Category: International
Cuba and the United States. New Age?
| January 16, 2015 | 10:15 pm | Analysis, Cuba, International | Comments closed

CUBASI

by Ricardo Alarcon de Quesada
January 16, 2015 | Comment

Last December 17th, the US president Barack Obama corrected an excessively long injustice, and simultaneously he changed the direction of history by releasing five Cuban anti-terrorist fighters who were in prison for more than 16 years.

By acknowledging the failure of anti-Cuban policies, re-establishing diplomatic relations, removing all possible restrictions at hand, proposing the complete elimination of the blockade and demanding a new age in the relation with Cuba, all in a single speech, he (Obama) surprised everyone, including brainy analysts.

The hostile policy set up by President Dwight Eisenhower (1953-1961) —before Obama was born— was followed by Democrat and Republican presidents of the U.S., and it was later codified with the Helms-Burton Law, approved by Bill Clinton in 1996.

It was pretty successful in the early years. In 1959, with the Triumph of the Revolution, the U.S. was at the apex of its power. It exercised unchallenged hegemony over several countries of the world, especially in the Western Hemisphere. The U.S. expelled Cuba from OAS and the island was isolated. Cuba was then helped by the Soviet Union and its associates at the COMECON (Council of Mutual Economic Assistance), made of countries that signed the Warsaw Pact.

The falling of the so-called “real socialism” gave false hopes to those who believe it was also the end of the Cuban revolution.

They imagine the imminence of a long period of unipolar dominance. Gloating about good times, they do not notice the deep sense of things happening: the end of the Cold War opened new spaces for social struggles and made Capitalism face new challenges to overcome.

The fall of the Berlin Wall prevented them from seeing that in February 1989, Venezuela was shocked by a social uprising called “El Caracazo”, sign of the blossoming of a new epoch in Latin America.

Cuba survived the collapse of former allies. Its resistance was key factor for the deep transformation of the continent. The policy to isolate Cuba failed years ago since the U.S. ended isolated itself, as stated by current Secretary of State, John Kerry.

A new relation with Cuba was paramount for Washington. The U.S. needed to approach its relation with the continent, no longer its backyard. The achievement of such a goal is fundamental now. The U.S. cannot lead as it did before.

There is still a long way to go to reach that level of relation. First, the economic, commercial, and financial blockade must stop, as major sectors of U.S. business world are urging.

However, to normalize relations it is essential to learn how to coexist with a different viewpoint and eradicate old dreams of domination. It would imply to respect the sovereignty of people, fundamental principle of the UN Chart, which is not convenient for the most powerful countries.

In relation to the freedom of the Cuban Five, all U.S. presidents have used —without exception— the power granted by the Article II, Section 2, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution. All of them have used it for more than two centuries and nothing has stopped them.

Such paragraph in the Constitution authorizes the President to cancel the sentences and grant pardons, in cases of alleged crimes against the United States.

There were lots of reasons to demand executive clemency for the Cuban Five. In 2005, a judge panel of the Appeal Court revoked the process against them —defining the case as a “perfect storm of prejudice and hostility”— and ordered a new trial.

In 2009, the same court determined the case has nothing to do with neither espionage nor national security in the United States. Both verdicts were approved with full consensus.

Regarding another important charge, that of “conspiracy to commit a murder” against Gerardo Hernandez Nordelo, his prosecutors admitted it was impossible to prove such false accusation and they even tried to remove it in May 2001 in an unprecedented move. Such idea came from the attorneys of former President George W. Bush (2001-2009).

Five years had passed and Gerardo awaited any response to his repeated appeals to Miami court to free him, or at least revise his case, or order the government to present the “evidence” used to condemn him, or agree to listen to him about the extent of the money involved in such media campaign to trigger that “perfect storm”.

The court never answered back. No words from bigger media groups were hear before that unusual paralysis of the judicial system. It was obvious it was a political case and only a political decision could solve the situation. No one else but the President could do it.

Obama showed wisdom and determination when he faced with courage the basic problems rather than limiting himself to free any person. The Cuban Five saga was the consequence of an aggressive strategy and the best move was to put an end to both things simultaneously.

No one can deny the transcendence of the announcement of December 17th. It would be a mistake, however, to ignore that there is still a long, winding way to go. It will be necessary to advance firmly and wisely.

Written by Ricardo Alarcon de Quesada, CubaSí

January 15, 2015

Cubasi Translation Staff

Colombia ready for truce talks with Farc – President Santos
| January 15, 2015 | 8:27 pm | International, Latin America | Comments closed

BBC. January 14, 2015.

Colombia’s president has said his government is for the first time prepared to begin talks on a bilateral ceasefire with Farc rebels.

Juan Manuel Santos said he had asked negotiators to start discussions “as soon as possible”.

He said a unilateral truce declared by the leftist rebels last month “has been a step in the right direction”.

The government had previously refused to join the ceasefire, saying the Farc would use it to rearm.

The two sides have been engaged in peace talks in Cuba since November 2012 to try to end decades of conflict.

‘Real belief’
In a televised address on Wednesday, Mr Santos said peace was closer than ever and it was now time “to de-escalate the intensity of the conflict”.

“We’re closer than ever to secure peace and make it a reality for us, our children and our children’s children.

“I have given instructions to the negotiators to initiate as soon as possible a discussion on the point of the definitive bilateral ceasefire and end of hostilities.”

Mr Santos added that high-ranking military officials had already been appointed to manage the process.

Correspondents say up to now the president has been under pressure from the military not to discuss a bilateral truce because of concerns that the Farc would use it to rearm.

For years, talks of a truce between the government and the rebels was simply unthinkable, says the BBC’s Arturo Wallace in Bogota.

But his latest announcement means the government believes the talks are entering into the final stretch, our correspondent adds.

On 20 December the rebels declared an indefinite cessation of hostilities, in an unprecedented move.

Some 220,000 people, most of them civilians, are estimated to have been killed since the Marxist-inspired rebels launched their armed struggle in 1964.

