Disputed minaret near Olten inaugurated

A controversial minaret has been inaugurated at a mosque in the town of Wangen near Olten.
June 27, 2009
swissinfo.ch with agencies

Organisers said about 1,000 people took part in Saturday's festivities which took place despite a boycott by several official representatives concerned over a rise in Islamic extremism.

The president of the local Turkish culture association, Mustapha Karahan, said the minaret would promote mutual respect between Christians and Muslims.

A Methodist pastor called on Christians and Muslims to join forces to defend freedom of religion, while a centre-left politician described the minaret as a symbol of integration.

However, a senior official from federal and cantonal authorities refused to take part in the ceremony because of a controversial flag displayed at the mosque.

The construction of the minaret at Wangen took more than four years and prompted rightwing political parties to propose a nationwide ban on minarets. But no date has yet been set for the ballot.

There are currently four minarets in Switzerland, including Geneva, Zurich and Winterthur.

Plans for a minaret at Langenthal are still pending.

Iraq Set to Seek Foreign Oil Bids

Critics Say Contracts Will Benefit Giant Firms, Hurt Government Politically

By Ernesto Londoño and K.I. Ibrahim
Washington Post Foreign Service
Sunday, June 28, 2009

BAGHDAD, June 27 -- Iraq is poised to open its coveted oil fields to foreign companies this week for the first time in nearly four decades, a politically risky move in a country eager to shake off the stigma of occupation.

Iraqi politicians and some veteran oil officials have said the deals are unduly beneficial to oil giants, which are viewed warily by many in this deeply nationalistic but cash-strapped country.

Oil executives have been following the matter with apprehension, industry analysts said, but they are eager to get a foothold in Iraq, which has the world's second-largest proven crude reserves and is seen as the only major penetrable market.

"It's something the industry really wants," said Ben Lando, editor of Iraq Oil Report, an Iraq energy news Web site. "The number of reserves around the world that they have access to is declining. And Iraq has so much oil."

Iraq's Oil Ministry is expected to auction eight contracts for six active oil fields and two largely undeveloped gas fields Monday and Tuesday. Thirty-five companies have been selected to submit bids for the 20-year service contracts.

The winners will be required to give the Iraqi government a total of $3 billion in loans. They will be compensated for costs and will earn a per-barrel fee for boosting production at the fields, ravaged by years of war and sanctions.

Although the terms for investors are less than ideal, analysts said, those who get picked in the first round are likely to receive more lucrative contracts in the future. The companies are also preparing bids for a second round of contracts for work at undeveloped fields, which Iraqi officials expect to award in coming months.

Companies that secure the contracts will be wading into a country with a latent insurgency, endemic corruption and deeply divided political leaders who have been unable to enact a hydrocarbons law.

The man leading the effort to bring in foreign investors, Oil Minister Hussain Shahristani, has come under attack in recent days by some lawmakers and oil officials, who argue that Iraq should rebuild its crippled oil sector without substantial help from foreign companies.

Iraq's parliament does not have a formal role in awarding the contracts, whose legality has been questioned by some lawmakers and the autonomous Kurdistan Regional Government in northern Iraq.

Critics say that Saddam Hussein-era laws that stressed nationalization of Iraq's oil industry remain in effect until a new law is passed.

"There is a majority opinion inside parliament that opposes these bids," legislator Alia Nusaif said in an interview, adding that the Oil Ministry should have given lawmakers more time to examine the terms. "We must think ahead and ensure that our future generations are not left empty-handed because of the ill motives of some."

Shahristani, who was questioned by lawmakers last week during a sometimes contentious two-day hearing, argued that Iraq cannot afford to rebuild its oil sector without help. The recent drop in oil prices, which has stymied government initiatives and triggered a freeze on the hiring of security forces, has underscored the urgent need for foreign cash and expertise, he said.

"All experts inside and outside the government agree on the need to repair the oil infrastructure and expand exploration development and production," Shahristani said. "The country depends almost exclusively on its oil reserves."

Iraq expelled foreign oil companies in 1972 amid a regional movement toward nationalization. Its national oil company performed well until the 1991 Persian Gulf War, which was preceded by sanctions imposed by the United Nations.

Violence and the exodus of scores of technocrats after the U.S.-led invasion in 2003 have taken a toll on the industry. Pipelines in northern and southern Iraq are in dire need of repair, and much of the equipment at functioning oil fields is outdated or underperforming.

Iraq pumps an estimated 2.4 million barrels of oil a day. With foreign capital and expertise, oil experts said, the figure could grow to 10 million in a few years.

Iraq has an estimated 115 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, second only to Saudi Arabia. Other attractive markets, such as Venezuela and Russia, have in recent years asserted more state control over the industry.

The government, keenly aware of the potential for controversy and political fallout, has sought to portray the process as transparent. Bidders will submit sealed proposals that will be evaluated using a set formula during televised sessions.

The bidding process and its outcome could have political consequences for Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who is expected to seek reelection in January. Many Iraqis still view Maliki as somewhat beholden to the U.S. government, and his rivals could use the oil issue to portray him as a sellout.

"The nationalization of Iraq's oil sector was extremely popular, but national capacity was hurt by wars during Saddam Hussein's time and his misuse of the oil sector," Lando said. "They had great talent, great coordination. So Iraqis see that and say: Why can't we re-create that rather than rely on foreign companies?"

Former oil minister Ibrahim Bahr Uloom said the government would have been wise to delay the process until after the election.

"What will happen if a new government comes and a new prime minister and a new parliament don't go ahead with these contracts?" he asked.

Israel's settlements are on shaky ground

International law mandates that they must be removed and that the Palestinians should be compensated for their losses.
By Sarah Leah Whitson
Los Angeles Times
June 28, 2009

The debate over Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories is often framed in terms of whether they should be "frozen" or allowed to grow "naturally." But that is akin to asking whether a thief should be allowed merely to keep his ill-gotten gains or steal some more. It misses the most fundamental point: Under international law, all settlements on occupied territory are unlawful. And there is only one remedy: Israel should dismantle them, relocate the settlers within its recognized 1967 borders and compensate Palestinians for the losses the settlements have caused.

Removing the settlements is mandated by the laws of the Geneva Convention, which state that military occupations are to be a temporary state of affairs and prohibit occupying powers from moving their populations into conquered territory. The intent is to foreclose an occupying power from later citing its population as "facts on the ground" to claim the territory, something Israel has done in East Jerusalem and appears to want to do with much of the West Bank.

The legal principles were reaffirmed in 2004 by the International Court of Justice, which cited a U.N. Security Council statement that the settlements were "a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention." The International Committee of the Red Cross and an overwhelming number of institutions concerned with the enforcement of international humanitarian law have concurred in that view.

The economic and social cost of Israeli settlements to the Palestinian population, stemming in part from Israel's need to protect them, are enormous. The 634 (at last count) roadblocks, barriers and checkpoints erected to control the movement of lawful residents of the territory make travel an ordeal. Sometimes even getting to work, school or the home of a relative is impossible for Palestinians. Every day, they must wait in line for hours to show their IDs, and some days they are randomly rerouted, told to go home or, worse, detained for questioning.

Similarly, the fact that Israel is building 87% of its projected 450-mile "security barrier" on Palestinian territory has less to do with protecting Israel from suicide bombers -- which could have been accomplished by erecting a wall on the Green Line -- than it does with putting 10% of West Bank territory, including most settlers, on the Israeli side. And while Israeli troops protect the settlers from armed Palestinian groups, there is little protection for Palestinians from the settlers' marauding militias and gangs, which have terrorized the local population, destroying their crops, uprooting their trees and throwing stones at their houses and schools.

Too little attention is given to the pervasive system of government-sponsored discrimination against Palestinians in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, where Israel has constructed roads exclusively for settlers and established vastly unequal access to water, fuel, education, healthcare, transportation, infrastructure and virtually every other social service. Israeli authorities readily grant settlers building permits that they deny to Palestinians, whose "illegal" homes they often demolish at short notice. The glaring discrepancy in Israel's treatment of two populations living on the same land has taken a significant moral toll on Israel, as well as a political one, with wide coverage of humiliation and abuse at the hands of its security forces.

The common refrain of Israeli and even American politicians who recognize that the settlements must go is that it would be politically difficult to dismantle them, in part because it would stir the ire of the settlers and their supporters, an important voting bloc in Israel. Instead, politicians argue that settlements must be a part of future negotiations and a possible land swap.

But this only serves as further incentive to expand settlements and makes a political resolution even more difficult. It also condones in the interim Israel's continuing human rights abuses in the name of settler security, leaving respect for Palestinians' rights a second-tier consideration that must await the conclusion of peace talks that have already gone on for decades.

Israel has a duty to protect its citizens, but not in a way that violates the rights of Palestinians. The lawful, rights-respecting way to protect the security of settlers is to move them back to Israel. That should be the starting point of any discussion on settlements.

Sarah Leah Whitson is Middle East director at Human Rights Watch.