DUBBYA SPOKE...

The last interview to President George W. Bush by Washington Post. It is unbelievable how smart is this man!!! (I am joking of course).

President Bush on Iraq, Elections and Immigration
Wednesday, December 20, 2006; A16

This 25-minute interview was conducted yesterday in the Oval Office by Washington Post staff writers Peter Baker, Michael A. Fletcher and Michael Abramowitz.

President Bush: Listen, a couple of things before we get going. Obviously, I've been thinking about -- and talking to a lot of people about -- the way forward in Iraq and the way forward in this ideological struggle. I want to share one thought I had with you, and I'm inclined to believe that we do need to increase our troops, the Army, the Marines. And I talked about this to [Defense] Secretary [Robert M.] Gates, and he is going to spend some time talking to the folks in the building, come back with a recommendation to me about how to proceed forward on this idea. I want to give him a little time to get his feet on the ground. And so I'll be addressing this after consultations with him. I just want to share that with you before we get going.

You're talking about troops in Iraq, not --
No, I'm talking about overall size.

-- overall size of the Army. Do you have a rough idea how much --

I'm going to wait for Secretary Gates. As I say, I'm inclined to believe it's important and necessary to do so. The reason why is, it is an accurate reflection that this ideological war we're in is going to last for a while, and that we're going to need a military that's capable of being able to sustain our efforts and to help us achieve peace.

So you've not made a decision about Iraq, per se, about what to do --

I have not, Mike, I have not. And we'll spend some more time -- Secretary Gates, as he indicated, is going to head to the region at some point in time. I need to talk to him when he gets back. I've got more consultations to do with the national security team, which will be consulting with other folks. And I'm going to take my time to make sure that the policy, when it comes out, the American people will see that we are -- have got a new way forward to achieve an important objective, which is a country that can govern, sustain and defend itself.
And one thing that will be clear is that I want the American people to know that -- and the Iraqi people to know that -- we expect the Iraqi people to continue making hard choices and doing hard work necessary to succeed, and our job is to help them do so.

Are we winning in Iraq, in your estimation?

You know, I think an interesting construct that General [Peter] Pace uses is, "We're not winning, we're not losing." There's been some very positive developments. And you take a step back and look at progress in Iraq, you say, well, it's amazing -- constitutional democracy in the heart of the Middle East, which is a remarkable development in itself.
I think one of the -- obviously, the real problem we face is the sectarian violence that needs to be dealt with. So part of my policy review is how do we deal with that in a way that then enables the Iraqi people to live in a more secure society so that the government can prove its worth to the people -- saying, we can help you. And one of the main functions of government is to provide security for its people. Our job is to help the Iraqis provide that security. And I'll come forward with a plan that will enable us to achieve that objective.
There's other threats, by the way. It's a multiple-front war, if you really think about it. You got Shia discord in the south; you've got Sunni attacks, much of that -- many of them are caused by al-Qaeda. A lot of them, former Baathists and regimists who are angry that Saddam is no longer in power, and they are a source of conflict in al-Anbar province. And we've got a very robust effort -- I said the other day something that, I guess, people didn't pay that much attention to -- but for October and November and the first week of December, our actions on the ground have -- as a result of action on the ground, we killed or captured nearly 5,900 people. My point in making that point is our troops and coalition troops are on the offense in a lot of areas.
And then the third area of conflict, the one that gets a lot of attention, as it should, is the sectarian violence taking place in Baghdad. And I fully understand that we've got to help the Iraqis deal with that. So my thinking is -- and a lot of our strategy sessions revolve around how best to deal with this problem, and how best to help the Iraqis deal with it. And I've got some more work to do, and I'll come forth at the appropriate time and explain the way forward to the country.
Given the election results, is increasing the troop level in Iraq even a viable possibility or option?
Yes, Mike, all options are viable.

-- given the political will out there?

Well, all options are viable. I think what the people want is -- they want a couple of things. They want to see Democrats and Republicans work together to achieve a common objective, and they want us to win in Iraq. A lot of people understand that if we leave Iraq, there will be dire consequences -- in other words, if we leave before the job is done. There are some, a fair number of people, who say, "Get out now." So I view the election results as people are not satisfied with the progress being made in Iraq and expect to see a different strategy to achieve an important objective.

But the election results seemed people wanted to bring the venture in Iraq to closure. That seemed to be the strong lesson. And what indications are there that you're actually listening to that sentiment?

Oh, Mike, look, I want to achieve the objective. I think the American people -- I know the American people are very worried about an external threat and that they recognize that failure in Iraq would embolden that external threat, and they expect this administration to listen with people, to work with Democrats, to work with the military, to work with the Iraqis to put a plan in place that achieves the objective. There's not a lot of people saying, "Get out now." Most Americans are saying, "We want to achieve the objective."

But there are a lot of people who are saying, "Let's get out with a phased deployment over a certain period of time."

