Post   » View

Bottom 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... »»

First Name THT Date 07:35 PM - Sep 16, 2011 Comments THE TWO WIKI FILES THAT FROZE THE ZENAWI REGIME’S SPINE Another eye boggling denials by the shameless minority Ethiopian regime after embarrassed by a series of revelation from a secret US Embassy cables released by the whistle blower website Wikileaks. Yesterday, they issued a frantic ‘press statement’ with the usual denials and full of armature diplomatic languages concerning ‘two issues‘ raised on the Ethiopia Wikileaks files. http://tesfanews.net/archives/3816 IP: 41.138.7.235     Last edited: 08:52 PM - Sep 16, 2011 First Name PIA's Visit to the United States Date 09:56 AM - Sep 16, 2011 email sophie_tesfamariam@yahoo.com Comments The much anticipated public seminar with H.E. President Isaias Afwerki is now confirmed to be in New York City, for Sunday September 25th, 2011. Those who bought their tickets to Washington DC can register their name, city, telephone number, and email address along with their flight itenerary information, so that organizers can make the necessary arrangements to bus attendees to-and-from NY. To Register contact - General Services Sub-committee Email address = ftekeste@yahoo.com Fax number = 202 354 4789 IP: 71.163.250.97     Last edited: 12:50 PM - Sep 16, 2011 First Name YHM Date 12:01 AM - Sep 15, 2011 Comments http://arabnews.com/opinion/cartoons/article501813.ece/BINARY/large/0915Cartoon.jpg IP: 108.67.0.205     Last edited: 12:38 AM - Sep 15, 2011 First Name YAY Date 03:16 PM - Sep 14, 2011 Comments Dear All: What should be the best IGAD response to Eritrea's ending its suspended membership? The first question for IGAD Member States to answer is if they think is an IGAD Member State or not. According to the "AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING THE INTER-GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITY ON DEVELOPMENT (IGAD)", the IGAD Charter, dated 21 March 1996, "The State of Eritrea was admitted as the seventh member of the Authority at the 4th Summit of Heads of State and Government in Addis Ababa, September 1993." Thus, Eritrea's membership in IGAD is an established fact. The new development was that, as Reuters reported from Asmara on April 22, 2007, "Eritrea said on Sunday it had suspended its membership in...[IGAD over Somalia]." The IGAD Charter does not have any article that addresses membership suspension, and should be done in case a Member State suspends its membership. Article 22 talks about a Member State's "intention to withdraw membership" and how to do it. Article 22 states, (a) "Any Member State wishing to withdraw from the Authority shall give to the Chairman of the Assembly [of Heads of State] one year's written notice of its intention to withdraw and at the end of such year shall, if such notice is not withdrawn, cease to be a Member State of the Authority." The question, then, becomes: is withdrawing membership in any way the same as suspending membership? Generally speaking, to withdraw means "to remove oneself from participation." They could have similarities upto a point, but the two terms also have distinct characteristics between them their meanings to set them apart. Suspending membership is particularly temporary withdrawal of membership (with the intention of reinstating it later), but withdrawal of membership could mean both temporary as well as permanent (ceasing to be a member with the intention of not reinstating it). Membership status under the two conditions could not be treated the same. Was Eritrea intending to cease its IGAD membership? As Reuters reported on April 22, 2007, " 'It's a temporary withdrawal...' Information Minister Ali Abdu told Reuters." [www.sudantribune.com/Eritrea-suspends-its-membership-in,21508]. In a different occasion, another Eritrean official reportedly said the same thing, but explicitly stated Eritrea's intentions and desires: "Press Release: Visit of IGAD Ministers and ES to Eritrea . Saturday, 16 August 2008 00:00 (IGAD - Djibouti) A delegation composed of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Kenya Hon. Moses Wetangula; the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Sudan Hon. Deng Alor; and the Executive Secretary of IGAD Eng. Mahboub Malalim, accompanied by senior officials in the Ministries of Foreign Affairs of Kenya and Sudan, and the IGAD Secretariat, at the invitation of the Eritrean government made an official visit to Eritrea on the 14th to 15th August 2008. The delegation met with His Excellency President Isias Afewarki and reviewed the security situation in the region, and Eritrea’s suspension of its membership in IGAD. President Afewarki briefed the delegation on the reasons that led to Eritrea’s decision to suspend its membership in IGAD. He reiterated Eritrea’s continued commitment to the integration of the region. He emphasised the point that IGAD must be restructured so that it can be a strong vehicle for integration. He further reiterated Eritrea’s commitment to continue being engaged with IGAD. He thus designated Hon. Arefaine Berhe Minister of Agriculture of Eritrea, to be the focal person to deal with IGAD matters. Speaking separately, Hon. Moses Wetangula and Hon. Alor Deng, and Eng. Mahboub Maalim thanked the President for agreeing to meet with the delegation. They informed the President that the process of restructuring IGAD has started. Eng. Mahboub informed the President that the restructuring of IGAD had been ordered by the last Summit of the Heads of State of IGAD. So in effect what the President was saying was in line with the Summit decision. He promised the President that Eritrea will be part and parcel of the restructuring process of IGAD, and reiterated IGAD’s continued engagement with Eritrea." [igad.int/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=115:press-release-visit-of-igad-ministers-and-es-to-eritrea]. Therefore, it is clearly obvious that Eritrea did not cease and permanently withdraw its membership in IGAD, but suspended it for some time. What Article 22 of IGAD Charter communicates is not about suspension of membership but specifically that a member may "cease to be a Member State of the Authority." Article 22, therfore, is not applicable to Eritrea's current membership status. IGAD Member States have in the past expressed the desire to see Eritrea back and the IGAD Charter encompasses of resolving conflicts through dialogue and peaceful means. On 1 February 2011, IGAD's Executive Secretary Mahboub M. Maalim's response to IRIN question was as follows: "Q: Eritrea has suspended its