Cuban Doctor Returns to Fight Ebola in Africa
| January 15, 2015 | 7:50 pm | Africa, Cuba, Ebola, Health Care, International | Comments closed

HAVANA, Cuba, Jan 15 (acn) Cuban doctor Felix Baez, who overcame the Ebola virus, which he got in Sierra Leone, returned to that Western African nation to continue fighting the disease along his comrades with the Henry Reeve international medical brigade.

Cubadebate website published a series of photos of the doctor along his comrades in Sierra Leone announcing his return.

An internal medicine specialist, Baez announced in December 2014 that he would return to the African nation to finish the job he started, once he fully recovered from the disease.

The 43-year-old doctor returned to Cuba after having been released from the Geneva-based Cantonal University Hospital, where he received treatment against Ebola.

In response to the World Health Organization call to fight Ebola in Africa, Cuba sent three brigades to Sierra Leone, Liberia and Guinea to fight the virus.

According to the World Health Organization over 8 thousand 800 people have died from the Ebola virus in Africa.

================================================
LAST MEMBERS OF CUBAN FIVE RETURNING TO CUBA:

2000 slaughtered in Nigeria
| January 13, 2015 | 8:25 pm | Africa, Analysis, Ebola, International, Nigeria | Comments closed

Nigeria: Elections/Security Disconnect

AfricaFocus Bulletin
January 13, 2015 (150113)
(Reposted from sources cited below)

Editor’s Note

“These images from Northern Nigeria should be searing the conscience
of the world. Some two thousand innocent children, women and elderly
reportedly massacred in Baga. A young girl sent to her death with a
bomb strapped to her chest in Maiduguri. And lest we forget, more
than two hundred girls stolen from their families, still lost. Words
alone can neither express our outrage nor ease the agony of all
those suffering from the constant violence in northern Nigeria. But
these images of recent days and all they imply for the future of
Nigeria should galvanize effective action.  For this cannot go on.”
– UNICEF Executive Director Anthony Lake, January 11, 2015

For a version of this Bulletin in html format, more suitable for
printing, go to http://www.africafocus.org/docs15/nig1501.php, and
click on “format for print or mobile.”

To share this on Facebook, click on
https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=http://www.africafocus.org/docs15/nig1501.php

Despite exceptions such as the statement above, the disparity
between the global reaction to the terrorist killings in Paris and
those in northeastern Nigeria has been a horrific if predictable
reminder of the differential value placed on human lives by race and
location (for roundups of commentaries making this point, see
articles in The Guardian and The Daily Maverick below).

Less easily explicable, but equally consequential, is the muted
reaction at the top levels of the Nigerian government itself.
According to a January 12 CNN report on the Baga massacre “Last
week, [President] Jonathan launched his re-election bid in a raucous
rally in Lagos. He did not say a word about the massacres.” (
http://tinyurl.com/of33dmm)

This reality, as Nigeria approaches national elections next month,
is critical to understanding the obstacles that Nigeria faces in
responding to Boko Haram. Despite widespread opposition to that
extremist movement in all sections of the country, notes Nigerian
analyst Zainab Usman, there is no common national narrative on how
to deal with it, with many supporters of the incumbent government as
well as of the opposition party actually accusing their opponents of
covertly sponsoring Boko Haram for political reasons.

This AfricaFocus Bulletin contains a short article by Usman making
this point. A more extensive and very clear analysis is in her 21-
minute video presentation from October, available on her website at
http://zainabusman.wordpress.com/ – direct URL to video:
http://tinyurl.com/n2yva7s If you can, watch the video!

In the video Usman refers to the car bombings by Boko Haram in July
2014 targeting opposition presidential candidate Muhammadu Buhari as
well as a prominent Muslim scholar, which
left 82 bystanders dead. This is a clear reminder that the movement
has targeted both Christians and Muslims, and that simplistic
portrayals of either security or the elections based on region and
religion alone are highly misleading. The complex political party
scene, at both federal and state levels, brings together politicians
of all backgrounds on both sides. The presidential ticket of the
incumbent Goodluck Jonathan includes Muslim Namadi Sambo as vice-
president, while opposition leader Muhammadu Buhari’s vice-
presidential candidate is Yemi Osinbajo, a lawyer and a Christian
pastor.

Also included in this issue is a general background article on the
elections by Idayat Hassan, Director of the Centre for Democracy and
Development, Abuja, and a brief roundup from the latest report by
Mohammed Ibn Chambas, the UN Secretary-General’s special
representative for West Africa, on the multiple atrocities committed
by Boko Haram in 2014.

Few if any observers would venture to predict the results of the
election (Gallup notes widespread distrust among Nigerians at the
likelihood of a fair election: http://tinyurl.com/nmmuw5x). And
skepticism towards all political figures is profound. But
President Jonathan’s record, onfacing Boko Haram as well as more
generally, is extremely weak. And opposition candidate Muhammadu
Buhari, a former military head of state, does have a reputation for
personal integrity as well as a clear commitment to strengthening
the security response to Boko Haram.

Of related interest:

* Good roundup of coverage and opinion on “Why did the world ignore
Boko Haram’s Baga attacks?” in The Guardian, Jan. 12, 2015
http://tinyurl.com/om7y8jl

* “I am Charlie, but I am Baga too: On Nigeria’s forgotten
massacre,” Simon Allison, The Daily Maverick, Jan. 12, 2015
http://tinyurl.com/l8pja9a

* Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC)
http://www.inecnigeria.org/

* Internal Displacement Monitoring Center, December 2014
Detailed overview of internal displacement, including but not
limited to that by Boko Haram
http://tinyurl.com/n57loz4

* “The Tragedy of Borno State: Local Dimensions of Boko Haram’s
Insurgency,” by Michael Baca, African Arguments, December 19, 2014
http://africanarguments.org/ – direct URL:
http://tinyurl.com/lxg98np

For previous AfricaFocus Bulletins on Nigeria, visit
http://www.africafocus.org/country/nigeria.php

For ongoing news coverage of Nigeria from Nigerian sources, visit
http://saharareporters.com and http://allafrica.com/nigeria

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Ebola Perspectives

[AfricaFocus is regularly monitoring and posting links on Ebola on
social media. For additional links, see
http://www.facebook.com/AfricaFocus]

Informative roundup on prospects for fight against Ebola in 2015.
Notable differences between affected countries as of end of 2014.
http://lauriegarrett.com/blog/ahead-in-2015-part-one

Short video tribute to local health workers in Liberia, by U.S.
photographer who survived Ebola – a “must watch”
“Making Sure We Give Credit Where It’s Due in the Ebola Outbreak,”
by Ashoka Mukpo, Jan 8, 2015
http://tinyurl.com/mnna7yg

++++++++++++++++++++++end editor’s note+++++++++++++++++

Boko Haram and the Competing Narratives

July 11, 2014

Zainab Usman

http://zainabusman.wordpress.com/ – direct URL:
http://tinyurl.com/q9esued

This is an article I recently wrote for the Opinion section of
AlJazeera English. It was originally published on the AJE website.