If they felt -- if that leads to victory, it needs to be seriously considered. And I'm considering all options and listening very carefully to a lot of good people who have got different opinions about how to proceed.

Can we come back to General Pace's formulation about winning, not losing? You said October 24th, "Absolutely, we're winning." And I wanted to --

Yes, that was an indication of my belief we're going to win. Look, I've got four constituencies I speak to on a regular basis; one is the American people, who are justifiably frustrated at the progress in Iraq. And they expect the commander in chief and the people in Washington to support our troops. Supporting our troops not only means good equipment, good [pay], good housing -- it also means a plan that helps achieve the objective.
The second constituency is the enemy. I'm not through yet.

Sure.

The enemy wants to know whether or not the United States has the will to stay engaged in this ideological struggle. They don't believe we do. That's what they say. And I believe that's what they believe.
The third group of people I speak to are the Iraqis. They wonder whether the United States has got the will to help them achieve their objectives. That's what they wonder. The leaders I have talked to wonder whether or not -- what the elections mean, or what the Baker-Hamilton commission means, or what changing [former defense] secretary [Donald H.] Rumsfeld means -- that's what they wonder. But in the back of their mind, they're saying, "Are they going to leave us again?" And that's an important question for them to have answered, because in order to make difficult choices and to take risk for peace, they're going to have to be assured that they'll get support. This is a group of people that have had their hopes dashed in the past.
And the fourth group is the military. Our troops wonder whether or not our country supports them, and they do. They wonder whether or not the mission and the sacrifice and the toil that they're making is worth it. And they need to know from the commander in chief: Not only is it worth it, but I strongly support them and believe that their work will lead to victory. That's what I believe.
Anyway, you just need to know that's who I'm speaking to when I speak. And to you, of course. You're the objective filter through which my -- (Laughter.)

I suspect your message gets out. (Laughter.)

I do want to say something about the press. I hope you realize that, one, I enjoy the relationship, and two, know it is vital for my presidency. You can't exist without me, and I can't exist without you. And I generally respect the hard work of the press corps. I don't necessarily generally respect every word you write, but nevertheless, I do respect the fact that you're a hardworking group of people seeking the truth. And we're necessary for each other. And that relationship can either be a positive relationship or a suspicious, harmful relationship. And I have worked hard to make it a positive relationship. And I think it is, generally, I do believe it is. And I bear no ill will, and I don't think you do, either.

We appreciate that, and you've certainly been good for business --

Good. That's what decision-makers do, Peter, people who seize the moment and make decisions to lead give people things to write about.

Some of the supporters of the war and you from the beginning have begun to ask the question publicly: Was it, in fact, the idea that turned out not so great, or the execution that turned out not so great?

The idea of?

The idea of the war in the first place, and the --

I've never really asked that question. I believe it's justifiable and necessary. Obviously, the war has not -- the results on the ground haven't happened as quickly as I hoped, and part of this review process is to develop new strategies and tactics so that we can expedite success. Look, I of all people would like to see the troops come home. But I don't want them to come home without achieving our objective, because I understand what happens if there's failure. And I'm going to keep repeating this over and over again, that I believe we're in an ideological struggle that is -- that our country will be dealing with for a long time.

Can I ask you a question about history?

Yes.

President Lincoln fired a number of his generals in the Civil War until he found Grant.

Is that what triggered your question, looking at Abe?

Why haven't you fired any generals? And does the fact that you haven't fired generals suggest that you are satisfied with the military strategy that they have pursued?

We're reviewing the strategy, because it has -- the results aren't -- we haven't achieved the results as quickly as we wanted -- precisely what the secretary of defense said, by the way. And the chain-of-command issues are issues that percolate up through the Pentagon. And there is a clear chain of command that I adhere to, and I think it's important for the commander in chief to do just that.
I've often talked about how it's important to trust the judgment of the military when they're making military plans as the key advisers to the president, as opposed to the president determining the tactics on the ground, which has happened in previous wars. And so I'm a strict adherer to the command structure.

But isn't there a point in which you say, "We screwed up the amount of troops we need there, we screwed up the WMD, someone ought to pay a penalty for that"?

There is a constant review of the commanders, and I support that constant review. And to the extent that people think they can do -- somebody can do a better job, those recommendations will come forward.

Sir, when you look back at last month's election, do you see that strictly as a repudiation of Iraq and the fact that we're not winning in Iraq, or is it also a judgment of your leadership in general?