membership of IGAD. What is the current state of play with the Eritrea-Djibouti and Eritrea-Ethiopia border issues? A: Eritrea has renewed its membership of the African Union (AU) and posted an ambassador. An ambassador accredited to the AU is also accredited to all the regional economic communities. These, including IGAD, work under the umbrella of the AU. I see renewed hope that I could probably engage Eritrea through the new ambassador." Much earlier, Kenya was urging Eritrea to rejoin IGAD, as Cathy Majtenyi reported: "Kenyan President Mwai Kibaki is the current chairman of IGAD. The Kenyan government says it will try to convince Eritrea to come back on board. Kenya's assistant minister of foreign affairs Moses Wetangula explains what is being done. "This morning my minister [Raphael Tuju] has had discussions with the new Eritrean ambassador to Nairobi, who presented his papers to the president today," he said. "My colleague, the [Foreign Affairs] Minister Raphael Tuju, the chairman of the IGAD Council of Ministers [will] also take some steps to see whether either by himself or one of us, can engage the Eritreans in discussion, and to encourage them that we are better off being together than being apart," he continued." [www.voanews.com/english/news/a-13-2007-04-23-voa-30-66773437.html]. We understand that some Member State of IGAD, such as Ethiopia, may in the heat of long conflict feel they have to punch Eritrea harder to score temporary political points, but doing so would not make the problems in the Horn of Africa go away. Ethiopian officials, for years, were declaring that they want to dialogue and negotiate with Eritrea. Can they dialogue with Eritrea if they block Eritrea coming in to IGAD? It is wiser, in my opinion, not to see things only in terms of short-term victories but long-term successes. Whatever you do, Eritrea is not going to anywhere, but stay in the Horn of Africa. IGAD cannot be whole without Eritrea. IGAD members can let Eritrea join them, debate issues, and make decisions (based on consensus or two-thirds majorty votes). That could be openning a door towards normalcy of relations. As Kenyan minister Moses Wetangula had said, "we are better off being together than being apart." Let Eritrea reinstate its IGAD membership soon. Is Eritrea going to stand up for its rights and present its case from its own perspective? Sure, it will. So will you. What are you afraid of? IP: 173.73.74.243     Last edited: 12:38 AM - Sep 15, 2011 First Name YAY Date 09:56 AM - Sep 14, 2011 Comments Dear All: An Insider's Perspective on Amnesty International--Professor Francis Boyle's Interview Shabait.com has recently published a commentary on what Amnesty International intended to do in/to Eritrea. A copy of a letter from Amnesty International was attached to the commentary, bu I found it hard to read. I wish someone can transcribe its contents into a legible text format. Anyway, here is an insider's view of Amnesty International at a given time. I thought it was interesting to read: ratitor's note: The following interview has been edited to remove the embolalia [embolalia (m-bo-la'li-ya) n. the use of virtually meaningless filler words, phrases, or stammerings in speech, whether as unconscious utterings while arranging one's thoughts or as a vacuous inexpressive mannerism] and minimally clean-up grammatical syntax to enhance readability. ----- Original Message ----- From: Francis A. Boyle To: Killeacle (E-mail) Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2003 6:26 PM Subject: Amnesty on Jenin Amnesty on Jenin Dennis Bernstein and Dr. Francis Boyle Discuss the Politics of Human Rights CovertAction Quarterly Number 73 Summer 2002 Editor's Note It has often been said that Amnesty International's agenda tends to fit nicely with the political needs of the United States and Great Britain. Around the world, supporters of the Nicaraguan people's struggle for self-determination were outraged by the timing of a 1986 Amnesty report critical of the Sandinista government, which helped Reagan push another Contra Aid appropriation through a reluctant congress, at exactly the moment when the anti-Contra movement was beginning to get serious political traction. With regard to South Africa's apartheid regime, AI was critical of the human rights record of the South African government. However, as you will see below, AI never condemned apartheid per se. By the time Amnesty endorsed the Hill & Knowlton nursery tale concerning Kuwaiti infants pulled from incubators by Iraqi soldiers, many otherwise sympathetic observers of Amnesty's work became increasingly alarmed. More than a decade of grassroots organization within Amnesty's membership base finally succeeded just two years ago in moving the organization to take a position critical of the genocidal sanctions against the people of Iraq, sanctions which have killed approximately a million and a half Iraqis, one third of them children. According to Dr. Boyle, this was political, and it clearly served the interests of the U.S. and Britain, the two governments on the Security Council preventing the lifting of the sanctions. A recent search of internet shows that AI Venezuela very quickly took up the U.S. line by charging President Chavez with crimes against humanity for the bloodshed during the recent failed coup attempt against his administration. Amnesty's performance on the April massacre at Jenin is another blot on its frequently laudable record. As our readers are aware, the United Nations attempted to investigate the Jenin massacre, but was prevented from doing so by Sharon and Bush. The announcement on May 3[, 2002] by Human Rights Watch of "no massacre at Jenin" effectively killed the story, although there was a lot of argument about what constitutes a massacre. No such arguments were heard when a suicide bomber turned a Passover dinner into a tragedy. This magazine will cover the topic of Human Rights Watch in a future issue. For this issue, we were fortunate to be forwarded the transcript of a June 13th [2002] interview with Dr. Francis A. Boyle, professor of International Law and former board member of AI. What follows is a shortened version of the transcript. [Image published in CovertAction Quarterly] Jenin, May 2002: View from the doorstep of a young Palestinian medical relief worker. Standing in her doorway looking in disbelief over the destruction, we asked if there had been a road there. "No," she replied, "just homes." Dennis Bernstein preface to interview There has been much criticism of late about the role of Western Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO's) in