Russian riots follow dissenters' marches

Russia is in turmoil after a weekend of protests in Moscow and St Petersburg turned to riots. Yesterday, police detained dozens of protesters after 7,000 people marched in St Petersburg, On Saturday 9,000 riot police and soldiers were deployed to prevent less than 2,000 activists marching to a central square in Moscow. Police arrested around 200 protesters including the former world chess champion Garry Kasparov. Kasparov was released after paying a fine of $40. "It is no longer a country ... where the government tries to pretend it is playing by the letter and spirit of the law," Kasparov said outside the court building. "We now stand somewhere between Belarus and Zimbabwe," he said.

Meanwhile in St Petersburg riot police swung clubs and clashed with opposition supporters before chasing small groups of demonstrators. They beat some on the ground and hauled them into police buses. It was not immediately clear what sparked the violence after the rally. City bosses gave permission for the 90 minute rally in a square on the edge of the city but banned plans to march on to the city government headquarters. Protesters heeded organisers’ calls not to march on the government building but instead to go on their own over the next few days. Instead most protesters went to the nearest subway station where the violence started. Eduard Limonov, head of a Bolshevik opposition party, told the rally, "Yesterday, it became clear that the authorities won't be making any concessions. They have started a war on people”.

The weekend protests were part of a series of "Dissenters' Marches". These marches were called by an umbrella group known as the Other Russia. The Other Russia brings together a rainbow coalition of opposition groups including one led by Kasparov. Kasparov leads the United Civil Front. Other groups include Limonov’s National Bolshevik Party, the Moscow Helsinki Group, Worker’s Russia, Institute for Globalization Issues, Centre for Development of Democracy and Human Rights, People’s Democratic Union, Republican Party of Russia and Information Science for Democracy (INDEM).

The Other Russia held an “All Russia Civic Congress” in July 2006. It was deliberately timed to coincide with the G8 summit in St Petersburg. A closing statement stated the conference succeeded in showing that Russia still possesses a civil society capable of defending its rights. It also said that President Putin’s government’s goal is “the complete and unending control of every national resource” which, it warned “can only be achieved by repression and anti-constitutional means based on the destruction of civil liberties and the cleansing of the political field”.

As well as Kasparov, the other leading light in the Other Russia is former premier Mikhail Kasyanov. Kasyanov heads up the People’s Democratic Union. In 2005 he announced his intention to run for president when Putin’s term expires in 2008. Kasyanov has been one of the Kremlin’s most vocal critics since he was fired, accusing the president of stifling democracy and mismanaging the economy. Kasyanov served as prime minister for most of Putin's first term. But Putin sacked him in 2004 barely a week before his (Putin’s) re-election claiming the move was aimed at “creating a more efficient government”.

The weakening of democracy in Russia was acknowledged by the 2006 US National Security Strategy which concluded that "recent trends regrettably point toward a diminishing commitment to democratic freedoms and institutions" in Russia. The document’s pessimism is not shared by President Bush himself. I haven't given up on Russia," he said in a speech in a March 2006 speech at Freedom House, a pro-democracy organisation. "I still think Russia understands that it's in her interests to be West, to work with the West and to act in concert with the West."

But it is debatable whether Putin’s government shares this interest. Putin rules with the concept of “managed democracy”. This is based around three concepts: Prosperity, stability and sovereignty. Putin had the good luck to arrive in power just as oil prices took off. Russia’s economy is booming with GDP growing by over 6 per cent a year, all debt has been paid off and the budget is now in surplus. This has resulted in genuine improvements in living standards. Putin remains a popular leader. Since his 2000 election, he has enjoyed the continuous support of over 70 per cent of his people. Importantly too, Putin has brought stability back to Russian politics after the eccentricities of Yeltsin. He broke the back of the Russian oil oligarchs (Gusinsky, Berezovsky, Khodorkovsky and Abramovich) and also reclaimed Russia’s moral status as a world power. It is now the world’s largest producer of gas and, after Saudi Arabia, the second largest exporter of oil.

However the cost of this progress has been the muzzling of genuine democracy. The government has reasserted control over major television networks with little air time available to its critics. Newspapers such as Izvestiya are mouthpieces for the regime. Prominent media critics have been cowered, threatened and silenced. The Duma (Russian parliament) has been neutered and made compliant, and political freedoms have declined. Corruption is pervasive despite Putin trebling the budget of the FSB (post Communist successor to the KGB). Putin’s greatest gift is that he himself lives thriftily thus avoiding the taint of corruption. Instead he can use corruption as an instrument of state policy. Under Putin corruption is both a system of rewards for those who comply with him, and of blackmail for those who might resist. According to one businessman benefiting from Russia’s construction boom: "it used to be called bribery, now it is just called business."

Dark Victory: Recollections of Tampa

In November 2001, John Howard won a spectacular third federal election victory in Australia. Coming barely two months after 9/11 Howard had the advantage of incumbency, but it was still a come from behind win. Kim Beazley’s Labor Party comfortably outpolled the Liberal/National coalition for much of the 2001 calendar year. The defining moment in the campaign came three months earlier when a Norwegian vessel rescued boatpeople from the high seas.

The events of Tampa are documented in detail in a book by two Australian journalists David Marr and Marian Wilkinson. “Dark Victory” forensically takes the reader on a journey through choppy waters. It is a story where no one in Australia comes out with a good reputation. But while the Norwegians picked up boatpeople, Howard picked up electoral traction. The rescue set in chain a series of events that were thoroughly and totally manipulated by Canberra. It was an operation that moved at breathtaking speed that left the media and the opposition trailing in its wake. It eventually closed the hearts and minds of Australians to refugees. It eventually led to Howard's stunning victory with a campaign statement which said “We will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come”.

The people Howard didn’t want to come to Australia were mostly from Afghanistan and Iraq. They were either fleeing the tyranny of the Taliban or ten years of suffocating sanctions on Iraq. The people on board the Palapa were mainly Afghan with a few who said they were Pakistanis. It had an Indonesian crew. The passengers had paid thousands of US dollars to intermediaries to take a dangerous journey on an over-loaded and leaky boat. They were sailing from Pantau, a port on the south-west of Java near the surfing town of Pelabuhan Ratu. They were headed for the Australian Indian Ocean territory of Christmas Island, some thirty or forty hours away to the south. But after a day's sailing the engine went dead. The boat drifted aimlessly.

The crew reassured nervous passengers they were in Australian waters and would be rescued. But the crew was wrong. The Australian air force members of Surveillance Australia were aware of the boat. They had a Havilland Dash-8 make several overflies of what became designated as a SIEV – Suspect Illegal Entry Vessel. The crew radioed back to Coastwatch that the ship was in difficulties. Instead of issuing a distress signal, Australia attempted to palm the problem off on Indonesia.

The spot where the ship sank was in the high seas. But it was in the rescue zone that was the responsibility of the Indonesia rescue authority BASARNAS. The Australians faxed BASARNAS with details of the SIEV. There was no reply. Canberra had no idea what BASARNAS was doing about the problem and took no further action itself other than wait for another flyover the following morning. That flyover removed any ambiguity. The people on board wore orange rags and held up flags that read “SOS”. That should have been the signal for a straightforward search and rescue mission. Instead Australia redoubled efforts to reach BASARNAS by telephone, without success. In the meantime they issued a message to shipping in the area, asking vessels within 10 hours to help.

The Norwegian 44,000 tonne ship, the Tampa, was prosaically named for the Florida Gulf city. The ship was owned by the Norwegian-Swedish Wilhelmson line which had links with Australia since the 19th century. When the Tampa got the message, it had left Australia and was sailing for home in Norway via calls to China and Japan. It was just now four hours from the scene. Arne Rinnan, the ship’s master did not hesitate. He immediately reset course for the Palapa. The Tampa rescued 438 people from the dilapidated boat. They were 369 men, 26 women (two of which were pregnant) and 43 children, the youngest of which was one. Rinnan asked the Coastguard where he should land his new cargo. He himself told the refugees the boat was bound for Singapore. They pleaded to be taken to Christmas Island.

