19 December 2011 –

Turkey’s role in humanitarian affairs is rapidly growing and has become vital for the international community, the United Nations relief chief said today, calling for stronger partnerships between the country and international organizations to provide assistance to people who have been affected by emergencies around the world.

“The Government and people of Turkey play an important role in international humanitarian affairs,” said Under-Secretary-General and Emergency Relief Coordinator Valerie Amos during her one-day mission to Turkey.

“In addition to contributing generously to crises in Somalia, Libya, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and elsewhere around the world, Turkey also engages actively in other key humanitarian response mechanisms such as the International Search and Rescue Advisory Group (INSARAG),” she said.

The Government and people of Turkey play an important role in international humanitarian affairs.

During her visit, Ms. Amos met with various Turkish officials to discuss ways of strengthening the country’s collaboration with the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) and Turkish organizations, as well as the humanitarian situation in the Horn of Africa.

“OCHA values the role Turkey has played this year in response to the needs of people escaping violence in Syria and Libya,” Ms. Amos said. “I thank the people and the Government of Turkey for their generosity and solidarity with those in need of assistance in the region and across the world.”

Ms. Amos also held talks with Turkish development and relief officials such as Serdar Cam, President of the Turkish International Cooperation and Development Agency, and Ejder Kaya, Acting Director-General of the Disaster and Emergency Management Presidency, and discussed their work in the humanitarian response in Somalia and Sudan.

“Turkey is playing an ever greater role in the international community,” said Ms. Amos. “It is vital that we build effective partnerships together if the United Nations and other organizations are going to rise to the challenge of meeting the needs of an increasing number of people affected by emergencies around the world.”

via Turkey can play vital role in humanitarian affairs – UN official.

By Joëlle Fiss
Senior Associate, Fighting Discrimination Program

Myth vs. Reality on U.S. Engagement with Islamic States

Yesterday, in an historic vote, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution on combating religious intolerance.

The novelty of this text is that it does not include the harmful concept of “defamation of religions.” Instead, the General Assembly resolution calls on governments to speak out and to condemn hatred, while encouraging open debate, human rights education, and interfaith and intercultural initiatives.

The resolution marks a welcome departure from previous U.N texts. For over a decade, efforts were made in several venues at the U.N. to promote the concept that was intended to prohibit “defamation of religions.”  What it did, in fact, was provide cover for abusive national blasphemy laws. Human Rights First has long argued that this concept is inconsistent with universal human rights standards that protect individuals rather than abstract ideas or religions. Indeed, blasphemy laws promote a stifling atmosphere in which governments can restrict freedom of expression, thought and religion and persecute religious minorities. Such resolutions were sponsored by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC).

Last week, the U.S. government organized a two-day Istanbul Process Conference inviting experts from around the world to share best practices on how to fight discrimination based on religion or belief. Some have criticized the United States’ engagement with the O.I.C. on these issues. Human Rights First has worked for years to reverse the tide of defamation of religions at the U.N. , and has welcomed HRC resolution 16/18 as well as this most recent General Assembly resolution. We believe it is important for governments to now implement the provisions of these resolutions.

Here are some commonly expressed concerns and our response to them:

Myth 1: The U.N. resolution opens the door to limiting freedom of speech.

Wrong. The resolution acknowledges the language of article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), notably that “any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.” It calls on states to take measures “consistent with their obligations under international human rights law, to address and combat such incidents.”

The United States has a reservation to that provision, to the extent that it violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, so it is not bound by the obligation. In fact, the U.S. has the highest threshold of free speech in the world, and the U.S. government has expressed no intention of lowering those standards. However, that does not exempt all other states from their legal obligations to fight “incitement, hostility or violence” according to article 20 of the ICCPR. After all, that is what they signed up to, so they have an obligation by law to honor their commitment.

In all respects though, the implementation of Article 20 must not infringe Article 19, which reasserts everyone’s right to freedom of expression. Rather than imposing new restrictions on freedom of speech, which it does not, the new consensus resolution opens the door to an action-oriented approach to fighting religious intolerance. That is very consistent with the U.S. policies and practices – combat violence, discrimination and hatred without restricting freedom of speech.  Resolution 16/18 urges states to train government officials to address religious tensions, to harmonize actions at local and national level, to raise awareness of negative stereotyping of persons, to promote interfaith and intercultural dialogue, to foster religious freedom and to speak out against intolerance (among other recommendations. The only limitation on speech that is in the operative part of the resolution is incitement to “imminent violence”, which is in accordance with US law.

