Open Letter by Over 70 Scholars and Experts Condemns US-Backed Coup Attempt in Venezuela

"For the sake of the Venezuelan people, the region, and for the principle of national sovereignty, these international actors should instead support negotiations between the Venezuelan government and its opponents."

The United States government must cease interfering in Venezuela’s internal politics, especially for the purpose of overthrowing the country’s government.

Actions by the Trump administration and its allies in the hemisphere are almost certain to make the situation in Venezuela worse, leading to unnecessary human suffering, violence, and instability.

Venezuela’s political polarization is not new; the country has long been divided along racial and socioeconomic lines. But the polarization has deepened in recent years.

This is partly due to US support for an opposition strategy aimed at removing the government of Nicolás Maduro through extra-electoral means. While the opposition has been divided on this strategy, US support has backed hardline opposition sectors in their goal of ousting the Maduro government through often violent protests, a military coup d’etat, or other avenues that sidestep the ballot box.

Under the Trump administration, aggressive rhetoric against the Venezuelan government has ratcheted up to a more extreme and threatening level, with Trump administration officials talking of “military action” and condemning Venezuela, along with Cuba and Nicaragua, as part of a “troika of tyranny.” Problems resulting from Venezuelan government policy have been worsened by US economic sanctions, illegal under the Organization of American States and the United Nations ― as well as US law and other international treaties and conventions.

These sanctions have cut off the means by which the Venezuelan government could escape from its economic recession, while causing a dramatic falloff in oil production and worsening the economic crisis, and causing many people to die because they can’t get access to life-saving medicines. Meanwhile, the US and other governments continue to blame the Venezuelan government ― solely ― for the economic damage, even that caused by the US sanctions.

Now the US and its allies, including OAS Secretary General Luis Almagro and Brazil’s far-right president, Jair Bolsonaro, have pushed Venezuela to the precipice.

By recognizing National Assembly President Juan Guaido as the new president of Venezuela ― something illegal under the OAS Charter ― the Trump administration has sharply accelerated Venezuela’s political crisis in the hopes of dividing the Venezuelan military and further polarizing the populace, forcing them to choose sides.

The obvious, and sometimes stated goal, is to force Maduro out via a coup d’etat.

The reality is that despite hyperinflation, shortages, and a deep depression, Venezuela remains a politically polarized country. The US and its allies must cease encouraging violence by pushing for violent, extralegal regime change.

If the Trump administration and its allies continue to pursue their reckless course in Venezuela, the most likely result will be bloodshed, chaos, and instability. The US should have learned something from its regime change ventures in Iraq, Syria, Libya, and its long, violent history of sponsoring regime change in Latin America.

Neither side in Venezuela can simply vanquish the other. The military, for example, has at least 235,000 frontline members, and there are at least 1.6 million in militias. Many of these people will fight, not only on the basis of a belief in national sovereignty that is widely held in Latin America ― in the face of what increasingly appears to be a US-led intervention ― but also to protect themselves from likely repression if the opposition topples the government by force.

In such situations, the only solution is a negotiated settlement, as has happened in the past in Latin American countries when politically polarized societies were unable to resolve their differences through elections.

There have been efforts, such as those led by the Vatican in the fall of 2016, that had potential, but they received no support from Washington and its allies who favored regime change. This strategy must change if there is to be any viable solution to the ongoing crisis in Venezuela.

For the sake of the Venezuelan people, the region, and for the principle of national sovereignty, these international actors should instead support negotiations between the Venezuelan government and its opponents that will allow the country to finally emerge from its political and economic crisis.

Signed:

Noam Chomsky, Professor Emeritus, MIT and Laureate Professor, University of Arizona

Laura Carlsen, Director, Americas Program, Center for International Policy

Greg Grandin, Professor of History, New York University

Miguel Tinker Salas, Professor of Latin American History and Chicano/a Latino/a Studies at Pomona College

Sujatha Fernandes, Professor of Political Economy and Sociology, University of Sydney

Steve Ellner, Associate Managing Editor of Latin American Perspectives

Alfred de Zayas, former UN Independent Expert on the Promotion of a Democratic and Equitable International Order and only UN rapporteur to have visited Venezuela in 21 years

Boots Riley, Writer/Director of Sorry to Bother You, Musician

John Pilger, Journalist & Film-Maker

Mark Weisbrot, Co-Director, Center for Economic and Policy Research

Jared Abbott, PhD Candidate, Department of Government, Harvard University

Dr. Tim Anderson, Director, Centre for Counter Hegemonic Studies

Elisabeth Armstrong, Professor of the Study of Women and Gender, Smith College

Alexander Aviña, PhD, Associate Professor of History, Arizona State University

Marc Becker, Professor of History, Truman State University

Medea Benjamin, Cofounder, CODEPINK

Phyllis Bennis, Program Director, New Internationalism, Institute for Policy Studies

Dr. Robert E. Birt, Professor of Philosophy, Bowie State University

Aviva Chomsky, Professor of History, Salem State University

James Cohen, University of Paris 3 Sorbonne Nouvelle

Guadalupe Correa-Cabrera, Associate Professor, George Mason University

Benjamin Dangl, PhD, Editor of Toward Freedom

Dr. Francisco Dominguez, Faculty of Professional and Social Sciences, Middlesex University, UK

Alex Dupuy, John E. Andrus Professor of Sociology Emeritus, Wesleyan University

Jodie Evans, Cofounder, CODEPINK

Vanessa Freije, Assistant Professor of International Studies, University of Washington

Gavin Fridell, Canada Research Chair and Associate Professor in International Development Studies, St. Mary’s University

Evelyn Gonzalez, Counselor, Montgomery College

Jeffrey L. Gould, Rudy Professor of History, Indiana University

Bret Gustafson, Associate Professor of Anthropology, Washington University in St. Louis

Peter Hallward, Professor of Philosophy, Kingston University

John L. Hammond, Professor of Sociology, CUNY

Mark Healey, Associate Professor of History, University of Connecticut

Gabriel Hetland, Assistant Professor of Latin American, Caribbean and U.S. Latino Studies, University of Albany

Forrest Hylton, Associate Professor of History, Universidad Nacional de Colombia-Medellín

Daniel James, Bernardo Mendel Chair of Latin American History

Chuck Kaufman, National Co-Coordinator, Alliance for Global Justice

Daniel Kovalik, Adjunct Professor of Law, University of Pittsburgh

Winnie Lem, Professor, International Development Studies, Trent University

Dr. Gilberto López y Rivas, Professor-Researcher, National University of Anthropology and History, Morelos, Mexico

Mary Ann Mahony, Professor of History, Central Connecticut State University

Jorge Mancini, Vice President, Foundation for Latin American Integration (FILA)

Luís Martin-Cabrera, Associate Professor of Literature and Latin American Studies, University of California San Diego

Teresa A. Meade, Florence B. Sherwood Professor of History and Culture, Union College

Frederick Mills, Professor of Philosophy, Bowie State University

Stephen Morris, Professor of Political Science and International Relations, Middle Tennessee State University

Liisa L. North, Professor Emeritus, York University

Paul Ortiz, Associate Professor of History, University of Florida

Christian Parenti, Associate Professor, Department of Economics, John Jay College CUNY

Nicole Phillips, Law Professor at the Université de la Foundation Dr. Aristide Faculté des Sciences Juridiques et Politiques and Adjunct Law Professor at the University of California Hastings College of the Law

Beatrice Pita, Lecturer, Department of Literature, University of California San Diego

Margaret Power, Professor of History, Illinois Institute of Technology

Vijay Prashad, Editor, The TriContinental

Eleanora Quijada Cervoni FHEA, Staff Education Facilitator & EFS Mentor, Centre for Higher Education, Learning & Teaching at The Australian National University

Walter Riley, Attorney and Activist

William I. Robinson, Professor of Sociology, University of California, Santa Barbara

Mary Roldan, Dorothy Epstein Professor of Latin American History, Hunter College/ CUNY Graduate Center

Karin Rosemblatt, Professor of History, University of Maryland

Emir Sader, Professor of Sociology, University of the State of Rio de Janeiro

Rosaura Sanchez, Professor of Latin American Literature and Chicano Literature, University of California, San Diego

T.M. Scruggs Jr., Professor Emeritus, University of Iowa

Victor Silverman, Professor of History, Pomona College

Brad Simpson, Associate Professor of History, University of Connecticut

Jeb Sprague, Lecturer, University of Virginia

Kent Spriggs, International human rights lawyer

Christy Thornton, Assistant Professor of History, Johns Hopkins University

Sinclair S. Thomson, Associate Professor of History, New York University

Steven Topik, Professor of History, University of California, Irvine

Stephen Volk, Professor of History Emeritus, Oberlin College

Kirsten Weld, John. L. Loeb Associate Professor of the Social Sciences, Department of History, Harvard University

Kevin Young, Assistant Professor of History, University of Massachusetts Amherst

Patricio Zamorano, Academic of Latin American Studies; Executive Director, InfoAmericas

Source: Open Democracy

Dirty Apartheid Lies: SA's Murderous Arms Machine And The Bank That Cashed In (And Out)

Startling revelations and powerful evidence of grand corruption implicating politicians from PW Botha to Jacob Zuma, global banks and corporations was presented at The People's Tribunal on Saturday and Sunday.

Overseen by an esteemed panel including former Constitutional Court Justice Zac Yacoob, the Tribunal has been set up by civil society groups to hear evidence on corruption, capture and economic crime over the last 40 years in South Africa.

The Tribunal has, thus far, heard evidence of covert networks of politicians, state companies and corporations involved in the systemic violation of the United Nations' weapons embargo on South Africa during apartheid.

Standing as a witness, author of "Apartheid Guns and Money" Hennie van Vuuren emphasised the importance of bringing this evidence to light is in recognising the actors that contributed to the gross violation of human rights during apartheid. Beyond the pursuit of justice, he said, the goal is also to recognise how these crimes are connected.

