Criminal bush jokes about not finding the WMD in Iraq.
Lieberman and Pelosi laugh at this bad joke.
For video click on :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjXPOxnu2N8
mardi 11 novembre 2008
dimanche 9 novembre 2008
Abduction of Turkmens by Kurdish Asayish in Iraq
Turkmeneli TV news reader Mr. Timor BeyatliAbduction Turkmen News Reader by Kurdish forces in Erbil
By Mofak Salman
By Mofak Salman
Mr. Timor Beyatli is a Turkmen [1] citizen who is employed by the Turkmeneli [2] TV as a news reader at the Arabic section that broadcast from Kerkuk in Iraq.
On 5th of November 2008, Mr Timor Beyatli left the city of Kerkuk and drove to Erbil airport to catch his flight to Istanbul (Turkey) where he had been invited to participate in a conference about Media and Journalism. Before boarding the airplane he made a call to his family in Turkey informing them that he was on his way to Istanbul and that he would contact them upon his arrival at Istanbul airport. Unfortunately, when the plane landed in Istanbul Mr. Timor Beyatli was not among the passengers because he had been abducted just before he got on the plane (on the 8.15 pm flight) at Erbil airport by the Kurdish security forces (known as the Asayish [3]) which belong to the Kurdish leader of the KDP party Massoud Barzani. Mr. Timor Beyatli was transferred from Erbil airport to a prison in the city of Erbil for further investigation.
On the 25th November 2007, Mr. Hassan Turan, a Turkmen member of the governing council of Kerkuk, was arrested by the Kurdish Asayish at Erbil airport in northern Iraq following his return from participation in the international conference that was held in Istanbul (Turkey) under the name of Kudus and International Conjunction .
On Saturday 27th October 2007, Mr. Qasim Sari Kahya, a Turkmen writer, journalist and Secretary Editor for the Fraternity Club of Kardeslik in Baghdad, was abducted along with another three Turkmen citizens near the Kerkuk General Hospital by the Kurdish security forces known as Asayish. Several hours later, three of the detainees were released, but Mr. Qasim was kept for further interrogation.
On 8th of July 2007, Mr. Lokman Nejam Ahmed, a Turkmen (born on 1st July 1968 in the district of Telkeef which is linked to the city of city of Mosul) was arrested on the Iraqi/Turkish border Ibrahim Alkhalil by the Kurdish secret police (Asayish) while he was travelling from the city of Mosul to Turkey with a group of Turkmens from the city of Erbil.
The following document refers to the kidnapping and arrests of Turkmens in the north of Iraq. “Parts of confidential State Department documents circulated to the White House, the Pentagon and the U.S Embassy in Baghdad about the abduction of the minority Arabs and Turkmen in Kerkuk and their transfer to the Kurdish north.” [Doc.1]
note: Sorry I wasn't able to copy the document in this post
Doc. (1)
Because of the public, political, and journalistic outrage and due to the public appeal on TV and radio and Media, Mr. Timor Beyatli was released on 7th November 2008. He was released without formal charges and his case has not been submitted to the court.
The Turkmens of Iraq launch an appeal to all the human rights organisations, government officials, intellectuals, and to the Iraqi and Turkish governments asking them to intervene without delay and put pressure on the Kurdish police which is terrorising the Turkmen people in Turkmeneli.
The Turkmens of Iraq also call upon the Iraqi Journalists Union and all Iraqi and international organizations defending the rights of journalists and the freedom of the press to intercede with the authorities of the Iraqi government at the highest levels to guarantee the protection of the Turkmens, Arabs and Assyrians who are oppressed and mistreated by the Kurdish parties in the north of Iraq.
Mofak Salman
Turkmeneli Party Representative for Both Ireland and United Kingdom
msalman@eircom.net
[1] Turkmen: The Iraqi Turkmen live in an area that they call “Turkmenia” in Latin or Turkmeneli” which means, “Land of the Turkmen. It was referred to as “Turcomania” by the British geographer William Guthrie in 1785. The Turkmen are a Turkic group that has a unique heritage and culture as well as linguistic, historical and cultural links with the surrounding Turkic groups such as those in Turkey and Azerbaijan. Their spoken language is closer to Azeri but their official written language is like the Turkish spoken in present-day Turkey. Their real population has always being suppressed by the authorities in Iraq for political reasons and estimated at 2%, whereas in reality their numbers are more realistically between 2.5 to 3 million, i .e. 12% of the Iraqi population.