Myth 2: “The Istanbul Process Conference is undermining U.S. standards on freedom of expression.”

Wrong. The U.S. will always enforce its own standards on freedom of expression; these are enshrined in this country’s Constitution. But its legal exceptionalism on freedom of speech does not necessarily mean that the U.S. administration needs to be diplomatically isolated when it comes to promoting globally the principles of freedom of speech and freedom of religion, which many in the U.S. perceive to be core and founding American values. On the contrary, since the U.S. joined the U.N. Human Rights Council, the Obama administration has openly expressed its ambition to exert leadership within the U.N. body.

The U.S. demonstrated that leadership by securing the passage of Resolution 16/18 at the Human Rights Council and by moving immediately to show through the Istanbul Process Conference that states have tools at their disposal to combat violence, discrimination and hatred without restricting free speech. This is not only important to protecting human rights, but also key to keeping the defamation concept off the U.N. agenda.

The aim of the gathering on December 12-14 was to enhance international and technical expertise on challenges that law enforcement officials and other national experts face, when tackling conflict prevention and religious intolerance. The discussions focused on the difficulties that practitioners face on the ground, such as training officials, enforcing anti-discrimination laws and collecting data on violent hate crimes.  The conference also plans to collect information on government’s best practices, which could provide a useful tool. A report will be shared and made public to states and U.N. bodies. The United States should make sure that the report remains true to its intentions, which is to highlight effective practices that do not restrict speech.

Myth 3: The O.I.C. has not abandoned the concept of defamation of religions, so why bother organizing a conference if its agenda hasn’t changed?

The concept of defamation of religions – most frequently seen in national legislation in the form of blasphemy laws – has not vanished into thin air. Blasphemy laws continue to abuse human rights and to inflict brutality on innocent victims.  Human Rights First’s recently updated report documents over 100 incidents from 18 countries. It illustrates how blasphemy laws are frequently invoked to stifle dissent and harass rivals. The report also shows how blasphemy laws can provide state-sanction for discrimination against minority religions and faiths. Since the laws are discriminatory in their open-endedness they enable governments through their application to essentially determine which ideas are acceptable and which are not. As such, accusations of blasphemy have led to arbitrary arrests and detentions and restrictions in the practice and worship of minority religions.

The chilling number of incidents cited in the report of angry mobs taking the law into their own hands provides a window into the violence that blasphemy or rumors of blasphemy can incite. The majority of cases of mob violence hail from Pakistan and Indonesia. Sometimes mobs target government officials for not being strict enough in their application of blasphemy laws. But the violence is most frequently directed toward religious minority communities where the practice of their religion has been deemed blasphemous or, where simply a misspoken word or alleged desecration of the Koran incites retaliation. Violence goes unpunished and sometimes it is rather the victims of the violence that are prosecuted for their role in protecting themselves, their homes, and their places of worship.

At the international level, too, certain leaders have not abandoned reference to defamation of religions. This requires continued vigilance on the part of the US and like-minded governments, as well as human rights and other civil society groups, to ensure that the momentum remains on the side of the new consensus approach.

In organizing this conference, the U.S. took the lead in demonstrating that all states can do more to  combat hatred without restricting speech.  Ultimately, the Istanbul process (and the U.N. resolutions that inspired it) should be judged not by the decision of the U.S. to engage other states to implement resolutions, but on the extent to which it contributes to improving the ways in which states fight religious intolerance while respecting freedom of speech.

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Mehmet Seyfettin EROL,

The “Millennium Development Goals” (MDG) project which is being implemented under the leadership of the United Nations (UN) focusing
to solve the eight fundamental issues facing the human beings at the global level, regarded as a courageous step for the future. The realization of the goals
will be a historical turning point in terms of the great philosopher Immanuel Kant’s “Perpetual Peace” which is still regarded to be a utopia today without any
doubt. In other words, the UN has undertaken a mission issued by the leaders in the Millennium Summit 11 years ago and targeting a more prosperous, just and
peaceful world.