Apartheid's murderous military machine

At the heart of the arms machine, he said, was South African state-owned arms company Armscor which bought (and sold) weapons from abroad in contravention of a compulsory U.N. embargo on trading arms with the country.

Almost all military expenditure, which amounted to approximately 28% of the country's budget at the time or half a trillion rand in today's value, passed through the company, he said.

But to oil this military machine -- which was created in response to the "appetite for the apartheid government's involvement in conflict locally and on the continent" -- the company needed to circumvent the compulsory global sanctions. In come the French.

Die Groot Krokodil's deathly French Kiss

Realising weapons couldn't be procured from Pretoria, then-Prime Minister PW Botha ('Die Groot Krokodil') took business abroad. For some a city of love, South Africa's government made Paris, France, its city of bloodlust.

The South African embassy in Paris housed what was called the tegniese raad (technical council) from which Armscor would strike it's deals, which van Vuuren said was not known until they began researching years ago.

"This was there base... from which they'd go around Europe doing deals, in some instances liaising with partners in Africa (like Zaire)... and perhaps even China," he said.

Even leading figures in the anti-apartheid movement who tried to expose these links had no idea what was happening in Paris. Documentary evidence, van Vuuren said, showed how French intelligence would have regular meetings with Armscor officials on a regular basis in the 1970s and 1980s. That heads of intelligence from France and South Africa were meeting suggests politicians in the upper echelons of France's government were well aware of sanctions being broken, he said.

Central to this relationship, he added, was French arms company Thompson CSF -- today Thales -- which documentary evidence showed met with PW Botha's minister of defence to co-develop sophisticated missile technology for use in apartheid South Africa's warmongering locally and abroad.

Demonstrating just how far into the present dodgy relations continued, Van Vuuren highlighted that the same company, Thales, is implicated in paying bribes to now President Jacob Zuma through his financial adviser (and now convicted fraudster) Schabir Shaik.

"These are the 783 counts of corruption, fraud and money laundering [Zuma] currently faces today," he said.

The two faces of the international community

The story of the apartheid government's circumvention of sanctions, however, was more than just a French love affair with the Broederbond.

More than 50 countries were involved in sanctions-busting in one way or another, he said. Most notably, every single country on the United Nation's Security Council -- those very nations tasked with policing the sanctions that were imposed -- were all involved to some extent, he said.

Others included many countries across Europe and, notably, Israel. Armscor, he said, created offices in Tel Aviv which was "active in ensuring the relationship with Israel in the procurement and co-development of weapons could take place with a large contingent of officials based there".

Many of these nations, he said, voiced public opposition to apartheid while secretly adding fuel to the fire.

How to bankroll a bloody regime

Another key player, this time a bank, was Kredietbank in Belgium and its Luxembourg subsidiary.

Professor Bonita Meyersfeld, an academic and former director of the Centre for Applied Legal Studies at Wits, reiterated the bank's role in aiding Armscor: firstly, through creating shell companies to help erase the trail of money and, secondly, in creating access to bank accounts.

Through accounts managed by the bank, money to purchase arms could be transferred from Pretoria to the ultimate recipients without raising any alarms. More simply, by setting up fake companies and chanelling money through them, the apartheid regime was able to oil its military machine without let or hindrance.

"Countries such as Belgium, France, Portugal and others were able to utilise private entities to enter into engagements with banks that very elegantly set up these shelf companies," she said.

"There'd be hundreds of these across the world where a corporate actor in the Global North would take funds, channel them through shelf companies and money would land up in SA which then went to Armscor (and vice versa)".

"These are not just AK47s -- an image incalcated in films -- but parts of machine guns, helipcopters, parts used to maintain and facilitate this crime against humanity," she said.

Like a spy novel, though, they occurred in the back rooms of the very embassies that stood against apartheid, she said.
Why does this matter today?

In detailing the secret flow of money for arms, Meyersfeld said the purpose is to shine a light on the fact that there remains an urgent need to create a global body to regulate the conduct of banks.

"The reality is there is no international entity that can hold banks to account for their compliance or their non-compliance with standards around international banking, and more importantly for the participation in criminal activity," she said.

Despite the "accountability vacuum," one option she said was to use the OECD National Contact Point (NCP) which hears complaints from individuals who claim corporations are guilty of human rights violations. OECD countries adhering to guidelines on multinational corporations are required to setup NCPs which provide a mediation and conciliation platform for resolving issues involving those companies, she said.

While no silver bullet, this would be one currently available option for "some semblance of accountability" in relation to Kredietbank, she said. Reputation damage, she said, could ultimately result in operations closing or at the least spark efforts at reparations in the absence of a global entity with real teeth.

Insisting on the necessity of global institutions or mechanisms to ensure justice, Meyersfeld said corporations had gotten off scot-free for too long.

"They may not hold the gun to the mineworker at the mine, but they are the ones providing the funds to do this," she said.

When they do, she added, corporate social responsibility projects in response are not enough:

"Corporates can be the agent of harm and the agent of good. But you can't bomb an economy, then build a school".

Source: Marc Davies - Huffington Post

Press Statement by Andrew Feinstein, Paul Holden and Hennie Van Vuuren regarding the release of the SERITI COMMISSION REPORT into the ARMS DEAL

On the 21st of April 2016, President Jacob Zuma announced the release of the report of the Commission of Inquiry into allegations of fraud, corruption, impropriety or irregularity in the Strategic Defence Procurement Package (the ‘Arms Deal’). During the same announcement, President Zuma provided a summary of the findings of the Commission.

The Commission found that there was nothing wrong with the Arms Deal in its conception, execution or economic impact, despite considerable evidence in the public domain to the contrary. Most importantly, it found that there was no evidence that any of the contracts in the Arms Deal were tainted by evidence of corruption, fraud or irregularity.

We are disappointed, but hardly surprised, that the Commission has come to these findings, which are tantamount to a cover-up. Indeed, it was abundantly clear during the work of the Commission that it was ill-disposed towards undertaking a full, meaningful and unbiased investigation into the Arms Deal. It routinely failed to either admit or interrogate any evidence of wrongdoing in relation to the Deal.

In August 2014, we withdrew from the Commission of Inquiry in protest at the manner in which it was conducting its investigation. Our withdrawal and subsequent refusal to testify before the Commission in October 2014 was supported by over forty civil society organisations who shared our concerns. We identified four primary problems, which we believed indicated that the Commission was failing to investigate the Arms Deal fully, meaningfully and without favour. These concerns were:

1. During the life of the Commission, a number of employees resigned in protest at the manner in which it was conducting its work. In at least two cases, the employees stated that they were resigning because the Commission did not intend to investigate the Arms Deal. Rather, the Commission was pursuing a ‘second agenda’, namely, to discredit critics of the Arms Deal and find in favour of the State and arms companies’ version of events;

2. The Commission refused to admit vital documentary evidence of wrongdoing during the public hearings. One such document was the Debevoise Plimpton Report, an internal audit of the arms company Ferrostaal, which received contracts in the Arms Deal. The Report indicated that Ferrostaal had made tens of millions of rands in payments to politically connected politicians and procurement officials. The report also quoted senior Ferrostaal employees as stating that the offset program was merely a conduit for bribes. In their resignation from the Commission, evidence leaders Advocates Barry Skinner and Carol Sibiya specifically pointed out that refusing to admit the Report ‘nullifies the very purposes for which the Commission was set up.’

3. The Commission refused to allow critical witnesses to testify about documents that they had not written, or events to which they were not personally witness. One major consequence of this is that the only people who could testify to corruption in the Arms Deal were those who paid or received bribes.

4. The Commission failed to provide documents to which we were entitled under the terms of our subpoena, despite repeated requests. The Commission claimed that it was refusing to do so as we were undertaking a ‘fishing expedition.’ The failure of the Commission to provide us with the documents to which we were legally entitled was typical of the Commission’s attitude of sometimes open hostility to critical witnesses.

Despite the above concerns, we are pleased that the Commission Report is now public. We look forward to interrogating its contents in full, and intend to provide a detailed response to the material therein at the earliest opportunity.

In addition, we are seeking legal advice as to the legality of the Commission’s conduct and the viability of a legal review to have the Report set aside. An announcement on this process will be made in due course.

We believe that the report represents a massive missed opportunity at arriving at the truth. However this is not the end of the road in the struggle for truth justice and accountability of corruption in the arms deal.

CONTACT

HENNIE VAN VUUREN

+27 82 902 1303

hennievvuuren@gmail.com

ANDREW FEINSTEIN

+1 929 392 0133

+44 7809728164

andrewfeinstein@me.com

PAUL HOLDEN

+44 795 088 3329

pauledwardholden@gmail.com

Source: Lawyers for Human Rights 

Cops probing ammo suspect's alleged links to heists

Within hours of a police station commander appearing in court for the theft and sale of police ammunition to organised crime gangs, detectives have launched investigations into allegations that he might be linked to a series of violent crimes that were committed using police weapons.

Captain Petrus Badenhorst, the commander of Rust de Winter police station, near Pretoria, appeared in the Pretoria North Magistrate's Court yesterday with co-accused Eduan Smit, 31, and Smit's wife, Elmari, 26.

The three were arrested by the Hawks on Tuesday after a 10-month investigation into the theft and sale of police and military ammunition from the police station.

Smit and his wife were arrested in a sting operation at a Pretoria shopping centre; Badenhorst, who is to be suspended, was arrested at the police station.

During the arrests police seized over 10000 rounds of ammunition for semi-automatic rifles and handguns. In the past month, they had bought nearly 40000 rounds of ammunition from the three in several operations.

In the early hours of yesterday morning, just hours before the trio's court appearance, police raided a Pretoria house where they recovered dozens of military-issue 20mm rounds of ammunition and a quantity of AK47 bullets.

The house is believed to belong to a relative of the Smits and is thought to have been used as a storage facility while buyers for the ammunition were being sought.

