From resist at resist.ca Tue Jun 17 14:02:51 2003 From: resist at resist.ca (resist admin) Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 14:02:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [news] Kent Prison Uprising Message-ID: -----Forwarded Message----- From: Friends of the Woodwards Squat To: apc-discuss at lists.resist.ca Subject: [APC-Discuss] Kent Prison Uprising Date: 17 Jun 2003 12:49:36 -0700 CBC article. We take no responsibility for reliability or shaping of content. FWS. Prison riot leaves one dead WebPosted Jun 17 2003 07:32 AM PDT http://vancouver.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/View?filename=bc_riot20030617 AGASSIZ, B.C. - One inmate is dead and another badly injured in the wake of an overnight riot at the Kent maximum-security institution in the Fraser Valley community of Agassiz. Inmates went on a rampage at about 10:20 p.m. Monday night in three cell blocks housing 92 men. The inmates were supposed to be getting ready for bed, and their cell doors were open. A prison spokesperson says some of the inmates put on masks to conceal their identities, then began trashing the facility and setting fires. "It appears some of them were under the influence of homemade alcohol, and weapons were observed in their possession," says Samantha Cater. They also barricaded doors and tried unsuccessfully to take over guard control posts. Guards fired a number of warning shots and tear gas, the riot act was read and the emergency response team was called in. When it was all over at 2:50 a.m., one 39-year-old man was dead from stab wounds, and a 41-year-old man was taken to hospital with stab wounds and head injuries. Some staff suffered minor injuries. The RCMP, prison officials and the coroner's service are investigating the disturbance. Kent houses a total of 289 inmates. From bella_donna_36 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 12 11:37:32 2003 From: bella_donna_36 at yahoo.com (Bella) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 11:37:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [news] IOC-ILO Agreement means no games for BC Message-ID: <20030612183732.73318.qmail@web80507.mail.yahoo.com> For Immediate Release June 12, 2003 OPEN LETTER TO THE IOC: 1. NO GAMES 2010 Coalition has acquired a copy of the following document that makes clear the formal relationship between the IOC and the ILO. This document reads as follows: "The International Olympic Committee (IOC) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) share a common belief in the right of all human beings to pursue their spiritual and material development in conditions of freedom, dignity, and equal opportunity. Both entities work for the creation of a peaceful world founded on social justice, tolerance and understanding between individuals and cultures. The IOC and the ILO place the utmost importance on international solidarity, and make their special contribution to human development and the pursuit of excellence in accordance with their respective mandates and principles. Sharing these common goals, the IOC and ILO have therefore decided to cooperate in promoting social justice and human dignity worldwide through their respective fields of activity. The IOC and the ILO undertake to encourage activities in pursuit of this objective, particularly those which contribute to the elimination of poverty and child labour and the development of individual potential of creative talents and productive skills. To this end, the Parties have agreed that a joint IOC/ILO working group will be established to develop a programme of mutual cooperation. This agreement will become effective upon signature by both parties and shall remain in force till such time as one party informs the other in writing that it wishes to terminate the agreement. Done at Lausanne this 19th day of January 1998, in two originals in the English and French language." Michel HANSENNE Director-General International Labour Office Juan Antonio SAMARANCH President International Olympic Committee 2. Canada is a member state of the International Labour Organization. The ILO recently found that the British Columbia government violated basic international rights and standards protecting workers. 3. The government of British Columbia passed six pieces of legislation affecting 150,000 workers in education, health care and social services. These laws impose contracts, force an end to legal strike action, and strip basic protections from negotiated collective agreements. 4. The Liberal government of BC is a main proponent and driving force behind BC's bid for the 2010 Winter Olympic games. 