Finally BASARNAS roused and told Rinnan to take the boat to the nearest Indonesian port – Merak. When the refugees heard this, they exploded. They became aggravated and threatened Rinnan if he didn’t take them to Christmas Island. He gave in to their demands. Rinnan did not have any firearms on board. By chance the Australian coastguard rang during this tense exchange. Rinnan told them of the ultimatum he received. The coastguard confirmed it was the captain’s responsibility to decide what was best to do. Rinnan set sail for Christmas. But then the Australian Government got involved. The Department of Immigration contacted the boat and told them they could not enter Australian territorial waters. It backed up the command with a threat of their own – Rinnan would be arrested for people smuggling if he tried to take them ashore.

The decision to stop the Tampa came from the top. John Howard’s head civil servant Max Moore-Wilton was the architect of the plan and Howard himself approved it. Rinnen had no choice. The Tampa turned around and set sail for Merak. But the boatpeople became restless again. Rinnan could not guarantee the continued safety of his ship. He turned for Christmas Island once more.

Australia was not compelled to land these people. International law had a gap which made no nation responsible for rescues on the high seas. Shipping owners, bound by the maritime convention to rescue, were lobbying to change the law. In the meantime Rinnan had arrived outside the harbour at Christmas but was not allowed to land. The refugees could see the lights on the island. They were happy.

But John Howard was now about to make an issue over the Tampa. Australia was getting uncomfortable reminders how close it was to Asia. Boatpeople had been part of the vocabulary since a Vietnamese boat anchored uninvited off Darwin Harbour in 1976. As former diplomat Bruce Grant said “for Australia, history and geography had merged”. But Australia doesn’t like refugees to arrive this way; it prefers to pick its quota out of overseas camps.

The flow of boats was just a trickle through the 1990s. But now it was on the increase. The detention centres of so-called “illegals” in Port Hedland and Baxter were overflowing. Pauline Hanson was making political capital out of the “danger” of Asian immigration. Howard, anxious to win back his supporters, gave Moore-Wilton the job of staunching the flow. Australia tightened security and increased intelligence on the ground. ASIS operatives actively sabotaged boats in ports in Indonesia to prevent them from sailing.

But they were still coming in numbers. Tampa gave Howard the opportunity to turn it around. Flying Fish Cove, Christmas Islands only port, was closed indefinitely. The question on where Rinnan would land was now a matter to be resolved between the governments of Norway and Indonesia. Rinnan, and his country’s government, were appalled. After all, they had answered an Australian distress signal.

Howard knew that the only way to keep the refugees out of Australia was to keep them out of the courts. They could only access the Australian courts if they could make landfall. The Government would eventually excise Christmas Island, Ashmore Reef and others from the legal definition of Australia. But that was in future, now, they needed to keep the Tampa out of Australian waters.

So they rang around, calling on favours, to see who else would take on the responsibility. The Pacific Solution was born. New Zealand took some. The impoverished island of Nauru was persuaded to house others. Canberra also engaged its client state Papua New Guinea to build a detention centre on Manus Island. They even asked the UN to approve a transfer to newly independent Timor Leste; much to Howard's disgust, Kofi Annan refused.

Meanwhile the passengers on the Tampa went on hunger strike. The army landed an elite SAS team including a doctor to examine them. They reported the people were on good health. It remained Rinnan’s problem. He decided to ignore all further Australian warning and make an emergency landing at Flying Fish Cove. Under directions from federal cabinet, Australia ignored his MAYDAY. The boat entered the harbour where it was detained by the SAS.

HMAS Arunta was dispatched to the scene. Ostensibly its job would be to tow the Tampa out to sea. Howard tried to pass an emergency bill to make this a legal activity. Kim Beazley refused to support it. Labor was now trapped. Howard took the high moral ground and accused Labor of compromising Australian border integrity. Although the bill was defeated in the Senate without bi-partisan support, Howard had struck gold; the first opinion poll showed 95% support for his “strong action” on border policy. Howard went on talk radio with Alan Jones. Jones fully supported Howard and urged him to take stronger action.

Australia paid Nauru $16.5 million to build a camp on the island. Meanwhile a legal team in Melbourne tried to fight the case here. But they needed a client and access to the refugees was prohibited. While they tried in vain to mount a case, HMAS Arunta arrived at the Tampa. It was followed by HMAS Manoora. The SAS forced the passengers to move to the Manoora where they set sail for PNG. The Tampa was free to go. Arne Rinnan went home to a hero’s reception and government medals in Oslo. The passengers were eventually unloaded in Nauru; the first of many. Operation Relex had begun, it would last in earnest until November 2001. By then Howard had won his political victory.

China slips over TRIPS

This week the US filed a complaint with the World Trade Organization (WTO) against China over widespread piracy of copyrighted DVDs and CDs. It is the first time a copyright piracy complaint against China has been filed with the WTO. Japan and the EU have joined in the action in a crackdown against China’s lax regulations on DVD and CD piracy. The US is invoking the WTO's agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) which stipulates that member countries are obliged to impose criminal charges against producers and dealers of counterfeit goods.

TRIPS has been around since 1994. It was one of the lesser known clauses of the GATT agreement which embodied the Uruguay Round of multi-lateral trade negotiations. TRIPS had profound consequences on the global flow of information but was rarely discussed while impact on agricultural subsidies hogged the limelight.

The TRIPS agreement requires signatory countries to properties information for the first time. These included plant variety protection which has proved a controversial item for developing countries. TRIPS also increases the duration of protection for intellectual property (IP) rights which in turn raises the price of information. Finally it requires states to enforce these rights; as China is now finding out to its cost.

Prior to 1994, property rights were the domain of an international organisation called World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO). Its replacement, TRIPS, was almost entirely the work of one nation; the US. Many US multi-national companies such as IBM and Microsoft had large IP portfolios whose profits were being eroded by piracy. These companies brought their message to Congress. Their lobbyists told the politicians stronger property rights were needed to protect American industries and ideas.

In the 1980s, most developing nations were not sympathetic to IP issues. Many countries saw IP as a form of re-colonisation or economic imperialism. The US quickly realised it would need to tie IP rights in with trade if they were to get the rest of the world to treat it seriously. They knew that banning Brazilian software would have little effect – but if they banned Brazilian coffee, that was a different story.

The Americans set up what was called the Advisory Committee for Trade Negotiation (ACTN). ACTN was the conduit between business and the Government on trade policy. ACTN was chaired by Ed Pratt CEO of Pfizer, a company which was directly threatened by illegal copying of its products. ACTN established a task force on IP which recommended the US develop a holistic IP strategy. That strategy required the US have a goal of placing IP into the GATT.

The strategy had a carrot and stick approach. The carrot was to spread the message in developing countries of the benefit of IP. The stick was to make favourable trading status with the US dependent on IP protection. The IMF and the World Bank were also instructed to tie aid programs to IP. The ACTN built relationships with like-minded groups in Europe and Japan to spread their message.

The US changed its own trade laws in 1974 to demonstrate its seriousness. These laws contain what is called “Special 301 process”. The Special 301 process defines priority foreign countries, the watch list and the priority watch list. Countries on the watch list are being told that its IP practices are unsatisfactory and the US is watching. Serious offenders can be moved to the priority watch list. Examples on this list include Saudi Arabia which was so defined because it had not signed the Berne Convention on copyright, had an ill-defined copyright act and had little or no enforcement.

The Special 301 process is supported by surveillance. This is done by US companies through their overseas agencies. These companies are members of the International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA) and they provide the IIPA with copyright issues across the world. The IIPA then recommend action to the US Government. As well as targeting rogue states, the IIPA also target pirates by passing on relevant information to state enforcement agencies.

The IIPA kept up the pressure on Washington by providing reports which showed how much money its members were losing each year due to IP infringements. It also raised public awareness with an advertising campaign which including whistle-blower hotlines, well publicised criminal prosecutions and seminars on copyright issues.

Despite all their progress in the US, there was little support for the inclusion of IP in GATT in other nations. It simply wasn’t a priority. A new committee of US business heavyweights was set up called the Intellectual Property Committee (IPC). Their job was to form an international consensus in the business community. They produced a 1985 paper which provided a possible model for an IP code within GATT and discussed the issues it needed to overcome.

Their pressure was brought to bear in 1986 when GATT agreed to include an agenda item to discuss rules of IP protection. This discussion was dominated by the US. It was the only country in the discussion with negotiators trained in IP. Its own trade people became familiar with the subject matter which assisted in the bargaining. No other country had thought about the issue to the same extent and few had any goals on the subject.