A source said shortly after Badenhorst's arrest that the police received information of his alleged links to several crimes that were comitted using weapons taken from the police station.

"All these crimes appear to have been violent. Investigators are following up on information that should soon lead to the arrest of several more people, including police officers, who were involved in these thefts and sales.

"It appears he [Badenhorst] saw himself as a super cop and a law unto himself," said the source.

The expected arrests will follow the widening of the investigation by detectives to include several Gauteng and Limpopo police stations with armouries from which thousands of rounds of ammunition are believed to have been stolen, allegedly by Badenhorst and people who have been linked to him.

Source: Times Live

Captain allegedly sold a 9mm and shotgun ammunition to criminals

A LIMPOPO police station commissioner was arrested yesterday for possession of and dealing in ammunition, the Hawks said. More than 500 rounds of ammunition were found at his house. Earlier police arrested a couple believed to be his accomplices. They had 10,500 rounds of ammunition worth about R1-million for apparent delivery to a buyer.

The captain, 43, allegedly sold the 9mm and shotgun ammunition to criminals. The three would appear in the Pretoria North Magistrate's Court today.

Source: The Sowetan

DR Congo: US Should Urge Rwanda to End M23 Support

The United States government should publicly support sanctions against Rwandan officials backing the armed group M23, which has been responsible for widespread war crimes in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo. M23 rebels, whose commanders have been implicated in serious abuses, captured the city of Goma on November 20, 2012.

“The US government’s silence on Rwandan military support to the M23 rebels can no longer be justified given the overwhelming evidence of Rwanda’s role and the imminent threat to civilians around Goma,” said Tom Malinowski, Washington director at Human Rights Watch. “The US government should support urgent sanctions against Rwandan officials who are backing M23 fighters responsible for serious abuses.”

Rwandan military support for the M23 rebels has been evident in their offensive that began on November 15, Human Rights Watch said. Several civilians living near the Rwandan border told Human Rights Watch that they saw hundreds of Rwandan army soldiers crossing the border from Rwanda into Congo at Njerima hill, Kasizi, and Kabuhanga in apparent support of M23 fighters. Human Rights Watch has also documented several incidents in which Rwandan and Congolese soldiers fired across the border from either side between November 16 and 20.

A draft of the final report of the United Nations Group of Experts on the Democratic Republic of Congo, soon to be published, alleges that the Rwandan government has provided “direct military support to M23 rebels” and that the “M23’s de facto chain of command includes General Bosco Ntaganda and culminates with the Rwandan Minister of Defense General James Kabarebe.” Ntaganda is on the UN sanctions list and is sought on arrest warrants from the International Criminal Court for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Human Rights Watch has independently established that the Rwandan army has regularly provided significant military support to the M23, including overseeing operational planning, providing weapons and ammunition, recruiting at least 600 people in Rwanda to fight for the M23, training new recruits, and deploying Rwandan army troops to eastern Congo in direct support of M23 rebels.

Over the past seven months, Human Rights Watch has documented widespread war crimes by M23 rebels in eastern Congo, including summary executions, rapes, and forced recruitment, including of children. Rwandan officials may be complicit in war crimes through their military assistance to M23 forces throughout this period, Human Rights Watch said.

The draft UN Group of Experts’ report says that, “Rwandan officials coordinated the creation of the rebel movement as well as its major military operations” and “provided military support to M23 through permanent troop reinforcement and clandestine support by RDF [Rwandan Defence Forces] special units.” The Group of Experts found that “RDF commanders operated alongside M23 and provided logistical support during the July 2012 operations which enabled the capture of Bunagana, Rutshuru, Kiwanja and Rumangabo.” During these operations, “the rebels killed one [UN] peacekeeper at Bunagana and fired on the [UN peacekeeping] base at Kiwanja,” the report states.

The Group of Experts also documented support to the M23 by commanders of the Ugandan People’s Defence Force. While stating that “Rwandan officials exercise overall command and strategic planning for M23,” they note that “senior Government of Uganda officials have also provided support to M23 in the form of direct troop reinforcement in DRC territory, weapons deliveries, [and] technical assistance.”

“The fall of Goma to the M23 magnifies the security risks to civilians in eastern Congo,” Malinowski said. “As a permanent member of the UN Security Council, the US should press for sanctions that target not only the M23 but the foreign officials backing their atrocities.”

The Group of Experts has recommended individual sanctions against several Rwandan and Ugandan officials named in its report.

The M23’s latest offensive began on November 15 with M23 rebels fighting UN peacekeepers and Congolese army forces as the rebels progressed toward Goma. By the early afternoon of November 20, after heavy fighting in and around Goma, the M23 had taken control of key areas of Goma. Congolese army soldiers had fled the town, while UN peacekeepers were still present.

Human Rights Watch has received reports of at least 11 civilians killed and dozens of others wounded during the fighting in and around Goma since November 15. An estimated 80,000 people are newly displaced in the area around Goma, including an estimated 60,000 who were in a displacement camp about 10 kilometers outside Goma, according to the UN Office for Humanitarian Affairs.

“The US should endorse all measures that would enable UN sanctions against Rwandan officials who are assisting the M23,” Malinowski said. “All parties to the conflict should take urgent measures to protect civilians and stop abuses.”

Background on the M23

The M23 is largely made up of soldiers who took part in a mutiny from the Congolese army between late March and May 2012. Many were previously members of the National Congress for the Defense of the People (CNDP), a former Rwanda-backed rebel group that integrated into the Congolese army in January 2009. Bosco Ntaganda, who was then a general in the Congolese army, initially led the mutiny. In May, Col. Sultani Makenga, a former colleague of Ntaganda in the CNDP, announced he was beginning a separate mutiny. In the days that followed, Ntaganda and his forces joined Makenga. The new armed group called itself the M23. The M23 claimed the mutiny was to protest the Congolese government’s failure to fully implement the March 23, 2009 peace agreement (hence the name M23), which had integrated them into the Congolese army.

Some of the M23’s senior commanders have well-known histories of serious abuses, committed over the past decade in eastern Congo as they moved from one armed group to another. They have been responsible for ethnic massacres, recruitment of children, mass rape, killings, abductions, and torture. Before the mutinies, at least five of the M23 leaders were on a UN black list of people with whom the UN would not collaborate due to their human rights records.

Ntaganda has been wanted by the International Criminal Court since 2006 for recruiting and using child soldiers in Ituri district in northeastern Congo in 2002 and 2003. In July, the court issued a second warrant against him for war crimes and crimes against humanity, namely murder, persecution based on ethnic grounds, rape, sexual slavery, and pillaging, also in connection with his activities in Ituri.

Human Rights Watch has documented numerous war crimes and crimes against humanity by troops under Ntaganda’s command, as well as by other M23 commanders, including Col. Makenga, Col. Innocent Zimurinda, Col. Baudouin Ngaruye, and Col. Innocent Kayna.

On November 12, 2012, the UN Security Council added Makenga to its list of individuals under sanctions, including an asset freeze and a travel ban. On November 13, the US imposed sanctions on Makenga, which includes an asset freeze and forbids American citizens from undertaking any transactions with him.

Source: Human Rights Watch

If Blair were PM in 1986, would he have invaded SA?

The question of a humanitarian war is an interesting one. Can a war ever be fought on moral grounds? I don’t think so – not unless there’s something with which the world’s great defenders can grease their palms.

Tony Blair ducked, dived and denied all responsibility of any type of wrongdoing for his decision to back the USA of their invasion of Iraq. He justified it morally, saying that even if the evidence of weapons of mass destruction was false, Saddam Hussein was a bad man who did bad things to his own people and neighbouring nations.

He claims he was justified in picking up arms, putting British soldiers at risk and ridding the world of an evil, oppressive regime. His intentions were purely moral in his mind.

As I listened to the former British Prime Minster dance his way through not answering questions at the Discovery Invest Leadership Summit held in Sandton, a couple of queries sprang to mind. There is one question in particular I would have asked if I had managed to get a mic in my hands.

If this were so, then how would he have reacted if he were in power in 1986 instead of Maggie Thatcher? What would his approach have been if the ANC had made the request for British to invade South Africa and rid us of the Apartheid menace that was oppressing black South Africans?

The Apartheid government was illegally occupying Namibia, had invaded Angola and was busy destabilising all its neighbours. It also had a banned programme of weapons of mass destruction that included nuclear devices and a chemical weapons programme it was prepared to use on its own population. Arrested journalists, banned newspapers, engaged torture, detention without trial and in political assignations – the list goes on.

It had also unleashed its security forces to crush brutally any form of popular uprising that threatened Apartheid, despite the fact that the system had been declared a crime against humanity.

I wonder if Blair the defender of human rights and democracy would have rallied to the aid of the oppressed in South Africa, or would he have opted for a more diplomatic evolutionary approach? Would he carry the courage of his convictions or duck, dive and divert any request from the ANC to help liberate black South Africans?

A cynic would suggest that it would not be enough to overthrow an oppressive government only because they were bad and horrible; that it would only be “necessary” to invade such a country if the government were bad, horrible… and happened to have extremely valuable resources that the great defender desperately needed (or just plain wanted). The jokes about gold lining South Africa’s pavements would not have been quite enough to stimulate such a high level of intervention. And besides, there would be no reason for any modern British government to invade the Apartheid state to liberate the oppressed in the eighties. Why would they, when they already did so in 1899, when they decided to liberate “uitlanders” from the oppressive regime of the Boer republics? And, of course, get their hands on the country’s tidy portion of mineral resources in the process.

There would be no reason for the British to embark on a “humanitarian” war in Apartheid South Africa, because there would be nothing to gain. Why would Blair help free black people when the Empire already helped liberate the country’s resources over a century ago?

If, on the other hand, South Africa had been ripe for the exploiting, we may have had a very different history. Both pre- and post-liberation. We may have been forced into democracy much earlier; on the other hand, there may have been so many more innocent lives lost. We may have had the much-deserved moral support of a major international power; we also may have lost our independence to that same power.

