Ivo Skoric digest / 01 - 08

[Claudia Westermann]

following messages:

05 - Subject: Media
06 - Subject: Re: UK: Anti-terror bill clears first hurdle
07 - Subject: Re: Is it suitable to compare Bosnia with Afganistan?
08 - Subject: RAWA not invited!!!!
____________________________________________________________


05 -

Subject: Media
Reply-to: ivo at reporters.net

More media manipulation in the West - maybe Al Jazeera should
consider opening an office in London?
ivo

------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
Stop the War Coalition (StW)
PO Box 3739, London E5 8EJ
07951 235 915
<mailto:office at stopwar.org.uk>office at stopwar.org.uk
http://www.stopwar.org.uk
http://www.mwaw.org
Tuesday 20 November 2001
TO: The Editor

Dear Editors,
Protesters in this country are accustomed to police under-estimating
their numbers on demonstrations. In the case of Sunday's huge Stop
the War march, however, the gap between police estimates - 15,000 -
and those of the organisers - 100,000 - takes some explaining.
This is the organisers' view of the figures. We challenge the BBC,
the Press Association and the police to give us theirs.
The police told us on two separate occasions that they estimated the
marchers as 30,000 and 20,000 - 40,000. Yet after the march was over,
their estimates were mysteriously "revised down" and the press quoted
their final estimate as 15,000.
The Stop the War Coalition went to considerable lengths to make an
accurate estimate of the numbers present. Using observers and
counters, we arrived at the figure of 100,000. This figure was not
released until 4pm, when it was announced - twice - from the
platform, and press released. Yet the BBC and the Press Association
persistently quoted us as claiming 50,000. Only when a spokesperson
for the Coalition rang the PA to complain did they finally concede
that our figure was indeed 100,000.
Neither the PA nor the BBC made independent assessments of the
numbers. Instead, both quoted police figures and deliberately
misquoted the organisers' estimates. Journalists are keeping people
passive by denying to the wider public a sense of the true size of
the anti-war movement. If more people opposed to the bombing were
aware that London was packed with 100,000 protesters on Sunday it
would increase their own willingness to speak out and join in. Our
demonstration has revealed the pro-bombing "consensus" to be a
chimera.
Finally, the BBC's own guidelines say:
<< OPPOSITION TO THE WAR
Enabling the national debate remains a vital task. The concept of
impartiality still applies. All views should be reflected in due
proportion to mirror the depth and spread of opinion. We must reflect
any significant opposition in the UK (and elsewhere) to the military
conflict and allow their arguments to be heard and tested. Those who
speak and perhaps demonstrate against war are to be reported as part
of the national and international reality. >>
Is this principle not worth upholding in print as well as on the air?
Yours,
John Pilger
George Galloway MP
Ken Loach
Harold Pinter
Charles Shaar Murray
Andrew Murray, chair Stop the War CoalitionLindsey German, StW Coalition

---------------------------------------------------------------
06 -

Subject: Re: UK: Anti-terror bill clears first hurdle
Reply-to: ivo at reporters.net


