Global Police

Interpol, the global police organization, said Monday it will provide enhanced technical and advisory support to the United Nations in the world body's peacekeeping missions worldwide.
Interpol director of legal affairs Joel Sollier told reporters in Singapore that his organisation "will provide advice and consulting services in the area of policing during peacekeeping operations." He said Interpol's support will include field information to police officers as well as assistance in areas such as investigation techniques.

"Interpol is not going to send troops out into the field here and there throughout the world," Sollier said on the sidelines of Interpol's 78th general assembly that began Monday in Singapore.

"What Interpol is going to do is provide technical assistance, technical support. It will provide advice and consulting services in the area of policing during peacekeeping operations."

About 64 foreign, justice and home affairs ministers from around the world endorsed a declaration committing Interpol to help the UN strengthen the role of police forces in peacekeeping and rebuilding operations in countries recovering from conflict.

The ministers were among 800 delegates from 187 member countries attending the general assembly which ends Thursday.

UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations police adviser Andrew Hughes said Interpol's help is important because rebuilding efforts are often complicated by trans-national crime syndicates keen to exploit the situation.

"On every front, whether it's capacity building, interim law enforcement or close operations support, we need the help of Interpol... we need all of the technical expertise that Interpol can bring to the equation," Hughes said.

The number of police forces involved in UN peacekeeping operations are expected to increase to 15,000 in the next two months from 6,000 in 2005, UN officials said.

Government officials in recent years have recognised the crucial role of police forces to complement soldiers in peacekeeping and peace-building missions, UN and Interpol officials said.

For example, countries recovering from conflicts need police expertise in managing border movements and in having access to secure international police communications and global databases, they said.

Copyright AFP 2008, AFP stories and photos shall not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium (Read more inside ..)

The Causes, Aftermath and Lessons of 9/11.

Anthony Gregory of the Campaign for Liberty. And here is the rest of it. (Read more inside ..)

Four Soldiers Die in Afghanistan for Sake of 150 Votes

From The Times
August 27, 2009
Michael Evans, Defence Editor

Just 150 Afghan voters dared to go to the ballot box in the area of Helmand province where British soldiers sacrificed their lives to secure a safe election day, it was revealed yesterday.

The figures were released as the British Ambassador to Kabul admitted that troops could be engaged in combat in Afghanistan for five more years.The Electoral Commission in Kabul said that early estimates of voting in the former Taleban stronghold of Babaji, north of Lashkar Gah, the provincial capital, indicated that few exercised their right to vote last Thursday. Several thousand people could have voted.

Four of the ten troops who died in Operation Panther’s Claw, the five-week offensive to drive the Taleban out of central Helmand before the presidential election, were killed in or around Babaji.

The ambassador, Mark Sedwill, did not deny the low vote count in Babaji, although he said that it was too early to be sure. He said: “Panther’s Claw, although timed to try to improve security for people to move around for the election, was not specifically itself about the election.”

However, the publicly stated aim of Panther’s Claw before it was launched on June 19 was to make the highly populated area between Lashkar Gah, Babaji and Gereshk safe for 80,000 Afghans to go to the polls without being intimidated by the Taleban.

Defence officials said that, if confirmed, the voting figures for Babaji would be “very disappointing”.

Mr Sedwill said that there was some anecdotal evidence that people from outlying areas travelled into more secure areas such as Lashkar Gah to vote “because they felt more confident in doing so”.

Speaking via video link from Kabul to a briefing at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, he said that turnout was expected to be lower than the last presidential election and that he accepted that Taleban intimidation had an impact.

Air Vice-Marshal Andy Pulford, Assistant Chief of the Defence Staff (Operations), insisted that whether the voter turnout was low or not British troops had made dramatic progress in Panther’s Claw. “British Forces know exactly what they fought for,” he said. “They have seen with their own eyes the improved quality of life that security now enjoyed by thousands of Afghans in Babaji has delivered.”

