Opposition Leaders Arrested in Uganda.

Besigye being lifted to a Police truck-up after his arrest on Monday.

TWO opposition party leaders, Col. Kizza Besigye, Nobert Mao, and over 10 other politicians were yesterday arrested and charged with inciting violence as they tried to hold a alk- to-work?demonstration over rising commodity prices.

Sabiiti, Kansiime, Busingye, Katuntu and Oguttu before the Nakawa court

The politicians, who were arrested from various places trying to alk?into Kampala city, were later in the day charged in Kasangati, City Hall, Nakawa and Mwanga II courts.

Before the arrests, there was a standoff between the Police and the politicians, who insisted on proceeding with their walk. They argued that it was their constitutional right. But the Police said the demonstration was illegal.

Besides Besigye and Mao, others who were charged with disobeying lawful orders, committing traffic offences and inciting violence included MPs Abdu Katuntu, Mathias Nsubuga, Wafula Oguttu, Jack Sabiti as well as opposition activists Kenneth Kakande, Elvis Kintu, Moses Kataabu, William Kamulegeya, Robert Kwesiga, Moses Kasibante and Robert Sendaula.  


Besigye, the FDC president, was intercepted in Kasangati after walking for about two kilometres from his residence. He said he was walking to his party headquarters in Najjanankumbi on Entebbe road, about 20km away.

At one stage, Besigye defiantly sat in the middle of the road, ignoring orders to go to the nearby police station. He was bundled onto a pick-up truck, whisked to the station and later taken court.

Mao, accompanied by several party big wigs, was intercepted in Ntinda. Amidst exchanges with the police, he was made to board a Police patrol vehicle and taken to Kira Road Police Station.

The Police had to fire teargas to disperse opposition supporters who had gathered and were cheering the politicians.

Besigye was charged with inciting violence and disobeying lawful orders before Grade one magistrate James Ereemye at Kasangati Magistrate court in Wakiso district amid tight security. He spent about five hours in detention at Kasangati police station before he was taken to court.

Led by the resident state attorney, Ivan Nkwasibwa, prosecution said Besigye incited violence when he walked from his home in Kasangati on Gayaza road, mobilising supporters to take part in the protest.

He also allegedly refused to obey orders from a police officer when he was asked to leave the place, but chose to sit in the middle of the road, disrupting traffic flow at Lutete village.

Besigye denied the charges and his lawyer, David Mpanga, applied for bail. He was released on a non-cash bail of sh10m.

His four sureties, who included the FDC secretary general, Alice Alaso, Rubaga mayor-elect Joyce Ssebugwawo, FDC executive director Wycliffe Bakandonda and Judith Kabanda were given a non-cash bond of sh5m each.

Besigye will return to court on May 11 when his case comes up for hearing.

The alk to Work?protest was launched by a new pressure group, Activists for Change, last week.

The opposition politicians vowed to walk to their places of work every Monday and Thursday until the Government comes up with a plan to reduce prices of essential commodities and fuel.

Ugandan Oppositions Demonstration in DC.

HONG KONG’S AUTONOMY SLIPS AWAY.

The death of long-time political activist Szeto Wah of lung cancer early this year provided an opportunity for Hong Kong to show the world that it is truly autonomous except in matters of defense and foreign affairs—an opportunity that was unfortunately not grasped.


Two leaders of the Tiananmen Square student protest of 1989, Wang Dan and Wu’er Kaixi, both of whom now live in exile, asked to visit Hong Kong for the sole purpose of attending the funeral to show their respect for Mr. Szeto who, as chairman of the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements in China until his death, had each year sponsored a well-attended march and a candlelight vigil to commemorate those who died in the military crackdown on June 4, 1989 and to call for their vindication.

Since the Hong Kong Basic Law, proclaimed by China in 1990, gives Hong Kong autonomy in immigration matters, it was technically up to the territory rather than Beijing to decide whether to allow such visits. But, of course, the Hong Kong government is highly sensitive to Beijing’s feelings on all matters.

Almost immediately, it became known that Wu’er Kaixi’s chances of getting a visa were poor. Hong Kong government officials privately recalled that he had been allowed to enter the territory in 2004 to attend the funeral of the Canto-pop singer Anita Mui Yim-fong, who had supported the 1989 democracy movement. However, they said, instead of adopting a low profile as promised, the former student leader gave a speech at the Foreign Correspondents’ Club and accepted media interviews. It was clear that they felt his word could no longer be trusted.

Different Case, Same Result

Wang Dan, however, was a different case. Unlike Wu’er Kaixi, who had fled the country after the military crackdown, he was arrested and imprisoned twice and eventually was deported. So he had not left China illegally and was not wanted for any crime. Besides, he declared that he would refrain from talking to the press or making public statements and, in fact, would leave Hong Kong immediately after the funeral service, not even spending the night.

Hong Kong officials were evidently seriously considering his visa request. They held negotiating sessions with the democrats regarding the activities that Wang Dan would engage in during his visit and sought to confirm his pledge that his sole purpose was to honor Szeto Wah, whom he held in high respect.

In some ways, this was similar to the situation in mid-2010, when the Democratic Party proposed an amendment to Chief Executive Donald Tsang’s political reform package. After the Chinese government had given its blessings, the Hong Kong authorities conducted talks with the Democratic Party to clarify whether its legislators would
vote for the package if the Tsang administration accepted the party’s proposed amendment. Once it became clear that there was a deal, the Tsang administration announced acceptance of the amendment and the Democrats stuck to the bargain, ensuring passage of the package in the legislature.

This time, it appeared, the process was similar. Hong Kong officials pressed the democrats for a commitment on the restrictions that Wang Dan would be under if they allowed a visit, and that commitment was made. Secretary of Security Ambrose Lee said in the legislature that Hong Kong “will not reject a visitor’s entry application purely because of his religious belief or political stance.”

But, in the end, Wang Dan was denied a visa. He reacted by calling “one country, two systems” a lie. The impression, inescapably, is that the Chinese government withheld its blessings and Hong Kong was left to “decide” that it would not permit a visit by Wang Dan.

This was an opportunity missed, by both Hong Kong and Beijing. If the Tiananmen Square student leader had been allowed to visit and attend the funeral of Szeto Wah, it would have sent a signal to the whole world that there was an autonomous government in Hong Kong 13 years after the handover and an enlightened government in Beijing 21 years after the massacre.

Neither Yes Nor No

Earlier, the new director of the Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office of the State Council, Wang Guangya, was asked in Beijing whether a visit by Wang Dan would be allowed. Instead of saying yes or no, he responded that the matter was in the hands of Hong Kong officials and expressed confidence that they would “handle it well.” In reality, the only reason why Hong Kong would deny such a visit is fear of Beijing’s anger over such a move. So if Beijing had wanted to signal that it had no objection, it could have signaled this by saying something to the effect that “the matter should be managed pragmatically and appropriately.”

Those were the exact words used by another Chinese official, Wang Yi, when he wanted to show that the mainland was not opposed to Taiwan negotiating the equivalent of free trade agreements with other countries. Beijing knows how to make clear its position on sensitive issues without having to openly declare its consent—or its opposition.

The decision to deny Wang Dan a visa was a reflection of the limited degree of Hong Kong’s autonomy, regardless of what the Basic Law may say. No Chief Executive is likely to take any action knowing that it would anger Beijing, even if theoretically he has the right to make such a decision.

The travails of Donald Tsang’s political reform package last year also reflected the changed political environment in Hong Kong. Because of a decision made by the National People’s Congress Standing Committee in 2009, the chief executive was not allowed to increase the proportion of directly elected members of the legislature, which is currently 50%, with the others elected by special interest groups known as functional constituencies.

