Tuesday 29 October 2013

Al-Shabaab backed by money from U.S.

Al-Shabaab backed by money from U.S.

Images released by the Kenyan Presidential Press Service on Thursday, September 26, show scenes of destruction in the parking deck outside the Westgate mall after the four-day siege by militants. Images released by the Kenyan Presidential Press Service on Thursday, September 26, show scenes of destruction in the parking deck outside the Westgate mall after the four-day siege by militants.

<
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
>
>>
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
  • Bergen: Al-Shabaab bolstered not only by U.S. recruits but also by U.S. financial backers
  • He says the terrorist group has received illegal funding from sympathizers in the U.S.
  • U.S. authorities have succeeded in prosecuting Al-Shabaab supporters, Bergen says
Editor's note: Peter Bergen is CNN's national security analyst, a director at the New America Foundation and the author of "Manhunt: The Ten-Year Search for bin Laden -- From 9/11 to Abbottabad." David Sterman is a graduate student at Georgetown University's Security Studies Program.
(CNN) -- After the attack on the Westgate mall in Nairobi, Kenya, substantial attention was given to the some 40 Americans who have traveled to fight for Al-Shabaab in Somalia during the past several years.
But much less attention has focused on Al-Shabaab's supporters in the United States who have helped to fund the terrorist group. Those supporters have funneled tens of thousands of dollars via money transfer businesses to the terrorist organization and have often maintained direct contact with Al-Shabaab leaders and fighters in Somalia.
After the 9/11 attacks, when it became clear to investigators that al Qaeda's deadly assaults on New York and Washington had cost as much as $500,000 to mount, the U.S. government became far more aggressive about trying to block funds going to terrorist organizations.
Peter Bergen
Peter Bergen
Part of that process involved a determined effort to sort through which groups were terrorist organizations. On 9/11 there were only 26 terrorist groups on the State Department's list of designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations. Today there are 51, among them Al-Shabaab, which was designated in March 2008.
The result of that designation was that it was now illegal for a person in the United States to knowingly provide Al-Shabaab with money, training, expertise, false documentation, communications equipment, weapons or explosives, or to join the group.
On that basis, a number of cases have emerged:
• In Rochester, Minnesota, two women from Somalia who had become naturalized U.S. citizens helped organize funding for Al-Shabaab. Hawo Hassan, a 64-year-old adult day care worker, and Amina Farah Ali, 35, set up a dedicated teleconference line to raise funds for Al-Shabaab.
 
How Al-Shabaab recruits in the U.S.
 
On GPS: Somali president on Al-Shabaab
 
Bergen: Unlikely women were attackers
Hundreds of interested individuals called in to these teleconferences, and after each one Hassan and Ali recorded pledges of funds from the callers. After a teleconference on October 26, 2008, the two women received pledges from 21 individuals totaling $2,100 in funds for Al-Shabaab.
These teleconferences often featured Al-Shabaab figures. In one teleconference, an Al-Shabaab female leader exhorted the listening audience to send funds. In another, Mahad Karate, the head of Al-Shabaab's intelligence wing, told the members of the listening audience that jihad "is waged financially" and that their help was needed.
The two female Al-Shabaab fund-raisers also went door to door in Minnesota to raise contributions, often under false pretenses claiming contributions were for war orphans in Somalia. During a phone call with her Al-Shabaab financial contact, Ali stated, "I tell the people to collect money in the name of the poor. Nobody is aware of the money I send to you."
Prosecutors said it was clear from the phone conversations that they monitored that the two women knew that they were raising money for Al-Shabaab, a group that had been designated a terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department. Both women were convicted of providing funds to Al-Shabaab and were sentenced to lengthy prison terms this year.
• Similarly, Ahmed Hussein Mahamud, a 27-year-old man, raised money from the Minnesota Somali community under the pretense that the money was going to a local mosque or to help orphans in Somalia. Instead he transferred the funds to fellow conspirators who had traveled from Minnesota to fight in Somalia to help them buy weapons. He and his co-conspirators transferred $1,500 to help Al-Shabaab. Mahamud pleaded guilty last year.
• Nima Ali Yusuf, a 25-year-old San Diego woman, who pleaded guilty in December 2011 to sending $1,450 to help fund Al-Shabaab, was in telephone contact with some of the Somali-American men fighting in Somalia for Al-Shabaab.
• In 2007, Aden Hashi Ayrow, a Al-Shabaab leader, contacted Basaaly Saeed Moalin, a cabdriver in San Diego, asking him to fund his group. In January 2008, Ayrow told Moalin that he needed to know how much money was being sent monthly to his group, even if it was only $100, because even relatively small amounts of money could make a big difference in Somalia, which is one of the poorest countries in the world. To keep an Al-Shabaab foot soldier in the field only cost a dollar a day.
At Ayrow's request, Moalin organized other members of the Somali-American community to help provide funding. Moalin recruited three others members of the Somali-American community and together they sent $8,500 to Al-Shabaab between 2007 and 2008. All four were later convicted of providing support to Al-Shabaab.
• Another Al-Shabaab supporter in St Louis, cabdriver Mohamud Abdi Yusuf, was part of a group of men that sent $21,000 to Kenya and Somalia for Al-Shabaab. Yusuf pleaded guilty to giving support to the terrorist group.
Since Al-Shabaab was designated as a terrorist organization, the U.S. Justice Department has mounted "Operation Rhino" to combat Al-Shabaab's support network in the States and has convicted 12 individuals for providing funds to Al-Shabaab, according to a count by the New America Foundation.
This seems to have had a real deterrent effect. As a result of the publicity these cases have had in the Somali-American community, indictments for Al-Shabaab fund-raising have slowed considerably. And the last time a Somali-American was indicted for raising money for Al-Shabaab was 2011.

WHO HAS RIGHT TO DRIVE BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN????

Women who defied Saudi driving ban fear repercussions

By Mohammed Jamjoom, CNN
October 29, 2013 -- Updated 0946 GMT (1746 HKT)
Watch this video

Saudi women defy driving ban

STORY HIGHLIGHTS
  • NEW: U.S. supports women's "ability to drive," State Department official says
  • The Women's Driving Campaign event on Saturday drew many supporters
  • Some women who participated now fear repercussions
  • Religious edicts have been interpreted as meaning women shouldn't drive
(CNN) -- Several women who publicly supported a campaign to defy Saudi Arabia's de facto ban on women driving fear they are being followed and investigated by the country's secret police.
The women, who requested anonymity due to their concerns for their safety, described to CNN Monday how they'd been "followed by cars filled with men since Saturday," when dozens of women across the kingdom participated in the October 26 Women's Driving Campaign.
At least five women said vehicles had been parked outside their houses since Saturday.
"I don't know for sure if it is secret police or just men trying to harass us because we want the right to drive, but they are trying to intimidate us," said one woman.
Saudi women's driving protest kicks off
"I'm positive I'm being followed by the secret police since Saturday," said another, who added she'd gotten no official word she was being investigated.
Over the weekend, in an extraordinary act of civil disobedience, at least 41 women got behind the wheel and drove on the streets of various Saudi cities. Many filmed themselves and uploaded those videos to YouTube.
Now, several of them say the euphoria of that moment has quickly turned to worry over what might happen to them next. Many wonder if they'll be punished for hitting the open road in such a closed society.
While no formal law exists in Saudi Arabia specifically barring women from driving, religious edicts are often interpreted there to mean it is illegal for females to do so. Other Saudi women have been penalized in the past for defying the ban.
In 1990, a group of 47 women protested the prohibition by driving through the streets of Riyadh, the country's capital. After being arrested, many lost their jobs and were placed under a travel ban.
In 2011, women's rights activist Manal Al-Sharif spent nine days in jail for posting online a video of herself driving.
Adding to their fears, the women say, is the detention of a man who worked closely with the campaign. They say Tariq Al-Mubarak, a columnist and teacher, was called in for questioning by the Bureau of Investigation and Prosecution in Riyadh on Sunday and has not been released yet.
Saudi Arabia's Interior Ministry would neither confirm nor deny if Al-Mubarak was being held. Reached via text message, Maj. Gen. Mansour Al-Turki, the Interior Ministry's spokesman, responded to CNN, saying, "as far as I know, the Bureau of Investigation (BIP) doesn't detain anybody, but they could call people for questioning or interrogation."
Despite repeated attempts, CNN was unable to reach the BIP for comment and was told by Al-Turki that the agency has no spokesperson.
When asked if Saudi women who participated in or supported the women's driving campaign were being targeted, followed or investigated, Al-Turki told CNN, "I don't understand the reason to follow anybody. If we have anything against anyone we would act according to the laws."
One woman, whose worry is growing by the hour, said participants in the movement only wanted to "emphasize to the Saudi government that this campaign is not a challenge to the Saudi government."
She described the campaign, which has gained serious momentum since it was first announced in late September, as "just following up on King Abdullah and other officials' words in the past that the women's driving issue is one for society to decide."
"We just want to be allowed to drive our own cars," she said.
Saudi Arabia is still very much split over the question of women driving, with many women there supporting not just the driving ban, but also in favor of the conservative kingdom's guardianship system, which mandates that Saudi women cannot go to school, get a job or even travel without permission from their male guardians.
Asked about the issue at a regular briefing Monday, a spokeswoman for the U.S. State Department voiced support for Saudi women's "ability to drive."
"We support, of course, the right of women everywhere to make their own decisions about their lives and their futures, and the right to benefit equally from public services and protection from discrimination," said Jen Psaki, the spokeswoman. "We support the full inclusion of women in Saudi society."
She said that the Unites States raises "human rights issues, equal rights issues, frequently with the Saudi government."