Nick Harvey, the Liberal Democrat defence spokesman, said: “If it’s as pathetically small as that [150 in Babaji] then one of the stated objectives [of Panther’s Claw] has not been met.”

Mr Sedwill’s prediction that the campaign could last another five years appeared to clash with the views of Bob Ainsworth, the Defence Secretary, who said ten days ago that the troops could begin to step back from the front line within “a year or so”, to be replaced by Afghan units.

The ambassador indicated that it would be between three and five years before Afghan soldiers were trained and ready to take over the security role in Helmand.

In the three years that British troops have been fighting the Taleban in Helmand, 202 members of the Armed Forces have died and about 800 have been injured in battle, 235 of them “very seriously” or “seriously”.

Mr Sedwill warned that even after the combat mission was complete troops would still be involved in dangerous tasks for many more years. (Read more inside ..)

"Iraq Security Forces Collaborated with Bombers"

Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari on Saturday alleged there had been collaboration between Iraqi security forces and the insurgents whose massive truck bombings killed 95 people three days ago. Zebari, whose ministry lost 32 workers in the blast at its headquarters, admitted the attacks were a serious security setback and that the government had failed to protect its citizens. Wednesday's bombings at the ministeries of foreign affairs and finance culminated in the worst day of violence seen in the conflict-hit country in 18 months, with around 600 people also wounded.

"How could this truck pass unless there is collaboration?" Zebari told reporters in Baghdad.

"There was collaboration between security forces and the terrorist group to facilitate the passing of this truck through such a sensitive area."

Zebari said Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki had ordered the arrest of 11 senior security officers on Thursday so they could be questioned on how a four-tonne truck had entered an area where even two-tonne vehicles were barred.

He also made the first official admission that the blasts signalled that security gains made in the past year were under serious strain following a series of deadly attacks in recent months.

"They have been moving their attacks... now they have focused on their main concern, their main attention, on Baghdad and this is a dangerous and a serious development and a security setback," said Zebari.

"This has been going on for the last two months. Every week, every two weeks we see a wave of these bombings and killings of innocent people."

Premier Maliki said after Wednesday's bombings that the attacks were "a desperate attempt to derail the political process and affect the parliamentary elections," planned for January 2010.

But Zebari went further and called for a re-appraisal of the country's entire security apparatus as it was not, he said, obtaining sufficient intelligence to counter the enemy threat.

"The Iraqi government and security forces are doing their best but our enemy is mobile so we know how hard it is," he said.

"Sometimes you can't fight these people with checkpoints. You should be mobile. You should go after them you, disrupt and penetrate their network to get human information. This is the key," he added.

Copyright AFP 2008, AFP stories and photos shall not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium (Read more inside ..)

ID Cards for 1.1 Billion Citizens

Project leader: Nandan Nilekani has been chosen to lead the ambitious project
India is planning to provide its 1.1 billion-plus citizens with ID cards.

Entrepreneur, Nandan Nilekani has been chosen to lead the ambitious project which will be the second largest citizens' database in a democracy, with China being the biggest.The government believes the scheme, which will be finalised over three years, will aid the delivery of vital social services to the poorest people who often lack sufficient identification papers.

It also sees the scheme as a way to tackle increasing amounts of identity fraud and theft and, at a time of increased concern over the threat of militant violence, to boost national security and help police and law officials.

Like Britain's £5billion ID cards plan, due to roll out in 2011/12, India's scheme is not without controversy.

Observers have raised questions including how the cards will actually improve the delivery of services and also concerns that the scheme could be disruptive.

In an interview in The Independent today associate fellow of the Asia programme at Chatham House, Charu Lata Hogg, said: 'It cannot be denied that the system of proving identity in India is complicated and confusing.

'But a system of national ID cards can technically introduce a new route to citizenship.

'This could be used as a security measure by the government which leaves migrant workers, refugees and other stateless people in India in limbo without access to public services, employment and basic welfare.' (Read more inside ..)

"Fight Them Over There Vs. Over Here" a False Choice

Ron Paul
The Washington Times

There is no area in which Republicans have further strayed from our traditions than in foreign affairs.