international politics. Following the massacre in Jenin, a less-than-vigorous response from Western NGOs helped make it possible for Sharon to delay and finally derail a UN investigation. One NGO which seems to enjoy a kind of teflon immunity to criticism, particularly regarding the illegal Israeli occupation of Palestine, is Amnesty International, a human rights organization so big and so influential that its reports and investigations are cited everywhere, including the halls of Congress. Yet in Jenin, its lackluster investigation -- a few initial press releases, compared to a timely fifty page report by the much smaller Human Rights Watch -- only added to the suffering there. It is indeed troubling, that while respected forensic pathologist, Dr. Derrick Pounder, who works with AI, reported, after a visit to Jenin, that there was a "prima facie case for war crimes." Amnesty didn't follow up. Without question, Amnesty does a great deal of crucial work, which is relied on by journalists and activists around the world. However, Amnesty has made huge mistakes in the Middle East and these cannot be overlooked in any fair and balanced assessment of Amnesty's role in international politics. For instance, as you will see below, as the first Bush administration was maneuvering the nation toward war in Iraq, Amnesty played a crucial role in preparing U.S. and international public opinion by lending credence to the notorious Hill & Knowlton "Kuwati dead babies" scam. To shed light on the question of why Amnesty's record seems to be so uneven, I interviewed longtime human rights activist and International Law scholar Francis Boyle. Boyle has a long and shaky relationship with Amnesty. While serving on the board of Amnesty USA in the late 1980s and early 1990s, Boyle repeatedly tried to get the group to investigate the brutal Israeli treatment of Palestinians with little success. D Bernstein: We are going to be talking about the restrictions and hesitations that seem to be coming out of Amnesty International, and I think before we get into the substance of the questions, why don't you just talk a little bit about your own background and your experience with Amnesty International over the years. F Boyle: I got very actively involved in 1982. At that time I was leading the legal charge against the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, and I tried very hard to get Amnesty International USA to do something. You had massive death and destruction, carnage, ultimately 20,000 people in Lebanon were pretty much exterminated. And Amnesty International USA refused to do anything at all because of the pro-Israel bias that concerns that organization. And finally, I remember when having given up getting them to do anything, calling the late Irish Nobel Peace Prize winner Sean MacBride, a friend of mine, at his home in Dublin and explaining the situation and asking him to intervene with Amnesty International in London at the headquarters to get them to do something. And it was curious of course -- they hadn't done anything either. But Sean did place a call to the Amnesty secretary-general. Sean was on their international board at the time. And I think they put a half-researcher on it, which was pretty pathetic between you and me. If you go back and read the Amnesty report for '82, it's pretty shameless given the death and destruction that was inflicted in Lebanon. Amnesty was no worse than any other so-called human rights organization here in the United States at that time. None of them said or did absolutely anything at all about 20,000 dead Arabs in Lebanon except the American Friends Service Committee. They put together a working group on Lebanon, asked me to join, I was involved. And they did put out a very courageous, hard-hitting report, spent a lot of time on it. It's very objective, very thorough. They had people on the ground over there in some danger for their lives to get this information for us. But Amnesty wouldn't do anything. Eventually what happened, members of Amnesty knew of my efforts and were very upset that they refused to do anything about 20,000 dead Arabs in Lebanon. So they ran me and a group of others for the board of directors by a petition process. We were all knocked off the ballot by pro-Israel members of the board. So everyone else asked me to represent them with Amnesty International. I threatened a lawsuit on behalf of my colleagues that, if we were not returned to this ballot, I would invalidate all their elections. Not only did I threaten a lawsuit. I had to go out to New York to file the lawsuit. Finally they settled on our terms on a Sunday afternoon before I was to file the lawsuit Monday morning. I was elected to the board of directors in 1988. I spent four years on the Amnesty board for two terms and tried very hard to get them to do something on behalf of Lebanese and Palestinians as well as many other issues. Amnesty is bad not just on Israel. I tried to get them to do more on Northern Ireland, Puerto Rico, American Indians, a lot of other subjects that are not necessary to go into here. After four years on the board, I figured I had done enough and it was time to move on. DB: Let's talk about Amnesty International and the carnage of Jenin. I'm thinking specifically of Jenin. But generally speaking, how does Amnesty International decide what to focus on and what to say and what not to say? FB: Amnesty International is primarily motivated not by human rights but by publicity. Second comes money. Third comes getting more members. Fourth, internal turf battles. And then finally, human rights, genuine human rights concerns. To be sure, if you are dealing with a human rights situation in a country that is at odds with the United States or Britain, it gets an awful lot of attention, resources, man and womanpower, publicity, you name it. They can throw whatever they want at that. But if it's dealing with violations of human rights by the United States, Britain, Israel, then it's like pulling teeth to get them to really do something on the situation. They might, very reluctantly and after an enormous amount of internal fightings and battles and pressures. But it's not like the official enemies list. Amnesty International sent three people out there [to Jenin] and came back with nothing more than a news release dated April 22 [2002], saying, we received credible evidence of serious human rights violations. They came up with a list of eight. And that was it. It's pretty shameless that that's the best they could do. It seemed to me, given the way Amnesty works, this was a typical "CYA" (cover