{jcomments on}OMAR, AGNEWS, BXL, le 03 juin 2010 – AFP- June 03, 2010–South African President Jacob Zuma, in India on his first state visit to Asia since taking office, was due to meet business leaders Thursday in Mumbai in a bid to boost trade ties.
BURUNDI :
Party wants Burundi vote annulled
2010-06-03/ SAPA
Bujumbura – Another party in Burundi has called for recent local polls to be annulled over rigging allegations, but is hesitating whether to pull out of the upcoming presidential election.
“Fraud and irregularities have been committed throughout the country on a large scale,” Burundi’s main Tutsi party, the Union for National Progress (Uprona), said about the May 24 elections.
However, the party would not follow five others in quitting the June 28 presidential elections “for the moment”, as it awaits a decision from the electoral commission in Bujumbura, Uprona’s leader Bonaventure Niyoyankana said.
The opposition party said the local elections had been marred by a campaign of intimidation and threats, proxy voting, the use of non-permanent ink, and failure to double count ballot papers.
Uprona asked the electoral commission to annul the local elections, and it also appealed to the international community for help ensuring that new elections would be organised in conditions of “transparency and legality”.
The National Council for the Defence of Democracy-Forces for the Defence of Democracy (CNDD-FDD) led by President Pierre Nkurunziza won the local elections with 64 percent of the vote.
The main opposition parties denounced “massive rigging by the ruling party” and called for the vote to be annulled.
The local polls were the first stage in a four-month electoral marathon crucial for this small central African country struggling to emerge from more than a decade of civil war between Hutus and Tutsis.
On Tuesday, five challengers to the president in the upcoming elections pulled out of the race, but the ruling party dismissed them as bad losers.
Among the five previously declared candidates who officially withdrew their bids from the electoral commission was Agathon Rwasa, leader of the former rebel National Liberation Forces (FNL) and Nkurunziza’s main rival.
Just two candidates now remain: Nkurunziza, a Hutu, and Uprona’s vice-president Yves Sahinguvu a Tutsi.
“We are waiting for the electoral commission’s answer to our request for the local elections to be annulled to decide whether we will continue or not in the presidential elections,” Niyoyankana said.
Burundi’s Opposition Alleges Election Fraud
Apollinaire Niyirora/(IPS) /Jun 3
BUJUMBURA, Jun 2 (IPS) – The first in a series of elections has brought simmering discontent with Burundi’s electoral commission to the boil.
Just over a week after the May 24 communal elections, five opposition presidential candidates have demanded the resignation of members of the National Electoral Commission and announced that they will boycott the presidential poll scheduled for Jun. 28
The five candidates have condemned what they say was massive fraud in the elections for local councillors. Results published on May 28 showed a massive victory for the ruling National Council for the Defence of Democracy-Forces for the Defence of Democracy (known by its French acronym, CNDD-FDD).
Léonard Nyangoma, spokesman for 13 opposition parties and head of the National Council for the Defence of Demorcacy (the CNDD is a former rebel group, not to be confused with the ruling CNDD-FDD), told IPS that the communal elections did not meet international standards.
“There were numerous violations of the Electoral Code that we cannot accept. That is why we would like the nomination of a new Electoral Commission,” said Nyangoma.
Nyangoma said the ballot booths were much smaller than during the 2005 poll, the screens too low to prevent election monitors from seeing which party a voter chose. He said ruling party activists were watching voters, frightening them out of voting against the ruling party in some polling stations.
Responding, electoral commission spokesman Prosper Ntahorwamiye said the booths were smaller “to prevent voters from taking to their homes ballot papers which they did not put in the white envelope.”
Burundi’s voting procedure is an unusual one: in the communal elections, each voter is given 24 ballots – each bearing the name and symbol of a different party – and two envelopes. In the polling booth, the voter puts her chosen ballot paper in the white envelope, and the rest into the black one. Exiting the booth, voters then put the white envelope with their chosen ballot paper into one box for votes cast, and the black envelope into another box, before having their thumb marked with indelible ink so they can’t vote again.
“The number of black envelopes containing useless ballot papers (at any given polling station) have to match with the number of white envelopes and this is to avoid cheating,” said Ntahorwamiye.
This unusual voting system – which almost seems designed to leave tempting boxes full of valid but unused ballot papers lying about – was unsuccessfully challenged by the opposition.
Continuing through the opposition’s list of grievances, Nyangoma said that despite specific provisions in the Electoral Code, delegates from each party to monitor polling stations were not given anything to eat or drink. He said that monitors could not stay at their stations unsupported for 36 hours, and their necessary absence created the chance to rig the vote.
The Electoral Code states that stations open at 6 am, and close at 4 pm unless voters are still arriving, in which case they can stay open until 6 pm. But the opposition says many polling stations throughout the country were still open up to midnight.
“Most opposition monitors could not wait until the closing of polling stations because they were hungry,” Nyangoma said. “They had to go home because at most polling stations, the election ended late, and counting (then) had to be carried out immediately that night.”
Further, Nyangoma says the ballot boxes at the counting stage were not the same as the ones at the polling stations earlier.
“There is evidence that the ballot boxes in which voters cast their ballots are not the ones used during vote counting. There were parallel ballot boxes which had initially been prepared to allow the ruling party to win; the evidence is that hidden ballot boxes are being discovered here and there.”
Patrice Nimpagaritse, a young member of another opposition party, the Movement for Solidarity and Democracy (MSD), said he found seven ballot boxes full of sealed envelopes on May 29 in the Kinama slum in Bujumbura.
“Vehicles from the Electoral Commission were coming to pick them up, but we prevented them from embarking them since we suspected fraud after we realised ballot boxes had in them sealed envelopes containing ballot papers”, said Patrice Nimpagaritse.
Tension ensued and the head of Kinama urban Commune, Emile Ndayarinze told local media that the slum was sealed off by police for four hours to control the situation.
The alleged discovery of these boxes – about 30 were found in various parts of the country – fuelled opposition fears of malpractice. The boxes contained both white and black envelopes. The opposition charges that with the departure of the opposition’s electoral monitors – and under cover of a convenient power cut – the boxes containing the actual votes were quickly hidden and replaced with boxes already stuffed with votes for the ruling party and a few ballots for the opposition to provide a semblance of credibility.
“Such ballot boxes have been discovered in the provinces of Makamba, Gitega, Muyinga and in the Municipality of Bujumbura and had been hidden in people’s homes or in schools which did not serve as polling stations,” said Nyangoma.
Electoral Commission spokesman Ntahorwa
miye offered explanations for each accusation. Polling stations remained open late in order to compensate for election day hitches.
“The Polling stations which were still open beyond 6 pm were not many. They were specifically in Gitega Province and a few other polling stations in Kirundo and Muyinga provinces where very few ballot papers had been sent,” he said. Ballot papers had to be brought from nearby polling stations after they closed.
Ntahorwamiye said there were simply no funds for electoral monitors. “We had informed leaders of political parties that we [the Electoral Commission] did not have money allocated to them [electoral monitors].”
The announcement by the five candidates threatens the successful conduct of elections that are widely seen as a test of Burundi’s peace. The last rebel group only laid down arms in 2009 after civil conflict that broke out in 1993.
The May 24 communal elections marked the begining of a four-month electoral period.
Next on the schedule is the presidential election due on June 28, which will be followed by the election of members of parliament on Jul. 23. On Jul. 28, elections to the Senate will be held and on Sep. 7, elections at the village level will be held.
(END/2010)
RWANDA
Claim of suicide attempt in Rwanda is disputed
A source close to William Mitchell law Prof. Peter Erlinder said poor conditions in his cell might have triggered an illness.
By RANDY FURST, KEVIN DIAZ and PAUL WALSH, Star Tribune staff writers / June 3, 2010
The overseas ordeal of Peter Erlinder took another bizarre turn on Wednesday when Rwandan police claimed that the St. Paul law professor attempted suicide in his jail cell and made a confession, while a source close to Erlinder in Rwanda said it was not true.
“It is complete poppycock,” said the source in a telephone interview from Rwanda.
Erlinder was arrested Friday on allegations that he has denied the 1994 Rwanda genocide. He had traveled to the African nation to represent opposition presidential candidate Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza, who herself has been charged with promoting “genocide ideology.”
The fast-changing developments on Wednesday had colleagues and relatives in the United States shaking their heads and arguing that Rwandan authorities were lying in an attempt to railroad Erlinder.
His daughter, Arizona attorney Sarah Erlinder, said the family does not believe her father tried to take his life. “I have no idea what the truth is,” she said, moments after meeting Washington staffers of Rep. Betty McCollum, D-Minn., who have tried to contact the Rwandan Embassy in the United States. “Knowing him, none of us believe that he would try to kill himself. It’s not him.”
Gena Berglund, Erlinder’s legal assistant, said Erlinder has never been suicidal. “He is a very strong, optimistic person,” she said.
Sarah Erlinder said her father, a professor at William Mitchell College of Law, carried medication for high-blood pressure and cholesterol, but that it may have been running low. Asked if he might have taken a non-lethal overdose to get out of jail and into medical treatment, she said, “It’s definitely possible … but we just don’t have any good information.”
Whatever happened, she said, the incident “makes us more concerned for his safety. It seems to be getting more critical by the day.”
U.S. Embassy officials visited Erlinder on Wednesday and said they remain in close contact with him while he’s in the hospital and in police custody. But a State Department spokesman said he couldn’t disclose any information about Erlinder’s hospitalization because of medical confidentiality.
Also Wednesday, Paul Rusesabagina, whose story was made famous in the movie “Hotel Rwanda,” issued a statement calling for Erlinder’s release. “Professor Peter Erlinder was in Rwanda doing his job as a lawyer,” he said. “In a civil society, that is not grounds for arrest.”
Rwandan police said they found Erlinder slumped over in his jail cell on Wednesday morning. The police said he had swallowed 45 to 50 pills and told them he was attempting suicide. Authorities said they intervened before the pills could take effect and took Erlinder to a hospital.
But the source in Rwanda described Erlinder’s condition as “fine,” adding: “He is healthy … it is clear that he did not make a suicide attempt.” The source said Erlinder was taken to the hospital because he was feeling ill, perhaps from abysmal jail conditions. “He has a foam mattress on a dirty floor with no pillow and one sheet and no mosquito net.”
Erlinder was interrogated further by police Tuesday, and told them he’d committed no crimes, the source said. He told them, however, that if anything he said had violated the law, he would “revoke” the statement. The source said police wrongly took this to be a confession. Instead, the source said, throughout the interrogation, Erlinder’s reaction to allegations he committed a crime were “denial, denial, denial.”
Erlinder is not denying that mass killings occurred in Rwanda, says Bruce Nestor, a Minneapolis attorney and friend. But he has asserted the current Rwandan President Paul Kagame is complicitous in the slaughter.
Despite pressure from Erlinder’s family and associates, State Department officials declined to call for his release or question the circumstances of his incarceration or medical treatment. Instead, they said they “expect the Rwandan authorities will accord Mr. Erlinder due process in a timely and transparent manner.”
The State Department statement added: “We expect the Rwandan authorities to continue to take Mr. Erlinder’s health into consideration.”
Erlinder’s backers say this falls far short of the diplomatic pressure that could be exerted by the U.S. government, a close ally that provides hundreds of millions of dollars in annual foreign aid to Rwanda.
“The U.S. State Department could stop this in 30 seconds,” said Daniel Mayfield, a defense attorney who served on the board of the National Lawyers Guild with Erlinder. “One phone call … “
Randy Furst • 612-673-7382 Kevin Diaz • 202-408-2753 Staff writer Paul Walsh contributed to this report.
Yankees help women who survived 1994 Rwandan Genocide
By The Associated Press (CP(Canadian Press ))/03062010
NEW YORK, N.Y. — Women who survived the 1994 Rwandan genocide are getting a helping hand from the New York Yankees.
Assistant general manager Jean Afterman and Mindy Franklin Levine, wife of Yankees president Randy Levine, have joined with Same Sky, a fair-trade company that helps lift women out of poverty by giving them the tools to become self-sufficient entrepreneurs.
Same Sky’s first project is with female artisans from Rwanda who are HIV positive. Through Same Sky’s trade-not-aid initiative, the women crocheted bracelets out of hand-blown glass beads. The bracelets are for sale online and at retail outlets in several cities.
“We wanted to help the women who were not only left with the scars of losing their families, but who had also contracted HIV from being raped,” Same Sky founder Francine LeFrak said. “We asked them if they wanted aid or trade, and they said, ‘Please give us trade. Please give us an opportunity to have dignity. And give us an opportunity to have a hand up instead of a hand out.’ That’s what we did.”
The Yankees held an event attended by Agnes Gasana, wife of Rwanda’s U.N. Ambassador Eugene-Richard Gasana, honouring the women during New York’s game against the Baltimore Orioles on Wednesday.
In just several month during 1994, 800,000 Rwandans were slaughtered in an ethnic genocide.
Rwanda tourism receipts improve
www.eturbonews.com/By Wolfgang H. Thome, eTN / Jun 03, 2010
Ahead of the annual celebrations of the gorilla naming “Kwita Izina” later this week, figures have been released by the Rwanda Development Board-Tourism and Conservation, speaking of a 5 percent increase in revenues during the first quarter of 2010 compared to last year of 2009.
The improved figures are attributed to sustained marketing of Rwanda as a destination and the introduction of new products for the tourism industry on one side and the added visitors coming to the “land of a thousand hills” for conferences and meetings, now that new facilities are available for MICE organizers.
Leisure visitors to Rwanda compared to last year went up by about 25 percent, while overall arrivals increased by 8 percent for the first quarter of 2010. Sources from Kigali generally felt that 2010 could become another record setting year.
UGANDA
TANZANIA:
CONGO RDC :
KENYA :
ANGOLA :
Atlas Air to offer charters to Angola
The Associated Press/ June 3, 2010
PURCHASE, N.Y.
Cargo carrier Atlas Air said Wednesday it was offering charter passenger air service between the U.S. energy capital of Houston and oil-rich Angola.
The company, a unit of Atlas Air Worldwide Holdings Inc., said the flights were made possible by a deal with Angola’s SonAir-Servico Aereo SA. SonAir’s parent company will provide the planes.
Atlas said that beginning this week, the service would operate three weekly nonstop flights between Houston’s Bush Intercontinental Airport and Luanda, Angola. The flights will be conducted for the United States-Africa Energy Association and won’t be available to the public.
Atlas shares rose $2.95, or 5.9 percent, to $52.89 in afternoon trading.
SOUTH AFRICA:
South Africa: Businessmen Tackle Nontariff Barriers on Zuma Visit to India
Alistair Anderson/Businessday/allafrica.com/3 June 2010
Johannesburg — A LARGE business delegation has accompanied President Jacob Zuma to Mumbai in a bid to improve SA’s economic partnership with India.
Led by the newly elected president of Business Unity SA, Futhi Mtoba, the group arrived yesterday and met Indian business leaders to discuss how to share business opportunities. The delegation represents more than 200 companies in banking, financial services, pharmaceuticals and other industries.
Large South African companies such as SABMiller, FirstRand , Old Mutual and Sanlam met with Indian firms, including Tata, Reliance, Mahindra & Mahindra, Kirloskar and Dr Reddy’s Pharmaceuticals, and discussed how they could each take advantage of their counterparts’ domestic market.
Dawie Roodt, an economist with Efficient Group, said it was in SA’s interest to find business opportunities in India’s recently announced five-year 800bn infrastructure investment.
Business Unity SA CEO Jerry Vilakazi said companies were already signing business deals and that Business Unity SA would brief the government on this and the observations on trade it would make today and tomorrow.
“I can say many of our obstacles to trade with India have been non- tariff barriers such as regulatory issues in some of industries,” Mr Vilakazi said.
“There is a lack of appropriate pricing for traded materials.” He said some of the key insights the delegation had made involved using Indian energy sources in SA and developing India’s road and rail infrastructure.
Mr Vilakazi said the meetings did not meet with any public interference.
The group moves to New Delhi tomorrow.
AFRICA / AU :
S.Africa’s Zuma seeks to boost India trade links
(AFP) /03062010
MUMBAI — South African President Jacob Zuma, in India on his first state visit to Asia since taking office, was due to meet business leaders Thursday in Mumbai in a bid to boost trade ties.
Zuma, who arrived in India on Wednesday, was to jointly launch a bilateral trade forum with India’s commerce and industry minister Anand Sharma and address captains of industry.
The 68-year-old president is accompanied by a 200-strong business delegation as well as key ministers.
India’s trade with South Africa — one of Africa’s fastest-growing economies — hit 7.5 billion dollars in 2008-2009, the government in New Delhi said.
