democracynow.org
Stories:
Exclusive: Chilean Robin Hood? Artist Known as "Papas Fritas" on Burning $500M Worth of Student Debt
TRANSCRIPT
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: In a Democracy Now! exclusive, we turn now to Chile, where an artist’s act of protest against student debt has gone viral. Francisco Tapia, known as Francisco "Papas Fritas," or "French fries," says he burned $500 million worth of debt papers from the private Universidad del Mar, the University of the Sea. Chilean authorities are in the process of shutting down the university over financial irregularities.
AMY GOODMAN: But that hasn’t stopped the school from collecting on its student loans. During a student takeover of the school, Papas Fritas took the papers, burned them, displayed the ashes inside a van as an art exhibition. He released a video describing what he called an act of love.
FRANCISCO "PAPAS FRITAS" TAPIA: [translated] It’s over. You are free from debt. You don’t have to pay one more cent. This is the artwork. This is the project, simply. This is a small project. If we all had the ability to continue doing things for love, for solidarity, we will find each other again. But we have to lose the fear, the fear of the idea about criminality that this state has wanted to impose on us, that we are criminals for being poor, for wanting our rights to be met.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: The video has received over 120,000 hits on YouTube since it was posted last week. It comes as Chile faces renewed protests over its education system. On Wednesday in Valparaíso, authorities fired tear gas and water cannons on thousands of students demanding free education for all. President Michelle Bachelet has vowed to reform the system, but the students say her plan doesn’t go far enough.
AMY GOODMAN: Following efforts to privatize education under the dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet, the cost of higher education in Chile is among the highest in the world.
Well, we interviewed Papas Fritas on Wednesday in his first U.S. broadcast interview. I began by asking him to describe what he did with the student debt documents.
FRANCISCO "PAPAS FRITAS" TAPIA: [translated] The Universidad del Mar was occupied. It was one of the longest occupations that has occurred in Chile. This was the main building on campus. I went looking for the keys. I went to share them, to see if we could figure out a system for them to be able to continue to occupy the building for more than a year. I contributed as much as I could. But I went with the specific goal of finding those debt papers. I knew that Chilean authorities, through the judicial system, would eventually use the documents to continue to charge students for that money.
I told this to the students, that because of my trajectory as an artist in Chile, I explained that I was going to make an exhibition about the problems that the students face and that I was going to collect objects from the university. But the debt papers, or IOUs, were not considered among these objects. And so I rescued them, taking away all the promissory notes and those documents.
I secretly took them to the back with other things that were not valuable, but for me they could be used to make a montage, a work of art. And they even helped me to take those things out, after being there for nearly two months in different stages. I brought them to Santiago and then began to burn these documents, little by little, in different places.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Let me ask you: Were there no digital backups of records, electronic records, of these loans?
FRANCISCO "PAPAS FRITAS" TAPIA: [translated] No, the way it works here in Chile is that the creditor of the university are the ones who have to take care to keep these debt papers, not the banks. There is always a digital backup. For example, if you get me a copy of a dollar bill, I cannot use it to go shopping; I have to have the original bill. Nobody knows what happened to these copies. There are two theories, that either the Chilean investigative police affected the backup servers where these debt papers were kept, or they contributed to hiding and removing them, thinking that the rectors of the university—that is, the creditors—or the owners of the university would be able to recover the original ones and get away with it, in case the digital backups were demanded by the prosecution. These are the two theories, and that’s why there is no digital backup today. Now, it is a concrete fact that the papers were burned. They are gone, burned completely, and there’s no debt. Since these papers don’t exist anymore, there’s no way to charge the students.
AMY GOODMAN: On Wednesday, student protesters used the van that you used to display the ashes of the debt papers during a protest in Valparaíso. News footage showed a driver ramming the van into the barricades around the National Congress. What’s your reaction to seeing this use of your artwork, Papas Fritas?
FRANCISCO "PAPAS FRITAS" TAPIA: [translated] Well, I’m not a moral judge about what the students want to do, nor will I judge their creativity regarding what I donated to them, this object, this artistic work, so they could keep using, because the idea was to always to do a project, an artwork that belonged to the students and as a victory for the students and social movements. It’s not about putting myself in a position of heroism or to be a martyr. Rather, it’s about extending this action.
Thanks to a lot of people in this country that have fought against constant dictatorship, people who have been killed by the military dictatorship, as well as by the dictatorship that we call democracy today here in Chile, and people who have been tortured in various ways, thanks to all those people and youth who have taken to the streets, that this work could be completed. This work is a joint effort. It’s a thing that happens in communities facing the same social problems. And it’s by understanding that erotic rush that we are able to feel empathy, a compassion, because of the problems we face as human beings.
So what will be happening to the van is not something that affects an individual or an event that is something personal. It’s part of the decisions that they want to take. And in that sense, the only thing I can say is that I support and applaud what they did yesterday. It’s their decision. I completely agree they can use the van however they want.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: I wanted to ask you if there’s been any criminal charges lodged against you and whether you fear being arrested because of your acts?
FRANCISCO "PAPAS FRITAS" TAPIA: [translated] Look, I approached the authorities in the first place. I collaborated with the justice system. They don’t have a plan to bring criminal charges against me. It is not enough that I declared to them that "I am guilty, and I did things like this." In the declaration I made, I clearly explained the process of burning the documents.
