Author Says Bout Would Fly Anything Anywhere

VOA's Andre DeNesnera has interviewed Douglas Farah, author of "The Merchant of Death" -- a reference to Viktor Bout's suspected vast arms trafficking activities -- about Bout's extradition to the United States.

Farah says Bout was a Soviet Air Force officer who saw the potential of selling weapons internationally as the Cold War came to an end.

"And as the Soviet Union ended, he seemed to have a vision that no-one else did, and that was that there were massive amounts of weapons in arsenals where the troops were no longer being paid, officers weren't being paid, and [the weapons were] available for a relatively cheap price," said Farah. "And there were aircraft left on the tarmacs across the former Soviet bloc that weren't being able to be flown because there was no money for fuel or maintenance. And he sort of married up those two commodities and began flying weapons and aircraft out of the Soviet Union and doing business across the world."

Farah gives some examples of Bout's alleged arms trafficking activities.

"The United Nations, the United States, the British and others have accused him of flying weapons into Liberia and Sierra Leone, particularly at the height of the very brutal wars in West Africa. He dealt extensively with the UNITA rebels in Angola," said Farah. "He had a relationship with Mobuto Sese Seko in what was Zaire, now the Democratic Republic of Congo. But he was also in the same conflict arming the rebels that came to power under Laurent Kabila. So he's been around many sides of different conflicts."

Bout's biographer says the accused arms trafficker did not provide weapons to al-Qaida, but that he did have extensive dealings with the Taliban in Afghanistan.

"In part because one of his aircraft that was flying to deliver weapons to the Northern Alliance had to land in Taliban territory. They took the ammunition and kept some of his men prisoner for about a year. And then suddenly they were freed and he began supplying both ammunition and eventually aircraft to the Taliban," Farah said.

For two decades, Bout allegedly supplied weapons to anyone who would pay him. At the same time, he eluded international authorities.

Farah says Bout was finally arrested in Thailand in 2008 in a sting operation run by U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration agents posing as members of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC guerilla movement.

"And over a series of meetings and telephone conversations with him, they eventually set up a meeting in Bangkok, where he would sort of finalize the deal. And he offered them, at the meeting in Bangkok, surface-to-air missiles, drones to attack U.S. installed radars and that sort of thing, and specifically said that he knew that the weapons will be used to kill Americans," said Farah. "And because the FARC is a designated terrorist organization, that is enough to put him away for a long time."

On Tuesday (11/16/10), Bout was extradited to the United States from Thailand after a two-year legal battle. He says he is an innocent businessman and not involved in arms trafficking -- a claim echoed by Russian officials.

In a statement, the Russian Foreign Ministry called the extradition "illegal" and promised that Moscow would provide Bout all of the assistance entitled to Russian citizens abroad.

Farah says Bout has influential friends in Russia's intelligence agency.

"They are very anxious to protect him -- one, because they wanted to and two, because of what he knows," he said.

Farah says Russian officials are concerned about what Bout could tell U.S. authorities.

"I think he could tell them a great deal about what the Russians are doing in weapons sales around the world and how their intelligence structure works. Yes, I think that should be of concern to them and probably is," he added.

But Farah says other people are also concerned about what Bout might reveal under interrogation.

"Viktor also flew for the U.S. in Iraq; he flew for the British; he flew for the United Nations. One of the things that made him so unusual was that he would fly virtually anything, anywhere where the cargo needed to go. So he flew gladiolas, U.N. peacekeepers, frozen chickens, AK-47s -- pretty much for anyone who would pay. And I think many people would be happy if we didn't go into his long history," Farah said.

Appearing in federal court in New York City this week, Viktor Bout pleaded not guilty to terrorism charges.

His wife, Alla Bout says his extradition was illegal because there was still a case against him pending in court here.

VOA quotes her as saying that transferring her husband to the United States before the end of legal procedures breaches legal and humanitarian norms. She says by doing this the government of Thailand has once again demonstrated its complete subservience to Washington and willingness to fulfill any order from their American bosses.

Alla Bout says she plans to file a legal case to force the Thai government to bring her husband back to Thailand to release him.

She also seeks a visa to the U.S. where she says she will do all she can to defend her husband.

Russia also calls the extradition illegal and Thailand did it under intense pressure from Washington.

"Merchant of Death" Extradited to U.S.

Thailand has extradited alleged Russian arms dealer Viktor Bout to the United States to face trial on terrorism charges. U.S. authorities accuse Bout of conspiring to kill Americans and supporting a terrorist organization.

VOA reports Thai authorities say Bout was put on a special plane to the United States Tuesday afternoon after the government gave final approval for his extradition. He is accused of selling weapons that have fueled conflicts in Africa, South America, and the Middle East.

Bout will face trial in the United States for conspiring to kill Americans by selling weapons of war to a terrorist organization.

Bout's handover to U.S. authorities ends more than two and a half years of court battles and a face off with Russian authorities.

Eds Note: Excuse the lengthy lapse in posting.

In Memoriam: My Dad

Alexander J. Belida, 92, the son of Russian immigrant millworkers who aspired to a career in aviation and rose to the rank of Lt. Colonel in the U.S. Air Force, died Wednesday, July 21 at Holy Cross Hospital in Silver Spring, Md. of congestive heart failure.

A longtime resident of Lowell, Massachusetts, where he was born on June 27, 1918, the son of Demitry and Vera (Belinsky) Belida, Col. Belida had resided at Riderwood Village in Silver Spring for the past three years with his wife of 64 years, Rosalia (Filipiuk) Belida, who survives him.