5. The IOC is bound by its agreement with the ILO and should be precluded from working with the province of BC to bring the Games to Vancouver as long as the government is in violation of ILO standards and the standing agreement between the IOC and ILO. 6. NO GAMES 2010 Coalition calls upon the IOC to respect its own agreement with the ILO and not award the 2010 Games to Vancouver. For more information, contact, Christopher A. Shaw, Ph.D Associate Professor Research Pavilion 828 W. 10th Ave. Vancouver, British Columbia Canada, V5Z 1L8 tel: 604-875-4111 (ext. 68373) Fax: 604-875-4376 e-mail: csshawlab at hotmail.com ===== "I got no patience for civil complacence" __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com From christoff at dojo.tao.ca Wed Jun 18 11:07:59 2003 From: christoff at dojo.tao.ca (Stefan Christoff) Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 14:07:59 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [news] CKUT Radio: Sacramento Mobilization - Resistance is Rising Message-ID: CKUT Radio: Sacramento Mobilization - Resistance is Rising An interview with Luke Anderson author of Genetic Engineering Food & Our Environment about the coming Sacramento mobilization opposing a "Corporate Agriculture Ministerial" being held in Sacramento from June 20-25. The Bush administration, USAID, United States Department of Agriculture, and the State Department will be hosting government ministers from 180 nations and transitional corporate reps to a meeting in Sacramento California, to pave the way for trade agreements like the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), which means in concrete terms the privatization of water, genetic engineering and factory farming. These meetings in Sacramento, like the WTO mini-ministerial meeting set to take place in Montreal from July 28-30th are key stepping stones for the US, other G8 nations and their corporate backers to push through their agenda in the lead up to the next World Trade Organization meeting in Cancun in September. Activists involved with various social movements from throughout the world are currently organizing to confront these meetings in the streets of Sacramento, California for a five-day festival of diverse resistance to biotechnology, "free trade" agreements like the FTAA and institutions like the WTO. Currently there are non-violent direct actions, marches, rallies and teach-ins planned for Sacramento. -> To listen to the interview with Luke Anderson visit: http://www.radio4all.net/proginfo.php?id=7248 -> To get more information about the Sacramento mobilization visit: http://www.sacmobilization.org ---------------------- Shodown in Sacramento? Bush's Biotech Bullies Vs. The World By Aziz Choudry The Bush Administration, in the interests of Corporate America (how can anyone tell where one ends and the other begins?) is on the warpath again. Like its ?war on terror?, it is fighting on several fronts. Its goal is to force food and seeds containing genetically modified organisms into mouths and fields across the planet, by any means necessary. After brutally bombing Afghanistan and Iraq it ?donated? food aid contaminated with GMOs. Now the ?United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act? ties US international medical assistance for HIV/AIDS victims to countries? acceptance of US food aid containing GMOs. Claims that the US WTO challenge against the EU moratorium on genetically engineered (GE) food and crops is driven by (in Dubya?s words) ?the great cause of ending hunger in Africa?, make me wonder if Bush and co. will re-record USA for Africa?s ?We Are The World?. Just imagine. Senior US politicians linking arms, swaying and singing with agribusiness executives?. ?There's a choice we're making, we're saving our own lives, it's true we'll make a better day just you and me?. Ugh! This biotech offensive offers the world an unoriginal ?choice?. You?re either with us or against us. Bush and his trade representative, former Enron consultant Robert Zoellick portray themselves as champions of the poor, standing up to the elitist European anti-biotech scaremongerers, who are denying food to starving simple Africans who don?t really understand much about anything. It?s US agribusiness to the rescue! Who said they were only interested in new markets and higher profits? Monopoly control over the world?s food supply ? surely not? Billions of dollars in markets for GM crops and seeds? No way! Ah, the white man?s burden? They will take their song and dance to WTO mini-ministerials in Egypt (June) Montreal (July) the Cancun WTO Ministerial Meeting, and beyond. But a major performance will be in Sacramento next month. The Ministerial Conference and Expo on Agricultural Science and Technology, sponsored by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), State Department, and the US Agency for International Development (USAID), takes place in Sacramento from 23-25 June. The USDA calls it ?2003?s premier forum for top-level policy and industry dialogue relating to agricultural technology.? Neither are public events ? entry is by invitation only. Agriculture, trade, science, health and environment ministers from 180 countries have been invited. So far, 125 ministers from 75 countries have confirmed their attendance. Hosted in Sacramento?s Convention Center, it will be the largest international conference ever held in California?s state capitol. US taxpayers will pay the expenses for ministers from some countries, including Afghanistan, to attend. Total expenses for the conference are $3 million so far, according to media reports. Anxious to stave off and discredit planned opposition to the meeting, officials deny any relationship between the Sacramento meetings and the WTO. In an interview with the Sacramento Bee (May 8), Christian Foster, assistant deputy administrator of the USDA's Foreign Agriculture Service, claimed: "The WTO has absolutely nothing to do with it." It may not be a WTO meeting but for the US government and agribusiness, Sacramento has everything to do with their global trade and investment agenda. Informal pressure can be just as effective in securing results as binding trade agreements. The US administration uses every opportunity to coerce the rest of the world into compliance with its economic and geopolitical interests, through its aid budget, its embassies, and through meetings like this. Sacramento brings together many of the same players ? officials and corporations - behind the controversial addition of agriculture and intellectual property rights on the world trade agenda during the GATT Uruguay Round which set up the WTO. These agreements protect the corporate players that now dominate vast areas of the world?s food supply while undermining the rights and lives of small farmers, peasant and indigenous communities. The conference opening plenary says it all: ?How science and technology, in a supportive policy environment, can drive agricultural productivity increases and economic growth to alleviate world hunger and poverty?. Other sessions include: ?Food security and the promise of new technologies?, ?Attracting foreign and domestic investment in the agricultural economy?, ?Fighting Hunger and increasing incomes with biotechnology?, and ?Combating Malnutrition, disease, and HIV/AIDS: Food-based intervention?. As Hope Shand of the ETC Group recently wrote in the NY Times (27 May): ?There is no scientific evidence that genetically modified foods are cheaper, safer, better-tasting or more nutritious. Lacking consumer benefits for its genetically modified crops, the biotech industry is desperately seeking moral legitimacy?. Expo exhibitors include biotech giants Monsanto and DuPont (Qualicon), CropLife America (whose members read like a who?s who of US agribusiness/biotechnology corporations), and DC-based International Food Information Council (funded by US food, beverage and agricultural industry and an advocate of biotech). Food irradiation corporations like Ottawa-headquartered MDS Nordion, and San Diego-based Surebeam (sponsor for the Expo grand opening) will also be there. Food irradiation, a technology which brings together the food processing, agribusiness, medical science and nuclear industries is highly controversial. US agribusiness researcher and campaigner Al Krebs writes: ?Critics of irradiation believe it is really not only just a quick (and temporary) fix for poor slaughterhouse sanitation, but also a way of disposing of nuclear wastes by selling them to private industry and leaving the taxpayers to fund the inevitable clean-up costs.? Agriculture remains a hugely contentious trade issue, with the EU and US in apparent stalemate in WTO negotiations. Many countries in the South are resisting pressure to make yet more concessions on a range of issues, including agriculture, saying that the system is based on double standards which favour the powerful, and that the promised benefits of free trade have not materialized. The USDA, USAID and the State Department are advancing US geopolitical and corporate interests internationally, and a market model of development which has caused ecological and human devastation, both in the South and in the USA. These agencies work to promote biotechnology as a ?solution? to hunger. USAID has been promoting agricultural biotechnology for over a decade. The title of its recent policy document, ?Foreign Policy in the National Interest: Promoting Freedom, Security and Opportunity? speaks volumes about the agency?s agenda. Hegemony, not humanitarian assistance. Principled opposition to biotechnology on health, environmental, ethical and other grounds, such as African countries decisions to refuse GE food aid are viewed as a new ?axis of evil? to be overcome. The international peasant and small farmer movement, Via Campesina, accuses the US of ?trying to usurp the process of the World Food Summit held in June 2002 