Angela Merkel's indignation over NSA spying is genuine and rightly so

 Opinion: Angela Merkel's indignation over NSA spying is genuine and rightly so
By Charlotte Potts, Special for CNN
October 29, 2013 -- Updated 1642 GMT (0042 HKT)

Watch this video
Editor's note: Charlotte Potts is a German national who has worked as a journalist and producer for both major German TV networks, ARD and ZDF, in Washington, DC. She reported on the 2008 and 2012 US campaigns and elections for a German audience and currently covers politics and society across the US. Follow her on Twitter @charlottecpotts
Washington (CNN) -- Angela Merkel might be the most powerful female politician in the world these days. She certainly is in Europe. We now know that her cell phone was monitored by U.S. intelligence, not just since she became the German Chancellor in 2005, but also for an additional three years before that.
Many U.S. analysts are now arguing that Merkel's anger at the revelations is manufactured for public consumption. They could not be more wrong.
A lot of Germans were flustered when they learned this summer that the NSA had been collecting millions of bits of so-called meta-data on them. According to opinion polls, 60% of Germans supported Edward Snowden's release of classified information. Just 17% found what he did was wrong.
Charlotte Potts
 
Reporter: Germans disappointed by spying
 
Greenwald: U.S.spying not about terrorism
For Germans, the discussion about U.S. surveillance is not a joke. In fact, it couldn't be more serious. We value our privacy highly. It is seen as an individual liberty that often could not be taken for granted in German history. Both the Nazi secret police -- the Gestapo -- and the East German intelligence agency -- the Stasi -- spied extensively on citizens.
Even in more recent decades Germans have repeatedly fought battles about privacy and against a perceived "Überwachungsstaat" -- or "surveillance state." Compared to the U.S., Germany already has many laws concerning data privacy, but two-thirds of Germans would even like stricter regulations.
Back in the summer, Merkel tried to downplay the U.S. surveillance herself and stood strong on the side of the U.S. ally. In mid-July, Merkel gave an interview on the topic, which in light of the recent revelations, seems almost satirical.
The host of the show introduced her as "the lady who hopes that at least her cell phone is bug-proof, even from U.S. intelligence services." Merkel said later in the interview: "I know that I am not being monitored."
A month later -- and in the midst of an election campaign dominated by this issue -- the German government announced that the "NSA scandal," as the German media called it, was over because the U.S. had ensured more transparency. The German public's anger calmed and Merkel cruised to re-election.
Last week Merkel learned in a particularly personal way that the issue is far from over.
She became Germany's first NSA victim known by name and gave the extent of U.S. spying a face.
Politically Merkel didn't have a lot to gain by bringing this issue to the table again. Her anger is not simulated for domestic consumption. In fact, the opposite is true, since she is now criticized for not taking the extent of the surveillance more serious in the beginning.
Merkel is usually measured. For her to pick up the phone and call President Barack Obama to publicly criticise the extent of U.S. surveillance shows how disgruntled she really is. Her anger seems real and rightfully so.
Eavesdropping on Merkel's conversations and reading her text messages is completely unacceptable. Not because she is the most powerful female politician, but because she is one of the closest allies the U.S. has in Europe and, overall, a trusted friend.
Back in the summer, Obama said that if he wanted to know what Merkel is thinking, he could pick up the phone and just ask her.
In retrospect, this comment verges on the offensive. So what benefit does it really bring to spy on Germany? Are these benefits really worth the costs? Even if Obama has begun a foreign policy shift towards Asia in his presidency, he still needs strong transatlantic partners.
Of course, the "Handyüberwachung" -- the German word for spying on cell phones -- hits close to home for Merkel.
She grew up in Eastern Germany where every conversation, every step, was monitored by the Stasi.
It's in part because of her past that Merkel always had a lot of respect for the United States. She values freedom and liberties and with that the country, which seemed to value these attributes the most: The United States.
Merkel wouldn't challenge relationships with the U.S. if she didn't think it was necessary. She wouldn't endanger the Swift data exchange agreement and negotiations on a free trade zone between the European Union and the United States, just to demonstrate that she is a strong leader or to strengthen her position at home, which is stable regardless at the moment.
Ever since World War II, German-U.S. relations have flourished through trust in each other. That trust is broken now. For the first time it seems, the U.S. has crossed an actual threshold.
Tapping the phones of ally leaders shouldn't be a question of "can we", but rather "should we?"
Now it is time for the U.S. to try to understand those cultural concerns, to show Europeans that security doesn't trump liberty; that the intelligence services haven't gone wild and, especially, to rebuild the trust of a valued ally.

How Steve Biko died...