[2] Turkmeneli is a diagonal strip of land stretching from the Syrian and Turkish border areas from
around Telafer in the north of Iraq, reaching down to the town of Mendeli on the Iranian border in
Central Iraq. The Turkmen of Iraq settled in Turkmeneli in three successive and constant migrations
from Central Asia, this increased their numbers and enabled them to establish six states in Iraq.
[3] Asayish is an unrecognized and illegitimate force that is utilized by both Kurdish parties to terrorize innocent civilian people. They are used to kidnap and kill people who defy the Kurdish aspiration for establishing a Kurdish state.
Heritage from the Steppes and Turkmen Conquests
Heritage from the Steppes and Turkmen Conquests
Who are the Turks and the Turkmens?
Course 1
Slides, texts, maps and photographs
Héritage des Steppes et Conquêtes turkmènes
Qui sont les Turcs et les Turkmènes?
Cours 1
Diapositives, textes, cartes et photographies
Please click on:
Prière de cliquer sur:
http://www.proche-orient.uqam.ca/ppt/4665/cours1.ppt
Who are the Turks and the Turkmens?
Course 1
Slides, texts, maps and photographs
Héritage des Steppes et Conquêtes turkmènes
Qui sont les Turcs et les Turkmènes?
Cours 1
Diapositives, textes, cartes et photographies
Please click on:
Prière de cliquer sur:
http://www.proche-orient.uqam.ca/ppt/4665/cours1.ppt
samedi 8 novembre 2008
RETURN OF THE BAGHDAD PACT
In Focus:
Return of the Baghdad Pact
Bush wants to give Iraq one last gift: subservience to an agreement that perpetuates the US occupation and absolves invading and occupying US forces of their crimes, writes Galal Nassar
The US administration is in the midst of a desperate attempt to compel the Maliki government in Iraq to sign a "security agreement" before the end of Bush's term in the White House. This urgency is inspired by the desire to accomplish a number of ends, perhaps foremost among which is the desire to produce a political victory that would revive an element of respect for the outgoing administration whose foreign and domestic policies have come under scathing attack from all quarters of American opinion, including its own Republican Party.
It undoubtedly also feels that such a victory would help the Republican Party candidate, John McCain, gain some ground against his rival, Barack Obama, in the presidential elections. But even in the event of an Obama victory, a signed and sealed agreement with the Iraqi government would saddle the Democratic administration with obligations that it would find difficult to wriggle free of, as much as the substance of the agreement may go against the Democratic platform on this issue. In other words, the Bush administration wants to present the forthcoming administration with a fait accompli, regardless of who the next occupant of the White House is.
If the agreement, the cosignatories of which can hardly be said to be equal, is concluded it will effectively end the international mandate over Iraq. Iraq would then be regarded as a "free and independent" nation and Washington would be relieved of the burden of being seen as a colonialist power occupying a founding member of the UN and a current member of the family of nations, in spite of the ongoing and glaring breaches in international law, the UN Charter and the principle of self-determination.
The architects of the agreement and those who are engineering its implementation seem to have deliberately blinded themselves to the fact that it takes little mental effort to realise that, under the reality of occupation, any agreement or understanding signed between Washington and Baghdad lacks legitimacy. Perhaps this is what prompted the Arab Lawyers' Federation to issue a statement condemning the draft security agreement between Iraq and the US out of hand and describing it as a colonialist project that violates the sovereignty and independence of Iraq and that poses a threat to Arab national security.
Indeed, the proposed agreement differs little from the other pacts that the British or French colonial powers imposed on the region in earlier periods. Moreover, as the statement by the Arab Lawyers' Federation pointed out, since the Iraqi government lacks the sovereignty to act autonomously any agreement with the occupying power will lack a legitimate contractual nature. The statement further stressed that the articles of the agreement violate in substance the rules and principles of international law because they specify a timeframe for maintaining an illegitimate foreign military presence in Iraq.
The pressures being brought to bear on Iraq by Washington leave no shadow of a doubt that the Iraqi party is not of equal standing; reminiscent of the roles played by the British high commissioners and French consulates during the era of conventional colonialism.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice waves the stick at the Maliki government and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates warns of the "grave consequences" for Iraq that will result if an agreement cannot be reached quickly. In a subsequent statement he cautioned that if an agreement was not reached US forces in Iraq would have to cease all their activities. He thereby placed the Maliki government before two choices: either agree to the status of US forces or renew the UN mandate. Neither choice would keep the occupation forces from staying. The only change would be in the formality of its presence.