by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) by claiming that Sacramento is a ?follow up to the Rome Summit.? Via Campesina has denounced the Sacramento meetings urging governments not to attend. Via Campesina believes that another "Blair House Agreement" between the US and the European Commission ? may be under negotiation. This agreement broke the standoff between the US and EU during the Uruguay Round, and maintained support for corporate, export-oriented agriculture at the expense of small farmers, peasants, and food producers worldwide. Industrial farming and the reorientation of agriculture to a corporate model is a human and ecological disaster. Under free trade, the dumping of subsidised (and often genetically modified) imports on the Third World is destroying the livelihoods of millions of farmers, many of them women, who simply cannot compete. The free market model which the US so ardently supports is behind much of the social and economic injustice which underpins food insecurity ? not inadequate access to biotechnology. The US backs international institutions like the IMF and the World Bank which force countries to deregulate and open up their economies, and reorient their agricultural production away from meeting domestic needs to growing cash crops for export. Via Campesina is campaigning to get the WTO out of agriculture altogether. The fact that an official meeting and a business expo are taking place side by side in Sacramento neatly illustrates the cosy relationship between the US administration and big business. Secretary of Agriculture Anne Veneman is a former director of Calgene (now a Monsanto subsidiary) the first company to bring genetically-engineered food, the Flavr Savr tomato, to consumers. When Veneman recently proclaimed that the WTO case against the EU represents ?fighting for the interests of American agriculture? she clearly means US agribusiness. It is merely a different way of saying what Robert Fraley (co-president of Monsanto?s agricultural sector) told the Farm Journal in 1996 ? ?What you are seeing is not just an consolidation of seed companies, it's really a consolidation of the entire food chain." While the Expo will promote US corporate agriculture products and technology, the Ministerial allows the Bush administration and US biotechnology/agribusiness corporations to lobby and bully officials and ministers of other governments to fall into line with their pro-biotech, industrial farming, agricultural trade and investment liberalisation agenda before Cancun. Planting high-yield crops, maintained by imported fertilizers and insecticides reinforces farmers? dependency on patent holders like Monsanto and Cargill, which increasingly insist on the use of genetically modified seeds and threaten farmers who generate their seeds saved from last season?s crop. The US wants to turn farmers into bioserfs and strip communities and countries of their rights to determine what they grown and eat. As a January 21, 2001 Guardian article suggested, the ?real strategy? of North American agribusiness ?is to introduce so much genetic pollution that meeting the consumer demand for GM-free food is seen as not possible. The idea, quite simply, is to pollute faster than the countries can legislate ? then change the laws to fit the contamination.? Meanwhile in Sacramento, there is the usual media beat-up predicting violent protests next month?notwithstanding the fact that calls to action are explicitly committed to non-violent principles. Conference opponents include Sacramento community organisers involved in a battle to save the city?s oldest organic community garden from out-of-state developers, who see the local/global connections to the conference?s agenda to promote industrial agriculture, biotechnology and the corporate control over farming. Bay Area anti-war groups which have linked the war on Iraq, corporate US interests, and neoliberal globalisation also promise to join the Sacramento mobilization. Across the US, and beyond, many small farmers organisations, environmental and global justice campaigners see Sacramento as a highly significant meeting in local and global struggles for ecological and social justice. While the US Administration perpetuates a racist worldview that people in the South are too dumb to make up their own minds about biotechnology, it studiously overlooks mass opposition to genetic engineering by small and peasant farmers movements in both North and South. Many US family farmers? organisations strongly oppose genetic engineering. Over 70 towns in Vermont have passed resolutions opposing the planting of GE crops, and calling for the labeling of GE foods. In 2000, the City and County of San Francisco passed a resolution calling on the Food and Drug Authority, the Environmental Protection Authority and the USDA to consider a moratorium on all GE foods, urging