EA's Chris Emery in The Guardian: "Iran Reserves Judgement"

Chris Emery, who writes regularly for Enduring America on US-Iranian relations and Iranian politics, writes in the Comment is Free section of The Guardian on Iran's response to the Obama approach for "engagement". The article, which has already provoked heated debate amongst readers, offers an analysis which goes well beyond the immediate reaction in most of the American and British press:

Iran Reserves Judgement
CHRIS EMERY

The cautious response from Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, to Barack Obama's new year greeting can be interpreted as an effort to contain the debate on US-Iranian engagement at a crucial moment in Iranian politics. Khamenei, after taking a day to contemplate his response, moved to prevent the issue distracting Iran's political leaders. His message to the Iranian political system and America was the same; Iranian domestic and economic politics, including the presidential elections, must now take precedent. For this reason, it is probably unrealistic to expect any major public gestures by Iranian officials until after the June elections.

Read more....

Mr Obama's War? Waiting for the US Strategy on Afghanistan and Pakistan

Related Post: Afghanistan - Former Taliban Ready for Talks with US

So what is the Obama Administration's new approach to American intervention in Afghanistan and Pakistan?

Really. What is it?

Administration officials had set up the media this week for a dramatic re-launch of the US strategy, based on a series of reports for the President. The latest study, headed by Obama campaign advisor and former CIA officer Bruce Riedel, was on Obama's desk on Monday. US envoy Richard Holbrooke was holding forth for the media and briefing NATO members; less publicly, CIA Director Leon Panetta was visiting Pakistan. The President was telling 60 Minutes on Sunday night, "What we're looking for is a comprehensive strategy. And there's gotta be an exit strategy."

This spinning, however, does not add up to a new approach. For Afghanistan, there is still no detail on US troop levels, American non-military programmes, the contributions from Washington's allies. And for Pakistan, which Obama's people are now putting as Number One Crisis, there is no sense of how the expansion of missile strikes and covert operations matches up to a political approach, either towards the "sanctuaries" in the Northwest Frontier Provinces or towards the central Government in Islamabad.

What we have gotten instead from the US is vacuous cheerleading posing as "analysis". Jim Hoagland on The Washington Post wrote a love letter to "Gen. David Petraeus and diplomat Richard Holbrooke [who] are as smart as they come". Even worse, commentators like Jackson Diehl of The Washington Post and David Brooks of The New York Times have been treated to a Grand Tour of US bases in Afghanistan so they can parrot the words of American military commanders, "Over time this will work -- it has worked over and over again through history" (Diehl) and "When you put more boots on the ground, you not only augment your army’s firing power, you give it the capacity to experiment". (Brooks)

This puffery should be set aside for the leaked ideas coming out in British newspapers. The outgoing US ambassador in Afghanistan, William Wood, tells The Observer that "America would be prepared to discuss the establishment of a political party, or even election candidates representing the Taliban, as part of a political strategy that would sit alongside reinforced military efforts". The Times writes of an American approach linking economic aid, a build-up of Afghan security forces and police, and a crack-down on heroin production.

Most striking, sources tell The Guardian, "The US and its European allies are ­preparing to plant a high-profile figure in the heart of the Kabul government in a direct challenge to the Afghan president." Expecting that President Hamid Karzai will win re-election in August, despite its best efforts to build up a rival candidate, the US will insist on a "Chief Executive" or "Prime Minister".

The US strategy on Afghanistan and Pakistan --- really, what is it?

The BBC and the UN Report on Torture: Shhhh, Don't Tell Anyone

Related Post: United Nations: US Tortured, Britain Followed
Related Post: Text - UN Report on Counter-Terrorism, Human Rights, and Torture

An hour ago I wrote about the United Nations report which has condemned the United States for creating a system of rendition, detention, and interrogation which violates basic human rights and allows torture and which has criticised countries such as Britain for their complicity in that system. I concluded that the report might be considered worthy of attention because it "comes from the UN, the international body to which the US and UK belong".

I apologise for my error: British newspapers are picking up on the initial report in The Guardian, but for the BBC, the story does not exist.

I have listened all morning to the Beeb's flagship radio news programme, Today. Not a word: the only reference to "torture" came from the daily religious meditation, "Thought for the Day", in which a Reverend Tom Butler reassured us that the Church no longers torture although there could be a "gray area" over issues like indefinite detention without charge.

The BBC News website is torture-free. So is Sky News, which prefers "Rock Chucking Chimp 'Proves Apes Plan Ahead'". Which, funnily enough, was a story I heard on the Today programme 20 minutes ago.

When a person is tortured by the State, that is not news. But if a person is tortured by a rock-chucking chimpanzee employed by the State....

Text: UN Report on Counter-Terrorism, Human Rights, and Torture

Related Post: United Nations: US Tortured, Britain Followed
Related Post: The BBC and the UN Report on Torture - Shhhh, Don’t Tell Anyone

The full report is available via The Guardian website.

Summary

Following the introduction, chapter I of the present report highlights the key activities of the Special Rapporteur, from 17 December 2007 to 31 December 2008. The main report, contained in chapter II, highlights several concerns of the Special Rapporteur regarding the role of intelligence agencies in the fight against terrorism. Section A stresses the need for a specific and comprehensive legislative framework to regulate the broader powers that have been given to intelligence agencies in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001. The collection and sharing of “signal” intelligence has led to several violations of the right to privacy and the principle of non-discrimination, while “human intelligence” - the gathering of intelligence by means of interpersonal contact - has even led to violations of jus cogens norms such as the prohibition against torture and other inhuman treatment.

Evidence suggests that the lack of oversight and political and legal accountability has facilitated illegal activities by intelligence agencies. This issue is addressed throughout the report, but in section B of chapter II the Special Rapporteur examines in particular the challenges that the increased cooperation between intelligence agencies pose in this context. He clarifies the human rights obligations of States when their intelligence agencies perform joint operations, participate in interrogations and send or receive intelligence for operational use. When unlawful conduct by intelligence agencies occurs, it may have been condoned or even secretly directed by government officials. In this context the Special Rapporteur looks into best practices of different oversight bodies. In section C he emphasizes that domestic State secrecy or public interest immunity clauses cannot discard their positive obligations under human rights law to conduct independent investigations into severe human rights violations and provide the victims of these violations with an effective remedy.

The concluding section makes recommendations to different key actors (intelligence agencies, domestic legislative assemblies, domestic executive powers and the United Nations) in order to improve the accountability of intelligence agencies in the fight against terrorism.

III. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

A. Conclusions

64. The increased powers of intelligence services to conduct measures that seriously interfere with individuals’ rights, as well as the increasing relevance of intelligence for legal and administrative actions, make it essential that adequate accountability mechanisms are put in place to prevent human rights abuses. Under international human rights law, States are under a positive obligation to conduct independent investigations into alleged violations of the right to
life, freedom from torture or other inhuman treatment, enforced disappearances or arbitrary detention, to bring to justice those responsible for such acts, and to provide reparations where they have participated in such violations. States retain this positive obligation to protect human rights where they grant privileges within their national territory to another State, including to intelligence services.

B. Recommendations

For legislative assemblies

65. The Special Rapporteur recommends that any interference with the right to privacy, family, home or correspondence by an intelligence agency should be authorized by provisions of law that are particularly precise, proportionate to the security threat, and offer effective guarantees against abuse. States should ensure that competent authorities apply less intrusive investigation methods than special investigation techniques if such

methods enable a terrorist offence to be detected, prevented or prosecuted with adequate effectiveness. Decision-making authority should be layered so that the greater the invasion of privacy, the higher the level of necessary authorization. Furthermore, in order to safeguard against the arbitrary use of special investigative techniques and violations of human rights, the use of special investigative techniques by the intelligence agencies must be subject to appropriate supervision and review.

66. There should be a domestic legal basis for the storage and use of data by intelligence and security services, which is foreseeable as to its effects and subject to scrutiny in the public interest. The law should also provide for effective controls on how long information may be retained, the use to which it may be put, and who may have access to it, and ensure compliance with international data protection principles in the handling of information. There should be audit processes, which include external independent personnel, to ensure that such rules are adhered to.

67. The Special Rapporteur also recommends the adoption of legislation that clarifies the rights, responsibilities, and liability of private companies in submitting data to government agencies.

68. Parliamentary oversight committees, ad hoc parliamentary inquiry committees, royal commissions, etc. should have far-reaching investigative powers, access to the archives and registers, premises, and installations of the executive and the agency, in order to fulfil their domestic oversight function. These bodies should also be able to proactively investigate the relationship of a domestic agency with a particular State or service, or all exchanges of
information with foreign cooperating services pertaining to a particular case. After their inquiry these bodies should produce simultaneously a confidential report for the executive and a separate report for public disclosure.