But the prosecutors in charge of my case have to find evidence. If they find evidence, there are two possibilities for charging me: simple theft or forced burglary, which is breaking and entering. In this case, even if it’s a private university, it was occupied, so it’s no longer breaking in. I would have had to have broken the door by kicking it, and perhaps having intimidated the people, and that was not the case.
Then, the most serious thing I am facing will be a very small sentence that has two mitigating factors, which are that I have a faultless conduct beyond reproach and that I am collaborating with the justice system on how to fix this problem technically. So I might simply be let free with the condition of not stealing not even a piece of chewing gum.
AMY GOODMAN: That’s Chilean artist Francisco Tapia, known as Francisco "Papas Fritas," or "French fries." He says he burned $500 million worth of debt papers from the private University of the Sea, Universidad del Mar, and describes it as an act of love. Special thanks to our Democracy Now! in Spanish team, Democracy Now! en Español, for their help with this interview, including Clara Ibarra, Glenda Rosado, Linda Artola, Igor Moreno and Andrés Conteris. This is Democracy Now! We’ll be back in a minute.
As Washington Focuses on Another Benghazi Probe, Could a Civil War Be Brewing in Libya?
TRANSCRIPT
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: We begin today’s show looking at Libya. In Washington, the focus remains largely on what happened in the Libyan city of Benghazi on September 11th, 2012, when Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed in an attack. The incident sparked a fierce political fight between Republicans and Democrats over the Obama administration’s handling of embassy security and the steps it took in the aftermath of the attack.
Since then, congressional Republicans have led eight separate investigations into the matter. On May 8th, the Republican-led House of Representatives voted to launch yet another congressional probe. Earlier this week, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi announced that Democrats would participate.
MINORITY LEADER NANCY PELOSI: I could have argued this either way: Why give any validity to this effort? But I do think it is important for the American people to have a pursuit of these questions done in as fair and open and balanced way as possible. That simply would not be possible leaving it to the Republicans. That’s why I’m appointing my distinguished colleagues here today to serve on the select committee.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: This committee will include seven Republicans and five Democrats. Many Democrats have accused Republicans of exploiting the Benghazi incident to scuttle Hillary Clinton’s expected 2016 presidential bid. Clinton was secretary of state at the time of the attacks.
AMY GOODMAN: While Washington, D.C., is focused on Benghazi, Libya may be confronting its worst crisis since the NATO intervention that ousted Colonel Muammar Gaddafi in 2011. Fear is growing of an all-out war between militias aligned with the Islamist-dominated Parliament and forces led by a former general named Khalifa Haftar, who reportedly was once trained by the CIA. Haftar has accused the government of fostering terrorism and is calling for an emergency administration to oversee elections next [month]. He’s a former general under Gaddafi. Haftar says he wants to rid Libya of Islamists and led an assault against militant groups in Benghazi last Friday. On Sunday, forces allied with him took control of Libya’s Parliament building in the capital, Tripoli. At least a hundred people have died since the fighting broke out last week. On Wednesday, Haftar called on the government to hand over power to the country’s top judges.
KHALIFA HAFTAR: [translated] Following the refusal by the expired National Council to meet the people’s demands, the High Council of the Armed Forces call on the High Judicial Council in charge to meet the army’s demand for civil and political stability in Libya, and ask them to form a high council to rule the country.
AMY GOODMAN: To find out more, we go to two guests in Tripoli, Libya.
Mary Fitzgerald is a journalist based there in Libya. Her latest piece for Foreign Policy magazine is headlined "Libya’s Muslim Brotherhood Struggles to Grow."
And Sharif Abdel Kouddous is with us, independent journalist, Democracy Now! correspondent, usually based in Cairo, a fellow at The Nation Institute. He’s been reporting for The Washington Post from Tripoli for the past 10 days. His latest piece is headlined "In Libya, Fears of All-Out War as Islamist Militias Allied with Parliament Deploy in Capital."
We welcome you both to Democracy Now! Mary Fitzgerald, let’s go to you first. Describe the situation in Tripoli, especially for an audience that is not familiar with Libya right now at all, except perhaps the Benghazi controversy in Washington, D.C.
MARY FITZGERALD: Well, the mood in Tripoli right now is extremely tense, with most Libyans describing the current situation as the most serious juncture that Libya has found itself in since the ousting of Muammar Gaddafi in 2011. There’s a real sense of apprehension here. There is a sense also of people choosing sides. Libya has suffered from increasing polarization in recent months, and that seems to be coming to some kind of a crescendo. Several different dynamics that had been roiling in recent months appear to be coming to a head with the events of the last week.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And in terms of the existing Parliament, Mary Fitzgerald, it’s been characterized as Islamist-dominated, but it has many divisions within it. Could you talk about some of those divisions, and especially the role of the party connected to the Muslim Brotherhood?