that consumers be provided with information about the use of GE ingredients in food products Not far from the conference venue, Sacramento?s civic square is named the Cesar Chavez Plaza. Cesar Chavez Park is close by. Ten years after his death, Chavez is revered as a David who stood up to the Goliath of US agribusiness corporations, environmental racism and social and economic injustice using non-violent direct action and won. Who can forget the 1966 march on Sacramento demanding justice for farmworkers which he led and the grape boycotts which followed? With the Sacramento meeting only weeks away, I am struck by the relevance of his words from a January 1990 speech in honour of Martin Luther King. "The powers that be make themselves richer by exploiting the poor. Our nation continues to allow children to go hungry, and will not even house its own people. The time is now for people, of all races and backgrounds, to sound the trumpets of change". ---------------------- From ericr at zoolink.com Sat Jun 21 13:51:15 2003 From: ericr at zoolink.com (Eric R.) Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 13:51:15 -0700 Subject: [news] Message from the Union of the Unemployed in Iraq Message-ID: <000a01c33836$dc3a3ee0$03000004@oemcomputer> Official Letter from the Union of the Unemployed in Iraq - UUI To: All labor unions and organizations around the world In the aftermath of the U.S devastating war on Iraq and on the following May Day, we, a group of activists in the labor movement, have founded the Union of the Unemployed in Iraq-UUI. Our decision to form this union was an essential response to the extraordinary circumstances in which Iraq has gone through. 13 years of economic sanctions as well as the dominance of the Ba'ath regime have had its greatest impact on imposing the minimum standards of living, the most inhuman working conditions, and a large-scale unemployment on the masses of workers. The Anglo-American war, which ended with the occupation of Iraq, has pushed further up the unemployment rates to dreadful levels. Most of the industrial and service facilities and institutions were rendered out of service and thousands of factories and smaller workshops have closed their doors either due to lack of water and electricity, or due to lack of security. Rumors are widely being spread around that the U.S is thinking of privatizing the public sector. This clearly means an increase in unemployment among workers. Millions of workers are out of work with absolutely no means of earning a living, threatened with hunger while the food ration, distributed by the previous regime is rapidly running out. We have formed our union to bring all unemployed workers together and to push forward their basic demands. The Union of the Unemployed in Iraq has currently around 15,000 members across the country, with centres in 3 major cities in Baghdad, Kirkuk and Nasiriya. Since founding our union we have organized weekly demonstrations to draw the attentions of the occupying forces to our status and conditions, but there has been no response to our demands so far. Our demands could be summarized: either Jobs or Unemployment Insurance. We also demand: emergency allowances to all unemployed and full payments to all those who lost their jobs because of war. Since May 24th., 2003, we have been in continuous negotiations with the U.S Civil Administration, in vain. They are clearly postponing and maneuvering. Dear Friends, Our union has decided to organize a big demonstration across Iraq on Thursday, July 3rd, 2003. We, therefore, entreat you to support us in our demands. You could express your solidarity with us either through organizing protesting rallies or demonstrations or holding big protesting gatherings on the day of our demonstration, in front of those authorities that are responsible for our current situation i.e. the British and the American authorities. You could also send us letters of solidarity to our union and letters of protest to the US and British consulates and embassies in your countries. We call on the workers of the US and Britain in particular to raise their voices against their governments which deny us our simplest demands. Your solidarity with us will certainly reinforce the impact of our protests to compel the occupation forces in Iraq to submit to our demands. In Solidarity, Issam Shukri, International Relations Coordinator Union of the Unemployed in Iraq ? UUI Bab Al-Sharki, Al Rasheed St., Old Labor Union Bldg. Baghdad, Iraq Email: union_u_iraq at yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Ytzhak at telus.net Tue Jun 24 15:09:17 2003 From: Ytzhak at telus.net (Ytzhak) Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 15:09:17 -0700 Subject: [news] What's Happening? Boron Interviews Chomsky Message-ID: <3EF8CC0D.D98A905C@telus.net> What's Happening? Boron