Nigeria has recently been brought to global media attention both as
the largest economy in Africa and as the home country of the Boko
Haram insurgency. The growing security threat has been accompanied
by a failure to develop a comprehensive narrative about Boko Haram’s
origins, its motivations and its implications for the country’s
future. The absence of such a cohesive narrative by the Nigerian
government, its citizens and the communities affected is indicative
of the need for a domestic solution to tackle this security
challenge.

The recent abduction of more than 200 schoolgirls from the remote
community of Chibok in Nigeria’s northeast focused the world’s
attention on the country’s five-year battle with violent extremism.
Within this period, the goals of Boko Haram have evolved – from
leading a hermetic life away from a society they deemed corrupt and
decadent, to a vengeful war against all symbols of modernity,
democratic governance and Western education.

Upsurge in violence

Unfortunately, Nigerians haven’t been as quick to come to terms with
the upsurge in violence. The now-daily suicide bombings, mass
murders, mysterious assassinations of political, traditional and
religious leaders, mass abductions and other incidents of mindless
violence are still hard to grasp.

In the first five months of 2014, over 5,000 lives were lost to such
violence, according to the think tank, the Council on Foreign
Relations. In the wake of the glaring inability of the government to
contain this violent extremism, several competing narratives have
emerged.

On the part of the Nigerian government, the narrative has been
mostly incoherent and highly politicised. With the Chibok girls’
abduction for instance, both the federal government and the states
in the northeast – Boko Haram’s stronghold – have been preoccupied
with trading blame. Constitutionally, the responsibility for
security lies with the central government.

Since May 2013, three of these northeastern states have been under a
state of emergency, which gives greater powers to the central
government over their security.

These states accuse the federal government of negligence,
incompetence and corruption affecting the capacity of themilitary.
In turn, the federal government blames the states for exaggerating
the insecurity in their domains to embarrass it.

The key to understanding this lack of cohesion between the federal
and the northeastern states lies in understanding the nature of the
heated political environment.

The next round of general elections in 2015 may be the country’s
most contentious. President Goodluck Jonathan, it is widely
believed, will run for a second term, against a groundswell of
opposition under the All Progressives Congress (APC).

Jonathan’s emergence as presidential candidate in 2011 breached the
ruling People’s Democratic Party’s (PDP) power-sharing rule in which
presidential power alternated every eight years between the mostly
Christian southern elites and their mostly Muslim northern
counterparts. In the typical rhetoric of political brinkmanship that
characterises electoral politics in Nigeria, a few aggrieved
northern PDP politicians who felt short-changed of their turn at the
presidency, threatened to make the country “ungovernable” for
Jonathan, a southerner.

Where these empty threats should have ordinarily dissipated into
thin air, they coincided with the escalation of the Boko Haram
insurgency. The Islamist group which emerged in the early 2000s
became increasingly violent after confrontations with security
agencies, as an International Crisis Group report documents. The
extra-judicial murder of Muhammad Yusuf, the group’s leader by the
police in 2009, captured on camera, forced the remaining members
into hiding. They reassembled a few years later, embarking on a
viciously vengeful killing spree.

South-north divide?

In 2011, Jonathan became president in regionally polarising
elections, on the platform of a fractured ruling party, and with a
simmering insurgency about to explode in its full wrath. The
interaction of all these meant that as Boko Haram waged its campaign
of violence, including its historic bombing of the UN building in
Abuja, the president and his inner circle wrestled to consolidate
their power in the PDP.

Consequently, a narrative slowly emerged from the president’s mostly
southern support base that the insurgency was being sponsored by
“disgruntled northern politicians” to undermine his administration.
This view has been articulated by known associates of the president
such as Chief Edwin Clark and ex-militant Mujahid Dokubo Asari.

It is now a widely-shared belief by many southerners that the
worsening insecurity is evidence of the northern elite making real
their erstwhile threat, as opposed to the governance challenges
bedevilling every aspect of Nigerian society. The northern elite are
funding the insurgency, destroying their infrastructure and killing
their own people just to make Jonathan look weak, it is said.

In the north where most of Boko Haram’s attacks and victims have
been concentrated, a widespread sense of fear, alienation and deep
distrust pervades. This stems from the federal government’s
inability to contain Boko Haram despite the increase in defence
spending to $5.8bn (or 20 percent of the budget) and militarisation
of the northeast.

Rather, brutal human rights abuses by the security forces and
allegations by combat soldiers of deliberate sabotage by their
commanders reinforce the deep distrust in the federal government.
The president’s slow response and perceived indifference to attacks
in the north has further alienated him from many northerners – he
only publicly acknowledged the Chibok girls’ abduction two weeks
after.

Consequently, the predominant narrative among many northerners is
that Jonathan’s federal government at best has little interest in
ending the insurgency in the north; and at worst, his associates may
be indirectly fuelling it, to weaken the region and its elites’
national political leverage. This is a view recently articulated by
Murtala Nyako, the governor of Adamawa, one of the states under
emergency rule. Coincidentally, the governors of all three
northeastern states under the state of emergency are in the
opposition party, the APC.

As the country’s elites and citizens blame one another, Boko Haram
appears more determined. As the country’s social fabric unravels
after each bomb blast, and the narratives become more disparate,
Boko Haram remains consistent with its vision against Western
education, modern governance structures and inter-religious harmony.
The strong national cohesion needed among Nigeria’s leaders and
citizens to collectively tackle this terrorist threat is lacking due
to contentious local politics. References to a civil war and a
disintegration of the country are now constant features online, in
print media and other fora of public discourse.

