Argentina openly clashes with UN over the judicial reform; calls Rapporteur ‘ignorant’

In a press statement released by the Foreign Ministry, the Argentine government said the UN's message “not only strays from the standards of professional and independence ethics expected from the head of an organization such as the Rapporteur, but it also shows a lack of balance. It is a stray from the Rapporteur's mandate.”

“It's paradoxical that whoever has obtained the mandate to protect the independence of judges and lawyers lambastes the basic principles of the law and arriving to conclusions without even getting the answers to the questions she asked last Friday evening,” the Ministry said.

The UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Gabriela Knaul, urged the Argentine Government to review the bills on the Magistrates Council reform and ruling of the cautionary measures, approved by the Lower House last week.

Knaul classified “selection of Magistrates Council members via political parties” and “limits to the cautionary measures” as bills that “contradict with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).”

“The State has the responsibility to ensure the independence of the judiciary by respecting its laws and international standards,” stressed the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers.

“By providing the opportunity for political parties to propose and organize the election of the directors, the independence of the Magistrates Council is put at risk, which seriously compromises the principles of separation of powers and independence of the judiciary, which are fundamental elements of any democracy and any rule of law,” Ms. Knaul said.

“The provision on partisan election of members of the Magistrates Council is contrary to Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Basic Principles on the Independence of the judiciary,” Ms. Knaul said.

The draft law also modifies the requirements to be a candidate to become a member of the Council, and reduces the majorities required for the adoption of relevant decisions, including for the removal of judges, with no possibility of appeal.

“I call on Argentina to establish clear procedures and objective criteria for the dismissal and punishment of judges, and to ensure an effective process through which judges can challenge those decisions in order to safeguard judicial independence,” said the Special Rapporteur.

Argentina expressed on Tuesday its “discomfort” over the “unheard of” attitude displayed by the UN Special Rapporteur, Gabriela Knaul, who urged the Cristina Fernández administration to reconsider the Council of Magistrates reform and injunction regulation bills.

 

The Argentine government insisted in its reply that the UN Rapporteur with its release, before receiving Argentina’s reply on her requests “turned the UN into prosecutor, magistrate and executioner of a member country”.

The Foreign ministry release says that the Argentine representation before the international organization in Geneva held a meeting with Jane Connors, head of the Special Procedures Division from the High Commissioner Office for Human Rights “to express its displeasure with the misconduct of the Rapporteur lease” and then states that “the same concern with the improper conduct of the Rapporteur is shared by the High Commissioner’s Office”.

Finally Argentina states that the Rapporteur expresses “ignorance or political partisanship on recommending a participative and inclusive dialogue with the society and juridical community”, because there was feedback from civil society which “proposed and obtained several changes incorporated to the bills in discussion”.

But the judiciary reform which is already partly promulgated in the midst of great controversy in the Argentine Congress, and despite the attack on the US Rapporteur, has been questioned by most of the opposition political arch, magistrates and lawyers groupings plus national and international organizations.

On Tuesday a decree promulgated the law that controls injunctions against the state following last week’s session at the Lower House when the bill was passed amid strong tensions between ruling party and opposition lawmakers.

The 456/2013 decree was published at the official gazette promulgating the controversial law, part of the six-bill package submitted to Congress by President Cristina Fernández with the purpose of “democratization” Argentina’s judiciary system.

US Congress to discuss devastating report on Cristina Fernandez administration

 “Under the corrupt populist government of President Cristina Fernandez Argentina is back on the road to ruin” is the kick off for an extremely critical report to be discussed by the US Congress and which was drafted by Douglas Farah, senior research fellow at the International Assessment and Strategy Centre under the heading of “Back to the future”.

The 64 pages Farah report dates from last February and enumerates some of the most controversial issues of Cristina Fernandez administration: relations with the Teheran regime; change of position regarding the AMIA attack despite the findings from Prosecutor Alberto Nisman which are reproduced in the report; expansion of organized crime, particularly referred to drugs traffic; the shady relations with business people friends of the Kirchner family and power or crony capitalism with special reference to the energy sector, plus attacks on freedom of expression and freedom of the press such as stigmatizing the media and journalists, the use of official publicity and intervening in the newsprint market.