Interviews Chomsky by Noam Chomsky and Atilio Boron June 14, 2003 Atilio A. Boron: Looking at the recent US policies in Iraq, What do you think was the real goal behind this war? Noam Chomsky: Well, we can be quite confident on one thing. The reasons we are given can't possibly be the reasons. And we know that, because they are internally contradictory. So one day, Bush and Powell would claim that "the single question," as they put it, is whether Iraq would disarm and the next day they would say it doesn?t matter whether Iraq disarms because they will go on and invade anyway. And the next day would be that if Saddam and his group get out then the problem will be solved; and then, the next day for example, at the Azores, at the summit when they made an ultimatum to the United Nations, they said that even if Saddam and his group get out they would go on and invade anyway. And they went on like that. When people give you contradictory reasons every time they speak, all they are saying is: "don't believe a word I say" . So we can dismiss the official reasons. And the actual reasons I think are not very obscure. First of all, there?s a long standing interest. That does not account for the timing but it does account for the interest. And that is that Iraq has the second large oil reserves in the World and controlling Iraqi oil and even ending up probably with military bases in Iraq will place the United States in an extremely strong position to dominate the global energy system even more than it does today. That's a very powerful lever of world control, quite apart from the profits that comes from it. And the US probably doesn't intend to access the oil of Iraq; it intends to use primarily safer Atlantic basin resources for itself (Western Hemisphere, West Africa). But to control the oil has been a leading principle of US foreign policies since the Second World War, and Iraq is particularly significant in this respect. So that's a long standing interest. On the other hand it doesn't explain the timing. Full article: http://vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2003/06/53164_comment.php#53854 -- ___ Stay Strong "Peace sells but who's buying?" Megadeth http://www.sleepybrain.net/bum.html http://ilovepoetry.com/search.asp?keywords=braithwaite&orderBy=date http://groups.yahoo.com/group/THCO2 From pnbrown at vcn.bc.ca Wed Jun 25 11:52:54 2003 From: pnbrown at vcn.bc.ca (Paul Browning) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 11:52:54 -0700 Subject: [news] Fw: COUNCIL E-lert 06/24/03: Safe-Injection Site Receives Federal Approval Message-ID: <000d01c33b4a$fc95cbc0$6401a8c0@PAUL> ----- Original Message ----- From: "COPE E-lerts" To: Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2003 7:59 PM Subject: COUNCIL E-lert 06/24/03: Safe-Injection Site Receives Federal Approval > COUNCIL E-lert 06/24/03: Site Expected to Open by Labour Day, Provided > Provincial Funding Secured > > > WHAT'S HAPPENING? > - The federal government announced today that Vancouver will be the first > North American city to operate a publicly supported, supervised safe > injection site (SIS). > - A key commitment made by COPE Mayor Larry Campbell during the last civic > election, the facility will provide services including supervision of > injections with emergency response to drug overdoses, injection-related > first aid (e.g., wound care), assessment and referral to primary health > care and service providers, harm reduction teaching and counselling, and > exchange of needles, condoms and other injecting equipment. > - The SIS could be open by Labour Day, provided the province does not delay > financial support for operation of the site. > - The site will be operated by the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority and > will be open 18-hours a day, with one registered nurse, one licensed > practical nurse and an addiction counsellor on staff at all times. > - Renovations of the SIS site at 135/139 E. Hastings St. will be completed > by the end of August. > - In addition to the site's approval, the federal government will provide > up to $1.5 million over four years to evaluate the success of the site in > reducing harm associated with illicit drug use and improving the health of > drug users. > > > WHAT CAN YOU DO? > - According to the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority, provincial funding > for the SIS has not yet been finalized. > - Email provincial health minister Colin Hansen at > HLTH.Health at gems1.gov.bc.ca to call for provincial funding of the > safe-injection facility in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside. > - For more information on the supervised safe injection site, visit > http://www.vch.ca/newslinks/current/current_march_2003.pdf > > > QUESTIONS? > For more information, contact COPE Organizer Neil Monckton by calling > 604-255-0400, or