How Steve Biko died

Biko - the Biography by Dr Xolela Mangcu
Biko - the Biography by Dr Xolela Mangcu
His death by torture, at the hands of the police, robbed South Africa of one of its most gifted leaders.
Below in an excerpt from Biko – A Biography, Mangcu describes Biko's arrest and how he was killed.
The Arrest
At the roadblock the police asked Steve and Jones to step out and open the boot. Jones, who was driving, followed their orders but struggled to open the boot. The car’s boot had to be opened in a special way, known only to Rams Ramokgopa, back at Zanempilo.
Apparently, the car had been in a minor accident resulting in a small dent above the left tail-light that jammed the lid. Whilst Jones tugged at the boot, the police kept accusing him of being a terrorist on his way to see Steve Biko, while Steve sat quietly in the passenger seat. Jones tried to make light of his struggle with the boot and invited one of the policemen to have a try. 
After a while the senior officer, Colonel Alf Oosthuizen, ordered the unit to clear the roadblock and to take Steve and Jones to the nearby police station in Grahamstown.
Oosthuizen drove with Steve in Ramokopa’s car while Jones drove with the other officers. The police searched the car thoroughly at the police station. Jones recalls that “they even went through the ash in the ash-tray. It was now clear that this was not a joke.”
They found Jones’s wallet, which, apart from an amount of R43, contained his identity document. And then Oosthuizen bellowed in Afrikaans: “As jy Peter Cyril Jones is, dan wie is daai groot man?” – If you are Peter Cyril Jones, then who is that big man?
Steve realised how awkward the situation was for his friend. On principle, Jones would not reveal Steve’s identity, exposing himself to torture and imprisonment. Yet in the end the police would find out anyway. Steve interjected: “I am Bantu Steve Biko.”
And then there was silence. “Biko?” retorted Oosthuizen, mispronouncing the B. “No, Bantu Steve Biko,” retorted Biko, pronouncing the Bs in his name silently.
The two men were separated. Jones was taken to Algoa Police Station and Steve to Walmer Police Station, both in Port Elizabeth, about 250 km from King William’s Town.
I was in front  and Steve was a couple of paces behind me.  My entourage stopped at a Kombi and I was told to enter and lie face down on the floor between the seats. I turned to look at Steve who had just passed us and I called his name out loud. He stopped to look at me and called my name and we smiled a greeting which was interrupted when I was slapped violently into the Kombi. This was the last time I ever saw my comrade – alive or dead.
Over the next months Jones was repeatedly interrogated and tortured. He was detained for nearly eighteen months. 
During the height of my interrogation there wasn’t a spot on my body that wasn’t either swollen, bruised or sensitive. At times, I struggled to find a comfortable sleeping position, resorting to sleeping in a kneeling position with my forehead resting on the floor.
How Steve Was Killed
At Walmer Police Station Steve was kept naked and manacled for 20 days before being transferred to the notorious Sanlam Building in Port Elizabeth. The security police there resented the respect Steve enjoyed from the King William’s Town security police. Stories had reached them that Steve had, in a previous stint in detention, even fought back and had punched one of the senior officers in King William’s Town, Warrant Officer Hattingh.
When he arrived at the Sanlam Building the security police told him to remain standing. After a while he sat down. That was when one of the policemen, Captain Siebert, grabbed him and pulled him back onto his feet. A “scuffle” ensued, and true to what he had told Sonwabo Yengo, Steve would defend himself.
On 6 September Steve sustained a massive brain haemorrhage. The cause of his death was not disputed: complications resulting from a brain injury. Steve suffered at least three brain lesions occasioned by the application of force to his head; the injury was suffered between the night of 6 September and 07:30 on 7 September.
In their amnesty application the policemen who killed Steve tried to evade spelling out what exactly had happened in the same way that they had during the original Biko Inquest in 1977. The details are not fully known. However, they admitted that after Steve had suffered a brain injury, they still kept him in a standing position. They shackled his hands and feet to the metal grille of the cell door. The police noticed that he was speaking with a slur but would not relent and continued with their interrogation.
Equally complicit in Steve’s murder were three doctors involved in the case, the district surgeon Dr Ivor Lang, the chief district surgeon Dr Benjamin Tucker and Dr Colin Hersch, a specialist from Port Elizabeth.
On September 7, one day after Steve suffered the brain haemorrhage, the police called in Dr Lang. Lang could find nothing wrong with Steve, despite the fact that he found him in a daze with a badly swollen face, hands and feet.
Instead the doctor alleged that Steve was “shamming”. Lang’s more senior colleague, Dr Benjamin Tucker, was called in for his opinion on what should be done. Tucker suggested that Steve be taken to hospital, but the police strongly objected, and Tucker subordinated his Hippocratic oath to their wishes.
Lang, even though he was acutely aware of Steve’s condition, recommended that Steve be driven 700 kilometres to the prison hospital in Pretoria. By 10 September Steve’s condition had deteriorated alarmingly. The following day, September 11, the police put Steve in the back of a Land Rover and drove him for more than twelve hours from Port Elizabeth to Pretoria – naked, manacled and unconscious.
On September 12 Steve Biko died, in the words of Sydney Kentridge, “a miserable and lonely death on a mat on a stone floor in a prison cell”.
The minister of justice and the police, Jimmy Kruger, issued a statement that Biko had died from a hunger strike. Addressing a National Party Congress, Kruger proclaimed to laughter:“I am not saddened by Biko’s death and I am not mad. His death leaves me cold.” Kruger’s remark reverberated around the world.
Speaking at the first Steve Biko Memorial Lecture 23 years later, UCT Vice-Chancellor Njabulo Ndebele described this callous event as:
. . . a continuum of indescribable insensitivity that begins as soon as Steve Biko and Peter Jones are arrested at a roadblock near Grahamstown on 18 August 1977. It starts with lowly police officers who make the arrest in the relative secrecy of a remote setting and ends with a remarkable public flourish, when a minister of government declares that Biko’s death leaves him cold. This situation lets us deep into the ethical and moral condition of Afrikanerdom, which not only shaped apartheid, but also was itself deeply shaped by it.
Here is how Barney Pityana describes his friend’s last hours:
On the night of 11 September Biko, evidently a seriously ill patient, was driven to Pretoria, naked and manacled to the floor of a Land Rover. Eleven hours later he was carried into the hospital at Pretoria Central Prison and left on the floor of a cell. Several hours later he was given an intravenous drip by a newly qualified doctor who had no information about him other than that he was refusing to eat. Sometime during the night of 12 September Steve Biko died, unattended.
News of Steve’s death instantly reverberated around the world. While there had been deaths in detention before, no one thought that, in their savage madness, the security police would kill someone with the stature of Steve Biko.

10 things you didn't know about Nelson Mandela

10 things you didn't know about Nelson Mandela

He may be one of the most famous men in the world, but there's plenty to learn about him.

By

Melissa Breyer
Related Topics:
Activism, Politics
Nelson Mandela
Nelson Mandela in 1937 and 2008. (Photos: Wikimedia Commons)
Most of us know Nelson Mandela as the South African revolutionary and politician whose long imprisonment became a rallying cry for dismantling apartheid. We know that he went on to be elected the first black president of the Republic of South Africa in the first open election in the country's history and that he has remained one of the most inspiring and admired men in modern history.
 
But there’s so much more to know. Consider the following:
 
1. His parents didn't name him Nelson
Upon his birth on July 18, 1918, he was named Rolihlahla Dalibhunga Mandela. He attended primary school in Qunu where his teacher gave him the name Nelson, in accordance with the tradition of giving “Christian” names to students.
 
2. He was a poor student
Mandela was expelled from the University College of Fort Hare for his participation in a student protest. He completed his BA through the University of South Africa before attending the University of the Witwatersrand for his law degree. By his own admission, he was not a very good student and left in 1948 without graduating; he also was unable to complete a law degree that he started at the University of London. It wasn’t until his last months in prison that he obtained his undergraduate law degree. He now has more than 50 honorary degrees from international universities.
 
3. He traveled under an alias
In 1962, he took on the alias David Motsamayi and secretly left South Africa for other parts of Africa and England to rally support for the liberation movement and the African National Congress (ANC); he received military training in Morocco and Ethiopia.
 
4. He was a master of disguise
Forced to go underground to evade the police, Mandela disguised himself as a chauffeur, a chef and a garden boy. “I would wear the blue overalls of the fieldworker and often wore round, rimless glasses known as Mazzawati teaglasses. I had a car and I wore a chauffeur's cap with my overalls. The pose of chauffeur was convenient because I could travel under the pretext of driving my master's car,” he wrote in his autobiography, "Long Walk to Freedom."
 
5. Some of his most famous words were spoken in court
In 1963, Mandela and nine others went on trial for sabotage in what became known as the Rivonia Trial, when he delivered his famous speech in which he concluded, “During my lifetime I have dedicated myself to this struggle of the African people. I have fought against white domination, and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die.” Facing the death penalty, they were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment.
 
6. His principles were more important than freedom
He spent 27 years in prison until his release in 1990, nine days after the unbanning of the ANC. Throughout his imprisonment he had rejected at least three conditional offers of release.
 
7. He was deluged with ticker tape
In 1990, he embarked on a world tour, visiting British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, the U.S. Congress, and U.S. President George H.W. Bush. An estimated 400,000 attended a ticker tape parade through the canyons of Wall Street in his honor.
 
8. He loves tripe
Umleqwa (farm chicken), ulusu (tripe), and amasi (sour milk) are among his favorite foods. His chef since 1992, Xoliswa Ndoyiya, published a cookbook with his favorite recipes.
 
9. He was a concert promoter
Mandela was the driving force behind the 2003 AIDS awareness event in Cape Town called the 46664 Concert. The huge event included performances by Beyonce, Peter Gabriel, Bono, Bob Geldof and many more. The name of the concert references Mandela’s prison number.
 
10. His honors have no limits
Mandela has received more than 695 awards, including the Nobel Peace Prize and the U.S. Congressional Medal. In addition to his honorary degrees, he has also been bestowed with honorary citizenships, organization memberships, and a large number of streets, buildings, schools and other various things have been named for him — and his influence can even be seen in Hollywood. In "The Cosby Show," the grandchildren of Cliff and Clair Huxtable, Winnie and Nelson Tibideau, were named after Mandela and his former wife.

IS THE GREAT WAR WAS A JUST WAAR????