MARY FITZGERALD: The National Congress was elected in Libya’s first elections in decades in July 2012. And it’s important to note that the makeup of the Congress, 80 seats in the Congress were allocated to party lists; 120 were allocated to individual candidates. Of the 80 allocated to party lists, the more liberal-leaning party, the National Forces Alliance, won the majority of seats out of the 80. The Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated Justice and Construction Party won the second-largest number of seats. But what was key to the complexion, if you like, of the National Congress was the 120 individual candidates. So the headlines in July 2012, that were based on the results from the 80-party list candidates declaring Libya as a liberal landslide, were extremely misleading. When we saw the 120 independent individual candidates, we saw that there was far more—a far larger component of what is referred to here as the Islamic current than was previously envisaged.
This was also bolstered later on by the controversial passage of a lustration law known here in Libya as the political isolation law, which affected the National Forces Alliance. It meant that its leader, Mahmoud Jibril, was banned from holding political office in Libya for 10 years. This law affected people who had worked for the Gaddafi regime in some fora—form, rather. It was extremely controversial because it was a very sweeping law that affected even members of the opposition who had previously served under Gaddafi several decades ago.
So all of that created this sense within the wider population here that Islamists, even though there was a perception that they had lost or had not been triumphant in the elections in 2012, that they had managed to dominate the Congress. In many respects, the Islamists within Congress managed to be more savvy political operators. They succeeded more in terms of building alliances and blocs within the Congress. The National Forces Alliance basically fell prey to infighting. It became all but atomized compared to the strong Islamist alliances within the Congress.
AMY GOODMAN: Mary Fitzgerald, it’s been three years since NAFTA [sic] declared victory—rather, since NATO declared victory. Several commentators are suggesting that Libya is lurching towards a civil war. Is that fair to say?
MARY FITZGERALD: Well, it’s something that many Libyans are discussing. They see this as the most serious point since 2011. Several different things are coming to a head. Rhetoric on both sides has hardened, and there is extreme—increased belligerence. I think one point that’s important to stress is, at the root of the current crisis is this question of legitimacy—legitimacy in relation to political institutions, legitimacy in relation to security forces in the country. To go back to the controversy over the Congress, the Congress in February decided to extend its official mandate. This proved a very unpopular move by a very unpopular body. And since then, critics of the Congress have argued, including Khalifa Haftar, have argued that, essentially, Congress has lost its legitimacy. The supporters of Congress say, "No, it is still the only elected body, congressional body, representative body, here in Libya, and as such, it remains legitimate." You also have claims of legitimacy related to the armed forces. For example, right now we have two claims in Libya to an army. We have that headed by the chief of staff, which is against Haftar’s moves, and Haftar’s forces, which he has rather grandiosely referred to as the Libyan National Army. So we have very different definitions and very different claims to legitimacy, and that’s the root of the problem here.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And what about Haftar himself, his history? Could you give us a thumbnail sketch of how he rose to his current position?
MARY FITZGERALD: Well, Haftar has a very checkered history in the minds of many Libyans here. And this is one of the reasons why many Libyans I’ve been discussing his moves with in recent days, they have said that "We support the campaign, but not the man," because they are, if not ambivalent about him, downright wary of him and his motives. And this goes back to his history. He was—he served under Gaddafi. He is associated very much with Gaddafi’s disastrous war in Chad in the 1980s. After that, he defected and lived for several decades in the U.S., returning to Libya during the 2011 uprising. I was in Benghazi when he arrived there in early 2011, and there was a sense of what people would do with him, because at that point there was a commander of the opposition forces, and Haftar was given a role which was almost equal to that, but the two men continued to jockey for power, which left a bad impression of Haftar in many respects.
After the uprising, Haftar took on a rather low profile. But what I was struck by in the last couple of years was, every time I visited Libya, people would say, "Where’s Haftar? What’s Haftar up to right now?" There was a sense that Haftar was somehow planning something, that he was trying to gain some kind of support base. And indeed, in media interviews in recent days, he has said that he had been planning this for over two years. So that’s before the elections to the Congress, before the security situation in eastern Libya unraveled to the extent that it did, which raises, I think, interesting questions about his motives here.
AMY GOODMAN: Sharif Abdel Kouddous, you are also in Tripoli right now, and you had a chance to interview Haftar. Can you describe what that conversation was about?
SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: Yeah, I reached him on the phone from his base just outside of—outside of Benghazi. And he—and I think the most striking thing he said, which he has said in other interviews, as well, was that he was not open to negotiation, that he would rely on force to achieve his objectives. And as Mary mentioned, he told me that there had been some kind of planning happening for a year and a half; in other interviews, he said over two years.
He often spoke of the militias that he’s fighting in Benghazi as a foreign entity, international jihadis who are not Libyan. He spoke of them as coming from other countries. And he also denied accusations that he has received support from abroad, from Egypt, from the United Arab Emirates. And he said quite bluntly that he has not been in contact with the United States. He called on the international community to help Libya politically and economically, and he repeatedly painted this offensive as part of a larger global war on terror. But as you know very well from your experience in the United States, we’ve had a war on terror for more than a decade now, and the question is: When does a war on terror like this end? When does Haftar declare mission accomplished?
AMY GOODMAN: Sharif, the parallels you see—or do you see any—between Libya and what’s happening in Egypt, in your own country?
SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: Well, parallels have increasingly been drawn. When I speak with Libyans here and they hear my Egyptian accent, they often refer to Sisi and say, "We want someone like him here, and Haftar is like Sisi." Haftar is like Sisi in terms of that he’s riding a popular wave of anger against an Islamist-led government. People are very fed up with this campaign of violence and assassinations that’s been happening in eastern Libya, particularly Benghazi, by Islamist militias that have left scores of former military and police officers and judges and lawyers and activists dead. The comparison is convenient for both sides. I mean, Haftar has portrayed his offensive as a war on terrorism, and in a press conference a few days ago he referred to the Supreme Council of Armed Forces, which is a previously unknown entity in Libya but bears the same name as the military council in Egypt that Abdel Fattah el-Sisi used to head, who’s—who was the—who is expected to win presidential elections next week in Egypt.
And many Libyans—I think the events in Egypt had a polarizing effect on the narrative in Libya. Many Libyans speak in these Islamist/non-Islamist terms. Opponents of the government often make no distinction between political groups like the Muslim Brotherhood of Libya and extremist Islamist militias like Ansar al-Sharia. Meanwhile, the government has labeled Haftar’s revolt a coup in the making. So, certainly, Egypt has had an effect on the rhetoric. But the comparison or the parallels drawn between Egypt and Libya are very tenuous. I mean, the situation in Libya is extremely complex. The Islamist/non-Islamist divide is really more of a national-level manifestation of a series of local conflicts over control of territory by militias and groups [inaudible] different interests. And more importantly, there’s a relative balance of force in Libya. It’s actually—
AMY GOODMAN: Sharif, you’re cutting out. We’re going to switch for a moment to Mary Fitzgerald, who is also there in Tripoli. Juan?
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Yeah, Mary Fitzgerald, I wanted to ask you about the group that Sharif mentioned, Ansar al-Sharia, who is considered the group—it’s gotten a lot of attention here in the U.S. as the group supposedly behind the attack on Benghazi that led to Ambassador Stevens’s death. Your reporting on how—their level of popularity? What’s been happening with that group?
MARY FITZGERALD: Well, what is interesting about Ansar al-Sharia in the last year or so is how it has evolved from being the armed group of some 250, 300 men under arms in 2012 to what is essentially a broader social movement in Benghazi right now. What they have tried to do is concentrate on charitable works and preaching, in an aim—in an effort, rather, to gain hearts and minds in the city. They’ve very much focused on that, trying to give the sense that they’re very much part of society, part of the population in the city. And this has made the debate here in Libya over how to tackle the issue of Ansar al-Sharia very, very difficult indeed. There’s been a very contested debate in recent months. It usually flares up after there’s been clashes in Benghazi between Ansar al-Sharia and the security forces, a debate over how to tackle this: Should this be tackled through dialogue, or should it be tackled by force? Now, Haftar seems to have tipped the scales on this one, leading fears—leading to fears of a wider conflagration.
It’s important to note, as well, that Haftar has talked a lot about a war on terrorism, but he’s given few details on the parameters of that, where it would begin and where it—exactly it might end and who exactly it would target. He has given interviews saying—to the Arab media, saying that he considers the Muslim Brotherhood the main enemy, and vowing to clean it from Libya. In Benghazi, we’re talking about a city—and eastern Libya, more generally, we’re talking about a region with an extremely complex social tapestry. It’s not uncommon, for example, to find families in eastern Libya where you will have one member who is a member of the—one relative who’s a member of the security forces and another who is a member of Ansar al-Sharia. Ansar al-Sharia is basically now drawn from across the socioeconomic spectrum. Some people I met in Benghazi recently who have been mediating with Ansar al-Sharia, they estimated that its membership now stands at more than 4,000 in Benghazi alone.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to turn to remarks made earlier this week by the U.S. ambassador to Libya, Deborah Jones. Speaking at the Stimson Center in Washington, D.C., Ambassador Jones said she would not condemn the actions of General Haftar, whose forces stormed the Parliament on May 18th.
AMBASSADOR DEBORAH JONES: Frankly, it’s not necessarily for me to condemn his actions in going against very specific groups, which, as far as I have seen, has been extremely specific, warning civilians to move out of the way and really attacking groups that, frankly, are on our list of—you know, of terrorists. I mean, I’m not saying that’s the best way to deal with them at all, and I’m not supporting it from that perspective, but I’m—what I’m saying is, I personally am not going to come out and condemn blanketly what he did in that specific instance.
AMY GOODMAN: That was the U.S. ambassador to Libya, Deborah Jones. Mary Fitzgerald, this whole issue of Benghazi in Washington, D.C., that’s top headlines here, calling for a re-investigation into what happened in the killing of the U.S.—the previous U.S. ambassador, as well as three other Americans, how is that understood in Libya?
MARY FITZGERALD: Well, that entire episode and the political tempest that continues to rage in Washington, I have to say, hardly impacts on the public debate here in Libya over this issue, because apart from the attack on the diplomatic compound, the U.S. diplomatic compound, in 2012, people in Benghazi have experienced a string of assassinations of, as Sharif mentioned earlier, not just members of the security forces, but civil society activists, journalists and lawyers and judges. And we’re talking about assassinations that have crept into the hundreds at this stage. So this, for Benghazians, is a wider issue beyond the debate raging in Washington.