your ass) operation, which is, they knew they were going to have to do something on Jenin, so they did the least amount possible in order to cover themselves. DB: So they did a preliminary report and very little follow-up. FB: This is not even a preliminary report, Dennis. This is nothing more than a news release. It's a press release. There is no preliminary report. As I said, I think more investigation must be done in Jenin. As you know, the United States government headed off the UN fact-finding commission. Now we know in the massacre in Sabra and Shatila, certainly one of the best reports was by a very courageous Israeli journalist, Amnon Kapeliouk, and that was investigated ultimately by different organizations that got over there, one of whom was not Amnesty International. Eventually we did have a pretty good idea of exactly what happened at Sabra and Shatila. Amnesty does not have any report [on Jenin]. This is a press release. That's all they have. There's absolutely nothing there that you know you can really get your hands on. Again, my conclusion on this was that this was a typical "CYA" operation; that they knew various people were going to say to them, `What did you do on Jenin?' So they sent this team out. They came back with very little, put it on their web site and said, "There, that's what we did on Jenin." DB: Of course it is troubling because their own people -- for instance Dr. Derrick Pounder a forensic pathologist whom I interviewed -- have said there was a prima facie case for war crimes. Yet Amnesty did not follow up. FB: Let me say one thing. In fairness to Amnesty International, after twenty years of not dealing with Israel, they finally are prepared to use the word "war crimes." They've done the best they can for the last twenty years to avoid using the term "war crimes" when it comes to Israel. They'll use euphemisms like "human rights violations" or "violations of international humanitarian law." If you're an expert, you know a violation of international humanitarian law is a war crime. But only recently, and with respect to Jenin, did they finally come out and use the word "war crime." But it's taken them about twenty years to get to that point with respect to Israel. I understand there is some conflict here as to exactly what happened and why and what were the circumstances, charges on both sides. I know that it is emotional for people on both sides with attachments to the different sides. But all I can say about Amnesty International is, after twenty years, at least they use the word war crimes. I guess that's progress. Maybe twenty years from now, they might do something more. I really don't know. DB: i want to talk to you now a little about the connections between the British and U.S. foreign policy circles and Amnesty International. Again, I'm talking in the context of Jenin. We now know, according to the Marine Corps Times (May 31, 2002) that the U.S. military was with the Israeli military. They were there as the Israeli military went into Jenin and went door to door and attacked with helicopters. They say they were they to study the way in which Israelis do this kind of urban action. Talk a little about Amnesty, its relationship to the U.S. and British government, and how perhaps the relationship between the U.S. military and the Israeli military (particularly in working with them in Jenin) might have something to do with Amnesty's reluctance to thoroughly investigate what happened. FB: Of course we know the U.S. military is over there and has been over there, Special forces and whatever, working with the Israelis. We also know the whole place has been penetrated by the CIA. So clearly this raises the question of U.S. complicity in what happened at Jenin. Or it could be participation, I don't know. I'm a lawyer, I try to be cautious and careful in my characterization. But certainly it raises the question of complicity without any doubt at all. This happened at, for example, Sabra and Shatila. Eventually, it did come out that the United States Embassy had been notified that a massacre was going on at Sabra and Shatila, and despite that, did nothing for 48 hours so that the massacre could be concluded before the U.S. embassy said anything at all about it to the Israelis. This despite the fact that Philip Habib (then U.S. Envoy to the Middle East himself, on behalf of the United States government) had personally promised Arafat that if the PLO fighters abandoned the camps where they were protecting the innocent civilians, from the Christian Phalange, from outright massacres that the Phalange had said they were going to perpetrate, as well as [from] the Israeli Army, that the U.S. would guarantee their protection. And yet we knew, the U.S. government knew for a fact, that the massacre was going on. Apparently they had an intelligence source there at the scene -- we're not sure who it was -- and they let it happen anyway. So it would not surprise me if we were in a similar situation here. I'm not surprised at all that the United States government knew exactly what was going on. They very well might have coordinated, I don't know. But certainly that aspect needs to be investigated as well. DB: Now, having said that about these connections between the U.S., British and Amnesty International foreign policy-- FB: Sure, you'll see a pretty good coincidence of the enemies that Amnesty International goes after and the interests of both the United States and British governments. Let's take an older example -- apartheid in South Africa under the former criminal regime in South Africa. Amnesty International refused adamantly to condemn apartheid in South Africa. Despite my best efforts while I was on the board, and other board members, they would not do it. They are the only human rights organization in the entire world to have refused to condemn apartheid in South Africa. Now they can give you some cock-and-bull theory about why they wouldn't do this. But the bottom line was that the biggest supporter, economic and political supporter of the criminal apartheid regime in South Africa was the British government, followed by the United States government. And so no matter how hard we tried, no matter what we did, they would not condemn apartheid in South Africa. Now I mention that as one among many examples. When I tried to work with the Amnesty International chapter down in Puerto Rico, they had invited me to go down there to speak (they're separate from AI USA). They invited me. I met them. They came to our convention. I worked with them. I helped get the AI USA general meeting to adopt two resolutions