It is commendable that at this time of need, governments of the
United States, United Kingdom and other global powers have pledged
military support to help Nigeria to contain this terrorist threat.
Yet it is up to Nigerians to decide whether to unite and tackle the
insurgency, or continue blaming each other while the country
gradually unravels at the seams.

**************************************************************

Nigeria Forum:  Why are the stakes so high for the 2015 elections?

by Idayat Hassan

African Arguments, December 16, 2014

http://africanarguments.org/ – direct URL:
http://tinyurl.com/mt49ld4

[Idayat Hassan is Director of the Centre for Democracy and
Development, Abuja.]

The 2015 general elections in Nigeria will define the country.
Speculation about a crisis that may ensue in the post-election
period is rife. Irrespective of which political party emerges
victorious to form the national government, the south-north divide,
zoning, religion and other factors could have a significant effect
in the aftermath of the polls.

Identity has always played a prominent role in Nigerian elections.
This situation has been further exacerbated in the prelude to 2015
as ethnic and religious entrepreneurs capitalize by whipping up such
sentiments. At the heart of this is the power sharing and rotation
equation between different groups divided along regional, ethnic and
religious. This, however, takes different dimensions at different
levels of government.

At the national level the bifurcation is along the North – South
divide. This is fueled by the power-sharing agreement within the
People’s Democratic Party (PDP) called ‘zoning’. Under this
agreement, power is expected to alternate between the North and
South, however the death of former President Umaru Yar’Adua’s put
the agreement in disarray, not only did his then vice president
Goodluck Jonathan utilize his unexpired tenure, but also contested
and won the election in 2011 (with an alleged agreement that he
would not seek re-election in 2015.)

The issue of identity also plays out at the state level. The
politics of attrition – “our turn, we are the largest group, we
produce the most resources” – is easily observable. This syndrome,
coupled with the marginalization card, is strongly played by ethnic
zones and religious groups. But identity is quite fluid within the
Nigeria context and ethnicity, religion or geo- political identity
can fade away when necessary.

The upcoming 2015 general elections differ from the 2011 polls in
part due to the emergence of the All Progressive Congress (APC). The
country can now be said to be a two party state. In the 2011 general
elections, four major parties, including PDP, ACN, CPC and ANPP,
contested the elections with the opposition groups polling (in
total) less than 42 percent of the votes cast. However, General
Buhari of the CPC, registered just a few months prior to the
elections, polled over 12 million votes, with 96.9 percent of the
vote from Northern Nigeria.

With the merger of major opposition parties, the APC is more
formidable, having membership and support beyond the North. Now that
General Buhari is on its presidential ticket, it is unlikely that
PDP stalwarts will sit back patiently without devising means to win
the election at all costs. If Buhari could poll 12,214,853 as the
presidential candidate of the Congress for Progressive Change (CPC)
as the APC candidate he is a genuinely credible challenger to PDP
dominance.

The defection of the five PDP governors to the APC also raised the
stakes higher. Political structures previously under the control of
the PDP are now controlled by APC. The PDP will however, want to
regain these states at all costs which further raises the stakes.

This acrimonious atmosphere has led to an explosion of hate speech.
In the last weeks there have been accusations by Northern leaders
and even the opposition party that Jonathan-led Federal Government
is fueling the Boko Haram insurgency in the North East. Reminiscent
of the Rwanda genocide, the state governor of Katsina was caught on
tape referring to opponents as “cockroaches” and encouraging his
supporters to crush them while they chanted “kill them”. The PDP
National Publicity Secretary described the APC as a terrorist party,
linking it to Al-Qaeda.

The use of social media has further led to the explosion of hate
speech with a geopolitical dimension attached. There is also a need
to watch out for the impact opinion polls may have in the elections.
In the last  months, several polls have been conducted placing some
candidates ahead of others, the likelihood of conflict entrepreneurs
latching on to figures from such polls to incite violence when a
particular candidate loses out is a reality that must be proactively
countered.

This election is being conducted as impunity and partisanship are
exhibited at all levels. The security agencies are viewed as
partisan at the national and state level. There are allegations of
police patrol vehicles carrying political parties/candidates
stickers in certain states.  The Inspector General of police is
being accused of partisanship with his recent handling of the House
of Representatives’ impasse and failure to recognize the Speaker of
the House of Representatives, Hon Aminu Tambuwal, as the speaker.

In addition, the spokesperson of the Department of State Service
(DSS), Ms. Marilyn Ogar, has been accused of partisanship following
several unsubstantiated allegations against the APC, which includes
claiming the party tried to bribe the DSS during the governorship
election of August 9th. Similarly, she alleged that APC was a
sponsor of the Boko Haram insurgency.

The preconceived notion of the security agencies’ partisanship has
implications on the election, with the likelihood that opposition
parties will resort to self-help or arming ethnic militias. This is
worrying, particularly in the context of an election where the
acceptance of results and the electoral outcome is a key challenge.
Already the opposition parties are threatening to create a parallel
government.

Speaking at the grand finale of Governor Rauf Aregbesola’s bid for
re-election in Osogbo, Osun State, APC National Chairman, Chief John
Oyegun, warned that any attempt by PDP to rig the 2015 elections
would lead to the formation of a parallel government. This was
reiterated by the Governor of Rivers State, Rotimi Amaechi, during
an APC protest rally held in Abuja on 19th November 2014.

In the 2011 general election, INEC enjoyed the goodwill of most
Nigerians, but this trend is changing for a number of reasons. Top
of the list is the handling of the Permanent Voters’ Card (PVC)
distribution and the Continuous Voters’ Registration (CVR) exercise.
These exercises experienced varying challenges, ranging from
logistics and capacity to the disappearance of over a million names
off the register in Lagos State, to the extension of the exercise
from the initially planned 3 to 4 + phases.

The PVC distribution in Lagos and Kano generated so much bad blood
with rallies against the commission held across Lagos and political
parties joining the fray with press conferences and statements
issued, not only questioning INEC but also fostering the impression
that the commission is acting out a script. In the same vein, the
commission has been accused of planning to disenfranchise Christians
by the Chairman of Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN), Pastor
Ayo Oritsejafor.