“Trade statistics with India continue to reflect the potential that still exists for expanding the commercial relationship,” Zuma’s office said in a statement.
The two countries also have historic political and cultural links.
In a speech on Wednesday, Zuma paid tribute to the positive contribution of Indian immigrants to the development of South Africa since the mid-19th century.
Zuma’s visit comes amid reports that Indian mobile phone group Reliance Communications is eyeing a possible merger with South Africa’s MTN, Africa’s largest cellular firm.
The Economic Times newspaper said Reliance is looking to generate equity to fund its move into the third-generation mobile phone market, licences for which were sold last week at a government auction.
Another possibility is Reliance accepting a bid for a strategic stake from UAE-based Etisalat, the financial daily said, quoting an unnamed source said to be familiar with the group’s plans.
Zuma is due in New Delhi on Friday for talks with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and other leaders and will be guest of honour at a banquet hosted by his Indian counterpart Prathibha Patil.
Besides trade, also on the agenda is reform of the United Nations Security Council, plus closer cooperation on climate change and the global economy, officials said.
Anglo, BJM, Capitec, MTN, Sasol: South African Equity Preview
June 03, 2010/By Nasreen Seria and Garth Theunissen/Bloomberg
June 3 (Bloomberg) — The following is a list of companies whose shares may have unusual price changes in South Africa. Stock symbols are in parentheses after company names and prices are from the last close.
South Africa’s FTSE/JSE Africa All Share Index fell 60.95, or 0.2 percent, to 27,248.11 in Johannesburg, bringing its gain so far this week to 0.2 percent.
Anglo American Plc (AGL SJ): Three-month copper rose for the first time in four days, climbing as much as 1.4 percent to $6,760 a metric ton on the London Metal Exchange. Stock of Anglo, the diversified mining company that makes up more than 10 percent of South Africa’s benchmark stock index, fell 7.43 rand, or 2.5 percent, to 290.41 rand. Shares in larger rival BHP Billiton Plc (BIL SJ) dropped 3.30 rand, or 1.6 percent, to 208.10 rand.
Barnard Jacobs Mellet Holdings Ltd. (BJM SJ): The stockbroker is scheduled to publish annual earnings. Its shares were unchanged at 4 rand.
Capitec Bank Holdings Ltd. (CPI SJ): All resolutions at the bank’s annual general meeting, including the payment of a dividend of 1.55 rand per share, were approved. The shares rose 1.25 rand, or 1.3 percent, to 100.50 rand.
MTN Group Ltd. (MTN SJ): Africa’s biggest mobile-phone company has offered $7.8 billion to buy Orascom Telecom Holding SAE’s Djezzy unit in Algeria, whose government is opposed to the deal, Reuters reported, citing Orascom Chairman Naguib Sawiris. MTN’s stock fell 1.47 rand, or 1.4 percent, to 105.52 rand.
Sasol Ltd. (SOL SJ): Oil prices rose for a second day, climbing as much as 1.4 percent to $73.89 a barrel in electronic trading in New York. Stock of Sasol, the world’s biggest maker of motor fuel from coal, rose 2.49 rand, or 0.9 percent, to 278.74 rand.
Shares or American depositary receipts of the following South African companies closed as follows:
Anglo American Plc (AAUKY US) added 2.2 percent to $19.24. AngloGold Ashanti Ltd. (AU US) gained 3.1 percent to $42.83. BHP Billiton Ltd. (BBL US) rose 3.6 percent to $55.15. DRDGold Ltd. (DROOY US) climbed 1.2 percent to $4.40. Gold Fields Ltd. (GFI US) added 1.8 percent to $13.96. Harmony Gold Mining Co. (HMY US) appreciated 1.1 percent to $9.82. Impala Platinum Holdings Co. (IMPUY US) rallied 6.1 percent to $25.64. Sappi Ltd. (SPP US) climbed 4.5 percent to $3.92. Sasol Ltd. (SSL US) gained 5.4 percent to $36.91. Telkom South Africa Ltd. (TLKGY US) slipped 1.7 percent to $18.97.
–Editors: Ana Monteiro, Paul Richardson.
SA vows to arrest Bashir
Written by Mkhululi Chimoio /www.thezimbabwean.co.uk/03 June 2010
JOHANNESBURG – The South African government has stated its commitment the international laws it has ratified with regard to the arrest of Sudanese President Omar Al-Bashir, if he sets foot in the country.
Responding to questions in the National Assembly last week, President Jacob Zuma was asked whether Bashir would be arrested if he set foot in South Africa for the FIFA World Cup. Zuma was clear that South Africa respects the international law.
As a signatory to the conventions setting up the International Criminal Court (ICC), South Africa is legally bound to arrest him if he (Bashir) comes to the country.
Bashir, who was sworn in for a new term of office on Thursday, is the first sitting leader to be indicted by the ICC for war crimes and crimes against humanity in the troubled Sudanese province of Darfur. He is set to serve another five years in office after the April 11-15 polls which were marred by accusations of fraud and logistical problems.
South Africa which is still to announce which leaders will attend the world cup- assisted Sudan’s national elections commission and sent an observer team under the African Union (AU).
“These elections, notwithstanding challenges, are viewed as a positive step towards the democratic transition of Sudan as envisaged in the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA),” said Zuma.
He said a critical lesson from international involvement in conflict resolution, including South Africa’s role in the peace process, is the need to foster and maintain a common and united international approach regarding the implementation of agreements.
“It is also clear that no solutions are possible or sustainable without the active involvement of all parties to the conflict,” said Zuma, adding that it was important to emphasise inclusively and consensus-seeking, and to discourage any forms of unilateral action.
He said South Africa will continue to provide support to the AU High Level Implementation Panel on Darfur and also render assistance to the UN and other interested parties towards the peaceful resolution of the Darfur conflict.
UN /ONU :
UN chief calls for efforts to prevent recurrence of Israeli raid on humanitarian flotilla
english.peopledaily.com.cn/ June 03, 2010
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki- moon Wednesday called for every effort to prevent the recurrence of the Israeli attacks on the humanitarian convoy of ships bound for Gaza, which left at least 10 people killed.
“Everything must be done to prevent the recurrence of another incident of this kind,” Ban told a press conference here, referring to the Israeli raid on the Gaza-bound flotilla.
“All the parties concerned should act responsibly with caution to avoid any such incident, which was a tragedy two days ago,” Ban said. “I urge again to take any action with caution and responsibility.”
The secretary-general, who just returned from a trip to Brazil and Africa, said that he was closely following the development.
Upon his return to the UN Headquarters in New York, he said that he has met with Arab, Turkish, Israeli permanent representatives as well as key members of the Security Council.
“In the meantime, subject to the consent of donors and without any strings attached, the United Nations will do our part so that aid from the convoy reaches its destinations as called for by the Security Council,” he said. “We encourage all parties to be flexible to enable this to happen.”
Strongly condemning the Israeli actions against the humanitarian flotilla bound for the Gaza Strip, the United Nations Human Rights Council voted today to dispatch an independent, international probe into violations of international law resulting from Monday’s incident.
Israel’s military interception of the aid ships led to the deaths of several civilians and the wounding of dozens of others. Early on Monday, the UN Security Council issued a presidential statement in which it “condemns those acts which resulted in the loss” of the lives of civilians and calls for a “prompt, impartial, credible and transparent investigation” into the incident.
Ban, who has also called for a prompt probe, has appealed for the immediate release of those detained in the raid.
The aid convoy was said to have been carrying educational, medical and construction materials, as well as hundreds of activists from different countries, to Gaza, where the blockade has caused ongoing suffering for 1.5 million Palestinian inhabitants.
The United Nations has repeatedly spoken out against the closure of Gaza and raised concern over the insufficient flow of material into the area to meet basic needs and spur reconstruction. Ban has cautioned in a recent meeting that the closure “creates unacceptable suffering, hurts forces of moderation and empowers extremists.”
Source:Xinhua
Exclusive: Constitutionalism vs. Supranationalism – The U.S. and the International Criminal Court
Jared Huntington/www.familysecuritymatters.org/June 3, 2010
“No aspect is more troubling … than the fact that it has been framed without any apparent respect for – and indeed in direct contravention of – the U.S. Constitution.”
– Former Senator John Ashcroft
On 31 May 2010, the Assembly of States Parties will gather in Kampala, Uganda to convene to first review conference of the International Criminal Court (ICC), since its inception. The purpose of the conference is for the Assembly of States Parties to both consider amendments to the Rome Statute and for the delegates to take stock of the Court’s activities. While the U.S. is not a State Party to the Rome Statute, the Obama Administration has taken several steps in an effort to expand U.S. engagement with the ICC. Since the court came into force in 2002, the U.S. has worked vigorously to defend American sovereignty from the court. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated, “It is a great regret that the U.S. has not yet joined the ICC.” [i] The Obama Administration has made it a priority for the U.S. to enter into a more harmonious relationship with the ICC and this move puts American sovereignty and U.S. Armed Forces in peril.
A History of The U.S. & The ICC
On 17 July 1998, 120 nations voted in favor to approve the text of the Rome Statute to establish a permanent ICC, at the Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court. While the U.S. worked tirelessly during the five-week diplomatic conference to amend the Rome Statute in a manner that would preserve U.S. sovereignty, in the end the American delegation concluded that the Treaty, in its present form, contained flaws that rendered it unacceptable. The U.S. delegation, led by David J. Scheffer, went to Rome with the hope that a permanent International Criminal Court could be constructed under the authority of the United Nations Security Council, as the United Nations Charter has charged the Security Council with the task of maintaining international peace and security. [ii]
The U.S. Senate had also made their desires very clear in that the U.S. should not support a court that would infringe on U.S. sovereignty. By the end of the conference a court was constructed that lacked any form of credible checks and balances, as the ICC was to be an independent international institution. The U.S. believed that a court constructed in this manner could easily be used as a vehicle to subvert national sovereignty, impose its own transnationalist agenda and could be used to pursue politically motivated prosecution against American armed forces personnel and government officials, including the President of the U.S.
There are a number of reasons why the U.S. must be cautious about how ratification of the Rome Statute would affect U.S. sovereignty and how ICC action could impact politically precarious conditions around the world. Throughout history the U.S. has maintained that states, not international institutions are primarily responsible for ensuring justice in the international system and that the best way to combat these serious offenses is to build domestic judicial systems, strengthen political will and promote human freedom. [iii] Both Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush have concluded that the ICC does not advance U.S. ideals.
Both administrations believed that the ICC undermines the role of American national sovereignty and our role in maintaining international peace and security and that the Rome Statute constructs a prosecutorial system that lacks any form of checks and balances. The two administrations also believed that in order for a state to be bound by a treaty, a state must be a party to that treaty. The ICC asserts jurisdiction over citizens of states that have both ratified and not ratified the Rome Statute. This open ended and unchecked power is a direct threat to American sovereignty. [iv] Finally, the administrations believed that the ICC was built on a flawed foundation that leave the Court open for exploitation and politically motivated prosecutions. These beliefs serve as the primary reasons as to why both Presidents Clinton and Bush refused to send the Rome Statute to the U.S. Senate for ratification and the Obama Administration must remain opposed to U.S. ratification of the Rome Statute.
On December 31, 2000 President Clinton signed the Rome Statute, despite what he called “significant flaws” in the Treaty. Mr. Clinton chose not to send the treaty to the Senate for advice and consent and he recommended that his predecessor also not submit the treaty until these significant flaws are addressed. [v] After extensive efforts to amend the statute to address the U.S.’s key concerns failed, President Bush felt it was necessary to un-sign the Rome Statute in an effort to protect American Armed Forces and government officials from the flawed court. On May6, 2002, President Bush sent a letter to the U.N. Secretary General, signed by Under Secretary John Bolton, stating,
“This is to inform you, in connection with the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court adopted on
J
uly 17, 1998, that the United States does not intend to become a party to the treaty. Accordingly, the United States has no legal obligations arising from its signature on December 31, 2000. The United States requests that its intention not to become a party, as expressed in this letter, be reflected in the depositary’s status lists relating to this treaty.” [vi]
By un-signing the treaty, President Bush formally notified the U.N. Secretary General that the U.S. did not intend to ratify the treaty and that we were no longer bound under international law to avoid actions that would run counter to the intent and purpose of the treaty. Given these concerns and the undefined crime of aggression the Obama administration should resist international demands for the U.S. to re-sign the Rome Statute. [vii] [viii]
American Dissatisfaction In Rome
The U.S. has long championed human rights and has supported the belief that those who commit serious human rights violations should be prosecuted. The U.S. supported the creation of international tribunals to prosecute the most heinous violators of human rights. The U.S. was a leading forced behind the establishment of the Nuremburg and Tokyo tribunals and since then were key supporters of establishing the ad hoc International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR). Building upon the U.S.’ long support for international justice they were willing to participate in the efforts of the early 1990’s to establish an International Criminal Court. [ix] However, once the negotiations on the final text were concluding, America’s support diminished because its concerns were disregarded or opposed outright at the Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court. David Scheffer, the chief U.S. negotiator at the conference, noted:
“In Rome, we indicated our willingness to be flexible…. Unfortunately, a small group of countries, meeting behind closed doors in the final days of the Rome conference, produced a seriously flawed take-it-or-leave-it text, one that provides a recipe for politicization of the court and risks deterring responsible international action to promote peace and security.”
By the end of the five-week conference, despite continual efforts by the U.S. to amend the Rome Statute the final text of the Treaty was approved without U.S. support. The final text of the treaty was found to be so egregious and anti – American that even the Clinton Administration found it to be so offensive that they could not be persuaded to support its adoption. [x]
The ICC Come to Life
Since the approval of the Rome Statute in 1998 and the court entering into force in 2002, the U.S. policy towards the ICC has been consistent in that we have refused to join. It lacks necessary checks and balances, is susceptible to political manipulation, posses sweeping authority and it violates national sovereignty by claiming jurisdiction over national and military personnel of non States Parties in certain circumstances. The U.S. is not alone in these concerns. The Peoples Republic of China, The Russian Federation, India, Israel, Egypt, Turkey and Pakistan are among the 68 nations that have refused to ratify the Rome Statute out of concern that it infringes on their foreign and security policy decisions, which are justly reserved to sovereign governments and which the ICC should not claim authority. [xi]
Currently the ICC has opened four cases involving situations in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Uganda, the Central African Republic and Darfur, Sudan, where the Court has issued an arrest warrant for the current President of the Sudan, Omar Al – Bashir even though Sudan has not yet signed or ratified the Rome Statute. In addition to these four cases the Office of the Prosecutor is currently conducting a preliminary analysis of situations in Palestine, Georgia, Chad, Kenya, Columbia and NATO actions in Afghanistan, which could easily result in the indictment of American Armed Forces. [xii]
The ICC – Out With the Old & In With the New
The ICC breaks international precedent on how to prosecute the world’s most heinous criminals. In the past, the international community has established temporary criminal tribunals to prosecute the perpetrators. These tribunals derive their authority from the consent of the international community and are only permitted to move forward with prosecutions that relate to the specific circumstance, such as the ICTY and ICTR. The ICC is broader and more independent than these tribunals. The ICC’s authority is not limited to disputes between governments as is the case with the International Court of Justice. Rather, the ICC claims the authority to prosecute individuals, not states, for crimes against humanity, genocide and war crimes. The ICC’s jurisdiction extends to all citizens of states, regardless if the state has ratified the Rome Statute. [xiii] [xiv] Although the ICC is generally considered to be a branch of the U.N., the ICC is not explicitly a U.N. institution. An independent Treaty established the ICC and the court is overseen by the states that have ratified the Rome Statute. [xv]
America Responds
When the court came into force in July 2002, upon receiving its required 60th ratification, which in turn is only one third of the worlds’ nations, the U.S. was forced to confront the reality that the ICC would begin to start functioning. Faced with the prospect of an operating ICC that could claim jurisdiction over American military personnel and government officials, the Bush administration and Congress implemented a variety of safeguards to ensure the protection of Americans from the court.
Safeguard #1
The first measure that Congress took was the passage of the American Servicemembers’ Protection Act (ASPA) and the Nethercutt Amendment. The ASPA continues to serve as a fundamental piece of legislation aimed at protecting American sovereignty from the court. The major provisions of the ASPA are as follows: [xvi] [xvii]
1) The ASPA prohibits the disbursement of military assistance and of economic support funds to countries that are party to the Rome Statute.
2) The ASPA also restricts cooperation with the ICC by any official U.S. entity, including providing support or funds to the ICC, extraditing or transferring U.S. citizens to the ICC or permitting ICC investigations on U.S. territory.
3) It forbids participation by U.S. military or officials in U.N. peacekeeping operations unless they are shielded from the ICC’s jurisdiction.
4) The ASPA bans the sharing of classified national security information or other law enforcement information sharing with the ICC. It also constrains military assistance to ICC States Parties, except NATO countries, Taiwan and major non-NATO allies unless they entered into an Article 98 agreement.
5) Finally the ASPA authorizes the President to use all means necessary and appropriate to free U.S. military personnel and officials detained by the ICC.
Safeguard #2
In order for a nation that is a State Party to the Rome Statute to receive military and economic aid they would have to sign an Article 98 agreement with the U.S. Article 98 agreements were the second step that Congress took to protecting Americans from prosecution by the ICC. Article 98 agreements are a bilateral agreement between the U.S. and a nation that is a State Party to the Rome Statute, that they will not apprehend any American citizen and turn them over to the ICC for prosecution without U.S. consent and since 2002 the U.S. has signed over 100 Article 98 Agreements. [xviii] [xix]
Safeguard #3
The third step that the U.S. took was within the U.N. Security Council. The U.S. pushed for the approval of resolutions that would protect Americans who are serving in U.N. peacekeeping missions, in states that are a part to the Rome Statute, from the courts jurisdiction. In July 2002, the United States threatened to use its Security Counci
l ve
to to block renewal of the mandates of several United Nations peacekeeping missions, unless the Security Council agreed to permanently exempt U.S. nationals from the court’s jurisdiction. In 2002 the Security Council adopted Resolution 1422, which exempted U.S. nationals from the court’s jurisdiction. The Security Council renewed this exemption in 2003 through its passage of Resolution 1487. However in 2004 the Security Council refused to renew these Resolutions due to the United States decision to pursue military action in Iraq. [xx]
Safeguard #4
The final step taken to protect American citizens was the Bush administration’s decision to un-sign the Rome Statute. The administration felt that since the Court was now a functioning international institution, that lacked any safeguards against political manipulation and prosecution, the U.S. had no choice but to remove its signature from the treaty if we wished to continue military assistance throughout the world. The Bush administration and Congress felt that it is insufficient for the U.S. to simply refuse to sign a treaty in the hopes of avoiding its adverse effects. That is why they felt it was necessary and appropriate to implement the ASPA, Article 98 Agreements and to un-sign the Treaty. As long as the court threatens American sovereignty these efforts to protect U.S. military personnel, officials and nationals from ICC prosecution are entirely justified. The Obama administration must continue to follow the precedent and legislative measures that have been implemented. [xxi] [xxii]
America Opposition To The ICC
When President Bush un-signed the Rome Statute, in 2002, he voiced five major concerns with the Treaty that jeopardize American sovereignty. These five grievances serve as primary barriers to why the U.S. has yet to ratify the Rome Statute. The fundamental flaws that President Clinton cited during the signing of the Rome Statute and the five concerns that President Bush cited during the un-signing of the treaty are as follows.
1) The Danger of Politically Motivated Prosecutions
The Rome Statute lacks robust safeguards to prevent purely political prosecutions, since there is no system of checks and balances. As an independent international institution, the ICC is not bound by decisions of the U.N. General Assembly or the Security Council, where the U.S. holds its veto voting rights. The ICC does not require the support of the U.N. or the Security Council to push forward with an investigation or prosecution. On the contrary, although the Security Council may defer an ICC investigation or prosecution for 12 months by passing a resolution under its Chapter VII authority, it cannot permanently prevent the ICC from launching an investigation or prosecution or permanently stop an ongoing investigation or prosecution. [xxiii] [xxiv] [xxv]
2) International Power Grab
Article 12 of the Rome Statute grants the ICC jurisdiction in the territory of any state party and the territory of non-states parties. This creates the possibility that the ICC could exercise jurisdiction over nationals of non–states parties without the consent of those states if the alleged crimes occurred in the territory of a state party or in the territory of a non-state party. David Scheffer called Article 12 “the single most problematic part of the Rome Treaty,” during his testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He denounced it as being “… contrary to the most fundamental principles of Treaty law.” This provision violates recognized customary international law as well as Article 34 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969) which states, “a Treaty does not create either obligations or rights for a third [non-ratifying] state without its consent.” [xxvi] [xxvii]
3) Double Jeopardy
Article 20 bestows upon the ICC the autonomous authority to review cases conducted by states parties and, in some circumstances, non-states parties and reopen them for a new trial if, in the judgment of the court, the decision was “inconsistent with an intent to bring the person concerned to justice” or not conducted independently and impartially or was conducted for the “purpose of shielding the person concerned from criminal responsibility for crimes within the jurisdiction of the court.” The U.S. concern with Article 20 is coupled with our position that the court lacks any form of checks and balances. Since the ICC is an independent institution, the determination of whether a state has genuinely investigated or prosecuted an alleged offense ultimately rests with the ICC judges. The Rome Statute wishes to obligate the U.S. to extradite Americans for a new trial, even for crimes committed on American soil and even where the accused has been acquitted by an American jury or pardoned by the President. [xxviii]
4) Threat to U.S. Military Personnel
The Rome Statute fails to provide any form of protection or exemption for U.S. military personnel, even when they are serving on U.N. peacekeeping missions or under the orders of the U.N.’s responsibility to protect. The Rome Statute provides the court with the full ability to prosecute American service members if they believe that they may have committed genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the undefined crime of aggression. [xxix] [xxx]
5) Threat to U.S. Foreign Policy
Leading military and State Department officials also expressed deep concerns about the U.S. ability to project force abroad in an era with a functioning ICC. The U.S. believes that by putting government officials and members of Armed Forces, their at the risk of politicalized prosecutions, the ICC will complicate U.S. military cooperation with many friends and allies who will now have a treaty obligation to hand over U.S. nationals to the court. The U.S. has a unique role and responsibility to help preserve international peace and security. [xxxi] [xxxii] [xxxiii]
American Constitutional Concerns
In addition to these concerns, the U.S. has expressed apprehension with the Rome Statute’s complete disregard for the Constitutional rights of Americans’. Under the current text of the Rome Statute American nationals would be subject to a judicial process that has no obligation to extend to the charged their Constitutional rights. The Rome Statute forces all state parties to accept an international judicial authority that supercedes their own national constitutions. The Constitutional concerns that American legal scholars and legislators have raised are as follows:
1) Rights, rules, and procedures of the ICC are not fully consistent with the U.S. Bill of Rights. Specifically, if the court were to take an American into custody they would be denied or, at least not assured, their protections under the 4th Amendment (protection from unreasonable search and seizure), the 5th Amendment (right to due process and protection from double jeopardy and self-incrimination), and the 6th Amendment (right to a jury trial and the right to confront the witnesses against him). [xxxiv] [xxxv] [xxxvi]
2) Article 27 of the Rome Statute allows the ICC to claim prosecutorial powers over elected U.S. officials for actions occurring in the conduct of their official duties and deemed lawful by the U.S., as it states, “No Head of State or Government elected representative or Government official shall [be] exempt … from criminal responsibility under this statute.” A possible conflict could arise from the differing interpretation of detainee rights under the Geneva Conventions between the U.S. and other nations and, likely, the ICC. Article 27 conflicts with Article I of the U.S Constitution (providing the power to prosecute U.S. elected officials to the Congress) and Article III (granting original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court for all cases affecting U.S officials). [xxxvii] [xxxviii] [xxxix]
Ratification of the Rome Statue would require the U.S. Senate to determine if the Constitution permits the ceding of judicial power and authority to a foreign
court such as the ICC. In short, an extra – constitutional body cannot exercise the judicial power of the U.S.