His early years were spent in Chelmsford, Massachusetts where he attended school. He attended the Luscombe School of Aeronautics in New Jersey and became a certified aircraft mechanic. He later received a Bachelors Degree from the University of Maryland.

After working for Pan American Airways in Miami, he entered the Army Air Corps as an aviation cadet in 1942 and was commissioned as an officer and received his pilot’s wings in 1943. As a B-17 pilot, he served in the European Theatre in Italy and after the war was part of the occupation forces in Austria. He returned to the United States in 1947. Subsequent assignments in the Air Force were at various bases in the U.S. and in Germany, including service as an Intelligence Officer that drew on his knowledge of the Russian language. He also was an Assistant Professor of Air Science at Lowell Technological Institute from 1959 to 1963. He retired from the U.S. Air Force in`1965 at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio after completing 23 years of service. He was a recipient of the Air Force Commendation Medal

In 1965 he began a second career as a member of the faculty at Lowell High School in Lowell, Massachusetts where he taught until his retirement in 1980.

Col. Belida held membership in the Air Force Association, the Retired Officers Association, and Longmeadow Golf Club in Lowell. He was a member and past president of the Middlesex North Chapter of the Retired Educators Association of Massachusetts.

Besides his wife, he is survived by a son, Alex Belida, a senior advisor for news at the Voice of America in Washington D.C., and a daughter-in-law, Patricia Reber, the Washington-based Americas’ editor for the German Press Service DPA, both of Rockville, Md. He is also survived by three grandchildren, Adam, Brian and Katherine Belida, and a sister-in-law, Dorothy Belida of Tewksbury, Massachusetts. He was the brother of the late Peter Belida of Chelmsford, Mass. and Anthony Belida of Tewksbury, Mass.

On Vacation

Regrets Only is on vacation!

Human Rights Watch on Obama and LRA

Human Rights Watch has issued the following release:

President Barack Obama should move swiftly to implement landmark legislation he signed committing the US to help civilians in central Africa threatened by the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA), a coalition of 49 human rights, humanitarian, and faith-based groups said today. The rebel group has carried out one of the world’s longest-running and most brutal insurgencies.

The Lord’s Resistance Army Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act of 2009 was signed into law during a White House ceremony that included key members of Congress and representatives of civil society organizations. It states that it is US policy to support efforts “to protect civilians from the Lord’s Resistance Army, to apprehend or remove Joseph Kony and his top commanders from the battlefield in the continued absence of a negotiated solution, and to disarm and demobilize the remaining LRA fighters.” It also requires Obama to develop a comprehensive, multilateral strategy to protect civilians in central Africa from LRA attacks and take steps to permanently stop the rebel group’s violence. Furthermore, it calls on the United States to increase humanitarian assistance to countries currently affected by LRA violence and to support economic recovery and transitional justice efforts in Uganda.

The coalition of supporting organizations includes groups in Democratic Republic of Congo and South Sudan – where communities face ongoing attacks by the LRA – as well as in Uganda, where the conflict originated.

Human Rights defenders in Niangara, a town in northern Congo deeply affected by recent LRA attacks, in a public letter to President Obama published last week, pleaded for concrete and urgent action against the LRA. “We feel forgotten and abandoned. Our suffering seems to bring little attention from the international community or our own government,” the letter says. “We live each day with the fear of more LRA attacks. What chance do we have if no one hears our cries and if no one comes to our aid?”

The law was introduced into the US Senate and House of Representatives in May 2009, and has since become the most widely supported Africa-specific legislation in recent Congressional history. The law was cosponsored by a bipartisan group of 65 Senators and 201 Representatives, representing 49 states and 90 percent of US citizens. Tens of thousands of Americans mobilized in support of the legislation, participating in hundreds of meetings with Congressional offices across the country.

“For years civilians in central Africa have suffered immensely from LRA violence,” said Anneke Van Woudenberg, senior Africa researcher at Human Rights Watch. “This legislation gives President Obama a clear mandate to work with international and national partners to apprehend indicted LRA commanders as part of a comprehensive strategy to permanently stop LRA atrocities.”

“President Obama should move swiftly to take advantage of this historic opportunity to help bring closure to one of the worst human rights crises of our day,” added Van Woudenberg.

LRA violence has plagued central Africa for more than two decades. In northern Uganda, thousands of civilians were killed and nearly two million displaced by the conflict between the rebels and the Ugandan government. In July 2005, the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for the senior leaders of the LRA for crimes they committed in northern Uganda, but the suspects remain at large. Though the rebel group ended attacks in northern Uganda in 2006, it then moved its bases to the northern Democratic Republic of Congo and has since committed acts of violence against civilians in Congo, Sudan, and the Central African Republic. Kony and his top commanders sustain their ranks by abducting civilians, including children, to use as soldiers and sexual slaves.

In December 2008, following the collapse of a negotiations process, Sudan, Uganda, and Congo began a joint military offensive, “Operation Lightening Thunder,” against the rebel group, with backing from the United States. In the subsequent 17 months the LRA has dispersed into multiple smaller groups and has brutally murdered more than 1,500 civilians and abducted over 1,600 people, many of them children. LRA violence has often targeted churches, school and markets, and includes the massacre of over 300 Congolese civilians in an attack last December.

“If left unchecked, the LRA leadership will continue to kill and abduct throughout central Africa, threatening stability in four countries and potentially undermining the referendum in southern Sudan. The LRA is a clear threat to international peace and security,” said John Prendergast, co-founder of the Enough Project. “The US now is tasked with leading a global effort to end this threat once and for all.”

