World's Leading Terrorist State Accuses Venezuela

Perhaps this week's 'it would be funny if it wasn't for the fact that the US is run by loonies' moment comes from a CNN report regarding the latest US terror report. According to CNN:

Venezuela's associations with terror states, Iran's meddling in Iraq and the resurgence of al Qaeda in Afghanistan top the concerns in a new State Department report on terrorism threats in countries around the world.

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is not cooperating with U.S. anti-terror efforts and has "deepened Venezuelan relationships with state sponsors of terrorism Iran and Cuba," the annual report says.

The report notes Chavez's "ideological sympathy" for the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia and the Colombian-based National Liberation Army, which "regularly crossed into Venezuelan territory to rest and regroup."

While the report says it "remained unclear to what extent the Venezuelan government provided support to Colombian terrorist organizations," it notes that Venezuelan weapons stocks have turned up in the hands of Colombian terrorist organizations.

It's the last paragraph that is particularly interesting. American weapons are often found in the hands of terrorists in Colombia which, by their own reckoning, means that the American government is 'providing support to Colombian terrorist organisations'. Worse still, US backed terrorists are responsible for far more murders than other 'terrorist organisations' in Colombia. So I guess, from an impartial perspective, one could argue that the US is a greater terrorist threat than Venezuela. Which is hardly in any doubt when one sees the terror that the US government brings to the world.

Afghanistan Heading Back to Pre-Invasion State

"Kabul has seen a wave of liberal, unwelcome influences of late. There are women dressed immodestly, prostitution can be found openly and even alcohol is available on the market. Our job is to protect the Afghan people from being exposed to this un-Islamic way of life and poor morals."

Now some people reading the above quote might think that it originated from post-Soviet Afghanistan. It sounds like the early rumblings of the Taliban regime that was to ravage the country for many years. In fact, the above quote is a little more recent. Very recent. In fact, the above quote is lifted from today's Guardian.

Despite the high ideals of bringing 'freedom and democracy' to a country that has been afflicted by wave upon wave of imperialism over the years, Afghanistan is actually turning back the clock. In recent weeks, the Afghan government has attempted to ban popular Indian soap operas and, more seriously, the high court has confirmed the death sentence of nearly 100 people. In terms of the crackdown on the media, The Guardian reports:

Last week parliament tried to stop several private TV channels from broadcasting a number of Indian soap operas. But many stations, including the popular local Tolo TV, are defying the ban. The ministry of information and culture issued a "final warning" to Tolo and Afghan TV to stop broadcasting the Indian soaps by April 29, saying that "otherwise they will be referred to the judiciary".

To make matters worse (as if that was possible), US puppet and former consultant to Unocal, President Hamad Karzai, has sided with the conservatives in this latest tussle. Far from bringing freedom and democracy to Afghanistan, Karzai seems intent on returning the country to it's previous repressive state. That the Americans seem willing to go along with this is hardly surprising. Back in October 2006, former senator Bill Frist (a Republican no less) called on the Taliban to be brought into the Afghan government. No sooner had the US proclaimed high ideals about the future of Aghanistan, than it returns the country back to it's pre-war state. For the people of Afghanistan, they have once more become the victims to the imperial ambition of others.

Uribe's Cousin Arrested in Colombia

(With thanks to RickB at Ten Percent for his multi-MOA linked post on the same subject.)

The Colombia/terrorist state story has taken yet another disturbing twist. It has emerged that Mario Uribe Escobar, President Uribe's cousin, has been arrested due to alleged links to right-wing paramilitaries. From the BBC:

A cousin and key ally of Colombian President Alvaro Uribe has been arrested over alleged ties to paramilitary groups.

Mario Uribe Escobar, who stepped down as a senator last October, denies accusations of criminal conspiracy.

He went to the Costa Rican embassy in Bogota seeking asylum, but his request was turned down.

As he left the embassy, he was taken into custody and driven away in a police jeep.

Mario Uribe is one of the most prominent figures arrested over alleged paramilitary links.

A jailed former paramilitary leader, Salvatore Mancuso, has alleged that he met Mario Uribe several times and was asked by him to support his senate campaign in 2002.


This is merely the latest revelation in a long series of revelations regarding the Colombian government's links to terror (far more than any so-called terrorist state proclaimed by Bu$h). A Colombian government that the UK and the US continue to fund and arm, despite continuous human rights abuses (watch this slideshow for more). It is time for the West to cease arming this nation that is clearly a failed state in the hands of a group of terrorists who have no qualms about murdering thousands of citizens to protect their position in power. It is time that a true terrorist state was confronted for it's crimes against humanity. With the US in it's corner, what are the chances of that?

Democrats Slap Down Free Trade Agreement With Colombia.....For Now

Good news concerning relations between the world's two largest terrorist states:

The US House of Representatives has defied the White House and voted to indefinitely delay action on a free trade deal with Colombia.

President George W Bush sent the free trade agreement to Congress early this week, using a "fast-track" process which requires a vote within 90 days.

The House instead voted to eliminate that rule and suspend action.

Colombia's trade minister, Luis Guillermo Plata, said the vote did not mean the 2006 trade pact was dead.

Of course, this will dismay President Bush who describes Colombia as an 'important ally' (mainly due to the rising influence of Chávez et al). I have little doubt that this is little more than electioneering on the part of the Democrats who only really appear interested in tweaking the legislation a little before allowing it to pass. Having said that, it is a little hypocritical to accuse the Democrats of 'playing politics' when the Republicans have been playing politics with Iraq and the 'war on terror', leading to the deaths of thousands.

In terms of the legislation, Bush has claimed that it is vital as a rebuke to "dictators and demagogues" in Latin America (I can't actually name a single 'dictator' in the region, although rewind to the 70s when US hegemony in the region was in its pomp, and I can name numerous examples). Susan Schwab, the US's trade representative, spat her dummy out and said:

"The House Democratic leadership has now slapped around a major US ally.

"This is the Democratic leadership's version of foreign policy."

What, you mean a (vaguely) more ethical policy?? Surely slapping a major US ally is better to screwing one over (although Blair seemed pretty keen to receive the punishment). Anyway, I digress. If you want to find out why opposing this agreement is so important, either watch this slideshow I have produced (tambien en Español) or watch the following clip by War on Want. Colombia: Pinochet's Chile with a democratic facade.

US Goverment to Designate Venezuela as a State Sponsor of Terrorism?

You may remember from one of my earlier posts that I wrote that US experts were looking into the emails that were discovered on laptops belonging to the murdered members of the FARC. This seemed particularly suspicious at the time as Colombia is a well known proxy for the US in South America, and Venezuela has long been in their sights. It has now emerged that US attorneys are looking into the possibility of labelling Venezuela a state sponsor of terrorism. From United Press International:

WASHINGTON, March 10 (UPI) -- A government official said the White House asked attorneys to look into requirements for placing Venezuela on the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism.

The inquiry follows allegations that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez's ties with Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia guerrillas ran deeper than originally thought, The Miami Herald reported Monday.

The legal review follows Colombia's seizing four computers belonging to a FARC guerrilla leader in a March 1 raid. In them, it was hinted that the Venezuelan government was in the process of providing $300 million in assistance FARC, which officials in the United States and Colombia call a "narco-terrorist" group but Chavez considers a legitimate insurgency.

The U.S. official -- speaking anonymously to the Herald -- wouldn't predict if the discoveries would lead to sanctions, saying the documents' veracity must be corroborated.

If the documents are shown to be true, then "I think it will beg the question of whether or not Venezuela, given Chavez's interactions with the FARC, has ... crossed the threshold of state sponsor of terror," the official said.

Of course, it will be the United States who will determine the veracity of these documents in what will be an entirely self-serving 'investigation'. And the documents themselves?? Well, Greg Palast has discovered that, what a surprise, they are cooked up. From his website:

The US press snorted up this line about Chavez’ $300 million to “terrorists” quicker than the young Bush inhaling Colombia’s powdered export.

What the US press did not do is look at the evidence, the email in the magic laptop. (Presumably, the FARC leader’s last words were, “Listen, my password is ….”)

I read them. (You can read them here) While you can read it all in español, here is, in translation, the one and only mention of the alleged $300 million from Chavez:

“… With relation to the 300, which from now on we will call “dossier,” efforts are now going forward at the instructions of the boss to the cojo [slang term for ‘cripple’], which I will explain in a separate note. Let’s call the boss Ángel, and the cripple Ernesto.”

Got that? Where is Hugo? Where’s 300 million? And 300 what? Indeed, in context, the note is all about the hostage exchange with the FARC that Chavez was working on at the time (December 23, 2007) at the request of the Colombian government.

Indeed, the entire remainder of the email is all about the mechanism of the hostage exchange. Here’s the next line:

“To receive the three freed ones, Chavez proposes three options: Plan A. Do it to via of a ‘humanitarian caravan’; one that will involve Venezuela, France, the Vatican[?], Switzerland, European Union, democrats [civil society], Argentina, Red Cross, etc.”

Now we await the results of this investigation. If Bush has his way, Venezuela could be next to join the infamous 'axis of evil'. A dream come true for many in the establishment who have become disturbed by the recent rise in populist leaders throughout the region. This could lead to increased attempts to destabilise Venezuela and increased support for Chavez's opponents in the country. Just one question. If it only takes a few dubious emails to class Venezuela as a state sponsor of terrorism, how much more evidence is required to prove that President Uribe runs a terrorist state?

President Uribe Shakes Hands With Correa and Chavez

The prolonged stand-off in Latin America has finally drawn to a close, but not before a continuation of the war of words that has been a feature of this confrontation. Before finally agreeing to shake hands with Correa and Chavez, Uribe continued to make accusations regarding supposed links between President Correa and the FARC. Considering the originator of these remarks, the accusations are laughable. Uribe has well documented links to terrorists within his own country. However, President Uribe finally conceded that the Colombians should not have entered Ecuadorean land and the subsequent declaration noted that President Uribe had apologised for the incursion.

Uribe's humiliation was complete when, after a heated exchange, the Dominican President Leonel Fernandez tried to calm things down by urging Uribe to shake hands with his antagonists (see clip below). You could sense the unease as Uribe made his way round the table to shake hands with Correa and Chavez. There is no doubt about who the overall

winner is as a result of this stand-off. Chavez stood 'shoulder to shoulder' with Correa in the immediate aftermath of the incursion into Ecuador. He stood firm and refused to concede any ground to President Uribe during the entire stand-off. The sight of a humiliated Uribe walking around the table to concede to Chavez is a massive victory for the Venezuelan. Chavez further humiliated Uribe by posing as the peacemaker in the region. According to one report:

Venezuela president Hugo Chavez today asked Alvaro Uribe, president of Colombia, to set aside their differences and work together for peace-

"Let us move far away from war and work for peace," he said, after denying funding the FARC guerrilla.

Such scenes and rhetoric will surely rankle those in Washington who were hoping that this crisis would diminish Chavez's standing in Latin America. After all, this was what the stand-off was really about. An attempt to undermine the leftist leaders in South America and re-assert US dominance in the region. However, America's man has been left to look weak and subservient, whilst the populist leaders (particularly Chavez) have emerged even stronger. Uribe will surely be in for a dressing down by his masters in the White House after this abject display.

What Links Uribe, Exxon and Chevron?

Well, it would appear that they all intend to make hefty capital from the current war of words that is brewing in South America. Uribe, in particular, is desperate to re-assert his terrorist fighting credentials after Chavez's victorious negotiations to have four hostages released from captivity by the FARC. This has particularly hurt Uribe as he has allegedly been on the receiving end of some pretty harsh criticism by the hostages regarding his tactics. The problem for Uribe is that if you remove the terrorist threat you remove his reason to exist. He has no real interest in ensuring that hostages are returned safely and that a peace deal is brokered because, the longer the 'war' continues, the longer Uribe and his kind will be needed in power. Uribe was voted in because he is seen to be tough with the 'terrorists', with no 'terrorists' to fight, why would anyone vote for leaders of his kind? Thus Uribe has been humiliated by Chavez who achieved in a few weeks what Uribe was unable to achieve in six years. By painting Chavez as a friend to terrorists (and terrorists who are seeking a 'dirty bomb' no less), Uribe hopes to diminish his standing amongst Colombians and thus avert the possibility of a Chavez-esque leader emerging in Colombia (something not desired in Washington either).