The Great War was a Just War

By Gary Sheffield | Published in History Today Volume: 63 Issue: 8 2013 
   
First World War 
It is time to ditch the Blackadder view of history, says Gary Sheffield. Britain was right to fight Imperial Germany in 1914.
The end in sight: British troops round up German prisoners after the Battle of Amiens, August 9th, 1918The end in sight: British troops round up German prisoners after the Battle of Amiens, August 9th, 1918‘At that point in Britain’s history, it was important that there was a war that ensured that Europe could continue to be a set of countries which were strong and which could be working together.’ Such was the view of Maria Miller, the culture secretary, on why the First World War was fought, given on BBC Radio 4’s flagship Today programme on June 10th, 2013. Her comments were greeted with a range of responses, in which mockery was to the fore. One of the more considered was that of the journalist Andy McSmith in the Independent: ‘Oh dear!’ McSmith exclaimed. Because the UK Government ‘wants to honour those who died in the conflict without making a judgment on why that war began’, he continued, Miller, who heads the department taking the lead on the centenary commemorations of the First World War, ‘had to improvise when asked what it was all about’.
McSmith’s insight is astute. It was the government’s ‘non-judgmental’ approach that led to the culture secretary’s moment of car-crash radio. She was responding to the journalist and historian Max Hastings, who had stated that most historians held Germany and Austria-Hungary primarily responsible for the outbreak of the First World War. While recently there has been an attempt to spread the blame, particularly by pinning responsibility on Russia, this indeed remains the mainstream position among serious historians. In the debate over war guilt, what happened next is often ignored. However the conflict started, Germany took full advantage to carry out a war of conquest and aggression. Britain’s First World War was a war of national survival, a defensive conflict fought at huge cost against an aggressive enemy bent on achieving hegemony in Europe.
As it stands, the Government’s position of neutrality regarding the meaning of the war denies the commemorations the context necessary to make sense of them. The UK’s leading historian of the First World War, Professor Sir Hew Strachan, who is a member of the Government’s own advisory committee, early on described official plans for the commemoration as ‘conceptually empty’. Strachan’s criticisms remain valid. The Government has explicitly disavowed trying to create any particular ‘narrative’, but by refusing to set the commemorations into the context of the origins of the war and the aggression of the Central Powers, this is exactly what it has done. Merely commemorating the sacrifice of British troops without explaining why they died tacitly gives support to the dominant popular view that the war was futile and the deaths meaningless. So does the fact that the original programme of official commemorations included defeats such as Gallipoli and the First Day on the Somme, but omitted the great victories of 1918 that won the war, such as Amiens and the breaking of the Hindenburg Line. The assurance given in June 2013 by both the Ministry of Defence and the Department of Culture, Media and Sport that the Battle of Amiens would be appropriately commemorated on its centenary in August 2018 is greatly to be welcomed.
The reason for the Government’s squeamishness has been blamed on what might be termed the Basil Fawlty/Noël Coward approach – ‘don’t mention the war/let’s not be beastly to the Germans’ – but concern at domestic reaction is probably more important. In 1994 and 2004, the time of the 50th and 60th anniversaries of D-Day, Conservative and Labour governments had no problem in blaming Nazi Germany for the Second World War or in celebrating the defence of democracy. But it seems the First World War is different. It is hard to overestimate the extent to which the idea of the war being ‘futile’ and the battles meaningless bloodbaths conducted by callous and criminally incompetent generals is (to use an appropriate word) ‘entrenched’. In a two-decade career as a public historian, putting forward alternative views on television, radio and in the press, I have become well aware that daring to suggest that Blackadder Goes Forth is not actually a documentary brings forth paroxysms of anger. I therefore have some sympathy for politicians who do not want to offend members of the electorate: after all, they want to be re-elected. Dr Andrew Murrison, MP, the prime minister’s lead for the centenary commemorations, deserves great credit for breaking ranks to state that for the British the war was just.
There is much in the Government’s commemoration plans that should be applauded, but I cannot approve of the decision, for political reasons, to take the path of least resistance by maintaining its non-judgmental stance. No one wants to see five years of German-bashing, but we run the risk of missing a (literally) once in a century opportunity to educate the public about the war. For the government to show leadership by showcasing the wealth of scholarly research that undermines the Blackadder view might be politically risky, but it is the right thing to do.
Professor Gary Sheffield takes up the Chair of War Studies at the University of Wolverhampton in September 2013. He is the author of The Chief: Douglas Haig and the British Army (Aurum, 2011).

Steps OF STOPPING WAR....

Steps OF STOPPING WAR....

  1. 1
    Start a petition. Open a word document, and make a page with the headline, "STOP WAR" with a little bit explaining what you believe in. Then insert numbers with lines long enough for names. Print out a lot of lines, because a lot of people will most likely sign it.
  2. 2
    Make signs. You can make them as a big banner, or as picket signs to carry around. No matter how it looks, just make sure it gets the point across. Don't paint the words in yellow, because people won't be able to see this while driving past. Paint it in a dark colour, such as black or red. Paint something meaningful on it that will cause people to want to sign your petition, such as, "People are dying. You can stop it". This will make people feel guilty for not doing anything, and they will proudly sign the petition to help the cause. Don't write something like, "End war or we'll hurt you", because this is against what your belief is stating.
  3. 3
    Gather followers. The sad truth is: if no one believes in what you're doing, no one is going to help you. The easiest thing to do is to get most of your friends to sign your petition, then acquaintances, and then strangers. If a stranger sees your petition with only two people on it, they will see it as a non-dedicated source. If they see a petition with a thousand signatures, they'll take it more seriously.
  4. The more the followers, the bigger amount of space.
    4
    Protest. Go to a place that is crowded, such as the park on a nice day. Set yourself up at a nice table along with some others who support the cause, and say things loudly like, "People are dying! Only you can stop it!", or, "Anti-War, Pro-Peace!". These things are likely to catch others' attention. If someone comes over, ask them to sign your petition.
  5. 5
    Vote for the anti-war candidate. Take action by voting for the anti-war candidate, and encourage others to do so also. You can encourage your friends to vote for the anti-war runner, but this isn't a good idea for strangers, because they won't appreciate you telling them what to do. Asking people to sign a petition is okay, but telling them who to vote for and informing them of the candidate will seem more like a campaign. Try to remain personal when asking people to help the cause, and stick to little things they can do.
  6. A pamphlet this size would be good
    6
    Inform others. Surprisingly, many are unaware of the effects of war. You can help end this by either going door to door and informing, or printing out information packets and putting them in peoples' mailboxes. However, some people get annoyed by this and simply throw the packets away. An alternative to this is to walk around a park, and asking people if they'd like an information packet on the affects of war and what they can do to stop it. This way, you won't waste your time informing people who don't care.
  7. 7
    Show that you support the cause. There are several ways to do this. Let your creativity inspire you. You can make T-shirts, paint your car with anti-war symbols, or host things like concerts, and donate a portion of the money to bring the armies home. People will admire you for your courage and devotion to a cause, and may even join you in your quest. A good idea is to make anti-war bumper stickers, and hand them out at a crowded place. All of these ideas show you are serious about a cause, and will encourage others to join you.

FUKUSHIMA NUCLEAR PLANT

More Than 100,000 Call For World Community To Take Charge Of Crippled Fukushima Nuclear Plant

The Huffington Post  |  By Posted:   |  Updated: 10/25/2013 5:48 pm EDT
WASHINGTON -- A MoveOn.org petition penned by anti-nuclear activist Harvey Wasserman is asking the United Nations to intervene at the crippled Fukushima nuclear facility in Japan.
A 7.3 magnitude earthquake struck off the coast of Japan on Friday, prompting a fresh round of tsunami warnings at the nuclear site, which was ravaged in 2011 after an earthquake and tsunami caused flooding that led to a partial meltdown at the Fukushima Daiichi power plant, leaving behind millions of gallons of radioactive water.
"At Fukushima Unit 4, the impending removal of hugely radioactive spent fuel rods from a pool 100 feet in the air presents unparalleled scientific and engineering challenges," the petition reads. "With the potential for 15,000 times more fallout than was released at Hiroshima, we ask the world community, through the United Nations, to take control of this uniquely perilous task."
More than 100,000 people had signed the petition as of Friday afternoon. It's slated for delivery to U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon and President Barack Obama in early November.

Stop Funding War

Stop Funding War


Global Exchange’s Peace Program, including sister organization CODEPINK, inspires creative actions to expose the real cost of war at home and abroad, challenge war profiteering and military recruitment, and build people-to-people ties to expand understanding and tolerance. We continue to be a vital voice of protest and conscience.
War is costly—in terms of lives and dollars, and the media is saturated with propaganda and lies about war. Through op-eds, press releases and articles, we are exposing the true cost of war, and are working to provide peaceful alternatives. We are calling for an end to the billions spent on war and demanding that these precious dollars go to support real needs here at home and around the world. We refuse to stand quietly by as unemployment rises, the economy collapses and states are on the verge of bankruptcy

10 Things You Can Do to Prevent War

10 Things You Can Do to Prevent War

Preventing war can be a citizen activity! Read how you can participate in the growing anti-war movement.
 
1. Educate yourself on the issues.
To stop terror and avoid war, we must first understand what causes it, and what approaches have, and haven't, been successful in the past. So far, America's "War On Terrorism" seems to be focused exclusively on the movement that has apparently spawned the perpetrators of the Sept. 11 attacks: radical, violent fringe conservative Sunni Muslims, from an area that stretches geographically from Northwest Africa to Southeast Asia. It can only help if we learn more about the history, culture, religions and economies of those parts of the world; the West's historic and current religious, military, political and economic relationships with them and with Islam; and how those conditions, from colonialism through global economic changes and geopolitical rivalies, have contributed to poverty, desperation, hatred and, at times, religious fanaticism today. Part of how we've gotten here is the West's tendency to impose our own cultures, values and expectations on these regions without taking the time to understand where the people we're dealing with are coming from. People interested in stopping terror and avoiding war cannot afford to repeat that mistake.
2. Develop a closer, more respectful relationship to Muslims and the Islamic world.
As the world shrinks, this is actually something we should be doing with all cultures and religions, but for the purposes of our current War on Terrorism, it is particularly important that, much as Christianity and Judaism have learned to live in greater harmony after two millenia of tension, Western cultures and religions must find and develop our common interests with the Islamic world. Just as with any minority or "other," the more we each work with and understand people of the Islamic faith, the less they will seem strange and threatening and the more we will recognize each other as individuals and as human beings.
3. Communicate!
Don't be afraid to speak out, and to listen: talk with your neighbors, your friends, relatives, co-workers, classmates. Learn from the people you disagree with, but don't shy away from voicing your opinions in places where they're unpopular. Call in to radio and television talk shows. Write letters to the editor and opinion articles for your local community newspapers. Visit their editorial boards.
4. Take your case to the community.
Set up community forums, teach-ins and panels, to educate the public, to air out differing opinions and to force politicians to go on the record with their beliefs. Table at community events. Write and circulate flyers, with information on the issue, lobbying and contact information, publicizing events or putting out powerful graphic images. Circulate petitions that you can then use both to notify people of future events (and to recruit volunteers to help organize them!) and to lobby elected officials or other prominent community figures. Take out ads in your local newspapers. Make your advocacy visible, so people will think -- even if local media is hostile -- that your cause is popular and widespread. Set up and publicize your own web site or list-serve.
5. Raise money for the Third World.
Rather than collecting money for survivors' families or to rebuild the World Trade Center, send it where it's more desperately needed: to the countries whose crushing poverty helps spawn terrorism. A more economically just world will be one with less terror. Donate your own money, or organize events where your whole community can pitch in and help: benefits, readings, raffles, auctions, walk-a-thons and so forth. Consider working jointly with a local mosque or Third World community center.
6. Publicize and oppose racial profiling, the curbing of civil liberties and the backlash against immigrants.
This is both a local and a national issue, involving everything from new INS and Justice Department programs and regulations to local police behavior and cases of isolated bigotry. While this is in many ways a separate issue, bear in mind that it's easier for our government to pursue an irresponsible or counter-productive military-oriented solution if more of the public hates and fears people who look like the enemy. When civil liberties are taken away in an emergency, they're rarely restored afterwards; and when a precedent is set whereby constitutional rights can be denied to any one group, you could be next.
7. Lobby for Congress and the White House to pursue policies that minimize civilian deaths; rethink our national defense and foreign policy priorities; and change global economic institutions and trade agreements so that they create less, not more, poverty and death.
Send a letter (preferably handwritten) or card, make a phone call (faxes and emails are less effective, but better than nothing), go to the forums of public officials, visit their offices. Much of our ability to minimize future terrorist activity depends not just on better security at home, but policies abroad that work consistently to promote the ideals of freedom and democracy America stands for. Powerful special interests often keep the White House and Congress from doing the right thing; it's up to us, the public, to require that when they act in our name, they treat others the way we would want to be treated. We, the public, are the people whose lives are on the line in this conflict; we have a right to demand that the people acting for us make our safety a priority, and not put us in further jeopardy by making matters worse.
8. Participate in or create visible public events for the same goals.
It's not enough to send a letter. To create the public momentum to convince an elected official to do something s/he might think isn't in his personal best interest, s/he has to think it's the right thing to do and that a lot of people agree with them. Attend or organize vigils, rallies, marches, parades, art festivals, music events, nonviolent direct actions or civil disobedience. Be creative, have fun, be visible, get the word out.
9. Work the media, or be the media.
Send out press releases, talk with reporters and editors, make sure when you're doing public events that local media outlets know about it, and offer something they'll want to cover. Train yourself to give interviews and be articulate. Start your own newsletter or radio or cable access TV show, or contribute to others. Support independent media that's willing to provide critical information and alternative viewpoints not as easily available in big mainstream outlets.
10. Reclaim patriotism!
We all want the most effective possible course for stopping terrorism. Disagreeing with our government's proposed strategies isn't treason -- it's the highest form of citizenship in a participatory democracy. We're becoming activists on this issue because we love our country, as well as our community and the world. Don't let anybody claim that you're "blaming America" or "betraying the President." We're proud to live in a country where we have the right, and the obligation, to speak out when our government is wrong. We're speaking out because we care. Unthinking obedience is the point at which our democracy has broken down.

THE HACKERS HAVE BEEN HACKED???????

British Hacker Lauri Love Charged With Breaking Into Nasa And US Army

PA/Huffington Post UK  |  Posted:   |  Updated: 28/10/2013 16:10 GMT
A British hacker has been charged with breaking into the computer systems of the US army, Nasa and other federal agencies.
The 28-year-old, named as Lauri Love from Suffolk, was arrested by officers from the National Crime Agency (NCA) under the Computer Misuse Act (CMA). He has been released on police bail until next February.
NCA spokesman Andy Archibald said: "This arrest is the culmination of close joint working by the NCA, Police Scotland and our international partners.
"Cyber-criminals should be aware that no matter where in the world you commit cyber crime, even from remote places, you can and will be identified and held accountable for your actions.
"The NCA has well-developed law enforcement alliances globally and we will pursue and deal robustly with cyber-criminals."
Under the CMA, individuals can be arrested for launching attacks from within the UK against computers anywhere in the world.
Love is believed to have lived in the Stradishall and Lowestoft areas.

CRISIS IN THE GREAT LAKES 2

How DR Congo conflict could ignite regional war

E-mail Print PDF
The likely implications of Ntaganda's flight
On Monday March 18, former leader of the Congolese rebel movement CNDP, Gen. Bosco Ntaganda, appeared unexpectedly at the United States embassy in Kigali to hand himself over to the Americans. He was smarting from a military defeat at the hands his erstwhile ally and now rival, Sultan Makenga, who heads the M23 rebel movement in eastern DRC.
After walking through Virunga National Park that covers the border areas of Congo, Rwanda and Uganda, he drove to Kigali most likely from Ruhengeri unnoticed by Rwanda’s security forces. Rwandan officials were taken by surprised when they heard from the Americans about Ntaganda’s appearance in their capital seeking extradition to The Hague where he is wanted for war crimes.
The previous day, March 17, the ramp of Ntaganda’s defeated army had entered Rwanda seeking refugee alongside their political leader Jean Marie Runiga. Rwanda placed Runiga under house arrest as it prepared to hand over the 700 combatants with him over to the UN as refugees.

The recent flare-up in the fighting in Congo has taken the international community by surprise as well. For more than a year, the international community bought tall tales by the UN “panel of experts” that there was no rebellion in Congo but a Rwandan invasion of the country. The M23 was seen as a Rwanda proxy and American and European journalists wrote stories of how its troops were actually from the Rwandan army. Thus, when M23 broke into rival factions and began a ferocious internal fight, the international media went speechless. They could not reasonably claim that this was a fight among different battalions of the Rwandan army.
Regional confusion
The internal fighting within M23 has also thrown the regional efforts to end that conflict in confusion. At the beginning of March, Presidents Joseph Kabila of the Democratic Republic of Congo, Eduardo Dos Santos of Angola and Jacob Zuma of South Africa had a meeting in Luanda, Angola. During the meeting, Zuma and Kabila argued that SADC should move its forces to fight the M23 rebels. Zuma, sources say, is convinced that M23 is the disguised hand of Rwanda. But Dos Santos objected saying that he knows the problem of DRC is more than Rwanda and M23. It has a lot to do with internal problems in Congo.
“Comrades,” Dos Santos reportedly told his colleagues, “even us [Angola] have many problems emanating from DRC. Many guns are being trafficked from DRC into our country. Criminals and potential terrorists are crossing as well. So it would be wrong to say that the M23 problem is caused by Rwanda. Kigali may have contributed to it but it is not the source of the problem. The root cause is the inability of Kinshasa to govern most of its territory.”
Dos Santos advised that rather than send forces to fight rebels inside DRC, SADC should help Kinshasa find a negotiated settlement with them – “in order to achieve internal social integration.” He said Luanda has been deeply involved in the problems of Congo for nearly 40 years and most of this time as a victim. This time, he added, Angola will not contribute troops to fight Kinshasa’s wars – a solution he said cannot work.
“But if you comrades feel strongly that we intervene militarily we must,” he added perhaps sensing unease on their faces, “then in the spirit of SADC Angola will contribute money but not troops to that effort. And I would advise that all of us help our young brother here find a political, not a military solution.”
Sources close to Luanda say that Dos Santos held his position firmly even in the face of pressure from Zuma as Kabila watched in silent wonderment. Finally, and in spite of his advice, SADC went ahead to recommend deployment of troops inside DRC to fight “wrong elements” (read M23). The countries to contribute to this force are South Africa, Tanzania and Mozambique. This is a potentially explosive decision.
Presidents Zuma and Jakaya Kikwete of Tanzania, informed sources say, do not see eye-to eye with President Paul Kagame of Rwanda on DRC. Kikwete’s vision is reportedly blurred by internal failures of his government. Under him, Tanzania has seen unprecedented corruption and failure to deliver basic services to the people. The situation is not helped when he is constantly reminded of Kagame’s success in the little neighbor, Rwanda.
Zuma and Kagame’s relations meanwhile are not good either. First, the South African president has been under the influence of Bill Masetera, a former intelligence chief under Thabo Mbeki and close friend and ally of Rwandan dissident generals Kayumba Nyamwasa and Patrick Karegyeya. To make matters worse, in a meeting of AU in Addis Ababa in 2011, Kagame is said to have directly interrupted Zuma’s speech in defense of then Libyan leader Muammar Gadaffi by saying he had seen “money bags been moving around” to pay off various heads of state to support Gadaffi. Zuma did not take this accusation lightly and it added insult to injury.
It is in this context that two of the three countries sending troops to DRC have an axe to grind with the country accused of sponsoring a rebellion. Regional military experts say that the South African army may be good in equipment and training but is weak in experience. This is even more pronounced when it comes to fighting a counter insurgency in a country that is densely forested, with a bad terrain, and speaking a language alien to the South Africans. The Tanzanian army, on the other hand, while well trained but not-so-well equipped has not seen action in 30 years. Secondly, the TPDF has never fought a counter insurgency.
“The South Africans and Tanzanians are preparing to deploy in DRC with a lot of enthusiasm and confidence of success against M23,” a well placed regional expert on regional security told The Independent on condition of anonymity, “But they are underestimating the capabilities of M23. These people have been fighting in the jungles of eastern DRC for over 18 years and know every nook and cranny of their area. They have also accumulated considerable experience. So, mark my words: They are not going to be a walkover as the South Africans and Tanzanians would like the think.”
Therefore, experts say that the likelihood that the Tanzanians and South Africans may get badly clobbered by M23 is very high. And if this happens: then what?
“It is very possible the Tanzanians and South Africans will not believe that they have been beaten by M23,” the expert told The Independent, “They are likely to suspect it is Rwanda fighting them. And if this is the case, and depending on the level of humiliation that may be inflicted on them, they, especially Tanzania, may decide to attack Rwanda in retaliation. Then you will have an international war – the unexpected outcome of an ill-thought out intervention in Congo.”
Internal M23 fight
Or may be not. For the last two weeks as the armies of Mozambique, South Africa and Tanzania trained and prepared to deploy in DRC, M23 began a ferocious internal war against itself. The forces of Makenga began pitched battles with the forces commanded by Ntaganda.
In the murky jungles of rebel infested DRC, it should not surprise anyone that Ntaganda is resurfacing at this point. Informed sources say, Runiga, has in fact been an Ntaganda stooge all along.
M23 has for long had factions. Although M23 officially claimed that they had nothing to do with Ntaganda, he left behind a wing, also known as the Kimbelembele that paid allegiance to him led General Baudouin Ngaruye. These were always in constant but invisible friction with the the pro-Nkunda wing, the Kifuafua led by Sultani Makenga.
Sources on the ground say the intra-M23 battles have been ferocious, brutal and bloody – worse in their sheer mercilessness compared to anything Congolese have seen in battles against Kinshasa – a family feud turned nasty.
Last week, Ntaganda matched his forces from Runyoni and attacked Makenga’s camp at Cyanzu. He also attacked Makenga’s troops in Rumangabo where the main M23 armories are. This forced Makenga to call upon two of his forward battalions north of Goma in the area of Kirimanyoka to come and reinforce Rumangabo. He also called his forces based around Rucuru to come reinforce Cyanzu. This withdraw by these battalions from these towns led the FDLR, the forces of the former Rwandan army that committed genocide in 1994, to occupy all the areas near Rucuru and Rugari. The FDLR in the presence of MUNSCO later handed over Rucuru and Kiwanja to the Congolese army.
However, having repelled the Ntaganda attack, Makenga now moved his forces and encircled Rucuru until he forced them to withdraw before he could annihilate them.  The Congolese obliged – showing that even when M23 is fighting itself, the Congolese army is unable to take advantage of the situation and make counter offensives that can stand.
The new developments have thrown the international community, its activist arm led by human rights organizations, and its propaganda arm led by the international press, into disarray. For a long time, the international community refused to recognise M23 as a domestic Congolese problem with grievances against Kinshasa. Instead, they insisted M23 was actually the Rwandan army itself. Tall tales of large movements of troops crossing the border from Rwanda into DRC were relayed to the world. Added to this were allegations that large quantities of arms and ammunition were being transported from Kigali to Goma to support the operation.
Shock and shame
