|
Wednesday, February 15, 2012. Chaos and violence continue, UN
Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon talks Camp Ashraf, another prep meet-up for a
national conference takes place, Iraq continues to struggle to pass a 2012
budget, the US House Veterans Affairs Committee hears from the VA about their
budget requests and more.
President Barack Obama, don't threaten veterans. That was the message of
House Veterans Affairs Committee Chair Jeff Miller this morning. What was he
talking about? He was noting that other departments know whether or not
sequestration would effect them but VA doesn't. In 1985, the Congress passed
the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Budget Act. If the budget triggers sequestration,
then automatic cuts would take place. Chair Miller explained that they had
repeatedly attempted to get a clear answer from the White House on this issue
but that they still had no answer. "If the president won't lead on this issue,"
Chair Miller declared, "then we will."
It was a lively hearing. So much so that all overshadowed Miller's opening
remarks.
The hearing was about the 2013 budget and two panels appeared before the
Committee. The first panel was Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki
(with the VA's Robert Petzel, Allison Hickey, Steve Muro, Roger Baker and Todd
Grams). Paralyzed Veterans of America's Carl Blake, VFW's Ramond Kelley,
Disabled American
Veterans' Joseph Violante, AMVETS Diane Zumatto and the American Legion's Timothy Tetz. We'll note the
second panel in tomorrow's snapshot and focus on the first panel today. The
White House has put out their trial budget. The House Veterans Affairs
Committee was focusing on the budget in terms of veterans issues.
Chair Jeff Miller: In the -- in the current budget submission, it
has a billion dollars for Veterans Job Corps. We all are keenly aware of the
high number of unemployed veterans in our country today. And not a single member
of this Committee nor this Congress should be in any way satisifed with that
number. And we have tried to do things in this Commitee to help bring those
numbers down. My concern is there's no detail in the budget submission. Where
did the number one billion dollars come from? You know, it was chosen to be
provided in your entitlement accounts to be dispensed over a five year period.
And so I think we all benefit from a conversation, Mr. Secretary, as to who's
going to be focused on, what area of the veteran population, how's it going to
work and what will happen to these jobs once the funds run out?
Secretary Eric Shinseki: Mr. Chairman, the proposal for the
Veterans Job Corps, the $1 billion piece of that, is a program that we're
seeking Congressional authorization on and we are putting together the details
of that which we would provide to you and you would have a chance to review. I
would say that the intent here is to put up to 20,000 veterans back to work over
the next five years on projects that will protect and restore our public lands.
Projects would be in national parks, forests, rivers and trails, wild life
refuge, national monuments, other public lands. Veterans could work on park
maintenance projects, patrolling public lands, rehabilitating natural and
recreational areas and in administrative, technical, law enforcement-related
activities. The Veterans Job Corps program is a project that's going to be
coordinated with other departments and we are a -- sort of a oversight of the
distribution of funds but there are others who will be participating. I'm told
that uh -- and I'm confident that uh VA resources won't be diverted to fund this
$1 billion that it will come from elsewhere. And I don't know exactly where at
the moment. But, Mr. Chairman, I'll share that with you as soon as I have
clarity.
And we'll note, from his written statement about the Veterans Job Corps,
"The program will serve all Veterans, but will have a particular focus on
post-9/11 Veterans." So the 20,000 jobs are not guaranteed to veterans of
today's wars. I'm not saying they should be but I am saying 20,000 wasn't, to
me, an impressive number, and became less so when it was going to address not
only the largest unemployed veterans population (young veterans of today's wars)
but all veterans. US House Rep Corrine Brown would bring up the issue of
contracts and outsourcing and asking why every contract the VA outsourced didn't
have a clause in it about hiring veterans? Not really an answer. "You're not
answering the question," Ranking Member Bob Filner pointed out to the VA's
Allison Hickey as she went on about how one contract has seen a company hire 15%
veterans and how they have conversations with contractors. Filner pointed out
that Brown's question was why didn't they mandate this in the contract, why have
conversations when you should be writing it into the contract? Hickey attempted
to reply but Shinseki took over.
Secretary Eric Shinseki: Mr. Filner, we'll take a look at
this.
Ranking Member Bob Filner: Oh, come on, you can give me some kind
of answer. Are you saying we can't do it legally?