So, essentially the UK got the same anti-terror bill as the US got.
Star Chamber proceedings. America's disappeared 1200.
Obviously, Al Qaeda will have to look for US or UK citizens in their
future hiring. I am not sure whether the UK bill would survive the
scrutiny of the rest of the Europe, though, and UK, unlike US,
would like to be also viewed as a part of Europe. Therefore, the UK
packaged the bill as in fact protecting the human rights of non-
citizen terrorism suspects - because the unlimited detention in UK
is still allegedly much better than deportation to the country of
origin, that often sports a record of torture. Nice British spin. Btw,
here is what Richard Goldstone, formerly of ICTY, said on CNN's
Larry King Live about the US anti-terror bill:
``I think it would be bad for the United States to deprecate its own
court system, its own insistence over decades and centuries on
fair and due process,''....
``Perhaps more importantly, it would lack any credibility in the
international community. There would always be doubt as to
whether the guilt of (Saudi-born militant Osama) bin Laden or any
of the other people tried in secret has been established.''
ivo
Date sent: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 21:42:07 -0500
Send reply to: International Justice Watch Discussion List
<JUSTWATCH-L at LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU>
From: Andras Riedlmayer
<riedlmay at FAS.HARVARD.EDU>
Subject: UK: Anti-terror bill clears first hurdle
To: JUSTWATCH-L at LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU
(cross-posting of comments only permitted)
Despite objections of civil liberties advocates and concern by some
MPs
who felt the legislation was being pushed through parliament too
quickly,
the Blair government's new anti-terror laws were given a second
reading in
parliament by a margin of 458 votes to five. Among its provisions is one
that allows the home secretary to order indefinite detention without trial
of non-citizens suspected of terrorism, under certain circumstances.
Andras Riedlmayer
=================================================================
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid_1653000/1653724.stm
BBC News | UK Wednesday, 14 November, 2001, 09:42 GMT
War View: 'Internment undermines UK's traditions'
Laurence Lustgarten, barrister and professor of law at the University
of Southampton, says the UK's proposed anti-terror legislation could
violate the country's ideals.
Politicians fancy themselves as problem solvers, and like to be seen
to be decisive.
The damage caused by outbursts of their zeal are suffered by others,
usually relatively powerless and often some sort of folk devil, who are
invisible as individuals to the wider public.
So it is with Home Secretary David Blunkett's proposals for
internment of suspected "terrorists" - a procedure which was tried and
demonstrably failed in Northern Ireland.
Mr Blunkett sees a problem. If a person who is not a UK citizen
is found to be a threat to the UK's "national security" because of
involvement in "terrorism" elsewhere, they can normally be deported
to their country of origin.
Fundamental moral
However, in many instances such people face torture or death on
their return home. In 1995 the European Court of Human Rights ruled
that, where that fate is a realistic possibility, it would violate the
European Convention on Human Rights to send them back.
The case involved Mr Chahal, a Sikh activist whom the UK was trying
to deport to India where, the European Court explicitly found, the
record of the Indian police in dealing with militant Sikhs was so bad
as to give rise to a reasonable likelihood of brutal treatment.
The specific right involved - found in Article 3 of the Convention -
is considered to embody such a fundamental moral value that it cannot be
dispensed with even in the gravest circumstances.
Mr Blunkett has therefore looked for a way round it. Someone in
these circumstances will not be deported, but will be imprisoned despite
having been convicted of no crime and had no opportunity to defend himself
before a jury.
This imprisonment, though subject to some sort of periodic review -
still no trial, no proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and no jury - will
last so long as the home secretary, or his successor, but certainly
no judicial authority, deems necessary.
The wheeze - for that is what it is - here is that whilst the
convention in Article 5 requires that those arrested be placed on trial
within a reasonable time, in times of "war or public emergency threatening
the life of the nation" that right may be suspended (in technical terms,
subject to "derogation") for the duration.
Real threats
Terrorism is real enough, and there unquestionably are interests
that most people would agree deserve the title national security. But in
the current debate these terms must always be placed in inverted commas.
In law, someone can be a terrorist even though he is involved
in resistance to violent, oppressive regimes which commit atrocities
against their own people - provided that regime works sufficiently
closely with the UK in the international arena that our government is
prepared to regard its security as part of our own.
This is not a hypothetical argument, but precisely what was involved
in Mr Chahal's case, and was again used by the government when it tried
to deport Mr Rehman, who was involved in resistance to what he, and
many dispassionate observers, sees as the Indian military occupation
of Kashmir.
Last month the House of Lords upheld this argument, saying that
if the home secretary chose to regard protection of Indian interests
as part of UK national security, that was not a matter in which the
courts should interfere.
Whatever the courts may regard as appropriate for them, as members
of the public in whose name the government acts, we ought to be asking
hard questions about whether regimes that torture their opponents are
ones to whom we should be cozying up.
All powerful
Thus although we are told by Mr Blunkett that the power of internment
will be used sparingly, we have only his word for that.
But that word is all-powerful, for the courts have signalled their
withdrawal from this theatre of battle. One cannot reasonably expect them
to question with any rigour whether the conditions for derogation have,
as a matter of fact, been satisfied.
Such an argument can successfully be made: the UK did so in Strasbourg
with respect to extended detention for questioning of suspected terrorists
in Northern Ireland in 1992.
That was in connection with a guerrilla war that had lasted 20 years,
and the extended detention was a matter of several days only, and
there remains a real question whether the current conflict is really
an equivalent circumstance.
It may be that the European Human Rights Court will take a more
robustly questioning approach, but delays in Strasbourg are so great
that no judgement is ever forthcoming in less than three years - a point
that no doubt has not escaped Mr Blunkett.
Violation
Someone who assists an organisation engaged in serious violence
against this country should be prosecuted for specific offences,
including conspiracy, and have the chance to defend himself before
a jury.
If his acts are directed against a state which truly respects the
rule of law and treats those who violate its criminal code with decency
then, subject to certain procedural safeguards, he may properly be
deported.
But to intern someone for acts never properly proven - or worse, for
some possible intended future conduct - because the target is a regime
so foul that it would be a fundamental human rights abuse to send him
back, is a serious violation of the values this country is supposed to
represent.
_____________________________________________________________________
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk_politics/newsid_1663000/1663829.stm
BBC News | UK Monday, 19 November, 2001, 23:15 GMT
Anti-terror bill clears first hurdle
Blunkett: "Proposals could have been more Draconian"
MPs have voted overwhelmingly in favour of sweeping new anti-terrorism
laws, including the power to imprison suspects without trial.
The proposals were given a second reading by a margin of 458 votes
to five.
But the bill is expected to face strong criticism when it goes into
committee stage later this week. It will also face opposition in the
House of Lords.
The BBC's political editor Andrew Marr said: "The government has
won the vote very easily but it has not necessarily won the argument."
He said the government could expect further opposition from its own
benches before the bill becomes law.
Controversial proposals
Home Secretary David Blunkett came under fire from all sides in the
Commons over the bill's proposals.
MPs lined up to accuse the government of using terrorism as an excuse
to bring in powerful new restrictions on civil liberties.
Brian Sedgemore, one of four Labour MPs to vote against the government,
said the legislation was "a ragbag of the most coercive measures that the
best mandarin minds from the Home Office can produce".
In an impassioned speech, Mr Sedgemore said: "Not since the panic
and hysteria that overcame the British establishment in the aftermath of
the French Revolution has this House seen such draconian legislation."
Unrepentant
But Mr Blunkett was unrepentant.
Reminding MPs of the thousands who died on 11 September, he said
even more Draconian measures could have been put forward by ministers.
But, he added: "It would have been wrong to do so."
"It was appropriate for us to be more circumspect and bring forward
proportionate and reasonable measures," he said.
The terrorists had not only destroyed the World Trade Centre but had
also "declared open season on all of us," he added.
Possible reprisals
In addition to the measures on detaining suspects, the 128 paragraph
bill also includes proposals to tighten airport security, freeze
suspected terrorists' funds and create a new offence of incitement
to religious hatred.
Shadow home secretary Oliver Letwin said he supported some of the
measures contained in the bill but he thought it was being pushed
through parliament too quickly.
He said the Conservatives planned to table a number of amendments
with the Liberal Democrats aimed at "improving" the bill.
Mr Letwin repeatedly urged the government to think again on the
"internment" of terrorist suspects.
He warned this could lead to possible reprisals against British
citizens abroad.
He said he would prefer Mr Blunkett to exclude or deport foreign
undesirables rather than jailing them.
'New demands'
Beverley Hughes, Home Office parliamentary secretary, said she
understood concerns that the legislation was being hurried through.
But she said it was necessary to act quickly and decisively because
"the lengths these terrorists will go to, including their own death,
makes new demands on our ability to anticipate their plans and therefore
protect our people".
Under the government's proposals the law on detention of suspects
will fall after five years and "there will be a debate every year for
three hours" on the issue, she added.
Incitement ban 'wrong'
The Lib Dems and Conservatives also hit out at plans to include
new laws banning incitement to religious hatred in the anti-terror
legislation.
Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Simon Hughes urged the
home secretary to "consult more widely and relatively quickly on the
religious incitement matters and legislate separately".
Mr Letwin said dealing with the threat of terrorism and the persecution
of Muslim communities in the same legislation sent out the wrong message.
'No time for scrutiny'
MPs are angry at the lack of time they have been given to scrutinize
a bill that will have serious implications for civil liberties.
In total, the Commons has been given just three days to look at the
legislation, a process that would normally take several weeks.
Mr Blunkett is determined to see the Bill on the statute books by
the Christmas recess.
*********************

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
07 -


Subject: Re: Is it suitable to compare Bosnia with Afganistan?
Reply-to: ivo at balkansnet.org