The perceived politicization of the creation of additional polling
units (now suspended) also impacted the credibility of the
commission as it was accused of favouring a particular part of the
country. The Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) created by the Boko
Haram insurgency constitute another challenge for INEC. There have
been many calls for these people to be included in the elections
without regard to the provisions of the law, which states that
voters can only vote at the polling units where they registered.
Without a review of electoral law, the practicality of this is in
doubt, and even if an amendment to this effect is passed, how it
would be achieved comes into question as these IDPs are scattered in
homesteads (not just living in camps).

We also cannot gloss over international best practice as espoused in
instruments such as the African Charter on Democracy, elections and
governance, which prescribes six months before elections for the
amendment of any electoral laws.

This analysis is not complete without emphasizing the increased role
of religion in the upcoming elections. While much emphasis has been
on political Islam in the Nigerian context, rising Pentecostalism
and political power wielded by the Pentecostal pastors with huge
followings must be emphasized. Particularly worrisome is the
increased vituperation of the chairman of the Christian Association
of Nigeria (CAN) and outright partisan role played in the prelude to
the elections.

As insecurity continues to pervade the country, much emphasis is
being laid on the Boko Haram Insurgency. But a conflict risk
assessment shows an average of eighteen states as being at ‘high
risk’. For the purpose of this analysis, I shall concentrate on
Nassarawa state.

Nassarawa state has been enmeshed in violence for the last 2 years,
leaving aside the attempt to impeach the governor which led to loss
of lives and property. The quest for power change and an unorthodox
agreement between the incumbent governor and the Eggons (who
constitute the highest percentage of citizens in the state) that the
incumbent Governor will serve only a term in office in exchange for
their support in the 2011 general election, is said to be one of the
reasons for the emergence of the religious cult group, ‘Ombatse’, in
2013.

The sect is alleged to have murdered over 70 security agents,
including men of the Nigerian Police Force (NPF) and DSS in cold
blood in May 2013. The security agents were said to have stormed the
shrine over alleged forceful conscription of people into the cult,
none of the alleged killers of the security men have been brought to
book while the white paper that emanated from the panel of inquiry
set up by the state government is being challenged in court by the
group.

The Fulani/Eggon crises, conflict between farmers and pastoralists
and the rivalry between the PDP and APC pervade the Nassarawa state.
There is hardly a week without a report of violent conflict, but the
state is not being prioritized in terms of election programming.

As Boko Haram continues to acquire more territory, the likelihood of
elections in the north east seems dim. From its concentration in the
three states of Bornu, Yobe and Adamawa, in the last weeks, the
insurgents have shifted attacks to Bauchi and Gombe in the North
East, while at the same time making forays into Kano, Niger and
Plateau in North West and North Central Nigeria respectively. Boko
Haram has established its hegemony in some local government areas in
the North East following the incapacity of the military to regain
the areas. The question therefore is whether elections be held in
the occupied territories.

The legitimacy of the elections and the incoming administration will
hinge on the resolution of some of the highlighted issues and above
all the quality of elections delivered by INEC.

**********************************************************

Excerpts from

Report of the Secretary-General on the activities of the
United Nations Office for West Africa, 24 December 2014
S /2014/945

Available at http://tinyurl.com/ps455le

20. Nigeria also witnessed an escalation in attacks and bombings,
particularly in   the north-eastern States of Borno, Yobe and
Adamawa. During the reporting period, Boko Haram carried out several
attacks on military and security installations, as well as over 40
deadly raids on civilian settlements, which included torching of
churches and mosques. On 1 July, a vehicle-borne explosive device
detonated and  killed at least 56 civilians in a crowded arketplace
in Maiduguri, Borno State. On 23 July in Kaduna, Kaduna State, two
successive bombings targeted the convoys of Sheik Dahiru Bauchi, a
prominent Islamic scholar, and Muhammadu Buhari, a presidential
contender for APC, leaving 82  people dead. On 7 November, a bomb
killed 10 people in Azare, Bauchi State. On 10 November, a suicide
bomber in Potiskum, Yobe State, killed at least 46 students and
wounded 79 others at the  Public Science Technical College. The
Yobe State government subsequently closed all schools until further
notice. On 12 November, another suicide bombing took place at a
school in Kontagora, Niger State, injuring scores of people. On 25
November, two teenage female suicide bombers killed over 45 people
in the marketplace of Maiduguri. On 27 November, a bomb explosion
in the Maraba -Mubi area in Adamawa State killed at least 40
people. The  Kano Central Mosque was attacked on 28 November,
killing at least 120 people and injuring over 270 others.
On 11 December, twin bombs killed at least 40 people at a market in
Jos. On the  same day, in Kano, a 13-year-old girl was arrested for
allegedly wearing a suicide vest.

21. The territorial expansion of the Boko Haram insurgency was quite
rapid. The group took over the towns of Buni Yadi, Yobe State, on 20
August; Gambaru -Ngala, Borno State, on 26 August; Dikwa, Borno
State on 28 August, and Bama, the second-largest city in Borno
State, on 2 October. On 5 and 11 November, Boko Haram captured the
town of Malam Fatori in Borno State and the city of Maiha in Adamawa
State, respectively. The group is now believed to be in control of
significant swaths of land in Borno and Adamawa States, raising
questions about the Government’s ability to conduct elections in
these areas. Boko Haram has also reportedly established governance
architecture and imposed Sharia law in the areas
under its control.

22. Despite national and international reaction to the kidnapping of
schoolgirls in Chibok, Borno State, in April 2014, Boko Haram has
continued its spate of kidnappings of adults and children. On 10
August, Boko Haram militants overran local militias in a remote
fishing village near Lake Chad and  kidnapped 97 persons. On 14
September, over 50 women were reported to have been abducted in
Gulak, Adamawa State; on 30 September an unknown number of persons
were abducted in Gwoza, Borno State; and  on 18 October, 40 women
were reportedly abducted in Wagga, Adamawa State.

*****************************************************

AfricaFocus Bulletin is an independent electronic publication
providing reposted commentary and analysis on African issues, with a
particular focus on U.S. and international policies. AfricaFocus
Bulletin is edited by William Minter.