The law also aims to help secure a lasting peace in Uganda by increasing assistance to war-affected communities in northern Uganda and supporting initiatives to help resolve longstanding divisions between Uganda’s north and south. It seeks to increase funding for transitional justice initiatives and calls on the Ugandan government to reinvigorate its commitment to a transparent and accountable reconstruction process in war-affected areas.

“Until now the world has turned its back to the suffering of our people,” said Bishop Samuel Enosa Peni of the Episcopal Church of the Sudan’s Nzara Diocese, which has been deeply affected by LRA violence. “We are praying for US and international leaders to hear our cries and end this violence once and for all.”

To read the letter to President Obama from human rights defenders in Niangara, please visit: http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/05/19/public-appeal-human-rights-defenders-northeastern-dr-congo-president-barack-obama

Fighting the Desert Menace

Worth reading: new Economist article on Operation Flintlock and a joint exercise anti-terrorism exercise with U.S. and local forces in Burkina Faso, Mali, Mauritania and Senegal. Key observation: "When the Americans first started talking about al-Qaeda’s threat in the Sahara, many were sceptical. But a sharp increase in the rate of attacks in the past 18 months by what the jihadists call “al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb”, usually abbreviated to AQIM, have convinced even cynics that a threat of sorts does exist."

According to AFRICOM:

"Most of the tactical and strategic training events will occur during the second and third weeks of the exercise. These will include a command post exercise in Burkina Faso, Medical Civic Action Programs (MEDCAPs) in Burkina Faso, Mauritania, Mali and Senegal, Live-fire company assault Military Training Engagements (MTE) in Mauritania, Mali and Senegal, Airborne Operations and aerial resupply drops in Burkina Faso and Mali, Mounted Battle drills and Desert Mobility exercises in Mali and long range reconnaissance and building clearing drills in Senegal. Continue to watch our website as we will regularly post updates."

Sudan: Bashir Wins, Opposition Complains

Sudan President Omar Hassan al-Bashir has been announced the winner of the nation's first multi-party vote in 24 years. The Voice of America's Alan Boswell reports from Juba that opposition parties have rejected the results, which they say were rigged, but all eyes will likely now focus on a southern independence referendum eight months away.

Sudan's election commission says Mr. Bashir won 68 percent of the nation's votes. Under electoral law, he needed to surpass 50 percent in order to avoid a run-off vote against his nearest competitor.

Yasir Arman, the northern secular Muslim slated by the southern-based Sudan People's Liberation Movement to challenge Mr. Bashir, came in second with 22 percent, most of which came from the southern states. His strong showing was made despite announcing his withdrawal from the race days before polling began, citing electoral fraud.

In Southern Sudan, the president of the semi-autonomous region and head of the SPLM, Salva Kiir, retained his seat with 92 percent of the votes from the region.

Some international observers, such as the Atlanta-based The Carter Center, have said the election will fall short of international standards. Northern opposition groups widely boycotted the elections, citing what they called an unfair campaign environment and allegations of vote rigging. Following the five days of chaotic polling, the charges of vote rigging have only escalated from the opposition forces.

But with the results final, the international community has indicated its efforts will be focused on securing the final implementation of a 2005 peace deal signed between Bashir's government and the southern SPLM rebels. The accord includes a January referendum in the South on whether to remain part of the country or to secede and form its own state.

The lead-up to the referendum is contentious, with a number of outstanding issues analysts warn could derail the peace process.

With no major change in the leadership of either of the two peace parties, these negotiations are expected to begin hitting their final sprint, and logistical planning for the referendum starts almost immediately.

US Admiral: Commercial Ships Need Armed Guards to Fight Pirates

U.S. Admiral Mark Fitzgerald says commercial ships in the Gulf of Aden and Indian Ocean should carry armed guards to help defend against Somali pirates.

"The area is enormous and we just do not have enough assets to cover every place in the Indian Ocean," said Fitzgerald, who commands U.S. Naval Forces in Europe and Africa, in an interview with VOA.

While trying to open a corridor through the Gulf of Aden, some of the pirates have been forced into the Indian Ocean as far away as the Seychelles.

"There has got to be security on these ships in my opinion," said Fitzgerald. "Those security detachments that are on some of the large commercial ships have been very effective. It is up to the commercial industry to figure out how to deal with this. But I do not think that we can give them a 100 percent guarantee that we can protect them, nor should we."

Somali pirates have stepped up hijacking attacks in recent months, making tens of millions of dollars in ransom by seizing ships, including oil tankers, despite the presence of dozens of foreign naval vessels. They have been particularly active in recent weeks, and now hold about 20 ships with hundreds of crew members.

The U.S. Navy says it has five to 10 ships, ranging from speed boats to frigates, involved in counter-piracy efforts off the coast of East Africa.

Fitzgerald says Somalis enriched by piracy are buying up properties in the Kenyan cities of Nairobi and Mombassa, as well as in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. He says the international community must organize a joint campaign to crack down on those who finance the pirates.
"We really need to go after, in my opinion, the money, the logistics, how are they being supported with ships, fuel, those kinds of things," he said. "And we really need the rule of law piece to be fixed so that when we do catch these pirates, we are able to bring them to justice."

The admiral says it is difficult to find countries willing to prosecute the pirates.

He says the U.S. State and Justice departments are working on a plan to prosecute pirates being held on board Navy ships.

Angola: Oil Wealth Eludes Nation’s Poor -- Human Rights Watch Report

(Washington, April 13, 2010) – The government of Angola has not done enough to combat pervasive corruption and mismanagement, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today. Even though the oil-rich country’s gross domestic product has increased by more than 400 percent in the last six years, Angolans are not seeing their lives improve accordingly, Human Rights Watch said.