I think, to go back, though, to what the—how the ambassador’s—the U.S. ambassador’s remarks were interpreted here, certainly, a broad range of Libyans I’ve been discussing this with have interpreted it as an implicit support for what Haftar is doing. And some are concerned about the fact that, apart from Haftar’s much-vaunted war on terrorism, if we look at the trajectory of what has unfolded over the last week, since those initial clashes—the initial attack, rather, on several Islamist-leaning militia bases in Benghazi, what we’ve seen since are actually attacks and a focus on the Congress, the elected Congress. So, on Sunday, forces loyal to Haftar carried out an armed attack using heavy weaponry on the Congress here in Tripoli. Since then, Haftar has focused very much on getting rid of the Congress. In many of his comments in Libyan media here, he has proposed different options in terms of how that might work. But people find that interesting that he’s focusing on the Congress as much as the so-called war on terrorism. The forces that attacked the Congress on Sunday are forces who in February actually threatened the Congress. They warned Congress that if it did not dissolve itself within a matter of hours, then the members would be captured by these—by these particular militias threatening it. This threat was seen as so serious at the time that it prompted the intervention of the U.N. envoy to Libya. So there is concern here, among certain circles in Libya, that this is basically an effort to push Libya off the democratic trajectory.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Sharif, I wanted to ask you about another comparison with other countries in the region that have experienced popular uprisings. In both Libya and in Iraq, you had an international intervention—in Iraq, it was obviously the U.S. invasion, and in Libya, a NATO bombing campaign—that not only overthrew the dictator, but also dismantled the military forces of the country. And in Egypt, on the other hand, the United States did everything possible to assure that the Egyptian military remained as a viable force in the country. Could you talk about how you see this issue? Because, obviously, when the armies are dismantled in Iraq and in Libya, you have the void filled by all of these insurgent groups that develop.
SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: Right. Well, I mean, in Libya, the government here did not create—or failed to create a unified military force from the scores of well-armed militias that emerged from the revolution, and it opted [inaudible] to pay them salaries, even though they remained loyal to their commanders rather than the state. But, you know, analysts have told me that, you know, after the NATO bombing, the international community largely let Libya—set it adrift. This issue of Benghazi and the murder of Chris Stevens is put a little bit back in the headlines in the United States, but really, they abandoned the country to itself. It didn’t have the capacity to build its own state. I think it needed some assistance in its democratic transition.
But there are very different parallels, like you said. In Egypt, the army is the main ally. It’s the main contact between the Pentagon and the army, is the strongest relationship that Egypt has with the United States, much stronger than the contact between the State Department and the government in Egypt. So, you know, it’s a very different situation. You know, Libya, there’s no—there’s no relative balance of force—or, there is a relative balance of force in Libya, excuse me. There’s—you know, it’s actually quite even between the different forces, and there’s no single entity that’s able to deploy nationwide military supremacy. So, very much unlike the army in Egypt, which has national legitimacy and a virtual monopoly on violence, Libya doesn’t have that. You know, in a way, it’s one of the things that it has going for it. The outcome of a military confrontation is still too uncertain. But in Libya, it’s more like you have 10 [inaudible], and they’re all fighting each other.
AMY GOODMAN: Finally, unfortunately, Abdullah Elshamy’s brother was not able to join us today, but he is on hunger strike, just been put in solitary confinement last week. And, Sharif, you have talked to him, the Egyptian journalist who works for Al Jazeera, one of the four who are still held. Can you, in this last few minutes, just talk about his situation?
SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: Right. Abdullah Elshamy, who is a [inaudible]—
AMY GOODMAN: Ah, we’re losing you.
SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: Can you hear me now, Amy?
AMY GOODMAN: Yes.
SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: Abdullah Elshamy is a correspondent for Al Jazeera who was arrested on August 14th when the military and police raided the pro-Morsi sit-in in Cairo. He’s been held since then without a formal charge, and he has begun a hunger strike in January to protest his detention. He’s lost over 35 kilograms since then. His health has seriously deteriorated. I spoke to him once in November, where he described his conditions, which were very draconian. I saw him again in the courthouse in the defendant’s cage, where he was packed into a room much too small for the number of prisoners, where, in the sweltering heat of Egypt, they were only given water for an hour a day, and that he had seriously started to feel the effects of the hunger strike. Last week—or, yes, last week, he was taken from—
AMY GOODMAN: Sharif, we have 30 seconds.
SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: —general population. He was taken from general population and put into solitary confinement. His family says the prison administration is trying to break his hunger strike. This is part of a large crackdown on the media in Egypt, and there’s other three Al Jazeera English journalists, as well, who are currently on trial on charges of terrorism.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to thank you both for being with us, Sharif Abdel Kouddous, Democracy Now! correspondent, fellow at The Nation—we’ll connect to your front-page pieces in The Washington Post this week—and Mary Fitzgerald, independent journalist based in Libya.
When we come back, we’re going south to Chile to hear about a young activist who burned what looks like something like $500 million worth of documents around student loans. We’ll talk to Papas Fritas in a moment.
