Talking Peace While Waging War

Sham Israeli/Palestinian peace talks continue. They began last July. They're supposed to conclude in April.

Palestine's elected government wasn't invited. It's excluded from talks. Longtime Israeli collaborators represent Palestinians. They do so illegitimately.

Chance to resolve longstanding conflict is ZERO. Kerry's so-called framework agreement is totally one-sided.

It solely favors Israel. It gives Palestinians nothing. It assures continued occupation harshness.

No legitimate Palestinian leader would accept what demands rejection. Reports from Washington, Tel Aviv and Ramallah say talks so far went nowhere.

What happens going forward remains to be seen. Israel deplores peace. It thrives on conflict and instability. Its enemies are ones it invents.

In 2013, Israeli warplanes bombed Syria at least six times. On February 24, they struck Hezbollah targets. They did so along Lebanon's border with Syria.

Lebanon's National News Agency confirmed it. Areas around Bekaa Valley's Nabi Sheet and Janta were targeted.

Obama partners in Israeli aggression. Each country defends the other's lawlessness.

On February 26, Hezbollah confirmed Israeli attacks. It vowed to respond "at the appropriate time" to the "blatant aggression."

Israel lawlessly attacked "its sovereignty and territory," it said. "It will not stand without a(n) (appropriate) response from the Resistance," it added.

"This aggression did not, thank God, cause any deaths or injuries. There was only some material damage."

It's untrue that targets struck were "artillery positions or missiles."

Israel said it takes Hezbollah's retaliatory threats "very seriously." It warned Lebanon's government through UNFIL (the UN force in Lebanon).

The entire country will be attacked if Hezbollah strikes, it says. In 2006, Hezbollah embarrassed IDF forces.

Its strength is much more formidable today. Its missiles can strike targets anywhere in Israel.

In late January, Israeli military intelligence head General Aviv Kochavi said:

"We call this period in time the era of fire in light of the amount of missiles and rockets we face as a constant threat."

"There are about 170,000 rockets and missiles that threaten Israel," he claimed. It's "surrounded 360 degrees with active enemies. The conventional threats have not disappeared."

It bears repeating. Israel's only threats are ones it invents. No others exist. Claims otherwise don't wash.

Kochavi lied like other Israeli officials. Doing so is a convenient pretext for lawless aggression at Israel's discretion. It takes full advantage.

Lebanon's government complained jointly to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and the Security Council.

It claimed Israel violated its sovereign territory and Security Council Resolution 1701. In August 2006, it unanimously called for Hezbollah to cease "all attacks" immediately.

It asked Israel to stop "all offensive military operations." It left undefined what it meant. It gave Israel the right to respond to whatever it calls an imminent threat.

It left a loophole Israel exploits. It neither confirmed or denied attacking Lebanon. Ambiguity most often is policy.

On February 28, Strategic Affairs Minister Yuval Steinitz said:

"It is self-evident that we see Lebanon as responsible for any attack on Israel from the territory of Lebanon."

"It is the duty of the Lebanese government to prevent any terrorist attack - whether a terrorist or missile attack, or any other kind - on the state of Israel."

Israeli analysts think Hezbollah is mostly focused on helping Syria to divert attention to Israel.

At this time, a second front is unlikely.

Amnesty International accused Israel if committing war crimes in the West Bank. It does so repeatedly throughout Occupied Palestine.

AI said Israel displays "a callous disregard for human life." It targets children like adults. It does so with impunity.

AI wants all arms shipments to Israel suspended. Without international community pressure, its crimes against defenseless Palestinians won't end.

Since talks began last July, Netanyahu approved 11,700 new settlement units. He did so on stolen Palestinian land. He violated international law.

He stole other land for "dubious parks" and archeological digs. At the same time, he prevents Palestinians from building on their own land.

He murdered dozens of Palestinian civilians. They included an 85-year-old man and 15-year-old boy shot in the back.

Since July 2013, he lawlessly demolished about 400 Palestinian homes. Hundreds of Palestinians lost everything. They were forcibly displaced.