dealing with the human rights situation in Puerto Rico as well was the deplorable condition of Puerto Rican political prisoners in U.S. jails. They then asked me down there to give the keynote address on the right of Puerto Rican political prisoners to be treated as prisoners of war. Amnesty International London and New York did everything humanly possible to sabotage and prevent and interfere with my trip to Puerto Rico and my ability to get up there and give that keynote address. On Israel, I could give you twenty years of what they've done to try to sabotage, interfere with, prevent, cover up on Israel. Of course the worst instance is well known and that's the Kuwaiti dead babies report. I was on the Amnesty International USA board at that time. It was the late Fall of 1990 and, as you know, we were on the verge of going to war. There was going to be a debate coming up in the United States Congress and a vote. At the end of November or so, mid-November, since I was a board member, I got a pre-publication copy of the Amnesty report on the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. I immediately read through this report and it was sloppy. It was inaccurate. Even its statement of applicable law. It did not seem to me that it had gone through the normal quality control process. As for the allegation about the Iraqi soldiers taking babies out of incubators and putting them on the floor of the hospital where they did, I didn't know if that was true or not, but it certainly sounded very sensationalist to me. As a result of that I made an effort to hold that report back for further review, on those grounds that I gave to you. I also enlisted a fellow board member for the same reason, and he and I both tried, and I made the point, even if this story about the dead babies is true, it's completely sensationalist, and it is simply going to be used in the United States to monger for war, and could turn the tide in favor of war. And so we really need to pull back on this, further review, more study. They wouldn't do it. It was clear it was on the fast track there in London. This was not AI USA, this was in London. It had been put on the fast track. They were ramming it through. They didn't care. Finally I said look, let us at least put out an Errata report to accompany it on those aspects that are clearly wrong. They refused to do that either. They then put the report out and you know what a terrible impact that had in terms of war propaganda. Of the six votes in the United States Senate that passed the resolution to go to war, several of those senators said that they were influenced by the Amnesty report. Now I want to make it clear this was not a job by Amnesty International but by London. What happened then, when the war started, at the next AI USA board meeting, I demanded an investigation. By then it had come out that this was Kuwaiti propaganda put together by the PR firm, Hill & Knowlton and I demanded an investigation. Absolutely nothing happened. There was never an investigation. There was total stonewalling coming out of London. They refused ever to admit that they did anything wrong. There has never been an explanation. There has never been an apology. It's down the memory hole like 1984 and Orwell. My conclusion was that a high-level official of Amnesty International at that time, whom I will not name, was a British intelligence agent. Moreover, my fellow board member, who also investigated this independently of me, reached the exact same conclusion. So certainly when I am dealing with people who want to work with Amnesty in London, I tell them, "Look, understand, they're penetrated by intelligence agents, U.K., maybe U.S., I don't know, but you certainly can't trust them." DB: Is Amnesty International a democratic organization whose leadership is accountable to its members? FB: I can only speak of AI USA. In theory it's supposed to be. In theory it's elected. But what you have is a board that is basically selected by a process of co-optation. That is, it's a small clique of people who have been in power for a good twenty years, or their friends and their buddies that they co-opt through a bogus nominating process to put on there. There is a kind of petition process from the grassroots to have other voices on there. That's how I got on that board. So many members were disgusted with the fact that Amnesty would not do anything on Israel that I was nominated by means of the petition process. It's not easy to do. You have to get at least a hundred signatures and they're all very carefully scrutinized and this, that, and the other thing. Even then, I and my colleagues were disqualified by the little clique who sits on this board. Then I had to threaten a lawsuit. As I said, not just threaten a lawsuit, but fly out to New York to file the lawsuit. Only then did my name appear on the ballot and then I was elected. Moreover, another interesting point back in 1982, because of my efforts to try to raise what Israel was doing in Lebanon, I was asked to attend the first meeting of what later became the Amnesty International USA Middle East coordination group that's supposed to coordinate human rights work on the Middle East, which I did. In other words I was one of the founders of the Amnesty International Mideast coordination group. Shortly thereafter I gave a speech here in town condemning what Israel was doing in Lebanon that was reported in the local news media. I made it clear I wasn't speaking on behalf of Amnesty International or anyone else but myself. But it was an Amnesty meeting. Immediately thereafter, the chair of the board of directors of Amnesty International ordered no one to have anything more to do with me. And they didn't. It was a total cutoff. DB: Was this order put in writing? FB: It was verbal, for sure. Even though I was on their committee and even though I was one of the founders of their committee, thereafter they would have nothing at all to do with me, except that when I got elected to the board, then they had to deal with me. That's the way they certainly worked when it came to Israel. And that continued. As I said, in 1992 or so, I figured I had better things to do with my time. I keep my membership and I do keep an eye on the reports that come out to see what they're saying, what position they're taking. Indeed, I've gone on the Internet [and read] dissections of some of their reports when it comes to Israel, and the people who do these reports over in London and here in the United States. They're very clever, sharp, and sophisticated people. They know exactly what they're doing. And if you go