IRIN
Aid agencies are worried about high levels of sexual and gender-based violence in the Iraqi refugee community in Syria
DAMASCUS, 6 April 2009 (IRIN) - UN agencies working in Syria are worried about high levels of sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) in the Iraqi refugee community. No comprehensive statistics on SGBV are available for Syria but local studies and anecdotal evidence suggest that the rate of GBV among the refugees is much higher than among the Syrian population. The UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) identified nearly 500 Iraqi victims of SGBV between January and August 2008.
Its update in August 2008 said: “At least 450 survivors of SGBV have been identified since January 2008, making an average of 13 per week.” The most common types of SGBV, said the report, included rape, forced prostitution, trafficking, forced marriage, domestic violence and sexual exploitation. “We have noticed a problem with both physical and emotional abuse,” said Carole Laleve, a spokesperson for the UNHCR. “The number of cases coming to our attention has risen but that may be due to an increased willingness to seek help.” Other agencies report similar findings. “Our anecdotal evidence suggests the rate of GBV in the Iraqi community is higher than in the Syrian one,” said Theodora Tsovili, a psychosocial specialist at the UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF).
“Adolescents have particular psychosocial vulnerabilities and since the end of 2007 UNICEF has been running a programme of SGBV prevention among young women and men.”
Over 1.2 millions Iraqis fled their country following the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the outbreak of sectarian violence in its aftermath. Experts say they are not surprised by the higher and continued occurrence of violence, given the vulnerability of Iraqis in Syria. Behaviour change “The Iraqis who fled to Syria are often suffering from post-traumatic disorders, most have a family member who was killed or tortured, often in front of them,” said Ilham Moussa, who works on the UN Population Fund’s (UNFPA’s) US$200,000 humanitarian programme to support the Ministry of Health’s services. “Injuries can also cause behaviour to change and make people more violent,” she added.
Other risk factors such as low income and changes in family roles, such as women becoming the main earners, are also present in the Iraqi community in Syria. These factors expose them to greater risk of SGBV than the Syrian population. Suffering in silence The real levels of SGBV are likely to be underestimated given the reluctance of women, who are usually the victims, to speak out. Doctors in Damascus and the northeastern city of Al-Hassakeh, where most Iraqi refugees live, have reported a number of cases of SGBV in Iraqi families. “Often women are scared to say anything. They think they will be marginalised by their community and have no source of income,” said one doctor from the Dummar suburb of Damascus. “They think about their families and their children and decide that it is better to suffer in silence.”
The UNHCR says its outreach programme, in which a group of Iraqi women are trained to raise awareness by talking to their peers about SGBV, is helping Iraqi women to feel able to talk and seek help. “It is a very sensitive issue but now the women are much more open,” says Laleve.
“There is a lot of pride at the start but as they trust the outreach workers and their desperation increases, they do start to talk.” Workshops Other initiatives to tackle the SGBV are in progress and many more are being planned. UNFPA runs a humanitarian programme which has run six workshops for health professionals in the affected areas on how to deal with victims of violence - both Iraqi and Syrian as they use the same health system.
Health professionals who attended the workshops in Damascus at the end of 2008 were taught how to detect SGBV, which tests to offer victims, and the codes of confidentiality for dealing with them. They were also taught counselling techniques, including methods to teach women how to diffuse violent situations at home. The Ministry of Health is finalising the first set of guidelines on dealing with victims of abuse. Other organisations such as the French development organisation, IECD, are developing SGBV programmes for the Iraqi population. Several shelters are available for referral of the most serious cases.
sb/ar/cb
lundi 6 avril 2009
III. IRAK TÜRKMEN BASIN KONSEYİ KURULTAYI
III. IRAK TÜRKMEN BASIN KONSEYİ KURULTAYI
İstanbul, 10–12 Nisan 2009
BASIN AÇIKLAMASI
BASIN AÇIKLAMASI
III. Irak Türkmen Basın Konseyi Kurultayı10–12 Nisan 2009 Tarihleri Arasında İstanbul’da Toplanıyor
Irak Türkmenlerinin medyasına hizmet eden yazılı ve görsel basın mensupları arasında diyalog oluşturmak, bu alanda çalışanlarının amaçlarına ulaşmasını sağlamak, Türkmen basınının güçlenmesine katkıda bulunmak; tarafsız, bağımsız, doğru ve düzeyli habercilik anlayışı ile Irak ve dünya kamuoyunu bilgilendirmek; Türkmen davasının tanıtımını ve ülke topraklarının birliğinin, saygınlığının ve kutsallığının korunması yolunda Irak Türkmenlerinin yaptığı çağrıyı duyurmak; yazılı, işitsel ve görsel medya alanında çaba harcayan Türkmenler arasında düşünce, bakış, dayanışma, iş ve söylem birliğini pekiştirmek amacıyla III. Irak Türkmen Basın Konseyi Kurultayı 10–12 Nisan 2009 tarihleri arasında İstanbul’da toplanacaktır.
Gazete, dergi, televizyon, radyo, web sitesi ve benzeri iletişim araçlarında çalışan Irak Türkmen yazılı ve görsel medya mensuplarından 100 dolayında delegenin katıldığı kurultaya Kerkük’ten, Bağdat’tan, Musul’dan, Telafer, Tuzhurmatu ve Erbil’den, ABD ve Kanada’dan, İngiltere, Almanya, Fransa, Hollanda ve Danimarka’dan, Avustralya ve Türkiye’den yazı işleri müdürü, editör, başyazar, gazeteci, yazar, muhabir ve web sayfası yöneticileri gibi medyaya yönelik kendi alanında çaba gösteren Türkmen temsilciler katılacaklardır.
Kurultaya ayrıca Arap ve Batı dünyasından 20’ye yakın tanınmış medya temsilci, yazar, gazeteci ve muhabir katılıyor. İstanbul-Osmanbey, Ramada Plaza İstanbul otelinde yapılacak olan kurultay, 10 Nisan 2009, Cuma günü saat 14.30’da Balo Salonu’nda yapılacak açılış oturumu ile başlayacaktır. 3 gün sürecek kurultayda paneller, seminer ve oturumlar yapılacaktır. Kurultay 12 Nisan 2009 Pazar günü sonuç bildirisinin açıklanacağı kapanış oturumu ile çalışmalarını tamamlamış olacaktır.