According to the Farah report Cristina Fernandez domestically faces a raft of crises. Inflation has ballooned to an estimated annualized 28%, the highest in Latinamerica. Unemployment is climbing, the flight of capital is accelerating, official corruption is very much extended, the dollar clamp has eroded business opportunities and dozens of international corporations have been forced to abandon Argentina.

The report however is previous to the advance of the Argentine Executive on the Justice branch and system, and the latest major corruption case which has a businessman close to the family and alleged ‘front man’ for former president Nestor Kirchner, exposed as probably the main public works contractor in Patagonia (with a monopoly of different companies) and involved in money laundering to Belize, Caribbean, Panama and Switzerland.

“The government of Cristina Fernandez is facing multiple political and economic crises and has further strengthened her alliances with the US and the region’s democracy major antagonists: Venezuela and Iran”.

Likewise the report states that the growing authoritarianism of Cristina Fernandez and her growing disdain for the rule of law both nationally and internationally puts Argentina on the path to international default and isolation from its most democratic traditional partners, including the US, Brazil, Chile and Colombia.

Falklands’ referendum and self-determination receive support from US Congress

United States Congressman Mario Diaz-Balart released a statement after introducing a House Resolution recognizing the Falkland Islands referendum which was held March 10/11 with an overwhelming turnout and result.

“I commend the residents of the Falkland Islands for freely expressing their view on the political status of the Islands. As Americans, we have long cherished the principle of self-determination, and stand in solidarity with the Islanders in their choice to retain their status as a British Overseas Territory.

”The resolution I introduced along with my colleagues acknowledges that the referendum results are a clear expression of how the Islanders want to be governed, and urges that future dialogue over the Falkland Islands should include the views and wishes of the Falkland Islanders themselves.

“The small Islands’ community in the South Atlantic seeks to continue living peacefully and further expanding their economy. I urge my colleagues and the international community to respect the overwhelming results of the referendum and honour the right of self-determination for free people.”

Member of the Falkland Islands Legislative Assembly Mike Summers, accompanied by Penguin News journalist Teslyn Barkman, recently met with the congressman during a tour of the US and the Caribbean promoting the results of the recent referendum. Miss Barkman said, “Congressman Diaz-Balart was very sympathetic to the Falklands cause when we met with him in Miami in March.”

Congressmen Bordallo (D-GU), Campbell (R-CA), Faleomavaega (D-AS), Griffith (R-VA), Hall (R-TX), Higgins (D-NY), Holding (R-NC), Marchant (R-TX), McIntyre (D-NC), Petri (R-WI), Roskam (R-IL), Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), Ryan (D-OH), and Sensenbrenner (R-WI) Poe (R-TX) joined as original co-sponsors.

Mario Diaz-Balart is currently fulfilling his sixth term in the US House of Representatives. At the beginning of the 112th Congress, congressman Diaz-Balart was asked to serve on one of the most prestigious committees: House Committee on Appropriations. As part of the House Committee on Appropriations, he sits on three of its subcommittees: Vice-Chair of Financial Services, State and Foreign Operations, and Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies.

Lawmakers want explanation for China-made boots

Two members of Congress plan to urge the Defense Department to ensure U.S. troops wear only American-made uniforms and gear after Air Force Times revealed this summer that an airman deployed to Afghanistan was given Chinese-made boots by his unit.

Reps. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., and Michael H. Michaud, D-Maine, are asking fellow lawmakers to sign a letter that asks the Defense Department to comply with the “letter and the spirit of the Berry Amendment,” which requires the food, clothing, fabrics and other textiles the Pentagon buys to be grown or made in the U.S.

“A recent news report highlighted an Air Force Master Sergeant who was twice issued boots made in China. When he asked how he could exchange them for American-made boots, he was told ‘good luck.’”

In June, Air Force Times reported that Master Sgt. Steve Adachi had difficulties trying to get a pair of boots that were not made in China. At the time, an Air Force spokeswoman said the Berry Amendment did not apply because the law can be waived for purchases under $150,000.

Hunter said lawmakers became aware of the issue from Air Force Times’ story on Adachi. The letter to the Defense Department is the beginning of a broader effort by Congress to the department to buy more American goods.

“We think, probably, this is the tip of the iceberg — there’s probably a lot of materiel and a lot of transactions taking place that are simply waived by DoD because it’s easy to waive them, not because it’s the right thing to do and not because there aren’t American manufacturers of those goods that DoD needs to buy,” Hunter told Air Force Times.