Generations of conservatives followed the great advice of our Founding Fathers and pursued a restrained foreign policy that rebuffed entangling alliances and advised America, in the words of John Quincy Adams, not to "go abroad looking for dragons to slay."

Sen. Robert Taft, the stalwart of the Old Right, urged America to stay out of NATO. Dwight Eisenhower was elected on a platform promising to get us out of the conflict in Korea. Richard Nixon promised to end the war in Vietnam.There is no area in which Republicans have further strayed from our traditions than in foreign affairs.

Generations of conservatives followed the great advice of our Founding Fathers and pursued a restrained foreign policy that rebuffed entangling alliances and advised America, in the words of John Quincy Adams, not to "go abroad looking for dragons to slay."

Sen. Robert Taft, the stalwart of the Old Right, urged America to stay out of NATO. Dwight Eisenhower was elected on a platform promising to get us out of the conflict in Korea. Richard Nixon promised to end the war in Vietnam.

Republicans were highly critical of Bill Clinton for his adventurism in Somalia and Kosovo. As recently as 2000, George W. Bush campaigned on a "humbler" foreign policy and decried nation-building.

But our foreign policy today looks starkly different.

Neoconservatives who have come to power in both the Democratic and Republican parties argue that the U.S. must ether confront every evil in every corner of the globe or risk danger at home. We need to "fight them over there" they say, so we don't have to "fight them over here." This argument presents a false choice. We do not have to pick between interventionism and vulnerability. The complexity of our world is exactly why the lessons of our past should ring true and demand a return to a traditional, pro-American foreign policy: one of nonintervention.

Moving forward, I suggest that we as Americans adhere to these five principles:

1. We do not abdicate American sovereignty to global institutions. The purpose of the United States is to protect the liberty of the American people. We should never allow the WTO, NAFTA, the U.N. or the Law of the Sea Treaty to transfer power from America to an international body.

2. We provide a strong national defense, but we do not police the world. America should be armed with defensive weapons capable of repelling any attack. We should spend all appropriate money to make sure that no country in world can credibly threaten us.

Unfortunately, our foreign policy is undermining our security. We have more than 700 military installations in 135 countries around the globe. We have 50,000 troops in Germany, 30,000 in Japan, and 25,000 in South Korea. Worse, we have our brave men and women bogged down occupying Iraq and Afghanistan in the midst of ethnic strife and civil war.

We spend more than $1 trillion per year on our foreign policy, and our military is stretched thin. We can no longer afford to be the world's policeman. We must bring our troops home from around the world, cut overseas spending and strengthen our national defense.

3. We obey the Constitution and follow the rule of law. The Constitution clearly states that only Congress can declare war. Congress abandoned that responsibility during the buildup to the Iraq war and must never make that mistake again. When wars are undeclared, they drag on with no clear plan or exit strategy. If we must fight, we should do so with overwhelming force, win as quickly as possible and promptly withdraw.

4. We do not engage in nation-building. Conservatives know government is a poor tool to solve problems. It then makes no sense that we would think that our government could build civil societies and solve the tremendously complex problems of a developing country. Nation-building does not work. It places a tremendous burden on our military and takes directly from the pockets of the American taxpayer. The best thing we as Americans can do is offer friendship while setting a good example of what a free and prosperous society looks like. Ronald Reagan wanted America to be a "shining city on the hill." We should make that our goal.

5. We stay out of the internal affairs of other nations. America should conduct trade, travel and diplomacy with all willing nations. Intervention, however, always has unintended consequences and almost always gets us in trouble. For example, in 1953, our CIA helped overthrow Mohammad Mosaddeq, the democratically elected prime minister of Iran and installed the Shah of Iran, a ruthless dictator. The blowback from our actions was in large part responsible for the extremist Iranian Revolution of 1979, the taking of our hostages and the many problems we have had with Iran ever since. So much of our intervention makes no sense. We backed Saddam Hussein for much of the 1980s, and then twice went to war against him. In the 1990s, we bribed North Korea not to pursue atomic weapons with nuclear technology, and Kim Jong-il used that assistance to build several nuclear bombs.

