Afghanistan News March 1, 2002

March 1, 2002

Guantanamo prisoners refuse meals, chant "God is great" in protest
Friday March 1, 10:03 AM(AFP)

Nearly two-thirds of the 300 detainees from the US war in Afghanistan held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba refused meals and some chanted "God is Great" in a protest sparked by a clash over a detainee's turban-like headdress, a military spokesman said.

Military officials at the base said detainees have been refusing meals since Wednesday at noon in what appeared to be an on-again, off-again hunger strike that at its peak has involved 194 detainees.

It was the first instance of organized resistance at the barbed-wire enclosed detention center since the detainees began arriving from Afghanistan January 11 aboard US military aircraft, officials said.

Detainees chanted in unison "God is Great, there is not God but God," and shoved their bedding and other "comfort items" under the chain link fencing enclosing their cells during a 45 minute demonstration Thursday morning, Marine Corps Major Steve Cox said.

As a precaution, troops from a reaction force surrounded the camp in HUMVEES, he said.

"There were no confrontations between guards and detainees," said Cox. "It was simply a prudent security measure on our part in the event the situation escalated, but it never did escalate."

The protests were triggered by a confrontation Tuesday between a guard and a detainee who broke the rules by wearing a turban fashioned out of a bedsheet, he said.

The guard went into the cell and took it off his head after the detainee ignored repeated orders to remove it, he said.

The camp's military commanders learned later that the prisoner had not responded because he was praying, and Islamic custom requires complete concentration on the prayer, Cox said.

News of the incident apparently swept through the camp by word of mouth because at the noon meal the following day 154 inmates refused their meals, he said.

The number of detainees refusing meals has since fluctuated, dropping to 109 at dinner Wednesday and 107 at breakfast Thursday, only to surge to 194 at lunch Thursday, military spokesmen said. At dinner Thursday, the number boycotting meals dropped to 88, a spokesman said.

The detainees have not declared themselves to be on hunger strike and made no specific demands, although they have complained about a lack of understanding by the guards of Islamic religious customs and practices, the officials said.

"It should not surprise anyone that detainees are opting to try different resistance techniques," said Captain Alan Crouch, another spokesman at the base. "When it comes right down to it they are not so unsophisticated as to not know that we are going to treat them humanely and that means there are not going to be physical repercussions for their actions, he said.

In speaking to detainees, military commanders also found an underlying current of tension over their uncertain legal situation, Cox said.

"They don't know what is going to happen to them. They don't know when something might happen. They don't know if something will happen to them," he said.

"That's the real issue, the overarching issue is just the tension associated with uncertainty, uncertainty over their future," he said.

US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Tuesday that the Pentagon will soon be ready to set up military commissions to try detainees from the Afghan conflict, but interrogations for the purpose of prosecution were just beginning and no charges have been brought so far.

US handling of the prisoners has been a source of controversy since detainees were first marched onto planes in Afghanistan in shackles and hoods for the more than 20 hour flight to the isolated base on the southeastern tip of Cuba. Another 194 prisoners remain in US military custody in Afghanistan.

Washington has come under criticism from human rights groups, the International Committee of the Red Cross and some European allies for refusing to treat the detainees as prisoners of war and keeping them in legal limbo.

Putin rebuffs protests over US anti-terror campaign in Georgia
Saturday March 2, 1:01 AM(AFP)

President Vladimir Putin confronted hardline Russian protests over the US military presence in neighbouring Georgia, saying he supported it as part of the campaign against terrorism.

"When it comes to the fight against terrorism in the Pankisi Gorge, then we support that fight no matter who is taking part in it, either our American partners, or our European ones or our Georgian colleagues," Putin said.

Speaking at a summit of ex-Soviet states in Kazakhstan, Putin signalled his readiness to defend a controversial pro-Western foreign policy by linking the US initiative in Georgia to his support for the war against terror in Afghanistan.

The Russian leader has come under fire from Russia's military top brass and nationalist politicians for allowing the US military to use bases in former Soviet republics bordering Afghanistan.