The 31-page report, “Transparency and Accountability in Angola: An Update,” documents how the government took only limited steps to improve transparency after Human Rights Watch disclosed in a 2004 report that billions of dollars in oil revenue illegally bypassed the central bank and disappeared without explanation. The report details newly disclosed evidence of corruption and mismanagement and includes recommendations for reversing the pattern.

“The government needs to take strong action to combat the corruption and secrecy that undermine Angolans’ rights,” said Arvind Ganesan, director of the Business and Human Rights Program at Human Rights Watch. “Here is a nation with a wealth of resources while its people live in poverty.”

Human Rights Watch said that a recent agreement with the International Monetary Fund (IMF), enacted in the wake of the global financial crisis and drop in the price of oil, offers some hope for improvement if its provisions are carried out.

The government has improved the publication of oil revenue figures, the Human Rights Watch report says, but human indicators in Angola remain abysmal and have not been commensurate with the rapid growth in Angola’s national wealth. Angola is the largest producer of oil in sub-Saharan Africa, yet millions of Angolans have limited access to basic social services. Angola ranked 143rd out of 182 countries in the United Nations Development Programme’s Human Development Index.

Angola’s ranking in Transparency International’s 2009 Corruption Perceptions Index is growing worse, from 158th out of 180 countries in 2008 down to 162nd in 2009.

The report also details new evidence of corruption and mismanagement, including that of Dr. Aguinaldo Jaime, who served as the governor of the Angolan Central Bank from 1999 to 2002. As documented by a February 2010 US Senate report, Jaime initiated a series of suspicious $50 million transactions with US banks. For each attempt, the banks, concerned about the likelihood of fraud, ultimately rejected the transfer or returned the money shortly after receiving it. During Jaime’s three-year tenure as central bank governor, the government could not account for approximately $2.4 billion.

Recent statements by President Jose Eduardo dos Santos seem to indicate a willingness to combat government corruption. He has called for a “zero tolerance” policy against corruption. And as the US Senate conducted its recent investigation into corruption in Angola and elsewhere, he announced a new Law on Administrative Probity, to reduce corruption by government officials.

However, given that the president and ruling party have been in power for more than three decades, including the entire period in which oil-fueled corruption has been rampant, skeptics will wait to see whether meaningful action will accompany these statements, Human Rights Watch said. Further, a new constitution was recently enacted that will enable dos Santos, in power now for 30 years, to remain in power for 13 more years.

“Dr. Jaime’s activities underscore the need for accountability,” Ganesan said. “If the Angolan government is serious about transparency and reform, it should rigorously investigate government officials, publish audits of its expenditures, and act on President dos Santos’ pledge of ‘zero tolerance’ for corruption.”

While the recently announced reforms have not gone far enough, a new Stand-By Arrangement with the IMF offers both the framework and international impetus to make substantive improvements and combat corruption in Angola.

This may be an opportunity for the Chinese government to address problems with transparency and accountability, Human Rights Watch said. The Chinese government and Chinese companies are some of the largest investors, trading partners, and consumers of Angola’s oil. The Chinese government and Chinese companies have invested billions in oil-for-infrastructure deals while remaining relatively silent on governance in Angola and elsewhere.

The China Investment Fund, a prominent private Chinese company that has extensive ties to Sonangol, the Angolan national oil company, is of particular concern. It has been controversial in Angola and other countries, such as Guinea.

Human Rights Watch said that IMF board members, such as the United States and China, should ensure that Angola complies with provisions of the Stand-By Arrangement, specifically by making public the audits of the state oil company Sonangol and providing regular updates detailing Angola’s expenditures.

In addition to the role of the United States as an IMF board member, the Obama Administration has been outspoken about corruption, but some of its policy proscriptions are unlikely to have a significant impact. Instead, Human Rights Watch urged the administration to fully implement the recommendations from the US Senate to combat the use of US financial institutions by foreign kleptocrats to spend their money in the United States.

Elections in Sudan: Trouble Ahead?

Growing problems with Sudan's upcoming election are sparking fears of more instability in the volatile and fragmented country. The U.S. government has been involved in trying to bring about what it calls a credible election to normalize the situation, but analysts in the United States fear it could have the opposite effect.

VOA's Nico Colombant reports that partial and full boycotts are being announced by parties opposed to the president's National Congress Party (NCP) for the April 11 to 13 vote.

This comes as Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir warned that if the former southern rebel Sudan People's Liberation Movement (SPLM), which now rules in the south, boycotted the election, he would reject the planned referendum on southern secession in January 2011.

The SPLM candidate for president, Yasir Arman, has pulled out because his party says conditions are not set for a fair vote. But the party has said it will contest parliamentary and municipal polls everywhere except in the troubled western Darfur region, where registration has been scarce and violence persists.

Terrence Lyons, a Horn of Africa expert at George Mason University, says he fears the Comprehensive Peace Agreement signed in 2005 between the southern SPLM rebels and the ruling NCP ending more than two decades of war, could be derailed. "I think the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) was an extraordinary accomplishment and that needs the attention of the international community so that all the hard work that went into negotiating that agreement is not lost," he said.

J. Peter Pham, the director of the Africa Project at the National Committee on American Foreign Policy, sees what he calls a 'train wreck'. The agreement, known by its initials, CPA, initially called for elections in 2008. "If the CPA had been adhered to in the spirit and the letter which it was crafted, the election should have been held two years ago, which would have given a national government of unity that would have been credible a three-year period leading up to a referendum," he said.