In an attempt at political reform that stays within the NPCSC decision, Mr. Tsang proposed creating a new functional constituency that consisted only of directly elected members of District Councils—local bodies responsible for such things as advising on parks, libraries and other local affairs. He proposed that elected district councilors would in turn elect five members to serve in the Legislative Council.

The Democratic Party went one better. It proposed that instead of limiting the electorate of this new functional constituency to district councilors, roughly three million voters—anyone who did not belong to an already existing functional constituency—would elect the five legislators from the ranks of district councilors. Then followed highly visible discussions between the Democratic Party and the Liaison Office, which is the Chinese government’s representative body in Hong Kong.

Donald Tsang on the Sidelines

The Tsang administration was edged out, since it could not decide if the Democratic Party’s proposal was consistent with the Basic Law. Chinese officials in Hong Kong and Beijing suggested loudly that it not only violated the Basic Law but also the 2009 decision of the NPCSC.

Ultimately, the central government decided to accept the Democrats’ proposal, probably because otherwise the political reform package was doomed and Donald Tsang’s ability to govern Hong Kong would be put in doubt. But because the negotiations were conducted by the central government, it became obvious to everyone who was calling the shots in Hong Kong—and it wasn’t Donald Tsang.

More than 13 years after Hong Kong’s reversion to Chinese sovereignty, there has been visible narrowing of the autonomy promised to the former British colony. At the same time, there has been much change in the attitude of the Hong Kong people. While in 1997 many people wanted to keep the mainland at arm’s length, today there is a keen awareness that Hong Kong needs to hitch its wagon to the Chinese red star now that the mainland has the world’s second largest economy so as to grow along with it.

Moreover, while 13 years ago China’s policy was to allow maximum autonomy while reining in its own supporters, today there has been an 180-degree turn and the administration of Chief Executive Donald Tsang has tacitly agreed to give pro-Beijing individuals in the community—such as deputies of the National People’s Congress and members of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference—positions of influence by appointing them to advisory committees. What caused the sea change was the mammoth demonstration of 2003, when over half a million people marched amid a prolonged recession to protest against a national security bill that many feared would erode their basic rights and freedoms.

Today, the economy is booming and Financial Secretary John Tsang declared in his budget address in February that, instead of the HK$25 billion (US$320 million) deficit that he had predicted last year, Hong Kong had actually enjoyed a surplus of HK$71 billion (US$910 million). In order to ensure a buoyant economy, the government and leading business people want Hong Kong to do what has traditionally been anathema to capitalists: adopt a five-year economic plan or, rather, join the mainland’s 12th five-year plan, 2011-2015. So, while the Basic Law stipulates that under the policy of “one country, two systems” Hong Kong is not meant to practice “the socialist system and policies” of the mainland, the territory has argued aggressively to be included in the mainland’s five-year plan.

Joining a Socialist Plan

Five years ago, during the drafting of China’s 11th five-year plan, Hong Kong elbowed its way in and obtained one paragraph in the document in which Beijing voiced its support for maintaining Hong Kong’s status as an international center for financial services, trade and shipping as well as for the development of logistics, tourism and information services.

For the 12th five-year plan beginning in 2011, there has been much closer coordination between Hong Kong and the mainland, with experts from Beijing’s National Development and Reform Commission being invited to Hong Kong for discussions. Hong Kong officials also held talks with representatives of neighboring Guangdong province about the territory’s role in the new plan.

In 2006, voices were raised against Hong Kong being included in China’s five-year plan. For example, Tony Latter, a former deputy chief executive of the Hong Kong Monetary Authority, wrote an article in the South China Morning Post headlined “We don’t ‘do’ planning.” Now, there is hardly a dissenting voice. Nonetheless, Qiao Xiaoyang, deputy secretary general of the National People’s Congress, in a speech February 17, attacked “a small number of people” who, he said, “treated Hong Kong as an independent or quasi-independent political entity.”

Mr. Qiao, addressing Hong Kong deputies to the National People’s Congress as well as local delegates to the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference in Shenzhen, discussed the issue of Hong Kong’s inclusion in the five-year plan. “To discuss the issue of including Hong Kong in the national strategic planning,” he said, “we must have a correct understanding of the position of the ‘one country, two systems’ policy in the national development strategy and a correct understanding of the indispensable relationship between Hong Kong and the country.”

The senior Chinese official, who has often handled issues involving Hong Kong and the central government, criticized the reluctance of some officials in the years immediately after the handover to strengthen economic cooperation with the mainland. He said that in the future, Hong Kong should formulate its economic development strategy based on that of the mainland but he insisted that the major power of decision would rest with Hong Kong.

Some details of the plan were release March 5 at the annual session of the National People’s Congress. In addition to reiterating pledges of support for Hong Kong to raise its status as an international financial, trade and shipping center, the plan designates it as an offshore hub for renminbi business. The plan also pledges support for developing the new pillar industries identified for further development by the Tsang administration. These are education, medical services, testing and certification, green industries, innovation and technology, and cultural and creative industries.

One early test of Hong Kong’s new relationship with the mainland may lie in a proposal to better integrate the cities surrounding the Pearl River, known as the Action Plan for the Bay Area of the Pearl River Estuary. Involving Hong Kong, Macau and Guangdong Province, the idea is to further integrate the cities in the Pearl River Delta and improve lifestyles through establishing open spaces with recreational activities. However, few Hong Kong residents were aware of the plan before it was disclosed and quite a few reacted negatively to it. The Deputy Director of Planning, Ling Kar-kan, rejected claims that the mainland was planning Hong Kong’s future development and insisted that the Planning Department would listen to public views on the proposals, which are to be completed by the second half of the year.

While it is not necessary to agree with Wang Dan that “one country, two systems” is a lie, it is certainly true that Hong Kong today does not enjoy the high degree of autonomy that its people had hoped for in 1997. Hong Kong still is different from the mainland in its independent judiciary, its free press and the freedom of its people. But, unfortunately, it is enjoying less autonomy than its people expected in 1997. In fact, quite possibly, it is enjoying less autonomy than the Chinese government had originally intended.

Frank Ching is an analyst of Chinese politics based in Hong Kong. His most recent book is “China: The Truth About Its Human Rights Record,” Rider, 2008

Coalition launches Libya attacks

US and UK cruise missiles hit more than 20 Libyan air defence targets, Pentagon officials said

UK, US and France have attacked Libyan leader Col Muammar Gaddafi's forces in the first action to enforce a UN-mandated no-fly zone.


Pentagon officials say the US and the UK have fired more than 110 missiles, while French planes struck pro-Gaddafi forces attacking rebel-held Benghazi.

Col Gaddafi has vowed retaliation and said he will open arms depots to the people to defend Libya.

Missiles struck air defence sites in the capital, Tripoli, and Misrata.

A French plane fired the first shots against Libyan government targets at 1645 GMT, destroying a number of military vehicles, according to a military spokesman.

UK Prime Minister David Cameron confirmed that British planes are in action over Libya.
Despite the fact that it was French war planes which launched the first attacks, it's clear that this early phase of the operations is an overwhelmingly American affair - all but a very small number of cruise missiles have been fired from American ships and submarines.

Only they have the capability to inflict the sort of damage to Libya's air defences that's needed before a no-fly zone can be safely patrolled, a point alluded to by President Obama even as he repeated the limits of American involvement.

President Obama has launched these attacks with great reluctance and seems anxious that this not be interpreted as yet another American-led foray into the Arab world.

