Will the US-Russia Deal on Syria Hold?

Ranjit Gupta

The war in Syria is still raging after over five and half years since its outset. Several initiatives have been undertaken to try and end it – first through the Arab League, then Geneva I, Geneva II and the Vienna Process, where even a calendar of steps for bringing peace to Syria was laid out. Obviously, partisan efforts by Western countries and their Arab Gulf allies in the UN Security Council (UNSC) were defeated by Chinese and Russian vetoes.

 

Finally, in February 2016 the US, Russia and 19 other countries met in Munich, preceded by intensive negotiations between US Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, and an agreement for a ‘cessation of hostilities’ in Syria's civil war was announced. On 26 February, the UNSC endorsed this initiative through Resolution 2268. Special Envoys Kofi Annan and Lahkdar Brahimi had toiled without success and resigned; Stefan de Mistura continues his efforts. Despite all this, the situation within Syria has continued to steadily worsen. Given the complex ground realities, a meaningful improvement is nowhere on the horizon, let alone being imminent.

After another round of marathon negotiations conducted secretly between Kerry and Lavrov, a new deal was announced on 09 September, to bring about a ceasefire with the deal coming into effect at 7:00 pm on 12 September. Kerry outlined the main features of the deal at the press conference while announcing the same. 

An Overview of the Deal

The Syrian regime and the opposition will cease all attacks against each other including aerial bombardments and shall not attempt to gain additional territory at the expense of each other; both sides will agree to provide unimpeded and sustained humanitarian access to all besieged and hard-to-reach areas including, in particular, in and around Aleppo; non jihadist opposition groups are expected to sever connections with Fateh al Sham (earlier called Al Nusra Front – an al Qaeda outfit); after seven continuous days of adherence to the cessation of hostilities and increased humanitarian access to the besieged civilian populations, Russia and the US will begin working together to defeat Fateh al Sham and the Islamic State (IS) jihadist groups; after a “period of reduced violence” the US and Russia “will facilitate a political transition which is the only way to bring about a durable end to this war.”

 

Reception  

The Syrian regime immediately accepted the deal; most opposition rebel groups have also accepted but less categorically and the most powerful, Ahrar al Sham, has rejected it. As of 18 September 2016, the ceasefire is largely holding and fighting has noticeably reduced but humanitarian supplies have not been getting through. However, with opposing sides in Syria increasingly accusing each other of violations and barbs being traded between Russia and the US, even at presidential levels, immediate short-term prospects of the deal working appear bleak.

 

The continuing deep distrust between the two protagonists of the deal, Washington and Moscow, was publicly articulated robustly by both US President Barack Obama and US Secretary of Defence Ashton Carter throughout the two weeks of the Kerry-Lavrov negotiations leading up to the announcement of the deal. Even Kerry's remarks at the press conference unveiling the deal were peppered with deep uncertainty if not scepticism – e.g. the repetitive use of phrases such as 'if this happens', 'if those concerned implement the deal', etc. An extremely clear reflection of the enormous difficulties ahead is the fact that the US has made it absolutely clear that the detailed text of the deal cannot be released because if the deal breaks down, the details will be hugely useful to Assad. These are not propitious omens for potential success.

This deal is believed to be very detailed in contrast to past efforts. However, there are no mechanisms to ensure implementation of even a single element of the deal and there are far too many loopholes that can easily be exploited by different parties to continue doing what they have been doing in the past.

Kerry had said that “if groups within the legitimate opposition want to retain their legitimacy, they need to distance themselves in every way possible from Nusra and Daesh." This is perhaps the single most essential key to the deal working out because most rebel groups operate in very close proximity to Nusra fighters when not embedded together in rebel controlled areas. Opposition rebels will inevitably be hit whenever the Syrian regime attacks al Nusra fighters, as it will inevitably do as al Nusra is excluded from the ceasefire, and then the regime will be accused of violating terms of the deal. But who will ensure that this separation is brought about? Neither the US nor Russia can do so. Most of the more effective rebel groups are proxies of Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey and though they have verbally welcomed the deal, do these countries have the ability or frankly, even any desire or intention, to bring about this separation?

 

Looking Ahead 

Russia has given enough indications that it is not committed to keeping Assad in power beyond a transitional phase. If Russia can persuade Assad to refrain from attacking al Nusra for the next few weeks, progress to the next stage – US and Russia taking on Nusra and Daesh – could take place which is an essential prerequisite for the third stage: initiating a political transition. However, the opposition rebels are resolutely opposed to Assad's continuation for even a very limited period of transition. Will a hugely politically weakened Obama, now also in the last four months of his presidency, and with the US' influence in the region at a historic low, have the clout to persuade Saudi Arabia and its allies to persuade the rebels to accept Assad even for a short time? If Assad is excluded completely from transitional arrangements no progress on a solution is possible at all – Assad and Iran will ensure that notwithstanding Russian views. 

 

Another significant uncertainty is as to whether the exceedingly disparate opposition can cobble together a meaningful representative entity to be a partner in any transitional authority? The obduracy and unalloyed attachment to zero-sum outcomes of all the very large number of players on the ground in Syria is a very serious impediment to a solution.

 

Furthermore, the deal does not say anything about the presence of foreign Shiite militias such as Hezbollah, which like al Qaeda and the IS, is considered a terrorist group by the US, and the Turkish Army having physically entered Syria to prevent the westward advance of Syrian Kurds, who are the US’ most effective ally against Daesh. These issues have the potential to derail any forward movement.

