Friday, July 2, 2010



By David Walsh-Little

Peter Erlinder, an attorney and law professor from William Mitchell College of Law in Minnesota, was recently released from custody after spending almost a month in a Rwandan jail cell. His unjust prosecution by the Rwandan authorities for the Orwellian charge of "denying genocidal ideology" though continues. Erlinder's transgression against the ruling regime in Rwanda was to defend the rights of presidential candidate, Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza. With a challenge looming in the upcoming elections in August, President Paul Kagame did what all unjust rulers do- they lock up anyone who does not submit to their authority. This prosecution tramples on the rights of Professor Erlinder as an international criminal defense lawyer, involves allegations that violate the free speech provisions of Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and is intended to undermine the fairness of the upcoming elections in Rwanda.

The horror of ethnic violence rocked Rwanda in 1994. Hundreds of thousands of Tutsi and thousands of Hutu died in the struggle. The killing ended when mostly Tutsi rebels led by now President Kagame and his Rwandan Patriotic Front pushed the then ruling perpetrators from power. Kagame's rise was created in the aftermath of the 1994 violence and his government's strong-arm tactics have been similarly defined by it- only the government's version of the conflict is acceptable.

The allegation of genocide denier is a charge that literally means someone who doesn't believe a genocide occurred in Rwanda. It has been used by President Kagame, though, as a criminal charge against anyone who thinks independently and speaks out to challenge the authorities' assertions about what happened in 1994. As Paul Rusesabagina, the former hotel manager whose story was told in Hotel Rwanda was quoted as saying, "If you question the official Rwanda government version, then you became obviously a genocide denier." The charge has, in short, become a means of oppression, Rwanda's version of McCarthyism.

The culpability of any particular person in Rwanda's genocide is being determined where it should be- in a courtroom. A United Nations tribunal has been established in Tanzania to address these wrongs. Professor Erlinder has raised the ire of the Rwandan authorities by zealously representing defendants in those proceedings. The Rwandan government has not fully supported the international trials, and threatened to stop sending witnesses last year when two men were acquitted of all charges. The Rwandan government's prosecution of Erlinder has had a chilling effect on those proceedings. Eleven attorneys have formally requested postponements in the wake of Professor Erlinder's arrest, and forty lawyers have signed a petition saying that they will do no further work until their security can be secured.

International human rights groups have condemned the Rwandan government for suppressing speech and dissent, particularly voices that disagree with the ruling party. Opposing politicians have faced threats and harassment. With elections approaching, President Kagame arrested his competition on the ballot, Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza.

Ms. Ingabire also faces allegations that she denied genocidal ideology- an obvious act of political suppression. Professor Erlinder was asked to come to Rwanda to assist in the defense of Ingabire, and so he, too, was summarily arrested upon his arrival.

International pressure played a vital role in securing Professor Erlinder's release from jail, but his prosecution wrongfully continues. The United States provides millions of dollars in aid annually to the government of Rwanda and our federal government should do all that it can to pressure Rwanda to review their actions in this case. Undermining courts set up by the United Nations, arresting political candidates and their lawyers as intimidation tactics, and suppressing basic tenets of free speech are indicators of a government that cannot be trusted.

Peter Erlinder went to Rwanda to defend the most fundamental canons of international human rights law and was arrested and prosecuted for it. Those same principles demand that the charges against him be dismissed immediately.














----- Original Message -----

Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2010 9:21 AM

Subject: The Two Sides of a Barbed-Wire Fence


The New York Times

June 30, 2010

The Two Sides of a Barbed-Wire Fence


KARMEL, West Bank

The Israeli occupation of the West Bank is widely acknowledged to be unsustainable and costly to the country's image. But one more blunt truth must be acknowledged: the occupation is morally repugnant.