Intervention simply does not serve our long-term interests.

The world is a dangerous place and we should be concerned, but intervention and militarism cannot solve our problems. The answers to our foreign policy problems lie in defending our soil, scaling back our global military footprint and trading with all willing partners. We have strayed far from this philosophy, but we can get back on track by looking to our Constitution, our traditions and the example of our Founding Fathers.

Ron Paul, a Pittsburgh-born obstetrician and Republican House member from Texas, campaigned for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination on a limited-government platform.. (Read more inside ..)

The "Coup" in Hondorus Was a Good Thing

Military disregards orders from a power hungry President looking to disregard the Constitution.

Honduras Defends Its Democracy
Fidel Castro and Hillary Clinton object.
By MARY ANASTASIA O'GRADY


Hugo Chávez's coalition-building efforts suffered a setback yesterday when the Honduran military sent its president packing for abusing the nation's constitution.

It seems that President Mel Zelaya miscalculated when he tried to emulate the success of his good friend Hugo in reshaping the Honduran Constitution to his liking.But Honduras is not out of the Venezuelan woods yet. Yesterday the Central American country was being pressured to restore the authoritarian Mr. Zelaya by the likes of Fidel Castro, Daniel Ortega, Hillary Clinton and, of course, Hugo himself. The Organization of American States, having ignored Mr. Zelaya's abuses, also wants him back in power. It will be a miracle if Honduran patriots can hold their ground.

That Mr. Zelaya acted as if he were above the law, there is no doubt. While Honduran law allows for a constitutional rewrite, the power to open that door does not lie with the president. A constituent assembly can only be called through a national referendum approved by its Congress.

But Mr. Zelaya declared the vote on his own and had Mr. Chávez ship him the necessary ballots from Venezuela. The Supreme Court ruled his referendum unconstitutional, and it instructed the military not to carry out the logistics of the vote as it normally would do.

The top military commander, Gen. Romeo Vásquez Velásquez, told the president that he would have to comply. Mr. Zelaya promptly fired him. The Supreme Court ordered him reinstated. Mr. Zelaya refused.

Calculating that some critical mass of Hondurans would take his side, the president decided he would run the referendum himself. So on Thursday he led a mob that broke into the military installation where the ballots from Venezuela were being stored and then had his supporters distribute them in defiance of the Supreme Court's order.

The attorney general had already made clear that the referendum was illegal, and he further announced that he would prosecute anyone involved in carrying it out. Yesterday, Mr. Zelaya was arrested by the military and is now in exile in Costa Rica.

It remains to be seen what Mr. Zelaya's next move will be. It's not surprising that chavistas throughout the region are claiming that he was victim of a military coup. They want to hide the fact that the military was acting on a court order to defend the rule of law and the constitution, and that the Congress asserted itself for that purpose, too.

Mrs. Clinton has piled on as well. Yesterday she accused Honduras of violating "the precepts of the Interamerican Democratic Charter" and said it "should be condemned by all." Fidel Castro did just that. Mr. Chávez pledged to overthrow the new government.

Honduras is fighting back by strictly following the constitution. The Honduran Congress met in emergency session yesterday and designated its president as the interim executive as stipulated in Honduran law. It also said that presidential elections set for November will go forward. The Supreme Court later said that the military acted on its orders. It also said that when Mr. Zelaya realized that he was going to be prosecuted for his illegal behavior, he agreed to an offer to resign in exchange for safe passage out of the country. Mr. Zelaya denies it.

Many Hondurans are going to be celebrating Mr. Zelaya's foreign excursion. Street protests against his heavy-handed tactics had already begun last week. On Friday a large number of military reservists took their turn. "We won't go backwards," one sign said. "We want to live in peace, freedom and development."