There is no way to tell whether a major military intervention would have helped or hindered South Africa. And even if such a war were helpful, there would be no way to predict whether it would not bring its own set of problems; its own set of moral dilemmas and its own lack of freedoms.

Because, sadly, there’s no such thing as a humanitarian war. There’s only a war where I help you – and then help myself to what you’ve got.

Source: Daily Maverick

Obama threatens to invade Syria

Yesterday US and NATO officials discussed plans for a US military invasion of Syria to bring down Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad, after US President Barack Obama announced that the US was contemplating a direct attack on Syria at a press conference Monday night.

A delegation led by Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs Beth Jones discussed US military plans with Turkey. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said that Defense Department and US intelligence officials met their Turkish counterparts “to share operational pictures, to talk about the effectiveness of what we’re doing now, and about what more we can do.”

Senior US officials said that contingency plans for US intervention in Syria include scenarios requiring tens of thousands of American troops.

At a press conference at the White House Monday, Obama declared: “I have indicated repeatedly that President al-Assad has lost legitimacy, that he needs to step down. So far, he hasn’t gotten the message, and instead has double downed in violence on his own people. The international community has sent a clear message that rather than drag his country into civil war he should move in the direction of a political transition. But at this point, the likelihood of a soft landing seems pretty distant.”

Obama said that he would order “military engagement” if chemical or biological weapons are moved or used in Syria. He said that Syria’s alleged stockpile of chemical weapons “concerns our close allies in the region, including Israel. It concerns us. We cannot have a situation in which chemical or biological weapons are falling into the hands of the wrong people.”

Obama added that the US “have communicated in no uncertain terms with every player in the region, that that’s a red line for us, and that there would be enormous consequences if we start seeing movement on the chemical weapons front, or the use of chemical weapons.”

The cynicism with which Obama is seeking to justify the next US imperialist aggression in the Middle East is staggering. The main groups in Syria who could seize chemical weapons from Syrian government stockpiles are Al Qaeda forces promoted by the US and its allies as shock troops against Assad. (See also: “Washington’s proxy in Syria: Al Qaeda”)

Having armed Al Qaeda-linked groups and sent them into Syria to carry out bombings and assassinations, the US and its allies now plan to justify their invasion of Syria by citing the need to protect the world’s population from Al Qaeda’s terrorist atrocities!

The Obama administration advances its arguments today with total disregard for the fact that they clash with the lies used until now to justify its support for Sunni anti-Assad “rebels.”

For months it maintained the pretense that it would not directly attack Syria, and that the Syrian regime’s statements that it was fighting US-backed terrorists were “propaganda.” Now, the White House is admitting that terrorist groups play a major role in the anti-Assad forces, and citing this as a pretext for war.

By proceeding in this fashion, the Obama administration demonstrates its complete contempt for the American electorate, which voted him into office in 2008 in large part based on hopes he would stop the US military aggressions against countries in the Middle East. Today, as during the 2003 invasion of Syria’s neighbor, Iraq, Washington is preparing to invade a country based on cynical lies about weapons of mass destruction.

A US invasion of Syria would be a crime of historic proportions, like the war in Iraq—a country whose population is only slightly larger than Syria’s. This war led to the deaths of over a million Iraqis and thousands of US and allied soldiers. Iraq became a battleground for US occupation forces, as well as Sunni and Shiite death squads that carried out sectarian bombings and massacres.

A US invasion would threaten similar carnage inside Syria, which is already being torn apart by sectarian fighting in which Washington is working with right-wing regimes in Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar to back Sunni Islamist forces against Syria’s Alawite regime. However, the far greater tensions in a region already destabilized by a decade of US and Israeli wars in Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine, and Libya now threaten to spread the violence over the entire Middle East.

Sectarian bloodshed provoked by the intensifying US intervention in the region is already spilling over into Syria’s neighbors. On Tuesday four people were killed and more than 60 wounded in firefights between Sunni Muslims and Shiite Alawites in the northern Lebanese city of Tripoli. Tensions in Lebanon have been growing for months, with Western-backed forces seeking to provoke the Lebanese government which is led by the Shiite organization Hizbollah, a close ally of Syria and Iran.

A US war against Syria would be the next step in an ongoing campaign by US imperialism to deepen its hegemony over the energy-rich and geo-strategically vital regions of the Persian Gulf and Central Asia.

The Syrian regime responded to US threats with warnings and proposals for negotiations. Syrian Deputy Prime Minister Qadri Jamil described Obama’s statements about chemical weapons as a pretext for Western intervention in Syria. “The West is looking for an excuse for direct intervention. If this excuse does not work, it will look for another excuse.” He warned that an attack on Syria would turn the conflict into a regional war, saying: “Those who are contemplating this evidently want to see the crisis expand beyond Syria’s borders.”

Jamil announced that the Syrian regime is willing to talk with the opposition to work out a transition, however. He even declared that Assad’s presidency is negotiable, stating: “We are ready to discuss Assad’s resignation—but not as precondition.”

Obama’s war threats against Syria are also deepening tensions with Russia and China, who have already vetoed three UN Security Council resolutions backed by the US and its Western and Arab allies aiming to give a pseudo-legal fig leaf for US aggression against Syria.

Russia’s foreign minister Sergei Lavrov spoke at a meeting in Moscow with China’s State Councilor Dai Bingguo, who also met Russian President Vladimir Putin and his top security adviser, Nikolai Patrushev, on Monday. Lavrov said that both Russia and China base their diplomatic cooperation on “the need to strictly adhere to the norms of international law and the principles contained in the U.N. Charter, and not to allow their violation.”

Lavrov said that only the Security Council has the authority to approve the use of external force against Syria, warning against imposing “democracy by bombs.” Russian officials have reportedly stated that they hope to avoid a repetition of the attack on Libya last year. Moscow abstained from the Security Council vote on Libya, and a resolution was passed which was subsequently used by NATO to justify its bombing of the country.

Source: World Socialist Web Site

Arms deal inquiry should subpoena Tony Blair

Terry Crawford-Browne sets out the questions that need to be put to the former British PM

PRESS STATEMENT

The Seriti Commission of Inquiry into the arms deal has today refused my request to disseminate the submission that I made on 13 June 2012. The reason it offers is that the Commission was established to investigate allegations made in my submission, and, anyway as I had advised, that the contents of my submission are already in the public domain. The response declares:

This begs the question: what is the point of disseminating what is already in the public domain? What purpose will be served thereby?

Since these issues are the subject of eight books already published on the arms deal scandal and thus in the public domain, I record the summary of my submission:

Summary: Three of the six provisions of the Commission's terms of reference refer to offsets. The essence of this submission is that offsets fail the requirements of section 217 (1) of the Constitution that government procurements must accord "with a system which is fair, equitable, transparent, competitive and cost-effective."

Advocate Geoff Budlender SC's legal opinion is submitted to support my contention that the arms deal was unconstitutional and illegal right from inception, and is therefore unfixable. Advocate Budlender further advises that the international remedy for fraud is to cancel the contracts, return the equipment and recover the monies.

The Department of Trade and Industry has conceded that the offsets were a fiasco. Amongst documents I submitted to the Constitutional Court are 160 pages of affidavits that detail why and how BAE paid bribes of £115 million (R1.5 billion) to secure its warplane contracts, to whom the bribes were paid, and into which bank accounts they were credited.

The 1996 Defence White Paper and 1998 Defence Review noted that there was no conceivable foreign military threat to South Africa, and that socio-economic upliftment was the national priority. In terms of the guarantee arrangements for the loan agreements, the financial consequences of cancellation of the contracts would be borne by British and German taxpayers, not South Africans.

To reiterate, my submission confirms that the arms deal was unconstitutional and illegal right from inception, and is therefore unfixable. The crux of the matter is how to take urgent remedial action to recover the monies so that they may be allocated to South Africa's desperately needed social upliftment. Such a decision does not require three years of further investigations but, given the priorities purportedly accorded to the eradication of corruption, simply political will.

In addition and separately, I have last week requested the Commission to subpoena the former British Prime Minister, Mr Tony Blair. The questions I wish to pose to him include:

1. The pressure he applied on our government to buy BAE Hawk and BAE/Saab Gripen fighter aircraft despite rejection in 1997 of those proposals by the SA Air Force because these aircraft are both unsuited to South African requirements and too expensive,

2. The complicity of his government in BAE's payment of bribes of £115 million, and his placement of British officials to block investigations by the Auditor General and parliamentarians into the fraudulent offset contracts,

3. The default clauses of the 20 year Barclays Bank/ECGD loan agreements for the BAE contracts and (to cite legal counsel for Minister Trevor Manuel) "their potentially catastrophic consequences for South Africa,"

4. The role of the so-called "BAE/Al Yamamah slush fund" administered by the Bank of England, and its purpose to destabilise resource-rich countries in Asia and Africa. This question is particularly germane given the events last week at the British-owned Lonmin mine.

The request that Mr Blair be subpoenaed whilst he is in South Africa is still outstanding.

Statement issued by Terry Crawford-Browne, August 20 2012

Source: Politicsweb

Cato Manor cops hit with 71 charges

Twenty former members of the disbanded Durban Organised Crime Unit face 71 charges, including 14 of murder, the Durban Regional Court has been told. One of the members, Captain Neville Eva, told the court he intended pleading not guilty to all the charges. Also on the provisional indictment are 14 counts of defeating the ends of justice, as well as 14 charges of unlawful possession of weapons and ammunition.

The court was packed for the bail hearings of the 20, who stand accused of being part of a hit squad.

Eva said that when the Sunday Times published an exposé alleging the existence of the hit squad, all members of the unit promised the then Independent Complaints Directorate – since renamed the Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID) – they would cooperate with the investigation. “Our attitude was to assist the investigation in any way possible.” Eva said the members were ordered to hand in their weapons, laptops and cellphones earlier this year.