Secretary Eric Shinseki: I don't know. I don't know the answer to
that question.
Ranking Member Bob Filner: She must know the answer [gesturing to
Hickey]. I mean, come on. This is not rocket science here. You issue contracts
100 times a day. Why can't we have contracts that do this?
Secretary Eric Shinseki: You can. And I don't know the
circumstances of this contract. And I would --
Ranking Member Bob Filner: But she apparently does. Why didn't we
do it here?
Allison Hickey: So, Congressman, I will go back to our physician
folks to ask --
Ranking Member Bob Filner: Oh, come on. You guys know the answer
to this. Why are you so afraid to just tell us?
Secretary Eric Shinseki: I'm not sure it wasn't in the contract,
Mr. Filner. That's why --
Ranking Member Bob Filner: Well she's sure --
Allison Hickey: Congressman --
Ranking Member Bob Filner: You started off your testimony, "I know
the contract." So did it specify or not?
Allison Hickey: I will find out and get back to you for the record
--
Ranking Member Bob Filner: I don't understand this. You know this
better than you're saying here.
US House Rep Corrine Brown then noted that one of the biggest complaints
she gets is that VA does billions of dollars of work and they're not doing it
with veterans, they're not hiring them and this at a time when so many veterans
are unemployed. Brown noted employment elsewhere in the hearing as well. US
House Rep and Dr. Roe raised the issue of the large number of suicides and
shared that one thing he's hearing from veterans is that they're doing well in
one-on-one sessions and then they're moved on to groups and that's not working.
"These needs aren't being met in large group settings," he explained. The short
answer is that the VA is currently evaluating with plans to increase in the
numbers hired where needed.
US House Rep Corrine Brown: Sir, I have a follow up on that, you
said can we hire -- are we not -- are we trying to hire all those people or are
we working with other agencies as far as subcontracting out? Because we're not
going to be able to hire enough people. He talked about the group setting, some
people can benefit from the group setting, everbody don't need that one-on-one
but some people do. So based on the resources, how can we better utilize the
dollars to meet the needs?
Dr. Robert Petzel: Thank you, Congressman Brown. We do contract in
the community. We do provide on a fee basis mental health care. And as the
Secretary was just pointing out to me a new modality that's becoming
increasingly important is tele-mental health where we provide both evaluation
and therapy in a tele-health setting -- where the patient may be remotely, a
hundred miles away. They're on a television screen with an appropriate
supervisor and the psychiatrist or psychologist is back at a larger medical
center. It has been very successful in treating PTSD and other mental health
disorders. And I think that this is going to become a more common practice as
we move forward.
FYI, Petzel called every female House Rep, throughout the hearing,
"Congressman." Maybe here we'll call him "Mrs. Dr. Petzel" in the future?
Last week, Senator Patty Murray, Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs
Committee, participated in a Virtual Town Hall, an online Town Hall which
allowed her and veterans all over the country to interact. The Virtual Town Hall
was sponsored by Disabled American Veterans and a full transcript of the
exchange can be found here. Various
veterans participating in the Virtual Town Hall noted the delays and backlog
with regards to claims -- not surprising, over 500,000 claims are currently
backlogged according to the VA's Allison Hickey testimony in today's hearing.
Senator Murray observed, "I receive so many complaints from veterans and their
families about long waits for claims. I visited the Seattle Regional Office a
few months ago and was astounded at the mountain of paper work and had the
opportunity to really see what we are facing. I am working hard to try and help
the VA get a handle on this. We do have to recognize that the claims are
increasingly complex and there are more of them with the number of service
members coming home today. We want them to be done efficiently but correctly.
This will remain a top priority for me." And in today's hearing, Ranking Member
Bob Filner touched on the issues of backlog and Agent Orange.
Ranking Member Bob Filner: And I just want to ask a couple -- focus
on a couple areas that I've been involved with over the years. One is the claims
backlog. In your budget presentation ou title it "Eliminate The Claims
Backlog." But I don't see any real estimate or projection or anything of when
you think you're going to do that but I still think that -- in the short run, at
least -- to get this turned around your notion of -- I think you used the word
"brute force" a few years ago, if I recall that.