With the country at war and the economy still weak, it is “more important than ever” that the department comply with the Berry Amendment, the lawmakers wrote.

“We should not rely on other countries, particularly those who may have competing global interests, to supply our forces with basic items,” the letter says. “This is especially true when there are millions of Americans looking for work. More importantly, our soldiers deserve to fight in uniforms, including footwear, that are made in the U.S.A.”

So far, 17 members of Congress have signed the letter, said Ed Gilman, a spokesman for Michaud. The two lawmakers have not yet decided when to send the letter.

The Defense Department declined to comment on the matter.

“We’ll wait until we get any communication from members of Congress and then respond appropriately to them,” Defense Department spokeswoman Cheryl Irwin said in an email.

After the Air Force Times story was published, Adachi received a pair of American-made boots from the company from which his unit bought the other boots.

The incident made him so incensed that he wrote his congresswoman, Rep. Colleen Hanabusa, D-Hawaii, who later received a letter from the Air Force that reiterated that the Berry Amendment did not apply to the purchase of the two-pair of boots.

However, the Air Force acknowledged that Adachi’s unit violated another law, the Buy American Act, which applies to purchases greater than $3,000.

“After significant research and a comprehensive legal review, it appears the sage green boots Sergeant Adachi received prior to his deployment were purchased with the intent to be used in the United States, and thus violated the ‘Buy American Act,’” wrote Lt. Col. Douglas F. McCobb, of the office of legislative liaison, in a letter to Hanabusa.

The issue of what troops wear is an important one to Michaud, whose district includes factories that make footwear. He has introduced a bill that would stop the Defense Department from issuing troops cash allowances to buy their own athletic shoes.

“We all remember the outrage this summer when it was discovered that our Olympic athletes were wearing uniforms made in China,” Michaud said in a news release. “Well I think we should be as equally outraged about the fact that our troops are not wearing 100 percent American-made uniforms. Our soldiers put their lives on the line for us, and they should fight in uniforms they can trust — uniforms made in the U.S.A.”

Report criticizes U.S. missile-defense system

A congressionally-requested report on the current U.S. missile-defense system says the best way to meet future threats from Iran or North Korea is to place upgraded missiles and improved radars on both coasts of the U.S.

The current U.S. system is "very expensive and has limited effectiveness," said the report from the National Research Council, which offers advice to government agencies under a congressional charter.

Fashioned amid tensions with North Korea over the last two decades, the U.S. Missile Defense Agency's system now has 30 interceptor missiles ready to launch from bases in Alaska and California, as well as smaller ship-based systems aboard the U.S. Navy's Pacific and Atlantic Fleet.

"The system only has a very limited ability to defend the U.S. from missiles other than ones from North Korea," said missile expert L. David Montague, who co-chaired the report panel, asked by Congress in 2009 to assess U.S. missile defense. The report also weighs in on the best strategy for shooting down incoming missiles, suggesting the nation should target enemy missiles in mid-course -- high above Earth's atmosphere -- which would provide more time to identify the threats and shoot down incoming missiles with multiple attempts.

The report strongly criticizes past proposals to build "boost-phase" interceptors that aim to destroy missiles in their first minute of launch, when firing rockets make them identifiable. That's simply too short a time to be workable for interceptors, the report suggests. Such boost-phase plans were killed by the Obama Administration in 2010, "but they keep coming back like a bad penny," Montague said.

Instead the report calls for:

Faster interceptor missiles with improved sensors, with 30 based on each coast. to cover the threat from Iran as well as North Korea.

Construction of five new "X-band" radar system bases better able to discriminate decoy warheads from real ones.

An East Coast missile defense base perhaps in Fort Drum, N.Y., or Maine.

Canceling a proposed Missile Defense Agency satellite sensor system, estimated at around $27 billion, and other unneeded programs would keep the cost of the defenses to around the $10 billion annually budgeted on such defenses through 2016, the report says. A key part of the plan would rely on sensors aboard the first interceptors fired, and satellites already in orbit, to provide targeting information to follow-up interceptors. "The technology exists we believe, with some qualifications," Montague said.

"We are committed to midcourse missile defense," MDA spokesman Rick Lehner said by e-mail. The agency has sent a letter critical of the report's cost estimate for its proposed satellite sensor system to a Senate committee.