On one side of a barbed-wire fence here in the southern Hebron hills is the Bedouin village of Umm al-Kheir, where Palestinians live in ramshackle tents and huts. They aren't allowed to connect to the electrical grid, and Israel won't permit them to build homes, barns for their animals or even toilets. When the villagers build permanent structures, the Israeli authorities come and demolish them, according to villagers and Israeli human rights organizations.

On the other side of the barbed wire is the Jewish settlement of Karmel, a lovely green oasis that looks like an American suburb. It has lush gardens, kids riding bikes and air-conditioned homes. It also has a gleaming, electrified poultry barn that it runs as a business.

Elad Orian, an Israeli human rights activist, nodded toward the poultry barn and noted: "Those chickens get more electricity and water than all the Palestinians around here."

It's fair to acknowledge that there are double standards in the Middle East, with particular scrutiny on Israeli abuses. After all, the biggest theft of Arab land in the Middle East has nothing to do with Palestinians: It is Morocco's robbery of the resource-rich Western Sahara from the people who live there.

None of that changes the ugly truth that our ally, Israel, is using American military support to maintain an occupation that is both oppressive and unjust. Israel has eased checkpoints this year — a real improvement in quality of life — but the system is intrinsically malignant.

B'Tselem, an Israeli human rights organization that I've long admired, took me to the southern Hebron hills to see the particularly serious inequities Palestinians face here. Apparently because it covets this area for settlement expansion, Israel has concocted a series of feeble excuses to drive out Palestinians from villages here or make their lives so wretched that they leave on their own.

"It's an ongoing attempt by the authorities to push people out," said Sarit Michaeli, a B'Tselem spokeswoman.

In the village of Tuba, some Palestinian farmers live in caves off the grid because permanent structures are destroyed for want of building permits that are never granted. The farmers seethe as they struggle to collect rainwater while a nearby settlement, Maon, luxuriates in water piped in by the Israeli authorities.

"They plant trees and gardens and have plenty of water," complained Ibrahim Jundiya, who raises sheep and camels in Tuba. "And we don't even have enough to drink. Even though we were here before them."

Mr. Jundiya said that when rainwater runs out, his family must buy tankers of water at a price of $11 per cubic meter. That's at least four times what many Israelis and settlers pay.

Violent clashes with Israeli settlers add to the burden. In Tuba, Palestinian children walking to elementary school have sometimes been attacked by Israeli settlers. To protect the children, foreign volunteers from Christian Peacemaker Teams and Operation Dove began escorting the children in the 2004-05 school year — and then settlers beat the volunteers with chains and clubs, according to human rights reports and a news account from the time.

Attacks on foreign volunteers get more attention than attacks on Palestinians, so the Israeli Army then began to escort the Palestinian children of Tuba to and from elementary school. But the soldiers don't always show up, the children say, and then the kids take an hour and a half roundabout path to school to avoid going near the settlers.

For their part, settlers complain about violence by Palestinians, and it's true that there were several incidents in this area between 1998 and 2002 in which settlers were killed. Partly because of rock-throwing clashes between Arabs and Israelis, the Israeli Army often keeps Palestinians well away from Israeli settlements — even if Palestinian farmers then cannot farm their own land.

Meanwhile, the settlements continue to grow, seemingly inexorably — and that may be the most odious aspect of the occupation.

In other respects, some progress is evident. Mr. Orian's Israeli aid group — Community, Energy and Technology in the Middle East — has installed windmills and solar panels to provide a bit of electricity for Palestinians kept off the grid. And attacks from settlers have dropped significantly, in part because B'Tselem has equipped many Palestinian families with video cameras to document and deter assaults.

Still, a pregnant 19-year-old Palestinian woman in the village of At-Tuwani was hospitalized this month after an attack by settlers.

Israel has a point when it argues that relinquishing the West Bank would raise real security concerns. But we must not lose sight of the most basic fact about the occupation: It's wrong.

I invite you to visit my blog, On the Ground. Please also join me on Facebook, watch my YouTube videos and follow me on Twitter.

Copyright 2010 The New York Times Company

No comments: