|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ceasefire in Syria Leads to Conflicting Reports of Reduced Violence
by Yesim Usluca
Impunity Watch Reporter, Middle East
DAMASCUS, Syria — An agreement aimed at reducing violence in Syria went into effect at midnight on Saturday, May 6th. The ceasefire was headed by Russia, which is the strongest ally of Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad, and backed by Turkey and Iran.
The plan calls for ending hostilities between rebel groups and government forces by creating “de-escalation zones” in the major areas of conflict in western Syria for a period of six months, which could be extended if all three signatory countries agree. Although Russia is permitted to fly over the de-escalation zones, the agreement strictly prohibits the use of weapons and air strikes in those areas.
The ceasefire further calls for the creation of “conditions for humanitarian access, medical assistance and return of displaced civilians into their homes.” The Syrian government is required to allow “unhindered” humanitarian aid into rebel-held areas, and must restore services such as water and electricity.
The largest de-escalation zone, in northern Syria, covers a population of over one million and encompasses the Idlib province, which was hit by a chemical attack in early April. The three remaining zones cover the northern Homs province, the eastern Ghouta region, and the area surrounding the Jordanian border in southern Syria, encompassing a total of over 1.5 million citizens. Qaboun, a town in the eastern Ghouta region, is exempt from the deal due to its history as housing the Nusra Front, a group linked to al-Qaeda.
Despite the agreement, however, there have been conflicting reports of its effectiveness. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (“SOHR”) stated that it has already started seeing breaches of the deal, mainly in the northern Hama province. A spokesperson for the Jaish al-Nasr rebel group, Mr. Mohammed Rasheed, stated that the fighting started after midnight. The SOHR added that fighter jets shot upon al-Zalakiyat, a village held by Syrian rebels, as well as upon the countryside of northern Hama. Mr. Rasheed further noted that barrel bombs were also used in the attacks. He added that “[t]he bombardment has not stopped, it is no different from before[.]” Furthermore, on Saturday, May 6th, less than twenty-four hours after the ceasefire was implemented, four opposition fighters were killed and a child was wounded when a suburb of Damascus was shelled by government forces.
The SOHR, in contrast, also noted that despite the reduction in fighting, that it was still “too early” to determine whether it would last. The director of the SOHR, Mr. Rami Abdulrahman, noted that “[t]he reduction in violence must be clear and lasting[.]”
For more information, please see:
AlJazeera—Syria’s ‘de-escalation zones’ explained—6 May 2017
Washington Post—Syria violence kills 4, wounds child despite safe zones—6 May 2017
Reuters—Syria fighting eases as Russian deal takes effect—6 May 2017
Deutsche Wells—Fighting continues in Syrian ‘safe zones’—6 May 2017
CBS News—Russia’s proposed Syrian “safe zone” deal goes into effect—6 May 2017
Damascus Center for Human Rights Studies: Death Toll Since March 15, 2011 in Syria
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Turkish Military Launches Airstrike into Iraq and Syria
by Yesim Usluca
Impunity Watch Reporter, Middle East
BAGHDAD, Iraq — The Turkish military released a statement indicating that its military jets attacked fighters of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (“PKK”) with airstrikes on Tuesday, April 25th, in northern Iraq and northeast Syria.
The spokesperson for the Syrian Kurdish militia, also known as the People’s Protection Units (“YPG”), Mr. Redur Khalil, stated that Turkey’s jets struck their headquarters in the town of Karachok in the northeastern Syrian province of Hassakeh. Mr. Khalil added that the attack caused extensive damage to the headquarters as well as to neighboring civilian property.
The Turkish military’s statement noted that the airstrike killed a minimum of seventy people, with forty militants in Sinjar and thirty in northern Syria being “neutralized.” The YPG, however, stated that the attack killed twenty of its fighters and wounded eighteen more. The mayor of Sinjar, Mr. Mahma Khalil, stated that five members of the Iraqi Kurdish militia (“the peshmerga”), who support the fight against the Islamic State (“ISIS”) with the U.S.-led coalition, were also killed in the airstrike.
The YPG is a close ally to the U.S.’s fight against ISIS. However, Turkey considers the YPG to be a terrorist group due to its ties to Turkey’s Kurdish rebels, the PKK, which are being harbored in neighboring Syria and Iraq.
The attack attracted immediate international criticism and condemnation. The U.S.-led coalition stated that Iraq’s neighbors must be respectful of state sovereignty and encouraged “all forces to . . . concentrate their efforts on [defeating] ISIS [in Iraq and Syria.]” While Turkey claimed to have notified the U.S. and Russia in advance of the attack, the U.S. State Department indicated that it was “deeply concerned” by the airstrike and that it was not authorized by the U.S.-led coalition. The Foreign Minister of Iraq, Mr. Ahmad Jamal, stated that the airstrike was a “violation” of its sovereignty, and called upon the international community to end Turkey’s “interference[.]” The Syrian Kurdish fighters denounced Turkey’s airstrike, noting that the attack was “treacherous[,]” and accusing Turkey of “undermining the anti-terrorism fight.” Russia, which is a close ally of the Syrian government, also criticized the airstrike by stating that it “hindered efforts to combat [ISIS]” and added that it was “serious[ly] concern[ed]” about the strikes.