Well, how much is it possible to implement this project which is almost challenging the next millennium in the name of improving the welfare and quality of life of
the humanity? Especially, how will this issue be solved when materialistic perception of globalism that is being made dominate the world and subsequent
problem of evaluating moral-subjective values are considered? Will the UN be able to get over this paradox in an atmosphere in which quantity forestalls
quality and, with regard to this, “imposing” proposed solutions are put on the market as “standard” packages  under
different names and an atmosphere in which all these “standard” packages cause more problems?

No doubt neither at present nor in the medium-term it is easy to answer these questions. Especially approaching to the issue in this way and seeking for
“yes-no” answers to the said questions will mean dynamiting the way to the solution. Anyhow, such an approach will go against both the spirit of social
sciences and the methodological understanding. Our goal here is, through this kind of questions, to bring up the matters that should have been asked and
raised in the first place and to ensure the development of possible solutions, may be by saying “the Emperor is bare.” For this reason, there is no need to
enter into philosophical discussions and very complex methods. Even putting the reality of the world and the statements in the published declaration will be enough
to depict a certain number of challenges in front of the process. Accordingly, although the MDG are launched as a project to find a common solution to the
problems of the humanity at the global level, in practice they are open to be attributed different meanings as long as a common road map cannot be introduced.

Especially after the post-Cold War era within a context where some local issues which could be solved locally are globalized over the concepts are brought into intervention tools,                                                                                                                     so it is inevitable for some nation-states to consider this type of UN based projects cautiously. Therefore, it seems that it wouldn’t be so easy for our world experiencing ebbs and                                                                                                                 flows between the globalization and nation-state process to realize the targets set in the MDG in terms of the implementing developments and practices
about “human rights-democracy- governance” understandings on national, regional and global basis. In other words, this cautious approach will endure unless the
mentality does not change and an objective viewpoint considering the local in many respects and in this context balancing the local-global with collaboration
is not put forth instead of top-down approaches and interventions. On the other hand, as it is partially mentioned above, this is not a problem that
cannot be overcome. The key to overcome it lies in listening the local, trying to grasp its realities, and taking its journey, experience, values and
sensibility into consideration. Hence, it is time to recognize the local as a solution partner rather than taking it only as the source and field of
problems. After all, the locals are global in total and today goals stated with regard to the MDG are predicated on the solution of the problem that grows out
of the locals within the pioneering powers of the globalization. Additionally, it should be accepted that the problems formed with regard to the MDG are not
belong just to the century or millennium we live and that their roots originates in centuries before.

As of today, it cannot be a coincidence that almost the whole of the problems which are on the spotlight of the world agenda and tried to be solved in the
context of the MDG are seen in the former colonial countries, too. As a matter of fact, the said problems’ moving away from their limited and local image,
spreading, deepening, gaining a global character and, at the end, turning into threats to and elements of instability for the future of the whole humanity
have their roots in the centuries before.

In such an environment how can geographical discoveries, colonialism and, as an inevitable outcome of these, imperialism together with the globalization be
kept out of all these? What can be said for materialism that tramples all moral values-beliefs by making material forestall meaning and what can be said for
distorted understanding of modernization that turns people into consumption slaves?  Today how many of the problems emerging in the context of the MDG                                                                                                                                                        has followed a development process independent from these mentioned points?

We know that projects are represented as they are very much humanistic in the global manner. However, since they are kept limited to certain regions for
certain reasons and are launched as peculiar to these regions, they can face some challenges in practice. As a result, in resolution of such kind of
problems it is necessary first to have a clear and well-intentioned position and second to take steps accordingly. Then, what can be done at this point?

There is no need to go so far to find an answer to this question. To find an answer, it will be enough to look at successful approaches and practices that this
region contains within and implements in line with its realities and values, that have their roots in centuries before, that maintain their existence today,
and that take human as its base. In this context, two leading practices of civil society perception and solidarity in Uzbekistan are noteworthy. Focusing
on these practices shows that indeed they are successful models for a significant part of the problems drawn out of the MDG.

