The Dominion - sudan

Abousfian Abdelrazik's Statement to the UN 1267 Committee

shainaagbayani — Thu, 07 Jul 2011 20:02:13 +0000

Abousfian Abdelrazik delivers a message to the UN 1267 list committee about the hardships he endures daily.

Abousfian Abdelrazik's Statement to the UN 1267 Committee

shainaagbayani — Thu, 07 Jul 2011 19:29:49 +0000

Abousfian Abdelrazik delivers a message to the UN 1267 list committee about the hardships he endures daily.

(video ID here: http://www.vimeo.com/25236316)

"You Will See..."

hillarybain — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:36:47 +0000

Bearing the scars of Canadian intelligence

HALIFAX – Abousfian Abdelrazik toured Canada this fall after six long years spent in forced exile in Sudan where he was detained and tortured. He has returned to Canada, despite the efforts of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), or as Abdelrazik calls them, the Canadian Muhkabarat. Mukhabarat is an Arabic word meaning "intelligence," and refers to state security intelligence agencies known for their brutality, torture, arbitrary detentions and human rights violations.

He related his story of the Canadian Muhkabarat at a public presentation in Halifax in September.

“Between 1997 and 2003, [CSIS] started to follow me everywhere. They started bothering my [sick] wife, they even went to her family and to her father at work. 'Give us information about your husband, and we will give you better treatment for your cancer,' they said.”

In 2003, On the eve of his departure from Canada to Sudan to see his mother who had fallen ill, Abdelrazik, a Canadian citizen who had never been charged with a crime, had an encounter with CSIS in Montreal.

“Two days before leaving for Sudan, two agents from CSIS came to my apartment and asked me about my travel. One of them said, 'We know you're planning on going to your country, Sudan.' I went back inside and called the police. The police arrived in the parking lot, and asked the CSIS agents to leave. While they walked away, one of them turned to me and said to me, 'You're going to Sudan, you will see.'”

While in Sudan in September of 2003, he was detained by Sudanese state security and initially held in prison in Khartoum. In Sudan, where he was being interrogated and tortured, the same CSIS agents visited him.

“One evening, the same men who arrested me, came and took me. They said 'Your friends, the Canadian Mukhabarat, have come to talk to you.' They brought me to the office, where I found the same two guys who visited me my last night in Montreal, sitting at a table, with nice drinks, cakes, and coffee. One of them, the one who turned to me in Montreal and said 'you're gonna see', said to me, 'Remember what I said to you in Montreal? Now you're going to see! Sit down!' And they interrogated me for two days.”

“He said to me 'You're not Canadian, you're Sudanese. You're going to stay forever in Sudan, my country doesn't need you!'” said Abdelrazik, relating some of the verbal harassment.

Abdelrazik was released from his first detention in 2004, but was detained again in 2005 for nine months.

In 2006, he was added to the UN no-fly list, under regulation 1267, and all his assets were frozen.

The RCMP reviewed their files in 2007, and found there was “no substantive evidence to indicate that Abdelrazik is involved in any criminal activity.” Nonetheless, CSIS maintained “he is an important Islamic jihad activist.” In April 2008, Abdelrazik took refuge at the Canadian embassy for fear of continued detention, torture and possible death at the hands of Sudanese security.

In 2009, 116 Canadians broke federal law and purchased a plane ticket for Abdelrazik's return home. Mere hours before his flight, Lawrence Cannon, Minister of Foreign Affairs, used his discretionary powers to bar his return.

In his June 4 ruling, Federal Court Judge Russell Zinn ordered the Canadian government to repatriate Abdelrazik to Canada within 30 days, stating, "[Mr. Abdelrazik] is as much a victim of international terrorism as the innocent persons whose lives have been taken by recent barbaric acts of terrorists."

Judge Zinn found that CSIS was complicit in the original detention of Mr. Abdelrazik by Sudanese authorities; that by mid 2004 Canadian authorities had determined that they wouldn't seek to assist Abdelrazik's return to Canada, and would consider refusing him an emergency passport that was required to ensure he could return to Canada; that the UN Resolution (regulation 1267) does not impede Abdelrazik from returning to his own country, and Canada's assertions to the contrary was a way to ensure he would not return to Canada; and that the denial of an emergency passport on April 3, 2009, was a breach of his Charter right to enter Canada.

Due in part to Judge Zinn's ruling and partly to mounting pressure on the government, Mr. Abdelrazik finally touched Canadian soil again on June 27, 2009, and was heralded by his supporters.