In light of these threats, some political experts on the Iraqi situation believe that the forthcoming days will bring a renewed wave of suicide bombings and booby trapped cars in crowded markets and the vicinity of mosques and other houses of worship and that these will be used to promote the idea of keeping US forces stationed in Iraq.
However the so-called Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) is marketed, its actual provisions betray its true nature. The foreword clearly states that the US would have the right to keep "defence equipment" in the country. In a subsequent paragraph the term was defined to include "systems, weapons, ammunition, equipment, and materials used in conventional wars only, that the US forces need in accordance to this agreement."
Meanwhile, all the text offered to the Iraqi government and parliament (before a few non-essential modifications were incorporated to meet some of the demands of the Maliki government) did not extend beyond vague commitments spread out across 28 articles. General Petraeus, the newly appointed head of US Central Command, expressed the ambiguities surrounding the mechanisms for implementation of these commitments in a nutshell. They will be put into effect "as circumstances permit", he said.
The agreement is clearly tailored to the occupier's needs and whatever nods it makes to Iraqi aspirations will require long and arduous negotiations to bring into effect. By signing such an agreement, Iraq will have submitted its land, sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity, oil and wealth exclusively to the authority of the occupying power and chained itself to a cunningly devised treaty with devious ends.
The agreement preempts a repercussion on the US from its occupation and destruction of Iraq. In stating that the occupying forces are there at the behest of the "sovereign" government of Iraq, it exempts the invading occupying power from having to pay any compensation in the long run and from even having to apologise for the crimes it has committed, which outstrip fascist and Nazi barbarities. The text is more explicit: "Except for contract related claims, both sides waive their rights to request compensation because of any harm, loss, or destruction of property, or request compensation for injury or death of forces members or civilian members from both sides occurring during their official duties."
Article 4 of the SOFA, covering the agreed upon activities of US forces, states that these forces will have the right to deploy land and air forces, detain persons suspected of threatening stability and security, and conduct military occupations. Iraq, for its part, must guarantee the accessibility of US forces and US contractors to the installations and areas agreed upon for use by US forces. It further stipulates that the Iraqi government authorises US forces to practice all the authorities and have all the rights to manage, construct, use, maintain, and secure installations and areas agreed upon.
In addition to US control over all entrances to the installations and areas agreed upon, the agreement states that "vehicles and ships operated by or exclusively for US forces are permitted to enter and exit and move inside Iraq for the purposes of this agreement." The same article also provides that no parties will be "allowed aboard US government airplanes and civilian airplanes contracted with the US Department of Defense and related ships and vehicles without US forces consent, and they cannot be searched."
A particularly interesting provision can be found in Article 12 pertaining to legal jurisdictions. Its intent is clearly to ensure immunity from prosecution for US soldiers, contractors and contracted personnel -- meaning mercenaries. It states, "The US shall have the primary right to exercise jurisdiction over armed forces members and civilian members inside installations and areas agreed upon and during the performance of their duties outside the installations and areas agreed upon." Gates took the added precaution to reassure members of Congress that US soldiers would be guaranteed immunity in all circumstances.
Another eyebrow-raising provision gives the US the right to establish military bases to secure links and communications with US forces from Western Europe through Pakistan to the Philippines and Japan. It seems that former US president Jimmy Carter hit the nail on the head when he said, "Those who think that the invasion and occupation of Iraq was purely for oil are deluding themselves." It is as though the Baghdad Pact is in the process of being reborn.
Other provisions are worded in a way that will give successive US administrations the right to create and train untold contingents of multinational troops through various private security firms. These troops will be able to be transported secretly across or within the borders of certain states, undoubtedly with the aims of igniting ethnic and religious strife, promoting the colonial power's interests and otherwise furthering the cause of US global hegemony.
The agreement, if signed, will smooth the way for similar agreements with the other parties that took part in the invasion and occupation of Iraq. British government spokesman John Wilkes said as much: "My country is waiting for the end of the negotiations between Iraq and the US over the anticipated security agreement because the British agreement will be similar to the American one."
Once again, US agencies are trying to secure and expand the scope of their "rights" in Iraq. According to Article 15 of the SOFA, the authorities of both sides will have the right to ask the authorities of the other side to relinquish their jurisdiction over a specific case. It further states, "The government of Iraq agrees to exercise its jurisdiction only after notifying the US in writing within 21 days of the discovery of a crime that it claims to have occurred and stating the importance of exercising this jurisdiction."
