Showing posts with label Janjaweed Militia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Janjaweed Militia. Show all posts

Tuesday, July 26, 2011

Hameed Haroon & Dawn News "Lecture" but Dawn News Censors.


KARACHI, May 24: DawnNews, Pakistan’s first English language TV news channel, will commence its test transmission on Friday (May 25) evening from its head office in Karachi. The 24-hour DawnNews broadcast will be fed by a network of newsrooms and studios located in Karachi, Islamabad and Lahore and supported by a string of news bureaus in other cities and towns in the country. Owned by Pakistan Herald Publications (Pvt) Ltd, the publishers of DAWN, the network has over 300 journalists working under the Director News, Mr Azhar Abbas. Mr Abbas has had a distinguished career in electronic and print journalism. He was formerly managing director of GEO News. The network also has a team of veteran journalists and qualified newcomers demonstrating a strong reliance on agenda-broadening areas, such as environment, education and fine arts. “The synergy of a young generation of film-makers and news journalists at DawnNews is expected to gradually transform Pakistan’s information scene,” says a spokesman for Pakistan Herald Publications. REFERENCE: DawnNews TV’s test transmission from today May 25, 2007 Friday Jamadi-ul-Awwal 08, 1428 http://archives.dawn.com/dawnftp/72.249.57.55/dawnftp/2007/05/25/top4.htm 

Pakistani Journalists Living in Government Houses - Part - 6 (Matiullah Jan Dawn News)

URL: http://youtu.be/b0GqTZbvCOc


“In our endeavour to establish DawnNews we are enormously helped by our legacy – The legacy of DAWN, that was founded by the Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah on 14th August 1947 in Karachi, the same day our nation was born. We believe that by facilitating access to information of the highest quality and with a defined commitment to clarity and accuracy, we can enable Pakistan’s young generations to assume their place as informed citizens of the world.” The commencement of test transmission for the public is expected to be marked by a simple ceremony at the headquarters of DawnNews in Karachi. The news channel is being transmitted free to air as of Friday and may be viewed in Pakistan either via cable or through a satellite receiver. Its satellite footprint covers a wide area stretching from the Middle East across South Asia, up to Malaysia and Singapore. At present the transmission is being conducted courtesy a temporary up-linking permission granted by Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (Pemra). The prospects for acquiring a permanent licence for DawnNews inched a few steps ahead last week when a public advertisement issued by Pemra announced the holding of mandatory public hearings in Karachi on May 30, usually set up prior to the issuance of a licence. REFERENCE: DawnNews TV’s test transmission from today May 25, 2007 Friday Jamadi-ul-Awwal 08, 1428 http://archives.dawn.com/dawnftp/72.249.57.55/dawnftp/2007/05/25/top4.htm 

Apna Gareban "Forcibly Closed" Dawn News Censorship. (Courtesy BBC)

URL: http://youtu.be/o4rXfpxFNps

صحافیوں کا’گریبان‘ پروگرام بند
آخری وقت اشاعت: جمعرات 30 جون 2011 ,‭ 16:34 GMT 21:34 PST
اپنے گریبان میں جھانکنا کتنا مشکل ہے، یہ بات مطیع اللہ جان اچھی طرح جان گئے ہیں۔ ڈان نیوز کے اینکر پرسن نے اس عنوان سے اپنا پروگرام شروع کیا تھا جس میں کسی اور کی نہیں بلکہ اپنے ہی طبقے یعنی صحافیوں کا احتساب کیا گیا۔ لیکن یہ پروگرام زیادہ دیر نہیں چل سکا اور بقول مطیع اللہ جان کے اس کے ایک پروگرام کی ریکارڈنگ جاری تھی کہ اسے بند کرنا پڑا۔ اسلام آباد سے آصف فاروقی کی رپورٹ:

“HE was expressing his personal opinion,” was the explanation given after Lt-Gen (retd) Nadeem Ahmad appeared to make a definitive statement exonerating the army and intelligence services of any role in hiding Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad. Gen Nadeem Ahmad is among the members of the commission of inquiry into the American operation which, the US says, led to the killing of the Saudi-born leader of Al Qaeda in May this year. The commission is headed by Justice Javed Iqbal, one of the most senior judges of the Supreme Court. The view the retired general was expressing may be widely shared by all and sundry but there was one tiny problem. He is a member of the commission of inquiry. It would have been more appropriate for him to speak through the final findings of the inquiry. Or, if he had divergent views, once the report had been made public. Then of course there was that famous Zulfikar Mirza ‘nangay bhookay’ (‘shirtless and famished’) statement as the Sindh senior minister chose to describe those who had migrated in 1947 and beyond from the Hindu-majority areas of India to Sindh. And of course his remarks about MQM leader Altaf Hussain added booster rockets to the affront. In any case, Dr Mirza has few rivals in voluntarily making fiery speeches but that terrible evening at the Awami National Party Sindh leader Shahi Syed’s home was an exception. Perhaps, finding the doctor a bit unsteady on his feet, it was a TV reporter who is said to have ignited the incendiary Mirza. Zulfikar Mirza was not scheduled to speak and was being guided away from a battery of microphones by Shahi Syed when the TV reporter shouted: “Mirza kiskay danday, kiskay isha’aron par chaltay ho?” (Mirza, whose tune are you dancing to?)

That’s when Mirza turned, pushed away those trying to guide him in a different direction, and arrived at the microphones and the centre of camera frames to say “I fear nobody” and went on to utter the words which were blamed as the trigger for the ‘spontaneous’ violence that claimed more than a dozen lives. The violent protest dropped off dramatically and normality was restored as if by magic once, 36 hours later, the MQM leader snapped his fingers. Of course, by this time Mirza had had to feast on a huge humble pie, issue a public apology, and both he and his party describe his remarks as ‘personal views’. So, while the Abbottabad inquiry commission member and the Sindh minister’s remarks were quickly described as ‘personal views’ in a damage-limitation exercise by his party, what about the TV ‘journalist’ whose ‘naughty’ question led to such bloody consequences? Well, one can stick one’s neck out and say that if ever the TV reporter’s channel was put on the spot, it would also perhaps opt for the ‘personal opinion’ subterfuge. But how ‘personal’ are/were the spoken (and in case of the TV channel unspoken) words?

Let’s take up the latest. The general is a solider whose loyalty to the institution that gave him so much during service and continues to bestow much honour and privilege on him even in retirement must be beyond reproach. When, after dithering for days on end, the government agreed to appoint a commission of inquiry into the Abbottabad attack and killing of the Al Qaeda leader, its composition gave a hint as to who the major stakeholders were. This is not to cast aspersions on its members or their intentions but the general was chosen perhaps to look out for the interests of his institution. Nargis Sethi, a senior, distinguished and powerful civil servant, whose career has benefited in no uncertain terms from her proximity to the prime minister, would obviously watch his back. The civil servant, other commission members and most notably the chairman have all maintained silence and can’t be cited for indiscretion. But, given that his institution, of which the ISI is in an integral part, has come in for most flak on the issue as both its competence and its intentions have been called into question, the general may have felt constrained to share his ‘personal views’ what if a shade prematurely. While the Musharraf years saw the MQM allowed complete sway over Karachi, Hyderabad and other MQM-majority urban centres more or less to the exclusion of other ethnic groups, the set-up that emerged after the last elections has tried often crudely and in bloody battles to redress the situation.