U.S. special envoy to Sudan, Scott Gration, has been very busy in recent days in Khartoum meeting many government and opposition leaders in a bid to rescue the election. In the past few weeks, he has also been trying to help get a comprehensive peace deal for Darfur, and make sure the north-south deal stays on track.

Steven McDonald, the consulting director for the Africa program at the Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars, says it is not clear which U.S. approach can be effective in reaching these goals. "It remains for the administration about how to play it, whether it is a carrots or a stick approach, and that does not come out clearly to the outside observer like myself, as to where the administration has settled, what leverage does the United States really have, how much is it coordinating with the international community on this," he said.

A joint statement released by the U.S., British and Norwegian governments this week expressed concern over the election, conditions on the ground in Darfur, and the slow implementation of other parts of the CPA, like border demarcation. Britain is the former colonial power, while Norway is a main provider of aid.

Further complicating negotiations is last year's indictment of Mr. Bashir by the International Criminal Court in the Hague for alleged crimes against humanity in Darfur. Envoy Gration has said the Sudanese president should respond to the charges, which he has rejected as a western conspiracy.

The court's prosecutor said last month an election in Sudan now is like what it was in Nazi Germany. Mark Davidheiser, who heads the U.S.-based Africa Peace and Conflict Network, says such statements are not helpful. "Given the man's world view and his cultural perspective and background that is just going to stiffen his resolve to resist. And, it is not going to have any productive impact at all," he said.

Davidheiser recently organized a public forum about Sudan, and several other organizations are planning similar events in the days ahead in the United States, amid growing uncertainty over the future of a country that has greatly worried Africa policy makers, activists and experts alike.

Rwanda Wants Habyarimana Extradited

Rwanda is seeking the extradition of a former first lady who was arrested by French authorities on genocide-related charges.

France has detained Agathe Habyarimana, the widow of the former Rwandan leader whose death in 1994 set off the ethnic slaughter which killed 800,000 in just 100 days.

Her accusers paint Habyarimana as a powerful behind-the-scenes figure and a central leader within the circle of Hutu radicals responsible for planning the massacre. A recent report commissioned by the current Rwandan government suggests that she may have been involved in the plot to kill her husband, who at the time of his death had just signed a controversial power-sharing deal with a Tutsi rebel force.

She and her family have always denied involvement in the mass killings.

VOA reports Rwandan Foreign Affairs minister Louise Mushikiwabo praised the arrest by French authorities, who were acting on an international warrant issued by Rwanda.

"We welcome the move," said Louise Mushikiwabo. "We think that justice delayed is justice denied, and a number of people in Rwanda have been waiting to hear what happens with Habyarimana's widow. The people who know her in Rwanda from back then testify that she was quite involved in the preparation of the genocide."

The Rwandan official says that her country will push for the suspect to be sent back to Rwanda for trial, but also suggested that whether Habyarimana faces charges is more important than where the trial would take place.

"Ideally she should be extradited to Rwanda to face justice where the crime was committed, there is no question about it," said Mushikiwabo."That is what we are demanding. But for her, as for many other people that are implicated in this genocide, we want first and foremost justice. The important thing is that there is justice somewhere, especially because this is a crime that is not just against Rwandans but against humanity."

The French, who were close allies with Juvenal Habyarimana's regime, reportedly flew the late leader's widow out of the country as events spiraled out of control following her husband's assassination.

She has sought political asylum in France, where she has resided for a number of years, but her request has never been granted.

The sudden move to act on the arrest warrant is seen as part of a broader diplomatic gesture from France that it is serious about improving its battered ties with the tiny central African nation. Rwandan President Paul Kagame once led the Tutsi rebel force that eventually ended the genocide, and his allies have accused France of arming the Hutu militias who carried out the Tutsi extermination campaign.

France has always rebuffed claims that it was directly linked to the mass killings. But in a short trip to Kigali last week, which included a visit to a genocide memorial, French President Nicolas Sarkozy made the strongest statement of French regret yet, admitting "mistakes" were made, as well as "errors of judgment" and "errors of politics."

President Kagame cut off diplomatic relations with the European nation in 2006 after a French judge accused him and nine of his aides of shooting down President Habyarimana's plane. Official ties were restored in November.

The French in January also arrested a Hutu physician who is suspected to have led the murder of Tutsi in his village.

Agathe Habyarimana Arrested!

Rwandan officials are welcoming France's arrest of Agathe Habyarimana, the widow of Rwanda's late president and a suspected organizer of the 1994 genocide.

Speaking to reporters Tuesday, Rwandan Justice Minister Tharcisse Karugarama called the arrest a good sign, and said the "long arm of the law is finally taking its course."

VOA reports French authorities arrested the former Rwandan first lady at her home south of Paris Tuesday on a Rwandan warrant.

Officials and survivors' groups in Rwanda say Agathe Habyarimana was one of the main architects of the genocide, in which Hutu extremists killed some 800,000 people.

The death of Habyarimana's husband, President Juvenal Habyarimana, is widely considered the trigger for the killing spree.

The former first lady's arrest follows a brief visit to Rwanda last week by French President Nicolas Sarkozy.

The visit was aimed at cementing renewed ties between the countries after a three-year break in diplomatic relations.

Rwanda had cut ties with France in 2006 after a French judge accused Rwandan President Paul Kagame of ordering the April 1994 assassination of his predecessor, Mr. Habyarimana. Mr. Habyarimana's plane was shot down over Rwanda's capital, Kigali.

