Von Wernich

A much awaited human rights abuse trial is underway in Argentina. The accused is a catholic priest charged with carrying out human rights abuses while working in several clandestine detention centers during the nation’s 1976-1983 military dictatorship. The priest was arrested four years ago while living under an alias in Chile. This is the latest human rights trial of accused torturers since the landmark conviction of a former police officer for genocide in 2006.
Former Chaplin Christian Von Wernich wore a priest’s collar and bulletproof vest as he sat behind reinforced glass in a federal court. The court clerk read charges accusing him of collaborating with state security agents and covering up crimes in seven deaths, 31 cases of torture, and 42 cases of illegal imprisonment. He answered basic court questions but refused to testify in the case, stating, “Following the advice of Dr. Jerollini, who is my lawyer, I am not going to make a declaration. And I am not going to accept questions.“
An estimated 30,000 people were killed during the military junta’s reign of terror. As his trial began, hundreds of human rights activists stood outside the courtroom in the city of La Plata to decry Von Wernich as a murderer. President Nestor Kirchner traveled to La Plata and said during a speech that Von Wernich “brought dishonor to the Church, to poor people, and to human rights.“
At least 120 witnesses are slated to testify against Von Wernich and the court has taken precautions to protect their safety, putting up police fences around the courthouse and installing metal detectors.
In the front row of the courtroom’s audience, representatives from the human rights organization Mothers of Plaza de Mayo sat with their white headscarves listening to the court’s accusations.
According to Nora Cortinas, president of the Mothers of Plaza de Mayo’s founding chapter, the Catholic Church supported the crimes committed during the dictatorship.
Journalist Horacio Verbitsky recently published a book on the Catholic Church’s involvement with the military dictatorship. In his book, El Silencio (The Silence), he reports that the Catholic Church actively participated in the 1976-1983 dictatorship while having full knowledge of the human rights violations being committed at the time.
However, it was during interviews in 1995 with former Marine captain Adolfo Scilingo in which he confessed to Verbitsky having led the “vuelos de muerte“ or death flights, that Verbitsky realized the gravity of the Catholic Church’s complicity with the military’s human rights crimes. Scilingo, who was sentenced to 645 years in prison by a Spanish court, reported that the catholic hierarchy approved drugging dissidents and dropping them from planes into the Atlantic Ocean during the “vuelos de muerte,“ as a Christian form of death. When Scilingo felt anguished after directing these death flights, he would seek counseling from military chaplains at the ESMA (Spanish acronym for the navy mechanics school), the largest clandestine detention center in Buenos Aires.
During the dictatorship, there were representatives from the church who provided refuge for people fleeing from being kidnapped by commando groups and reported the crimes being committed by security commandos. At the same time, they risked their own lives. French nuns, Alice Domon and LŽonie Duque, were disappeared and murdered in 1977 for their organizing activities with the poor. Ex-navy captain Alfredo Astiz, also known as the “blond angel of death“ is facing trial for the nuns’ disappearances along with those of a dozen other people, including Azucena Villaflor, the founder of Mothers of Plaza de Mayo.
Villaflor was kidnapped by a commando group in 1977 as she left the Santa Cruz church in Buenos Aires, where family members of the disappeared would clandestinely meet. Humanitarian organizations have reported that during the dictatorship at least 19 priests were disappeared, 11 were kidnapped, tortured, and later released, and 22 were arrested for political reasons.
Human rights representatives have demanded that the Catholic Church issue an apology for the victims during Argentina’s so-called “Dirty War.“ The Catholic Church has refused to issue a statement, other than to confirm that Von Wernich continues in the ranks of the church hierarchy.
WORLDPRESS.ORG