69. The Special Rapporteur supports the recommendation of the Eminent Jurist Panel on Counter-Terrorism, Terrorism and Human Rights that intelligence agencies should not perform the functions of law enforcement personnel.80 If, despite the potential for abuse, intelligence services are nonetheless accorded powers of arrest, detention and interrogation, the Special Rapporteur urges that they be under the strict and effective control of ordinary civilian authorities and operate with full respect for international human rights law.

70. Intelligence cooperation must be clearly governed by the law (including human rights safeguards) and by transparent regulations, authorized according to strict routines (with proper “paper trails”) and controlled or supervised by parliamentary or expert bodies.

For the executive power

71. The executive should have effective powers of control, provided for in law, over the intelligence agencies and have adequate information about their actions in order to be able to effectively exercise control over them. The minister responsible for the intelligence and security services should therefore have the right to approve matters of political sensitivity (such as cooperation with agencies from other countries) or undertakings that affect
fundamental rights (such as the approval of special investigative powers, whether or not additional external approval is required from a judge).

72. The Special Rapporteur urges all relevant authorities of countries that have allegedly participated in extraordinary renditions, torture, disappearances, secret detentions or any other serious human rights violation to investigate fully any wrongful acts of intelligence agencies committed on their territory. States must ensure that the victims of such unlawful acts are rehabilitated and compensated. States must also stop transferring anyone to the
custody of the agents of another State, or facilitating such transfers, unless the transfer is carried out under judicial supervision and in line with international standards.

73. The Special Rapporteur recommends that States insert a clause in their intelligence-sharing agreements which makes the application of an agreement by a party subject to scrutiny by its review bodies and which declares that the review bodies of each party are competent to cooperate with one another in assessing the performance of either
or both parties.

For intelligence agencies

74. The Special Rapporteur recommends that classified information may be shared with other intelligence agencies only when it contains a written caveat, which limits the further distribution of such information among other governmental agencies in the receiving State, such as law enforcement and immigration agencies, which have the power to arrest and detain a person. In this regard, the Special Rapporteur advises that sanctions against a
person should not be based on foreign intelligence, unless the affected party can effectively challenge the credibility, accuracy and reliability of the information and there are credible grounds to believe that the information is accurate and reliable.

75. The Special Rapporteur urges Member States to reduce to a minimum the restrictions of transparency founded on concepts of State secrecy and national security. Information and evidence concerning the civil, criminal or political liability of State representatives, including intelligence agents, for violations of human rights must not be

considered worthy of protection as State secrets. If it is not possible to separate such cases from true, legitimate State secrets, appropriate procedures must be put into place ensuring that the culprits are held accountable for their actions while preserving State secrecy.

76. The Special Rapporteur recommends that intelligence agencies develop internal and international training programmes in how to comply with human rights in their operations. Such training should be based on the idea that compliance with human rights is a part of professional qualifications, and a source for professional pride, for any
intelligence officer.

77. A codified regulation should be in place which guarantees appropriate support and security for whistle-blowers within the intelligence agencies.

For the Human Rights Council

78. The Special Rapporteur recommends the elaboration and adoption of an instrument such as guidelines for human rights compliance and best practice by intelligence agencies.

European Union: Israel "Illegal Annexation" of East Jerusalem

From The Guardian of London yesterday:

A confidential EU report accuses the Israeli government of using settlement expansion, house demolitions, discriminatory housing policies and the West Bank barrier as a way of "actively pursuing the illegal annexation" of East Jerusalem.

The document says Israel has accelerated its plans for East Jerusalem, and is undermining the Palestinian Authority's credibility and weakening support for peace talks. "Israel's actions in and around Jerusalem constitute one of the most acute challenges to Israeli-Palestinian peace-making," says the document, EU Heads of Mission Report on East Jerusalem.

The report, obtained by the Guardian, is dated 15 December 2008. It acknowledges Israel's legitimate security concerns in Jerusalem, but adds: "Many of its current illegal actions in and around the city have limited security justifications."

"Israeli 'facts on the ground' - including new settlements, construction of the barrier, discriminatory housing policies, house demolitions, restrictive permit regime and continued closure of Palestinian institutions - increase Jewish Israeli presence in East Jerusalem, weaken the Palestinian community in the city, impede Palestinian urban development and separate East Jerusalem from the rest of the West Bank," the report says....

The EU report goes further, saying that the demolitions are "illegal under international law, serve no obvious purpose, have severe humanitarian effects, and fuel bitterness and extremism." The EU raised its concern in a formal diplomatic representation on December 1, it says.