But while the rest of the world had misgivings, there was too much at stake to sacrifice it all on IP. A few countries resisted, but they were marginalised by the Special 301 Process. By agreeing to TRIPS, some countries could negotiate their way off the US Watch Lists. But the main reason it passed was there was a lot on the agenda. A loss on IP could be turned into a concession that was a win on other matters. IP rights were entrenched in the Uruguay Round.

In the end, it was US technical expertise that got them over the line. India and Brazil formulated counter-proposals but neither had the knowledge to counter the US’s complex objections. Few countries could match the quality of US legal thinking on copyright and its expertise in IP law. Once victory was assured, adherence to IP law became a condition of entry to WTO and US bilateral trade agreements. TRIPS is now a key ingredient to continued US hegemony. Patent rights to DNA and control rights over software are abstract rights that delivers power to its owners over the propagation of those objects. These will increasingly become the capital of the 21st century.

Polisario and Morocco pitch for Western Sahara

The two opposite sides in the conflict in Western Sahara have both presented blueprints for autonomy of the disputed region to the UN this week. The Moroccan government presented their plan on Wednesday, just one day after the independence movement Polisario presented theirs. Although both plans are not yet in the public domain, UN diplomats say the two sides still looked far apart because Morocco was not willing to permit the referendum on independence that Polisario has demanded.

Western Sahara is a former Spanish colony with a population of 260,000 people. Morocco has ruled the country since 1975, an occupation that has been continually opposed by the Algerian-based Polisario. The UN brokered a ceasefire agreement in 1991 that promised a referendum on independence but Rabat now rules it out, saying autonomy is the most Morocco will offer.

Polisario released a statement on 10 April which outlined their proposal to the UN. Their proposal was submitted, it said, “out of concern to contribute to the more than 30-year-old decolonization conflict between Morocco and the Sahrawi people and consequently to the advent of a fair and lasting peace in our region”. Polisario claimed their solution was “flexible and constructive” and “guarantees Sahrawi national rights in conformity with resolutions of the UN…which all call for the exercise of Sahrawis' right to a vote on self-determination though a free and legitimate referendum."

Western Sahara has been troubled by invaders since the 19th century. In 1884 Bismarck called a meeting of the European powers of the day. The subject of the meeting was to carve up Africa. The Berlin Conference saw the colonial powers scramble to gain control over the interior of the continent. Spain had lost much of its power since the glory days of Phillip II. They had to be content with Rio Muni and Western Sahara. They confirmed their rule with a series of wars against the local tribes.

Western Sahara avoided occupation in World War II due to Spain’s neutrality. But it became caught up in the wave of nationalism that swept Africa in the post-war years. In 1967, Mohamed Sidi Brahim Bassiri created the Movement for the Liberation of the Sahara known as Harakat Tahrir. The movement quickly gained the support of the indigenous Sahrawi people.

Ethnic Sahrawis (Arabic for Saharan) claim descent from one of the Hassaniyyah Arabic-speaking tribes geographically associated with the Spanish Sahara. Sahrawi culture combines nomadic roots and Islamic practices. Like most nationalist movements during the 1960s-70s, Sahrawi nationalism grew in response to colonialism. Harakat Tahrir was at the forefront of this movement.

In 1970 the group made its first public stance in the capital, El Aauin. A large group gathered to present a list of demands to the colony’s governor. The governor heard the petition and then ordered the crowds to disperse. Police arrived to arrest the protest leaders and then the Spanish Foreign Legion opened fire on the restless crowd. At least eleven were killed. In the aftermath Spain cracked down on Harakat Tahrir. Out of the ashes of this movement was born the Polisario Front.

The name Polisario comes from the Spanish abbreviation Frente Popular de Liberación de Saguía el Hamra y Río de Oro ("Popular Front for the Liberation of Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro"). Polisario ran a highly successful guerrilla war campaign. By 1975 an exhausted Spain was gripped by Franco’s death-throes and finally agreed to demands for a referendum on independence. But neighbours Morocco and Mauritania had other ideas. Both countries claimed that Western Sahara was an artificial European construct and demanded the lands be subsumed into their countries. Algeria meanwhile was suspicious of Morocco’s land grab and threw its weight behind Polisario.

The UN and the International Court of Justice (ICJ) attempted to intervene and declared that Western Sahara had the right to self-determination. But Morocco put pressure on Spain by launching the 350,000 strong Green March, a strategic mass demonstration of mostly unarmed people who gathered near the border waiting for a signal to invade. Madrid was unhinged and secretly signed a tripartite agreement with Morocco and Mauritania to allow them to take over Western Sahara. Spain would be allowed to keep its financial interest in Western Sahara’s phosphate mines at Bu Craa.

When the last Spanish troops withdrew in 1976, Morocco invaded from the north with the implicit support of the US who refused to intervene. They quickly claimed two-thirds of the country. Mauritania invaded from the south and claimed the bottom third. Polisario, supported by a marginalised Algeria, bitterly resisted the double invasion. The war which followed bankrupted Mauritania and it withdrew its forces in 1979. Morocco then took over the whole of Western Sahara.

In 1984, the Organization of African Unity (OAU) recognised the Saharan Arab Democratic Republic (SADR), Polisario’s civilian arm. Morocco withdrew from the OAU in protest. It remains the only African country not in OAU’s successor, the African Union (AU). In 1988 Morocco and Polisario accepted a UN plan for a referendum that would allow the Sahrawis to decide between integration with Morocco or independence for the territory. Scheduled for 1992, it was postponed due to a dispute on a list of eligible voters, despite both parties previously accepting an updated version of the Spanish census of 1974. The process dragged on until 1996 until it was abandoned.

Although Western Sahara remains subject to Moroccan law, the Sahrawi population have difficulty obtaining Moroccan passports. Sahrawis are subject to close monitoring and harsh treatment from police and paramilitary forces. But while such treatment makes an independence referendum likely to succeed, the confluence of economic and military interests in the Sahara underpins Morocco’s rejectionist attitude of a plebiscite. Morocco illegally earns billions of dollars each year from the rich fishing off the coast and as well as inheriting Spain’s interests in phosphate. Now Moroccan state owned oil company Onarep Wessex has begun exploration work drilling for oil. Top generals in the Moroccan armed forces now have controlling stakes in those key industries.

Ahmed Boukhari is the Polisario representative to the UN. He said the issue must be decided by elections. Boukhari said Polisario was ready to "engage in direct negotiations" with Morocco. He said Morocco's proposal was "based on something that cannot be acceptable. It is based on that all of Western Sahara belongs to Morocco".

turbulence in the blogosphere

Two of the leading lights of the internet have come together to propose a “code of conduct” for blog commentary. Writer Tim O’Reilly (who coined the term web 2.0) and Wikipedia head Jimmy Wales have collaborated on a set of rules designed to stop anonymous commenters from posting "unacceptable" content. The rules also propose a deletion policy for comments that contain abusive, harassing or threatening content.

The code of conduct is still in draft form and is a six point plan to encourage encourages what it calls “both personal expression and constructive conversation”. The six points are: restriction of uncivil comments, only saying online what would be said in person, use mediation to solve disputes, taking “considered” action against attacks on others, no anonymous comments without email, and ignoring trolls (intentional inflamers).

While the code seems reasonable, it is attracting criticism from many in the internet community for being a restriction of freedom of speech. One updater changed the code to read “Feel free to agree or disagree with our completely unreasonable proposal that has a zero percent chance of changing the way anyone behaves, other than offering a soapbox from which Tim O'Reilly can preach to a bunch of people who aren't listening.” His (or her) comments were quickly reversed as vandalism. O’Reilly himself is unapologetic. According to him, freedom of speech is not at issue. As the code’s first sentence says “frankness does not have to mean lack of civility”.

The inspiration for the code of conduct is an online death threat. The threats were made by anonymous comments to American blogger and author Kathy Sierra. Sierra is a popular online writer and her blog is ranked in Technorati’s top 50. A couple of weeks ago she cancelled an appearance at a San Diego ETech conference. On 26 March she posted the reasons why on her blog. Sierra stated she was “at home, with the doors locked, [and] terrified” due to a succession of death threats. These threats were posted as comments to Sierra’s and two other blogs.

