The government signed two treaties with the United States aimed at fighting one of the world's highest crime rates. The Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty is intended to increase cooperation between South African and American law-enforcement agencies in investigations, prosecutions and crime prevention. The countries also expanded their 50-year-old extradition treaty.
Source: New York Times
Tuesday, June 26, 2001
Sunday, June 24, 2001
Iran-Contra: The Cover-Up Begins to Crack
Until last week the Iran-contra scandal seemed ready to fade from the courts, the news and the mind. After costing more than four years and $25.5 million, the investigation headed by special prosecutor Lawrence Walsh was limping to a close. A federal appeals court had overturned Lieut. Colonel Oliver North's felony conviction, and a retrial seemed unlikely. The same outcome seemed possible for former National Security Adviser John Poindexter's conviction.
Then the scandal roared back to life with a series of stunning developments. They suggested that:
-- Top intelligence officials had engaged in covering up the Reagan Administration's attempts to evade a congressional ban on aid to the Nicaraguan rebels by siphoning off profits from secret arms shipments to Iran.
-- The Iran-contra affair may be only part of a broader and previously undisclosed pattern of illegal activities by intelligence agencies during the tenure of Ronald Reagan and his CIA chief William Casey. Sources close to the unfolding investigation of the Bank of Credit & Commerce International told TIME that U.S. intelligence agencies, including the CIA, maintained secret accounts with the globe-girdling financial empire, which has been accused of laundering billions of dollars in drug money, financing illegal arms deals and engaging in other crimes.
The discovery of the CIA's dealings with B.C.C.I. raises a deeply disturbing question: Did the agency hijack the foreign policy of the U.S. and in the process involve itself in one of the most audacious criminal enterprises in history? Items:
-- Alan Fiers, head of the CIA's Central America task force from 1984 to 1986, pleaded guilty on Tuesday to two counts of lying to Congress about when high- ranking intelligence officials first learned of the illegal diversion of funds to the contras. Fiers said he became aware of the diversions and informed Clair George, then the CIA's deputy director for operations, in the summer of 1986. But, Fiers said, George ordered him to deny any knowledge of the transfers when he testified before the House intelligence committee that October. In exchange for being allowed to plead guilty to two misdemeanors instead of more serious felonies, Fiers is now assisting Walsh's investigation. With his help, Walsh will probably seek a perjury indictment of George and perhaps other present and former government officials.
-- Three days after Fiers entered his plea, the New York Times disclosed that Walsh possesses tapes and transcripts of hundreds of telephone conversations between CIA headquarters in Langley, Va., and agents in Central America. The talks occurred during the period when North, former Air Force General Richard Secord and his business partner Albert Hakim were operating their secret arms pipeline. The tapes -- which have been in Walsh's hands for three years -- were recorded on a system that George installed at the agency's operations center in the early to mid-1980s.
In recent months Walsh has used the tapes to prod the memory of North and other reluctant witnesses before the grand jury that is still gamely looking into the scandal. The tapes are expected to furnish evidence that could lead to further indictments. Some transcripts of the recordings have been examined by staff investigators for the congressional Iran-contra committees. But curiously, until last Friday, no member of the Senate intelligence committee was aware of the recordings.
-- Investigators probing B.C.C.I. have told TIME that the Iran-contra affair is linked to the burgeoning bank scandal. Former government officials and other sources confirm that the CIA stashed money in a number of B.C.C.I. accounts that were used to finance covert operations; some of these funds went to the contras. Investigators also say an intelligence unit of the U.S. defense establishment has used the bank to maintain a secret slush fund, possibly for financing unauthorized covert operations. More startling yet, even before North set up his network for making illegal payments to the contras, the National Security Council was using B.C.C.I. to channel money to them. The funds were first sent to Saudi Arabia to disguise their White House origins; then they were deposited into a B.C.C.I. account maintained by contra leader Adolfo Calero.
The Iran-contra affair has been characterized by U.S. officials as a rogue operation managed by overzealous members of the National Security Council. But if Fiers is correct, top-ranking CIA officials not only knew about the operation and did nothing to stop it; they also participated in an illegal cover-up.
One of the first casualties of the disclosures could be the nomination of Deputy National Security Adviser Robert Gates to head the CIA. Though Fiers did not implicate Gates in the deception, some Senators find it hard to believe Gates' claim that he knew next to nothing about the Iran-contra scheme when he served as Casey's principal deputy. Four years ago, that suspicion forced Gates to withdraw after Reagan picked him to succeed Casey, who was dying from brain cancer.
Those misgivings appeared to have faded when George Bush chose Gates to replace William Webster. But the mounting questions about the scandal could put his nomination on hold. The Senate intelligence committee, which had expected to begin its hearings on Gates this week, decided to hold off. Members may want to question Fiers, George and perhaps others about what Gates may have known. If the committee's uncertainty drags on, it could run into the August congressional recess, which would delay hearings until September.
Sensing the threat to Gates' confirmation, Bush rushed to defend his nominee. He implored the Senate not to leave Gates "twisting in the wind" through the summer. "Get the men up there who are making these allegations," Bush demanded. "Isn't that the American system of justice -- innocent until proven guilty?"