The Crime of Aggression & Complaints Against Americans
Since the adoption of the Rome Statute in 1998 and the court coming into force in 2002, the U.S. has also identified its concern with the amendment process of the Rome Statute, the undefined crime of aggression and the immense amount of complaints that have been submitted to the Office of the Prosecutor against President Bush and his Administration for alleged crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan. The text of the Rome Statute permits the court to prosecute individuals who have allegedly committed crimes against humanity, war crimes, genocide and aggression. While in Rome, in 1998, the delegates were unable to reach a consensus on how to define the crime of aggression. In an effort to not allow this impasse to hinder the adoption of the treaty the delegates agreed to postpone the defining of the crime of aggression until the Review Conference in 2010. [xl]
The ICC cannot prosecute any individual for the crime of aggression until the crime is defined and agreed upon by a super majority of the States Parties. The U.S. has always been adamantly opposed to the inclusion of the crime of aggression into the statute as they maintained that it is the duty of the Security Council to determine when aggression has occurred. [xli]
Another fundamental concern the U.S. has is the way in which amendments to the treaty, including the addition and defining of new crimes, are adopted and applied. In its present form, the amendment process for the addition of new crimes to the jurisdiction of the Court or for revisions to the definitions of existing crimes in the treaty will create an extraordinary and unacceptable consequence. The U.S. is concerned that should we ratify the Rome Statute and if future crimes and powers are added to the treaty we will be forced to accept these changes even if they run contrary to the national security and interests of the U.S. In order for a proposed amendment to be adopted 7/8 of the States Parties must approve the amendment. Once an amendment is adopted all States Parties will be bound to the new text, even though when they ratified the Treaty the new amendment was not present. [xlii]
Finally, the U.S. has expressed its apprehension to the Rome Statute due to the fact that arrest warrants have been sought or considered in foreign jurisdictions for former U.S. officials President George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, George Tenet, Condoleezza Rice, and Alberto Gonzales for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Complaints were also filed with the Office of the Prosecutor against several Bush Administration officials in 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2009. [xliii] The Office of he Prosecutor has received more than 240 complaints alleging crimes related to the war in Iraq. In the fall of 2009 the Office of the Prosecutor for the ICC opened an investigation into war crimes and crimes against humanity in Afghanistan allegedly committed by U.S. and NATO forces that may result in the prosecution of U.S. policymakers or Armed Forces. These efforts underscore the need for the U.S. to protect itself and its citizens and soldiers from claims of jurisdiction under international law by the ICC. [xliv]
The Obama Administrations’ Relationship With the ICC
Step by step, the Obama Administration is aggressively pursuing a stronger alliance between the U.S. and the ICC, while there are no immediate plans for the White House to seek ratification of the Rome Statute that is its logical endpoint. In November 2009, the U.S. signaled a dramatic shift in its position towards the ICC. President Obama sent Stephen Rapp, U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues, to the 8th session of the Assembly of States Parties, in New York in 2009 and 2010, as his first step towards constructing a more positive relationship between the U.S. and the court. President Obama’s second step was his announcement that the U.S. would send a delegation to the courts review conference in Kampala, Uganda as an official observer. In March 2010, Ambassador Rapp declared that the U.S. is “prepared to listen and work with the ICC” and that the U.S. intends to “return to engagement with the ICC.” [xlv] This announcement combined with President Obama’s softening position on the court highlights the increasing need for Americans to remember that our sovereignty is not just threatened by forces from abroad but also from those within our own government.
The Rome Statute undermines the authority of national governments and their ability to protect their citizens and interests around the world. The nations that have chosen to ratify the Rome Statute have accepted that this treaty supersedes their constitutions. While the court lacks any enforcement mechanisms it claims superiority over the state, even though the court is powerless to protect and defend the state. Since the U.S. primary concerns have yet to be met by the court we must continue to choose constitutionalism over supranational governance. The risks that the Rome Statute present to American sovereignty is far too dangerous to take a chance in the hope that, the Court would act responsibly. Until the court and the Assembly of States Parties address the U.S. principal concerns we must continue to enforce the ASPA and Article 98 Agreements and the U.S. must resist pressure to surrender sovereignty to this supranational institution.
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Jared Huntington holds a Masters from Norwich University in Diplomacy and International Terrorism.
——————————————————————————–
[i]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2009/08/06/AR2009080603763.html
[ii] Sewall, Sarah & Kaysen, Carl – The United States and The International Criminal Court – 1 – 3
[iii] Broomhall, Bruce – International Justice & The International Criminal Court – 164 – 167
[iv] Rabkin, Jeremy – Law Without Nations – 182 – 183
[v] Meibner, Phillip – The International Criminal Court Controversy – 31 – 33
[vi]www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2002/9968.htm
[vii] Bolton, John – Surrender Is Not An Option – 85 – 87
[viii] Broomhall, Bruce – International Justice & The International Criminal Court – 179
[ix] Sewall, Sarah & Kaysen, Carl – The United States and The International Criminal Court – 38, 219
[x] Sewall, Sarah & Kaysen, Carl – The United States and The International Criminal Court – 115 – 118
[xi] Rabkin, Jeremy – Law Without Nations – 262 – 263
[xii] http://www.icc-cpi.int/Menus/ICC?lan=en-GB
[xiii] Broomhall, Bruce – International Justice & The International Criminal Court – 163 – 165
[xiv] Meibner, Phillip – The International Criminal Court Controversy – 33, 35
[xv] Ellis, Mark & Goldstone, Richard – The International Criminal Court: Challenges to Achieving Justice and Accountability in the 21st Century – 27 – 29
[xvi] Broomhall, Bruce – International Justice & The International Criminal Court – 179 – 183
[xvii] Bolton, John – Surrender Is Not An Option – 85 – 86
[xviii] Ellis, Mark & Goldstone, Richard – The International Criminal Court: Challenges to Achieving Justice and Accountability in the 21st Century – 135 – 139
[xix] Broomhall, Bruce – International Justice & The International Criminal Court – 179 – 181
[xx] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3834237.stm
[xxi] Bolton, John – Surrender Is Not An Option – 85 – 87
[xxii] Broomhall, Bruce – International Justice & The International Criminal Court – 179 – 181
[xxiii] Rabkin, Jeremy – Law Without Nations – 182 – 183
[xxiv] Sewall, Sarah & Kaysen, Carl – The United States and The International Criminal Court – 141 – 143
[xxv] Meibner, Phillip – The International Crimin
al Court Controversy – 50 – 51
[xxvi] Meibner
, Phillip – The International Criminal Court Controversy – 33 – 35
[xxvii] Sewall, Sarah & Kaysen, Carl – The United States and The International Criminal Court – 115 – 118
[xxviii] Rabkin, Jeremy – Law Without Nations – 21 – 22
[xxix] Sewall, Sarah & Kaysen, Carl – The United States and The International Criminal Court – 137 – 141
[xxx] Broomhall, Bruce – International Justice & The International Criminal Court – 164 – 167
[xxxi] Broomhall, Bruce – International Justice & The International Criminal Court – 164 – 167
[xxxii] Meibner, Phillip – The International Criminal Court Controversy – 50 – 51
[xxxiii] Sewall, Sarah & Kaysen, Carl – The United States and The International Criminal Court – 2, 116 – 117, 141
[xxxiv] Kilgannon, Thomas – Diplomatic Divorce – 26 – 27
[xxxv] Rabkin, Jeremy – Law Without Nations – 21 – 22
[xxxvi] Meibner, Phillip – The International Criminal Court Controversy – 63 – 65
[xxxvii] Kilgannon, Thomas – Diplomatic Divorce – 26 – 27
[xxxviii] Rabkin, Jeremy – Law Without Nations – 21 – 22
[xxxix] Meibner, Phillip – The International Criminal Court Controversy – 63 – 65
[xl] Meibner, Phillip – The International Criminal Court Controversy – 56
[xli] Ellis, Mark & Goldstone, Richard – The International Criminal Court: Challenges to Achieving Justice and Accountability in the 21st Century – 220 – 231
[xlii] Sewall, Sarah & Kaysen, Carl – The United States and The International Criminal Court – 67, 79, 117
[xliii] Kilgannon, Thomas – Diplomatic Divorce – 30 – 31
[xliv]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125253962307797635.html?KEYWORDS=joe+lauria
[xlv] http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/03/24/us.global.justice/
USA :
Where Did Alabama’s Artur Davis Go Wrong? Let Us Count The Ways
by Ken Rudin/www.npr.org/03062010
It wasn’t just that Rep. Artur Davis was defeated in his bid for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination in Tuesday’s Alabama primary. He got creamed. He lost to state Agriculture Commissioner Ron Sparks by a 62 to 38 percent margin.
The issue is not, as many have reported, the fact that Davis failed in his bid to become his state’s first African-American governor. That is immaterial and, actually, silly. It’s true that Alabama has never had a black governor. But neither has Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin or Wyoming. So that’s not the point.
But every poll had Davis ahead, some by large margins, and that leads to wondering what happened. Immediately coming to mind are questions about the so-called “Bradley Effect” — referring to the 1982 gubernatorial race in California, where polls uniformly showed Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley, an African-American Democrat, leading state Attorney General George Deukmejian, his white Republican opponent — a race that Deukmejian ultimately won. Did voters tell pollsters, then and now, that they intended to vote for a black candidate but in the privacy of the voting booth do the opposite?