As vehement as the Maliki government's objections are to the substance of the draft agreement, its opposition seems to have less to do with the cause of national independence and unity in Iraq than it does with domestic alliances and regional allegiances. The differences between the occupying power and the parties that had originally supported the occupation stem precisely from the divided loyalties of those parties; parties that are currently keeping a close eye on how the current administration is handling its economic woes and trying to assess how the next administration will handle the question of Iraq.
The haze surrounding American plans for Iraq and even domestic policies, the apprehensions of regional powers with regard to a long-term US military presence in the region, and the pressures these powers are exerting on their allies inside Iraq are what account for the delays in concluding the SOFA. Nevertheless, this has not kept some from grumbling against the "ingratitude" of those who are in power in Iraq today. As one of these officials put it, were it not for American tanks none of them would have a foothold in Iraq these days let alone title and rank.
Signing the SOFA and bowing to international or regional agendas will not restore security and independence to Iraq. On the contrary, it will legalise the occupation. Iraq will not know true security and peace until the Iraqi people themselves take hold of the actual reins of power and exercise their right to self-determination in a truly free and sovereign Arab state.
Al-Ahram Weekly Online : Located at: http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2008/921/op2.htm
Return of the Baghdad Pact
Bush wants to give Iraq one last gift: subservience to an agreement that perpetuates the US occupation and absolves invading and occupying US forces of their crimes, writes Galal Nassar
The US administration is in the midst of a desperate attempt to compel the Maliki government in Iraq to sign a "security agreement" before the end of Bush's term in the White House. This urgency is inspired by the desire to accomplish a number of ends, perhaps foremost among which is the desire to produce a political victory that would revive an element of respect for the outgoing administration whose foreign and domestic policies have come under scathing attack from all quarters of American opinion, including its own Republican Party.
It undoubtedly also feels that such a victory would help the Republican Party candidate, John McCain, gain some ground against his rival, Barack Obama, in the presidential elections. But even in the event of an Obama victory, a signed and sealed agreement with the Iraqi government would saddle the Democratic administration with obligations that it would find difficult to wriggle free of, as much as the substance of the agreement may go against the Democratic platform on this issue. In other words, the Bush administration wants to present the forthcoming administration with a fait accompli, regardless of who the next occupant of the White House is.
If the agreement, the cosignatories of which can hardly be said to be equal, is concluded it will effectively end the international mandate over Iraq. Iraq would then be regarded as a "free and independent" nation and Washington would be relieved of the burden of being seen as a colonialist power occupying a founding member of the UN and a current member of the family of nations, in spite of the ongoing and glaring breaches in international law, the UN Charter and the principle of self-determination.
The architects of the agreement and those who are engineering its implementation seem to have deliberately blinded themselves to the fact that it takes little mental effort to realise that, under the reality of occupation, any agreement or understanding signed between Washington and Baghdad lacks legitimacy. Perhaps this is what prompted the Arab Lawyers' Federation to issue a statement condemning the draft security agreement between Iraq and the US out of hand and describing it as a colonialist project that violates the sovereignty and independence of Iraq and that poses a threat to Arab national security.
Indeed, the proposed agreement differs little from the other pacts that the British or French colonial powers imposed on the region in earlier periods. Moreover, as the statement by the Arab Lawyers' Federation pointed out, since the Iraqi government lacks the sovereignty to act autonomously any agreement with the occupying power will lack a legitimate contractual nature. The statement further stressed that the articles of the agreement violate in substance the rules and principles of international law because they specify a timeframe for maintaining an illegitimate foreign military presence in Iraq.
The pressures being brought to bear on Iraq by Washington leave no shadow of a doubt that the Iraqi party is not of equal standing; reminiscent of the roles played by the British high commissioners and French consulates during the era of conventional colonialism.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice waves the stick at the Maliki government and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates warns of the "grave consequences" for Iraq that will result if an agreement cannot be reached quickly. In a subsequent statement he cautioned that if an agreement was not reached US forces in Iraq would have to cease all their activities. He thereby placed the Maliki government before two choices: either agree to the status of US forces or renew the UN mandate. Neither choice would keep the occupation forces from staying. The only change would be in the formality of its presence.
In light of these threats, some political experts on the Iraqi situation believe that the forthcoming days will bring a renewed wave of suicide bombings and booby trapped cars in crowded markets and the vicinity of mosques and other houses of worship and that these will be used to promote the idea of keeping US forces stationed in Iraq.
However the so-called Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) is marketed, its actual provisions betray its true nature. The foreword clearly states that the US would have the right to keep "defence equipment" in the country. In a subsequent paragraph the term was defined to include "systems, weapons, ammunition, equipment, and materials used in conventional wars only, that the US forces need in accordance to this agreement."