On September 21, three days before launching a Canada-wide speaking tour with Abousfian Abdelrazik and Project Fly Home—an advocacy and campaign network—Mr. Abdelrazik's lawyers submitted a lawsuit against the Attorney General of Canada and Minister Cannon. Abdelrazik is claiming $24 million in damages from the Attorney General on the basis of false imprisonment, torture, negligence, intentional infliction of mental suffering, breach of fiduciary duty, and breaches of his Charter Rights. He is also claiming $3 million in damages from Lawrence Cannon for misfeasance in public office, intentional infliction of mental suffering, and breach of Charter Rights.

Abousfian Abdelrazik's case is similar to those of Maher Arar, Abdullah Almalki, Ahmad El Maati and Muayyed Nureddin, all of whom were jailed on the recommendation of CSIS. Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen jailed in Syria and later repatriated to Canada, described the situation in a Globe and Mail column.

"Canadians deserve to know why so many of this country's citizens, all of Muslim background, have been imprisoned and tortured abroad," he wrote. "Human-rights organizations, activists and national-security experts have been calling for the current government to establish the credible oversight agency that was recommended by Judge O'Connor several years ago."

Sarah Todd, a member of Project Fly Home, toured with Mr. Abdelrazik across Canada and helped in the public presentations. "You have to call into question the privilege, and the structures of class, race, religion, and highlight who is targeted," she told The Dominion. "This couldn't necessarily happen to any Canadian citizen, [and] it's important to highlight the two-tiered citizenship rights.”

Abdelrazik spoke of the fear among the Muslim community, in Montreal and across Canada. "I have so many friends in Montreal, who are Muslims, and they live in fear of CSIS, and wherever the Muslims are [in Canada], they are living the same thing.”

"With Stephen Harper, [exporting torture has] become a reality that people accept, and it violates human rights and creates a climate of fear that is totally unacceptable," Project Fly Home member Emilie Breton told The Dominion. "[It] has also made people believe that arbitrary measures should be used in the name of national security. This is a slow move towards a police state, where rights don't exist for citizens. It's important to denounce this and resist it."

Project Fly Home is an initiative of The People's Commission on Immigration and “Security” Measures. The Project came together under the increased harassment of immigrant and racialized communities, Indigenous people, radical groups and political organizations. Its goal is to monitor this harassment, to oppose it, and to challenge the whole idea of the national security agenda.

In an interview with The Dominion, Mr. Abdelrazik stated that the mobilization of Canadian civil society was an instrumental factor in pressuring the government to repatriate him. One hundred and sixteen Canadians broke federal law to purchase the April 3 plane ticket for Mr. Abdelrazik's return, despite UN regulation 1267, which makes it an offence to donate or give any financial aid to the listed person.

"I want to thank them a lot, for what they have done for me," he said. "I think if they hadn't stood up for me, and without the pressure on the government, I would have been forgotten in Sudan for so long. And I would tell them to continue, as there are many cases just like mine. Let us all continue doing the same thing, and bring justice for them.”

Lawrence Cannon, Federal Minister of Foreign Affairs, was contacted by phone and email to request an interview for this article, but his press secretary declined to comment due to the current lawsuit.

-----

David Parker is an independent journalist and Spoken Word Coordinator at CKDU 88.1 fm in Halifax.

Abousfian Abdelrazik

The Forgotten Powder Keg

Stuart Neatby — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 18:14:00 +0000

While world attention focuses on Darfur, Southern Sudan simmers

Jay Heisler will be travelling in Southern Sudan over the coming months and will be writing original material for the Dominion during that time. This is his first report from the region.

While world attention focuses on Darfur, the south of Sudan is a ticking time bomb, one that could draw the whole region into war. The 22-year civil war between the Arab North and the African South reached a cease-fire in 2005, but the peace is fragile at best. This is understandable considering the fact that over 2 million were killed in the conflict.

The government and the southern rebels, the Sudanese People's Liberation Army (SPLA) and their political wing, the Sudanese People's Liberation Movement (SPLM), have already been waging a war of words, which reached a boiling point when the rebels stormed out of the new coalition government in November. However, many on the ground say that neither the SPLM nor Khartoum have anything to gain from war. The SPLM wants autonomy, not to take control of the country, and Khartoum has never been weaker. Bogged down in Darfur, and quickly losing cohesion among the various Arab groups and opposition parties, the Khartoum government cannot survive another war with the south. To make matters even worse for the despotic Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, there is a large population of southern refugees in Khartoum who could rise up and bring a renewed war to the capital for the first time.