In January 2014, another 100 Palestinian structures were destroyed.

The UN, AI, Oxfam and other organizations condemn Israeli policy. On January 31, UN Humanitarian Coordinator James Rawley commented on recent Israeli demolitions, saying:

"I am deeply concerned about the ongoing displacement and dispossession of Palestinians in (Israeli controlled) Area C, particularly in the Jordan Valley where the number of structures demolished more than doubled in the last year."

"This activity not only deprives Palestinians of access to shelter and basic services, it also runs counter to international law."

On February 7, Reuters 
headlined "Israeli demolition of Palestinian homes at a five-year high: aid groups."

Twenty-five humanitarian organizations in Occupied Palestine issued a joint statement.

Year-over-year through July 2013, Israeli demolitions increased by almost half. Palestinians displaced increased by nearly three-quarters.

Over 660 Palestinian structures were destroyed during the reported period. It was a five year high. Worse still, 122 were built with international donor aid funding.

In early February, the ICRC said Israeli obstructionism prevents its delivering tents to homeless Palestinians.

The joint humanitarian group statement said:

"International and local aid organizations have faced increasingly severe restrictions in responding to the needs created by the unlawful demolition of civilian property, in violation of Israel's obligation to facilitate the effective delivery of aid."

Netanyahu heads Israel's most extremist ever government. Hardline racists infest it. Coalition extremists call Jews superior to Gentiles.

Likud MK Tzipi Hotovely calls Palestinians "wolves in wolves' clothing. They don't want peace and peace can't be made with them," she claimes.

Other coalition party members voice similar sentiments. Israeli officials notoriously blame Palestinians for their wrongdoing.

They're determined to prevent Palestinian self-determination. Netanyahu makes repeated provocative statements.

At the January 2014 Davos World Economic Forum, he said:

"I do not intend to evacuate any settlements or uproot a single Israeli."

Weeks earlier, he promised coalition partners he "will not stop, even for a moment, building our country and becoming stronger..."

He prioritizes settlement development on stolen Palestinian land. He wants Palestinians denied all rights.

He represents Sharonian evil writ large. He orders frequent land, sea and air attacks on Gaza. Seize conditions violate international law.

On March 1, Israeli forces murdered 57-year-old Aminah Atiyeh in cold blood. She did nothing to provoke their attack.

Ambulances were blocked from reaching her. She died before anything could be done to help.

In mid-February, Israeli soldiers murdered 26-year-old Ibrahim Mansour. He was peacefully protesting. He was shot in the head east of Gaza City.

On February 27, Israeli forces stormed Muataz Washaha's home. He was a Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine activist.

They assaulted his family members. They detained his brother and two friends.

Late last year, he was released from lawless imprisonment.

He hid inside his house. He barricaded himself for protection. He refused to surrender voluntarily. He chose to resist. "I will not return to prison," he said.

Israeli soldiers located him. They threatened live fire. He held firm. His mutilated body was found later. It was bullet-ridden.

Israeli forces lied. They claimed he was suspected of terror activity. They murdered him in cold blood.

He's one of countless Israeli state terror victims. So-called peace talks continue despite continued Israeli lawlessness.

Why Palestinian officials do so they'll have to explain. They betray their own people in the process.

They collaborate against them disgracefully. Ethnic cleansing continues. So do other Israeli high crimes.

Edward Said was right saying "no negotiations are better than endless concessions that simply prolong" occupation harshness.

Palestinian collaborators are mindless about how much their people suffer. No end in sight looms.

-###-

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

His new book is titled "Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity"

http://www.claritypress.com/Lendman.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

It airs Fridays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour

Parliamentarian declared persona non grata after paying illegal visit to Nagorno Karabakh appeals to Azerbaijan

Jürgen Klimke says he recognizes Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity, regrets that he visited the occupied territories and wants his name to be removed from the list

Baku – APA. Member of German Bundestag Jürgen Klimke, who was declared persona non grata by Azerbaijan’s Foreign Ministry after paying an illegal visit to Azerbaijan’s occupied territories and violating the Law on the State Border, has made a written appeal asking to remove his name from the list, says the statement issued by spokesman for Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry Elman Abdullayev.

