akin to safety and cost issues more commonly witnessed in the developing world. California does not have a universal statewide lifeline water rate or allocation – one similar to our lifeline rates for energy and phone service – so when costs become excessive, families cannot pay their bills and risk losing water service entirely.

The issues facing the Central Valley are much more common in the developing world and China, where, oddly enough, multinationals often are better at cleaning up their acts than are local governments.

AB 1242's general affirmation of the human right to water is intended to address a specific challenge regarding groundwater contamination and access to affordable water in Central California. But it is also part of a much larger conversation.

Declaring a human right to water is one thing. Figuring out how to guarantee access to this elixir of life is a Rubik's cube. Yet we certainly must begin somewhere, and soon.


Peter Asmus is an environmental writer based in Stinson Beach and author of the new book "Introduction to Energy in California," published by the University of California Press.

Day 8: Coup Government Shuts Down All Airports In Honduras To Impede President

By Eva Golinger, Postcards from the Revolution, July 5, 2009

The de facto coup government in place in Honduras since last Sunday's coup d'etat has militarized the international airport outside the capital city of Tegucigalpa and shut down all other airports in the country. Letters were received by the Embassies of Argentina, Paraguay and Ecuador from the coup government, denying authorization for airplanes to land in Honduran airspace carrying the heads of state from those nations.

Protesters against the coup government and in favor of President Zelaya's return are gathered around the airport in Tegucigalpa, awaiting their constitutional president's arrival. They have reported snipers are stationed all around the airport, apparently ready to fire at any airplane that enters the area.

President Zelaya is announcing right now from Washington, where he arrived last night to attend the extraordinary Organization of American States (OAS) meeting that resulted in the suspension of Honduras from the multilateral group until constitutional order is reestablished, that he will return today to his country, accompanied by two different delegations. The first delegation will be compromised of President Zelaya and the Secretary General of the United Nations (UN) Miguel D'Escoto. They will arrive directly in Tegucigalpa. The second delegation will be the Secretary General of the OAS, Jose Miguel Insulza, together with President Cristina Fernandez of Argentina, President Fernando Lugo of Paraguay and President Rafael Correa of Ecuador. The second delegation will land first in neighboring El Salvador.

It is unclear still how President Zelaya's airplane will enter Honduran airspace considering the coup government has militarized the nation and placed an order prohibiting the arrival of his airplane. The flight from Washington is four hours, so he should be entering Honduras around 4pm EDT, approximately. Either the plane will be shot down or President Zelaya will be taken prisoner by the military coup forces upon arrival.

Honduran military told to turn back Zelaya's jet

By WILL WEISSERT and NESTOR IKEDA, AP, Yahoo! News, July 5, 2009

TEGUCIGALPA, Honduras – Honduras' exiled president took off for home in a Venezuelan jet in a high-stakes attempt to return to power, even as the interim government told its military to turn away the plane.

Zelaya won wide international support after his ouster a week ago by the military, but the only prominent escort aboard his plane was the U.N. General Assembly president after Latin American leaders backed out, citing security concerns. Honduras' civil aviation director said Zelaya's plane was being redirected to El Salvador.

Several other planes carrying Latin American presidents, the secretary-general of the Organization of American States and journalists were leaving Washington separately, trailing Zelaya to see what happens in the skies over Honduras before deciding where to land.

Thousands of protesters descended on the airport in the Honduran capital in anticipation of the showdown. Police helicopters hovered overhead. Commercial flights were canceled, and outside the airport about 200 soldiers with riot shields formed a line in front of the protesters.

"The government of President (Roberto) Micheletti has ordered the armed forces and the police not to allow the entrance of any plane bringing the former leader," the foreign minister of the interim government, Enrique Ortez, told The Associated Press on Sunday.

Flying with Zelaya were close advisers and staff, two journalists from the Venezuela-based network Telesur, and U.N. General Assembly President Miguel D'Escoto Brockmann, a leftist Nicaraguan priest and former foreign minister who personally condemned Zelaya's ouster as a coup d'etat.

Speaking live from the plane through Telesur, Zelaya called on the Honduran military to leave the airport free for him to land.

"No one can obligate me to turn around. The constitution prohibits expelling Hondurans from the country. I am returning with all of my constitutional guarantees," Zelaya declared.

But with their safety in the air not guaranteed, Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa pleaded with the Honduran military forces to avoid bloodshed. "If there is violence the whole world must clearly know who is responsible," he said.

If Zelaya's plane is allowed to land, the others will land as well, Correa said. If not, Correa, the presidents of Paraguay and Argentina and Jose Miguel Insulza, the secretary-general of the Organization of American States, planned to land in El Salvador.

Honduras' new government has vowed to arrest Zelaya for 18 alleged criminal acts including treason and failing to implement more than 80 laws approved by Congress since taking office in 2006.

Despite a Supreme Court ruling, Zelaya had also pressed ahead with a referendum on whether to hold an assembly to consider changing the constitution, and critics feared he would press to extend his rule.