But for all his desire to be seen to take a back seat, he and everyone else knows that this sort of thing doesn't happen unless Washington is deeply involved.
US President Barack Obama, speaking during a visit to Brazil, said the US was taking "limited military action" as part of a "broad coalition".

"We cannot stand idly by when a tyrant tells his people there will be no mercy," he said.
He repeated that no US ground troops would take part.

After the missile bombardment and the air strikes, Col Gaddafi made a brief speech calling on people to resist.

"Civilian and military targets in the air and sea will be liable to serious danger in the Mediterranean," he said.

"Arms depots are now open and the masses are being equipped with all sorts of weapons in defence of Libya's independence, unity and honour," the Libyan leader warned.

'Necessary'

A British submarine has fired a number of missiles at Libyan air defence targets, the Ministry of Defence said.

Mr Cameron said that launching military action against Libya was "necessary, legal and right".

Libyan state TV reported that what it called the "crusader enemy" had bombed civilian areas of Tripoli, as well as fuel storage tanks supplying the western city of Misrata.

Sources in Tripoli told BBC Arabic that the attacks on the city had so far targeted the eastern areas of Sawani, Airport Road, and Ghasheer. These are all areas believed to host military bases.

After midnight on Sunday, heavy bursts of anti-aircraft fire arced into the sky above Tripoli and several explosions were heard.

The strikes on Misrata targeted a military airbase, the Reuters news agency reported, quoting two residents who denied the state TV reports that fuel stores were hit.
Allied forces

UK: Providing Typhoon and Tornado jet fighters; surveillance planes; HMS Westminster and HMS Cumberland; submarines
France: Carried out mission with at least 12 warplanes including Mirage fighters and Rafale jets; deploying aircraft carrier, warships
US: Firing guided missiles from USS Barry and USS Stout; providing amphibious warships, and command-and-control ship USS Mount Whitney
Italy: Nato base at Naples understood to be central hub; other Mediterranean bases made available
Canada: Providing six F-18 fighter jets and 140 personnel

UN's calculated gamble

Libya no-fly zone: Aircraft

The cruise missiles were fired from one British submarine and a number of American destroyers and subs, said a Pentagon official.

The missiles hit more than 20 air defence sites along the Mediterranean coast, said Navy Vice Adm William E Gortney.

The action came hours after Western and Arab leaders met in Paris to agree how to enforce the UN resolution, which allows "all necessary measures" to protect civilians from forces loyal to Col Gaddafi.


Benghazi battle

Earlier on Saturday, pro-Gaddafi forces attacked Benghazi despite declaring a ceasefire a day earlier.

Reports from the city said that government tanks and artillery had bombarded the city and there was fighting around the university.

Rebels in the city said thousands of people were fleeing the attack, heading east, and the UN refugee agency said it was preparing to receive 200,000 refugees from Libya.

Journalists later said the bombardment ended in the later afternoon and that rebel forces were in control of Benghazi.

The Libyan government blamed the rebels for breaking the ceasefire and said its forces had fought back in self defence.

French planes are reported to have hit government tanks and armoured vehicles around Benghazi.

French planes also flew reconnaissance missions over "all Libyan territory", military sources in Paris said earlier.

In addition, Canada is sending warplanes to the region, while Italy has offered the use of its military bases. A naval blockade against Libya is also being put in place.

The international community was intervening to stop the "murderous madness" of Col Gaddafi, French President Nicolas Sarkozy said.

"In Libya, the civilian population, which is demanding nothing more than the right to choose their own destiny, is in mortal danger," he warned. "It is our duty to respond to their anguished appeal."

Shortly after the airstrikes began, Libyan state TV said a French plane had been shot down near Tripoli. However, French military officials said all their planes had returned safely.

Col Gaddafi has ruled Libya for more than 40 years. An uprising against him began last month after long-time leaders of neighbouring Tunisia and Egypt were toppled

Bahrain crisis: Saudi soldier and a protester killed.

Tuesday 15 March 2011 .A Saudi Arabian soldier has reportedly been shot dead after Saudi troops entered Bahrain as it cracks down on protests. An expert on Iran tells Channel 4 News that Tehran is unlikely to intervene.


more than 1,000 Saudi troops have entered the tiny island state, as have soldiers from other Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states, including the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Qatar and Kuwait. The troops are from the Gulf countries' Peninsula Shield Force and Bahrain authorities have sent more than 100 armoured vehicles to Pearl Roundabout, the epicentre of the anti-government protests.

Officials in Riyadh said a Saudi soldier has been shot dead by a protester, and another report said a protester was killed in clashes with police in the Sitra area.

Saudi and fellow Gulf troops entered Bahrain following a request from its neighbour. Riyadh said that "any harm done to the security of a member state is considered a harm done to the security of all GCC members."

Bahrain’s protesters denounced the deployment of troops, with the largest Shi'ite party Wefaq saying that any intervention by Gulf Arab forces is a declaration of war and occupation.

A month of clashes between Shiite protesters and security forces intensified on Sunday, with more than 100 people injured as demonstrators demanded democracy through elections from their Sunni monarch (King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa)."

Two weeks ago, protesters could hardly have expected this: Bahrain's police and armed forces ceased clashes on 19 February, after a week of unrest that saw the death of six anti-government demonstrators.

But now Bahrain state TV has announced a three-month state of emergency has been declared to try to quell continuing political unrest threatening the monarchy, and King Hamad said in a statement that the nation's Armed Forces chief is authorised to 'take all measures ' to crush protests.
Who Knows Who: Bahrain's sectarian gulfIran has echoed the protesters' criticism, with Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast saying: "The presence of foreign troops and meddling into Bahrain’s internal affairs will only further complicate the issue."

Hours after the statement, Bahrain recalled its ambassador to Iran.

The presence of US-backed Saudi Arabia in Bahrain was sure to perturb Tehran, but Arshin Dr Adib-Moghaddan from the School of Oriental and African Studies, and an expert on Iranian foreign policy, told Channel 4 News that the island does not have the potential to be another Vietnam, i.e. a proxy war between the US and Iran.

"If there would be a sustained period of confrontation, and systematic killings of the demonstrators, Iran may be dragged into the conflict. [However] I don't think we would see Iranian boots on the ground; a major diplomatic escalation is more likely," said Dr Adib-Moghaddan, the author of Iran in World Politics.

"Neither Iran nor the US has an interest in a proxy war. In fact both the Obama administration and the Iranian Foreign Ministry say the same: Bahrainis have legitimate demands that need to be met by the monarchy. It is ironic and indicative of a failed strategy towards Iran, that the country can not be included in a solution to the conflict in Bahrain and elsewhere in the region for that matter."

Indeed, the White House has been non-committal and reserved with its comments about GCC forces entering Bahrain, consistent with its remote stance on the Arab uprisings in general.

White House spokesman Tommy Vietor has said that the US does not consider the entry of Saudi Arabian security forces into Bahrain an invasion, but urged Bahrain to exercise restraint.

"We urge our GCC partners to show restraint and respect the rights of the people of Bahrain, and to act in a way that supports dialogue instead of undermining it," Mr Vietor said.

Both Iran and the US are in difficult positions in Bahrain. In the case of the former, a failure to act in Bahrain could be perceived as weakness.

"Iran is likely to step up its rhetoric in accordance with events on the ground in Bahrain. It will use a rhetoric of strength to forestall to be perceived as weak," said Dr Adib-Moghaddan. And among other concerns for the US, its 5th Fleet’s basing in jeopardy.