Actually, I am surprised how in many aspects the case of former
Yugoslavia is similar to the case of Afghanistan - despite the huge
historic differences. They both belong to the realm of the unsolved
misteries of the post-Ottoman world. They both enjoyed the relative
stability and prosperity during the heyday of the cold war, due to
their precious geopolitical position between the two blocs. And
they both descended into chaos as that war came to an end.
Yugoslavia had the advantage of being at a far more developed
stage when that happened, and also being to close to the 'civilized
world' to be overlooked, so the 'international community' intervened
relatively quickly (and with more sense than the Soviet intervention
in Afghanistan had) and put the brakes on ethnic cleansing,
concentration camps, wanton destruction, killing, etc. The remote
Afghanistan, on the other hand, was simply let to deteriorate to the
stone ages. But the complexity of internal relations is just as
intense as it was in former Yugoslavia: variety of ethnic groups
(Pashtuns, Tajiks, Hazars, Uzbeks), two strains of Islam (Shia and
Suni) - only Afghanistan was always unitary state, never a
federation, so the separatist ideas seem to be poorly developed or
even thought about. The Afghan emigre groups sport even more
striking similarity to the Balkan emigre groups, than the groups in
the respective regions (after 20 years of apocaliptic suffering,
Afghanistan, indeed, being a land of mostly illiterate people, is very
different than anything we saw in former Yugoslavia). I read about
meeting of Afghan exiles in New York city, saw the pictures - they
instantly reminded me of many squabbling Croatian, or Bosnian or
Serbian groups in Queens. With their grand ideas on how to run
the country. And with their near complete divorcedness from the
situation on the ground. There is also a long gone king in exile (like
in the Serbian situation), which some believe would solve
everything just like some deus ex machina. And there are women
organizations like RAWA, which may remind some of Women in
Black in Serbia - because they make the most sense, and nobody
is paying attention to them.
ivo
http://balkansnet.org/globalization.html
Date sent: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 16:48:57 +1100
Send reply to: International Justice Watch Discussion List
<JUSTWATCH-L at LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU>
From: geert lovink <geert at DESK.NL>
Subject: Is it suitable to compare Bosnia with Afganistan?
To: JUSTWATCH-L at LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU
(cross-posting of comments only permitted)
I am curious to know what other Justwatchers think of this
journalistic
comparison business. A is not B but perhaps is could be similar
somehow.
I don't find this type of discourse very useful. There are perhaps
other
similarities such as the global media circus which is running from
conflict to conflict. Or the global NGO and charity business. I think
that historically, and politically speaking Bosnia and Afganistan are so
hugely different that it does not really make sense to take experiences
from one place to another in terms of diplomacy and peace keeping
strategies. Or is this cultural relativism? Are there already universal
recipies, and if so, who defines and approves them?
Geert
---
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-000092997nov21.story
<http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-000092997nov21.story>

--------------------
A Bosnian Blueprint for Afghanistan
--------------------
By DAVID L. BOSCO
David L. Bosco, a recent graduate of Harvard Law School, worked in and
reported from Bosnia between 1996 and 1998
November 21 2001
With the collapse of the Taliban, a multinational force becomes a likely
guarantor of Afghanistan's immediate future. It is no small irony that
in this, the Bush administration may need to take lessons from the
Balkan peacekeeping missions it has viewed with skepticism.
Proposals for a multinational force abound. Secretary of State Colin L.
Powell has discussed the involvement of troops from Muslim states, and
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has signaled that U.S. troops will
not be peacekeepers. Some allied troops, however--including British,
French and German contingents--may participate.
Although these troops initially will focus on delivering humanitarian
aid, their mission could soon evolve into nation-building. Recent
history offers some useful case studies. The NATO-led mission to Bosnia,
in particular, has generated a wealth of experience on how to hold
together a war-torn and ethnically divided country. There can be no easy
analogies. Afghanistan is far poorer and anti-Western sentiment is much
stronger. NATO's 1995 deployment to Bosnia-Herzegovina followed months
of negotiations and preparation, while the nascent mission to
Afghanistan is a hurried effort to fill the post-Taliban vacuum. Some
lessons, however, are clear:
* Take military options off the table for the factions. In Bosnia, NATO
has the military capacity to prevent a return to fighting, and in more
than five years, none of the factions has challenged NATO militarily.
The specter of guerrilla warfare--a clear possibility in
Afghanistan--never materialized. Moreover, NATO forces in Bosnia
increasingly became adept at supporting the mission's political and
human rights goals. It is likely that the security environment in
post-conflict Afghanistan will be even more tenuous and the prolonged
presence of well-armed troops just as essential. A lightly armed
peacekeeping force could find itself in the middle of a renewed civil
war it had no power to stop.
* Remember the regional context. Real political progress became possible
in Bosnia when neighboring Serbia and Croatia changed regimes and
stopped encouraging the separatist tendencies of overlapping ethnic
groups. In Afghanistan, international diplomats may find that the
attitudes of Pakistan and Iran are almost as important as those of the
various factions within Afghanistan.
* Don't rush the vote. Nation-building requires elections, but timing
matters. In Bosnia, the U.S. made the mistake of pushing for elections
less than a year after fighting ended. The unsurprising result was
ratification of extremist control, and several indicted war criminals
were elected. A prolonged period of peace can be a vital tonic for a
population disposed to heed the call of ethnic or religious extremists
at the ballot box.
* Remember the political benefits of war crimes trials. While it is
likely that U.S. forces will "bring justice to the terrorists," an
international tribunal may form part of a postwar settlement. Recent
reports of massacres warrant investigation. While international trials
must remain independent of the political process, the political work
that these trials can achieve should not be forgotten. The tribunal for
the former Yugoslavia has become an important ally for diplomats in
postwar Bosnia. Often, the apprehension of those indicted has removed
extremists who were obstructing political reform.
* Be prepared for the long haul. The Balkans have shown that outsiders
have a limited capacity to reshape societies. It would be hubris to
assume that a multinational force can, in short order, manufacture a
legitimate, multiethnic government in Afghanistan. A lasting political
settlement may be very different from the one planners initially
envision, but sustained involvement will at least give the international
community a say.
The United States and its allies have pursued the war on terrorism with
determination. Soon, the question will become how aggressively they are
prepared to struggle for peace.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
08 -

Subject: RAWA not invited!!!!
Reply-to: ivo at reporters.net


Can anybody come up with a reason why women from RAWA were not invited for 
talks in Berlin? Was it just because they are not representing any of the 
murderous armed gangs? Isn't this a secret admission that this world is 
still based on the rule of power, and not on the rule of law?