 

The past six years have witnessed many unpredictable surprises thrown up in the Arab world and West Asia. Making predictions, always hazardous, has become more iffy now. The many negative elements outlined above and the even more numerous imponderables make it difficult to be even mildly optimistic of this new deal bringing an early end to the conflict in Syria. That said, it will be good for the world at large and for the people of Syria in particular if this prognostication is proved wrong.

G20 Summit 2016: A Lost Opportunity?

Amita Batra

The eleventh meeting of the Group of 20 countries (G20) was held in the city of Hangzhou in China, 4-5 September. This was the first ever meeting of the group in China and the second in Asia after the 2010 meeting in Seoul. The theme of the 2016 G20 summit meeting was “Towards an Innovative, Invigorated, Interconnected and Inclusive World Economy.” The agenda was all encompassing and consistent with China’s own priorities and vision, as outlined in the proposal for its 13th five year plan that identifies innovation as the main growth driver.  A blueprint for innovation, digital economy development and cooperation initiative was adopted by the leaders at the summit. The joint communiqué similarly emphasized the role of innovation in providing a push to the sluggish world economy and also in the resolution of global imbalances, ensuring along the way a cleaner environment by giving a call for ratification of the Paris agreement to all member countries.  Long running issues of global governance like quota reform at the IMF were included alongside others that have found place on the agenda, of and on, in earlier years, like those related to the Doha Development agenda of the WTO as also those seeking cooperation among existing international financial organizations and the emerging regional financial initiatives. The spirit of inclusiveness was well reflected not just in the development context but also in the larger than ever before guest participation from many non member developing country representatives invited to the summit. 

 

As such, therefore, the G20 Summit in China is seen as successfully having discussed the many diverse issues that are currently of concern to the developed and developing countries. But, is that really the objective of the G20? Is the expanding agenda of the summit not a deviation from the original motivation with which the G20 was created? In fact, the specific task of ensuring global financial stability continues to be as relevant and important in the current context as it was when the group was set up. And perhaps, it would have been most appropriate to address the issue of global financial stability and contagion with the Chinese as hosts of the Summit this year.  A brief reflection below on these aspects may help us better review the scope and direction of the recently held G20 Summit.

 

The G20 was set up as an informal dialogue forum in 1999 primarily to address the challenges to international financial stability that had arisen in the wake of the East Asian financial crisis in 1997. The composition of the forum was not just representative of all regions of the world and the Bretton Woods institutions but also an acknowledgement of the growing contribution of the emerging market economies to global growth and trade. As a consequence it was considered an innovative step forward in global financial governance despite the constant debate on its legitimacy. Subsequent G20 meetings retained the focus on financial stability but did not shy away from discussing regional economic integration, financial markets, capital inflows, banking sector norms and other such issues in support of the process of globalization. In 2008, when the world was struck by the onset of global financial crisis, the G20 underwent a transition from a meeting of the finance ministers and central bank governors to a summit level meeting of the heads of state.  The 2008 summit, called by the US President, not just lent greater legitimacy to the forum but also to the institutionalization of a cooperative framework to confront and combat financial challenges of a global magnitude. Over three quick and successive summits that were held in a span of a year in 2008-2009, the G20 member economies were able to evolve a cooperative and coordinated response to the contagion impact of the financial crisis. Alongside, global financial regulatory reform and resolution of global imbalances continued to be a part of the agenda in these meetings.

       

Today, as the world continues to grapple with the consequences of the global financial crisis and uncertain growth, it would only have been fair for the 2016 meeting to take up for discussion the slowdown of the fastest growing economy prior to the crisis, that is the Chinese economy, and its spill-over implications for the Asia Pacific region.  China’s economic slowdown, with structural changes accompanying the move away from an investment led growth strategy towards a consumption led growth path and the underlying shifts in comparative advantage are bound to have spill-over implications for the region and the global economy. Financial sector weaknesses, particularly in the banking sector may also be reinforced as the Chinese economy moves to a new normal. The Asia-Pacific region is most likely to feel the impact as trade and production links with China-centric value chains are intense and complex for the member economies. While the impact may differ across the region depending on the nature and extent of inter-linkages with the Chinese economy and of the real and financial sector, there is no doubt that the developments need to be closely watched and the world needs to be prepared for any eventualities. Having been caught unawares when China chose to undertake a currency devaluation exercise earlier in this year and middle of last year, a coordinated approach to containing and preventing financial volatility as also seeking transparency of policy reform in China as an outcome of the G20 2016 Summit would have done justice not just to the objectives of the G20 but also to its representative character vis-à-vis the world economy.

The Dream that the State Sells

Bibhu Prasad Routray

Given that the state has continued to wrest territories from the control of the Communist Party of India-Maoist (CPI-Maoist), the nature of governance to be unleashed in such areas has remained a subject of speculation. Whether a developmental state would seek to undo the decades-long policies of neglect and deprivation that formed the edifice for a Maoist success story? Or would the state behave in the same predatory way the extremists have warned all along, acting to open up the tribal inhabited resource rich areas for a range of economic activities including mining, while glossing over the need to involve the tribals in the decision making process or even bothering to gather their consent.