According to Elman Abdullayev, in his appeal Klimke says the visit to the occupied Azerbaijani territories in September, 2013 was not a planned visit, he did not know what consequences it would cause, says he recognizes Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity, regrets that he visited the occupied territories. Jürgen Klimke asks to remove his name from the persona non grata list, promising that he will refrain from visiting the occupied territories without getting permission of Azerbaijan Republic.
 

Foreign Ministry spokesman said Klimke’s appeal would be considered.

‘Journalists’ follow Obama on Ukraine

 

by Margaret Kimberley

The corporate media are a key component of the U.S. imperial machine. Although styling themselves as watchdogs, they are in fact the dogs of war, whose mission is to hide Washington’s aggressions behind a fog of lies. War crimes are committed with impunity in part because presidents get a helping hand from their corporate media partners.

Prominent journalists in the United States may as well be on the White House payroll. They are consistent cheerleaders for whoever occupies the oval office and the corporate corner office. They make no attempt to hide their allegiance to power and their lack of interest in informing the public.

The rotten state of affairs becomes all too obvious whenever a president threatens action against another country. Reporters act more like press agents and spring into action shielding and protecting the aggressors. They make it clear to those few who gain access that questions, criticisms or anything else that smacks of independent thought will not to be tolerated. The American decision to use Ukraine as a means of attacking Russian influence is the latest effort to prop up the empire, and the corporate media obligingly show their approval.

CNN’s Christiane Amanpour was so eager to fly the American foreign policy flag that she pointedly took a colleague to task on air when he was guilty of nothing more than doing his job. Wolf Blitzer is a corporate media stalwart himself so he and everyone watching was surprised when Amanpour jumped down his throat when he quoted a Russian official.

" ‘You heard Vitaly Churkin, the Russian ambassador to the U.N. Security Council, saying earlier today that at fault for all of this are what he called fascists and anti-Semites in Ukraine right now ...’

‘You know, you've got to be really careful by putting that across as a fact,’ Amanpour said.

‘That's what Vitaly Churkin said,’ Blitzer replied.

‘He may have done," Amanpour said. ‘Are you telling me, are you saying that the entire pro-European ...’

‘Of course not,’ Blitzer defended, explaining that he was presenting what Churkin had said.

‘Right, and we have to be very careful,’ Amanpour cautioned.

Blitzer tried to interject, offering to play Churkin's comments again.

‘I heard it,’ Amanpour said. ‘We just as a network have to be really careful not to lump the entire pro-European Ukrainians into, which some may well be, nationalistic and extremist groups.’

‘We're not, I'm not,’ Blitzer insisted.”

“They make no attempt to hide their allegiance to power.”

Amanpour had lots of company at other networks. Gwen Ifill of PBS Newshour also stuck to the White House script with her guest, professor Stephen F. Cohen. Cohen informed viewers that American presidents going back to Bill Clinton have been playing a very dangerous game in their attempt to pry Ukraine from the Russian orbit.

Ifill was contemptuous of Cohen throughout and stuck to the Putin is evil meme. Her questions lacked even a pretense of a thoughtful search for facts. Nonsense such as “What is Putin’s endgame here?” was all she could muster. When Cohen gave a simple and understandable explanation of why western meddling posed a danger to world peace Ifill decided to ignore him. “Why is any of this important to anyone who is not in Russia or Ukraine?” Cohen, who also suffered through the Amanpour/Blitzer contretemps, gave Ifill as much contempt in return. “I told you at the top. I mean, you and I are old enough to have lived through divided Europe in Berlin.”

The so-called journalists who are held up to us as exemplars of success and profession acumen are by and large hacks who toe the party line. Ifill has a long standing reputation of defending presidential policy in her reporting. She is at least consistent. Just as she followed the Bush doctrine she is now in synch with the Obama team.