But whatever happens in Bahrain, it is unlikely to trigger a physical conflict between Iran and the US: there is too much to lose, added Dr Adib-Moghaddan.

"With Iran, it is first gear: diplomacy, second gear: multilateral/regional diplomacy, third gear: regional 'gunboat' diplomacy, and then the options are exhausted."

Meanwhile, the British embassy in Bahrain has closed as fears grow that a bloody crackdown of the protests in the offing. The Foreign Office has advised against all travel to Bahrain.

Al Qaeda Targets Libya

NEW YORK – The terror cell sees Gaddafi’s bloody civil conflict as the perfect chance to swoop in and turn the war-torn country into an Islamic state. By Ron Moreau and Sami Yousafzai.


Libyans with connections to Al Qaeda are racing to find ways to send people home, in hope of steering the anti-Gaddafi revolt in a radical Islamist direction, according to several senior Afghan Taliban sources in contact with Al-Qaeda.

“This rebellion is the fresh breeze they’ve been waiting years for,” says an Afghan Taliban operative who helps facilitate the movement of Al Qaeda militants between the tribal area and Pakistani cities. “Some say they are ready to go back at this critical moment.” The operative, who has just returned from Pakistan’s lawless tribal area on the Afghanistan border, adds: “They realize that if they don’t use this opportunity, it could be the end of their chances to turn Libya toward a real Islamic state, as Afghanistan once was.”

So far, Muammar Qaddafi’s clumsy efforts to blame Al Qaeda for the popular uprising against his dictatorship would be a joke, if only he weren’t using that claim as an excuse for mowing down so many Libyans. In fact, it’s been many years since Libya has seen significant numbers of radical Islamists—or any other organized opposition, for that matter. Nearly all have been killed, locked up or chased into exile years ago by the regime’s secret police and security forces. Although the country’s most feared insurgent entity, the Al Qaeda-affiliated Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (known in Arabic as Al-Jama’a al-Islamiyah al-Muqatilah bi-Libya), has been seeking to topple Gaddafi since the early 1990s, it’s unlikely that more than a handful who pledge allegiance to Osama bin Laden remain inside Libya.

Seizing the moment, however, Al Qaeda’s top ranking Libyan, Abu Yahya al-Libi, the movement’s senior Islamist ideologue and bin Laden’s head of operations for Afghanistan, broke his public silence over the Libyan revolt this past weekend. He issued a call to arms to his countrymen in a 30-minute video that was posted on Al Qaeda-linked Internet sites, urging Libyans to fight on and do to Qaddafi what he has done to them over the years: kill him. "Now it is the turn of Qaddafi [to die] after he made the people of Libya suffer for more than 40 years," he said. “Retreating will mean decades of harsher oppression and greater injustices than what you have endured." He also called for the institution of Islamic law once an Arab nation has cast off its former, Western-supported rulers. Overthrowing these Western-backed Arab regimes, he added, was "a step to reach the goal of every Muslim, which is to make the word of Allah the highest."

“This rebellion is the fresh breeze they’ve been waiting years for,” says an Afghan Taliban operative.

Several Libyans have held top roles in Al Qaeda’s leadership. Some traveled to Afghanistan in the 1980s to fight the Soviets and stayed, eventually teaming up with bin Laden after his return from Sudan in 1996. Taliban sources estimate there were some 200 Libyans with bin Laden in Afghanistan at the time of the 9/11 attacks. Since then some of bin Laden’s senior-most operational aides have been Libyans. One was Abu Faraj al-Libi, who was captured by Pakistan forces in 2005 and is now a prisoner in Guantanamo Bay; another was Abu Lais al-Libi, his replacement as Al Qaeda’s third in command, who died in a U.S. Predator attack in 2008. Apart from his hard-line sermons and jihadist exhortations that are widely distributed on DVD and posted on jihadist Website, Yahya may be be best known for his daring escape along with four [make that three other] other Al Qaeda prisoners from the high-security lockup at the American airbase at Bagram in July 2005.Yahya, who is believed to be in his late 40s, is smarter, more charismatic, a more articulate speaker and a more learned Islamic scholar than either Faraj or Lais, according to Afghan Taliban sources.

Now he’s said to be eager to go home, like most other Libyans in the Afghan borderlands. “They desperately want to at least get a foothold in the new Libya,” the Taliban facilitator says. The long, dangerous trip from Pakistan’s tribal areas to Libya—via Afghanistan, Iran, Iraqi Kurdestan and Turkey—can take weeks if not months. Nevertheless, at least one Taliban source says Yahya made the trip two years ago and returned safely, although no one else seems able to confirm that story. And even if he or other Al Qaedea Libyans manage to get home again, the Taliban facilitator says they know they’ll have a tough time influencing the largely prodemocracy uprising. “They know they must tread cautiously, and not push too hard, for too much, too soon,” he says. Instead, he says, they expect to take a moderate line at first, while quietly trying to persuade rebel leaders that the preservation of Libyan sovereignty against Western “colonialists” depends on taking an anti-Israeli, anti-American line. Any move toward imposing Islamic sharia law, Yahya’s specialty, will have to come later.

Still, Taliban sources say, if Yahya is successful in reaching rebel-held territory inside Libya, at least he’ll be able to operate with relative freedom, without worrying about Gaddafi’s secret police. There’s one question: will bin Laden grant leave to Al Qaeda’s senior operations man for Afghanistan to undertake such a hazardous journey? The betting among the Taliban is that he will—and he may already have a replacement in mind. “Al Qaeda will not leave this place empty,” says the facilitator.

Sami Yousafzai is Newsweek's correspondent in Pakistan and Afghanistan, where he has covered militancy, Al Qaeda and the Taliban for the magazine since 9/11. He was born in Afghanistan but moved to Pakistan with his family after the Russian invasion in 1979. He began his career as a sports journalist but switched to war reporting in 1997.

Ron Moreau is Newsweek’s Afghanistan and Pakistan correspondent and has been covering the region for the magazine the past 10 years. Since he first joined Newsweek during the Vietnam War, he has reported extensively from Asia, the Middle East and Latin America.

Japan quake: Fukushima plant alarming, says Naoto Kan

Naoto Kan said: "We as Japanese people can overcome these hardships

The casing of a reactor at Fukushima 1 plant exploded on Saturday, and another faces meltdown, but officials said only minimal radiation had been released.


authorities ordered nationwide power outages after being forced to close all the country's nuclear plants.

The quake and a tsunami killed hundreds and left thousands missing, sparking a huge rescue operation.

The government has pumped 7 trillion yen ($86bn; £54bn) into the economy to prop up the markets - which slumped on opening.

Cooling malfunction

Japanese broadcaster NHK says the total number of confirmed deaths caused by the disaster now stands at 1,596.

Continue reading the main story
At the scene.

We headed towards where the tsunami hit land, close to the little village of Higashiro. We had to pick our way through a sea of mud.

What should have been a road was covered in broken branches, a squashed tractor and lots of electricity cables that had been brought down. The destruction goes on and on.

The seashore was in the distance behind a row of trees. Here the waves toppled houses; they lie at crazy angles. Trees have been smashed into the buildings. A motorcycle lies twisted and bent.

Inside the houses, the furniture has been turned to matchsticks, possessions tossed everywhere, and on a few walls are portraits with the faces of those who once lived here, now stained by the waters which filled everything.

As you gaze over the wrecked landscape, it feels as if the natural order of things has been shaken, and nobody knows when it will settle down again.

'There is nothing here, everything is gone'
Local officials have suggested many thousands more are missing across the north-east of Honshu island, but the situation remains unclear.