 

In spite of the claims of advance against the extremists, Chhattisgarh still remains noticeably affected. Its Bastar region continues to be a stronghold of the CPI-Maoist, a state-of-affair which may not change for at least a couple of years to come. However, Jharkhand and Maharashtra are two states that have made steady gains against the CPI-Maoist. And the recent developments indicate what the Maoist literature had warned might be true, i.e. these states have indeed initiated steps to start mining and other activities in the erstwhile extremist affected areas, without bothering to seek the consent of the tribals who would be the most affected by such decisions. Worse still, such decisions have been enforced by attempting to silence any hint of opposition.

 

Although Jharkhand pursued a somewhat confused policy against the CPI-Maoist initially, its police force has nearly accomplished what its Andhra Pradesh counterparts had managed to achieve in 2005. Using a range of tactics that includes investment in police capacity building, carrying out sustained high profile area clearing operations, and also pursuing a policy of using renegade extremist factions against the CPI-Maoist, it has nearly managed to cleanse the state off the outfit's presence.

 

The state's abysmal failure in kickstarting development projects in Saranda, an area cleared of Maoist presence since 2013, has been mentioned in several forums. Unfinished roads, incomplete school buildings, and failing healthcare systems narrate how the state bureaucracy lost interest in the area after it became Maoist free. Additionally, recent developments have drawn attention to the state's future plans of opening up tribal areas in the state for economic projects. Proposed amendments to two important Acts, the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act and the Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act, will allow tribal lands to be taken for not just infrastructure projects and 'just' mining and industry, but even for, as a newspaper article put, "construction of marriage halls." A massive tribal movement is building up in the state over the decision of the BJP government, which interestingly in 2015, had categorically promised to maintain the sanctity of these two Acts. 

 

Maharashtra is not comparable to any other Maoist affected state. Only one of its districts, Gadchiroli,  sharing a border with Chhattisgarh and the Maoist stronghold of Abujhmaad is affected by extremism. According to police claims, Maoists have been comprehensively defeated in the district. The CPI-Maoist has accepted to have lost 60 of its cadres to security forces' operations in the past seven years. Of the total 270MT iron ore reserves in the state, over 180 MT are in Gadchiroli. Lloyd Steel and two small companies were granted the permission for mining operations in the Surjagarh hills, Damkodvadavi hills and Agri Maseli in 2007. But the project has been delayed in view of the Maoist threat and opposition from the tribals. In 2013, the vice president of Lloyd Steel was shot dead by the CPI-Maoist. In March 2016, months after the state police declared victory over the Maoists, Lloyds Steel began extracting ore from a mine in Surjagadh and claimed to have provided jobs to about 300 people at the site. But the operations shut down within days due to local opposition by groups against mining as well as others who wish for a processing plant closer to the mining site. Since then, the state government has been asking New Delhi to increase the troop presence in the region. 

 

Apparently a systematic regime of terror has been unleashed by the C-60, Maharashtra's anti-Maoist commando force, targeting the anti-mining tribal activists as well as tribals who have been working to implement the Provisions of the Panchayats (Extension to the Scheduled Areas) Act in the district. The CPI-Maoist has brought out a pamphlet listing over 191 cases of such torture between January and June 2016. The government's response has been to propose a law that makes distribution of any literature an offence attracting arrest.

 

It is convenient to see a CPI-Maoist conspiracy in opposing the state governments' initiatives in Jharkhand and Maharashtra. It is probably right to assume that the outfit will gain out of the popular discontentment. However, the larger question is the gap between the dream that the state is attempting to sell to the areas afflicted by extremism and the reality of its intentions after the extremists have been defeated.

Government of Estonia MA/PhD Scholarships for International Students 2016

Brief description: The Estonian Government through the Estonian Institute is offering international master’s students, doctoral students and post-doctorate researchers, scholarships to study at Estonian universities.

Application Deadline: 1st October 2016

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: International

To be taken at (country): Estonia

Eligible Field of Study: Candidate’s course of choice

About the Award: The Estophilus Scholarship is offered to finance foreign citizens with foreign higher education master’s, doctorate and post-doctorate researchers in their studies and research.

Type: Postgraduate Taught

Eligibility: Scholarship applicants must submit the following documents in Estonian or English:

• The completed application form (please submit a hardcopy)
• Scholarship Recipients of the Estophilus web-application form
• The research plan

• Curriculum vitae

• Proof that the applicant is the MA / PhD student or doctorate document confirming the

• Estonian research and development institution for confirmation that they are ready to accept the candidate. The recipient must provide written confirmation to the English brief overview of the subject of study and justify the importance of research in Estonia.

• Postgraduate students a recommendation from their research supervisor

Selection Process: The scholarship is determined by the Estonian Language and Culture Programme of Academic Studies of the Council, involving experts when necessary.

Number of Awardees: Several

Value of Scholarship: The scholarship is intended for living expenses, tuition fees and research costs directly connected. The scholarship for a period is five months of 2500 EUR

Duration of Scholarship: The scholarship may be set at a time generally ranging from five to ten months, in exceptional cases, a shorter period.

How to Apply: Visit Scholarship Webpage to apply

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Award Provider: Estonian Ministry of Education and administered by the Estonian Institute.

