Prosecute Thai Muslims Abusers: HRW

CAIRO — Thailand should act swiftly to punish those responsible for serious rights violations against Muslims in its southern provinces, said the Human Rights Watch, warning the lack of justice would make peace impossible. "There has been no serious effort to hold perpetrators of abuses in the southern border provinces to account," the New York-based rights group said in a statement on its website.

"Thailand's Prime Minister, Abhisit Vejjajiva, needs to demonstrate progress in prosecuting security personnel for serious rights violations in the southern border provinces."

The group accused the government of reluctance to hold accountable those implicated in serious human rights violations against Muslims in the south.

It cited failure to arrest pro-government militants implicated in a massacre inside Al-Furquan mosque in Narathiwat province last June in which 10 ethnic Malay Muslims were killed and 12 others injured.

A police investigation found that gunmen from army paramilitary volunteers and army-trained village defense volunteers carried out the attack.

Click to read the HRW Statement However, it took two months for police to issue arrest warrants and authorities have not done the required effort to bring perpetrators to justice.

"The failure to arrest and prosecute those responsible for the Al-Furquan mosque massacre has made Abhisit's promises about justice ring hollow," said Elaine Pearson, HRW deputy Asia director.

"This fuels suspicions in the Muslim community that the gunmen are untouchable."

Almost 3,900 people have been killed since the unrest began in the Muslim-populated south in 2004.

Pattani, Yala and Narathiwat are the only Muslim-majority provinces in Thailand and were an independent Muslim sultanate until annexed officially a century ago.

Immunity

The HRW highlighted widespread ignorance of the violations committed against Muslims by government troops.

"The Abhisit government has made no progress in other serious cases of human rights violations involving Thai security forces."

For instance, there has been no development in the criminal prosecution of soldiers from the army's 39th Taskforce, who tortured and murdered Narathiwat Imam Yapa Kaseng on March 21, 2008.

In February, the Office of Attorney General decided not to press charges against troops implicated in killings at the Krue Se mosque in 2004.

A provincial court on May 29 exonerated security forces from killing 78 ethnic Malay Muslim protesters in Tak Bai on October 25, 2004.

"Attempts by human rights groups and families of the victims to seek justice in other less publicized cases have faced various obstructions," the HRW said.

The group accused the government of giving Muslim abusers immunity against any legal action.

"Frustration, alienation, and anger in the ethnic Malay Muslim community have been further fuelled by the enforcement of the draconian 2005 Emergency Decree on Government Administration in Emergency Situations, which gives security forces both extensive powers and near-blanket immunity for criminal misconduct and human rights violations."

Under sweeping powers, security forces often storm Muslim villages and detain hundreds on suspicion of supporting "rebel" groups in the south.

Thai Muslims, who make up five percent of the predominantly Buddhist kingdom's population, say ending draconian laws and abusive practices by the military are the key to peace.

Source: IslamOnline

| Home | Daily News | We Are On... |

Iran says IAEA resolution 'illegal'

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, has rejected as "illegal" a UN nuclear watchdog resolution over the country's disputed nuclear
activities.

"Under pressure of a few superficially powerful countries ... the International Atomic Energy Agency passed an illegal resolution against the Iranian nation," Ahmadinejad said on Wednesday in a televised speech in the central city of Isfahan.

Ahmadinejad said Iran would enrich its own uranium up to 20 per cent purity to be used as nuclear fuel.

The IAEA resolution criticised Tehran for defying a UN Security Council ban on uranium enrichment and rebuked it for secretly building a uranium enrichment facility near the city of Qom.

Ahmadinejad 'under pressure'

The resolution was the first against Iran in almost four years.

Alireza Ronaghi, Al Jazeera's correspondent in Tehran, said: "Ahmadinejad has been under a lot of pressure and this is the reaction we should have expected from him.

"Iran has the capacity to enrich uranium from 3.5 to 5 per cent. It's obvious that if they connect a few more cascades of centrifuge machines - which are responsible for enriching uranium - they could definitely reach the capacity of 20 per cent.

"But if they cross the line of five per cent, it will worry the IAEA and the permanent members of the UN Security Council that Iran can reach much higher levels classified as 'weapons-grade' material."

The Iranian vice-president responded on Monday by ordering the construction of 10 new nuclear plants.