Düzenleme Komitesi
Prof. Dr. Suphi SAATÇİ
Irak Türkmen Basın Konseyi Genel Sekreteri
Mehmet TÜTÜNCÜ
Türkmen Basın Konseyi Üyesi
Şükran KAYACI
Türkmen Basın Konseyi Üyesi
IRAK TÜRKMEN BASIN KONSEYİ
Nevbahar Mahallesi Kuka Sokağı Huzur Apt. Nu: 1/1
Fındıkzade-Fatih/İSTANBUL
Tel: (0212) 584 00 75
Faks: (0212) 584 00 76
Iraq’s Turkmen intellectuals searching for their future
The third meeting of the Iraqi Turkmen Press Council was held between April 10 and 12 in İstanbul. The purpose of the meeting, organized under the guidance of Professor Suphi Saatçi, Mehmet Tütüncü and Şükran Kayacı, was to promote the Iraqi Turkmen press.
The Turkish press, intellectuals, bureaucrats and politicians were uninterested in the meeting. Interestingly, even İstanbul deputies and representatives of local party organizations did not pay heed to the meeting. The only notable attendees were Erşat Hürmüzlü, the chief advisor to President Abdullah Gül on the Middle East, and Iraq's consul general in İstanbul. Considering the fact that President Gül met with Turkmen and Arab intellectuals in İstanbul on April 11, one can suggest that the Turkish presidency was the only body that attached importance to the meeting. It is an odd contradiction for Turkish intellectuals and politicians to show close interest in Iraqi Kurds while turning a blind eye to Iraqi Turkmens.
Iraqi Turkmens have always been shadowed by the fact that they are regarded as extensions of the Ottoman Empire and the Turkish Republic. They could not manage to get their voices heard about the pressure they were subjected to and the losses they suffered both during the time of Saddam and the US occupation. Their cries were always muted. They were always a community living in the shadows. However, Iraqi Turkmens are intellectual people. They do not like conflicts. They always seek to find conciliation with other groups. They believe in their hearts in territorial integrity, increased welfare and democratization. They do not want be a minority, but desire to be a community within the majority and contribute their richness to Iraq by preserving their identity. This is well exemplified in their past.
The first Iraqi Turkmen newspaper was published in 1915. However, it is ironic that there is no Turkmen press association in Iraq. They note that for several months, they have experienced difficulty in their attempts to become members of the Iraqi Press Association and that they are not allowed to establish their own trade unions. In Iraq, there are more than 100 TV channels -- about half of which operate via satellite -- but Turkmens have only one TV channel, namely Türkmeneli TV. Another problem they face is that although they have local papers, they do not have a national newspaper through which they could have their voices heard by the general public in Iraq.
Turkish and Western journalists who go to Iraq are, in general, not specialized in the topic of Iraq. They do not know problems or details. They tend to run analyses without knowing the distinction between Sunnis and Shiites or between Kurmanji or Sorani. They tend to cover groups such as Kurds and organizations that make sure their voices are heard by resorting to the use of arms. They tend to see peace-loving peoples like Turkmens as mere folkloric elements. They do not even try to understand the existing war.
About 75 percent of Iraqi people watch satellite TV channels to stay informed, while 6 percent tend to use Internet news sources. The written press does not have any weight in society. In Iraq, rife with attempts at disinformation, it is hard to say that there is a free press. For this reason, a new press law is in the making. If free and democratic press organizations cannot exist in Iraq, we cannot expect democracy to take root and territorial integrity to be secured. Turkmens represent a cornerstone for democratic order in Iraq. The place of Turkmens within the integrity of Iraq should be given greater emphasis so that future generations can live in peace. It should not be forgotten that various languages are part of the wealth of Iraq. Iraq needs peace and dialogue. Iraq no longer wants to see more bloodshed.
dimanche 5 avril 2009
The Turkmens and Kerkuk, by Dr Hassan AYDINLI (Video)
Extracts of ITF EU Representative’s speech at the EU Parliament
on 18th March 2009 in Brussels
To watch videos please click on :
http://www.youtube.com/user/BRussellsTribunal
"The situation of Turkmens in the North of Iraq", by Hassan Aydinli, oil expert.
This speech was a part of "Occupation Year 7: What future for Iraq?",
a series of events organized by The BRussells Tribunal,
and took place in the European Parliament, 18 March 2009, in Brussels.
on 18th March 2009 in Brussels
To watch videos please click on :
http://www.youtube.com/user/BRussellsTribunal
"The situation of Turkmens in the North of Iraq", by Hassan Aydinli, oil expert.
This speech was a part of "Occupation Year 7: What future for Iraq?",
a series of events organized by The BRussells Tribunal,
and took place in the European Parliament, 18 March 2009, in Brussels.
***
"The situation of Turkmen in the North of Iraq" (part 1)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7URMgE4grNQ&feature=channel_page
"The situation of Turkmen in the North of Iraq" (part 2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3A6bbRKnX8&feature=related
"The situation of Turkmen in the North of Iraq" (part 3)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBiB94g59zM
"The situation of Turkmen in the North of Iraq" (part 1)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7URMgE4grNQ&feature=channel_page
"The situation of Turkmen in the North of Iraq" (part 2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3A6bbRKnX8&feature=related
"The situation of Turkmen in the North of Iraq" (part 3)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBiB94g59zM
vendredi 3 avril 2009
Türkmenlerin Dünyaya Sergiledikleri Belirsizlikler- Birinci Bölüm
Türkmenlerin Dünyaya Sergiledikleri Belirsizlikler- Birinci Bölüm
Orhan Ketene
Orhan Ketene
İnsanlar belirsizliği sevmezler. Mesela bir mağazaya gidildiğinde fiyatı belirli eşyalar tercih edilir, fiyatsız olanlara ya bakılmaz veya en sonda bakılır.
Siyasettede durum aynıdır. Belirli olan konular kolayca anlaşılır ve hakkında karara çabuk varılır, belirsizler ise, ya daha sonra incelenmek üzere bir kenara itilir veya hepten bırakılır, çünkü insanların zihnini yorar.