WWF Prince Bernhard Scholarships for Nature Conservation 2017 for Developing Countries – Netherlands

Application Deadline: 6th January 2017

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Countries in the following region are eligible for the scholarship: Africa, Asia/Pacific, Latin America & Carribean, Eastern Europe & Middle East

To be taken at (country): Applicants home country or the Netherlands

Accepted Fields of Study: Field of nature conservation or associated disciplines directly relevant to the delivery and promotion of conservation

About Award: The Prince Bernhard Scholarship Fund for Nature Conservation was created in 1991 to help build conservation expertise and leadership in the developing world. The aim of the WWF Prince Bernhard Scholarships is to provide financial support to individuals who wish to pursue short-term professional training or formal studies that will help them contribute more effectively to conservation efforts in their country.

The WWF Prince Bernhard Scholarships (PBS) are awarded to individuals from Africa, Asia/Pacific, Latin America & Carribean, Eastern Europe & Middle East who wish to pursue formal studies or professional training in the field of conservation.

Each scholarship empowers a dedicated conservationist to build his or her capacity. In turn, these people are in a position to share the benefits of their knowledge and skills with others and so spread the benefits.

Offered Since: 1991

Selection Criteria: Women and people working for non-governmental or community-based organizations are encouraged to apply

Who is qualified to apply?

• As a priority, the PBS support mid-career training (up to a maximum of one year) for individuals working in the field of conservation or associated disciplines directly relevant to the delivery and promotion of conservation.
• Applications from candidates doing multiple-year studies will only be considered if the applicant is applying for support for the last year of studies.
• Applications are encouraged from people seeking to build skills in specific subjects that will enhance their contribution to nature conservation.
• In particular, women and people working for non-governmental or community-based organizations are encouraged to apply.
• Only nationals from Africa/Madagascar, Asia/Pacific, Latin America & Carribean, Eastern Europe & Middle East will be considered, including WWF staff or candidates working as partners with WWF.
  • Preference is given to those seeking support for studies in their own country or region, and applicants must provide written proof of acceptance on a course.

Number of Scholarships: Not specified

What are the benefits?: The maximum amount for any one scholarship under this scheme is CHF 10,000, and preferential consideration is given to requests for less than CHF 10,000.

Duration: Up to a maximum of one year

How to Apply

Applications (form can be downloaded with information in English, French & Spanish from the link below) should be submitted to the candidate’s nearest WWF Office or Associate (See link below)

Visit the Scholarship Webpage for Details

Sponsors: The Prince Bernhard Scholarship Fund for Nature Conservation

Important Notes: After completion of their studies Prince Bernhard Scholars are expected to return to their home country or region to work in conservation, or a related field.

Global Youth Leadership Scholarship in Canada for Youths from Developing Countries 2017

Application Deadline: 13th February 2017. To be held from September 18 – October 6, 2017

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Developing countries

To be taken at (country): Coady Institute, Canada

Eligible Field of Study: Programme participants engage in learning grounded in real world experiences and focused on Coady’s core thematic areas.

About Scholarship: The Global Youth Leaders Certificate is a three-week education program offered at Coady Institute. This program enables young development practitioners from developing countries to strengthen their leadership capacities in order to contribute to innovation and change in their organizations and communities. Participants engage in learning that is grounded in real-world experiences and focused on Coady’s core thematic areas. Through a shared learning environment with others from around the world, participants are exposed to a range of experiences and the beginnings of a potentially lifelong network of support.

Offered Since: 2011

Type: Leadership and Mentorship training

Selection Criteria and Eligibility: This program is targeted to young leaders (20-30 years old) from developing countries who are working on development issues. Priority is given to people who:

• Possess a minimum of two years of demonstrated experience in social, environmental or economic development in sectors such as livelihoods or inclusive economic development, food security, environment, access to education and health care, governance, and the rights of girls and women;
• Have great drive and passion for their work, demonstrated through their outstanding contributions in their organizations and communities;
• Are practitioners in civil society organizations including community-based organizations and not-for-profits, or active in public or private institutions, donor/philanthropic agencies, social movements or in a social enterprise/business; AND
• Have strong oral and written English language competencies.

Value of Programme:

• The Global Youth Leadership program provides successful candidates with a full scholarship that includes tuition, travel, accommodation, and meals.
• Program participants also benefit from the guidance and mentorship of accomplished leaders from around the world.

Duration of Programme: three-week education program

How to Apply

Visit Scholarship Webpage for More Details

Scholarship Provider: COADY International Institute

British Council Ghana Digital Jobs Africa 2016 for Unemployed Ghanaians

Application Deadline: 30th September 2016

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Ghana

To be taken at (country): Ghana

Fields of Study:

• Introduction to ICT
• Understanding of the IT industry
• Call Centre Technology, Terminology, Structure
• E-Publishing
• Communication skills
• Customer relations
• Time management
• Self -Management
• Global and intercultural working

About the Programme: This Rockefeller Foundation project- Digital Jobs Africa has an overall objective of helping disadvantaged and (minimally skilled) unskilled young men and women, move from unemployment into employment through relevant skills development training. This is in line with the Ghana Shared Growth Development Agenda, in which human development; productivity and employment are key thematic areas.

The training will include ICT skills, communication skills, customer relations, intercultural working, time management, self-management and other relevant soft skills. Participants will be provided an opportunity for face-to-face training, guided on-the-job training, facilitated peer-to-peer learning and some professional mentoring in a state of the art training facility.