Secretary Eric Shinseki: It was probably a poor choice of
words.
Ranking Member Bob Filner: No, it's okay. It was good. Gives me
something to shoot at, you know? I don't think it's going to work. I just think
all this stuff you have is good stuff but it's too big and, as you point out,
there's all kind of factors making it bigger. I still think you have to take
some, I'll say, radical step in the short run -- whether it's to grant all the
Agent Orange claims that have been submitted or have been there for X number of
years or, as I've suggested at other times, all claims that have the medical
information in it and have been submitted with the help of a Veterans Service
Officer you accept subject to audit. That is, unless you take some real radical
step to eliminate a million of them or 500,000 of them, you're never going to
get there. It's going to always be there. You don't want that as your legacy --
I don't think. So -- Nor do we. I think you're going to have to take some
really strong steps in terms of accepting stuff that's been in the pipeline a
long time, again, that has adequate -- by whatever definition -- documentation
and help from professional support. Plus this incredible situation of Agent
Orange where, as you know, not only have those claims increaded but we're
talking about -- as you well know -- your comrades for thirty or more years that
have been wrestling with this. Let's give the Vietnam vets some peace. Let's
give them a real welcome home. Let's grant those Agent Orange claims. Let's get
those -- whatever it is, 100,000 or 200,000 of our backlog -- just get them off
the books. I don't know if you want to comment on that but I still think you're
never going to get there with -- All this is good stuff. We've talked about it
on many occasions. But it's not going to fundamentally -- or at least in the
short run change it around so you can get to a base level of zero or whatever
you want to be and move forward from there.
Secretary Eric Shinseki: Mr. Filner, I'll call on Secretary Hickey
for the final details but we've pretty much worked through the Agent Orange --
the increase in Agent Orange claims. I think we're well down on the numbers.
I'll rely on her statistic here.
Many other issues were touched on. We'll note the exchanges on women
veterans.
Ranking Member Bob Filner: The House passed a bill that I had put
forward a year or two ago called a Women's Veterans Bill of Rights. It got
through the House, it got stuck in the Senate. [He's referring to HR 809 which
he introduced in the 111th Congress and which the Senate didn't pass. He
reintroduced HR 809 in the new
Congress in February of 2010.] I would just ask that you look at that. You can
do stuff administratively. You could post something in each of our centers and
clinics. We have a long way to go on this but women veterans need to feel that
this institution is evolving to meet their needs. And a statement at the front
door of their rights, I think, would be very helpful. So I would just ask you to
look at that. We didn't do it legislatively but I think you could do some stuff
administratively.
Shinseki replied that women veterans' issues in the proposed budget
increased by 17%. Dropping back to his written statement, he gives 8% as the
number women make up in VA's total population, women are "nearly 15 percent of
today's active duty military forces and 18 percent of National Guard and
Reserves." 337,000 women access care through VA and, "The 2013 budget includes
$403 million for the gender-specific healthcare needs of women Veterans, an
increase of 17.5 percent over the 2012 level." Later in the hearing, US House
Rep Linda Sanchez would raise the issue of women veterans and we'll jump to her
exchange.
US House Rep Linda Sanchez: Secretary Shinseki, I recently had the
opportunity to visit the Patient Alligned Care Center at the Long Beach VA
facility and I want to applaud the efforts there to provide an integrated system
of care. But one of the things that's been brought to my attention is the levels
of staffing for the new models that will be put in place. I heard from doctors,
nurses and other pracitioners to discuss how thinly they feel they are being
stretched in this new system. And it's a system that they want to see succeed.
They're employed there because they believe in the mission, they want to provide
the service. But I'm wondering if you could maybe go into a little bit of
detail as to how the $433 million that is proposed for patient-centered care --
how that will go towards staffing to make sure that we have the staff availble
to meet the needs of those veterans.
Secretary Eric Shinseki: I'm going to call on Dr. Petzel for the
details.
US House Rep Linda Sanchez: Sure.