Japan's nuclear plants closed down automatically when the earthquake struck, and appear to have withstood the tremor.
But experts believe the massive tsunami that followed damaged cooling systems and wrecked the back-up power supply at Fukushima 1.
Technicians have been battling to control the pressure and temperature in the reactors for days, pumping in seawater and releasing vapour containing radioactive elements.

But the casing around one reactor exploded on Saturday, and senior officials conceded late on Sunday that a similar explosion was still possible at another reactor.

Tens of thousands of people have been evacuated from the area around the plant.
At least 22 people are now said to be being treated for the effects of exposure to radiation.

But the government says the amount of radioactive material released from the plant is so far still minimal.

And experts say the risk of a disaster on the scale of Chernobyl in the 1980s is highly unlikely because the reactors are built to a much higher standard and have much more rigorous safety measures.

Economic blow

Earlier, Mr Kan said the earthquake had thown Japan into "the most severe crisis since World War II".





Click to play

Naoto Kan said: "We as Japanese people can overcome these hardships"
He announced that from Monday, the country would have to endure rolling power cuts, and urged citizens to conserve energy.

The BBC's Mariko Oi in Tokyo says it is still not clear when the power outages will begin.

But she says the government has advised people not to go to work or school on Monday because the transport network cannot deal with demand.

And the capital is also still experiencing regular powerful aftershocks.

Meanwhile, tens of thousands of relief workers, soldiers and police have been deployed to the disaster area.

Rescue workers have found scenes of total devastation in isolated coastal towns north-east of the main port city of Sendai, which was itself partially destroyed by the waves.

Preliminary estimates put repair costs from the earthquake and tsunami in the tens of billions of dollars, a huge blow for the Japanese economy that - while the world's third largest - has been ailing for two decades.

Are you in Japan? Do you live near Fukushima? Have you been affected by the earthquake? Or are you a Japanese citizen living abroad? You can send us details of your experiences using the form below.

Bahrain: Fighting for change - People & Power - Al Jazeera English

Bahrain: Fighting for change - People & Power - Al Jazeera English

Gaddafi's inner circle - Inside Story - Al Jazeera English

Gaddafi's inner circle - Inside Story - Al Jazeera English

Opposition, chiefs call for protests

DEMO CALL: Dr Besigye (L) and Mr Otunnu at the press conference in Kampala where they called for peaceful demonstrations to push the government into organising fresh elections. PHOTO BY ISAAC KASAMANI


By Gerald Bareebe (email the author)
Posted Friday, February 25 2011 at 00:00


Uganda’s main opposition leaders yesterday called for peaceful protests against President Museveni’s leadership and also demanded that fresh, free and fair elections be held under certain minimum conditions. The government, however, received news of this development without flinching.


Force threats

Information minister Kabakumba Matsiko told Daily Monitor that the government is well-equipped to quash any opposition uprising. “Their call is of no consequence because we shall easily suppress them,” Ms Kabakumba said yesterday.

In a joint statement read to the press and supporters after a meeting in Kampala yesterday, Dr Kizza Besigye (FDC/IPC), Olara Otunnu (UPC), Mr Matthias Nsubuga representing party president Norbert Mao (DP) and independent candidate Walter Sam Lubega repeated the accusation that the presidential election was a “big sham”.
The four, who alongside another candidate, Jaberi Bidandi Ssali, have previously said they will not recognise the new government to be sworn-in, in May, said other constitutional options in the quest for democracy have failed.


“It is now clear that Ugandans cannot advance democracy through elections, the courts or Parliament under Mr Museveni and the NRM leadership,” said Dr Besigye reading from the statement.

“We have explored several constitutional options with no success … The only option left, that is allowed by the Constitution and which is peaceful to challenge the results of this sham election, is for the people to assert their sovereign power under Article 1 of the Constitution.”

On Sunday, the Electoral Commission declared Mr Museveni winner of last Friday’s poll with 68 per cent. Closest challenger Dr Besigye trailed at 26 per cent. Mr Museveni has threatened to jail any opposition  politician who incites unrest, as well as any individual who attempts to demonstrate against the results.

But the four former presidential candidates have appealed to Ugandans to take to the streets, and also asked opposition leaders in the districts to organise peaceful rallies in support of the call for fresh elections.

“The time is now for the people of Uganda to rise and peacefully protest against the outcome of the 2011 elections and demand that no further fraudulent local government elections be conducted by the existing partisan EC,”

Dr Besigye said. “We reject any government that may be formed out of these sham elections and demand that an independent, competent and representative EC, composed through criteria agreed by all stakeholders be established.”

Democracy stifled

The opposition leaders accused Mr Museveni and the NRM party of stifling multiparty democracy in Uganda. Together, they are criticised for standing in the way of constitutional and legal reforms “through reckless misuse of their parliamentary majority”.

The statement observed that, “For the last two decades, the people of Uganda, through their opposition political parties and civil society have been in the protracted struggle for a peaceful and genuine democracy. At every turn the NRM and Mr Museveni have been obstacles to the people’s aspirations. Even when he was prevailed upon by internal and external forces to embrace multiparty politics, Mr Museveni did so reluctantly and continues to undermine its genuine operation.


It additionally makes the point that Ugandans’ participation in the last four general elections has been frustrated by the NRM and Mr Museveni who jointly “subverted the will of the people through cheating and violating their human rights.”

The statement spoke of the opposition’s and civil society’s filing of numerous court cases in a bid to bring about political reforms. But that these efforts were frustrated when court either dismissed them “on questionable grounds or are still not yet heard and concluded”.

Mr Lubega, who criticised the international community after they “quickly endorsed a fraudulent election”, said it was time for Ugandans to assume their constitutional responsibilities. “No matter the amount of intimidation, no matter what amount of soldiers Mr Museveni will deploy, the people of Uganda remain the most powerful,” Mr Lubega said.


Mr Otunnu said since democratic change of government under the current rules, structures and processes is now impossible, Ugandans should “step outside the system and confront Museveni on their own terms.”

“We can choose to remain slaves in our own country, we can choose to be subjugated by Mr Museveni, we can choose to remain subjects or we can choose to remain owners of our country, to be citizens or to be masters of our land.”

MAO'S SONG.

Regardless of Shameful U.S. Endorsement; Toss Elections

Gen. Museveni, shown left, beneficiary of well-documented election theft, was annointed by U.S. today

The right to choose one's leader is a universal human right that is well recognized. That remains true for Americans, for Tunisians, for Egyptians, for Yemenis, for Libyans and for people all over the world, regardless of religion, race, ethnicity and national origin.


Ugandans were denied this right on February 18. The U.S.-backed dictator Gen. Yoweri K. Museveni by most accounts was the beneficiary of massively rigged presidential and parliamentary elections.

Today, the Obama Administration shamefully added insult to the injury. It endorsed the election theft--the U.S. State Department released a statement congratulating Gen. Museveni on his "reelection" though the overwhelming evidence shows otherwise. The State Department's actions amounted to a debasement of the concept and practise of democracy everywhere. Uganda's sham "elections" need to be anulled--the fraud has been well documented by monitoring organizations and Ugandan journalists.

Ugandans from all over the world should voice reaction to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at (202) 647-2492 or (202) 647-1512; also call Clinton's boss, President Obama, through press secretary Jay Carney at (202) 456-2580 or email him via press@who.eop.gov , so Obama knows how you feel about the U.S. betrayal of democracy in Uganda.