Meanwhile, all the text offered to the Iraqi government and parliament (before a few non-essential modifications were incorporated to meet some of the demands of the Maliki government) did not extend beyond vague commitments spread out across 28 articles. General Petraeus, the newly appointed head of US Central Command, expressed the ambiguities surrounding the mechanisms for implementation of these commitments in a nutshell. They will be put into effect "as circumstances permit", he said.
The agreement is clearly tailored to the occupier's needs and whatever nods it makes to Iraqi aspirations will require long and arduous negotiations to bring into effect. By signing such an agreement, Iraq will have submitted its land, sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity, oil and wealth exclusively to the authority of the occupying power and chained itself to a cunningly devised treaty with devious ends.
The agreement preempts a repercussion on the US from its occupation and destruction of Iraq. In stating that the occupying forces are there at the behest of the "sovereign" government of Iraq, it exempts the invading occupying power from having to pay any compensation in the long run and from even having to apologise for the crimes it has committed, which outstrip fascist and Nazi barbarities. The text is more explicit: "Except for contract related claims, both sides waive their rights to request compensation because of any harm, loss, or destruction of property, or request compensation for injury or death of forces members or civilian members from both sides occurring during their official duties."
Article 4 of the SOFA, covering the agreed upon activities of US forces, states that these forces will have the right to deploy land and air forces, detain persons suspected of threatening stability and security, and conduct military occupations. Iraq, for its part, must guarantee the accessibility of US forces and US contractors to the installations and areas agreed upon for use by US forces. It further stipulates that the Iraqi government authorises US forces to practice all the authorities and have all the rights to manage, construct, use, maintain, and secure installations and areas agreed upon.
In addition to US control over all entrances to the installations and areas agreed upon, the agreement states that "vehicles and ships operated by or exclusively for US forces are permitted to enter and exit and move inside Iraq for the purposes of this agreement." The same article also provides that no parties will be "allowed aboard US government airplanes and civilian airplanes contracted with the US Department of Defense and related ships and vehicles without US forces consent, and they cannot be searched."
A particularly interesting provision can be found in Article 12 pertaining to legal jurisdictions. Its intent is clearly to ensure immunity from prosecution for US soldiers, contractors and contracted personnel -- meaning mercenaries. It states, "The US shall have the primary right to exercise jurisdiction over armed forces members and civilian members inside installations and areas agreed upon and during the performance of their duties outside the installations and areas agreed upon." Gates took the added precaution to reassure members of Congress that US soldiers would be guaranteed immunity in all circumstances.
Another eyebrow-raising provision gives the US the right to establish military bases to secure links and communications with US forces from Western Europe through Pakistan to the Philippines and Japan. It seems that former US president Jimmy Carter hit the nail on the head when he said, "Those who think that the invasion and occupation of Iraq was purely for oil are deluding themselves." It is as though the Baghdad Pact is in the process of being reborn.
Other provisions are worded in a way that will give successive US administrations the right to create and train untold contingents of multinational troops through various private security firms. These troops will be able to be transported secretly across or within the borders of certain states, undoubtedly with the aims of igniting ethnic and religious strife, promoting the colonial power's interests and otherwise furthering the cause of US global hegemony.
The agreement, if signed, will smooth the way for similar agreements with the other parties that took part in the invasion and occupation of Iraq. British government spokesman John Wilkes said as much: "My country is waiting for the end of the negotiations between Iraq and the US over the anticipated security agreement because the British agreement will be similar to the American one."
Once again, US agencies are trying to secure and expand the scope of their "rights" in Iraq. According to Article 15 of the SOFA, the authorities of both sides will have the right to ask the authorities of the other side to relinquish their jurisdiction over a specific case. It further states, "The government of Iraq agrees to exercise its jurisdiction only after notifying the US in writing within 21 days of the discovery of a crime that it claims to have occurred and stating the importance of exercising this jurisdiction."
As vehement as the Maliki government's objections are to the substance of the draft agreement, its opposition seems to have less to do with the cause of national independence and unity in Iraq than it does with domestic alliances and regional allegiances. The differences between the occupying power and the parties that had originally supported the occupation stem precisely from the divided loyalties of those parties; parties that are currently keeping a close eye on how the current administration is handling its economic woes and trying to assess how the next administration will handle the question of Iraq.