Iona Craig: Dire Situation in Yemen as Backlash Grows from U.S.-Backed Offensive Against al-Qaeda
TRANSCRIPT
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: We turn now to Yemen, where a U.S.-backed offensive against al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula rages on. Yesterday, four civilians were killed and three were injured when their vehicle was shelled in the country’s southern Shabwa province. In April, Yemen’s president embarked on an all-out war against al-Qaeda and began a series of heavy air strikes. Since then, an estimated 21,000 people have been displaced amidst the fighting.
AMY GOODMAN: Meanwhile, the government has cracked down on the media. Earlier this month, journalist Adam Baron was deported from Yemen after reporting from there for three years for McClatchy and The Christian Science Monitor. He was deported a day after the United States closed its embassy in Sana’a over security fears. Then Yemeni authorities called staff at Al Jazeera Arabic and ordered a reporter and cameraman who were covering the fighting in the Shabwa province to leave the area.
Soon after, journalist Iona Craig left the country after hearing from her sources the government intended to deport her, too. She was the last accredited foreign reporter in Yemen. Iona Craig joins us here in New York. She’s been based in Sana’a for the last three-and-a-half years. She’s the Yemen correspondent for The Times of London.
Welcome back to Democracy Now! Nice to have you in studio for the first time, Iona. What is happening right now in Yemen?
IONA CRAIG: I think now it’s very tense times. We’ve got this conflict that’s been going on now for almost a month. It’s very difficult to know exactly what’s going on on the ground, but it is certainly the most significant assault against—a military offensive against al-Qaeda, I think, ever in Yemen. And that is causing a kind of backlash with—of the issues then in Sana’a, of al-Qaeda then carrying out assassinations, IED attacks, as a kind of retaliatory against this military offensive. So, in a security perspective, things are very tense, and the security situation is pretty dire. And on a day-to-day basis for Yemenis, the economy is declining. There’s a major fuel shortage at the moment, which means that people are having issues in even just pumping water, so the price of water has doubled in the last month. And so, just on a day-to-day basis for Yemenis, aside from the security issues, it’s a real struggle at the moment. So, yeah, it’s pretty tough in Yemen for people right now.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And what was the impact of the Arab Spring protests in Yemen on the—on government policy or on any kinds of social reforms?
IONA CRAIG: Well, at the moment, we’re in this period of transition. So, after 2011, Ali Abdullah Saleh, the former president who had been in power for 33 years, he stepped down. There was then this slightly farcical situation of a one-man election, and the vice president was voted in. This transition process was, in theory, only supposed to sort of take about two years, initially, to then have elections. That has obviously gone on and on, and there was a period of national dialogue that was then extended. And at the moment, Yemen is now trying to build a new—or create a new constitution. So, within that, there will be a new system in Yemen of federalism. What that’s going to look like, we don’t know yet. And obviously, hopefully, as well, those issues that were brought up in the national dialogue relating to social structure and things like that will also be included in that constitution, but it’s a long, long process.
AMY GOODMAN: Talk about the drone strikes in Yemen, who has been involved with them—the Yemeni government, military, U.S. military.
IONA CRAIG: Yeah, I mean, the issue of the drone strikes, of course, in Pakistan we’ve seen a real drop-off, and in Yemen that hasn’t been the case. And I think more troubling in Yemen has been the issue of civilian casualties, which has been a problem. And that really brings into question the whole issue of intelligence between the Yemeni government, the Americans, Saudi, obviously, involvement with that. But, you know, the most infamous case recently being the 12 civilians that were killed in a drone strike back in December is where that intelligence is coming from, how it is possibly being manipulated, and how reliable it is, when you’ve got civilian casualties being, you know, as a result of these drone strikes. But they’re still being used. And, you know, this military offensive that’s going on at the moment was launched by three days of aerial bombardment by the Yemeni air force, U.S. drones, possibly even U.S. naval bombardments from the sea, which have been used before. And so, yes, they’re still being used as part, actually, of this conflict that’s going on in the moment, as well as sort of more targeted killing out in rural areas beyond where this conflict is happening at the moment.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, you mentioned that drone strike in December. Earlier this year, Human Rights Watch said that the drone strike failed to comply with rules imposed by President Obama last year to protect civilians. Human Rights Watch concluded that the attack killed 12 men, ages 20 to 65, and wounded 15 others. They were taking part in a wedding procession. This is a clip of a video that accompanied the Human Rights Watch report.
ABDULLAH MUHAMMAD AL-TISI: [translated] The U.S. government made a big mistake. They killed innocent people. This was a serious crime. They turned many kids into orphans, many wives into widows. Many were killed, and many others were injured, although everyone was innocent.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: What’s the impact of this drone strike and others in terms of the Yemeni population?
IONA CRAIG: I actually went down there six days after that strike happened. I spoke to a lot of the families who had lost family members. I spoke to some of the survivors, as well. And I think the big problem, particularly in instances like that where you have a large number of civilian casualties, is the total wall of silence that it’s met with by Washington. There is no admittance that an error has been made. It’s left to the Yemeni government to then pick up the pieces, to try and mediate with the local tribes. I mean, there was fighting every night down there, in that area where that drone strike happened, between whether it was Ansar al-Sharia or local tribes—even the local people didn’t know—and the military, as a direct result of that drone strike, because people were angry about it.