Ali Akbar Salehi told state radio that Tehran had no plans to build any new uranium enrichment faciliities until the IAEA passed its resolution rebuking Iran.

"We had no intention of building many facilities like the Natanz site, but apparently the West doesn't want to understand Iran's peaceful message," The Associated Press news agency quoted Salehi as saying.

France called Iran's response to the IAEA "ridiculous" and "childish", and warned that such a stance could lead to the imposition of new UN sanctions.

Iranian MPs demanded that Ahmadinejad's government reduce co-operation with the IAEA in response to the resolution.

Israel, ambiguous over its own possible nuclear arsenal and unlike Iran, not a signatory of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, has said a nuclear-armed Iran would be a threat to its existence.

Ahmadinejad said in his speech that Israel could not do a "damn thing" to stop his country's nuclear programme, which the West suspects is a front to build bombs.

"The Zionist regime [Israel] and its [western] backers cannot do a damn thing to stop Iran's nuclear work," he said.
Source: Al Jazeera

| Home | Daily News | We Are On... |

US officials sell Afghan war plan

Senior US government and military officials have appeared before the Senate armed services committee to try to sell President Barack Obama's new military strategy for Afghanistan to Congress.

The Senate hearing on Wednesday follows Obama's televised address in which he told an audience of naval cadets in West Point, New York, that an additional 30,000 troops would be deployed to Afghanistan over a six-month period.

John McCain, Obama's 2008 Republican rival for the presidency, said he supports the president's plan but "what I don't support, and what concerns me greatly, is the president's decision to set an arbitrary date beginning the withdrawal ...(a) date for withdrawal sends exactly the wrong message to both our friends and our enemies".

McCain said Americans need to know why winning the war is essential to "our country's security", adding that he would do "everything in my power" to make sure the war is won and not just ended.

'Epicentre of jihadism'

Robert Gates, the US defence secretary, said the goal of the US is to "disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaeda".

"It is true they [al-Qaeda] can excute attacks in a variety of locations but what makes Afghanistan and Pakistan uniquely different is that this part of the world represents the epicentre of jihadist extremism," said Gates.

He added that failure to defeat al-Qaeda would have "severe consequences for the US and the world".

Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, said al-Qaeda and the Taliban "could put an entire region into chaos".

"The situation is serious and worsening. It's my personal responsibility to help our nation from that violence," she said.

"The Taliban gained momentum in Afghanistan and an extremist state grew in Pakistan ... We'll work with Afghanistan and Pakistan to eliminate [al-Qaeda] safe havens."

Clinton said a long term and sustainable relation with the two countries would be crucial in accomplishing the US goal and that more troops and "more assistance to Afghanistan and Pakistan would be needed".

But Clinton added that though the situation in Afghanistan was "serious", it was not as "negative as frequently portrayed in the public".

Admiral Mike Mullen, the highest-ranking US military official, said the new approach needed resources and support. He called the Taliban an "epicentre of global Islamic extremism".

Al Jazeera's Patty Culhane, reporting from Washington, said "many Democrats are concerned that this mission is unachievable".

"They [US army] have been given exactly one year [by the time all the troops get there] to train up an Afghan army," said our correspondent.

"We have been reporting that the Afghan army is possibly not in the shape that the US has been telling everyone, with possibly as few as 50,000 troops, not the 95,000 that they say they have now.

"Can you train an army of that number in just one year?"

War cost concerns

Nick Spicer, also reporting for Al Jazeera in Washington, said there were concerns about the cost of the war among legislators.

"The principal concerns of law makers are the cost of the war, $30bn by Barack Obama's own estimate, and the timeline," he said.

"Republicans, who are more supportive of Obama than his own party, said that drawing down troops by 2011 was a bad idea.

"There were more questions about the Afghan partner in this equation, about what Hamid Karzai would do, who was poorly-elected after a fraud-tinted election. Clinton said that corruption remained a concern of the Obama administration.

"The consensus here is that president Obama will largely get the support he needs to finance this war, as congress holds the purse strings, this is significant."

As the Senate hearing continued, Nato, which has about 32,000 troops in Afghanistan, announced that European and other US allies would contribute more than 5,000 new troops.

Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Nato's secretary-general, said: "Based on what we know about the security situation in different parts of Afghanistan, I find it realistic that we will be able to transfer lead responsibility to the Afghans in 10 to 15 areas and districts next year."


Mixed reaction

Meanwhile Afghan officials, the Taliban and Pakistani analysts have voiced a mixed reaction to Obama's plan.

Ahmad Shah Ahmadzai, a former prime minister of Afghanistan, expressed disappointment with Obama's speech and his strategy.

"Sending more troops is not the solution to the Afghan crisis," he said.

"I was expecting Obama to announce the withdrawal of 30,000 troops within two months but unfortunately, he did the opposite which will increase killings of both Americans and Afghans."

And reacting to Obama's announcement by email, a Taliban spokesman told Al Jazeera that they were pleased with the decision to send more US soldiers.

"More troops just means a larger target for us to hit ... by increasing its forces in Afghanistan, Obama is just giving more power to the Mujahideen to recruit and receive the support of the civilian population."

Steve Chao, reporting for Al Jazeera in Kabul, the capital, said: "The office of Hamid Karzai [the Afghan president] has said it believes in this plan, and that it's possible for Afghan security forces to take over.

"However, there are many problems ahead for the security forces to deal with - problems of corruption, of desertion.

"According to many military experts, the idea of a quick withdrawal is not realistic; that [US forces] will be here for some time yet, and it will take a long time for Afghans to eventually defend themselves."



The new deployment also fell short of a recommendation made by General Stanley McChrystal, the commander of US and Nato forces in Afghanistan, who had asked for 40,000 troops.

'Counter-terrorism speech'

Al Jazeera's James Bays, also reporting from Kabul, said: "This wasn't a counter-insurgency speech; it was a counter-terrorism speech, a very different mission from the one General Stanley McCrystal has been preparing himself for.

"He only mentions the Taliban twice in the whole speech. He started talking about 9/11, he ended with talking about 9/11 and all the references in between were to al-Qaeda."

Bays added: "I think there will be some in the military here in the command centre of Kabul who will be having to rethink things rather urgently."

However, after Tuesday's speech, McChrystal said that Obama's decision "has provided me with a clear military mission and the resources to accomplish our task".

The speech, which carries far-reaching strategic implications for the global effort to defeat the Taliban and al-Qaeda, also highlighted a stronger partnership with Pakistan to help to put down the insurgency in Afghanistan.

But Obama's orders received a cautious welcome from Pakistan.

"As far as Pakistan is concerned, Obama is offering the partnership, aid and lots of support and help," Ahmed Rashid, a Pakistani journalist and author, told Al Jazeera.

"But then again, it's the Pakistani military who will have to make very critical decisions as to whether it's going to help the American withdrawal and help bring the Taliban to the peace table."

Pakistan fears that an additional US troop deployment to Afghanistan would force fighters to flee to its border areas, particularly in the southwestern Baluchistan province where the government is already struggling to end a low-level insurgency by tribal fighters.
Source: Al Jazeera

| Home | Daily News | We Are On... |

Allies Welcome US Surge, Pledge Troops

BRUSSELS – American allies reiterated on Wednesday, December 2, full support for the Afghanistan troop surge ordered by US President Barack Obama, pledging to contribute at least 5,000 more troops to the Afghanistan mission. "It was a courageous, determined and lucid speech which gives new momentum to the international engagement and opens new prospects," said French President Nicolas Sarkozy.

In a long-awaited speech, Obama ordered a surge of 30,000 troops to Afghanistan to reverse the Taliban's momentum and strengthen the West-backed Kabul government.

The surge, expected within six months, will bring US troop in the Asian Muslim country to more than 100,000.

"I call on all our allies to unite behind President Obama's strategy," said British Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

"Britain will continue to play its full part in persuading other countries to offer troops to the Afghanistan campaign."

British defense chief Jock Stirrup also welcomed the additional American troops as much needed.

"It's what all of us who have been involved in the operation in Afghanistan has assessed is required if we are to resource a plan to deliver the strategy which we have been holding to for some time," he told BBC radio.

The US, backed by NATO allies, invaded Afghanistan in 2001 to topple the ruling Taliban regime.

The foreign troops have since been facing growing attacks from the resurgent Taliban.