And we know what happened to non-Afghan Taliban after NA took over. They 
were detained until the "coalition" decides what to do with them. But they 
staged a suicidal revolt, killed an American Marine, and the "coalition" 
decided to turn their heads while the NA gun them down.

ivo


------- Forwarded Message Follows -------

WORLD WAR III REPORT
#. 9. Nov. 24, 2001


THE AFGHANISTAN FRONT

LIBERATION OR IMPERIALIST CARVE-UP?
A bloody stalemate has developed since the Taliban's retreat from the 
Afghan capital of Kabul last week. Afghanistan is now divided between three 
unstable forces: the increasingly faction- ridden Northern Alliance, the 
Pashtun warlords who have risen against the Taliban in the south, and the 
Taliban, now with control of less than a quarter of the country. The US is 
deploying more elite units to try to tip the balance against the Taliban. 
Reported the New York Times Nov. 24: "With Taliban troops establishing 
strong pockets of resistance across a wide swath of Afghanistan, the United 
States is using two bases in Pakistan to send several hundred Special 
Operations forces in an attempt to kill Taliban troops and capture Osama 
bin Laden."

In addition to besieged Kunduz in the northeast and the area around 
Kandahar in the south, the Taliban have positions just southeast and 
southwest of Kabul, and two locations near Jalalabad, just 40 miles from 
the Pakistan border. Many of the Taliban troops are volunteers from 
Pakistan, the Arab countries and elsewhere in the Islamic world. The Arab 
fighters were denied requests for a safe corridor to flee to Pakistan, but 
the New York Times reported Nov. 24 that Pakistani planes are being flown 
into Kunduz to evacuate Pakistani Taliban fighters. Pakistan, until 
recently backing the Taliban, is an important US ally and staging ground 
for the war--while the Arab volunteers may have ties to Osama bin Laden, 
believed to be hiding in Taliban-controlled territory.

A deal brokered in Northern Alliance-held Mazar-i-Sharif would allow Afghan 
Taliban fighters to flee Kunduz while Arab volunteers would be held in 
camps "until the alliance and the US- led coalition could decide what to do 
with them." But the deal has yet to be finalized, US bombs continue to fall 
around Kunduz, and panicked refugees are fleeing the city for Northern 
Alliance lines. They said they were fleeing both the bombardment and 
Taliban abuses of the civil population. (Newsday, Nov. 23)

The Northern Alliance have been committing their own abuses, with their 
troops looting in Pashtun villages, stealing cars and other valuables at 
gunpoint, menacing and roughing up civilian families (Newsday, Nov 20). 
While refugees from Taliban-held territory report the Taliban commanders 
are killing fighters they fear will defect, Red Cross workers have found 
evidence of summary execution of Arab Taliban fighters on a battlefield 
site outside Kabul. At least 30 were shot in head, several at close- 
range--presumably by Northern Alliance troops (New York Times, Nov. 19). 
Thousands of Afghan refugees, mostly Pashtuns, are continuing to stream 
across the border into Pakistan daily, and the UN says it expects to see 
more (BBC, Nov. 19).

When several hundred women, emboldened by the fall of the Taliban, held a 
public protest demanding women's rights in Kabul Nov. 20, it was quickly 
broken up when Northern Alliance troops who said they could not "assure 
their safety." (New York Times, Nov. 21)

The Northern Alliance also appears poised at the brink of collapsing into 
ethnic warfare. The western city of Herat is contested by Tajik warlord 
Ismail Khan and Shiite Hazara warlord Moosa Rezai (New York Times, Nov. 
20). Hazara forces advanced on Kabul early in the week, but were stopped 
outside city by Jamiat-i-Islami troops loyal to Northern Alliance President 
Burhanuddin Rabbani, an ethnic Tajik (Newsday, Nov. 19).

Many of the Pashtun warlords who have seized power in Afghanistan's 
southeast are former Taliban loyalists, such as Haji Abdul Qadir, who 
controls much of Jalalabad (New York Times, Nov. 19). These Pashtun 
factions are being aided by Pakistan, while Russia and Iran are stepping up 
aid to the Northern Alliance. Old Soviet tanks, helicopters and AK-47s are 
being supplied in a multi-million dollar arms deal between Russia and the 
Northern Alliance, the UK Guardian reported Oct. 23. The arms deal is 
estimated to be worth between $40- $70 million. News of the arms deal has 
fueled speculation that Russia covertly encouraged the Northern Alliance to 
take Kabul- -in defiance of entreaties from the US to hold back until a new 
coalition government could be organized (Pacifica Network News, Nov. 19). 
The Northern Alliance effectively barred British plans to deploy over 4,000 
troops to Afghanistan to oversee the transition to a coalition 
government--with the US applying pressure on London to back down to avoid 
antagonizing the Northern Alliance (New York Times, Nov. 20).

The US is encouraging the various anti-Taliban factions to attend a meeting 
in Berlin next week to forge a new government. Invited are Northern 
Alliance leaders, Pashtun warlords, loyalists of exiled king Zhair Shah, 
and (perhaps) "Taliban moderates." The meeting is seen as a step towards a 
loya jirga, or council of traditional chieftains such as that which 
established the Afghan monarchy in 1747. But Rabbani is still recognized by 
the UN as the president of Afghanistan, and may be reluctant to share power 
now that he is back in Kabul (New York Times, Nov. 21).

Conspicuously absent from the list of those invited to the Berlin 
conference is the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan 
(RAWA). The only pro-democracy dissident group which has consistently 
opposed fundamentalist tyranny in Afghanistan, RAWA does not control any 
armed factions and is therefore overlooked by the global powerbrokers. 
RAWA's Nov. 13 statement on the fall of Kabul read: "The retreat of the 
terrorist Taliban from Kabul is a positive development, but entering of the 
rapist and looter Northern Alliance in the city is nothing but dreadful and 
shocking news for about 2 million residents of Kabul whose wounds of the 
years 1992-96 [when Rabbani's forces held power] have not healed yet... 
RAWA has already documented heinous crimes of the Northern Alliance... The 
UN should withdraw its recognition to the so-called Islamic government 
headed by Rabbani and help the establishment of a broad-based government 
based on the democratic values." The statement was picked up by no major 
news media.