But by sending soldiers to shoot up the presidential residence and fly Zelaya into exile a week ago, the Micheletti government has brought itself universal condemnations from the United Nations and OAS.

No nation has recognized the new government; President Barack Obama has united with conservative Alvaro Uribe of Colombia and leftist Hugo Chavez of Venezuela in criticism.

The OAS had given the Honduran government until Saturday to reinstate Zelaya, and sent two emergency missions to Honduras in hopes of heading off an escalation. But Micheletti pointedly rejected the group's demands.

The poor Central American country's Roman Catholic archbishop and its human right commissioner urged Zelaya to stay away, warning that his return could spark bloodshed. The interim government said it would arrest Zelaya and put him on trial despite near-universal international condemnation of the coup that removed him as he campaigned to revise the constitution.

The OAS suspended Honduras as a member late Saturday. Micheletti preemptively pulled out of the organization hours earlier rather than comply with an ultimatum that Zelaya be restored.

Zelaya has urged loyalists to support his arrival in Honduras in a peaceful show of force.

"We are going to show up at the Honduras International Airport in Tegucigalpa ... and on Sunday we will be in Tegucigalpa," Zelaya said Saturday in the taped statement carried on the Web sites of the Telesur and Cubadebate media outlets. "Practice what I have always preached, which is nonviolence."

Zelaya supporters said they got the message as they converged on the airport.

"We have no pistols or arms, just our principles," organizer Rafael Alegria said. "We have the legitimate right to fight for the defense of democracy and to restore President Zelaya."

Large crowds of Zelaya's critics have staged their own daily demonstrations to back Micheletti, the congressional president who was named by lawmakers to finish out the final six months of the Zelaya's term.

Most of the ousted leader's supporters come from the working and middle classes of this impoverished nation, while his opponents are based in the ranks of the well-to-do — although the increasingly leftist approach of the wealthy rancher had eroded his popular support.
___

Will Weissert reported from Tegucigalpa and Nestor Ikeda from Washington. Associated Press writers Freddy Cuevas and Marcos Aleman in Tegucigalpa, and Jorge Barrera and Michael Bodenhurst in Washington contributed to this report.

UN Expert denounces seizure of aid boat by Israeli forces

Free Gaza Movement, July 3, 2009

2 July 2009 - GENEVA - The UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, Richard Falk, denounced the unlawful naval seizure by an Israeli gunboat on the high seas of a ship carrying medicine and reconstruction material to blockaded people of Gaza.

“This Israeli action implements its cruel blockade of the entire Palestinian population of Gaza, in violation of Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention that prohibits any form of collective punishment directed at an occupied people”, said the human rights expert.

Mr. Falk pointed to a recent report on the impact on health resulting from the two year blockade, issued by the International Committee of the Red Cross, stressing that Israeli actions not only restrict such vital supplies as food, medicine, and fuel to bare subsistence levels, but has in unprecedented fashion, disallowed the entry to Gaza of building materials and spare parts needed for repairing some of the widespread damage caused by its attacks on the Strip that took place for 22 days starting on December 27, 2008.

“Such a pattern of continuing blockade under these conditions amounts to such a serious violation of the Geneva Conventions as to constitute a continuing crime against humanity”, added the independent human rights expert.

The boat in question had been inspected in response to Israeli demands before departure by the port authorities in Cyprus to determine whether there were weapons on board. None were found, and Israeli authorities were so informed.

Nonetheless, the 21 peace activists on the boat were arrested, held in captivity, and have been charged with ‘illegal entry’ to Israel even though they had no intention of going to Israel. The group included such prominent figures as the Irish winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, Mairead Maguire, and the former American congresswoman Cynthia McKinney.

For more information on the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967: http://www.ohchr.org/SP/countries/MENARegion/Pages/PSIndex.aspx

For interview requests, please contact Linnéa Arvidsson (+41 22 928 9126, larvidsson[at]ohchr.org)

Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights - Media Unit
Rupert Colville, Spokesperson: + 41 22 917 9767
Xabier Celaya, Information Officer: + 41 22 917 9383

For inquiries and media requests: press-info[at]ohchr.org

JFP News, 7/1: UNGA Unanimously Calls for President Zelaya's Immediate Return

Urge Hillary to Vigorously Oppose the Coup in Honduras

Secretary of State Clinton has condemned the military coup in Honduras, but Republicans are pressuring the Administration not to support international efforts to reinstate President Zelaya. A unanimous UN General Assembly resolution, co-sponsored by the U.S., calls for the "the immediate and unconditional restoration" of Zelaya as President. U.S. law requires that aid be suspended, but so far Secretary of State Clinton has not yet even indicated her willingness to use U.S. aid as leverage. [See 1) 2) and 3) below.] Call Hillary and urge her to take immediate action to restore President Zelaya. You can call Secretary Clinton's Counselor and Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills at 202-647-5548, or leave your comment through the State Department's switchboard: 202-647-4000. You can report your call here: info@justforeignpolicy.org.