Type: Training

Eligibility: To qualify, applicants must meet the following criteria:

• Must be citizens of Ghana
• Must be between 18- 30 years
• Must be only Senior,Technical or Vocational High School graduates
• Must be currently unemployed
• Ability to communicate and be instructed in English
• Available to commit to a full month of training

NB: Please note that applicants with university degree or its equivalent are not eligible.

Number of Awardees: Up to 1000

Value of Programme: Training offers unique opportunity to participants to acquire the following:

• ICT skills for digital jobs
• Practical skills for the modern workplace
• Links to careers in IT
• Introduction to Digital Entrepreneurship

Duration of Programme: Each course will be for duration of one month and successful applicants will be certified upon completion. The training is absolutely free once participants are selected

How to Apply: Applicants should please read the requirements of the application form before they apply. Kindly click here to apply

Visit Programme Webpage for details

Award Provider: British Council

Canada in the Congo

Yves Engler

Canadian officials have long done as they pleased in Africa, loudly proclaimed this country’s altruism and only faced push back from hard rightists who bemoan sending troops to the  “Dark Continent” or “dens of hell”.

With many Canadians normally opposed to war supporting anything called “peacekeeping”, unless troops deployed with an African UN mission are caught using the N-word and torturing a teenager to death (the 1993 Somalia mission) they will be portrayed as an expression of this country’s benevolence. So, what should those of us who want Canada to be a force for good in the world think about the Trudeau government’s plan to join a UN stabilization mission in Mali, Congo, Burundi, Sierra Leone, Central African Republic or South Sudan?

First, we have good reason to be cynical.

On his recent five country African “reconnaissance” tour defence minister Harjit Sajjan included an individual whose standing is intimately tied to a military leader who has destabilized large swaths of the continent. Accompanying Sajjan was General Romeo Dallaire, who backed Paul Kagame’s Rwandan Patriotic Front in 1993/94 and continues to publicly support the “Butcher of the Great Lakes”.

In his 2005 book Le Patron de Dallaire Parle (The Boss of Dallaire Speaks), Jacques-Roger Booh Booh, a former Cameroon foreign minister and overall head of the mid-90s UN mission in Rwanda,claims Dallaire ignored RPF violence, turned a blind eye to the weapons they received from Uganda and possibility shared UN intelligence with the Ugandan sponsored rebels. Dallaire doesn’t deny his admiration for Kagame. In Shake Hands with the Devil, published several years after Kagame unleashed unprecedented terror in the Congo, Dallaire wrote: “My guys and the RPF soldiers had a good time together” at a small cantina. Dallaire then explained: “It had been amazing to see Kagame with his guard down for a couple of hours, to glimpse the passion that drove this extraordinary man.” Dallaire’s interaction with the RPF was not in the spirit of UN guidelines that called on staff to avoid close ties to individuals, organizations, parties or factions of a conflict.

Included on the trip because he symbolizes Canadian benevolence, Dallaire hasn’t moved away from his aggressive backing for Kagame despite the Globe and Mail reporting on Kagame’s internal repression, global assassination program and proxies occupying the mineral rich Eastern Congo. The recently retired Senator has aligned his depiction of the 1994 Rwandan tragedy to fit the RPF’s simplistic, self-serving, portrayal and Dallaire even lent his name to a public attack against the 2014 BBC documentary Rwanda’s Untold Story. In February the former senator met with the Rwandan dictator in Toronto.

Three weeks ago the ruling party in Burundi released a statement criticizing the Canadian general’s role in Rwanda and his inclusion on Sajjan’s trip. Still, I’ve yet to see any mention of Dallaire’s backing of Kagame or the fact his ally in Kigali has significant interest in the UN mission in Eastern Congo.

Another piece of history that should be part of any debate about a UN deployment to the continent is Canada’s link to the UN force in the Congo, which is an outgrowth of the mid-1990s foreign invasion. In 1996 Rwandan forces marched 1,500 km to topple the regime in Kinshasa and then re-invaded after the Congolese government it installed expelled Rwandan troops. This led to an eight-country war between 1998 and 2003, which left millions dead. Since then Rwanda and its proxies have repeatedly invaded the Eastern Congo.

Kigali justified its 1996 intervention into the Congo as an effort to protect the Banyamulenge (Congolese Tutsi) living in Eastern Congo from the Hutus who fled the country when the RPF took power. As many as two million, mostly Hutu, refugees fled the summer 1994 RPF takeover of Rwanda.

The US military increased its assistance to Rwanda in the months leading up to its fall 1996 invasion of Zaire. In The Great African War: Congo and Regional Geopolitics, 1996-2006 Filip Reyntjens explains: “The United States was aware of the intentions of Kagame to attack the refugee camps and probably assisted him in doing so. In addition, they deliberately lied about the number and fate of the refugees remaining in Zaire, in order to avoid the deployment of an international humanitarian force, which could have saved tens of thousands of human lives, but which was resented by Kigali and AFDL [L’Alliance des forces démocratiques pour la libération du Congo, a Rwandan backed rebel force led by Laurent-Désiré Kabila].”

Ottawa played an important part in this sordid affair. In late 1996, Canada led a short-lived UN force into eastern Zaire, meant to bring food and protection to Hutu refugees. The official story is that Prime Minister Jean Chrétien organized a humanitarian mission into eastern Zaire after his wife saw images of exiled Rwandan refugees on CNN. In fact, Washington proposed that Ottawa, with many French speakers at its disposal, lead the UN mission. The US didn’t want pro- Joseph Mobutu Sese Seko France to gain control of the UN force.