CIVILIAN CASUALTIES MOUNT; PENTAGON WANTS MORE
Despite the Pentagon's usual propaganda about "smart bombs," UN 
investigators document a "broad pattern of erroneous bombing" and at least 
30 civilian deaths in Kabul. Said Ross Chamberlain, coordinator for the UN 
mine-clearing program in Afghanistan, now examining bombed sites in Kabul: 
"The Pentagon likes to show the impressive videos" of US jets launching 
bombs that neatly destroy their targets without killing the neighbors. But 
such clean strikes are the exception, not the rule. "There's really no such 
thing as precision bombing.... We are finding more cases of errant 
targeting than accurate targeting, more misses than hits." (Newsday, Nov. 25)

The New York Times reported Nov. 23 that three children were injured and 
one teenager killed in Ghaleh Shafer village when they picked up an 
unexploded bomb fragment dropped weeks earlier by a US plane. The local 
hospital lacks electricity and basic sanitation.

Aerial bombardment of the Kandahar region continues. One resident told 
Reuters he decided to flee when a bomb destroyed a neighbor's house, 
killing an entire extended family of fourteen. "Only the father and a 
little daughter survived." Another resident told BBC, "the bombing of the 
last few days has been terrible. People are terrified. Many ordinary people 
have been killed, as well as Taliban." (Newsday, Nov. 22)

The Qatar-based al-Jazeera cable TV network now places the total number of 
civilians killed in the bombing at around 1,000 (Summary by media watchdog 
Ali Abunimah, www.abunimah.org).

Meanwhile, the Pentagon dusted off the old "one-hand-tied- behind-our-back" 
argument, portraying even token efforts to spare civilians as an onerous 
restraint. Reported the Washington Post Nov. 18: "As many as 10 times over 
the last six weeks, the Air Force believed it had top Taliban and al-Qaeda 
members in its cross hairs in Afghanistan but was unable to receive 
clearance to fire in time to hit them, according to senior Air Force 
officials. The officials said the problems stemmed from delays due to a 
cumbersome approval process and intense disagreements with the US Central 
Command, which oversees the war, over how much weight to give to concerns 
about avoiding civilian casualties."


LATIN AMERICA

"ANTI-TERRORIST" CAMPAIGN FOR WESTERN HEMISPHERE
On the day of the 9-11 attacks, US Secretary of State Colin Powell was 
scheduled to meet with Colombian President Andres Pastrana to discuss 
US-Colombian anti-terrorist coordination. The previous day, the US State 
Department finally added the United Colombian Self-Defense (AUC) right-wing 
paramilitary network to the official list of "international terrorist 
organizations," making financial support for the group illegal in the US. 
Critics had protested that AUC was not on the list, while Colombia's two 
leftist guerilla groups have been since it was first drawn up under the 
1996 Antiterrorism & Effective Death Penalty Act. "I hope this will leave 
no doubt that the United States considers terrorism to be unacceptable, 
regardless of the political or ideological purpose," said Powell. 
Ironically, his Colombia trip would be cut short by the terrorist attacks 
in the US. (New York Times, Sept. 11)

In May, the State Department had taken the preliminary move of adding the 
AUC to the secondary list of "other terrorist organizations" list, which 
carries no sanctions. In contrast, Colombia's leftist rebel groups, the 
Colombian Revolutionary Armed Forces (FARC) and National Liberation Army 
(ELN), were on the primary "foreign terrorist organizations" list, which 
carries full legal sanctions-including visa bans for members and 
restrictions on money movements. Human rights groups, who have documented 
AUC responsibility in countless massacres of civilians in Colombia, had 
long protested the double standard. (AP, May 1)

The move was necessary propaganda for the shift to an "anti- terrorist" 
stance in Colombia and South America generally. The $1.5 billion Plan 
Colombia aid package approved last year is ostensibly for anti-narcotics 
enforcement, even though it is being used to fight the guerillas. 
Ironically, several Colombian army units receiving US military aid actively 
collaborate with the AUC, sharing arms and intelligence and coordinating in 
anti- guerilla campaigns. (Colombia Support Network press release, April 
2001, www.colombiasupport.net)

On Oct 15 the AP quoted the State Department's top anti- terrorism official 
saying the US is prepared to use military force to fight terrorism in the 
Western Hemisphere. "Our strategy in this hemisphere is similar to our 
strategy around the world, and it involves the use of all the elements of 
our national power as well as the elements of the national power of all the 
countries in our region," said Francis X. Taylor, head of State's Office of 
Counter-terrorism.

Taylor spoke with reporters at the headquarters of the Organization of 
American States after addressing a closed-door meeting of the group's 
Inter-American Committee Against Terrorism. Of the 28 terrorist groups 
identified by the State Department, four are based in the Western 
Hemisphere--the FARC, ELN, AUC and Peru's Sendero Luminoso. But Taylor 
stressed the region's importance in fighting terrorism, citing the long 
borders with Canada and Mexico which are permeable to terrorists. The 
"Triple Border" region where Paraguay, Argentina and Brazil meet is also a 
focal point for Islamic extremists, according to State.

Taylor declined to provide details, but said the State Department is 
developing a counter-terrorist strategy for Colombia and other Andean 
nations. This regional strategy--like the global one--will be based on law 
enforcement cooperation, intelligence exchanges, blocks on terrorist 
financing and "where appropriate- -as we are doing in Afghanistan--the use 
of military power."

Taylor recently told Capitol Hill the Andean counter-terrorist strategy 
would complement last year's $1.3 billion package and an $882 million 
follow-up package that Congress is now considering.

Asked if the same distinction would be made between fighting terrorists and 
fighting guerrillas, Taylor said the three Colombian groups "get the same 
treatment as any other terrorist group in terms of our interest in going 
after them and ceasing their terrorist activities."


On Oct. 16, AP reported Congressional reaction to the policy shift. Said 
Rep. Cass Ballenger (R-NC), House International Relations Western 
Hemisphere subcommittee chair: "It's very difficult to separate the 
counter-drug effort when the rebels or the insurgents are the ones that are 
living off the income from the drugs. How do you separate the two?" Rep. 
William Delahunt (D-MA) said separating counter-terrorism from counter- 
insurgency "would be a very difficult and delicate distinction to make."

Since Vietnam, "counterinsurgency" is still an unpopular word on Capitol 
Hill, which is why Plan Colombia was sold as a counter- narcotics effort. 
The new "counter-terrorist" stance may provide a more useful euphemism. 
Taylor told Congressional leaders FARC is "the most dangerous international 
terrorist group based in this hemisphere."