email neil at cope.bc.ca. > > A NOTE ON E-LERTS > E-lerts are COPE press releases and highlight information about upcoming > civic activities. Here's how COPE uses them: > (1) There are four types of E-lerts -- COMMUNITY, COUNCIL, PARKS and SCHOOL. > (2) There will likely be a maximum of three E-lerts a week for all > boards/council. > (3) You can sign up for selective E-lerts. To change your E-lert status, > please reply to this e-mail by putting the name of the board or council you > wish to be E-lerted to in the subject line (e.g., Jane Doe wants Council > and Parks so she replies with COUNCIL PARKS in the subject line). COMMUNITY > E-lerts are sent to everyone regardless of your E-lert status. > (4) If you do not wish to receive E-lerts, please reply to this e-mail by > putting "REMOVE" in the subject line. > (5) If you know anyone who would like to receive E-lerts, please send their > name, phone number and e-mail address to cope at cope.bc.ca. > > PRIVACY NOTE: The names and addresses of subscribers to COPE E-lerts will > not be provided to any other individual or group. > > COALITION OF PROGRESSIVE ELECTORS - VANCOUVER'S VOICE > Address: 140-111 Victoria Drive, Vancouver, BC V5L 4C4 > Web Site: http://www.cope.bc.ca > E-mail: cope at cope.bc.ca > Telephone: (604) 255-0400 > Fax: (604) 708-5740 > > From christoff at dojo.tao.ca Thu Jun 26 03:13:32 2003 From: christoff at dojo.tao.ca (Stefan Christoff) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 06:13:32 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [news] CKUT Radio: Afghanistan - US Turns to the Taliban Message-ID: CKUT Radio: Afghanistan - US Turns to the Taliban An interview with Syed Saleem Shahzad a journalist for the Asia Times based in Karachi Pakistan, about ongoing negotiations between American military & intelligence officials, Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and Taliban leaders at a Pakistan Air Force base. The negotiations are dealing with the current political power vacuum in Afghanistan, created by the American lead war against Afghanistan & it's civilian population. The current power vacuum is fueling a growing guerrilla resistance movement against the heavy American imperial military presence in the county, which is single-handedly maintaining the hold on power, which Hamid Karzai's puppet administration has over certain regions of the county. -> To Listen to the interview with Syed Saleem Shahzad visit: http://www.radio4all.net/proginfo.php?id=7297 ------------------------------ US turns to the Taliban: By Syed Saleem Shahzad From: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/EF14Ag01.html KARACHI - Such is the deteriorating security situation in Afghanistan, compounded by the return to the country of a large number of former Afghan communist refugees, that United States and Pakistani intelligence officials have met with Taliban leaders in an effort to devise a political solution to prevent the country from being further ripped apart. According to a Pakistani jihadi leader who played a role in setting up the communication, the meeting took place recently between representatives of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), the US Federal Bureau of Investigation and Taliban leaders at the Pakistan Air Force base of Samungli, near Quetta. The source told Asia Times Online that four conditions were put to the Taliban before any form of reconciliation can take place that could potentially lead to them having a role in the Kabul government, whose present authority is in essence limited to the capital: * Mullah Omar must be removed as supreme leader of the Taliban. * All Pakistani, Arab and other foreign fighters currently engaged in operations against international troops in Afghanistan must be thrown out of the country. * Any US or allied soldiers held captive must be released. * Afghans currently living abroad, notably in the United States and England, must be given a part in the government - through being allowed to contest elections - even though many do not even speak their mother tongue, such as Dari or Pashtu. Apparently, the Taliban refused the first condition point blank, but showed some flexibility on the other terms. As such, this first preliminary contact made little headway. It is not known whether there will be further meetings, but given the fact that the reason for staging the talks in the first place remains unchanged, more contact can be expected. The channels for the contact have been set up by Taliban who defected when the government collapsed in Kabul, and fled to Pakistan, where they were sheltered in ISI safe houses. Now these defectors, working with Pakistani jihadis who know how to approach the Taliban leadership, are acting as go-betweens. The backdrop to the first meeting is an ever-increasing escalation in the guerrilla war being waged against foreign troops in Afghanistan. Small hit-and-run attacks are a daily feature in most parts of the country, while face-to-face skirmishes are common in the former Taliban stronghold around Kandahar in the south. According to people familiar with Afghan resistance movements, the one that has emerged over the past year and a half since the fall of the Taliban is about four times as strong as the movement that opposed Soviet invaders for nearly a decade starting in 1979. The key reason for this is that the previous Taliban government - which is dispersed almost intact in the country after capitulating to advancing Northern Alliance forces without a fight - is backed by the most powerful force in Afghanistan: clerics and religious students. For centuries, these people were the most respected segment of Afghan society, and before 1979 they never participated in politics. On the contrary, their role was one of reconciliation in conflicts. During the Afghan resistance movement against the USSR, things changed, and clerics threw their weight behind the mujahideen struggle, but, with a few exceptions, such as Maulana Yunus Khalis, they were not in command. With the withdrawal of the Soviets and the emergence of the Taliban in the early 1990s, though, the situation once again changed. The Taliban, taking advantage of the power struggles among bitterly divided militias in Kabul, consolidated themselves into an effective political movement led by clerics and in 1996 seized power in Kabul. A part of their success also lay in the fact that initially Afghans, especially Pashtuns who make up the majority of the country, were reluctant to take up the gun against clerics. Now, in the renewed guerrilla war against foreign troops, it is the clerics who are calling the shots. For instance, Hafiz Rahim is the most respected cleric in the Kandahar region, and he commands all military operations from the sanctuary of the mountainous terrain. The US forces have employed maximum air support and advanced technology in an attempt to curtail attacks, but without the help of local Afghan forces they are unable to track down Hafiz Rahim, who to date has targeted US convoys scores of times. The United States has admitted a few deaths, while the Taliban claim they have killed many more than the official numbers state. For funds, the Taliban use money looted from the central bank before they abandoned Kabul, estimated in excess of US$110 million, in addition to money received from Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda. At the same time, famed warlord Gulbbudin Hekmatyar has joined the resistance after returning from exile in Iran. His Hezb-i-Islami Afghanistan (HIA) is the most organized force in Afghanistan, and its participation has added real muscle to the resistance. Many top slots in the Kabul administration are occupied by former HIA members who, although they were once anti-Taliban, are loyal to the Islamic cause and anti-US. Also, several provincial governors and top officials are former HIA commanders. They are suspect in the eyes of the Americans, but because of their huge political clout it is impossible to remove them. With this groundswell of support - even if in places it is only passive - and with Kabul's influence restricted to the capital, the Americans and their allies will remain vulnerable targets, let alone be in a position to restore any form of law and order. It is in situations like this, argue most experts on Afghanistan, that traditionally insurrections begin in the Afghan army against foreign administrators. This is not the end of the problems. More than 2 million Afghan refugees, according to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, have returned to Afghanistan from countries all over the world, including India, Russia, Cambodia, Malaysia, Zimbabwe and Central Asian countries. Many of them belonged to communist factions during and after the Soviet invasion, while a number of their counterparts remained and now hold positions in Kabul. At present, Kabul is divided into two main factions. The first is pro-US, which is represented by the US and allied troops and those loyal to President Hamid Karzai. The second is pro-Russian and pro-Iranian, represented by Defense Minister General Qasim Fahim and his Northern Alliance forces. Although the camps are cooperating at present, they are silently building their support bases to make a grab for full power once the present interim administration runs its course, a process that is due to begin in October with a loya jirga (grand council). In this respect, every returned or returning former "communist comrade" is important, for should the Northern Alliance faction develop sufficient critical mass, it would come as no surprise if its leaders openly forged an alliance with the resistance movement. ----------------------