That seems too simplistic. Here’s another theory: The strategy of the Davis campaign was wrong from Day One. Sure, it’s not easy for a black candidate to run in the state that gave us George Wallace. But Davis seemed to go after white support without even giving a nod to the state’s influential black power brokers. Plus, he endorsed a whole lot of conservative-like positions during his eight years in Congress, such as supporting a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, voting against a bill to prohibit workplace discrimination against gays, voting for a ban on partial birth abortion, backing a renewal of the Patriot Act, and voting to allow oil and gas drilling in the Arctic Refuge in Alaska.
In addition, last year he was the only black member of Congress to vote against the health care bill — a decision that didn’t go over well with everyone on his staff, let alone with the citizens of his impoverished 7th Congressional District. The Rev. Jesse Jackson even said, “You can’t vote against health care and call yourself a black man.”
And by trying to appeal to a basically conservative electorate, Davis either took for granted or simply ignored the black political establishment … specifically, Joe Reed, the longtime black powerbroker who chairs the Alabama Democratic Conference. Reed and three other organizations ultimately endorsed Sparks.
Here’s how Ed Kilgore over at FiveThirtyEight saw it:
Sparks seems to have beaten Davis by pulling a significant (perhaps 40% or more) minority of African-American voters while trouncing him among white voters. Sparks carried Jefferson County (Birmingham) handily, although Davis represents a big chunk of the county, and ran well even in majority-African-American counties in or near Davis’ district. The CW tomorrow will probably be that Davis thought far too much about positioning himself for the general election before concentrating on the primary, and that Sparks’ uncontested claim on endorsements by African-American political groups was a big deal after all. It didn’t hurt that the winner also got considerable help from the Alabama Education Association, the big dog in Alabama Democratic politics, and had a substantive issue—a state lottery—that’s always played well with Alabama Democrats, particularly black voters.
First Read, the tipsheet from NBC News, offered this:
Davis voted against health care — maybe a good position in Alabama in a general election, but a tough one to get around in a Democratic primary when half the electorate is black and so is the president of the United States. Davis’ defeat is a good lesson for any African American or Hispanic politician who thinks they automatically will get support based on skin color or ethnicity.
A harsher view, but probably no less accurate, came from Michael Fauntroy, writing in the Huffington Post blog under the header, “Artur Davis Dissed His Base and Paid the Price”:
While Congressman Artur Davis’s stunning loss … was a sad turn for one Black man, it was a great moment for Black voters. It revealed a heightened level of political sophistication among Black primary voters who rejected Davis’s “I-don’t-need-to-spend-time-on-them-’cause-I-know-they’ll-be-with-me” approach to campaigning. Black Alabamans did not simply genuflect before a polished Black candidate. He gave them nothing; they returned the favor. Davis has ambitiously positioned himself for higher office for some time. In so doing, he took his base for granted. That’s the best way to lose an election.
Meanwhile, we still don’t know the identity of the Republican nominee, nor do we know who made it into the July 13 runoff with Bradley Byrne, a former college chancellor who was backed by many of the same business groups that twice elected GOP Gov. Bob Riley, term limited this year.
As of this writing, state Rep. Robert Bentley and businessman Tim James are separated by just 208 votes for second place. Bentley’s strong showing in the primary was a surprise; some attribute his gains as a backlash to the animosity between Byrne and James. Methinks that if Bentley makes it into the runoff, he could garner a sizable chunk of the votes that went to James and fourth-place finisher Roy Moore, both of whom saw Byrne as insufficiently conservative.
CANADA :
G-20 Finance Officials Begin Global Economy Talks
G-20 finance officials begin talks on global economy in shadow of European turmoil
The Associated Press /abcnews.go.com/ June 3, 2010
BUSAN, South Korea (AP)
Finance officials from leading advanced and emerging countries began talks Thursday aimed at hammering out reforms to the global economic system to prevent debilitating crises such as the one that dragged the world to the verge of a depression in 2008.
The Group of 20 brings together rich countries such as the United States, Japan, and Germany, emerging powers China, Brazil and India , and developing economies Indonesia and South Africa. Top oil producer Saudi Arabia is also a member.
Founded in 1999, the disparate grouping shot into the limelight in late 2008 as the key international forum for managing the global financial system as the crisis sparked by the collapse of U.S. investment bank Lehman Brothers provided a chance for developing economies to demand more say.
Hanging over the meetings, which conclude Saturday, is the European sovereign debt crisis, which has triggered slides in global financial markets and the euro currency. Though the scope of market turmoil has been much milder than the mayhem in 2008, it has shown that the global economic recovery remains vulnerable.
The G-20, which met in Washington in April, is gathering again ahead of a summit in Canada later this month to come up with proposals to hand to leaders to help ensure “strong, sustainable and balanced growth” for the global economy, in the words of the organization.
G-20 deputy finance minister and central bank governors began meeting Thursday, said Kim Young-min, a spokesman for South Korea’s Ministry of Strategy and Finance. They were preparing for the gathering of ministers and central bank governors Friday and Saturday, including working on a draft communique that their bosses will discuss.
South Korea, which assumed the rotating Group of 20 chair this year, is hosting the meetings in the southern port city of Busan. Seoul will convene a G-20 summit in November.
The G-20 has been trying to come up with a new financial architecture to manage the global economy in the wake of the 2008 crisis. Proposals include a bank tax, setting new standards on how much capital banks need to protect against a future financial crisis and establishing “financial safety nets” to help emerging economies vulnerable to financial flows.
It has agreed at a series of summits in the United States and Britain since late 2008 on the need for tighter financial regulation to prevent the kind of Lehman-induced turmoil that could potentially sink the global economy.
The issue of a bank tax to pay for future bailouts has proved divisive, however. The U.S. and Europe favor the move, but others such as Canada and Australia oppose it given that their banks survived the global crisis intact.
U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said Wednesday he did not think the G-20 would agree at this week’s meeting on the bank tax issue. But he said differences were narrowing in other areas, including capital standards.
“We want to accelerate progress on a global agreement on core reforms,” Geithner told reporters at a briefing in Washington before departing for Busan.
——
AP Economics Writer Martin Crutsinger in Washington contributed to this report.
Copyright 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Afren Pays $110M For Black Marlin
06-03-2010 /Source: emii.com
West Africa-focused oil explorer, Afren, will buy Canada’s Black Marlin for $110.5 million, Financial Times reports. As part of the deal, Afren will issue about 80 million shares to Black Marlin shareholders, who will receive 0.4 Afren shares for every Black Marlin share.
The acquisition will be structured using a scheme of arrangement, under which Black Marlin will become a subsidiary of Afren. Bank of America Merrill Lynch and CIBC are advising Afren, while Royal Bank of Canada is acting as advisor to the Canadian company.
Climate financing: put the money on the barrel at the Bonn climate talks
www.huffingtonpost.com/Kevin Grandia.Managing Editor of DeSmogBlog/ June 3, 2010
One of the major issues at the climate treaty talks underway in Bonn, Germany this week is a big idea encapsulated in a simple phrase: “climate financing.”
On the surface the idea behind climate financing is simple – it involves developed nations (like the US, Japan, Canada and EU countries) contributing to a pot of money that is then used to help developing nations (in places like Africa and Southeast Asia) move to a clean energy economy and also deal with the effects of climate they are already seeing or will be dealing with shortly.
One of the sad ironies around the effects of climate change is that most of the countries responsible for the vast majority of greenhouse gas emissions are in the Northern hemisphere where the effects of climate change will be the least. While the countries in the Southern hemisphere have the lowest per-capita rates of emissions, but will experience the greatest impacts and have the least amount of money to deal with the issue.
Climate financing is the mechanism in the international treaty that fixes this imbalance. And while it may be simple in concept there are major issues around who should pay what and how much and to who.
Should governments in developing nations foot the whole bill and, if so, how much is that bill? Should developing nations pay some and then hopefully it is enough to stimulate private investment? Can we trust that the money sent to developing nations is actually spent on its intended purpose?
In the short-term while all the complicated long-term issues around financing are hammered out, developing countries agreed at the Copenhagen climate talks last year to provide $30 billion to developing nations from now to 2012 – the negotiating lingo for this commitment is “fast start financing.”
For the long-term, there was a somewhat tepid agreement amongst developed nations to commit to $100 billion a year by 2020, but we remain a long way from seeing this become a reality as negotiators continue to try and figure out all the complexities with how this program will work. Even then, the amount pledged so far remains a far cry from the estimated $200 billion a year developing nations need to adequately deal with the effects of climate change and transition to cleaner sources of energy.