As for Exxon, their reasons for wanting to see Chavez's reputation damaged in South America is obvious. Venezuela has been embarking on a massive programme of nationalisation and Exxon is not too keen on this development to say the least. To date, the oil giant has refused to enter into partnership with the Venezuelan government and has even gone to the extent of freezing the PDVSA's assets through a UK court. It is now arguing that this should go further and they are now insisting that it should get a global order from a U.K. court freezing $12 billion of Petroleos de Venezuela SA assets since a New York court doesn't have the power. Exxon clearly has much to gain from the 'link' between Chavez and 'terrorism' and the subsequent damage to his reputation that they hope this brings. So what of Chevron? What do they hope to achieve from this stand-off in South America?

Chevron is in the middle of a court battle in Ecuador revolving around the alleged dumping of 18 billion gallons of toxic waste into the Amazon rainforest and abandoning of hundreds of open-air toxic waste pits in an area roughly the size of Rhode Island. This battle has become increasingly dirty as time has gone on. Chebron has repeatedly attacked the court-appointed special master who is preparing the damages assessment against the oil giant. Amongst the many allegations, Chevron are accused of:

.....personal harassment and an ad hominem advertising campaign, coinciding with the mysterious theft of case-related files from the court-appointed special master's office,according to the Amazon Defense Coalition, the organization that represents an estimated 30,000 plaintiffs in the case, including the members of five Amazon indigenous groups.

According to one lawyer on the case, Julio Prieto:

"Chevron is using extrajudicial influence to undermine the one independent expert who is preparing to tell the truth about Chevron's damages in Ecuador."

Cabrera has been the victim of a particularly vicious campaign of intimidation by Chevron. The attacks include:

...the purchase of full-page advertisements in Ecuadorian newspapers suggesting Cabrera is a criminal. Cabrera also has been stalked by a team of 25 Chevron lawyers and private
security agents while he does his fieldwork near Chevron's former production sites in the rainforest. Press releases put out by Chevron mock Cabrera for his middle name, "Stalin."

Most recently, Chevron has filed a motion with a separate Ecuadorian court seeking to depose Cabrera, an action which the plaintiffs consider illegal. Cabrera has also been the victim of a mysterious robbery of his office from where his files on the case were stolen.

Chevron's harassment became so grave that the trial judge ordered security agents to keep Chevron representatives away from Cabrera so he could complete his field work without interference or fear of intimidation.

These are the latest in a long line of examples of Chevron's disregard for the legal process in Ecuador:

The latest charges follow a series of incidents in 2005 and 2006 that called into question Chevron's commitment to a fair trial. These included the creation of a false military report written by Chevron lawyers claiming they were going to be kidnapped, death and kidnapping threats against community leaders active in the lawsuit, and the separate robbery of case-related materials from the law offices of Alejandro Ponce, who works with the plaintiffs.

Chevron also admitted in 2006 that it was making payments to Ecuadorian military officials in exchange for "protection" services during the trial. Several uniformed Ecuadorian soldiers have accompanied Chevron's lawyers to judicial inspection sites, carrying their bags and technical equipment while peering menacingly at members of the local population.

Clearly, an attempt by Colombia and the US to smear President Correa is in the interests of Chevron. By creating evidence that Correa is linked to terrorists in a neighboring South American country, public confidence in Correa will surely be damaged, allowing a more pliable leader to step forward and lead the way. When this is put into the context of recent events in Ecuador (only three presidents since 1979 have served a full-term in the country and the last three were overthrown), one can see that Chevron hope that Correa will be another Ecuadorean leader who fails to complete a full term.

I am not convinced that this confrontation is part of an attempt to launch a military strike on any of the left-leaning nations in South America. However, I am convinced that this is part of an attempt to smear the leaders of these countries and thus strengthen opposition movements in these countries. The US cannot afford another military front opening up and will avoid one at all costs (as will Colombia), their only real option is a political strike which appears very much on the table. Fox News has already been making explicit links between the government of Ecuador and the FARC, claiming that:

"Colombia said documents in Reyes' laptop also indicate that Ecuador' internal security minister met recently with a FARC envoy to discuss deepening relations with Ecuador, and even replacing military officers who might oppose that."

However, it has also emerged that (surprise, surprise) the documents that the Colombian government claims shows that the FARC intended to asssemble a 'dirty bomb', actually show nothing of the sort. From The Guardian:

Colombia said documents found at the base showed rebels wanted to make a radioactive dirty bomb. But the documents it shared with reporters didn't support the allegation, indicating instead that the rebels were trying to buy uranium to resell at a profit.

Still, make enough allegations of links to terror and, eventually, one will stick. One wonders how many other outrageous smears the Colombian government will come out with over the coming days and weeks.

Colombian Lies About Ecuador and Venezuela - Part of Wider US Campaign?

The situation is continuing to escalate in South America. Ecuador and Venezuela have now, according to the BBC, cut all ties with the Colombian government, expelling all Colombian diplomats. Unsurprisingly, the Colombian government have embarked on a massive smear campaign (aided, no doubt, by the US) to damage the reputations of both Chavez and Correa. The following is taken from the International Herald Tribune:

Venezuela and Ecuador sought Monday to make Colombia pay a high price for killing a leftist rebel leader in the Ecuadorean jungle — expelling its diplomats, ordering troops to the border and cracking down on trade across the border.

But Colombia quickly struck back, revealing what it said were incriminating documents seized from the rebel camp that suggest its neighbors have been secretly supporting the leftist rebels' deadly insurgency.

Colombia's national police chief stood by its attack that killed Reyes, and said that documents recovered from his laptop showed Venezuela's leftist government recently paid $300 million to the rebels, among other financial and political ties that date back years, and that high-level meetings have been held between rebels and Ecuadorean officials.

And this shocker: Colombia says some documents suggest the rebels have bought and sold uranium.

"When they mention negotiations for 50 kilos of uranium this means that the FARC are taking big steps in the world of terrorism to become a global aggressor. We're not talking of domestic guerrilla but transnational terrorism," Gen. Oscar Naranjo said at an explosive news conference.

But here is the killer:

Naranjo didn't give any details on when, where or from whom the uranium was allegedly bought. He provided no proof of the payment and wouldn't release copies of the documents, which he said are "tremendously revelatory" and are being examined with the help of U.S. experts.

No prizes for guessing what the US experts might deduce. Of course, most of what Colombia alleges must be taken with a pinch of salt. The Colombian government has a long history of involvement with human rights abuses and paramilitary activity and can hardly be taken seriously when accusing others of dubious activity.