On November 9, 1996, the UN Security Council backed a French resolution to establish a multinational force in Eastern Congo. Four days later, French Defence Minister Charles Millon, urged Washington to stop stalling on the force. ‘‘Intervention is urgent and procrastination by some countries is intolerable,’’ Millon said in a radio interview. ‘‘The United States must not drag its feet any longer.’’

Canada’s mission to the Congo was designed to dissipate French pressure and ensure it didn’t take command of a force that could impede Rwanda’s invasion of the Eastern Congo. “The United States and Canada did not really intend to support an international force,” writes Belgian academic Filip Reyntjens. “Operation Restore Silence” was how Oxfam’s emergencies director Nick Stockton sarcastically described the mission. He says the Anglosphere countries “managed the magical disappearance” of half a million refugees in eastern Zaire. In a bid to justify the non-deployment of the UN force, Canadian Defence Minister Doug Young claimed over 700,000 refugees had returned to Rwanda. A December 8 article in Québec City’s Le Soleil pointed out that this was “the highest estimated number of returnees since the October insurrection in Zaire.”

The RPF dismantled infrastructure and massacred thousands of civilians in the Hutu refugee camps, prompting some 300,000 to flee westward on foot from refugee camp to refugee camp. Dying to Liveby Pierre-Claver Ndacyayisenga describes a harrowing personal ordeal of being chased across the Congo by the RPF and its allies.

Ultimately, most of the Canadian-led UN force was not deployed since peacekeepers would have slowed down or prevented Rwanda, Uganda and its allies from triumphing. But, the initial batch of Canadian soldiers deployed to the staging ground in Uganda left much of the equipment they brought along. In Le Canada dans les guerres en Afrique centrale: génocides et pillages des ressources minières du Congo par le Rwanda interposé (Canada in the wars in Central Africa: genocide and looting of the mineral resources of the Congo by Rwanda interposed) Patrick Mbeko suggests the Ugandan Army put the equipment to use in the Congo.

Prior to deploying the Canadian-led multinational force, Commander General Maurice Baril met with officials in Kigali as well as the Director of the Joint Staff at the Pentagon. Hinting at who was in the driver’s seat, the New York Times reported that Baril “cancelled a meeting with United Nations officials and flew instead to Washington for talks.” In deference to the Rwandan-backed forces, Baril said he would only deploy UN troops with the rebels’ permission. ‘‘Anything that I do I will coordinate with the one who is tactically holding the ground,’’ Baril noted.

Much to Joseph Mobutu’s dismay, Baril met rebel leader Laurent Kabila who was at that time shunned by most of the international community. The meeting took place in a ransacked mansion that had belonged to Zaire’s president and as part of the visit Kabila took Baril on a tour of the area surrounding Goma city. Baril justified the meeting, asserting: “I had to reassure the government of Canada that the situation had changed and we could go home.”

The book Nous étions invincibles, the personal account of Canadian special forces commando Denis Morrisset, provides a harrowing account of the Joint Task Force 2 (JTF2) operation to bring Baril to meet Kabila. The convoy came under attack and was only bailed out when US Apache and Blackhawk helicopters retaliated. Some thirty Congolese were killed by a combination of helicopter and JTF2 fire.

Despite the bizarre, unsavory, history outlined above, Canada’s short-lived 1996 UN force to the Congo is little known. The same can largely be said about Dallaire (and Ottawa’s) support for the RPF during the mid-90s UN mission in Rwanda or Canada’s role in the UN force that helped kill Congolese independence leader Patrice Lumumba.

Widespread ignorance of Canada’s chequered UN history in Africa reflects a political culture that gives politicians immense latitude to pursue self-serving policies, present them as altruistic and face few questions. Unless progressives upend this culture the loud expressions of Canadian benevolence are unlikely to align with reality.

Uganda: A Brilliant Genocide

Ann Garrison

One hundred million people around the world watched the viral video “Kony 2012.” Its evangelical Christian producers’ mission was to proselytize for the use of U.S. Special Forces to help Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni hunt down warlord Joseph Kony and his Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA).  Despite huge support from the U.S. political establishment and various celebrities, the producers were finally guffawed off the world stage after the video’s release. One of the best parodies was the Artist Taxi Driver’s “You say get Kony I say get Tony #kony2012 #tonyblair2012.”

Nevertheless, more U.S. troops went to Uganda in 2012, reportedly as advisors to the Ugandan army, a longstanding U.S. proxy force. More have gone since, and U.S. and Ugandan troops have set up outposts in South Sudan, the Central African Republic, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, all in the name of fighting the infamous Kony, whom “Kony 2012” likened to Osama bin Laden. Despite all that, Kony’s still free – if he’s still alive. The idea that a modern army, with the most advanced weaponry, intelligence, and surveillance tech, has not been able to find him and his spent force of jungle fighters is preposterous. As Dr. Vincent Magombe said in Ebony Butler’s new documentary film, “A Brilliant Genocide”:  “America is part of the problem of Africa right now. The Americans know very well that Kony is not the problem. Where the oil wells are, the American troops are there and the government in power. It doesn’t matter whether that government is Museveni killing his own people. It’s not democratic, but he is a friend.”