Zulfikar Mirza was articulating the sentiments of his constituents. In doing so, he was cementing his party’s position in its support base in Sindh rather than merely expressing his ‘personal views’. This was so well explained in his column by Cyril Almeida in this paper soon after Mirza’s outburst. As for the TV reporter, his channel wouldn’t even think of heaping opprobrium on him as he brought such a cracking story to it. In fact, he may have earned the gratitude of the entire industry for the story soon acquired such running legs that it continued to generate excitement. That the minister may have been egged on and that the resultant violence left many dead, injured and hundreds stripped of their means of livelihood as their buses and shops were torched by those who had risen in ‘spontaneous’ protest appeared marginal to the whole affair. One wonders why generals, politicians and even media people bother with pretences. Nobody is fooled when terms such as ‘personal views’ and ‘spontaneous’ protests are used. There is only one leader who needs no such subterfuge. His every word is owned as policy by his party. But as recent events underlined one hopes he doesn’t wait more than 36 hours to go public with his views or, shall we say, to make a policy statement. The writer is a former editor of Dawn. REFERENCE: Of personal views that aren’t By Abbas Nasir | From the Newspaper July 23, 2011 (3 days ago) http://www.dawn.com/2011/07/23/of-personal-views-that-arent.html 


But Jinnah had never dreamt of Controlled and Guided Democracy by Military Dictator as well as he never dreamt of that a Military Dictator would be addressing a forum founded by a Lawyer of Impeccable Character i.e. Mohammad Ali Jinnah


KARACHI, May 25: President Pervez Musharraf on Friday described the media as the country’s first line of defence and assured of unhindered support for the freedom of expression, but at the same time warned against the growing trend of sensationalisation, and said that repeated projection of gory incidents and violence on television was brutalising society. He was speaking at a ceremony to launch the test transmission of DawnNews television. While praising the launching of the country’s first 24-hour English language news channel, President Musharraf described it as a unique event. But at the same time he did not hesitate in taking full credit for the mushrooming of private television channels, saying that whatever freedom there was in the country it was only because of him. “I alone had insisted that we must give them freedom so that the media could hold everyone accountable,” he said while recalling the early years in power when he had framed the media policy.

Gen Musharraf rejected the long-stated view of the journalist fraternity that the freedom of press in the country was the result of their campaign and persistent demand and said he was not aware of any such demand when he decided to ‘give this freedom’. It was quite apparent that the president had come to the launching ceremony to not just praise the media, or take credit for his policy, but also to speak his mind about the prevailing trends in newspapers and television channels. And although he repeatedly assured the select audience, and the country at large, that such level of independence would continue, President Musharraf’s insistence was that such freedom should come with a certain level of responsibility. He gave examples from the television coverage of the war in Iraq, and said while western media never showed bodies of their own soldiers, they had no hesitation in showing the images of the bodies of Saddam Hussain and his sons. The other example he gave was of the recent killings in one of the schools in the United States by a gunman, and said the American television networks made a conscious decision not to show the dead bodies. While presenting his argument, President Musharraf raised the issue of what he described as the trend of repeatedly showing gory images, blood and killings. He said such images were telecast round the clock as if they were from an India-Pakistan cricket match. Similarly, he said the way religious extremism was glorified by showing militants in Waziristan, or the clerics of Lal Masjid, and the manner in which their views were aired, amounted to ‘brutalisation of society’.

Indirectly holding the media partly responsible for the state of affairs in the country, President Musharraf said it was creating unnecessary alarm amongst overseas Pakistani and other potential investors. He was of the view that if the media failed to demonstrate what he called a certain level of responsibility in the projection of Pakistan, then it may have a negative impact on the economic and social progress of the country. He then went on to present a long list of development activities and his government’s achievements in the fields of economy, education, telecommunication, and even human rights. He said there were thousands of such projects that he was in a position to highlight, but according to him, the media had little time to report on such matters. In his words, the media was only interested in projecting negative events. President Musharraf said like in many other countries, in Pakistan too the media need to consider what was in the nation’s interest. He said while it was equally important to present, what he described as negative stories, President Musharraf said in order to raise the morale of the people, the media must also highlight ‘positive events’.

Touching on the present state of affairs, President Musharraf said the feedback he was getting through interaction, and not merely from the intelligence agencies, was that the majority was pleased with his policies. He described the demonstrations held in support of the chief justice as politically motivated events by a few, and claimed that the bulk of the population in the country was with him. He even gave the example of the turnout in some of the rallies he had recently addressed, and said although buses for bringing the people had to be hired, “more than 90 per cent people attended these public meetings on their own as they wanted to listen to what I had to say”. He said one of the biggest challenges faced by the country was the scourge of extremism and terrorism. He was of the view that if the media made a conscious effort to support the government on this issue, it may become extremely easy to tackle this problem.

Earlier, in his welcome address Hameed Haroon, chief executive of the Dawn group of newspapers, presented the history and traditions followed by Dawn since its first publication 60 years ago by Quaid-i-Azam Mohammed Ali Jinnah. Mr Haroon said although DawnNews was being run by a new and much younger team, its philosophy was not going to any different from that of Dawn newspaper. Agencies add: The president said he was a firm believer that ‘a free and vibrant media’ was good for the country. “Media is the fourth pillar of the state. I see it as the first line of defence and an essential ingredient of democracy, but it has to be responsible,” he observed. “I expect a balanced and true picture that can provide confidence to Pakistanis living abroad and here I believe media can contribute tremendously towards fighting extremism and terrorism,” the president said. He felt a ‘negative projection’ of the country might affect the economy by scaring investors away.“We need to develop national cohesion, underplay what can lower the nation’s morale and encourage what can raise it.” REFERENCE: ‘Media first line of defence’: DawnNews TV’s test transmission By Our Staff Reporter May 26, 2007 Saturday Jamadi-ul-Awwal 09, 1428 http://archives.dawn.com/dawnftp/72.249.57.55/dawnftp/2007/05/26/top4.htm 

"QUOTE"

In reaction to the statement, the Mohajir Rabita Council demanded that Dr Zulfikar Mirza and Awami National Party leader Shahi Syed leave Karachi within 48 hours otherwise strong protests against them would continue. However, the MRC suspended the protests when MQM chief Altaf Hussain appealed to the people to end all peaceful demonstrations, said MRC General Secretary Arshad Siddiqui on Thursday evening. REFERENCE: 15 killed, 32 vehicles torched during MQM protest By S. Raza Hassan | From the Newspaper July 15, 2011 (2 weeks ago) http://www.dawn.com/2011/07/15/15-killed-32-vehicles-torched-during-mqm-protest.html


 ISLAMABAD: Twelve journalists have been declared "enemies" by an organisation linked to a party that supports President Musharraf, a media rights group said. The New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists said in a statement on Saturday that the Karachi-based Muhajir Rabita Council has "listed 12 journalists by name and identified them as 'enemies.'" The CJP did not say why the designations were made, but they seem to be linked with coverage of violence in Karachi on May 12 in which some 41 people were killed and dozens wounded, many from gunfire. Minister of State for Information Senator Tariq Azeem Khan said he was unaware of any such list. The CPJ said the council is closely associated with Muttahida Qaumi Movement, an ethnic-based party that is centred in Karachi and strongly backs Musharraf. A Muttahida lawmaker denied the group was involved in threatening journalists. "Threatening anyone is not our policy," said Haider Rizvi, an MQM MNA. Members of the Muhajir Rabita Council could not be reached for comment. The media rights group said that after the Muhajir Rabita Council publicised its list of "enemies," Syed Huma Ali, president of the Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists, received anonymous threatening phone calls. "Threats against journalists are mounting in Pakistan and the government must take immediate steps not only to protect journalists, but also to actively seek out and bring to justice those that would harm them," Bob Dietz, CPJ's Asia programme coordinator, said in the group's statement. Tariq Azeem Khan said Pakistan has "unprecedented freedom for press and journalists." "So far we have no news of anyone (being) singled out for maltreatment or any threat," he added. REFERENCE: CPJ condemns list of ‘enemy’ journalists Monday, May 28, 2007 http://thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=8152&Cat=13&dt=5/30/2007