The haze surrounding American plans for Iraq and even domestic policies, the apprehensions of regional powers with regard to a long-term US military presence in the region, and the pressures these powers are exerting on their allies inside Iraq are what account for the delays in concluding the SOFA. Nevertheless, this has not kept some from grumbling against the "ingratitude" of those who are in power in Iraq today. As one of these officials put it, were it not for American tanks none of them would have a foothold in Iraq these days let alone title and rank.
Signing the SOFA and bowing to international or regional agendas will not restore security and independence to Iraq. On the contrary, it will legalise the occupation. Iraq will not know true security and peace until the Iraqi people themselves take hold of the actual reins of power and exercise their right to self-determination in a truly free and sovereign Arab state.
Al-Ahram Weekly Online : Located at: http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2008/921/op2.htm
Appeal to the Journalist Organisations
http://brusselstribunal.org/
Appeal to the Journalist Organisations:
Please fulfil your duties towards your Iraqi colleagues.
Dirk Adriaensens, member BRussells Tribunal executive committee, 07 November 2008.
The president of the Iraqi Syndicate of Journalists said on Thursday 6 November 2008, that the number of Iraqi journalists who have been killed in Iraq since March 2003 reached 292, including cameramen and technicians (see the article underneath).
This is more or less in accordance with the tallies the BRussells Tribunal keeps: 298 Iraqi media professionals died in Iraq (see underneath).
If you add to these figures the non-Iraqi media professionals who died in Iraq while fulfilling their duties, the death toll reaches 328 (including 6 journalists who died of non-violent causes).
Now let’s see how the respected “specialised journalist organisations” honour their colleagues in Iraq.
* The Freedom Forum – Journalist Memorial lists 153 casualties. These include both Iraqi and non Iraqi media professionals, an under-estimation of 115%. http://www.newseum.org/scripts/Journalist/peril.asp
* The Committee For The Protection of Journalists (CPJ): Journalists Killed on Duty: 135 - media support workers who have been killed: 51. These include both Iraqi and non Iraqi media professionals, an under-estimation of 76%. http://www.cpj.org/Briefings/Iraq/Iraq_danger.html
* Reporters without borders (RSF): 222 journalists and media assistants killed since the start of fighting in Iraq in March 2003. These include both Iraqi and non Iraqi media professionals, an under-estimation of 48%. http://www.rsf.org/special_iraq_en.php3
* International News Safety Institute (INSI): Iraq War Casualties - From March 2003 to the present day: 252. These include both Iraqi and non Iraqi media professionals, an under-estimation of 30%. http://www.newssafety.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=section&layout=blog&id=109&Itemid=100190
We have written to all these Western organisations, had mail exchanges with most of them. We asked them to adjust their figures or show us where we made mistakes. Yet, they didn’t adjust their figures or eventually point out “mistakes”. We find this morally wrong.
Yet again we ask these organisations: “fulfil your duties. May no media professional be forgotten while reporting the nightmare of Iraq”.
Please, contact the Iraqi Syndicate of Journalists and ask them to have a look into their lists in order to complete your database.
Further reading:
* At least 78 media professionals killed in Iraq in 2006 - Dirk Adriaensens, BRussells Tribunal, 21 Feb 2007
* Another U.S. Military Assault on Media - Dahr Jamail and Ali al-Fadhily, 23 Feb 2007
* Disparate Tallies: Journalist Deaths in Iraq - Eason Jordan, 01 June 2007
* The betrayal of Iraq’s media professionals - Dirk Adriaensens, BRussells Tribunal, 29 Sep 200
292 Iraqi journalists killed in Iraq since 2003 – syndicate
Baghdad, 06 November 2008 ( Voices of Iraq )
The number of Iraqi journalists who have been killed in Iraq since March 2003 reached 292, including cameramen and technicians, the president of the Syndicate of Journalists said on Thursday.
“The statistics made by the syndicate pointed out that 18 journalists have been kidnapped and their fate still unknown,” Mu’ayad al-Lami told Aswat al-Iraq.
“There are no journalists detained by the government’s forces, while there are three held by U.S. army for unknown reasons,” he explained.
He called to speed up the approval of the protecting journalists’ law.
http://www.iraqupdates.com/p_articles.php?refid=DH-S-07-11-2008&article=39484
Death toll of Media professionals in Iraq, as listed by the BRussells Tribunal
Full list at http://www.brusselstribunal.org/JournalistKilled.htm
Appeal to the Journalist Organisations:
Please fulfil your duties towards your Iraqi colleagues.
Dirk Adriaensens, member BRussells Tribunal executive committee, 07 November 2008.
The president of the Iraqi Syndicate of Journalists said on Thursday 6 November 2008, that the number of Iraqi journalists who have been killed in Iraq since March 2003 reached 292, including cameramen and technicians (see the article underneath).
This is more or less in accordance with the tallies the BRussells Tribunal keeps: 298 Iraqi media professionals died in Iraq (see underneath).
If you add to these figures the non-Iraqi media professionals who died in Iraq while fulfilling their duties, the death toll reaches 328 (including 6 journalists who died of non-violent causes).
Now let’s see how the respected “specialised journalist organisations” honour their colleagues in Iraq.
* The Freedom Forum – Journalist Memorial lists 153 casualties. These include both Iraqi and non Iraqi media professionals, an under-estimation of 115%. http://www.newseum.org/scripts/Journalist/peril.asp
* The Committee For The Protection of Journalists (CPJ): Journalists Killed on Duty: 135 - media support workers who have been killed: 51. These include both Iraqi and non Iraqi media professionals, an under-estimation of 76%. http://www.cpj.org/Briefings/Iraq/Iraq_danger.html
* Reporters without borders (RSF): 222 journalists and media assistants killed since the start of fighting in Iraq in March 2003. These include both Iraqi and non Iraqi media professionals, an under-estimation of 48%. http://www.rsf.org/special_iraq_en.php3
* International News Safety Institute (INSI): Iraq War Casualties - From March 2003 to the present day: 252. These include both Iraqi and non Iraqi media professionals, an under-estimation of 30%. http://www.newssafety.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=section&layout=blog&id=109&Itemid=100190
We have written to all these Western organisations, had mail exchanges with most of them. We asked them to adjust their figures or show us where we made mistakes. Yet, they didn’t adjust their figures or eventually point out “mistakes”. We find this morally wrong.
Yet again we ask these organisations: “fulfil your duties. May no media professional be forgotten while reporting the nightmare of Iraq”.
Please, contact the Iraqi Syndicate of Journalists and ask them to have a look into their lists in order to complete your database.
Further reading:
* At least 78 media professionals killed in Iraq in 2006 - Dirk Adriaensens, BRussells Tribunal, 21 Feb 2007
* Another U.S. Military Assault on Media - Dahr Jamail and Ali al-Fadhily, 23 Feb 2007
* Disparate Tallies: Journalist Deaths in Iraq - Eason Jordan, 01 June 2007
* The betrayal of Iraq’s media professionals - Dirk Adriaensens, BRussells Tribunal, 29 Sep 200
292 Iraqi journalists killed in Iraq since 2003 – syndicate
Baghdad, 06 November 2008 ( Voices of Iraq )
The number of Iraqi journalists who have been killed in Iraq since March 2003 reached 292, including cameramen and technicians, the president of the Syndicate of Journalists said on Thursday.
“The statistics made by the syndicate pointed out that 18 journalists have been kidnapped and their fate still unknown,” Mu’ayad al-Lami told Aswat al-Iraq.
“There are no journalists detained by the government’s forces, while there are three held by U.S. army for unknown reasons,” he explained.
He called to speed up the approval of the protecting journalists’ law.
http://www.iraqupdates.com/p_articles.php?refid=DH-S-07-11-2008&article=39484
Death toll of Media professionals in Iraq, as listed by the BRussells Tribunal
Full list at http://www.brusselstribunal.org/JournalistKilled.htm
vendredi 7 novembre 2008
CRISIS GROUP M-E REPORT: OIL FOR SOIL
OIL FOR SOIL: TOWARD A GRAND BARGAIN
ON IRAQ AND THE KURDS
Middle East Report N°80 – 28 October 2008
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS................................................. i
I. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 1
II. THE DISPUTED TERRITORIES CONUNDRUM ...................................................... 5
A. TERRITORIES IN DISPUTE ..........................................................................................5
B. A NEW UN ROLE................................................................................................................7
C. RESPONSES TO UNAMI’S PROPOSALS........................................................................11
III. ESCALATING CONFLICT OVER OIL...................................................................... 14
A. DEVELOPING KURDISTAN’S OIL WEALTH..................................................................................15
B. OIL IN KIRKUK AND OTHER DISPUTED TERRITORIES .................................................................19
C. THE BATTLE OVER THE HYDROCARBONS LAW..........................................................................23
IV. POSSIBLE COMPROMISE SOLUTIONS.................................................................26
A. A TERRITORIAL COMPROMISE ..............................................................................26
B. A GRAND BARGAIN ......................................................................................................27
V. CONCLUSION................................................................................................................ 32
APPENDICES
A. MAP OF IRAQ..................................................................................................................34
B. MAP OF DISPUTED TERRITORIES CLAIMED BY THE KRG.................................................................35
C. MAP OF OIL AND GAS CONCESSIONS IN THE KURDISTAN REGION....................................................36
D. MAP OF OIL AND GAS RESOURCES IN THE KURDISTAN REGION AND DISPUTED TERRITORIES..........37
E. MAP OF GOVERNORATES AND DISTRICTS ....................38
F. ABOUT THE INTERNATIONAL CRISIS GROUP ...............39
G. CRISIS GROUP REPORTS AND BRIEFINGS ON THE MIDDLE EAST AND NORTH AFRICA......................40
H. CRISIS GROUP BOARD OF TRUSTEES...............................................42
Please click on the link below to read the Crisis Group Report:
http://www.crisisgroup.org/library/documents/middle_east___north_africa/iraq_iran_gulf/80_oil_for_soil___toward_a_grand_bargain_on_iraq_and_the_kurds.pdf
ON IRAQ AND THE KURDS
Middle East Report N°80 – 28 October 2008
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS................................................. i
I. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 1
II. THE DISPUTED TERRITORIES CONUNDRUM ...................................................... 5
A. TERRITORIES IN DISPUTE ..........................................................................................5
B. A NEW UN ROLE................................................................................................................7
C. RESPONSES TO UNAMI’S PROPOSALS........................................................................11
III. ESCALATING CONFLICT OVER OIL...................................................................... 14
A. DEVELOPING KURDISTAN’S OIL WEALTH..................................................................................15
B. OIL IN KIRKUK AND OTHER DISPUTED TERRITORIES .................................................................19
C. THE BATTLE OVER THE HYDROCARBONS LAW..........................................................................23
IV. POSSIBLE COMPROMISE SOLUTIONS.................................................................26
A. A TERRITORIAL COMPROMISE ..............................................................................26
B. A GRAND BARGAIN ......................................................................................................27
V. CONCLUSION................................................................................................................ 32
APPENDICES
A. MAP OF IRAQ..................................................................................................................34
B. MAP OF DISPUTED TERRITORIES CLAIMED BY THE KRG.................................................................35
C. MAP OF OIL AND GAS CONCESSIONS IN THE KURDISTAN REGION....................................................36
D. MAP OF OIL AND GAS RESOURCES IN THE KURDISTAN REGION AND DISPUTED TERRITORIES..........37
E. MAP OF GOVERNORATES AND DISTRICTS ....................38
F. ABOUT THE INTERNATIONAL CRISIS GROUP ...............39
G. CRISIS GROUP REPORTS AND BRIEFINGS ON THE MIDDLE EAST AND NORTH AFRICA......................40
H. CRISIS GROUP BOARD OF TRUSTEES...............................................42
Please click on the link below to read the Crisis Group Report:
http://www.crisisgroup.org/library/documents/middle_east___north_africa/iraq_iran_gulf/80_oil_for_soil___toward_a_grand_bargain_on_iraq_and_the_kurds.pdf
jeudi 6 novembre 2008
mercredi 5 novembre 2008
At the EU Parliament: Workshop on Human Rights in the Arab World
WORKSHOP
SUB-COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS
HUMAN RIGHTS
IN THE ARAB WORLD:
FOCUS ON THE ARAB
CHARTER
ON HUMAN RIGHTS
as part of the
ARAB WEEK
of the EUROPEAN YEAR OF INTER-CULTURAL DIALOGUE
Chairman: Hélène Flautre
Monday, 3/11/2008
AT THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT IN BRUSSELS
Taieb Baccouche, Director for the Arab Institute of Human Rights
Driss El Yazami, Secretary General, FIDH
Bahey eldin Hassan, Director Cairo Institute for Human Rights (CIHRS)
The Arab Institute for Human Rights was established in 1989. In addition to its role as an organization entrusted with human rights, the Institute is represented in all Arab countries. Its inception came as a response to an initiative taken by three Arab organizations: the Arab Human Rights Organization, the Union of Arab Lawyers and the Tunisian League for the Protection of Human Rights.
The Arab Institute for Human Rights was established to help provide an educational and cultural tool that would reinforce the human rights movement and implement its agenda through the dissemination of human rights culture and values.
Hassan Aydinli, ITF Europe Representative attended this workshop.
Inscription à :
Articles (Atom)