Even Russia's Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov warned on Friday that the "massive presence" of US troops in Georgia "could make the situation more difficult" in a country that is "an area of special interest" for Russia.

A "large group" of US military specialists will arrive in Georgia later this month to help security forces track down al-Qaeda fighters hiding out in the remote and mountainous Pankisi Gorge, which borders Chechnya, the Georgian defence ministry confirmed Friday.

But Putin sought to play down the row after talks in Kazakhstan with Georgian President Eduard Shevardnadze, saying he did not set geographical limits on the the anti-terror coalition.

"When Russia supported the use of force in the fight against terrorism in Afghanistan, everybody understood that Afghanistan was a long way away from Russia," Putin said after the talks with Shevardnadze.

"But now the talk is about the Pankisi Gorge, which is directly on our borders, where there are bandits operating who have perpetrated bloody crimes on Russian territory, and are planning similar attacks in the future.

However, the Russian leader reproved Georgia for not giving Russia due warning of the US troops' imminent arrival.

Putin and Shevardnadze held talks in Almaty Friday at an informal summit of the Commonwealth of Independent States -- a grouping of ex-Soviet republics -- that was dominated by the stand-off between Russia and Georgia.

Moscow accuses Georgia of turning a blind eye to the activities of Chechen rebels who have used the Pankisi Gorge as a base to launch attacks on Russian forces locked in a bloody 29-month separatist war in the neighbouring republic.

Russian nationalists have reacted with fury to news of the US military plan, claiming it would further undermine Moscow's influence and bring US troops to the very borders of the Russian Federation

A B-Plus for Bush's Defense Budget

Friday March 1, 11:25 PM

Daily Briefing: AFFAIRS OF STATE
By Stan Crock

Just before the Pentagon released its budget last month, I offered a handy online reference guide for readers to help them determine whether the proposed $48 billion increase in national defense spending would be money well spent or squandered. Based on those benchmarks, I'd give the Bush Administration at least a B-plus. But the $379.3 billion defense budget for 2003 also made clear that the military's transformation will be a slow evolution, rather than a revolution.

The Defense Dept. set out an ambitious agenda for retiring older weapons to reduce the arsenal's average age, rather than just buying new stuff. Given the change in the threat and nature of warfare, mothballs are the right treatment for much of this gear. The Rumsfeld team even killed some new programs outright, including a missile-defense program that was overbudget. The department also swore off refurbishing programs for decrepit bases that may be closed in a few years. Such renovations are popular with lawmakers but are really a waste of money.

Again to Rumfeld's credit, the Pentagon didn't make big claims for potentially phony savings from outsourcing. The brass is moving forward with accounting reform so that the department can track the billions of dollars that pass through its till. And it's spending less on manned aircraft than officials would like, putting the money instead into precision weapons and unmanned aerial vehicles. For the most part, the department consistently took the right steps.

TOO FAR REMOVED. My only nit: The steps were tinier than Pentagon could have and should have taken. Top officials envision a fighting force that's light and agile, yet they're still funding some heavy weapons such as the Crusader howitzer and upgraded Abrams tanks. The admirals and generals want forces to be able to travel long distances with lots of firepower. But instead of building more bombers, which don't need access to a base near the battle theater and can carry scores of missiles, the Pentagon is plunging ahead with plans to build 3,000 fighters, many of which need nearby bases and all of which carry fewer munitions than bombers.

Sure, tankers can refuel these fighters and extend their range. But in Afghanistan, roughly 70% of the available tankers were used to refuel carrier-based Navy fighters, leaving too few free if missions arose elsewhere.

The Pentagon's new budget calls for more spending on wave-of-the-future gear such as unmanned aerial vehicles [UAVs] and precision weapons. But if it's approved by Congress, the defense blueprint allots 12 times more to fighters than bombers and UAVs, gripes Andrew Krepinevich, executive director of the Center for Strategic & Budgetary Assessments, a Washington [D.C.] think thank that specializes in defense issues.