through it, you'll see it supports the Israeli party line on whatever the issue is. Or finally, after many years of outing them on this, now they're no longer supporting it but they're not doing much. At least the thing on Jenin here is not supporting any Israeli party line. But previous reports in the not too distant past, if you go through them carefully, you'll see that their legal characterizations of the nature of the conflict, the status of these territories, the status of Jerusalem, tracks the Israeli party line. DB: How does the leadership reconcile its stated objectives with its actual practice? How do they go about rationalizing their actions? FB: They don't care. They're completely and totally arrogant. "We are Amnesty International. We are the world's largest and most powerful human rights organization. We won the Nobel Peace Prize for our work. So we do whatever we want." And again, if you don't believe me, go search your Lexis-Nexis database and see if there has ever been an apology by Amnesty International for the Kuwaiti dead babies report. To the best of my knowledge, there was no official apology or investigation or explanation. They just toughed it out. DB: Now we know that at the end of that war, the United States was responsible for killing perhaps as many as 100,000 people who were trying to flee at the end of the Gulf War. Did Amnesty ever do a report on that? FB: I don't know. After a certain point, I realized that I was wasting my time worrying about what Amnesty International was doing on that. DB: To be clear Professor Boyle, in terms of Jenin, are you suggesting that it is because of those close connections between Amnesty International, British-U.S. intelligence, the Israelis, the fact that the U.S. plays such a closer role with the Israelis, there's so much CIA and military intelligence on the ground, that that would be the reason that Amnesty International would step back and not touch it. FB: That, and in addition, you have here in the United States the very powerful rule played by the Israel lobby on Amnesty International USA. They are very powerful; they apply enormous pressure on Amnesty International USA, headquartered in New York. Amnesty International USA pretty much kowtows to them and they use contributions to make sure that Amnesty International USA tows the line on Israel and Amnesty International USA pays about 20% of the London budget. So that has an impact over in London too. I do not know about direct lobbying with the London Amnesty International office by the British equivalent of the Israel lobby here. I don't know personally about that. But I do know AI USA pays 20% of their budget. I remember once -- this was when I was on the board -- the Amnesty International secretary general was coming over to the United States for a trip and I got his agenda. He was meeting with just about every pro-Israel group and leader you could possibly imagine on that list here in the United States. Undoubtedly, they were all going to claim that Amnesty was even doing too much with respect to Israel. If I remember, on that list, they might have scheduled time to meet with one or two Arab American leaders. Internally, this is the way it's done. You have large numbers of people on that board of directors here in the United States who are pro-Israel and do everything possible to prevent, sabotage, obstruct effective work on Israel, up to and including getting rid of a former executive director here in the United States because, I hate to say this but, under my influence and one or two others, we did try to get him and some others to do more effective work on Israel. Finally, when I was off the board, there was a purge. So that's the way it works. It's highly political, highly coercive, and eventually if you get out of line, they'll get rid of you. Copyright © 2002 Francis Boyle Copyright © 2002 CovertAction Quarterly Reprinted for Fair Use Only. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 217-333-7954(voice) 217-244-1478(fax) fboyle@law.uiuc.edu (personal comments only) IP: 173.73.74.243     Last edited: 02:55 PM - Sep 14, 2011 First Name wedihagher Date 05:35 AM - Sep 14, 2011 email wedihagher@yahoo.com Comments After following and reading the recent grandiose attempt by Anti-Eritreans elements, surly it is time to come clean and apologies like the PVI (misspelt CIA); instead one hopeless junior Amenity international official went on VOA calling the failed mission as ridicules claim by Eritrean government, not even bothered to check a letter fallen to unintended reader, Government of the state of Eritrea (GSE). It is quite commendable that the GSE and Eritrean security forces foiled such well organised and funded mission. Thanks to the 30 years of war and all sorts of secret activities by the EPLF apparatus, in the face of KGP styled and trained Ethiopians, Eritrea remained amongst the great in the trade of spy, especially against the ever suspicious foreigners that always try to feet it, even though Eritrea says THANK you! But I don’t need it. When Uncle Sam, Jonny Carson and his master Suzan Rice, told the world “they think Eritreans are starving”, it became obvious they are admitting they cannot crack the shell, yet again the so caring American officials called for sanction against Eritrea LOL. You don’t have to be rocket scientist like Meles Zenawi to work out the absurd of such stupidity. I am sure the GSE is much aware of such hostile activities against it; simple advice is to double up its watchful eye. Especially the activities of those who claim Eritreans, now Muhurat Eritreans based in Addis Ababa. Now, that we know who they are and their back grounds, GSE need to step up follow their link in Eritrea to root out any remnants of well hidden neo-Mahber Andnet agenda. God Protect Eritrea from the Ever hatefull enemy! IP: 77.101.145.66     Last edited: 02:55 PM - Sep 14, 2011 First Name THT Date 04:40 AM - Sep 13, 2011 email iloveritrea@gmail.com Comments JAMES BERISHA: A KOSOVO FLYING LOBBYIST OR A COMPONENT OF AMNESTY’S FAILED SECRET MISSION Recently, two major but less publicized incidents had happened in Eritrea among many others. One is the alleged detention of an Albanian – American flying lobbyist in Eritrea and the other is Amnesty’s failed ‘secret mission’ in Eritrea. Is there any link between the two? http://tesfanews.net/archives/3751 IP: 41.138.7.235     Last edited: 10:58 AM - Sep 13, 2011 First Name Badme Date 09:56 PM - Sep 12, 2011 Comments Wow! I just finished watching this latest bust on yet another evil attempt on our people and government. So this is what Amnesty