As a result of the historical practices and experiments,  the civil approach understanding in Uzbekistan is based on the protecting the people from many
difficulties and threats and aiming social justice, equality and healthy social structure in such an unstable region like Central Asia. It is known that these
human based practices have the capacity to solve many interdependent social-individual problems with on time interventions. This nongovernmental
approach which is taking the family as the base and the woman and the children in the family as the focus and   imposing the necessity of all types of good education                                                                                                                                              is a successful practice within the power of the local completely. These practices are called “Makhalla System” and “Kamalat Youth Movement” and as mentioned above briefly                                                                                                                     they have got human based nongovernmental understanding, a deep history and tradition in the country.

The governing idea of the “Makhalla System” that has been implemented after the independence of Uzbekistan as one of the most concrete examples of participationary and direct
democracy is making the system, in which the basis of social structure is formed, the ground which prepares the youth for the future. With another words, “Makhalla is a big family”,                                                                                                        “Makhalla is the cradle of education” idea and together with “Economic development starts from the Makhalla” understanding constitutes the core of this model.

Constituting the first stage of the participatory administration, “Makhalla Foundations” started their activities in small Makhalla with 5000-7000 residents in which everyone knows each other.                                                                                         They have a spiritual, educational, informative and ability improving attitude. In this context, education, social assistance, environmental health and development; solution to social problems of                                                                                      the residents; help for the ill, aged and needy; employment and construction of social facilities for the youth; attachment of importance to women and their problems; and                                                                                                                             “Women Affairs Commission” working on a voluntary basis are outcomes of the “on-site and on time solution” perception of this model.

Moreower, “Kamalat Youth Movement”, formed in 2001, accepts young people aged between 14 and 28 as members and prepares them for the future with the necessary facilities.                                                                                                                     It is a civil society movement working actively on the issues such as unity of the youth, protection of their interests, improvement of their abilities, solutions to their problems, teaching them                                                                                                their social rights and guiding them in the way of entrepreneurship, and sport.

Therefore, as it is seen in this study primarily some problems emerged at the local-global basis from the aims put forth in the MDG and some concerns carried
by the local and ignored realities will be considered, firstly. Then, the importance and role of Uzbekistan will try to be emphasized in order to understand the
local very well and adaptation of successful practices of it into the global process. At this point, the contributions of  “Uzbek Model” and its NGO understanding with “Mahalla System”                                                                                                        and “Kamalat Youth Movement” which are based on their historical depths, strong tradition, experience and  human based dimensions can be considered as a
successful example and experience in terms of challenging with the fundamental issues facing the human beings at the global level.

Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers Gabriela Knaul

Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers Gabriela Knaul

A United Nations human rights expert today commended Turkish authorities for placing the protection and promotion of human rights high on their agenda, while calling for further steps to guarantee an independent and impartial judicial system.

“Turkey’s recent judicial reforms package brings improvements, in principle, to the judicial system, but that should only be seen as a first step to effectively safeguard the independence and impartiality of judges, prosecutors and lawyers,” said Gabriela Knaul, the Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers.

The main purpose of Ms. Knaul’s five-day visit, which ended today, was to assess a series of judicial reforms recently undertaken by the Government. She also had the opportunity to examine issues of access to justice, fair trial guarantees, the availability of legal defence and the legal profession.

Lawyers need to be treated as equal counterparts of judges and prosecutors within the legal professions.

She noted areas where improvement is needed to strengthen the independence and impartiality of the judiciary, including rationalizing the way in which judges and prosecutors are moved through a sort of rotation system, possibly taking into account the specialization they have acquired during their career when they are assigned to other posts.

She also cited the need for a High Council of Judges and Prosecutors that is completely independent from the Executive, structurally, functionally and in practice. Currently, the Minister of Justice presides over the High Council and authorizes its investigations.

In addition, the Special Rapporteur said that “the far too close relationship between judges and prosecutors” raises concerns about the respect of the principles of impartiality and equality of arms.

A concern that Ms. Knaul heard “quite regularly” is that, in the daily performance of their duties, lawyers are not treated at the same level as judges and prosecutors. “One symbolic example in this regard is the fact that in the courtroom both judges and prosecutors sit on a podium during the hearings, while lawyers sit at a lower level, close to the defendants and the public.

“Lawyers need to be treated as equal counterparts of judges and prosecutors within the legal professions,” she underscored in her preliminary observations.

Another example of the difficulties that lawyers face are obstacles such as limitations to access case files, non-disclosure of evidence, delays in contact with their clients, and undue identification of the lawyer with his/her clients or the clients’ causes as a result of discharging their functions.

“Almost unanimously judges and prosecutors have called my attention to the issue of workload and a backlog of cases, which is of course among the main causes of delays in the proceedings,” the expert added. “This structural problem also affects the citizens’ effective access to justice, as justice delayed is justice denied.”

During her visit, Ms. Knaul visited Ankara, Istanbul and Diyarbakir where she held discussions with Government officials, judges, prosecutors, bar associations, lawyers, academics, international and local non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and UN agencies.

The Special Rapporteur, who functions in an independent and unpaid capacity, will present her final conclusions and recommendations on Turkey to the Human Rights Council in Geneva next June.

via Turkey must do more to ensure independent, impartial judiciary – UN rights expert.

Nobody ought to be surprised by the Russian and Chinese vetoes of a U.N. Security Council resolution condemning Syria’s brutal crackdown on its citizenry and hinting that sanctions could be invoked if repression continues. That sanctions threat had been watered down in the hope of winning Russian and Chinese consent, but to no avail — Moscow and Beijing see themselves as having been burned by the Western powers on Libya, making them view authorization of any action against Syria as opening the way to yet another military intervention. While the Russian and Chinese position was backed by other important Security Council members who shared their view on Libya, a crucial exception was Turkey — which not only supported the resolution, but vowed to impose its own sanctions on Syria despite the U.N. vote.

“During this season of change, the people of the Middle East can now see clearly which nations have chosen to ignore their calls for democracy and instead prop up desperate, cruel dictators,” huffed U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice — perhaps oblivious to the irony that the people of the Middle East have also taken note of which nations are supporting and which are opposing the Palestinians’ efforts to claim their rights at the U.N.

Rice suggested that Russia’s veto was motivated by its desire to continue selling arms to the Assad regime, but China, Brazil, India and South Africa all joined Moscow in opposing the resolution, and none of them does a significant arms trade with Syria. Instead, like Russia, they made clear that their own votes were based on the Libya experience, where the Security Council’s authorization of a mission to protect civilians had been used as cover for a military campaign for regime change: As those countries see it, Libya was an object lesson in Western powers abusing U.N. authorization for action, and exceeding its limits, in order to pursue their own agenda. Hence their folded arms in the face of Syria’s ongoing brutality.

Western leaders accuse the opponents of the resolution of supporting the Assad regime, which may well be true to a greater or lesser extent for some of them. They’re certainly more inclined to share the Assad regime’s view that the conflict unfolding in Syria — like the one in Libya — is a civil war. That may have become a self-fulfilling prophecy as the repression meted out by the regime against non-violent protestors amplifies calls for an armed struggle against Assad. The regime is casting the conflict as a sectarian Islamist insurgency, and doing its best to provoke such, in the hope of shoring up its support among the Alawite and Christian minorities. Seven months into the rebellion, the city of Homs has seen opposition elements arm themselves, in clashes that have indeed taken on a sectarian character, pitting Sunni opposition groups against Alawites. That helps Assad cast the opposition as a mortal threat to Alawites and Christians, and also helps the likes of Russia present the situation as a civil war rather than a people vs. dictatorship scenario.

Libya notwithstanding, however, the Russians, Chinese and their allies have little reason to fear Western military intervention in Syria. Tiny Libya was low-hanging fruit, with prized oil assets and a danger of refugees flooding into southern Europe, and little potential spillover in its immediate neighborhood. Syria is altogether more substantial, with the regime maintaining a solid base of support, and a mortal assault on it raising potentially cataclysmic consequences for Israel, Lebanon and Iraq (even Turkey, to a lesser extent). And then there’s the fact that the U.S. and its NATO allies are all tapped out when it comes to expeditionary warfare, looking to end their entanglements in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya amid a growing economic crisis that trims their strategic ambitions. All along, the U.S. and its allies have tried to send the Syrian opposition the message that they shouldn’t, in fact, operate on the assumption that they can expect a military intervention to save them.

One bright spot for the U.S. — and for the Syrian opposition — is the position of Turkey, Syria’s most powerful neighbor and one of its largest trading partners. Underscoring its increasingly assertive and independent regional role — which has vexed Washington on issues such as Israel and Iran, where Ankara has challenged U.S. policy — Turkey is taking a lead in moves to pressure the Assad regime to halt its repression. Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan broke with his BRIC allies (Russia, China, India and South Africa) to strongly support the Security Council resolution, and chided those who opposed it.

“The Syrian administration should have received a warning,” Erdogan said Wednesday of the vote, during a visit to South Africa (which abstained in the Security Council. “The people of that country do not need to endure a merciless, shameless, tyrannical regime that bombs its own country from the sea. My heart remains with those struggling for freedom. South Africans have been in that position.”

And such scolding will carry more weight in Pretoria coming from Turkey, given its positions on the Palestinian vote, Iran and even the Libya intervention, than it does coming from Washington. Nor was the Turkish leader ready to accept the Security Council’s verdict as the last word. Instead, he promised, Turkey will immediately impose new sanctions of its own, in concert with European Union countries.

via Syria Escapes U.N. Sanctions, But Not Turkey’s – Global Spin – TIME.com.

Erdogan told Ban Ki-moon that Turkey desired to see the Turkish language as an official language of the U.N.. In return, Ban Ki-moon told Erdogan that this was an issue to be decided by member states.

Turkish Premier Recep Tayyip Erdogan requested from the United Nations (U.N.) Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to make Istanbul a center of the U.N. in a meeting he held with the Secretary General on Thursday.

Erdogan told Ban Ki-moon that Turkey desired to see the Turkish language as an official language of the U.N.. In return, Ban Ki-moon told Erdogan that this was an issue to be decided by member states.

During the meeting with the Secretary General, Erdogan expressed Turkey’s disappointment on the Palmer Report that was prepared on the Israeli attack against the Mavi Marmara aid ship in May 2010.

Erdogan told Ban Ki-moon that Turkey would continue to extend assistance to Somalia.

Erdogan and Ban Ki-moon also talked on the Alliance of Civilizations project.

Prime Minister Erdogan will meet the Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadi-Nejad later on Thursday.

AA

Mr Blair was flown to Libya twice at Gaddafi's expense on one of the former dictator's private jets Photo: GETTY

By Richard Spencer, Tripoli, Heidi Blake and Jon Swaine in New York

Robert Ford, US Ambassador to Syria

by Wayne Madsen

WMR has been informed by reliable sources that the U.S. ambassador to Syria, Robert S. Ford, is the key State Department official who has been responsible for recruiting Arab “death squads” from Al Qaeda-affiliated units in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, and Chechnya to fight against Syrian military and police forces in embattled Syria. Ford served as the Political Officer at the U.S. embassy in Baghdad from 2004 to 2006 under Ambassador John Negroponte, the U.S. ambassador to Honduras from 1981 to 1985. Negroponte was a key figure in the covert U.S. program to arm the Nicaraguan contras and his support for vicious paramilitary units in El Salvador and Honduras earned him the nickname of “Mr. Death Squad.”

Negroponte tasked Ford with implementing the “El Salvador option” in Iraq, the use of Iraqi Shi’a irregulars and Kurdish Pesh Merga paramilitary forces to target for assassination and kidnapping/torture Iraqi insurgency leaders in Iraq and across the border in Syria. The operation was named for Negroponte’s death squad operation in Central America in the 1980s.

Ford has become the point man in the recruitment of Arabs and Muslims from the Middle Eastand beyond to battle against the security forces loyal to Syrian President Bashar Assad. The U.S.-backed terrorists have not only carried out attacks on Syrian security forces but have also massacred civilians in “false flag” operations later blamed on Syrian government forces. WMR has been informed that Ford’s operations in Syria are being carried out with the assistance of Israel’s Mossad.