Amanpour vilifies her colleague on air for cynical reasons and Ifill plays dumb if a guest dares to speak up with real analysis. All their behaviors are an effort to diminish any debates or arguments against the United States government. The only critics on the air are questioning whether Obama is tough enough and if American “prestige ” is on the line if we don’t have as much violence in the world as they would like.

“Ifill, Amanpour and company flourish precisely because they do not tell us the truth.”

Now that the United States government has officially declared war on the rest of the world, Americans are in desperate need of truth telling. But that is not how empires work. Ifill, Amanpour and company flourish precisely because they do not tell us the truth.

It is not too harsh to point out that the propaganda and lies spread by networks and newspapers are part of an enormous crime. America is the evil doer in Iraq and Haiti and Libya and Venezuela and Ukraine. Nations are invaded and economies are ruined because our government is determined to have its way in the world. The crimes are committed with impunity in part because presidents get a helping hand from their corporate media partners.

The only thing making Americans squeamish about military involvement against Russia is war weariness. They don’t oppose it on principle because they don’t know what the principles involved are. Just as we aren’t the richest country in the world, and we don’t have the best health care in the world, we don’t have the best press either. We have a government that is more aggressive by the day and they have a mouth piece which we call the media.

* Margaret Kimberley is editor and senior columnist at Black Agenda Report, where this article was first published.

Democracy Is Not Democracy…Unless Obama Says It Is…

by Eric Draitser

As Crimea prepares to vote on Saturday March 16th in a crucial referendum on its future, the rhetoric coming from the West and its propaganda machine has hit a new and ridiculous low. Not only has US President Barack Obama and his administration done everything to undermine democracy in Ukraine, they have now resorted to the most naked forms of hypocrisy in an attempt to delegitimize the democratic process.

On Thursday March 6th President Obama spoke at the White House on the referendum and the issue of Crimea. In his prepared remarks, Obamastated categorically that the United States would not recognize the results of the Crimean referendum. He argued that the it would violate both the “Ukrainian Constitution and international law.” Obama kept the comedy coming when he noted that, “In 2014 we are well beyond the days when borders can be redrawn over the heads of democratic leaders.” As with all statements made by the US government, and the President specifically, this must be contextualized and deconstructed in order to be effectively critiqued.

First and foremost is the question of democracy and, more specifically, how exactly Washington is choosing to define this gravely abused word. In referring to the so-called “interim government” in Kiev, headed by Yatsenyuk and his associates, as “democratic leaders”, Obama demonstrates either a complete lack of understanding of the worddemocracy, or as I think is more likely, an utter contempt for democratic principles. By referring to an unelected entity that has seized political power in Kiev by force, and through collaboration with Nazi elements, as “democratic leaders,” Obama exposes himself and his administration to be cynical opportunists whose interests rest not in democracy but in a geopolitical agenda guided solely by strategic interests.

Naturally, the references to the Ukrainian Constitution and international law are also deeply disingenuous. Obama, and the US imperial system more generally, speak of international law purely when it suits their interests, eschewing it completely when it does not. This fact has been illustrated quite clearly with Washington’s wars of aggression throughout that last two decades, including the illegal wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, not to mention the habitual violations of international law in Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan and around the world.

The most significant point here is that the US recognizes democracy and international law only when it suits their interests. Moreover, US hypocrisy regarding democracy becomes self evident if one examines the recent historical precedents of Kosovo and South Sudan. In both these cases, precisely the same individuals who today cry about international law and argue against the democratic right of Crimea to determine its own future, were then eloquently and unabashedly in favor of precisely the same sort “democratic aspirations.”

Kosovo, South Sudan, and Washington’s Amnesia

The fact that President Obama and the US political establishment have come out against the referendum in Crimea should not be surprising. Washington’s interest is not in the right of self-determination of the people of Crimea, nor in their desire to remain free of a neoliberal and fascist controlled government in Kiev. Rather, the US is primarily concerned with delegitimizing the democratic process in Crimea in order to prevent the region from moving closer to, and possibly integrating into, the Russian Federation. How interesting that, in a few short years, the US has gone from being the champion of “democracy” and “self-determination” to being their staunchest enemy.