And when there’s this kind of wall of silence from Washington, you’ve got this slightly ridiculous situation in Yemen at the moment where the government has been willing now to admit when they’ve killed civilians. For example, in the last couple of weeks, there were tribesmen who were killed in Sana’a that the government claimed were al-Qaeda originally. They then came out with a statement just a few days ago and admitted that they were civilians, that they were not al-Qaeda. In return, al-Qaeda themselves, when they carried out an operation in December and they killed civilians, they put out a video release saying, "We’re sorry. We killed civilians. This shouldn’t have happened. We’re going to offer compensation." So you’ve got the Yemeni government willing to admit when they’ve done wrong, al-Qaeda on the other side, but in the middle, when Washington does this or the Americans are responsible, there’s nothing. There’s a wall of silence. And this is a propaganda war really now in Yemen. So, when you’ve got the government wishing, you know—willing, sorry, to admit that they’ve done something wrong and al-Qaeda, but not the U.S. in between, they’re losing that propaganda war. They’re really losing a lot on that by not speaking out when they—when these errors happen.
AMY GOODMAN: Iona Craig, the Obama administration says it will release the secret government memo that authorizes the killing of Americans overseas. A federal appeals court ordered the memo’s disclosure after The New York Times and ACLU sued, after the killings of Anwar al-Awlaki, his son Abdulrahman Awlaki, as well as Samir Khan—three U.S. citizens. Talk about the significance of this. It’s supposed to be released now, any day now, in exchange for David Barron to become a federal appeals court judge, which he has become.
IONA CRAIG: I think this is all about the issue of transparency, of course. You know, this was something Obama said in May last year—we’re going to be more transparent about the drone program—and it just hasn’t happened. I mean, obviously, for Yemenis, they want the same for their citizens, in the sense of why are people targeted, how do they end up on the so-called list. Even when people are killed, what threat did they even pose to America? A lot of the times we don’t even know the identity of people being killed. So, as much as this is important to see this from a U.S. citizen’s perspective, it’s still a long way off finding out the same reasons behind why Yemenis are targeted or other individuals in Yemen are targeted. But when it’s—when you’re trying to push toward some form of transparency, I guess it’s—you know, it’s a step in the right direction. But it’s still always very unclear in Yemen what threat these individuals pose, because most of the people who have been killed on the ground in Yemen, on the vast majority of cases, these are just foot soldiers. These are people—you know, I visited areas where there are bodies still lying in the morgue months later after they’ve been killed, because nobody knows who they are. They haven’t been identified.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And we just have about 30 seconds, but the impact of expelling so many foreign journalists? You were the last foreign accredited journalist in Yemen, what that means?
IONA CRAIG: I chose to leave. You know, that was a personal choice. And I hope to go back, although I don’t know how easy it will be to do that. But I think the thing we have to watch for is how the local journalists are treated now. It doesn’t really matter about the foreigners, in the sense that the worst they’re going to do is kick them out of the country. They’ll not get treated badly. It’s the local journalists, that they’re the ones that face physical attack, imprisonment and worse, and particularly with this offensive going on in Shabwa. You mentioned earlier about the Al Jazeera journalist who was kicked out of the province trying to cover that conflict. And we have no indication of independent verification of, you know, civilian casualties, how the local population is coping in that conflict. All we have is information from the government or from al-Qaeda. And that’s where you see the local journalists are really important in getting the information out. And I think it’s very troubling when the government is preventing that from happening.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to thank you, Iona Craig, for being with us, journalist who’s been based in Sana’a for the last three-and-a-half years. She’s the Yemen correspondent for The Times of London. We’ll continue to talk to you.
Headlines:
Records Show Close Monitoring of Occupy Protests by Fusion Centers
A new report reveals how closely state and local law enforcement officials at so-called fusion centers across the country were monitoring the day-to-day activities of the Occupy Wall Street movement. A trove of emails and reports obtained by the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund and provided to the New York Times reveal a massive, coordinated effort by federal and local officials along with security contractors, corporate interests and military staff to share minute details about peaceful Occupy protests and speaking events. Fusion centers have received hundreds of millions in federal funds since their creation after 9/11, but a Senate subcommittee report found they have failed to yield any significant information for fighting terrorism.
Thailand: Army Summons Political Figures After Coup
The Thai army has summoned more than 100 political figures, including ousted Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra, after taking power in a coup. On Thursday, the military suspended the constitution, banned gatherings of more than five people, closed schools and imposed a curfew, saying it had to restore order following months of anti-government protests. The Obama administration says it is "reviewing" its military aid to Thailand, a top regional ally.
Ukraine: Fighting Kills 13 Soldiers Ahead of Election
In eastern Ukraine, fighting between Ukrainian forces and pro-Russian rebels has killed at least 13 soldiers just days before Sunday’s national elections. Pro-Russian forces have been seeking to stop the vote in Ukraine, which they view as illegal.Syria, Russia Veto Resolution to Send Syrian Conflict to ICC
China and Russia have blocked a resolution to refer the Syrian conflict to the International Criminal Court. Top U.N. officials have collected a list of figures to target for indictment on war crimes charges, mostly from the Syrian government. U.S. Ambassador the U.N. Samantha Power deplored Russia’s opposition.