Habib Ahmadzadeh: Mousavi Must Say Which Ballot Boxes He Disputes
In an interview with Just Foreign Policy, Iranian writer and filmmaker Habib Ahmadzadeh urges former Prime Minister Mousavi to be specific in his complaints about the Iranian election, and to say which ballot boxes he disputes.
http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/node/240

Summary:
U.S./Top News
1) The United Nations General Assembly voted unanimously to condemn the military coup in Honduras and demand the "immediate and unconditional" restoration of President Zelaya, the New York Times reports. The resolution was co-sponsored by the United States and Venezuela, among others.

2) The U.S. response to the coup in Honduras has been slower and less forceful than others', writes Mark Weisbrot in the Guardian, raise suspicions about what the US is really trying to accomplish. The first statement from the White House was weak and non-committal. It did not denounce the coup but rather called upon "all political and social actors in Honduras to respect democratic norms." This contrasted with sharper statements from Brazil, Argentina, and the EU. As the response of other nations became clear, secretary of state Hillary Clinton issued a stronger statement, but still didn't say anything about Zelaya returning to the presidency, suggesting that the US does not share this goal.

3) Republicans criticized the Obama administration's condemnation of the coup in Honduras, The Hill reports. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich accused Obama of siding with Castro and Chavez.

4) National security adviser Jones told military commanders in Afghanistan the administration wants to hold troop levels flat for now, and focus instead on carrying out increased economic development, improved governance and participation by the Afghan military and civilians, the Washington Post reports. But a senior military officer said privately the US would have to deploy a force of more than 100,000 to execute the counterinsurgency strategy of holding areas and towns after clearing out the Taliban insurgents. That is at least 32,000 more than the 68,000 currently authorized. Marine commander Lawrence Nicholson said he needs more Afghan forces, not more US forces.

5) President Obama will extend trade benefits for Ecuador, despite protests from some US business groups, Reuters reports. But the administration declined to lift Bolivia's suspension, citing "explicit acceptance and encouragement of coca production at the highest levels of Bolivian government." [Bolivia opposes the cocaine trade but supports the production and use of coca, a traditional Bolivian plant - JFP.]

Iran
6) Acrimony between Iran and world powers over Iran's presidential vote are dimming prospects for negotiations over Iran's nuclear program, writes George Jahn for AP. A senior Iranian official said Wednesday the EU had lost the right to talk to Iran about its atomic activities because of its "interference" in post-election unrest. U.S. officials insist the door remains open. David Axelrod said Washington was "looking to [...] sit down and talk to the Iranians."

Israel/Palestine
7) A senior US official said the US is still demanding Israel fulfill a commitment in the 2003 "road map" peace plan for a full freeze of settlement expansion in the West Bank, the Washington Post reports. "We have not changed our position at all," a senior administration official said. "Nor has the president authorized any negotiating room."

8) Human Rights Watch says twenty-nine civilians, including eight children, were killed in six missile strikes by Israeli drones in Gaza in December and January, the New York Times reports. Report co-author Marc Garlasco suggested that the use of drones raises the bar for preventing civilian casualties, since supposedly these weapons can be targeted more precisely.

Pakistan
9) A powerful Taliban faction in Pakistan said it is withdrawing from a peace deal with the government to protest continuing strikes by US drones, confronting the Pakistani military with a possible two-front campaign against militants, the New York Times reports. The group's leader says more than 50 drone strikes since the peace deal in February 2008 have killed hundreds of people, including women and children.

Iraq
10) A government auction for eight 20-year oil extraction service contracts yielded only one deal with foreign energy companies, the Washington Post reports, implying that the Iraqi government was bargaining hard. Iraq said it would reimburse companies for costs and pay them a per-barrel fee for increases in production. But it did not offer the companies an ownership stake in the crude.

Honduras
11) The Organization of American States on Wednesday gave Honduras three days to restore its ousted president, Manuel Zelaya, or face suspension from the group, the New York Times reports. Venezuela and Nicaragua called for the US to impose tough economic sanctions. The United States provides millions of dollars in aid to Honduras and maintains a military base there. A State Department spokesman told reporters Washington was still reviewing whether to cut off aid to Honduras as a result of the crisis.

Contents:
U.S./Top News
1) U.N. Backs Ousted Honduran Leader
Marc Lacey, New York Times, July 1, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/01/world/americas/01honduras.html
[...]
On Tuesday, Zelaya's newfound relevance took him to one of the world's biggest stages, at the lectern of the United Nations General Assembly, where he portrayed himself as the victim of a vicious, power-hungry elite that refused to share power with his country's many poor. "A crime has been committed, a crime against humanity, a crime which we all reject," he said. "Whenever brute force prevails over reason, humankind returns to its primeval state, to the era of the garrote, where everything is reduced to force."

A one-page resolution - sponsored by countries often at loggerheads, including the United States and Venezuela - passed by acclamation after sustained applause in the 192-member body. It condemned Zelaya's removal as a coup and demanded his "immediate and unconditional restoration" as president.
[...]