As is always the case, the global superpowers are not helping matters. The US has had a love/hate relationship with Khartoum. They have backed the dictatorship in the past when the southern rebels seemed too leftist for their liking, and then backed the rebels after the end of the cold war. Khartoum is friendly with China and Russia, which makes them a prime candidate to be the next Baghdad. However, despite their help in arming and training the SPLA, Washington has been wary of directly attacking Khartoum. Not only would that create problems with China, but Khartoum has, like many despotic dictatorships, become an ally of sorts in the war on terror. Despite Washington's rhetoric about Darfur and the harbouring of Bin Laden, Washington has used Khartoum's help on several issues, including spying on insurgents in Iraq. This may explain why Sudan has yet to be carpet-bombed, despite its oil and its status as a rogue state.

China, however, may not protect Khartoum for much longer. Like the US, China is fickle, and is mainly interested in oil. If the SPLA gets the upper hand, China will deal with them instead. Like the US, China supports each side, sometimes at the same time.

To add to this powder keg, Ethiopia and Eritrea may push for war in Sudan, in order to gain territory or to continue their proxy war with each other. Chad may try to use this opportunity to undermine Khartoum, their hostile neighbors. Furthermore, Uganda and the Central African Republic may decide to step in as well. It seems that only the Sudanese, in both the north and the south, are resisting civil war.

Of course, multinational corporations have found a way to profit from all of this. Defense contractors have been active in the South, ostensibly building military bases, but possibly doing more sinister things as well. Western energy corporations, including Canadian Talisman Energy Inc. and Swedish Lundin Oil AB, have been happily dealing with the Khartoum regime, despite its human rights abuses. Like the US and China, their support for either side shifts with the tides. It goes without saying that incidents of child soldiers, massacres, mass rapes and scorched earth campaigns have yet to deter them from any involvement in either side. Canadian oil giant Talisman's activities in the region were accused by diplomat John Harker of actually prolonging the civil war. Ottawa has never brought any sanctions nor condemnation against them, although a divestment campaign organized by human rights groups prompted Talisman to withdraw from Sudan in 2003.

And then, of course, there is Darfur. A mess of different groups and different interests, Darfur has shattered Arab unity in the North. As Khartoum continues to stagger politically and militarily in Darfur, marginalize its opposition parties, and spar diplomatically with the south, there is the danger of a coup. The military or another Arab faction could take control, assuming that Bashir has become too weak to govern. This would be a nightmare scenario for the south. After all the diplomacy and peace agreements, the new government could say "we didn't sign anything" and war would return.

All of this remains completely ignored by the corporate media, who look away from the Middle East only long enough to report that Bush has criticized Khartoum about Darfur. Meanwhile, under the surface, the whole region is ready to explode.

Sudan Rally

The Logic of 'Humanitarian Intervention'

Wed, 01 Nov 2006 21:25:52 +0000

Neo-colonial tool serving geopolitical interests

Former Haitian Minister of Defence Patrick Elie asks, "Who is protecting the rights of the people of Iraq, killed by the bombs of those who would grant themselves the 'responsibility to protect?" photo: www.socialistvoice.com

Originally published May 13, 2006, updated September 2006. GlobalResearch.ca

In a recent appearance at McMaster University, former Haitian Minister of Defence Patrick Elie was asked by a member of the World Federalists NGO to support Canada's new 'Responsibility to Protect' (R2P) doctrine. The 'R2P' doctrine, developed by, among others, Michael Ignatieff, is that other countries should intervene in the politics of a sovereign country if they perceive instability or a human rights crisis.

Elie, who spoke at McMaster University early in March, acknowledged the need to protect people whose human rights come under attack. But since the 'R2P' doctrine is coming largely from the developed Western nations, many of which are violating human rights at this very moment, Elie asked, "Who is protecting the rights of the people of Iraq, killed by the bombs of those who would grant themselves the 'responsibility to protect'?"

In asking this question, Elie pointed out the dissonance between countries that are waging illegal wars on the one hand and painting themselves as 'responsible' for the 'protection' of those in the 'failed states' of the Third World on the other.

Do the terms 'humanitarian intervention' and 'responsibility to protect,' invoke soldiers from Ethiopia coming to the US to arrest George Bush for war crimes and the highest rate of imprisonment in the world? Implicit in the doctrine is that white colonial powers will be the ones doing the 'protecting.'