The threats began as banal putdowns and quickly moved on to crude sexual remarks. Then as Sierra said “the sexual garbage turned violent”. One comment thread read "fuck off you boring slut ... i hope someone slits your throat and cums down your gob." Sierra went on to document how it evolved into death threats. Sierra described how they posted a photo of a noose next to her head, and one of their members commented "the only thing Kathy has to offer me is that noose in her neck size."

When someone posted her home address, she shut down comments and stopped updating the blog. Speaking about the blogosphere, Sierra said “I do not want to be part of a culture…where this is considered acceptable”. Sierra claimed that one of the other blogs which had the offensive comments was at Egr Weblog run by Chris Locke.

Locke was quickly contacted by Liz Tay, a journalist at Computerworld Australia for his side of the story. Locke made a detailed reply to Tay which he published on his website. Locke strenuously denied the death threats had anything to do with him. Tay asked if he agreed that the problem was caused by the “acerbic, misogynistic atmosphere in the IT industry.” Locke replied that “given that half the human race consists of women, it should not come as a newsflash that some of them -- in about equal proportion to men -- are stupid, venal, dishonest, or just generally annoying…last time I checked, having a negative opinion of a public figure was neither a federal offence nor an expression of misogyny.”

Prompted by Tim O’Reilly, Locke and Sierra exchanged emails and then the two had a discussion together which patched up their differences. The pair made a co-ordinated statement released on Locke’s website on 1 April. Sierra acknowledged Locke had nothing to do with the threats and Locke agreed the original material was hurtful and ugly.

It is not the only hurtful and ugly material loose in the internet. The American feminist blogger Jill Filipovic was another recent victim of cyber-stalking. She wrote recently how she was the victim of law school message boards who posted numerous pictures of her while making comments about, in her words, “raping and hate-fucking me, and debating whether or not I was fuckable or a stupid fat bitch.”

In this corrosive atmosphere, internet activist Andy Carvin decided he'd had enough and designated 30 March as Stop Cyberbullying Day. The women’s activist site BlogHer quickly came on board to support the day in defence of Sierra and “all women online”. BlogHer sees trolls as the cause of most the civility problems. BlogHer recommended ignoring internet trolls as the most powerful response. Their mantra is “It's not about us. It's about them”.

But Californian blogger Valleywag was more sanguine about the problem. He asks the question why do these debates between what he calls “web geeks” become so venomous? He quotes Henry Kissinger’s response to a similar question about academic infighting: It’s because the stakes are so low.

Scorpions jailed for Srebrenica crimes

Serbia's war crimes court has sentenced four men to twenty years prison for their part in the 1995 Srebrenica massacre. The four former members of Serbia's paramilitary "Scorpions" force were found guilty after video footage showed they killed at least six people during the massacre of 8,000 Bosniak men and boys.

The former commander of the Scorpions unit, Slobodan Medic, and his chief accomplice, Branislav Medic, were each given 20 years in jail. The only defendant to have confessed to the crime, Pera Petrasevic, was given 13 years. A fourth defendant was given five years while a fifth was acquitted. Presiding judge Gordana Petrovic said “Slobodan Medic ordered the three defendants and two others to execute the prisoners, take them away from the site and make it seem as if they had been killed in conflict.” The video that implicated the men showed them taunting Bosnian youths about their virginity before shooting them in the back as they lay in a ditch. Relatives of the victims expressed disappointment that none had received the 40 year maximum sentences.

Srebrenica is Europe’s largest mass murder since World War II. In 2004 the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) judicially recognised the massacre as genocide. Judge Theodor Meron, President of ICTY made a speech later that year at Potocari Memorial Cemetery where many of the victims were buried. In the speech Meron stated it plainly “Bosnian Serb Army harboured genocidal intent against the Bosnian Muslim people who sought safety in the enclave of Srebrenica, and that these officials acted upon that intent to carry out a deliberate and massive massacre of the Muslims in Srebrenica”

While Judge Meron called the massacre genocide, others have labelled it “gendercide”. Gendercide is gender-selective mass killing. Other examples include the 1988 Montreal massacre where 14 women students at the École Polytechnique were systematically killed by a lone gunman screaming "I hate feminists." In Srebenica, while the international community and UN peacekeepers did nothing; Serb forces separated civilian men from women and killed the menfolk in their thousands.

The conflict in Bosnia-Herzegovina began in 1992 and featured large-scale ethnic cleansing and genocidal atrocities from the outset. In April 1992 Serbian forces tortured and killed 350 Bosnian men in a gymnasium in the village of Bratunac near Srebrenica. But they were not able to take Srebrenica itself. The city was defended by Naser Oric, a Rambo-like figure whose troops (and associated squads of civilian torbari, or "bag people") inflicted a number of smaller atrocities on Serb villages around the Srebrenica pocket. Oric’s forces managed to establish an enclave around the town, but the Serbs gradually tightened the noose.

General Ratko Mladić led the Serbian army during the war. Mladić made it plain that he held a special grudge against the men of Srebrenica. He allowed women and children to be evacuated from the town before shutting off the refugee flow. Desperately, the UN Security Council declared Srebenica a “safe area” but only had 500 Dutch peacekeepers in the town to back up the declaration. Finally in July 1995, Mladić’s army entered the UN safe area. They got little resistance from the disarmed defenders and the UN.

Thousands of Srebrenica men fled the town seeking protection within the UN compound at Potočari. Serbian soldiers surrounded them and began setting houses and haystacks on fire. As the day progressed, Serb forces gathered the refugees and began systematically murdering the men. French policeman Jean-Rene Ruez told The Hague tribunal in 1996 what evidence he collected from witnesses. Serb forces killed and tortured refugees at will while Streets were littered with corpses, he said. Rivers were red with blood and many people committed suicide to avoid having their noses, lips and ears chopped off. At least 8,000 died and 25,000 were forcibly repatriated.

General Mladić remains at large with an outstanding international arrest warrant against him. While many claim he is being protected by the Serbian army, Belgrade newspaper Vecernje Novosti said he was just one step ahead of his pursuers in a "feverish manhunt" by police. In May 2006 the EU broke off membership talks with Serbia and Montenegro over Belgrade's failure to deliver Mladić to the war crimes tribunal.

Situated in the far east of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Srebrenica was founded as a mining town. The name means “silver mine” in Serbian but nowadays only salt is mined here. Srebenica is now part of an entity known as the Republika Srpska. The Republika is not a true republic but rather a Serb-governed enclave of Bosnia-Herzegovina. The boundary line between it and the Muslim controlled rest of the country runs along the military front lines as they existed at the end of the war.

But now the Muslim community now want to change the boundary. Last week Srebrenica’s municipal assembly adopted a resolution demanding partition from the Republic of Srpska. Serb members left the session ahead of the vote in protest saying the assembly had no mandate to violate the Constitutional order of the Republic of Srpska and breach the Dayton Agreement. But Rizo Tabaković from the Party of the Democratic Action that sponsored the resolution, said that "the partition request was a logical move in light of the ICJ judgment, while mirroring Srebrenica's current status."

While politicians still argue about the boundary, others mourn the massacre. Some are sufferers of the syndrome known as "Survivors' Guilt" which was first identified after the Holocaust. Emir Suljagic was a Bosniak teenager when the war began. He was a translator for the UN in Srebenica when captured by General Mladić’s men. Mladić took Suljagic's ID card during questioning. Suljagic had the courage to ask for his ID back; Mladic agreed and his life was saved. While he survived, others were not so lucky. Nura Alispahic saw her 16-year-old son being killed in the court video. "Whatever the ruling, my child is not here," she said "These people will leave jail one day, but my child will never come out of the ground."

Cowries win Benin election

A coalition led by current President Thomas Boni Yayi has won parliamentary elections in the West African nation of Benin. After the 31 March poll the reigning president's Cowrie Forces for an Emerging Benin (FCBE) won 35 of the 83 seats in parliament and will aim to control the assembly with its smaller allies. The rival Alliance for a Dynamic Democracy (ADD) won 20 seats.