“A Brilliant Genocide” tells the story of the Acholi Genocide that President Yoweri Museveni and his army committed against the Acholi people during their 20 year war and occupation of the Acholi homeland in northern Uganda, from 1986 to 2006.  Museveni waged that war in the name of fighting Kony and claimed to be protecting the Acholi, not destroying them. The U.S. turned a blind eye and continued to build up its Ugandan proxy force. “Despite this appalling and shocking human rights abuse,” Ugandan American publisher Milton Allimadi says in the film, “the Ugandan military machine continued to be financed without any interruption from the United States.”

Museveni’s troops eventually drove nearly two million Acholi people, 90% of the population, into concentration camps to, he said, protect them from Kony and the LRA. The camp living quarters were traditional mud huts with thatched roofs, but they were tightly clustered together in a way that was not traditional at all. The Museveni government then failed to provide food, water, sanitation, or health care. In 2005, the World Health Organization reported that 1000 Acholi were dying every week of violence and disease – above all malaria and AIDS. That was, they reported, 1000 beyond normal mortality rates.

This huge and lengthy displacement caused more death and destruction than the war itself. All the elements of Acholi society – farming, education, gender relations, and family life – were broken. In the camps, the previously self-sufficient Acholi became completely dependent on the UN World Food Program. 

Ugandan soldiers raped both men and women, spreading HIV in the camps, but President George Bush lauded President Yoweri Museveni for his success at HIV prevention.  Anyone who has been concerned by all the Western press about Uganda’s homophobia and its Anti-Homosexuality Act should see both “A Brilliant Genocide” and “Gender Against Men” to understand how much more complex the country’s attitudes towards same gender sexual relations – including rape – really are.

The camps were finally disbanded in 2012 and the surviving Acholi returned to their land, but now they are facing land grabs, including those by Museveni and his partner in mechanized agriculture.

What did the U.S. gain by ignoring the Acholi Genocide as it built the Ugandan army into a proxy force? 

In 1990, as the genocide continued in Northern Uganda, a battalion of the Ugandan army led by General Paul Kagame invaded Rwanda. After a four-year war and the assassination of the Rwandan and Burundian presidents, Kagame’s army overthrew the Rwandan government and established a de facto Tutsi dictatorship, which falsely claims to have ended competition between the Hutu and Tutsi populations. The last 100 days of that war included the massacres that came to be known as the Rwandan Genocide, which most of the world knows as the oversimplified, decontextualized story told in the movie “Hotel Rwanda.”

This radically mis-told story of the Rwandan Genocide has since become a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy. We’re forever told that we have to start another war to stop genocide and mass atrocities or – in shorthand – to stop “the next Rwanda,” as in Libya, Syria, and more recently, Burundi, and whatever unlucky nation may be next. Few have heard of the Acholi Genocide because it exposes the shameless U.S. foreign policy of supporting and enabling dictator Yoweri Museveni ever since he came to power in 1986. We’re never told that we have to stop “the next Acholi Genocide” or “the next Uganda.”

Beginning in 1996, Rwanda and Uganda invaded the hugely resource rich Democratic Republic of the Congo, enabled by U.S. weapons, logistics and intelligence. They expelled Congolese President Mobutu Sese Seko in 1997 and replaced him with Laurent Kabila. When Laurent Kabila raised an independent head and expelled Rwandan and Ugandan soldiers, Rwanda and Uganda invaded Congo again and replaced him with his more compliant adopted son Joseph Kabila. Today, after the death of millions in the First and Second Congo Wars, Rwanda and Uganda continue to commit atrocities and plunder eastern Congolese resources. Right now 60 people a month are being massacred in Beni Territory, but the world isn’t much more likely to hear about that than about the Acholi Genocide.

Most Westerners are far more likely to have noticed the Western press – and Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International – shrieking that there’s another Tutsi genocide pending in Burundi, even though the violence in Burundi is nowhere near as horrific as that in Beni, and many of those assassinated in Burundi have been top officials in the Hutu-led government. The U.S. and its allies want to take down the government of Burundi, so they keep sounding alarms that it’s plotting genocide, that we have to stop another genocide or “the next Rwanda.” They’re not sounding the same alarms about Beni because the elimination of its population would facilitate their longstanding agenda of breaking up the Democratic Republic of the Congo, as they broke up Yugoslavia and South Sudan.

The U.S. has used Ugandan troops to serve its agenda not only in nations bordering Uganda but also in Somalia and elsewhere on the African continent, as coordinated by AFRICOM, the U.S. Africa Command. It has even used Ugandan troops in its own assaults on Iraq and Afghanistan.

When anyone, including Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International, says that we have to invade another sovereign nation to stop genocide and mass atrocities, they should be reminded of the horrendous Acholi Genocide that the U.S. enabled, or of the massacres going on in Beni Territory, Democratic Republic of the Congo, right now. These are only two examples of mass atrocities that the U.S. has committed or facilitated because they or their perpetrators, like Museveni, serve U.S. interests.

As Green Party vice presidential candidate Ajamu Baraka has said, ‘When was the last time the U.S. has ever been on the side of the people, in reality? And the answer is: ‘Never.’”

Netanyahu, Palestine and Ethnic Cleansing

Robert Fantina

Well, once again, Israeli Prime Murderer Benjamin Netanyahu astounds. One would think that there must be some limit to the bizarre statements that issue from his mouth, but no, we learn again and again that he is willing to push the bizarreness envelope to places where, like the crew of Star Trek’s Enterprise, no one has ever before ventured.