AfricaFocus Bulletin can be reached at africafocus@igc.org. Please
write to this address to subscribe or unsubscribe to the bulletin,
or to suggest material for inclusion. For more information about
reposted material, please contact directly the original source
mentioned. For a full archive and other resources, see
http://www.africafocus.org

********************************************************

Close Guantanamo—Then Give It Back to Cuba
| January 9, 2015 | 10:28 pm | Cuba, International, National | Comments closed

TRUTHDIG

 

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/close_guantanamo_–_then_give_it_back_to_cuba_20150107

Posted on Jan 7, 2015

By Amy Goodman

This week marks the 13th anniversary of the arrival of the first post-9/11 prisoners to Guantanamo Bay, the most notorious prison on the planet. This grim anniversary, and the beginning of normalization of diplomatic relations between the U.S and Cuba, serves as a reminder that we need to permanently close the prison and return the land to its rightful owners, the Cuban people. It is time to put an end to this dark chapter of United States history. “The detention facilities at Guantanamo for individuals covered by this order shall be closed as soon as practicable,” President Barack Obama wrote nearly six years ago, in one of his first executive orders, on Jan. 22, 2009. Despite this, the prison remains open, with 127 prisoners left there after Kazakhstan accepted five who were released on Dec. 30. There have been 779 prisoners known to have been held at the base since 2002, many for more than 10 years without charge or trial. Thanks to WikiLeaks and its alleged source, Chelsea Manning, we know most of their names. Col. Morris Davis was the chief prosecutor in Guantanamo from 2005 to 2007. He resigned, after an appointee of George W. Bush overrode his decision forbidding the use of evidence collected under torture. Davis later told me, “I was convinced we weren’t committed to having full, fair and open trials, and this was going to be more political theater than it was going to be justice.” Obama did create a special envoy for Guantanamo closure, although the person who most recently held the position, Cliff Sloan, abruptly resigned at the end of December without giving a reason. In a just-published opinion piece in The New York Times, Sloan wrote, “As a high-ranking security official from one of our staunchest allies on counterterrorism (not from Europe) once told me, ‘The greatest single action the United States can take to fight terrorism is to close Guantanamo.’” The U.S. has imposed a crushing embargo against Cuba for more than half a century, ostensibly to punish the small country for its form of governance. What kind of alternative does the United States show Cubans on that corner of their island that the U.S. controls? A hellish, military prison beyond the reach of U.S. laws, where hundreds of men have been held, most without charge, and many beaten and tortured.

President Obama rightly chastises Egypt for imprisoning three Al-Jazeera journalists, Peter Greste, Mohamed Fahmy and Baher Mohamed. “They should be released,” Obama told reporters last August. Yet, sadly, Egypt only needs to look to the U.S. to determine acceptable treatment of Al-Jazeera journalists. Sami al-Hajj was a cameraman for the network. He was covering the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 when the Pakistani military picked him up and handed him over to U.S. forces. After 17 brutal days at Bagram Air Field, he was transferred to Guantanamo Bay, where he was held without charge for more than six years. He was tortured, beaten and humiliated. Al-Hajj went on a hunger strike for 480 days, and was subjected to forced feeding through nasal tubes. He was released in May 2008. I sat down with Sami al-Hajj in December 2012 at Al-Jazeera’s headquarters in Doha, Qatar, where he was heading the network’s Human Rights and Public Liberties desk. He said the U.S tried to coerce him into spying while he was imprisoned: “They [offered] to give me a U.S.A. nationality and take care about my family if I work with them in CIA to continue my job being journalist with Al-Jazeera, just send them information about the link between Al-Jazeera and al-Qaida and the terrorist people and some people in the Middle East. Of course, I refused to do that. I told them, ‘I’m journalist, and I will die as a journalist.’” The United States knew he was innocent, but wanted him to spy on Al-Jazeera, so it subjected him to years of harsh imprisonment in an attempt to break him? The United States took Guantanamo Bay by force in 1898, during the Spanish-American War, and extracted an indefinite lease on the property from Cuba in 1903. Returning Guantanamo Bay to Cuba will begin to right more than a century of wrongs that the U.S. government has perpetrated there. Most importantly, the return of the Guantanamo Bay prison and naval base will make it harder for any future war criminals, whether in the White House, the Pentagon or the CIA and their enthusiastic cheerleaders in Congress, to use Guantanamo as their distant dungeon, to inflict torture and terror on prisoners, many of them innocent, far from the eyes of the people of the United States, and far from the reach of criminal courts. Denis Moynihan contributed research to this column.   Amy Goodman is the host of “Democracy Now!,” a daily international TV/radio news hour airing on more than 1,200 stations in North America. She is the co-author of “The Silenced Majority,” a New York Times best-seller.   (c) 2015 Amy Goodman

Only tackling the root causes can end the cycle of violence
| January 8, 2015 | 7:35 pm | Analysis, International | Comments closed

by: Sam Webb

It was reported today that one of the young men who was part of the horrific and ghastly attack that killed 12 people in Paris yesterday was radicalized by the torture and brutality that occurred at Abu Ghraib. That tells me that these unforgivable atrocities (and there are many more in the Muslim world against Muslim people, including young children, that either go un- or barely reported) emanate, in the first place, from the real conditions of everyday life.

Thus any solution, if it hopes to end the cycle of violence and counter violence that grips and scars the modern world has to uproot these real conditions, that is, exploitation, oppression, poverty, racism, discrimination, torture, war, alienation, etc. and the structures, policies, and people that create and sustain them.

What won’t help – in fact, they’re a fool’s errand and a demagogue’s soundbite – are sweeping (and groundless) condemnations of Islam, or any other religion or people. Nor is the further militarization of already heavily armed police and security forces and more invasive spying an answer. Done that and it hasn’t worked either.

Nor should we hang our hopes on the projection of even greater military power in distant lands to make us safe. Look where that has got us since we launched our “War on Terror” in the wake of 9/11! And finally, let’s not turn our country into a fortress that turns immigrants into enemies and democracy and civil liberties into something that we can no longer afford.