2) Latin America Drags a Reluctant Washington
The Obama administration's condemnation of the coup in Honduras has been lukewarm compared to the rest of the world
Mark Weisbrot, Guardian, Wednesday 1 July 2009 19.00 BST
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/jul/01/honduras-zelaya-coup-obama

The military coup that overthrew Honduras's elected president, Manuel Zelaya, brought unanimous international condemnation. But some country's responses have been more reluctant than others, and Washington's ambivalence has begun to raise suspicions about what the US government is really trying to accomplish in this situation.

The first statement from the White House in response to the coup was weak and non-committal. It did not denounce the coup but rather called upon "all political and social actors in Honduras to respect democratic norms, the rule of law and the tenets of the Inter-American Democratic Charter".

This contrasted with statements from other presidents in the hemisphere, such as Lula da Silva of Brazil and Cristina Fernandez of Argentina, who denounced the coup and called for the re-instatement of Zelaya. The EU issued a similar, less ambiguous and more immediate response.

Later in the day, as the response of other nations became clear, US secretary of state Hillary Clinton issued a stronger statement that condemned the coup - without calling it a coup. But it still didn't say anything about Zelaya returning to the presidency.

The Organisation of American States, the Rio Group (most of Latin America) and the UN general assembly have all called for the "immediate and unconditional return" of Zelaya.

The strong stances from the south brought statements from anonymous state department officials that were more supportive of Zelaya's return. And by Monday afternoon President Barack Obama finally said: "We believe that the coup was not legal and that President Zelaya remains the president of Honduras."

But at a press conference later that day, Clinton was asked whether "restoring the constitutional order" in Honduras meant returning Zelaya himself. She would not say yes.

Why such reluctance to call openly for the immediate and unconditional return of an elected president, as the rest of the hemisphere and the UN has done? One obvious possibility is that Washington does not share these goals.

The coup leaders have no international support, but they could still succeed by running out the clock - Zelaya has less than six months left in his term. Will the Obama administration support sanctions against the coup government in order to prevent this? The neighbouring governments of Guatemala, Nicaragua and El Salvador have already fired a warning shot by announcing a 48-hour cut-off of trade.

By contrast, one reason for Clinton's reluctance to call the coup a coup is because the US Foreign Assistance Act prohibits funds going to governments where the head of state has been deposed by a military coup.

Unconditional is also a key word here: the Obama administration may want to extract concessions from Zelaya as part of a deal for his return to office. But this is not how democracy works. If Zelaya wants to negotiate a settlement with his political opponents after he returns, that is another story. But nobody has the right to extract political concession from him in exile, over the barrel of a gun.
[...]
Many press reports have contrasted the Obama administration's rejection of the Honduran coup with the Bush administration's initial support for the 2002 military coup that briefly overthrew President Hugo Chávez in Venezuela. But actually there are more similarities than differences between the US response to these two events.

Within a day, the Bush administration reversed its official position on the Venezuelan coup, because the rest of the hemisphere had announced that it would not recognise the coup government. Similarly, in this case, the Obama administration is following the rest of the hemisphere, trying not to be the odd man out but at the same time not really sharing their commitment to democracy.

It was not until some months after the Venezuelan coup that the state department admitted that it had given financial and other support "to individuals and organisations understood to be actively involved in the brief ouster of the Chávez government."

In the Honduran coup, the Obama administration claims that it tried to discourage the Honduran military from taking this action. It would be interesting to know what these discussions were like. Did administration officials say, "You know that we will have to say that we are against such a move if you do it, because everyone else will?" Or was it more like, "Don't do it, because we will do everything in our power to reverse any such coup"? The administration's actions since the coup indicate something more like the former, if not worse.

The battle between Zelaya and his opponents pits a reform president who is supported by labour unions and social organisations against a mafia-like, drug-ridden, corrupt political elite who is accustomed to choosing not only the supreme court and the Congress, but also the president. It is a recurrent story in Latin America, and the US has almost always sided with the elites.
[...]

3) White House backing of Zelaya starts to draw criticism
Bridget Johnson, The Hill, 06/30/09
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/white-house-backing-of-zelaya-starts-to-draw-criticism-2009-06-30.html

The U.S. co-sponsored a successful U.N. resolution supporting Honduras's ousted leader Tuesday as Republicans began to speak out against the Obama administration's condemnation of the overthrow.
[...]
President Obama, meeting with Colombian President Alvaro Uribe on Monday, said the U.S. would "stand with democracy" in the face of the overthrow. "We believe that the coup was not legal and that President Zelaya remains the democratically elected president there," Obama said. "It would be a terrible precedent if we start moving backward into the era in which we are seeing military coups as a means of political transition rather than democratic elections."

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Sunday that the ouster "should be condemned by all."

When contacted for comment by The Hill on Tuesday, the office of Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry (D-Mass.) said the senator was reserving comment until the situation in Honduras becomes clearer.
[...]
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has urged Zelaya to try to speak with Obama while in D.C., saying the American president's support would "deliver a major blow" to Honduras's interim government.