His latest flight of fancy even seems to have astonished his worshipful U.S. government, which characterized his statements as ‘inappropriate and unhelpful’, harsh criticism indeed from that bastion of Israeli love. And what is it that Mr. Netanyahu has said? This writer hesitates to even put the words to paper, they are so incredible. As has been said, ‘you can’t make this stuff up’.

But here it is: He said that he has “always been perplexed by the notion” that the “Jewish community in Judea and Samaria [the Israeli name for the West Bank] is an obstacle for peace.”

So this has always perplexed the Prime Murderer. For years, through countless, meaningless negotiations, United Nations resolutions and international boycotts, he has been unable to understand why driving people from their homes, destroying those homes to build luxury residences for people who, by living there, are in violation of international law, is an obstacle for peace.

Yet the august Prime Murderer did not stop there. No, warming to his topic, he seemed to be on quite a roll, as he said this: “The Palestinian leadership actually demands a Palestinian state with one pre-condition: No Jews. There’s a phrase for that: It’s called ethnic cleansing.”

Elizabeth Trudeau, U.S. State Department spokesperson, said this: “We obviously strongly disagree with the characterization that those who oppose settlement activity or view it as an obstacle to peace are somehow calling for ethnic cleansing of Jews from the West Bank. We believe that using that type of terminology is inappropriate and unhelpful.” And, to indicate the extreme displeasure the U.S. feels about these statements, she further criticized the ‘dramatic escalation’ of the demolition of Palestinian homes, and said that such actions “raise real questions about Israel’s long-term intentions in the West Bank.”

Now, if anyone reading this has ‘real questions about Israel’s long-term intentions in the West Bank’, please raise your hand. This writer sees no hands raised, but assumes that Ms. Trudeau, President Barack Obama, and the odious candidates representing the Tweedle-Dum and Tweedle-Dee parties, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, are not reading this essay. They may delude themselves, blinded as they are by the money thrown in their direction by AIPAC (Apartheid Israel Political Affairs Committee), that, up until now, Israel’s leaders had every intention of eventually vacating the West Bank. After all, they might say, look at all the evidence pointing in that very direction. Um, well, doesn’t the emperor have beautiful new clothes?

The uninitiated might believe that, with such blatant violations of international law and the basic human rights of millions of people, the U.S., that self-proclaimed leader of all that is good and just, would exert pressure on Israel to, in short, simply back off. After all, the U.S. sends that apartheid nation $4 billion annually, with absolutely no strings attached. Might the U.S. not, after all, attach a string or two? Perhaps saying that, if Israel wants to continue to receive the largess that the U.S. so willingly doles out, it needs to vacate the West Bank, withdraw to the internationally-accepted 1967 borders, and end the illegal blockade of the Gaza Strip. Is that really too much to ask? What real threat does Palestine, a nation with no army, navy or air force, present to a country with a powerful military machine, backed up by the most powerful?

Ah, but we are forgetting the ‘special’ relationship that the U.S. has with Israel. Yes, when millions upon millions of dollars pour into the campaign coffers of U.S. officials, each dollar of which, we should mention, has strings attached, demanding Congressional votes in whatever way Israel dictates, the relationship between the two countries is, indeed, ‘special’. International law? Not worth considering, if it’s inconvenient. Human rights for the Palestinians? Bah! Who are they? Where is their wealthy lobby?

So as Mr. Netanyahu decries what he somehow sees as Palestinian demands for a West Bank free of Jews, he drives Palestinians out of the West Bank, to build homes exclusively for Jews. While he wonders why illegal settlement activity is an obstacle to peace, more people around the world condemn it. One might think that he is trying to make it appear that, like one’s own back yard, where one can dismantle an old tool shed to build a fancy two-car garage, he is simply removing unnecessary structures on Israeli land, to build new ones. A more apt analogy might be if this writer decided the build a new, two-car garage in his next door neighbor’s back yard. As soon as the bulldozer arrived to demolish the one-car garage that is currently standing there, the police would be called, destruction prevented, and this writer would be hauled away.

But, sadly for the Prime Murderer, his particular fairy story has run out of the gold dust of credibility. No longer do people barely hear some obscure news item about Palestinian homes being demolished to make way for illegal settlements, and then listen intently to the latest, really interesting news about the Kardashians. No, more and more people are turning to social media and getting the facts, seeing the faces of suffering men, women and children, and recognizing the unspeakable injustice that is apartheid Israel.

For the past eight years, President Obama, who is said to detest Mr. Netanyahu, could certainly have made significant changes that would have elevated human rights and international law to the level of priority and significance they deserve. He did nothing. And with either Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Trump poised to move into 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. in January, one can have little hope for change from that quarter.

But the will of the people can only be thwarted for so long. The U.S. stood in isolation for years in its support of apartheid South Africa, and is increasingly isolated in its complete toeing of the Israeli party line. Boycotts and resolutions, strengthening all the time with each new Israeli-perpetrated horror, will succeed, despite all efforts to outlaw them.

Time is running out for apartheid Israel, as it ran out for apartheid South Africa. The sooner Israel and the U.S. wake up to that fact, the sooner peace will come to the Middle East. And while peace there isn’t the goal of either rogue nation, they will have to face the inevitable.