The "recommendation to not waste any more money on boost phase missile defense is correct. It's something that has been recommended by other experts for years," said Philip Coyle of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation in Washington, D.C. The times for interceptors to reach just-launched missiles before they stop firing, "are just too short," he said, echoing the report. An elaborate constellation of warning satellites aimed at providing more warning time for such "boost" phase interceptors would cost $500 billion, the panel estimated.

However, the midcourse interceptors promoted by the report also face critics, who suggest that heat signatures and decoy warheads from attackers would overwhelm interceptors trying to pick out a real incoming missile. "Another East Coast site and newer interceptors is merely re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic," said nuclear physicist Yousaf Butt of the Monterey Institute of International Studies in Washington, D.C. "Such band-aid solutions that do not address the fundamental countermeasures (and) decoys issue will only give us a false sense of security, while simultaneously giving Russia and China a false sense of insecurity."

"That is not nearly as good an argument (against) countries like North Korea or Iran with limited resources," said Walter Slocombe, a former Defense Department official and the other co-chair of the study, which explicitly did not look at missile defenses against major nuclear powers such as China or Russia. Decoys are not easy to work as critics assume, he argues.

Budget Office Questions Navy Shipbuilding Cost Estimates

The U.S. Navy is underestimating the cost of its proposed 30-year shipbuilding program by 19 percent, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office said in a report.

The Navy submitted a plan to Congress in late March to buy 268 ships during the next three decades at an average annual cost of $16.8 billion for a total of $505 billion, according to the report. If other activities such as refueling nuclear- powered aircraft carriers that typically are funded from the service’s shipbuilding accounts are included, the average annual cost is $18.8 billion, the CBO said in the report released yesterday.

“By comparison, using its own models and assumptions, CBO estimates that the cost for new-ship construction under the 2013 plan would average $20.0 billion per year, or a total of $599 billion through 2042,” the CBO said. “That figure is 19 percent more than the Navy’s estimate. Including the expense of refueling aircraft carriers and the other items raises that average cost to about $22 billion per year -- 37 percent more than what the Navy has spent through its shipbuilding accounts on average during the past 30 years.”

In response, a Navy spokeswoman, Lieutenant Courtney Hillson, said, “The Navy welcomes the CBO’s review of our shipbuilding estimates, and we will take the time needed to review the CBO report.”

The Navy’s 2013 plan calls for buying 222 combat ships, including aircraft carriers, submarines and amphibious warfare ships, between 2013 and 2042, 17 more than called for in its 2012 plan, said the CBO. In addition, the plan calls for 46 “logistics and support” ships.

Falling Short

Among the prime contractors for the Navy’s shipbuilding programs are General Dynamics Corp. (GD) of Falls Church, Virginia; Huntington Ingalls Industries Inc. (HII) of Newport News, Virginia; Austal USA of Mobile, Alabama; and Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT) of Bethesda, Maryland. Raytheon Co. (RTN) of Waltham, Massachusetts, makes radar, electronics and self-defense missiles.

The 2013 plan for a fleet of about 300 warships “would still leave the Navy short of its inventory objectives for attack submarines, large surface combatants and amphibious warfare ships for significant parts of the 2013-2042 period, although those shortfalls are now less pronounced than they would have been under the 2012 plan,” according to the report.

By contrast, the CBO said, the Navy would exceed its goal of 11 aircraft carriers, including six new Gerald R. Ford-class vessels, for all but four years of that period.

Rising Cost

The Navy now estimates the average cost of the six new CVN- 78 carriers, the first one of which is about 40 percent completed at Huntington Ingalls Shipbuilding’s Newport News, Virginia, yard, at $10.9 billion. The CBO’s average estimate for the six vessels through 2042 is $13 billion.

The lead ship USS Gerald Ford has drawn the most scrutiny this year from lawmakers, such as Senate Armed Services Committee ranking Republican John McCain of Arizona.

CBO yesterday confirmed an earlier McCain claim that the projected cost of the CVN-78 grew 18 percent between 2008 and 2013. That’s up from a 10 percent increase since 2008 CBO projected last year.

CBO projects the total CVN-78 cost by the time its delivered in September 2015 will be at least $14.2 billion, up from $13.3 billion in fiscal 2012 dollars, the agency estimated in last year’s report.