But that support for Zelaya, who was arrested and forced into exile on Sunday after pressing ahead with a constitutional referendum that would have allowed for his reelection, is gradually drawing more criticism of the White House.

[This characterization is thrice incorrect: 1) the referendum would have been nonbinding, so it would not have "allowed" for anything; 2) it was a poll for support for a constitutional convention, with no mention of term limits per se; 3) President Zelaya was not a candidate in the November election, and his term finishes in January, so it is not very plausible that allowing the nonbinding referendum to proceed could have created the conditions for him to run for re-election. But The Hill doesn't stand out in this regard - much US press coverage has been similar - JFP.]

"Manuel Zelaya trampled the Honduran Constitution by pushing for his illegal referendum to allow him to rule indefinitely, and by firing the top military official, General Romeo Vasquez Velasquez, when he refused to comply with Zelaya's unconstitutional orders," Rep. Connie Mack (R-Fla.) said in a statement to The Hill on Tuesday.

"There is little doubt that Zelaya, in his blatant power grab, has moved Honduras down a dangerous path toward less freedom, less security, and less prosperity. He consistently ignored the checks and balances which are essential to a democratic government."
[...]
"Zelaya has used the Chavez playbook to turn Honduras into a satellite nation for the spread of Chavez's Bolivarian Revolution, joining the likes of Ecuador, Bolivia, Cuba, Nicaragua and others," Mack said. "It's not surprising that Zelaya decided to head to Nicaragua after his ouster and is being flown by a Venezuelan chartered jet."
[...]
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich accused Obama of siding with Castro and Chavez on his Twitter feed Tuesday. "Sadly the obama administration has joined castro and chavez attacking honduran supreme court and congress for defending their constitution," Gingrich tweeted. "Having castro call for defending democracy should convince any reasonable person that honduras was on the edge of a leftist dictatorship."
[...]
"The Honduran Supreme Court, attorney general, and the Congress were right to confront Zelaya as he ignored the law and gutted the Honduran Constitution," Mack said. "The United States and our allies in the region must now stand with the Honduran people to ensure the respect of freedom, the rule of law, and democracy."

4) Key In Afghanistan: Economy, Not Military
Bob Woodward, Washington Post, Wednesday, July 1, 2009
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/30/AR2009063002811.html

Camp Leatherneck, Afghanistan - National security adviser James L. Jones told U.S. military commanders here last week that the Obama administration wants to hold troop levels here flat for now, and focus instead on carrying out the previously approved strategy of increased economic development, improved governance and participation by the Afghan military and civilians in the conflict.

The message seems designed to cap expectations that more troops might be coming, though the administration has not ruled out additional deployments in the future. Jones was carrying out directions from President Obama, who said recently, "My strong view is that we are not going to succeed simply by piling on more and more troops."

"This will not be won by the military alone," Jones said in an interview during his trip. "We tried that for six years." He also said: "The piece of the strategy that has to work in the next year is economic development. If that is not done right, there are not enough troops in the world to succeed."

Jones delivered his message after a 30-minute briefing by Marine Brig. Gen. Lawrence D. Nicholson, who commands 9,000 Marines here, nearly half the new deployments Obama has sent to Afghanistan.
[...]
The question of the force level for Afghanistan, however, is not settled and will probably be hotly debated over the next year. One senior military officer said privately that the United States would have to deploy a force of more than 100,000 to execute the counterinsurgency strategy of holding areas and towns after clearing out the Taliban insurgents. That is at least 32,000 more than the 68,000 currently authorized.
[...]
"We don't need more U.S. forces," Nicholson finally told Jones. "We need more Afghan forces." It is a complaint Jones heard repeatedly. Jones and other officials said Afghanistan, and particularly its president, Hamid Karzai, have not mobilized sufficiently for their own war. Karzai has said Afghanistan is making a major effort in the war and is increasing its own forces as fast as possible.

In an interview, Nicholson said that in the six months he has been building Camp Leatherneck and brought 9,000 Marines to the base, not a single additional member of the Afghanistan National Army (ANA) has been assigned to assist him. He said he needed "Afghanistan security forces - all flavors," including soldiers, police, border patrol and other specialists.

The evening before the Jones meeting, a Marine was killed during a patrol in Now Zad, a town in Helmand where people had fled the fighting. "If we had several ANA in Now Zad, we might not have lost that Marine," said one civilian official, noting that the Afghan army could supply the "eyes and ears" that were badly needed to sound warnings and scout on patrols. One senior U.S. diplomat in Afghanistan estimated that the military needs one member of the Afghan security forces for every 10 U.S. troops to operate safely and stabilize the area. That would mean Nicholson should have approximately 900 Afghans, and he effectively has none.