Dr. Robert Petzel: Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Congressman Sanchez,
when we implemented the PAC [Patient Aligned Care] program, several years ago,
the first thing that we did was a survey of what we call PAC readiness. One of
which was to determine how many support people there were in place for each one
of the providers in a PAC clinic. The desirable ratio agreed to in the entire
health care community is 3 people per provider. We found that there were places
that were reaching that goal and then others that weren't. One of the major
things that has been involved in the PAC model financing has been to provide the
medical centers with -- and the clinics with -- the number of people that they
need to support the provider. I will look specifically at Long Beach and I can,
in fact, get back to you. But our goal -- and we're very close to it as I
understand -- is to have 3 support people per provider in each one of our
clinics.
US House Rep Linda Sanchez: Okay because I hear stories about
staffing being stretched and no new hires or people leave and are not replaced.
And so the concern is to have the appropriate amount of people available to
provide the services that are needed. And I would appreciate you following up
with me about that. To the Secretary, I know that you and I have previously
discussed some of my concerns -- specifically with respect to the VA employing
female specialists to assist specifically female veterans with VA services. And
I know that the administration's budget contains $403 million to address the
needs of women veterans. I'm wondering if you can tease that out a little bit
and provide more specifics on how that money will be used to address the growing
needs of the female veteran population?
Secretary Eric Shinseki: Uh, thank you, Congresswoman. I'm going to
call on Dr. Petzel for the details but this is confirmed that you and I have had
discussions about this.
US House Rep Linda Sanchez: Yes.
Dr. Robert Petzel: I thank you, Mr. Secretary. Uh, the -- our goal
is to ensure that every female veteran has a choice of providers and that, if
they wish to, they will be able to be seen by a female provider. About 75% of
women choose to have a female provider. And we are able to meet that need in
virtually every setting except perhaps some remote community-based outpatient
clinics where we just don't have those sort of uh facilities. I can, for the
record, give you the details about how much staffing -- what kind of staffing is
to be associated with the $403 million increase we're seeing in women's health
programs. I don't have that number at the tip of my fingers but it is important
to us as I'm sure it is to you that women have a choice, that if they wish to
see a female provider, they are afforded that opportunity.
US House Rep Linda Sanchez: Yeah, one of the things on my tour of
the Long Beach facility is that they do have a sort of separate women's clinic
area where women can choose that to be their point of entry to the
system.
Dr. Robert Petzel: About sixty of our largest medical centers have
specific women's centers, women's health centers where all of the services are
provided in that same environment. The rest of them are sort of associated with
women specific primary care clinics when they're not as large. And then, in
community based outpatient clinics we have trained the primary care providers in
the necessities of women's health.
Homelessness was touched on by US House Reps Corrine Brown and Dr. Phil
Roe. We're ignoring that for two reasons. 1) Roe brought up that once a case
worker has X number of clients, the VA isn't issuing vouchers so even though
there is space a veterans left sleeping on the street or somewhere else (he or
she receives no voucher). Shinseki noted that homeless veterans were
decreasing. Are they? Or is this program -- which tracks beds used in shelters
-- not factoring in that veterans aren't receiving vouchers if their caseworker
is maxed out? That's not addressed and until it is, I'm not interested in going
into the figures. 2) What we do know is that one group of homeless veterans is
increasing and it's not the stereotype of the homeless veteran. Earlier this
week, Peggy McCarthy (The
Day) reports on homeless veterans. Andy and Miriam Miranda live
with their young son in a New Haven shelter. Andy's a veteran, they both have
degrees and were teachers and their home was foreclosed during these economic
hard times. McCarthy reports an emerging trend for homeless veterans is that
it's no longer a single veteran but families. Connecticut saw 15 veterans family
appealing for help via the homeless programs in 2008 but last year saw 135
families which mirrors what's happening on a national level (2010 saw "an 86
percent increase over 2009"). This increasing group -- homeless veterans with
their femilies -- was not addressed in the hearing. The VA budget calls for
"$1.352 billion for programs that will prevent and treat Veteran homelessness"
(Shinseki's written statement) and I'm fine with noting that figure but,
repeating, if VA is saying that the number of homeless veterans is decreasing
and US House Rep Roe is telling us -- without any dispute from Shinseki or
anyone from the VA on the panel -- that homeless people are being turned away
when beds are available, that they're not being given vouchers, then I think the
VA needs to clarify how they're collecting their numbers. I'll also note that
Shinseki's defined as "VA's goal" for 2013 "to serve 32,000 homeless veterans."