International is all about? You knew there was more to AI than it's name and stated mission implies, but never did I imagine it would have such direct, agents-on-the-ground type involvement. It's shocking! So AI employees are really just spies, and not concerned individuals passionately working to "protect human rights worldwide?" Now the question is, will this shocking expose by Eritrea's Information Ministry be picked up by mainstream Media? IP: 76.100.53.91     Last edited: 10:58 AM - Sep 13, 2011     Edit First Name To David Date 08:44 PM - Sep 12, 2011 Comments Thanks David. The reason I mentioned the loser is because he is plaut's employee. And I do believe the Addis meeting, the plaut article and amnesty revelation is in concert. They do not know hizbi Ertra IP: 68.227.201.58     Last edited: 10:58 AM - Sep 13, 2011 First Name YHM Date 03:50 PM - Sep 12, 2011 Comments FBI seeks to unmask 'Anonymous' ‘Anonymous’ draws increased scrutiny from feds http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/san-francisco/anonymous-draws-increased-scrutiny-feds-153532300.html IP: 108.67.0.205     Last edited: 10:58 AM - Sep 13, 2011 First Name To Memeher Mussa Aaron family Date 09:31 AM - Sep 12, 2011 Comments I readed and stille have Memeher Mussa books with me "Enbafrash and Werkiha"Memeher wrot this books in early 60s and mind you how brilant memeher was and read them now.Memeher are always with us. President Isaias,Ambassader Tesgay,Ambassader Ghirmai,Jouranlist Amaniel Melles,Isaias Teweldebrhan and others were his students."Mengiste Semay Yewaris Ni Sidra dima Tsineat Yahab" David Stockholm IP: 192.121.232.7     Last edited: 10:42 AM - Sep 12, 2011 First Name To my brother Amaniel Biedemariam Date 09:20 AM - Sep 12, 2011 Comments I read your aritcles here in Dehai and I am glad to hear samthing from you about Eritrea as always.When I readed and finshed your page about two small people like such Neo Nazi Martin Plat and the cheap chicken Amaniel Iyasu and I think one thing about,This ugly people are not your level and have no any stander to take about them.I am always glad to read your teaching artical and thanks again. David Stockholm IP: 192.121.232.7     Last edited: 10:42 AM - Sep 12, 2011 First Name clear Date 08:00 PM - Sep 10, 2011 Comments "Editors note: We expose, anyone who posses him/her self as a journalist with an agenda, without supporting any particular country in the horn and the wider African continent. We analyze facts on the ground. We Africans know Africa more than the Martin Plaut's of the world. This is a case in point. Martin Plaut is not a journalist but an activist tied to some agenda. He has been at it with no respect for African people at large." horn-africa.blogspot.com IP: 69.171.163.109     Last edited: 02:23 PM - Sep 11, 2011 First Name daniel Date 11:08 AM - Sep 10, 2011 email lovingyouto@yahoo.com Comments Zizi Don't you think it is too early to post such a sad story. You know there are close famly memebers that can read your comment. IP: 184.36.83.121     Last edited: 11:58 AM - Sep 10, 2011 First Name haqqi Date 10:11 AM - Sep 10, 2011 Comments WIKILEAKS AND WHAT CAN we LEARN FROM IT AS ERITREANS, ETHIOPIANS, SOMALIANS, SUDANS, AND THE WHOLE EAST AFRICAN COMMUNITIES: for the last 10-15 years for the horn of Africa had been experiencing "back to the future" politics- politics of ethnic divisions, religion tensions, border conflicts, looting, murdering, imprisonment, and foreing intervention with the intent of "our interest first". According to WIKILEAKS the whole of the East Africa region should be engulfed with fire starting with Eritrea, then Somalia, then Sudan, then Ethiopia, then Kenya, and then Djoubiti; and all of these fires will be done by weyanes and the main weapon will be provided by our America's African representatives. I hope the whole African communities can learn the true nature of weyanes, their beneficiaries, and their sponsors be it at the UN or IGAD. It is time to eradicate weyanes and their idealogy from the horn of Africa and let the era of the 21st begin--THE ERA OF EQUAL TRADING AMONG HORN OF AFRICA COMMUNITIES FROM ERITREA TO ETHIOPIA, SUDAN, SOMALIA, UGANDA, KENYA, DJOUBITI, AND SO ON. UNTIL THEN WATCH OUT FOR THE WOUNDED WEYANES AND THEIR RETARDED PROFESSORS SO CALLED ERITREAN OPPOSITIONS!! IP: 97.100.244.175     Last edited: 10:31 AM - Sep 10, 2011 First Name Eritrea_2011 Date 10:29 PM - Sep 09, 2011 Comments My condolences to the family of Ato Musa Aron. Aboy musa Aron was a great writter and gifted Eritrean linguestic. "Mengste semay Yewarsom!" IP: 76.183.70.253     Last edited: 02:05 AM - Sep 10, 2011 First Name ኣንባቢ Date 07:41 PM - Sep 09, 2011 Comments ናብ መብራህቱ ክቡር ኣቦና ኣቶ ሙሳ ኣሮን ካብ እዛ ዓለም ብሞት ብምፍላዮም ኣዝየ ሓዚነ። ኣነ እውን ከማኻ ብኣካል ምስ ኦም ክዛራረብ ዕድል ኣየጋጠመንን ገለ መጸሕፍቶም ግን ኣሎኒ። ኣቦና ሙሳ ኣሮን ሊቅ እዮም ኔሮም። ከምኡ ብምንባሮም ከኣ እዩ ኣብቲ ሃገርና ንዐዖም ብዝያዳ ኣብ ትደልየሉ እዋን ካባና ክፍለዮ እንከለዉ ነቲ ሓዘንን ጓሂን ድርብ ዝገብሮ። ክትትከኦም ኣዝዩ ኣጸጋሚ ምዃኑ ንኹልና ብሩህ እዩ። ንኣቶ ሙሳ ኣሮን መንግስተ-ሰማያት የዋርሶም፡ ንቤተ-ሰቦምን ቀረቦምን ፈተውቶምን ድማኒ ጽንዓት ይሃብኩም ይብል። IP: 77.251.36.66     Last edited: 09:43 PM - Sep 09, 2011 First Name YHM Date 11:58 PM - Sep 08, 2011 Comments http://arabnews.com/opinion/cartoons/article499302.ece/BINARY/large/0909Cartoon.jpg IP: 108.67.0.205     Last edited: 12:15 AM - Sep 09, 2011 First Name Lameak Date 12:13 PM - Sep 08, 2011 Comments I am so sure the Agametay Siuom Mesfin and Sussan ask to god to stop (sanctions)the rain in Eritrea. They are not exit IP: 217.21.232.237     Last edited: 01:47 PM - Sep 08, 2011 First Name clear Date 12:52 AM - Sep 08, 2011 Comments It is not like we did not know that the TPLF has been doing this, but just for the record. Ambassador Vicki Huddleston wrote in a secret memo: "A series of explosions were reported in Addis Ababa on September 16, killing three individuals. The GoE announced that the bombs went off while being assembled, and that the three dead were terrorists from the outlawed Oromo Liberation Front (OLF) with links to the Oromo National Congress (ONC). An embassy source, as well as clandestine reporting, suggests that the bombing may have in fact been the work of GoE security forces." IP: 98.193.97.74     Last edited: 01:47 PM - Sep 08, 2011 First Name Binyam (the next production project ) Date 09:19 PM - Sep 07, 2011 Comments http://hotcopper.com/post_single.asp?fid=1&tid=1549115&msgid=8861347 IP: 99.231.204.9     Last edited: 01:47 PM - Sep 08, 2011     Edit First Name Wedi Hager Date 06:13 PM - Sep 07, 2011 Comments Dear All, We knew all along that the only factor for the Woyane's irrational behavior in recent days and the repeated call for further sanction against