Samantha Power: "My government applauds the vast majority of members of this council who voted to support and the some 64 countries who joined us in co-sponsoring this effort to refer these atrocities to the International Criminal Court. Sadly, because of the decision by the Russian Federation to back the Syrian regime, no matter what it does, the Syrian people will not see justice today. They will see crime, but not punishment."
The United States agreed to back the resolution after ensuring Israel would not face prosecution related to its occupation of Syria’s Golan Heights, which it seized in 1967.
U.S. House Passes Diluted Version of Surveillance Bill
On Capitol Hill, House lawmakers have passed a diluted version of a bill to curb dragnet surveillance by the National Security Agency by keeping telephone metadata in the hands of phone companies. But critics, including The New York Times editorial board, say the bill has been so weakened under pressure from the Obama administration that it could allow much of the bulk surveillance to continue. In fact, an analysis by The Washington Post found half of the 152 lawmakers who co-sponsored the original bill have turned against the latest version. Republican Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin acknowledged some weaknesses.Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner: "Let me be clear: I wish this bill did more. To my colleagues who will lament the changes, I agree with you. The privacy groups who are upset about lost provisions, I share your disappointment. The negotiations for this bill were intense. We had to make compromises. But this bill still does deserve support. Don’t let the perfect become the enemy of the good."
Senate Confirms Drone Memo Co-Author to Appeals Court
The Senate has confirmed a judicial nominee who co-authored memos providing the legal justification for killing U.S. citizens abroad. David Barron, a former Justice Department official, will serve on the First Circuit Court of Appeals despite opposition over his role in the killing of U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki. The vote in his favor was cast along party lines.IRS Delays Rules on Political Activity by Tax-Exempt Groups
The Internal Revenue Service is delaying the release of new rules aimed at limiting political activity by tax-exempt groups. The delay means the rules will not be in place before the next election. The agency said it is revising the rules after receiving a record number of comments. Last year the IRS faced a scandal over accusations it gave extra scrutiny to right-wing groups.
FBI to Begin Recording Interviews with Suspects
The FBI and a number of other federal agencies will soon begin recording interviews with suspects in custody under a new directive from the Justice Department. FBI agents have previously been banned from making such recordings without approval. Attorney General Eric Holder announced the shift on Thursday.Eric Holder: "Creating an electronic record will ensure that we have an objective account of key investigations and interactions with people who are held in federal custody. It will allow us to document that detained individuals are afforded their constitutionally protected rights."
Yasiin Bey Cancels U.S. Tour over Legal Issues
The hip-hop artist Yasiin Bey, formerly known as Mos Def, has cancelled his U.S. tour over legal barriers. A Boston music festival wrote on its website, "Due to immigration/legal issues, Yasiin Bey is unable to enter back into the United States." Last year, Yasiin Bey underwent a force-feeding in a viral video to show the plight of Guantánamo hunger strikers. Bey is a U.S. citizen.
Tennessee Governor Signs Measure Allowing the Electric Chair
In Tennessee, Gov. Bill Haslam has signed a measure allowing the state to execute prisoners using the electric chair, if lethal injection drugs become unavailable. The move comes as Wyoming lawmakers consider allowing execution by firing squad. States are seeing a shortage in death penalty drugs after European makers have barred their use in executions. Lawsuits challenging the replacement drugs used under states’ secrecy laws have successfully delayed several executions.
3 of 5 Abortion Clinics in Louisiana Threatened by New Bill
Three out of five abortion clinics in Louisiana could close under a new anti-choice bill similar to measures in Texas and other states. The bill requires abortion providers to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital, a step that is often impossible, in part because providers send so few patients to hospitals. The bill passed the state Legislature Wednesday, and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal has said he looks forward to signing it.
Man Charged with Holding Girl Captive for 10 Years
In California, a man has been charged with kidnapping a 15-year-old girl and holding her captive for 10 years. Authorities say Isidro Garcia drugged the victim, who is a Mexican immigrant, then abducted her, told her her family would be deported if she tried to return, forced her to marry him, sexually assaulted her multiple times and fathered her child. The victim reportedly reconnected with her sister and mother before going to the police. A spokesperson for the Orange County prosecutor said the victim felt trapped.Farrah Emami: "We need to keep in mind that this is a victim who has been held against her will for 10 years. She’s been convinced that she was alone and this was her only ally. And, you know, she has been in a very, very difficult situation, and the fact that she found the courage to come forward is wonderful."
Student Files Federal Complaint Against Brown University over Handling of Sexual Assault
A Brown University student has filed a federal complaint against the school over its handling of sexual assault. Lena Sclove says she was raped and strangled last year by a fellow student. A university panel found the student responsible, but he was only suspended for a year and was allowed to remain on campus for half that time. Sclove has filed charges accusing Brown of violating Title IX and the Clery Act. Her complaint will likely add Brown to the list of at least 55 colleges and universities under federal investigation for their handling of sexual violence. It comes as Brown celebrates commencement and its 250th anniversary this weekend. Click here to watch the Democracy Now! interview with Lena Sclove.
-------
No comments:
Post a Comment