France helped Agathe Habyarimana escape the country three days later.

The late president's widow has lived in France for at least the past 12 years. She requested political asylum but was repeatedly turned down.

Rwanda reportedly has requested her extradition.

Black Stalingrad or Angola's Verdun

A criminal lawyer and amateur historian based in the Cayman Islands named Peter Polack has written a book about a key battle in Angola that includes Cuba's list of casualties from Angola's long and bloody civil war.

Attorney Polack says his interest in Angola was sparked by a meeting in 1992 with two Cuban refugees who had fought in Angola. He then made a trip to Cuba itself where he acquired several books on the war in Angola and, he says, "this was when I first heard about Cuito Cuanavale" and the battle that took place there in 1987 and 1988 where two superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union, "collided in a monstrous battle fought by their satellite nations of Cuba and South Africa who were assisting" Angolan groups.

Mr. Polack says the battle was significant because it represented the last major incursion in Southern Africa by Russia and USA, the start of the Angolan peace process, the end of Cuban international intervention, and the end of the cold war.

He says the battle itself is of great interest because no non-Cuban, South African, Angolan, Soviet or US author has written an objective, accurate, politically neutral and readable version of the fighting, because it is one of the last major land battles of this century described variously as the largest single conventional military engagement on the African continent since the Battle of Al Alamein, as the African Stalingrad or Angola's Verdun.

He says the book demonstrates that Cuban and South African forces were evenly matched and that Cuban officers were superior to Soviet officers. He also says it shows the battle "was caused by a massive blunder by Soviet leadership."

Peter Polack was born in Jamaica in 1958. He has worked as a criminal lawyer in the Cayman Islands since 1983. He visited Cuba for the first time in June 2009.

Eds Note: See a report on my visit to Cuito. Also this.

Power Politics in Kenya: An Appropriate Follow-up to My Recent Remarks

Kenyan Prime Minister Raila Odinga's party has declared a cabinet boycott within the nation's coalition government, but the prime minister said Wednesday that he is confident the power dispute will be resolved. Alan Boswell reports for VOA from Nairobi that aides to President Mwai Kibaki have dismissed the row as a fabricated crisis.

On Tuesday, a close ally of the prime minister announced that Mr. Odinga's Orange Democratic Movement party would be boycotting cabinet meetings until the current quarrel between the governing partners is settled.

Under a power-sharing deal following the outbreak of election violence in early 2008, President Kibaki and Prime Minister Odinga are to jointly head the nation's government, through an equitable balance of power. Tensions between the two top officials have remained edgy, but the country has since maintained a tenuous stability.

But on Monday a deputy to the prime minister read a statement declaring a "crisis" in relations within the unity government following President Kibaki's move of annulling two suspensions handed down by Mr. Odinga against a couple of cabinet ministers. The two politicians, neither allies with the PM, head ministries caught up in a pair of embarrassing corruption scandals involving the loss of millions of dollars.

On Tuesday an advisor to the president accused Mr. Odinga's party of "grandstanding" and of creating a crisis in "an attempt to derail the country."

Kivutha Kibwana, a constitutional advisor in the office of the president, told reporters the dispute is a guise for other political motives.

"Some of the people who are advising the prime minister are doing so out of ignorance and do not mean well for our country," said the advisor. "They are the ones creating a crisis. The grandstanding and fomenting of a crisis is a well-organized plan that started three weeks ago. Indeed, we are aware that Kofi Annan [former U.N. Secretary General] was invited to come to Kenya to settle a dispute, way before there was any dispute," said Kibwana.

Mr. Odinga left the country on official business to Japan on Sunday night before his deputy declared the "crisis." Speaking in Tokyo Wednesday, the PM expressed confidence that the coalition would be able to resolve its differences peacefully.

Two recent corruption scandals brought both coalition partners under pressure to shake up the nation's bloated cabinet.

Millions of dollars meant to provide free primary education to Kenyan children were embezzled in a widespread scheme that has revealed a brazen culture of graft within the education ministry. Britain and then the U.S. have announced that they are withholding further funds from the program until the scandal is resolved.

In a separate scam, an independent audit by PricewaterhouseCoopers leaked last week showed that over $26 million was lost in a broad scheme in which well-connected individuals bought maize at subsidized rates and sold them into the market at exorbitant profit margins. The imported maize was to help feed starving Kenyans.

Two aides in Mr. Odinga's office were forced to step aside on Saturday for being named in the maize report. Later that day, President Kibaki announced that six additional officials were being suspended pending investigations into corruption allegations.

Then on Sunday Prime Minister Odinga announced that he was suspending Agriculture Minister William Ruto and Education Minister Sam Ongeri until their role in the loss funds could be investigated. But Mr. Kibaki shortly thereafter put out a statement nullifying the move, saying Mr. Odinga does not have the power to force a minister to vacate office.

Two members of Odinga's ODM party leadership team announced that they will not participate in the announced boycott. The two, one of whom is a minister the prime minister attempted to suspend, have become fierce critics of the PM within his own party, another sign that the 2008 power-sharing arrangement could be deteriorating.

The election violence killed more than 1,200 and left hundreds of thousands displaced.

Analysts fear that the nation - long seen as a bastion of calm in the volatile region - remains highly susceptible to instability if the unity government collapses.