Yayi is a former head of the West African Development Bank who was elected president a year ago. He said wresting control of parliament from Benin's traditional elite is key to pushing through anti-corruption reforms which he claims prompted an assassination bid last month. Yayi leads the Cowrie Party which is named after the shells once used as a currency when this part of West Africa's Atlantic seaboard was known for its export of slaves and voodoo to the Caribbean.

Eighty percent of the seats were overturned, according to observers, indicating that Benin's voters wanted change. The polls marked Benin's fifth legislative elections since the country made the transition to democracy in 1990. It also underscores an influence beyond Benin’s relatively small population of 8.2 million and its weak economic standing.

Yayi won power in March 2006 after winning a run-off election against speaker of parliament Adrien Houngbedji. Yayi had a platform to end corruption and economic crimes, and "reinstate ethics" in state institutions. The election was seen as a key moment in Benin's history as both President Mathieu Kérékou and long-time rival Nicephore Soglo were barred from standing. Both men were over the constitutional age limit of 70 allowing power to transfer to a new generation. Kérékou stood down after ruling for most of the previous 30 years.

Benin is one of the 20 least developed countries in the world. Sandwiched between Togo and Nigeria, it was the former home of the ancient African kingdom of Dahomey. Portugal established a trading post on the coast at Porto Novo in the 16th century but Dahomey conquered the Portuguese and French coastal trading forts of Allada and Whydah to establish its power in the 1720s.

Dahomey was a slave state which traded African slaves for European weapons. The kingdom was notable for a female royal bodyguard, the 2,000 strong 'Dahomey Amazons'. The bodyguard had a reputation for marksmanship. The women could load cumbersome flintlock rifles in 30 seconds and hit targets with absolute precision. The empire they guarded survived almost two hundred years. Eventually it was conquered by France in the 1890s. The French invaded from Senegal using mostly African troops. These former victims of Dahomey’s slave trade were only too happy to bring about the kingdom’s demise. Initially the French installed a puppet king but within ten years they abolished the monarchy and subsumed Dahomey into French West Africa. During this time, the territory took its modern shape with the exploration and extension of French control in the north.

In 1946, under the new French constitution, Dahomey was given a deputy and two senators in the French parliament, and an elected local Assembly with substantial control of the budget. In 1958 Dahomey was granted autonomy as France’s African colony disintegrated. The country became fully independent in 1960. Dahomey was unstable in its early days and suffered military coups in 1963, 1965 (twice), 1967, 1969, and 1972.

The 1972 coup was decisive and established Major Mathieu Kérékou as the leader of a military regime. He steered the country on a Marxist-Leninist path. In 1975 he changed the name of the country to the People's Republic of Benin by presidential proclamation. In 1980 Kérékou went to Libya where he converted to the Islamic faith in the presence of Gaddafy. He also eased his rigid Marxist stance as the decade wore on.

But the economy continued to falter and in 1990 Kérékou convened a National Conference of Active Forces of the Nation to discuss Benin's future. The conference became a public critique of his 17 years of office. He was forced to declare a transitional government and parliamentary elections. Opposition leader and Prime Minister Nicephore Soglo comfortably won the election and became president in 1991. Kérékou won back the post in 1996 and retained the position five years later.

With Kérékou out of the race in 2005, the way was clear for the economist Thomas Boni Yayi to take the presidency. His election campaign mainly focused on economic reform and a pledge to make Benin's dominant cotton industry more profitable. He won 75% of the vote in the run-off election in a resounding victory. His toughest challenge remains in reforming the country's economy, which is too dependent on low-price cotton exports.

Benin is part of the CFA Franc Zone which is the currency of eleven Francophone West African countries. The CFA Franc Zone is the world’s second largest producer of cotton after the US. The crop was formally called “white gold” but is now in decline. All CFA cotton is grown on small-scale farms averaging 1.6 hectares, is entirely rain fed and none of it is genetically modified. However in the US, virtually all cotton is grown on large-scale farms, averaging 220 hectares. Most of it is irrigated, and almost all US cotton is GM. Most important of all, US cotton farmers get an annual subsidy of $2-4 billion keeping the price artificially low with West Africa bearing the brunt.

Like the other members of the CFA Zone, Benin is struggling as a result of low cotton prices. But there is some hope on the horizon. Recently the World Trade Organisation ruled US subsidies have led to overproduction of cotton which is the cause of lowered world market prices. Congress will be considering the implications of this ruling as they negotiate agricultural budget cuts.

Terry Townsend, the executive director of the International Cotton Advisory Committee, believes it is critical that agricultural subsidies be addressed in upcoming trade meetings. “We're seeing a shift in political and public perception of government in a gradual and an inexorable shift away from direct subsidies that distort production and trade,” he said. “The whole concept of subsidies is losing intellectual legitimacy”.

Aral Sea gets life support

The long lingering death of the Aral Sea is humanity’s biggest crime against the planet. The Aral was once the 4th largest in-land body of water in the world, and teeming with life. The Aral Sea is now the 10th largest sea, a fourth of its former size and mostly dead. Once a lake of the Soviet Union, it is now international waters bordered by Kazakhstan on the north and Karakalpakstan (Uzbekistan) in the south. Between them both, the Aral Sea is dying.

But this week Kazakhstan announced it had secured a multi-million dollar loan from the World Bank to help save some of the Sea. The project will not restore the Aral Sea to her former glory, but may preserve the northern part of the sea. The funds will add a second dam to the first created in 1998. The dams between the two halves will be a benefit to the Northern part of the Sea but will accelerate the death of the south.

The tragedy of the Aral dates back to a decision made in 1918 and reached its recriminations by the 1970s. The Aral Sea is a desert region, and is fed by two great rivers that rise in the mountains of Tajikstan. These rivers are the Amu Darya and the Syr Darya. In 1918 the young Soviet government, fighting for its life against the Whites, believed it would be a good idea to use these rivers to irrigate the desert region and feed the people of the revolution. Both the revolution and the irrigation project were eventually successful. Kazakhstan is today one of the world’s leading exporters of cotton.

The Soviet Union diverted the waters of the Amu Darya and the Syr Darya to irrigate cotton fields in Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan. Not surprisingly, the sea quickly began to shrink. By the 1960s, the Soviet Union knew there was a problem. In 1968 a Soviet engineer said "it is obvious to everyone that the evaporation of the Aral Sea is inevitable". But there was no turning back. According to the Soviets, the Aral was "nature's error". Instead they redoubled their efforts to empty its water. By 1980, they had dug enough canals to stretch three times to the moon. Almost the entire flow of the two rivers was diverted to grow cotton in the desert.

In 1990, the shrinking Sea split into two. The falling waters cut the North, or "Small" Aral Sea off from the bigger southern part. In 2001 the island Vozrozdeniya lost its long status as an off-shore entity and re-joined the mainland. The former island was a secret biological research station. It is a toxic time bomb set to infect central Asia with some of the deadliest germs on Earth. By cruel irony, space photos showed the southern sea now resembled two collapsing lungs. Two years on, the Northern Sea was again chopped in two.

While the shape of the sea was mutating, what water remained became increasingly salty. All the sea’s freshwater fish died. And the fishing ports were now 40km inland. The fishermen moved on. Those that remained were poisoned by exposed seabeds, full of the run-off of salt and pesticides. Over the past 15 years chronic bronchitis has increased by 3,000 per cent in the area, arthritic diseases by 6,000 per cent.

When the Communists collapsed in 1991, Kazakhstan won its independence. The new government inherited 2.7 square kilometres of what was to become the ninth largest country in the world. They also inherited half of the Aral Sea. Today, the people of the northern Aral Sea region rely on raising animals in barely survivable conditions while those in the Uzbek south, blessed with more annual rainfall, are able to grow limited albeit salty crops near the Syr-Darja river.

The newly independent nation decided to try to rescue what was left of the Sea. They used a $65 million World Bank loan to build a dam across Berg Strait, the North’s narrow connection with the southern sea. The dam has helped the north. The waters are flowing back towards Aralsk, the main port in the north, having previously retreated as far as 80km. Fishermen are going to sea again, and the government has announced they will release 30 million young fish into its waters to restock the North Aral. With the money from the latest loan yesterday, Kazakhstan will build a second dam which they hope will bring the water back to the deserted port of Heralsk. Kolbai Danabayev, vice-mayor of Aralsk says "There are seven wonders in the world and the eighth is the dam on the Aral Sea”. His optimism is understandable, though Karakalpakstanis may not agree.