Colombian military commanders, recipients of multi-billion US largesse, 
quickly got hip to the new lingo. Reported the New York Times Oct. 5: "Army 
officials, who usually refer to the rebel force as 'narco-guerillas' or 
bandits, have made sure to refer to the rebels as terrorists."

Apparently unintimidated by being added to the terrorist list, the AUC went 
on a murderous rampage across Colombia in October. In the southern village 
of Buga, AUC troops pulled unarmed people off buses and out of their homes 
Oct. 10, killing at least 24 they accused of aiding the guerillas. The 
massacre was one of several attacks around the country that week. The wave 
of bloodshed claimed at least 49 lives, including the mayor of one town. 
Twelve other people are missing and feared dead. (New York Times Oct. 12)

MEXICO ANTI-TERROR ALERT
Mexican President Vicente Fox has lined up eagerly in the anti- terrorist 
campaign, telling reporters Mexico is prepared to go "all the way" to help 
the US hunt down those responsible for 9-11 attacks (Reuters, Sept. 29). 
The attorney general's office announced it is reviewing Mexico's laws and 
treaty obligations to streamline hemispheric anti-terrorust coordination, 
and is considering major new anti-terrorist legislation (Reforma, Oct 24). 
Fox's conservative National Action Party (PAN) is proposing an 
anti-terrorist clause in pending trade agreements with the US, mandating 
military and law enforcement aid and cooperation (Milenio, Oct 16). Fox 
also linked the anti-terrorist campaign to expansion of Free Trade, telling 
reporters: "We must watch over the entry borders of NAFTA. What we must do 
is wage a full-fledged battle against terrorism in all the territory of 
NAFTA." (AP, Oct. 16)

Politicians and rights advocates are debating what this means for Mexico's 
nascent guerilla movement, which has emerged in the country's impoverished 
south since the 1994 revolt by the Zapatista National Liberation Army 
(EZLN) in Chiapas. While the EZLN has been engaged in an unsteady peace 
dialogue with the government, smaller but more hardline groups maintain a 
low- level campaign of harassment against the government in Oaxaca and 
Guerrero.

Fox warned the "small guerrilla groups appearing once in a while" in Mexico 
of his will to "surround them and throw the gauntlet to them." But--perhaps 
embracing a divide-and- conquer strategy--he explicitly excluded the EZLN. 
Fox even claimed he was open to revising the San Andres Accords, the 
package of constitutional amendments on autonomy for Mexico's Indians which 
were the EZLN's one precondition for laying down arms, but which were 
gutted by conservative lawmakers before they were passed, causing the 
rebels to break off the peace dialogue. The gutting of the accords was 
protested by Indian groups across Mexico, many of whom pledged civil 
disobedience to pressure congress to reverse the changes. "There is a 
certain dissatisfaction of some groups in Mexico, and therefore perhaps we 
still have to give a last review to this subject, to make it satisfactory 
for all," Fox told reporters. (La Jornada, Oct 16)

The UN representative in Mexico, Angel Escudero de Paz, warned that 
practically all Mexican guerilla groups--again with the exception of the 
EZLN--are in danger of being classified as "terrorist" by the international 
community. "It still isn't determined at what point irregular forces are 
considered terrorists," said Escudero. "There is a very thin line between 
guerrillas and terrorists." (Milenio, Oct 5)

But others were quick to make a distinction. Said Emilio Ulloa Perez, a 
federal deputy with the left-opposition Party of the Democratic Revolution 
(PRD) and a member of the congressional negotiating team for the peace 
dialogue with the EZLN: "We can't put the guerrillas in the same category 
as groups in the Middle East, or the Balkans or the terrorist responsible 
for the Oklahama bombing in the United States. In Mexico, we don't have 
guerrillas who put bombs in restaurants." Jorge Luis Sierra, director of 
Quehacer Politico, a Mexico-City based political magazine, said intense 
pressure to crack down on "terrorism" is coming not from the UN, but 
directly from the US. "Mexico has always lacked independence in setting its 
security policy. The policy followed by the United States has always 
determined that of Mexico." He warned that a tilt to the hardline could 
backfire, resulting in more guerilla activity. "If you study the last 30 
years, every armed group in Mexico rose up after finding the doors to 
dialogue closed." But Carlos Raymundo Toledo, a federal PAN deputy, 
insisted the Fox administration should be more "combative" against the new 
guerrilla groups. "In light of the events, everything has to be reviewed. 
There needs to be a toughening of policy. We should be more aggressive in 
designating resources to fight these groups." (Mexico City News, Oct. 6)

Former President Ernesto Zedillo's administration frequently used the term 
"terrorist" to refer to the Popular Revolutionary Army (EPR), a guerrilla 
group that rose to arms in the state of Guerrero in 1996. On Oct. 13, the 
magazine ProcesoSur cited a "confidential document" of an unnamed Mexican 
intelligence service linking the EPR to both Colombia's FARC and the Irish 
Republican Army (IRA).

There were other voices concerned about the conflating of "terrorists" and 
"guerillas." Breaking from the US line, European Union ambassador to Mexico 
Manuel Lopez demanded a clear distinction between guerrilla activity and 
terrorism throughout Latin America "to avoid dangerous confusion." 
(Milenio, Oct. 16)

ZAPATISTAS NOT "TERRORISTS"
Chiapas Gov. Pablo Salazar rejected any implication that the EZLN are 
terrorists, noting that their struggle was recognized as legitimate by 
Mexico's congress, which passed a law in 1995 setting conditions for the 
peace dialogue: "They are not terrorists, and not just by my definition. 
The Congress of the Union and all the political parties that wrote up the 
Dialogue Law...signified in this law that the Zapatistas are a social 
struggle group." (Reforma, Oct 4)

A group of Mexican federal legislators, many involved in the Chiapas peace 
dialogue, went further, issuing a statement that none of the country's 
armed rebel groups are "terrorists." (Proceso, Oct 5)

But the government also used the new "terrorist" threat to pressure the 
EZLN to return to the negotiating table--despite government intransigence 
on the peace accords. Fox's peace commissioner for Chiapas, Luis Alvarez, 
said "it is imperative that the Zapatista National Liberation Army agrees 
to resume the dialogue as soon as possible" because of "the risk that other 
movements will opt for the path of terrorism." (Proceso, Oct 2)

Reports in the Mexican press that the US Drug Enforcement Administration 
(DEA) had referred to the EZLN as terrorists were false. The DEA report, 
"The Mexican Heroin Trade," actually exculpated Mexico's guerilla groups: 
"With the exception of Mexico, insurgent groups are involved heavily in the 
cultivation of opium in growing regions worldwide. Proceeds from the sale 
of opium have been used to fund insurgent activities in Colombia, 
Afghanistan, and Myanmar (formerly Burma). However, it does not appear that 
the Zapatista National Liberation Army (EZLN) or the Popular Revolutionary 
Army (EPR) are involved in narcotics trafficking to sustain their 
activities." (www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/intel/20014/20014.html)

MEXICAN GUERILLAS RESPOND
An EPR communique on the new anti-terrorist policy claimed the Mexican 
government is working with US and Israeli intelligence to destroy the 
guerilla movement (Reforma, Oct. 17). A second EPR communique addressed the 
US bombardment of Afghanistan, saying it "constitutes a brutal offensive 
against humanity and in particular against the poor peoples who oppose the 
designs of monopoly capitalism and its economic, political and military 
subjugation."

Contacted by telephone in her cell at Mexico City's top-security 
Nezahualcoyotl prison, Gloria Arenas--the accused "Coronel Aurora" of the 
Revolutionary Army of the Insurgent People (ERPI), another Guerrero-based 
guerilla faction, denied that guerilla movements commit acts of terrorism 
or attacks on the civilian population. "I hope, desire, believe possible, 
and I am sure that the ERPI organization will not resort to these types of 
attacks against civilian victims; we hope it will be this way, as a measure 
of maturity in the face of the hardline messages from the government..." 
She also warned that Fox's new hardline stance could backfire: "Vicente Fox 
declares that he wants to avoid armed organizations in Mexico resorting to 
violence, but I don't know how he's going to do this given the economic 
situation and the indigenous law which does not comply with the San Andres 
Accords." (Milenio, Oct 13)

On Oct. 13, a report on Mexico's new anti-terrorist stance in ProcesoSur 
quoted an unnamed Mexican government report claiming ERPI adherents were 
trained in Mexico by "persons involved with the Sendero Luminoso 
organization." The information was said to have been confirmed by the 
Peruvian government. ProcesoSur also claimed anti-terrorist vigilance on 
Mexico's Gulf Coast had been increased, and an unspecified number of Iraqis 
were detained by authorities in the Yucatan.

The EZLN, which broke off dialogue with the government when congress passed 
the gutted San Andres Accords in May, has maintained its silence throughout 
the post-9-11 events.

RIGHTS ATTORNEY SLAIN; ECO-ACTIVISTS FREED
One of Mexico's most prominent human rights lawyers was found shot to death 
in her office Oct. 21. Digna Ochoa, 37, was a longtime advocate at the 
Jesuit-run Miguel Agustin Pro-Juarez Human Rights Center, and most widely 
recognized for defending two peasants, Rodolfo Montiel and Teodoro Cabrera, 
who had been protesting logging operations in Guerrero's mountains were 
imprisoned in May 1999 on dubious gun and drug charges. Ochoa, winner of 
Amnesty International's Enduring Spirit Award, had been menaced by death 
threats for years, often in notes pasted together from newspaper cut-outs 
that appeared under her door. In August 1999, she was kidnapped and beaten 
by unknown masked men for five hours. Two months later, she was tied, 
blindfolded and tortured in her home for nine hours. No arrests were made 
in the attacks. (New York Times, Oct. 21; Reforma, Oct 28)

Suspicion immediately fell on the Mexican army. Ochoa said she believed the 
men who tortured and interrogated her in the 1999 attacks were from 
military intelligence, based on their questions about the human rights 
center's links to guerilla groups, and how much they knew about the center 
(Milenio, Nov 1). Her brother Jesus Ochoa told reporters she had said that 
if anything ever happened to her, "members of the Army will be 
responsible." (Proceso Oct. 29 )

At the time of her death, Ochoa was assisting in the defense of another 
notorious Mexican guerilla case--five students accused in a series of 
attempted Mexico City bank bombings (AP Oct. 20). The five alleged members 
of the Armed Revolutionary Forces of the People (FARP) were arrested in 
August for setting off small bombs at branches of the Banco Nacional de 
Mexico, or Banamex--now being purchased by Citigroup. The suspects denied 
that they belonged to the FARP, which initially claimed responsibility for 
putting the explosives at three bank branches the night of Aug. 8. Three 
small explosives contained in tin cans detonated and two more were defused. 
There were no reports of injuries or major damage. (AP, Aug 23) The arrests 
sparked large protests by students at the Mexican National Autonomous 
University (Proceso, Aug. 30).

One positive fallout from the Ochoa murder is that it probably resulted in 
Fox's decision a few weeks later to order the release of Montiel and 
Cabrera, the peasant ecologist leaders who blockaded logging roads in 
Guerrero and were charged with growing marijuana to support guerilla 
activities in the region. They were sentenced to seven and ten years in 
prison respectively, despite protests from international human rights 
groups who claimed they had not received a fair trial, and were adopted as 
"prisoners of conscience" by Amnesty International. They had served two 
years at the time of their release. Fox merely commuted their sentence, and 
stopped short of calling them innocent (Sierra Club press release, Nov. 8; 
New York Times, Nov 9) Said Montiel upon his release: "He knows we are 
innocent, but he doesn't declare us innocent because the army doesn't want 
him to." (Washington Post, Nov. 11)

MEXICO ANTI-WAR PROTESTS
Mexico has seen numerous protests against the bombing of Afghanistan. The 
Zapatista National Liberation Front (FZLN), civil counterpart of the armed 
group, and the Eureka human rights committee held an anti-war march in 
front of US embassy Sept. 25, stating "we are all Arabs" and accusing the 
US of "state terrorism" (La Jornada, Sept. 26). Opposition to the impending 
war was a major theme in the massive Mexico City march commemorating the 
Oct. 2 1968 Tlatelolco massacre, in which hundreds of student protesters 
were gunned down by the Mexican army (Proceso, Oct. 2). On Oct. 24, 10,000 
primary and high school students marched in the Chiapas capital city of 
Tuxtla against the bombing and to commemorate the 56th anniversary of 
founding of the UN (Milenio, Oct 24).