Kenya 2007: Ethnic Violence and the Responsibility to Protect

I recently had the pleasure of addressing the Foreign Policy Association at McDaniel College in Westminster, Maryland. Every year the group, one of many around the U.S., gathers over several weeks to discuss a nationally-chosen series of issues. One of those issues this year was the 2007 Election Violence in Kenya and the concept of Responsibility to Protect. Because of my reporting experience in Kenya, admittedly back in the 1990's, I was invited to be the guest speaker on this topic. Fortunately, I still have friends and colleagues who closely monitor current events in Kenya and could call on their assistance in preparing. And there is always the Internet.

So here is a shortened summary of my remarks:

In the worst ethnic violence since independence from Britain in 1963, more than 1,000 people are killed and an estimated quarter million made homeless as violence tears through Kenya.

Here’s just one story from the violence: a man named Haruni Njoroge Kiragu and his family just sit down around their stove to a meal of potatoes when the darkness outside their farmhouse is shattered by screams, chants and the blowing of horns. For more than an hour, several hundred Kalenjin men armed with bows and arrows and machetes try to storm the farms where Kiragu and other ethnic Kikuyu families live.

The farmers use wooden shields and machetes to fight off the attackers. But when the raiders return the next night, 62-year-old Mr. Kiragu and his family and neighbors flee, leaving behind all they own and their five acres of corn and potatoes. A week after the attack, Mr. Kiragu is encamped with hundreds of other displaced Kikuyus in the back yard of a church, with no clothes, no money and barely enough food to survive.

Now here’s the punch line: I reported on that election-related violence while based in Nairobi. Even though it sounds just like the violence you’ve read about for this Great Decisions gathering, it took place in 1993 – 14 years before Kenya was swept by a new wave of ethnic violence triggered by a disputed presidential election in December 2007.

Your lesson material on this topic admits ethnic clashes have accompanied Kenyan elections in the past, but it asserts the scale of the violence in the early months of 2008 was far worse. Frankly, I don’t see the difference – the numbers of dead and displaced are comparable. The notable difference might have been the nervous reaction of members of the international community -- like former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan who reported seeing "gross and systematic human rights abuses". Or Bernard Kouchner, the French Foreign minister, who appealed to the UN Security Council in January 2009 to react before Kenya plunged into a deadly ethnic conflict, citing what he said was "the responsibility to protect".

The reading material would have you believe the world’s response to the 2007 election violence was a rapid and coordinated reaction that serves as ‘a model of diplomatic action under the Responsibility to Protect’.

Maybe. But I am not convinced.

Let me explain. Not long after reporting on the clashes in Kenya, which, by the way, I don’t recall ever provoking any talk of some sort of international intervention – not long after that I left my base in Nairobi to go to Rwanda to report on the 1994 genocide in which three-quarters of a million people were murdered. That single experience has colored my views deeply. The international community did nothing. The U.S. government even dallied over whether to call the bloodshed genocide. I saw machete-slashed bodies stacked like cordwood, hundreds of them, just in one church on one outing. On another I saw scores of bodies floating in a river, dumped there, often tied and left to drown by the killers. I could go on and on.

But another lasting image is that of the frustration of the Canadian General in charge of UN peacekeepers who were actually in Rwanda in 1993 and 1994, General Romeo Dallaire. He told the UN Security Council plans were under way for mass ethnic killings. He told them who was behind the plans and who among the political leaders were on the “hit” list. He told them the peacekeepers knew where the killers were storing their machetes and other weapons.

And he was denied permission to do anything. By the members of the Security Council.

I witnessed more violence in southern Sudan in those same years – again ethnic based violence. Nothing was done by the international community. I also covered Somalia, where the international community tried to restore order amid factional fighting, failed and then just abandoned the country.

These examples were all, in my eyes, a betrayal of the promise heard after World War Two when the Nazi death camps were revealed, “NEVER AGAIN.”

Well, it happened and still happens again and again and again.

So in that sense I understand fully the desire on the part of some leaders and especially the UN to claim some measure of success in preserving the peace in Kenya in 2007.

But what happened there was less a case of looming genocide than a bloody demonstration of politics and corruption. As the organization Human Rights Watch has noted, “every election since the establishment of a multi-party system in 1991 (in Kenya has) witnessed widespread violence.”

Let’s recall the origins of the 2007 violence: On December 27, 2007, Kenya held presidential, parliamentary, and local government elections. While the parliamentary and local government elections were largely credible, the presidential election was seriously flawed, with irregularities in the vote tabulation process as well as turnout in excess of 100% in some constituencies.

Despite this, on December 30, the chairman of the Electoral Commission of Kenya declared incumbent Mwai Kibaki, an ethnic Kikuyu, as the winner of the presidential election.

Violence erupted in different parts of Kenya as supporters of opposition candidate Raila Odinga, an ethnic Luo, and supporters of Kibaki clashed with police and each other.

On February 28, 2008, under international pressure, President Kibaki and Raila Odinga signed a power-sharing agreement, which provided for the establishment of a prime minister position to be filled by Odinga and two deputy prime minister positions, as well as the division of an expanded list of cabinet posts according to the parties' proportional representation in parliament.

In other words, the two sides papered over their differences and opposition leaders agreed to be bought out.

And bought out is no exaggeration. In a country with 40% unemployment, where 50% live under the poverty line, government office is a route to riches. Salaries and alowances are enormous for members of the cabinet and Parliament.

And that’s just the official pay.

As Human Rights Watch has reported: “Kenya has a history of widespread corruption and systemic abuse of office by public officials… Political contests have become all the more charged because of what is at stake; those who achieve political power benefit from widespread abuses including… criminal theft of land, and the corrupt misuse of public resources—indulgences which occur at the expense of groups who are out of power.”

Ironically, the government of Mwai Kibaki came to power in 2002 pledging to correct these and other chronic failures of governance.