Also on the issue of homeless veterans, Senator Patty Murray's office released
the following this afternoon:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Murray Press Office
(202)
224-2834
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Tester Press Office (202)
228-0371
Snowe Press Office (202) 224-8667
VETERANS: Chairman
Murray and Senators Tester and Snowe Call on VA and HUD to Provide Answers about
Homeless Women Veterans
After GAO report emphasizes data collection
partnership opportunities between VA and HUD, Murray, Tester, and Snowe ask
Secretaries for answers ahead of the March 14 Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee
hearing on veteran homelessness
READ FULL GAO REPORT HERE
(Washington, D.C.) -- Today, Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee Chairman
Patty Murray, Committee Member Jon Tester, and Senator Olympia J. Snowe sent a
joint letter to Department of Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinkseki and
Department of Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan asking for
explicit answers to questions in light of a GAO report highlighting missed
opportunities for the two departments to improve services for homeless women
veterans. The report also highlighted limitations in available housing options
for women veterans with children and an inability to ensure the privacy, safety,
and security of women veterans in mixed-gender housing facilities.
"It is
critical that we continue doing absolutely everything we can on behalf of the
brave men and women who have already made tremendous sacrifices for our nation,"
the Senators wrote. "Until every single veteran is off the street, we must not
relent in our efforts to provide the services and assistance they need to find
adequate and long-term housing for them and their families. In doing so, we must
make every effort to ensure we are addressing the needs of our entire veteran
population, particularly our women veterans, to ensure their needs are being met
and they are not falling through the cracks."
The Senators have requested
a response in advance of the March 14 Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee hearing
scheduled on veteran homelessness.
The full text of the Senators' letter
follows:
The Honorable Eric K. Shinseki
Secretary of Veterans
Affairs
810 Vermont Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20420
Honorable
Shaun L.S. Donovan
Secretary
United States Department of
Housing &
Urband Development
451 7th Street, SW
Washington, DC 20410
Dear
Secretary Shinseki and Secretary Donovan,
We appreciate your ongoing
efforts to reduce homelessness among our nation's veterans, and applaud your
request for an increase of $333 million for programs to end veteran homelessness
in the fiscal year 2013 budget. Recent reports of a 12 percent reduction in the
homeless veteran population over the last year are certainly a testament to your
hard work and leadership. Despite these gains, we have concerns that the
particular needs of homeless women veterans are frequently being overlooked. As
we see more and more women veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, it is
increasingly critical that we do more to help them transition home.
As
you know, a recent Government Accountability Office report, "Homeless Women
Veterans: Actions Needed to Ensure Safe and Appropriate Housing," highlighted an
opportunity to increase collaboration between your two agencies when it comes to
gathering data about homeless women veterans. As you would undoubtedly agree,
without that data, it is impossible for us to have a clear understanding of the
demographics of this population or to develop a strategy that can effectively
address their particular needs.
The report also highlighted limitations
in available housing options for women veterans with children. Although VA has a
referral policy in place for temporary housing, it is not being implemented
uniformly nationwide. As a result, homeless women veterans in some parts of the
country are forced to return to the streets until they are admitted into the
Grant and Per Diem or HUD-VASH programs. Additionally, infrastructure needs such
as private and secure rooms and showering facilities are often lacking --
placing women veterans in uncomfortable and potentially unsafe situations. We
can and should do better.
In light of this report, we request responses
to the following questions:
* What steps are your agencies taking to
better capture information on our homeless women veteran population?
*
How do you track both the demographics and particular needs of this population?
* What strategies are being employed to effectively address their unique
needs?
* What improvements will be made to VA's implementation of its
referral policy?
* What type of gender-specific safety and security
standards will be implemented for VA's Grant and Per Diem program?
*
What additional steps need to be taken to reduce the rate of homelessness among
female veterans?
Recent data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics
points out that, although the overall number of unemployed veterans has
decreased significantly over the past year, the unemployment rate amongst women
veterans is now more than double the national average. As unemployment rates
often directly correlate with rates of homelessness, how closely are your
Agencies working with the Department of Labor to reduce the homeless women
veteran population by addressing one of the underlying symptoms of their
unemployment or underemployment?
It is critical that we continue doing
absolutely everything we can on behalf of the brave men and women who have
already made tremendous sacrifices for our nation. Until every single veteran is
off the street, we must not relent in our efforts to provide the services and
assistance they need to find adequate and long-term housing for them and their
families. In doing so, we must make every effort to ensure we are addressing the
needs of our entire veteran population, particularly our women veterans, to
ensure their needs are being met and they are not falling through the cracks.
We appreciate your attention to this matter, and request a response to
inform our views in advance of the March 14 hearing before the Senate Committee
on Veterans Affairs on veteran homelessness. We look forward to working closely
with both of you to address this critical issue.
Sincerely,
Chairman Patty Murray
Senator Jon
Tester
Senator Olympia J. Snowe
###
Meghan Roh
Deputy Press Secretary
Office of U.S. Senator Patty
Murray
202-224-2834
Violence continued in Iraq today. Reuters notes a police officer's Jurf
al-Sakhar home was attacked with gunfire and grenades leaving his wife and their
two daughters dead and him injured and a Baquba roadside bombing left two people
injured. Aswat al-Iraq adds that a Mosul bombing
left 1 person dead and one police officer injured.
From the never-ending violence to confusion. Confusion over AFP and Reuters' reporting and confusion over
United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon. Let's set the stage by noting what
we were noting this morning. We're talking about
the residents of Camp Ashraf, approximately 3,500 Iranian dissidents who were
welcomed into Iraq decades ago, following the Iranian revolution. Nouri
al-Maliki does not care for the residents and has, since Barack Obama was sworn
in as US President, twice ordered their assault. They are protected persons
under international law and Nouri gave his word that he would ensure their
protection. Nouri's word is worthless. They are being relocated to Camp Liberty.
The British Parliamentary Committee for Iran Freedom's Muriel Turner offers
this in a guest column for UPI: The 3,400 residents will be housed it what can only be
described as veal crates, in an area not much more than half-a-kilometer-square.
Martin Kobler, the U.N. special representative to Iraq, has admitted to Ashraf
residents that they will still be denied medical facilities. There will be no
way to care for the disabled and nowhere to tend to the injured.There isn't even any drinking water!Their instructions mandate that, residents can only
take "individual belongings" with them -- basically as much as they can carry.
Vehicles and other property that they have worked hard for over the 30 years in
Ashraf will have to be abandoned.The
Iraqi government has designated Camp Liberty to be a "temporary transfer
location." That's because it does not meet the standards required of a refugee
camp.Once inside Camp Liberty, the
13-foot-high walls will close in on them and they will no doubt be forgotten.
They will have no way of contacting U.N. observers other than by telephone,
which the Iraqis will disconnect as they please. They are to be fingerprinted
upon arrival, as if they were prisoners of war. One report said Iraqi guards,
perhaps even the same guards who killed their friends and relatives, will be
based inside the camp.United Nations Secretary-General Ban
Ki-moon's Special Envoy to Iraq is Martin Kobler. He penned a column on Camp Ashraf
for the International Herald
Tribune which includes:
As a first step, it calls for the camp
residents to voluntarily relocate to a transit site at the Baghdad airport. In
contrast to Camp Ashraf, this site would be monitored around the clock by
observers from the United Nations. There, the residents would be interviewed by
the U.N. refugee agency, the UNHCR, to determine their eligibility for refugee
status, paving the way for their resettlement outside of Iraq. Most have filed
refugee claims. A small number have returned to Iran in recent years, but many
others will want to go elsewhere.
Under the same agreement, the government of Iraq has
made two key commitments that it must uphold. First, it has accepted full
responsibility for the safety and security of the residents, from the relocation
process throughout their stay at the new facility. Secondly, it has promised
that nobody would be forced to go to Iran or elsewhere against their
wishes.
The new site is a former U.S.
Marine base that can hold more than 5,000 people. It has been equipped at
considerable expense to receive the residents of Camp Ashraf. It has cooking and
medical facilities, space for recreational activities and provisions for women
and religious observance. UNHCR has carried out a careful technical assessment
and determined that the new camp meets the humanitarian standards it applies for
refugee situations around the world.
Yes, the two are at odds over the conditions of Camp Liberty. First,
Reuters, Kobler's column was not "an article in Wednesday's New York
Times." It was a column run by the International Herald Tribune. The
New York Times is now the sole owner of that paper and it elected to
repost the column to the New York Times website today. It did not run
it in the paper. This should have been clear with the note the Times' website
attached to the column at the end: "A version of this
op-ed appeared in print on February 16, 2012, in The International Herald
Tribune." Repeating, the column did not run "in Wednesday's New York Times."
That is an error you should correct. It's also a minor point except to note
that the wires obviously don't read the daily New York Times -- either
in print or digital form. And that's not necessarily a bad thing, just
something worth noting.
Confusion. For some reason, Ban Ki-moon weighed in today. No
indicationthat this would be happening from Kobler's column. More confusing are
his remarks. The UN News Centre notes:
Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon today
called for the start of the relocation of residents of the settlement in Iraq
formerly known as Camp Ashraf, urging the Government and the camp dwellers to
continue to cooperate so that the process can be carried out in a peaceful
manner.
"The Secretary-General reiterates that the Government of Iraq bears
the primary responsibility for the security and the welfare of the residents of
Camp Ashraf," said a statement issued by his
spokesperson.
"At the same time, the residents of Camp Ashraf also bear a
responsibility to abide by the laws of Iraq. Any provocation or violence must be
avoided and would be unacceptable."
I'm confused why he made that last statement? Are Camp Ashraf residents
threating to riot or attack? There's been no reports indicating that. They
aren't supposed to have any weapons, the US disarmed them. It's a very
interesting remark. Did he say it? Let's go to the UN's post of UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon's remarks:
The Secretary-General continues to closely follow the situation in
Camp Ashraf. Over the past few months, the United Nations Assistance Mission for
Iraq (UNAMI), under the leadership of his Special Representative, Martin Kobler,
and in close cooperation with UNHCR, the European Union, the United States and
other interested Member States, has been tirelessly working as an impartial
facilitator to promote a peaceful resolution of this issue, within the framework
of UNAMI's humanitarian mandate.
At the request of the Secretary-General, the
Government of Iraq extended its deadline to close Camp Ashraf from 31 December
2011 to 30 April 2012. The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) signed on 25
December 2011 between the United Nations and the Government of Iraq has laid the
foundation for a peaceful and durable solution, respecting both the sovereignty
of Iraq and meeting Iraq's international humanitarian and human rights
obligations.
The Secretary-General acknowledges the efforts of the Government
of Iraq to prepare the temporary transit location to host the residents and
allow UNHCR to undertake refugee status determination. On 31 January 2012, UNHCR
confirmed that the infrastructure and facilities at the temporary transit
location are in accordance with the international humanitarian standards
stipulated in the MoU.
The Secretary-General believes that the time has come
to start the relocation process without further delay. He urges the Iraqi
authorities and the residents of Camp Ashraf to continue to cooperate and
complete the process in a peaceful manner. The Secretary-General reiterates that
the Government of Iraq bears the primary responsibility for the security and the
welfare of the residents of Camp Ashraf. At the same time, the residents of Camp
Ashraf also bear a responsibility to abide by the laws of Iraq. Any provocation
or violence must be avoided and would be unacceptable.
The Secretary-General
reiterates his call to Member States to contribute to a durable solution by
demonstrating their readiness to accept eligible residents of Camp Ashraf who
wish to resettle in third countries.
The Secretary-General stresses that the
United Nations remains strongly committed to continue to do its utmost to
facilitate a peaceful and durable solution.
Yes, the remarks the UN intended to be attributed to him carry it. So
where is that in the Retuers report? Or the AFP report? Not
present in either. That's the part that confuses me regarding the two news
outlets. In terms of Ban Ki-Moon, the remarks admonishing Camp Ashraf residents
not to resort to violence and the timing of the 'you must move now' statements
are confusing.