In 2008, Kosovo, the region formerly part of Serbia held a referendum on the question of independence. Because the United States had, for nearly two decades, worked diligently to carve up the former Yugoslavia, and the states that emerged from it, it was seemingly a given that the US would be a vocal supporter and guarantor of the referendum on Kosovo’s nationhood. In fact, members of the Obama administration, including Obama himself, all made statements declaring Kosovo’s independence to be a triumph of democracy.

Then Illinois Senator and presidential candidate Barack Obama, came out in full support of Kosovo’s referendum. In a letter to the National Council of U.S. Albanians, candidate Obama wrote:

I support Kosovo’s independence and her desire to move towards full sovereignty. I believe that the U.S. should help develop a strong democracy in Kosovo that will be guaranteed by the application of laws that safeguard the interests of all people. I support Kosovo’s integration in Euro-Atlantic institutions, and that will best be accomplished by creating a free, tolerant and wealthy society that promotes minority rights and protects religious and cultural monuments.

It would seem that, for Obama, Kosovo’s “sovereignty,” “independence,” and “democracy” were of the utmost importance, despite its being part of Serbia. Somehow, “integration in Euro-Atlantic institutions” trumped whatever sovereignty Serbia had, and whatever international law might have dictated. Of course, the incredible amount of willful self-deception required to make such statements should come as no surprise. The US establishment understood full well that there would be no tolerance or protection of minority rights in Kosovo. On the contrary, the US supported the independence of Kosovo, knowing that it would be purged of Serbian influence and would become the de facto NATO protectorate that it has become.

And so, the principles of international law were of no consequence to Obama in 2008 when, as per his establishment advisors, he came out in full support of the Kosovo referendum. So then, it would be fair to say that Obama supports independence and sovereignty only when it is at the expense of oppositional nations and to the benefit of the US-NATO alliance. It should also be pointed out that those who now accuse Russia of “aggression” in Crimea (despite there being no evidence of any violence perpetrated by Russian forces) and the violation of international law were the same individuals arguing in favor of a vicious bombing campaign against Serbia for “humanitarian reasons.” In 1999, then Senator and current Secretary of State John Kerry wrote:

Broader national interests are at stake as well. There is cause enough for American intervention on the basis of security issues, our commitment to NATO, and overwhelming humanitarian needs…the United States and its NATO allies are working to preserve international law and a standard of civilized behavior shared by the vast majority of our neighbors and allies around the globe.

So, just to be clear, the United States and NATO have the mandate to both bomb Serbia and support Kosovo’s secession, and both of these are “preserving international law.” However in Crimea, where there is actually a Russian population, Russian military assets, a long-standing cooperation treaty, and a historic connection to Russia, somehow it is a violation of international law? Such staggering double standards are hard to ignore.

This point is further illustrated by Obama’s unwavering support for South Sudan’s independence. Carved out of the Republic of the Sudan, one of Washington’s only remaining foes in Africa, South Sudan is the world’s youngest country, having declared its independence in a referendum in 2011. The United States and its allies had been leading the charge to split Sudan into two nations, lending their full political, economic, and diplomatic support to the South to move toward full independence.

At a UN summit on Sudan in 2010, President Obama stated that

“the referendum on self-determination…must take place peacefully and on time…and the will of the people of southern Sudan and the region of Abyei must be respected regardless of the outcome.”

Obama unequivocally demonstrated his support for the right self-determination for the people of South Sudan. Naturally, he used the rhetoric of democracy and human rights in order to do so. However, as with all conflicts around the world, Washington’s language regarding democracy and human rights was merely a cover for their geopolitical agenda.

In Sudan, the United States sought to break apart an oil-rich nation that was a critical trading partner for China, a country whose economic interests and investment in Africa had made it a rival of the United States on the continent. In Kosovo, the United States carved up a close ally of Russia for the purposes of expanding NATO hegemony in the Balkans – creating a de facto NATO colony where once there had been a Russian partner. All the talk of democracy was simply window dressing.