“Aiming for $100bn per year is a good start, but it must be the floor not the ceiling if a global climate catastrophe is to be avoided,” finds a new report out earlier this week from Oxfam International. Their white paper called “$100 Billion Questions” [pdf] stresses the importance of this funding coming on track soon to help the world’s poorest nations adapt and ward off the devastating effects of climate change.
“Climate finance is about more than compensating developing countries for the costs imposed on them by a problem they did not create. It is an investment between rich and poor countries in a common future. Rich countries cannot only fight climate change at home and win,” says the report.
Climate finance is a huge issue and a very divisive one – at earlier talks last year the issue prompted the African nation representatives to walk away from the negotiating table – and it is one that lies at the center of a fair, legally binding and ambitious climate treaty.
AUSTRALIA :
EUROPE :
CHINA :
INDIA :
Reliance Communications Considers MTN, Etisalat, E. Times Say
By Madelene Pearson/Bloomberg/June 3
June 3 (Bloomberg) — Reliance Communications Ltd. is considering a merger with South Africa’s MTN Group Ltd. or an infusion of fresh equity from a strategic foreign investor, the Economic Times reported, citing an unnamed person familiar with the group’s plan.
The company also has an outstanding offer from Dubai-based Emirates Telecommunications Corp., the newspaper said.
India’s Stocks Rise for Second Day; Tata Steel, NTPC Lead Gains
June 03, 2010/By Rajhkumar K Shaaw/Bloomberg
June 3 (Bloomberg) — India’s stocks rose to a three-week high as investors speculated domestic growth will remain strong, buoying demand for raw materials, consumer goods and services.
Tata Steel Ltd., the nation’s biggest producer of the alloy, climbed 1.5 percent. India’s steelmaking capacity rose 9.6 percent in the year through March, the steel ministry said in a statement yesterday. NTPC Ltd. gained for the first time in three days. The power producer is set to buy a controlling interest in an Australian coal field to gain access to the fuel, the Economic Times reported, citing a government official it didn’t identify.
“Investors are seeing value in buying Indian stocks,” said Alex Mathews, head of research at Geojit BNP Paribas Financial Services Ltd. in Kochi, southern India. “It’s a good time for Indian companies to buy assets abroad as valuations are attractive.” He recommends investors buy shares of oil refiners and carmakers, including Oil & Natural Gas Corp. and Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.
The Bombay Stock Exchange’s Sensitive Index, or Sensex, gained 282.85, or 1.7 percent, to 17,024.69 at 1:05 p.m. in Mumbai, on course for its highest close since May 13. The S&P CNX Nifty Index on the National Stock Exchange rose 1.9 percent to 5,114.15. The BSE 200 Index increased 1.6 percent to 2,164.33.
Higher Output
Tata Steel added 1.5 percent to 491.35 rupees. India also became the world’s third-largest producer of the alloy in 2009, the ministry said. Output is likely to reach 115 million metric tons by March 2012, Steel Minister Virbhadra Singh said April 1.
NTPC advanced 1.3 percent to 200.1 rupees. The company may pay as much as $1.5 billion for a stake in a 720 million-ton coal field near Perth in Western Australia, allowing NTPC to get as much as 10 million tons of coal a year for its plants, the Economic Times reported today.
NTPC’s Managing Director R.S. Sharma wasn’t immediately available at his office telephone for comment on the report. The administrator of Griffin Coal Mining Co., a failed Australian company with debts of at least A$700 million ($593 million), said it hasn’t entered talks to sell the company to NTPC or other potential buyers.
Larsen & Toubro Ltd., the nation’s largest private-sector infrastructure company, rose 2.1 percent to 1,666.15 rupees. Reliance Industries Ltd., India’s most valuable company, gained 2.1 percent to 1,032.65 rupees. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., the biggest carmaker, gained 2 percent to 1,304 rupees.
Reliance Communications
Reliance Communications Ltd., India’s second-largest mobile phone operator, climbed 5.5 percent to 163.4 rupees, extending yesterday’s steepest advance in a year. The company is considering a merger with South Africa’s MTN Group Ltd. or an infusion of fresh equity from a strategic foreign investor, the Economic Times reported, citing a person familiar with the plan that it didn’t name. The company also has an outstanding offer from Emirates Telecommunications Corp., the newspaper said.
Reliance Communiations spokesman Anuj Bakshi declined to comment.
Overseas investors sold a net 4.73 billion rupees ($101.3 million) of Indian stocks on June 1, reducing their purchases of the stocks this year to 209 billion rupees, according to the nation’s market regulator.
Inflows from overseas reached a record 834.2 billion rupees in 2009, exceeding the high set two years earlier in domestic currency terms, as the biggest rally in 18 years lured foreign funds. They sold a record 529.9 billion rupees of shares in 2008, triggering a record annual decline.
The following were among the most active on exchanges:
Bafna Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (BFNA IN), a maker of drugs to treat diabetes and hypertension, added 4.4 percent to 43.7 rupees. The U.K.’s Medical and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency gave site approval to the company’s Paracetamol 500 milligram tablet and caplet and Loperamide 2 milligram capsule, according to an exchange filing.
Godrej Consumer Products Ltd. (GCPL IN), India’s second- biggest soap maker, advanced 2.9 percent to 335.5 rupees after agreeing to buy Argencos, an Argentine hair care company.
Goenka Diamond & Jewels Ltd. (GDJ IN), an importer of Russian rough diamonds, rose 2.6 percent to 92 rupees. About 1.4 percent of the company’s equity changed hands in two block deals on the Bombay Stock Exchange, according to Bloomberg data. Buyers and sellers weren’t immediately known.
Remi Metals Gujarat Ltd. (RMM IN), a maker of steel pipes and tubes, climbed 9.5 percent to 23 rupees, poised for its steepest climb in two months. About 1.7 percent of the company’s shares changed hands in one transaction on the Bombay Stock Exchange, according to Bloomberg data. Buyers and sellers weren’t immediately known.
–Editors: Margo Towie, Reinie Booysen.
India pushes for expansion of permanent seats in UNSC
Jun 3, 2010/timesofindia.indiatimes.com/PTI
UNITED NATIONS: India, which is seeking a permanent berth in the UN Security Council, has said that expansion of only non-permanent seats does not constitute reform of the world body and demanded that membership be increased in both categories.
In a closed-door meeting at the UN headquarters convened to discuss the negotiating text for the Security Council reform, India also pointed out that a vast majority of countries were in favour of expanding the current size of the world body’s top organ from 15 to the mid-20s.
“There cannot be any reform without expansion in both the categories of membership,” Hardeep Singh Puri, India’s envoy to the UN, said last night.
“Equally, expansion only in the non-permanent category or any of its other variants does not constitute reform and is merely the perpetuation of the current inefficiency by the same ineffective means in vogue since 1963,” he said.
India along with Japan, Germany, South Africa and Brazil is seeking permanent membership of the Security Council.
Puri’s remarks came a day after a top US official said India would play a “central part” in the Security Council reform process but stopped short of publicly endorsing the country’s bid for a permanent seat.
“We’re open to expansion of permanent membership of the Council and we believe that India’s going to have a central part to play in the consideration that’s going to come of that reform of the UN Security Council,” Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs William Burns said.
During the inaugural discussions on the UN reform, Zahir Tanin, Afghanistan’s permanent representative to the UN, in his capacity as the Chairperson of the process asked member states to submit proposals that can be worked into a negotiating text, which will be the basis for future discussions.
In 2009, member states of the UN had finally abandoned the ‘Open Ended Working Group’ (OEWG) on the issue that had dragged on for 15 years without yielding any substantive results. In March last year, the old talks were replaced by the new “inter-governmental negotiations.”
At the meeting in the UN headquarters, India also underlined the need for equitable geographical distribution.
“India supports a Charter-based distribution of seats that addresses the lack of representation of African, Latin American and Caribbean countries and the lack of adequate representation of Asian countries in the permanent membership,” Puri said.
This year, India is also running for a non-permanent seat of the Council for which elections will be held in October. Puri and his team have been canvassing for the spot for the past three years.
Earlier this year, Kazakhstan’s withdrew from the electoral race leaving India with a clean slate for 2010-11.
To win, India needs two-thirds of the General Assembly vote, which adds up to about 128 counties saying ‘yes’ to New Delhi’s presence in the Security Council.
BRASIL:
EN BREF, CE 03 juin 2010 … AGNEWS / OMAR, BXL,03/06/2010