CLASHING DEMANDS. In the near-term, none of this may matter. If Afghanistan proved anything, it was that the most important part of military transformation is giving troops the ability to adapt and be inventive. The U.S. armed forces showed they can do that superbly [see BW Online, 12/17/01, "Cooperation: A Key to Victory in Afghanistan"].

In the long run, though, America's troops will need ever-improving equipment to assure victory. And in the not-too-distant future, paying for new gear may prove difficult. Pay raises and escalating health-care costs for military personnel will soon clash with the demands of weapons-production programs now in the late stages of research and development.

To its credit, the Bush Administration has shown it can and will kill programs that are too costly or no longer needed. But in the future, it will face some truly stark choices. It could reduce the number of troops, cut weapons programs, or ask for even more money. If the terrorist threat ebbs, getting more funds won't be automatic. That means the Bush team will have no option but to make the kind of really hard decisions it has been able to avoid so far.

Terror's Legacy Is a New Volunteerism Small Business: PERSONAL BUSINESS
By Heesun Wee in New York

Friday March 1, 11:25 PM(AFP)

Soon after the twin towers of New York City's World Trade Center were destroyed on September 11, many people did some serious soul-searching about their job satisfaction, and how they had been balancing work, family, and other commitments. Some reshuffled their priorities with the goal of spending more time at home and less in the office.

Others have embraced more dramatic changes in their working lives. Recruiters say, for example, that more employees are putting their careers on hold to work as volunteers in developing countries, where they often share their entrepreneurial skills with small-business owners.

BEYOND THE CUBICLE. This new wave of professionals is bringing a variety of skills -- from bookkeeping to Web-site construction -- to entrepreneurs from Africa to Turkmenistan. "A lot of people are asking, 'If I had been in those towers, would I have been happy about what I was doing?'" says Ethan Zuckerman, co-founder and CEO of Geekcorps, a nonprofit organization that pairs tech professionals, most from North America and Europe, with small businesses in the West African country of Ghana.

Not everyone who applies to work abroad is dissatisfied with their regular job. Rather, the September massacres and war in Afghanistan have triggered a deeper interest in the global community, say those who recruit volunteers. For most who answer the volunteer call, working abroad is a way to dispel the "ugly American" stereotype and foster a better international understanding of the U.S., recruiters and volunteers explain. "Our volunteers are smart enough to know their worldview is smaller than it needs to be," says Zuckerman, whose organization intends to expand its activities beyond Ghana. The wider world, he adds, "is something you forget when you're working in a cubicle."

Just ask Sidney Chang, 24, of New York City, a computer expert who does systems work for a leading Wall Street brokerage and applied to Geekcorps after reading about the program in a technology magazine. September 11, he explains, "made me realize, hey, it's a world we live in, not just the U.S."

SOARING APPLICATIONS. Applications to Geekcorps, which is based in the western Massachusetts town of North Adams, have doubled to 100 a month since September 11. At the Peace Corps, inquiries for applications were up 48% in November and 53% in December, vs. the same months in 2000.

Recruiters at other nonprofits, such as the International Executive Service [IESC], based in Stamford, Conn., also report a spike in requests for information about the organization, which sends seasoned executives to assist small businesses in 51 countries. "As a nation we're really looking for ways to retool or rethink career and work," says IESC spokeswoman Kathleen Failla.

The upsurge in that sentiment actually began before September 11, gaining ground as the Internet bubble began to deflate and laid-off dot-comers began knocking on the doors of both the Peace Corps and Geekcorps. For many prospective volunteers, the economic downturn was a catalyst that sparked some serious soul-searching, says Stephanie Lindenbaum, Geekcorps' director of recruiting.

Elliot Klein, a 25-year-old information-technology consultant based in New York City, is a case in point. After three years at a large IT outfit, he grew restless. "I felt a sense of urgency to do more for the world and less to help big companies," says Klein, whose five-month Geekcorps assignment in Ghana ended in December, 2001. While in Africa, he used his tech smarts to help a local brokerage and Internet service provider better manage its data systems. Now, he's searching for a job at a nonprofit or what he characterizes as a socially-responsible for-profit outfit.