Prime minister Shaukat Aziz has finally conceded that the “ongoing political crisis“ and “surge in militancy“ have hurt the national economy, and that a slowdown could be in the offing. He says the “politics of agitation“ and “siege at Islamabad’s Lal Masjid“ have had a negative impact on the economy. In all honesty, though, he should have added that the news of an impending Emergency-- an option he still likes to retain--had also sent the stock exchanges in the country plummeting last week. He has conceded damage to exports but he could well be looking at a general turndown in the weeks to come.
As the country’s opposition girds up to organise an agitation against the government, Nature too seems to be working in tandem. Torrential rains have damaged Karachi’s ability to produce goods for the rest of the country, and great crop damage is expected in Sindh, blunting Pakistan’s capacity to be self-sufficient in agriculture--and stopping the long march of the people from the farms to the cities. The largest sector in the national economy--the cotton manufacture sector--is in crisis of its own and is threatening to shut down unless government arranges infrastructural concessions.
The politics in the coming days is bound to be a spoiler’s stronghold. The stakes are not economic, nor is anyone willing to look at the economy and care for it in the “struggle“ against the Musharraf dictatorship“.
In fact, as agitation and confrontation take shape, the economy will be the first indicator of the state’s retreat. One may not be far wrong in thinking that, if pushed to the wall, the opposition could conceivably indirectly target the economy to bring the government to its knees.
There is nothing more cowardly than the capitalist with his money invested in an uncertain political environment. In the decade of the 1990s, the economy went down because governments were busy going round in the revolving door of Article 58-2(B).
Each government, after coming to power, changed the economic directives of the earlier one and administered repeated cruel shocks to the investor in the country’s industrial sector. After the last democratic government was thrown out, the economy has tended to recover because of a more consistent economic management under President Musharraf.
The economy and its captains tend to manifest a remarkable indifference to such nationalist causes as the testing of a nuclear device. In 1998 when the entire nation went into a paroxysm of triumph, the economy drew in its horns and slunk away from the field. The stock exchanges had to be closed down to prevent a complete run. Later, the government that had tested the device was thrown out of power but it still had no compunction about what it done.
There is anarchism in the minds of the people. It says let us pull down the structures that exist so that the man sitting on top of them comes hurtling down; let us not think of what happens later just yet, the first job is to bring the current order down. What will happen if the economy is damaged by agitation and violent confrontation?
Many people will lose their jobs and their desperation will push them into joining the mass protest that the opposition is planning. This will suit the angry politician and the professionals favouring confrontation. They will look at the milling crowds in front of their festooned trucks with satisfaction and will no doubt promise great prosperity to the masses after coming to power. But that will not happen. Anyone with an iota of sense of the past will know that confrontation and agitation will exact its price and the people will have to undergo more hardship and misery in the days to follow. There is one sector however that must pay heed to this possibility.
The Musharraf government has boasted two achievements: the economy and the free media. If the media--print and electronic--think that their freedom and their anti-government bias is their own attainment, they must think again.
DAILYTYIMES.COM

The defeat of the ruling Liberal Democratic party-led coalition by the Democratic Party of Japan in the House of Councilors election on July 29 has already sent shockwaves to people concerned about the US-Japan security alliance. Surprising many who saw only his bullying style and right wing policies, opposition leader Ichiro Ozawa moved quickly to set the Democrats on a course deeply antagonistic to US hopes for Japan as a global military partner.
The opposition used its new parliamentary dominance immediately after securing the election victory in four telling ways. First the Democrats and their coalition partners appointed long-standing liberal social democrat Eda Satsuki as president of the upper house--the first non-LDP president in half a century--giving the DPJ the power to control proceedings in the chamber for the first time.
The second move was to notify the LDP that it would require prior Parliamentary approval of all overseas deployments, rather than the present comfortable requirement of confirmation after the fact. The third was to give notice that the Democrats were opposed to any extension of the Air Self Defense Force deployment in Kuwait, and was considering introducing a bill to end the deployment.
The fourth was to give notice to both the LDP and the United States that the party was opposed to any extension of the long-running Maritime Self Defense Force deployment in the Indian Ocean beyond the expiry of the current legislative authority on November 1st under the 2001 Special Antiterrorism Measures Law.
It says a great deal about the deep penetration of the Japan-US alliance structure into Japanese domestic politics that Ozawa’s most salient and vociferous public critic was not the prime minister but the US ambassador in Tokyo, Thomas Schieffer.
Ozawa and Schieffer share a reputation for blunt hectoring styles of intimidation. Following reports that the DJP was considering opposing a fourth extension of the Indian Ocean deployment, Schieffer stridently and publicly demanded DPJ support.
Schieffer came to Japan following a controversial posting as representative of the George W Bush administration in Australia, where he had gained a reputation for highly visible overbearing interventions in Australian political life. After Ozawa’s announcement that the DPJ was considering opposing another extension of the Indian Ocean mission, Schieffer met with Ozawa, proclaiming the question of Afghanistan an issue which “should be above partisan politics“.
Schieffer then insisted that Ozawa was wrong to maintain that Afghanistan was an American war without UN sanction, in particular arguing that the operation is covered by UN Security Council Resolution 1746 passed on 23 March this year.
The apparent effect of Schieffer’s public attack on the Japanese opposition leader was not only to strengthen Ozawa’s resolve on the Indian Ocean deployment, but to broaden the argument to the point of a rejection of participation in US coalition global operations.
The Nikkei news service noted that “the ambassador, appearing slightly agitated by Ozawa’s remarks that US President George W Bush launched the “American war“ on Afghanistan without waiting for international consensus, reminded the opposition leader that ’90% of the oil Japan uses comes through this area and that Japanese nationals also died in the September 11, 2001, attacks’.“
Two days later in a meeting with Foreign Minister Taro Aso, Schieffer’s assessment of the consequences of Ozawa’s supposed irresponsibility had expanded, since he now considered the maintenance of the Indian Ocean coalition “so important to the security of not only the United States and Japan but to the whole world“.
ATIMES.COM