Again and as counter intuitive as it may seem to many people at this moment when feelings are running high, only a sharp turn to peace and non-violence, to substantive equality for all, to full human solidarity and universal love, and to dissolving the real conditions that generate and reproduce violence daily and hourly, both here and around the world, stands a ghost’s chance of extricating humankind from this awful and seemingly intractable situation.

If this feels like too big challenge, too steep a hill to climb, we might want to reflect a bit on the life of Martin Luther King Jr., whose birthday we celebrate next week and whose commitment to overcome seemingly insurmountable challenges never faltered and ultimately proved victorious.

The false flagging of North Korea: CIA weaponizes Hollywood
| December 30, 2014 | 9:13 pm | Analysis, International, National | Comments closed
Global Research, December 27, 2014
Almost all wars begin with false flag operations.
The coming conflicts in North Korea and Russia are no exception.
Mass public hysteria is being manufactured to justify aggression against Moscow and Pyongyang, in retaliation for acts attributed to the North Korean and Russian governments, but orchestrated and carried out by the CIA and the Pentagon.
The campaign of aggression against North Korea, from the hacking of Sony and the crescendo of noise over the film, The Interview, bears all the markings of a CIA false flag operation.
The hacking and alleged threats to moviegoers has been blamed entirely on North Korea, without a shred of credible evidence beyond unsubstantiated accusations by the FBI. Pyongyangs responsibility has not been proven. But it has already been officially endorsed, and publicly embraced as fact.
The idea of America under attack by North Korea is a lie.
The actual individuals of the mysterious group responsible for the hacking remain conveniently unidentified. A multitude of possibilities—Sony insiders, hackers-for-hire, generic Internet vandalism—have not been explored in earnest. The more plausible involvement of US spying agencies—the CIA, the NSA, etc. , their overwhelming technological capability and their peerless hacking and surveillance powers—remains studiously ignored.
Who benefits? It is illogical for Pyongyang to have done it. Isolated, impoverished North Korea, which has wanted improved relations with the United States for years (to no avail), gains nothing by cyberattacking the United States with its relatively weak capabilities, and face the certainty of overwhelming cyber and military response. On the other hand, Washington benefits greatly from any action that leads to regime change in North Korea.
But discussion about Pyongyangs involvement—or lack of—risks missing the larger point.
This project, from the creation of The Interview to the well-orchestrated international incident, has been guided by the CIA, the Pentagon, and the State Department from the start. It is propaganda. It is a weapon of psychological warfare. It is an especially perverted example of military-intelligence manipulation of popular culture for the purpose of war.
There is nothing funny about any of it.
The Interview was made with the direct and open involvement of CIA and Rand Corporation operatives for the express purpose of destabilizing North Korea. Star and co-director Seth Rogen has admitted that he worked directly with people who work in the government as consultants, who Im convinced are in the CIA. Originally conceived to be a plot taking place in an unnamed country, Sony Pictures co-chairman Michael Lynton, who also sits on the board of the Rand Corporation, encouraged the film makers to make the movie overtly about murdering Kim Jong-Un. Bruce Bennett, the Rand Corporations North Korean specialist, also had an active role, expressing enthusiasm that the film would assist regime change and spark South Korean action against Pyongyang. Other government figures from the State Department, even operatives connected to Hillary Clinton, read the script.
The infantile, imbecilic, tasteless, reckless idiots involved with The Interview, including the tasteless Rogen and co-director Evan Goldberg, worked with these military-intelligence thugs for months. Hung out with them. They do not seem to have had any problem being the political whores for these Langley death merchants. In fact, they had fun doing it. They seem not to give a damn, or even half a damn, that the CIA and the Pentagon have used them, and co-opted the film for an agenda far bigger than the stupid movie itself. All they seem to care about was that they are getting publicity, and more publicity, and got to make a stupid movie. Idiots.
The CIA has now succeeded in setting off a wave of anti-North Korea war hysteria across America. Witness the ignorant squeals and cries from ignorant Americans about how we cant let North Korea blackmail us, we cant let Kim take away our free speech. Listen to the ridiculous debate over whether Sony has the courage to release the film to stand up to the evil North Koreans who would blackmail America and violate the rights of idiot filmgoers, who now see it as a patriotic duty to see the film.
These mental midgets—their worldviews shaped by the CIA culture ministry with its endorsed pro-war entertainment, violent video games, and gung-ho shoot em ups—are hopelessly brain-curdled, irretrievably lost. Nihilistic and soulless, as well as stupid, most Americans have no problem seeing Kim Jong-Un killed, on screen or in reality. This slice of ugly America is the CIAs finest post-9/11 army: violent, hate-filled, easily manipulated, eager to obey sheeple who march to whatever drumbeat they set.
And then there are the truly dumb, fools who are oblivious to most of reality, who would say hey lighten up, its only a comedy and its only a movie. Naïve, entitled, exceptionalist Americans think the business of the war—the murderous agenda they and their movie are helping the CIA carry out —is all just a game.
The CIAs business is death, and that there are actual assassination plans in the files of the CIA, targeting heads of state. Kim Jong-Un is undoubtedly on a real assassination list. This is no funny, either.
The real act of war
The provocative, hostile diplomatic stance of the Obama administration speaks for itself. Washington wanted to spark an international incident. It wants regime change in Pyongyang, does not care what North Korea or China think, and does not fear anything North Korea will do about it.
On the other hand, imagine if a film were about the assassination of Benjamin Netanyahu and the toppling of the government in Tel Aviv. Such a film, if it would ever be permitted even in script form, would be stopped cold. If it made it through censors that magically never slowed down The Interview (and yes, there is censorship in America, a lot of it) Obama would personally fly to Tel Aviv to apologize. At the very least, Washington would issue statements distancing themselves from the film and its content.
Not so in the case of The Interview. Because American elites actually want the Kim family murdered.
Despite providing no proof of North Korean involvement, President Barack Obama promised a proportional response. Promptly, North Koreas Internet was mysteriously shut down for a day.
Unless one is naïve to believe in this coincidence, all signs point to US spy agencies (CIA, NSA, etc.) or hackers working on behalf of Washington and Langley.