It has also emerged that the Colombian government has also seriously compromised efforts by the French government to release one of the hostages, Ingrid Betancourt. Betancourt is a former Colombian presidential candidate who also holds French nationality and has been the subject of negotiations between the French government and the FARC. The French government's contact had been Raul Reyes, until his murder by the Colombian military. The murder of this key contact has made efforts by the French government to release her even more desperate. French Foreign Minister, Bernard Kouchner told French Inter radio on Monday:

"It is bad news that the man we were talking to, with whom we had contacts, has been killed. Do you see how ugly the world is?"

Ugly indeed when the Colombian government invades sovereign territory to assassinate a key contact for the release of a hostage.

Furthermore, it has also emerged that the Colombian account of events leading up to the murder of Reyes were stretching the truth somewhat. It would appear that the FARC had not launched any attack on Colombia from the camp in Ecuador, contradicting claims by the Colombian government. The following is lifted from a piece on ZNet by Decio Machado:

Images, testimonies of resident and of three guerrillas found alive, ballistic reports and Ecuadorian military intelligence demonstrate the heap of lies of the Colombian President, Alvaro Uribe. According to the Colombian version, the Front 48 of the FARC was being pursued on indication that Reyes would be present in a small settlement called Granada, near the Ecuadorian frontier but still in Colombian territory.

The Colombian Defence Minister, Juan Manuel Santos, indicated that during the operation the Colombian armed forces had been attacked from a FARC camp situated 1,800 metres from the border in Ecuadorian territory. The Colombian air force then located and attacked the guerrilla camp, taking into account the order not to violate the Ecuadorian air space. The Colombian armed forces later went in to ensure control of the place, leaving the Colombian police in charge till the arrival of the Ecuadorian army.

Investigations on the part of the Ecuadorian authorities show there was no combat on the side of the FARC unit which was attacked. With the exception of three of them keeping guard, the 18 killed were asleep in their undergarments; none of the guerrillas had the opportunity of fighting or surrendering. The arms in the camp were piled up. They did not have the chance even to reach for their rifles and grenades; they were massacred while asleep.

The testimonies of the residents of the area, as also the large craters on the camp ground, show that four bombs were launched from Colombian aircraft that entered Ecuadorian territory. According to the investigations of the military intelligence, these were launched from the south of the camp, which is to say that the aircraft had intruded more than 10 km into Ecuadorian territory when the attack began.

After the bombing from these aircraft, several ‘Supertuscan’ helicopters of the Colombian air force came in and from these the attack on the FARC camp in Ecuadorian territory continued. The helicopters landed special commandos who finished off the injured guerrillas. As the bullet wounds in the bodies of the majority of the guerrillas show, many of them were piled up in a part of the camp and killed from behind. Even the photographs taken by the Colombian government of Raul Reyes’ body show he had a shot on the left side of his face.

Information coming from Ecuadorian military intelligence indicates that the country’s air space was not only violated on the dawn of March 1 but also that on the dawn of March 2 there was another incursion of the helicopters with night vision equipment to pick up members of the armed forces and Colombian police still in Ecuadorian territory. The position of the trees brought down by the bombardment, the multiple bullet holes on them, as also the position of the bodies, demonstrate that while the FARC was guarding the camp on the northern side facing the Colombian frontier, the air incursion happened from the south, which indicates that the Colombian air force intruded without permission or notification, contravening all international norms about Ecuadorian air space.

The testimonies of the area’s residents indicate the attack lasted from approximately after midnight till six in the morning of March 1. The precision of the attack also shows the use of important military technology which puts on the table the possibility of the participation of the United States in the massacres, at least in spotting the guerrilla unit.

It would certainly appear that the US has it's hands all over this one. What with the combination of military intelligence/hardware and the 'experts' who are analysing documents at the scene that supposedly link Venezuela and Ecuador with what the US calls a 'terrorist organisation', could we possibly see a widening of the 'war on terror'?? Could the United States be on the verge of turning it's attention back on to it's own backyard and launching a new vicious campaign to turn back the "pink tide" sweeping South America?? Perhaps this re-assertion has become more desperate as a result of Ecuador's recent decision not to renew the agreement with the US to utilise the Manta air base as part of the Plan Colombia strategy. Whatever, the US government is clearly concerned about it's weakening hegemony in the region and is prepared to step up efforts to ensure it is the dominant player in the region once more.

See also:

Ecuador Rising - Hatarinchej - The people of Ecuador are rising up to refound their country as a pluri-national homeland for all. This inspiring movement, with Ecuador's indigenous peoples at its heart, is part of the revolution spreading across the Americas, laying the groundwork for a new, fairer, world. Ecuador Rising aims to bring news and analysis of events unfolding in Ecuador to english speakers. [Added to blogroll]

UPDATE

It now appears that President Uribe is calling for Chavez to be charged by the International Criminal Court for "financing genocide". Yes, you did read that correctly. The President of a country in which paramilitaries are free to roam the country and murder trade unionists with impunity is attempting to have Chavez prosecuted for genocide. Perhaps if the ICC is to look into Uribe's ridiculous claims, it might also take serious action against the Colombian government for allowing union members to be murdered with impunity.

Ecuador Sends Troops To Colombian Border

It would seem that Ecuador has sent troops to the border with the world's leading terrorist state:

Ecuador and Venezuela have moved troops to their borders with Colombia in an escalating row over the killing of a Farc rebel leader in Ecuador.

Ecuador and Venezuela have also both expelled Colombian diplomats.

Colombian troops entered Ecuador on Saturday in a raid that killed Colombian rebel leader Raul Reyes.

Of course, the Colombian government is talking of it's sisterhood with a neighboring South American country but they have never been that concerned about their neighbours in the past. On the contrary, Colombia is seen by Washington as crucial to re-asserting ideological dominance in the region. It is unlikely that further action will be taken by Venezuela or Ecuador, but the current situation is sure to be used as an example of the danger that the left-wing tide poses to US interests.

Venezuelan Army Put on High Alert

Hugo Chavez has ordered troops to the Colombian border following a Colombian incursion in Ecuador. From CNN:

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez Sunday ordered his military to move 10 battalions to the country's border with Colombia, and ordered the closure of the Venezuelan embassy in Colombia's capital.

He made the comments on his weekly Sunday talk show "Alo Presidente," or "Hello, President."

The move was in apparent reaction to Colombia's joint operation Saturday in Ecuador that resulted in the death of the second-in-command of the FARC Colombian rebels group.