5) Obama to continue trade benefits for Ecuador
Doug Palmer, Reuters, Tue Jun 30, 2009 8:11pm EDT
http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSN3046635120090701

Washington - President Barack Obama will extend long-time U.S. trade benefits for Ecuador, one of the poorest countries in South America, despite concerns by U.S. business groups over the leftist government's policies. "Ecuador will continue to receive duty-free treatment under ATPA (Andean Trade Preference Act) until the end of the year, when the program is currently slated to expire," a White House official told Reuters on Tuesday.

U.S. business groups this month urged the Obama administration to consider ending the trade benefits for Ecuador, which they accuse of failing to adequately protect foreign investment. Ecuador has had duty-free access to the U.S. market for most of its goods under an anti-drug program for the Andean region dating back to the early 1990s.

Frustration over policies that Ecuador and Bolivia have pursued against foreign investors prompted Congress last year to approve just a six-month renewal of the program for both countries, and to give the White House the option of extending the benefits for an additional six months.

Shortly after that renewal, President George W. Bush suspended Bolivia from the program because of its failure to cooperate in U.S. drug-fighting efforts.

In a report to Congress on Tuesday, Obama declined to lift Bolivia's suspension. Current challenges included "explicit acceptance and encouragement of coca production at the highest levels of Bolivian government," the report said.

Bolivian President Evo Morales, a former coca farmer, expelled U.S. anti-drug agents last year after accusing them of them of meddling in domestic affairs. He has pledged to eradicate plants used in the cocaine trade but defended the chewing of coca leaves as well as their use in brewing teas and in religious ceremonies.

Iran
6) Analysis: Hopes fading for Iran nuke talks
George Jahn, Associated Press, Wed Jul 1, 12:58 pm ET
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090701/ap_on_re_eu/eu_nuclear_iran_analysis_3

Vienna - New waves of acrimony between Iran and world powers over the Islamic Republic's disputed presidential vote are dimming what were already modest prospects for meaningful negotiations with Tehran over its nuclear program.

President Barack Obama's offer of direct U.S.-Iranian talks on nuclear and other issues still stands. But Tehran seemed uninterested in new negotiations even before Iran's crackdown on demonstrators protesting what they say was a skewed election in favor of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad burdened already tense relations with the West.

In a reflection of how unlikely any nuclear meeting has become, a senior Iranian official said Wednesday that the EU had lost the right to talk to Iran about its atomic activities.

The last meeting on the nuclear issue was a year ago. It ended within hours, with Iran spurning an offer by six world powers - Washington and the other permanent U.N. Security Council members plus Germany.

At the Geneva talks, the six offered to refrain from new U.N sanctions if Iran froze its uranium enrichment program. The tradeoff was designed to set the scene for in-depth talks the West hopes would end in Tehran agreeing to a long-term freeze of enrichment, which can make both nuclear fuel and nuclear warhead material.

Periodic contacts with Iranian officials by Javier Solana, the EU envoy acting as an intermediary for the six powers, have remained inconclusive since then - dashing hopes that Obama's outreach - an offer of one-on-one talks with the Iranians - would break the deadlock.

Iran's position remains the same - its program is for peaceful purposes and no compromise on enrichment, despite three sets of Security Council sanctions and the implicit threat of more.

Chances of new talks diminished further Wednesday after a senior Iranian official was quoted as saying the EU had disqualified itself from such discussions because of its "interference" in the post-election unrest. Iran accuses the EU of supporting the anti-government rallies. The EU "has totally lost the competence and qualifications needed for holding any kind of talks with Iran," Iran's chief of staff, Gen. Hasan Firouzabadi, was quoted as saying by the semi-official Fars News Agency.
[...]
Obama said in March that he sought engagement with Iran "that is honest and grounded in mutual respect," raising expectations that there may be an opening for dialogue.

But the gloves came off last week, when Obama declared America and the entire world "appalled and outraged" by Iran's violent efforts to crush post-election dissent and warned that the way Tehran responds will shape its relationship with other countries, including the United States.

Ahmadinejad then vowed to make the U.S. regret its criticism of Iran's crackdown and said the "mask has been removed" from the Obama administration's efforts to improve relations.

So where does this leave Obama's promise to replace the fist of his White House predecessor and extend an open hand to Iran? What are the chances of meaningful talks to bridge Iran's insistence on expanding what it says is a peaceful nuclear program and Washington's demand that it freeze such activities because of concerns they could be used to make nuclear arms?

U.S. officials insist the door remains open, despite questions about the legitimacy of Ahmadinejad's re-election and his anti-American rhetoric. "It's in the United States' national interest to make sure that we have employed all elements at our disposal, including diplomacy, to prevent Iran from achieving that nuclear capacity," said Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

And David Axelrod, Obama's top adviser, said Washington was "looking to [...] sit down and talk to the Iranians."

Still he qualified his comments with a veiled threat of further U.N. sanctions should Iran remain defiant. In remarks reminiscent of the Bush administration's "carrot and stick" approach, Axelrod said that any negotiations with Tehran will offer "two paths [...] one brings them back into the community of nations, and the other has some very stark consequences."


Italian Premier Silvio Berlusconi was blunter, saying Group of Eight leaders meeting next week in Italy will discuss possible additional sanctions against Iran.