My good friend Michela Wrong has written a book about Kenyan politics called “It’s Our Turn to Eat” – an expression meaning the tribe in power is now able to take what it wants. The Kikuyu were out of power under President Daniel Arap Moi in the 1990’s when the violence I began this lecture with took place. That was Moi’s ethnic Kalenjins trying to displace ethnic Kikuyu. In 2007 the Kikuyu were in power but clashed with ethnic Luo, who believed their leader was wrongly denied his place as President, his place “at the dining table.” But other groups were involved as well.

For that reason Michela argues, and I agree, that to explain what happened in Kenya in 2007, "genocide" is not a useful concept.

In the Rift Valley area in 2007, for example, it’s true Kikuyu farmers were systematically targeted by Kalenjin militias. But elsewhere, tribes including the Luos were targeted by Kikuyu militias as well as the Kikuyu-led police, who were responsible for an impressive 400 of the eventual 1,000 plus deaths.

It's not simple, as in Rwanda with the Hutu versus the Tutsi or in Sudan, where the ethnic mainly Christian African tribes of the south clashed with the mainly muslim Arab forces of the north.

In Kenya, while the violence definitely took ethnic form, it was ethnic violence orchestrated by political elites in Nairobi. As Human Rights Watch has noted, “The political manipulation of ethnicity is almost a tradition in Kenyan politics, along with impunity for those implicated in fomenting political violence.”

The international community needs to focus on the coming challenges: how do you stage a fair referendum on the constitution, due this summer. Then, elections are due in 2012. Analysts like Michela Wrong call these the most important elections in East Africa for decades.

Ms Wrong says – and is recommending this in her speeches -- she would like to see the US and UK and EU and UN setting up a mechanism to have the best, most well-monitored and cleanest elections in African history. That should be the priority.

That would be an excellent demonstration of the responsibility to protect.

Rwandan Report Blames Hutu Extremists for 1994 Assassination

This blog began in April 2007, its launch designed to mark the anniversary of the start of the Rwandan genocide. Having been at the site in Kigali where the plane carrying Rwandan President Juvenal Habyarimana and his Burundian counterpart crashed after being shot down, I and others long suspected Hutu extremists were behind the incident. Now a new report has repeated that. Here is how Voice of America reported the story today:

A government-created panel in Rwanda has concluded that Hutu extremists were responsible for the 1994 assassination of the nation's president, also a Hutu, setting off ethnic violence that resulted in 800,000 killed, mostly minority Tutsi. The report falls short of directly implicating the French in the attack.

In April 1994, the plane carrying Rwandan President Juvenal Habyarimana and his Burundian counterpart was shot down. Hutu militia groups, blaming Tutsi rebels, used the president's death as an excuse to launch a 100-day genocide that left the rest of the world in shock.

For years the exact nature of the president's assassination has been a matter of strong contention. A French judge in 2006 found the Tutsi-rebel Rwanda Patriotic Front, led by now-president Paul Kagame, was responsible for the surface-to-air attack. The charge led the Rwandan president to cut off diplomatic relations with the European nation, ties which had long been on icy terms.

The Rwandan government accuses the French of helping to fuel the ethnic slaughter.

The report, which took two years to complete and was based on interviews with over 500 witnesses, found no direct involvement of the French in the plane crash, although it does allege strong ties between the French military and the Hutu regime.

Rwanda and France restored relations in November.

No one expected the panel, commissioned by the Kagame government, to find the Tutsi rebels guilty of the assassination, but analysts say the inquiry represents the most extensive investigation yet undertaken to uncover the mystery surrounding the former leader's death.

Rwanda Minister of Justice Tharcisse Karugarama says the depth of the research backs up the report's claims. "The eyewitness testimonies of people who were in the control tower, of people who saw the plane collapse when they were at the crash site, of people who were doing different jobs around the airport, around the military camp - what they saw, what they heard that very night is what is in that report. And their conclusion, the conclusion of this [report], is that his plane was shot from Kanombe military barracks and that it was shot by extremist forces within President Habyarimana's regime," he said.

The final document alleges that the late president's own inner circle were the conspirators behind the missiles which brought down the jet.

The president was returning from peace talks in Arusha and was set to begin integrating the rebel RPF forces into the national army as part of a negotiated power-sharing agreement, allegedly opposed by the extremist elements within his regime.

Analysis given by ballistic experts at a British university were key to the report's finding that the projectiles originated from Hutu-controlled territory.

Eds Note: Back on August 6, 2008, I posted an item (The Rwandan Genocide: Who Was Really To Blame?) which reported that declassified US government documents pointed at the responsibility of Hutu extremists for downing the airplane carrying the then Rwandan president, Juvenal Habyarimana.

One was a memo to the Secretary of Defense written two days after the plane crash in Kigali. It said Hutu extremists "probably shot down the president's plane."

Another document, a May 9th, 1994 Defense Intelligence Agency report, also pointed to Hutu extremists -- this time, a group within Rwanda's military. The DIA report explained that President Habyarimana, a Hutu, supported a reconciliation agreement with Mr. Kagame's mainly-Tutsi rebel group. It says Hutu hardliners were against the peace-and-power-sharing deal, especially provisions for integrating Tutsis into a new military. It concluded the plane crash "was actually an assassination conducted by Hutu military hardliners."

The State Department appeared to share that view. Another declassified document said there were, in theState Department document's words, "credible but unconfirmed reports that Hutu elements in the military" opposed to a peace deal with the Tutsis "killed Habyarimana in order to block the accords."