Chavez condemned the operation Saturday, saying the Colombian government violated Ecuador's sovereignty. He said if the operation had been conducted in Venezuela, he would have declared war against Colombia.

"Colombia's government recognizes -- in a happy and irresponsible attitude -- that it has violated the sovereignty of a neighbor country. And that's worrisome," he said.

"President Uribe, think well. Don't think about doing that over here, don't think it. Because it would very serious, a military raid in Venezuelan territory would be 'causus belli.' There is not any excuse."

Colombian Defence Minister, Juan Manuel Santos, claimed that Uribe had informed Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa. However, it has also emerged that Correa has sent a strongly worded protest to the Colombian government and has also recalled his ambassador in Colombia. Could this be an attempt by the US proxy to assert the primacy of US interests in the region? Certainly it will appear that the establishment may well spin this in favour of Uribe and in opposition to Chavez. In fact, the Bush administration already seems to have set to work on this:

The White House weighed in on the situation Sunday, saying, "We're monitoring the situation."

"This is an odd reaction by Venezuela to Colombia's efforts against the FARC, a terrorist organization that continues to hold Colombians, Americans and others hostage," spokesman Gordon Johndroe said.

But then, I guess they would find it odd given as they have a thing for violating sovereign nations. The spin starts here.

Alex James - I Support President Uribe

Yes, I perhaps should have been unsurprised by the rather superficial nature of the Panorama investigation fronted by Alex James of Blur (not a band that have ever been to my taste, I despised Britpop, anyway, I digress...). The programme essentially put out the message that, like, cocaine is wrong man. People, like, die and stuff. Well fuck me, do I really need some washed up pop star from an overrated pop band to tell me that? No, I fucking didn't mainly because I have the odd brain cell knocking around inside my head something that many pop stars seem to be sadly lacking (perhaps due to all the charlie that happily inhale up their noses - which is in turn an attempt to cover up the stench of the god awful shite they trot out).

One of James' pearls of wisdom was his description of 'Plan Colombia' as 'controversial', although there was no explanation why this might be (apart from a fleeting visit to one farmer's banana crop that had been ruined by the random spraying - well, I say 'random'). No mention whatsoever of the catastrophic effect that this policy has had on the people living in rural parts of Colombia, not to mention neighboring countries in South America. Yes, clearly Plan Colombia is 'controversial', perhaps James should win an award for biggest understatement of the century. However, one other moment really underlined how out of his depth the WigWam star really was.

James practically wanked himself into a frenzy over his audience with President Uribe. The sense that James was rubbing his crutch during Uribe's impassioned pleas was palpable. So much so, I just wished he would just ejaculate over Uribe's face and get it over with. Impartial broadcasting at it's best by the BBC. Then came the piece de resistance. After his brief interview/orgasm, James announced that 'I support this man' and claimed that he was exactly what Colombia needed. This, if nothing else, was evidence enough that charlie really fucks you up permanently. No mention of Uribe's well documented links to terrorists in Colombia, no mention of how Colombia is perhaps the world's leading terrorist state. No, just James giving Uribe some cheese before bending over before him and allowing Uribe the privilege of ramming his...........

Now, I know this has come across as rather flippant and cynical of what James was trying to do and, well, it is. While it is laudable that James was brave enough to confront the consequences of his actions (unlike some of his pampered contemporaries), he could have looked into the circumstances a little harder (although, granted, with the new 30 minute running time, it is hard to imagine any subject being covered in depth on Panorama anymore). Presented with a golden opportunity, James could have confronted Uribe on his support for terrorists that also rely on the coke business. Instead, he was unquestioning in his support of a leader who has extensive links to right-wing paramilitaries. In the hands of a more experienced documentary maker, this could well have been an insightful, thought provoking piece on the situation in Colombia. Instead, it was rather like much of James' musical output over the past few years - undemanding and uninspired. God I hated Blur and their Britpop buddies.

Venezuela - The Truth Behind the Spin

With the upcoming referendum in Venezuela, there has been the usual talk of opposition to Hugo Chavez. The Guardian had a short taster (sadly this 'taster' is not available on the website, so you will have to take my word for it) on the front page yesterday insinuating that Chavez was attempting to stay in power until 2030, when all he is proposing is the exact same rules that apply to our Prime Minister ie he can stand for election as many times as he likes. The BBC has also weighed into the debate (remember the BBC described Chavez as a 'militant') with their latest piece about the opposition movement to Chavez:

Hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans have protested against changes to the constitution proposed by the president.

Venezuelans are due to vote on the proposals - which include the removal of presidential term limits - in a referendum on Sunday.

Critics accuse President Hugo Chavez of a power grab, but supporters say the changes will deepen democracy.

It is the latest in a series of student-led rallies, ahead of the "yes" campaign's final march on Friday.

However, correspondents say the "no" campaign is gaining force.

No official crowd estimates were available but an opposition politician put the figure at about 160,000.

Talking up the opposition there. Of course, what the BBC (and other media outlets) fail to recognise is the situation behind the scenes. Luckily, bloggers like RickB at Ten Percent do their job for them. This from his blog [original source]:

On November 26, 2007 the Venezuelan government broadcast and circulated a confidential memo from the US embassy to the CIA which is devastatingly revealing of US clandestine operations and which will influence the referendum this Sunday… The memo sent by an embassy official, Michael Middleton Steere, was addressed to the head of the CIA, Michael Hayden. The memo was entitled ‘Advancing to the Last Phase of Operation Pincer’…

The US operatives emphasized their capacity to recruit former Chavez supporters among the social democrats (PODEMOS) and the former Minister of Defense Baduel, claiming to have reduced the ‘yes’ vote by 6% from its original margin. Nevertheless the Embassy operatives concede that they have reached their ceiling, recognizing they cannot defeat the amendments via the electoral route. The memo then recommends that Operation Pincer (OP) [Operación Tenaza] be operationalized. OP involves a two-pronged strategy of impeding the referendum, rejecting the outcome at the same time as calling for a ‘no’ vote. The run up to the referendum includes running phony polls, attacking electoral officials and running propaganda through the private media accusing the government of fraud and calling for a ‘no’ vote.

The ultimate objective of ‘Operation Pincer’ is to seize a territorial or institutional base with the ‘massive support’ of the defeated electoral minority within three or four days (before or after the elections – is not clear. JP) backed by an uprising by oppositionist military officers principally in the National Guard. The Embassy operative concede that the military plotters have run into serous problems as key intelligence operatives were detected, stores of arms were decommissioned and several plotters are under tight surveillance.

The key and most dangerous threats to democracy raised by the Embassy memo point to their success in mobilizing the private university students (backed by top administrators) to attack key government buildings including the Presidential Palace, Supreme Court and the National Electoral Council. The Embassy is especially praiseworthy of the ex-Maoist ‘Red Flag’ group for its violent street fighting activity.

So, it looks like there will be yet another attempt to instigate a coup in Venezuela. This time the claims of a power grab will be used as the pretext and the media are happy to play along. No doubt we will see a repeat of the footage that was broadcast during the last coup attempt that suggested that supporters of Chavez were firing onto groups of protesters. The truth is that the US is eager to find a way to oust Chavez due to his rising influence in the region. What scares them more than anything else is that a successful alternative to US imperialist capitalism might take hold in the Southern hemisphere and spread across the globe. One hopes that this proves to be the case.

Bush Threatens to Destabilise Cuba

George Bush has made yet another attempt to determine the future of the Cuban people. As most sane people have suspected, Bush is eager for Castro to die in order for the American empire to extend to one of the few countries prepared to adopt an alternative system to the US. His speech, riddled with double standards, contained the usual posturing synonymous with Bush's supposed moral high ground. In his address, Bush claimed:

"As with all totalitarian systems, Cuba's regime no doubt has other horrors still unknown to the rest of the world. Once revealed, they will shock the conscience of humanity, and they will shame the regime's defenders and all those democracies that had been silent."

One wonders how the President of the United States can adopt such a self-righteous tone. The only difference, one supposes, being that the horrors of the American regime are well known (Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, Blackwater etc etc). In fact, Bush even had the cheek to describe Cuba as a "tropical gulag". Do the words "glass" and "houses" sound familiar??

The address itself also made it quite clear that the US would waste no time in influencing the post-Castro Cuba. Bush added:

"Now is the time to support the democratic movement growing on the island. Now is the time to stand with the Cuban people as they stand up for their liberty. And now is the time for the world to put aside its differences and prepare for Cubans' transitions to a future of freedom and progress and promise."

The 'world' is, of course, a euphemism for the US and her allies. However, this passage raises one very obvious question: what right has the 'world' got to 'prepare' for Cubans' transitions??? It is quite clear that the US is preparing to spend big in the event of Castro's death in order to influence the post-Castro regime. Have no doubt that, come Castro's death, the US will ensure some US friendly party will mysteriously come to power. Either by military means or by applying pressure for 'democratic' elections (Cuba does already have elections of course, but this is barely mentioned).

Once more, the American state is attempting to destabilise a foreign nation. Only imagine if another country made similar statements about the US. They would be widely condemned. We live in a world in which everything is seen through the prism of American hegemony. Anything that doesn't fit in with this view is to be opposed at all costs. Every nation that takes an opposing ideology to US based capitalism must be destabilised, invaded and converted. No country must be permitted its own free existence if it contradicts the American way. This was the same arrogance upon which the British Empire was built and every other empire before and since. It will sow the seeds of its own destruction. The attacks of 9/11 were, after all, a direct result of US imperialism (despite what the nutjobs say about Islam and all the other bullshit they spout).

Thankfully, not everyone is blinded by the supposed universal truth that guides US policy. Dr Ian Gibson, of the All Party Group of MPs on Cuba, chastised the US with this statement:

“the aggressive interventionist foreign policies of the US were not appropriate in Iraq and they are not appropriate for Cuba. The US must stop attempting to undermine the sovereignty of nation states and recognise the important strategic role Cuba now holds in Latin America. We must promote stability through engagement and leave behind these US bullying tactics.”

MP Colin Burgon also added:

“The ignorance of international law of the current US President is very well known. However, this latest statement on the internal affairs of Cuba is tantamount to calling for a coup against a sovereign state. The arrogance of the US is both worrying and lamentable.”

As Rob Miller, the director of the UK-based Cuba Solidarity Campaign, puts it: the US needs to move to a policy of engagement rather than "aggression, intervention, destabilisation and conflict". It could be a hard habit to break for a state hooked on empire building like some crack addicted whore.

UPDATE: Davide at Nether-World writes the post that I wish I had written.

Attack on Syria A 'Dry Run' For Assault on Iran?

That's the question in today's Observer. Despite Israel's refusal to comment on the incursion last week, Peter Beaumont claims that this was a 'major' incursion. According to Beaumont:

Far from being a minor incursion, the Israeli overflight of Syrian airspace through its ally, Turkey, was a far more major affair involving as many as eight aircraft, including Israel's most ultra-modern F-15s and F-16s equipped with Maverick missiles and 500lb bombs. Flying among the Israeli fighters at great height, The Observer can reveal, was an ELINT - an electronic intelligence gathering aircraft.

Beaumont also claims that the action by the Israeli air force was part of an attempt to address neo-conservative foreign policy concerns. Unsurprisingly, certified evil bastard, John Bolton, has been one of the key men pushing the propaganda for this raid. From the same article:

According to an intelligence expert quoted in the Washington Post who spoke to aircrew involved in the raid, the target of the attack, revealed only to the pilots while they were in the air, was a northern Syrian facility that was labelled as an agricultural research centre on the Euphrates river, close to the Turkish border.

According to this version of events, a North Korean ship, officially carrying a cargo of cement, docked three days before the raid in the Syrian port of Tartus. That ship was also alleged to be carrying nuclear equipment.

It is an angle that has been pushed hardest by the neoconservative hawk and former US ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton. But others have entered the fray, among them the US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, who, without mentioning Syria by name, suggested to Fox television that the raid was linked to stopping unconventional weapons proliferation.

As time goes on, this story is becoming more and more interesting. It would appear that this was part of a concerted strategy between the White House and Tel Aviv to flex a few muscles and send a warning to Syria (in terms of its activities in Lebanon) as well as Iran. It seems fairly obvious that at some point in the not too distant future, the Israeli airforce will conduct some military operation in Iran. After all, Cheney is already trying to drum up support for military intervention, any claims that this issue will be dealt through official channels (UN/IAEA) is nothing more than fantasy. Military action is clearly the preferred option for the US and her key franchise state in the region. The question is, how do we stop this folly.