They were also instructed not to take on any new cases, but to continue with pending cases. Eva, a veteran of 27 years, said if they had intended to tamper with evidence, they had had six months in which to do so.

IPID spokesperson Moses Dlamini confirmed the 20 were arrested on Wednesday in a joint operation by the Hawks and the IPID. Protesters supporting the 20 men stood outside the court building with placards.

People had to stand outside the court in the hallway, because there was insufficient space for supporters and families of the accused, while police monitored the crowds inside and outside the building.

Magistrate Sharon Marks threatened to have the people removed if they did not keep quiet.

Source: Mail & Guardian

Russia: Protecting expats and more in Syria

Russia is preparing to send two warships plus marines to Syria, as the civil war in that country shows no sign of letting up. Russia has for months supported the government of Bashar al-Assad at the UN Security Council, blocking resolutions authored by Western and Arab League states to sanction Damascus and pressure Assad to step down.

Most of Russia’s motivations for doing so are well known. Firstly, it is determined to ensure there is no Security Council cover for any external effort to topple a sovereign government, whether by military or other means. The principle of non-intervention is one that Moscow is desperate to defend. Secondly, the government of Vladimir Putin has no wish to see another president – in the Middle East or the former Soviet Union – ousted by the mob, for fear the virus could spread further. Thirdly, it fears the regional destabilisation that could accompany Assad’s downfall. And fourthly, Russia has commercial, diplomatic and military ties with the Assad government that would be in jeopardy if the opposition came to power. These interests include arms sales, use of the Tartous naval base, energy-sector investment opportunities and a close diplomatic alignment with Damascus.

The latest dispatch of naval vessels to Syria is on one level a further statement of support for the Assad government and the interests that Russia wishes to defend. So too is the delivery of reconditioned military helicopters to Syria. Yet sending ships and marines to the coast of Syria also points to an interest that sets Russia aside from all other permanent members of the UN Security Council – it has people on the ground. Rather a lot of people, in fact.

In the first instance, these are the Russian armed services personnel working in Tartous and supporting the use of Russian military equipment by the Syrian armed forces.

Secondly, there are perhaps 30,000 Russians who are married to Syrian citizens and are resident in the country. This is a consequence of decades of close relations between Soviet Russia and Syria under the current president’s father. In Moscow’s calculation, their best chance for a peaceful existence is for Assad to secure a victory over his opponents as quickly as possible. If the opposition were to win power, the nationals of a country which had backed Assad to the hilt, over many years, would face an uncertain future.

Thirdly, Syria is home to between 50,000 and 100,000 Circassians who originally hail from Russian lands around the Black Sea and the Caucasus. The Syrian Circassians were relocated to modern-day Syria in the second half of the nineteenth century, as tsarist Russia expanded. They are one of a number of Syrian minorities who support the Assad government, and most reside in and around Homs, Damascus and Aleppo. Most of those in Homs and the villages surrounding it are now refugees. As members of a community regarded as pro-Assad, they fear the Sunni opposition; yet because they are not part of Assad’s Alawite core, some parts of the Syrian security services also regard them with suspicion.

A few hundred Syrian Circassians have already emigrated to Russia but this trickle could become a stream if violence persists in Syria. Plenty of Circassians already live in Russia’s North Caucasus, in the republics of Kabardino-Balkaria, Karachai-Cherkessia and Adygea, and these are the most likely destination for the Syrian Circassians. Popular sympathy for their plight in those republics runs high, and this is not something that the federal government in Moscow can afford to ignore.

Yet if Russia threw open the door to the Syrian Circassians it would risk exacerbating instability in Kabardino-Balkaria and the other republics. Alongside that regional security problem, there would be a national political one. Putin would have to increase funding to the republics affected – but that would only exacerbate the ill feeling in the rest of Russia about the billions of dollars spent on Chechnya and its neighbours. ‘Stop feeding the Caucasus’ has been a rallying cry for nationalist opposition to Putin, and a rare issue on which the president is on the wrong side of working-class opinion.

The Circassian issue is also sensitive for Putin because it touches on one of his personal projects – the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi. The games will take place on land that was originally populated by Circassians, and diaspora groups – with the encouragement of the Georgian government – are hoping to use the Winter Olympics to draw attention towards the so-called ‘Circassian Genocide’. Helping the Syrian Circassians might win Moscow some points with the diaspora, but engagement would be risky too.

In light of all this, it is little wonder that Russia would prefer to see the Syrian opposition crushed and Assad continue to rule for many years to come. It has far more at stake than arms sales, a naval base and a desire to thumb its nose at the US.

Source: IISS

'The People Have Grown Weary of War'

After nearly 10 years of costly war in Afghanistan and little to show for it, NATO members clearly want out -- and as quickly as possible. At a summit in Chicago on Monday they agreed to just that, announcing they had finalized a plan for a complete withdrawal from the country by 2014, leaving only training units behind.

United States President Barack Obama, who hosted the two-day summit in his hometown, assured that Afghanistan would be stable enough to carry on without the support of international troops, but admitted that the country would continue to grapple with major problems.

With this agreement the partners are essentially adhering to an already established timeline for ending the lengthy conflict in Afghanistan by withdrawing some 130,000 NATO-led troops. The country's own forces are expected to take control of the combat mission by mid-2013, at which point Western forces will transition into a back-up role.

Though there are doubts about how well Afghanistan will deal on its own with widespread poverty, violence and political unrest, Obama said the decision was irreversible.

A 'Responsible Timetable'

"I think that the timetable that we've established is a sound one, it is a responsible one," said the president. "Are there risks involved in it? Absolutely."

NATO said that while it would continue to provide "long-term political and practical support" after 2014, this aid would not involve combat.

Meanwhile, tensions with Pakistan over crucial supply routes needed for the withdrawal overshadowed the summit. The country blocked off the routes in retaliation for US airstrikes that resulted in the death of 24 Pakistani soldiers earlier this year. Though no resolution has been reached, Obama said there had been progress in negotiations.

Another small hiccup came during the summit when new French President François Hollande said he would keep a campaign promise to withdraw the majority of his country's 3,300 troops from Afghanistan by the end of the year. Some of the country's troops will remain to provide training.

German commentators on Tuesday question whether Afghanistan can truly handle a NATO troop withdrawal, suggesting that the timing has more to do with alliance members' domestic concerns.

The conservative daily Die Welt writes:

"NATO's International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) may have won all of its battles, but no one talks of victory any longer. The reason for the war was eliminated with Osama bin Laden's death."

"With the current strategy, southern and western Afghanistan can't be secured in the long term. Thus they will have to concentrate on the more stable provinces, as experienced US diplomats suggest. ... Where Afghan security forces can hold their positions, they will need further support from American forces on the ground and in the air, in a strategy that no longer focuses on occupation, development and retention, but on defense, security and reinforcement. Along with this comes forming an Afghan national army that lives up to its name, rather than training the police force, which remains weak and ineffective. Forces will also have to ally themselves with warlords and give up the nice idea of a federal republic of Afghanistan for a complex balance of the actual powers. If the withdrawal ends in lawlessness and Afghanistan falls into bloody chaos, then it would be a disaster for NATO."

The left-leaning daily Die Tageszeitung writes:

"This troop reduction is meant to create the appearance that the war in Afghanistan is over. Just as it was with Iraq, the issues will fall away from the front pages and the minds of the voters. … But the war will go on, just as it does in Iraq. … The war goes on, with no peace in sight, but its appearance has changed."

"Everything points to the fact that NATO countries' handover plan is over-hasty, sugarcoats the reality in Afghanistan and, in the worst case, will help lead to a civil war there. But we can be certain that we'll only get the good news out of Chicago: Everything is going according to plan."

The center-left daily Süddeutsche Zeitung writes:

"The now-finished NATO summit in Chicago has once again revealed the basic problem of the alliance: It lacks solidarity. ... There are reasons for this egocentric approach within the alliance. The people have grown weary of war. … The leaders are mainly focused on the battle with the financial markets and no longer have time for complicated conflicts like the one in distant Afghanistan."

"Every attempt to give NATO a new identity has failed. The strategic concept is a masterpiece in concealing differences. And since it spread to the east there is yet another rift. The eastern members still see Russia as the biggest danger, while the Western states are trying to make the country a close partner."

"If NATO still wants to make a difference, it will have to manage some clarity about its situation. But in the end, they may recognize that the alliance no longer exists. Still, this risk is more bearable than the prospect of further years spent in a political coma."

SPIEGEL ONLINE writes:

"No wonder that the world leaders were happy, especially US President and host Barack Obama. Now, after the failed Iraq mission, he can keep his promise to end America's second hopeless war. Other leaders have similar situations. Not a single NATO country still has a voter majority in favor of continuing the Afghan mission. Many governments, including the one in Berlin, have promised to bring their soldiers home. Now they can deliver."

"But behind the successful staging in Chicago lurk a few pitfalls ahead of the 2014 withdrawal. The alliance will continue to face fears that certain members will withdraw earlier than planned. The reaction to the expected announcement by the new French president that he would remove some 2,000 of his 3,100 soldiers by 2012 illustrates this nervousness."

"The 'conditions on the ground' in Afghanistan weren't even brought up in Chicago. Commanders there still have major doubts about the capabilities of the Afghan army. And just as uncertain is the political situation with President Hamid Karzai, the erstwhile great hope of the West. Initially he wanted to leave office in 2014, when a new leader would be elected. But now he is considering pushing the election back and is searching for a suitable candidate. All the same, Karzai could also massively manipulate the election as he did in 2009. And that kind of election fraud would not look good ahead of the end to a successful NATO mission."