But Gates is just one more figure twisting in a resurgent storm. Suddenly a number of unanswered questions assume a new urgency. Just what did Ronald Reagan -- and George Bush -- know? And when did they know it?
Beyond that, the discovery of the secret intelligence-agency accounts in the renegade B.C.C.I. raises a whole new set of unsettling possibilities. The most serious is that U.S. spymasters may have been undertaking unauthorized covert operations and all the while furthering the ends of B.C.C.I. By providing clandestine services for intelligence agencies in numerous countries, B.C.C.I. was able to cloak its activities in an aura of national security and thereby stave off investigations from banking officials in the U.S. and abroad.
In 1988 Gates is reported to have told a colleague that B.C.C.I. was "the bank of crooks and criminals." Yet when customs agents investigated the bank in 1988, they found "numerous CIA accounts in B.C.C.I.," says former U.S. Commissioner of Customs William von Raab. Those, he says, were being used to pay agents and "apparently to support covert activities."
Senate investigators, who have known of the agency's links to the bank, have demanded an explanation from the CIA -- so far, without getting a satisfactory response. One question they might ask is whether the CIA link to B.C.C.I. explains the Justice Department's slowness in pursuing its case against the bank. Last year the Justice Department tried unsuccessfully to persuade the Florida state comptroller not to lift B.C.C.I.'s license to operate in that state.
Armed with Fiers' testimony and the treasure trove of CIA phone tapes, Walsh is likely to seek more indictments. In addition to George and perhaps other CIA officials, there are two potential targets outside the agency: former Assistant Secretary of State Elliott Abrams and Donald Gregg, now U.S. ambassador to South Korea. In his plea Fiers says he lied to Congress at a Senate intelligence committee hearing on Nov. 25, 1986. On the same day, Abrams testified that no one at the State Department knew of the diversion of funds. A few days later, when Abrams made a second appearance before the lawmakers, Democratic Senator Thomas Eagleton of Missouri angrily accused him of having lied earlier. "You've heard my testimony," Abrams said during their exchange. "I've heard it," Eagleton replied, "and I want to puke."
Fiers may also implicate Gregg, a onetime CIA officer who served as a foreign policy adviser to then Vice President Bush. Gregg was a close friend of Felix Rodriguez, another former agent, who became a crucial link in the North pipeline to the contras. But Gregg has repeatedly denied before Congress that the office of the Vice President recruited Rodriguez. One tantalizing entry in North's diary indicates that on Jan. 9, 1986, North and Fiers had a phone conversation about Rodriguez. It reads, "Felix talking too much about V.P. connection." Was the reference to Gregg or to Bush?
Walsh's biggest worry may be that the Senate intelligence committee will call Fiers and George as witnesses at Gates' confirmation hearing. Last July a federal appeals court set aside North's 1989 conviction on the ground that some witnesses who testified against him may have been influenced by his congressional testimony about Iran-contra. That testimony could not be used against North in court because Congress had granted him immunity. Concerned that future Senate testimony by Fiers or George might also be put beyond his reach by a grant of immunity, Walsh last week issued a pointed warning to the committee not to imperil his case. "Our investigation has reached a point of significant breakthrough," Walsh said. "To jeopardize this progress in a vain hope of getting quick facts as to an individual nomination would be regrettable."
In one respect, at least, Walsh is right: an individual nomination is no longer the central issue. The main questions now focus on whether the intelligence community covered up illegal acts and how high the conspiracy reached.
Source: Time
Then the scandal roared back to life with a series of stunning developments. They suggested that:
-- Top intelligence officials had engaged in covering up the Reagan Administration's attempts to evade a congressional ban on aid to the Nicaraguan rebels by siphoning off profits from secret arms shipments to Iran.
-- The Iran-contra affair may be only part of a broader and previously undisclosed pattern of illegal activities by intelligence agencies during the tenure of Ronald Reagan and his CIA chief William Casey. Sources close to the unfolding investigation of the Bank of Credit & Commerce International told TIME that U.S. intelligence agencies, including the CIA, maintained secret accounts with the globe-girdling financial empire, which has been accused of laundering billions of dollars in drug money, financing illegal arms deals and engaging in other crimes.
The discovery of the CIA's dealings with B.C.C.I. raises a deeply disturbing question: Did the agency hijack the foreign policy of the U.S. and in the process involve itself in one of the most audacious criminal enterprises in history? Items:
-- Alan Fiers, head of the CIA's Central America task force from 1984 to 1986, pleaded guilty on Tuesday to two counts of lying to Congress about when high- ranking intelligence officials first learned of the illegal diversion of funds to the contras. Fiers said he became aware of the diversions and informed Clair George, then the CIA's deputy director for operations, in the summer of 1986. But, Fiers said, George ordered him to deny any knowledge of the transfers when he testified before the House intelligence committee that October. In exchange for being allowed to plead guilty to two misdemeanors instead of more serious felonies, Fiers is now assisting Walsh's investigation. With his help, Walsh will probably seek a perjury indictment of George and perhaps other present and former government officials.
-- Three days after Fiers entered his plea, the New York Times disclosed that Walsh possesses tapes and transcripts of hundreds of telephone conversations between CIA headquarters in Langley, Va., and agents in Central America. The talks occurred during the period when North, former Air Force General Richard Secord and his business partner Albert Hakim were operating their secret arms pipeline. The tapes -- which have been in Walsh's hands for three years -- were recorded on a system that George installed at the agency's operations center in the early to mid-1980s.
In recent months Walsh has used the tapes to prod the memory of North and other reluctant witnesses before the grand jury that is still gamely looking into the scandal. The tapes are expected to furnish evidence that could lead to further indictments. Some transcripts of the recordings have been examined by staff investigators for the congressional Iran-contra committees. But curiously, until last Friday, no member of the Senate intelligence committee was aware of the recordings.
-- Investigators probing B.C.C.I. have told TIME that the Iran-contra affair is linked to the burgeoning bank scandal. Former government officials and other sources confirm that the CIA stashed money in a number of B.C.C.I. accounts that were used to finance covert operations; some of these funds went to the contras. Investigators also say an intelligence unit of the U.S. defense establishment has used the bank to maintain a secret slush fund, possibly for financing unauthorized covert operations. More startling yet, even before North set up his network for making illegal payments to the contras, the National Security Council was using B.C.C.I. to channel money to them. The funds were first sent to Saudi Arabia to disguise their White House origins; then they were deposited into a B.C.C.I. account maintained by contra leader Adolfo Calero.
The Iran-contra affair has been characterized by U.S. officials as a rogue operation managed by overzealous members of the National Security Council. But if Fiers is correct, top-ranking CIA officials not only knew about the operation and did nothing to stop it; they also participated in an illegal cover-up.
One of the first casualties of the disclosures could be the nomination of Deputy National Security Adviser Robert Gates to head the CIA. Though Fiers did not implicate Gates in the deception, some Senators find it hard to believe Gates' claim that he knew next to nothing about the Iran-contra scheme when he served as Casey's principal deputy. Four years ago, that suspicion forced Gates to withdraw after Reagan picked him to succeed Casey, who was dying from brain cancer.
Those misgivings appeared to have faded when George Bush chose Gates to replace William Webster. But the mounting questions about the scandal could put his nomination on hold. The Senate intelligence committee, which had expected to begin its hearings on Gates this week, decided to hold off. Members may want to question Fiers, George and perhaps others about what Gates may have known. If the committee's uncertainty drags on, it could run into the August congressional recess, which would delay hearings until September.
Sensing the threat to Gates' confirmation, Bush rushed to defend his nominee. He implored the Senate not to leave Gates "twisting in the wind" through the summer. "Get the men up there who are making these allegations," Bush demanded. "Isn't that the American system of justice -- innocent until proven guilty?"
But Gates is just one more figure twisting in a resurgent storm. Suddenly a number of unanswered questions assume a new urgency. Just what did Ronald Reagan -- and George Bush -- know? And when did they know it?
Beyond that, the discovery of the secret intelligence-agency accounts in the renegade B.C.C.I. raises a whole new set of unsettling possibilities. The most serious is that U.S. spymasters may have been undertaking unauthorized covert operations and all the while furthering the ends of B.C.C.I. By providing clandestine services for intelligence agencies in numerous countries, B.C.C.I. was able to cloak its activities in an aura of national security and thereby stave off investigations from banking officials in the U.S. and abroad.
In 1988 Gates is reported to have told a colleague that B.C.C.I. was "the bank of crooks and criminals." Yet when customs agents investigated the bank in 1988, they found "numerous CIA accounts in B.C.C.I.," says former U.S. Commissioner of Customs William von Raab. Those, he says, were being used to pay agents and "apparently to support covert activities."
Senate investigators, who have known of the agency's links to the bank, have demanded an explanation from the CIA -- so far, without getting a satisfactory response. One question they might ask is whether the CIA link to B.C.C.I. explains the Justice Department's slowness in pursuing its case against the bank. Last year the Justice Department tried unsuccessfully to persuade the Florida state comptroller not to lift B.C.C.I.'s license to operate in that state.
Armed with Fiers' testimony and the treasure trove of CIA phone tapes, Walsh is likely to seek more indictments. In addition to George and perhaps other CIA officials, there are two potential targets outside the agency: former Assistant Secretary of State Elliott Abrams and Donald Gregg, now U.S. ambassador to South Korea. In his plea Fiers says he lied to Congress at a Senate intelligence committee hearing on Nov. 25, 1986. On the same day, Abrams testified that no one at the State Department knew of the diversion of funds. A few days later, when Abrams made a second appearance before the lawmakers, Democratic Senator Thomas Eagleton of Missouri angrily accused him of having lied earlier. "You've heard my testimony," Abrams said during their exchange. "I've heard it," Eagleton replied, "and I want to puke."
Fiers may also implicate Gregg, a onetime CIA officer who served as a foreign policy adviser to then Vice President Bush. Gregg was a close friend of Felix Rodriguez, another former agent, who became a crucial link in the North pipeline to the contras. But Gregg has repeatedly denied before Congress that the office of the Vice President recruited Rodriguez. One tantalizing entry in North's diary indicates that on Jan. 9, 1986, North and Fiers had a phone conversation about Rodriguez. It reads, "Felix talking too much about V.P. connection." Was the reference to Gregg or to Bush?
Walsh's biggest worry may be that the Senate intelligence committee will call Fiers and George as witnesses at Gates' confirmation hearing. Last July a federal appeals court set aside North's 1989 conviction on the ground that some witnesses who testified against him may have been influenced by his congressional testimony about Iran-contra. That testimony could not be used against North in court because Congress had granted him immunity. Concerned that future Senate testimony by Fiers or George might also be put beyond his reach by a grant of immunity, Walsh last week issued a pointed warning to the committee not to imperil his case. "Our investigation has reached a point of significant breakthrough," Walsh said. "To jeopardize this progress in a vain hope of getting quick facts as to an individual nomination would be regrettable."
In one respect, at least, Walsh is right: an individual nomination is no longer the central issue. The main questions now focus on whether the intelligence community covered up illegal acts and how high the conspiracy reached.
Source: Time
Tuesday, June 12, 2001
More surprises in lapa scandal
Several magistrates and private contractors who had allegedly been involved in the so-called R50 million lapa scandal can expect a second unpleasant surprise.
Heath special investigative unit senior legal adviser Advocate Gerhard Visagie on Tuesday confirmed that "many Justice department officials and private contractors" could expect subpoenas from the unit to appear before a special tribunal.
The report was compiled by the Investigating Directorate for Serious Economic Offences (IDSEO) following a probe of two years. Arrests can be expected soon.
Both the Heath Unit and IDSEO probes stem from the exposure in 1998 of the involvement of Magistrates' courts in fraudulent authorisation of private contractors to effect luxury renovations to Magistrates' Courts and official homes.
Source: News 24.com
Heath special investigative unit senior legal adviser Advocate Gerhard Visagie on Tuesday confirmed that "many Justice department officials and private contractors" could expect subpoenas from the unit to appear before a special tribunal.
The report was compiled by the Investigating Directorate for Serious Economic Offences (IDSEO) following a probe of two years. Arrests can be expected soon.
Both the Heath Unit and IDSEO probes stem from the exposure in 1998 of the involvement of Magistrates' courts in fraudulent authorisation of private contractors to effect luxury renovations to Magistrates' Courts and official homes.
Source: News 24.com
Monday, June 4, 2001
Royal Bloodbath Suspect Is Nepal's King, for Now
The bizarre massacre of most of Nepal's royal family was followed on Saturday by the bizarre ascension to the throne of Crown Prince Dipendra, a love-struck young man who, by most accounts, murdered his parents and at least seven other relatives during the family's Friday night meal.
Dipendra's suitability to be sovereign is cast in doubt not only by the murderous acts attributed to him but also by the fact that he has fallen into a coma and is being kept breathing by life-support machines. He shot himself in the head, attempting suicide, soon after committing multiple homicide, authorities here say. ''The king is dead!'' the people of Nepal declared as they began to mourn. ''Long live the king!'' was a proclamation harder to summon. Confusion, more than anything else, now reigns in this rugged Himalayan country, a place with many of the world's highest mountains, 23 million of its poorest people and one if its most peculiar political setups.
Nepal is governed by a constitutional monarchy. The king, by legend, is a reincarnation of the Hindu deity Vishnu. Parliament, by recent democratic elections, is controlled by Communists. Maoist insurgents, operating in near perfect guerrilla habitat, are creating bloody havoc in the countryside. On Saturday, Nepalese awoke to rumors of the great carnage that had occurred in the grand palace in the center of Katmandu, the capital. They had little more to go on than this hearsay. Foreign news broadcasts were announcing the death of King Birendra Bir Bikram Shah Dev, 55, a monarch with an Eton and Harvard education and a walrus-like mustache. Queen Aiswarya, 51, was said to be dead as well. But local television and radio played only devotional music while withholding the grim bulletin. Finally, at 1 p.m., about 15 hours after the massacre, a short statement was read over government channels by Keshar Jung Rayamajhi, chairman of the State Council, an advisory body to the monarchy. In a tearful voice, he read a short text, announcing the king's death but saying little else. The council, coping with the aftermath of the slaughter at the royal dinner table, had spent the morning puzzling through the delicate matter of succession. It named Crown Prince Dipendra the new king -- but not really.
The actual power is to pass to the dead king's brother, Gyanendra, who as a little boy had briefly served as king and who now, as an adult, had the good fortune of not being in town during the Friday meal. ''The first son of his majesty, the king and heir to the throne, Dipendra Bir Bikram Shah Dev, has been proclaimed the king in accordance with the law, custom and usage relating to the succession to the throne,'' the chairman said, adding an important ''but.'' ''Since the new king is physically unable to exercise his duty and is undergoing treatment at the intensive care unit of the military hospital in Katmandu, his uncle, Prince Gyanendra, has been proclaimed as the regent.'' Nothing was officially reported about the palace slaughter, however, until 7 a.m. today, when Gyanendra issued a condolence to the nation on Radio Nepal. In the imperial style of the royal family, he confirmed the reports of a dinnertime bloodbath, while making no allegations against his comatose nephew. ''According to the information received by us, (members of the royal family) were seriously injured in an accidental firing from an automatic weapon,'' his statement read.
Other accounts belie any suggestion of an accident. What is known about the shooting comes from conflicting accounts that have been pieced together by local journalists who interviewed witnesses of the bloodshed and friends of the royal family. ''It was like a shooting in an American high school,'' wryly said Kunda Dixit, editor of The Nepali Times. By most accounts, the royal family had sat down for its traditional Friday dinner in a banquet hall in the huge palace. More than a dozen people were at the table, including the king and queen and their three adult children.
Crown Prince Dipendra, 29, had been upset by his parents' -- and particularly his mother's -- disapproval of his choice for a bride, though the young woman came from one of the nation's leading families. That evening, Dipendra had been drinking, according to several accounts, and he left the meal in a fit of anger only to return with at least one -- perhaps two -- semiautomatic weapons. ''Dipendra sprayed the room with bullets, and then he went out and got dressed in military fatigues before coming back to finish up,'' Mr. Dixit said. ''He was a gun lover, a hunter and a shooter. He was someone who even tested weapons for the Royal Nepali Army.'' According to other accounts, the prince had changed into the military garb -- becoming dressed to kill -- before he fired any shots. Either way, he had locked the doors to the dining hall, the accounts say. No guards or aides were inside at the time. In one account, the prince, upon returning to the hall, carried a handgun. He then moved among the wounded, firing single shots into their heads. Finally, guards entered the hall. In one version, Dipendra immediately attempted suicide, firing a single shot through his temple. In a second version, he briefly escaped to another room before trying to take his own life.
The precise death count is unknown. Dead, according to government sources, are the king and queen; their son Prince Nirajan, 22, and daughter Princess Shruti, 24; the king's sisters Princess Shanti Singh and Princess Sharada Shah; Princess Sharada's husband Kumar Khadga Bikram Shah; and Princess Jayanti Shah, a cousin of the late king. At least three other family members were reported wounded. The massacre brought a storybook life to an abrupt end.
The Shah lineage dates back to the mid-1700's. In 1951, with most of the family in exile, Gyenendra, then just an infant, was installed as a puppet king, a position he relinquished with the return of his father, Mahendra. With Mahendra's death in 1972, Birendra became king, though his coronation did not take place until 1975, awaiting a time considered more auspicious by the royal astrologers. On that memorable day, Birendra donned the elaborate crown that came with the title. The royal family rode on elegantly decorated elephants. During this ceremony, 3-year-old Crown Prince Dipendra, flanked by generals, bowed before his father and mother and smartly saluted them. This precocious touch by the young prince brought a burst of applause from the solemn crowd. Good things were expected from the young heir -- and he enjoyed a reputation free of any foreshadowing of mass murder.
King Birendra remained a traditional king until 1990, when a democratic uprising forced the change toward a constitutional monarchy. At the time, there were allegations of royal pocket-stuffing. But Birendra, over time, regained his nation's affection. He was popular, and some would say beloved. And he was not feckless. He retained the loyalty of the army. Earlier this year, the royal astrologers again seemed to be playing a central role in palace affairs. According to press reports, unchallenged by the royal family, it was determined by the stars that the Crown Prince should not marry until age 35. If he did, mortal risks were predicted. This prophecy will inevitably play a role in later reconstruction of the deadly events.
On Saturday, as the news finally sunk in, people seemed too stunned to be outwardly grieving, as if they had just emerged from their homes after the tremors of an earthquake. ''The tragedy is beyond words,'' said Ramesh Chandra Adhikary, a professor of political science here in Katmandu. ''We Hindus believe that the king is an incarnation of God. The sorrow we feel is unimaginable.''
Late Saturday afternoon, tens of thousands of mourners began lining the streets to await the eight-mile procession that would bring the murdered king and queen from the hospital to the funeral ghat. ''Journalists are telling us a lot of things about what happened, but we really don't know,'' said Nirendra Sharma, a young man with a shirt that said Nike Air. ''Probably, the murders took place within the royal family. But it's hard to say much more. Nothing like this has happened before in history.''
The king's body, held aloft by bare-chested Brahmin priests, was covered to the neck with a saffron cloth. Behind him came the queen -- dressed in her bridal sari and carried inside an ornate, covered palanquin. And following them was Prince Narajin, Princess Shruti and Princess Jayanti Shah. The corpses were taken to a specially erected canopy near the cremation site on the banks of the holy Bagmati River, near the temple of Lord Pashupatinath. Mourners laid flowers on the bodies. ''The king who saw this country through trying and difficult times is no more,'' said a commentator on state television.
Priests muttered the final prayers as the bodies were lain on pyres of sandalwood. A little known member of the royal family, with a torch in hand, ceremonially circled the king's body three times. Then he set the flame to Birendra's head, starting the fire that would render the royal family to ashes.
Source: New York Times
Dipendra's suitability to be sovereign is cast in doubt not only by the murderous acts attributed to him but also by the fact that he has fallen into a coma and is being kept breathing by life-support machines. He shot himself in the head, attempting suicide, soon after committing multiple homicide, authorities here say. ''The king is dead!'' the people of Nepal declared as they began to mourn. ''Long live the king!'' was a proclamation harder to summon. Confusion, more than anything else, now reigns in this rugged Himalayan country, a place with many of the world's highest mountains, 23 million of its poorest people and one if its most peculiar political setups.
Nepal is governed by a constitutional monarchy. The king, by legend, is a reincarnation of the Hindu deity Vishnu. Parliament, by recent democratic elections, is controlled by Communists. Maoist insurgents, operating in near perfect guerrilla habitat, are creating bloody havoc in the countryside. On Saturday, Nepalese awoke to rumors of the great carnage that had occurred in the grand palace in the center of Katmandu, the capital. They had little more to go on than this hearsay. Foreign news broadcasts were announcing the death of King Birendra Bir Bikram Shah Dev, 55, a monarch with an Eton and Harvard education and a walrus-like mustache. Queen Aiswarya, 51, was said to be dead as well. But local television and radio played only devotional music while withholding the grim bulletin. Finally, at 1 p.m., about 15 hours after the massacre, a short statement was read over government channels by Keshar Jung Rayamajhi, chairman of the State Council, an advisory body to the monarchy. In a tearful voice, he read a short text, announcing the king's death but saying little else. The council, coping with the aftermath of the slaughter at the royal dinner table, had spent the morning puzzling through the delicate matter of succession. It named Crown Prince Dipendra the new king -- but not really.
The actual power is to pass to the dead king's brother, Gyanendra, who as a little boy had briefly served as king and who now, as an adult, had the good fortune of not being in town during the Friday meal. ''The first son of his majesty, the king and heir to the throne, Dipendra Bir Bikram Shah Dev, has been proclaimed the king in accordance with the law, custom and usage relating to the succession to the throne,'' the chairman said, adding an important ''but.'' ''Since the new king is physically unable to exercise his duty and is undergoing treatment at the intensive care unit of the military hospital in Katmandu, his uncle, Prince Gyanendra, has been proclaimed as the regent.'' Nothing was officially reported about the palace slaughter, however, until 7 a.m. today, when Gyanendra issued a condolence to the nation on Radio Nepal. In the imperial style of the royal family, he confirmed the reports of a dinnertime bloodbath, while making no allegations against his comatose nephew. ''According to the information received by us, (members of the royal family) were seriously injured in an accidental firing from an automatic weapon,'' his statement read.
Other accounts belie any suggestion of an accident. What is known about the shooting comes from conflicting accounts that have been pieced together by local journalists who interviewed witnesses of the bloodshed and friends of the royal family. ''It was like a shooting in an American high school,'' wryly said Kunda Dixit, editor of The Nepali Times. By most accounts, the royal family had sat down for its traditional Friday dinner in a banquet hall in the huge palace. More than a dozen people were at the table, including the king and queen and their three adult children.
Crown Prince Dipendra, 29, had been upset by his parents' -- and particularly his mother's -- disapproval of his choice for a bride, though the young woman came from one of the nation's leading families. That evening, Dipendra had been drinking, according to several accounts, and he left the meal in a fit of anger only to return with at least one -- perhaps two -- semiautomatic weapons. ''Dipendra sprayed the room with bullets, and then he went out and got dressed in military fatigues before coming back to finish up,'' Mr. Dixit said. ''He was a gun lover, a hunter and a shooter. He was someone who even tested weapons for the Royal Nepali Army.'' According to other accounts, the prince had changed into the military garb -- becoming dressed to kill -- before he fired any shots. Either way, he had locked the doors to the dining hall, the accounts say. No guards or aides were inside at the time. In one account, the prince, upon returning to the hall, carried a handgun. He then moved among the wounded, firing single shots into their heads. Finally, guards entered the hall. In one version, Dipendra immediately attempted suicide, firing a single shot through his temple. In a second version, he briefly escaped to another room before trying to take his own life.
The precise death count is unknown. Dead, according to government sources, are the king and queen; their son Prince Nirajan, 22, and daughter Princess Shruti, 24; the king's sisters Princess Shanti Singh and Princess Sharada Shah; Princess Sharada's husband Kumar Khadga Bikram Shah; and Princess Jayanti Shah, a cousin of the late king. At least three other family members were reported wounded. The massacre brought a storybook life to an abrupt end.
The Shah lineage dates back to the mid-1700's. In 1951, with most of the family in exile, Gyenendra, then just an infant, was installed as a puppet king, a position he relinquished with the return of his father, Mahendra. With Mahendra's death in 1972, Birendra became king, though his coronation did not take place until 1975, awaiting a time considered more auspicious by the royal astrologers. On that memorable day, Birendra donned the elaborate crown that came with the title. The royal family rode on elegantly decorated elephants. During this ceremony, 3-year-old Crown Prince Dipendra, flanked by generals, bowed before his father and mother and smartly saluted them. This precocious touch by the young prince brought a burst of applause from the solemn crowd. Good things were expected from the young heir -- and he enjoyed a reputation free of any foreshadowing of mass murder.
King Birendra remained a traditional king until 1990, when a democratic uprising forced the change toward a constitutional monarchy. At the time, there were allegations of royal pocket-stuffing. But Birendra, over time, regained his nation's affection. He was popular, and some would say beloved. And he was not feckless. He retained the loyalty of the army. Earlier this year, the royal astrologers again seemed to be playing a central role in palace affairs. According to press reports, unchallenged by the royal family, it was determined by the stars that the Crown Prince should not marry until age 35. If he did, mortal risks were predicted. This prophecy will inevitably play a role in later reconstruction of the deadly events.
On Saturday, as the news finally sunk in, people seemed too stunned to be outwardly grieving, as if they had just emerged from their homes after the tremors of an earthquake. ''The tragedy is beyond words,'' said Ramesh Chandra Adhikary, a professor of political science here in Katmandu. ''We Hindus believe that the king is an incarnation of God. The sorrow we feel is unimaginable.''
Late Saturday afternoon, tens of thousands of mourners began lining the streets to await the eight-mile procession that would bring the murdered king and queen from the hospital to the funeral ghat. ''Journalists are telling us a lot of things about what happened, but we really don't know,'' said Nirendra Sharma, a young man with a shirt that said Nike Air. ''Probably, the murders took place within the royal family. But it's hard to say much more. Nothing like this has happened before in history.''
The king's body, held aloft by bare-chested Brahmin priests, was covered to the neck with a saffron cloth. Behind him came the queen -- dressed in her bridal sari and carried inside an ornate, covered palanquin. And following them was Prince Narajin, Princess Shruti and Princess Jayanti Shah. The corpses were taken to a specially erected canopy near the cremation site on the banks of the holy Bagmati River, near the temple of Lord Pashupatinath. Mourners laid flowers on the bodies. ''The king who saw this country through trying and difficult times is no more,'' said a commentator on state television.
Priests muttered the final prayers as the bodies were lain on pyres of sandalwood. A little known member of the royal family, with a torch in hand, ceremonially circled the king's body three times. Then he set the flame to Birendra's head, starting the fire that would render the royal family to ashes.
Source: New York Times
Saturday, June 2, 2001
Birenda: Ruler of Nepal's Hindu Kingdom: Murdered
King Birendra Bir Bikram Shah Dev, who was shot to death on Friday in a massacre of Nepal's royal family, was a proud but isolated monarch whose reign began in absolutism and ended in uneasy partnership with democracy. But it was a uniquely Nepalese democracy, with a fractious political spectrum from extreme left to right, further muddied by age-old palace intrigue and violence in a royal family, the Shah dynasty, descended from Rajput warriors of India that had been in and out of power since the 1770's, when it employed the indomitable Gurkha fighters to conquer large areas of the country and establish the capital in Katmandu.
King Birendra, 55, had survived a fierce wave of street revolts in 1990 only by the force of tradition; the Nepalese considered him a reincarnation of Vishnu, and there was never a mass movement to depose him. But he was later sidelined into the role of constitutional monarch.
Nepal was first opened to the world four decades ago under King Tribhuvan and later King Mahendra, Birendra's father, and it became the Himalayan region's most popular tourist attraction and the major earner of foreign currency under King Birendra. Mountain-climbing in the regions around Everest and Annapurna made the country famous. Tourism, however, led to the mushrooming of Katmandu, a city with scant public services that soon became inundated with backpackers and hippies, drawing criticism of uncontrolled tourist growth. The reliance on tourism, nurtured by Nepal's kings, has not been tempered by the current political leadership. Nepal, the world's only Hindu kingdom, was never colonized by the West but has been acutely aware of its vulnerability as a landlocked nation wedged between India and China, the world's most populous countries.
King Birendra was born on Dec. 28, 1945, and acceded to the throne in January 1972, after the death of King Mahendra. Birendra's grandfather, King Tribhuvan, had been restored to the throne with the help of India in 1951 after a century of rule by a hereditary clan of political dictators, the Ranas. Tribhuvan died in 1955. Birendra inherited from his father a system of partyless rule through rubber-stamp local and regional councils known as panchayats. The system afforded only the barest facade of democracy and was a constant irritant to the people of Nepal, who saw in it not only unbridled royal privilege but also the source of corruption and the abuse of political power by royal favorites who had no interest in the development of this mountainous country, still one of the poorest in the world. The king's attempts to cling to this system -- and his arrests of prominent leaders of the Congress Party, the leading political organization -- led him into direct confrontation with the Nepalese electorate by the late 1980's. The panchayat system was finally abolished by law in 1993. King Birenda was a man of medium height who wore glasses and invariably dressed in public in the Nepalese national costume: a tunic over tight, jodphur-style trousers, a Western-style jacket and the coloful asymetrical cap called a topi. As a young man, he enjoyed the outdoors and hiked the length and breadth of Nepal to get to know it. Although he was a Hindu king, he made a point of attending major festivals and visiting the holy sites of the country's large Buddhist minority. He continued the practice of softening lines between the two religions, and this made him popular across sectarian lines. Politically, the king had gained stature and approval in his final years because he did not call in the military to stop the democracy movement or take charge when the political coalitions that have marked the last decade cracked and sometimes crumbled, leaving a dangerous vacuum. He was the first king of Nepal to be educated abroad. He was sent first to St. Joseph's School in Darjeeling, in India's hill country. He then finished his secondary education at Eton, the elite British school, before attending Tokyo University and later Harvard, where he took courses in economics and government and studied American politics. A traveler in his youth, he visited Canada, Latin America and Africa, as well as many Asian countries. He became an art collector and supported Nepalese crafts people and artists. He could fly helicopters and enjoyed horseback riding. Many Nepalese critical of the royal family have focused their ire on Queen Aiswarya Rajya Laxni Devi Rana, whom he married in 1970. She was also killed on Friday.
The royal family lived a relatively reclusive life, especially in recent years, in a huge, ominous-looking palace that looms over central Katmandu, the capital. They had two sons, Crown Prince Dipendra, who is accused of the killings, and Prince Nirajan, who was reported to have died today of his wounds, as well as a daughter, Princess Shruti, who was killed. Shruti's two children survive, along with Birendra's brother Gyanendra, who was away from Katmandu.
Source: New York Times
King Birendra, 55, had survived a fierce wave of street revolts in 1990 only by the force of tradition; the Nepalese considered him a reincarnation of Vishnu, and there was never a mass movement to depose him. But he was later sidelined into the role of constitutional monarch.
Nepal was first opened to the world four decades ago under King Tribhuvan and later King Mahendra, Birendra's father, and it became the Himalayan region's most popular tourist attraction and the major earner of foreign currency under King Birendra. Mountain-climbing in the regions around Everest and Annapurna made the country famous. Tourism, however, led to the mushrooming of Katmandu, a city with scant public services that soon became inundated with backpackers and hippies, drawing criticism of uncontrolled tourist growth. The reliance on tourism, nurtured by Nepal's kings, has not been tempered by the current political leadership. Nepal, the world's only Hindu kingdom, was never colonized by the West but has been acutely aware of its vulnerability as a landlocked nation wedged between India and China, the world's most populous countries.
King Birendra was born on Dec. 28, 1945, and acceded to the throne in January 1972, after the death of King Mahendra. Birendra's grandfather, King Tribhuvan, had been restored to the throne with the help of India in 1951 after a century of rule by a hereditary clan of political dictators, the Ranas. Tribhuvan died in 1955. Birendra inherited from his father a system of partyless rule through rubber-stamp local and regional councils known as panchayats. The system afforded only the barest facade of democracy and was a constant irritant to the people of Nepal, who saw in it not only unbridled royal privilege but also the source of corruption and the abuse of political power by royal favorites who had no interest in the development of this mountainous country, still one of the poorest in the world. The king's attempts to cling to this system -- and his arrests of prominent leaders of the Congress Party, the leading political organization -- led him into direct confrontation with the Nepalese electorate by the late 1980's. The panchayat system was finally abolished by law in 1993. King Birenda was a man of medium height who wore glasses and invariably dressed in public in the Nepalese national costume: a tunic over tight, jodphur-style trousers, a Western-style jacket and the coloful asymetrical cap called a topi. As a young man, he enjoyed the outdoors and hiked the length and breadth of Nepal to get to know it. Although he was a Hindu king, he made a point of attending major festivals and visiting the holy sites of the country's large Buddhist minority. He continued the practice of softening lines between the two religions, and this made him popular across sectarian lines. Politically, the king had gained stature and approval in his final years because he did not call in the military to stop the democracy movement or take charge when the political coalitions that have marked the last decade cracked and sometimes crumbled, leaving a dangerous vacuum. He was the first king of Nepal to be educated abroad. He was sent first to St. Joseph's School in Darjeeling, in India's hill country. He then finished his secondary education at Eton, the elite British school, before attending Tokyo University and later Harvard, where he took courses in economics and government and studied American politics. A traveler in his youth, he visited Canada, Latin America and Africa, as well as many Asian countries. He became an art collector and supported Nepalese crafts people and artists. He could fly helicopters and enjoyed horseback riding. Many Nepalese critical of the royal family have focused their ire on Queen Aiswarya Rajya Laxni Devi Rana, whom he married in 1970. She was also killed on Friday.
The royal family lived a relatively reclusive life, especially in recent years, in a huge, ominous-looking palace that looms over central Katmandu, the capital. They had two sons, Crown Prince Dipendra, who is accused of the killings, and Prince Nirajan, who was reported to have died today of his wounds, as well as a daughter, Princess Shruti, who was killed. Shruti's two children survive, along with Birendra's brother Gyanendra, who was away from Katmandu.
Source: New York Times
Moseneke resigns from top posts
Nail CEO and acting chairman Dikgang Moseneke has resigned from all his positions at Nail, Metropolitan and Telkom to take up a position in the judiciary.
Media statements from the three companies announced on Friday evening that Advocate Moseneke will take up his new acting position in the judiciary at the end of July. No details about his new job were released.
Moseneke has been acting chairman and CEO of Nail, the chairman of the board of Metropolitan and chairman of Telkom. "I am also looking forward to the completion of the convergence of Metropolitan and New Africa Investments Limited (Nail), which will be a specific area of focus during the remainder of my time with both groups," Moseneke said.
The companies have not yet announced replacements for Moseneke.
Source: News 24
Media statements from the three companies announced on Friday evening that Advocate Moseneke will take up his new acting position in the judiciary at the end of July. No details about his new job were released.
Moseneke has been acting chairman and CEO of Nail, the chairman of the board of Metropolitan and chairman of Telkom. "I am also looking forward to the completion of the convergence of Metropolitan and New Africa Investments Limited (Nail), which will be a specific area of focus during the remainder of my time with both groups," Moseneke said.
The companies have not yet announced replacements for Moseneke.
Source: News 24
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)