The final cost of the CVN-78 could be even higher than CBO’s estimate, for several reasons, according to the CBO.

These include the fact that the Navy’s own cost estimates assume the vessel has a 50 percent chance of exceeding its budget, the CBO said.

Critical Technologies

In addition, “a number of critical technologies” are supposed to be incorporated into the ship, such as a new General Atomics of San Diego electromagnetic catapult system for launching aircraft. They remain under development and will require integration as the ship nears the final stages of construction, CBO said.

Difficulties in completing that integration could arise and increase costs, and those increases would also probably affect the costs for subsequent ships of the class,” according to the CBO.

Some military experts have questioned the wisdom of relying heavily on such large ships when nations such as China are developing new anti-ship missiles, drones and attack submarines.

Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Jonathan Greenert said in a Bloomberg interview yesterday that the service will soon release its latest force structure plan. 

US plans to sell $4.2-b Patriot missiles to Kuwait

The Pentagon has said it planned to sell 60 Patriot missiles to Kuwait in a deal worth an estimated $4.2 billion, as the emirate tries to bolster its defences against the threat from Iran.

The Defence Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA), which is in charge of US weapon sales to foreign countries, notified the US Congress of the intended sale on July 20, the agency said in a statement on its Website yesterday.

Congress has 30 days to raise any objections it may have. If nothing is said, the contract is deemed valid after that waiting period.

The deal involves the sale of 60 Patriot advanced capability (PAC-3) missiles, 20 launching stations, four radar systems and control stations, personnel training and training equipment, and spare parts, the DSCA said.

“Kuwait will use the PAC-3 missiles and equipment to improve its missile defence capability, strengthen its homeland defence, and deter regional threats,” the agency said.

Earlier this year at a forum that brought together the United States and the six members of the Gulf Cooperation Council — Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates — the US Secretary of State, Ms Hillary Clinton, promoted a missile shield to protect Gulf Arab states from Tehran.

The six GCC states are all major buyers of US arms.

Kuwait already has Patriot missiles. In 1992, it bought 210 of the earlier-generation Patriots, and 25 launchers. It then bought 140 more in 2007, according to the Congressional Research Service.

Keywords: Pentagon, Patriot missiles, Kuwait, Defence Security Cooperation Agency, Patriot advanced capability missiles, PAC-3 missiles,

America's Asia Pivot

Lawmakers to Panetta: Stop AF attacks on faith

Sixty-six members of Congress sent a letter to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta on Friday urging him to issue guidance to counter an “alarming pattern of attacks on faith in the Air Force.”

In their letter, the lawmakers blame Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz for cultivating a crackdown on religion within the service.

The letter blasts the Air Force for removing Latin references to God in a unit patch, removing religious references in missile training, removing bibles from Air Force Inn checklists and barring commanders from telling airmen about Chaplain Corps programs.

“When our sons and daughters join the military, they are not signing away their First Amendment right to religious liberty,” the letter states. “Unfortunately it seems that some parts of the military are intent on prohibiting religious expressions rather than protecting it.”

The 66 signatures are led by a trio of lawmakers: Reps. Randy Forbes, R-Va.; Diane Black, R-Tenn.; and Todd Akin, R-Mo.

“The Air Force has repeatedly capitulated to demands from groups that seek to remove all traces of faith from the military and the public square. … Those who sacrifice so much for our nation must be assured that they need not leave their faith at home when they volunteer to serve,” Forbes said in a statement.

In the letter, the lawmakers say Schwartz is most responsible for what they say is a continuing pattern of anti-religious bias. They said a Sept. 1, 2011, memo issued by Schwartz imposed a “stringent policy with regards to religion”

“The memo stated that Gen. Schwartz expected ‘chaplains, not commanders, to notify Airmen of Chaplain Corps programs,’ suggesting that the mere mention of these programs is impermissible,” the congressmen’s letter stated.

“We believe this statement exemplifies the troubling ‘complete separation’ approach that is creating a chilling effect down the chain of command as airmen attempt to comply.”

Individual moves taken within Air Force circles since Schwartz’s guidance go beyond the requirements of the U.S. Constitution, lawmakers wrote. “The changes lend credence to the notion that the Air Force will remove any references to God or faith that an outside organization brings to its attention.”

Attempts to reach Schwartz’s office on Friday morning for comment were unsuccessful.