WikiLeaks Cable #09SANAA1662
Iran in Yemen: Tehran's shadow looms large, but footprint is small


Also visit Ziomania.com

reference ID e.g. #09SANAA1662. Reference ID Created Released Classification Origin 09SANAA1662 2009-09-12 14:02 2010-12-03 21:09 SECRET//NOFORN Embassy Sanaa  (c-ne9-01257) REF: A. STATE 86584
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
¶B. SANAA 1628
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
¶C. SANAA 876 Classified By: Ambassador Stephen Seche for reasons 1.4(b) and (d).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
¶1. (S/NF) SUMMARY. Despite repeated ROYG accusations of Tehran's material and financial support to the Houthi rebels in Sa'ada and increasingly belligerent media exchanges between Yemen and Iran, Iranian influence in Yemen has thus far been limited to informal religious ties between Yemeni and Iranian scholars and negligible Iranian investment in the energy and development sectors. While Iran has good strategic reasons to involve itself in Yemeni affairs - including Yemen's proximity to Saudi Arabia and the presence of a large Zaydi Shiite population ) the only visible Iranian involvement remains the Iranian media's proxy battle with Saudi and Yemeni outlets over support for the Houthis. Significant gaps exist in post's knowledge of Iranian activities in Yemen due to the sensitivity of the subject and post's very limited access to events in Sa'ada. Post believes that while documented influence is limited, Iran's strategic interests in Yemen merit close monitoring in the future. END SUMMARY.

 Iran-royg relations
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
¶2. (S/NF) After two high-profile Iranian official visits to Sana'a in early 2009, the formal bilateral relationship has rapidly deteriorated as a result of renewed fighting in Sa'ada governorate. Iran maintains an embassy in Sana'a headed by Ambassador Mahmoud Zada. According to DATT sources, Iran is not providing any military training to the Yemenis, and there have been no announced military sales between the two countries in recent years. Iranian Speaker of Parliament Ali Larijani visited Yemen in May 2009 to discuss Iranian investment in Yemen's energy and infrastructure sectors and the bilateral relationship. During Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki's June visit to Sana'a, his second in two years, both nations maintained at least a public appearance of normal bilateral cooperation. Mottaki told local media at the time, "Iran is pursuing an honest and friendly approach towards Yemen. Iran wants progress, security and prosperity for Yemen."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
¶3. (S/NF) With the August onset of the sixth war in Sa'ada, however, the ROYG has reverted to its previous position that Iran is intent on meddling in Yemen's internal affairs. Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) Chief of Protocol Abdullah al-Radhi, who spent over a decade in Tehran as a student and diplomat, including a tour as Yemen's ambassador to Iran, echoed the near-unanimous attitude of ROYG officials when he told the DCM on August 23 that he believes Iran wants a strong political card to play in Yemen similar to Hizballah in Lebanon. He said that Yemen tried to normalize the relationship with the visits of Larijani and Mottaki, but Yemen "cannot accept" Iranian attempts to convert the Yemeni Zaydis to Twelver Shiism. (Note: The ROYG views Zaydi Shiites as less extremist and closer in practice to Sunnis than the Twelver Shiism predominant in Iran. End Note.) Radhi also said that the Iranians are still upset about Yemen,s support for Iraq during and since the first Gulf War.

Iran and the houthis

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
¶4. (S/NF) Although the ROYG maintains that Iran is providing material and financial support to the Houthi rebels in Sa'ada, little evidence has surfaced to date that supports this claim. President Saleh told General Petraeus in a July 26 meeting that the National Security Bureau (NSB) had a DVD showing Houthi rebels training with Hizballah uniforms and tactics. (Note: In a follow-up conversation, NSB Deputy Director Ammar Saleh claimed no knowledge of the DVD. End Note.) In an August 17 meeting, Saleh told Senator McCain that Iran was working against Yemeni stability because it believed that a weakened Yemen would hurt the U.S. and Saudi Arabia, both traditional enemies of Iran. In the same meeting, NSB Director Ali Mohammed al-Ansi claimed that the ROYG had arrested two separate "networks" of Iranians in Yemen on charges of espionage in connection with the Houthis and that one of the accused admitted to providing $100,000 every month to the Houthis on behalf of the Iranian Sanaa 00001662 002 of 004 government. Ansi told Deputy National Security Advisor John Brennan on September 6 that the ROYG was unable to share the evidence from this case because it was still in the courts. (Comment: Since the outbreak of hostilities in 2004, the ROYG has used many different arguments, including the Houthis' alleged ties to Iran and Hezballah, to attempt to convince the USG to declare the Houthis a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO). In 2008, the ROYG gave post a dossier of information purporting to show ties between the Houthis and Iran. Post passed on the file to the inter-agency community in Washington. Analysts agreed that the information did not proove Iranian involvement in Sa'ada. End Note.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
¶5. (S/NF) ROYG spokesman Hassan al-Lawzi has repeated statements throughout the three weeks of fighting in Sa'ada accusing Iran of supporting the Houthi rebels. On September 1, Foreign Minister Abubakir al-Qirbi publicly warned Iran that interference in the Sa'ada conflict would have a negative impact on bilateral relations and that, if such interference continued, Yemen could be forced to make "hard decisions," according to media reports. Qirbi also lodged an official complaint with the Iranian Embassy in Sana'a detailing Yemen's displeasure with Iranian support for the Houthis. Director for External Financial Relations at the Ministry of Finance Fouad al-Kohlani told PolOff on August 19 that the Houthis' level of organizational sophistication and military successes against government forces indicate a higher level of financial resources than the Houthis could attain on their own. He speculated that because of its strategic interest in gaining a foothold near Saudi Arabia, Iran was likely the Houthis' financial backer. The Iranians, for their part, continue to deny any interference in Sa'ada. On August 23, the Iranian Embassy in Bahrain stated that Iran had no connections to events in Yemen and "supports any movement that works to unify the ranks of the Yemeni people," according to Bahraini media. The Iranian Embassy in Sana'a repeated these statements on September 7, Yemeni media reported.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
¶6. (S/NF) Media reports on August 22 cited ROYG officials claiming to have uncovered six storehouses of Houthi-owned, Iranian-made weapons ) including machine guns, short-range rockets and ammunition ) near Sa'ada City. In an August 25 meeting, however, Ministry of Defense Chief of Staff Major General Ahmed al-Ashwal told the OMC Chief that a limited number of weapons "of Iranian manufacture" were found in the area, but would not provide information on the quantity or type, and avoided a direct request from EmbOffs to view the weapons. In June, ROYG military contacts told the DATT that relations between the two countries were "strained" because of Iran's support for the Houthis, and denied that the ROYG was either communicating or in cooperation with Iranian ships conducting counter-piracy missions in the Gulf of Aden. (Note: GRPO reporting confirms ROYG refusals to allow Iranian vessels access to Aden harbor, reportedly over ROYG concern that Iran was using Eritrea to ship weapons to the Houthis. End Note.) According to xxxxx, however, the Houthis do not need to receive weapons from outside of Yemen because they can easily capture or purchase them from the Yemeni military. xxxxx, who communicates on a daily basis with Houthis and other Sa'ada residents, agreed that the Houthis' weapons came from the Yemeni military ) either through capture or abandonment on the battlefield or via black-market arms deals by corrupt military commanders - and not from an external source such as Iran.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
¶7. (S/NF) The general consensus among civil society is that Iranian government influence in Sa'ada is minimal, but the Houthis might receive some financial support from Iranian groups or individuals. xxxxx, who travels to Sa'ada frequently, told PolOff on August 26 that Iran had not been involved historically in the conflict in Sa'ada, but with changingdomestic circumstances in Iran, might have become involved in the latest round of fighting. He addd, however, that he has no knowledge of any Iranian nationals in Sa'ada in recent years. (Note: The ROYG used to grant Iranians living in Yemen hajj visas to travel overland to Mecca, but stopped issuing the visas some time ago because the ROYG was uncomfortable about Iranians traveling through Sa'ada into Saudi Arabia. End Note.) xxxxx speculated that Iranian groups are likely giving Sanaa 00001662 003 of 004 money to the Houthis, but he does not know to what extent. With that money, the Houthis buy weapons from corrupt elements of the Yemeni armed forces that sell weapons and munitions, xxxxx alleged. Civil society actors, however, were also unable to provide any concrete evidence of the involvement of any Iranian nationals in Sa'ada.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
¶8. (S/NF) To date, Iran's most visible involvement in the sixth war in Sa'ada has been the Iranian media's proxy battle with Saudi and Yemeni outlets over Iranian support for the Houthi rebels (Ref B). Continuing a tradition that dates back to the earliest stages of the Sa'ada conflict, the ROYG has accused Iran of financially and materially supporting the Houthi rebels. For its part, Iran ) through state media outlets including English-language Press TV and Arabic-language al-Alam TV ) has claimed that Saudi Arabia is directly involved in the military campaign against the Houthis. The Sa'ada conflict has thus become a propaganda war between Yemen, eager to enlist the support of its Sunni Arab neighbors and the U.S., and Iran, allegedly seeking to nurture a Shi'a proxy force on the Arabian Peninsula. On August 24, Iranian al-Alam TV quoted rebel leader Yahya al-Houthi as denying Iranian support for the Houthis. Iranian media have consistently shown video footage intended to embarrass the ROYG, including images of alleged soldiers fleeing the fighting and Houthis dancing on top of abandoned ROYG armored vehicles.

Iran and the south

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
¶9. (S/NF) Little evidence ) or even debate ) exists regarding Iran's role with the Southern Movement. The southern secessionist movement, which is formally a secular organization that has among its ranks former Sunni jihadists, has, to date, no established connections with either the Houthis or Iran.xxxxx, told PolOff in May and July that the movement had repeatedly rejected offers of collaboration with the Houthis. xxxxx told PolOff on September 6 that the movement's leaders wanted to continue peacefully advocating for separation, rather than affiliating themselves with the Houthis or external actors willing to advocate violence such as Iran. Some limited evidence, on the other hand, indicates that Iran might be a more willing partner with southerners fed up with the current regime. According to DATT contacts, the ROYG asked the then-Iranian military attache to leave Yemen in 2008, purportedly because he had attempted to make contact with separatists in the southern governorates. He has not been replaced. Former Yemeni Ambassador to Iran Radhi said that the Iranian Ambassador in Muscat had been instructed to "study the south of Yemen," especially Hadramout and Shabwa governorates.

Iran's soft power in yemen

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
¶10. (S/NF) Perceived Iranian influence in other arenas is limited to informal religious ties between Yemeni and Iranian scholars and negligible Iranian investment in the energy and development sectors. Despite Yemen's 40% Zaydi Shiite population, religiously-based interaction between Yemen and the world's largest Shi'a country is limited, perhaps because the form of Shiism Zaydis practice hews closer to Sunni Islam than the Twelver Shiism of Iran. Ambassador Radhi, however, told the DCM on August 23 that he believes there is a lot of "coordination on Yemen" between Qom and Najjaf, with 40-50 Yemenis studying Islam in Najjaf, and some (NFI) studying in Qom as well. (Note: Given that Yemen has over 9 million Zaydis, it appears that the number of religious students studying in Iraq and Iran combined is very small. End Note.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
¶11. (S/NF) Iranian direct investment in the Yemeni economy is negligible, according to local Iranian businessmen xxxxx, and xxxxx. The only recent significant Iranian commercial activity in Yemen involves the ROYG,s tortuous experience hiring the Tehran-based Parsian HV Substations Development Company to build the substation of the Marib 1 power plant (Ref C). ROYG officials at all levels told EconOff that the decision to hire the Iranian firm was purely political, rather than economic, stemming from a desire in 2005 to expand relations with Iran. The delays caused by the technical incompetence of the Iranian firm have resulted in hundreds of millions of U.S. dollars in foregone savings from switching away from expensive diesel and towards natural gas in the power sector. (Comment: Post believes Iranian commercial activity will remain limited in Yemen, absent future politically-driven bilateral trade missions. End Comment.) The Iranian government funds two hospitals in Sana'a that are among the better medical facilities in the capital. The management of the hospitals is Iranian, but the staff is largely local. Comment -------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
¶12. (S/NF) Yemen's formal relationship with Iran is by all accounts relatively fragile, and has continued to deteriorate in recent months. Since the start of the Sa'ada conflict in 2004, Yemen has looked to pin the Houthis' strength and resilience in fighting the ROYG on the Iranians. Despite Yemen's seemingly heartfelt concerns that Iran is backing the Houthi rebels and the ROYG's desire to convince its powerful friends (the U.S. and Saudi Arabia) of Iran's nefarious intentions in Yemen, it has to date been unable to produce any concrete evidence of what it says is wide-scale meddling. It is post's firm belief that if Yemen had any concrete evidence that the Houthis had connections to either Hizballah or Iran, it would have produced it immediately; the lack of such evidence likely indicates that the ROYG lacks any real proof of such links. On the other hand, Iran has clear strategic interests in gaining a foothold in Yemen (Sa'ada) and developing a proxy ally in the Houthis similar to Hizballah in Lebanon. Post believes that, while it is worth keeping an eye on Iranian activities in Yemen, Tehran's reach to date is limited. END COMMENT. Seche

Viewing Wikileaks cable # 05SANAA1352:
President Saleh is more interested in enriching his family

 
Also visit Ziomania.com

Reference ID     Created     Released     Classification     Origin
05SANAA1352     2005-05-23 14:02     2011-03-21 14:02     SECRET     Embassy Sanaa



This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

Cable dated:2005-05-23T14:26:00
S E C R E T SECTION 01 OF 02 SANAA 001352SIPDISE.O. 12958: DECL: 05/21/2015TAGS: PREL PGOV PTER PINR KMCA KMPI DOMESTIC POLITICS

¶1. (S/NF) Ambassador met informally with xxxxxxxxxxxx. XXXXXXXXXXXX said that President Saleh is more interested in enriching his family than in making the strategic choices necessary to lead Yemen into the future. XXXXXXXXXXXX was gloomy about President Saleh’s ability to understand the importance of the issues of controlling SA/LW and intelligence sharing to U.S.-ROYG cooperation, and said Saleh did not comprehend what was necessary to maintain a close relationship with the USG in the long term. End Summary.

¶2. (S/NF) Echoing what we are increasingly hearing from those ROYG interlocutors closest to the Embassy, XXXXXXXXXXXX said that Saleh is more and more isolated, and less and less responsive to advice from those practical, progressive ROYG insiders XXXXXXXXXXXX. XXXXXXXXXXXX moaned that Saleh “listens to no one,” and is “unrealistically and stupidly confident” that he will always make the right decisions. Saleh, he said, does not think strategically and cares only about enriching his own family, particularly: XXXXXXXXXXXX Ali Mohsen al-Ahmar Commander of Northern Army (considered the second most powerful man in Yemen); XXXXXXXXXXXX

¶3. (S/NF) Together with Sheikh Abdullah al Ahmar’s clan (speaker of the Parliament and supreme chief the Hashid tribal confederation which includes Saleh’s tribe), all of Yemen’s wealth is being squandered and stolen by Saleh who is increasingly “greedy and paranoid,” especially regarding American intentions, said XXXXXXXXXXXX. XXXXXXXXXXXX are making millions working the diesel smuggling and black market along with Ali Mohsen, using military vehicles and NSB and CSF staff to move the fuel to markets in Yemen and Saudi Arabia. XXXXXXXXXXXX

¶4. (S/NF) XXXXXXXXXXXX also said that his contacts in Saada, including a leading sheikh (he would not give his name), are all furious with Saleh over the amount of indiscriminate killing and destruction perpetrated by the regular army in the north during last month’s suppression of the al-Houthi rebellion. XXXXXXXXXXXX claimed that the “Believing Youth” were by far the minority of the fighters in Saada, rather he said, most fighters came from tribes allied together against Saleh and the central government. He said Saleh is “extremely concerned” that he could lose control of the tribes in Saada and that this will spread to the al-Jawf and Ma’rib tribes.

¶5. (S/NF) “Everyone”, according to XXXXXXXXXXXX, has had it with the corruption of Saleh and his family. As an example, XXXXXXXXXXXX cited the outrageous costs of this Sunday’s May 22 celebration of the fifteenth Unity Day being held in Mukalla at a cost, claimed XXXXXXXXXXXX, of more than 300 million USD, most of which will go into the pockets of those government officials arranging the show. (Note: The price tag XXXXXXXXXXXX gave likely includes some of the massive development projects in Mukalla and elsewhere that the government is rushing to complete before May 22. End Note.)

¶6. (S/NF) Comment: XXXXXXXXXXXX is only one source, and this is not the first time he has given a pessimistic assessment of Saleh and his cronies. XXXXXXXXXXXX. But we are increasingly hearing hints and murmurs from others, including XXXXXXXXXXXX and SXXXXXXXXXXXX (who told Ambassador recently that he “wants out” of politics because the President no longer listens to his advice). Even XXXXXXXXXXXX, who, while most certainly profiting from the corrupt business dealings of XXXXXXXXXXXX and Saleh, claimed that he and a group of young GPC and Islah MP’s intend to band together to force the government to control corruption and enact reforms.

¶7. (S/NF) Comment Continued. We have heard rumors backing up XXXXXXXXXXXX’s claim of an opposition candidate in 2006. Saleh is worried about a possible political challenge next year from Islah and the new opposition coalition JMP, or even from within the GPC. We may well see another clamp-down on the press and political parties “for security reasons” that will roll back some or much of the progress made in democratic reforms and human rights just in time for this year’s MCC reports. End Comment. Krajeski

Syrian authorities make arrests following protests


Also visit Ziomania.com

 AP
Saturday, 2 April 2011
Syrian security agents have arrested dozens of people after thousands took to the streets across the country in pro-democracy marches, activists said on Saturday.
At least seven people were killed Friday as security forces cracked down on demonstrations, bringing the death toll from two weeks of protest to at least 79. Authorities began arresting people, mostly in and around the capital, Damascus, in the hours after the protests broke up and into early Saturday, activists said.
They asked that their names not be used for fear of reprisals.
The extraordinary wave of protests has proved the most serious challenge yet to the nearly five-decade rule of the Arab Socialist Baath Party, one of the most rigid regimes in the Middle East.
The government blamed Friday's bloodshed on "armed gangs." However, the state-run news agency acknowledged for the first time that Syria was seeing gatherings of people calling for reform.
The strength of the burgeoning protest movement is difficult to gauge because Syria has restricted media access and expelled journalists, making it difficult to determine the extent of the protests and how many people are turning out. Two Associated Press journalists were ordered to leave the country Friday with less than an hour's notice.
President Bashar Assad has made limited gestures of reform in the wake of the protests, but he has offered no specfics.
In his first public appearance Wednesday since the demonstrations began, he blamed a "foreign conspiracy" for the unrest. He then announced he was forming committees to look into civilian deaths and the possibility of replacing Syria's despised emergency laws, which have been in place for decades and allow security forces to arrest people without charge.
His reaction enraged many Syrians who hoped to see more serious concessions after the wave of protests in a country where any rumblings of dissent are crushed.
The unrest comes against the backdrop of revolutionary change across the wider Middle East, including Egypt, Tunisia and Libya.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/syrian-authorities-make-arrests-following-protests-2260528.html

NATO airstrikes kill Libyan civilians


Also visit Ziomania.com

 Sat Apr 2, 2011 1:13PM

The warplanes belonging to the Western-led military coalition have killed several Libyan civilians as they dropped bombs on opposition-held town of Brega.

The opposition says at least 13 of its fighters and several civilians were killed in a NATO airstrike on the outskirts of Brega on Saturday.

The Libyan regime also says at least seven civilians were killed when foreign jets pounded a village near the oil city of Brega.

The developments come a day after a top Vatican official said NATO airstrikes on Libya have killed dozens of civilians.

Iovanni Martinelli said on Friday that there were several witness accounts that least 40 civilians have been killed in Western bomb attack in Tripoli alone.

The US-led military alliance admits that its forces have killed dozens of civilians and wounded several others in the ongoing aerial attacks on key Libyan cities.

A top NATO commander has recently said that the alliance has launched an investigation into the killings.

Meanwhile, revolutionary forces confirm that they have regained control of the oil town of Brega from forces loyal to embattled ruler Muammar Gaddafi.

Several bodies of pro-Gaddafi fighters and burnt-out army vehicles have reportedly been seen along the road in the eastern suburbs of the city.

Brega has been the scene of intense fighting between the government troops and the revolutionary forces in recent days.

Gaddafi's troops have now started their offensive to recapture the city of Misratah from the revolutionaries.

The government has rejected a ceasefire proposal by the opposition.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/172730.html

Police shoot one dead in Oman protest: witnesses


Also visit Ziomania.com

(AFP)
MUSCAT — Omani police shot dead a protester on Friday in the port of Sohar, north of Muscat when they opened fire to disperse demonstrators demanding the release of prisoners, witnesses told AFP.

It was the second death in the port during the current wave of unrest sweeping across the region, after police killed a protester at the end of February in Sohar, an industrial area some 200 kilometres (124 miles) north of the capital Muscat, particularly badly hit by unemployment.

Police tried to disperse a crowd of protestors who were hurling stones at them and fired on the crowd when the victim was hit, a witness said.

"Dozens of Omanis emerged from mosques in Sohar after Friday prayers to protest and demand the release of jailed relatives" detained during protests earlier this week, one witness said.

"One protester, Khalifa al-Alawi, was hit in the head by a bullet during confrontations with the police and died immediately," the witness said.

Shortly afterwards, the army was deployed in the town to restore order.

On Tuesday the Omani army stormed the Earth roundabout in Sohar, removing a small group of pro-reform protesters and ending a month-long sit-in, witnesses said. The roundabout has become the symbol of protest after the earlier killing of a demonstrator near a police station in the town.

Sohar has been the scene of sit-ins this week, and last Sunday demonstrators pressed public sector workers in the city to go on strike in protest against corruption.

The normally peaceful sultanate has been caught up the general upheaval and protest movement in the Arab world, with people taking to the streets to demonstrate for better living conditions, forcing ruler Sultan Qaboos to bow to pressure and announce a cabinet reshuffle and the creation of 50,000 jobs at the start of March.

But demonstrators in Oman have insisted all along that their protest was aimed at "corrupt" officials, not at Qaboos himself, who has ruled the sultanate for 40 years.

In addition, the Gulf Cooperation Council has set up a 20-billion-dollar development fund for Oman and Bahrain, the two Gulf monarchies worst hit by the crisis.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5j1t6UcsUhhalNFSFPviQqiy3pxng?docId=CNG.1fd1c4853d22c9c6fd2476a783525b0d.6e1

Finding a voice to protest in Yemen


Also visit Ziomania.com

By Genevieve Bicknell
Sanaa, Yemen

Thousands of anti-government protesters in Yemen have been calling on President Ali Abdullah Saleh to step down - and they have not given up despite arrests, beatings and fatal shootings.

On a side street, under the shade of a row of tall spreading trees, a small group of men, women and children stand and watch as a soldier runs his hands through the dishes of pasta, rice and fish that the visitors have brought.

He is searching for anything that should not be there.

It is Tuesday morning - visiting hour at Yemen's Political Security Prison in the capital, Sanaa.

The air is still - the chants of the protesters across the city in Change Square cannot be heard from here.

There is nothing for Alia to do but wait. Her two young daughters scuff their shoes in the dust blown in from the desert, and hold on to their mother's abaya, the long black robe that most women here wear.

The smell of fish and spaghetti bolognese starts to drift down the street.

Alia is here to visit Waleed, her husband, who was taken by security forces a year and a half ago.

That afternoon, while Waleed was at work, there was a power cut.

The banging on the front door, when it came, reverberated through the darkened hallway.

Outside in the street, soldiers had surrounded the block.

Waleed's belongings were taken. Waleed never came home.

Silent protests

For three months, Alia did not know where he was - the authorities claimed to have no knowledge of his whereabouts - there was no trace of him.

“ All my life I knew that President Saleh was bad, but I knew not to say anything ”

That was when Alia started her campaign. She made placards with Waleed's photo surrounded by quotations from Yemen's constitution.

Along with her mother-in-law, she began weekly silent protests outside the offices of the security forces.

She went on marches, met other campaigners, and, after three months, she finally got the authorities to admit that they were holding Waleed.

The first time she saw him in the political prison was difficult. It was hard to talk to her husband when they were separated by two wire fences with a wide gap in between.

Since then, they have become used to this form of prison visiting and call across to each other, ignoring the guards who stand beside them listening to their conversation.

Waleed is accused of collaborating with Iran and supporting a Shia Muslim movement that is fighting an on-off war against the government in the north of Yemen.

The charge is based on the fact that he had bought books from Iran to set up a Shia bookstore in the capital, and on confessions that Waleed made - confessions that Alia claims were obtained by torture.

As Waleed awaits trial, Alia is becoming increasingly active.

Once so shy that, according to her family, you could barely hear her when she spoke. She now addresses rallies and gives press interviews.

The placards lie in the boot of her car, ready for the next protest. Nothing seems to intimidate her.

Last year she was invited to attend a human rights conference in Beirut, but was prevented from boarding the plane. Instead she was ushered into a back office and had her passport cancelled.

Being beaten by the security forces during one of the weekly protests only encouraged her further, and she says, smiling at me, her face now healed, that she will continue her work as a human rights activist even after Waleed is released.

Her husband's imprisonment has changed Alia's life in many ways.

"I've never been stronger," she remarks.

This unyielding, dedicated resistance is probably not what President Ali Abdullah Saleh had intended to inspire.

Yet, it is being replicated in the streets and squares all over Yemen, as protesters demand an end to his 32 years of rule.

“ Over the last few weeks Yemenis from all walks of life have started to speak without fearing ”

As Waleed's sister, Mawadha, puts it: "All my life I knew that President Saleh was bad, but I knew not to say anything, but now, after Waleed's arrest, we've started being more open and saying what we think.

"It has made us speak without fearing."

Over the last few weeks, Yemenis from all walks of life have started to speak without fearing, and most are telling President Saleh to go.

And however he tries to quell these protests - with tear gas, with paid thugs brandishing sticks and knives, and with snipers firing from rooftops, he only succeeds in increasing the number of protesters.

Oppression, he is discovering, can be counter-productive.

Outside the prison, the shadows cast by the trees shrink as the sun moves overhead. The midday call to prayer begins echoing across the city, one call melding into another until they become one rolling wave of sound.

The soldier eventually finishes inspecting the dishes of food brought by Alia and her daughters.

It has been a long wait, but finally they are allowed into the prison to visit Waleed.

But how long will the people of Yemen have to wait to see if President Saleh heeds their calls for change?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/9443731.stm

Many arrested in Syria after protests


Also visit Ziomania.com

Rights group says 21 people rounded up by security forces day after witnesses say several protesters killed.
Last Modified: 02 Apr 2011 12:04
Syrian security forces have arrested more than 20 people, a rights group said, a day after at least four deaths were reported as thousands marched in pro-reform protests.

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights named 21 people who had been rounded up on Saturday in the southern city of Daraa and in Homs to the north of the capital.

"It is assumed their arrests are as a result of the last protests," the group said in a statement.

"[The group] demands that the Syrian authorities release all detainees of opinion and conscience and to stop the practice of arbitrary arrests against political opposition and civil and human rights activists."

A day earlier, thousands took to the streets in major cities after Friday prayers, defying security forces who fired tear gas and live ammunition and used batons to try and disperse protesters who have dismissed a limited reform gesture by Bashar al-Assad, in power for the last 11 years.

Witnesses said security forces killed at least four protesters in the Damascus suburb of Douma on Friday.

The authorities have denied that the security forces were responsible for the deaths, blaming them on an "armed group" which opened fire from rooftops in the town on demonstrators and police alike.

They acknowledged that there were an unspecified number of deaths and said there were dozens of wounded, some of them police.

State television charged that "some of the demonstrators had daubed their clothes with red dye to make foreign reporters believe that they had been injured".

The total number of deaths since demonstrations began in Daraa on March 18 is unclear but activists say the toll is at least 60.

UN condemnation

UN chief Ban Ki-moon is "deeply concerned" about the situation, a statement from his office said.

"The secretary-general is deeply concerned about the situation in Syria, where more civilian deaths have been reported during the latest popular demonstrations," it said. "He deplores the use of violence against peaceful
demonstrators and calls for it to cease immediately."

In a much-anticipated speech on Wednesday, his first since the protests erupted, president Assad failed to lift almost 50 years of emergency rule.

He later ordered the formation of a panel that will draft anti-terrorism legislation to replace emergency law, a
move critics have dismissed, saying they expected the new legislation would give the state much of the same powers.

Ending emergency law has been a central demand of protesters, who also want political prisoners freed, and to know the fate of tens of thousands who disappeared in the 1980s.

Assad also ordered an investigation into protest deaths in Daraa and Latakia, and formed a panel to "solve the problem of the 1962 census" in the eastern region of Hassake. Following the controversial census, about 150,000 Kurds living in Syria were denied nationality.

The developments come amid severe restrictions to media operations in Syria. The Damascus correspondent of the Reuters news agency was expelled last week. One foreign journalist was released by authorities on Friday, three days after he had been detained, while a Syrian Reuters photographer remains missing since Monday. Two other foreign Reuters journalists were also expelled.


Source: Al Jazeera and agencies 
 

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/04/20114211257594538.html

Libya Hypocrisy


Also visit Ziomania.com

by Charles V. Peña, April 01, 2011
Email This | Print This | Share This | Antiwar Forum
To quote Elizabeth Barrett Browning: "Let me count the ways."

In October 2002, then Senator Barack Obama had this to say about the prospect of the Bush administration using military force against Iraq:

"[Saddam Hussein] is a brutal man.  A ruthless man.  A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power.  He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

"He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

"But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history."

But he essentially used his rationale for not taking action against Iraq as the basis for the legitimacy of his decision as president to use military force against Libya:  "For more than four decades, the Libyan people have been ruled by a tyrant – Muammar Gadhafi. He has denied his people freedom, exploited their wealth, murdered opponents at home and abroad, and terrorized innocent people around the world."  And Gadhafi doesn’t even have those scary WMDs that the Bush administration used as a pretense for making Saddam a phantom menace.

As a United States senator and presidential candidate, Barack Obama stated, "The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."  In stating his case for military intervention against Libya, the president used the terms "strategic interest" and "national interest" but not "an actual or imminent threat to the nation."  Indeed, he all but admitted that Libya wasn’t a threat: "There will be times, though, when our safety is not directly threatened, but our interests and our values are."  Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was more blunt when asked directly if Libya posed an actual or imminent threat to the United States: "No, no.  It was not – it was not a vital national interest to the United States."


Those Republicans who have been critical of President Obama’s decision to use military force against Libya have done so largely on "technical" grounds.  According to Congressman Tim Johnson of Illinois, "Constitutionally, it is indisputable that Congress must be consulted prior to an act of war unless there is an imminent threat against this country.  The president has not done so, and in fact, this is the same man who questioned President Bush’s constitutional authority to commit troops to war."  Actually, the War Powers Act (passed in 1973) is what states that the president "shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities."  The Constitution, however, is clear (Article 1, Section 8) that it is the power of Congress "to declare war."  So although Bush strong-armed Congress into approving the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, he did not have a declaration of war any more than President Obama does (and the sad truth is that Congress has abdicated its responsibility to declare war in every instance of the use of U.S. military force since World War II – so, arguably, the Congress is also in violation of the Constitution).  So while Republicans arguing the Constitution are technically right, they’re also skating on thin ice because they’re just as guilty when it comes to Bush and Iraq.

Indeed, Republicans – except for the few, such as Ron Paul, who opposed the Iraq War from the beginning – are saddled with being cheerleaders for regime change in Iraq using almost the exact same rationale that Obama is using for military intervention in Libya.

Ultimately, the larger problem is that the differences between Democratic and Republican administrations are more style than substance.  Clinton demonized Slobodan Milosevic to justify his 1999 Kosovo bombing campaign: "What if someone had listened to Winston Churchill and stood up to Adolf Hitler earlier? How many people’s lives might have been saved? And how many American lives might have been saved?"  Bush characterized Saddam Hussein as "a threat to world peace."  According to Obama, Gadhafi is a tyrant who "has denied his people freedom, exploited their wealth, murdered opponents at home and abroad, and terrorized innocent people around the world" and was intending to commit a "massacre."  All three presidents argued that these demons had to be vanquished, using words like "freedom," "democracy," and "humanitarian" to justify their actions.  So the whys and wherefores are essentially the same.  Where they differ is "how."  Not surprisingly, both Obama and Clinton believe that an international coalition and working with allies is what’s important.  Bush, however, was willing to take a more unilateral and "coalition of the willing" approach to intervention.

But unnecessary intervention is unnecessary intervention, regardless of how it’s conducted.  And – just as importantly – if there is no threat to the country or our way of life, it doesn’t matter if the president and Congress follow the Constitution to the letter.  It’s still an unnecessary war.


http://original.antiwar.com/pena/2011/03/31/libya-hypocrisy/

Gaddafi regime starts talks with the west to end conflict


Also visit Ziomania.com


Rebels offer ceasefire as doctor says seven civilians have been killed in an air strike

  • guardian.co.uk,
  • Libyan rebels
    Libyan rebels shell pro-Gaddafi forces outside Brega. Photograph: Nasser Nasser/AP
    The regime of Muammar Gaddafi has initiated a concerted effort to open lines of communication with western governments in an attempt to bring the conflict in the country to an end. Libya's former prime minister, Abdul Ati al-Obeidi, told Channel 4: "We are trying to talk to the British, the French and the Americans to stop the killing of people. We are trying to find a mutual solution." Although the regime last night rejected a rebel offer of a ceasefire if Gaddafi withdraws his military from Libya's cities and permits peaceful protests, senior British sources said the Gaddafi government was open to dialogue. "If people on the Gaddafi side want to have a conversation, we are happy to talk," one said. "But we will deliver a clear and consistent message: Gaddafi has to go, and there has to be a better future for Libya." The regime rejected the rebels' ceasefire conditions, saying government troops would not leave cities as demanded. However, signs that the regime was looking to reach out to the west came after the Guardian reported that a meeting had taken place between Mohammed Ismail, a senior aide to Gaddafi's influential son Saif al-Islam, and British officials on Wednesday in London. Ismail is a fixer who has been used by the Gaddafi family to negotiate arms deals and has considerable contacts in the west. Ismail and Moussa Koussa, the Libyan foreign minister who defected to Britain on Wednesday night, are not the only current and former supporters of the regime to have been in contact with Britain. British officials have been in contact with a number of Libyan officials in recent weeks in behind-the-scenes diplomacy, according to a spokesman for David Cameron. He stressed that Britain had not been negotiating any possible trade-offs aimed at sealing Gaddafi's exit from power. "There are no deals." The disclosure of the dialogue came as the revolutionary leadership in the east laid down conditions for a ceasefire, after a visit by the UN's special envoy Abdelilah al-Khatib to the rebel capital, Benghazi. "We agree on a ceasefire on the condition that our brothers in the western cities have freedom of expression and also that the forces that are besieging the cities withdraw," said one of the leadership, Mustafa Abdul Jalil. "Our aim is to liberate and have sovereignty over all of Libya." The rebels' initiatives were announced as the first credible report of civilian casualties from the western air campaign emerged. Suleiman Refadi, a doctor who has worked with the rebels, told reporters that seven civilians, including three girls from the same family aged 12 to 16, were killed on Wednesday in an air strike. Refadi said three youths and a fourth girl were also killed when missiles hit a government ammunition lorry and destroyed two houses about nine miles from Brega and what is now the frontline. About 25 people were injured. The report was not independently confirmed. In Tripoli, gunfire was heard near Gaddafi's compound. Reuters reported that residents said they saw snipers on rooftops and pools of blood on the streets. The rebels made it clear their offer of a ceasefire should not be seen as a sign of weakness. In an attempt to finally bring order to its chaotic military campaign, the leadership deployed the first of its newly trained troops in the move on Brega, which was seized by the government earlier this week, and hauled up rocket launchers. They were also seen to have communications equipment, which the rebels have asked foreign governments to provide. The newly uniformed soldiers included officers who, the rebels said, would establish lines of command to end shambolic confrontations in which revolutionaries have only been able to move forward under the cover of western air strikes and have been unable to hold ground because they lack plans for defence. While the rebels prepared for a new offensive in the east, Gaddafi's forces meanwhile launched a fresh assault on Misrata, the last enclave in the west still under the revolutionaries' control. Libya's third largest city was hit with tank and artillery fire. "It was random and very intense bombardment," a spokesman, called Sami, told Reuters by telephone. "We no longer recognise the place. They are targeting everyone, including civilians' homes."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/01/gaddafi-talks-west

Goldstone rethinks controversial report


Head of UN probe into alleged war crimes carried out by Israel, Hamas during 2008 Gaza conflict laments his criticism of Israel in article published by Washington Post; claims Goldstone Report would have been a different document 'if I had known then what I know now'
Yitzhak Benhorin


WASHINGTON – Richard Goldstone regrets a report that accused Israel of war crimes. In an article published Friday in the Washington Post, titled "Reconsidering the Goldstone Report on Israel and war crimes," the South African judge wrote: "If I had known then what I know now, the Goldstone Report would have been a different document."

Goldstone wrote that now he knows that the final report by the UN committee of independent experts, headed by Justice Mary McGowan Davis determined that “Israel has dedicated significant resources to investigate over 400 allegations of operational misconduct in Gaza while the de facto authorities (Hamas) have not conducted any investigations into the launching of rocket and mortar attacks 

 against Israel.” 

The South African judge noted that while the crimes committed by Hamas during Operation Cast Lead, including the indiscriminately rocket fire toward civilian targets were intentional, "The allegations of intentionality by Israel were based on the deaths of and injuries to civilians in situations where our fact-finding mission had no evidence on which to draw any other reasonable conclusion."

'Cold-blooded slaughter'

Goldstone agreed with the conclusions of the Israeli investigation into the IDF shelling of the al-Simouni family home that killed some 29 people.

"The shelling of the home was apparently the consequence of an Israeli commander’s erroneous interpretation of a drone image, and an Israeli officer is under investigation for having ordered the attack," he wrote in the article.
Goldstone said he regrets that the "fact-finding mission did not have such evidence explaining the circumstances in which we said civilians in Gaza were targeted, because it probably would have influenced our findings about intentionality and war crimes," adding that "Israel’s lack of cooperation with our investigation meant that we were not able to corroborate how many Gazans killed were civilians and how many were combatants."

The author of the controversial report stressed that he indicated from the very beginning that Israel's cooperation would have been welcomed.

"The purpose of the Goldstone Report was never to prove a foregone conclusion against Israel. I insisted on changing the original mandate adopted by the Human Rights Council, which was skewed against Israel," he wrote.

In his article, Goldstone denounced the murder of the Fogel family in the West Bank settlement of Itamar last month, saying "The Human Rights Council should condemn the inexcusable and cold-blooded recent slaughter of a young Israeli couple and three of their small children in their beds.

To conclude, the judge wrote, "Our report has led to numerous 'lessons learned' and policy changes," adding that "regrettably, there has been no effort by Hamas in Gaza to investigate the allegations of its war crimes and possible crimes against humanity.

http://www.ynetnews.com/Ext/Comp/ArticleLayout/CdaArticlePrintPreview/1,2506,L-4050990,00.html

The New Colonialism: Washington’s Pursuit of World Hegemony


Also visit Ziomania.com


Paul Craig Roberts
Infowars.com
April 1, 2011

What we are observing in Libya is the rebirth of colonialism. Only this time it is not individual European governments competing for empires and resources. The new colonialism operates under the cover of “the world community,” which means NATO and those countries that cooperate with it. NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, was once a defense alliance against a possible Soviet invasion of Western Europe. Today NATO provides European troops in behalf of American hegemony.

Washington pursues world hegemony under the guises of selective “humanitarian intervention” and “bringing freedom and democracy to oppressed peoples.” On an opportunistic basis, Washington targets countries for intervention that are not its “international partners.” Caught off guard, perhaps, by popular revolts in Tunisia and Egypt, there are some indications that Washington responded opportunistically and encouraged the uprising in Libya. Khalifa Hifter, a suspected Libyan CIA asset for the last 20 years, has gone back to Libya to head the rebel army.

Gaddafi got himself targeted by standing up to Western imperialism. He refused to be part of the US Africa Command. Gaddafi saw Washington’s scheme for what it is, a colonialist’s plan to divide and conquer.

The US Africa Command (AFRICOM) was created by order of President George W. Bush in 2007. AFRICOM describes its objective:

“Our approach is based upon supporting U.S. national security interests in Africa as articulated by the President and Secretaries of State and Defense in the National Security Strategy and the National Military Strategy. The United States and African nations have strong mutual interests in promoting security and stability on the continent of Africa, its island states, and maritime zones. Advancing these interests requires a unified approach that integrates efforts with those of other U.S. government departments and agencies, as well as our African and other international partners.”

Forty-nine countries participate in the US Africa Command, but not Libya, Sudan, Eritrea, Zimbabwe, and Ivory Coast. There is Western military intervention in these non-member countries except for Zimbabwe.
www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23940

One traditional means by which the US influences and controls a country is by training its military and government officers. The program is called International Military and Education Training (IMET). AFRICOM reports that “in 2009 approximately 900 military and civilian students from 44 African countries received education and training in the United States or their own countries. Many officers and enlisted IMET graduates go on to fill key positions in their militaries and governments.”

AFRICOM lists as a key strategic objective the defeat of the “Al-Qaeda network.” The US Trans Sahara Counter Terrorism Partnership (TSCTP) trains and equips “partner nation forces “ to preclude terrorists from establishing sanctuaries and aims to “ultimately defeat violent extremist organizations in the region.”

Apparently, after ten years of “the war on terror” an omnipotent al-Qaeda now ranges across Algeria, Burkina Faso, Chad, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal and Tunisia in Africa, across the Middle East, Afghanistan, Pakistan, the UK and is such a threat within the United States itself as to require a $56 billion “Homeland Security” annual budget.

The al-Qaeda threat, a hoax as likely as not, has become Washington’s best excuse for intervening in the domestic affairs of other countries and for subverting American civil liberties.

Sixty-six years after the end of World War II and 20 years after the Collapse of the Soviet Union, the US still has an European Command, one of nine military commands and six regional commands.

No other country feels a need for a world military presence. Why does Washington think that it is a good allocation of scarce resources to devote $1.1 trillion annually to military and security “needs”? Is this a sign of Washington’s paranoia? Is it a sign that only Washington has enemies?

Or is it an indication that Washington assigns the highest value to empire and squanders taxpayers’ monies and the country’s credit-worthiness on military footprints, while millions of Americans lose their homes and their jobs?

Washington’s expensive failures in Iraq and Afghanistan have not tempered the empire ambition. Washington can continue to rely on the print and TV media to cover up its failures and to hide its agendas, but expensive failures will remain expensive failures. Sooner or later Washington will have to acknowledge that the pursuit of empire has bankrupted the country.

It is paradoxical that Washington and its European “partners” are seeking to extend control over foreign lands abroad while immigration transforms their cultures and ethnic compositions at home. As Hispanics, Asians, Africans, and Muslims of various ethnicities become a larger and larger percentage of the populations of the “First World,” support for the white man’s empire fades away. Peoples desiring education and in need of food, shelter, and medical care will be hostile to maintaining military outposts in the countries of their origins.

Stock up with Fresh Food that lasts with eFoodsDirect (Ad)

Who exactly is occupying whom?

Parts of the US are reverting to Mexico. For example, demographer Steve Murdock, a former director of the US Census Bureau, reports that two-thirds of Texas children are Hispanics and concludes: “It’s basically over for Anglos.”

Ironic, isn’t it, while Washington and its NATO puppets are busy occupying the world, they are being occupied by the world.

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts is the father of Reaganomics and the former head of policy at the Department of Treasury. He is a columnist and was previously an editor for the Wall Street Journal. His latest book, “How the Economy Was Lost: The War of the Worlds,” details why America is disintegrating.



http://www.infowars.com/the-new-colonialism-washingtons-pursuit-of-world-hegemony/

Israel holds secret talks with Russia in bid to thwart recognition of Palestinian state


Also visit Ziomania.com


Home Print Edition News Published 01:00 01.04.11 Latest update 01:00 01.04.11 Israel holds secret talks with Russia in bid to thwart recognition of Palestinian state

France, Germany and the U.K. are pushing for announcing a new international peace initiative which may include setting up two states on the basis of the 1967 borders.

By Barak Ravid


Isaac Molho, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s senior adviser and top negotiator on the Palestinian channel, made a secret trip to Moscow on Wednesday and met with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. The purpose of the visit was to dissuade Russia from supporting the European Union’s intention to present in two weeks’ time a plan for the establishment of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders.

Molho was accompanied on the trip by the Foreign Ministry’s legal advisor, Daniel Taub, and spent over an hour with Lavrov. Taub and Molho also met with the Russian envoy to the Middle East, Sergei Yakovlev, and other senior Russian officials. A senior Israeli official told Haaretz that Taub and Molho used the visit “to present new Israeli ideas for re-launching the peace process with the Palestinians.”

The visit comes just two weeks before the foreign ministers of the Quartet - the United States, Russia, the European Union and the UN - are to meet. France, Germany and the United Kingdom are pushing for announcing a new international peace initiative. The principles of the initiative known so far include setting up two states on the basis of the 1967 borders with territorial swaps; a fair, realistic and agreed-upon solution to the predicament of the Palestinian refugees; Jerusalem as a capital for both states and security arrangements that would protect Israel but not infringe on Palestinian sovereignty.

Hague rules out interim agreements

U.K. Foreign Secretary William Hague said on Wednesday that interim arrangements alone cannot end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and progress must be made in the peace process before September. He also called on the United States and the rest of the Quartet to present clear principles for the process, based on the new initiative, as soon as possible.

The European initiative is strongly supported by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who is lobbying all members of the Quartet to have it officially endorsed in the upcoming meeting. However, Abbas has yet to confirm whether he will return to the negotiating table if the lobbying succeeds.

The U.S. administration has yet to comment on the initiative, but it has already won the support of the UN and, it would seem, Russia.

Last week, Netanyahu planned to dispatch Molho to a round of talks in London, Paris, Berlin and Brussels to persuade the Europeans to postpone the initiative’s launch. That trip was canceled at the last moment, after the prime minister understood Molho was unlikely to persuade the European governments to withdraw from the plan without new diplomatic statements on the peace process coming from Israel itself.

Molho’s Moscow trip appears to indicate that Netanyahu thought the Russians would prove more attentive to Israel’s objections, and could be persuaded to oppose or at least stall the move.

The results of Molho’s mission remain to be seen, but Lavrov’s statements during the meeting may mean Russia will be reluctant to block the initiative. Lavrov told Molho that continued efforts to find a way out of the impasse were important, and that trust between Israel and the Palestinians needed to be restored. Quartet envoys are expected to visit Israel next week, to prepare the foreign ministers’ summit. They will meet Molho and the Palestinian negotiators. Netanyahu is expected to meet German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Thursday in Berlin.


http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/israel-holds-secret-talks-with-russia-in-bid-to-thwart-recognition-of-palestinian-state-1.353404

Yemen: Beginning of the end?

Also visit Ziomania.com

Yemen: Beginning of the end?

A Yemeni army officer reacts holding up his AK-47 as he and other officers join anti-government protestors in Sanaa, Yemen (21March 2011)
Yemen's President Ali Abdullah Saleh is celebrating his 66th birthday on Monday, confronting the reality that a powerful military rival - acting in the name of Yemen's popular revolution - is making a bid to remove his family from power.
Tanks under the command of Mr Saleh's eldest son, Ahmed, are parked at the gates of the palace in the capital, Sanaa. Tanks are also stationed outside the ministry of defence and the central bank.
These defensive deployments to protect Mr Saleh's control follow the announcement that military commander Gen Ali Mohsin al-Ahmar has voiced support for Yemen's pro-democracy protesters.
The general's defection follows similar moves by a growing number of ministers, ambassadors, parliamentarians and prominent businessmen during the past few days.
Defections have gathered rapid pace since Friday, when snipers opened fire on a pro-democracy camp in the capital, Sanaa, killing more than 50 people.
US officials condemned Friday's violence "in the strongest terms" and expressed hope that Yemen might still achieve a political solution through negotiations and dialogue.
Stalemate
The US administration has been pushing the same line on negotiations and dialogue ever since Yemen's pro-democracy movement began to gain momentum in January.
President Ali Abdullah Saleh of Yemen, 10 January 2011 Mr Saleh has adeptly played on fears of chaos if he loses control in Yemen
However, the trust required to achieve a political settlement has been absent and Yemen's opposition politicians calculated that they had nothing to gain by cutting a power-sharing deal.
As a result, stalemate prevailed, while young Yemenis - frustrated with the failures of an entire generation of politicians - took to the street in ever greater numbers.
The US administration's recent attempts to encourage bipartisan dialogue have been based on a fundamental misreading of the real political dynamics in Yemen.
While diplomats have focused their attention on the established political parties, the gaps between the formal institutions of the state and the elaborate networks of patronage and corruption that are closely entwined with Mr Saleh's regime have gradually been moving into open view.

Economic and social problems

  • Poorest country in the Middle East with 40% of Yemenis living on less than $2 (£1.25) a day
  • More than two-thirds of the population are under 24
  • More than a third are jobless; illiteracy stands at over 50%
  • Dwindling oil reserves and falling oil revenues; little inward investment
  • Acute water shortage
  • Weak central government
With Gen Ali Mohsen al-Ahmar's defection, long-standing competition between different factions within the regime has finally been exposed.
Now, Yemenis are waiting to see what happens next, and Twitter is buzzing with speculation. Many Yemenis are expressing jubilation, or stunned disbelief, at the prospect that Mr Saleh might be removed from office after more than 30 years in power. Others are warning of a massacre - or civil war.
Pro-democracy protesters are nervous that their popular revolution will be hijacked by established military and commercial interests, who will simply nominate a new face to govern the country without making any substantial changes to the status quo.
Tipping point
In this scenario, Gen Ahmar is likely to act as a kingmaker, while opposition politician Hameed al-Ahmar may emerge as one of the beneficiaries.
US officials may now have to make a rapid recalculation about their short-term and long-term interests in Yemen.
To date, they have taken a cautious approach with Mr Saleh - one that seemed out of step with much bolder messages delivered to Egypt's Hosni Mubarak and Libya's Muammar Gaddafi, who were both told that the game was up within a matter of days of popular unrest in their respective countries reaching a critical tipping point.
map locator
A crucial factor influencing US decision-makers is their assessment that al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, based in Yemen, ranks among the most active branches of the global terror organisation.
For several years, the US administration has been supplying military aid and training to elite security and intelligence units under the command of Mr Saleh's son and nephews. The White House is nervous about losing these relationships with local proxies, who have been willing to co-operate in US counter-terrorism operations.
However, the longer US officials try to keep Mr Saleh and his family in place, the more they risk damaging their own interests. Yemenis are furious that units from the US-backed Central Security Forces, commanded by one of Mr Saleh's nephews, have played such a prominent role in cracking down on pro-democracy protests.
US-made CS gas canisters, allegedly intended for counter-terrorism operations, have also been used in raids against pro-democracy protesters.
For many years, Mr Saleh has adeptly played on fears of chaos if he loses control in Yemen but his internal support is swiftly ebbing away.
Ginny Hill runs the Yemen Forum at Chatham House, an independent international affairs think tank.

Middle East social indicators

Country pop. (m) median age jobless (%) below poverty line (%) internet users (m)
Source: CIA World Factbook
Algeria 34.5 27.1 9.9 23 4.7
Egypt 80.5 24 9.6 20 20
Jordan 6.4 21.8 13.4 14.2 1.6
Lebanon 4.09 29.4 na 28 1
Libya 6.4 24.2 30 33 0.35
Morocco 31.6 26.5 9.8 15 13.2
Saudi Arabia 25.7 24.9 10.8 na 9.6
Syria 22.1 21.5 8.3 11.9 4.4
Tunisia 10.5 29.7 14 3.8 3.5
W Bank & Gaza 2.5 20.9 16.5 46 1.3
Yemen 23.4 17.89 35 45.2 2.2


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12809568


Egypt seeks to end gas exports to Israel


Fri, 18 Mar 2011 08:35:56 GMT
 
A popular campaign by a group of Egyptian activists against gas exports to Israel has won a court case on the terms of the country's gas deal with Tel Aviv.

The court ruled on the ministry of petroleum “not to export one single unit of gas before satisfying the local needs,” head of the Campaign against Gas Export to Israel Ibrahim Yousri told Press TV on Wednesday.

For Egyptians, the issue of supplying the Israeli regime with gas has always been a contentious one. Egyptians view Israel as an enemy and oppose engaging in any kind of business with the regime.

Egypt's gas supply to Israel has been one of the main economic conditions of the US-sponsored 1979 peace treaty between the two sides.

Under a $2.5-billion export deal with Tel Aviv, signed in 2005, the Israeli regime gets around 40 percent of its gas supply from Egypt at a considerably low price.

However, after Egyptians faced electricity blackouts last summer due to gas shortages, most experts are demanding an extensive revision of the deal.

Muslim Brotherhood Spokesman Walid Shalaby also told Press TV, “This deal was made in the dark, away from the sight of supervisory and legislative bodies. It has to be proposed to the new parliament which will decide on who to export to and to determine the price of the exported gas.”

The development comes despite a reported Israeli plan to opt for gas instead of nuclear energy following the recent crises in Japan over radiation leaking from a crippled nuclear power plant.

On Wednesday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced that Tel Aviv is going to reconsider its nuclear energy plans for the coming years and choose natural gas as the main alternative.

Egypt has resumed exporting natural gas to Israel after a one-month hiatus due to an explosion that damaged the pipeline delivering gas to Israel, Jordan and Syria.

On Wednesday, Israeli firms confirmed that supplies had resumed but that initial quantities were below normal level. The resumption of gas deliveries was delayed repeatedly due to leaks.

ASH/MB 


http://previous.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=170528&sectionid=351020502

How the so-called guardians of free speech are silencing the messenger


Also visit Ziomania.com

10 March 2011

By John Pilger

As the United States and Britain look for an excuse to invade another oil-rich Arab country, the hypocrisy is familiar. Colonel Gaddafi is “delusional” and “blood-drenched” while the authors of an invasion that killed a million Iraqis, who have kidnapped and tortured in our name, are entirely sane, never blood-drenched and once again the arbiters of “stability”.

But something has changed. Reality is no longer what the powerful say it is. Of all the spectacular revolts across the world, the most exciting is the insurrection of knowledge sparked by WikiLeaks. This is not a new idea. In 1792, the revolutionary Tom Paine warned his readers in England that their government believed that “people must be hoodwinked and held in superstitious ignorance by some bugbear or other”. Paine’s The Rights of Man was considered such a threat to elite control that a secret grand jury was ordered to charge him with “a dangerous and treasonable conspiracy”. Wisely, he sought refuge in France.

The ordeal and courage of Tom Paine is cited by the Sydney Peace Foundation in its award of Australia’s human rights Gold Medal to Julian Assange. Like Paine, Assange is a maverick who serves no system and is threatened by a secret grand jury, a malicious device long abandoned in England but not in the United States. If extradited to the US, he is likely to disappear into the Kafkaesque world that produced the Guantanamo Bay nightmare and now accuses Bradley Manning, WikiLeaks’ alleged whistleblower, of a capital crime.

Should Assange’s current British appeal fail against his extradition to Sweden, he will probably, once charged, be denied bail and held incommunicado until his trial in secret. The case against him has already been dismissed by a senior prosecutor in Stockholm and given new life only when a right-wing politician, Claes Borgstrom, intervened and made public statements about Assange’s “guilt”. Borgstrom, a lawyer, now represents the two women involved. His law partner is Thomas Bodstrom, who as Sweden’s minister for justice in 2001, was implicated in the handover of two innocent Egyptian refugees to a CIA kidnap squad at Stockholm airport. Sweden later awarded them damages for their torture.

These facts were documented in an Australian parliamentary briefing in Canberra on 2 March. Outlining an epic miscarriage of justice threatening Assange, the enquiry heard expert evidence that, under international standards of justice, the behavior of certain officials in Sweden would be considered “highly improper and reprehensible [and] preclude a fair trial”.  A former senior Australian diplomat, Tony Kevin, described the close ties between the Swedish prime minister Frederic Reinheldt, and the Republican right in the US. “Reinfeldt and [George W] Bush are friends,” he said.  Reinhaldt has attacked Assange publicly and hired Karl Rove, the former Bush crony, to advise him. The implications for Assange’s extraidition to the US from Sweden are dire.

The Australian enquiry was ignored in the UK, where black farce is currently preferred. On 3 March, the Guardian announced that Stephen Spielberg’s Dream Works was to make “an investigative thriller in the mould of All the President’s Men” out of its book  WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assange’s War on Secrecy. I asked David Leigh, who wrote the book with Luke Harding, how much Spielberg had paid the Guardian for the screen rights and what he expected to make personally. “No idea,” was the puzzling reply of the Guardian’s “investigations editor”. The Guardian paid WikiLeaks nothing for its treasure trove of leaks. Assange and WikiLeaks -- not Leigh or Harding -- are responsible for what the Guardian’s editor, Alan Rusbridger, calls “one of the greatest journalistic scoops of the last 30 years”.

The Guardian has made clear it has no further use for Assange. He is a loose cannon who did not fit Guardianworld, who proved a tough, unclubbable negotiator. And brave. In the Guardian’s self-regarding book, Assange’s extraordinary bravery is excised. He becomes a figure of petty bemusement, an “unusual Australian” with a “frizzy-haired” mother, gratuitously abused as “callous” and a “damaged personality” that was “on the autistic spectrum”. How will Speilberg deal with this childish character assassination? e

On the BBC’s Panorama, Leigh indulged hearsay about Assange not caring about the lives of those named in the leaks. As for the claim that Assange had complained of a “Jewish conspiracy”, which follows a torrent of internet nonsense that he is an evil agent of Mossad,  Assange rejected this as “completely false, in spirit and word”.

It is difficult to describe, let alone imagine, the sense of isolation and state of siege of Julian Assange, who in one form or another is paying for tearing aside the façade of rapacious power. The canker here is not the far right but the paper-thin liberalism of those who guard the limits of free speech. The New York Times has distinguished itself by spinning and censoring the WikiLeaks material. “We are taking all [the] cables to the administration,” said Bill Keller, the editor, “They’ve convinced us that redacting certain information would be wise.” In an article by Keller, Assange is personally abused. At the Columbia School of Journalism on 3 February, Keller said, in effect, that the public could not be trusted with the release of further cables. This might cause a “cacophony”. The gatekeeper has spoken.

The heroic Bradley Manning is kept naked under lights and cameras 24 hours a day. Greg Barns, director of the Australian Lawyers Alliance, says the fears that Julian Assange will “end up being tortured in a high security American prison” are justified.  Who will share responsibility for such a crime?


http://www.johnpilger.com/articles/how-the-so-called-guardians-of-free-speech-are-silencing-the-messenger

Good-bye despotism


Also visit Ziomania.com


March 9, 2011
Al-Ahram


Similar popular uprisings, same brutal reaction by ruling regimes, same result: the end of despotic regimes is neigh across the Arab world, writes Khalil El-Anani*


Mohamed Bouazizi set himself on fire and the rest is history. First it was Tunisia, then Egypt, and now it is Libya and God knows who's next. A lot of things are set to change in this part of the world. Egypt's ability to lead would be restored, for one thing. And the region's political map is going to undergo a lasting change. History is speaking, and we're all listening.

The Arab world is in the throes of a revolution, one that will change its shape, mindset and future. Forget partial reform and gradual evolution. As the demonstrators told us in no uncertain terms, "The people want to bring down the regime." If this is not a revolution, what is?

We are now faced with a new and unprecedented situation. The collective Arab conscience is being reborn, and things are never going to be the same again. It's hard to know where this will take us, but allow me to share with you what is known so far:

- The ongoing revolutions are "grassroots" revolutions. They are not imposed from above, nor brought about by military coups. For the first time in six decades, the upper echelons of the political regime are not the ones showing us the way. The Arab people, for the first time ever, are deciding the fate of their own presidents and regimes. The revolution has been spontaneous, fluid, and so far irreversible. The masses that took to the streets were intent on bringing about radical change. They refused to go home before their leaders were ousted. They made history, and they are going to make some more.

- What we see today are not revolutions against despotic regimes alone, but also against conventional elites and the opposition that was part of those elites. A radical shift of existing elites is about to happen. The legitimacy of despotic regimes is gone, and with it the legitimacy of the former opposition. Therefore, the traditional opposition must step aside and refrain from riding the revolutionary wave.

- Part of the vitality of the current wave of Arab revolutions is due to the fact that they were not led from above. In the Tunisian case, the revolution had no unified leadership, although labour and professional groups offered some guidance. In the Egyptian case, there was a lack of unified leadership or even organised groups from the scene. Scattered groups offered horizontal coordination, and I am sure we'll learn more about them in the near future. In Libya, all we can see so far is a spontaneous eruption of anger feeding on historical and psychological injustices.

- The aim of the ongoing revolutions is not only to depose despotic regimes but also to establish true democracy. This is rather ironic considering the disdain with which Arab officials and their Western interlocutors held the idea of democracy in the Arab world. The despotic media tried to dismiss democracy as being a figment of the imagination, a secular idea with no relevance to reality, but the demonstrators begged to differ.

- Arab revolutionaries have proved themselves to be uncompromising in their demands. Their central demand has been to oust the regime regardless of the cost. Over the past few weeks, we've been told of how simple folks were proud of the sacrifices their children have made for the cause of freedom. The way we view martyrdom has changed as a result.

- The revolutionaries didn't seem to care much for what foreign powers thought of them. They didn't ask for foreign assistance. Actually, in Egypt and Tunisia, and lately in Libya, foreign powers seemed to be more of a hindrance than otherwise. The first reaction of Western powers was either to aid and abet the despots or to ignore the whole thing. Indeed, the revolutions brought down the masks of falsehood and double standards, for the West generally acted as if supporting despots was worthier than the cause of freedom and democracy. In one instance, the French foreign minister, Michele Alliot-Marie, offered to train the Tunisian police on crowd control.

7.-been refuted. This used to be a favourite cliché, invented by Arab officials and reiterated by Western academics. Now it is thoroughly discredited, and not a moment too soon. Researchers must take note, and books will need to be rewritten.

- The current Arab revolutions speak volumes about the crimes post-independence regimes have committed against their own people. Those regimes stand now accused of undermining Arab culture and stifling the Arab spirit, of giving birth to one-party and despotic governments. And when shove came to push, those regimes didn't hesitate to fire teargas and live ammunition at their own people, even sending planes to strafe innocent civilians.

The pattern of Arab revolution has turned out to be astoundingly uniform. It starts with a small and localised protest. Faced with brutal suppression, the protests go out of hand until the whole country is engulfed in revolution. At one point, the army is asked to deploy, but it either stays neutral or take sides with the people. The dictators eventually leave. But before that, their reactions are quite similar. They make concessions that are too late, they promise reform that is too limited, and they speak of foreign conspiracies and blame the uprising on Islamists.

The question now is not which country will revolt next. It is whether one autocrat or another will actually step down without first committing brutalities. Either way, the Arab despotic state is fast becoming a thing of the past.

* The writer is a researcher at School of Government and International Affairs, Durham University.



http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2011/1037/op174.htm

The former president of Brazil Lula da Silva addresses the Sixth Annual Al Jazeera Forum on the topic of the Arab world in transition.


Also visit Ziomania.com



Al Jazeera Forum: Lula da Silva


Last Modified: 13 Mar 2011 09:09 GMT
It is a great pleasure for me to be back here to Qatar, where I was already here twice as president of the Republic. In March of 2009 to participate in the 2nd summit meeting of Arab and South American countries and in May of last year on an official trip for business meeting between Brazil and Qatar. On these two occasions I was received by my friend the Emir of Qatar and it is a great pleasure for me to be here in this event that is being promoted by Al Jazeera, a very important broadcasting company not only for the Arab countries, but also for the rest of the world, for which I have given nothing less than four interviews as president of Brazil.

I could not refuse the invitation made by Al Jazeera to participate in this forum in such a crucial moment where the peoples of so many Arab nations raised their voices and stand up to demand democracy, social fairness and the creation of opportunities.

In a moment where Al Jazeera has played and continues to play such a relevant role in informing about these events demonstrating high regards for these facts and great tuning with the feelings and demands of these people, and more giving first hand the Arab viewpoint about the unfolding events, in the Arab countries without the need of third party mediators, and how good that is for the world to have that viewpoint.

I came here to learn with all of you, to get to know your experience, to feel what happens in your hearts, especially from the young people, the youngest ones, that with great enthusiasm, experience and courage are writing a new page in the history of this region.

I could not miss such an opportunity. But I also came here to convey our experience of Brazil and of South America in the struggle for democracy, for economic growth, and for social inclusion.

Latin America has experienced dictatorial regimes till the decade of the eighties of the last century. These were difficult times, the people had no voice, they had no opportunity, they could not speak out, and they were not heard. Thousands died so that this terrible page of our history could be overcome. To conquer democracy, our peoples had to make great sacrifices to struggle a lot and to go through great political maturity.

Now here, I would like to - I'm not going to extend myself too much, because my minister of foreign affairs of Brazil, he was here my foreign minister last week in Qatar and he had a discussion about the authoritarian regimes in my country, and we discovered that democracy is not only a speech, is not only a discourse, it is a very difficult construction that demands the participation of all, the respect of differences of opinion, and the maturity to know how to live with divergences, although they could be very annoying.

It is a very complicated construction that demands patience and determination and that also demands a deep understanding that the people should be in the core, in the centre of the political life, and that they need to have their demands listened to and they should be taken into account. It is the people and not the rulers that are the driving force of transformation. It is the democratic institutions that were built by the people and not by the leaders, even though they may be very competent, it is the democracy built by the people that should prevail.

And here I would like to mention one example in my country. Very recently in Brazil we had presidential elections in October of last year. And in the year 2009 my party wanted for me to discuss at the national congress the possibility of a third term so that I could continue in power in the presidency of Brazil. And I said that I was against this idea of a constitutional amendment for my third term. I never accepted the idea that any leader can not be considered as someone who cannot be replaced, or someone that is considered indispensible. When a leader thinks he is indispensible, or that he could not be replaced, then we start to see the birth of a dictator, or the birth of a dictatorship.

Change in power is necessary so that we can guarantee the strengthening of democracy, and democracy can only be the winner when we have clear cut rules of the game defined, and everybody, everybody, without any differentiation should respect the rules that were defined by everybody. Because democracy, maybe it is not the most perfect regime that the world needs, but certainly at least till now, no one yet has presented anything better than democracy, so that we can exercise politics and for us to rule.

Maybe many of you are not aware of my personal story. But I believe it is important for you to know why I value so much democracy. I come from a very poor region in Brazil, which is the northeastern region of Brazil. I am the son of small family farmers. I did not manage to have access to higher education, I do not have a university degree. I only went to vocational training school and I became a lathe operator in my country. As a metal worker, I was the first son of eight brothers and sisters that managed to have a house on my own, have a TV set, that could buy a refrigerator. I was the first one in the family to earn a little bit more than the minimum salary.

And due to this profession that I learned, I became a labour leader. But it was not foreseen in the annals of political sociology that a metal worker could build a political party that could build a national labour federation and that could become one day the president of the country.

I've lost three presidential elections before I was elected. And I accepted the results of these three defeats that I suffered, and instead of giving up, every time that I lost a presidential election, I prepared myself even more to run for the next presidential elections. In the fourth presidential race, I managed to win the elections in Brazil for the presidency.

And I learned saying something to the Brazilian people, democracy is not a vague concept. Democracy is not a state of spirit. Democracy is an achievement that society as a whole conquers and exercises in a collective way. Democracy is not only the right to shout out and say that you're hungry, it is the right for you to have food on the table. It's not only the right that you want to work, it's really to have an opportunity to work. It's not only to have the possibility to shout out that you want to study, but you have to study truly when democracy at work when they meet these interests of society, then democracy will be consolidated and then the people will see and live in peace and tranquility.

So what happened in the Middle East many people can say that it was a spontaneous movement. A lot of people can say whatever they wish. It's too early for us to have the exact dimension of what's happening in the Middle East. The only thing that we have certainty is that if a fruit is rotten in the tree after a certain period, the political leaders also, they reap and the fruit gets rotten when time is overdue for changes. And possibly, this maybe has been the determinant factor so that at the same time so many people decided to shout out and stand up, and this happened in Brazil in the 1980s.

We only managed to overthrow the military regime when millions and millions of Brazilians went to the streets and to shout out and stand up for direct elections for the presidency, and that's when we managed to achieve democracy.

These were workers in the streets going on strike, we had students going on street demonstrations, women complaining, the youngsters in the streets struggling until the moment we managed to achieve democracy in Brazil.

And so I have reached where I reached, in my journey, because of democracy. I achieved what I achieved through democracy. Only through democracy a worker, someone that was born in a very poor family like I was, could reach the presidency of a country of one-hundred-and-ninety million inhabitants that Brazil has, and today a country that is amongst the ten largest economies of the world.

Or only democracy could allow someone from the indigenous people to reach the presidency of a country like Bolivia, and only democracy allows that a black man could reach the presidency of the US, or a black person that is majority could reach the presidency of South Africa.

But our arrival in government also meant that people wanted democracy and something more than what they had till then. They wanted to be treated with respect and dignity. The people want to work with great pride in their own country. The people wanted opportunities, jobs, decent work and salaries, the possibility to progress in life, and to leave for their children a better life.

In summary, they wanted social inclusion and the end of the absurd inequalities that existed in our countries. We were not elected to do more of the same thing that was done in the past. No we were elected to change what was wrong and to give a better present and future of hope to the Brazilian people.

In all its history, Brazil was ruled only to reach the demands one-third of the population. Two-thirds of the people were excluded of the opportunities made by progress. The rulers considered them as weight - a heavy weight, and an annoyance. They closed their eyes to the suffering of two-thirds of the people. So we decided that if the people had the courage to elect a member of the working class for the presidency of the republic, the president should also have the courage and the determination to govern for all Brazilians.

And we proved that the people were not dead weight, but the people represented energy. The people were not an annoyance, they were our major asset. So that's why we had to confront prejudice, false truth and the dominance of the ruling thought that was sold as if it were the only possible way to think things.

Dear friends. In the 80s and 90s of the 20th century, hegemonic conservative thought imposed backward economic adjustment models that were discriminatory and very empty in terms of social concerns. These policies separated economic growth from income distribution. They said they would privilege to stability and they made our countries deepen recession, unemployment and macroeconomic chaos.

We do not accept these absurd ideas. Just to start with, we decided it was necessary to give the minimum conditions of survival to the poor, and I said to govern a country is to govern a household. The mother should take care of the children in the same way but should give special attention to the weakest, to the needy.

So that's why we decided to develop public policies that would put a little bit more money in the hands of those that were in need. And so Brazil was a capitalistic economic country that had no capital - neither to fund production, and neither to fund agriculture.

And so the first thing that we did was to develop a public policy of income transfer programmes through the family stipend - giving to the poorest - around 11 million people, we're talking 44 million people, 11 million households - they were receiving a stipend so that they could buy foodstamps and basic foods and we should give the money to women so that we would have the certainty that the money would reach the households and the mouths of the children through the housewives and the women of the households.

And at the same time we increased doing our term of the minimum salary by 74 per cent and we raised the salaries of the workers generally speaking. Besides that we developed the largest microcredit and credit policy in Brazil. In the year 2003 Brazil had 380 million Reais - which is the equivalent of 200 million dollars, in credit lines.

Today, Brazil has almost 1 trillion dollars in credit and credit now reaches the poorest, which had no access to credit in the past, to the retired worker, and to the ordinary citizen, making the Brazilian economy to have great dynamism through these credit lines.

During the global financial meltdown in 2008, I used to say that Brazil would be the last country to suffer with the crisis but would be the first one to get out of the crisis, and that's exactly what happened. We were the last country to be hit by the crisis because the poor people had a little bit of money and because of the development policies that we put in practice was already bringing extraordinary results for us. That's why we were less affected by the global financial crisis.

In Brazil, it went back to growth. The domestic market has grown and enhanced, and now 36 million Brazillians were lifted to middle class, and another 28 million were lifted above the poverty line. Investing in education, we created 14 federal universities, 214 vocational training schools, more than a hundred extension courses and through scholarship programmes for the poor students in the periphery, we put in 960,000 youngsters that lived in the periphery and marginalised now study in private universities in our country through scholarship programmes.

And at the same time, we perceived that it was necessary to solve the problem of unemployment, and in the 8 years of my term, we created 15 million new jobs. Just to have an idea what I'm talking about here, while Europe has 9.3% unemployment rate while the US has almost 10% unemployment rates while Spain has 20% unemployment rates, in December of 2010, Brazil had 5.3% unemployment.

That is to say, last year, where we had unemployment in all the rich countries in the world, we created 2.5 million new jobs in 2010. Just for that year.

Ten years ago, we were the 12th largest economy in the world, we are now the 7th largest economy in the world, by the concept of parity purchasing power. That is to say, Brazil today experiences an excellent moment. Our institutions are very sound and solid, and are improving themselves. We live in a society where everybody has free speech, the press can say whatever they want to say to, not always the truth, but they have the freedom to say whatever they wish to say and whatever they understand they should say.

We have now elected for the first time in our history a woman as president of the republic. You can not imagine how proud I felt as being the first worker to be elected president of the republic in the moment that a woman took office as president of my country.

That is to say, Brazil has managed to overcome prejudice twice. The fact of the matter in the last years, we have not only had extraordinary socio-economic progress, we also progress in the political arena. We deepened tremendously our democracy, and here I would like to mention above all that our friends from the Arab world pay attention to my next words.

I'm not aware, and I don't want to be presumptuous or arrogant, but I am not aware of any other government that has exercised democracy with the ultimate consequences as we have exercised democracy. In 8 years of my term in the presidency, I held 73 national conferences, each one of these national conferences that were called by the government we had 3 levels - the local level, the province level and the national level. These conferences helped to define the public policies the government should follow.

These were conferences to discuss women's issues, health issues, education, cities, land development, agrarian reform, black issues, indigenous people issues, communication, human rights issues, gays, street scavengers, homelessness, disabled people, 73 national conferences with the participation of more than 5 million people attended these conferences at these levels that helped us to define the public policies that the government should put in practice in our country.

And the result of all these conferences was extraordinary. The result was that - I don't know if there is any precedent in a government that ends its term after 8 years - with more positive ratings than when they won the elections and better ratings than in the first year of their term.

That is to say, we ended our term after 8 years in power with almost 90% approval of positive ratings from the people in the polls.

So what did we see? What we saw was that the result in the exercise in democracy is an extraordinary one. The ruler makes less mistakes in a democracy. The ruler is much more productive. The ruler demonstrates that they are there only to meet the needs of the people, that is to govern to the people for the people by the people.

So what we are seeing and with great satisfaction is that this movement of social inclusion and democracy is also being experienced intensively by our brothers and sisters in Latin America. We experienced a historical moment of strong democracies and fighting inequalities in Latin America and South America. Never before have so many governments brought economic development and social fairness as being their core concern as we have today in our dear South America.

This has allowed us to advance an agenda of a new kind of integration, based on overcoming the asymmetries and the development of highway and energy infrastructure in Latin America. our policies are guided by the respect of diversity, and correcting situations that cause damage to our smaller partners in the regions of South America.

So I believe that the most extraordinary thing that we managed the achieve in Brazil and South America and Latin America today is our self esteem. I always say that no one respects somebody if they are not being respected.

And for a long time, Latin America, South America and my country, we were subordinated to a rationale, to logic that was determined by the superpowers, either the European Union or by the US. We were turning our backs to one another, Brazil was not looking toward South America, Brazil was not looking toward Africa, Brazil was not looking toward the Middle East. Brazil was looking towards Europe only, and only Washington in the US, or New York or maybe London. And so we decided to change our policy and to establish a new rationale and new logic for international relations for our country.

And then we decided to follow the international relations logic - I used to say that it was necessary to change this rationale of the world geopolitics and the rationale of the trade policies, so that's why my dear friends it does not suffice that we have democracy in our countries, it is necessary to prevail in the international relations democracy and in the international bodies.

In the same way that a country cannot be the property of one or another ruler, the world cannot be the property of one or another country. The multilateral bodies today need a democratic reform so that they can give a voice and a chance to all. They represent the political geography of 1945 and not the political geography of 2011. How can we explain that we do not have yet seats in the UNSC that the Arab countries don't have at least 1 representative, 1 seat in the UNSC? How can you explain that China is in the UNSC but Japan is not in the security council? How can you explain that Africa does not have a seat in the security council? How can you explain that Latin America has no permanent representative in the UNSC?

So the UNSC became a club of friends than a global governance body to try to help understand the issues that we face in the world today. So that's why we fought so much for a change in the UNSC, and that it should be a truly multilateral institution that should have an active voice, for example, in the solution of the crises in the Middle East. If the UN created the state of Israel, they should also give the Palestinian state, and give the guarantees for the Palestinian state to function.

But for that to happen, it is necessary for the UNSC to be more representative and to have much more people participating in that council, it's necessary to bring in more players, new players, we need new negotiators. It's necessary to have political will.

The truth of the matter my dear friends, is that for a long time, many leaders of the world believed that they did not need to rule their countries, to govern their countries, because the markets would do everything. The market would govern. But it would suffice to happen that the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy or collapse, or the subprime crisis in the US was - and people would start to understand that governments are elected to govern, to rule, and that the markets exist only to earn money and not to be concerned with social issues.

The markets are not concerned with education, the markets are not to be used for income distribution, the markets do not serve social fairness. Who has these concerns? It's the state - the government, not the markets. And what we perceived with the crisis is that those countries that seemed to know everything they know nothing actually, in the midst of the global financial meltdown.

Those that used to say to us how to solve the problems of the poor countries - they have their recipe - they did not know how to solve their own problems in the midst of the global financial crisis. For example, the IMF gave us the impression that they knew everything. They had all the prescriptions. But when the crisis hit the rich countries, the IMF didn't know what to do and had no solution for the crisis, the World Bank didn't know what to do.

Who was better prepared to confront the crisis? It was exactly the emerging countries. the emerging markets, the developing countries were better off. Countries like Brazil, China, India and others, had a better possibility to build a domestic market that would be very strong, and resilient to the global financial crisis. Just for you to have an idea, I went to the national TV broadcast to make an appeal to the Brazilian people to buy more, to consume more, to not allow the crises to be even worse in my country.

So dear friends, I would like to say to all of you that what is happening now in the Middle East is something easier to understand if we understand that the world needs more democracy. The world needs more freedom. And the world needs more equality.

In each one of our countries, as you are demonstrating now with your struggles, courage and willingness to confront sacrifices, I believe that the world needs and could end up with social unfairness, our economies would become stronger and not weaker, when everybody has the same opportunity.

And so I believe that the world is going toward a new global governance, and if the countries understand and the world trade organisation, the UN, the IMF, the WB, if we - the multi-lateral bodies, institutions - if they have this understanding that we are moving toward a democratic global governance.

And I would like to say to our friends that we need to rethink how to make world development reach and benefit all, how can we take care of the African continent, how can we develop and strengthen democracy in Africa, how can we develop the African economy - what can the rich countries do so that we can stop reading the newspapers to see Africa as a mirror of a poor continent when in the 18th and 19th century Africa was self-reliant in food production, and today they are dependent, they are not self reliant anymore in food production.

What can we do to guarantee democracy in the Middle East? And what can we do so that we would not allow democracy to be something that is considered to be a secondary issue.

I want to show my solidarity to all of those in the Middle East and in any part of the world that are struggling for freedom, that are struggling for democracy, that are struggling for social fairness.

I would like to say to all of you that with my experience in 8 years as president of Brazil, with my experience of someone that founded a political party - the workers party - and as someone who created the largest national labour federation in Latin America, with the experience I had that lost three presidential elections, and with the experience that I had of assuming commitment that I could not afford to make mistakes in my presidency. I would like to say to all of you that it is possible, yes, to build a new world.

Yes, it is possible to build a new political, economic and social order. It's necessary to live in peace and harmony in the world if we want to reach that. And it is also necessary to understand that change in power is not something bad, it is a need to bring oxygen to society and to democracy. I would like to say to all of you that I came here with great pleasure, so that I could convey a little bit of the experience of what happened in my country.

Those of you that would visit Brazil would perceive that Brazil has changed a lot in the last years. And Brazil has changed, changed in a democratic way, socially, and today the very few countries in the world that have a people that have a belief in their country as the Brazilian people believe in Brazil.

So we do not need to have middlemen in building a world we want to live. We don't need intermediaries. It suffices to build what we understand for all the world. And I can say to all of you that all my life I exercised democracy to its ultimate consequences.

I was elected as president of the trade union with 92% of the votes. In my 2nd reelection for the trade union, I could have continued another 30-40 years in the trade union. And when I was reelected as president of the trade union, I passed in the general assembly of workers that no president of the trade union should be reelected for more than 2 terms. In the presidency of the republic I did the same thing. I could have fought for a third term. But I believe that for a democracy, we should not play with democracy, we can't play with democracy, we have to respect the rules of the game.

And for us to respect democracy, it suffices that we should allow the people to stand up, to speak out freely, that the leader should not hide themselves from the people.

Usually when there is a crisis, the leader hides themselves in their offices and does not go out in the streets, but actually it is in the midst of crisis it's when the people standing up to the leader that was elected to govern and to rule then he or she should go to the streets and talk to the people directly.

And they should not see the opposition as the enemy. The opposition should be seen as a citizen who is not happy with what the leader is doing and that change is necessary.

And so I think that this is the extraordinary reason for which we should value so much democracy. It's to live with, in a democratic way, diversity. democracy, cultural democracy, mass media democracy, democracy in the economy, democracy in the society's demonstrations.

I say every day in my country, that there's no worse censorship for the mass media than the TV viewer, than the one who listens to the radio, than the one who reads newspapers. You don't need state censorship, government censorship. Whoever lies, for the better or for the worse, will lose all its credibility.

The only chance to survive, is a commitment with the truth. And above all today, when the internet, the world wide web, went beyond any communications limits that we had up till today. In the old days we waited 6 months to listen to news, and then we waited 24 hours for the news, 12 hours, 6 hours, now it's in real time and we get news and information.

There's no way someone continues to lie thinking that the people will not discover that it's a lie, and I think that the internet and the new means of communication are giving a lot of headache to some leaders in the world but they are providing an extraordinary service to the strengthening of democracy in my country, and in the world. And the almighty wish that some people that are interested in helping the Middle East should understand what is going on in our country in Brazil, what happened in Brazil. Because many of the things that happened in Brazil could serve to help you build a new democracy that the world is demanding.

Thank you very much.


Source: Al Jazeera 
 

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/03/2011313842452274.html#