CHILD SMUGGLING RING BUST REVEALS INVOLVEMENT OF SPECIAL SECURITY FORCES IN THE KIDNAP AND DELIVERY OF CHILDREN

 

A newly and efficiently conducted operation to stem the traffic of kidnapped children has revealed a troubling fact: highly trained ex military and other ex-special op forces members are deeply involved in operations that guarantee the passage of kidnapped children from Italy. 

Most of the children are kidnapped under the orders of a parent that is denied custody or simply wants to deny custody to the other spouse, and has the children kidnapped and ferried through the Sicilian straits to other countries in Europe. 

Most of the contractors, all highly trained mercenaries available for a princely sum, worked under the cloak of a Norwegian company called ABP World Group.  They brought gear and weaponry of Russian origin, and charged very large fees to transport the child and deliver it to the ordering parent.  But such operations are not without risk, besides being illegal under any international law.  

Many children of biracial or multiethnic background are often taken by a parent back to a country where the law is lax and extradition is almost impossible.  In fact, many of the children are taken to north Africa, where in almost all countries, fathers are given all rights to decide and custody of children. 

The highly skilled ring, unveiled during the police operation, were aided by a Ukrainian sailing champion, one Larysa Moskalenko, who provided the skills to effect the arduous and often dangerous crossing of the Sicilian straits. 

Source : France 24/ 10.31.13

 

AUSTRALIA'S EXCLUSIONIST STANCE TOWARDS MIGRANTS CONTINUES

 

The change of the guard of prime ministership has had a harsh consequence for those who try to reach Australian shores seeking asylum, whether they have a legitimate cause to do so or not. 

Tony Abbott is pleased with the result of his hard line measures to completely cut off boat migrants from its northern shores.  

Since the policies have been put into place, the flow of migrants through the Sunda Strait has all but been shut off. 

Abbott has cloaked himself of the excuse that stopping the flow of boats has halted the unsavory practices of people smuggling.  But the policy, called "stop the boats", is being enforced through all possible means, including the deployment of armed forces to turn away the vessels.  

Anyone who does manage to slip by the intensive patrol, is swiftly shipped off to Papua New Guinea, under a new accord signed only a few months ago between Abbott and PNG's government. 

However, Abbott is keeping secret any details on the boats that are sent back or intercepted by the army or navy, something that could be in violation of international human rights laws. 

Abbott made an effort to point out that under the previous government, the number of refugees had escalated to 50,000 a year.  One has to wonder however, how a continent the size of Australia can truly claim that such numbers would have a devastating effect. 

Of course, stopping people by disincentivizing the crossing efforts through immediate relocation or by interception, has cut the flow considerably.  And that, is another fact that Abbott is using to pat himself in the back: among the many rickety boats, some flounder into the sea, killing everyone on board.  So persuading people to stop coming is a way to stop those deaths.  But is this the true motivation for such action?

What seems to be at stake here, is a greater security concern, that is being kept concealed by the current administration. 

What truly worries Abbott and the Australian authorities at large, is that the influx of people seeking refuge in Australia are from countries such as Iran.  In fact, Abbott is seeking to sign a secret agreement with the Iranian authorities that would provide for repatriation of those Iranians that have sought asylum in Australia, even for those who have already reached the shore.  Which could mean that some people who have been in detention or otherwise waiting to learn their fate, even after years, could be swiftly sent back to their own country.

But if, in fact, these refugees are persecuted in their homeland, sending them back through some secret agreement, could mean sending people back to a life of persecution or imprisonment. 

Of course, Australia is supposed to only send back those Iranian refugees, or any refugee, who does not meet with the authorities' approval of their reasons for seeking asylum. But that does not prevent the Iranian government from persecuting those who are returned, if nothing else for having escaped its borders. 

What Australia is trying to do, is to strike deals with individual governments from Malaysia and Indonesia and neighboring countries, the bridge countries so to speak, so that the word is out and the 'smugglers' stop trying to cross the straits.  What they want, is for people to seek asylum or papers through legal channels via a strict and prohibitive visa program, which is completely unavailable to many of those who are earnest in their quest for asylum.

Op-Ed

Partial Source : France 24/ 10.31.13

 

 

KASHMIR HEATS UP AGAIN : FRESH UNREST THREATENS A FRAGILE PEACE

 

Renewed clashes in Kashmir threaten the fragile country again. Separationists are demonstrating with renewed force, and the Indian military has responded heavy handedly.  But is there more to these protests than meets the eye

The state in which the latest unrest occurred is a majority Muslim state, in a region that is under Indian control, Srinagar. 

The deterioration of the frail cease fire started when Muslim extremists killed five Indian soldiers on August 6th of this year.  The India-Pakistani rift immediately deepened, with India accusing Pakistan of providing material and strategic support to the Islamists.  

Since then, the border region is on high alert, and small fights break out here and there almost costantly.  

The counterattack from Indian forces however, has made little distinction of civilian from militants.  That, in itself, could cause the skirmishes to ignite into all out revolt or at least long term unrest.  And that is because India's military is protected by a law that guarantees immunity from prosecution for 'collateral' damage, i.e. the accidental or willful killing of civilians. 

The problem of Kashmir has been created by both British rule and the subsequent partition, when the British relinquished Hindustan.  The Indian Maharaja who ruled over that part of Kashmir, failed to obtain independence for his lands, and placed Kashmir square in the middle of one of the most contested and violent zones in the world.  His inability to achieve independence, immediately provoked an attack from tribal Pakistani overlords who tried to conquer Jammu and Kashmir, resulting in India's occupation to save the Maharaja from outright invasion. 

The Indian military oversight of the Jammu Kashmir region means that the Kashmiris are perenially caught between the Indian forces' attempt at stopping separatists and the militant factions.  But separatists are not necessarily indigenous people.  They are in good part Pakistani or Pakistani trained terrorists who do not want independence for the Kashmiri, but the imposition of Sharia rule and/or the annexation to neighboring Pakistan.  

The heavy handedness of the Indian military however, is not creating any goodwill with the locals.  Many civilians casualties occured this summer, which has led to more frequent protests. 

The Muslim majority in Kashmir thinks that with time, India will have to relinquish Kashmir simply in virtue of the fact that it is majority Muslim.  But whether that translates into independence is an entirely different matter. 

One of the proposal that could improve the picture in Kashmir is the proposal to annul the immunity rule which protects the Indian military.  Without civilian casualties, the Indian army could focus more successfully at preventing militant attacks, and civilians could be pacified into letting the Indian oversight occur without much protest.

However, a new president has just been elected in Pakistan, who is believed to hold moderate beliefs, and a new premiere will be chosen next year in India.  Both the sitting Indian president, Singh, and the new Pakistani premier have agreed to hash out a plan to stop violations of the ceasefire achieved in 2003.

Source : Spiegel int'l/ 10.30.13