A report by a UN “panel of experts” that many informed people saw as little more than a shoddy and poorly written work of fiction was given Biblical status.
The belief that M23 was the hidden work of Kigali was so widespread that obvious facts were ignored. Even when Kabila fired his chief of staff for selling arms to the rebels, the human rights community and its propaganda arm, the international press, refused to report the matter as it would have undermined the credibility of their claim that it was the Rwandan army fighting in DRC and supplying itself the weapons. So powerful was the desire to find Rwanda guilty that nearly every international donor began cutting aid to Rwanda.
The fighting among the different factions of the M23 has taken the entire UN system, its human rights allies and the international press by shock and surprise. Without Rwanda to play the role of villain, the triumvirate is now confused. With tens of thousands getting displaced, thousands of refugees flocking into Rwanda, Uganda and Burundi, with hundreds dead anddying, there is only a murmur in the international press about the evolving humanitarian crisis in eastern DRC. The problem is that the international community has no one to blame this time.
Informed sources say the current feud within the ranks of M23 is both unfortunate and sad given that Tutsi citizens of DRC face an existential threat from Kinshasa. The leaders of Congo have been openly calling upon different communities in the eastern region to exterminate all Tutsi in that region. Therefore, M23 emerged with strong and legitimate grievances, which the international community through the UN sought to suppress by shifting the blame from Kinshasa to Kigali.
However, from the beginning, this newspaper reported that Kigali was anxious and uncomfortable with M23. Although it shared their legitimate fears, strategists in Kigali felt that Congolese Tutsi are too undisciplined to work with. Sources close to Kagame have always said the president thinks the leadership of Kinshasa and the rebels are all ideologically bankrupt. He has also said this in an open address to the Rwandan parliament. Given his strong views on this matter, it was unlikely that Kagame was the man to throw in his lot with M23.
Besides, Rwanda is aware that although it can influence M23, it does not have control over it. For example, one of the factors behind the current infighting in the rebel group is clan politics and rivalries. Ntaganda is from the Bagogwe clan alongside Baudouin Ngaruye. Meanwhile Makenga is also from the same Bagogwe clan but grew up in Rucuru among Banyejomba clan of former CNDP leader, Laurent Nkunda. Ntaganda has always seen himself as a rival to Nkunda and enjoys large support among the Bagogwe. This meant that Makenga could never rival him for support in the clan which made him court the Banyejomba. Ntaganda has since used his identity to wrestle control from Makenga.
Signs of that M23 would have a fight have always been there. Makenga and Ntaganda have never been friends. When Makenga began M23, he made it clear he had no intention to protect Ntaganda from the International Criminal Court in The Hague. In fact, at the time M23 was formed, Ntaganda who had moved through the Virunga Park was close to Makenga forces. They ignored him. Knowledgeable sources say that among Makenga’s troops were many officers and soldiers who had previously been under Ntaganda’s command and therefore loyal to him. Makenga needed time to consolidate his position.
However, the turning point in M23 came when Runiga became president of the movement. His first action was to negotiate an alliance with Ntaganda. Sources say that Runiga, who is not a Congolese Rwandese but a Mushi, saw that Ntaganda had a following among the M23 troops and had a lot of money and is backed by a strong clan. Makenga, on the other hand, had made Runiga president because as a Mushi and a bishop, he had the stature and following that would expand the political base and appeal of M23 among other Congolese communities. He is well spoken, educated and therefore presentable.
However, when M23 took Goma, the region asked him to leave. In fact Museveni invited Makenga to Kampala where he formally told him that if he needs help from the regional leaders to present his grievances, he needs to withdraw from Goma. Makenga agreed. However, Runiga did not want to leave Goma because he thought it was giving them great political leverage. He called a press conference and put forth a set of political conditions before they could withdraw. He had not consulted Makenga who interpreted it as the hidden voice of Ntaganda.
This was the first and major disagreement between Runiga and Makenga. Runiga was now challenging Makenga claiming he was the supreme political leader. He also promoted Col. Baudoin Ngaruye (now in a refugee camp in Giseyi) to Brigadier General – the same rank as Makenga. Nyaruye is very close to Ntaganda. Makenga saw this as Ntaganda taking over M23.
When Makenga returned from Kampala, he wanted to arrest Runiga. However, after a lot of political negotiations he abandoned the idea. But the battle-lines had been drawn and it was only time before the two sides would flex muscles in eastern Congo.
The specific point of departure between Runiga and Makenga emerged from the direction of  negotiations in Kampala.
Makenga, sources say, felt the negotiations should be narrowed down to focus on breaches of the 2009 agreement that led to the M23 rebellion. He focused on ethnic persecution and attracted other ethnic groups to his agenda.
Runiga, as a politician wanted to broaden the demands to governance. He saw that the broader platform would attract more support among non-Rwandan Congolese who feel oppressed by Kinshasa.
These inter and intra clan and factional rivalries meant that Rwanda could not actively support any of the groups in eastern Congo except at the price of being dragged into what was potential chaos.
Courting Museveni
Therefore, from the beginning of this conflict, and if the international community was genuinely committed to solving the problems of DRC, it needed Rwanda’s aid. However, ignorance and prejudice combined with self-interest to push the international community into isolating Rwanda. Without Kigali to cajole and threaten M23, the Tutsi insurgents in DRC were a time bomb.
Meanwhile Kinshasa was always only happy to find an international scapegoat for its own internal failures and Rwanda was a perfect one. However, Kinshasa knew all too well the domestic dynamics – and therefore Kabila kept direct personal contact with both Ntaganda and Makenga, calling each one of them by phone regularly.
Sources say that through this interaction, Kabila was able to skillfully exploit historical animosities between the two men and their clans – trying to woo both by bad mouthing the other. Congolese intelligence may be corrupt and incompetent in almost everything under the sun but it is efficient in one thing – spreading rumours. Thus, sources say, Congolese intelligence led each side (Makenga and Ntaganda) to believe that the other was working with Kinshasa to clinch a deal behind the other’s back. This increased internal suspicions, which fed into historical clan rivalries. However, what Congo lacks in military and political capacity it may achieve in diplomacy.
Since 2011, when relations between Uganda and Rwanda significantly improved significantly, President Museveni and Kagame have been viewed as natural allies. Museveni is the lead mediator on the conflict in Congo. As new alliances are forged, it appears Rwanda’s enemies might want isolate Kagame even from Museveni.
There is a risk if some parties play on their previous animosities to draw the two leaders apart by taking positions that may favour Kampala but hurt Kigali.
When Museveni lost his father, Kagame was expected to fly to Uganda for the funeral. He did not and sent condolences sparking speculation.
Meanwhile, Kikwete flew directly from Addis Ababa to Rwakitura to attend the funeral. Later Kabila flew from Addis Ababa as well to Kinshasa before flying to Rwakitura to lay a wreath on Mzee Amos’ Kaguta’s grave, apparently, sources claim, on the instigation of Kikwete. In the end, observers say, the big security picture in the region could be decided by small matters such as these.
- See more at: http://www.independent.co.ug/cover-story/7583-how-dr-congo-conflict-could-ignite-regional-war#sthash.rDWxEUMp.dpuf