Türkmenler uzun bir zaman dünyadan soyutlandılar, son 20 yıldan beri dünya, Türkmenleri hafif bir şekilde de olsa duymaya başladı. Ama çok belirsiz bir şekilde.Bu belirsizlik, dünyayı yöneten Batı ülkelerinde had safhaya varmış durumdadır. Zira onların gördüğü kadarıyla Türkmenlerin hemen hemen her şeyi belirsizdir.
Şöyle ki:
1- Türkmenlerin İngilizce adları belli değil:
Türkçe adları net bir şekilde belirli olmasına karşın (Tekil: Türkmen, Çoğul: Türkmenler). İngilizcede ise:
Tekil: Turkmen, Turkman, Turkoman, Turcoman, Trukman, Turukman, Turkuman, Torkeman....v.s. Çoğul: Turkmens, Turkmen, Turkmans, Turkomans, Turcomans, Turkomen, Turkomens, Turukmans, Turkumans......v.s.
2- Türkmenlerin şehir adlarının latince yazılışı belirsizdir:
Kerkuk, Karkuk, Kirkuk, Karkouk.
Telafer, Tel Afar, Talafar, Talla’far.
Musul, Mosul, Mousil, Mawsil.
Erbil, Arbil, Irbil.
Altun Kopru, Altun Kupri, Alton Kopru, Alton Kupri.
Tawukh, Tawuq, Tavuk, Tawoq, Daquq.
Tuz Khurmatu, Tuz Hurmatu, Toz Khurmatu, Toz Khormato.
Qara Teppe, Kara Tepe, Qara Tappa
Khaneqin, Hanekin, Khanaqeen.
Qizlarbat, Kizlarbat, Kizil Ribat, Sadiye.
Qaraghan, Karagan, Jalawla, Celevla.
3- Türkmenlerin nüfusu belirsizdir: 200.000, 400.000, 800.000, 1 milyon, 1.5 milyon, 2 milyon, 2.5 milyon, 3 milyon, 3.5 milyon, 4 milyon,....v.s. Dünya ansiklopedilerinde Türkmen nüfüsunu 200.000-3.5 milyon arası gösterirler ki bu bilgisayar çağında belirsizliğin en çarpıcı örneğidir.
4- Türkmenlerin haritası belirsizdir: Türkmenlerin Irakta yaşadığı bölge olan Türkmeneli’nin haritası konusunda, Iraktaki Türkmen yerleşim alanlarıyla, Milli Bölge birbirine karıştırılıyor. Bir görüşe göre Türkmeneli, tüm Musul bölgesidir, diğer görüşe göre Telaferden Mendeliye bir başka görüşe göre Bedreye uzanan bir çizgidir. Bu çizgi bazan kalınlaşıp, Türkmen şehirleri arasındaki Arap, Kürt ve Asuri bölgelerinide içerir. Bir başka görüşe göre Bağdat güneyindeki Kara Güllü oymağının yerleşim alanları olan Aziziye, İskenderiye bölgesinide içerir.
5- Türkmenlerin tarihi belirsizdir: bir görüşe göre: Sümerlerden gelmedirler (6000 yıl önce) başka görüşe göre: Sasan Fars imparatorluğu döneminde gelmişler ve orta Fıratta onlarca prenslikler kurmuşlar, Banuklular ve Batuklular gibi (1500+ yıl önce) Bir başka görüşe göre Emeviler bunları Basraya getirmişler (1300 yıl önce) Diğer bir görüşe göre Abbasiler (1200 yıl önce) bir başkasına göre Selçuklular döneminde gelmişler(950 yıl önce). Başkalarıda Safevilerin getirttiğini söyler. En sonuda Osmanlı 4. Murat tarafından getirtildiklerini söyler (360 yıl önce).
6- Türkmenlerin seçtiği siyasi gurup belirsizdir: Normalde, bir millet, özlemlerini yansıtan ve bu özlemleri gerçekleştirmeye çalışan siyasi bir örgütü seçer ve ona oyunu verir. Dolayısıyla bu örgüt o milletin hacmini gösterir. Ama 2003’ten bu yana yapılan seçimlerde, en büyük Türkmen siyasi kuruluşu olan ITC’ye gelen oylar hiçbir şekilde Türkmenlerin hacmini yansıtmamıştır. ITC’nin dışında bir sürü milliyetçi ve dinci partiler vardır ki ya seçimlere girmemişlerdir veya Arap partileriyle işbirliği yaparak sembolik milletvekillikleri almışlardır. Dolayısıyla, Türkmen oylarının gerçekten kimlere gittiği belirsizdir. ITC’nin bu kadar düşük oy alması hem Irakta hemde dünyada Türkmen görüntüsüne çok zarar vermektedir ve düşmanların, Türkmenlerin çok küçük bir azınlık oldukları savını desteklemektedir.
7- Türkmenlerin siyasi amacı belirsizdir: Kimisine göre Musul bölgesi olarak Türkiyeye bağlanmak, kimisine göre Iraka bağlı, eşit ortaklıklı üçlü Kuzey (Musul) federasyonunda özerk Türkmeneli hükümetini kurmak, bir diğerine göre Bağdada bağlı özerk Türkmeneli devletini kurmak. Başkasına göre üniter Irak içinde yerel hükümete sahip olmak, başkasına göre üniter Irak içinde nüfus sayısına orantılı olarak yönetimden pay almak. Bir diğeri ise millet neye karar verirse o olsun diyor. Bazısı, Kürtler ne aldıysa onu istediklerini, hele hele bazılarının amacı ise sadece Kürt düşmanlığıdır, hiç bir hak istemezler, sadece Kürt olmasın, yöneticileri ne olursa olsun diyorlar.
Bu kadar karışık ve çapraşık amaçlar sonucunda, siyasi gündem de karışık ve çelişkili oluyor. Kimisi Şii Araplara bağlanıyor, diğerleri Sünni Araplarla işbirliği içinde, bir kısmı ise dışarıdan medet bekliyor, geri kalanı ise “hele dur bir bakalım ne olur” deyip beklentiye geçiyor.
Bu kadar belirsizlikler gösteren bir toplumla kim ilgilenir ve kim uğraşır?
Türkmenler, dünyaya davalarını anlatmak ve kabul ettirmek istiyorlarsa, kendileriyle ilgili tüm konularda net ve kesin olmalılar ki karşılarındakiler onları anlasın ve tezlerini kabul etsinler.
Şurası bir gerçektir ki, belirsizlikler devam ettikçe, hem Türkmenler saygınlık kaybedecek hemde yabancılar Türkmenler hakkında bildiklerini okuyacaklar ve şimdiki kargaşa devam edecektir.Bu belirsizlikler bir an önce merçek altına alınmalı ve eldeki verilerin en doğruları seçilerek belirlenmelidirler.
Gelecek yazımızda bu belirsizliklere tek tek çözümleri yazacağız.
http://kerkukmedya.com/articles.php?action=view&id=181&page=1
http://kerkukmedya.com/articles.php?action=view&id=181&page=1
IRAQI TURKMEN FRONT COMMUNIQUE
الدائرة الإعلامية
ENFORMASYON DAİRESİ
العدد:106 SAYI:106
العدد:106 SAYI:106
To the news desk, AP, Baghdad bureau,
Yesterday, AP put an exclusive report regarding Kerkuk, under the title ": U.N. suggests power-sharing for Kerkuk".
It seems that the reporter took the data from one side only, without even trying to interview a Turkmen politician or organization and without referring to the official Iraqi documents!
We agree that there was a bad Arabization policy under the previous regime, however, since April 2003 there is an even worse Kurdification policy which is taking place in Kerkuk.
The population of Kerkuk was 860 thousand on 9th April 2003, today it is more than 1.5 million and ALL the newcomers are Kurds.
Please see the information below:
According to the 1957 census, Turkmens were 950 thousands out of a population of six million Iraqis.
Please see the information below:
According to the 1957 census, Turkmens were 950 thousands out of a population of six million Iraqis.
However, the 1997 census under the Arabization campaign, showed Turkmens to be only 900 thousand, i.e. less than in 1957!!
This is completely illogical and it shows the injustice Turkmens went through under the previous regime. Scientifically speaking, the annual population growth rate in Iraq is fixed (3-8%), therefore the Turkmens are at least 2.6 million, i.e 10% of the total Iraqi population. About 40% of the Turkmens live in Kerkuk.
Again, according to the 1957 census, Turkmens represented the largest ethnic component in Kerkuk, before the Kurds, the Arabs and the Christians.
According to the ration cards data base, the number of inhabitants who were expelled from Kerkuk was 11.700, out of which more than a quarter were Turkmens.
We therefore ask you to check the facts and correct your data in order to reflect the reality.
The Information Office of the Iraqi Turkmen Front
Addres:
Kerkük. Bağdat yolu. Valilik binası yanında
E-mail: ITC_media@yahoo.com
E-mail: ITC_media@yahoo.com
Affaires à haut risque à Bagdad
par Gilles Munier
(Afrique Asie – avril 2009)
Nicolas Sarkozy ne comprenait pas pourquoi les chefs d’entreprise français rechignaient à se rendre à Bagdad… Il y est allé en visite éclair, le 10 février, avec Bernard Kouchner et Hervé Morin, à bord d’un avion sécurisé, pour dire au président Jalal Talabani que la France était de retour et se proposait d’aider l’Irak à former et à équiper ses forces de police et de sécurité, et « aussi l'armée irakienne». Alors que Robert Gates, secrétaire américain à la Défense, avait déclaré fin janvier que les troupes américaines allaient « connaître des jours difficiles », le président français demandait à Bernard Kouchner de profiter de « l’amélioration » de la situation sécuritaire pour organiser et diriger, en juin prochain, une mission commerciale.
L’Irak dans le rouge
Des chefs d’entreprise y participeront, ne serait-ce que parce qu’elles ont besoin de l’aide de l’Etat sur d’autres marchés. Mais, retourner ensuite à Bagdad finaliser d’éventuels contrats et participer à la reconstruction du pays, est une autre histoire. Il leur suffit de consulter… le site « Conseils aux voyageurs » du ministère des Affaires étrangères, pour avoir un autre éclairage de ce qui les attendrait alors. Le son de cloche est radicalement différent : les voyages en Irak sont « fortement » déconseillés. Le Quai d’Orsay demande d’emprunter un véhicule blindé, escorté de gardes armés, pour aller de l’aéroport à la Zone verte hyper protégée, de se tenir à l’écart des fenêtres ou derrière des rideaux pour éviter les éclats d’explosions. En cas de déplacements, il enjoint de rester à distance des convois militaires, car les soldats peuvent tirer à titre préventif, prenant n’importe qui pour d’éventuels attaquants.
Tous les sites spécialisés dans les « risques pays » situent tous l’Irak dans le rouge. Sur une échelle de 7, l’OCDE place l’Irak au niveau 6 pour les risques politiques, et au niveau C pour les risques commerciaux, le maximum. L’ONDD, agence belge de crédit à l’export, lui attribue le niveau 7 pour les risques de guerre, et Aon France, filiale d’un des leaders mondiaux de la gestion des risques, classe l’Irak dans les pays à risques « très élevés » et signale la difficulté de souscrire des polices d’assurance pour couvrir les risques encourus. La Coface, assureur-crédit français, ne sera d’aucun secours. Elle a annoncé un plan de crise pour 2009, et commencé par relever de 30% ses tarifs généraux, qui ne comprennent pas les surprimes réclamées pour un pays comme l’Irak. Pas bon pour les affaires. Si bien qu’encourager, aujourd’hui, un chef d’entreprise à aller en Irak – sauf s’il a une parfaite connaissance des rouages de l’économie irakienne et de ses pièges – tient de l’irresponsabilité, voir de non assistance à personne en danger.
Kouchner, mauvaise carte
Autre handicap pour les entreprises qui participeraient à la mission commerciale, à Bagdad, l’étoile des amis de Bernard Kouchner est sur le déclin. Le président Jalal Talabani, son principal soutien, a décidé de ne pas se représenter en 2010. A 75 ans, son état de santé est des plus préoccupant et il lui faut reprendre en main l’Union Patriotique du Kurdistan (UPK) qu’il dirige, en voie d’implosion. Reste le vice-président de la République, Adel Abdel Mahdi, membre du Conseil suprême islamique irakien, grand perdant aux dernières élections régionales en raison de ses liens étroits avec l’Iran. Donc, il n’est pas dit qu’il le demeurera. D’autant qu’on l’accuse par ailleurs de corruption, et notamment… de l’achat d’un vignoble dans le Bordelais ! En revanche, le départ probable de Kouchner du Quai d’Orsay serait plutôt positif. Nouri al-Maliki, Premier ministre, qui s’impose dans la perspective des élections législatives prévues pour la fin de l’année, n’a pas encore digéré qu’en août 2008, ce dernier ait demandé à Condoleezza Rice son remplacement par Adel Abdel Mahdi. Mieux vaudrait, pour les entreprises, que le voyage soit repoussé à des jours meilleurs.