Given the likelihood that North Korea had nothing to do with either the hacking of Sony, the initial pulling of the movie (a big part of the publicity stunt, that was not surprisingly reversed) or the blackmailing of moviegoers, the shutting down of North Koreas Internet was therefore a unilateral, unprovoked act of war. Washington has not officially taken responsibility. For reasons of plausible denial, it never will.
Perhaps it was a dry run. A message. The US got to test how easily it can take down North Koreas grid. As we witnessed, given overwhelming technological advantage, it was very easy. And when a war against Pyongyang begins in earnest, American forces will know exactly what they will do.
The US is flexing its Asia-Pacific muscles, sending a message not only to Pyongyang, but to China, a big future target. Some of the other muscle-flexing in recent months included the anti-Beijing protests in Hong Kong (assisted by the CIA and the US State Department), ongoing provocations in the South China Sea over disputed oil, and new defense agreements that place new anti-missile systems and missile-guided naval vessels to the region.
The bottom line is that America has once again been mobilized into supporting a new war that could take place soon. The CIA and Sony have successfully weaponized a stupid movie, making it into a cause and a battle cry.
If and when bombs fall on North Korea, blood will be on the hands of the makers of The Interview, every single executive who allowed it to be made, and the hordes who paid to see it.
If America were a decent, sane society, The Interview would be exposed, roundly denounced, boycotted and shunned. Instead it is celebrated.
The CIA should be condemned. Instead, Seth Rogen hangs out with them. America, increasingly dysfunctional, loves them. Obeys them.
The false flagging of Russia
Regarding The Interview, Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich issued a statement in sympathy with North Korea, correctly calling the films concept aggressive and scandalous, and decried the US retaliatory response as counterproductive and dangerous to international relations.
Of course. Washington has no interest in improved international relations.
The Russians should know.
Like Kim Jong-Un, Vladimir Putin has been vilified, demonized and false-flagged, incessantly. If Kim is todays object of ridicule, Putin is Evil Incarnate.
Consider the hysterical, desperate provocations by Washington in recent months.
A US-NATO coup, engineered by the CIA, toppled the government of Ukraine, planting a pro-US neo-Nazi criminal apparatus on Russias doorstep. The CIA and its worldwide network of propagandists pinned the blame on Putin and Russia for aggression, and for obstructing democracy.
The MH-17 jetliner is downed by Ukrainian operatives, with the support of the CIA, Mi-6, etc. etc. This false flag operation was blamed on Russia— Putins Missile. The US and NATO are still trying to pin these murders on Putin.
The war against the Islamic State—a massive CIA false flag operation—seeks to topple with the the Assad government as well as to militarily counter Russia. The ongoing Anglo-American conquest of regional oil and gas supplies, and energy transport routes is also aimed at checkmating Russia and China across the region.
The US and NATO have attacked the Russian federation with sanctions. The US and Saudi Arabia have collapsed oil prices, to further destroy the Russian economy. Full-scale military escalations are being planned. The US Congress is pushing new legislation tantamount to an open declaration of war against Russia.
What next? Perhaps it is time for the CIA to produce a Seth Rogen-James Franco movie about assassinating Putin. Another parody. Or how about a movie about killing Assad, or anyone else the United States wants to make into a Public Enemy? Dont think Langley isnt working on it.
The return of the Bushes (who were never gone)
In the midst of all escalating war hysteria comes news that Jeb Bush is actively exploring running for president in 2016. The long predicted return of the Bush family, the kings of terrorism, the emperors of the false flag operation, back to the White House appears imminent.
The CIA will have its favorite family back in the Oval Office, with true CIA scion to manage the apocalyptic wars are likely to be launched in earnest in the next two years: Russia/Ukraine, North Korea, the Middle East.
Jeb Bush will finish the job.
The 2016 presidential contest will be a charade. It is likely to put forth two corrupt establishment political friends posing as adversaries, when in fact, they are longtime comrades and conspirators. On one side, Hillary (and Bill) Clinton. On the other side, Jeb Bush, with George H.W., George W. and all of the Bush cronies crawling back out of the rotten woodwork. The fact is that the Clintons and Bushes, and their intertwined networks, have run the country since the 1980s, their respective camps taking turns in power, with Obama as transitional figurehead (his administration has always been run by neoliberal elites connected to the Clintonistas, including Hillary Clinton herself).
The collective history of the Bushes stretches back to the very founding of the American intelligence state. It is the very history of modern war criminality. The resume is George H.W. Bush—the CIA operative and CIA Director—is long and bloody, and littered with cocaine dust. The entire Bush family ran the Iran-Contra/CIA drug apparatus, with the Clintons among the Bush networks full partners in the massive drug/weapons/banking frauds of that era, the effects of which still resonate today. And we need not remind that the Bush clan and 9/11 are responsible for the world of terror and false flag foreign policy and deception that we suffer today.
While it remains too early to know which way the Establishment will go with their selection (and it depends on how world war shakes out between now and 2016), it is highly likely that Jeb
Bush would be the pick.
Hillary Clinton has already been scandalized—Benghazi-ed. Jeb Bush, on the other hand, has ideal Establishment/CIA pedigree. He has waited years for the stupid American public to forget the horrors that his family—Georges H.W. and W.— brought humanity. And now Americans , with their ultra-short memories, have indeed forgotten, if they had ever understood it in the first place.
And the American public does not know who Jeb Bush is, beyond the last name. Jeb Bush, whom Barbara Bush always said was the smart one, has been involved in Bush narco-criminal business since Iran-Contra. His criminal activities in Florida, his connection with anti-Castro Cuban terrorists and other connections are there, for those who bother to investigate them. His Latin American connections—including his ability to speak fluent Spanish, a Latin wife and a half-Latin son (George P. Bush, the next up and coming political Bush)—conveniently appeals to the fastest-growing demographic, as well as those in the southern hemisphere drug trade. Recent Obama overtures towards the Latino demographic—immigration, Cuba—appear to be a Democratic Party move to counter Jeb Bushs known strengths in the same demographic.
Today, in the collective American mind, Kim Jong-Un and Vladimir Putin are the bad guys. But the mass murdering war criminal Bushes are saints. Nice guys.
A Jeb Bush presidency will be a pure war presidency, one that promises terror, more unspeakable than we are experiencing now, lording it over a world engulfed in holocaust.
This is not a movie.
Copyright © 2014 Global Research