15 May 1997 Edition
Clinton in funding trouble
By Dara Mac Neil
US President Bill Clinton is currently in trouble over alleged irregularities with fundraising for his re-election campaign. As it is, the Democrats have reluctantly agreed to return some £3 million in donations which, it is claimed, were obtained by methods that were less than transparent, from sources that were less than squeaky clean.
To date, the problems have centred on donations that were allegedly made in order to influence White House policy on Indonesia and China. Which is rather strange, considering that the White House has never previously shown itself in need of financial inducement in order to look favourably on these regimes.
To date, Clinton has failed to revoke China's Most Favoured Nation trading status (MFN) - which gives the country privileged access to the US market - despite his campaign-trail charge that George Bush was ``coddling'' up to the regime by granting and maintaining the MFN status.
Equally, the support of successive US administrations for the genocidal Suharto regime in Indonesia is a matter of record.
Cuba, however, is an entirely different matter. Here Clinton has not only matched the Cold War rhetoric of his predecessors, but has also seriously intensified the US blockade of the small Caribbean island. The blockade is an attempt to subvert Cuba economically and politically. US citizens may travel to the island only with the express permission of their government (spying etc.) and are also prohibited from taking money there - unless they have explicit authorisation from the US Department of the Treasury. Fiscal traffic in the reverse direction is also rigidly-controlled. Except when that money is for campaign coffers.
According to an April report in the New York Times, a Democratic Party fundraiser not only travelled to Cuba in 1995, but did so to raise money for Clinton's re-election campaign.
The fundraiser - a businesswoman by the name of Vivian Mannerud - travelled to Havana in November 1995. In the city's Copacabana Hotel she met with a man by the name of Jorge Cabrera, whose nationality remains unclear. As a result of Ms Mannerud's extra-curricular activities, the Clinton campaign fund benefitted to the tune of $20,000. So much for the blockade.
However, to add a further twist to this already sordid tale, it now appears Mr Cabrera's wealth derives in part, at least, from drug-trafficking. The same individual is currently imprisoned in Florida on charges of importing Colombian-sourced cocaine into the US.
When arrested in January 1996, US drug enforcement agents found in his possession photographs of a smiling Cabrera at the sides of both Vice-President Al Gore and First Lady Hillary Clinton. Cabrera's generosity had earned him a meeting with Al Gore, and an invitation to a Christmas celebration at the White House in December 1995. It now appears that Cabrera used his £20,000 donation to Democratic Party funds to help ``launder'' his profits from the drug-running operation.
Meanwhile, Clinton has made an intensification of the US blockade on Cuba and the, ahem, `war on drugs' priorities for his second and final term.
Rank hypocrisy is too polite a term for it.
Equally at home with hypocrisy are the Israeli political, judicial and legal establishments. Although a signatory to the 1987 Convention Against Torture, the country also operates a system of legalised torture. Indeed, in 1987 - the same year the Convention became operative - an Israeli government commission recommended the acceptance and use of what it termed ``moderate physical pressure'' on supposed `terrorist' (Palestinian) suspects. The Landau Commission rules are now an established part of the Israeli judicial system.
The continued existence and operation of the Landau rules were criticised recently by the UN's Committee on Torture, which said the methods approved of constituted torture and broke international law. Naturally, Israel rejected the statement.
Among the `accepted' Israeli methods cited by the UN Committee were sleep deprivation and violent shaking. In addition, Amnesty International has documented the use of techniques such as: painful restraint of prisoners, playing of loud music for prolonged periods and death threats.
In 1995, Abd Samad Harizat, a young Palestinian, died in security force custody. The autopsy concluded his death was the result of violent shaking - one of the forms of legalised torture the Israelis describe as ``moderate physical pressure.''
Israel has consistently cited the ``defence of necessity'' in order to justify its use of torture, claiming that the threat faced by the country required such measures. Israeli government sources, responding to the UN criticism, claimed their methods had helped foil 90 large-scale attacks on the country. The convenience of such statistics lies with the fact that they are easy to fabricate and impossible to refute.
Yet, some 80% of supposed `terrorist' suspects that have been arrested and tortured to date, have also been released without charge, suggesting that the information acquired through torture is more than a little unreliable. More pertinently though, what of the `terrorists' responsible for the forced expulsion in 1948, of 800,000 Palestinians from their homes, and the continued occupation of their land?
US President Bill Clinton is currently in trouble over alleged irregularities with fundraising for his re-election campaign. As it is, the Democrats have reluctantly agreed to return some £3 million in donations which, it is claimed, were obtained by methods that were less than transparent, from sources that were less than squeaky clean.
To date, the problems have centred on donations that were allegedly made in order to influence White House policy on Indonesia and China. Which is rather strange, considering that the White House has never previously shown itself in need of financial inducement in order to look favourably on these regimes.
To date, Clinton has failed to revoke China's Most Favoured Nation trading status (MFN) - which gives the country privileged access to the US market - despite his campaign-trail charge that George Bush was ``coddling'' up to the regime by granting and maintaining the MFN status.
Equally, the support of successive US administrations for the genocidal Suharto regime in Indonesia is a matter of record.
Cuba, however, is an entirely different matter. Here Clinton has not only matched the Cold War rhetoric of his predecessors, but has also seriously intensified the US blockade of the small Caribbean island. The blockade is an attempt to subvert Cuba economically and politically. US citizens may travel to the island only with the express permission of their government (spying etc.) and are also prohibited from taking money there - unless they have explicit authorisation from the US Department of the Treasury. Fiscal traffic in the reverse direction is also rigidly-controlled. Except when that money is for campaign coffers.
According to an April report in the New York Times, a Democratic Party fundraiser not only travelled to Cuba in 1995, but did so to raise money for Clinton's re-election campaign.
The fundraiser - a businesswoman by the name of Vivian Mannerud - travelled to Havana in November 1995. In the city's Copacabana Hotel she met with a man by the name of Jorge Cabrera, whose nationality remains unclear. As a result of Ms Mannerud's extra-curricular activities, the Clinton campaign fund benefitted to the tune of $20,000. So much for the blockade.
However, to add a further twist to this already sordid tale, it now appears Mr Cabrera's wealth derives in part, at least, from drug-trafficking. The same individual is currently imprisoned in Florida on charges of importing Colombian-sourced cocaine into the US.
When arrested in January 1996, US drug enforcement agents found in his possession photographs of a smiling Cabrera at the sides of both Vice-President Al Gore and First Lady Hillary Clinton. Cabrera's generosity had earned him a meeting with Al Gore, and an invitation to a Christmas celebration at the White House in December 1995. It now appears that Cabrera used his £20,000 donation to Democratic Party funds to help ``launder'' his profits from the drug-running operation.
Meanwhile, Clinton has made an intensification of the US blockade on Cuba and the, ahem, `war on drugs' priorities for his second and final term.
Rank hypocrisy is too polite a term for it.
Israel guilty of legalised torture
Equally at home with hypocrisy are the Israeli political, judicial and legal establishments. Although a signatory to the 1987 Convention Against Torture, the country also operates a system of legalised torture. Indeed, in 1987 - the same year the Convention became operative - an Israeli government commission recommended the acceptance and use of what it termed ``moderate physical pressure'' on supposed `terrorist' (Palestinian) suspects. The Landau Commission rules are now an established part of the Israeli judicial system.
The continued existence and operation of the Landau rules were criticised recently by the UN's Committee on Torture, which said the methods approved of constituted torture and broke international law. Naturally, Israel rejected the statement.
Among the `accepted' Israeli methods cited by the UN Committee were sleep deprivation and violent shaking. In addition, Amnesty International has documented the use of techniques such as: painful restraint of prisoners, playing of loud music for prolonged periods and death threats.
In 1995, Abd Samad Harizat, a young Palestinian, died in security force custody. The autopsy concluded his death was the result of violent shaking - one of the forms of legalised torture the Israelis describe as ``moderate physical pressure.''
Israel has consistently cited the ``defence of necessity'' in order to justify its use of torture, claiming that the threat faced by the country required such measures. Israeli government sources, responding to the UN criticism, claimed their methods had helped foil 90 large-scale attacks on the country. The convenience of such statistics lies with the fact that they are easy to fabricate and impossible to refute.
Yet, some 80% of supposed `terrorist' suspects that have been arrested and tortured to date, have also been released without charge, suggesting that the information acquired through torture is more than a little unreliable. More pertinently though, what of the `terrorists' responsible for the forced expulsion in 1948, of 800,000 Palestinians from their homes, and the continued occupation of their land?