Algerians Vote, Weighing Grief Against Peace
By: Michael Slackman
BLIDA, Algeria, Sept. 29 - This nation's referendum on Thursday was an emotional moment for many Algerians, who had to decide whether to accept their president's request to forget the violence of a civil war that left more than 100,000 people dead and to offer amnesty to many of those responsible.
It was nearly silent at the Martyr's Cemetery here Thursday morning, but for a few sobs and the shuffle of feet along the dirt paths, as about 30 men and women whose relatives were killed during the civil war visited their graves. For these survivors, it was a tearful protest and a forceful no to President Abdelaziz Bouteflika's Charter for Peace and National Reconciliation.
"We support peace based on certain requirements - justice, dignity and respect for those who were killed," said Cherifa Keddar, leader of an organization representing victims of the war, as she visited the graves of her brother and sister.
But many people were expected to accept the president's proposal, which amounts to trading a call for justice and accountability in return for a promise of peace and stability.
"This is a good thing, so the people can go back to the right path, so we can live in peace," said Rabaa Draai, 62, a father of 10 children, at his house in Rais, a community that suffered one of the worse atrocities of the war. On one night in 1997, more than 400 men, women and children were killed.
"Is there anybody who doesn't want peace?" said Mr. Draai, who said he had not lost any relatives in the massacre.
Algerian authorities predicted a large turnout among the country's 18 million voters, and they reported heavy voting throughout the day, although polling places in the capital and surrounding areas appeared to be largely empty much of the day. Mr. Bouteflika was hoping a commanding victory would empower him to move the country in a direction of his choosing. The results were not expected until Friday.
Since taking office with the support of the military in 1999, Mr. Bouteflika has managed to consolidate his authority while other institutions - like the judiciary and Parliament - remain relatively weak. Many of the generals to whom the president owed his job have since retired and have been replaced by those who now owe their positions to the president.
This referendum would continue Mr. Bouteflika's consolidation of power. It not only would grant amnesty to those who committed all but the most heinous crimes and effectively exonerate government security forces for killings, torture or kidnappings, but it also would grant the president broad authority in carrying out the proposed charter.
The document has been sharply criticized by opposition politicians, families of victims and human rights organizations for being vague, for not offering any process for exposing crimes of the past and for centering so much power in the president.
A group of mothers of Algerians who disappeared - suspected of being taken away by state security agents - have held protests in the center of Algiers almost every Wednesday for 11 years. They were there again this week, holding old, weathered placards with photographs of their missing family members. They said they were concerned that if the referendum passed, the issue of the missing would be considered resolved and their quest for answers about the fates of their family members would be ended.
"We are afraid after this we will be forgotten," said Fayza Ayash, whose three sons, Abdulkarim, Lakhdar and Muhammad, all disappeared years ago.
The government pressed hard to convince people to vote yes. Opposition voices were not allowed on television or radio, and opponents were depicted as being against peace. Polling places were plastered with pictures of the president and posters calling for the passage of the referendum.
While voters cast secret ballots, it was very easy for poll watchers to tell how people voted. Blue ballots, which meant yes, could easily be seen through the white envelopes they were tucked into before being dropped into a ballot box. The no ballots were white.
In Rais, the town of the massacre, many people stayed away from the polls. Three men sitting on a log around the corner from the polls had all lost relatives, and they were outspoken and angry. But they were afraid to give their names because to be against the referendum was perceived as dangerous. As they saw it, approval would mean that the killers would be allowed to return to their community - and they would be forced to accept it.
"I lost my brother and sister; I lost my mother and father," said one of the men. "Is it normal to accept someone who killed your father and mother and brother and sister to come live beside you?"
Since Mr. Bouteflika came to power, life in Algeria has begun to return to normal. The government estimates there are still about 1,000 armed militants, and it would like them to turn in their weapons, but the country is far safer today than it was just a few years ago. Where roads were once empty at night, they are clogged with traffic again. Even Western embassies are allowing their staff members to walk freely around certain areas.
To many people, that is what matters most.
"Nobody," said Arslan Chikhaoui, a business consultant in Algiers, "can say no to a peace process."
"We support peace based on certain requirements - justice, dignity and respect for those who were killed," said Cherifa Keddar, leader of an organization representing victims of the war, as she visited the graves of her brother and sister.
But many people were expected to accept the president's proposal, which amounts to trading a call for justice and accountability in return for a promise of peace and stability.
"This is a good thing, so the people can go back to the right path, so we can live in peace," said Rabaa Draai, 62, a father of 10 children, at his house in Rais, a community that suffered one of the worse atrocities of the war. On one night in 1997, more than 400 men, women and children were killed.
"Is there anybody who doesn't want peace?" said Mr. Draai, who said he had not lost any relatives in the massacre.
Algerian authorities predicted a large turnout among the country's 18 million voters, and they reported heavy voting throughout the day, although polling places in the capital and surrounding areas appeared to be largely empty much of the day. Mr. Bouteflika was hoping a commanding victory would empower him to move the country in a direction of his choosing. The results were not expected until Friday.