Muhajir Rabita Council dismisses apology

 Updated at: 1311 PST,  Thursday, July 14, 2011
Muhajir Rabita Council dismisses apology KARACHI: The Muhajir Rabita Council has dismissed the apology made by Interior Minister Rehman Malik Thursday, Geo News reported.  According to general secretary of the council Arshad Siddiqui, MQM workers are demanding that Zulfiqar Mirza should personally apologize to MQM Chief Altaf Hussian.  According to the council, President Asif Ali Zardari should immediately remove Zulfiqar Mirza from his post and if this is not done then the president will be responsible for the situation in the city.

http://www.geo.tv/7-14-2011/83693.htm 
















KARACHI: The APNS has welcomed the resignation of Federal Minister for Housing Syed Safwanullah of the Muttahida Qaumi Movement, who resigned on Monday in compliance with his party’s directives. The APNS has repeatedly contacted the Muttahida Qaumi Movement on this issue following the May 22 hit list of anti-Muhajir “journalists” issued by the Muhajir Rabita Council. The APNS had urged the Muttahida Qaumi Movement to remove Safwanullah from his Ministry in the federal government as he was the President of the Muhajir Rabita Council at the time of issuance of the journalists’ hit list. The APNS believes that the Muttahida Qaumi Movement has acted effectively: firstly, in disassociating itself from the Muhajir Rabita Council statement, and secondly, after effecting Safwanullah’s resignation from the Muhajir Rabita Council, it has withdrawn him from the federal cabinet as a consequence of the hit list issued by the Muhajir Rabita Council during his tenure as its president. The only outstanding item from the agenda of the actions urged by the APNS is for the Muttahida Qaumi Movement leadership to persuade the Muhajir Rabita Council to withdraw the 13-members hit list of journalists that the Muhajir Rabita Council had earlier issued. REFERENCE: APNS welcomes Safwanullah’s resignation Wednesday, July 11, 2007 http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=8962&Cat=13&dt=7/13/2007 


KARACHI: The Muhajir Rabita Council has dismissed the apology made by Interior Minister Rehman Malik Thursday, Geo News reported. According to general secretary of the council Arshad Siddiqui, MQM workers are demanding that Zulfiqar Mirza should personally apologize to MQM Chief Altaf Hussian. According to the council, President Asif Ali Zardari should immediately remove Zulfiqar Mirza from his post and if this is not done then the president will be responsible for the situation in the city. REFERENCE: Muhajir Rabita Council dismisses apology Updated 2 days ago http://www.thenews.com.pk/NewsDetail.aspx?ID=18701&title=Muhajir-Rabita-Council-dismisses-apology 

Muhajir Rabita Council (MRC) Exposes Nawaz Sharif & Supports General Pervez Musharraf. (Express News 2009)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWjuxVMGp9c


KARACHI: The Muhajir Rabita Council (MRC) has demanded that Senior Provincial Minister Zulfiqar Mirza and ANP Sindh President Shahi Sayed leave Karachi within 48 hours otherwise strong protests would continue, Geo News reported. The General Secretary of MRC Arshad Siddqui in a statement said Zulfiqar Mirza had insulted the founders of Pakistan adding that he should come on the media and apologize to MQM Chief Altaf Hussain. Arshad Siddiqui said that the apology from Rehman Malik is not acceptable and MQM workers want Zulfiqar Mirza to apologize to the MQM chief. He said that President Asif Ali Zardari should take immediate action and remove Zulfiqar Mirza from his post and if the President did not remove Mirza than he would be responsible for the ensuing situation. REFERENCE: MRC issues ultimatum to Mirza, Sayed Updated 2 days ago http://www.thenews.com.pk/NewsDetail.aspx?ID=18704&title=MRC-issues-ultimatum-to-Mirza,-Sayed  UK paper blames MQM for May 12 carnage Rauf Klasra Sunday, June 03, 2007 http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=8280&Cat=13&dt=6/1/2007 


"UNQUOTE"

And in the same month of May 2007 leading Journalists received "Death Threats" from a group which is shamelessly given "Special Coverage" by Dawn News and Daily Dawn? What a joke, on one hand these Media Barons talk of Threats whereas the same Media give Special Coverage to the Rogue Elements who hurl threats to the Free Media? Who, Mr. Hameed Haroon and Mr. Abbas Nasir are trying to hoodwink (Yaani Mamon Bana Rahay Hein)



KARACHI, May 25: The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) has expressed resentment over a press release issued on May 22 by the Mohajir Rabita Council (MRC) that “included a list of journalists described as chauvinistic, among other insults”. A statement issued by IFJ said: “It is alleged that the list included Zaffar Abbas (resident editor, Dawn, Islamabad), Mazhar Abbas (AFP bureau chief in Karachi), Azhar Abbas (DawnNews TV channel), Ayaz Amir (Dawn), Sajid Mir (anchor of TV One), Shaheen Sehbai (head of ARY One World), Dr Shahid Masood (anchor of GEO TV), Aneeq Ahmed (anchor of ARY One World), Afsar Imam (Aaj TV), Zarar Khan (Bureau chief, AP, Karachi), Zahid Hussain (chief reporter, GEO) and Irfan Siddiqui (columnist, Nawa-i-Waqt).” The statement condemned the MRC press release and called it “very disappointing”. “The last thing Pakistani journalists need is future generations of enemies being developed,” IFJ president Christopher Warren is quoted in the statement as saying. “Threats such as these lead to self-censorship among journalists, which of course is the goal of the intimidators, but which is also a condition that governments who are committed to press freedom cannot allow to develop,” Mr Warren said. “Journalists need to know that they will be protected from threats or attack, and the Pakistani government needs to step up and provide that protection,” he said. REFERENCE: IFJ enraged by MRC’s threat to journalists May 26, 2007 Saturday Jamadi-ul-Awwal 09, 1428 http://archives.dawn.com/dawnftp/72.249.57.55/dawnftp/2007/05/26/nat6.htm 



KARACHI, May 24: The Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists (PFUJ), in an appeal to all media groups, has called for immediate safety and security measures for journalists, including comprehensive life insurance, in view of increasing incidents of violence and threats against them. In a statement issued here on Thursday, the PFUJ expressed concern over what it termed record rise in incidents of violence against journalists and other media personnel in 2007. Terming unacceptable a recent press release issued by the Muhajir Rabita Council, which had named some journalists and columnists as chauvinists, the PFUJ urged the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) to use its influence on organisations like the MRC to withdraw the statement, as it would not only create a feeling of insecurity among media personnel but would also harm the democratic culture and freedom of expression in the country. REFERENCE: PFUJ demands adequate security May 25, 2007 Friday Jamadi-ul-Awwal 08, 1428 http://archives.dawn.com/dawnftp/72.249.57.55/dawnftp/2007/05/25/nat17.htm 


KARACHI, May 25: The All Pakistan Newspapers Society (APNS) has urged the president and prime minister to take notice of recent statements of Mohajir Rabita Council (MRC) and MQM Rabita Committee against journalists and said that such deliberations may generate hatred against the press. In a statement signed by APNS secretary-general Mohammad Aslam Kazi, it was said that the society was concerned over the statements of the MRC and the Rabita Committee “denouncing journalists and analysts in the print and electronic media as being anti-Mohajir and biased chauvinists”. In the statement of the MRC, which was issued by four high ranking office-bearers, 13 leading journalists from the print and electronic media were named in a publicly announced hit list as ‘Mohajir dushman’ (enemies of Mohajirs), the APNS statement said, adding that the president of the MRC, Syed Safwanullah, a Muttahida Qaumi Movement minister in the federal government, upon contact had expressed his ignorance about the statement and promised a contradiction, which remained unrealised so far. According to the APNS, another statement issued in the names of two members of the MQM Rabita Committee, Mohammad Ashfaque and Javed Kazmi, had used almost the same expressions as the MRC and hurled similar charges. The APNS believed that the statements of both the MRC and the Rabita Committee against journalists “are likely to provoke hatred against the press in general and incite supporters of the two parties to the possible commission of an offence against those journalists named in the statements,” it said. It urged the MQM committee to formally denounce the inclusion of a hit list in the Rabita Council’s statement and to persuade them to withdraw the inflammatory declaration and also re-examine the statements issued by two of its members, and withdraw it as well in the interest of better relations between political parties and the press. REFERENCE: APNS assails statements of MRC against journalists May 26, 2007 Saturday Jamadi-ul-Awwal 09, 1428 http://archives.dawn.com/dawnftp/72.249.57.55/dawnftp/2007/05/26/nat5.htm 


Karachi --- The Mohajir Rabita Council has condemned death threats to some Karachi-based journalists, and described it as yet another conspiracy to malign Mohajirs. It demanded a high level inquiry into the matter and punishment to the culprits. In a statement faxed to Dawn by its press secretary Minhajul Arfeen, MRC's Senior Vice-President Yaqoob Bandhani, General Secretary Tasadduq Hussain, Finance Secretary Ms Raeesa Mohani and members of the working committee claimed that they had come to know from the print and electronic media that some unidentified people had dropped envelopes containing bullets and threatening letters in the vehicles of three journalists. It may be pointed out that cars of the two reporters and photographer were parked outside the Karachi Press Club when the envelops were discovered. Each envelope contained only one bullet and no threatening letter. The media also reported accordingly. Demanding a high level inquiry into what it described as a deplorable threat to journalists, the MRC press release maintained that the organisation comprised elders who had played a pivotal role in the creation of Pakistan and had always, through peaceful means, struggled for the rights of Mohajirs. It maintained that after the May 12 mayhem in the city, conspirators had expedited their drive against Mohajirs, and claimed that the envelopes with bullet and threatening letters were part of that conspiracy. REFERENCE: Mohajir community denies allegations that they threatened journalists Dawn Thursday, May 31, 2007 Asia Media PAKISTAN: Threats to journalists termed 'conspiracy against Mohajirs' http://www.international.ucla.edu/asia/news/article.asp?parentid=71119



Karachi --- The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) has expressed resentment over a press release issued on May 22 by the Mohajir Rabita Council (MRC) that "included a list of journalists described as chauvinistic, among other insults".

A statement issued by IFJ said: "It is alleged that the list included Zaffar Abbas (resident editor, Dawn, Islamabad), Mazhar Abbas (AFP bureau chief in Karachi), Azhar Abbas (DawnNews TV channel), Ayaz Amir (Dawn), Sajid Mir (anchor of TV One), Shaheen Sehbai (head of ARY One World), Dr Shahid Masood (anchor of GEO TV), Aneeq Ahmed (anchor of ARY One World), Afsar Imam (Aaj TV), Zarar Khan (Bureau chief, AP, Karachi), Zahid Hussain (chief reporter, GEO) and Irfan Siddiqui (columnist, Nawa-i-Waqt)."

The statement condemned the MRC press release and called it "very disappointing". "The last thing Pakistani journalists need is future generations of enemies being developed," IFJ president Christopher Warren is quoted in the statement as saying. "Threats such as these lead to self-censorship among journalists, which of course is the goal of the intimidators, but which is also a condition that governments who are committed to press freedom cannot allow to develop," Mr Warren said. "Journalists need to know that they will be protected from threats or attack, and the Pakistani government needs to step up and provide that protection," he said.

APNS assails statements of MRC against journalists

Karachi --- The All Pakistan Newspapers Society (APNS) has urged the president and prime minister to take notice of recent statements of Mohajir Rabita Council (MRC) and MQM Rabita Committee against journalists and said that such deliberations may generate hatred against the press. In a statement signed by APNS secretary-general Mohammad Aslam Kazi, it was said that the society was concerned over the statements of the MRC and the Rabita Committee “denouncing journalists and analysts in the print and electronic media as being anti-Mohajir and biased chauvinists”. In the statement of the MRC, which was issued by four high ranking office-bearers, 13 leading journalists from the print and electronic media were named in a publicly announced hit list as ‘Mohajir dushman' (enemies of Mohajirs), the APNS statement said, adding that the president of the MRC, Syed Safwanullah, a Muttahida Qaumi Movement minister in the federal government, upon contact had expressed his ignorance about the statement and promised a contradiction, which remained unrealised so far. According to the APNS, another statement issued in the names of two members of the MQM Rabita Committee, Mohammad Ashfaque and Javed Kazmi, had used almost the same expressions as the MRC and hurled similar charges. The APNS believed that the statements of both the MRC and the Rabita Committee against journalists “are likely to provoke hatred against the press in general and incite supporters of the two parties to the possible commission of an offence against those journalists named in the statements,” it said. It urged the MQM committee to formally denounce the inclusion of a hit list in the Rabita Council's statement and to persuade them to withdraw the inflammatory declaration and also re-examine the statements issued by two of its members, and withdraw it as well in the interest of better relations between political parties and the press. REFERENCE: Asia Media Date Posted: 5/25/2007 Council releases a list of journalists deemed subversive to society Dawn Friday, May 25, 2007 PAKISTAN: IFJ enraged by MRC's threat to journalists http://www.international.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=70724 


KARACHI, May 29: In what appears to be a direct death threat, bullets were found on Tuesday night in the cars of three senior journalists parked outside the Karachi Press Club. The cars belonged to secretary-general of Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists Mazhar Abbas, Zarar Khan and photojournalist Asif Hussain. When the journalists opened their vehicles, each of them found a bullet wrapped in a brown paper envelope. It may be pointed out that names of Mazhar Abbas and Zarar Khan had appeared in a statement of the Mohajir Rabita Council in which they were described as anti-Mohajir chauvanists. The journalists immediately informed Sindh Governor Dr Ishratul Ibad Khan and IG Police Azhar A. Farooqi. An FIR was lodged with the police. The Karachi Union of Journalists has strongly condemned death threats to the journalists and demanded that the culprits be brought to justice. It also demanded that the organisations whose names have appeared in this connection must publicly denounce and disassociate itself from such terrorist activities. REFERENCE Journalists get death threats By Our Staff Reporter May 30, 2007 Wednesday Jamadi-ul-Awwal 13, 1428 http://archives.dawn.com/dawnftp/72.249.57.55/dawnftp/2007/05/30/nat4.htm 



LAHORE, May 30: The Punjab Union of Journalists on Wednesday staged a demonstration in front of the Lahore Press Club to condemn death threats to three senior Karachi journalists. A large number of city journalists carrying placards and banners urged the government to protect journalists. They also raised slogans against the MQM and the government. The journalists given death threats included Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists Secretary General Mazhar Abbas, Zarar Khan and Asif Hussain. Speaking on the occasion, PUJ President Arif Hameed Bhatti and General Secretary Amer Raza urged the government to take stern action against the MQM, and ban it. It should also expose those disturbing peace in Karachi, they said. They also urged the Punjab government to ban the entry of the members of the party into Punjab.