Michael, I said in my press conference, I think it's -- no question Iraq was a significant part of the elections. People were troubled by the lack of progress. War is difficult for people, particularly the American people are very compassionate people. When you turn on your TV screens and see bombings and deaths, and read about beheadings or sectarian violence, it troubles America. And they wonder or not -- whether or not we have a plan that succeeds. And I can understand that level of frustration.
Secondly, there's a sense that people's votes were being taken for granted, in a way. We had ethics disputes, and just a lot of signals that said that it's time to -- that people wanted a change. There was a lot of -- look, you've got a guy using earmarks to enrich himself; there was sex and all kinds of issues that sent the signal that perhaps it was time to give another group a chance to lead. I also believe that people are sick and tired of the needless partisanship in Washington. And there's a lot of it. And for some, every expression of position by somebody is an opportunity to attack, and people are tired of it. And there's some big issues that we need to work together.
I will tell you that I view the elections as an opportunity to say to all of us in Washington, "Let's work together." People want that. And what are some issues we can work together on -- energy, or immigration, budgetary reforms. I mean, there's a lot -- education, No Child Left Behind reauthorization. I believe there are some wonderful opportunities --

So you don't think you're out of the policy business with the Democrats in charge on the Hill?

Do what now?

You're not out of the domestic policy business --

Quite the contrary. Quite the contrary. The microphone of the president has never been louder, and I think we have a good -- in other words, to talk about what I think is important. But it turns out that what I think is important, the Democrat leadership thinks is important, as well -- energy security, immigration reform, education -- and Republicans on the Hill agree. And so my task is going to be to talk about big issues that the American people expect us to work on, and work with both Republicans and Democrats.

Will it be easier with Democrats, in some ways? Are there some issues --

I think the legislative process, Peter, is always hard, from the executive-branch perspective. They're pretty independent-minded people, they -- no matter who's in charge, they tend to take some ideas from the president, but they've got their own minds. And the task is to work together in a collegial and constructive spirit to solve some big problems.
I'll tell you one I want to work on, as well, is entitlements. And that's a hard issue, as you know. Social Security is viewed as the third rail of American politics. I've campaigned on it every time -- two times I ran for president. I've talked about it in the State of the Union every time. It's an issue that's -- a president is just going to have to keep talking about to convince people it's worthwhile to take the risk, the political -- so-called political risk to work together to get something done. And we will continue to do so. [Treasury Secretary Henry M.] Paulson is going to take the lead for us up there, working with members of both parties.
I will tell you this: In an issue like this, unless the president tries, nothing is going to happen. Without presidential involvement, nothing will happen. So we have a chance, and I'm going to work it. And I think that's -- I know that's the job of the president, is to say, "This is important to the future of the country, let us work together."

Yes, sir.
Just on that point, are you willing to sit down with Democrats in a commission that puts all the options on Social Security on the table? Not just reductions and benefits, not just private accounts, but also some kind of revenue increases, tax increases?

I don't see how you can move forward without people feeling comfortable about putting ideas on the table. I have made it clear that I've got a way forward that can do it and I want to hear other people's opinions. And that's what Hank Paulson is telling both Republicans and Democrats. It's going to be very important for people to feel there can be a full, wide-ranging discussion about how to move forward.

And specifically, tax increases on the table then?

Well, specifically, personal accounts; specifically, everything that the Democrats think will work, as well.

Well, they talk about tax increases.

Well, let them; that's fine. They can come to the table and talk about them. I proposed a way forward that doesn't require tax increases. Nevertheless, I look forward to hearing their opinions.

[Incoming Speaker of the House] Mrs. Pelosi has identified six or seven things that she wants the House to do in the first 100 hours. Can I just mention -- ask you in a bullet-point way just your point on this?

No. (Laughter.)

Minimum-wage increase -- generally supportive or against it?

Generally supportive. But, no, the answer is no, you can't. (Laughter.)
Look, here's the challenge. The challenge is to find out specifically what they have in mind and to explain to them areas where we can work together and can't work together. I'm pleased with our initial round of discussions. I fully understand that they're going to come out with this -- they made it very clear. And I want to work with them on issues where we can find common ground.

On immigration -- you mentioned immigration. Can you envision supporting a deal --

See, now you're getting me to negotiate with myself --

No, no, no, but this is a policy --

Same thing he's trying to do. (Laughter.) It's a classic ploy. (Laughter.)

This is about your policy, Sir, in terms of can you envision a deal in which you would agree with Democrats that would not necessarily have a majority support among Republicans --

Peter, remember the speech I gave right here in the Oval Office?

I remember several.

The one on immigration. I gave a comprehensive speech to the country from the Oval Office, prime time, about how I thought we ought to move forward on immigration. I still feel very strongly about that. And I hope that Congress will join me on a comprehensive bill, and I would hope that the majority of both parties support it.

[Former House] speaker Hastert had a policy that he would not put forward a bill that didn't have a majority support of his caucus. Is that important to you, having majority support of the Republican caucuses?

I'm interested in getting a comprehensive bill out, because I believe it is vital to solving the pressure we have on our border.
One of the interesting things that, if you notice from the recent enforcement activities that ICE took, there are a lot of people who are using forged documents to do jobs Americans are not doing. And my attitude is that there ought to be a way for people to come to this country on a temporary basis and fill those jobs in an open way, a transparent way, that doesn't cause there to be, one, a smuggling operation that's vibrant and making money, a housing operation that is illegal, and a document forgery operation that clearly is in effect.
There is a better way to treat people, and there's a better way to deal with the issue of finding workers Americans are not doing, to fill on a temporary basis. And, therefore, there need -- and that in itself will take pressure off our border. In other words, if people feel like they can come in on a temporary, legal basis, they're not going to have to sneak in, which in itself does away with -- that in itself does away with this kind of underground industry that has sprung up.
The point I make to you on that is that it's a comprehensive reform of the immigration system that is going to make our borders more secure. I strongly believe that is important, and look forward to working with people on the way forward. It's hard for me to predict the dynamics yet on how the Congress is going to handle the immigration bill. The point I'm telling you is that I think it's vital and necessary, and this is an area where we can work together to get it done.

I'd like to come back to your first statement, because I'd like to expand a little bit. You talked about the size of the military. Colin Powell said on a Sunday show that the Army was nearly broken. Do you believe that's true? And, if so, do you feel responsible for that? Do you --

I heard -- we have been transforming our Army to make it lighter, more lethal and easier to move, and that transformation has been very important. Secondly, we have been changing our force posture around the world to reflect the threats of the 21st century, and that has been a very important reform.
I also believe that the suggestions I've heard from outside our government, plus people inside the government -- particularly, the Pentagon -- that we need to think about increasing our force structure makes sense, and I will work with Secretary Gates to do so. He's going to come back and report --

So is our Army nearly broken, or not?

The people that would know best are those in the Pentagon. I haven't heard the word "broken," but I've heard the word "stressed." I know that we need to -- and my budgetary requests will reflect what a lot of people in Congress have been saying and in the Pentagon, and that is we need to reset our military. There's no question the military has been used a lot. And the fundamental question is, will Republicans and Democrats be able to work with the administration to assure our military and the American people that we will position our military so that it is ready and able to stay engaged in a long war, and this ideological struggle?

Can I ask a hometown question?

Final question -- yes, which one, Crawford, Midland, Houston, Dallas or Washington?

Washington. Do you support a bill that would give the District of Columbia residents a vote in the House of Representatives?

This is a Fletcher question. This is a Fletcher question.

He's not asking about a specific question. We're asking about your broad view on --
Do the residents of the District of Columbia -- should they have a vote in the House?

I will look at what Congress proposes. I will look carefully at what Congress proposes.

But what is your philosophical view of that? Because we've gone to Iraq to provide freedom for people in Iraq, and the people in this country --

I understand that. You're trying to get me to opine on specific legislation that may be forthcoming, and I look forward to working with Congress on that.

I'm actually asking you to opine on general --

That's my answer. (Laughter.)

-- philosophy on whether --

I know what you're trying to ask me to opine on, and I'm answering that there is -- I will look and see what Congress proposes.

Is Vice President Cheney correct, do you believe that secretary Rumsfeld was the best defense secretary?

I think he was one of the finest defense secretaries, and I said that there have been more profound change -- policy change under his leadership than at any time since the formation of the Defense Department.

Thank you

DEATH OF NIYAZOV...TURKMENI DICTATOR

This morning the President of Turkmenistan, Saparmurat Niyazov, died. Although the history and even the existence of this country is not well known, he was one of the last Stalinist style dictators.



From "Le Temps", Swiss-Romande newspaper, 21/12/2006


Le puissant président turkmène est décédé
Saparmourat Niazov, l'homme fort du Turkménistan depuis 21 ans, est décédé jeudi matin, ont annoncé les médias d'Etat de l'ex-république soviétique d'Asie centrale.
Jeudi 21 décembre 2006 08:01Agences

Le président du Turkménistan Saparmourat Niazov est décédé tôt jeudi à l'âge de 66 ans, ont annoncé les médias d'Etat. Saparmourat Niazov dirigeait d'une main de fer cette ex-république soviétique d'Asie centrale depuis 21 ans.«Sous le choc»"Ce malheur est arrivé tôt ce matin. Nous sommes tous sous le choc", avait indiqué auparavant un haut responsable du gouvernement sous couvert de l'anonymat. "Aujourd'hui, de façon brutale, le président turkmène est mort", a ajouté un autre responsable gouvernemental. Des "réunions spéciales" étaient en cours au sein du gouvernement, selon plusieurs ministères.Ex-premier secrétaire du Parti communiste turkmène au temps de l'URSS, M. Niazov, qui se faisait appeler Turkmenbachi ("Leader de tous les turkmènes"), avait été nommé à la tête du Turkménistan en 1985 alors que cette république faisait encore partie de l'URSS. La population s'était prononcée en 1991 à une majorité très nette en faveur de l'indépendance.Président à vie depuis 1999, il avait crée autour de lui et de certains membres de sa famille un culte délirant de la personnalité, fondement de son régime, l'un des plus répressifs et fermés au monde.Craintes d'instabilitéToute forme d'opposition y est sévèrement réprimée. Turkmenbachi contrôlait toutes les arcanes du pouvoir, occupant aussi bien la présidence que les postes de chef de gouvernement et de dirigeant du seul parti politique autorisé.Les observateurs craignent qu'en l'absence d'un successeur désigné, ceux qui étaient pressentis ayant été limogés ou emprisonnés, le Turkménistan ne bascule dans l'instabilité d'autant que M. Niazov, en établissant son régime totalitaire, a réduit à néant l'influence traditionnelle des clans turkmènes.Régulièrement, des rumeurs faisant état de malaise cardiaque ou de crise de diabète couraient à son propos. En octobre, il avait lui-même indiqué prendre des médicaments trois fois par jour pour une "maladie au coeur" et il avait subi en 1997 un pontage coronarien.


From " The Guardian", 21/12/2006

'Father of the Turkmen' dies aged 66
Tom Parfitt in MoscowThursday December 21, 2006

Sapurmurat Niyazov, the hardline president of Turkmenistan, died from a heart attack early today, bringing the curtain down on one of the world's most eccentric personality cults.
Niyazov, 66, had turned his former Soviet central Asian desert state into an object of international ridicule through a series of bizarre decrees that left Turkmens living in an isolated world where fact and fantasy were blurred.
State television showed musicians sawing on violins, and a week of mourning was announced. New Year celebrations were cancelled.
The government urged the nation to be "be calm and brave, and unite further in order to overcome with dignity the severe ordeal which has befallen it and continue honourably the deeds of the national leader".
The president was said to have died at 1.10am from a cardiac arrest. He had announced publicly last month that he was suffering from heart disease.
Known as Turkmenbashi, or Father of all Turkmens, Niyazov was renowned for such peculiar acts as ordering citizens to get gold teeth extracted, outlawing opera and banning men from listening to car radios.
During a 21-year rule he turned his country into a hymn of praise to himself: kindergartens, towns, factories and a month of the year (January) were named Turkmenbashi. He erected a revolving gold statue of himself in the capital, Ashgabat, and giant billboards of the leader hung all over the country.
He often feigned embarrassment at the adulation. "I'm personally against seeing my pictures and statues in the streets - but it's what the people want," he once said.
But the pressure to worship the leader was relentless. Children in the gas-rich state were forced to learn his book of poetry, the Ruhnama, at school, and a copy of the book was sent into space for good measure.
Official propaganda had it that Turkmenbashi brought his people into a new "golden age", but in reality they were held in almost total isolation and political dissent was crushed.
Niyazov used an alleged assassination attempt in 2002 - thought by many critics to be fabricated - as an excuse to crack down on opponents, who were imprisoned and interned.
He came to power in 1985 as first secretary of the Turkmen Communist party. After the Soviet collapse, six years later, he became president and in 1999 was made president for life.
The authoritarian leader has no obvious successor because he ensured that no one in his close circle could establish a power base.
According to Turkmen law, the president is succeeded by the head of the lawmaking body, the people's assembly. But that post was held by Niyazov himself.
The deputy prime minister, Kurbanguly Berdymukhamedov, was named head of the commission handling the funeral, a position analysts said indicated he may be the successor.
Niyazov's funeral is set to take place on Saturday in Ashgabat.

This event can be the chance to know something more of that country. I therefore add some interesting links here:


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/country_profiles/1298497.stm: history and analysis of the country by the BBC.

http://www.chaihana.com/PDF/2hours.pdf: nice article by an employee of USAID who lived and worked there for 2-3 years.

http://www.nwlink.com/~douglasm/turkmenistan/: pictures of a trip in Turkmenistan.

http://ec.europa.eu/comm/external_relations/turkmenistan/intro/index.htm: analysis of the country by the EU, short story and diplomatic and commercial relations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkmenistan: unmissable, the voice Turkmenistan on Wikipedia!

RECENT STORIES OF MIGRANTS

In the last five days two tragedies occured to migrants trying to enter Europe. I report these stories because they are normally not very evident in the newspaper and they should be remembered when we speak of migrants in general.

Repubblica

Erano a bordo di un barcone di circa 25 metri che ha rischiato di ribaltarsi ai primi soccorsi. Sono approdati sulle coste agrigentine
Sicilia, maxi sbarco nella notteArrivano 648 clandestini

PALERMO - Maxisbarco sulle coste agrigentine: ben 648 immigrati, tra cui 600 uomini, 21 donne e 7 bambini, sono giunti al porto di Licata intorno alla mezzanotte. Gli extracomunitari, che dicono di essere tutti egiziani, erano stati avvistati ieri pomeriggio intorno alle 17, a 25 miglia a sud dalle coste agrigentine, tra Porto Empedocle e Licata, dal motopesca "Carlotta". Tutti erano a bordo di un barcone di circa 25 metri che ha rischiato di ribaltarsi quando gli immigrati hanno visto arrivare i primi soccorsi. Una trentina di loro in quelle fasi concitate erano finiti in acqua ed erano stati recuperati. Già intorno alle 22 i primi 37, tra cui 21 donne e 7 bambini, sono stati condotti in porto e una delle donne, disidratata, era stata trasportata all'ospedale civile San Giacomo Daltopasso di Licata. Il barcone con a bordo tutti gli altri, invece, è stato trainato dal rimorchiatore Kerob a cui si è aggiunto il "Ribot"Ribot entrambi in servizio presso la piattaforma petrolifera "Prezioso" che si trova tra Gela e Licata nel canale di Sicilia: le operazioni di sbarco a Licata si sono svolte tra la mezzanotte e l'una, dopodichè sono iniziate le operazioni di conteggio e identificazione. Circa 300 immigrati si trovano al centro di permanenza di Pian Del Lago a Caltanissetta, gli altri al momento sono stati ospitati nel centro di accoglienza di Licata di via Panepinto. (19 dicembre 2006)

Plus de 600 émigrés clandestins égyptiens interceptés au sud de la Sicile
LE MONDE 19.12.06 14h50 • Mis à jour le 19.12.06 14h50

Un total de 648 clandestins, entassés sur un même bateau, a été intercepté, dans la nuit de lundi 18 à mardi 19 décembre, au sud de la Sicile - un nombre sans précédent pour une seule embarcation, a indiqué, mardi, l'agence Ansa.
Les clandestins, dont le nombre avait été évalué lundi soir entre 400 et 500, ont déclaré être de nationalité égyptienne, selon la même source. Parmi eux se trouvent 21 femmes et 7 enfants. L'embarcation d'environ 30 mètres de long a été remorquée, lundi soir, jusqu'au port de Licata (sud de la Sicile) après avoir été repérée en fin d'après-midi par des pêcheurs italiens.
Les autorités ont dû déployer une dizaine de vedettes pour mener à bien l'opération. Les côtes siciliennes et la petite île de Lampedusa, plus au sud, sont le théâtre presque quotidien d'arrivées de bateaux chargés de clandestins partis pour la plupart de Libye et de Tunisie.
Entre janvier et septembre, 16 000 immigrés clandestins ont été interceptés par les forces de l'ordre, selon le ministère italien de l'intérieur. - (AFP)
Article paru dans l'édition du 20.12.06


Disparition en mer d'une centaine de Sénégalais en partance pour les Canaries
LE MONDE 18.12.06 14h38 • Mis à jour le 18.12.06 14h38

es opérations ont été lancées, dimanche 17 décembre, pour tenter de retrouver une centaine d'immigrés clandestins portés disparus en mer alors qu'ils tentaient de rejoindre les îles Canaries, plusieurs centaines de kilomètres plus au nord. Vingt-cinq occupants avaient été retrouvés vivants, samedi, à proximité de Saint-Louis, dans le nord du Sénégal.
Selon le récit des rescapés, 127 Sénégalais avaient pris place, le 3 décembre, à bord d'une embarcation partie des côtes de la Casamance, au sud du Sénégal, avec comme destination les îles Canaries, un territoire espagnol au large du Sahara occidental.
Victime des intempéries, fréquentes en cette saison, le bateau aurait chaviré à deux reprises, faisant plusieurs morts. Le froid, la faim et la soif ont également fait des victimes, ont raconté les survivants transportés, épuisés et souffrant de déshydratation, dans un hôpital de Saint-Louis au Sénégal.
Il y a une semaine, une embarcation du même type avait été découverte à proximité de Dakar avec à son bord une trentaine de personnes qui avaient échoué à rallier les Canaries après deux semaines passées en mer. Au moins 4 personnes avaient péri dans la tentative.
Depuis janvier, 25 000 clandestins environ ont réussi à rejoindre les îles Canaries à bord d'embarcations de pêche venues du Sénégal, de Gambie, du Cap- Vert, de Mauritanie et du Maroc. Au cours de la même période, 5 000 Sénégalais ont été rapatriés vers leur pays d'origine par l'Espagne.
Outre le mauvais temps, les candidats à l'immigration doivent affronter les navires espagnols qui patrouillent au large des côtes africaines dans le cadre de l'opération Frontex menée sous la bannière de l'Union européenne (UE). Pour éviter l'interception, les clandestins ont tendance à repousser toujours plus vers le sud leur lieu d'embarquement, ce qui augmente d'autant les risques de la traversée.
Jean-Pierre Tuquoi
Article paru dans l'édition du 19.12.06

IMMIGRAZIONE: SOGNAVANO LA SPAGNA,100 SCOMPARSI IN MARE/ANSA DRAMMA SU BARCA DI SENEGALESI, 25 SUPERSTITI SU 127 A BORDO

(ANSA) - ROMA, 17 DIC - Nuovo, terribile dramma dell' immigrazione clandestina: più di cento senegalesi che a bordo di una piccola imbarcazione tentavano di raggiungere le isole spagnole delle Canarie sono scomparsi in mare. Solo 25 delle 127 persone - quasi tutti giovani provenienti da diverse località del Senegal - che hanno detto di essersi imbarcate il 3 dicembre a Bolongne, nel Casamance, dirette in Europa, sono state salvate sabato da alcuni pescatori. I naufraghi sono stati trovati mentre andavano alla deriva, senza più acqua potabile né viveri. Per il momento non si ha alcuna notizia degli oltre cento passeggeri mancanti. I superstiti, ricoverati nell'ospedale della città di Saint Louis, nel nord del Senegal, hanno hanno raccontato che tutti gli altri passeggeri erano stati ingoiati dalle onde, ma hanno fornito versioni diverse della loro avventura. Duramente provati da 12 giorni trascorsi in mare, disidratati e intossicati dall'acqua di mare che avevano bevuto negli ultimi giorni per tentare di sopravvivere, alcuni degli scampati hanno riferito di persone "cadute in mare", altri di passeggeri "gettati in acqua". Più d'uno ha parlato di diverbi scoppiati a bordo in relazione alla rotta da prendere, dopo che l'imbarcazione è stata rallentata dalle condizioni del mare. Prima di partire si erano ben organizzati, dotandosi di un navigatore satellitare Gps, viveri e acqua potabile, ma anziché raggiungere in breve tempo le Canarie, come speravano, sono stati ostacolati da una tempesta al largo del Marocco. E da quel momento il loro sogno di raggiungere facilmente l'Europa del benessere si è trasformato in un incubo. "Siamo stati costretti a bere acqua di mare", ha raccontato Siaka Dieng, piccolo commerciante in un paese dell'interno del Senegal, che aveva lasciato il suo negozio il 25 novembre per tentare l'avventura. "Tutto è successo perché a bordo hanno cominciato a litigare", ha detto Atumane Gaye, 38 anni, un pescatore di Saint Louis. Sono varie centinaia gli immigrati clandestini che quest'anno sono rimasti vittime delle cattive condizioni del mare dopo essere salpati da porti africani e diretti verso le coste dell' Europa meridionale. Episodi come quello di ieri sera, cominciati sin nei primi mesi dell' anno, si sono intensificati durante l' estate: a fine agosto un bilancio soltanto del governo delle Canarie faceva salire a 490 i cadaveri di immigranti recuperati nell' Atlantico, al largo delle coste africane e spagnole, mentre la Croce Rossa e la Mezzaluna Rossa, scriveva il quotidiano spagnolo El Pais, calcolavano tra 2.000 e 3.000 i clandestini scomparsi in mare. Tra gli episodi più gravi avvenuti nel Canale di Sicilia, sono due naufragi tra il 18 ed il 20 agosto 2006, nel giro di poco più di 24 ore, con un bilancio globale di 70 dispersi, più undici annegati, dei quali furono recuperati i cadaveri. (ANSA).

IMMIGRAZIONE: POLFER VENEZIA TROVA RAGAZZI AFGANI CLANDESTINI

(ANSA) - VENEZIA, 12 DIC - Sette ragazzini afgani, tra i 13 e i 15 anni, in abiti estivi e molto stanchi, sono stati trovati dagli agenti della polizia ferroviaria mentre si aggiravano la scorsa notte tra i marciapiedi della stazione di Venezia. I sette, secondo quanto gli agenti sono riusciti a ricostruire, erano arrivati nella città lagunare dopo essere partiti dall'Afghanistan sei mesi fa, attraversando l'Iran, la Turchia, la Grecia dove si erano imbarcati clandestinamente su una nave approdata ieri nel porto di Venezia. Il gruppetto era stato notato mentre vagava senza una meta apparente. Gli agenti della polfer si sono poi accorti che i ragazzini non avevano alcun bagaglio e che avevano freddo visto che indossavano indumenti leggeri. Accompagnati negli uffici della polizia ferroviaria sono stati rifocillati e sistemati in una stanza ben riscaldata. La vicenda è stata portata all'attenzione del tribunale dei minori e dell'assessorato alle politiche sociali del comune di Venezia. (ANSA).

KEEP UP ITALY...YOU ARE NOT ALONE!!!!

As my first post in this new blog I want to add a couple of articles on a recent UK news, just to communicate my sense of relief and scandal...we Italians are not the only country of massive corruption pardon.

"Risk to British lives ended Saudi jet probeGovernment told sharing of intelligence on al-Qaeda would be ended
Gaby Hinsliff and Antony BarnettSunday
December 17, 2006The Observer

Saudi Arabia threatened to stop sharing vital intelligence - particularly intercepted communications between al-Qaeda members active there - unless Britain suspended its investigation into a controversial arms deal, The Observer can reveal.
Senior Whitehall sources said the Saudis warned they would also kick out British military and intelligence personnel based in the country.
'They were threatening everything: intelligence, everything. The US and the UK have got their bases in Saudi, that is their "in" to the Middle East,' said one source. 'Essentially, the line was that British lives could be lost if this relationship broke down. It would have been them freezing everybody out and speaking to nobody about anything.'
The investigation into allegations that BAE Systems paid bribes to senior Saudis was dropped last Thursday following a detailed report from the security services. Saudi sources insisted yesterday the real reason was that the firm - which had said it risked losing a £6bn deal for the Saudis to buy 72 Typhoon jets - could have gone bust if it lost contracts.
However the intelligence threats appear to have been made after months of commercial ones failed to get the desired result. One senior intelligence expert said the Saudis' contribution to the battle against al-Qaeda could not be underestimated: 'The Saudis are very, very important. Mucking up that relationship is something you do not do.'
The fight against terrorism itself could have been at risk. The Serious Fraud Office's director, Robert Wardle, confirmed yesterday in an interview with the Financial Times that he was convinced to drop the case by national security considerations. However, Whitehall sources said the Attorney-General, Lord Goldsmith, had gone further by concluding there was little chance of bringing charges.
Goldsmith believed the main evidence gathered so far dated back to before the introduction of Britain's current anti-corruption laws, which meant it might not be prosecutable. Goldsmith also thought the SFO would be obstructed by the constitutional position of the Saudi royal family in their country's government: they are only held liable under law when acting in a government capacity, rather than as royals.
MPs, however, are reluctant to let the issue drop. Members of the powerful Commons public accounts select committee are now pushing to be allowed to see the findings of the National Audit Office report - suppressed by the then Conservative government - into the original Al-Yamamah deal.
That was a £1.02bn contract signed in 1988, agreeing that BAE would supply the Saudis with fighters, jet trainers, air bases and personnel. The present Typhoon contract forms part of its third and most recent phase.
John Pugh, a Liberal Democrat member of the committee, has argued that the MPs could examine the audit office findings in confidence, allowing at least some parliamentary oversight."

An article appeared on "Corriere della Sera" on saturday 16th December 2006, p. 11 (no signature because of strike) says:

"LONDON - "in the national interest": with this justification Lord Goldsmith, british Attorney General, announced the end of the investigations Bay Systems, the biggest defense UK industry. A story started in the 80s, with the agreement Al Yamamah (the dove) which brought to BAE, the former British Aerospace, 40 billions of pounds (60 billions of euros). Monez spent by the Saudi government to improve his armed forces with a bit of londonish shopping: 72 Tornado, 50 Hawk, 2 aereal bases, keys at hand.
Just a couple of years ago, it was discovered that in order to convince the Saudis on the quality of materials made in Britain someone had thought to amuse a prince in Riad. With gifts of almost 100 millions of pounds. First beneficiary, acording to the allegations, the prince Turki bin Nasser, deputy Commander of the Saudi airforce.
Everything ok for almost 20 years, until some details of the agreement did not appear on the English press. A small travel agency in London would have furnished a serial of "packs" to prince Turki and his vast followers: staying in five star hotels, rent of aeroplanes, limousines. The charter borrowed to the Saudis on holidays once was a Boeing 747: there was need of space for souvenirs to be brought home. Once to Mrs. Truki a Rolls-Royce arrived for her birthday. Counts made, the hypothesis estimate these benefits to be around 7 millions of pounds of value per year, amount to be multiplied for several years, being the contract signed in 1988. Everything paid by BAE, according to this reconstruction. The "Serious Fraud Office" had opened an investigation for corruption.
Then, in August, Riad announced the intention of renewing its crew with 72 Typhoon Eurofighters, produced always by the british company. But the Saudis also saidthat the investigation of London was a reason of embarassment, filtering the hypothesis of a negotiation with french. Then, according to the press, they simply gave an ultimatum: ten days to close the investigation. It was the beginning of December. Punctual came the announcement of Lord Goldsmith: "It was necessary to balance the necessity to respect the law with a wider interest. The Prime Minister clearly expressed that the continuation of the invesitgation would have seriously damaged the british and saudi security, the diplomatic cooperation and the field of intelligence, with a very negative impact on the UK national interest".
We gave up to the blackmail, said the opposition. Tony Blair assumed the "complete responsability" of the decision. "Our relationship with Riad is vital in the fight against terrorism and for the israel-palestine negotiations. The strategic interest comes first", he said. On these patriotic news the value of the BAE shares grew of the 6% yesterday: almost 900 millions of pounds."

I will not add personal comments, apart from one: is this one characteristic of the war against terrorism: terrorism=domestic industry protection at any cost?