In contrast to Kosovo and South Sudan however, US policy on Crimea has been precisely the opposite. Rather than recognizing the rights of the Russian majority in the region and their historical, cultural, political, military and economic ties to Russia, the US cries foul. Obama’s declaration that the referendum is illegal and cannot be recognized is not only an insult to the people of Crimea, it is an insult to all those who have a historical memory and a conscience. Quite frankly, it seems about time that the US learned what democracy truly looks like.
_________________________________________________________________________________________

Eric Draitser is an independent geopolitical analyst based in New York City, he is the founder ofStopImperialism.org and OP-ed collumist for RT, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
_________________________________________________________________________________________

Source: New Eastern Outlook. Image: © N/A

SOMALIA: AMISOM must Leave Somalia Before ‘Mission Creep’ Sets

A recent trip to the Burundian capital, Bujumbura, has in fact opened my eyes to what a typical peacekeeper expects to gain from his tour of duty in Somalia.

There, I met a Burundian peacekeeper who had returned from Mogadishu, the Somali capital. The officer, whose name I will keep it to myself, told me that, unlike the general belief that the African Union Mission in Somalia is there to finish off Al Shabaab and pacify the country, he was there for his own benefit and that Al Shabaab’s destruction was the least of his priorities.

With a monthly pay of US$1200 and an extra US$500 allowance to boot, he earns more than ten Burundian and Somali soldiers each of whose monthly salary is US$50 and US$160 respectively.

So this peacekeeper has every pretext to fear death and plan for a happy future back home. In fact, he was already building a new house, praying that he remains in Somalia until the building is finished.

“I don’t want to defeat Al-Shabaab. I would rather scatter them to prolong my mission,” he told me.

That peacekeeper’s position may not represent the view of all AU peacekeepers in Somalia who have sacrificed a lot to win the semblance of peace that now exists in that country.

But that should not distract us from the reality on the ground in Somalia that demonstrates the poor leadership exercised by the mission leaders who appear to lack clear-cut vision to defeat the militants and have so far did little to prepare for an exit strategy.

Such a laziness that could be the result of complacency could bring about disasters in the long run, especially in a country whose citizens are known for their open hatred towards foreigners on their soil.

And recent developments illustrate how the mission is staring what is known as the “mission creep” in the eyes, because the AU force is clueless about Somalis’ psyche, aspirations and anger.

A widely watched and popular satellite TV, Universal, has recently aired a string of satires about the lack of fighting prowess within the force, showing peacekeepers cowering behind a tree, while a lone Somali soldier took the bullet.

Another had it that the mission’s vehicles don’t stop when they cause accidents, mashing still bodies of killed people with the tyres of one car after another – of course for fear of stopping. In another show, a presenter has passionately appealed to the AU force to vacate the capital’s football stadium, saying Somalis need to have their land back.

It appears that the political section of the mission is doing little to advise commanders on the dangers of doing nothing on the battle front for almost one yea or of the risks of failing to nudge Somali leaders to deliver services to the citizenry.

Many policy makers, both local and international, are oblivious to recent changes in the country: What has been tolerable just a few years ago is unacceptable this time round.

Somalis expect services from their current government, the first non-transitional administration since the collapse of the country’s central government in 1991.

Lawmakers are now calling for the president to resign for his failure to address the insecurity in the country. When Hassan Sheikh Mohamud came to power in 2012, Somalis believed that he signaled a change because his declared that security, security and nothing but security will be his priority. Now that they got insecurity, they want him out.

It shouldn’t be a far-fetched notion, therefore, to expect a motion against the viability of the AU mission in the near future.

It is really sad that, instead of planning for an exit strategy, the mission is digging in, eroding its earlier successes and reputations.

AMISOM’s recent decision to add Ethiopian forces to the force were both mistakes of strategic and PR proportions, a bad way to lose the war on the hearts and minds of ordinary Somalis.