They said the union would give a call for a hunger strike if the government failed to protect journalists who would continue to perform their duty without caring for the consequences. Meanwhile, in a statement the South Asia Media Commission (SAMC) expressed its anger over threats to the life and property of journalists in Karachi and Peshawar given by, what it said, different extremist organizations. It urged the Pakistani authorities to protect the journalists. The statement issued by SAMC Regional Coordinator Husain Naqi here said the life threats to the three Karachi journalists came a week after a shadowy organization, The Mohajir Rabita Council with links to the MQM, a party that supports military ruler President Pervez Musharraf, issued a list of a dozen journalists, declaring them as enemies, it said.

It said on May 25 gunmen attacked the Peshawar home of Daily Times cartoonist Muhammad Zahoor at around 2am. Four-time winner of the All Pakistan Newspaper Society’s annual best cartoonist award, Zahoor had drawn many cartoons on the Supreme Court chief justice’s dismissal in recent weeks. The home of Nasrullah Afridi, the Urdu language daily Mashriq in the Khyber Agency section of the Tribal Areas, came under grenade attack after death threats made against him five days earlier by the head of Lashkar-i-Islam. “We believe it is a very serious threat to working journalists. It is an attempt to muzzle the free media. The government should arrest those behind the threats,” SAMC Chairperson N Ram and General Secretary Najam Sethi said. They said journalists needed to know that they would be protected from threats or attack. “If the government fails to do so, we will be justified in believing that there is complicity of the government in the current campaign to harass journalists,” they said. They said the Muhajir Rabita Council had issued a threatening statement on May 22 with a list of some 20 journalists it described as chauvinist and hostile to their movement. REFERENCE: PUJ rally condemns threats to journalists By our Staff Reporter May 31, 2007 Thursday Jamadi-ul-Awwal 14, 1428 http://archives.dawn.com/dawnftp/72.249.57.55/dawnftp/2007/05/31/nat45.htm 

HYDERABAD, May 30: Journalists staged protest demonstrations and held rallies in different parts of Sindh on Wednesday against the issuance of life threats to PFUJ secretary-general Mazhar Abbas, AP correspondent Zarar Khan and photographer Asif Hussain, and attack on Shakeel Turrabi, Editor-in-Chief, Sana News. Members of the press club and Hyderabad Union of Journalists demonstrated against the harassment of journalists by ‘terrorists.’ President Hyderabad Press Club Shahid Shaikh said this was only a symbolic protest demonstration but if such threats were not stopped media people will resort to direct action. NAWABSHAH: Journalists of Nawabshah staged demonstration outside the press club. They carried placards and raised slogans in favour of press freedom. Speaking on the occasion, Mohammad Anwar Shaikh said that the government was claiming that press and media were free but threats were being issued to journalists. The members condemned such threats. JACOBABAD: Journalists of Jacobabad took out a rally led by Nazar Abbas Shah, president district union of journalists, while activists of political parties and social organisations also participated in it. Protesters staged a sit-in near the DCO Chowk. REFERENCE: Threats to journalists condemned May 30, 2007 Wednesday Jamadi-ul-Awwal 13, 1428 http://archives.dawn.com/dawnftp/72.249.57.55/dawnftp/2007/05/31/nat31.htm 


KARACHI, May 29: In what appears to be a direct death threat, bullets were found on Tuesday night in the cars of three senior journalists parked outside the Karachi Press Club. The cars belonged to secretary-general of Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists Mazhar Abbas, Zarar Khan and photojournalist Asif Hussain. When the journalists opened their vehicles, each of them found a bullet wrapped in a brown paper envelope. It may be pointed out that names of Mazhar Abbas and Zarar Khan had appeared in a statement of the Mohajir Rabita Council in which they were described as anti-Mohajir chauvanists. The journalists immediately informed Sindh Governor Dr Ishratul Ibad Khan and IG Police Azhar A. Farooqi. An FIR was lodged with the police. The Karachi Union of Journalists has strongly condemned death threats to the journalists and demanded that the culprits be brought to justice. It also demanded that the organisations whose names have appeared in this connection must publicly denounce and disassociate itself from such terrorist activities. REFERENCE: Dawn Report Journalists get death threats By Our Staff Reporter May 30, 2007 Wednesday Jamadi-ul-Awwal 13, 1428 http://archives.dawn.com/dawnftp/72.249.57.55/dawnftp/2007/05/30/nat4.htm

Friday, May 1, 2009

The US CIA and Darfur - Sudan Crisis - 2

Sudan becomes US ally in 'war on terror' Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington The Guardian, Saturday 30 April 2005 02.22 BST

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/apr/30/sudan.usa

SUDAN - AFRICA

Child Soldier in Sudan [More in http://www.hrw.org/en/africa/sudan]

Sudan's Islamist regime, once shunned by Washington for providing a haven for Osama bin Laden as well as for human rights abuses during decades of civil war, has become an ally in the Bush administration's "war on terror". Only months after the US accused Khartoum of carrying out genocide in Darfur, Sudan has become a crucial intelligence asset to the CIA.

In the Middle East and Africa, Sudan's agents have penetrated networks that would not normally be accessible to America, one former US intelligence official told the Guardian. Some of that cooperation has spilled over into the war in Iraq: Sudan is credited with detaining foreign militants on their way to join anti-American fighters there.

Sudanese agents have also helped the CIA to monitor Islamist organisations in Somalia.

"The intelligence relationship is the strongest thread between Washington and Khartoum," the official said. "Khartoum is probably the only government in the Arab League that has contributed in a major way to the protection of US forces and citizens in Iraq."

News of the growing cooperation was first reported in yes terday's Los Angeles Times. The paper traced the thaw in relations since 2001 to a milestone last week: the visit to Washington by Sudan's intelligence chief, Salah Abdallah Gosh. It reported that Sudan's secret police had begun to crack down on suspected Islamists, had shared evidence with the FBI and allowed US personnel to interrogate al-Qaida suspects.

In May 2003, Sudanese security forces raided a suspected terrorist training camp and deported more than a dozen, mainly Saudi, militants to Arab states which work closely with US intelligence services, the newspaper said.

Yet a decade ago Sudan was a haven to Bin Laden and other international outlaws, such as Carlos the Jackal. In 1993, it was placed on the US state department's list of terrorist regimes. Approaches from Khartoum were rebuffed - even as it offered its services against an emerging al-Qaida in the 1990s.

"Sudan tried to hand over two guys implicated in the 1998 bombing of the US embassies in east Africa, and the response was to send cruise missiles to hit the aspirin factory in Khartoum," the official said. "They offered up Bin Laden in 1995, and we said we don't even have an indictment on him."

Officially, Washington's position towards Sudan remains unchanged. "Sudan is still considered a state sponsor of terror," a state department spokesman said yesterday.

News of General Gosh's visit to Washington caused consternation in human rights circles. The general is among 51 Sudanese officials implicated in human rights abuses by the international criminal court.

"I quite understand that the war on terrorism means dealing with bad actors, but to fly in one of Sudan's chief committers of what Washington has formally described as genocide is deeply disturbing," said an independent Sudan analyst, Eric Reeves. He noted there had been signs of a slight thaw towards Khartoum for some time - despite the state department's official stance.

The CIA's New Client in Sudan May 12, 2005 By David Baake

http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/6290

It was Woodrow Wilson who called the Armenian Holocaust sad, but necessary to quell an internal security threat.' Today it appears that the Bush administration, only eight months after former Secretary of State Colin Powell announced that Sudan's pro-government militias were committing genocide, has changed its mind and now is once again ignoring victims of genocide and allowing a government to quell a security threat.'

The Los Angeles Times recently reported that the US government and the Sudanese government responsible for over 180,000 deaths are forming a close intelligence partnership, and that government in Khartoum is becoming a surprisingly valuable ally of the CIA' in the war on terrorism, as surprising as that would seem to anyone aware of the fact that Sudan harbored Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda a decade ago and that Sudan's dictator retained ties with other groups classified as terrorists by the US government after Al Qaeda left Sudan.

The Times' report on the US' new ally shows very clearly the opportunistic nature of the war on terrorism' paradigm, which in reality has nothing to do with stopping violence or promoting peace but is merely a new justification for continuing with the imperialist program that the US has pursued since the Second World War. The article is full of completely contradictory messages from US government officials, and it is difficult to imagine how an establishment reader could make sense of them without resorting to the use of doublespeak. The first few paragraphs explain that Sudan has been charged with committing genocide by the US government, once welcomed bin Laden, and has been described as "an extraordinary threat to the national security" by the Bush Administration.

Paragraphs later, the readership is told that "American intelligence considers [Sudan] to be a friend" by a senior official in the Sudanese government, and that Sudan could become a top tier' ally of the CIA by a State Department official. In addition, the Bush Administration has recently normalized relations with Sudan in light of this recent cooperation.

According to these interviews with US and Sudanese intelligence officials, in recent collaborative efforts partaken by the two governments Sudan has expelled Islamic extremists.' This leads one to wonder, have they banished themselves from the country? Among their other services, they detained Al Qaeda suspects, members of the Iraqi insurgency, and other terrorist operatives and gave them to the US for interrogation. Unfortunately, no members of the Janjaweed, the pro-government militia committing genocide against the civilians of Darfur have been detained or disarmed.

Why has the relationship between Sudan and the US shifted so suddenly, and why is the Sudanese government so interested in helping the US government hunt down extremists that it used to fund and give sanctuary to? Why is the US so ready to normalize its relationship with a country involved in a massive campaign of ethnic cleansing, as the UN calls it, or genocide, as the Colin Powell called it?

Washington's radical reversal of relations with Sudan undoubtedly has quite a bit to do with Sudan's oil, the majority of which it had been selling to China. Washington has been looking for a way to gain control over Sudan's oil fields for a long period of time. It is likely that the US helped train the two largest rebel groups whose attacks elicited the government's counter-insurgency campaign, the Justice and Equality Movement and the Sudanese Liberation Army, in an attempt to weaken Sudan's government at a time when it was developing closer ties with China. When the atrocities began to escalate in Darfur and the US Sate Department officially labeled the killings in Darfur genocide', it seemed the US was considering invading Sudan on a platform of ending the genocide, disposing of the dictator who made the mistake of giving China access to its oil fields, and replacing him with a leader who would allow US corporations to funnel oil from Sudan.

However, now that Sudan has proved willing to cooperate with the US, new questions arise. Why would Sudan be dealing so comfortably with Washington unless it knew that it would not be held accountable for its own atrocities in any real sense?

It doesn't seem altogether unfeasible for the governments of Sudan and the US have made a pact stating that the US would use its power to prevent action against the genocide in Darfur, in exchange for aid in countering terrorism' and, at some point, access to untapped oil? It is hard to think of another explanation for the sudden friendship of the two regimes. The US has been considering an attempt to repeal the sanctions placed on Sudan, a move favored both by Khartoum and by US oil companies.

Once again, it seems the US is being complicit with genocide and making deals with the war criminals responsible, just as previous US administrations were complicit with the rise of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia which was engaged in a battle with the North Vietnamese by allowing Thailand (then a US client state) to sell arms to Pol Pot while he exterminated 1.7 million of his own people. Just as the US was silent during the Rwandan genocide and instead focused on the bombing of Yugoslavia, the US is again ignoring a massive tragedy in Sudan in favor of perusing its immediate imperial interests and destroying the resistance in Iraq.

Of course, just because ties have increased between Khartoum and Washington doesn't mean that the US wouldn't abandon the Sudanese government if the US feels the alliance is no longer politically expedient or if Sudan is insubordinate, but right now it seems like the alliance is a win-win situation for both governments; the only losers of course being the citizens of Darfur experiencing living hell.

The situation in Darfur is still one the of the worst humanitarian catastrophes in the world with nearly 200,000 dead, either due to violence or famine, and 2 million displaced. The pro-government militias continue to raid the towns of Darfur, killing men, raping women, and plundering entire villages, often abducting young women and using them as sex-slaves. It is clear that rapid action is necessary to save innocent lives and end the mass slaughter.

The solution to the tragedies in Darfur is most certainly not an American or NATO military intervention; such an imperial intervention would only augment the suffering felt in Sudan. To protect the human rights of Sudanese civilians, it would be necessary for the UN to launch a major peacekeeping mission or for the world to come together to fund the African Union's peacekeeping campaign. The AU has already launched a peace keeping mission, and AU peace keepers have been effective in stopping violence in areas where they are dispatched. However, the AU does not have the resources to sustain the kind of mission necessary to bring any degree of peace to Sudan, and has only been able to deploy 3,000 troops to Darfur, a region the size of France. In addition to enduring vicious campaigns of violence, the people of Sudan are also in dire need of humanitarian aid and are experiencing a great shortage in food, medicine, clean water, and other life essentials.

If the international community does not work together to build a peacekeeping campaign and the humanitarian aid campaign, the Oxfam aid agency predicts that the humanitarian crisis in Sudan will continue until October 2006, most likely bringing hundreds of thousands of additional deaths. However, it seems the US may present an obstacle to such campaigns, as it does not want to offend its terrorist ally in Khartoum.

The US CIA and Darfur - Sudan Crisis - 1


CIA Secretly Restores Ties to Sudan Despite Ongoing Human Rights Abuses in Darfur Wednesday, June 1st, 2005

http://www.democracynow.org/2005/6/1/cia_secretly_restores_ties_to_sudan

SUDAN - AFRICA

The Los Angeles Times recently revealed that the U.S. has quietly forged a close intelligence partnership with Sudan despite the government's role in the mass killings in Darfur. Charles Snyder, the U.S. State Department Senior Representative on Sudan, defends the Bush administration's policy on Sudan. [includes rush transcript]

Child Soldier in Sudan [More in http://www.hrw.org/en/africa/sudan]

In a major expose, the Los Angeles Times recently revealed that the U.S. has quietly forged a close intelligence partnership with Sudan despite the government's role in the mass killings in Darfur. The Sudanese government has since publicly confirmed it is working with the Bush administration and the CIA. Eight months ago, former Secretary of State Colin Powell accused the Sudanese of carrying out a genocide in Darfur. Already 180,000 have died in the region from fighting or hunger. But relations appear to have since changed -- for the Sudanese government's benefit. One senior Sudanese official the LA Times that the country had achieved "complete normalization" of relations with the CIA. The Times reported that the CIA sent an executive jet in late April to Khartoum to ferry the chief of Sudan's intelligence agency to Washington for secret meetings sealing Khartoum's sensitive and previously veiled partnership with the administration. The Sudanese intelligence chief - Major General Salah Abdallah Gosh - has been accused by members of Congress of directing military attacks against civilians in Darfur. He also had regular contacts with Osama bin Laden during the 1990s. We talk with Charles Snyder, the U.S. State Department Senior Representative on Sudan, about the report.

Charles Snyder, the U.S. State Department Senior Representative on Sudan.