Easter Coltan Message

Tantalum is in the Periodic Table. Coming in at number 73, tantalum is a dark, dense, ductile, very hard, easily fabricated, and highly conductive metal. Tantalum has unique properties for storing electrical charge. In 1802, Swede Anders Ekeberg discovered a new metal in a rare earth mineral called yttrotantalite. He called it tantalum because like Tantalus who could not drink, tantalum would not react with acids. But when scientists studied its powder form, they discovered it could also power a capacitor. Tantalum is the force behind pinhead capacitors which are capable of regulating voltage and storing energy.

With these gifts, they form a formiable part of the science of current flow in cell phone circuit boards. According to 2005 figures there are at least 2 billion mobiles in the world. Capacitors are also used in every DVD player, play station and computer in the world. Capacitors can be found in surgical implants, gas turbines, jet engines, ballistic missiles and nuclear reactors. Tantalum, element number 73, has a massive and growing market. But it doesn’t tantalise all by itself in the ground. In powder form it comes from a refined ore called coltan.

Coltan is African slang for a metallic ore called columbite-tantalite. Columbite-tantalite combines niobium with tantalum. The discoverer of niobium Charles Hatchett also called the chemical columbium. Whatever Hatchett called it, the ore it produces is almost indistructable. Coltan is prized for its very high melting point. Tantalum melts at around three thousand degrees. Well 2,996°C to be exact.

Most of the worlds coltan is found in the east of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). The DRC is Congo-Kinshasa, which in its other guise of Zaire saw George Foreman rumbled in the jungle and Scotland get knocked out of the World Cup. But mostly the DRC has been in the news for the wars that have crippled the country for at least ten years. Coltan is the cause of these wars.

Long known as the Belgian Congo, the DRC was once the personal fiefdom of King Leopold II. Booed by Belgians at his own funeral in 1909, Leopold used the Congo as a slave labour mine for rubber and ivory. Though eventually reclaimed by the state, Belgium eventually abandoned the country to its independent fate in 1960. First came president Lulumba was brave but too left-wing for the CIA. He didn't last a year. It was his deputy, General Joseph Mobutu, who would become the chosen one. It was he who became dictator and ruled the country for over thirty years. He was also a staunch US ally during the Cold War. It was he who changed the name to Zaire to promote "African authenticity".

Authentic or not, Mobutu’s reign unravelled after the end of the Cold War. Tensions inside the fractured country were already high but it exploded when the Rwandan genocide spilled over its border. Mobutu died in exile in 1997 while the country settled into war. With Mobutu gone, the country became the Congo again. But it was war with itself and at war with others. Eight other African countries would eventually become embroiled in Congo’s trouble. Today Kinshasa rule extends precariously from the capital. Much produce from the country’s eastern mines, including coltan, end up on the black market.

Here coltan is called “blood tantalum”. In 2000 the dotcom boom caused the price of coltan to skyrocket. The Coltan mines are in the part of Congo held by rebel forces. Miners dig the ore from craters in riverbeds and swill the dirt in washtubs. Just like gold, the heavier coltan settles on the bottom of the tubs, They sell the coltan to intermediaries. If they are lucky, the miners will not lose their $200 monthly pay to bandits. Meanwhile the middle-men bring the coltan to the border city of Goma. Goma is home to the Congolese Rally for Democracy (RCD). The RCD are the main rebel group who have split up into two factions, one backed by Uganda, one by Rwanda. Both have claims on Goma and traffic is heavy between the countries.

The illegal border traffic from Goma means that neighbours Uganda and Rwanda as well as Burundi export most of the world’s tantalum though none of these countries have any substantial ores of their own. The quarry otherwise known as Australia is also a coltan exporter. But not all of it is mined here. Some of it comes from the Congo. 80 per cent of DRC’s coltan arrives at the Sons of Gwalia processing plants at Wodgina and Greenbushes.

Sons of Gwalia have been an established Australian mining company since 1891 when the Lalor Brothers built a fortune from the Leonora gold mine in Kalgoorlie, WA. Herbert Hoover managed the company before he became US President. The company was worth $1 billion in shares by 2001. But they were caught out trading in unauthorised gold and foreign exchange and went into administration in 2005.

Despite the administration order and high court proceedings, Wodgina and Greenbushes still spit out over 50 percent of global demand, with production in 2003 reported at just over 2 million pounds tantalum oxide contained. A 2004 US Geological Survey showed America received 450 tons of tantalum imports, 57 percent of which was imported directly from Australia.

Sons of Gwalia had just two listed sole tantalum customers. They were the American Cabot Corporation and Bayer's HC Starck from Germany. Cabot is the biggest customer. Most coltan eventually ends up in Pennsylvanian-based Cabot High Performance Materials who make $100 million a year from grinding coltan into powder for capacitors. A lot of coltan also ended up in military parts sold by the Carlyle Group, the global private equity investment firm fronted by George Bush senior.

The recent technology boom caused the price of coltan to skyrocket to as much as $400 a kilogram, as Nokia and Sony struggled to meet demand. It is big business for exporters. The mining and use of coltan ore will only become more intense. Rwanda and Uganda will want to protect their trade. The future of Congo-Kinshasa remains tied up with the future of columbite-tantalite.

defamation and free speech: impacts for public relations

Defamation is a published statement which damages someone’s reputation or holds them up to ridicule. A person’s reputation is a fundamental human right which must be balanced against the public interest of freedom of speech. This post will examine how these conflicting rights collide and what are the positive and negative implications for public relations.

Defamation law is costly in terms of reputation, time and money. Libel is a permanent form of defamation where the burden of proof is entirely on the defendant. In the McLibel case, defendants had to prove every point from primary sources such as official documents and direct witnesses. Such onerous requirements meant that most McDonalds’ critics backed down and apologised rather than go through the prohibitive expense of libel action. But the McLibel Two fought the case as a freedom of speech issue. They forced McDonalds to defend their operations in great and embarrassing detail. Although McDonalds won the three year case on a semantic judgement, they were refused costs and the case became the biggest corporate PR disaster in history. A newspaper headline of the day best captured their dilemma: “Big Mac pays high price for win over small fries”.

But defamation law need not always prevent free speech. Organisations get more of what they want when they give up some of what they want. Grunig and Hunt’s two-way symmetrical model is the most effective model for public relations because targeted publics benefit as much as the programs’ sponsors. The model is underpinned by the PRIA code of ethics whose first point says members “shall deal fairly and honestly” with all their publics. Reputations are integral to contemporary public relations. Defamation law is a vehicle to guard practitioners and clients reputations. But it should also be best PR practice to maintain the reputation of their publics when publishing any material about them.

Nonetheless, good intention is no defence to defamation. The test for defamation is whether an ordinary, reasonable person would consider a publication to be defamatory. Ordinary, reasonable people so found in the Nixon v Slater & Gordon case. The plaintiffs were identified in a digitally altered photograph (ironically used to promote the dangers of growing litigation). The photo imputed an unintentional meaning of malpractice. Media releases are the most frequently used public relations tactic. The public relations industry exists largely to manipulate news media and claim authorship of the news. Therefore public relations officers need to be guard against defamatory content in their published releases. Australia does not have a bill of rights or statutory protection of free speech which can lead to a “chilling effect”. Defamation action is extremely expensive, especially if appealed, and can cost hundreds of thousand dollars in legal fees for both parties. Practitioners need to be aware of the three valid defences to defamation: truth, fair comment and privilege. But as the McLibel case showed, a legal win is not always a public relations win.

Jed Bartlet gunning for Guantanamo

Actor Martin Sheen has lent his support for Guantanamo detainee Adel Hamad by appearing in a four minute Youtube video on his behalf. The video entitled "Guantanamo: Waiting for Justice" was produced by the court-appointed attorneys of the Oregon Federal Public Defender's Office as they pursue unlawful detention lawsuits in the federal court on behalf of Hamad and other suspected terrorists held at the Cuban detention centre.