Recently, news outlets, celebrities and government figures have made efforts to draw attention to Sudan and its endangered population of refugees. Many have mobilized in favour of a 'humanitarian intervention' involving Western troops invading for the stated purpose of helping the innocent victims of what is said to be government-sponsored aggression. The fact that similar calls have not been made for nearby Congo, where millions have died in an ongoing civil war, however, calls into question what is driving the calls for 'humanitarian' invasion of Sudan, justified by the Responsibility to Protect.

The Jerusalem Post reported that, "the [Save Darfur] coalition, which has presented itself as 'an alliance of over 130 diverse faith-based, humanitarian, and human rights organizations,' was actually begun exclusively as an initiative of the American Jewish community." The embarrassed organizers of the recent Darfur rally in the US were forced to admit their failure to include other American ethnicities and organizations, such as the NAACP and the Africa Action group, and actually struggled to find a single Darfuri or Muslim speaker.

Christian fundamentalists have also been a key force in the coalition. According to the Washington Post from April 27, "Last week, after an inquiry from the Washington Post, [Christian evangelist group] Sudan Sunrise changed its web site to eliminate references to efforts to convert the people of Darfur". Beyond the religious groups, who play a subsidiary role, the idea of Western intervention into Darfur is primarily an initiative of the US State Department. Sudan's oil-rich South Darfur and South Sudan regions make it the second-largest oil producer in Africa and its strategic location places the country at the gateway to the Middle East. Perhaps crucially, Sudan has been using its oil money for projects that break with the dictates of the International Monetary Fund.

According to John Laughland, "Darfur is a region which is rich in oil and through which pipelines are to be constructed." The main investor in the Sudanese oil industry is the China National Petroleum Company, and China is Sudan's biggest trading partner. While there are numerous foreign oil companies present in Sudan, it is precisely in Southern Darfur that the Chinese National Petroleum Company has its concessions. USAID, the American humanitarian agency, has helpfully provided a map of Sudan showing exactly where the oil concessions are. China invested $300 million to expand Sudan's largest refinery and now buys two-thirds of Sudan's oil.

Well-known academics such as Noam Chomsky and Michel Chossudovsky have investigated a key feature of US policy in the MiddleEast: to deny oil to competitors, especially China. Toronto Sun columnist Eric Margolis argues that the US is interested in nearby Chad's oil as well. The US Congress has allocated $500 million for military assistance to African governments, including Chad's, whose military has been engaged in conflict with Sudan.

Former US President Jimmy Carter has said that

The people in Sudan want to resolve the conflict. The biggest obstacle is US government policy. The US is committed to overthrowing the government in Khartoum. Any sort of peace effort is aborted, basically by policies of the United States...Instead of working for peace in Sudan, the US government has basically promoted a continuation of the war.

In 2001, the US House of Representatives' 'Sudan Peace Act' provided $10 million in assistance to the National Democratic Alliance, described by US Sudan-specialist Stephen Morrison, the head of the Sudan project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, DC, as essentially a Darfuri rebel front group. Further support for Carter's claims comes from Enver Masud, who refers to a Washington Post article investigating how in 1996, the US sent nearly $20 million in surplus US military equipment to Ethiopia, Eritrea and Uganda to topple the government of Sudan.

General Wesley Clark discovered that elements in the Pentagon have a five-year campaign to target certain regimes, and Sudan is number seven on the hit-list. In his book, Winning Modern Wars, he writes:

As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan... He said it with reproach--with disbelief, almost--at the breadth of the vision. I moved the conversation away, for this was not something I wanted to hear. And it was not something I wanted to see moving forward, either... I left the Pentagon that afternoon deeply concerned.

Attacks on Sudan are nothing new. The US under Bill Clinton bombed a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan, claiming it was used to produce WMDs. It was later revealed that US missiles had actually destroyed the largest producer of anti-malarial medicines in Africa. The US has funded insurgencies in Sudan ever since the country moved away from the control of Western powers in the late 1970s, especially the rebel Sudan People's Liberation Movement and Army [SPLM/A] group. The late leader of the SPLA, John Garang, allied himself with the Christian-right. Republican-right leader Senator Bill Frist once visited the disputed South Sudan and was photographed with Garang. The US Christian-right is using the alleged oppression of Christians in the predominantly Muslim south to advocate a 19th century-style colonial intervention.

In negotiations with the Sudanese government, Garang managed to secure Kosovo-style autonomy for areas of southern Sudan. As part of a US plan for balkanization, Sudan now has been strong-armed into accepting the unusual arrangement of a vice-president from Darfur and a vice-president from Southern Sudan. Garang's widow is now meeting with US leaders, including Frist, for further independence negotiations.