The newspaper La Reforma reported Oct. 12 that Portugese citizen Alberto 
Alvarez Betancout was expelled from Mexico after being arrested while 
pasting posters reading "Bush: wanted for terrorism" on walls in the 
Chiapas city of San Cristobal de las Casas. However, as of an Oct. 24 
letter he wrote to La Jornada, Alvarez was still being held at Iztapalapa 
Immigration Detention Center. He also denied that he had defaced any walls, 
but claimed to have been chatting with the folks putting up the 
posters--who ran when police approached.

STUDENT KILLED IN COLOMBIA ANTI-WAR PROTEST
The Colombia Independent Media Center reports that Carlos Giovanni Blanco, 
a medical student at Colombia National University, was shot dead during an 
anti-war protest in Bogota Nov. 7. A group of students were protesting the 
bombing of Afghanistan when police attacked the demonstration. The Bogota 
police commander denies his forces are responsible for the shooting, but a 
number of witnesses confirm the shot came from police lines. Police 
occupied the campus for the whole afternoon. By nightfall, many students 
were camping on the university grounds and preparing for further protests. 
(colombia.indymedia.org)

"ZIONIST TERRORISTS" ATTACK MEXICO: NOT!
The Mexico City daily Cronica de Hoy provided fodder for Jew- hating 
conspiracy theorists with an Oct. 12 report that two Israelis were detained 
with pistols and a wide variety of grenades and explosives at Mexico's 
congress building. Salvador Guersson Smeke, a retired Israeli military 
official and nationalized Mexican, and Israeli national Sar Ben Zui were 
briefly detained while federal police investigated the incident. The story 
was picked up, with some embellishment (Smecke suddenly became a "Mossad 
agent"), in the following day's Pravda and various anti-Semitic web sites 
which trumpeted claims that "Zionist terrorists" intended to blow up the 
congress building as a provocation. Too bad the conspiracy-mongers didn't 
read the less lurid account in the more reputable El Universal. According 
to the Oct. 12 El Universal, the two men were security guards in the employ 
of the company Private Security Systems Development which was contracted by 
the Mexican government, the tubes and wires in their suitcase were not 
bombs after all, and their firearms were legally registered.

CENTRAL AMERICA REMILITARIZED
Ten years after the region's guerilla wars and military dictatorships came 
to an end, Central America's governments are beefing up military spending 
and security measures in response to the supposed terrorist threat. Since 
Sept. 11, Guatemala has sought increases for a presidential security detail 
linked to human rights abuses, Honduras has sought tens of millions of 
dollars more for its military, and El Salvador's military has seized the 
country's air and sea ports, barring entry to hundreds of civilian workers 
employed in baggage handling and security.

The moves struck former Nicaraguan foreign minister Miguel D'Escoto as 
ironic. D'Escoto served in the leftist Sandinista regime in the 1980s, when 
the US backed a right-wing Nicaraguan rebel force known as the contras who 
widely attacked civilian targets. "If the US likes you, you're a freedom 
fighter," D'Escoto told the New York Times Oct. 20, citing President 
Reagan's term for the contra rebels. "If they don't like you, you're a 
terrorist."

US RECALLS VENEZUELA AMBASSADOR
The US called home its ambassador to Venezuela for "consultations" after 
President Hugo Chavez condemned the bombing of Afghanistan as "fighting 
terrorism with terrorism." The populist Chavez went on TV holding up 
photographs of Afghan children recently killed in the bombing and said 
their deaths had "no justification, just as the attacks in New York did not 
either." He demanded an end to the "slaughter of the innocents." (New York 
Times, Nov. 3)

Chavez was already in hot water when he told reporters on a European tour 
that Venezuela sought to ensure the rights of the notorious "Carlos the 
Jackal," the Venezuelan-born international terrorist now in prison in 
France. When questioned, a Chavez government deputy foreign minister said 
the government does not see Carlos as a "terrorist." (New York Times, Oct. 13)

This stance is unlikely to be particularly helpful to the anti-war 
opposition. Carlos, born Ilich Ramirez Sanchez, is believed responsible for 
hostage-taking at the French embassy at The Hague in 1974 and at an OPEC 
conference at Vienna in 1975 (in which three were killed), bombing a 
Paris-Toulouse express train in 1982 (killing six), another bombing in 
Paris in 1982 (killing a pregnant woman), bombings at the Marseille 
railroad terminal in 1983 (killing five and wounding 50), and bombing a 
French cultural center in West Berlin in 1983 (killing one and wounding 
23). He was extradited from Sudan to France in 1994 (Newsday, Aug. 16, 
1994). In 1997, he was sentenced to life for the 1975 killings of two 
French intelligence agents who were investigating attacks on El Al planes 
at the Paris airport (Newsday, Oct. 24, 1997).

PUERTO RICO: VIEQUES UNDER SIEGE & BOMBARDMENT
The 9-11 attacks have meant a setback for Puerto Rican activists seeking 
demilitarization of the unincorporated US territory. The day after the 
terrorist attacks, local organizations in the ongoing campaign to halt the 
US Navy's bombing exercises on the island of Vieques met in assembly and 
decided to declare a moratorium on civil disobedience, at least until they 
agree on a new course of action appropriate to the new circumstances. "This 
is for our security," said Vieques community leader Ismael Guadalupe. 
"They'll shoot first and ask questions later. We don't want them to shoot a 
protester and then claim they believed it was a terrorist." This is the 
first halt in the civil disobedience protests in over two years. The 
campaign was sparked when a civilian guard was accidentally killed in a 
Vieques bombing exercise in April 1999. A majority of Puerto Rican voters 
have called for the Navy's withdrawal, prompting President Bush to announce 
earlier this year that the US would do so by May 2003. Activists now fear 
that the Pentagon will use Washington's new war on terrorism to remain on 
Vieques indefinitely. (Carmelo Ruiz-Marrero for IPS, Sept. 27)

But the self-imposed protest moratorium may soon be lifted--in spite of the 
risks. Ismael Guadalupe's Committee for the Rescue and Development of 
Vieques issued a press release Oct. 31 stating the anti-Navy groups "are 
now preparing to block the next military exercises, which could take place 
at the end of November." (Weekly News Update on the Americas, Nov. 4, 
www.Americas.org)


Subscribe to WORLD WAR III REPORT

E-mail: ww3report-subscribe at topica.com

REPRINTING PERMISSIBLE WITH ATTRIBUTION

DONATIONS NEEDED!!!
billw at echonyc.com