But permanent Security Council members Russia and China are unlikely to support such a move. They traditionally oppose harsh anti-Iran action, and Moscow has already said it considers the elections legitimate.
[...]

Israel/Palestine
7) Barak, U.S. Envoy Discuss Settlements
Glenn Kessler, Washington Post, Wednesday, July 1, 2009
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/30/AR2009063004136.html

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak huddled for four hours yesterday with former senator George J. Mitchell, the Obama administration's special envoy for Middle East peace, seeking to resolve an impasse between their two governments over the expansion of Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank.

President Obama has demanded that Israel fulfill a commitment in the 2003 "road map" peace plan for a full settlement freeze, including a halt to expansion to accommodate "natural growth." The Israeli government has responded with a series of counterproposals, including a temporary freeze with caveats, none of which the administration has accepted.

"We have not changed our position at all," a senior administration official said yesterday after the Barak-Mitchell meeting. "Nor has the president authorized any negotiating room."

8) Human Rights Group Says 29 Civilians Were Killed by Israeli Air Attacks in Gaza
Christopher Drew, New York Times, July 1, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/01/world/middleeast/01gaza.html

Twenty-nine civilians, including eight children, were killed in what appeared to be six missile strikes by Israeli drones in Gaza in December and January, according to a report released Tuesday by Human Rights Watch. The group questioned whether Israeli forces had taken "all feasible precautions" to avoid civilian casualties.
[...]
The report, based on interviews with witnesses to the attacks and an examination of the missile debris, represented the latest in a series of accusations about Israel's conduct of the Gaza war. And it raised broader concerns about how carefully drones were being used, much like the complaints that the Central Intelligence Agency has encountered in its use of drones to attack suspected members of the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Pakistan.

The report was partly written by Marc Garlasco, the senior military analyst at Human Rights Watch, a New York-based group, who was a weapons-targeting official at the Pentagon from 1997 to 2003. Garlasco has praised the American military's use of drones in Iraq and Afghanistan, saying that their ability to hover over a target for many hours had improved the accuracy of many missile attacks and limited civilian casualties.

The group's findings in Gaza suggest that "the weapon itself isn't the problem," he said in an interview. "It's the way it's used that is." He added: "The operators have the ability to distinguish between combatants and civilians and can even divert the missiles after launch. So it's hard to understand how the Israelis did such a poor job of targeting."

Israel has said that it uses drones to gather intelligence and to help provide target information for helicopters and other aircraft. But Garlasco said the missile impact marks and the highly fragmented debris in the six attacks matched the smaller missiles typically used by drones rather than the larger antitank missiles that Israeli helicopters were seen carrying in Gaza.

The report said one missile had hit a group of university students waiting for a bus in the center of Gaza City, while another struck a truck hauling oxygen tanks and a third smashed into a school sheltering people who had lost or left their homes.

In three other attacks, the report said, the victims were six children, ages 10 to 15, who had been playing on residential rooftops. Muhammad al-Habbash, the father of one of the girls who was killed, told Human Rights Watch that some of the children had been feeding chickens that the family kept on the roof when the missile struck.
[...]
Israel has said that over all, 1,166 people were killed in the Gaza offensive. Of those, 295 were noncombatants, 709 were Hamas fighters and 162 were men whose affiliations could not be identified, Israeli officials have said. The Palestinian Center for Human Rights in Gaza has said 1,417 people were killed, including 926 civilians.
[...]
After the attack on the truck, the Israel Defense Forces released video of the event, contending that they had killed men who were loading rockets. The military later acknowledged that the cylinders on the truck were oxygen tanks, though it also said they could have been used in rocket production.

Pakistan
9) An Accord In Pakistan Is Scrapped By Militants
Salman Masood, New York Times, July 1, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/01/world/asia/01pstan.html

Islamabad, Pakistan - A powerful Taliban faction in a northwestern tribal region has said it is withdrawing from a peace deal with the government to protest continuing strikes by American drones, confronting the Pakistani military with a possible two-front campaign against militants, according to Pakistani news reports on Tuesday.

The Taliban faction, led by Hafiz Gul Bahadur, operates in the mountainous North Waziristan area along the border with Afghanistan.

It struck a peace deal with the authorities in February 2008, but Gul Bahadur said the truce was no longer operative. The Taliban announcement on Monday came as American reinforcements were moving into Afghanistan. Taliban fighters there have traditionally relied on havens in Pakistan's lawless tribal regions.
[...]
The end of the peace deal came as the Pakistani military prepared for an offensive against another Taliban group, led by Baitullah Mehsud, in neighboring South Waziristan.

Mehsud is widely depicted as the main leader of the Taliban in Pakistan and has claimed responsibility for a string of deadly bombings. The Pakistani authorities had been hoping to deny Mehsud support from North Waziristan, but Gul Bahadur's decision has significantly expanded the theater of conflict.

Ahmadullah Ahmadi, a spokesman for Gul Bahadur, was quoted by Pakistani news organizations as saying that guerrilla attacks would be made against the Pakistani military unless drone attacks were stopped and government troops were pulled out of North Waziristan.

"We will attack forces everywhere in Waziristan unless the government fulfills these two demands," Ahmadi told Dawn, Pakistan's most prestigious English-language daily newspaper. Ahmadi accused the government of allowing the United States to carry out drone attacks in the region.

Gul Bahadur says that more than 50 drone strikes since the peace deal have killed hundreds of people, including women and children.

Iraq
10) Anxious Oil Giants Pass on Iraq
On Day of Auctions to Develop Fields, the Country Strikes Just One Deal
Ernesto Londoño, K.I. Ibrahim and Steven Mufson, Washington Post, July 1, 2009
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/30/AR2009063000568.html

Baghdad - Iraq's effort to woo foreign energy companies to help resurrect its ailing oil fields fell flat Tuesday, as most companies balked at the financial terms offered by the government despite the lure of the country's vast reserves.

The impasse on deals for all but one field was a setback for the oil firms eager to gain access to the largest reserves in the world outside Saudi Arabia, and for Iraq, for which oil revenue could hold the key to prosperity. The impasse was also a setback for the United States, which has encouraged Iraq to make use of foreign investment and expertise to help bring stability to the most important sector of the country's economy.

During a day-long live auction for eight 20-year service contracts, the Iraqi Oil Ministry was able to nail down just one deal - for the giant Rumaila field in southern Iraq. The Iraqi Oil Ministry reached an agreement with British Petroleum and China National Petroleum Corp. only after BP and CNPC accepted a much lower fee than they originally sought in return for raising the field's output beyond current levels. Rumaila, Iraq's biggest oil field, has an estimated 17 billion barrels of oil reserves, an amount equivalent to more than half the reserves of the entire United States.

"It's tough to walk away from the opportunity to get your foot in the door in Iraq," said Robert E. Ebel, an expert on Iraqi oil at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "When you look at all the oil in the ground, you figure 'I better be here.' But when you think about all the above-ground problems, you might think that 'I better strike a better deal.' "

In the current bidding round, Iraq said it would reimburse companies for costs and pay them a per-barrel fee for increases in production from the country's abundant but long-neglected fields. But it did not offer the companies an ownership stake in the crude, which would have been a more attractive type of contract. It also demanded nearly $3 billion in "signing bonus" loans for the six oil fields, which are active but underproducing, and two largely undeveloped gas fields.

Honduras
11) Honduras Gets Ultimatum From American Nations
Ginger Thompson, New York Times, July 2, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/02/world/americas/02honduras.html

Washington - After a closed-door session that lasted close to dawn, the Organization of American States on Wednesday gave Honduras three days to restore its ousted president, Manuel Zelaya, or face suspension from the group, pitting the region unanimously against an interim leader who has defied international condemnation and said that only force would unseat him.

Calling Zelaya's overthrow an "old-fashioned coup," the organization's secretary general, Jose Miguel Insulza, said: "We need to show clearly that military coups will not be accepted. We thought we were in an era when military coups were no longer possible in this hemisphere."

Diplomats said they had rarely seen the O.A.S. unite so solidly behind a common cause, and that it was the first time the group had invoked its so-called Democratic Charter since it was adopted in 2001 as a clean break with the region's history of authoritarian rule.

The charter calls on the organization to take emergency diplomatic efforts aimed at restoring a legitimately elected government and provides for a nation to be suspended if those efforts fail.

The expressions of unity outside the meeting rooms, however, masked disagreements playing out behind closed doors. There was disagreement over whether Zelaya should go ahead with his plans to travel to Honduras on Thursday, despite threats by the interim government to order him arrested if he set foot in the country. Those plans were postponed early on Wednesday, when Zelaya agreed to wait at least three days before heading back to Honduras.

There was also discussion over how to proceed with suspension if diplomatic efforts failed - with some countries wanting an immediate suspension and others wanting to convene another meeting first. And there were calls by Venezuela and Nicaragua for the United States to impose tough economic sanctions.

The United States, which provides millions of dollars in aid to Honduras and maintains a military base there, is the only country in the region that has not withdrawn its ambassador from Honduras. France and Spain have also recalled their ambassadors. "There is a lot of concern about hurting the people of Honduras any more than they have already been hurt," said a senior administration official, referring to American reluctance impose sanctions. "There's enough trouble and poverty in Honduras already."

A spokesman for the United States Southern Command said that the American military had suspended joint operations with Honduras, a country with which it has long had strong military ties.
[...]
The United States said it saw no acceptable solution to Zelaya's ouster other than returning him to power. A State Department spokesman, Ian C. Kelly, told reporters that Washington was still reviewing whether to cut off aid to Honduras as a result of the crisis.

-
Robert Naiman
Just Foreign Policy
www.justforeignpolicy.org

Support the Work of Just Foreign Policy
Your financial contributions to Just Foreign Policy help us create opportunities for Americans to advocate for a just foreign policy.
http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/donate.html