In the video Martin Sheen said Americans must not allow fear to overcome their faith in “the laws and values that have made this country great”. Sheen, who played fictional President Bartlet in TV’s The West Wing, made a discreet reference to his own career when he also said "No one should be detained without a court hearing just on the word of a president. Any president." Also in the video is a letter to President Bush from Hamad's wife, Lana, asking him to reunite her husband with their four children.

Sudanese born Hamad, 48 was handed over to US troops after his arrest in Peshawar, Pakistan, where he says he was working as a hospital administrator. The Pentagon says he is an unlawful "enemy combatant" working with Al Qaeda, although Defence Department officials told his attorneys that he could be sent home once US officials negotiate an agreement with counterparts in Sudan. The deal would see the release of Hamad without the US reversing their decision that he is an enemy combatant and that he could potentially pose a threat to the US and its allies.

Adel Hassan Hamad grew up in a small village in Sudan. He took jobs as a schoolteacher and hospital assistant before emigrating to Afghanistan where he worked at a community hospital. His job involved buying food for the hospital and writing vouchers. He also went to Pakistan where he was responsible for getting relief supplies (food, clothing, blankets) for the Afghan refugees coming across the border. Then late one night he was torn from his bed by Pakistan police. He was handed over the Americans across the border in Afghanistan and would soon become Guantanamo Bay Detainee #940.

The US made three allegations against Hamad. Firstly it claimed the hospital he worked in was run by a charity (World Assembly of Muslim Youth or WAMY) that may support "terrorist ideals". Hamad’s lawyers are asking if this is the case why the US is not targeting WAMY rather than a minor employee. Secondly they claim he may have come into contact with Al-Qaeda or Taliban members during his line of work. His defence have stated this link to be tenuous at best and potentially makes criminals of anyone who may come in contact of terrorists.

Thirdly and most importantly the US claims Hamad is an enemy combatant. However he was not captured on a battlefield, he had a valid passport and work visa and Pakistani intelligence found nothing incriminating at his home. Witnesses who knew him (employer, brother-in-law, colleagues and landlord) all describe Hamad as a moderate family man who was completely apolitical. Pentagon policy prevents the military from discussing the cases of specific detainees.

The pressure is growing to release Hamad and others after David Hicks pleaded guilty last week to material support of terrorism at the first American war-crimes tribunal since World War II. Earlier this week the parents of so-called “American Taliban” John Walker Lindh called on President Bush to commute their son’s 20 year sentence as “a question of proportionality…[and] a question of fairness”.

That fairness remains conspicuously absent on Guantanamo. The Military Commissions Act of 2006 denies basic habeas corpus rights to detainees. The Bush Administration opposes detainee rights partially on the grounds that they are terrorists who deserve no better. They also refuse to face the very real possibility that innocent people have been caught up in the system. However, the military have admitted this possibility. In 2005 Brigadier General Jay Hood, the top American officer in Guantanamo, told the Wall Street Journal in 2005 that the military acknowledged that many prisoners shouldn't have been locked up there in the first place because they weren't dangerous and didn't know anything of value. He concluded “Sometimes, we just didn’t get the right folks.”

Salam Pax Americana

President Bush was caught out last Wednesday after a speech about Iraq to the National Cattlemen's Beef Association. In the speech he claimed things were improving in Iraq and as evidence he pointed out how two anonymous bloggers say the city is safer. According to the transcript of the speech, Bush said "I want to share with you how two Iraqi bloggers -- they have bloggers in Baghdad, just like we've got here -- (laughter) -- Displaced families are returning home, marketplaces are seeing more activity ... We hope the governments of Baghdad and America do not lose their resolve."

His point was that Iraqi people are seeing signs of progress as demonstrated by the positiveness of the blogs. Later that day a White House spokesman deflected questions on the identity of the bloggers, diminishing their importance by referring to their blog as one of "many different inputs." The reason for the deflection became apparent on Thursday. The New York Times reported that the two unnamed bloggers Bush quoted are brothers who met with the president in the Oval Office on 9 December 2004.

As well as brothers, Mohammed and Omar Fadhil are both dentists and they write an English language blog from Baghdad called IraqTheModel.com. The lines that Bush quoted from the blog were from an op-ed the brothers wrote which appeared in The Wall Street Journal on 5 March. The pair vigorously defended their blog saying it contains "both good and bad news — we witness an explosion and we write about it and we see progress and we write about it”. Unsurprisingly traffic to the blog has tripled since the Bush reference making the pair the most famous Iraqi bloggers since Salam Pax.

Bush may have expressed surprise that people are blogging in Baghdad “just like we’ve got here” but clearly he has never heard of Salam Pax. Salam Pax’s blog “Where is Raed?” shot to world attention in 2003 for his entries on life in Baghdad before, during and after the American-led invasion. His diary became the ordinary voice of a nation under attack.

The blog started in September 2002 when a then 29 year old Iraqi calling himself 'Salam Pax' (both words mean "peace" in Arabic and Latin) started posting descriptions of daily life on the internet. He had no idea how influential his diary would become. In some respects it was no different from blogs in the West as Salam described his passion for music and pop culture. In other respects it was vastly different as Salam displayed his fear of death from allied bombs or Saddam's secret police.

But Salam was not a typical young man in Iraq. He was an architecture student from a wealthy Iraqi family. He lived abroad in Vienna and has a Shia mother and a Sunni father. He himself is an atheist and a homosexual, neither well regarded in Islamic Iraq. His anonymous diary became a place where he could express his private feelings. For the world’s media, it was an insider’s view of the biggest story of the 21st century.

As the deadline for the invasion approached, thousands came to his website to check out his unique and honest take of the slide into war and the last days of Saddam’s dictatorship. During the war he gave accounts of bombings in his suburb of Baghdad until his Internet access was interrupted. Pax remained offline for weeks, writing entries on paper to type later. Salam came back online on 5 May 2003 and posted all his handwritten thoughts during the invasion period. His entry for 24 March (four days into the war) reads “Last night’s bombardment was very different from the nights before. It wasn’t only heavier but the sound of the bombs was different. The booms and bangs are much louder… The air raid sirens signalled an attack around 12 and never sounded the all clear signal. Sleep is what you get between being woken up by the rumbles or the time you can take your eyes off the news.”

Salam documented the day-to-day life of the invasion. By the middle of April, Baghdad was in American hands. Later entries discuss the chaotic post-war economy with rampant inflation, gas prices rising ten times and tanks on the street. Telephones and the internet weren’t working so the Iraqis themselves never had a chance to read the diaries. But despite the perils of the invasion, Salam’s accounts remain livelier, closer to the truth and more humorous than anything coming from the mainstream media.

As Salam’s fame grew worldwide, many doubted he was a genuine article. Many suspected he must be an implant, maybe a CIA agent, a Baath Party renegade or someone from Mossad. Eventually a US journalist Peter Maass realised Salam Pax was his Iraqi interpreter. Maass described him as “chubby and cherubic and hip”.

Pax stopped blogging at “Where is Raed?” (Raed Jarrar was a student friend) in August 2004 and started up a new blog called “Shut up you fat whiner” that same month. The new blog remained active until 18 July 2006. Salam Pax was employed by The Guardian to cover the US 2004 election and a year later he produced a series of filmed reports for BBC’s Newsnight. His real name remains a mystery to this day. His famous blogging clearly remains a mystery to the US president.

Remembering McLibel

This coming June sees the 10th anniversary of the legal judgement in the longest trial in British legal history – the McLibel trial. The verdict ended an astonishingly unequal battle between the $US60 billion a year fast food giants McDonalds and two supporters of an independent collective called London Greenpeace. They were Dave Morris, an ex-postman and single parent and Helen Steel, a gardener and part-time bar worker. After a 3 year trial, 130 witnesses and an 800 page ruling, Justice Bell ruled the pair had "exaggerated" some of their claims against the food giants. McDonalds won a pyrrhic legal battle but badly lost the PR war. They were widely deemed corporate bullies, lost millions on the case and British Channel 4 news called it the most expensive and disastrous public relations exercise ever mounted by a multinational company.

London Greenpeace was formed in 1971 as an independent collective active in environmental and social issues. In 1985 it launched a campaign against McDonalds in sympathy with a growing worldwide opposition to the hamburger industry. The roots of the trial date back to a fact sheet produced by London Greenpeace in 1986. The fact sheet brought together arguments around the impact of global trading on the third world, damage to the environment, lack of nutrition, exploitation of children, animal welfare and poor employment conditions. None of these criticisms were new.