On Sunday, Uganda's partisan Electoral Commission awarded Gen. Museveni 68% of the vote and 26% to his key opponent Dr. Kizza Besigye. On Saturday, before the Commission's announcement, this newspaper had published an article stating that Museveni would win by 67.2%. This information was supplied by a source who obtained the tip from a contact in the Museveni government; that contact was involved with a special unit created to manipulate the election "figures."

It was critical for Gen. Museveni to get over 50% to avoid a runoff. Logically the results aren't credible--in disputed elections in 2001 he was awarded 69%, in 2006, only 59%. His popularity has continued to diminish and yet the Electoral Commission awards him 68% this time around.

Even before the February 18 vote, an independent group, the Democracy Monitoring Group (DEMGroup), exposed fatal flaws which should have called for the postponment of the elections. DEMGroup studied the National Voters' Registry and found, on the fraudulent registry, that: 139,541 dead people were listed as voters; more than half a million "unknown people" were listed; 1.9 million people had changed their locations; 418,623 foreigners, ineligible to vote, were listed; 5,000 registered voters were 100-years old or older; and 4,629 voters had the same name and birthdate, and the same polling station.

The shocking expose was printed on the front pages of Uganda's major independent newspaper, The Daily Monitor; it was ignored by the Uganda government-owned newspaper, The New Vision, and a major newspaper The New York Times, which had a correspondent in Uganda to cover the elections.

Since the vote, the Commonwealth observers' group has declared that "commercialization" of the voting, otherwise bribery and vote-buying compromised the elections; the European Union (EC) also criticized the vote. Yet, it seems that the United States isn't bothered that fictitious and dead voters may have accounted for Gen. Museveni's "victory."

Ugandans must not have been copied on the State Department memo. The leaders of Uganda's three major opposition parties, the Forum for Democratic Change (FDC) under Dr. Besigye, the Uganda People's Congress (UPC) under Olara Otunnu, and the Democratic Party (DP) under Norbert Mao, have all rejected the election results. They have called for mass public reaction in Uganda.

Yet the rigging actually began last year when Gen. Museveni hand-picked the Electoral Commission. The same Museveni Commission four years ago was found by Uganda's Supreme Court to be incompetent during the 2006 disputed elections. In fact, the opposition's challenge in 2006, claiming the elections were rigged and that it's outcome should be nullified almost prevailed. The court voted 4-3 against nullification, only after some Museveni generals are said to have threatened a military coup.

Even the U.S., which sustains the Ugandan dictator --much as Washington had sustained Egypt's Hosni Mubarak for decades-- was so concerned about election rigging that last year Secretary of State Hillary Clinton issued a report to Congress declaring that the credibility of Uganda's elections would be "damaged" because of the exclusion of opposition parties in determining the Electoral Commission's composition.

The day before the State Department annointed Gen. Museveni, on Monday DEMGroup issued a statement that it had discovered that nearly 2,000 polling stations across Uganda had ballot boxes with more votes than the number of people who voted. Additionally, 7% of the 23,968 polling stations, representing at least 1,677 centers that DEMGroup randomly observed, had ghost voters--fictitious voters. And on election date, the FDC intercepted ballots that had already marked for Museveni enroute for ballot stuffing.

There was always much concern that the U.S. would look the other way if Gen. Museveni stole the elections. Museveni serves U.S. interests in the region, much in the same way as Mubarak once did in north Africa and the Middle East. In the case of Museveni, he is the only African president who has provided significant number of troops --8,000-- to help prop up the U.S. installed government in Somalia, which is unpopular and not representative of Somalians. What's more Museveni's U.S.-trained soldiers are accused of war crimes by shelling Somali civilians in Mogadishu. Gen. Museveni's departure might actually attract the participation of more African countries in the attempt to stabilize Somalia.

"Through fraud, intimidation and bribery the Ugandan people have been denied the right to exercise a free choice," Mao, the DP leader has said. "The results declared do not reflect the will of the people." He also concluded: "In the words of President Obama, Africa does not need strong men but strong institutions. We urge you to realize that your relationship should be more with the people rather than the regime in power."

The Obama State Department's endorsement of Gen. Museveni's election theft sends the wrong signal. That when the U.S. talks about global democracy, as President Obama did during his 2009 Accra speech, it shouldn't be taken seriously. Yet even worse, the United States will share the blame for the possible grave consequences should Ugandans, following the examples of Tunisia and Egypt, rise up and challenge tyranny.

The U.S. failed the first test by endorsing the sham elections. At the very least it must now warn Gen. Museveni, who has widely deployed his U.S.-trained and equipped military throughout the country not to use force against peaceful popular outcry against the election theft.


"Speaking Truth To Empower."

Mao speaks out on February 18 polls

STATEMENT ON THE 2011 GENERAL ELECTIONS BY DEMOCRATIC PARTY PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE NORBERT MAO

Former Presidential candidate and Democratic Party leader Norbert Mao has added his voice to his other losing colleagues rejecting the February 18 poll results and urging his supporters to, “struggle to redeem our country that goes beyond different political party ambitions.” In the statement released on Tuesday, Mao who scored 1.9% in the elections, declared, “All our previous attempts have only emboldened Museveni to increase his grip on power. We must now say enough!

Uganda is a volcano under an ice-cap


A Dream Deferred
by Langston Hughes

What happens to a dream deferred?
Does it dry up
like a raising in the sun?
Or fester like a sore--
And then run?
Does it stink like rotten meat?
Or crust and sugar over--
like a syrupy sweet?
Maybe it just sags
like a heavy load. Or does it explode?

Fellow citizens,

On the road to the 2011 elections the tell tale signs of a flawed process were clear. President Museveni decided to re-appoint the same discredited Electoral Commission which messed up the 2006 elections. With the help of the most partisan House Speaker in the history of the Ugandan legislature and a largely complicit and compromised Parliament the Electoral Commission was reappointed. Even the walk-out by the opposition Parliamentarians did nothing to change the Speaker's mind about the need for a measure of consensus on such an important matter.

The newly re-appointed Electoral Commission thus started their work lacking the necessary legitimacy and independence to organize a free and fair election. When the voter registration process began, the incompetence of the Electoral Commission became manifest. Millions of dollars were spent in securing equipment from a German firm to help with the registration process. Poorly trained personnel were deployed to man the registration process. The registration process was very slow. Consequently, many citizens were caught up by the voter registration deadline.

Meanwhile in Parliament, President Museveni was given a blank cheque to spend State resources for his campaigns. The instrument of a supplementary budget was abused to give State House and President Museveni a total of 160 billion shillings yet our main hospitals get less than half of that amount.

We know for a fact that the recruitment of election officials like Presiding Officers and Supervisors favoured NRM operatives. In Gulu I personally saw people I had seen Presiding at Polling stations openly wearing NRM T-Shirts and jubilating at a party organised at the NRM offices. We had proposed that all election officials should wear name tags with a picture ID.

We went into the election not because we trusted the Electoral Commission but because we trusted the people. We went forward in the faith that it is possible to win even an unfair election.

On Election Day the anomalies were too many to be accidental. The Electoral Commission deleted voters' names from the register and in other cases transferred voters to other Polling stations without notifying them and without their consent. Consequently, on Election Day millions of voters were disenfranchised and denied the right to vote through willful incompetence and a malicious intention to frustrate them. In addition there was widespread vote buying by NRM operatives. In many cases, these vote buyers were being escorted by armed soldiers. Needless to say, this is unlawful and an abuse of the role of the national army. The cases of bribery and vote buying by the NRM were so rampant that it undermined the free will of voters.