US Cosies Up To Musharraf and Attacks Chavez

An interesting difference in the attitude of the US government to Venezuela and Chavez in the light of the recent controversies surrounding the media in the respective countries. First, we have John Negroponte, the man who sent the orders for Saddam to be executed (he flew into Iraq for secret talks two days before Saddam was sentenced - coincidence?), and his warm words for President Musharraf.

John Negroponte, the US deputy secretary of state, has backed General Pervez Musharraf, saying it was up to the Pakistan president to decide when to quit as army chief.

Negroponte held talks with Musharraf on Saturday amid a tense political crisis over the suspension of Pakistan's chief justice.

Negroponte said at the US embassy in Islamabad: "The message I brought was one of a strong friendship and trust for and with the government and people of Pakistan."

Those opposing Musharraf have seized on the unrest to press the president to give up his dual role as president and head of the military by the end of the year, when he is constitutionally obliged to.

When asked if he had talked with Musharraf about the removal of Iftikhar Chaudhry, the Pakistan supreme court chief justice, Negroponte said he had discussed the "general political situation" in Pakistan.

Critics accuse Musharraf of suspending Chaudhry to remove obstacles to his re-election as president-in-uniform by the outgoing parliament, in defiance of the Pakistani constitution.

"I think this is something that President Musharraf himself is going to want to decide and this is a matter that is up to him," Negroponte said.

No condemnation for the recent attack on Pakistan's media, merely words of support and 'friendship'. Compare this to the latest attack on Chavez by the Bu$hleaguers:

Robert Zoellick, almost certain to be the next head of the World Bank, on Saturday took aim at Venezuela's leftist president, Hugo Chavez, warning that his oil-fueled socialist revolution was headed for trouble.

"It's a country where economic problems are mounting, and as we're seeing also on the political and press side it's not moving in a healthy direction," Zoellick told reporters during a visit to Mexico.

So Pakistan, a country whose police raided the offices of a critical media network and shut it down, is worthy of 'strong friendship and trust', while Venezuela, a country that refused to renew the licence of a channel that was heavily involved in the failed 2002 coup, is 'not moving in a healthy direction'. An interesting interpretation of events, I'm sure you will agree.

Gaza Descends Into Chaos - Courtesy of the Western Powers

With the ongoing violence in Gaza, the usual suspects have been quick to claim that the current events have nothing to do with the EU and the US. Instead, the blame falls squarely at Hamas' feet. While it is true that both sides are involved in a never ending cycle of violence that must be condemned, the roots of this problem trace right the way back to the West. As usual, the right-wing press take an overly simplistic approach to the situation. The Daily Telegraph (the bastion of British conservatism) took a typical line on events:

The appalling barbarity currently unfolding in Gaza, where gunmen from the militant Palestinian Islamic group Hamas are attempting to eliminate physically their secular Fatah rivals, has led to the inevitable accusations that Israel and its Western allies are ultimately responsible for the bloodshed.

The fact that the latest outburst of violence was started, and is being sustained, by Hamas's attempts to eradicate any hint of opposition to its radical Islamic agenda is conveniently overlooked.

Instead those who claim to have the Palestinians' best interests at heart insist the violence is the result of the refusal of Israel and its supporters - i.e. America - to negotiate with the democratically elected Hamas government on a lasting political settlement of the Palestinian issue.

The word 'simplistic' hardly does the leader justice. And then, what a surprise, we have Melanie Phillips wading in with some typical intellectual bankruptcy:

If Israel kills Palestinians in its attempt to defend its civilians from being blown up in pizza parlours or pulverised by rocket attack, the media descends into an instant frenzy of (unjust and distorted) condemnation. But presented with this orgy of Palestinian violence in Gaza, there is little more than an embarrassed shuffling of feet. The Independent ventures bravely into these treacherous waters by blaming everyone other than the Palestinians for reducing them to economic desperation — this despite the fact that since sanctions were imposed on Hamas, the amount of funding going into Gaza has actually doubled, if not trebled. What it is to be a newspaper of moral principle, eh?

Putting aside her failure to grasp that sometimes, just sometimes, Israel might do something wrong, it is the penultimate point that raises an eyebrow. 'The amount of funding has doubled'? What could this mean?? Before looking any further into the claims that we have nothing to do with this mess, here is what Abu Amr (an independent voice in the Palestinian authority, belonging to neither Fatah or Hamas) has to say on the current situation:

"If you have two brothers, put them in a cage and deprive them of basic and essential needs for life, they will fight," Abu Amr told a news conference in Tokyo. "We need to undo the very problematic situation that mainly others have created."

Abu Amr, an independent in the Palestinian government, blamed the fighting on the deprivations forced upon Palestinians.

"We really live in a cage," he said. "People cannot move in Gaza. They can't travel. There's no work. There's no normal life."

"If Gaza disintegrates, subsequent negotiations with the Israelis would be jeopardized," Abu Amr was quoted as saying by a Foreign Ministry official who briefed reporters afterward. "The situation is extremely grave."

This is a far more realistic representation of what is going on in Gaza, by a man who is independent of both factions. The Palestinian people have been the victim of untold suffering since they chose to elect Hamas. Over 2.4 million Palestinians live under the poverty line as a result of sanctions imposed by the US and the EU in response to their democratic judgement. The region stands on the brink of economic collapse whilst the West pats themselves on the back for the good work they have done. Yes, those in power knew this was going to happen, they planned for it. Rice claimed back in October last year:

the economic boycott on the Hamas-led Palestinian government is effective and the international community will continue to maintain the boycott.

And so it has proved. The economic boycott has led to the desperate situation that Abu Amr refers to. The Palestinian people have been the victim of a concerted effort by the West to undermine any sense of democracy in the region. In desperation, they have turned on each other. And what of this aid that Phillips refers to? Well, as usual, Phillips only tells half the story. Aid has increased quite dramatically over the past 18 months, however Phillips fails to explain just what type of aid increased. The aid has not been humanitarian, rather it has been military in nature. Since last year, the US government has funnelled millions of dollars to Fatah's defence forces, as they predicted a split between Hamas and Fatah. The US has played a very active role in current events. According to a report in The Observer at the time:

US cash is reportedly being used to set up training facilities for Abbas's special guard, Force 17, in the West Bank town of Jericho and in Gaza.