Besides opposition from the Congress, the Supreme Court, the electoral tribunal and the attorney general, the president had also become persona non grata with the Catholic Church and numerous evangelical church leaders. On Thursday evening his own party in Congress sponsored a resolution to investigate whether he is mentally unfit to remain in office.

For Hondurans who still remember military dictatorship, Mr. Zelaya also has another strike against him: He keeps rotten company. Earlier this month he hosted an OAS general assembly and led the effort, along side OAS Secretary General José Miguel Insulza, to bring Cuba back into the supposedly democratic organization.

The OAS response is no surprise. Former Argentine Ambassador to the U.N. Emilio Cárdenas told me on Saturday that he was concerned that "the OAS under Insulza has not taken seriously the so-called 'democratic charter.' It seems to believe that only military 'coups' can challenge democracy. The truth is that democracy can be challenged from within, as the experiences of Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua, and now Honduras, prove." A less-kind interpretation of Mr. Insulza's judgment is that he doesn't mind the Chávez-style coup.

The struggle against chavismo has never been about left-right politics. It is about defending the independence of institutions that keep presidents from becoming dictators. This crisis clearly delineates the problem. In failing to come to the aid of checks and balances, Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Insulza expose their true colors.

Write to O'Grady@wsj.com

Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A12
(Read more inside ..)

United States to Fund Somali Weapons Program

The Associated Press
WASHINGTON - The Obama administration has decided to bolster efforts to support Somalia's embattled government, U.S. officials say, by providing money for weapons and helping the military in neighboring Djibouti train Somali forces.

The goal is to stem insurgent advances in the Horn of Africa. But the plan would commit the U.S. to a greater embrace of a shaky government atop one of the world's most chaotic states.An administration review of U.S. policy toward Somalia found an urgent need to supply the Somali government with ammunition and weapons as it struggles to confront increasingly powerful Islamic militants.

Officials said the U.S. would not conduct the training and that the U.S. military would not be in Somalia. The U.S. would provide logistical support for the training, and provide arms to the Somalis.

Several U.S. officials spoke about the emerging plan on condition of anonymity because the details have not yet been finalized.

Alarmed by terrorists' gains in Somalia, the administration decided it needed to do more to support Somalia's transitional federal government, officials said. They said the U.S. has agreed to reimburse other African nations, primarily Uganda, that will transfer small arms and ammunition to Somalia. To date, officials said, only ammunition has been shipped.

Somalia's violent insurgency has spilled over onto U.S. soil, raising the fear that a failed state there could affect U.S. security. Young Somali-American men have disappeared from the Minneapolis region and are believed to have traveled to Somalia to fight with al-Shabab militants. One strapped on explosives last fall in a coordinated attack in Somalia, becoming the first U.S. citizen to act as a suicide bomber.

U.S. counterterrorism officials say it is a disturbing pattern, one that mirrors al-Qaida methods and could spawn homegrown insurgents and suicide bombers in the U.S.

'The Youth' gaining ground
Al-Shabab, a terrorist organization whose name means "the Youth," has been gaining ground as Somalia's Western-backed government crumbles. The group's goal is to establish an Islamic state in Somalia.

Somalia's government controls only a few blocks of the capital, comes under regular attack from the militants and depends on thousands of African Union troops to protect important government installations.

Sheik Sharif Sheik Amed, a moderate Islamist, was elected president in January in hopes that he could unite the country's feuding factions, but the violence has continued.

The U.S. meanwhile, has acted to increase its involvement in Africa. A new Africa Command within the Defense Department helps coordinate aid across the continent, with a particular emphasis on the ungoverned territories in the north and east where Islamic extremists are working to gain a foothold.

Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31549172/ns/world_news-africa/


MSN Privacy . Legal
© 2009 MSNBC.com (Read more inside ..)

Iran's Mousavi May Not Be Great as Advertised

He may yet turn out to be the avatar of Iranian democracy, but three decades ago Mir-Hossein Mousavi was waging a terrorist war on the United States that included bloody attacks on the U.S. embassy and Marine Corps barracks in Beirut.
Read the full story at CQ Politics by clicking here (Read more inside ..)