In Kiruhuura, results from four polling stations were cancelled because the number of votes cast exceeded the number of registered voters. In Omiyanyima Subcounty of Kitgum it was first declared that 11,000 people had voted for President Museveni only to have the announcement annulled because the Sub County has not more than 7000 registered voters!

The register appears to have been inflated to create a rigging margin to accommodate ghost voters. This matter was raised by DemGroup who argued that given how young Uganda's population is, it is statistically impossible to have almost 14 million voters out of a population of about 33 million. We suspect that the so called NRM Yellow Book may have had its contents offloaded onto the National voter register. The national register remained a work in progress till Election day. The lack of a clear and verifiable register has totally discredited the 2011 elections.

There were cases of multiple voting. Some of those who voted multiple times claimed to have their names in the register did not have photographs on the register. There was no adequate civic education. This led to the high number of spoilt and invalid votes. We also got reports of falsification of the Declaration of Results form. Furthermore we were informed that some District Registrars were bribed to falsify final results.

We can cite countless incidents of Electoral malpractices but we hope these examples drive the point home. The outcome of an electoral process which is marred by massive rigging, bribery, intimidation and a disenfranchisement of voters cannot be legitimate. We cannot and will not accept as legitimate the outcome of such a manifestly flawed process. What President Museveni and the NRM have done can only be categorized as a coup against the people of Uganda. Through fraud, intimidation and bribery the Ugandan people have been denied the right to exercise a free choice. Our sources indicate that over 150 billion was spent to buy voters.

The NRM and President Museveni know that they have achieved a hollow victory. Otherwise why should some one who has garnered almost 70 percent of votes have to deploy thousands of armed troops around the country and impose a virtual curfew? We condemn in the strongest terms the unacceptable levels of vote rigging, bribery and intimidation. The results declared do not reflect the will of the people. This election has eroded the people's confidence in the Electoral process. Worst still, barring far-reaching reforms, it will be difficult to persuade Ugandans that free and fair elections are possible in Uganda.

The Election pitted hope against fear. We represented and still represent hope for a better future. President Museveni and the NRM represented fear in it's worst form.

We did not campaign against a political party but the state machinery itself. The NRM and the state are now fused. They have become one and the same. The State and the party are now inseparable. Worse still because of being in power for so long, the NRM now has so many appendages masquerading as State institutions. The individuals in these institutions have surrendered to the will of the party and can no longer think and act independently.

A party which rode to power on the crest of fundamental change now shamelessly preaches no change. In deference to the regimes it displaced, and in imitation born perhaps of a secret admiration, the NRM now revels in the most despicable excesses. Corruption, illegal detentions, election rigging, political persecution, undermining the rule of law and personalization of state institutions have become the hallmarks of the NRM.

These are the reasons why change is imperative in Uganda. But change will not come on a silver platter. Let’s not have any illusions. Change will come out of sweat or blood or both. Therefore those resisting change must be resisted until they succumb to the power of the people.

The question now is 'where do we go from here?’ First, we should not despair. Let's keep hope alive. This does not mean acquiescence in the misdeeds and crimes of the regime. As long as we believe in the cause of genuine democracy we must remain in the trenches. In this kind of struggle, every blow counts.

We may look like we are defeated but we are not. By our bold action we forced the NRM regime to show its true colors. We have exposed the hypocrisy which has been passing for democracy. Even in our so called defeat we are like Christ on the cross. To the high and mighty in the Roman Empire the cross was the end of the road for Jesus and his mission. But in God's plan this was the zenith of victory.

To our international partners we say to you that for years you have invested more in individual despots. In the words of President Obama, Africa does not need strong men but strong institutions. We urge you to realize that your relationship should be more with the people rather than the regime in power. We urge you to invest more in democratic systems and institutions which will in turn bring forth democratic leaders. We further urge you to realize that it is hypocritical to pick and choose which violations to condemn and seek redress for. Human rights are like the Ten Commandments. You do not have to break all the commandments to earn God's wrath. It is fine to hear world leaders condemn the discrimination of homosexuals but we are disturbed when we do not hear condemnation of extra-judicial killings, illegal detentions and sham elections.

We will confront the menace of an illegitimate government with our bare hands. We declare a campaign of defiance to say NO! ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!

President Museveni has been ruthless in preserving himself at the helm. Nothing good can come out of President Museveni in the next five years. We do not see any hope in President Museveni in the next five years. Museveni cannot leave power voluntarily. He will only move when he comes under intense diplomatic pressure or physical pressure from the people.

Many Ugandans of all walks of life and of all political persuasions believe in real democracy. The Museveni regime has become an obstacle to democracy. Using sheer force and primitively acquired wealth the Museveni regime's stranglehold on power is absolute. In the circumstances, elections have become a meaningless ritual.

But we are not helpless. To govern, the Museveni regime needs the compliance of the people. We owe it to future generations to withhold our compliance from the illegitimate Museveni regime. In this crisis there is no middle ground. We urge all Ugandans to cast aside the existential fear that has paralyzed them for decades and embrace the cause of ridding our country of Museveni's one-man rule.

We have been pushed too far. Our backs are against the wall. We cannot sentence our country to another five years of oppression, poverty, nepotism, corruption and poor service delivery.

We have to struggle to redeem our country. This is no longer about the ambitions of individual leaders. It is no longer about political parties. The destiny of our beloved country is at stake and we must rise beyond our political confines and reach out to one another. This will not be an overnight struggle. It will take days or weeks or months or even years but let us begin. The starting point is for us to take a clear and unequivocal stand for genuine democracy by denying the Museveni any semblance of legitimacy. The Defiance Campaign will have to be like any other struggle.

All our previous attempts have only emboldened Museveni to increase his grip on power. We must now say ENOUGH! In the words of Frederick Douglass: "Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightening.”

I thank you.

For Truth and Justice

NORBERT MAO
DP PRESIDENT and
DP PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE 2011 GENERAL ELECTIONS

Special Report: Cables show U.S. sizing up China's next leader

By Paul Eckert


WASHINGTON
Thu Feb 17, 2011 1:29pm EST

(Reuters) - What does the United States make of Xi Jinping, the man widely expected to take over from Hu Jintao late next year and lead China for the next five or 10 years?

An unpublished WikiLeaks batch of U.S. diplomatic cables portrays the 57-year-old Xi as untainted by corruption -- he is referred to as "Mr Clean" -- and disdainful of China's nouveau riche and consumer culture.
He is also depicted as an elitist who believes that the offspring of Maoist revolutionaries are the rightful rulers of China. His father was a major Communist leader who fought alongside Mao Zedong and helped implement Deng Xiaoping's economic reforms.


On human rights, the cables leave the question open. They note that Xi's father was critical of the military crackdown against Tiananmen Square protesters in 1989 and that the Dalai Lama had "great affection" for the elder Xi.

The cables, which Reuters obtained through a third party, trace Xi's rapid rise from provincial official to national leader, covering a period from October 2006 to February 2010. They are based on conversations with numerous Chinese sources -- scholars, senior journalists, businessmen, relatives or friends of senior officials and the occasional government official.

There are very few fly-on-the-wall accounts of meetings with Xi or other top
There are very few fly-on-the-wall accounts of meetings with Xi or other top leaders, and none since he rose to national-level power in October 2007. Perhaps the most fascinating aspect of this cache of roughly 1,000 pages of cables is the window they provide into official U.S. efforts to size up Xi, the likely next leader of the world's most populous country, second largest economy and America's most important -- and complicated -- bilateral relationship.