Ce n’est évidemment pas parce qu’un régime déplait qu’il faut ostraciser le peuple d’un pays. A plus forte raison lorsqu’il s’agit de l’Irak qui a subi deux guerres, treize ans d’embargo criminel et une occupation meurtrière qui n’en finit pas. Il n’y a aucune raison, non plus, de laisser les entreprises anglo-saxonnes et iraniennes monopoliser le commerce extérieur irakien. Mais, est-ce bien dans cet esprit qu’est organisé le retour des entreprises françaises en Irak ? Il ne faut pas confondre patriotisme économique et mercantilisme. Avec Bernard Kouchner, on sait maintenant qu’il faut craindre le pire.
__________
Entreprises françaises :
La sécurité ne sera pas au rendez-vous
Conditions de la reconstruction : le départ des troupes anglo-saxonnes du pays et l’élection d’un gouvernement vraiment représentatif du peuple irakien. On en est loin. La promesse de Barak Obama de se retirer totalement d’Irak n’étant qu’en partie tenue, l’amélioration de la sécurité pour les hommes d’affaires intéressés par le marché irakien, n’est pas au rendez-vous des entreprises françaises. De 15 000 à 50 000 Gi’s resteront en Irak pour une période indéterminée. Ils participeront, sous un autre nom, à des opérations militaires. Personne ne parle des 150 000 mercenaires en mission dits de sécurité, ni du nombre de bases qui seront maintenus. Le général Ray Odierno, commandant des troupes d’occupation, envisage d’en installer une près des champs pétroliers de Kirkouk, sous prétexte d’empêcher les Kurdes d’annexer la ville.
La Résistance qui avait réduit ses activités en janvier, les relance. Le bureau politique de Rafidain l’a fait savoir le 28 février avec son communiqué n°57. Cette organisation est connue pour ses nombreuses opérations, la plus célèbre étant l’assassinat, en décembre 2003, de Dale Stoffel, un proche de George Bush, officiellement marchand d’armes, mais accusé d’être le véritable chef de la CIA en Irak. Autre réaction : celle du Front islamique de la résistance irakienne (JAAMI), le 11 mars : Abdullah Hafiz, son porte-parole, a déclaré avoir suffisamment de munitions pour tenir dix ans et estimé entre 50 et 75 le nombre d’opérations militaires effectuées chaque mois par le front. Il a annoncé, pour bientôt, la mise en service d’un missile de 25kms de portée. Bonjour les dégâts.
Fake Faith and Epic Crimes
By John Pilger
2009 April 2
by kanan48
Via: Dissident Voice.
These are extraordinary times. With the United States and Britain on the verge of bankruptcy and committing to an endless colonial war, pressure is building for their crimes to be prosecuted at a tribunal similar to that which tried the Nazis at Nuremberg. This defined rapacious invasion as “the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.” International law would be mere farce, said the chief US chief prosecutor at Nuremberg, Supreme Court justice Robert Jackson, “if, in future, we do not apply its principles to ourselves.”
That is now happening. Spain, Germany, Belgium, France and Britain have long had “universal jurisdiction” statutes, which allow their national courts to pursue and prosecute prima facie war criminals. What has changed is an unspoken rule never to use international law against “ourselves”, or “our” allies or clients. In 1998, Spain, supported by France, Switzerland and Belgium, indicted the Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet, client and executioner of the West, and sought his extradition from Britain, where he happened to be at the time. Had he been sent for trial he almost certainly would have implicated at least one British prime minister and two US presidents in crimes against humanity. Home Secretary Jack Straw let him escape back to Chile.
The Pinochet case was the ignition. On 19 January last, the George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley compared the status of George W. Bush with that of Pinochet. “Outside [the United States] there is not the ambiguity about what to do about a war crime,” he said. “So if you try to travel, most people abroad are going to view you not as ‘former President George Bush’ [but] as a current war criminal.”
For this reason, Bush’s former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who demanded an invasion of Iraq in 2001 and personally approved torture techniques in Iraq and at Guantanamo Bay, no longer travels. Rumsfeld has twice been indicted for war crimes in Germany. On 26 January, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Manfred Nowak, said, “We have clear evidence that Mr. Rumsfeld knew what he was doing but nevertheless he ordered torture.”
The Spanish high court is currently investigating a former Israeli defense minister and six other top Israeli officials for their role in the killing of civilians, mostly children, in Gaza. Henry Kissinger, who was largely responsible for bombing to death 600,000 peasants in Cambodia in 1969-73, is wanted for questioning in France, Chile and Argentina. Yet, on 8 February, as if demonstrating the continuity of American power, President Barack Obama’s national security adviser, James Jones, said, “I take my daily orders from Dr. Kissinger.”
Like them, Tony Blair may soon be a fugitive. The International Criminal Court, to which Britain is a signatory, has received a record number of petitions related to Blair’s wars. Spain’s celebrated Judge Baltasar Garzon, who indicted Pinochet and the leaders of the Argentinean military junta, has called for George W. Bush, Blair and former Spanish prime minister Jose Maria Aznar to be prosecuted for the invasion of Iraq — “one of the most sordid and unjustifiable episodes in recent human history: a devastating attack on the rule of law” that had left the UN “in tatters”. He said, “There is enough of an argument in 650,000 deaths for this investigation to start without delay.”
This is not to say Blair is about to be collared and marched to The Hague, where Serbs and Sudanese dictators are far more likely to face a political court set up by the West. However, an international agenda is forming and a process has begun which is as much about legitimacy as the letter of the law, and a reminder from history that the powerful lose wars and empires when legitimacy evaporates. This can happen quickly, as in the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of apartheid South Africa — the latter a specter for apartheid Israel.
Today, the unreported “good news” is that a worldwide movement is challenging the once sacrosanct notion that imperial politicians can destroy countless lives in the cause of an ancient piracy, often at remove in distance and culture, and retain their respectability and immunity from justice. In his masterly Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde R.L. Stevenson writes in the character of Jekyll: “Men have before hired bravos to transact their crimes, while their own person and reputation sat under shelter . . . I could thus plod in the public eye with a load of genial respectability, and, in a moment, like a schoolboy, strip off these lendings and spring headlong into the sea of liberty. But for me, in my impenetrable mantle, the safety was complete.”
Blair, too, is safe — but for how long? He and his collaborators face a new determination on the part of tenacious non-government bodies that are amassing “an impressive documentary record as to criminal charges”, according to international law authority Richard Falk, who cites the World Tribunal on Iraq, held in Istanbul in 2005, which heard evidence from 54 witnesses and published rigorous indictments against Blair, Bush and others.
Currently, the Brussels War Crimes Tribunal and the newly established Blair War Crimes Foundation are building a case for Blair’s prosecution under the Nuremberg Principle and the 1949 Geneva Convention. In a separate indictment, former Judge of the New Zealand Supreme Court E.W. Thomas wrote: “My pre-disposition was to believe that Mr. Blair was deluded, but sincere in his belief. After considerable reading and much reflection, however, my final conclusion is that Mr. Blair deliberately and repeatedly misled Cabinet, the British Labour Party and the people in a number of respects. It is not possible to hold that he was simply deluded but sincere: a victim of his own self-deception. His deception was deliberate.”
Protected by the fake sinecure of Middle East Envoy for the Quartet (the US, EU, UN and Russia), Blair operates largely from a small fortress in the American Colony Hotel in Jerusalem, where he is an apologist for the US in the Middle East and Israel, a difficult task following the bloodbath in Gaza. To assist his mortgages, he recently received an Israeli “peace prize” worth a million dollars. He, too, is careful where he travels; and it is instructive to watch how he now uses the media. Having concentrated his post-Downing Street apologetics on a BBC series of obsequious interviews with David Aaronovitch, Blair has all but slipped from view in Britain, where polls have long revealed a remarkable loathing for a former prime minister — a sentiment now shared by those in the liberal media elite whose previous promotion of his “project” and crimes is an embarrassment and preferably forgotten.
On 8 February, Andrew Rawnsley, the Observer’s former leading Blair fan, declared that, “this shameful period will not be so smoothly and simply buried.” He demanded, “Did Blair never ask what was going on?” This is an excellent question made relevant with a slight word change: “Did the Andrew Rawnsleys never ask what was going on?”
In 2001, Rawnsley alerted his readers to Iraq’s “contribution to international terrorism” and Saddam Hussein’s “frightening appetite to possess weapons of mass destruction.” Both assertions were false and echoed official Anglo-American propaganda. In 2003, when the destruction of Iraq was launched, Rawnsley described it as a “point of principle” for Blair who, he later wrote, was “fated to be right.” He lamented, “Yes, too many people died in the war. Too many people always die in war. War is nasty and brutish, but at least this conflict was mercifully short.” In the subsequent six years at least a million people have been killed. According to the Red Cross, Iraq is now a country of widows and orphans. Yes, war is nasty and brutish, but never for the Blairs and the Rawnsleys.
Far from the carping turncoats at home, Blair has lately found a safe media harbor — in Australia, the original murdochracy. His interviewers exude an unction reminiscent of the promoters of the “mystical” Blair in The Guardian of than a decade ago, though they also bring to mind Geoffrey Dawson, editor of The Times during the 1930s, who wrote of his infamous groveling to the Nazis: “I spend my nights taking out anything which will hurt their susceptibilities and dropping in little things which are intended to sooth them.”
With his words as a citation, the finalists for the Geoffrey Dawson Prize for Journalism (Antipodes) are announced. On 8 February, in an interview on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Geraldine Doogue described Blair as “a man who brought religion into power and is now bringing power to religion.” She asked him: “What would the perception be that faith would bring towards a greater stability . . . [sic]?” A bemused and clearly delighted Blair was allowed to waffle about “values”. Doogue said to him that “it was the bifurcation about right and wrong that what I thought the British found really hard” [sic], to which Blair replied that, “in relation to Iraq I tried every other option [to invasion] there was”. It was his classic lie, which passed unchallenged.
However, the clear winner of the Geoffrey Dawson Prize is Ginny Dougary of the Sydney Morning Herald and the Times. Dougary recently accompanied Blair on what she described as his “James Bondish-ish Gulfstream” where she was privy to his “bionic energy levels.” She wrote, “I ask him the childlike question: does he want to save the world?” Blair replied, well, more or less, aw shucks, yes. The murderous assault on Gaza, which was under way during the interview, was mentioned in passing. “That is war, I’m afraid,” said Blair, “and war is horrible.”
No counter came that Gaza was not a war but a massacre by any measure. As for the Palestinians, noted Dougary, it was Blair’s task to “prepare them for statehood.” The Palestinians will be surprised to hear that. But enough gravitas; her man “has the glow of the newly-in-love: in love with the world and, for the most part, the feeling is reciprocated.” The evidence she offered for this absurdity was that “women from both sides of politics have confessed to me to having the hots for him.”
These are extraordinary times. Blair, a perpetrator of the epic crime of the 21st century, shares a “prayer breakfast” with President Obama, the yes-we-can-man now launching more war. “We pray,” said Blair, “that in acting we do God’s work and follow God’s will.” To decent people, such pronouncements about Blair’s “faith” represent a contortion of morality and intellect that is a profanation on the basic teachings of Christianity. Those who aided and abetted his great crime and now wish the rest of us to forget their part — or, like Alistair Campbell, his “communications director,” offer their bloody notoriety for the vicarious pleasure of some — might read the first indictment proposed by the Blair War Crimes Foundation: “Deceit and conspiracy for war, and providing false news to incite passions for war, causing in the order of one million deaths, four million refugees, countless maiming and traumas.”
These are indeed extraordinary times.
John Pilger is an internationally renowned investigative journalist and documentary filmmaker. His latest film is The War on Democracy. His most recent book is Freedom Next Time (Bantam/Random House, 2006). Read other articles by John, or visit John’s website.
2009 April 2
by kanan48
Via: Dissident Voice.