Whenever confronted by these allegations, McDonalds' tactics have been to step up their own propaganda and use libel laws to intimidate opponents. In the past they had forced critics such as Channel 4, BBC, the Guardian, the Scottish TUC and the Vegetarian society to apologise or back down. The problem with the libel laws is that the burden of proof is on the defence who must demonstrate every point from primary sources such as official documents or direct witnesses. In most cases it was easier to apologise than to risk a major financial loss.

McDonalds first sent private investigators to infiltrate London Greenpeace meetings and then served libel writs on five members in September 1990. The defendants would not get legal aid and were advised to apologise. Three reluctantly did so. But Steel and Morris refused and decided to mount their own defence. Their argument was that free speech was on trial as was the right of individuals to voice criticisms of powerful business interests.

The task ahead was mammoth. The duo needed to master court procedures, legal jargon and 60,000 pages of documents and technical details. Meanwhile McDonalds hired Richard Rampton QC, one of Britain’s top libel barristers. Mt Justice Bell heard the trial of David v Goliath without jury. McDonalds successfully argued the link between diet and cancer was too complex for a jury to assess. The decision was upheld by the Court of Appeals who refused leave to appeal to the House of Lords.

But Morris and Steel were not dispirited. Instead they hit back with a counterclaim. McDonalds had issued a press release and 300,000 leaflets nationwide calling them liars. The counterclaim put the burden of proof on McDonalds to show that the original leaflet was untrue. The trial began in 1994 after 28 pre-trial hearings. Rampton predicted it would last 3 weeks, instead it went for 3 years. McDonalds alleged every claim in the fact sheet was libellous and defending each claim made the case wide-ranging with over 180 witnesses. The defendants had to prove packaging ended up as litter, advertising works on children and McDonalds pays low pages.

Evidence was completed in July 1996. The parties made closing speeches four months later. By now it was clear that McDonalds and the economic system that served them that was on trial. Company executives were forced to testify under oath and made many damaging admissions. Steel and Morris were encouraged by public donations and commentators such as Auberon Waugh were describing the case as “the best free entertainment in London”.

In 1995, an increasingly desperate McDonalds attempted a secret settlement with the defendants. The defendants wanted McDonalds not to sue anyone again over similar statements, apologise to those they have sued in the past and make a substantial payment to a third-party. McDonalds refused. Meanwhile in court, they went back on an earlier commitment and withheld copies of essential court transcripts to the defendants and the media. The pair was forced to pay the full commercial cost to a transcript company at $US700 a day to continue.

In Justice Bell’s verdict, he ruled substantial parts of the criticism were true based on evidence. McDonalds won the other parts of the judgement based on legal and semantic interpretations of the fact sheet. But the judge still found McDonalds do exploit children, are culpably responsible for animal cruelty and the company pays criminally low wages. The judge ruled McDonalds counterclaim leaflets were defamatory and unjustified and a move to discredit the defendants. But somehow he ruled this was legally permissible as a right to “self-defence” to protect the company from attack. McDonalds claimed damages and costs. The judge awarded 60,000 pounds damages (half of what McDonalds demanded) but failed to award costs despite spending $US 20 million on the case.

McDonalds' efforts to silence opposition had totally backfired. 2 million more of London Greenpeace’s “What’s Wrong with McDonalds” leaflets were handed out in the UK alone. Protests extended to 24 countries. At the conclusion of the trial, the campaigners held an international “Victory Day of Action” outside McDonalds' stores across the world. McDonalds meanwhile refused to comment on the verdict and its US headquarters claimed it was a British issue.

Finally in 2005, Helen Steel and Dave Morris won a case at the European Court of Human Rights. The court ruled they did not receive a fair trial as guaranteed under the Human Rights Convention, because of the lack of legal aid available to libel defendants, and that their freedom of expression was violated by the 1997 judgement. The pair was awarded £24,000 damages, plus costs. Joshua Rozenberg, legal editor of the Daily Telegraph thought the judgement was significant. "I think the government will have to make legal aid available to people accused of libel who can't otherwise defend themselves”, he said.

Little Saddam takes control of Chechnya

Chechnya is gearing up for the controversial inauguration of new Moscow-installed president Ramzan Kadyrov later this week. The 30 year old Kadyrov has planned an ostentatious event with a ceremony involving 1,500 guests, a French pop diva and champagne and caviar at a cost of $US 800,000. Due to fears of an assassination attempt, rehearsals for the event are being held in several locations to keep the venue secret.

Kadyrov spends most of his days in his home village of Tsentoroy because of fear of his enemies in the capital Grozny. Known as “Little Saddam” Kadyrov is a Moscow puppet, installed as president by Vladimir Putin. He was formally elected on 2 March by a vote of the Chechen parliament after the post had been vacant since the resignation of Alu Alkhanov the previous month. But behind the scenes the Kremlin was pulling the strings.

It was Putin who signed the decree removing Alkhanov from the presidency after a power struggle with Kadyrov who was the country’s prime minister. Putin has already awarded Kadyrov the Hero of Russia medal, the country’s highest accolade. Kadyrov would probably have been appointed president earlier but for an inconvenient matter of the constitution which forbade the appointment of a president under 30 years of age. Kadyrov turned 30 in October.

Kadyrov is credited with a reconstruction boom during his term as prime minister. Grozny was destroyed in years of devastating wars but is now being transformed from a mess of rubble and shattered buildings. Kadyrov has built an airport and new roads. Shops are re-appearing in the city in an attempt to seek some semblance of normality. The reconstruction program has helped Russia defeat the rebels but at a cost of entrenching Kadyrov’s sinister grip on power.

Kadyrov runs his own private army known as the Kadyrovsky. The Kadyrovsky consists of thousands of armed former rebels who are personally devoted to Kadyrov. The militia has been linked with a series of kidnappings, torture and murder and are now the most feared group in Chechnya. The American aid group Refugees International has described Chechnyan human rights abuses and war crimes not as aberrations but tactics. In essence the Kadyrovsky terrorises anyone who resists his rule.

Kadyrov is the prime suspect of the October murder of Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya. Politkovskaya was a veteran reporter of Chechnyan affairs and met Kadyrov in his home village in 2004. Politkovskaya make Kadyrov look like a dangerous fool in their interview. When she asked him what kind of law he was studying in, he replied "I can't remember. Someone wrote the topic down for me on a piece of paper, but I've forgotten. There's a lot going on at the moment."

In the last interview she held before she was killed, Politkovskaya raised doubts that Kadyrov would become president. Kadyrov had turned 30 two days earlier and was now eligible for the presidency. She said construction projects were carried out under his “personal control,” and Chechnyan bureaucracy is corrupt from top to bottom. Many suspect Politkovskaya’s murder as an act of revenge by Kadyrov, “whose activities she wrote and spoke much about.”

Ramzan is the son of former Chechnyan leader Akhmad Kadyrov who was assassinated in 2004. Kadyrov the elder was Chechnya’s first pro-Russian leader appointed in 2000. He was a Mufti (religious legal expert) with a separatist past having declared jihad against Russia in 1995. But he fell out with warlord Shamil Basayev who branded him “enemy number 1”. Russia appointed him leader when it regained control at the turn of the century in the Second Chechen War. He won a dubious election in 2003 but was killed a year later a bomb attack on a stadium in Chechnya during a parade to celebrate Russia's WWII victory over Germany. Putin eulogised: "Kadyrov passed away on the day of our national holiday and he passed away undefeated."

The West has been reluctant to push Moscow and its client state in Grozny for fear of upsetting Putin and losing his support in the so-called War on Terror. The NGO Human Rights Watch criticised a White House meeting between President Bush and Russian General Vladimir Shamanov this week. HRW claims Shamanov was responsible for serious rights abuses during the Chechnyan war. A Russian Embassy spokesman refused to discuss Shamanov's record in Chechnya saying “it is a very good journalist trick if someone is doing something worthwhile and you take out - excuse me - dirty clothes."

With the appointment of Kadyrov, Moscow is conducting a celebratory washing of its dirty clothes in front of a bemused and cowed Chechnyan public.