The “El Salvador” option has also been used in Libya, where Al Qaeda irregulars, drawn from Iraq, Afghanistan, and Yemen, have been carrying out murders of Libyan civilians, especially black Libyans and African guest workers, on behalf of the Libyan rebel government. Some of the murders of civilians have been blamed on pro-Muammar Qaddafi forces but they have, in fact, been carried out by Al Qaeda units fighting with the rebels and which are being directed by CIA and MI-6 advisers. Ford has been providing advice to the Libyan rebels on how to carry out their death squad attacks.

From 2006 to 2008, Ford served as U.S. ambassador to Algeria, a nation that opposes the Libyan rebel government and a nation that has begun to see a re-surgence of “Al Qaeda” terrorist attacks against Algerian government targets. In fact, Algeria is viewed as the next domino to fall as the U.S. seeks to establish total military and political hegemony over North Africa.

WMR has learned from a source who was recently in Libya that the Libyan rebel transitional government has agreed to allow the U.S. to establish permanent military bases in Libya, including on the Algerian border. The rebels have also agreed to permit an American to serve as the chief political officer for the planned Libyan transitional advisory body due to be organized by NATO and the United Nations. The body will be modeled on the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq.

www.opinion-maker.org, 12. Sep, 2011

Dorian Jones | Istanbul

Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu speaks to the media in Ankara, Turkey, September 2, 2011.

Photo: AP

Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu speaks to the media in Ankara, Turkey, September 2, 2011.

Turkey’s foreign minister says his government plans to apply to the International Court of Justice this week for an investigation into Israel’s blockade of the Gaza Strip. The move is expected to further deepen the diplomatic crisis between the two countries and comes despite calls from the U.N. secretary general to end the crisis.

Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu’s comments were made after Turkey suspended military agreements with Israel and moved to downgrade diplomatic relations on Friday.

The Turkish moves follow the release of a U.N. report into last year’s killing of nine Turks during an Israeli operation to stop a flotilla ships trying to break its blockade. The report concluded that Israel used excessive force against the flotilla, though its blockade of Gaza was legal.

Tensions have steadily increased over Jerusalem’s refusal to meet Ankara’s demands for an apology and compensation to the families of the dead.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told his cabinet that while his government regrets the deaths caused by the flotilla raid, the naval commandos defended their lives against violent activists. Netanyahu also said he hoped to mend ties with Turkey.

But Turkish Political columnist Asli Aydintasbas says that is unlikely unless Jerusalem meets Ankara’s demands.

“Knowing the prime minister’s personality and knowing the importance of this issue for Turkey, I do not see how Turkey can accept anything short of an apology,” said Aydintasbas.

The deepening diplomatic crisis follows calls for restraint by U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki Moon.

“Both sides are very important countries in the region,” he said. “Their improving relationship, normal relationship will be very important in addressing all the situations Middle East.”

Observers warn the deepening Israeli-Turkish crisis could threaten to further destabilize an increasingly volatile Middle East.

Political scientist Soli Ozel explains.

“There lies a powerful struggle between Turkey and Israel over who is going to be the top honcho [leader] in the eastern Mediterranean,” said Ozel.

Tensions could rise even further with reports Erdogan is planning to visit Gaza in mid September. Turkey’s Islamic-rooted ruling AK Party has strong ties with the Hamas leadership of Gaza.

Israel says it needs to maintain a naval blockade on Gaza to prevent arms smuggling to the ruling Hamas Islamic movement, classified as a terrorist organization by Israel, the European Union and the United States. Palestinians say the blockade causes undue suffering on the entire population of Gaza and violates international law

via Israel Turkey Relations Worsen After UN Report | Europe | English.

The UN nuclear agency has said it is “increasingly concerned” about intelligence suggesting that Iran continues to secretly work on developing a nuclear payload for a missile and other components of a nuclear weapons programme.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report said “many member states” are providing evidence for the assessment, describing information as “credible, extensive and comprehensive”.

The report was made available after being shared with the 35 IAEA member nations and the UN Security Council. It also said Tehran has fulfiled a promise made earlier this year and started installing equipment to enrich uranium at a new location – an underground bunker better protected from air attack.

Enrichment can produce both nuclear fuel and fissile warhead material, and Tehran – which says it wants only to produce fuel with the technology – is under four sets of UN Security Council sanctions for refusing to freeze it.

Tehran also denies secretly experimenting with a nuclear weapons programme.

www.independent.co.uk, 3 September 2011