Public opposition is growing to a war that has so far claimed the lives of more than 900 Americans and nearly 600 allied troops.

Troops Pledge

NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen welcomed the American surge and promised 5,000 more troops by NATO allies.

"US allies will send at least 5,000 soldiers to this operation, and possibly a few more thousand on top of it," he told reporters.

Rasmussen expected promises to follow NATO foreign ministers' meeting in Brussels on Friday to discuss Afghanistan.

"I think you will see some pledges right now, and some at a later stage.

"Then you will see a build-up of troops during 2010."

For the moment though, only around 3,000 personnel have been committed -- with the major pledges involving 1,000 troops from Georgia.

Poland is considering sending as many as 600 extra troops to Afghanistan in 2010, a move that would increase the size of its contingent by almost one third.

Poland currently has 1,910 troops in Afghanistan within the 43-nation NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF).

Officials say a further 1,500 soldiers would be drawn from contingents sent to provide security for the fraud-marred presidential elections on August 20, some 700 of which were provided by Britain.

A small core of NATO heavyweights -- France, Germany, Italy and Spain -- will wait until after an international conference on Afghanistan in London in late January.

"Before the conference on Afghanistan and the strategic discussions that will take place during that conference, a debate on troop levels and German participation is neither sensible nor appropriate," German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle said Wednesday.

"It is about setting goals and strategy first and then seeing what instruments can be used to achieve them."

Germany currently has around 4,300 troops in northern Afghanistan, the third largest troops contributor after the US and Britain.

The US has reportedly asked Germany to provide 2,000 more troops, France and Italy 1,500 each and Britain 1,000.

"For the moment there's no need to increase the number of troops," Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner told France Inter radio.

Source: IslamOnline

| Home | Daily News | We Are On... |

Muslim Scholars Blast Swiss Minarets Ban

CAIRO — Muslim scholars have criticized a blanket Swiss ban on the building of mosque minarets as a serious violation of the Muslim minority's rights and a precedent that may undermine interfaith dialogue. "The International Union for Muslim Scholars (IUMS) has received the outcome of the minarets ban referendum with shock and surprise," the Dublin-based IUMS said in statement mailed to IslamOnline.

Swiss voters backed earlier this week a proposal by the right-wing Swiss People's Party (SVP) to ban the building of new mosque minarets in the European country.

The SVP -- Switzerland's biggest party – had forced a referendum on the issue after collecting 100,000 signatures within 18 months from eligible voters.

"I was greatly sadden by the result of this referendum," Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, IUMS president and chairman of the European Council for Fatwa and Research, said in a separate statement.

He expressed fears that the anti-Muslim ca fears the anti-Muslim campaigns might move from rejecting minarets to opposing mosques.

Egypt's Al-Azhar, the highest seat of religious learning in the Sunni world, also denounced the ban.

"This will have negative impacts on Muslims and we urge the Swiss government to abolish it," Grand Imam of Al-Azhar Sheikh Mohamed Sayyed Tantawi told Swiss Ambassador in Cairo Dominique Furlger.

Islam is the second religion in Switzerland after Christianity, with Muslims estimated at nearly 400,000.

There are nearly 160 mosques and prayer rooms in the country, mainly in disused factories and warehouses.

Only four of them have minarets, none of them used to raise the Azan, the call to prayer, which is banned in Switzerland.

Islamophobia

Muslim scholars said the ban showed the extent of Islamophobia in the West.

"This exposed the blatant contradiction between Switzerland's rhetoric about democratic values and religious freedom and conducting a referendum that violates all human rights and religious freedom covenants," said the IUMS.

"The extremist and racist rightists had exploited fear of Islam and Muslims."

The SVP had claimed that minarets are a symbol of Shari`ah and the Islamization of Switzerland.

"This is a big lie. Minarets are a signs for worship places and do not have any political or other connotation."

In a report released last year, the Organization of Islamic Conference warned that defamation of Islam and racial intolerance were on the rise in western societies.

The same concerns were voiced a year earlier by UN Special Rapporteur on Contemporary Forms of Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and related Intolerance Doudou Diene.

Damaging

Muslim scholars cautioned that the far-right anti-Islam campaigns are threatening to undermine years of dialogue between Muslims and Christians.