The conservative daily Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung writes:

"The US' strategic view is increasingly focused on Asia and away from Europe. For the younger generation of politicians in Washington, keeping up trans-Atlantic relations is no longer self-evident. ... In principle, that's not a dramatic development. After the fall of the Soviet threat, it was inevitable that interests would diverge -- at least to a certain extent. The common missions in the Balkans and Afghanistan initially covered up the fact that Europeans and Americans won't necessarily act in concert in a globalized world. Last year's Libya war was already something of a prototype for a NATO à la carte that is starting to take shape. Those taking part in an operation have an actual interest in it. In the case of Libya, even the US remained in the background. That's why non member states like Australia play such a major role already today. In Afghanistan, they are providing more soldiers than many members."

"In that sense, the US could better afford a NATO that is more flexible in that way than could its European allies. Although the US is also implementing austerity measures, the country remains a world power capable of acting around the world. No country in Europe can make that claim, as the Libya war showed once again. Europe, which already has a tendency to be mostly interested in its own issues, barely has a diplomatic foot in the door in Asia and other developing regions. Asia will actually overtake Europe in arms spending this year. That is a sea change whose weight will be felt in many strategically important places."

"In Chicago, NATO tried to counter this development with stronger military-technological cooperation for the collective purchase and use of expensive machinery. The idea makes sense, but will raise questions in Germany that many people won't like. Will it really still be possible for Germany's parliament to have to approve any deployment of troops that the country has provided in the future? The price of ambitious cooperation is the loss of national sovereignty, when it comes to both NATO and the euro. And this can't be improved with better management of deficits. Once again Europe will need to seriously discuss what security is worth to it. The generous social-welfare state has not only driven many countries into debt, but also made them more vulnerable to foreign enemies."

Source: SPIEGEL

Durban advocate commits suicide

Durban advocate Mvuseni Ngubane has been found dead at his home in Pinetown, KwaZulu-Natal police said on Sunday. Lieutenant colonel Vincent Mdunge said Ngubane was found with a gunshot wound to the head at around 15:00 on Saturday. He said there was a pistol next to the body. "Police found a suicide note near his body. Some parts of the letter were not readable due to bloodstains." Mdunge said family members found Ngubane on the back seat of his Mercedes-Benz in the garage. Paramedics declared him dead on the scene.

Ngubane handled high profile cases including that of convicted drug dealer Cheryl Cwele, the wife of State Security Minister Siyabonga Cwele. The SABC reported that Ngubane had served on various boards and committees. He was a former president of the Black Lawyers' Association and chaired the Law Society of SA.

Ngubane was a successful lawyer who was recently appointed to the president’s new arms deal commission of inquiry. He was highly respected among colleagues who twice elected him as president of the Black Lawyers’ Association (BLA). He hit the headlines in recent years when he represented Sheryl Cwele, the then-wife of State Security Minister Siyabonga Cwele, in her drug trafficking case. She was convicted and sentenced to 12 years in prison for drug trafficking. She has appealed against the sentence.

Cwele told The Witness she had been informed of Ngubane’s death on Saturday night by one of his colleagues. “It was very shocking to me. I respected him and he was very professional. “I never had any suspicions that he had trouble in his personal life,” she said. She said it was too early to make any decisions regarding her court case.

A source who did not want to be named told The Witness that Ngubane had been under financial strain because many of his clients were not honouring their debts. “He was always a man for smiles and jokes, so he wasn’t hard enough on those who owed him,” said the source.

Ngubane’s brother, Boy Ngubane, said the suicide note found in the car did not shed light on what pushed him to commit suicide. “There was nothing significant on the note and as a family we have taken a decision not to talk about it.

“He was not a person who suffered from any form of depression, when we were together, he was a bit tired but I just assumed that it was because of his training schedule as he was the kind of person who enjoyed training and often ran short-distance marathons.”


Source: News24

MTN's cash, weapons and ties in Iran

Cellphone giant MTN was so desperate to win a mobile operating licence in the "virgin" territory of Iran that it allegedly put together a package of bribes, trading opportunities in sophisticated weaponry, capital investment and diplomatic influence that the Islamic Republic could not resist. That is the claim of rival firm Turkcell, which was pushed out of the deal when MTN arrived on the scene. It backs up the allegation with a raft of what appears to be internal MTN documents, leaked from the heart of the company's Iran operation.

The allegations are set out in a $4-billion (R32-billion) lawsuit launched in the US District Court of Columbia in Washington DC this week. The scheme, allegedly known in MTN as "Project Snooker", was allegedly driven from the top by then-chief executive Phuthuma Nhleko, with the assistance of Irene Charnley (then commercial director), and Sifiso Dabengwa (then chief operating officer). It included alleged bribes to South Africa's ambassador to Iran, Yusuf "Jo-Jo" Saloojee, and Iran's deputy foreign minister, Javid Ghorbanoghli; the involvement of former defence minister Mosiuoa Lekota in the procurement of highly sensitive weapons systems from parastatal Denel; and access for Iranian officials to South Africa's top nuclear envoy, Abdul Minty. The memos attached to the court papers apparently set out how Ghorbanoghli, dubbed "Long John", was allegedly paid $400 000 to politically undermine Turkcell's position while Saloojee, codenamed "Short John'', was allegedly paid $200 000 to help MTN deliver pro-Iran votes from South Africa at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) amid controversy over Iran's nuclear plans.

The Irancell cellphone network was projected to be worth $31.6-billion in revenues over 15 years for a licence fee of $380-million. The licence holder and the Iranian state-owned telecommunications company were to enjoy exclusive use of the market for two years before a third competing licence would be awarded. Turkcell won the bid on February 18 2004 and MTN came second. But Turkcell claims that MTN, through "unprecedented corrupt acts", blocked it from entering the agreements, clearing the regulatory environment and completing post-award obligations. To secure the 49% stake in Irancell, MTN effectively also allegedly carried all the costs for its 51% partner through "sham loans", Turkcell says.

It is alleged in the papers that MTN paid the €300-million licence fee, capitalisation costs and share transfer tax of Iran's state-owned defence company, Sairan (also known as Iran Electronic Industries or IEI) and Bonyad (one of the five Iranian quasi-independent charitable foundations that is integral to Iran's defence establishment) in exchange for their assistance within the ministry of defence and the "Supreme Leader".

What follows is a summary of Turkcell's claims in its court application and the supporting documentation that allegedly emanates from within MTN. It has not yet been tested in court, nor has MTN commented on the authenticity of the documents. A few weeks after Turkcell was made the preferred bidder, Charnley met with Ghorbanoghli (Long John) in Tehran where the minister told her that MTN's only chance to oust Turkcell was to win political influence in Iran and use South Africa's influence to favour the Iranian government at the UN Security Council. And so began "Project Snooker" -- the plan on how best to use Iranian and South African government officials to allegedly gain political influence. MTN reached out to a former deputy minister for the Iranian ministry of information and communications technology and to Mohammed Mokhber, the deputy president of a major charitable foundation known as Bonyad Mostazafan, controlled by the supreme leader of Iran.

The Bonyad foundation is controlled by the Iran Revolutionary Guard Corps, the military complex formed by Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and is believed to control about one-third of the Iranian economy. It is known for engaging in Iran's shadow foreign policy. MTN was then introduced to Ebrahim Mahmoudzadeh, a former Iranian deputy minister of defence and then-president of Iran Electronic Industries, who reported directly to the Iranian minister of defence. As one of Turkcell's local minority partners in the Irancell consortium, Mokhber and Mahmoudzadeh told MTN executives they would be willing to work with the South African company and dump Turkcell if MTN could obtain certain defence equipment, support its nuclear programme and pay for the licence and other benefits. For example, MTN was urged to facilitate the purchase of certain military equipment from South Africa for Iran's state-owned defence company, Sairan, which was previously blocked by South Africa's national conventional arms control committee. For more than a year, MTN executives regularly visited Mahmoudzadeh and the ministry of foreign affairs to reinforce its political influence.

In about April 2004, the Iranians tested MTN's ability to deliver on defence products and nuclear votes. Sairan requested that MTN arrange a meeting with Denel, South Africa's largest manufacturer of defence equipment, as well as then-defence minister Mosiuoa Lekota. MTN was told Iran was building its defence force and it wanted to purchase military radios, encryption technologies and pilot display computer chips manufactured in the Western Cape, which South Africa refused to sell them previously. MTN made a commitment that it could procure this equipment as well as facilitate installation of eavesdropping technologies on MTN devices were they to be awarded the 49% stake in Irancell.

The MTN board of directors, including Cyril Ramaphosa, Nhleko, Dabengwa and Charnley, received regular reports on the status of Turkcell's licence and MTN's strategies. Enter Saloojee, "aka Small John", who was appointed South Africa's ambassador to Iran on May 23 2004. Before he left for Tehran, MTN briefed him about the licence situation and about its desire to win the licence from Turkcell. "Small John" started working closely with "Long John" and convinced the Iranian government that MTN had enough political clout to help Iran on its nuclear and defence equipment needs. Charnley was key to that mix because of her political connections in South Africa, particularly with Lekota -- she worked closely with him in the United Democratic Front during the 1980s. Ramaphosa also enjoyed a close relationship with Lekota because of their ties in the ANC.

It is well known in political circles that Charnley and Nhleko were closely aligned with former president Thabo Mbeki. Charnley is friends with Mbeki's wife, Zanele, who assisted the former MTN executive with funds to help start Smile Communications, a telecoms company. "Small John" was also allegedly close to Mbeki, with whom he had shared a house at some point during the struggle. In about June 2004, Saloojee invited Charnley and Nhleko to his house for dinner and that's where the discussion of the bribes for both "Small John" and "Long John" took place. Saloojee explained that he was hoping to purchase a house in South Africa for $200 000. On April 26 2007, MTN made a direct payment into a trust account for Saloojee, which was received by his property attorneys, Gildenhuys Lessing Malatji Inc. The property transaction was closed on September 26 2007.