Meanwhile as violence continues in Darfur, students throughout California lobbied yesterday in Sacramento for a bill that would require state divestment from all companies doing business in the Sudan. Two California public pension funds have over $12.5 billion in Sudan-related holdings. Last week the Illinois state legislature became the first to approve divestment of state funds from corporations doing business in Sudan. ?? Ben Elberger, a student at Stanford who is part of the group STAND, Students Taking Action Now: Darfur.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RUSH TRANSCRIPT

This transcript is available free of charge, however donations help us provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our TV broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution. Donate - $25, $50, $100, more...

AMY GOODMAN: We continue the latest discussion on Sudan, with the Medecins Sans Frontieres’ report on hundreds of women raped in Darfur. We are joined by Nicholas Detorrente, Executive Director of Doctors Without Borders here in New York. Charles Snyder, US State Department Senior Representative on the Sudan, is on the line with us on the phone in Washington. Charles Snyder, I wanted to stick with you for a moment. Months ago, former Secretary of State Colin Powell, came out further even than the United Nations in talking about the genocide that was being carried out by Sudan in Darfur. But then The Los Angeles Times did a report about a month ago that the CIA had sent an executive jet to Khartoum to ferry the chief of Sudan’s intelligence agency to Washington for secret meetings, sealing Khartoum's sensitive and previously veiled partnership with the administration. It was the Sudanese intelligence chief, Major General Salah Abdallah Gosh, who has been accused by members of Congress by directing military attacks against the civilians in Darfur, had regular contacts with Osama bin Laden during the 90s, that the US is now working with, so the government working with Darfur, with the Sudanese government. So presumably, you would have very high contacts to deal with what is taking place right now, for example, the latest report on the rapes.

CHARLES SNYDER: No, I mean, we have actually protested to him as well through other channels, basically saying to him, this is an outrage. But there's been this misimpression that somehow, you know, we are overlooking some of these humanitarian concerns, we are overlooking the genocide because of this intelligence cooperation, and that's simply not so. I mean, that was the sine qua non of this – the president allowing us to even negotiate with them way back in 2001 was they have to begin to cooperate on counterterrorism. That's a necessity, and they were cooperating with us at quite a high level before we called them on genocide. So, we didn't hesitate on the humanitarian side and on the, frankly, the human rights side to act when we saw it as necessary. We made it clear to them the intelligence cooperation is its own separate entity, and it's the minimum for any kind of continued progress with us. So we have not at all pulled back our punches. Certainly, Secretary Powell didn't pull his punches when he called it genocide. We have not at all pulled our punches based on what they're doing with us on the intelligence side. And I just wanted to correct that misimpression.

It just isn’t so. And in fact our access to people like Gosh is enhanced by this, and we are making demands on him, which is allowing us to clarify the situation in a number of ways. For instance, one of the problems we’ve got, and we agree 100% with Medecins Sans Frontieres, if they turn over this report, what they will wind up doing is using the names and the people and of the women themselves that have actually been raped and they will charge them with crimes. This is just not acceptable and outrageous. And we’re saying that to them. If you want to have anyone believe there is any hope for Sudanese justice, if you want to turn off the international justice, you have go to prove to us you will arrest and prosecute some of these people, not prosecute the victims.

AMY GOODMAN: What about sanctions?

CHARLES SNYDER: The sanctions, you know -- we have sanctioned Sudan every way from Sunday and have for years, going back into the Clinton administration. Our ability to act unilaterally on these kinds of things simply is not effective in the modern world. That's the reason when we called it genocide, we took it to the security council, hoping that the security council would join us and call this genocide and said, as you know, as the commission of inquiry went out and it found high crimes, war crimes, things approaching genocide but did not call it genocide. And that leaves us unable and frustrated in many ways to impose the kind of sanctions that we would like to see imposed in this situation: truly universal, truly effective sanctions. You need the Chinese, the Russians, the Europeans and frankly, even the rest of the Africans to join us in that, and the security council in this commission of inquiry simply did not find it to be genocide. We still disagree. But again, it's an interdependent world. When we act alone, we’re important, but we're not able to squeeze the regime like this as effectively as we should be able to and would like to be able to.

AMY GOODMAN: Now Congress has issued a list of senior Sudanese officials who they claim have been involved in war crimes but the administration has not released its own list, as Congress has requested it do.

CHARLES SNYDER: We're in bit of a delicate position here. Everyone sees our opposition to the ICC as a mile wide and 12 miles deep, and we could be accused of prejudicing their actions by coming up with our own name and a list of names and then we get into this game where the ICC says, you know, these 51 and the Americans say that 51. We want to give the ICC some space to operate. So, we are a bit reluctant to get too far into the big names until we see where the ICC investigation goes.

AMY GOODMAN: I mean, certainly, in other cases, the US names people they call terrorist, and the US is very busy not supporting the International Criminal Court, so it seems odd to use that as an example to respect the Criminal Court and not name people?

CHARLES SNYDER: Well, on the Security Council, this is the first time we acted on the ICC. We abstained, which said we would give it the space to operate. We just don't feel at this time naming names that may turn out to be a different list of names from what the ICC has or from somebody's professional judgment. Ocampo is a professional prosecutor. In his judgment, the case may not be valid against these 51 names, and we need to be careful. I mean we have also got a peace part of this that we have to balance against the justice. We cannot sacrifice either one to the other. And it's a delicate dance we are doing. We are not going to satisfy Congress on this in the short run, but I think in the longer run, I think they will be satisfied with the way we come out.

AMY GOODMAN: The Congress has requested a number of other steps also like targeted sanctions on people so that they're identified as having committed war crimes. Those that are would have their, for example, bank accounts frozen and be barred from operating on an international level. Your response to that?

CHARLES SNYDER: Well, the resolution has got its own committee enforcing the sanction. You know, 1591 is the particular UN Resolution involved in this. And it's just now begun to be set up under the Greeks and they're not far enough along yet to have a list of names. We'll provide names who we believe are responsible for this. You have also got the problem where a lot of these people, especially when you get down to the tribal chieftain level, this is something that makes us feel good as opposed to is this going to have any effect. These men don't have bank accounts overseas. They don't send their children abroad to school. So the kind of sanctions that we’re dealing with here are just not going to be effective against them.

AMY GOODMAN: What about an arms embargo? Those in Congress asking for an arms embargo on the government of Sudan?

CHARLES SNYDER: We pushed, as you know, in the security council, for an arms embargo. The trouble is to get 15 people to go along with that, you have to overcome the Russians, the Chinese, and several others that object to this, some on theoretical grounds and some on practical grounds, that they're actually selling weapons. But nonetheless we need a universal vote or otherwise it's a unilateral American arms embargo. And right now we have an arms embargo against Sudan: we do not sell weapons to Sudan.

AMY GOODMAN: What difference does it make -- let me put this question to Nick Detorrente, especially with two of your people in a very precarious position now, not allowed to leave the Sudan after the rape report was out -- what kind of pressure is put on the Sudanese government?

NICHOLAS DETORRENTE: Well, I think we’re concerned about the ability to be able to continue to provide humanitarian aid, you know, in Darfur, and we have to remember that, you know, in -- going back a little bit, that for many, many months when the attacks were at their peak in late 2003-early 2004, there was virtually no access at all to Darfur, and aid was completely blocked, and the region was inaccessible. The Sudanese government would not allow aid workers in. Since then it has been opened and political pressure has played a key part in that, in allowing at least humanitarian aid to be provided, and that has enabled a very significant aid effort to be undertaken, which has helped maintain the population above survival levels. I mean, the situation right now is a deep stagnation and stalemate. People are stuck in the camps. They're just above survival level.

Assistance is coming in. It's very fragile and precarious. And that needs to be able to continue.

And this is our fear, because these attacks -- these arrests are the most high profile, you know, signs of intimidation of aid workers. But there have been a number of others. A lot of other aid workers have been detained for questioning, arrested at the local level, and we have to remember, most of the aid workers in Darfur are Sudanese. They -- we have international staff, in a way, they are, you know, more protected. These are high profile arrests. Paul Foreman and Vince Hoedt, you know, speak to the BBC. They're well known. But we have, you know, thousands of Sudanese staff who are out on the front lines of providing assistance to the people in Darfur. I frankly, I’m more worried for them right now, because if this gives a signal, kind of a green light for local officials to start intimidating and harassing aid workers at the local level, I think the aid effort could easily be undermined, and that would be very dramatic for the close to 2 million people displaced in camps in Sudan right now, who are utterly dependent on outside assistance as they cannot return to their homes. Their villages are have been burnt, and they're stuck in these camps just above survival levels, and they’re dependent on aid.

AMY GOODMAN: Charles Snyder of the State Department, Tom Malinowski, the Washington advocacy director for Human Rights Watch, writes in The Washington Post, “Since January, Bush and Rice have met with leaders from NATO and UN security council member countries 29 times. They have mentioned Darfur publicly only once.” He says, “That's no way to convince the world and Sudan that America is serious.” Your response?

CHARLES SNYDER: We have been pressing in every channel, including the meetings you mentioned on this Darfur issue. The secretary herself, as you know, brought up on a personal level to the North Atlantic Council, as well as with the Russians in Vilmius the idea that NATO should be used, as well as potentially the European Union's defense procedures, to reinforce this AU presence. We have been the leader in pledging money and pledging funds and in taking action on the ground. 70% of the food aid is ours. 50% of the cash that's been expended in Darfur is ours. We have already spent $95 million on this first AU force. We have just pledged another $50 million, and we have offered airlift. We think that that in the long run is the answer. And the long run is not that -- I’m not talking years here, I’m talking months, over the course of the summer, getting a larger --

AMY GOODMAN: But, of course.

CHARLES SNYDER: -- African Union force on the ground.

AMY GOODMAN: But, of course, you know, the statements of the President of the United States and the Secretary of State are priceless.

CHARLES SNYDER: No, and I think the Secretary has spoken out on this, and in particular, deputy secretary Zoellick has taken the lead on this. And he has been quite active in his – and that was going back yet again. And he has made several phone calls in the interim.

AMY GOODMAN: But that's lower level, talking about, you know, the public statement of the President of the United States who is engaged in a, (quote), “war on terror.”

CHARLES SNYDER: Well, we have made these ideas present at the highest levels. The President has spoken privately to people about this. There will be an appropriate moment to speak out forcefully and openly. The secretary is now the level at which we are speaking out. And you will see the Pentagon take action in support of moving the AU in. This is an area where we are willing to actually be engaged effectively. And the question is what's most effective, and our judgment right now is what we're doing is the most effective.

AMY GOODMAN: We are talking to Charles Snyder, US State Department senior representative on Sudan, also Nicholas Detorrente is with us, Executive Director of Doctors Without Borders here in New York. And for a moment we're joined by Ben Elberger of Stanford University. He’s with a group called STAND, Students Taking Action Now: Darfur. We only have a minute, Ben, but I wanted to ask about your lobby day yesterday in Sacramento for a bill that would require state divestment from all companies doing business in the Sudan. Two California public pension funds have over $12.5 billion in Sudan-related holdings. Last week, the Illinois State Legislature became the first to approve divestment of state funds from corporations doing business in Sudan. Ben Elberger, talk about what you are doing?

BEN ELBERGER: We actually, in our lobby day we went up to talk about the bill with state senators. It passed the California Assembly. Unfortunately, when it was in the California Assembly, it was amended and it was watered down to change from divestment to take action within fiduciary responsibility. So what we are really trying to push is for them to add back divestment, but really target the oil companies that are doing business there, because there are a lot of connections that are suggesting that oil companies and the oil royalties that goes to government are being used to fund weapons.

AMY GOODMAN: Which oil companies are there?

BEN ELBERGER: We know -- our research suggests that PetroChina, Sinopec, Tatneft, ABB Ltd., Total FA, Marathon Oil and London Petroleum, are really seven companies that are documented as doing business there.

AMY GOODMAN: And California pension funds are invested in them?

BEN ELBERGER: We know that California pension funds are probably invested in some of them. CalPERS has told us they are not invested in PetroChina or Tatneft at the moment, but we’re really trying to push to make sure that they put these companies on a “do not invest” list.

AMY GOODMAN: Charles Snyder, your response to these moves from Illinois to now California to go after companies that do business in the Sudan?

CHARLES SNYDER: The truth is, under the IEPA sanctions which have been in place against the government of Sudan, going back into the Clinton administration, no American company is permitted to spend money in Sudan that's in any way related to the government of Sudan's activities. For instance, he just mentioned Marathon Oil. The truth is Marathon Oil has not been allowed to spend any money in pursuit of its existing contracts and is in fact probably in violation as a technical matter of a whole number of agreements they have with other companies, because they simply cannot spend any money or do anything effectively in Sudan. And that's true across the board. I mean, recently, the Sudanese were after buying an airbus from China. The engines are GE engines. We blocked that export. The truth is the practical embargo by the United States is in effect against this kind of activity.

AMY GOODMAN: Let me put a question to Nicholas Detorrente. The issue of the arms embargo, would that make a difference on the ground if the US imposed an arms embargo against the Sudanese government?

NICHOLAS DETORRENTE: It's hard for me to comment on that, but I think that there are sufficient weapons and especially the will to carry out the kinds of policies of repression and scorched earth that have characterized the situation in Darfur at the moment, and so I think that the real issue right now is pressure on whoever is waging violence to stop that, especially directed at – obviously directed at civilians and specific crimes such as sexual assault and rape, and then, of course, is the -- to -- the pressures to allow for aid to continue. I think that's the precondition for anything else. The aid has to be able to continue. But it's not enough, and we are actually frankly concerned that just the trickle of aid that is being allowed to come in and very precarious, very fragile is, you know -- this kind of stalemate seems to be convenient for everyone at the moment. People are stuck in the camps. They cannot go back. But nothing is really done to enable them to return to their villages, to move on and the political solutions that need to be put in place for that to happen are really stalemated at the moment, at least from the perspective of the people in the camps and suffering in Darfur today.

AMY GOODMAN: And final time, Charles Snyder, again why the Bush administration is not pushing for an arms embargo against the Sudanese government, who itself -- who the Bush administration says is engaged in genocide?

CHARLES SNYDER: We did in fact push for such an arms embargo. Frankly, the security council will not go along with us. What we got was the best we could, which is a limited embargo.

AMY GOODMAN: But a US embargo, not UN, but US.

CHARLES SNYDER: There is a US arms embargo. We do not sell weapons to the Sudanese government. We have not. And to the degree we detect anybody, as a third party, selling US weapons, we take action against them. But the truth is the weapons are not coming from the United States. And as the Medecins Sans Frontieres guy already pointed out, there's enough weapons on the ground to fight this war another ten years without any new weapons. It's not us. It’s other parties that are selling these weapons, and as long as at security council chooses not to see this as a viable action, it's a unilateral action on our part that's relatively ineffective.

AMY GOODMAN: On that note, we’ll have to wrap it up, I want to thank you very much, Charles Snyder, US State Department senior representative on Sudan, Nicholas Detorrente, Executive Director of Doctors Without Borders in New York City, and Ben Elberger, Stanford student lobbying for divestment from companies to doing business with the Sudan.

To purchase an audio or video copy of this entire program, click here for our new online ordering or call 1 (888) 999-3877.