The dominant story in the mainstream press these days is that the South African poor act out of desperation when migrants and refugees are violently attacked. That the ’problem’ is competition for scarce resources and that SA must first get its house in order, and solve the poverty crisis, and then desperate South Africans will stop lashing out at desperate asylum seekers.
This story of displaced frustration and resentment does not fairly represent the range of opinions, and even more importantly, organized actions of the poor and working class in South Africa who invest precious resources in directly supporting refugees and migrants, especially in the case of Zimbabweans right now.
In fact, new research is showing that while xenophobia is rampant and often played out amongst the poor in South Africa, it is also precisely some of the poorest South Africans living in shack and townships who have been the most sympathetic to the struggles of Zimbabweans worst effected by the current crisis.
South African movements of the working class have mobilized around the politics playing out in Zimbabwe right now. In fact, the issue of Zimbabwe has captured the attention and has been prioritized by grassroots activists in South Africa. These are groups of people many of whom are unemployed and cannot often find taxi fare to meet, and struggle with the challenge of solidarity within the same neighborhoods and same city to fight for basic survival like water, housing, electricity, and health care. Yet, they are taking a stand on Zimbabwe. Why?
This support is not only forthcoming out of sympathy for the hardships inflicted by the power wars of Mugabe and the like, but rooted in the believe that like during repression of activism during the liberation struggle in South Africa, international solidarity is decisive right now for Zimbabweans who are resisting an ’elite transition’ which will not change the structures of inequality in any meaningful way for the poor. At the recent Towards an Africa Without Borders Conference in Durban, one Bulawayo debt cancellation activist argued for solidarity between the poor in South Africa and in Zimbabwe because our interests are in the same pot.
South African activists at the conference likewise argued that “we see our problem as rooted in poverty and elite deal making, which sees no international boundaries.“ In this view, President Mbeki and his SADC counterparts will not act against the Mugabe regime in defense of the Zimbabwean people- rather, they are angling for an ’elite transition’ similar to the ones in South Africa, Namibia, Nigeria and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) where those who have the backing of the rich and powerful, work out among themselves how to divide the power and money. From this perspective, the majority of the people are excluded from the process and inevitably the resulting system leaves them at the mercy of the oppressors and exploiters and trapped in the associated poverty and social crises.
With this motivation to mobilize, over 2,500 people come out in protest in Durban to criticize the Mugabe regime. Abahlali base Mjondolo has hosted members of the Combined Harare Residents’ Association (CHRA) in shack settlements, worked with the Zimbabwe Crisis Coalition, and written comparisons of Murambatsvina and shack demolitions in South Africa. In Cape Town, People Against Suppression and Oppression of People (PASSOP) have held regular pickets. The TAC and the Social Movements Indaba have appointed Africa desks to better address the issues.
These movements have an impressively clearly defined ’enemy’ so to speak- and it is not displaced Zimbabweans crossing the border in search of survival.
ZMAG.ORG

In all probability, the question in the headline should be rephrased and run like this: who will man the International Space Station (ISS) next?
The very future of this unique international orbital complex depends on the answer. The prospects for keeping the present crew are small, in fact, none existent. The main ISS users--the Russians and the Americans--are not interested in exploiting the common orbital home, each for their own reasons, and this is no cause for rejoicing either.
The last statement may appear outrageous at first glance, especially in reference to Russia. But things are not so simple, as we will see. For now, though, let us begin with America.
Sunday August 12 did not turn out a particularly lucky day for the Space Shuttle program revived with such difficulty. Inspection revealed that the damage suffered by the Endeavor orbital unit during launch was more serious than it had earlier appeared. It is to be hoped that the mission will end successfully. But it is hardly likely to generate extra enthusiasm for the remaining 11 missions on the U.S. ISS program.
To be sure, our partners are quite serious when they say that they intend to complete the deployment of the complex before October 2010, the provisional deadline set for winding up the shuttle program. But circumstances beyond human control may arise, such as frequent and dangerous damage to thermal tiles. This is a more or less regular occurrence now as these freighters fly to orbit.
It is highly likely therefore that for purely technical reasons the Americans will be unable to last the next two years or so and may soon ground their shuttles. Frankly speaking, it is hard to find evidence supporting the view that such a development would have an adverse effect on the American space effort, and especially its manned program.
As NASA administrator Michael Griffin has repeatedly said, the strategic aim of U.S. flights is to explore space beyond near-Earth boundaries. That is to say, the ISS project is no longer central to the American space program. Tactically, it was interesting to read a June report that the Russian Space Agency (Roskosmos) and NASA have agreed a plan to run the station in the next three to four years. But the Americans are not going to change their strategy, and the recurrent glitches with shuttles will, on the one hand, abort the program ahead of time, releasing the annual $4 billion for the development of the new Orion spacecraft, and, on the other, oblige NASA to revise its manned program. It is far from clear that in such an event NASA will keep its interest in ISS flights.
There is one more circumstance contributing to the view of Russia’s position on the ISS as a stalemate. At the end of 2005, the Americans agreed to pay fares for astronauts traveling aboard Soyuz craft. This is good. Later, as its space shuttle program winds down, NASA may ponder the purchase of Soyuz craft for its own needs, should it wish to give its boys a ride to the orbit. This is good as well. Workshops outside Moscow will assemble keenly familiar parts into ships that have been blasting off into space for dozens of years. Everyone is at their place doing their jobs.
And how? By old and routine ways, as they have done for years. The Americans, meanwhile, will quietly complete and test their Orion and other cutting-edge technology. China and India will forge ahead with their manned programs, taking advantage of the latest world developments.
So who will be manning the ISS tomorrow?
RIANOVOSTI.COM