Since taking office with the support of the military in 1999, Mr. Bouteflika has managed to consolidate his authority while other institutions - like the judiciary and Parliament - remain relatively weak. Many of the generals to whom the president owed his job have since retired and have been replaced by those who now owe their positions to the president.
This referendum would continue Mr. Bouteflika's consolidation of power. It not only would grant amnesty to those who committed all but the most heinous crimes and effectively exonerate government security forces for killings, torture or kidnappings, but it also would grant the president broad authority in carrying out the proposed charter.
The document has been sharply criticized by opposition politicians, families of victims and human rights organizations for being vague, for not offering any process for exposing crimes of the past and for centering so much power in the president.
A group of mothers of Algerians who disappeared - suspected of being taken away by state security agents - have held protests in the center of Algiers almost every Wednesday for 11 years. They were there again this week, holding old, weathered placards with photographs of their missing family members. They said they were concerned that if the referendum passed, the issue of the missing would be considered resolved and their quest for answers about the fates of their family members would be ended.
"We are afraid after this we will be forgotten," said Fayza Ayash, whose three sons, Abdulkarim, Lakhdar and Muhammad, all disappeared years ago.
The government pressed hard to convince people to vote yes. Opposition voices were not allowed on television or radio, and opponents were depicted as being against peace. Polling places were plastered with pictures of the president and posters calling for the passage of the referendum.
While voters cast secret ballots, it was very easy for poll watchers to tell how people voted. Blue ballots, which meant yes, could easily be seen through the white envelopes they were tucked into before being dropped into a ballot box. The no ballots were white.
In Rais, the town of the massacre, many people stayed away from the polls. Three men sitting on a log around the corner from the polls had all lost relatives, and they were outspoken and angry. But they were afraid to give their names because to be against the referendum was perceived as dangerous. As they saw it, approval would mean that the killers would be allowed to return to their community - and they would be forced to accept it.
"I lost my brother and sister; I lost my mother and father," said one of the men. "Is it normal to accept someone who killed your father and mother and brother and sister to come live beside you?"
Since Mr. Bouteflika came to power, life in Algeria has begun to return to normal. The government estimates there are still about 1,000 armed militants, and it would like them to turn in their weapons, but the country is far safer today than it was just a few years ago. Where roads were once empty at night, they are clogged with traffic again. Even Western embassies are allowing their staff members to walk freely around certain areas.
To many people, that is what matters most.
"Nobody," said Arslan Chikhaoui, a business consultant in Algiers, "can say no to a peace process."
Peace Negotiator Who Advised Obama Campaign Strikes Back at Critics
By Nathan Guttman
Washington - One of the foreign-policy experts who has advised Barack Obama’s campaign on Middle East issues is striking out against critics who have used him to criticize the Illinois senator’s views on Israel.
Robert Malley, a former special assistant to President Bill Clinton on Arab-Israeli affairs, told the Forward that the attacks on him by some supporters of Israel have “crossed the line.”
Malley, who now heads the Middle East and North Africa program at the International Crisis Group, emphasized his strong support for Israel and explained his views on the need to engage in talks with Iran and Syria.
According to a statement from the Obama campaign, Malley is one of several experts who had offered advice to the campaign on Middle East policy. This role has taken center stage in recent weeks as right-wing groups and individuals have argued that Malley holds anti-Israeli views and that this indicates Obama himself has a problem with his Middle East policy.
Writing on the Web site American Thinker, Ed Lasky argued that Malley “represents the next generation of anti-Israel activism.”
Camera, the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America, published an article exploring Malley’s family roots. The article argues that “Malley’s parents were rabidly anti-Israel” and that Malley’s articles on Middle East issues “demonize Israel only slightly less than his father.”
Malley, in his first public response to the allegations, said that “it tends to cross the line when it becomes as personal and as un-based in facts as some of these have been.”
Malley’s father, journalist Simon Malley, was born to a Jewish family in Cairo in 1923 and was best known for his writings on third world independence movements.
Speaking of his father’s views, Malley said that while he loved and respected his father — who passed away in 2006 — he did not agree with him on everything.
“I found them to be an odd guilt by association,” Malley said, referring to the attacks on him based on his father’s views.
Malley recently received support from five Jewish former U.S. government officials who are known to be strong supporters of Israel. Former national security adviser Sandy Berger and former State Department officials Dennis Ross, Martin Indyk, Aaron David Miller and Daniel Kurtzer released their open letter defending Malley on February 12.
Responding to what they call “a series of vicious, personal attacks” against Malley, the former officials wrote: “These attacks are unfair, inappropriate and wrong.”
The letter is particularly noteworthy because, according to press reports, Berger and Indyk have been advising Obama’s opponent, Hillary Clinton, on Middle East policy.
The letter adds that while disagreements on policy exist, there is no disagreement regarding the special relationship between America and Israel: “We have worked with Rob closely over the years and have no doubt he shares this view and has acted consistent with it.”
Miller, who has advised six secretaries of state on Arab-Israeli negotiations and is currently a public policy scholar at the Woodrow Wilson Center, told the Forward he does not believe this public show of support will stop the attacks against Malley.
“The degree of concern among some in the Jewish community is endless,” Miller said, adding that the criticism of Malley has proved to him that “Jews worry for a living.”
Malley drew criticism from the pro-Israel community after co-authoring an article in The New York Review of Books arguing that the blame for the failure of the 2000 Camp David peace talks should be divided between all three leaders who were present at the summit: Yasser Arafat, Ehud Barak and Bill Clinton.
This article was considered controversial, since mainstream policy analysts in Israel and America had pointed to Arafat as having sole responsibility for the failed talks. Later, however, other scholars and former officials voiced similar views to those of Malley.
Today, Malley still stands out for his calls to engage in negotiations with Syria and Iran and for finding “some kind of accommodation” with Hamas.
“If you want to have movement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority you’re going to have to find some way of neutralizing Hamas’s spoiling capacity and that means to some extent, to some extent, engaging with it,” Malley said, adding that he does not believe America should be the side dealing with Hamas.
In a roundtable discussion sponsored by the Israel Policy Forum two weeks ago, Malley said he does not believe Obama will talk to Hamas or Hezbollah if elected president. Malley attended Harvard Law School with Obama but is not considered a close friend of the candidate.
The Bush administration and the Israeli government strongly oppose dealing with Hamas or breaking the wall of isolation surrounding Iran. Olmert does not, however, oppose talks with Syria.
Robert Malley, a former special assistant to President Bill Clinton on Arab-Israeli affairs, told the Forward that the attacks on him by some supporters of Israel have “crossed the line.”
Malley, who now heads the Middle East and North Africa program at the International Crisis Group, emphasized his strong support for Israel and explained his views on the need to engage in talks with Iran and Syria.
According to a statement from the Obama campaign, Malley is one of several experts who had offered advice to the campaign on Middle East policy. This role has taken center stage in recent weeks as right-wing groups and individuals have argued that Malley holds anti-Israeli views and that this indicates Obama himself has a problem with his Middle East policy.
Writing on the Web site American Thinker, Ed Lasky argued that Malley “represents the next generation of anti-Israel activism.”
Camera, the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America, published an article exploring Malley’s family roots. The article argues that “Malley’s parents were rabidly anti-Israel” and that Malley’s articles on Middle East issues “demonize Israel only slightly less than his father.”
Malley, in his first public response to the allegations, said that “it tends to cross the line when it becomes as personal and as un-based in facts as some of these have been.”
Malley’s father, journalist Simon Malley, was born to a Jewish family in Cairo in 1923 and was best known for his writings on third world independence movements.
Speaking of his father’s views, Malley said that while he loved and respected his father — who passed away in 2006 — he did not agree with him on everything.
“I found them to be an odd guilt by association,” Malley said, referring to the attacks on him based on his father’s views.
Malley recently received support from five Jewish former U.S. government officials who are known to be strong supporters of Israel. Former national security adviser Sandy Berger and former State Department officials Dennis Ross, Martin Indyk, Aaron David Miller and Daniel Kurtzer released their open letter defending Malley on February 12.
Responding to what they call “a series of vicious, personal attacks” against Malley, the former officials wrote: “These attacks are unfair, inappropriate and wrong.”
The letter is particularly noteworthy because, according to press reports, Berger and Indyk have been advising Obama’s opponent, Hillary Clinton, on Middle East policy.
The letter adds that while disagreements on policy exist, there is no disagreement regarding the special relationship between America and Israel: “We have worked with Rob closely over the years and have no doubt he shares this view and has acted consistent with it.”
Miller, who has advised six secretaries of state on Arab-Israeli negotiations and is currently a public policy scholar at the Woodrow Wilson Center, told the Forward he does not believe this public show of support will stop the attacks against Malley.
“The degree of concern among some in the Jewish community is endless,” Miller said, adding that the criticism of Malley has proved to him that “Jews worry for a living.”
Malley drew criticism from the pro-Israel community after co-authoring an article in The New York Review of Books arguing that the blame for the failure of the 2000 Camp David peace talks should be divided between all three leaders who were present at the summit: Yasser Arafat, Ehud Barak and Bill Clinton.
This article was considered controversial, since mainstream policy analysts in Israel and America had pointed to Arafat as having sole responsibility for the failed talks. Later, however, other scholars and former officials voiced similar views to those of Malley.
Today, Malley still stands out for his calls to engage in negotiations with Syria and Iran and for finding “some kind of accommodation” with Hamas.
“If you want to have movement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority you’re going to have to find some way of neutralizing Hamas’s spoiling capacity and that means to some extent, to some extent, engaging with it,” Malley said, adding that he does not believe America should be the side dealing with Hamas.
In a roundtable discussion sponsored by the Israel Policy Forum two weeks ago, Malley said he does not believe Obama will talk to Hamas or Hezbollah if elected president. Malley attended Harvard Law School with Obama but is not considered a close friend of the candidate.
The Bush administration and the Israeli government strongly oppose dealing with Hamas or breaking the wall of isolation surrounding Iran. Olmert does not, however, oppose talks with Syria.
No comments:
Post a Comment