MTN had also made a promise to Ghorbanoghli to reimburse him for his assistance and Saloojee had helped the Iranian with personal favours, such as arranging for his children to be educated in South Africa. It was at a dinner in May 2005 that Charnley offered Ghorbanoghli a $400 000 bribe through a "sham" consultancy agency agreement to reward his efforts to politically undermine and destroy Turkcell's position as the licence holder and to deliver the licence to MTN instead. The "sham" consultancy payment was authorised by Nhleko on behalf of MTN in a memo dated December 11 2006.

Charnley was sent a confidential memo in which Ghorbanoghli says he has arranged for a friend in Dubai to receive the funds on his behalf through a company called Aristo Oil International Services. In an invoice from Aristo it described the scope of the responsibilities as "introduce MTN-Iran to key role-players, arrange meetings and generally provide support and assistance during the negotiations and conclusion of the necessary agreements that will provide for MTN's entry into the Iranian mobile market". Ghorbanoghli delivered on that. On September 17 2005 MTN's executive team flew to Iran and finalised agreements with the IEDC and payment structures. A day later MTN issued a notice to its board members regarding "Project Snooker" and its decision to officially take up the GSM licence in Iran.

On September 21 2005, two months before being awarded the licence, Nhleko delivered a confidential memorandum to Dabengwa, Charnley and MTN's former chief financial officer, Robert Nisbet, which was copied to the Chris Kilowan and Paul Norman setting out in detail the ground rules for "Project Snooker" and how MTN would deliver on the defence and nuclear support promises.

Weapons: The promised Denel collaboration, which clearly came off
In August 2004, MTN accompanied Lekota on a trip to Iran, which the cellphone company organised and paid for, where they struck an "arms- for-licence" deal with the Iranian ministry of defence to deliver "The Fish". Nhleko and Charnley were present at the meeting where they signed a confidential memorandum of understanding, promising that South Africa would deliver "heaven, earth, and fish", meaning the elicit arms and technology in exchange for the licence.

"The Fish" was a code for the name for a combination of military co-operation and big-ticket defence equipment, including Rooivalk helicopters, frequency-hopping encrypted military radios, sniper rifles, G5 howitzers, cannons, armoured landmine-proof personnel carriers, radar technology, pilot "heads-up" display technology and other defence articles that included US systems and components. Iran didn't have access to this equipment legitimately because of US and international sanctions against it at the time. To reassure the Iranian authorities, MTN paid for Iran's nuclear negotiator to meet with then-president Mbeki at his Cape Town residence, a meeting which was apparently facilitated by Charnley, Ramaphosa and Saloojee through their political connections.

On November 16 2004, Charnley sent a letter via fax on behalf of MTN, copied to Saloojee, facilitating a meeting between Denel and the Iran Helicopter Support and Renewal Co. The letter indicated that Charnley had met with then-Denel chief executive Victor Moche to provide helicopter technology from Denel to produce helicopters with US Apache technology in Iran. Denel's former head for North Africa and the Middle East, Donald Romfolo, confirmed they had been in talks with Iran's defence ministry and state arms company, Sairan, in 2004. But he said the national conventional arms control committee barred the company from trading in Iran "because of the US sanctions". He denied any knowledge of Charnley and said he knew of no talks with MTN or pressure applied by the company.

Lekota, now president of Cope, flatly denied on Thursday that MTN had paid for any visit by him to Iran. "This is absolutely fallacious. Defence was never bankrupt when I was there." However, he confirmed one or more visits "in my official capacity" to Iran, and he confirmed that "in one of those visits it coincided with the MTN people also travelling there -- they did form part of the South African delegation going there". "I had meetings with the relevant minister and I think even the head of state … but at no stage did I have any meetings with the cellphone company MTN, I was never in any meeting. I had no obligation or, in fact, no power to negotiate anything on behalf of MTN. I think MTN negotiated their business with their counterparts quite independent of their mission. I could not have made any promises to the Iranian government on defence co-operation without going through Cabinet."

Later, confronted with a specific allegation that he had met his Iranian counterpart in the presence of MTN officials, he conceded that "when official business had been done … we might have been entertained, and that the businesspeople that may have been part of this visit may have been part of that". "I deny that there was any negotiations around MTN's business interests by the ministry of defence led by myself." Lekota denied that he would have promised any weapons outside of the arms control committee's approvals that would have to follow. "I never made any commitments of the nature you are suggesting." In the end, and once Iran had handed the licence to MTN, it seems whatever promises about defence materiel may have been made, came to naught.

In March 2007, a year and half after MTN was awarded the licence, MTN began facing even greater pressure from its Iranian partners to deliver on some of its defence and nuclear-related promises. MTN's representative in Iran, Chris Kilowan, sent a memo to Nhleko from the Iranians calling on the company to deliver on its defence promises. "[MTN's chief executive Nhleko] should attempt as a matter of urgency to contact the president of South Africa and impress upon him that the failure to resolve the defence matters to the satisfaction of Iran will have severe negative repercussions for MTN," read the memo attached as an exhibit. The "highly confidential" memo recounts Saloojee's description of visits to South Africa by top Iranian officials on behalf of supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Khamenei dispatched Ali Larijani, then the secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, to remind Mbeki "that certain defence-related promises were made by the South African minister of defence in 2004 in exchange for which MTN was allowed to replace Turkcell in the Irancell consortium". The same memo reports that Manouchehr Mottaki, then Iran's foreign minister, was sent by Ahmadinejad to "get a direct answer" from Mbeki about South Africa's alleged promises to sell arms to Iran. Kilowan wrote in the memo: "Mottaki reiterated their understanding that MTN was allowed to replace Turkcell in exchange for defense co-operation."

On the UN Security Council vote, the memo said: "It is now a matter of public record what happened to the vote on Saturday … that South Africa also voted in favour of the sanctions." The memo also relates Saloojee's concerns. "The Iranians did not expect the voting to go otherwise, although they were hopeful that South Africa would at least abstain. As it is, South Africa is now seen as having made a U-turn on the matter and we will have to closely monitor the reaction of the Iranians to the fact." MTN also found itself being threatened in late 2007 by "Long John" for not delivering on its promises. Mbeki's spokesperson, Mukoni Ratshitanga, told the M&G: "Former president Thabo Mbeki does not believe that he should oblige attempts to drag his name into this matter and will therefore not comment."

The Votes: International Atomic Energy Agency and the United Nations
Throughout 2004 and 2005, at the same time that MTN was lobbying hard to displace Turkcell, Iran came under intense pressure over its nuclear enrichment programme. The international community had repeatedly voted against the state before the International Atomic Energy Authority and the UN Security Council, calling on it to meet its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. In fact, as Turkcell detailed, from 2004 to 2008, South Africa largely joined the votes against Iran except for a brief hiatus at the end of 2005 and the beginning of 2006, which coincided with the November 2005 license award. "MTN learned that the Iranians understood South Africa to play a critical role in being able to lead the 'non-aligned' nations on nuclear votes in international bodies," Turkcell stated. And so, Turkcell claims, the cellphone giant orchestrated an "informal" meeting between Mbeki and Iran's nuclear chief, Hassan Rowhani, at a dinner at Mbeki's Cape Town residence. "MTN paid for adviser Rowhani to stay at a hotel in Cape Town, sponsored the large dinner party, and covered all travel logistics," Turkcell claims. "Consistent with MTN's promises, the president assured adviser Rowhani that the South African government would support Iran at the [International Atomic Energy Authority]." But Mbeki, through his spokesperson, refused to comment on this account.

That September, when the International Atomic Energy Authority board found Iran not to be complying with its non-proliferation treaty obligations, South Africa abstained. Come November 20, Turkcell detailed, MTN expected it was to be awarded the licence. Instead, the Iranians are said to have delivered the message that should South Africa vote against Iran at a crucial November 24 vote before the IAEA, it would "cause trouble".

The decision the IAEA has to make was on whether to refer Iran to the UN Security Council for breaching the NPT. This appears to have sent the company's mavericks into a bit of a spin. It is alleged they approached Saloojee, who approached South African ambassador to the IAEA Abdul Minty. Other frantic calls were made, and as it happened, South Africa abstained from the vote. Three days later the Iranians issued the GSM license to MTN.

The M&G was unable to reach Minty on Thursday, but when he was approached on the matter in February, he strenuously denied having been influenced: "At no point did [MTN] approach me to influence me in any direction." According to him, South Africa's policy on Iran at the IAEA had been "very consistent". After being awarded the 49% stake, MTN made good on its promises to its 51% shareholder, carrying all its costs. MTN agreed to pay the IEDC's $88-million capital share of MTN Irancell as well as their share of the $300-million licence fee.

The Iranian partners were clear that they were not willing to pay any "interest" on, or put up security for, a "loan". Charnley presented the proposed arrangement to MTN. Rob Nisbett, the chief financial officer, was apparently shocked at the proposal and refused to permit the deal on "improper and unsecured terms". He insisted that a formal loan agreement be negotiated and entered into with the parties. He also threatened to resign if this was not done.

On November 15 2005 MTN Group directed its subsidiary, MTN International (Mauritius) Ltd, to enter into sham "loan" agreements with the IEDC. Nisbett still voiced concern about this arrangement and informed the executive team that the "loans" put MTN at huge risk. Nhleko issued Nisbett with a formal written warning for opposing the financial terms and was instructed to authorise the transaction. Documents show MTN made the "loans" through a series of complex "round trip" agreements by shifting the funds around between the IEDC, MTN-Irancell, and MTN Group, which it then recorded on its books as loans. By the time the loans were due, MTN-Irancell was highly profitable -- $118-million profit in 2007, $234-million in 2008, $516-million in 2009, $583-million in 2010 and at least $503-million projected for 2011.

Charnley did not respond to numerous messages left on her cellphone and with an assistant in her office. An automatic message at Saloojee's office -- the South African embassy in Oman where he is ambassador -- said staff did not work on Thursdays, and emails were not answered. Spokespeople for Nhleko and Ramaphosa said they would pass on the M&G's respective messages, but neither responded in time for print deadline.