CRISIS IN THE GREAT LAKES 2:

 Is Tanzania South Africa’s Trojan Horse? And Why Did Mandela Like Kagame But Zuma Doesn’t?

THE TWISTS AND TURNS  in the story of how Rwanda, Tanzania and Uganda have tangled and untangled over the last 35 years to create both the current face-off between Kigali and Dar es Salaam, and the crisis in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo today as reported in CRISIS IN THE GREAT LAKES 1: For Rwanda Its Back To 1996…And For Tanzania Its Back To Uganda 1982 were only beginning.
Presidents Julius Nyerere, Milton Obote, and Jomo Kenyatta during the good days of the EAC (I) in the late 1960s. Today the sins of the Founding Fathers haunt their political children.
Presidents Julius Nyerere, Milton Obote, and Jomo Kenyatta during the good days of the EAC (I) in the late 1960s. Today the sins of the Founding Fathers haunt their political children.
We need to look south for a moment. In 1994 Nelson Mandela became president of a free and democratic South Africa, and the African National Congress (ANC) took power.
In the many years before Mozambique gained independence from the Portuguese in 1974 after a long liberation war, the armed wing of ANC, Umkhonto we Sizwe (“Spear of the Nation”), like several other Southern African resistance movements, was based in Tanzania. Tanzania paid a dear price in endless raids by the apartheid airforce, which was far superior to anything any African country then could throw at it.
The  apartheid South African raids, many of them in Tanzania’s fertile south, combined with Nyerere’s socialist policies, to keep the country poor. That though, did not diminish Tanzania’s generosity or commitment to southern African liberation.
That long sacrifice forged a blood link with southern Africa (expressed today in Tanzania’s membership of the Southern Africa Development Community [SADC]).
That is why the accusation that Tanzania is more committed to SADC than the five-member East African Community (EAC) is a little naïve and ignores history. Asking it to choose between the two is to demand that it walk away from itself.
Indeed the EAC could be said to a greater source of pain and betrayal to Tanzania than SADC. To appreciate this, it requires that we go back to 1974. At that time, Uganda’s Milton Obote, a close friend of Nyerere, was living in exile in Dar es Salaam. Uganda military dictator Idi Amin’s quarrels with Nyerere was reaching ridiculous levels. Not only did Amin, a former boxing champion, demand that he and Nyerere should enter a ring and fight to sort out their differences, but he also said if Nyerere were a woman, he would have married him!
In addition to Tanzania’s ideological – socialism vs. capitalism – difference with Jomo Kenyatta’s Kenya then, the EAC was facing the kind of stresses of the type we are seeing today. Eventually in 1977 it collapsed. Kenya had and kept the lion’s share of the EAC infrastructure, including its chunk of its shared telecommunications and airlines. Uganda got the next largest slice,
An East African Airways plane. When the first EAC broke up in 1977, Kenya kept the lion's share of its assets like the airline. That continues to fuel resentment.
An East African Airways plane. When the first EAC broke up in 1977, Kenya kept the lion’s share of its assets like the airline. That continues to fuel resentment.
and Tanzania was left with little else beside the Dar es Salaam port.
Already having to contend with the scarcities of a socialist economy of that period, the break up of the EAC plunged Tanzania into a Dark Age. For a considerable period it had no international telephone connection, and struggled with airline traffic – the East African Airways was already becoming Kenya Airways. To raise money to build a new phone system,  Nyerere slashed public services pay by 25 percent, and sent a struggling middle class into the abyss. The difficulties that followed wired  resentment of the EAC into the DNA of a generation of Tanzanians – including people like Kikwete. Only time, and their passing, will truly heal it.
Poor, isolated, trying to rebuild its infrastructure after the collapse of the first EAC, and trying to take advantage  reduced South African attacks after the independence of Mozambique, Tanzania fell down another economic
hole again. It had to send its army into Uganda to kick out Amin in 1979 after his troops invaded and trashed the Akagera Salient. And President Jakaya Kikwete, who was head of Tanzania’s post-war intelligence operation in Uganda, had to see that mission end in bitterness in 1982—and ingratitude in 1986 when Museveni swept to power.
As we’ve already remarked, perhaps it is because unlike soldiers who take the blows and get more personally touched by war, Tanzania’s president Julius Nyerere, his successors Hassan Mwinyi and Ben Mkapa were able to be pragmatic about relations with Uganda – though perhaps less so with Kenya.
And Museveni did redeem himself considerably with South Africa and Tanzania soon after he came to power. That redemption started with events in 1984, two years before Museveni became president with the signing of the Nkomati Accord, a non-aggression pact, between Mozambique and apartheid South Africa. Under the accord Mozambique agreed to expel the ANC and to dismantle the camps and infrastructure of its armed wing, Umkhonto we Sizwe (“Spear of the Nation”), while South Africa agreed to stop attacks on Mozambique and end its backing of the Mozambican National Resistance, Portuguese, Resistencia Nacional Mocambina, better known by its abbreviation RENAMO. Mozambique kept up its part of the deal, and two years down the road started shipping the ANC out of Mozambique.
Mandela, and later Mbeki, had a lot of time for Kagame - not so Zuma
Mandela, and later Mbeki, had a lot of time for Kagame – not so Zuma
But where would Umkhonto go, given that it could not relocate to a southern African country? Museveni, then still a revolutionary firebrand, had just become the Big Man in Uganda. He gave them a home.
If there was one man in these myriad of liberation movements whom Kikwete could relate to because they shared the same experience of intelligence chiefs who’ve had to bury their bitterness for the “picture bigger” as their political leaders cut political deals, it was Jacob Zuma.
Zuma was deputy Chief Representative of the ANC in Mozambique until the Mkomati Accords. When Umkhonto shipped out to Uganda, Zuma was forced to leave Mozambique and move to Lusaka. There he became Head of its Underground Structures, and then ANC’s Chief of Intelligence.
But Kikwete’s and Zuma’s moments hadn’t arrived yet. Mandela related to the RPF struggle and was outraged by the Rwanda genocide. He liked Kagame and Museveni. As someone put it, he “treated Kagame and Museveni like they were his sons”.
His successor Thabo Mbeki didn’t get along with Museveni, but was a buddy
Presidents Kikwete and Zuma do a jig: They have brought the sharp end of southern African liberation politics into Great Lakes geopolitics.
Presidents Kikwete and Zuma do a jig: They have brought the sharp end of southern African liberation politics into Great Lakes geopolitics.
of Kagame’s. No one would have guessed that things would change dramatically in South Africa in 2008. Zuma orchestrated a party coup against Mbeki and became president. In Tanzania Kikwete had become president in 2005. For the first time in Tanzania and South Africa, two men who had been at their sharp end reunited the liberation movements of past decades. The securitariat in South Africa and Tanzania, could finally claim their prizes.
How would the Zuma-Kikwete pairing of former intelligence chiefs imprint itself on the wider region? With Mandela ailing, and Mbeki out of the way, Kagame was no longer getting birthday cards from Pretoria.
The breaking point came in February 2010 when Lieutenant General Kayumba Nyamwasa, Rwanda’s former Chief of Staff and also ambassador to India fled to South Africa after Kigali accused him of being involved in terrorist activities.
The Kigali government accused Kayumba of working with Col. Patrick Karegeya, Rwanda’s former intelligence chief who had fallen out the powers back home and was living in exile in South Africa. In June 2010  Nyamwasa survived an assassination in Johannesburg. His wife, and later himself, accused the Kagame government of being behind the attack. Again, Rwanda denied the accusation, but the situation between Kigali and Pretoria degenerated badly months later when South African officials claimed that their investigations had established the Rwandese suspected to have been part of the hit squad were operative of Rwandan intelligence. The Rwanda government at that point basically asked South Africa to make a choice between it and the exiles. By the looks of it, Zuma chose his security friends (Kayumba and Karegeya).
Thousands of displaced Congolese walk along a road heading north of Goma in 2008: This is not the past, it is likely to be the future for the people in Eastern DR Congo in 2008: This is not just the past, it looks likely to be eastern DR Congo's future too (AP hhoto)
Thousands of displaced Congolese walk along a road heading north of Goma in 2008: This is not the past, it is likely to be the future for the people in Eastern DR Congo in 2008: This is not just the past, it looks likely to be eastern DR Congo’s future too (AP hhoto)
While the likeable, generally charismatic, but according to his critics undisciplined, Karegeya was intelligence top dog in Rwanda, his closest friend was Kikwete who was Foreign minister then. Without being gossipy, the two men shared an active interest in the “good things of life”. With his friend president in Dar es Salaam, Karegeya soon was able to sojourn between Tanzania and South Africa, and found comfort and succor from the leaders of the two countries.
And so we are where we are today. Kikwete shares both the same intelligence and southern African liberation fellowship with Zuma. History has placed both men on different sides of the fence from Kagame’s Rwanda. But South Africa is far away from Rwanda, so Kigali needn’t have worried that it could do it harm.
That was not to be. Besides the personal relationships explored here, South Africa too changed. Mandela and Mbeki’s South Africa’s were always shy about their relations with the rest of Africa. Though by far the richest nation on the continent, Mandela and Mbeki didn’t want to be seen to be lording it over other African nations because then their South Africa would look like the one from the apartheid era. Also, because many countries had supported them during the anti-apartheid struggle, they were paralysed by gratitude.
Zuma started to change that. And in Tanzania, Kikwete started to shift from Tanzania’s post-1982-Uganda-campaign disdain for military intervention (its short stint in Comoros peacekeeping notwithstanding).
Even when Rwanda dipped its toes in peacekeeping in Darfur, and Uganda and Burundi – and eventually Kenya – plunged into the Somalia madness, Tanzania was the only EAC nation that stayed out on dry land. Yet today it has its troops in the bitter conflict of the DRC.
And that presents us with the first issue fuelling Rwanda and Tanzania tensions: the fact that Rwanda considers Tanzania a Trojan horse for South Africa’s designs against the Kagame government. And, secondly, that the two have chosen a battlefield close to Rwanda, DRC, to fight this proxy war.
 What changed? Why did Zuma abandon the Mandela-Thabo Mbeki era reticence? Is it really true that Kikwete has thrown his geopolitical lot with SADC, and if so why? How come Kenya, a country that has strived to calm the resentment from the break up of the EAC in 1977 by remaining neutral in East African feuds, is in Kagame’s and Museveni’s corner? The questions are endless, and we examine them in the continuation of the series.
GREAT LAKES CRISIS PARTS 3 AND 4 TO BE CONTINUED…