STORE OF KNOWLEDGE. For some volunteers, working abroad with small businesses becomes a consuming passion. Betty Herriman, the owner of a small antiques business in Covington, Ky., has worked intermittently with small-business owners in Africa for over 30 years. Now 67, she's an IESC volunteer currently stationed in Zambia in southern Africa, where she is teaching small businesses -- that means up to 10 employees -- basic accounting skills and how to secure financing. Herriman's current stint -- her second with the IESC in the past two years -- began in mid-January and will end in May, 2002. Prior to joining IESC, Herriman served as a Peace Corps volunteer in Cameroon, Mali, and Burundi, where most of her work also involved training small-business owners and employees.

In Zambia, Herriman has worked with a general store, a restaurant, and a cooperative representing small farmers. At one combination restaurant/shop for example, she helped the business owner reduce debt and negotiate more favorable terms with the local power company. She also helped the store double its range of wares, from 60 items to 135. "It's fun to solve problems," Herriman says. "And it's exciting -- a small adventure."

Before you get big ideas about a free trip to Africa, however, be aware that it's a serious commitment. Recruiters say the typical application process tends to be time-consuming, often involving a series of interviews. Also, with hundreds of applicants for every dozen-or-so spots, most volunteer groups can afford to be selective.

THE PRIVILEGE OF SACRIFICE. Going abroad also means a hefty investment of time, which can vary from several months for Geekcorps to roughly two years for the Peace Corps. Recruiters note that some volunteers use vacation time for shorter commitments abroad. Other options see volunteers take leaves of absence -- or sometimes, resign from a permanent job.

As the word "volunteer" implies, most programs offer no pay, though they do cover travel costs, room and board, and a stipend of several hundred dollars to defray expenses. Details vary by program, with some employers contributing part of the costs.

For those with an entrepreneurial streak who can afford to take time off, the rewards of volunteering abroad can be many. Says Herriman: "It's a privilege to be able to pass on information that can help others in such an immediate and life-transforming manner."

Afghan troops fail to catch attackers of U.S. base By Andrew Marshall

Friday March 1, 3:57 AM

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan (Reuters) - Afghan troops and specialist local trackers are on the trail of attackers who fired rockets at the U.S. base in Kandahar last week but nobody has yet been caught, local officials said on Thursday.

The attackers used a makeshift launching device to fire Russian-made BM-12 rockets last Sunday in the direction of Kandahar airport, the main ground base for U.S. and Allied forces in Afghanistan.

The rockets missed, and the culprits fled in two vehicles as Afghan troops gave chase.

Engineer Mohammad Yusuf Pashtoon, spokesman for Kandahar Governor Gul Agha, told reporters on Thursday that the attackers had been traced to a village 10-12 km (six to seven miles) southwest of the airport.

"We are looking for the culprits. We have a system of tracing footprints with local experts -- they look for tracks on the ground," he said.

"They traced the people to a nearby village, so we are now looking for those people. We still don't know exactly who those people are."

Pashtoon said Afghan investigators were sharing information with U.S. officials at the airport. He said Afghan security patrols had been stepped up in the wake of the attack.

The U.S.-controlled airfield has come under sporadic attack since the Taliban fled Kandahar in December.

Two soldiers were injured in an exchange of fire on the perimeter earlier this month.

But Kandahar officials have said they believe that incident was an accident -- irking the Americans who say it was definitely a deliberate attack.

Kandahar was the Taliban's birthplace and main stronghold, and the last major Afghan city to slip from their grasp.

Some Afghans in the city say they resent the presence of foreign troops on their soil, and relations between residents and the U.S. forces soured when more than 5,000 pilgrims hoping to travel to Mecca from Kandahar airport were told no planes would leave from the city.

Many of the pilgrims have accused the U.S. forces of refusing to allow them to make the pilgrimage.

The Kandahar government says the United States did not try to block the Haj flights, but that damage to the runway meant it could not be used by large passenger aircraft.