These are extraordinary times. With the United States and Britain on the verge of bankruptcy and committing to an endless colonial war, pressure is building for their crimes to be prosecuted at a tribunal similar to that which tried the Nazis at Nuremberg. This defined rapacious invasion as “the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.” International law would be mere farce, said the chief US chief prosecutor at Nuremberg, Supreme Court justice Robert Jackson, “if, in future, we do not apply its principles to ourselves.”
That is now happening. Spain, Germany, Belgium, France and Britain have long had “universal jurisdiction” statutes, which allow their national courts to pursue and prosecute prima facie war criminals. What has changed is an unspoken rule never to use international law against “ourselves”, or “our” allies or clients. In 1998, Spain, supported by France, Switzerland and Belgium, indicted the Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet, client and executioner of the West, and sought his extradition from Britain, where he happened to be at the time. Had he been sent for trial he almost certainly would have implicated at least one British prime minister and two US presidents in crimes against humanity. Home Secretary Jack Straw let him escape back to Chile.
The Pinochet case was the ignition. On 19 January last, the George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley compared the status of George W. Bush with that of Pinochet. “Outside [the United States] there is not the ambiguity about what to do about a war crime,” he said. “So if you try to travel, most people abroad are going to view you not as ‘former President George Bush’ [but] as a current war criminal.”
For this reason, Bush’s former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who demanded an invasion of Iraq in 2001 and personally approved torture techniques in Iraq and at Guantanamo Bay, no longer travels. Rumsfeld has twice been indicted for war crimes in Germany. On 26 January, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Manfred Nowak, said, “We have clear evidence that Mr. Rumsfeld knew what he was doing but nevertheless he ordered torture.”
The Spanish high court is currently investigating a former Israeli defense minister and six other top Israeli officials for their role in the killing of civilians, mostly children, in Gaza. Henry Kissinger, who was largely responsible for bombing to death 600,000 peasants in Cambodia in 1969-73, is wanted for questioning in France, Chile and Argentina. Yet, on 8 February, as if demonstrating the continuity of American power, President Barack Obama’s national security adviser, James Jones, said, “I take my daily orders from Dr. Kissinger.”
Like them, Tony Blair may soon be a fugitive. The International Criminal Court, to which Britain is a signatory, has received a record number of petitions related to Blair’s wars. Spain’s celebrated Judge Baltasar Garzon, who indicted Pinochet and the leaders of the Argentinean military junta, has called for George W. Bush, Blair and former Spanish prime minister Jose Maria Aznar to be prosecuted for the invasion of Iraq — “one of the most sordid and unjustifiable episodes in recent human history: a devastating attack on the rule of law” that had left the UN “in tatters”. He said, “There is enough of an argument in 650,000 deaths for this investigation to start without delay.”
This is not to say Blair is about to be collared and marched to The Hague, where Serbs and Sudanese dictators are far more likely to face a political court set up by the West. However, an international agenda is forming and a process has begun which is as much about legitimacy as the letter of the law, and a reminder from history that the powerful lose wars and empires when legitimacy evaporates. This can happen quickly, as in the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of apartheid South Africa — the latter a specter for apartheid Israel.
Today, the unreported “good news” is that a worldwide movement is challenging the once sacrosanct notion that imperial politicians can destroy countless lives in the cause of an ancient piracy, often at remove in distance and culture, and retain their respectability and immunity from justice. In his masterly Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde R.L. Stevenson writes in the character of Jekyll: “Men have before hired bravos to transact their crimes, while their own person and reputation sat under shelter . . . I could thus plod in the public eye with a load of genial respectability, and, in a moment, like a schoolboy, strip off these lendings and spring headlong into the sea of liberty. But for me, in my impenetrable mantle, the safety was complete.”
Blair, too, is safe — but for how long? He and his collaborators face a new determination on the part of tenacious non-government bodies that are amassing “an impressive documentary record as to criminal charges”, according to international law authority Richard Falk, who cites the World Tribunal on Iraq, held in Istanbul in 2005, which heard evidence from 54 witnesses and published rigorous indictments against Blair, Bush and others.
Currently, the Brussels War Crimes Tribunal and the newly established Blair War Crimes Foundation are building a case for Blair’s prosecution under the Nuremberg Principle and the 1949 Geneva Convention. In a separate indictment, former Judge of the New Zealand Supreme Court E.W. Thomas wrote: “My pre-disposition was to believe that Mr. Blair was deluded, but sincere in his belief. After considerable reading and much reflection, however, my final conclusion is that Mr. Blair deliberately and repeatedly misled Cabinet, the British Labour Party and the people in a number of respects. It is not possible to hold that he was simply deluded but sincere: a victim of his own self-deception. His deception was deliberate.”
Protected by the fake sinecure of Middle East Envoy for the Quartet (the US, EU, UN and Russia), Blair operates largely from a small fortress in the American Colony Hotel in Jerusalem, where he is an apologist for the US in the Middle East and Israel, a difficult task following the bloodbath in Gaza. To assist his mortgages, he recently received an Israeli “peace prize” worth a million dollars. He, too, is careful where he travels; and it is instructive to watch how he now uses the media. Having concentrated his post-Downing Street apologetics on a BBC series of obsequious interviews with David Aaronovitch, Blair has all but slipped from view in Britain, where polls have long revealed a remarkable loathing for a former prime minister — a sentiment now shared by those in the liberal media elite whose previous promotion of his “project” and crimes is an embarrassment and preferably forgotten.
On 8 February, Andrew Rawnsley, the Observer’s former leading Blair fan, declared that, “this shameful period will not be so smoothly and simply buried.” He demanded, “Did Blair never ask what was going on?” This is an excellent question made relevant with a slight word change: “Did the Andrew Rawnsleys never ask what was going on?”
In 2001, Rawnsley alerted his readers to Iraq’s “contribution to international terrorism” and Saddam Hussein’s “frightening appetite to possess weapons of mass destruction.” Both assertions were false and echoed official Anglo-American propaganda. In 2003, when the destruction of Iraq was launched, Rawnsley described it as a “point of principle” for Blair who, he later wrote, was “fated to be right.” He lamented, “Yes, too many people died in the war. Too many people always die in war. War is nasty and brutish, but at least this conflict was mercifully short.” In the subsequent six years at least a million people have been killed. According to the Red Cross, Iraq is now a country of widows and orphans. Yes, war is nasty and brutish, but never for the Blairs and the Rawnsleys.
Far from the carping turncoats at home, Blair has lately found a safe media harbor — in Australia, the original murdochracy. His interviewers exude an unction reminiscent of the promoters of the “mystical” Blair in The Guardian of than a decade ago, though they also bring to mind Geoffrey Dawson, editor of The Times during the 1930s, who wrote of his infamous groveling to the Nazis: “I spend my nights taking out anything which will hurt their susceptibilities and dropping in little things which are intended to sooth them.”
With his words as a citation, the finalists for the Geoffrey Dawson Prize for Journalism (Antipodes) are announced. On 8 February, in an interview on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Geraldine Doogue described Blair as “a man who brought religion into power and is now bringing power to religion.” She asked him: “What would the perception be that faith would bring towards a greater stability . . . [sic]?” A bemused and clearly delighted Blair was allowed to waffle about “values”. Doogue said to him that “it was the bifurcation about right and wrong that what I thought the British found really hard” [sic], to which Blair replied that, “in relation to Iraq I tried every other option [to invasion] there was”. It was his classic lie, which passed unchallenged.
However, the clear winner of the Geoffrey Dawson Prize is Ginny Dougary of the Sydney Morning Herald and the Times. Dougary recently accompanied Blair on what she described as his “James Bondish-ish Gulfstream” where she was privy to his “bionic energy levels.” She wrote, “I ask him the childlike question: does he want to save the world?” Blair replied, well, more or less, aw shucks, yes. The murderous assault on Gaza, which was under way during the interview, was mentioned in passing. “That is war, I’m afraid,” said Blair, “and war is horrible.”
No counter came that Gaza was not a war but a massacre by any measure. As for the Palestinians, noted Dougary, it was Blair’s task to “prepare them for statehood.” The Palestinians will be surprised to hear that. But enough gravitas; her man “has the glow of the newly-in-love: in love with the world and, for the most part, the feeling is reciprocated.” The evidence she offered for this absurdity was that “women from both sides of politics have confessed to me to having the hots for him.”
These are extraordinary times. Blair, a perpetrator of the epic crime of the 21st century, shares a “prayer breakfast” with President Obama, the yes-we-can-man now launching more war. “We pray,” said Blair, “that in acting we do God’s work and follow God’s will.” To decent people, such pronouncements about Blair’s “faith” represent a contortion of morality and intellect that is a profanation on the basic teachings of Christianity. Those who aided and abetted his great crime and now wish the rest of us to forget their part — or, like Alistair Campbell, his “communications director,” offer their bloody notoriety for the vicarious pleasure of some — might read the first indictment proposed by the Blair War Crimes Foundation: “Deceit and conspiracy for war, and providing false news to incite passions for war, causing in the order of one million deaths, four million refugees, countless maiming and traumas.”
These are indeed extraordinary times.
John Pilger is an internationally renowned investigative journalist and documentary filmmaker. His latest film is The War on Democracy. His most recent book is Freedom Next Time (Bantam/Random House, 2006). Read other articles by John, or visit John’s website.
jeudi 2 avril 2009
IRAQ: NGOs incensed over government moves to regulate them
BAGHDAD, 1 April 2009 (IRIN) - A group of Iraqi NGOs are incensed by government moves to monitor and control the funding and operations of NGOs. Activist Basil Abdul-Wahab al-Azawi, who heads the Baghdad-based Commission for Society Enterprises (an umbrella group of more than 1,000 NGOs inside and outside Iraq), said the government should not be allowed to determine how NGOs are run and funded.
The anger has been prompted by a perceived lack of consultation over a new draft law currently going through parliament and seeking to regulate the work of NGOs. “We ask the government and parliament to allow all Iraqi NGOs to take part in the ongoing discussions on the law, to listen, and to study their demands and opinions, and not present a law based on government views,” Azawi told IRIN, adding that Iraqi NGOs would not recognise a law drafted solely by government experts.
He said only selected NGOs had been invited to official discussions with the government. “Those NGOs do not represent all Iraqi NGOs and that gives the impression that the government wants to pass a kind of law with chains and obstacles to hinder NGO work.”
The NGO Coordination Committee in Iraq (NCCI), a network of about 80 international NGOs and 200 Iraqi NGOs, said one of its concerns was that “any donations from inside or outside Iraq must first be approved by the government and all donors need to notify the government prior to making any funds available to NGOs.” Independence of civil society NCCI said in a statement in February that whilst the latest draft contained significant improvements on previous drafts, NCCI was still concerned about the future independence of civil society. There was concern that the government was “seeking to control NGO activities rather than support the development of an autonomous and vibrant civil society,” the statement said. Concerns about the new draft law have been growing since 23 March when the Cabinet gave its consent and sent the draft to parliament for approval. A government statement on the issue made only passing reference to the draft law, which sets out NGO establishment procedures, activities and terms of operation. sm/at/cb
http://www.irinnews.org/report.aspx?ReportID=83732
The anger has been prompted by a perceived lack of consultation over a new draft law currently going through parliament and seeking to regulate the work of NGOs. “We ask the government and parliament to allow all Iraqi NGOs to take part in the ongoing discussions on the law, to listen, and to study their demands and opinions, and not present a law based on government views,” Azawi told IRIN, adding that Iraqi NGOs would not recognise a law drafted solely by government experts.
He said only selected NGOs had been invited to official discussions with the government. “Those NGOs do not represent all Iraqi NGOs and that gives the impression that the government wants to pass a kind of law with chains and obstacles to hinder NGO work.”
The NGO Coordination Committee in Iraq (NCCI), a network of about 80 international NGOs and 200 Iraqi NGOs, said one of its concerns was that “any donations from inside or outside Iraq must first be approved by the government and all donors need to notify the government prior to making any funds available to NGOs.” Independence of civil society NCCI said in a statement in February that whilst the latest draft contained significant improvements on previous drafts, NCCI was still concerned about the future independence of civil society. There was concern that the government was “seeking to control NGO activities rather than support the development of an autonomous and vibrant civil society,” the statement said. Concerns about the new draft law have been growing since 23 March when the Cabinet gave its consent and sent the draft to parliament for approval. A government statement on the issue made only passing reference to the draft law, which sets out NGO establishment procedures, activities and terms of operation. sm/at/cb
http://www.irinnews.org/report.aspx?ReportID=83732
Inscription à :
Articles (Atom)