Eritrea was to slow down if not totally abort the booming mining industry. These gangsters have acted in the same manner over a decade ago when Eritrea printed its own national currency (Nakfa) and had shown impressive economic growth. These days, the Woyane regime is having sleepless nights over the reports of positive economic developments in Eritrea and, as such, is fabricating stories to hamper such progress. It's even accusing countries that have good economic cooperation with Eritrea, including Quatar, Canada, in an attempt to disrupt it. According to Wikileak, this is what the Lunatic Woyane's FM Seyoum Mesfin has to say to UNSC in his futile attempt to turn Eritrea into a beggar nation, just like his own...."Canada, he said, through its mining concessions, would soon be providing Eritrea with hundreds of millions of dollars, and he commented that "if you think Eritrea is a problem now with no economy, wait until it is flush with cash." What an Idiotic statement from an Idiot person. The only regime that has been problematic in the region since its inception is Woyane. The world is relaizing this slowly but surely. IP: 163.246.220.156     Last edited: 07:39 PM - Sep 07, 2011     Edit First Name THT Date 06:03 AM - Sep 07, 2011 email iloveritrea@gmail.com Comments CONSTRUCTION BOOM TO HIT ERITREA; CEMENT PRICES DROPS BY 75% After continuing its drive towards a highly successful mining boom, Eritrea is re-adjusting itself for another ambitious, all round ‘construction boom’ that comes in line with the commencement of the magnificent Gedem Cement factory together with a number of iron and steel plants in the country. http://tesfanews.net/archives/3660 IP: 41.138.7.235     Last edited: 09:51 AM - Sep 07, 2011 First Name YAY Date 03:56 AM - Sep 07, 2011 Comments Dear All: "Amid government denials, Eritreans flee harsh drought" reconsidered. AFP (Agence France-Presse), or "Staff Writers", is/are credited as the author(s) of this story. YHM believes that the MontrealGazete.com or canada.com just used Caroline Gluck's picture of Somali refugees in Ethiopia with the original AFP report. I do not count her out as a possible contributor to the story written by AFP "Staff Writers". Caroline Gluck has worked with Oxfam since September 2008 as a "field-based press officer... responding to media needs when humanitarian crises develop." Before that, she worked as a BBC correspondent for over 10 years. She is also a contributor to the huffingtonpost.com, in which she posted a story about Somalia 2-3 days ago. Out of the people whose names are cited as sources of information in the story, besides C. Gluck,it seems Mehreteab, Berhane, and "Gebrielxavier" could be Eritreans. None of them says there is famine in Eritrea. Susan Rice is "deeply concerned" that Eritrea might be facing "extreme hunger" admitedly without any knowledge. Even when Susan Rice is ignorant about food availability in Eritrea, she chose to attack the GoER for not letting NGOs/people she wanted in. That is not humanitarian but purely political. Mathew Conway works for the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs(OCHA). He admits that he doesn't have any information about food availability in Eritrea, but someone in Nairobi can contact him to find out who particularly asked him for this story as AFP agent. His phone number is +254 (0)732 500010. Another interesting person is Shukri Ahmed, the FAO economist residing in Rome. Information discovered about him reads as follows: "Shukri Ahmed Senior Economist, Global Information and Early Warning System, FAO Shukri Ahmed is currently a team leader for Early Warning and Vulnerability assessment and Analysis group within the Trade and Markets Division of FAO. He Joined FAO in 1998 as desk officer for countries in Asia followed by Eastern Africa and the Near East in monitoring and analysing their food security situation. His previous work experiences include field manager in the Ethiopian Rural Household Survey for the Centre for the Study of African Economies, University of Oxford. He also worked as an Economic Statistician at the Central Statistical Authority in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Ahmed is one of four principal investigators in the project “Ethiopian Project on Interlinking Index Insurance and Credit for Agriculture (EPIICA)” being piloted in Ethiopia under the sponsorship of “Index Insurance Innovation Initiative (I4)”. Main areas of work and interest include disaster risk management, risk response of small holder farmers, food security monitoring and early warning, and institutional issues in food security information systems and management. He has a D.Phil. and a M.Sc. in Agricultural Economics from the University of Oxford and a BA in Economics from the University of Addis Ababa." [www.agriskmanagementforum.org/farmd-conference-speakers]. Anyone in Rome may be able to contact him and find out who in the name of AFP interviewed him fo this story. Shukri Ahmed doesn't say if he tried to visit Eritrea or contact the GoER for current information. Regardless, his data for forcasting famine/extreme hunger may have turned out to be useless. Why are they doing this, though? Intuitively speaking, whether they genuinely are concerned or have adversarial political motives, Eritrea is really challenging their assumptions: Eritrea is part of the Horn of Africa, its agriculture depends on rainfall, there is severe drought in neighboring countries, how come there is no famine in Eritrea? they seem to be wondering. My suggestion to the Eritrean government: openly and publicly invite U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice and U.S. Assistant Secretary for African Affairs Johnie Carson to personally visit Eritrea and see for themselves. Whether they accept the invitation or not, it would be a political plus for Eritrea. If they decline, they wouldn't talk that loud next time; if they accept, Eritrean officials could meet them and personally relate to them the advantages of de-escalating U.S.-Eritrean conflicts, and that they could cooperate for peace in the region. Surprise them! This could be an opportunity for improvement of ER-U.S. relations. IP: 173.73.74.243     Last edited: 09:51 AM - Sep 07, 2011 First Name Warsay+Ykaalo Date 03:31 AM - Sep 07, 2011 Comments The spoiled child of the Horn on Sudan:ICC and U:S: Engagement http://wikileaks.org/cable/2009/02/09ADDISABABA259.html IP: 92.35.5.172     Last edited: 09:51 AM - Sep 07, 2011

Top 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... »»

webmaster
© Copyright DEHAI-Eritrea OnLine, 1993-2011
All rights reserved