Source: stratrisks.com

First Reburial of War Victims in Somaliland Makes a Case for "Posthumous Rights"

Holly Praying to reburial of war victims in Somaliland

Hargeisa, Somaliland: Helped by a team of Peruvian experts, the government of Somaliland has reburied 45 victims from Somalia's vicious ethnic conflict of the 1980s, setting a precedent for other African nations and affirming the right to a dignified burial. The reburial - the first of its kind since Somalia emerged from civil war - took place on Sunday in an isolated corner of the Hargeisa cemetery, in the capital of the autonomous state of Somaliland. Muslim sheikhs wrapped the 45 sets of remains in shrouds and watched as they were buried in individual graves. Abdul Rahman, a local sheikh, observed: "Islam does not allow people to be buried without dignity."

The 45 victims were exhumed from three mass graves by the Peruvian Forensic Anthropology Team (EPAF). Jose Pablo Baraybar, the director of EPAF, helped to manage Sunday's ceremony and predicted that it will strengthen Somaliland's efforts at nation-building.

Equally important, said Mr Baraybar, the reburials will have an "illustrative impact" far beyond Somaliland and give credence to the idea that the dead deserve a dignified burial - something that Mr Baraybar has argued for during many years of forensic activity in conflict areas. 

"Everyone has a right to be buried like a human, and not an animal," he said in a telephone interview from Hargeisa.

The 45 Somali victims, all men, are assumed to have been members of the Isaaq clan, which opposed the rule of former Somali dictator Mohammed Siad Barre. The men were among many who were taken in for questioning by police in 1984 and never reappeared. According to estimates, over 60,000 people were killed during the repression in northern Somalia and buried in anonymous graves. Mr Baraybar described Hargeisa as "one mass grave." 

Muslim sheikhs prepare the remains for reburial in Hargeisa

After Siad Barre fell in 1991, Somalia plunged into chaos and split into three regions - Somaliland in the north, Puntland, and Somalia (with the capital of Mogadishu). Somaliland has functioned as a democratic state since 1991, and established a War Crimes Commission, but has not been recognized by the international community.

EPAF, a partner of The Advocacy Project (AP), has led efforts by Peru's civil society to identify victims of Peru's own dirty war (1980 to 2000) and is best known for exhuming almost 100 bodies from a mass grave at Putis in the province of Ayacucho (2008). AP covered the Putis exhumation and will send a Peace Fellow to EPAF this summer to help survivors of violence tell their story through an advocacy quilt.

Since Putis, EPAF has taken its expertise to other countries and conducted exhumations in Nepal, the DRC, Mexico and the Philippines. EPAF was invited to work in Somaliland after Mr Baraybar received an award in 2010 from the Center for Justice and Accountability (CJA), the San Francisco-based organization which takes legal action against human rights abusers.

The CJA has pursued a case against Mohamed Ali Samantar, a former general in Barre's army who led the repression in the north of Somalia and now resides in Virginia. A US court levelled a fine of $21 million on Mr Samantar in 2012. 

While the Somaliland project represents an important expansion in EPAF's model, it is not without challenges. EPAF is finding it hard to train Somalis to take over the work, because the War Crimes Commission is not providing funds and is not supported by foreign donors. Part of EPAF's own costs are covered by the Sigrid Rausing Trust in London.

But the shortage of funding has also led to innovations. EPAF has set up a field school in Hargeisa where foreign students can receive human rights training and assist in exhumations. Thirteen students - from Austria, Canada, China, Sweden, the UK and US - have spent a month at the school before returning home to embark on what Mr Baraybar hopes will be a life of advocacy. 

• For coverage of Sunday's reburials and photos of the Hargeisa exhumations, visit theWashington Post/Associated Press and BBC slide-shows. Please be advised that some of the photos may be unsettling.

• Watch AP's film on 2008 EPAF's exhumation of the Putis mass grave in Peru - "If I don'..."

• Read about the CJA's case against former General Mohammed Samantar and consult the transcript.

 Reburial Event Photos

 

Source: internationalpeaceandconflict.org