Furthermore, the report claimed that:

Officially the US has put up some $42m to bolster Hamas's political opponents ahead of possible early Palestinian elections, with officials saying the programme is aimed at promoting alternatives to Hamas, which caused a sensation when it won power in January.

Not only have they been providing military funding to Fatah, they have been funding opposition parties as well. Imagine the storm this would create in America if Iran began funding an opposition party. I'm guessing that the hypercritical right would be up in arms about such a development.

There is no doubt whatsoever that the Western powers have played a major part in this conflict. The American government has repeatedly attempted to undermine a democratic government and has refused to even entertain the idea of holding talks with them. It has provided military funding to Fatah, whilst upholding sanctions that hurt the Palestinian people. Is it really any surprise that the two factions would turn against each other in these conditions? Of course not. The American government made its intentions clear right from the start, it would do everything in its power to ensure that the Hamas government collapsed and was replaced with a compliant authority that is willing to become yet another US franchise in the region. While there is no doubt that the murders are at the hands of both Hamas and Fatah, there is also no doubt that the environment for this conflict was created by America and the EU. The failure to acknowledge this simple fact is either dangerously short-sighted or plainly irresponsible.

*According to the BBC, Abbas has dismissed the Hamas led government declaring that:

"I [Abbas] have issued the following decree: the sacking of Prime Minister Ismail Haniya."

This would be the same Haniya who was subject to an assassination attempt by Abbas' Fatah party. I'm guessing a few people will be rubbing their hands with glee at this news. Meanwhile, the suffering continues for the Palestinians.

White House - 'Musharraf's Uniform Is So Last Season'

Nice to see the American government once again getting to the heart of the matter in Pakistan. Some people might see the repeated intrusion of the media (particularly Geo TV) by the government as cause for concern, not so the White House. Apparently of greater concern to the free world is Musharraf's dress sense:

WASHINGTON: The US State Department says General Pervez Musharraf has pledged to take off his uniform if he is to continue in political life and the US takes him at his word.

Answering a question on Monday, spokesman Sean McCormack said, “You’ve mentioned the uniform issue. I know that he has pledged to make that choice and to – if he continues in political life, to put aside the uniform. And we take him at his word at that and we would expect him to follow through on his commitments.”

Yeah, because a military uniform makes American intentions in the region just a little too obvious. It's just not the kind of uniform one expects in a franchise state, is it?

Australia Ripe For Electoral Stitch-up?

Keep a close eye on this one in the run-up to the election in Australia, particularly given the way Howard abandoned David Hicks and the subsequent anger in this most compliant US franchise.

From the Sunshine Coast Daily (spotted thanks to a comment on Wish Hounds' MySpace page):

Although the Federal Election must be called in 2007, the call is unlikely to come before July with many hedging their bets that the Howard Government will announce an election sometime around October.

Mr McKenzie warned that a Sunday election announcement would allow un-registered voters only 24 hours to get their name on the roll.

Meanwhile, registered voters who had failed to update their current details would be allowed only three days to check whether or not they had been removed from the electoral roll and re-register.

Australia’s compulsory voting regime potentially puts registered voters who fail to arrive at the ballot box at risk of a fine but Mr McKenzie said the biggest penalty was missing out on the chance to have their say on election day.

According to Get Up!:

In the last election, 83,000 first-time voters enrolled in the first week after the election was called. Hundreds of thousands more registered at their new address.

This cunt will try anything to shit on the people of Australia (with the full backing of some particularly vile fascists). And he will be even more determined after being revealed to the world as a vicious totalitarian. It's time this bastard was kicked out. Australia - YOU CAN DO BETTER THAN THIS.

You can also visit the Australian Electoral Commission website to check your enrolment, register for the first time or update you details. More information is available at: www.myspace.com/getupaustralia.

Long May We Prosper

Whilst everyone works themselves into a frenzy about the redistributive powers of our Chancellor, we get a little insight into what our taxes are paying for. How about this for example:
New figures released today by campaign group Justice for Colombia show that 84 trade unionists were murdered in Colombia in 2006. This marks a 20% increase on the number assassinated in 2005.

But what's that got to do with our taxes, I hear you ask. Well, along with the US, we provide a certain degree of financial support to America's favourite franchise state (approximately £1 million, plus 'lethal military equipment'). As recent events have shown, there is an indisputable link between the Colombian government, and the paramilitary groups that are responsible for these murders. Aren't we supposed to be fighting a 'war on terror'?

According to the report:

The figures, which are sourced from Colombian unions, show that teachers and agricultural workers were hit particularly hard: 40 of the 84 people killed were teachers and 11 were agricultural workers.

Although most of the culprits have never been identified, figures from the Colombian Commission of Jurists show that the vast majority of political assassinations were committed by the state and right-wing paramilitaries, often acting in collusion.

Carlos Rodriguez, President of the CUT – Colombia’s main union confederation – said: “Since the CUT was founded in 1986, there has been a campaign against trade union activity and more than 3,000 trade unionists have been assassinated. There is no other country in the world where trade unionists suffer such violence.”

While Brown talks about 'prosperity and fairness for Britain's families', he ensures a nice little chunk is used to spread poverty and murder throughout Colombia. But hey, fuck it, at least it's built on:

'...the foundation of the longest period of economic stability and sustained growth.'

I feel better already.

The American Guide to Increasing Violence

The confirmation of Saddam's death penalty has been broadly welcomed in the Western world. It has also prompted two bizarre quotes from America and her developing franchise. The first comes from Nuri al-Maliki:

"Our respect for human rights means we must implement the execution. Whoever rejects Saddam's execution would be insulting the souls of the martyrs of Iraq."

Respect for human rights??? Excuse me while I find a bucket to be sick in. There is no way that any rational human being could justify the death penalty as a sign of respect for human rights. Mind you, Maliki does look to the US for guidance on human rights, a country that sends over 100 people to their deaths every year. And talking of the US, they hailed this verdict as a landmark in Iraq's efforts to

'to replace the rule of a tyrant with the rule of law'.

No, it's still the rule of a tyrant. The only difference is that it is a 'democratic' tyranny.

The truth is that this execution will send out one clear, audible message that will be heard around the globe. As long as you don't damage our interests, you can do whatever you want. Step out of line, and you had better be prepared to pay the consequences.

Further reading: Amnesty International's statement, Human Rights Watch and the investigation by Human Rights Watch into the validity of the trial.

Other Blogs: Obsolete