According to some observers, the US keeps Sudan in a perpetual state of war by making sure at least one rebel group is on the move while another is engaged in peace talks. The recent round of "Save Darfur" demonstrations have taken place during a time of negotiations between government and rebel groups and are further destabilizing the country. Yoshie Furuhashi explains, "The timing of the [April 30] rally was perfect, designed to coincide -- and scuttle -- the Abuja peace negotiations between the rebels and Khartoum brokered by the African Union, whose deadline is midnight today. And sure enough, the rebels rejected the peace deal." The US needs rebel groups to win bigger victories, if it is to reverse China's current advantageous position in Sudan.

Meanwhile, George W. Bush himself has encouraged activists who are calling for 'humanitarian intervention' in Darfur. In May, the New York Sun reported that Bush endorsed the Save Darfur rally and met with several activists.

"For those of you who are going out to march for justice, you represent the best of our country," Bush was quoted as saying.

In an editorial, the Sun wrote that leftists who support intervention in Darfur but oppose the invasion of Iraq or military aid to Israel are maintaining a double-standard.

"Mr. Bush is way ahead of the leftist Darfur advocates because he supports freedom and democracy and opposes terrorism everywhere -- not only in Darfur, but also in Iraq and Iran and Israel."

In order to gain support for a US military intervention, including NATO intervention as suggested by President Bush, corporate media outlets downplay the violence of, and refusal to sign peace accords among, the rebel insurgency and instead covers Sudan's civil war as if it is a one-sided human rights crisis, with the Sudanese government as the "bad guys." This lopsided picture has also been adopted by many progressives.

Far worse conflicts in Africa, such as the travesty in the Congo where millions have been killed, are ignored in favour of Darfur. As in Kosovo, all this coverage is designed to make Canadians think that by putting Western boots on the ground, we can avert a humanitarian catastrophe.

Edward Said has explained that colonialism is not just the occupation of territory, but it requires a state of mind as well; a state of mind which, "includes ideas that certain people and certain territories require and beseech domination."

Elie's comments and the focus of politicians and government officials on Darfur show that Westerners tend to believe that if a white, developed country is sending troops to the Third World, it must be for a good cause. But can we imagine an atrocity grave enough to justify a Brazilian invasion of Southern Ontario? Until we can, many argue that the 'Responsibility to Protect' exists as simply an expanded means for the West to control the affairs of other countries, particularly Sudan.

Brendan Stone investigates the ideology behind 'the responsibility to protect,' and asks who is protecting whom.

Historic Peace Deal in Sudan

Wed, 12 Jan 2005 06:10:33 +0000

Africa's longest running civil war - extending back 21 years with 2 million dead and 4 million displaced - ended on Sunday following a comprehensive peace agreement reached in Nairobi when southern rebel leader John Garang and First Vice President Ali Osman Mohamed Taha signed a peace accord two years in the making.

Included in the accord is an agreement to grant the South its own regional government, the sharing of oil revenues, and military integration. Also included is the right of the South to vote for secession at the end of a six-year interim period. To the dismay of many, however, senior members of the Sudanese government will not be held accountable for human rights abuses committed in the rebel-held areas.

US interest in the conflict has been high as Sudan is listed as a state sponsor of terrorism. The South is also home to significant oil reserves that bring the Sudanese government $4 billion each year. President Omar Hassan al-Bashir, following the signing of the agreement said, "What was spent on fighting will now be spent on health, education and other services."

Along with the 4 million people displaced internally within the Sudan, observers expect that more than half a million refugees in neighbouring countries will return to their homes. The resettlement effort will require significant resources and coordination, and it is hoped that it will take place gradually.

Diplomatic pressure on the Sudanese government will remain strong as the civil war in the western Darfur region continues unabated with more than 1.6 million Darfuris displaced and an estimated 70,000 killed since last March. While it is hoped that the North-South deal may prove to be a model for Darfur, warnings of escalating violence from both the UN and US Secretary of State Colin Powell cast a shadow over the Sudanese government's statements of goodwill. Observers remain hesitant even about Sunday's agreement, warning that implementing the agreement peacefully will take a great deal of negotiation and a policy turnaround on the part of the Khartoum government.

» Reuters: Sudan, southern rebels end 21-year war

» BBC: UN warning over Darfur violence

» The Guardian: No justice for Sudan

» Reuters: Powell says genocidal acts continuing in Darfur

» Christian Science Monitor: Day for peace in a splintered Sudan