Department of International Affairs and Cooperation spokesperson Clayson Monyela could not be reached, but last month he denied that any company had influence over South Africa's foreign policy. Calls to Iran's embassy in South Africa were placed on hold, after which no calls were answered.

MTN and its legal advisers were locked in all-day meetings yesterday, filing its JSE news service (Sens) announcement only at 5.30pm in response to the explosive claims made by Turkcell in a lawsuit filed in the Washington Federal Court at 2am South African time.

Africa's largest cellphone operator said the claim had still not been served, but that it would oppose it. The company reiterated that there was "no legal merit" to Turkcell's claim and no basis for such a claim to be brought before a United States court. It also noted the South African government's denial of the allegations that MTN exercised influence over it. In advance of Turkcell filing its claim, MTN announced the formation of an independent committee, under the chairmanship of internationally renowned jurist Lord Hoffmann, to investigate Turkcell's allegations. The Hoffmann committee has already begun its investigations and will report its findings to the MTN board, with any recommendations on actions to be taken as a result of its findings, including their publication. "The Hoffmann committee has invited Turkcell to participate in its investigation, but Turkcell has to date not done so," MTN said in the statement. "The invitation remains open to Turkcell to participate in the Hoffmann committee's investigation."

Turkcell has been threatening to take MTN to the US courts for corruption since February 2, but held out for a settlement from MTN first before it filed. MTN has been calling its bluff by refusing to settle out of court, claiming extortion. Turkcell has argued that MTN has many business interests in the US and that the cellphone company has violated the Alien Tort Statute, a 1789 law that gives US courts jurisdiction in some instances to consider claims by foreigners for illegal conduct that occurred in another country. The law is usually cited in human rights and torture cases.

Meanwhile, Turkcell was yesterday dealing with its own set of issues relating to infighting among its board and shareholders. Reuters reported that the board met to discuss its structure and independent board members. Having founded Turkcell in 1994, Mehmet Emin Karamehmet is locked in a boardroom struggle with the other main shareholders in Turkcell: Altimo and Nordic telecommunications group TeliaSonera.

Turkcell's board has seven members. The three main shareholders -- Cukurova, Altimo and TeliaSonera -- each has two seats. Chairperson Colin Williams is the designated independent board member. Altimo and TeliaSonera want him replaced because they say he sides with Cukurova, Reuters reports. TeliaSonera has a 37% stake in Turkcell, whereas Altimo has a 13.2% stake it bought from Karamehmet in 2005. However, Cukurova's 13.8% stake carries controlling rights because of Turkcell's structure.

Source: Mail & Guardian

SA authorised arms for Syria

Justice Minister Jeff Radebe has confirmed that three contracting permits were authorised by SA for the supply of sniper rifles and other weapons to Syria between 2006 and 2010. Reports have appeared that Syria had tried to buy a large consignment of sniper rifles from SA in 2010.

The National Conventional Arms Control Committee (NCACC), of which Mr Radebe is chairman, confirmed in response to a parliamentary question from the Democratic Alliance (DA) that contracting permits were issued by SA, allegedly to South African companies, but said the weapons ordered were never delivered to Syria. DA defence spokesman David Maynier yesterday called for the matter to be investigated, saying that the NCACC should never have issued the permits. "The fact is that the NCACC should never even have considered authorising a contracting permit for the supply of sniper rifles and accessories to Syria. "The preamble to the law regulating conventional arms sales in SA says that we will not trade in conventional arms with states engaged in repression, aggression and terrorism," Mr Maynier said.

The NCACC said in its reply to the question raised in Parliament: "The NCACC approved 3 X Contracting Permits for the Government of Syria for … parachutes, 40mm multi-grenade launcher (and) sniper rifles with accessories. However, to date, there were no deliveries that were undertaken against these contracting permits."

Mr Maynier said while the permits were approved before the recent year-long crisis in Syria, poor human rights conditions had existed there for many years. "When considering whether to authorise permit applications, the NCACC is required by law to avoid the transfer of conventional arms to governments that systematically violate or suppress human rights and fundamental freedoms; avoid the transfer of conventional arms to governments that are likely to contribute to the escalation of regional military conflicts; and avoid contributing to terror and crime. Syria was not involved in a full-scale civil war when the permit was authorised but it was, and remains, one of the most repressive regimes in the world," Mr Maynier said.

The committee’s reply said SA had also issued contracting permits to the United Nations for RG-32 Scout mine-resistant 4x4 light armoured vehicles, used by the UN Disengagement Observer Force in Syria in 2004 and 2010. Mr Radebe’s spokesman, Tlali Tlali, was unable to comment yesterday as he was still investigating the matter.

Source: Business Day

UN council condemns Mali coup

The UN Security Council on Monday slammed the coup in Mali and added to international demands for the democratically-elected government to be returned. A formal statement released by the council said that the “fragile security and humanitarian situation” in the Sahel nations (several countries that stretch across northern Africa) had been “exacerbated” by the return of thousands of people after the uprising in Libya.

The Security Council has joined the African Union and other regional organizations and governments in opposing the soldiers who overthrew President Amadou Toumani Toure on March 22. “The Security Council strongly condemns the forcible seizure of power from the democratically-elected government of Mali by some elements of the Malian armed forces,” said the statement. It demanded that the “mutinous troops” halt all violence and “return to their barracks. The Security Council calls for the restoration of constitutional order, and the holding of elections as previously scheduled.”

The whereabouts of Toure remain unknown although the junta has assured he is safe and in good health. There was debate among the 15 members of the council on whether the impact of the Libya uprising should be mentioned in the statement, diplomats said. Tuaregs who left Libya after the fall of Moamer Kadhafi joined a rebellion in Mali, increasing the frustration of soldiers who say they were not given enough backing by Toure's government, according to UN officials and diplomats.

The Security Council statement referred to Libya by expressing concern over “the fragile security and humanitarian situation in the region, and notes that it has been exacerbated by drought, food shortages and the return of thousands of returnees following the Libyan crisis and other crises in the region.” The statement also highlighted the “proliferation of weapons from within and outside the region.” The council called for all governments in the Sahel, where there are growing food shortages, and international organizations step up joint action “to take urgent steps” to counter the food and security crises.

Source: IoL

Congo Republic: Mass Funeral for Victims of Explosion

One week after an explosion at an arms depot and barracks complex killed at least 246 people in the capital, Brazzaville, more than 100 were buried in a mass funeral. Officials said that only 159 bodies could be identified in time for the ceremony. The explosion was caused by a fire in the barracks that set off a lethal rain of grenades, mortar rounds, shells and rockets. The arms depot had not been moved away from the neighborhood despite an earlier government promise to do so after a less deadly explosion in 2009.

Source: New York Times

Piracy costs you money

As the shipping industry continues to count the human and material costs associated with piracy in the Gulf of Aden, an increasing number of shipowners and charters are going on the offensive and placing armed security guards on their vessels.

Shipowners and charterers navigating the Gulf of Aden have seen insurance premiums for kidnap and ransom increase tenfold as piracy escalates. According to Lloyd’ s List, Economic Cost of Maritime Piracy Report, the estimated excess cost of insurance due to Somali Piracy is between $460m and $3.2 bn per year.

War Risk cover has risen dramatically, and shipowners seeking to lower costs and protect their assets, are pushing for as much as 25% discount on war risk policies, by employing armed security guards on board their vessels. As consumers of goods imported into South Africa, we pay a portion of these added expenses in the form of increased costs for these goods. We have an interest in any steps which limit the financial impact of piracy.

While the benefits of such an approach may be self evident, the bureaucratic and administrative complications for a vessel, which calls at multiple ports in numerous different countries, and therefore enters many different legal jurisdictions whilst carrying armed personnel and ammunition, are daunting. Increasingly shipowners and charterers seek advice on the laws applicable in these many jurisdictions, since they have no wish to fall foul of any of the myriad of applicable local laws. It is axiomatic that breaches of the law have potentially dramatic consequences for the individuals involved, but these contraventions also impede the business of international commerce and shipping, introducing avoidable delays and thereby escalating costs.

The relevant provisions of South African law are to be found in the Firearms Control Act (60 of 2000) and in particular section 73, which states, “no person may carry in transit through South Africa any firearms or ammunition without an in-transit permit issued in terms of the Act.” A firearm on board a vessel which calls at a South African port is in transit, even where that weapon remains inside a secure safe on board the vessel throughout her passage through South African waters.

Ordinarily shipowners or charterers appoint independent security companies to provide the guards and their firearms, because such companies have the expertise and experience required to face the pirates in circumstance which often approximate wartime confrontations. These security companies are responsible for obtaining the necessary permits well in advance of the arrival of the weapons in South African waters.

An issue that has arisen recently, which is of great concern to shipowners and the seafarers they employ, concerns the question of whether people other than the security guards, such as the Captain of a vessel, can be held responsible where firearms are brought on board for use by the security guards, but where no permits have been issued. In a recent incident, police boarded a vessel immediately after firearms had been delivered to that vessel, in an apparent sting operation, and it was then discovered that the requisite permits had not been issued. The Master was faced with the possibility of arrest even though he was ignorant of our laws relating to permits, and was completely unaware of the fact that no permits had been obtained in advance. The Master was accused of responsibility for this contravention of the Act by virtue of his position as Captain, being the person in charge of the vessel where the firearms were found at the time. It was only due to the fact that the Master’s evidence may prove useful in future criminal proceedings against the South African company which provided the illegal weapons that the Master avoided being detained and charged under the Act.

It is clear, from this and other similar incidents, that the South African Police have focused their attention on potential violations of firearm laws on board vessels calling at our ports. In circumstances where the proper permits have not been obtained, otherwise innocent parties can be drawn into police operations, resulting in personal hardship, delays and additional costs, all of which ultimately impact on the consumer, already burdened by the costs of piracy.

ENS - Edward Nathan Sonnenbergs

Janine Lee

South Africa

Source: Lexology