Turning to the political scene, Al
Mada notes that the Parliament discussed the 2012 federal
budget yesterday, they also did a reading (the first reading) of it. The article
mainly addresses MP Jaafar al-Moussawi. He is a part of the National Alliance
and a member of the Sadr bloc. He is also an opponent/rival of Nouri's for many
years now. He has repeatedly, over the years, called for the Constitution to be
followed and castigated Nouri when Nouri refused to do so. November 28th, a bomb
went off outside Parliament. Dropping back to that day's
snapshot: In the one that
will probably have the most impact the Baghdad-based government, Parliament was
attacked. Confusion remains as to what it was attacked with. Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) puts it
this way, "Also Monday, a mortar
round landed inside the heavily fortified Green Zone, killing at least two
people, police said. The round landed on the outdoor car park that belongs to
the Iraqi Parliament compound and hit a car. " Citing the news channel
Al-Arabiya, Adnkronos Security
maintains it was a rocket. KUNA states mortars and that it "hit a parking lot near the
parliament" leaving at least four injured. Aswat al-Iraq
notes Parliament's Mohammed
al-Khalidi states it was a car and a suicide bombing, "the car exploded outside
the parliament building, where the driver was trying enter, but blocked by a
military hummer, which obliged him to commit suicide." AFP
emphasizes the confusion over
details, "The explosion in the parking lot of the Iraqi parliament was caused by
a mortar round, said Baghdad security spokesman Qassem al-Moussawi and several
other sources. However, at least two sources at parliament said it was a car
bomb." Parliament's spokesperson Aidan Helmi declares
the attack was an attempted assassination of Speaker of Parliament Osama
al-Nujaifi and states the car involved was similar to the cars used in Nujaifi's
security detail and that when asked to display a security badge, the car slammed
into anothe car, the driver got out and detonated a bomb on his
person. Jack Healy, Yasir Ghazi, Andrew
E. Kramer and Zaid Thaker (New York Times) observe, "An attempted bombing steps outside Parliament would
represent a serious security breach inside one of the capital's most heavily
guarded sectors, raising questions about the competence -- or complicity -- of
security forces. Parliament sits inside the Green Zone, the locked-down expanse
along the Tigris River that houses many Iraqi governmetn buildings and the
American Embassy."
Immediately came the lies. In order to try to elevate Nouri to martyr
status, he and his lackeys began declaring that it was an attack on him. He was
no where near the Parliament nor scheduled to be. But his vanity is so great
that everything must be about him.
The attacks were blamed -- by the press -- on the usual catch-all:
al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia.
More recently, Nouri's asked that the Supreme Court lift Jaafar
al-Moussawi's immunity and accused him of being responsible for the bombing.
al-Moussawi held his press conference yesterday at the Parliament building and
denied any involvement in the bombing or guilt of the charges. He decried
unnamed politicians who were attempting to use the media to smear his name. He
stated that a DNA test on the body of a corpse thought to be the suicide bomber
demonstrates that the man, two hours prior to the bombing, killed someone
working for al-Moussawi (a bodyguard). al-Moussawi states he has other
information and will be sharing it. Dar Addustour has him declaring
that it was not him or people supporting him that did the bombing but people
wanting to harm him for Saddam Hussein's execution. Alsumaria TV reports
this morning that Spain's Ambassador to Iraq, Jose Turbine, is stating that the
national conference is going to resolve the al-Hashemi issue. Today
Aswat al-Iraq reports, "The preparatory
committee for the National Conference held its third meeting today with the
attendance of all parties, according to a Parliament statement issued today."
Since December, President Jalal Talabani and Speaker of Parliament Osama
al-Nujaifi have been calling for a national conference to address the political
crisis. All this time later, all that's taken place is meetings to prepare for
it. Al Mada reports that al-Nujaifi
attempted to meet with State of Law for a discussion but they rebuffed him.
al-Nujaifi is a member of the Iraqiya political slate headed by Ayad Allawi.
They came in first in the March 2010 elections. Nouri al-Maliki's State of Law
slate came in second. Iraqiya's Haider Mullah is calling for the issues of
Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq and Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi to be
addressed prior to the national conference. Nouri is demanding that al-Mutlaq (a
Sunni and member of Iraqiya) be stripped of his title (and immunity -- so Nouri
can sue him for "libel" for his comparison of Nouri to Saddam Hussein) and he
issued an arrest warrant for al-Hashemi (a Sunni and member of Iraqiya) on
charges of 'terrorism.' This is what finally prompted press attention in the
political crisis that's gone on since December 2010.
|
No comments:
Post a Comment