For more information, please see:
ABC News—Tensions rise after Turkish attack on Syrian Kurds—26 April 2017
The New York Times—Turkish Strikes Target Kurdish Allies of U.S. in Iraq and Syria—25 April 2017
AlJazeera—Turkey targets Kurdish fighters in Iraq and Syria—25 April 2017
BBC News—Turkey air strikes on Kurds in Syria and Iraq spark US concern—25 April 2017
The Washington Post—The Latest: Russia slams Turkish strikes in Iraq, Syria—26 April 2017
Boston Herald—Turkey strikes Kurds in Iraq, Syria, drawing condemnation—25 April 2017
Jurist: Amidst a set-back for transparency, citizen led Accountability in North Carolina
JURIST Guest Columnist David M. Crane and Catherine Read discuss the Supreme Court’s decision on denying cert in the ACLU’s Freedom of Information Act lawsuit…
Last Monday, 24 April, it was easy to miss the important news that the Supreme Court denied cert in the ACLU’s Freedom of Information Act lawsuit to make public the full Senate Intelligence Committee report on the CIA’s use of torture. The news was lost in the frenzied media analysis of Trump’s first 100 days, new opinion polls on his performance, and a looming possible government shutdown over the border wall.
The ACLU is to be commended for their leadership both in this FOIA request, and in the ground-breaking lawsuit Salim v. Mitchell. That suit was brought by torture victims and the family of a man tortured to death by the CIA, and fortunately is moving forward in a Spokane federal court.
But this Supreme Court decision on the Senate report is a blow to efforts at accountability for this dark chapter in US history, and bad news for Americans who want open government and transparency. From the declassified but heavily-redacted executive summary that is available, we know that the CIA’s interrogation tactics were both more brutal and less effective than was acknowledged publicly. The CIA did not provide oversight at the black sites it maintained, and it lied to Congress and the public about the number of detainees it held and tortured during the period following 9/11.
The Supreme Court’s denial of public access to the full Senate report means we will be forced to continue wondering how much torture was used, the level of damage it did to the US, and which private entities may have been involved. Most disturbingly, the decision blocks the robust public debate that release of the full report would stimulate. It continues the shielding of responsible officials from any form of accountability, and keeps the American public and our elected leaders from learning lessons from the failed tactics of the past.
One of President Obama’s final acts in office was to preserve the report under the Presidential Records Act — a positive step given that many elected officials, including Senate Select Intelligence Committee Chair Richard Burr (R-N.C.), have advocated destroying all classified versions. But this step also meant that the report would remain hidden from the public for at least twelve years, and perhaps much longer.
Our current President has, at best, easily-influenced and inconsistent views on torture. President Trump, both while campaigning and even after taking office, has openly supported and endorsed resuming torture, although he has also backtracked on his own statements. His appointment of Deputy CIA Director Gina Haspel, who once oversaw a CIA black site in Thailand and was physically present during torture sessions, further underscores that more information about the torture, rendition and detention program must be revealed.
The lack of government transparency and public accountability — reinforced by this week’s Supreme Court decision — makes the work of organizations pushing for accountability all the more vital. One such initiative worth noting is the recently launched non-governmental North Carolina Commission of Inquiry on Torture (NCCIT).
NCCIT was established to investigate and bring about public accountability for the specific role that North Carolina’s state and local governments played in supporting the US torture program. The declassified portion of the Senate report’s executive summary, as well as independent media investigations, have confirmed that it was a CIA-affiliated company, Aero Contractors, which for several years launched “torture taxi” flights from public airports in Smithfield and Kinston, North Carolina. These flights were dispatched to pick up suspected terrorists abroad and transport them to black sites and third countries, where they were indefinitely detained and tortured.
Since 2005, the use of taxpayer-supported state aviation facilities as staging grounds for abduction missions has driven North Carolinians to insist that local and state elected officials investigate and try to halt the “torture taxis.” Now, NCCIT has assembled a high-profile panel of policy experts, academics and community leaders who are doing the job that their government refuses to do: hold public hearings to investigate North Carolina’s role. The inquiry is probing what elected officials knew, how public resources were used, and — critically — who was harmed in the process and therefore deserves acknowledgement and redress. Elected leaders at all levels can use that information to ensure state resources are not further spent on human rights abuses, and to try to right past wrongs.
North Carolina citizens have a right to know what role their tax dollars, their elected officials and companies operating in their state played in the US torture program. And this information may be contained within the Senate report that all branches of our federal government apparently think should remain classified.
The truth will eventually come out one way or another, and history will be our judge. The real-time question is whether we will have the opportunity to learn from this dark chapter in American history before it is repeated.
David M. Crane, Founding Chief Prosecutor, Special Court for Sierra Leone; Professor, Syracuse University College of Law.
Catherine Read, Executive Director, North Carolina Commission of Inquiry on Torture.
Suggested citation: David M. Crane and Catherine Read, Amidst a set-back for transparency, citizen led Accountability in North Carolina, JURIST – Forum, May 4, 2017, http://jurist.org/forum/2017/05/Crane-Read-accountanbility-in-north-carolina.php
This article was prepared for publication by Yuxin Jiang, a Senior Editor for JURIST Commentary service. Please direct any questions or comments to her atcommentary@jurist.org