"The result of this referendum will raise questions about the feasibility of rapprochement and dialogue between Muslims and the West," IUMS said.

"If Muslims' places of worship have become a matter of debate and referendums, so on what basis will dialogue be held."

The Dublin-based umbrella of Muslim scholar warned that such provocative moves would only play into the hands of extremists on both sides.

It urged the Swiss government not to allow far-rightists to threaten the Muslims' integration.

"The government should take all necessary measures to fight this animosity towards Muslims which was clear in the media campaign that preceded the referendum."

The scholars, meanwhile, urged Swiss Muslims to maintain clam and use all legal channels to challenge the ban.

"We call on Swiss Muslims to cooperate with all local and international organizations to reverse the ban through legitimate means.

"They should file lawsuits against the ban before the European Court of Human Rights."

The 47-nation Council of Europe said the minaret ban "raises concerns as to whether fundamental rights of individuals, protected by international treaties, should be subject to popular votes."

Experts believe the Strasburg-based court would likely revoke the Swiss ban on religious freedom grounds.

Source: IslamOnline

| Home | Daily News | We Are On... |

Obama Orders Afghanistan Surge

WASHINGTON –- US President Barack Obama has ordered a surge of 30,000 troops to war-ravaged Afghanistan to reverse the Taliban's momentum as part of his highly-anticipated new strategy for the eight-year deadly war. "The 30,000 additional troops that I am announcing tonight will deploy in the first part of 2010 the fastest pace possible so that they can target the insurgency and secure key population centers," Obama said in a speech from the US Military Academy at West Point, New York.

The surge will bring US troop in the Asian Muslim country to more than 100,000.

The number of American forces in Afghanistan has almost tripled under Obama, who only assumed office in January of this year.

Obama reached the surge decision after more than three months of debates and deliberations with to military and political advisers.

In his speech, he tried to assure impatient Americans that the surge will help bringing the war to a "successful conclusion."

"It will increase our ability to train competent Afghan security forces, and to partner with them so that more Afghans can get into the fight," Obama said.

"These are the resources that we need to seize the initiative, while building the Afghan capacity that can allow for a responsible transition of our forces out of Afghanistan," he told an audience of West Point cadets, staff and guests.

"After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home."

Click to Read Obama's Speech

Obama reportedly aims to withdraw most US forces from Afghanistan by the end of his current term in January 2013.

The US, which invaded Afghanistan in 2001, has been facing growing attacks from the resurgent Taliban, ousted by the invasion.

Public opposition is growing to a war that has so far claimed the lives of more than 900 Americans and nearly 600 allied troops.

A new survey by the Gallup organization released Tuesday showed 55 percent of Americans disapprove Obama's handling of the war.

Obama said his new strategy seeks to deny al-Qaeda a safe haven, reverse the Taliban's momentum and strengthen Afghan security forces and government.

"It must be clear that Afghans will have to take responsibility for their security, and that America has no interest in fighting an endless war in Afghanistan."

Obama said his administration would support the Kabul government's efforts to reconcile with some elements of Taliban.

"We will support efforts by the Afghan government to open the door to those Taliban who abandon violence and respect the human rights of their fellow citizens."

But security experts believe that victory in Afghanistan would need a lot more than Obama’s surge.

"In a complex environment like Afghanistan, there are no guarantees about outcomes from a policy, including an appropriate policy to substantially increase the numbers of US troops," professor Vanda Felbab-Brown, fellow in Foreign Policy at the Brookings Institution, told IslamOnline.

Professor Felbab-Brown, who specializes in issues of conflict and national security, acknowledges that the surge would make a difference for the Western troops in Afghanistan.

"The question, however, is whether it will make sufficient difference on the ground," he noted.

"If the bulk of the forces are deployed to Helmand, Kandahar, and the east, will the existing forces be able to prevent, resist, and defeat a Taliban campaign in the north or the west?"

Taliban is pursuing protracted guerrilla warfare against the US-led forces and the Kabul government.

Felbab-Brown fears that Afghanistan is already "on the verge of sinking into an abyss".

"The military and civilian surge the US committed itself to undertake are not a guarantee that such a highly dangerous outcome can be avoided," she maintains.

"But it is the last chance the United States and the international community have in Afghanistan."

Source: IslamOnline

| Home | Daily News | We Are On... |