What emerges is not a coherent biography. Rather, the documents contain granular details -- Xi likes Hollywood World War II movies for their "grand and truthful" tales of good versus evil, and wishes Chinese films would promote such values -- that the diplomats offer as potential insights into his character.

Aside from basic biographical information and background included to provide necessary context, this report relies solely on the content of the cables.

THE PRINCELING

Who is Xi Jinping?
He was born in 1953 as the middle child of Xi Zhongxun, a first generation Chinese Communist revolutionary comrade of Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping, who rose to deputy prime minister.


As party boss in the southern province of Guangdong from 1978-80, the elder Xi (pronounced "she") implemented China's first experimental "economic zone" in Shenzhen, a key element of reforms that have propelled China from a dirt-poor land to an economic giant.

His status makes his son, in Chinese parlance, a "princeling": an informal grouping of an estimated 200-300 descendants from top Communist revolutionaries whose careers and fortunes are built largely on their family name.

Eventually, Xi's relatively liberal father fell victim to one of Mao's purges in the early 1960s. He was sent to the countryside and later jailed. His son, like many youth in his generation, was also "rusticated" -- sent down to the countryside -- for seven years. The punishment included farm work.
joined the Communist Party in 1974, while his father was still in one of Mao's jails, and steadily rose through its ranks. Xi joined the People's Liberation Army and worked as a secretary to the then defense minister while on active duty at the powerful Central Military Commission.

Xi studied chemical engineering at Tsinghua University in Beijing from 1975-9 and then served a long stint as a party official in poor rural areas of Hebei, the northern province that surrounds Beijing.


From the mid-1980s, Xi then shifted to the fast-growing export powerhouse provinces and cities on China's southeastern coast. In quick succession he rose to the top of the government in Fujian, then Zhejiang province, becoming Communist Party secretary there in 2002.

In 2007, he was named party secretary in Shanghai, sent in to mop up after his predecessor was jailed and disgraced in a massive scandal over misuse of the city's social security funds. After a short stint in Shanghai, in the fall of 2007, Xi was elevated to the Standing Committee of the Political Bureau of the Communist Party Central, ranking 6th on the elite nine-member group that rules China.

He was appointed China's vice-president in March 2008. In October 2010, he added an important political title seen as a strong indication that he will succeed Hu: Vice Chairman of the Communist Party's Central Military Commission

CABLES SKETCH CHINA'S SYSTEM


Hu Jintao and Xi come off as competent and honest in comments by Chinese business, media and academic sources quoted in the cables.

"Hu was untouchable from the corruption standpoint in that he, his wife, his son and his daughter were all clean," the diplomats quoted a Chinese executive of a U.S. investment bank as saying.

Xi was likewise referred to as "Mr Clean," having refused a 100,000 renminbi ($15,180) bribe offer during his time working in Fujian province's port city of Xiamen, site of brazen smuggling scandals in the late 1990s.

"Xi has no need to risk taking bribes given the amount of money his wife, a famous singer, pulls in," said the investment banker. Xi's 48-year-old wife, Peng Liyuan, sings syrupy folk songs with a People's Liberation Army troupe.

In contrast to Xi, several retired senior leaders do not fare well in the cables.

The investment banker "noted that the base rate to purchase influence" with one

powerful elder was around 500,000 renminbi ($76,000 dollars), while it cost only 50,000 renminbi for influence with a retired minister of lower rank.


The men in question were associates of Hu's predecessor and party chief and state president, Jiang Zemin. Although retired and in his 80s, Jiang's meddling and maneuvering to protect or promote his family and followers -- and Hu's efforts to rein in Jiang's influence -- are a theme of many 2006-7 cables.

In revenge for the sacking on corruption charges of Shanghai Party Secretary Chen Liangyu, Jiang's people tried to set up a minister regarded as a Hu protege with a woman but he refused the advances, said the investment banker. (Another source said the minister did have a relationship with the woman in question.)

Jiang's allies then tried get that woman to seduce the minister's son and arranged a transfer of 500,000 renminbi ($76,000) into the son's bank account. "By the time the son realized that there was a large sum of money of unknown origins in his account, the matter had already been turned over to the Minister of public Security for investigation," read the cable.

They then forced the minister to resign as the price for closing his son's case, said the investment banker.
Relations at the party's top echelon are "akin to those in the executive suite of a large corporation, as determined by the interplay of powerful interests, or as shaped by competition between princelings with family ties to party elders and 'shopkeepers' who have risen through the ranks of the Party," said a cable from July 2009, citing conversations with a source with family connections to senior leaders.
Shopkeepers is a derogatory term the offspring of revolutionary leaders use to describe those without elite party family backgrounds, a fellow princeling who befriended Xi as a teenager told diplomats.


"While my father was bleeding and dying for China, your father was selling shoelaces," the friend, who now lives outside China, quoted one of his peers as saying.

A senior Chinese journalist likened Hu to chairman of the board or CEO of a big company, where some issues are put to a vote, and others are discussed until consensus is reached. "Hu Jintao holds the most stock, so his views carry the greatest weight," said the journalist.

The party "should be viewed primarily as a collection of interest groups" with "no reform wing," a second well-connected journalist told the U.S. diplomats in December 2009. "China's top leadership had carved up China's economic pie,
creating an ossified system in which vested interests drove decision-making and impeded reform as leaders maneuvered to ensure that those interests were not threatened," a diplomat wrote in a synthesis of the journalists' views.


Retired, and in some cases active, leaders and their families had taken firm control of sectors such as electric power, oil, banking, real estate and precious gems and they opposed media openness, fearing the scrutiny this might bring to their activities, it said.

"The central feature of leadership politics was the need to protect oneself and one's family from attack after leaving office," said the cable.

"Ever since the 1989 Tiananmen protests and the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union, a number of party elders have been pushing to place their progeny atop the party, believing that only their own offspring can be trusted to run the party," a diplomat wrote in a cable after conversations with a party think tank scholar.

Hu, a "shopkeeper" in the view of princelings, has run into resistance in trying to rebalance growth from the fast-growing coasts to the poorer inland provinces
under his otherwise uncontroversial policy platform, formally called the Scientific Development Concept.


The most important factor frustrating Hu is "the power of retired cadres and their princeling sons and daughters, many of whom have become China's vested interests, controlling major sectors of the economy and opposing the SDC, particularly its notion of redistributing wealth to more backward areas," said the party think tank scholar.

AMBITION, CONNECTIONS, HUMILITY

The friend who knew Xi as a teenager was quoted by U.S. diplomats as describing Xi as "extremely pragmatic and a realist, driven not by ideology but by a combination of ambition and self-protection."

The friend, who shared Xi's background as the son of revolutionary leaders but moved abroad, said Xi had his "eye on the prize" from the very beginning and mapped out a career plan very early in his life.

The network and reputation of Xi's father gave Xi broad support in the party. The misfortunes Mao's 1966-76 Cultural Revolution visited upon Xi's family did not alter his career choice or direction, the friend said, noting that Xi joined the party in 1974 while his father was still in prison.

Xi was exceptionally ambitious and, with "promotion to the center in mind from day one," chose to start his Party career in hardscrabble Hebei province as a calculated move to get experience in the Chinese countryside and broaden connections.


The friend told the U.S. diplomats that while many of Xi's peers became alienated from the Party as a result of the Cultural Revolution and mainly sought to enjoy life -- women, drinking, films -- Xi did none of those things.

"Unlike many youth who 'made up for lost time by having fun' after the Cultural Revolution, Xi 'chose to survive by becoming redder than red,'" the friend was quoted as saying.

BRO.KIZITO AND SIS. SYDNEY ETIMA TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE.