Top Five Reasons to Celebrate World Press Day (Rice)

Posted on 05/03/2012 by Juan

Alice Rice writes at the Bureau of Investigative Journalism; alas, the breaking news is that she could have added Tunisia to the list:

Today the United Nations highlights the pressures and dangers facing journalists across the world with a conference in Tunis and a themed day, World Press Freedom Day.

Tunis is a slightly strange choice of location for the conference – barely three weeks ago Reporters Without Borders issued an open letter highlighting a crackdown on protesters that saw 16 journalists assaulted, including two foreign reporters.

Still, here are five reasons a day dedicated to press freedom is still sorely needed:

  1. Vietnam: Bloggers have been repeatedly harassed and detained after reporting on wildcat strikes and other topics the authorities would prefer to keep away from the public attention. In mid-April, Human Rights Watch called for the immediate release of Nguyen Van Hai, Phan Thanh Hai, and Ta Phong Tan, all members of the Club for Free Journalists, which HRW says was set up to ‘promote freedom of expression and independent journalism’. The three are currently facing criminal charges for conducting propaganda against the state.
  2. Russia: In the run-up to the elections earlier this year, Reporters Without Borders highlighted a series of attempts to intimidate journalists, stemming from both the government and from other sources. Eight reporters were arrested covering the protests that followed Putin’s re-election and two were beaten, according to Reporters Without Borders.
  3. Thailand: Chiranuch Premchaiporn faces up to 20 years in jail under Thailand’s strict lese-majeste laws, which criminalise comments that are critical of the King. Chiranuch is not accused of making the comments herself: instead, she is an online editor at Thai news website Pracithai. A number of anonymous online commenters had posted negative messages about the Thai royalty; Chiranuch is being held liable. Earlier this week a court delayed its verdict on her case.
  4. Ethiopia: The government has employed anti-terror laws to crack down on journalists. Last summer, as the Bureau reported, reporter Martin Schibbye and photographer Johan Persson were arrested attempting to cross into the troubled Ogaden region, while Ethiopian journalists Eskinder Nega and Sileshi Hago were arrested for plotting terrorist attacks. Two further Ethiopian journalists were arrested after writing critical articles about the government. Last week, a prominent independent news website was blocked for at least five days, according to Reporters Without Borders.
  5. UK: Although super-injunctions have dropped out of the headlines, thanks in part to the ongoing phone-hacking scandal, they are a key tool for the rich and powerful to silence press scrutiny. Despite a number of high-profile backfires last year, super-injunctions remain in favour among some of the UK’s more ill-behaved high-flyers. This week Private Eye cheekily suggested that two individuals in the top 10 of the Sunday Times Rich List are currently enjoying this particularly British status symbol.

Unfortunately, this list could have been 10, 25 or 50 examples long. Whether through incarceration, violence, intimidation, web blocking or lawyers’ letters, the threats to press freedom are plentiful, widespread and show no sign of subsiding.

Click here for more about World Press Freedom Day.

____
From The Bureau of Investigative Journalism

0 Retweet 0 Share 0 StumbleUpon 0 Printer Friendly Send via email

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment

Deaths of Protesters Lead Egyptian Politicians to Suspend Presidential Campaign

Posted on 05/03/2012 by Juan

Thugs, very possibly backed by the continued military dictatorship in Egypt, attacked protesters at dawn on Wednesday in front of the Ministry of Defense in al-Abbasiya, Cairo, leaving some 20 dead. The protesters suspect that they were actually plainsclothes police.

The 500 or so protesters had been gathered to object to the disqualification of their favored candidate, Salah Abu Ismail, a Muslim fundamentalist favored by many of the Salafis. Some of the protesters were leftist youth activists, from “April 6″ and other such organizations, who want an end to military rule and a handover of power to the parliament. Their assailants have not been identified.

Aljazira English has video:

As a result of the deaths, both fundamentalist and liberal parties cancelled a planned meeting with the officers, who still form a collective interim presidency in Egypt.

Likewise, several of the presidential candidates suspended their campaigns. Muhammad Mursi, the candidate of the Muslim Brotherhood, however, said that it would be unacceptable for the military to postpone the May 23 presidential election or to delay returning to the barracks once Egypt has a civilian president.

The reformist Muslim, Abd al-Moneim Aboul Futouh, called on parliament to demand from the interim minister of defense that he intervene to protect people who were merely exercising their right to public protest.

The secular, liberal candidate, Amr Moussa, warned the public against getting too caught up in a single such incident, and urged that the country move forward with its political process. He demanded that the military issue an unambiguous promise to step down once a president is elected.

There have been several such unfortunate instances of bloodshed by unidentified thugs, suspected of ties to the officers or to remnants of the old Mubarak regime, over the past year. None has derailed the political process, however, since the revolutionaries and the general public want elected leaders to take charge. Egypt’s presidential elections will almost certainly get back under way after a decent interval.

In the meantime, big demonstrations at Tahrir Square in downtown Cairo and elsewhere in Egypt were planned for Thursday and Friday to demand punishment of the killers and to demand a quicker move to democracy.

0 Retweet 3 Share 2 StumbleUpon 0 Printer Friendly Send via email

Posted in Egypt | Leave a Comment

Almohad Tower of Gold, Seville (Photo)

Posted on 05/03/2012 by Juan

Torre del Oro

Photograph by Juan Cole, July 27, 2010

The Torre del Oro in Seville, Spain, was built in the 1200s by the Almohad (Berber Muslim) dynasty to serve as a watchtower to guard the Gualdalquivir River (in Arabic, Wadi al-Kabir or ‘big river valley.’)

almohads

0 Retweet 0 Share 4 StumbleUpon 0 Printer Friendly Send via email

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments

It is a fine thing to establish one’s own religion in one’s heart … (D. H. Lawrence Poster)

Posted on 05/03/2012 by Juan

D H Lawrence

0 Retweet 0 Share 24 StumbleUpon 0 Printer Friendly Send via email

Posted in Uncategorized | 4 Comments

Collapsing Afghanistan & Pakistan Refuse to Cooperate with Obama Photo Op

Posted on 05/02/2012 by Juan

President Barack Obama sneaked in and out of Afghanistan by the cover of night, his advance security team clearly too worried about the situation in Kabul to allow him to appear in public by day. And they would have been right, since shortly after Obama departed, Taliban hit a foreign workers’ guest house (which was very secure) and killed 6 people (some reports say 17), announcing that Obama is not welcome in Afghanistan.

The ostensible purpose of the trip was to sign a [pdf] Strategic Partnership Agreement with Afghanistan president Hamid Karzai. The SPA is essentially an executive order, not a treaty, since Obama did not take it to Congress. On the Afghan side, I think it is also an executive order and was not approved by the Afghanistan parliament. Although the White House assures us that it has the force of law, it clearly falls short of being a binding treaty.

The agreement designates “The Islamic Republic of Afghanistan” as a major non-NATO ally of the United States, the same status as is enjoyed by Egypt, Kuwait, Pakistan and a handful of other countries.

The document speaks of commitment to democracy, but Karzai stole the last presidential election, and there were serious allegations of irregularities in the most recent parliamentary elections, as well.

The document pledges that the US will have no permanent bases in Afghanistan, but the issue won’t even come up again for discussion until a decade or a decade and a half. There are roughly 88,000 US troops in Afghanistan, but that will come down to some 69,000 by September, and then most of those will leave by the end of 2013.

In the meantime, the US will have access to Afghanistan bases and will provide special forces for the continued fight against “Taliban” (most of the ones we call that aren’t), as well as continuing to train the Afghan army.

And more importantly to pay for it (roughly $4 billion a year). Afghanistan cannot afford the enormous army being created for it, so it will go on being supported by ‘strategic rent’ from outside powers or it will collapse.

Obama’s four-fold strategy for Afghanistan is sickly if not dead. It consisted of:

1. Finding a way to replace the eratic and undependable Hamid Karzai with someone else (perhaps Abdullah Abdullah, former foreign minister of the Northern Alliance).

But Karzai stole the last presidential election and is still there, and Obama had to grin and bear it.

2. Conduct a massive counter-insurgency strategy, rooting out the Taliban and winning the hearts and minds of the Afghans for a new political order.

I don’t think there is any reason to believe that ‘counter-insurgency’ succeeded. The hearts and minds were un-won by night raids (sometimes with a mistaken target), peeing on corpses of dead Taliban, burning Qur’ans at Bagram base, etc., etc.

3. Train up a capable new Afghanistan National Army.

The army, now 187,000 strong, suffers from being 86% illiterate, and from being disproportionately Tajik (Dari Persian-speaking Sunnis not respected by the majority Pashtuns), and from having almost no buy-in from Qandahar and Helmand provinces (Taliban strongholds). It loses the equivalent of counties in the east to the Taliban and can’t seem to fight independently of US troops. Only one ANA military unit is assessed as able to fight independently, out of nearly 100). It is bloated, over-equipped, but under-trained and lacking in initiative and apparently esprit de corps. That this army can defeat the Taliban or even just keep Karzai from being hanged when the US and NATO depart is not at all a sure thing.

4. Use drone strikes to hit al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders in the tribal belt of Pakistan, while pressuring Pakistan finally to step up and help defeat the Taliban.

Actually the drone strikes have created a strong backlash in the Pakistani public, jealous of their national sovereignty. When the US air force inadvertently hit 24 Pakistani troops in December, the Pakistani parliament stopped NATO supply trucks from using the Pakistan route from Karachi to the Khyber pass, marooning thousands of tons of military equipment intended for the Afghanistan National Army. Parliament is recommending against letting the US ship military goods through Pakistan, and against allowing further drone strikes.

Ordinarily foreign policy is an executive prerogative, but the executive in Pakistan is paralyzed by a constitutional crisis, with the Supreme Court holding the Prime Minister, Yusuf Raza Gilani, in contempt because he hasn’t moved against President Asaf Ali Zardari for corruption.

Obama just disregarded the parliamentary report and used drones again in Pakistan, to public dismay.

Pakistan is not going well, and neither, really, is Afghanistan.

So, Mitt Romney, who is jumping up and down like a little boy in the background, shouting ‘Me, too!’, ‘Me, too!’, seems unaware that he is me-tooing a policy that is in deep trouble with the exception of the killing of Bin Laden last year.

Obama told the US troops there that everyone over here knows of their sacrifices and deeply appreciates them. Alas, I fear few Americans are paying attention to Afghanistan. The war is unpopular now with the part of the public that does know about it, including even Republicans (so Mitt has little chance of picking up leverage here). I seldom see it reported on on television, and even a lot of newspapers are basically ignoring it. You wouldn’t know we had nearly 90,000 troops fighting and dying abroad.

So although Afghanistan and Pakistan have not gone well for Obama, there is likely no US political gain to be had on either side from the misery of those two countries.

0 Retweet 19 Share 43 StumbleUpon 0 Printer Friendly Send via email

Posted in Afghanistan, Uncategorized | 19 Comments